Liberals have ruined feminism. What started out as a strong movement for equality has turned into a depressing and empty message of vaginas, abortion and the government strong-arming employers to pay a woman a certain amount based solely on the fact that she is a woman, regardless of her merit or ability. In my mind this takes women backwards, minimizing us to a few choice body parts and reinforcing the idea that for whatever reason we need the government to take care of us.
Conservative women really are the epitome of what feminism should be. We are independent, strong, determined and believe in ourselves; you will not find a conservative woman whining that her boss pays her less because “she’s a woman.” That’s a cop-out in our world because we are responsible for what we make and what we accomplish, not our employer, not our husbands and definitely not big daddy government.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
The word “science” packs a powerful appeal of attraction for those who wouldn’t know science if it kicked ’em square in the nuts. The appeal is that you can’t argue with it — it’s science. But the way it achieves that exalted status, is by way of methods that are oppositional to the life-view and wiring of those who lust after that status, for their own ideas, most feverishly. Real science doesn’t want to “win.” It constantly questions itself, looks for ways to demolish itself.
The “phony science bullies,” of course, don’t do that…
Step 1: Develop a quasi-religious belief in a particular point of view (e.g. that human-caused emissions are causing dangerous climate change);
Step 2: Convince yourself that you are morally and intellectually superior to those who hold a different view, since your view is naturally “right” and “good”, and the other is “evil” and “bad”;
Step 3: Look for ways to caricature, demean, ostracise and ridicule your ideological opponents whilst at all times avoiding any rational discussion of the subject matter in dispute; …
Hat tip to Robert at Small Dead Animals.
One of the best ways, I’ve found, to figure out if you’re looking at classical, real science or modern, phony science is to figure out how it values the concept of the Anathema. Is the information refined in a positive way, with each new scrap examined with an honest desire to learn whatever can be learned — or negatively, with only the definition fortified by way of rejecting whatever doesn’t fit into it? Real science starts with the raw data, proceeding toward the conclusion; therefore, whatever starts with the conclusion and sluices out the information based on that stencil-template, is not real science. People have a perfect right to call it that, but it doesn’t make it so.
Another way to differentiate between the real and the phony is to look at the product, and see how it is treated from within the process that made it. Is it a Bible of some kind? Real science doesn’t have “bibles.” It certainly does write down a lot of stuff; but always, always, always in pencil. Conclusions are tentative by their very nature. This calls out the modern phony stuff most effectively against the backdrop of politics, in which people naturally seek to assert the finality of their conclusions, and as a consequence constantly state things as emphatically as they possibly can. This catchphrase of “science,” with little to no actual scientific reasoning behind it, has unfortunately been wielded often lately as a sort of cudgel in support of that effort.
Politics is politics; science is science. Them two are different things.
To talk now of a “smoking gun” is like witnessing the Battle of Waterloo and saying: “Hah! A smoking gun! Over there!” True, but daft.
To defend Obama, as his wiser supporters already realise, must mean defending what he has quite obviously and publicly been doing.
Which might well work, because it is also clear that a great many Americans do agree with what President Obama has been doing. They want big government, and they want the big government they already have to silence anyone who doesn’t want big government.
Recently stumbled across a blog about comic books which is most entertaining, because the person publishing it — I don’t know the gender — has some kind of a medical background, and is going nuts over the same infractions being committed over and over again. Nevertheless the site does a good job keeping up its sense of humor and appreciation for fun.
From my skimmings, somewhere around half the whistle-blowing has to do with defibrillating heroes and loved-ones into being alive again after they’ve flat-lined.
Sam Janney was asking for input from all her Facebook peeps about liberal women. In my present life, I know nothing about this at all…by choice…but my past is very, very dirty. I have layers of understanding here, and some of the layers have been buried. Many a classic tale has been written about this kind of “hidden world” beneath a newer, better one. Morlochs beneath the Eloi. Narnia inside the wardrobe. Alice’s world behind the looking glass.
I was very busy with what I was doing, and I knew that once I turned the first spade of dirt I’d fall into a deep pit. On the other hand, I was getting very bogged down, bored, and needed a break.
So I told her my contribution would be forthcoming in an off-line, and proceeded to write:
My knowledge is dated, since the last time I dated a liberal woman was around ’94 or so, at which point I swore them off for good.
We start with the A-through-E “get me a beer” scale. An “A-girl” will get a guy a beer so he doesn’t have to get up. A “B-girl” will get a guy a beer provided he treats her as a dignified and intelligent human being, meaning, says “please” and “thank you” as his Mom taught him. A “C-girl” might get him a beer but she’s going to keep count of who does how many things for who, and after she gets his beer he’s going to “owe” her one. A “D-girl” won’t get him a beer, and an “E-girl” will build an identity for herself out of her refusal to get him a beer.
Conservative women are B-girls, like the current Mrs. Freeberg. Liberals are either C or E. That’s because liberals are relativists. They don’t define things absolutely, everything is relative. That’s an important part of the reason why all liberals, male and female alike, are unfulfilled and don’t know why. They only permit themselves to “know” things that rely on other things, which are outside their perimeter of control.
“D-girls” do exist, but they aren’t liberals. They’re just plain lazy. If a liberal woman falls into D, she slips down to E, because liberals don’t refuse to do things without starting to define their whole existence around the refusal.
Proceeding to the physical attributes. Liberal women, steadfastly and consistently, have calves that are no thicker up toward the knee than they are down by the ankles — they’re straight up and down, like PVC pipes. This is a guy’s first tip-off that being her boyfriend is going to be a life of absolute misery, because she doesn’t get up off the couch and do things. If she isn’t fat, it’s because she doesn’t eat anything real. And whatever she does eat, she’s going to want to have brought to her by her subservient boyfriend. She’ll never come out and admit he’s subservient. Across the political divide, we’ve got a lot of women who hate men but aren’t willing to admit they hate men, even to themselves. But when it comes to everyday household chores, like cleaning things or bringing food, there is no such thing as a liberal feminist who supports “equality.” What they really mean is, they don’t want to have to get up out of a chair or couch unless they want to. Because, think about it, how would that work. A hundred droplets of toothpaste on the bathroom mirror, which therefore has to be cleaned. She takes care of fifty of them? Deep down, everyone knows it can’t work that way, we’re just not allowed to talk about it.
Above the knees, it becomes unsafe to generalize because there are fat liberal women and skinny liberal women. There seems to be an “inverted bell curve” here, with the thin part of the curve in the middle — a shortage of liberal women with healthy, reasonably-sized and reasonably-shaped bodies. What is consistent is the rage. Because it’s part of a liberal’s comfort zone to stay away from all hard definitions unless they rely on external things, the thoughts in the head are about external things. He is being paid more than me. She can be hired as a Hooter’s waitress, and I can’t. Sarah Palin needs to go away. Lego’s should not be selling toys to girls that are colored pink, because, stereotypes and messaging. They’re inherently insecure, because their satisfaction in life is all connected to things other people do, or don’t do. So across the board, they’re either missing the satisfaction, or they have the satisfaction but it’s fleeting and out of their control.
So the brain is by far the ugliest part. Apart from the brain, and the calf area of the leg between knee and ankle, there is the upper lip. There is this amazing consistency in liberal women over age 35, in how they look between the mouth and the nose. They all have that same Barbra-Streisand look, with this overly pronounced fold in the center. It’s called a “philtrum.” A disproportionate number of middle aged liberal females all have the same size & shape of philtrum. And the peach fuzz that goes over it. Barbra, Hillary Clinton, some sixty percent of all the women in Congress, their faces are all completely interchangeable in this one area, around the philtrum. I think it comes from many years of studiously avoiding doing anything that make make the face visually appealing to a heterosexual man, combined with lots and lots and lots of talking.
Which brings me to the voice. Liberal women have a very distinctive voice pattern. It’s as if they’re going to get fined by a “voice cop” if they utter a syllable without a piece of glass shattering somewhere. The nasal quality of a duck, combined with the volume and force of a roaring lion.
Hair: Some have a “Lois Lane swoop” with blond highlights, since that’s what Matriarch Hillary was doing in the mid-nineties. Some have curls. The “Sandra Fluke” Moe-Howard bowl cut seems to be popular right now, probably because it’s the surest way to repel the hated heterosexual men. But that is the common thread, they don’t want to be attractive to heterosexual men. Unless they’re trying to look like Eva Longoria. Being pretty is forgivable inside the collective, as long as it’s within the rubric of ethnic diversity. So some of the ardent liberal feminists who wish to act on their desire to attract a strong sexy male, will go that route. But they can’t ever, ever permit themselves to look like a bleach-blond Fox News babe.
Fashion: They know what they want in the moment, but if you look at them across any significant expanse of time, they become confusion personified. They are particularly confused about whether it’s okay to accentuate female attributes that men might find appealing, particularly the busts and legs. They are on a merry-go-round here, everlastingly and predictably. They haven’t got the slightest idea what to do about Wonder Woman, other than 1) it’s grossly unfair that she hasn’t made a movie before Green Lantern, and 2) she has to cover up her legs. It seems to be lost on them that Wonder Woman started showing off her legs, again, in 1972 to satisfy a demand from none other than Gloria Steinem. Fashion was doing the same thing, incidentally: In 1970, you weren’t a good feminist if you covered up your legs, and by 1985 you weren’t a good feminist if you left them exposed. The problem here is at the psychological level and it’s pretty obvious: They’re not sure if they are rebelling against their fathers, or the lusty men who’d come along to take them from their fathers. But they’re crystal clear on the decision that they want to do some rebelling.
The balance of what remains has to do with how to look at the world:
If you make it your business to subscribe to liberal-feminist blogs, and read what they put up, you’ll see a striking pattern set in: Across the hundreds, and even the thousands, they all fall into this funnel of thought that could be summarized as “Oh how I hate this thing I found over here, come gather around loyal readers, and help me hate it.” They don’t have questions and they don’t have answers — all they have is “How Dare You.”
Liberal women labor under a delusion that their primary motive is to elevate the stature and importance of women in our evolving society. Not only is this untrue, but they labor toward the opposite. Women can do an amazing number of things; some of these things can also be done by men, but there are just two of them that men cannot do. Those two things are 1) being a mother and 2) being a wife. Those are the two things that liberal women don’t want other women, anywhere, to do. Over the last few decades they have become unreasonably invested in the two public issues of 1) abortion, which stops a woman from becoming a mother, and 2) gay marriage, which robs women of their natural role as wives. In a society that is supposed to be sluggish in offering important and significant roles for women to occupy, those are the two roles that have always existed, and they are the very most important ones, supreme to anything a man can do. If liberal women were sincere and consistent in their stated desires, these are the two roles they would most vigilantly protect. As it is, these are the two roles for which they reserve their most incendiary hatred.
It is in the nature of liberals to pretend they are building something great, grand and wonderful, while actually laboring toward nothing but destruction. Liberal women are no exception to this. They think they’re invested in a process of creation, when they are really creating nothing, destroying everything.
Other than the foregoing, I really don’t have much of an opinion about it.
Nope. No baggage here.
Kind of dovetails into something Severian was writing about this weekend:
…[W]hen it comes down to it, I really just don’t care all that much what you do on your own time — I’ve got friends and family and pets and jobs and responsibilities; on my off hours I’d much rather put my feet up and watch the ball game with a cold brew in hand than go poking around the internet for something to get riled up about.
Liberals, on the other hand, are deeply, deeply insecure. They’ve quite rightly concluded that nobody gives them a thought unless forced to. So they politicize everyfuckinthing. It still won’t get them invited to the 1983 junior prom; but it’s cheaper than therapy.
You ever have a live-in girlfriend who relates to the world around her that way? You go to work, make your honest living, come home to find out something has whipped her up into a frothy rage…the last thing that got under her skin, a day or two ago, is now long forgotten and the latest bee-in-the-bonnet is this new thing. Lather, rinse, repeat, twelve months a year.
No thanks, brother. You can keep it. This shit makes my life-energy just drain away, and I swear I can feel it happening. The air isn’t as fresh, the sun isn’t as warm, the food doesn’t taste as good. Makes a man old before his time.
I’m a father, by the way. That means I’ve been around a woman while she was pregnant. Yeah. I’d rather go through that a a few more times than be around one more liberal woman. And I’d rather think about the those frenetic months than think about liberal women.
And so, on that note, I’m going to move the giant manhole-cover back in place, over the sewers of my mind. They aren’t memories I treasure, although they represent things I guess I needed to have happen to me.
Putting a question mark after that because, like everyone else, I’m in a state of perpetual indecision about it. It’s natural to show some reticence about concluding “education is a fraud, so let’s not be educated.” Concluding that, you would then have to take the next step and tell the generations coming up that they shouldn’t be educated either. That’s all obviously a non-starter.
#1 In 1993, the average student loan debt burden at graduation was $9,320. Today it is $28,720.
#2 In 1989, only 9 percent of all U.S. households were paying off student loan debt. Today, 19 percent of all U.S. households are.
#3 Young households are being hit particularly hard by student loan debt. In America today, 40 percent of all households that are led by someone under the age of 35 are paying off student loan debt. Back in 1989, that figure was below 20 percent.
#16 One survey found that U.S. college students spend 24% of their time sleeping, 51% of their time socializing and 7% of their time studying.
#24 One poll found that 70% of all college graduates wish that they had spent more time preparing for the “real world” while they were still in school.
#27 According to the ABA, only 56 percent of all law school graduates in 2012 were able to find a full-time job that requires a law degree.
#28 The median student loan burden for medical school students that graduated in 2012 was $170,000.
Caveats: First and foremost, we have consumer incompetence. If a product is selected and then purchased, and turns out to be a “scam” in its implementation, that doesn’t mean the problems were internal to the product. Spending a quarter of your time sleeping and half your time socializing is not a good way to apply the product. Next, there is nomenclature. An apocryphal quote from Abraham Lincoln asks how many legs a dog has if we call his tail a leg; answer is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. That’s the trouble with “education” — we call a lot of things that, that aren’t that. Also, we interpret the word in the wrong way, assuming that all activities purporting to be educational, by design are supposed to make it easier or possible for you to get a job you otherwise wouldn’t be able to get. That isn’t necessarily so, and that isn’t even intended to be necessarily so.
Much of the problem, I think, has to do with process and outcome. As is the case with all things, if you want a better outcome, you can hardly do better than beginning the exercise thinking about the outcome. That much seems just self-evident, but a lot of people don’t do that. They go to college as a way of elevating process — they’re there because they’re following through on process. The desirable outcome, they’ve been told, will follow naturally. And there’s your “scam,” I think. They haven’t been told what they needed to hear: “This is YOUR life, planning it is YOUR job.”
Once they’re in, of course, there isn’t much incentive or persuasion for a process-over-outcome type of individual to change his spots. So, they keep following sequences of steps, right up to graduation day…disaster ensues. Well, I’m seeing that looking from the outside in. But sometimes that’s not a bad perspective to have.
…and I only invented the word a bit over a week ago…
The reasoning seems to be, since the subject of concern is the reputation of the patient, that reputation becomes the property of the patient, and the patient should be able to mold it and shape it as he pleases.
It’s as if the former Governor of Minnesota said to himself, “Hey, what that Freeberg character says doesn’t make any sense at all, I’d better do something to make it make sense.”
Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura is setting his legal sights on the widow of a former Navy SEAL he had sued for defamation.
Lawyers for Ventura have asked a federal court to continue his lawsuit against Chris Kyle — who was killed in February by a young veteran he was mentoring — by substituting Kyle’s wife, Taya, as the defendant. Ventura last year sued Kyle, a decorated former SEAL and author of “American Sniper,” claiming that the book’s description of a California bar fight defamed him.
“Although Kyle is deceased, his ‘American Sniper’ book continues to sell and it is soon to be made into a movie,” said Ventura’s motion, filed last week by Minneapolis attorney David Bradley Olsen.
Ventura’s lawyers said his claims survive Kyle’s death, and “it would be unjust to permit the estate to continue to profit from Kyle’s wrongful conduct and to leave Governor Ventura without redress for ongoing damage to his reputation.”
As I’ve noted repeatedly, our modern and evolving civilization seems to do a great job diagnosing mental disorders that aren’t really mental disorders, as it fails to acknowledge other things that might very well be exactly those. If Lerneritis is not a recognized mental disorder that can be diagnosed, it probably should be one. After all, in the case of both Lois Lerner and Jesse Ventura, this “reputation” that is the object of all this jealous guardianship, emerges somewhat the worse for wear.
They remind me a bit of a black poodle that was once our family pet, when I was very young. You know what my Mom did if we didn’t finish our waffles or our pancakes on a Saturday morning? She’d give them to Snowball, the poodle. You know what poodles do with stacks of pancakes they perceive to be their property? Nothing, not a goddamn thing. They sit there, all day, guarding their stupid little “property,” and they turn into the meanest hounds of hell you ever did see. Of course, they don’t care about the organisms that really are stealing the pancakes, which are flies and gnats…this goes on throughout the morning and afternoon…that was our punishment. Our beloved family pet would be transformed into a demonic beast, threatening to destroy us over something it didn’t actually want, that it wasn’t actually protecting.
Perhaps that background is why I can call out Lerneritis — I see it for what it truly is. A mental illness. Jesse Ventura is acting exactly like our pet poodle Snowball, when he was at his meanest and craziest. And I’m having a bit of a time coming up with a thought that could be crazier than “I shall protect my reputation by expanding my lawsuit to include Chris Kyle’s widow.” What else would be less sane than that? “I will restore that new-car smell in my BMW by taking a crap in the back seat,” maybe?
Yeah, that’s a good rule.
I subconsciously follow it…sometimes. Not always. I harbor a suspicion that there’s a correlation between my breakage of this rule, and that frustrating occurrence of critics telling me there’s something that can be improved, but they can’t or won’t say what.
Of course the real question that comes up, is what do you do with a conflict between 3-notice and some other rule that is more established; in other words, someone has taken the trouble to write it down. Does 3-notice yield? Or does it reign supreme?
Don’t try this at home…
And that’s being charitable.
What do I really think about it? The anti-bullying movement is all about bullying. Were you bullied in school? I was. First rule of bullying: Try to look like a victim. Bullies have always done this. Put up a mirage that makes it look like the other guy is the bully.
Woke up to Sarah Palin’s voice. She’s taken up chewing tobacco now cuz LIBRULS or Bloomberg or something. Now seeing upside of oral cancers.
— Dan Savage (@fakedansavage) May 4, 2013
So he’s a fake. It’s settled. Savage doesn’t believe in getting rid of bullying, any more than anyone else. He’s a bully himself. I’m going a bit out on a limb generalizing this across all this anti-bullying fever going on right now; they all look to me like a bunch of bullies accusing others of being the bullies. I know the signs, because I was a short little shrimp until I hit a growth spurt, summer between sophomore and junior years. That pretty much stopped it, but it was a shitty summer I won’t want to go back and re-live again. That gets into another story that’s off-topic here, but up until that point, there was a lot of bullying going on.
As blogger friend Phil pointed out, though, it’s all disingenuous because it’s all just a maneuver before a guaranteed-argument-win, and guaranteed-argument-win is the refuge of scoundrels who don’t know or care about how to actually discuss anything. It’s just silly to open up any kind of “discussion” about bullying or take an “anti-bullying” position, when nobody’s really pro-bullying.
I might come close to it though, since I dread a future in which there’s zero bullying. Not that I’d miss the bullying — I’m wondering what else got zeroed out while we were getting rid of the bullying. I was forced to show some resourcefulness when I got bullied. Had I not been bullied, I would not have been forced to develop the qualities I developed, and there’s nothing special about me there at all. This is actually a very common situation. So are the kids more capable of learning, and approaching maturity with some genuine grown-up ability, in a zero-bullying environment in which they’re spared from the distractions that come with bullying? Or, does this make them into thin-skinned sensitive little useless geldings, fated to waste away their twenties in their childhood bedrooms which are crammed full of trophies and plaques awarded just for showing up?
Perhaps both will happen?
It’s a worthy argument to have. Let’s have that argument. But the anti-bully brigade isn’t about discussing anything, of course; they just want to win, win, win. I guess in this day and age that’s what everyone seems to want. Win win win, without actually providing support for anything, discussing anything, exploring anything in detail. Just be on that winning team, and do a serviceable job of pretending to care about the losers you just beat, beat, beat into the dirt.
I see Women, Action and Media, whose initials are WAM! — oh, that’s nice — is doing a great job acting out exactly what I’m describing here. Yay, they won! Win, beat, trounce, pummel, tenderize, bludgeon, beat beat beat beat beat. But the product of all these beatings is nothing more than a bunch of confusion, as noticed by the New York Times. Facebook’s little blurb, from their Vice President of Global Public Policy, is quite an amazing thing. It’s a wonder of meaningless bureaucrat-speak. “We will complete our review…we will update…we will establish more formal and direct lines of communication…we will encourage…include representatives of…these are complicated challenges and raise complex issues.” So many words about nothing! No answers at all for the questions most pressing, first and foremost of which would be: Is the medium going to move toward a more strict, or less strict, policy of censorship? I’d be inclined to guess more strict. Seems an easy call to make, although I note that this is not actually declared anywhere.
Looks to me like yet another struggle between clarity and agreement, with clarity losing. Like I said, a wonder of meaningless bureaucrat-speak. Worthy of being enshrined in some kind of museum or something.
The Times continues:
David Reuter, a spokesman for Nissan, said in an interview on Tuesday that the automaker has stopped all advertising on Facebook until it could assure Nissan that its ads would not appear on pages with offensive content.
Nissan typically buys Facebook advertisements that target particular demographic groups, like men age 30 to 35, Mr. Reuter said. In Facebook’s system, those ads follow the users onto whatever pages they visit, potentially including those with offensive content.
“We are working with Facebook to understand this situation better and opt out of advertising on any pages that are offensive,” he said.
The observation about the clarity/agreement divide is apt. The one thing that emerges from the mess with any kind of clarity is that anyone who has any kind of authority in anything here, desires to be anti-bullying and anti-offense. That applies to all the identifiable players with any clout at all. So what’s up with the slippin’, slidin’, bumping into each other and falling down? Why all these false starts, if everyone who has any pull agrees about the goals? The answer is: Definitions. Clarity, in other words. You see that phrase “offensive content” being repeated multiple times. What is that, exactly? Does a Kate Upton photoshoot on a farm, constitute offensive content?
Some would say yes, some would say no. And that’s why they’re having an embarrassing problem that they don’t want to have. So you see, clarity is their friend. But their effort is becoming a laughing stock because they’re not for clarity, they’d rather have the agreement.
Agreement-over-clarity people are bullies by nature, usually. Very few people will say something like “the agreement is so important to me, I’m going to let go of this thing I care about so that we can have agreement.” That’s almost never done. That would be called “compromise,” and you have to value clarity in order to reach compromise. So no, people who value agreement over clarity, wish to have the agreement, with everyone else involved agreeing with them. They want to win win win, beat beat beat, just like Dan Savage wishing oral cancer on Sarah Palin.
Just saying what everyone knows to be true. But of course, if the wrong people see what I’ve had to say here…take it to the bank, they’ll call it “offensive content.” Now we know why.
Posted without comment.
The same people — mostly moms — who claim to be overworked and desperate for dads to do more are all too often the first ones to criticize them for not doing things right when they do step up. And by right, I mean their way. I’ve seen dads criticized and made fun of for how they dress the baby. For how they feed the baby. For how they handle things differently than moms. Despite the fact that most first-time moms are just as clueless and confused as first-time dads, it’s chic to make fun of the dads, while moms are assumed to know absolutely everything…
One of my Facebook peeps posted this last night, and I thought it was great. It gives the first-person accounting of a playground incident that amounts to a clash between parenting cultures, the Helicopter-Mom culture and the “other.” It occurs to me, perhaps there needs to be some kind of a name to describe the other. An acronym, maybe? “Intervention For Emergencies Only,” I.F.E.O.?
Just like voting for Barack Obama — people of all shapes, colors, sizes, backgrounds and origins, once they do some good, quality left-brain thinking, will usually come around and say, Yes, I can see what is wrong with what we’ve done here and it’s silly for me to deny it. I see what’s wrong with the Helicopter-Mom brand of parenting. The problem isn’t getting them started thinking about this. The problem is getting them to finish with it. Infuriatingly, there’s always this “but” afterward, and following that you can almost hear the blood rushing into the right-brain artsy-fartsy touchy-feely part of the gray matter. Then, there follows some kind of muttering about absolute safety and feel-feel-feel, then, conclusion: We have to keep on keepin’-on. As far as the one indisputable point you’ve managed to make, Mr. Reason And Common Sense, which is “How is the kid going to learn to do a goddamn thing?”, we’ll just have to plug along and hope it somehow all works out. Cross that bridge when we come to it, or something.
And that’s when “Playground Mom” decided she had enough because she walked briskly over to him and said “You need help sweetie? Give me your hand.”
I was furious but not exactly shocked since I had seen it building to that point for the previous 10 minutes. But I still wasn’t about to let it go without addressing it.
“Excuse me, but he doesn’t need your help and he’s fine. I’m his dad and I’m right here.”
“Well clearly he does need help because he’s about to fall,” she said in full condescending mommy tone.
“Maybe, maybe not. But either way he’ll be fine. I can parent my own kid.”
Look, you can parent however you want but I have multiple problems with what happened. First of all, it’s just another in a long list of examples that show some moms think they know everything — especially compared to dads. To openly step in and insert herself with me — the kid’s actual parent — right there? Maybe she would’ve done the same to another mom, but I doubt it. It’s a shitty attitude and I’m unbelievably sick of it.
Second, we are raising a generation of kids who know nothing about taking risks. Even on the monkey bars and playgrounds of America, the minute they hit some turbulence and adversity mommy and daddy are there to rescue them — and give them a trophy in the process. It makes me ill.
As he writes and I read, this guy’s preaching to the choir. I don’t understand the Helicopter-Mom thing, even though I’ve been trying to figure it out for years. I’m forced to rely on process-of-elimination, which among other things, is a tell-tale sign that I’ve failed at all other approaches. Also, it only works when the list of possibilities to be eliminated, starts out as an exhaustive one, covering everything.
So let us exhaust:
One. Helicopter-Mom parenting, say what you want about it, is a sincere effort. These are good, caring moms who don’t want their own kids or any other kid to get hurt. When in the course of their tireless efforts to Prevent Bad Things From Happening, they end up shielding the kid from everyday exigencies and challenges, and over the long haul deliver to adulthood one incapable weak pussy whelp after another who can’t do anything for himself, that is an unfortunate side-consequence but by no means is any part of their central focus or intent.
Two. Helicopter-Mom parenting is all about raising one incapable pussy whelp after another who can’t do anything for himself. In other words, things this time are exactly as they appear. We are looking at a battle between the sexes. It is a war against manhood and masculinity, that’s why you’re seeing this saturated female aggression around it, it’s there by design, and men had better wake the fuck up because it’s very late in the battle. And thanks to the politically-correct forces of vengeful feminism, the gentlemen are still sleeping. Or silent, which ultimately is the same as sleeping. We’re acting like fatherhood is replaceable, because we’ve been given a lot of messages that it is — and it isn’t. The consequences are disastrous, on the scale of tragedies you see only when there was some fighting that had to be done that didn’t get done.
Three is a midpoint between One and Two. It is more complicated, but I think it the most likely. This is only natural since both One and Two, while they have merits, are caricatures; caricatures very seldom mesh up well with real life.
Consider where, for the last forty-five years or so, feminism has failed in our evolving society most resoundingly. It has succeeded in ending careers and proving its destructive power, to such a great extent that it has made generations of honest people afraid to test it, and then, conversely, afraid to mention it or acknowledge it in any way. Even though everyone who’s paid the slightest bit of attention knows how it works: Say the wrong thing, and you’re gone. Whoever lifts a finger or utters a word to try to save you, is also gone. That’s how “shunning” worked back in the olden days: “You are to be shunned, whoever does not shun you is likewise shuned, whoever does not shun he who did not shun you is also to be shunned.” So the older established generations fear feminism, because we all have to make a living. The younger generation grows up hairless, chestless, and idea-less, standing up for nothing. Whenever an American Castrati ends a supposedly-declarative statement with a “…??” that’s a victory for militant feminism. But — in the very young, those who haven’t gravitated toward one world or another, here is where feminism fails. When they try to take the gender out of playtime, during the toddler-age. There’s no reason in the world, feminism scolds us, that our retrograde, patriarchal, oppressive society couldn’t be teaching girls to play with guns and shovels and hammers and drawing supplies, and boys to play with dolls.
Feminism is a big flop here. It achieves a patina of legitimacy only through the exceptions to the rules: Yes, some boys do like to play with dolls. Some girls are gifted at drawing. But the effort to reshape and remold the future generations through the remaking of the toddler, has fallen on its face time after time.
Wiring at work. The boy-toddlers are given Barbie dolls. They point the dolls at each other and yell “bang!”
Here’s an irony: I’m in the middle of attacking feminism, and what you’re about to read is me essentially repeating a lot of catchphrases straight from feminism, thereby highlighting it’s inherent, internal, unworkable contradiction. The female half of the species has been created to — or evolved to — create, preserve and protect as part of its instinctive drive. The male half can’t even fully understand this. Nor is it our place to do so. We only barely comprehend it enough to meet it, charm it, seduce it, couple up with it, build a life with it, and do what we can to protect the protectors. It is how the human race has always worked: Momma protects baby, Daddy protects Momma. Okay, feminists aren’t quite jiggy with that last part. But they’re certainly wild about that male-female-protection business when it has to do with the male finding out what the female wants, and bringing it to her.
But it all means this: Girls play with dolls. The playing with the dolls has a lot to do with practicing the acting-out of their maternal instincts, later on once they are of mothering age.
Think about what a doll is. Think about what it does. It does what it’s told, although it has needs. Some dolls even shit their diapers. It isn’t self-sufficient in any way; if they built a doll like that, there’d be no point for anyone to own it. Some dolls are told to do certain things; they do them, unquestioningly.
And there may be exceptions to this, but: Generally, dolls don’t learn. Maybe that’s a big part of the problem right there.
No, the dolls stick to what is expected of them. The ones that can speak, say what they are expected to say. They are zero-surprise devices. And they have big gorgeous eyes. They need protection.
So for my exhaustive list, my third possibility is a hybrid between One and Two. The desire to protect the child is sincere, solidified since the mother’s own toddler-years playing with dolls. But the playing-with-dolls ritual has done nothing to invigorate the mother’s emotional maturity, nor has anything else that came afterward, too much. She limps along in life with the emotional intelligence of a nine-year-old. That’s why, when you point out the obvious that “Your kid won’t reach adulthood capable of actually doing anything useful” you get back this useless, platitudinous, purely ornamental “Yes, I can see what you’re saying there” followed by the ever-present “but” followed by the disgusting glurgey nonsense followed by the so-we’ll-just-keep-on-keepin’-on. That’s what people do when they are emotionally immature. They go through the motions of discussing things rationally, with reason and common sense and logic, until such time as the logic veers off in a direction that isn’t to their liking. Then they mumble a bunch of buzzwords and go on doing what they were going to do anyway.
So this third, more realistic possibility is that the helicopter-mom really does want to prevent bad things from happening to the child — but there’s a conscious-versus-subconscious thing kicking in there. The statement “yes I can see what you’re saying” about the benefits to rough-and-tumble tough-love parenting — that is also sincere. But it will never win out. EVER. Because there are two personalities sharing the same body there, and the over-protective one that smothers the bear cub, and keeps it from ever learning to pull its own fish out of the stream, will always win out.
I’ll finish this by noting something that applies to all three of the possibilities I’ve considered: Across the board, the only remedy possible, other than allowing the tragedy to continue, is for someone else to intervene.
I’m not optimistic about this. It is contrary to what our society is inclined to do, contrary to what it has been doing. The pushy female would have to be told no. That would be a change of direction on a scale nothing short of revolutionary. We’ve shown ourselves to be capable of revolutions, but not often. And not like this. But if nothing else, the writer of the article shows it is possible to think globally while acting locally.
Is it in us? Time will tell. Everything depends on it.
17. Hate speech
21. Assault (weapon/rifle/gun)
22. Any tangible noun that ends with “ist,” or intangible noun that ends with “ism.”
24. Working (family)
31. Common sense
Dennis Prager has said “I’d rather have clarity than agreement.” There doesn’t seem to be any place on the whole Internet that I can link to really give a good context for this, so I thought I’d just jot down what I know about it in a blog post, and then make this the place. There is a lot of wisdom packed into those few words. They are worthy of preponderance, post-ponderance and mezzo-ponderance.
It’s an important thought to have, too. It explains maybe two thirds, or perhaps more, of the human conflicts I’ve personally had. So many times per year I find myself asking for clarification about something, and half a heartbeat later I find myself in the middle of some kind of tempest. Melee. Imbroglio. Mess. Which is supposed to be all my fault. Last time it happened was Friday, May 10th, in the middle of the afternoon, about six hundred miles from here.
I can’t add too much more to “I’d rather have clarity than agreement.” But I can add something. And what I have to add, is this:
It shouldn’t be a necessary thing to have to point out. But, it is. Because it’s necessary to point it out in some contexts, we know there are some people who go the other way: They’d rather have the agreement than the clarity. If nobody felt that way about it, you wouldn’t be able to cause conflict simply by favoring the clarity.
We can go further than that: If these people would prefer agreement over clarity in some specific situation, they didn’t start off that way when the situation came up. No, take this to the bank, they’ve been building on that preference for awhile. Probably all their lives. Consider all the everyday things you need to do when there isn’t full agreement, that you’re spared from doing when there is agreement. When everyone assembled agrees, you don’t have to do…inspection. Introspection. Substantiation. Challenge. Response. Proofs. Rebuttals. Qualifications. Inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning. Argument framing. Hypothesizing.
So you see, nobody ever says “I’d rather have agreement than clarity.” They just chafe at the idea of doing any real, flippin’ mental work. They mimic, and they chide others for failing to mimic properly.
When there is agreement without clarity, nobody has to admit they don’t know something. This is hazardous. The beginning of the acquisition of all knowledge is “I don’t know.” You have to admit you don’t know something, in order to learn whatever it is. Last time I had to do that was not two weeks ago; it was more like half an hour ago.
This seems to be related to another eternal-question, having to do with Process v. Outcome. The Google search, from what I can tell, nets a whole bunch of results that all seem to have something to do with inflated eggheads extolling the virtues of process elevated above outcome. Some even go so far as to say that the more modern thinkers, fixated on process, are more likely to conduct mind-expanding experimentation, and arrive at a better final result. I guess I’m old school — seems to me they aren’t giving a fair or accurate consideration to the whole concept of “outcome.” When we consider these two values in the context of “which one is better?” we must necessarily start with the premise that to favor the one, places the other in jeopardy. In other words — to really weigh them against each other, we have to ask the question “Is it better to follow the correct process and achieve a crappy outcome, or is it better to achieve the desired outcome by straying from the established process?”
Those of us who have dealt too much with an intrusive and inefficient government don’t need to think twice when we answer that. There is a phrase to describe the process-over-outcome thinking: “The operation was a complete success, the patient died.” It refers to the bureaucrats, and the bureaucracy-minded, following their precious rules and losing track of the objectives. The thing to ask yourself is: What if you’re the soon-to-be-dead patient? What’s going to be important to you?
I detect a parallel, perhaps a very important one, between the Prager clarity/agreement divide and the pop-psych process/outcome divide. Based on all I’ve seen of it, it seems to me that the clarity is valued by people like me who elevate the suitability of the outcome above dogmatic fidelity to the defined process, and the agreement is craved by those who are committed to the process at the expense of the outcome. I think they’d agree, that the benefit from doing it their way is a quicker and easier assessment of whether the right pathway is being followed. It’s a lot like the range chief at my local firing range insisting on an orange or yellow action flag be inserted in the pistol and rifle actions whenever the range is called cold. It makes the inspection easier, and therefore quicker and more effective, therefore safer. But with all those desirable deliverables, let’s not kid ourselves, the achievement is made through slicker thinking involving lower effort. A lot of times, like at that firing range, this is entirely appropriate. Deep thinking is expensive; how much deep thinking can you afford?
But with the more elaborate and unorthodox challenges in life — and that is, arguably, what life is as far as we humans are concerned — a question arises: If the outcome at the end of it all is, that the patient dies, then who cares? And the answer is only obvious: The patient! He isn’t going to want lower-effort thinking, and who can blame him?
Damon Lindelof, the writer of Star Trek Into Darkness, has apologised to fans for the scene in which…
Wait, wait, this is all wrong. That article is a stupid article because it doesn’t include any pictures of its subject. How are we supposed to know why the writer “apologised”? And what’s up with that spelling? Silly Britons.
Let’s go here instead.
Who was it that said, ‘it’s better to beg forgiveness than ask permission’? Well, that little maxim for life must have been at the very forefront of Star Trek: Into The Darkness writer and producer Damon Lindelof’s mind this week when he issued a heartfelt apology for including a scene featuring Alice Eve in her underwear. Needless to say, Alice Eve looks very good in her underwear, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she has to conduct an entire scene in it.
It doesn’t? Who says? Actually, in this case it does…I will get to that later on.
Katy Brand, author of this second article — and I’ll bet just just a great and fun person to invite to parties or something — continues:
Using his Twitter account (of course, what else?) Lindelof sent three tweets in a row:
I copped to the fact that we should have done a better job of not being gratuitous in our representation of a barely clothed actress.
— Damon Lindelof (@DamonLindelof) May 20, 2013
We also had Kirk shirtless in underpants in both movies.Do not want to make light of something that some construe as mysogenistic.
— Damon Lindelof (@DamonLindelof) May 20, 2013
What I’m saying is I hear you, I take responsibility and will be more mindful in the future.
— Damon Lindelof (@DamonLindelof) May 20, 2013
Well, in terms of this newly discovered mindfulness, we could start with learning to spell ‘misogynistic’ – if that is indeed a word – you know, just as a gesture, but let’s not pour cold water on his efforts yet – after all, you applaud the toddler if it gets the poo near the potty the first few times, don’t you?
Um, yeah. You know, we might as well quote from a “tweet” of my own, from before tweeting was done, because I’ve got a feeling we’re gonna need this one:
Something else I’d like to get out of the way before we go further. I can’t prove it, but I’ve got a feeling Katy Brand doesn’t look as good in her underwear as Alice Eve looks in her underwear. And, let me go out even further on the limb and speculate: That’s what we’re really arguing about here. That, and one other thing: When it’s thought of as a solution to any & all problems to simply require the good-looking women to cover up all their skin, that’s a sign that idiots are in charge.
Damon Lindelof has already written for all kinds of small- and big-screen things like Crossing Jordan, Cowboys and Aliens, and probably many other visual works in which perfectly nice-looking and even gorgeous women go running around in clothing that covers everything. Which, by the way, does very little to inspire any sympathy for him as far as I’m concerned…the hasty and “heartfelt” apology doesn’t do much to improve that. Both look to me like exercises in caving in to jealousy. But this “Katy Brand” scold is doing a great job of proving out, not only how those jealousies work, but the wisdom & truth in TIK #52. Lindelof obviously has a lot of work ahead of him before he can win her over, and that’s assuming he ever can, and my money says no on that.
I really don’t see why the movie people even bother. I’m still not clear on what the complaint is. Since when are movie scenes criticized for being “gratuitous”? Especially the ones that last thirty seconds or less? Because of the visuals? Have these whining whelps seen what’s going into movies lately? Have they seen some of the visuals? Have they seen how ungodly long some of the scenes are that are completely lacking in purpose? Seriously, if that’s the complaint — and, I’m pretty sure it isn’t — “Alice Eve in her underwear” doesn’t even rate. It doesn’t even make the list of noted offenses. It’s lost in a sea of much better examples, even within the Star Trek universe.
Here is an example of what I’m talking about here. For the record, the producer who pushed this scene did apologize for putting it in. And, should’ve…
Back to that first link: It includes a phrasing of the question that evidently was strong enough to launch Lindelof into this spate of backpedaling and apologia. And seems to have been intended to do just that:
Why is Alice Eve in her underwear, gratuitously and unnecessarily, without any real effort made [to explain] as to why in God’s name she would undress in that circumstance?
Holy crap. Someone’s upset! Okay, for those who have not seen the film and might not be up on this “Carol Marcus” character:
Let’s start with the beginning. The new Star Trek series is a semi-reboot. The reboot vehicle which came out four years ago, of which this one is a sequel, includes a storyline which continues at the end of the classic Star Trek time line with all the plot points intact and all the characters developed in the way we’ve seen up to that time. One of them falls into a black hole, emerges at the other side in the distant past, then a bunch of things in the past are changed which essentially causes a new “universe” to be created. It’s a ham-handed, but at the same time rather ingenious, way of kicking things off with a blank slate but with the opportunity to re-imagine characters that have been developed before, with new events in their lives.
If you’re thinking something like “Yeah, I’ll bet they’re just doing this so they don’t have to go to Star Trek conventions and answer endless questions like ‘why would so-and-so do X if Y happened to him back in such-and-such?'”…I’m thinking, you’re probably not too far off the mark.
Enter Carol Marcus, who appeared in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan over thirty years ago. In awkward-looking ugly Mary Tyler Moore slacks. The legendary Captain James T. Kirk had a kid with her. But we never got to see any of that going on, or the “courtship” that would’ve led up to it, we only saw Kirk and Dr. Marcus dealing with the “here and now,” back then, after the kid grew up to become an adult and a Doctor himself. The actress who played Carol Marcus was visually appealing enough, but with much of her feminine appeal removed post-seventies-feminist style. Simply put: We never did get a chance to see what got things going. What kicked in Kirk’s “warp engines.” What got him thinking with the little head.
But, if I were Mr. Lindelof, I wouldn’t have said that. Asked the “why in God’s name” question, I would have said something like: “She wore underwear because the movie’s rated PG-13 and we couldn’t show the boobage. Next question.”
By the way — again, for the benefit of those who have not seen the film. The comments that there is some kind of exploitation taking place here, or “mysogeny” or as the writer himself might say I guess? The idea is completely absurd. I suppose people see what they want to see, especially when they’re caught up complaining about something…but it’s like this. Somehow the idea is gradually put together, as they very often are in Star Trek and always have been, that so-and-so is going to have to approach such-and-such and do some kind of thing. A hasty argument ensues about “No you can’t, it’s too risky and you’re too valuable,” and the person who has to do the thing, the person who came up with the idea, and the person who wins the argument all end up being the same person. Here, it’s Carol Marcus. But she isn’t attired properly, so she orders Captain Kirk, who up to this point has been doing all the ordering, to turn around. Then she strips, he peeks, and she starts berating him and ordering him to turn around again. Simply put: She is taking charge. And that’s where the camera clicks in that screen cap you’re seeing. She’s laying the smack down, while not wearing too much by way of clothes, and the much stronger, taller, fully-dressed and better-established male character of superior rank is replying with “uh, yes ma’am” or some such stuttering, sputtering, deferential type thing.
Kirk has all the advantages. But Marcus is establishing supremacy within the scene nevertheless. That was the point.
It’s exactly what feminists want, in addition to being a perfectly solid as well as amusing foundation for the relationship that develops later. Well, they’re still not happy. If there’s one area of achievement where the feminists really excel, it’s got to do with “still not being happy yet” with something. Boy, they’re like the Energizer Bunny that way…a complaining, bitching, grouchy and unhappy mechanical bunny, that never stops. Being unhappy.
So alright, it’s an exaggeration to say this is “one of the best scenes.” But the reports that the scene is entirely lacking in purpose, are simply not true. I don’t know why one of the writers is agreeing. Writer or not, he must be approaching it from a position of ignorance, or else (I consider this more likely) he’s engaged in fantasy and falsehood, spouting silly things, as part of some effort to climb out of a hole. I can’t speak to his motivations too much. I only know I like my answer better. “She’s wearing underwear because we’d have to go for the R-rating if she wasn’t.”
Uh, you unpleasant nags do realize, don’t you, that he’s going to have to be getting her pregnant at some point soon, right? Heterosexual coupling. Breeding. It’s coming. Might as well start throwing the hissy-fit now…
Update: Context. Once you appreciate the historical context, you appreciate how silly the complaint really is.
Mental illness triggered when the patient finds other people are forming opinions about him that he doesn’t like.
The patient starts to behave irrationally, handing out orders to people about what to think and what not to think.
The reasoning seems to be, since the subject of concern is the reputation of the patient, that reputation becomes the property of the patient, and the patient should be able to mold it and shape it as he pleases. Of course, to find oneself at the center of controversy or criticism and to be unhappy about it, is only natural. But mentally rugged and healthy people respect the opinions of others. Lerneritis seems to come from an inability to acknowledge that other opinions might endure, even if the subject of those opinions doesn’t happen to like them.
We got a glimpse of Lerneritis when Lois Lerner, Director of the IRS’ tax-exempt department, testified before Congress about singling out conservative organizations applying for the tax-exempt status. Or…didn’t.
Lois Lerner might win the legal battle but she’s prolonging the political war.
Instead of simply taking the scorn of lawmakers for a day, repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination, and then moving on, she chose defiance.
And her bravado has prompted House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to say she has waived her constitutional right to not comment.
Now, he plans to haul the director of the IRS’s tax-exempt department back to the committee for questioning.
“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”
Lerner shocked the committee room in the opening moments of Wednesday’s hearing by delivering an opening statement denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.
“I have not done anything wrong,” said Lerner, who triggered the IRS scandal on May 10 by acknowledging that the agency had singled out conservative groups applying for tax exemptions. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.”
Beyond that, she refused to answer the committee’s questions, immediately triggering a debate among panel members over whether she had just voided her Fifth Amendment rights.
After that, the article linked strays into legally murky territory. And I’m not a lawyer. Then again, that wasn’t a trial. At any rate, it seems we’re about to learn something about the Fifth Amendment. I’m glad to see there’s an amendment in the Constitution that the Obama administration happens to like.
Had some wisdom to share about this mental illness, yesterday, on this issue over at the Hello Kitty of bloggin’…
I have noticed a certain behavior in some people for awhile, aptly represented in Ms. Lerner’s comments about her taking the fifth, and having done nothing wrong, et al.
It has to do with the person’s reputation. The thinking seems to be, “since it’s my reputation, that makes it my property, and people should think only the things about me I want them to think. I can simply order them not to think about all the rest.” Which, of course, is not really the way it works…
I’ve also said before that, as an advanced civilized society, we do a great job of “diagnosing” certain mental ailments where they don’t actually exist, and failing to diagnose things that arguably are real illnesses. This would be an example of the latter. You have to be mentally ill, on some level, to think you can simply order people to have the perceptions of you that you want them to have.
If we could simply start diagnosing this illness, and start extrapolating patterns and trends, we might find the afflicted represented disproportionately among persons who have achieved some measure of authority and power, but not all of the authority & power they want. And they are at the extreme ends of the power spectrum: directors of units within agencies that award, deny and revoke tax-exempt status, and other people who have hardly any power at all. But in all cases, wanting more. Guarding the personal reputation with a bit too much jealousy. Unhappy, unfulfilled.
Yeah, I’m not sure you can cut it that way legally. It certainly doesn’t work, out here, in the world of reason and common sense: “I’ve done nothing wrong, and I refuse to answer any questions.” Which is it?
A prisoner who bragged about his offenses was disemboweled in prison on Saturday.
For many criminals, especially those who sexually assault people, it’s often in prison they are made to suffer for their crimes. Many men are raped, sexually assaulted, or murdered in prison. Mitchell Harrison (23) a serial sex offender, Saturday found the latter awaited him.
When Mitchell Harrison was sentenced to four years in prison for raping a 13-year-old girl he seemed proud of his crime. Harrison was sent to the notorious Frankland Prison, home of child killer Ian Huntley (who last year had his throat cut). When quizzed by other inmates, Harrison would brag about the intricacies of his sexual exploits (this the third time he was caught for sexual offences on minors). It’s this bragging that is thought to have ended his life.
On Saturday morning, having made makeshift weapons out of toothbrushes and razors, two inmates at Frankland prison confronted Harrison in his cell, slit open his stomach, and to ensure he was dead pulled out some of his internal organs onto the floor, essentially disemboweling him.
The two men (as yet unnamed) aged 23 and 32 then cleaned themselves up, went to eat breakfast, then turned themselves into officers for the crime, which at that point had gone undetected.
Funny how some things have a way of sort of working themselves out.
The centuries old flag of England has been rejected by a local town council on the grounds the red cross on white background English colors may be “inappropriate” and “offensive” to Muslims, as reported by the on-line news portal The Bristol Post on 16 May, 2013.
The town council of Radstock in Southwest England, has elected to pass on purchasing a new flag of England, correctly known as The St. George’s Cross.
Councillor Eleanor Jackson, a university lecturer and teacher, stated that due to the English national flag was used by English troops during the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries just possibly could mean the beloved English Red & White may be seen by some as offensive.
As Councillor Jackson stated:
My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right.
My thoughts are we ought to drop it for 20 years.
Jackson failed to mention the Crusades were in response to the initial Muslim invasion of the Holy Land.
“We’ve received some anonymous complaints about X” is one of the lowest-of-the-low among sneaky bureaucratic weasel tricks. “I can envision a possibility in which a hypothetical X might be offended” is the next step down.
Wasn’t there a Queen of France named Eleanor, about that time, who made a break for it and started fornicating with some young punk kid named Henry, eventually marrying him and becoming the Queen of England? Wonder if the French found that offensive. The two kingdoms did start going at it in a more-or-less constant state of warfare for some three or six centuries, depending on what sorts of uneasy peaces you think might count for something. Perhaps the good university teacher should’ve changed her given name.
I think I like this.
An all-out assault against the WAGTOCPAN. Go get ’em! Folsom has it worse than most places. Everybody looks like they’re receiving instructions on the formula for an antidote that will save humanity, or missile coordinates for the satellite that’s about to wipe out all life on Earth.
But those conversations are really all about: “Whaddya you doin’? Me? Aw, nothin’ much…whaddya you doin’?”
So let’s crack down. Yes, if it saves just one life then it’s worth it.
So the producer and co-creator of The Daily Show, Lizz Winstead, made a bad joke about the Oklahoma Tornado hitting a red state. “This tornado is in Oklahoma so clearly it has been ordered to only target conservatives.” Then she apologized and backpedaled like crazy in the best self-deprecating manner should could rustle up, once she found out that real people were getting hurt and killed.
There’s a great case to be made that this isn’t sufficient to let her “off the hook.”
I tend to over-think these things. Maybe this is one of those times I shouldn’t be doing that. Winstead made a “funny” joke before she figured out people were going to be hurt, so it was outside of her intention to wish ill on anyone, or to make light of it once the worst came to pass. She owned up. Let’s move on. Right?
Um…not so fast there. This Daily Show producer being a dark-hearted evil monster who laughs at dead children, is not the focus of my concern and it never has been the focus of my concern. When someone says something stupid like that, it isn’t even my default presumption about what’s going on. I’m more worried about just the thoughtlessness of it. I’m not worried about whether her horizons were broadened once she realized she made an ass out of herself — although maybe I should be, since in her Twitter feed, post-backpedal-moment, I don’t see anything along the lines of “I learned something.” I’m upset that she had to have them broadened in the first place. She didn’t see Oklahoma citizens as “real” people or something? I mean, that was the whole point of her little quip, wasn’t it?
In fact, I think my own horizons are the ones that just got embiggened here. Let me explain that: I’ve often made the point that it isn’t safe to generalize among liberals too broadly. They all push bad policies, but the “elite apathetic” types push the bad policies because they don’t care that the policies hurt people, while the “common ignorants” presumably have the very best intentions and want the best for their fellow world-citizens; they just don’t understand how awful and wretched the policies are. And so, I’ve rationalized, the liberalism we see is simply a sales transaction, from the few cynical psychopaths to the many low-information voters.
It’s a good rationalization. It’s a friendly rationalization, since it makes it possible for all of us to start to find ways to get along. And there’s truth to it, which indicates there’s a need for it: I do know some liberals who are good people. They’re misguided, of course, and by seeing things this way I can at least try to find ways to un-mis-guide them without cheesing ’em off. Try to.
Problem: I don’t know how to file Winstead into this.
Second problem: It isn’t just Winstead. There are quite a few like her.
What’s the difference between being a dark-hearted Jezebel and being a thoughtless bitch? It’s the difference between the active and the passive. I don’t think Winstead really wanted kids to go missing by the dozens and then turn up dead. She just wanted to get her little joke out there. No, I agree the apology doesn’t let her off the hook, because when you really mull it over awhile you see it’s one of those apologies for getting caught. She made a very hateful remark, which was worth making because it was hateful against the right people. And, I’m picking up that it was very important for her to get it out there, toot-sweet, before someone else thought of the same thing and beat her to the punch. That does seem to be when the bad judgment comes out.
Can I pigeonhole her with the genuinely well-intentioned liberals who just want to be kind all the time? The sweet, cheerful Aunt who’s been voting for democrats since Roosevelt, and finds a way to change the subject whenever you point out that logic and history agree the minimum wage exacerbates unemployment for young people? And here’s my dilemma: I don’t think I can. It isn’t fair to the Auntie, who at least gives a shit. Lizz Winstead obviously doesn’t. She, along with the people like her, are all too busy being “funny” and making their “jokes.”
So I guess, with this new experience in my rear-view mirror and a bit of introspection and “exospection,” we need a new middle-tier. We have the generals, think of those as Barack Obama’s inner circle right now, the people who figure out absurd silly things like: Pass this gun control bill, pass ObamaCare, pretend John Kerry is the best Secretary of State we could possibly have…based on God only knows what kind of motives they’re hiding from everyone else. There are buck privates, who might have wonderful intentions but don’t know a damn thing and can’t be told anything, the dear old aunties. In between we have, dunno what “rank” we’d give them, Staff Sergeant or something? The “noncoms.” They aren’t at the bottom of the food chain, because they get this thrill out of making their “jokes” which are really nothing more than efforts to tell others what to support, what to oppose, what to think. With little punchlines at the end, so they can pretend what they just said is some kind of a “joke.”
But they don’t formulate what they’re selling. They don’t decide what that’s going to be; they’re not “brass.” They just pass it along, bludgeon others into believing in it and supporting it.
They’re not funny. They’re just plain mean. Just not actively mean. They’re passively mean. The truth is, they really don’t give a crap about dead kids, if while the kids are alive they happen to be living in the wrong, red states. They care about looking like they care, so they can keep their good reputations. Which they can then use to sell the agenda. Formed and shaped by the brass, to the kindly old buck-private aunties, who genuinely do have and maintain this compassion for kids and other human beings, that these noncoms only pretend to have.
The top tier is the apathetic, the bottom tier is the ignorant, and this middle one is both. We have to acknowledge it’s there, because there is a danger that these buck-private compassionate aunties might, after a time, be “promoted” and lose their compassion. That’s the trouble with these noble, glorious movements that are supposed to change the world: Sooner or later, this drive to help people who need the help, checks out. And it’s replaced by this other darker ambition to lock the sites on the opposition, and blast away. Beat them. Vanquish. Win. Grind ’em into the dirt. Really show ’em what-for.
I don’t want to pretend to know a lot about this Lizz Winstead person, because I just heard about her for the first time. But with this charge-and-retreat thing she did here, she’s not that hard to read. She has rounded that bend. She’s not alone. It’s been growing, as a big national problem, for a long time.
Just scraped the following image off Google Earth, Street View.
Oh yeah, and that’s cute, the image hosting service calls it “meatpump” from the local filename me-at-pump.jpg. Go on, get yer minds outta the gutter…
Anyway. The make/model of the coupe is not immediately recognizable. Sure looks like Bessie, with that distinctive, out-of-time, late-eighties “compact cars are still sort of compact” body style & shape. And that’s exactly where I used to fuel up, that very pump. That stall, that pump, that side. “Please pull up to forward pump,” the signs say, and since I was just learning to drive I always took that literally. That’s over three decades now, I have always pulled up to the forward pump.
The wife says it isn’t me, it’s a Honda Accord and not a Toyota Corolla. On closer inspection, it looks like she could be right. There’s a certain bulbous shape to this that I don’t recall from the 340 thousand mile iron chariot. B-u-u-u-t…there’s the other stuff. The hubcap design, for example. Very distinctive. Bessie had those. Not too many other cars did. This one does.
There’s a dude next to it, pumping the gas. Sure looks like me.
This coming Saturday we have a double-date. We’re meeting another couple at this very spot. We owe them a steak dinner, because the communist won re-election last year. Going to spend a couple nights at our favorite oceanside vacation spot. Last two or three years have been a bit rough, so we haven’t been going. Now that we’re cornered into it, I’m looking forward to it. Kinda need this break.
That’s 150.2 miles, from this spot (I reset the trip odometer when I fill up, don’t you?) to where you pull in, check in, haul your own luggage up to your room, soak your ass in a hot tub and watch the ocean waves crash up against the seashore. I know every single inch of that trip. It slices through the wine country in Napa Valley like a hot knife through a stick of butter. Mrs. Freeberg and I are going to be “tour guides,” of sorts, on this thing, and although everyone’s political opinions are not quite exactly the same — did I mention we’re really, really looking forward to it?
Back to the image, though: No it probably isn’t me. But it’s still creepy…
Update: Photo must be aged by a few years, which raises the likelihood somewhat. The gas station stopped being a Shell and started being an Arco AM/PM, quite some time ago.
So my blogger friend Cassy linked from her Facebook page (somewhere) to a Buzzfeed article about 43 things that will make you feel old. The content of the list didn’t impress me that much, and truth be told it was awhile before I clicked it open & actually went through it. Cassy, who’s pretty much a whole generation newer than me, griping about feeling old was good enough to get the job done.
Things make me feel old all the time nowadays. So I didn’t think too much of it. Then I saw an ad for this:
Something terrible has happened here. I haven’t said anything about it because my first instinct with things that are entirely outside my knowledge limits, is to keep my mouth shut. No, quit laughin’, it’s true. Once I learn a little bit about it, I start to sound off with the questions, at least the ones I have a trace suspicion won’t sound entirely idiotic, and that’s most of what you see here. I’m not there yet with the Fast & Furious franchise, but I think I’m there with the overall “sequel” phenomenon.
Its beginning can be legitimately debated. And we should have that debate: A case can be made that it comes from decades and decades before my time, but this starts to deteriorate a bit with some more definition. And as we recognize the problem, which I’ll get to in a bit — this is a rant you’re reading, let’s be clear about that — our sample set starts to shrink. From Russia With Love, sequel to Dr. No, is the earliest big-box-office example that comes to my mind. Yeah yeah, it’s a sequel only in movie land, where the order was reversed from the books with “Russia” coming before “Dr. No,” let’s get that out of the way. But it works as an action/adrenaline-junkie vehicle, at least within its own time.
But there are no numbers in the title until The Godfather: Part II. Apart from the number, here we find a meaningful event in that the significance has shifted: The movie has appeal because the audience wants to find out what happened to all these characters. So why would we not consider this to be the ignition-point of what we’re seeing today. Well, I do have some reservations about that. There is no book, so far as I know, called “the Godfather Part II.” But the literary format of the story continued afterward to flourish, with its own set of plot points that seem to have at least occasionally inspired what happened in the film. So while the producers of the sequel were motivated by profit, the supply-demand equation for story delivery is different; the story is there, waiting to be told. This sets it apart from what I consider to be the actual start of the problem, Jaws II. This would be the beginning of the era of: Huh, that made quite a bit of money, let’s see if we can make some more.
Superman II would arguably fall outside of this…although Superman III does not. So let’s firm up the definition a bit: At the time the decision is made to “green-light” the sequel, the story & plot are not firmed up as well as the recognition of the audience that has already demonstrated its interest. Shortening it somewhat: The decision to go ahead is driven by, or at least made easier by, the reduction in financial risk due to the prior creation of this new franchise. Ramifications: Creating the sequel becomes less of an expression of creativity, than an expedition to go “round up” some dollars that are known to be out there. We did not see this problem in the early days because back then, it was done with flair, quality, class, and a sincere desire to entertain. There was a built-in audience for Rocky II, but given that its predecessor enjoyed any success at all, how could there not be? The producers were simply giving the audience what it wanted.
By this time, we come to an era in which the most profitable and quick way to make a movie, was to make it a date movie, and the best way to make a date movie was to make it about horny and drug-addicted teenagers getting hacked to pieces by crazy people. So the Roman Numeral phenomenon completely exploded with the Big Three: Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the Thirteenth. Revived, lately, in Scream and Saw.
And this is where the dry rot starts to set in. We come now to my complaint:
Like any old geezer looking down his withered old nose with disdain on what the newer generation is doing — I understand, I’m not the first — I am full of worries about something I realize isn’t actually any of my business. I am worried about these roman numerals. I’m fretting over their true purpose. I fear that purpose has been whittled down to nothing more than serialization. As in, without the number there, people might wrongly assume they already saw the film that’s just coming out. This would mean we’re living in this strange resurgence of what I saw in my youth. Not the movies, but the commercials on Saturday morning during the Bugs Bunny Show, in which the narrator would urge us to “collect all of them!” (In my house, that was a complete non-starter, as “collect all of them” was something those rich kids did, across town. But anyway.) I’m worried that is the only point left to these title-numbers, so the audience can make sure they’ve collected/seen all of ’em.
The installments, from what I can tell, are not immortalized by key plot points like “Apollo Creed dies in Rocky IV,” or “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the only James Bond movie without a happy ending.”
The installments, in other words, have become fungible. Just like vegetable oil, one gallon being indistinguishable from another.
Or maybe I should say, Mountain Dew. The roman numeral simply says, “Yeah we got more,” and little apart from that. You need Mountain Dew case #6 if you’re done drinking Mountain Dew case #5.
I recall that chubby kid in the photography class I flunked back in ’83, monopolizing the conversation to try to beef up his nascent social skills…I suppose he was a bit further along there than I was…expressing his sense of wonder about a promotional shot of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader riding an elevator together. “Whoa,” he said…”I’VE GOT TO SEE THAT MOVIE.” So, yes. There’s certainly a shift taking place here. It’s a big one, big enough we should be taking note of it, whether we like it or not. And no, I’m not happy about it, although I suppose there’s no need for me to be.
I don’t know this subject matter very well because I’m not following Fast & Furious. I could be wrong about this “fungible” thing in that context. In fact I know there are some caveats to this, at least. Six is supposed to be “the one with The Rock in it,” right? And I’m sure some of the stunts are new. But that was true of the Expendables sequel as well, and…well ya know, I’m thinking it takes a bit more than that to justify a sequel. At least in my mind.
Take it for what it’s worth. I’m just an old coot who was around at the beginning of it (I think). But I’m a sad old coot. I think, across the decades, I’ve seen something start out as an honest and fine art form, and wither down into something like a grocery delivery of something sweet, sugary, loaded up with caffeine and calories and not much else.
Ezra Klein writes:
On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesn’t look like any of them will pan out. There’ll be more hearings, and more bad press for the Obama administration, and more demands for documents. But — and this is a key qualification — absent more revelations, the scandals that could reach high don’t seem to include any real wrongdoing, whereas the ones that include real wrongdoing don’t reach high enough.
I think I’d like to nominate that “key qualification, absent more revelations” bit as perhaps the most insincere sentence fragment to appear prominently in print in this calendar year. Although the year is still young.
Klein is known to me to put up this kind of facade, persistently and often: An energetic, driven but impartial and cool-headed force of good honest old-fashioned journalism, always ready to let the information continue to stream on in, following the path wherever it may lead. But in the end, the answer is always more liberalism. Funny, that. What else would you expect from the founder of JournoList?
Later on, in his obituary for the scandals whose vital signs he perceives to have flat-lined, he begins his closing remarks:
I want to emphasize: It’s always possible that evidence could emerge that vaults one of these issues into true scandal territory. But the trend line so far is clear: The more information we get, the less these actually look like scandals.
What a wonderful job he’s doing of pretending to be the opposite of what he really is, doing the opposite of what he’s trying to do. “It’s always possible that the patient may start breathing. Excuse me, you’re standing in the way of my embalming machine.”
This brings to mind something I was writing lately about a personal matter:
Preconceived notions carry great weight in proportion to the weight of evidence that arrives after the preconceived notions have been formed. Again, thinking can be done well or poorly; if it is done well, the evidence enjoys a great likelihood of upsetting or even toppling the preconceptions. And this is what I try to do when I write about what I [think that I] know, and why it is that I think I know it. I look for opportunities to topple my preconceived notions….I think it is a healthy sign when what is learned subsequently carries great weight, and the first impressions carry little — that is a sign of responsible thinking. What I seem to be seeing here is the opposite: The preconceived notions enjoy a great likelihood of remaining standing, even undisturbed entirely. The newer evidence must yield to the older prejudices.
Seems almost “Kleinerrific” prose — we’re both going through the motions of doing the same thing. One might almost ask, who am I to critique him?
The difference is, I’m sincere; and it isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s measurable. Perhaps we’d all be a little bit more mature in our methodology of inspecting this, if we had better words for describing all this, besides racially-charged words like “prejudiced” and “open-minded.”
To do a good job defining this, we have to do a good job defining the situation. The complaint, overall, is the way I described it in this other matter: “Preconceived notions carry great weight in proportion to the weight of evidence that arrives after the preconceived notions have been formed.” The situation in which it becomes “measurable,” is one in which this lately-arriving evidence packs a real wallop. That’s when the sickness becomes testable.
Those afflicted shrug, and say “so what?” Uh, but waitaminnit…this means something.
Of course it isn’t fair to say “Alright, such-and-such happened, now you are obliged to do a hairpin-turn and start agreeing with me.” Grown-ups aren’t obliged to think anything at all; that isn’t how we decide complex issues after we’ve had a chance to mature. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect some doubts to be raised. In the case of the IRS scandal, the talking point earlier this week was that this was the work of a “few rogue agents” or some such, and by yesterday the Treasury Secretary fired the head of the IRS. Obviously, Klein thinks that’s an empty, “throw a body to the sharks” maneuver that means next to nothing. Alright…that could be correct. It’s possible. And he’s certainly entitled to his opinion. But it’s an incongruity with the earlier talking point that the malfeasance was committed by a few low-level flunkies because, even if you’re looking for a body to throw to the sharks, why go for the head of the IRS if there was any truth at all to the “flunky” argument?
We therefore have a difference of opinion, resulting from Klein’s idea that some kind of critical summit has passed and is now in our rear-view mirror, and if a “real” scandal has not materialized by now then…well, it’s time to get out the toe tag and the embalming kit. Well, from where does he get that? It seems so odd that we should receive confirmation on Wednesday, or at least near-confirmation, that we’d been lied to on Monday or Tuesday, and by Thursday Klein is proclaiming the scandal dead.
The issue is not final opinion, but certainty. Klein seems so certain. If it isn’t a fair point that his mind should be changed, it’s certainly a fair point that he should have doubts he doesn’t have.
Ah, but he did mention that he’s still waiting for more information to come in. Twice! Yet, his march to the desired opinion of “nothing to see here…for now” hasn’t changed course. It hasn’t even slowed down. And there is the focus of my complaint: Contradictory evidence does come in, and the progress toward the desired conclusion is entirely unchanged. It isn’t modified in bearing or in vector. It doesn’t change course. It doesn’t slow down. It doesn’t even skip a beat.
I recall a bit of LAN administration training I attended, in which the time-synchronization among servers in a distributed database was described in great detail. I thought this was absolutely fascinating. And I suppose the analogy is a stretch for anyone who hasn’t worked in the field, but against my better judgment, I’ll proceed: Before the servers communicate with each other about “my information update is newer than yours, for it was made at HH:mm:ss.hh,” they first engage in this bit of dialogue about what time it is. Makes sense when you think about it, right? You have to have a unified understanding of what time it is before you can measure who has the newest update. And so the database system presumes that server times, for whatever reason, get knocked off. The servers therefore conduct negotiations. And in this, they have different “weights” because they are assigned different roles in the overall system. Some servers are “reference” servers, existing for no reason other than to keep time, and they enjoy the benefit of “infinite” weight: All other servers, with different ideas about this what-time-is-it question, must yield, while the reference server’s understanding of the correct time remains unmodified.
And that is my critique. The original, preconceived notion, first impressions formed during the “how do you do” stage of meeting people, or even before — the ideological leanings, if any are in effect. They become “reference servers,” enjoying this infinite weight. A bunch of Ezra-Klein-babbling is spewed about waiting for new & newer evidence to trickle on in, but it’s just a bunch of pablum.
Bottom-lining it: I do not care if such people tend to agree with Klein, or if they tend to agree with me. I am worried when people like this, decide important things. I would rather have imbeciles in charge. I’m dead-flat-ass serious. I would much rather have the important decisions that really matter, placed in the hands of someone with an I.Q. limited to about 85, but capable of forming an honest opinion and then changing it if new information merits — than a child prodigy with a genius-level intellect, who’s so smart that he “knows” what he wants to know before he’s gathered a shred of evidence to support it, and can write all sorts of chiseled prose to justify it later on. That second guy may be the smartest guy I’ve ever met. But he scares me.
I fear people who can fool themselves this way. And I have good reason to: They’re human. Humans are unique, in this way. We’re so smart that we can lie to ourselves. No other animal can do this. A jaguar, getting ready to pounce, can’t lie to herself about when & where she can do do the pouncing for the best effect. She starves to death if she does. All other “dumb” carnivores have this “problem.” But we humans are spoiled rotten; we pay for drinking water and we can have it delivered to our doorsteps. With that much higher standard of living, comes the option of lying to ourselves about things, if we decide that is what we want to do. And I don’t ever want to be that “smart.”
It’s like having a souped-up sports car with an engine that can tear the concrete in half — but no steering wheel. What good does it do you? How does it help you to have a better than average talent for figuring out what new information might mean about what’s going on, if you lack the mental discipline to actually use it? What good is horsepower without an adequate sense of direction? Or perhaps in this situation, we should say — with too much of a sense of direction. When you aren’t really taking the information in, or if you are, you aren’t allowing it to have any influence over the outcome, without allowing yourself to draw the benefit from it; making exactly the same decisions you’d make if you never came across it. That’s exactly the same ultimate result of never running across the information in the first place, isn’t it?
Update 5/18/13: Some trouble for the “scandals that reach high don’t include wrongdoing, the ones that include wrongdoing don’t reach high” line.
Well YEAH in the sense they look one hell of a lot better than you, you disrespectful cretin.
Who are these Umbrella Marines I’ve been hearing about since a few minutes ago?
During a Rose Garden press conference with the prime minister of Turkey this afternoon, it began to rain heavily, at which point President Obama requested the assistance of two nearby umbrella-wielding Marines.
That seems like kind of an awkward request — did Obama make any sort-of-jokes to lighten the mood at all?
Yes, he made about three sort-of-jokes: “Why don’t we get a couple of Marines — they’re gonna look good next to us. Just ‘cuz I — I’ve got a change of suits, but I don’t know about our prime minister. There we go. [Gestures to press, which did not get Umbrella Marines.] You guys I’m sorry about.”
Video here. That jerk-of-the-thumb motion is a nice touch.
This is the mindset that made the Benghazi disaster possible, I’m thinking. And I’ll tell you why I think that: In public at least, President Obama has shown a borderline-obsession of sorts with decisions that, assuming they are indeed coming after some lengthy status quo of doing things the opposite way, you could make a plausible case that what came before is boneheaded moronic pig-iron stupid. If only you could make such an observation, that whoever came before thought it was a great idea to do things the other way. This is a pretty good example, right here. For generations parents have worried about their kids “having the common sense to come in out of the rain.” So this isn’t the first time we’ve seen President Obama investing all this pride in the meaningless, little things. It isn’t even a judgment call, really, it’s just an insult wrapped up in a straw-man argument, against nobody in particular: It would be an idiotic move, wouldn’t it, to have a couple of statesmen in expensive suits standing out there getting soaked to the skin.
I don’t think Obama wanted to stay dry, quite so much as He wanted yet another chance to play the part of the late-coming voice of reason. Hey! Leaders of the free world shouldn’t be getting so wet that they look like they swam laps with their clothes on! Once again — I agree with Him, assuming there was some disagreement about exactly that. But once again, I don’t think there was.
If only our President were so decisive about the bigger things. The tougher things, where both sides of the issue can make some legitimate arguments.
Alright, He does that too. Not with “let’s go help those people in Benghazi.” But, “Planned Parenthood is here to stay.” So that’s a bit more of a delicate and convoluted judgment call. But, that example isn’t a good one, since the lefty ideological position is crystal-clear.
So He can be a late-coming voice of reason just splashing all the rest of us in the face with a cold sprinkling of common sense…so we stop acting all dumb & goofy, since we’ve never seen any other way to be until our new Holy Prophet came along…or, He can be an ideological warrior.
Sure wish He knew how to actually lead. That’s four good Americans who’d still be alive today.
I sense Obama is losing His touch for P.R., as well. Since we’re going to be needing a five dollar coin pretty soon, maybe this is the image that should go on it. Talk about tone-deaf. He really did think this would be a good image, didn’t He? Just amazing.
Maybe I can float that one as an idea, just to see how far it gets. Think they’ll get an artist commissioned before they figure out this might be another backfire in the making?