Sunday, April 30, 2006
I Have Enlisted
I have joined the 101st Fighting Keyboardists over at Captains Quarters. I haven't found out yet whether I'm allowed to put the logo on my site.
Friday, April 28, 2006
We Came From The Pleiades
An amateur - very amateur - archaeologist from Bosnia, who believes he has found a pyramid there, thinks the Mayan hieroglyphics reveal this.
(HT: point2point.)
(HT: point2point.)
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Cancelled Due To Lack Of Interest
It is clear that my tremendous scouting reports to get you through the difficult process of observing the World Cup knowledgeably has been unappreciated. Just think, you could have made breezy comments to Europeans and South Americans you ran into, tricking them into thinking you are one of the good Americans who really understands. But noooo, you would rather be benighted Yanks, provincial and unable to converse smoothly with the world.
So, the third and fourth sections of the preview are cancelled. Wankers.
So, the third and fourth sections of the preview are cancelled. Wankers.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
What I Did On My Liberal Vacation
I went visiting liberal blogsites that had some indications of respectability about them. I made an effort to discover sites that were genuinely leftist, allowed comments, and seemed to at least attempt to weigh both sides of an argument. I took Pajamas Media as my jumping off point. Though that site links more frequently to conservative and libertarian sites, it connects out to liberal sites as well.
I wanted to not only read the arguments, but engage them as well, to see how the regular attendees responded to disagreement. Only one of the sites will I recommend on to my readers, and that with some caveats. Still, it was good to recapture the
experience of being the lone dissenting voice, which I hope I will remember when lone dissenters come to the sites I comment on.
About Commenting In General
1. It is difficult to know which writers will be willing to discuss with you, and which are there only to show off for their friends how clever their put-downs are. Either might seem insulting at first, and I found no method better than trial-and-error for guessing who to respond to. One sees this on conservative sites as well, with people using phrases such as Dumbicrats, Dhimmicrats and other things they think witty. When I post on familiar sites, I regard these comments as background noise which don't push the conversation further along, and disregard them. The lone dissenter has much more suspicion that the snide are speaking for the entire group. I resolve to be more of a scourge to my allies.
2. It is harder to keep track of who wrote what on an unfamiliar site. Twice I misattributed earlier comments to the wrong poster. While this may seem an unremarkable observation, it is important to keep this in mind when addressing the lone dissenter. Everyone wants a piece of him, and he may be answering several objections at once. It is easy to be clumsy in such situations.
About Liberal Commenters (All sites in group are American)
It’s a small sample: 3 sites engaged, 2 others just poked at a few times. The only advantage to these observations is that they are current. Political groups change in outlook over time, and I expect the internet to increase that. The elected politicians and the established writers are not going to reflect the changes until well after they have happened. The blogosphere on all political fronts will include many early adopters and adapters.
1. Liberals still think of journalism as the last defense against tyranny, a belief they hold emotionally even as it weakens intellectually. They do not so much believe the MSM as depend on it. The Left might enjoy speculation of the changes to come in news and media, but they really believe that the weakening of the established media risks bringing on the deluge. Thus, every attack on traditional media sources carries a whiff of anarchy to them, as if the Bush administration might suddenly be without restraints if the NYT were not there to hold it in check. Pointing out MSM failures is not seen as holding it accountable, but an undermining of the checks and balances of our society. I was surprised that this sentiment was so strong on the internet, but concluded that there is some disconnect between the intellectual and emotional responses here. I imagine it would be the same with conservatives if the roles were reversed. If 90% of the legacy media were Republicans, we might regard attacks on the major networks as attacks on civilization as well.
2. There is a parallel here with the emotional ties to the UN. I have less data for this observation, but there is sentiment that if the UN loses power there will be nothing to restrain men from doing evil. This is not asserted as a proposition – I think most liberals would back off from that conclusion pretty quickly – but it is an undercurrent. In that sense, it does not matter as much to them how corrupt the UN might become; it must be retained because there is nothing else. (I had known but forgotten this. When I complained to a coworker about the UN a decade ago he said “Well what’s your alternative?” My suggestion that individual agreements and treaties between nations would provide the same service at a much lower price, he was appalled, sure that the nations of the world would break out into many wars in that situation.)
3. They do not know what conservatives write and think. While all of us tend to get our information about our political opposition secondhand, I found this to be extreme on the left. The same quotes out of context kept showing up; something that Rush said in 2001 or Ann Coulter had in her book would be quoted, and the darkest interpretation of it was generally accepted. I thought at first that the wilder quotes were being used because they were rhetorically superior in making points, and heck, conservatives do that all the time as well. But in my brief forays I found few who had read or heard the material at the source and in context. The only things they catch firsthand are snippets of talk radio.
4. In contradiction to #3, however, many liberals seem to have an island of conservatism in their beliefs. One might target shoot and find gun-control rhetoric excessive, even if she supports limited versions; another will have conservative views on core curriculum in education, a third likes George Will or some other MSM conservative. This island was often connected to their profession or personal experience, which I find intriguing.
5. The 1960’s-80’s are regarded as current events, sometimes at the expense of actual current events. Because I am a boomer myself, I may have gravitated to boomer sites unintentionally, and that may have colored my data. I am concerned that they had difficulty taking in new thoughts that did not grow from or have an analog in the political situations of the last generation. Conservatives complain that to liberals, all wars are Vietnam. I think that may simply be a distillation of a larger phenomenon. Nicaragua and Chile in the 70’s and 80’s were held of more account in discussing American foreign policy than the events of the 1990’s and 00’s in North Korea, Africa, and the ME. It was not that they were unaware of newer information, but that they seemed to disregard it if it did not square with the earlier templates. This worried me, because it seems to hit at the root of our ability to adapt to changing realities. The exception was technological change, which most seem to embrace more than conservatives do, though there were more flat-out Luddites on the liberal sites.
6. Motive reading by magical means remains in full force. The easy assumption that they know the real meaning behind Bush’s actions is almost universal, even when they disagree with each other whether that motive is to make money for his corporate friends, improve his poll numbers, or punish his enemies. I found this impervious to any discussion. Sneering as a method of arguing is also still common. I had hoped that this version of liberalism as a measure of how much you “get it” socially was on the wane, but I guess not. It is especially worrisome because I find that fault increasing among conservatives. That doesn’t bode well for future discussions. I have a personal rule that when someone uses the motive fallacy twice, I no longer attempt to discuss anything with them. That person may be worth listening to, but not arguing with. There’s no point.
7. There remains a solid minority of liberals who at least give lip service to backing away from ultra-liberal ideas. They make an effort to mention “I think that now we’re in it we have to win,” or “I don’t want to excuse the actions of the terrorists.” I didn’t see any examples of them pursuing those thoughts any further, but the flow of the discussion often didn’t lend itself to that. People would be trying to make one point or another about the EU or Rumsfeld, and the larger discussion was usually tangential. But I found it curious, and I’m not sure what to make of it. Were they reassuring me, reassuring themselves, placating me, trying to appear balanced, or what?
The site where I found the best discusiion was Obsidian Wings. You will encounter the sneerers and eye-rollers there, but some folk who will have a discussion as well. Warning: Even the discussers can have a snide edge, but as I have one myself, I didn't think it was fair to write them off for that reason.
I wanted to not only read the arguments, but engage them as well, to see how the regular attendees responded to disagreement. Only one of the sites will I recommend on to my readers, and that with some caveats. Still, it was good to recapture the
experience of being the lone dissenting voice, which I hope I will remember when lone dissenters come to the sites I comment on.
About Commenting In General
1. It is difficult to know which writers will be willing to discuss with you, and which are there only to show off for their friends how clever their put-downs are. Either might seem insulting at first, and I found no method better than trial-and-error for guessing who to respond to. One sees this on conservative sites as well, with people using phrases such as Dumbicrats, Dhimmicrats and other things they think witty. When I post on familiar sites, I regard these comments as background noise which don't push the conversation further along, and disregard them. The lone dissenter has much more suspicion that the snide are speaking for the entire group. I resolve to be more of a scourge to my allies.
2. It is harder to keep track of who wrote what on an unfamiliar site. Twice I misattributed earlier comments to the wrong poster. While this may seem an unremarkable observation, it is important to keep this in mind when addressing the lone dissenter. Everyone wants a piece of him, and he may be answering several objections at once. It is easy to be clumsy in such situations.
About Liberal Commenters (All sites in group are American)
It’s a small sample: 3 sites engaged, 2 others just poked at a few times. The only advantage to these observations is that they are current. Political groups change in outlook over time, and I expect the internet to increase that. The elected politicians and the established writers are not going to reflect the changes until well after they have happened. The blogosphere on all political fronts will include many early adopters and adapters.
1. Liberals still think of journalism as the last defense against tyranny, a belief they hold emotionally even as it weakens intellectually. They do not so much believe the MSM as depend on it. The Left might enjoy speculation of the changes to come in news and media, but they really believe that the weakening of the established media risks bringing on the deluge. Thus, every attack on traditional media sources carries a whiff of anarchy to them, as if the Bush administration might suddenly be without restraints if the NYT were not there to hold it in check. Pointing out MSM failures is not seen as holding it accountable, but an undermining of the checks and balances of our society. I was surprised that this sentiment was so strong on the internet, but concluded that there is some disconnect between the intellectual and emotional responses here. I imagine it would be the same with conservatives if the roles were reversed. If 90% of the legacy media were Republicans, we might regard attacks on the major networks as attacks on civilization as well.
2. There is a parallel here with the emotional ties to the UN. I have less data for this observation, but there is sentiment that if the UN loses power there will be nothing to restrain men from doing evil. This is not asserted as a proposition – I think most liberals would back off from that conclusion pretty quickly – but it is an undercurrent. In that sense, it does not matter as much to them how corrupt the UN might become; it must be retained because there is nothing else. (I had known but forgotten this. When I complained to a coworker about the UN a decade ago he said “Well what’s your alternative?” My suggestion that individual agreements and treaties between nations would provide the same service at a much lower price, he was appalled, sure that the nations of the world would break out into many wars in that situation.)
3. They do not know what conservatives write and think. While all of us tend to get our information about our political opposition secondhand, I found this to be extreme on the left. The same quotes out of context kept showing up; something that Rush said in 2001 or Ann Coulter had in her book would be quoted, and the darkest interpretation of it was generally accepted. I thought at first that the wilder quotes were being used because they were rhetorically superior in making points, and heck, conservatives do that all the time as well. But in my brief forays I found few who had read or heard the material at the source and in context. The only things they catch firsthand are snippets of talk radio.
4. In contradiction to #3, however, many liberals seem to have an island of conservatism in their beliefs. One might target shoot and find gun-control rhetoric excessive, even if she supports limited versions; another will have conservative views on core curriculum in education, a third likes George Will or some other MSM conservative. This island was often connected to their profession or personal experience, which I find intriguing.
5. The 1960’s-80’s are regarded as current events, sometimes at the expense of actual current events. Because I am a boomer myself, I may have gravitated to boomer sites unintentionally, and that may have colored my data. I am concerned that they had difficulty taking in new thoughts that did not grow from or have an analog in the political situations of the last generation. Conservatives complain that to liberals, all wars are Vietnam. I think that may simply be a distillation of a larger phenomenon. Nicaragua and Chile in the 70’s and 80’s were held of more account in discussing American foreign policy than the events of the 1990’s and 00’s in North Korea, Africa, and the ME. It was not that they were unaware of newer information, but that they seemed to disregard it if it did not square with the earlier templates. This worried me, because it seems to hit at the root of our ability to adapt to changing realities. The exception was technological change, which most seem to embrace more than conservatives do, though there were more flat-out Luddites on the liberal sites.
6. Motive reading by magical means remains in full force. The easy assumption that they know the real meaning behind Bush’s actions is almost universal, even when they disagree with each other whether that motive is to make money for his corporate friends, improve his poll numbers, or punish his enemies. I found this impervious to any discussion. Sneering as a method of arguing is also still common. I had hoped that this version of liberalism as a measure of how much you “get it” socially was on the wane, but I guess not. It is especially worrisome because I find that fault increasing among conservatives. That doesn’t bode well for future discussions. I have a personal rule that when someone uses the motive fallacy twice, I no longer attempt to discuss anything with them. That person may be worth listening to, but not arguing with. There’s no point.
7. There remains a solid minority of liberals who at least give lip service to backing away from ultra-liberal ideas. They make an effort to mention “I think that now we’re in it we have to win,” or “I don’t want to excuse the actions of the terrorists.” I didn’t see any examples of them pursuing those thoughts any further, but the flow of the discussion often didn’t lend itself to that. People would be trying to make one point or another about the EU or Rumsfeld, and the larger discussion was usually tangential. But I found it curious, and I’m not sure what to make of it. Were they reassuring me, reassuring themselves, placating me, trying to appear balanced, or what?
The site where I found the best discusiion was Obsidian Wings. You will encounter the sneerers and eye-rollers there, but some folk who will have a discussion as well. Warning: Even the discussers can have a snide edge, but as I have one myself, I didn't think it was fair to write them off for that reason.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Waiting For Terrorists
I don't want to hope that anyone tries to take over a plane, but it would be pretty funny if some terrorist picked the flight that was showing United 93.
World Cup: Groups C & D
Big doings in Group C. Holland and Argentina, two of the teams capable of winning the World Cup, are both in this draw. Argentina has a young and talented team – so talented that they hare having trouble deciding who to play. That is a good problem to have, but a problem they will have to have worked out by June nonetheless. In soccer futbol, the 11 best players are not always the best team. That is true in any team sport, perhaps, but it is more subtle in soccer, where substitution is more limited, and style of play difficult to discern. A defender who is merely solid in a containment, absorbing, defense-minded style may be suddenly brilliant in an attacking set. Or he may become a liability, and neither difference will be apparent in a single game. Argentina has young defenders and depth at the positions. Which way will that go? Holland is my emotional favorite to win it all. Brazil is the smart-money favorite, as it should be, but I’m not betting any money, smart or otherwise, so a little underdog rooting won’t cost me anything. Ruud van Nistelrooy is enormously talented, and the Dutch team top to bottom is as talented as the Brazilians and Czechs. Watch for van da Sar in goal. Importantly, they have twice beaten the Czechs as well, which no one else has been able to do.
Group D Mexico and Portugal are both inconsistent, offense-minded teams, and no one in the draw is particularly good defensively, so this is another grouping whose games might be more interesting to Americans. By soccer standards, there will be a lot of fireworks here. Neither is considered a threat to win the cup, but both are exactly the sort of team the favorites worry about playing. The odd bounce and isolated mistake can be deadly in soccer football, or a team can make half-a-dozen major mistakes and still not be scored upon. Mexico does have a decent keeper in Sanchez, and hyperactive but mistake-prone scorers in Lozano and Blanco. Marquez at mid is their premier player. Portugal is exceptional across the midfield with both youth (Ronaldo, whose club team is Man U) and experience (Figo). They have goalie problems and some striker weaknesses. They rely too much on their wings to provide offense.
Group D Mexico and Portugal are both inconsistent, offense-minded teams, and no one in the draw is particularly good defensively, so this is another grouping whose games might be more interesting to Americans. By soccer standards, there will be a lot of fireworks here. Neither is considered a threat to win the cup, but both are exactly the sort of team the favorites worry about playing. The odd bounce and isolated mistake can be deadly in soccer football, or a team can make half-a-dozen major mistakes and still not be scored upon. Mexico does have a decent keeper in Sanchez, and hyperactive but mistake-prone scorers in Lozano and Blanco. Marquez at mid is their premier player. Portugal is exceptional across the midfield with both youth (Ronaldo, whose club team is Man U) and experience (Figo). They have goalie problems and some striker weaknesses. They rely too much on their wings to provide offense.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Always and Never
I would be a terrible marital counselor myself -- I would save marriages only by virtue of the fact that they agreed their counselor was a critical fathead and have something new in common - but I recall an important part from my training. The use of the words "always" and "never" are giveaways that a person is responding emotively rather than logically. "She always undermines me in front of our friends." "He never supports me with the children's discipline." There is no always and never. (If you ever go to a marriage couselor, you can stay one-up on your spouse by remembering not to use unqualified statements like that).
One occasionally sees comments on conservative blogs that Clinton (or Carter) was a completely terrible president. Worst ever. No redeeming qualities. Please note I said "occasionally." More frequently, amidst the scathing criticisms, one will find grudging praise or acknowledgement. I thought Clinton did well on NAFTA and GATT, and showed some real backbone, and I don't mind saying it. For all the mistakes in Bosnia and Kosovo, Clinton had more success in that impossible situation than most others in the last 7 centuries. Welfare Reform, though it happened under pressure, did happen on his watch. Great. He was on balance rather a cipher, neither advancing nor destroying foreign policy or the economy. With the former USSR, benign neglect was an okay thing. With Islamic terrorists, it was a bad thing.
It is this general balance on the sites I am in agreement with that causes me to shake my head in disbelief visiting lefty sites -- even supposedly moderate or reasonable liberal sites. People will claim with a straight face that George Bush is the worst president ever, that the war in Iraq had zero justification and has been an unmitigated disaster, that civil rights have been set back decades, etc. It defies common sense.
You could pick any president at random in history, list up the negatives and ignore the positives, and declare him to be the worst president ever, if you wanted to simply make statements that looked like an argument, rather than actually examining the evidence. Why would that be a valuable exercise?
The extreme statements, the always and never statements, are the tipoff that the writer is not worth reading another sentence of, unless your goal is to teach instead of to learn.
One occasionally sees comments on conservative blogs that Clinton (or Carter) was a completely terrible president. Worst ever. No redeeming qualities. Please note I said "occasionally." More frequently, amidst the scathing criticisms, one will find grudging praise or acknowledgement. I thought Clinton did well on NAFTA and GATT, and showed some real backbone, and I don't mind saying it. For all the mistakes in Bosnia and Kosovo, Clinton had more success in that impossible situation than most others in the last 7 centuries. Welfare Reform, though it happened under pressure, did happen on his watch. Great. He was on balance rather a cipher, neither advancing nor destroying foreign policy or the economy. With the former USSR, benign neglect was an okay thing. With Islamic terrorists, it was a bad thing.
It is this general balance on the sites I am in agreement with that causes me to shake my head in disbelief visiting lefty sites -- even supposedly moderate or reasonable liberal sites. People will claim with a straight face that George Bush is the worst president ever, that the war in Iraq had zero justification and has been an unmitigated disaster, that civil rights have been set back decades, etc. It defies common sense.
You could pick any president at random in history, list up the negatives and ignore the positives, and declare him to be the worst president ever, if you wanted to simply make statements that looked like an argument, rather than actually examining the evidence. Why would that be a valuable exercise?
The extreme statements, the always and never statements, are the tipoff that the writer is not worth reading another sentence of, unless your goal is to teach instead of to learn.
World Cup: Advance Predictions
Only 50 days to go, or thereabouts.
The World Cup has 32 teams which have qualified, divided into 8 groups of 4. Two from each group will move on. One or two teams in each group are overwhelming favorites to continue. Only in one group is there a projected dogfight among three teams shooting for two slots. That is of course the group the US is in. In two other groups, the identity of the second qualifier is probably unimportant, as three teams in each are weak enough that the best they can hope for is an upset in the round of 16. They won't go farther.
I will scout the likely qualifiers to the round of 16 four at a time, not only for their chance at the championship, but how deep they are likely to go at all.
Group A should be more fun for the American viewer than most others, even though we don't know the teams or care much about the countries. Germany is in the round of 32 by virtue of being the host team, but they are not a bad team. They score a lot, let in a lot. Their midfield is strong. They should advance. Costa Rica is an offense-minded team, with past-his-prime Wanchope hoping for a last moment in the sun. He is still powerful. Neither is considered a contender for the championship. One might slip into the semifinals. If you like underdogs, this is the group for upsets, and you can root for either Poland or Ecuador.
Sweden and England will come out of Group B. England has, as usual, as talented a team as exists in the field, but how they play together will determine how far they will go. They are capable of upsetting one of the top four teams (Brazil, Argentina, Czech Republic, Holland), but also capable of being beaten by a poorer team. Inconsistent teams usually find at least one bad game on the way to the finals. England needs to hope their bad game is against a team that cannot put them away. To the well-known duo of David Beckham and Michael Owen add the young Wayne Rooney as a potential explosive force. Sweden has a balanced attack, as likely to get goals from its midfielders and wings as its strikers. This is excellent for consistency and for league play, but problematic in World Cup competition, where teams often need a superlative player who can work a miracle rather than four very good ones who might score. Worth noting: England seldom loses, though it often gets only a draw against teams it should put away. How it plays in overtime might be the key.
The World Cup has 32 teams which have qualified, divided into 8 groups of 4. Two from each group will move on. One or two teams in each group are overwhelming favorites to continue. Only in one group is there a projected dogfight among three teams shooting for two slots. That is of course the group the US is in. In two other groups, the identity of the second qualifier is probably unimportant, as three teams in each are weak enough that the best they can hope for is an upset in the round of 16. They won't go farther.
I will scout the likely qualifiers to the round of 16 four at a time, not only for their chance at the championship, but how deep they are likely to go at all.
Group A should be more fun for the American viewer than most others, even though we don't know the teams or care much about the countries. Germany is in the round of 32 by virtue of being the host team, but they are not a bad team. They score a lot, let in a lot. Their midfield is strong. They should advance. Costa Rica is an offense-minded team, with past-his-prime Wanchope hoping for a last moment in the sun. He is still powerful. Neither is considered a contender for the championship. One might slip into the semifinals. If you like underdogs, this is the group for upsets, and you can root for either Poland or Ecuador.
Sweden and England will come out of Group B. England has, as usual, as talented a team as exists in the field, but how they play together will determine how far they will go. They are capable of upsetting one of the top four teams (Brazil, Argentina, Czech Republic, Holland), but also capable of being beaten by a poorer team. Inconsistent teams usually find at least one bad game on the way to the finals. England needs to hope their bad game is against a team that cannot put them away. To the well-known duo of David Beckham and Michael Owen add the young Wayne Rooney as a potential explosive force. Sweden has a balanced attack, as likely to get goals from its midfielders and wings as its strikers. This is excellent for consistency and for league play, but problematic in World Cup competition, where teams often need a superlative player who can work a miracle rather than four very good ones who might score. Worth noting: England seldom loses, though it often gets only a draw against teams it should put away. How it plays in overtime might be the key.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
An Example of BDS
My uncle sends me things from some sort of "thinkers group" in No CA. Somone named Harold Helm writes the following, illustrating once again "garbage in, garbage out." He asserts a dozen things with no factual basis, can't understand why so much of America isn't outraged, and vows to never get over it. Classic Bush Derangement Syndrome.
And oh yeah, he can't avoid getting excited over poll numbers. I think that should be a symptom on the DSM-IV of BDS.
And oh yeah, he can't avoid getting excited over poll numbers. I think that should be a symptom on the DSM-IV of BDS.
"Thomas Richardson quote - Arleen wrote: ... Between
the mess in Iraq, the saber-rattling with Iran, the lobbyist
scandals, the deficit, the outsourcing of jobs, the price of gas,
and buffoon of a president who thinks breaking the law is job
one, it's hard not to be pissed-off on a minute-to-minute basis.
... these days, with new revelations about the criminality
of this Administration coming at us on a daily basis, it's hard
to keep up without a G.D. scorecard. But then there's always
that one little thing that gets on your last nerve, and this week
my personal rocket's red glare was set off by a remark made
by Antonin Scalia when he was asked about the Bush v Gore
decision, the stolen 2000 election. His response: "Get over it!"
I have heard that phrase once too often, and it sticks in my
craw like the "Love it or leave it" bull I heard in the `sixties, a
virtual dismissive wave of the hand that says I have no voice,
no power, no say. Well, you've picked on the wrong citizen
if you think I will shut my mouth, or be
relegated to talking to that arrogant hand.
I am an American. That may not mean much to people
like Scalia, but it means something to me. And when someone
tampers with my country's voting process, or anything else
that impinges on the democracy of MY COUNTRY,
I am not going to GET OVER IT, now or ever.
I am an American. I will not be dismissed, minimalised
or marginalized, especially by hypocrites like Scalia et al,
who persist in throwing rocks at my patriotism from
inside their glass houses.
I will not be preached to by warmongering pseudo-Christians;
I will not be reminded of the importance of family values by
people who have no values at all. I will not be lied to,
stolen from, manipulated. I will not be assuaged by
meaningless rhetoric; I will not be lectured on a topic of
honesty
by people who wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked
up to them on the street and bit them in the ######.
I will not be condescended to by people who are as immoral
as they are greedy and self-serving. I will not be shooed away
from the adult dinner table like an ignorant child, while the
alleged grown-ups plot the destruction of my own nation,
or the nations of others. I will not be told to remain silent in
the face of wrongdoing. I will not relinquish a single
freedom that is my birthright as an American.
And no, I WILL NOT GET OVER IT.
When my fellow citizens are suffering, I will speak out for them,
and stand with them. When disaster strikes, I will
not GET OVER IT by going shopping, or attending a birthday
party, or catching a ballgame. REAL AMERICANS don't do
things like that –and besides, it seems pretty obvious
that those jobs are already taken.
REAL AMERICANS do not need to be told how to act,
or how to react. We know what needs to be done,
and we do it every time. Within minutes of the 9/11
attack, firefighters, police officers, and emergency workers
were on the scene. They risked their lives to save others
without hesitation. Not one of them walked away in an
attempt to GET OVER IT. And dare I say it? Not one of them
found it necessary to stop and read The Pet Goat in its
entirety before springing into action.
REAL AMERICANS don't condone torture, secret prisons, or rendition.
REAL AMERICANS don't look at photographs from Abu Ghraib
and GET OVER IT.
REAL AMERICANS don't watch footage of dead Iraqi children
on the nightly news and GET OVER IT.
REAL AMERICANS don't read about their soldiers being
wounded and killed in an ill-disguised attempt to put MONEY
into the pockets of the rich and the powerful
and GET OVER IT.
This Administration, and the elected officials who support it,
have brazenly picked a fight with myself and my fellow citizens.
Wrong move, wrong crowd. They obviously don't know who
they're up against. You see,
real Americans don't GET OVER IT when it's their own country
under siege. They don't kneel, they don't bow, they don't yield.
The American people are now standing knee-deep in a
foul-smelling liquid. They know what it looks like, what it
smells like; they KNOW what it is. So stop telling us it's raining.
Stop trotting yourselves out into the public square with
your half-truths and your spin. We all know the emperor has
no clothes; don't insult our intelligence with grandiose
descriptions of his wardrobe.
I know this Administration and its party just LOVE throwing
those bumper-sticker slogans around. Well, here's one for
them to chew on: "Eventually, everything comes out in
the wash." And I''ll be darmed if I'm going to watch all of
that dirty Republican laundry get
hung on the line, and be told to GET OVER IT.
There will be a backlash to the corruption and incompetence
of this regime, of that I have no doubt. Poll numbers for the
current crop of Republicans are plummeting faster than the
average American's savings account. I guess all of those
angry citizens who have
been keeping tabs on where their country is being led
just aren't GETTING OVER IT either.
So to the people in power who have turned my country
into something to be scorned rather than admired, to be
feared rather than respected, to be a harbinger of hate,
violence and death the world over, I say this: You are
going
down. Your support is dwindling, your lies are being
exposed, and your failures are as glaringly visible
as a fireworks display on the 4th of July.
And if you find that upsetting, well, hey
GET OVER IT! ... unquote - Anyone second the motion?
Prophecy
I have a Christian friend who is very much "into prophecy," by which she means equating current events with John's vision of the Apocalypse, as recorded in the last book of the NT. Today she was mentioning the one year/one day method of interpreting, which by simple arithmetic had the world ending about a century ago and by complicated arithmentic, could be any day now.
I went through this in 1975-77, and I admit I grow weary. I have to keep reminding myself that when the prophesied return does happen - and it is one of the central doctrines of the faith that it will - there will be a group of enthusiasts who misinterpreted the Bible but correctly predicted the impending end by accident. They will laugh at themselves in heaven, however seriously they take themselves here, recognizing that they got the right answer by dumb luck. But for the rest of us, it pays to remember that one of these groups will be right.
I went through this in 1975-77, and I admit I grow weary. I have to keep reminding myself that when the prophesied return does happen - and it is one of the central doctrines of the faith that it will - there will be a group of enthusiasts who misinterpreted the Bible but correctly predicted the impending end by accident. They will laugh at themselves in heaven, however seriously they take themselves here, recognizing that they got the right answer by dumb luck. But for the rest of us, it pays to remember that one of these groups will be right.
Fat Kids, Part II
TCSDaily has the second part of the article on the myths surrounding the epidemic of childhood obesity. A good read. I was a skinny kid. I'm a fat adult. The connection between childhood and adult obesity is wildly overstated. In simplest terms, there is a connection between extreme obesity in children and obesity in adults. There is no other connection.
Related:
Fat Kids, Part I
Related:
Fat Kids, Part I
Shortage of Social Workers
From usnewswire.com
The National Association of Social Workers released the results of a national study of licensed social workers. What do you think the study discovered? ...warn of an impending shortage of social workers... And who do you think will be most affected? ...the most vulnerable among us.
As a social worker, I nonetheless wonder how this is a bad thing, exactly. The field is staffed by aging boomers who are going to be retiring in the next 10-20 years. The ideological diversity of that group is slight. The range of the solutions they can generate runs from whether the local government should be responsive to whether the federal government should send money.
We got an update on suicidology at our social work department meeting. The national group which deals with this is deeply concerned about... credentialing of suicidologists. But their new catchphrase is "Suicide is everyone's business," which would seem contradictory at first, until you understand how human services advocates think. Everyone should care very deeply, and be aware of the problem - and make impassioned pleas when called upon. And as a result of this caring and awareness, they should respect the people who do this work and pay them handsomely.
I could have written that last paragraph about just about any area of need. ______ is everybody's business. And we're deeply concerned about credentialing. At the same time, we're very big on allowing people to make bad choices, but make society pay for it.
You will notice that all these important advocates for causes are not giving up their jobs speaking at conferences to alleviate the shortage of front-line workers. See my annoyance with advocacy here.
From what I can see, the younger social workers are far less ideological, more of a "Git 'er done" attitude to helping others. I like them. How they got through MSW programs, where the professors are all from my generation, and thus 60's retreads, I don't know. Academic social work is still little more than political training. But the new group seems more grounded.
The National Association of Social Workers released the results of a national study of licensed social workers. What do you think the study discovered? ...warn of an impending shortage of social workers... And who do you think will be most affected? ...the most vulnerable among us.
As a social worker, I nonetheless wonder how this is a bad thing, exactly. The field is staffed by aging boomers who are going to be retiring in the next 10-20 years. The ideological diversity of that group is slight. The range of the solutions they can generate runs from whether the local government should be responsive to whether the federal government should send money.
We got an update on suicidology at our social work department meeting. The national group which deals with this is deeply concerned about... credentialing of suicidologists. But their new catchphrase is "Suicide is everyone's business," which would seem contradictory at first, until you understand how human services advocates think. Everyone should care very deeply, and be aware of the problem - and make impassioned pleas when called upon. And as a result of this caring and awareness, they should respect the people who do this work and pay them handsomely.
I could have written that last paragraph about just about any area of need. ______ is everybody's business. And we're deeply concerned about credentialing. At the same time, we're very big on allowing people to make bad choices, but make society pay for it.
You will notice that all these important advocates for causes are not giving up their jobs speaking at conferences to alleviate the shortage of front-line workers. See my annoyance with advocacy here.
From what I can see, the younger social workers are far less ideological, more of a "Git 'er done" attitude to helping others. I like them. How they got through MSW programs, where the professors are all from my generation, and thus 60's retreads, I don't know. Academic social work is still little more than political training. But the new group seems more grounded.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Taken from Buda Hill
In Summer, from the Danube
The altar, late afternoon
From The Danube
Summer Sunrise
Pest, from Buda HillMonday, April 17, 2006
That Nazi Accusation
I got an estimate at a body shop for a dent years ago. The owner of the shop said at one point “Of course they’ll try to jew you down on the price.” I went mildly still and met his eyes, a social cue he picked up immediately. He looked away and fumbled awkwardly “Although maybe I could have found a better way to put that.”
Yes, he could have said gyp, because the derivation from “Gypsy” is no longer noticed. The word entered English before we became sensitized to ethnic slurs, and had already been disguised by shortening, unlike indian giver. When I was a child, “Chinese” was a descriptor for anything that seemed topsy-turvy or unexplainable, as in chinese fire drill. This was probably a combination of stereotypes: China was the other side of the world, where you would end up if you dug straight down, so it seemed likely that they would do things backwards or inside–out there. They also looked different, and so just about anything about them seemed believable. Anything about anyone who was different seemed possible. Heck, we believed that people from Massachusetts were capable of strange things, and it turned out we were right. And in Connecticut there were New Englanders who rooted for the Yankees, so all bets were off once you got south of Nashua.
Most people in that era who used some insensitive ethnic accusations did so without necessarily thinking about Jews, Indians, Chinese, or certainly Gypsies. People don't think much at all. I imagine it had an effect on how they viewed each group without realizing where the stereotype had come from. I don't doubt that the connection became conscious from time to time and even extended prejudices. But words of insult generally lose their power over time. Taboos are strange things, and sometimes the insult will intensify, but this is rare.
To call someone a "Red" became so overused that it became humorous. As communism recedes from the face of the earth (faster, please), the insult will likely erode into an archaism in a few generations, as "know-nothing" or "bimetallism" are now.
I have been reading the warning for years that the term Nazi, and the related fascist, brownshirt, etc. would become watered-down and meaningless by overapplication. That is already occurring. Could someone have been humorously called a "soup nazi" in the 1950's or 60's? While it still has considerable power to insult in my generation, the next generation has less to base the understanding on. Knowing about Nazis and WWII was in the air when I was growing up, from all those war movies to "Hogan's Heroes." Unless a student is more knowledgeable than average about 20th C history, or religious history, or military history, I think the word Nazi has become more vague. Like cossack, or even vandal, the association with real events is being lost. Fascist has come to mean little more than "bad, with elements of control and militarism." In 50 years it will mean just "bad," and sixth-graders will do school reports on where the word comes from.
Yes, he could have said gyp, because the derivation from “Gypsy” is no longer noticed. The word entered English before we became sensitized to ethnic slurs, and had already been disguised by shortening, unlike indian giver. When I was a child, “Chinese” was a descriptor for anything that seemed topsy-turvy or unexplainable, as in chinese fire drill. This was probably a combination of stereotypes: China was the other side of the world, where you would end up if you dug straight down, so it seemed likely that they would do things backwards or inside–out there. They also looked different, and so just about anything about them seemed believable. Anything about anyone who was different seemed possible. Heck, we believed that people from Massachusetts were capable of strange things, and it turned out we were right. And in Connecticut there were New Englanders who rooted for the Yankees, so all bets were off once you got south of Nashua.
Most people in that era who used some insensitive ethnic accusations did so without necessarily thinking about Jews, Indians, Chinese, or certainly Gypsies. People don't think much at all. I imagine it had an effect on how they viewed each group without realizing where the stereotype had come from. I don't doubt that the connection became conscious from time to time and even extended prejudices. But words of insult generally lose their power over time. Taboos are strange things, and sometimes the insult will intensify, but this is rare.
To call someone a "Red" became so overused that it became humorous. As communism recedes from the face of the earth (faster, please), the insult will likely erode into an archaism in a few generations, as "know-nothing" or "bimetallism" are now.
I have been reading the warning for years that the term Nazi, and the related fascist, brownshirt, etc. would become watered-down and meaningless by overapplication. That is already occurring. Could someone have been humorously called a "soup nazi" in the 1950's or 60's? While it still has considerable power to insult in my generation, the next generation has less to base the understanding on. Knowing about Nazis and WWII was in the air when I was growing up, from all those war movies to "Hogan's Heroes." Unless a student is more knowledgeable than average about 20th C history, or religious history, or military history, I think the word Nazi has become more vague. Like cossack, or even vandal, the association with real events is being lost. Fascist has come to mean little more than "bad, with elements of control and militarism." In 50 years it will mean just "bad," and sixth-graders will do school reports on where the word comes from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)