Marshwiggle wrote: Also, I'd note that the combustion of a physical textile has no relation to the spoken or written word.. surely an english major does not find burning and speaking synonomous. I respectfully submit that we're confusing "freedom of expression" with "freedom of speech" here.
It seems that we have a problem of definition here. It's my fault; I was using an idea from my current reading (discourse analysis; real fun stuff... urgh) and didn't define it very well. Take a look at the comment Marshwiggle was responding to: It is a reconfiguration of a physical symbol, and that, to me, is a speech act.
Notice that I did not claim it was "speech." Rather, I claimed that it was a speech act (though I admit that I am taking the linguist's notion of "speech act" a bit further than more traditional theorists do).
A speech act consists of a physical action that makes use of a symbolic system common both to the actor and observer(s) of said action (this normally involves the voice and a linguistic system). The action is normally undertaken for the purpose of affecting the behavior of the observer(s) of said act.
For instance, if a mother were to walk into her child's room and say, "this place is a mess" within the child's hearing, the child would be expected to either provide some explanation or begin cleaning the room (or at the very least, provide assent to cleaning the room at a later date).
Another example of a speech act would be a preacher standing on a street corner holding a cross and saying, "There is salvation through no other name! Come to Jesus!" The cross, though not a part of the vocative utterance of the preacher, is an essential part of his message -- it is intended to remind the hearer(s) of Christ's death for sin on a cross. His holding of it serves an important, irreplacable rhetorical purpose and therefore would be considered under my schema as a speech act.
What I'm arguing is that the burning of a flag should be every bit as covered under the First Amendment as the preacher's right to hold that cross on the street corner.
No, the burning of a flag does not involve formal linguistic systems, written or spoken. Nevertheless, it still is a symbolic method of communication with conventional precedents and deeply inscribed social and cultural meanings. Thus, I would argue that it is a speech act even though it does not entail utterance or inscription of language.
The burning of a flag is a significant rhetorical move whose effect cannot be achieved in any other way. It is thus an abridgement of free speech to prevent flags from being burnt.
Noises From the Machine
29 June 2006
28 June 2006
Flag Burning
Congress's second recent attempt at a Constitutional amendment failed yesterday by one vote. The amendment, which the Associated Press reported on today, was an attempt to ban flag burning. I could talk all I wanted about this amendment, but a legislator has already said it better than I could:
"Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.I'm very thankful for people like Inouye who believe that pre-existing Constitutional amendments should trump new ones.
"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."
27 June 2006
Today's Junk Science Brought to You By Canada
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
You've probably read about a recent study that links having older brothers to being gay:
We all probably expect the reactionary right to come out swinging against this study, right? (And they'd probably find some justification in doing so, because this seems a lot like one of those "correlation=causality" deals.) But those interested in gender theory should have every bit as much interest in it, I think. The implication here is that cathexis has roots that are primarily biological, which introduces a lot of problems for people who conceptualize sexuality as a socially constructed attribute of humanity.
According to the LA Times article I quote above, "Canadian psychologist Anthony Bogaert found no evidence that social interactions among family members played a role in determining whether a man was gay or straight." This sentence sets off so many warning buzzers in my head that I feel like I just dropped acid. How is it at all possible to dissect every piece of a family's social interaction and then quantify whether any of these pieces could possibly have contributed to development of nonheterosexual sexualities?!
As you probably could have guessed, these psychologists haven't got a clue what (if any) biological mechanism is causing this. However, queer theorists will be troubled (or, knowing them, delighted) by one possible answer: "women's bodies react to male fetuses' proteins as foreign, making antibodies to fight them." As more and more male fetuses are born, the antibodies grow stronger and stronger. In other words, the gay male body is a pathology.
The study has a sample size of a little over 900, which isn't too bad... until you realize how tiny the research findings really are. The article says,
Regardless, if we assume the data are correct, the first older brother increases the chances of siblings being gay from 2% by 33% to make it 2.66%. The next brother makes it 3.5%. The next makes it 4.7%. So 4.7% of younger siblings in big families (4 or more children) become gay. I don't know if any of you have experience with being in a large family, but from my own observations, I don't think there'd need to be a biological reason for a younger sibling in such a family to fail to comply with sociocultural norms (I'm not arguing that it's intentional; I'm just saying that it wouldn't surprise me if these kiddos had their cathexes severely displaced as a result of their family's abnormal social infrastructure).
That's about all I've got to say about this, except to deplore that the press makes such a big (albeit superficial) deal about these things one day and moves on to something else the next. That's all.
You've probably read about a recent study that links having older brothers to being gay:
Having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay — an effect due not to social factors, but biological events that occur in their mother's womb, according to a study published today.
In an analysis of 905 men and their siblings, Canadian psychologist Anthony Bogaert found no evidence that social interactions among family members played a role in determining whether a man was gay or straight.
We all probably expect the reactionary right to come out swinging against this study, right? (And they'd probably find some justification in doing so, because this seems a lot like one of those "correlation=causality" deals.) But those interested in gender theory should have every bit as much interest in it, I think. The implication here is that cathexis has roots that are primarily biological, which introduces a lot of problems for people who conceptualize sexuality as a socially constructed attribute of humanity.
According to the LA Times article I quote above, "Canadian psychologist Anthony Bogaert found no evidence that social interactions among family members played a role in determining whether a man was gay or straight." This sentence sets off so many warning buzzers in my head that I feel like I just dropped acid. How is it at all possible to dissect every piece of a family's social interaction and then quantify whether any of these pieces could possibly have contributed to development of nonheterosexual sexualities?!
As you probably could have guessed, these psychologists haven't got a clue what (if any) biological mechanism is causing this. However, queer theorists will be troubled (or, knowing them, delighted) by one possible answer: "women's bodies react to male fetuses' proteins as foreign, making antibodies to fight them." As more and more male fetuses are born, the antibodies grow stronger and stronger. In other words, the gay male body is a pathology.
The study has a sample size of a little over 900, which isn't too bad... until you realize how tiny the research findings really are. The article says,
The so-called fraternal birth order effect is small: Each older brother increases the chances by 33%. Assuming the base rate of homosexuality among men is 2%, it would take 11 older brothers to give the next son about a 50-50 chance of being gay.It seems a bit hasty to use less than a thousand Canadian gays to come to this conclusion.
Regardless, if we assume the data are correct, the first older brother increases the chances of siblings being gay from 2% by 33% to make it 2.66%. The next brother makes it 3.5%. The next makes it 4.7%. So 4.7% of younger siblings in big families (4 or more children) become gay. I don't know if any of you have experience with being in a large family, but from my own observations, I don't think there'd need to be a biological reason for a younger sibling in such a family to fail to comply with sociocultural norms (I'm not arguing that it's intentional; I'm just saying that it wouldn't surprise me if these kiddos had their cathexes severely displaced as a result of their family's abnormal social infrastructure).
That's about all I've got to say about this, except to deplore that the press makes such a big (albeit superficial) deal about these things one day and moves on to something else the next. That's all.
The News of My Impending Death Came at a Very Bad Time For Me...
Everyone's favorite Muggle (who is now richer than Queen Elizabeth) has announced the death of two additional characters: "Author J.K. Rowling said two characters will die in the last installment of her boy wizard series, and she hinted Harry Potter might not survive either."
Rowling warned that the two characters might be fairly major: "We are dealing with pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main characters."
Here's hoping that Percy is one of them.
Rowling warned that the two characters might be fairly major: "We are dealing with pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main characters."
Here's hoping that Percy is one of them.
26 June 2006
A Rambling Rant on Christian Social Action
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
In a comment on my last post, marshwiggle wrote:
How, then, should we act politically as followers of Christ? I would argue that it is our duty to act in a way that demonstrates our love for mankind -- and I don't really see laissez-faire capitalism, for instance, as an especially loving system -- in order that people may see our good works and glorify our father who is in heaven.
I don't advocate a massive socialist welfare state, but it seems like it'd be nice to create a system where poor people aren't required to stay poor, no matter how hard they try to get ahead. It seems like it would be nice to have a health care system that is affordable even for the poorest (instead of for those who will get along somehow anyway).
And perhaps legislation isn't the best way to effect this change. Maybe, in theory, a privatized system would work as well. All I know is that something needs to change, and legislation seems easiest to implement. The status quo is harsh at best. There are people in the U.S. (to say nothing of elsewhere) who die because they can't afford operations, pharmaceuticals, or other necessities of life.
Reform needs to happen, and who better to undertake it than the salt and light? Why shouldn't we see social change as a Christian duty?
In a comment on my last post, marshwiggle wrote:
I tend to believe that man is essentially the same as he was two thousand years ago. Then again, I only think that because history simply records the same power grabs and cruelty over and over again. Can change be accomplished? Yes, but only through self-interest.But my point earlier was that if change can be accomplished, then by definition, these specific social problems are not essential to humanity. That is, they do not have to occur to all humans.
Ironically, the best way to preach social change is either on the grounds of religion- i.e. ethics handed down by higher authority and seeking to please that god by doing things to please him/her, financial interests i.e. this will bring me more money, or increased power, i.e. this will make me one of the elite or make everyone equal(There's a pretty enormous moral difference between these two things, isn't there?)
(this usually only appeals to the ones who feel subjugated, or the last method shown to work- violence- change because I will hurt/kill you otherwise. Since religion tends to be despicable to the progressive movement, along with capitalism (the financial method) you are left with socialism's empty power sharing promises or violence.. Am I forgetting a proven method of change? Enlighten me. :)Well, as far as you and I are concerned, there's the power of Christ in the lives of His followers. Because all the methods you mentioned depend on a leveraging of human power, they are dependent on our fallible ability to make them work. But I believe that social change impelled by Christ's love is not something that will ever be ineffective; the Implementor of this method simply does not fail.
How, then, should we act politically as followers of Christ? I would argue that it is our duty to act in a way that demonstrates our love for mankind -- and I don't really see laissez-faire capitalism, for instance, as an especially loving system -- in order that people may see our good works and glorify our father who is in heaven.
I don't advocate a massive socialist welfare state, but it seems like it'd be nice to create a system where poor people aren't required to stay poor, no matter how hard they try to get ahead. It seems like it would be nice to have a health care system that is affordable even for the poorest (instead of for those who will get along somehow anyway).
And perhaps legislation isn't the best way to effect this change. Maybe, in theory, a privatized system would work as well. All I know is that something needs to change, and legislation seems easiest to implement. The status quo is harsh at best. There are people in the U.S. (to say nothing of elsewhere) who die because they can't afford operations, pharmaceuticals, or other necessities of life.
Reform needs to happen, and who better to undertake it than the salt and light? Why shouldn't we see social change as a Christian duty?
24 June 2006
On the "Fabric of Reality"
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
In the ongoing "debate" between EB and everyone's favorite "commentator", I'm noticing an interesting fundamental difference between Vox's crowd and EB's. It comes out especially in a comment on the post I link to above:
This is the thinking behind racism, sexism, and blocks to social progress. Conservatives tend to say, "the world will not change, no matter how much you try to make it change." Liberals tend to respond with action (e.g., the Abolition Civil Rights, or Women's Suffrage movements), and conservatives then incorporate the results into their essentialist view of the world.
Perhaps there are social and cultural elements that are ao firmly entrenched as to seem absolutely immutable, but they ultimately are, as the brilliant poster quoted above implied, fabricated. And no matter what one wishes to think about the nature of the world, the structure of society seems to be capable of being changed by repeated, focused actions performed by a critical mass of people.
But these changes are not in the fabric of "reality"; they are within the realm of human influence. And all things that fall within that realm can be -- to some extent, anyway -- changed if enough people want them to. This is why, I, someone who believes that all humans are selfish and willful, can also believe in the real potential of changing the world around me for the better.
What do you think?
In the ongoing "debate" between EB and everyone's favorite "commentator", I'm noticing an interesting fundamental difference between Vox's crowd and EB's. It comes out especially in a comment on the post I link to above:
BWAHAHAHAHA!! I love how the typical liberal solution requires massive changes in the fabric of reality to be effective. Yea, that's the stuff!This is in response to EB's quite reasonable claim, "A solution for slavery starts by building a world where bigotry, intolerance, and hatred aren't acceptable." The fundamental difference I see here is that liberal-minded folks tend to think of the world (and people's behavior) as being more or less malleable, whereas most conservatives conceptualize a world where things (and people's behavior) are essential and do not change.
This is the thinking behind racism, sexism, and blocks to social progress. Conservatives tend to say, "the world will not change, no matter how much you try to make it change." Liberals tend to respond with action (e.g., the Abolition Civil Rights, or Women's Suffrage movements), and conservatives then incorporate the results into their essentialist view of the world.
Perhaps there are social and cultural elements that are ao firmly entrenched as to seem absolutely immutable, but they ultimately are, as the brilliant poster quoted above implied, fabricated. And no matter what one wishes to think about the nature of the world, the structure of society seems to be capable of being changed by repeated, focused actions performed by a critical mass of people.
But these changes are not in the fabric of "reality"; they are within the realm of human influence. And all things that fall within that realm can be -- to some extent, anyway -- changed if enough people want them to. This is why, I, someone who believes that all humans are selfish and willful, can also believe in the real potential of changing the world around me for the better.
What do you think?
23 June 2006
Colbert and the Ten Commandments on YouTube
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
This is bloody brilliant.
If I were single and biologically suited to the task, I would volunteer to have that man's baby (Yes, I know I'm not the first).
Also, once, in my long-vanished youth, I testified in favor of the Ten Commandments being displayed on city property. Yeah... I'm really glad my testimony wasn't much good.
I believe in the Bible. I also believe that the Ten Commandments are an important symbol of the Old Testament Law. But I also believe that Jesus came so that the Law would no longer dominate and subjugate humankind. He came so that we could have abundant life apart from the Law.
And, as I interpret the Constitution, displaying a religious text on public property supports a religious sect, to the exclusion of others, and is thus in violation of the First Amendment.
This is bloody brilliant.
If I were single and biologically suited to the task, I would volunteer to have that man's baby (Yes, I know I'm not the first).
Also, once, in my long-vanished youth, I testified in favor of the Ten Commandments being displayed on city property. Yeah... I'm really glad my testimony wasn't much good.
I believe in the Bible. I also believe that the Ten Commandments are an important symbol of the Old Testament Law. But I also believe that Jesus came so that the Law would no longer dominate and subjugate humankind. He came so that we could have abundant life apart from the Law.
And, as I interpret the Constitution, displaying a religious text on public property supports a religious sect, to the exclusion of others, and is thus in violation of the First Amendment.
And Surprising No One...
I have long suspected that anyone who joins MENSA is desperate for some kind of positive qualification, no matter how arbitrary. These people also tend to be self-centered and not especially smart in any sense except an abstract one.
This Guy is an example:
A. Belong to MENSA
B. Use MENSA to meet women
C. Tell anyone (and everyone) who will listen that they belong to MENSA
D. Mention MENSA membership to the freaking judge in a case where they:
i. Used their mental powers to manipulate a woman by forcing her to rent apartments and help him scam the welfare system
ii. Followed up their relationship with said woman by "threatening her, her family, her neighbors, and even her cats." ("'She feels bitter,' he said, adding 'I'm a cat person.'")
The judge's comment just about sums it up: "You're such a stud."
And we'll give the last word to the sleazeball: "'While flattering, I'm hardly a Casanova,' replied the balding, pony-tailed[, grammatically incorrect] defendant."
This Guy is an example:
A MENSA smarty who managed to turn on the charm and con both women and welfare staffers was sentenced yesterday to one to three years in prison after a judge expressed his disappointment with the 'waste of intellect' from this unlikely Casanova.Truly smart people should not need to
A. Belong to MENSA
B. Use MENSA to meet women
C. Tell anyone (and everyone) who will listen that they belong to MENSA
D. Mention MENSA membership to the freaking judge in a case where they:
i. Used their mental powers to manipulate a woman by forcing her to rent apartments and help him scam the welfare system
ii. Followed up their relationship with said woman by "threatening her, her family, her neighbors, and even her cats." ("'She feels bitter,' he said, adding 'I'm a cat person.'")
The judge's comment just about sums it up: "You're such a stud."
And we'll give the last word to the sleazeball: "'While flattering, I'm hardly a Casanova,' replied the balding, pony-tailed[, grammatically incorrect] defendant."
22 June 2006
No Tengo Nada
No substantive post; just a warning that I'm thinking I'll be tapering off a bit on the ol' blog over the next couple weeks. School's kicking my butt. I might post some stuff here, but probably not a lot.
20 June 2006
On Double Predestination
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
EvilBender, you make my life a writhing, venomous nest of vipers. :-)
I am, of course, referring to my friend's recent posts responding to A Form of Sound Words, which is one of the worst things on the Internet. The author, an exclusive Calvinist, is dead set against Catholicism, "The World," and any brand of Christianity that is not his own, curiously nut-flavored, one.
One of his most offensive posts deals with the doctrine of double election, which only the most hard-core Calvinists buy. Essentially, the dogma says that God specifically chooses everyone who will have salvation... and that, conversely, he specifically chooses all who will be condemned to an eternity in Hell. The linchpin of this teaching is the assumption of mankind's utter inability to ever choose anything but the wrong choice. Rand writes:
That's the problem with this sort of theology. Drawing from nothing but a few specific, contextless texts and his own interpretive framework, Rand concludes something that is abhorrent to much of Christendom. Moreover, he writes about it as if it is ridiculous that anyone else would ever adopt a different interpretation of the same passage. Never mind millennia of teachings and myriad gallons of ink spilled on this subject; Rand has it all figured out.
What arrogance coupled with shortsightedness.
EvilBender, you make my life a writhing, venomous nest of vipers. :-)
I am, of course, referring to my friend's recent posts responding to A Form of Sound Words, which is one of the worst things on the Internet. The author, an exclusive Calvinist, is dead set against Catholicism, "The World," and any brand of Christianity that is not his own, curiously nut-flavored, one.
One of his most offensive posts deals with the doctrine of double election, which only the most hard-core Calvinists buy. Essentially, the dogma says that God specifically chooses everyone who will have salvation... and that, conversely, he specifically chooses all who will be condemned to an eternity in Hell. The linchpin of this teaching is the assumption of mankind's utter inability to ever choose anything but the wrong choice. Rand writes:
God isn't the author of confusion. Most teachings in Scripture are quite sensible and logical. So let's examine predestination logically for a moment. As far as I can see, in the Bible, there are only 2 places souls can go to after the Great White Judgement: Heaven or Hell. Those who are justified unto the Kingdom of God were 'chosen before the foundation of world' (Ephesians 1). So what of those who are condemned to the Lake of Fire? By choosing one group for Heaven, does that not instantly place the other group into condemnation?Yes, he is conflating political "election" with divine "election." He essentially attributes the characteristics of a large, diverse, democratic electorate to a one-willed, divine being. Doesn't seem especially logical to me.
A few weeks ago, we had election in the US. George W. Bush was elected as president, John Kerry was not. Both are tied in together; one was elected, the other was not. Logical isn't it?
But for some strange reason, many Christians out there refuse to carry this logic to their salvation theology."
That's the problem with this sort of theology. Drawing from nothing but a few specific, contextless texts and his own interpretive framework, Rand concludes something that is abhorrent to much of Christendom. Moreover, he writes about it as if it is ridiculous that anyone else would ever adopt a different interpretation of the same passage. Never mind millennia of teachings and myriad gallons of ink spilled on this subject; Rand has it all figured out.
What arrogance coupled with shortsightedness.
16 June 2006
Another Brilliant English-Only Advocate
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
From the second letter to the editor:
The fact that her name is Donna provides her with some excuse. Since the beginning of time, women named Donna have had a long and rich history of writing like donkeys, probably because their names sound so similar. Sadly, though, Donna's grammatical mistakes is the least of her problems. (hehe -- ok, no more mockery of writing.)
The thing that frustrates me the most about this letter is how it reifies culture while simultaneously recognizing that culture shifts with time and new impulses. Her main argument seems to be that Latinos need to stop using Spanish as their primary language. Why? Because we speak English and our legal documents are all in English.
The problem is that she discusses earlier (no doubt in an effort to show her abundant open-mindedness) how, "since the beginning of time" (wahtever that means), new languages and cultures have constantly displaced older ones (which is true -- innovation in language and culture are more or less constant in human experience). Then, she turns around and pretends that, because of some things some dead white people wrote more than two centuries ago, the government should make an effort to stop Spanish from becoming an acceptable primary language for U.S. citizens. It seems as if this effort would be more or less unnatural, according to what she wrote earlier in the letter.
Almost as troubling to me is what she means by "speak correct English." I know a man born in Chihuahua who taught himself English in between stocking the shelves of an Atlanta hardware store. He speaks with a thick accent and is more comfortable in Spanish than in English, but he would never make a mistake like "Being able to read and think in English are crucial to understanding all of these."
And I can't even describe the offensiveness of her assertion that liberal principles like freedom, justice, and individual rights cannot be expressed in Spanish. Has she never heard of Che Guevara or Simon Bolivar?
OK, I could go on and on about this, but I've been neglecting my wifey, so I'm out for now.
From the second letter to the editor:
Editor,Yes, and being able to write in English are important, too. Important to make you look like not an idiot. And knowing how to not write fragments. Of sentences, or using comma splices.
My lunch salad from McDonald's came with an exercise DVD in English and Spanish. Both the salad and the video are needed by me and many others. But the bilingual approach got me to thinking.
I am bilingual. As an eighth-grader, I was enrolled as the only American in a German school. I was put in the seventh grade. For the first semester I was not graded. Thereafter, I was graded with my peers.
After the first semester, a few accommodations continued with decreasing need. In the English class, I was asked to translate into German, in German literature, I was asked to translate into English. I became fluent in German. The importance of this is that I learned to think in German.
Each language and culture is unique. To understand each you need not only the understanding of the culture and the context in which it evolves but to be able to think in the language.
Since the beginning of time, people have come to this continent from all parts of the world bringing their cultures and languages. As the United States was taking form, many of those involved were multilingual, including the ancient languages.
The founders created the documents of this nation in English. All who live here and all who wish to become citizens should be required to be fluent in English, to be able to speak correct English and to be able to think in English.
Translations, no matter how good, lose something in meaning and tone and understanding. The recent translation of "The Star Spangled Banner" is an example.
The documents that are the basis for this democracy are all in English. Being able to read and think in English are crucial to understanding all of these. Crucial to understanding the meaning of being a citizen of the United States.
Donna Jewel, Topeka
The fact that her name is Donna provides her with some excuse. Since the beginning of time, women named Donna have had a long and rich history of writing like donkeys, probably because their names sound so similar. Sadly, though, Donna's grammatical mistakes is the least of her problems. (hehe -- ok, no more mockery of writing.)
The thing that frustrates me the most about this letter is how it reifies culture while simultaneously recognizing that culture shifts with time and new impulses. Her main argument seems to be that Latinos need to stop using Spanish as their primary language. Why? Because we speak English and our legal documents are all in English.
The problem is that she discusses earlier (no doubt in an effort to show her abundant open-mindedness) how, "since the beginning of time" (wahtever that means), new languages and cultures have constantly displaced older ones (which is true -- innovation in language and culture are more or less constant in human experience). Then, she turns around and pretends that, because of some things some dead white people wrote more than two centuries ago, the government should make an effort to stop Spanish from becoming an acceptable primary language for U.S. citizens. It seems as if this effort would be more or less unnatural, according to what she wrote earlier in the letter.
Almost as troubling to me is what she means by "speak correct English." I know a man born in Chihuahua who taught himself English in between stocking the shelves of an Atlanta hardware store. He speaks with a thick accent and is more comfortable in Spanish than in English, but he would never make a mistake like "Being able to read and think in English are crucial to understanding all of these."
And I can't even describe the offensiveness of her assertion that liberal principles like freedom, justice, and individual rights cannot be expressed in Spanish. Has she never heard of Che Guevara or Simon Bolivar?
OK, I could go on and on about this, but I've been neglecting my wifey, so I'm out for now.
On Guantanamo and Political Symbols
Great editorial in the
Detroit Free Press this morning:
Discouragingly, a decision by a federal judge in Brooklyn seems to confirm the U.S. doctrine of detainment without legal justification:
Sometimes it seems like the only people with the power to fix injustice are the ones with the least inclination to do so. :-(
Detroit Free Press this morning:
It is past time for the United States to begin shutting down its prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. The installation has become more important as a recruiting symbol for Al Qaeda than as a component of U.S. security.This is just one of many reasons why the base is not needed. I think the editorial says it much better than I could, but I'll add that, for all the rest of the world knows, every single allegation about abuse at Guantanamo could be true. There is no genuine civilian oversight of the base.
Discouragingly, a decision by a federal judge in Brooklyn seems to confirm the U.S. doctrine of detainment without legal justification:
U.S. District Judge John Gleeson said federal agents had the right under the law to detain the men, now deported, for up to seven months after the terror attacks while they tried to determine whether the men were terrorists or could help with criminal investigations.These men were in the country illegally, but that's no reason to detain them for such an excessive amount of time without probable cause.
Sometimes it seems like the only people with the power to fix injustice are the ones with the least inclination to do so. :-(
15 June 2006
In other news, my office has cancer
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
FYI, if you're a graduate student considering English, don't go to the University of Kansas until the experts have determined Wescoe Hall to be free of carcinogens.
Also, the obituary I mentioned yesterday is online; read away and shudder to your little heart's content.
Now for something a little less light-hearted: The Christian Science Monitor, whose views I normally find to be fairly enlightening, published an editorial that disappointed me today.
The ed board argues that
Case in point: I would not be one with residents of any major inner-city area. I am white, middle class, fairly naive, bookish, and uninitiated into urban culture. Even linguistically, I am ill-equipped to communicate with people in the inner city. They use a variety of English that I am not familiar with. They have different values than I do. Certainly, we may share some core beliefs, but in many ways, to speak of us sharing "common civic values" is misleading.
Let's throw race and class into the mix. How would I interact in the inner city with a poor, black man my own age? Would I be as inclined to engage in conversation with him, for instance, as I would be if he were middle class and white? Moreover, in what ways would our cultural assumptions overlap? I would have a different construction of "prestige" than he would, certainly. He might emphasize performance or attitude as prestige-building, whereas I, as an academic, would tend to focus more on knowledge and intellectual flexibility.
More than that, we would probably have vastly different ways of relating to those around us in our own social environments...
My point is that there is room for us both in America, together with our linguistic, performative, social, and cultural differences. That doesn't mean we need to interact in order to obtain our places.
Why can't Spanish become a national language? I understand the logistical challenges, but it seems to me that the only real reason is fear of the unknown -- a fear that is very similar to that of Americans during earlier waves of immigration from Germany, Eastern Europe, Ireland, and China.
I think many Americans secretly agree with this idiot's column in Newsday:
I have no more time right now, but consider these things and let me know what you think. Am I misprepresenting the CS Monitor editorial? Reading too much into it? I won't change my mind on Pinkerton; he's a moron, and that's it. :-)
FYI, if you're a graduate student considering English, don't go to the University of Kansas until the experts have determined Wescoe Hall to be free of carcinogens.
Also, the obituary I mentioned yesterday is online; read away and shudder to your little heart's content.
Now for something a little less light-hearted: The Christian Science Monitor, whose views I normally find to be fairly enlightening, published an editorial that disappointed me today.
The ed board argues that
Common civic values, not ethnicity or race, unite America. And it takes communication of those values through a single language to hold together the diverse cultures that make the US unique and strong. Look no further than Canada and secessionist-minded French-speaking Quebec to see the splits that develop in the absence of language glue.I first take issue with the idea of "common civic values." The phrase creates a false picture of American Unity in the mind of the reader. While this picture may be an effective rhetorical device, it is far from the way things really are.
Case in point: I would not be one with residents of any major inner-city area. I am white, middle class, fairly naive, bookish, and uninitiated into urban culture. Even linguistically, I am ill-equipped to communicate with people in the inner city. They use a variety of English that I am not familiar with. They have different values than I do. Certainly, we may share some core beliefs, but in many ways, to speak of us sharing "common civic values" is misleading.
Let's throw race and class into the mix. How would I interact in the inner city with a poor, black man my own age? Would I be as inclined to engage in conversation with him, for instance, as I would be if he were middle class and white? Moreover, in what ways would our cultural assumptions overlap? I would have a different construction of "prestige" than he would, certainly. He might emphasize performance or attitude as prestige-building, whereas I, as an academic, would tend to focus more on knowledge and intellectual flexibility.
More than that, we would probably have vastly different ways of relating to those around us in our own social environments...
My point is that there is room for us both in America, together with our linguistic, performative, social, and cultural differences. That doesn't mean we need to interact in order to obtain our places.
Why can't Spanish become a national language? I understand the logistical challenges, but it seems to me that the only real reason is fear of the unknown -- a fear that is very similar to that of Americans during earlier waves of immigration from Germany, Eastern Europe, Ireland, and China.
I think many Americans secretly agree with this idiot's column in Newsday:
Advocates of an open border between the U.S. and Mexico do their best to present a mellow American flag-waving image to the public...But offstage, as it were, a different and harsher truth comes out. It's not a "movement," they tell each other when cameras aren't watching, it's a "movimiento" - and that Spanish-language phrasing speaks volumes about the true tilt of pro-immigration activists.The columnist, James Pinkerton, is completely closed to any possibility of Latino activists bringing significant parts of their former cultures to the States. He essentially paints the movimiento as a leftist plot, and then he asks, "Is that what we want to let into the United States?"
I have no more time right now, but consider these things and let me know what you think. Am I misprepresenting the CS Monitor editorial? Reading too much into it? I won't change my mind on Pinkerton; he's a moron, and that's it. :-)
14 June 2006
Again with the campus newspapers
Today in the campus newspaper, there was an obituary that concluded with the following sentence (I am not making this up): "The extent of his death is still unknown,[sic]"
Yes, that's right, it not only mangled my language; it also finished the sentence with a comma. I was going to link to it, but I couldn't find it, so I thought I'd blog this instead:
In all fairness, if you look at the article, it is biased. It is written in a way that makes abortion look like a terrible alternative. It does, however, at least make some efforts to sound unbiased. It interviews several pro-abortion folks.
Also, the article is in the weekly tabloid put out by the paper. It's really supposed to be more opinion based, in some ways, than the broadsheet itself.
Nonetheless,I tend to agree with the woman who wrote this letter to the editor... college journalists should be held to higher standards. But then again, that's why they're in college: to learn how to be biased without sounding like they are. That way, they'll fit right into the mainstream media.
Sorry this was so rambling; I didn't feel like organizing. You're lucky to get anything, you ungrateful person!
Yes, that's right, it not only mangled my language; it also finished the sentence with a comma. I was going to link to it, but I couldn't find it, so I thought I'd blog this instead:
I am writing in response to the article, "Choice of a Lifetime," written by Erin Wisdom in The University Daily Kansan on Thursday, April 13. This article was not a news item; it was strongly biased toward pro-life political ends. To publish such an article as news and not as an editorial piece does not demonstrate the journalistic integrity that is expected from our university newspaper.Surprise! Your university newspaper is written by people with opinions! And it's really, really funny to say we hold our university newspaper to "high standards" when I don't know of anyone who even pretends we do.
In all fairness, if you look at the article, it is biased. It is written in a way that makes abortion look like a terrible alternative. It does, however, at least make some efforts to sound unbiased. It interviews several pro-abortion folks.
Also, the article is in the weekly tabloid put out by the paper. It's really supposed to be more opinion based, in some ways, than the broadsheet itself.
Nonetheless,I tend to agree with the woman who wrote this letter to the editor... college journalists should be held to higher standards. But then again, that's why they're in college: to learn how to be biased without sounding like they are. That way, they'll fit right into the mainstream media.
Sorry this was so rambling; I didn't feel like organizing. You're lucky to get anything, you ungrateful person!
08 June 2006
And the Most Evil American Award Goes to...
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
No Brainer: Ann Coulter.
From the New York Daily News:
Coulter here is displaying a classic case of several tried and true neo-con rhetorical tactics:
1.) Pointless, inaccurate name-calling. "Harpy"? "Witch"? How do these words apply to the Jersey Girls? They really don't; they're simply gendered insults designed to take credibility from an opponent without actually having to do anything. Generally, it's not a good idea to use offensive and gratuitous epithets in an argument unless you're appealing to mean-spirited people who care nothing for an impartial assessment of the situation. Fortunately for Coulter, she's writing to just such an audience: The American Right Wing.
2.) Non sequitur statements. In response to Clinton's accusation that Coulter is "heartless," Coulter invokes the neo-cons' omnipresent antichrist, Bill Clinton. I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that Clinton actually, I don't know... CARES ABOUT PEOPLE. What on earth is Coulter trying to prove here? Again, she's using a rhetorical shortcut to deflect the attention from her own statements onto someone else... and her shortcut is failing because it's not a very good one.
3.) Ad hominem attacks. Faced with someone who would like her to take responsibility for what she has written (no doubt in an effort boost book sales so she can buy still more of those ridiculously short skirts that make her legs resemble those of a malnourished mule), Coulter refuses to address the issue, instead opting for the "you're married to Bill Clinton" route (a.k.a. "the sucky, weasely route that doesn't fool anyone, you idiot").
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this woman is nothing better than a sensationalist attention whore who thrives on the pain of others?
New York Gov. Pataki called Coulter "at best insensitive and at worst really insensitive" to the families of 9/11 victims. I couldn't agree more.
No Brainer: Ann Coulter.
From the New York Daily News:
Fresh from slamming a group of 9/11 widows as "witches and harpies," viper-tongued Ann Coulter turned her venom on Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) yesterday after the senator challenged the conservative writer's wild comments.Aw, shucks, while we're giving her the MEAA, we might as well add the Poorest Arguer, Most Hypocritical, and Most nearly Resembles a Horse awards onto her record, too.
Clinton led a parade of outraged politicians from both parties who said Coulter's book 'Godless' went beyond the pale by painting four 9/11 widows known as 'the Jersey Girls' as self-obsessed opportunists.
"I find it unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious and meanspirited attack on people whom I've known for the last 41/2 years to be deeply concerned about the safety and security of our country," Clinton said in Washington. "Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless.'"
During a radio appearance on Long Island, Coulter countered that Clinton was attacking her "for being mean to women. This is, I remind you, Bill Clinton's wife.
"If she's worried about people being mean to women, she should talk to her own husband."
Coulter here is displaying a classic case of several tried and true neo-con rhetorical tactics:
1.) Pointless, inaccurate name-calling. "Harpy"? "Witch"? How do these words apply to the Jersey Girls? They really don't; they're simply gendered insults designed to take credibility from an opponent without actually having to do anything. Generally, it's not a good idea to use offensive and gratuitous epithets in an argument unless you're appealing to mean-spirited people who care nothing for an impartial assessment of the situation. Fortunately for Coulter, she's writing to just such an audience: The American Right Wing.
2.) Non sequitur statements. In response to Clinton's accusation that Coulter is "heartless," Coulter invokes the neo-cons' omnipresent antichrist, Bill Clinton. I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that Clinton actually, I don't know... CARES ABOUT PEOPLE. What on earth is Coulter trying to prove here? Again, she's using a rhetorical shortcut to deflect the attention from her own statements onto someone else... and her shortcut is failing because it's not a very good one.
3.) Ad hominem attacks. Faced with someone who would like her to take responsibility for what she has written (no doubt in an effort boost book sales so she can buy still more of those ridiculously short skirts that make her legs resemble those of a malnourished mule), Coulter refuses to address the issue, instead opting for the "you're married to Bill Clinton" route (a.k.a. "the sucky, weasely route that doesn't fool anyone, you idiot").
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this woman is nothing better than a sensationalist attention whore who thrives on the pain of others?
New York Gov. Pataki called Coulter "at best insensitive and at worst really insensitive" to the families of 9/11 victims. I couldn't agree more.
07 June 2006
OkCupid! Politics Test
I took the test... and I'm not quite as liberal as EB. :-)
| You are a Social Liberal (76% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (26% permissive) You are best described as a: Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
05 June 2006
Constitutional Grandstanding
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
The New York Daily News reports that
The only reason to bring this to a vote now is the election that's coming up this fall. I'm sure some GOP politicians would love nothing better than to be able to print pamphlets about how their "anti-family, anti-marriage" opponents opposed a Constitutional amendment that would have protected the legitimacy of man/woman relationships in the eyes of the government.
That's not legislation; it's political NASCAR.
The New York Daily News reports that
Republicans are raising a political lighting rod in the Senate today, proposing a constitutional ban on gay marriage that has no chance of passing.How is this useful? It's not like they have nothing better to do -- New York's and Washington's Homeland Security funding got slashed last week, immigration is still a challenging topic, and the economy has had some recent hiccups.
The only reason to bring this to a vote now is the election that's coming up this fall. I'm sure some GOP politicians would love nothing better than to be able to print pamphlets about how their "anti-family, anti-marriage" opponents opposed a Constitutional amendment that would have protected the legitimacy of man/woman relationships in the eyes of the government.
That's not legislation; it's political NASCAR.
04 June 2006
Tolerating or Advocating?
Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.
A post from Evil Bender got me thinking about "tolerance" and its meanings.
This morning in church, Pastor C. was talking about "walking in the counsel of the wicked," which he described as "tolerating" ungodly behavior. I have quite the problem with this definition, as you might well imagine. I got curious about semantic shifts in "tolerate," so I consulted the good ol' OED.
Several interesting senses were there, including a fairly early one: "To endure with impunity or comparative impunity the action of (a poison or strong drug)." Thus, early "tolerance" meant to withstand or suffer a harmful influence without taking action to prevent it.
A more recent sense is "To allow to exist or to be done or practised without authoritative interference or molestation; also gen. to allow, permit." This is closer to my traditional sense of "tolerate"; it is the word I would use to describe a willingness to let people live the way they will (as long as others are not harmed).
Here's another fairly recent sense of the word: "To bear without repugnance; to allow intellectually, or in taste, sentiment, or principle; to put up with." (Emphasis mine)
Somehow, "tolerate" has been shifting semantically past even this last definition. I think some, including Pastor C. (whom I respect in a number of areas that don't have to do with politics), have come to define "tolerate" as "advocate." Thus, they read it as a positive, active acceptance rather than a negative, passive putting up with.
For many Americans, especially on the right side of the political spectrum (which so often is conflated with the religious spectrum), "tolerance" has become something to avoid because they define it in the way I just described. For them, to "tolerate" other people's choices is to actively embrace those choices as the best possible ones for those people.
Doctrinally, I would describe myself as a fairly conservative Christian. Nonetheless, I would argue it is the Christian's responsibility to allow other people to make their own moral choices. Jesus was all about choices, and other people's decisions are between them and God, not between them and me. My duty is to love and serve all as Christ would in my stead.
It makes me ill to see people like President Bush endorsing a discriminatory Constitutional amendment to prevent a specific group of people from gaining rights that, all other things being equal, they should be able to have: a civil union recognized by the government. I think Jesus would probably tell Bush and his camp to start paying less attention to the moral decisions of others and more attention to loving them.
A post from Evil Bender got me thinking about "tolerance" and its meanings.
This morning in church, Pastor C. was talking about "walking in the counsel of the wicked," which he described as "tolerating" ungodly behavior. I have quite the problem with this definition, as you might well imagine. I got curious about semantic shifts in "tolerate," so I consulted the good ol' OED.
Several interesting senses were there, including a fairly early one: "To endure with impunity or comparative impunity the action of (a poison or strong drug)." Thus, early "tolerance" meant to withstand or suffer a harmful influence without taking action to prevent it.
A more recent sense is "To allow to exist or to be done or practised without authoritative interference or molestation; also gen. to allow, permit." This is closer to my traditional sense of "tolerate"; it is the word I would use to describe a willingness to let people live the way they will (as long as others are not harmed).
Here's another fairly recent sense of the word: "To bear without repugnance; to allow intellectually, or in taste, sentiment, or principle; to put up with." (Emphasis mine)
Somehow, "tolerate" has been shifting semantically past even this last definition. I think some, including Pastor C. (whom I respect in a number of areas that don't have to do with politics), have come to define "tolerate" as "advocate." Thus, they read it as a positive, active acceptance rather than a negative, passive putting up with.
For many Americans, especially on the right side of the political spectrum (which so often is conflated with the religious spectrum), "tolerance" has become something to avoid because they define it in the way I just described. For them, to "tolerate" other people's choices is to actively embrace those choices as the best possible ones for those people.
Doctrinally, I would describe myself as a fairly conservative Christian. Nonetheless, I would argue it is the Christian's responsibility to allow other people to make their own moral choices. Jesus was all about choices, and other people's decisions are between them and God, not between them and me. My duty is to love and serve all as Christ would in my stead.
It makes me ill to see people like President Bush endorsing a discriminatory Constitutional amendment to prevent a specific group of people from gaining rights that, all other things being equal, they should be able to have: a civil union recognized by the government. I think Jesus would probably tell Bush and his camp to start paying less attention to the moral decisions of others and more attention to loving them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)