Or
Why CC was so cranky at work on Wednesday
You may recall that, like a good kid, I was going to go to sleep.
No such luck.
At 2 a.m., the CSO shakes me awake.
"We've got a problem," he said.
We have never, in our nine months of marriage or our five years of relationship before that, had a problem that necessitated waking CC up. CC sleeps badly and the CSO respects that, to be truthful even more than she does. To him CC's sleep is sacred, a fact that mildly freaks her out as when she was a kid, her father's sleep was sacred and her father hasn't turned out so well. But that's another confessional.
Upshot: Some guys who work for the Chalicemom who had been hired on the weekend to do some work on our house and garage had left something called "Gorilla Glue" lying around someplace and Stupid Dog had chewed open the container, leaving a big glob of glue on CC's Oriental Carpet that she got from her grandmother, who got it from CC's Great Uncle Woody's trip to somewhere nobody remembers 20 years ago. In looking on the internet for how to clean the rug before CC saw it and went postal, the CSO discovered that Gorilla Glue is deadly poisonous to dogs and expands in their little dog bellies, killing them in a slow and vomit-filled manner.
CC sleepily suggested calling an Emergency Vet and waited in bed until TheCSO came up to say that Animal Poison control had said that Stupid Dog needed a vet immediately.
We came downstairs and while the CSO got Stupid Dog, CC briefly mourned the carpet, examining the spot that will always look like a circle of glue four inches in diameter and sniffling for a moment before reciting the homeowner's Greek chorus: "We'll put a lamp over it."
The vet was very nice and very reasonable about the fact that we know nothing of this dog's past as he had been abandoned at our house by CC's other brother Jason (the semi-employable chef who only goes to jail for things like driving with a suspended liscense.) For awhile we had three unemployed chefs living in our basement, which was not nearly as cool as one would think as it turns out that Chefs regard cooking as work and when they are off the clock eat only Kraft Macaroni and Cheese.
When the chefs left, the dog stayed. When we asked Jason what the dog ate, he said "Deer."
We asked what he name was and Jason wouldn't tell us. So we named him after one of CC's clients. Jason would later freak out and say the dog's name was "Wolf." Too little too late. As far as his vet is concerned, the dog has the very fine name we gave him and as this incident has us facing the fact that we now own Stupid Dog, soon he will have a dog liscence under that name as well.
At 3:23 a.m., the vet told us that she's not sure if the lump in Stupid Dog's stomach is food or, well, glue. So Stupid Dog is getting a $600 night in the vet's for observation.
We went for breakfast.
"I'll have scrambled eggs, whites only. And toast, but dry wheat toast. A diet coke. And can I get fruit instead of hashbrowns? And bacon. No, just regular bacon."
So now I am back home, having left a message for my boss and hoping to catch a nap before I transfer the dog mid-morning to the non-emergency pet hospital which will be cheaper.
Damned dog.
CC
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query stupid. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query stupid. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Quick *ahem* postmortem on the Murder Mystery Dinner Theatre and excursus about my sucky January
I am very slowly learning the lesson that other people just aren't as into mysteries as I am.
This year we had a crime scene that people could examine themselves and there was a trashcan there with some trash and a clue in it*, and as far as I know, nobody ever even looked through the trash.
Last year, two people got whodunnit and why. This year, something like a dozen people got whodunnit, but nobody got why.
Both years that I've written the MMDT, I've gone around for days worrying that the solution to my mystery will be obvious and everyone will get it and I will look stupid, and so far both years the day after the MMDT, I feel sheepish that so few people got it and that I should have left more clues.
Part of it is that I am used to writing mysteries on paper where:
1. All of the clues are literally inches from your nose
2. If you don't get it, you don't mind.
In a murder mystery dinner theatre, people don't actually look very hard for clues or question people very carefully, but it's sort of weird and awkward when only a couple of people figure something out, or when nobody gets it.
I'll probably write it next year, too. So next year I will make it a little easier, but not too much easier. Sigh.
I spent a lot less time on this year's MMDT because my January has completely sucked. I was really sick for a week or so, my work has been really stressful over the last few weeks and school is complicated as well.
I had a really unpleasant experience in class last week where we were doing Hudson v. Michigan and the professor asked about potential consequences to the police no-knocking one's house**. People said the usual answers "Embarassment, property damage, greater chance of violence." I raised my hand and said that the police would likely kill one's dog.
Everybody laughed like either they thought I was kidding or it was just a really stupid answer in general. The professor said something snarky like "That's a new one."
There was only ten minutes left in class at that point and I spend said ten minutes googling and arranging a set of links about police raids where dogs have been killed, often in raids where the police had the wrong house. I assembled ten or so of them, most of them from the last six months. For pure spite reasons, I put the family dogs killed in front of little children on top. Then I sent the links to my professor.
Knowing that I was right about the dogs and that my answer hadn't been stupid, I left the class head held high. Then I got into the car and burst into tears because, hey, 100 people had just laughed at me to my face and my professor had mocked me. I called a friend as I drove home and poured out my tale of unjustified woe.
As she listened to my sniffling, my friend gently pointed out that the professor probably hadn't meant it the way I'd taken it and the rest of the class probably consisted of people who had never had their houses searched by the police, having not grown up with younger brothers who tended to get them into that sort of situation. I thought about it for a moment and conceded that she was correct that the tone of the discussion made it clear that for most of the rest of the class, police raids are something that happen to criminals, not people like them. That's a pretty crucial difference in point of view.
The professor sent out my links to the entire class. In class on Friday, several people said things like "Wow, CC, I had no idea!" and went on about the brutality of some of these raids.
Damn straight.
Now for people who didn't get the point the first time, an innocent person's dogs killed in a police raid are on the cover of the Washington Post Magazine.
I wish I'd been wrong, though.
Anyway, I'm at work at 8am for a reason and have hours to bill before I sleep.
CC
Ps. At noon on Monday, the small-town mayor who was a victim of the police raid that the post wrote about took questions on Washingtonpost.com
*We did California vs. Greenwood in my criminal procedures class like three days ago.
**My theory is that just about every UU has a civil rights or civil liberties issue that they know most people don't care about but that they feel is vitally important and a moral necessity that we deal with. Police raids are mine.
This year we had a crime scene that people could examine themselves and there was a trashcan there with some trash and a clue in it*, and as far as I know, nobody ever even looked through the trash.
Last year, two people got whodunnit and why. This year, something like a dozen people got whodunnit, but nobody got why.
Both years that I've written the MMDT, I've gone around for days worrying that the solution to my mystery will be obvious and everyone will get it and I will look stupid, and so far both years the day after the MMDT, I feel sheepish that so few people got it and that I should have left more clues.
Part of it is that I am used to writing mysteries on paper where:
1. All of the clues are literally inches from your nose
2. If you don't get it, you don't mind.
In a murder mystery dinner theatre, people don't actually look very hard for clues or question people very carefully, but it's sort of weird and awkward when only a couple of people figure something out, or when nobody gets it.
I'll probably write it next year, too. So next year I will make it a little easier, but not too much easier. Sigh.
I spent a lot less time on this year's MMDT because my January has completely sucked. I was really sick for a week or so, my work has been really stressful over the last few weeks and school is complicated as well.
I had a really unpleasant experience in class last week where we were doing Hudson v. Michigan and the professor asked about potential consequences to the police no-knocking one's house**. People said the usual answers "Embarassment, property damage, greater chance of violence." I raised my hand and said that the police would likely kill one's dog.
Everybody laughed like either they thought I was kidding or it was just a really stupid answer in general. The professor said something snarky like "That's a new one."
There was only ten minutes left in class at that point and I spend said ten minutes googling and arranging a set of links about police raids where dogs have been killed, often in raids where the police had the wrong house. I assembled ten or so of them, most of them from the last six months. For pure spite reasons, I put the family dogs killed in front of little children on top. Then I sent the links to my professor.
Knowing that I was right about the dogs and that my answer hadn't been stupid, I left the class head held high. Then I got into the car and burst into tears because, hey, 100 people had just laughed at me to my face and my professor had mocked me. I called a friend as I drove home and poured out my tale of unjustified woe.
As she listened to my sniffling, my friend gently pointed out that the professor probably hadn't meant it the way I'd taken it and the rest of the class probably consisted of people who had never had their houses searched by the police, having not grown up with younger brothers who tended to get them into that sort of situation. I thought about it for a moment and conceded that she was correct that the tone of the discussion made it clear that for most of the rest of the class, police raids are something that happen to criminals, not people like them. That's a pretty crucial difference in point of view.
The professor sent out my links to the entire class. In class on Friday, several people said things like "Wow, CC, I had no idea!" and went on about the brutality of some of these raids.
Damn straight.
Now for people who didn't get the point the first time, an innocent person's dogs killed in a police raid are on the cover of the Washington Post Magazine.
I wish I'd been wrong, though.
Anyway, I'm at work at 8am for a reason and have hours to bill before I sleep.
CC
Ps. At noon on Monday, the small-town mayor who was a victim of the police raid that the post wrote about took questions on Washingtonpost.com
*We did California vs. Greenwood in my criminal procedures class like three days ago.
**My theory is that just about every UU has a civil rights or civil liberties issue that they know most people don't care about but that they feel is vitally important and a moral necessity that we deal with. Police raids are mine.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
I have always had a low opinion
of people who say "Now how would you feel if someone did that to you?"
I've written on this topic before because I've had several friends in the past who liked to recite my minor sins back to me, always ending with that dumbass question. I've heard it applied to, among other sins, "kissing your ex at a party," "needing to work on the college newspaper when you have yet another boyfriend drama" and "poorly disgusing that I didn't like the romantic surprise you painstakingly prepared for me because you didn't know me very well and assumed I would love something I actually found mildly traumatic.*"
I always feel like responding "I would feel like a melodramatic, self-important idiot if I made a fuss about it." (Ok, I genuinely felt really bad about the romantic surprise at the time, though in retrospect, I don't have a lot of sympathy for planning romantic surprises for people one doesn't know very well.)
Anwyay, I'm sure with "how would YOU feel if..." the idea is that I will have a sudden, shocking revelation:
"Oh my gosh! If I had plans with a friend and they had to cancel a few days before because of a work crisis, I would feel...bad! How horribly I must have wounded you!"
(Cue dramatic, un-CC-like sobbing, wailing, moaning and begging of forgiveness,)
I think I've written before that my total disgust for anybody who uses this phrase dates back to a clingy, in retrospect completely mental college friend who used it constantly. Since, then, I've regarded it as a red flag that the person I'm dealing with might be a self-important pain-in-the-ass.
I'm fairly certain that for most of us, considering the "how would *I* feel" point is pretty much a reflex when we're about to do something that someone else will likely find unpleasant. For me it is always factored in to the cost benefit analysis I go through when making a choice about whether to, say, report someone who is giving me bad customer service, to say nothing of when I'm about to do something than might annoy a friend. So to me, there's something inherently quite insulting about asking someone to consider how they would feel in the same situation.
Anway, I've written all that before, though it has been a couple of years. Yet I find myself revisiting the idea today, because I've several times recently encoutered people who can't deal with having their own logic applied to themselves and actually haven't considered this point, and are in some cases in total denial. (Well, yeah, when you do the same thing I did, it's much worse, because of these minor distinctions that don't make much sense...)
And I am totally flummoxed by the mere existance of these people.
I've discussed this and similar issues with an admittedly snotty close friend who says that if you're going to argue with stupid people, you need to prepare yourself with the sort of logic that appeals to stupid people. This logic includes several variations on Pascal's wager, any political logic that fits on a bumper sticker, and yes, my least favorite question. But that's for winning an argument.
Usually I don't even bother to try to show stupid people they've wronged me and get an apology. It's always more work than it is worth.
So that's what I'm thinking about today. Suggestions?
CC
*This was not theCSO. TheCSO would never ask me that question. He's way too smart and way to aware that he and I think differently.
I've written on this topic before because I've had several friends in the past who liked to recite my minor sins back to me, always ending with that dumbass question. I've heard it applied to, among other sins, "kissing your ex at a party," "needing to work on the college newspaper when you have yet another boyfriend drama" and "poorly disgusing that I didn't like the romantic surprise you painstakingly prepared for me because you didn't know me very well and assumed I would love something I actually found mildly traumatic.*"
I always feel like responding "I would feel like a melodramatic, self-important idiot if I made a fuss about it." (Ok, I genuinely felt really bad about the romantic surprise at the time, though in retrospect, I don't have a lot of sympathy for planning romantic surprises for people one doesn't know very well.)
Anwyay, I'm sure with "how would YOU feel if..." the idea is that I will have a sudden, shocking revelation:
"Oh my gosh! If I had plans with a friend and they had to cancel a few days before because of a work crisis, I would feel...bad! How horribly I must have wounded you!"
(Cue dramatic, un-CC-like sobbing, wailing, moaning and begging of forgiveness,)
I think I've written before that my total disgust for anybody who uses this phrase dates back to a clingy, in retrospect completely mental college friend who used it constantly. Since, then, I've regarded it as a red flag that the person I'm dealing with might be a self-important pain-in-the-ass.
I'm fairly certain that for most of us, considering the "how would *I* feel" point is pretty much a reflex when we're about to do something that someone else will likely find unpleasant. For me it is always factored in to the cost benefit analysis I go through when making a choice about whether to, say, report someone who is giving me bad customer service, to say nothing of when I'm about to do something than might annoy a friend. So to me, there's something inherently quite insulting about asking someone to consider how they would feel in the same situation.
Anway, I've written all that before, though it has been a couple of years. Yet I find myself revisiting the idea today, because I've several times recently encoutered people who can't deal with having their own logic applied to themselves and actually haven't considered this point, and are in some cases in total denial. (Well, yeah, when you do the same thing I did, it's much worse, because of these minor distinctions that don't make much sense...)
And I am totally flummoxed by the mere existance of these people.
I've discussed this and similar issues with an admittedly snotty close friend who says that if you're going to argue with stupid people, you need to prepare yourself with the sort of logic that appeals to stupid people. This logic includes several variations on Pascal's wager, any political logic that fits on a bumper sticker, and yes, my least favorite question. But that's for winning an argument.
Usually I don't even bother to try to show stupid people they've wronged me and get an apology. It's always more work than it is worth.
So that's what I'm thinking about today. Suggestions?
CC
*This was not theCSO. TheCSO would never ask me that question. He's way too smart and way to aware that he and I think differently.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Moments that don't suck
Monday, still freaked out by Katrina stuff but well-aware I needed some air, I walked Stupid Dog two miles or so to the post office and two miles or so back. When I arrived at the post office, there was no one around. I put Stupid Dog's leash around the thing where you tie the ropes on the flagpole and gave him some water. I bought some stamps, mailed my stuff and was leaving when I happened to notice that the American Flag was still at full mast.
Not their fault. I don't think the order came until Rehnquist died. Wasn't that Saturday night?
I was cognizant of the fact that I did not remotely resemble a post office employee, yet I was never one for leaving well enough alone. So I walked up to the flag and undid the ropes. Just then, a car pulled up and a suspicious-looking old guy watched me as I lowered the flag. I think he thought I was stealing it.
It put it properly at half staff and he looked up at it and crisply saluted.
We waved at each other, smiling. He put something in the mailbox and drove off. I took stupid dog's leash and headed for home.
It was a nice moment.
CC
Not their fault. I don't think the order came until Rehnquist died. Wasn't that Saturday night?
I was cognizant of the fact that I did not remotely resemble a post office employee, yet I was never one for leaving well enough alone. So I walked up to the flag and undid the ropes. Just then, a car pulled up and a suspicious-looking old guy watched me as I lowered the flag. I think he thought I was stealing it.
It put it properly at half staff and he looked up at it and crisply saluted.
We waved at each other, smiling. He put something in the mailbox and drove off. I took stupid dog's leash and headed for home.
It was a nice moment.
CC
Monday, September 05, 2005
Diva Diet Tips
I try not to post too much about dieting, but I'm just back from walking stupid dog 4.6 miles so diet and exercise are on my mind.
I usually eat when I'm bored, so recently I've been trying to exercise when I'm bored. Stupid Dog gets walked a lot and I can safely ignore my cravings because I leave my money at home, because really, I'd look weird walking the dog and carrying a purse.
I always dress cute to walk the dog, in shorts or preferably a miniskirt. An encouraging smile is an encouraging smile.
(Another Diva diet tip: When you go out and plan to eat dinner but don't know where you will, don't carry cash. Even better, if you have an AmEx card only carry that one. They don't take AmEx at the burger joints (or at least most of them) and if you end up going someplace nice, you won't order the burger and fries because only a punk would eat a burget at a fish restaurant or something. You'll be poor, but thinner.))
CC
who noticed that Stupid Dog's reaction to the yappy dogs on the corner is to give them a look that's like "What's your problem?" and keep walking. He's a good dog.
Ps. Non-Dieters, why not buy some cookies from Peter. and help him pay for a new server.
I usually eat when I'm bored, so recently I've been trying to exercise when I'm bored. Stupid Dog gets walked a lot and I can safely ignore my cravings because I leave my money at home, because really, I'd look weird walking the dog and carrying a purse.
I always dress cute to walk the dog, in shorts or preferably a miniskirt. An encouraging smile is an encouraging smile.
(Another Diva diet tip: When you go out and plan to eat dinner but don't know where you will, don't carry cash. Even better, if you have an AmEx card only carry that one. They don't take AmEx at the burger joints (or at least most of them) and if you end up going someplace nice, you won't order the burger and fries because only a punk would eat a burget at a fish restaurant or something. You'll be poor, but thinner.))
CC
who noticed that Stupid Dog's reaction to the yappy dogs on the corner is to give them a look that's like "What's your problem?" and keep walking. He's a good dog.
Ps. Non-Dieters, why not buy some cookies from Peter. and help him pay for a new server.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Clarification
PG has distressed me greatly by writing:
(((However, I don't hew to the theory that THERE IS NO WHITE PRIVILEGE AT WORK HERE AT ALL.)))
Well, I can't speak for Joel, but I don't hew to that either.
As I wrote many responses ago, "I didn't say that it wasn't a factor, I just (a) don't think it's the deciding factor people keep claiming and (b) think it's a pretty defeatist thing to be focusing on at a time when defeatism is a really bad idea."
I wrote my post in response to Joel's response to two different posts:
This one, and this one, both of which focus heavily on the mistakes and drawbacks of the Republican ticket and come to the conclusion that Obama is so utterly lacking in flaws by comparison that his lack of clear victory must the the result of white privilege or racism, the first article going so far as to snot that the article is "For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege.*"
What they are missing is that many of those "drawbacks" aren't drawbacks at all when they are viewed in the light of Republican voters' clear and often-stated preference for candidates who aren't too eggheaded and have "lived it" in some sense or another. I'm sorry, people who think "If only John McCain had been an Ivy League constitutional scholar he would be doing SO MUCH BETTER in the polls" have no freaking clue how electoral politics works in this country.
Obama isn't just "not like me" because he's black. Yes, that's a part of it and you won't see me ever denying it. But it's not the whole story and in my view to say that the entire election turns on white privilege or racism (as the above-mentioned articles at least strongly imply) is first of all incorrect and secondly insane from a strategy perspective.
I do think that there are stupid people who won't vote for Obama straight up because he's black. I don't think there are very many people like that and I don't think that the stupid racist vote is a vote Democrats have often had in the past anyway, so I'm confused that all the sudden people appear to have been counting on it and are stressed about the fact that we won't have it.
Also, Bill Barr has a bit of a point in that I think that there are a lot of people who like the fact that Obama is black. I voted for Gore and Kerry and was basically pleased to do it, but when I vote for Obama, there's going to be a special thrill there because I know I'm going to be voting for the guy that I still think will be the first black president. I'm going to know that I'm doing my tiny part to make history**. That's pretty cool.
For the record, I don't think "making history" is a deciding factor either. If, say, Condoleeza Rice were running, the fact that she's black and a woman wouldn't be enough to get me to vote for her by any means***. But I do think Barr is right that the "making history" factor is in the mix, though he didn't put it the way I just did.
But anyway, I really think these articles focusing on the white privilege and racism elements are a bad idea even if they are correct.
I think doing anything that looks like either whining or justifying why we lost is, ahem, THE WORST THING WE COULD POSSIBLY BE DOING at this point when we need to be focused on energizing people and making people want to vote for our guy.
After all, if the election is already lost because of something our candidate can't change, we might as well all stay home, right?
Nobody likes a loser, so we need to stop talking about Obama like he's destined to be one.
We're ahead in the polls, kids. Let's not blow it now by talking like noble losers. Say what you will about the Republicans, they do not talk like losers. They play to win. Let's do that.
I don't want a moral victory. I want an actual one.
CC
*WHERE did liberals get the idea that talking to people who disagree like they are stupid is sound electoral strategy, and HOW can I disabuse them of this notion?
** And I don't know that many Republicans will be thrilled to tell their grandchildren that they voted AGAINST the first black president because they didn't like his stand on taxation. But that's just me talking.
*** But oh, goodness that election would be fun to watch. Condi vs. Hillary is still my dream matchup from an entertainment standpoint.
(((However, I don't hew to the theory that THERE IS NO WHITE PRIVILEGE AT WORK HERE AT ALL.)))
Well, I can't speak for Joel, but I don't hew to that either.
As I wrote many responses ago, "I didn't say that it wasn't a factor, I just (a) don't think it's the deciding factor people keep claiming and (b) think it's a pretty defeatist thing to be focusing on at a time when defeatism is a really bad idea."
I wrote my post in response to Joel's response to two different posts:
This one, and this one, both of which focus heavily on the mistakes and drawbacks of the Republican ticket and come to the conclusion that Obama is so utterly lacking in flaws by comparison that his lack of clear victory must the the result of white privilege or racism, the first article going so far as to snot that the article is "For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege.*"
What they are missing is that many of those "drawbacks" aren't drawbacks at all when they are viewed in the light of Republican voters' clear and often-stated preference for candidates who aren't too eggheaded and have "lived it" in some sense or another. I'm sorry, people who think "If only John McCain had been an Ivy League constitutional scholar he would be doing SO MUCH BETTER in the polls" have no freaking clue how electoral politics works in this country.
Obama isn't just "not like me" because he's black. Yes, that's a part of it and you won't see me ever denying it. But it's not the whole story and in my view to say that the entire election turns on white privilege or racism (as the above-mentioned articles at least strongly imply) is first of all incorrect and secondly insane from a strategy perspective.
I do think that there are stupid people who won't vote for Obama straight up because he's black. I don't think there are very many people like that and I don't think that the stupid racist vote is a vote Democrats have often had in the past anyway, so I'm confused that all the sudden people appear to have been counting on it and are stressed about the fact that we won't have it.
Also, Bill Barr has a bit of a point in that I think that there are a lot of people who like the fact that Obama is black. I voted for Gore and Kerry and was basically pleased to do it, but when I vote for Obama, there's going to be a special thrill there because I know I'm going to be voting for the guy that I still think will be the first black president. I'm going to know that I'm doing my tiny part to make history**. That's pretty cool.
For the record, I don't think "making history" is a deciding factor either. If, say, Condoleeza Rice were running, the fact that she's black and a woman wouldn't be enough to get me to vote for her by any means***. But I do think Barr is right that the "making history" factor is in the mix, though he didn't put it the way I just did.
But anyway, I really think these articles focusing on the white privilege and racism elements are a bad idea even if they are correct.
I think doing anything that looks like either whining or justifying why we lost is, ahem, THE WORST THING WE COULD POSSIBLY BE DOING at this point when we need to be focused on energizing people and making people want to vote for our guy.
After all, if the election is already lost because of something our candidate can't change, we might as well all stay home, right?
Nobody likes a loser, so we need to stop talking about Obama like he's destined to be one.
We're ahead in the polls, kids. Let's not blow it now by talking like noble losers. Say what you will about the Republicans, they do not talk like losers. They play to win. Let's do that.
I don't want a moral victory. I want an actual one.
CC
*WHERE did liberals get the idea that talking to people who disagree like they are stupid is sound electoral strategy, and HOW can I disabuse them of this notion?
** And I don't know that many Republicans will be thrilled to tell their grandchildren that they voted AGAINST the first black president because they didn't like his stand on taxation. But that's just me talking.
*** But oh, goodness that election would be fun to watch. Condi vs. Hillary is still my dream matchup from an entertainment standpoint.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Does anybody ever think or Google things?
A breathless email was sent to a mailing list I was on this afternoon. The original writer of the email had found this picture.
I swear, the second I saw it, I said to myself "Oh, everybody's saluting but the President. The band must be playing 'Hail to the Chief"
Needless to say, the text of the email was all about how the sender didn't know specifically what was going on in the picture, but picture was taken on Veterans day and how by not saluting Obama must have been showing disrespect to the troops.
Needless to say, when I went looking for what was going on during the Veterans Day Ceremony that Obama attended, I found video taken from another angle.
Yep, Obama had taken the stage and "Hail to the Chief" was playing. Obama wasn't not saluting the troops. He was not saluting himself. Because saluting yourself is stupid.
And we wouldn't want to be stupid, would we?
Sigh.
CC
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Someone totally unqualified to discuess the brown bag lunch issue, who has no clear opinion, weighs in anyway.
This refers to PB's post Brown Bag Lunch.
I should begin here by stating my biases. My primary bias that is relevant to this discussion is that I really hate anything that makes a cause I basically believe in look stupid.
So I will say that my bias at first leads me to question the point of having an issue with the term "Brown Bag Lunch."
Now, what sort of issue Starr King had with the term is a different question. The actual words of Melissa Mummert's article on the issue are:
At an all-school meeting one afternoon, a faculty member announced, "Because of the racist connotations of the phrase brown bag lunch, we will now be using the term BYOL, 'bring your own lunch'
The direction of people's indignation over this issue seems partially to hinge on whether they take "We" to mean "the administration or the people leading this meeting" or "all of Starr King, including you."
I'm going to take on faith that Mummert quoted the announcement accurately and say I find the sentence too ambiguous to make the call, an odd problem for a sentence about language usage to have. The SKSM students who commented on PB's post imply that the speaker just meant she was talking about how the administration was going to talk. To me that begs the question of why announce the change. Just make the change.
I don't get the need to make a big announcement about it, where the racist usage of brown bags must be explained to everyone who hasn't lived in New Orleans.
That sort of reminds me of how I didn't know that Marilyn Monroe died naked until I heard the part of that Elton John song where he complained that people talked about it too much.
The need to make the big announcement has a "Ta-Da! Look how sensitive we are being!" ring to it that strikes me as, well, Sinkford-esque. That said, I sincerely appreciate their not putting out a press release on the issue.
I do have another bias on this issue, though. Call it "live and let live unless people are getting hurt." I really don't care what people call their lunch meetings. If some people find "brown bag" offensive, I really don't mind just letting them have their way. I don't really have a dog in the fight.
As I analyze my thoughts, I'm realizing that the all-school meeting announcement is really what I have an issue with. And I suspect that I'm not alone on this among people who mocked the issue.
If PB, Jeff or anyone else who talked about how stupid it was would care to tell me if I'm alone on this one in the comments, I would appreciate it, but isn't the big announcement really the issue? If someone had quietly pointed out the issue to the administration and they had quietly made the change, would anyone care?
I object to the big announcement for several reasons.
1. It gives the impression that the speaker sees the new policy as some big thing to be proud of, a blow against racism. Do the listeners go home feeling SKSM has done its good deed for the day?
2. It really does sound ridiculous to anyone who hasn't given it thought, and to a fair percentage of people who have. Like people getting fired for using the word "niggardly," which has exactly zero to do with the n-word in meaning or in word origins, or having issues with the word "picnic," which has a widely-believed word origins story that isn't true, I think picking small, silly-sounding linguistic battles is ultimately damaging to a cause. '
3. The ambiguity of the phrasing and the administration's announcement really does imply a certain "we will tell you how to talk" PC bossiness that seems to naturally rankle people.
Anyway, that's where I got on the issue.
CC
I should begin here by stating my biases. My primary bias that is relevant to this discussion is that I really hate anything that makes a cause I basically believe in look stupid.
So I will say that my bias at first leads me to question the point of having an issue with the term "Brown Bag Lunch."
Now, what sort of issue Starr King had with the term is a different question. The actual words of Melissa Mummert's article on the issue are:
At an all-school meeting one afternoon, a faculty member announced, "Because of the racist connotations of the phrase brown bag lunch, we will now be using the term BYOL, 'bring your own lunch'
The direction of people's indignation over this issue seems partially to hinge on whether they take "We" to mean "the administration or the people leading this meeting" or "all of Starr King, including you."
I'm going to take on faith that Mummert quoted the announcement accurately and say I find the sentence too ambiguous to make the call, an odd problem for a sentence about language usage to have. The SKSM students who commented on PB's post imply that the speaker just meant she was talking about how the administration was going to talk. To me that begs the question of why announce the change. Just make the change.
I don't get the need to make a big announcement about it, where the racist usage of brown bags must be explained to everyone who hasn't lived in New Orleans.
That sort of reminds me of how I didn't know that Marilyn Monroe died naked until I heard the part of that Elton John song where he complained that people talked about it too much.
The need to make the big announcement has a "Ta-Da! Look how sensitive we are being!" ring to it that strikes me as, well, Sinkford-esque. That said, I sincerely appreciate their not putting out a press release on the issue.
I do have another bias on this issue, though. Call it "live and let live unless people are getting hurt." I really don't care what people call their lunch meetings. If some people find "brown bag" offensive, I really don't mind just letting them have their way. I don't really have a dog in the fight.
As I analyze my thoughts, I'm realizing that the all-school meeting announcement is really what I have an issue with. And I suspect that I'm not alone on this among people who mocked the issue.
If PB, Jeff or anyone else who talked about how stupid it was would care to tell me if I'm alone on this one in the comments, I would appreciate it, but isn't the big announcement really the issue? If someone had quietly pointed out the issue to the administration and they had quietly made the change, would anyone care?
I object to the big announcement for several reasons.
1. It gives the impression that the speaker sees the new policy as some big thing to be proud of, a blow against racism. Do the listeners go home feeling SKSM has done its good deed for the day?
2. It really does sound ridiculous to anyone who hasn't given it thought, and to a fair percentage of people who have. Like people getting fired for using the word "niggardly," which has exactly zero to do with the n-word in meaning or in word origins, or having issues with the word "picnic," which has a widely-believed word origins story that isn't true, I think picking small, silly-sounding linguistic battles is ultimately damaging to a cause. '
3. The ambiguity of the phrasing and the administration's announcement really does imply a certain "we will tell you how to talk" PC bossiness that seems to naturally rankle people.
Anyway, that's where I got on the issue.
CC
Monday, September 12, 2016
You can tell I really think I'm fucked when I start looking at hair colors - a stream-of-conciousness post
There are two stages to my terror when faced with a large personal/professional obligation:
1. Research
2. Primping
The first one of these is actually a pretty good reaction. When I am taking a matter seriously, I look it up.
Until very recently, I was constantly getting in trouble with my friends who were passionate about a subject. They'd say
"CC," (Truth be told only one set of very old friends calls me CC, but blog conventions must be honored) "This is an incredibly big deal! A is true!" and I'd say "huh." Then I'd go home, often worried, and I'd look it up and the next day I'd send them an email like.
"Hey, guess what. A is mostly true. But B is also sometimes true. So the situation is not quite so bad as you'd feared."
It turns out, it took me 37 years and change to understand, people who are passionate about things hate this. They want to focus on the black and white of the situation, and to be looking at an awful situation in its face. They want the situation to be as bad as they feel it is.
Some years ago, I lost a person who was extremely important to me over this. (No, not theCSO. TheCSO does this herself. Ours is a marriage in which being technically correct is the best kind of correct and we're both happy that way.) Anyway, this person who was very important to me got into an argument over a really silly topic and when I emailed some more information, this person who was very important to me decided not to be friends anymore because she was tired of fighting with me.
I wasn't FIGHTING, I thought at the time, I was HELPING.
I still never got my person back.
Sometimes in my dreams she calls me up and we work it out. Waking up is kind of a bummer.
Last year, I made another friend who was passionate about things. At one point, we talked it out and now when she says A is true, I am present for her in her truth because while I may have boring hair, I'm not stupid.
But back to the hair coloring.
This person I lost some years ago was something of a mother figure, and parenting is on my mind for reasons that I trust will become obvious though I haven't exactly figured out what I'm writing next because that's how this whole stream-of-consciousness thing works.
After the research phase, and I have had the research phase, ask me anything about guardianship law, comes the primping phase, in which I decide that if I am a mess inside, surely looking good outside will hide that. Even as I type, I'm aware that this is as stupid as it sounds. I kid you not, the night before my first law school class, I dropped like fifty bucks on those Isreali sea salt beauty products that they sell at the mall.
I wore entirely new clothes for both days of the bar and afterwards was tempted to burn them so I'd wear them for no lesser event. I didn't. I'm too cheap to do that and I wear unnatural fibers so the smell would have been awful.
So, yeah, when three days before my Aunt's guardianship hearing, I start checking groupon for a good deal on a cut, maybe some highlights to frame my face, that's a really bad sign.
Probate court in the District of Columbia is a very strange thing. My favorite thing about it, and I do have a favorite thing, is that they have the wills of various historical figures framed and up on the walls. I am totally not making this up. You can go to the DC probate court and see a page from Dolly Madison's will.
On Thursday, barring the unforeseen, I'm going to probate court to accept legal responsibility for my Aunt.
If you're my facebook friend, you've followed some of this. If you've been reading TheChaliceBlog for a really long time, you know her as TheChaliceRelative. Either way, she's my aunt, and she's 86* and she's not really my aunt anymore because she no longer knows some of the things my aunt knows.
She tells me I should lose weight because she's my aunt. That doesn't hurt my feelings because she's not anymore so I kinda don't give a fuck what she thinks of my physique. She has Schrodinger's personality and on Thursday it becomes my job to be responsible for her.
She's in a home that does a flawed but reasonable job taking care of her. They would like guardianship but I'm probably going to get it. I consider myself the world's okayest caregiver.
Last time she was in the hospital, I had to meet with the social worker when she was released.
"I'm what she's got," I said.
"What about your parents?" the social worker said.
"My dad's an unmedicated schizophrenic who has had a lot of strokes. My mom is occupied with him,"
"Does your aunt have any other brothers or sisters?"
"They're dead."
"What about you, do you have siblings?"
"My brothers are not in a position to care for other people." I paused. "I'm what she's got."
It went on like that.
I'm what she's got now, and I'm not sure that the probable result of Thursday will change much of that. Mostly, it will be me doing more paperwork. I was explaining this to her last Friday and she said that it was bizarre to imagine me with that job because I was so terrible at arithmetic. She said that because she's my aunt, it didn't hurt because she's not.
Right now I'm thinking about Pema Chodron, with whom I'm obsessed right now, writing:
“To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest."
As the hospital social worker painstakingly drew out of me above, I don't have much of a nest as far as blood relations go. (My self-constructed nest of friends is awesome, though.)
Still, there's something to note in getting thrown out of the two twigs stuck together that is the nest represented by an aunt who is partly not. I don't feel alive and fully human and completely awake.
I feel like getting my hair cut and colored in hopes that maybe when I look in the mirror, I will see a different person, ideally one more equipped to deal with the situation.
So, anyway, I'm thinking tomorrow I will call up a few hair salons. I don't have the cash to keep up baylage and I'm fairly certain ombre is on the way out, so maybe I'll just get gloss. I don't really want to change the color. Just monkey with it a little. Give it some shape.
My hair never has shape.
I'd like to look like me, for court, but also not me.
CC
* Non-stream of consciousness footnote: My Dad was a late-in-life accident. I was a sort of mid-life accident. Aside from making my very existence improbable, this also means that the generations in my family are kinda fucked up, which is how I have an aunt almost fifty years older than I am.
1. Research
2. Primping
The first one of these is actually a pretty good reaction. When I am taking a matter seriously, I look it up.
Until very recently, I was constantly getting in trouble with my friends who were passionate about a subject. They'd say
"CC," (Truth be told only one set of very old friends calls me CC, but blog conventions must be honored) "This is an incredibly big deal! A is true!" and I'd say "huh." Then I'd go home, often worried, and I'd look it up and the next day I'd send them an email like.
"Hey, guess what. A is mostly true. But B is also sometimes true. So the situation is not quite so bad as you'd feared."
It turns out, it took me 37 years and change to understand, people who are passionate about things hate this. They want to focus on the black and white of the situation, and to be looking at an awful situation in its face. They want the situation to be as bad as they feel it is.
Some years ago, I lost a person who was extremely important to me over this. (No, not theCSO. TheCSO does this herself. Ours is a marriage in which being technically correct is the best kind of correct and we're both happy that way.) Anyway, this person who was very important to me got into an argument over a really silly topic and when I emailed some more information, this person who was very important to me decided not to be friends anymore because she was tired of fighting with me.
I wasn't FIGHTING, I thought at the time, I was HELPING.
I still never got my person back.
Sometimes in my dreams she calls me up and we work it out. Waking up is kind of a bummer.
Last year, I made another friend who was passionate about things. At one point, we talked it out and now when she says A is true, I am present for her in her truth because while I may have boring hair, I'm not stupid.
But back to the hair coloring.
This person I lost some years ago was something of a mother figure, and parenting is on my mind for reasons that I trust will become obvious though I haven't exactly figured out what I'm writing next because that's how this whole stream-of-consciousness thing works.
After the research phase, and I have had the research phase, ask me anything about guardianship law, comes the primping phase, in which I decide that if I am a mess inside, surely looking good outside will hide that. Even as I type, I'm aware that this is as stupid as it sounds. I kid you not, the night before my first law school class, I dropped like fifty bucks on those Isreali sea salt beauty products that they sell at the mall.
I wore entirely new clothes for both days of the bar and afterwards was tempted to burn them so I'd wear them for no lesser event. I didn't. I'm too cheap to do that and I wear unnatural fibers so the smell would have been awful.
So, yeah, when three days before my Aunt's guardianship hearing, I start checking groupon for a good deal on a cut, maybe some highlights to frame my face, that's a really bad sign.
Probate court in the District of Columbia is a very strange thing. My favorite thing about it, and I do have a favorite thing, is that they have the wills of various historical figures framed and up on the walls. I am totally not making this up. You can go to the DC probate court and see a page from Dolly Madison's will.
On Thursday, barring the unforeseen, I'm going to probate court to accept legal responsibility for my Aunt.
If you're my facebook friend, you've followed some of this. If you've been reading TheChaliceBlog for a really long time, you know her as TheChaliceRelative. Either way, she's my aunt, and she's 86* and she's not really my aunt anymore because she no longer knows some of the things my aunt knows.
She tells me I should lose weight because she's my aunt. That doesn't hurt my feelings because she's not anymore so I kinda don't give a fuck what she thinks of my physique. She has Schrodinger's personality and on Thursday it becomes my job to be responsible for her.
She's in a home that does a flawed but reasonable job taking care of her. They would like guardianship but I'm probably going to get it. I consider myself the world's okayest caregiver.
Last time she was in the hospital, I had to meet with the social worker when she was released.
"I'm what she's got," I said.
"What about your parents?" the social worker said.
"My dad's an unmedicated schizophrenic who has had a lot of strokes. My mom is occupied with him,"
"Does your aunt have any other brothers or sisters?"
"They're dead."
"What about you, do you have siblings?"
"My brothers are not in a position to care for other people." I paused. "I'm what she's got."
It went on like that.
I'm what she's got now, and I'm not sure that the probable result of Thursday will change much of that. Mostly, it will be me doing more paperwork. I was explaining this to her last Friday and she said that it was bizarre to imagine me with that job because I was so terrible at arithmetic. She said that because she's my aunt, it didn't hurt because she's not.
Right now I'm thinking about Pema Chodron, with whom I'm obsessed right now, writing:
“To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest."
As the hospital social worker painstakingly drew out of me above, I don't have much of a nest as far as blood relations go. (My self-constructed nest of friends is awesome, though.)
Still, there's something to note in getting thrown out of the two twigs stuck together that is the nest represented by an aunt who is partly not. I don't feel alive and fully human and completely awake.
I feel like getting my hair cut and colored in hopes that maybe when I look in the mirror, I will see a different person, ideally one more equipped to deal with the situation.
So, anyway, I'm thinking tomorrow I will call up a few hair salons. I don't have the cash to keep up baylage and I'm fairly certain ombre is on the way out, so maybe I'll just get gloss. I don't really want to change the color. Just monkey with it a little. Give it some shape.
My hair never has shape.
I'd like to look like me, for court, but also not me.
CC
* Non-stream of consciousness footnote: My Dad was a late-in-life accident. I was a sort of mid-life accident. Aside from making my very existence improbable, this also means that the generations in my family are kinda fucked up, which is how I have an aunt almost fifty years older than I am.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Stupid Questions, Stupid Answers
CC: "Who would win in a light saber battle, Walt Whitman or Ernest Hemingway?"
TheCSO: "Us all"
CC
TheCSO: "Us all"
CC
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Action hero fantasies
Gun control is not my personal hill to die on one way or another*. That said, I do think guns make people stupider.
I noticed a prime example of this today as I was reading this article about a teacher who is getting divorced and is afraid her ex-husband is going to come after her and how she wants to be allowed to bring a gun to school. Also, she wants to defend herself from school shootings.
From the article:
Katz won’t say whether she has ever taken her 9 mm Glock pistol to school, but she practices with it regularly and has thought about what she would do if she had to confront a gunman. She would be sure students were locked in nearby offices out of the line of fire, and she would be ready with her pistol.
And everybody would be fine, because, you know, the shooter would allow the students to be safely locked in offices before his dramatic showdown with Katz, in the school shooting she has staged in her head.
This reminds me very much of post VA-tech school shootings when Michell Malkin was criticizing the students who survived for not singlehandedly taking the shooter out when he stopped to reload.
I do think it is human nature to imagine awful situations and figure out how we might cope. I'm sure lots of people have ninja fantasies when they imagine themselves being able to take out a gunman who is hurting other people. And it always works out. The desks are always arranged in a way that facilitates us sneaking around, the gunman always falls for our bluff, we're always able to dodge the bullets and our heroics never put anyone else at risk. Oh, and we're a crack shot when we're scared for our lives. Really.
But IMHO, one has to be a special kind of stupid to ASSUME that the situation is going to work out that way, the way Malkin and Katz do. I think most of us get that the whole "our friend fakes a heart attack and while the guy is distracted, we knock the gun out of the guy's hand, which surprises him so much he goes right down when we jump him" genre of fantasies is a fantasy, and that things we're not prepared to cope with will almost certainly occur in a violent situation.
The thing is, I'm afraid it's exactly the sort of stupid owning a gun makes some poeple, as if the power of owning a gun magically gives one the power to dictate the rest of the situation.
CC
*That said, I am against the "trespassers can be legally shot" laws some states have. During my time in North Carolina, I saw two or three cases of actual burglers being shot and half a dozen cases of teenage kids sneaking out, teenage kids' friends sneaking in, people having car trouble who were looking to see if the lights were on before knocking, being shot. It really seemed to do FAR more harm than good.
I noticed a prime example of this today as I was reading this article about a teacher who is getting divorced and is afraid her ex-husband is going to come after her and how she wants to be allowed to bring a gun to school. Also, she wants to defend herself from school shootings.
From the article:
Katz won’t say whether she has ever taken her 9 mm Glock pistol to school, but she practices with it regularly and has thought about what she would do if she had to confront a gunman. She would be sure students were locked in nearby offices out of the line of fire, and she would be ready with her pistol.
And everybody would be fine, because, you know, the shooter would allow the students to be safely locked in offices before his dramatic showdown with Katz, in the school shooting she has staged in her head.
This reminds me very much of post VA-tech school shootings when Michell Malkin was criticizing the students who survived for not singlehandedly taking the shooter out when he stopped to reload.
I do think it is human nature to imagine awful situations and figure out how we might cope. I'm sure lots of people have ninja fantasies when they imagine themselves being able to take out a gunman who is hurting other people. And it always works out. The desks are always arranged in a way that facilitates us sneaking around, the gunman always falls for our bluff, we're always able to dodge the bullets and our heroics never put anyone else at risk. Oh, and we're a crack shot when we're scared for our lives. Really.
But IMHO, one has to be a special kind of stupid to ASSUME that the situation is going to work out that way, the way Malkin and Katz do. I think most of us get that the whole "our friend fakes a heart attack and while the guy is distracted, we knock the gun out of the guy's hand, which surprises him so much he goes right down when we jump him" genre of fantasies is a fantasy, and that things we're not prepared to cope with will almost certainly occur in a violent situation.
The thing is, I'm afraid it's exactly the sort of stupid owning a gun makes some poeple, as if the power of owning a gun magically gives one the power to dictate the rest of the situation.
CC
*That said, I am against the "trespassers can be legally shot" laws some states have. During my time in North Carolina, I saw two or three cases of actual burglers being shot and half a dozen cases of teenage kids sneaking out, teenage kids' friends sneaking in, people having car trouble who were looking to see if the lights were on before knocking, being shot. It really seemed to do FAR more harm than good.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Pit bull mix owner has mixed feelings about this story
The city councilman who led the fight to get pit bulls banned from Sioux City might end up having his labrador retriever put down after the dog bit someone.
Pit Bulls get so much crap because they tend to be adopted and purchased by irresponsible people who fight them or train them as guard dogs. We adopted ours young, we're training her properly, and the biggest problem we have with her is that sometimes when we've been gone all day, she is so happy to see us that she follows us around jumping and licking. (We're working on that in training and we need to take her for longer walks more often to help her burn off some energy.)
Anyway, here's Malcom Gladwell's comparison of pit bull bans and racial profiling that points out the absurdity of each. I agree with Gladwell's ultimate conclusion that making arbitrary rules against breeds is bad legislation.
Of course, there are legislators who can make bad legislation worse. In Kansas City, the anti-pit bull laws included an "amnesty period" where pit bull owners could bring in their dogs for euthanization and not risk a fine. I'm assuming this means regular people like me sadly but dutifully gave their dogs away to residents of other places or even more sadly took their dogs in to be euthanized.
My guess is that the drug dealers who wanted pits for protection and raised their pits to be dangerous ignored the law. This pretty much insures that when you see a pit bull story in the news in Kansas City, it will be hurting someone rather than, say, giving its life to save its owner. (Warning, that story is really heartbreaking, as is the photo attached.)
So anyway, with only the worst pit bulls left in the city to do awful things and make the news, Kansans will be even more convinced that it's a great law.
No, it's a stupid law. And like most stupid laws regarding animals PETA supports it*, saying "Are some pit bulls loving companions? Absolutely. But it is important to bear in mind that nice families rarely come to a shelter seeking pit bulls. The vast majority of people who want pit bulls are attracted to the “macho” image of the breed as a living weapon"
Um, actually, PETA, I don't think most people who come to shelters are looking for a specific breed of dog. Because, frankly, finding a specific breed at a shelter is really, really hard because they are almost all mutts. I think people who get dogs from shelters are looking to help out a dog who needs a home and to get loving companionship for themselves and pick it on personality rather than breed. We didn't know Ginsburg was a pit mix until it was casually mentioned as we were signing the papers. We just knew she was a good dog who'd had a rough life so far.
Anyway, I do hope that Councilman Aaron Rochester's dog is allowed to live. Rochestere's wife calls the dog a "great watchdog." "Great watchdogs" should not be allowed to run around without leashes. Judging by the article, the dog was left outside with the family's two children and may have interpreted something the victim did as threatening to the kids. So the issue was more an irresponsible owner than anything particularly wrong with the dog.
But I don't think he's very good at his job.
CC
* They want laws to have a "grandfather clause" allowing current dog owners to keep their animals, so they wouldn't support Kansas City's version.
Pit Bulls get so much crap because they tend to be adopted and purchased by irresponsible people who fight them or train them as guard dogs. We adopted ours young, we're training her properly, and the biggest problem we have with her is that sometimes when we've been gone all day, she is so happy to see us that she follows us around jumping and licking. (We're working on that in training and we need to take her for longer walks more often to help her burn off some energy.)
Anyway, here's Malcom Gladwell's comparison of pit bull bans and racial profiling that points out the absurdity of each. I agree with Gladwell's ultimate conclusion that making arbitrary rules against breeds is bad legislation.
Of course, there are legislators who can make bad legislation worse. In Kansas City, the anti-pit bull laws included an "amnesty period" where pit bull owners could bring in their dogs for euthanization and not risk a fine. I'm assuming this means regular people like me sadly but dutifully gave their dogs away to residents of other places or even more sadly took their dogs in to be euthanized.
My guess is that the drug dealers who wanted pits for protection and raised their pits to be dangerous ignored the law. This pretty much insures that when you see a pit bull story in the news in Kansas City, it will be hurting someone rather than, say, giving its life to save its owner. (Warning, that story is really heartbreaking, as is the photo attached.)
So anyway, with only the worst pit bulls left in the city to do awful things and make the news, Kansans will be even more convinced that it's a great law.
No, it's a stupid law. And like most stupid laws regarding animals PETA supports it*, saying "Are some pit bulls loving companions? Absolutely. But it is important to bear in mind that nice families rarely come to a shelter seeking pit bulls. The vast majority of people who want pit bulls are attracted to the “macho” image of the breed as a living weapon"
Um, actually, PETA, I don't think most people who come to shelters are looking for a specific breed of dog. Because, frankly, finding a specific breed at a shelter is really, really hard because they are almost all mutts. I think people who get dogs from shelters are looking to help out a dog who needs a home and to get loving companionship for themselves and pick it on personality rather than breed. We didn't know Ginsburg was a pit mix until it was casually mentioned as we were signing the papers. We just knew she was a good dog who'd had a rough life so far.
Anyway, I do hope that Councilman Aaron Rochester's dog is allowed to live. Rochestere's wife calls the dog a "great watchdog." "Great watchdogs" should not be allowed to run around without leashes. Judging by the article, the dog was left outside with the family's two children and may have interpreted something the victim did as threatening to the kids. So the issue was more an irresponsible owner than anything particularly wrong with the dog.
But I don't think he's very good at his job.
CC
* They want laws to have a "grandfather clause" allowing current dog owners to keep their animals, so they wouldn't support Kansas City's version.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
The Voices In Our Heads
I am the voice in my ex-boyfriend's head. He mentioned this to me the other night in front of some of our friends, so I'm guess it's not really a secret. In his dreams, I sometimes show up to provide exposition and/or explain the situation. When awake, I provide commentary and advise him.
I'm guessing that's flattering, though I'm not 100 percent certain.*
The really disturbing thing is that I know what he means. Occasionally, the voice of someone whom is respect will spring unbidden to the forefront of my imagination when I have an important decision to make. Often for me, that voice is Katy-the-Wise.
Sometimes the voice isn't literally a voice. I noticed at one point that I was frequently threatening myself with cosmetology school if I didn't do a good job on my LSAT. I didn't literally believe that a chair at "Connie DiPodesta's House of Class" was in my future, but threatening myself with that was a reflex when I felt I needed spur myself on. It took me a long time to make the connection that my father had made the same threat whenever I got a bad grade in school.
So I'm curious, do y'all hear voices from the past still advising you? Do you trust them? Is there a significance to which voices you hear?
CC
*One time, I came back from college to visit my hometown and went out with favorite ex-boyfriend and some of his pals. We stopped for gas and he got out of the SUV to pump. "How do you know Charlie?" one of the guys asked from the back seat.
"He and I dated off and on for a few years." I responded.
"Nah, that can't be true"
"Umm...Yeah? It sure is." I said.
"But he only dates stupid girls."
Charlie got back in the car. "Charlie," I said. "I hear you only date stupid girls?"
"Is it in spite of her?" The guy from the back asked.
Charlie turned around to look at him. "It's BECAUSE of her."
I'm guessing that's flattering, though I'm not 100 percent certain.*
The really disturbing thing is that I know what he means. Occasionally, the voice of someone whom is respect will spring unbidden to the forefront of my imagination when I have an important decision to make. Often for me, that voice is Katy-the-Wise.
Sometimes the voice isn't literally a voice. I noticed at one point that I was frequently threatening myself with cosmetology school if I didn't do a good job on my LSAT. I didn't literally believe that a chair at "Connie DiPodesta's House of Class" was in my future, but threatening myself with that was a reflex when I felt I needed spur myself on. It took me a long time to make the connection that my father had made the same threat whenever I got a bad grade in school.
So I'm curious, do y'all hear voices from the past still advising you? Do you trust them? Is there a significance to which voices you hear?
CC
*One time, I came back from college to visit my hometown and went out with favorite ex-boyfriend and some of his pals. We stopped for gas and he got out of the SUV to pump. "How do you know Charlie?" one of the guys asked from the back seat.
"He and I dated off and on for a few years." I responded.
"Nah, that can't be true"
"Umm...Yeah? It sure is." I said.
"But he only dates stupid girls."
Charlie got back in the car. "Charlie," I said. "I hear you only date stupid girls?"
"Is it in spite of her?" The guy from the back asked.
Charlie turned around to look at him. "It's BECAUSE of her."
Monday, October 23, 2006
If you've just joined a new faith, nobody gives a damn what you think of your old one.
Very soon after I joined my first UU church, I developed a theory about the way we are with each other. I noticed that some UUs, those whom I soon came to think of as “Baby UUs,” were very excited about UUism as a vehicle for their own self-expression. They tended to throw temper tantrums when the service wasn’t about something they wanted. And most of all, they talked about their previous religion. "Back when I was with the Jesus people, we did (whatever) Wasn’t that so-o stupid?”
And Beliefnet gave me the chance to meet some Ex-UUs who were constantly saying things like “You know what the problem with UUism was…?”
Newsflash: If you're an ex-UU we don't care. If you see problems but want to stay and fix them, great, I agree. If you fit in better with another faith, it's been nice praying with you. You know where the door is.
Whether you're going or coming, hearing people complain about their ex-religions gets OLD. It’s still old.
So please, people. Cut it out.
If you have just changed faiths, your numero uno job in your new community is to LISTEN to everyone else and LEARN about this new path in your journey. So do thyself a favor and shut up for six months then let the comparisons between the two faiths trickle in to coversation only when they offer real theological and cultural insight. But don't forget the first six months of shutting up, because that's when you're most likely to babble on. Believe it or not, the people in your new church don’t actually give a damn that you think they are cooler than the people in your previous church. You just make yourself look like a big jackass.
The blind date who won’t quit bitching about her ex? That’s you.
I don’t care if you were a deacon, an alter boy, a board president or a guy with a really popular blog in your old faith. Once you’ve moved on to a new faith, you’re starting over so try to do so with minimal baggage. Should you have trouble with this process, may I suggest you avail yourself of the services of a professional or a support group or anybody who is not a member of either faith, because I promise you, the people in both your new faith and old faith have heard your warmed over sarcasm a thousand times and it isn’t very interesting.
If you want to burn your bridges, just stop calling the people in your old church, you don't have to actively insult them and doing so is really sort of masturbatory and stupid. Don't get up at joys and concerns, tell people individually, preferably on your last Sunday.
Perhaps we need a thought experiment. Let’s think back to college.
Remember that freshman? You know, the one in the obviously brand new clothes who had obviously been a big shot back at Bumblefuck High? You probably met him the August of your Junior year and he was all “Back at my high school, we did it this way... Wasn’t that totally lame? Everyone was SO immature. And have I told you my SAT scores yet?”
And you the junior and your snarky little friends listened with a straight face, then went back to your off-campus apartment and laughed at him?
If you are new to your church and still whining about your old church, you’re that freshman.
So cut it out.
That is all.
CC
who observes that many, many people come to and leave UUism knowing this already and practicing it. She salutes those people.
And Beliefnet gave me the chance to meet some Ex-UUs who were constantly saying things like “You know what the problem with UUism was…?”
Newsflash: If you're an ex-UU we don't care. If you see problems but want to stay and fix them, great, I agree. If you fit in better with another faith, it's been nice praying with you. You know where the door is.
Whether you're going or coming, hearing people complain about their ex-religions gets OLD. It’s still old.
So please, people. Cut it out.
If you have just changed faiths, your numero uno job in your new community is to LISTEN to everyone else and LEARN about this new path in your journey. So do thyself a favor and shut up for six months then let the comparisons between the two faiths trickle in to coversation only when they offer real theological and cultural insight. But don't forget the first six months of shutting up, because that's when you're most likely to babble on. Believe it or not, the people in your new church don’t actually give a damn that you think they are cooler than the people in your previous church. You just make yourself look like a big jackass.
The blind date who won’t quit bitching about her ex? That’s you.
I don’t care if you were a deacon, an alter boy, a board president or a guy with a really popular blog in your old faith. Once you’ve moved on to a new faith, you’re starting over so try to do so with minimal baggage. Should you have trouble with this process, may I suggest you avail yourself of the services of a professional or a support group or anybody who is not a member of either faith, because I promise you, the people in both your new faith and old faith have heard your warmed over sarcasm a thousand times and it isn’t very interesting.
If you want to burn your bridges, just stop calling the people in your old church, you don't have to actively insult them and doing so is really sort of masturbatory and stupid. Don't get up at joys and concerns, tell people individually, preferably on your last Sunday.
Perhaps we need a thought experiment. Let’s think back to college.
Remember that freshman? You know, the one in the obviously brand new clothes who had obviously been a big shot back at Bumblefuck High? You probably met him the August of your Junior year and he was all “Back at my high school, we did it this way... Wasn’t that totally lame? Everyone was SO immature. And have I told you my SAT scores yet?”
And you the junior and your snarky little friends listened with a straight face, then went back to your off-campus apartment and laughed at him?
If you are new to your church and still whining about your old church, you’re that freshman.
So cut it out.
That is all.
CC
who observes that many, many people come to and leave UUism knowing this already and practicing it. She salutes those people.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Please, Virginia, don't elect the stupid guy
I realize that most Chalicesseurs will agree with me totally when I say that I really don't want a guy like George Allen elected to the senate. Actually, right now I wish I still worked with Republicans so that somebody could tell me why someone would vote for Allen, because I really don't get it. Webb is only barely a Democrat, after all.
My issue isn't even that Allen is conservative, though I'm admittedly unlikely to vote for a conservative, it's that he's so damn stupid.
Let's start with the infamous "Macaca" incident. I mean, calling a dark-skinned chap who works for the other side a monkey isn't something I would really put past any politician, to be honest. But saying it really loudly while the "monkey" is pointing a television camera at you?
Only George Allen.
Now there's another little scandal out, Allen wasn't reporting some stock options to Congress. His argument is that the stocks weren't worth much, so he felt he didn't need to report them. Of course, nobody official ever told him he didn't have to report them, but he just assumed because I guess it sounded like a good idea to him. This is the sort of thinking we call "Jason thinking" in my house, after my brother who is about to go to jail for six months for some minor traffic violations that have gotten judicially out of hand due to Jason repeatedly assuming for various contrived reasons that various rules and paperwork didn't apply to him.
Honestly...
CC
Monday, October 02, 2006
Mixed feelings on the latest Republican scandal.
USA today has nice article on the Foley case. It turns out that Foley is the fourth Republican this year to resign because of ethics violations. Damn.
(Clarification: That's a "Wow, that's a comparitively big number" damn, not a "Gosh, I'm disappointed" damn.)
I do recall reading some time ago that one of my smarter ex-clients had compared the Republicans' current situation to the Democrats' situation right before the early 90's Republican revolution. Too much power makes one cocky, then moakes on feel one can get away with stuff, and that cheeses off the voters.
I hope he's right. I don't always agree with the Democrats, but the Republicans have indeed gone too far.
And I may not be thinking rationally about the Foley situation. If say, William Donald Schafer had pulled this with a teenage girl, I doubt I would have much sympathy.
I know I shouldn't feel bad for Congressman Foley. Sending the emails to that page was a really screwed-up and awful thing to do. Above all, stupid. I don't want a stupid man writing my laws. But knowing what that guy must have gone through and the sort of intolerance that he must have had to listen to is making it hard for me to totally condemn him either.
This is a weird analogy, but I find myself thinking about the Muslims who killed nuns in the wake of the Pope's comments on Islam's violent nature. (A faithful if oversimplified rendering of what the Pope said, not my own opinion.) What is it about people hating us that makes us just want to go out and prove them right?
But what's done is done and the Democrats are understandably moving in for the kill. No, Congressman Foley probably doesn't deserve to be allowed to retain his dignity. In the end, he knew that if found out, his actions would result in congressional inquiries and such and they're already starting. But I can't help feeling that the situation sort of sucks all around.
I guess I'm just a bleeding heart that way CC.
CC
* From the article Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California resigned in November after pleading guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes. Former majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas was indicted on state campaign finance violations and resigned in June. Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio has agreed to plead guilty to charges of corruption and is not seeking re-election.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Marital Fight Nostalgia
We were out to dinner with two friends last night, and they got into a huge argument in the parking lot. Unfortunately, they were our ride as we'd driven together to a restaurant an hour away. And they didn't seem to mind having their big fight in front of us.
At first, it was a bit socially awkward, but it ended up that standing there listening to them was quite instructive.
It showed pretty clearly how far TheCSO and I have come as a twosome. TheCSO and I regard ourselves as a team, and teamwork has well and truly broken down something like three times that we've been together. Otherwise, we've bitched at each other, sometimes taken frustrations out on one another before we figured out what we were doing, not always been totally great at supplying what the other needed. We're not perfect. But the idea of "us" is a truly central concept to us. Our friends have noted that to ask one of us how we are usually results in hearing about the other one as well.
We don't claim to be soulmates, but we're two people who understand one another well and are well-suited to building a life together. We're to the point now where the last time we argued, theCSO said "Why aren't we a team on this?" and we explored the issue that way.
We achieve a lot by giving one another space.
Anyway, like a lot of newlywed fights, our friends' fight took us back through the history of their last few fights. It was so obviously a stupid couple fight that they would get over that the CSO and I stood there in the parking lot and regarded one another with growing amusement.
It was so weird to watch. Our friends are still in the "competing-with-each-other-in-power-struggles-over-stupid-stuff" phase. Were we ever that immature with each other?
But some of the fights were quite recognizable. The main thrust of their fight was the classic "Husband's-long-time-close-friend-doesn't-like-the-wife-and-is-rude-to-her. What-duty-does-Husband-have-to-each-of-them?"
For us, it was almost nostalgia to watch them bitch at each other about that one. We had that fight such a long time ago.
Eventually, I said "Guys, you're not at the stage yet where an insult to your spouse feels like an insult to you. But it's going to happen."
"I'm already there," the husband said.
"No, you're not. People who are there don't have this fight. But there's nothing wrong with not being there yet. But suffice to say, you will grow apart from the friends who don't make friends with your spouse. Your friends don't have to be best friends with your spouse, but they have to treat your spouse with respect and not try to mess with your marriage. If they don't, you won't be friends with your friends any more. Even if you don't fight with them, eventually it just comes to be too much trouble to hang out with people whom your spouse doesn't get along with, especially if it is the friend who isn't making the effort. And besides, you like your spouse more."
Our friends looked at each other for a long moment.
"I don't want that to happen with you and Chris," wife said.
"Well, it will if you don't..." husband said.
And they were off agian.
TheCSO and I walked around the corner to lean up against the car, holding hands.
Our friends will get there. Every couple does it at different speeds.
CC
At first, it was a bit socially awkward, but it ended up that standing there listening to them was quite instructive.
It showed pretty clearly how far TheCSO and I have come as a twosome. TheCSO and I regard ourselves as a team, and teamwork has well and truly broken down something like three times that we've been together. Otherwise, we've bitched at each other, sometimes taken frustrations out on one another before we figured out what we were doing, not always been totally great at supplying what the other needed. We're not perfect. But the idea of "us" is a truly central concept to us. Our friends have noted that to ask one of us how we are usually results in hearing about the other one as well.
We don't claim to be soulmates, but we're two people who understand one another well and are well-suited to building a life together. We're to the point now where the last time we argued, theCSO said "Why aren't we a team on this?" and we explored the issue that way.
We achieve a lot by giving one another space.
Anyway, like a lot of newlywed fights, our friends' fight took us back through the history of their last few fights. It was so obviously a stupid couple fight that they would get over that the CSO and I stood there in the parking lot and regarded one another with growing amusement.
It was so weird to watch. Our friends are still in the "competing-with-each-other-in-power-struggles-over-stupid-stuff" phase. Were we ever that immature with each other?
But some of the fights were quite recognizable. The main thrust of their fight was the classic "Husband's-long-time-close-friend-doesn't-like-the-wife-and-is-rude-to-her. What-duty-does-Husband-have-to-each-of-them?"
For us, it was almost nostalgia to watch them bitch at each other about that one. We had that fight such a long time ago.
Eventually, I said "Guys, you're not at the stage yet where an insult to your spouse feels like an insult to you. But it's going to happen."
"I'm already there," the husband said.
"No, you're not. People who are there don't have this fight. But there's nothing wrong with not being there yet. But suffice to say, you will grow apart from the friends who don't make friends with your spouse. Your friends don't have to be best friends with your spouse, but they have to treat your spouse with respect and not try to mess with your marriage. If they don't, you won't be friends with your friends any more. Even if you don't fight with them, eventually it just comes to be too much trouble to hang out with people whom your spouse doesn't get along with, especially if it is the friend who isn't making the effort. And besides, you like your spouse more."
Our friends looked at each other for a long moment.
"I don't want that to happen with you and Chris," wife said.
"Well, it will if you don't..." husband said.
And they were off agian.
TheCSO and I walked around the corner to lean up against the car, holding hands.
Our friends will get there. Every couple does it at different speeds.
CC
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The more things change...
From The New Republic...
Benjamin Franklin complained during the colonial era that Germans immigrating to Philadelphia "are generally the most stupid of their nation. ... Few of their children know English." In 1921, Arthur M. Schlesinger wrote, "The new immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, with its lower standard of living and characteristic racial differences has intensified many existing social problems and created a number of new ones."
And Henry Cabot Lodge thought the lowest of the low were the Italian Immigrants, one of whom was the Grandfather of Tom Tancredo, who today says nasty things about Central American Immigrants.
CC
who really can't stand all the freaking yuppies who have moved into all the new condo developments in Fairfax County and torn down those old postwar Cape Cod tract houses to build their stupid McMansions. Hello? My family has been in Virginia for generations? Where do all these lawyers and lobbyists from rube states think they get off moving in and tearing down our fugly houses to build a different kinds of fugly house?
Benjamin Franklin complained during the colonial era that Germans immigrating to Philadelphia "are generally the most stupid of their nation. ... Few of their children know English." In 1921, Arthur M. Schlesinger wrote, "The new immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, with its lower standard of living and characteristic racial differences has intensified many existing social problems and created a number of new ones."
And Henry Cabot Lodge thought the lowest of the low were the Italian Immigrants, one of whom was the Grandfather of Tom Tancredo, who today says nasty things about Central American Immigrants.
CC
who really can't stand all the freaking yuppies who have moved into all the new condo developments in Fairfax County and torn down those old postwar Cape Cod tract houses to build their stupid McMansions. Hello? My family has been in Virginia for generations? Where do all these lawyers and lobbyists from rube states think they get off moving in and tearing down our fugly houses to build a different kinds of fugly house?
Monday, February 20, 2006
CC reads Joe Bageant and goes "meh."
I'm reading the infamous Joe Bageant essay and I'm really underwhelmed.
Robertson Davies wrote that this sort of masochism is a Canadian thing, but I see it in Americans all the time. We never get tired of hearing how stupid, and in this case "inauthentic" we are. I'm sure fans of the essay will tell me that this is my internal dialogue speaking, but I've got my house in the suburbs, and I just don't live the life Bageant describes.
E.g.: When we do "get together with friends," there is little to talk about, other than one form or another of consumption, consuming music, or movies or whatever.
Conversations I've had (offline and in person) with my friends in the last few days.
1. Many, many talks about Margaret.
2. Trying to explain Rothko, and indeed all of abstract expressionism, to some of my friends. Failing.
3. Telling Joe-the-Math-guy about the conclusions Linguist friend came to about the Virgin Mary and consent issues.
4. Talking to Pam's daughter Lisa about the nature of prayer and odd things people pray for and whether God listens.
5. Whether it is a rationalization to say that people who overapply their negative experiences with one race or another and have a loose negative impression that they would never act on, aren't exactly racists.
6. What are the racism implications of dating preferences (e.g. A white guy who only dates white women, vs. a black man who only dates black women vs. a white man who won't date white women vs. a white man who only dates asian women)
7. It's not worth it to date very attractive people. They're not very interesting because they don't have to be and are typically very high-maintenance. true or false?
8. Smoking bans: Does it suck more when the government plays nanny or when inconsiderate people slighly endanger the health of others?
9. The situation in the middle east. Does Israel deserve our support?
And I've been staying with people who live in Laurinburg, North Carolina and watch Fox news!
I'd say that if Joe Bageant feels that he has no community, instead of bitching about the internet, he might want to go hang out with some people and make some friends. I'd suggest that he whine less, though.
I'm sorry, those of us who are going to pay for the air ambulances of guys like that who go off in the woods to commune with nature don't deserve to be insulted.
((Quick semi-related rant:
People who talk about how great it is to live off the land have forgotten what it's like to starve when the crops fail. When Mr. Back-to-nature breaks his leg, my tax dollars and yours will pay for a helicopter to go haul his ass out of the woods. It means that his tent will not leak because if he has any sense he will get camping equipment made of plastic. (For all their tough talk, I don't see most of these people drinking out of a canteen made of an animal bladder.) It means that if he, God forbid, should get some awful disease and shows up in the ER, modern medicine will do it's best to save him and will succeed much of the time. ))
To Bageant's credit, he wants to go live in a really touristy country not owned by America. I don't think he's as cool as he does for wanting to chuck it all and move to a honeymoon destination, and I think showing your objection to capitalism by moving to a monarchy is sort of precious, but hey, at least Queen Elizabeth will be paying his bills, not me. (Somone should really tell him about Great Britan's stand on the war, though. Moving from the USA to a British territory to show you're above such things is just dumb.)
Fifty bucks says his plan to rough it in paradise lasts as long as his Immodium does.
As for the bit about all of us being replaceable now, it's stupid.
If we don't make it, it someone else will. If we don't buy it, someone else will. Some other faceless person will step forward to fill in our place. The same goes for the engineers who created this computer and the same goes for your own job. The machine rolls on. With us or without us.
No more genuine community where people know each other and socialize together and work together exists than a small liberal arts college. St. Andrews is practically a kibbutz. I knew my friend and former professor Margaret very well, but I also understand that my college is going to hire another professor of archeology to take her place.
To look at this more directly, in the "good old days" that Bageant romanticizes, we might have known the guy who packaged our groceries a little better, but people were still replaceable. If the town grocer died in the olden days, his son took over or his wife took over or somebody bought the store. That we are replaceable is a general rule of any economy. Which is why the only people who take a strictly economic view of a way of living are either idiots or trying to make a point while ignoring conflicting facts.
I could go on, but you see my point.
My advice to Bageant would be to build a life he likes and work for a better world right where he is. But he's going to have to quit whining first.
CC
Robertson Davies wrote that this sort of masochism is a Canadian thing, but I see it in Americans all the time. We never get tired of hearing how stupid, and in this case "inauthentic" we are. I'm sure fans of the essay will tell me that this is my internal dialogue speaking, but I've got my house in the suburbs, and I just don't live the life Bageant describes.
E.g.: When we do "get together with friends," there is little to talk about, other than one form or another of consumption, consuming music, or movies or whatever.
Conversations I've had (offline and in person) with my friends in the last few days.
1. Many, many talks about Margaret.
2. Trying to explain Rothko, and indeed all of abstract expressionism, to some of my friends. Failing.
3. Telling Joe-the-Math-guy about the conclusions Linguist friend came to about the Virgin Mary and consent issues.
4. Talking to Pam's daughter Lisa about the nature of prayer and odd things people pray for and whether God listens.
5. Whether it is a rationalization to say that people who overapply their negative experiences with one race or another and have a loose negative impression that they would never act on, aren't exactly racists.
6. What are the racism implications of dating preferences (e.g. A white guy who only dates white women, vs. a black man who only dates black women vs. a white man who won't date white women vs. a white man who only dates asian women)
7. It's not worth it to date very attractive people. They're not very interesting because they don't have to be and are typically very high-maintenance. true or false?
8. Smoking bans: Does it suck more when the government plays nanny or when inconsiderate people slighly endanger the health of others?
9. The situation in the middle east. Does Israel deserve our support?
And I've been staying with people who live in Laurinburg, North Carolina and watch Fox news!
I'd say that if Joe Bageant feels that he has no community, instead of bitching about the internet, he might want to go hang out with some people and make some friends. I'd suggest that he whine less, though.
I'm sorry, those of us who are going to pay for the air ambulances of guys like that who go off in the woods to commune with nature don't deserve to be insulted.
((Quick semi-related rant:
People who talk about how great it is to live off the land have forgotten what it's like to starve when the crops fail. When Mr. Back-to-nature breaks his leg, my tax dollars and yours will pay for a helicopter to go haul his ass out of the woods. It means that his tent will not leak because if he has any sense he will get camping equipment made of plastic. (For all their tough talk, I don't see most of these people drinking out of a canteen made of an animal bladder.) It means that if he, God forbid, should get some awful disease and shows up in the ER, modern medicine will do it's best to save him and will succeed much of the time. ))
To Bageant's credit, he wants to go live in a really touristy country not owned by America. I don't think he's as cool as he does for wanting to chuck it all and move to a honeymoon destination, and I think showing your objection to capitalism by moving to a monarchy is sort of precious, but hey, at least Queen Elizabeth will be paying his bills, not me. (Somone should really tell him about Great Britan's stand on the war, though. Moving from the USA to a British territory to show you're above such things is just dumb.)
Fifty bucks says his plan to rough it in paradise lasts as long as his Immodium does.
As for the bit about all of us being replaceable now, it's stupid.
If we don't make it, it someone else will. If we don't buy it, someone else will. Some other faceless person will step forward to fill in our place. The same goes for the engineers who created this computer and the same goes for your own job. The machine rolls on. With us or without us.
No more genuine community where people know each other and socialize together and work together exists than a small liberal arts college. St. Andrews is practically a kibbutz. I knew my friend and former professor Margaret very well, but I also understand that my college is going to hire another professor of archeology to take her place.
To look at this more directly, in the "good old days" that Bageant romanticizes, we might have known the guy who packaged our groceries a little better, but people were still replaceable. If the town grocer died in the olden days, his son took over or his wife took over or somebody bought the store. That we are replaceable is a general rule of any economy. Which is why the only people who take a strictly economic view of a way of living are either idiots or trying to make a point while ignoring conflicting facts.
I could go on, but you see my point.
My advice to Bageant would be to build a life he likes and work for a better world right where he is. But he's going to have to quit whining first.
CC
Monday, January 30, 2006
Current Voting Results and more discussion of the nature of the "Fixing UUism" contest
I intended to update voting results every two days, but tomorrow is looking like the mother of all busy days, so I will go ahead.
With 4 votes apeice, member ratification of GA resolutions and developing a mission statement are tied. The moratorium on GA complaints and putting social justice issues in a religious context have three votes apiece. Most of the remaining proposals have one or two votes apiece.
Seven people have voted so far. I will vote sometime midweek.
Ok, now a word on the contest.
Though UUA reform ended up being the general gist of most of the suggestions, much as government reform was the theme of the Sliced Bread Competition, the contest on which this was based, I didn't necessarily start it thinking that would be the result.
To be honest, I didn't think much about it at all. As I've written other places, I pretty much saw the sliced bread contest and thought "Gee, we should try that for UUism!" and went with it. My big worry was that nobody would want to participate and I'd look stupid.
I may look stupid other ways sometimes, but I surely can't complain about the level of participation in this contest and the level of enthusiasm I've seen.
A Catholic friend of mine checked in on my blog this weekend and was just amazed by what she saw. People in most other faiths just don't feel free to sidle up to a blog and say "I think X is a problem with what we're doing as a religion and we should do Y and Z to fix it."
We do.
And yes, it was no doubt cheeky of me to put this up, and probably somewhat disrespectful to those who do this for a living, though being told how to do their job is probably nothing at all new to people who work in religious fields. It sure isn't in the political ones.
But at the same time, I can't deny that I am proud to belong to a faith where saying "Hey, there are problems, and we should fix them!" is not a particularly revolutionary statement.
That said, I've been keeping an eye on Left Coast Unitarian's thread about what people love about UUism. I'm always confused by those who assume that people who are criticizing something don't love it.* (A sentiment represented in on LCU by James' statement When I miss church and read UU blogs all too often I get the impression that there is so little love for Unitarian Universalism among my co-religionists.)
To me, the people who see an institution and want to improve it are exactly the sort of people (Robertson Davies called them "strivers-after-better-things") that I want to hang out with and they are showing a great love for their institution. In her response to James, Jess talks about UUism as a living, breathing, evolving institution. I agree, and I see conversations like this one as part of that process.
Could I have handled this better? Sure. "Improving UUism" would have been a better title for the whole enterprise, first of all. People seem to resent the idea that UUism is broken. IMHO, institutions we love are always like Toyotas. First the radio doesn't work quite right,then the door handle on a passenger door breaks, but you never think of giving up the car because you love the car and it still runs OK. But there are still little things that can be fixed to make the driving experience more pleasant. That's all I meant by it.
I just love the word "fixing." It has such a powerful, hands-on connotation. And I think it speaks well to my point that we love our car that, as Chutney noted, almost no complaints here are about the practice of UUism. Nobody says "refining belief through reason has to go" or complains about the water communion. Nobody even rallies to get rid of Joys and Concerns, a proposal I would have rejected on polity grounds but soundly agreed with in principle.
Steve Caldwell is right that there should be some way to vet the rules against UUA bylaws. As I am loath to get into interpretation arguments about what they mean, I didn't choose to disqualify rules on that basis, but having a mechanism for doing so would have been a good idea. (If I ever do this again, I may recruit religious professionals to serve as anonymous judges.)
Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. No malice toward my beloved faith intended. Keep those votes coming to chalicechick at gmail dot com.
Love and kisses,
CC
*After all, I will complain about the hippies and activists I run into protesting a lot of different ways, but you will never see me questioning their patriotism. I don't. If they didn't basically believe in the American system of government, they would stay home.
With 4 votes apeice, member ratification of GA resolutions and developing a mission statement are tied. The moratorium on GA complaints and putting social justice issues in a religious context have three votes apiece. Most of the remaining proposals have one or two votes apiece.
Seven people have voted so far. I will vote sometime midweek.
Ok, now a word on the contest.
Though UUA reform ended up being the general gist of most of the suggestions, much as government reform was the theme of the Sliced Bread Competition, the contest on which this was based, I didn't necessarily start it thinking that would be the result.
To be honest, I didn't think much about it at all. As I've written other places, I pretty much saw the sliced bread contest and thought "Gee, we should try that for UUism!" and went with it. My big worry was that nobody would want to participate and I'd look stupid.
I may look stupid other ways sometimes, but I surely can't complain about the level of participation in this contest and the level of enthusiasm I've seen.
A Catholic friend of mine checked in on my blog this weekend and was just amazed by what she saw. People in most other faiths just don't feel free to sidle up to a blog and say "I think X is a problem with what we're doing as a religion and we should do Y and Z to fix it."
We do.
And yes, it was no doubt cheeky of me to put this up, and probably somewhat disrespectful to those who do this for a living, though being told how to do their job is probably nothing at all new to people who work in religious fields. It sure isn't in the political ones.
But at the same time, I can't deny that I am proud to belong to a faith where saying "Hey, there are problems, and we should fix them!" is not a particularly revolutionary statement.
That said, I've been keeping an eye on Left Coast Unitarian's thread about what people love about UUism. I'm always confused by those who assume that people who are criticizing something don't love it.* (A sentiment represented in on LCU by James' statement When I miss church and read UU blogs all too often I get the impression that there is so little love for Unitarian Universalism among my co-religionists.)
To me, the people who see an institution and want to improve it are exactly the sort of people (Robertson Davies called them "strivers-after-better-things") that I want to hang out with and they are showing a great love for their institution. In her response to James, Jess talks about UUism as a living, breathing, evolving institution. I agree, and I see conversations like this one as part of that process.
Could I have handled this better? Sure. "Improving UUism" would have been a better title for the whole enterprise, first of all. People seem to resent the idea that UUism is broken. IMHO, institutions we love are always like Toyotas. First the radio doesn't work quite right,then the door handle on a passenger door breaks, but you never think of giving up the car because you love the car and it still runs OK. But there are still little things that can be fixed to make the driving experience more pleasant. That's all I meant by it.
I just love the word "fixing." It has such a powerful, hands-on connotation. And I think it speaks well to my point that we love our car that, as Chutney noted, almost no complaints here are about the practice of UUism. Nobody says "refining belief through reason has to go" or complains about the water communion. Nobody even rallies to get rid of Joys and Concerns, a proposal I would have rejected on polity grounds but soundly agreed with in principle.
Steve Caldwell is right that there should be some way to vet the rules against UUA bylaws. As I am loath to get into interpretation arguments about what they mean, I didn't choose to disqualify rules on that basis, but having a mechanism for doing so would have been a good idea. (If I ever do this again, I may recruit religious professionals to serve as anonymous judges.)
Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. No malice toward my beloved faith intended. Keep those votes coming to chalicechick at gmail dot com.
Love and kisses,
CC
*After all, I will complain about the hippies and activists I run into protesting a lot of different ways, but you will never see me questioning their patriotism. I don't. If they didn't basically believe in the American system of government, they would stay home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)