Are you sure your surgeon is telling you the truth, that sciatica on both sides is so rare he's never seen another case out of the ten thousand he's done? During my second pregnancy the joints in my pelvic girdle softened enough for it to settle rather hard down onto my sciatic nerves and crushed both of them. I was in extreme pain from my hips to below my knee, half the length of both legs for about seven months straight. And while I didn't get a wheel chair (our house was so small as to make such a thing unthinkable) I was in severe pain every moment of every day. The pain only ended after his birth.
So we have something besides critical thinking in common.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
"That is why I broadcast--to touch people's lives"
I have mentioned this already, but you cannot imagine what a life-saver you were when you started denouncing the act of rolling eyes during an argument. It seems that usually men do it to their wives as a power play. The man who rolls his eyes at what she's saying has denounced her as too unreasonable to try to talk to, called her too ridiculous to talk to, stated flatly that she's not being reasonable or making sense, hinted that she just gave him fodder to laugh over with his buddies behind her back, all in one simple gesture.
It's a power play. If she objects to it, he tells her she's being ridiculous, or denies that the eyeroll even means anything--a double victory for him, and he didn't even have to frame his argument in words. But not every woman sees it for what it is, so she's left enraged and sputtering--another win. It's a "shut up" button for a lazy, mean man to press, though not every man knows how nasty it is nor is willing to examine his own behavior and ask himself if that's what he's done, similar to how men who give their wives the silent treatment for a week usually refuse to critique that lazy power play, too.
It's a short cut to dismissing someone, whith a large dose of vilification thrown in. It's a blocking gesture, intended to win the fight by belittling the other person rather than to allow a free flow of discussion between the parties. It shames the other person as well, and is guaranteed to get them angry. If she says he just insulted her, he looks astonished at her unreasonable claim and snorts or denies it in some other belittling manner. It's meant to be a fast track to stopping her from offering any further discussion, which is another way for power-mongers to get their way.
My husband's gesture was the under-the-breath expletive (which wasn't so much under the breath that it couldn't be clearly understood by both me and our children) accompanied by the head drop and hopeless headshake. It plainly stated, "What a bitch you are. Every word you speak after this headshake only serves to further demonstrate your insane behavior." He always pulled this in front of the children. The muttered insult alternated between the simple, "Man!" and "Fuckin' bitch," and always came after he had run me in circles with his meanness, lies, and phony accusations which it took me years to realize he didn't actually believe (thus I didn't really need to plead with him to stop saying such mean things). And you will be proud to realize that this realization came hand in hand with the advent of your assertion that eyerolling was a mean and underhanded thing to do.
Once you said that, I was no longer alone, boxed into a corner by a husband who painted me as unreasonable, insane, or out of control. I had a champion who agreed with me. We had been in marital counseling for a year or so, and even the counselor didn't know there was anything wrong with eyerolling and wouldn't support me in my complaint that it was mean, cheap, and underhanded.
Thank you, Dennis.
It's a power play. If she objects to it, he tells her she's being ridiculous, or denies that the eyeroll even means anything--a double victory for him, and he didn't even have to frame his argument in words. But not every woman sees it for what it is, so she's left enraged and sputtering--another win. It's a "shut up" button for a lazy, mean man to press, though not every man knows how nasty it is nor is willing to examine his own behavior and ask himself if that's what he's done, similar to how men who give their wives the silent treatment for a week usually refuse to critique that lazy power play, too.
It's a short cut to dismissing someone, whith a large dose of vilification thrown in. It's a blocking gesture, intended to win the fight by belittling the other person rather than to allow a free flow of discussion between the parties. It shames the other person as well, and is guaranteed to get them angry. If she says he just insulted her, he looks astonished at her unreasonable claim and snorts or denies it in some other belittling manner. It's meant to be a fast track to stopping her from offering any further discussion, which is another way for power-mongers to get their way.
My husband's gesture was the under-the-breath expletive (which wasn't so much under the breath that it couldn't be clearly understood by both me and our children) accompanied by the head drop and hopeless headshake. It plainly stated, "What a bitch you are. Every word you speak after this headshake only serves to further demonstrate your insane behavior." He always pulled this in front of the children. The muttered insult alternated between the simple, "Man!" and "Fuckin' bitch," and always came after he had run me in circles with his meanness, lies, and phony accusations which it took me years to realize he didn't actually believe (thus I didn't really need to plead with him to stop saying such mean things). And you will be proud to realize that this realization came hand in hand with the advent of your assertion that eyerolling was a mean and underhanded thing to do.
Once you said that, I was no longer alone, boxed into a corner by a husband who painted me as unreasonable, insane, or out of control. I had a champion who agreed with me. We had been in marital counseling for a year or so, and even the counselor didn't know there was anything wrong with eyerolling and wouldn't support me in my complaint that it was mean, cheap, and underhanded.
Thank you, Dennis.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Life is a Daily Battle
And everything in life is a battle, though our tendency is to avoid them and do what's much more pleasant. For most, that's watching TV. For some, it still involves reading books, though that number is dwindling, as our youngest generation almost universally refuse to have anything to do with anything beyond their immediate selves.
One of the many things I learned from Dr. Laura was that we tend to look at other people doing well, and we think they come by their ability naturally. Shy people see confident people stride into a room evidently without a drop of fear that they will be rejected. Yet the truth is that everyone is afraid of rejection, and the people who appear so confident are actually pushing themselves to look and feel comfortable with these strangers. They just have more practice.
As you say, everything is a struggle, and you have to push yourself all the time. Push yourself to do the housework, push yourself to get to work, push yourself to do anything tough, push yourself to make that goal when it's no longer fun, push yourself to learn that skill when it's no longer easy. You don't feel "motivated" often, usually the distractions are so much easier, so much more fun, so much more entertaining. But if you don't want to be a slave to your weakness, you push yourself to do what you should do anyway.
One of the many things I learned from Dr. Laura was that we tend to look at other people doing well, and we think they come by their ability naturally. Shy people see confident people stride into a room evidently without a drop of fear that they will be rejected. Yet the truth is that everyone is afraid of rejection, and the people who appear so confident are actually pushing themselves to look and feel comfortable with these strangers. They just have more practice.
As you say, everything is a struggle, and you have to push yourself all the time. Push yourself to do the housework, push yourself to get to work, push yourself to do anything tough, push yourself to make that goal when it's no longer fun, push yourself to learn that skill when it's no longer easy. You don't feel "motivated" often, usually the distractions are so much easier, so much more fun, so much more entertaining. But if you don't want to be a slave to your weakness, you push yourself to do what you should do anyway.
Nobody cares, says Allen
I'm sure Allen doesn't care but don't let his projecting his narrowness onto your audience convince you that your audience doesn't care either. It gets really tiresome having you underestimate us. Maybe you need to have lunch with the Kentucky Prager Listener group once or twice for you to learn that your audience, even us redneck hillbillies, value our brains and love the important little intellectual points such as the Italian name of Le Quattro Stagioni, or whether it should be "time outs" or "times out".
Thursday, June 24, 2010
"I don't mind that they [colleges] are left-wing, I mind that people deny it"
Dennis, I fully understand the division between minding the colleges' being leftist and minding that people deny it.
I agree with you that the country living in such denial is extremely annoying. It ranks up there with lying to oneself. I'm not sure they're related, since as we know the leftists are incapable of seeing themselves in the mirror, and this inability makes them incapable of seeing their own biases as biases, or their own prejudices as prejudices, or understanding that their underlying presuppositions often get in the way of their seeing much of anything.
But I don't know how you can say you don't mind that the colleges (a generalization, of course; I assume you mean "at least" three-fourths of the colleges in the country because I'm pretty sure that's the figure) are so leftwing.
I consider this a grave matter. Education, erudition, enlightenment all are to be represented by one side? What does the other side represent? Well, for the left, that's easy. Conservatives are stupid, conservatives can't read and wouldn't read if they could. Conservatives are the toothless, unwashed WHITE masses living in trailer parks, unable to speak intelligible English, sallying forth every night to lynch a darkie and afterwards getting drunk on cheap beer to celebrate. They're the gun-totin' cowboys throwing beer bottles at Jake and Elwood Blues.
But what are you thinking of when you say that an educated viewpoint is capable of being represented by one side only?
I agree with you that the country living in such denial is extremely annoying. It ranks up there with lying to oneself. I'm not sure they're related, since as we know the leftists are incapable of seeing themselves in the mirror, and this inability makes them incapable of seeing their own biases as biases, or their own prejudices as prejudices, or understanding that their underlying presuppositions often get in the way of their seeing much of anything.
But I don't know how you can say you don't mind that the colleges (a generalization, of course; I assume you mean "at least" three-fourths of the colleges in the country because I'm pretty sure that's the figure) are so leftwing.
I consider this a grave matter. Education, erudition, enlightenment all are to be represented by one side? What does the other side represent? Well, for the left, that's easy. Conservatives are stupid, conservatives can't read and wouldn't read if they could. Conservatives are the toothless, unwashed WHITE masses living in trailer parks, unable to speak intelligible English, sallying forth every night to lynch a darkie and afterwards getting drunk on cheap beer to celebrate. They're the gun-totin' cowboys throwing beer bottles at Jake and Elwood Blues.
But what are you thinking of when you say that an educated viewpoint is capable of being represented by one side only?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
David Petraeus
Will Gen. Petraeus become acceptable now, the guy who used to be "general betray-us" is redeemed now that he's Obama's personal pick?
I'm betting we never hear that slur again.
I'm betting we never hear that slur again.
[Obama] could look like a winner by not accepting Mcchrystal's resignation
He would, if he were capable of not accepting the resignation. He is not. He is a thin-skinned crybaby who got ticked upon learning that someone talked about him behind his back. The President's only problem is how to make himself look good while boiling the general in oil.
Concept of writing on a higher level at Rolling Stone
Well, those writers at RS who aren't old hippies, are the generation taught by the old hippies thirty years ago, or are the generation taught by the generation taught by the old hippies ten years ago.
Their powers of observation, their ability to categorize and detect similarities and distinctions, their ability to draw inferences and analogize, have all been destroyed, partly by bad education, and the rest through lack of education.
You should talk to them as I do, on a large-scale basis, every day. I play an online game that is played mostly by 18- to 30-year-olds, and we have an open chat channel occupied at any time by over a hundred people. Only the loudmouths speak up (and I do so occasionally), and they are rude and nasty and mean much of the time. Their idea of what should pass for "clever" or "deep" or even "funny" (which often requires cleverness, depth, and humor) would make you cry. For example, last week someone decided that making fun of another person's penis was so hilarious that he gave himself permission to repeat the same six-word jeer a few hundred times over the next two hours. The jeer was neither funny nor clever, but that it kept appearing in chat every five to thirty seconds sufficed to make a number of people laugh, reinforcing the jeerer's urge to do it again.
These kids learn so little and are exposed to so little learning or wisdom in school that their main educators now are afternoon TV programs like the Suite Life, Hannah Montana, Sunny with a Chance, Fast Times at Ridgemont High. They won't even watch re-runs of mildly cleverer shows like Fresh Prince and heaven forbid they might actually watch something actually intelligent and entertaining. They don't read, they never watch documentaries or history, and they have no access to old movies (and sneer at the idea of watching documentaries or reading), so their horizons are so straitened they have never seen anything past the ends of their own noses. Thus they grow up thinking they're the center of the universe, that everything is measurable by their own standards. Doing a certain thing isn't rude if it doesn't offend me; I would feel good if the government took your income from you so I'll vote for the guy who wants to take it from you. A war against the Taliban is stupid because the Taliban doesn't make me wear a veil. Saving my drowning dog over the stranger makes sense to me because the dog is within my horizons and the stranger may as well not exist.
I can tell from your monologues that you really have never met these human beings. Or perhaps you meet them but you really don't live where they are, and the extent of their narrowness and their willful blindness to anything beyond arm's reach is just unimaginable unless you've seen them expose themselves and their ignorance on a daily basis.
Their powers of observation, their ability to categorize and detect similarities and distinctions, their ability to draw inferences and analogize, have all been destroyed, partly by bad education, and the rest through lack of education.
You should talk to them as I do, on a large-scale basis, every day. I play an online game that is played mostly by 18- to 30-year-olds, and we have an open chat channel occupied at any time by over a hundred people. Only the loudmouths speak up (and I do so occasionally), and they are rude and nasty and mean much of the time. Their idea of what should pass for "clever" or "deep" or even "funny" (which often requires cleverness, depth, and humor) would make you cry. For example, last week someone decided that making fun of another person's penis was so hilarious that he gave himself permission to repeat the same six-word jeer a few hundred times over the next two hours. The jeer was neither funny nor clever, but that it kept appearing in chat every five to thirty seconds sufficed to make a number of people laugh, reinforcing the jeerer's urge to do it again.
These kids learn so little and are exposed to so little learning or wisdom in school that their main educators now are afternoon TV programs like the Suite Life, Hannah Montana, Sunny with a Chance, Fast Times at Ridgemont High. They won't even watch re-runs of mildly cleverer shows like Fresh Prince and heaven forbid they might actually watch something actually intelligent and entertaining. They don't read, they never watch documentaries or history, and they have no access to old movies (and sneer at the idea of watching documentaries or reading), so their horizons are so straitened they have never seen anything past the ends of their own noses. Thus they grow up thinking they're the center of the universe, that everything is measurable by their own standards. Doing a certain thing isn't rude if it doesn't offend me; I would feel good if the government took your income from you so I'll vote for the guy who wants to take it from you. A war against the Taliban is stupid because the Taliban doesn't make me wear a veil. Saving my drowning dog over the stranger makes sense to me because the dog is within my horizons and the stranger may as well not exist.
I can tell from your monologues that you really have never met these human beings. Or perhaps you meet them but you really don't live where they are, and the extent of their narrowness and their willful blindness to anything beyond arm's reach is just unimaginable unless you've seen them expose themselves and their ignorance on a daily basis.
I suppose there were some on the left who might have said that at 9-11
I don't think so, Dennis. The Bush derangement began the moment they had first heard Bush (the younger)'s name. He was stupid, first and foremost, and a coke addict and a drunk and had ducked out of Vietnam service and got favorable admission to Yale because of his father. He was also evil, stealing the election from *sniffle* poor Mr. Gore, and ordereding his Supreme Court to appoint him president. Then this evil man appointed his cohorts to his Cabinet and thus installed an evil political machine.
How have you forgotten all this?
How have you forgotten all this?
Monday, June 21, 2010
Idiocy having the outlook of an eight-year-old
I'm ashamed to say, then, that I held this notion in my mid teens. My teachers in public school (ca. 1970) had taught us that our huge arms buildup was completely unnecessary (I remember several of them mentioning it) and that unilateral arms reduction would be an excellent idea.
"After all," my tenth-grade social studies teacher rationalized, "the Russians don't really want to invade us. If they conquered America, what would they do with us? So many rebellious Americans fighting Russian control, they'd have to suppress us they'd have a terrible law enforcement problem to manage. They don't even have enough soldiers to control an occupied U.S., all that fussing about 'invaders' is absurd."
It's sure easy to talk yourself into "good" positions when what you want is "good" and when you're godlike enough to make it true just by believing it.
Remember, all you need is love.
"After all," my tenth-grade social studies teacher rationalized, "the Russians don't really want to invade us. If they conquered America, what would they do with us? So many rebellious Americans fighting Russian control, they'd have to suppress us they'd have a terrible law enforcement problem to manage. They don't even have enough soldiers to control an occupied U.S., all that fussing about 'invaders' is absurd."
It's sure easy to talk yourself into "good" positions when what you want is "good" and when you're godlike enough to make it true just by believing it.
Remember, all you need is love.
Millard Public Schools
world hearald, omaha, NE,
sixth-grade language arts.
LANGUAGE ARTS, dammit. That's today's code word for "reading" now.
sixth-grade language arts.
LANGUAGE ARTS, dammit. That's today's code word for "reading" now.
At least he believes in something!
Yeah, so what? The Nazi Youth Corps also "believed in something."
Until recently I attended the most liberal and wealthy church on the West Side of Los Angeles. Almost all of the parents were college educated, white collar, newspaper-reading, politically active Christians. Some are liberal, some conservative, and very few could be considered middle of the road. Most mothers are working professionals.
Their children go to school in Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, or one of the extremely expensive but very elite private schools such as Harvard-Westlake, Dye, or Mirman School for the Highly Gifted.
And I have to tell you, I have run into this kind of attitude for years. It is a product of the Sixties where we destroyed society's ability to tell anyone what was good and what was bad. We started leaving it up to the individual but the immediate result of this nihilism was for the youth of the culture to declare there wasn't anything worth believing in. Then they grew up and learned better, but still felt themselves unable to teach their own children the difference between good and bad. Instead they figured they had to allow their children to "make up their own minds" about issues.
Sadly this attitude is almost as prevalent with conservative parents as with liberals. "I don't have the right to impose my values (they mean "morals") on my kids, they should discover a values system that is all their own." Thus they're delighted when junior stumbles on some issue worth caring about. The problem is that the school did the imposing for them, and shoved cigarette intolerance and global warming onto the kid as the two most important issues confronting him.
Until recently I attended the most liberal and wealthy church on the West Side of Los Angeles. Almost all of the parents were college educated, white collar, newspaper-reading, politically active Christians. Some are liberal, some conservative, and very few could be considered middle of the road. Most mothers are working professionals.
Their children go to school in Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, or one of the extremely expensive but very elite private schools such as Harvard-Westlake, Dye, or Mirman School for the Highly Gifted.
And I have to tell you, I have run into this kind of attitude for years. It is a product of the Sixties where we destroyed society's ability to tell anyone what was good and what was bad. We started leaving it up to the individual but the immediate result of this nihilism was for the youth of the culture to declare there wasn't anything worth believing in. Then they grew up and learned better, but still felt themselves unable to teach their own children the difference between good and bad. Instead they figured they had to allow their children to "make up their own minds" about issues.
Sadly this attitude is almost as prevalent with conservative parents as with liberals. "I don't have the right to impose my values (they mean "morals") on my kids, they should discover a values system that is all their own." Thus they're delighted when junior stumbles on some issue worth caring about. The problem is that the school did the imposing for them, and shoved cigarette intolerance and global warming onto the kid as the two most important issues confronting him.
"That's what they're taught, not values, other than 'saving the earth'"
Oh, they're taught values. Save the earth is number one now, but there are also:
Smoking is the worst thing you can do.
Wear a condom.
Your parents don't know anything.
It doesn't matter what you know, as long as you know where to look it up.
It doesn't matter how you spell it, as long as you get your idea across.
Six apples dispersed among five children equals one apple per child, plus the most needy child gets the extra apple.
Smoking is the worst thing you can do.
Wear a condom.
Your parents don't know anything.
It doesn't matter what you know, as long as you know where to look it up.
It doesn't matter how you spell it, as long as you get your idea across.
Six apples dispersed among five children equals one apple per child, plus the most needy child gets the extra apple.
it's classic left-wing indoctrination
The teachers don't know it's indoctrination; they think they're teaching a vital truth without which our children will ravage the planet. That's all that is necessary for them to feel they have carte blanche to teach and push whatever they wish.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Does this President like big business?
Of course he does, if they give him enough money. BP has been one of the front-runners in giving money to Obama. Therefore, he likes them.
What have you ever seen from this president that would indicate to you that he had any animus toward big business in general? That he often calls them names and uses them to scapegoat? He does that to a degree, but since it doesn't stop them from giving him just as much money as before, I don't think that's an indicator of any dislike on his part.
Now, if he should start refusing their money because it was tainted--that would be an indicator.
What have you ever seen from this president that would indicate to you that he had any animus toward big business in general? That he often calls them names and uses them to scapegoat? He does that to a degree, but since it doesn't stop them from giving him just as much money as before, I don't think that's an indicator of any dislike on his part.
Now, if he should start refusing their money because it was tainted--that would be an indicator.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
"Obama and his friends hate the rich"
Hey, Dennis, Obama and his friends don't hate the rich. How can you think that's the case? They love the rich--when the rich are on the left. But let a redneck make a dime on his mom-and-pop business, or let a conservative billionaire build a news network, and here come the fireworks.
100% Turnout to vote
I have been told by an Australian that voting is a requirement for all citizens there.
The left love to force people to vote, thus the people who wouldn't normally care enough to vote will be forced to go to the polls, thus the ignorant and uninformed are now voting, thus the left get a greater number of votes. I sure don't know why a democracy considers it proper to force anyone to do anything, but that's the way it is. I'm certain it's because of their leftist leanings. Meanwhile I'm glad I live in a country that only steals my money rather than forcing me to do something (whether or not I feel so inclined) twice a year on primary day and election day.
But then again, the same country represses free speech with its "anti-vilification" laws, and no one saw a problem with threatening two Christian ministers with six years each in jail based on the fact that they were teaching the history of Islam, using only the writings of Islamic historians.
The left love to force people to vote, thus the people who wouldn't normally care enough to vote will be forced to go to the polls, thus the ignorant and uninformed are now voting, thus the left get a greater number of votes. I sure don't know why a democracy considers it proper to force anyone to do anything, but that's the way it is. I'm certain it's because of their leftist leanings. Meanwhile I'm glad I live in a country that only steals my money rather than forcing me to do something (whether or not I feel so inclined) twice a year on primary day and election day.
But then again, the same country represses free speech with its "anti-vilification" laws, and no one saw a problem with threatening two Christian ministers with six years each in jail based on the fact that they were teaching the history of Islam, using only the writings of Islamic historians.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Case for Marriage
I do wish you'd quit shouting down people you're trying to interrupt. It's very annoying.
"Women always get custody of the children," says the caller, and you jump in and start ranting on YOUR thoughts on the subject. The caller patiently waits for you to take a breath because he hadn't yet made his point when you interrupted him, but when he starts to speak again, you realize you had something else to say and jump on him, shouting, "I know a guy [raising your voice because you might not get to keep on talking] I know a guy! whose wife moved to Texas..."
We listen to you all week. Frequently your callers have points to make that you haven't, and almost as frequently, you shout them down because you'd rather hear Dennis's point.
It may sound rude of me to say so. It is annoying though, especially when the caller is halfway through his sentence and even though he didn't seem to be in danger of "taking too long to get to the point" (and therefore there's no problem with running into the hard break), you can't wait to trump him, often it's because you said something about this before. Yes, you said something before, so why do we want to hear you say it again? Maybe your caller listens to you as much as we do, and he'd like to add one thing to what you've said, or thinks your point could be worded in another way, and that's why he's been on hold for forty minutes, waiting to improve or elaborate on something. Give them a chance.
"Women always get custody of the children," says the caller, and you jump in and start ranting on YOUR thoughts on the subject. The caller patiently waits for you to take a breath because he hadn't yet made his point when you interrupted him, but when he starts to speak again, you realize you had something else to say and jump on him, shouting, "I know a guy [raising your voice because you might not get to keep on talking] I know a guy! whose wife moved to Texas..."
We listen to you all week. Frequently your callers have points to make that you haven't, and almost as frequently, you shout them down because you'd rather hear Dennis's point.
It may sound rude of me to say so. It is annoying though, especially when the caller is halfway through his sentence and even though he didn't seem to be in danger of "taking too long to get to the point" (and therefore there's no problem with running into the hard break), you can't wait to trump him, often it's because you said something about this before. Yes, you said something before, so why do we want to hear you say it again? Maybe your caller listens to you as much as we do, and he'd like to add one thing to what you've said, or thinks your point could be worded in another way, and that's why he's been on hold for forty minutes, waiting to improve or elaborate on something. Give them a chance.
He is very, very bright.
"When I analyzed his speeches in writing, they said nothing~! Nothing~!"
And this is an indicator of Obama's awesome intelligence how?
I say it is more an indication of how the former college student who used to "hang around with the Black Panthers, the Marxist professors, and feminist revisionists" has learned how to turn a phrase around till it means nothing but has a rhetorical ring to it that will be embraced by someone desperate to embrace something.
I have many things to say about Obama's putative intelligence, but I don't think the public perception matches reality.
And this is an indicator of Obama's awesome intelligence how?
I say it is more an indication of how the former college student who used to "hang around with the Black Panthers, the Marxist professors, and feminist revisionists" has learned how to turn a phrase around till it means nothing but has a rhetorical ring to it that will be embraced by someone desperate to embrace something.
I have many things to say about Obama's putative intelligence, but I don't think the public perception matches reality.
"Manipulated language"?
Manipulated language. I don't think you're being honest with yourself, possibly because you have such a habit of trying to give the benefit of the doubt or trying to see both sides. Where this president is concerned, I have given up giving him the benefit of the doubt. When he says "We have run out of places to drill" and actually means something else, like, "We leftists don't want anyone profiting off a site that would grieve the greens to see getting drilled in," then I'm pretty sure he can be credited with knowing what he means to say, and deliberately saying something else. I believe he generally has been told how to couch his language in terms the public enjoys, terms like "spread the wealth around" or "they called me unpatriotic", that have already established their popularity.
What I'm trying to say is that Mr. Obama knows what he's saying is untrue, which makes him a liar, not a "manipulator of language".
When he called Jeremiah Wright "my mentor" he expected to be given oodles of credit for having such an ardent seeker of Social Justice as his spiritual and political guide. He was astonished that America loathed the things Jeremiah Wright believed. So he disavowed all connection with the man. Thus the mentor-disciple relationship turned overnight into, "Gosh, I never heard those things when I listened from the pew," a flat-out statement of untruth. Mr. Obama was lying.
What I'm trying to say is that Mr. Obama knows what he's saying is untrue, which makes him a liar, not a "manipulator of language".
When he called Jeremiah Wright "my mentor" he expected to be given oodles of credit for having such an ardent seeker of Social Justice as his spiritual and political guide. He was astonished that America loathed the things Jeremiah Wright believed. So he disavowed all connection with the man. Thus the mentor-disciple relationship turned overnight into, "Gosh, I never heard those things when I listened from the pew," a flat-out statement of untruth. Mr. Obama was lying.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson
Shakedown Artist extraordinaire.
The disgusting thing about Jesse was the fact that he dropped out of seminary in his first year (probably in his first semester), and instead of setting himself to his studies like any other ordained minister, he started his own denomination and ordained himself.
I didn't know this till I heard Jane Chastain, a very rightwing conservative talkshow host but a VERY good and reliable source of information, claim it on her radio show in the late Nineties. I went on the internet looking for any evidence that he'd been properly ordained and found zero. He did belong to his own denomination, and he did drop out of seminary without earning a single credit.
Today, however, if you look at his wikipedia entry, you'll discover what was heretofore an unknown fact: Jesse had been ordained in 1968 by the Baptist Church. I see this has been changed again. His followers are utterly determined to wipe out the fact that he ordained himself, or perhaps the denomination he started and headed himself ordained him, same thing. At any rate, they keep changing the assertion back to "the Baptist Church ordained him", and some smarter people keep trying to nudge it closer to the truth.
The Baptist Church cannot have ordained him. There is no central authority among the Baptists that ordains anyone. Individual churches can hire ("call") a would-be minister (I suspect that only a renegade church would have hired Jackson with no theological background), let him serve for a time while they decide whether to ordain him or not, and then make the decision to confer ordination upon him. No one is ordained unless he belongs to a church. Jackson was never called by any Baptist church. Remember, he had his own denomination he could shake down for donations, he never sought ordination by any Baptist church.
The disgusting thing about Jesse was the fact that he dropped out of seminary in his first year (probably in his first semester), and instead of setting himself to his studies like any other ordained minister, he started his own denomination and ordained himself.
I didn't know this till I heard Jane Chastain, a very rightwing conservative talkshow host but a VERY good and reliable source of information, claim it on her radio show in the late Nineties. I went on the internet looking for any evidence that he'd been properly ordained and found zero. He did belong to his own denomination, and he did drop out of seminary without earning a single credit.
Today, however, if you look at his wikipedia entry, you'll discover what was heretofore an unknown fact: Jesse had been ordained in 1968 by the Baptist Church. I see this has been changed again. His followers are utterly determined to wipe out the fact that he ordained himself, or perhaps the denomination he started and headed himself ordained him, same thing. At any rate, they keep changing the assertion back to "the Baptist Church ordained him", and some smarter people keep trying to nudge it closer to the truth.
The Baptist Church cannot have ordained him. There is no central authority among the Baptists that ordains anyone. Individual churches can hire ("call") a would-be minister (I suspect that only a renegade church would have hired Jackson with no theological background), let him serve for a time while they decide whether to ordain him or not, and then make the decision to confer ordination upon him. No one is ordained unless he belongs to a church. Jackson was never called by any Baptist church. Remember, he had his own denomination he could shake down for donations, he never sought ordination by any Baptist church.
"I'll bet [the NAACP ladies] don't know what a black hole is."
Precisely why they can't tell the difference between "black hole" and "black ho". It's pathetic, and it's our public education system doing its best not to let our country's children know anything. If they knew something, the Left couldn't get away with insane statements like, "We hate the Founding Fathers; they were nothing but rich white slave-owners," or "White men arrived on these shores and practiced germ warfare against the natives."
And if you, dear leftwing reader, don't know what's so seriously wrong with both those statements, try looking it up for once.
And if you, dear leftwing reader, don't know what's so seriously wrong with both those statements, try looking it up for once.
"It's a left-wing myth, one that they created to shoot down."
Most people know that this term is "straw man", and if they don't know it they certainly deserve to hear you use the term so they will have to look it up and learn it. You should use terms like this whenever it's appropriate.
I'm reminded of the time the RNC was going to criticize the "Luddite Left" and ended up taking out the term, lest someone not understand it.
Sigh.
I'm reminded of the time the RNC was going to criticize the "Luddite Left" and ended up taking out the term, lest someone not understand it.
Sigh.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
There is no wisdom taught today
If wisdom were part of the college curriculum, the Democratic Party would have no members.
Bilingual Education
Bilingual education is geared toward putting off learning the language for as long as possible; that's why it is such a failure.
I have watched the apologists for bilingual education for three decades. Almost exclusively they are youngish women with accents who have a story to tell. They talk of how they entered kindergarten speaking only Spanish and felt confused and alone, and then they cry while expressing their great wish to protect any other Hispanic children entering school from having to go through that same torture, the torture of not knowing what the teacher is saying and of not having any friends till they learn to speak English.
Since it is known that kindergarten-age children who are immersed in a language will start speaking that language in just a week or two, and will be chattering away in that language in just six to ten weeks, one wonders about all the panic over the possibility of their not knowing the language for such a dire length of time. I'm guessing that if these women didn't have the kindergarten immersion treatment to cry over, they'd be out ruining a different group of lives campaigning for green solutions to a non-existent problem called Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I have watched the apologists for bilingual education for three decades. Almost exclusively they are youngish women with accents who have a story to tell. They talk of how they entered kindergarten speaking only Spanish and felt confused and alone, and then they cry while expressing their great wish to protect any other Hispanic children entering school from having to go through that same torture, the torture of not knowing what the teacher is saying and of not having any friends till they learn to speak English.
Since it is known that kindergarten-age children who are immersed in a language will start speaking that language in just a week or two, and will be chattering away in that language in just six to ten weeks, one wonders about all the panic over the possibility of their not knowing the language for such a dire length of time. I'm guessing that if these women didn't have the kindergarten immersion treatment to cry over, they'd be out ruining a different group of lives campaigning for green solutions to a non-existent problem called Anthropogenic Global Warming.
This graduate here is kicking rear
Never mind the vulgarity of the comment. It's the fact that the new grad is supposed to threaten people and aggressively dominate everyone in sight that's bothering me.
You have to love the stupidity of confusing "black holes" with "black ho's". This comes from an illiterate and unintelligent part of the population that can't distinguish between the true meaning of the word "alien"--someone from outside our civilization, as Ruth was an alien in Bethlehem--and the pathetic pop-culture meaning of "alien" as a bug-eyed green man from Mars. And thus we have to say "undocumented immigrant" or "worker" instead of the more accurate "alien".
Your caller's assessment that many of the people at NAACP had been dropped on their heads is a very intelligent one.
You have to love the stupidity of confusing "black holes" with "black ho's". This comes from an illiterate and unintelligent part of the population that can't distinguish between the true meaning of the word "alien"--someone from outside our civilization, as Ruth was an alien in Bethlehem--and the pathetic pop-culture meaning of "alien" as a bug-eyed green man from Mars. And thus we have to say "undocumented immigrant" or "worker" instead of the more accurate "alien".
Your caller's assessment that many of the people at NAACP had been dropped on their heads is a very intelligent one.
Friday, June 11, 2010
"...this is one of the kids who thinks."
Another grammatical error, Dennis.
I first wrote to you about this in 2002 and again several times since this, but needless to say, you ignored me.
The verb "think" doesn't agree with the pronoun "one" because "one" isn't its subject. Rather, "who" is its subject. "Who" can be singular or plural, depending on its antecedent. The antecedent here is "kids", not "one", not even "one of the kids", because he isn't the ONLY kid doing the thinking, he's a member of a group who think. Plural.
Time magazine committed a similar error on their cover and were quickly corrected by a dozen grammarians. They published one succinct explanation in their letters column: "Think of it this way: of the kids who think, this is one."
Is this a minor point? Not for the guy who regularly brags that he has a sensitive ear for language.
I first wrote to you about this in 2002 and again several times since this, but needless to say, you ignored me.
The verb "think" doesn't agree with the pronoun "one" because "one" isn't its subject. Rather, "who" is its subject. "Who" can be singular or plural, depending on its antecedent. The antecedent here is "kids", not "one", not even "one of the kids", because he isn't the ONLY kid doing the thinking, he's a member of a group who think. Plural.
Time magazine committed a similar error on their cover and were quickly corrected by a dozen grammarians. They published one succinct explanation in their letters column: "Think of it this way: of the kids who think, this is one."
Is this a minor point? Not for the guy who regularly brags that he has a sensitive ear for language.
How do people graduate college and not know the word "eclectic" ?
It's because they don't read. I've been watching the "homework help" forums and have noticed that only rarely are books assigned that aren't among a tiny list of "favorites":
To Kill a Mockingbird
Catcher in the Rye
1984
Animal Farm
The Great Gatsby
Lord of the Flies
Rarely we see a few other titles:
Wuthering Heights
Jane Eyre
Pride and Prejudice
Huckleberry Finn
The Picture of Dorian Grey
and once in a blue moon, "Macbeth".
I even asked in the forum (which is supposed to be read by teachers as well as students) whether teachers didn't have any more imagination than to assign these same books over and over, and why didn't they assign the classics?
The answers I got were appalling. To the teachers, these were the classics. They raged at me for "not knowing" that teachers were given a list of books they had to choose from, which isn't the point. The point was that they always choose the same five books. Some teachers asked, "What do you want them to read, Twilight?" because, I suppose, the only books outside the list were either Harry Potter or vampire books.
The kids answered that these were great books; one claimed Great Gatsby for his one-unit list of Greatest Books Ever Written. One kid said he had been assigned some of these books two years in a row, and nobody, neither students nor teachers, even tried to name any other books outside the list.
Not Canterbury Tales, nor Paradise Lost, no poetry by John Donne, nothing by Dickens or Thackeray, no Poe, Swift, or Fielding, not Hawthorne, nor even "Uncle Tom's Cabin"--which is probably why they think our Civil War was fought over economics and not slavery.
What's my point, that the kids are stupid? No, but their teachers are illiterate, and don't mind passing their own ignorance on to the kids. The teachers have three thousand years worth of literary richness, and all they bother to pass on to the next generation is the two great navel-gazing works, Catcher in the Rye and Great Gatsby. The result is that our next generation's information remains scant and their horizons don't extend beyond the ends of their arms. Maybe the remote control comes into play here but as with the reading assignments, they're only taken to where they can stare at their own navels. "Sunny with a Chance" and "Wizards of Waverly Place" do not expand their horizons.
To Kill a Mockingbird
Catcher in the Rye
1984
Animal Farm
The Great Gatsby
Lord of the Flies
Rarely we see a few other titles:
Wuthering Heights
Jane Eyre
Pride and Prejudice
Huckleberry Finn
The Picture of Dorian Grey
and once in a blue moon, "Macbeth".
I even asked in the forum (which is supposed to be read by teachers as well as students) whether teachers didn't have any more imagination than to assign these same books over and over, and why didn't they assign the classics?
The answers I got were appalling. To the teachers, these were the classics. They raged at me for "not knowing" that teachers were given a list of books they had to choose from, which isn't the point. The point was that they always choose the same five books. Some teachers asked, "What do you want them to read, Twilight?" because, I suppose, the only books outside the list were either Harry Potter or vampire books.
The kids answered that these were great books; one claimed Great Gatsby for his one-unit list of Greatest Books Ever Written. One kid said he had been assigned some of these books two years in a row, and nobody, neither students nor teachers, even tried to name any other books outside the list.
Not Canterbury Tales, nor Paradise Lost, no poetry by John Donne, nothing by Dickens or Thackeray, no Poe, Swift, or Fielding, not Hawthorne, nor even "Uncle Tom's Cabin"--which is probably why they think our Civil War was fought over economics and not slavery.
What's my point, that the kids are stupid? No, but their teachers are illiterate, and don't mind passing their own ignorance on to the kids. The teachers have three thousand years worth of literary richness, and all they bother to pass on to the next generation is the two great navel-gazing works, Catcher in the Rye and Great Gatsby. The result is that our next generation's information remains scant and their horizons don't extend beyond the ends of their arms. Maybe the remote control comes into play here but as with the reading assignments, they're only taken to where they can stare at their own navels. "Sunny with a Chance" and "Wizards of Waverly Place" do not expand their horizons.
My attitude since I'm a very young person is...
This is simply not a correct grammatical construction. "Since I was a very young person, my attitude has been..." is correct. Of course, I don't mind if you use this cute little colloquialism, which I believe you got from your Yiddish-speaking family or neighbors. It's cute but please dont' say you "have a good ear for good language" thanks to learning four other languages. None of them have (yes, "have", because this "none" is plural) taught you to correct this mistaken construction.
"Everybody has it tough"
As I learned from Dr. Laura, when we see other people managing situations that are tough to us, we have a habit of assuming they handled it easily.
She had a caller who said she was always nervous when she entered a room full of strangers. "I'm afraid of rejection," the caller told her.
"Everyone's afraid of rejection!" replied the good doctor. "Honey, you think it's easy for the popular people, just because they can go into a room and you don't see the fear inside? They look confident and act like they can handle it but they're afraid inside, too, and nervous about the new people rejecting them. But they're no different from the rest of us."
I suspect that it's not quite as easy as that; it's more like having a sprained ankle. Even given the same amount of pain, some people will crumple in a heap and moan and cry how much they're in anguish, while others will brush it off as "It's just pain" and keep on going. It's a choice, though. I used to be one of the former, and now I'm one of the "It's just pain, no big deal" people.
In the same way, some people don't handle their emotional pain well. Others can't deal with loneliness. We teach our kids to wait for a good feeling to overcome them, rather than pushing on through the pain and dealing with it.
One student asked me, "How do I feel motivated to do my homework?" I told him not to try to feel motivated at all, because the urge to do it was never going to suddenly wash over him, lighting him on fire to get an odious task done. I suggested he set aside time and commit to making that homework time, and to offer himself a reward at the end of the homework, like ice cream, favorite TV show, guitar practice, going outside to play. Maybe we should be offering ourselves rewards for fixing our mood and behaving happy for our friends.
She had a caller who said she was always nervous when she entered a room full of strangers. "I'm afraid of rejection," the caller told her.
"Everyone's afraid of rejection!" replied the good doctor. "Honey, you think it's easy for the popular people, just because they can go into a room and you don't see the fear inside? They look confident and act like they can handle it but they're afraid inside, too, and nervous about the new people rejecting them. But they're no different from the rest of us."
I suspect that it's not quite as easy as that; it's more like having a sprained ankle. Even given the same amount of pain, some people will crumple in a heap and moan and cry how much they're in anguish, while others will brush it off as "It's just pain" and keep on going. It's a choice, though. I used to be one of the former, and now I'm one of the "It's just pain, no big deal" people.
In the same way, some people don't handle their emotional pain well. Others can't deal with loneliness. We teach our kids to wait for a good feeling to overcome them, rather than pushing on through the pain and dealing with it.
One student asked me, "How do I feel motivated to do my homework?" I told him not to try to feel motivated at all, because the urge to do it was never going to suddenly wash over him, lighting him on fire to get an odious task done. I suggested he set aside time and commit to making that homework time, and to offer himself a reward at the end of the homework, like ice cream, favorite TV show, guitar practice, going outside to play. Maybe we should be offering ourselves rewards for fixing our mood and behaving happy for our friends.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
"In a secular state we can still be wonderful"
I knew a young man who had emigrated from Russia at age 7. He told me the Russians were a mean race of people, brutish, bullying thugs. I believe that was the result of three generations of secularism.
I listen to language very carefully
No, sorry, that's a charming story you tell yourself but I have listened to you making grammatical errors and speaking in non-American colloquialisms (like "I'm listening to language carefully since I'm eight years old") for fifteen years.
And please, stop flattering yourself that you're "the only person in this room that is bothered by 'very full'." It just isn't true, and you're unconsciously lifting yourself up by putting others down. If you don't have any friends who are particular on their grammatical points, then you must be surrounding yourself with people who are badly educated and intellectually lazy. Why?
And there is such a thing as a "full glass" that isn't loaded to the brim. It's functionally full, nearly full, very full, and so forth. If you want to use precision when linguistically we use the word "full" to mean a range of fullness, then you can tell how many ounces of water are in the glass and how much empty space is at the top of the glass and THEN you will put us all to sleep but please stop flattering yourself that you're the only person in America who knows the meaning of the word "full" ... or "unique" or "antique", for that matter. It's so bloody annoying.
And please, stop flattering yourself that you're "the only person in this room that is bothered by 'very full'." It just isn't true, and you're unconsciously lifting yourself up by putting others down. If you don't have any friends who are particular on their grammatical points, then you must be surrounding yourself with people who are badly educated and intellectually lazy. Why?
And there is such a thing as a "full glass" that isn't loaded to the brim. It's functionally full, nearly full, very full, and so forth. If you want to use precision when linguistically we use the word "full" to mean a range of fullness, then you can tell how many ounces of water are in the glass and how much empty space is at the top of the glass and THEN you will put us all to sleep but please stop flattering yourself that you're the only person in America who knows the meaning of the word "full" ... or "unique" or "antique", for that matter. It's so bloody annoying.
"It isn't poverty that causes crime, it's lack of values"
I'll add my applause to that one.
If someone in your audience thinks it's poverty, then they'll have to explain why there wasn't an increase in crimes such as burglary, robbery, and assault during the Great Depression?
If someone in your audience thinks it's poverty, then they'll have to explain why there wasn't an increase in crimes such as burglary, robbery, and assault during the Great Depression?
Thank you, French lady
Edith Piaf was a very famous singer and the woman who made "La Vie en Rose" known world-wide. You should know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaf
Most of people believed the earth was flat throughout most of human history
Probably 90% of the populace never gave the subject any thought at all. I don't think they can be said to have "believed" anything about it.
The educated, on the other hand--people who knew how very much larger the world was than just their own village and the village next door--have known that the world was round for millennia, though as far as I know its radius wasn't accurately calculated till Eratosthenes accomplished it in the third century B.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Before that, they had "the mountains in the distance coming up over the horizon as we travel toward them" and a host of other observed phenomena to demonstrate that the earth was round.
I wish people would get this through their heads--that people didn't believe the earth was flat in the past. Columbus didn't sail west to prove the earth was round. He sailed west precisely because everyone knew the earth was round. Fortunately Columbus was a better sailor than he was a navigator and he had miscalculated the width of the ocean west of Europe. He was the only person on the planet who didn't know the trip to the Indies would take six months on the caravels available in his day. He really thought, using "proof" from the Bible and ignoring the seventeen centuries old calculations of that nasty ol' pagan Eratosthenes, that the earth was much smaller than it really was and thought he could cross the ocean westward in just three months. He didn't know there was a continent in the way that would rescue him just as his sailors' willingness to proceed farther and farther from land was giving out.
The educated, on the other hand--people who knew how very much larger the world was than just their own village and the village next door--have known that the world was round for millennia, though as far as I know its radius wasn't accurately calculated till Eratosthenes accomplished it in the third century B.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Before that, they had "the mountains in the distance coming up over the horizon as we travel toward them" and a host of other observed phenomena to demonstrate that the earth was round.
I wish people would get this through their heads--that people didn't believe the earth was flat in the past. Columbus didn't sail west to prove the earth was round. He sailed west precisely because everyone knew the earth was round. Fortunately Columbus was a better sailor than he was a navigator and he had miscalculated the width of the ocean west of Europe. He was the only person on the planet who didn't know the trip to the Indies would take six months on the caravels available in his day. He really thought, using "proof" from the Bible and ignoring the seventeen centuries old calculations of that nasty ol' pagan Eratosthenes, that the earth was much smaller than it really was and thought he could cross the ocean westward in just three months. He didn't know there was a continent in the way that would rescue him just as his sailors' willingness to proceed farther and farther from land was giving out.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Do you realize what you are fighting over? The stakes are so small.
No, we didn't realize what we were fighting over.
He had made it his goal in life to humiliate me. Too used to being humiliated myself, I did not understand that. Besides the name-calling, insults, personal attacks, lies, and the permanent state of "no" he lived in and subjected me to, there was the eye-rolling. Only with him it was cursing me under his breath (just loud enough to let our children know what utter garbage I was), accompanied by the "hopeless head-shake" as if to say, "You're an utterly worthless pile of crap and there's obviously no point in trying to deal with trash like you." II had no way of understanding this as the direct and vicious insult that it was, and he always denied it was a non-verbal way to insult me.
That's why I want to thank you, Dennis, for stating so unequivocally that the eyeroll is a very nasty put-down and a strong indicator of a couple's likeliness to divorce. We divorced anyway, but at least I had about five years of no eyerolls or headshakes.
He had made it his goal in life to humiliate me. Too used to being humiliated myself, I did not understand that. Besides the name-calling, insults, personal attacks, lies, and the permanent state of "no" he lived in and subjected me to, there was the eye-rolling. Only with him it was cursing me under his breath (just loud enough to let our children know what utter garbage I was), accompanied by the "hopeless head-shake" as if to say, "You're an utterly worthless pile of crap and there's obviously no point in trying to deal with trash like you." II had no way of understanding this as the direct and vicious insult that it was, and he always denied it was a non-verbal way to insult me.
That's why I want to thank you, Dennis, for stating so unequivocally that the eyeroll is a very nasty put-down and a strong indicator of a couple's likeliness to divorce. We divorced anyway, but at least I had about five years of no eyerolls or headshakes.
Marriage is not just about the two of you
I'm so glad someone has mentioned this now. Thank you my little Baby Boomer compatriots, just about all the brilliant new ideas you came up with in the Sixties and Seventies were wrong.
Marriage isn't just what you soak your parents for and then you have to appear in public as a display for mom and dad (and maybe, but not necessarily, the bride) to show expensive photography-stuido shots of your self-centered little faces.
It is an event that affects all of society. Not JUST YOU, not just your immediate family, not just your family and circle of inner friends. It is an important event owned by everyone.
I began to understand this when I read a children's book about a couple of kids on their own in post-Roman Britain. The village had a wedding. The wedding was a major event belonging to the entire village. The village attended, and it wasn't just because they had an excuse to party it up and eat too much. At the wedding THE MEN brought the groom to the circle, THE WOMEN brought the bride to the circle, and everyone participated in uniting the two as a new couple. All of their society participated. Had they run out on their families and gotten married quietly by the priest at the chapel at the monastery half a day's walk across the countryside, they would hardly have been considered "married" by their society's standards, since their society had had no part in it.
And that is why, in the Anglican wedding service, the priest exhorts the audience to support and guide these two in their marriage, and the congregation promises, "We will." Such a pity we have lost sight of all the ways our actions affect those around us. More garbage from our Baby Boomer philosophers.
Marriage isn't just what you soak your parents for and then you have to appear in public as a display for mom and dad (and maybe, but not necessarily, the bride) to show expensive photography-stuido shots of your self-centered little faces.
It is an event that affects all of society. Not JUST YOU, not just your immediate family, not just your family and circle of inner friends. It is an important event owned by everyone.
I began to understand this when I read a children's book about a couple of kids on their own in post-Roman Britain. The village had a wedding. The wedding was a major event belonging to the entire village. The village attended, and it wasn't just because they had an excuse to party it up and eat too much. At the wedding THE MEN brought the groom to the circle, THE WOMEN brought the bride to the circle, and everyone participated in uniting the two as a new couple. All of their society participated. Had they run out on their families and gotten married quietly by the priest at the chapel at the monastery half a day's walk across the countryside, they would hardly have been considered "married" by their society's standards, since their society had had no part in it.
And that is why, in the Anglican wedding service, the priest exhorts the audience to support and guide these two in their marriage, and the congregation promises, "We will." Such a pity we have lost sight of all the ways our actions affect those around us. More garbage from our Baby Boomer philosophers.
The Los Angeles Times is mainstream
You've been quoting their nuttiness on an almost-daily for two decades. Do you think the American mainstream is that nutty? I don't.
The L.A. Times is anything but mainstream.
The L.A. Times is anything but mainstream.
Why would I want the President to be loved by people I despise?
So right.
And yet they do. It's a very bad sign.
Happily, I'm among the people who do not love this empty suit, this fundamental changer of America, this poseur who doesn't think American flag pins are good, then thinks they are, who considers Jeremiah Wright his mentor and cannot disown him, then disowns him.
Sadly, my dislike of this intellectual fraud is called "racism". Or any other negative the Left can think of to throw at us. They never think "truth" is a prerequisite to "name-calling".
And yet they do. It's a very bad sign.
Happily, I'm among the people who do not love this empty suit, this fundamental changer of America, this poseur who doesn't think American flag pins are good, then thinks they are, who considers Jeremiah Wright his mentor and cannot disown him, then disowns him.
Sadly, my dislike of this intellectual fraud is called "racism". Or any other negative the Left can think of to throw at us. They never think "truth" is a prerequisite to "name-calling".
The guy was an idiot. I told him so, and I never insult callers.
You did there.
You have to remove the word "never" because of it.
You have to remove the word "never" because of it.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The post-Christian Western world
I'd be cautious about labeling the modern world anything. We are still a majority Christian society. Europe is still more than 50% Christian.
It's the voices, the people who are loudest at screaming about what is good, what people are made of, what morals we should and do hold. It's similar to the left screaming, "Get U.S. out of Panama, The Panamanians hate us!" when the truth was that only the left-wing 15% in Panama hated us.
Conservatives have a very bad habit of being quiet, maintaining their calm, not rocking the boat, shutting up and sitting down, when the screaming from the left starts. Any conservative who belongs to a liberal college, a liberal profession (like teaching or acting), a liberal church (like the Episcopal church or the Catholic church), has learnt to be quiet because the leftists are talking. Speak up at peril of being ostracized by some of the meanest, most aggressive, most hateful bullies on this side of the ocean. And that's where you get the impression that THE MAJORITY think such and so when they don't really hold the majority. Sadly, though, this is how they gain the ascendancy--by gaining control of the conversation and then overwhelming the general opinion.
It's the voices, the people who are loudest at screaming about what is good, what people are made of, what morals we should and do hold. It's similar to the left screaming, "Get U.S. out of Panama, The Panamanians hate us!" when the truth was that only the left-wing 15% in Panama hated us.
Conservatives have a very bad habit of being quiet, maintaining their calm, not rocking the boat, shutting up and sitting down, when the screaming from the left starts. Any conservative who belongs to a liberal college, a liberal profession (like teaching or acting), a liberal church (like the Episcopal church or the Catholic church), has learnt to be quiet because the leftists are talking. Speak up at peril of being ostracized by some of the meanest, most aggressive, most hateful bullies on this side of the ocean. And that's where you get the impression that THE MAJORITY think such and so when they don't really hold the majority. Sadly, though, this is how they gain the ascendancy--by gaining control of the conversation and then overwhelming the general opinion.
...and say goodbye to Saudi and Venezuelan oil. Why not?
Why not? Well, apparently you've mistaken the left-wing talking point for sincerity. The screaming for getting away from our dependency on imported oil is phony. They don't care about and they don't have the remotest thought about depending on our own oil. What the really want, and they can't say it out loud so they mask it behind criticism of Republicans over wanting to drill in bad places, what they really are talking about is diminishing our standard of living. It's never about domestic drilling, it's always about diminishing the Western standard of living.
Ridiculously cheap amount
Six bucks a month is nice and cheap, and anybody should be able to afford it.
Unless you have zero money, like me.
Unless you have zero money, like me.
I don't use "the" [as in the Christians] because that means "all"
Slight correction, it means "as a group" and still leaves room for the exceptions a generalization implies.
Example, "The Christians supported the Nazis" doesn't insist that ALL Christians did.
Example, "The Christians supported the Nazis" doesn't insist that ALL Christians did.
There are wonderful people who are atheists
I wonder how many times Dennis is going to have to say this before people get it through their heads that he believes it and means it, and that his statement that religion makes you better than irreligiosity is not a statement that irreligious people can't be good.
I think it's a case of the Left not being able to think critically. For the most part, leftists can't think critically at all. From every conversation I've had with lefties, I have to conclude that the vast majority of them can't see differences in classes, that there is one distinction that matters (I like it vs. I don't like it) and all other distinctions are irrelevant. Thus, when Pat Buchannan said "Hitler was a decorated war hero" and "behaved with valor" in WWI, that was to the leftists high praise and Buchannan was obviously a follower of Hitler.
Ten years ago I'd have said they were just lying about what he meant because they wanted to smear the guy. Today I really believe they really believe themselves.
I think it's a case of the Left not being able to think critically. For the most part, leftists can't think critically at all. From every conversation I've had with lefties, I have to conclude that the vast majority of them can't see differences in classes, that there is one distinction that matters (I like it vs. I don't like it) and all other distinctions are irrelevant. Thus, when Pat Buchannan said "Hitler was a decorated war hero" and "behaved with valor" in WWI, that was to the leftists high praise and Buchannan was obviously a follower of Hitler.
Ten years ago I'd have said they were just lying about what he meant because they wanted to smear the guy. Today I really believe they really believe themselves.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Is the Left in America interested in America being loved in the world?
You've been making this claim for as long as I've been listening to you, Dennis. And I think you're wrong. Using the EXCUSE that "no one loves us" is standard form for our Left Wing but they don't mean it, any more than they were "angry" over the budget deficits under the Bush Administration.
Whichever talking point will get their agenda more beloved in the hearts of sadly uninformed Americans is what they'll use. "Republicans are racist", "Republican budget deficits are bad", "Republican congressmen are all gay", "Republicans hate", and on it goes. No, they don't know the rhetoric could more accurately be applied to themselves; they don't care. Look in the mirror? Never. All that matters is that once Americans have heard this for the thirtieth time, they will believe it, and it will be added to the Stack of Hate against Republicans.
They don't want to be loved above all else. The claim that America should be more like the rest of the world has nothing to do with that, especially when you take into consideration the fact that if and when America ever gets in line with the rest of the world, they won't for a moment stop railing about how bad America is. It's just a line.
Whichever talking point will get their agenda more beloved in the hearts of sadly uninformed Americans is what they'll use. "Republicans are racist", "Republican budget deficits are bad", "Republican congressmen are all gay", "Republicans hate", and on it goes. No, they don't know the rhetoric could more accurately be applied to themselves; they don't care. Look in the mirror? Never. All that matters is that once Americans have heard this for the thirtieth time, they will believe it, and it will be added to the Stack of Hate against Republicans.
They don't want to be loved above all else. The claim that America should be more like the rest of the world has nothing to do with that, especially when you take into consideration the fact that if and when America ever gets in line with the rest of the world, they won't for a moment stop railing about how bad America is. It's just a line.
Stephanie Phillips?
The World Turned Upside Down
I didn't hear Dennis mention it, but Phillips is also the author of Londonistan. If you listened to much talk radio back when that book was released, you probably heard her talking about this book, too. She is a magnificent speaker. I need to get these books and read them.
It's interesting. I'm living in rural Kentucky, where even the rednecks call themselves "rednecks". If this is such a "conservative" area, why are the vast majority of the political books in the library from liberals? Apparently the library purchasing officer doesn't believe in balance.
I didn't hear Dennis mention it, but Phillips is also the author of Londonistan. If you listened to much talk radio back when that book was released, you probably heard her talking about this book, too. She is a magnificent speaker. I need to get these books and read them.
It's interesting. I'm living in rural Kentucky, where even the rednecks call themselves "rednecks". If this is such a "conservative" area, why are the vast majority of the political books in the library from liberals? Apparently the library purchasing officer doesn't believe in balance.
Friday, June 4, 2010
"You're judging me!"
"That is correct, honey," isn't a bad answer, in light of the fact that the parent is supposed to judge her kid.
You asked, "What is the kid going to say then?" as if that answer will completely silence the kid? No way. An argument is going to follow. I have no right to judge me, or I don't want you to, or you're harming my self-esteem, blah blah. The mom comes back with, "Judging you is my job" and then ensues an hour of table-pounding from which no winner emerges, just a lot of hurt feelings.
When people tell me I'm judging them, I ask, "Wait a second, are you saying it's wrong to judge?"
They haven't learnt to be suspicious of my sneaky questions so they often bluster, "OF COURSE IT'S WRONG!" setting me up to win in two moves.
"Let me get this straight, you're making the assessment that it's wrong to judge?"
Yes, always wrong to judge. (I know they'll say ALWAYS and mean it to the bottom of their hearts because they have been so thoroughly drilled in this judgement by their teachers, their peers, their parents, and especially by their society in general, even to the point of having Jesus's words quoted to them: Judge not, lest you be judged.)
Then simply point out to them that they're judging. In making the critique and assessing it to be right, they've made a judgement, voiding out the statement that it's wrong to judge and that judging is always wrong.
Now you can move ahead and actually communicate with one another.
You asked, "What is the kid going to say then?" as if that answer will completely silence the kid? No way. An argument is going to follow. I have no right to judge me, or I don't want you to, or you're harming my self-esteem, blah blah. The mom comes back with, "Judging you is my job" and then ensues an hour of table-pounding from which no winner emerges, just a lot of hurt feelings.
When people tell me I'm judging them, I ask, "Wait a second, are you saying it's wrong to judge?"
They haven't learnt to be suspicious of my sneaky questions so they often bluster, "OF COURSE IT'S WRONG!" setting me up to win in two moves.
"Let me get this straight, you're making the assessment that it's wrong to judge?"
Yes, always wrong to judge. (I know they'll say ALWAYS and mean it to the bottom of their hearts because they have been so thoroughly drilled in this judgement by their teachers, their peers, their parents, and especially by their society in general, even to the point of having Jesus's words quoted to them: Judge not, lest you be judged.)
Then simply point out to them that they're judging. In making the critique and assessing it to be right, they've made a judgement, voiding out the statement that it's wrong to judge and that judging is always wrong.
Now you can move ahead and actually communicate with one another.
Sinking Islands
Al Gore spent the Nineties dragging news crews to speeches he was making about AGW at beach cities. He'd stand in the sand, point to how "far" the ocean was washing up toward the houses--in places the waves were even pounding on their windows--and tremulously tell us about rising oceans.
Never mind that the ocean just five miles away at the next town wasn't beating on anyone's windows, that it remained steadfastly 200 yards away where it had always been within living memory.
Either the Goracle had never heard of beach erosion or he trusted that his uninformed audiences never had--most likely both were the case--making it easier to foist his hysteria off on a credulous public.
I'd like to spend paragraphs bashing him and his agenda (off of which he has grown very rich) but I'm heading off in a different direction. Our public education stinks. Our children know very very little. Those who know anything can thank their library cards much more than their teachers.
Al Gore knew so little as a college student taking a freshman introductory General Science class that he believed everything one hysterical nutcase teacher said, and brought us this travesty of science and common sense, Anthropogenic Global Warming. If he and his generation had learnt anything in junior and high school, this garbage would never have happened.
Never mind that the ocean just five miles away at the next town wasn't beating on anyone's windows, that it remained steadfastly 200 yards away where it had always been within living memory.
Either the Goracle had never heard of beach erosion or he trusted that his uninformed audiences never had--most likely both were the case--making it easier to foist his hysteria off on a credulous public.
I'd like to spend paragraphs bashing him and his agenda (off of which he has grown very rich) but I'm heading off in a different direction. Our public education stinks. Our children know very very little. Those who know anything can thank their library cards much more than their teachers.
Al Gore knew so little as a college student taking a freshman introductory General Science class that he believed everything one hysterical nutcase teacher said, and brought us this travesty of science and common sense, Anthropogenic Global Warming. If he and his generation had learnt anything in junior and high school, this garbage would never have happened.
Fruit and Cheese to save calories?
Have you counted up the calories in that fruit and cheese cup? Don't you realize it was likely to have been just as filled with calories as the butterscotch sundae? :-รพ
President Bush was not a moron
It's funny how the crowd that was screaming about his low SAT scores and using them as proof that he was stupid, while a year or two later when it came out that Gore's SAT scores were even lower than Bush's, low SATs could not be used as proof that a person was stupid.
Same with the low grades. Bush wasn't a superior student by any means, but Gore's grades, and his academic record as a whole, were lower still, but those had suddenly become "not evidence" as well.
You want a definition of hypocrisy, there ya go.
Same with the low grades. Bush wasn't a superior student by any means, but Gore's grades, and his academic record as a whole, were lower still, but those had suddenly become "not evidence" as well.
You want a definition of hypocrisy, there ya go.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Pretty much everything I learned in the Sixties and Seventies turned out to be wrong
If they can't spank, they're gonna yell.
When I was about 8 or 9 years old, some school chums, all girls, were discussing how their parents disciplined them. We were members of the "highly gifted" pull-out program in El Cajon. The one thing I remember their saying was, "I hate it when my parents yell at me; I'd so much rather they just gave me a spanking."
I want you to notice, the spanking was a trivial matter compared to getting yelled at. I don't remember anyone explaining why they hated yelling so much, though I assumed it was because of name-calling or guilt-casting or simple aspersions. I couldn't understand why getting called names was worse than getting beaten, till I realized it had to be that my parents were so out of control when they spanked that it amounted more to a beating than to a spanking.
More notes I took during the hour, no comment, just found them significant.
For a typically willful child, this isn't going to work.
Numerous studies exist on the effect of corporal punishment on children. A new one came out last month from the Duke University Center for Child and ... Policy.
The study showed that spanking your child can slow intellectual development when they're older.
The operative word: "can". duh!
Not spanking your child CAN lead to a selfish, self-centered, spoilt, narcissistic creep.
When I was about 8 or 9 years old, some school chums, all girls, were discussing how their parents disciplined them. We were members of the "highly gifted" pull-out program in El Cajon. The one thing I remember their saying was, "I hate it when my parents yell at me; I'd so much rather they just gave me a spanking."
I want you to notice, the spanking was a trivial matter compared to getting yelled at. I don't remember anyone explaining why they hated yelling so much, though I assumed it was because of name-calling or guilt-casting or simple aspersions. I couldn't understand why getting called names was worse than getting beaten, till I realized it had to be that my parents were so out of control when they spanked that it amounted more to a beating than to a spanking.
More notes I took during the hour, no comment, just found them significant.
For a typically willful child, this isn't going to work.
Numerous studies exist on the effect of corporal punishment on children. A new one came out last month from the Duke University Center for Child and ... Policy.
The study showed that spanking your child can slow intellectual development when they're older.
The operative word: "can". duh!
Not spanking your child CAN lead to a selfish, self-centered, spoilt, narcissistic creep.
Shouting is the new spanking.
Dennis: Notes:
My evolution: I did not spank my children. I believe that I bought, hook line and sinker, the thinking of our time, and I don't believe I was right. Everything within context, all things being equal, when done right, a spanking can be less injurious to a kid than yelling, especially considering what words come with the yell.
Some kids are very difficult, and there may be some times when it may be more effective to give the kid a spank.
Humiliation is a no-no, so spanking on the naked bottom is a no-no. Forcing the child to drop trou and expose his or her bottom is humiliating. The number of you who were corporally punished by a parent, as was Dennis. Dennis was corporally punished by teachers, and every time he was, they were right.
The removal of corporal punishment from our school systems corresponds with tremendous chaos in the school system.
A kid who doesn't want to be told to brush her teeth, screams. The parent is told to say, "You are making a bad choice." As if the four-year-old gave a crap about his teeth or making a choice about them.
"I have become totally frustrated and lost control of myself," says a mother, who then begins yelling and spanking.
We friend our teenagers and spend hours and hours teaching our elementary children to understand their own feelings.
If a kid knows you love him, you can yell at him.
The kid needs consequences for wrong behavior~!
Dennis, my husband and I were at our wits' end with trying to raise our children. They fought like cats and dogs CONSTANTLY and everything we tried had no effect on them. So we took our already-empty wallets to the Health Center and begged for help. We were referred to the Parents' Institute at UCLA for training. We spent six months with them and I swear we were no better off than before we had started, just more determined to keep our tempers, which wasn't part of the instruction.
Their solution to everything was simple (big surprise). They taught us a brilliant, thentofore undiscovered principle: all behavior that is rewarded is encouraged and will increase, all behavior that is ignored will extinguish. This comes from the child's urgency to please his parents and to gain the parents' approval. When normal children commit bad behaviors, they're seeking to get the parents' attention, even if it means a spanking, because the parents' attention is what they crave above all else.
Any idiot can see all the holes in this philosophy. You start off life selfish and self-centered and caring only about how you feel about anything at the moment. Knowing that you may incur your mother's wrath if you steal the cookie from the cookie jar means nothing when compared to having the wonderful sugary taste of the cookie in one's mouth. In addition there is the reward of having your own will reinforced as you win the argument, even though your mother has left the room; you're now in control, and you decide to have the cookie.
Another hole: Part of growing up means that your parents' approval is less and less central to your universe. Hopefully it will always matter but at eight years of age there's a balance--do I gratify my own wishes or please my mom? Whatever is stronger at the moment will win.
This program was a dismal failure. They were asking us to praise the kids, even make a big fuss over them, for getting along. When they fought we were supposed to ignore them.
It became very obvious very quickly that the kids would gratify themselves. "I hate my brother, therefore I slug him in the face." Ignore that and it will go away? Not on your life. Or rather, not on the brother's life, because it seemed to come nearly to that every time, and so we had to break them up.
A Seventies fad in parenting told us that if you get involved in their arguments, you're only playing into their hands, because that's the only real reason they fought with one another--to pull their parents into their circle and break up whatever the parents were doing. I noticed a few times that seemed to be what was happening, but for the most part those fights were sincere conflicts of will. ChildA wanted that toy, so did ChildB, they both wanted it now, and neither wanted it half an hour from now.
We learned one thing from some friends of ours: Time-outs helped the fighting somewhat. But let each kid stay in his respective corner until the other fighter said he could come out. They understood justice well enough to make it work on their own. If they had been primarily interested in pulling me into their fight, they would have started something right there as they sat with their faces in the corner.
My evolution: I did not spank my children. I believe that I bought, hook line and sinker, the thinking of our time, and I don't believe I was right. Everything within context, all things being equal, when done right, a spanking can be less injurious to a kid than yelling, especially considering what words come with the yell.
Some kids are very difficult, and there may be some times when it may be more effective to give the kid a spank.
Humiliation is a no-no, so spanking on the naked bottom is a no-no. Forcing the child to drop trou and expose his or her bottom is humiliating. The number of you who were corporally punished by a parent, as was Dennis. Dennis was corporally punished by teachers, and every time he was, they were right.
The removal of corporal punishment from our school systems corresponds with tremendous chaos in the school system.
A kid who doesn't want to be told to brush her teeth, screams. The parent is told to say, "You are making a bad choice." As if the four-year-old gave a crap about his teeth or making a choice about them.
"I have become totally frustrated and lost control of myself," says a mother, who then begins yelling and spanking.
We friend our teenagers and spend hours and hours teaching our elementary children to understand their own feelings.
If a kid knows you love him, you can yell at him.
The kid needs consequences for wrong behavior~!
Dennis, my husband and I were at our wits' end with trying to raise our children. They fought like cats and dogs CONSTANTLY and everything we tried had no effect on them. So we took our already-empty wallets to the Health Center and begged for help. We were referred to the Parents' Institute at UCLA for training. We spent six months with them and I swear we were no better off than before we had started, just more determined to keep our tempers, which wasn't part of the instruction.
Their solution to everything was simple (big surprise). They taught us a brilliant, thentofore undiscovered principle: all behavior that is rewarded is encouraged and will increase, all behavior that is ignored will extinguish. This comes from the child's urgency to please his parents and to gain the parents' approval. When normal children commit bad behaviors, they're seeking to get the parents' attention, even if it means a spanking, because the parents' attention is what they crave above all else.
Any idiot can see all the holes in this philosophy. You start off life selfish and self-centered and caring only about how you feel about anything at the moment. Knowing that you may incur your mother's wrath if you steal the cookie from the cookie jar means nothing when compared to having the wonderful sugary taste of the cookie in one's mouth. In addition there is the reward of having your own will reinforced as you win the argument, even though your mother has left the room; you're now in control, and you decide to have the cookie.
Another hole: Part of growing up means that your parents' approval is less and less central to your universe. Hopefully it will always matter but at eight years of age there's a balance--do I gratify my own wishes or please my mom? Whatever is stronger at the moment will win.
This program was a dismal failure. They were asking us to praise the kids, even make a big fuss over them, for getting along. When they fought we were supposed to ignore them.
It became very obvious very quickly that the kids would gratify themselves. "I hate my brother, therefore I slug him in the face." Ignore that and it will go away? Not on your life. Or rather, not on the brother's life, because it seemed to come nearly to that every time, and so we had to break them up.
A Seventies fad in parenting told us that if you get involved in their arguments, you're only playing into their hands, because that's the only real reason they fought with one another--to pull their parents into their circle and break up whatever the parents were doing. I noticed a few times that seemed to be what was happening, but for the most part those fights were sincere conflicts of will. ChildA wanted that toy, so did ChildB, they both wanted it now, and neither wanted it half an hour from now.
We learned one thing from some friends of ours: Time-outs helped the fighting somewhat. But let each kid stay in his respective corner until the other fighter said he could come out. They understood justice well enough to make it work on their own. If they had been primarily interested in pulling me into their fight, they would have started something right there as they sat with their faces in the corner.
The Europe Syndrome and the Challenge to American Exceptionalism
By Charles Murray. Wasn't he the author of The Bell Curve? No, I never assumed Murray was a racist because of that book, but I'm afraid he's tainted as far as most Americans are concerned. But then, all conservatives are tainted, thanks to all the screaming from the left.
Just some notes as Murray and Prager talk:
What's wrong with the European model? Europe seems to "work", after all.
There is the soullessness of Europe. They take the life out of life. Human beings are a collection of chemicals that is activated for a time and then de-activated. Life does not have any meaning any more.
The question of happiness: their happiness is like the happiness of my two dogs. When they're fed and then petted, they're just full of delight, and they don't want or need any more.
Murray: or like a trip to the beach. I can look back on my life and say "this is why my life was well-lived". Entertainments are not fulfillment or fulfilling satisfactions.
Just some notes as Murray and Prager talk:
What's wrong with the European model? Europe seems to "work", after all.
There is the soullessness of Europe. They take the life out of life. Human beings are a collection of chemicals that is activated for a time and then de-activated. Life does not have any meaning any more.
The question of happiness: their happiness is like the happiness of my two dogs. When they're fed and then petted, they're just full of delight, and they don't want or need any more.
Murray: or like a trip to the beach. I can look back on my life and say "this is why my life was well-lived". Entertainments are not fulfillment or fulfilling satisfactions.
"I would have sneaked out to the car at night and pulled that bumper sticker off"
I know a few Boy Scouts in Troop 33, Beverly Hills who completely agree with you. We had this discussion a while ago. The bumper sticker trumpeting the child as an honor student (or as any other thing) is embarrassing to these kids. And the smartassiest of the smartasses has informed us that his dad put the bumper sticker on the car and he, the kid, removed it immediately.
The school will tell you it's a good thing because it reinforces the child's self-esteem (gag me, please) and motivates the other children to do better. Of course, when I was in school we had display cases with the honor roll names on display. If that didn't motivate the other kids, why will a bumper sticker do it better?
Very likely there's competition among the parents: if you don't have The Bumper Sticker, your kid is a failure, and who wants to be a failure?
What if your kid gets first chair in the orchestra? We need a bumper sticker for that. How about she tried out to play Juliet and got the role? Another bumper sticker.
How about a car covered with a separate bumper sticker for every achievement he's ever made, as a parody display belittling the single "honor student" bumper sticker?
My child played six scales in 2.3 seconds. My child is first viola in the school orchestra. My child got high score on the Chapter 4 review test in Biology. My child is homeroom representative in eighth grade. My child got "Very Physically Fit" on the Presidential Physical Fitness Exam for middle school age boys. My child did 417 grands jetees in dance class. My child was voted "Most Popular Girl in Spring Homeroom 2009. My child was first runner-up for the cheerleading squad. My child is treasurer of the Chess Club. My child was crayon artist of the month at Laurel Middle School, 2008. My child was design star of the week for April 7, 2009.
The school will tell you it's a good thing because it reinforces the child's self-esteem (gag me, please) and motivates the other children to do better. Of course, when I was in school we had display cases with the honor roll names on display. If that didn't motivate the other kids, why will a bumper sticker do it better?
Very likely there's competition among the parents: if you don't have The Bumper Sticker, your kid is a failure, and who wants to be a failure?
What if your kid gets first chair in the orchestra? We need a bumper sticker for that. How about she tried out to play Juliet and got the role? Another bumper sticker.
How about a car covered with a separate bumper sticker for every achievement he's ever made, as a parody display belittling the single "honor student" bumper sticker?
My child played six scales in 2.3 seconds. My child is first viola in the school orchestra. My child got high score on the Chapter 4 review test in Biology. My child is homeroom representative in eighth grade. My child got "Very Physically Fit" on the Presidential Physical Fitness Exam for middle school age boys. My child did 417 grands jetees in dance class. My child was voted "Most Popular Girl in Spring Homeroom 2009. My child was first runner-up for the cheerleading squad. My child is treasurer of the Chess Club. My child was crayon artist of the month at Laurel Middle School, 2008. My child was design star of the week for April 7, 2009.
Cutting your callers off
Okay, Dennis, I understand about hard breaks and how callers like the sound of their own voices and so you need to cut them off quite frequently.
What I hate is cases such as when a caller calls up with a hypothesis, you let him get out two of his arguments and even though he's been brief and short you never let him get to the "therefore" half of his sentence. Usually you burst in and talk over him with "That is such a good point" (and it's very easy to see you never let him get to his point), or much worse, you blast over him with some self-gratulatory screaming about, "I know! I've been saying that for years! I saw that when I was in Luxembourg and I know it's still going on!" but you since you didn't let him get his point out (you're too busy thinking his supporting arguments are his point!) your cutting him off is just as rude to us as it is to him.
Please! listen better! let them make that point!
What I hate is cases such as when a caller calls up with a hypothesis, you let him get out two of his arguments and even though he's been brief and short you never let him get to the "therefore" half of his sentence. Usually you burst in and talk over him with "That is such a good point" (and it's very easy to see you never let him get to his point), or much worse, you blast over him with some self-gratulatory screaming about, "I know! I've been saying that for years! I saw that when I was in Luxembourg and I know it's still going on!" but you since you didn't let him get his point out (you're too busy thinking his supporting arguments are his point!) your cutting him off is just as rude to us as it is to him.
Please! listen better! let them make that point!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Raping words of their meaning.
Dennis, "rape" isn't synonymous with "strip". You're stripping words of their meanings when you say certain segments of America are "raping" words of their meaning. If "stripping" isn't strong enough (and I'd agree with you if you said it wasn't) then how about eviscerating or voiding or nullifying?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
"There are people who don't want to acknowledge the moral gulf between Israel and its enemies"
Yes, indeedy. They're getting all their information from the leftist press. "We have to stop Israel from murdering innocent people," the video screams. Never would our press or Britain's press think to give the other side of the issue. British reporters covering demonstrations when thousands of Israelis are killed? Never!
From the press coverage we saw here in the U.S. back when missiles were being launched from Syria into Israel, killing and maiming hundreds, the first mention we heard of any action was when Israel reacted with a few strikes of its own. You'd have thought, as the press wanted you to, that the retaliation was a first strike that came out of nowhere, unprovoked, viciously intended to kill hundreds of innocent Syrians. Never mind the truth.
From the press coverage we saw here in the U.S. back when missiles were being launched from Syria into Israel, killing and maiming hundreds, the first mention we heard of any action was when Israel reacted with a few strikes of its own. You'd have thought, as the press wanted you to, that the retaliation was a first strike that came out of nowhere, unprovoked, viciously intended to kill hundreds of innocent Syrians. Never mind the truth.
You can't have an armed peace activist
Exactly.
Did anyone notice all the nasty comments on the youtube videos, assuming the self-proclaimed "Palestinian peace activists" to be completely honest, nothing more than what they claimed to be, while the Israelis were described variously as "terrorists" or "butchers". It made me ill.
Did anyone notice all the nasty comments on the youtube videos, assuming the self-proclaimed "Palestinian peace activists" to be completely honest, nothing more than what they claimed to be, while the Israelis were described variously as "terrorists" or "butchers". It made me ill.
German President forced to resign
Your mentioning this issue is the first I've heard of it. Granted I don't subscribe to any printed media and wasn't surfing the web yesterday, but I do leave the news running when I'm otherwise busy, switching occasionally between news channels, and heard not one whisper about Horst Koehler being forced out of office after committing the leftist sin of saying his country had an economic interest in keeping troops in Afghanistan.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/german_president_tells_the_tru.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/german_president_tells_the_tru.html