Friday, August 5, 2011
Role Reversal
I can remember when the Republican Party was the party of middle-class respectability, and the Democratic Party was the party of the rabble.
Monday, May 30, 2011
The Birth of Diversity
I have come into possession of a tape recording of a quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors of the White Male Establishment - the meeting at which the concept of diversity was introduced.
The meeting took place in 1968 at The Greenbrier, in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia.
It is my pleasure to pass along a transcript of that meeting:
LLOYD: Good evening, gentlemen. How was your golf today?
CHARLES: Great! Five under!
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
HANK: Lousy! Twelve over! Couldn't play my game today ...
LLOYD: Twelve over IS your game, Hank!
(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)
LLOYD: O.K., gentlemen, let's settle down. We have something serious to discuss tonight. As you know, there's been quite a bit of civil rights activity in recent years... the Supreme Court desegregation decision in 1954 ... the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination in employment ... and, recently...
ROGER: ... well, it's about time! Those redneck segregationists were making it hard for us to convince people in non-aligned nations that the American Way of Life is superior to Communism ...
LLOYD: ... and, gentlemen, that's exactly what I'd like to talk to you about tonight. Because, if you think these civil rights changes are going to affect only the south, I've got news for you. They're going to affect us! Because if negroes and other non-whites have equal rights, that means they can compete with us as equals for things like jobs and college admissions. Now, as you know, there are already a lot of non-whites in our country. But what you may not realize is that there're soon gonna be a whole lot more! The new immigration law they passed in 1965 opens up immigration to all sorts of people, regardless of race. Which means we're gonna be getting a lot of immigrants from Africa, Asia, and places like that ... So add it up: New civil-rights laws plus increased non-white immigration equals a big threat to our rightful place as the leaders of American society.
ANDREW: You make a good point, Lloyd. But there isn't much we can do about it, is there? I mean, we don't want to come off as bigots. That's pretty much out of fashion these days (LAUGHTER). And, after all, we are gentlemen!
LLOYD: And that, gentlemen, brings me to the strategy I'd like to propose this evening. It's a concept that I think can help us protect our proper place in society – while, at the same time, allowing us to act as though we really love and respect minorities.
CHARLES: OK, so what's your concept, Lloyd?
LLOYD: In a word, Charles, my concept is diversity. And here's how it works: First of all, we assign people to different ethnic groups and give those ethnic groups special names ...
EVAN: Oh. You mean like German-Americans? ... Italian-Americans? ... Scottish-Americans? ..
LLOYD: Oh, no, Evan. See, we Caucasians remain just plain Americans. But everyone else gets special names – to remind people that members of those groups aren't full Americans like us. They're African-Americans, or Asian-Americans, or Latinos, or Native Americans. Then, what we say is that all these groups contribute to the diversity of America – and that we value diversity!
ANDREW: So how does that help us?
LLOYD: OK, first of all, keep in mind that the definition of "diverse" is "differing from one another." So, if we have diversity in America, that means that, by definition, all these minority groups are different from each other – and, mainly, different from us real Americans!
ANDREW: But they'll still have equal rights, won't they?
LLOYD: Andrew, that's the beauty of it! We can say that, because we value diversity, we favor diverse universities and diverse workplaces – and that, to ensure diversity, we think all groups should be represented in universities and jobs in proportion to their percentage of the population. So think of it! All these groups will have to compete against each other for their share of "minority" positions; and members of each group will have to compete against the other members of their group – not against us – for their group's allotted positions ...
EVAN: ... so it's kind of a divide-and-conquer strategy, Lloyd?
LLOYD: Yes, that's a good way to put it, Evan. But, if you'll bear with me for a few more minutes, there are two more facets of diversity that I'd like to discuss. First, I think we should say that each minority group has a "culture" of which its members should be very proud. We should also say how much we value their diverse cultures – their music, dance, literature, language, etcetera. Then we should suggest that minority-group members who try to assimilate into American way of life are somehow betraying their culture, their traditions and their people. That way, we can keep minorities frozen in the past and outside the mainstream of American life, where they could pick up the knowledge, skills, and social style they need in order to compete against us as equals ... And, finally, gentlemen, let me call your attention to the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination against women, as well as discrimination against minorities. Which I see as a tremendous opportunity! What I propose is that – even though women are actually in the majority in our country – we treat them as a minority group for diversity purposes. Remember, gentlemen, many of these women are our wives, daughters, girl friends, and mistresses. So, while giving privileged positions to women will allow us to say that we're successfully achieving diversity, we'll actually be keeping all those positions – and all that power – right in the family! ... So there you have it, gentlemen – diversity – my modest proposal for protecting our position in society while, at the same time, presenting ourselves as tolerant and open-minded ... I welcome your comments ...
CHUCK: Very interesting, Lloyd. Thank you for your very thoughtful proposal. I move that we adjourn to the bar to discuss your ideas further, with help from a wonderful American cultural tradition, the martini. Any seconds?
ANDREW: I second the motion!
CHUCK: All in favor ...
OUTCRY: Aye!
CHUCK: Gentlemen, there seems to be no diversity of opinion on this matter. I believe we have a unanimous decision. Meeting adjourned ...
The meeting took place in 1968 at The Greenbrier, in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia.
It is my pleasure to pass along a transcript of that meeting:
LLOYD: Good evening, gentlemen. How was your golf today?
CHARLES: Great! Five under!
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
HANK: Lousy! Twelve over! Couldn't play my game today ...
LLOYD: Twelve over IS your game, Hank!
(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)
LLOYD: O.K., gentlemen, let's settle down. We have something serious to discuss tonight. As you know, there's been quite a bit of civil rights activity in recent years... the Supreme Court desegregation decision in 1954 ... the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination in employment ... and, recently...
ROGER: ... well, it's about time! Those redneck segregationists were making it hard for us to convince people in non-aligned nations that the American Way of Life is superior to Communism ...
LLOYD: ... and, gentlemen, that's exactly what I'd like to talk to you about tonight. Because, if you think these civil rights changes are going to affect only the south, I've got news for you. They're going to affect us! Because if negroes and other non-whites have equal rights, that means they can compete with us as equals for things like jobs and college admissions. Now, as you know, there are already a lot of non-whites in our country. But what you may not realize is that there're soon gonna be a whole lot more! The new immigration law they passed in 1965 opens up immigration to all sorts of people, regardless of race. Which means we're gonna be getting a lot of immigrants from Africa, Asia, and places like that ... So add it up: New civil-rights laws plus increased non-white immigration equals a big threat to our rightful place as the leaders of American society.
ANDREW: You make a good point, Lloyd. But there isn't much we can do about it, is there? I mean, we don't want to come off as bigots. That's pretty much out of fashion these days (LAUGHTER). And, after all, we are gentlemen!
LLOYD: And that, gentlemen, brings me to the strategy I'd like to propose this evening. It's a concept that I think can help us protect our proper place in society – while, at the same time, allowing us to act as though we really love and respect minorities.
CHARLES: OK, so what's your concept, Lloyd?
LLOYD: In a word, Charles, my concept is diversity. And here's how it works: First of all, we assign people to different ethnic groups and give those ethnic groups special names ...
EVAN: Oh. You mean like German-Americans? ... Italian-Americans? ... Scottish-Americans? ..
LLOYD: Oh, no, Evan. See, we Caucasians remain just plain Americans. But everyone else gets special names – to remind people that members of those groups aren't full Americans like us. They're African-Americans, or Asian-Americans, or Latinos, or Native Americans. Then, what we say is that all these groups contribute to the diversity of America – and that we value diversity!
ANDREW: So how does that help us?
LLOYD: OK, first of all, keep in mind that the definition of "diverse" is "differing from one another." So, if we have diversity in America, that means that, by definition, all these minority groups are different from each other – and, mainly, different from us real Americans!
ANDREW: But they'll still have equal rights, won't they?
LLOYD: Andrew, that's the beauty of it! We can say that, because we value diversity, we favor diverse universities and diverse workplaces – and that, to ensure diversity, we think all groups should be represented in universities and jobs in proportion to their percentage of the population. So think of it! All these groups will have to compete against each other for their share of "minority" positions; and members of each group will have to compete against the other members of their group – not against us – for their group's allotted positions ...
EVAN: ... so it's kind of a divide-and-conquer strategy, Lloyd?
LLOYD: Yes, that's a good way to put it, Evan. But, if you'll bear with me for a few more minutes, there are two more facets of diversity that I'd like to discuss. First, I think we should say that each minority group has a "culture" of which its members should be very proud. We should also say how much we value their diverse cultures – their music, dance, literature, language, etcetera. Then we should suggest that minority-group members who try to assimilate into American way of life are somehow betraying their culture, their traditions and their people. That way, we can keep minorities frozen in the past and outside the mainstream of American life, where they could pick up the knowledge, skills, and social style they need in order to compete against us as equals ... And, finally, gentlemen, let me call your attention to the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination against women, as well as discrimination against minorities. Which I see as a tremendous opportunity! What I propose is that – even though women are actually in the majority in our country – we treat them as a minority group for diversity purposes. Remember, gentlemen, many of these women are our wives, daughters, girl friends, and mistresses. So, while giving privileged positions to women will allow us to say that we're successfully achieving diversity, we'll actually be keeping all those positions – and all that power – right in the family! ... So there you have it, gentlemen – diversity – my modest proposal for protecting our position in society while, at the same time, presenting ourselves as tolerant and open-minded ... I welcome your comments ...
CHUCK: Very interesting, Lloyd. Thank you for your very thoughtful proposal. I move that we adjourn to the bar to discuss your ideas further, with help from a wonderful American cultural tradition, the martini. Any seconds?
ANDREW: I second the motion!
CHUCK: All in favor ...
OUTCRY: Aye!
CHUCK: Gentlemen, there seems to be no diversity of opinion on this matter. I believe we have a unanimous decision. Meeting adjourned ...
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The Awesome Power of Words
Here’s some free advice …
If you ever get involved in a battle of ideas, choose your words very, very carefully. Fuss over them, obsess over them, and keep refining them until you get them just right.
Because, with just a few well-chosen words, you can seize the high ground in an argument and put your opponents permanently on the defensive.
To illustrate my point, I offer two examples of the brilliant use of words to seize the high ground in political controversies. In my usual fair-minded manner, I offer one example from the political right, and one from the left.
Example #1: Groups opposed to abortion have labeled themselves the Right to Life movement. Brilliant! Argue against the right to life and you would seem to be arguing in favor of death. Also, by seizing the high ground as defenders of life, anti-abortion advocates have reduced abortion advocates to arguing in favor of choice, a much less emotionally charged and motivating word than life itself.
Example #2: The Gay Rights movement labels opponents homophobic. Brilliant! That scientific-sounding term suggests that anyone who disagrees with the movement is suffering from an irrational fear – a psychological malady! Which, in turn, can intimidate you into keeping your disagreements to yourself, lest you reveal your "illness" to the world.
Whether you agree or disagree with the postions of the Right to Life and Gay Rights movements, you can learn from their awesome use of the awesome power of words.
If you ever get involved in a battle of ideas, choose your words very, very carefully. Fuss over them, obsess over them, and keep refining them until you get them just right.
Because, with just a few well-chosen words, you can seize the high ground in an argument and put your opponents permanently on the defensive.
To illustrate my point, I offer two examples of the brilliant use of words to seize the high ground in political controversies. In my usual fair-minded manner, I offer one example from the political right, and one from the left.
Example #1: Groups opposed to abortion have labeled themselves the Right to Life movement. Brilliant! Argue against the right to life and you would seem to be arguing in favor of death. Also, by seizing the high ground as defenders of life, anti-abortion advocates have reduced abortion advocates to arguing in favor of choice, a much less emotionally charged and motivating word than life itself.
Example #2: The Gay Rights movement labels opponents homophobic. Brilliant! That scientific-sounding term suggests that anyone who disagrees with the movement is suffering from an irrational fear – a psychological malady! Which, in turn, can intimidate you into keeping your disagreements to yourself, lest you reveal your "illness" to the world.
Whether you agree or disagree with the postions of the Right to Life and Gay Rights movements, you can learn from their awesome use of the awesome power of words.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Hate Government?
Great! Please join my movement. Let's work together to help bring about a better America – an America free from the heavy hand of oppressive government institutions and services such as:
• Air Traffic Controllers
• Courts
• FAA Safety Inspections of Airliners
• FDA Safety Inspections of Food and Medicine
• Fire Departments
• Medicare Coverage
• Municipal Water Works
• National Weather Service
• Paramedics
• Police Departments
• Public Colleges and Universities
• Public Libraries
• Public Roads
• Public Schools
• Sewers
• Social Security Checks
• Trash Collection
• U.S. Postal Service
• Air Traffic Controllers
• Courts
• FAA Safety Inspections of Airliners
• FDA Safety Inspections of Food and Medicine
• Fire Departments
• Medicare Coverage
• Municipal Water Works
• National Weather Service
• Paramedics
• Police Departments
• Public Colleges and Universities
• Public Libraries
• Public Roads
• Public Schools
• Sewers
• Social Security Checks
• Trash Collection
• U.S. Postal Service
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
People of Color
Why is it that a person who talks about "colored people" is considered to be out of touch and quite possibly racist – while a person who talks about "people of color" is considered to be sensitive, aware, and not racist? Aren't both people saying exactly the same thing – just in reverse order?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Facebook Prayer
Dear God,
May I have a fascinating activity to post every 15 minutes or so
May I collect 1,300 or more friends
May I earn an average of 8 "Likes" per posting
May I find lots of cool links to share
May my digital camera allow me to show the world everything that I see
May I be blessed with a gift for expressing complex, nuanced thoughts in 420 characters or less
Sorry, God, I’ve gotta go. I’ve reached my limit of char
May I have a fascinating activity to post every 15 minutes or so
May I collect 1,300 or more friends
May I earn an average of 8 "Likes" per posting
May I find lots of cool links to share
May my digital camera allow me to show the world everything that I see
May I be blessed with a gift for expressing complex, nuanced thoughts in 420 characters or less
Sorry, God, I’ve gotta go. I’ve reached my limit of char
America at its Finest
In the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, I think the police did an excellent job of delivering on America’s promise of “Justice for all.”
A lowly hotel maid and African immigrant accused one of the world’s most powerful men of attempted rape. The police could have brushed off her charges as unsubstantiated – or set them aside “for further investigation.” Instead, they took the chambermaid’s charges seriously and moved quickly to arrest Strauss-Kahn before he could take off for France, a country that almost certainly would have refused to extradite him to the U.S. for trial.
In the spirit of American justice, we must presume Strauss-Kahn innocent until proven guilty. Still, it was inspiring to see the police leave that decision for the courts, rather than arbitrarily deciding for themselves in favor of a rich and powerful suspect.
A lowly hotel maid and African immigrant accused one of the world’s most powerful men of attempted rape. The police could have brushed off her charges as unsubstantiated – or set them aside “for further investigation.” Instead, they took the chambermaid’s charges seriously and moved quickly to arrest Strauss-Kahn before he could take off for France, a country that almost certainly would have refused to extradite him to the U.S. for trial.
In the spirit of American justice, we must presume Strauss-Kahn innocent until proven guilty. Still, it was inspiring to see the police leave that decision for the courts, rather than arbitrarily deciding for themselves in favor of a rich and powerful suspect.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Issues, Problems, and Solutions
Know what drives me batty?
The current craze for using the word "issue" when talking about a problem.
As in, "we're having computer issues," or, "he's having health issues."
I can't prove it, but I suspect that we can attribute this Orwellian corruption of the English language to political correctness.
To call something a "problem," after all, is to make a judgment that something is bad. And it is the unchallengeable judgment of the politically correct that it is very bad to be judgmental.
An "issue," on the other hand, is "a matter in dispute between two or more parties." So how people feel about an "issue" may be relative to their "values." Very non-judgmental. Very politically correct.
But if your computer network is down, there is nothing in dispute; no-one would argue that the outage is a good thing.
Likewise, no-one would argue that being sick is a good thing.
So, when your computer network is down, you don't have a computer "issue." You have a computer PROBLEM.
And, when you're sick, you don't have a health "issue." You have a health PROBLEM.
In a related matter ...
One of the biggest buzzwords in business these days is "solutions." Nobody sells software anymore ... nobody sells pizza ... nobody sells pants ... everybody sells solutions.
Combine that fact with the craze for using the word "issue" instead of "problem" and you're left with an amusing paradox:
Millions of solutions – and no problems!
The current craze for using the word "issue" when talking about a problem.
As in, "we're having computer issues," or, "he's having health issues."
I can't prove it, but I suspect that we can attribute this Orwellian corruption of the English language to political correctness.
To call something a "problem," after all, is to make a judgment that something is bad. And it is the unchallengeable judgment of the politically correct that it is very bad to be judgmental.
An "issue," on the other hand, is "a matter in dispute between two or more parties." So how people feel about an "issue" may be relative to their "values." Very non-judgmental. Very politically correct.
But if your computer network is down, there is nothing in dispute; no-one would argue that the outage is a good thing.
Likewise, no-one would argue that being sick is a good thing.
So, when your computer network is down, you don't have a computer "issue." You have a computer PROBLEM.
And, when you're sick, you don't have a health "issue." You have a health PROBLEM.
In a related matter ...
One of the biggest buzzwords in business these days is "solutions." Nobody sells software anymore ... nobody sells pizza ... nobody sells pants ... everybody sells solutions.
Combine that fact with the craze for using the word "issue" instead of "problem" and you're left with an amusing paradox:
Millions of solutions – and no problems!
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Priorities
Proposed cuts in state funding for higher education: $306,000,000
Proposed state contribution to new Vikings stadium: $300,000,000 (plus infrastructure improvements)
Proposed state contribution to new Vikings stadium: $300,000,000 (plus infrastructure improvements)
Monday, May 9, 2011
The MBAization of America (Cont'd)
Another area of American life in which the MBA mindset has gained excessive influence, in my opinion, is the area of education.
"No Child Left Behind" (a legacy of our first MBA-president) and state-level high-stakes testing programs seem to be inspired by an MBA-like faith in the value of organization, control, and – above all – metrics.
The idea underlying these programs seems to be that fixed units of knowledge can be delivered to schools for just-in-time installation in students' brains. Students can then undergo standardized testing in order to measure, with mathematical precision, how well schools have performed their tasks.
It seems to me that there are at least two serious flaws in this notion:
First, I'm no statistician, but ... the use of standardized tests to measure a school's contribution to, and responsibility for, student performance – without taking into account the host of societal and economic variables that can also affect student performance – strikes me as statistically unsound.
Second, the reduction of teachers to assembly-line workers whose primary task is to meet "productivity" goals discourages the exercise and development of the qualities that make for truly great teachers: qualities such as scholarship, imagination, and a passion for excellence. Teachers who change lives and change the world and make the greatest contribution to our nation, I believe, are not those who who can simply cram a prepackaged set of facts into students; they're teachers who can teach students how to learn – and inspire them to keep learning and thinking for the rest of their lives. And you just can't measure that kind of pedagogical performance by counting checkmarks on answer grids.
Friday, May 6, 2011
"And the loser is ..."
I'm disturbed by the way in which reality TV shows focus on losers and losing.
TV coverage of competitions used to build up to the moment when a winner emerged. The camera would then lock in on the winner and let the audience share in his or her exultation – while the losers quickly faded from sight.
• "May I have the envelope, please? ... And the winner is ...."
• "Here she is – Miss America! ..."
• "The winnah – and still champeen of da woild! ..."
But reality television seems to focus primarily on who's going to lose:
• Who's going to get kicked off the island?
• Who's going to be booted out of the house?
• Who will be voted off "Idol?"
Reality-television losers are generally dispatched in mock-pompous ceremonies designed to reflect the mock importance of the event. After building suspense up to a suitable level, the host announces the week's loser – with the camera pointed at the castoff to ensure that the audience can extract maximum entertainment value from the rejectee's disappointment and humiliation.
What does it all mean?
Is reality television's preoccupation with losers and losing – and the TV audience's enthusiastic acceptance of that preoccupation – a symptom of a negative attitude shift in the larger society?
Has there been loss of hope in America? An increase in anger? A lessening of compassion?
Or am I just looking for deeper meaning where none exists?
I don't know for sure.
But I can't shake the feeling that it's not a good sign that so much TV entertainment now seems to revolve around the failures of others.
TV coverage of competitions used to build up to the moment when a winner emerged. The camera would then lock in on the winner and let the audience share in his or her exultation – while the losers quickly faded from sight.
• "May I have the envelope, please? ... And the winner is ...."
• "Here she is – Miss America! ..."
• "The winnah – and still champeen of da woild! ..."
But reality television seems to focus primarily on who's going to lose:
• Who's going to get kicked off the island?
• Who's going to be booted out of the house?
• Who will be voted off "Idol?"
Reality-television losers are generally dispatched in mock-pompous ceremonies designed to reflect the mock importance of the event. After building suspense up to a suitable level, the host announces the week's loser – with the camera pointed at the castoff to ensure that the audience can extract maximum entertainment value from the rejectee's disappointment and humiliation.
What does it all mean?
Is reality television's preoccupation with losers and losing – and the TV audience's enthusiastic acceptance of that preoccupation – a symptom of a negative attitude shift in the larger society?
Has there been loss of hope in America? An increase in anger? A lessening of compassion?
Or am I just looking for deeper meaning where none exists?
I don't know for sure.
But I can't shake the feeling that it's not a good sign that so much TV entertainment now seems to revolve around the failures of others.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Barack!!!
I believe that, up until now, Barack Obama has paid a heavy price for refusing to engage in demagoguery – the oversimplification, rabble-rousing, and scapegoating that voters sometimes mistake for toughness. Both opponents and supporters have cited Obama's thoughtful, even-handed style of governing as proof that the man is weak and dithering.
I hope that Obama's remarkably courageous and masterful handling of the hunt for Osama bin Laden will put that mischaracterization to rest once and for all.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Deflating the Donald
I'm still giddy from watching President Obama take the wind out of the sails of billionaire schoolyard bully, Donald Trump, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. It was perhaps the most delicious public dressing down of a demagogue since Joseph Welch cut Joe McCarthy down to size at the Army-McCarthy Hearings in 1954.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
The MBAization of America
OK, I have to walk a fine line on this one.
I really do admire MBAs and the work they do. I am in awe of the intelligence, knowledge, vision, courage, diplomacy, hard work, and resilience that it takes to manage a company or a department. I know I could never do it; and I'm very grateful to those who can – and who create jobs and the accoutrements of the good life for the likes of me.
Still, it does bother me to see the way in which the MBA mindset is creeping into other areas of American life where, in my opinion, it doesn’t belong.
Take language, for example ...
Even fine-arts organizations are now communicating with us in MBA-speak – that dreadful language of pompous words and phrases meant to impress, obfuscate, demonstrate belonging – and, perhaps, to cover up deficiencies in vocabulary that make it impossible the speaker to express himself more precisely.
The Minneapolis Institute of Arts, for example, declared a few years ago that it was going to leverage its current collection.
And the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra just announced an alliance with Greater Twin Cities Youth Symphonies.
A musical alliance? An artistic alliance?
No, a strategic alliance! In which, I suppose, they’ll share best practices, leverage synergies, address issues, and deliver global musical solutions.
To be continued …
I really do admire MBAs and the work they do. I am in awe of the intelligence, knowledge, vision, courage, diplomacy, hard work, and resilience that it takes to manage a company or a department. I know I could never do it; and I'm very grateful to those who can – and who create jobs and the accoutrements of the good life for the likes of me.
Still, it does bother me to see the way in which the MBA mindset is creeping into other areas of American life where, in my opinion, it doesn’t belong.
Take language, for example ...
Even fine-arts organizations are now communicating with us in MBA-speak – that dreadful language of pompous words and phrases meant to impress, obfuscate, demonstrate belonging – and, perhaps, to cover up deficiencies in vocabulary that make it impossible the speaker to express himself more precisely.
The Minneapolis Institute of Arts, for example, declared a few years ago that it was going to leverage its current collection.
And the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra just announced an alliance with Greater Twin Cities Youth Symphonies.
A musical alliance? An artistic alliance?
No, a strategic alliance! In which, I suppose, they’ll share best practices, leverage synergies, address issues, and deliver global musical solutions.
To be continued …
Friday, April 29, 2011
Much Ado About Nothing
The big fuss the American media have made over the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton reminds me of a passage from Henry David Thoreau's Walden; or, Life in the Woods:
"We are eager to tunnel under the Atlantic and bring the old world some weeks nearer to the new; but perchance the first news that will leak through into the broad, flapping American ear will be that the Princess Adelade has the whooping cough."
"We are eager to tunnel under the Atlantic and bring the old world some weeks nearer to the new; but perchance the first news that will leak through into the broad, flapping American ear will be that the Princess Adelade has the whooping cough."
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Learning From the Master
There's a name for assertions such as the assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States. The name is "Big Lie," and the man who coined the phrase defined a "big lie" as "a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." The phrase and definition were introduced in Mein Kampf by one of history's all-time great hate mongers, Adolph Hitler. The birthers have learned their lessons well.
Monday, April 25, 2011
At the Meeting of Males Anonymous
“Hi.
“My name is Al, and I’m a male.
“I didn’t choose to be male; I was born that way.
“Actually, when I was a boy, it was considered acceptable – and maybe even desirable – to be male. So I struggled to achieve manly virtues such as courage and strength.
"I can’t honestly say that I had a lot of success in my struggle.
“But then – just when I thought I was finally making some progress and maybe becoming a man – everything changed. The feminist revolution came along and, suddenly, a man was the worst thing you could be.
“Men were redefined as irresponsible, immature, drunken, self-centered, wife-beating louts. A man who had slaved for decades at a miserable job, in order to support a wife and children at home, was redefined as an oppressor who had selfishly kept his wife from finding true fulfillment as a certified public accountant.
“Indeed, the very concept of maleness became so unacceptable that words even suggesting maleness were banished from polite conversation: ‘I have a younger sibling named Mark.’ ‘Ruth, are you bringing your spouse to the party.‘ ‘The Vikings have some big people on their defensive line.’
“Now don’t get me wrong. I welcome women’s liberation. The world has benefitted enormously from the unleashing of women’s brains and talents. And the lives of millions of women – and men – are richer for it.
“What I don’t welcome is the demonizing of men that seems to have been a byproduct of the women’s movement.
“You know, before women’s liberation, the roles of men and women were as they were for complex economic, sociological, and biological reasons. And these societal roles had advantages and disadvantages for both men and women.
“Likewise, the roles of men and women have evolved in recent decades for complex economic, sociological and pharmaceutical reasons. It’s just not as simple as some would have you believe – that women suddenly discovered the power of sisterhood and rose up to overthrow their evil oppressors – who must now be treated with scorn or linguistically written out of existence.
“Now I know some people would say, ‘Come on, Al. Stop your whining. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but names can never hurt you.’
“But that’s just the point. These days, it’s a sure laugh-getter in a TV sitcom or standup comedy routine to portray men as insensitive boors. But the truth is that men do have feelings – very strong feelings, in fact. (Just look, for example, at all the fine art that has flowed from the sensitive souls of men and enriched our world over the centuries.) So being continually demeaned or excised from the language – hurts.
“But more than hurting men’s feelings, the continual disparagement of men is also hurting society. Because, as boys and men internalize all the negative male stereotypes that they see and hear, they are more and more acting out the negative traits assigned to them.
“We see the consequences in education, for example:
“Boys are 30 percent more likely than girls to flunk out or drop out of school ...
“Women make up 70% of high school valedictorians …
“Women outnumber men in higher education, earning 56 percent of bachelor's degrees and 55 percent of graduate degrees.
“We also see the problem in the decline of the family:
“You know, a popular saying in feminist movement was that ‘a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.’ Men are unnecessary! Who needs ‘em? Sitting in an easy chair … drinking beer … hogging the remote … contributing nothing …
“Well, the men-aren't-necessary crowd got its way and, over the past few decades, millions of men have bicycled away from their women and children.
“In 1960, 6% of all children were raised in single-parent homes; today, the number is about 26%.
“And how’s it going in this brave new world of single-parent homes? Well, not so well. Studies show that …
“…at age 33, men from single-parent homes are twice as likely to be unemployed …
“…males from two-parent homes average about 1.5 years more education than those from single parent homes …
“…and, all other things being equal, young men from homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those from two-parent families.
“But let me close with what I think is the most telling statistic of all...
"In 1933, the young male suicide rate was 1.54 times higher than that for young females. In 2005, the rate was 4.63 times higher. Which tells me that we’ve done a really good job of teaching males to loathe themselves.
“And that’s why I’m here tonight at Males Anonymous. Because I want to feel good again about being male. Because I want to be able to say words like “father” and “son” and “man” and “boy.” Because I want to celebrate the achievements of great males in history - like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Dr. Jonas Salk, and Sir Isaac Newton, and William Shakespeare. Because I want affirmation that it’s OK to be male, and that we’re not really as terrible as everyone says we are.
“Are we?”
“My name is Al, and I’m a male.
“I didn’t choose to be male; I was born that way.
“Actually, when I was a boy, it was considered acceptable – and maybe even desirable – to be male. So I struggled to achieve manly virtues such as courage and strength.
"I can’t honestly say that I had a lot of success in my struggle.
“But then – just when I thought I was finally making some progress and maybe becoming a man – everything changed. The feminist revolution came along and, suddenly, a man was the worst thing you could be.
“Men were redefined as irresponsible, immature, drunken, self-centered, wife-beating louts. A man who had slaved for decades at a miserable job, in order to support a wife and children at home, was redefined as an oppressor who had selfishly kept his wife from finding true fulfillment as a certified public accountant.
“Indeed, the very concept of maleness became so unacceptable that words even suggesting maleness were banished from polite conversation: ‘I have a younger sibling named Mark.’ ‘Ruth, are you bringing your spouse to the party.‘ ‘The Vikings have some big people on their defensive line.’
“Now don’t get me wrong. I welcome women’s liberation. The world has benefitted enormously from the unleashing of women’s brains and talents. And the lives of millions of women – and men – are richer for it.
“What I don’t welcome is the demonizing of men that seems to have been a byproduct of the women’s movement.
“You know, before women’s liberation, the roles of men and women were as they were for complex economic, sociological, and biological reasons. And these societal roles had advantages and disadvantages for both men and women.
“Likewise, the roles of men and women have evolved in recent decades for complex economic, sociological and pharmaceutical reasons. It’s just not as simple as some would have you believe – that women suddenly discovered the power of sisterhood and rose up to overthrow their evil oppressors – who must now be treated with scorn or linguistically written out of existence.
“Now I know some people would say, ‘Come on, Al. Stop your whining. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but names can never hurt you.’
“But that’s just the point. These days, it’s a sure laugh-getter in a TV sitcom or standup comedy routine to portray men as insensitive boors. But the truth is that men do have feelings – very strong feelings, in fact. (Just look, for example, at all the fine art that has flowed from the sensitive souls of men and enriched our world over the centuries.) So being continually demeaned or excised from the language – hurts.
“But more than hurting men’s feelings, the continual disparagement of men is also hurting society. Because, as boys and men internalize all the negative male stereotypes that they see and hear, they are more and more acting out the negative traits assigned to them.
“We see the consequences in education, for example:
“Boys are 30 percent more likely than girls to flunk out or drop out of school ...
“Women make up 70% of high school valedictorians …
“Women outnumber men in higher education, earning 56 percent of bachelor's degrees and 55 percent of graduate degrees.
“We also see the problem in the decline of the family:
“You know, a popular saying in feminist movement was that ‘a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.’ Men are unnecessary! Who needs ‘em? Sitting in an easy chair … drinking beer … hogging the remote … contributing nothing …
“Well, the men-aren't-necessary crowd got its way and, over the past few decades, millions of men have bicycled away from their women and children.
“In 1960, 6% of all children were raised in single-parent homes; today, the number is about 26%.
“And how’s it going in this brave new world of single-parent homes? Well, not so well. Studies show that …
“…at age 33, men from single-parent homes are twice as likely to be unemployed …
“…males from two-parent homes average about 1.5 years more education than those from single parent homes …
“…and, all other things being equal, young men from homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those from two-parent families.
“But let me close with what I think is the most telling statistic of all...
"In 1933, the young male suicide rate was 1.54 times higher than that for young females. In 2005, the rate was 4.63 times higher. Which tells me that we’ve done a really good job of teaching males to loathe themselves.
“And that’s why I’m here tonight at Males Anonymous. Because I want to feel good again about being male. Because I want to be able to say words like “father” and “son” and “man” and “boy.” Because I want to celebrate the achievements of great males in history - like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Dr. Jonas Salk, and Sir Isaac Newton, and William Shakespeare. Because I want affirmation that it’s OK to be male, and that we’re not really as terrible as everyone says we are.
“Are we?”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)