If you're a Facebook user, you can use the social network program as an invaluable tool to reconnect with your friends from the past, including those who you had secret and not-so-secret crushes on, but don't blame it for breaking up a relationship because your SO was actually talking to said secret and not-so-secret crushes, including exes.
The Globe article is okay, but a lot of people state - correctly - that the Facebook isn't at fault here. It's the jerk of the guy who decided to two-time the girl by having two profiles. Of course, you can participate in the occasional Super Poke, invitations to Mafia wars, and hugs, but if that's not your style, the "ignore" button comes in handy.
11/25/2008
10/20/2008
A neat shortcut and walk from Cambridgeside Galleria
Yesterday I didn't feel like crowding onto the Green Line trolley back to North Station, so I decided to take a walk past the Cambridgeside reflecting pool to near the Museum of Science.
Usually I would cross the McGrath Highway and head up the Gilmore Bridge to Community College. This time, however, I continued on the path to the right and kept on walking alongside the Royal Sonesta.
Ahead of me was the Longfellow bridge, so I knew I was near Kendall Square. Sure enough, when the path ended, I was on Land Blvd. The street/path I was on was actually Cambridge Parkway. (It reminded me of FDR Drive in New York, but without the cars.) After I crossed Land Blvd and went over the monkey bridge, I was on Main Street, parallel to the Red Line portal. I continued on Main and made my way to Broadway. One or two lights traffic lights later, and I was at Kendall/MIT station. Total time: about 25 minutes.
I would recommend that if you do this, do it during the daytime, as during the night it may be unsafe. Nearly everyone had room, and maybe one or two joggers/bikers blasted past me. I'll try it from Kendall to Cambridgeside, but the reward from walking is that you burn off all those calories from the food court!
Usually I would cross the McGrath Highway and head up the Gilmore Bridge to Community College. This time, however, I continued on the path to the right and kept on walking alongside the Royal Sonesta.
Ahead of me was the Longfellow bridge, so I knew I was near Kendall Square. Sure enough, when the path ended, I was on Land Blvd. The street/path I was on was actually Cambridge Parkway. (It reminded me of FDR Drive in New York, but without the cars.) After I crossed Land Blvd and went over the monkey bridge, I was on Main Street, parallel to the Red Line portal. I continued on Main and made my way to Broadway. One or two lights traffic lights later, and I was at Kendall/MIT station. Total time: about 25 minutes.
I would recommend that if you do this, do it during the daytime, as during the night it may be unsafe. Nearly everyone had room, and maybe one or two joggers/bikers blasted past me. I'll try it from Kendall to Cambridgeside, but the reward from walking is that you burn off all those calories from the food court!
10/18/2008
Food control - why it's a waste of time and a failure
Every time I enter the L'il Peach in Cleary Square, the kids from the Rogers and Hyde Park High load up on whatever sugar-laden or fat-laden treats they can get their hands on. Many a time, I joked out loud that there should be a snack tax - one that would discourage kids from bollixing up the line by forking over more money for Pixy Stix, Chef's Cajun/Ketchup/Soul chips, and Ring Pops.
That would give richer, tonier, wealthier towns a wicked idea, though. Tack on a quarter to a fist full of Tootsie Pops, a bag of chips, or anything else that looks like junk food. They take a harsher line: they ban any form of sugar in their schools.
I'm wondering if the dearth of cupcakes and crullers really raised the SAT scores - no wealthy family will have their spawn at UMass Amherst to flip burgers or work in a cubicle when they could be at a Big Six accounting firm with a hot trophy wife and five Stepford children.
I think these richer towns have it wrong: You cannot hope to rein in obesity if you have a group of resentful kids and equally resentful parents glaring at you as if you were Captain Queeg. Take away the sugar, and they're bound to find it elsewhere and consume it sub rosa.
Are the kids from Lynn going to become illicit sugar suppliers for the kids in Lynnfield? How about the North Andover kids, jonesing for a can of Coke Classic, surreptitiously going over the border to Lawrence to snag a can - at inflated prices? And Brookline is surrounded by Boston, and it's easy to sneak into Allston and Roxbury to get your fix of Ho-hos and Yoo Hoo.
If these richer towns really want to do something about obesity, the first thing is to take the advice of Richard Simmons - bring back gym, also known as physical education. Letting the kids run around for twelve minutes a day during recess will not only get all that pent-up energy out of their systems, it will help maintain their health without your school administration being branded a nanny-state killjoy. The MCAS and other boutique courses can wait - and you won't be taking away a single cupcake or cookie without a whimper, as they'll be burned off as soon as the recess bell rings.
Second, the teachers should be examples to students, and not live their lives through them. That means they should encourage healthier eating by eating healthier themselves. If the teachers can have donuts and flavored coffee during their meetings and are telling their kids they can't bring in cupcakes for the bake sale, then the teacher's a hypocrite AND a liar. Maybe after a few meetings with the things they're forcing their students to do, they will modify their hasty decision.
Third, and most importantly, it is most important to know that social engineering through food control is a bad idea. Making kids perfect at the expense of letting them be kids is a Sysiphian task. Trying to control children through food also brings up nastier, elitist overtones, as in "Johnny won't be much if he's 300 pounds vs. Jenny's a good girl for being within 99% of her weight and height profile." In the future, Johnny could lose all that weight, or even maintain the weight and be fit (normal blood pressure, good cholesterol scores, etc.), while Jenny is in the hospital yet again because she can't gain control of her anorexia or buliemia, and she's one or two binge-purge sessions away from choking on her own vomit and dying - and she's the same 72 pounds she was in 5th grade, at the age of 21.
I don't talk about these things lightly because I am overweight myself. I am over 300 pounds, although I am 6-4. I have high blood pressure at times, and I am prone to lose weight one doctor's visit, only to put it back on another. I sit in front of a computer all day, and exercise is hit-or-miss. Ice cream is my Kryptonite. So what business would I have telling the school boards that their plans to ban sugar and junk food stinks?
Plenty.
I'm a lot like Johnny: my blood sugar and cholestrol is still good. I don't eat eggs all the time, I don't drink or smoke, or do drugs. I do walk, but not enough to get benefits. My doctor tells me I won't live past 60 if I keep on doing what I do, but losing weight and keeping it off isn't an easy process. There is no magic pill, no exercise program or diet program that will make me 100+ pounds lighter tomorrow. I've tried Weight Watchers and I've found it too heavy on meetings and group therapy (and massive amounts of accounting) and not enough on proper eating.
If these school boards think that sugar and junk food are the obstacles from keeping kids healthy, maybe they should consult reputable dietiticians and physicians who aren't paid to spout out the directives these school boards want to hear, as kids will also overeat the healthy, organic stuff equally simply because they think it's OK to gorge on soy shakes and organic tofu dogs.
Maybe they can bring Richard Simmons to their schools and tell them how to do it right.
That would give richer, tonier, wealthier towns a wicked idea, though. Tack on a quarter to a fist full of Tootsie Pops, a bag of chips, or anything else that looks like junk food. They take a harsher line: they ban any form of sugar in their schools.
I'm wondering if the dearth of cupcakes and crullers really raised the SAT scores - no wealthy family will have their spawn at UMass Amherst to flip burgers or work in a cubicle when they could be at a Big Six accounting firm with a hot trophy wife and five Stepford children.
I think these richer towns have it wrong: You cannot hope to rein in obesity if you have a group of resentful kids and equally resentful parents glaring at you as if you were Captain Queeg. Take away the sugar, and they're bound to find it elsewhere and consume it sub rosa.
Are the kids from Lynn going to become illicit sugar suppliers for the kids in Lynnfield? How about the North Andover kids, jonesing for a can of Coke Classic, surreptitiously going over the border to Lawrence to snag a can - at inflated prices? And Brookline is surrounded by Boston, and it's easy to sneak into Allston and Roxbury to get your fix of Ho-hos and Yoo Hoo.
If these richer towns really want to do something about obesity, the first thing is to take the advice of Richard Simmons - bring back gym, also known as physical education. Letting the kids run around for twelve minutes a day during recess will not only get all that pent-up energy out of their systems, it will help maintain their health without your school administration being branded a nanny-state killjoy. The MCAS and other boutique courses can wait - and you won't be taking away a single cupcake or cookie without a whimper, as they'll be burned off as soon as the recess bell rings.
Second, the teachers should be examples to students, and not live their lives through them. That means they should encourage healthier eating by eating healthier themselves. If the teachers can have donuts and flavored coffee during their meetings and are telling their kids they can't bring in cupcakes for the bake sale, then the teacher's a hypocrite AND a liar. Maybe after a few meetings with the things they're forcing their students to do, they will modify their hasty decision.
Third, and most importantly, it is most important to know that social engineering through food control is a bad idea. Making kids perfect at the expense of letting them be kids is a Sysiphian task. Trying to control children through food also brings up nastier, elitist overtones, as in "Johnny won't be much if he's 300 pounds vs. Jenny's a good girl for being within 99% of her weight and height profile." In the future, Johnny could lose all that weight, or even maintain the weight and be fit (normal blood pressure, good cholesterol scores, etc.), while Jenny is in the hospital yet again because she can't gain control of her anorexia or buliemia, and she's one or two binge-purge sessions away from choking on her own vomit and dying - and she's the same 72 pounds she was in 5th grade, at the age of 21.
I don't talk about these things lightly because I am overweight myself. I am over 300 pounds, although I am 6-4. I have high blood pressure at times, and I am prone to lose weight one doctor's visit, only to put it back on another. I sit in front of a computer all day, and exercise is hit-or-miss. Ice cream is my Kryptonite. So what business would I have telling the school boards that their plans to ban sugar and junk food stinks?
Plenty.
I'm a lot like Johnny: my blood sugar and cholestrol is still good. I don't eat eggs all the time, I don't drink or smoke, or do drugs. I do walk, but not enough to get benefits. My doctor tells me I won't live past 60 if I keep on doing what I do, but losing weight and keeping it off isn't an easy process. There is no magic pill, no exercise program or diet program that will make me 100+ pounds lighter tomorrow. I've tried Weight Watchers and I've found it too heavy on meetings and group therapy (and massive amounts of accounting) and not enough on proper eating.
If these school boards think that sugar and junk food are the obstacles from keeping kids healthy, maybe they should consult reputable dietiticians and physicians who aren't paid to spout out the directives these school boards want to hear, as kids will also overeat the healthy, organic stuff equally simply because they think it's OK to gorge on soy shakes and organic tofu dogs.
Maybe they can bring Richard Simmons to their schools and tell them how to do it right.
9/19/2008
Craps and the Stock Market
If you're familiar with the game of craps, and especially gambling, you'll probably appreciate this post. If not, I'll try to explain everything the best I can.
The craps board is laid out into sections. There is the Pass/Don't Pass, the Come/Don't Come, seperate numbers, and the exotic bets section. The actual object of the game is to either (a) get the number ("point") before someone rolls a 7, or (b) get a 7 before the point is established. If you get 2, 3, or 12, that's called craps and you lose.
The way I play craps is that you have a much better chance of getting a 7 versus all of the other numbers. The people who want to win using a "point" play the Pass/Come section. The people who want to win using "7" use the Don't Pass/Don't Come section. Usually you get hostile stares when everyone's betting Pass and you put money on the Don't Pass.
For the exotic bets, people see the odds on some of these bets and figure they'll make tons of money. That's what the casino wants you to think, but they know ahead of time that these exotic bets win plenty of money for the house. The worst bet - any seven - has a house advantage of 16%, whereas a Pass/Come bet ranks about 1%.
In the stock market, too many traders, instead of making serious trades, shuffled a lot of their money into exotic bets - subprime mortgages, derivatives, etc. They were losing tons of money until the Federal Reserve agreed in principal to take over the bad bets. If I tried to take my losing craps bets and begged the casino to take them, I would be nursing serious bruises and broken bones, as the layman can't pass on his debt back to the casino (especially if they're using "markers" - loaned money to pay back the debt). The same thing happens in Wall Street: traders will use margin to buy stocks, and if they do poorly, they either meet the margin to keep on playing or give up the stocks. What happened was previous stinkeroos of bets piled on top of one another, and when one source of money ran out, traders attempted to goose other instruments, like gold and energy, to make a quick buck, then paid off their old debts.
What happened this week should be a warning to those who think they'll get rich off the stock market. Unless you like to see how sausage is made, your best bet is to stay away from it. Yes, your 401(k) you've so lovingly contributed and your company has matched should be safe, but all it takes is one stupid and irresponsible bet for your account to vanish. On the other side, those who are screaming that Wall Street is now being "socialized" is missing the entire point why the government sometimes has to step in to prevent stock market crashes from happening. In fact, some of the financial pundits should have no business being in front of a TV screen - dispensing such advice as "401(k) money is free money" (it isn't), "Stock XYZ will make a killing - buy now!" (stock starts at $10, spikes up to $50, but then ends up getting delisted and liquidated for less than a dime), and "The economy is doing fine/horrible!" (says who?)
I've been following business for a few years now. If you want to learn what happens when bad bets on Wall Street come home to roost, I suggest renting the excellent Kevin Bacon movie Quicksilver. For laughs and how to really work over the people who hate you, I heartily recommend Trading Places.
The craps board is laid out into sections. There is the Pass/Don't Pass, the Come/Don't Come, seperate numbers, and the exotic bets section. The actual object of the game is to either (a) get the number ("point") before someone rolls a 7, or (b) get a 7 before the point is established. If you get 2, 3, or 12, that's called craps and you lose.
The way I play craps is that you have a much better chance of getting a 7 versus all of the other numbers. The people who want to win using a "point" play the Pass/Come section. The people who want to win using "7" use the Don't Pass/Don't Come section. Usually you get hostile stares when everyone's betting Pass and you put money on the Don't Pass.
For the exotic bets, people see the odds on some of these bets and figure they'll make tons of money. That's what the casino wants you to think, but they know ahead of time that these exotic bets win plenty of money for the house. The worst bet - any seven - has a house advantage of 16%, whereas a Pass/Come bet ranks about 1%.
In the stock market, too many traders, instead of making serious trades, shuffled a lot of their money into exotic bets - subprime mortgages, derivatives, etc. They were losing tons of money until the Federal Reserve agreed in principal to take over the bad bets. If I tried to take my losing craps bets and begged the casino to take them, I would be nursing serious bruises and broken bones, as the layman can't pass on his debt back to the casino (especially if they're using "markers" - loaned money to pay back the debt). The same thing happens in Wall Street: traders will use margin to buy stocks, and if they do poorly, they either meet the margin to keep on playing or give up the stocks. What happened was previous stinkeroos of bets piled on top of one another, and when one source of money ran out, traders attempted to goose other instruments, like gold and energy, to make a quick buck, then paid off their old debts.
What happened this week should be a warning to those who think they'll get rich off the stock market. Unless you like to see how sausage is made, your best bet is to stay away from it. Yes, your 401(k) you've so lovingly contributed and your company has matched should be safe, but all it takes is one stupid and irresponsible bet for your account to vanish. On the other side, those who are screaming that Wall Street is now being "socialized" is missing the entire point why the government sometimes has to step in to prevent stock market crashes from happening. In fact, some of the financial pundits should have no business being in front of a TV screen - dispensing such advice as "401(k) money is free money" (it isn't), "Stock XYZ will make a killing - buy now!" (stock starts at $10, spikes up to $50, but then ends up getting delisted and liquidated for less than a dime), and "The economy is doing fine/horrible!" (says who?)
I've been following business for a few years now. If you want to learn what happens when bad bets on Wall Street come home to roost, I suggest renting the excellent Kevin Bacon movie Quicksilver. For laughs and how to really work over the people who hate you, I heartily recommend Trading Places.
9/13/2008
KHOU has a wicked sense of humor...
KHOU in Houston put up statuses of the damage done by Ike...but you've got to hand it to them to connect the hurricane with Tina Turner. Must be some kind of Javascript deal.
8/13/2008
Elizabeth Tieso: 1922-2008
Normally I don't write about death, but soon enough, death comes to all of us.
Sudden, unavoidable death is harsh. The harshest death of all, however, is the slowest one, but the also the one that relieves you the most; it is the illness that goes on rollercoaster turns until one day, your selected deity says, "enough."
When my father died in 2005 from lung cancer, I was more relieved than saddened because he had fought for 14 months, and I would have rather gone through a root canal and six months of jury duty than watch him die the last few days he lasted. But when he did die, it was as if a huge monumental weight lifted from my shoulders. I was happy that my mother, the poor soul who accompanied him to 2am emergency room runs and sat beside him during his final hours, was released from oncological bondage. The wake and funeral, on the other hand, confirmed that state where my father changed from a living, breathing human to cremated remains in an urn. (One Christmas my brothers put a hat on his urn. My mother wasn't too thrilled, but had my father been alive, he would have thought that to be funny.)
My grandmother, Elizabeth "Betty" Tieso, had been showing signs of early senility as far back as 2000. She would occasionally forget things, talk in "ragtime" when in the hospital, or not recognize us. At least at that time, she would laugh and joke that she was having a senior moment.
In 2004, however, things began to change, and rapidly. One Sunday afternoon, my grandmother had collapsed in the bathroom. A few days later, we discovered she had a mini-stroke. Then, she was lucid enough, but beginning to show signs of deterioration in speech and stability. The doctors thought she had the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease, but it wasn't until later that we discovered she was suffering from senile dementia.
It's hard for me to describe what dementia is compared to Alzheimer's, but from what I understand, Alzheimer's allows you to function with some degree. Dementia, on the other hand, chips away at all your brain function until you're bedridden and 100% dependent on others to take care of you.
As time passed, Betty's health declined slowly. She wasn't able to talk in coherent sentences anymore, and she trembled constantly. On occasion, she could recognize us, but often the names got scrambled around (I often got called Gus, Rich, Dave and even Bernie). She could still eat, but needed assistance. Around a month ago, my grandfather, Ben (Barney), who refused to put her into a nursing home, got in contact with hospice.
A few days ago, God activated Betty's two-minute warning. By then, her status began to decline much more rapidly, to the point where she wouldn't eat or drink anymore. He was preparing for Betty for her departure from the mortals and into the Heavens. Each day, I asked my mother, "No change?" and she would tell me, "No...everything's still shutting down."
I prayed to God to have Him take Betty at a time where I would not be home. I feared that early morning phone call where my grandfather would tell us that Betty was gone. This morning, I wore a Boston Red Sox polo shirt to work and set about my day.
My brother from Beverly called me at 10:30. God never thought of my request to take her in daylight was the least bit selfish - in fact, He thought that the "enough" clause was universal for all of us - for the people who took care of her, to the people who watched her decline, day by day.
Betty breathed her last on August 13, 2008, at 10:15am. She was 86 years old.
Sudden, unavoidable death is harsh. The harshest death of all, however, is the slowest one, but the also the one that relieves you the most; it is the illness that goes on rollercoaster turns until one day, your selected deity says, "enough."
When my father died in 2005 from lung cancer, I was more relieved than saddened because he had fought for 14 months, and I would have rather gone through a root canal and six months of jury duty than watch him die the last few days he lasted. But when he did die, it was as if a huge monumental weight lifted from my shoulders. I was happy that my mother, the poor soul who accompanied him to 2am emergency room runs and sat beside him during his final hours, was released from oncological bondage. The wake and funeral, on the other hand, confirmed that state where my father changed from a living, breathing human to cremated remains in an urn. (One Christmas my brothers put a hat on his urn. My mother wasn't too thrilled, but had my father been alive, he would have thought that to be funny.)
My grandmother, Elizabeth "Betty" Tieso, had been showing signs of early senility as far back as 2000. She would occasionally forget things, talk in "ragtime" when in the hospital, or not recognize us. At least at that time, she would laugh and joke that she was having a senior moment.
In 2004, however, things began to change, and rapidly. One Sunday afternoon, my grandmother had collapsed in the bathroom. A few days later, we discovered she had a mini-stroke. Then, she was lucid enough, but beginning to show signs of deterioration in speech and stability. The doctors thought she had the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease, but it wasn't until later that we discovered she was suffering from senile dementia.
It's hard for me to describe what dementia is compared to Alzheimer's, but from what I understand, Alzheimer's allows you to function with some degree. Dementia, on the other hand, chips away at all your brain function until you're bedridden and 100% dependent on others to take care of you.
As time passed, Betty's health declined slowly. She wasn't able to talk in coherent sentences anymore, and she trembled constantly. On occasion, she could recognize us, but often the names got scrambled around (I often got called Gus, Rich, Dave and even Bernie). She could still eat, but needed assistance. Around a month ago, my grandfather, Ben (Barney), who refused to put her into a nursing home, got in contact with hospice.
A few days ago, God activated Betty's two-minute warning. By then, her status began to decline much more rapidly, to the point where she wouldn't eat or drink anymore. He was preparing for Betty for her departure from the mortals and into the Heavens. Each day, I asked my mother, "No change?" and she would tell me, "No...everything's still shutting down."
I prayed to God to have Him take Betty at a time where I would not be home. I feared that early morning phone call where my grandfather would tell us that Betty was gone. This morning, I wore a Boston Red Sox polo shirt to work and set about my day.
My brother from Beverly called me at 10:30. God never thought of my request to take her in daylight was the least bit selfish - in fact, He thought that the "enough" clause was universal for all of us - for the people who took care of her, to the people who watched her decline, day by day.
Betty breathed her last on August 13, 2008, at 10:15am. She was 86 years old.
7/26/2008
Political correctness - the religion of the elite
Jon Keller gives a crack set of comments about the Lowell Spinners Political Correctness Night, where the bat boys were batpersons and the shortstops were vertically challenged players.
Keller also has a poll that highlights the killjoy nature of PC...I'm printing his poll out with my comments in red.
- Insistence on gender neutrality in all things (e.g. "selectperson" or "second-baseperson")
Where the men can now become nurses and women can now be mayors, there is no bias. When it gets ridiculous as in the above, it smacks of insecurity and avoiding reality.
- The insistence that there is no right or wrong
I graduated with a mathematics degree in 1994. Proving theorems and solving complex mathematical problems was the way I got out of writing fifteen page papers. The proof of 1+1=2 is rumored to be 800 pages long, and in abstract algebra, 1+1=2 is the result of an element in an additive ring with the operation of + acting as a collector of successive items, with 1 representing a unitary object and 2 representing the successive object.
In my current line of work, there are certain rules and regulations I must follow, and I must keep a high accuracy percentage, or else I get FIRED. That means I cannot explain my way out of my errors; I actually have to have proof that I was right before they dismiss the charge, so I'm guilty before I'm proven innocent.
'There is no right or wrong' is a cop-out when the person posing the question can't answer it either.
- Phobic antipathy toward Western civilization, its cultural works and beliefs
In other words, be really, really suspicious and jealous of stuff that was not done by the Third World, corrupt despots and bloodthirsty dictators, and things that involve science, law and other innovations...things that keep people in the Middle Ages or lesser.
- One must never do anything to damage anyone else's self-esteem (i.e. grading, tracking, testing)
Horsehockey (not to you, Jon!). Testing, grading and tracking is absolutely essential - it gauges knowledge, points out errors, and helps people to understand what is right and what is wrong. Even if you're not held to a job that expects high quality, you're still being graded, tracked and tested by your managers and supervisors to see if the hire they made (you) will be able to tackle higher assignments down the road. If you break under pressure, you may miss out on raises, and soon enough, you may be shown the door for lack of initiative.
- Feel-good environmental fads of dubious value (such as carbon footprint offsets)
Any activity that protects the elite at the expense of the non-elite is a product of guilt, guarded jealousy, and envy. The elite, in order to protect all their goodies, throw out all sorts of curve ball theories to keep the non-elite from enjoying their spoils. Environmentalism is a great example - the elite preach the gospel according to Gaia, but once the mercury-filled lights are dimmed, the elite go home in their carbon-wasting jets, drive their gas-guzzling cars, and enter their gated mansions, smugly counting their lucre behind closed doors and snickering. Any "-ism" that has been tried as a political fiat always fails and sometimes takes a human toll - sometimes at the point of a gun.
- Excessive emphasis on the "root causes" of violent criminal behavior
Analysis paralysis hasn't solved the great murders of the 20th and 21st century...but defense attorneys seem not to mind when they can bill at $300 per hour.
- Going nuclear over someone else's harmless slip of the tongue
Don Imus found out the hard way - referring to a women's basketball team as he did in passing was similar to taking down a hornet's nest with a machine gun.
On the other hand, if you're zealous in correcting people for their slips of the tongue, it would be better to keep your tongue in your mouth instead of being a pushy busybody.
- Valuing PC over the First Amendment
Free speech is not equal to saying whatever you want while the other speaker is forced to listen. Free speech is also not equal to having people accept your wacky theories or your obscenity-laden tirades.
Free speech really is saying things that people won't agree with, any may require you clarify your statement. Free speech also guarantees us saying things without fear of arrest or reprisal.
PC mutates free speech into something that is synthetic, a sort of code-word interlingua between two people who are afraid to say in public what they are free to say behind closed doors. PC euphemizes unpleasant things, incorrectly elevates dull ones, and attempts to block off all stereotypes and characterizations that people find unsettling. PC manages to take the joy out of wonderful, marvelous things and reduces them to impersonal, cold machinations, in which the joke is on the unknowing.
Behind closed doors, the freedom to be ugly and to lash out on those beneath you while in public you painstakingly choreographed the correct, inoffensive version prove you to be a phony, rather than being one of the "enlightened."
Keller also has a poll that highlights the killjoy nature of PC...I'm printing his poll out with my comments in red.
- Insistence on gender neutrality in all things (e.g. "selectperson" or "second-baseperson")
Where the men can now become nurses and women can now be mayors, there is no bias. When it gets ridiculous as in the above, it smacks of insecurity and avoiding reality.
- The insistence that there is no right or wrong
I graduated with a mathematics degree in 1994. Proving theorems and solving complex mathematical problems was the way I got out of writing fifteen page papers. The proof of 1+1=2 is rumored to be 800 pages long, and in abstract algebra, 1+1=2 is the result of an element in an additive ring with the operation of + acting as a collector of successive items, with 1 representing a unitary object and 2 representing the successive object.
In my current line of work, there are certain rules and regulations I must follow, and I must keep a high accuracy percentage, or else I get FIRED. That means I cannot explain my way out of my errors; I actually have to have proof that I was right before they dismiss the charge, so I'm guilty before I'm proven innocent.
'There is no right or wrong' is a cop-out when the person posing the question can't answer it either.
- Phobic antipathy toward Western civilization, its cultural works and beliefs
In other words, be really, really suspicious and jealous of stuff that was not done by the Third World, corrupt despots and bloodthirsty dictators, and things that involve science, law and other innovations...things that keep people in the Middle Ages or lesser.
- One must never do anything to damage anyone else's self-esteem (i.e. grading, tracking, testing)
Horsehockey (not to you, Jon!). Testing, grading and tracking is absolutely essential - it gauges knowledge, points out errors, and helps people to understand what is right and what is wrong. Even if you're not held to a job that expects high quality, you're still being graded, tracked and tested by your managers and supervisors to see if the hire they made (you) will be able to tackle higher assignments down the road. If you break under pressure, you may miss out on raises, and soon enough, you may be shown the door for lack of initiative.
- Feel-good environmental fads of dubious value (such as carbon footprint offsets)
Any activity that protects the elite at the expense of the non-elite is a product of guilt, guarded jealousy, and envy. The elite, in order to protect all their goodies, throw out all sorts of curve ball theories to keep the non-elite from enjoying their spoils. Environmentalism is a great example - the elite preach the gospel according to Gaia, but once the mercury-filled lights are dimmed, the elite go home in their carbon-wasting jets, drive their gas-guzzling cars, and enter their gated mansions, smugly counting their lucre behind closed doors and snickering. Any "-ism" that has been tried as a political fiat always fails and sometimes takes a human toll - sometimes at the point of a gun.
- Excessive emphasis on the "root causes" of violent criminal behavior
Analysis paralysis hasn't solved the great murders of the 20th and 21st century...but defense attorneys seem not to mind when they can bill at $300 per hour.
- Going nuclear over someone else's harmless slip of the tongue
Don Imus found out the hard way - referring to a women's basketball team as he did in passing was similar to taking down a hornet's nest with a machine gun.
On the other hand, if you're zealous in correcting people for their slips of the tongue, it would be better to keep your tongue in your mouth instead of being a pushy busybody.
- Valuing PC over the First Amendment
Free speech is not equal to saying whatever you want while the other speaker is forced to listen. Free speech is also not equal to having people accept your wacky theories or your obscenity-laden tirades.
Free speech really is saying things that people won't agree with, any may require you clarify your statement. Free speech also guarantees us saying things without fear of arrest or reprisal.
PC mutates free speech into something that is synthetic, a sort of code-word interlingua between two people who are afraid to say in public what they are free to say behind closed doors. PC euphemizes unpleasant things, incorrectly elevates dull ones, and attempts to block off all stereotypes and characterizations that people find unsettling. PC manages to take the joy out of wonderful, marvelous things and reduces them to impersonal, cold machinations, in which the joke is on the unknowing.
Behind closed doors, the freedom to be ugly and to lash out on those beneath you while in public you painstakingly choreographed the correct, inoffensive version prove you to be a phony, rather than being one of the "enlightened."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)