You know, the one thing I like about Donald Trump is that he speaks his mind. You can see him clearly for the asshole he really is. He's not afraid to offend anyone he disagrees with.
But the point about political correctness should be examined. To my mind political correctness is a superficial way of expressing yourself designed to use language you don't agree with. But that's to take a position that the expressions you prefer are actually OK. In fact, we need to continually adapt our language to an evolving sense of humanity. We didn't stop using the N word because of political correctness; we stopped using it because of an evolving (yes, we are still working on it) sense of racial respect.
As this writer states, politically correct is really just respect.
Here are what some dictionaries say. Wikipedia defines it as "an ordinarily pejorative term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society." Merriam Webster calls it "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people." Notice that Merriam Webster takes away the sense of pejorative. I have to disagree with that. I don't think anyone uses that term without a sense that it's kowtowing to someone else's standards.
Megyn Kelly's segue from challenging Trump on disrespecting women to challenging other candidates on not being strict enough abortion opponents boggles the mind. To Republicans, being politically correct means being so strongly pro-life that they would deny a woman an abortion at the cost of her life. They would force a rape victim to live that pain out through nine months of pregnancy and all of its complications afterwards. I don't have time for political correctness should mean "let's talk about the truth about what happens to unplanned, unwanted, poorly cared for children." Let's talk about how we were led into a war based on lies and propaganda that killed and maimed thousands of men and women who were unnecessarily sent into battle. Let's talk about how the country is divided along racial lines and young men and women are constantly subjected to police harassment up to and including murder!
Political correctness is not doing us any good. Calling women "women" instead of "girls" and respecting minorities, disabled people, and anyone different than we are is not political correctness. It's respect.
We need more respect.
Some say, "Think positive." But a rational perspective on the state of the world can only come to one conclusion: We're doomed!
Monday, 17 August 2015
Saturday, 15 August 2015
Don't worry about robots taking your job; worry about amateurs
Increasing automation in the workplace has led to a lot of job loss. This story cites one million jobs lost due to automation. (Notice the typo in the headline--I'll get back to this.) I recently listened to a podcast series by Planet Money on how robots were taking on all kinds of jobs.
Things that require any kind of repetitive task are being automated. Farming, logging, manufacturing, all these areas are much less labor intensive than they used to be. But that's not all: ATMs, self-serve gas, self-checkout at the store are also costing jobs. When you call a big business and have to negotiate your way through a maze of telephone options, that's because receptionists who used to direct your call or actually help you are out of work. When you hear a message "We are experiencing a higher than normal volume of calls right now" while you wait for the sole human being left on the switchboard to talk to you, it's because the company let go it's normal staff.
OK, but what I've always believed is that if I had skills and creativity then I would always have work. Not true. There's a cascading effect.
I graduated from university with zero computer skills. I mean zero. My computer experience was limited to playing "Where is Carmen Sandiego" on a Commodore 64. So I took a computer course in desktop publishing. I had an English degree, background in journalism and few job prospects.
Desktop publishing, the use of desktop computers to combine typesetting, graphic design and layout into one convenient program was the thin edge of the wedge that upset huge publishing empires. Previously, a graphic designer would sketch out a design for a magazine or newspaper page. A typesetter would prepare the type in long sheets called galleys, and a layout artist would paste the galleys and photos (which were specially prepared for printing) on big cardboard flats to be taken to a special camera that was used to produce film, which was in turn used to create plates from which the document was printed.
Today, high end publications use graphic designers. Big print runs use plates. But most of the jobs in between are gone.
In fact, even desktop publishing is obsolete because more and more publishing is simply electronic. Electronic newsletters are emailed. Print is too expensive and it uses physical resources.
But what's this got to do with amateurs? Go back to the link I posted near the beginning of the post. The typo in the headline is because in the middle of that old process was a proofreader. Someone whose job was to be the grammar Nazi and to find and fix every comma splice, every misplaced modifier, and yes, every typo. That guy is gone.
Today things go straight from the writer's head to the world without anyone looking at them. And anyone can publish. Right here on this platform every manner of thought is being pushed out onto the world.
And the problem is that what's important is lost in the sea of what's unimportant. People used to pick up a newspaper to read about what is important. Newspapers were written by people who spent their careers separating the wheat from the chaff. They were dedicated to some form of objective truth, even if they didn't all agree.
But today, it's all about advertising. When I look at the New York Times online, I also see the clickbait headlines from LOLWAT, or Taboola or some such crap telling me about a man who did something and I won't believe what happened next.
Journalists are losing ground to the army of bloggers who contribute every manner of rumor and innuendo to the racket of (mis)information.
Wanna go home? Uber will take you instead of a professional taxi driver.
Looking for a President? Donald Trump, amateur politician running on nothing more than name recognition is in the lead as I write.
What is happening to the world?
I blame it on Martin Luther.
Not Martin Luther King, Jr, pacifist leader of the civil rights movement. Martin Luther, 13th century monk who challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther said everyone had the right to know God in their own way, to interpret the Bible for themselves. Thus, he unleashed an army of amateur priests in the Protestant Reformation.
That began the breakdown of authority that shakes our foundations today. Today there is no authority. Scientific authority is defied not only by climate change deniers, but by the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-GMO movement, the alternative medicine movement, the homeschool movement, and more. Everywhere, people shun any process that requires years of study and dedication for one that claims equivalency for something shallow.
We never should have stopped teaching rhetoric in school. Rhetoric is the art of argument. It is the use of logic. It teaches us to recognize false logic and incorrect conclusions.
We sure could use some of that these days.
Things that require any kind of repetitive task are being automated. Farming, logging, manufacturing, all these areas are much less labor intensive than they used to be. But that's not all: ATMs, self-serve gas, self-checkout at the store are also costing jobs. When you call a big business and have to negotiate your way through a maze of telephone options, that's because receptionists who used to direct your call or actually help you are out of work. When you hear a message "We are experiencing a higher than normal volume of calls right now" while you wait for the sole human being left on the switchboard to talk to you, it's because the company let go it's normal staff.
OK, but what I've always believed is that if I had skills and creativity then I would always have work. Not true. There's a cascading effect.
I graduated from university with zero computer skills. I mean zero. My computer experience was limited to playing "Where is Carmen Sandiego" on a Commodore 64. So I took a computer course in desktop publishing. I had an English degree, background in journalism and few job prospects.
Desktop publishing, the use of desktop computers to combine typesetting, graphic design and layout into one convenient program was the thin edge of the wedge that upset huge publishing empires. Previously, a graphic designer would sketch out a design for a magazine or newspaper page. A typesetter would prepare the type in long sheets called galleys, and a layout artist would paste the galleys and photos (which were specially prepared for printing) on big cardboard flats to be taken to a special camera that was used to produce film, which was in turn used to create plates from which the document was printed.
Today, high end publications use graphic designers. Big print runs use plates. But most of the jobs in between are gone.
In fact, even desktop publishing is obsolete because more and more publishing is simply electronic. Electronic newsletters are emailed. Print is too expensive and it uses physical resources.
But what's this got to do with amateurs? Go back to the link I posted near the beginning of the post. The typo in the headline is because in the middle of that old process was a proofreader. Someone whose job was to be the grammar Nazi and to find and fix every comma splice, every misplaced modifier, and yes, every typo. That guy is gone.
Today things go straight from the writer's head to the world without anyone looking at them. And anyone can publish. Right here on this platform every manner of thought is being pushed out onto the world.
And the problem is that what's important is lost in the sea of what's unimportant. People used to pick up a newspaper to read about what is important. Newspapers were written by people who spent their careers separating the wheat from the chaff. They were dedicated to some form of objective truth, even if they didn't all agree.
But today, it's all about advertising. When I look at the New York Times online, I also see the clickbait headlines from LOLWAT, or Taboola or some such crap telling me about a man who did something and I won't believe what happened next.
Journalists are losing ground to the army of bloggers who contribute every manner of rumor and innuendo to the racket of (mis)information.
Wanna go home? Uber will take you instead of a professional taxi driver.
Looking for a President? Donald Trump, amateur politician running on nothing more than name recognition is in the lead as I write.
What is happening to the world?
I blame it on Martin Luther.
Not Martin Luther King, Jr, pacifist leader of the civil rights movement. Martin Luther, 13th century monk who challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther said everyone had the right to know God in their own way, to interpret the Bible for themselves. Thus, he unleashed an army of amateur priests in the Protestant Reformation.
That began the breakdown of authority that shakes our foundations today. Today there is no authority. Scientific authority is defied not only by climate change deniers, but by the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-GMO movement, the alternative medicine movement, the homeschool movement, and more. Everywhere, people shun any process that requires years of study and dedication for one that claims equivalency for something shallow.
We never should have stopped teaching rhetoric in school. Rhetoric is the art of argument. It is the use of logic. It teaches us to recognize false logic and incorrect conclusions.
We sure could use some of that these days.
Sunday, 9 August 2015
GOP's challenge is to manage Trump
Now that the GOP mob mentality has it turning on Trump, it may find its nightmare scenario is shaping up: Trump as an independent candidate.
What the GOP needs is for Trump to remain in the race for many more months, draining his financial assets. If he were to decide to run as a third party or independent candidate next spring, he would have to build an organization state by state, wending its way through various rules to get him on the state ballots. But in the meantime, he'd be spending his millions fighting for the GOP nomination.
If he drops out of the GOP race now, he can play golf for the next six months, while his team works on the details of getting on the various state ballots. He could even wait until after the conventions, all the while taking potshots at the other candidates. The cost for Trump would be minimized.
No doubt the other candidates would say his sniping doesn't warrant a response; when in fact, they quail under his attacks. Trump's style cannot be fought with normal politics. That's the source of his teflon. You either lower yourself to his level or you have to let him throw his insults without penalty.
He's already shown that his ability to garner free media attention is greater than ever seen before. Even if Fox doesn't pump him as it has done for the last month, he can get lots of attention.
This is the legacy of the current political climate. For decades it has drifted away from policy and substance toward ideology and style. Crowing on stage about who is a real conservative, rather than presenting real concrete plans is just part of it.
Trump is absolutely right that he was attacked from the get-go at the debate. The question about loyalty to the ultimate candidate and disavowing a third party run was only designed to call out Trump. He had to hold up his hand. Not to do so would have been capitulation, which is not in Trump's vocabulary.
The current feeding frenzy, if it drives Trump out of the GOP race, is just what he needs to continue to disrupt the process without bankrupting (excuse me, using the laws of the United States) himself.
And the GOP will be left without the knuckle-dragging, uninformed rabble that it depends on to swing the vote.
What the GOP needs is for Trump to remain in the race for many more months, draining his financial assets. If he were to decide to run as a third party or independent candidate next spring, he would have to build an organization state by state, wending its way through various rules to get him on the state ballots. But in the meantime, he'd be spending his millions fighting for the GOP nomination.
If he drops out of the GOP race now, he can play golf for the next six months, while his team works on the details of getting on the various state ballots. He could even wait until after the conventions, all the while taking potshots at the other candidates. The cost for Trump would be minimized.
No doubt the other candidates would say his sniping doesn't warrant a response; when in fact, they quail under his attacks. Trump's style cannot be fought with normal politics. That's the source of his teflon. You either lower yourself to his level or you have to let him throw his insults without penalty.
He's already shown that his ability to garner free media attention is greater than ever seen before. Even if Fox doesn't pump him as it has done for the last month, he can get lots of attention.
This is the legacy of the current political climate. For decades it has drifted away from policy and substance toward ideology and style. Crowing on stage about who is a real conservative, rather than presenting real concrete plans is just part of it.
Trump is absolutely right that he was attacked from the get-go at the debate. The question about loyalty to the ultimate candidate and disavowing a third party run was only designed to call out Trump. He had to hold up his hand. Not to do so would have been capitulation, which is not in Trump's vocabulary.
The current feeding frenzy, if it drives Trump out of the GOP race, is just what he needs to continue to disrupt the process without bankrupting (excuse me, using the laws of the United States) himself.
And the GOP will be left without the knuckle-dragging, uninformed rabble that it depends on to swing the vote.
Saturday, 8 August 2015
Trump's rise was inevitable
No one doubts that Trump will fail to become President of the United States. The most likely trajectory is that some time between now and November 2016, Trump will begin to perceive both dwindling support and rising expenses and realize that he'd rather remain a billionaire than bet it all on a losing proposition. My guess is that this will happen sometime in February or March of 2016, but it could be much sooner, if polls change.
What Trump needs to maintain his lead is a huge field of Republican candidates. As long as the 75-80% of Americans who don't support him are divided 17 ways, then Trump can triumphantly crow about winning. But eventually some of the smaller candidates, who aren't self-funding, will begin to run out of money. Their donors will pull back and they will read the writing on the wall. Once the field narrows down to a reasonable 7 or 8 candidates, support will move to one or two who will begin to overshadow Trump.
That requires neither great insight nor knowledge. What I think this particular election cycle teaches us is that there is no longer a difference between entertainment and political leadership. When Trump was challenged on his misogynistic comments, he interrupted timed exactly as it would be on a TV game show, drawing the same laughs. Trump played his part. Despite their attempts to challenge Trump (and other candidates) on issues, the Fox media could not escape its main role as entertainment. Trump is ahead right now because he is the only candidate running who has made a career out of being in the spotlight. He is bulletproof because he understands that there is no bad publicity.
Challenged about asking a woman on Celebrity Apprentice to get down on her knees (I thought this was a reference to oral sex, but apparently it was a reference to her begging to keep her job), Trump failed to give what I thought was the obvious answer: "We do things on the TV show to play for ratings, to create a character, you can no more attach those statements to me than you can use lines that Reagan might have said in Bedtime for Bonzo." But I was wrong. There is no line between entertainment and political life any more.
As I write this, I'm still waiting for new polls to reveal how the debates have shifted the standings among GOP candidates, but I'm sure Trump has not gone down. In fact, his presence dampened all other candidates. No one dared take a shot at him. That was left to the moderators, and look how they fared. No one could say out loud, this is a contest for leadership of the United States of America, not Celebrity Apprentice.
Coming from the left, this gives me no glee. Trump, either as an independent, a GOP candidate or merely a failed candidate will help the Democrats hold the White House. But the march of style of substance continues.
How many people on the left rely (relied) on Jon Stewart for their news? What a farce! (And I mean this both literally and metaphorically.) Stewart's whole schtick was to take snippets of news stories and make fun of whoever was involved. He presented no in-depth analysis. He gave no new data. He did not provide reportage of issues ignored by mainstream media. He couldn't. He relied on people having at least a little knowledge of the issue. And then he made you laugh. And he made me laugh. But he didn't teach anything new. All he did was entertain us. And people turn off their TV sets at night believing they are knowledgeable about world affairs but without any new knowledge.
Reading the Gettysburg Address, I don't see any place where Lincoln paused for a joke. I don't see humor in Dr. King's I have a Dream speech. But politicians for the last 30 years have had to show their lighter side. Obama is great at self-deprecating jokes. But democracy has become some kind of sitcom. We need our laugh track along with our ballot boxes. And who gets the biggest laugh wins.
And that's the saddest part of all.
What Trump needs to maintain his lead is a huge field of Republican candidates. As long as the 75-80% of Americans who don't support him are divided 17 ways, then Trump can triumphantly crow about winning. But eventually some of the smaller candidates, who aren't self-funding, will begin to run out of money. Their donors will pull back and they will read the writing on the wall. Once the field narrows down to a reasonable 7 or 8 candidates, support will move to one or two who will begin to overshadow Trump.
That requires neither great insight nor knowledge. What I think this particular election cycle teaches us is that there is no longer a difference between entertainment and political leadership. When Trump was challenged on his misogynistic comments, he interrupted timed exactly as it would be on a TV game show, drawing the same laughs. Trump played his part. Despite their attempts to challenge Trump (and other candidates) on issues, the Fox media could not escape its main role as entertainment. Trump is ahead right now because he is the only candidate running who has made a career out of being in the spotlight. He is bulletproof because he understands that there is no bad publicity.
Challenged about asking a woman on Celebrity Apprentice to get down on her knees (I thought this was a reference to oral sex, but apparently it was a reference to her begging to keep her job), Trump failed to give what I thought was the obvious answer: "We do things on the TV show to play for ratings, to create a character, you can no more attach those statements to me than you can use lines that Reagan might have said in Bedtime for Bonzo." But I was wrong. There is no line between entertainment and political life any more.
As I write this, I'm still waiting for new polls to reveal how the debates have shifted the standings among GOP candidates, but I'm sure Trump has not gone down. In fact, his presence dampened all other candidates. No one dared take a shot at him. That was left to the moderators, and look how they fared. No one could say out loud, this is a contest for leadership of the United States of America, not Celebrity Apprentice.
Coming from the left, this gives me no glee. Trump, either as an independent, a GOP candidate or merely a failed candidate will help the Democrats hold the White House. But the march of style of substance continues.
How many people on the left rely (relied) on Jon Stewart for their news? What a farce! (And I mean this both literally and metaphorically.) Stewart's whole schtick was to take snippets of news stories and make fun of whoever was involved. He presented no in-depth analysis. He gave no new data. He did not provide reportage of issues ignored by mainstream media. He couldn't. He relied on people having at least a little knowledge of the issue. And then he made you laugh. And he made me laugh. But he didn't teach anything new. All he did was entertain us. And people turn off their TV sets at night believing they are knowledgeable about world affairs but without any new knowledge.
Reading the Gettysburg Address, I don't see any place where Lincoln paused for a joke. I don't see humor in Dr. King's I have a Dream speech. But politicians for the last 30 years have had to show their lighter side. Obama is great at self-deprecating jokes. But democracy has become some kind of sitcom. We need our laugh track along with our ballot boxes. And who gets the biggest laugh wins.
And that's the saddest part of all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)