Do you not see, "youse" is an attempt (by a group--I'm not accusing any individuals of any neologisms) to make a plural of that idiotic dual word, "you", which is both singular and plural but like "Sie" in German does not distinguish in verb agreement, taking the third person plural form for both singular and plural and making a distinction between the two impossible except in context.
This is a very logical adaptation. Any form that shows a plural of "you" gets my stamp of approval. "Youse" (as if it were one you, two yous) is fine, though it bears the disgraceful stain of having come from some very working-class people. *gasp* Y'all works, though that has been disgraced by coming from Southern (America) origins. There is "y'uns" (you ones, i.e. you (plural) individuals, and not incorrect in the making a plural of "one", so shut up Spellcheck), there is "ye" (hard to say, but who cares).
Suggest more.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Who needs marriage ?!
At last someone else has said it.
From the Sixties on, "marriage" has been a dirty word. Who needs it? Real men don't get married, right? They remain studly and have as much sexual variety as possible.
Real women don't get married, said the feminists. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Then came the bumper sticker that told us how much the driver of that car was loving her bachelor life, as if she were superior to us sheep who were so dumb as to practice conventional life and get married.
We don't need a piece of paper, or some stupid religious person with a goofy collar, to tell the world we love each other. We can practice commitment without it. We're not stupid. We don't need to have the state recognize us as an entity, blah blah blah.
The idea of marriage as a social institution was completely beyond their grasp. It got turned into a worthless patriarchal institution meant to keep both parties, but most intensely, the woman, into slaves to some traditional form of social imprisonment.
Along came the gay lobby. "We don't want anything but for people to stop persecuting us," at first, then it became, "We want both lifestyles taught in the schools" and then it was, "We want to change the definition of marriage to include anyone we damn well please."
Gradualism, folks. Gradualism.
From the Sixties on, "marriage" has been a dirty word. Who needs it? Real men don't get married, right? They remain studly and have as much sexual variety as possible.
Real women don't get married, said the feminists. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Then came the bumper sticker that told us how much the driver of that car was loving her bachelor life, as if she were superior to us sheep who were so dumb as to practice conventional life and get married.
We don't need a piece of paper, or some stupid religious person with a goofy collar, to tell the world we love each other. We can practice commitment without it. We're not stupid. We don't need to have the state recognize us as an entity, blah blah blah.
The idea of marriage as a social institution was completely beyond their grasp. It got turned into a worthless patriarchal institution meant to keep both parties, but most intensely, the woman, into slaves to some traditional form of social imprisonment.
Along came the gay lobby. "We don't want anything but for people to stop persecuting us," at first, then it became, "We want both lifestyles taught in the schools" and then it was, "We want to change the definition of marriage to include anyone we damn well please."
Gradualism, folks. Gradualism.
Friday, November 19, 2010
"Anybody with ears would say, "Tchaikowsky"
Speak for yourself, thanks. I really really don't like Chaykovskii.
I do like the nationalists, particularly Borodin, Mussorgskii, and my favorite, Rimskii-Korsakov.
And I pride myself on having a better ear than you have.
I do like the nationalists, particularly Borodin, Mussorgskii, and my favorite, Rimskii-Korsakov.
And I pride myself on having a better ear than you have.
"I'm thinking of this terrific woman, who never got married."
Prager: "There are many ways to lead a happy life."
I hate being alone. When I see something that interests me, or excites me, or gives me a happy little thrill, I want to share it with someone else. Sharing it makes it twice as fun or twice as interesting, or twice as fulfilling.
On the other hand, I can see something I love, or that sends a thrill of pleasure through me, or makes me happy for a time, and if I have to keep it to myself, my day is spoilt.
By the way, I'm an excellent woman, also.
I devoted my youth to the reading of the classics, in defiance of the standard American school curriculum. By the time I was 13 I had read more of classical literature than most people read in their lifetimes, which isn't saying much. I found a book in my mother's library, "Good Reading", went through it, made a list on a steno pad, and began checking off the titles as I read the books. I didn't always understand the books. I didn't get out of them everything that a college literature major would have got out of them. But reading them at age 12 and 15 meant that I had a much better basis for understanding what I read when I was 16 and 18.
I knew a lot about history. In 8th grade my private school began its curriculum on World History and we started with a giant, thorough volume on Ancient History. Then we moved and I missed Medieval/Renaissance history and Modern history. I did well in my American history and government classes, but I wish heartily that they had been more thorough, especially the American government class, which was taught by a liberal who thought the Constitution was meant to be "a living document" and should change at the whim of judges.
So I read a lot. I understand people and institutions better than my peers. My peers came half a generation after the hippies. We were a little late to be out on the campus green getting shot for our opposition to the Viet Nam war. Instead we were growing herbs, drinking green tea or sake, and fighting to ban aerosols. We made a lot of fuss about ending racism while we fought to patronize minorities to death, confident in the assumption that they didn't have the intelligence, skills, or resources to succeed on their own without a white liberal to rescue them.
I learned to diagram sentences and I learned to love grammar. It helped me to understand what I was doing when I was writing. Science was interesting but science classes weren't; I avoided them, and at the advanced age of 20 started learning more about science from my new husband's college textbooks. I took some classes in science. I loved math but only to the point where it required me to apply myself to "a page a day". I never got all the way through my programmed text in geometry, bought from my private school's textbook supplier, because I always seemed to have other things I needed to do more. But while I was working on it, prior to going into 9th grade, I loved it. Geometric proofs--another kind of game, fun as heck, not far from crossword puzzles and diagramming sentences.
Apart from books, there is art. I love art. Got to take two courses out of a series of five on the history of Western art: 1. Ancient and 2. Baroque. I wish I had been able to take Renaissance, Medieval, and *gag* Modern. The modern art covered Romantic, Impressionist, and Twentieth Century art. I have found I'm not all that wild about the Twentieth Century. Much of the art, music, and literature of that era doesn't appeal to me. The history is much more interesting, but I was put off by the face presented by such monstrosities as "modern" [classical] music, cubist and abstract art, and so-called "modern" literature. People who think Sylvia Plath is "deep" should be boiled in pudding with a stake of holly through their hearts.
I love museums. I would love museums in old houses if ever I had had a chance to go to any. I love old houses because seeing their interiors makes me feel all warm and cozy inside. I'm not among that bunch of hateful people who think that any era that came before theirs was to be despised. Those people have never read a book and instead derived their sense of intellectual importance by joining the "sneer at everything else" party the beatnik and hippie generations so thoroughly cultivated. Both those generations were very, very badly educated, and knew almost nothing of other times or other places, which made them susceptible to any kind of suasion that was tried on them. Communism was represented as the intellectual movement, the good movement, the movement for people who cared about other people. They leaped in with both feet. Capitalism, because driven by self-interest, was become the evil force in the world, something only devils and demons would advocate. It's a shame that understanding the two systems actually required some thought and introspection. It was much easier just to proclaim oneself and one's ideas superior to everyone and everything else.
I love nature. I had binoculars always with me because I just had to look at trees, flowers, and chirping birds as often as I saw something new. When I was a mother of scouts, I volunteered for the troop and went with them to several campouts. No more, for those little joys have been stripped form me. I would go again if I had the opportunity. What I don't love is watching documentaries of nature on the TV. A lion kills a gazelle. A cheetah kills a water buffalo calf in the process of being born. Two rams fight it out, and bull seals shove each other off a rock. HO HUM.
I used to like physical exertion. Skiing, tennis, sailing, hiking, swimming--I was very good at all those. I used to teach sailing, and consider myself to be among the best sailing teachers in the world. I'll link to my ebook about teaching sailing as soon as I finish writing it.
Most of what I'm telling about are activities of the mind. I don't consider them to be worth much without a good heart. Not to denigrate them, mind you, because they're so important to me, but that's because I dislike the notion of a mind, even a weak mind, going to waste, and I think every person on the planet should strive to put thoughts into their head and then should exercise their brain pondering on those thoughts. It is not enough to spend all your time watching "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" and "The Next Top Model". Those shows are for idiots who really wish to AVOID thinking or using their brains. Documentaries about history, science, and combing through rubbish for the rare antique that can be cashed in for a large profit are briefly interesting but should never make up the viewer's main intellectual fare.
Constantly sending "I love you" messages over MSN to your vapid little sweetheart on the other end of the line is fine, but have you ever said anything ELSE to her? Of course you'll argue that you have, but all she has ever offered to the conversation is what a pig her mother is, a jackass her stepfather is, what mean-spirited bitches her sisters are. I guess you need a "victim" to rescue and make you feel important, but trust me, she needs to shut up and go read a book instead of shouting about how desperate she is to have you inside her. By the way, have you never observed how the back half of her empty head is missing? It's flat, indicative that there's nothing holding the skull up. No ideas, no deep thoughts, not even any shallow thoughts, unless you consider the latest "fad teenage girl series" to be a "thought". She's a ditz.
My heart is a different matter. I love everyone. I care about people I barely know. I care about people I don't even know. That's why I took on the job of chairing The Hunger Committee at the church I used to belong to, why I volunteered so much time, not just at church but for the Boy Scouts I give and give and give to people, never expecting anything in return (and that's usually just about how much comes back).
Oh, well, enough. I'm a terrific woman, too, and I did get married, but I always seem to marry bad men. They see a giver and it brings out the taker, take take take and never give anything back. Story of my life.
I hate being alone. When I see something that interests me, or excites me, or gives me a happy little thrill, I want to share it with someone else. Sharing it makes it twice as fun or twice as interesting, or twice as fulfilling.
On the other hand, I can see something I love, or that sends a thrill of pleasure through me, or makes me happy for a time, and if I have to keep it to myself, my day is spoilt.
By the way, I'm an excellent woman, also.
I devoted my youth to the reading of the classics, in defiance of the standard American school curriculum. By the time I was 13 I had read more of classical literature than most people read in their lifetimes, which isn't saying much. I found a book in my mother's library, "Good Reading", went through it, made a list on a steno pad, and began checking off the titles as I read the books. I didn't always understand the books. I didn't get out of them everything that a college literature major would have got out of them. But reading them at age 12 and 15 meant that I had a much better basis for understanding what I read when I was 16 and 18.
I knew a lot about history. In 8th grade my private school began its curriculum on World History and we started with a giant, thorough volume on Ancient History. Then we moved and I missed Medieval/Renaissance history and Modern history. I did well in my American history and government classes, but I wish heartily that they had been more thorough, especially the American government class, which was taught by a liberal who thought the Constitution was meant to be "a living document" and should change at the whim of judges.
So I read a lot. I understand people and institutions better than my peers. My peers came half a generation after the hippies. We were a little late to be out on the campus green getting shot for our opposition to the Viet Nam war. Instead we were growing herbs, drinking green tea or sake, and fighting to ban aerosols. We made a lot of fuss about ending racism while we fought to patronize minorities to death, confident in the assumption that they didn't have the intelligence, skills, or resources to succeed on their own without a white liberal to rescue them.
I learned to diagram sentences and I learned to love grammar. It helped me to understand what I was doing when I was writing. Science was interesting but science classes weren't; I avoided them, and at the advanced age of 20 started learning more about science from my new husband's college textbooks. I took some classes in science. I loved math but only to the point where it required me to apply myself to "a page a day". I never got all the way through my programmed text in geometry, bought from my private school's textbook supplier, because I always seemed to have other things I needed to do more. But while I was working on it, prior to going into 9th grade, I loved it. Geometric proofs--another kind of game, fun as heck, not far from crossword puzzles and diagramming sentences.
Apart from books, there is art. I love art. Got to take two courses out of a series of five on the history of Western art: 1. Ancient and 2. Baroque. I wish I had been able to take Renaissance, Medieval, and *gag* Modern. The modern art covered Romantic, Impressionist, and Twentieth Century art. I have found I'm not all that wild about the Twentieth Century. Much of the art, music, and literature of that era doesn't appeal to me. The history is much more interesting, but I was put off by the face presented by such monstrosities as "modern" [classical] music, cubist and abstract art, and so-called "modern" literature. People who think Sylvia Plath is "deep" should be boiled in pudding with a stake of holly through their hearts.
I love museums. I would love museums in old houses if ever I had had a chance to go to any. I love old houses because seeing their interiors makes me feel all warm and cozy inside. I'm not among that bunch of hateful people who think that any era that came before theirs was to be despised. Those people have never read a book and instead derived their sense of intellectual importance by joining the "sneer at everything else" party the beatnik and hippie generations so thoroughly cultivated. Both those generations were very, very badly educated, and knew almost nothing of other times or other places, which made them susceptible to any kind of suasion that was tried on them. Communism was represented as the intellectual movement, the good movement, the movement for people who cared about other people. They leaped in with both feet. Capitalism, because driven by self-interest, was become the evil force in the world, something only devils and demons would advocate. It's a shame that understanding the two systems actually required some thought and introspection. It was much easier just to proclaim oneself and one's ideas superior to everyone and everything else.
I love nature. I had binoculars always with me because I just had to look at trees, flowers, and chirping birds as often as I saw something new. When I was a mother of scouts, I volunteered for the troop and went with them to several campouts. No more, for those little joys have been stripped form me. I would go again if I had the opportunity. What I don't love is watching documentaries of nature on the TV. A lion kills a gazelle. A cheetah kills a water buffalo calf in the process of being born. Two rams fight it out, and bull seals shove each other off a rock. HO HUM.
I used to like physical exertion. Skiing, tennis, sailing, hiking, swimming--I was very good at all those. I used to teach sailing, and consider myself to be among the best sailing teachers in the world. I'll link to my ebook about teaching sailing as soon as I finish writing it.
Most of what I'm telling about are activities of the mind. I don't consider them to be worth much without a good heart. Not to denigrate them, mind you, because they're so important to me, but that's because I dislike the notion of a mind, even a weak mind, going to waste, and I think every person on the planet should strive to put thoughts into their head and then should exercise their brain pondering on those thoughts. It is not enough to spend all your time watching "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" and "The Next Top Model". Those shows are for idiots who really wish to AVOID thinking or using their brains. Documentaries about history, science, and combing through rubbish for the rare antique that can be cashed in for a large profit are briefly interesting but should never make up the viewer's main intellectual fare.
Constantly sending "I love you" messages over MSN to your vapid little sweetheart on the other end of the line is fine, but have you ever said anything ELSE to her? Of course you'll argue that you have, but all she has ever offered to the conversation is what a pig her mother is, a jackass her stepfather is, what mean-spirited bitches her sisters are. I guess you need a "victim" to rescue and make you feel important, but trust me, she needs to shut up and go read a book instead of shouting about how desperate she is to have you inside her. By the way, have you never observed how the back half of her empty head is missing? It's flat, indicative that there's nothing holding the skull up. No ideas, no deep thoughts, not even any shallow thoughts, unless you consider the latest "fad teenage girl series" to be a "thought". She's a ditz.
My heart is a different matter. I love everyone. I care about people I barely know. I care about people I don't even know. That's why I took on the job of chairing The Hunger Committee at the church I used to belong to, why I volunteered so much time, not just at church but for the Boy Scouts I give and give and give to people, never expecting anything in return (and that's usually just about how much comes back).
Oh, well, enough. I'm a terrific woman, too, and I did get married, but I always seem to marry bad men. They see a giver and it brings out the taker, take take take and never give anything back. Story of my life.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Oh, well, it's "the best" of Prager
So much for worrying about posting today.
I'm going to work on my "The Perfect Sailing Instructor" ebook.
I'm about half done with the rough draft.
I'm going to work on my "The Perfect Sailing Instructor" ebook.
I'm about half done with the rough draft.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Sarah Palin's Alaska
The Learning Channel
Sunday, 9PM Eastern
Prager: Why do they always give Eastern and Central, and never Mountain or Pacific?
Very easy answer, which I've gotten from actually reading the screen, and drawing a few conclusions from the knowledge that lives in my fantastic brain. Programs are rebroadcast for the Pacific zone, so all the PST people have to do is read the number given first to see what time to watch.
Central is given because there are so many people in that zone. Giving central time as one hour behind eastern tells the watcher that the network didn't schedule a different time for the next time zone as well.
Mountain is not given because there aren't a lot of people in the mountain time zone, and those who are there enjoy a superior intelligence which allows them to add the number 1 to the time given for "Central".
Concluding with Pacific, the networks assumed, mostly correctly, that the pacific people would be ablet to read the leading number, which also applies to themselves.
Easy.
The Learning Channel
Sunday, 9PM Eastern
Prager: Why do they always give Eastern and Central, and never Mountain or Pacific?
Very easy answer, which I've gotten from actually reading the screen, and drawing a few conclusions from the knowledge that lives in my fantastic brain. Programs are rebroadcast for the Pacific zone, so all the PST people have to do is read the number given first to see what time to watch.
Central is given because there are so many people in that zone. Giving central time as one hour behind eastern tells the watcher that the network didn't schedule a different time for the next time zone as well.
Mountain is not given because there aren't a lot of people in the mountain time zone, and those who are there enjoy a superior intelligence which allows them to add the number 1 to the time given for "Central".
Concluding with Pacific, the networks assumed, mostly correctly, that the pacific people would be ablet to read the leading number, which also applies to themselves.
Easy.
Music: "What can engender that many endorphins in that short a time?"
Prager loves that little jazz piece he place for us, in which a pianist hits the same two keys over and over and over ...
Sorry, Prager, it doesn't even "send me". I like jazz, but I'd rather the jazz were from the Twenties or Thirties or even the Forties.
Sorry, Prager, it doesn't even "send me". I like jazz, but I'd rather the jazz were from the Twenties or Thirties or even the Forties.
The power of music over our moods
Prager: "There is nothing that can change your mood so quickly as music."
Fifteen years ago my kids introduced me to the more modern forms of rock, especially Alternative. I hadn't listened much to rock since Three Dog Night destroyed it around 1970, and Janice Joplin and Jim Morrison died soon after that. Besides, I had formed a passion for classical music around 1968 and really didn't want to listen to rock any longer. It's a "competitive" genre ("I'm a better person than you because I know more about music (read: this kind of music) than you do.") and I was sick to death of having to recount to people just how many concerts I had been to or how many albums I owned. There was always someone who had more than I did.
Alternative, you may or may not know, is a form of rock that is a little more musical and a little kinder on the ears than the other forms. Other "gentle" genres would be techno and trance. I listen to most kinds of rock (the exception being anything with screaming for vocals) but almost always enjoy Alternative. I know, I'm not as good as you because I even admit to liking it, but so be it.
After a while listening to this genre, I realized something was bothering me. Almost every song sounded as if the singer and his band were trying to tell us he had a hole in his soul, that something very serious or very deep or very large was missing in his life, some great hole was eating up his heart. Every song had this characteristic. Whether he was singing about his lost love or an opportunity he had never seen or taken advantage of, his heart ached.
Country is infamous for this kind of lyric, and yet country never makes me sad the way alternative does. He's sad over his lost love, sure, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in this existential "hole in my soul" kind of aching and yearning to be whole again.
So I've been wondering: does anyone think that there might be a relation between the saddening, aching, longing, yearning, what's-wrong-with-my-life music that so many youth listen to, and the fact that so many kids commit suicide?
Fifteen years ago my kids introduced me to the more modern forms of rock, especially Alternative. I hadn't listened much to rock since Three Dog Night destroyed it around 1970, and Janice Joplin and Jim Morrison died soon after that. Besides, I had formed a passion for classical music around 1968 and really didn't want to listen to rock any longer. It's a "competitive" genre ("I'm a better person than you because I know more about music (read: this kind of music) than you do.") and I was sick to death of having to recount to people just how many concerts I had been to or how many albums I owned. There was always someone who had more than I did.
Alternative, you may or may not know, is a form of rock that is a little more musical and a little kinder on the ears than the other forms. Other "gentle" genres would be techno and trance. I listen to most kinds of rock (the exception being anything with screaming for vocals) but almost always enjoy Alternative. I know, I'm not as good as you because I even admit to liking it, but so be it.
After a while listening to this genre, I realized something was bothering me. Almost every song sounded as if the singer and his band were trying to tell us he had a hole in his soul, that something very serious or very deep or very large was missing in his life, some great hole was eating up his heart. Every song had this characteristic. Whether he was singing about his lost love or an opportunity he had never seen or taken advantage of, his heart ached.
Country is infamous for this kind of lyric, and yet country never makes me sad the way alternative does. He's sad over his lost love, sure, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in this existential "hole in my soul" kind of aching and yearning to be whole again.
So I've been wondering: does anyone think that there might be a relation between the saddening, aching, longing, yearning, what's-wrong-with-my-life music that so many youth listen to, and the fact that so many kids commit suicide?
"Trophies for losing ... and then pay for it"
No, you're wrong, the kid didn't have to pay for his trophy. The parents were supposed to do that honor.
There might have been some point to it if the kid had had to pay for it, in maybe letting him earn SOMETHING to do with this phony trophy. But the parents were supposed to do it behind his back. Huge difference.
There might have been some point to it if the kid had had to pay for it, in maybe letting him earn SOMETHING to do with this phony trophy. But the parents were supposed to do it behind his back. Huge difference.
"They tried to protect him from pain"
Actually, no, they tried to pretend there was no pain. "How could those other kids be making fun of your ears when your ears aren't big?" Essentially they were Gaslighting their son. "Your perceptions and those of the other kids are completely against reality: your ears aren't big."
Your recommendation is just as bad. "So what if you have big ears, those kids have no business making fun of them because they could have made fun of so much else, like Bobby's big nose and Susie's lazy eye."
In other words: "You shouldn't feel hurt by these kids. You need to learn to not feel that way."
I have a suggestion. How about the parents acknowledge the child's hurt? "Oh, honey, it's so awful to have some kids picking on you. That must feel so terrible."
My parents, like young David's parents, denied that there was any pain, denied that anyone could possibly be picking on me, denied that being picked on could hurt or that it mattered if it did. None of this denial helped me deal with it in the slightest. What I needed to know was that I was a precious and valuable human being--the opposite of the message that my bullies were giving me, that I was worthless scum whose only purpose in life was to be kicked and spat upon by the worthy and important kids.
To be told I was scum needed to be contradicted by my parents, as well. That they denied everything that was happening to me, right down to my hurt feelings, did nothing to help me, but left me adrift in an ocean of hurt with no life preserver.
There are probably those who would say that Prager did acknowledge his son's pain, because they see an implied message, "[Sure it hurts but] so what?" and I would love to know how that worked for others as well. I can't see it, myself, but I'm willing to learn.
Your recommendation is just as bad. "So what if you have big ears, those kids have no business making fun of them because they could have made fun of so much else, like Bobby's big nose and Susie's lazy eye."
In other words: "You shouldn't feel hurt by these kids. You need to learn to not feel that way."
I have a suggestion. How about the parents acknowledge the child's hurt? "Oh, honey, it's so awful to have some kids picking on you. That must feel so terrible."
My parents, like young David's parents, denied that there was any pain, denied that anyone could possibly be picking on me, denied that being picked on could hurt or that it mattered if it did. None of this denial helped me deal with it in the slightest. What I needed to know was that I was a precious and valuable human being--the opposite of the message that my bullies were giving me, that I was worthless scum whose only purpose in life was to be kicked and spat upon by the worthy and important kids.
To be told I was scum needed to be contradicted by my parents, as well. That they denied everything that was happening to me, right down to my hurt feelings, did nothing to help me, but left me adrift in an ocean of hurt with no life preserver.
There are probably those who would say that Prager did acknowledge his son's pain, because they see an implied message, "[Sure it hurts but] so what?" and I would love to know how that worked for others as well. I can't see it, myself, but I'm willing to learn.
Jesse Jackson? Seriously?
Jesse Jackson complains about the plight of black people all the time. Why? Has he ever done anything to alleviate the situation? I don't mean "he started the Rainbow Coalition." That's a rotten answer because the Rainbow Coalition has never done anything more important than to teach preschoolers to recite the mantra, "I'm black and I'm beautiful." Well, that's nice, black IS beautiful but being black doesn't make you beautiful, and teaching kids that they're beautiful no matter what they do is the kind of moral teaching that resulted in so many of them going to jail in the first place. Then once "too many" of them were in jail, more race-baiting from Jackson convinced the majority of an entire population that dark-skinned people were only in jail because of the color of their skin, not because what they did to other people--the majority of them black--was heinous and evil.
Obviously I have no love for Jackson. I think what he has done at various times in his life is unforgivable. Giving himself a degree in theology, with less than a semester in credits, founding his own church and then ordaining himself "Reverend" and asking to be called by that title are unforgivable. Arrogating to himself the right to attack the society who has given him so much is unforgivable. Worst, though, and most unforgivable is the way he has sought to make 80% of 12% of the population angry at outside influences and blaming them (whites) for everything that is lacking among his group (blacks).
Americans were shocked and stunned at the assassinations in 1968 but we were ready to come together and work together. Jackson was determined that we must not. I was more profitable to sew more and more division among us than we had ever seen before. He's a parasite that feeds off misery and distrust. I believe the author of Shakedown (which book I haven't read, though it's on my reading list) explains what Jackson did after the death of Dr. King and how it affected interracial harmony for decades afterward. It still is affecting our relations, and we will only begin to heal after Jackson shuts up and allows us to begin to trust one another without his fomenting more hatred from which he can continue to profit.
I hope that day is soon.
Obviously I have no love for Jackson. I think what he has done at various times in his life is unforgivable. Giving himself a degree in theology, with less than a semester in credits, founding his own church and then ordaining himself "Reverend" and asking to be called by that title are unforgivable. Arrogating to himself the right to attack the society who has given him so much is unforgivable. Worst, though, and most unforgivable is the way he has sought to make 80% of 12% of the population angry at outside influences and blaming them (whites) for everything that is lacking among his group (blacks).
Americans were shocked and stunned at the assassinations in 1968 but we were ready to come together and work together. Jackson was determined that we must not. I was more profitable to sew more and more division among us than we had ever seen before. He's a parasite that feeds off misery and distrust. I believe the author of Shakedown (which book I haven't read, though it's on my reading list) explains what Jackson did after the death of Dr. King and how it affected interracial harmony for decades afterward. It still is affecting our relations, and we will only begin to heal after Jackson shuts up and allows us to begin to trust one another without his fomenting more hatred from which he can continue to profit.
I hope that day is soon.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Mkay, don't it figure
Dennis is playing the best of this hour at least. I hear this call from this poor dolt who thinks "The Jooz" are in charge of everything.
The only comment I have for the ignorance of such a person is the supposed "right-wing" nature of this paranoia, when people like this guy usually express very left-wing points of view. Rephrasing his doltery as right-wing doltery when left-wing complaints are dripping from his lips at a very high rate of speed is a triumph of leftwing propaganda.
One of these days I have to read Saul Alinski.
The only comment I have for the ignorance of such a person is the supposed "right-wing" nature of this paranoia, when people like this guy usually express very left-wing points of view. Rephrasing his doltery as right-wing doltery when left-wing complaints are dripping from his lips at a very high rate of speed is a triumph of leftwing propaganda.
One of these days I have to read Saul Alinski.
Prager's rhythm
I'm so glad you said, the other day, that there's a lag between you and the console that plays the Lawrence Welk theme for your Happiness Hour. For years I have been listening to you sing that thing off the beat, and I had concluded that you had a tin ear, especially in light of your annual assertion that to have perfect pitch one must be born with it.
So it turns out that you just have a dead ear when it comes to pitch, not when it comes to rhythm. Good.
So it turns out that you just have a dead ear when it comes to pitch, not when it comes to rhythm. Good.
"When in doubt, tax."
"And then send it to someone who will return the favor by voting for YOU.
"The country has in a large measure repudiated what democrats believe in."
And this is why I listen to Mr. Prager, in spite of having so many small quibbles with so much of what he says. He is, in those cases, of course always wrong, and I am always right. But meanwhile, in essence, Prager is dead on.
The difference between the two of us, of course, is that he gets to be heard by millions, and I believe this blog has been glanced at by ... five? eight? people, if that.
"The country has in a large measure repudiated what democrats believe in."
And this is why I listen to Mr. Prager, in spite of having so many small quibbles with so much of what he says. He is, in those cases, of course always wrong, and I am always right. But meanwhile, in essence, Prager is dead on.
The difference between the two of us, of course, is that he gets to be heard by millions, and I believe this blog has been glanced at by ... five? eight? people, if that.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
"Airyoodishun"
Dennis, ten years ago I told you this is the wrong way to pronounce "air - uh - dish - 'n". Your pronunciation makes my ears wither. I think you have a bad ear.
Since that date, dictionary.com has arisen with its sound bites of pronunciation. They have "airyoodishun" in there. But they are wrong. And so are you.
My authority to say this comes via William Safire, an "air - uh - dite" man who has written many books on language, the misuse of the English language, and the mispronunciation of American words by silly Americans trying to over-pronounce certain words, including "airy oo dish un". Stop! stop! enough already.
People who say "PEE un ist" and "flout ist" also drive me nuts but it's the guy who says he's very careful about his language while saying airyoodishun that makes my ears curl, almost as badly as the people who say, "between you and I..."
Since that date, dictionary.com has arisen with its sound bites of pronunciation. They have "airyoodishun" in there. But they are wrong. And so are you.
My authority to say this comes via William Safire, an "air - uh - dite" man who has written many books on language, the misuse of the English language, and the mispronunciation of American words by silly Americans trying to over-pronounce certain words, including "airy oo dish un". Stop! stop! enough already.
People who say "PEE un ist" and "flout ist" also drive me nuts but it's the guy who says he's very careful about his language while saying airyoodishun that makes my ears curl, almost as badly as the people who say, "between you and I..."
"Politics According to the Bible"
Yes, well, those politics have been co-opted by liberals, who know only one thing about the Bible: Jesus was a commie.
As a commie, Jesus wants rich people to give away all their worldly goods to the poor. If they won't do it willingly, the government must do it.
Mind you, this means only conservative rich people, and does not apply to lefties like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, nor the multitude of billionaires at Google.
As a commie, Jesus wants rich people to give away all their worldly goods to the poor. If they won't do it willingly, the government must do it.
Mind you, this means only conservative rich people, and does not apply to lefties like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, nor the multitude of billionaires at Google.
Obama: "I probably should have used the word 'opponents' "
Yes, you weasel, you should have. Not "probably" should have, but that's a weasel word that lets you out of apologizing for your hate speech, and still let your pets know that you're still on their side. The Republicans are still the enemy and you can only survive by keeping the hatred boiling among the people you patronize.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Speaking of the Boy Scouts...
Since the Boy Scouts came up, let me talk for a minute about the Girl Scouts.
The Girl Scouts used to have a terrific program for girls. Sadly, it didn't employ Leadership as a feature of the program, as the Boy Scouts' program does. That is the essence of the BSA program--leadership. The essence of the GSA program is service. Girls are required to do hours and hours of service for each of the awards leading up to and including the Gold award (and are specifically disallowed from allowing anyone else do their work for them), but they're never required to lead anything.
The boys, by contrast, lead their patrol, perform duties with a title (such as Historian or Scribe) that requires them to ask others to contribute hours ("When you're at the Council office would you mind getting this information for me please?"), or organize others to get things done. The final project, to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout, requires that they organize many people to do a hundred hours total of community service, such as getting someone to acquire a donation of paint, or directing volunteers to send thank-you notes to donors, or coordinating dozens of people in a huge painting or mowing or sandblasting crew on the morning of the effort.
SO... If you want to learn Service, join the GSA. If you want to learn to lead, join the BSA.
Why don't they know this? I keep seeing women of the GSA bemoan the fact that the Gold Award doesn't have the prestige that the Eagle Scout rank holds. But ladies, try to understand the above. Leadership has to be learned through exercising it; service is a whole different issue.
While I'm contrasting the GSA and the BSA, I'd like to mention their politics. Most people don't realize that the GSA leadership has been taken over by feminists. I don't know what Juliette Gordon Low would have thought of this; I always thought she was herself a feminist, but a feminist a hundred years ago was a whole different critter from today's rabid nutcases. Charming little adaptations to "modernity" have been put into the handbooks, from lesbian relations to how to use a condom at age 9. Watch out.
That's why some conservative feminists (yes, there are such things, they're sometimes called "equity feminists" because they don't go stomping around insisting that men and women are the same and the only difference is socially imposed) started the American Heritage Girls with a similar program (why, oh why, couldn't they put in the Leadership training for today's girls?) but without the gender politics and left-wing politics.
The Girl Scouts used to have a terrific program for girls. Sadly, it didn't employ Leadership as a feature of the program, as the Boy Scouts' program does. That is the essence of the BSA program--leadership. The essence of the GSA program is service. Girls are required to do hours and hours of service for each of the awards leading up to and including the Gold award (and are specifically disallowed from allowing anyone else do their work for them), but they're never required to lead anything.
The boys, by contrast, lead their patrol, perform duties with a title (such as Historian or Scribe) that requires them to ask others to contribute hours ("When you're at the Council office would you mind getting this information for me please?"), or organize others to get things done. The final project, to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout, requires that they organize many people to do a hundred hours total of community service, such as getting someone to acquire a donation of paint, or directing volunteers to send thank-you notes to donors, or coordinating dozens of people in a huge painting or mowing or sandblasting crew on the morning of the effort.
SO... If you want to learn Service, join the GSA. If you want to learn to lead, join the BSA.
Why don't they know this? I keep seeing women of the GSA bemoan the fact that the Gold Award doesn't have the prestige that the Eagle Scout rank holds. But ladies, try to understand the above. Leadership has to be learned through exercising it; service is a whole different issue.
While I'm contrasting the GSA and the BSA, I'd like to mention their politics. Most people don't realize that the GSA leadership has been taken over by feminists. I don't know what Juliette Gordon Low would have thought of this; I always thought she was herself a feminist, but a feminist a hundred years ago was a whole different critter from today's rabid nutcases. Charming little adaptations to "modernity" have been put into the handbooks, from lesbian relations to how to use a condom at age 9. Watch out.
That's why some conservative feminists (yes, there are such things, they're sometimes called "equity feminists" because they don't go stomping around insisting that men and women are the same and the only difference is socially imposed) started the American Heritage Girls with a similar program (why, oh why, couldn't they put in the Leadership training for today's girls?) but without the gender politics and left-wing politics.
"Give to the Boy Scouts, if you want to give money."
Hear, hear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Boy Scouts except that a few hotheads want to accuse them of discriminating against gays.
The troop I volunteered for met across the street from Beverly Hills. The scoutmaster lived in West Hollywood. For our annual popcorn sales fundraiser, we set up a table out in front of the Pavilions in West Hollywood (God bless the manager). We must have had a couple of hundred gay men file past us those two weekends. Most of them stopped and at the very least dropped a dollar into our money can, though no one pressured anyone to do so. Many stopped to chat, many more actually said, "Oh, the boy scouts! I was a boy scout too. How much is the popcorn?"
Not one of them stopped to argue with us for being so evil as not to accept single, childless men as adult volunteers.
Well, that was the official policy. It comports with LDS doctrine, which demands of all adult men that they set the example for the next generation, marry, father children, and lead useful and productive lives. If you don't know anything about the LDS church, I suggest you learn something, else you'll spend the rest of your life saying idiotic things about LDS doctrine, such as "they wear magic underwear"--which only makes the speaker look like a moron and does nothing to detract from the Mormon Church as a religion that millions of decent, educated, respectable people subscribe to. No, I'm not LDS, but I wouldn't be ashamed to be one.
The only problem we had was the occasional liberal feminist that would stop at our table, her face beet red, and scream at us for five minutes about discrimination. I would bet you a thousand dollars that those same women themselves discriminate just as harshly, by (for example) demanding that funding be taken away from the students' union that allowed (never mind paid for) a conservative to speak at the alma mater, or by demonstrating fiercely and noisily outside an auditorium where a republican dared to appear, by demanding that the conservative-authored book in the window at B&N be put in the back room, or by demanding that her party boycott the debate on FOX News. These lefties are the most narrow-minded creatures on the planet.
The troop I volunteered for met across the street from Beverly Hills. The scoutmaster lived in West Hollywood. For our annual popcorn sales fundraiser, we set up a table out in front of the Pavilions in West Hollywood (God bless the manager). We must have had a couple of hundred gay men file past us those two weekends. Most of them stopped and at the very least dropped a dollar into our money can, though no one pressured anyone to do so. Many stopped to chat, many more actually said, "Oh, the boy scouts! I was a boy scout too. How much is the popcorn?"
Not one of them stopped to argue with us for being so evil as not to accept single, childless men as adult volunteers.
Well, that was the official policy. It comports with LDS doctrine, which demands of all adult men that they set the example for the next generation, marry, father children, and lead useful and productive lives. If you don't know anything about the LDS church, I suggest you learn something, else you'll spend the rest of your life saying idiotic things about LDS doctrine, such as "they wear magic underwear"--which only makes the speaker look like a moron and does nothing to detract from the Mormon Church as a religion that millions of decent, educated, respectable people subscribe to. No, I'm not LDS, but I wouldn't be ashamed to be one.
The only problem we had was the occasional liberal feminist that would stop at our table, her face beet red, and scream at us for five minutes about discrimination. I would bet you a thousand dollars that those same women themselves discriminate just as harshly, by (for example) demanding that funding be taken away from the students' union that allowed (never mind paid for) a conservative to speak at the alma mater, or by demonstrating fiercely and noisily outside an auditorium where a republican dared to appear, by demanding that the conservative-authored book in the window at B&N be put in the back room, or by demanding that her party boycott the debate on FOX News. These lefties are the most narrow-minded creatures on the planet.
What is it, "Smart Pants" ?
Can't remember the name of Maxwell Smart?
That makes me so sad. And to say he prefers Norman Rockwell paintings is great, but to substitute the one for the other (in either direction) just does not compute. You might as well try to prefer Beethoven to Louis Armstrong: neither one can nose out the other. You gotta love them both.
That makes me so sad. And to say he prefers Norman Rockwell paintings is great, but to substitute the one for the other (in either direction) just does not compute. You might as well try to prefer Beethoven to Louis Armstrong: neither one can nose out the other. You gotta love them both.