The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by shane:

dlbowman76 @5: Oi!
Just cos Fragano's awesome, doesn't render your and my mere normality unworthy. Indeed, saying so brings down both our *and his* achievements.

Okay. Reading back, I see self-deprecation is something you do. Probably perfectly casual and just like I do myself. Perhaps it comes across better face to face, or it's just tweaked a pet peeve this morning.

But I see an increasing disparagement of achievement and hard-won skill, if it's not the very best. Anything we ourselves can do is rated at zero. Anyone with less skill is considered unworthy dirt. It seems to be a general trend, and I think it's unhealthy.

Which is to say: I've always enjoyed your contributions here at ML. I liked your tangoing shoggoths, easily as much as Fragano's impressive thingummy. Appreciate the Great amongst us, sure, but don't belittle ourselves. We don't all have to be sonnettists.

Lighthill - hee.

Erik @22 See "85% of US Drivers think they are above average."

They're not as wrong as we might at first think, due to a different phenomenon - The (hypothetical) survey only pretends to measure one objective thing. Where actually "good driver" means different things to each of us, and I value the things I'm good at.

So for me Good Driver might mean "quick at the lights", for you "good at navigating on the move", another person "Observant", "I Always signal/obey signs/drive speed limit", "knows the limits and rides them"... and so on.

In each criterion, the average will be half, yes. *I* might think you're a hopeless driver - But the survey is rating us against our own measure, not each others. Taken together, we can all be above average.

..and the Republicans will get your message next November? Well, we can hope so! Thank you again for your call.

Bruce@35: "...RNC plan to handle calls from the DNC ad by routing Option 1 to the DNC phone lines."

Actually that's just perfect imho...

"Hello, Democratic National Co..."

"I'm sor..."

"yes."

"and did you press option one?"

"uh huh, they seem to have routed you through to me. I'm with the Democratic Party.

Yeah. They've been doing that a bit. It's sad, isn't it. They want to drown out everyone else at the town hall, and now when you call *them* they don't even want to hear your input.

..and put you through to a party who does want to. While you're here is there anything..

uh huh

uh huh

Why thank you, I'll be happy to send that along to the Senator, and we'll see what we can do."

heresiarch @22: "Single-payer is dying because no one is bothering to fight for it." - I'm not sure if this is rebuttal or confirmation, and you do address it in your next sentence, but I think it worth linking Ezra Klein's observation observation that health care panels and events are constantly well attended by single-payer activists asking questions and advocating. Reports just ignore them.

abi@sundry: I am reminded of some social/homework software developed as a college project. AIUI The successful students relied on the social networks already in place to promote and to police their software, and designed to encourage that. Groups that tried to duplicate, or replace, those social functions ended up with expensive, bloated failures.

Depending on situation, the professional option can be worse than the box of crayons.

chris @ 90:
Laughing at you? No one. Not a one in the entire world. Horrified, at what you were doing. Terrified, of what you might yet do. Deeply saddened at the reputation and potential you were burning to do it. Yes, those.

I'm not meaning to be hyperbolic, really. Pride did go before your fall, but I don't think you were being laught at. No one had the distance for schadenfreude.

Ok, perhaps one guy in the back hills of Central Asia, who said this was his goal all along.

I suggest responding to C. Wingate's #20 as if the first sentence wasn't there. (Cos I think it's the flamiest, and it's been well toasted). The point about eliminating the middle is a good one, and emphasises just how much our modern discourse undercuts all of us.

Somebody.. (digby? Glenn Greenwald? I think it's Glenn) keep pointing out the medias' inability to see itself as part of the story. Here, Taylor's system makes sense if you are describing the internals of one group to a disinterested third party. But the media isn't, they're actually the centre and the point of all these conversations. Acting like observers gets them played.

Andy W - every member of cast or crew I've seen interviewed, without exception, answers that question with "(beat) it's not a kids movie".

Rikibeth: *?

vian, heresiarch - I like the brilliant, subversive, viral way you are spreading that idea.

So, are we still waiting for the Egyptian translation because people are having trouble getting the font to display in Movable Type, or because you're having trouble fitting heiroglyphs into iambic pentameter?

James @ 3
I think it's derived from the original British - "whingers".

Lee @ 10
Margaret Mead's quote has long stuck with me. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

It's amazing how strong the pull to treat your family as a mirror, or a measure, of mine. To give the advice I wish I'd followed. To share what worked that one time that sounds a bit like your situation (and tell you to do it). It's scary how much hurt it can cause when we do.

Raphael @39
Perhaps my question has the wrong focus. Yes, cabinet members are party politicians, but they don't have nearly the access to delicate machinery of elections that e.g. Blackwell and Harris seemed to exercise as a matter of course. Or that actually using it would be a resigning offence. It seems that sort of[1] biased refereeing, of favouritism, is unremarkable in US elections. Am I misunderstanding?

[1] I'm hoping my "that sort of" is clear shorthand. I don't mean it to be inflammatory.

Paul@32,

The Onion echoed your thought with Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over.

Which is funny, until you google the Annotated Version from a few years later, detailing how he has indeed achieved most all the failures and disasters they joked he would. (Anyone got the link? I can't find it).

after Emma @29 "Australia has a legally independent and neutral statutory authority ... and cannot be interfered with by politicians of any party."

I'm curious to hear some local opinions. As an Aussie myself I was shocked to the core to hear things like "Republican Secretary of State", "Democratic Attorney General", "Green Party Dog Catcher". I mean, obviously officials will be part of/appointed by some administration, and have their own interests or biases, but to stick it right out there like that? Plus it seemed, at least with Katherine Harris and Kenneth Blackwell, to be accompanied by an understanding that of course they'll favour 'their side'.

Reflecting, I can see how 'our way' of expecting people to serve the institution rather than your own side might seem.. charmingly naive. How do we know the AEC is neutral and 'cannot be interfered with'.

Is this a new thing, or have US government jobs always been partisan? Is this a bug or a feature, is it better to have declared allegiances?

So is there any code in the allocation of bookstores to chapters? Like what did poor Barnes and Nobles do to deserve the initial torture chapter? What are you saying there Cory, huh? And I haven't checked, who got dedicated the sex scene chapter?

<jk>

I loved it, myself. I'm debating whether to wait for an Australian release or buy many copies now. Meantime, I distract myself by learning Python.

Brenda Kalt @158: Please by all means vote for Hillary, but not for that reason. Unless you think perhaps Chicago Police are excessively swayed by pretty words.

CHip@55, 83 Yes, minor parties get their influence through major party attempts to assemble a majority, usually by horse-trading provisions in the current Bill or quid-pro-quo on future votes. AIUI it's the same way things get done in the U.S. House or Senate.

You mentioned the deals Israeli Labor have done to achieve majority. Agreed. Seems to me an unhandled weakness in many democratic systems is that major parties* will be so heavily focused on opposing other major parties that they will prefer doing deals with the smallest competitor possible, even if that means lending weight to some pretty extreme views. (Example Australian Labor giving preferences to the 'ultra-right' One Nation or Family First parties). that needn't be the case.

*or blocs, factions or what have you.

Mez @ 54 "Sometimes they took a lead from innovations in the Dominions."

I understand Blair's New Labour borrowed heavily from our Hawke/Keating era Labor party. This fails to fill me with nationalistic pride.

Comment statistics for shane on the Making Light blog

Total: 43 comments. View all these comments on a single page.