Our Lack of Causes for Mass Shootings - The deadly effects of treating effects as causes pt.2 of 2

There are more causes than we can count for why so many people today have so little interest in living lives worth living or showing respect for human life - theirs or others. While we can't say what causes any one person to choose to murder as many of their fellows as they can manage, we can identify some causes for why living respectful and worthwhile lives was not central to the lives they chose to live out in our midst, and IMHO identifying why so many lack that is more meaningful to know than the endless and meaningless details of these shooters lives that are obsessed over in our tragically repeating news cycle.

I pointed out in the previous post that causation in human affairs was once understood to have a deeper more pyramidal structure than the cartoonishly flattened out 'cause & effect' (see gun->shoot people, hate brown skin-> shoot all skins, be bullied by someone-> shoot everyone, etc.,) accepted today, and pointed out how at least one central issue that is lacking in each of these shooters, is also lacking in those who shriek the loudest afterwards about disarming their fellows ability to defend themselves against such attacks - shooters and shriekers alike lack a regard for that fundamental ideal that America was formed from and upon: a respect for individual rights. This absence is 'present' in all levels of our society today, and should be even more disturbing to us than these mass shootings which are its most extreme effects, and the fact that most who lack that ideal have not yet chosen violence (though a great many do enjoy talking about it), should be cold comfort indeed - we as a society are imperiled not by the things surrounding our lives, but by what is lacking within our lives.

This lack of regard for an ideal that is so fundamental to America is not only concerning, but puzzling, as all societies have a means for understanding, elevating, spreading, and acting on their highest ideals in daily life - why does ours now (for clearly we once had it) lack that? Previously we looked at the effects which the lack of that ideal can have on a individual thoughts and actions, this post will look at what is lacking in our means of transmitting that ideal into the American people. Again, by not getting distracted by the many meaningless effects, and concentrating instead upon what is meaningfully lacking, we can better see the layers of the pyramid of causes from top to bottom - material, formal, efficient and final - in our means of conveying our most fundamental ideals.

A Material Cause
The ideal of individual rights is vital to the mind of any who is deliberately an American, but despite their good intentions it is unlikely to be sustained alone in a person for long, without the support of that person's habits, actions and aspirations, which is what makes a person's character the Material Cause (“that out of which” something is done) of their behavior.

Of course one essential character trait that's present in those who are not inclined to slaughter their fellows, is that they value and admire living a good life, and doing so requires them to have developed a habit of making choices that are respectful of what is real and true and good, which in turn requires a person to have developed a habit and method of thinking - IOW a reasonable method of asking questions that lead to a deeper understanding of what is true, while identifying and rejecting what is false - and a sufficient wealth of supporting knowledge, understanding and inspiration to draw upon, for successfully carrying their choices towards, safely through, and past, the turbulent passions of the moment.

Having and sustaining a good character is not such an easy thing to do, and an important point to acknowledge about virtuous habits, is that they're an extremely unnatural thing for a human being to seek, develop, and sustain. Even with the benefit of a good character, it is not easy to choose to do what is best and right, over what is easy and tempting, but it's damn near impossible to do so when caught up in the midst of your passions, with no habits or anchoring truths whatsoever, to help you

Our Society's Mysterious Surprise

Can you spot the surprising mystery surrounding these names? Hint: It's not sexual harassment.

• Harvey Weinstein
• Louis C.K.
• Kevin Spacey
• Charlie Rose
• Bill Clinton
• Al Franken
• Matt Lauer

The big mystery which these names have in common, is the surprising sense of surprise that people continue to express on discovering that yet another big name has been outed for impolite, rude, inappropriate, abusive behavior, while they ['they', meaning us, as in 'We The People'] themselves have enthusiastically supported and participated in promoting behavior that revolves around incivility, rudeness, disregard for individual rights, dishonorable and unvirtuous behavior, in all of their [our] own personal choices for entertainment, politics, in their attitudes towards morality, and the collective insistence upon throwing money at a system of 'education' that primarily concerns itself with economic utility ('Get an education to get a good job!'), while dismissing or even denigrating, courses of study that focus upon integrating literary, cultural and philosophic depths of understanding, as being 'useless'.

And to top it off, they [yup, that'd be 'us' again] will rattle on about the need for 'Justice!' and 'Fairness!', while also simultaneously 'judging' and demanding immediate punishments of life disrupting, and career ending 'Action!', over what are often wholly unsubstantiated charges and innuendos.

And they [yeah, I'm afraid so, that's be you & me again] are actually surprised that those they've elevated to positions of supreme popularity and positions of power in our society, have been found to have been behaving... badly.

Mysteriously, our society is actually, surprised at this current state of affairs.

How our surprise is possible, is one fascinating mystery.

Beyond the rants: Culture, Seinfeld and the Ferguson Riots - A Society of Culturettes

No, I'm not going to write about the old TV show 'Seinfeld' (sorry, I never liked that show), but about something I once overheard from a table next to me at lunch. Two middle aged fans of the show were attempting to 'speak Seinfeld' with a third, younger, companion at their table, who they simply assumed was as familiar with their favorite TV show as they were, 'cause, you know, Seinfeld!

As the two were chuckling at the reference one just made, they suddenly noticed the blank look on their friend's face. So the one who'd told the story repeated himself, something about what Kramer had said in such 'n such scene being just like what someone in their office had done earlier that day, but this time he spoke more slllooowwwlyyy like there was a language issue at the root of their failure to communicate; and yet - still no response from their young friend.

"Didn't you ever see that?"
"See what?"
"That episode? Of SEINfeld?"
"Nah, never watched the show."
The two chucklers gasped in shock.
"What...? Seriously?" and in unison "You've never seen Seinfeld?!"
"Nope." came the entirely unconcerned reply, and "Pass the ketchup.", as he went about the more important task of spurting condiments on his burger and digging in.

Sadly, there are still, however many years after the show went off the air, scores of people who routinely 'speak Seinfeld', and do so in supreme confidence that they're enhancing their conversations with these allusions and references to critical episodes, scenes and gags from the show. No doubt for those who're as familiar with it as they are, they get the meaning, they get the joke, and they COMPLETELY know how it relates to the present moment, and I've no doubt their conversations are ever so much more than they otherwise would have been, because of their show references.

And yet there are other people, many more other people, more and more every day, who've never seen Seinfeld, who do not have and never have had any mental space reserved for the show; and even many who would do everything they could to leave the room if someone were to turn it on. And these Seinfeld-less people, a distressingly expanding portion of those that the Seinfeldians know, will so deeply frustrate them with their inability to have communicated to them, that certain laugh, that important Seinfeldian insight ("Soup Nazi!"), and they will have to endure the 'cut off in mid sentence' sensation of coming up against not just a lack of understanding, but the utter absence of there even being the possibility of communicating what the Seinfeldian had in their mind, to the Seinfeld-less person they were attempting to let in on the joke.

Appropriately enough, for a show famously about nothing, there's more to the Seinfeldian's discomfort here than meets the eye.

For when I overheard this scene I'd thought I understood how those two at the lunch table must have felt. I'd spent the 80's in a travelling Rock band on the West Coast, and we'd developed a lingo of meaningful references all our own; particular looks, expressions, words, phrases (for the few of you still out there, here ya go:... "Nice boots", "Pigeon Poaching", "Would you believe?!", "Oh Knawful", "San Deigo", "40", "Roller Skates", "Going north", "Too much air today", "U-Haul", "50 cycle hum", "Jartran" - you're welcome), which passed volumes between us, becoming our (only partly intentionally) secret code language. And as I still occasionally lapse into an expression here or there, being the only person able to 'get the joke', I thought I'd felt what those Seinfeldians were feeling; the realization that you can't help the person you're talking to, to 'get the joke'. And if you try to explain it... the humor escapes and only your odd meaninglessness remains to them.

But what I realized this weekend, while watching a livestream of the Ferguson riots and trying to help defend a friend who was being attacked online who was being accused of not being 'black enough' because he cared too much about truth and justice - WHAT?! - and then I realized, that the joke was on me. Those band memories were simply irrelevant personal memories, no different from anyone else's personal recollections of friends & days gone by. But what the Seinfeldians, and the 'not black enoughians' were (and are) experiencing, isn't about the experiences of youth or race, but a microcosm of something that is happening in the wider Western world all around us. There too we have the case of an understanding which is also being shared by fewer and fewer people every day, and the absence of communication which it presents there is infinitely more far reaching in its significance, because what is not being communicated by it is much more than just a laugh track, and much more to do with our being able to live a life worth living.

And what that is, is this:

cul·ture
/ˈkəlCHər/
noun

1. the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
   "20th century popular culture"
   synonyms: the arts, the humanities, intellectual achievement;

Well, not quite that exactly, since as the definition given in the first instance there references "20th century popular culture", which might be more fitting to the Seinfeldians culturette, and it seems remarkably lacking in the ability to convey an understanding of what Culture actually is.

Ok, here's another definition that gets somewhat closer:

"Culture: Integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behaviour that is both a result of and integral to the human capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations. Culture thus consists of language, ideas, beliefs, customs, taboos, codes, institutions, tools, techniques, works of art, rituals, ceremonies, and symbols. It has played a crucial role in human evolution, allowing human beings to adapt the environment to their own purposes rather than depend solely on natural selection to achieve adaptive success. "

There, that's better.

That seems rather... large, doesn't it? Although Culture is a fairly new word, its meaning stretches all the way back to why the Greeks referred to other peoples as barbarians. It wasn't just the the 'bah-bah-bah' sounds of their language, but the fact that their language conveyed little or nothing of what was understood to be important by the Greeks. What the barbarians spoke wasn't Greek to them, its words wouldn't carry the "Integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behaviour" of their world and so was meaningless and worthless to them. Culture may be a new word, but its meaning is not only ancient, but all encompassing for a society. Until recently, anyway.

Han Solo intuitively knew, what John Locke deeply understood, and which the 47% find unbearable to hear

Han Solo intuitively knew, what John Locke deeply understood, and which the 47% (and more) find unbearable to even hear.

So... to hear it noised about lately, especially by 'modern conservatives' (Jumbo Shrimp), culture is not important to politics.

Really.

Pardon me for having a little philosophical fun with the idea, but if that's true, why are they so damn hard to separate?

For something that's not so important, it's really amazing how impossible it is to separate even the lightest matters of modern day 'culture' from anything and everything else you might know, or wish you didn't know, about the deepest roots of our political concepts and their day to day application. Even in something as seemingly 'separate' as the 2012 political scene, 1970's sci-fi movies, and 17th century English philosophers, they are in fact so deeply intertwined, that the attempt to separate them, will enmesh you even more deeply, drawing you even deeper into the reach of 16th century English philosophers and 4th century BC Athenians to boot.

For instance, in a story from last week, George Lucas sold the rights to his Star Wars movies to Disney, and in the article is a reference to who shot first between Greedo & Han Solo. If that doesn't ring any bells for you, try Googling "Han shot first!", and your browser will groan under the weight of hits.

There ya go, you need look no further for the poppiest of pop culture, tying into the roots of our political philosophy, and our current electorate. Wha...? You didn't catch that? Ok, lemme fill in the details for you.

What 'Han shot first!' is all about, is a scene from the first Star Wars movie, where one of the heroes, Han Solo, demonstrated that he intuitively knew in his bones, what philosopher John Locke deeply understood (as did our Founders who followed him), and which a minimum of 47% of our 2012 electorate find to be a truth so unbearable to their entire being, that they will go to great lengths to obfuscate and obliterate any and all connections between them.

Which Reality must find deeply amusing.

Obi-Wan-Locke

May the Force of Culture be with you
George Lucas, circa 1970's, when making Star Wars, was following his understanding of Myth, of the Hero and the heroes quest, as illustrated by his friend & mentor Joseph Campbell and his writings such as the Power of Myth, and as such he found himself portraying within Star Wars, some very deep mythopoetic truths to a generation that the entire 1960's and the rest of the 1970's had been working so hard to obliterate.

I saw Star Wars the first time when I was just shy of 16 yrs old, and it was exhilarating. Not because the writing and acting and directing were top notch, they weren't (far from it), but because for the first time in ages, here were heroes fighting villains, here was Good opposing Evil, because it was evil... and winning! For a generation whose T.V. & movies had been taken over by anti-heroes, or, as with Clint Eastwood movies, the disillusioned once-heroes, who fought on only out of habit, not for any belief in what was right - Star Wars was an awakening!

The particular scene which ties pop culture to history, and to our politics and the 'relevance' of today, is the Star Wars Cantina scene, where Han, when confronted by a gun brandishing Greedo, stealthily draws his own blaster from under the table, and shoots first, without warning, killing Greedo, without the least qualm or regret or concern over its 'fairness'.

As directed by the Mythologist persona of George Lucas, circa 1970's, Han illustrated a clear and vital truth, a truth which John Locke, circa 1689, spent a sizable amount of ink in reasoning through, justifying and defending, and which the 47%, circa today, not to mention a sizable number of the remaining 53% of our electorate... find to be an inconvenient truth, at best, and highly disquieting.

That understanding which, not without flaws, was what John Locke expressed in the second of his Two Treatises of Government [1691], when he said, in describing the several states of war that exist between peoples, that

"...he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life..."

and that,

"§ 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i. e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it."

That, which the previous 11 chapters of Book 1, and the two previous chapters of Book 2, were required for Locke to make his point in prose and discourse - and all of that was wordlessly communicated by Han Solo pulling his blaster out under the table and putting a fine point on his punchline "I'll bet you have", and killed Greedo.

That scene made perfect mythic sense, because it expressed a deep and vital truth, the same truth which Locke was able to establish and elaborate upon philosophically .. but oh what a can of worms it was for the leftist ideologue which Lucas became, because that truth - the wrongness, if not downright evil, of using power to force others to comply with your wishes - is a central core of the timelessness of conservatism.

George Lucas the ideologist, and no doubt a great many of his friends, found this scene and what it demonstrated (you'll often see Han's original actions described as those of 'a cold blooded killer' - and Greedo? Like the Palestinians, his aggression goes unmentioned), to be an unbearable truth, perilous to their every position and claim, and so in the 1997 release, despite two decades of viewers having seen the original movie where Han clearly shoots the first (and only) shot, Lucas actually went back and doctored his movie, not only to enhance it with new special effects, but to cleanse it of inconvenient truths.

For as every leftist knows, the 'bad' guy, must be given every opportunity, and then some, to make other choices, even at the risk of 'the good', and so Lucas's Industrial Light & Magic crew altered the film to make Greedo shoot first, though, luckily for Han, missing him from a distance of 2 or 3 feet, so that Han Solo finally had the 'moral high ground', not to mention the 'fairness', needed to legitimately return fire and kill Greedo.

The idea of a pre-emptive strike by 'the good' upon 'the bad'... that was something that was intolerable enough by the 1990's... can you imagine how Lucas & friends felt about it after George Bush made the scene? brrrughhh!. The problem for them, is that when you try and force Art & Myth to serve ideology, you wage war upon what is good and true.

What the character, the mythos of Han Solo conveyed in that brief scene, of pulling his blaster out under the table and blasting Greedo, casually, without deliberation or concern or regret, in that one moment it gave lasting form to a truth which reasoned understanding requires volumes of careful conceptualization through a supporting philosophy in justice, ethics, rights and more.

The power of Art and of Culture, is that through such scenes and tales, the essence of elaborate philosophies can be distilled and conveyed and their wealth spread around to the entire population, without their even realizing it. I've said before, with only a bit of my tongue in my cheek, that Star Wars was what made Reagan possible, that without the revival of the deeply American spirit of Good opposing Evil, and that it should, and could win, then Jimmy Carter might have held on to power and pushed through those programs which, instead. had to wait another 40yrs for Obama to do.

Art, Myth, Religion, do have the power to do that; which is just one reason why they are so important, and why conservatives ignore them at their great, great peril, to dismiss such things as 'trivial', is lunacy. It's often difficult for people like me, who are so quick to recommend and defend heavier works like Aristotle & Locke and so forth, to admit that Western Culture probably owes a far greater debt to those distilled concentrations of the truths they expand upon. We The People are given concentrated doses of cultural understanding through such 'light' material such as Nursery Rhymes, Aesop's Fables, and popular myths such as the Wild West Westerns or their cousins such as Star Wars.

You don't understand the Power!
 And of course with Luke & Han promoting the Light side of The Force of culture, We The People are given equally strong doses from The Dark Side, especially in our time, through the glories of easy victim-hood, class envy, injected through music, gratuitous sex, drugs, etc., which, as Yoda would say, isn't stronger, but is "Quicker, easier, more seductive", and if not countered, will carry the day - for while the Light Side requires a conceptual understanding that takes time to build (the role of Education), you can feel the power of The Dark Side immediately, in your physical senses & perceptions.

You've no doubt heard, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. George Lucas, faced with the 'unfortunate' truth he spread around the world through his blockbuster, and which was in glaring opposition to his own political beliefs, used his own power over his movies, to, very George Orwell like, attempt to erase it. But Lucas'd act of hiding the truth, actually illustrates another truth from his own movies, transforming himself into Darth Vader, the technological terror and embodiment of exerting Power over Truth, with his Ends justifying any and all of his Means.

In Lucas's attempt to use his power to alter and dispense with the mythic truth his original work portrayed, he draws us back even further in time to Sir Francis Bacon, or at least to the phrase popularly attributed to him, that

"Knowledge is Power"

which has it mostly wrong. What Bacon actually said, was that,

"II. The unassisted hand and the understanding left to itself possess but little power. "

and,

"III. Knowledge and human power are synonymous, since the ignorance of the cause frustrates the effect; for nature is only subdued by submission, and that which in contemplative philosophy corresponds with the cause in practical science becomes the rule."

George Lucas illustrates the line "since the ignorance of the cause frustrates the effect" quite well. And more importantly, Bacon said what is anathema to all things leftist, in the Arts, in Economics, in Politics, that,

"Now the empire of man over things is founded on the arts and sciences alone, for nature is only to be commanded by obeying her."

Knowledge is not Power, Power results from knowledge and your adherence to it. Those who seek knowledge in order to gain power over what is true, inevitably corrupt the knowledge they think they've acquired.

They tend, as did George Lucas, to make elaborate pretexts for doing what they want, not because it was right, but because it was easy. For what those for whom the 'Ends justify the Means' implicitly grasp, graspingly, is that in thinking that 'knowledge is power', they conclude that having power over knowledge, will create even more power for them. Conveniently forgetting that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The truth is that power is a side effect, a disquieting one, of attaining knowledge. Power is something, a troublesome something, which those with considerable knowledge, find themselves to have been made unwilling custodians of. And worst of all, if you do not make the constant effort of seeing to it that your power conforms to your knowledge which is kept serving what is Good, Beautiful and True, rather than the other way around, it will consume you.

I can imagine Lucas in a time traveling sequence, going back to face his 1970's self, the skinny child who was the father of his now bloated older man, and saying,

"Lucas, you are my father!"

And 1970's Lucas would doubtless, gazing on the twisted and evil countenance of himself using power to obliterate truth, would wail,

"Noooooo!!!!!!!!!!!"

Poetic Justice incarnate.

There is something which art & story can convey in a slightest detail of pose or illustration, convey it to anyone watching in a fraction of a moment, which sums up a knowledge that requires volumes of understanding to approach. It is why Shelly, riffing on Plato, said that

"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world".

, and why Aristotle called Poetry a greater truth than history,

"...It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen- what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular...."

Art conveys Truth, and the understanding of it, in such a way that it fills the receiver with unexpected, and unlooked for, power, the power to choose how to act - which is a very different thing from the power to choose how others must act.

George Lucas couldn't bear the idea that the Truth he illustrated in Star Wars was in complete opposition to his political positions, and he used the power his movies brought him, to try and eliminate it.

What he may or may not have also actually grasped, was that that Truth, which Locke provided the knowledge necessary for supporting an understanding of, applied not only to such obvious things as the justness of pre-emptive war, but in opposition to anyone who seeks to use power over others, for their own purposes.

The leftist ideals he promotes, advocating using the power of the state to impose upon the few, to force them to live as he sees fit, and to take what does not belong to them, in order to spread the wealth around to those many who have not earned it, but want it, the 47% (which includes many of the most wealthy among us, such as George Lucas), have put themselves into a state, which John Locke clearly understood to be, an act of war upon the rest of us, and with all that is Good, Beautiful and True as well, and which even the most seemingly lightweight aspects of culture, are the great transmitters of.

And people like Lucas, Obama, Democrats and not a few Republicans, find that thought, the idea that Culture is vital to politics, to be simply unbearable; or as Luke might say,

"nnnNNNOOOOOoooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!"

What's so special about being special? Graduation time.

An English teacher, David McCullough Jr., recently delivered something rare for a commencement speech at a high school graduation, it was unusual, unexpected, and most of all, not boring. Even more unusual, for a high school graduation commencement speech, is that it made the evening news, and it also went viral across the Blogosphere, Twitterverse and YouTube as well. My guess is that it did so, not because it was itself a remarkable speech - the Gettysburg Address is still safely in the top ten - but because the themes it struck within so many of us, provided a perfect platform for effortlessly spinning language, dropping uncomfortable contexts, and most of all, giving easy access to feelings of offendedness for ourselves, and/or for giving offense to others.

It almost seems as if shielding us from what we don't want to learn, from those we're sure we should dislike, is languages new purpose in public speaking.

The speech itself, I thought, in tone at least, was geared well towards its target audience, which was, lets not forget, high school kids, and to their parents and faculty as well. It contains some good natured, humorous digs at all in attendance, which they responded well to, and it was a decent speech, and unusually thoughtful for what it was - a high school graduation commencement speech.

The reaction to his speech though, has surpassed its value as a speech, ranging from Bill O'Reilly's 'Talking Points Memo', to the Daily Kos, and it has been fascinating to watch.

My own first reaction went both ways at first. When I heard the title, "You're not special", it tugged an approving and amused contrarian chuckle out of me, but then as I heard a small clip that seemed to suggest 'selfless service', that swung me off in the other direction with concerns that the less obvious message would undermine whatever 'dose of reality' value the rest of it (which I'll get too in a bit) might have. But both of my reactions were just that - reactions, an expected starting point for considering the thoughts of another person, but to end where you started without having taken a step... that's not a good thing, and it is certainly not something which reflects a concern for Education... but it does seem to be the common practice today, even the 'natural' thing to do. But for those who are satisfied with what comes naturally, I'd like to point out that Liberty, Natural Law, Individual Rights, are very unnatural events in the history of mankind, and they cannot be promoted or preserved by a people who are satisfied with starting and finishing with what comes naturally.

Reflecting on reflections
No matter your opinion of the speech, on the one hand you've got to give this teacher credit for having the brass to tell the graduating class (and his fellow faculty members, and the kids parents) that, despite what they've likely been told by everyone from Barney the Dinosaur & Mr. Rogers (would any of them be old enough to remember either?), to their sports participation trophies, he tells them that most shocking thing of all in today's educational world, that as far as the outside world is concerned, they're not all that special:

"Yes, you’ve been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped. Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you and encouraged you again. You’ve been nudged, cajoled, wheedled and implored. You’ve been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie. Yes, you have. And, certainly, we’ve been to your games, your plays, your recitals, your science fairs. Absolutely, smiles ignite when you walk into a room, and hundreds gasp with delight at your every tweet. Why, maybe you’ve even had your picture in the Townsman. And now you’ve conquered high school… and, indisputably, here we all have gathered for you, the pride and joy of this fine community, the first to emerge from that magnificent new building…

But do not get the idea you’re anything special. Because you’re not."

[Watch the video for the 'ah...do... I... like that?' expressions of the blond lady behind him as he says this.]

His message sparked cheers or jeers from across the spectrum, left, right and center, which quickly brought Mr. McCullough a heaping helping of notoriety, and which is also an unusual result from giving a high school graduation commencement speech.

Why would an English teacher risk straying from the usual safe putty of graduation speech platitudes? Even if it hadn't gone viral around the world, it surely would still have caused a stir among his immediate audience, many of whom he has to continue living and working with, why open himself up to that? He explained why, after the initial flurry of attention from his speech, to a local news reporter, saying that,

"I took seriously the responsibility of sending these kids off into the world. And to go out there with unrealistic expectations, for unreachable goals or an inflated sense of self, is doing them no favor."

, which is a refreshing approach for a teacher to take in a high school graduation commencement speech - and just think about how sad it is that that might be seen as a refreshing approach, rather than the norm.

Mirror, mirror, on the Facebook wall...
Take a moment and try holding his speech up as a mirror, and if you are on Facebook, you must have seen this speech hanging on someones Wall, and see which passions of yours and your friends, you see reflected in it.

Conservatives have, for the most part, given his speech (perhaps too quickly) a big two thumbs up, and that mostly because of the obvious 'dose of reality' message that the likes of that paragraph injects into students who they feel are too pampered by society; O'Reilly summed this view up as,

""Talking Points" believes that students need to hear McCullough's stern message. Unlike some countries America is a very competitive place. Nobody is going to hand you money except the federal government and those funds will by paltry.

In the private sector you must compete, you must prove yourself to be special. And believe me few will care if your feelings are hurt. Performance is what counts.

Sadly many American students are not prepared for the real world. They have been pampered by both parents and the public school system. The old saying is life is hard and then you die."

, which is vintage O'Reilly, and fine for him, but I think if you take the message of the speech as being 'toughen up! Only performance counts!', then likely the only thing you took from the speech was what you brought to it, a chance to restate what you already thought.

Many others were quick to give it the presumed Ayn Rand seal of infamy (and I tended this way as well, at first, before I actually read it) for containing the buzz-word 'Selflessness', which they associate (correctly, IMHO) with the collectivistic crushing and smothering of the Individual to spiritual and eventually physical death; or even for not trumpeting the supreme value of the individual. Typical of this view was this from the comment section of Flopping Aces,

"I wish I could read the speech the way others have, but I cannot. Not once does McCollough mention the word “unique”, which each person is. And he is wrong about “special”, because each individual can be special if they prove it by earning the accolade by finding their niche in life. In addition the end of the speech encourages all the students to be selfless. Anyone who understands the first thing about individual freedom, about free market capitalism, about business, who has read Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, De Toqueville, Adam Smith, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, etc., knows that people should work in their own self-interests. "

Other conservatives liked the speech because of how they interpret that same word, 'selflessness', because they associate it (wrongly,IMHO) with admirable qualities of 'public spiritedness', generosity & a willingness to help others.

The comments of leftist pages (though not exclusively) are peppered with charges of

• 'anti-intellectualism',
• 'over competitive fascists!'
• 'This whole meme reeks of right-wing hypocrisy and low information. I disapprove'.

, views which I think are largely stupid on the face of them, and I won't spend more than a sentence each on them. To charge a speech as being 'anti-intellectual', when its core theme is asking its audience to look past appearances and to give more deliberate consideration to the more substantive issues behind the appearances you may have been led to think were important - is what the word 'stupid' exists for. The terms 'over competitive' and 'fascists' don't go together at all, fascists (and their cousins in the proregressives) are for using the power of govt to pick winners and eliminate actual competition (calling it 'fairness'. doesn't change its spots). As for 'right-wing hypocrisy', McCullough's speech has critics who claim he is expressing left wing views, and right wing views, which I think reflects only the fact that they themselves see all in terms of which wing they want to promote - and charging anyone else with hypocrisy, is itself hypocrisy. I saw no 'wing' expressed in the speech... but if you do, please, point it out to me.

Enough of those comments - its pointless reflecting further on reflections that don't reflect even a facet of reality.

Still others seem to be whipping both speaker and speech for daring to say that their kids aren't 'special', or for McCullough's presumed status as an 'elite', through the associations they assume he (or at least his famous father) surely must have or is intent on promoting still more chipping upon their shoulders, which I'll get into more in a bit.

All of those charges came swirling swiftly up out of the Internet at McCullough's 'You're not special' speech, and in that same post-speech interview ref'd above, McCullough points out, a little defensively,

"The front end of the speech is the 'you're not special part', of course everyone is special... but... if everyone is, then no one is, so... there's 37,000 high schools in this country... that's a lot of competition."

And it's with numbers such as that, that McCullough begins to build a drumbeat of daunting statistics to stack up against the unrealistic expectations that your individual, unique specialness has a chance of standing out and being recognized by the world for being special, simply for having graduated from high school, or for engaging in the typical activities which lead up to that point. If that's considered too harsh to point out, let me ask you, is it more unkind to tell students that such things are foolish... or to let them go on thinking them?

That he's getting any flack for the 'not special' theme of the speech is doubly baffling, for as he notes,

"Normally, I avoid clichés like the plague, wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole, but here we are on a literal level playing field. That matters. That says something. And your ceremonial costume… shapeless, uniform, one-size-fits-all. Whether male or female, tall or short, scholar or slacker, spray-tanned prom queen or intergalactic X-Box assassin, each of you is dressed, you'll notice, exactly the same. And your diploma… but for your name, exactly the same."

Have you never wondered why graduates are all dressed alike at graduation? Graduation doesn't celebrate your uniqueness, but your uniformity with your fellows as together you all pass beyond the highest levels of the student world - where you may very well have been 'special', in order to arrive, together as a group, in your new position - at the bottom of the 'real world'. For anyone to be surprised...Helloooo...!

The speech itself of course has 'flaws', internal and external. For instance, if he's wanting to cure kids of their sense of specialness, telling them

“Don’t bother with work you don’t believe in”

, seems to me to appeal to the 'I'm too smart to fall for that' trait in the young, in the same way that the newly converted tend to say "LOOK HOW HUMBLE I AM!", which is not only counter-productive, but they'll be in no position, experience wise, to recognize what work is worth believing in, or be able to judge what is important and what isn't; being that they are only high school graduates, right? They've supposedly learned what they need to know, in order to begin learning what is worth knowing - emphasis on 'begin', not 'conclude'.

But even that, which was part of what getting education once was, is unlikely to have been learned in a modern school; today they aren't taught to judge, but to do; not virtues, but skills. If the Common Core of what they were taught in school, were basic minimum skills which the Dept of Education says are required for entering the marketplace, what could possibly qualify them to determine whether one sort of work or another is worthy of 'bothering with'?

What sort of judgment could they have learned through bubble tests in Math, or 'Science' or 'Computer skills'?

In what class which follows along with Arne Duncan's 'Common Core Standards', would a student possibly learn what is worth believing in? Sure, it'll tell you what you should follow... over and over again ... but following and swallowing and filling in bubbles to match up with memorized replies does very little towards preparing students to recognize whether or not something is worth believing in.

No, what our modern system of education prepares students for, is to be very unspecial, ordinary cogs, nothing more. That's one of its key features, not bugs... the sooner someone points that out to them, the sooner they might have a chance of overcoming the handicaps they've been taught to acquire.

But that's probably far enough down that facet - back to face of it.

McCullough opens his speech with some comments about marriage that are amusing, though mostly irrelevant, which provides a statistic that 50% of all marriages fail, which is more than a little misleading, if not untrue, but it does serve as a useful rhetorical device to set the stage for the rest of his speech, and when the 'you're not so special' theme came on, the audience, maybe most surprisingly, responded well to it, which, in this politically correct age where everyone is too unique and special to accept criticism, was encouraging on its own.

But again, many people didn't see it that way at all. The UK's DailyMail which said,

"In a rant targeting modern American parenting,"

And then there are the ladies of the 'Potter Williams Report', commenters on all things Educational. I usually find myself in agreement with them, especially in their opposition to govt programs such as 'Race To The Top' and 'Common Core Curriculum', yet on this speech it looks like we have no common ground. They said about his speech, in part,

"Don’t you love pampered delusional people like David McCullough, Jr. son of millionaire historian David McCullough, Sr. calling out other affluently raised offspring for being “doted upon, helmeted, and bubble-wrapped?” McCullough, an English teacher at Wellesley High School in Massachusetts, gave a commencement address that proved one thing—he’s a know-it-all blowhard with his own latent feelings of inferiority and he thinks he’s “special” enough to tell others they ain’t.

Didn’t his Dad tell him he was special? If he doesn’t like being around suburban kids who do get a lot of what they want and don’t know anything else, then why is he teaching there?

Has he appointed himself the pied piper of setting the young and the rich on the right track?

Just think about the parents in the audience, most of whom have loved and nurtured their children, who had to listen to this smart-alecky nonsense."[emphasis mine]

Wow!

First and least, is being a millionaire something which we believe disqualifies you from having an opinion? If so, is there some ground, somewhere, which you expect to be able to stand upon, which would prevent those millionaires from saying that in their opinion, that your opinion, has no value because you lack the wealth that they have?

Further, and you should read McCullough's actual speech if you haven't already, it's much briefer than my post on it, I challenge you to find something 'delusional' in it. And 'know-it-all blowhard'?! Find me the words in this speech which justifies That charge! And then "latent feelings of inferiority" lol, really? Where in the text of this speech does that come from? Better yet, where does their ability to psychologize a speaker by way of a single one of his speeches, come from? And doesn't that raise a few unsavory characteristics all their own?

I don't like knocking these folks, especially them, but when discussing matters of Education, the discussion should be enlightening, not endarkening - I mean, a cave is a cave, no matter who dwells in it, or with what cliche's and presumptions its walls are made of. And that's not nearly the worst of their reaction to his speech; to me it sounds as if they are ranting against their own prejudices about McCullough, and his associations, and even the preferences they assume his father, historian and author David McCullough, must have,

"But the kicker isn’t that well-off, country club children like McCullough speak and act like the wealthy elites they rail against, it’s that conservatives can’t see this tomfoolery for what it is—privileged leftists (his father, David, Sr. told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in 2011 he greatly admired Barack Obama) co-opting the tough love topic of the far right while pushing the 'we're all the same but we're really not’ illogic. "...

"...Didn’t his Dad tell him he was special? If he doesn’t like being around suburban kids who do get a lot of what they want and don’t know anything else, then why is he teaching there?"

, not to mention possibly a number of issues they have with those who are affluent because they are affluent, or associated with Michelle Rhee (Common Core Curriculum pusher & Race To The Top lobbyist, YES lobbyist). No, it looks like they're comments are more directed at everything they associate with him, and his Dad and his Dad's politics, Rhee, the affluent and celebrities in general, than with the speech itself.

For my part, I had my favorable/unfavorable first impressions from the title and an excerpt of the speech, but I found they didn't stand up in the face of the whole speech. Now, I know nothing of McCullough or his views, and I could find nothing more about him in a single quick googling, than his attending a gala banquet for his father, Author & Historian David McCullough, Sr. (author of the popular "John Adams" book & miniseries), and so I'll confine myself to commenting upon the content of this speech only... and to wondering how others managed to comment on information beyond that.

Looking past your own reflection - what's so special about being special?
If you haven't already, go back and read the speech. Aside from the rhetorical flourishes, his message is not that "You are NOT exceptional", instead what he says is that that's not enough:

"“But, Dave,” you cry, “Walt Whitman tells me I’m my own version of perfection! Epictetus tells me I have the spark of Zeus!” And I don’t disagree."

, what he says is that that is a given, your undeniable specialness is a given shared by graduates from 37,000 other high schools across the country, so you'd do well to not expect to be thought exceptional just because you are special, after all, what is it that you think is so special about being special?! Everyone is special? But no one does, or can be expected to know and appreciate your own uniquely special qualities, except those who know you personally and well. Everyone IS special, every single one of us, but by that very fact, it is common to all and cannot be counted upon as something that will make you stand out from them- because they have it too!

Of course you are unique, of course you are special, and you will be so whether you are pushing a broom at WalMart or making decisions as a CEO of a major corporation (missing that is something which the elitist and anti-elitist have in common) - that isn't the issue, and behaving as if it is, is to devalue your true worth. Who you are can, and only will, be known by those who know you well, it can't be seen from the outside, and it won't show up on a resume or in your SAT's. Stop behaving as if you expect it to.

Everyone else beyond your closest associates, requires tangible deeds to assess you by. Those assessments must come from others who don't know you, being able to see and cite something which you have done, and shown a habit of dependably doing, what is right, doing what needs to be done, doing it well, and showing some initiative in getting those things done. Things which common obstructions are sufficient to keep most others from accomplishing, and it is in that way, and only in that way, that you can come to demonstrate your unique and valuable specialness to those who do not already know you well.

Your reputation is how you establish your uniqueness, and you don't come by that simply by being you, but by being you consistently and over time. Any other pretensions, you'd best chuck into the big can of political correctness, asap. Only in that way can you expect to develop and demonstrate an exceptional ability to earn and achieve something of value - do that first, and recognition will follow.

And then there's the 'elitist' charge. What is there in that speech that is elitist? Seriously, tell me? Is it elitist to face up to the reality of your situation? Is it elitist to say that trophies, advancement and accolades, in and of themselves, are of infinitely less value, than understanding what is more important, and doing that, no matter the rewards?

"No longer is it how you play the game, no longer is it even whether you win or lose, or learn or grow, or enjoy yourself doing it… Now it's "So what does this get me?" As a consequence, we cheapen worthy endeavors

Is this 'elitism'? Or how about this,

"You’ve learned, too, I hope, as Sophocles assured us, that wisdom is the chief element of happiness."

Is that elitism? That little nugget was central to the education which brought about our Founding Fathers era, and it is today nearly lost - is it elitist to say that? To teach that? If so, count me down as an elitist! This 'elitist' charge, this guilt by assumed associations, is this somehow to be a demonstration of educated thought and criticism? If that is thought elitist, or a valid criticism of them, then we as a country had better be prepared to occupy a very special spot at the very bottom of a very crowded world. There are a lot of buzz-words in this speech, a lot of hot topic themes and assumed associations that seem natural to associate with McCullough, his position and his speech, but if we do not make a point of directing our thoughts beyond the seemingly obvious... our quality of Education in this country will never be regained.

From O'Reilly's 'stern message' to the wannabe Randian 'Selfless' charges, to the lefty's of being 'anti-intellectual' - they all have something in common, which I find disturbing, they are reacting to the appearances of the speech and don't touch the substance of it, which, however small it may be, is significant, they don't seek to spark any thoughtfulness in themselves or others, but only to nudge our reactions, and that has far more in common with propaganda, than thoughtful commentary or criticism.

I don't have much to go on about McCullough, but if I go with what are thought to be safe (!) assumptions, it's unlikely that there is all that much that McCullough & I would agree upon, and it maybe, as some have said, that he does have more wealth & privilege (as an English teacher? Is it possible that his father is wealthy and he is not? Maybe not) than I'll ever see - but that is, and should be, beside the point.

And as far as 'elites' go... I don't have a problem with them in and of themselves, only if they try to force their sniffiness upon others, and I just don't see that in this speech. In fact I didn't see a single political policy or issue supported - did you? Where were you looking when you saw that?

So where does the truth lie (ahem) here? Within - as always
The points of agreement between most of those who liked this speech, have got to be centered around the cursed participation trophies, because, as I've already said, there is nothing special, and shouldn't be expected to be, about being a decent person. There is no reason to reward you for being decent, because being that is, and should be, reward enough itself, and trying to grant any further reward, to what everyone should be, would be beyond meaningless.

"So that makes 6.8 billion examples of perfection, 6.8 billion sparks of Zeus. You see, if everyone is special, then no one is. If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless. "

, etc. Doing a decent job at simply showing up, is not exceptional behavior or worthy of being rewarded for - and attempting to do so undermines the value of those who do manage to turn exceptional efforts into exceptional results.

But I also cringe at the participation trophies because they seem to say that doing your best and not beating those who are the best in one activity or another, makes you inferior to them - counter intuitive though it may be, especially to those who don't bother to think things through, a person who tried and failed to be the best, shouldn't need to be consoled for the fact that they failed.

They tried. As they should.

And not only should trying, be something that should be expected of all, failing had better be something that you seek to avoid through succeeding, not something that you will be consoled for not achieving - incentives, as anyone who has ever considered actual economics would know, are things which are best not to have working at cross purposes. Even so, with that in mind, failure, if honestly come by, is nothing to be ashamed of. There is no shame, no boo-boo that needs to be soothed for there being in the world someone who is better at an activity, than you are.

The danger here is two fold.

1. it is only an activity. Telling all children that they need to be consoled or 'recognized' for not excelling at it, shouts, as loudly as an implication will allow, that NOT achieving a skill is something to be ashamed of.
2. it plants the notion that the person who outperforms you in some activity is to be resented, and that you should be rewarded and soothed, and that they - or SOMEONE - owes you for the crime committed of depriving you of the status of being recognized as being the best.

That is a path of folly, and folly upon folly. The sort of stuff an Iago would plant into the minds of Othello's and Roderigo's alike, and like Iago's 'motiveless malignancy', far from producing 'self esteem' in children, which actually achieving a trophy for actual exceptional behavior, it is far more likely to produce expectations of rewards for simply desiring to do good. McCullough notes,

"“In our unspoken but not so subtle Darwinian competition with one another–which springs, I think, from our fear of our own insignificance, a subset of our dread of mortality — we have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement. We have come to see them as the point — and we’re happy to compromise standards, or ignore reality, if we suspect that’s the quickest way, or only way, to have something to put on the mantelpiece, something to pose with, crow about, something with which to leverage ourselves into a better spot on the social totem pole. "

Which I agree with wholeheartedly. Such practices develop an appetite for rewards, deserved or not, rather than for that which is rewarding,.. and being rewarded for doing nothing produces a desire for nothing but rewards.

The Virtue of Selflessness...NOT!

"We are all here on earth to help others. What I can't figure out is what the others are here for." --W. H. Auden"

Selflessness means to have no self, or to have no regard for yourself. Q: Can what you are talking about when using the word selflessness, be what it means, if you are talking about the importance of your being true to your self? A: No.

So now we come to the two lines which, for anyone with even (or only) an ounce of Ayn Rand in them, causes their knees to jerk:

"Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others, the rest of the 6.8 billion – and those who will follow them. And then you too will discover the great and curious truth of the human experience is that selflessness is the best thing you can do for yourself. "

'Ooh... Altruist!' we seethe. 'We've been tricked by all these rugged individualist distractions! This is the creed of the second-hander! This is what is killing the world!' As one person said on a private email,

"He does not talk about doing things in their own self interests. He is doing the same thing politicians do....making the assumption that you should spend your life deciding what is good for others, like going out and organizing communities (he did not specifically say that, but the ant-hill syndrome is there). He never mentions that each individual is different, unique, and needs to exploit their own uniqueness. Being unique is special, and telling people that they should all be selfless is ridiculous. As anyone who has read Ayn Rand, Hayek, etc., knows, one has to look out for ones self interests first before one is in a position to do things for others."

But no, that is not what he has said in this speech, please, look into the speech, and not only at your reflection upon it. What he is saying is not the second handed altruistic opposition to reality that IS killing the world. But there is something else, IMHO, that is also killing the world, and that is the failure to look at things in their proper context.

I'll admit that when I first heard this sentence I had the same reaction, but when I read the full speech, it faded away as an incidental error in an otherwise worthwhile commentary.

Context matters absolutely. Look at the rest of the paragraph, you don't even have to look at the full speech, just at that lines fellow sentences within that paragraph, and you should be able to recognize a common, though imprecise, 'common sense' approach to making a very great point. For instance:

"Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge..."

There is nothing 'second-handed' about this, in fact what he is saying means the exact opposite of the self-denying creed which 'Selflessness' demands, what it means is that you should not let silly things, like the dull approval of uninformed others, distract you from what is most important to you and the healthy development of your self. What it means is that you should do what is right and worthy, not for the accolades it may bring, or for what other people might think or post on their facebook pages about you, but because it is right and worthy and beneficial to your own soul - that is precisely what Rand was speaking of in her 'Virtue of Selfishness', do it for the worthwhile challenge and accomplishment, not for the praise and recognition of others, but for the value of embracing the challenge of doing something worthy of you.

That is the only individualism that can be practiced by an individual. The sort of individualism which needs applause, is mere collectivism with a gaudy narcissistic lighting.

He repeats the same here,

"Go to Paris to be in Paris, not to cross it off your list and congratulate yourself for being worldly."

The clear intent here, is that you must forget about doing what others value, and don't seek after anything solely because others would look admiringly upon it, but do it for its own value, live it and enjoy it, you, personally, and though he doesnt' use the word Ayn Rand would, its meaning is the same: do it selfishly.

But he does makes the unfortunate slip of the lip, starting with the first offending sentence,

"Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others"

But even in that sentence, he refutes what the knee jerk individualist reacts at. Look closer at it, 'Exercise free will and creative, independent thought' - forget for the moment what follows immediately afterwards and take that in. You cannot exercise free will, creative and independent thought, except through being a creative, independent person intent upon making their own choices. You cannot be creative and independent if you are doing it for what you expect others needfully desire or what their reactions might be - you can play to their expectations, but that ceases to be independent or creative in doing so. And when he makes the unfortunately worded (in the eyes of some),

'but for the good they will do others',

, can that really undo the rest? Can it nullify the rest? Can it be taken to be in opposition to all the rest of the sensibility of the speech? What's more, can it really mean what you think it does? Isn't it possible that doing good for others is actually an objective good?

The answer is Yes, it can be... with the emphasis on 'can' - it depends upon the context, 'can' depends upon 'why' and 'how'.

I dont' think his comment can be taken in that negative manner, not without dropping the context of the entire rest of the speech, and in doing that I think we risk putting ourselves in the exact same shoes as those who want to target people for using words like 'target', because they can be taken as exhortations to violence... providing you studiously avoid, disregard and discard all you know and understand about figurative speech and metaphor and the context within which they were used.

I, of course, wouldn't word it as McCullough did, but I do not believe that, given what the rest of the speech clearly intends, that these few words can be taken as being at odds with the entirety of the rest of the speech. I don't think he is saying that the point and goal of life should be to turn yourself into an altruistic shmoo, seeking in word and deed only after the pleasing of 'others'. I think he is simply saying, that there is value in aiding, helping supporting others, and to try and deny that for some point of doctrinaire objectivist phrasing is to risk turning philosophy into ideology, and all criticism into propaganda.

If you have ever helped a child to understand how to tie their shoes, and felt the burning sun of their smile of delight and thanks, you know that there is value, supreme value, to be found, honestly, objectively, in helping others. Doctors, nurses, teachers, etc., these people also know this too well, and if you have 'objectified' yourself into an inability to recognize the value of being human with other human beings... I pity you. Truly.

Now, that doesn't mean that you should lose sight of the fact that 'good' things can be done for bad reasons and purposes. Mafia Don's are famous for 'taking care of' their neighbors in order to secure good popular opinion. A person could also set about teaching children to tie their shoes IN ORDER to collect their thanks (or those of their parents)... not because it was a kind thing to do or as the result of their having a generous soul, but to tally up chits of thanks to be stowed away for later bragging rights, or as claims upon them, 'you owe me!' to be trotted out in order to collect admiring glances from those you tell the stories of your deeds to.

That IS second handedness,and that is the corrupt expression of the participation trophy mindset, and in that context, which it seems to me consistent with the rest of his speech, he is entirely correct to say 'do what you do, not for collecting second handed glory, but for the true treasure of satisfaction and value you can bring to anothers life, and in doing so, you bring them to your own life as well.' There is no Kantian or August Comte altruism there at all, in fact Kant would say that that would nullify the categorical 'virtue' of serving others.

I would not choose to put it into these words, because I think it too easy to be taken as promoting the leftist, altruist credo, but I think what he means by this,

"And then you too will discover the great and curious truth of the human experience is that selflessness is the best thing you can do for yourself. "

, is meant that in doing what you do, do it because it is what you do best, or because it is what is best to do at the time, and is the right thing to do, not the popular thing; the good thing to do, not the YouTube viral thing to do. To bring true value and enrichment to the world (which for anything other than your pet, private hobby, cannot be done except through others), is what the full context of the speech indicates to me that he had in mind.

If I were to put that into my own words, I'd maybe say,

'and then you too will discover the great and curious truth of the human experience, is that in doing what you know to be good and true and right, not because it might bring accolades, but because you can see that it is good and true and right, cannot help but bring value to circumstances and even joy to others as well, and in the end, as in the beginning, that is the best thing you can do true good for yourself.'

, which I think is what he IS saying, and saying better, and briefer, than me, when he said this,

"Like accolades ought to be, the fulfilled life is a consequence, ah a gratifying byproduct. It’s what happens when you’re thinking about more important things."

Summing Up
I could very well be entirely wrong about David McCullough, Jr. himself, for all I know he could be a raging proregressive leftist whose fondest dream is to mainline Marx into his students intellectual bloodstream. Or he could be a staunch conservative. I don't know. I only have this speech to go on, and what I was able to get out of it, is above. This fellow, David McCullough, Jr., son of historian & author David McCullough, is a teacher, a high school English teacher, and for my money, the fact that he thought and said every other sentence in his speech is remarkable enough to me that I can willingly spot him a mulligan on those portions, of those two questionable sentences, without hesitation. And I congratulate him not just for participating in his students education, but for an interesting speech which might actually - shock - do those who listened to it some good.

Here's how he finished the speech up, and sent his students into their graduation from High School:

"Like accolades ought to be, the fulfilled life is a consequence, ah a gratifying byproduct. It’s what happens when you’re thinking about more important things.

Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge, enjoy the air and behold the view. Climb it so you can see the world, not so the world can see you. Go to Paris to be in Paris, not to cross it off your list and congratulate yourself for being worldly. Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others, the rest of the 6.8 billion – and those who will follow them. And then you too will discover the great and curious truth of the human experience is that selflessness is the best thing you can do for yourself. The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you’re not special.

Because everyone is.

Congratulations. Good luck. Make for yourselves, please, for your sake and for ours, extraordinary lives."

Maybe it's best to leave the last word to a couple of his students, who left the world of students with some of his last words,

"Greg Stravinski · Account Executive at Mid-West Family Broadcasting

I had Mr. McCullough as a teacher several years ago, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that he had a significant impact on how I live my life today. He's one of the few teachers who will give you the facts of life whether you want to hear them or not, and this speech is a perfect example."

and

Martha White Collins · Wellesley, Massachusetts My son has learned more from Mr. McCullough in one year than we could have ever expected or possibly hoped for. The education he received went beyond reading, writing and critical thinking. What a great example Mr. McCullough provides of a life lived extraordinarily.

Hunger Gaming the Minotaur

A couple weeks ago I was sitting in an examination room with my daughter, waiting for the pediatrician to come in and see her. As we waited I was sneaking a few more minutes of guilty pleasure reading on my tablet. As the doctor came in a few minutes later, he asked what I was reading, "The Hunger Games" I answered, "Oh..!", he said, grimacing a bit, and then said,

"I must be the only person who isn't reading those books."

I'll admit to feeling a little awkward being seen reading 'teen fiction', not that that itself makes it somehow 'less' than worthwhile, but... still... 'awkward'.

"Yeah, it's not my normal faire, but... my son Ryan recommended it, & when I picked it up in the bookstore a few days ago, I couldn't put it down. I'm just finishing up with the last book now. It's no masterpiece, but it's a surprisingly good action story."

I was ready to feel goofy for being a grown man reading 'teen fiction', but our Pediatrician cured me of that pretty quickly. The good doctor glanced at me and said,

"Well, maybe it's just because of my line of work, but I just can't imagine reading or seeing something having to do with kids being harmed."

, which I thought, more than a bit... odd. Oddly enough I thought it was a rather juvenile way to assess fiction - teen, children's, adult or any other variety you'd like to pretend exists. What sober method of evaluating and criticizing fiction, its plot devices and themes, allowed you to get away with a literal assessment of the story, as if you were reading a news story or an innovative new approach to physical fitness. Seriously? Still... temper... doctor... come on Van, relax... but curiosity... just... just a quick, teensie, comment.

"That's got to put a big limit on your choices..."

, I said, and then looking over his glasses at me, he said,

"Well I guess I'm just a bit pickier than most."

, and there was an audible sniff of holier-than-thouness dripping off his words and manner that got my hackles up. Now, he's a good doctor & I like the guy... and he was just about to treat my daughter... sooo... I tamped down my ready reaction of grilling with a side order of mockery, and just let it go with,

"I suppose you'd have to be picky in order to find anything worthwhile with those standards; what with starting off by ruling out 'Romeo & Juliet' and the like."

He blinked over at me, smiled, and went on with his examination, and I let mine rest.

He's a very good Doctor, but that sentiment, I couldn't help but thinking is some very bad medicine. I finally got to see the Movie of "The Hunger Games" this evening, with Rachel,(two thumbs up, btw), and seeing it brought that exchange back to me afresh. It goes much farther than simply 'teen fiction' and movies, the same tone has creeped into all areas of our language, behavior and thought - our culture has been prescribed this malicious medicine and we've been dosed with it, and overdosed with it, for going on two centuries now, and it seems to me that an emergency room visit isn't too far in the future for our society.

What do I mean by that? What I mean is that this sentiment, this habit of literalizing and denouncing everything which contains less than pristine behaviors or distasteful situations or language, as if doing so is somehow going to rid us of having less than pristine thoughts and less than admirable behavior... is... sick. IMHO it is a near pathological delusion, and it is far from limited to our choices in entertainment, we see it in our day to day speech, we see it in all forms of our Political Correctness, and in all areas of our lives - mustn't say target or kill, mustn't be insensitive to those who are 'disadvantaged' or to those having delicate sensibilities, and so on.

We see it in practice in our schools, where they either seek to vandalize books, excising or pasting over language, as with Mark Twain's 'Huckleberry Finn', or banishing them entirely, as with 'Grimm's Fairy Tales' and 'The Iliad' too violent, disrespectful to witches, unkind to the handicapped, demeaning to the 'different', etc.

This literal prissiness is dulling our ability to be able to speak our minds, and it is dulling our ability to know ourselves.

But maybe the worst part is that it is futile, it is folly, it is an absolute waste of time, and we are devoting enormous amounts of our time, energy and wealth in pursuit of something that is not even remotely possible to achieve; I think you'd have more luck exterminating the human race, than in eradicating these stories and sentiments from us, in the West, at any rate.

"Waitttt a minute," I can hear people stammering at me, "We were just talking about 'The Hunger Games', weren't we?!"

Well. Yes. And no.

Here, in case you haven't seen the movie or read the books, let's go over a quick plot synopsis, I won't reveal any spoilers, but just see if you recognize any of the theme here:

A central imperial power, offended at rebellion among its vassal states, and determined to prevent their ever rising up again, demands that every year, each of them will be forced to offer up a tribute of their best youths, and those youths, the flower of their lands, will be gathered up by lottery and sent to their capital city, where they will be violently slain for the amusement of their conquerors.

This particular year though, in one of the more backwater locales, one person, a brave and skilled youth, will volunteer to take the place of another, and vowing to their family to return, the volunteer goes as a slave goes off to the slaughter, but secretly they are resolved to put an end to this annual tribute of young lives.

During the trek, the volunteer's valiant heart stirs the heart of another, and together their efforts set in motion a series of actions that will end the annual tribute, and bring about the destruction of the imperial power.

Through their heroics and sacrifice and their intellectual sharpness, the volunteer succeeds in finding his way through the game of the labyrinth, killing the Minotaur, and getting back out, but in the process of accomplishing that, the two heroes are divided - the golden thread that brought one out is not sufficient to lead him beyond the labyrinth - and unexpected tragedy is visited upon the volunteer's family as a result, even in the crowning moment of their victory.

Wounded, saddened and wiser, the volunteer carries on and leads their people to greatness.

Was that a spoiler?

Well, not really, at least it's not directly a spoiler for the "The Hunger Games", though people who've seen the movie know that there is no 'Minotaur' in The Hunger Games, or labyrinth, or golden thread (really? You sure about that?); still though, those who've read all three books should recognize this as essentially being the general plot of "The Hunger Games"... so... was that a spoiler?

Well... sort of, I suppose, but come on now, I mean, really, after a certain amount of time some plot lines have got to be understood to have been revealed, right? I mean, after three thousand years or so, the story's gotten around, hasn't it?

Right?

No, I'm not saying that Suzanne Collins, the author of "The Hunger Games" books is exceedingly long in the tooth. But the plot line of "The Hunger Games", in its essentials, is little different from those I mentioned above, that of Theseus and the Minotaur, and countless other Myths, Fairy Tales, tall tales, stories and more, and in all of them, youths, youths & teens, are put into perilous positions, even battling against themselves to...

... to do what?

Why tell such 'awful' tales?

What is the point? Are the stories meant to exploit the young? Are they stories told to be insensitive to the handicapped and deformed? Are they glorifying violence?

No, they are not, though they also are not unrealistically pretending that violence can be pretended to not exist, either.

More to the point, in banning these scenarios, as they've been progressively excluded from our children's education (beginning around 1800 when our ProRegressive 'teachers' began seeking to set aside all instances of classical literature - Greek, Roman and Hebrew - until they've nearly succeeded in expunging the heart of Western Culture from our lives) have they come even close to 'saving' us from such stories, plot themes or archetypes?

A quick glance at "The Hunger Games", "Star Wars", "The Lord of the Rings", "Harry Potter", Spider man, Superman & The Avengers, should tell you that, no, they haven't succeeded, not in the least. But in the effort to, we seemingly have lost our ability to recognize them, lost our ability to appreciate these images and perhaps even lost the ability to better access and understand their wisdom through their many facets refracting from the jeweled surfaces of our cultural crown jewels... but they haven't eradicated them from us.

Not yet.

The fact is that they can't eliminate these stories from us, or at least I don't think they can; but they can, and have, set us back centuries, Millenia even, in our ability to make those fine distinctions that a healthy culture must be able to make, and which they must be able to recognize in themselves and in their day to day lives. The great and small heroism's, tragedies, passions, virtues and evils, and the tragic impossibility of separating Us, from Them, that is something that's central to the West(maybe even the origin of the west), and it is something which I think we must always have before us - whether we're talking Shakespeare or Star Wars or The Iliad. Such material is never, Never wholly dispensed with, not even for a moment.

But pretending that it can be accomplished, leads to people who think that they can make a man made heaven right here on earth, and what inevitably follows from such notions (once highly familiar to us all as Hubris... ever heard the word? Ever really understand it? Ever spent much time trying to understand it? Have your kids? If not, welcome to the culturally walking wounded), is, as those old stories did so well to illustrate, is hell on earth, in precisely the place they sought for heaven.

Fortunately for us, in our movies, in our video games, cartoons and comic books and in the libraries of some of us more stubborn sorts, they haven't succeeded in wiping our culture's wisdom out of us.

Not yet.

But they have gone a long way towards getting us to stop looking for them, and when found, they've gotten us to stop looking beneath the surface of them, with powerful illusions posing as 'answers', like 'teen fiction', and 'action/adventure'. But the truth is that there is much more to these stories, just as there is more to 'myths' such as Theseus and the Minotaur, than meets the eye; as there is more to the story of The Hunger Games than is expected to be found in 'teen fiction'. To find what isn't seen on the surface, requires readers who aren't satisfied with floating on the surface, but who've learned to dive beneath it, who've accustomed themselves to seeking and plunging into the depths, but that requires readers who've learned to ask questions - and that is something our school system (or any other labyrinth) is fundamentally unsuited to teaching - it is much more concerned with packing kids heads with answers - which tends to keep them from asking questions that might reach beneath the surface of appearances.

Which is not surprising, if you understand the labyrinth and the monster within, these, and all such stories, have at their heart the struggle of virtue against vice, of love against hate, and Truth against Power... which are unlikely to be found floating on the surface with the answers - and King Minos is damn sure not going to clue you in.

But as long as the stories are there, the questions are still there waiting to be asked, and the gamers of the labyrinth haven't succeeded in hiding that golden thread yet.

Not yet.

They're trying... but... not... yet.