I'll take some #TheResistance twatwaffles over Joseph Epstein

The Resistance is all bent out of shape to the point of calling Joseph Epstein a "twatwaffle" and worse on Twitter for stating reality about Jill Biden and "Dr."

First, AP Style says only use it with MD and DO, etc. NO PhDs.

Second, Epstein's right about comparative ease of many non-PhD doctorates, including Jill Biden's EdD. Public school superintendents here in Tex-ass have them like candy, and in many cases they're obtainable without a single in-person class at the granting institution.

The twatwaffles of #TheResistance, meanwhile, talk of Jill Biden as though she has a PhD, and she doesn't even do that.

Third, the actual twatwaffles of #TheResistance are likely the same people who supported Dem-leaning media in 2016 when it told actual medical doctor Jill Stein to drop the "Dr."

And, the blind rage of The Resistance is blind indeed! I've seen people on Twitter claim that Epstein, 14 years older than Biden, is engaging in ageism. I've seen others claiming he's comparing his honorary doctorates to Biden's academic degree, when A. He isn't and B. He only claims one honorary degree, not multiples.

And, it's not just individuals. Daily Beast has a bit of rage-blindness ...

And, it may have been one of those media outlets attacking Jill Stein 4 years ago. I know Charles Davis was there at the time and attacking Stein for other things.

The fact that Northwestern said he hadn't taught a course there since 2002 means nothing, as he would have been 65 then. 

Yes, he has a controversial past, and his 1970 article on homosexuality is beyond controversial, just wrong. He deals with that in a 2015 Washington Examiner piece which is very interesting, at least partially apologetic, and readable.

As for the claim that academic titles were first and MDs just followed? Err, wrong! Originally, you went to university for one of three things, as any actual historian knows: Law, medicine and theology.

In short, agree with Epstein or not, but do it honestly on the ground, and without being a 2016-based hypocrite.

 

That said, he went too far with the "almost fraudulent." It is an earned degree, first of all, and second, given how much of a winger Epstein is, could be interpreted as a larger dig. (You fill in the blanks.)

Let's not have #ColumbusDay OR #IndigenousPeoplesDay

I personally view the trend of seemingly politically correct cities replacing the former with the latter.

First, as we push back the date of first human migration to the Americas, it's clear that it came in multiple waves.

Therefore, the first "indigenous people" were either assimilated or killed off by later migrants. Yes, said later migrants didn't have Columbus' and other Europeans' advantages of "Guns, Germs and Steel," but, they still killed off predecessors in some cases. The story, the actual truth, about Kennewick Man is a good illustration.

Other pre-Columbian myths, per the likes of "1491," also aren't quite so true. (Charles Mann shoots down a few post-Columbian myths in "1493."

The ancient Americas weren't a pristine ecological Eden, for example. Fire and other tools were used to extensively manage lands, to help drive and capture deer and other game, and more. That's apart from the times when American Indians were being environmentally wasteful or leaving trash laying around themselves.

Columbus and post-Columbians enslaving Indians? They enslaved each other both before and after 1492.

Deliberate genocide? No, not by Columbus. As far as claims by others, like Ward Churchill, they've been almost entirely refuted. Churchill himself has told those whoppers as part of a whole pack of PC lies about American Indians vs. Euro-Americans. Nor was European Christianity a cause of genocide; yes, padres as well as soldiers overworked Indians even after the Spanish Crown put an end to their enslavement; I shot that down as part of shooting down a broader bit of Gnu Atheist nonsense that religion was in general genocidal. (Besides, per the below, it's not always and only Western monotheism that can be religiously troubling.)

The Columbian Contact, because of the "germs" part of Diamond's book, was tragedy-laden from the start. And, there were a number of individual bad actors. But, it wasn't a systemic genocide. And, because issues of intent aren't always clear, and sometimes didn't exist, I prefer not to use the word "genocide." There's a difference between manslaughter and murder, even if the manslaughter is somewhat voluntary, and definitely if it's not. The same should apply to genocide, establishing it as mass murder for particular religious, ethnic, or similar reasons, rather than mass manslaughters.

As for the seven or eight, or innumerated, myths about Columbus? Not all of the refudiations of the myths are themselves correct. And, the refudiations that depend on Howard Zinn depend on Zinn at his non-academic worst, although he did have a fair amount correct.

Tackling some of this, off that list of eight.
1. Yes, Columbus did that
2. Not true, unless you're parochial enough to be using "America" for the "United States." Columbus was on mainland South America in his third voyage. If you are that parochial, then you've got a PC petard hoisting. If you're restricting yourself to his first voyage, why did you say "not ever"? More on Columbus' voyages from Wiki.
3. No, Columbus' own language showed he did not portray natives badly, at least not initially, other than the cannibals allegation
4. Not all of Columbus' men were; blanket statements aren't accepted here. And, that some, some Indians were rapists and murderers, too.
5. Columbus' original slaving action was for slave resale, not for gold miners. And, he certainly didn't kill 250,000 for gold. Disease, etc., along with overwork did that, but Columbus didn't kill 250,000.
6/7 True. Again, Indians did
8. Pardoned, but not restored to all pre-arrest rights, which led to his sons later legally battling the Spanish throne.

Otherwise? Cannibalism, infanticide and whatever else you want to name: Europeans, Asians and Africans from the Old World, and Amerinds from the New, committed them all alike. Rape? Murder? Ditto. So, even if some of Columbus' men were some of these things, so were some indigenous peoples. And, try as much as some PC types will, it still appears that syphilis was an import from the New World to the Old, not the other way around.

Dogs of war had been used by Europeans against other Europeans. (And, occasionally, Asians against other Asians.) Spaniards, in places like the Battle of Toro, cut each others' hands off.

Even in early contact days, while the Caribbean natives were largely peaceful, that wasn't true elsewhere. Don't forget that Cortes' conquest of Mexico was helped by vassals of the Aztecs revolting against them. (Aztecs who committed living human sacrifices by ripping still-beating hearts out of people's chests.)

I "get" that this isn't about Columbus, but about Euro-Americans, and for some, Christianity, in the New World. But, again, this wasn't a genocide. Also, there's been plenty of non-European "bad actors," and non-Christian ones. Think Stalin and Hitler among the non-Christian ones. (Uninformed comments about "Stalin went to seminary" will not be posted.) Think Jinggis Khan, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and many others on the former. Or, American Indians not named.

Speaking of, for the alleged barbarity of Christianity as a religion vs. Native American "spirituality" and alleged nobility?

Go stick skewers under your breast muscles while getting someone else to lacerate your skin. Have that other person tie the skewers to the top of a pole outside in the summer. Then, go dance the Sun Dance until you pass out and the skewers rip through your body. Or self-sacrifice your own heart to the gods of the Aztecs.

Then get back to me about the nobility of American Indian "spirituality," OK?

If you're a PC liberal, or just someone trying to think globally while accepting the muddled reality of humanity, instead of Indigeneous Peoples' Day OR Columbus Day, push for Oct. 24 to be a U.S. holiday.

In case you're drawing a blank? United Nations Day.

We can kill Columbus Day, NOT replace it with a PC alternative, get some PC liberals to think outside America and decommercialize Halloween, all in one fell swoop.

Or, if that's too much, do like Latin American countries on Columbus Day and have something like "La Raza Day," celebrating the good, the bad and the ugly of both cultures, since both had all of that, and both exchanged all three with the other.

Anyway, this "Columbus" = "devil" nonsense is a good exemplar of why I call myself a skeptical left-liberal. Columbus wasn't perfect. He wasn't close. It's arguable as to how much more bad than good he was, whether in specific dealings with Indians, his gubernatorial abilities, his relations with the Spanish crown, or his actual navigation skills aside, his broader sailing mindset.

But, he wasn't the devil. And, while the original Caribbean contact natives were generally peaceful, indigenous Americans in general weren't angels. And, I don't want to replace one set of myths with another.

The AP goes PC about #illegal_immigrants

Ahh, the Associated Press has apparently caved in to "PC" instincts as part of the national background for the current debate on how to reform US immigration law. Yes, I want to address the immigration issue, but ... if you're talking about a person who comes into a country not their home nation, they're an immigrant. If they do so illegally, they're an illegal immigrant. Pure and simple. And, should I have occasion to do further news stories or op-eds on the issue, that's what I'll still use.

I can agree with the last paragraph of the story on the AP's website:

People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.

True that minor children should not be identified the same way as adults.

Well, I'm betting a lot of people at AP member dailies, and nonmember non-dailies even more, ignore this bit of nonsense.

That said, legally, one could argue that the word "alleged" should be used in front of the phrase, if they've not been convicted of what is a civil, not a criminal, offense. I'm OK with that, pre-civil conviction. But, after that, drop the alleged. They're illegal immigrants, duly found to be so.

And, nobody elected the Associated Press to be the morals or sociological police, per this statement:

And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to “illegal immigrant” again.

Good fricking doorknob. And, if we're not going to label people in general, have fun writing all sorts of news stories.

Other than that, the AP doubles down on the PC factor by saying we shouldn't use the word "undocumented," either. Here's what it says about that:

(Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)

In that case, the word "undocumented" shouldn't be used in all sorts of other contexts, either. This is even more stupid than the main "ruling."

Ahh, and here's the real reason why, at least in part.

As always, follow the money:

The updated entry is being added immediately to the AP Stylebook Online and Manual de Estilo Online de la AP, the new Spanish-language Stylebook. 

Geez o fucking pete. If the AP would start charging news aggregators more, it wouldn't have to pander to sell a Spanish stylebook.

Per that end, here's your current AP Board of Directors.

A bit of analysis.

Mary Junck almost ran Lee Enterprises into the ground.

Steve Newhouse is doing everything in the world he can to destroy print newspapers in his chain.

Donna J. Barrett? If the Alabama state pension system weren't a major stakeholder in CNHI (I'm guessing there's legal ramifications), CNHI would and should have been in Chapter 11 years ago.

Jim Monroney finally saw the paywall light, but Belo / The Dallas Morning News still often acts like its shit don't stink. And, how the eff does Belo have a seat on the board separate from the DMN?

Katharine Weymouth? Hey, say no more about the Washington Post, editorially or business-wise.


And how PC is this? Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano is OK with "illegal immigrant."

Amazon gets its panties in a wad about "sh*t"

I recently read a book called "The Big Necessity," a fascinating look at sanitation issues around the modern world. (It's also a depressing look, when you read that more than 2.5 billion people lack adequate sanitation, and that people who die from "water-borne diseases" are really dying from shit-borne ones.)

Anyway, despite the author talking about such puns/waggery, etc. early in the book, she does quote people using the word "shit" in a non-profane/cursing way, all while noting that as sexual vulgarity has lost some shock value, defecation certainly hasn't, because of extra prudery there.

I noticed, though, that the review hadn't been posted after a couple of days.

And, sure enough, Amazon spiked it, due to censorship, claiming it contained a profanity, namely, in the title, despite me using the asterisk, as here.

My response, in full:

First, the word was asterisked as "sh*t."

Second, it is NOT a profanity, as the book is about the shit of sanitation and the author even quotes people using that word.

YOU are part of the problem, on this issue.

Well, you gave me something to blog about, if nothing else. Thanks!

I suggest you re-look at my review. And then post it.

And, in a follow-up e-mail, Amazon won't change its mind.

If Powell's Books would import my old Amazon reviews and had a way of doing that, or Goodreads would, I'd stop reviewing at Amazon. And, if Powell's had more selection, I'd stop buying at Amaazon, too.

That said, with the follow-up e-mail, I'll have to check Half.com, the eBay-owned website for Half Price Books, to see if it can meet or beat Amazon's prices on some stuff in my cart.

Oh, here's the irony and hypocrisy. Amazon has a book by a survivor of Auschwitz. It's title? "Scheisshaus Luck."

Effing Amazon prissy-pants censors.

Obama – prayer-vetter in chief

The White House doing advance vetting of invocations before ceremonial events is wrong on so many different First Amendment and other levels I don’t even know where to begin.

Plus, it won’t work as a “bipartisanship outreach” to the Religious Right if part of the reason for vetting the prayers is to keep them from being too faith-specific, or otherwise politically incorrect.

(Or to keep them from praying that, in a riff on the Lord’s Prayer, President Obama would not only deliver us from evil, but “lead us not further into Afghanistan

A round-up of recent linguistic dustups

First, I’ve gotten into a fracas with other atheists who are, I charge, abetting fuzzy thinking by bad use of language.

Second, in response to a blog post of mine at Talking Points Memo, when I commented about a sense of “entitlement” Cynthia McKinney seemed to evidence as a Congresswoman, a “person of color,” of more color than me (and no, I’m not being flippant or snarky), claimed that I was using “entitlement” as some anti-black code word.

To which I say: Political correctness still abounds. And while conservatives can flog a dead horse on that issue, they’re not all wrong, either.

Third, at the blog which should be called “Enabling Those We Choose,” after I was banned without warning for actually “watching” Barack Obama, and not buying into the Republican-Democrat duopoly, I asked blogger Blue Girl, in posting a link about Obama’s FISA cave-in, what she thought about her boy now.

Again, no racial connotation meant. But, she assumed one, from her one-word response.

Once more, political correctness abounds. Because some people, even when they should know better (yes, that’s you, Blue Girl Tammy – good thing I didn’t sign your online petition for a Kos “scholarship” to Netroots Nation, even while wondering why you ask for money from someone you really don’t care for), choose to indulge this idiocy.

At other times, though, I have no doubt I have some share of fault. Working as a newspaper reporter/editor, I write a lot. Sometimes, I may think I’m writing more lucidly than I am.

At other times, I’m thinking faster than I’m writing, with the result my writing has all sorts of intellectual ellipses that I never think that other people might not follow.

And, there is the occasional troll, like Pat Buchanan-saluter Citizen Fitz over on Amazon's book review pages.

Another Smithsonian bone to pick — PC agriculture

This time, it’s about the famous, or infamous, Columbian exchange of agriculture, goods, etc. between “New” and “Old” Worlds.

In writing about “A Passion for Tomatoes,” Arthur Allen gets into some editorializing.

The tomato … is a product of what is known as the Columbian exchange, that unequal sharing of genetic material following the conquest of the New World. The Old World got tomatoes, potatoes, chocolate, squash, corn and peppers. The new one got coffee, sugar cane and cotton—and the African slaves to cultivate them—as well as smallpox, measles and other previously unknown contagious diseases that devastated the native population.

Several counterpoints.

1. Some Indian tribes had slavery.
2. Indians also got the horse, cow, sheep, goat and hog, which, if you count ranching as well as farming, transformed New World agriculture just as much as the other way around.
3. The New World (though Indians rarely grew it) also got wheat, which thrives on the American plains. And, it got melons and a variety of other fruits.
4. While the New World got the worst of contagious diseases, the tentative consensus is that it sent syphilis, if not in as virulent a form as today, to the Old World.

So, Mr. Allen, try to be a little less one-sided, next time.

Top black columnist Pitts — New Yorker cover fine - updated

In the latest sign that the Stuff White People Like wing of Obamiacs has let its political correctness and lack of a funny bone, among various problems of theirs, run amok, top black political columnist Leonard Pitts says there’s nothing wrong with the New Yorker cover.

Me, I like the cover. It strikes me as an incisive comment on the fear mongering that has attended Obama's run for the presidency. Still, I understand why it is incendiary: Some of us will take it seriously.

At the same, though, Pitts sees how people got huffy over it:

To be effective, satire needs a situation it can inflate into ridiculousness. But the hysteria surrounding Obama has nowhere to go; it is already ridiculous. In just the last few days, we've had Jesse Jackson threatening to castrate him and John McLaughlin calling him an “Oreo.”

Add to that the whispers about Obama's supposed Muslim heritage (not that there's anything wrong with that), the “terrorist” implications of bumping fists, and Michelle Obama’s purported use of the term “whitey” (a word no black person has uttered since “The Jeffersons” went off the air in 1985) and it’s clear that "ridiculous" has become our default status.

Pitts goes on to say the country is largely “ignorant, irony-impaired and petrified.”

Pitts’ prescription is in the column; basically, it’s to loosen up and lighten up.

To which I add the hypocrisy that, if anybody has been condescending in this whole schtick, it’s the Stuff White People Like types for assuming that “flyover country” folks can’t “get” intellectual New York satire.

Note: They can. And they do.

As for the SWPL crowd, it is almost as if voting for Obama is their version of Rent-a-Negro.

That said, I’m going to give The New Yorker a bit of criticism — a bit of art criticism.

Barry Blitt’s drawing of Barack actually looks more like a young Muammar Gaddafi (sketched at right by John Cox of Cox and Focum) than it does Obama.

For that matter, is Obama really that mad about the cover, or is it more that he’s pseudo-mad, play-acting for the SWPL crowd?

Of course, a certain section of the Green Party goes even more ape-shit over stuff like this. I cut the GP more slack because it’s a minor party, but it’s got issues too. Plenty of them.

Update, July 18 People for the American Way is the latest Stuff White People Like group to jump on the bandwagon of either politically correct real outrage or outrageous-itself faux outrage.

Update 2, July 21: We’ve got more of both enlightenment and pandering on this issue.

First, the pandering.

Al Gore claims the cover is “way too far over the top.”

Hey, Al. Read Leonard Pitts, then you can talk. Until that point, you, as another Stuff White People Like type, can STFU.

That’s because, beyond your original incorrect comment, you seem to be calling for The New Yorker and cartoonist Barry Blitt to engage in self-censorship in the name of political Kumbaya.

Next, the enlightenment side. Oliver Willis more succinctly agrees with Pitts, saying “people need to chill the hell out.”

Besides, the Chicago Sun Times’ Richard Roeper claims Team Obama knows this is all satire anyway.

Roeper riffs on B.O.’s initial response to the cover:

When Barack Obama was first asked about the now-infamous cartoon depicting him wearing a turban while “giving dap” to his gun-toting, Angela Davis-fro'd wife, he reportedly shrugged and said, “I have no response to that.”

Now, that isn’t proof he thought from the start it was good satire. It may reflect that mindset, that’s all. But Roeper is probably barking up the right tree.

The idea for liberally cool whitey – Rent-A-Negro

Black friends are No. 14 among the 103 coolest things for socially conscious (or, more likely, faux-socially conscious) upper-middle-class white liberals to like, according to Christian Lamper, as I blogged here.

But, what if you don’t HAVE any black friends?

Nemo problema, thanks to Damali Ayo’s Rent-A-Negro. Need a black person to liven up the Christmas/Kwanzaa party at the environmental law office or to enliven a consciousness-raising team-building exercise at a would-be socially conscious small liberal company? Here you go!

Read Salon for more on how Ayo got started with the idea.

Note that she fits the bill perfectly for Lamper’s self-aware (or delusionally pseudo-self-aware) uppity liberal whites — Ayo even went to Sidwell Friends! Then Brown University!

Now, on Lamper’s blog, black friends is No. 14, which gay friends is only No. 88.

Oh, if only David Sedaris were black.

Maybe Lamper will make a separate category for black gay friends.

I posed that issue to both him and Sally and Johnny of Black People Love Us.