There was one rule I used to espouse to others when entering into a flame war. "Do Not Feed the Bears." It just keeps them coming back, doesn't it? There's a reason they tell you not to feed the animals when going through the drive-through safari. You may have seen the videos of the hoards of baboons scrambling to get into someone's car after they made the mistake of rolling down their window to offer a peanut.
On the one hand, I should be grateful someone is reading what I write. But what to do when your new "fan" is someone whose time is occupied with "BLLARRGGHHH!!! DEMOCRATSARETHEWORSTEVAR!! OBAMA'S THE MOST FAILED PRESIDENT OF ALL TIMES!!!! HE'SCORRUPTANDEVILWE'REALLDOOOOMMED!!!!!"? So what if they're the only person to date who's ever thought enough about my blog to leave a comment?
It's like, "I really like what you say, it strikes a cord with me. By the way, I molest children."
Perhaps that's an extreme analogy, but when you're dealing with someone form whom the Biggest Threat to OWL (Our Way of Life) is gays marrying, well, there's not much reason you can interject into the discussion.
There's a part of me, a part that I'm finding difficult to let go of, that still believes there's something, some phrasing, some analogy, some way of illustrating the situation, some fact, that's just waiting to be said out loud, because the other party just hasn't heard it or considered it, and suddenly the lights will go on - there will be that "aha!" moment and all will be clear. I've been trying to do that with my mother for more than 40 years, and it hasn't worked yet. Sometimes the reason train runs express and doesn't stop at every station.
My first inclination, of course, is to wade into the fracas with, "but you realize Bush..." but that would immediately equate me with these very same people who responded to any criticism of George II with, "b-b-b-but Clinton..."
It doesn't matter how faulty their logic, you cannot win an "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.
There really is no argument to win - and that's the issue. I had classes in how to argue in college. (Well, to argue anywhere, not just in college.) It was actually called Critical Reasoning and Argument. An "argument" makes a Claim, supported by Grounds and established with a Warrant. See, "reasoning" was the key. An argument was only valid when no one could refute your grounds or find fault in your warrant. We spent more than half the class covering fallacies - the ad hominem argument, the "appeal to authority," the straw man, etc. (there are scores of them) - or faulty reasoning. (or not reasoning at all.) Like all logical tests, you just have to find one instance - no matter how far-fetched - where it doesn't work to invalidate it. The grounds, or "facts," were often left to interpretation.
See, Logic doesn't tolerate hypocrisies. If it's right, it's right, if it's wrong, it's wrong. I have very little compassion for the hate-filled hearts that are white supremacists (OK, none). But I do feel poor little Adolph Hitler and Aryan Nation should be returned to their parents. It doesn't matter than some would like to see the parents beaten with pipes, the state, so far, hasn't provided adequate grounds for removing them.
Likewise, President Obama has taken an oath of the office - he's sworn to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution. It doesn't matter the exact wording used. It doesn't matter what kind of bible his hand was on, if it was on one at all, or which hand was raised. For 8 years we were told, "he was elected, he's president, suck it up, deal with it." Yet now it seems open to discussion.
There's another aphorism that goes, "you're the one who ends up stinking if you get into a fight with a skunk." The point of dictionary definition argument is to resolve conflict - to present ideas to come to agreement. There is nothing to be gained from endlessly hurling "you suck!" "no, you suck!" at each other. Put another way, what do you get when you get into an argument with an idiot? Two idiots. You'd be better arguing with the cat you just ran over that it shouldn't be dead, or with the rain that it shouldn't be falling out if the sky.
There are some, unfortunately, who revel in the slugfest. They'll hurl barbs and insults, the more outrageous and unfounded the better, for the whole point of getting you to enter into the pissing contest - but only to point out to their compatriots how "unreasonable" you're being. And that's the point of all this. Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.
(I ended up replying to the thread anyway. They set the bait and I took it. I'm weak that way.)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
it's a matter of timing, isn't it?
Hits the nail on the head. You cannot legislate behavior. (e.g Prohibition) Few refrain from killing simply because it's illegal to do so.
the issue is not Pro-Abortion Laws, it is the culture that creates the need for abortion.
|
Friday, January 23, 2009
It's not a ripple, it's a wake
[what follows is a reposting from the FOLIO: MedioPRO
social networking site: http://mediapro.foliomag.com/profiles/blog/list]
That was the tag line in my response to someone's question here. The question was about whether or not the current (euphemistically named) "economic downturn" was affecting our industry.
My first response was, "you don't work in this business, do you?"
In the news today was notice that McCann Erickson was laying off 3% of the company, and Playboy was essentially closing its NY production offices (“'a small number' of licensing, editorial and other publishing positions" would relocate to Chicago - the positions, mind you, not necessarily the people who currently hold them).
That was just this morning. That was just New York City.
My magazine folded and I was laid off a week before my wedding. It was, at the time, one of the better things to happen to me.* It was less than three and a half years ago.
*(Getting laid off, I mean, not the wedding. Not that getting married wasn't great - it was - it was better. Please don't show this to my wife.)
I would have been closing an issue right up until the big day. They were doing me a favor. In addition to offering me (as I remember) 3 months' severance, they gave me the option of the job I currently hold. There were a slew of freelance opportunities to be had. My choices were steady income for a little while, and the opportunity to make money on top of that, or back at work on Monday. No one faulted me for choosing the former.
It afforded me the opportunity to work at a few other, big name titles, to meet and get to know more people in the business, to see how everyone else does things. What did it teach me? 1) that I really do know what I'm doing (though I remain terribly insecure); 2) there are many people I still need to learn a lot from; and 3) this business is really small - everyone knows everyone else.
Of the people I know that do what I do, many of them are happy to be getting a regular paycheck - the ones that are getting one. People I used to freelance for are now freelancing themselves, some less than they'd like. A temp agency I once dealt with years ago at my last job (I hired one person for a few weeks who wasn't terribly talented) is now calling me monthly, in the vain hope that someone may have fallen under a bus (perish the thought!) and I might have an open position. The job posting boards that were all Production, Production and Production, long enough after I accepted my current job to make me wonder if I'd made the right choice, now only list the occasional Photo Researcher. (I had a kid on the way, and a regular check and health insurance seemed a good idea.)
Our printer laid off more than 500 people while I was at one of their plants two weeks ago. There were whole football field-sized rooms of presses not running. It is no longer a matter of performance, but of cost cutting. That's why many people like me are scared. No one wants to be rendered redundant.
Not just redundant, but irrelevant.
While freelancing, I turned my nose up at jobs that needed an "expert" with Quark 4 on Mac OS 9 - both of which I am, but who wants more experience with those skills on a résumé? Now I'm in a similar position, but on the other side of the fence. See, we just got the Adobe CS2 suite last year. Yes, CS2. And yes, CS4 is entering into the work stream now. Every tip, trick and how-to site I frequent is now rife with gushing reports on the new CS4 features, though they're still full of their mainstay CS3 solutions. Solutions, many of which, I can't use, because I don't use that version every waking minute. Once the go-to guy, the guru, the expert, now I'm the one with the disadvantaged skill set.
(I'm not even going to mention all of the software I'm getting to make my job easier that doesn't work on my OS X 10.3 system. Nope, not going to mention it at all.)
While my particular title is doing well, the company just laid off 100 people just before the holidays. As much as I've convinced everyone there's tremendous benefits to upgrading that go beyond bolstering my skill set, they've stated they have no current plans to do so.
Of course, all of this assumes we're printing anything on paper in the next 10 years. They're already talking about the "Death of the Newspaper" like they were talking about Obama being president back in October.
I'm not adverse to change. I went to school for film, got a degree in English, got a job in video post production, which turned into web production, which turned into rebuilding servers, which, naturally, lead to a job doing page layout. The universe has always pointed the way for me in the past to get me to where I am now (not too shabby, so far) so I guess I'm looking for the sign post that's going to tell me what new skills to pick up and which to drop. It's not that I don't want to move, just that all my stuff is here, and I know I can't take all of it with me (especially as I'll likely be moving to a cheaper place).
So, tell me, what's the next big thing? Better minds than mine are still climbing all over themselves trying to figure that out.
I've thought about teaching. You know, if you can't beat 'em, train 'em. I really do enjoy sharing what I know (sometimes even with people who don't care to know it). One thing there's still no shortage of is schools churning out scores of youngsters ready to apply for my job - people with no kids or mortgages who can move on to the next industry the way I used to move on to the next bar.
My dad used to have a bumper sticker that read, "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." Maybe it's time I start playing dirty.
social networking site: http://mediapro.foliomag.com/profiles/blog/list]
That was the tag line in my response to someone's question here. The question was about whether or not the current (euphemistically named) "economic downturn" was affecting our industry.
My first response was, "you don't work in this business, do you?"
In the news today was notice that McCann Erickson was laying off 3% of the company, and Playboy was essentially closing its NY production offices (“'a small number' of licensing, editorial and other publishing positions" would relocate to Chicago - the positions, mind you, not necessarily the people who currently hold them).
That was just this morning. That was just New York City.
My magazine folded and I was laid off a week before my wedding. It was, at the time, one of the better things to happen to me.* It was less than three and a half years ago.
*(Getting laid off, I mean, not the wedding. Not that getting married wasn't great - it was - it was better. Please don't show this to my wife.)
I would have been closing an issue right up until the big day. They were doing me a favor. In addition to offering me (as I remember) 3 months' severance, they gave me the option of the job I currently hold. There were a slew of freelance opportunities to be had. My choices were steady income for a little while, and the opportunity to make money on top of that, or back at work on Monday. No one faulted me for choosing the former.
It afforded me the opportunity to work at a few other, big name titles, to meet and get to know more people in the business, to see how everyone else does things. What did it teach me? 1) that I really do know what I'm doing (though I remain terribly insecure); 2) there are many people I still need to learn a lot from; and 3) this business is really small - everyone knows everyone else.
Of the people I know that do what I do, many of them are happy to be getting a regular paycheck - the ones that are getting one. People I used to freelance for are now freelancing themselves, some less than they'd like. A temp agency I once dealt with years ago at my last job (I hired one person for a few weeks who wasn't terribly talented) is now calling me monthly, in the vain hope that someone may have fallen under a bus (perish the thought!) and I might have an open position. The job posting boards that were all Production, Production and Production, long enough after I accepted my current job to make me wonder if I'd made the right choice, now only list the occasional Photo Researcher. (I had a kid on the way, and a regular check and health insurance seemed a good idea.)
Our printer laid off more than 500 people while I was at one of their plants two weeks ago. There were whole football field-sized rooms of presses not running. It is no longer a matter of performance, but of cost cutting. That's why many people like me are scared. No one wants to be rendered redundant.
Not just redundant, but irrelevant.
While freelancing, I turned my nose up at jobs that needed an "expert" with Quark 4 on Mac OS 9 - both of which I am, but who wants more experience with those skills on a résumé? Now I'm in a similar position, but on the other side of the fence. See, we just got the Adobe CS2 suite last year. Yes, CS2. And yes, CS4 is entering into the work stream now. Every tip, trick and how-to site I frequent is now rife with gushing reports on the new CS4 features, though they're still full of their mainstay CS3 solutions. Solutions, many of which, I can't use, because I don't use that version every waking minute. Once the go-to guy, the guru, the expert, now I'm the one with the disadvantaged skill set.
(I'm not even going to mention all of the software I'm getting to make my job easier that doesn't work on my OS X 10.3 system. Nope, not going to mention it at all.)
While my particular title is doing well, the company just laid off 100 people just before the holidays. As much as I've convinced everyone there's tremendous benefits to upgrading that go beyond bolstering my skill set, they've stated they have no current plans to do so.
Of course, all of this assumes we're printing anything on paper in the next 10 years. They're already talking about the "Death of the Newspaper" like they were talking about Obama being president back in October.
I'm not adverse to change. I went to school for film, got a degree in English, got a job in video post production, which turned into web production, which turned into rebuilding servers, which, naturally, lead to a job doing page layout. The universe has always pointed the way for me in the past to get me to where I am now (not too shabby, so far) so I guess I'm looking for the sign post that's going to tell me what new skills to pick up and which to drop. It's not that I don't want to move, just that all my stuff is here, and I know I can't take all of it with me (especially as I'll likely be moving to a cheaper place).
So, tell me, what's the next big thing? Better minds than mine are still climbing all over themselves trying to figure that out.
I've thought about teaching. You know, if you can't beat 'em, train 'em. I really do enjoy sharing what I know (sometimes even with people who don't care to know it). One thing there's still no shortage of is schools churning out scores of youngsters ready to apply for my job - people with no kids or mortgages who can move on to the next industry the way I used to move on to the next bar.
My dad used to have a bumper sticker that read, "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." Maybe it's time I start playing dirty.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
so long, and sorry about all the fish...
some of the images are pretty remarkable
|
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Funny condom ad
NSFW(OBA) not safe for work (or balloon animals)
the "outtakes" are pretty funny, too
the "outtakes" are pretty funny, too
|
The Fed helps those who help themselves (to your money)
Why can we so readily approve giving away public funds (at a deficit, with no tax base to recover them) to banks and brokerage firms, but we have a hard time allocating money for regular Americans with genuine need?
I don't wish to debate the wisdom of helping the most wealthy out of a situation their own greed created, because they're "too big to fail." I believe business runs on access to available credit, and credit markets need to be relieved.
But if we all agree that the economy thrives when money changes hands, does it make better sense to bail out a corporation so they can cut their losses, bolster their profit, so stockholders have value in their holdings (emphasis on "holding"), or to give the money to people who will actually spend it?
I don't mean the stereotypically irresponsible things like flatscreens and Nintendo Wii's (I believe the huge corporate retail chains like Walmart will endure). But if instead of giving insurer AIG some $80 billion to keep them afloat, we floated some of those funds to people who've been most impacted by the economy, they could afford things - things like health insurance - and give companies that provide goods and services their much needed capital.
Now I'm going to speculate. (You may want to get your tinfoil hat.) Why can't we do this? You're still going to buy that flatscreen and latest-model iPod, aren't you? (if you're a good American, and do what you're told, you're going to go out and shop to help the economy.) But without available cash, you're going to buy them on credit. And for that, the banks make money, in the form of interest.
On the other hand, it's been shown that many people, with large consumer debt, given the funds would choose to lower their debit position. (e.g. pay off some of their credit cards.) This is good for consumers - it lowers their unsecured debt, lowers their interest payments, and gives them more funds to save, if only for that new iPod.
It is, however, bad news for a bank. It lowers their interest income and reduces their assets. Yes, the money you owe them is an asset. It is only "unsecured" to you, in that you don't have an asset (e.g. a house) to offset the debt. Recent changes in bankruptcy laws mean the bank will get its money, somehow. There is no risk that the poor, defenseless bank, who was only trying to help everyone it could by extending them all ridiculous amounts of credit, even to those evil cheats who lied about the stability of their employment, would get left twisting in the wind.
And if you don't get your own, personal infusion of bailout cash - if you can no longer pay your bills - even better for the bank. They now get to charge usury... I mean, the default interest rate, meaning it's going to cost you more money to not have any.
(You can take your hat off now. If the above made sense, then it was working.)
[the following text is stolen from TrueMajority.org]
The U.S. faces the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Just how deep we go and how long the recession lasts depends upon how quickly we take steps to counter it.
The economy is hemorrhaging jobs at a frightful rate. For all of 2008, the economy lost a net total of 2.6 million jobs. That was the most since 1945, when nearly 2.8 million jobs were lost.
More than 300 of the country’s leading economists have called for immediate passage of a significant and broad-based jobs and economic recovery package.
A package must include investments in alternative energy technology to create millions of new jobs and generate billions in public revenue and tackle the issue of climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
We must also provide grants to state and local governments so that they will not be forced to raise taxes, layoff workers and cut services in the middle of a downturn.
Finally, we need investments in public infrastructure that will provide a crucial shot in the arm for the economy and create hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs to strengthen our middle class.
I don't wish to debate the wisdom of helping the most wealthy out of a situation their own greed created, because they're "too big to fail." I believe business runs on access to available credit, and credit markets need to be relieved.
But if we all agree that the economy thrives when money changes hands, does it make better sense to bail out a corporation so they can cut their losses, bolster their profit, so stockholders have value in their holdings (emphasis on "holding"), or to give the money to people who will actually spend it?
I don't mean the stereotypically irresponsible things like flatscreens and Nintendo Wii's (I believe the huge corporate retail chains like Walmart will endure). But if instead of giving insurer AIG some $80 billion to keep them afloat, we floated some of those funds to people who've been most impacted by the economy, they could afford things - things like health insurance - and give companies that provide goods and services their much needed capital.
Now I'm going to speculate. (You may want to get your tinfoil hat.) Why can't we do this? You're still going to buy that flatscreen and latest-model iPod, aren't you? (if you're a good American, and do what you're told, you're going to go out and shop to help the economy.) But without available cash, you're going to buy them on credit. And for that, the banks make money, in the form of interest.
On the other hand, it's been shown that many people, with large consumer debt, given the funds would choose to lower their debit position. (e.g. pay off some of their credit cards.) This is good for consumers - it lowers their unsecured debt, lowers their interest payments, and gives them more funds to save, if only for that new iPod.
It is, however, bad news for a bank. It lowers their interest income and reduces their assets. Yes, the money you owe them is an asset. It is only "unsecured" to you, in that you don't have an asset (e.g. a house) to offset the debt. Recent changes in bankruptcy laws mean the bank will get its money, somehow. There is no risk that the poor, defenseless bank, who was only trying to help everyone it could by extending them all ridiculous amounts of credit, even to those evil cheats who lied about the stability of their employment, would get left twisting in the wind.
And if you don't get your own, personal infusion of bailout cash - if you can no longer pay your bills - even better for the bank. They now get to charge usury... I mean, the default interest rate, meaning it's going to cost you more money to not have any.
(You can take your hat off now. If the above made sense, then it was working.)
[the following text is stolen from TrueMajority.org]
The U.S. faces the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Just how deep we go and how long the recession lasts depends upon how quickly we take steps to counter it.
The economy is hemorrhaging jobs at a frightful rate. For all of 2008, the economy lost a net total of 2.6 million jobs. That was the most since 1945, when nearly 2.8 million jobs were lost.
More than 300 of the country’s leading economists have called for immediate passage of a significant and broad-based jobs and economic recovery package.
A package must include investments in alternative energy technology to create millions of new jobs and generate billions in public revenue and tackle the issue of climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
We must also provide grants to state and local governments so that they will not be forced to raise taxes, layoff workers and cut services in the middle of a downturn.
Finally, we need investments in public infrastructure that will provide a crucial shot in the arm for the economy and create hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs to strengthen our middle class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)