I came across this thread a few minutes ago http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7594997 and ... my god, people are dumb.
Poster says: "Some douche from 'The Free Enterprise Nation' is whining that gov't workers are paid too much. Total average compensation for government workers is over $100k and for private workers it's $57k. So what? Did they factor for things like education, training, and length of time on the job? Conservatives just shouldn't be allowed near numbers. Period."
Um, ok. My first question is: did this poster factor for these things? Meaning, did she (presumably a she, because of her avatar) do any math? I'd be interested to see the findings from that, and see how she arrived at her conclusions. If not (and it seems like not) why the hell is she even talking? How does she know "the douche" didn't do his math? (Admittedly, it sounds likely to be skewed. Averages are stunningly misleading. But still.)
While I have no personal opinion at this time (having done no math myself) about whether government workers are paid too much, I hate to see logic destroyed. Hate it. The fact is that the government, like any big organization, wastes a lot of money. The difference is that, whereas large corporations are run by just a few people at the top, the government is run by .. who? Everyone. At least in theory, "we the people" have the power.
So whoever the "douche" is, he's taking an excellent first step by pointing out an area where he thinks money is being wasted. Somebody, apparently not our charming poster, could take an excellent next step by doing a little math to see if he's right. I think a careful approach could yield a fairly good, unbiased answer.
Bottom line: I really, really hate to see logic abused. I also hate to see all conservatives lumped together and given the same label. That is very uncool.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, September 7, 2009
Float My Boat
Okay, it's Labor Day. What's on television? Booze ban. Some time ago, most San Diego beaches banned alcohol from their shores. Those who are in favor of this action say that the atmosphere is now more family-friendly, and that it has solved the problem of large parties getting out of control. Those who oppose it wonder why, oh why, they can no longer just sip a cold one on the sand.
Here's the thing. The authorities don't really care about alcohol, per se, just the wild partying and fights. So, why can't they just do their job and arrest people who create a disturbance? Why do we need one more law, one more rule to tell us what we can't do?
We don't. In this case, the rule is particularly inappropriate because it targets everyone instead of only the offenders. On the surface, it appears to "work". Remember Prohibition? Granted, it never even appeared to work, but the principle is the same. Take away their alcohol, and they will hate you. Whether they deserve to have it taken away (because they are the minority who will start rowdy fights on the beach) or not (because they are like most people who just want to enjoy a cold beer on a hot day), they will hate you, and they will take action. Just wait.
Bottom line: if the ban doesn't come down, the time might soon come for organized protest. Government, off my toes.
Here's the thing. The authorities don't really care about alcohol, per se, just the wild partying and fights. So, why can't they just do their job and arrest people who create a disturbance? Why do we need one more law, one more rule to tell us what we can't do?
We don't. In this case, the rule is particularly inappropriate because it targets everyone instead of only the offenders. On the surface, it appears to "work". Remember Prohibition? Granted, it never even appeared to work, but the principle is the same. Take away their alcohol, and they will hate you. Whether they deserve to have it taken away (because they are the minority who will start rowdy fights on the beach) or not (because they are like most people who just want to enjoy a cold beer on a hot day), they will hate you, and they will take action. Just wait.
Bottom line: if the ban doesn't come down, the time might soon come for organized protest. Government, off my toes.
Monday, April 6, 2009
I Want To Be a Woman Dragon When I Grow Up!
Recently I picked up a copy of the "San Diego Reader". The cover story was called, "Hello, my Gender is Bunny", or something similar. It was interesting enough, and the -- very -- interesting subject matter was tastefully covered by the reporter. It seems the subject of the story is trying to begin a male-to-female transgender process, and in the meantime imagines itself to be a dragon.
So why the outcry in the next week's Reader? In any periodical publication I've ever read, I've never seen so many comments on one story. What were they all about?
The reporter refused to refer to the subject of the story in female pronouns.
Since the subject is objectively male, I couldn't help but wonder what the problem was. In reading the comments, I discovered that they feel the reporter was being disrespectful and should have complied with the man/woman/dragon's request to be referred to as a she.
Is one really the ultimate judge of one's own sexual association? One of the comments stated that, "If [the subject of the story] wanted to be referred to as Latino and not Hispanic, it would have been unspeakably rude not to do so. [The same applies to his/her/its preferred gender]." (My paraphrase)
Hmmm. Is one really the ultimate judge of one's own ethnicity, either? There are things which are appropriately called "unchangeables", including sex, ethnicity, family, parentage, and times of birth and death. The male/female/dragon can't choose for himself like he was ordering lunch. That's just not the way it works. He can, obviously, refer to himself however he wants to. He can think of himself as whatever he wants to. But it seems unjust to try to force another person to call him what he objectively is not. (Think about it ... couldn't that have been just a bit uncomfortable ...? Poor reporter guy.)
Bottom line: body parts don't lie. Get this down, commenters, since you may have flunked out in sixth grade.
So why the outcry in the next week's Reader? In any periodical publication I've ever read, I've never seen so many comments on one story. What were they all about?
The reporter refused to refer to the subject of the story in female pronouns.
Since the subject is objectively male, I couldn't help but wonder what the problem was. In reading the comments, I discovered that they feel the reporter was being disrespectful and should have complied with the man/woman/dragon's request to be referred to as a she.
Is one really the ultimate judge of one's own sexual association? One of the comments stated that, "If [the subject of the story] wanted to be referred to as Latino and not Hispanic, it would have been unspeakably rude not to do so. [The same applies to his/her/its preferred gender]." (My paraphrase)
Hmmm. Is one really the ultimate judge of one's own ethnicity, either? There are things which are appropriately called "unchangeables", including sex, ethnicity, family, parentage, and times of birth and death. The male/female/dragon can't choose for himself like he was ordering lunch. That's just not the way it works. He can, obviously, refer to himself however he wants to. He can think of himself as whatever he wants to. But it seems unjust to try to force another person to call him what he objectively is not. (Think about it ... couldn't that have been just a bit uncomfortable ...? Poor reporter guy.)
Bottom line: body parts don't lie. Get this down, commenters, since you may have flunked out in sixth grade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
