In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

Aristotle on Government

Conflict of Visions

Collectivism vs. Community

Testify to What

Just a Spell Too Far

Everyone has their own take here. I am a man. So, somehow, my take is irrelevant. But I’m also a therapist. So, maybe, just maybe, I’m allowed to speak. The beauty is, I’m going to anyway.

Sympathy

Before I get into anything else, I need to state areas where I totally agree with sympathizers of Lindsey Clancy. She has suffered greatly. She had severe postpartum psychosis. She asked for help and what she received was apparently lacking, according to her supporters. Should we bring attention to the problem of postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis? Absolutely. Do I feel bad for her in this way? Yes. I do.

It is quite plausible that Lindsey knew she was going to commit suicide and wanted to be with her kids in the afterlife. It is possible in her mind, she was doing the noble thing, the merciful thing, in not making her children go through life without her. She has now lost her children and her husband. Where I differ from the protesters is I also hope she’s lost her freedom. At least for now.

Others to Show Sympathy For

If she should not go to prison for murder, then the following people need to be let out as well:

• Esteban Santiago – killed 5. Serving 5 consecutive life sentences, plus 120 years. Was diagnosed with Schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

• Travis Reinking – Killed 4. Serving 4 consecutive life sentences without parole. Was diagnosed with Schizophrenia.

• Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa – Killed 10. Jury reject insanity defense. Serving 10 life sentences. Was diagnosed with Schizophrenia.

• Ethan Crumbley – Killed 4. Serving life without parole. Was diagnosed with MDD with severe psychosis.

• Chad Doerman – Killed his 3 children saying, “God told me to”, similar to what Lindsey Clancy said while she was killing her children. Serving 3 consecutive life sentences, plus 16 years. Suffered from psychosis.

• Travis Decker – Killed his 3 children. BPD and PTSD. Travis Decker is dead, but he needs to be exonerated and mentioned as mentally ill, not that of a killer, apparently.

There’s one problem that stands out, none of them are women. So no one cares. They were all mentally ill. They all needed help they did not receive. But they were cursed with being male. There’s not a chance Lindsey’s supporters are hoping these men get the help they deserve.

The Precedent

Some ask, “How could you sympathize with a murderer?” Easy, she wasn’t in her right mind. I agree that she needed help. I agree that she wasn’t herself and likely had no idea what she was doing. I agree she suffered and very likely did not receive adequate help. I genuinely feel bad for Lindsey.

But not bad enough to let her live among the rest of the population. If you don’t put her in prison, you send a real message to all the Cluster-B gals out there soaking up the sun, basking in the child-free life, as if it is some moral high ground they landed on, that they, too, can just free themselves of the problems that children pose by killing them and claiming insanity. This falls into the conversation I’ve had about emotional empathy and its dangers (READ HERE).

Lindsey Clancy has something in common with Covid. They both showed us who we really are. We really get to see the spotlighting effect of unbridled emotional empathy, just like we got to see ourselves give permission to be tyrannized by the federal government over Covid.

The Real Tragedy

I both a) understand that Lindsey may not have gotten the help she needed and b) believe she should spend the remaining years of her life away from the public.

Mental state cannot absolve any one human through dissipation of individual responsibility from justice for the murder of children in a free and thriving society. Using the explanation of external forces imposed onto an offender as a justification for diminished responsibility indicates the erosion of freedom itself, so Thomas Sowell thought.

Two things can be true at once. She deserved better treatment. But so did her children. That’s what this comes down to… the children who will never graduate high school, get a job, or have kids of their own, because of Lindsey Clancy.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review

Intrinsic Defense

9/12/2001

The Nuclear Family: The Standard We Stopped Defending

Fathers Are Coming Home: The Quiet Revival

I recently read a piece by a writer I enjoy and appreciate. Reading this piece caused curiosity towards ideas presented here, from my perspective. The following doesn’t necessarily indicate I’m right. Just that presently, these are my thoughts.

The piece was broken into six parts regarding Aristotle’s take on such subjects and how this may benefit us today: Rulers, education, family, middle class, freedom, and liberal vs conservative.

Telos & Logos

Aristotle's Politics and Human Flourishing

Modern political discourse is typically defined by unwavering party loyalty. Political beliefs are often a tribal identity rather than objective reasoning. Interestingly, we spend so much time debating the ideal structures of government and society, yet we rarely think about what society is meant to do…

Read more

3 months ago · 23 likes · 1 comment · Telos & Logos

First, allow me to say I love ancient Greek philosophy. Learning Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, among others, has been a joy to undertake in my later years, as I did not appreciate this work early in life. These men set the stage for individualistic thought adopted by the Western world, ultimately leading to the formation of the greatest nation in the world.

Rulers

This is a subject in which I’ll be leaning on Thomas Sowell. It’s a matter of human nature and its potential.

“Leadership is a position of service; so our societal structures must be designed to bring the virtuous people forward and filter out those not suited.”

Aristotle was right to believe that leadership did not rest with just any citizen. After all, it was his teacher who said, “He who does not desire power is fit to hold it.”

Views of human nature with immeasurable potential tended to view institutions as systemic barriers, with little to no regard for individual decision being possible causation for the plight of one. It juxtaposes ideas of elite few possessing qualities and skills developed enough as to contain solutions to the world’s problems against human nature’s tendency towards greed, power, and tyranny given the unpunished opportunity.

“Aristotle argued that power should rest with the wisest and most virtuous citizens. They are the ones best suited to rule.”

Aristotle fully believed there were people capable of this. Possibly because he was one of such minds and surrounded by other like minds. The issue returns to tendencies and the cost of failure. Minds with ideas bear no cost of failure. It’s an experiment played out at the expense of others’ lives.

I simply do not hold human nature in such high esteem and would rather trust the collective experience of the average many who bear the cost of failure.

The government cannot and will not produce anything, only pervert what was meant for good. In this, Aristotle, in wanting monarchy, did not know what we know today.

Education

“I think Aristotle would approve of schools being funded by local taxes. Aristotle talked about the importance of private property and prioritizing one’s own community.”

I agree that it seems to be feasible to tax families to ensure basic education, as long as families have control over where this education comes from. It’s the monopoly of education that prevents actual progress in this field.

Family

“Tax breaks for families, maternity leave funded by the government, and universal preschool could build the culture that we ought to have.”

The concept of maternal leave funded by the government sounds great until “he who holds the purse, pulls the strings.” The government pays no price for being wrong or mismanaging other people’s money. But if they’re paying the bill, they’re also controlling the mechanism and rules by which it is carried out. And “universal” anything is a terrible idea. Again, when the government pays the bill, they make the rules. And I’m still in search for an example in which the government did something right.

Middle Class

“Rather than radical programs that react against social issues, how can we proactively build society so that the desirable outcomes naturally occur?”

At the societal level, this can only happen through incentive structures and trade-offs. It is worth noting that the middle class is “shrinking” because more people are gaining wealth, rather than the inverse. In fact, poverty is declining.

Freedom

Liberty can only be found within the confines of boundaries. Aristotle was on to something. Much like fire, if contained, it’s beautiful, warm, and beneficial. Untamed, it destroys everything it touches.

Liberal and Conservative

The wealthy paying more incentivizes them to leave to reinvest their money in a manner that best suits their enterprise. This is why overtaxing the rich never accomplishes what it sets out to achieve. Create tax structures that incentivize the company to create new jobs. In this, everyone wins.

Conclusion

Overall, when the government is involved, it ends badly. Every time. We definitely do not need their “help.” We need social incentives, created and maintained through traditions and evidence of efficacy. Restrict the malevolent to allow optimal economic mobilization, with full freedom of the individual to make choices that benefit him and his community. And leave the government completely out of it.

I love Aristotle’s contribution to western civilization. He is the father of science, as far as I’m concerned. He continued the great tradition of thinking critically. He provided ways of viewing nature, politics, ethics, in such a way that he is still on the front of our textbooks, essays, and minds to this day.

However, on governmental structures, for the most part, he missed. While polity was often championed by Aristotle, he was strongly in favor of monarchical structure, rule by few. Though he cannot be blamed. Societies learned over time that was a terrible way to govern. I firmly believe, because of his openness to ideas, he would embrace the concept of a representative democracy, republic, in which the consent of the governed is required.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Education Paradox

What If She Walks In?

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I Forgive You

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

(This is part 3 of the series. You can read part 1 here and part 2 here).

In this conclusion to the series, freedom and justice are viewed quite differently, depending on who you’re asking. While these concepts seem axiomatic, as you are about to see, when viewed through the lens of the unconstrained and constrained visions, they appear to be very different Forms, as Plato might put it.

Freedom

In the unconstrained vision, individualism means to participate in the articulated decisions of collective entities while some with supreme wisdom possess exception from systemic or organized social restraints, like military service, or even laws.

Sowell articulated the constrained vision this way:

“Individualism means leaving the individual free to choose among the systematically generated opportunities, rewards, and penalties derived from other similarly free individuals without being subjected to articulated conclusions imposed by the power of organized entities such as government.”

According to the constrained vision, knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are derivations from the masses, and because so, the most an individual can expect is to be left free to choose among the various rewards and penalties emerging from systemic social processes without exemption from any of them.

Justice

Justice involves the attempt to change people’s motives, leaving incentives less important. This, according to the unconstrained vision, is an attempt towards a solution. Justice involves the mitigation of the breakdown of order. This, according to the constrained vision, is a trade-off because those in the constrained vision are aware of inherent human limitations.

To the unconstrained vision, justice is the conclusion of fairness and equality of results. Morality within justice is equal rights to the results. To the constrained vision, justice is the restriction on others to impede the process, making all processes equal. Morality within justice is equal rights to the process.

Conclusion

Both visions are concerned with social results. The limitations of man are at the heart of the theory of the constrained vision, while the potential of human nature is at the heart of the unconstrained vision.

The unconstrained vision seeks social results through collective decisions prescribing desired outcomes. The constrained vision believes it is beyond man’s capability to manage such vast knowledge and is dangerous to concentrate such power to make decisions, even if it were possible.

The unconstrained vision sees degrees of freedom as that which produce desired results. This is also true with justice through outcomes, power through control of one group over another, and equality being desired results having been achieved.

The constrained vision sees these entities quite differently. The characteristics of processes defined to restrict malevolent nature, whether it be freedom, justice, power, or equality, such processes have significance. A social process has freedom so far as it refrains from interfering with choices of individuals. A social process of justice ensures laws are just. A social process of equality means everyone abides by the same rules.

While results matter to the constrained vision, the general effectiveness of processes are the barometer for success and not measured by each individual result in isolation.

In the unconstrained vision, the moral and intellectual elite failing is preposterous and damning. To those with the constrained vision, failure is no surprise.

In the constrained vision, their adversaries are referred to as “well-meaning.” To the unconstrained vision, they are a “moral outrage.”

In the unconstrained vision, surrogate decision makers are best qualified to speak on our behalf. Such knowledge is consolidated. In the constrained vision, knowledge is inadequately possessed compared to knowledge systemically and collectively mobilized through free markets, values, and social processes. Thus the reason for restricting surrogate decisions makers’ power to rule over the discretion of others.

Thomas Sowell concluded his book by making this bold statement:

“While visions conflict, and arouse strong emotions in the process, merely ‘winning’ cannot be the ultimate goal of either the constrained or the unconstrained vision, however much that goal may preoccupy practical politicians. The moral impulse driving each vision cannot be jettisoned for the sake of winning, without making the victory meaningless.”

Sowell is calling for truth, compromise, and agreeing to disagree with the mass being represented in mind. Though there is a conflict of visions, there does not have to be a conflict of social prosperity.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Education Paradox

What If She Walks In?

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I Forgive You

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

(This is part 2 of the series. You can read part 1 here).

As with anything else, most desire thriving among those close to them. To arrive there, agreement is often hard to find among those with differing views on how to arrive. Here, we see how the constrained and unconstrained visions differ in their view on social processes, equality, and power.

Social Processes

In the unconstrained vision, changes in human nature are the scenery itself, rather than just the costume. And only sweeping changes are deemed appropriate for the future. In the constrained vision, changes in human history are differences in costumes. It is the same fractured nature replaying itself in various new ways.

In the unconstrained vision, Loyalty, promises, patriotism, gratitude, precedent, oaths of fidelity, constitutions, marriage, social traditions, and international treaties are constrictions imposed earlier when knowledge was less, on options to be exercised later, when knowledge will be greater. In the constrained vision, true government requires more skill and experience than any one person can possess.

Comparisons between the morally and intellectually superior to the average person are commonplace in the unconstrained vision. The most outstanding individuals, intellectually or morally, are inherently limited in their capacity for knowledge in the constrained vision.

In the unconstrained vision, human nature is a variable, and variables can change. Obstacles to progress are to be overcome by the commitment, intelligence, and imagination of those who have grasped the possibilities open to society. Understanding human nature’s limitations is foundational to the constrained vision. Those in the constrained vision see outcomes as a function of incentives presented to individuals and conditions under which they interact in response to those incentives.

Best results should be sought directly in the unconstrained vision. When there are equality of results among those who have contributed, abstained, and hampered production, it strikes offense to the equality of process among those with the constrained vision. If a foot race is conducted under fair conditions, the result each time does not define justice in the constrained vision.

In the unconstrained vision, human capabilities permit social decisions to be made collectively through the articulated rationality of surrogate decision makers. In the constrained vision, decisions are to be made collectively through a composite of the average many, rather than the elite few.

Equality

Attempts to equalize economic results leads to inequality in political power. Where achieving equal economic process limits centralized power because everyone must play by the same rules. Disagreement does not rely on degree of inequality, but what is to be equalized.

In the unconstrained vision, equality is achieved through results. Equality of opportunity means equalized probabilities of achieving given results. If the process given doesn’t produce equal results, then the process must be changed to maximize equal results for individuals. In the constrained vision, equality is achieved through process. As long as everyone is treated the same and operate under the same set of rules, the process is equal, resulting in equality having been achieved.

Those in the unconstrained vision believe some have little because others have much. There are finite resources. Those in the constrained vision believe consequences of decisions cause one to have little or much. Incentives drive this.

Equalizing material conditions of life are to be equalized under the influence of power of those with intellectual and moral superiority, according to the unconstrained vision. And according to the constrained vision, discretion is to be equally and individually exercised as often as possible under the boundaries of traditions and values derived from the widely shared experience of the many rather than special articulation of the few.

Power

To reduce the chances of war, in the eyes of the unconstrained vision, lean on the morally superior, communicate with enemies better, reduce arms seen as a threat to peace, and de-emphasize patriotism. To reduce the chances of war, in the eyes of the constrained vision, have military maximally prepared, promote patriotism, make adversaries aware of your military might, negotiate only when it can be done so without blackmail.

For crime, William Godwin said, “It is impossible that a man would perpetrate a crime in the moment when he sees it in all its enormity.” People are forced to commit crimes for specific reasons, poverty, discrimination, and unemployment. Therefore, reducing such reasons would reduce crime to those with the unconstrained vision. For crime, the constrained vision rests in the belief that it is axiomatic humans will be given to criminal nature.

In the unconstrained vision, power is to be seen as limited by intellectual elite through socially desirable results within man’s capabilities. In the constrained vision, power is to be seen as one reducing other’s options. It is not within man’s capabilities to monitor a myriad of individual results of behavior. Therefore, efforts must focus on restrictions of power, thereby restricting the ability of some to reduce other’s options.

Conclusion

Yet again, we see the pattern that both visions long for people among them to thrive in every possible avenue. The mechanisms of how and who decide distinguish the two visions.

For the next and last part, we will look a little closer at the ways in which the two visions disagree on freedom and justice.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Education Paradox

What If She Walks In?

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I Forgive You

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

I just completed arguably the best book I’ve ever read, excluding the Bible. In his book, Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell managed to lay out broadly, yet perfectly, two ways in which the world can be viewed. His impetus for writing such a book was based on a thought that plagued him; why can one predict that if someone holds one value, they will hold certain other values that are not, in any way, related? For instance, if one is pro-life, they are also pro-2A and border enforcement. Conversely, if one is anti-ICE, they are also pro-government programs, income redistribution, and socialist policies, like free healthcare. None of those things are related, barring a religious interpretation.

Once faced with this complexity, Sowell began diving in. The result was this amazing book. Sowell primarily referenced Adam Smith as an archetypal guide for the constrained vision and William Godwin as an archetypal guide for the unconstrained vision. The beauty of it may lie in the fact that no one purely resides in one vision. What we find is most people view the world mostly one way and see certain aspects of life in the view of the other vision, if they were being transparently honest. I am no exception.

Human Nature

The unconstrained vision is focused on solutions. The constrained vision is focused on trade-offs. In the unconstrained vision, solutions are achieved when trade-offs are no longer needed.

In the unconstrained vision, man’s understanding is capable of intentionally creating social benefits. In the constrained vision, morally and socially beneficial behaviors arrive from incentives.

Given the immeasurable (or unconstrained) possibilities in human nature, poverty, or other social ills, are a result of evil intentions or blindness to solutions readily available by changing institutions. Those with constrained visions are not trying to create the ideal, but to establish the best that the people can bear.

Believers in the unconstrained vision seek the causes of war, poverty, and crime. Believers in the constrained vision seek the causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society.

In the unconstrained vision, human nature can be changed and social customs and traditions are expendable holdovers from the past. Human nature is unchangeable over time in the constrained vision.

The unconstrained vision is concerned directly with results, irrespective of processes. The constrained vision is concerned with the process considered integral to desired results, but inevitably with unhappy side effects, which are accepted as trade-offs.

Summarized, a constrained vision holds that human desires exceed both personal and societal resources, and people will not voluntarily limit themselves to what society can provide. Therefore, external constraints, like prices, laws, traditions, and social pressures, are necessary to force individuals to live within real limits and reduce harm to others. These limitations apply universally, even to the wisest or most compassionate people. Only by recognizing that all humans are bound by such limits is the constrained vision complete.

Knowledge and Reason

The unconstrained vision believes knowledge is reserved for the special and elite few to serve as guides and instructors for those not blessed with above average intellect. The constrained vision believes knowledge is too vast and complex for explicit articulation. The process must travel through multiple channels, through the collection of the average many.

John Stuart Mill, through an unconstrained vision, viewed legal precedents as “an absurd sacrifice of present ends to antiquated means.” Unequal intellectual and moral standing would justify having equality imposed on others, regardless of their consent, and only “very unequal power would make it possible.” The constrained vision is less concerned with economic and social equality and more concerned with the dangers of inequality of power producing an articulate ruling elite.

A socially responsible businessman would hire the disadvantaged, invest in what is needed most by society, rather than profit, and turn proceeds over to charity in the unconstrained vision. In the constrained vision, The businessman’s competence in his particular field yields prosperity. Competition, rather than individual intentions, comprises the constrained vision and its reliance to produce social benefit.

In the unconstrained vision, the judge’s moral duty is to interpret or change the law as it fits society in the present, relinquishing the grip on the past and applying reason to the present. In the constrained vision, The judge’s moral duty is to faithfully carry out the law he was sworn to uphold, regardless of how he sees the outcome.

Conclusion

As you can see, both distinct visions share the same desired destination. Happiness and flourishing for all. The separation arrives at the mode of discretion (how the decisions are made) and the locus of discretion (who makes those decisions).

Next, we will look into the two visions and how they view Social Processes, Equality, Power.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

Testify to What?

Just a Spell Too Far

9/12/2001

The Nuclear Family We Stopped Defending

Father Are Coming Home

The distinction between collectivism and community is important. While they get conflated with each other, they’re not the same.

I recently had a couple in counseling who had hit the most common gridlock I see in couples. She says, “I feel invisible, unseen, not cherished” and he says, “No matter how much I do, it is never enough.” I asked them the last time they went on a date. They laughed and couldn’t remember. I laughed along with them in a mirroring technique helpful in counseling. But internally, I wasn’t laughing. My goal was to get fired, but for good reasons, they would no longer need me.

I asked why they hadn’t gone a date recently. They quickly named off reasons that are better described as excuses. The most prevalent was not having a babysitter. I began asking about their support group. They had no such group in their lives. They were “doing fine” on their own. I retorted, “So fine that you’re in here.” They laughed again, but it was less enthusiastic.

This couple had bought into rigid individualism, losing sight of the communal necessities affording us to live our best lives.

Individualism vs Collectivism

People often discuss the juxtaposition of collectivism vs. individualism. In the West, we typically prefer individualism. After all, it is how we became the greatest nation on earth. We fought for individual freedom, demanding the government get out of our business. We originally declared the federal government good for three purposes:

• National security

• Federal banking system (states would not play nice with their separate forms of money)

• Interstate regulation (making states play nice in all areas)

So it’s easy to see how we arrived at a place where we prefer individualism over collectivism. Our ancestors witnessed the group tyrannizing the common man, and when the commons man prevailed in the Revolutionary War, individualism built roots in our soil.

But I had recently been thinking on the ways in which collectivism gets some things right, and we as individualists, tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater (Ok, no one is throwing babies. It is just an old saying). While thinking on this issue, a fellow stacker, Pastor Ron brought up an interesting point. Maybe it’s community that the collectivists got right, and maybe community exists independently of collectivism.

The Distinction

When you really step back and look at collectivism, searching for the community aspects and how they are alike, yet how they differ, quite a few things stand out.

If you’re asking, “What is the best for the group?” and “How we can help each other flourish together?”— these are very different questions, particularly as it pertains to authority, agency, decision-making, autonomy, and individuation. For instance, view the distinction between the collective good vs the common good. The collective good will view and treat individuals as a means to achieve a larger social goal. The common good will recognize relationships bring out the best in individuals, while allowing agency to remain priority.

The aspects of coercion vs voluntary action, group-think vs autonomy, and even geographically remaining in close proximity vs individuation highlights distinctions between community and collectivism.

The History of Community vs Collectivism

• Alexis de Tocqueville argued that a free democracy was possible through voluntary associations like churches, neighborhoods, and local groups. He warned of the “Tyranny of the majority.”

• Robert Nisbet echoed sentiments of Tocqueville in that community consisted of aspects of voluntary participation in local groups. Nisbet believed that collectivism replaced such voluntary groups with centralized bureaucratic power.

• Pushing back on Rawlsian thinking, Michael Sandel posits that individuation is realized through social reciprocity, community, tradition, rather than existing in the form of an isolated individual. Sandel’s work is classified as communitarianism while still denouncing collectivism as viable.

• Maybe one of the more important voices on community is Robert Putnam, who writes that the erosion of community, like neighborhoods, church participation, and volunteer groups contribute to the moral decline we see today, while refusing to endorse collectivism, citing that that voluntary aspect of community is one of the core elements that make it efficacious. Putnam speaks of social capital, such as bowling leagues and churches, to find mutual aid and social reciprocity along all of its benefits, including belonging and various types of support when it is needed.

Lastly, Karl Marx was a collectivist. Enough said.

More Distinctions

Collectivism primarily focuses the interest of the group, while community focuses on mutual care, shared purpose, and the flourishing of individuals within the group. Often, social and psychological benefits commonly attributed to collectivist are actually products of good, healthy communal entities rather than prioritizing groups over all agency.

I’m firmly convinced that the protective effects often attributed to collectivist cultures can also be found in communal bonds through strong local communities, families, and churches without the requirement of coercion, loss of autonomy, or removal of individual purpose and meaning.

Conclusion

What it comes down to is, I simply don’t believe in being rigidly individual to the point of social isolation. This has been the residual effect of people unable to see benefit of communal entities like churches and support groups. They move to another town, know no one, and begin to struggle immensely with everyday household negotiation. This is because we weren’t meant to do this alone.

The phrase, “It takes a village” is needed, necessary, vital to survival and flourishing when maintaining a home, raising children, and helping our fellow neighbor in times of need. This does not require collectivist assimilation, only recognizing communal needs. My suggestion to the couple was to find community, and fast. They did. Life is better. Then they did what I always long for, they fired me.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

Just a Spell Too Far

9/12/2001

The Nuclear Family

Fathers Are Coming Home

Count Me Out

I absolutely love this song. Their performance is incredible. I have no problem with anyone, including gay people singing Christian music. This article is in response to a specific statement made by one of the singers of this song.

Spending my first 15 adult years in the music business in Nashville, I encountered many things I thought I’d never see. Of those remains to be the number of Christian music artists that were closeted homosexual. Keep in mind, to those of us in the industry, it wasn’t that closeted. On 16th and 17th Avenue in Nashville, they wore their identity without apology. But the instant they stepped beyond that sanctuary, they slipped into a disguise, pretending to be someone they weren’t.

Realities of the Music Industry

The reasons are clear. If the rest of the world, especially the Christian music listeners, were to learn of their favorite singer’s homosexuality, they would stop listening. This affects the financial bottom line. As a result, there was an unwritten code that artists were to keep their homosexuality on the down-low and everyone made money. If their homosexuality were to become common knowledge, sales would go down, managers would get less, publishers would get less, the artists would get less, there would be no tour. It’s financial ruin.

There has typically been the same unwritten code in country music. So when Ty Herndon was discovered by law enforcement committing a homosexual act in public, his label did their best to cover it up, minimize, and even alter the narrative surrounding the events. This couldn’t get out. But for different, yet similar, reasons. Those buying records were conservative, God-fearing, country boys and girls who did not want their favorite singer to be gay. Again, the fairness of this can be debated.

You could make the argument as to whether this is fair or not. For Christian singers, they adhere to what the Bible says. For country music, the clientele buys the records. If they don’t buy, you don’t have a job. In both cases, it was mostly economic.

New Take On an Old Song

Insert the new single by Ty Herndon, Michael Passons, and Melissa Greene. The song, “Testify to Love”, is a cover from the Chrisitan group Avalon, of whom Michael was a member of at one time. Michael left the group in 2003, citing other opportunities. Then in 2020, Passons came out as gay, recanting that leaving the group was involuntary due to his sexual orientation.

When the song comes out (no pun intended), it quickly becomes a hit. The initial reason is clear, they are amazing vocalists. Quickly, this begins to stir the airwaves, claiming this is “the first hit by an openly gay Christian artist.” For this reason, they received criticism.

Melissa Greene and Michael Passons took another step. Their claim was that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people.” This is the statement that got my attention.

Exploitation vs. Good Business

By their statement, they are saying that there were/are many gay people in Christian music and that it was exploitative to demand they keep this knowledge a secret. There are a few problems with this thought.

First, if they are going to go by the Bible, they should not be engaged in a homosexual relationship. They have abandoned that reality. Now, they choose to sing in the Christian music industry. It’s worth nothing that many in Nashville believe some people enter the Christian music industry because they can’t get signed in Country or Pop. Essentially, that’s unfair. However, there have been many cases where that was the clear truth.

Therefore, they should know that if they don’t abide by the rules of the industry, they will not have a job. This is no different than the Dixie Chicks debacle. In 2003, The lead singer, Natalie Maines, said she was “ashamed that the President of the United States was from Texas.” Outrage ensued. People were literally burning their records, t-shirts, and pictures. Their tour sales suffered greatly. They virtually tanked, dissolved, and were ostracized by the entire industry. But why? Because their clientele were the ones buying the records and going to the shows. And their clientele didn’t want to hear disrespectful things about their president. It’s free market capitalism 101.

This is why the statement by Greene and Passons that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people”, hasn’t landed well. If it were to get out that a Christian singer was gay, that group would no longer have a career.

The other problem is this remake has usurped the meaning, slapped a concept creep on it, and decided they know what’s best, rather than the God they so lovingly sing about knowing what’s best.

True Meaning Behind the Song

If the song is to champion the idea that God loves gay people and you should too, then I’m totally on board with this. The message Jesus taught wasn’t a heterosexual or homosexual message, it was a God message. “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35). In that context, I will testify to love too. Because in testifying to love, I’m testifying to God.

If they are attempting to make the claim that God is perfectly accepting and happy that they are engaged in homosexual relationships, this would be directly against what God has said, and those in the industry knew that, thus the request for secrecy. In that context, I would ask, what is love? If God is love, then the literal translation of the song is, “I will testify to God.” And if we’re doing that, we are asking for grace, mercy, and forgiveness for missing the mark, and noting that homosexuality would be considered missing the mark.

There was no exploitation. There was a business model. And in order to have a career in Christian music, that model needed to be followed. One would either need to find a different path, or “deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). But expecting an entire industry to bow to your ill-informed opinion of what the text of the Bible says about homosexuality isn’t reasonable.

There will be a follow up about homosexuals in the church, and it will not be easy to read if you’re a Christian. I’m taking the gloves off for that one. For now…

Stay Classy GP (God’s People)!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

9/12/2001

The Nuclear Family

Fathers Are Coming Home

Count Me Out

What Identity is Not

Should a pastor be throwing hands? What do we expect of him? Is he allowed to be human? How far is too far? All questions I searched to answer.

When I was a kid, I remember grandfathers and uncles saying, “That dog was gone for a spell.” As a young child, I had no idea what they meant by that. After a while, I learned. A “spell” meant a significant amount of time. So, by that logic, I’ve been writing for a spell.

Recently, my social media feed was inundated with a pastor named Tony Spell who gave a young man a beatdown. I mean, he laid hands on him. As the story goes, the young man repeatedly antagonized the pastor by stating, according to Spell, when Spell leaves his house, the young man is going to rape his wife and children. After many occurrences of this nature, the pastor had enough. He approached the young man to address the situation verbally when the young man took a swing at Spell. The pastor promptly defended himself by swinging back. If that were the end of the story, there would be no article written.

As it turns out, the pastor, after engaging the young provocateur, beat the young man to the ground. Once on the ground, the young man curled up into the fetal position to protect his head from the beatdown he was receiving. From this point, the pastor continued to lay his hands on him, several times.

As you can imagine, this made national headlines. But for the wrong reasons. The repeated issues were:

• Was the pastor using self-defense?

• Should a pastor be fighting at all?

• Did he go too far in the fight?

• Was he being prideful and arrogant?

Self-defense

First, was he entitled to defend himself? Absolutely. Was he justified in defending the honor of his family and sending the message that words have consequences? I believe so. The fact that this pastor gave this big-mouthed kid a beating he’ll likely never forget didn’t bother me at all. Chances are, that kid has never been told “no.” He’s never been smacked in the back of the head with a flip-flop, and it shows. This kid clearly hasn’t learned the reality of consequences. It’s likely his father shielded him from consequences, thinking that was right path in fatherhood. Most know, this is far from the truth. If they don’t learn consequences at home, they will learn them in a much harsher fashion out in the real world.

Meekness

Then there are those that simply don’t like the idea of a pastor swinging at all. I take issue with this. First, this pastor is no Jesus. To expect him to be is quite unreasonable. He is a human with a family. He defended he and his family. He let the social media fame go to his head. But he is still a human being. He has every right, within both the law and biblical precedent to defend himself and mitigate any future altercations by sending a clear message.

At the end of the day, this pastor is allowed to defend himself. But make no mistake, meekness is strength under control. It’s the power to choose restraint, when necessary. There’s nothing weak about being meek. They merely rhyme. That’s the end of their commonality.

Too Far?

The young man was in submission. He was in the fetal position. This is universally recognized as a position of surrender. Beyond this point, the pastor continued to pummel the young man. This leaves the arena of “coming in with a whip”, as many chose to cite from the Bible concerning Jesus clearing the temple. This traveled into the arena of taking out his unresolved cumulative anger on the young man in front of him. This left righteous anger and dove headfirst into the sin of anger. They are not the same. There simply was nothing constructive about continuing the batter the young man after he’d been defeated, other than to release some bottled-up emotion. Did the pastor take it too far? I believe he did.

Pride Before Fall

Following the initial event, the father of this young man called the police to protest the pastor mowing the yard of the church at 4AM. The officer informed the angry neighbor that no one has the right to tell a man when he can mow his yard. The officer also stated that the cars driving by were louder than the mower. It was clear this was personal. This had very little to do with a mower or the time of morning. This was war.

The officer went to the pastor and stated that he was simply responding to a noise complaint. When the officer asked for his name, his response was, “Everyone in the world knows my name. What do you need?” This is reminiscent of Zsa Zsa Gabor slapping a police officer after being pulled over in 1989, or Reese Witherspoon telling an officer in 2013, “Don’t you know who I am? Well, you’re about to find out who I am.” The problem here is, this pastor is not Reese Witherspoon, and even if he was, the arrogance was off-putting when Witherspoon said it, and comical when the pastor said it. Again, he crossed into the realm of arrogance. And pride always comes before a fall.

Conclusion

He’s a man. He defended himself. However, his unmanaged rage and arrogance need addressing if he plans to truly successfully shepherd God’s local flock. He simply took it a Spell too far. And for that, he has God to answer to. Yet make no mistake, pastors are absolutely within their biblical and legal right to lay hands on someone in defense. Some of these pastors are country boys. So you may not want to let your ego write a check your body can’t cash.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

The Nuclear Family: The Standard We Stopped Defending

Father Are Coming Home

Count Me Out

What Identity Is Not

What Forgiveness is Not

This is an excerpt from my first book, “America’s Greatest Threat: America.” I’ve updated it to fit more appropriately into today’s zeitgeist.

I grew up an LSU fan and a New Orleans Saints fan. They were my teams. Even when the Saints were bad, they were my team. I pulled for them when they were bad, terrible, when players got in trouble. It didn’t matter. I pulled for them every Sunday.

When they were wearing bags on their heads, I was pulling for them. Unfortunately, we’ve decided as a nation to join a fan club of one of two teams, Donkey or Elephant, and love them no matter what…except they truly do not care about you, only your vote. And it’s not a football game, it’s life.

Let’s play our own game. I’ll give you four quotes. Then I’ll give you four political leaders. You match them up without using any help, such as google or AI. Then see if you’re correct. You will see the answers at the end, so don’t cheat. Give it your best shot. Think about what you think each leader has said and guess accordingly.

Read on to see how you did.

Over time, our society has grown into this dark, blinded place where we accept anything and everything that is delivered by our team, regardless of factual efficacy. We just accept it. We gravitate towards the emotion of anger and betrayal long before the emotion of love and understanding. Here’s a smoother and more compelling rewrite:

We’ve somehow forgotten that we’re Americans first. Too often, we lose sight of the basic decency and goodwill that exists in most of our fellow citizens.

Part of the problem is that the media is built to highlight the extremes, because conflict, outrage, and division make headlines. Ordinary people treating each other with respect, helping their neighbors, or having thoughtful civil discussion simply isn’t considered newsworthy. As a result, we’re constantly shown the exceptions instead of the rule, and it distorts how we see one another.

The story of the catholic schoolboys and the Native American is a perfect example. The first story that hits is that the boys are taunting and antagonizing the Indian gentleman, Nathan Stanard-also known as Phillips (I choose to call him by the name he used to enlist into the military). Everyone on the elephant team says, “He did nothing wrong!” Everyone on the donkey team says, “Punch that smirk off his face!”

One story, from one camera and one very unreliable news source comes out. No one knows the facts yet, but their team is under attack. Then the facts come out. Turns out, Mr. Stanard was first attempting to get between the Black Hebrew Israelites and the boys. He then began walking towards the kids and began beating the drum in the face of one of the boys. When that particular boy wouldn’t move out of the way of Mr. Stanard, the incident took form. We now know that there were no ill words spoken by any of the boys. None spoken by Mr. Stanard either. Only the foul language and hate-filled words by the BHI, who appeared nowhere in the first version of the story. We also now know that Mr. Stanard was NOT a Vietnam War veteran as was originally claimed.

So now with all the facts, we should be able to properly assess what went right and what went wrong. But there are two huge problems.

1. The first problem is that we ran to judgment in the first place without researching facts. That’s the biggest problem we face as a nation. Delivering opinions soaked in vitriol without even knowing what the facts are. Someone attacked our team so we must defend. We’ve subscribed to the notion that our team is right, regardless of the facts. That’s a GINORMOUS problem!

2. The second problem could be viewed as worse. After the facts come out, we either ignore them or we’re so angry from what we first believed that we continue to spew hate towards “the other team” anyway. Facts are just that. Facts. They don’t have emotions tied to them. We cannot simply ignore the facts in order to justify our feelings about something.

This is a problem on BOTH sides. Neither is better than the other. As a self-proclaimed Republicratitarian (yes that’s a combination of 3 political parties), I’m urging you towards a revolution. One that requires you to be honest with the facts. If you are typically conservative, then don’t give Trump or Fox News a pass when they report stupid ideology just because they represent your team. Don’t give conservative leaders and commentaries a free pass when they are wrong. If they are wrong, then they should be called wrong. If you are typically liberal, then call the liberal leaders out when they are wrong. Don’t give Maxine Waters a free pass when she’s clearly inciting violence.

My request is that we stop blindly following a team and start looking at our fellow Americans as Americans and not just on a team. Start calling foolish rhetoric foolish, regardless of which team it came from.

One thing I’ve learned about all of this over time is that, if we really step back and look, we all want the same thing. We simply have different fundamental ideas of how to get there. Some think the government is the answer, some don’t. Some think all religions should be allowed. Some think none should be allowed. Some believe more laws are the answer to certain problems, some don’t. But what we all want is usually fundamentally the same. A thriving, peaceful country where people take care of each other and flourish in a healthy economy. No one would argue that. But we seem to argue how to get there as if someone slapped our child in the face. It’s just policies. Some work. Some don’t. It’s ok to disagree.

Civilly agreeing to disagree… It’s possible to get back to that, but it’s going to take work… starting with the man in the mirror. What would that look like?

Remember the day after 9/11? Remember how there were no Republicans, Democrats, LGBTQ, Pretty people, ugly people, rich people, poor people…NONE of that existed on 9/11. We were defined by one thing that day. We were ALL AMERICANS. Nothing more and definitely nothing less.

On 9/12/01, the entire country came together. People were hugging strangers at random. There were virtually no fights on subways. Random acts of kindness were rampant that day. Churches that Sunday were overfilled everywhere. No one cared who won in football. The only thing that mattered was that we were Americans and that we were not going to let this tear us down as a nation. We were going to stand together no matter which team you were on. We were Americans and Americans don’t back down.

I’m fully convinced that if you knew how little your team leaders thought about your actual well-being, you’d be less inclined to just follow what they say and defend them without facts.

Leave your current team and go home, look at your family and choose to protect and love the only team that matters. Now, let’s see how you did…

How did your team do?

Two of those leaders are known as eloquent speakers (Obama and Reagan) and two are known for bizarre rhetoric (Pelosi and Trump). You just never know.

As we celebrate our Nation’s 250th anniversary of cessation from Great Britain, let’s try to remember that we are Americans. Let everything else fall where it may.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

What Identity is Not

Capitalism Didn’t Create Human Nature

What Forgiveness is Not

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Education Paradox

In Tennessee, the Governor declared June “Tennessee Nuclear Family Month.” Immediately, the boo-birds came out. To an extent, I understand why. The nuclear family appears to be dissipating before our eyes.

More and more people every year do not raise their children in such environments. Therefore, when you raise the question of what is the ideal way to raise children, the answer is usually, “The way I’m doing it right now!”

• In 1960s, the prevalence of the nuclear family was around 73% of households

• In 1980s, the prevalence of the nuclear family was around 61% of households

• In 2020s, the prevalence of the nuclear family has been around 46% of households

Moreover…

• In 1970, 67% lived with a spouse and at least one child under 18.

• By 2023, that number had fallen to 37%.

As controversial of a question it is to consider the nuclear family ideal, the only real question should be an empirical one.

First, this is not meant to hurt anyone, make anyone feel inferior, or suggest that families and children can’t recover from being raised in a disrupted family home structure. My own children were not raised in a nuclear family. Therefore, that is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article has two missions:

1. To set the standard by which we should all aspire.

2. Debunk the idea that the nuclear family is no better than the other family systems

Research

• One major study concluded that children not living with both biological parents fared worse than others across domains such as psychological well-being, education, health, and carrying into adult outcomes like employment longevity and family formation.1

• Researchers at Ohio State University conducted research that was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.2 In this study, they looked at six different family formations. They found that academically, non-disrupted stepparent homes performed better than non-disrupted single parent homes. They also found that non-disrupted two biological parent homes outperformed all disrupted household types in every category.²

Therefore, it is statistically proven that the best possible environment for a child to be raised is in a non-disrupted two-biological parent home. This is the goal to attain. The standard to measure society against. And yet another study came to the same conclusion:

• In another study, they showed measurements of higher emotional and behavior problems as well as chronic disease and overall physical issues among those in single parent homes as compared to two-parent homes.3

• Another study discovered that the only scientifically proven conclusion that has been reached on raising children is that children who are raised by their two biological parents are given the best possible opportunity to achieve the healthiest developmental outcomes.4

This does not state a guarantee of sorts, just that they have the highest chance for the healthiest developmental outcomes. They also concluded that there is zero evidence supporting the claim that there is no difference in the developmental outcomes of children from same-sex parents or two biological parents.

Children from nuclear families show higher academic achievement compared to single-parent homes and blended families. Again, my children grew up in a blended family.

One group, after looking across 39 studies, found children from nuclear families had superior outcomes in emotional well-being, psychological well-being, behavioral outcomes, parent-child relationships, physical health, academic performance, and cognitive ability.6

Conclusion

Economic resources matter. Community conditions matter. Parenting quality matters. But family structure matters as well because it sets the course for outcomes in various domains.

None of this should be interpreted as condemnation of single parents or divorced families. Many are making extraordinary sacrifices under difficult circumstances. Rather, the evidence points toward a practical conclusion. Whenever possible, children benefit from stable family environments that preserve strong relationships with two biological parents.

In a culture that is driven by ideology, rewards immorality, and celebrates dysfunction to the tune of “Misery Loves Company”, this empirical insight paints a clear picture that evidence matters when it comes to our children. And the evidence says children are better off in a non-disrupted two-biological parent home than any alternative available.

This won’t fit the cultural narrative, some won’t like the conclusion, and many will begin to dissuade the findings here with tactics explained with precision in Thomas Sowell’s book, “The Vision of the Anointed.” But the facts point in one direction. And so should we.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

What Identity is Not

Capitalism Didn’t Create Human Nature

What Forgiveness is Not

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Education Paradox

To the fathers out there, we see you, and we’re seeing more of you!

Every year around this time, pastors all over the country walk up to the pulpit and deliver a scathing state of the union address concerning current fatherlessness in America. And rightfully so. Men get dressed up, sit next to their wife (who just four short weeks ago was being praised for holding the world together) and get the tongue-lashing society believes they deserve. For a while, it seemed to make sense why. Fathers had checked out. But there was a reason. They were asked to leave.

History of Fatherlessness

Following President Johnson’s overreaction to the Moynihan Report, single mothers were incentivized to remain single, or at least without a man in the home. Prior to this great degenerative incentivization, 5% of white babies were born to single mothers and 22% of black babies were born to single mothers. By 2020, both numbers more than tripled, showing that this policy did not affect one race more than another. It was equal opportunity disaster.

The Greeting Card Experiment

Author Gary Smalley wrote in his book, “Making Love Last Forever” about an event that took place in prisons. There was a lady who volunteered at the local prison who wanted to help prisoners reconnect with family. She requested donations of greeting cards from a card company and they agreed. When Mother’s Day came, she brought them out to give away to the prisoners. They went so fast that not everyone was able to get one. So she ordered more.

Following such success, she decided to do the same for Father’s Day. She collected her cards, set them up, and anxiously awaited. The smile slowly turned to disappointment on the volunteer’s face. Not one single prisoner came to get a free father’s day card.

The message: Human beings are formed as much by what is missing as by what is present. The void left by absent fathers became an unfortunate formation in the lives of many of these men, and it is willful blindness to ignore the possibility that the same absence helped chart the course that eventually led them to incarceration.

Historically, fathers have a pretty poor track record. During the 1960s, roughly 88% of children lived with two parents. By the 1980s, that figure decreased to around 77%. By the late 1990s, that number had, yet again, decreased to around 69%.

How the Turn Tables

Somewhere around the turn of the century, people looked around and decided to invite men back into their homes. In some cases, men began to fight for the right to see their children after being separated from them against their will. Whatever the method, the tide was turning. Before you knew it, men were showing up to all their kids’ practices and games. Men were spending more time with the family and began requesting less work hours. They were becoming more likely to share in caregiving and see themselves as more than financial provision, but an integral part of their children’s development, as well as finding joy in their marriage.

I had a good father, so I never desired to be anything except a great father. I didn’t quite achieve that, but I tried. I was always thinking about my children and what I could do to both love them where they are and also urge them towards what they could become. My suspicion is this isn’t uncommon.

The Good News

Here is where the good news comes in. Since the early 2000s, those numbers of fathers in the home have increased, steadily. See for yourself:

But the greatest increase comes from the black father. Where there was a 6% increase in overall fathers, there’s an almost 13% increase in black fathers in the home. There are more black fathers in the home than in 1980. And there have been for 10 years! See for yourself:

Conclusion

So, on Father’s Day, while there will likely be a large number of pastors pointing their finger at men and smiling at women, I will be thanking the fathers for doing their part.

You, sir, are being saluted. The numbers are in! And more fathers in the last 45 years are taking their rightful place in the home and being the man the moment demands. Do we have work to do? Yes. The struggle isn’t over. But the numbers show that with each passing year, more men are choosing their family over their selfish ambition. And that’s worth celebrating. Happy Father’s Day Gents!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

There’s a story out there that a young black adolescent male was with his teammates under a tent at a track meet when a white adolescent male walks into their tent, something you simply don’t do at track meets. The white kid was asked to leave by everyone there. He refused and began antagonizing the black kid. The black kid eventually gave into the threats and pushed the white kid. The white kid then stabbed the black kid to death.

Wait… Sorry. I got the races backwards. How did you feel reading that? Did that piss you off? Did it make you angrier when the races reversed, or no different?

I had no intention weighing in on this case because it seemed quite simple if looking through human lenses. When looking through colored lenses, you’ll only see the color of your lens. If your wall is white and you put on blue lens glasses, the wall looks blue, but it’s not. It’s still white. Therefore, you’re viewing a false reality.

This is in response to an article written concerning the newest rage bait over lack of accountability, culture of violence, response matching the infraction, and insisting on viewing everything through a racial lens. It just doesn’t have good outcomes in life.

The writer of this piece, among many others like her, simply can’t see the world unless they’re looking through the false reality of a colored lens. It’s disheartening because I thought we were better than this as the human race. But apparently, in criminology, the human race takes a back seat to other races.

This writer is #17 in culture on Substack. Apparently what culture readers are in search for are:

• Comparisons between apples and oranges.

• For everything to be seen through a colored lens.

• Emotionality trumps social adherence to rules of engagement for all mankind.

“You, sir, told us that Austin learned early how to hold a weapon, how to aim, how to take down a living thing, how to be proud of the kill, how to have that moment folded into the mythology of father and son. This tells us something about the values and emotional curriculum being cultivated around him and about what kind of white masculinity was being celebrated.”

First, what is “white masculinity?” Next, he apparently learned a lot about weapons, including when to not have one on your person. Part of learning weapons is learning to be responsible with them. Which Austin apparently learned and Melo did not.

“YOU failed to teach your boy that Black children have boundaries. YOU failed teach humility, restraint, or the sacred fact that another person’s body is not your jurisdiction.”

Are we still talking to Austin here? Because it sounds like something that needs to be said to Melo’s dad. And did she really just say Austin wasn’t taught boundaries… about a man who violated the ultimate boundary?

The Reality of Boys

Boys are born with innate aggression. Aggression by itself is not bad. Boys are also status seekers. They are hierarchical. This is what boys do. Every single day a boy pushes another boy and doesn’t get stabbed to death in return. There is simply no chance that you can justify one push deserving a knife to the heart in return. They’re simply not the same. A push has one consequence. Stabbing has another. This is a reality as old as time.

Justification as Tribalism

Attempting to justify this is tribalistic and racist at its very core. It’s the attitude that justifies rioting, looting, and violent revenge as necessary means to make right what was wrong. Think to yourself, reverse the races, do you feel the exact same way? I do. A push doesn’t deserve a stabbing death. Period. Regardless of your race.

Apparently, this is what Substack culture readers desire, emotions over fact, tribalism to a fault, and the dissolution of societal standards as long as my team is in peril.

Count me out. I want nothing to do with being popular if that’s what it takes to be popular.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Educational Paradox

What If She Walks In

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

I recently wrote about what forgiveness is not. We talk a lot about identity. It is helpful to know what identity is not so we can discover what identity is. We often confuse many aspects of our lives with identity, when in reality, they’re not identity at all.

Identity Is Not Your Vocation

Vocation is an assignment, not an identity. A job can change overnight. Careers rise and fall. A title may impress people for a season, but titles are temporary. If your sense of self is rooted in what you do, then failure, retirement, unemployment, or success itself can destabilize you. Many people lose themselves because they built their identity around productivity rather than personhood. Work matters, but work is a tool, not the foundation of the self. Your vocation is meant to express something deeper already established within you. It serves your identity, not create it. You are not a teacher, writer, pastor, mechanic, or executive first. Those are functions.

Vocation is what you do, not who you are.

Identity is Not Your Belief System

Beliefs are important, but beliefs are still capable of change. Rigidity of beliefs hinder. Human beings grow through correction, learning, suffering, and experience. It’s the stretching that produces positive change. Such malleability fluctuates. A person may hold one worldview at 20 years old and another at age 40. If identity is fused completely to a belief system, then every challenge to those beliefs feels like a threat to agency itself. That elicits a defensive and fearful reaction coupled with intellectual rigidity. Proper growth requires the ability to change without losing yourself. Truth should refine us, not destroy us. A mature person allows better information to reshape flawed understanding while remaining grounded in something deeper than opinion. Identity is deeper than opinion, beliefs are not. Beliefs should serve identity, not become identity. Your beliefs can evolve while your core self remains steady, rooted, stable, and anchored beyond shifting ideas and perspectives.

Beliefs are what you hold, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Who You Marry

Marriage is sacred and meaningful, but it is still a relationship between two changing human beings. People grow, drift, mature, fail, and sometimes leave. Death itself inevitably culminates in separation of marriage. If your identity depends entirely upon another person remaining beside you, then your foundation is fragile. Many people lose themselves inside relationships because they confuse companionship with identity. A spouse is meant to walk with you, not define your existence. Marriage can enrich life, strengthen character, and deepen love, but it cannot bear the full scope of your identity. Your value existed before marriage and remains after loss.

A spouse helps you navigate, they’re not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Being a Parent

Parenthood is one of the most meaningful responsibilities a person can experience, but yet again, a role rather than identity. Children grow older, move away, develop independence, and eventually build lives of their own. Genesis 2:24 discusses leaving one’s mother and father to join to a spouse. They will leave eventually. Some parents lose themselves (and their marriage) because their entire sense of worth becomes attached to their children’s success, affection, or need for them. When that season changes, they feel empty and disoriented. Parenting should flow from identity, not replace it. A healthy parent guides, nurtures, disciplines, and loves from a stable center rather than using children to create personal meaning. Your existence does not begin with your children, nor does it end when they leave home.

Parenting is what you do, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Your Political Affiliation

Political systems change constantly. Parties evolve, ideologies shift, leaders disappoint, and cultural movements rise and fall. When identity becomes fused with politics, disagreement begins to feel personal and opposing views feel like attacks on internal agency. This produces hostility, tribalism, pride, and even fear. A political affiliation may reflect values or priorities, but it cannot define the eternal nature of a person. Human beings are deeper than voting patterns or ideological categories. If your identity rests in politics, then every election becomes an emotional crisis and every shift in culture threatens stability. Politics should remain a tool for engaging society rather than the foundation of self.

Politics is a malleable mechanism for interacting with broader society, not who you are.

Your Identity Comprises Your Past, Present, and Future Self

True identity must remain consistent across time. If something can disappear, change, or be taken away, then it cannot be the deepest definition of who you are. Identity is the thread connecting your past, present, and future self into one continuous reality. Careers change, beliefs mature, relationships shift, and societal expectations and affiliations evolve, but identity remains stable beneath each movement. This understanding creates humility and flexibility because the ego no longer depends on always being correct. New information does not threaten existence, it simply refines understanding. A secure identity allows growth without collapse. We can admit error, abandon false ideas, and become wiser versions of ourselves because our core self is not built upon temporary external realities that constantly shift and change.

My Identity

This is not aimed to proselytize, only to share my sense of identity. My identity is that I am a child of God the Father. While you may ascertain this as a belief, a belief about ultimate reality is different from ideological attachment because it concerns ontology rather than opinion. I’m not arguing against convictions. I’m arguing against grounding the self in temporary or contingent things that possess the capacity to remove the ground from under us. Therefore, my identity rests in an immovable and unchangeable target.

This is the foundation beneath every other part of my life. I cannot be the ultimate reality in my life. I must gaze, with focus, on the ineffable telos. It’s in that upward aim that I can relinquish the need for being perfect, yet aim for such perfection, given that it only makes my life better. Because of such aim, as life flows, my identity remains untouched. It existed in my past, stands firm in my present, and extends into my future.

Consequently, I do not need temporary things to define me. Anything I do serves the purpose of being a child of the living God. My marriage serves that purpose. My children, convictions, relationships, and responsibilities all flow from that singular reality. This identity cannot be threatened by change because it is rooted beyond circumstance. Everything else in life is secondary and exists to support that eternal truth.

This is how we avoid identity crises. By rooting them in an eternal, unmoved, mover.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

What Forgiveness is Not

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Educational Paradox

What If She Walks In

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I stumbled on an article that I won’t link because I don’t want him digitally doxed. But the summation of his piece was that couples’ issues and the rise of Mankeeping as a burden is because of capitalism’s insistence on very different definitions of normal workloads for male and female.

Here we are again, telling the same, tired story. If you’re exhausted reading about it, imagine being the one who feels the need to write about it. Oh well, here I am writing anyway. There still exists individuals who insist on blame-shifting and placing total causation on one entity for the issues that plague men, as if that one aspect of male plight will solve all social ills. News flash, there is no single solution, because there is no single problem. The problem varies, as do the solutions.

Excerpts

“I think the biggest factor behind Mankeeping is capitalism’s gendered division of labor. That’s where our so-called traditional ideas about what’s natural about men and women come from.”

So-called? So, thousands of years of evolutionary psychology means nothing? Studies on gender preferences being biological mean nothing?

Let’s take a look at such meaninglessness:

Biology determines much of what we like, do, and pursue. But we don’t want to let facts get in the way of a good heart-string story.

Another excerpt:

“Women were told that they’re naturally caring, relational, soft, and feminine. Men were told that we’re naturally stoic, tough, action-oriented, competitive, and masculine. These ideas were aimed at putting women in their place: in the home.”

I’m struggling to see the connection between stating biological fact and an attempt at control. But let’s review the data:

Maybe, just maybe, this is why women were told this. Because it is verifiably, biologically and psychologically true.

He Turns to Marx

Where it seemed to take a comical turn was when the writer was criticized for tying capitalism to relational strain. He then said that he uses Marx’s original definition of capitalism and then adds a modern Marxist Feminist’s assessment to complete his formulation.

I… I don’t even know what to say. Like… speechless. Ok, maybe not totally.

The argument isn’t rational, coherent, linear in any way. His ideas don’t even connect to one another. The closest his argument came to some form of actual reality was the unfounded fear porn of “returning to gender norms.” But even then, evolutionary psychology debunks that along with half of his article. I’ve still yet to encounter a man who wishes to return to the norms of yesteryear that place men psychologically and physically abusing women.

When I see a great writer drink ideological Kool-Aid without attempting to do his own research, it doesn’t anger me. It saddens me. This writer has talent.

But he has been told that if he feels it, it’s true. I could give 25 examples in 15 seconds that would completely debunk that notion.

Anti-capitalists fail to recognize that they’re enjoying the right to be misinformed with great confidence because some capitalist created that possibility. No socialist did it. A socialist would have already been tyrannized by his own promises. The very system he would have been supporting would have ensured he, along with everyone else under the systemic corruptive power machine were equal— equally poor and miserable.

But here, a very talented writer is almost babbling. The argument is so incoherent. I wanted to get excited about a new or different viewpoint. Instead, I was left with the fairy tale style utopian delusion that permeates the feeling > fact crowd.

I’m sorry to burst bubbles, but no economic system, nor a vile, malevolent way of viewing successful people are to blame for couple’s issues. The couple is.

We’ll get a lot further talking about a lack of third spaces than shifting blame to an inanimate economic structure. More on that in a later post. For now…

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Archer, J. (2004). Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899

Feingold A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

Herlitz, A., Hönig, I., Hedebrant, K., & Asperholm, M. (2025). A systematic review and new analyses of the gender-equality paradox. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(3), 503–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231202685

Kuhn, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2022). Things versus people: Gender differences in vocational interests and in occupational preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 203(203), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.09.003

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719

Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and Things, Women and People. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364

Weisberg, Y. J., Deyoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Educational Paradox

What If She Walks In

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

If you know anything about me, you know I talk often about forgiveness and its benefits. There are many studies detailing the physiological benefits of forgiveness. I cover some of it in this article…

Recently, after writing about what forgiveness looks like, I received some feedback regarding what forgiveness is not. I collected my thoughts on the validity of this idea, and this is what landed.

Forgiveness is Not Restoration

Restoration is the reunification of two people. Someone does you wrong, you want to forgive them and reignite friendship with each other. This requires both parties’ consent. Forgiveness can be involved in this transaction, but restoration is not required for forgiveness. Forgiveness only requires one person. That’s because unforgiveness only affects one. We should not feel obligated to restore to someone while forgiving them..

Forgiveness is Not Transforming Into a Doormat

Forgiveness does not give the offender the right to inflict further abuse. He slips up one night and after too many beers, he smacks her. He is visibly upset and remorseful. He apologizes. She says she forgives him. He thinks, “Good, then I can do it again.” Absolutely not. Forgiveness is not a license to continue damage. One can forgive, standing strong in their conviction that they have done nothing wrong and will not stand for such calamity any longer.

Forgiveness is Not Manipulation

Forgiveness cannot be coerced. It must be voluntary. Often, a child is the target of physical or verbal abuse and the parent cries and asks for forgiveness. When the parent commits such an action later, they remind the child, “You forgave me, remember? So you have to forgive me again!” This is nothing short of manipulation. Remember, restoration and forgiveness are not the same. Yes, you could forgive the parent again, but you will feel much less inclined to restore that relationship. This maneuver also involves a bit of vulnerable narcissism (different from grandiose narcissism).

In vulnerable narcissism, the subject must be the center of attention, and in order to get this attention, they draw attention to the negativity in their life. Even (and especially) if they are the instigators of such dysfunction. This is what some parents do.

Forgiveness Doesn’t Justify the Infraction

Erica Kirk publicly forgave her husband’s killer. This does not make the murder acceptable. There still remains consequence. Moses needed forgiveness from God for placing himself too high on the spiritual ladder. God forgave, but Moses did not enter the promised land.

• Justice = getting what you deserve

• Mercy = not getting what you deserve

• Grace = getting what you don’t deserve

True forgiveness typically stems from the recognition of grace extended to me, through mercy, while remaining entangled in the justice I invited.

Forgiveness is Not Forgetting

The idea to “forgive and forget” is absolute nonsense; not tangible, reasonable or, in many cases, possible. Forgetting may seem insurmountable, but the sting doesn’t have to linger. How does one remove the sting? By shaping the mindset from “you did this to me so I hope you get what you deserve” to “I feel sad for you and what your decisions have cost you.” It’s seeing the humanity in people. Remember, victims perpetrate, survivors heal. Victims say, “Now it’s your turn to get what you deserve.” Survivors say, “I hope you get the help you need. But I forgive you.”

Keep in mind there is an amount of determinism involved in certain malevolent actions. They got here through a series of events they had no control over, leading them to make decisions that were mostly in their control, but heavily influenced by what they could not control.

Example: A young man doesn’t have a father. Mother is an addict. Raises himself. Gets connected with people who are addicts and in gangs. His grandfather was also an addict and stayed in trouble. And his grandfather’s father was in and out of prison. This young man literally has no example of what normality or proper functioning looks like. One could even include the man that had parents in the home but threw money at their son so he’d go away. He wasn’t parented. He doesn’t have an example of how to act either. So he turns to nature’s way, which is hungry for acceptance through power, greed, and tyranny.

Forgiveness is Not Emotional Numbness

Some people believe forgiveness means becoming unaffected by what happened. It does not. Forgiveness is not the absence of pain, anger, grief, or disappointment. In fact, attempting to forgive too quickly often results in emotional suppression rather than genuine healing. A person says, “I’m over it,” while resentment quietly festers underneath the surface. Avoidance helps no one and paralyzes the progress of forgiveness.

Healthy forgiveness allows room for emotion. Jesus wept. David lamented. Job grieved. Emotional pain is not evidence of spiritual failure. It is evidence that something meaningful was damaged. The goal of forgiveness is not to become cold or indifferent, but to prevent pain from transforming into hatred, bitterness, or revenge.

A scar may remain tender long after the wound closes. That does not mean healing has failed. It means you are human. Forgiveness says, “This hurt me deeply, but I refuse to let the injury harden my heart or define my future.” Forgiveness doesn’t mean being conformed, it’s means not being consumed.

What It Comes Down To

Forgiveness is release without denial. Mercy without delusion. Compassion without sacrificing truth. Freedom from hatred without freedom from consequence. Should you forgive? Absolutely. Should you relinquish all agency over it? Absolutely not. That’s what forgiveness is not.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

Tennessee’s Educational Paradox

What If She Walks In?

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I Forgive You

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

There’s a strange paradox at the heart of human intelligence. We are capable of learning almost anything while being highly skilled at refusing to learn. This is less about intellectual fervor and more about protective adaptation. I call it Identity Anchoring Belief Persistence. It’s the tendency to connect our previously held beliefs so tightly to who we are that new information feels like an attack. When that happens, the goal of critical thinking shifts. It’s no longer about getting smarter. It’s about keeping it together.

When Being Wrong Feels Dangerous

Imagine someone presents you with solid evidence that contradicts something you’ve believed for years. You attempt to simply process it cognitively, yet you find that you actually feel this information. Your chest gets tight. Defensiveness rises up, at times, evidenced by an increase in your blood pressure. There’s an urge to push back or at least retreat. That reaction is pure psychological self-defense.

Research on what’s called the backfire effect shows that when people encounter evidence that challenges deeply held beliefs, they don’t always correct their thinking. In some cases, they double down, becoming more convinced they were right all along (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010).

Why? Because beliefs are more than ideas. They’re part of the value-system makeup inculcated into our very fabric, often defining our existence. It’s the rooted internal dialogue calibrated to be right. One way of putting it is our belief systems function like a “house” that our identity lives in. Threaten one piece, and the whole structure gets shaky. So we defend it with everything we’ve got.

Protective Cognition

Most of you reading this are educated, or at least intelligent. This is where things get a bit surprising. You might assume that more intelligent or more educated people would be less vulnerable to this. They’re not.

Research on identity-protective cognition shows that people often use their reasoning abilities to defend the beliefs of their group or identity regardless of truth being presented. In fact, those with higher analytical capabilities can be better at rationalizing their existing beliefs. They dismantle new information like an angry lover with a baseball bat, ridding themselves of acute pain. At times, they reinterpret new information, find flaws in it. Selectively accept parts of it, while feeling completely objective.

This is what psychologists call motivated reasoning. The tendency to process information in a way that aligns with what we want to be true, as opposed to cognitive bias where we search for what we already believe (van Doorn, 2024). In other words, intelligence doesn’t guarantee openness. It often simply equips us with better defenses.

It’s Possible I Might Be Inadequate

Jordan Peterson describes this fear as the “specter of possible cataclysmic characterological inadequacy.” It’s a mouthful, but the idea is simple:

• If I’m wrong about this, what else am I wrong about?

• And if enough of what I believe is wrong, what does that say about me?

• Am I broken, delusional, or just severely misguided?

That’s the real threat. The limitless implications. So instead of integrating the new information, we reject it completely. Because accepting it feels like it would unravel us, even and especially if it’s true.

Why Some Grow and Others Don’t

To be fair, not everyone reacts this way. Some people encounter new information and feel curiosity instead of threat. They lean in instead of pushing away. What’s the difference? It’s not raw intelligence, education level, or even exposure to facts. It’s psychological safety.

If your identity is too rigid, built on the need to be right, to belong, to maintain a certain self-image, then new information is destabilizing to say the least. But if your identity is flexible, you have the ability to see yourself as someone who learns, rather than someone who is right. New information looks like an opportunity.

The same fact lands differently depending on the view of the self it encounters. This is often established and developed early in life. It explains why it is so hard for those who didn’t develop this flexibility early to reintegrate a proper view of the self.

The Hidden Cost of Being “Right”

Here’s the uncomfortable truth, the stronger your attachment to being right,
the more difficult it will be to become right. Because learning requires a temporary willingness to be wrong. One of the things I learned in counselor training was that I needed to accept being wrong. I could not hold on to any rigid formation of my ego, as it would devour any therapeutic potential presented in the moment.

If being wrong feels like a threat to your identity, you’ll avoid it, even at the cost of truth. This is why debates often go nowhere. People aren’t exchanging ideas. They’re protecting identities. And when identities are on the line, facts lose their importance.

Why This Matters Now More Than Ever

In a world saturated with information, we enjoy proclaiming the problem is ignorance. It’s not. The problem is our filter by which we accept newness. Information isn’t passively pursued like the church we attend. We actively select information, interpret it, then defend against it the moment we feel rattled by our ego.

According to research on misinformation and belief persistence, even when new, correct information arrives, it often continues to influence our thinking because it’s been integrated into a person’s mental framework, known as the continued influence effect (Ecker et al., 2022). Once something becomes part of your identity, removing it is a full-scale reconstruction project.

A Different Way to Think About Thinking

If you want to become someone who actually learns, updates, adapts, and grows, you have to change nature of the game. Stop asking:

“Is this true?”

Start asking:

“What happens to me if this is true?”

Because that second question reveals the real barrier. And if the answer is:

“I’d feel embarrassed” or

“I’d feel worthless” or

“I wouldn’t know who I am anymore,”

…then you’ve found the real problem. And the problem isn’t the information. It’s the insecurity.

Final Thought

Most people truly believe they’re seeking truth. But more often, they’re seeking stability. And when truth threatens stability, stability wins. Until you consciously take steps to decide otherwise. Because growth requires a radical paradigm shift from defending who you are to becoming who you want to be in the face of a challenged ego. It’s difficult, but possible. You got this.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

van Doorn, M. (2024). The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: A closer look at the evidence. Thinking & Reasoning, 30(4), 548–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2276975

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

According To Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I Forgive You

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

The Diary of Existing Beliefs

The Dirty “S” Word

My wife is a teacher at a public school as one of her many careers. I get a firsthand account of the state of public school education in Tennessee. So, when this article came out, I dove in. And I heard the same, tired song.

Tennessee’s Rank in Public School Spending

The newest rage in Tennessee is that the state registered lowest in the country in public school spending. This predictably outraged various groups of uninformed, rage-baiters into the playbook manual of feelings of over facts:

• Feel angry

• Call it out

• See evidence-based refutation

• Name-call and scream louder

Rather than look to see why, or if this is even something to be concerned about, how bad it is, they just came out swinging. I dug into it a little. Questions I had were:

1. Where did Tennessee rank in educational outcomes?

2. Does spending correlate to educational outcomes?

Educational Outcomes

What I found- Tennessee is slightly above national average

Tennessee ranks:

• 25^th in combined proficiency

• 24^th in 4^th grade reading

• 21^st in 8^th grade reading

• 13^th in 4^th grade math

• 20^th in 8^th grade math

• One of the fastest improving states in the country.

So let me get this straight. Tennessee ranks lowest in public school spending but above the national average in educational outcomes? This alone indicates a lack of causation between spending and educational outcomes.

By the Numbers

But don’t take my word for it. Let’s actually look at numbers.

Spending

1980: $2300 per student ($9,000 in today’s dollars)

2023: $16,500 per student (National average is now $18,000. Some states exceed $20,000)

Right away, you would expect to see educational output almost double over this same time period. Unfortunately, this isn’t supported by the data.

Educational Outcomes

1980:

NAEP Testing age 13- reading 258, math 266

SAT testing age 13- verbal 421, math 466

2023:

NAEP Testing age 13- reading 256, math 263

SAT testing age 13- verbal 520, math 508

Here’s a graph of what that looks like:

This data is controlling for population changes (SES, racial makeup, neighborhood disparity).

The evidence is clear. Spending has no correlation to educational outcomes. By any reasonable logic, we should expect to see an increase in educational outcomes. There is none. So if money doesn’t matter to educational outcomes, what does?

The Monopoly

Competition. The government has no incentive to produce better outcomes because there is no one to compete with. The other two alternatives to public schools are private schools and home schools. Currently, the average cost per student in Tennessee for a private school education is $13,000 per year. The average cost per student in Tennessee for a homeschool education is $2,000 per year. This means that the public school system is the ONLY FREE education offered in Tennessee. This is the literal definition of a monopoly.

Websters Dictionary: Monopoly- An exclusive privilege to carry on a business or service granted by the government. The market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

Everyone knows that competition drives costs down and quality up. Until government schools have competition, there is no incentive to be more proficient, increase educational outcomes, and reduce teacher inefficiency. You can just keep rolling along with arbitrary teacher tenure, protection for ill-behaved children, and lack of control over violence in schools.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but what I know is spending more money on schools is not the answer, and creating competition is at least one answer.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles:

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

According To Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I Forgive You

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

The Diary of Existing Beliefs

The Dirty “S” Word

This picture has circulated with the headline, “Can this woman enter the church?” Here, I provide no fancy sentences. No backspaces or rewrites. No thought out linguistical creativity. Just typing as fast as I can, on purpose. This post took me almost the same amount of time to write it as it will for you to read it. Straight from the gut. No glitter. No empiricism. Just raw, lived experience with religion getting directly in the way of good decisions.

At First, Everything is Good

You find your favorite parking spot. You are greeted on the way in. You grab your latte. Hug a neck or two. You go in to find your favorite seat. The one you sit in every Sunday. It’s your comfort zone. From that seat, you look over and there’s the gentleman from the grocery store. Over there is the lady who found your dog after he got out. Right behind you is the family you’ve known since the husband and wife were children. Oh, and on the other side is your kids’ former baseball coach when they played little league. You’re comfortable there. These are your people. Then she walks in.

You know, the girl that you watched get arrested last week outside the grocery store for stealing formula. Or the one who you just knew was a bad apple. You told your daughter to never hang out with that girl. She was trouble. But here she is. By herself. Her face says she’s miserable. Her body says she’s been abused. Her hair says she just doesn’t care. But then there’s a tear. Her tears say she’s had enough.

Enough

Enough of whatever brought about this calamity. Enough of trying it the same way and hoping for different results. Enough of the constant drama. Enough crying herself to sleep, wondering what a peaceful night of sleep would be like. Enough looking over her shoulder for her abuser.

Then she sits down, not near your seat, but in your seat. The one you’ve sat in for 20 years. You can’t believe it. What do you do? What if she walks in and you’re faced with the fact that she knows you?

How Do You Respond?

If your response is anything other than sitting beside her, you need to revaluate where God wants you to grow right now. In this moment, she is fragile. She knows she doesn’t fit in. She was certain the moment she walked in she would get struck by lightning. But somehow, that didn’t happen. If you shun her, her preconceived notions about “church people” will be realized. If no one talks to her, her isolation will increase.

It’s in this very moment you must become the only Jesus she may see that day. You may be the only opportunity she gets to see exactly how Matthew felt when Jesus asked him to have a party at his house. You may be the only representation of what it felt like when Jesus told a fouled-mouthed fisherman named Simon to follow him. You may be the only shot she has to experience what it was like for Jesus to look up at Zacchaeus and ask to hang out with him.

What do you do with that opportunity? Do you squander it because you are uncomfortable? Do you miss out on using what God blessed you with? We are blessed to be a blessing, not to hoard it. Or do you introduce yourself? Maybe you hug her. Tell her it will be alright. Smile at her throughout the service. Tell her you’re glad she came and hopes she comes back.

The Difference May Be You

This small, short, simple interaction may be the difference in her life. How do I know? Years ago, two teenage boys saw something going on in their community and showed up. It happened to be a pop-up church service. As they entered, they quickly realized the place was pretty full. They turned to leave. An unassuming usher asked them if he could take a minute to find them seats. They obliged. Seats were found. By the end of the service, one of the boys surrendered his life to the calling he felt from God. This young man went on to be known as Billy Graham. One usher, a 15-second interaction. It changed everything.

You have no idea if that girl you once were repulsed by is the next worship leader somewhere. You don’t know if her calling is into the mission field to change countless lives. And either your kindness propels her in that direction, or your self-righteous religious dogma sends her the other way, back to how she got here in the first place.

A Call To Action

I urge you to wrestle with this scenario. Place yourself directly in this position. What would you do?

We must remember that we were once broken. Maybe not in the same manner as others, but broken nonetheless. When we count our blessings, they can’t be for bragging rights. They must be for donating.

• We get so that we can give.

• We are loved so we can love.

• We are forgiven so we can forgive.

I once heard a man say, “I looked at God and I looked in the mirror and the two looked nothing alike.” If your response doesn’t look like Jesus, then this is your next step for growth. We all have areas for growth. This just may be yours.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles: