I love, and am attracted to, shiny objects. Midnight stars, colorful beads, glassware, crystals, the sun glinting off water. In a similar fashion, much of humanity is attracted to shiny people, but be warned: All that glitters is not gold.
Shiny people and their audience tend to trounce logic and reason to the hurt and chagrin of everyone, but especially logical people. There is no room for them at the inn, because they are most likely to tell people exactly what they don’t want to hear, that the shiny person’s foundation is not solid rock but weak infrastructure, and too many people are gathering on the balcony. Such wet blankets are forced out of the happy group, to wander in seclusion.
Shiny people dress in literally shiny outfits with lots of glitter, sequins, bright colors, and power suits. They surround themselves with plenty of actual shiny objects, the more over-the-top the better (golden toilets, for example). Shiny people love a good show, and their audience loves a good show too. That’s entertainment.
Shiny people seem to know inherently how to charm others (or blind them) with their glitz and glamour, and those who love it are like moths to a flame. Just like the basic biology concept of symbiosis, the one can’t exist without the other. Audience and performer all share a high of sensationalism, surrealism, excitement, and mystery.
This isn’t about one-time performances in which you leave on a high note with the thought, “That was fun! I’d like to do that again, someday,” but “Wow! I can’t wait to see what they do next!” Once an audience member has invested some time and money into a shiny person, the superior feeling they get from being associated with them is nigh impossible to break. It takes a personal catastrophe (others’ tragedies involving the shiny person in question, can be reasonably explained away) to shock an audience member back into reality.
Shiny people are like the fusion reactor in Spider-Man 2 (2004); they build their glow and following slowly, but soon they are radiating like the sun with thousands or millions of followers. The more energy they receive from their crowds, the hotter and brighter and more unstable shiny people become, until they finally explode. An explosion from a shiny person necessarily heaves debilitating, even deadly (financial, emotional, spiritual, relational, even sometimes physical) shrapnel to their unsuspecting crowd. And just like Doc Ock’s fusion reactor, the moment a shiny person loses all control is typically unpredictable.
An international friend brought a horrifying article to my attention over the weekend. It did not involve terrorism, Syria, the Standing Rock fiasco, or even Harambe. It was far more subtle a subject, far more insidious, and based on many misconceptions and quiet propaganda. The article was originally called, Bring Back Child Labor, until the author, Joseph Sunde, received such backlash he changed it to, Work is a Gift Our Kids can Handle.
Betsy DeVos, Trump’s current pick for Secretary of Education, who recently made headlines with her trademark support of charter schools and school vouchers, is also a supporter of the Acton Institute, among others. This, in conjunction with the article in question, has deeply concerned many onlookers about the possible future of public education in America, but the rabbit hole goes deeper still.
And Now a Word from our Sponsors…
For at least the past 10 years, the Homeschool Legal Defense Fund (HSLDA) has made it their mission to reduce state laws pertaining to child labor. In the states of Missouri and South Dakota, they have successfully overturned previous child labor laws in the name of homeschool anti-discrimination. They have been working on a federal bill to the same end nationwide since 2006*. The HSLDA represents the welfare and rights of not just homeschoolers, but ultra-conservative Evangelical Christian homeschoolers in particular (more on HSLDA in another post).
It is the position of the HSLDA, that children as young as 12 should be allowed to work, if their parents view such work as beneficial to the child’s education.
“…a 12-year-old homeschooler in Illinois was manning the cash register for his family’s business after his morning schoolwork was done. He enjoyed the opportunity to earn a little money, and his parents knew that it helped him hone his math skills. Unfortunately, a customer did not feel the same way. She turned the family in to the Illinois Labor Department. After looking into the matter, the department prohibited the boy from working during school hours.” –Source
The article claims many of the child labor laws enacted by states in throughout the 1800s were necessary for their time, but are “outdated”, and suggests that all federal laws regarding child labor restrictions were and are superfluous (no question where this organization stands on states’ rights!). The article continues by outlining general laws pertaining to working children at different ages. A few key laws include:
No child under 16 may work during school hours, which are defined as public school hours (typically 8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m., depending on the state).
The child is limited to 3 hours of work per day during a school week, or 18 hours a week.
He may not work before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. except from June 1 to Labor Day, when evening hours are extended to 9:00 p.m.
Children may perform agricultural jobs for employers who have filed a waiver with the federal secretary of labor for exemption from the work hours and minimum age requirements for those particular jobs.
A child may only work during school hours if he is not getting paid. An example of such a situation is a school “work study” program, in which children gain work experience for educational purposes. –Source
The question remains: Why should some Christians seek to overturn these child labor laws?
Look how “Happy (Doc and Dopey)” are the “children” working in the mines! They exemplify proper economics and virtue!
Why would Sunde (getting back to the original article in question) feel encouraged to blithely insist the Washington Post’s recent photo montage of dirty, poorly clothed child laborers from the early 1900s, was over-the-top for (rightly) calling the pictures “haunting”. Several of those kids were smoking for crying out loud! Or does Sunde think being filthy, poor, abused, and developing lung cancer are signs of virtuous character?
He seems to ignore those details, opting to focus on a favorite conservative fantasy that these children were using their “creative talents” to “build enterprises and cities, using their gifts to serve their communities, and setting the foundation of a flourishing nation.”
Sunde quotes heavily and with admiration, one Jeffrey Tucker from the Foundation for Economic Education. Tucker’s article titled, Let the Kids Work, is a perfect example of someone who is disconnected from reality. He calls the Washington Post’s photos, “beautiful”, and proceeds to imagine what the children in the pictures must have experienced:
“They are working in the adult world, surrounded by cool bustling things and new technology. They are on the streets, in the factories, in the mines, with adults and with peers, learning and doing. They are being valued for what they do, which is to say being valued as people. They are earning money. Whatever else you want to say about this, it’s an exciting life.”
Tucker pretends to believe the whopper that, “it was the market, not the government that reduced and nearly eliminated full-time grueling child labor.” Didn’t he just say those abused children were actually having the time of their lives? Didn’t he then proceed to make fun of those who might protest on the children’s behalf with, “Oh, look how exploitative it is!”
While Sunde insists in a new disclaimer, “I do NOT endorse replacing education with paid labor…nor do I support getting rid of mandatory education at elementary and middle-school ages.” Yet his own essay quotes Tucker’s insane words, “If kids were allowed to work and compulsory school attendance was abolished, the jobs of choice would be at Chick-Fil-A and WalMart.” (emphasis added by me)
Sunde goes on to say,
“In our schools and educational systems, what if we stopped prioritizing “intellectual” work to the detriment of practical knowledge and physical labor, paving new paths to a more holistic approach to character formation? In our policy and governing institutions, what if we put power back in the hands of parents and kids, dismantling the range of excessive legal restrictions, minimum wage fixings, and regulations that lead our children to work less and work later?”
Our forefathers’ greatest mission was free and public education for all American citizens, so Americans would not be subject to oppression! Washington and Franklin and the others are spinning in their graves to hear such blasphemies from so-called modern educated (Christian) men.
The reality of working children due to the continued and inexcusable lack of oversight of homeschooled kids is already a current problem:
“In some cases, educational neglect may occur when a homeschooled child is expected to work rather than study. In some cases…homeschooled children may be treated as servants and expected to do childcare and housecleaning rather than completing homeschool lessons. In other cases, homeschooled children’s education may cease at age 12 or 14 as they are expected to work full time, often in family businesses or doing various manual labor. “By 11, he was working full time with his dad who did construction,” writes Miranda of her homeschool graduate husband. “By 14, he was in the woods logging, carrying the full weight of a grown man’s job, helping bring home income for his parents.” These children are frequently not paid for their labor, and are thus both deprived of an education and exploited…These children often reach adulthood limited by their lack of education, their career path chosen by their parents through their failure to educate.” –Source
It’s even more of a problem for some homeschooled girls, whose educations are often devalued as they are raised to be “keepers at home”. The Coalition for Responsible Home Education quotes from Christian leader RC Sproul Jr., ““She [a nine-year-old homeschooled girl] doesn’t know how to read, but every morning she gets up and gets ready for the day. Then takes care of her three youngest siblings. She takes them to the potty, she cleans and dresses them, makes their breakfasts, brushes their teeth, clears their dishes, and makes their beds.” Now I [Sproul] saw her rightly, as an overachiever.”
Though it hasn’t been updated in 3 years, Sunde’s blog, Remnant Culture, features a telling who’s-who* of Evangelical and Catholic leaders and organizations whose mission is to instill pure capitalism (free market/free enterprise) in order to bring back the individual freedoms of religion and democracy they believe they have lost.
It is rather shocking that the very people who give the most lip service to education, America’s Founding Fathers, the value of children, and Christian morals, are the same ones advocating for elimination of compulsory education laws, a reduction of child labor laws, and the idolization of one form of human (i.e. fallible) government. In their minds, free enterprise is next to godliness (more on that in a later post). Make no mistake, the Industrial Revolution, America’s purest age of capitalism sans legal restrictions, saw the exploitation of everyone that possibly could be exploited. It was no less than the Northern form of slavery, without the personal investment of human chattel.
*Note: the shop link on the About page appears broken.
** When I first read Sunde’s essay on 11/27/16, he had included a statement about ending compulsory education at 8th grade. You will not find this quote in his current essay, it has since been deleted. The following comment references this quote, and there may be others: http://disq.us/p/1dx5k74.
*If you liked this post, please considersubscribingto my blog for just $1.50/month.
I’ve seen a lot of people, particularly Christians, calling for unity and forgiveness on both sides now the election is over (and they won). The onus is on you, dear people, to offer peace and friendship. For a year or more, you’ve made it clear to half the population of America that “you don’t want ___ here.” Now you are offended they believe you and want nothing to do with you?
At the same time, I keep reading statements on FB, on news sites, on blogs, etc. which include terms like, “butt-hurt” (awful term!), “libtards”, “distasteful among us”, “snowflakes”, etc. How do you expect to heal wounds this way? Or do you really expect to heal wounds at all? It’s handing a peace offering with one hand, while hiding a dagger in the other, then feigning being upset/not understanding when those who feel the full weight of unkindness turn away so they don’t get stabbed. Again.
This is not Christian talk or behavior, it is the lowest treachery. Yet this kind of abuse goes on endlessly (and has for years) in churches and so-called Christian families. You want to know why younger people are staying out of church? This is it. And then you call them immoral and overly sensitive, and consider them “worthy” of more insults.
Any criticism at all or difference of opinion, then most people (from any side) turn away or lash out. That’s what happens when a party feels the slightest bit threatened or out of control. But to those who feel they won Wednesday morning, it is on you to show genuine friendship, love, and care, if you indeed feel those things, to especially those who believe your words and your vote:
That you don’t really want them in your churches, your neighborhood, your city, your state, your country. That you would be far better off without them. That you would be overjoyed to see them go.
I was originally going to title this post: Why the Art World is Loathe to Admit the Emperor has No Clothes. Then I realized the problem I was going to discuss is not an art-world one, but a universal one. The problem is how we tend to define things as good or bad, right and wrong. We flatter ourselves, crediting our choices and beliefs on our brain power, intellect, and research. Now some people do frequently make informed choices, and most people make at least some informed choices. If we’re being honest though, it must be admitted that more often than not, our declarations of good and bad, right and wrong, are based on how we feel about them. Then our intellects kick into gear and fill in the blanks. For example…
As a writer and parent, I like to stay up on the latest book trends. As my “About” page notes, I am fascinated with human psychology. I am insatiably curious about people and the choices they make. Whenever someone declares a book “good” or “bad”, I always ask why. Invariably, the person’s answer is based on how they feel about the book, or rather, what emotions the book brings forth. Is it exciting? Is it sad? Is it a page-turner? Is it short? Are there too many big words? Is it informative? I always tell my students really important concepts to ask themselves are, “What does the book teach? What is the moral? Is it a good moral?” and “Why?”
I’ve noticed a similar trend when my friends and I debate on the worth of a film (I suppose I could have also titled this, In Which I Reveal My Media Snobbery). I love a film based on the cinematic qualities of setting, film technique, costuming, originality, acting, storytelling, and moral lessons. Ergo, The Lord of the Rings films are among my favorite films. Some of my friends love a movie because they like looking at a beloved actor (ok, I’ll be honest, I’m not above this one), or they want to enjoy a simple escape from reality. Maybe they want to laugh, tickle their dark side, or get a scare. These are all valid reasons to watch movies, but can we go any deeper with them? What else (if anything) are they teaching us? Does it even matter?
As a photographer, I follow a lot of blogs, read a lot of art books, and visit a lot of museums and art galleries. I have seen the work of both acclaimed and up-and-coming artists. I feel that many of the most praised photographers…well, stink. Their work is not all that great, technically speaking. It isn’t beautiful (to me), it doesn’t teach (me). Usually it’s just bizarre (to me) or perverse.
Morals and Life and Religion, Oh My!
I have noticed over the years, people tend to apply emotional judgements to determine bigger, more important life questions as well. When I ask others why they chose a particular religion (or no religion), they usually say, “it felt right”, or they “felt peace” about their decision. When asked where they stand on certain moral issues, people often respond with what they believe, followed by an intellectual answer like, “it just makes sense that…”
Usually, one’s religion or lack thereof, colors one’s moral beliefs about life. How then, can a potentially life-changing, emotionally-based decision such as religious beliefs (or no religious beliefs), proceed to intellectually inform one’s morals honestly? If one’s morals are truly intellectually based, it suggests that if facts change or new information is brought to light, one’s morals would likewise change. Yet, that rarely happens. Information is often suppressed in tight-knit groups, and morals are colored instead by cleverly disguised, emotional dogma.
What do you find true, noble, or praiseworthy?
These opinions of mine are precisely why I like to ask others what they see. Different people have different sets of eyes, ears, and minds that interpret the same piece of material that I see, hear, or consider. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if you have not seen that classic Twilight Zone episode, you can correct that in 25 minutes here. 🙂
Still, there is also truth to search out. It is overly simplistic, pacifistic, and erroneous to simply claim that everyone is right (ever see Bruce Almighty?). It is fine, even necessary to be entertained and have fun, but it is important to exercise our brains by asking questions and thinking carefully about the answers. Why is something appealing and what does it teach? Can it be proven or disproved?
I like this quote from the Book of Philippians chapter 4, verse 8 in the Bible, “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” I used to think that meant whatever I found noble, pure, lovely, etc. was, obviously, what everyone should find noble, etc., as well. After all…
*If you liked this post, please considersubscribingto my blog for just $1.50/month.