There's no excuse for not checking, but part of it is that it's credible that Sarah Palin would think Africa is a country, not a continent, where it totally isn't that Obama would.
Wasn't it Dan Rather who spent a gazillion years in the trenches as an honourable and credible voice of authority (only to have his career destroyed by "careless" fact-checking and double-sourcing)? You gotta feel for the guy (and, I have no idea whether he did or does a good job; but, I do recall reading a story recently concerning his long road back to respectability. If someone else knows where the story exists, I'd be grateful for the tip; but, IIRC, it appeared in The Toronto Star or The Globe and Mail). Nigel? You remember it? Wasn't that long ago, either. Seems he's now working with a group of eager-beaver stud-journos,* lucky guy :).
* Listen, "stud-journos" signals an improvement in my attitude towards students (during my years as one, that is; during my years as a professor, I'd never call one of my charges a "rudent," an appellation I coined for them pompous Ph.D.ickheads that drove me to distraction while I literally drove a taxi @ night for three years in Toronto).
I do not think it credible that Sarah Palin would not know that Africa was a continent. But then I find incredible that Obama proudly announced that he had campaigned in 57 states and did not know that Kentucky, which borders on a state called Illinois, is not right next to Arkansas.
Is that true and provable about Obama? Hrmm . . . I don't find it credible; and, wait a minute, wasn't he just exhausted and confused about where he was? It was a case of very human error as opposed to ignorance, wasn't it? I'm not sure, here; that's why I'm asking.
The book business consisted of nothing more than an inquiry, and it is actually possible that parents might regard a given book as inappropriate for children. The librarian in question continued in her job until she retired. No books were banned. As for Obama, here he is himself. Here is another. And for good measure, here is a third. Now any of these, if he were a Republican,would have made him the new Dan Quayle - or Sarah Palin. And none is based on unnamed sources. And the only source for the Palin story is unnamed.
Right, Frank; here is the salient sequence of 'graphs:
But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.
“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”
“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”
You say, "The book business consisted of nothing more than an inquiry, and it is actually possible that parents might regard a given book as inappropriate for children. The librarian in question continued in her job until she retired. No books were banned."
Exactly. Palin wanted the book removed and didn't want to read that "stuff"; but, it is the parents' responsibility to decide what's appropriate for each child, not the mayor's, not the governor's, not God's, in fact.
The book existed in the stacks; it was okay by the librarian that it did so; and, clearly, tolerance and education go hand-in-hand. I've not had time to check the Obama stuff; so, I'll do that now.
But, Palin wanted to know how to get a book out of a library. IMO, that says a great deal about her moral objections to it.
Homosexuality is not a crime; it is a natural part of our lives and we both know this to be a fact of ethics, not morals. Parents are responsible for what their children read; and, as Trudeau once said about Canadian sexual unions and communions, The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.
That's a universal truth, IMO, natch; but, one that goes a long way towards explaining why Palin scares the "bejeebers" out of peeps like me, peeps who believe in fair-play equality right across the board. Yes, I'm distressed about California's rejection of same-sex marriage; but, that's because I see same-sex unions in the same way I see hetero ones; and, let's get this straight:
The bottom line is that we earn a lot more taxation dollars from same-sex unions, and we protect a lot more human beings, than a converse state of affairs.
BTW, just so you (editorially speaking) know, I'm so het it hurtz, gawd-damn it :). I've had some great offers from some beautiful women; but, I just ain't built that way. Wish I would get a few from some beautiful men, too (but, of course, I never go anywhere so, what's a babe to do?).
I'm responding point-by-point because power's flickering. (Oh, Lard, ain't that the truf? LOL.)
Now, I will go read your L'Inq.s and see what's up with that, eh? K. Thanks for providing same, BTW.
Yep, he screwed up big time, no two ways about it; and, so did McCain, and so did Billary (particularly the bunky story about the tarmac that turned out to be a fantasy in Yugoslavia, wasn't it?). Nature of the beast, if you ask me; and, yes, he got a free ride because the prospect of another four years of Bushery, as far as I can tell, was anathema to far more media peeps than little ol' Lu (R.I.P.) 'n' me :).
Let's face it: An honest politician's an oxymoron; and, they're all in it for the job, the power, the prestige, the ego. As McLuhan so accurately noted, "a four-year stint in the White House is no longer easily distinguishable from something arranged by a booking agency."
The leader's simply the image representing the back-room heavy-duty power-brokers; and, fortunately, Obama made fewer mistakes than his opponent (IMO since, you know me, Frank, I've never denied I am a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada and I have always respected the fact you consider yourself to be "an old Tory"). Is but one of the reasons we get along so well, IMO.
(And, you're also right about Palin knowing a great deal about energy plans, much more than media give her credit for knowing. She's the brunt of the GOP joke, right now. Is all. That's why the focus is on the superficialities, the clothes, the makeup, the massages, the lingerie, the door-answering in the two towels, yadda-yadda-yawn. There's no substance because there's no accountability, IMO, at least; but, I might be wrong.)
I didn't even bother voting in our last election; I kinda just consider it this way: It's corporate or syndicate; take your picket fence elsewhere for the duration which, in fact, is what I've tried to do, here in The Beautiful Downtown Middle of Elsewhere. I don't like most Boomers and I especially don't like most of their spoiled offspring, either; I think I'm just a fucking contrarian, period; they all bore me to pieces; and, they're all full of shit, IMO; so, I am just gonna vote for me me me and the party of eccentricity. (Most all of my friends are a decade or more older than I am, in fact; or, a decade younger, come to think of it.)
But, that was pretty dumb; blatantly so, in fact: Even I know you don't have 57 varieties of snakes in the US :). LOL. -- "The society whose modernisation has reached the stage of integrated spectacle is characterised by the combined effect of five principal factors: incessant technological renewal, integration of state and economy, generalised secrecy, unanswerable lies, and eternal present . . ." — Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle (1967)
On the subject of homosexuality: It ought not to be a crime, and I am glad that in this country it no longer is. I am proud of the fact that a former colleague, who is gay, once proposed that I be named an honorary homosexual. One of the most touching experiences of my life occurred during my drug-and-drink saturated days when I was at a place in North Philly (in the closeted days of the early '60s) with a mixed bag of people, and this gay guy - a cradle Catholic, just like me - said wistfully, "Nobody else may love me, but God loves me."
Re gay marriage: I have a linguistic problem with that. I can pass over the marriage is between a man and a woman part, but I can't pass over the marriage involves a husband and a wife. Ball is in the other court now. Let's talk this through. No problem at all with civil partnerships - and I have the friends to prove it, who will back me up. One other point: Back when it counted, I was one of those tough straight guys who stood up for his gay friends. Some years later, in San Francisco, I was annoyed (and only annoyed) to be treated rather shabbily in the Castro Valley - precisely because I was straight.
Precisely. The problem is a linguistic one. Same-sex union, communion, marriage; we haven't developed a meta-language that will include every variation currently available in the human-nation station.
It's true; and, it will come; until we have the language to describe the way our world is changing, a fact McLuhan (sigh) stressed, a set of lexical elements the adequately do justice to whatever it is that is happening tomorrow, we will be forced to deal with yesterday's linguistic (and always always always always always [thanks, King Lear] inadequate lexical values which have no moral nor ethical sheen on them).
I don't know what Castro Valley is; but, it makes me think of Castor and Pollox and Fidel and oil and . . . Was it a gay enclave? If you the outsider in that environment because of your orientation, that's precisely why you should write about it; because it always reverses itself, the victim / victor or master / slave dichotomy dominating and subjugating our existence on this puny planet (and, I notice they found a universe after our universe or, took pics of it or something? Amazing. These are such amazing times to be alive; I'm so glad I am! And, you, too, Frank, for many many reasons and even more seasons).
Art? In my biography for the Marshall McLuhan newsgroup I started on his birthday as a gift to the McLuhan community a long time ago, now, I mention Mondo 2000; and, one of the scribes goes, "Man, these cliches of his, he created them, like Shakespeare, he's an original; and, who'da thunk it?" (Which is a paraphrase and there's way too much research for me to go find it all -- check alt.authors.mcluhan's charter and so forth, you'll find it there on ol' and dead Usenet, now). RIP!
Well, I have been commanded by Monsignor Wilson to contribute to "what I started," but I find I really have little to say. You two are just so far above me conversational-wise.
I do wonder, though, what you mean that you can't pass over a marriage having a husband and wife, Frank. You really think that's part of its definition?
Ah, Frank: I owe you an apology and the Monsignor (?) certainly hits the nail on the head when he says you ought not have been off-cut by yours truly; I am sorry; and, you know what else? Turning into a bloody hypocrite lecteur, mon semblable; next stop? Sex-change op, mon frère, I'm sure.
(You do not give yourself nearly the credit you deserve; I have learned a great deal from you, in fact, especially when it comes to names and nationalities, not to mention all things geekery, BTW.)
Fact is, it used to drive me to Distraction, OH, whenever someone hi-jacked a thread of mine; so, I'm doubly guilty and more than willing to do the time for what I myself consider to be an ordinal crime. Mea culpable; je suis some babbler, eh?
Sorry. I'll just watch from the sidelines since, well, I'd also like to see how His NewFound Holiness responds to thee [*BEG*] . . .
Hi Frank, Yes, I do. It is sort of what Isak Dinesen said about unity. She pointed out that two left-handed gloves are useless. You need a left-hand glove and a right-hand glove. The unity derives from the complementary difference. Marriage isn't a pair of identical roles. It's a pair of complementary roles. And the terms husband and wife indicate this. I think we can protect people's rights without doing violence to language.
Marriage (noun): 1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry). "When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw] Marriage counselling first recorded 1945. Marriage bed, fig. of marital intercourse generally, is attested from 1590.
Marry (verb): 1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite. — Online Etymological Dictionary
I cite the above because it doesn't involve sexual orientation, it simply describes gender (and, in gay relationships, there are two gender roles, aren't there?)
There's no excuse for not checking, but part of it is that it's credible that Sarah Palin would think Africa is a country, not a continent, where it totally isn't that Obama would.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it Dan Rather who spent a gazillion years in the trenches as an honourable and credible voice of authority (only to have his career destroyed by "careless" fact-checking and double-sourcing)? You gotta feel for the guy (and, I have no idea whether he did or does a good job; but, I do recall reading a story recently concerning his long road back to respectability. If someone else knows where the story exists, I'd be grateful for the tip; but, IIRC, it appeared in The Toronto Star or The Globe and Mail). Nigel? You remember it? Wasn't that long ago, either. Seems he's now working with a group of eager-beaver stud-journos,* lucky guy :).
ReplyDelete* Listen, "stud-journos" signals an improvement in my attitude towards students (during my years as one, that is; during my years as a professor, I'd never call one of my charges a "rudent," an appellation I coined for them pompous Ph.D.ickheads that drove me to distraction while I literally drove a taxi @ night for three years in Toronto).
I do not think it credible that Sarah Palin would not know that Africa was a continent. But then I find incredible that Obama proudly announced that he had campaigned in 57 states and did not know that Kentucky, which borders on a state called Illinois, is not right next to Arkansas.
ReplyDeleteIs that true and provable about Obama? Hrmm . . . I don't find it credible; and, wait a minute, wasn't he just exhausted and confused about where he was? It was a case of very human error as opposed to ignorance, wasn't it? I'm not sure, here; that's why I'm asking.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of sources. Remember the book-banning brohahaggle? I did find a credible, I believe, source concerning Palin's clamp-downer tendencies in that department; but, because the election hadn't happened, didn't consider it fair to either side to provide the source for her leanings (or proclivities, perhaps?).
The book business consisted of nothing more than an inquiry, and it is actually possible that parents might regard a given book as inappropriate for children. The librarian in question continued in her job until she retired. No books were banned. As for Obama, here he is himself.
ReplyDeleteHere is another.
And for good measure, here is a third.
Now any of these, if he were a Republican,would have made him the new Dan Quayle - or Sarah Palin. And none is based on unnamed sources. And the only source for the Palin story is unnamed.
Right, Frank; here is the salient sequence of 'graphs:
ReplyDeleteBut in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.
“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”
“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”
You say, "The book business consisted of nothing more than an inquiry, and it is actually possible that parents might regard a given book as inappropriate for children. The librarian in question continued in her job until she retired. No books were banned."
Exactly. Palin wanted the book removed and didn't want to read that "stuff"; but, it is the parents' responsibility to decide what's appropriate for each child, not the mayor's, not the governor's, not God's, in fact.
The book existed in the stacks; it was okay by the librarian that it did so; and, clearly, tolerance and education go hand-in-hand. I've not had time to check the Obama stuff; so, I'll do that now.
But, Palin wanted to know how to get a book out of a library. IMO, that says a great deal about her moral objections to it.
Homosexuality is not a crime; it is a natural part of our lives and we both know this to be a fact of ethics, not morals. Parents are responsible for what their children read; and, as Trudeau once said about Canadian sexual unions and communions, The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.
That's a universal truth, IMO, natch; but, one that goes a long way towards explaining why Palin scares the "bejeebers" out of peeps like me, peeps who believe in fair-play equality right across the board. Yes, I'm distressed about California's rejection of same-sex marriage; but, that's because I see same-sex unions in the same way I see hetero ones; and, let's get this straight:
The bottom line is that we earn a lot more taxation dollars from same-sex unions, and we protect a lot more human beings, than a converse state of affairs.
BTW, just so you (editorially speaking) know, I'm so het it hurtz, gawd-damn it :). I've had some great offers from some beautiful women; but, I just ain't built that way. Wish I would get a few from some beautiful men, too (but, of course, I never go anywhere so, what's a babe to do?).
I'm responding point-by-point because power's flickering. (Oh, Lard, ain't that the truf? LOL.)
Now, I will go read your L'Inq.s and see what's up with that, eh? K. Thanks for providing same, BTW.
Yep, he screwed up big time, no two ways about it; and, so did McCain, and so did Billary (particularly the bunky story about the tarmac that turned out to be a fantasy in Yugoslavia, wasn't it?). Nature of the beast, if you ask me; and, yes, he got a free ride because the prospect of another four years of Bushery, as far as I can tell, was anathema to far more media peeps than little ol' Lu (R.I.P.) 'n' me :).
ReplyDeleteLet's face it: An honest politician's an oxymoron; and, they're all in it for the job, the power, the prestige, the ego. As McLuhan so accurately noted, "a four-year stint in the White House is no longer easily distinguishable from something arranged by a booking agency."
The leader's simply the image representing the back-room heavy-duty power-brokers; and, fortunately, Obama made fewer mistakes than his opponent (IMO since, you know me, Frank, I've never denied I am a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada and I have always respected the fact you consider yourself to be "an old Tory"). Is but one of the reasons we get along so well, IMO.
(And, you're also right about Palin knowing a great deal about energy plans, much more than media give her credit for knowing. She's the brunt of the GOP joke, right now. Is all. That's why the focus is on the superficialities, the clothes, the makeup, the massages, the lingerie, the door-answering in the two towels, yadda-yadda-yawn. There's no substance because there's no accountability, IMO, at least; but, I might be wrong.)
I tend to go with Guy Debord on all of this, anyway (and, please, note the date on that editorial, pls/tnx, Frank).
I didn't even bother voting in our last election; I kinda just consider it this way: It's corporate or syndicate; take your picket fence elsewhere for the duration which, in fact, is what I've tried to do, here in The Beautiful Downtown Middle of Elsewhere. I don't like most Boomers and I especially don't like most of their spoiled offspring, either; I think I'm just a fucking contrarian, period; they all bore me to pieces; and, they're all full of shit, IMO; so, I am just gonna vote for me me me and the party of eccentricity. (Most all of my friends are a decade or more older than I am, in fact; or, a decade younger, come to think of it.)
But, that was pretty dumb; blatantly so, in fact: Even I know you don't have 57 varieties of snakes in the US :). LOL.
--
"The society whose modernisation has reached the stage of integrated spectacle is characterised by the combined effect of five principal factors: incessant technological renewal, integration of state and economy, generalised secrecy, unanswerable lies, and eternal present . . ."
— Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle (1967)
On the subject of homosexuality: It ought not to be a crime, and I am glad that in this country it no longer is. I am proud of the fact that a former colleague, who is gay, once proposed that I be named an honorary homosexual. One of the most touching experiences of my life occurred during my drug-and-drink saturated days when I was at a place in North Philly (in the closeted days of the early '60s) with a mixed bag of people, and this gay guy - a cradle Catholic, just like me - said wistfully, "Nobody else may love me, but God loves me."
ReplyDeleteRe gay marriage: I have a linguistic problem with that. I can pass over the marriage is between a man and a woman part, but I can't pass over the marriage involves a husband and a wife. Ball is in the other court now. Let's talk this through. No problem at all with civil partnerships - and I have the friends to prove it, who will back me up. One other point: Back when it counted, I was one of those tough straight guys who stood up for his gay friends. Some years later, in San Francisco, I was annoyed (and only annoyed) to be treated rather shabbily in the Castro Valley - precisely because I was straight.
ReplyDeletePrecisely. The problem is a linguistic one. Same-sex union, communion, marriage; we haven't developed a meta-language that will include every variation currently available in the human-nation station.
ReplyDeleteIt's true; and, it will come; until we have the language to describe the way our world is changing, a fact McLuhan (sigh) stressed, a set of lexical elements the adequately do justice to whatever it is that is happening tomorrow, we will be forced to deal with yesterday's linguistic (and always always always always always [thanks, King Lear] inadequate lexical values which have no moral nor ethical sheen on them).
I don't know what Castro Valley is; but, it makes me think of Castor and Pollox and Fidel and oil and . . . Was it a gay enclave? If you the outsider in that environment because of your orientation, that's precisely why you should write about it; because it always reverses itself, the victim / victor or master / slave dichotomy dominating and subjugating our existence on this puny planet (and, I notice they found a universe after our universe or, took pics of it or something? Amazing. These are such amazing times to be alive; I'm so glad I am! And, you, too, Frank, for many many reasons and even more seasons).
Art? In my biography for the Marshall McLuhan newsgroup I started on his birthday as a gift to the McLuhan community a long time ago, now, I mention Mondo 2000; and, one of the scribes goes, "Man, these cliches of his, he created them, like Shakespeare, he's an original; and, who'da thunk it?" (Which is a paraphrase and there's way too much research for me to go find it all -- check alt.authors.mcluhan's charter and so forth, you'll find it there on ol' and dead Usenet, now). RIP!
Well, I have been commanded by Monsignor Wilson to contribute to "what I started," but I find I really have little to say. You two are just so far above me conversational-wise.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder, though, what you mean that you can't pass over a marriage having a husband and wife, Frank. You really think that's part of its definition?
Ah, Frank: I owe you an apology and the Monsignor (?) certainly hits the nail on the head when he says you ought not have been off-cut by yours truly; I am sorry; and, you know what else? Turning into a bloody hypocrite lecteur, mon semblable; next stop? Sex-change op, mon frère, I'm sure.
ReplyDelete(You do not give yourself nearly the credit you deserve; I have learned a great deal from you, in fact, especially when it comes to names and nationalities, not to mention all things geekery, BTW.)
Fact is, it used to drive me to Distraction, OH, whenever someone hi-jacked a thread of mine; so, I'm doubly guilty and more than willing to do the time for what I myself consider to be an ordinal crime. Mea culpable; je suis some babbler, eh?
Sorry. I'll just watch from the sidelines since, well, I'd also like to see how His NewFound Holiness responds to thee [*BEG*] . . .
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteYes, I do. It is sort of what Isak Dinesen said about unity. She pointed out that two left-handed gloves are useless. You need a left-hand glove and a right-hand glove. The unity derives from the complementary difference. Marriage isn't a pair of identical roles. It's a pair of complementary roles. And the terms husband and wife indicate this. I think we can protect people's rights without doing violence to language.
Marriage (noun):
ReplyDelete1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).
"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw]
Marriage counselling first recorded 1945. Marriage bed, fig. of marital intercourse generally, is attested from 1590.
Marry (verb):
1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.
— Online Etymological Dictionary
I cite the above because it doesn't involve sexual orientation, it simply describes gender (and, in gay relationships, there are two gender roles, aren't there?)