I’m a major proponent of self-expression.  I don’t have any problem with a scathing critique that is rooted in substantiated fact.   What bothers me is the unintelligent drivel and bile that pollute the comments section(s) of countless websites. Here I’m referring to the baseless claims, conspiracy theories, racist and sexist remarks, profanity, lies, insults, and misinformation that you often find.

It might sound harsh to say this, but not all opinions are equal.  While everyone is entitled to his or her own thoughts, there is always a wide range on any issue.  Unfortunately, some opinions have the capacity to cause great harm to others.

Allowing people to share their thoughts in a comments section fosters civic engagement.  Moreover, these kinds of forums further democratize information by way of discussion.  However, I fail to see the value in airing the drivel and bile because none of it advances the general will.  Only meaningful public discourse provides us with the opportunity to debate, reflect, learn, and grow.  Those who misuse this opportunity are doing us all a great disservice.

Truths Among Us: Conversations on Building a New Culture

Undoubtedly, the issues explored across, and within, these interviews are vast.  They range from the effects of violence depicted on television (George Gerbner) and why young urban kids join gangs (Luis Rodriguez) to how we process traumatic experiences as part of the human condition (Judith Herman) and the consequences of objectifying women in pornography (Jane Caputi).  I also found myself fascinated by the interview with Paul Staments who explains the importance of fungi to our environment.

Jensen asks many thoughtful, pointed questions – some of which probe his interviewee’s about their own writing.  Yes, he has done his homework, and this is evident throughout.  For example, Jensen pulls a direct quote from Luis Rodriguez’s autobiography to open that interview (p. 77), and then asks a good follow-up question to further examine the marginalization that people have experienced in our society (p. 78).  This kind of approach brings a certain focus by diving into some of the most pressing issues that are central to the reason why Jensen chose to speak with these individuals in the first place.

If I have any criticism, I would say that Jensen should have sought more of a balance between the number of men and women represented here.  I believe that sex and gender inform perspective because the world is socially constructed, and therefore, incorporating additional female voices would have strengthened this work.

Also, I have mixed feelings about Jensen divulging his own personal views and stories.  While revealing details about your own life (such as when he mentions how he associated abuse with water skiing on p. 134) might build rapport with someone, doing so shifts attention away from the person you’re speaking with.  Not only does this have the potential to disrupt the flow of the interview, but you don’t want to influence what he or she has to say.

The word that immediately comes to mind when reflecting on this book is “possibility” because the content of each interview reminds me that there are always people in this world who are thinking on levels many of us aren’t.  We can’t lose sight of that.  The mere discussion of these ideas means there will always be the chance they can spread so as to transform the way we live.  Yes, Derrick Jensen has accomplished his goal of piecing together some very provocative interviews that will stimulate thought the way I imagine he intended them to.

Once admitted to my program the daunting reality set in during the first semester that I needed to complete a minimum of two statistics courses for the degree.  While I have always performed well in math, I knew that statistics is more than math and I felt anxious about the classes because I didn’t know what to expect.  Thankfully, the combination of a quality instructor and comprehensible books translated into success.  I completed the assignments and grasped many of the concepts (e.g. chi square, t-test, linear regression) in my effort to achieve a functioning level of literacy.  Having to do some of the computations by hand really helped me when I think back.

Since my dissertation employs mixed methods and the survey I administered has a number of different questions, I had to learn about even more concepts (e.g. factor analysis) on my own so that I can analyze the data I collected.  This has been challenging for me, but it’s an experience I’ve grown to appreciate – especially those moments when concepts click in my head.  As my understanding of statistics continues to grow, not only does the methodological approach become less intimidating, but I also see the important role it plays in the advancement of knowledge.

Many people scoff at statistics because they think all numbers are subject to manipulation in furtherance of an agenda.  When a trained political scientist tests a hypothesis by measuring the association of two or more variables, he or she is supposed to be executing a research design that is value free.  Furthermore, his or her work will eventually be assessed by peers who study the same phenomenon.  The point is that while I pick the variables I want to examine and measure the relationship between them, I can’t (nor do I want to) dictate the  end results.  This is what credible academics do – they report on, not manipulate, their findings.

As a reporter, Krakauer does an incredible job writing a narrative that is grounded on interviews with people McCandless encountered during his travels, as well as McCandless’ own personal writing in postcards to his friends, his journal, and his notes inside of books that he carried with him.  Much can be gleaned from these primary sources.  However, there still are a number of questions that surround what happened to him in Alaska and why.

I don’t have any interest in denigrating him or proliferating theories about his unfortunate fate.  When I think about this story, I see a complex individual in conflict with himself, his family, and society.  While these conflicts aren’t anything new, the way McCandless acted in response to them is thought-provoking.  How many people are willing to abandon their privilege and take that kind of chance on the unknown?  Not many.  Most young adults from suburbia end up following a very predictable path in life, and for those who are exposed to radical ideas during their formative years, well, any adherence  to those ideas is usually abandoned rather quickly.

Now, we don’t know what kind of person Chris McCandless might have evolved into had he survived, but we do know that he pushed himself during his 24 years while alive.  Did he act out of naivety?  Perhaps.  Was he ill-prepared to handle  some of the challenges he faced?  Yes.  Here I would argue that all of what he experienced in the year and a half  before heading to Alaska wrongly informed his perception about his capabilities.  Then again, nobody ever acts with perfect knowledge and it’s always possible that pushing yourself leaves you exposed in ways that cannot be anticipated.

Some might argue that this kind of behavior is as arrogant as it is selfish, after all, taking chances that result in death leave others who care about you grief-stricken.  I simply reject this claim altogether.  I don’t think McCandless sought to cause anyone emotional distress.  The way I see it, a person must always be true to him or herself, and it is imperative to live according to your principles.  Moreover, if someone experiences a certain restlessness that emanates from the core of his or her being, then it’s important to address those thoughts and feelings – not deny their existence.  While I don’t view Chris McCandless as heroic, I believe his motivations were genuine and many of his actions worthy of respect.

From the first class meeting, I sensed it would be a good semester because the instructor, Mr. Hill, had the amazing ability to maintain your interest with lectures that blended content, humor, and personal anecdotes that made you look forward to coming back.  He also challenged us with all essay exams.  This meant that you really needed to work hard if you intended to succeed.

I remember spending hours reading and studying in my bedroom at home, and I recall the morning of the very first exam I ever took in there.  Unfortunately, no matter how much I prepared, it seemed like I could not not earn a grade any higher than a high C or a low B.  In the end, I earned a C for the class, but I felt proud of it because of the effort I had made.

The following year I decided to enroll in another one of Mr. Hill’s courses because I knew I liked his teaching style and learned so much from him the first time around.  That fall I fine-tuned my study skills and managed to earn an A.

While I didn’t fully realize it at the time, I felt drawn to history because Mr. Hill had the distinctive ability to inspire people.  Today, he stands out as one of the best instructors I have ever had in all of my years in higher education.  It’s not enough for a teacher to possess knowledge – he or she must also be able to communicate it in such a way that makes the subject matter appealing to students.  Yes, the packaging matters, and it matters just as much as the rigor.

Several months ago I felt compelled to write him a letter telling him how much he influenced my academic interests as well as my career choices.  I also mentioned how I am an adjunct at MCC as I make my way through my doctoral program.  When I didn’t hear back from him, I figured that he might be preoccupied in his retirement.  If that were the case, I could totally understand since he spent decades teaching at the college.

Then, much to my surprise, he visited my room before class started last night.  It’s hard for me to describe how happy I felt to see him again.  We chatted about our lives for 20 minutes or so, and he thanked me for the letter I sent.  Wow, I’m so glad he stopped by.  Moreover, I’m glad to see he is still the same person all of these years later.  Looking back at a time that is now half of my life ago, I am forever thankful I enrolled in his class because he profoundly affected me in a way that I will never forget.

It begins with a discussion of his efforts on automobile safety in the 1960s and details how General Motors investigated him in an attempt to destroy his character. Not only did federal officials expose this effort in a congressional hearing (of which there is actual footage), but Nader also won a lawsuit against the company that provided “seed money” for him to found some of his organizations.

From there, the film briefly explores his childhood. Nader grew up in Winsted, Connecticut where he learned some invaluable lessons during his formative years. At home, his parents encouraged political debates at the dinner table. Also, he recalls coming home from school one day and his father asking him: “Did you learn how to believe or did you learn how to think?” All of this is important because his early life is reflected in the thoughtful, outspoken advocate he evolved into.

Among the film’s strengths are the interviews with former employees. Some of their accounts reveal how committed, i.e. rigid, he can be on both a political and a personal level. For example, when an employee of his, Joan Claybrook, accepted a position in the Carter Administration and did not seek to advance his agenda, this greatly angered him and resulted in them not speaking for a year or two.

While coverage is devoted to how Nader felt betrayed by President Carter (on the matter of consumer protection) and how President Reagan sought to undermine a series of regulations Nader had fought so hard for in years prior, the film could have focused more on his experience in the 1990s during the Clinton years leading up to the 2000 Election.

Much to the dismay of some on the left, Nader ran for president in 2000. While his candidacy did not receive the attention or respect it deserved (e.g. media coverage; the denial to partake in, or even attend, a debate at University of Massachusetts, Boston), Democrats blamed him when Al Gore lost by a slim margin. A political analyst points out this contradiction. Interestingly, the directors also interview Barry Burden, a political scientist at Harvard University (he now teaches at University of Wisconsin, Madison) whose statistical analysis does not find any evidence that Nader is the “spoiler” Democrats claim that he is.

The greatest message this film communicates is that Nader’s level of commitment is a model of advanced citizenship for others to follow, and that people can make a contribution if they engage the democratic process. Many of his contributions have affected our everyday lives. That said, it is also a strong indictment of a two-party system that must be opened to alternative voices.

During the following winter, I thought it would be a good idea to contact one of my former instructors from the community college I attended to see if they needed a political science instructor for the summer semester.  Initially he informed me they did not, but a month or so later he called to offer me an adjunct position and immediately I accepted.

Last night I began my third summer of  teaching U.S. Government at the college, and it appears that I have another solid group of engaged, intelligent, and articulate students to work with (perhaps the best group ever).  My informal assessment is based upon our introductory activities that included a lengthy discussion of the many responsibilities that governments and citizens have.  As one might imagine, there were some divergent viewpoints expressed, but everyone shared their thoughts in a respectful manner.

I think one of the many reasons I really enjoy teaching this class is because it will be the only political science course most of my students take.  So, it’s important to teach them to analyze different arguments surrounding controversial political issues as well as the function and accessibility of governing institutions.  Much of the time  it appears the body politic is disengaged from the process, but education is one way to challenge such harmful normative behavior.

Last week I heard a talk radio host discussing a newspaper article regarding how the district I taught in may adopt a policy making service hours a necessary requirement to graduate.  So, I immediately called into the station to voice my support.  As I continued to listen to the program, I heard many other callers reject the proposal outright.  Oddly, some of them even sounded a bit upset.  They kept saying that such work should be voluntary, not mandatory.

For as much as people talk about the importance of community here in the United States, it appears that self-interest pervades so much of our everyday lives – so much that “community” often (not always) becomes the distant afterthought.  Now, the one major exception to this is when a major tragedy occurs, whether it be a natural disaster or a human act of violence.  Then people feel compelled to come together.  Otherwise, many spend much of their time solely focused on themselves and / or their family members.

This doesn’t have to be the case.  We have the power to change social norms to ensure that helping others becomes a much higher priority than it currently is, and what better way than through our public school system.  After all, teaching young people to consider the interests of the less fortunate among us through experiential learning can be an invaluable tool we can utilize to alter normative behavior.

With regards to those who reject this idea altogether, I wonder about their underlying motivations.  Our communities are interconnected.  Moreover, social problems are ever-present.  As much as someone might like to only think about him or herself, it’s impossible to escape the collective.

As an educator, I taught my students the history of our nation as well as the function of our governing institutions (most of which occurred inside a classroom) to make them better citizens.  To me, it’s just as socially redeemable and responsible to teach them the importance of community beyond the walls of the school itself, and service learning makes that possible.  It would mold a number of them into better human beings.

So, when I hear people complain that a total of 40 hours of work spread-out across four years of high school would be an major inconvenience for kids, parents, and administrators, I think they’re further demonstrating the rampant self-interest I find so unsettling.  From where I stand, that’s not something to be proud of.

During this campaign I attended two candidate forums, one at the Holmes Student Center and the other at the Egyptian Theater.  While the other independent challenger for mayor, Paul “The Dome” Kallembach, distinguished himself with humor and spoke with a commanding voice, he simply failed to provide substantive policy ideas.  At times, he sounded like someone who hadn’t done his homework, yet tried to answer questions as if he had.  That’s why I find it disheartening that 1,192 people voted for him.

As for the turnout, well, my expectations weren’t particularly high because local elections that don’t feature major referendums never seem to generate high levels of interest.  That said, you’d think the nation’s economic conditions would have reverberated more through local issues such as the city buying-up property for development.  Clearly, the extremely low turnout (even lower than the mayoral race four years ago) suggests otherwise.  What bothers me here is that people had a real viable independent alternative (Lynn Fazekas), but instead of exploring and seizing the opportunity, many chose to stay home.

The encouraging part of all this is the grassroots effort made by Lynn Fazekas and the volunteers on her campaign over the past several months.  These people truly care about the future of this community – they care in a way the current leadership can neither identify with nor understand.  Why?  Some of them were citizen watchdogs long before the campaign began, and they will continue their efforts in the years to come.  After all, if you really desire greater accountability in government, then people must speak out on a regular basis – not only around election time.