by Doctor Science
Mister Doctor Science had the peroneus tendons on his left foot reconstructed on Friday. He’d managed to completely rupture the brevis tendon, and longus was in pretty bad shape. The surgeon was able to reconstruct them into a single useful tendon that is predicted to make it possible for Mr Dr to keep fencing.
For the next 6 weeks, though, he can’t put any weight on that leg, so he’s sitting at home in his Dad Chair trying not to go out of his mind with boredom. He can still do most of his work on his laptop, and he can read, but not-fencing leaves a *lot* of extra hours in the week. So, TV! — streaming services, to be precise, we never had cable, we use FiOS for internet and went straight from broadcast TV to streaming. And we don’t even watch much of that, usually.
At the suggestion of Youngest Science, we’ve started watching The Good Place, and it proves to be just as good as people were saying! No spoilers, please, we’re only up to episode 7 or so. Youngest then wondered if he’d like Psych, so we watched the pilot of that and decided it’s just not that good. All I know of Psych I got from fandom, which led me to believe that it would be funnier than it actually is.
We then tried him on Brooklyn Nine Nine, and he likes it a *lot*. Multiple actual LOLs were heard, a sign of unusual favor. So there’s quite a bit of that available for the next weeks, along with finishing up our family re-watch of Babylon 5. He & I also recently finished watching Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency, which bears NO relationship to the books except the name, and is kind of a train wreck with some good characters and acting. I’m not sad to hear that it didn’t get renewed, honestly.
Because of Surprise!Surgery, we didn’t travel to my parents’ place for the holidays (they’re both in their 90s and no longer travel well). But we’re having a Boxing Day dinner for 12 today, turkey with all the fixings, no present-giving except friendship.
How is your holiday-ing going? Open thread.
Just spent four nights in Placencia Belize now heading to a lodge just outside Sam Ignacio for another four. The 8 YO got a first taste of snorkeling and loved it, didn’t hurt to have four large sea turtles and a dozen nurse sharks for him to look at.
Sorry about Mr. Dr. Doc.
Just spent four nights in Placencia Belize now heading to a lodge just outside Sam Ignacio for another four. The 8 YO got a first taste of snorkeling and loved it, didn’t hurt to have four large sea turtles and a dozen nurse sharks for him to look at.
Sorry about Mr. Dr. Doc.
omg Ugh, that sounds like a PERFECT vacation. I don’t know if I’d like the snorkeling or the bird-watching more.
omg Ugh, that sounds like a PERFECT vacation. I don’t know if I’d like the snorkeling or the bird-watching more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chevalier_D%27Eon
This was a lot of fun. Probably not available to stream.
The Good Place, we liked the first season a lot. We gave up after the first few episodes in season two, tho we may pick it up later. Binge watching can wear stuff out.
Psych was wonderful, though it ran too long.
Got some fresh sea scallops from my brother yesterday. Dinner tonight will be sublime.
Good luck to Mr DrS.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chevalier_D%27Eon
This was a lot of fun. Probably not available to stream.
The Good Place, we liked the first season a lot. We gave up after the first few episodes in season two, tho we may pick it up later. Binge watching can wear stuff out.
Psych was wonderful, though it ran too long.
Got some fresh sea scallops from my brother yesterday. Dinner tonight will be sublime.
Good luck to Mr DrS.
Medici Masters of Florence-story was patchy, music and art was great.
We are currently binging on The Vikings, watching that band of thugs wreak havoc. We will then rewatch The Last Kingdom (my wife is extremely pacifist, but she has Lady Slipper orchids in our garden named after Uthred and Hild. Its amazing what charasmatic actors can do for ones taste for violent escapism).
The second season of The Crown is out on Netflix; I believe it will pick up with the Suez Crisis. John Lithgow turned in a great performance as Churchill in the first season. This show seems aimed at boomer nostalgia/fascination with the royal family when we were all kids.
I am totally doing another Turkey soon, we can’t get enough of that.
Happy Happy folks.
Medici Masters of Florence-story was patchy, music and art was great.
We are currently binging on The Vikings, watching that band of thugs wreak havoc. We will then rewatch The Last Kingdom (my wife is extremely pacifist, but she has Lady Slipper orchids in our garden named after Uthred and Hild. Its amazing what charasmatic actors can do for ones taste for violent escapism).
The second season of The Crown is out on Netflix; I believe it will pick up with the Suez Crisis. John Lithgow turned in a great performance as Churchill in the first season. This show seems aimed at boomer nostalgia/fascination with the royal family when we were all kids.
I am totally doing another Turkey soon, we can’t get enough of that.
Happy Happy folks.
Vikings seems somewhat bloodthirsty compared to the fare Mr Dr S has been enjoying thus far ?
Chez moi, have been bingeing on the recently discovered delights of K drama over the holiday break. If you want utterly charming and genre-mixing romantic comedy, I can highly recommend Oh, My Ghost.
Vikings seems somewhat bloodthirsty compared to the fare Mr Dr S has been enjoying thus far ?
Chez moi, have been bingeing on the recently discovered delights of K drama over the holiday break. If you want utterly charming and genre-mixing romantic comedy, I can highly recommend Oh, My Ghost.
A couple of other mystery series that might amuse:
– Death in Paradise, set in the Caribbean. Not sure how it compares to the Agatha Christie novels. Sometimes described, with reason, as a comedy.
– The Coroner, another detective series from the UK.
– Murdoch, a Canadian series set in Toronto circa 1900. Loved them enough to buy the DVDs.
A couple of other mystery series that might amuse:
– Death in Paradise, set in the Caribbean. Not sure how it compares to the Agatha Christie novels. Sometimes described, with reason, as a comedy.
– The Coroner, another detective series from the UK.
– Murdoch, a Canadian series set in Toronto circa 1900. Loved them enough to buy the DVDs.
If you’re looking for a light, humorous, obscure show, I can’t recommend Norsemen(Vikingane) enough. It’s only six episodes and is available on Netflix.
It’s basically History’s Vikings meets The Office.
It was shot in Norway for Norwegian television. Scenes with dialog were shot both in Norwegian and in English, so you can enjoy the show without subtitles or dubbing.
If you’re looking for a light, humorous, obscure show, I can’t recommend Norsemen(Vikingane) enough. It’s only six episodes and is available on Netflix.
It’s basically History’s Vikings meets The Office.
It was shot in Norway for Norwegian television. Scenes with dialog were shot both in Norwegian and in English, so you can enjoy the show without subtitles or dubbing.
According to wiki a second season of Norsemen has been shot already.
According to wiki a second season of Norsemen has been shot already.
A case set for trial (diabolical judge set it to start on Dec 28) settled unexpectedly late last week, so I took off the entire holiday period. Devil Hen and I are at our place in Cedar Key with the pups for 9 days.
Not exactly a traditional Christmas setting, but I’ll take it.
Apparently, sailing a kayak in circles is my idea of relaxing:
https://flic.kr/p/DgY7tF
https://flic.kr/p/21QULeE
https://flic.kr/p/21QUL87
It sounds like Mr. Dr. S’s funny bone is similar to mine, so I’ll suggest some stuff from down under that may not be on your radar:
What We Do in the Shadows is part mockumentary (e.g., Spinal Tap, Best in Show) and part satire of millennial Real World slackerdom, and part satire of the vampire craze. It’s free on Amazon Prime at the moment.
If you find that you like the NZ humor (style not content), then check out Flight of the Conchords (start with the comedy special, then move on to the offbeat series). At one time it was on either Netflix or Amazon Prime, but you may need HBO Go to see them.
A case set for trial (diabolical judge set it to start on Dec 28) settled unexpectedly late last week, so I took off the entire holiday period. Devil Hen and I are at our place in Cedar Key with the pups for 9 days.
Not exactly a traditional Christmas setting, but I’ll take it.
Apparently, sailing a kayak in circles is my idea of relaxing:
https://flic.kr/p/DgY7tF
https://flic.kr/p/21QULeE
https://flic.kr/p/21QUL87
It sounds like Mr. Dr. S’s funny bone is similar to mine, so I’ll suggest some stuff from down under that may not be on your radar:
What We Do in the Shadows is part mockumentary (e.g., Spinal Tap, Best in Show) and part satire of millennial Real World slackerdom, and part satire of the vampire craze. It’s free on Amazon Prime at the moment.
If you find that you like the NZ humor (style not content), then check out Flight of the Conchords (start with the comedy special, then move on to the offbeat series). At one time it was on either Netflix or Amazon Prime, but you may need HBO Go to see them.
“Believe me, my young friend, there is nothing–absolutely nothing–half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats.”
Looks great out there Pollo.
“Believe me, my young friend, there is nothing–absolutely nothing–half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats.”
Looks great out there Pollo.
we’re watching The Crown, The Good Place, Vikings, Wormwood, Alias Grace and Turn. just finished Lady Dynamite and Rick & Morty.
watched a charming Turkish movie about the cats of Istanbul (“Kedi”) last night. our cat Pepper watched it, too. she’s never show any interest in the TV before, but she sat in front of it and stared at the cats for an hour last night.
we’re watching The Crown, The Good Place, Vikings, Wormwood, Alias Grace and Turn. just finished Lady Dynamite and Rick & Morty.
watched a charming Turkish movie about the cats of Istanbul (“Kedi”) last night. our cat Pepper watched it, too. she’s never show any interest in the TV before, but she sat in front of it and stared at the cats for an hour last night.
we’re watching The Crown, The Good Place, Vikings, Wormwood, Alias Grace and Turn. just finished Lady Dynamite and Rick & Morty.
watched a charming Turkish movie about the cats of Istanbul (“Kedi”) last night. our cat Pepper watched it, too. she’s never show any interest in the TV before, but she sat in front of it and stared at the cats for an hour last night.
we’re watching The Crown, The Good Place, Vikings, Wormwood, Alias Grace and Turn. just finished Lady Dynamite and Rick & Morty.
watched a charming Turkish movie about the cats of Istanbul (“Kedi”) last night. our cat Pepper watched it, too. she’s never show any interest in the TV before, but she sat in front of it and stared at the cats for an hour last night.
After binging on the usual Netflix things for several months, my SO and I decided to actually start watching the thousand or so dvds/blurays that we mostly look at as they sit on the shelf.
Started last Friday with Kubrick. First up was my favorite Christmas movie, Eyes Wide Shut, then we went random. Clockwork Orange turned out to be last, and we couldn’t finish it. Seen it 100 times, but for some reason the gleeful brutality really got to us this time. Couldn’t make it passed the first rape. Trump effect?
Then it was on to Wenders and now Michael Mann, with a detour to Clooney’s Good Bye and Good Luck because it makes a great double feature with The Insider. Binging movies by director is a very different experience than binging tv shows. I think it’s making me more observant.
After binging on the usual Netflix things for several months, my SO and I decided to actually start watching the thousand or so dvds/blurays that we mostly look at as they sit on the shelf.
Started last Friday with Kubrick. First up was my favorite Christmas movie, Eyes Wide Shut, then we went random. Clockwork Orange turned out to be last, and we couldn’t finish it. Seen it 100 times, but for some reason the gleeful brutality really got to us this time. Couldn’t make it passed the first rape. Trump effect?
Then it was on to Wenders and now Michael Mann, with a detour to Clooney’s Good Bye and Good Luck because it makes a great double feature with The Insider. Binging movies by director is a very different experience than binging tv shows. I think it’s making me more observant.
Clockwork Orange turned out to be last, and we couldn’t finish it. Seen it 100 times, but for some reason the gleeful brutality really got to us this time. Couldn’t make it passed the first rape. Trump effect?
Maybe just getting older and gaining more and more empathy along the way. That seems to be my experience.
Clockwork Orange turned out to be last, and we couldn’t finish it. Seen it 100 times, but for some reason the gleeful brutality really got to us this time. Couldn’t make it passed the first rape. Trump effect?
Maybe just getting older and gaining more and more empathy along the way. That seems to be my experience.
cleek, I remember reading about that Turkish cat movie, and thinking it sounded very charming. I’ll look out for it.
Re Yama’s quote from wind in the willows: an all time great. Whenever I pass rabbits (or in fact pheasants) in a field, I often shout, in honour of the mole, “onion sauce, onion sauce!”
cleek, I remember reading about that Turkish cat movie, and thinking it sounded very charming. I’ll look out for it.
Re Yama’s quote from wind in the willows: an all time great. Whenever I pass rabbits (or in fact pheasants) in a field, I often shout, in honour of the mole, “onion sauce, onion sauce!”
Going through David Attenborough’s BBC documentaries of 2015-2017 (Planet Earth II, The Hunt, Blue Planet II) on UK import DVDs.
Going through David Attenborough’s BBC documentaries of 2015-2017 (Planet Earth II, The Hunt, Blue Planet II) on UK import DVDs.
Another encouraging story in US politics…
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/25/hugh-mccolls-last-great-investment-216162
Not everything is awful.
Another encouraging story in US politics…
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/25/hugh-mccolls-last-great-investment-216162
Not everything is awful.
Chuchundra:
That Norsemen series is *exactly* the sort of thing Mr Dr loves, we’ll be checking it out!
Chuchundra:
That Norsemen series is *exactly* the sort of thing Mr Dr loves, we’ll be checking it out!
Nigel, that’s a great article. And the last paragraph says it all.
Nigel, that’s a great article. And the last paragraph says it all.
…recently discovered delights of K drama…
I, also, highly recommend K drama including Oh, My Ghost.
Two places, other than Netflix and Hulu, to watch K drama are Drama Fever and Viki.
…recently discovered delights of K drama…
I, also, highly recommend K drama including Oh, My Ghost.
Two places, other than Netflix and Hulu, to watch K drama are Drama Fever and Viki.
What’s the timing on Mister Doctor Science’s recovery? My fencing has dropped off to armory duty now and then. The SYC event here in Denver six weeks ago had more than 900 fencers from all over the country. Setting that one up was insane…
What’s the timing on Mister Doctor Science’s recovery? My fencing has dropped off to armory duty now and then. The SYC event here in Denver six weeks ago had more than 900 fencers from all over the country. Setting that one up was insane…
Not everything is awful.
right on.
thank you, Nigel.
Not everything is awful.
right on.
thank you, Nigel.
Michael:
Another 5 weeks of no weight-bearing, then 6 weeks to 2 months in a boot.
And right at the start of the high school fencing season, too, which is normally extremely busy for him with reffing.
Yeah, that event *does* sound crazy. And holy cow, LOUD: reffing youth events, especially girls, often leaves him feeling pummeled by the screaming.
It reminds me of something I’ve heard about Comiket in Japan, which can have 200,000 attendees on a single day. There are areas for “girls’ manga” and “boys’ manga”, characterized by a wall of sound (girls) versus a wall of smell (boys). Pick your poison.
Michael:
Another 5 weeks of no weight-bearing, then 6 weeks to 2 months in a boot.
And right at the start of the high school fencing season, too, which is normally extremely busy for him with reffing.
Yeah, that event *does* sound crazy. And holy cow, LOUD: reffing youth events, especially girls, often leaves him feeling pummeled by the screaming.
It reminds me of something I’ve heard about Comiket in Japan, which can have 200,000 attendees on a single day. There are areas for “girls’ manga” and “boys’ manga”, characterized by a wall of sound (girls) versus a wall of smell (boys). Pick your poison.
And therapy after that, no doubt, because ligaments and muscles react badly to not being stretched for three months.
I took a couple of acquaintances to a large-for-Colorado tournament (13 strips all in use) at the Air Force Academy this past fall. They were enamored of the bellowing male saber fencers. I told them that if they really wanted to be impressed, go back the next day for the women’s events; nothing compares to a 16-year-old female saber fencer at full volume.
The previous year a smaller version of the 900-fencer event was held in a lovely new facility at one of the local county fairgrounds. It was designed for noise control and was remarkably quiet. This was a minor problem when setting up strips because you couldn’t just yell to get someone’s attention at 20 meters, you had to walk over there. It just ate up the screaming and bellowing, and the fencers pretty much gave up on those.
And therapy after that, no doubt, because ligaments and muscles react badly to not being stretched for three months.
I took a couple of acquaintances to a large-for-Colorado tournament (13 strips all in use) at the Air Force Academy this past fall. They were enamored of the bellowing male saber fencers. I told them that if they really wanted to be impressed, go back the next day for the women’s events; nothing compares to a 16-year-old female saber fencer at full volume.
The previous year a smaller version of the 900-fencer event was held in a lovely new facility at one of the local county fairgrounds. It was designed for noise control and was remarkably quiet. This was a minor problem when setting up strips because you couldn’t just yell to get someone’s attention at 20 meters, you had to walk over there. It just ate up the screaming and bellowing, and the fencers pretty much gave up on those.
It just ate up the screaming and bellowing, and the fencers pretty much gave up on those.
Which pretty much confirms (if anyone had any doubts) that the screaming isn’t just emotions overcoming them.
It just ate up the screaming and bellowing, and the fencers pretty much gave up on those.
Which pretty much confirms (if anyone had any doubts) that the screaming isn’t just emotions overcoming them.
Gender Inequality in South Korea
Kinda curious about how people can watch k-drama (or listen to k-pop). My own opinion is the SK, among OECD countries, is simply the worst:horrible oppressive capitalism, inequality, sexism and misogyny, and the worst suicide rate in the world. This will not show up to the same extent in all their entertainment, but if it it does, will show up most in their mainstream mass entertainment, eg primetime tv.
I do watch SK movies, for example Train to Busan and The Handmaiden, but I also recognize the despair and pessimism even in such “resisting” material as Park’s. Other ways the horrible social conditions show up are in sentimentalities directed at women audiences and heroic ultraviolence for men.
Japan is only slightly socially better but I also find their primetime tv and mass audience movies utterly unbearable. The anime I watch is the fringe of a fringe of a fringe aimed directly at young people who define themselves as outsiders and rebels, knowing they will have to grow up and sell out or suffer. Much like the French and Czech New Waves, and 70s American directors, it has its problems.
But it isn’t for the most part about comforting and reinforcing or providing safe escapes from the neoliberal sexist hegemony.
And of course is intentionally visually and formally challenging, forcing a conscious decision to stay and engage.
I suppose I could watch and fisk something like O My Ghost or an American “liberal” miniseries, but life is too short to watch conservative media.
Gender Inequality in South Korea
Kinda curious about how people can watch k-drama (or listen to k-pop). My own opinion is the SK, among OECD countries, is simply the worst:horrible oppressive capitalism, inequality, sexism and misogyny, and the worst suicide rate in the world. This will not show up to the same extent in all their entertainment, but if it it does, will show up most in their mainstream mass entertainment, eg primetime tv.
I do watch SK movies, for example Train to Busan and The Handmaiden, but I also recognize the despair and pessimism even in such “resisting” material as Park’s. Other ways the horrible social conditions show up are in sentimentalities directed at women audiences and heroic ultraviolence for men.
Japan is only slightly socially better but I also find their primetime tv and mass audience movies utterly unbearable. The anime I watch is the fringe of a fringe of a fringe aimed directly at young people who define themselves as outsiders and rebels, knowing they will have to grow up and sell out or suffer. Much like the French and Czech New Waves, and 70s American directors, it has its problems.
But it isn’t for the most part about comforting and reinforcing or providing safe escapes from the neoliberal sexist hegemony.
And of course is intentionally visually and formally challenging, forcing a conscious decision to stay and engage.
I suppose I could watch and fisk something like O My Ghost or an American “liberal” miniseries, but life is too short to watch conservative media.
FWIW, the series I admired enjoyed most from last season were “Land of the Lustrous” and “Girl’s Last Tour” both of which can be checked out with a 7-day free trial from Amazon Anime Strike.
FWIW, the series I admired enjoyed most from last season were “Land of the Lustrous” and “Girl’s Last Tour” both of which can be checked out with a 7-day free trial from Amazon Anime Strike.
My own opinion is the SK, among OECD countries, is simply the worst:horrible oppressive capitalism, inequality, sexism and misogyny, and the worst suicide rate in the world.
Just out of curiosity, which OEDC (or other) country do you consider the best? And does it rise to good, or is it merely “least bad”?
My own opinion is the SK, among OECD countries, is simply the worst:horrible oppressive capitalism, inequality, sexism and misogyny, and the worst suicide rate in the world.
Just out of curiosity, which OEDC (or other) country do you consider the best? And does it rise to good, or is it merely “least bad”?
Denmark and Norway
Denmark and Norway
wj: do you have to have “lived in that country” to rate it as “best”? Because just quoting some survey result doesn’t seem like we’re making a value-added comment.
But if our “best” is based on individual experience, it’ll be an individual preference. I’m sure you can have a great experience in a shithole country, and a shit experience in a great country.
I vote for the Empire of Hawai’i.
wj: do you have to have “lived in that country” to rate it as “best”? Because just quoting some survey result doesn’t seem like we’re making a value-added comment.
But if our “best” is based on individual experience, it’ll be an individual preference. I’m sure you can have a great experience in a shithole country, and a shit experience in a great country.
I vote for the Empire of Hawai’i.
I’ll pass on the ‘what I like is better than what you like’ game, but
My own opinion is the SK, among OECD countries, is simply the worst:horrible oppressive capitalism, inequality, sexism and misogyny, and the worst suicide rate in the world.
I’m not sure why this is surprising. Richard Rubenstein in The Cunning of History points out that it was the Germans who, as latecomers to the whole Western intellectual game, took all of it to its logical conclusion. It is always the coverted who have the greatest fervor and it is no surprise that SK and Japan, latecomers themselves, would exhibit some of the worst tendencies of the West. I don’t want to deny their agency, but they are, in some ways, simply mirrors of the West.
This NYTimes article shows another example of chasing the West
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/18/sports/everest-deaths.html
Climbing Everest is an expensive endeavor, something to be both bought and earned. Many climbers are middle-aged Westerners — doctors, lawyers and other professionals — with the kind of wealth that the group from India could not fathom. Some spend $100,000 to ensure the best guides, service and safety.
These four climbers measured monthly salaries in the hundreds of dollars. They borrowed money and sold off possessions simply for a chance. They cut costs and corners, because otherwise Everest was completely out of reach.
Ghosh shared an apartment with eight members of his extended family. Paresh Nath, 58, was a one-handed tailor who barely scraped by with his wife and young son. Subhas Paul, 44, drove a small-goods truck and used his father’s pension to pay for his Everest attempt. Hazra was a nurse, married and raising a son.
I’ll pass on the ‘what I like is better than what you like’ game, but
My own opinion is the SK, among OECD countries, is simply the worst:horrible oppressive capitalism, inequality, sexism and misogyny, and the worst suicide rate in the world.
I’m not sure why this is surprising. Richard Rubenstein in The Cunning of History points out that it was the Germans who, as latecomers to the whole Western intellectual game, took all of it to its logical conclusion. It is always the coverted who have the greatest fervor and it is no surprise that SK and Japan, latecomers themselves, would exhibit some of the worst tendencies of the West. I don’t want to deny their agency, but they are, in some ways, simply mirrors of the West.
This NYTimes article shows another example of chasing the West
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/18/sports/everest-deaths.html
Climbing Everest is an expensive endeavor, something to be both bought and earned. Many climbers are middle-aged Westerners — doctors, lawyers and other professionals — with the kind of wealth that the group from India could not fathom. Some spend $100,000 to ensure the best guides, service and safety.
These four climbers measured monthly salaries in the hundreds of dollars. They borrowed money and sold off possessions simply for a chance. They cut costs and corners, because otherwise Everest was completely out of reach.
Ghosh shared an apartment with eight members of his extended family. Paresh Nath, 58, was a one-handed tailor who barely scraped by with his wife and young son. Subhas Paul, 44, drove a small-goods truck and used his father’s pension to pay for his Everest attempt. Hazra was a nurse, married and raising a son.
slightly different tack…
a similar, but different, cake case than the one the SCOTUS is hearing was decided against the bakers. the ruling says:
slightly different tack…
a similar, but different, cake case than the one the SCOTUS is hearing was decided against the bakers. the ruling says:
@cleek: so, if RWNJ bakers want to prevail against the Gey Agenda, they just need to make their cakes inedible.
Following in the footsteps of many multinational ‘food’ companies, I guess.
@cleek: so, if RWNJ bakers want to prevail against the Gey Agenda, they just need to make their cakes inedible.
Following in the footsteps of many multinational ‘food’ companies, I guess.
The South Koreans have done rather well, given, within living memory, the severe low point they started from. It was only in the ’60s that their standard of living started to diverge in a positive direction from that of North Korea.
The South Koreans have done rather well, given, within living memory, the severe low point they started from. It was only in the ’60s that their standard of living started to diverge in a positive direction from that of North Korea.
To be more specific, I feel a lack of the political, defined very broadly, in SK movies. Part of it is their post-war history of being in a near war condition, and of course the US semi-occupation, but there is hardly a sense of what a Left could even in be in SK. This is a very right wing or “liberal” country, with not even the memory of a Marxist fringe as Japan has. Conservatism is completely internalized, and social resistance unimaginable.
This as I remember plays out in the lack of a “social.” South Korea feels to me like a very cold and cruel country, with lots of social obligations but little social solidarity or support. Not talking about the welfare system. Everyone for themselves.
All that is left is the interpersonal, and the hopes and nightmares revolve around interactions with other individuals. The fear of an oppressive gov’t or system is rarely talked about, and I think rarely thought about.
So it isn’t the system sucks, it is we suck, people suck, and the isolation, loneliness, despair and depression are palpable. As I said escapism is gotten through romance and violence, but in the artier stuff, the drinking and and withdrawal and sadness are nearly unbearable. The Handmaiden ending, you and I defeated those two and escape, just the two of us, there is nothing else is typical.
The reason this counts more is the brains, talent and art shown…SK makes very great well-crafted movies, serving horrific neoliberal individualist mentalities.
To be more specific, I feel a lack of the political, defined very broadly, in SK movies. Part of it is their post-war history of being in a near war condition, and of course the US semi-occupation, but there is hardly a sense of what a Left could even in be in SK. This is a very right wing or “liberal” country, with not even the memory of a Marxist fringe as Japan has. Conservatism is completely internalized, and social resistance unimaginable.
This as I remember plays out in the lack of a “social.” South Korea feels to me like a very cold and cruel country, with lots of social obligations but little social solidarity or support. Not talking about the welfare system. Everyone for themselves.
All that is left is the interpersonal, and the hopes and nightmares revolve around interactions with other individuals. The fear of an oppressive gov’t or system is rarely talked about, and I think rarely thought about.
So it isn’t the system sucks, it is we suck, people suck, and the isolation, loneliness, despair and depression are palpable. As I said escapism is gotten through romance and violence, but in the artier stuff, the drinking and and withdrawal and sadness are nearly unbearable. The Handmaiden ending, you and I defeated those two and escape, just the two of us, there is nothing else is typical.
The reason this counts more is the brains, talent and art shown…SK makes very great well-crafted movies, serving horrific neoliberal individualist mentalities.
South Korea feels to me like a very cold and cruel country, with lots of social obligations but little social solidarity or support.
You know, in 1973, the person who won 45% of the vote and lost the election by 900,000 votes was kidnapped and about to be drowned without the intervention of the US and Japan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/world/asia/24iht-korea.1.8031030.html
Kim was elected president in 1997, making him the first South Korean opposition leader to come to power. emphasis mine.
Complaining about what South Korea feels like without acknowledging their history, a history that the West had a big hand in, seems a bit off, especially through the lens of their movie industry, an industry that is having to deal with political pressure
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_entertainment/740553.html
Such suspicions are the result of a dispute that began during the 19th festival in 2014 over the screening of “The Truth Shall Not Sink with Sewol” (also called “Diving Bell”) a film that dealt with the Sewol tragedy. This dispute culminated in the city of Busan dismissing Lee Yong-gwan, the festival’s executive chair, and filing a complaint with the public prosecutors.
South Korea feels to me like a very cold and cruel country, with lots of social obligations but little social solidarity or support.
You know, in 1973, the person who won 45% of the vote and lost the election by 900,000 votes was kidnapped and about to be drowned without the intervention of the US and Japan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/world/asia/24iht-korea.1.8031030.html
Kim was elected president in 1997, making him the first South Korean opposition leader to come to power. emphasis mine.
Complaining about what South Korea feels like without acknowledging their history, a history that the West had a big hand in, seems a bit off, especially through the lens of their movie industry, an industry that is having to deal with political pressure
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_entertainment/740553.html
Such suspicions are the result of a dispute that began during the 19th festival in 2014 over the screening of “The Truth Shall Not Sink with Sewol” (also called “Diving Bell”) a film that dealt with the Sewol tragedy. This dispute culminated in the city of Busan dismissing Lee Yong-gwan, the festival’s executive chair, and filing a complaint with the public prosecutors.
Never been to East Asia but my impression of Korean movies is that they are East Asia squared, i.e. exaggerating the trademarks of Japanese and Chinese cinema. And (like btw Russia in the silent film era*) they seem to dislike happy endings per se (with even the nominally happy ones rather distorted). If they in any way reflect the society, it does not bode well. Cruel oppression, mistreatment of women (mind/soul even more than body) etc. No one tops Japanese movie violence at its extreme end but the average seems to be a good deal higher in Korea.
Again that is a purely subjective impression based on films that reached the German market.
*There was a small industry of reshooting unhappy endings for movies imported from the West (that is not a joke!)
Never been to East Asia but my impression of Korean movies is that they are East Asia squared, i.e. exaggerating the trademarks of Japanese and Chinese cinema. And (like btw Russia in the silent film era*) they seem to dislike happy endings per se (with even the nominally happy ones rather distorted). If they in any way reflect the society, it does not bode well. Cruel oppression, mistreatment of women (mind/soul even more than body) etc. No one tops Japanese movie violence at its extreme end but the average seems to be a good deal higher in Korea.
Again that is a purely subjective impression based on films that reached the German market.
*There was a small industry of reshooting unhappy endings for movies imported from the West (that is not a joke!)
Bob, please do try fisking Oh, My Ghost. I’d be most entertained.
(And I’ll pass over the mild irony of your adopting that term…)
The fear of an oppressive gov’t or system is rarely talked about, and I think rarely thought about…
How much recent Korean drama have you watched ? That seems to be diametrically opposed to reality. And it seems rather extraordinary to pass over the fact that they successfully impeached a president….
Sometimes it seems as though you would not approve of any social change which does not involve burning everything down – an approach which has not been conspicuously successful historically.
Bob, please do try fisking Oh, My Ghost. I’d be most entertained.
(And I’ll pass over the mild irony of your adopting that term…)
The fear of an oppressive gov’t or system is rarely talked about, and I think rarely thought about…
How much recent Korean drama have you watched ? That seems to be diametrically opposed to reality. And it seems rather extraordinary to pass over the fact that they successfully impeached a president….
Sometimes it seems as though you would not approve of any social change which does not involve burning everything down – an approach which has not been conspicuously successful historically.
Sometimes it seems as though you would not approve of any social change which does not involve burning everything down – an approach which has not been conspicuously successful historically.
In short, making the perfect the enemy of the good tends to result in a victory for the bad.
Sometimes it seems as though you would not approve of any social change which does not involve burning everything down – an approach which has not been conspicuously successful historically.
In short, making the perfect the enemy of the good tends to result in a victory for the bad.
I’m not sure about this, but I don’t think that Asian films in general and Japanese films in particular are a very accurate reflection of Japanese society. For example, when I first came here (30 years ago), there were tons of horror flicks that vied with making the most over the top blood and gore. I had students and Japanese acquaintances who liked them because they were so over the top.
My feeling is that the notion that films are an accurate reflection of society is something that is a very Western approach to film, and a Japanese/Asian approach is that film is supposed to be unrealistic and is treated as such. Which is fortunate because, as Hartmut says, cruel oppression and mistreatment of women is the norm. This is not to say that everything is great, I think that there is a great deal of problems, but the movies heighten them not because they want to be more realistic, but because they want to be more unrealistic.
There’s a joke I like about realism that has a person going to Picasso and complaining how his paintings are totally unrealistic and how they don’t look anything like the person he is painting and Picasso asks him if he has something that looks like his wife and the guy pulls out a photo and says ‘this is exactly what my wife looks like’ and Picasso says ‘my, your wife has a very small head’.
I’m not sure about this, but I don’t think that Asian films in general and Japanese films in particular are a very accurate reflection of Japanese society. For example, when I first came here (30 years ago), there were tons of horror flicks that vied with making the most over the top blood and gore. I had students and Japanese acquaintances who liked them because they were so over the top.
My feeling is that the notion that films are an accurate reflection of society is something that is a very Western approach to film, and a Japanese/Asian approach is that film is supposed to be unrealistic and is treated as such. Which is fortunate because, as Hartmut says, cruel oppression and mistreatment of women is the norm. This is not to say that everything is great, I think that there is a great deal of problems, but the movies heighten them not because they want to be more realistic, but because they want to be more unrealistic.
There’s a joke I like about realism that has a person going to Picasso and complaining how his paintings are totally unrealistic and how they don’t look anything like the person he is painting and Picasso asks him if he has something that looks like his wife and the guy pulls out a photo and says ‘this is exactly what my wife looks like’ and Picasso says ‘my, your wife has a very small head’.
on tuesday i made a stuffed 16-lb turkey. I decided to use the Convection Bake feature on my oven, which i hadn’t really used much before. I put the turkey in a v-rack in a large broiling pan, rack at the next-to-bottom position (which puts the turkey in the center of the oven).
when the center of the stuffing reached 160 F, I took it out. The breast & wings were completely cooked, but the back, the thighs, (and the very lowest part of the stuffing) were very undercooked. The carver cut off the white meat & the legs, took out the stuffing, then we turned the remains upside down and stuck them back in the oven
wth, convection oven? is this a common kind of convection thing, or is something in my oven not working?
in our oven from a house ago there were 3 settings: regular, convection, convection-plus (which did both). Convection-plus was SUPER, i hoped just-plain-convection would be more like that.
on tuesday i made a stuffed 16-lb turkey. I decided to use the Convection Bake feature on my oven, which i hadn’t really used much before. I put the turkey in a v-rack in a large broiling pan, rack at the next-to-bottom position (which puts the turkey in the center of the oven).
when the center of the stuffing reached 160 F, I took it out. The breast & wings were completely cooked, but the back, the thighs, (and the very lowest part of the stuffing) were very undercooked. The carver cut off the white meat & the legs, took out the stuffing, then we turned the remains upside down and stuck them back in the oven
wth, convection oven? is this a common kind of convection thing, or is something in my oven not working?
in our oven from a house ago there were 3 settings: regular, convection, convection-plus (which did both). Convection-plus was SUPER, i hoped just-plain-convection would be more like that.
Of course, bob mcm’s perfect is very few others’ version of same.
Of course, bob mcm’s perfect is very few others’ version of same.
“When “Gangnam Style” by Psy hit YouTube like a tsunami, many people were surprised to discover how popular Korean music and dramas are in America and outside of Korea.
…
The Korean entertainment industry is booming right now. The global audience for Korean music and Korean television is exploding across Asia and is even spreading to Europe and North America.”
Why Korean Dramas Are Popular
“When “Gangnam Style” by Psy hit YouTube like a tsunami, many people were surprised to discover how popular Korean music and dramas are in America and outside of Korea.
…
The Korean entertainment industry is booming right now. The global audience for Korean music and Korean television is exploding across Asia and is even spreading to Europe and North America.”
Why Korean Dramas Are Popular
“Denmark and Norway”
Good examples. Of course the Danes play chess with Death and Norway has an abundance of this stuff called ‘oil’.
We could certainly do a lot better. I’m beginning to wonder if we’ll ever figure it out.
“Denmark and Norway”
Good examples. Of course the Danes play chess with Death and Norway has an abundance of this stuff called ‘oil’.
We could certainly do a lot better. I’m beginning to wonder if we’ll ever figure it out.
I think that there is a great deal of problems, but the movies heighten them not because they want to be more realistic, but because they want to be more unrealistic.
Here you kinda contradict yourself. Flims and media are usually not completely mimetic or realistic, but they do reflect or represent fantasies, desires and/or nightmares of the producers and/or audiences in ways that are interpretable and perhaps explanatory.
Actors are more attractive than average for reasons. Buster Keaton and John Wayne are popular for reasons. Romance and zombies sell because. The iconic and iconographic nature of anime is in one part technical (hard to draw dirt) but not coincidentally intentional and powerful (astro boy is universal)
Anyway, the consuming of entertainment is a mass or niche behavior, and says at least as much about people as Facebook and twitter, and often more than we like to admit publicly.
For example, when I first came here (30 years ago), there were tons of horror flicks
As a completist, I have been running through those over the last couple months. Guinea Pig is mostly kids playing with new plastic tools, but the All Night Long series has nihilistic merit. “World Celluloid Massacre” is my critical review site for extreme movies.
I think that there is a great deal of problems, but the movies heighten them not because they want to be more realistic, but because they want to be more unrealistic.
Here you kinda contradict yourself. Flims and media are usually not completely mimetic or realistic, but they do reflect or represent fantasies, desires and/or nightmares of the producers and/or audiences in ways that are interpretable and perhaps explanatory.
Actors are more attractive than average for reasons. Buster Keaton and John Wayne are popular for reasons. Romance and zombies sell because. The iconic and iconographic nature of anime is in one part technical (hard to draw dirt) but not coincidentally intentional and powerful (astro boy is universal)
Anyway, the consuming of entertainment is a mass or niche behavior, and says at least as much about people as Facebook and twitter, and often more than we like to admit publicly.
For example, when I first came here (30 years ago), there were tons of horror flicks
As a completist, I have been running through those over the last couple months. Guinea Pig is mostly kids playing with new plastic tools, but the All Night Long series has nihilistic merit. “World Celluloid Massacre” is my critical review site for extreme movies.
I followed this link to a piece in the American Spectator about Prince Harry’s interview of Obama on the BBC. Isn’t it fascinating when the far left and the far right have almost identical attitudes?
https://spectator.org/the-prince-and-the-community-organizer/
I followed this link to a piece in the American Spectator about Prince Harry’s interview of Obama on the BBC. Isn’t it fascinating when the far left and the far right have almost identical attitudes?
https://spectator.org/the-prince-and-the-community-organizer/
Of course, that’s the “old” version of the far right…
Of course, that’s the “old” version of the far right…
i almost made it through the first sentence.
i almost made it through the first sentence.
“Of course, that’s the “old” version of the far right…”
Not to be confused with the “Alte Reich”, of course.
“Of course, that’s the “old” version of the far right…”
Not to be confused with the “Alte Reich”, of course.
The spectator article is good, and made me laugh.
The center sees the extremes as similar. Shock. There are of course so many more ways to be unfashionable than fashionable, but the center by definition sees everything else as simply “not like us.” Part of this is seeing those excluded as not inclusive enough.
The alienated take inordinate pride in being “not like them” for some meaning of “them” that tends toward a majority, if not a totality.
But Obama complaining about traffic on the way to meeting Prince Harry is funny.
President Obama suggests Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is ‘disintegrating’ and has lost touch with ‘fact and reality’
With Harry, against Corbyn. That is who Obama is, who he was all along, and the meaning of his regime and policies. Grifter.
“Worst President Ever” is a title he has only recently lost.
The spectator article is good, and made me laugh.
The center sees the extremes as similar. Shock. There are of course so many more ways to be unfashionable than fashionable, but the center by definition sees everything else as simply “not like us.” Part of this is seeing those excluded as not inclusive enough.
The alienated take inordinate pride in being “not like them” for some meaning of “them” that tends toward a majority, if not a totality.
But Obama complaining about traffic on the way to meeting Prince Harry is funny.
President Obama suggests Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is ‘disintegrating’ and has lost touch with ‘fact and reality’
With Harry, against Corbyn. That is who Obama is, who he was all along, and the meaning of his regime and policies. Grifter.
“Worst President Ever” is a title he has only recently lost.
Honestly, it’s too easy….
Honestly, it’s too easy….
The alienated take inordinate pride in being “not like them”
Heh.
But “inordinate”? “Smug” or “justifiable” — pick one, bob.
Anyway, interesting that Obama was apparently a worse president than Dubya. Nice to learn what “the alienated” mean by “worst”.
–TP
The alienated take inordinate pride in being “not like them”
Heh.
But “inordinate”? “Smug” or “justifiable” — pick one, bob.
Anyway, interesting that Obama was apparently a worse president than Dubya. Nice to learn what “the alienated” mean by “worst”.
–TP
I followed this link to a piece in the American Spectator about Prince Harry’s interview of Obama on the BBC.
Haters gotta hate.
I followed this link to a piece in the American Spectator about Prince Harry’s interview of Obama on the BBC.
Haters gotta hate.
Here you kinda contradict yourself. Flims and media are usually not completely mimetic or realistic, but they do reflect or represent fantasies, desires and/or nightmares of the producers and/or audiences in ways that are interpretable and perhaps explanatory.
Yes and a Korean audience is probably going to view it more meaningful because the way to tug on a South Korean’s heartstrings is to have an ending suggesting that it is all social obligations and no solidarity. But that doesn’t mean SK is
a very cold and cruel country, with lots of social obligations but little social solidarity or support.
Analyzing SK dramas from a Western viewpoint might get you some interesting insights, but it can also lead you down the wrong path just as often.
Here you kinda contradict yourself. Flims and media are usually not completely mimetic or realistic, but they do reflect or represent fantasies, desires and/or nightmares of the producers and/or audiences in ways that are interpretable and perhaps explanatory.
Yes and a Korean audience is probably going to view it more meaningful because the way to tug on a South Korean’s heartstrings is to have an ending suggesting that it is all social obligations and no solidarity. But that doesn’t mean SK is
a very cold and cruel country, with lots of social obligations but little social solidarity or support.
Analyzing SK dramas from a Western viewpoint might get you some interesting insights, but it can also lead you down the wrong path just as often.
interesting that Obama was apparently a worse president than Dubya. Nice to learn what “the alienated” mean by “worst”.
But Dubya was a rich white guy. So, low expectations.
Whereas Obama was a black man — so it was infuriating to the ideologically blinkered that he turned out to be a center-right politician. I mean, how dare he not be a radical liberal (if not a socialist)??? Bertayal!!!
Just another place where the far left and the far right turn out to agree on something. 😉
interesting that Obama was apparently a worse president than Dubya. Nice to learn what “the alienated” mean by “worst”.
But Dubya was a rich white guy. So, low expectations.
Whereas Obama was a black man — so it was infuriating to the ideologically blinkered that he turned out to be a center-right politician. I mean, how dare he not be a radical liberal (if not a socialist)??? Bertayal!!!
Just another place where the far left and the far right turn out to agree on something. 😉
But “inordinate”? “Smug” or “justifiable” — pick one, bob.
In all modesty, it comes too naturally.
…ideologically blinkered that he turned out to be a center-right politician.
Well, his fans have apparently moved in their judgements of Obama from “center-left” to “center-right” so I can look forward to further movement in the same direction. Then we can talk about blinkers.
The level and quality of his duplicity, and the wishful thinking and cognitive dissonance of his fans, drove mad and destroyed my Party of fifty years.
But “inordinate”? “Smug” or “justifiable” — pick one, bob.
In all modesty, it comes too naturally.
…ideologically blinkered that he turned out to be a center-right politician.
Well, his fans have apparently moved in their judgements of Obama from “center-left” to “center-right” so I can look forward to further movement in the same direction. Then we can talk about blinkers.
The level and quality of his duplicity, and the wishful thinking and cognitive dissonance of his fans, drove mad and destroyed my Party of fifty years.
his fans have apparently moved in their judgements of Obama from “center-left” to “center-right” so I can look forward to further movement in the same direction.
You might want to think about the difference between having a consensus view shift and individuals having their individual views shift. Obviously the former involves some people’s views changing. But not necessarily everybody’s views.
For myself, I thought Obama was, overall, center-right from approximately 2008. And nothing I have seen since has changed that view. It may be blinkered, but it’s based on what he has said and done.
his fans have apparently moved in their judgements of Obama from “center-left” to “center-right” so I can look forward to further movement in the same direction.
You might want to think about the difference between having a consensus view shift and individuals having their individual views shift. Obviously the former involves some people’s views changing. But not necessarily everybody’s views.
For myself, I thought Obama was, overall, center-right from approximately 2008. And nothing I have seen since has changed that view. It may be blinkered, but it’s based on what he has said and done.
There were specific reasons why some lefties and some righties disliked Obama where they were in agreement with each other. There are other areas where the criticisms are quite different. Some lefties, for instance, cruticized Obama for his switch to austerity talk and for wanting a grand bargain with the Republicans. Fortunately they were too eager to see him fail to strike any sort of bargain. I haven’t seen too many criticisms from the right saying that Obama was too quick to worry about the stupid deficit. Obama was center right on that issue.
On foreign policy, there is a subset of conservatives with little influence who side with lefties with similarly low levels of influence who are intensely critical of our love for violent interventions despite their record of catastrophic failure. I don’t agree with Bob’s apparent desire to see a violent revolution here, but centrists seem thrilled to support violent overthrows of governments elsewhere. And of course there is the endless hypocrisy. Pictures of destroyed neighborhoods in Mosul and Gaza and Yemen look the same as in Aleppo, but the language used about the perpetrators is different.
There were specific reasons why some lefties and some righties disliked Obama where they were in agreement with each other. There are other areas where the criticisms are quite different. Some lefties, for instance, cruticized Obama for his switch to austerity talk and for wanting a grand bargain with the Republicans. Fortunately they were too eager to see him fail to strike any sort of bargain. I haven’t seen too many criticisms from the right saying that Obama was too quick to worry about the stupid deficit. Obama was center right on that issue.
On foreign policy, there is a subset of conservatives with little influence who side with lefties with similarly low levels of influence who are intensely critical of our love for violent interventions despite their record of catastrophic failure. I don’t agree with Bob’s apparent desire to see a violent revolution here, but centrists seem thrilled to support violent overthrows of governments elsewhere. And of course there is the endless hypocrisy. Pictures of destroyed neighborhoods in Mosul and Gaza and Yemen look the same as in Aleppo, but the language used about the perpetrators is different.
wj: agree 100% on Obama’s positioning. Lots of “motivated reasoning” on left and right to think otherwise.
wj: agree 100% on Obama’s positioning. Lots of “motivated reasoning” on left and right to think otherwise.
his fans have apparently moved in their judgements of Obama from “center-left” to “center-right”
in the context of the last 40 years of US politics, center-left. in a broader context – historically or globally – center-right.
all a question of perspective.
i figured obama to be, approximately, this generation’s eisenhower. i stand by that.
The level and quality of his duplicity
i figure the office of POTUS to be, ethically and spiritually, one of the more harrowing experiences available to human beings. i’m amazed anyone emerges from it with all their marbles more or less intact, let alone with unsullied virtue. i do not demand or expect people in that office to be unfailingly candid, transparent, and forthright in every statement and action.
i expect the POTUS to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, uphold the constitution, be a reasonably effective public spokesperson for the interests of the nation, and run a good executive shop. that’s the gig.
there has never been, nor will there ever be, anyone holding that office who meets your standards of purity.
his fans have apparently moved in their judgements of Obama from “center-left” to “center-right”
in the context of the last 40 years of US politics, center-left. in a broader context – historically or globally – center-right.
all a question of perspective.
i figured obama to be, approximately, this generation’s eisenhower. i stand by that.
The level and quality of his duplicity
i figure the office of POTUS to be, ethically and spiritually, one of the more harrowing experiences available to human beings. i’m amazed anyone emerges from it with all their marbles more or less intact, let alone with unsullied virtue. i do not demand or expect people in that office to be unfailingly candid, transparent, and forthright in every statement and action.
i expect the POTUS to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, uphold the constitution, be a reasonably effective public spokesperson for the interests of the nation, and run a good executive shop. that’s the gig.
there has never been, nor will there ever be, anyone holding that office who meets your standards of purity.
in the context of the last 40 years of US politics, center-left. in a broader context – historically or globally – center-right.
And for “historically” you don’t really have to go back more than the 20 years before that.
Nobody can argue (at least not convincingly) that Eisenhower or Nixon were center-left — let alone liberal. But did we see Obama doing anything like creating the EPA? (Obamacare was minor by comparison.) Or like sending the 82nd Airborne into a state capital to enforce a Supreme Court decision? Ha! And the mind boggles trying to imagine how the Republicans would have reacted if he had.
in the context of the last 40 years of US politics, center-left. in a broader context – historically or globally – center-right.
And for “historically” you don’t really have to go back more than the 20 years before that.
Nobody can argue (at least not convincingly) that Eisenhower or Nixon were center-left — let alone liberal. But did we see Obama doing anything like creating the EPA? (Obamacare was minor by comparison.) Or like sending the 82nd Airborne into a state capital to enforce a Supreme Court decision? Ha! And the mind boggles trying to imagine how the Republicans would have reacted if he had.
Obamacare, is way left of the
EPA, it’s a flight of fancy to pretend his behind the scenes regulatory changes were much short of Berniedom. And he does believe Bernie is pretty centrist. Obama us not quite as far left as Pelosi, thzts the oy person hes to the right of.
Obamacare, is way left of the
EPA, it’s a flight of fancy to pretend his behind the scenes regulatory changes were much short of Berniedom. And he does believe Bernie is pretty centrist. Obama us not quite as far left as Pelosi, thzts the oy person hes to the right of.
Or whatever I meant to type
Or whatever I meant to type
Obamacare, is way left of the EPA
I’m having trouble seeing that. The EPA touches an enormous number of industries, and imposes constraints on how they work in enormous detail. Obamacare only touches medical insurance, and it’s constraints are pretty limited:
– no rejections for pre-existing conditions
– penalties for not being insured
being the big ones. Even the Medicaid expansion is optional. (All of which is not surprising, since the design came out of a conservative think tank.)
How do you figure that the EPA is more conservative?
Obamacare, is way left of the EPA
I’m having trouble seeing that. The EPA touches an enormous number of industries, and imposes constraints on how they work in enormous detail. Obamacare only touches medical insurance, and it’s constraints are pretty limited:
– no rejections for pre-existing conditions
– penalties for not being insured
being the big ones. Even the Medicaid expansion is optional. (All of which is not surprising, since the design came out of a conservative think tank.)
How do you figure that the EPA is more conservative?
The Obamacare/EPA argument is a false dichotomy, I think.
The EPA was pretty activist under his administration.
But yes, I’d agree he was a disappointingly cautious president domestically – particularly in the first couple of years when he had a narrow majority in Congress.
The Obamacare/EPA argument is a false dichotomy, I think.
The EPA was pretty activist under his administration.
But yes, I’d agree he was a disappointingly cautious president domestically – particularly in the first couple of years when he had a narrow majority in Congress.
Obamacare, is way left of the EPA
and way, way, way to the right of Truman’s proposals ca. 1945.
Obamacare, is way left of the EPA
and way, way, way to the right of Truman’s proposals ca. 1945.
While perhaps the ACA was less ambitious than some of Trumans Fair Deal proposals, you cant really say the underlying policy was much different, or “to the right”.
Lots of Obama’s priorities were really right out of the Fair Deal playbook. One challenge I will concede he had was there is an ever dwindling set of rational liberal planks to run since most of those from the late 40s through the mid 60s were made into law. So all liberals, he being one, have to choose between the issues that are realistically left and seeming like Don Quixote. The country as a whole has moved so fat left since 1948 that even Trump looks right wing.
While perhaps the ACA was less ambitious than some of Trumans Fair Deal proposals, you cant really say the underlying policy was much different, or “to the right”.
Lots of Obama’s priorities were really right out of the Fair Deal playbook. One challenge I will concede he had was there is an ever dwindling set of rational liberal planks to run since most of those from the late 40s through the mid 60s were made into law. So all liberals, he being one, have to choose between the issues that are realistically left and seeming like Don Quixote. The country as a whole has moved so fat left since 1948 that even Trump looks right wing.
your periodic reminder that the GOP is a cult: Bannon tells us that Breitbart covered (nay, covered for) Roy Moore the way it did in order to try to prevent the media from establishing a baseline for sexual assault that would … wait for it … affect President Trump.
—
my 2 minute theory: Obama’s position is easily calculated by taking your own left/right position and negating it. if you are close to the center, your estimation of Obama’s position will be close to the center, but just on the other side of the ‘center’ point. if you’re far right, you’ll see Obama as far left. if you’re far left, you’ll see him as far-right.
which probably means he was precisely in the middle.
your periodic reminder that the GOP is a cult: Bannon tells us that Breitbart covered (nay, covered for) Roy Moore the way it did in order to try to prevent the media from establishing a baseline for sexual assault that would … wait for it … affect President Trump.
—
my 2 minute theory: Obama’s position is easily calculated by taking your own left/right position and negating it. if you are close to the center, your estimation of Obama’s position will be close to the center, but just on the other side of the ‘center’ point. if you’re far right, you’ll see Obama as far left. if you’re far left, you’ll see him as far-right.
which probably means he was precisely in the middle.
you cant really say the underlying policy was much different, or “to the right”.
truman’s fair deal health plan was national single payer. the ACA is, quite specifically, not.
cleek has it right at 8:32.
Trump looks right wing
only kinda-sorta. more accurately, trump looks banana republic.
you cant really say the underlying policy was much different, or “to the right”.
truman’s fair deal health plan was national single payer. the ACA is, quite specifically, not.
cleek has it right at 8:32.
Trump looks right wing
only kinda-sorta. more accurately, trump looks banana republic.
The country as a whole has moved so fat left since 1948 that even Trump looks right wing.
The country has changed a lot politically and socially, and, as a whole, in no particular direction that anyone can say definitively. It’s a mish-mash of change, some things becoming harder to define within a left/right dichotomy.
Trump mostly looks authoritarian, and clueless about how our system of government is supposed to work. Still, he’s managed to embrace most of the Republican positions established over the last 30 or so years since coming into office.
The country as a whole has moved so fat left since 1948 that even Trump looks right wing.
The country has changed a lot politically and socially, and, as a whole, in no particular direction that anyone can say definitively. It’s a mish-mash of change, some things becoming harder to define within a left/right dichotomy.
Trump mostly looks authoritarian, and clueless about how our system of government is supposed to work. Still, he’s managed to embrace most of the Republican positions established over the last 30 or so years since coming into office.
hsh: The country has changed a lot politically and socially, and, as a whole, in no particular direction that anyone can say definitively.
The following all seem like clearly Leftward changes to me:
Abolition of Jim Crow
Sexual liberation
Medicare and Medicaid
Environmental regulation
The following, I would call Rightward changes:
Flattening of the income tax
Weakening of unions
Warmaking delegated to POTUS
Some people complain that the US has “moved to the Left” since WW2. Maybe they are appalled by some or all of the items on the first list. Maybe their complaint is that the second list is too short. Maybe I missed something on one list or the other.
–TP
hsh: The country has changed a lot politically and socially, and, as a whole, in no particular direction that anyone can say definitively.
The following all seem like clearly Leftward changes to me:
Abolition of Jim Crow
Sexual liberation
Medicare and Medicaid
Environmental regulation
The following, I would call Rightward changes:
Flattening of the income tax
Weakening of unions
Warmaking delegated to POTUS
Some people complain that the US has “moved to the Left” since WW2. Maybe they are appalled by some or all of the items on the first list. Maybe their complaint is that the second list is too short. Maybe I missed something on one list or the other.
–TP
Environmental regulation is seen as left(ish) to-day. Looking at the first implemented ones in the past (e.g. the British ones against the pollution of the Thames) it was once something conservative and (unlike to-day and contrary to (modern)conservative claims) also meant as a weapon (against the classic liberals behind the industrial revolution).
The (offically left) communist countries often put western polluters to shame by exceeding them by a wide margin (hey, how can a burning river in the US compete with one in the USSR that will kill anyone merely standing at its banks for half an hour due to runoff from the nuclear waste dump lake farther up?).
And the German welfare state was the brain-child of arch-reactionary Bismarck hoping to postpone the revolution by peaceful means (which naturally led to claims that ol’ Otto was actually a commie).
Environmental regulation is seen as left(ish) to-day. Looking at the first implemented ones in the past (e.g. the British ones against the pollution of the Thames) it was once something conservative and (unlike to-day and contrary to (modern)conservative claims) also meant as a weapon (against the classic liberals behind the industrial revolution).
The (offically left) communist countries often put western polluters to shame by exceeding them by a wide margin (hey, how can a burning river in the US compete with one in the USSR that will kill anyone merely standing at its banks for half an hour due to runoff from the nuclear waste dump lake farther up?).
And the German welfare state was the brain-child of arch-reactionary Bismarck hoping to postpone the revolution by peaceful means (which naturally led to claims that ol’ Otto was actually a commie).
Maybe I missed something on one list or the other.
Deregulation and enabling of global finance. But otherwise a good comment. Positions have become complicated, or mix of ideologies new under neoliberalism. Obviously Obama is quite “Left” on some issues compared to Roy Moore, but “Right” compared to the Pecora Commission. I doubt even my worst enemies here believe I want to weaken gay rights or limit abortion.
A little Marx, from today’s reading of Hayden White:
I would argue that children are slaves to their parents, with their purpose being entertainment. People do spend much money and effort on entertainment.
I actually consider most current 3rd wave feminists way to my right, and right-wing compared to the socialist second wave.
Maybe I missed something on one list or the other.
Deregulation and enabling of global finance. But otherwise a good comment. Positions have become complicated, or mix of ideologies new under neoliberalism. Obviously Obama is quite “Left” on some issues compared to Roy Moore, but “Right” compared to the Pecora Commission. I doubt even my worst enemies here believe I want to weaken gay rights or limit abortion.
A little Marx, from today’s reading of Hayden White:
I would argue that children are slaves to their parents, with their purpose being entertainment. People do spend much money and effort on entertainment.
I actually consider most current 3rd wave feminists way to my right, and right-wing compared to the socialist second wave.
I doubt even my worst enemies here …
Come off it, Bob! There are lots of folks here who disagree with you on various topics.** But “enemies”? That’s the sort of over-the-top rhetoric which is driving much of our current political disfunction. (Which you may approve of, as a driver for revolution. But that’s a different argument.) It’s possible to disagree with someone, without them being an enemy. Really.
** For example, the nonsensical assertion that children are some kind of slaves. Certainly it is possible to treat children that way. But, at least in this culture (and in most other current cultures) doing so would be both highly exceptional and seriously disapproved of by society at large.
I doubt even my worst enemies here …
Come off it, Bob! There are lots of folks here who disagree with you on various topics.** But “enemies”? That’s the sort of over-the-top rhetoric which is driving much of our current political disfunction. (Which you may approve of, as a driver for revolution. But that’s a different argument.) It’s possible to disagree with someone, without them being an enemy. Really.
** For example, the nonsensical assertion that children are some kind of slaves. Certainly it is possible to treat children that way. But, at least in this culture (and in most other current cultures) doing so would be both highly exceptional and seriously disapproved of by society at large.
…children are some kind of slaves.
Hmmm…I thought they were pets…
…children are some kind of slaves.
Hmmm…I thought they were pets…
Charles, I think it’s more the converse: some people treat their pets like (real) children.
Charles, I think it’s more the converse: some people treat their pets like (real) children.
Marx does use “slaves” broadly:”the power of disposing the labor power of others.” For instance, dispossessed wage-labour needing sustenance. I wonder if I would get the same pushback in saying that women are slaves to their husbands. And I did note that entertainment and pleasing were exploitable labour.
Marx’s goal was to make exiting a labour relationship easy and essentially cost-free to the labourer. All else is an exploitative power relation = slavery. If you want to claim that slavery is limited to a de jure relationship enforced by the state, that’s almost libertarian in the obfuscation of private power, and ignores state support and enforcement of family relations.
Looked up It Takes a Village for grins. Ghost-written and uncredited? Jesus.
Wiki:”which translates as ‘A child belongs not to one parent or home.’ In Kijita (Wajita) there is a proverb which says ‘Omwana ni wa bhone,’ meaning regardless of a child’s biological parent(s) its upbringing belongs to the community.”
Clinton largely pushed for community support, which is only a baby step. I want to end all parental power.
Wiki:”Senator Rick Santorum wrote a rebuke to the book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.”
Good to see y’all form coalitions and find allies. I’m agin families.
(Just fussing ron a bored cold satday.)
Marx does use “slaves” broadly:”the power of disposing the labor power of others.” For instance, dispossessed wage-labour needing sustenance. I wonder if I would get the same pushback in saying that women are slaves to their husbands. And I did note that entertainment and pleasing were exploitable labour.
Marx’s goal was to make exiting a labour relationship easy and essentially cost-free to the labourer. All else is an exploitative power relation = slavery. If you want to claim that slavery is limited to a de jure relationship enforced by the state, that’s almost libertarian in the obfuscation of private power, and ignores state support and enforcement of family relations.
Looked up It Takes a Village for grins. Ghost-written and uncredited? Jesus.
Wiki:”which translates as ‘A child belongs not to one parent or home.’ In Kijita (Wajita) there is a proverb which says ‘Omwana ni wa bhone,’ meaning regardless of a child’s biological parent(s) its upbringing belongs to the community.”
Clinton largely pushed for community support, which is only a baby step. I want to end all parental power.
Wiki:”Senator Rick Santorum wrote a rebuke to the book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.”
Good to see y’all form coalitions and find allies. I’m agin families.
(Just fussing ron a bored cold satday.)
I think there is a problem due to your focus (to put it gently) on power. That is, on the rights that one party has with respect to another.
But the reality is that the relationship involves both rights and responsibilities. I find that focus on rights reminiscent of my peers’ focus, when we were teenagers, on the (adult) rights that they wanted. Whereas being an adult, or a parent, is primarily about responsibilities. Ignoring that gives a very distorted view of what is going on.
I think there is a problem due to your focus (to put it gently) on power. That is, on the rights that one party has with respect to another.
But the reality is that the relationship involves both rights and responsibilities. I find that focus on rights reminiscent of my peers’ focus, when we were teenagers, on the (adult) rights that they wanted. Whereas being an adult, or a parent, is primarily about responsibilities. Ignoring that gives a very distorted view of what is going on.
Doctor S.,
My understanding is that a “convection bake” setting sets the temperature at something less than what you specify on the controls. This is, I think, because it assumes you are actually baking, and with convection you need lower temperatures than those specified in recipes. The oven assumes you are entering a non-convection temperature.
This may have had something to do with your problem.
My own oven has a “convection roast” setting as well as “convection bake.” I believe this setting also uses convection, but the temperature is not adjusted from what you specify.
Doctor S.,
My understanding is that a “convection bake” setting sets the temperature at something less than what you specify on the controls. This is, I think, because it assumes you are actually baking, and with convection you need lower temperatures than those specified in recipes. The oven assumes you are entering a non-convection temperature.
This may have had something to do with your problem.
My own oven has a “convection roast” setting as well as “convection bake.” I believe this setting also uses convection, but the temperature is not adjusted from what you specify.
byomtov:
OK, so at last I RTFMed. Turns out “Convection Bake” in this oven is specifically for *multi-rack* cooking, and primarily heats from the back unit. Roasting really needs the regular bake setting, which heats primarily from the bottom.
I don’t seem to be able to use the convection circulating fan while heating from the bottom.
byomtov:
OK, so at last I RTFMed. Turns out “Convection Bake” in this oven is specifically for *multi-rack* cooking, and primarily heats from the back unit. Roasting really needs the regular bake setting, which heats primarily from the bottom.
I don’t seem to be able to use the convection circulating fan while heating from the bottom.
Bob doesn’t know what he’s talking about, here are two great websites about Korean cinema:
http://www.koreanfilm.org/
http://www.modernkoreancinema.com/
My favorites (but my knowledge is pretty limited):
Memories of Murder
Oldboy
The Chaser
A Tale of Two Sisters
The Host
Mother
The Yellow Sea
I Saw the Devil
The Wailing
A Bittersweet Life
Bob doesn’t know what he’s talking about, here are two great websites about Korean cinema:
http://www.koreanfilm.org/
http://www.modernkoreancinema.com/
My favorites (but my knowledge is pretty limited):
Memories of Murder
Oldboy
The Chaser
A Tale of Two Sisters
The Host
Mother
The Yellow Sea
I Saw the Devil
The Wailing
A Bittersweet Life
Use those sites, seen all those movies, and many more. Is there one on your list that is not in total depressing and despairing about man’s inhumanity to man (or woman)? (Host, maybe but Yellow Sea is a misanthropic nightmare) In how many of those is the system primarily to blame, rather than interpersonal indifference, cruelty, and sadism? Crooked cops, gov’t and corporations are central to many cinemas, directly or metaphorically; in Korea, it is about individuals.
C/mon where’s My Sassy Girl?
wj:”Hell, them fieldhands are a yuuuuge responsibility. Cost thousands to buy, haveta provide food, housing, clothes work, churchin, overseeing, and lots and lots of discipline. And they never pick their weight in cotton. Wherever would they be without me? Yankees always just see one side, and never grant all that I do for my people. I luve them, and protect them.”
Use those sites, seen all those movies, and many more. Is there one on your list that is not in total depressing and despairing about man’s inhumanity to man (or woman)? (Host, maybe but Yellow Sea is a misanthropic nightmare) In how many of those is the system primarily to blame, rather than interpersonal indifference, cruelty, and sadism? Crooked cops, gov’t and corporations are central to many cinemas, directly or metaphorically; in Korea, it is about individuals.
C/mon where’s My Sassy Girl?
wj:”Hell, them fieldhands are a yuuuuge responsibility. Cost thousands to buy, haveta provide food, housing, clothes work, churchin, overseeing, and lots and lots of discipline. And they never pick their weight in cotton. Wherever would they be without me? Yankees always just see one side, and never grant all that I do for my people. I luve them, and protect them.”
Environmental regulation is seen as left(ish) to-day. Looking at the first implemented ones in the past (e.g. the British ones against the pollution of the Thames) it was once something conservative…
Curiously, Margaret Thatcher was one of the first world leaders to get global warming….
Environmental regulation is seen as left(ish) to-day. Looking at the first implemented ones in the past (e.g. the British ones against the pollution of the Thames) it was once something conservative…
Curiously, Margaret Thatcher was one of the first world leaders to get global warming….
Crooked cops, gov’t and corporations are central to many cinemas, directly or metaphorically; in Korea, it is about individuals…
From my (thus far limited) experience of Korean movies/TV, that’s utter hogwash… speaking of which, go see Okja.
Crooked cops, government and corporations – and the combination of all three – are a recurring trope of current Korean TV.
Crooked cops, gov’t and corporations are central to many cinemas, directly or metaphorically; in Korea, it is about individuals…
From my (thus far limited) experience of Korean movies/TV, that’s utter hogwash… speaking of which, go see Okja.
Crooked cops, government and corporations – and the combination of all three – are a recurring trope of current Korean TV.
Have yet to see the Wailing; and confused The Yellow Sea with the one about the fishing trawler and illegal immigrants whose title escapes me.
Wouldn’t recommend Hong Sang-soo to one with that list.
You want a recommendation though? Taebaek Mountains was a good political movie about the immediate years after WWII in Korea. Im Kwon-taek was considered establishment oldhat to the New Wave but he made a bunch of good liberal movies. Much like Kinoshita in Japan.
Let me see:
Castaway on the Moon
Musa
Kim Ki-duk is risky, but 3-Iron can be recommended
The Good the Bad and the Weird
Chang Dong-Lee is a must
Jeong-boom Lee, esp Man From Nowhere
Jin-ho Hur makes sophisticated non-schmalzy romances
…
The question in presentation is if it is particular bad or good dudes or women cops, corp executives or gov’t officials that are the problem, or is it the police in general, gov’t, or business as systems that are the problem. Conversely, is it the usual rogue cop lawyer social worker bucking his superiors and fighting the good fight or is a group or community?
It is in a way basic to the structure of live action video to focus on individuals, which as actors are real people, as problems and solutions.
Have yet to see the Wailing; and confused The Yellow Sea with the one about the fishing trawler and illegal immigrants whose title escapes me.
Wouldn’t recommend Hong Sang-soo to one with that list.
You want a recommendation though? Taebaek Mountains was a good political movie about the immediate years after WWII in Korea. Im Kwon-taek was considered establishment oldhat to the New Wave but he made a bunch of good liberal movies. Much like Kinoshita in Japan.
Let me see:
Castaway on the Moon
Musa
Kim Ki-duk is risky, but 3-Iron can be recommended
The Good the Bad and the Weird
Chang Dong-Lee is a must
Jeong-boom Lee, esp Man From Nowhere
Jin-ho Hur makes sophisticated non-schmalzy romances
…
The question in presentation is if it is particular bad or good dudes or women cops, corp executives or gov’t officials that are the problem, or is it the police in general, gov’t, or business as systems that are the problem. Conversely, is it the usual rogue cop lawyer social worker bucking his superiors and fighting the good fight or is a group or community?
It is in a way basic to the structure of live action video to focus on individuals, which as actors are real people, as problems and solutions.
A little reverse flow of culture:
What ‘The Good Doctor’ Means for Diversity in Television: As the first Korean drama to be remade for American television, the show proves that a series can be bigger than its entertainment value.
A little reverse flow of culture:
What ‘The Good Doctor’ Means for Diversity in Television: As the first Korean drama to be remade for American television, the show proves that a series can be bigger than its entertainment value.
“Hell, them fieldhands are a yuuuuge responsibility. Cost thousands to buy, haveta provide food, housing, clothes work, churchin, overseeing, and lots and lots of discipline. And they never pick their weight in cotton. Wherever would they be without me? Yankees always just see one side, and never grant all that I do for my people. I luve them, and protect them.”
I begin to see where the problem lies. See, here’s the thing about responsibility. You have responsibilities towards other people. Not towards your own property. (And calling your property “my people” doesn’t change the fact that they were just property.) You maintain your property for your own benefit, not because you feel a responsibility towards.
But perhaps you have a problem with the concept of relationships that are not merely an exercise in power, or people who don’t fall into the neat binary categories of exploiter and exploited. Believe it or not, most of us have numerous relationships which don’t follow that paradigm.
“Hell, them fieldhands are a yuuuuge responsibility. Cost thousands to buy, haveta provide food, housing, clothes work, churchin, overseeing, and lots and lots of discipline. And they never pick their weight in cotton. Wherever would they be without me? Yankees always just see one side, and never grant all that I do for my people. I luve them, and protect them.”
I begin to see where the problem lies. See, here’s the thing about responsibility. You have responsibilities towards other people. Not towards your own property. (And calling your property “my people” doesn’t change the fact that they were just property.) You maintain your property for your own benefit, not because you feel a responsibility towards.
But perhaps you have a problem with the concept of relationships that are not merely an exercise in power, or people who don’t fall into the neat binary categories of exploiter and exploited. Believe it or not, most of us have numerous relationships which don’t follow that paradigm.
…question in presentation is if it is particular bad or good dudes or women cops, corp executives or gov’t officials that are the problem, or is it the police in general, gov’t, or business as systems that are the problem
Given that the economically dominant chaebol are still family dominated, that is perhaps a distinction without a difference.
…question in presentation is if it is particular bad or good dudes or women cops, corp executives or gov’t officials that are the problem, or is it the police in general, gov’t, or business as systems that are the problem
Given that the economically dominant chaebol are still family dominated, that is perhaps a distinction without a difference.
Bob, it occurs to me that I’ve gotten a bit intemperate. Apologies.
The problem is that you put me so much in mind of a lot of folks I knew as a student at Berkeley in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They were so wedded to their ideology, so sure it gave them all the answers. While at the same time constantly demonstrating that they had zero knowledge or experience in the real world and how it worked. They knew all about how “workers” thought and felt, without every having actually talked to one.
That level of ignorance may or may not describe you. But that’s the button that your assertions keep pushing.
Bob, it occurs to me that I’ve gotten a bit intemperate. Apologies.
The problem is that you put me so much in mind of a lot of folks I knew as a student at Berkeley in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They were so wedded to their ideology, so sure it gave them all the answers. While at the same time constantly demonstrating that they had zero knowledge or experience in the real world and how it worked. They knew all about how “workers” thought and felt, without every having actually talked to one.
That level of ignorance may or may not describe you. But that’s the button that your assertions keep pushing.
Enjoying the thread. Pardon the (likely) hit n run but…
wj: those under the trance of the mainstream/capitalist/liberal ideology have the privelege of presuming that their “real world experience” and their “actual talking” is free of ideology. But look closely! (It’ll break the trance). All so called “experience” beyond a very low threshold of immediacy is ideological/socially constructed. “Actual talking” is similarly bound up in constructed meanings and interpretations.
It was/is the radicals who are trying to describe water to the fish.
Enjoying the thread. Pardon the (likely) hit n run but…
wj: those under the trance of the mainstream/capitalist/liberal ideology have the privelege of presuming that their “real world experience” and their “actual talking” is free of ideology. But look closely! (It’ll break the trance). All so called “experience” beyond a very low threshold of immediacy is ideological/socially constructed. “Actual talking” is similarly bound up in constructed meanings and interpretations.
It was/is the radicals who are trying to describe water to the fish.
Except that some of us contesting their description of water aren’t fish. More like diving birds (to stick to the analogy): people who are familiar with both the environment being described and with another, rather different, environment. We have looked closely . . something the ideologues, at least in my experience, avoid like the plague. Because, as you say, looking closely might break the trance.
Except that some of us contesting their description of water aren’t fish. More like diving birds (to stick to the analogy): people who are familiar with both the environment being described and with another, rather different, environment. We have looked closely . . something the ideologues, at least in my experience, avoid like the plague. Because, as you say, looking closely might break the trance.
To answer bob’s point more directly, rather than retreating to talk of ideologies and social constructs, the collective is likely to be every bit as oppressive as the family. And few families sink to the depths of (for example) the Khmer Rouge and Year Zero.
I’ll stick with being a pluralist.
To answer bob’s point more directly, rather than retreating to talk of ideologies and social constructs, the collective is likely to be every bit as oppressive as the family. And few families sink to the depths of (for example) the Khmer Rouge and Year Zero.
I’ll stick with being a pluralist.
I note that South Korea has single payer healthcare, and ranks first in the world for universal healthcare access….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_South_Korea
The change to that from a fragmented and inequitable insurance system is relatively recent (and democracy itself only goes back to the events of 1988). Seeing South Korea as some kind of society in stasis seems to me fundamentally misconceived.
I note that South Korea has single payer healthcare, and ranks first in the world for universal healthcare access….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_South_Korea
The change to that from a fragmented and inequitable insurance system is relatively recent (and democracy itself only goes back to the events of 1988). Seeing South Korea as some kind of society in stasis seems to me fundamentally misconceived.
As for children as slaves, it is a common position of the religious Right in the US that children are the property of their parents and that the state has no rights at all interfering with that. In particular this concerns bodily violence towards the kids (for some up to and including killing them in cases prescribed by the Bible).
[snark]I assume that they are all pro-life. Life is sacred until birth as we all know[/snark]
As for children as slaves, it is a common position of the religious Right in the US that children are the property of their parents and that the state has no rights at all interfering with that. In particular this concerns bodily violence towards the kids (for some up to and including killing them in cases prescribed by the Bible).
[snark]I assume that they are all pro-life. Life is sacred until birth as we all know[/snark]
“it is a common position of the religious Right in the US that children are the property of their parents and that the state has no rights at all interfering with that. In particular this concerns bodily violence towards the kids (for some up to and including killing them in cases prescribed by the Bible).”
I suppose you can argue about the definition of common, I have never known a single person who took the position that it’s all right to kill ones children for any reason at all. I am sure you can come up with someone somewhere that believes this, but it is not common among the “religious right”.
“it is a common position of the religious Right in the US that children are the property of their parents and that the state has no rights at all interfering with that. In particular this concerns bodily violence towards the kids (for some up to and including killing them in cases prescribed by the Bible).”
I suppose you can argue about the definition of common, I have never known a single person who took the position that it’s all right to kill ones children for any reason at all. I am sure you can come up with someone somewhere that believes this, but it is not common among the “religious right”.
A very happy new year to all of you without exception. Let’s hope that 2018 will be an improvement on 2017 (a person can hope, after all).
A very happy new year to all of you without exception. Let’s hope that 2018 will be an improvement on 2017 (a person can hope, after all).
frame by frame
death by drowning
in your own
analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqBGn8gYSTY
frame by frame
death by drowning
in your own
analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqBGn8gYSTY
Wasn’t there a case, a year or two ago in the US South, of a “deeply religious” couple SELLING their kids to some other person in their church?
And it only came to light because of the subsequent sexual abuse.
Why, yes, they were all GOPers, why do you ask?
Wasn’t there a case, a year or two ago in the US South, of a “deeply religious” couple SELLING their kids to some other person in their church?
And it only came to light because of the subsequent sexual abuse.
Why, yes, they were all GOPers, why do you ask?
I suppose you can argue about the definition of common
i believe the “kill your kids” cohort was limited to “some”. which is still a pretty remarkable stretch. i.e., not true.
short of the killing thing, it doesn’t seem far off.
I suppose you can argue about the definition of common
i believe the “kill your kids” cohort was limited to “some”. which is still a pretty remarkable stretch. i.e., not true.
short of the killing thing, it doesn’t seem far off.
A quick google search yields several cases of parents ‘disciplining’ children to death with ‘To Train Up a Child’ found in their household. A crackpot like Gary North wants to punish ‘children that curse their parents’ with death by stoning (biblical and cheap). I found a link (which I did not follow) to a theological discussion on whether a mother was (theologically) justified to kill her two children to save them from Hell.
No doubt this is not a majority view even among very conservative US Christians but a few both have it* and a megaphone to spread it. Without any doubt a majority of conservative evangelical Christians is in favor of corporal punishment as a parental right (or even duty).
*I guess ‘condoning’ (death) would be the legal term (‘billigend in Kauf nehmen’ in German).
A quick google search yields several cases of parents ‘disciplining’ children to death with ‘To Train Up a Child’ found in their household. A crackpot like Gary North wants to punish ‘children that curse their parents’ with death by stoning (biblical and cheap). I found a link (which I did not follow) to a theological discussion on whether a mother was (theologically) justified to kill her two children to save them from Hell.
No doubt this is not a majority view even among very conservative US Christians but a few both have it* and a megaphone to spread it. Without any doubt a majority of conservative evangelical Christians is in favor of corporal punishment as a parental right (or even duty).
*I guess ‘condoning’ (death) would be the legal term (‘billigend in Kauf nehmen’ in German).
Social workers are plenty busy dealing with child abuse and neglect here in godless CA too…though I suppose here we’re looking at intergenerational oppressive instability rather than intergenerational oppressive stability.
Social workers are plenty busy dealing with child abuse and neglect here in godless CA too…though I suppose here we’re looking at intergenerational oppressive instability rather than intergenerational oppressive stability.
Based on the news, one could get the impression that child protective services are too busy putting parents in jail for letting their kids play outside or wait in a car a few minutes to protect kids from real harm.
Based on the news, one could get the impression that child protective services are too busy putting parents in jail for letting their kids play outside or wait in a car a few minutes to protect kids from real harm.
Without any doubt a majority of conservative evangelical Christians is in favor of corporal punishment as a parental right (or even duty).
The whole corporal punishment discussion seems to degenerate rapidly into a conflict of extreme cases. (I think it might even be one of the earliest examples of what now seems to be our politican default.)
The reality seems to me to be this:
– one of the responsibilities of a parent is to teach their children not to do things which are dangerous. Which requires making the point unambiguously.
– beyond that, children need limits. Few things are more painful than watching a child resort to ever more extreme behavior, in a desperate search for where the limits are. It seems to matter far less how broad or narrow those limits are than that they exist and are clear. (I think it is a matter of security for the child, but that’s just my guess.)
– especially when children are very young, reasoned discussion is a non-starter. They simply aren’t (yet) able to process it.
So what all that comes down to is, a parent is going to need to be willing to both say “No!” and emphasize that with a swat on the butt. Not a beating, not even something painful. Just enough to reinforce the point.
That’s a long way from the kind of behavior that Hartmut describes; it is indeed a duty, just not the one described. But it’s also quite different from the “anything like that is child abuse . . . and ought to be criminal” view.
Without any doubt a majority of conservative evangelical Christians is in favor of corporal punishment as a parental right (or even duty).
The whole corporal punishment discussion seems to degenerate rapidly into a conflict of extreme cases. (I think it might even be one of the earliest examples of what now seems to be our politican default.)
The reality seems to me to be this:
– one of the responsibilities of a parent is to teach their children not to do things which are dangerous. Which requires making the point unambiguously.
– beyond that, children need limits. Few things are more painful than watching a child resort to ever more extreme behavior, in a desperate search for where the limits are. It seems to matter far less how broad or narrow those limits are than that they exist and are clear. (I think it is a matter of security for the child, but that’s just my guess.)
– especially when children are very young, reasoned discussion is a non-starter. They simply aren’t (yet) able to process it.
So what all that comes down to is, a parent is going to need to be willing to both say “No!” and emphasize that with a swat on the butt. Not a beating, not even something painful. Just enough to reinforce the point.
That’s a long way from the kind of behavior that Hartmut describes; it is indeed a duty, just not the one described. But it’s also quite different from the “anything like that is child abuse . . . and ought to be criminal” view.
The stats say there is a correlation between religion and corporal punishment, but even today more than 50% of Ameicans support parental corporate punishment.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-opinions-on-spanking-vary-by-party-race-region-and-religion/
The stats say there is a correlation between religion and corporal punishment, but even today more than 50% of Ameicans support parental corporate punishment.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-opinions-on-spanking-vary-by-party-race-region-and-religion/
Just to clarify, after reading Marty’s link. I’m talking about a single swat with an open hand. Not a ” good hard spanking.” Not using a switch or belt or other object. The idea is to make/emphasize a point, not to cause pain.
Just to clarify, after reading Marty’s link. I’m talking about a single swat with an open hand. Not a ” good hard spanking.” Not using a switch or belt or other object. The idea is to make/emphasize a point, not to cause pain.
Absolutely agree that setting clear and consistent non-reactive boundaries is essential for parenting.
The emphasis to the “no” can/should be made through tone of voice, body posture, and passive resistance (timeouts or withholding certain “carrots”). You’re exactly right: reasoning/explaining/arguing is counterproductive in the midst of a reactive parenting moment (I think this generalizes to conflict in all relationships, actually.
Even the mild hitting stuff is more of a distraction (at best) from the discipline: to be hit is to be psychologically aroused in a way that distracts from the child processing what’s happening.
A good use of immediate physical discipline for a kid whose physically out of control (tantrum) can be a wrestling-like hold unaccompanied -again- by verbal stuff until the child has calmed down.
Research points to nonabusive physical discipline as being detrimental to child behavior (such kids are more likely to be violent and suffer negative health: hypertension, diabetes, etc…Again, nonabusive physical discipline.
Absolutely agree that setting clear and consistent non-reactive boundaries is essential for parenting.
The emphasis to the “no” can/should be made through tone of voice, body posture, and passive resistance (timeouts or withholding certain “carrots”). You’re exactly right: reasoning/explaining/arguing is counterproductive in the midst of a reactive parenting moment (I think this generalizes to conflict in all relationships, actually.
Even the mild hitting stuff is more of a distraction (at best) from the discipline: to be hit is to be psychologically aroused in a way that distracts from the child processing what’s happening.
A good use of immediate physical discipline for a kid whose physically out of control (tantrum) can be a wrestling-like hold unaccompanied -again- by verbal stuff until the child has calmed down.
Research points to nonabusive physical discipline as being detrimental to child behavior (such kids are more likely to be violent and suffer negative health: hypertension, diabetes, etc…Again, nonabusive physical discipline.
Research
“Childhood experiences, both positive and negative, have a tremendous impact on future violence victimization and perpetration, and lifelong health and opportunity. As such, early experiences are an important public health issue. Much of the foundational research in this area has been referred to as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs).”
Research
“Childhood experiences, both positive and negative, have a tremendous impact on future violence victimization and perpetration, and lifelong health and opportunity. As such, early experiences are an important public health issue. Much of the foundational research in this area has been referred to as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs).”
Blah blah blah. Don’t strike your kid in anger. Make sure they know why this is important enough to warrant a spanking, limit those things mostly to situations where they openly refuse to take direction, it works fine. Simple concepts, consistent execution. It is a choice, other ways work, less well in my experience. No serial killers in our family.
Blah blah blah. Don’t strike your kid in anger. Make sure they know why this is important enough to warrant a spanking, limit those things mostly to situations where they openly refuse to take direction, it works fine. Simple concepts, consistent execution. It is a choice, other ways work, less well in my experience. No serial killers in our family.
What’s the case for spanking, again? (& can I respond with “blah blah blah” after you make it?)
What’s the case for spanking, again? (& can I respond with “blah blah blah” after you make it?)
“Studies continue to find that spanking predicts negative behavior changes—there are no studies showing that kids improve,” she says. And although Ferguson is not convinced that spanking is categorically bad, he is “certainly not an advocate of spanking.” Furthermore, there is a worrying body of research suggesting that parents who spank will later use harsher forms of punishment. “If spanking is not working, and spanking is all the parents are doing, then they’re going to escalate,” Gershoff says.
What Science Says—and Doesn’t—about Spanking
“Studies continue to find that spanking predicts negative behavior changes—there are no studies showing that kids improve,” she says. And although Ferguson is not convinced that spanking is categorically bad, he is “certainly not an advocate of spanking.” Furthermore, there is a worrying body of research suggesting that parents who spank will later use harsher forms of punishment. “If spanking is not working, and spanking is all the parents are doing, then they’re going to escalate,” Gershoff says.
What Science Says—and Doesn’t—about Spanking
Completely agree that a parent should not be striking a child in anger. This isn’t about being angry with the child. This is about calmly making a point. Not a beating; punctuation. It is, I think, an important distinction.
Completely agree that a parent should not be striking a child in anger. This isn’t about being angry with the child. This is about calmly making a point. Not a beating; punctuation. It is, I think, an important distinction.
What b9n said at 2:27.
Physical restraint might be necessary in some circumstances, but there is no real need or justification for any form of corporal punishment, IMO.
What b9n said at 2:27.
Physical restraint might be necessary in some circumstances, but there is no real need or justification for any form of corporal punishment, IMO.
No. I get that. We’re both discussing non-abusive physical discipline.
I think most adults (moi included, often) haven’t cultivated subtle enough self-perception to know/admit that we are emotionally triggered when we are disciplining children, so I would therefore avoid using “don’t be angry” as a useful rule.
What point can be made by spanking that can’t be made through other, non-physical means?
No. I get that. We’re both discussing non-abusive physical discipline.
I think most adults (moi included, often) haven’t cultivated subtle enough self-perception to know/admit that we are emotionally triggered when we are disciplining children, so I would therefore avoid using “don’t be angry” as a useful rule.
What point can be made by spanking that can’t be made through other, non-physical means?
I think you are missing one detail. For some years (exactly how long varies with the child) making a point verbally simply doesn’t work. The message may get thru; the seriousness of the message does not.
Watch, some time, as a parent tries to explain to a 5 year old (actually anywhere between 2 and 10 — sometimes even older) why they shouldn’t do something. And the kid either visibly ignores them, or nods for a while and then turns around and does the same thing all over again. Over and over — with the parent simply refusing to accept that sometimes words simply aren’t an effective way to communicate. It’s painful to watch.
I think you are missing one detail. For some years (exactly how long varies with the child) making a point verbally simply doesn’t work. The message may get thru; the seriousness of the message does not.
Watch, some time, as a parent tries to explain to a 5 year old (actually anywhere between 2 and 10 — sometimes even older) why they shouldn’t do something. And the kid either visibly ignores them, or nods for a while and then turns around and does the same thing all over again. Over and over — with the parent simply refusing to accept that sometimes words simply aren’t an effective way to communicate. It’s painful to watch.
Yes. Total agreement about most parents’ overuse of talking as a component of discipline (although these parents are talking a lot to their kids generally, and that’s good
The alternative to talking isn’t spanking…it’s other actions.
Ex w 4 yr old:
“We don’t push other people” (sister) Say it once. Remove him from play environment. 4 min timeout. Sticker charts can work with pretty young kids too. After TO, go put a red sticker next to the 3 green ones after the TO. Later…Lotsa positive reinforcement (“you treated your sister so gentle when you handed her that crayon. Good job!” & “lets count the green stickers. 5! That’s right, go get a cookie”)
What does spanking add to this?
(Wish i could’ve always been this textbook. It’s so much easier to play expert on teh intertubes, but i/we are dealing w our own “inner 4 yr old” while parenting.)
Now…spanking may be “no big deal” & lotsa loving and competent parents spank, obvs., but it’s not “no deal at all” IMO
Yes. Total agreement about most parents’ overuse of talking as a component of discipline (although these parents are talking a lot to their kids generally, and that’s good
The alternative to talking isn’t spanking…it’s other actions.
Ex w 4 yr old:
“We don’t push other people” (sister) Say it once. Remove him from play environment. 4 min timeout. Sticker charts can work with pretty young kids too. After TO, go put a red sticker next to the 3 green ones after the TO. Later…Lotsa positive reinforcement (“you treated your sister so gentle when you handed her that crayon. Good job!” & “lets count the green stickers. 5! That’s right, go get a cookie”)
What does spanking add to this?
(Wish i could’ve always been this textbook. It’s so much easier to play expert on teh intertubes, but i/we are dealing w our own “inner 4 yr old” while parenting.)
Now…spanking may be “no big deal” & lotsa loving and competent parents spank, obvs., but it’s not “no deal at all” IMO
I’m kinda in agreement with Marty WRT spanking.
The kids that just get ‘talked at’, few boundaries imposed, will continue to push the limits with their self-centered awful behavior….
…and a handful of decades later, you get Donald Trump.
Pardon me, I’m trying to load the MegaSpankaTron3000 in the Time Machine, but it just doesn’t fit, dammit.
I’m kinda in agreement with Marty WRT spanking.
The kids that just get ‘talked at’, few boundaries imposed, will continue to push the limits with their self-centered awful behavior….
…and a handful of decades later, you get Donald Trump.
Pardon me, I’m trying to load the MegaSpankaTron3000 in the Time Machine, but it just doesn’t fit, dammit.
I set firm boundaries for my children, and I agree that explaining why they should or shouldn’t do something can be the wrong approach. I’ve never hit them, and can’t see how that could help.
I set firm boundaries for my children, and I agree that explaining why they should or shouldn’t do something can be the wrong approach. I’ve never hit them, and can’t see how that could help.
This, from a former front pager.
https://features.propublica.org/tyler-haire-mississippi/tyler-haire-mississippi-mental-health-evaluations-criminal-justice/
definitely _not_ saying that a good spanking would have solved the problems here but it leaves me a bit nervous presenting generalizations. I tend to think that a big key is to make sure that the parents don’t have so much stress so they don’t pass it on to their kids.
This, from a former front pager.
https://features.propublica.org/tyler-haire-mississippi/tyler-haire-mississippi-mental-health-evaluations-criminal-justice/
definitely _not_ saying that a good spanking would have solved the problems here but it leaves me a bit nervous presenting generalizations. I tend to think that a big key is to make sure that the parents don’t have so much stress so they don’t pass it on to their kids.
i’m not sure hartmut’s point was about spanking, or not spanking, per se. ISTM it was more about an understanding of the relation between parent and child, and whether public institutions had any voice in that.
and, whether american conservative churches tended to land on one side of all of that.
FWIW, my own experience in that world leads me to agree with hartmut.
i’m not sure hartmut’s point was about spanking, or not spanking, per se. ISTM it was more about an understanding of the relation between parent and child, and whether public institutions had any voice in that.
and, whether american conservative churches tended to land on one side of all of that.
FWIW, my own experience in that world leads me to agree with hartmut.
The kids that just get ‘talked at’, few boundaries imposed, will continue to push the limits with their self-centered awful behavior…
Indeed – but what does that have to do with “spanking” ?
The word itself is kind of dishonest – in any other context, outside of fetish, we would call it hitting, and it would constitute assault. Which is exactly what it would be in the U.K. were a teacher to do it to a child.
b9n is exactly right about positive reinforcement. For the absolute worst behaved children, the real problem kids in school who have suffered serious parental neglect, it is often the *only* thing which works. Boundaries come later.
The kids that just get ‘talked at’, few boundaries imposed, will continue to push the limits with their self-centered awful behavior…
Indeed – but what does that have to do with “spanking” ?
The word itself is kind of dishonest – in any other context, outside of fetish, we would call it hitting, and it would constitute assault. Which is exactly what it would be in the U.K. were a teacher to do it to a child.
b9n is exactly right about positive reinforcement. For the absolute worst behaved children, the real problem kids in school who have suffered serious parental neglect, it is often the *only* thing which works. Boundaries come later.
russell, yes, that was my original point. The (inclination to) violence/abuse is just a symptom. Imo there is a huge difference between a single slap in the face in rare situations (If I had kids I know this could happen) and making inflicting pain a central part of ‘education’ (and declaring it immoral not to with referral to Holy Scripture).
I think there is an evil synergy at work with the view ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’ combining with ‘kids are property and I can do with MY property whatever I want’*.
The occasional slap is no case for the prosecutor, ‘to train up a child’ behaviour is (and if the authors do to their own kids what they recommend then the belong behind bars).
I think it should be a warning sign, when ‘property’ is cited as justification. ‘it was/is necessary’ tends to be non-ideological (misguided or not) by itself unless followed by unprompted referral to such kind of reasoning.
*the ‘children are slaves’ mindset quoted above that triggered my original comment.
russell, yes, that was my original point. The (inclination to) violence/abuse is just a symptom. Imo there is a huge difference between a single slap in the face in rare situations (If I had kids I know this could happen) and making inflicting pain a central part of ‘education’ (and declaring it immoral not to with referral to Holy Scripture).
I think there is an evil synergy at work with the view ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’ combining with ‘kids are property and I can do with MY property whatever I want’*.
The occasional slap is no case for the prosecutor, ‘to train up a child’ behaviour is (and if the authors do to their own kids what they recommend then the belong behind bars).
I think it should be a warning sign, when ‘property’ is cited as justification. ‘it was/is necessary’ tends to be non-ideological (misguided or not) by itself unless followed by unprompted referral to such kind of reasoning.
*the ‘children are slaves’ mindset quoted above that triggered my original comment.
Btw, it’s interesting to compare this discussion with that in ancient Rome where kids were their fathers’ property. Self-styled moral guardians (e.g. Valerius Maximus*) raved about the good old times when the state could censure a father for insufficient child abuse** while someone like Quintilian, who saw beating of children as cruel and counterproductive, was a rather lone voice.
*I had the questionable blessing of reading his whole awful ‘dicta et memorabilia’ recently.
**which is a hint that most (upper class) Roman parents did treat the kids reasonably well at the time (early principate).
Btw, it’s interesting to compare this discussion with that in ancient Rome where kids were their fathers’ property. Self-styled moral guardians (e.g. Valerius Maximus*) raved about the good old times when the state could censure a father for insufficient child abuse** while someone like Quintilian, who saw beating of children as cruel and counterproductive, was a rather lone voice.
*I had the questionable blessing of reading his whole awful ‘dicta et memorabilia’ recently.
**which is a hint that most (upper class) Roman parents did treat the kids reasonably well at the time (early principate).
Note that it is now fortunately illegal in over 50 countries to use any violence against children:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment#International_treaties
I find the use of violence against children completely abhorrent and unacceptable.
Note that it is now fortunately illegal in over 50 countries to use any violence against children:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment#International_treaties
I find the use of violence against children completely abhorrent and unacceptable.
Oh, and happy new year (please don’t hit your children…).
Oh, and happy new year (please don’t hit your children…).
… ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’ …
Some people interpret rod, in this context, to be a shepherd’s rod use to guide, not to beat. Though, I guess, shepherds might be inclined to lay about with some whacks if the guiding function was falling short.
… ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’ …
Some people interpret rod, in this context, to be a shepherd’s rod use to guide, not to beat. Though, I guess, shepherds might be inclined to lay about with some whacks if the guiding function was falling short.
Of course, that would be your good ‘ol US of A that is among the nations that has failed to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Conservatives do not like that the Convention puts the onus on states (rather than families and religious organizations) to safeguard the wellfare of children.
This aversion to state responsibility gestures towards what novakant brings up: children belong to families; keep the state out of family business.
Of course, that would be your good ‘ol US of A that is among the nations that has failed to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Conservatives do not like that the Convention puts the onus on states (rather than families and religious organizations) to safeguard the wellfare of children.
This aversion to state responsibility gestures towards what novakant brings up: children belong to families; keep the state out of family business.
Children in general are one hell of a lot better off as the wards of their parents than the government.
It takes a pretty bad parent to even compete. Would your child be better off in foster care or a government run home?
Oh, no, it’s just “their” children that would. “We” should be able to decide if “you” are a good enough parent.
Maybe someone in Saudi Arabia should help us decide.
Why would anyone sign an international treaty on how kids should be raised?
Government not as a nanny state, as a literal full time nanny. Of course then they get to decide who has children. And, of course, daycare is a right.
Bearing the resposibility of raising a child and thus having the right to decide how to is not owning a child. By the construction here the government would own the child. Really, that would be better for your child?
Same old stupid shit.
Children in general are one hell of a lot better off as the wards of their parents than the government.
It takes a pretty bad parent to even compete. Would your child be better off in foster care or a government run home?
Oh, no, it’s just “their” children that would. “We” should be able to decide if “you” are a good enough parent.
Maybe someone in Saudi Arabia should help us decide.
Why would anyone sign an international treaty on how kids should be raised?
Government not as a nanny state, as a literal full time nanny. Of course then they get to decide who has children. And, of course, daycare is a right.
Bearing the resposibility of raising a child and thus having the right to decide how to is not owning a child. By the construction here the government would own the child. Really, that would be better for your child?
Same old stupid shit.
Wasn’t one argument against the convention that it would interfere with certain aspects of the US legal/iudicial system, e.g. capital punishment etc. for minors? Some early recruitment of the US armed forces may also border on employing child soldiers (I think even some European had to adjust on the latter).
An important factor is likely that some prominent conservatives (e.g. The Newt and iirc the Pauls) openly object to US child labor laws (and mandatory education) and want them overturned as unconstitutional.
Wasn’t one argument against the convention that it would interfere with certain aspects of the US legal/iudicial system, e.g. capital punishment etc. for minors? Some early recruitment of the US armed forces may also border on employing child soldiers (I think even some European had to adjust on the latter).
An important factor is likely that some prominent conservatives (e.g. The Newt and iirc the Pauls) openly object to US child labor laws (and mandatory education) and want them overturned as unconstitutional.
Why would anyone sign an international treaty on how kids should be raised?
Every UN member including the USA has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every UN member except the USA has ratified it.
Somewhere further up this thread there was a claim that Barack Obama was in some sense left wing. On the contrary, in failing to submit the Convention to the Senate for ratification, he was to the right of every other national leader, as has been every other US president since the Convention came into effect in 1990.
Why would anyone sign an international treaty on how kids should be raised?
Every UN member including the USA has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every UN member except the USA has ratified it.
Somewhere further up this thread there was a claim that Barack Obama was in some sense left wing. On the contrary, in failing to submit the Convention to the Senate for ratification, he was to the right of every other national leader, as has been every other US president since the Convention came into effect in 1990.
Marty, is your understanding that children in Germany, for instance, are now wards of the state because they signed the treaty?
Marty, is your understanding that children in Germany, for instance, are now wards of the state because they signed the treaty?
Good for Barack, he did something right. Although I suspect he didn’t submit it because it wouldn’t be ratified. “Every remember of the UN” has done something means that if we ratify it, it most likely costs us money and lessens our sovereignty.
Neither us good.
Good for Barack, he did something right. Although I suspect he didn’t submit it because it wouldn’t be ratified. “Every remember of the UN” has done something means that if we ratify it, it most likely costs us money and lessens our sovereignty.
Neither us good.
Article 18
1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.
CRC text
Article 18
1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.
CRC text
Those paragraphs are pretty much diametrically opposed in intent.
Those paragraphs are pretty much diametrically opposed in intent.
I read them as saying “Parents are responsible for raising children” and “states will provide institutions, services, and facilities that allow for parents to exercise these responsibilities.”
E.g. Parents bring their kids to the doctor, states ensure that doctors and hospitals exist and are legitimate.
E.g. Parents feed their children, states ensure that food is available healthy (not tainted).
E.g. Parents provide shelter for their children, states ensure that housing is adequate and meets some standard for safety.
In other words, parents and governments have complementary roles in the care and raising of children.
Can you explain your “oppositional” reading?
I read them as saying “Parents are responsible for raising children” and “states will provide institutions, services, and facilities that allow for parents to exercise these responsibilities.”
E.g. Parents bring their kids to the doctor, states ensure that doctors and hospitals exist and are legitimate.
E.g. Parents feed their children, states ensure that food is available healthy (not tainted).
E.g. Parents provide shelter for their children, states ensure that housing is adequate and meets some standard for safety.
In other words, parents and governments have complementary roles in the care and raising of children.
Can you explain your “oppositional” reading?
Once government provides all that stuff it finished the parents rights. The second patmragraph isn’t talking about tainted food, it’s talking about acceptable food, acceptable housing, acceptable care. Acceptable means the government decides, in one paragraph, it removes any rights from the parents not specifically granted by the government.
That’s backwards.
Once government provides all that stuff it finished the parents rights. The second patmragraph isn’t talking about tainted food, it’s talking about acceptable food, acceptable housing, acceptable care. Acceptable means the government decides, in one paragraph, it removes any rights from the parents not specifically granted by the government.
That’s backwards.
Shorter even, only one of those two complementary entities can be in charge.
Shorter even, only one of those two complementary entities can be in charge.
Got it.
You’d prefer a world in which, for instance, parents had the right to NOT educate their children (or educate them unconventionally) or the right to NOT provide medical services (or treat them unconventionally) without state interference. Kind of like novakant was expressing: children are the property of parents and as such parents can do as they like with them (within boundaries: not including physical or sexual assault, presumably).
Do I understand correctly?
Got it.
You’d prefer a world in which, for instance, parents had the right to NOT educate their children (or educate them unconventionally) or the right to NOT provide medical services (or treat them unconventionally) without state interference. Kind of like novakant was expressing: children are the property of parents and as such parents can do as they like with them (within boundaries: not including physical or sexual assault, presumably).
Do I understand correctly?
Once government provides all that stuff it finished the parents rights.
?
The second paragraph does not contain any of the following words:
acceptable
food
housing
“care” does show up, as something that state actors are obliged to support. Which seems like a reasonably good thing, to me.
Your reaction strikes me as kind of nutty. Unhinged, even.
I don’t really care all that much if we ratified the treaty or not, I doubt it would make much difference to how kids here are cared for either way.
But objecting to this:
because it “removes any rights not guaranteed by the government” is kind of out there. Whatever it is you’re objecting to, it doesn’t seem to appear in the text of the treaty.
Once government provides all that stuff it finished the parents rights.
?
The second paragraph does not contain any of the following words:
acceptable
food
housing
“care” does show up, as something that state actors are obliged to support. Which seems like a reasonably good thing, to me.
Your reaction strikes me as kind of nutty. Unhinged, even.
I don’t really care all that much if we ratified the treaty or not, I doubt it would make much difference to how kids here are cared for either way.
But objecting to this:
because it “removes any rights not guaranteed by the government” is kind of out there. Whatever it is you’re objecting to, it doesn’t seem to appear in the text of the treaty.
First, you confuse the very concept of being responsible as a parent or guardian as ownership. I hold my SO’s medical proxy but I don’t own her. You are your child’s proxy until they get old enough by societies definition to decide for themselves. Along with primary responsibility as teacher, caregiver and a bunch of other roles that the government does not have the intimate knowledge of your child to perform acceptably.
Second, I think we as a society have, in general, drawn that line pretty well. We have considered not educating your kid along with sexual and physical abuse as crimes against persons, appropriately. Not providing medical care is even handled pretty well(although unconventional care is a broad swath and often unconventional becomes accepted, so there is a different line there).
The difference is when it becomes the governments right to have a say on the day to day acceptability of parenting. What over the counter drugs are acceptable, or required if the child has a fever? What vaccinations are required? Did your child miss ten days of school this year, what do we do about that?
People parent differently, they live differently, they have and teach their kids different priorities. The convention says that 7 Billion people are required to conform to a single minimum level and the national government has the right to impose whatever restrictions or requirements they want.
That is not how it should work.
First, you confuse the very concept of being responsible as a parent or guardian as ownership. I hold my SO’s medical proxy but I don’t own her. You are your child’s proxy until they get old enough by societies definition to decide for themselves. Along with primary responsibility as teacher, caregiver and a bunch of other roles that the government does not have the intimate knowledge of your child to perform acceptably.
Second, I think we as a society have, in general, drawn that line pretty well. We have considered not educating your kid along with sexual and physical abuse as crimes against persons, appropriately. Not providing medical care is even handled pretty well(although unconventional care is a broad swath and often unconventional becomes accepted, so there is a different line there).
The difference is when it becomes the governments right to have a say on the day to day acceptability of parenting. What over the counter drugs are acceptable, or required if the child has a fever? What vaccinations are required? Did your child miss ten days of school this year, what do we do about that?
People parent differently, they live differently, they have and teach their kids different priorities. The convention says that 7 Billion people are required to conform to a single minimum level and the national government has the right to impose whatever restrictions or requirements they want.
That is not how it should work.
What vaccinations are required?
Not quite sure how you square this being unacceptable government interference with the requirement to provide medical care. I trust you aren’t arguing that vaccinations don’t work….
What vaccinations are required?
Not quite sure how you square this being unacceptable government interference with the requirement to provide medical care. I trust you aren’t arguing that vaccinations don’t work….
russell, the word ensure in that sentence creates an obligation and a right for the government. It is easy to just read it as an obligation, but that is not what the sentence means.
“and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children. ”
This sentence provides broad authority to determine what are acceptable institutions(?), facilities and (always the most dangerous) services and how(and when) those are provided.
russell, the word ensure in that sentence creates an obligation and a right for the government. It is easy to just read it as an obligation, but that is not what the sentence means.
“and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children. ”
This sentence provides broad authority to determine what are acceptable institutions(?), facilities and (always the most dangerous) services and how(and when) those are provided.
I live in a country which has ratified the Convention. The government requires my children to be in full-time education, with home schooling as an option. Other than that, I can bring them up as I think best, subject to not falling foul of the law against child cruelty and child neglect.
The Saudis have not so far expressed a view on my competence.
I live in a country which has ratified the Convention. The government requires my children to be in full-time education, with home schooling as an option. Other than that, I can bring them up as I think best, subject to not falling foul of the law against child cruelty and child neglect.
The Saudis have not so far expressed a view on my competence.
Marty, de facto, you’re talking nonsense.
Please point to real world examples where the UN Convention has the deleterious effects you imagine.
Marty, de facto, you’re talking nonsense.
Please point to real world examples where the UN Convention has the deleterious effects you imagine.
Marty,
I agree we get the balance mostly right. Child welfare is more threatened by systemic factors (poverty, inequality, affluenza*) than by child abuse and neglect.
Pro Bono,
For the (US?) right, state coercion brings the specter of tyranny; private coercion is a glorious expression of freedom. For (US?) left, the reverse is true.
Russel,
I agree the CRC is largely symbolic but remains an opportunity for ideological confrontation over private vs. public spheres of power.
Marty,
I agree we get the balance mostly right. Child welfare is more threatened by systemic factors (poverty, inequality, affluenza*) than by child abuse and neglect.
Pro Bono,
For the (US?) right, state coercion brings the specter of tyranny; private coercion is a glorious expression of freedom. For (US?) left, the reverse is true.
Russel,
I agree the CRC is largely symbolic but remains an opportunity for ideological confrontation over private vs. public spheres of power.
*Affluenza: Addictive behaviors, metabolic disease and poor health, anomie & social isolation,
*Affluenza: Addictive behaviors, metabolic disease and poor health, anomie & social isolation,
In the US it literality takes an act of Congress to ratify a UN convention. And when Congress does act, the convention becomes a law of the land. A law that can/will be enforced. And can have subsequent laws based on it that are enforced.
I suspect that many countries can take an attitude of: “Oh, what the heck. Why not? We can sign the convention for PR value and then do as we please.”
In the US it literality takes an act of Congress to ratify a UN convention. And when Congress does act, the convention becomes a law of the land. A law that can/will be enforced. And can have subsequent laws based on it that are enforced.
I suspect that many countries can take an attitude of: “Oh, what the heck. Why not? We can sign the convention for PR value and then do as we please.”
I agree the CRC is largely symbolic but remains an opportunity for ideological confrontation over private vs. public spheres of power.
This would be a more compelling argument if there were common, or even uncommon, examples of countries that have ratified the CRC using that status to trample on the rights of parents.
As an aside, here in the US no opportunity is needed to inspire confrontations between private and public spheres of power. It’s a national hobby.
Used to be reds hiding under every bed and in every closet. Now it’s feds.
We’re a funny people.
I agree the CRC is largely symbolic but remains an opportunity for ideological confrontation over private vs. public spheres of power.
This would be a more compelling argument if there were common, or even uncommon, examples of countries that have ratified the CRC using that status to trample on the rights of parents.
As an aside, here in the US no opportunity is needed to inspire confrontations between private and public spheres of power. It’s a national hobby.
Used to be reds hiding under every bed and in every closet. Now it’s feds.
We’re a funny people.
Used to be reds hiding under every bed and in every closet. Now it’s feds.
We’re a funny people.
The funniest part is that those who were most exercised about reds under every bed are so often the same people carrying on about the feds. While making admiring remarks about Putin.
It’s a mad, mad world. Or, at least, country.
Used to be reds hiding under every bed and in every closet. Now it’s feds.
We’re a funny people.
The funniest part is that those who were most exercised about reds under every bed are so often the same people carrying on about the feds. While making admiring remarks about Putin.
It’s a mad, mad world. Or, at least, country.
Charles WT: A law that can/will be enforced
Not so. See Torture and Agression
Charles WT: A law that can/will be enforced
Not so. See Torture and Agression
An interesting bit of food for thought.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-own-cultural-revolution/2018/01/01/1f53438e-ef38-11e7-b390-a36dc3fa2842_story.html
For some reason, the point about the demonization of education really struck home.
An interesting bit of food for thought.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-own-cultural-revolution/2018/01/01/1f53438e-ef38-11e7-b390-a36dc3fa2842_story.html
For some reason, the point about the demonization of education really struck home.
As did this…
“Virtually all types of institutions, be it political, educational, or business, are exhausting their internal energy in dealing with contentious, and seemingly irreconcilable, differences in basic identities and values — what it means to be American,” he said in a subsequent email exchange. “In such an environment, identity trumps reason, ideology overwhelms politics, and moral convictions replace intellectual discourse.”
As did this…
“Virtually all types of institutions, be it political, educational, or business, are exhausting their internal energy in dealing with contentious, and seemingly irreconcilable, differences in basic identities and values — what it means to be American,” he said in a subsequent email exchange. “In such an environment, identity trumps reason, ideology overwhelms politics, and moral convictions replace intellectual discourse.”
Thanks for sharing wj. I think comparing China’s Cultural Revolution to our own hyper-partisan moment relies too much on hyperbole and papering over crucial differences.
What is so disturbing about the CR is precisely the violence and cruelty that accompanied it, and that there were no institutional safeguards against it. It was also not “bipartisan” (the “bourgeoisie” were not symmetrically purging “collectivists” in their midst).
Today in the US partisan violence and cruelty is (almost) completely rhetorical, largely symmetrical, and does not command the allegiance of the state.
There is, in fact, reason to hope that US society is becoming a less-cruel & violent place overall.
Thanks for sharing wj. I think comparing China’s Cultural Revolution to our own hyper-partisan moment relies too much on hyperbole and papering over crucial differences.
What is so disturbing about the CR is precisely the violence and cruelty that accompanied it, and that there were no institutional safeguards against it. It was also not “bipartisan” (the “bourgeoisie” were not symmetrically purging “collectivists” in their midst).
Today in the US partisan violence and cruelty is (almost) completely rhetorical, largely symmetrical, and does not command the allegiance of the state.
There is, in fact, reason to hope that US society is becoming a less-cruel & violent place overall.
“Today in the US partisan violence and cruelty is (almost) completely rhetorical*, largely symmetrical**, and does not command the allegiance of the state***.”
*Except where it it isn’t, usually involving a mass shooting.
**Except when it gets ‘violent’, then rather Asymmetric (post 1980, to short circuit the usual ignorant ‘but what about the radical left?1??’ BS)
***”There were ‘good people’ amid the Charlottesville neo-nazis, said someone rather high up in ‘the state’.
“Today in the US partisan violence and cruelty is (almost) completely rhetorical*, largely symmetrical**, and does not command the allegiance of the state***.”
*Except where it it isn’t, usually involving a mass shooting.
**Except when it gets ‘violent’, then rather Asymmetric (post 1980, to short circuit the usual ignorant ‘but what about the radical left?1??’ BS)
***”There were ‘good people’ amid the Charlottesville neo-nazis, said someone rather high up in ‘the state’.
Mass shootings? Of victims who are or represent political partisans? Are you referring to Orlando?
Mass shootings? Of victims who are or represent political partisans? Are you referring to Orlando?
“(almost) completely rhetorical” needs some clarification.
Depending on definitions, the number of acts of politically motivated violence in the US run from a handful to a couple hundred per year.
“largely symmetrical” is, IMO, simply incorrect. Virtually all acts of politically motivated violence in the US are carried out by folks on the right-wing spectrum. Threats of violence from those folks towards folks of other persuasions are a commonplace.
I’ve learned to just ignore them, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
“(almost) completely rhetorical” needs some clarification.
Depending on definitions, the number of acts of politically motivated violence in the US run from a handful to a couple hundred per year.
“largely symmetrical” is, IMO, simply incorrect. Virtually all acts of politically motivated violence in the US are carried out by folks on the right-wing spectrum. Threats of violence from those folks towards folks of other persuasions are a commonplace.
I’ve learned to just ignore them, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
You know, stuff like this.
Maybe there’s a cadre of liberals out there talking about making their opposites “taste their own blood”, but I’m not really seeing it.
There’s the Count, but he mostly seems to be an exclusively ObWi phenomenon, at least as far as the over-the-top stuff goes.
You know, stuff like this.
Maybe there’s a cadre of liberals out there talking about making their opposites “taste their own blood”, but I’m not really seeing it.
There’s the Count, but he mostly seems to be an exclusively ObWi phenomenon, at least as far as the over-the-top stuff goes.
I rescind “largely symmetrical”.
Russell and Snarki seem correct on that point.
But I stand by “mostly rhetorical” and “non-state sanctioned”. The context was comparison to China’s Cultural Revolution.
I rescind “largely symmetrical”.
Russell and Snarki seem correct on that point.
But I stand by “mostly rhetorical” and “non-state sanctioned”. The context was comparison to China’s Cultural Revolution.
Virtually all acts of politically motivated violence in the US are carried out by folks on the right-wing spectrum.
If you restrict “violence” to violence against persons, you are probably correct. But violence against property has a rather different spectrum. Not sure if it reaches seriously asymmetrical to the left, but definitely less skewed to the right.
Virtually all acts of politically motivated violence in the US are carried out by folks on the right-wing spectrum.
If you restrict “violence” to violence against persons, you are probably correct. But violence against property has a rather different spectrum. Not sure if it reaches seriously asymmetrical to the left, but definitely less skewed to the right.
“Violence against property” isn’t a thing (unless we’re talking about critical infrastructure: water purification plants, etc…)
“Violence against property” isn’t a thing (unless we’re talking about critical infrastructure: water purification plants, etc…)
There are almost no acts of politically motivated acts of violence in this country period. Almost none. There are some acts by mentally deranged folks that like guns, but there is no political outcome intended. Most mass shootings have no political reason. That people with guns mostly have far right wing views seems to follow, but the acts are not political acts.
I can think of two in the recent past Gifford and Scalise, go back a little further and you get Oklahoma. Go South and you get some racist violence still no political point, just hate.
Not even saying symmetrical or anything, there just isn’t that much politically motivated violence. Being “carried out by someone on the right wing” doesn’t mean its purpose was political.
There are almost no acts of politically motivated acts of violence in this country period. Almost none. There are some acts by mentally deranged folks that like guns, but there is no political outcome intended. Most mass shootings have no political reason. That people with guns mostly have far right wing views seems to follow, but the acts are not political acts.
I can think of two in the recent past Gifford and Scalise, go back a little further and you get Oklahoma. Go South and you get some racist violence still no political point, just hate.
Not even saying symmetrical or anything, there just isn’t that much politically motivated violence. Being “carried out by someone on the right wing” doesn’t mean its purpose was political.
But violence against property has a rather different spectrum.
Yes, I agree with this. Violence against property is not-uncommon among current-day anarchists and anti-capitalists.
But violence against property has a rather different spectrum.
Yes, I agree with this. Violence against property is not-uncommon among current-day anarchists and anti-capitalists.
There are almost no acts of politically motivated acts of violence in this country
If we actually want to talk about this, we need some clarity about words like “almost”, “political”, and “violence”.
If we’re comparing being a victim of politically motivated violence to being in a car accident, or dying of a heart attack, the odds are really really tiny.
So, is it not worth bothering about? How many people were killed or injured by the Weather Underground? Or the Black Panthers? Why did we give a crap about them?
Does violence have to include bodily harm? Can it encompass verbal harassment or intimidation, or threats of violence?
If somebody threatens somebody else while yelling about how it’s “all different now that Trump is president”, is that politically motivated? Or just an asshole?
What about if they run you over with a car?
No point in even getting into this unless we can agree about what we’re talking about.
Public studies, by folks like West Point and the FBI, put incidents anywhere from a handful to hundreds a year. Whether that’s noise or not probably depends on what you want to call it. But the stuff they track actually does happen.
I’m probably out on this topic. Comments like “almost none” and “mostly rhetorical” just seem like platitudes to me. There are “almost none” of lots of things that we direct a lot of attention to. “Almost none” ain’t “none”. Either it matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, no point in discussing.
There are almost no acts of politically motivated acts of violence in this country
If we actually want to talk about this, we need some clarity about words like “almost”, “political”, and “violence”.
If we’re comparing being a victim of politically motivated violence to being in a car accident, or dying of a heart attack, the odds are really really tiny.
So, is it not worth bothering about? How many people were killed or injured by the Weather Underground? Or the Black Panthers? Why did we give a crap about them?
Does violence have to include bodily harm? Can it encompass verbal harassment or intimidation, or threats of violence?
If somebody threatens somebody else while yelling about how it’s “all different now that Trump is president”, is that politically motivated? Or just an asshole?
What about if they run you over with a car?
No point in even getting into this unless we can agree about what we’re talking about.
Public studies, by folks like West Point and the FBI, put incidents anywhere from a handful to hundreds a year. Whether that’s noise or not probably depends on what you want to call it. But the stuff they track actually does happen.
I’m probably out on this topic. Comments like “almost none” and “mostly rhetorical” just seem like platitudes to me. There are “almost none” of lots of things that we direct a lot of attention to. “Almost none” ain’t “none”. Either it matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, no point in discussing.
I agree with a lot of what you say russell. I think we need definition.
But the context was the violence around the CR and that violence was directly political.
IMO, that is different and there isn’t much of it here.
I agree with a lot of what you say russell. I think we need definition.
But the context was the violence around the CR and that violence was directly political.
IMO, that is different and there isn’t much of it here.
Circling back, the new Korean drama on Netflix, Stranger (aka Forest of Secrets) again rather refutes bob’s blanket characterisation of the form, being concerned entirely with endemic and systematic corruption in the police and prosecutorial system….
It’s also rather good (and amusingly has an actress in common with Oh, My Ghost).
Circling back, the new Korean drama on Netflix, Stranger (aka Forest of Secrets) again rather refutes bob’s blanket characterisation of the form, being concerned entirely with endemic and systematic corruption in the police and prosecutorial system….
It’s also rather good (and amusingly has an actress in common with Oh, My Ghost).
I can think of two in the recent past Gifford and Scalise, go back a little further and you get Oklahoma. Go South and you get some racist violence still no political point, just hate.
Where do you put the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting (three dead, nine injured)? Yeah, the guy had mental illness problems. But at least one of the people who questioned him said the actions were “definitely politically motivated.”
I can think of two in the recent past Gifford and Scalise, go back a little further and you get Oklahoma. Go South and you get some racist violence still no political point, just hate.
Where do you put the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting (three dead, nine injured)? Yeah, the guy had mental illness problems. But at least one of the people who questioned him said the actions were “definitely politically motivated.”
b9n10nt: “Violence against property” isn’t a thing
I’m not sure whether this is just a definition of convenience. Or if you have had the good fortune to never be around a riot. Believe me, there may only be property damaged, but the violence is definitely there.
b9n10nt: “Violence against property” isn’t a thing
I’m not sure whether this is just a definition of convenience. Or if you have had the good fortune to never be around a riot. Believe me, there may only be property damaged, but the violence is definitely there.
It’s also rather good (and amusingly has an actress in common with Oh, My Ghost).
Lead actress Bae Doo-na also stared in Netflex’s Sense8.
Compared to, say the US, Korea’s actor population is pretty small. It’s something like a theater company writ large. After you’ve watched a few dramas, you will see familiar faces in just about everything you watch.
It’s also rather good (and amusingly has an actress in common with Oh, My Ghost).
Lead actress Bae Doo-na also stared in Netflex’s Sense8.
Compared to, say the US, Korea’s actor population is pretty small. It’s something like a theater company writ large. After you’ve watched a few dramas, you will see familiar faces in just about everything you watch.
Lead actress Bae Doo-na also stared in Netflex’s Sense8….
Yes, she does a great stare…
🙂
Lead actress Bae Doo-na also stared in Netflex’s Sense8….
Yes, she does a great stare…
🙂
wj
Quite the good fortune, yes.
So, if violence is a vibe, and such a vibe can be summoned via property-damaging riots (taking your word for it and imagining the truth of that), would you then allow that such a vibe could be summoned by other acts that don’t involve bodily harm, including speech acts?
“Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence. When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you know why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence” -Krishnamurti
wj
Quite the good fortune, yes.
So, if violence is a vibe, and such a vibe can be summoned via property-damaging riots (taking your word for it and imagining the truth of that), would you then allow that such a vibe could be summoned by other acts that don’t involve bodily harm, including speech acts?
“Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence. When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you know why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence” -Krishnamurti
I’ve never found convincing the suggestion that speech, however noxious, is in itself anywhere on a par with actual physical violence. (If it’s inciting violence, that’s a different story.)
Not that it’s not a real problem in some cases. Just that it’s not nearly on the same level. I have the, no doubt elitist and cynical, suspicion that those who suggest that it is are merely demonstrating that they haven’t been involved in the real thing — one can only congratulate them on their good fortune.
I’ve never found convincing the suggestion that speech, however noxious, is in itself anywhere on a par with actual physical violence. (If it’s inciting violence, that’s a different story.)
Not that it’s not a real problem in some cases. Just that it’s not nearly on the same level. I have the, no doubt elitist and cynical, suspicion that those who suggest that it is are merely demonstrating that they haven’t been involved in the real thing — one can only congratulate them on their good fortune.
Ladies and gentlemen, the leader of the Cult of the GOP, the person they overwhelmingly elected and still support, the great daughterfuckign embarrassment to the universe, Donald Trump:
Ladies and gentlemen, the leader of the Cult of the GOP, the person they overwhelmingly elected and still support, the great daughterfuckign embarrassment to the universe, Donald Trump:
Yes, not on the same level. Which is precisely how I want to distinguish between violence and property damage.
But I take it that you’ve experienced a riot (or riots) where this distinction didn’t feel real.
In fact, perhaps we can both imagine that witnessing or even participating actual violence (say a bar fight) might feel less malevolent, scary, menacing etc…than something which didn’t involve physical violence at all.
Yes, not on the same level. Which is precisely how I want to distinguish between violence and property damage.
But I take it that you’ve experienced a riot (or riots) where this distinction didn’t feel real.
In fact, perhaps we can both imagine that witnessing or even participating actual violence (say a bar fight) might feel less malevolent, scary, menacing etc…than something which didn’t involve physical violence at all.
IMO, that is different and there isn’t much of it here.
yes, i agree that conditions in the US are not like those in China during the cultural revolution. further, I agree that comparing the regime of oppressive cruelty in CR-era China to our current highly partisan atmosphere is more than a stretch.
for most statistical definitions of “much”, there isn’t much politically motivated violence here. that is not the same as saying that it’s insignificant.
domestic political violence – whether in the form of ideology, organizations, or actions planned or acted upon – is something that is consistently and assiduously tracked by US military, intelligence, and law enforcement. as it ought to be. it’s neither hypothetical nor abstract. it’s a tangible threat. people get killed. it’s not common, neither is it unusual.
it’s unlikely that it’s part of your daily life. not mine, either. lucky us.
as far as the CR goes, we have our own history(s) of political, cultural, and social oppression. nuff said.
IMO, that is different and there isn’t much of it here.
yes, i agree that conditions in the US are not like those in China during the cultural revolution. further, I agree that comparing the regime of oppressive cruelty in CR-era China to our current highly partisan atmosphere is more than a stretch.
for most statistical definitions of “much”, there isn’t much politically motivated violence here. that is not the same as saying that it’s insignificant.
domestic political violence – whether in the form of ideology, organizations, or actions planned or acted upon – is something that is consistently and assiduously tracked by US military, intelligence, and law enforcement. as it ought to be. it’s neither hypothetical nor abstract. it’s a tangible threat. people get killed. it’s not common, neither is it unusual.
it’s unlikely that it’s part of your daily life. not mine, either. lucky us.
as far as the CR goes, we have our own history(s) of political, cultural, and social oppression. nuff said.
as far as the CR goes, we have our own history(s) of political, cultural, and social oppression. nuff said.
The Cultural Revolution was about destroying historical iconography, destroying institutions, and torturing the olds. It’s kind of similar to what’s happening here, now. Hope it doesn’t reach that magnitude here, now. It certainly hasn’t reached it yet, but it’s pretty creepy, IMO.
Since China was in violent turmoil for decades before the Cultural Revolution, the parallel with here, now, isn’t sound. It still sends chills up my spine when I hear the R’s talk about purges, and I see them making a daily mockery of Constitutional government.
Let’s get rid of the R’s, shall we? Voting being the first and preferred way.
as far as the CR goes, we have our own history(s) of political, cultural, and social oppression. nuff said.
The Cultural Revolution was about destroying historical iconography, destroying institutions, and torturing the olds. It’s kind of similar to what’s happening here, now. Hope it doesn’t reach that magnitude here, now. It certainly hasn’t reached it yet, but it’s pretty creepy, IMO.
Since China was in violent turmoil for decades before the Cultural Revolution, the parallel with here, now, isn’t sound. It still sends chills up my spine when I hear the R’s talk about purges, and I see them making a daily mockery of Constitutional government.
Let’s get rid of the R’s, shall we? Voting being the first and preferred way.
Yes, those purges are scary. I would prefer we didn’t get rid of the R’s, they have a hard enough time keeping up with them in Massachusetts. Luckily for those they get rid of they tend to find them in odd places.
Yes, those purges are scary. I would prefer we didn’t get rid of the R’s, they have a hard enough time keeping up with them in Massachusetts. Luckily for those they get rid of they tend to find them in odd places.
The Cultural Revolution was about destroying historical iconography, destroying institutions, and torturing the olds. It’s kind of similag historical iconography, r to what’s happening here, now. Hope it doesn’t reach that magnitude here, now. It certainly hasn’t reached it yet, but it’s pretty creepy, IMO.
Why does the part about “destroying institutions” remind me of Bannon’s avowed intentions towards the GOP and the government generally. Granted, he doesn’t (yet) have a position which would let him do it. But he’s sure working hard to achieve it.
The Cultural Revolution was about destroying historical iconography, destroying institutions, and torturing the olds. It’s kind of similag historical iconography, r to what’s happening here, now. Hope it doesn’t reach that magnitude here, now. It certainly hasn’t reached it yet, but it’s pretty creepy, IMO.
Why does the part about “destroying institutions” remind me of Bannon’s avowed intentions towards the GOP and the government generally. Granted, he doesn’t (yet) have a position which would let him do it. But he’s sure working hard to achieve it.