Discuss the results in the comments. Did they do the right thing?
On a side issue, let me just say: Rhianna was atrocious. That just made me feel really sad. What she did has nothing to do with with rock, though she may be a big star. And that lyric "I never play the victim/I'd rather be a stalker." Utter bullshit. The lesson of abuse is to rise above being either a victim or a stalker, and the fact that you let your people use you with lyrics like that? That makes you still the victim, and that is really, really sad. I don't know why destructive material like that is on the quintessential family show of our era, but I hope you find your way.
April 7, 2010
Why I love going to a Tea Party.
I'm not the political type. I write about politics, but in an idiosyncratic way. I wouldn't go to a political rally to personally rally, but to see what it looks and feels like. And to take some photographs.
And what I learned...
... is that the social convention at a thing like this....
... is that people are there to be seen....
... so you can go right up to them, point a camera, and shoot.
As a photographer, I love that.
If you wonder why I take so many pictures of buildings and flowers and trees, it's because in normal life, you can't just point a camera at somebody. It's not the norm.
At the rally, I was — finally — free.
And what I learned...
... is that the social convention at a thing like this....
... is that people are there to be seen....
... so you can go right up to them, point a camera, and shoot.
As a photographer, I love that.
If you wonder why I take so many pictures of buildings and flowers and trees, it's because in normal life, you can't just point a camera at somebody. It's not the norm.
At the rally, I was — finally — free.
"Thanks Fox News."
From yesterday's Tea Party in Madison... I really don't know whether that sign is intended with sincerity or sarcasm.
If the last Protestant — Justice Stevens — leaves the Supreme Court, won't President Obama have to appoint a Protestant?
Nina Totenberg examines a topic people think they aren't supposed to talk about.
Totenberg:
It's odd how the problem has gone without notice until we are at the point where the Supreme Court will be composed entirely of Catholic and Jewish Justices. It does seem quite wrong to look at the short list of potential nominees and disqualify the very impressive candidates who are not Protestant. That seems like outright discrimination. But why is giving preference to a Protestant any different from going after a female/Hispanic candidate, as President Obama did with the last appointment?
Let's face it: This is a radioactive subject. As Jeff Shesol, author of the critically acclaimed new book Supreme Power, puts it, "religion is the third rail of Supreme Court politics. It's not something that's talked about in polite company." And although Shesol notes that privately a lot of people remark about the surprising fact that there are so many Catholics on the Supreme Court, this is not a subject that people openly discuss.I've written about it — on this blog and in the NYT.
Totenberg:
Professor Mark Scarberry at Pepperdine law school, a self-described evangelical Protestant, says there should be no religious test for appointment.I think that since we talk about the race/ethnicity and sex of the Supreme Court nominees, we should talk about religious affiliation. Religion is an even more important aspect of diversity, since it resides in the human mind, and it is the mind that will be making the decisions that bind us. (Is it Protestant of me to think that religion resides in the human mind?)
"But I don't think that that means that a president shouldn't pay at least some attention to religious diversity on the court," he said. "It does seem to me that when you have such a large part of the country that has a particular sort of religious worldview, if there is no one on the court who is able to understand that worldview in a sympathetic way, then that creates difficulties."
It's odd how the problem has gone without notice until we are at the point where the Supreme Court will be composed entirely of Catholic and Jewish Justices. It does seem quite wrong to look at the short list of potential nominees and disqualify the very impressive candidates who are not Protestant. That seems like outright discrimination. But why is giving preference to a Protestant any different from going after a female/Hispanic candidate, as President Obama did with the last appointment?
John McWhorter found Sarah Palin childish for using the "distancing" word "that," so what would he have to say about Abraham Lincoln?
Yesterday, we were talking about the way the linguist John McWhorter analyzed Sarah Palin's speech. He found her childish for using the word "that" in phrases like "forge that peace," because it was a "distancing gesture," as if the peace were "way over there" and not something she's genuinely involved with. He wrote:
That peace? You mean that peace way over there — as opposed to the peace that you as Vice-President would have been responsible for forging? She’s far, far away from that peace.Now, check out the Gettyburg Address, with added boldface:
... Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.You mean that nation way over there — as opposed to the nation you're supposed to be President of.
We are met on a great battle-field of that war.That war?!!! It's your war, Mr. President. Come down out of the clouds you fluffy-headed fool and join the reality that you have a helluva lot to do with... or perhaps you haven't noticed!
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field....That field! You are here on this field, where so many have died. Wake up from your crazy dream world, man!
... as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.That nation?!!! It's our nation, Mr. President. Not some nation way over there! How did this dangerous child of a man become President?!
Conserve printer toner: Make Century Gothic your font.
On line, it doesn't matter. No one cares if your electrons are black or white.
In the office, how about just not printing stuff out at all? I've been using my iPad in class instead of printing out my class notes. In dollars, how many toner cartridges equals one iPad, hmmm?
Maybe companies/universities should be providing us printer-users with iPads. More likely they'll start dictating what font we should use. It will be like forcing compact fluorescent light bulbs on us. You might say: I'll turn off the lights whenever I leave a room, and I'll use a dimmer and keep my lights low. But the answer is: No, we don't care about other things you do to save electricity; we want you saving electricity the official way, the way that makes you feel bad, fluorescent bulbs.
The same with fonts. Maybe the university will dictate the use of Century Gothic on any document that is to be printed. I might say: But I will take the time to eliminate all verbosity in my documents, making them as short as possible, and I will print out only a small fraction of the things I write and read. But the answer will be: No, we don't care about the other things you do to save toner; we want you saving toner the official way, the way that makes you feel bad, Century Gothic font.
It's Julien Duret, the Frenchman, previously eclipsed by the "heroic father."
He was in fact, first to reach the drowning toddler who fell into the East River.
Here's our earlier (contentious) discussion. We argued about whether the father who instinctively jumped in to save the child ought to be called a hero. In that light, consider Duret's remark:
Here's our earlier (contentious) discussion. We argued about whether the father who instinctively jumped in to save the child ought to be called a hero. In that light, consider Duret's remark:
"I don't really think I'm a hero. Anyone would do the same thing.... I was just happy that I was able to help her, and I am just happy that the family has been reunited."
April 6, 2010
Tea Party videos.
Here's some video from the Tea Party Express event in Madison, Wisconsin today:
1. The buses arrive.
2. The National Anthem.
3. Lloyd Marcus sings about Tea Party values.
4. Another song.
1. The buses arrive.
2. The National Anthem.
3. Lloyd Marcus sings about Tea Party values.
4. Another song.
Pictures from the Tea Party Express in Madison, Wisconsin.
Meade and I stopped by the Tea Party Express event over on the far east side of Madison. There were about 300 people there, with various flags and signs. No violence. No epithets. Just a lot of people opposed to socialism.
I took a lot of photographs and video, which I'll put up here as soon as I can.
ADDED:
I took a lot of photographs and video, which I'll put up here as soon as I can.
ADDED:
"[Sarah Palin] speaks very much from the inside of her head, as someone watching the issues from a considerable distance."
John McWhorter analyzes Sarah Palin's speech from a position of remarkable superiority:
ADDED: I apply McWhorter's theory of childish distancing to the Gettysburg Address.
The there fetish, for instance — Palin frequently displaces statements with an appended “there,” as in “We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there...” But where? Why the distancing gesture? At another time, she referred to Condoleezza Rice trying to “forge that peace.” That peace? You mean that peace way over there — as opposed to the peace that you as Vice-President would have been responsible for forging? She’s far, far away from that peace.What does it mean to use words that suggest that you see abstractions in your mind in a spatial way? If McWhorter were writing about someone he liked, I'll bet he would posit intelligence. But he concludes that it means that Palin has the mentality of a child:
... The issues, American people, you name it, are “there” — in other words, not in her head 24/7. She hasn’t given them much thought before; they are not her. They’re that, over there....
This reminds me of toddlers who speak from inside their own experience in a related way: they will come up to you and comment about something said by a neighbor you’ve never met, or recount to you the plot of an episode of a TV show they have no way of knowing you’ve ever heard of....It reminds you of that, eh? Exactly why does it remind you of that? A child talking about something he doesn't realize you don't know and Palin talking about ideas as if she visualizes them in an abstract place — those 2 things pop up together in your head. Do you see how easy it would be for me to portray you as childish for jumping from something about Palin to something about toddlers that it reminds you of?
ADDED: I apply McWhorter's theory of childish distancing to the Gettysburg Address.
At the Early Spring Café...
... I'm enjoying this transitional phase. After a week in glaring sunlight and dry, thin air, I love the filtered light and moisture of Wisconsin. It's very mellow here. Hang out and talk to me.
A "slightly gender-ambiguous athlete who reads either as a pretty hot boy or a trans-girl, and not particularly a person who falls into the realm of how people see beautiful."
There's a 6'8" female basketball player — Brittney Griner — and the NYT article about her is on the subject of how she "redefine[s] feminine beauty ideals."
The quote in my title is from a model casting agent. I guess women, more than men, if they happen to grow really tall, think of becoming models, rather than basketball players. But Griner is a basketball player. Why discuss her as if she is a model? We don't much care what the male basketball players look like or think about stretching our concepts of male beauty when they don't conform to conventional standards.
The quote in my title is from a model casting agent. I guess women, more than men, if they happen to grow really tall, think of becoming models, rather than basketball players. But Griner is a basketball player. Why discuss her as if she is a model? We don't much care what the male basketball players look like or think about stretching our concepts of male beauty when they don't conform to conventional standards.
April 5, 2010
Bulldogs vs. Blue Devils.
I'm watching — out of the corner of my eye — because I'm married... to a Hoosier.
Arlen Specter wants Justice Stevens not to retire this year.
"I think the gridlock in the Senate might well produce a filibuster which would tie up the Senate about a Supreme Court nominee. I think if a year passes, there's a much better chance we could come to a consensus."
Obama should just pick a relatively moderate liberal judge. That would avoid the filibuster this year, and it's what he'll have to do next year. So what is Specter talking about?
Specter is bouncing off what Senator Kyl said:
Obama should just pick a relatively moderate liberal judge. That would avoid the filibuster this year, and it's what he'll have to do next year. So what is Specter talking about?
Specter is bouncing off what Senator Kyl said:
"I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test," Kyl said. "And if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideological, I don't think -- you may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don't think you'll see them engage in a filibuster."So, you see my point. Maybe what Specter is really thinking is that it will hurt the Democrats in the fall to spend the summer paying attention to the subject of liberal ideology on the Supreme Court. Specter has been on the Senate Judiciary for a long time, both as a Democrat and a Republican, so he knows all about the way the 2 parties manipulate the occasion of Supreme Court nominee hearings.
Michael Steele says that he, like Barack Obama, has a "slimmer margin" of error.
Because he, like the President, is black. Now, he didn't bring up the subject. He was answering a question from George Stephanopoulous. And he weaseled away from his own answer pretty much:
I mean it’s a different role for you know, for me to play and others to play. And that’s just the reality of it. But you take that as part of the nature of it. It’s more because you’re not someone they know. I’m not a Washington insider. ... My view on politics is much more grass-roots-oriented. It’s not old boy network oriented and so I tend to come at it a little bit stronger, a little more streetwise if you will. That rubs some feathers the wrong way. At the end of the day I’m judged by whether I win elections and I raise the money.Can I judge you by whether you're straightforward, clear, and persuasive?
51% of Tea Partiers are either Independent or Democrat — according to Gallup.
49% are Republican. Unlike an earlier Quinnipiac poll, which we discussed here, men outnumber women. (Both polls show a 45/55% split, but Quinnipiac has the 55% female, and Gallup has the 55% male.)
And Rasmussen has a new poll:
And Rasmussen has a new poll:
On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own....
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of those in the Political Class say their views are closer to the president. The Obama Administration has created a significantly larger government and political role in the economy.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of Mainstream Americans say their views are closer to the Tea Party.By the way, the Tea Party Express is in Madison tomorrow.
"Parents don’t send their kids to Yale to sleep with their professors. Why don’t we say that?"
An actual rule saying faculty can't have sex with students. (Via Instapundit.) Didn't you think that already was the rule?
I remember years ago, here at Wisconsin, they put us faculty through an elaborate training session about how to follow the new rule about faculty-student sexual relations. It was elaborate because it was not simply a rule against it. (Click "read more," below, to see the text of the rule.) It was a reporting requirement. When, exactly, did you need to file a report about the relative location of your genitalia and how?
I remember asking a 2-part question: Doesn't this really function as a rule against student-teacher sexual relations and why don't we just have a straightforward rule against student-teacher sexual relations? I can't remember the answer, other than that it was roundabout and evasive. I had 2 ideas about what the answer really was:
1. Perhaps they thought that there is an important individual freedom — even a constitutional right — to choose your intimate associates. You know: At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.... And maybe that includes defining for yourself what is right and wrong in the complexities of power between 2 (adult) partners.
2. A good number of current faculty members have marriages that began as student-teacher coupling, and it wouldn't be very nice to impugn these relationships retrospectively. If it's a reporting requirement, we can indulge in the fantasy that these people would have reported if there had been a reporting requirement, so they are just fine, even as any new couples will be either: a. deterred or b. in violation of the rule.
I remember years ago, here at Wisconsin, they put us faculty through an elaborate training session about how to follow the new rule about faculty-student sexual relations. It was elaborate because it was not simply a rule against it. (Click "read more," below, to see the text of the rule.) It was a reporting requirement. When, exactly, did you need to file a report about the relative location of your genitalia and how?
I remember asking a 2-part question: Doesn't this really function as a rule against student-teacher sexual relations and why don't we just have a straightforward rule against student-teacher sexual relations? I can't remember the answer, other than that it was roundabout and evasive. I had 2 ideas about what the answer really was:
1. Perhaps they thought that there is an important individual freedom — even a constitutional right — to choose your intimate associates. You know: At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.... And maybe that includes defining for yourself what is right and wrong in the complexities of power between 2 (adult) partners.
2. A good number of current faculty members have marriages that began as student-teacher coupling, and it wouldn't be very nice to impugn these relationships retrospectively. If it's a reporting requirement, we can indulge in the fantasy that these people would have reported if there had been a reporting requirement, so they are just fine, even as any new couples will be either: a. deterred or b. in violation of the rule.
"Obviously, right now she is probably not that into me..."
"... since she filed these stalking charges and I'm in the doghouse with her, but later on I'm going to try to recover and then actually win her over."
What's the difference between a suitor and a stalker? Where exactly do you cross the line? And how far over the line can you go and still not realize that you've crossed it?
***
What's the difference between a suitor and a stalker? Where exactly do you cross the line? And how far over the line can you go and still not realize that you've crossed it?
I have a laptop (MacBook Pro) and an iPhone, so what am I doing with an iPad?
Though I bought an iPad as soon as I could, 2 days ago, I'm not going to mindlessly boost the thing, and I'm not going to fool myself about whether it's useful to me. It needs to earn its place in between the fabulously useful laptop and iPhone. Obviously, it's medium size and medium weight. I'm more likely to carry it with me than the laptop, but unlike the iPhone, it's not always going to come along. I can't put it in a pocket or my smallest handbag. And I'm not going to pick it up from my bedside to check the time and a couple websites when I wake up. I'm not going to read it from a completely supine position, as I often do with the iPhone, when I'm in bed and not ready to sit up.
April 4, 2010
At the Pulsatilla Nightclub...
... that's a pasque flower, representing Easter. What do you make of that?
Talk about Easter... or anything.
Obama's "Race to the Top" competition over money for schools hasn't worked out so well.
Why are only Delaware and Tennessee getting the money?
Officials from several states criticized the scoring of the contest, which favored states able to gain support from 100 percent of school districts and local teachers’ unions for Obama administration objectives like expanding charter schools, reworking teacher evaluation systems and turning around low-performing schools.Oh, how I loathe these federal intrusions into state and local decision-making about public schooling. Money is raked out of the states and then dangled in front of them to entice them to do things they don't want to do and couldn't be forced to do by direct regulation. And the ultimate, ironic slap in the face is they don't even get the money. Let that be a lesson!
Marshalling such support is one thing for a tiny state like Delaware, with 38 districts, they said, and quite another for, say, California, with some 1,500.
"On the eve of the health care vote, a group of black Democrat Congressmen (eschewing the private tunnels they usually use to cross from their offices to the Capitol) chose to walk en masse through a crowd of protesters..."
"... confident that the knuckledragging Tea Party goons they and their media pals have reviled for a year now would respond with racial epithets. And then, when the crowd didn't, the black Congressmen made it up anyway."
That's Mark Steyn, who notes that mainstream media, which spread the phony story (when it was most useful to spread), are showing no interest in correcting it.
By the way, I called bullshit on the story as soon as it was reported, in this blog post and here on Bloggingheads:
That's Mark Steyn, who notes that mainstream media, which spread the phony story (when it was most useful to spread), are showing no interest in correcting it.
By the way, I called bullshit on the story as soon as it was reported, in this blog post and here on Bloggingheads:
"'Look at the steam in the man’s stride!' exclaimed Chris Matthews."
Frank Rich gushes by quoting Chris Matthews gushing about what amazing man Barack Obama is.
But "Look at the steam in the man’s stride!"? Now, we know all about Matthews and the "thrill going up my leg." And now here he is getting all excited about Obama's striding legs. But what's with "the steam." Do you really want people to perceive gusts blowing out as you walk? It's a rather... farty image, isn't it?
But the idea is how powerful and confident Obama seems these days. That's what Rich is talking about. And I'm thinking, is that the origin of the phrase "full of beans"?
This post would be so much better if I could find a video clip of the great George Carlin demonstrating walking and farting.
But "Look at the steam in the man’s stride!"? Now, we know all about Matthews and the "thrill going up my leg." And now here he is getting all excited about Obama's striding legs. But what's with "the steam." Do you really want people to perceive gusts blowing out as you walk? It's a rather... farty image, isn't it?
But the idea is how powerful and confident Obama seems these days. That's what Rich is talking about. And I'm thinking, is that the origin of the phrase "full of beans"?
***
This post would be so much better if I could find a video clip of the great George Carlin demonstrating walking and farting.
"I am the troublesome, vitriolic Rush Limbaugh, archenemy of the regime."
Rush Limbaugh responds to Barack Obama, who called him vitriolic and "troublesome."
Read the whole thing. It's a particularly good monologue. I especially liked digging up the old quotes from Obama: "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry." And: "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors, I want you to talk to them whether they're independent or whether they are Republican, I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Read the whole thing. It's a particularly good monologue. I especially liked digging up the old quotes from Obama: "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry." And: "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors, I want you to talk to them whether they're independent or whether they are Republican, I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
"We call on the local radio stations to stop broadcasting the songs and all music as well."
"We give them a 10-day deadline and any radio station found not complying with the orders... will face sharia action.... We also issue orders banning the local media from using the word 'foreigners' to refer to our Muslim brothers coming from outside the country to help us fight against the enemy of Allah.... Every Muslim fighter can come to Somalia to fight the enemy of Allah and we would also invite Osama bin Laden to the country if the we get the opportunity."
It's springtime in Mogadishu.
It's springtime in Mogadishu.
"A man from France jumped into the water..."
I'm sorry, but the man from France is not getting enough attention in this story about the "heroic father" who jumped in the cold East River to save his own daughter.
At the Masters, Tiger Woods will have 90 bodyguards to protect him from the women he screwed.
"None of these girls are allowed anywhere near him... If one photo comes out of a beautiful lady touching him, it would be a disaster."
So not just "these girls" — the ones he fucked — but any "beautiful lady"? Doesn't that make you — female readers only — want to doll yourself up and head down to Augusta, Georgia to see if you can sidle into a photo frame with Tiger?
Ordinary spectators are not allowed to have cameras at a golf tournament. They even search your bag. You'll be at the mercy of the authorized photographers inside the event. But won't they try to frame Tiger with pretty ladies in the background? (Don't they do that anyway, without even any sex scandal to for resonance.) What if a beautiful woman stands stands on the other side of the hole when Tiger is putting? She'd be framed in professional photographs. And she'd distract him with her feminine radiations. She'd be kicked out of the golf course, I bet.
So not just "these girls" — the ones he fucked — but any "beautiful lady"? Doesn't that make you — female readers only — want to doll yourself up and head down to Augusta, Georgia to see if you can sidle into a photo frame with Tiger?
Ordinary spectators are not allowed to have cameras at a golf tournament. They even search your bag. You'll be at the mercy of the authorized photographers inside the event. But won't they try to frame Tiger with pretty ladies in the background? (Don't they do that anyway, without even any sex scandal to for resonance.) What if a beautiful woman stands stands on the other side of the hole when Tiger is putting? She'd be framed in professional photographs. And she'd distract him with her feminine radiations. She'd be kicked out of the golf course, I bet.
Is it a "hit piece" if the NYT parallels Tea Partiers and 60s radicals?
Gateway Pundit thinks it is and so does American Power, but they are righties. You have to look at this from a lefty perspective, and that's something that I — with a long life experience among the lefties — can do. (I went to the University of Michigan as an undergrad in 1969 and had SDS people arguing on the other side of my dorm room wall, I lived in the West Village in the 1970s, I went to NYU School of Law circa 1980, and I have been with the law professors at the University of Wisconsin — in what is affectionately known as the People's Republic of Madison — since 1984. I have had lovers quarrels with Communists.)
Here's the photographic juxtaposition that American Power calls "a genuinely sick comparison":
It was the front-page teaser for this "Week in Review" piece by Benedict Carey. Carey is a medicine and science writer for the newspaper, and his topic is the public display of anger in American politics. He's looking at the long history of demonstrations, and it's a great concept to put up a 60s "Days of Rage" photograph with a man yelling and gesturing along with a present-day Tea Party photograph with a man yelling and gesturing in just about the same way. That the man in the 60s photo is Bill Ayers is a fabulous bit of irony. It's a perfect illustration for Carey's topic, Carey's topic is a good one, and the newspaper succeeds in attracting readers.
Now, I understand the right-wing anger — hmmm — at the juxtaposition. The 60s protesters are Weathermen, and the Weathermen advocated and practiced violence. They murdered people. The Tea Partiers, by contrast, are engaging in the highest form of freedom of expression: assembling in groups and criticizing the government.
But people on the left admire and respect the 1960s protests. They wish there was more expressive fervor on their side today. To have the passion and vitality of the 60s is a good thing. And the air of potential violence, especially in the absence of any actual violence? I think lefties love that. They may not admit they do. But there's a frisson. Remember, the NYT readers are aging liberals. They — we — remember the 60s as glory days. Yes, there was anger, and yes, it spilled over into violence sometimes, but the government deserved it, and these young people were idealistic and ready to give all for their ideals. They are remembered — even as (if?) their excesses are regretted — in a golden light.
Now, let's look at what Carey says:
Here's the photographic juxtaposition that American Power calls "a genuinely sick comparison":
It was the front-page teaser for this "Week in Review" piece by Benedict Carey. Carey is a medicine and science writer for the newspaper, and his topic is the public display of anger in American politics. He's looking at the long history of demonstrations, and it's a great concept to put up a 60s "Days of Rage" photograph with a man yelling and gesturing along with a present-day Tea Party photograph with a man yelling and gesturing in just about the same way. That the man in the 60s photo is Bill Ayers is a fabulous bit of irony. It's a perfect illustration for Carey's topic, Carey's topic is a good one, and the newspaper succeeds in attracting readers.
Now, I understand the right-wing anger — hmmm — at the juxtaposition. The 60s protesters are Weathermen, and the Weathermen advocated and practiced violence. They murdered people. The Tea Partiers, by contrast, are engaging in the highest form of freedom of expression: assembling in groups and criticizing the government.
But people on the left admire and respect the 1960s protests. They wish there was more expressive fervor on their side today. To have the passion and vitality of the 60s is a good thing. And the air of potential violence, especially in the absence of any actual violence? I think lefties love that. They may not admit they do. But there's a frisson. Remember, the NYT readers are aging liberals. They — we — remember the 60s as glory days. Yes, there was anger, and yes, it spilled over into violence sometimes, but the government deserved it, and these young people were idealistic and ready to give all for their ideals. They are remembered — even as (if?) their excesses are regretted — in a golden light.
***
Now, let's look at what Carey says:
Each party charged the other with fanning the flames of public outrage for political gain.Sounds pretty balanced!
But ... [w]hat is the nature of public anger anyway, and can it be manipulated as easily as that?...See? He's a science writer. He's mining the sociology of anger. Carey first notes that "lone-wolf" actions are more likely to occur. But what of the notably non-loner types who go to demonstrations?
At a basic level, people subconsciously mimic the expressions of a conversation partner and in the process “feel” a trace of the other’s emotion, recent studies suggest....
And in groups organized around a cause, it’s the most extreme members who rise quickest, researchers have found....
Protest groups that turn from loud to aggressive tend to draw on at least two other elements, researchers say. The first is what sociologists call a “moral shock” — a specific, blatant moral betrayal that, when most potent, evokes personal insults suffered by individual members...So there. Carey concludes with a calming message about the link between vocal protest and real violence. Now, there is a bit of a warning:
The second element is a specific target clearly associated with the outrage. A law to change. A politician to remove. A company to shut down....
Given the shifting political terrain, the diversity of views in the antigovernment groups, and their potential political impact, experts say they expect that very few are ready to take the more radical step.
“Once you take that step to act violently, it’s very difficult to turn back,” [Kathleen Blee, a sociologist at the University of Pittsburgh] said. “It puts the group, and the person, on a very different path.”
If a group with enduring gripes is shut out of the political process, and begins to shed active members, it can leave behind a radical core. This is precisely what happened in the 1960s, when the domestic terrorist group known as the Weather Underground emerged from the larger, more moderate anti-war Students for a Democratic Society, Dr. McCauley said. “The SDS had 100,000 members and, frustrated politically at every step, people started to give up,” he said. “The result was that you had this condensation of a small, more radical base of activists who decided to escalate the violence.”That appears near the end of the article. But you can easily see the message: Democracy. As long as the political process seems to work, people won't cross the line into violence. And the size of the Tea Party movement is a safeguard. In Carey's scenario, it's only if the masses of people — the ordinary, pretty conventional people — cool off and go home that we ought to worry about violence. You have the "radical core" left. That's what you don't want. So this NYT piece, after teasing us with the similarity between Tea Partiers and Weatherman, draws a decisive line separating them.
April 3, 2010
Got my iPad!
Down at the Apple Store in the West Towne Mall in Madison, Wisconsin. Things were hopping:
That's "Specialist" Chuck Sholdt handing over the goods. He recognized me and said he "felt like [he was] in the presence of royalty." He recognized Meade too — said he'd read all about him.
Back home now, in my favorite reading position...
UPDATE: I'm typing this on the keyboard. I do think I could use this to blog, something I can't do on the iPhone (without a great deal of trouble).
UPDATE2: I bought the iPad app Pages to do word processing and I just plain cannot get it to work. It seems that there should be a toolbar, but I can't get one to display, so I'm at a dead end. Any ideas? AND: I turned it upright, out of landscape mode, and that worked. AND: I wish I could figure out how to get iDisk documents into the Pages App. (And I really am trying to find the answer in various "help" pages. It's especially frustrating because "pages" isn't a distinctive word.)
UPDATE3: Apple confirms that you can't get your iDisk documents into Pages.
That's "Specialist" Chuck Sholdt handing over the goods. He recognized me and said he "felt like [he was] in the presence of royalty." He recognized Meade too — said he'd read all about him.
Back home now, in my favorite reading position...
UPDATE: I'm typing this on the keyboard. I do think I could use this to blog, something I can't do on the iPhone (without a great deal of trouble).
UPDATE2: I bought the iPad app Pages to do word processing and I just plain cannot get it to work. It seems that there should be a toolbar, but I can't get one to display, so I'm at a dead end. Any ideas? AND: I turned it upright, out of landscape mode, and that worked. AND: I wish I could figure out how to get iDisk documents into the Pages App. (And I really am trying to find the answer in various "help" pages. It's especially frustrating because "pages" isn't a distinctive word.)
UPDATE3: Apple confirms that you can't get your iDisk documents into Pages.
"Scozzafava writing election memoir."
I guess she hasn't had enough of being a butt of jokes.
"I have been kind of putting pieces together, yes, just, I think, more so for me, just to kind of go back and recall different moments, and I had jotted down certain occasions and I've got a whole calendar of events, and I'm kind of thinking about it again," said Scozzafava.Oh? Maybe we can help!
She doesn't yet have a title for the book.
"On Good Friday, Dagwood makes the risen Christ weep with his horrifying rabbit fursuit."
"85 percent of the people in the 'furfans' and 'Blondie fans' Venn diagram overlap are now writing clarifying letters to King Features, emphasizing that Dagwood was not the character they wanted to see dressed in a sexy bunny outfit."
Bonus at the link: "Oh, your husband’s a terrible lout, is he? If you ever need a sympathetic ear, I’m here for you … listening … nodding thoughtfully … drinking your pain, your darkest emotional pain, like the sweet, sweet divine nectar that it is … oh, God, tell me, tell me, TELL ME…"
Bonus at the link: "Oh, your husband’s a terrible lout, is he? If you ever need a sympathetic ear, I’m here for you … listening … nodding thoughtfully … drinking your pain, your darkest emotional pain, like the sweet, sweet divine nectar that it is … oh, God, tell me, tell me, TELL ME…"
Obama bypasses the biracial option on the census form.
Even though "he could have checked white, checked both black and white, or checked the last category on the form, 'some other race,' which he would then have been asked to identify in writing." In the last census, in 2000, 6.8 million Americans opted to present themselves as bi- or multi-racial. Presumably, a lot more people will do that in 2010. Why didn't Obama?
The census form, we should see, extracts an opinion about race from us. And what do we think of the opinion of the President who, some of us thought, would move us into a new era of race?
My first thought was that he disrespected his mother and maternal grandparents, who contributed so much more to his upbringing than his father ever did. My second thought was that his experiences in society, including his rise into vast political power, had so much to do with being perceived as black (and not white). My third thought was that he wants to preserve his designation as The First Black President. He's into himself as a historical figure, and First Mixed Race President doesn't have the same cachet — and there'd be all those pesky arguments about whether he was the first. Out on the internet, I'm seeing claims that various former Presidents — Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge — had a mixed racial ancestry. I can see not wanting to get bogged down in that.
The census form, we should see, extracts an opinion about race from us. And what do we think of the opinion of the President who, some of us thought, would move us into a new era of race?
My first thought was that he disrespected his mother and maternal grandparents, who contributed so much more to his upbringing than his father ever did. My second thought was that his experiences in society, including his rise into vast political power, had so much to do with being perceived as black (and not white). My third thought was that he wants to preserve his designation as The First Black President. He's into himself as a historical figure, and First Mixed Race President doesn't have the same cachet — and there'd be all those pesky arguments about whether he was the first. Out on the internet, I'm seeing claims that various former Presidents — Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge — had a mixed racial ancestry. I can see not wanting to get bogged down in that.
"Live Blogging the iPad’s Big Day."
From the long lines at the NYC store(s).
I expect to just drop by the West Towne Apple store and pick mine up easily. We'll see how different Madison is from New York.
UPDATE: Am I pathetic to have searched Twitter to find out about the line at West Towne Mall? And here. I found a picture. I'm not the type to wait outside before the store opens, and since others are, I allow a little time for the door-crasher bulge to process.
UPDATE 2: I got it! A manageable line:
I expect to just drop by the West Towne Apple store and pick mine up easily. We'll see how different Madison is from New York.
UPDATE: Am I pathetic to have searched Twitter to find out about the line at West Towne Mall? And here. I found a picture. I'm not the type to wait outside before the store opens, and since others are, I allow a little time for the door-crasher bulge to process.
UPDATE 2: I got it! A manageable line:
There's a big epidemic, no, not of sex addiction...
... but of wives deciding their husbands are sex addicts who must get treatment.
Read the whole post by Dr. Marty Klein. It's pretty funny, these men sent in by their wives to get treatment, after learning from their wives that "either I’m a sex addict and I couldn’t help it and I need treatment, or I’m just a selfish bastard and she wants a divorce."
How come so many women have gotten the idea they can diagnose this ailment? It's easy to figure out that wives grasp at the idea of addiction instead of facing the pain of rejection and betrayal, but why the big change in the last 3 years? There are people — not Dr. Klein — who make money in the addiction treatment racket, and they've managed to get their pitch out to the public, but how and why now? Some "Oprah" show?
I looked back into my blog archives to see what relevant things started 3 years ago. In 2007, there was the Larry Craig story. That got processed as "sex addiction" to some extent. In 2008, there was the Eliot Spitzer thing. Hmm. I wonder why something so inherently unbelievable gained traction when politicians were using it. It's testimony to the strong appeal of the sex addiction theory of marital infidelity that women bought it when they heard it from such low-credibility sources.
Is "sex addiction" one of these things that's going to be treated under the new health care regime, even as Medicare patients are given pain pills in lieu of hip replacements and heart valves?
ADDED: Why aren't wives more worried about treatment for sex addiction? You want the man to be "sexually addicted" to you. How would health workers remove the part of his sexuality that's goes toward other women and leave the part that goes to you? Even assuming this is a disease, the cure seems dangerous, unless you want a desexualized husband.
I’ve been a Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist and Certified Sex Therapist for 30 years.... But until about three years ago no one ever came in claiming to be a sex addict, or saying that his partner told him he was one....
I don’t treat sex addiction. The concept is superficial. It isn’t clearly defined or clinically validated, and it’s completely pathology-oriented. It presents no healthy model of non-monogamy, pornography use, or stuff like S/M. Some programs eliminate masturbation, which is inhumane, naïve, and crazy....
Oh, I observe people with obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and a few other exotic states. That accounts for some of what laypeople call “sex addiction.”Thanks to regular commenter Julius Ray Hoffman, for sending me that link.
What I mostly see instead of “sex addicts” is people who are neurotic or narcissistic....
Read the whole post by Dr. Marty Klein. It's pretty funny, these men sent in by their wives to get treatment, after learning from their wives that "either I’m a sex addict and I couldn’t help it and I need treatment, or I’m just a selfish bastard and she wants a divorce."
How come so many women have gotten the idea they can diagnose this ailment? It's easy to figure out that wives grasp at the idea of addiction instead of facing the pain of rejection and betrayal, but why the big change in the last 3 years? There are people — not Dr. Klein — who make money in the addiction treatment racket, and they've managed to get their pitch out to the public, but how and why now? Some "Oprah" show?
I looked back into my blog archives to see what relevant things started 3 years ago. In 2007, there was the Larry Craig story. That got processed as "sex addiction" to some extent. In 2008, there was the Eliot Spitzer thing. Hmm. I wonder why something so inherently unbelievable gained traction when politicians were using it. It's testimony to the strong appeal of the sex addiction theory of marital infidelity that women bought it when they heard it from such low-credibility sources.
***
Is "sex addiction" one of these things that's going to be treated under the new health care regime, even as Medicare patients are given pain pills in lieu of hip replacements and heart valves?
ADDED: Why aren't wives more worried about treatment for sex addiction? You want the man to be "sexually addicted" to you. How would health workers remove the part of his sexuality that's goes toward other women and leave the part that goes to you? Even assuming this is a disease, the cure seems dangerous, unless you want a desexualized husband.
"Could Coach be more of a douchebag? Seriously."
"Voting for a third person when you know that two people are targeted is the same as voting out the person with whom you were allegedly allied. It doesn't help him at all because he knows he can't trust Russell, and therefore he had to, had to get rid of him here."
In the "Heroes and Villains" season of "Survivor," the contestants were out filming when the previous season was on TV, so they didn't know what Russell had done to distinguish himself as a villain. Boston Rob, in his exit interview, said: "... I realized that 20 seasons in, you have 10 people that are considered the most villainous to ever play the game, and here’s a guy from the most recent season, so he had to do something so outlandish to get picked over all those other contestants." The other contestants may not have done as well in figuring out whether to trust Russell over Rob.
Rob on Coach:
In the "Heroes and Villains" season of "Survivor," the contestants were out filming when the previous season was on TV, so they didn't know what Russell had done to distinguish himself as a villain. Boston Rob, in his exit interview, said: "... I realized that 20 seasons in, you have 10 people that are considered the most villainous to ever play the game, and here’s a guy from the most recent season, so he had to do something so outlandish to get picked over all those other contestants." The other contestants may not have done as well in figuring out whether to trust Russell over Rob.
Rob on Coach:
Coach really wants to play with honor and integrity, and at the end of the day, he has the opportunity to do that and chooses another path. But that’s on him.And what does Jeff Probst have to say about it? He's been Coach's biggest fan:
Coach actually appeared to take the easiest path possible in not voting for you, yet casting a vote that he knew ensured you going home. That seems like he was almost trying to not own up to his decision.
I think he’s a guy that was conflicted and he didn’t have it in him to do the right thing in this situation. So, it’s bad for me because it makes me go home, but he’s the one who has to live with it.
I love Coach. Always loved Coach. I still want to develop a show centered around “Tales of The Dragon Slayer.” But right now The Dragon Slayer is depressed. He’s lost his way. As much as he wants to live by a code, he finds himself trapped in a corner on a game called Survivor and there appears no way out. If this were a movie, this would be the end of Act II when all seems lost. Is it? Or can he rise up from the ashes and be reborn yet again?On Rob's saying to Coach, after the vote, "You’re a little man":
I love how Rob went out. He didn’t pretend it didn’t matter, he didn’t say “good luck”, he simply said what was on his mind, the subtext of which was clear: Coach, you suck.
Coach. Coach. Coach. I too am a bit dismayed. I will need time to sort through this emotionally. I will certainly need more therapy to help me understand and try to forgive.
"You're as cute as me. You are. In some cultures, maybe cuter."
Socks — with skirts — are a big fashion trend... but we're told not to wear them if we're over 30:
Well, too bad, I'm nearly twice the limit, and I've been relying on socks for nearly the length of time it would take a newborn baby to reach the limit, and nothing can stop me. But I get the point: You can do what you want, but it's not the fashion trend unless you're young enough to be entitled to believe without derangement that you're really cute.
Does this — Helena Bonham Carter, age 43 — seem deranged?
Can I wear these...
... when I'm over 50 and I'm operating in my law professor capacity?
Bonus movie dialogue:
First of all, don’t even try this at home if you’re over 30; this is very much a girl’s game - and a girl with great pins, at that.Over 30!
Well, too bad, I'm nearly twice the limit, and I've been relying on socks for nearly the length of time it would take a newborn baby to reach the limit, and nothing can stop me. But I get the point: You can do what you want, but it's not the fashion trend unless you're young enough to be entitled to believe without derangement that you're really cute.
***
Does this — Helena Bonham Carter, age 43 — seem deranged?
Can I wear these...
... when I'm over 50 and I'm operating in my law professor capacity?
***
Bonus movie dialogue:
Romy: I can't believe how cute I look.
Michele: I know!
Romy: You know what? This is, like, the cutest we've ever looked.
Michele: Oh, it's definitely the cutest.
Romy: Don't you love how we can say that to each other... and know we're not being conceited?
Michele: Oh, I know. No, we're just being honest.
***
Michele: Yeah, I let you have the ideas... so you won't feel bad that I'm cuter.
Romy: You are not cuter, Michele.
Michele: I am so cuter. It's, like, common knowledge, Romy. Everybody thinks so. I'm the Mary and you're the Rhoda.
Romy: That's Ridiculous. You're the Rhoda. You're the Jewish one.
Michele: Oh, my God. I'm talking about cuteness-wise, okay? And cuteness-wise, I'm the Mary.
Romy: That's crazy! You have absolutely no proof that you're cuter!
***
Michele: I can't stand that we're mad at each other. Okay, I'm sorry I said all those things. You're as cute as me. You are. In some cultures, maybe cuter.
April 2, 2010
"They want 'blow jobs' first. Then you have to be on good behavior for a bit or be willing to deal, and then you get access."
A White House reporter grouses about what one has to do to get the kind of access to that will enable you to write the book about Obama that the White House reporters are all trying to write.
"[S]omething the size of a baby hippo, the color of a week-old boiled potato, that lives by itself, in the dark, in a double-wide on the outskirts of Topeka."
"It's covered with eyes and it sweats constantly. The sweat runs into those eyes and makes them sting. It has no mouth... no genitals, and can only express its mute extremes of murderous rage and infantile desire by changing the channels on a universal remote."
Cory Doctorow parlays a William Gibson quote — defining the consumer — in service of his argument against buying an iPad. Me, I've reserved an iPad for pick-up tomorrow. But then "Apple's model customer is that same stupid stereotype of a technophobic, timid, scatterbrained mother as appears in a billion renditions of 'that's too complicated for my mom'...."
Now, now, you boys. Moms may not care about fiddling with the inner workings of technological devices, but that doesn't mean we're not mentally sharp. And — mom-o-phobia aside for a second — in general, smart people are not interested in paying attention to computer stuff. We just want tools to get to and engage in the things we're interested in. Maybe, you're missing that because computers happen to be one of the things you're interested in.
Cory Doctorow parlays a William Gibson quote — defining the consumer — in service of his argument against buying an iPad. Me, I've reserved an iPad for pick-up tomorrow. But then "Apple's model customer is that same stupid stereotype of a technophobic, timid, scatterbrained mother as appears in a billion renditions of 'that's too complicated for my mom'...."
Now, now, you boys. Moms may not care about fiddling with the inner workings of technological devices, but that doesn't mean we're not mentally sharp. And — mom-o-phobia aside for a second — in general, smart people are not interested in paying attention to computer stuff. We just want tools to get to and engage in the things we're interested in. Maybe, you're missing that because computers happen to be one of the things you're interested in.
"When you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it's pretty apparent, but keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out."
"It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious, and people are feeling that there's a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans. But that's not the vast majority of Americans."
So said Obama today, being characteristically understanding in that patronizing way we've seen before. We all remember the "bitter clingers" remark:
ADDED: Funny for Obama of all people to be musing about that "feeling that there's a lot of change that needs to take place." You know, a politician might come along and leverage a presidential campaign on an amorphous emotion like that.
So said Obama today, being characteristically understanding in that patronizing way we've seen before. We all remember the "bitter clingers" remark:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."Obama understands why you feel those negative emotions. The actual ideas you express don't really matter. They are to be disregarded — they're the things you say when you get mad or depressed, because of all the problems — problems that he aims to solve, in his way, for your sake, because he knows better. Now, if you would please, quiet down, and let him get on with the work of giving you what you need.
ADDED: Funny for Obama of all people to be musing about that "feeling that there's a lot of change that needs to take place." You know, a politician might come along and leverage a presidential campaign on an amorphous emotion like that.
Sign at a rest stop somewhere along I-80 in Nebraska.
I laughed the most I have ever laughed in Nebraska. And now Nebraska is on my Top 20 list of States Where I have Laughed the Most.
Who are the Mobys?
I think that lately the comments section of this blog has been attracting a lot Mobys. Yesterday, I called attention to a commenter who wrote something outrageous (and actually funny, if you recognize it as fake). A very high-traffic blog had exposed me to criticism for having that in my comments, and a commenter over there suggested it was a "false flag operation," and linked to a post by SEK over at Lawyers, Guns, & Money, that begins: "I went over to Althouse’s and wrote a number of insanely offensive comments, but everyone started agreeing with me before I could declare 'April Fools'!" Now, I already thought I was dealing with a Moby, and here was SEK, apparently, bragging about being a Moby. So I threw him a link and quoted him. He then showed up in my comments and said:
This is all so pathetic. Or is this another satire that I'm not bright enough to understand?
Anyway, to my commenters: Please understand that there are Mobys here. There are commenters who pretend to mean what they are saying, when what they are trying to do is to make us look bad somehow. Take that into account when you interact with people here.
Dear Ann,I was in the middle of a 1000-mile drive, so I wasn't exactly anguishing over my failure to pick up whatever-the-hell SEK had layered into his blog post that was written in the form of a confession. My response to that — written at 11:23 at night from an I-80 rest stop in Iowa — was:
I didn't write any of those comments. You just got fooled twice over by your own racist and misogynist commenters. Please, feel free to check the IP addresses of the comments I claimed, all April-Foolsy, to have written.
Someone was fooling, either you, per your confession, or someone else, if you're not fooling now. It makes no difference to me who did it. It wasn't one of our regulars and it wasn't a believable story.Now, SEK has updated his post, with a not-too-attractive mix of hostile insults and whiny fears for his own fate:
The attempt to paint my commenters (or me!) as racist or whatever is inflammatory and ugly, and I've lost track of who wants that to stop.
You Althouse people really aren’t very bright. To anyone who thinks that I actually wrote the comments paraphrased above, I suggest you click here and enter my last name into the “Instructor” field. I’ll wait … so are you really ready to accuse me of writing that?Well, you'll have to wait a long time, because I don't know your last name, SEK. Is that me being not very bright? Or are you patently a fool?
I’m only asking because, unlike Althouse, who has tenure and can misbehave as she pleases, I’m a lowly lecturer who, if he steps out of line, will be fired on the spot.So why are you being so hostile and calling people names? It's interesting that you feel vulnerable, but what are you doing slugging people and then claiming vulnerability when you get a response.
Ann has the IP addresses of the people who left those comments and knows that it wasn’t me. If she insists on lying, I can’t afford to prove her wrong in a court of law; however, I’m willing to put my name and career on the line and proclaim, in no uncertain terms, that I didn’t write the racist comments I mocked her for brooking on her blog. She can’t be fired for besmirching her university in public like this, but if I’m lying, I can be dismissed with two snaps from an irate bureaucrat. So in the interests of truth, I demand that should Althouse insist on claiming that I wrote those comments, she publish the IP addresses of the authors of the comments I linked to. If they all resolve to Corona, California, I’ll exit the internet for life.As noted above, I do not have a collection of IP addresses. I have no way to check who's behind the various pseudonyms, so you're on your own denying that you wrote what you previously said you wrote. I believed you then, and you ask me to believe you now, and the reason you're supposed to be believable now is that you have a strong self-interest in disassociating yourself from your own words. You made your own problem, and yet you are still being nasty to me, trying to smear me with racism for nothing but maintaining a free-speech forum. You accuse me of lying for quoting you. You threaten to sue me — for quoting you! — and at the same time whine that you can't afford to sue me. You stress that you would like to see me fired — for what?! — and yet you beg in the most pusillanimous fashion that I should pity you because you could be fired.
This is all so pathetic. Or is this another satire that I'm not bright enough to understand?
Anyway, to my commenters: Please understand that there are Mobys here. There are commenters who pretend to mean what they are saying, when what they are trying to do is to make us look bad somehow. Take that into account when you interact with people here.
"The child molester was also a brilliant, generous, talented man — the only person who ever read me a bedtime story."
"I will love him forever, for that, even when I wake up gasping and afraid."
A startling passage — in an essay by Elizabeth Scalia — AKA The Anchoress — that tries to explain — on this Good Friday — how she can be a Catholic after so many revelations about priests who sexually abuse children and the kindly protection they have received within the power structure of the Church.
It occurs to me that these priests — and Scalia's family pedophile — are the opposite of Boo Radley. Boo Radley — a character in "To Kill a Mockingbird" — was the reclusive neighbor who, failing to make a conventional show of friendliness, scared the children. But when the children are endangered, he saves them.
A Tom Toles cartoon:
A startling passage — in an essay by Elizabeth Scalia — AKA The Anchoress — that tries to explain — on this Good Friday — how she can be a Catholic after so many revelations about priests who sexually abuse children and the kindly protection they have received within the power structure of the Church.
***
It occurs to me that these priests — and Scalia's family pedophile — are the opposite of Boo Radley. Boo Radley — a character in "To Kill a Mockingbird" — was the reclusive neighbor who, failing to make a conventional show of friendliness, scared the children. But when the children are endangered, he saves them.
***
A Tom Toles cartoon:
Tea Party-haters see racism everywhere — except in themselves.
Yesterday, we were talking about the Flickr page set up to collect photographs of Tea Party signs with grammar and spelling errors. The page is called "Teabonics," a term intended to express how stupid Tea Partiers are. But the coinage "Teabonics" is a play on "Ebonics." The word "Ebonics" isn't supposed to make fun of mistakes made by black people. It embodies the claim that speech that may sound nonstandard is, in fact, a language with its own grammar, that may be studied and learned.
Working on this post, I saw that Language Log had written about "Teabonics," and I assumed I would get some good analysis about the misuse of "Ebonics" in coining the new word. But here's what I found:
It takes more than 2 hours before anyone shows up on the popular linguistics blog to take Liberman to task for failing to see the swipe at black people:
CORRECTION: "Muphry's Law," spelled like that, is something that has been talked about in the past on Language Log. Liberman's writing "Muphry's Law" would be an example of Muphry's Law if the term "Muphry's Law" hadn't been coined to refer to things like that. Thanks to the commenter Dewb for pointing this out.
Working on this post, I saw that Language Log had written about "Teabonics," and I assumed I would get some good analysis about the misuse of "Ebonics" in coining the new word. But here's what I found:
Teabonics?Muphry's Law? Muphry's Law? Ha! Hang on a second, I need to recover from deep pangs of irony. Mock spelling, and you'd better make sure you never ever ever ever ever make a typo.
March 31, 2010 @ 6:38 pm · Filed by Mark Liberman under Humor
Pictures here.
Including some nice examples of Muphry's Law in action....
It takes more than 2 hours before anyone shows up on the popular linguistics blog to take Liberman to task for failing to see the swipe at black people:
Elizabeth Herrington said,So, why the blindness to racism? I suspect that it is a combination of the conventional liberal self-love — the mind-dulling confidence that they are the good people — and the embarrassing secret that the study of Ebonics was never truly grounded in respect for black people.
March 31, 2010 @ 8:47 pm
This is funny, sure. But we need to remember Ebonics (inglorious word it be) is based on a grammar. Teabonics is just plain ignorance.
***
Lance said,
March 31, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
... I'm sort of sorry that LanguageLog is propagating this. The common tagline is that "linguists are calling [this] Teabonics"; except that, as Elizabeth Herrington says above, recognizing Ebonics is deeply rooted in linguistic concepts, whereas this is just making fun of misspelling. And while I'm in favor politically of making fun of tea-partiers, I'm professionally against calling it "Teabonics", which elevates this to actual academic study and debases Ebonics as being equivalently illiterate.
CORRECTION: "Muphry's Law," spelled like that, is something that has been talked about in the past on Language Log. Liberman's writing "Muphry's Law" would be an example of Muphry's Law if the term "Muphry's Law" hadn't been coined to refer to things like that. Thanks to the commenter Dewb for pointing this out.
Back in Madison.
We drove 1,000+ miles, taking turns sleeping on the passenger side. Pre-dawn, we crossed the Mississippi River, and we made it to our driveway in the first light of morning. After 5 more hours of sleep — blessed, own-bed sleep — I need to reappear in this space and disperse any stray notions about whether we made it home all right. We did!
April 1, 2010
"I went over to Althouse’s and wrote a number of insanely offensive comments, but everyone started agreeing with me before I could declare 'April Fools’!'"
Oh, bullshit! No one agreed with you. They just didn't let you wind them up like you tried. It was pretty obvious what was going on, but you did fool TBogg, a lefty blogger, who was so eager to believe the commenters over here are bad people that he was thoroughly humor deaf... even on April Fool's Day.
UPDATE: There are some strange levels of complexity to this, explored here.
UPDATE: There are some strange levels of complexity to this, explored here.
Iowa, I salute you.
You know, I judge the states by their rest stops. Iowa rules supreme. It's breezy and 77°, the sun is setting over the semis on I-80, and we're sitting outside with our laptops at a picnic table — and we can plug in our power cords and pick up free WiFi.
We're somewhere between the 500th and the 600th mile of our trek home from Boulder.
(The photo was taken — as the mirror-image hints — with Photo Booth. From my MacBook Pro. The other computer is Meade's Air.)
We're somewhere between the 500th and the 600th mile of our trek home from Boulder.
(The photo was taken — as the mirror-image hints — with Photo Booth. From my MacBook Pro. The other computer is Meade's Air.)
At The Kitchen...
... if you show up for dinner, lunch, and then dinner — all within a 24-hour period — maybe they'll treat you to glasses of Prosecco.
Talk about whatever you want here, and, when you're in Boulder, Colorado, eat at The Kitchen — over and over again.
In the Boulder Creek Café...
... you should be bold — experimental. Nature is beautiful, but so is art.
***
Those little rock piles remind me of drawings by Yves Tanguy, like this one, which I photographed at the Chicago Institute of Art a few weeks ago:
"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is worried about Guam, and, oh, is he getting mocked for stupidity.
Advice to Johnson: Just say you didn't mean it literally. It's obviously a figure of speech. Guam is a tiny island, and it's a vivid image to picture it tipping and capsizing. If you'd used a more well-worn image — like, I'm afraid the island will be crushed by over population — no one would visualize a crushing. You chose a fresh metaphor, and your listeners couldn't handle the task of digesting it.
Advice to Johnson: Just say you didn't mean it literally. It's obviously a figure of speech. Guam is a tiny island, and it's a vivid image to picture it tipping and capsizing. If you'd used a more well-worn image — like, I'm afraid the island will be crushed by over population — no one would visualize a crushing. You chose a fresh metaphor, and your listeners couldn't handle the task of digesting it.
How nannies cause little boys to grow up to be adulterers.
"Having two women care for a baby boy may cause his little brain to internalize the idea that there are multiple females to meet his needs."
And then he grows into a man whose little brain thinks he needs more than one woman.
And then he grows into a man whose little brain thinks he needs more than one woman.
"Picture an addiction so lethal it has the potential to render an entire generation incapable of forming lasting marriages..."
"... and so widespread that it produces more annual revenue — $97 billion worldwide in 2006 — than all of the leading technology companies combined."
National Review freaks out about pornography... in an article by an anonymous woman who thinks her husband rejected her and left her for another woman because of pornography.
National Review freaks out about pornography... in an article by an anonymous woman who thinks her husband rejected her and left her for another woman because of pornography.
Propagating the notion that Tea Partiers must be stupid.
It's the "Teabonics" Flickr set, collecting photographs from Tea Party events that depict signs with spelling or grammar errors. Example:
The first commenter says: "I guess that's why they call it 'fee'-dom." A few comments down someone asks if maybe it's Photoshopping. Yes, it's so easy to Photoshop errors onto people's signs. (I wonder if there are any defamation lawsuits based on the photographic lie that results.)
Via Wonkette, where commenters are having fun mocking someone who wrote "I did’nt serve 22 years for Socialism":
The first commenter says: "I guess that's why they call it 'fee'-dom." A few comments down someone asks if maybe it's Photoshopping. Yes, it's so easy to Photoshop errors onto people's signs. (I wonder if there are any defamation lawsuits based on the photographic lie that results.)
Via Wonkette, where commenters are having fun mocking someone who wrote "I did’nt serve 22 years for Socialism":
I love the “Did’NT Serve” sign.So, one man served in the military for more than 2 decades and then misplaced an apostrophe, and another is skilled in the detection of racism and the use of mental disability as metaphor.
Seems the three Rs for Teabaggers is Retardism, Racism, and Recidivism not that librul reading, riting and rithmatics.
Simpleton white dumbfuck retards, all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
