tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54980622024-03-07T13:41:19.114-05:00OpinionadeMy opinions on everything, squeezed into a sweet and tart refreshment.Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.comBlogger280125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-50385784393492406312017-11-19T19:19:00.000-05:002019-03-12T17:17:53.742-04:00Liberals, don't defend Al Franken with the same arguments used by Trump, Moore, and CosbyThere are a few arguments that are continually used in defense of people accused of sexual harassment or assault. Since Leean Tweedon accused Al Franken or forcing a kiss and put out a photo of Franken humiliating her, arguments primarily used by assaulters and/or their right-wing supporters have been put forth by <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/18/1716798/-More-Photos-Emerging-From-Franken-Tweeden-s-USO-Tour-They-speak-for-themselves">Franken's defenders</a>. Suddenly the left is attacking the accuser in words used to attack every previous accuser. I find that disturbing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://media.tmz.com/2017/11/16/1116-al-franken-groping-photo-military-4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="567" data-original-width="728" height="249" src="https://media.tmz.com/2017/11/16/1116-al-franken-groping-photo-military-4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I'm not arguing that Franken's actions are equivalent to those of a child molester like Roy Moore or a rapist like Bill Cosby. I'm simply saying that people should not change their evidentiary standards based on how much they like or dislike the accused. A sleazy defense of a murderer or a shoplifter is still a sleazy defense. If you don't accept an argument put forward by Trump or Weinstein then don't use the same argument to defend anyone else.<br />
<br />
So here's a handy table comparing the defense of Franken with the defense of various other men in hopes that this will make clear why these arguments are always bad.<br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="10" valign="top">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="center" width="25%">The typical defense</th>
<th align="center">The Franken defense</th>
<th align="center">Just like ...</th></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">The timing is suspicious</td><td valign="top">Franken's Republican accuser was trying to create a distraction from the Roy Moore scandal. Why else would she come out with this <i>now</i>?</td>
<td valign="top">If the "why now" argument sounds familiar, it's because Moore just used it, asking why his accusers have come out a month before the election. Trump expressed similar suspicions when the Hollywood Access tape came out.<br />
<br />
Trump actually had a better argument than Franken or Moore, because sexual harassment wasn't a big part of the national discussion <i>until</i> Trump was accused of it. With the Harvey Weinstein-inspired #MeToo movement convincing women that their accusations might finally be taken seriously, this is exactly the time one <i>should</i> expect a flood of these reports.<br />
<br />
Yes, Tweedon could be making a calculated political move, but by that logic don't we have to dismiss the claims of Trump's liberal victims as well? Are we going to have a rule that we'll only believe victims who are politically aligned with the accused?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">She was friendly afterwards</td>
<td valign="top">Hey look, here's a picture of Tweedon sitting next to Franken smiling! How upset could she have been?</td>
<td valign="top">This is a big defense in the Hollywood cases. Weinstein and Cosby have both trotted out examples where their victims had lunch with them later, or sent them a friendly email, or worked for them again. I wanted to post a link explaining the psychology behind this phenomenon, which is quite common, but my google-fu is failing me at the moment.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">It was long ago</td>
<td valign="top">He wasn't even a senator!</td>
<td valign="top">The Franken photo is about as old as Trump's Hollywood Access tape. Moore apparently hasn't trolled the mall for teenage girls in years. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">She's not so innocent</td>
<td valign="top">On the same tour, Tweedon goosed a guitarist. So who is she to talk?</td>
<td valign="top">This is pretty much every defense for every sexual crime or misdemeanor ever. Sexy clothes, raunchy behavior, kinky tastes, any sexual history whatever is used as a reason to dismiss the victim's claims. Even if you have evidence that a woman is raunchy and inappropriate and sexually charged, it doesn't in any way prove she wasn't assaulted.<br />
<br />
<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">It's fake </td>
<td valign="top">Social media is flooded with people claiming it was a joke Tweedon was in on, that she was pretending to be asleep, or that the photo was altered. They're saying this <i>even though there's photographic evidence and Franken has admitted to posing for the picture</i>.</td>
<td valign="top">Disputing evidence is very popular. Moore signed the yearbook of a victim but denies he ever met her and claims the signature is a forgery. The main difference between Franken and people like Moore and Trump is he didn't start making the bullshit lies some of his fans are making for him.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">It's not so bad</td>
<td valign="top">Franken didn't do much. He's not really touching her breasts, just posing as though he is, and a forced kiss isn't like grabbing a woman's breasts. </td>
<td valign="top">The tough thing here is everyone has a different line. You have a right to your opinion that Franken's photo was no more than a tasteless, ultimately harmless joke, but others have a right to believe that there's nothing wrong with a guy in his thirties hitting on teens or a celebrity feeling entitled to grope every woman he meets.<br />
<br />
I think it's fair to say any line Franken crossed was crossed further by Trump, many, many times, but if the victim feels a line was crossed, who are you to tell her it's a stupid line?</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-49915001602544214482017-03-25T15:45:00.001-04:002017-03-25T15:47:47.774-04:00The Three Stooges meet healthcare reformThe collapse of the Trump/Ryan attempt to destroy Obamacare was one of Washington's more fascinating train crashes. What's wondrous is not that some things went wrong, but that pretty much everything went wrong in completely predictable ways, and that multiple parties, all Republican, were involved in the takedown. If you could have planned the destruction of the replacement legislation, the ACHA, you would have planned for things to play out exactly as they did.<br />
<br />
They played out like a Three Stooges movie, with the Stooges played by Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, and, collectively, the Freedom Caucus. And the process is such a mess that it's not even clear whether Ryan or Trump is Moe in this scenario.<br />
<br />
Let's look at the destructive power of the Republican Stooges:<br />
<br />
<b>Paul Ryan</b><br />
<br />
Ryan was the key architect of the ACHA, and my god, what a <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/the-republican-health-care-bill-is-the-worst-of-so-many-worlds/" target="_blank">mess</a>. For years, the Republicans have insisted Obamacare was a disaster but have refused to present an alternative, and now we see why. ACHA had no real philosophy of healthcare, instead focussing entirely on giving billionaires tax cuts and cutting services for the poor.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the bill kept a lot of the most popular parts of the ACA, because Republicans were terrified that taking all the benefits of Obamacare away at once would lead to election losses.<br />
<br />
The result was strange, because after 7 years of Republicans saying they would get rid of Obamacare, Ryan's bill really didn't. Instead, it kept many of the key ingredients but made them all worse. Ryan's bill was set to take insurance away from every single person who had gained it under ACA while only having a minor effect on the deficit.<br />
<br />
The bill had been created in secret and Ryan attempted to rush it through before people could figure out what was in it. He failed. He seems to have written the bill with little input from anyone - not healthcare experts, not other factions of his own party, and certainly not Democrats - and he wound up with a bill that even he probably didn't like that much.<br />
<br />
When the criticisms started to rush in, Ryan decided to make the bill even worse in hopes of pulling in recalcitrant conservatives even at the risk of losing recalcitrant moderates. He piled failure on top of failure like a master Jenga player.<br />
<br />
It turned out that the only quiver in Ryan's arrow is the one that lessens the taxes of billionaires. That was the only part of his bill that looked like it would work the way it was supposed to. While Ryan has managed to <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/107242/how-paul-ryan-convinced-washington-his-genius" target="_blank">cultivate a reputation</a> as a smart policy wonk, the ACHA is wildly supportive of Paul Krugman's portrayal of Ryan as a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/opinion/the-scammers-the-scammed-and-americas-fate.html" target="_blank">fake</a> and a habitual liar.<br />
<br />
<b>The Freedom Caucus</b><br />
<br />
For Obama's entire time in office, the GOP was the "party of no." The Tea Party wing represented by the Freedom Caucus functioned as party of no within a party of no. Essentially anti-government anarchists, the Caucus simply doesn't want government to work, and believes that compromise is the ultimate evil.<br />
<br />
For them, Ryan's bill, as awful as it was, wasn't nearly awful enough. While many Republicans just cynically used Obamacare hatred to fuel voter disenchantment, the FC contains the true believers whose passionate hatred for all government programs is unfeigned and wildly destructive.<br />
<br />
For many in the FC the only acceptable option was to roll back Obamacare in its entirety. Crippling it or even fatally wounding it was not enough; it had to be a clean head shot or nothing.<br />
<br />
Basically, the party of no's inner party of no proved incapable of saying yes.<br />
<br />
To some extent, this could be politics. The FC is full of people from hardcore conservative districts where there is a constant threat of challenges from the right funded by rich extremists. So making stupid decisions that play to the base make electoral sense. And after 7 years of saying Obamacare was the Hitler of American politics, they had painted themselves into a bit of a corner.<br />
<br />
Still, insisting on everything or nothing in politics is the best possible way to get nothing. And the FC got nothing of what they wanted, with little chance to get it any time in the near future.<br />
<br />
But from what I've read, the FC sees this not as a disaster but as proof of their power. Which means they are likely to stick to their path of purity politics during every subsequent legislative fight. And that could mean that the Republicans basically get nothing done for their entire time in power (fingers crossed).<br />
<br />
<b>Donald Trump</b><br />
<br />
Everything his opponents predicted about Trump was on display during the ACHA clusterfuck. After promising an amazing healthcare bill with better coverage and lower premiums for all, he simply turned over the creation of a new healthcare system to Paul Ryan, who had no interest in any of those promises. Trump didn't understand the bill, and in lobbying for it he apparently <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-closer-the-inside-story-of-how-trump-tried--and-failed--to-make-a-deal-on-health-care/2017/03/24/3e6353d6-0fdc-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html" target="_blank">didn't even try</a> to make a case for any of its policies (because, of course, he didn't understand them). All Trump could do was try to charm and threaten Republicans (he didn't even bother reaching out to Democrats, which didn't stop him from complaining that none of them was willing to vote for ACHA). It turned out that he was not charming or threatening enough to get a majority to vote for a turd.<br />
<br />
When support for the bill proved hard to come by, Trump was completely flummoxed, finally tossing out an ultimatum that failed dismally.<br />
<br />
It's unlikely that Trump even really cared about the ACA. For him, Obamacare hatred was a campaign weapon, and he no more wanted to end a working healthcare system than he wanted to jail Hillary Clinton. All he really wanted to do was cater to the base and rack up a win. It didn't happen.<br />
<br />
Of course, Trump being Trump, he is now playing off this disastrous defeat as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/president-trump-called-my-cellphone-to-say-that-the-health-care-bill-was-dead/2017/03/24/8282c3f6-10ce-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html" target="_blank">no big deal</a>. Trump's inability to admit mistakes means he can never learn from them, so expect him to continue to ignore experts and allow hacks like Ryan to create legislation he doesn't understand or care about.<br />
<br />
<b>Why It Happened</b><br />
<br />
For eight years Republicans have been dreaming of what they would achieve when they finally were back in power. So how did their first major push to reshape government end so disastrously?<br />
<br />
One big issue was that Obamacare was based on the Republican plan known as Romneycare, forcing Republicans to run against what was basically the Republican healthcare solution. It wasn't the bill they hated but Barack Obama himself. This left them with no place to go; they would have been better off had Obama created a single-payer system that could have been countered with Romneycare.<br />
<br />
With the only sensible Republican plan co-opted by Democrats, Ryan created pure nonsense and hoped hatred of Obamacare was so strong that no one would care what disaster they replaced it with.<br />
<br />
Part of Ryan's own explanation is that <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/24/ryancare-failed-because-paul-ryan-is-still-learning-how-to-govern/#3733c526168f" target="_blank">Republicans don't know how to govern</a>. He explained that for ten years all Republicans had to do was be against things, and they've only had three months to learn how to be a governing party.<br />
<br />
This sums up everything that's wrong with the modern Republican approach to government; they believe you only govern when you are in charge. In reality, governing is something you can do from either side of the aisle. You can introduce legislation, you can engage in bipartisan dealmaking, you can win people over to your side and let them win you over to theirs. The GOP's decision to forgo governing in favor of continuously attacking Obama has allowed their government skills to atrophy. Many of them don't even seem to understand how government works.<br />
<br />
If Trump really wants to govern, his best shot would be to move a little to the left, ignoring the Freedom Caucus in favor of winning over moderate Democrats in pursuit of actually fulfilling campaign promises like improving healthcare and increasing employment opportunities. If the Freedom Caucus wants to further their agenda, then they would need to stop insisting on all or nothing when they simply don't have the power to get that all. If Ryan wants to be effective, he needs to stop pretending to take policy matters seriously and actually <i>take them seriously</i>.<br />
<br />
I don't see much indication that any of that is going to happen. The Three Stooges of the GOP will continue to poke eyes and slap faces and create nothing but mayhem. And just like the real Three Stooges, it's only funny sometimes.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-47261776816722312672017-03-19T18:48:00.001-04:002017-10-10T11:17:02.538-04:00Radical claim: It's wrong to make sweeping claims about any subgroupI'm going to list some statements, and for each one, I want you to consider whether you find that statement acceptable.<br />
<br />
Muslims are terrorists. I hate Muslims.<br />
Women talk about their feelings too much. I hate women.<br />
Gay men are too effeminate. I hate gay men.<br />
Jews own all the media companies and the banks. I hate Jews.<br />
Men are always raping women. I hate men.<br />
Russians are drunken assholes. I hate Russians.<br />
Christians are sanctimonious assholes. I hate Christians.<br />
Black people are criminals. I hate black people.<br />
White people don't give a shit about the problems of the oppressed. I hate white people.<br />
Asians are nerdy superior assholes who all play violin. I hate Asians.<br />
Mexicans are drug smugglers. I hate Mexicans.<br />
<br />
For a lot of people, some of these statements are outrageous. and others are perfectly acceptable. Personally, I feel the basic expressive form of "this subgroup does this thing, therefore I hate people of this subgroup" is inherently bad. But among a lot of my friends, two of these statements are perfectly okay. It's okay to say you hate men or white people. All the other statements are horrific, but those two are fine. And I think that is problematic.<br />
<br />
Now, if you're one of those people who thinks those statements are fine, you're probably thinking, right now, oh look, white male fragility. This privileged asshole wants people to cry for his fucking oppression.<br />
<br />
This is the risk of talking about an issue that affects you personally. If I talk about how <a href="http://opinionade.blogspot.com/2006/09/pope-and-muslim-rioters-story-of.html" target="_blank">it's terrible that people claim Islam is an inherently evil religion</a> that encourages violence in a way other religions don't, and say that's bullshit, no one will say, "oh, you're just saying that because you're Muslim." Because I'm not. If I say <a href="http://opinionade.blogspot.com/2013/10/explaining-explicable-why-white-people.html" target="_blank">white people shouldn't wear blackface</a>, no one will say, "oh you're just saying that because you're black." Because I'm not. But the moment I say anything suggesting white men shouldn't necessarily be grossly stereotyped and trashed, I am a #notallmen-hashtagging asshole.<br />
<br />
There's no real way out of that. If people want to dismiss your arguments by attacking your motives, well, that's what people do. If I claim that for me this is, like a lot of what I am concerned about, a matter of logic, reason, and civility, well, I can go fuck myself, because clearly, I'm just one of them.<br />
<br />
I will say this, though. I am not hurt when someone says, "white men suck." First off, it's absurdly hyperbolic, because everyone I've ever heard say this has white male friends. Secondly, it can't do me any harm. The attitude will not cause me any problems in my life. I'm not crying about it.<br />
<br />
You can believe me or not, but my objections to saying all white men suck are akin to my objections to saying all Muslims are terrorists. Both are damaging to civil discourse and reasoned discussion. Both cause harm to the fragile fabric of civilization.<br />
<br />
----------------<br />
<br />
The Geneva Convention is an agreement between nations that requires signatories to treat captured soldiers and civilians halfway decently. The countries who signed on did not do so, for the most part, because they were moral people who wanted decency in war. The goal was, rather, to protect each nation's own people.<br />
<br />
If the U.S. tortures Iranian POWs, they are de facto endorsing torturing POWs in general. It's a simple statement that it is okay to torture soldiers if they are captured. Which means if some Iranians start torturing U.S. soldiers, the U.S. can't say much about it. "Torture is wrong" is a powerful argument; "torture is wrong when you do it but fine when I do it" doesn't have the same ring.<br />
<br />
Anytime someone uses the form, "this subgroup does this thing, therefore I hate people of this subgroup," they are endorsing this as an appropriate way to look at things. They are saying that they believe, thoroughly and completely, that it is acceptable to take the behaviors of some people in a subgroup, claim those behaviors represent the group as a whole, and then write off that entire group as in some way inferior or dangerous or subhuman.<br />
<br />
They are saying that incivility and sweeping judgments are okay. They are agreeing to a certain set of rules, and they're only argument is, "it's okay when I do it, but not when you do it."<br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
Of course, there is a simple argument as to why the rules are different when it comes to white men; it's because society's rules are different for white men. This is what is referred to as privilege, and it means that white people and male people have certain inherent advantages. And if society is going to treat white men better, what is wrong with evening things out just a tiny bit by treating them like odious, subhuman monsters. It doesn't do them any real harm, and it feels so good to trash a subgroup; no wonder it's so popular!<br />
<br />
I don't say this is entirely unreasonable. I do think there's a difference between saying shit about Muslims and saying shit about white people. White people are not going to get jailed by our oppressive, white-run government. Men are not going to be prohibited from certain medical procedures because of angry Christians. Talk all the shit you want about the groups in power; their privilege will protect them from all of it.<br />
<br />
But I still it's inadvisable. Both because, as I say, you are giving sanction to the idea that subgroups can be stereotyped and dismissed, and because you are creating enemies out of potential allies.<br />
<br />
------------------<br />
Recently someone I know on Facebook complained about people telling her she needed to give potential allies some slack. Why, she asked, should she be gentle to these privileged assholes? They should do what's right because it's the right thing to do, not because she is mollycoddling them. Or as is often said when white people claim to have done something to make the world a better place, "what do you want, a cookie?"<br />
<br />
First off, only a small number of people who do <i>anything </i>are motivated entirely by altruism. The people who fight hardest for a cause are those who have a personal stake in it. Gay people fought hardest for marriage equality. Black people fought hardest for an end to Jim Crow laws. Women fight hardest for equal treatment in the workplace. This is natural and understandable. I think there's something admirable about those who fight for a cause because of moral conviction rather than because of personal interest, and honestly, I don't think there's anything monstrous about wanting credit for doing the right thing. Everyone wants a cookie now and again.<br />
<br />
But I believe that most people do, in general, want to do the right thing, even if their reasons can be complex and self-interest is always in the equation. And a lot of people will be inclined to help you, are at least not actively act against you, if you are pleasant to them.<br />
<br />
For example, let's say you're going into a dangerous country full of savage beasts with a group of people you don't know very well. Let's imagine that some of them are very experienced with savage beasts, some are carrying guns or swords, and some are bigger and stronger than you.<br />
<br />
So, as you walk across the border into this dangerous country, you can say to your fellow travelers, "I just want you all to know that I think you're fucking pieces of shit, and if you let me die then you are monsters, and if you help me survive, well, I give you no credit, because that's what people should do for other people."<br />
<br />
Or you can say, "you guys are terrific, I think it's great you're so prepared and I think by all working together we have a really good chance of making it through this crazy place. I want you to know I have your back and I know you have mine."<br />
<br />
Even if you really hate most of these people, don't you think the second option is more advisable?<br />
<br />
Yes, some of your companions will fight just as hard to keep you alive either way. Some people are good, and noble, and understand your anger and don't take it personally. But some would rather help their friends than their foes, so why not be their friends, at least for now?<br />
<br />
I mean, if some of your companions are punching you in the head repeatedly, go ahead and kick them in the crotch. But don't just say, "hey, these people are punching me in the head so you're all fucking assholes, even those of you who are trying to stop the people from punching me in the head. You can all go fuck yourselves."<br />
<br />
White men have a lot of privilege and a lot of power. That makes people with less privilege understandably angry and mistrustful. But it also means that there are white men who can help or hurt oppressed groups a lot if motivated to do so. It may not be fair, but that's the situation. You can rail against that situation, or you can use it to your advantage.<br />
<br />
There are bad people and good people. They cannot be neatly divided by race or sex or wealth or sexual preference. You can hate them by category if you like, but I will always prefer to hate people individually rather than by group, because I have yet to find a subgroup that doesn't have awful people in it, and I have yet to find a subgroup that doesn't have good people in it.Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-10238998050395608512016-11-26T14:53:00.001-05:002016-11-26T14:53:12.450-05:00On Trump, Racism, Granularity, Rationality, and Things That Quack Like DucksScott Alexander's SlateStarCodex is one of my favorite blogs. Much of it involves trying to really look at what's going on, ignoring noise and assumptions in favor of data and rational evaluation.<br />
<br />
Recently he did this on the topic of whether Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate for president. His conclusion - argued persuasively and at length - is that no, Trump is <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/" target="_blank">not the candidate of white supremacy</a> and the hysterical claims that he is are doing harm. The article is not a defense of Trump, but just a challenge of one particular narrative.<br />
<br />
It's a terrific article, but as I read it, I had the vague feeling that at least some of his points could be refuted. But a superficial googling on the article didn't show that anyone had tried to refute any of it. There were just articles lauding the piece.<br />
<br />
As I thought about the article there were a few things that began to bother me, and since Alexander turned off comments on the post in order to avoid chaotic flame wars, I'm just going to discuss them here.<br />
<br />
-----------------<br />
<br />
Alexander makes a lot of good points. Take, for example, Trump's famous statement "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists." Alexander points out this is not actually racist because Trump is specifically saying that there are good Mexicans, and that it's just those aren't the ones immigrating to the U.S. It's not actually racist to say, "all the good Mexicans are living in Mexico," even though it's clearly untrue.<br />
<br />
Alexander points out that while Trump's obsession with birtherism seems racist, Trump actually believes all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories, many involving white people. He points out that, outside of the liberal bubble, Trump has made many statements praising U.S. diversity, like every other politician. He skillfully takes the "racist Trump" arguments apart piece by piece, leaving you with Trump as an asshole whose racism is closer to that of Robert Dole than Adolph Hitler.<br />
<br />
He's probably right. And yet, as I thought about the article later, I began to think of Rodney King.<br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
Rodney King, as you may recall, was videotaped being savagely beaten by the police in 1991.<br />
<br />
Watching the video, it was clear that King had been beaten mercilessly for several minutes by many cops while he tried to escape. But when the case went to trial, the defense slowed that video way down and convinced the jury that every time King's arm flailed out as a baton hit him, every time he tried to get on his knees to crawl away, that he was in fact lashing out and trying to attack the cops.<br />
<br />
This is the danger of granuality. Anything, when looked at closely enough, can lose its shape. It's like those paintings that look like people in a park from a distance and look like a bunch of dots of paint up close.<br />
<br />
Alexander is looking at Trump on a granular level, and on a granular level, you can prove an awful lot.<br />
<br />
As much as Alexander is admirably trying to look at all the evidence, he's still just taking a small section of the immense number of things Trump has said and using it to push back on a narrative.<br />
<br />
Alexander does, in fact, understand that. In point 17 of his post he shows exactly how all arguments against an insupportable theory can sound, to a believer, "weaselly." If you believe Trump is a racist, you can reject pretty much any arguments to the contrary. And if you're living in the liberal bubble with me, where you basically keep hearing the same five quotes from Trump on an endless loop, it's easy to see the case for racist Trump as a slam dunk.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying Alexander's granuality means he's wrong. I'm just saying it's something you need to pay attention to, because he's a very persuasive writer and as anyone familiar with Malcolm Gladwell knows, persuasive writers can persuade you of things that are not entirely true.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------<br />
<br />
As I continued to mull his piece over in my mind, certain other things began to bother me, like this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
13. Doesn’t Trump want to ban (or “extreme vet”, or whatever) Muslims entering the country?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Yes, and this is awful.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But why do he (and his supporters) want to ban/vet Muslims, and not Hindus or Kenyans, even though most Muslims are white(ish) and most Hindus and Kenyans aren’t? Trump and his supporters are concerned about terrorism, probably since the San Bernardino shooting and Pulse nightclub massacre dominated headlines this election season.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
This seemed fine when I first read it, but then it began to seem really, really wrong. Because he is basically saying that racism is tied specifically to skin color. That if Trump is more afraid of "white(ish)" Muslims than darker Kenyans, then somehow he can't be all that racist.<br />
<br />
As much as I respect Alexander, this is blatantly stupid. Because racism is not a visual thing. In the past, Americans have been racist against Irish and Italians, among others. My mom had a friend who once said she could deal with her daughter dating a black guy, but would disown her for dating an Asian, even though Asians are generally somewhat lighter (the reason having to do with a hatred of Japanese born during World War II).<br />
<br />
And, of course, Hitler hated Jews more than any other race even though Jews were often physically indistinguishable from Germany's non-Jews. I don't know how Hitler felt about Kenyans, but I'm pretty sure he spent less time worrying about them.<br />
<br />
And yes, hatred of Muslims has been exacerbated by Muslim terrorists. But racism doesn't have to be based on nothing. It is a matter of taking some aspect of a racial group, whether real or imagined, and applying it to all people of that group. Some African Americans are criminals. Some Jews are greedy bankers. Some Poles are stupid. If you think that subgroup represents the whole, that's racist.<br />
<br />
After all, there are tons of white terrorists in America, shooting abortionists or blowing up buildings, but we don't take actions against all white people because some of them are terrible.<br />
<br />
I wonder whether a 1930s version of Scott Alexander be able to examine Hitler on a granular level and conclude that he wasn't really more anti-Semitic than other German politicians? After all, the level of anti-Semitism in 1930s politicians was pretty high.<br />
<br />
-----------------------<br />
<br />
While point 13 is Alexanders worst argument, others are also problematic. For example, the fact that Trump believes in all sorts of conspiracy theories, only some of which are racist, doesn't mean his belief in birtherism isn't still racist; if I believe all drug dealers are black, and I believe moon people have invaded earth, the second belief doesn't make the first one less racist.<br />
<br />
And yes, it's true that people have physically attacked Trump supporters, and that's terrible, but there's a difference between attacking someone for how they voted and attacking someone for who they are. If a Muslim is a wearing a Clinton button and someone attacks her you can say it's equivalent, but if she's just wearing a hijab then she's not being attacked for her vote, but for her race and religion. There's a fundamental difference between saying "fuck you, Trump supporter," and "go back to Mexico, wetback."<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
<br />
Alexander is very persuasive, and I am willing to admit there's a pretty good liklihood that Trump isn't the most racist Republican out there and that the actual white-supremist part of his constituency is tiny and is only seeming significant because the media has glommed onto the white-nationalist story and is giving fringe groups way too much attention.<br />
<br />
But I'm still nervous, because I'm not convinced that this country hasn't opened the door a crack for racists now. That there is a new acceptance for racism, and sexism, and homophobia that Trump is helping along, and that he really is more dangerous than a typical Republican not just because he's corrupt and incompetent but because he is going to at worst institute racist policies and at best just let racism grow without challenge.<br />
<br />
There's an old expression: if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. For a rationalist like Alexander, this is untrue. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can only say for certain that it is something that shares certain characteristics with a duck. It's an important perspective, because the truth is, common sense is not always sensible, few things are truly self-evident, and to assume is, as the saying goes, to make an ass of you and me.<br />
<br />
I admire Alexander's attempt to rationally look at that quacking thing to try and figure out if it's really a duck. I just wonder how many data points he would need before finally admitting that, yeah, what we've got here is a duck.Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-18692852474704108342016-11-11T17:23:00.000-05:002016-11-11T17:24:18.054-05:00Trump voters are idiots and jerks who blithely voted a racist fearmonger into office - here's why we shouldn't demonize themThe election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States is one of the most horrific moments in U.S. history. A blatant racist whose election has the KKK dancing in the streets, Trump is a crude, corrupt, unqualified moron who will cause damage to this country - through his Supreme Court appointments, through his destruction of progressive programs, through his encouragment of bigotry and xenophobia - that will continue on for decades.<br />
<br />
The people who voted for Trump should be ashamed. They have unleashed a great horror on the country, and it is little comfort that Trump's policies will wind up ruining the lives of many of his most fervent supporters.<br />
<br />
So yeah, it is outrageous to suggest that we need to understand these people, as some are suggesting. What's to understand? These are white people whining about their lives even though many of those voters aren't suffering, demanding that the little we've given our country's minorities be taken back, that our halting attempts at equality for women be smashed. They were dumb enough to believe Trump's promises and uncaring enough to not care who got hurt. The majority of them are so racist that they think Obama is a Muslim foreigner. They are monsters.<br />
<br />
On the other hand...<br />
<br />
There is a problem with painting Trump voters with too broad a brush. Certainly, the worst people in America - Nazis, Klansmen, sexual assaulters - embraced him enthusiastically. But that doesn't mean everyone who voted for Trump loved everything about him.<br />
<br />
John Scalzi posited in the <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/11/10/the-cinemax-theory-of-racism/" target="_blank">Cinemax Theory of Racism</a> that even if everyone who voted for Trump isn't actively racist, they all basically accept racism as a part of the Trump package that they can live with. And that's true. But they are not the first voters to accept the bad with the good. In 2012 I read an article by a progressive who refused to vote for Obama because he had sent out drones in the pursuit of terrorists that had killed many innocent people. For him, to vote for Obama was to say he could live with a president who would kill innocent foreigners.<br />
<br />
I voted for Obama anyway - it wasn't like Romney was a peacenik who would end all the killing - but in doing so, I have to accept that I made a statement - to keep the Supreme Court from becoming even more conservative, to keep making progress against racism and sexism, to further a (somewhat) progressive agenda in the United States - I could live with drone strikes that killed civilians in the Middle East. I feel bad about it, but I did it, and I did it knowing I was doing it.<br />
<br />
So if you're a conservative afraid of a liberal Supreme Court, if you believe liberal economic policies will make the country poorer, then you might say, "I really hate that Trump is calling Mexicans racists and Muslims terrorists, but I have to protect this country from a greater threat."<br />
<br />
I might disagree with that analysis and those priorities, but I can't say I have never compromised on the perfect in favor of what I perceived as the least bad option.<br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
<br />
I've read a fair amount about those Trump voters. My main takeaway is that they feel like government cares about everyone but them, and they're very resentful. They feel that there is affirmative action for black people, new rights for gays, and nothing for them. That they are taken for granted and undervalued and their struggles are ignored.<br />
<br />
And if you're like a lot of my friends, your reply to that is, "Damn right I'm ignoring your so-called 'pain.' You problems are <i>nothing</i> compared to those of people of color. There are people getting pulled over and shot by the police while you're whining that your kid didn't get into their first-choice college. Fuck you with your slightly-lower-than-your-parents standard of living and your undeserving lazy-poor-people tropes. You white straight people are at the top of the heap, and if you're suffering, then how do you think the people without your privileges are doing right now?"<br />
<br />
Or, to put it another way, "yes, white America, you really don't matter at all. Just shut up and vote for the Democrats."<br />
<br />
I understand this attitude. I have had advantages in life and I feel people with less advantages deserve a boost up; that their need is greater than mine. But at the same time, I can appreciate that if you feel you are getting less so that others - no more deserving than you - can have more, then you might be annoyed.<br />
<br />
Look at it this way. Let's say you're a kid, and every day your parents give you one cookie. Now, you have friends who get three cookies a day, so you're already a little resentful about your lot in life, but at least you get that one cookie.<br />
<br />
Then one day your parents say, that kid next door gets no cookies, so from now on every Wednesday and Sunday we'll take your cookie and give it to him.<br />
<br />
If you're a really noble, self-sacrificing kid, you'll be okay with that. You'll say, give him my Monday cookie as well. But if you're like most kids, you will be consumed with the unfairness of getting less cookies not because you have done anything wrong, but because someone you don't even know is just being given the cookies that have always been a part of your life.<br />
<br />
There is a difference between not being noble and self-sacrificing and being a monster. But people who drift to the self-sacrificing side of life can forget that.<br />
<br />
-----------------<br />
<br />
There's a big problem with the "fuck all you whiny-ass Trump voters, you're all racist monsters" attitude. By lumping everyone together like that, you make everyone in that lump unreachable. If someone came up to me and said, "you are a monster and every death caused by Obama is blood on your hands; people like you should just die, because you care about no one but yourselves," I would not listen to much that person had to say.<br />
<br />
And we may really need those non-KKK Trump voters soon. Because there are people who were horrified by aspects of Trump but ultimately thought that voting for him would not destroy the country. They thought Trump was all talk and wouldn't <i>really </i>have jackbooted thugs going from house to house arresting Muslims and Mexicans.<br />
<br />
But if they are prooved wrong, they might cool on Trump. They might say, "wow, I did not realize this would happen." And they could join the opposition to Trump.<br />
<br />
Unless, of course, you've told them they are all privileged assholes whose concerns are stupid. In which case, why exactly would they want to join with you?<br />
<br />
The fact is, white people do have problems, because everyone has problems. If you're white, you are less likely to be shot by a cop, but it can still happen. Innocent white people get shot by cops. White people get sick and go bankrupt paying medical bills. White people lose their jobs. And you can't insist that people shouldn't complain about their problems because others are suffering more. If you lose a child, you don't want to hear, "that's nothing, I lost my whole family, quit whining."<br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
I don't excuse people for voting for Trump. They did a terrible thing, for terrible reasons, and will cause irreparable harm to this country. But I still believe we need to understand their views and listen to their complaints. Because the fact is, as they just proved, they can vote in big enough numbers to put a fascist in the White House. And if Democrats don't try and understand and communicate with them, then in four years they will give him a second term.Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-80611007448337136112016-09-17T14:23:00.002-04:002016-09-17T16:09:19.327-04:00I'm not That Excited by Hillary Clinton ... But That's How I Feel Every Four Years<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGPxJYSRGr9Sh6jOX84uXhBu5ge5DPBEfSvSa2ESYHmPJO_3GIumfRAnXq2oEo_s-E2ow-1elfh3LmHnIkwsVe8Y3q2Jw-MmvJyw5QyP_kPPfh5eJlzXGF3Dp85pWZjWK5KyhyphenhyphenDg/s1600/clintonincrementalchange.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGPxJYSRGr9Sh6jOX84uXhBu5ge5DPBEfSvSa2ESYHmPJO_3GIumfRAnXq2oEo_s-E2ow-1elfh3LmHnIkwsVe8Y3q2Jw-MmvJyw5QyP_kPPfh5eJlzXGF3Dp85pWZjWK5KyhyphenhyphenDg/s320/clintonincrementalchange.gif" width="257" /></a></div>
It's said that Hillary Clinton suffers from an enthusiasm gap. People just aren't that jazzed to vote for her, and her greatest assett is that many voters are terrified of the apocalyptic disaster a Trump presidency is liable to usher in.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Her supporters have been trying to convince us to get excited. She's incredibly qualified. She has a long history of public service. She's smart and willing to engage with the nuts and bolts of government.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But why should I get excited for Hillary, when I haven't been excited by any of the presidential candidates I've had to vote for over the years?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
--------------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even before I could vote I followed the elections, and the last time the candidate I liked actually became the nominee was in 1972, when McGovern became a cautionary tale in nominating the genuine liberal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After that it's been all disappointments. In 1976 I really liked Mo Udall, and thought Jerry Brown showed promise, but instead got Jimmy Carter. Whoopdefucking do. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first election I could vote in was 1980. Once again, Jimmy Carter was the nominee, and since he had just instituted draft registration for people my age, I was really unhappy with him. I would have preferred Ted Kennedy, or, once again, Brown, but Carter was the nominee. I voted for third party candidate John Anderson. I wasn't excited by Anderson, I just really didn't like Carter. And I was going through my "they're all the same" phase, which ended as I watched Reagan dismantled the government and put foxes in charge of every henhouse, creating a swathe of destruction we have yet to recover from.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There were some good guys running in 1984. I remember liking Alan Cranston. George McGovern took another shot at it. And Jesse Jackson was an exciting possibility. And in their wisdom, the people nominated bland, middle-of-the-road Walter Mondale. Who I did vote for, because, after all, Reagan was gutting the country.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In 1988, my guy was the bow-tied liberal Paul Simon (no, not the Garfunkle one), though Jesse Jackson was still a solid second. Instead, we got the uninspiring Michael Dukakis. I voted for him, but we still got the Bush that gave us Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and an idiot son for our future.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't know who I was cheering for in 1992. Jerry Brown. Eugene McCarthy? I know who I wasn't cheering for: Bill Clinton, the guy who brought neoconservatism into the Democratic mainstream. Still, better than more Bush.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It was Clinton or nothing in 1996. He'd turned out to be even worse than I expected; his biggest achievement was gutting welfare. But it wasn't like the Republicans were going to be an improvement.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I wasn't impressed by Al Gore in 2000, who I knew of mainly through his wife's stupid music censorship activism, but it was a year of little choice. I voted for him, but a bunch of people going through their "they're all the same" phase went for Ralph Nader, leading directly to the American invasion of Iraq and the rise of ISIS.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My guy in 2004 was flaming liberal Dennis Kucinich, although Howard Dean also held a lot of appeal. So we got John Kerry. And another four terrible Bush years.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Kucinich was still my man in 2008, although quirky Mike Gravel was also pretty appealing. As for Obama, well, he was basically an early-70s Republican, but at least he brought some history with him, and he was pretty darn likable. That was probably the closest I came to being enthusiastic about the Democratic nominee, but I knew he was going to be a disappointment. And I voted for him again in 2012 even though he had proved me right.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
--------------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In 2016 I wanted Bernie Sanders, of course. In this crazy election year he really did have the potential to win and be the most progressive president of my lifetime. So I'm disappointed that I'm stuck with Clinton.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But - and I guess this is my real point - I'm not any <i>more</i> disappointed than usual. In spite of all the antipathy she inspires in people, I don't see her as worse than Gore, or Mondale, or Obama, or her husband, or even Carter, who in retrospect was actually pretty good. She just represents another time when the middle-of-the-road Democrat beat my liberal favorite.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
I don't need to be enthusiastic about Clinton. I have voted for every Democratic nominee since 1984, and I will do so again.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I vote for the Democrat because I learned in 1980 what happens when you don't vote for the Democrat. Terrible, terrible things. And I know that a neoconservative replacement for our neoconservative president is still a lot better than an unqualified authoritarian narcicist. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If Clinton wins, I will be thrilled. I will be dancing in the street, because we will have dodged the biggest bullet in my lifetime and a woman will have broken America's highest glass ceiling. It will be a great night.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then I'll brace myself for the inevitable disappointment, just as I have with every Democratic win. It's better than bracing myself for the shit show of a Democratic loss. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-70347950246017334632016-09-16T18:20:00.000-04:002016-09-17T16:09:54.106-04:00Clinton’s Suicide of a Thousand Cuts versus Trump’s Big Lies<div class="MsoNormal">
Hillary Clinton has once again got herself in trouble for holding back information, in this case not letting the press know that she had pneumonia until she almost collapsed. It’s ultimately a pretty small lie, but it feeds perfectly into the narrative of Clinton as shifty.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At her most dishonest, Clinton doesn’t come close to the dishonesty of her rival, Donald Trump, who tells <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/">huge whoppers</a> on a daily basis. Clinton more often paints things in the best light based on the public record, and then continually makes small changes in her story as new information comes to light. Overall, her stories don’t really change all that much, but the constant drip-drip-drip of modifications makes it seem like she never actually tells the truth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Donald Trump, on the other hand, tells huge, ridiculous, easily disproved lies, and when he is shown the evidence, he simply insists the evidence is wrong. The irony for Clinton is that her attempts to adjust her story to conform to the available facts creates a perception of shiftiness, while Trump’s bold, unapologetic dishonesty just makes people think that he’s a man who sticks to his guns.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine Hillary Clinton were accused of shooting someone. The police would take her into the interrogation room, and she would say, “I didn’t know that person, we never met, I wasn’t there that night, and I don’t even own a gun.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When the cops would show her a photo of her with the victim, she would say, “well, we may have met once, but I don’t remember them, and anyway, I was out of town and don’t own a gun.” And when they bring in the gun, registered in her name, with her fingerprints on it, she would say “come to think of it, I do have a gun, but I certainly never shot someone I barely knew with it.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now imagine Donald Trump was accused of shooting someone. He too would say, “I didn’t know that person, we never met, I wasn’t there that night, and I don’t even own a gun.” Faced with a picture of himself with the victim, he would say, “I never met him, that’s not even me in the photo.” When they brought in the gun, he would say, “I never owned a gun, those aren’t my fingerprints.” When they showed security video of him pointing the gun at the victim and pulling the trigger, he would say, “no, that’s not me. Absolutely not.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Trump’s ability to stick to his lies makes it difficult for the press to even report on them. Every time Clinton makes a small change in her story, the press can write, “faced with new information, Clinton changes story.” But how many times can the press report that Donald Trump has repeated the exact same lie in the exact same way? It’s not really news; it’s like reporting that the sun rose this morning. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It must be frustrating for Clinton to see her every lawyerly prevarication become a damning headline while her opponent tells so many lies that journalists consider them nothing but “dog bites man” stories. But she keeps reinforcing the negative perceptions by refusing to get ahead of a story; she always waits for events to catch up with her. If on Friday she’d simply announced she had a touch of pneumonia but was going to try and keep going, she would have seemed forthright for admitting to illness and tough for pushing through, and video of her staggering into a car would have been nothing but proof that you shouldn’t run around when you have pneumonia. By waiting until she had no choice but to say something, she encourages people to think she has something worse than pneumonia. If in a couple of days she announces she actually has double pneumonia, no one will be surprised, because that’s what she does.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And if in a couple of days Donald Trump announces that he is incapable of getting sick and in fact hasn’t even aged since he was thirty, people will shrug. Because that’s just Donald being Donald.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-31435766697075605162016-08-16T10:03:00.000-04:002016-09-17T16:10:25.732-04:00Donald Trump's Best Path to the Presidency Involves a Russian Invasion<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
Donald Trump loves conspiracy theories. Obama was born in Kenya. Ted Cruz's father was in on the Kennedy Assassination. The Clintons killed Vince Foster. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" />
So Trump should love my theory on why he's running such a terrible campaign.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
Right now, pollsters are giving Trump about a 15% chance of winning in November, seemingly because he keeps saying crazy things about how Obama founded Isis or Second Amendment people could do "something" about Clinton. Trump became the Republican nominee because his outrageous statements kept him on the front page, but while that worked great among disaffected, angry Republicans, it's failing with everyone else.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" />
But if I were a conspiracy theorist like Trump, I would think he was blowing the election on purpose, because his goal is not to be elected but to be appointed.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
Right now, Trump is claiming that the only way he can lose is if Clinton steals the election through fraud. Among hardcore Trumpites, who believe all the polls are heavily skewed, this is a persuasive argument. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" />
So, Trump has established that his loss will be from Clinton's skulldugery, the government will be illegitimate, and people with guns will have to do something about it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" />
For all the crazy shit he says, 40% of the voters are still planning to vote for him right now, so there are a lot of people on his bandwagon. And a lot of them have guns.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" />
So here's the theory. Trump throws the election. His followers, who believe it was all voter fraud, rise up and start shooting Democrats. The country descends into chaos. Tea Party radicals claim the government has collapsed and request help from Russia, because Republicans have a hard on for Putin (apparently, he's what they consider a "strong leader"). Russia invades and appoints their buddy Trump - who has praised Putin and has financial connections with Russia - as the country's new dictator.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" />
Is that an insane theory? Sure. Do I expect anyone to believe it? Of course not. But in a crazy election against a seemingly inept businessman who has already used his bizarre behavior to become the Republican nominee, you've got to consider all the possibilities.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" />
At the least, it's more likely than the Clintons having murdered Vince Foster.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans, sans-serif; line-height: 23.2px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-80331080159038451182016-07-20T14:22:00.001-04:002016-07-20T14:27:57.765-04:00The Trolley Problem and the Protest VoterIn a well-known thought experiment called the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjw5MHtxMHNAhXFNz4KHX9DB1EQFggmMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTrolley_problem&usg=AFQjCNFFJOkSyIAUzhqmlpzL14EUq6bQBA&sig2=cGVq2v07qVxOO4VDr-NnbA" target="_blank">Trolley Problem</a>, a train is hurtling down a track towards five people tied to that track, and you can pull a switch to move it to a different track on which one man is standing.<br />
<br />
This is generally used to explore moral choice and whether you'd be personally willing to kill one person to save five. If you do so, his blood is on your hands, but if you don't throw the switch, five people will die.<br />
<br />
It would be a terrible decision to make.<br />
<br />
It's also a lot like the decision voters are facing this year. The train is heading down a track called TRUMP that will cause horrible disasters, inflame racism, bring trade wars and possibly real wars, destroy America's standing in the world, and give us a right-wing Supreme Court that will chip away at our civil rights for decades to come.<br />
<br />
The other track is called CLINTON. The train will cause less damage if it goes down the Clinton track, but there's likely to be some poor judgement, some foreign misadventuring, and a poorly-handled scandal or two.<br />
<br />
It's a grim decision.<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
If only there were another way. If this were an action movie, you could fire a rocket
launcher that curled the track up so that the train would fly up
and sail right over those people, landing on the track right past the
victims.<br />
<br />
You could also do nothing and hope for a miracle. Perhaps the train will run out of gas right before it hits anyone. Or
Doctor Who will appear and send it through a time portal into an
alternate dimension where no one is tied to the tracks. <br />
<br />
What you really need is another switch. Not one that will actually effect the direction of the train, but one you can pull so you can feel you're doing something without having to make this terrible decision.<br />
<br />
Let's give you that switch and put a sign on it that says "PROTEST VOTE." Pull it, and you can tell yourself that those five dead people aren't your fault at all; you pulled a switch; what more could you do?<br />
<br />
-------<br />
<br />
Right now we have a choice of presidents: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. One of those two people is going to be president. And a lot of people are just watching that train speed down the track and saying, "hey, it's not my train." Republicans who hate Donald Trump are saying, I can't vote for him, he's a dangerous incompetent with no qualifications, so I'll vote for a third party, but never Clinton, because she's evil. Hardcore Bernie Sanders supporters are saying they'll just write his name in rather than vote for Clinton; multiple people have said to me, in virtually the exact same words, "it's not my fault if Trump wins; I'm not the one who chose an unelectable candidate."<br />
<br />
Years ago a friend was defending her vote for Ralph Nader in 2000. Her position was simple: if she just voted for someone terrible because their opponent was even more terrible, she was accepting this terrible political system. Things would never get better if people didn't stand up and refuse to cooperate with the status quo.<br />
<br />
It's a fair point, but the question that should be asked is, did voting for Nader do anything besides help make George W. Bush president? Did it create a powerful liberal movement? Did it cause politicians to change their ways because a sliver of the populace was unhappy with both sides?<br />
<br />
No, it didn't.<br />
<br />
If we had a different system for electing people, where parties could gain power according to the proportion of their vote, or where there was a series of run-offs that would make a third-party vote more than just a throwaway, we would have a mechanism to change the system. But we don't, and I don't think many of the protester voters are even working to change our electoral system in a way that would give them that power.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, third parties seem loathe to go through the nuts and bolts of building a party, as Dan Savage pointed out in a <a href="http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/19/24362128/dan-savage-on-jill-stein-just-no" target="_blank">wonderful diatribe</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you're interested in building a third party, a viable third party,
you don’t start with president. You don't start by running someone for
fucking president.<br />
Where are the Green Party candidates for city councils?
For county councils? For state legislatures? For state assessor? For
state insurance commissioner? For governor? For fucking dogcatcher? I
would be SO willing to vote for Green Party candidates who are starting
at the bottom, grassroots, bottom up, building a third party, a viable
third party. </blockquote>
Voting for a third party presidential candidate won't advance any agenda. It won't give that party more power, more influence, more legitimacy, or a better future. It will be just the same as voting for "none of them."<br />
<br />
And you can do that if you want. Just admit that this is all you are doing. You are not changing the system or creating a brighter tomorrow. You are saying "fuck it."<br />
<br />
---------------<br />
<br />
You don't <i>have</i> to do anything about that train. It's not <i>your</i> train. You didn't send it down the track. You didn't tie those people up. Why should you take responsibility for other people's actions just because you're the one standing there? <br />
<br />
The people on the track screaming "please don't let us die" are probably less philosophical. To them, the mistake made when the train started moving cannot be rectified, and the only thing that will save their lives is you pulling that switch. <br />
<br />
And it's a painful switch to pull. I mean, my god, you're going to kill someone! Sure, you'll save five people, but you'll be responsible for a death. How is that fair? <br />
<br />
Perhaps after you pull your protest vote switch, someone else will rush up and pull the working switch so you can feel good about yourself and your principled refusal to take responsibility for a problem not of your making. If not, you can watch those people die and say, "fucking railroad company, this is all their fault."<br />
<br />
Hopefully you'll feel just as good about that decision later on, when you're tied to the track, the train is coming, and the one person who can save you turns to go.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-81142095499440898932016-06-30T16:50:00.004-04:002016-07-02T00:08:57.710-04:00Children: Savage Enforcers of Society ConformityLook at your fingernails. Go ahead, just take a peek. Do you look at them the masculine or feminine way?<br />
<br />
If you know the answer to that, you probably learned it in childhood from a peer. In case that's a lesson you missed, boys look at their fingernails by curving their fingers over their upturned palms. Girls point their palms forward.<br />
<br />
If you know that, you probably also know that boys look at the bottom of their shoe by bending their knee in front of them, while girls kick their foot up behind and look over their shoulder.<br />
<br />
I failed both of these tests in grammar school, and was told I was a girl. I was unhappy about that, and changed appropriately.<br />
<br />
------------<br />
<br />
When talking about gender stereotypes, it is often suggested that much of the problem comes from toy companies that make all girl toys pink and advertising that divides toys into those for boys and those for girls. Some people seem to think that if we could just remove these societal messages, that children would be free to choose what they enjoy, rather than what society considers appropriate.<br />
<br />
But what if Mattel and Walmart aren't really the problem? What if the problem is, in part, a culture of conformity passed from child to child, with rigid, stringently enforced rules? How do you change that?<br />
<br />
Childhood is full of rules and tests (according to <a href="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=433202" target="_blank">this thread</a>, there are also gender tests involving looking at the sky and removing sweaters), created not by the media or the government but by children who use them as weapons. Yet even though these rules appear to arise organically out of the muck of childhood, they seem to strongly reinforce the culture's priorities. Besides gender conformity, consumerism is encouraged through attacks on things like "floods," a <a href="http://walkinthewords.blogspot.com/2009/07/derogatory-fashion-terms-for-ill.html" target="_blank">term for too-short pants</a>. <br />
<br />
Floods are a natural result of the speed at which children grow. A typical parental strategy is to buy things when they're too big and keep them until they're too small. This is sensible, but ill-fitting clothes can get you in trouble with the herd. (Note: I have no idea if floods or fingernail testing are still done;
children may have different tests now, but I guarantee they have some.)<br />
<br />
Why would children be so insistent that their peers shop frequently? No reason. In fact, it's unlikely children actually care that much aesthetically about the length of your pants or the way you look at fingernails.<br />
<br />
Instead, it's all about beating you down, because children are <a href="http://opinionade.blogspot.com/2016/01/on-trigger-warnings-and-toughening-up.html" target="_blank">savage, sadistic monsters</a>. Children simply grab the popular weapons and use them on every target. They try out new insults and see what sticks. And if it sticks, it is carried on, year after year.<br />
<br />
The weapons that stick tend to be those that society at large emphasizes. Society says boys should not act like girls, and boys find ways to test for girliness. (I imagine girls have their own tests, although I don't know what they are.)<br />
<br />
To some extent, Mattel actually does effect the concept of normality, because they show children what society holds important. Movies do as well when they feature brave boys and crying girls. But these concepts are so deeply embedded that superficial changes like removing gender recommendations from toy boxes probably won't do much. Fix the toys, and you've still got a society where women speaking firmly are <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-voice-msnbc_us_56dd403de4b0ffe6f8e9d648" target="_blank">accused of shrill shouting</a> even when faced with men who are shrilly shouting to no objection. You can't teach children to be more open and accepting if all of society if promoting the opposite. One of the first thing children figure out is words mean much less than actions.<br />
<br />
---------------<br />
<br />
My first inclination when I thought of this was that it's all pretty hopeless. Childhood conformity is so powerful that I doubt tweaks to marketing and speech would have any effect.<br />
<br />
I did have one idea, though. Children, as I say, just want weapons they can use to beat down their peers (you non-cynics will probably disagree with that, but I feel the evidence is pretty solid). So what if that destructive power could be used for good?<br />
<br />
Children, reflecting society, push gender conformity and consumerism because those are the weapons that work. If you could convince children that the worst, most embarrassing, most deviant qualities were racism, or greed, or bad manners, or littering, then these children would create tests for these qualities and crucify those who didn't do things the "right" way.<br />
<br />
How can that be done? Well, as someone who doesn't care for children and avoids them as much as possible, I'm not able to answer that question. But if you like children enough to interact with them yet still understand their dark nature, see if you can come up with a way to use their savagery to make the world a better place.<br />
<br />
Or if not a better place, at least one where one is judged by something more important than fingernail examination. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-48656476567370402422016-06-28T13:12:00.000-04:002016-06-28T13:12:03.060-04:00David Cameron is Paul Ryan's Ghost of Christmas FutureThe lesson many pundits are taking from Britain's vote to leave the European Union is that the appeal to bigotry, hatred, and fear can lead people to vote against their best interests and royally fuck themselves up out of pure spite. If that can happen there, they say, then a Trump presidency can happen here.<br />
<br />
That may be true, and we should certainly all be scared. But Brexit should also scare one particular American, Paul Ryan, who just had a chance to see what happens when politicians make a short-term political calculus that destroys their career.<br />
<br />
Brexit happened because Prime Minister David Cameron wanted to get reelected. A chunk of anti-immigration conservatives wanted Britain out of the European Union and to keep the Conservative Party together and win an election, Cameron agreed to a referendum on leaving the EU.<br />
<br />
Cameron didn't <i>want</i> Britain to leave the EU, he just wanted to pacify those on the right and counter the popularity of the anti-immigration U.K. Nationalist Party. He figured he could easily persuade voters to vote REMAIN.<br />
<br />
He couldn't, and having created a disastrous situation with disastrous results, he had no choice but to resign.<br />
<br />
Now, Cameron will go down in history as the guy who screwed Britain and the EU. That is his legacy. Nothing he has ever done in his life will matter; he's the Brexit guy.<br />
<br />
Like Cameron, Paul Ryan decided to do something dangerous to the country for political expediency: support Donald Trump as the Republican presidential candidate. Trump, a racist, xenophobic no-nothing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html" target="_blank">conman</a> (or, as the <a href="http://www.nerdcore.de/2016/06/24/scottish-trump-insults-ranked/" target="_blank">Scottish would say</a>, a weaselheaded, Cheeto-faced, jizztrumpet/fucknugget/shitgibbon) who spews hatred against minorities like a shit-throwing sprinkler system, gained the nomination through big lies and absurd promises. It's clear to everyone with half a brain, including Ryan, that he is a toxic bomb set to blow up this country.<br />
<br />
But Ryan also believes, probably correctly, that Trump is somewhat more likely to support his help-the-rich, screw-the-poor agenda than Hillary Clinton, and for that reason, he has chosen to endorse the monster.<br />
<br />
Ryan's endorsement looks worse and worse every time Trump claims his right to be <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/05/3784885/trump-says-possible-muslim-judges-cant-trusted/" target="_blank">judged only by those with European ancestry</a> or <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/12/11913614/donald-trump-orlando-shooting" target="_blank">congratulates himself</a> when horrible tragedies befall the country, but while Ryan will mildly criticize Trump's remarks, he is still determined to make him president. Ultimately, whether he succeeds or not, he is probably destroying his career.<br />
<br />
In November, one of two things will happen. Either Trump, in spite of a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/there-is-no-trump-campaign/486380/" target="_blank">phenomenally incompetent campaign</a>, will win, or Clinton will. If it's Trump, well then, an authoritarian lunatic will helm this country, most likely sending the world into <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/economist-trump-presidency-global-risk-220887" target="_blank">economic collapse</a>, and Ryan will intimately tied to that disaster (and probably won't even get much from his shopping list out of the short-fingered megalomaniac). If it's Clinton, then Ryan sold his soul and got nothing for it except a GOP in flames.<br />
<br />
The U.S. does not have Britain's parliamentarian system, so Ryan won't have to resign anything. He'll still be a congressman. He might even get reelected; in this country an incumbent can get reelected even if he's in prison for fraud. But his career as the golden boy of the GOP will be over. Like Cameron, he will forever after be known for one thing; tying himself to a bucket of shit, throwing the bucket down a well, and trying not to fall in after it.<br />
<br />
Watch out Ryan; it's a very heavy bucket.Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-88093675506606891502016-06-27T12:57:00.005-04:002016-06-28T13:13:03.493-04:00On Not Being Photographed by Bill CunninghamI first heard of Bill Cunningham years ago when someone told me he was at the Jazz Age Lawn Party and I said, who? It was something I was supposed to know.<br />
<br />
For 40 years, until quite close to his recent <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/style/bill-cunningham-legendary-times-fashion-photographer-dies-at-87.html" target="_blank">death</a>, Cunningham took photos for the New York Times, specializing in people he found stylish. Some were famous, some were just people walking by. He would also turn up at events that drew those who wanted to show off their finery, which is why I used to catch sight of the dapper gentleman clicking away at JALP and the Easter Parade.<br />
<br />
The dress-up people at JALP seemed obsessed with getting their picture taking by Cunningham. By dress-up people, I mean those who devoted themselves to period wear. The people who scoured eBay and thrift shops for authentic 1920s vintage clothing. Who studied old photos to get the look just right. Who purchased vintage picnic baskets. For many, that picture in the Times was a victory, and Cunningham obliviously walking past you without a glance at your authentic, over-priced 1920s hat a terrible defeat.<br />
<br />
It was a race I never ran.<br />
<br />
I mainly went to JALP to dance. Sure, I dressed up a little, but I've always had a close-enough-for-rock-n-roll approach to vintage dress, and worried more about being comfortable in the blazing heat of summer than in wowing the dress-up world. I would certainly never, as the serious folk did, wear wool on a humid, 90-degree day.<br />
<br />
Look at <a href="http://nypost.com/2010/08/06/jazz-age-lawn-party-on-governors-island/#7" target="_blank">this picture</a> from the New York Post of me dancing with my girlfriend Laurel. I am making less effort than the three people I'm sharing the picture with, who are all aiming for authenticity. I've got some nice wide-legged pants, but I'm also wearing a golfing shirt that wicks away moisture, a bow-tie with a crossword puzzle design, and elastic suspenders with skulls on them.<br />
<br />
Not that I don't think I look great. I love those suspenders, and that bow tie is hilarious. I had other great things I wore to JALP, like orange linen pants that Laurel still mocks me for. But though I liked my colorful, somewhat rumpled style, I knew it wasn't Cunningham-worthy. And I respected his vision.<br />
<br />
While others think fondly back to the day Bill stopped to snap their picture, I celebrate him for a different reason; he knew enough about style to ignore half-assed outfits like mine.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/bVzeU7egnC0Fkv1rE_ZvKbK9sPj23qNgHeIFimf7lgjoOJHGea-V0U3TeNIOhzOB5fNQFMiTw5BjNdW27J-RKUjmuRBf-8gPSYXXotaUpXkId7CN8jFBxnO2ph2sZ8lm-zNHLj6P4xadLkzavO1dRUfeT8Es0QXBFnGFEKMTP-fstifHncqWUWtPCnuZ8ZbEwJ-Kpdxkra0c3KOu9B5v8brczqVk8hJ1SZpvbzqHJjsNfrWfmmUWoi5W34Cy1Jy32lyPS41Pt5XGbc5xhVpTTQfg6_fi82C62YoAcRGlVxQzSnVRiC1gOtiTHj5yrDKDHkeN3-HVMpTrizs-VODfvL2Aqpd--ZkV5dpAKP3gqqcbdzAn23w2JTlWPBbwK1N5EUhP7zbCCBEgRvAwc0B0jRcwXSgeICdf2of-b-JN7wS9FoPbV7pLbPsJ6YhF0sAxhm_o5YzUoHamYXtnuuWHCJv4xqGHcwDnU7_XnDbOlJdOct9sVL22-YrtruG0_D_4Jc6IpIw78GjXtcjvrypjFCkX5YF-HTHxnZ4hYV0tHE4-P6QirPeqxV_L5DSrNB_GKAKwh-5tJs-7lwvJafaVO7TUxn8kMlw=w604-h453-no" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/bVzeU7egnC0Fkv1rE_ZvKbK9sPj23qNgHeIFimf7lgjoOJHGea-V0U3TeNIOhzOB5fNQFMiTw5BjNdW27J-RKUjmuRBf-8gPSYXXotaUpXkId7CN8jFBxnO2ph2sZ8lm-zNHLj6P4xadLkzavO1dRUfeT8Es0QXBFnGFEKMTP-fstifHncqWUWtPCnuZ8ZbEwJ-Kpdxkra0c3KOu9B5v8brczqVk8hJ1SZpvbzqHJjsNfrWfmmUWoi5W34Cy1Jy32lyPS41Pt5XGbc5xhVpTTQfg6_fi82C62YoAcRGlVxQzSnVRiC1gOtiTHj5yrDKDHkeN3-HVMpTrizs-VODfvL2Aqpd--ZkV5dpAKP3gqqcbdzAn23w2JTlWPBbwK1N5EUhP7zbCCBEgRvAwc0B0jRcwXSgeICdf2of-b-JN7wS9FoPbV7pLbPsJ6YhF0sAxhm_o5YzUoHamYXtnuuWHCJv4xqGHcwDnU7_XnDbOlJdOct9sVL22-YrtruG0_D_4Jc6IpIw78GjXtcjvrypjFCkX5YF-HTHxnZ4hYV0tHE4-P6QirPeqxV_L5DSrNB_GKAKwh-5tJs-7lwvJafaVO7TUxn8kMlw=w604-h453-no" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Orange pants, suspenders with a newspaper theme and a golf shirt. Close enough.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-168112803872517732016-05-25T13:33:00.003-04:002016-05-25T14:43:32.349-04:00Democracy: The System Everyone Likes Until the “Wrong” People Win<div class="MsoNormal">
In 2011, Egyptians protested against their authoritarian dictatorship, overthrew the government, and held democratic elections that installed Mohamed Morsi as president.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By 2013, unhappy Egyptians were holding mass protests and demanding that Morsi resign. When the military stepped in, many of those protesters were thrilled. Soon the new government proved itself to be at least as bad as the one ousted in 2011.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I remember that after that military coup, there were pundits on both the left and the right who supported it, seeming to believe that this was a way to reset a democracy gone bad. To me that seemed a long shot. Democracy works when people accept it as the thing you’re stuck with. If after every election the people who didn’t vote for the government could persuade the military to step in, you wouldn’t really have a democracy. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Democracy is when both sides agree to accept the results, even if they don’t like them. It doesn’t work otherwise.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now let’s talk about Bernie Sanders.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’ve always liked Bernie Sanders. The things I want – a single payer health system, more taxes on the wealthy, greater worker rights, a stronger social safety net – are the things Sanders wants. If I were declared ruler of the universe and could choose the next U.S. president from anyone who has run for the position in the last couple of years, I would pick Bernie.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But in a democracy, one person can’t choose the president, or the nominees. Instead, there’s a whole electoral system in place. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Regarding the Democratic primary, that system is one Bernie Sanders has liked less and less the more it has become apparent that he is unlikely to win more votes or pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As little as a few months ago, Sanders still had some hope for the democratic process, as long as it was truly democratic. He made the reasonable suggestion that superdelegates – free agents who can vote for whoever they like at the convention – should vote for whoever their state voted for. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem is, under that system, Sanders would still lose. Because Sanders is way behind Clinton. About <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/">three million</a> votes behind.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So Bernie has a new plan. We throw out the democratic system and decide the nominee based on polling.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What Bernie wants is for all the superdelegates, regardless of who their state supported, to vote for Bernie. And he says they should, because in head to head polls, he does better against Trump than Clinton. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are reasons those polls shouldn’t be taken too seriously. As the <a href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/upshot/bernie-sanders-does-better-vs-trump-wouldnt-be-prudent-to-assume-that.html">Times points out</a>, Sanders hasn’t experienced a full-on Republican national attack yet, which could drive his numbers down markedly, and Trump is no longer competing against anyone, while Clinton is still fighting off Sanders, softening her support.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But beyond that, picking candidates according to polls is wildly undemocratic.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Right now, RealClearPolitics collection of recent polls shows that averaged out, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html">Sanders beats Trump</a> by 10.8%, whereas <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html">Clinton loses</a> by .2%. Each of these polls represents 800 to 1100 voters. If you were to assume that these polls had no overlaps, then they give us the opinions of a few thousand voters. If Sanders is up by 10% over Clinton among a group of 5,000 voters, then that means a few hundred people like Sanders better than Clinton. Yes, they are presumably a representative sampling, but still, if we’re using the polls to select nominees, very few people are actually getting a say.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As of April, over 15,000,000 people have voted in the Democratic primary, and by the convention that number will be higher. Sanders plan is, very simply, to discount the millions of people who prefer Clinton over him in favor of the preferences of a tiny sliver of America’s voters. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How can anyone who believes in Democracy find that acceptable? If we are going to choose our nominees by poll, why don’t we just get rid of elections altogether, and every four years take a few polls and make whoever wins the president? How can Sanders supporters who scream about unfairness every time Clinton gets an extra delegate they believe belongs to Bernie be fine with simply taking the choice out of the hands of the electorate altogether?<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What would happen if next week the poll numbers switched, and suddenly Clinton had the edge against Trump? Would Sanders drop out of the race? My guess is, no.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I understand why democracy failed in Egypt, a country unused to the messiness of a system that, in the words of Winston Churchill, “is the worst form of Government, except for all the [others].” But in the U.S., we’ve been doing this for a long time. And even if the results don’t turn out as I hope, which has happened many times, I hope we continue our experiment with democracy, and let people, rather than polls, choose our representatives.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Although I’m still open to just deciding the whole thing myself.<o:p></o:p></div>
Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-57280221433161582872016-05-20T20:24:00.000-04:002016-10-06T11:01:06.756-04:00Finding out you're weird. Then finding out you're really, really weird.When people tell you to imagine something, like a beach, or a polka-dotted elephant, does an image come to mind? Most people, it seems would say yes.<br />
<br />
I didn't realize for a long time that this was true. I always took phrases like "mind's eye" as an abstract term for constructing concepts in your mind. But somewhere along the way I discovered that most people actually picture things. They can "see" a beach; see the color of the water and the shape of the birds flying through the air, much in the way I can "hear" a song in my head. I can imagine Yellow Submarine, and hear Ringo's voice, and the sound effects; not so clearly that I can throw away my stereo, but I can conjure it up.<br />
<br />
So I figured that much out. And I thought, well, that's weird. It didn't bother me much, though, since it didn't seem like a terrible useful ability. It did explain some things, like a famous quote that had always puzzled me. In the early days of television, some kid was asked if he preferred radio or TV, and he said radio, "because the pictures were better."<br />
<br />
That sounded insane to me, but if people can picture the stuff they hear on the radio, then I guess it makes sense.<br />
<br />
I didn't realize how <i>much </i>other people's brains use that facility until I talked to my girlfriend, Laurel. As I understand it, all her memories are visual. If she thinks on the past, she <i>sees </i>it. I had thought of the mind's eye as something you could turn on if you wanted, but from Laurel it seemed that it was just a constant thing. Shortly after our conversation I saw the movie Inside Out, and the main character does experience her memories visually, and I thought that perhaps this is how most people's minds' work.<br />
<br />
The subject came up again yesterday when I read an <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11683274/aphantasia" target="_blank">article on Vox</a> by Blake Ross. His mind had been blown by a 2015 article in the New York Times about a man who had lost the ability to picture things. The condition had just been given a name that year, Aphantasia. And his reaction was, like mine, people can <i>do </i>that?<br />
<br />
If you have Aphantasia, the Times article seems really bizarre, because it acts like this is an extraordinary thing. Imagine you'd been blind your whole life, and no one had ever told you, and then one day you read about a guy who "lost" his sight, and you suddenly realize almost everyone in the world except you can look up and see clouds and stars, and there's this whole thing going on you had no idea even existed.<br />
<br />
As I read the Times article, I could see that people use their mind's eye for all sorts of things, because the researchers were amazed at what could be done without it. They asked aphantasiacs, how many windows are in your house, and were stunned that people could answer without picturing the rooms.<br />
<br />
And I thought, <i>that's </i>how people remember things? They <i class=""><span class="">p</span>icture</i> them?<br />
<br />
Why <i>wouldn't </i>I know how many windows were in the house? I mean, you look at them, and your mind makes note of where they are, and if someone asks you, you can answer. The number of windows is a fact. I know a lot of facts. Water boils if you heat it on the stove. Cats have four paws. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. I don't even understand why you would need to picture the room to answer a factual question. That just seems weird.<br />
<br />
While I asked a handful of friends about the mind's eye, Blake asked everyone he knew. He asked them to picture a beach, and they did. They could see the color of the water, the waves rushing in, people sunbathing.<br />
<br />
It appears it's not something you turn on and off, it just happens. When Laurel read Blake's article, she said when he talked about picturing a red triangle, a red triangle just popped into her head. When Blake asked a friend how often he pictured things, he said a <i>thousand</i> times a day. The shocking thing is, for 98% of you, italicizing that doesn't make any sense: it's just normal.<br />
<br />
This explains <i>so much</i>. It explains why writers will spend two pages describing a forest; it's because people use that information to picture what's happening in the book. It explains why people claim it's impossible to not picture a polka-dotted elephant when someone tells you not to picture one. It explains how people count sheep (they actually <i>see sheep and a fence</i>), how people with a fear of public speaking picture an audience in their underwear to calm their nerves. It explains how people can tolerate meditation; with their eyes closed, they aren't actually locked in impenetrable blackness.<br />
<br />
Some people are really bothered by aphantasia, one they know they have it. They feel they've been cheated. They think they might have other skills if their brain worked properly. But I doubt that.<br />
<br />
Blake says he's been asked if he can draw, and he says he can't. I can draw, and at one point majored in art. How do I draw without picturing things? Kind of the same way I can tell you how many windows I have in my room. I store up facts. I look at a face, and see the nose hooks down slightly. So I look down and draw a nose that does that and look up again. I see a short upper lip, look down, draw that, look up. Look up, note, look down, draw. It's easy.<br />
<br />
If I had a mind's eye, perhaps I could just look at a face and hold it in my head while I drew it. That would be convenient, but it's not essential. I manage with what I've got. It's certainly less of a problem than my <a href="http://opinionade.blogspot.com/2006/07/are-you-sure-weve-met-before.html" target="_blank">face blindness</a>, which can make it difficult to make friends (because I treat people I've had interesting conversations with like total strangers). I think of aphantasia more as a curious condition.<br />
<br />
At the same time, now that I realize how much people use their mind's eye, I feel aphantasia actually makes me more of an alien than my face blindness. I don't just lack a capability others have; I fundamentally use my brain differently than everyone else. (Between my face blindness, aphantasia, and perhaps an <a href="http://opinionade.blogspot.com/search?q=hearing" target="_blank">auditory processing disorder</a>, I have to wonder exactly how much my brain is diverging from the rest of humanity's.)<br />
<br />
It also makes me wonder: is there anything else? Will I learn someday that there is something else other people can do that I didn't realize was possible? Are there other phrases that I've been taking figuratively when they are literal? Do people really <i>shoot</i> the breeze? Do bad dancers really have two left feet? Can people do handsprings when they're happy? Do hearts actually jump when people feel joy and break when people are sad?<br />
<br />
Right now, I <i>think</i> I know how atypical my brain is, but I am prepared to learn, once again, that I don't know the half of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-1060857973869674232016-04-05T01:34:00.001-04:002016-04-06T02:33:52.046-04:00Sanders, Clinton, and the Agonizing Process of Deciding Which One to Vote ForIn 2008, I voted for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the New York primary. It was a decision I couldn't help second guessing in subsequent years, as Obama floundered amidst Republican opposition. My mother had been right; he didn't have the experience for the job.<br />
<br />
I wondered if Clinton would have done better, and hoped that she would run in the future so I could find out. Now that has happened, and yet I find I'm strongly drawn to Bernie Sanders in much the way I was to Obama. I have to wonder; if I follow my heart, am I going to regret it a second time?<br />
<br />
-----------------<br />
<br />
Clinton seemed terrific when she was first lady, smart and progressive, but as my senator she was suspect, displaying a mushy moderation that suggested she was more into positioning herself than changing the world. Then she voted in favor of a preemptive war in Iraq, which meant, I thought, that she was either too stupid to recognize the Bush administration's bullshit (detailed in the run-up to the war by the progressive press) or was simply taking a spineless, politically advantageous position.<br />
<br />
Obama had been against that war. He also promised that his universal health plan wouldn't include a requirement that people buy health insurance; as someone who couldn't afford insurance, I was worried about facing fines. He spoke beautifully and offered a vision of a better, more hopeful world.<br />
<br />
Unlike his most ardent fans, I never expected Obama to turn the U.S. into a progressive paradise. He was, after all, a politician, and bound to break the hearts of true believers. But I was still hugely disappointed by his meekness; he seemed the sort who would bring Roberts Rules of Order to a knife fight.<br />
<br />
------------------<br />
<br />
So here we are again. A man full of fire and fury, promising great things that might be impossible, versus a far more experienced woman who voted for a terrible war and offers less ambitious but far more concrete plans.<br />
<br />
For a lot of people, it's an easy decision. Either Sanders is an impassioned visionary who will lead a modern revolution and Clinton is a corrupt hack with no principles who will hand the country over to the billionaire class, or Clinton is a brainy progressive feminist with deep experience whose realpolitik approach will move us forward while Sanders is an unelectable, impractical gadfly whose nomination is a Republican wet dream.<br />
<br />
What I see are two smart, progressive, and imperfect candidates, either of which would be a million times preferable to even the least crazy Republican. Philosophically, Bernie is almost a perfect match for me, a fellow progressive who looks at enlightened Scandinavian countries and asks, why can't we do that? But as annoying as practical considerations are, they cannot be avoided. I have to ask, which candidate is more likely to win the election, and which candidate, if elected, is more likely to accomplish good things? Also, which candidate is more likely to royally screw up?<br />
<br />
ELECTABILITY<br />
<br />
Electability is a big consideration when choosing a nominee, and in a normal political environment, electability would be Clinton's best friend. She is better known than Sanders, with more political experience. Sanders is an elderly agnostic Democratic Socialist; which normally would make him the most unelectable candidate in the world.<br />
<br />
But let's face it, this is a weird year. Voters are sick of a political system that doesn't work and seems custom made for a wealthy elite. The Republican nominee is likely to be Donald Trump, a no-nothing blowhard with a frightening ability to sucker people in with his big daddy authoritarian promises and his constant lies and policy shifts.<br />
<br />
Against Trump, Hillary is certainly the adult in the room, and in a sane country where voters want the reasonable, thoughtful candidate over the ticking time bomb, she could easily beat him. But in a year where people are obsessed with "authenticity," and shooting from the hip, Clinton's carefully triangulated positions and coziness with Wall Street are more damaging than in a typical year. And her history of Republican-manufactured scandals has given her low trustworthy ratings with voters (I'm not saying that's fair, since all the problems I have with her are not the problems the Republicans have created, but it's still a consideration).<br />
<br />
Sanders seems better positioned to beat Trump at his own game, out-shouting him, mocking his stupidity, while also being blindingly smarter than him. If people really want big changes, Sanders versus Trump offers a clear-cut choice. Sanders could win over Trump-ites, although the be fair, the reverse may be true as well; a lot of voters seem to just want to disrupt the system but aren't that picky about how it's done.<br />
<br />
While Clinton's downside is that she has been softened up by years of molehills turned into mountains by the right, Sanders' downside is he hasn't experienced any real attacks at all. The Democrats' primary campaign has been pretty civilized. While the candidates are increasingly snippy, there is no real mud-slinging - no questioning of citizenship, no spousal slams, no mocking of physical attributes. I don't think he's even been attacked all that hard for saying up front he's going to raise taxes (claiming this will be balanced out by health insurance savings) which he would get slaughtered with in a general election.<br />
<br />
What happens when Sanders gets into a savage knife fight with someone like Trump or Cruz? Does Sanders have any terrible skeletons in his closet? I doubt it. Can the Republicans create one? Sure. These are the people who used John Kerry's military heroism <i>against</i> him. Can Sanders withstand the tremendous heat? We don't know. We know Hillary can; she's been living on the sun for years.<br />
<br />
Of course, the increased polarization of the electorate means the candidates might barely matter at all, because almost all the Democrats and Republicans will vote for their party, even if they hate the candidate. This gives the final decision to those freakishly unpredictable independents. In this case, enthusiasm and getting out the base is really important, and Sanders seems to have the edge there.<br />
<br />
It is also possible that either candidate will win in a landslide due to a third-party candidacy for the conservatives if Trump is the nominee or a third-party run (or just a lot of sniping) from Trump if he isn't. Although things could get patched up with a Cruz-Trump ticket, which would be ... interesting.<br />
<br />
<br />
EFFECTIVENESS<br />
<br />
Then there's the question of who can get more done.<br />
<br />
Think of it this way. You have a stone quarry in the middle of a swamp, and you would like the stones mined, carried to a faraway hill, and built into a mansion. One contractor tells you it's impossible, but she can get enough stones to the edge of the swamp to build a decent, reasonably dry home, and maybe you can build a better house later. She has detailed blueprints.<br />
<br />
The other contractor says he will build that mansion on a hill, guaranteed. He will move heaven and earth to make it happen. He has a bunch of notes on post-its.<br />
<br />
If she's right then voting for him will get you a bunch of stones littered along the path to the hill. But if she's wrong, you're living by the side of the swamp when you could have one hell of a view.<br />
<br />
Who do you hire?<br />
<br />
The pro-Clinton argument is simply that she knows how to work the levers of power. She knows how to deal, how to compromise, knows when to hold them and knows when to fold them.<br />
<br />
She will build on what's here. She will tweak Obamacare, trying to get it closer to what it should be. She will try and push through a few more financial regulations. She will navigate the treacherous path. She will be sensible<br />
<br />
But she'll never even try for the mansion on the hill. She doesn't believe in it.<br />
<br />
Neither did Obama. He always started with a reasonable position, something centrist and practical that deserved wide support, and then was slapped down by Republicans who painted his most modest proposals as the works of a wild-eyed, America-hating Muslim anarchist.<br />
<br />
Obama tried to be reasonable, and that failed because the other side was unreasonable. Sanders would not make that mistake. He would make huge progressive proposals. And while he might not get free college or a single-payer system, not starting at the center could be a powerful negotiating tactic.<br />
<br />
What worries me about Sanders is that when asked how he will bring these miracles to pass, he says we need people to rise up, we need a revolution. But how does that happen? Politicians casually ignore what the majority want (better gun control laws, for example) in favor of what donors and lobbyists want. Even if Sanders could get people to demand the same things he demands (and this country is so polarized that this is unlikely), politicians entirely concerned with their own little gerrymandered districts are not going to join the Sanders revolution. This is a big, unwieldy country; it can only turn so sharply.<br />
<br />
Still, Ronald Reagan created a pretty major shift in this country, and if Sanders can't turn the U.S. into Denmark, he could still, in theory, push it as far left as Reagan pushed it right.<br />
<br />
Sanders is worrisomely vague about how he's going to pay for everything. He claims that his policies will lower health costs and improve the economy, and if that's true then we might be able to afford Sanders' big dreams. But what is the difference between Sanders' claims and those of Republicans who say if they cut taxes on the rich the economy will improve so much that the government will have more money than ever?<br />
<br />
Once again though, the point may be trivial; if Republicans keep control of congress, neither Sanders nor Clinton is going to get anything done. The Republicans are perfectly happy to obstruct the government forever if need be. The stones will never be mined, the house never built. The contractor won't matter.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, if Democrats get control of both the house and the senate, Sanders' big dreams could make a better country than Clinton's little ones.<br />
<br />
DANGEROUSNESS<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Presidents can do a lot of damage. George W. Bush managed to tank the economy, plunge us into war and destabilize the mid-east. Bill Clinton pushed through laws that vastly increased the racial disparity in prison populations. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm on the fence in terms of Clinton's electability and her efficacy, but I am far more worried about her capacity to screw things up. Because while Clinton's supporters offer her vast foreign policy experience as a positive, it is what worries me most.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First off, she voted for the Iraq war. At the time, I saw that as pure politically expediency, but it could also represent her general inclination to muck around in other countries and hope for the best. After all, she lobbied for regime change in Libya, which just further messed up the midle east.<br />
<br />
I strongly believe in Obama's foreign policy tenet: don't do stupid shit. The history of U.S. foreign policy is the history of screwing up other countries, breaking their governments and alienating their citizens. Clinton, alas, has the interventionist mindset that leads to doing stupid shit, sometimes for very noble reasons. Obama gets a lot of grief because he realizes that America cannot remake the world; Clinton doesn't seem to get that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't think Sanders wants to recreate the world in America's image. I don't think he's interesting in nation building. My feeling about Sanders lack of foreign policy experience is best summed up by the satirical op-ed, <a href="http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/sorry-bernie-bros-your-candidate-just-doesnt-have--4201" target="_blank">Sorry Bernie Bros, Your Candidate Just Doesn’t Have The Foreign Policy Experience Necessary To Prop Up A Pro-Western Dictatorship</a>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The danger of Sanders is the danger of unintended consequences. The more powerful the pill, the bigger the side effects. The more radical the change, the greater the unpredictable ripple effects. Sanders' sweeping proposals are tricky. A $15 minimum wage in Los Angeles is likely to affect the local economy differently than in Podunk, Idaho. Sanders could find himself spending an entire term trying to make one change work the way he expected it to. It's a sizable risk.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
---------------------<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
Sanders versus Clinton is not an exact repeat of Obama versus Clinton. Sanders has more experience in government than Obama had in 2008 and he's a far more progressive candidate. But once again I find myself torn between a candidate whose positions are appealing but whose practicality is suspect and a shifting compromiser who has a plan for getting things done but may not want to do the things I want her to. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maybe I was wrong to vote for Obama in 2008, but maybe I wasn't. Could Hillary really have done any better against the anarchists of the Republican party? We'll find out if she becomes president, and then I might be able to decide whether my Obama vote was a mistake. But I'll probably never know for sure whether Bernie or Hillary was the right candidate for 2016. All I know for certain is, whatever happens, I'll always wonder about the path not taken.</div>
<br />
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-42691723448479462782016-02-17T11:43:00.002-05:002016-04-06T02:34:09.352-04:00Bernie, Hillary, Sexism, Authenticity, and Elizabeth WarrenIt is undeniable that, as a woman, Hillary Clinton faces a sexism that makes campaigning tricky. Pundits will obsess over stupid things like her hair and dress, they will scrutinize her actions as a wife in a way male politicians are never scrutinized for their marital conduct, they will look for signs of "womanly weakness" at every turn.<br />
<br />
That being said, Clinton is not struggling to beat Bernie Sanders because, as Catherine Rampbell <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-double-standard-behind-why-millennials-love-bernie-sanders/2016/02/04/dce7b458-cb85-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html">suggested</a> in the Washington Post, Sanders' maleness allows him a freedom to seem authentic that Clinton doesn't have. Sanders, windblown and loud, can express passion; Clinton, constantly under watch by a sexist media, must be meticulous.<br />
<br />
But its' not Sanders Brooklyn accent and mussed hair that make him seem authentic, nor are they the key to his popularity. And to see that, all one has to do is look at Elizabeth Warren.<br />
<br />
With all due respect to Bernie, he was not most progressives first choice for president. Warren was the one every ultra-liberal democrat pictured taking the White House. Because Warren, with her kempt hair, midwest accent and pricey blazers, exudes exactly the passion and authenticity that Rampbell says sexism prevents Clinton from attaining.<br />
<br />
One pundit suggested that Clinton's problem is we have cast her in the role of a grandmother, and when she raises her voice we feel we're being scolded. But Warren raises her voice all the time. She admonishes her foes with great force.<br />
<br />
The difference is who is being admonished. If Warren is a grandmother, she is one who will see kids teasing another kid and run outside and chase them away with a broom. When she admonishes, she admonishes for you.<br />
<br />
Hillary is something different. Like Warren, she can get angry, but often she's angry with all of us. She's angry because we keep throwing her vote for the Iran war back at her, angry because we asked for an explanation for her private email server, angry that people keep choosing dreamers like Obama and Sanders over a practical, sensible woman like herself. Hillary is the grandmother who tells you that you're a bad child if you don't eat your broccoli.<br />
<br />
Hillary's authenticity problems are not because she can't be seen with messy hair. Her authenticity problems are because she's inauthentic. She answers questions with an evasive lawyerliness. She makes unsupportable claims, as when she said that being a woman makes her a true establishment outsider when her resume is remarkably insider-ish. She seems inauthentic because she switches positions and then says, oh no, I never really said I supported that, I just said I was open to it.<br />
<br />
Authenticity isn't a male/female thing. Romney seemed inauthentic. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, comes across as passionate and authentic, even when she's being crazy and incoherent.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying we should choose our political representatives based on that indefinable thing called authenticity. There are slick, talking-point-driven politicians like Nancy Pelosi who seem phony but still do a terrific job, and it's possible in the end that Clinton's experience, wonkiness, and nuts-and-bolts practicality would make her a better president than Sanders - I'm having difficulty making up my mind who to vote for.<br />
<br />
What I'm saying is, if Elizabeth Warren were the candidate instead of Bernie, she would have the same fans, receive the same big crowds, and be attacked in the mainstream press for many of the same reasons. But no one would say she was doing so well because of sexism.<br />
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-19706280182671632172016-01-27T15:41:00.003-05:002016-10-06T11:09:47.623-04:00On Trigger Warnings and Toughening UpWhen I first heard about trigger warnings, my reaction was not positive. To me, it seemed as though weak people were demanding to be catered to. People go through terrible things, but so many terrible things happen that the world can't be expected to grind to a halt for every traumatized soul. Trigger warnings struck me as the height of a coddling culture devoted to preventing discomfort. The world is a hard place, and people need to just fucking toughen up and deal with it.<br />
<br />
I've been thinking this way for some time now, not really questioning my underlying visceral response. And then today an old remark happened to pop into my head; a simple question, asked years ago, that made me reconsider the whole idea of oversensitivity.<br />
<br />
------------------<br />
<br />
In the first grade, I had just moved to a new neighborhood and was very unhappy about it. On the first day of school, while the class waited outside for the teacher, who was late, some kids started to tease me. I don't know what they said, but I started crying.<br />
<br />
Tears are to children what blood is to sharks, and there was a verbal pile on. I panicked and started screaming, "STOP IT," which to keep going with the shark analogy, was like when the leg gets bitten off and the blood gushes out, pulling in more sharks until there is a huge feeding frenzy.<br />
<br />
With that, my fate was sealed. I was the kid who screamed, and my peers all wanted to try that out for themselves. I was famous for it; people who had never met me would say, "hey, are you that kid that screams?" even when I no longer did.<br />
<br />
Of course, some children go through far, far worse, but it still sucked. I avoided people as much as possible, hiding out in the library. I rarely had friends, and some of the few I had eventually turned on me, teasing me to gain traction with the other kids. From my perspective, the truest movie ever made about childhood is <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114906/reviews-141">Welcome to the Dollhouse</a>, the only movie I ever saw where I wasn't annoyed that the movie's "loser" character had a better childhood than I had.<br />
<br />
I worked very hard to not cry and scream. It was a lot of work, it took many years, but by high school I was doing pretty well. Emotions were the enemy and the source of all my troubles, and it felt like a victory every time I managed to feel less and react less.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
<br />
Decades later, I was talking to someone. I was talking about how fucking oversensitive people are, for example, people I dated. They would get upset about stupid little things. I could make some mild comment and they would just freak out. They needed to toughen up.<br />
<br />
And the guy said, "you mean the way you had to toughen up when you were a kid?"<br />
<br />
That was a "woah" moment. I was being asked, did I feel other people should tamp down on their emotions, curtail their feelings, so I could be insensitive? And the answer was no.<br />
<br />
But it's easy to fall into old mental habits, which is why my first reaction to trigger warnings was still, toughen up, you big babies.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
<br />
When I was perhaps ten years old, or whatever age it is when parents finally feel they can let their kids wander about on their own (an age that seems to have shifted since I was young), my parents gave me the lordly sum of $5 to spend at the state fair while they went off and did their own thing. I imagined going on a lot of rides, but I was distracted by a ring toss game. I bought three rings for a quarter, and missed three times. The guy running the booth said, don't give up, I'll give you four rings for another quarter. Then 5 rings, then 8, then 12, until I had spent the entire $5. There would be no midway rides for me.<br />
<br />
Ashamed and heartbroken, I told my parents what had happened. They could have let that stand as a valuable lesson in the dangers of life, in the need to watch out for people, in the irrevocable nature of our mistakes, but they didn't. Instead, my dad hunted down the guy who managed the arcade and complained. He said it was wrong to take advantage of the naivety of a young child, and the ring toss guy had to give me my money back.<br />
<br />
So I didn't learn that people will screw you, life is unfair and you have to accept it. I learned that people don't have the right to screw you, and that if they try, you should make a stink about it.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
<br />
Toughening is a natural part of life. If you walk barefoot on gravel, your soles will toughen over time. If you don't like shoes, then that toughening is a good thing. It protects you from pain. It allows you to function. That's what toughening up is about; making adjustments that allow you to function.<br />
<br />
For many of us, toughening up means growing a thicker skin. It means, in the words of Marge Simpson, that you, "Take all your bad feelings and push them down, all the way down past your knees, until you're almost walking on them."<br />
<br />
There's a problem with that sort of toughening, beyond the discomfort of walking on your own feelings. If it is necessary to toughen up because the world sucks, then by toughening up, you are agreeing to the world sucking.<br />
<br />
So you toughen up, and when people are mean to you, you laugh it off. If your boss mistreats you, you live with it. Everyone's got problems, there's nothing you can do except to grin and bear it.<br />
<br />
When we insist that asking for trigger warnings is a result of being weak and coddled, we are demanding that traumatized people (and very few of us aren't, to some degree, traumatized) be tough.<br />
<br />
But perhaps the insistence on trigger warnings is simply a different variety of toughness. Perhaps being tough is demanding that people show sensitivity to your needs. Perhaps you are tough if you refuse to let people make you swallow your feelings.<br />
<br />
Some people argue that it's a cold, cruel world, and if we cater to college students now, they'll be in for a shock when they enter an adult life of asshole bosses and vindictive neighbors. What will these coddled kids do in the real world, when they can no longer run to daddy or teacher?<br />
<br />
But maybe we have things backward. Perhaps this toughening up is why we are so quick to accept abuse. Perhaps demanding trigger warnings could lead to demanding fair treatment at work and home. Perhaps the assholes of the world rely on all these people who use their toughness to power through all the shit heaped upon them. Perhaps toughened people accept abuse that sheltered people would rebel against. Perhaps encouraging people to toughen up is making the world a safer for assholes.<br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
In the classic Shel Silverstein song, "A Boy Named Sue," <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-hYLL7Gpos">famously recorded</a> by Johnny Cash, a father names his son Sue before leaving his family. Sue faces a lot of ridicule and fights back, becoming tough and quick-witted. As an adult, he meets his father, and tries to kill him, at which point dad says the name was to make him tough and he was pleased to see it worked.<br />
<br />
The moral Sue took away? Don't fucking give your son a girl's name. Being tough enough to almost kill your dad isn't worth all the pain it takes to get you there.<br />
<br />
Toughening up didn't make me a better or happier person. What has made me a better, happier person has been years spent stripping those protective emotional layers away, allowing myself to soften just a little. Still, I always quickly wipe my tears away during a sad movie; letting people see me cry will always feel dangerous.<br />
<br />
How would my life have been different if I'd been more coddled? If teachers hadn't watched me being tormented and thought, that's just kids being kids? If school administrators had tried to stop the bullying instead of writing me off as that kid who screamed because he wanted attention? If a psychiatrist had, instead of putting me on Ritalin (which had no effect because I was sensitive, not fucking hyperactive), admitted that bullying cannot be remedied by medicating the victims of it.<br />
<br />
We'll never know, but I'm in favor of coddling a generation and seeing how it turns out.<br />
<br />
I'll never be so soft as to need trigger warnings, and I'll probably always feel a visceral dislike of them. Trigger warnings are stupid and the people who insist on them are big fucking babies. And I say to all you big fucking babies, be tough enough to refuse to toughen up. See if it makes a better world.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-46148668516903084572016-01-23T17:24:00.001-05:002016-01-23T17:24:39.025-05:00The Tin GOPThe Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz was once (as you know if you read the book) a real man. He lost his body parts one by one to a cursed axe, until he was all tin, and thus, no longer human.<br />
<br />
I suspect the moment other people thought of him as a tin man was earlier than when he thought of himself that way. There was probably a time when he was still thinking of himself as a human with a lot of tin when everyone else was thinking of him as tin with a few flesh parts. It always takes some time to acknowledge a new reality.<br />
<br />
-------------<br />
<br />
I've been fascinated by the panic of mainstream Republicans over the state of their party. Donald Trump, a racist loud-mouthed populist with no clear political philosophy beyond yellow at minorities, stands a good chance of being the Republican nominee for president of the United States. If he doesn't win, it will probably be Ted Cruz, a right-wing extremist hated by his colleagues whose only goal seems to be to cause the gears of government to grind to a halt.<br />
<br />
Right wing pundits are wringing their hands and crying out, "THIS IS NOT OUR PARTY." They insist they are the party of small, sensible government and free-market ideals, not the party of racism and demagoguery and intolerance.<br />
<br />
But of course, they are that party. Racism, intolerance, and rabid hatred of seemingly most of the country have been, for a long time, as much a part of the GOP as helping the rich at the expense of the poor.<br />
<br />
Republicans once actually did believe in government as a tool to make things better. For all his flaws, it was Richard M. Nixon who started the EPA. But the party has moved much further to the right since then. The modern Republican party began with Reagan, an arch conservative who by today's standards is still too liberal for the GOP.<br />
<br />
The GOP's cursed axe was the Tea Party. The Tea Party was fueled not by a consistent political philosophy (they would protest against government entitlements while demanding the government not cut any entitlements they enjoyed), but by rage at gun laws and the dewhitening of America, and a general sense that they were getting screwed by "them."<br />
<br />
The Republicans saw the Tea Party as a large voter block that they could use to gain and hold onto political power. They embraced the Tea Party, they supported Tea Party Candidates, the chose Sarah Freaking Palin as a vice presidential candidate, all to get those Tea Party voters to come out and help them crush the Democrats. They raised their voices, questioned Obama's citizenship, swift-boated John Kerry, and allowed stupidity and craziness to take a place of honor in the party.<br />
<br />
And without them realizing it, everything they saw as classic conservatism was being chopped away.<br />
<br />
Right now the leading GOP presidential candidates, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, are all Tea Partiers. The are all <i>extremely </i>right wing. And the percentage of Republicans who support them make up a strong majority of the party. Republicans fed the Tea Party like that plant in Little Shop of Horrors, and my, how it has grown.<br />
<br />
Now that the last vestige of human flesh is gone, the heart is absent, and the GOP is 100% tin, conservative pundits are screaming that something has to be done before the Republican party is destroyed.<br />
<br />
But there is no more Republican party now, there is only the Tea Party. Eventually, the few remaining Republicans will have to accept that.<br />
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-25404036639433478882014-12-19T12:09:00.002-05:002016-04-06T02:38:05.923-04:00the mind of a seat snatcher revealed, accidentally I've always been both fascinated and disgusted by people who take up extra seats on a crowded subway. The people who feel their shopping bag needs a seat more than their fellow passengers. What kind of a person is that?<br />
<br />
I mean, there are those weird people who put a bag on a seat and stand next to it, and while that's a waste of a seat, at least with them you can say that they just don't understand the appeal of sitting. They're happy to stand so it may just not occur to them that others like to sit.<br />
<br />
But those people who sit next to their bag (or, as sometimes happens, between two bags) know the importance of sitting down, because they're <i>doing </i>it. They know that when you're on the train, it's better to sit. they just don't care that they're preventing someone else from sitting.<br />
<br />
It drives me crazy. Inspired by "<a href="http://mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain.tumblr.com/">Men Taking Up Too Much Space on the Train</a>," I've even considered creating a Tumblr called "Bags That Need a Seat More Than You Do," but that's a project for a later time.<br />
<br />
Sometimes I just want to ask these people, what the fuck? What sort of entitled person thinks that their own comfort is all that matters?<br />
<br />
One seat snatcher has answered that question in an article in Salon meant to be about racist white people that turned out instead to be about the writer's own narcissistic selfishness.,<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/listen_when_i_talk_to_you%E2%80%9D_how_white_entitlement_marred_my_trip_to_a_ferguson_teach_in/">The article</a>, <i>'“Listen when I talk to you!”: How white entitlement marred my trip to a Ferguson teach-in.'</i>, by Brittney Cooper, begins thusly:<br />
<blockquote>
On Friday, I was on the train to New York to do a teach-in on Ferguson at NYU. Beats headphones on, lost in thought, peering out the window, I suddenly saw a white hand shoving my work carry-on toward me. Startled, I looked up to see the hand belonged to a white guy, who was haphazardly handling my open bag, with my laptop perched just inside to make space for himself on the seat next to me.</blockquote>
So, a woman sits down on a train, puts her bag next to her, puts on headphones and stares out the window.<br />
<br />
In an empty train, I will put a bag on the seat next to me, but if I do that, I constantly monitor the train to make sure it's not getting full. If the train starts to fill up, I put my bag on the floor, or my lap, because I don't want to be an asshole. If I'm wearing my bulky winter coat, I pull it close around me so it doesn't block the other seats. I have bad feet, I have bad knees; I know how important a seat is.<br />
<br />
Cooper acknowledges that the train was full, and says she understands why someone would want to sit. But she objects to someone picking up her bag after failing to get her attention. She says he should have tried harder to get that attention, although if she thought moving her bag was a sign of white male privilege, it's hard to believe that a tap on the shoulder or a white hand waved between her eyes and the window would have not have set her off as well.<br />
<br />
What she never acknowledges in the article is that she had no right to take up an extra seat. No, "yes, I was in the wrong to take an extra seat on a crowded train, but it is inexcusable to grab someone's bag." Because it really is an asshole move to grab someone's bag; in spite of my bad feet I would never do that.<br />
<br />
Cooper seems very angry that a white man did this, but it's hard to believe she would have been that much happier if a black man had grabbed her bag, or a pregnant white lady, or an elderly Korean. And that could have happened; I think we all know that pushy intrusiveness is not limited to any one race.<br />
<br />
That's the fascinating thing about assholes; they will unselfconsciously tell you what assholes they are because they feel completely justified in all their asshole behavior. I'm sure that white guy would be willing to sit down and write an article about how he had to grab some stranger's bag and move it with the some obliviousness to his breach of social norms. Rather than being an article about white entitlement, this is simply an article about two entitled assholes facing off.<br />
<br />
Most people in the comments section reacted as I have, taking her to task for her own bad behavior. But there is the occasional comment that says, "white people just don't get it." This is a pretty common statement when discussing racism, and a true one. White people don't know what it's like to live in a society where they are considered the other, the ones to be mistrusted and watched out for. We didn't grow up in a society where a "flesh-colored" band-aid is off-white, where the white guy is the television detective and the black guy is the street-wise junkie, where a preponderance of black faces in a neighborhood makes it "bad." We totally don't understand the black experience.<br />
<br />
But what does that have to do with being a jerk? Does it mean black people get a pass for being assholes? Is that part of reparations?<br />
<br />
An asshole is an asshole. It is condescending to say we are not going to hold Brittney Cooper to account because she's black and upset about Ferguson. It is patronizing to say, "well, she's black,<br />
she has a right to be an ass," and unfair to all the polite people of all races who show consideration for their fellow humans.<br />
<br />
When that guy grabbed her bag she had a choice. She could think about how her inconsiderate behavior created a situation, or she could decide that the real problem was racism. She chose the latter, and that tells me a lot about the sort of person who lets you stand so their bag can sit.Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-64644648381823010992014-07-11T17:12:00.004-04:002017-10-10T11:05:42.400-04:00The Trankey Do Transformation: How Hard Could It Be to Redub a Two-Minute Dance Video?<i>This is a long and detailed explanation of the process by which I re-dubbed and extended the Spirit Moves Trankey Do video. As with the video itself, it is possible that this is interesting to no one except me. The video can be viewed <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYRrz_pfaT0">here</a>.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Context: An Overview of Spirit Moves</b><br />
<br />
In the 1930s, a German Immigrant dancer named Mura Dehn discovered the Savoy Ballroom, inspiring her to spend decades documenting Jazz Dance. The result is the five-hour documentary <a href="http://www.amazon.com/THE-SPIRIT-MOVES-History-1900-1986/dp/B001M3X5HO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1405111367&sr=8-2&keywords=spirit+moves">Spirit Moves</a>.<br />
<br />
If you watch the chunks of Spirit Moves on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RZK-LyksG4">youtube</a>, you'll notice that the music never quite matches the movement. Recording sound and video was not as simple as it is now, and it appears Dehn simply recorded the dance and dubbed the music in later.<br />
<br />
One of the things Dehn captured was the Trankey Do (referred to as the "Trunky Doo" in a Spirit Moves title card, one of many alternate spellings; Wikipedia says it's Tranky Doo, for what that's worth.)<br />
<br />
<b>The Beginnings: Learning a Dance from Videos, and a Bright Idea</b><br />
<br />
A few weeks ago, I decided I would teach myself the Trankey Do. There are a number of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJbA5utL37w">youtube</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMS5_wBYcQE">videos</a> where the steps are broken down and other videos that show <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S24Xmg4p4WQ">it</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ84yReF8aE">performed</a>. The steps themselves are listed on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranky_Doo">Wikipedia</a> and <a href="http://lindywiki.wikispaces.com/Tranky+Doo">LindyWiki</a>.<br />
<br />
Everyone seems to do the routine a little differently, so I figured I'd go to the earliest recorded version in Spirit Moves, featuring Al Minns, Leon James, and Pepsi Bethel. (While Pepsi is sometimes credited as the routine's choreographer, swing history Bobby White makes a <a href="https://swungover.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/the-mysterious-history-of-the-tranky-doo/" target="_blank">persuasive case</a> that it was originally choreographed by Frankie Manning and later extended with the simpler final moves by Minns and James.)<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I couldn't dance along to the Pepsi video because the song dubbed in - The Dipsy Doodle - was one beat off. The first move, Fall off the log, traditionally starts on 8, but it was dubbed to start on 1. It felt wrong when I tried to dance along.<br />
<br />
I decided to redub the sound to match the dance. I figured it would be easy.<br />
<br />
<b>A Simple Tweak: The Right Music on the Right Beat</b><br />
<br />
Because of the Spirit Moves video, dancers nowadays usually do the routine to the Dipsy Doodle, but according to wikipedia and other sources it was originally danced to Erskine Hawkins' <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFeFaZoj2QY">Tuxedo Junction</a>. I figured as long as I was changing the soundtrack, I might as well be authentic.<br />
<br />
Hawkin's version of Tuxedo Junction on youtube was too slow for the video, so I edited them together with Vegas Pro 12, which allowed me to speed up the music. I got the speed so it matched the first few eights fairly perfectly and got the opening kick on the 8 where it belonged. I called it a success and uploaded it to youtube.<br />
<br />
There was something strange though. While the first part of the video was close to other versions, I found that there were places where the dancers were not doing what was done in the instructional videos; for example, they were doing the knee slap on 7 instead of 8. I assumed that over the years the routine had been altered somewhat, but eventually I realized what the real issue was.<br />
<br />
<b>Getting Ambitious: Completing the Routine</b><br />
<br />
The Spirit Moves video does not show the complete Trankey Do, fading out around the Paddles. I found a couple more old Trankey Do videos on youtube. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKXdy7Fie2I">One</a> has only the first third of the routine, but the other, which was danced over the end credits of some old TV show, has Al Minns and Leon James doing the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFMrnjkYkFM&list=PLB92ED01ED29FAC0A">whole thing</a> very fast. The quality is terrible and a big chunk shows Al and Leon in the distance behind the band, but the part missing from the Spirit Moves video is clearly filmed in spite of the credit text. I took that video and slowed it down to match the music. Then I synced it up so the Droop Boogies matched between the two videos and I dissolved there from one to the other.<br />
<br />
When I danced along, I realized there was a bit missing from the end - there were only two shouts, instead of four, so I repeated the first shout a couple of times to fill out that section. Then I put it up on youtube, and since you can't replace youtube videos with new versions, I put a link in the first video pointing to this "better" one.<br />
<br />
<b>The Realization: This Isn't Right. At All.</b><br />
<br />
I could now dance along to an authentic old school video of the entire Trankey Do routine. But as I did, I found there were some places where the second half seemed out of sync. I edited it again. I felt like there might be a difference between the Spirit Moves and TV Credits versions regarding where the Boogie Drops fell, and put them a couple of beats apart. I uploaded that version, then realized that if I compared the TV credits version with what I'd done, Al and Leon were on different beats entirely. I needed to start again.<br />
<br />
At this point I decided to make a basic assumption; regardless of how the routine might have changed over the years, Al Minns and Leon James would be doing the same routine on TV that they did for Mura Dehn. Therefore, both routines should have the Eagle Slide happen on the same count in the same place in the music, and my goal was to make that happen in my video.<br />
<br />
But while Al and Leon kicked on 8 on TV, Pepsi was kicking on 2, even though he synced up beautifully in the beginning of the video. So I began to look very carefully at where things went off.<br />
<br />
First, there's a cutaway during the second of the Apple Jacks, and I realized that when the video goes back to a long shot, things are no longer in sync. I cut the video there and slid it forward a few tenths of a second until it matched, then stretched the cutaway, which doesn't really sync up well anyway, so it looked fairly seamless.<br />
<br />
But that wasn't enough. It seemed as though the dancers were no longer dancing at the same speed. Did the cutaway represent a transition between <i>two different takes</i>?<br />
<br />
I tried changing the speed of the dancers, and it got better, but it was still off.<br />
<br />
<b>The Realization: I Have Embarked on a Fool's Errand</b><br />
<br />
Then I began to think about the music, and I realized I had been making the foolish assumption that Erskine and the dancers were both keeping the beat with machine-like accuracy.<br />
<br />
Was this likely? What <i>were</i> the dancers listening to anyway? A 78 record? A friend with a harmonica?<br />
<br />
I got a metronome and checked its beat against Hawkins' song, and sure enough, there is no steady beat that will consistently match that song. It speeds up and slows down, varying by as much as 10 bpm. I found the same thing when comparing the soundless Spirit Moves video against that metronome.<br />
<br />
I started watching the Spirit Moves without sound, just counting the steps, and going by the number of steps while ignoring the music, the Eagle Slide appeared to happen on 8. But it wasn't working with the music. For some reason, the dancers rush right before that Eagle Slide, as though that guy with a harmonica sped up or skipped a note and the dancers just kept with him.<br />
<br />
At this point I decided to do something extreme. If I counted the dance (as I was editing, I was counting everything outloud), the Crazy Legs after the jump starts on 1. There was no way to make that happen with minor speed shifts. I made a cut in the middle of the jump and slid the whole thing over around half a second, leaving a moment of blank video in its place. Now everything was where it should be - more or less.<br />
<br />
I needed to get the TV credits part in better shape. At least here I had the original music as a guide to when they did what step, but once again, beats weren't accurate, and I had to fiddle with some chunks to get things synced up. Not perfectly synced , but enough so that I could dance along without getting totally thrown off.<br />
<br />
While I had previously been uploading a new version to youtube every time I completed one, this time I decided to spend some time dancing along with this one to make sure that I finally had what I wanted. This was good, because I kept thinking of further tweaks.<br />
<br />
First off, I realized I shouldn't leave Pepsi hanging in the air for 4 beats. I put the jump back together and took a clip of the landing and stretched it out so that Pepsi is simply crouched and waiting for a while. Later I decided it would be better to slow down the section before the jump a little so I didn't have to pad the pause as long, although this created an obvious slow motion quality to the jump.<br />
<br />
The jump into the Crazy Legs was still an issue, because I couldn't jump that slow. Studying the video some more, I concluded that it would make sense if he jumped so that he landed on 5 (without the padding he would land on 3 in my edit), then jumped into the squat on 7. I moved thing around until he was making a very slow jump turn on 3 and 4. It was still unrealistic, and it seemed more likely he would start the jump after the 3. I stretched the first three beats so that instead of putting his foot down on 2 before the jump it doesn't come down until 3. That seemed to make sense, looked more-or-less right, and I could dance along.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>And That's It ... I Hope</b><br />
<br />
At this point the Spirit Moves video was as close as I thought I could get it. Oh, I could get it closer if I were to break the video into tiny pieces and stretch and contract each of them to perfectly match the music, and every time I see something that's a little off I'm tempted to move it into place, but I've already sunk hours and hours into this "simple" project and I just can't take much more. It also occurred to me that it might have made more sense - since my focus was on the dance - to edit the music to fit the dance rather than vice versa, but I'll leave that experiment to someone else.<br />
<br />
Was it worth it? Perhaps. Breaking the dance down so finely, and doing the steps on the right beat and on the wrong beat (I still think the knee slaps on 7 works really well) means I have an unusually strong sense of how Trankey Do is constructed. But if I knew it was going to take the five or six hours I spent on video editing rather than expected half hour, this video would not exist.<br />
<br />
<br />Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-82819281873817790002013-10-29T14:31:00.001-04:002016-10-06T11:18:29.286-04:00explaining the explicable: why white people shouldn't wear blackfaceOn facebook, a friend posted an amusing flowchart called <a href="http://twitpic.com/78vher">Should I Wear Blackface on Halloween?</a> This flowchart is a response to yet another year of pictures of people wearing <a href="http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/2013/10/halloween-blackface-racism.html">blackface at parties</a>.<o:p></o:p>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another friend, one who is smart and generally well informed, wrote to say, what’s the big deal with blackface? Suprisingly, he was not familiar with the history of <a href="http://black-face.com/">minstrel shows</a>, and seemingly unfamiliar with the controversy in general. And while yet another facebook friend’s reply was basically to say, “don’t do it, just don’t, because you shouldn’t,” that didn’t seem to completely satisfy him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For a lot of people, the rule that white people shouldn’t wear blackface is self-evident, but actually, very little in life is self-evident. Self-evident is when an alien came from a distant galaxy and you told him something people do and he says, oh, that makes total sense. And I don’t think an alien would instantly grasp the blackface issue, because it’s contextual and historical. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So I wanted to try and answer the question. In fact, I’m going to give three answers: the answer that’s generally given, a consideration of what blackface implies, and finally a personal, why-I-wouldn’t-do-it-answer. I was originally just going to post an answer in the facebook thread, but then another friend posted his contention that it’s okay to use makeup to match skin tone for the sake of veracity, and since my middle answer is concerned with that, I figured I’d put this on my blog and tag them both.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>My Three Answers to Why Shouldn't White People Wear Blackface<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b>
<b>I</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Most of the objection to blackface are contextual, of course. It started out in the minstrel shows, and in early Hollywood, blacks (and Asians, and Native Americans) were generally played (and defamed) by whites. Even some black stars were required to darken themselves, like <a href="http://voices.yahoo.com/lena-horne-stormy-weather-stormy-life-dead-92-5997036.html">Lena Horne</a>, whose fair skin was considered too confusing for white audiences who wanted their blacks black and their whites white.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<b>II</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But I feel there’s a further issue with blackface. Consider, for a moment, the reverse; black people in whiteface. It’s not especially common, and I have a theory as to why. It’s because black people aren’t defining characters entirely according to their skin tone. If a black person dresses as Superman, are they going to put on white make-up, thus making an explicit statement that Superman is a white guy and black people can’t be Super Men? I doubt it. I think most black people think nothing of dressing as a leprechaun or a Viking or a Pilgrim without whitening their skin. Darkening your skin to reflect a character’s skin is, ultimately, a way of saying that race is a defining characteristic of who we are. Even that it's <i>the</i> defining characteristic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So the question becomes, is it really necessary to have dark skin to make the costume right? If I want to be, say, Martin Luther King, should I wear blackface? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, no, both because that would be the ultimate slap in the face for African Americans and because even with blackface, no one would know who I was. White guy in a suit or black guy in a suit, I’m still going to have to explain my costume to everyone, which to my mind makes it a kind of crappy costume. On the other hand, if I go as Flava Flav, do I need dark skin? If I wear a giant freaking clock around my neck, is anyone not going to know who I am if I’ve got white skin? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Would I look more like Flava with darkened skin? First, no, because we look nothing alike, and second, who cares, because I’m not an actor playing him in a movie. It’s a freaking Halloween costume. It’s supposed to be fun and clever and entertain other people; it’s not supposed to allow me to walk into his house and have his wife say, “Honey, so glad you’re home.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And yes, it does seem like a double standard that no one would make a big deal out of if someone wore whiteface. But the reason no one would make a big deal out of it is white people don’t care. There’s no history of us being denigrated by whiteface. We would all just go, hey, cool makeup.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>III</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I <a href="http://opinionade.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-murder-is-funnier-than-rape.html">wrote a while back</a> about the oddity of murder jokes being far more acceptable in modern society than rape jokes. I don’t make rape jokes, and I don’t wear blackface, because right now, these are both open wounds in our society, and why would I want to pick at an open wound? Blackface pisses off a lot of black people. I’m not black, so I’m not going to say, dude, get over it, grow a sense of humor.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m not saying you should never offend people. Lenny Bruce used offending people to great effect. I’m saying offending people shouldn’t be done cavalierly. If you’re a satirist who has a statement to make involving blackface, I could see that. If you’re a drunk guy at a costume party dressed like Little Black Sambo, you’re just an asshole.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-16267033425064069842013-10-05T13:10:00.000-04:002016-04-06T02:38:54.189-04:00Boehner Vows to Continue Mouthing Hollow Statements for Duration of Shutdown<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWzcvvQRmFkty4B2kqobAVtJfqEaGeJYXuNW8cSf1E1fQSgNH1v41VIwtPhESiNr8WDQUQ07T9lR9X-s0Xv4AIujj9nj3jzNdnxfEoT1uLbvJMgHdj9jOZGo8c2F9G7LI4PAbpVA/s1600/John_Boehner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWzcvvQRmFkty4B2kqobAVtJfqEaGeJYXuNW8cSf1E1fQSgNH1v41VIwtPhESiNr8WDQUQ07T9lR9X-s0Xv4AIujj9nj3jzNdnxfEoT1uLbvJMgHdj9jOZGo8c2F9G7LI4PAbpVA/s200/John_Boehner.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
In a press conference, Speaker John A. Boehner vowed to continue a series of vague, hallow sound bites until the budget crisis gripping the nation is resolved.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“The American people don’t want their government shut down, and neither do I. All we’re asking for is to sit down and have a discussion. We ought to do something about our spending problem and the lack of economic growth in our country. “Our goal here was to bring fairness to the American people under Obamacare.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“I could do this all day,” Boehner added.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
While the speaker is convinced that a steady stream of vague platitudes will lead to a budget settlement on Republican terms, a confident President Obama, noting that a majority of the American public blames Republicans for the shutdown, has doubled down on his rhetoric, saying yesterday that he would make the GOP “drop to its knees and squeal like a pig.”<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-76217843480650883982013-08-27T19:50:00.000-04:002016-04-06T02:42:06.144-04:00what articles about what the Miley Cyrus VMA performance says about our culture say about our cultureMiley Cyrus was on the 2013 VMAs, and stuck her tongue out, and wore very few clothes, and did something called "twerking" that is apparently a dance move that is so much a part of black culture that Miley's doing it, and having black background dancers, makes her a racist. And her desperate need for attention makes her a slut, and maybe crazy, and saying that is slut shaming, and part of the way society oppresses women's expression of their sexuality. And everyone - <i>everyone</i> - is horrified by Cyrus's performance, so horrified for so many different reasons that they have to watch it over and over again and write articles about it that link to the video of her dancing so other people can see it and be horrified and write their own articles about how terrible Cyrus is and how she made a horrible mistake by doing something that has upped her fame level by about 1000% (at last when I hear the names Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift I'll now be able to remember which one is which).<br />
<br />
Is the Miley Cyrus performance the most egregious overuse of sex in a song in the history of mankind? Is it the most horrific example of naked racism? Is it something shocking that we will never forget?<br />
<br />
I'm going to say no.<br />
<br />
So why is this getting so much attention? Well, first off, it was on the VMAs, which apparently a lot of people watch (honestly, my only objection to the Cyrus performance is it made me pay attention to the VMAs). It was a little (purposefully) over the top, and people started talking about it.<br />
<br />
And then bloggers and columnists all over the world said, oh my god if I wrote something about this that puts a spin on it then I'll get a billion blog hits. And when they got their billion hits, more people wrote about it.<br />
<br />
And that's it. The truth is, the Miley Cyrus performance is not especially important, except for being a textbook example of how the blogosphere, and modern journalism, which now takes its cue from the blogosphere, operates. Writers are sharks, and when first blood is spilled, there is a feeding frenzy.<br />
<br />
It is understandable. Even though I am not linking to the video, because if you haven't seen it already it's probably a conscious decision, just the fact that this article contains the phrases "miley cyrus" and "VMAs" means it will probably get more hits than anything I've written since I wrote an article about <a href="http://opinionade.blogspot.com/2006/12/kate-beckinsales-title-that-will-drive.html" target="_blank">Kate Beckinsale's breasts</a>. That still won't be a lot of hits - maybe a few hundred over the next year - but for serious bloggers, a popular article about the thing everyone is talking about can get them as much attention - almost - as Miley.<br />
<br />
Miley Cyrus tried to get attention, and succeeded, and while her performance is being lambasted everywhere, a whole slew of singers are already trying to figure out how <i>they</i> can get this much attention. And when they figure it out, expect much joyous wailing and gnashing of teeth.Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-47377429545659508702013-04-29T17:49:00.002-04:002013-04-29T17:49:24.157-04:00How comment spammers create dissimilar posts<br />
<dl style="background-color: white; clear: right; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 12px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: inherit; z-index: 0;"><dd style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 1.5em 3em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;"><div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
As the editor/guide for about.com's <a href="http://nintendo.about.com/">Wii Games channel</a>, one of my duties is to check comments to my blog to see if they are spam. Spam comments are generally generic comments along the lines of, "This is a very interesting piece, I look forward to other things you will right." The English is generally at least as awkward as that. Comments are often quite similar, but rarely identical. The user's name will generally then be linked to some website selling something.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
Today I found something interesting in the comments of a post. Instead of the usual little comment, there was this strange, long piece of text with brackets indicating sections that could be swapped in and out. There is paragraph after paragraph. So it is apparent that there is some sort of program that is supposed to grab a random paragraph from this text and then randomly choose a word or phrase from within each bracket in order to create a spam comment that cannot be kept out with a simple text filter because it will never be quite the same.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
I don't know if anyone will find that interesting besides me, but here is the entire thing. I realize aspiring spammers might find this a useful tool, but I think they probably all already know how to do this, so us non-spammers might as well understand how it works.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
{<br />{I have|I’ve} been {surfing|browsing} online more than {three|3|2|4} hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. {It’s|It<br />is} pretty worth enough for me. {In my opinion|Personally|In my view}, if all {webmasters|site owners|website owners|web owners}<br />and bloggers made good content as you did, the {internet|net|web} will be<br />{much more|a lot more} useful than ever before.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
|<br />I {couldn’t|could not} {resist|refrain from} commenting. {Very well|Perfectly|Well|Exceptionally well} written!|<br />{I will|I’ll} {right away|immediately} {take hold of|grab|clutch|grasp|seize|snatch} your {rss|rss feed} as I<br />{can not|can’t} {in finding|find|to find} your {email|e-mail} subscription {link|hyperlink} or {newsletter|e-newsletter} service. Do {you have|you’ve} any?<br />{Please|Kindly} {allow|permit|let} me {realize|recognize|understand|recognise|know} {so that|in order that} I {may just|may|could} subscribe.<br />Thanks.|<br />{It is|It’s} {appropriate|perfect|the best} time to make some plans for the future and {it is|it’s} time to be happy.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
{I have|I’ve} read this post and if I could I {want to|wish to|desire to} suggest you {few|some} interesting things or {advice|suggestions|tips}. {Perhaps|Maybe} you {could|can} write next articles referring to this article. I {want to|wish to|desire to} read {more|even more} things about it!|<br />{It is|It’s} {appropriate|perfect|the best} time to make {a few|some} plans for<br />{the future|the longer term|the long run} and {it is|it’s} time to be happy. {I have|I’ve} {read|learn}<br />this {post|submit|publish|put up} and if I {may just|may|could} I {want to|wish to|desire to} {suggest|recommend|counsel} you {few|some} {interesting|fascinating|attention-grabbing}<br />{things|issues} or {advice|suggestions|tips}. {Perhaps|Maybe} you {could|can} write {next|subsequent} articles {relating to|referring to|regarding} this article.<br />I {want to|wish to|desire to} {read|learn} {more|even more} {things|issues} {approximately|about} it!<br />|<br />{I have|I’ve} been {surfing|browsing} {online|on-line} {more than|greater than} {three|3} hours {these days|nowadays|today|lately|as of late}, {yet|but} I {never|by no means} {found|discovered} any {interesting|fascinating|attention-grabbing} article like yours. {It’s|It is} {lovely|pretty|beautiful} {worth|value|price} {enough|sufficient} for<br />me. {In my opinion|Personally|In my view}, if all {webmasters|site owners|website owners|web owners} and bloggers made<br />{just right|good|excellent} {content|content material} as {you did|you probably did},<br />the {internet|net|web} {will be|shall be|might be|will probably be|can be|will likely be} {much<br />more|a lot more} {useful|helpful} than ever before.<br />|<br />Ahaa, its {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious}<br />{discussion|conversation|dialogue} {regarding|concerning|about|on the topic of} this {article|post|piece<br />of writing|paragraph} {here|at this place} at<br />this {blog|weblog|webpage|website|web site}, I have read all that, so {now|at this<br />time} me also commenting {here|at this place}.|<br />I am sure this {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} has touched<br />all the internet {users|people|viewers|visitors},<br />its really really {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious} {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} on building up new {blog|weblog|webpage|website|web site}.<br />|<br />Wow, this {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} is {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious}, my {sister|younger sister} is analyzing {such|these|these kinds of} things, {so|thus|therefore} I am going to {tell|inform|let know|convey} her.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
|<br />{Saved as a favorite|bookmarked!!}, {I really like|I like|I love} {your blog|your site|your web site|your website}!</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
|<br />Way cool! Some {very|extremely} valid points! I appreciate you<br />{writing this|penning this} {article|post|write-up} {and the|and also the|plus the} rest of the {site is|website is} {also very|extremely|very|also really|really} good.<br />|<br />Hi, {I do believe|I do think} {this is an excellent|this is a great} {blog|website|web site|site}.<br />I stumbledupon it <img alt=";)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://0.tqn.com/f/wp/icon_wink.gif" /> {I will|I am going to|I’m going to|I may} {come back|return|revisit} {once again|yet again} {since I|since i have} {bookmarked|book marked|book-marked|saved as a favorite} it. Money and freedom {is the best|is the greatest} way to change, may you be rich and continue to {help|guide} {other people|others}.|<br />Woah! I’m really {loving|enjoying|digging} the template/theme of<br />this {site|website|blog}. It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s<br />{very hard|very difficult|challenging|tough|difficult|hard} to get that “perfect balance” between {superb usability|user friendliness|usability} and {visual appearance|visual appeal|appearance}.<br />I must say {that you’ve|you have|you’ve} done a<br />{awesome|amazing|very good|superb|fantastic|excellent|great} job with this.<br />{In addition|Additionally|Also}, the blog loads {very|extremely|super} {fast|quick} for me on {Safari|Internet explorer|Chrome|Opera|Firefox}.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
{Superb|Exceptional|Outstanding|Excellent} Blog!|<br />These are {really|actually|in fact|truly|genuinely}<br />{great|enormous|impressive|wonderful|fantastic} ideas in {regarding|concerning|about|on the topic of} blogging.<br />You have touched some {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious} {points|factors|things} here.<br />Any way keep up wrinting.|<br />{I love|I really like|I enjoy|I like|Everyone loves} what you guys {are|are usually|tend to<br />be} up too. {This sort of|This type of|Such|This<br />kind of} clever work and {exposure|coverage|reporting}!<br />Keep up the {superb|terrific|very good|great|good|awesome|fantastic|excellent|amazing|wonderful} works guys<br />I’ve {incorporated||added|included} you guys to {|my|our||my personal|my own} blogroll.|<br />{Howdy|Hi there|Hey there|Hi|Hello|Hey}! Someone in my {Myspace|Facebook} group shared this {site|website} with us so I came to {give it a look|look it over|take a look|check it out}. I’m definitely {enjoying|loving} the information.<br />I’m {book-marking|bookmarking} and will be tweeting this to my followers! {Terrific|Wonderful|Great|Fantastic|Outstanding|Exceptional|Superb|Excellent} blog and {wonderful|terrific|brilliant|amazing|great|excellent|fantastic|outstanding|superb} {style and design|design and style|design}.|<br />{I love|I really like|I enjoy|I like|Everyone loves} what you guys {are|are usually|tend to be} up too. {This sort of|This type of|Such|This kind of} clever work and {exposure|coverage|reporting}! Keep up the {superb|terrific|very good|great|good|awesome|fantastic|excellent|amazing|wonderful} works guys I’ve {incorporated|added|included}<br />you guys to {|my|our|my personal|my own} blogroll.|<br />{Howdy|Hi there|Hey there|Hi|Hello|Hey} would you mind {stating|sharing} which blog platform you’re {working with|using}? I’m<br />{looking|planning|going} to start my own blog {in the near future|soon} but I’m having a {tough|difficult|hard} time {making a decision|selecting|choosing|deciding} between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your {design and style|design|layout} seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something {completely<br />unique|unique}. P.S {My apologies|Apologies|Sorry} for {getting|being} off-topic but I had to ask!<br />|<br />{Howdy|Hi there|Hi|Hey there|Hello|Hey} would you mind letting me know which {webhost|hosting company|web host} you’re {utilizing|working with|using}? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 {completely different|different} {internet browsers|web browsers|browsers} and I must<br />say this blog loads a lot {quicker|faster} then most.<br />Can you {suggest|recommend} a good {internet hosting|web hosting|hosting} provider at a {honest|reasonable|fair} price?<br />{Thanks a lot|Kudos|Cheers|Thank you|Many thanks|Thanks}, I appreciate it!<br />|<br />{I love|I really like|I like|Everyone loves} it {when people|when individuals|when folks|whenever people} {come together|get together} and share {opinions|thoughts|views|ideas}.<br />Great {blog|website|site}, {keep it up|continue the good work|stick with it}!<br />|<br />Thank you for the {auspicious|good} writeup. It in fact was a amusement<br />account it. Look advanced to {far|more} added agreeable from you!<br />{By the way|However}, how {can|could} we communicate?<br />|<br />{Howdy|Hi there|Hey there|Hello|Hey} just wanted to give you<br />a quick heads up. The {text|words} in your {content|post|article} seem to be running off<br />the screen in {Ie|Internet explorer|Chrome|Firefox|Safari|Opera}.<br />I’m not sure if this is a {format|formatting} issue or something to do with {web browser|internet browser|browser} compatibility but I {thought|figured} I’d post to let<br />you know. The {style and design|design and style|layout|design} look great though!<br />Hope you get the {problem|issue} {solved|resolved|fixed} soon.<br />{Kudos|Cheers|Many thanks|Thanks}|<br />This is a topic {that is|that’s|which is} {close to|near to} my heart… {Cheers|Many thanks|Best wishes|Take care|Thank you}! {Where|Exactly where} are your contact details though?|<br />It’s very {easy|simple|trouble-free|straightforward|effortless} to find out any {topic|matter} on {net|web} as compared to {books|textbooks},<br />as I found this {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} at<br />this {website|web site|site|web page}.|<br />Does your {site|website|blog} have a contact page? I’m having {a tough time|problems|trouble} locating it but, I’d like to {send|shoot} you an {e-mail|email}.<br />I’ve got some {creative ideas|recommendations|suggestions|ideas} for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great {site|website|blog} and I look forward to seeing it {develop|improve|expand|grow} over time.|<br />{Hola|Hey there|Hi|Hello|Greetings}! I’ve been {following|reading} your {site|web site|website|weblog|blog} for {a<br />long time|a while|some time} now and finally got the {bravery|courage} to<br />go ahead and give you a shout out from {New Caney|Kingwood|Huffman|Porter|Houston|Dallas|Austin|Lubbock|Humble|Atascocita} {Tx|Texas}!<br />Just wanted to {tell you|mention|say} keep up the {fantastic|excellent|great|good} {job|work}!</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit;">
|<br />Greetings from {Idaho|Carolina|Ohio|Colorado|Florida|Los angeles|California}!<br />I’m {bored to tears|bored to death|bored} at work so I decided to {check out|browse} your {site|website|blog} on my iphone during lunch break. I {enjoy|really like|love} the {knowledge|info|information} you {present|provide} here and can’t<br />wait to take a look when I get home. I’m {shocked|amazed|surprised} at how {quick|fast} your blog loaded on my {mobile|cell phone|phone} .. I’m not<br />even using WIFI, just 3G .. {Anyhow|Anyways}, {awesome|amazing|very good|superb|good|wonderful|fantastic|excellent|great} {site|blog}!<br />|<br />Its {like you|such as you} {read|learn} my {mind|thoughts}!<br />You {seem|appear} {to understand|to know|to grasp} {so much|a lot} {approximately|about} this, {like you|such as you} wrote the {book|e-book|guide|ebook|e book}<br />in it or something. {I think|I feel|I believe} {that you|that you simply|that you just} {could|can} do with {some|a few} {%|p.c.|percent} to {force|pressure|drive|power} the message {house|home} {a bit|a little bit}, {however|but} {other than|instead of} that, {this is|that is} {great|wonderful|fantastic|magnificent|excellent} blog. {A great|An excellent|A fantastic} read. {I’ll|I will} {definitely|certainly} be back.|<br />I visited {multiple|many|several|various} {websites|sites|web sites|web pages|blogs} {but|except|however} the audio {quality|feature} for audio songs {current|present|existing} at this {website|web site|site|web page} is {really|actually|in fact|truly|genuinely} {marvelous|wonderful|excellent|fabulous|superb}.|<br />{Howdy|Hi there|Hi|Hello}, i read your blog {occasionally|from time to time} and i own a similar one and i was just {wondering|curious} if you get a lot of spam {comments|responses|feedback|remarks}? If so how do you {prevent|reduce|stop|protect against} it, any plugin or anything you can {advise|suggest|recommend}? I get so much lately it’s driving me {mad|insane|crazy} so any {assistance|help|support} is very much appreciated.|<br />Greetings! {Very helpful|Very useful} advice {within this|in this particular} {article|post}! {It is the|It’s the} little changes {that make|which will make|that produce|that will make} {the biggest|the largest|the greatest|the most important|the most significant} changes. {Thanks a lot|Thanks|Many thanks} for sharing!|<br />{I really|I truly|I seriously|I absolutely} love {your blog|your site|your website}.. {Very nice|Excellent|Pleasant|Great} colors & theme. Did you {create|develop|make|build} {this website|this site|this web site|this amazing site} yourself? Please reply back as I’m {looking to|trying to|planning to|wanting to|hoping to|attempting to} create {my own|my very own|my own personal} {blog|website|site} and {would like to|want to|would love to} {know|learn|find out} where you got this from or {what the|exactly what the|just what the} theme {is called|is named}. {Thanks|Many thanks|Thank you|Cheers|Appreciate it|Kudos}!|<br />{Hi there|Hello there|Howdy}! This {post|article|blog post} {couldn’t|could not} be written {any better|much better}! {Reading through|Looking at|Going through|Looking through} this {post|article} reminds me of my previous roommate! He {always|constantly|continually} kept {talking about|preaching about} this. {I will|I’ll|I am going to|I most certainly will} {forward|send} {this article|this information|this post} to him. {Pretty sure|Fairly certain} {he will|he’ll|he’s going to} {have a good|have a very good|have a great} read. {Thank you for|Thanks for|Many thanks for|I appreciate you for} sharing!|<br />{Wow|Whoa|Incredible|Amazing}! This blog looks {exactly|just} like my old one! It’s on a {completely|entirely|totally} different {topic|subject} but it has pretty much the same {layout|page layout} and design. {Excellent|Wonderful|Great|Outstanding|Superb} choice of colors!|<br />{There is|There’s} {definately|certainly} {a lot to|a great deal to} {know about|learn about|find out about} this {subject|topic|issue}. {I like|I love|I really like} {all the|all of the} points {you made|you’ve made|you have made}.|<br />{You made|You’ve made|You have made} some {decent|good|really good} points there. I {looked|checked} {on the internet|on the web|on the net} {for more info|for more information|to find out more|to learn more|for additional information} about the issue and found {most individuals|most people} will go along with your views on {this website|this site|this web site}.|<br />{Hi|Hello|Hi there|What’s up}, I {log on to|check|read} your {new stuff|blogs|blog} {regularly|like every week|daily|on a regular basis}. Your {story-telling|writing|humoristic} style is {awesome|witty}, keep {doing what you’re doing|up the good work|it up}!|<br />I {simply|just} {could not|couldn’t} {leave|depart|go away} your {site|web site|website} {prior to|before} suggesting that I {really|extremely|actually} {enjoyed|loved} {the standard|the usual} {information|info} {a person|an individual} {supply|provide} {for your|on your|in your|to your} {visitors|guests}? Is {going to|gonna} be {back|again} {frequently|regularly|incessantly|steadily|ceaselessly|often|continuously} {in order to|to} {check up on|check out|inspect|investigate cross-check} new posts|<br />{I wanted|I needed|I want to|I need to} to thank you for this {great|excellent|fantastic|wonderful|good|very good} read!! I {definitely|certainly|absolutely} {enjoyed|loved} every {little bit of|bit of} it. {I have|I’ve got|I have got} you {bookmarked|book marked|book-marked|saved as a favorite} {to check out|to look at} new {stuff you|things you} post_|<br />{Hi|Hello|Hi there|What’s up}, just wanted to {mention|say|tell you}, I {enjoyed|liked|loved} this {article|post|blog post}. It was {inspiring|funny|practical|helpful}. Keep on posting!|<br />I {{leave|drop|{write|create}} a {comment|leave a response}|drop a {comment|leave a response}|{comment|leave a response}} {each time|when|whenever} I {appreciate|like|especially enjoy} a {post|article} on a {site|{blog|website}|site|website} or {I have|if I have} something to {add|contribute|valuable to contribute} {to the discussion|to the conversation}. {It is|Usually it is|Usually it’s|It’s} {a result of|triggered by|caused by} the {passion|fire|sincerness} {communicated|displayed} in the {post|article} I {read|looked at|browsed}. And {on|after} this {post|article} Rayman Legends Developers Protest Delay. I {{was|was actually} moved|{was|was actually} excited} enough to {drop|{leave|drop|{write|create}}|post} a {thought|{comment|{comment|leave a response}a response}} {:-P|:)|;)|;-)|:-)} I {do have|actually do have} {{some|a few} questions|a couple of questions|2 questions} for you {if you {don’t|do not|usually do not|tend not to} mind|if it’s {allright|okay}}. {Is it|Could it be} {just|only|simply} me or {do|does it {seem|appear|give the impression|look|look as if|look like} like} {some|a few} of {the|these} {comments|responses|remarks} {look|appear|come across} {like they are|as if they are|like} {coming from|written by|left by} brain dead {people|visitors|folks|individuals}? <img alt=":-P" class="wp-smiley" src="http://0.tqn.com/f/wp/icon_razz.gif" /> And, if you are {posting|writing} {on|at} {other|additional} {sites|social sites|online sites|online social sites|places}, {I’d|I would} like to {follow|keep up with} {you|{anything|everything} {new|fresh} you have to post}. {Could|Would} you {list|make a list} {all|every one|the complete urls} of {your|all your} {social|communal|community|public|shared} {pages|sites} like your {twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile|linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed|Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile}?|<br />{Hi there|Hello}, I enjoy reading {all of|through} your {article|post|article post}. I {like|wanted} to write a little comment to support you.|<br />I {always|constantly|every time} spent my half an hour to read this {blog|weblog|webpage|website|web site}’s {articles|posts|articles or reviews|content} {everyday|daily|every day|all the time} along with a {cup|mug} of coffee.|<br />I {always|for all time|all the time|constantly|every time} emailed this {blog|weblog|webpage|website|web site} post page to all my {friends|associates|contacts}, {because|since|as|for the reason that} if like to read it {then|after that|next|afterward} my {friends|links|contacts} will too.|<br />My {coder|programmer|developer} is trying to {persuade|convince} me to move to .net from PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the {expenses|costs}. But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using {Movable-type|WordPress} on {a number of|a variety of|numerous|several|various} websites for about a year and am {nervous|anxious|worried|concerned} about switching to another platform. I have heard {fantastic|very good|excellent|great|good} things about blogengine.net. Is there a way I can {transfer|import} all my wordpress {content|posts} into it? {Any kind of|Any} help would be {really|greatly} appreciated!|<br />{Hello|Hi|Hello there|Hi there|Howdy|Good day}! I could have sworn I’ve {been to|visited} {this blog|this web site|this website|this site|your blog} before but after {browsing through|going through|looking at} {some of the|a few of the|many of the} {posts|articles} I realized it’s new to me. {Anyways|Anyhow|Nonetheless|Regardless}, I’m {definitely|certainly} {happy|pleased|delighted} {I found|I discovered|I came across|I stumbled upon} it and I’ll be {bookmarking|book-marking} it and checking back {frequently|regularly|often}!|<br />{Terrific|Great|Wonderful} {article|work}! {This is|That is} {the type of|the kind of} {information|info} {that are meant to|that are supposed to|that should} be shared {around the|across the} {web|internet|net}. {Disgrace|Shame} on {the {seek|search} engines|Google} for {now not|not|no longer} positioning this {post|submit|publish|put up} {upper|higher}! Come on over and {talk over with|discuss with|seek advice from|visit|consult with} my {site|web site|website} . {Thank you|Thanks} =)|<br />Heya {i’m|i am} for the first time here. I {came across|found} this board and I find It {truly|really} useful & it helped me out {a lot|much}. I hope to give something back and {help|aid} others like you {helped|aided} me.|<br />{Hi|Hello|Hi there|Hello there|Howdy|Greetings}, {I think|I believe|I do believe|I do think|There’s no doubt that} {your site|your website|your web site|your blog} {might be|may be|could be|could possibly be} having {browser|internet browser|web browser} compatibility {issues|problems}. {When I|Whenever I} {look at your|take a look at your} {website|web site|site|blog} in Safari, it looks fine {but when|however when|however, if|however, when} opening in {Internet Explorer|IE|I.E.}, {it has|it’s got} some overlapping issues. {I just|I simply|I merely} wanted to {give you a|provide you with a} quick heads up! {Other than that|Apart from that|Besides that|Aside from that}, {fantastic|wonderful|great|excellent} {blog|website|site}!|<br />{A person|Someone|Somebody} {necessarily|essentially} {lend a hand|help|assist} to make {seriously|critically|significantly|severely} {articles|posts} {I would|I might|I’d} state. {This is|That is} the {first|very first} time I frequented your {web page|website page} and {to this point|so far|thus far|up to now}? I {amazed|surprised} with the {research|analysis} you made to {create|make} {this actual|this particular} {post|submit|publish|put up} {incredible|amazing|extraordinary}. {Great|Wonderful|Fantastic|Magnificent|Excellent} {task|process|activity|job}!|<br />Heya {i’m|i am} for {the primary|the first} time here. I {came across|found} this board and I {in finding|find|to find} It {truly|really} {useful|helpful} & it helped me out {a lot|much}. {I am hoping|I hope|I’m hoping} {to give|to offer|to provide|to present} {something|one thing} {back|again} and {help|aid} others {like you|such as you} {helped|aided} me.|<br />{Hello|Hi|Hello there|Hi there|Howdy|Good day|Hey there}! {I just|I simply} {would like to|want to|wish to} {give you a|offer you a} {huge|big} thumbs up {for the|for your} {great|excellent} {info|information} {you have|you’ve got|you have got} {here|right here} on this post. {I will be|I’ll be|I am} {coming back to|returning to} {your blog|your site|your website|your web site} for more soon.|<br />I {always|all the time|every time} used to {read|study} {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} in news papers but now as I am a user of {internet|web|net} {so|thus|therefore} from now I am using net for {articles|posts|articles or reviews|content}, thanks to web.|<br />Your {way|method|means|mode} of {describing|explaining|telling} {everything|all|the whole thing} in this {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} is {really|actually|in fact|truly|genuinely} {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious}, {all|every one} {can|be able to|be capable of} {easily|without difficulty|effortlessly|simply} {understand|know|be aware of} it, Thanks a lot.|<br />{Hi|Hello} there, {I found|I discovered} your {blog|website|web site|site} {by means of|via|by the use of|by way of} Google {at the same time as|whilst|even as|while} {searching for|looking for} a {similar|comparable|related} {topic|matter|subject}, your {site|web site|website} {got here|came} up, it {looks|appears|seems|seems to be|appears to be like} {good|great}. {I have|I’ve} bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.<br />{Hello|Hi} there, {simply|just} {turned into|became|was|become|changed into} {aware of|alert to} your {blog|weblog} {thru|through|via} Google, {and found|and located} that {it is|it’s} {really|truly} informative. {I’m|I am} {gonna|going to} {watch out|be careful} for brussels. {I will|I’ll} {appreciate|be grateful} {if you|should you|when you|in the event you|in case you|for those who|if you happen to} {continue|proceed} this {in future}. {A lot of|Lots of|Many|Numerous} {other folks|folks|other people|people} {will be|shall be|might be|will probably be|can be|will likely be} benefited {from your|out of your} writing. Cheers!|<br />{I am|I’m} curious to find out what blog {system|platform} {you have been|you happen to be|you are|you’re} {working with|utilizing|using}? I’m {experiencing|having} some {minor|small} security {problems|issues} with my latest {site|website|blog} and {I would|I’d} like to find something more {safe|risk-free|safeguarded|secure}. Do you have any {solutions|suggestions|recommendations}?|<br />{I am|I’m} {extremely|really} impressed with your writing skills {and also|as well as} with the layout on your {blog|weblog}. Is this a paid theme or did you {customize|modify} it yourself? {Either way|Anyway} keep up the {nice|excellent} quality writing, {it’s|it is} rare to see a {nice|great} blog like this one {these days|nowadays|today}.|<br />{I am|I’m} {extremely|really} {inspired|impressed} {with your|together with your|along with your} writing {talents|skills|abilities} {and also|as {smartly|well|neatly} as} with the {layout|format|structure} {for your|on your|in your|to your} {blog|weblog}. {Is this|Is that this} a paid {subject|topic|subject matter|theme} or did you {customize|modify} it {yourself|your self}? {Either way|Anyway} {stay|keep} up the {nice|excellent} {quality|high quality} writing, {it’s|it is} {rare|uncommon} {to peer|to see|to look} a {nice|great} {blog|weblog} like this one {these days|nowadays|today}..|<br />{Hi|Hello}, Neat post. {There is|There’s} {a problem|an issue} {with your|together with your|along with your} {site|web site|website} in {internet|web} explorer, {may|might|could|would} {check|test} this? IE {still|nonetheless} is the {marketplace|market} {leader|chief} and {a large|a good|a big|a huge} {part of|section of|component to|portion of|component of|element of} {other folks|folks|other people|people} will {leave out|omit|miss|pass over} your {great|wonderful|fantastic|magnificent|excellent} writing {due to|because of} this problem.|<br />{I’m|I am} not sure where {you are|you’re} getting your {info|information}, but {good|great} topic. I needs to spend some time learning {more|much more} or understanding more. Thanks for {great|wonderful|fantastic|magnificent|excellent} {information|info} I was looking for this {information|info} for my mission.|<br />{Hi|Hello}, i think that i saw you visited my {blog|weblog|website|web site|site} {so|thus} i came to _return the favor_.{I am|I’m} {trying to|attempting to} find things to {improve|enhance} my {website|site|web site}!I suppose its ok to use {some of|a few of} your ideas!!\</div>
</div>
</dd></dl>
<div class="leavecomment" id="lvcm" style="background-color: white; border-top-color: rgb(239, 236, 230); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; clear: both; color: #333333; float: left; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 12px; margin: 0px; padding: 0.5em 0px 0px; text-decoration: inherit; width: 578px;">
</div>
Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5498062.post-75444755542858072952012-12-24T14:01:00.000-05:002016-04-06T02:45:36.055-04:00faith sucks, belief rules<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I’ve been thinking about the concept of faith a lot lately. This is due to my recent Bart Ehrman kick. Erhman is a biblical scholar focussed on the New Testament who specializes in textual criticism, which is the art of figuring out how much of the original ancient texts are reflected in the versions we have now. I never thought about this, but back in the days of hand copying mistakes were common, and some copyists would also purposely change texts. This means we don’t truly know exactly what was written by Plato or Confucius or, as Ehrman points out in books like Misquoting Jesus, the authors of the Christian bible.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Misquoting Jesus is a fascinating book that describes the attempts to figure out what parts of the New Testament are authentic. At times it reads like a detective novel, as he explains how textual critics compare writing styles and check other sources to figure out what is original and what was added later. Sometimes things were added long after the original documents were created - that “let he without sin cast the first stone” story is an example of that. Sometimes words were miscopied by barely literate copyists. Sometimes minor changes were made to, for example, deemphasize the role of women in the Christian religion or to deride the beliefs of competing Christian groups like the Gnostics (an interesting group who I learned about in another Ehrman book, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. They believed that the God of the Jews was a crazy asshole and that there is another, better, higher God to worship).</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Ehrman was brought up an evangelical Christian who considered the Bible the literal word of God, but he eventually concluded the book was very much man made, and that its authors each had their own points to make. He points out that Jesus is portrayed quite differently in each gospel; he says we must respect the authors by reading each story on its own, rather than doing a Jesus Christ Superstar-style mashup.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Misquoting Jesus made me wonder if Ehrman was still a Christian after coming to understand what a mish masch the New Testament is. And in the book I’m reading now, God’s Problem, I learned that Ehrman is, in fact, an agnostic. But not, apparently, because of the conclusions that lead him to write Misquoting Jesus.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Erman begins God’s Problem by saying that he has “lost his faith,” and I found that an interesting statement. He makes it sound as though he lost an appendage, like his hand, and he still misses it. And as I thought about it I realized that while he had faith, when I believed in God as a child, I only had belief. Which is a very different thing.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I believed in the existence of God when I was young. I also believed in the existence of Santa Claus. In both cases my belief was based on the information I had been given. My parents, who I considered a reliable source, told me there was a Santa Claus. They would take on any questions I had; when I asked how he could get down our skinny chimney, they would say they left the back door open for him.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">But then I discovered that not everyone believed in Santa Claus, I found the illogic of the Santa myth increasingly difficult to overlook. I expressed my doubts to my parents and they eventually admitted there was no Santa Claus.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">My path with God was very similar. I believed there was an all powerful supernatural being who had created everything and was in charge of the world. I used to talk to him, either asking him for a better life or, when I was in a more charitable frame of mind, asking him to end suffering throughout the world.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">By the time I was in Junior High, I discovered that not everyone believed in God, and just knowing that made me think about whether the whole God thing made sense. I concluded that it did not. I did ask the minister questions, but was unsatisfied with the answers.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Just as with Santa, I had a belief, I became more intellectually sophisticated, analyzed my belief and found it wanting, and decided to believe something different.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Erman became an agnostic not because the evidence for the existence of a savior was insufficient, but because he ultimately found he could not reconcile his faith in an all-powerful, all-loving God with the horrors of the world, both man-made horrors like war and natural horrors like disease and disaster. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I couldn’t help wonder though, why just the fact that the texts upon which his beliefs were based were an inaccurately copied set of documents written and chosen to fortify one of many competing views of Jesus. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">And I realized it all came down to faith. Because faith is not contingent on anything. Once you have faith, you don’t need proof. Proof is irrelevant. Ehrman could see that the New Testament was not the literal word of God but still believed in God and Jesus, because that’s what faith is; believing regardless of everything.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Ehrman’s problem was he had faith in a very specific God. I believed in God as a child, but I wasn’t that clear on what he did. I didn’t really think about the issues of being loving and all powerful yet allowing suffering, because I was not a sophisticated nine-year-old. By the time I could think about these things, I was done with God.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">God’s Problem is a book about how the bible deals with suffering, and he apparently found nothing in it that fit with his faith. His faith wasn’t, seemingly, in the God that tortured Job to win a bet with Satan, killing his family in the process, or the God who punished children for the sins of their parents. I still don’t understand why it took him so long to reach that point, but faith is a powerful thing.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Beliefs can be changed with new evidence; faith cannot be. Yet, insisting on proof for what you believe is considered somehow petty and mean. If you don’t believe in God, or ghosts, or psychics, or astrology, many people will see you as a cynic with no sense of childlike wonder, as though unquestioning belief is far more admirable than trying to really understand the world through careful study and a rational exploration of factual evidence. Instead, we admire what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness”; believing in something there is no proof for because you feel it in your gut.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">People love the famous editorial in which a newspaper man tells a little girl that yes, there is a Santa Claus, even if there’s no proof, a piece wonderfully rewritten by Greta Christina as </span><a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/12/23/no-virginia-there-is-no-santa-claus/"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">No Virginia, There is No Santa Claus</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, a paean to rational thought I found through a </span><a href="http://thefloatinglantern.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/merry-christmas-and-some-reflections-on-belief/"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">lovely post on the allure of irrational belief </span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">by my friend Tim Martin. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I don’t have faith. I don’t believe I have ever had faith. I have believed wrongly, but only because I was lacking information, or was trusting the wrong sources, or was too lazy to really consider all sides of an issue. But I can’t recall ever having blind faith in anything; I remain open to information refuting what I believe, and the model of the world I keep in my head is still constantly changing as new information arrives.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Certainly I have opinions I will not release. For example, I believe the world should devote more resources to feeding those who starve than to building weapons. This is not based on fact. Starvation is not inherently wrong, it is a natural part of nature. But I don’t think you could really talk me out of this belief - you can’t use facts to persuade me I shouldn’t worry about people starving to death. Even then, you could, if you martialed your facts, possibly persuade me that starvation is inherently unsolvable, and that attempts to feed the world would ultimately just make things worse. I haven’t heard such an argument, but I feel certain someone out there is ready to make it. And if a good case could be made, I would adjust my beliefs accordingly.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Faith is not as easy to adjust. It isn’t based on proof, so it cannot be disproved. Asking for proof is not faith, and in fact, those with faith would say wanting proof demeans faith. As Kris Kringle explains in Miracle on 34th Street, "<i>Faith</i> is believing when <i>common sense</i> tells you not to."<br /> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Thomas Paine once wrote that it would make no sense for God to give man the ability to reason and then insist that he not use that gift. It’s exactly the sort of reasonable statement that faith easily discounts. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">While faith is portrayed as beautiful, it actually an example of man at his most primitive, the confused cave man fearfully offering chickens to unseen spirits because he just doesn’t know any better. For centuries, man has been creating something beyond faith, something much, much better, based on rational thought and experimentation. I believe that is a good thing. But I have no faith in anything.</span>Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04343869580416843625noreply@blogger.com0