Grumpy opinions about everything.

Category: Commentary Page 7 of 15

This is the home of grumpy opinions.

The Wisdom of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, and anti-Nazi dissident. Born in Poland into an intellectual family, he pursued theology at the University of Berlin, earning a doctorate at just 21. His early work emphasized the importance of the Church in standing against injustice, a principle that would shape his resistance to Adolf Hitler’s regime.

In the 1930s, Bonhoeffer became a leading voice in the Confessing Church, a movement opposing Nazi influence in German Protestantism. He condemned the regime’s treatment of Jews and rejected the idea of a church subservient to state ideology. After the Nazis banned him from teaching and speaking publicly, he joined the German resistance, working secretly with military officers plotting to overthrow Hitler.

Arrested in 1943 for his role in the conspiracy, Bonhoeffer was imprisoned for two years, during which he wrote some of his most profound theological works, including Letters and Papers from Prison. The quotes below are taken from this work.

On April 9, 1945, just weeks before Germany’s surrender, he was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp. His legacy endures as a model of Christian resistance, moral courage, and faith in action.

Quotes from Letters and Papers from Prison

“The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them.”

“Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.”

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Against stupidity we are defenseless.”

“Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental.”

“In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.”

Who Will Tell Our Stories?

The Decline of Community Newspapers

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Thomas Jefferson’s words resonate now more than ever in today’s media landscape, where local newspapers—the cornerstone of informed citizenship—are vanishing at an alarming rate. But it is more than just newspapers at risk—it is our very democracy.

Growing up in Charleston during the 1950s and 60s, I witnessed firsthand how integral newspapers were to community life. From delivering The Gazette as a boy to relying on its pages for news of local events and government, newspapers were our primary connection to the world around us.

There weren’t a lot of options for news then. There were no 24-hour news channels. National news on the three networks was about 30 minutes an evening and local news was about 15 minutes. By the late 1960s national news had increased to 60 minutes and most local news to about 30 minutes. Given the limitations of time on the local stations, most of the broadcast was taken up with weather, sports, and human-interest stories with little time left to expand on hard news stories.

We depended on our newspapers for news of our cities, counties, and states and the papers delivered the news we needed. Almost everyone subscribed to and read the local papers.  They kept us informed about our local politicians and government and provided local insight on national events.  They were also our source for information about births, deaths, marriages, high school graduations and everything we wanted to know about our community. 

While newspapers were central in the mid-20th century, the proliferation of digital and broadcast media in the 21st century has transformed how we consume news. There are 24-hour news networks, but they often are a case of too much time and too little news. There are the social media—X (Twitter), Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram, Truth Social and many other online entities that claim to provide news.

Even though local television news has expanded its format and increased coverage of local hard news, it remains heavily weighted toward sports, weather, and human interest.  It is somewhat akin to reading the headline and the first paragraph in a newspaper story. It doesn’t provide in-depth coverage, but hopefully, it motivates people to find out more about events that concern them.

Still, it’s the local newspapers that provide detailed news about local and state events.  Here in Charleston our newspapers were consolidated into a single daily paper several years ago. Despite reduced staffing and subscribership, they still make a valiant effort to cover our local news. Eric Eyre provided Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of the opioid epidemic. Currently Phil Kabler, though officially retired, continues to provide insight into the legislature and state government. Mike Tony, another reporter deeply involved in the community, provides coverage of West Virginia energy issues and the ongoing business foibles of our former governor and now senator. Mike recently informed us of an inappropriate—possibly illegal—grant made by the West Virginia Water Development Authority to a private Catholic College in Ohio. The college espouses multiple far right conservative political positions, although they claim this will not influence their project in West Virginia. Mike also pointed out the state statutory requirements for the grant were not met and that the governor’s office, as usual, had no comment.  All this was done while West Virginia communities that have been without safe drinking water for months did not receive grants or any other assistance to improve their water systems.

Will TV news ever be able to provide the details about our community?  The format of the newspaper allows for more detailed presentations and for a larger variety of stories.   The reader can pick which stories to read, when to read them and how much of each to read.  I don’t believe that broadcast news will ever fill the role of a free press.  The broadcast is an ethereal thing. You hear it and it’s gone. It is always possible to record it and play it back, but most people don’t.  Newspapers by their very nature encourage critical thinking. You can read it, think about it, and read it again.  There are times when on my second or third reading of an editorial or a news article I’ve changed my opinion about either the subject or the writer.  A news broadcast doesn’t lend itself to this type of reflection.  When listening to broadcast news I often find my mind wandering as something that the broadcaster said sends me in a different direction.

I worry about the future of newspapers.  According to a study by Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, more than 360 newspapers have closed nationally since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Since 2005 over 3300 newspapers have closed or consolidated—more than one third of the nation’s total.  The U.S. has also lost about 43,000 newspaper journalists, representing nearly two-thirds of the total.  It would be a tragedy to continue losing newspapers and journalists at this rate.

I beg everyone to please subscribe to your local newspapers. I generally prefer the hands-on, physical newspaper though I understand many people prefer the convenience of the digital version and I find myself moving in this direction. Whichever version you prefer, please subscribe.  Don’t pretend that online sources, such as Facebook, X, and Instagram will provide you with local news rather than just gossip.  Even the online news feeds from the dedicated news networks such as CNN or Fox provide little more than headlines. There’s little you can use to make an informed decision.

Without local news, we risk losing touch with how local and state governments affect our lives.  Without this knowledge, we may be at risk of losing our freedom.  Many countries that have succumbed to dictatorship have first lost their free press.  One of the first acts of the would-be dictator is to attempt to silence the free press.

In my opinion, broadcast news is controlled by advertising dollars and viewer ratings affecting their coverage and orientation.  News seems to be treated like any entertainment program with the output designed to attract an audience, not present facts.  I recognize that this can be the case with newspapers as well, but it seems to me that it’s much easier to detect bias in the written word than in the spoken word. Too often we can get caught up in the emotions of the presenter or in the graphics that accompany the story.

With that in mind, I recommend that if you want unbiased journalism, please support your local newspapers before we lose them. Once they are gone, we will never get them back and we will all be much the poorer as a result.

I will leave you with a final quote.

A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. –Winston Churchill

A Thought for Inauguration Day

A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s accepted by a majority.

Booker T. Washington

Ignorance Redux

On his first day in office, the new far right governor of West Virginia issued an executive order allowing for extensive exemptions from the school vaccination mandate. When taken with the nomination of a virulent anti vaxxer for Secretary of Health and Human Services, I am concerned that we are in a rush to allow our children to die of easily preventable diseases. With this in mind, I’m reposting my article The Triumph of Ignorance from last April. At that time—as you will see in the first paragraph—I had some hope. Those hopes have since been dashed.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”– Søren Kierkegaard

Saturday morning, I was reading in the newspaper about the resurgence of measles in West Virginia. I find it appalling that this disease should be returning, given that we have safe and effective vaccinations.  What is next, polio, smallpox, or even plague?  It is only through the unexpected veto by our governor that the ill-advised bill passed by our legislature to make all vaccinations virtually optional did not become law.

Some people may wonder why vaccinations are important. There are two principal reasons to ensure that a large portion of the population is vaccinated against communicable diseases. The first is that it reduces the individual vulnerability to disease. The person who is vaccinated is protected. But there is also a second, sometimes not well-understood, reason.  That is herd immunity.

Communicable diseases require a large susceptible population to spread. When a significant portion of the population has been vaccinated the disease does not have the core of potential victims to allow spreading. This means that the vaccinated are protecting the non-vaccinated. However, it does require a large portion of the population to be vaccinated. The idea is that herd immunity will protect those who are unable to be vaccinated either due to age, allergies, or other medical conditions that would prohibit vaccination. It is never going to protect a large proportion of the population who just choose not to be vaccinated.  For example, about 90-95% of the population needs to be vaccinated against measles to provide herd immunity.

So why do people who otherwise can be vaccinated choose not to be?

There are, of course, those who have true religious objections to vaccination.  There are others who object to vaccination on the basis of personal autonomy. They believe their right to refuse vaccination outweighs any consideration of the health concerns of the frail members of our community.

There are many who mistrust the medical system. There were some cases in the past where unethical studies were conducted on unsuspecting populations. Given the rigorous oversight of medical research now, this no longer happens. Information about research into vaccinations and their safety and efficacy can be found on websites for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization among others. (Website references are provided at the end of this post.)

What concerns me most are those who refuse to believe reputable medical authorities, government agencies, and mainline news services. They prefer to get their information from anonymous websites or from conspiracy theory websites that still give credence to the now-discredited 1999 study linking the MMR vaccine to autism. They completely ignore the fact that 10 of the 11 reported co-authors disavowed any part in the conclusions of the study. They also ignore the fact that the principal author was found guilty of fraud for personal gain as he was employed by the manufacturer of rival drugs. They also ignore the fact that he lost his medical license over his falsifications in this study. Yet, he is still cited in anti-vaccine literature as an expert source.

Equally disturbing is the fact that vaccine resistance has become a part of political identification. Certain reactionary political groups have, for some unfathomable reason, decided that refusing vaccination is a badge of their political allegiance.  They seem to care more about maintaining their political purity than they care about science, public health, or even the welfare of their family and friends.  Politicizing public health is dangerous for all of us.  I’m not sure how we overcome this. It is easy to find the truth and verify it through fact-based studies, yet people refuse to do it.

I encourage everyone to work hard to ensure that our political leaders do not remove vaccination mandates for school children. For those of us of my age, we already have immunity through vaccination or prior exposure to the disease.  It is our grandchildren and their children and their children’s children who will suffer through the return of these deadly diseases.

SOURCES:

  World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization#tab=tab_1

  CDC:  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/index.html   https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html

   WV DHHR: https://oeps.wv.gov/immunizations/Pages/default.aspx

   Immunise.org:  https://www.vaccineinformation.org/

What Would Jefferson Think About Inserting Religion Into Public Education?

Jefferson on Religion

Thomas Jefferson had strong views on the separation of church and state, and based on his writings, it’s likely that he would have opposed any attempt to inject religion into public education.  Jefferson’s views on religion were deeply influenced by Enlightenment principles, particularly the era’s emphasis on reason, skepticism of traditional authority, and commitment to individual liberty.

While Jefferson respected personal religious beliefs, he believed religion should remain a private matter, free from government influence. His 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom declared it immoral to compel anyone to support or participate in religious activities, emphasizing individual choice in matters of faith. This stance guided his actions, including the disestablishment of the Anglican Church as the official church of Virginia after the Revolution.

He famously wrote about the need for a “wall of separation between Church & State” in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. This idea became one of the foundational principles behind the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.

Although Jefferson was not opposed to religious belief, he supported individual freedom of conscience and he was adamant that religion should be a personal matter, not one enforced, promoted, or influenced by the government.

Religion in Education

When it came to education, Jefferson was passionate about public schooling and saw it as essential to maintaining a democratic society. He believed in the importance of a secular education system that promoted knowledge and reasoning. Jefferson envisioned public education as a way to cultivate informed citizens who could participate in self-governance.

Jefferson’s University of Virginia reflected these ideals, excluding religious instruction and ensuring a secular educational environment. He insisted that religion be studied alongside philosophy and ethics, rather than as a doctrinal subject.

If Jefferson were to assess attempts to inject religion into public education today, it’s reasonable to assume he would view such efforts as a violation of the principles of religious freedom he worked to establish. Jefferson would likely argue that public education, funded by taxpayer dollars and serving people of diverse religious backgrounds, should remain secular to respect the individual rights of all citizens. For him, blending government and religion risked infringing on personal freedoms and undermining the equality of all citizens under the law.

He would probably agree with later interpretations of the Constitution, such as Supreme Court rulings that have affirmed the separation of church and state in the context of public schools. These decisions typically uphold the principle that government institutions, including public schools, should not promote or endorse any particular religion.

Thomas Jefferson’s views on religious freedom, the separation of church and state, and public education suggest that he would strongly oppose any attempt to inject religion into public education. He believed that the role of public schools was to educate citizens in a way that fosters critical thinking, civic engagement, and respect for individual liberties, including the right to practice any religion or none at all. For Jefferson, keeping religion out of public institutions was essential to preserving a free and diverse society.

Jefferson’s unwavering commitment to individual liberty and reason over dogma continues to resonate, emphasizing the enduring value of secular education in fostering democratic principles.

A Thought for Today

Today citizens get their news from a kaleidoscope of sources, some reliable many not—and we’re pretty sure it’s the other guy, not us, who is being taken in by partisan propaganda and fake news.

Madeleine Albright, Fascism: A Warning

Reshaping Collective Memory

How Governments and Organizations Influence History

The reshaping of societal memories by governments and powerful organizations is a complex, often subtle process driven by political, cultural, or economic goals. At its core, it involves shaping collective memory—the shared pool of knowledge and information within a society—so that certain narratives or interpretations of events are emphasized, while others are diminished or erased altogether. This process can occur overtly through official policies, education, or media, or covertly through subtle shifts in cultural emphasis. This post explores historical precedents, modern examples, the methods employed, the role of large organizations, and the ethical implications of manipulating collective memory.

Historical Precedents and Modern Examples

Governments have long engaged in the manipulation of collective memory, and history is filled with examples of this practice. In the Soviet Union, leaders who fell out of favor were frequently “erased” from photographs, history books, and public memory—a practice similar to the ancient concept of damnatio memoriae, the Roman practice of condemning those deemed enemies of the state by erasing their existence from public records. Similarly, in the aftermath of revolutions, new governments often attempt to rewrite history to legitimize their rule and justify their actions. Monuments, statues, and even place names can be altered or destroyed to erase the memory of a prior regime and reimagine the past in ways that support the new political narrative.

In more recent times, authoritarian regimes have used similar tactics, from China’s control of information surrounding the Tiananmen Square protests to North Korea’s highly curated historical narrative that glorifies its leaders. Even in democratic societies, where manipulation of collective memory is often less overt, there are still examples of governments attempting to control public discourse and memory.

Methods of Restructuring Collective Memory

The restructuring of collective memory can occur in a variety of ways, ranging from subtle shifts in emphasis to overt censorship:

  1. Education and Curriculum Control: By shaping school curricula, governments emphasize certain historical events or figures, creating narratives that align with political or ideological goals.
  2. Media Control: State-influenced media outlets shape public memory by controlling the flow of information, ensuring that only certain versions of history or current events are disseminated.
  3. Censorship and Information Suppression: Governments may restrict access to documents, films, or books, effectively controlling the narratives available to the public.
  4. Commemorations and Public Symbols: Through monuments, statues, holidays, and public spaces, societies decide what to commemorate, reinforcing specific narratives.

Role of Large Organizations

While governments are often the primary actors in reshaping societal memories, large organizations such as multinational corporations, international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and global media companies also play a significant role. Corporations often use “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) initiatives to align their brands with social movements or values, subtly shaping public perceptions of historical and current events.

Media conglomerates, by controlling vast networks of information dissemination, influence which stories are told, retold, or forgotten. Social media platforms, through their algorithms and content moderation policies, significantly influence collective memory by determining which narratives remain visible and which fade into obscurity. As a result, collective memory becomes fragmented, influenced as much by corporate interests and technological algorithms as by government policies.

Ethical Concerns and the Struggle for Truth

The ethical implications of reshaping societal memories are vast. While some argue that reshaping collective memory is necessary for social progress, particularly when it comes to rectifying historical injustices or fostering reconciliation, others view it as a dangerous form of manipulation that can obscure truth and stifle dissent.

This tension reflects a broader debate about the nature of memory and history itself. Is there an objective “true” version of history, or is all history inherently subject to reinterpretation as societal values and perspectives evolve? This ongoing tension between interpretation and truth underscores the need for a careful and inclusive approach to shaping collective memory, with a responsibility to ensure that the process remains open, inclusive, and truthful, rather than driven solely by those in power.

Conclusion

Restructuring societal memories is a powerful tool that governments and large organizations can use to influence culture, politics, and identity. The methods they use, whether through education, media, censorship, or public symbols, can have profound impacts on how societies understand their past and imagine their future. While some reshaping of collective memory is inevitable, it is essential to approach this process with caution, prioritizing the public interest over the narrow objectives of the powerful. With the rise of digital platforms and globalized media, the struggle for control over collective memory is more relevant than ever, raising important ethical questions about who gets to shape the stories we live by.

Further Reading

For further reading, see: Items: Insights from the Social Sciences.

The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis,  https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34357

Have A Very Happy And Healthy New Year

If you must. -The Grumpy Doc

Why We Make Promises to Ourselves Every January

The History of New Year’s Resolutions

New Year’s resolutions—a practice where individuals set goals or make promises to improve their lives in the upcoming year—have a rich and varied history spanning thousands of years. While the concept of self-improvement at the start of a new year feels modern, its origins are deeply rooted in ancient civilizations and religious traditions.

Origins of New Year’s Resolutions

The tradition of making promises at the start of a new year can be traced back over 4,000 years to the Babylonians. During their 12-day festival, Akitu, held in mid-March to coincide with the spring harvest, they made vows to their gods to repay debts and return borrowed items. Success in fulfilling these promises was believed to curry favor with the deities.

When Julius Caesar reformed the Roman calendar and established January 1 as the start of the new year, the practice took on a more formal tone. January was named after Janus, the two-faced Roman god of beginnings and endings. Romans offered sacrifices to Janus and made promises of good behavior for the coming year, reflecting on the past and looking forward to the future.

By the Middle Ages, the focus shifted to religious observances. In early          Christianity, the first day of the year was often a time of prayer, reflection,  and making pious resolutions. One of the most interesting New Year’s traditions was the “Peacock Vow”. Christian Knights would reaffirm their commitment to chivalry at the end of the Christmas season and vow good behavior and chivalric deeds during the coming year. The vow was taken while eating roast Peacock at a New Year’s celebration.

In the 17th century, Puritans made revolutions that focused on spiritual and moral improvement. Common resolutions included commitments to avoid pride and vanity, practice charity and liberality, refrain from revenge, control anger, speak no evil of others, and live a life aligned with religious principles. They also resolved to study scriptures diligently, improve religious devotion weekly and renewed their dedication to God.

In 1740, John Wesley, founder of Methodism, created the Covenant Renewal Service, held on New Year’s Eve or Day. These gatherings encouraged reflection on the past year and resolutions for spiritual growth.

The first known use of the phrase “New Year’s Resolution” was in a Boston newspaper, Walker’s Hibernian Magazine, in 1813.  The article humorously discussed people breaking their New Year’s vows almost as soon as they made them.  It would appear nothing much has changed over the last 221 years.

The Modern Evolution of New Year’s Resolutions

The secularization of New Year’s resolutions began in the 19th and 20th centuries, with self-improvement and personal growth taking precedence over religious vows. The rise of print media helped popularize the practice, with newspapers and magazines publishing advice on how to set and achieve goals. By the 21st century, resolutions were firmly embedded in Western culture as a tradition of hope and renewal.

Common New Year’s Resolutions

Resolutions tend to reflect cultural priorities and individual aspirations. A survey of common resolutions reveals recurring themes:

Health and Fitness:

  • Lose weight
    • Exercise more
    • Eat healthier

Personal Development:

  • Learn a new skill
    • Read more books
    • Manage time better

Financial Goals:

  • Save money
    • Pay off debts
    • Stick to a budget

Relationships and Community:

  • Spend more time with family and friends
    • Volunteer or give back to the community

Breaking Bad Habits:

  • Quit smoking
    • Reduce alcohol consumption
    • Limit screen time

The Success Rate of Resolutions

Despite their popularity, New Year’s resolutions are notoriously hard to keep. Studies estimate that about 80% of resolutions fail by February, often due to overly ambitious goals or lack of specific planning. However, setting realistic, measurable, and time-bound goals (e.g., SMART goals) can improve success rates.  It seems that most people approach their New Year’s resolutions more for fun than with any anticipation that they will be kept.

The Significance of Resolutions Today

New Year’s resolutions persist because they align with a universal desire for self-improvement and fresh starts. Whether rooted in ancient traditions or modern goal-setting frameworks, they represent a belief in the potential for change, even if it takes a bit of effort to achieve.

My personal New Year’s resolution is to increase The Grumpy Doc’s subscribers to 50. Then I’ll only need 9950 more to be able to attract advertisers.  $$$$$

Sources:

  • History.com on New Year’s Resolutions
  • Britannica on Janus and Roman traditions
  •  Anthony Aveni, “The Book of New Year’s Traditions”
  •  “Why Do We Count Down to the New Year?” Smithsonian Magazine
  • Kaila Curry, “The Ancient History of New Year’s Resolutions”
  • Joshua O’Driscoll, “The Peacock Vows”, excerpted in Archive Culture’s Digest

Merry Christmas from the Grumpy Doc!

Page 7 of 15

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén