Source: The Telegraph
Showing posts with label people that are upset. Show all posts
Showing posts with label people that are upset. Show all posts
Monday, July 22, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Friday, June 7, 2013
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
As far as I can tell this is a real news show and these people are supposedly news professionals
I mostly just feel bad for the weatherman.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Erick Erickson wants everyone to know that he is definitely not mean
Indeed, he wants everyone to know that he's not mean at all, just a harsh truth-teller. As you may have seen, Erick Erickson recently came out and informed everyone that women were better stay-at-home parents than men, because of science, apparently.
Now, my first reaction, and probably yours as well, is that Erick Erickson must have grown up in a difficult area where the only source of food was an endless supply of baby seals that had to be clubbed to feed the family, and his mother just lacked the fortitude needed to perform such a vicious act.
So, uh, right. Anyway. Point is, Erick has become aware that people are upset by this, so he has considered his position and issued a sincere apolo--haha, nope, he's just decided to write an extensive article regarding 1) why he's right and 2) why he's not mean. Apparently, a guy who insinuates that women are unable to keep up in the workplace (and, conversely, that men are ill-suited for solo parenting) is really desperate for our approval. Let's see what he has to say!
The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean
I feel the need to add to this post as it is obvious a lot of people take up this topic with some heavily preconceived notions and biases.
Hey, I agree! People are really biased about things like this, which sometimes leads to them making offensive statements. Really finding some great common ground here.
I am shocked to learn I think women cannot be breadwinners.
So was I! Now that you've noticed how silly that is, have you reconsidered anything?
That is what the left says, but it is not so.
That darn LEFT. Every time!
Even now I am getting beaten up for suggesting women should stay home with their kids. While I think it is preferable, I also know it is often impossible. I know from first hand experience.
I really find it incredible that someone can look at a veritable mob of people that disagree with them, see all of the various reasons why they might disagree and circumstances that might differ for every single person, and then say, "Whaaaaaat? I did it, so why can't you?" The term "first-hand experience" should appear in a piece like this roughly, oh, nowhere.
Prior to having kids, Christy and I both worked. Once we had our first child and I was making a full time go of RedState, Christy had to work if we were to have insurance. Frankly, we could not make ends meet on my salary alone and, even after the cost of day care, had to have the remainder of Christy’s salary to help make ends meet. We still struggled.
What an interesting personal story that has nothing at all to do with whether women being primary breadwinners is a problem. This is the equivalent of a child bursting into tears when he gets in trouble so that you'll feel sorry for him (luckily, I personally don't feel sympathy for children, so I have no problem with telling them or Erick that they can just fuck right off with the sob story).
At one point I had to contemplate being a single dad, but thank God I did not have to be.
See, Erick, this is where all the actual single dads stopped reading. "Thank God I was saved from being one of those! Single dadhood would have sucked, right?"
When we made the decision that Christy would stay home with the kids, we did so contemplating I would have to get one or more additional jobs in order for her to do it. God truly blessed us in how he arranged it, but we had made the decision to make the leap to her being a stay at home before those blessings even arrived.
You keep saying we and then telling us something that she did. And then you said that "God truly blessed us" as if it was something he did, as opposed to your wife agreeing to stay home with the kids because your sorry ass clearly didn't want to.
I work three jobs rather constantly, but am fortunate to do most of it from home.
Like I give a fuck. You're a commenter on Fox--I'm sure you'll be just fine.
All of this is to say there are many people who’ve heard what I said and think I’m judging them.
What? All of that was to say that you have it hard and God helped by making your wife stay home or some such bullshit.
I am not.
lol ok
In my own family we’ve been there and struggled. But just because the world has moved on and seems to think the two parent nuclear household with a stay at home mom is no longer necessary or useful does not make it so.
Evidence for your position: one anecdote you told that is maybe kind of related at best
Evidence against your position: pretty much all of the other things
Ladies, if you want to work that’s fine.
Ladies, make sure you thank Erick for so kindly granting you permission to work.
If your position in life makes it advantageous for you to be the primary bread winner, that’s fine. But your individual circumstances and mine should not hide the fact that there is an ideal and optimal family arrangement whether we in our own lives can meet it.
"It's totally OK to go with whatever arrangement you personally think works best for you! Just so you know, all the other ones other than mine are wrong, though. If you're OK with wrong, then that's totally fine!"
Having said all that, now on to the main point wherein all the controversy lies. . . .
Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families.
Gosh, I just can't imagine you saying something that would bother people. Also, I'm not sure you know what "emo" is.
I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children. This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”
The facts you have presented here are that nearly four in ten families now rely on a woman as the primary breadwinner and that many people are concerned by this. None of that is evidence that your statement is accurate, it's just evidence that a lot of people agree with you. Also, the specific wording in the study was "Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder." I'm sure some of those people agree with your reasoning, but it's entirely possible that if you asked a stay-at-home dad if raising children was harder when his wife worked full-time, he'd be like, "Well, duh." Making sweeping conclusions based on a single question from a single survey won't always work out well for you.
I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom,
The LEFT strikes again!
is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture.
And in others, the male is the primary caregiver for the offspring. In others, the female is the stronger protector in the family. In yet others, a single female is dominant over thousands and thousands of subordinates. Nature is weird as hell and it's kinda bizarre to say, "Well, look at those animals! We should emulate them when it comes to deciding which member of the familyphysically fights to defend the family goes out to earn green pieces of paper that we trade for goods and services."
It’s the female who tames the male beast.*
*Except in lots of cases, such as:
One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.
If you're trying to argue that animals all follow some universal family structure, you're going to find that about all of the species are exceptions. I did enjoy the amount of shade you're throwing at MSNBC there.
In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do.
Erick is strongly implying that he is really just a bold, outspoken rebel who is willing to stand against the tide of...people telling women they can be successful in ways of their choosing, I guess.
This does not mean the two-parent, heterosexual nuclear household will always work out for the best. But it does mean children in that environment will more often than not be more successful than children of single parents or gay parents.
When did gay parents enter this discussion? It seems like someone who's so insistent on there being a mother in the house would love the idea of having two mothers, though I suppose the other way around might be an issue for Erick. Anyway, if we follow his previous logic, we can always look to the animal kingdom for evidence as to whether there's a problem with gay parents, right?
Feminists and politicians on both sides of the aisle view these statements as insulting to single moms and antithetical to their support for gay marriage. What should be insulting to single moms is for society to tell them they can do it all and, in fact, will subsidize their doing it all.
"Single moms have a really difficult time, because we insult them by offering assistance."
I know a number of wonderful, nurturing single mothers. They do as best they can. Most of them have wonderful children. But not one of them prefers to be a single mother.
Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon.
Erick spends several paragraphs talking about how being a single mom is difficult, all of which is somehow evidence that in a two-parent home, mothers should stay in the home and fathers should work. Being a single parent certainly is tough, but that has little bearing on Erick's point about which parents should stay home.
As a society, once we moved past that basic recognition, we’ve been on a downward trajectory of more and more broken homes and maladjusted youth. Pro-science liberals seem to think basic nature and biology do not apply to Homo sapiens.
Men can behave like women, women can behave like men, they can raise their kids, if they have them, in any way they see fit, and everything will turn out fine
Sounds great!
in the liberal fantasy world.
Erick's problem is that his version of "liberal fantasy world" sounds awesome. Well, that and all the other problems. Still, I have to say, he's really convinced me of some things--admittedly, they're all probably the opposite of what he was hoping to convince his readers of, but still!
Now, my first reaction, and probably yours as well, is that Erick Erickson must have grown up in a difficult area where the only source of food was an endless supply of baby seals that had to be clubbed to feed the family, and his mother just lacked the fortitude needed to perform such a vicious act.
So, uh, right. Anyway. Point is, Erick has become aware that people are upset by this, so he has considered his position and issued a sincere apolo--haha, nope, he's just decided to write an extensive article regarding 1) why he's right and 2) why he's not mean. Apparently, a guy who insinuates that women are unable to keep up in the workplace (and, conversely, that men are ill-suited for solo parenting) is really desperate for our approval. Let's see what he has to say!
The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean
I feel the need to add to this post as it is obvious a lot of people take up this topic with some heavily preconceived notions and biases.
Hey, I agree! People are really biased about things like this, which sometimes leads to them making offensive statements. Really finding some great common ground here.
I am shocked to learn I think women cannot be breadwinners.
So was I! Now that you've noticed how silly that is, have you reconsidered anything?
That is what the left says, but it is not so.
That darn LEFT. Every time!
Even now I am getting beaten up for suggesting women should stay home with their kids. While I think it is preferable, I also know it is often impossible. I know from first hand experience.
I really find it incredible that someone can look at a veritable mob of people that disagree with them, see all of the various reasons why they might disagree and circumstances that might differ for every single person, and then say, "Whaaaaaat? I did it, so why can't you?" The term "first-hand experience" should appear in a piece like this roughly, oh, nowhere.
Prior to having kids, Christy and I both worked. Once we had our first child and I was making a full time go of RedState, Christy had to work if we were to have insurance. Frankly, we could not make ends meet on my salary alone and, even after the cost of day care, had to have the remainder of Christy’s salary to help make ends meet. We still struggled.
What an interesting personal story that has nothing at all to do with whether women being primary breadwinners is a problem. This is the equivalent of a child bursting into tears when he gets in trouble so that you'll feel sorry for him (luckily, I personally don't feel sympathy for children, so I have no problem with telling them or Erick that they can just fuck right off with the sob story).
At one point I had to contemplate being a single dad, but thank God I did not have to be.
See, Erick, this is where all the actual single dads stopped reading. "Thank God I was saved from being one of those! Single dadhood would have sucked, right?"
When we made the decision that Christy would stay home with the kids, we did so contemplating I would have to get one or more additional jobs in order for her to do it. God truly blessed us in how he arranged it, but we had made the decision to make the leap to her being a stay at home before those blessings even arrived.
You keep saying we and then telling us something that she did. And then you said that "God truly blessed us" as if it was something he did, as opposed to your wife agreeing to stay home with the kids because your sorry ass clearly didn't want to.
I work three jobs rather constantly, but am fortunate to do most of it from home.
Like I give a fuck. You're a commenter on Fox--I'm sure you'll be just fine.
All of this is to say there are many people who’ve heard what I said and think I’m judging them.
What? All of that was to say that you have it hard and God helped by making your wife stay home or some such bullshit.
I am not.
lol ok
In my own family we’ve been there and struggled. But just because the world has moved on and seems to think the two parent nuclear household with a stay at home mom is no longer necessary or useful does not make it so.
Evidence for your position: one anecdote you told that is maybe kind of related at best
Evidence against your position: pretty much all of the other things
Ladies, if you want to work that’s fine.
Ladies, make sure you thank Erick for so kindly granting you permission to work.
If your position in life makes it advantageous for you to be the primary bread winner, that’s fine. But your individual circumstances and mine should not hide the fact that there is an ideal and optimal family arrangement whether we in our own lives can meet it.
"It's totally OK to go with whatever arrangement you personally think works best for you! Just so you know, all the other ones other than mine are wrong, though. If you're OK with wrong, then that's totally fine!"
Having said all that, now on to the main point wherein all the controversy lies. . . .
Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families.
Gosh, I just can't imagine you saying something that would bother people. Also, I'm not sure you know what "emo" is.
I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children. This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”
The facts you have presented here are that nearly four in ten families now rely on a woman as the primary breadwinner and that many people are concerned by this. None of that is evidence that your statement is accurate, it's just evidence that a lot of people agree with you. Also, the specific wording in the study was "Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder." I'm sure some of those people agree with your reasoning, but it's entirely possible that if you asked a stay-at-home dad if raising children was harder when his wife worked full-time, he'd be like, "Well, duh." Making sweeping conclusions based on a single question from a single survey won't always work out well for you.
I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom,
The LEFT strikes again!
is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture.
And in others, the male is the primary caregiver for the offspring. In others, the female is the stronger protector in the family. In yet others, a single female is dominant over thousands and thousands of subordinates. Nature is weird as hell and it's kinda bizarre to say, "Well, look at those animals! We should emulate them when it comes to deciding which member of the family
It’s the female who tames the male beast.*
*Except in lots of cases, such as:
One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.
If you're trying to argue that animals all follow some universal family structure, you're going to find that about all of the species are exceptions. I did enjoy the amount of shade you're throwing at MSNBC there.
In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do.
Erick is strongly implying that he is really just a bold, outspoken rebel who is willing to stand against the tide of...people telling women they can be successful in ways of their choosing, I guess.
This does not mean the two-parent, heterosexual nuclear household will always work out for the best. But it does mean children in that environment will more often than not be more successful than children of single parents or gay parents.
When did gay parents enter this discussion? It seems like someone who's so insistent on there being a mother in the house would love the idea of having two mothers, though I suppose the other way around might be an issue for Erick. Anyway, if we follow his previous logic, we can always look to the animal kingdom for evidence as to whether there's a problem with gay parents, right?
Feminists and politicians on both sides of the aisle view these statements as insulting to single moms and antithetical to their support for gay marriage. What should be insulting to single moms is for society to tell them they can do it all and, in fact, will subsidize their doing it all.
"Single moms have a really difficult time, because we insult them by offering assistance."
I know a number of wonderful, nurturing single mothers. They do as best they can. Most of them have wonderful children. But not one of them prefers to be a single mother.
Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon.
Erick spends several paragraphs talking about how being a single mom is difficult, all of which is somehow evidence that in a two-parent home, mothers should stay in the home and fathers should work. Being a single parent certainly is tough, but that has little bearing on Erick's point about which parents should stay home.
As a society, once we moved past that basic recognition, we’ve been on a downward trajectory of more and more broken homes and maladjusted youth. Pro-science liberals seem to think basic nature and biology do not apply to Homo sapiens.
Men can behave like women, women can behave like men, they can raise their kids, if they have them, in any way they see fit, and everything will turn out fine
Sounds great!
in the liberal fantasy world.
Erick's problem is that his version of "liberal fantasy world" sounds awesome. Well, that and all the other problems. Still, I have to say, he's really convinced me of some things--admittedly, they're all probably the opposite of what he was hoping to convince his readers of, but still!
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
I guess it's natural to wonder if you're adopted but come on
Slate.com has a frequent advice column written by Emily Yoffe. This column frequently runs somewhat absurd questions, but today's really takes the cake:
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Slate covers all angles of the story
Here is a headline from Slate today:
So, we should watch out for conspiracies surrounding this event, then. Except, here's another headline from Slate today:
So, it'll either be rampant conspiracies, or the conspiracy theorists (can we just call them conspirators? Guess that's not quite right...maybe "conspirists" then?) will have a tough go of it. Maybe it'll be a tough time, but they'll persevere and find ways to piss everyone off with shitty theories about the government. For what it's worth, Alex Jones (who else?) is already way ahead in the race to be the biggest asshole in the entire goddamn world following a tragedy:
Alex Jones is the fucking worst. In any case, looks like headline #1 might be closer to the truth.
So, we should watch out for conspiracies surrounding this event, then. Except, here's another headline from Slate today:
Friday, April 5, 2013
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Frank Bruni doesn't understand why people take parenting so seriously and treat their kids so nicely
However, he's very upfront about how little he understands about parenting, so that's nice, I guess. He leads off his article thusly:
MODERN parenting confuses me. The vocabulary, for starters.
Better write a whole article about it, then, so we can learn from your confusion.
Frank is indeed quite confused by why parents would not be straightforward and punitive with their children. "This is your fourth-to-last chance, Johnny. Why aren't you better behaved?"
Of course you are, and your kids know it. They’re not idiots.
Already, we can see the source of Frank's confusion, because the thing is that kids most certainly are idiots. They're impossible to reason with, think that $5 is a lot of money, and they like the dumbest TV shows. This isn't meant to be a judgment of kids, because it's not really their fault. They're just dumb, because they are children and not old enough to not be dumb yet.
But they’re also not adults, so why this whole school of thought that they should be treated as if they are, long before they can perform such basic tasks of civilization as driving, say, or decanting?
What is decanting? Is it something that should be considered a basic task of civilization?
/consults dictionary
Oh. I hate you more, now.
Why all the choices — “What would you like to wear?”— and all the negotiating and the painstakingly calibrated diplomacy? They’re toddlers, not Pakistan.
"Put on the fucking corduroys, Johnny. I don't give a shit if they make you look dowdy."
I understand that you want them to adore you. But having them fear you is surely the saner strategy, not just for you and for them but for the rest of us and the future of the republic.
This is kind of fucked up. It seems like you are advocating 1) not teaching children to think for themselves and 2) making sure they fear you because...otherwise it might be a little bit annoying to Frank Bruni (a.k.a. the future of the republic).
Seemingly everyone has parenting opinions, so I hereby present mine, which are those of someone who isn’t in fact a parent
So, someone who has only a passing awareness of the difficulties and joys of parenting, and might therefore not be best equipped to give out parenting opinions?
and maybe has a valuable distance and objectivity as a result.
Or that, yeah. This inspires me to share my opinions on how to fight alligators--I don't have any experience, but my distance and objectivity will be invaluable to any potential alligator fighters.
Instead of the battle hymn of a tiger mother, it’s the baffled hymn of a cubless bystander, his thoughts turned toward children as the calendar reaches yet another holiday when we shower them with attention and chocolate.
Aww, Frank! Do you wish people gave you chocolate too? And attention? But mostly chocolate?
While I have no kids of my own,
Please, continue to emphasize how little experience you have in the subject you are advising us on.
I have many I can (and sometimes do) lease for the weekend:
Most people call it "babysitting". Unless you're paying people so you can borrow their kids, which: Frank, are you paying people so you can borrow their kids?
11 actual nieces and nephews, whom I’ll be with this Easter Sunday, and perhaps twice that number of honorary ones. I have put in my time around tots and teens, and enjoy them.
"I spent a few hours with kids one time, so I've got a pretty good handle on this whole parenting thing."
I have seen my share of parenting, and am not certain what to make of it.
"I'm not certain what to make of it, so let me tell you what to make of it."
Just a few decades ago, parenting wasn’t even a proper verb or gerund. Now it’s a compound one. There’s of course helicopter parenting, which hovers, and “free range” parenting, which doesn’t, but only by principled choice.
This may be true (though I tend to think people used the word "parenting" a few decades ago). That said, this is just what the Internet has done to every subject--there's a community and a name for anything. For example [ed.: this reference is extremely forced because the writer wanted to find a way to shoehorn it in], we have communities that are specific to subsets of adult men who like My Little Pony and are also in the military. They are called FOBEquestria, apparently. Returning to the matter at hand, yes, there are lots of types of parenting communities now, because people get a little crazy about things they are passionate about, and for some reason people care a lot about their stupid kids.
As the Me Generation spawned generations of mini-me’s, our rigorous self-fascination expanded to include the whole brood and philosophies about its proper care and feeding.
It's really awful, the way people keep trying so hard to figure out how to care for and raise their children.
About the feeding: explain to me what’s gained by the voluminous discussions, within earshot of little Edwin or Edwina,
Please, don't name your child Edwina. Edwin's not so hot either, actually.
of what he or she probably won’t eat or definitely won’t eat or must somehow be made to eat, perhaps with a bribe. Any food that lands on the table after that much tortured preamble is bound to be eyed with suspicion and ultimately spurned, in part because it has ceased to be a vessel of nutrition or an answer to hunger at that point. It has become a power struggle: the parents’ wishes versus the child’s defiance.
This seems like an absurd strawman, because most parents debate this sort of thing while their kid can't hear them because that's pretty obviously the better way to approach this issue. Also, kids don't go on hunger strike because they're concerned about parental power struggles. To reiterate from earlier, kids are not the smartest.
And the battle seems to end one and only one way. With chicken fingers.
You seem like you'd be a great babysitter--oh, excuse me, I meant great child-leaser.
I’M equally confounded by the all-encompassing praise. Not every kid is gifted at every endeavor, and I wonder about the wisdom of telling him or her that a bit of doggerel is Shakespearean or that a wan patch of warbling is an “American Idol” audition waiting to happen.
I'm guessing parents do this because the alternative is to say, "Johnny, good try on this poem, but it's fucking terrible. Give up on writing forever." As for the "American Idol" reference (topical!), most children are vastly superior to your average American Idol contestant. Did you forget about this guy? He's a professional in the field of being terrible at singing.
I wonder why everybody has to be a winner. You can eliminate the valedictorians from high school but you can’t eliminate them from life, which metes out Super Bowl rings and stock options with an uneven hand, and is probably best tackled with some preparatory girding for that. Do today’s parents provide it?
If you don't repeatedly call your child a failure, how will they know how much of a failure they are later in life? Preparation is key.
Parents routinely surrender control when they shouldn’t, replacing rules with requests, and children are expected to chart their own routes to good behavior, using the faulty GPS’s of their flowering consciences, I suppose. Families are run as democracies. Parents forget: in the political realm, you don’t get a say until you’re 18. There’s a reason for that.
Where are these families that you keep talking about? Not that families like this don't exist, but you just seem to be taking examples you saw one time and assuming that all families are like that. As Frank Kotsonis put it, "the plural of anecdote is not data." [ed.: that quote was also pretty forced in]. Anyway, Bruni goes on to make a long-winded point about how kids pretty much are who they are and parenting generally doesn't change that, which seems to presume a whole hell of a lot of knowledge of childhood psychology that I don't think he has. There's some value to reminding parents that not every decision is life or death, but Bruni's insistence on alternating dispensing advice with reminding us how very unqualified he is to dispense said advice is just weird. It might be interesting to hear a parent discuss the benefits and risks of hands-off parenting--it's less interesting to hear some guy talk about how he saw kids and sometimes leases them and therefore has a firm grasp on the ins and outs of parenting.
MODERN parenting confuses me. The vocabulary, for starters.
Better write a whole article about it, then, so we can learn from your confusion.
Take the word “last.” Usually it means final. Last exit: there are none beyond it. Last rites: you’re toast.
But the “last chance” for a 4-year-old to quit his screeching, lest he
get a timeout? There are usually another seven or eight chances still to
go, in a string of flaccid ultimatums: “Now this is your last chance.” “This is really your last chance.” “I’m giving you just one more chance. I’m not kidding.”
Frank is indeed quite confused by why parents would not be straightforward and punitive with their children. "This is your fourth-to-last chance, Johnny. Why aren't you better behaved?"
Of course you are, and your kids know it. They’re not idiots.
Already, we can see the source of Frank's confusion, because the thing is that kids most certainly are idiots. They're impossible to reason with, think that $5 is a lot of money, and they like the dumbest TV shows. This isn't meant to be a judgment of kids, because it's not really their fault. They're just dumb, because they are children and not old enough to not be dumb yet.
But they’re also not adults, so why this whole school of thought that they should be treated as if they are, long before they can perform such basic tasks of civilization as driving, say, or decanting?
What is decanting? Is it something that should be considered a basic task of civilization?
/consults dictionary
Oh. I hate you more, now.
Why all the choices — “What would you like to wear?”— and all the negotiating and the painstakingly calibrated diplomacy? They’re toddlers, not Pakistan.
"Put on the fucking corduroys, Johnny. I don't give a shit if they make you look dowdy."
I understand that you want them to adore you. But having them fear you is surely the saner strategy, not just for you and for them but for the rest of us and the future of the republic.
This is kind of fucked up. It seems like you are advocating 1) not teaching children to think for themselves and 2) making sure they fear you because...otherwise it might be a little bit annoying to Frank Bruni (a.k.a. the future of the republic).
Seemingly everyone has parenting opinions, so I hereby present mine, which are those of someone who isn’t in fact a parent
So, someone who has only a passing awareness of the difficulties and joys of parenting, and might therefore not be best equipped to give out parenting opinions?
and maybe has a valuable distance and objectivity as a result.
Or that, yeah. This inspires me to share my opinions on how to fight alligators--I don't have any experience, but my distance and objectivity will be invaluable to any potential alligator fighters.
Instead of the battle hymn of a tiger mother, it’s the baffled hymn of a cubless bystander, his thoughts turned toward children as the calendar reaches yet another holiday when we shower them with attention and chocolate.
Aww, Frank! Do you wish people gave you chocolate too? And attention? But mostly chocolate?
While I have no kids of my own,
Please, continue to emphasize how little experience you have in the subject you are advising us on.
I have many I can (and sometimes do) lease for the weekend:
Most people call it "babysitting". Unless you're paying people so you can borrow their kids, which: Frank, are you paying people so you can borrow their kids?
11 actual nieces and nephews, whom I’ll be with this Easter Sunday, and perhaps twice that number of honorary ones. I have put in my time around tots and teens, and enjoy them.
"I spent a few hours with kids one time, so I've got a pretty good handle on this whole parenting thing."
I have seen my share of parenting, and am not certain what to make of it.
"I'm not certain what to make of it, so let me tell you what to make of it."
Just a few decades ago, parenting wasn’t even a proper verb or gerund. Now it’s a compound one. There’s of course helicopter parenting, which hovers, and “free range” parenting, which doesn’t, but only by principled choice.
This may be true (though I tend to think people used the word "parenting" a few decades ago). That said, this is just what the Internet has done to every subject--there's a community and a name for anything. For example [ed.: this reference is extremely forced because the writer wanted to find a way to shoehorn it in], we have communities that are specific to subsets of adult men who like My Little Pony and are also in the military. They are called FOBEquestria, apparently. Returning to the matter at hand, yes, there are lots of types of parenting communities now, because people get a little crazy about things they are passionate about, and for some reason people care a lot about their stupid kids.
As the Me Generation spawned generations of mini-me’s, our rigorous self-fascination expanded to include the whole brood and philosophies about its proper care and feeding.
It's really awful, the way people keep trying so hard to figure out how to care for and raise their children.
About the feeding: explain to me what’s gained by the voluminous discussions, within earshot of little Edwin or Edwina,
Please, don't name your child Edwina. Edwin's not so hot either, actually.
of what he or she probably won’t eat or definitely won’t eat or must somehow be made to eat, perhaps with a bribe. Any food that lands on the table after that much tortured preamble is bound to be eyed with suspicion and ultimately spurned, in part because it has ceased to be a vessel of nutrition or an answer to hunger at that point. It has become a power struggle: the parents’ wishes versus the child’s defiance.
This seems like an absurd strawman, because most parents debate this sort of thing while their kid can't hear them because that's pretty obviously the better way to approach this issue. Also, kids don't go on hunger strike because they're concerned about parental power struggles. To reiterate from earlier, kids are not the smartest.
And the battle seems to end one and only one way. With chicken fingers.
You seem like you'd be a great babysitter--oh, excuse me, I meant great child-leaser.
I’M equally confounded by the all-encompassing praise. Not every kid is gifted at every endeavor, and I wonder about the wisdom of telling him or her that a bit of doggerel is Shakespearean or that a wan patch of warbling is an “American Idol” audition waiting to happen.
I'm guessing parents do this because the alternative is to say, "Johnny, good try on this poem, but it's fucking terrible. Give up on writing forever." As for the "American Idol" reference (topical!), most children are vastly superior to your average American Idol contestant. Did you forget about this guy? He's a professional in the field of being terrible at singing.
I wonder why everybody has to be a winner. You can eliminate the valedictorians from high school but you can’t eliminate them from life, which metes out Super Bowl rings and stock options with an uneven hand, and is probably best tackled with some preparatory girding for that. Do today’s parents provide it?
If you don't repeatedly call your child a failure, how will they know how much of a failure they are later in life? Preparation is key.
Parents routinely surrender control when they shouldn’t, replacing rules with requests, and children are expected to chart their own routes to good behavior, using the faulty GPS’s of their flowering consciences, I suppose. Families are run as democracies. Parents forget: in the political realm, you don’t get a say until you’re 18. There’s a reason for that.
Where are these families that you keep talking about? Not that families like this don't exist, but you just seem to be taking examples you saw one time and assuming that all families are like that. As Frank Kotsonis put it, "the plural of anecdote is not data." [ed.: that quote was also pretty forced in]. Anyway, Bruni goes on to make a long-winded point about how kids pretty much are who they are and parenting generally doesn't change that, which seems to presume a whole hell of a lot of knowledge of childhood psychology that I don't think he has. There's some value to reminding parents that not every decision is life or death, but Bruni's insistence on alternating dispensing advice with reminding us how very unqualified he is to dispense said advice is just weird. It might be interesting to hear a parent discuss the benefits and risks of hands-off parenting--it's less interesting to hear some guy talk about how he saw kids and sometimes leases them and therefore has a firm grasp on the ins and outs of parenting.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Rush Limbaugh is still mad, sky still blue, sun allegedly continues to rise in East and set in West
RUSH: Now, it's a big, big day at the Supreme Court.
There was a snowstorm, six inches, but it has not stopped the long lines of people trying to get in to watch oral arguments at the Supreme Court on gay marriage and specifically the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in California. And guess what? The LA Times is reporting today that a lesbian who is the cousin of the chief justice is going to attend oral arguments. "Jean Podrasky, 48, a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, will be at Tuesday's US Supreme Court hearing on Proposition 8 in seating reserved for family members and guests of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
"'I am so excited,' said Podrasky, an accountant and the first cousin of the chief justice on his mother's side. 'I feel quite honored and overwhelmed.'" Now, the LA times says, "Roberts is a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. Podrasky, who is more liberal, said she rooted for his nomination to be approved by the US Senate. 'He is family,' she said. Podrasky lives in San Francisco and usually sees Roberts only on family occasions. His mother is her godmother, whom she adores.
Thus far, we have learned that Justice Roberts will be hosting his cousin as a guest at a Supreme Court hearing, and she will be allowed to sit in a section reserved for his family and guests. Rush, of course, has a problem with this:
"She said Roberts knows she is gay and introduced her along with other relatives during his Senate confirmation hearing. She hopes he will meet her partner of four years ... during their Washington visit. The couple flew to Washington on Sunday. 'He is a smart man,' she said. 'He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.'" So, you see, folks, the pressure is being brought to bear on these justices any way possible.
Yes, being openly gay near family members is certainly applying some pretty extreme pressure. Everyone knows that's inappropriate; the correct way to apply pressure is to invite a Justice on a private hunting trip right before a significant Supreme Court case you're directly involved in, or donate large sums of money to him and his wife without properly disclosing it to the public or acknowledging his influence on your lobby!
Now the chief justice is faced with, "What do I do if I rule against my cousin? What will they think of me if I don't rule in favor of my family?"
I don't know, maybe the exact same thing they'd think of him if he made that decision NOT in front of your cousin? If her presence in the court materially affects his decisions then he is a horrendously bad Supreme Court Justice.
This is what I mean about the blurring of media citizenry and the stage, the Supreme Court.
Yeah, citizens shouldn't be allowed to make their feelings known. Unlike massive financial contributions, emotional pressure can't be properly documented and is therefore clearly wrong.
(New Castrati impression)
"Mr. Limbaugh, it's a democracy and people can
petition the government to work any which way they wish!"
Indeed, Rush. Good conservatives know how ridiculous that is! As an aside, it's actually pretty depressing how close to ridiculous that statement is, when you think about it.
Yes, they can. But what happens at the Supreme Court is not democratic. It's the law. It should be insulated analysis, constitutionality, what have you. It should be insulated from all these other things.
But, of course, it isn't and it has been for a long time.
That's actually not a horrible point, but it's pretty unavoidable unless we move the Supreme Court to Antarctica or something. Also, Justice Thomas has likened the public demonstrations outside the Supreme Court to basketball fans trying to distract a free throw shooter. I tend to think it's more the Justices' job to ignore this stuff than it is the public's responsibility to not show up for decisions that might affect the lives of millions.
There's a comparison here between this, gay marriage, and Roe v. Wade in one sense.
Really? I'd love to hear more, Rush.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Oh. Nothing else to say on that? I assume he's suggesting that these are cases where public demonstrations applied pressure to the Supreme Court and swayed some Justices to go against their better judicial thinking. Two problems: one, the Justices themselves don't seem concerned by this. Two, Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision, and if a few demonstrations are enough to sway three justices on any given case, then our judicial system is fucked anyway so why even try.
RUSH: You know, we had stories last week. I'm sure you'll recall. There are studies -- there are actually academic, scholarly studies -- being undertaken and the focus of the stories last week was the money being spent on this research, even though we find ourselves in a sequester.
Saying "we find ourselves in a sequester" is an excellent way to avoid actually mentioning why we find ourselves in a sequester.
What was it, there was $2.5 million dollars spent to study why 75% of lesbians are obese and gay males aren't. Homosexual men aren't; lesbians are obese, 75%. Why? That cost two and a half mill.
Well, it was 1.5 million, not 2.5. And it was over the course of two years. And that amount equates to about .08% of the total money spent on obesity studies last year. And the study is not confined to a certain orientation--in fact, the major finding was that both straight males and gay women have higher rates of obesity than gay males or straight women. As the Atlantic put it, it'd be equally valid to say that the study was about any of the following: "Obama administration spends $1.5 million to figure out why straight men are fat." Or: "Obama administration spends $1.5 million to figure out why gay men have rocking bodies." Or perhaps: "America is overweight (except for gay men?) and scientists are trying to determine why."
There's another survey, or another project, spent, I think, $1.5 million to find out why lesbians are alcoholics.
Something something lazy joke about using alcohol to cope with women
Brief interlude here, as Rush chose to post this photo, which I thought was worth sharing, because it's the first photograph I've ever seen of Scalia's bed.
Aaaaand, we're back!
And, of course, the answers to the first case is they don't have to deal with men, so they don't have to worry about their appearance. They're not trying to please men. So they can be obese. It's no big deal.
Um. The only way you could make yourself look worse here is to actually make the lazy joke about drinking and women that I alluded to earlier.
Alcohol, who knows? They're having to deal with women so they're drunk. Who knows?
Right. Probably should have seen that coming.
The bottom line is that if I were to now ask if any of that research is relevant in the case of the cousin of the chief justice, can you imagine the howls of protest I would get from people who do not know of these two studies that I would be bouncing off?
You'd probably get howls of protest because it's not really okay to ask whether one particular lesbian you know of is an obese drunk. Apparently this is unclear, but federal research on a population does not actually entitle all Americans to know specific things about individuals within that population. I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention that it's weird that someone who used to be a pill junkie is this upset about research into substance abuse.
In other words, the context? So I can't ask whether chief justice's lesbian cousin is any of those things, because people would think I'm being mean.
Because you are.
But I'll tell you what, seriously, on this Roe v. Wade versus this gay marriage business: One of the reasons why abortion so roils our culture is that it hasn't been democratically decided. The Supreme Court, nine people in black robes, just decided one day that abortion is in the Constitution, and that has led to constant acrimony.
I really don't understand how you can be so confused about the purpose of the Supreme Court. They exist in no small part because sometimes, when the majority gets to vote, they vote for things that are better for the majority, so we have the Supreme Court to step in when minority groups are treated unfairly. This whole point about abortion is ridiculous anyway, since Roe v. Wade has been supported by a majority of Americans since the decision occurred. It's pretty funny that Rush doesn't say that the Supreme Court's decision is wrong for any, you know, legal reason--he just says it was bad because people argue about it, because obviously if abortion was illegal no one would be upset at all.
If they do the same thing here... You know, if gay marriage in this country were voted on by the people, fine. Okay. That's it.
I suspect that would not, in fact, be it.
But if nine guys in black robes
Try to remain calm here, but they aren't all guys anymore, Rush. I know, that's probably a bit of a shock. I don't really understand why Rush thinks it's so powerful to keep citing how many Justices there are--you could just as easily dismiss Congress by calling them "just a few hundred guys in suits" if you wanted to.
decide that "marriage" can be defined as two people of the same sex, we're gonna have the same kind of roiling of our culture that abortion has given us.
Right, because under the status quo, no one is acrimonious about gay marriage at all. This is just such a terrible argument, even beyond the fact that it makes no sense--Rush really seems to think that it is wrong for a Justice's family member to show up and sit nearby while they make their decision, because that would apply undue pressure. However, it's totally fine for him to argue that the Supreme Court should pick the side he likes, because otherwise...people might be mad. We can't be having that! Sorry, gay people, you can't get married, because people will be upset and that's just the worst, when people have to be upset.
There was a snowstorm, six inches, but it has not stopped the long lines of people trying to get in to watch oral arguments at the Supreme Court on gay marriage and specifically the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in California. And guess what? The LA Times is reporting today that a lesbian who is the cousin of the chief justice is going to attend oral arguments. "Jean Podrasky, 48, a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, will be at Tuesday's US Supreme Court hearing on Proposition 8 in seating reserved for family members and guests of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
"'I am so excited,' said Podrasky, an accountant and the first cousin of the chief justice on his mother's side. 'I feel quite honored and overwhelmed.'" Now, the LA times says, "Roberts is a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. Podrasky, who is more liberal, said she rooted for his nomination to be approved by the US Senate. 'He is family,' she said. Podrasky lives in San Francisco and usually sees Roberts only on family occasions. His mother is her godmother, whom she adores.
Thus far, we have learned that Justice Roberts will be hosting his cousin as a guest at a Supreme Court hearing, and she will be allowed to sit in a section reserved for his family and guests. Rush, of course, has a problem with this:
"She said Roberts knows she is gay and introduced her along with other relatives during his Senate confirmation hearing. She hopes he will meet her partner of four years ... during their Washington visit. The couple flew to Washington on Sunday. 'He is a smart man,' she said. 'He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.'" So, you see, folks, the pressure is being brought to bear on these justices any way possible.
Yes, being openly gay near family members is certainly applying some pretty extreme pressure. Everyone knows that's inappropriate; the correct way to apply pressure is to invite a Justice on a private hunting trip right before a significant Supreme Court case you're directly involved in, or donate large sums of money to him and his wife without properly disclosing it to the public or acknowledging his influence on your lobby!
Now the chief justice is faced with, "What do I do if I rule against my cousin? What will they think of me if I don't rule in favor of my family?"
I don't know, maybe the exact same thing they'd think of him if he made that decision NOT in front of your cousin? If her presence in the court materially affects his decisions then he is a horrendously bad Supreme Court Justice.
This is what I mean about the blurring of media citizenry and the stage, the Supreme Court.
Yeah, citizens shouldn't be allowed to make their feelings known. Unlike massive financial contributions, emotional pressure can't be properly documented and is therefore clearly wrong.
(New Castrati impression)
This is actually how Rush described his voice for this bit on his own website. Since you have no reason not to wonder what the hell New Castrati means, Rush himself defines it as: "Men Who Are Bullied By Women And The Power Structure And Liberalism." So, remember: the sentiment he's about to share is something that a only a poor bullied man who has been put upon by women and liberalism would say.
Indeed, Rush. Good conservatives know how ridiculous that is! As an aside, it's actually pretty depressing how close to ridiculous that statement is, when you think about it.
Yes, they can. But what happens at the Supreme Court is not democratic. It's the law. It should be insulated analysis, constitutionality, what have you. It should be insulated from all these other things.
But, of course, it isn't and it has been for a long time.
That's actually not a horrible point, but it's pretty unavoidable unless we move the Supreme Court to Antarctica or something. Also, Justice Thomas has likened the public demonstrations outside the Supreme Court to basketball fans trying to distract a free throw shooter. I tend to think it's more the Justices' job to ignore this stuff than it is the public's responsibility to not show up for decisions that might affect the lives of millions.
There's a comparison here between this, gay marriage, and Roe v. Wade in one sense.
Really? I'd love to hear more, Rush.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Oh. Nothing else to say on that? I assume he's suggesting that these are cases where public demonstrations applied pressure to the Supreme Court and swayed some Justices to go against their better judicial thinking. Two problems: one, the Justices themselves don't seem concerned by this. Two, Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision, and if a few demonstrations are enough to sway three justices on any given case, then our judicial system is fucked anyway so why even try.
RUSH: You know, we had stories last week. I'm sure you'll recall. There are studies -- there are actually academic, scholarly studies -- being undertaken and the focus of the stories last week was the money being spent on this research, even though we find ourselves in a sequester.
Saying "we find ourselves in a sequester" is an excellent way to avoid actually mentioning why we find ourselves in a sequester.
What was it, there was $2.5 million dollars spent to study why 75% of lesbians are obese and gay males aren't. Homosexual men aren't; lesbians are obese, 75%. Why? That cost two and a half mill.
Well, it was 1.5 million, not 2.5. And it was over the course of two years. And that amount equates to about .08% of the total money spent on obesity studies last year. And the study is not confined to a certain orientation--in fact, the major finding was that both straight males and gay women have higher rates of obesity than gay males or straight women. As the Atlantic put it, it'd be equally valid to say that the study was about any of the following: "Obama administration spends $1.5 million to figure out why straight men are fat." Or: "Obama administration spends $1.5 million to figure out why gay men have rocking bodies." Or perhaps: "America is overweight (except for gay men?) and scientists are trying to determine why."
There's another survey, or another project, spent, I think, $1.5 million to find out why lesbians are alcoholics.
Something something lazy joke about using alcohol to cope with women
Brief interlude here, as Rush chose to post this photo, which I thought was worth sharing, because it's the first photograph I've ever seen of Scalia's bed.
Aaaaand, we're back!
And, of course, the answers to the first case is they don't have to deal with men, so they don't have to worry about their appearance. They're not trying to please men. So they can be obese. It's no big deal.
Um. The only way you could make yourself look worse here is to actually make the lazy joke about drinking and women that I alluded to earlier.
Alcohol, who knows? They're having to deal with women so they're drunk. Who knows?
Right. Probably should have seen that coming.
The bottom line is that if I were to now ask if any of that research is relevant in the case of the cousin of the chief justice, can you imagine the howls of protest I would get from people who do not know of these two studies that I would be bouncing off?
You'd probably get howls of protest because it's not really okay to ask whether one particular lesbian you know of is an obese drunk. Apparently this is unclear, but federal research on a population does not actually entitle all Americans to know specific things about individuals within that population. I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention that it's weird that someone who used to be a pill junkie is this upset about research into substance abuse.
In other words, the context? So I can't ask whether chief justice's lesbian cousin is any of those things, because people would think I'm being mean.
Because you are.
But I'll tell you what, seriously, on this Roe v. Wade versus this gay marriage business: One of the reasons why abortion so roils our culture is that it hasn't been democratically decided. The Supreme Court, nine people in black robes, just decided one day that abortion is in the Constitution, and that has led to constant acrimony.
I really don't understand how you can be so confused about the purpose of the Supreme Court. They exist in no small part because sometimes, when the majority gets to vote, they vote for things that are better for the majority, so we have the Supreme Court to step in when minority groups are treated unfairly. This whole point about abortion is ridiculous anyway, since Roe v. Wade has been supported by a majority of Americans since the decision occurred. It's pretty funny that Rush doesn't say that the Supreme Court's decision is wrong for any, you know, legal reason--he just says it was bad because people argue about it, because obviously if abortion was illegal no one would be upset at all.
If they do the same thing here... You know, if gay marriage in this country were voted on by the people, fine. Okay. That's it.
I suspect that would not, in fact, be it.
But if nine guys in black robes
Try to remain calm here, but they aren't all guys anymore, Rush. I know, that's probably a bit of a shock. I don't really understand why Rush thinks it's so powerful to keep citing how many Justices there are--you could just as easily dismiss Congress by calling them "just a few hundred guys in suits" if you wanted to.
decide that "marriage" can be defined as two people of the same sex, we're gonna have the same kind of roiling of our culture that abortion has given us.
Right, because under the status quo, no one is acrimonious about gay marriage at all. This is just such a terrible argument, even beyond the fact that it makes no sense--Rush really seems to think that it is wrong for a Justice's family member to show up and sit nearby while they make their decision, because that would apply undue pressure. However, it's totally fine for him to argue that the Supreme Court should pick the side he likes, because otherwise...people might be mad. We can't be having that! Sorry, gay people, you can't get married, because people will be upset and that's just the worst, when people have to be upset.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Donald Trump attempts to eloquently attack Mark Cuban on Twitter, fails
Next, Trump goes to yet greater heights of sophomoric jabs:
Ha! Swings like a girl. That's real fresh. How about you, Donald--what's your swing like?
HAR HAR HE'S A LOOOOOOOSEEEEEER RESPECT MY CHAMPEENSHIPS
At this point, Trump began receiving displeased correspondences from some of Cuban's fans, which he responded to in classic Internet fashion:
Perhaps sensing that this new tactic of threatening to visit the homes of all Cuban fans was backfiring, Trump then returned to his earlier discussion of golf skills. To my knowledge, Trump is actually quite good at golf, so of the available options, this was the second best one after "don't start juvenile insult wars on twitter ever, like seriously, what the fuck are you thinking, that's dumb as hell".
Having suitably chastened Mr. Cuban, Trump decided it was time to fluff his own ego a bit while delivering the killing blow. FINISH HIM!
Monday, March 11, 2013
Basic household tasks are effing impossible
Of note is that the normal reaction to any slight difficulty is to scream loudly at whatever you're holding in your hands.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Ben Howe demonstrates the amazing power of imagination
As it happens, it's not hypothetical--that's the title of Ben Howe's latest work over at Red State. Ben has some thoughts about Google and the Obama campaign, and they're certainly...let's say interesting. Here's what he had to say:
Remember that enormous, sophisticated data operation the Obama campaign had? The one that gave them massive daily data on public opinion trends in almost every segment of potential voters.
You mean the Internet?
It’s almost as if Democrats had access to some sort of huge database of real time information about what the public was reading or writing online. The kind of breathtakingly large, real-time data that could be used for real-time trend analysis, predictive modeling and even behavioral manipulation.
This still sounds like you're just accusing them of using the Internet. At least, it did until that behavioral manipulation bit--I've occasionally tried to change people's minds about things online and it's goddamn impossible. The level of discourse is not especially high.
Hey, that isn't completely unrelated! Liar. I won't say it's not weird that presidential campaigns do extensive research into how to campaign successfully online, but it's not like Obama invented the idea (obviously, Al Gore did. It is known). Everyone campaigns online now, and there are tricks to that just like there are for all other sorts of media. The main thing you seem to be upset about is that the Democrats are better at it, which: tough shit, dude. Also, the Republicans might be a little behind in the "manipulating people with the Internet" field, but by most measures they're way better at good old-fashioned alterations of the electoral process and voting districts.
Now, combine Obama’s political campaign with Google’s near-comprehensive real-time data and the left’s behavioral analysis. What do you get? Beat.
Wow, that definitely is a winning combination! If it were a real thing that actually happened, that is. I think if Obama actually had information from Google about how to best appeal to the online population, his campaign literature would have looked something like this:
This goes beyond just campaigns. Google likes to brag that they can detect flu outbreaks two weeks before the CDC based on search volume. Eric Schmidt once bragged that the company could predict stock market movements.
Imagine how much more could be learned if Google’s computer algorithms combined not only search data but also all of the data they get by reading everything written in or sent to Gmail and whatever you store on Google docs and Google Drive.
Imagination time! Incidentally, citing accusations made by Microsoft as evidence of Google's wrongdoing is pretty weak, dude.
Then imagine what Democratic voter data groups like Catalist (which launched as a for-profit operation, allowing it much more latitude in working with outside groups…or companies)
The ominous ellipsis makes an appearance! Sorry Ben, I'll let you finish your sentence now.
could do with that data.
Yes, imagine what the Democratic groups could do if Google shared their data. That'd be highly illegal and one of the dumbest things Google could do with said data, but imagine!
With a few tweaks to their algorithms
Just imagine, if they tweaked their algorithms
Google could easily have near perfect insights into the voting behaviors and patterns of the U.S. population at large down to specific precincts, neighborhoods or even households.
Wait, are you suggesting they'd be able to figure out that I vote based on which candidate will keep beer prices lowest? That's pretty advanced.
The threat isn’t just that Google openly supports left wing politicians and policies. That’s obvious, and that relationship goes both ways. Google+ hosted Joe Biden for a “fireside chat” about gun control and Obama is doing a Google+ “hangout” immediately following his State of the Union speech tonight.
You can tell how biased Google is because they didn't ban Obama and Biden from using their freely available social media service and giving Google huge amounts of free publicity.
The real threat is that Google, or perhaps just a few people within the leadership of Google, may be quietly operating as a private intelligence agency for the left.
"I imagined it, and therefore it may be happening. THREAT LEVEL MIDNIGHT!"
And every time you use Google or Gmail you could be contributing just a little bit more of your behavioral data to the left.
Hey, did you know that Chrome has this awesome Incognito mode! It lets you hide what kind of porn you like from Obama. There certainly are problems with living in America today, but it's nothing compared to living in the terrifying autocracy that Ben Howe and other overwrought writers imagine they live in. Personally, when I use my imagination, I prefer to imagine a world where all people have stuffed animal heads, because why not?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
I think I would rather live in a haunted house than one governed by a Homeowners' Association
Justin Jouvenal of the Washington Post reports that there has been a recent feud in Fairfax County between some residents and their local HOA. For those of you without the time to read an entire article, here's a brief summary:
Let's take a look at what happened:
The feud that consumed Fairfax County’s Olde Belhaven would span four years and cost the community as much as $400,000, and it was ignited by one of the smallest of sparks: an Obama for President sign.
The modest placard Sam and Maria Farran planted in their yard during the 2008 election put them on a collision course with the neighborhood homeowners association. It was four inches taller than the association’s covenants allowed.
Four years. Four hundred thousand dollars. Four inches. I feel like this is the tagline for Nicolas Cage's next film.
In any case, a resident committed a minor infraction of the rules regarding signage. I'm sure the neighbors reacted calmly and rationally to this, yes?
“Need I say more! This would lead to chaos,” a neighbor fretted in an e-mail about the precedent that would be set if the sign wasn’t removed. “Our property values would be put at risk.”
Don't worry--the quotes from the community get way crazier. This is just the warmup.
Sam and Maria Farran, a wine broker and a government lawyer, moved to the 44-unit townhouse community in the Alexandria section of Fairfax in 1999. In many ways, it is a typical Northern Virginia neighborhood, with tidy houses and a mix of government employees, service members and professionals.
The townhouses line the three-quarter-acre square, which is the neighborhood’s central feature and the site of most community-wide events. Without the green plot, it might be difficult to call Belhaven a community.
Sounds like quite a community. Could we get a recent anecdote showing how the HOA is normally quite reasonable and not known for going off on residents for minor violations of neighborhood protocol?
The Farrans said the HOA had a reputation for hard-line stances.
Not off to a good start...
In one case, board member Don Hughes compared some residents’ refusal to install window-pane dividers to the “cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein played with the USA,” e-mails show.
Well, that's a totally unfair comparison. Hussein did have window dividers--take a look:
Anyway, that's a strong opening from Mr. Hughes--did he perhaps finish the email with a vague, extremely disproportionate threat?
Ultimately, Hussein “paid the price,” he said, concluding that the residents should comply.
Get them installed, yall. Otherwise, they send in the troops to topple your lawn gnome statues.
Nevertheless, the Farrans were surprised when letters arrived in October 2008 telling them and others that their political placards were too large.
“This is our final request,” Hughes wrote on behalf of the board.
E-mails show that Hughes pushed the board to act. He wrote that he was prepared to make a motion to put a lien on the Farrans’ house if they didn’t comply. He called sending a letter a “teaching moment.” Hughes declined to comment.
Threatening to take someone's house is a great teaching moment! Maybe next you could threaten to kidnap their children if they don't keep their lawn mowed, or fine people $900 for using the wrong color of Christmas lights.
The Farrans were angry. They acknowledged that the sign broke the rules but said it seemed like an assault on free speech to go after a minor violation during the height of an election. Their response: cutting the placard in half. They planted “OBA” and “MA” signs in their front yard.
As satisfying as it may seem, fucking with overzealous HOA's is probably a bad idea. I'm guessing the board members were not amused.
The prank did not amuse board members.
See!
And they decided to act.
They passed a resolution allowing the board to fine residents up to $900 per infraction for violating HOA guidelines. Across the country, fining authority has been controversial, with HOAs hitting residents with levies for such transgressions as displays of colored Christmas lights and patches of dead grass.
My Christmas display featured both, but I thought it was really quite tasteful.
Board members believed that they had the right under Virginia law, but the Farrans saw an illegal power grab that had no basis in the HOA’s covenants. When the board, acting at a meeting that was not publicly announced, rejected the Farrans’ roof and deck projects for aesthetic and architectural reasons, the Farrans said it was retribution.
“It’s like we weren’t living in America,” Maria Farran said. “You are always one board election away from a tyranny. They wield enormous power.”
Maria, you have it backwards--remember, you're Saddam Hussein, imposing your tyrannical four-inches-too-tall OBA MA sign. They're preserving everyone's freedom by prohibiting you from doing work on your own home in a secret meeting.
The Farrans filed a lawsuit against the HOA saying it didn’t have the authority to impose fines and had vindictively rejected their home improvements.
Board members were taken aback. They saw residents who wouldn’t abide by the rules that had made Olde Belhaven a great neighborhood and who were willing to resort to drastic action to get what they wanted.
Archie Umphlett, one of the neighborhood’s oldest residents, put it this way: “When it comes to the Farrans, it’s their way or the highway.”
Umphlett is a fantastic name, so good work on that front, Archie. I'm sure that you guys will want to act rationally at this juncture so that the HOA appears to be the voice of reason, right?
The Farrans said HOA backers told them to move. They found bullets in their yard. Someone implored a priest at their church to prevail on the Farrans to stop the lawsuit. A local real estate agent said the infighting was scaring off some home buyers.
So, to recap the story: HOA attempts to get residents to remove a sign, citing property values as a reason. In its campaign to get the sign removed, it manages to create a massive dispute scaring off any potential buyers. People call on religious leaders to take sides, and leave bullets in yards as a threat. I'm starting to see how the Saddam Hussein reference makes sense now.
The story goes on to talk about how the legal fees bankrupted the HOA and how all the neighborhood people have to pay more in HOA fees now and they had to sell the town square and so on, which is all very tragic, I'm sure. You gotta feel at least a little bad for the other residents who got screwed over when their HOA felt like dicking over some people because of a sign. Still, it's always entertaining when someone tries to abuse a position of power and it totally backfires. I wonder if I have an animated gif that would illustrate this point? Spoiler: I do!
- Residents put up a political sign in their yard
- The HOA says that's not permitted
- Suddenly, $400,000 in lawsuits
The feud that consumed Fairfax County’s Olde Belhaven would span four years and cost the community as much as $400,000, and it was ignited by one of the smallest of sparks: an Obama for President sign.
The modest placard Sam and Maria Farran planted in their yard during the 2008 election put them on a collision course with the neighborhood homeowners association. It was four inches taller than the association’s covenants allowed.
Four years. Four hundred thousand dollars. Four inches. I feel like this is the tagline for Nicolas Cage's next film.
In any case, a resident committed a minor infraction of the rules regarding signage. I'm sure the neighbors reacted calmly and rationally to this, yes?
“Need I say more! This would lead to chaos,” a neighbor fretted in an e-mail about the precedent that would be set if the sign wasn’t removed. “Our property values would be put at risk.”
Don't worry--the quotes from the community get way crazier. This is just the warmup.
Sam and Maria Farran, a wine broker and a government lawyer, moved to the 44-unit townhouse community in the Alexandria section of Fairfax in 1999. In many ways, it is a typical Northern Virginia neighborhood, with tidy houses and a mix of government employees, service members and professionals.
The townhouses line the three-quarter-acre square, which is the neighborhood’s central feature and the site of most community-wide events. Without the green plot, it might be difficult to call Belhaven a community.
Sounds like quite a community. Could we get a recent anecdote showing how the HOA is normally quite reasonable and not known for going off on residents for minor violations of neighborhood protocol?
The Farrans said the HOA had a reputation for hard-line stances.
Not off to a good start...
In one case, board member Don Hughes compared some residents’ refusal to install window-pane dividers to the “cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein played with the USA,” e-mails show.
Well, that's a totally unfair comparison. Hussein did have window dividers--take a look:
Anyway, that's a strong opening from Mr. Hughes--did he perhaps finish the email with a vague, extremely disproportionate threat?
Ultimately, Hussein “paid the price,” he said, concluding that the residents should comply.
Get them installed, yall. Otherwise, they send in the troops to topple your lawn gnome statues.
Nevertheless, the Farrans were surprised when letters arrived in October 2008 telling them and others that their political placards were too large.
“This is our final request,” Hughes wrote on behalf of the board.
E-mails show that Hughes pushed the board to act. He wrote that he was prepared to make a motion to put a lien on the Farrans’ house if they didn’t comply. He called sending a letter a “teaching moment.” Hughes declined to comment.
Threatening to take someone's house is a great teaching moment! Maybe next you could threaten to kidnap their children if they don't keep their lawn mowed, or fine people $900 for using the wrong color of Christmas lights.
The Farrans were angry. They acknowledged that the sign broke the rules but said it seemed like an assault on free speech to go after a minor violation during the height of an election. Their response: cutting the placard in half. They planted “OBA” and “MA” signs in their front yard.
As satisfying as it may seem, fucking with overzealous HOA's is probably a bad idea. I'm guessing the board members were not amused.
The prank did not amuse board members.
See!
And they decided to act.
They passed a resolution allowing the board to fine residents up to $900 per infraction for violating HOA guidelines. Across the country, fining authority has been controversial, with HOAs hitting residents with levies for such transgressions as displays of colored Christmas lights and patches of dead grass.
My Christmas display featured both, but I thought it was really quite tasteful.
Board members believed that they had the right under Virginia law, but the Farrans saw an illegal power grab that had no basis in the HOA’s covenants. When the board, acting at a meeting that was not publicly announced, rejected the Farrans’ roof and deck projects for aesthetic and architectural reasons, the Farrans said it was retribution.
“It’s like we weren’t living in America,” Maria Farran said. “You are always one board election away from a tyranny. They wield enormous power.”
Maria, you have it backwards--remember, you're Saddam Hussein, imposing your tyrannical four-inches-too-tall OBA MA sign. They're preserving everyone's freedom by prohibiting you from doing work on your own home in a secret meeting.
The Farrans filed a lawsuit against the HOA saying it didn’t have the authority to impose fines and had vindictively rejected their home improvements.
Board members were taken aback. They saw residents who wouldn’t abide by the rules that had made Olde Belhaven a great neighborhood and who were willing to resort to drastic action to get what they wanted.
Archie Umphlett, one of the neighborhood’s oldest residents, put it this way: “When it comes to the Farrans, it’s their way or the highway.”
Umphlett is a fantastic name, so good work on that front, Archie. I'm sure that you guys will want to act rationally at this juncture so that the HOA appears to be the voice of reason, right?
The Farrans said HOA backers told them to move. They found bullets in their yard. Someone implored a priest at their church to prevail on the Farrans to stop the lawsuit. A local real estate agent said the infighting was scaring off some home buyers.
So, to recap the story: HOA attempts to get residents to remove a sign, citing property values as a reason. In its campaign to get the sign removed, it manages to create a massive dispute scaring off any potential buyers. People call on religious leaders to take sides, and leave bullets in yards as a threat. I'm starting to see how the Saddam Hussein reference makes sense now.
The story goes on to talk about how the legal fees bankrupted the HOA and how all the neighborhood people have to pay more in HOA fees now and they had to sell the town square and so on, which is all very tragic, I'm sure. You gotta feel at least a little bad for the other residents who got screwed over when their HOA felt like dicking over some people because of a sign. Still, it's always entertaining when someone tries to abuse a position of power and it totally backfires. I wonder if I have an animated gif that would illustrate this point? Spoiler: I do!
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)