Showing posts with label American values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American values. Show all posts

Sunday, November 17, 2013

"Merry Christmas!!" / "Happy Holidays!!" and Our One Size Fits All Culture


One size fits all policies--whether they be zero tolerance policies, mandatory minimum sentences, political correctness, or the equally inane fight against all political correctness--refuse to accept that most human beings have common sense. A six-year-old bringing a firearm to school is not equal to that same kid holding his thumb and forefinger in the shape of a gun. Some language is legitimately offensive--even if it isn't intended to be, or didn't used to be considered offensive--while other language really just isn't.

Someone wishing you a Merry Christmas is seldom if ever a slight against you or your faith, whatever it may be. Someone wishing you "Happy Holidays!" isn't, either. When stores make a policy that excludes either or only acknowledges one set of beliefs, they're not allowing good old common sense to rule the day. There is nothing wrong with hoping every customer enjoys all the holidays, including the ones they don't personally celebrate. And there's nothing wrong with offering holiday wishes based on the cues people offer, either. (A lot of times, you can figure out who celebrates what holiday based on clothing or other attributes.) Demanding that stores use any one particular kind of greetings and signage--whether all "Christmas" or all "Holiday"--is just questioning common sense.

I suspect that many believe in this "War on Christmas" nonsense because Christmas has been the dominant holiday for so long. Jews and others were just supposed to accept that numbers dictated that stores would have Christmas signage and offer Christmas greetings, and towns would have Christmas tree lightings and Christmas fairs. If those who didn't celebrate Christmas were lucky, there'd be some small recognition of their faith tucked in a corner somewhere out of the way...maybe. That some cities and towns, multi-state or multi-national chains and individual mom N pop stores have chosen to be more inclusive threatens those who want Christmas to remain at the top of the ladder. Every acknowledgement of those who don't celebrate Christmas is one less acknowledgement of the Christian faith. They call it tradition...but refusing to recognize that other faiths exist and deserve to be in the public square too is a bad tradition.


If it were up to me, we, the people would acknowledge and celebrate all sacred and secular holidays in the public square. Schools would teach about all religions, and children would learn the ethnic and religious traditions of everyone in their classes, their schools, their neighborhoods, and ultimately, the world.

I understand why this isn't possible--it's largely the same reason there is both political correctness AND the so-called "war on Christmas" &/or "the Christian faith." (For my money, the "War on Christmas" is just political correctness, Christian edition. Another interest group demanding that everyone give them the respect they think they deserve by virtue of the fact they exist. YMMV...) No matter how much we tried, some group--& more than likely every group--would think they were getting the short end of the stick somehow, or believe that some other group isn't worthy of the same respect as their own. It's a damned shame, but it's something we'll probably never get past... ...so rather than learning about and honoring all of our traditions and faiths, we can't honor any of them in our secular public square... It doesn't stop the complaining, obviously, but it does lessen it...

One size fits all.

Yay.

God bless us, every one.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

X-Post: Like They're Not Even Human...



Sad that there are people who actually think like this...
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats x-post

Thursday, January 10, 2013

In Reply: The Value of an American Flag: More than the sum of it's parts

In reply to Midlands teacher accused of stomping on American flag in class - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina
---

I do understand the likely intended message of the act, which is "the map is not the territory," and "symbols REPRESENT the things they symbolize, but only because people choose and agree that they do," but this was a very thoughtless and disrespectful way to try to teach it.

In the high school class I took, the teacher ripped up a map of our area live in class (noting that no fissures appeared in the ground outside as he did so), but showed us pictures or newspaper accounts of people committing more extreme acts like flag burning and desecration (the US flag was shown being destroyed somehow, but he was careful to include the flags of at least 10 countries) and book burning.

My teacher's take was that American flags do start out as just cloth, but we Americans put our hopes, dreams, and ideals into them like putting on a shirt, so it becomes the difference between taking a t-shirt out of your closet and setting it on fire, vs putting gasoline and a match to the one you're wearing.


While it's true that symbols are not literally the things they symbolize, that doesn't mean that they're worth no more than the sum of their parts, either. If you think about it, the cloth is probably the least valuable thing about our American flag. It's a shame this guy forgot that half of the lesson.
---
Posted Thursday, January 10, 2013, 12:17 PM


---
More:
Teacher suspended for stomping on American flag during lesson about symbolism - EAGnews.org :: Education Research, Reporting, Analysis and Commentary

Language in Thought and Action - Symbols

Language in Thought and Action: Fifth Edition: S.I. Hayakawa, Alan R. Hayakawa, Robert MacNeil: 9780156482400: Amazon.com: Books

Added: After posting, I pulled out and started rereading Hayakawa's chapter on symbols. This passage seems relevant:
"In all civilized societies (and probably in many primitive ones as well) the symbols of piety, of civic virtue or of patriotism are often prized above actual piety, civic virtue or patriotism. In one way or another, we are all like the student who cheats on his exams in order to make Phi Beta Kappa: it is so much more important to have the symbol than the things it stands for."
I'm still reading the chapter, so maybe I'll be back with another quote or two...

(This was the textbook for the high school class I talked about in the comment, and I credit this book and that class and teacher with much of the intellectual content and philosophical bent of my blogging today...)

Saturday, July 28, 2012

In Reply: If money is Speech, Shouldn't Yours Say What You Want it to Say?

In reply to The Freedom Not To Participate | Popehat

I start with the premise that if money is speech, I want as many of my measly dollars as possible to be lifting their voices in accord with my values. The way I see it, individual citizens don't have enough ways to influence the world as it is, and I'm certainly not going to willingly fail to use an agent of change I have at my disposal.

Beyond that, I think a whole lot of what we do in this world speaks to and in effect casts a vote for one's values regardless–whether one does or doesn't purchase Chick-fil-A over the company's social stands or because they love (or hate) the food, the advertising, the way the drive-thru's work, or for any other reason, that person is speaking up for their values.

To me, paying attention to both the value of the products and the sociopolitical values of the people who create them are important. I prefer to reward those who agree with me and ignore (if not outright punish) those who don't, including via my wallet–another way I express myself, money being speech, n'all….

Some folks just like chicken (or prefer pizza).

That's America, in a nutshell.

Some folks will consume all the news they can, learning about all the issues and carefully weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Other folks will vote for the one who looks a lot like their favorite movie actor or whose mother was born just two towns over. Values, either way.
---

Posted Jul 28, 2012 @3:35 pm

Sunday, June 10, 2012

In Reply: It's OK For People to be COMPLETELY WRONG...and still see them as worthwhile human beings. (Allergic to Bull, Bigotry...or not)

In reply to this most excellent post, which deserves reading in full: Allergic to Bull: On Romney’s Mormonism and Religious Tolerance (Honestly, it doesn't have much to do with Romney or Mormonism, except as inspiration...)
---

Straight on double-plus right, sir...

Many (most?) religions preach and teach that theirs is the one true path to all good things (however they define that), and many go further and say that those who don't follow their particular path will never get there... While it's possible for such beliefs to lead to bigotry--especially when governments or other institutions of power (including certain religious institutions themselves, ironically) get involved--the beliefs themselves are not bigoted.

I have this hippie dippy book called Das Energi, by Paul Williams (whattaya want, I'm a lib) that talks about the ability to discriminate as being key to the ability to see and perceive, and suggests that we draw our lines between people with disappearing ink. See the differences between us (be they religious, political, ethnic/heritage, ...), sure, but don't take them beyond the situations where they actually matter.

There has to come a point where it's ok for other people to be completely wrong about something--because they're not the same religion or denomination as you, or vote for candidates in the other party, or like mushrooms on their pizza--and still treat them as fellow citizens and worthwhile human beings deserving of respect.

(On that other thing... You was robbed and wronged, and I hope you get your rights back very soon. While I have issues with the partisan bent and allegations of collective guilt that some in your corner are trying to put on the thing, I unequivocally support free speech for all, even folks I probably don't much agree with... The best (and only) answer for speech you don't like or agree with is lots more speech... 'nuff said.)
---

Submitted for blog owner approval Posted: June 10, 2012 7:43 AM

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Monday, August 16, 2010

In reply: "Fear, Distrust, and Bigotry is just what the Terrorists want."

In reply to: WyBlog -- Who Was That Mosqued Man?, and in particular, the following comment:
@repsac3 - This is not about stopping Muslims from building mosques. No one is opposing mosques "all over the US". There are periodic local zoning fights about mosques. And similar fights about churches and synagogues too. Come to my town where the animosity generated by a humungous synagogue which was approved in the dead of night is still strong Or several towns over where a Greek Orthodox Mega-Church spent 15 years in litigation before getting its permits.

You say these Muslims are not associated with 9/11. That's probably true. But they are associated with Hamas. And Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hamas sacked and desecrated the Church of the Nativity is Bethlehem. It's absurd for them to now turn around and demand this mosque be built to promote "tolerance". When they lift the siege of Bethlehem, then we can talk.

Oh, and let me set you straight on one point. The terrorists who brought down the towers didn't "claim" to be Muslims. They *were* Muslims. You're veering into Rosie O'Donnell territory if you are unwilling to admit that.

--
I'm sorry... I did not mean to imply that those terrorists were not muslim. But they represent the muslim  faith in the same way that Fred Phelps represents the Baptist denomination, which is to say, not so much. The proof of that are the millions of muslims all over the world who have never lifted a hand to anyone. To pretend that it is the extremists that represent the muslim faith (or the Baptists, for that matter) and not all those who worship in peace is no less looney than any nutjobbery to which Rosie has added her voice.

I have seen no ties to Hamas. What I have seen is a guy who chooses to be more diplomatic than to call a spade a spade. (or a terrorist a terrorist.) Something to disagree with, perhaps... but not an offense that bars him from opening a cultural center on private property in America. It's fine to be offended by his reticence to speak as forcefully as you would, in his position. But his goals are to bring extremists down from the ledge, and you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. While it's admirable to speak your mind, there are times when not saying the right thing at the wrong time will diffuse a situation better than blatant, brutal honesty. There are times when it's wiser to avoid needless confrontation.

Zoning fights? No, I'm sorry, Chris, but these are objections to mosques and cultural centers, on the basis of the same bigotry against muslims at play in lower manhattan, by what are likely many of the same people. Staten IslandTennessee. Wisconsin. Even folks on the right see what you deny: American Power: To Build or Not to Build? Mosque Protests Go Nationwide (And to his credit, Dr Douglas gets this one more or less correct.) Indeed, there are Mosque Disputes Around the Country. Even Jon Stewart is getting in on the act. This isn't the same as fights over the height of the spire on a church. In each of these cases, the issue is an objection to the muslim faith. Pretending otherwise won't make it go away.

We are America, Chris. We don't base our freedoms on what folks do in other, more regressive, repressive countries. We extend the freedom to build mosques (or other houses of worship) regardless of what other governments or groups do. We are not Hamas, and the suggestion that we should take our cues on freedom from any more repressive regeme betrays a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be an American, whether said by you or by Newt Gingrich.

You know what... Skip it... I see from the comments to the previous post that you're one of those who believes that all the muslims who aren't currently committing acts of terrorism are just pretending, lying about themselves and their faith to lull us all into a false sense of security before they rise up, take us over, and impose Sharia law. And that's to say nothing of Louie Gomert's terrorist tots... 

There's just no arguing against that kind of baseless conspiracy theorizing... I didn't realize what I was dealing with, here... You seemed far more reasonable in past encounters. Carry on being afraid. But if you were to ask me, I'd say that that fear and distrust and bigotry is just what the terrorists want.

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Conservative Bigotry Against Muslims... ...Again.

If there's one thing Dr Douglas at American Power wants you to know, it's that some conservatives are proud to be bigoted against Muslim prayer facilities.

On top of that, it's not like conservatives HAVEN'T objected to the actual construction of Muslim facilities at military installations. Imam Saifulislam, who as far as I can tell is the only Muslim cleric being cited by Salon and Think Progress, was at the center of controversy in 2006 when an "Islamic Prayer Center" was being established at the United States Marine Corps training center at Quantico, Virgina. See, "Taxpayers fund Islamic center: Prayer building on Marine base not really mosque, officials say." And note the key information at the passage:
An announcement that the U.S. Marine base at Quantico, Va., has refurbished a building to be used as a prayer room for Muslim soldiers and civilians on base is a "bad signal," one critic has concluded.

The Marines announced earlier this summer that one of the buildings on the base had been repainted so that Muslims would have a place to pray and hold religious services

The new "Islamic Prayer Center" is the first of its kind on a Marine base, and "serves to express the Marine Corps' recognition of diversity among service members and the commitment to provide continued support to all Marines regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender," the base announcement said.

However, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer said he wonders why the Marines do not seem concerned such facilities might to used to generate anti-American sympathies.

"It's going to go up as part of a testament to American multiculturalism and so on without any indication of the possibility that this could be a source of what we're fighting against," he said. "It just sends a bad signal."

At the dedication ceremony, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England praised the estimated 4,000 Muslims in the U.S. military. Joining him were leaders of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

CAIR describes itself as America's largest Muslim civil liberties group and boasts 32 offices, chapters and affiliates nationwide and in Canada. Its mission, it says, is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

However, CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

"It is sadly ironic and lost on most that the plan to dedicate the prayer center and build a new mosque was approved by military leaders occupying a building that was attacked on 9/11 – the Pentagon – where more than 100 of its occupants were killed on that day," was the conclusion of those at Homelandsecurityus.com, a private security organization.
Justin Elliot and Think Progress might want to revise their posts. Robert Spencer (along with Pamela Geller) is among the leading opponents of the New York Mega Mosque. Thus, not only is there not a "mosque" at the Pentagon, but an earlier initiative to establish a fully designated "Islamic Prayer Center" met with the same kind of opposition that we're now seeing with the Cordoba Center. I'd add as well that the same folks who protest the erection of Islamic victory mosques have stressed repeatedly their respect for freedom of religion. Imam Saifulislam's Pentagon prayer services allow Muslim service-members to worship their faith as fully protected members of America's pluralist religious order. The U.S. did not prohibit Islam after 9/11. And our armies in the field are working with Muslim populations in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world to defeat militant jihadis who kill indiscriminately, regardless of faith.

Mega Mosque opponents are asking Muslim religious leaders to exercise their rights responsibly. No one is attempting to take away those rights.

The essays at Salon, Daily Kos, and Think Progress are simply additional examples of the anti-intellectual smear tactics disguised as "debate" that are found routinely on the left. Just watch. More people will die from this kind of conservative-bashing. Talk about political opportunism. It's pretty sick.

"the same folks who protest the erection of Islamic victory mosques have stressed repeatedly their respect for freedom of religion."
We respect all religions... We just don't want the muzzies to have a place to pray...

I see... Allowing moderate Muslim Americans, including those who've joined the military and sworn to defend this country, to build mosques and prayer centers would be allowing them to exercise their rights irresponsibly, I guess...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, as well as the idiots like Donald Douglas who follow and defend them, are bigots, plain and simple. To them, Muslims--including American Muslims--are not as worthy as the rest of us, and don't deserve the same rights and freedoms. The lip service about respect for all faiths is lovely, but it ain't worth spit when you watch the things these creatures say and do when faced with real life situations, like building places where Muslims can gather and pray. Any American who objects to tossing a coat of paint on a building so that the Muslim Americans serving as marines have a space on the base large enough for them to gather and pray, simply because they're Muslim, has something really wrong with them. If objecting to their having a place to pray isn't taking away their rights, it's only because the pleas fell on deaf ears and they got their prayer center. Personally, I'm glad these fools didn't object to Ramadan prayers in the Pentagon, whether held in a dedicated mosque or an unused conference room. One can only presume that they didn't know... I can't speak for all of 'em (mostly because I feel slimy enough after having to wade through just these two), but Geller and Spencer knew, and Geller and spencer objected (of course... I guess Douglas can add this to his list o' Judeo-Christian Neocon American pride): Pentagon Submits to Islam - Atlas Shrugs, and West: Ramadan at the Pentagon - Jihad Watch.

There is something sick alright, but it's the bigotry against Muslims about which some folks on the right are so proud to express to their readership...

(Crossposted at American Nihilist)

Related:
memeorandum
RealClearPolitics - The Mosque Controversy & Religious Freedom

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Shellie Ross, Twitter, and The 'Right' Way to Grieve

I just read this story on American Power, and it got me thinkin'

USATODAY.com lays out the story:

MERRITT ISLAND, Fla. — As Shellie Ross waited in a hospital for word on her son, Bryson, she posted this note to the social networking site Twitter.com: "Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool."
She found out 19 minutes later that Bryson was dead.

Ross' decision to broadcast that message Monday night to more than 5,300 people who follow her posts on Twitter has unleashed torrents of support and derision. Social networking experts and friends said Ross was right to reach out for help, while critics questioned whether her son would be alive if she spent less time online.

Ross, 37, is a blogger — blog4mom.com — and a prolific poster on Twitter. She has two other sons, ages 18 and 11, and her husband is an Air Force sergeant.

She tweeted throughout Monday. At 5:22 p.m., she posted a message about the fog that rolled in as she worked in her chicken coop.

The emergency call to police came at 5:23 p.m., from Ross' 11-year-old son Kris, said Joe Martin, Brevard County homicide investigator. Ross and her son found Bryson at the bottom of the pool. While Kris was on the phone, Ross performed CPR on Bryson, Martin said.

Bryson was taken to Cape Canaveral Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 6 p.m. Ross was notified at 6:31 p.m., Martin said. At 6:12 p.m. she posted to Twitter, asking for prayers.

"Her tweeting had nothing to do with what happened with regard to her son. It was an accident," Martin said, adding that no charges will be filed.

More info from ABC News:

The Brevard County Sheriff's office told ABCNews.com that Ross' 11-year-old son called 911 after they discovered the toddler's body floating the pool. According to Public Information Officer Lt. Bruce Barnett, the mother and older son had been cleaning out a chicken coop while the toddler was playing in the backyard.


Ross had asked her older son to turn off a hose inside the pool enclosure, and the gate behind him evidently did not close properly, said Barnett.

"When [Ross] finished cleaning she went inside and was looking for the 2-year-old, who she thought was with her 11-year-old, and wasn't able to find him and started to panic," he said. "That's when she found him floating."

Barnett said that Ross estimated her son was in the pool for "maybe five minutes," and performed CPR on her son for the duration of the nine-minute 911 call.

"Weird and deeply troubling" for American Power's Donald Douglas & others are Shellie Ross' tweets. First, there is the number of them, and the fact that Ms. Ross was likely tweeting at the same time Bryson was in the pool drowning, from which some infer that Ms Ross was neglecting her child.

Blogger Madison McGraw, a woman with no connection to Ross who read about this tragedy on the internet, is a prime example:
"She had been tweeting from 8:37 in the morning, right on thru while her son fell into the pool, and continued to tweet even after his death - which I find ironic because maybe if she wasn't tweeting, her son might still be alive."
and later
"Between the hours of 8:37 a.m. and 5:22 p.m (her first and last before son was found drowned in pool) she tweeted 74 times.

If a babysitter had been tweeting all day long while in charge of a 2 year old and he drowned while she was tweeting, I doubt that the parents would say, "It's okay, the babysitter feels guilty - we'll let it go."

Don Douglas is more circumspect, only saying:
"Now it turns out that Shellie Ross, whose 2 year-old son drowned on Monday, was tweeting at the time of the accident and sent a message just 19 minutes before her son's death: "Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool."

Of course what they don't say--because they don't actually know, and can only imply the worst--is whether or not Ms. Ross actually was the slightest bit negligent, here. How do these Monday morning quarterbackin' critics know that her son wasn't sitting on her lap, or doing a puzzle on the floor a few feet away for 70 or so of those 74 tweets? What makes them believe (or even want to believe) that she didn't have someone (one of the other kids, or dad) watching her son for the vast majority of the time she was distracted by twitter (or TV, or doing the dishes, or the bathroom, or anything else that might briefly take one's focus away from one's kids, for that matter)? The answer, of course, is nothing at all... Just speculation, and a cynical "build themselves up by knocking others down" attitude.

And as for the proximity of the tweet about the fog (5:22 p.m), to finding her son and trying to save him (5:23 p.m.), it also really doesn't say a thing.

People are always somewhere doing something in the minute before the proverbial blackout hits and leaves them in the dark. If she believed the gate to the pool was locked and Bryson was safely in her yard with her 11 year old, does it really matter what she was doing in that minute prior to realizing that all was not well? Would these people be cruelly second guessing her every move and implying she was a bad mother if instead of sending a tweet, she'd been leaving the bathroom, stirring the soup on the stove, or doing any one of a hundred other little things that parents--including these holier-than-thou critics who're attacking her, I'm sure--do when they think their kids are safely in the yard playing with their siblings? Correlation does not imply causation. And while I'm pulling out the truisms, how about this one. Let he whose kid has never suffered an injury of any kind while they were the adult in charge cast the first stone. (Any parent still holding a rock is either a damned liar, or is raising their kids in a mythical world built by nerf.)

I once had a friend who was in her kitchen doing the dishes while her 9 & 4 year old boys were in the front yard playing with a playground ball, a thing they'd probably done 50 times before. Their mom could see them through the kitchen window, and there was a chain link fence with a gate--latched, she thought--keeping them in the yard. But all she could do was watch in horror as the ball went over the fence and into the street, her 4 year old ran through the gate & into the street after it 20-30 seconds later, and was hit and killed by a passing car.

All these critics who think they know how this happened, feel some perverse need to second guess this mother's every move leading up to her losing her son and cruelly blame her for what happened--you really needn't bother. Just like my friend, Linda, Ms. Ross--and her whole family, probably--is doing plenty of that to themselves, without your help. Yes, there are probably 100 things that Ms. Ross or one of her other kids could've done differently to prevent this tragedy--and I'm sure they would've done them all, if they had the benefit of the hindsight that they, their supporters and friends, and all these nasty people attacking her, unfortunately have now.

The second issue--& the one I find more interesting, really--is the reaction to her tweet while her son was in the hospital being worked on, and the ones (there are two that people mention, though there may've been others) after she knew her son had died.



Why is this a problem for anyone? Who are these people to say they know better than the rest the "right" way to react to tragedy or death in another person's family? What gives them the right (moral, not legal) to pass judgement on another person's methods for reaching out for support, and furthermore, to get on the internet and express their views about it to everyone, including the grieving mother herself? Do they not realize how hurtful they are, or do they just not care about anything other than expressing their own opinions on the subject, regardless of who they may hurt in the process?

Shellie Ross wanted to solicit prayers and good wishes for her son while he was being worked on by the medical professionals, and she turned to a whole lotta people on her twitter feed. I see very little difference between this and those who have intercessions made in church to pray for "congregant such-n-such's mother, who is going in for heart surgery on the 12th" or those who post blurbs on their blogs and facebook pages, requesting prayers for all manner of things from good resolutions to medical issues, to passing the final exam, to the safe return of a soldier (& spouse, sibling, best friend or guy who works in my office) shipping off to Iraq or Afghanistan. I just don't see how the immediacy of the emergency changes the equation, prayer-wise. If anything, I'd think it would make the need for prayer, support, and good wishes more necessary, not less.

Turning to my nemesis Donald Douglas again, he doesn't come right out and express an opinion (I think he likes to see which way the wind blows, sometimes), but two things give us a clue. He quotes pretty heavily from this awful woman, MADISON MCGRAW, who is altogther very critical of of Ms Ross, scolding her for the amount of her tweets in general, and the propriety of the ones closest to her son's death.
ABC News reports that Shellie Ross was tweeting about the fog rolling in and her chickens going back to the coop while 911 was called by her middle son @ 5:23 to report that his 2 year old brother was floating in the pool. Ambulance arrives at 5:38 to find child in cardiac arrest. At 6:12 pm Shellie tweeted and asked for prayers for her son. She had been tweeting from 8:37 in the morning, right on thru while her son fell into the pool, and continued to tweet even after his death - which I find ironic because maybe if she wasn't tweeting, her son might still be alive.
After this tragedy, Shellie Ross has spoken and continued to Tweet, calling people assholes, hoping they rot in hell...but not once has she said, "I take full responsibility and I wish I could take that day back. I feel horrible and am so, so, sorry."

But then again, even if she did say that, I guess actions speak louder than words. And her actions leading up to and after her son's death speak volumes. She was twittering while her child died and she continues to Twitter, telling people to "Go Get Bent" and "Fuc* Tards."

If your child died because you were twittering, wouldn't that be the LAST place on earth you'd want to return to? If this was such a terrible time and you wanted people to 'leave you alone' why wouldn't you at least make your Twitter stream private?
I have no doubt it's only days before Ms. Ross appears for interviews and of course, people are already setting up donations.

I wish we could start a donation in Bryson Ross's name to sue his mother for negligence.

Why aren't people asking more questions about this? Do people not care about children and their safety at all? Who is looking out for children?

Lovely, woman, huh..? Her family must be so proud to've raised such a heartless, judgmental, holier-than-thou being. Obviously she's being criticized by others in ways that must seem all too similar to the way she criticized Ms Ross because in her next post, she responds with some of the same kind of sentiments she complains about Shellie Ross using. A study in hypocrisy, this one.:

"So, if those things make me evil and horrible - so be it.

One thing I know is, I haven't lost a child because I was updating my Twitter status.

So, call me anything you like.

Just don't call me Shellie Ross.

And with that - I'm done with this story. Because if the world doesn't give a shit that a 2 year old died a senseless meaningless death b/c his mom couldn't tear herself away from her online friends and she continues to remain online - then why should I?

ps-leaving shitty Reviews on Amazon for my books doesn't bother me. You MommyBloggers are so Mean Girls! Only older and haggard. With Coupons. LOTS and LOTS of coupons."

The thing Madison McGraw fails to realize, is that it's far more likely the Grace of God that's kept her from being in Shellie Ross' shoes than anything she or Shellie did or didn't do. Rather than kicking a grieving mother when she's down, McGraw ought to be thankful that she's been spared a similar fate, thus far.

This article (and Conor's below) make the most sense to me.:
About the story in general:
"If there's one truism about experiencing death, it's that every person deals with it differently. Some people might collapse in tears. Others might reach for a drink. Maybe some people would cook, or tidy up. Some people might burst out laughing. That's the thing about shock, about right? You never know. To attack someone for their reaction to such a tragedy, well, that's not very nice, to say the least. And, as Ross herself put it, "small minded."

And about the reaction of this unpleasant woman, McGraw, in particular.
"Explaining herself to ABC News, McGraw, a former paramedic and mother of three, said 'I thought, 'Who would tweet that her son just drowned?' I couldn't believe it… I've seen people react [to death], but they're screaming their heads off, crying and they don't know what to do. They're not on Twitter. I've never seen that before and I was just shocked.'

She was shocked. And she immediately tweeted about it. Huh."

One wonders whether she (& the rest of those complaining) even stopped to say a prayer for the child before hittin' the internet to rip into the mother... For the life of me, I just don't understand some people...

The second clue as to Donald's thoughts are contained in his derisive reference to the blog post of one of his "enemies", Conor Friedersdorf:
"Conor Friedersdorf blogged on this, at the Daily Dish no less, saying it's no big deal:

Isn't this just the latest example of people becoming insanely judgmental about a fellow citizen merely because she conceives of technology differently? It is unimaginable to me that people would react this way if Ms. Ross shouted over the back fence in the middle of the crisis to ask all in earshot to pray, and five hours later, still in shock, mechanically composed a letter to friends lamenting her loss.

But doing what amounts to the same thing on Twitter? It provokes vitriol that I find every bit as inexplicable as I do the Tweeting of a child's death. In this moment of utmost gravity, you're criticizing her approach to social media? "This woman is a perfect example of where humanity is heading as it becomes more enslaved by technology," one commenter said. In fact, the callousness strangers direct via Internet at a grieving mother is a far more dire harbinger of where we're headed.

Hmm. I wonder if he'd be saying the same thing if that was Trig Palin floating in the water? Somehow I doubt it."

Leave it to Donald (& at least one of his echoing sycophants, obviously) to use this story to score political hits.

Reading between the lines, it seems that Donald thinks tweeting about the death of one's son IS a big deal, though he fails to explain why... (I guess everyone is just supposed to "know," and anyone who doesn't, obviously isn't a part of the hive.)

I did find a woman, another blogger, who offers some explanation (though I believe that like McGraw, she makes some pretty big assumptions that she has no way of confirming, but on which she bases much of what she believes, anyway.)
The Drowned Boy & How He Changed Social Media - cara ellison:
"My feeling is that she is not in her right mind right now. She has no idea what she’s doing, and I give her miles and miles of latitude for that. This isn’t a personal failing at all. It’s just a fact; she has no way to process this. If her instinct is to be ‘alone’ while on the computer where she can receive free, safe condolences on the web, that is probably a pretty comfortable place to be.

Sometimes if neither side is safe, the safest place is the wall. For Shelli, I believe the Web is the wall. She doesn’t know me, or probably most of the people whose hearts ached for her in that moment, and it was a confirmation that yes, people are “out there”, and yes, some care, even if they can’t calm the cracking ache in her own heart. If she has no family with her, then I understand being on the web even more. If her family is there, it is quite possible she doesn’t want to talk to them, or see their grieving faces.

My heart goes out to Shelli. I think it was odd that she Tweeted the drowning of her son – the very worst, absolute worst, thing that could ever happen to any parent. But I also think the very fact of its awfulness excuses her insanity for doing it."

The same author later wrote a second post, PostScript To The Shellie Ross Twitter Story. And while I disagree with some of her assumptions and the conclusions they lead her to, I think she discusses the situation with all the grace & compassion missing from McGraw & Douglas, and I recommend both of her posts to anyone interested in this story.

As I said above, I don't understand why it's so insane (or weird or deeply troubling) for a person to reach out in the face of personal tragedy. I think it's what many of us do, one way or another. Had she used the keys on her phone to dial & talk to someone while she was in the hospital waiting room, no one would've said a word, but because she spoke more publicly, people are oddly offended.

The first experience with blogging & death I can recall was last spring, when the troubled son of a blogger I'd never before read committed suicide while in jail. (The father is the internet equivalent of a "FoaF," an online friend of an online acquaintance of a blogger I used to read pretty regularly, and one post led me to another, to his.) He wrote and posted this very soon after being notified by the police, and I can recall reading it the next day and crying for this stranger's loss and for the promise and potential of a 20 year old life snuffed out so long before it's time, and the feelings of desperation and despair that must precede such an act. I teared up again re-reading it now.

Yes, perhaps people could ask the same questions of this man that they're asking of Shellie Ross. Where was this man's wife while he was writing this, and why wasn't he with her? I don't know, but as with Shellie, I'm not prepared to assume the worst and scold him for not being where my assumptions tell me he should've been. I'd like to think she wanted to be alone, or to take something and try to sleep, to lessen the pain. But even if Chuck should've been with his wife and wasn't, that's between he and his wife, and I would no more write a post attacking him for it--especially while he was so obviously grieving--than I would step between an arguing couple in the supermarket, telling one spouse why I thought the other was right. Sometimes, it's just none of your business--even when you're invited to share in another's personal life.

More recently, a blogger who I only know as Old Soldier posted about losing his wife of 40 years three days earlier, and losing his sister-in-law (his brother's wife) the night before.

Kyle Liese was the younger brother of a guy I went through Jr high & high school with. We were never close, and I barely knew his brother at all--I have some vague recollection of him trying to sell me tickets for a ski trip upstate back in jr high, & honestly, I'm not even positive it was him (though I DO remember that a bunch of the kids who went got busted for drinking, and had to have their parents drive 2-3 hours each way to pick them up)--but I still paid my respects at the blog post, and never once considered the propriety of there being a blog about his death.

And while it wasn't about something so final as a death, Donald himself recently posted something about his home life as a kid that I found quite personal. And no matter what I think about Donald as a person, or his politics, or even the way he treats others--I'm thinking here of what he'd likely do, if the shoe was on the other foot--I would never use the personal narrative he made public, against him. In fact, while I don't blame those who choose to put such situations behind them and keep them private, I see those who choose to reveal their history of abuse as brave. I think it really encourages current abuse survivors when they see people they respect saying it happened to them, too.

When people open up their hearts and share something personal and painful in their lives, as Shellie, and Chuck, and "Old Soldier" and the friends of Kyle Liese, and even Donald did, I don't believe it is an invitation to stick the knife in, even if you happen to believe they in some way "deserve" to be stabbed. To me, it doesn't matter whether or not you support any one of their decisions to reveal themselves as they have, or think that you'd do better living their lives than they have... Common decency says you treat them with respect & compassion in public, and if you must trash them at all, do so in private. Contrary to what some seem to believe, the world doesn't need to know every nasty thought and opinion that enters your head. There's something to be said for discretion.

And for those to whom this matters:
Yes anonymous, Shellie looks to be a conservative.
But those attacking her; Madison, Donald, the NYPOST (& to some extent, Cara) are also hardcore conservatives.
Those coming to her defense (Conor and I) are further to the left. (Conor identifies right-of-center, but Donald has a whole series of posts saying different; and there should be no doubt that I'm a liberal.)

Chuck is a Democrat.

"Old Soldier" is a conservative.

I'm sure there are many who'll counterweigh my unscientific sampling here, (& I don't really think there is a political aspect to the story or to the motivations of anyone involved, aside Don and anon, who manufactured one in an all too obvious attempt to use this sad event to score a cheap point) but since that anonymous ass at Donald's blog saw fit to try to make it political, saying:
"Her husband is in the military and she asked for prayer.

How do I know already, even without reading another thing, just what is going to be said about her by the dark, dreary, dank leftard wing of the political spectrum."

he deserves a response:

No, rightard... It isn't "the left" who's mistreating the grieving military wife who asked for prayers for her dying son. It's your fellow conservatives. It's Donald Douglas, the author right there at the blog where you posted your comment.

If you insist on making sweeping generalizations about people, you might at least do yourself the favor of actually reading & comprehending the words contained in the post to which you're replying, so you don't look like a complete moron, while doing so.

And finally, since Madison McGraw was so fascinated by Shellie Ross' tweet stream, I went to take a look to see how her's compared. Madison McGraw (madisonmcgraw) on Twitter. Predictably, her feed is now protected, leaving her free to toss her stones from the safety of her newly encased glass house. Perhaps while she's hold up in there, she can stretch her shoes, rescrew her head so it's on correctly, and grow her terrible awful tiny grinch heart, before coming back out and speaking in public anymore. Yeesh.
----------

Revising & Extending:
12/20/09, 8:20 AM: Another post that gets it right (In far fewer words than I did, too):
Blogging mom criticized for tweeting after son’s death
12/20/09, 6:25 PM: Looks like someone went to the trouble of writing an expose of Madison McGraw's tweeting, after all... (& dig the title, too. Exactly right.)
BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GOES MADISON MCGRAW - KillTruck
12/21/09, 2:12 PM - Be Careful When Assembling an Angry Lynch Mob.. - white and black - Open Salon

Sunday, September 06, 2009

In Reply: "...newsworthiness is not a sufficient argument for publishing photographs/videos of people against their (or their family's) will..."

Revised and extended, in reply to the American Power post Realities of War? An Update:
---

One or two more bits about Cassandra.

1) I'm not seeing the hard-left, radical feminism in either of her arguments that Donald says he does. While I'm sure Donald's actions & reactions would likely've been different, does anyone doubt that Cassandra would've reacted any differently were it hottie sports reporter "Eric" Andrews who was videotaped in a hotel room naked, and fellow conservatives like Donald (though more likely "Donna" Douglas) were providing links to the illegally shot video in hopes of increasing their blog traffic?

Does anyone think that Cassandra's arguments about rape & incest victims would be any more or less forcefully argued by her if the majority of victims were men & boys, rather than women & girls? After reading a good deal of what she's written before and since, I sure don't.

While gender absolutely does play a part in sexual exploitation--be it voyeurism or rape--I submit that Cassandra's arguments against re-victimizing Erin Anderews and against photographing rape or incest victims are not based on the gender of the victim, but on the fact that the victim is a victim.

2) Cassandra's argument in the Erin Andrews matter is not inconsistent with her position here. In both (and seemingly all) cases, she believes that newsworthiness is not a sufficient argument for publishing photographs/videos of people against their (or their family's) will. That is true whether the person is a famous sports reporter, a member of the military who was injured or killed in the line of duty, or a rape/incest victim, or whether the person in the photograph is male or female.

While I don't agree with her argument equating soldiers with crime victims, her argument is consistent, and at least as rational as it is emotional.

Of course YMMV...
---

Sunday, September 6, 2009, 3:01 AM (AmPow blog time)

In Reply: Striking a Balance Between Privacy and the Public's Right to Know

In reply to the American Power post "Realities of War? An Update," discussing military families and privacy rights vs the public's right to know:
---

It's a shame that Dr. Douglas included the bit about Cassandra at Villainous Company. Given his history with her (and the fact that he relates it here in this post), it seemed a little more vindictive that informative.

Aside that, this is among Donald's best posts, as he shows himself willing to look at all sides of the issue and admit that he's not sure there is one right answer.

While I believe the media should have the legal right to use legitimately newsworthy photographs, they have a moral obligation to balance newsworthiness against the privacy wishes of the person being photographed or, when they cannot express their wishes, the wishes of their families.

While there will always be some who prefer to keep their grief private, there will also always be those who, for one reason or another, choose to share their grief and the loved one they lost with the rest of us, and I agree that those latter families, no matter the reason for their choice, are allowing their loved one to serve their country one final time.

While it's sad that some families will find themselves in the position of having photographs published against their wishes, and that there will be times when the public will lose out on a better understanding of an issue because the media outlet chose to honor a families wishes, I believe that the system we have now is about right -- though I remain suspicious of the whole embed system.

Aside legitimate national security concerns, the military should not be dictating what stories and images they must or cannot use to a free media. (However, I agree that if the contract the photographer signed said she was restricted in what she could offer for publication, she should've lived up to her word, and not used those photographs. It's a bad rule that I believe reporters & photographers ought to refuse to sign, but those who do sign ought to live up to it.)

As for Cassandra (since Dr. Douglas did bring it up), I believe she is playing the reductio ad absurdum game (or something like it at least).

First of all, we do in fact see some of the physical effects of rape, on those victims who despite privacy concerns, are willing to show some of their injuries in the media or in public. Even very graphic images are "published" in court, where some members of the general public do see them.

Images of genitals etc. are for the most part kept out of the media whether the person is a soldier or a rape/incest victim, so I'm not sure her analogy holds.

And the fact that soldiers volunteer to serve their country and perhaps be maimed or killed whereas crime victims do not makes a difference, as well. Whatever injuries a soldier sustains s/he receives on behalf of all of us. That means we have an obligation to know what we're asking our military men & women to risk for us. There are very few situations where anyone (let alone the country) asks a woman to become a rape victim on another person's behalf.

On the other hand, Cassandra is right about one thing; Thankfully, relatively few of us really know what it means to be a victim of the kind of crimes she describes. While I'm not sure we need to or that it would help anyone if more of us did, she is right about the fact that few of us do. But while the tolerance for some crimes (like the video voyeurism of Erin Andrews, where the video was essentially a product of the crime) is too high, VERY few are similarly tolerating, celebrating or otherwise defending the acts of rape or incest or any of the products thereof. And again, no one volunteers to put themselves as substantial risk of becoming victim of such a crime on behalf of their country.

While I admire her passion, Cassandra's arguments are way off base.
--

Posted Sunday, September 6, 2009, 2:11 AM (AmPow Blog Time)

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Texan Love Song - Elton John

There I was, with my head all full of politics, during an hour drive to watch / play with my niece & nephew today, and this old Elton John song comes on the radio.



And, I was thinkin' how much it reminded me of the Teabag / mob Right, shouting down /shutting down discussion between the American people and those in congress who were elected to represent 'em. (And don't buy into the spin; it isn't that they disagree with the healthcare plan or whatever, but how disagreeable they're acting while doing it. I'm fine with folks expressing disagreement, and even booing "bad" statements, but shouting a speaker down, following him to his car, or not allowing her to answer the question isn't discussion/debate, it's rudeness and thuggery.)

Anyway... except for that "...kids still respected the President's name" part, (an interesting switch, that) it's a pretty accurate portrayal...

Besides, it'd been AGES since I heard the song. I used to listen to dad's copy of this album all the time, and certain songs stayed with me... I loved this one back then--I think it was the irony of it, and the potential violent confrontation--but confess to having lost touch with it over the years... Hearing it today was like being reintroduced to a person you once knew intimately (a one time lover, or your best friend from 7th grade). I had that glow of "Hey... I remember this song, I think..." before the vocal started, and it didn't take me more than a line or two to be singing along (some lines I knew, and some I only thought I knew...), and having all those other memories come flooding back (singing along in dad's music room & elsewhere, the cover art, the song before/after it on the record, and the other songs in the "redneck set" I put together on a mixed tape--a few southern rock tunes, Lonesome Cowboy Burt, and a really obscure "cowboy" song from the early 70's that made fun of homophobia/judging folks you don't know, that I can't recall the name of, anymore). After that came the political stuff, above.

So, there it is... Enjoy the song.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Mother’s Day: 5 Things (still) Worth Knowing

It's a repeat from last year, and yet, it's still fresh and timely. Also see: Mother's Day Proclamation, another retread from Mother's Days past.
------

mental_floss Blog: Notes on the History of Mother’s Day: 5 Things Worth Knowing

Mother’s Day: 5 Things Worth Knowing
by David K. Israel - May 8, 2008 - 4:49 PM

1. Mother of the Pharaohs

As with many of our calendar-specific events and customs, some of the earliest records of a society honoring a mother can be traced back to the ancient Egyptians, who held an annual festival for the goddess Isis, sometimes referred to as the Mother of the Pharaohs.

Given the following list of a.k.a.’s, it’s no wonder she had her own day of celebration (top this moms!): Queen of Heaven, Mother of the Gods, The One Who is All, Lady of Green Crops, The Brilliant One in the Sky, Star of the Sea, Great Lady of Magic, Mistress of the House of Life, She Who Knows How To Make Right Use of the Heart, Light-Giver of Heaven, Lady of the Words of Power, and She Who Dominates the Remote (okay, okay, but she probably WOULD have, had there been remote control domination issues at the time).

2. Magna Mater

Of course, the Greeks and Romans had to have something like an Isis day, too. In Greece, there was a special day to celebrate the annual spring festival, in honor of Rhea, the Mother of Zeus, a.k.a., “The mother of the Gods.” The Roman’s (and some Greeks) called her Cybele, or Magna Mater. According to a few sources, male Magna Mater wannabees would castrate themselves, don women’s clothing and assume female identities. (Do we know any modern-day mom’s who’ve had the same effect on men?)

3. The Mother of all Churches

As Christianity spread through Europe, it became fashionable to honor the church in which one was baptized. People would honor their “mother church” with flowers on the fourth Sunday of Lent in honor of the Virgin Mary, mother of Christ. Then, in England, in the 1600s, a decree took hold, widening the celebration to include actual mothers, and voila, we have the birth of “Mothering Sunday,” as it was called. Christians were also allowed to eat on this Lenten Sunday, which meant a one-day break from the 40 day pre-Easter fast. In addition to flowers, it was a time for families to travel in order to be together, much like our present-day Mother’s Day.

4. The Hymn for Womyn

What do Mother’s Day and “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” have in common? Julia Ward Howe, of course. It was her eyes that saw much more than the glory of the coming of the Lord. In 1870, 12 years after penning the infamous lyric, she wrote a Mother’s Day Proclamation that said:

Arise, then, women of this day!
Arise all women who have hearts…
We women of one country
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.

It was an anti-war protest of sorts, in which she insisted on an international Mother’s Day celebrating peace and motherhood. She proposed July 4th, but ultimately June 2nd was picked as the day. The new holiday, however, slowly fizzled out and by 1900, it was no longer celebrated.

5. The Hallmark of Hard Work

Then, in 1908, Mother’s Day was born again at Andrew’s Methodist Church in Grafton, West Virginia, thanks to the efforts of one Anna M. Jarvis, who was looking to honor her mother Anna Reeves Jarvis, who’d recently passed away after spending more than 20 years teaching Sunday school at the church. Every mom who showed up to the memorial received 2 white carnations. The event was so successful, Anna quit her job and went all over the country petitioning state governments, women groups, churches, anyone who’d get behind her cause to create a national Mother’s Day. Her hard work paid off and in 1912, West Virginia became the first state to recognize Mother’s Day. Two years later, good old President Woodrow Wilson signed it into national observance, reserving the second Sunday in May as the official Mother’s Day. And there was much rejoicing in the offices of Hallmark. (You think I’m joking, but the card company was founded in 1910, so it’s entirely possible.)

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Life. It's all about how you choose to look at it.

A quick (4 min, 12 sec, + reading/pondering time) public service announcement from my friend JBW.

Life doesn't suck.

Brain Rage: Everything's Amazing, Nobody's Happy

We now return you to your regularly scheduled life (hopefully, with a little more appreciation for it).

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Racist Music Just a Download Away on Mainstream Music Sites

See UPDATE, appended.
------------------

FOXNews.com - Racist Music Just a Download Away on Mainstream Music Sites

The relevant quotes:

You're unlikely to find CDs by groups like Skrewdriver and Brutal Attack sold alongside the latest hits from Rihanna and the Jonas Brothers at your local retailer.

But the white-power punk bands' ballads are just a click away online.
...
But there is a market for it — which leads to the question of whether online music retailers should screen what they sell, or if it should be up to the buyer to decide what's suitable.
...
"If you're going to be able to carry that hard-core Marxist stuff, what is the problem with someone saying, 'White pride, worldwide?'" Schoep asked.
...
Nora Flanagan, a spokeswoman for the activist group Turn It Down, which lobbies against objectionable music, said the companies have every right — and a social obligation — to remove the songs from being sold on their sites.
...
"It's absolutely their right to sell it," she said, "but it could be their choice not to — if they wanted to take a stand on it."
...
Chris Kennedy, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, said the term censorship is "thrown around" too loosely.

"Censorship should only be applied when the government tries to censor someone," he said. "Otherwise, we're just talking about the choices that entrepreneurs and businesses make in a free society. When companies decide they're not going to accept their product, that's not censorship — that's just choices that they make."


First off, the last bit from the gentleman from the Cato Institute, reminds me of what I said back in April, 2007 about Free Speech, Imus, & the Free Market. It isn't censorship or a violation of anyone's free speech rights, unless it is done by a government entity. When a tv or radio station fires a member of their on air talent, or a music outlet chooses not to carry a particular group's music, no one is being censored--even if they do so because they object to something the on air person or musical group said. When the government comes in and arrests the on air talent for something s/he said, or confiscates the group's recordings because of lyrical content, THAT'S censorship.

I think online & brick & mortar music retailers ought to consider screening their offerings for content. I also think that if you believe they've mishandled an artist--either by offering the music when you think they should not, or by removing an artist you think should be available--you need to speak up, and be willing to shop elsewhere if they consistently don't see it your way. I've always been a big fan of shopping your values, and believe that when a lot of individuals are willing to write companies and buy products that in some way reflect the values of the society they want to live in, things can change.

The only thing that worries me is that music retailers will play it safe, and controversial music of any kind will be harder to find. While I agree with retailers removing Neo-Nazi white power music, I'd be quite sad if humorless Christianists were to scare them away from offering Monty Python's The Life of Brian, or the right complained about "commie folk singers" like Pete Seeger or something. Were things to really go bad, we could end up with nothing but a steady diet of the most vanilla pop stars, and if the Victorian era prudes had their way, even they would lose any hint of sexual appeal.

I have high hopes however, that there are enough heathens, Stalinist nihilists, and perverts--but not enough black/white/brown/??? racists [changed from "neo-Nazis" at UPDATE]--to curtail sales of the truly dangerous music being sold, but leave a little spice... But we should watch it, just in case...
--------
UPDATE: While a little odd, my first commenter -anonymous- makes a good point. It isn't only white power music that's racist or otherwise objectionable, even to me. If thug rap or socialist folk or Christian/anti-Christian music offends you, by all means speak up and refuse to do business with those outlets that continue to sell that offensive crap (whatever you determine "that offensive crap" to be).

Monday, December 08, 2008

Homophobia inherent in macho bullshit

Maybe it's because I've been writing alot about the issue of gay marriage over on the political blog (& elsewhere), but I was kinda struck by the nasty implications of an incident that happened yesterday at my job.

Due to illness (see below), I had to call in sick to work on Saturday. The kid who runs the place (22?, 23?) was busy, & I was feeling crappy, so the call was short & to the point. "I won't be in." "OK... Feel better."

Afterward, I realized I'd forgotten to let him know I had an appointment Wednesday, & couldn't be there then either, so I sent an e-mail to inform him. Because I had just called out sick & was now asking for MORE time, I titled the e-mail "That [repsac] has a lot of balls..." (We're a pretty informal company, & besides, we're closing soon anyway... Even if such a subject header is either in bad taste (yeah, I suppose it is) or a breech of the computer policy (perhaps not... They tend not to make/enforce too many rules), it's not likely they're gonna fire me for it, given the short time we have left...)

So yesterday, this kid asks me "What was up with that e-mail title? Are you friggin' gay, or something? I thought you were hittin' on me..."

I was quite taken aback, & couldn't at first figure out whether he was just too stupid to understand the phrase "a lot of balls," or just trying to puff up his own diminutive manhood, again. (He's about 5'3", & appears to have a raging case of Napoleon complex as a result of years of abuse about it. Far too many of his stories are testosterone-laden adventures involving women he's had, or men he's beaten, literally or figuratively.) After explaining the former (yes, he had heard the phrase before & knew what it meant, but seemingly chose to willfully misunderstand it anyway, for effect, I'd imagine), I pointed out that if the word "balls" made him think about gay men & being hit on, that spoke to where his mind was at, not mine...

It wasn't until later that I began to comprehend the homophobia inherent in what he'd said (& I confess, in my retort to him, as well...)

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving!!

That pretty much says it all...

Hope you spend it with those who love you. (Thankfully, I am.)

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

In Reply: "Disagree. Don't demean & demonize."

In reply to the following comment at the American Power post "Post-Partisan Obama Cult":
repsac, when the Left expands the definition of "fair and balanced" beyond a debate between Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd, perhaps your words will hold water.

Since November 2000 ... certainly since March 2003 ... the vast majority of Leftist opinion I've seen has been based upon the fairness-obsessed (at a kindergarten level), navel-gazing, self-doubting conventional wisdom of the 20th Century, as if human history started with the birth of the first Baby Boomer.

Not upon the wisdom embodied by those who founded this nation ... who declared that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", then acted accordingly.

And not in an intellectually-honest manner, but instead a manner that simultaneously called for "nuance" while swinging the broadest brush over the principles of human interaction ... even as they were demonstrated by events like the Awakenings.

What your fellow-travelers seek is not dialog, but capitulation to their worldview.

Until y'all acknowledge your own perceptual limitations ... your own errors of INACTION that made today's conflicts inevitable, harder, and longer ... how your conventional wisdom has time and again failed to secure peace and prosperity ... and your own incivility ... this conflict will continue.

And understand this ... if the price of civility is perpetuating the Leftist worldview as the dominant worldview of our culture, it is a price not worth paying.

If you want civility, the discourse has to be a two-way street, well beyond Sanders Avenue and Byrd Boulevard.

---
It's a good speech, Rich, but it's ultimately non-responsive to the topic.
"when the Left expands the definition of "fair and balanced" beyond a debate between Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd, perhaps your words will hold water."
Yes, some folks on the left have a narrow view of things. The same is true on the right. Both have people who could open up, a bit. Narrow ideology, or being "fair & balanced" has nothing to do with respect for other people, though.
"Since November 2000 ... certainly since March 2003 ... the vast majority of Leftist opinion I've seen has been based upon the fairness-obsessed (at a kindergarten level), navel-gazing, self-doubting conventional wisdom of the 20th Century, as if human history started with the birth of the first Baby Boomer."
We've been over this & over this... Here, I prefer the traditional "conventional wisdom" that has gotten us through pretty much every conflict since we became a nation over your radical ideas about foreign policy. I'm not saying you're not welcome to have & hold them, but the vast majority of the American people do not appear to agree with you. To the best of my recollection, no one here at this blog has backed you, even. They all just remain politely quiet when you post your "20th century thinking for a 21st century world" spiel...

And again, whether you're ultimately right or wrong in your foreign policy views, it has nothing to do with respect for others.
"What your fellow-travelers seek is not dialog, but capitulation to their worldview."
Everyone on every side ultimately seeks capitulation by everyone else to "their" worldview, one way or another, but for some of us--many of us, thankfully--dialog is the way to get there... The people on 52/48 are trying to say respect for the other side and "hashing it out," is the way to go... It's not about giving in, but letting go of the bullshit hate and the labels that become meaningless through overuse, & TALKING to one another.
"Until y'all acknowledge your own perceptual limitations ... your own errors of INACTION that made today's conflicts inevitable, harder, and longer ... how your conventional wisdom has time and again failed to secure peace and prosperity ... and your own incivility ... this conflict will continue."
Putting aside all the particulars that have nothing to do with the topic, of course the conflict will continue... The Left & the Right have different political philosophies, and the idea that anyone's asking or expecting anyone else to give up or give in is a myth. Disagree. Don't demean & demonize.
"And understand this ... if the price of civility is perpetuating the Leftist worldview as the dominant worldview of our culture, it is a price not worth paying.

If you want civility, the discourse has to be a two-way street, well beyond Sanders Avenue and Byrd Boulevard."
The price of civility is civility. It's not about what either side believes, or how narrow one's mind is, but about remembering that it's likely you have a close friend or family member on the opposing team, and that when you toss out the "moonbat" or "wingnut" labels & all the meaning you attach to them, you're talking about that friend or family member, too... It's about treating the wingnuts/moonbats you don't know as well as you treat the ones you do know, just because people--even people who don't share your politics--deserve respect. (If someone hits, by all means, hit back... But don't throw the first punch, just because the person's not in your "tribe," and may hit you, maybe...)

---

Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)