I have been feeling worse and worse, lately. I have been seeing more and more people willing to deface their cars and their property, and debase themselves, by identifying with a man who embodies fascism, ignorance, contempt for half of the people on the planet, and hatred for most of the people on the planet. I know that a lot of these people are, at their core, decent, and probably don't think of themselves as endorsing mocking disabled people, being a deadbeat, and unthinking sexism and cruelty. A lot of them consider themselves Christian, and who knows, maybe they feel the faintest of qualms about endorsing a guy who seems to make it a goal to violate every tenet of their religion's Savior. But there they are, endorsing him, and to me, they are saying, "I approve of these actions." In every election up to now, I've viewed voting for certain candidates as an expression of political sensibility; in this election, I find I'm viewing it as a statement of morals.
There's a feeling that you get right before you throw up. You've been getting sicker, and sicker, and you surprise and disappoint yourself by getting even sicker. Your head feels as if it's filled with a balloon of sulfide gas that has squeezed your brains out your ears. You can't really hear anything but static and a distant screeching of fingernails on chalkboard, and your vision starts to narrow down and pale. Your mouth is dryer than you can imagine, but you still taste something like dirty metal, and your skin gets clammy and cold. But then, comes the realization that you will throw up. Your body is making the decisions now, and it has decided that it has got to purge you of whatever you've ingested that is trying to kill you. If you have any clarity of mind remaining, you are grateful because this is what needs to be done, and, as you run for the toilet, you realize that you'll probably feel better afterwords. Not good; but better.
I feel as though that's where we are right now, as a country, a week out from this goddamned election. It's time to start hurrying our steps towards the voting booth instead of the toilet and rid ourselves of the toxins poisoning our body politic. The only thing that has me worried is the number of folks who are thinking that they would rather head back to the drinks table and have another hit of the Trump brand Vodka.
I do not look forward to the hangover.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Um, Wednesday words, take two
A couple of words that jumped out at me while listening to the radio's discussion of our current national insanity:
"Activist"--a noun that has been adjectived, always used to describe a judge whose opinions run contrary to your personal interpretation of the law on your pet issue.
"Special Interest"--any cause or party or category that is not yours.
Note that your favorite impartial jurist is someone else's activist, and that your personal favorite recipient of justified governmental beneficence is a special interest.
UPDATE 13 November...
"Objective reporting"--reporting that agrees with my editorial slant.
I was just reading my college alumni magazine. The magazine reliably brings at least two articles worth deeply reading, which generally have some social significance; the following issues of the magazine just as reliably have at least a half-dozen letters about each article, and they will reliably represent a range of views from the farthest left to the hardest right. The last issue had an article about the ethics of objectivity in election reporting. The author boldly (and dubiously) argued that objectivity in political reporting should not be a goal. This provoked strong responses from left and right, but the one that prompts this update is as follows, a representative gem from the angry right alumni of the 60's who provide much of the fill of the letters pages:
I snorted when I read this; I dropped my subscription to the Economist a few years ago because, while I appreciated their coverage of the world, the reportage--not the editorial writing--was shot through with a very conservative slant. You could see this in the choice of language, choice of attention, and a general sense of tut-tutting whenever those uncivilized savages in India or Colombia did anything with the faintest odor of socialism.
So.
"Activist"--a noun that has been adjectived, always used to describe a judge whose opinions run contrary to your personal interpretation of the law on your pet issue.
"Special Interest"--any cause or party or category that is not yours.
Note that your favorite impartial jurist is someone else's activist, and that your personal favorite recipient of justified governmental beneficence is a special interest.
UPDATE 13 November...
"Objective reporting"--reporting that agrees with my editorial slant.
I was just reading my college alumni magazine. The magazine reliably brings at least two articles worth deeply reading, which generally have some social significance; the following issues of the magazine just as reliably have at least a half-dozen letters about each article, and they will reliably represent a range of views from the farthest left to the hardest right. The last issue had an article about the ethics of objectivity in election reporting. The author boldly (and dubiously) argued that objectivity in political reporting should not be a goal. This provoked strong responses from left and right, but the one that prompts this update is as follows, a representative gem from the angry right alumni of the 60's who provide much of the fill of the letters pages:
[...]it seems that responsible reporting must be editorialized. That's probably because most of us Americans are too dumb to handle or interpret facts.
A decade or more ago I dumped Time, U.S. News and World Report and the New York Times after years of subscribing. Now I just read the Economist. Those silly folks report a lot of facts, and when they editorialize, they tell you. Imagine how careless, lazy, and naive!
I snorted when I read this; I dropped my subscription to the Economist a few years ago because, while I appreciated their coverage of the world, the reportage--not the editorial writing--was shot through with a very conservative slant. You could see this in the choice of language, choice of attention, and a general sense of tut-tutting whenever those uncivilized savages in India or Colombia did anything with the faintest odor of socialism.
So.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Tuesday Tool Bioassay Edition
This Tuesday's tool is the voltage tester. It's a little doohickey with a probe that you stick in the ground, connected by a wire to a little box with a metal hook that you hang onto an electric fence. If the fence is "hot", then the box lights up. The stronger the voltage, the more lights. You use this to see if your electric fence is working like it's supposed to.
You can also use a ram for the same purpose. If he's scratching his head, flossing the gap between his horns with what is supposed to be the hot wire, then you can be pretty sure that your fence isn't working properly.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Monday Musical Opinion
I'll just say that I'd really like to retire Bach's Toccata and Fugue in d minor as a "spooky" piece. It has no more to do with spooky than Mozart's Piano Concerto #21 has to do with tragic Danish circus performers.
That is all.
That is all.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Wednesday Wordage Mourning Edition
Times change. Behavior that is commonplace now would have rocked the world of a century past; what was once normal, right, and proper is now fusty, antiquated, and weird.
So, a bit over a year ago, a guy with some mental issues completely legally obtained weapons designed for the sole purpose of efficiently killing lots of people, walked into a classroom at the local community college, and used those weapons for their intended purpose. I do think that a century ago, the event would have been remembered differently. After all, we still talk about Jack the Ripper, who killed maybe six people, and the Hatfields and McCoys, who were not especially efficient in their murderous ways. I thought that it was a certainty that my town would be forever branded with this mass shooting. It was the main subject in the national news for almost a week, an inescapable thing, and the word "Roseburg" was paired with the word "shooting," like it or not.
A year later, it seems that we are past it. Perhaps mass shootings are too commonplace. For a while, when I mentioned that I was from Roseburg, people from out of state would mumble some sort of recognition and note the city's loss. Now, when I talk to people from out of state, they haven't heard of Roseburg or know anything about it.
I guess it wasn't horrible enough. Newtown is horrible enough that it is still remembered, so we know that the deaths of twenty-some little kids can cause a lasting dent the nation's psyche. 10 people, mostly young adults? Not enough.
But this is supposed to be about words, and changes in usage.
There are rites of mourning. There used to be standards for these. In the Victorian era, when death was a lot more everyday, there were things that were done--the death photograph, the lock of hair, the wearing of mourning, and so on, and written rules for how long they should be done for. To modern sensibilities, these rules seem pretty bizarre--but they are helpful, in that they do provide some guidance for how to not look disrespectful. Now we are winging it, and here in Roseburg, we can use some help.
Immediately after the shooting, business marquees all started reading "ROSEBURG STRONG" or "OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH UCC" or "PRAY FOR UCC" and so on. That is a socially acceptable form of public mourning. It actually may be obligatory rather than demanded. But in the absence of a code, it's not clear when you can take down that message and post "SUMMER FUN SUPPLIES" or "SPOOKY SAVINGS INSIDE." In an earlier time, we'd know: six months for a second degree relation, a year for a first degree relation, maintaining a black border, and so on. Now, without these codes, many of the signs are still up, and I'm sure the proprietors would take them down but for the fear of being disrespectful. Sometimes, rigid rules help.
So, a bit over a year ago, a guy with some mental issues completely legally obtained weapons designed for the sole purpose of efficiently killing lots of people, walked into a classroom at the local community college, and used those weapons for their intended purpose. I do think that a century ago, the event would have been remembered differently. After all, we still talk about Jack the Ripper, who killed maybe six people, and the Hatfields and McCoys, who were not especially efficient in their murderous ways. I thought that it was a certainty that my town would be forever branded with this mass shooting. It was the main subject in the national news for almost a week, an inescapable thing, and the word "Roseburg" was paired with the word "shooting," like it or not.
A year later, it seems that we are past it. Perhaps mass shootings are too commonplace. For a while, when I mentioned that I was from Roseburg, people from out of state would mumble some sort of recognition and note the city's loss. Now, when I talk to people from out of state, they haven't heard of Roseburg or know anything about it.
I guess it wasn't horrible enough. Newtown is horrible enough that it is still remembered, so we know that the deaths of twenty-some little kids can cause a lasting dent the nation's psyche. 10 people, mostly young adults? Not enough.
But this is supposed to be about words, and changes in usage.
There are rites of mourning. There used to be standards for these. In the Victorian era, when death was a lot more everyday, there were things that were done--the death photograph, the lock of hair, the wearing of mourning, and so on, and written rules for how long they should be done for. To modern sensibilities, these rules seem pretty bizarre--but they are helpful, in that they do provide some guidance for how to not look disrespectful. Now we are winging it, and here in Roseburg, we can use some help.
Immediately after the shooting, business marquees all started reading "ROSEBURG STRONG" or "OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH UCC" or "PRAY FOR UCC" and so on. That is a socially acceptable form of public mourning. It actually may be obligatory rather than demanded. But in the absence of a code, it's not clear when you can take down that message and post "SUMMER FUN SUPPLIES" or "SPOOKY SAVINGS INSIDE." In an earlier time, we'd know: six months for a second degree relation, a year for a first degree relation, maintaining a black border, and so on. Now, without these codes, many of the signs are still up, and I'm sure the proprietors would take them down but for the fear of being disrespectful. Sometimes, rigid rules help.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Wednesday Words Please Stop Edition
I like words, which is why there is a Wednesday Words theme here. I like them as things to play with, as objects that behave oddly, or that have curious histories. Language--what happens when words get strung together--is a bit different. I dislike the abuse of words, such as the use of "impact" as a verb or the myriad atrocities of businesspeak. But I have become horrified lately by the abuse of language, and I am going to ask you, who may read this, to help stamp it out.
The language in question conveys a meaning, one that is corrosive to society. We should, as individuals in society, recognize that we are all elements in a larger whole; that every other person in that larger whole is as much a person as we ourselves are. In short, we should have compassion. We may occasionally bump into each other the wrong way, we may intentionally or unintentionally slight one another, we may fail to live up to our ideals, miss the mark, or sin. If we do this, we should own up to the fact that we have wronged another person who is just as important as us, and as part of that, we should string together some words into language that expresses compassion and actually helps to make things better.
So, if you find yourself in this situation (and, being human, you will), do not use the following language:
"Mistakes were made." That's not in doubt. Who made them? As any editor will tell you, use the active voice.
"I regret if anybody took offense at my remarks." A dodge to throw things into the passive voice; it makes the action come from, and the blame fall upon, the person wronged.
"As the [relative] of a [female, minority, immigrant, person of minority faith, or other too-often-picked-on-group], I am appalled by so-and-so's statements." Compassion is recognizing the humanity of others. If you only recognize humanity when it's your own, you don't really have compassion.
Okay, I'm probably preaching to the choir here. But still, we are exposed to these dodges all too often, and those who commit violence to language go on their way freely. Do what you can to call them out. Heck, I'll even tolerate the use of "impact" as a verb if I could see these phrases disappear.
The language in question conveys a meaning, one that is corrosive to society. We should, as individuals in society, recognize that we are all elements in a larger whole; that every other person in that larger whole is as much a person as we ourselves are. In short, we should have compassion. We may occasionally bump into each other the wrong way, we may intentionally or unintentionally slight one another, we may fail to live up to our ideals, miss the mark, or sin. If we do this, we should own up to the fact that we have wronged another person who is just as important as us, and as part of that, we should string together some words into language that expresses compassion and actually helps to make things better.
So, if you find yourself in this situation (and, being human, you will), do not use the following language:
"Mistakes were made." That's not in doubt. Who made them? As any editor will tell you, use the active voice.
"I regret if anybody took offense at my remarks." A dodge to throw things into the passive voice; it makes the action come from, and the blame fall upon, the person wronged.
"As the [relative] of a [female, minority, immigrant, person of minority faith, or other too-often-picked-on-group], I am appalled by so-and-so's statements." Compassion is recognizing the humanity of others. If you only recognize humanity when it's your own, you don't really have compassion.
Okay, I'm probably preaching to the choir here. But still, we are exposed to these dodges all too often, and those who commit violence to language go on their way freely. Do what you can to call them out. Heck, I'll even tolerate the use of "impact" as a verb if I could see these phrases disappear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)