(1) Re: Bringing it (the “Long-Writers” and demographics). Erin, you’ve probably already noticed this but I just wanted to point out that I see it, too: the increasing number of long letters sent to this Facebook page. As I prefer the long form of correspondence, I’m going to speak, somewhat, out-of-hand for all of us. I’ve watched your various shows for about three years now and written letters to you, and articles about you, for about that same timeframe. I’ve never actually told you why I started doing this and that seems an appropriate place to start. After a few months of watching SOTS and SS (and enjoying them), I Googled you to find out something that was on one of your shows. What I found shocked me: every article portrayed you in a negative light and most were absolutely vile in content and characterization. I realize the internet is the bastion of hate speech, and lack of repercussions, but I just could not reconcile these articles to the person I was seeing on the TV. So, having the fair amount of downtime that I have referred to so often, I decided that I would try to put some balance into that equation. A random act of kindness, if you will: it’s just that simple. It’s impossible for me to know how effective this has been but you do seen to have cheered-up since then.
And that was the point.
I’ve noticed people respond more often to criticism than to praise, maybe it’s just that simple, but the vast, vast majority of communication in social media is negative in some fashion and constructive dialogue is almost anecdotal. But I don’t mind sticking-out. Somewhere along the line, whether deserved or not, being a public figure came to mean being victimized, came to mean being treated inhumanly, and it became fashionable to belittle, bully and bash on anyone within reach. It could be just as simple as jealousy…
While there are certainly who engender and deserve such derision (dealt with in the second letter I’m sending today), you seem about as decent and real of a person as is in the media and I hope you can find a way to maintain that as you become more and more successful. As I read through the posts here, it always amazes me that people call you a RINO or a DINO or a Wall Street spokesperson or a left-winger, yada, yada, yada, and they’re all referring to the same segment! Even after watching you compulsively for the last 3 years, I still have no idea what your political leanings are-and you know what, you’re a journalist, it shouldn’t be relevant to your job! I admire the fact you don’t go hide behind a label of any kind, and the security that comes with that, and continue to be yourself, relentlessly.
What I really see as I read through the posts here (Facebook) is how involved your fans are with you. I say that because the letters you’re receiving are increasingly long, articulate, well thought-out pieces that, believe me when I tell you, don’t just pop-out as fast as you can key them. This may be hard for you to hear but, obviously, you inspire.
The reason I mention this, other than taking the opportunity to compliment and support you, is, sooner or later, you’ll be pulled into a “demographics” meeting where they’ll criticize one thing or another, say you’re not “connecting” enough with this or that group and the statistics will come out. I hope you bring some of these letters posted on this page with you. When they look at you and say, “You should…”, you look back at them and say, “I’ll tell you who’s growing-my fans, as people. You read these letters and consider the thought and time it takes to compose them: they’re obviously very involved in my program, it’s meaningful to them and stays with them long after it’s over. I have the fans everyone wants to have: smart, dedicated and involved. My fans bring it. They’re out there talking up my show and CNN. There is nothing in this world more powerful than passionate advocacy and I have that…and they like me just the way I am.”
If that doesn’t work, they don’t deserve you. Or us.
All the Best, TVA.
(2) Re: International Women’s Day (the “Short-Writers” and Misogyny).
When you’re in that “demographics” meeting, Erin, I hope you take a moment to educate on the nature of critique as it exists today. It goes something like this: “You are a(n) (insert insulting, personal remark). I can’t believe CNN has you on the air! I will take my eyes elsewhere if you don’t start agreeing with me!” Unlike most of them, I’ve spelled all the words correctly but, well, I’m sober. You see, that phrase I just used implying drunken Facebooking is an example of an “ad hominem” argument where the thrust of the statement is an attack against the person. This is an example of a logical fallacy, or an non-argument, and is an attempt to avoid the question by changing the subject to the person. When directed against women, the ad hominem is always sexual in nature because women are culturally conditioned to believe that their sexuality is an intimate, private matter and the mere suggestion of impropriety carries a social stigma that is damn near impossible to overcome. The men, and some women, who engage in this behavior know this and use this technique cynically. Now, if you want to start kowtowing to that faction, that’s your business, but, if you do, you better get used to it because you’re going to see a lot more of that critique.
This kind of bullying is not happening in a vacuum: there are plenty of public figures engaged in this type of behavior, in one form or another, plenty of “heroes” and “role models” for the public to emulate. It is the consequence of a democracy, that numbers create “truth”, and the rule of the mob is wisdom. It’s not what you say but how loud, and long, it is said that matters.
And you are allowed to say anything, about anybody, and it’s all lumped into the same pile, sorted without discretion, popped-out on a statistical sheet where it’s treated as fact because, “Numbers don’t lie.” If you’ve ever wondered about the state of the public discourse and the shocking loss of civility in our country, it is this mentality that enables it. When numbers matter more than intelligence the society reverts to the statistical (and literal) mean. Slander and gossip, once referred to, derogatorily, as “yellow” journalism, is now mainstream media but, hey, everybody just plays along to get along. It’s so institutionalized that the majority of Americans can no longer tell gossip from news or slander from fact. This is not lost on those who use their position for their own benefit or to promote their agenda.
Being well established on that slippery slope of slanderous behavior, is it surprising that people who are not public figures are now fair game (Ms. Fluke)? Imus, Maher, and Limbaugh have the one trait in common, misogyny, but that betrays a larger concept of people as objects to be manipulated. It’s not just that they hate women, they hate everyone, but it’s unifying for men to belittle women because we’re, frankly, scared of you.
Several years ago, I wrote an aesthetics article, one of the chapters entitled “Order as a Paranoid Structure” based on a technique used by Salvadore Dali, the “Paranoid Critical”. While Dali’s work appears, at first glance, to be deconstructive and chaotic (in that way, similar to mine), the underlining theory I that all logic structures are inherently artificial and are imposed by humanity to bring order to the confusion of reality. The more rigid and intricate (paranoid) the structure, the more fear is expressed toward the subject. An example of this would be the military where extremely rigid discipline is enforced so that people will behave reliably under the most adverse conditions imaginable. It is the fear of chaos on the battlefield that makes this necessary.
Getting back to the point I’ve strayed from, when you see people acting out in the media, or acting out in general, it betrays a fear or a loss of confidence in the control of the subject. The more I see men trying to control women, the more I see women winning. So cheer-up, continue kicking ass and for God’s sake, don’t backslide.
As for Imus, Maher and Limbaugh, I hope you see now it’s fear that makes them act-out, fear that they won’t be able to control women if they don’t keep you down. It’s the patriarchal structure of society that gives the illusion that they have control in the first place. Looking around at our world, I welcome a more diverse structure.
I realize that all that is just rationalization on behalf of the misogynists out there and, if you wanted to get all Freudian on them, it could just be small penises or ones that don’t function predictably. Perhaps rigidity in social expression belies flaccid personal expression and vice versa. It’s probably something simple like that because, believe me, men aren’t that complicated or evolved. And, surprise, I have a theory about that as well but it’s in such bad taste I won’t post it here. Maybe on my blog…
This is all just my way of reconciling what I saw those years ago when I Googled you, Erin.
Maybe it’s just my personal bias showing but there is almost nothing worth saying that can be properly expressed in 140 characters or one sentence followed by lol. Ignore the short writers: I’m sure they’re used to it. Give them the same consideration they show you. All the Best, TVA.
Ps. March 8 is “International Women’s Day” for the rest of the world but it’s the 3rd anniversary of the Haines Bottom for us, right? Remember, next time you crack open a 40, the first taste is for your homies no longer with us…
And that was the point.
I’ve noticed people respond more often to criticism than to praise, maybe it’s just that simple, but the vast, vast majority of communication in social media is negative in some fashion and constructive dialogue is almost anecdotal. But I don’t mind sticking-out. Somewhere along the line, whether deserved or not, being a public figure came to mean being victimized, came to mean being treated inhumanly, and it became fashionable to belittle, bully and bash on anyone within reach. It could be just as simple as jealousy…
While there are certainly who engender and deserve such derision (dealt with in the second letter I’m sending today), you seem about as decent and real of a person as is in the media and I hope you can find a way to maintain that as you become more and more successful. As I read through the posts here, it always amazes me that people call you a RINO or a DINO or a Wall Street spokesperson or a left-winger, yada, yada, yada, and they’re all referring to the same segment! Even after watching you compulsively for the last 3 years, I still have no idea what your political leanings are-and you know what, you’re a journalist, it shouldn’t be relevant to your job! I admire the fact you don’t go hide behind a label of any kind, and the security that comes with that, and continue to be yourself, relentlessly.
What I really see as I read through the posts here (Facebook) is how involved your fans are with you. I say that because the letters you’re receiving are increasingly long, articulate, well thought-out pieces that, believe me when I tell you, don’t just pop-out as fast as you can key them. This may be hard for you to hear but, obviously, you inspire.
The reason I mention this, other than taking the opportunity to compliment and support you, is, sooner or later, you’ll be pulled into a “demographics” meeting where they’ll criticize one thing or another, say you’re not “connecting” enough with this or that group and the statistics will come out. I hope you bring some of these letters posted on this page with you. When they look at you and say, “You should…”, you look back at them and say, “I’ll tell you who’s growing-my fans, as people. You read these letters and consider the thought and time it takes to compose them: they’re obviously very involved in my program, it’s meaningful to them and stays with them long after it’s over. I have the fans everyone wants to have: smart, dedicated and involved. My fans bring it. They’re out there talking up my show and CNN. There is nothing in this world more powerful than passionate advocacy and I have that…and they like me just the way I am.”
If that doesn’t work, they don’t deserve you. Or us.
All the Best, TVA.
(2) Re: International Women’s Day (the “Short-Writers” and Misogyny).
When you’re in that “demographics” meeting, Erin, I hope you take a moment to educate on the nature of critique as it exists today. It goes something like this: “You are a(n) (insert insulting, personal remark). I can’t believe CNN has you on the air! I will take my eyes elsewhere if you don’t start agreeing with me!” Unlike most of them, I’ve spelled all the words correctly but, well, I’m sober. You see, that phrase I just used implying drunken Facebooking is an example of an “ad hominem” argument where the thrust of the statement is an attack against the person. This is an example of a logical fallacy, or an non-argument, and is an attempt to avoid the question by changing the subject to the person. When directed against women, the ad hominem is always sexual in nature because women are culturally conditioned to believe that their sexuality is an intimate, private matter and the mere suggestion of impropriety carries a social stigma that is damn near impossible to overcome. The men, and some women, who engage in this behavior know this and use this technique cynically. Now, if you want to start kowtowing to that faction, that’s your business, but, if you do, you better get used to it because you’re going to see a lot more of that critique.
This kind of bullying is not happening in a vacuum: there are plenty of public figures engaged in this type of behavior, in one form or another, plenty of “heroes” and “role models” for the public to emulate. It is the consequence of a democracy, that numbers create “truth”, and the rule of the mob is wisdom. It’s not what you say but how loud, and long, it is said that matters.
And you are allowed to say anything, about anybody, and it’s all lumped into the same pile, sorted without discretion, popped-out on a statistical sheet where it’s treated as fact because, “Numbers don’t lie.” If you’ve ever wondered about the state of the public discourse and the shocking loss of civility in our country, it is this mentality that enables it. When numbers matter more than intelligence the society reverts to the statistical (and literal) mean. Slander and gossip, once referred to, derogatorily, as “yellow” journalism, is now mainstream media but, hey, everybody just plays along to get along. It’s so institutionalized that the majority of Americans can no longer tell gossip from news or slander from fact. This is not lost on those who use their position for their own benefit or to promote their agenda.
Being well established on that slippery slope of slanderous behavior, is it surprising that people who are not public figures are now fair game (Ms. Fluke)? Imus, Maher, and Limbaugh have the one trait in common, misogyny, but that betrays a larger concept of people as objects to be manipulated. It’s not just that they hate women, they hate everyone, but it’s unifying for men to belittle women because we’re, frankly, scared of you.
Several years ago, I wrote an aesthetics article, one of the chapters entitled “Order as a Paranoid Structure” based on a technique used by Salvadore Dali, the “Paranoid Critical”. While Dali’s work appears, at first glance, to be deconstructive and chaotic (in that way, similar to mine), the underlining theory I that all logic structures are inherently artificial and are imposed by humanity to bring order to the confusion of reality. The more rigid and intricate (paranoid) the structure, the more fear is expressed toward the subject. An example of this would be the military where extremely rigid discipline is enforced so that people will behave reliably under the most adverse conditions imaginable. It is the fear of chaos on the battlefield that makes this necessary.
Getting back to the point I’ve strayed from, when you see people acting out in the media, or acting out in general, it betrays a fear or a loss of confidence in the control of the subject. The more I see men trying to control women, the more I see women winning. So cheer-up, continue kicking ass and for God’s sake, don’t backslide.
As for Imus, Maher and Limbaugh, I hope you see now it’s fear that makes them act-out, fear that they won’t be able to control women if they don’t keep you down. It’s the patriarchal structure of society that gives the illusion that they have control in the first place. Looking around at our world, I welcome a more diverse structure.
I realize that all that is just rationalization on behalf of the misogynists out there and, if you wanted to get all Freudian on them, it could just be small penises or ones that don’t function predictably. Perhaps rigidity in social expression belies flaccid personal expression and vice versa. It’s probably something simple like that because, believe me, men aren’t that complicated or evolved. And, surprise, I have a theory about that as well but it’s in such bad taste I won’t post it here. Maybe on my blog…
This is all just my way of reconciling what I saw those years ago when I Googled you, Erin.
Maybe it’s just my personal bias showing but there is almost nothing worth saying that can be properly expressed in 140 characters or one sentence followed by lol. Ignore the short writers: I’m sure they’re used to it. Give them the same consideration they show you. All the Best, TVA.
Ps. March 8 is “International Women’s Day” for the rest of the world but it’s the 3rd anniversary of the Haines Bottom for us, right? Remember, next time you crack open a 40, the first taste is for your homies no longer with us…
(3) Re: Another Example of the Chaos at the Base of the System (a recap of CNN’s primary coverage 3/13/12). (A) Hillary Rosen (sorry if I misspelled your name). It seems the Democrats on the panel got in the best lines of the night. When HR remarked that Mitt needed to get rid of “those” jeans, I have to admit I yelled, unconsciously, back at the screen, “Hell yeah, he does!”: but it’s not just Mitt and not just the jeans. Lookee here now, there are rules surrounding proper jean usage: (1) You must pick out your own jeans. You can not delegate it to a subordinate or, God forbid, your spouse. You must take a few precious moments from your life and try on several styles until you find a pair that makes you look sexy, that’s right, SEXY. That’s what jeans are all about, sex. I don’t want you to get the idea that I spend a lot of time looking at guys but, correct me if I’m wrong, I can’t think of a beefcake photo where the guy isn’t shirtless wearing, what, suit pants? No, jeans. What’s James Dean wearing? Jeans. What’s Jim Morrison wearing? Jeans. I think you get the picture. Jeans are the male uniform for sex which is why they have NO PLACE in the political process. None of them should be wearing jeans for that reason alone-not to mention they just shouldn’t be wearing jeans, period. (2) You can’t wear boxer shorts with jeans, ever, ever, ever. Ever. You may as well wear grandma’s pantaloons but, you know what, not even Grandma wears pantaloons, anymore. Either wear boxer briefs or rock out with your…(if you don’t know how that expression ends, you shouldn’t be wearing jeans). (3) You can’t wear a button down shirt with jeans. I can, you can’t. (4) Jeans can not be worn with dress shoes. Jeans can not be worn with a dress belt. JEANS CAN NOT BE WORN WITH WHITE SOCKS: Sweet baby Jesus, I can’t believe I have to tell you this Mitt, but it’s not 1960 and this isn’t a sock-hop. (5) Take off your watch. The ladies don’t want to think you’re a slave to your schedule. You’ve got all the time they require, right? (6) You must give the same attention to the selection of your jeans as you would to the selection of a suit for the day. The same for shirt and accessories. (7) Jeans can not be the only part of the male uniform worn unless they are the only part of the uniform worn (see 1, above). (8) Know the difference between Levi’s and Wrangler’s, know which one is correct for you: no other brands are suitable for the general public. No A&F or other high priced jeans and, do I even have to tell you, no department store jeans? You got that by now, right? (9) If you roll up your jeans, you better be ankle deep in horsecrap (which we all know is much deeper than that every 4 years). (10) And most importantly, jeans are the male version of the little black dress and a similar commitment is required to pull either off successfully. If you’re not willing to commit, for God’s sake, don’t try to fake it (you don’t want to be that guy). With proper commitment, there is no age limit to jeans (I’m 52 in the picture above, about a year ago) and is there any question that, of the five candidates remaining, Ron Paul would look the best in jeans? Remember, the rules exist for a reason and, without rules, there’s chaos. You guys are making me miss Dockers-and that is INEXCUSABLE! (B) Mitt’s Tummy Trouble. As you correctly perceived, Erin, there is something unseemly about a full-grown man referring to his rock-hard, washboard, ripped, cut, shredded, etc, abs as a tummy. It’s just such an infantilizing term to be used on adult-especially in reference to himself. As troubling as that is, the larger concern for the electorate is the question he was asked was a form of the “3am phone call “ question, “What keeps you up at night?” Iran? Afghanistan? China? National Debt? Mayan Calendar? Rick Santorum? President Obama? Ann Romney? The Liberal Media? The fracturing of the Republican electorate? Rience Preibus? (my spell-check just exploded) Obamneycare? American competitiveness? Healthcare costs? Viagra? The Norquist Pledge? European sovereign debt issues? The collapse of the EU? Israel? Pakistan? Sharks off the East Coast? Somali pirates? Loose nukes? Camels? What about the camels, the poor baby camels with their long eyelashes? Anything? Anything keeping you up? Nope, just give him his Honey-nut Cheerios and he’s all good. He could have at least looked into the camera, winked and said, “Honey-nut Cheerios, if you know what I’m saying…’Sup?” Even lechery plays better with me-though I may not be typical. © It’s Wednesday; is that Paul Begala I see? Given the epic hump-busting I gave PB a few weeks ago, I’m almost ashamed to start in on him again-but I seem to have lost the capacity for shame some time ago. In reference to Mississippi, he stated the majority of Republican voters believed that Obama was a Muslim, making them either “ignorant or bigots!” It’s really a false choice, Paul: the beauty of being a Mississippi Republican is you can be either, or both. It’s the GOP’s version of the “Big Tent”. Let me see here, did I insult just about everyone? Yup, I’m all good…sweet dreams tonight! All the Best, TVA. Ps. Loved the double-dose of Outfront! Hope that continues through the rest of the primaries… Pps. Avalon’s “No Labels”: Let me offer my modification of the “No play, no pay” concept. Bills should be assigned a number of hours to complete, say 100 in the case of a budget (based on a 40 hour week, 2.5 weeks pay): this avoids the disincentive of a straight hourly pay rate, i.e., working just hard enough to keep your job, and actually rewards ability. Might also want to consider a “sweetner”, say letting Congresspeople keep a wee percentage of whatever waste the carve from the budget but that does raise the question of defining waste. The Dems will say close tax loopholes, the GOP will say cut entitlements but the sweetner does mitigate lobbying. I’ll tell you why I like the “No Labels” concept: when you look at the Debt Ceiling debacle of Aug 2011, the resolution to the issue lay in the center of the two parties, the rational center, that actually saw the necessity of the situation and felt the impending doom which neither extreme acknowledged. Only when Boehner abandoned the Tea Party wing and moved to the CENTER for support did the deal get done, flawed though it was. It was a first effort so perhaps that can be forgiven. The problem is in the leaders in the House and Senate, Boehner and Reid, that have no fire and will readily stay, warm and cozy, in their coalition instead of doing the business of the country. The most depressing thing I’ve seen in recent years in Washington (and it is quite a long list at this point) was 5 days after the debt ceiling mess, Boehner shows up at a press conference with his arm around Cantor, talking about what a great guy he is. Cantor is obviously after his job and was the protagonist of the Tea Party. Apparently, I have a longer attention span than John Boehner. It’s time to call the Tea Party what it is: an anarchist movement that doesn’t believe in the federal government, a bunch of belly-aching white guys who don’t like, well, anything really, a motley collection of disenfranchised malcontents who only agree to disagree: reactionaries who don’t even have will to camp-out like MY group. Of course, I’m referring to the Boy and Girl Scouts and their broad-based homosexual agendas. What the hell is going on in this country… tribal warfare, chaos. Late Pppps. Field Shrinkage. As it appears Ron Paul is not long for this election cycle, one must stand in awe of his continued plunges into the icy waters of the American electorate. Dangling before the fevered masses the tantalizing allure of libertarianism he embodies, every four years the chill of divided nation sends his principles retreating like a frightened turtle, knowing as he does, in his wisdom, they will return, they will descend and he will rise again. He is not unlike the mighty polar bear in this regard, who, despite the continuing destruction of his habitat, endures, struggles, fights to find his place on this gigantic blue ball we call Earth. Still the hope lingers that Romney will warm to Ron Paul’s concerns, nurture them, and though they may at first be difficult to grasp, Mitt will, in time, come to a fuller embrace of them. Let me leave you with that beautiful image: I have my book to work on, so I may not post for a time, but I’ll be watching “Outfront” everyday. Btw, when I’m working on my book, my internal monologue goes something like this, “… this young, Cinderella-boy, from out of nowhere…”
