A Conversation

[Michael Tee]

I had a conversation this afternoon with a South Carolinian in his fifties.  He called me on a business matter  - - I remembered his name because we had spoken once before, a few months ago, and the name had a private meaning for me which made it easy to remember.  I wound up making notes on what he was saying. 

This was all in the context of what's it like Canada, then began to talk about life there in USA:

- not happy how things going:
- lost sight of soul (repeated differently:  lost touch with their souls, etc.)
- God-given inalienable rights - - people think they can change on a whim
- heart and soul the main issue; Am. people lost heart and soul
- nature of our people has changed
- no room for God (this one not in my notes, it's my sense of what he was saying)
- everyone very angry, conservatives blame liberals for everything and vice versa
- lost ideals - people don't seem to know right/wrong, fair/unfair
- lost forgiveness; victim's families not satisfied with death sentence; "it's not bad enough for him . . .
- "zero tolerance" in schools; no room for common sense exceptions; principals complaining, going to court?
- lost sight of fact we all human beings needing forgiveness, needing pat on back
- too many working too many hours, two earners under one roof, what about family?
- stay on same track, country will "implode" in 30 yrs, it won't be here for my grandchildren or if here, they  won't recognize it
- never so much hatred by blacks towards whites
- never so many angry whites; angry and armed; way too much shooting, all the time
- fetishize 2nd Amend rights, cops killed by gunfire
- thinks he knows why country going to hell [figurative] but doesn't want to say
- health insurance $8K per yr and rising; lots of loopholes in policy; thinks actual figures on the uninsured                                                             much worse than officially admitted
- Iraq war makes no sense; [Q: was it for oil?]  [A: doesn't know, just does not believe official versions]
- all the things could have done with money wasted on Iraq
- prisons going up everywhere; sentencing very harsh, no room for exceptions, special hardship cases
- no forgiveness; everyone want to see people destroyed; tearing each other apart
- "zero tolerance" inhumane - - inflexible; senseless
 
He seemed intelligent, kind, mature, well-intentioned but passive.  More like stand on sidelines and watch it all go to hell.  I was sorry I didn't ask why he wasn't taking an active political role in the process - - very well-spoken, only slight southern accent, good sense of humour, hip, with-it but conservative religion ["My mother's holding a place in Heaven for me" was his way of indicating she'd died when I asked what his parents felt about this]

What'd I get from this?  A sense of sadness, hopelessness, disbelief or maybe just wonderment that his country had come to this; a need for change but no hopes for it, no plan for it, no strategy for it.  I didn't even ask about how he voted or would vote in the primaries.  He never mentioned any politician by name.

[BT]

You think he reads this forum?

[Michael Tee]

Not unless the forum has a readership in the tens of millions, I mean what are the odds?  I protected his anonymity anyway.  Didn't mention his hometown or exact age or even line of work.

My point was this guy doesn't sound like a political junkie, just an average citizen, probably above-average intelligence and income bracket, but he's raising this stuff spontaneously on a business call, obviously concerned about the direction the country is going in.  I tried in the notes to get every single point he made but not repeat them, so the notes don't give a real sense of where his emphasis lay.  He was mostly concerned about the rising levels of anger and intolerance, lack of forgiveness.  It was interesting that he never mentioned a single politician by name, and also seemed confused about the South Carolina primary - - when I asked about it initially he said, "Oh that was last week."  Seemingly not interested much in the political process, like he'd written it off long ago, but that's just a guess on my part.

The other thing was that there weren't any overt expressions of racism or bigotry - - I really was expecting the real south to show its face, to surface at some point in the conversation.   Maybe that WAS the real south and I just didn't know it.  The only red flag in the whole conversation was when he said he thought he knew what was at the bottom of it or why this was all happening, but didn't want to say (the Jews? the death of Jim Crow?  the Trilateral Commission?) and I didn't press him on it.   Didn't sound like a closet bigot, though, because when he mentioned the war, he mentioned how it divided the country and then contrasted that with how the country was united in WWII - - said that the justice of their cause was obvious in WWII because Hitler was obviously so "twisted and evil" [words to that effect anyway] that the need to stop him was clear.

I just found it ominous that this was a seemingly apolitical guy straight out of the mainstream with some very deep and serious concerns about the way his country was going, concerns that he had never felt before, and a sense that things can't continue to go on that way.  A real sense of foreboding on his part.  And I felt, if this guy sees it, then everyone sees it.

[BT]

Well, it is always interesting to read about one man's thoughts filtered through another man's eyes.

A lot can be learned from both perspectives.

[Michael Tee]

I was trying to give it without filters.  I thought I pretty much indicated where I was interpreting and where it was just the unfiltered comments.  Although there were comments I missed the first time round - - that "missing" is filtering too, I guess.  Still and all, if you read the whole thing, I think I got this guy pretty much as he presented to me.

[BT]

The only red flag in the whole conversation was when he said he thought he knew what was at the bottom of it or why this was all happening, but didn't want to say (the Jews? the death of Jim Crow?  the Trilateral Commission?) and I didn't press him on it.

Filtered.

Projected.

Suspected.

[Knutey]

The only red flag in the whole conversation was when he said he thought he knew what was at the bottom of it or why this was all happening, but didn't want to say (the Jews? the death of Jim Crow?  the Trilateral Commission?) and I didn't press him on it.

Filtered.

Projected.

Suspected.

Remember, Michael, BT knows more about everything than anyone including ourselves. It must be wonderful to be as Godlike as he.

[Amianthus]

Remember, Michael, BT knows more about everything than anyone including ourselves. It must be wonderful to be as Godlike as he.

Funny, I thought it was the liberals who knew what was best for everyone.

So, are you saying that liberals DON'T know what's best for everyone?

[_JS]

- too many working too many hours, two earners under one roof, what about family?

This is one that has always baffled me. We have politicians, and to be fair they are from both parties, who talk about "family." We hear the same cliches over and over again:

The family is the cornerstone of the nation.
We need to protect the American family.
The family is the first line of defense.
Education begins with the American family.

And on and on...

Yet, ask the Republicans or the mainstream Democrats about a 35 hour workweek or a standard 5 weeks of vacation and you might as well be a member of al-Qaeda because you've just unwittingly attacked some sacred cornerstone of American society - the ability to work you for as many hours a week as possible, preferably with no overtime or comp time.

But, what could be more family friendly than actually giving time for people to spend with their loved ones? It surprises me that none of the evangelical associations support this, but as far as I know none of them do.

And the funny thing is that some of the nations that work less hours than we do and have more vacation time, also have higher productivity.

[BT]

Two breadwinners families is a recent construct.
Did the government create that necessity?

or was it the choice of the families?

[The_Professor]

- too many working too many hours, two earners under one roof, what about family?

This is one that has always baffled me. We have politicians, and to be fair they are from both parties, who talk about "family." We hear the same cliches over and over again:

The family is the cornerstone of the nation.
We need to protect the American family.
The family is the first line of defense.
Education begins with the American family.

And on and on...

Yet, ask the Republicans or the mainstream Democrats about a 35 hour workweek or a standard 5 weeks of vacation and you might as well be a member of al-Qaeda because you've just unwittingly attacked some sacred cornerstone of American society - the ability to work you for as many hours a week as possible, preferably with no overtime or comp time.

But, what could be more family friendly than actually giving time for people to spend with their loved ones? It surprises me that none of the evangelical associations support this, but as far as I know none of them do.

And the funny thing is that some of the nations that work less hours than we do and have more vacation time, also have higher productivity.

The standard response, I believe, centers around the concept that decreasing the workweek to 35 hours would make American products more expensive and so less competitively internationally.

[The_Professor]

Good point. I can tell that personally it takes two of us to make a decent living. Granted, "decent" is interpretive. My wife would rather stay home (no surprise there!), but then many men would too.

I would think that studies would also show that the active "current" family expects more in material goods than "earlier" one wage earner families and so that requires another person's earnings, but I am sure there are lot more factors such as inflationary pressures, taxes, etc....

[Rich]

>>Two breadwinners families is a recent construct. Did the government create that necessity?<<

The government did, of course. Excessive taxation has made it impossible for most families to live comfortable on one income. Once women moved into the work force, more problems cropped up. We can trace the problems we see with children to women abandoning their traditional role as wife and mother.

[yellow_crane]

>>Two breadwinners families is a recent construct. Did the government create that necessity?<<

The government did, of course. Excessive taxation has made it impossible for most families to live comfortable on one income. Once women moved into the work force, more problems cropped up. We can trace the problems we see with children to women abandoning their traditional role as wife and mother.

Trace the trouble to the corporate designers, with a hip shot from clueless Reagan, who destroyed the unions.

When that happened--loss of a sustaining income by the bread-earner--women were forced to go out and work to make up the difference.

You should really try a little harder with the truth.

Wean off Hannity for twelve hours, and try to read something.

[The_Professor]

>>Two breadwinners families is a recent construct. Did the government create that necessity?<<

The government did, of course. Excessive taxation has made it impossible for most families to live comfortable on one income. Once women moved into the work force, more problems cropped up. We can trace the problems we see with children to women abandoning their traditional role as wife and mother.

Trace the trouble to the corporate designers, with a hip shot from clueless Reagan, who destroyed the unions.

When that happened--loss of a sustaining income by the bread-earner--women were forced to go out and work to make up the difference.

You should really try a little harder with the truth.

Wean off Hannity for twelve hours, and try to read something.

However, in the case of the air traffic controllters, isn't it true their contract had a "no strike" clause?