I am virtually incapable of remembering a joke, however I do know one, and it is a Halloween one at that.
A skeleton walks into the bar and asks for a beer... and a mop.
There is something verging on the Gene Ray Time Cube vibe to this individual's ranting. Vehement nonsense. I almost respect how mind-meltingly absent of reason it is.
Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series is the one that has had me gnashing my teeth over the years:
Seventh Son: 1987
Red Prophet: 1988
Prentice Alvin: 1989
Alvin Journeyman: 1995
Heartfire: 1998
The Crystal City: 2003
Master Alvin: ???
#71 Michael Weholt: I also think attempts to explain away this usage of the word are dumb, but it's a free country and people are free to be dumb if they want to be.
Easy now. I find the evolution of language to be an intellectual curiosity, and watching the meaning of words drift is interesting. Leaving aside for a moment the relative intellectual merits of deciding the word "gay" is a succinct term to describe lameness, I am merely raising the question of whether or not it is something that need be judged offensive, when used as an adjective describing *inanimate* objects or subjects. I don't even have a firm opinion on that. I am the first person to jump all over someone who talks about being "gypped" so I am certainly not insensitive to the undertones (or overtones) of language.
#72 Lee: The problem with "ghey" is that it's like the fannish usage of "ghod" to differentiate the exclamatory from the nominative use -- it only works in writing. And I don't hear the disassociation you're describing at all in America; here, it still has very strong connotations of "and being gay is Bad".
Those are both good points, and I guess I am proud to say I am pretty out of touch with the notion of being-gay-is-bad. Being gay is like having a longer second toe than first, and using the word gay as derogatory is starting to verge on meaningless. Perhaps my point is that meaninglessness might not be such a bad thing, if the association was so meaningless as to practically redefine the word as a homonym. That being said, I honestly haven't spent enough time on a school yard recently to know how widespread the derogatory usage of this word is used toward people instead of things these days in my neighbourhood. I may be suffering under an illusion by thinking that it is not so widespread anymore in my little corner of the world.
With increasing frequency, I have started to see the use of "ghey" applied to the word's usage in describing lameness, separating it from any implied association to homosexuality. I think the usage has drifted so far laterally from any meaningful association with homosexuality that it might be better to work towards finalising the divorce rather than trying to suppress its usage.
I can appreciate why the latent bigotry at the root of this usage makes people tweak. However, I am finding it harder to discern any meaningful associations between a word used to describe a person with same-sex interests, and a word frequently used to describe the tedium of poor design, poor management, or general lameness. It just doesn't track for me. I see this as being distinct from the use of such terms as "jew" or "gyp" in a derogatory sense or say, "mighty white of you" in a positive sense, where the associations to the original bigoted meaning of the terms are quite crystal clear.
Sometimes it feels like a war of attrition, but it is winnable. Canada's gay marriage legislation came under threat when the Conservatives took power in the last election, but they failed in their attempt to overturn the law. The Conservatives have said the issue is closed, and I do not expect the law to be threatened in the future.
I think once people realised that this was not resulting in hedonistic gay orgies in the street, and we probably aren't facing destruction-cum-brimstone as some kind of modern Sodom, the energy has mostly gone out of the anti-gay marriage camp. I think even the most fervid anti-gay activists on this issue would be hard pressed to demonstrate how extending the right of marriage to gays has brought harm to Canada.
I am hopeful that the small gains made on this civil rights issue will not be lost in America, and that eventually further gains will come. It still continues to boggle that this is even subject to debate, but here we are.
Lee #44:
I feel some ambivalence myself. I do not want to see this presidential campaign get derailed by a debate that centres exclusively on the race issue.
I do agree 100% that sympathetic gay characters on TV have significantly contributed to advancing the cause of civil rights, equality, and tolerance for gays in society. However, I do not believe racist dialogue emerging from the underground will lead to a wider acceptance and tolerance of racism in society. I do not foresee charming episodes of Little Racist House on the Prairie winning over the hearts and minds of the American public.
Most significantly, as Teresa raises in the original post, we can't allow fear of the ugly underbelly of society to hijack the public discourse at a pivotal moment in history - and believe you me, potentially electing an American President that isn't a pasty white dude is a pivotal moment in history. For too long the progressives of society have reeled in fear from the attacks of the right. Maybe this stems from a fear of fighting dirty. This is one area where we should have no fear of losing the debate, and no need to fight dirty. The moral high ground doesn't come any easier to hold than it does in this debate. To avoid it altogether would be a missed opportunity.
My apologies for any excessive verbiage to follow.
Patrick #35:
Agreed on all points. I only hope we can find a way to offer the newly emboldened racists enough rope to hang themselves.
albatross #36:
I also doubt CBS would want to wade into these waters. Mainstream media spends more effort reflecting an image of America back upon itself that Americans can live with than it does mediating public discourse in any meaningful way. I am not exactly optimistic that they are going to let themselves be used as a soapbox for a segment of the population a lot of people would rather pretend didn't exist. The excuse that they don't have the resources to moderate their forums is a convenient way of avoiding ugly truths and meaningful discourse.
Lee #37:
While I appreciate the sentiment behind your words, this sounds an awful lot like an argument for suppressing speech we disagree with as the path to having our ideas triumph over another's. Book burning and forbidden speech lies at the bottom of that slope.
I believe that an open commerce of ideas is the path to a rational consensus. I agree that discussion of homosexuality in a positive light has contributed to a growing tolerance within society, but I do not believe that tolerance is a direct result of positive speech alone, or even primarily. Positive speech and honest discourse has contributed to a wider recognition of an inherent truth, that gays are coincidentally also human beings entitled to civil rights, dignity, and tolerance. Racist speech has no such inherent truth working in its favour.
The inherent truth, in the Obama context, is that yes, a black man can be perfectly capable of serving as president of the United States, thank you very much. No amount of hate speech is going to change that. In fact, if politicians and pundits are forced to come out and publicly rise above the racists and bigots, then maybe, just maybe, they will bring some others out of that muck with them.
All that being said, I am not advocating a free for all of every vile racial epithet in every public forum. I would just like to see the true dialogue of America happening in an open enough way that people have to make a real declaration about what is right and what is wrong in a national debate that includes racial bigotry.
Deviating slightly from the discussion of moderation proper, and addressing the topic within which it arose...
I would agree that there are comments which degrade the level of discourse, and are best removed from the commons. However, I am not convinced that vitriol alone is sufficient to warrant comment deletion, let alone justify shutting down of comments regarding Obama and his campaign. I am quite curious to know how thin-skinned CBS is acting in all of this.
I am always concerned by the suppression of racist and other forms of hate speech. All too often I feel that sweeping this speech under the rug is more an act of denial than it is a defense of tolerance and equality. We grow uncomfortable when we are made to realise that racism is alive and well in our society. I think we should be uncomfortable about that. I don't think the solution to racism is to pretend it doesn't exist by removing racist speech from the public discourse. I am all for inviting the bigots of society out of their closets and into the light.
If Obama's campaign threatens to be successful I think it will provide us with a fresh opportunity to have a good look at ourselves and see intolerance within our society. It will bring out the kooks, to be sure, but kooks on parade will give everyone else an opportunity to demonstrate that we wish to rise above this mindless bigotry that still festers within our culture.
Vaguely tangential from #95
I have always been romantically taken by the notion of true local time, back before train scheduling eventually led to standard time. Standard time is an homogeneous consensus reality imposed on regional, national, and global scales. The uncomfortable feeling of being shackled to that consensus reality is what has always kept me from ever wearing a watch. Local time creates smaller pockets of reality, decentralising power in the reality making business. Participative consensus reality, if you will. The ontological anarchist in me grooves on that.
I actually treat the days we change our clocks as almost sacred events. It is one of the very few instances of people coming together to change such a fundamental aspect of our consensus reality. I keep wishing it would inspire us to do more. I personally think we should rename the days of the week from time to time - or for that matter, why not make weeks 8 days long? I could really use longer weekends.
Better yet even, maybe we should take a page out of the Mayan calendar and give each day a completely unique name. It has always seemed a criminal stunting of our imaginations to repeat the same 7 day template over and over again, ad infinitum. I think the world would change if we every day woke up to a truly brand new day, rather than just "yet another Tuesday".
Most of Saskatchewan does not use daylight savings time. You will often hear it explained that the farmers are afraid the extra hour of daylight will burn their crops. This explanation is often delivered with a wry grin. I sense just such a wry grin in this writer's letter.
The community is so aggressive in uncovering these publishing scams because they make victims out of writers (not to mention the booksellers, in this case). There is enough anguish in working toward getting oneself published without the grief these scams cause for writers.
Do not feel too bad Simon. Welcome to the collective of writers and allies working to get the word out about these exploitive operations.
...and bless those in the publishing industry who "Just Won't Shut Up about how things are supposed to work."
In asserting his moral high ground, Mr. Fabiano solemnly vows, "If I were to do something greedy and sleazy like this, I wouldn’t do it with 13 other authors, I would do it for a book only I wrote."
I am having a hard time believing that someone who would never do something greedy and sleazy like this would say anything except, "I would not do anything greedy and sleazy like this, full stop".
It is really hard to not take that qualification as a "tell".
Tully @ #102
Oh my.
In the left-hand column there is a link to "Get Interviewed!"
You write your own answers to the canned interview questions. I was thinking it deliciously amusing that whoever conducted Fabiano's interview could not write or spell. Now I see the content was written by Fabiano himself, in an attempt at self-promotion. As a writer.
Priceless.
Does anyone (else) think that the United States government, by refusing to ratify the treaty that created the International Criminal Court, is sending the message through the rank and file of the military that it is safe to obey unlawful orders? I understand the more traditional objections to the Court, but I don't particularly like the aura of immunity it grants the American military for war crimes it might commit.
Shades of First They Came...
People are already being disappeared, summary execution is taking place on foreign soil, in nations where we are not at war.
As best as I can tell the only reason these crimes are essentially ignored is that the victims are of a dark enough hue that the general population is uninspired to outrage. Either that or we have just become so numb and apathetic that we really have completely abdicated any sense of personal responsibility for the actions of our governments.
I have long been afraid of our governments, and I grow more afraid each day. I have always openly dissented, I have a tendency to get arrested for opposing government policy, and I have no confidence I will not one day disappear.
When the next big terrorist attack is alleged to have been carried out by radicals in our midst, I am quite far from certain that a Hellfire missile will not be coming for me, or that a cell in an offshore limbo will not have my name on it.
I wonder, have many people talked to the families of fallen soldiers about how they feel regarding the repatriation of their loved ones, and its censorship?
Early in our new Conservative government's life, they tried to imitate Bush and ban the media from the repatriation ceremonies of fallen Canadian soldiers. This went over very poorly with soldiers and with the families of the fallen. The Conservative government was forced to relent when it was clear that their claims of protecting the families did not wash.
Fortunately our deaths are few enough that repatriation need not be done wholesale, and each event can be marked with appropriate solemnity. If the families of the fallen request it in a particular case, the media will remain back and not be present on the airfield when the flagged-draped coffins arrive. Otherwise, repatriation is something most Canadians see each time it unfolds. The media here always covers it, be it from the airfield itself, or from a respectful distance at the wishes of the family.
The repatriation of remains is a sacred thing. In a just war we need to witness it to be properly cognizant of our sacrifice. In an unjust war, we also need to witness it, to properly grasp the cost we are paying, and to properly feel whatever shame should come of sending our young people off to die in a pointless war.
That this profound ceremony is censored should make the American people deeply suspicious, and the media should not be letting the administration get away with it.
I keep waiting for Burson Marsteller's name to come up. We had to face these guys back in the early 90's in the British Columbia anti-logging campaigns. They were hired by the BC forest industry and they set up a "grassroots" organisation called the British Columbia Forest Alliance, which actually presented itself as an environmental organisation. They had Greenpeace founder, and later turncoat, Patrick Moore involved - presumably to give it credibility. Suddenly we were facing a well funded "environmental lobby" with a founder of Greenpeace on its board that was spreading its that logging practices in BC were sustainable. Yikes.
In case you are not familiar with the work of Burson Marsteller, their history reads like a laundry list for Evil Inc. Some of their greatest hits include:
- Public relations for Union Carbide in the wake of Bhopal.
- PR for Exxon following the Valdez spill in Alaska.
- PR following Three Mile Island
- PR for the Argentinian military junta led by Gen. Jorge Videla after 35,000 people were disappeared.
The list goes on. It is pretty clear they are not on the side of a well informed public and an open debate.
Burson Marsteller continues its mission to baffle and befuddle, and actually advertises its astroturf services on its website. Their Direct Impact division advertises itself as having "set the standard for excellence in grassroots communications". Some of their promotional material is mind-bogglingly candid.
To quote:
"Direct Impact offers clients a single point of contact and a centrally managed, dedicated team of seasoned grassroots professionals for every program."
"At Direct Impact, we surround target audiences with communications from trusted sources to deliver a consistent message through multiple mediums. Our battle-tested "surround sound" method has been proven to identify, educate and mobilize community leaders, influencers and stakeholders to take action."
"We maintain a nationwide network of field operatives who have reach into every market and political district in the country. Working within target markets, our representatives assess the on-the-ground situation, recruit and educate allies and facilitate meaningful communications to targets."
I really do believe that taking on these public opinion factories is one of the central challenges facing those of us with an interest in truth and reality. This outfit is definitely one to beware of.
I agree, it would be very helpful if the American media considered significant the ongoing price we and others are paying in Afghanistan. Not as a validation, but as a sign that the American media is capable of providing cogent reporting and analysis of the so-called war on terror and its implications. I know, absurd, but we can hope.
There is a growing call in Canada to pull our troops out of Afghanistan, particularly from voices on the left. Though I normally pitch my tent there, I am not yet convinced that withdrawing is the correct course. As it begins to resemble Iraq more with each passing week, I am not entirely convinced it is the wrong course either.
I am also well aware that the more we bomb, the more we kill, the deeper we etch the line that defines "us" as separate from "them", Islam from Jew & Christian, East from West. Perhaps it has already gone on too long and gone too far. Perhaps there is no hope of avoiding the dehumanization of "the other" that allegedly justifies their murder. The extremists on either side of this deepening line are dictating the terms of this reality. It is extremely disturbing, and the road we are on is headed toward some very dark places indeed.
I would like to believe that our efforts in Afghanistan will lead to a stable society with less cruelty to women and less extremist violence. I am growing increasingly pessimistic about those prospects.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 3 |
| 2007 | 12 |
| 2006 | 10 |
| 2005 | 1 |
Total: 26 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Graham Blake:
Show all comments by Graham Blake.