We’re All Mothers Now
Monday, June 15th, 2009A friend of mine likes to quote that saying when she wants to provoke her husband. Works every time. The saying came to mind again when I read an article about the necessity of smart phones–to stay connected and working. From the New York Times’s Steve Lohr a week ago:
Such a digital connection can have its downside. The perils of obsessive smartphone use have been well documented, including distracted driving and the stress of multitasking. CrackBerry, a term coined years ago, is telling.
The smartphone, said Mr. Meyer, a cognitive psychologist, can be seen as a digital “Skinner box,” a reference to the experiments of the behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner in which rats were conditioned to press a lever repeatedly to get food pellets.
With the smartphone, he said, the stimuli are information feeds. “It can be powerfully reinforcing behavior,” he said. “But the key is to make sure this technology helps you carry out the tasks of daily life instead of interfering with them. It’s about balance and managing things.”
James Joyner muses:
The social — and, increasingly, professional — expectation of being constantly available, however, is much more bane than boon. I’m generally more than happy to take a couple minutes out of my evening or weekend to help someone out with a quick question so they can continue progress on whatever they’re doing without waiting until 9 am the next workday. But, for many people, it has become more than that: a culture where one is never truly off work. While I have no idea what to do about it, that’s not a positive development.
Eh, I don’t know why these people are complaining. Moms are never off the clock. And there’s always a kid interrupting, bugging, and harrying the mother during her tasks. I’ve breastfed. The smart phone has got nothing on a 3 month old.
With smart phones, we’re all mothers now.
Via @Armano
Republicans Trusted More Than Democrats…..Now
Monday, June 8th, 2009Americans trust Republicans on 6/10 key issues according a Rassmussen poll. James Joyner says:
Now, I’m not going to get too excited about this until we see it replicated over time and across polling instruments. Sometimes, for a variety of reasons, the results of any given poll can be junk. (It’s more complicated than that but, essentially, the probability that any given poll is completely off the charts is around 5 percent. It has to do with confidence intervals and math that only Nate Silver understands.)
Still, this result isn’t fantastically unbelievable. Yes, Bush and the Republicans made a lot of mistakes. But the Dems have had the Congress now for more than two years and the White House for several months. At some point, regardless of what they’ve inherited, they own this thing.
Further, Obama, Pelosi, Geithner, and company have not exactly covered themselves in glory. The various bailout packages are looking like the fiascos many of us predicted they’d be. And performance is, in many cases, less than the worst-case scenarios Obama’s team put out.
Oh bleh.
Voters are fickle pickles. Give. Me. A. Break.
Voters ignored the Democrats ignominious record of tax and spend.
Voters ignored the Democrats history of appeasement.
Voters ignored the Democrats statist policies and desires.
Why?
Because voting for Barack Obama seemed “hopeful” and was a new “change” and voters wanted to believe he was some sort of moderate. In fact, I bet these same exact voters would rate the President as The Best President Of The World Ever if the poll included the question. Such is the disconnect with Obama and his policies.
Still, I saw the liberal guests on Hannity look and talk a little panicky at the thought of a nuclear Iran and the implications for what President Obama’s moral equivalizing really means. It’s a double-bind extraordinaire.
And now, everyone is seeing what a head of cabbage could see about the economy: Spending a gazillion dollars to save our indebted hides will be a disaster; is a disaster.
A few months late, geniuses. Voting for President Obama was the feel-good vote. Hope everyone’s self-esteem is doing well, because your pocketbooks and your freedoms will diminish every day the man is in office.
No More Americanization
Thursday, May 28th, 2009The impulse is to say Soto-my-er. But that wouldn’t be correct. The proper pronunciation is Soto-may-YOUR and with a opening of the mouth to get the proper fullness and roll of the tongue.
Sigh.
Remember when people Americanized their names? Partly, it made their names easier to say. Mostly, people just wanted to be American. Fully American.
When the in-laws came from Italy, Italian was most certainly not spoken. They were Americans and they spoke English. In the second generation, that would be grandma who is 92, there is not even the remotest hint of Italy in her voice though she is only the second generation here in America.
Not so now with some folks. Oh no. Acculturation is akin to living in the closet and hiding your ancestral glory. Much better to keep the Puerto Rican accent even though you’ve grown up on American soil.
My uncle is of Mexican descent. He speaks Spanish and knows five dialects. When he speaks English it is not Spanglish. It’s English. It is not English with the twang of Spanish hovering over him. I dare say, if I asked him if his Mexican heritage makes his judgment more stellar, he would say no. I’m quite sure he wouldn’t say that being a man makes him smarter. And yet, he finds a way to integrate his Mexican heritage and embrace his history.
Generations of Americans have done this. They know the language of the old country. They keep certain traditions. But they were eager to be American. They were eager to Americanize their name, even. It was symbolic. It was a blessed gift to have this country and people were proud to be a part of it. A shortened name meant becoming new and American.
So, while President Barack Obama can say Pak-ee-stahn correctly and every newscaster is embracing his inner Latina pronouncing Soto-may-YOUR with relish, I just see more of an effort to elevate other cultures in relation to the American culture.
It isn’t about proper pronunciation it’s about putting America in her place. And her place is no better than any other place, including 3rd world racist, sexist, intolerant, nuclear-armed holes like Pakistan. Well, I say America is better. America is better than Mexico. It’s safer. There are more jobs. There is less corruption (for the time being). America is better than pretty much any place in the world I can think of, actually.
People who live here, myself included, are damn lucky to be here by birthright. And those who choose to become citizens are making the best decision of their lives. Their whole future will change.
So, a kid from Puerto Rico can come to America, get educated in the best schools and be put forth as a potential Supreme Court Justice for the best country in the world. That’s America. It’s great. And America is bigger than our collective pasts. She is better than the places we came from. We do well to melt into her beauty and live to rise to her ideals.
Americanization is a good thing. Assimilating and changing to fit America’s mold is what makes this country different from the fractured and racist Europe. So those who are so intent on elevating other cultures might want to consider the outcome of their actions. America doesn’t need to turn into a place where races are Balkanized and marginalized by neighborhoods, language, religion and culture. That would be a destructive place.
America needs to continue to be a melting pot. I’m Melissa Clouthier. It is not Cloo-tee-ay. It is Cloth-ee-er. I’m American and proud of it.
New American Issues Project Column: “It’s Not Fair”
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009I’ve been thinking about the root cause of this bail-out mess and the changes in our American culture. My column at AIP today sums up my thinking about things:
America, in general, and our government in particular, has been consuming more calories than it can afford and grown fat, and rather than cut back, has sought salvation by those who were responsible and by those who lived within their means.
Some who let things get away from themselves have cut back and “tightened the belt”. The government, though, seems willfully obstinate about making such challenging choices itself. President Obama put forth scorn-worthy “cuts” in the face of mammoth governmental pigging out. An already obese government is making itself morbidly huge over the next ten years. One wonders if the patient can be saved or if it will end up in a piano box and buried in the ash heap of indulgent world-power history.
And this all began as someone trying to correct an unfairness. It’s unfair that some people have health insurance and others don’t. It’s unfair that one person eats Filet Mignon and another person eats hamburger helper. It’s unfair that one person gets to drive a souped-up SUV and another person rides the bus. It’s unfair that one person has a mansion and another person has a trailer. It’s unfair that one person gets to go to Harvard and another person goes to a technical college. It’s unfair that more boys than girls are engineers. And on and on it goes.
It’s unfair. It’s unfair. It’s unfair.
So, a man who promised to make things fair got elected President. It’s not fair that America is the lone superpower. It’s not fair that there are rich and poor people. It’s not fair that “rich” people get tax breaks. The government then, will be a tool for “fairness”.
It never works out that way. Like Scar’s alliances and forced “teamwork” between natural adversaries, fairness results in depletion, loss of incentive and many more unintended consequences. Moreover, it’s a fundamentally angry and aggrieved way to look at the world.
More here.
Don’t Be Hatin’ His Procreation: Meet The Feminist’s Poster Man-Child
Friday, April 17th, 2009Us Michiganders or is it Michiganians are good at lots o’ things. Procreation has got to be at the top of the list. I mean, look at this guy:
Authorities in Michigan say a man fathered 14 children with 13 women and owes more than $530,000 in unpaid child support.
A Michigan newspaper reports 42-year-old Thomas Frazier was jailed Thursday.
Court records say he hasn’t made a support payment in six years.
The newspaper says the unemployed man could be held for 90 days if he doesn’t pay $27,900.
Frazier says he thinks he fathered only three of the children and it’s unrealistic for authorities to expect him to pay child support that was $3,000 a month at one point.
What a fine, upstanding fella.
I’m going to swim upstream a bit on this one, though. What if women couldn’t get child support if she was unmarried? What if a woman knew that she was on her own if she got pregnant–no government support, no spousal support, no government subsidized abortions?
What if she either had to raise the child, her choice, on her own or give the child up for adoption? Do you think she would be more selective about her bed companions?
While this guy is despicable, irresponsible and a slut, he’s been enabled by at least 13 women, probably significantly more, who couldn’t be bothered to use birth control (not that that’s always 100%) or demand that he use it.
There is no way for him to make right by all these kids. He’s like the Octo-Mom. As the parent to one kid he wouldn’t be great, he’ll likely be exponentially worse with more.
The current situation where a guy can be on the hook because he’s on a birth certificate creates these insane situations. And let me be clear: I think he’s an irresponsible jerk.
Still, if women’s lib has gotten women anything, it’s ownership of their reproductive organs. A woman can make sure she doesn’t get pregnant and she pays the price if she’s irresponsible. These women needed to have more sense than have unprotected random sex with this creep. It’s not like irresponsible, slutty men make fantastic providers.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
Cool Map
Monday, April 13th, 2009What do you call sodapop?
Twittered this over the weekend. Wanted to share again.
Back Off A@@hole!
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009Erick Erickson wonders when the people will revolt and push back against an intrusive government:
At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?
At some point soon, it will happen. It’ll be over an innocuous issue. But the rage is building. It’s not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan angst at out of control government made worse by dumb bans like this and unintended consequences like AIG’s bonus problems.
If the GOP plays its cards right, it will have a winning issue in 2010. But it is going to have to get back to “leave me the hell alone” style federalism where the national government recedes and the people themselves will have to fight to take their states back from special interests out of touch with body politic as a whole.
First of all, that’s a big “if”. The GOP seems incapable of playing any cards right. So, I’d give up that hope right now.
Second, I think the country has reached a tipping point. There are more people who want “me first and more than my fair share” than those who would claim the motto “don’t tread on me”. People want a government to show they care. Even stupid rules like phosphate-free dishwasher detergent shows that the government cares…about the environment, about baby animals. It doesn’t really matter that it’s misguided and utterly stupid, they care.
We have less of this in America right now:
And more of this:
The government cares alright. About what, we have no idea.
And right now, people want the government to care. They don’t necessarily care about what the government cares about, they just care that the government cares.
Get ready to get mad, Erick. But enjoy your impotent rage. There’s just not enough people who want the government to mind their own damn business. Most want the government to save them and to care. Mostly, they want you to pay to save them. And boy, they’re going to get what they want–crusty dishes and all.
States Begging For Bailouts
Sunday, March 22nd, 2009This morning, the Governors from Pennsylvania and California and the Mayor of New York met with David Gregory on Meet the Press to share their sad woes. They sung President Obama’s praises because, of course, all three have their greedy little fists waiting anxiously for a bailout.
It’s not that being responsible is impossible. GayPatriot notes that Indiana, Nebraska and Mississippi, Republican-lead states all, are refusing bailout money.
Essentially, taxpayers from responsible states will fund gluttons like California. States who have taxed companies into fleeing will get theirs one way or another. Responsible companies, individuals and states will subsidize the irresponsible…just like banks, just like those who got into homes they couldn’t afford.
Why be responsible when being irresponsible pays?
