Once again I am left virtually speechless but the sheer blind rage in this election. The moral leaders of the Church in the Valley in Leakey, Texas felt that it was appropriate to post this sign reading: “Vote for the Mormon, not the Muslim! The capitalist, not the communist!” Putting aside the violation of its tax-exempt status, church leaders thought nothing of the lesson given their children in making such false and prejudicial statements. It shows the dangerously thin line that separates the faithful from the hateful in our society.
Of course, in addition to repeating the false statement about President Obama’s religion, the sign adds the common and equally ridiculous mantra about his being a communist. A term that, when pressed, seems beyond definition for some of these protesters.
The Church in the Valley headed by Pastor Ray Miller (who came up with the idea of the sign) sees nothing wrong is defining people primarily by their alleged faith — whether it is falsely Obama as a Muslim or Romney as a Mormon.
Equally disgusting is the response of a least one local businessman who insist that the controversy will be good for business. Damon White is quoted as saying “I love it. Even if it’s bad attention, bring it on. Come to town, see what it’s about.” Well, Mr. White, we certainly now know what you are about. It does not matter if it is unfair, prejudicial, and disrespectful, it is good for business. Now there is a lesson for the children of Leakey, Texas.
Notably, on its website, the Church proclaims “We believe our faith should be visible in concrete forms and models of personal and social behavior.” That model appears to include insulting and prejudicial statements about people with whom you disagree as well as use of false claims to achieve your political ends. I don’t recall the passage where Jesus Christ led the smear campaign against Pontius Pilatus. Indeed, I seem to recall something out “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Perhaps but it does not sum up Paster Miller or the good people of the Church of the Valley.
Source: KENS as first seen on Reddit.
Subject: Derivatives Explained
Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit . She realizes that virtually all
of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer
afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with a new
marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.
Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the
customers’ loans). Word gets around about Heidi’s “drink now, pay later”
marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood
into Heidi’s bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in
Detroit .
By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi
gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases
her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently,
Heidi’s gross sales volume increases massively.
A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these
customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s
borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the
debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.
At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make
huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS,
ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on
international security markets.
Naive investors don’t really understand that the securities being sold to
them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics.
Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon
become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation’s leading brokerage
houses.
One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at
the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on
the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi’s bar. He so informs Heidi.
Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed
alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since Heidi cannot
fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes
and the eleven employees lose their jobs.
Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The
collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from
issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the
community .The suppliers of Heidi’s bar had granted her generous payment
extensions and had invested their firms’ pension funds in the various BOND
securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad
debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine
supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that
had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a
competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective
executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings
attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government.
The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on
employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi’s bar.
Maybe you should get a clue I don’t think you know what you are talking about. On about any given subject. So more of your nattering isn’t going to help that fact. I also don’t care where or when you picked up that bad habit of political correctness. That you have it and wear your hypersensitivity to non-issues (and the use of “Eskimo” is entirely irrelevant to the argument which contained the word) on your sleeve is pretty apparent, Ms. More PC Than Thou. Your entire “argument” such as it is is simply one large red herring in the end. I might add that I don’t respect authoritarian drivel like PC speech no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from. You have just about as much luck coming at me from the rightwing extreme and be telling me what you think God says I should and shouldn’t vis a vis word choice as if that’s relevant. Which is to say none and not at all. PC language is just as childish and irrational and it plays in to empowering the very words you twits get all in atwitter about. Unless you’re actually an Eskimo and you can tell me in specifics why the term is offensive for some reason other than it is imprecise? I simply don’t care what you think, Ariel.
Also . . . “those who argue most vehemently that they are right are often the most wrong.”
Spoken like someone who mistakes an emotional state for an argument and given your lil’ display above, I’m guessing you do that quite frequently.
Thank you again for another totally meaningless and semi-lucid defense. Emphasis on the “semi”. You have a nice day being upset about very little if anything of substance, ya hear?
Maybe you should have gotten a hint by the Nova Scotian and Canadian First Nation response to Eskimo. What part of no Alaskan tribe uses Eskimo, because it isn’t their term for themselves and has never been, don’t you understand?
“It is not a prime facie insult equivalent of the pejorative “nigger” or “retard” or “kike” or “cracker”. It is if you are an Inuit (look to the first paragraph). Next, ever met a Jew that said “yep, Kike was our term for us but your kept using it so it’s OK”? You had just as well use wop or Dago (the latter interesting because it was used for both Spanish and Italian, though it’s derived from Diego’) and so those terms are wrong because you accept them as so, but refuse to except when others say so, especially for the last 3-4 decades? I realize I’m in a conservative moment, but don’t be so behind.
“Scots-Irish English Blackfoot”, imprecisely you’re Mann, Welsh, and Modoc? I”m German (permutations included Jew), French-Basque, English, Scot-Irish, and Cherokee, as well a culture overlay of Italian. So imprecisely you could call me whatever, but from the list, I’m white (the Cherokee being sufficient that all I have to prove is a census). How is imprecision an argument for ignoring a name for a group that is precisely something? Especially when they prefer it? I did get your point, but it just makes you a scofoot, or an engblack, and me a gerkee.
This “nothing in your rather babbling explanation” is something you might consider for your own writing. Pot kettle issues, same reason you shouldn’t be a fallacy nazi.
“Apparently you’ve never been to the Northeast if you think that term is whites describing whites. Eskimo is a collective term used to describe several of the indigenous peoples of a common region just like Northeasterner.” Yet I was talking about Alaska and its tribes, was I mistaken and it’s actually close to Nova Scotia? Didn’t write it wasn’t a collective term, that’s that linguistic and taxonomy thingie, just that the people themselves don’t like it. Are you so stuck? I’m a Southwesterner, hate being called “Yank”, and I do understand the British ignorance, as well prejudice, but it doesn’t make the ignorance correct simply because “Yank” is a collective term they use.
“The concept of political correctness is not only ridiculous left-wing authoritarianism and an inherently stupid concept no matter its good intentions, it’s an anathema to free speech.” Oh, I agree, in part, and in fact I like Sidney Hook’s coinage of “epithets of abuse”. Had I called you a racist because you can’t understand how Eskimo is not acceptable, I would certainly be guilty of trying to shut down free speech by labeling you racist (look the term up, essentially it means “You are not worth hearing because everything you say is just not worth listening to because everything you say is racist or trying to justify that you’re not a racist, but you are because I said you were, and everything you say proves it, especially if you have some friends that are (fill in the blank) because racists make exceptions but are still racist, so you’re racist, because I said so because you disagree with me on something that only racists disagree on because I know that only racists could disagree with me”.
However, lacking that, cloaking yourself in the “anathema to free speech” is not worthy. Free speech is all about disagreement and why. That’s what we are doing. I’m saying you’re wrong about Eskimo, and you are, and you are giving me arguments back, however poor. That’s free speech. You can use Eskimo all day long, you’re wrong if you apply it to Alaskan tribes, or Canadian/Nova Scotian, but maybe in the Northeast you’re OK?
As for this: “and nothing in your rather babbling explanation indicates that it is one other than you’d like to conflate it to be so in a fit of political correctness.” Babbling is pot/kettle by your response (using the white but I’m “xyz” argument gives babbling a positive meaning). You conflated, I was specific to one region and one group of tribes. As for a fit of political correctness, you mean the one I got over 35 years ago in the USCG? That was my whole basis against your usage of Eskimo. So over 35 years ago is a fit of political correctness?
I’ll give you two quotes: SI Hayakawa “the word is not the thing” which is why some “things” say they don’t won’t to be called that word. The last must be paraphrased and unattributed (I can’t find my 30 page word doc of quotes) but it goes like this: “those who argue most vehemently that they are right are often the most wrong.” It has to do with the extreme that vehemence will take you. And you do have a tendency to be less than moderate. My wife is like you, it’s a challenge: either zero or a hundred, no middle ground. A living example of the need to argue the extreme when a middle ground is likely right, and no that isn’t the fallacy of the middle unless you want to argue only the extremes are valid.
Since you’re the self-appointed fallacy Nazi, go back and look at your first comment using Eskimo and read all the rest. Yours and mine, anyone else. Who used the most fallacies, who went to the extreme?
Fallacy Nazis are like grammar Nazis, they just can’t see themselves in the mirror. They only see others’ faults and it gives them so much satisfaction until they’re called on it. Grammar nazis go quiet, fallacy nazis double down.
Have a nice day, whether you deserve it or not.
Ariel,
Thank you for that absolutely meaningless defense. Nothing in that displayed even a hint as to why that the term would be derogatory other than it is an imprecise term. It’s analogous to me being upset if someone called me white instead of Scots-Irish English Blackfoot. Also “Because your analogy is not applicable (look to Canada above). Whites defining whites as an analogy?” Apparently you’ve never been to the Northeast if you think that term is whites describing whites. Eskimo is a collective term used to describe several of the indigenous peoples of a common region just like Northeasterner. It is not a prime facie insult equivalent of the pejorative “nigger” or “retard” or “kike” or “cracker” and nothing in your rather babbling explanation indicates that it is one other than you’d like to conflate it to be so in a fit of political correctness. The concept of political correctness is not only ridiculous left-wing authoritarianism and an inherently stupid concept no matter its good intentions, it’s an anathema to free speech. As a very funny expert in the use of the English language once noted, “There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions, and wooooords.” So unless an actual Inuit or other indigenous person of the region can explain why a collective term for peoples of a region is on its face insulting for any other reason than it is imprecise? I’m going to go with my previous assessments of your statements, namely that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Have a nice day.
Is it over?
I should have added: “and probably the best perspective”.
Malisha,
Whether intended or not, this afforded me a good laugh: “Guys, I didn’t study your debate but I just wanted to let you know: that was YESTERDAY. Tomorrow will just be a deja vu. And what we have today is just a dress rehearsal. Carry on.”
And at the same time I was laughing, you made me so depressed.
Hi, Gene H.,
Although I am hardly a slave to PC language, I’d like to know what is so particularly offensive about the term Eskimo. You are the first person I’ve ever heard complain about it. Then again, I only know one person from Alaska and he’s whiter than I am. My understanding is that it is a generic term to cover the related cultures of the Yupik and Inuit. No one gets upset by the term Northeasterners although the culture of Maine is slightly different from the culture of New Jersey. So really. If you can explain why the term is considered insulting, I’d like to know.
Because there are no tribes that go by Eskimo, none, not a one? Is it a linguistic term, or even by taxonomy? A white man’s grouping? Yep. Look at the names, search by Inuit. Wiki gives this “However, natives in Canada and Greenland view the name as pejorative and “Inuit” has become more common.” First Nation issues, but they at least took a stand. I can’t/don’t give Wiki full authority, because in the mid-70s when I was in the Alaskan panhandle, along the Aleutians (south and north), up the northern coast and to the Pribiloffs we had Tlingits, Aleuts, Inuit (any permutation, starting with an I or N), and the Pribiloffs Indians (I have no idea where to go with them because all the last names were Russian), respectively. No Eskimos any where, and frankly, your usage was jarring because I haven’t heard the term in years and haven’t used it myself since the 1970s (neglecting cartoons from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, I have kids). Maybe it was just my cutter, but Eskimo was not a term we were supposed to use.
“No one gets upset by the term Northeasterners although the culture of Maine is slightly different from the culture of New Jersey. So really. If you can explain why the term is considered insulting, I’d like to know.’
Because your analogy is not applicable (look to Canada above). Whites defining whites as an analogy?. I live in a state with roughly 27 Rez, and one is real adamant on name: don’t ever call a Tohono O’odham Papago, think N-word. There are others, but I’m wont to remember, and I hope won’t step on their Rez and insult them.
I’m still waiting for the Navajo council to get some balls and say we are Dineh not Navajo, because they’ve been using the term for at least two decades if not three. BTW, Navajos are grouped as part of the Apaches according to Wiki, try saying “Navajo equals Apache” on the Dineh Rez without a good dental plan or an escape plan.
White terms are what whites use, NA (I actually hate NA, prefer Aboriginal in the US, but I’m stuck) and First Nations use their terms. I will use their terms if I know them.
No Eskimos anywhere.
Ariel, gbk, listen up:
““If tomorrow the world went insane and slavery became morally acceptable and legally permissible, where would you stand?”
Guys, I didn’t study your debate but I just wanted to let you know: that was YESTERDAY. Tomorrow will just be a deja vu. And what we have today is just a dress rehearsal. Carry on.
Hi, gbk,
I took all your posts directed at me (by search it had to have Ariel and gbk) and put your comments into a word document, then winnowed seed and chafe, by my interpretation. I’m giving you an obvious out to disagree.
I was left with the following: “Then on Oct. 25 @ 5:40 am, after calling me a weasel for not divining your question, you finally ask your question:
“If tomorrow the world went insane and slavery became morally acceptable and legally permissible, where would you stand?
Here’s my answer: You wrote “I would be against it.” Good for you, you took a stand and a good one, and it does not reflect on your original statement about “morally acceptable” because “right” and “acceptable” are not the same.. But I asked the question on the 22nd, and you acknowledged it, you quoted it. But it didn’t have the marks for you to glean the question. So I guess if I didn’t clearly put a question mark, and succinctly and with brevity make the question, there was no question. OK, fine, your world versus mine. Had you done it in the same way I would have seen a question.
“You’re the one that conflated “morally acceptable” with “morally right,” Ariel, not me. ” And here you did a disservice to yourself, one I’ve done to myself when I try to hold so strongly to my opinion that words lose meaning (that was a slam): conflate means “1a : to bring together : fuse; b : confuse
2: to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole”. Are you really trying to say that I saw Enoch’s question (or his two questions as you would maintain) as fused with your statement? Conflate is to confuse, to fuse, to combine two things into a composite when not necessarily fusible.
I clearly in my writing considered the two as possible for agreement, because I saw the two as different but not so far different that you couldn’t find agreement because I saw common ground temporally. I never considered, nor did I write anything that should be confused as conflation. It’s a grasping at straws and you should be ashamed stating that I did. If only for the words…
Hi, Bron,
Was this an analogy: “Mike S does have a point, not all Pit Bulls attack toddlers. I know at least one who is about as sweet a dog as I have ever seen, like a happy 3 year old, just loves people and other dogs.” I ask only because I couldn’t find it on a search. I spent a year trying to save a fractious dog and did a lot of research on dogs and behavior. Pit bulls (a term almost without meaning because it covers a number of breeds) are just as likely to protect a child as attack it, more likely if trained properly. The attack breeds, including Dobermans and Rottweilers, are as good as you train them. My Doberman mutt loved puppies, kittens, and babies, and knew the difference with no training. She trained puppies and kittens, and protected my baby from the former. Again, was it an analogy?
Given that I have you here, you asked a question about gbk and moral relativism. Again, I have to unequivocablly state that his “morally acceptably” and “legally permissible” was 100 % correct and I might add the only way to look at the people of those times.
Hi, Mike S.,
“One anecdote about the actions of some people, in a specific community, 25 years ago, does not indict a nationwide volunteer organization, yet that is where you comment was going.” On the other hand, you have no idea that that wasn’t the methodology of the organization at the time. How much experience have you had on the opposite side from ACORN? How many “discovery meetings” have you gone to that you quickly realized were kangaroo courts? We had data, and we didn’t give it because there was no point. Your comment goes exactly to the other extreme, especially with your “vested self interest”.
This is laughable “It was snarky because you have yet to respond to the question this post presents, as BF just pointed out, but in fact have completely avoided it. Neither for that matter has Enoch. That does indicate to me that your purpose here is to distract, rather than discuss and I do get sarcastic when people play that game here.” So ignore me, yet you spent so much time on me? I commented on things I considered important with the flow of the “conversation”, scare quotes because I grant comments sections aren’t really conversations, and that the long-timers consider it their comment section so anything jarring needs to be beaten down.
Furthermore: “It seems in the rage of your offense taken you neglected to respond to the entire point of what I wrote”, neglecting the connotative freight given I was in no more rage than you, you no more and to my thinking responded less to what I wrote (given how much you ignored or twisted into a new meaning), I’m left with “pot and kettle”. Which do you prefer? I’m fine with pot.
Blind Fathiness,
Primarily because the conversation took another turn, granted I’m as responsible or more than any other, but oddly those maintaining “non-sequitur” pursued the turn. And spent a lot of time doing so. So much for non-sequitur. Dismiss it and don’t argue it is the best response, “not it’s a non-sequitur but I’m going to fight you to the bitter end over it”.
Go back and look at my first post. It was about something I saw as not a disagreement but two different questions (I saw one, gbk saw two, quibbling ensued). I actually agreed with both as being worth looking at, and gave gbk a 100% accuracy and never labelled him with “moral relativism”, his response simply wasn’t. Didn’t challenge the ethics of either, and clearly stated that I wasn’t going to judge the words of either by any preconception, I don’t have the history here, and I would hope that I wouldn’t assume the meaning of others words by any history.
You get into “message and messenger” issues. As well assumptions, and arguments from those assumptions, that likely won’t address the words. M. Spindell’s response to my ACORN post is a good illustration, and included impugning my character because it was necessary from his assumptions and for his argument.
I found the quote amusing also. I do realize that by expressing empathy with Enoch I am now tied to Enoch (no matter how I disagree with him, and state so). Thus are the comment sections of blogs.
Just for my own amusement I’m going to re-post Mike S’ last paragraph to Ariel.
“I note that neither Enoch, nor you, have anything to say on that sign or what Professor Turley is saying about it. You and Enoch seem so capable of ignoring others points, yet responding to them with questions that are “non-sequiturs” to the issue, while casting aspersions on peoples ethics. May I ask you both a simple, yet highly pertinent question? What do you think about the Church’s sign and Professor Turley’s response to it.” –Mike S.
Hi, Mike Spindell,
Really, go back and read my damn post on ACORN. “What an amazing evidence of the evil of ACORN. About 25 years ago you were supervising a Haz-Waste facility and went to a meeting with one local group that treated you badly in your opinion. You of course had no vested interest involved, after all as the supervisor of the plant you knew with absolute certainty that the plant was doing absolutely no harm. They treated you skeptically, not understanding that you were true of heart.” They didn’t treat us skeptically, they had already mind their minds up, totally, completely and thoroughly. It was supposed to be a discovery meeting, something you glossed over for the sake of your argument. Discovery not hanging. Finding facts, not going in with minds made up.
Next, we, as I said had spent money for data to support our argument. ACORN spent nothing other than organizing. They had no data, and in fact only had hysteria. Guess which two plants out of the three I mentioned had to make changes? Did you even think? Or just go knee-jerk? Or do you believe that only those people you agree with or sympathize with should be heard?
As for “vested interest” what a totally cheap shot. And this “not understanding that you were true of heart.” I took pride in doing something for the community, as well helping companies to get in compliance. I shouldn’t get paid? I’m only true of heart if I starve? What the hell were you doing to get companies compliant with RCRA in the 1980s? Not shit I’m sure. What vested interest do you have? Or do you starve to maintain your purity from “vested interest”? I’m beginning to realize that the Jesuits were wrong to even consider how many angels dance on the head of a pin, it should have been buffoons.
In this particular instance, enoch read what I wrote, and you read only for your prejudice. Which sickens me that I have to deal with such low integrity. So much for civility.
Ariel,
I did go back and read your post and then I read my response. It seems in the rage of your offense taken you neglected to respond to the entire point of what I wrote. One anecdote about the actions of some people, in a specific community, 25 years ago, does not indict a nationwide volunteer organization, yet that is where you comment was going.
By the same token that some Haz-Waste organizations may not do their jobs does not indict the entire industry. Then too, this is your anecdote of indictment, given fro your particular perspective which was related to your own self interest. I don’t think my inference was unfair, though it was admittedly snarky. It was snarky because you have yet to respond to the question this post presents, as BF just pointed out, but in fact have completely avoided it. Neither for that matter has Enoch. That does indicate to me that your purpose here is to distract, rather than discuss and I do get sarcastic when people play that game here.
The performance of both of you is something that I do find amusing. There are a group of people in this country who cry for sympathy when their vile judgments are exercized and they are then responded to in kind. Their verbiage and faux victimhood is reeking of the flatulent smell of entitlement. Now that is perhaps a mixed metaphor, but not only did I enjoy writing it, but its essence is true.
Bron,
If you don’t have the heart to kill an animal, by all means stick to vegetables or chickens/ducks for eggs. Any kind of animal husbandry for meat is not for the squeamish or the “softies”. Personally, I know myself better than to try to raise something like pigs (too smart, I’d give in and they’d be pets too), but birds and cattle I’d have no issue with killing (although for practical reasons I’d send cattle to an abattoir for processing). Chickens are one of the dumbest animals on the planet and domestic cattle are not far behind. I’ve killed and plucked chickens before. It’s not that bad. It’s still a ton of work to raise large animals though. Expensive too once you factor in veterinary costs for large animals (which can be considerable). I’d probably stop at vegetables and birds myself. Maybe some quail in addition to ducks and chickens. I like the eggs and the birds are tasty too.
Gene:
I now an electrical engineer who is moving into farming, I had to help him with a house foundation. When I pulled up to his house his wife was butchering turkeys in the driveway. He had goats, cows, chickens, grew vegetables and sold the meat, eggs and veggies at the farmers market.
I think more and more people are trying to use their land to grow food because of all the chemicals used in farming today. I have been thinking about buying a calf and some piglets. But I am such a softie I would probably have them as pets at the end of 6 months.
Raff, good observation about Mike’s posting.
Gene, good catch on the lifestyle comment. As a country boy myself, I must admit that is the very first time I ever heard of farming referred to as a lifestyle. Kind of makes one go, “Hmmmmmmm……”
Mike,
I’d also like to point out that Enoch referred to farming as a “lifestyle”.
I know a lot of farmers. Grew up around them. I’ve even worked for a few as a teenager helping with harvests and the like. Not one of them calls it a “lifestyle”. They all call it what it is when you aren’t some gentrified poser: work, hard and lots of it, a job. Martha Stewart farming is a “lifestyle”. That’s not how real farmers roll.
Mike S.,
Well said.