Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Since sometime in the second half of the twentieth century, we have had this rule in place that is unwritten and yet rigidly enforced. If someone were to take the time to string it into actual words, it would read something like “Any observation about people with exceptions to it, along with any observation that may have an exception to it is to be blocked, on penalty of ostracism.” Sometimes in grade school it is crystallized into the form of “It is wrong to generalize.”
Nowadays, it seems the perimeter has shrunk although at the same time, hardened. “All things noticed about a class of people, particularly a class of people represented by any organized victims-advocacy groups, are to be discarded before anyone acknowledges the thing noticed, such that it may as well not have been noticed.” So the enforcement is no longer against certain ways of thinking, it has subtly changed into a pit bull safeguarding the interests of political advocacy groups. For example — in 2011, I can say “it seems I am much less safe on the highways when the driver of the next car has a very low head, rising not too far above the steering wheel.” It is a generalization; certainly, still not looked upon too favorably. But it no longer draws any genuine offense because it doesn’t specifically target any one particular group. There is a “Could Be Construed As” standard that still has some teeth, and this could be construed as an attack upon Asians, or old people, or vertically challenged.
But it is not considered “super duper wrong” like it would have been before. In other words, we have very subtly done away with our deploring of certain ways of thinking, with the “enter every single new experience with people with zero baggage, and a brand new blank slate” thing. In times past, generalization itself was thought to be always unfair; making use of a long term memory was absurdly equivalent to denying someone, somewhere, opportunities and therefore “rights.” Well, unless it was a generalization the communists might like. “Business executives are cold-blooded reptiles” has never been politically incorrect, or discouraged in any way.
Well, like Baxter Black said: I acknowledge the multitude of exceptions to my observation. When you start out with that; and acknowledge the plain truth of the matter, that greater proportions of one declared class engage in a certain behavior than of some other declared class; and, consider the action of voting to re-elect President Obama — it is interesting what remains on the table.
Neal Boortz proceeds to catalog it thusly. And it’s a fair question for these fair generalizations. Who, after all, could have been paying attention over the last three years, and come to any conclusion available, other than that we’re looking at a failed experiment?
As I’ve said before, I take issue with the thing about women being wired for security while men are wired for opportunity. In times past, I say, it might very well have been true; but it’s time for a re-think. Are men, nowadays, wired for opportunity? Pfeh. If that’s the case, let them prove it, better than I’ve seen them prove it up ’til now. And I’ll be generous about it — dudes, if you’re going out to cut your own wood, change your own oil, fix your own machinery, plumbing, wiring, heating/AC ductwork, then I award you points. If you have opted for a job that pays on commission, or some kind of a bounty, has no flat salary, you get points too. Who’s left standing around with no points? A bunch of dames? A bunch of skirts? Their mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends…nobody else? I’m thinking not. I’m seeing a lot of men who can’t make rational decisions about their own lives, unless & until everything is completely safe…at least in appearance. Men who can’t tell their next pink slip apart from an order of execution — who lack the ability to envision what is to become of their lives, the day after the current full-time job comes to an end.
Another disagreement: I must side with the commenters who have pointed out to Boortz that he has erred in skipping over the very young people. They are significant. Obama can count on them, and I think He is. You know what they say; you can’t have a heart if you vote Republican at twenty-five, and you can’t have a brain if you still vote democrat at thirty-five. As Rush Limbaugh said in his book, “that statement is at least half true.” But I find it a fair generalization to make that voters, up until about age thirty, don’t really give a rip. Oh, they’ll vote to “be a part of this thing” and so forth, but they won’t take the time to learn the details about what they’re doing.
I think in 2012, Barack Obama can count on young voters, feeling the pressure to participate…but, not taking the time to answer critical questions that pertain to Obama’s administration. Like, for example, “how exactly does a drilling moratorium help the situation with the oil seeping into the gulf?” Or, to cite another example, “what exactly is ObamaCare supposed to do, to bring medical costs down and make better care available to a greater number of people?”
If you had to contend with some kind of knowledge obstacle, to demonstrate some capacity of understanding for our policies and the effects they have before you could cast a vote…Obama would be a dead duck, with His amazing talents for speechmaking and crowd-pleasing rendered a mere nullity and nothing more. Might as well call up the moving truck right now.
There’s only one fair generalization needed, really: Barack Obama is depending on voters accustomed to feeling their way around problems, rather than thinking their way through them. Voters who have been conditioned to think they are assured of an acceptable outcome of each new situation, if only their emotions are in a good state, and kept that way until some concluding event.
Mental children, in other words.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ve always loved arguments along this subject line. Of course, “You shouldn’t generalize” is a generalization. If the speaker is presented with that fact, they usually get that look that a dog gets when you pass a ball from one hand to the other.
I like to say, “All generalizations are dangerous, even this one.”
- BillW. | 04/06/2011 @ 07:40I acknowledge the multitude of exceptions to my observation, but while he’ll probably get a larger percentage of the young person vote this time around outside of other age-based demographics — they won’t turn out in the numbers they did last time.
They won’t be “making history” this time. Obama’s so “last election”. Wanna, like, go to the mall?
- philmon | 04/06/2011 @ 18:50