Old thread cleansed with flamethrowers and bazookas; a new nest emerges!
(Current totals: 10,075 entries with 973,299 comments)
More like this
The unending thread drifted onto the topic of cooking…but as usual, all the threads here always revolve around arguments. Then I realized that every thread is just another Abbott and Costello routine.
(Current totals: 10,234 entries with 996,226 comments)
I'm in Orange County today, and I heard an odd comment that there was a dearth of godless music. I beg to differ: most music is godless, and I would point to rock as a genre that is almost entirely secular. You know, it doesn't have to be overt and announce that god doesn't exist to be compatible…
Resetting old thread, resume conversation here.
(Current totals: 10,316 entries with 1,008,138 comments.)
Ooops, I got distracted and have let the long lingering thread linger too long. Here you go, new thread with a little song to tide you over.
(Current totals: 10,830 entries with 1,088,950 comments.)
Well, that was some high drama!
So many horrors... if it's not THEM, it's the Night of the Lepus.
Do do Doooomm!
Okay, just in case it gets missed, from the previous incarnation:
ambulocetacean:
I think, for some people, like Fred Phelps and others who are moderate in comparison, hate becomes a Raison d'être. Without it, they have nothing. It's a passion, like any other. Maybe I've read too much on Rapture Ready and the freeper boards, but it seems these folks have little else to cling to, outside their hate and their fear.
John:
If you're going to do that, do it properly, with Bender saying "We're Dooooooooooomed!"
Oh no its the socialists !!!!
Rorschach,
Um....
Feymaniac, I think R just likes pussy...
<runs>
Toad, I gotta say, I'm with Rorschach on that one. Too damned much energy. Cats - very low maintenance.
Poldark is finally on DVD (series 1 anyway). I am so happy.
How to name a volcano
Why is PZ afraid of tribbles?
@ John Morales -
Yes! Someone's finally given me a chance to link to my favorite naughty song!
"My pussycat was scratchin' out on my back door
scratched so long poor pussy got sore. . ."
Hey guys, I got to see Alice in Chains in concert tonight. :D
I also agree with Rorschach and Josh. Dating is definitely a pursuit best left to the young. I am more of a dog person than cat person, but forget those damnable puppies -- give me a 10 year old hound whose long traded his "hunt" in for a warm spot near the hearth instead.
Caine, if I was in the States I'd be trying to get me some of that Rapture-insurance action. Pay me a dollar a day now and I'll look after your pets when you get raptured up... Freaking idiots.
Josh, thanks for nothing! :)
(Wife heard it and groaned)
Wow, this is the first time I've come across an Endless Thread when it still had less than a hundred comments. It...it still has that New Thread smell.
ambulocetacean, there are times when I wish I didn't have such a stern set of ethics and morals; people are making money on the raptureroid crowd, and it's eeaasy money.
"THEM" was just one of the many sci-fi flicks of the late fifties and early sixties based on the idea of some critter or person being exposed to "radiation" and then growing "exponentially".
When I give an exam to my algebra class on exponential functions I always feature a problem that has the student calculate the time for an irradiated critter to grow to some arbitrarily huge size based on a given exponential growth function.
I find, and I hope the students do as well, this to be more fun than calculating the growth of bacteria or the radioactive decay of some isotope.
ew, no. this young'un has never dated, and will never date. dating is a horrible horrible invention.
Net Worth. They do a damn good live show. Just saying. Too bad no one knows who they are even around here.
Ah well, good night thread. I should probably go to bed now...
By the way I think dating is idiotic. It ruins the beauty and magic of meeting people. Dating has this fucking agenda :(
bleh
I'm with Jadehawk. I never dated, wouldn't have the slightest clue how to do it if I found myself suddenly not married, and wouldn't have any interest in dating.
Oh, no! It's Tehm again!
My momma warned me and my poppa done tol' me that Tehy would get me in teh edn.
*ants why is it always ants as if The Sky Above the Mud Bellow wasn't enough*
I'm much more of a dog person, dachshunds in particular. They're just so damn cute (and good company, too).
The last cat I owned ruined all other cats for me. That fuzzy little jerk did nothing more than give me creepy stares and pee in my plants.
I'm actually quite good at dating, it's the marriage thing I truly suck at.
@ Lets Get Surgical:
I shouldn't even be speaking to you, since your very name gives me a horrible earworm. :)
I don't mind dogs; in fact, I rather like them, and I'll be taking care of my friend's two next week (should be interesting what the House Kittehs think about this). Cats don't have to be walked, though, and they're pretty self-sufficient. Mine are affectionate, which I like, but I can throw them off my lap when I feel like being left alone, and they're cool.
Now for a horrible sci-fi movie and the MST3k mocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_u0K_yi5QI#t=48s
"I don't believe it....Godzilla is either breaking the laws of physics or he's throwing around an empty rubber suit."
..if dating can be defined as just hanging out, having good fun with no strings attached. I'm not into the whole dress up and go on a "formal" date thing. Too contriuved for my tastes.
oh, "hanging out just for fun" is no problem, in the rare cases such a thing offers itself. no, "dating" is that annoyingly contrived thing with expectations
XD
I never made that connection myself. Here's a slightly better one that has been stuck in my head.
The whole concept of a "date" was made by an insane saddist who wanted to maximize the feeling of awkwardness.
Oh, you are just horrible. :)
Yes, which is why dating is ends up so disastrous. Besides, still haven't found a suitable guy to pursue yet.
Personally, I've never even found "beauty and magic" in meeting people.
@24. Did you ever, say, get both a puppy and a kitten not far from weaning and just throw them into the same box and feed them from the same dish?
No? Then you don't know doodley. The two are not so different at all; it's only a language problem.
Critters is critters and so is folks.
Not just pecs: abs and arms too. And I'm hardly the first gay guy to be obsessed with it.
Quite.
Pikachu, I give you a lot of shit, but it's affectionate (even though it does have a sort of hard edge to it). Someone needs to tease you in a "scolding uncle" sort of way!
Hiya all,
Spousal unit arrived very late, but arrived. While I love you all dearly, will see you in about two weeks. :^)
Thanks for the further book recommendations menado and Leigh. I did check and copy.
Ciao, Jeffrey
Bullshit bill. You say "illegal immigrant" you really just mean Hispanic people. The largest group of undocumented immigrants aren't even Hispanic, but you guys don't seem to be going after them. It's pure racism.
I bought the last cat I owned from an animal shelter; maybe she had a rough upbringing and couldn't ever get over it, despite my constant affection.
I did find a very young kitten after a terrible storm once. I brought it home, and my 6-year-old dachshund, who hadn't had a litter in years, immediately took the kitten in as her own and even started lactating and nursing within a couple days. That was a shock, and made me realize that cats and dogs aren't actually mortal enemies.
Ignore that last post. It was meant for Towleroad. (Can't believe the numbers of gay wingnuts who hang out there.)
I know. I leave myself open to these scolding. ;^) But "tease" "hard" and "edge" are awkward together.
Have a great time, Jeffrey! I'll be a bit scarce this weekend m'self, as the spouse is home. :)
Only if you're not adventurous.
Some brilliant songs by less-well-known Australians:
Lazy Susan - Bobby Fischer
Darren Hanlon - Falling Aeroplanes
Chuck Jenkins - Spirit Level Windowsill
Hi Guys, unless it offends anyone, can I please have lots of Yes votes on this site http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/ not so much because I feel strongly about the Union Jack being on our flag or not, but because of this http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/urgent-channel-9-poll-on-the-… if you go to their home page you'll see why. Again, please only if it doesn't offend you.
Oh, criminy. I'm all Hard As Nails Yo, but this kind of thing makes me wanna blubber. It's so damned sweet it breaks my heart.
Well now I'm curious... what is the largest group?
College students. Yes, I have friends here illegally and many of them are from East Asia. But they aren't targeted because they have no distinct cultural background or a distinct racial/ethnic appearance. Hispanic people, however, are quite distinct and thus are seen as "threats" by the dominant ethnic group.
Bacon.
There, I said it.
Oh, I'll have to use that one. Every time I tell my conservative-christian father that our corporations buy up all the farmland in Mexico and force them to come here for work, he looks at me and says "boy, I hate that you go to that damn librul yooniversity." Thanks, Beck.
It's not adventurous if I know exactly where it leads.
My husband once brought home a barely-weaned kitten and gave her to his dog to raise. The dog spent the first couple of weeks trying to lick the cat smell off. When someone came to the door, the dog of course would run to it, barking, and so would the cat (with her fur all fluffed up and back arched; interesting combo). Yes, this cat could bark, or something so close as to make no difference.
It wasn't until we combined households and she was exposed to my cat that she seemed to learn how to meow properly.
Attack cat. I've heard of this mythical beast.
That was the perfect rejoinder. +1.
vikingbabe, I voted. Though honestly that's one I don't really care much about. It's history. Getting rid of the monarchy is the real current issue IMHO.
Anyway, you know that changing the flag would just lead us to have some hideously bland offend-no-one kind of thing, like our anthem. Or a boxing kangaroo. Canada's got its maple leaf, UnZud has that lovely silver fern that they could use if they wanted, but what have we got? Personally, I'd like the Eureka flag but the right would have a hissy fit. And Waltzing Matilda would have been an awesome anthem.
I know the blog borg master frowns on this, and I've posted this before but..
Everyone needs a little funk
Vikingbabe,
Ugh. So much stupid on that "Australian Conservative" site. Glenn Beck has taken a "sharp turn to the left" because he had someone from the freaking Cato Institute on his show? FFS. I didn't even know that anybody in Oz watched Beck. (I've written rather uncomplimentary stuff about him a few times in my day job as a journo and never gotten any hate mail). I weep for our future.
And Channel Nine is a "republican organ"? (For non-Australians, that's republican in the sense of wanting an Australian republic that doesn't have the Queen of England as our head of state). Channel Nine is the most conservative TV network in the country and the one most loved by geriatric reactionaries.
Re the flag, they should just snip out the Union Jack and replace it with the Aboriginal flag. It would all look a bit gaudy but I'd be happy enough with that.
Blerk. I'm off to my girlfriend's for some spag bol and to watch The Wire on DVD. She's never seen it, so it should be good.
Cath,
The Eureka Flag would be cool, but Waltzing Matilda? A song about a sheep-thief suicide for our national anthem?
I totally agree with you Cath the Canberra Cook, it's just that I find the Australianconservative website to be repugnant so I want to spoil their little game.
Tom Switzer makes Andrew Bolt seem like a 'pinko hippie'. If the man ever gets into parliament I will be very disappointed.
You don't have "the Queen of England" as your head of state. You have the Queen of Australia as your head of state; she simply happens to be simultaneously Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Belize, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of the Solomon Islands, and Queen of a number of other independent countries. It's what's known as a "personal union"; all the Commonwealth realms are completely independent, but share the same person as head of state. /nitpick
But I never understood Australian republicanism (or indeed British republicanism). It would be very expensive (as you'd have to rebrand everything in Australia with the word "Royal" in it, remove the Royal Arms from everything, and so on), and wouldn't make any practical difference to the workings of your political system (as the ceremonial Governor-General would likely just be replaced with a ceremonial President, with exactly the same functions). It's completely pointless.
Not to mention the supernatural aspect of Waltzing Matilda: "And his ghost may be heard as you pass by the billabong." If we're gonna be a grown-up country we should be grown-up enough not to believe in ghosts.
Waltzing Matilda is a great song, but not really national anthem material. I'd prefer Nice Boys by Rose Tattoo: "And in the street the garbage lies / Protected by a million flies / Roaches so big you know they got bones / Moved in and made themselves at home."
The lyrics might be a bit entomologically suspect but they do fit with my experience of Sydney.
@42: Well, thanks. I'm glad you had the opportunity to see for yourself.
My father claimed that he once had a horse that had a cat. That is, the horse and the cat hung out together, did stuff together. Mostly consisting of the casually grazing horse carrying the cat and the cat looking all around, tail a twitch.
I'd imagine that the cat enjoyed the higher perspective and the horse liked getting his withers scratched. Maybe it was the cat had the horse.
Damn, I just finished catching up on the Thread and reading that other thread about abortion.
Just A Lurker, Happy Birthday! (I know it's late, sorry)
Diane, fourthed or whatever that it's awesome you're doing asylum work.
Something I saw tonight on the TeeVee: Sinead O'Connor wass on Rachel Maddow tonight talking about the Catholic abuse scandal. She said she thinks that the Holy Spirit is being held hostage by the people running the RCC and the flock needs to rise up and help release it. WTF? The Holy Spirit is so powerless that it needs help dealing with a bunch of elderly men?
Pictures! :-P
Lynna,
I've been thinking about you all day. This morning I found out that one of my census co-workers is a Mormon! They're roaming free in the Mid-west. :)
We may officially have the "Queen of Australia", but strangely, the woman in the job isn't an Australian, and doesn't even live here. She's forever going off and representing British interests overseas, and never Australian ones. Mary of Denmark does a better job, maybe we should switch over.
The practical difference it would make is that we would have an Australian as head of state. And you know, they might just represent our interests rather than some other country's. It's ridiculous to have a foreigner in the job.
And that's before even considering how stupid the whole idea of hereditary monarchy is. A lot of Australians do respect Liz, but I very much doubt the monarchy here will survive King Charles III.
And seriously, the cost of branding and stationery? What kind of ridiculous argument is that? We don't use "royal" things anywhere near as much as you lot, anyway.
ambulocetacean: a song about a defiant sheep-stealing suicide is just perfect! Way better than all the boring "our country is so great, we rule nahanah" bullshit of most anthems.
It's not that hard to understand, the notion of a monarchy is an archaic tie that has no place in a modern democracy. The Queen is merely a figurehead with no real power, a throwback to English imperialism. Surely you can recognise that the symbolism of self-determination would be an appealing one to a country that stands on its own.
Instead of looking at the notion of change, look at what it represents in the first place. We (about 9 out of 10 Australians) want our own country, not to be a remnant of the British Empire.
No, having the Queen as our head of state is completely pointless. She is in a position where she has legal power but no practical power. It's pointless to have a Queen, it would make a lot more sense to adopt a system of government where the head of state is an elected official of the people. Right now our political system is in effect electing a president by electing local officials who happen to be of the same party. This is a problem, it's not about voting for who will best serve in the local area. This is the problem of the Australian system right now, the way the political race is run and how the system works don't gel. And it means that areas where marginal seats are up for grabs are where the politicians pay the most attention.
Now this isn't all down to the fact that we are a monarchy, but surely you can see the disparity between how the government works and how elections do.
It's ridiculous to have a foreigner in the job.
indeed.
New Zealand also learned the cost of relying on the UK to look out for its interests.
NZ was entirely screwed over when the UK joined the EU.
I keep telling people here to dump their attachment to the UK entirely, but the older generation still has strong sentimental feelings.
*shrug*
nothing good for NZ is coming out of continuing association with the UK, as far as I can see.
If you're gonna have a head of state have one that represents the people, not a archaic medieval institution that has somehow survived into modern times.
I'm confused... you seem to be arguing not just for republicanism but for a presidential system.
For the most part, when Commonwealth nations have abolished their ties to the monarchy (examples that I can think of being India, Pakistan and Dominica), they have simply replaced the ceremonial Governor-General with a ceremonial President. The parliamentary system of government, with a Prime Minister and cabinet drawn from the largest party in the legislature, has remained exactly the same. This is most likely what would happen in Australia, too.
It's important to separate the arguments for and against monarchy from the arguments for and against a Westminster-style parliamentary system. They are completely separate issues.
Question: How much does the concept of "class" (meaning being 'well-bred') play in everyday life in the UK?
(My knowledge of the UK is limited to Doctor Who episodes and Monty Python.)
Walton,
It is not "completely pointless" to want to have an Australian as head of state. England was once a French colony. Would you want the King of France to be your head of state?
The Vikings used to own England as well, and while the Danish royals are fairly groovy by monarchical standards (a Danish mate of mine says Prince Frederik once passed him a joint in the mosh pit at a Beastie Boys concert), would you really want Freddie and his Tasmanian real estate-agent wife swanning about the place like they were Charles and Di? And speaking of swans, that would mean that the Danes would own all your swans too.
The Queen is a frigging anachronism in Britain, let alone Australia. There is absolutely no reason why she should be the Australian head of state.
The fact that she still is our head of state is a measure only of the reflexive servility of the majority of older Australians and the dishonest anti-republican campaign run by our boot-licking Anglophile former prime minister John Howard ahead of the referendum on the republic. (OMG! Becoming a republic would mean dozens of changes to the Constitution! Never mind that almost all of them would simply have been crossing out "Governor-General" andinserting "President").
And speaking of baffling old British anachronisms, WTF is up with the House of Lords? When are you going to get an elected senate like everybody else? Why should the upper house be occupied - for life! - by posh clowns who were lucky enough to inherit an anachronistic title and by politicians and dodgy businesspeople who did certain favours for the government of whichever day they were appointed? The British system is every bit as stupid and corrupt as the American one.
Vikingbabe,
Is Tom Switzer really that bad? Does he run that Australian Conservative site? I had a little bit to do with him when I worked at The Australian and he was opinion editor. He seemed a nice enough bloke, though I disagreed with his politics. At least he was against the Iraq War. I would never have thought to put him in the same basket as Andrew Bolt.
Grrr... I've had a few beers now and I want to stay around and argue, but if I don't get to my girlfriend's shortly she'll have my guts for garters.
Does it matter? My criticisms of staying a monarchy are still valid regardless of how I think the system should go. The Queen is a useless figurehead and what is the point of keeping such a useless figure in Australian politics?
Just for you Walton, I'll separate out the two positions... Firstly, I'm all for creating Australia as an independent nation. The ties to England and the Union Jack are a throwback to colonial times in a country that is self-determined. We are a country in our own right and we should have a system that reflects that. There is no point to keeping in the monarchy.
Secondly, I think the system as is doesn't reflect the democratic process. As such, I would not only like to see Australia become a republic but one that has a directly elected official. Right now we have local members being elected along party lines because the leaders of those parties are acting like the presidential candidates in America. It means that money and effort goes into marginal areas during elections, and those who live in safe seats one way or the other are disadvantaged in that respect.
So there you have it, I think the system as it stands does need fixing. I also think that Australia should have its own head of state that reflects its status as an independent nation. I think these positions aren't mutually exclusive, i.e. that changing one would mean changing the other. But even if we kept our current system I would still want to get rid of the Queen as our head of state for the reasons I outlined above and more.
Ah, the advantages of being girlfriend-free !!
*opens another Beck's and stays around*
:P
Just to put the shoe on the other foot. How would you feel if Australia decided that we have a King. Should England's head of state be an Australian monarch? If not, then why the fuck do you think Australia's head of state should be an English monarch?
I'm fed up with people talking about the House of Lords and having no clue what they are talking about.
Most of the hereditary peers were removed in 1997. Only 92 now remain. The vast majority of members of the Lords hold life peerages, granted in recognition of some kind of service or achievement. Yes, some of them are party political hacks; but there's a sizeable number of "crossbenchers" who are independent of any party, and bring much-needed expertise in various fields to the legislature.
Time and time again, it has been the Lords who have spoken out against restrictions on civil liberties passed by the Commons, and they have sometimes forced amendments to remove some of the more illiberal measures. They are an important check on the power of the majority party. I think it's very healthy to have part of the legislature insulated from democracy: it is democratic rule that keeps giving us populist "law and order" politics and the erosion of civil liberties, and I think we need some people in the legislature who don't have the pressure of needing to seek re-election, and are free to speak out against abuses of civil liberties even when those abuses are popular.
I would also add that the Lords have limited power. They can only delay, not actually veto, a bill; and they have (rightly) no control over taxation or the budget. I am not in favour of increasing their powers, but I think we should continue to have a non-elected upper house. The remaining hereditary peers could easily be removed (except for the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, who are needed because they have ceremonial roles in the state opening of Parliament), and so too could the Anglican bishops. (I'm strongly in favour of disestablishing the Church of England.) But I think we should continue to have an appointed upper house.
I would like pet sloth. I imagine that I could hang it from a potplant and it would just dangle there being all low-maintenance.
Perhaps too cute for this thread, but cthulhu has bred with a cat and has produced a cthulhu-kitty
Dating is the next best thing after casual sex. You're doing it wrong.
Walton,
Again, it's not the people who want this:
The Australian flag would be prettier without the Union Jack.
The law could be that whenever something gets old and wears out, replace it with the new stuff.
AMBULOCETACEAN (sorry about the shouty but I'm guessing you won't be reading this 'til later so I thought I'd try to make it easier to find.)
I don't think Switzer runs the AC site, he has his finger in other pies. But from what I've read in his articles and the rare tv appearance such as Q&A he really is a frightening prospect in politics.
That is the lamest and most ridiculous argument I've ever heard on the subject. You can simply fire the useless twits (pay them off with a big pension), abolish the position, and done. It is, in principle, that easy. There is no reason to rebrand anything (and coats-of-arms are so completely pointless who gives a shite?). Besides saving the millions wasted on one wealthy family, you remove an embarrassing and useless anarchism.
Walton,
Whether they're hereditary peers or life peers, they're still there for life. The "service or achievement" for which most life peers are appointed is cynical political service to the government of the day.
And they can only delay, not veto/vote down a bill? Well what the fuck are they there for?
You say:
and
Well, Jebus, it sounds like you don't really like democracy at all.
ROFLMAO. Just hire some desperate refugees from Somalia or Sudan. I'm sure they'll (ahem) usher in the black rod for 50 quid a week.
If (FSM forbid) the Tories win the election it will be interesting watching you spending months conceding and/or denying that they are doing far more to erode and/or erase civil liberties than Labour has done. Too bad that you're too young to remember Thatcher. But good luck with all that.
Cath,
Yes, Advance Australia Fair is both insipid and outdated. "For those who've come across the seas we've boundless plains to share" has long since fallen by the wayside, been apprehended by the navy and locked up behind razor wire in Nauru.
Walton,
Listen to yourself.
Such ceremony is about as necessary as a lawyer's wig — i.e. not at all.
Not doing any of those things.
I have books to read and football matches to watch to keep me happy.
If more priests were like me, children would be safe...:-)
I think if you just removed it, it would look a bit empty.
I found the Union Jack graphically appealing, but I understand why many Australians would prefer to replace it with something else (be it a yellow commonwealth star, an aboriginal flag, or a boxing kangaroo...).
Strange thing is why does the state of hawaii still have the union jack in its upper left quadrant?
no, hanging out with interesting people over a beer is the next best thing after casual sex*. dating is the first circle of hell. the second cirecle of hell is hanging out with boring people over not enough beer.
- - - - - - - - - -
*tied for first place with being in a good relationship.
Vikingbabe,
No need to shout. I'm so vain that if I can't be bothered reading a thread I'll just do a CTRL-F and see if I'm in it :)
I hope Tom Switzer isn't as bad as you think he is. I don't really know him at all but it would make me sad if he turned out like Andrew Bolt or Piers Akerman. :(
Here's how the American population's views on civil liberties:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/5263/Civil-Liberties.aspx
It's far from perfect, but the population takes a more more liberal approach then those in power. It can hardly be said that civil liberty violations are very popular.
_ _ _
I'm not sure the Royal family is very anarchist. In fact, some of them even dress up as Nazis. Also, I imagine anarchists are generally oppossed to this anachronism. ;p
No, he's not really a big fan of it.
Cats on the other hand....;)
This seems appropriate....
The annoying peasant
I wonder if Walton has ever seen Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister — in particular, Doing the Honours.
TY, Knockgoats.
Talking about UK politics, I have been really impressed with Nick Clegg's performance during the last two debates. He seemed so much more rational than the other two candidates. It's clear who I would vote for...
Hello all. Everyone has left now and as you can imagine I'm pretty buzzzzzzzzed. I was feeling pretty good. Of course I wanted to check in the Teh Thread before I go nighty-night since I probably won't wake up for a very long time tomorrow. Well, in my current state I was reading someone's post who used FSM and my first thought was female seeking male. Obviously, that's wrong on so many levels so I went to urbandictionary.com to see what the fuck it meant. How the fuck did I forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Seriously? *facepalm* for my stupidity. Well, I read the entire definition and now I'm thinking a bit clearer because I'M PISSED!
Read this bullshit.
Flying Spaghetti Monster. An attempt by atheists to mock anyone that disagrees with them. The basic concept is a response to the logical statement: "it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a deity or deities." Essentially, supporters of the FSM concept state that it's also impossible to prove the non-existence of something completely arbitrary and ridiculous, such as a flying spaghetti monster, and thus there's no reason to believe in the FSM just for that reason alone.
Obviously the argument is extremely weak and doesn't really hold water. But what's disturbing is the utter contempt, disrespect, and intolerance (and in some cases, hatred) these people have for anyone that disagrees with them. They refuse to go by the principles of live-and-let-live and do-unto-others. They will counter this assertion by arguing that religious people never live-and-let-live and are always forcing religion onto people. This is of course false, and only applies to a very small minority of religious people (such as the nutjobs at the WBC) and thus is a prime example of smearing people with a vastly over-generalized statement.
Most won't admit it, but they resent the fact that most modern nations allow freedom of religion for all. Ultimately, they would like to see this right taken away someday.
/rant
WTF?!?! No the fuck I don't want to take it away, I want the right to practice my non-religion and not be marginalized, shitted on, and disregarded as a human being for it. FUCK U THEISTS! Obviously, the majority of True Christians you belong to are hypocritical since you generalize and stereotype us, right after you accuse us of doing the same heinous thing. Practice your god forsaken religion but don't you dare violate ANYBODY's rights (or little kids and nuns for that matter). Don't you dare use you're superstitions to make rules for everybody on your holier than thou high horse. Oh wait...you already do? Jeez, you think that maybe that's reason people are pissed and want to take religion out of everything except your homes???
Answer this question, how do I hate something that doesn't exist? Do you hate unicorns? No? Why, because they don't exist? *facepalm* /rant
Can somebody fix this? Is there a way to fix this stupid biased definition? I'm sorry I'm a little out of it so please don't hold this against me. Hopefully, when I wake up, eventually, I won't regret posting while pissed off and drunk *hick*
Also, thank the Pink Unicorn for spell check. I misspelled definition for fucksake. (and horse and everything and nuns, and.. well you get the point.)
You may now return to your adult, rational, and lively discussion.
damn i fucked up blockquotes AND bold somehow, I think I need to go into hole and stop posting......
*a hole damn. I think I'm done sorry for derailing the discussion. won't happen again.
Hey, relax, JAL. No biggie.
Nighty-night.
ambulocetacean - from what I've seen he is worse than those two reprobates. He is Editor of Spectator Australia and couple of weeks back the editorial regarding Malcolm Turnbull's departure was titled 'Good Riddance', and not because they took a socialist position!
The written articles I have read are extreme, strident right-wing diatribes. Kill the unemployed, starve single mothers into servitude, only allow healthcare for the wealthy - that sort of thing.
Talking about UK politics, I have been really impressed with Nick Clegg's performance during the last two debates. He seemed so much more rational than the other two candidates. It's clear who I would vote for... - negentropyeater
You've watched them?? I really couldn't face being lied to in stereo for that length of time. The first debate did seem to make a big difference, and I bet Cameron is kicking himself for pressing for them! All the opinion polls I've seen indicate a hung parliament, which I consider exceleent news.
In Scotland, of course, the SNP are fuming about being excluded from the debates, with some justification I think. In my constituency, I get the choice between the 3 main UK parties, the SNP, a bunch of Trots (mostly) calling themselves the Scottish Socialist Party, and a bunch of Nazis calling themselves the British National Party. No Green, so to maximise chances of fatally damaging New Labour without subjecting us to renewed Tory rule, I'm left to decide between Lib Dem or SNP - neither exciting much enthusiasm. On policy I somewhat prefer the SNP, but the Lib Dems have a better chance of taking the seat.
What a surprise,
t's far from perfect, but the population takes a more more liberal approach then those in power. It can hardly be said that civil liberty violations are very popular.
actually, if you read ALL the poll questions, it's not nearly so clear.
it really does look like around over 40% of americans really wouldn't have much problem sacrificing their civil liberties for a feeling of personal safety.
even in the first poll, the number have stabilized at over 30%.
frankly, I find that more than sad.
that's a HUGE (if extrapolated to the entire US, around 100 milllion people) chunk of people more than happy to give up their rights for some vague feeling of safety.
I find that not terribly comforting.
I note that it was evenly split a year or so after 9/11.
Moreover, while many say they wouldn't approve of abrogating their rights for safety, many actually did during GW's tenure, and I don't recall a great swell of complaint about it. Certainly not enough to get the legislature or the white house to change their minds about their decisions.
same thing happened during wwii, and korea, and vietnam...
Obviously the argument is extremely weak and doesn't really hold water.
the FSM argument is only weak in the minds of those who feel convinced of their own faith.
call them on that, ask them what actual evidence THEY have, and of course you get nothing but stuttering gibberish.
It's just wishful thinking on their part (and pure, undeniable delusion, regardless of what the AMA/APA calls it), that they consider to have any more evidence to support whatever deific concepts they hold, than there are for the FSM, or unicorns, etc.
Of course, they typically miss that it's exactly why the FSM movement started to begin with.
it's also why we see NoR constantly repeating the same request in these threads of the godbots.
now go to sleep knowing that the case is well covered, and you don't need to worry about that level of discourse.
:)
I did read all the questions before posting the link.
A majority wanted to abide the Geneva conventions, disapproved of the plan to collect phone records, thought the plan violated the law, disapproved of provision of the Patriot Act that allowed searches without a notification, and wanted take steps to combat terrorism without violating liberties.
Perhaps I should have written "it can hardly be said that civil liberty violations are overwhelmingly popular". Walton keeps blaming democracy and the population for the violation of civil liberties. While the population is hardly blameless, I think the blame lies primarily with those in power, who are more authoritarian and right-wing than the people.
While the population is hardly blameless, I think the blame lies primarily with those in power, who are more authoritarian and right-wing than the people.
again, people give lip service to support civil liberties and rights, but when push comes to shove... americans tend to not do much.
or do recall a censure of the white house for ANY of the constitutional violations committed?
I sure don't.
do you recall how americans reacted to Japanese Americans being rounded up and put in camps in WWII?
my dad did.
no, I think americans have a great track record of giving lip service to rights (and again, that's some pretty weak evidence in those polls), but a lousy record in practice.
sorry, but americans re-elected GW, even after many constitutional violations were spelled out, and evidence of such published.
nope, not buying it. americans kowtow to authority figures. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.
I think they tried, in the 60's, and their descendants have been convinced that was an utter failure and have since completely given up on the idea.
IOW, having spent 45 years of my life there, I'm became convinced that you're wrong. Americans ARE the problem, not the people elected into office.
Walton keeps blaming democracy and the population for the violation of civil liberties.
there is some truth to that, but such is the danger of a democracy to begin with (tyranny of the majority and all).
that said, there is no such thing as a benevolent Authoritarian regime. There never have been poet kings like Solomon. It's fucking fictional, and Walton needs to learn some damn history.
democracy may fail when people are ignorant and fearful, but it at least grants theoretical hope for fair governance.
an autocracy does not, even in theory, provide this. I wonder if Walton even knows his own history? Has he even any knowledge of who Henry the 8th was? why does he think the UK has been democratized to begin with? a fucking whim?
the problem with the US is not that it is a democracy, but rather that its people have stopped educating themselves sufficiently to be able to properly participate in it.
they've become lazy, ignorant, and fearful.
that dooms any society, regardless of what political system it utilizes.
You may see hope there, I concluded otherwise.
Oh I believe you...
Kinda like how Texas public schools are the next best thing to Mississippi public schools.
My god - radiation - it's created THEM!!
They live among us -they're armed and dangerous - they worship make believe gods who tell them to seize power and kill the rest of us- they're Repubtilians and they breed faster than they can be educated.
I wonder when Walton is going to start campaigning for the King Of Australia to be the head of the British monarchy...
Yeah, and no one would be able to do that today. Sure, there's been violations but it's not as bad as it was back then.
Again, you have to seperate the government with the people. Yes, the people have a huge influence on government but they're hardly the same thing.
Yeah it's sad, but he hardly won with an overwhelming majority.
I think you're overgeneralizing. I'm not saying there isn't a big segment of the population that are complete morons, but they're hardly the overwhelming majority. Don't you think, overall, there's been a lot of progress since you first lived in the US?
Also, those elected are a HUGE part of the problem. You just mentioned GW. By working for the benefit of the extremely rich and powerful they're making things worse for everyone in the long run.
Anyone who has worked for the government or around it knows that branding and stationary is what the government does best. I remember a period back in 2007 when the department of environment changed its name 3 times in a 12 month period (and only one change of government) and all the rebranding that goes with it.
Every time a ministerial portfolio changes for some near-arbitrary reason, the government goes through this game. Even now there's a major restructure between Medicare (health) and Centrelink (welfare). Rebranding and consolidating - it spends budgets and means one can shift blame around.
His Majesty "Crocodile" Dundee
Anti-intellectualism is the problem. We actually don't blindly follow leaders, by the way. We blindly follow anyone who tells us we can do whatever we want and face no consequences and the majority of us are too dumb to realize that's ALWAYS a lie.
We hate our leaders, all of them... but we hate other people too and will often support a leader that fucks over other people even if it means cutting our noses off to spite our faces. Because we're afraid of other people, as we think each man is an island and has to kill out the competition.
It's just a country ruled by paranoia and fear, and since there's damned near no education most people just get to wallow in paranoia and fear.
As for re-elections. They're a joke. It was the first time I was able to vote and I voted for Kerry, but I did it only to send a message to Bush that people were unhappy. The fact that there were even a significant amount of votes against Bush in that election was meaningful.
I was wondering where to post this, and decided to do it here.
Saudi Arabia might introduce minimum marriage age
Let's get this straight, we have a country that has major business ties to the US, Europe and wherever else, where pedophilia is essentially legal, as long as you marry the kid you want to fuck.
My reservations to mention this to my muslim co-workers are fading a little bit more every day.
As backwards and messed up as Saudi Arabia is I do hope that they pass a law like that. It's vile that they marry little girls off like that. I think it's one of the most hypocritical aspects of US politics that we can support Saudi Arabia's laws at all but then pretend we give a fuck about human rights at all.
Yeah, yet more evidence that the whole 'spreading democracy in the Middle East' thing was complete bs.
I agree with you. That's why I don't advocate authoritarian regimes of any kind. Rather, what I advocate is a system of checks and balances, where no one can achieve total power.
The US system protects civil liberties (albeit not well enough) by having a constitutional Bill of Rights, and a strong judiciary with the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
In the UK, we don't have that; we don't have a written codified constitution at all. Rather, our political system is based on the idea of the "sovereignty of Parliament"; essentially, Parliament (and, by extension, the government which controls it) can essentially do anything it likes, including taking away basic civil liberties. Thus, the House of Lords is often one of the few restraints on the power of a majority government.
I'm in favour of a written constitution for the UK, and of giving the courts full power to strike down laws which violate fundamental civil liberties. But in addition to this, I also think we should keep the House of Lords as a check on the power of the majority.
I'm not "anti-democratic", and I certainly don't advocate some sort of authoritarian paternalism. I support parliamentary democracy in general. But I do think the power of democracy should be balanced and restrained by institutions that can protect basic civil liberties from the tyranny of the majority.
I disagree. I think the opposite is true. Go on the website of any British newspaper some time - especially when it's a story about crime, immigration, terrorism, Islam, or some other authoritarian-right scare-issue - and read the comments. Or just look at the polls about people's attitude to crime.
A large part of the blame does lie with the mass media - in the UK, especially the tabloid press - who encourage irrational fears and prejudices, therefore increasing popular support for authoritarian policies.
In advance of Boobquake, here's a discussion about media hypocrisy and bras.
strange gods,
Seriously?!
Not that I've ever tried either of these activities - but dating always looked like a miserable, self-esteem-crushing waste of time to me. I suppose it might be different for people who, unlike me, are good-looking and/or have actual social skills; but even so, I've heard lots of people talking about bad dating experiences.
That's hardly a random sampling of the population.
I don't know how things are in the UK so I won't comment, but in the US polls show that when it comes to drugs people prefer treatment over incarceration. When it comes to crime, they prefer prevention over punishment.
That is a big problem in the US as well and, to a lesser extent, in Canada.
Hey guys, I got to see Alice in Chains in concert tonight. :D
Ooh! How were they live with the new singer? He sounded great on the album, a lot like Layne, but just different enough to give the band a new sound.
Video: LOL! :-D :-D :-D
We've talked about this a few subthreads ago. It was this type of school. Half of every class leaves after the 4th (in total 8th) year to go to different school types (more specialized ones that educate towards certain professions or for business, or a one-year "polytechnical" school). Of the rest, a few leave one year later, when their time is up (the legal requirement is to go to school for 9 years). What remains for the last three years are the nerdiest people, those who are actually interested in something, those who want to go to university (finishing this type of school is the prerequisite for university).
Interestingly, in my class, all that remained were also non-smokers, with the exception of one occasional smoker who always hovered just above the F.
Cultural influence from the Islamic world, ultimately from pre-Islamic Persia. Or so I've read.
Belatedly seconded!
I concur with every word. Even though I don't know anyone (some of present company excepted) who has ever dated, and even though you succeeded anyway, unlike me... :-(
From what you told us, it was rather Shrek who sucked at marriage...!
Eating some right now.
Wow. :-)
The marsupial lion?
The perentie, to stay among the living?
How expensive would that really be?
:-}
X-D :-D :-D
:-D
Good point. Some avoid this by talking about wishes for the future instead, like the South African one and the German one. (Er... only the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied is the anthem.)
<sing>...and I have got a few things to say about change, like the change we must change to the change we hold dear – I really like change, did I make myself clear?</sing>
– Obama parody at JibJab.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
~:-|
Help me out, please. That kind of music is supposed to excite, right? Aren't cannabinoids supposed to relax instead? How does that fit together? Do you get both hormonal states at once and find that fascinating, or something?
"Everybody" is exaggerated. Austria does have a bicameral legislature, and both are indirectly elected, but one of the chambers is supposed to be national and the other federal.
(In reality, the federal chamber is about as useless as the House of Lords. No similarities to the US Congress.)
It is lack of education, lack of discussion, and lack of independent media that keeps giving you this shit.
In an absolute monarchy it's enough when the monarch knows what he's doing. In an aristocracy/oligarchy it's enough when a few tens or hundreds of high & mighty people know what they're doing. In a democracy every voter needs to know what they're talking about and what they're voting for. That's more difficult to achieve – but I don't see why it should be impossible.
...wwww....why not get rid of the ceremony instead???
O.O
A good relationship isn't unambiguously better than...???
Does that depend on the exact value of "good"?
I have serious trouble imagining it.
No, Ohio was stolen.
<toothy grin>
<snicker>
The whooshing sound you just heard was the whole point of poll Pharyngulation flying overhead.
Self reference to thread: check.
Kitties: check.
Bad/off-colour humour: check.
Bacon: check.
British royalty: check.
Economics: check.
Puppies: check.
Song I can't view because of youtubeblock: check.
A group I've never heard of had a concert and someone went to it: check.
UK politics: check.
Recipe: not yet.
Poll to crash: not yet.
Walton study reference: not yet.
This thread is almost complete at only #126.
What the hell. Here's a recipe for those who are laze and want a quick good meal:
I am just getting around this morning and reading through all the posts and comments for the last couple of days and it's all so very depressing. I know it's reality but more happy thoughts would be nice.
A few days ago I came across someone in the comments, maybe it was Caine, who made a comment about being a lurker for a long time before posting. I have been a lurker for almost two years and have only posted a comment 3 times. You people do intimidate the hell out of me but I enjoy and learn a lot from everyone here.
I’m with Ol’Greg @116. Anti intellectualism is a huge problem in this country. I was at my parents house visiting a while back and these words came out of my dads mouth “The college educated are morons and the people who are supposed experts have no idea about anything in this country”. I love my dad but WTF? And they also have a nice picture of George W. and Abraham Lincoln praying together hanging in their kitchen. I hate to say it but my parents are prime examples of what is wrong with this country.
We have no shortage of independent media in Britain. (Though it depends what you mean by "independent"; but even then, it isn't all owned by Rupert Murdoch.) But the media don't make the situation any better - indeed, they often make it worse. The media respond rationally to market incentives by giving their readers/viewers/listeners what they want - and what the audience generally wants is the daily five-minute-hate about the evils of crime, immigration, Islam, asylum-seekers, eeeebil liberal politicians and judges, and so on. Which just reinforces the irrational fears and prejudices of the public, leading to yet more crazed authoritarian-punitivist "law and order" policies.
At root, it's part of human psychology that the public like to have someone to blame for their problems. Fear, prejudice and bigotry are an innate part of the psyche of the average person. It's always been that way, throughout all of human history: in medieval London there were violent attacks on Flemish and German merchants, who were seen as taking away trade from Londoners. Every chapter of British history reveals the same story.
The media don't create the psychology of prejudice and fear, but they respond to and reinforce it, because it's the easiest way for them to make money. Realistically, as long as human society exists, the politics of bigotry, authoritarianism and paranoia will continue. The only way to counteract it is to construct constitutional systems that make it as hard as possible for authoritarian policies to be imposed.
Funny. While arguing about what's wrong in the British media Walton has also summed up what is wrong with so many Americans and why.
Hi! Glad to see you overcome the fear of posting.
http://www.breitbart.tv/scoop-the-pelican-bites-mans-groin-on-live-tv-t…
It may not be what you had in mind when you said happier things, but I find it funny. Pelican bites caretaker in the groin twice on live TV.
Come on, it's much more complicated than that. The sponsers also have a large input and often times the media won't report that which reflects negatively on them ("don't bite the hand that feeds"). So don't expect much reporting on corporations' poor enviromental record or military contracts. The same general idea with government officials. The harsher the media is on them the less access and exclusive interviews they can expect. Then there are some like Fox News that are just blatant propaganda.
Also, media concentration means only stories that Rupert Murdoch wants reported will be heard.
Yeah, it's saying something about the system when making money is deemed more important than doing your dury of informing the public.
Ol'Greg: Been bitten by a goose (front and back). I can't imagine being bitten by something that large.
Wait. Yes I can. Ouch.
Feynmaniac: In no way was I defending the media. Quite the opposite.
But I'm just pointing out that a large part of the reason some sections of the media feed people a diet of sensationalism and irrational fear is because that's what their audience wants. As I pointed out, there was no shortage of bigotry against foreign people, and the whole "they're taking our jobs" mentality, even in medieval London. So the Daily Mail and Fox News, while they reinforce authoritarian stupidity, fear and prejudice, do not create it; rather, they're exploiting an aspect of human psychology that was already there.
For those impressed by prog rock featuring banjo (if you aren't then I'm sorry but there must be something wrong with you), also known as the theme song from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Journey of the Sorcerer by the Eagles.
Dating is the next best thing after casual sex. You're doing it wrong.
QFT.
I loved dating. I loved meeting men and the sparks, and the flirting and all that. I love the hunt.
I had to be good at something...
My day will be a little brighter now. Thanks Ol'Greg. Unfortunately I have to split now. I wish everyone a fabulous day, night whatever. Watch out for those pelicans!
Wowbagger: I remember hearing that song for the first time and being blown away. Then (in pre-internet days) I spent about two years trying to find out who did it. Then I discovered I already had it on one of my Eagles LPs.
One thing I've noticed about my musical taste is that I still like many of the same bands, but I like different pieces. Skynyrd, back in high school, was all about Freebird, Tuesday's Gone, Gimme Three Steps, etc. Now I try to find as many of their rock/blues pieces as I can. I used to detest Seven Bridges Road by the Eagles, now that (and The Last Resort) are my two favourite Eagles songs.
Has anyone else had that experience -- liking the same band but completely different songs -- as you mature (those of you under 30, wait ten or twenty years before you answer)?
While I agree that this is a problem, there is no way to avoid it without taking away freedom of speech.
The problem with the idea of the media having a "duty to inform the public" is that, for this to be meaningful, someone would have to enforce that duty - which would mean some government agency would have to decide what was, and what wasn't, fair and acceptable coverage. That kind of authoritarian censorship would be far, far worse than what we have at the moment. I'd far rather live in a society where the media are free to say what they like - even when they talk bullshit - than a society where government can exercise control over what we see, read and hear.
In the end, the best hope for genuinely free information is the Internet. Since anyone can post stuff on the Internet, or set up a blog, without needing to invest any money, it has broken the stranglehold of governments and corporations over the supply of information.
iambilly - first time I heard it, in the tv version of H2G2 in the early 80s, I refused to believe it was an Eagles song, since I'd heard my older brother play a lot of their songs (he was a huge fan) and it didn't sound anything like those I'd heard.
Even now I love surprising people with the revelation. It's nothing like Hotel California after all...
Help me out, please. That kind of music is supposed to excite, right?
Not necessarily. Soundgarden's music was about as snail-like as music could be, but their show at San Antonio's Sunken Garden was one of the craziest mosh pits I've ever heard about--broken bones galore from the mosh pit.
Aren't cannabinoids supposed to relax instead?
Sort of.
How does that fit together? Do you get both hormonal states at once and find that fascinating, or something?
It's the hallucinogenic mixed with the physical exertion and full-on body contact with the crowd that makes it a total head rush. Or that's how it seemed when I got a contact high at a certain concert at Sunset Station, thanks to the pot lady firing up and passing on joints all night near me.
It's all because I know how to use the internet for these purposes. I got my 2nd boyfriend off an MSN chatroom, and the current one from MySpace, via a friend whom I've met on an internet forum 9 years ago :-p
yes, it definitely depends on the value of "good"; I'm sure the ideal, meant-to-last-forever, mutually-reinforcing-lifegoals type of relationship beats total personal freedom by a long shot, but I suspect those are as real as unicorns.
if it's a slave to the bottom line, then it's hardly independent, now is it.
only true as long as the internet remains "government regulated". Net Neutrality is abso-fucking-essential to this, and it's just been dealt a massive blow here in the U.S.
The market is already working to destroy the internet as a free and therefore meaningful information source as well.
Wowbagger: I think that one sign of a good (not necessarily great, but good) band is the ability to step outside the expected and still sound good. Many bands have been able to do that (not enough, but that's another subject).
My favourite artists of the late 20th century are Paul Simon, The Beatles, Bob Dylan and Billy Joel. I don't like everything that they have done, but each new album explores new territory -- either the subject of the song or the style of the song. These artists managed to adapt as they matured and changed.
Unlike, say, the Rolling Stones (who stalled out in about 1974) or Kiss (who did the same three songs again and again and again and again and. . . ). Not that their music is bad, but a Stone's concert in 1975 sounds like a Stones concert in 1995 (it looks different (if (that is) you are close enough to the stage to acutally see Mick Jager's face)).
I am aware of that. What I was saying was that before you can say that they're responding to what people want you have to realize a lot of options aren't even presented.
Not necessarily. I'm talking more in terms of having an personal obligation. Just because you don't have someone enfocing it doesn't mean it's not meaningful.
I'm not advocating anything like government controlled media. However, I do want government to at least take steps to avoid the media being completely concentated. I'm sure you would agree that having a media monopoly would be about as bad as having a state run media.
It might help, although there are problems with this as well. For example, people only getting their news from places that fit their preconceived notions.
Personally, I think having both large media (though smaller the conglomerates we have now) with resources and full time reporters in addition to having blogs and media watch-dog groups is the best hope.
Yep. Competition and diversity in media are incredibly important. Indeed, I'm in favour of stricter competition laws when it comes to media ownership; I think Murdoch controls too much of the British media and should be required to sell a part of his holdings, at least in the print media sector.
@125: I liked him. As we were heading to the concert some guy was bitching about the new singer trying to dissuade people from going.
Pfft. My ticket was a present. Like hell I wasn't going to enjoy it. :)
Pygmy Loris @67:
LOL. The midwest should suffer like the rest of us. It's only fair.
Do free-range morons taste better than zion-caged morons?
blf @149: Free-range mormons carry their own cages wherever they go.
Here are some details related to the criminal in Utah who has requested death by firing squad:
More should be made of this fact.
I'd rather like to see her scooped up and put down there for the duration. Though, of course, you could just have her rotate among the nations. One year here, one year there - it's tradition after all.
@ Feynmaniac
Then you really need to check out Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, political sitcoms from the early 1980s featuring the amazing Nigel Hawthorne as Sir Humphrey Appleby. It's a fabulous portrait of how politics really works (trust me, I've been around DC bureaucrats my entire life) and offers particular insights into the UK system.
@ambulocetacean
Plus it references class struggle and oppression, which I think should make Australians proud. The song does come down rather hard on the side of the swagman, doesn't it?
@OlGreg
The paranoia of American culture is another, probably related, problem. We love to see conspiracies everywhere, preferably being perpetrated by those wealthier and more educated than ourselves. The anti-intellectualism of culture in general is why I live in a planned community that, in the early 1960s, ran newspaper ads that asked "Are you an egghead at the end of your rope?" Amazingly enough, even 50 years on, it manages to attract a certain breed of cranky intellectual...
@Rorschach - I posted a reply on the boobquake thread - I'm actually trying to understand what you said.
iambilly #139
Of course. I used to love Richard Harris's "Ballad of A Man Called Horse" but now I like "MacArthur Park" much better. Also I now wonder what I ever saw in Tony Orlando and Dawn's "Tie A Yellow Ribbon" when "Knock Three Times" is obviously superior. Similarly I once preferred Captain and Tennille's "Love Will Keep Us Together" while now I prefer "Muskrat Love."
Just goes to show how senility drives one's taste into to ground. ;-)
From memory, in addition to the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica, she is also Queen of (in no particular order): Belize, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Barbados, the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, and a few small island nations somewhere that I've forgotten the names of. It should be reiterated, of course, that these are all independent countries which merely share the same head of state.
(Of course, these should not be confused with the British dependencies and overseas territories, also scattered all around the world, which are attached to the British crown: Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, St Helena, Pitcairn Island, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.)
A song just for iambilly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HohpvGeLw70
'Tis: I always used to wonder why Tony and Dawn got all the lines, but Orlando was pretty much ignored. I didn't realize it was a 'last name' until I was around 15.
And I'll have to watch the video later. Maybe. My home computer got McAfeed and I have to resurrect it. Not going to be fun.
It's a vicious circle...
Over here all cynicists distinguish the "public opinion" from the "published opinion". Even apart from comments 133 and 145, I think the media often respond to perceived market incentives by giving their readers/viewers/listeners what they think they want.
Just passing through in a hurry.
Sorry if someone has already pointed this out.
Look at the XKCD for 2010-4-23; Desert Island; halfway down on the right.
at least they're honest
Utah and Idaho are talking about eliminating 12th grade. Here's an excerpt from the story in Utah:
Kentucky tried to pass a similar bill:
Senator Buttars made a name for himself with anti-gay remarks that would have sunk the career of a politician in a more tolerant state:
What did Buttars say that got him in so much trouble? He compared gays to Muslim terrorists, saying they were the "greatest threat" to America. Now that's the kind of guy I'd trust to reform the educational system in Utah. Not.
That's why I loves me some C-SPAN. I know many people find it boring, but the lack of loudmouth anchors interjecting their opinions at every opportunity is quite refreshing. They are by far the most professional news outlet.
I do wish they would show more coverage of the British parliament; I envy their adversarial system. The House/Senate here in the states is so damn boring.
I can't honestly say that I ever see any "branding" here with the royal coat of arms so I don't think the argument that it'd cost too much to remove it is valid. And as far as the word "Royal", it's only really still left on military applications and all other government departments dropped it years ago. The only place I've ever seen a portrait of the Queen since I was a small child is in the local RSL (Returned Services League) and you'd kind of expect that.
However, on a daily basis I deal with cases that are termed "R v myclient". R (Regina for those of you Latinally-challenged persons)is always represented by a prosecutor but I'm seriously thinking one day of being a smart cow, challenging the concept of this and applying for a discontinuation.
If I have to get up every morning and drag my arse into Court I don't see why she can't too. I'd give Ken Ham's left ball to cross examine someone in a tiara.
Well, I personally think it's a very good thing that criminal cases in England and in Commonwealth jurisdictions are prosecuted in the name of the Crown, not (as in the US) in the name of "the people" or "the state".
Generally, I think the royal symbolism in the judicial system, while it may not have any direct practical implications, is actually very valuable. Because justice is done in the name of the Queen, not in the name of "the people" or "the state", there is a symbolic sense that the courts, the judiciary and prosecutors are above partisan politics. While this might not always be perfectly realised in practice, I think the principle is worth maintaining.
"I refused to believe it was an Eagles song"
That's the only Eagles song in my music collection, and forever it shall remain as such.
Walton, that strikes me as a really cock-eyed argument, and unworthy of you. I think (and I say this seriously, not as snark) your emotional attachment to the monarchy is getting in the way of your (proven) ability to think clearly.
To the extent that the US symbolically refers to "the state" or "the people," it does so by conceiving of these "entities" as, by definition, beyond partisan politics. Beyond the petty interests of one person. Beyond the interests of a monarch.
You can argue that the British monarch today occupies that same symbolic role, but you can't do it by falsely contrasting that symbolic role with "the state" or "the people." They're not in contrast. In fact, the US symbolism is what the Brit monarch's role has come to resemble and live up to (if you buy the argument that the monarch is a symbol of disinterested statehood, which I don't, necessarily).
Fixed it for you.
"...it seems these folks have little else to cling to, outside their hate and their fear." (way upthread, sorry) IMHO, Conservative politics are founded on nothing but hate, fear, and greed. Look at every strong opinion American conservatives cling to and you can see the marks of those flaws. They are interrelated too, with the fear probably being the root of the hate and the greed. Fear in the form of some kind of class insecurity drives the Greed, Fear of the outsider drives the Hate. Conservatives make my skin want to crawl off because they are so addled with evil.
"Sinead O'Connor was on Rachel Maddow ... She said she thinks that the Holy Spirit is being held hostage..." Holy crap. Glad I didn't watch it, despite my comments in another thread on the subject. It's sad seeing someone with a theist whammy still hanging over her head faced with reality and not coming up with a coherent position.
"...the media often respond to perceived market incentives by giving their readers/viewers/listeners what they think they want...."
I came up with this same idea as well, and seeing other people come to the same idea suggests to me there's truth in it.
My dad is always on about how the corporate-owned media won't let you know what's going on in the 3rd world to protect its interests there. To me, it seems far more likely there's no news on Africa because market research says Americans just don't want to hear it.
The market research is probably right. Shit be depressing.
-
Please, please, please use blockquote html formatting as a courtesy to other readers. It's not hard, and it makes it infinitely more likely someone isn't just going to skip your posts in annoyance (no one likes looking at undifferentiated Walls O Text).
Learn how to do it here.
Thanks for the info, JOSG! I'll try to remember that.
Anne Marie @ 129:
Yes, that was me. It is intimidating, but now that you've posted here, keep posting! It gets easier and easier.
The remaining hereditary peers could easily be removed (except for the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, who are needed because they have ceremonial roles in the state opening of Parliament) - Walton
*chortle* Good one Walton! Truly a brilliant parody of conservative arguments!
An appointed House of Lords is as bad as a hereditary one - it gives the government a potent form of patronage. Walton's dislike of democracy overcomes even his dislike of "Big Government" here! Most democratic countries manage fine with elected Upper Houses; Sweden, Israel and New Zealand do without one at all; if you really want one, and don't want it elected, then have it selected by lot.
great.american.satan, if you use firefox, you can go to http://codefisher.org/format_toolbar/ for a nifty text formatting toolbar.
Also, there are handy how-to html hints right under the comment box. :)
Hmm. I never had this problem - I started posting from my first day here, and was not deterred by other people thinking I was an idiot. But maybe I suffer from more Dunning-Kruger effect, and less awareness of my own limitations, than the average person. :-)
I also like to argue. I'm a natural contrarian, and I also think that the adversarial process is the best possible way of learning things. There's nothing wrong with having a fairly heated argument about an issue, then thinking back over the discussion and deciding that you were on the wrong side all along. I do this all the time.
I agree. Just listen to fox news and conservative talk radio- all they do is scream about anything they can, even if it fits in with their own ideology.
Reducing nuclear arms, amnesty, large deficits, you name it... they're pissed off about Obama doing it, despite the fact that Ronald Reagan, the one they compare all others to, did the same thing, and they loved it then.
And then you have the manufactured dissent, like the teabaggers showing up in national parks (with their metal penises in their holsters, of course) to protest the gomm'nt takin' away their guns, after Obama made it legal for them to carry handguns in the very national park they're gathering in.
These people would be hilarious if it weren't for the real damage they were doing to this country. Without them, we would actually have a decent healthcare system, civil rights wouldn't be an issue, and our children would be far better educated. So depressing.
Knockgoats, I want to challenge you on something.
You've indicated in the past that you share my worries about the erosion of civil liberties and the shift towards punitivist "law and order" politics over the past couple of decades, under both Labour and Conservative governments. This same authoritarian trend is still going strong, and is likely to continue whatever the outcome of the general election.
So how, exactly, would you prevent the further erosion of civil liberties? I have specific ideas as to how this can be done: I advocate a written constitution with an entrenched bill of rights, giving the judiciary power to strike down Acts of Parliament which violate fundamental liberties. I also support maintaining a non-elected House of Lords, though I would give power over appointments to an independent commission, rather than the Prime Minister and party leaders. Both of these methods would reduce the power of the majority party in the Commons to erode civil liberties. You're very willing to criticise my ideas, yet you haven't indicated how you propose to protect fundamental rights and freedoms against the tyranny of the majority.
When it comes to What's wrong with America?, strange gods before me summed it up perfectly in the NDP thread:
Knockgoats:
Awesome idea. like being on jury duty only for a lot longer. I wonder if the benefits outweigh the slavering of lobbyists over all the fresh meat? Where do I sign up?
Walton,
Much less so if we get a hung parliament, in my judgement. That's the result I'm hoping for, and at present it looks very likely.
I agree on the written constitution and bill of rights. I am not sure just how much power the judiciary should have - the US Supreme Court has too much, and unlike you, I don't have that much faith in lawyers in general. Three issues arise:
1) How do we get the establishment to accept the need for a written constitution and bill of rights?
2) How should it be decided what should be in the constitution and bill of rights?
3) What provisions should be made for amending them?
On the last of these, it should be neither too easy to pass amendments - stability is needed, nor too hard - flexibility in the face of changing circumstances and meet new dangers is needed. I think the US constitution makes it too hard to amend.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How do people get onto this independent commission?
I'm quite serious about using selection by lot as an alternative to election or appointment for the Upper House. However, I'm not yet convinced that any serious disadvantages have been shown to result from an elected Upper House, or even from having none at all.
Far more effective would be electoral reform, ensuring that no dominant individual with a coterie of sycophants (Thatcher, Blair...) but minority popular support can dominate Parliament
for years on end.
You have suddenly switched from governmental to majority tyranny - two very different things. While I agree tyranny of the majority is a real problem, I am not nearly as worried about it in current circumstances as I am about elite tyranny; nor do I think the answer to the threat of majority tyranny is primarily institutional - rather, I think the main preventative against it is a well-educated, well-informed and economically secure populace - which is also a key defence against elite tyranny. It will be necessary in order to obtain a written constitution and bill of rights that really do the job, anyhow. Do you think these are going to be graciously granted by the political class out of the goodness of their hearts?
That's because all the tasty bits have been nibbled away, and all's that left is gristle and rancid fat. Bitter, cynical, and smelly, yet still more intelligent, amusing, and creative than many conversations/comments elsewhere.
QFT
Blarghtttt! Blockquote Fail. This is the actual comment - sorry.
Doesn't this depend on where you are? At least where I am, I see loads of people announcing, with almost no sense of shame, that they think that because "they" are the majority (Christian, white, whatever) that they should get to make ALL the rules. The idea of protecting the free speech or other rights of a minority (even one as odious as proponents of dog fighting) seems utterly beyond these people. And who gets to decide who the "elite" is? The interplay between the majority and who gets to be the elite is pretty complicated.
yeah, me too (with the caveat that this only really works on the internet, since doing this in Meatspace is too emotionally draining).
It didn't ever occur to me to lurk and I started posting immediately after getting bored with catching up on the archives. Which earned me a prompt smackdown from SC :-p
@Jadehawk
I believe that smackdowns are part of the Pharyngulist rite of initiation. Sort of like baptism or the yoohoo shampoo or something. What were you smacked down FOR?
Elite tyranny is certainly a real - and historically extremely common - phenomenon, but I don't think we have it in Britain today. Rather, the erosion of civil liberties is, by and large, a populist phenomenon. I think we have to be realistic, and recognise that a high proportion of "Middle Englander" British voters support hardline authoritarian-punitivist policies on crime and immigration - which is the reason why both major parties have been consistently trumpeting and pursuing such policies for the last twenty years. It's a vote-winner, because it's what the voters want to hear. And unless there is a massive cultural shift in the voters' attitudes, I don't think that's likely to change any time soon.
I see your point, though open primaries might be able to achieve the same goal.
But I'm certainly not dead-set against some kind of electoral reform. If we were going to go in that direction, the way to go would be the Mixed Member Proportional system currently used in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and New Zealand Parliament, IMO. Through having some members elected from constituencies by FPTP and others elected on a proportional basis from regional lists, it increases the representation of smaller parties and reduces the stranglehold of the large parties, while retaining the advantages of FPTP such as the link between the individual and his or her local MP.
I think this is a really bad idea. Given that a not insignificant proportion of people, in any society, are ignorant and prejudiced, a truly randomly-selected "citizen legislature" would likely be a disaster.
And in any case, you couldn't force people to serve against their will; that would be forced labour and profoundly illiberal. (I'm not keen on compulsory jury service for the same reason, but this would be a much bigger time-commitment.)
Didn't that require countless hours of the scenario you just called the second circle of hell? What do people talk about in MSN chatrooms or on MySpace?
:-D
I've read about that before, but still... <facepalm>
TSIB.
In Austria it's in the name of the Republic.
Perhaps "people" would be too reminiscent of "in the name of the German people", which was used you-know-when.
Bingo! We have a winner.
I commented on the first day, because I have SIWOTI syndrome. SIWOTI syndrome overcomes all. :-)
And if it turns out I was wrong, that means I've learnt something. I'm fine with that...
Has everyone here watched Pleasantville? Everyone should.
Just for comparison, the opposite holds for Austria: all that's necessary for a "small" amendment is a 2/3 majority in parliament. For decades, the coalition government (conservatives and Social Democrats) had such a majority – and lifted lots of ordinary laws into the rank of article of the constitution. The constitution is now horribly bloated and even contained contradictions (maybe it still does). Furthermore, some argue that all these "small" amendments together constitute a "big" amendment (the terms don't appear to be defined), and that would require a referendum*, which of course hasn't happened.
* ...something interestingly not provided for in the USA at all (at the federal level).
QFT.
Another (important) part of Knockgoats' post to which I neglected to respond:
I just think this is unattainable. How would you compel everyone to become "well-educated" and "well-informed", even those who are stubbornly ignorant? I don't see how you could force people to become "well-informed" unless you instituted total government control of the media, which would be grossly illiberal, and a form of elite tyranny in itself.
And I don't think better education is a panacea either. All societies, however good or bad their education is, seem to have an irreducible minimum of aggressively ignorant and instinctively prejudiced people. Fundamentally, I don't see any evidence that you can eliminate punitivism, prejudice and bigotry, or engender a universal acceptance of liberal values, through better education. (At least, not without indoctrinating children into a particular value system - which would itself be highly illiberal and profoundly wrong.)
Getting smacked down by an OM is a rite of passage. I think a few of us started posting just before Crackergate™, and avoided serious smackdowns since we were defending PZ and his actions for all we were worth during that period of time. By the time the dust cleared, we were just another regular. I think Wowbagger and Kel fall into that pattern too. And I have been smacked down by SC, then nominated her for a Molly and by TruthMachine (who hasn't been smacked down by him).
Then you lack imagination.
Who said anything about eliminating? Decreasing is good enough and has been shown to work.
the same things people talk on here.
the first conversation with the 2nd boyfriend (AKA ex-husband) was a massive argument about American foreign politics; that friend I met in a forum was part of a group of atheists/agnostics who regularly used to get into epic-length arguments with Christians on that forum; the current boyfriend and I started our ongoing conversation with European economics and socialism, after I subscribed to his rather interesting personal blog on MySpace.
Would involve the school system and take a generation or two.
Then whence the difference between Minnesota and Sweden? Fluoridated water? ;-)
well, you know... we could use that thing where we stuff all children into a building for 12 years and cram their heads full of information to also cram the information on how to become critical thinkers into them and train them to be active and well-informed citizens...
Then I'm not adult by yet another criterion :-) :-) :-)
Aaaaah fuck. Why can't I have twice as much time! Or three times!
I'll cry myself to sleep. No, not literally, but... grmpf.
I never realised political arguments on the internet could lead to real-life romance. :-/ Does this happen to people often?
it's the Fjords, I tell ya.
You think schools actually perform those functions effectively? And is it even possible to "cram information on how to become critical thinkers" into people?
Don't get me wrong. Schooling is important (though, as you know, I have serious issues with the way most schools are currently run). But I don't think that formal schooling can, or should try to, solve society's most fundamental problems.
Well, you are smarter than some of us. We gladly acknowledge that, and listen to your learning. Which makes it very difficult for us to smack you down. And you avoid the philosophical areas where TM patrols (showing you are smart)...
no, but they easily could; and yes, though the training part is more important than the information part.
Public universal schooling is the basis for competent democracy; always has been. It's also the base of our economy. As such, it's ALREADY solving society's most fundamental problems. Why should we suddenly stop using it like that?
I can relate to the lurkers. I lurked probably for a year or more before my first post, and then lurked again for a long time under my old name.
Then I wanted to post during the registration crisis and ended up using this name instead which I'll now stay with for clarity.
I'm not a natural contrarian by any stretch of the imagination but I no conformist. I tend to form my ideas by myself, have my own theories about things, and trust my own sense of logic. That can be an asset some times but also a flaw. I'm unstable to, so I revisit most of my philosophical foundations over and over again, editing, revising, changing. Because of that I'm just more concerned with working out what I think than with correcting or changing anyone else.
Also I tend to be more poetic in my outlook. In other words,I suck at arguing but I can convey a *feeling* pretty well.
And I'm ok with that. I'm an artist by nature and that's how it is, so I focus more on presenting my current reality than trying to change anyone. If they want to look or listen great, and if not... well I still stand by what I say.
So, being as severely avoidant as I am though, I can definitely relate. I felt like it was nice to read the things people here wrote but there was no way I had anything worthwhile to contribute.
So far I don't think I've ever been smacked down, but I think I probably would be if I took bigger risks. The thing is I'd probably just leave :/
I'm pretty bad about that. IRL too.
But really the only times I ever feel up to arguing it's really just a sign of emotional stress and fatigue in my real living flesh and bone self, and I'll usually back down if I feel like I'm being motivated by emotions*.
Unless the other person is truly trying to hurt or intimidate me some how, or is putting people down. In that case, truth be told, I can be a nasty nasty asshole towards people I perceive as hostile.
*shrugs*
Well, for a start, it makes people miserable. Look at the amount of vicious bullying, and the construction of informal social hierarchies, that goes on in schools. For people at the bottom of the social hierarchy, schooling is inevitably a miserable experience.
Education is immeasurably important to every aspect of our society. But schooling and education are not synonymous. With the advent of new technologies, I hope for a future where formal, disciplined schooling becomes unnecessary for most people.
Just sent PZ an email asking if he could mention this:
Crash this poll, for science!
http://www.kobrascorner.com/newpoll/poll.php?id=2
I know what you're thinking. "How in the hell is this for science?" Answer: Because by voting "Yes" you will be helping me test out a new internet poll program-- the results of which will be posted within the week (along with how it works, of course).
Also, anyone who can figure out how this works before I tell them wins at life.
I should have added to the above though that I am primarily driven by facts. I take in massive amounts of information, compare it, and decide which is most likely to be accurate or useful.
Arguing with people is useless to some one who learns like me. It is a distraction that leads to emotional upset.
Yet I'm very willing to listen to opposing views so long as they're not presented in what I consider a forceful way.
For instance, I have my own ideas about the economy but I am willing to listen to people I think know more than me about it, and revise my thoughts accordingly.
At the same time if I feel like it's a battle, I'm more likely to rule it all irrational. I don't trust my own thoughts when things feel heated so naturally I don't trust other people's in that environment either.
Remote scholar. That's what I be.
What I don't know is why I felt like typing all that crap just now.
Gotta love the internet!
I agree we need to teach critical thinking at high school. It's something that a huge number of people I know - and that, sadly, includes uni graduates - don't understand and can't (or, at least, don't) seem to apply.
That said, I don't really know how we'd go about it implementing it.
Here in the US it's often the 1950s as portrayed on TV. Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best* were the ideal; a white, middle class family living in the suburbs in a single-family house with literally a white picket fence in the front yard. All problems were solved in 24 minutes by the all-wise paterfamilias but these problems were both trivial and funny. Nobody drank alcohol or used drugs, married couples slept in separate beds, and nobody ever used a toilet.
*Trivia question: What did Robert Young's character do for a living?
Nothing. He was on welfare. His briefcase was full of breadcrumbs he fed to the pigeons in the park.
You know you've been here too long when you remember your first smackdowns were at the hands of Dustin and Torbjörn Larsson. I miss those boys.
People I would NEVER smackdown because they are waaaay smarter than me ( and in Brownian's case- has better hair)
David Marjanović
Brownian
Ichthyic
Cuttlefish
Windy
People I would NEVER smack down because they've never said anything much that I disagree with
Patricia
People I'm scared shitless to smackdown ( been there once- still bear the emotional scars)
Truth Machine
They did at my school: I took A-Level Critical Thinking. (Yes, this actually exists. Look it up.) It was very poorly taught (not having any specialist teachers) and an utter waste of time.
I don't think it's possible to "teach" critical thinking in schools, as such. It's an intellectual skill, not a "subject". This isn't to say that schools can't encourage critical thinking in the way they teach other subjects, though; they can, and they should.
How about someone without an OM?
life is miserable at the bottom of the social hierarchy; you can't protect people from that, but you can change social dynamics in such a way that these hierarchies don't form, or don't become too pronounced.
which is why I'm such a big supporter of the differentiated system in Germany, where students are funneled into different schools after 6th* grade depending on interests, learning abilities, etc. there wasn't much real bullying in my "high-school" because of that; it functioned more like a collective, even though there still were more and less popular kids. It was also a pretty small school, which also generally helps avoid too much stratification and clique-forming.
schooling will never disappear, but it must obviously adapt. if you just demolish it and create a nation of individual homeschoolers for example, you end up with something like the USA, with almost zero social capital (except that which comes from churches). the socialization (and i include civics and critical thinking here) that happens in schools is as important (if not more, in the age of information) as the education itself. abolishing that just because your school sucked is shooting your collective self in the foot; it will make society worse, not better.
However, I agree that schooling has not yet caught up to the 21st century. It needs to, or else it will indeed fade into irrelevance, at great social cost. But that's only going to happen if people actually work towards that goal, rather than blithely dismiss it like you're doing and like homeschoolers are often doing. it's not going to magically fix itself.
Life in general is very cutthroat. What good would it do to make people unprepared for that?
Nerd: A rite of passage normally implies something about difficulty--trial, ordeal, etc. Getting hollered at by a regular here is easy like Sunday morning. I could do it with my eyes closed*.
*I mean not literally. I have to look at the keyboard while typing.
Do you think that the philosophy of social hierarchy could be destroyed while maintaining a society?
Ol'Greg, don't let your doubts get ahead of you. If I didn't have a couple of regular posters higher on my lists, it could have been you for the Molly this month. And will be eventually if you keep posting. ;)
'Tis, I get where you are coming from. They wore suits, and the family was fed and housed by middle class standards. But the men? Mostly idjit ciphers...
oops, forgot my footnote
*it's after 4th in most states, but I find that to be too early to really tell what kids want and what they are capable of. Niedersachsen had a middle school for 2 years that semi-differentiated according to subject, and only split students off permanently after that. I like that better.
I... think maybe I did get into an argument with him at some point. It was ugly? I don't remember, would have been under blueelm. I don't think anything came of it. Except...
maybe that's why I went away for so long? I didn't visit this site for a year or so except the occasional rss I'd read (but there's no comments then).
*Shakes fist, then cane, at AE#210 for earworm*. I need some Norah Jones...) ;)
Walton,
In the sciences and in math critical thinking skills are absolutely essential and are tuaght by example. At the university level you really need it. At the high school level it's not always taught well, but some of it does get taught. These subjects would die without these skills.
Whether teaching critical thinking skills explicitly is the best way to go about it I don't know. I took a Theory of Knowledge course in high school and personally found it quite helpful and interesting. (I might be mistaken, but have you said that you took IB?)
I don't mind TM correcting me on matters of fact, even though he corrects everyone with a sneer. I don't stand for him to correct me on matters of opinion, especially when I've given reasons for holding that opinion. Disagreeing with my opinion is one thing, correcting my opinion is something else.
Well then we should be asking how can we solve these problems, not throw out the concept of formal education. I have a lot of problems with the way education is done in practice, but I also realize the amount of good it does.
It's not enough to have the information, you need ways to both analyze it rationally and wade through the IMMENSE amount of information out there (a lot of it crap). Not everyone can do this by themselves and those who can will waste a lot of time figuring out how to do it themselves.
Wow, I'd forgotten how many of y'all started posting well after I did.
My first posts were on the old Pharyngula back in 2005. That's before OMs existed 'round these parts ;)
Cure your dog of "day blindness":
Walton,
This is the second conversation we've had about your ridiculous attachment to the monarchy. You don't have any new arguments, and you continue to ignore counter-arguments. Just say "I have an irrational love of the Queen that's the basis of my entire argument." Then we can drop this.
"You know you've been here too long when you remember your first smackdowns were at the hands of Dustin and Torbjörn Larsson."
Oh yeah? I had Great White Wonder snark at me once.
What Pygmy said at #221. I'd really appreciate it if you'd respond to my #165, Walton. You're not obliged to, obviously, but I do wonder why you haven't.
It's not the same thing as critical thinking, but I remember being blown away when I first went to Uni and took symbolic logic. It just seemed wonderful to be able to take a natural argument, convert it to symbolic form, and "feed it into the black box and crank the handle" to find out if it was valid.
I really think it should be taught at school, at around the same time as calculus is introduced.
Yes, and Mother stayed in the home, and wore a dress and pearls to do housework. Probably high heels, too. And she never disagreed with Father on any major matter; or if she did, she was wrong.
They did at my school: I took A-Level Critical Thinking. (Yes, this actually exists. Look it up.) It was very poorly taught (not having any specialist teachers) and an utter waste of time.
interestingly, I never had any formal courses in critical thinking or problem solving.
instead, I found algebra, trigonometry, and physics (college level) to be things that actually honed my critical thinking and problem solving skills.
past that, it was graduate level paper analysis. those who've been grad students probably recall the weekly exercise in tearing down some recent published article. That pretty much forces you to really hone your critical thinking skills, and back up your attacks.
I disagree with Walton that this cannot be taught. sure, like any other subject matter, some students will be better at it than others, but it still can be readily taught. There is indeed a method to it, regardless of whether your particular course instructors were themselves good at it or not. In fact, Walton himself points out that the instructors apparently had no formal training in the methods of teaching critical thinking themselves. This hardly should count as commentary on whether or not it can be taught.
I never would have survived mathematics, physics, or even grad school without well-honed critical thinking skills.
examples of methods of teaching critical thinking:
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=4&n=3
http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-thinking.html
http://fod.msu.edu/OIR/TeachingMethods/critical-thinking.asp
classic book is by Costa, IIRC.
...finding Walton complaining that critical thinking cannot be taught does not surprise me in the least.
;)
lol.
Walton, are you ever going to respond to my comment about England being ruled by an Australian monarch? Or will you concede that there's good reason to become a republic?
Kel, OM #229
HAM* King Ricky Ponting
*His Australian Majesty
pfft, Ponting sucks as a leader. If we're going to appoint anyone, it has to be Steve Waugh.
Not only did my grade school education lack critical thinking skills (beyond how to analyze test questions and come up with the most desirable answer), it also lacked math altogether. I didn't realize I liked math until I had to take a statistics course shortly before graduating from college.
I would never have known I had any aptitude for that type of thinking at all if I hadn't spent so much free time playing with computers. The internet was my true university :/
In HS I was good at theatre, art, and literary criticism. So that's all I did.
Quite right. Who can forget how Waugh helped the Australian team lose the 2001 Test against India by handling the ball? Only six other batsmen in the entire history of Test Matches have been dismissed for this reason.
I dimly remember a course in high school called Time, Space and Matter, which was essentially the teaching of observation, extrapolation and logic. Having taught university freshers [English for Primates], I'd say there was a desperate need for something similar, as well as the basics of rhetoric, and a caveat that not everything they run across is factual, representative or remotely probable, which is why metaphors don't make sense to those with no imagination.
In Utah, where my mother lives [not Mormon; Episcopalian], there's a plethora of school leavers, especially female, at age 16. She taught maths in Salt Lake City for some years, then went on to become a social worker out of frustration. She was, for many years, a specialist in child sexual abuse, tho' with all but one DA being Mormon, it was hard to get a case to court, much less get a conviction. After all, that's why God made little girls so pretty, isn't it? [That was an actual defence.]
I remember Dustin and Torbjörn Larsson, but I never commented back then. I still rarely comment, except on the Endless Thread.
RE: Critical Thinking. I don't remember ever covering anything like that in school, and wish I had. In the two years that I home-schooled my oldest, we had that as an actual class. Part of one year discussed formal logic. The second year we discussed logical fallacies, both formal and informal. If we had continued home-schooling, there was one more book in the series that, if I recall, covered using logical arguments.
He has since thanked me several times for that class. Even though he is only 13.
Most of my life, I operated on "gut feel" or emotional reactions to things. I was (and probably still am) a fuzzy-thinking liberal... liberal not so much because I thought about things, but because it felt right.
Then I went crazy. That is, the cycles of depression I'd always had got the better of me, and I was finally correctly diagnosed as bipolar (type II, that is - no delusions). I realized that I couldn't trust my emotions. When I'm manic, I get religious. It's not spirituality I was feeling, it was being crazy.
So I'm having to learn to think critically. I've always been a research junkie, so getting a base of knowledge isn't hard, but I'm actually having to think about why I think what I think and feel what I feel.
And you know what? it's a lot of work. But now at least I can tell you why I'm a liberal and why I think the way I do.
Excuse me while I go throw up.
Yay! Our fishy friend is definitely feeling better. I had better watch my tail--if I could see it...
Becca, I can relate. A lot of my critical thinking skills I learned from having to figure out how to deal with things.
The first wave came from having to read like a thermometer around insane people to survive, and how to survive in a really dangerous politically charged environment with pretty no clear rules, no safe zones, and lots of deceit.
Then after the year of significant trauma, there was a period of time from around 20 onward, where I realized I had adopted a lot of bad behaviors, some of them really old coping skills, and others just actually not knowing proper behavior. I didn't know how to act differently, and I had a lot of fear based reactions and anger. I had massive floods of completely irrational emotions, especially because it seemed ever time I thought of anything it was something I should have been angry about but missed the chance.
So I compromised by just being angry right then! Not the best thing. It took a second set of critical thinking skills to start recognizing the mechanisms inside myself and in other people.
So really I've now spent most of my life trying to figure out people and how they get all the different ways they are.
After several short nights, I think I'll turn in early. Dream about Stephanie Plum, bounty hunter extraordinaire (farcical sense), and the Redhead...
Night all.
Since we've been talking about Australia, here's a small spot of education for the rest of the world.
It's ANZAC day today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign
Memorial in my home town:
http://www.skp.com.au/memorials2/pages/00012.htm
One thing that makes me very proud to be Australian is that our national war memorial day is not some jingoistic victory celebration. It's about a battle that we lost, disposable colonial troops fighting in a bloody debacle of a slaughter, for no particularly good cause.
G'night Nerd. And thanks, by the way :)
ANZAC doesn't just mean Australia
Well, Anzac day is a public holiday, so I suppose that's nice.
Other than that, "It's about a battle that we lost, disposable colonial troops fighting in a bloody debacle of a slaughter, for no particularly good cause."
How anyone is proud about that, rather than embarrassed, is beyond me.
Jingoism, bah.
I guess you could say it's a celebration of a loss of innocence and the beginning of a growing sense of independence from the homeland.
Actually, commemoration is probably a better word than celebration
Seems to me that ANZAC Day is most similar to our Memorial Day, which was intended to commemorate the appalling loss of life on both sides of our Civil War.
Now it has become a day to remember the fallen in all wars. Regardless, it is still about the loss of life in battle.
Well, it's supposed to be. These days it's become more about getting the grill out for the first of the season.
It's funny how that's seen as a rite of passage for our nation - that we arrived on the international scene.
Though as you say, it's not something really to be proud of. Makes as much sense as drinking oneself into a stupor as a rite of passage into adulthood.
@Jadehawk #208
The thread on homeschooling a few weeks ago persuaded me to be a commenter and not just a lurker, so here are my thoughts on public education, social capital and homeschooling.
Free public education is incredibly important for society. It's not the only way that a kid can become a productive member of society, but I want it to be available for everyone. I think the education and homeschool issue cannot be separated from a whole bunch of other societal issues. I have no idea what to do about the homeschoolers who use the YEC or ID science stuff, but lots of parents who send their kids to public schools still manage to inculcate them with YEC or ID beliefs. The malign influences of religion are the problem - homeschooling is a separate issue.
The way we structure family time and raise children, at least in the United States in 2010, is quite bizarre, particularly when one considers the evolutionary background of human beings. Adults of both sexes are expected to work 40 or more hours a week, and childcare is considered unskilled work to be done by poorly trained, poorly paid adults in institutional settings. (For my dissertation in clinical psychology, I visited a lot of preschools serving a wide variety of economic levels - I can definitely attest that the majority are quite horrid and reminded me strongly of nursing homes.) Staying home with one's kids, or even working part time, can derail one's career, even fields that are seen as family-friendly.
When kids are 4 or 5, they go into an educational setting in which they are segregated by age, with relatively little adult supervision (1-2 adults for 25-30 children is absurd, but pretty typical). In schools, kids don't have much contact with or mentoring by or of younger or older kids. I often joke that this setup doesn't give one socialization, it gives one the potential for Lord of the Flies. It's also not the way other primates do things - the kid chimpanzees do stuff with and learn how to behave from all the chimps in the band, not just the same-age ones. The educational system that we have is run like an assembly line; there is remarkably little customization possible for the individual child's learning style or interests and the outcome measures are remarkably narrow (i.e. how kids do on the standardized test).
If I could design a better system, it would have an expectation that adults with children should job-share or both work 3/4 time or live in either multi-family or multi-generation settings so that kids could be cared for in very small groups with low turnover among caregivers. We would obviously have to figure out some way to make this fair to people without children, but since employers who are seen as family-friendly tend to be highly rated by all their employees as opposed to just the ones with kids, it should be do-able. We also need to figure out some way to make this system work for parents with low incomes or bad educations - Head Start would probably be a good model.
Formal education should also happen in very small groups and should be customized to the child rather than being a one-size-fits-all system. There should be more opportunities for kids to learn in the community, to do volunteer work from a much earlier age, and to pursue individual interests. Given internet resources, a lot of learning should be decentralized so that it did not have to take place in a particular building (some public schools are already experimenting with virtual schools, but these tend to distressingly similar to the non-virtual assembly-line variety). One advantage of smaller group size and decentralization are that far less time would have to be spent on crowd control, which is a very large component of classroom time in most schools; this would leave kids with more time to do community based learning, volunteer work, individual interests, etc.
I don't think that homeschooling necessarily diminishes social capital - this depends greatly on the individual homeschooling family and on the area in which they live. In some areas (Texas, Mississippi, etc.) homeschoolers form bizarre insular groups with statements of faith and the like. In major metropolitan areas, the homeschool community is a lot more diverse and tends to be more inclusive. So in areas with social capital that doesn't center on churches, homeschooling can contribute to secular social capital; in areas where the social capital is all religious, it probably doesn't make things worse, but it also doesn't improve anything.
I agree that homeschooling can remove from the school community precisely those parents who are most likely to challenge and improve the system. It's unfortunate, but it's also untenable to tell a parent that they should do something that's bad for their particular child in order to make the system better eventually. My kids only get one shot at growing up, and I'm not going to make decisions that are bad for them but might make the system better eventually. And I think that the impact that a single person can have varies widely, even when they're aggressive about trying to improve things. In my own case, I do a variety of things in the community that benefit kids who attend public and private schools - I'm a scout leader for Boy and Girl Scouts, I teach nature classes at a local nature center, I work at a summer camp for elementary school kids, I do a lot of informal education stuff with kids. When my kids go to college, I'll probably do a lot more.
ambook,
Yeah, but that's because it's assumed one buys into the consumerist ethos (especially such bullshit things as fashion).
My income would be considered to be around the poverty line, here in Oz, yet I own my own house, have savings and live in comfort with lots of leisure time (I work part-time).
I guess it helps that I'm not a breeder. :)
ANZAC doesn't just mean Australia
nope.
it's ANZAC day here in NZ too.
last year we made ANZAC biscuits.
not this year.
:P
Ugh. Watching some show on the History channel where a bunch of fools are positing that the only way to explain ancient monolithic structures and such is alien intervention. This one guy in particular is talking about stone cutting. He says "it's possible to do by hand, but it would take an incredible amount of time, plus you'd have to have years of experience to pull it off." Okay, so this guy thinks that aliens helping out is more likely than there being stone cutters with years of experience and a lot of time on their hands? I can almost picture him saying "Magnets? How do they work?"
My new $1000canadian washing machine is much, much smarter than me. It makes almost all the decisions and does a good job. I am content.
The next-next door neighbours are having a backyard party and loudly playing some gawdawful shite "music", so I am back indoors.
The Significant Other is healing nicely.
All the other Threads seem to be full of total strangers saying that everyone who thinks anything about Socialized Medicine&trade is a moron. Or that everyone who thinks anything about South Park is a moron.
Endless Thread is the only safe place on Pharyngula. Perhaps on the whole interwebs.
Sorry Katrina, but Memorial Day originated in remembrances of Union dead. The early celebrations specifically excluded Confederate dead.
@John Morales
I hate that expression, but see your little emoticon thing, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. My fondest wish is that people who don't want kids should stop having them (yes, a lot of people who have them do so for stupid reasons, like "it's what married people are supposed to do") and that we could retire the term "breeder." Oh, and that religious people who have zillions of kids would just stop it - the world really does not need additional people.
Actually my family lives on one income - homeschoolers are excellent critics of the whole consumerist culture thing. It hasn't been particularly easy, but our choice when we decided to homeschool was "figure out how to earn an additional $50-60K to put son into special school for learning disabled kids, plus figure out how to manage the logistics of it," or homeschool.
I made a massive batch of ANZAC biscuits yesterday for the resident tiny people.
Just came back from the service where my 5 year old son marched for the first time ( as part of his school). Apart from being scorching hot today it was as moving as usual with the new an interesting touch being our local Army Regiment has gone and got themselves two camels as mascots which they have named Penny & Vernon. Normally I loathe camels ( too much time living in the Middle East) but these two had to be the cleanest, most polite camels in existence. They even stood for the national anthem and the Last Post.
KOPD, yeah.
I'm annoyed when people equivocate between 'incredible' and 'impossible', in particular when they employ the former to suggest the latter.
I'm reminded of this post: The Castle Builders…
ambook,
Honestly, there's no way to make such a system "fair" to people who choose not to have children. Yes, parents need more time with their children, but I should have that same time to spend as I want to. You have chosen to have children during your non-work time. I don't want to spend my non-work time taking care of children, so I don't have any. That doesn't mean I am any less deserving of the same time off from work that you feel parents deserve.
All of this ties into the massive cultural problems we have with the Protestant Work Ethic and the reality of a global labor glut. We don't need to work this hard to provide the necessities of life, but the idea that everyone should be working their asses off is ingrained in the culture.
It certainly has been an early day.
Yummy.
Giving non-parents time to pursue their own interests IS part of making the system fair - I didn't say otherwise. If I were a non-parent, I might even want to save up my time so as to travel, take sabbaticals, etc. And yes, we should all work less hard.
John,
Very interesting link. Thank you. :-)
ambook,
Much appreciated. Thank you.
I was not bragging, just stating a fact regarding the economics of being a responsible parent.
To clarify: Neither my wife nor I have ever been the least bit interested in having children, and we done our best to achieve that outcome, without compromising our sex life.
Other than a lack of "cluckiness", the basic reason is that neither of us have wished to undertake that responsibility, and we have had the means to avoid it.
In an ideal world, all children would be wanted, and their parents (whether biological or otherwise) would understand and pursue the commitment (emotional, physical and financial) thereby entailed.
The annoying thing is that we have the social and technological capability to do so, yet I don't see it happening in my lifetime.
I don't have children but many of my friends and acquaintances do. Also I am not dead yet. I have at least 20 more years (statistically).
I want all the people who have children to be supported and encouraged.
Hopefully some of these children will be intelligent and productive humans beings.
And the social network will exist until I kick the bucket.
And beyond.
ambook,
I'm sorry. Your phrasing implied that you thought parents should get more time off than non-parents. That's something I simply don't agree with. People who choose to have children should get the same time off and benefits as people who don't. Many of my friends who have children tell me how lucky I am to have so much free time. I tell them that we have the same amount of free time. They just chose to fill their free time with children (yes, I realize one is always a parent, even when you're at work).
This is not to say I don't think there should be resources available to parents. Quality childcare should be accessible to everyone. I support paid paternity and maternity leave, and one of the many reasons I support universal health care is so that people don't have to work full-time just to keep their health insurance.
@ Pygmy Loris:
From what I've read, there are quite a few variations on the original-original Memoral Day. But, at least according to this website:
which leads me to think that the North intended it to be a remembrance of all the dead, while the South chose to have its own memorial.
Typical.
That documentary later said "Historians believe..." and then said something that historians don't believe. Nice job History Channel.
@Pygmy Loris -
I tell my childfree friends that each child is approximately 1-1/2 expensive hobbies per parent. So with twins, there are three expensive hobbies that I'm missing. Now off to guilt the kiddos and then go to sleep.
It's good to hear from other people who voluntarily choose not to have children (not that there's anything wrong with having them). I was on the phone with a volunteer for the organization I work (for pay) for, and she said, "Do you have a family? If you do, I don't know how you accomplish all the work you do for ACME Inc."
I told her no, I don't have a spouse or kids, but felt I had to quickly add that I've never wanted children, I'm not temperamentally suited to them, and I don't feel I'm missing out on anything. When people ask if you "have a family," it often seems to convey an implicit "Oh, how sad for you," if you say "no." Of course, sometimes I say, "Why yes, I have a mother, brothers and sisters, and a niece and nephew whom I love very much. I also have a small but close circle of friends whose trust and confidence I treasure."
Katrina,
That site offers General Logan's General Order No. 11 as evidence that Confederate soldiers were to be remembered too. However, if you actually read the linked order, it specifies Union soldiers. Memorial Day was in remembrance of Union soldiers. That is why is wasn't celebrated in the South. Would you celebrate a remembrance day for the soldiers of the country that just defeated you?
It was not until the mid-20th century that Memorial Day was generalized to all American soldiers who have died in the service.
ambook,
Guilt away :) You deserve it ;)
Josh,
I know exactly what you mean. OTOH, I do wonder who's going to visit me in the old folks home...
Why, I will, of course! Actually, it'll probably be more of a break-out effort (have you ever actually been in an old folks' home? Most are quite depressing, sadly).
Of course, sometimes I say, "Why yes, I have a mother, brothers and sisters, and a niece and nephew whom I love very much. I also have a small but close circle of friends whose trust and confidence I treasure. Pharyngula, a smart mouth and SIWOTI."
Pygmy Loris,
If you're lucky, Bubba Ho-tep.
If not, expect an evangelist with an ulterior motive...
--
But yeah, that's the compromise one makes.
OTOH, I'm aware of plenty of of stories about old people whose children only seek to get what they can out of them. Nasty, that.
Wowbagger, #272:
Guilty as charged.
There is or was some aussie rules match on this weekend where they have to have ANZAC stuff happen before the game, and even the sports commentators on the radio were pointing out that it's all a bit much and what the hell has a footy game to do with this stuff, and that's it's being instrumentalised to trump up some national identity shit.
Maybe it's because I'm German, but I am always highly suspicious of these military parades , services and rememberance days.If we celebrated every battle we've ever been in, we'd never get any work done.
I do like the australian way though, since ANZAC day is on a Sunday, we have to have the Monday off as public holiday...:-)
Pygmy Loris
.. trust me, an someone who used to be an aged care RN, there is no difference between the rates of vistors for "familied" vs "unfamilied" residents in nursing homes. Basically it's fuck all visits after the intial three month guilt period they have for putting mum/dad away. Oh sure, they'll turn up twice a year on birthdays and christmas, basically to whinge at the staff about how bad mum/dad is being looked after and then, fuck you very much, it's off for another four months before they step foot in the place again. Of course there was the ones that really did care but for most their lives were just way to BUSY, doncha know?
..and as far as the parenting thing, I think maybe this attitude changes across different societies. Personally I'm sick of getting the guilt trip/passive agressive shit from my 3 childless colleagues about how badly I have apparently personally fucked up the environment by having children and adding to the world's population pressures. This despite me working the same hours as them, NEVER having time off to attend parenting things and still carrying a caseload 4 times higher than the next most productive solicitor there. The irony being that 2 of them are fundy batshit crazy christians of the throw-hands-up and speak in tongues ilk and I thought they, if they were True Christians should have a shitload more kids than me anyhow. Jesus, I couldn't care less if they have kids, why are they so judgmental of me because I DO?
Even better, NSW is thinking of adding an extra holiday because they have one less than all the other states :P
Josh,
Aww, that's sweet. We'll break out and go crazy with SIWOTI!
On a more serious note, yes I've been to nursing homes. My grandmother died in one and my grandfather is in one now. They're depressing horrible places, even the really nice ones.
There are a lot of old people who need a lot more looking after than they get. My job puts me in communication with the elderly a lot, and they are routinely preyed upon by confidence men, scammers, avaricious family members, you name it. It's heartbreaking.
Hey I get another public holiday next week for Labour Day and then again the week after for the Ipswich Show Holiday.*
Four day weeks suit my work ethic to a T.
* Ipswich Show Holiday : where 10,000 mullet wearing, swine flu germ carrying, V8 car driving, bogans congregate to see how many times they can ride the Big Zipper whilst pissed on Bundy rum before they throw up in the sawdust. Basically a family event for this locale.
Josh
The pro bono place I work at has a solicitor (yes, one of the aformentioned but not one of the fundies- actually a rather nice bloke) who works in that area specifically: Elder Abuse. Actually there's a series of them around Queensland funded by the state to assist the elderly ( above 60) in cases of possible abuse ie financial, emotional, physical etc. They work witha Social Worker who assist on the advocacy aspects of the matter. The solicitor is on leave at the moment so I've landed all his cases and it's quite frightening some of the abuse matters.
Need some help people. Got a poll to take down. It's concerning the recent signing into law of the anti-immigrant bill in Arizona.
http://www.azcentral.com/
Thanks much.
Bride:
It is frightening. Helpfully, I recently had a conversation with someone in a line of work similar to what you do, and she gave me some very useful advice on what to do when I encounter someone who may need protection and intervention.
Bride of Shrek wrote:
There are things I miss about living in Queensland...that sort of thing is most certainly not one of them.
Going to Melbourne for the GAC was made even better by the fact that not only did I get to hang with atheists, listen to great speakers and meet PZ and many of the Oz Pharyngulistas but it got me out of Adelaide over the weekend the Clipsal 500 (for the non-Australians it's pretty much Nascar but on a street circuit) was bringing bogans by the thousand to my fair city.
Random topic switch (directed at piano players):
Am working on Bach's Prelude in C major from the Well-Tempered Clavier (yes, I know it's an easy piece; I'm a late learner). How much pedal do you use, if you use it at all? I like it played legato (I hate Glenn Gould's version of it), and with some sustaining of the tones. How do you play it?
BoS,
We (my mother, brother and me) visited my grandmother in the nursing home at least once a month even though it was a 7 hour drive one-way. Grandma shared a room with her only surviving sibling, and my cousin (Grandma's niece) visited every day. I have absolutely no sympathy for people who don't visit their family. (Well, some people don't deserve to be visited, but that's a different situation). Hell, my dad feels bad because it has been 2 weeks since he last drove the three hours to visit his father in the nursing home. That's how my family is though. You take care of your parents and other older relatives because they took care of you. Visiting relatives who are now in nursing homes is something you do because you love them. Leaving them to die alone isn't okay with us.
Damn, your co-workers are assholes. For the record, I have no problem with people having a couple of kids (having 10 or 20, OTOH, is a big problem). I just don't want to have any myself, and I don't think people should expect me to work more because I don't have children to take care of.
You guys are making Oz sound like [peeks to see if Rev BDC is around] South Carolina.
Ew, children are the ultimate parasite. The only DNA I plan to leave on this planet will be in the scrunched-up Kleenex beside my bed.
Ambook (was it you?) who said that the anti-authoriatarian/underdog message of Waltzing Matilda should appeal to Australians? It does, but these days the great Australian ideal of a "fair go" and sticking up for the underdog is largely a self-serving fantasy.
Australians, most of whom are reasonably comfortable (exceedingly so by global standards) somehow still manage to perceive themselves as underdogs who stick up for other underdogs. The real underdogs in our society, such as, oh, say, boat-people refugees from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, are seen as queue-jumping scum. Both major political parties are locked in a battle to prove which can be the most cruel and inhuman to refugees.
The Labor government under Kevin Rudd recently stopped processing asylum claims by Afghans and (mostly Tamil) Sri Lankans on the grounds that those places might get better at some stage in the future, at which point the refugees can be taken out of the detention centres in which they will languish indefinitely and be shipped home.
It was a gutless, craven cave-in to the constant anti-refugee scare campaign by the right-wing Liberal (ha!) opposition. Labour has lost my vote. It's Greens all the way for me now.
I suspect the only winners out of all this have been the immigrants from Vietnam and other east Asian countries, who were the focus of racist hostility throughout the '80s and '90s. Once the Twin Towers fell it seems the pressure was off because white Australians suddenly felt it was more important to hate Muslims.
KOPD,
Yes, we defintely need a couple of new cable channels. The Pseudo-History Channel for all that end-times revelation stuff with Timothy LaHaye; and Discovery Woo for all the ghosts, demons, chupacabras and so on.
My, you're a charmer! Oh, sweet mystery of life. . .
Oh hai Josh!
Constance should have gone to Melbourne High School, where it's cool to be ghey.
Gotta go. More drinking to do...
ambulocetacean, wow, just checked out your link.
It's a far cry from when I was at school, when "poofter" was the all-round insult to which you were expected to take serious offense.
Good.
The thing to be proud of is not the event.
My point is that we have a national day that is NOT commemorating a victory with all the cheery jingoism that often entails. VE day, VJ day, armistice day etc - all of those, "our side" won.
Instead, we have a day that can't be twisted into "we are the winnahs!" (Even though some idiots do try.) Remembering not the victory, but the horror and waste of life in war - and especially sharing that memory with our former enemy - that's what a civilised nation *should* do.
Kel: Apologies, I thought I did respond (though I can't find it in the masses of posts above). I would have absolutely no problem with Britain being ruled by an Australian monarch, if history turned out that way. Why would it be an issue?
Like I said somewhere above, nations are just as much a matter of historical accident as monarchs are. I don't see why "national sovereignty" should be so important.
===
Kobra,
What we should be doing is striving to make life less cutthroat, rather than just accepting it.
We live in a horribly competitive society, which devises lots of ways to separate people into "winners" and "losers" and to crush the self-esteem of those who don't conform. This is a process that starts in school, and continues throughout working life. I want to change that. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I want to live in a world which is less harsh and judgmental towards those who don't meet society's arbitrary standards.
welcome to capitalism
That's awful. We have the same thing here in the UK. The right-wing press keep ranting about "bogus asylum-seekers", and both the main parties keep pandering to these irrational fears. As a result, refugees in the UK are detained in "detention centres", often for long periods, in inhuman and overcrowded conditions, while their asylum claims are processed. Sadly, in the UK just as in Australia, the major parties seem to compete as to who can be the most cruel, inhuman and authoritarian.
I have friends who have volunteered at the asylum detention centre at Campsfield House. By all accounts, conditions there are substantially worse than many prisons.
One of my ambitions, eventually, is to work in immigration and asylum law. Many of the refugees have inadequate access to legal advice, and have to deal with the incomprehensible Home Office bureaucracy. If I actually succeed in becoming a solicitor, immigration work is one of the areas I'd like to work in (along with criminal defence and civil actions against the police).
On an unrelated note:
The Foreign Office has apologised for a "foolish" document suggesting the Pope could launch "Benedict" condoms during his visit to the UK this year.
:-D :-D
One of the reasons many of us voted for Rudd is that he was going to stop that shit. Which he did, briefly, but now he's going back to it.
Ambulocetacean, while you are in part right, perhaps more than I'd care to admit, I still think it's important to encourage better behaviour. If national memes of fairness and cameraderie can help, by all means use them. "It's just unAustralian to treat refugees that way, what happened to the fair go?" Hah! Rhetorical weapons engaged, clueless targetted...
This is a process that starts in school, and continues throughout working life.no, this is a process that starts much earlier, and the more capitalist and unequal the society you grow up in, the worse it is.
if you're really serious about changing society so it's more cooperative and less hierarchical, you're going to have to let go of the conviction that capitalism is the best we can do, because capitalism doesn't function without fierce, brutal competition and stratification.
I'm not saying you should consider abolishing it, but if you really want a less cutthroat society, you need to make it more equal and less focused on achieving and having and consuming; and that won't happen with capitalism as the overarching social paradigm. we need a new one, maybe one in which capitalist exchange has some room, but it cannot be nearly as dominant as it is now. that's just not healthy.
Cath,
Um. It's all about the Anzac spirit and patriotism and sacrifice.
It's true it's not triumphalist, but I sure see it as jingoistic.
Jadehawk,
That's a route I don't really want to go down.
You and I tend, I think, to share a general socially liberal viewpoint. (The same applies equally to strange gods, Knockgoats, and some of the other left-wing regulars.) We tend to share the same concerns about erosion of civil liberties, and I think we both want a less authoritarian, less punitive, less forcibly-conformist society, where people are not condemned for being different.
But the difference is that you, along with Knockgoats and strange gods, seem to see the authoritarian punitivism, prejudice and conformism in US and UK society as inextricably linked to capitalism, class inequality and neo-liberal economic policies. I don't.
I don't deny that economic policy and social policy are closely linked. But I want a broadly capitalist society, with most wealth in private hands: while at the same time having a less authoritarian, less harsh and more liberal society, with greater individual autonomy and respect for civil liberties. I don't see any contradiction between these two positions: indeed, in theoretical terms, they go together very well. (Hence the intellectual appeal of libertarianism, though I would no longer call myself an orthodox libertarian as such.)
Hence why it saddens me that, in a lot of countries, socially liberal positions tend to be thought of as the domain of "the left" and tend to be espoused by left-wing parties; while free-market economic policies tend often to be supported by socially-conservative authoritarian parties, such as the US Republicans or Australian Liberals. Hence why I have great difficulty in British politics: in terms of social policies and individual liberties, I'm somewhere between the Lib Dem and Green Party platforms, but in terms of economic policy I'm a moderate Conservative. Most countries just don't seem to have a consistently classical-liberal or libertarian mainstream political movement.
Jadehawk, I wrote my post at #300 before seeing your post at #298, but it seems to be on the same general point.
At the moment, our society is authoritarian mainly towards those at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The criminal justice system in the UK, for example, consistently discriminates against working-class youth, especially those from ethnic minorities; they are far more likely than their middle-class counterparts to be searched, arrested or detained by police, and far more likely to be subjected to abuses of civil liberties. Anti-drug laws are a particular problem in this regard: by their nature, they are inevitably selectively-enforced, and the brunt of enforcement tends disproportionately to fall on youth from poor and marginalised communities. (I know lots of middle- and upper-class students who smoke marijuana; not one of them has ever been caught or faced with police attention.) Similarly, as I noted above, our government treats refugees and asylum-seekers in an authoritarian, inhumane manner which we would never accept if it were done to British citizens; but because they're poor, marginalised and disenfranchised, the political classes just don't care.
I think this is grossly unjust; and that's why I believe in fighting for civil liberties across the board, on every issue, not just those issues that affect privileged middle-class voters (such as the ID database). But I don't see this as a necessarily "left-wing" position on my part - though it tends disproportionately to be left-wingers who share my position on this - and I certainly don't think that these abuses are an inevitable result of capitalism.
yes walton, it's pure coincidence that socially liberal positions are usually found on the left [/sarcasm]
as much as you'd like capitalism and cooperative non-cutthroat societies to work together on a theoretical and philosophical level, they just don't go together on a pychological and sociological level. When you tell everybody that they're in competition with everybody else in the economic world, why would you think they wouldn't carry these attitudes into all other aspects of their lives?
I think this is the key phrase. Of course it's never going to happen that way. The convenience of contingency means that Britain keeps its remnants of 18th century imperialism and stays a remnant of its former glory.
If you can't understand the symbolism of having a completely autonomous nation and instead rely on historical contingency, then I can't see how this conversation can actually progress. I don't think Australia should have some foreign monarch as its head of state purely because she shares some blood that once ruled some land on the other side of the world. I want an Australian as the head of Australia. Having an British monarch makes as much sense as having an American one. You can keep your Queen, just appreciate that I don't recognise her as anything more than a remnant of British imperialism and that's not what I want for my country.
they're the inevitable result of greater social stratification and precarization of ones position in life, which in turn are the result of the Social Darwinism that is the Free(ish) Market Economy.
Capitalism may be a useful tool in certain areas of life, but it makes a truly shitty overarching paradigm.
Jadehawk, the fundamental difficulty is this.
I don't feel like I know enough about economics, in the end, to have any kind of serious opinion on economic matters. Arguing about it on Pharyngula and in real life, over the last couple of years, has revealed the depth of my ignorance of the subject. That's why I've abandoned radical libertarianism and adopted moderate, middle-of-the-road fiscal conservatism, on the ground that it's probably the safest bet.
I do, on the other hand, now know a bit more about sociology, through having studied criminology this year. I'm now beginning to understand why most sociologists seem to be left-wing and socially liberal: learning about the extent to which our criminal justice system, and other institutions of government, discriminate against the poor and marginalised tends to make any decent person more inclined to support greater social equality and more protection for civil liberties. But I'm also conscious of the fact that I haven't ever studied economics, and that the average economist tends to be quite a bit more conservative than the average sociologist.
So I don't feel like I can justifiably shift to the left on economics without learning a bit more about economics first. This is something I don't have time to do between now and finals (indeed, I should be studying right now instead of having this conversation), so for now, I have to trust what seems to be the mainstream view of economists, and support moderate capitalism.
@ 293
"... a horribly competitive society ..."
But, Walton, you plan to vote Conservative!
Yes, albeit with a lot of misgivings.
I increasingly like a lot of Lib Dem policies. They're the only party, for instance, that isn't spouting authoritarian "tough on crime" populist rhetoric, and that is committed to actually finding constructive solutions to the problems of crime, and making greater use of rehabilitation and community penalties, rather than simply building more prisons. They're better on civil liberties than the other main parties (though I don't know how much of this is just rhetoric) and they also have a more sane, liberal policy on immigration and asylum. And I'm a big fan of Evan Harris, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon (not my constituency, as I'm in Oxford East), a staunch advocate of civil-libertarian causes and "the Daily Mail's least favourite politician". On some other issues, I'm more radically liberal than the Lib Dems: I favour legalising recreational drugs, for example, a position on which only the Green Party agrees with me.
But at the same time, I also despise New Labour, who have been the most authoritarian government in decades, have systematically eroded civil liberties, and who seem to intend to continue pandering to Daily Mail-esque insanity when it comes to crime, immigration and terrorism. A Conservative government, or a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, would be far from perfect, but could hardly be worse than Labour and would likely be a good deal better. Plus, I tend to prefer the Conservative economic position, though admittedly I don't know a lot about economics.
This is however not what comes across when you look at the event's media coverage, and how the day is instrumentalised to stir up patriotism.
Some trailers of movies you might enjoy :
The Lovely Bones
Crazy Heart
Edge of Darkness
I should add to #307 a further explanation: I'm deeply concerned that voting Lib Dem will, by splitting the anti-Labour vote, risk allowing Labour to get back into government as part of a coalition. I would feel sick to my stomach if we had to face another five years of Labour authoritarianism.
Basically, at the moment, I'm an anti-Labour voter rather than a pro-anyone-else voter.
so instead you're going for five years of Tory authoritarianism? that's entirely not helpful.
I'm gambling on them being less authoritarian. The Conservatives strongly opposed the extension of pre-trial detention for terror suspects, and continue to oppose ID cards and the national ID database. There are some Conservative figures, such as Damien Green, who are strong civil libertarians.
Admittedly, Conservatives won't be anywhere near perfect on civil liberties or criminal justice; we will still likely have punitive anti-drug laws, detention of refugees, insufficient oversight of police powers, and so on. But there is evidence to suggest that a Conservative government will at least be a marginal improvement, on the civil liberties front, over what we currently have. And there aren't any other options. A Labour-Lib Dem coalition would be an unmitigated disaster for the country, as would any other arrangement which allows Labour to stay in government. The best way to get Labour out is to vote Conservative, non-ideal as it may be.
gambling is right
*sigh*
Jadehawk, did you see my post at #305?
I wish I had answers to some of these issues: but until I am free from finals and have time to improve my knowledge of economics, I can't have a completely clear overall philosophy.
I have, and for now I won't bother you with economics; Tory authoritarianism doesn't have anything to do with economics though. Maybe you should read that criminology textbook again.
No-one needs to study economics to know - as the 84-year-old said during Debate II - that £59 is not enough to live on in the UK now, let alone maintain good physical and mental health.
Nor, I should hope, to see that the following scenario is both ridiculous and wasteful.
Bloke in his 50s is diagnosed with cancer in, say, May of year one. I'm guessing but let's assume at that stage the prognosis for recovery or long-term remission is above 60% - if treatment begins almost immediately.
Treatment does not begin. He is put on a waiting list. Because he already has one disability he keeps sliding down that waiting list. He is pumped full of painkillers. He is told that if he can raise - which he can't - X-thousand quid he can begin treatment at once - that's treatment in an NHS hospital, with NHS equipment, by NHS-trained staff.
In February of year two his assorted pains become unbearable, the cancer has metastised all over the place and there are all the symptoms of an intestinal blockage. Now, he is an emergency!
So off in the ambulance to the very same hospital. In four days the various tests and the amount of staff time cost a damn sight more than the initial treatment would have done and he is told that, even with a good outcome now at about 1%, he will begin treatment on Monday.
Too late. He died on the Friday afternoon. That man was my partner of 20 years and the February was in 1988. Yes, in the glorious Land of Thatcher, to which some would happily return us.
Economists can be interesting, even charming, to have around but sometimes what you need to survive is not another economist but an over-developed sense of humour.
(That wasn't easy to write. I may not be back for some time to follow up on in. Unlike Cpt Oates, though, I will be back at some stage.)
Live poor - it's the best way to reject conservative economics.
Oh Maureen, that's bloody awful.
It choked me up just reading it. I can't imagine what it would've been like for you - what it's like for you now. It must burn.
- Walton
Supposing this to be true (we really don't have the evidence either way), how does it conflict with what I said? I was advocating a well-educated and well-informed populace as a preventative against the tyranny of the majority. You change the subject to an "irreducible minimum" of nasty people, without even pretending to guess how large that minimum might be, if it is indeed non-zero.
Maureen, I am so sorry, what a truly appalling story.
On the ANZAC thing - this was my FB status today:
I got a lot of "likes", so I guess my friends are OK. I know people try to drive the day as jingoism; I try to keep the view turned the other way. And the brute facts of the campaign, and the beautiful sentiments of the Ataturk memorial do help with that.
It's a cloudless morning*, the east is yellow, it's election day for president (as mentioned I already voted absentee a week ago), so... my serotonin is back. :-)
* It was a morning when I started writing this comment.
And I thought about this some more:
You've got me curious. (Screams of horror from all over Teh Thread, ducking under desks and diving into rabbit burrows.) Some people try to have both "a good relationship" and "total personal freedom" at once; this is common enough for the term "open marriage" to exist. Now I wonder... has anyone got anecdata on how often that works out for how long?
(I'm not asking how common it is; that would tell much more about cultural and religious expectations than about how people are really wired.)
The only case I know about at all is the very special case once mentioned on this Thread, that is, the stable Platonic love of a straight woman and a gay but apparently biromantic man. Obviously, that's not representative of anything.
That would be Norway, not Sweden :-Þ
<chortle> X-)
<sigh>
No, it's by no means inevitable, and I say this after having been bullied for years.
The scientific method needs to be explicitly taught in the very first science class. It's fundamental, yet even most school teachers have no idea of it...
Sagan's entire Baloney Detection Kit should be taught.
(I have a few other radical views, too. For instance, the basics of phonology – which sounds a language distinguishes, and how it does so – should be taught in the first year of the first foreign language. Would have saved me, let alone others, a lot of trouble trying to figure out how to line up different English accents with each other and with the spelling... I only figured out how many ways of saying o there are in English when I read about it on the Internet several years after school.)
Separate beds!?!
Who doesn't.
While I am at it: Kseniya, Etha Williams.
Schools teach skills all the time.
QFT.
That sounds good. It's after 4th in Austria, and for many that's indeed too early.
:-) I remember GWW :-)
That brings me to one of the advantages of being a tenured scientist. My boss only comes into the lab 3 times a week anymore; the rest of the time he works at home and looks after his daughter (1 year 2 months) so his currently unemployed wife, who likes the baby very much, doesn't go insane in the tiny, tiny flat. I don't notice any decrease in his output, in science and bureaucracy alike.
Same for this Austrian... for the exact same reasons!
<headdesk>
That poll has been replaced by this one:
Bingo.
They'd have to compromise on that in a coalition government. At least if the coalition partner will be the Lib Dems.
In fact, assuming it's a given that Labour will be in government one way or another, I bet you'd prefer the coalition partner to be the Lib Dems rather than the Tories...
(...Hm. Does anyone still say "Whigs"?)
Why?
Seconded. :-(
:-S
<hug>
*Bourdieu flashback*
/obscure sociology reference; back to work
Needs work. If you select neither answer, and simply click on Vote!, you get back the very informative message (this is the complete message):
Array ( [id] => 2 )
I remind you of a must-read, The Elemements of Programming Style (especially the 2nd Edition), and in particular of several of its recomendations:
● Test input for validity and plausibility.
● Make sure input cannot violate the limits of your program.
And:
● Don't stop at one bug.
Which is very good advice. I suspect there are other flaws.
maureen.brian#b5c92, oh what a painful story but thank you for saying this. I'm truly sorry for your loss.
It's so easy for people to let their ideas and models smooth over the realities of life.
A seemingly reasonable comment becomes asinine and indefensible in certain contexts.
Fine, Walton, "support moderate capitalism" all you want. You know who else supports moderate capitalism? The Liberal Democrats. Let me remind you again of the facts: the mainstream view of economics is Keynesian, not Austrian, not Chicago.
In the real world, wanting to "support moderate capitalism" is not an excuse for voting for one capitalist party over another. You can't justify your vote for the Conservatives in this way when you have another moderate capitalist party to choose from, in this case one with more reasonable positions on civil liberties for both native Britons and the immigrants you care so much about.
Walton,
When you have the time and if you're still interested I'll recommend a couple of economics primers. I'm quite willing to answer any questions you might have.*
As you say, most economists, certainly most Western economists, are capitalists. Often that's because it's the economic system we're familiar with and we were taught. However this does not mean most of us don't recognize the problems of capitalism.
Capitalism is associated with uneven distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism, various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; repression of workers, and phenomena such as social alienation, economic inequality, unemployment, and economic instability. One of the major criticisms of capitalism is its failure to adequately answer the economic problem. This problem is most simply explained by the question "how do we satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources?" The premise of the economic problem model is that human wants are constant and infinite due to constantly changing demands (often closely related to changing demographics) of the population. However, resources in the world to satisfy human wants are always limited to the amount of natural or human resources available.
*I can answer absolutely any question you might have on any topic, as long as you'll accept "I don't know" as an answer.
On the "return to Thatcher" topic - I recall saying during the Bush II years that the most astonishing thing the Republicans had accomplished was a nostalgia for the pragmatic, if paranoid, politics of Richard Nixon.
Cath the Canberra Cook,
It doesn't seem to be working though. Much like the "Libertie, Egalite, Fraternite" thing doesn't wash in France any more.
Foreigners are by definition un-Australian, so nothing you do to them can be un-Australian. Besides, if the Afghans aren't all terrorists why are we at war with them? Huh?
Just look at all those racist redneck idiots who run around drunk wearing the Australian flag like a cape and driving cars with "Fuck Off, We're Full" bumper stickers. The Southern Cross is know known in groovy left-wing circles as the "Redneck Swastika".
It's always been this way in Australia, though. Up until the Second World War it was the Irish and Chinese who copped it. Then in the '50s and '60s the Italians, Greeks and Yugoslavs, then in the '80s and '90s the east Asians. Now it's the Muslims and east Africans. Nothing's changed, other than the majority has a new "other" to fear and loathe.
I dunno. I feel really sickened and betrayed by what Rudd's decided to do to the Afghans and Sri Lankan Tamils. If Afghanistan is in such fucking great shape why are the Americans always hassling us to us to send more troops all the time? And why is there this debate about whether the Australians should take over Oruzgan Province once the Dutch pull out?
John Howard (Australia's greasy former prime minister) was exceedingly smart in swinging it so that Australian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan mostly got relatively low-risk jobs (apart from the SAS, who were at the pointy end in both places). Australia has had only a handful of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan so there hasn't been the sort of public demand for a pullout that there has been in Britain and other places that get regular coffin flights home. If the Australians take over Oruzgan, though, things could change rapidly.
I dunno. I hate all this shit. Why can't we all just get along?
Walton, your "gamble" on the Tories being less authoritarian than Labour is a very, very bad bet. The so-called "left of centre" parties are pushed into being authoritarian by the right-wing parties. For anyone to declare "Hug a Refugee Day" would be political suicide.
maureen,
Thank you for posting your story. I'm so sorry you lost your partner in such a horrible way.
David,
Tenure isn't easy to get, though. First you spend several years getting a PhD. Then you spend a few years in postdocs. If you're really lucky and really good, you'll get a tenure-track appointment. So, you spend 5-7 years without a life, publishing like mad so that you get tenure. By then, you're 35 or so. If you're a woman, you really need to start having kids right away, or you may not be able to. I have been repeatedly counseled by women in my discipline that I should not consider having children before I get tenure. Things are very different for men. The assumption is that their wives will be doing most of the baby work, so having kids before tenure isn't a black mark for them.
But you would agree that the bulk of the authoritarianism in society is directed toward poorer people, who are disproportionately targeted by police, in part because wealthier people who can remain at a safe distance from police violence are more involved in politics and setting policy.
So while you may not indict capitalism per se, you do recognize a link between class inequality and police violence.
Whether or not this view is coherent without indicting capitalism, there are a lot of people who agree with you. American liberals in general wish to retain capitalism, and it is possible to do so while somewhat narrowing the economic gap, such that the interests of the two groups are less distinct, and the "safe distance" also narrowed.
The Bill of Rights and the dream of an independent judiciary are great as far as they go, but they don't go far enough. We still get decisions like Herring, and we cannot simply settle for this and say "sometimes the judiciary comes to unacceptable conclusions, but hey, what can ya do?" We must take steps to address the stratification that encourages an inequitable application of force.
Oooh. Recommend them to me then. It looks like I'll be of to business school soon anyway.
*shrugs*
I can only deal with not knowing what I should do for a month or two before I end up doing something. Hey... what better way to figure out, eh?
David M:
I use that text in classrooms whenever I can...I do part of a course on "Decision Making" and it works beautifully. By itself, that chapter could be expanded into a course.
We have these biology-for-non-major courses that offer the perfect opportunity to teach critical thinking and the scientific method...totally useful for any voting member of a democracy. But sadly, we use these as opportunities to teach basic biology...the kind that is forgotten as the final exam is turned in.
I'll second or third or fourth or whatever David M.'s suggestion that the "Baloney Detection Kit" should be taught in schools.
Here's an example of institutionalized scamming and frauding ("frauding" is apparently not a word, but I like it so I'm leaving it):
Mongolian throat singing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rkJmRL7SNc&playnext_from=TL&videos=3JQ3X_jBuyY&feature=grec
Ol'Greg #331
I particularly recommend Charles Wheelan's Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science. Wheelan is an American correspondent for The Economist so he's used to writing about economics for the non-economist. The book is well written and easy to follow.
Tim Harford's The Undercover Economist has some similarities to Freakonomics but without the conservative politics. Read Harford after reading Wheelan.
Robert Heilbroner & Lester Thurow's Economics Explained: Everything You Need to Know About How the Economy Works and Where It's Going is well written but somewhat out of date (pre-economic crisis). The authors have a strong liberal bias but admit it in the forward.
If you want a conservative book to balance Heilbroner and Thurow, there's Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics. My major objection to Hazlitt is he doesn't acknowledge his conservative bias.
@David M. -
Over at the Myrmecos blog, there's a discussion of why equal numbers of women come out of the life science Ph.D. pipeline as men and the percentage of women in academic positions declines at every level after that. I'm not really sure how to solve the problem, but our current winner-take-all and childcare-is-an-individual-problem system is probably yields one of the worst of all possible outcomes. I'd be in favor of Pygmy Loris' solution of giving non-parents more flexibility in their schedules, while perhaps recognizing that parents may need more flexibility on a day-to-day level, while non-parents (including those whose kids are grown) might be able to do a sort of flex-time thing where they get additional sabbatical time. The real problem with all of these solutions is that in middle age, I'm far less optimistic that any of them will actually happen, at least in my lifetime.
I will add the Baloney Detection Kit to my homeschool curriculum and to my summer camp and homeschool science classes. Always good to have methods of counteracting the IDiots. There are, however, no IDiots in my house. My daughter got scolded mightily by IDiots for reading Ancestor's Tale at her summer camp last year.
@maureen.brian -
I am so sorry for your loss. It's a terrible story. I've heard it plenty of times in the United States as well, for what it's worth... The rationales may be different, but the outcomes are the same (see the Wellpoint thread).
@ Josh OSG -
"Do you have a family" is a stupid question - the words "family" and "children" do not mean the same thing. So just say "yes" and let fools interpret that however they wish. (Do these people really think that you stop having a family when kids move out?)
@ BoS
Personally I'm sick of getting the guilt trip/passive agressive shit from my 3 childless colleagues about how badly I have apparently personally fucked up the environment by having children and adding to the world's population pressures.
Perhaps they're annoyed that you may have populated the world with more freethinkers. Only Christians should have children...
@Pygmy Loris -
My daughter plays the piano at a nursing home once a month. I made her promise to fetch the humane killer or move to Switzerland in lieu of placing me in such a place. She said she'd work on in-home care and move to the HK or Switzerland option if that failed.
ambook, I'm childfree. Mostly because I can't stand the little blighters and because my planned lifestyle does not allow for them. I am planning to get sterilized as soon as I finish undergrad.
Personally, I don't get ired until people have more than two. (We do have to have SOME people reproducing. Though it's becoming a matter of WHO, these days.)
Then that's just taking more than your fair share.
Unless one of the two planned births was twins, then that's just bad luck.
I am also not fond of IVF clinics. There are plenty of children out there that need adopting.
You missed that scene in Pleasantville?
Cuddling onychophorans! No, actually, they don't cuddle, they have a strict social hierarchy. It's matriarchal. And nobody knew about it till 2005, and then almost nobody seems to have read the paper, because I still had no idea there are social onychophorans.
Yesterday was cold and damp, today was full-on summer. Yesterday's sunset was pastel orange, covering half of the western sky; today's is just a bit of purplish pink.
This includes, unsurprisingly, economists and politicians in Austria.
I read a comment expressing this hankering for "the second coming of Richard Nixon" on the now defunct smirkingchimp.com. ("Ask not at whom the chimp smirks – he smirks at you.")
That differs between countries – in France, tenure is very easy to get once you have a position.
France is exceptional, though.
Yep.
(My boss still works like mad, though. Submitted a manuscript to Nature two weeks ago...)
I can do it except I can't figure out how to make the overtones any louder! As it is, they're probably not audible outside my head at all. :-(
(...That was an epic "except".)
Without having read that discussion, one reason is clearly that the percentages are increasing – those women who have just now come out of the PhD pipeline don't contribute to the percentages in higher positions yet, but some of them will later. Another reason, of course, is exactly what you say.
I don't remember it. ... But I most definitely don't remember a double bed either.
I read a comment expressing this hankering for "the second coming of Richard Nixon" on the now defunct smirkingchimp.com. ("Ask not at whom the chimp smirks – he smirks at you.") - David Marjanović
If you look at what Nixon actually did (withdrawal from SE Asia, arms agreement with USSR, rapprochement with China, increased spending on social welfare, macroeconomic policy...), there's a case to be made that he was more liberal than any succeeding president.
Hopeful news from the Middle East: Lebanese march in Beirut to demand secularism.
For the two readers who've not yet seen it:
Tim Kreider's Nixon vs. Bush
@ strangegods
Actually I hadn't seen it - I'd just observed my liberal inside-the-beltway friends pining for Nixon. But I do have a McGovern pin in the Darwinfished minivan...
Even though I was in third grade, that was the election that taught me that my side is likely to lose.
ambook,
I'm glad your daughter is out there enriching the lives of nursing home residents. I played piano (and dominoes) in a nursing home during undergrad. The humane killer is an excellent option, but still illegal here. It's really unfortunate because I think many people would choose assisted suicide if it was a real option. OTOH, it's difficult to know when to call for it. Dementia and senility set in slowly. I must admit that losing my mind and who I am is one of my deepest fears. It frightens me far more than death.
WRT work, we, as a society, need to let go of this idea that one should have to work 40 or more hours a week. This is a cause of unemployment. we create work by creating demand for consumer crap like the toys in McDonald's meals and singing fish. It's ridiculous. There has to be a better way!
Meh... for those who bother about who has "too many" children I just figure I gave one or two of my children slots to them.
It probably evens out.
Really I think that having or not having children just doesn't matter that much.
As far as the people who'd guilt trip you for having kids, it's always nice to remind them that no one has a smaller eco footprint than a corpse and then ask them what they, personally, mean to do for the world.
As for the ones who tell me I should have children, I usually tell them I will just as soon as my own goals are met and not a second before. If, by that time, I'm too old (looks pretty likely) well then there's always other things to do.
Josh:
Word. I get very tired of people assuming childfree people don't have families. For the record, I distinguish between breeder and parent. I don't generally mind parents, breeders are another thing altogether.
John:
I'd rather have Bubba Ho-tep. Elvis & JFK would be better...
Ol'Greg:
What used to irritate me were all the people who would say "oh, you're young, you'll change your mind." I'd smile and ask them, "what happens when you change yours?" It generally shut them up.
@Caine -
I still tell my kids that it's NOT TOO LATE for me to change my mind. They insist, against all evidence, that they've been ensouled already and thus "reduction" (as doctors politely call selective abortion to prevent multiple births) is not an option. Note snark tone - I'm not actually proposing to off my kids (that's for any pro-life lurkers who might think non-believers might actually wish to off their teenage kids any more than any other parent of teens). On a related note, I wonder if PZ had any such fantasies about teens lately?
Tu quoque.
ambook:
I'm positive that anyone who has been through three teens has plenty of dark fantasies. ;)
Not really, since the parent has theoretically dependent children, it's a bit late for that.
Actually the "population concern" argument is one of the most annoying things I ever hear. I don't have children, but really...
that's just obnoxious.
Why can't people just keep they're damned mouths shut about that.
If you have no kids, you get crap for it.
If you have one kid it's "oh but only children have so many problems, and oh but you haven't really experience parenthood then."
If you have two kids and they aren't the same sex it's "oh I guess you can't try for a boy" etc.
If you have three it's "who do you think you are, that's too many children, the whole world is going to explode tomorrow because there's one too many children in the world"
and if you have a fucking abortion it's "baby killer"
So fuck all.
I think from now on whenever some one asks me about my reproductive habits or ambitions I'm going to go into long and painful detail about my bowel movements and then end it with "oh... I thought you'd be interested. You seem not to care much for boundaries."
Pfft.
Speaking of that, why can't I seem to use the right they're/their/there?
awesome. I love looking stupid.
:-D
Maureen: I just saw your post. I'm really sorry. I didn't mean to force you to relive painful memories.
I meant the other way around; it's a tu quoque fallacy for the parent to suggest suicide in dismissal of criticism about having children. Yes, the critic probably has an unsustainable footprint, but that does not change the fact that the parent is multiplying unsustainable footprints by raising children in the developed world.
Of course I am aware that the bulk of these criticisms fall upon mothers and not fathers. But a conscious and voluntary reduction of population will be more equitable to women than the alternative: war.
Walton, I wonder if you have anything to add to this.
Ol' Greg,
To be honest, the people I judge for having too many kids don't have 3 or 4; they have 8, 9, 10 or even more. That's a choice they make, but over population is a real problem, and having a whole freaking baseball team is stupid.
Personally, I think our tax system should be restructured in many ways, but one of the ones I really favor is changing the exemptions for children. Right now you continue to add exemptions for every child (someone told me that ends at 8 children, but I can't find anything to support that). This is a policy that encourages having children. We shouldn't really be doing that, so I think there should only be exemptions for the first two (replacement level reproduction). After that, you don't get additional deductions for the kids. Adopted children are different, though. Every child you adopt should get you another exemption because we should encourage people to adopt children in need of homes.
Of course, my opinions about this are based on the idea that people choose to have children. Abortion is legal*, so if you have a kid instead of an abortion (regardless of why you chose not to have an abortion) you chose to have the kid. If abortion and/or contraception were illegal, I would no longer support such changes to tax law because too many people who weren't choosing to have that 3rd or 4th child would be ending up with them.
* I also think poor women should be able to get financial help in procuring abortions, including help paying for lodgings if they have to stay over-night away from home and paid time off of work (in the form of paid sick-leave).
Watched Downfall, am seriously tired, will go to bed.
From there:
:-o Wow.
This, AFAIK, is actually written in the constitution. At the time it was an attempt to prevent quarrels, sort of how the conservatives and the Socialists → Social Democrats inofficially partitioned Austria among themselves from 1945 to the 1990s to prevent a repetition of the civil mini-war of 1934.
I'm the other reader who hadn't seen it. :-) The text underneath drives the point home.
Yeah. My maternal grandparents' 6 children have 6 children in total.
And so do the parents. This is borne out both by the only children I know and by China's mass psychosis about making the latest generation into universal geniuses and world champions and and and.
?
:o)
strange gods,
It's a tough choice. Like I said, I do agree with a whole raft of Lib Dem policies on civil liberties and the justice system; and their economic policies don't seem too bad either. But I'm simply concerned that a Lib Dem vote could allow Labour to get back into government.
And the other problem is that I've been an active supporter of the Conservative Party for a few years now, have invested a lot of effort in supporting the party, and have lots of Conservative friends and acquaintances who would be very disappointed if I switched parties right before an election. My political philosophy may have shifted markedly to the left over the last year, but it's still not easy to break away from an institution in which one is firmly entrenched: and since switching parties tends to be an irreversible step (Winston Churchill notwithstanding), it's a dangerous step to take, considering that I'm not at all confident that I'm now actually right about things.
Not unless the exemption is larger than the cost of raising a child for that year.
strange gods,
I wonder if that's true. It probably is though, since fathering many children is considered a sign of virility. I'm equally critical of mothers and fathers. Too many kids is too many kids, and children in the developed world consume too many damn resources.
Word.
strange gods,
I phrased it poorly. Allowing exemptions for every additional child is a pro-birth policy. The government is offering an incentive (compared to no incentive plus the cost of raising the child) for people to have children. The alternatives are no exemptions and no penalties for children, which is birth-neutral (from a policy perspective) or an anti-birth policy of additional taxes for people with children.
People are going to have kids anyway, but when the government cuts you a break because you have kids, it's a pro-birth policy.
Ol'Greg:
It's a shame, then, that you do it so poorly. :D
Join the club. Between the mind being faster than the digits, and homophonic spelling, (never mind you/your typos), I don't always come out the way I would like...
Also childfree. I knew by the age of five that I wasn't cut out to be anyone's mother. No dollies or "playing house" for this little black duck! It isn't that I dislike children - in fact, I enjoy being around my friends' kids and am considered an excellent babysitter - I just don't want one of my own. In the same vein, I don't mind staying at a pal's beach house on my holidays; but owning one? Nah. Too much expense!
I had my tubes tied at 25 (in the mid-80s) and I mention that only because it was difficult to find someone who'd perform the surgery at the age I was then. I tried all sorts of approaches and did my damnedest to convince reluctant doctors that I really was sure about my choice.
Katharine, you might have some challenges in getting sterilised. What got me over the line in the end was a casual, (true) mention that my (by then ex-) husband had had a vasectomy. After that, the atmosphere changed immediately. The doc's next comment was, "I do surgery on Thursdays. How's the 20th for you?"
Speaking of looking stupid, I'm avoiding it only by going off to look up things like tu quoque so that I don't have to ask. (Self-taught class on formal logic, here I come.)
Pygmy Loris, on the face of it, I agree with you that it appears to be a pro-birth policy. I'd just like to see evidence that tax exemptions for dependent children really do result in more births, because there can be a lot of counterintuitive effects concerning population, like lower child mortality driving lower birth rates, no?
Speasking of fallacies.....
Walton,
Can you now see what's wrong with that argument?
@Katherine - if you can't find an MD who will do a sterilization on a youngish woman, look into Mirena (progesterone IUDs). They last for like 7 years and my midwife friends think they're great (like actually preferable to sterilization in many cases, and not just because you remain theoretically fertile).
Walton, don't you have secret ballots???
I know this, you know I know this, I empathize, and I hope you know I empathize. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop arguing about it, though. I think you're going to regret this vote in the long run.
Wow! My sister couldn't get hers tied at 28, after two kids, and the obstetrician for the second telling her that she had about a 50% chance of dying if she had another. You see, she might remarry someday, and her husband might want children....
(No, really! That's what the (male) doctor said.)
@ David #339: If not cuddly onychophora, how about this Itty-bitty-little-kraken?
Sure, but regardless he's probably doing more damage by campaigning for the Conservatives than he will by voting for them.
Despite all his comments, the patrician that is Walton doesn't really care about democracy. He just does't want a Labour/coalition government. He'd rather have the UK run by a party that only gets just over one third of the vote (again), than by a coalition with >60%.
I'm hoping for a hung parliament, and the inevitable electoral reform that will be the LibDem price for a coalition, so that people can vote for what they actually want. Walton says he does't want this because it'll give fascists (and communists) some seats. Tough. That's the price of Democracy. (And it only leads to more trouble if sizeable minorities are deliberately excluded from being represented).
Walton also thinks coalitions lead to weak, short-lived governments - Italy, Belgium etc. How about a more natural comparison for the UK, Germany?
Anyway, both the Tories and Labour are now desperately saying they'll bring in electoral reform, in order to be in power. What about a Tory/LibDem coalition, Walton? (Of course, after PR, half the Tory voters will go straight to UKIP or the BNP). :)
Incidentally, I only realised a few days ago that Cameron and Clegg look strangely alike (Cameron's a bit slimier), and they have almost identical voices, and accents. Spooky.
Not enough Bonzos here, so here they are, singing about elections (and bacon).
Oh yeah, there are tons of variables that affect birth rates in weird ways. The tax issue is really a policy issue. I learned this stuff back in undergrad, so I don't know what the current consensus is. Would people think twice about having kid number 3 if they knew they wouldn't get another exemption? I honestly have no idea.
Really, I just resent that Jim Bob Duggar can claim 20 freaking dependents besides himself (the oldest child is married with a kid now, so presumably he's no longer a dependent). I have several conservative friends who want a flat tax, but want to keep their exemptions for kids. Well, that's not a flat tax because I'm paying a higher percentage because I choose not to have children. They don't seem to get that exemptions for children are part of a progressive tax system based on the idea that people with children have less disposable income and shouldn't be taxed as much as a result. I think this all ties into the whole conservative selfishness. "I got mine, fuck you" extends to taxes too.
To be clear, I support progressive taxation and child exemptions for the first two kids.
cicely,
Back in the 80s, many states required the husband's permission before they would sterilize a woman. One of my mom's friends had to nearly die giving birth to child number 4 before her husband consented to the tubal ligation. He was then, and still remains, a giant jackass.
If you use Mirena though, back it up with something. Seriously.
A friend of mine that I've since lost touch with got pregnant with it in, and ended up losing the baby anyway... but the whole thing could have been avoided :(
Actually I think BOS said on here she got pregnant with Mirena too?
Agreed, but "hard cases make bad law."
Yeah, but that's not the point. The purpose of a secret ballot is to protect people from being intimidated, coerced or threatened into voting a certain way - none of which I am remotely in danger of.
So yes, legally, I could continue supporting the Conservatives in public while secretly voting Lib Dem. But this would be hypocritical and dishonest in the extreme. (And it wouldn't be a terribly well-kept secret, anyway, since we've been talking about it on a public thread that anyone on the internet can view.)
=====
Huh? What has that got to do with anything? (And I'm not a "patrician", on anyone's definition. For a start, I went to a state school.)
I'd actually quite like a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government. I just want to get Labour out of power, since they are a grossly authoritarian party which has steadily eroded civil liberties.
I don't see what that has to do with my position on democracy or electoral reform; I'm talking about how to exercise my vote now, in the electoral system we have.
Feynmaniac @#369: It wasn't an "argument" so much as a personal statement of how I feel.
And yes, the same feelings probably do apply to religion for a lot of people. I suspect that's the fundamental reason why Andrew Sullivan, for instance, still considers himself a Catholic, despite the fact that he disagrees with the Vatican on almost everything. Don't get me wrong - I don't doubt that Sullivan sincerely believes in God, and in (his own idiosyncratic interpretation of) Christian doctrine - but he could easily leave the RCC and join the Anglican/Episcopal Church, say, or another denomination which would be closer to his actual beliefs. But he hasn't done so; and I suspect the reason why is that he is deeply attached to the RCC as an institution.
How... controlling are these friends of yours!?
How would it be hypocritical to vote for what you think should be enacted or what you support in that specific election?
It seems the very antithesis of a hypocritical rationale to do so. Do you really vote out of party loyalty and deference to your gang?
Yikes.
Sorry if I'm missing something. I kind of skim the British politics because the learning curve would be sharp for me and there are other things I'm bent on learning atm.
Don't worry, Walton, you didn't upset me but the story was relevant to your point. The tough bit was writing it in that style and keeping any sense of "poor helpless me" out of it. Good thing I was brought up on Addison, Steele, etc, no? Then I went across the room and knitted furiously - very therapeutic.
Thank you John Morales, David Marjanović, CathCC, Ol'Greg, Pygmy Lorid and ambock for your kind thoughts. Much appreciated.
Sorry, I didn't express myself very clearly. I was saying that it would be hypocritical if I were to continue saying publicly that I support the Conservatives, going to Conservative social events, and so on, while secretly voting Lib Dem. All I'm trying to say is that if I were going to switch parties, I would be honest and do it publicly.
And I don't have "controlling" friends at all. A few people might be a little irritated, but nothing bad whatsoever would happen to me if I were to switch parties. Rather, all I meant is that I would feel guilty - since I feel like I do owe some loyalty to my friends - and that I would miss being accepted as a part of that social circle.
It looks like a Christian ministry is trying to revive the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda.
Well then it's an irrational feeling. I sort of understand it, but at the same time you shouldn't be letting it enter on deciding how you will vote.
And you think the torries under Thatcher have a better track record in this regard? You must be joking.
I'd like to see "New Labour" out of power since I haven't see much difference with the conservatives.
Not even as a tie-breaking factor? As I've said, I much prefer the Lib Dems' stance on civil liberties and criminal justice, I prefer the Conservative economic agenda, and it's also true that a Conservative vote is the safest bet for getting rid of Labour. These considerations mean that I have a dilemma as to how to vote. My personal preferences and party loyalty are surely a reasonable basis on which to resolve that dilemma?
(As I've explained before, I can either vote Lib Dem in Oxford - which creates a high chance of unseating the incumbent Labour MP - or vote Conservative in my home constituency, again with a high chance of unseating a Labour incumbent. Both are relatively marginal seats, so my vote definitely "counts" either way.)
What's "the conservative economic agenda" (apart from making sure the rich get richer)?
Yes, there was a lot of that sort of commenting and other paternalistic chatter too, as I recall: "You don't know what you want; you're just a kid yourself" and "The first time one of your friends lets you hold her baby, you'll change your mind" and on and on.
To be honest, I never have regretted it. And I did remarry and my new husband did want kids. You know what? We coped with the fact that I can't have them. So, a big phphppppppt! to the know-alls.
Walton, I'm surprised to hear you now saying you'd like a Tory/LibDem coalition. I suppose the sudden fear of not being in power has changed your mind, just as it seems to have changed Cameron's. You know it would mean PR?
I've read all your arguments against PR, and (apart from the constituency MP issue) they were mostly about "protecting" people from the results of their democratic wishes, because you thought enough would vote for "extremists" to elect them. You were quite explicit in saying that you preferred FPTP for that very reason. You were quite happy to have yet another UK government elected by a minority of those who even bother to vote (as long as it's not a Labour government).
Btw, you don't have to have gone to a private school* to have a "patrician" attitude to the riff-raff.
* usually known as "public schools" in UK DoubleSpeak.
I didn't mean that in the sexual sense; even people in open relationships have to make compromises on various life issues. It's how sharing a life tends to work.
I'm in Minot, ND; does this really need explaining? :-p
when I get home to a faster internet connection, I'll find you the scene from pleasantville...
ditto... and if you do really really need a whole litter, adopt. those kids already exist. don't make new ones!
that's bullshit. for all practical purposes, you could vote a different party every election. no one stops you.
so stop campaigning for any party at all until you figure shit out. campaigning and continuing support for a party out of pure inertia is insanity. work on specific issues rather than parties until then, if you feel you want to stay involved in the political process.
and that's a good way to go about politics... how?
then don't switch parties, simply withdraw from campaigning for a specific party until further notice.
you don't owe the party shit; and therefore, you don't owe your friends your loyalty to their party. Besides, fucking a whole country up just because you're afraid of diminishing your current social life is fucked up.
Pygmy Loris, this did happen in the eighties, but my sister was single at the time. No current husband needed to be consulted; it was the presumption that her hypothetical future husband might want kids that was at issue.
You said you didn't feel qualified to judge matters of economics.
On loyalty, no. You don't owe them your vote, it's yours to decide. On personal preferences, depends on what you mean. If you personally prefer their policies overall, then yes it's rational. If you want to have a beer with the leader or like their logo or have friends in party or other trivialities than no.
Quite frankly, there's too much irrationality in voting. Politicians spend a lot of time hoping someone will vote for them because of "likability" or slogans of "hope" or other irrational reasons rather than voting on them because of their policies. People suffer because of it. I'd like to see it minimized.
Same as the "New Labour" economic agenda, then.
This is really good advice.
@OlGreg - I'll have to ask my midwife friend - I've had one for 10 years (well, not the same one) with no problems. And the no monthly thing is really wonderful. I do recall being told to use backup for the first month or two, but if it completely suppresses monthly bleeding, I can't imagine there'd be anything to implant into. Honestly, the no monthly bleeding thing makes it something I'd consider even if I did have a sterilization...
Oh, yes! This is one of the best things about my hysterectomy.
fuck yes... if I never bleed again, i'd be the happiest person in the world.
reason #9358y10489 why I won't likely ever have kids: I'd have to start bleeding again first. :-p
Jadehawk and strange gods: Partly for the reasons you mention, I haven't been campaigning, or supporting the party actively IRL, for the last couple of months. (The need to prepare for finals has provided a convenient pretext for this.) It wasn't like I ever did a lot of campaigning anyway, other than distributing a few leaflets from time to time (something which I hate).
True. But publicly leaving a party in which one has been actively involved is much more of an issue.
====
Feynmaniac:
I agree.
As I've said, haven't seen much difference between the two.
It seems to me quite irrational to be such a strong advocate of one party and so opposed to the other when they have followed more or less the same policies during the last three decades.
The only ikelihood of significant change I can see is with the Lib Dems, and I also noted that Nick Clegg is the most rational candidate of the three.
There are lots of differences. Labour tried to introduce 90-day pre-trial detention for "terror suspects". Conservatives oppose this. Labour still want to introduce national ID cards. Conservatives oppose this. Labour have created thousands of new criminal offences; Conservatives have generally been opposed to this. Labour banned public protests in the vicinity of Parliament. Conservatives oppose this. There are several civil liberties issues where Conservatives are preferable to Labour. And since civil liberties are the big issue for me, those are important differences.
In I Love Lucy they always showed married couples having separate beds. During Lucy's pregenancy they weren't even allowed to say the word 'pregenant' on air. I think many US conservatives actually believe this fictional programming of the 50's was an accurate portrayal of the time. Also, many were kids during the time and probably weren't aware of some of the nastier aspects of the time.
While we're on the subject, Star Trek: The Original Series also featured one of the first interracial kisses on TV in 1968. NBC was really nervous about it.
Walton:
This seems to me to be very like arguing that it is hard to leave a religion into which one has put one's time, money, and social and familial entanglements. It's hard, but not impossible. Even clergy can do it.
Walton (my emphasis),
Such innocence.
How many electors in those seats? :)
And how much of all this opposing is based on the same logic by which American Republicans are against ending the filibuster, expanded executive powers, etc. (i.e. when they're the opposition they're against it; when they're the rulers, they're for it)?
I can buy that they're against the ID, but of all the issues you've mentioned, that's the least important one
That's very true. But the same would likely be true of the Lib Dems, too, if they ever got into office. Power tends to have a corrupting effect - just look at the Obama administration's record on civil liberties, for instance, which has been marked more by continuity than the Bush administration than with change.
This is why I don't think we can ever really trust governments of any party to protect our civil liberties, and why I think constitutional rights and a strong independent judiciary are of fundamental importance in a free society.
I think it was the Daily show that had a segment about "the good old times", and it came to the conclusion that no matter which decade the Republicans are describing, they were all shit. So what republicans really want is to be 5-years-old again
Walton:
Again, evident innocence.
Oppositions oppose.
Oh good - we've moved from drug use to the care of lady bits. Does this offend the ayatollah as well? Perhaps we've started Boobquake early.
@OlGreg - According to the Mirena package insert, as of 2006 there had been 9.9 million users and around 360 live births for the users. Ectopic pregnancy is also a risk, but quite rare. The failure rate for Mirena is below 1%, which is pretty much what sterilization is (i.e. nothing is ever guaranteed as long as you have the basic equipment with which to get pregnant). Which isn't to diminish your friend's suffering, but just to put it in some statistical framework.
Mirena's also recommended for as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, so my idea to use it along with sterilization isn't so farfetched.
really? you think the opposition-stance is the honest one, and then when they get in power, it all goes to shit?
*facepalm*
I know one person who got a Mirena and had it removed after 6 months, but you can pry mine from my cold dead uterus. It is by far the best thing I've ever done for my reproductive system, but individual results are highly specific to different types of birth control, so your mileage (will) vary.
and on a completely different note:
next year, I'm doing no-till farming *massages sore everything* :-p
Cicely,
Sweet zombie jesus, future potential husbands shouldn't have any say over a woman's reproductive tract.
Feynmaniac,
My parents grew up in the late 40s and 50s. They have very few romantic notions of that time since, as the children of sharecroppers, they spent their time chopping and picking cotton and other agricultural crops. Also, the poverty they lived with is a rather vivid memory. Dad does remember the fear of commies though.
The view of the fifties that many Americans have is that of the urban/suburban middle class in the North. The South remained an agrarian society with rampant poverty and a very small middle class well into the 20th century. Sharecropping was a bare step above slavery, and it wasn't until the widespread use of the mechanical cotton picker emerged in the late 50s and 60s that sharecropping ended. I wonder how many Southern conservatives had parents and grandparents who were sharecroppers.
Jadehawk,
Life was much better in 1985 ;)
BTW did anyone see the Daily Show's take on the debates in the UK? It was pretty funny, but that may just be my love of John Oliver showing.
Well, this (now northern) liberal did, and it was a horrific life. The Depression did not end for the South until the 1960s. My mother grew up without electricity or indoor plumbing until she graduated from high school in 1958. We were in North Carolina a couple years ago and I stopped at a cotton field and hustled my kids out of the car to look at the plants, pick a few bolls, and imagine hoeing and then picking the entire field. They were suitably daunted by the prospect. Lower class Southern whites have been sold a bill of goods by Southern elites - they've been told that the civil rights movement, Jews and blacks are the problem, when it's all a sort of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" distraction from reality. Religion doesn't help much either...
ambook,
Your parents are just a few years older than mine. Mom's family moved into a house with electricity and a kitchen sink (but no bathroom) when she was nine. Dad moved around a lot, so sometimes they had a house with electricity and/or running water, and sometimes they didn't.
Mom took us to a cotton field to pick a few bolls when we were kids too. I really cannot imagine what it was like to chop and pick cotton all day long. The plantocracy has been good at dividing the proletariat through racism for a very long time.
Haha! Along with sterilization my concern wouldn't matter anyway... my reading comprehension fail there :D Any birth control is a YMMV anyway. I can't take Ocella/Yasmin at all.
Walton: I'm glad to hear your friends aren't that bad.
Sadly I don't know enough, even from the threads here, to have much opinion on the matter. But I do think you should vote for whatever principals you truly want enacted and not for whatever aesthetics and heritage lie in the past.
Anyway, I'm being a bad host now so I've got to go for the evening!
Enough politics from me, so here's something infintely more wholesome -
a 1972 film in which I was an extra (but I'm not saying which one).
Being a big Pasolini fan, I recognised the director and his coterie of actors* in a pub, got talking, and asked for a part.
*A really weird bunch that he used in many of his films. The main actress (Laura Betti - "The Wife of Bath") refused to walk anywhere, except on camera. She had two people who carried her from place to place. Al Capone's one-time driver (tattooed all over) played the Cook. The main actor (Ninetto Davoli, Pasolini's lover since he was 15 - "Perkyn") had a pouch of ready rolled spliffs, and, when not on camera, smoked them literally non-stop.
Dr Who/Tom Baker was in it too.
In 1974, my father built a geodesic dome for us to live in. He designed it and built it by himself. His income for that year was less than $7,000. For two years we lived with an outhouse, a hand pump for our water, and an old-school washing machine with a hand wringer on it. We didn't have electricity for the first year. (What a treat it was to finally have electric lights!)
I was too young to realize how poor we were. I just knew that I was loved and never had to go hungry or unshod. To this day I don't know how my folks managed to pull it off.
I'm just glad I never had to pick cotton.
Elroy,
That's pretty impressive. OTOH, $7,000 was a lot more money in 1974. According to one inflation calculator that would be a little over $30,000 today. Not a large sum, but still above the poverty line.
Pharyngulette:
Difficult is an understatement. I started trying to get sterilized at 17, got the usual dismissive, oh, there, there, you couldn't possibly know your own mind jazz. At 20, I consulted with a surgeon a friend recommended. We were having an intense argument discussion about me not knowing the future, I'd marry, what then, blah blah blah. He finally looked at me and asked "What's the very worst? What would you do if you had to have a baby?" I decided to go for broke and said "I'd kill it." He scheduled me that day.
Pygmy Loris,
Yes, above the poverty line until you build a home from the ground up with no financing and pay cash for everything. On top of that, dad payed the neighbor who sold us the land $100/month for five years until it was paid off. Granted, after the house was finished and the well was sunk and the septic tank and drain field were put in, things were a bit more comfortable financially. Those first two years were tight, though.
Elroy,
I didn't mean to say it wasn't tight or anything, just that the same amount of money doesn't go nearly as far today. One would be hard-pressed indeed to just to provide food and housing for family on $7,000 today (even with food stamps and HUD). I can't imagine undertaking the building of a house and buying of land only $30,000 with a family today.
I've never gone hungry or lived without plumbing or electricity. There were times when I was a kid that things were tight, but we never wanted for the necessities. My dad, OTOH, remembers going to bed hungry as a child, and Mom only had enough to eat because Grandpa hunted and Grandma kept a good sized garden on land she rented from the owner.
Unlike many here, I grew up in a fairly well-to-do family. We had house on a lake, complete with boathouse and 27 foot sailboat.
I'm incredibly lucky - we didn't have a lot of money when I was a kid, but enough not to obviously hurt for it. I think the worst part was that my parents bought a house right at the end of 70s stagflation and when the market was high, so I'm sure the interest rate on the mortgage was around 10% or more. I'm sure it kept them up nights, and I never got everything I wanted, but I never hurt for necessities, either. Both of my parents came from solidly blue-collar families, as a result of the farming woes that were another generation or so behind them and sent their families to the city.
The view from the back porch of my childhood home.
Pygmy Loris,
No worries, I know what you were saying. The lean years were when we built the house and put in all the "amenities" like running water and flush toilets.
To be honest, as a kid I romanticized the whole outhouse/hand-pumping water/candle lighting thing. I'm sure it was a lot harder on my folks than it was on me.
I never went hungry, but I did my share of bitching about having to weed the garden when I was a kid. I changed my tune when it came time to eat the corn on the cob, though.
'Tis, you must have lived on the other side of the lake from me!
I actually live in the house I grew up in - only one bathroom, but a very nice place nonetheless. My mom managed to escape from southern poverty, at least long enough to raise me in the north and with a dad with a lot of education.
Wow, Tis, that's cool. Probably explains how you got into sailing, too :)
By the time I was 12, the hard times were behind us. Now my parents are doing well, well enough that I got a (used) car for college graduation. Mom did instill a real fear of poverty, though. The slope from the middle to the underclass is slippery and steep. Too many people don't realize that until they're sliding down it.
I recall my parents buying the house I grew up in back circa 1958-9. For less than $15,000, and a payment of less than $100/mo. Certainly made me envious when we bought this place 22 years ago.
Ah, a humble-off is it. My parents were war refugees with four kids living on government assistance. From the age of 9 to 11 my bed was a sofa in my grandma's living room.
Actually, it wasn't that bad. After my dad finished his residency things got much better. However, I still get pissed whenever I hear people whining about how good immigrants or people on welfare have it.
ambook,
Wow, your mom sounds a lot like mine. Mom escaped Southern poverty with the help of scholarships and student loans (she graduated from college in 1968 and became a teacher). My mom was the first in her family to finish 8th grade, and she ended up getting a Master's.
Can I just say that my parents are awesome. They're both also liberal Democrats from the South. Mom and Dad know that people in poverty need help because they were there once upon a time.
Seems appropriate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13JK5kChbRw
Feynmaniac,
WTF? I have a conservative acquaintance who goes on and on about people buying steak and lobsters with their food stamps. The whole time I worked at a Wal-mart that sold lobsters, I never sold a single one to anyone on food stamps, and most people just don't receive that much in food stamps. One of my friends works part-time as a TA for a little over $600/mo.. She receives $140.00/mo. in food stamps for her and her daughter. It's not like you can afford too many steaks and lobsters on that pittance. That's irrelevant though. People seem to feel that it's not just okay, but necessary to judge what those who receive public assistance do with that money. Even people on welfare deserve a steak once in awhile (if they want it).
Caine,
Wow. What (forgive the inappropriate expression) balls you had, woman! Glad you said what you felt and that they finally listened.
I'd be interested to know what the statistics are for mature-age women who - like me - were sterilised relatively early in their reproductive lives and whether there ever turned out to be a significant proportion of us who regretted it. I've not known many other women who knew early that they didn't want kids and who took serious steps to prevent it, so I don't even know anecdotally if the threats and worries of those long-ago surgeons were true. I acknowledge that there might have been some women who changed their minds, but for as many roadblocks (Srsly? "Potential future husband"?) as I've read about having been thrown up in front of us as a group, it would want to be a majority. Otherwise, it's just patronising.
ambook | April 25, 2010 2:36 PM:
I hope it taught you that sometimes your side loses because the other side cheats outrageously.
(I've read too many articles by liberals and / or democrats who go on and on about all the mistakes McGovern made, and basically blame Nixon's eventual victory on McGovern, which is fucking stupid for a very long list of reasons.)
Cath the Canberra Cook | April 24, 2010 2:55 AM:
'cause it's clunky, it's second-hand, and it's a big white elephant. And it might go rogue someday.
A boxing kangaroo? What a terrible missed opportunity that would be. Australia's flag should have on it a big saltwater crocodile.
I love you.
I don't see what's wrong with this flag:
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/f/fic-spau.gif
Josh, OSG to Caine,
Back when I was playing LensmoorM, I created The Book of Love, expounding on the difference between Agape, Eros and Philia (I left out Storge).
I love you too, Josh. :)
Ah, the humble-off, as Feynmaniac called it. When I was in first grade, we lived in New Mexico in a small house with a dirt yard. No indoor plumbing. One of my most traumatic memories is of being locked in the outhouse during a sand storm. The wind blew the outside latch onto the hook and I couldn't open the door. The wind was rocking the outhouse and I was screaming for my mother. She came out and rescued me. We were only halfway back to the house when the sound of the outhouse ripping off its foundation managed to penetrate the noise of the storm. We looked back to see the outhouse sailing out across the alfalfa field.
Josh
John
I love you, loving you, as the mouse so loves the rice.
In preparation for the National Day of Sin:
1. I sure as hell did not keep holy the sabbath day.
2. I took the name of the Lord in vain. Maybe 50 times. Give or take.
3. I had impure thoughts. As I consider these impure thoughts again, and again, and again, I repeat the sin...but a little less pure every time.
4. Once again, I spared the rod and spoiled the child.
5. I may have made a graven image. Depends on what it means by "graven" I guess. The passion played out in mashed potatoes and gravy?
I appear to be caught up in a Love/Humble-Off.
Well, when I was a very little SpokesGay, I suffered Extreme Cosmetic Deprivation. My mother wore no make-up, and had no sympathy for my aesthetic needs. While other kids spent wantonly on hair bleach and name brand drugstore makeup (such as the prestigious Maybelline collection), I was forced to line my eyes with old bits of coal from the outdoor barbecue. Oh, how I longed for just the few pennies it would take to buy me but one Bonne Bell eyebrow pencil. . .
The mormon woman who lived across the street from me a few years ago was one of 17 children. Yep, her mother had 17 children. She told me she was going to only have four children ... then she had another. Then she said she was going to stop at five children. Then she had another because her mother told her that if she got right with God and obeyed the Word of Wisdom, her ankles would stop swelling and her pregnancies would stop feeling like death threats. I don't know how many children she has now.
Thanks, Lynna. I had to stop myself from trying to move my head through my wall.
[crossThreadulation from here]
Josh, this ain't what you want: Dandelion Wine.
A good read, but.
we interrupt the programming for the following Public Service Announcement:
my outlet for mental masturbation blog has moved, and is now at http://jadehawks.wordpress.com/
We now return to the regularly scheduled posting.
remember the bartering conversation we had not too long ago?
well, looks like LL1 isn't the only one wanting to go back to bartering for everything: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023434.php
Josh:
I love you too.
Pharyngulette:
I was one of those who knew, as a child, that I never, ever wanted any. Like Florence King, I didn't like children when I was a child.
There are stats on sterilization (where to find them, I don't know at the moment) and those stats are part of the reason why women find such a condescending attitude when seeking sterilization. The other part is simply personal anecdotal 'evidence' on the part of the physician. I think most of them will have a "she really regretted it, and that's why I won't sterilize women under 35" story and explanation.
People do change their minds on the sterilization front, both men and women. However, it's still an unfortunate standard that women, being the weak and frivolous creatures we are, are bound to change our mind. It's 'cause we're so emotional and stuff and not rational beings. Not all doctors carry that attitude, but enough of them do, and it can be hard to put up with, to say the least. (I have known men who have gotten almost the same business, but it's more from the "be responsible, how will you make a woman happy" kind of crap.)
All in all, I think it's fair enough to say that someone who is young might well change their mind down the road, but instead of giving a condescending no, have them sign CYA paperwork out the ass and get on with it.
My surgeon told me it was usually women who already had children and were sterilized who often changed their minds, but that's anecdotal, however, I don't think that childfree people make up the majority of those being sterilized.
It turned out that I didn't actually need the surgery, as I had a subclinical infection at one point, probably caused by the Copper-7 IUD I had for 3 years, which caused scarring and blockage of my tubes. My doc did the job anyway, and I have never regretted it for a second. Kids I never wanted, but I did want sex. Quite a lot of it. ;D
Jadehawk:
Bookmarked and commented. No commenting problems at all!
I'd be interested to know what the statistics are for mature-age women who - like me - were sterilised relatively early in their reproductive lives and whether there ever turned out to be a significant proportion of us who regretted it.
I was 27 or so, and had to bulldoze some poor socialworker over the obviously-standard questions to get my tubes tied. This was at a clinic; I got it done more or less free by being just a little less broke than I usually was, for the month prior. Around 1976, it was easier to get sterilized even if you were white if they thought you were poor.
I gotta give San Francisco General credit, though: It was a humane and well-run clinic other than those questions, and I never had to answer them more than once. It seemed to be a ritual thing, like asking if you're pregnant when you get X-rays.
I even got the future-husband one, though. ("He can have 'em.") In the presence of my partner! Who still is, btw. I got the job done instead of having him get it basically because I beat him to it, having had one of those epiphanies while he was visiting family back East, and arranging it all by the time he got back.
I actually thought I would regret it. Knowing myself at least that well, I figured I'd sometimes regret whatever I'd done, and that regretting not having kids was a hell of a lot better than having them and regretting that. And it had come to my attention, working at a pediatric hospital, that there are lots of children in the world that I could choose to live with if I wanted to.
At 60, I'm surprised to report that in fact I haven't regretted abstaining from having kids. Imagine that.
Someone in a recent Thread instantiation mentioned the Henrietta Lacks book. I'm almost through it, and it's a keeper. Highly recommended.
Ron:
Perhaps I should have taken a trip to San Francisco to get mine rather than butting heads in Costa Mesa. Got mine in '78.
Back in the early 80s, a friend of mine, who had two kids, wanted to get her tubes tied. Her OB/GYN actually asked 'What if one of your children dies? Wouldn't you want to replace her?'. What she said to the doctor has no place on a family blog. She did get the surgery.
Another friend ran into the husband's-consent bit because her divorce was not yet final. Fortunately, her soon-to-be-ex was nice enough to "consent" to what she wanted to do with her body. Given that she had a medical condition that precluded pregnancy - and killed her in her early 30s - the idea that she and her doctor couldn't proceed without a third-party consent was appalling.
Re: Pro-birth tax breaks: When we adopted the Offspring, there was no incentive - the costs were not deductible. The gov't then changed that, to encourage adoption, but the bill has a sunset provision; I think the deduction drops/ends shortly. I'd rather encourage people to adopt, frankly, than add to the population explosion. I have great respect for people who adopt a dozen kids, and no respect for those who choose to give birth to a dozen when they can't afford them. [That means you, "Octomom".]
ronsullivan wrote:
Oh, man. QFT.
Your excellent comment reminds me of an incident that occurred in my previous job. I was giving my brain a few years off and was working as a forklift driver at a factory near home. The other employees were (ahem) "battlers" of one kind and another, mostly. Not deep thinkers anyway.
One of the brassiest and most opinionated of the women I worked with asked me one day how many kids I had. When I told her I didn't have any, her eyes went wide for a second before her expression turned to one of horror and outrage.
"Why don't you have kids?" she demanded. "Don't you like kids?"
For a few moments I thought about explaining that, yes, I like kids very much, which is why I choose not to have them, since I'm not emotionally equipped to make the necessary sacrifices for them... and then I realised the concept of choosing to have children (rather than just popping them out, one after the other, just because it's easier to get pregnant than to prevent it, and besides, that's what people DO) would probably only have confused and angered her further. Eventually, it was easier to answer the question with a "Nope" and do my best to endure the contempt and loathing that followed.
Jadehawk, some dude has responded to one of your posts on the South Park evades threadFYI.
Pharyngulette:
Heh. I've gotten that one. I've always gone with "Not that it's any of your business, but no, I don't like kids. That happens to be an excellent reason not to have them."*
*I know that most people who don't have them like them. I'm one of the exceptions.
The Hitch is still on the case :
Bring the pope to justice !
Watching "Crazy Heart".
Why the fuck can't I be interviewed by Maggie Gyllenhall and go off for drinkies with her?? I can do the boozing loser with a guitar and bad shave bit....
DominEditrix | April 26, 2010 3:02 AM:
Oh, but it does have a place on a family blog. After all, we can be confident she took her own family's needs into consideration when she made the decision. Her precise words were a necessary tactic which someone else might need to know or use for their family's protection.
Rorschach | April 26, 2010 7:21 AM:
Same reason you can't have a blue-skinned alien lover.
Reading through the thread I'll just say that if I did want children I always figured I would adopt anyway.
I've never like the idea of being pregnant anyway. Yeah I know... nothing like it, won't know till you get there...
you could say the same thing about moving to Japan. And I'm much more likely to try that because if I hate it I can always move BACK.
Damn, an F-4 tornado tore through Mississippi last night, and they've got people on The Weather Channel saying "the Lord" brought them through it safely. I hate that so much.
Ha! Patricia's in luck! The comments there are great, especially the link to this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZezfjWox5s
and the reference to this, from her (rather positive) Wikipedia page:
OK. Back to work again.
"Why don't you have kids?" she demanded. "Don't you like kids?"
I don't really like kids either, at least not as a category. I like my kid a lot, my niece and nephews, a number of various friends of my kid, and other kids around the building. But kids in general scare me. Residual from being one and finding them frightening, I suppose.
Anyway, why anyone should not get a tubal ligation if they want one and are medically cleared for it I don't know. Does anyone know if the feared "changed mind in ten years and sued" scenario has ever actually happened? And if so how often?
We've addressed the fallacy of sunk costs already (thanks, Sili, for giving me that term, so I don't need to mention Vietnam anymore).
They do not have a right to know how you voted. Nobody has a right to know how you voted. Nobody must have a right to know how you voted, because that way lies tyranny. (There were communist countries where there were elections but you had to say out loud who you were voting for.)
On the public hypocrisy aspect, the only intellectually honest approach I can see is what Jadehawk said: "so stop campaigning for any party at all until you figure shit out. campaigning and continuing support for a party out of pure inertia is insanity. work on specific issues rather than parties until then, if you feel you want to stay involved in the political process."
Are you actually a member of the Conservative Party?
Even if so, that doesn't compel you to vote for anybody.
Take pride in being pragmatic, in voting whoever is the least evil at the moment; take pride in your scientist-like ability to change your opinions as soon as they collide with evidence.
What, still???
<headdesk>
Even if we ignore the risk of death, if anyone marries her before finding out she doesn't want children, they're doing it wrong. I mean, WTF.
Lovely enough, but it doesn't cuddle :-(
Many countries have a rule that gives seats in parliament only to those parties that get at least 4 or 5 percent of the vote. This does a fairly good job of keeping loudmouth extremists out.
Yes, or Austria – a much smaller country (population size of London), therefore with its own quirks, but with the similar situation that there are two big parties (conservative and Social Democratic). For most of the history of the republic, they formed a stable coalition – almost too stable! I've already mentioned what Austria's Grand Coalition did to the constitution...!
Is that a case of counting the hits & ignoring the misses? Are there any numbers available (other than on the company website, I mean)?
Yep. The child was born healthy, with the coil stuck to the placenta.
I think thats supposed to mean "schools for [those parts of] the public [that can afford the fees]" rather than "public-owned schools".
Ah. Well, you're going to move, so you'll find out how much is really due to being in a relationship and how much is due to being in Minot. :-)
I can sympathize. I liked kindergarten a lot more than school. :^)
That is awesome.
:-o
That's why food stamps exist at all. Over here, unemployment benefits consist of money only. Food stamps are considered a feature of the mass poverty around the end of WWII, and their abolition a major symbol of "it's over, there's peace & prosperity again".
Wow – I didn't even know about storge! Strange that I was never taught about it, and that I missed it otherwise, too.
~:-|
<chortle>
ROTFL!!!
:-D :-D :-D Oh man. TSIB. When will it stop... :-D :-D :-D
And once again, the Republicans save the day!!!1!
Just for the record, my mother seems to have wanted 4 children right from the start, and seems to have carefully timed every one of us. I have second- or third-hand information that my exceedingly slow growing up is the reason why the last child came a full 10 years after me and 5 1/2 years after the 3rd. Also, unless I'm being innumerate again, I must have been conceived half a year after marriage. – The point of this digression is, I suppose, that your nnnnnnnice coworker could have chosen how many children to have and when to have them, but, judging from your behavior, really doesn't seem to know about the entire concept!
And an interesting article it is. I thought there wouldn't be anything new in it, but that's not quite the case.
At the bottom, the article links to this one about how Republicans now complain that Faux News has taken them over. I think it's been mentioned before (at least the phenomenon has been).
LOL!!! It's "let them eat cake" all over again! X-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Women's fashion sucks.
Here's why: Half of it makes me look like a sex object and not a human being. And I also don't like unwanted sexual attention. (I prefer to confine it to times when I actually want it.) It's distracting when I'm trying to get things done; if I have to worry about someone paying attention to my chest or the rest of my body (I have an obvious waistline and curves and a pair of D-cups and am not exactly fat), that just takes attention away from what I need to do because worrying is distracting.
What do I have to do to feel like I'm being taken seriously/am safe in my person/don't have to deal with unwanted googly eyes, wear a fucking sheet?
I've never like the idea of being pregnant anyway. Yeah I know... nothing like it, won't know till you get there...
That cuts both ways. My personal experience was that pregnancy was harder than anything else I've ever done, including 110 hour work weeks during internship. I was nauseous the entire time, felt continually tired, and as for labor...it was, for me, more painful than having a fingernail ripped off. YMMV, of course.
I should probably add that I am not one of those idiots who thinks anyone should have to confine what they wear just because of other people; I do, however, not trust most people to act like rational human beings. Also, I do not think most men are rapists or sexual assaulters or other sorts of unsavory things; I am simply defending myself against the occasional idiot of either sex who is. Because it's a safer alternative than feeling I have to carry a weapon and potentially dealing with the law.
On the subject of choosing kids - I had trouble getting pregnant and decided at the outset that I would do 6 months of the least high-tech medical treatment presented (clomid/iui) and then figure out something else - adoption, fostering, or even just doing other work with kids. I really wish we could get away from this "you must have your own," and even from the "you must have some living in your house" idea of parenting. Parenting is about making a healthy next generation for our species, and this is something people can do whether or not they have kids living in their house. So vote for school funding, public health services, etc., offer moral and/or logistical support for friends and relatives with kids in their houses, share your cool interests with kids around you - congratulations, you're alloparent. (Yes, I know that is probably an expansion of the "official" definition, but I think it's still useful.)
Happy Boobquake, everyone!
I suspect that there is a real biological contribution to that urge...notoriously difficult to overcome.
alyson,
Thank you for doing your part for science. :-)
@Antiochus
Well, yes, obviously. But we manage to overcome a lot of behaviors that have biological bases (rape, genocide, pregnant women eating clay, even belief in magical sky fairies), so why should the desire to crank out your own kiddos or have kids live in your house be exempt from the power of reason? It's not like we're running out of people or anything.
She, and I, certainly agree; so when she did re-marry, she discussed it with the guy in detail, long before the subject of marriage came up. Aaand, it turned out that he assumed that after they were married, she would (naturally) change her mind, and then was all p-o'd when she stuck by her guns. After all, it wasn't his 50% chance of dying.
Asshole.
Needless to say, the marriage did not prosper.
This thread does not have enough Squeeze.
Hourglass
The optical illusions in the video are cool, even if the song is highly irritating.
Yeah, I actually don't know this. How it's failure rate compares to other methods. But I guess the only real danger with is it that AFAIK when you mess up your BC it is usually a result of not taking the pill, taking antibiotics, something like that where you at least have a chance of knowing you flubbed.
But I think with Mirena the failure rate is probably quite low, but some of the ways you might know early that you were pregnant are messed up.
Also AFAIK it won't specifically mess up the baby. I'm sorry if my post made it sound like Mirena caused the miscarriage. Honestly I don't think there was any specific cause given, she wasn't seeing a OB regularly anyway, and went in first because of her "side effects" which turned out to be pregnancy... and then again for spotting which turned out to be the early signs of whatever went wrong. She never said that much about the miscarriage itself really.
Regarding children, I would rather eat baby steak with fava beans and a nice Chianti than give birth to one.
Seriously.
Oh man do I feel your pain some times.
I actually love fashion and women's fashion though. But I wear it like a cross dresser with a fetish for serious heels. It's all for me. I resent sometimes the implication I wear anything to be sexy for anyone else. I don't.
From my experience you will get criticized for almost anything you wear. It is either not sexy enough (prude) or too sexy (slut).
Pffft.
I'll just quote Carlie here, instead of trying to express myself:
Of course, I didn't see it with such clarity back then.
As I've come to reälise, my father's taking over the family farm was most likely a bad idea. This is something that my shrink made me think about; I don't have any idea what he wanted - to what extent he was just doing 'his duty' to his parents.
One other point regarding having kids...I feel somewhat guilty about having a kid: Any person who is born is going to die. So I set up the situation such that someone is going to have to die some day. And will probably realize it and anticipate death and suffer for it. Was that a nice thing to do just because I wanted a baby to play with?
Most people think this line of reasoning rather odd.
MrFire, you are on the wrong side of the moon. Next time, try to be cool for cats.
Janine:
Wow. Cool for Cats and Tempted feel like they come from two completely different bands.
ambook: Yeah...I understand that we can get over biological drives, but normally this requires (at least initially) the intervention of law and culture. A culture that fails to reproduce is a bad meme; OTOH vertical transmission of acculturation is strong. Biology aside, a culture that encourages reproduction and parental rearing is a culture that will be present in the next generation*. None of the other things that you mentioned are nearly so powerfully transmitted**.
Dianne: I do think the line of reasoning is a little odd, because of the focus on death. The inevitable fact of my own death makes life no less sweet to me. Or maybe sweeter. I got easy with this fact young, I guess, but I don't remember any process of reasoning associated with it.
*Not making a value judgement here, and also recognizing that cultures that have a mechanism to include all members as meme transmitters(regardless of origin), increase the effective population size. As far as spreading the meme goes. One of those mechanisms could be systematized adoption by biologically unrelated members. You know: if you can't procreate, assimilate, and whatnot.
**i.e., a society that encourages coercive mating, rather than cooperative mating will be less successful in producing viable meme-transmitters than one that doesn't...again, in reference to memes rather than genes. Also, I realize that this may be a bit sweeping, but I don't think any of them are evolutionarily stable as either genetically transmissable behaviors, or for that matter, memes in human societies. I'll think about this some more, and will welcome insight and correction.
You're quite welcome, Janine. I'm just here to spread the pain.
Well, okay, to make amends, here is some news that does not bring the mormon pain:
Bone-Eating Worms 30 Million Years Old
The Vatican makes news that is not quite as bad as the usual child-raping news:
@Antiochus -
I do think that, at least for women, there can be a powerful and not purely cultural desire to have kids and this is what I was addressing, not the obnoxious "do you have family" kind of social pressure to have kids. My childfree-by-choice friends have talked about having sudden "I want a kid" urges that sound as non-voluntary and physical as sexual urges when you see someone attractive on the subway. I think that having spreading the "parenting is about caring for our group's next generation" meme rather than the popular "parenting is where I get to have a kid in my house" meme can give people, especially women, a way to talk back to the biological desire for kids. Sort of like the way we talk back to our innate, biologically-based desire to club Fred Phelps and Deepak Chopra over the head with a large heavy book.
I really hate the weird pressure to have kids that Caine and others have talked about, but the desperation that infertile women experience and their willingness to go through truly horrid and expensive medical procedures is also pretty bad. My emphasis on alloparenting is aimed more at the latter group, since I remember seeing how I could go down that road fairly easily. But not having biological family around to help with kids, I'm also really really grateful for the alloparenting provided by my childfree friends.
I have no idea what that means.
I'm already "paying the price" for having convinced him to move to Fargo: he now works 2 jobs, to be able to buy a house there. That's a compromise.
And then once we're in Fargo, he'll be stuck there more-or-less permanently, because of the house. Allowing him to get me stuck there past me finishing my BA will also be a compromise.
There really isn't a way to have a relationship without compromises, except in the aforementioned hypothetical 100% identical-and/or-complementary-life-goals situation.
@Jadehawk - My dad grew up in Fargo and I always thought it was a pretty nice little town. It's already on my list of places to include on our high school road trip curriculum, so let me know if there are any particularly cool things to see around there...
ambook--Maybe my tone was wrong. I intended to agree with you on that. My wife and I went through bouts of this for the first twelve years we were married, before we actually broke down and had a kid because we were pretty sure that we wanted to and were as prepared as we ever would be to be parents. My wife is highly rational and was incredibly leery of her own emotions on that issue (and delightfully unconcerned with the feelings of any one else on the matter). It took a lot of talking to come to the conclusion that this was something that we both wanted.
My side of the family is large and fecund. To be married is to have children. Our initial disinterest in procreation was met with no end of intrusive bullshit. Once my father was haranging my wife about our apparent lack of reproductive inclination*, and she replied "It's not that we don't want children. It's just that we prefer oral sex". That was pretty much the end of his interest on the subject.
*I wasn't present, but she told me**...and this kind of behavior is entirely consistent with her character.
**At least one high-five was involved. Then, I bought the round, as a symbolic gesture of my admiration
I wonder also how much of that is psychological. I have no good evidence or anything for this, only a slight hunch based on some of the women I've known.
I had a friend (anecdote!!!) who swore it was a hormonal urge that she felt she just had to have a baby. Years later though, finally leaving her abusive husband, getting through AA, and realizing she was a lesbian... she never experienced such things. I can only wonder if it was really hormonal, or rather a part of something else. It seems if it was hormonal then it would not have gone away withing two or so years without some kind of significant change in her hormones.
What did change was her psychological well being and her set of goals for herself (she hadn't had any of those before).
Now, please don't think I'm saying women who want children are crazy somehow people. That is not where I'm trying to go. I'm just saying that it is tricky when one says "hormonal" and then ascribes things that could depend on a lot of other factors to that.
How much is the hormones? But more importantly, what END does the mind attach to the hormonal urges. You see what I mean maybe?
Also: we had some thoughts more recently on adoption. It is a surprisingly difficult enterprise, both in terms of expense and method. In part this seems to make sense, because you wouln't want just anyone to get a kid. On the other hand, although my wife and I could afford to reproduce*, we might not have the cash up-front to adopt. If anyone had any good advice on this, I'd be interested in hearing it.
*Pain and suffering, nonwithstanding.
it's a bit of a false dichotomy to suggest it's either psychological or hormonal. I see no reason why the relevant hormonal outpour cannot be triggered by a psychological phenomenon. Works for adrenaline and oxytocin.
Fuck me but Al B. Quirky is a smug, tooth-grindingly obtuse ass. I imagine he's exactly what Bilbo would be like if Bilbo ever found Jesus.
Having kids is awesome. But the wife and I can only eat 2 at a time.
More than that is just being gluttonous.