"Instead, Snoop Dogg wants the world to put more attention on 'real news' like the fact that Akon is supplying 600 million Africans with solar power...."
I was going to say it was funny to think that rappers are supposed to be sensitive, but it seems Snoop Dogg is trying to be sensitive, showing concern about electrical power for Africans.
Meanwhile, Jon Stewart said: "You see, Caitlyn, when you were a man, we could talk about your athleticism, your business acumen.... But now you’re a woman, which means your looks are really the only thing we care about."
Note the craft with which Stewart selects his target: It's us. We are concerned with only with a woman's looks. But Jenner is concerned with looks! That trailer is half about makeup and that Vanity Fair cover is all about looks, looks in the form of a subordinate posture and a silly, silken bathing suit. Jenner is responsible for that presentation. Jenner describes a feeling of having the mind of a woman, but maybe there should have been more specificity: Inside there was a woman, but not just any woman, an old-fashioned, unliberated woman who cares a lot about makeup, clothes, and looking pretty for admirers.
Then, there's also: "ESPY Courage Award: Lauren Hill’s Fans Outraged Caitlyn Jenner To Be Honored Over Her... 'Elective surgery isn’t courage or bravery,' a Twitter user named Kristin wrote on Wednesday, June 3. 'Fighting brain cancer with grace and dignity at 19 is. Lauren is most deserving.' Messages such as this flooded social media...."
Actually, the word "courage" is more aptly applied to the things you can choose not to do. It would be amazingly courageous to step up and take cancer if that was an option and you could somehow help somebody else that way, but that's not how it works. We speak conventionally of the "courageous battle with cancer," but that's a figure of speech. It serves a purpose, but it's trite to the point where The Onion made fun of it back in 1999: "Loved Ones Recall Local Man's Cowardly Battle With Cancer."
June 5, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
115 comments:
It seems that Jenner is really talking about finally being his (man's) notion of what he would like a woman to be...
Althouse:
The courage was in how Lauren faced her cancer, not whether or not she chose to have cancer.
If you want to give the award to one of your freaks, what Michael Sam did was more courageous than what Bruce Jenner did.
You could have a courageous battle with heart disease, as a Tom Swifty.
I just finished reading EB Sledge's classic book, "With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa" and there is no other definition of courage that comes close. There are other definitions but that is the gold standard, His Marine company landed at Okinawa with 256 members and there were 26 left when the war ended.
Jenner is a poseur. And mentally ill, of course.
That's stupid. Ms. Hill's courage was demonstrated by her choice to approach her disease with grace, dignity and meaning, not by her just having the disease. She could've chosen to react differently.
I think it's more interesting that Wikipedia editors are taking all of Bruce Jenner's track and field records and changing them to Women's Records. I'm not sure if someone is having a piss, or if they're serious.
How long will it be before we realize that those solar panels aren't really going to be much help after all, and a nuclear power plant would have been much more helpful?
"The courage was in how Lauren faced her cancer, not whether or not she chose to have cancer."
She was forced to face her cancer. Is there something in "how" she did it that distinguished her from other people who have cancer and therefore, of necessity, face it.
Jenner's biggest fear now is NOT looking like a woman.
Jenner is displaying only "Hollywood courage", which consists of actions that draw praise from all the right-minded people who are certain that the mouthbreathing hicks in the sticks will have some kind of problem with it.
Reminds me a bit of the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison, hoping to become a gay-rights martyr in order to cash in, continually acts more and more outrageous but all anyone ever says is "He's so courageous."
Jenner describes a feeling of having the mind of a woman....
He didn't change his mind, he changed his looks. This whole thing is all about looks because that's all it can be about.
All this talk about "courage" reminds me of Homer Simpson's discussion of what made Timmy O'Toole a "hero":
Homer: That Timmy's a real hero!
Lisa: How so dad?
Homer: He fell down a well...and can't get back out.
Lisa: How does that make him a hero?
Homer: Well, it's more than you ever did!
I think it will be about the tenth episode when she is de-dicked. That will take some courage.
Then four or five episodes dealing with the various forms of "healing" and then we will get a series of episodes on settling into the new great life that has been so impossible to have until now. Then, probably in season two, there will be the deflowering. I predict that the last episode in the first season will be her first date. The very last show in season two will be the loss of virginity to a man of color.
I mean "courage" awards are kind of sentimental bilge or hokey bolstering of sagging mood, but there's always going to be a sports figure with a disease or injury. I can see why ESPY choose Jenner. It's different from the usual.
Why does anyone care about these awards in the first place?
Why is everything so damned depressing and serious these days? American culture used to be a whole hell of a lot more fun.
In 1999 I saw that Onion article in an airport. I bought the magazine and read the article to a buddy of mine who was in treatment at the time. He roared with laughter.
Ann,
There is often a big difference in the attitudes different people take when they face problems. Are you seriously unaware of that, or are you trolling?
Wm. Empson says that if you compare Richard to a lion, you're not supposed to think of the tail. Probably in the chapter on metaphor.
There are puzzles about how it works.
No doubt that is carried into courage, which is itself metaphor if you hear the French.
I get Snoop Dogg confused with Fifty Cent.
She was forced to face her cancer. Is there something in "how" she did it that distinguished her from other people who have cancer and therefore, of necessity, face it.
Yes. She chose to fight her battle publicly and positively as an example to others to never give up, and use her struggle to raise money to help others.
About Jenner...isn't your argument that he really had no choice either? He never chose to be a woman trapped in a man's body did he?
You should be ashamed of yourself on this one Althouse...your ideology is blinding your humanity.
I saw the science project" comment go by in the morning's newsfeed. Laughed. Says something when the person doing the best impression of a sane adult in the MSM romper-room is some rapper.
Ann wrote;
She was forced to face her cancer. Is there something in "how" she did it that distinguished her from other people who have cancer and therefore, of necessity, face it.
I don't know about this particular case, but this is life. We all feel fear. Courage is when you encourage that part of you that runs towards the fire to save the children in the burning building. Cowardice is when you fail at that and run away and let the children burn. You didn't choose to be on that street that day, near a burning building. It all just happened, outside of your control.
Why should cancer be any different?
I've never had cancer, or a disease like it, but I can imagine it can be quite frightening. How you react to that fear defines us. Some of us rise to the challenge, others, not so much.
Perhaps she rose to the challenge in a way that many others don't?
Your response makes me think you don't believe that's possible.
Why is everything so damned depressing and serious these days? American culture used to be a whole hell of a lot more fun.
1)You chose the topic.
2) What about either injustice, mental illness or cancer is supposed to be funny to us?
Apparently, those afflicted with cancer are little better than splooge stooges.
How dare Lauren's supporters detract from the courageous actions of a man who has convinced himself he is a woman.
Jon Stewart taken down by Philip Terzian a day ago in The Weekly Standard over "Caitlyn" Jenner. (Is there any legal requirement to call Jenner Caitlyn? He can legally change his name; has he done so?)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/swing-and-miss-jon-stewart_964552.html
"Jon Stewart’s shrewdness as a crowd pleaser has never been more evident than in his treatment of Caitlyn Jenner. Earlier this week, when Bruce Jenner’s sexual transformation made the cover of Vanity Fair, Stewart strung together a series of television commentaries about Jenner’s appearance. Most, in Stewart’s selection, made the point that Jenner looked especially fetching, or was sexier than somebody else, or took the trouble to describe Jenner’s tight-fitting corset, ample cleavage, and come-hither facial expression. This, Stewart declared to his audience, was evidence that Jenner was now truly a woman in America: In the past, he explained, the media might have talked about Bruce’s athletic prowess or business acumen; now all they wanted to discuss were Caitlyn’s looks and desirability.
"As is almost invariably the case with Jon Stewart, the observation is, at best, half-true. There is no question that, on balance, women in the news tend to have their appearance described (and judged) more often than men – and that this is truly unfair when applied to people such as Carly Fiorina or Hillary Clinton or Condoleezza Rice, whose appearance is irrelevant to their public significance. But does this apply to Caitlyn Jenner? The only point worth knowing about Caitlyn Jenner is that she used to be a man and now considers herself a woman. And in presenting her new 65-year-old female self to the world, she chose to pose for the cover of Vanity Fair in the aforementioned tight-fitting corset, with ample cleavage and that come-hither expression. Any press speculation about Caitlyn Jenner’s looks or sexiness, it seems to me, was prompted by Caitlyn Jenner herself."
Terzian goes on to compare and contrast some of the famous sex change subjects of the 1960's and 70's who spoke seriously of their issues and went on television dressed in modest female business attire.
Bruce Jenner is to those people what Kim Kardashian is to Marie Curie.
Why is everything so damned depressing and serious these days? American culture used to be a whole hell of a lot more fun.
Get off my Lawn!!
BTW -- I don't see anything particularly courageous in anyone's cancer battle. Living as you deal with what you're dealt isn't courage, it's living, plain and simple. Some have it easy, some don't. Some fight with tenacity, some don't. I will not judge how a particular person responds to what they're dealt. Saying Lauren (who is she, anyway? I'm so out of it) has done something laudable ("This! is how you're supposed to deal with cancer!!) pulls down everyone else who has dealt with their own personal tragedy in a way of their own doing.
AA: Why is everything so damned depressing and serious these days?
Why indeed.
American culture used to be a whole hell of a lot more fun.
Don't look at me, lady. It was your lot that put the stick up America's butt, not mine.
I think Akron is a good guy. He seems dedicated to helping change Africa into something something livable for those outside major cities.
I think a nuclear power plant would be more cost effective, but there are still too many warlords fighting each other for that step.
Solar power sounds nice, but in reality it takes about 10 years to break even. Even Akron, as wealthy as he is, will run out of money just as the first batch of silicon wafers wear out.
Indeed though, if you take the economics out of solar power, reduce the equation to pure benefit, no matter what it costs, electricity is a nice/good thing.
Some cancer diagnoses people go immediately to suicide "to avoid the family suffering" through their long slow death. Actually that makes the family feel cheated. They want them to battle in a long slow death. Go figure.
I will not judge how a particular person responds to what they're dealt
Really?
Most people do that to everyone, everyday.
But that's not the argument. The award in question deals precisely with how someone responds to the hand they're dealt. The only question is who is more deserving.
"Note the craft with which Stewart selects his target: It's us. We are concerned with only with a woman's looks. But Jenner is concerned with looks!"
What do you mean us and we, kemosabe?
"Wikipedia editors are taking all of Bruce Jenner's track and field records and changing them to Women's Records"
Except that there is no real women's decathlon. Plus Caitlyn would have been cheating by using heavier weights. Caitlyn would be top 10 all time in most women's events right off the bat, and set a world record in some events (400M?).
I'll start worrying when Ashton Eaton becomes a woman. That would seriously mess up the record books.
In any case, the IAAF should adopt the Rick Santorum approach and accept male athletes who think they are women for who they say they are. DNA be damned.
Brucie is flogging pub big time about his surgery being a selfish act just because he wants to try out living "his dreams." So it is experimental.
That is the courage of a two year old brat getting away with saying NO!
"I don't know about this particular case, but this is life. We all feel fear. Courage is when you encourage that part of you that runs towards the fire to save the children in the burning building. Cowardice is when you fail at that and run away and let the children burn. You didn't choose to be on that street that day, near a burning building. It all just happened, outside of your control. Why should cancer be any different?"
Because no one runs toward cancer. No one enters cancer to save someone else from cancer. The fire analogy would need to be: Someone finds himself in a burning building, so he tries to run out of it, and he doesn't make it. Was that courage?!
Have you endured cancer, Althouse? If not, a few of your comments ring very, very hollow. No one has to face cancer - you choose to. Think about that before spouting off, please.
"The fire analogy would need to be: Someone finds himself in a burning building, so he tries to run out of it, and he doesn't make it. Was that courage?!"
Two people are trapped in a burning building. One runs toward a door quickly and silently, but is trapped and burned to death. The other screams and panics and looks around with ever increasing alarm, then runs toward the door but is trapped and burned to death.
Do you want to give Person A a courage award?
Why is it when women pose for pictures specifically showing their physical beauty that the problem is people focusing on their beauty? The cultural schizophrenia of the gender obsessed is notable in this dynamic.
I'd add that Jenner is nothing but an attention-craving idiot. Fuck him and his entire freakshow entourage. Metaphorically, that is.
"Have you endured cancer, Althouse? If not, a few of your comments ring very, very hollow. No one has to face cancer - you choose to. Think about that before spouting off, please."
I have thought about it, and you're making no sense.
First, you claim to hear a ring, but you admit that you don't know the sound of the ring. If X, the ring is hollow. If Y, the ring is not hollow. But you don't know if it's X or Y.
Second, you have not explained how someone with cancer is somehow able to choose not to face it. Some people ignore the symptoms or deny that they have it? Is that cowardly, in your book?
I mean, just try making sense here. If the topic is too emotional too face to use a key word, then you're just not running toward the fire. Be courageous and talk about it. Or be timorous and don't.
I've spent a lot of time with people who have cancer. Most people deal with it but some show unusual courage or maybe common sense. I'm writing a book about my life as a surgeon and have a chapter on cancer with stories about patients. One of the saddest is the account of how Steve Jobs wished he had gone right to conventional treatment instead of messing around with alternative remedies.
That's stupid. Ms. Hill's courage was demonstrated by her choice to approach her disease with grace, dignity and meaning, not by her just having the disease. She could've chosen to react differently.
I still don't understand the whole "courageous" thing when someone has a disease. You really have two choices - try to live as long as you can, or give up. You were trying to live as long as you can prior to getting the disease, so what are you doing differently now?
Oh - and I have heart disease, and found out I had it when I was 34 years old. So I believe I'm speaking from experience.
Anglelyne said...
Don't look at me, lady. It was your lot that put the stick up America's butt, not mine.
LOL. I think it was Allen Ginsberg who tried to write a poem about that.
More worm-can opening:
According to Aristotle, there are very few circumstances which can be considered truly worthy of courage:
"Now we fear all evils, e.g. disgrace, poverty, disease, friendlessness, death, but the brave man is not thought to be concerned with all; for to fear some things is even right and noble, and it is base not to fear them- e.g. disgrace; he who fears this is good and modest, and he who does not is shameless. He is, however, by some people called brave, by a transference of the word to a new meaning; for he has in him something which is like the brave man, since the brave man also is a fearless person. Poverty and disease we perhaps ought not to fear, nor in general the things that do not proceed from vice and are not due to a man himself. But not even the man who is fearless of these is brave. Yet we apply the word to him also in virtue of a similarity..." (Ethics, III.1).
Can't we say that Ms. Hill showed, then, a kind of courage in facing down her death by playing until the buzzer rang? Being present for others, teaching others how to die with true dignity, rather than opting out of her ordeal through suicide, in contrast to her contemporaries in Oregon, etc.?
It's a topsy-turvy world which says that those who commit suicide (or otherwise purposely destroy their bodies) are more courageous than those who bear their sufferings with dignity and in service to God and others until their natural death...
This is why the Catholic Church upholds saints: because they demonstrate heroic virtues in their life which ought to be emulated by others. (It's easier to see this point, by the way, if you consider man's time on earth as a pilgrimage instead of as a brief carbon-based phenomenon with a determinate drilospheric end-stop. So, certainly, YMMV....)
At any rate, when it comes to that semblance of courage of which Aristotle speaks, I think Ms. Hill definitely qualifies.
Can we really say the same about Brutlyn Jenner's shameless self-mauling? Certainly, Aristotle says, the (wo)man is without fear regarding his disgrace - but the Peripatetic has a word for that too: "reckless."
JOB
Do you want to give Person A a courage award?
Why do you want to give it to a mentally ill, publicity-hound, freak?
"There is often a big difference in the attitudes different people take when they face problems."
The subject is courage, not attitudes. Or do you think courage is a particular attitude? Do you think sick people who remain cheerful or sensitive to others are courageous? I'm just trying to get at the courage point. I concede that there is a range of reactions to illness and that some are more admirable than others. It's nice when sick people don't get too depressed about it and burden others or if they don't complain and so forth. If you want to call that courage, it's okay with me.
Just 2 days ago, we were talking about the aphorism "If the word seems useful, use it." That's what this is. "Courage" has a long tradition as a useful word in talking about cancer patients, and it bothers some people to hear from someone who finds it useful to constrict the meaning of "courage" to taking on something that isn't forced on you. Noted.
Let's see. One person/group is going to supply solar power to half the population of an entire continent. 600 million people. Twice the total population of the United States. I laugh in amusement. That's a fairy story right there.
I never said I thought Jenner should get a courage award.
I'm not into courage awards. I just wanted to point out that what he's doing is more in the general area of what the word "courage" means.
But if there are to be courage awards, there's no reason why the award should be given to the person who has done something that most aligns with my preferred definition of the word!
Thanks for the Aristotle, Joseph.
Distracted, I googled Lauren Hill. (No, google, I did not mean Lauryn Hill).
So a teenager gets Brain Cancer, doesn't go quietly into the night, and she's supposed to be awarded something. I think the problem here is right at the top of the search, the USA Today article that starts off "Lauren Hill touched a nation with her desire..." Blerg.
Treacle to sell newspapers and generate clicks (You'll never believe what this Cancer Patient did after her diagnosis!!) I preferred the world long before we could learn via the internet about Every Single Person's personal tragedy.
Curmudgeonly yrs,
MadisonMan
Why is everything so damned depressing and serious these days?
Because a lot of people have figured out they can cash in by being a victim. Real heroes and ordinary people doing extraordinary things are being ignored while those on the fringe of what is acceptable behavior or normal, are being held up as something you should marvel and praise, if you know what is good for you.
Jenner puts on a dress and everyone in the media are orgasmic, while ignoring the islamists that Hillary accepts money from, who are still running a slave trade, killing gays, crucifying Christian children. Not to mention Obama and the democrats bringing in, on top of the millions of illegals, hundreds of thousands of muslims, whose brethren here, have made clear they desire sharia law. Btw, where will they find work seeing as how millions of Americans have dropped out of the labor force?
Hope and change. You voted for it. Own it.
p.s. - your comment reminds me of Baltimore. They got what they wanted, less police, and now they're whining about the consequences.
What puts the "ape" in apricot?
Well, at least Jenner putting on a dress is kinda fun. It's still swathed in lugubrious victimhood and the bathetic professed desire to help other people. But it's self-expression and doing something you want. And clothes and makeup are superficial and lightweight (even when we're being prodded to think of them as tremendously heavy).
Actually, the word "courage" is more aptly applied to the things you can choose not to do. It would be amazingly courageous to step up and take cancer if that was an option and you could somehow help somebody else that way, but that's not how it works.
If you accept that transgenderism is a legitimate issue, that Jenner was truly born a woman in a man's body in the same way that the cancer patient was truly suffering from a malignant tumor, then I think that they are completely analogous. Both of them "took on" their condition in the way that they apparently thought best and can be judged (to the extent that we would want to judge people on this) based on the way that they did so and their actions in the face of it. I'm not sure that either's is better, or what the point of this decision regarding who is more "courageous" even really is, but the comparison is definitely logical.
I believe courage is an appropriate term not just for how someone reacts to an immediate, short-term crisis, but can also be appropriate for how some people deal with long-term issues. I do not think it is appropriate for Bruce Jenner.
Someday, this country is going to need men and women who understand that courage is not basking in the adulation of the irrelevant, it's accepting whatever hand you've been dealt and operating "above and beyond the call of duty" despite the pain and despite the fear.
I hope there will be few left.
Coupe,
To quote an old colleague of mine in Iraq, electricity is to development as butter is to good food.
No one is a greater proponent of nuclear power superiority or a greater scoff of "feel good" solar power than I am, but in Africa's case, the imbalance between these two is not as great as the delta is in the US or Europe. For starters, the capital costs of nuclear power are prohibitive when you factor in the infrastructure required for transmission and distribution, and the lack of human technical capacity to manage the substations. Prime power just wouldn't work so well with such an unevenly distributed and largely rural population, and consumption is so low that one of solar's weakest points (i.e., that its "yield" is laughingly minimal) isn't such a big deal. This doesn't mean that in 50-150 years we won't be coming back to Africa saying "it's time to think nuclear!" or that they don't require prime power in certain parts, as indeed they do, just that in general for the continent, solar power is not such a bad investment. In America, totally different story and solar power proponents are, as far as I'm concerned, no better than snake oil salesmen and probably a whole lot worse.
Michael K said One of the saddest is the account of how Steve Jobs wished he had gone right to conventional treatment instead of messing around with alternative remedies.
Your book sounds interesting. I know that this is way, way off topic, but I've been curious - is there any reason to believe that it would have made a difference if Jobs had skipped the alternative routes? Isn't the kind of cancer that he had pretty much a killer no matter what? (Not to say that there aren't legitimate cases where people do do themselves a disservice by seeking alternative medicine instead of real medicine, I just wonder if this was really one of them.)
I saw a billboard the other day for a hospital cancer center.
The tag line was something like "We're here to help in your fight against cancer" and there was a giant picture of a pair of boxing gloves.
And I thought to myself, "You know what? Maybe I really am from another planet."
(Note the craft with which I made this comment about me.)
I still don't understand the whole "courageous" thing when someone has a disease.
Especially mental illness that one refuses to treat and wants everyone else to indulge. Most people with whatever disease, quietly deal with it and demand no gold stars. That in itself, is more deserving of praise than what is going on with Jenner.
If I was a parent of a child watching an award show, and I had the choice of my child seeing ESPN honor an attractive young girl who was cursed with cancer, and spent the last months of her life raising money for others and trying to inspire others; or a self indulgent old man with mental problems who dresses like a woman; the choice would not be hard for me.
Jenner pretending he's a woman isn't courageous, especially when he knows he's going to be universally lauded by the Cultural Elites in this country. His behavior is not courageous, but childish, narcissistic and insane.
It is far more courageous to tell people like Jenner that he's not a woman, that he needs a lot psychological help, and that mutilating himself and turning himself into a national embarrassment sets a terrible example for others. People with this commonsense view are far more likely to face scorn and derision, especially publicly, than is Jenner. He's a very wealthy man. He can afford to go on with this lifestyle choice. It's just unfortunate that all of the sycophants and opportunists, and even his own family, will continue to rationalize and enable his self destructive lunacy rather than actually try to help him.
Bobby, good points. When I think about nuclear power today, I think of the stuff Bill Gates is working on. These are small reactors designed for a small community. Just enough kilowatts for say a neighborhood.
These reactors use nuclear waste. The USA and Russia have huge stockpiles of nuclear waste, and this waste still has enough energy left to work with these small reactors.
Also, the advances in ceramics and nanotechnology is going to help make nuclear power affordable. Right now, the 99% of the cost of nuclear power, is in the safety and containment. If you make things small, then those costs are small also.
But, we're not there yet. I think it would be neat to get rid of power distribution lines. It's expensive, and worse: it's ugly.
Because no one runs toward cancer. No one enters cancer to save someone else from cancer. The fire analogy would need to be: Someone finds himself in a burning building, so he tries to run out of it, and he doesn't make it. Was that courage?!
Well, let's stick with your analogy. Someone finds themselves in a burning building and they know they are going to die.
There are others in the burning building that they can save, but this is their last moments. They could be on the phone telling their mother and father goodbye. They could be doing their best to hide in the closet from the fire, hoping beyond hope that a miracle happens. They could just shut down and give up and sit in the middle of the floor and wait until they die. They could grab a gun and end it the quick and painless way.
Or, they could try and save others in the building that is burning with them. Maybe others could have a chance? Maybe if you held them out the window and were able to swing them to another floor, below the fire? Maybe there are crawl spaces too small for you to fit in, but big enough for children, and you've found that crawl space and can usher others into it? Or maybe you're in a room with a bunch of wailing children who are all going to die with you, and instead of thinking of yourself, you could act brave, pretend not to be scared, try and calm the children, and make their last moments on this earth not filled with terror?
It's the choices we make that define us. Some of us choose the cowards way, others the courageous way. Why you deny this to one person and dollop it onto another is confusing.
Bobby, you're right about Africa. It seems to me if you want to give 600 million people power, nuclear is the way to go.
However, in Africa's case, there is so little infrastructure in so many places, that solar would be better.
My cousin and her family live in the middle of no where in Africa. They volunteered to be missionaries over there about 8 years ago. They have solar energy on their home and it's enough to charge their laptop and run few appliances, but nothing at all like the convenience we have here in the United States. But for them it's like living as Kings.
I don't bear Jenner any ill will or malice. I think his transformation is outlandish and self indulgent, but it's his decision. But why is my reaction to such a transformation a litmus test of my tolerance and virtue?
The headlines on Snoop Dog highlight his "transphobic" comments. He's a hater. Tried and convicted by the media.
Why bother to read further?
I miss when men dressed up like women on Halloween for fun. I must be immediate-gratification-phobic.
"Reminds me a bit of the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison, hoping to become a gay-rights martyr in order to cash in, continually acts more and more outrageous but all anyone ever says is "He's so courageous.""
This is the episode of South Park this stuff reminds me of.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=south+park+garrison+sex+change&qpvt=south+park+garrison+sex+change&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=F2A763A04ECCDABAD61CF2A763A04ECCDABAD61C
I actually saved someone from a burning building. It was an act of altruistic panic, but it looked brave. I made the papers and got to be a hero. A pleasant sensation, but within a few weeks I reverted to the mean and relapsed into cowardice and moral sloth. For me courage was a transient virtue.
"Why is everything so damned depressing and serious these days? American culture used to be a whole hell of a lot more fun."
OK Professor, I get it now. Great troll.
Coupe,
Yeah, the micro nuclear reactors and the nuclear reprocessing technology are really great and exciting things for the future- you're right that we're not there yet, but we're getting closer and closer every single day, and by "we" I primarily mean France, Germany and Japan since our contributions are minimal given that the "clean energy cult," contra science, determined that the cleanest of energy power is somehow not clean... But whatever. Most of that, I think, was politically driven by the Sierra Club selling out nuclear power in the 70s in order to appease and attract the Baby Boomer hippies to whom "nuclear = bad" was about as sophisticated as they could get. Once they all die off, I suspect future generations will come to see nuclear energy as the gift that it really is. But no doubt, the "greenies" set back "green power" in the USA by several decades.
Eric,
That's the thing, right? Eventually- and probably a lot more rapidly than we think- Africa will outgrow solar power's usefulness, and then they're going to need real solutions. But they don't need to commit to that right now. Right now, they just need- like you said- enough to run a few appliances and Life's Good. By the time they need real power solutions there, they can re-evaluate their options and who knows what wonders the scientists and engineers will have brought to us.
There is no doubt that we have cheapened the word "courage." I first became aware of this back in the 1990's when some woman doctor at the South Pole diagnosed her own breast cancer while stationed there in the middle of winter. She had some tech do her biopsy. Then she had a rescue team come down and fly her out of there in extremely bad weather just so she could get back home for treatment. The media were fawning all over her as a "hero." She had speaking engagements, multiple news stories, and fawning radio interviews. No one ever mentioned that the true courage was in the people she enlisted to help her. I could never see anything courageous about her choices, they seemed selfish to me - putting others at risk to save herself. But, hey, this is the age of "ME."
I had a loved one die of cancer. It was a terrible thing even just to witness. The Romans chose crucifixion as the cruelest death because its victims were tortured to death by their will to live. Something like that happens to patients with terminal cancer. Courage or cowardice. It all has the same end.
Let's see: Lauren Hill is diagnosed with a rare, inoperable form of brain cancer at a very young age. She does not have a choice in this matter. She has many choices in how to face her disease. She chooses to go public, "raising awareness" (very over-used phrase, but appropriate here), and raising well over a million dollars for research. She survives long enough to play basketball in college (briefly, but she did it) and, at least in public, never loses her cheerful demeanor.
Bruce Jenner thinks he is a woman. He wins a gold medal in the decathlon and inspires budding athletes. Then he has three failed marriages, and six children, and by many accounts is a terrible, neglectful father. He is a willing part of the most fame-hungry family on the planet and he is part of a car crash that kills a woman, fault yet to be determined. He chooses to go public with an overly-photoshopped magazine cover, while wearing a weave, makeup that appears to have been applied with a trowel, and an age-inappropriate outfit that reveals a very poor attempt at a tuck. Then she starts sniping at her third wife, and talks solely about herself and how wonderful she is. She makes no mention of her net worth, which is in the tens of millions, and which has enabled her to transition much more easily than other transgenders. She makes no mention of wanting to help young people who think they are transgender. She touts her upcoming un-reality show.
Who is the more courageous?
Anything that Althouse does not have, such as courage, she does not value.
I think The Onion actually nails it, although perhaps not in the way its writers intended. Which is to say, there really are cowardly and courageous ways to face and endure cancer. There's a decision to be made. You can go fetal and whimper about your fate and the pain you're suffering or you can suck it up face it all with dignity and calm. The latter takes courage.
Unknown: Anything that Althouse does not have, such as courage...
Unknown is a coward.
How do I know that? Same way he knows Althouse is a coward.
My recently departed mother and my deceased father both died of all age, more or less, but the proximate cause of their demise was cancer. Both saw the end coming from a long way off and they felt it coming too--there was much pain involved. Both faced and endured it all with dignity and calm and even humor. That takes courage. They could have gone all to pieces. But they didn't.
all age = old age
Is there something in "how" she did it that distinguished her from other people who have cancer and therefore, of necessity, face it?
Yes. Of course.
I think everyone should take time out to recognize and applaud Professor Althouse for her courageous struggle with alexithmia.
"They could have gone all to pieces. But they didn't."
If they did, would you call them cowards?
I would have regarded them as cowards. I wouldn't have said this because I loved them.
Grace under pressure is the hallmark of courage.
But the point is moot. They weren't cowards.
Angelyne...? Do you not observe that Otis her eternal pattern to deprecate things she does not have, or does not need? Examine the record. Extreme narrowness. Extreme lack of empathy which is why it's so funny to see her accuse others of it.
We're all cowards at some point in our lives. Perhaps at more points than we care to admit. It's not a sin. It doesn't make you a bad person. It's a part of being human. So is courage.
If Althouse were a TV reporter: http://www.theonion.com/video/autistic-reporter-covers-gathering-of-crying-peopl-18983
If they did, would you call them cowards?
To myself, and in the full knowledge that, come the test, I would fail it, too, yes. Because I would compare them, and myself, to people I've seen die terrible deaths with tremendous fortitude and stoicism. I won't dishonor my betters by excusing myself.
I read that Jenner will not lose his penis and that he is not attracted to men and will continue to have heterosexual relationships. He is living the old joke of "...I am a lesbian in a mans body". Well, mostly, anyway.
I actually saved someone from a burning building. It was an act of altruistic panic,
I had a similar experience, only drowning.
Several days later, when I could actually sit and think rationally about what had happened, I was most troubled?amazed?confused by the fact that I had reacted with no conscious thought. There was no courage involved because I never stopped to feel fear.
The other thing I have noticed, is that when things get dicey, I tend to get very calm, very rational and start considering options, often while those around me are reacting emotionally and irrationally.
The last thing is something that others first noticed about me. I don't think it is very complimentary, but interesting. When I am in a dangerous situation, or one I perceive as dangerous, if I have some means of control over my fate, they agree with my self assessment. However if I don't, (passenger on an airplane, passenger in a car etc) I simply shut down and go to sleep as a way of avoiding the situation.
Unknown: Angelyne...? Do you not observe that Otis her eternal pattern to deprecate things she does not have, or does not need? Examine the record. Extreme narrowness. Extreme lack of empathy which is why it's so funny to see her accuse others of it.
How is any of the above evidence of cowardice? I give her crap all the time for her attitudes and opinions. You called her a coward. That's a pointless, nasty piece of slander.
ESPN has been a joke for awhile. The Obama bracket shows made them look ridiculous and the LeBron "announcement" show pretty much killed ESPN for the average sports fan. I'll watch ESPN when they televise a game I want to watch but that's it. Their commentary lacks any insight and their anchors are clowns. Most of their 30 for 30 shows are maudlin as are most of their features. I'm tired of them appealing for cheap sympathy by broadcasting so many features about people with cancer. They are using personal tragedies for viewership under the guise of "caring" when all they are doing is appealing to the easy emotions.
And I'm tired of them trotting out Jim Valvano's cancer speech every year to pretend to raise money for cause that they intended only to raise the profile of their network. I'm sure they'll rake Stewart Scott's body across the stage for some more cheap and easy tears to retain their viewership.
All the major sports have their own channels and their analysts are much better and don't waste their time propagating progressive nonsense,pretending to be hip, or exploiting the tragedies of everyday Americans, athletes, and coaches.
Serious question.
Jenner's definition of being a woman seems to revolve around sexy clothes, heavy makeup, and plenty of Photoshop. Pretty much the antithesis of what feminism seems to be striving for. In fact, many argue that all gender specific behaviors are learned, are, in fact, socially constructed.
Yet the Professor, who from previous posts I have always taken to be a feminist, and other feminists, seem to have taken Jenner to their bosom as an courageous example of ... something.
However, if it is true that he is going to continue to have heterosexual relationships, and would appear to simply be a cross-dresser, then isn't he, in fact, not only not being courageous, but setting back both feminism and cross dressers?
Isn't Jenner actually a retrograde influence?
A fascinating subject, courage. A very human and therefore very important subject. The ancients, bless them, were profoundly concerned with it, often to the point of obsession. The Iliad and the Odyssey, and indeed all the great Indo-European epic poems, were, are, arguably (and I would so argue) meditations on courage: what it was, the forms it took, how one got it and kept it--and lost it, the purpose it served and the role it played in the larger drama of being a mortal man or woman. The comments Althouse made here and the responses to them are all more or less presaged in the Homeric epics, the Mahabharata, the Tain, the Shahname, etc. No need for rancor, enjoy the discourse.
And I'm tired of them trotting out Jim Valvano's cancer speech every year to pretend to raise money for cause that they intended only to raise the profile of their network. I'm sure they'll rake Stewart Scott's body across the stage for some more cheap and easy tears to retain their viewership.
Wow dude..that's pretty harsh.
You might have some anger issues..let it go it's not healthy...
I believe in courage awards, but they should be for real courage, not having a great attitude and making sensible choices. Can one courageously fight cancer quietly out of the limelight?
It's like people who say, " ________ and proud of it!" Fill in the blank any with anything you want, but most of the time you were born that way. Why are you proud of something you had no control over. It was an accident of birth. You shouldn't be proud of genetics you had no control over.
While watching yet another clip of the Jenner photo shoot I said, "If I said what I really think in public, I would be harassed as insensitive, but this is just weird and I don't give a rat's arse about how Bruce Jenner dresses or feels inside." But I feel no one dare say it, even though they think it. It's the opposite with the Kardashians. It's OK to say they are weird and you don't give a rat's arse about them, while many who say it turn around and watch the show.
BTW, a good libertarian would not criticize Snoop for saying what he said. But, they are inhumane.
The Chick with a dick (Bruce/Caitlyn) is a "science" project in the same way that global warming is a "science" project.
Neither have anything to do with science in any normal sense of the word. It is just used to try to put lipstick on a pig.
Oops. Is that insensitive? Or is Caitlyn/Bruce, who is indisputably still a guy as long as he has a dick, a pig since he is a male? In which case he put his own lipstick on.
John Henry
The duel of heroes was a hallmark of Indo-European epic poetry and of the warfare that inspired it, and a hallmark of the duel was the speechifying that preceded the actual combat. Meeting on the "windy plain of Troy," two heroes, Sarpedon and Glaukus, spoke eloquently on the matter of courage as they understood it. The Trojan, Sarpedon, declares to his Achaean foe:
Man, supposing you and I, escaping this battle,
Would be able to live on forever, ageless, immortal,
So neither would I myself go on fighting in the foremost
Nor would I urge you into the fighting where men win glory.
But now, seeing that the spirits of of death stand
Close about us in their thousands,
No man can turn aside nor escape them,
Let us go on and win glory for ourselves,
Or yield it to others.
(Lattimore trans.)
Wait, is that true that Jenner still has all of his man-parts and intends to keep them? That Jenner still plans to have sex with women?
So does that make Jenner a lesbian trapped in a man's body but open-minded enough to hold on to the penis?
[Insert joke here about that being an improvement over a strap-on, damn where the hell is Laslo when you need him.]
Which public rest room and which locker room will Jenner use? If Jenner intends to use the women's facilities and get's away with it, why shouldn't any man get to as well? The only difference between any man and Jenner will be the lipstick...
Cause never did give nothing to the Jen Man
That he didn't, didn't already have
If it's just performance art is it courageous performance art?
Pam Geller's acts are described as those of a provacateur, and Jenner's are described as those of a brave woman.
You are a disgusting human being Ann. I am done reading your blog. If your dumbass can't figure out that cutting your penis off isn't as courageous as battling cancer when your 19 and playing college basketball. And the other person up for the reward was a veteran who lost both legs. I guess since he didn't choose to lose his legs on purpose it less courageous. Go screw yourself. And yes I will say the same thing to your face. Disgusting
Akon is supplying 600 million Africans with solar power....
That remains to be seen.
“If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, Mr. Brave man, I guess I'm a coward.” -- J. Handy
While I'm at it:
“If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting”
William said...
Pam Geller's acts are described as those of a provacateur, and Jenner's are described as those of a brave woman.
Good point. Jenner is just a side-show act.
How is Bruce "courageous"? He took the risk of being condescended to to death?
Was Nash "courageous" in his battle with schizophrenia? His impact on the world is appreciably larger than Bruce's and he got far less fabulously wealthy than Bruce did. He was equally selfish towards his family, though.
I can't believe I agree with Snoop Dog on something.
In my experience, lots and lots of everyday people get terrible diseases and medical conditions, and deal with them with dignity and grace, right up to their last day, and pass on with no recognition other than from immediate family. But lots do not. They linger and die as terrific burdens on everyone, whining and decrying their lot, cursing the gods as they go and making sure everyone around is as miserable and unhappy as they are. So if a teenage terminal cancer patient's attitude is not so special, it's not universal either, and maybe worth celebrating even if it unfairly ignores the others who share it, unknown and unseen.
I don't see a single thing heroic or brave about Jenner deciding he'll get more TV time as a female impersonator than as the husband and father to a bunch of trashy females with big butts and dubious spouses.
"Jenner describes a feeling of having the mind of a woman, but maybe there should have been more specificity: Inside there was a woman, but not just any woman, an old-fashioned, unliberated woman who cares a lot about makeup, clothes, and looking pretty for admirers. "
Ann, I believe on a previous Jenner entry, a trans person commented extensively. It was a series of comment that ended up being a different point of view than Jenner's, if you care to read them. Just pointing it out.
Based on what you observe, I infer that Jenner's notion of and fascination with womanhood seems to have been formed during an earlier age - 50s or 60s.
Dogg is a reformed pimp? Perhaps Jenner is competing on his turf.
Minor point based on one sentence by Snoop:
Sensitive? I would say he's encouraging us to have some *perspective.*
As for solar power and Africa, as others have stated that is not really the solution. Solar power is expensive and inefficient. Africa needs carbon based fuel.
Jenner actually said something along the lines of "women are pressuree to look good. Yes, tell us all about women and their issues Bruce.
And who is pressuring Bruce to look so feminine? Are WE telling him to have his Adams apple shaved? Are we pressuring him to have feminizing surgery? Are we making him spend an hour putting on makeup? Bruce the only one pressuring you to look good is YOU.
And of course Stewart makes us the aggressors . WE are applying pressure. No John. That vanity fair cover was purely narcissism and spreading of an agenda on display. And it's the left pushing it. So yes, why do you care so much?
jr565 @ 8:34 has it right.
This "pressured to look beautiful" bullshit is just yet more women blaming men for what women like to do; put on make-up and sexy clothes and look pretty.
Women need to take responsibility for their actions and quit blaming men.
I'd offer what Snoop said is more courageous than what Jenner did-
Then again, I'd offer a 6th grader standing up to a 9th grader, and willing to fight to save his dignity, with no chance of winning...in front on his classmates is far more courageous....
But, what do I know---certainly not the meaning of the word "courage" these days.
@Michael K nice hat tip to EB Sledge book.
Speaking of Jon "Stewart". When did he start looking like an old Jewish man?
Post a Comment