|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 3, 2017 20:34:09 GMT -5
Yep. Pretty much. I never will side with the Trumps on anything. I do not align myself with my enemies OR their spouses. I do not side with a White supremacist OR his spouse and if that's "irrelevant" to you that's okay too. And what's your stance on learning to read? Seems like a fair question, given your reply here and the topic of the thread. Here's a fair answer. I'm all for learning how to read. Put me down in favor of it. That does come with a caveat. Dr. Seuss probably is not all that helpful in reading unless the intention is display fluency when the convo turns to s chloppity-schlopp, rink-rinker-fink, sneetches or floob-boober-bab-boober-bubs.
Why you askin', michaelw? You couldn't possibly be that intrigued of how much of an absolutist I am when you're clearly irked on the one I have regarding All Things Trump. My stance hasn't changed from the initial one: The librarian was right and the First Trophy Wife was wrong. Kinda cheap, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 20:40:37 GMT -5
I learned to read with Dr. Seuss. They were my first books, and you couldn't tear them out of my hands.
I tested at a college reading level in third grade.
I also credit them with instilling a love of rhyme that led to my love of poetry in all forms.
ETA:
IMO, the first step to becoming a good reader is learning to love reading instead of thinking it a chore. The music, rhyme, and inspired silliness in Dr. Seuss delighted me as a very tiny child. I couldn't wait to read them on my own, which is, I think, why I started reading extremely early (it was the only way to keep up with my appetite for books) and thereafter devoured everything in sight.
You might note that President Obama counts them among his early inspirations as well. So do a lot of people. Which is why they are classics, and why school librarians still throw Cat in the Hat parties.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 3, 2017 21:21:38 GMT -5
Probably because pseudo "liberals" who sound like conservatives expend so much time bitching about what Democrats are doing instead of doing anything themselves. Yes, because people on the far left attacking everyone (including those in their own party) who doesn't 100% agree with them on every virtue-signalling issue they can think of that week and Tweet-whining on the internet about being part of a "resistance" (as if they're part of some Star Wars movie or V for Vendetta) has really been effective at winning over "hearts and minds" to the Democratic Party, hasn't it? This is a type of tactic I've seen repeatedly used by many on the far left. "I know what'll win people over to our side! We'll just call them a bunch of names, over and over again, without ever addressing their actual argument or criticisms! That'll definitely convince those people that they're wrong and we're right! Viva la resistance!" This kind of warped "you're either with us or against us" mindset is a large reason why the Democratic Party is in its worst shape since before the Great Depression. And it seems to only be getting worse. But, when the winds change and rational liberals start calling out the hypocrisy and negativity of the extremists in their midst, I suppose it's a comforting defense mechanism to wrap oneself in the warm blanket of the No True Scotsman fallacy. I've seen it done in many places on the internet and news media. I've even seen that tactic here: I'm a "pseudo-liberal" because I call out extremism in my own party and try to make intelligent, fair, rational arguments and weigh evidence before making up my mind. I'm somehow "not a psychologist" and "not in the field" (even though I'm a voting member of 4 divisions of the APA) because I criticized other psychologists (clinical and non-clinical) for violating the professional ethics we all agree to when we become members of the APA. Why? "Because Trump." Personally, I feel that voting is a lot more effective than petulantly Tweeting, posting, and shouting down public speakers. Except that one involves getting off one's ass and the other mostly involves sitting on it and many on the left apparently can't be bothered to do the former possibly because they've wasted all of their energy doing the latter. If the left doesn't cut out the cancer of the Regressives, it will ruin itself as a party and a movement for decades to come (if it hasn't already). I guess only time will tell if rational, intelligent arguments and true compassion for others will eventually win out of angry tweets, hollow hashtags, and name-calling, ranting internet posts. WHOOMP! THERE IT IS! I had to plow through all the usual "Liberals are in lousy shape because they don't take MY advice" tripe to get to the meat and the potatoes and like a brook trout you rose to the challenge. You got your "Regressives" rap in! Way to go, Opty! You could almost set your watch on how soon that weary little cliche made its way into the discussion. We've wandered deep into the weeds with you flaunting your resume of how fair and balanced you are in calling out "extremism in your own party" but let's go a little deeper. Your "calling out of extremism" seems confined to ONLY calling out extremism by Democrats, liberals and The Left and rarely the Right except to reflexively join the Dump On Trump campaign whenever he says or does something incredibly imbecilic (like anytime he's awake). Maybe that's your game plan to call out Pink Pussyhats, Black Lives Matter, the anti-fascists, and no-name librarians and obviously it works for you, but if you haven't noticed, nobody seems to be changing their modus operandi to get you to come on board. It's slightly amazing how an obscure story with zero importance in a time of mass shootings which will be met with moments of silence and no action by the Republicans who run everything in Washington, but let one librarian in Massachusetts rebuff Melania Trump and suddenly that's the ONLY story that matters here. It's like Debate Crack. No good for you, but man, what a rush! Well, here's the long and short of it, Opty. You're every bit as angry as the Regressives you deplore are and strangely for some of the same reason a lot of them are. They aren't being listened to, responded to, or finding their concerns taken seriously by the Party of Chuck and Nancy, two losers whose greatest talent is raising money for weak-kneed, corporate, bought-and-paid for Democrats with bar codes tattooed to their asses. The Democratic Party is in the worst shape they've been since the Great Depression for many reasons, but it's not for your silly, shallow and superficial reasons which are based more upon your own animosity towards the less well-behaved wings of the party. The Democratic Party is in trouble because they don't stand for anything. They don't stand for the Dreamers, they don't stand for the environment, they don't stand for a woman's right to choose, they don't stand for Labor, they don't stand for the poor, they don't stand for anything except the corporations, special interests or the wealthy fat cats that pay for their million dollar campaigns. That's why I consider the Democratic Party nothing more than a necessary evil. I see Chuck and Nancy cheesing with Trump and I want to projectile vomit. Trump should be opposed, not flattered and coddled. I sure don't recall Mitch and Paul skinning and grinning with Obama. Do you? Liz Phipps Soeiro is a fucking hero. The way Colin Kaepernick is a hero. The way April Ryan is a hero and Michael Bloomberg is a hero and Khizr Khan is a hero and every artist who refused to do the inauguration and every conservative who puts country over party is a fucking hero when they take a firm, meaningful stance against Trump. Which is the big difference between someone like John McCain who walks the walk as a one-week-media sensation-like Jeff Flake merely talks the talk. Soeiro puts the "resist" in the Resistance and that's something to be admired, not chided because she didn't seize her moment in a way that wasn't sufficiently deferential to a position of honor occupied by someone who isn't all that honorable. Or is this where you tell me what a misogynist I am for snarking at Melania Trump and casting doubt upon the Art of the Deal between her and this old man 24 years her senior who treats her like a possession he acquired instead of a woman he loves? Even in their tenser and less spontaneous moments, I can't recall Barack and Michelle being as openly disdainful of each other in the Melania and The Dotard are. Well, whatever. You view Ms. Soeiro as a rude woman who embodies all you loathe and despise about the Left in the wake of Hillary Clinton being shut down by Trump last November. I see her as the personification of what small acts of defiance and what speaking truth to power truly looks like. It's the small, but mighty little acts of insurrection, resistance and refusing to normalize Trump which are going to move the needle away from the dangerous direction Trump's ignorance and amateurish response to any crisis or challenge is dragging the U.S. to. You can do what's right and you will be ripped apart, dogged out, misunderstood, slandered and generally catch ten different kinds of hell for it OR you can do what's already been done before and get the same results, but at least it has been sanctioned as a polite and respectable response. It won't get you anywhere, but as least you won't torn to shreds in places like this for exercising your rights as an American citizen to tell the people in power just how full of it they are. If Dr. King were doing today, on social media they'd be screaming at this preacher for blocking the damn streets with his marching. Times change. But they don't always change that much. Some people feel they are the best qualified to tell other people how they should stand up for the things which matter most to them.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 3, 2017 21:34:59 GMT -5
I learned to read with Dr. Seuss. They were my first books, and you couldn't tear them out of my hands. I tested at a college reading level in third grade. I also credit them with instilling a love of rhyme that led to my love of poetry in all forms. ETA: IMO, the first step to becoming a good reader is learning to love reading instead of thinking it a chore. The music, rhyme, and inspired silliness in Dr. Seuss delighted me as a very tiny child. I couldn't wait to read them on my own, which is, I think, why I started reading extremely early (it was the only way to keep up with my appetite for books) and thereafter devoured everything in sight. You might note that President Obama counts them among his early inspirations as well. So do a lot of people. Which is why they are classics, and why school librarians still throw Cat in the Hat parties. I got the same thing out of Sherlock Holmes and Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four. What I note is when I went looking for what books President Obama counts as inspiring him, I didn't find Dr. Seuss. What I did find was Maurice Sendak's Where The Wild Things Are.
I also found Obama dug Toni Morrison 's Song of Solomon, The Power and the Glory and The Quiet American by Graham Greene, and Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson among his choices. Dr. Seuss? Not there. Got a link for it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 21:44:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 21:48:15 GMT -5
I myself discussed Dr. Seuss as one of my earliest influences at some length when named poet laureate of another website. It's in a May 27, 2016 Q&A still available on the poetry forum of that website (where I also posted as CassandraW.)
I mention it just in case you think I'm embroidering on my opinion of Seuss's influence on me for purposes of this thread. I'm not. I really do think he had that much influence on my early development as a reader and poet.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 3, 2017 21:57:54 GMT -5
I have no idea why my post warrants a follow-up defense of Cass's efforts. Kudos to Cass for those efforts, sincerely. As far as 10 books vs. 500 books, my point in regard to Melania stands. Donating 500, or 5,000, or 50,000 books doesn't mitigate the damage that Trump, the GOP, et al are doing to education. JMO. Okay, I get your point - the impact of the FLOTUS donating some books is less than the impact of signaling resistance by refusing her gift. I think you're wrong, but contrary to NT's point (and while I still disagree with a lot of it, it was well articulated, so honestly, thank you for that) I never objected to being "impolite" to the First Lady. I just think it's useless and counterproductive to extend your protest to "We won't even let her donate children's books to a library without making an issue of it." To the extent that you (general you) might succeed in hurting Melania's feelings (and I'll bet unlike the POTUS, Melania actually does have feelings to hurt), it won't change anything except force the First Lady to be less public and less likely to take on causes. It certainly won't change Trump's policies. So it strikes me as a feel-good bit of spite - you can't hurt Donald but maybe you can inflict some sting on his wife. I sure hope you felt the same way when the long knives came out for Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton when they were on the receiving end of the hurt. I don't see how anyone loses out on anything should Melania choose to be less public than she already is or declines to take on causes more controversial than bullying. She doesn't seem to enjoy any of this First Lady stuff. Where is this reticence coming from that if the Resistance to Trump is too loud, too aggressive, too in your face, the only logical consequence is war? What kind of war? A Culture war? A Cold war? A Class war? A Civil War? A Race war? Some specifics, not vague doom-and-gloom generalities would be very helpful here. Because quiet as its kept, there are worse things than war. Capitulation to totalitarianism is worse. Collaboration with evil people doing evil things is worse. It didn't work for Neville Chamberlain and it won't work for anyone saying, "Give Trump a chance. He'll grow into the job." Cowardice is worse when walls are being built and families are being broken apart and American citizens are told not to complain because their commander-in-chief says "they want everything done for them" and they're being "nasty" to him and they blow it off when he says "there's good people on both side" and the other side includes Klansmen, Nazis and White supremacists. If we're on a road to war, then I don't want to be the side armed only with rhetoric and platitudes about civility, good will and seeing the other guy's side. If they have a gun, I want a machine gun. If they have a tank, I want a bomber. If they have napalm, I want nukes. I don't want a war. Not with North Korea, Iran or Russia, but I'm going to bet the under Dotard Trump gets this country into a war, the hot and bloody kind, just like he's getting America deeper into the eternal war in Afghanistan. Nobody should ever WANT a war, but I agree with John Stuart Mill, " War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." Just to add the coda here, as previously mentioned Trump is the enemy and I have no intention of backing down and refusing to face the enemy because someone says I'm not being very nice in how I do it.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 3, 2017 22:23:29 GMT -5
I myself discussed Dr. Seuss as one of my earliest influences at some length when named poet laureate of another website. It's in a May 27, 2016 Q&A still available on the poetry forum of that website (where I also posted as CassandraW.) I mention it just in case you think I'm embroidering on my opinion of Seuss's influence on me for purposes of this thread. I'm not. I really do think he had that much influence on my early development as a reader and poet. Thanks for the link (and I did read it just as I copped to having read Dr. Seuss myself. Hell, I still watch How the Grinch Stole Christmas), but neither yours, mine or Obama's endorsement of Dr. Seuss as a childhood influence washes away the stain of the horribly racist cartoons he did under the same pseudonym. This is not about Seuss/Geisel creating some of the most charming, funny, witty and significant children's books of all time. That's not even in dispute. Nor does is it really about whether school librarians like Soeiro should hold the opinion Seuss is played out and a bit of a bigot, because clearly she is entitled to that opinion. As I see it the issue is whether Soeiro is able to not only hold the opinion and act on it by refusing an unneeded and unwanted gift from Melania Trump. I say she is. Others such as yourself, say she isn't. I say we're one really bad day away from this all being exposed as being as unimportant, insignificant and no justification at all for all this vitriol and bad feelings. We can multi-task and pay attention to The Dotard's disgraceful trip to Puerto Rico, race-baiting Black NFL players, getting in a trash talk session with the nut in North Korea or the latest rampage slaying that galvanizes the news cycles in a way the little murders by gun that happen every day across America barely make a blip on local news. But this story means nothing. It has no historical significance and nobody's gonna write a best-seller about it. It's just a blip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 22:24:02 GMT -5
My own "reticence" arises from a strongly-held belief that hypocrisy, bad arguments, pretentiousness, and falsehood do not serve any cause well.
This librarian did not "speak truth to power." Her Cat in the Hat costume proves that even she didn't believe what she said in her letter. The truth, which she didn't put in her letter, was simply that she wanted to embarrass and snub Melania. If she'd said that, she'd at least have spoken "truth". As it is, I can't even give her credit for that.
And Melania isn't even "power". She's a non-official person with no prior experience as a political spouse trying to muddle through a public role she didn't want and doesn't know quite what to do with but is stuck with.
ETA:
Speaking truth to power is telling Trump he's unfit for office, and why.
And I'm good with that -- have done it myself. But I think my letters and calls to Congress critters and my helping dreamers with their documents is more useful and productive.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 3, 2017 22:37:02 GMT -5
My own "reticence" arises from a strongly-held belief that hypocrisy, bad arguments, pretentiousness, and falsehood do not serve any cause well. This librarian did not "speak truth to power." Her Cat in the Hat costume proves that even she didn't believe what she said in her letter. The truth, which she didn't put in her letter, was simply that she wanted to embarrass and snub Melania. If she'd said that, she'd at least have spoken "truth". As it is, I can't even give her credit for that. And Melania isn't even "power". She's a non-official person with no prior experience as a political spouse trying to muddle through a public role she didn't want and doesn't know quite what to do with but is stuck with. First line and paragraph: That's your opinion. It's the same as it was on Page One except even more entrenched. Same as mine. She did speak truth to power and a hard, harsh truth no less. You see her letter as an attempt to embarrass and snub Melania. I see it as a missed opportunity by Melania and those who proclaim to be on her team to enter a honest dialogue about what books best enrich children and how to educate America's kids. It's easier to wag the finger than consider the other perspective. Third line: Melania IS in power. Unofficial and unelected power, perhaps, but The First Lady of the United States is a position of power IF she chooses to exercise and explore the possibilities it presents. Eleanor Roosevelt made certain of that. This poor Melania narrative holds no weight. Melanai isn't stuck with anything. If she finds the role she is playing ( and not playing well) one so intolerable she can't bear it, there's doors all around the White House. Pick one and walk out of it. Or ask the REAL First Lady if she has any power and let me know what Ivanka's response is. For you it's more useful and productive. Letters to Congresscritters they don't read and respond to with a form and calls to their officers answered by staffers who don't pass your message on may feel useful and productive, but it doesn't mean it actually works beyond working for you. Congresscritters respond to money being withheld from them and given to their opponents and the calls they take are from the ones who write the big checks to get them elected and keep them that way. That's not to say it's useless and counter-productive, but unless there's some strong consequences to go along with the strongly-worded letter, what's the end game? You can't cry thunder and withhold the lightning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 22:57:42 GMT -5
She's got an 11 year old boy who is stuck in that fishbowl whether she is there or not. Even if she wants out of the role and her marriage, I can see why she'd stick it out for him.
And actually, I think Melania is trying to make something of it, since she's stuck, and I think she meant well here. She picked kids, a pretty typical First Lady type thing, because she loves her son and so that felt right to her. And yeah, she could do better than she's doing -- picking some struggling schools to help is actually a good idea. Hey, she could both do her "recognize great schools in each state" thing AND help struggling schools -- indeed, that would be a fine plan. Alas, no one in that clown car administration has the experience and savoir faire to advise her.
She should consult someone, or a couple someones, but neither of them is Ivanka. You know who she should talk to? Michelle Obama and Laura Bush. I guarantee you they would not snub her, that both of them would graciously take her in hand and give her pointers and support, if they were asked, and both could give her some good ones. No shame in that -- I've heard interviews of the First Families where they talk about reaching out to past First Families for a word of advice.
I keep thinking of Michelle and Barack putting supportive hands on Melania's back and walking by her side into the White House after Trump strode in ahead...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 0:03:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 4, 2017 10:25:13 GMT -5
I sure hope you felt the same way when the long knives came out for Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton when they were on the receiving end of the hurt. I don't see how anyone loses out on anything should Melania choose to be less public than she already is or declines to take on causes more controversial than bullying. She doesn't seem to enjoy any of this First Lady stuff. Yes, I did. I always thought the personal attacks on Hillary and Michelle were shitty, and I said so. I never objected to being "too loud, too aggressive." I am talking about a literal civil war with people literally killing each other. Which is what you seem to be preparing for, if all your belligerent rhetoric is not just hyperbole.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 4, 2017 10:33:03 GMT -5
For you it's more useful and productive. Letters to Congresscritters they don't read and respond to with a form and calls to their officers answered by staffers who don't pass your message on may feel useful and productive, but it doesn't mean it actually works beyond working for you. Congresscritters respond to money being withheld from them and given to their opponents and the calls they take are from the ones who write the big checks to get them elected and keep them that way. That's not to say it's useless and counter-productive, but unless there's some strong consequences to go along with the strongly-worded letter, what's the end game? You can't cry thunder and withhold the lightning. What do you want, then? Seriously. It seems nothing anyone else does is good enough for you. Are we all supposed to be out in the streets breaking things? Or calling Melania a slut on message boards? What is your end game?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 10:50:52 GMT -5
I submit that my work, e.g., helping the Dreamers get their paperwork filed so they can stay in the country, is objectively and obviously far more productive and useful than sending snotty letters to Melania. Some actual physical real live people will get to stay in the country because I helped them. You think a letter to Melania dissing Dr. Seuss from a librarian in a Cat in the Hat costume does just as much good? Explain how, exactly.
One need not be a lawyer to work on similar productive projects -- I'm looking into helping get the word out about ACA enrollment, for example. The Trump administration is doing its best to torpedo the ACA by limiting the time of enrollment and not getting out the instructions on how to do it. Never mind that this will hurt individuals who need health insurance, and never mind that there isn't a Republican replacement in the wings. Anyone could do volunteer work on that.
And taking aside active volunteer efforts to help those potentially hurt by Trump administration policies, damn straight that putting the pressure on Congress critters is more productive than a librarian rejecting Dr. Seuss books, screaming "I RESIST!", or slut-shaming Melania. As the Tea Party showed us, Congress critters are moved by their constituents' demands. That can make a difference with regard to how they vote.
|
|