Pelosi is dumb; Abbot is not
Before I get to the main point of today’s installment, I just have to embed this little tidbit at the outset. Currently, it’s the screaming headline on the Drudge Report, so it’s not like this is the first place you’re going to see it, but this needs to be shared as far and wide as possible.
A 500 million monthly job loss in a country of 300 million people is pretty staggering, since it means that every American loses his or her job at least once a month, and 200 million of them are losing it twice. But since I haven’t lost my job this month, that means at least one person may have lost their job thrice. Pelosi still has her job, too, as do a lot of people I know, which leads me to believe that maybe 200 million jobs are safe, and maybe a hundred million or so are fired, on average, five or so times a month. Having been fired myself – albeit not this month – that’s gotta really, really suck.
Anyway, to my point: I want to welcome Abbot of Arbroath and thank him for his thoughtful and insightful comments to this blog. It’s always more fun to discuss things when I can find intelligent people who disagree, and I hope Abbot feels welcome to continue to do just that. It also makes it cooler when I have people from outside the US taking an interest in what I’m saying. This is no provincial digital backwater, no, sir. We’re an international blog.
You can read Abbot’s comment in full without interruption in yesterday’s comments. I’ll be reposting them in this post, too, but I’m going to break it up with my own replies to create the illusion of a real-time exchange, but it is only an illusion. If you want to read Abbot unfiltered, you’d best go back to the original source.
Abbot begins:
Nothing to apologize for. There’s always danger in generalizations, but it’s very hard to discuss big ideas without them.
Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of this, except I would put it in a contrasting context. That is to say, defining people as “gay” or “straight” ignores the fact that sexuality is a lot more fluid than these labels would indicate. One reason that some “gay” men get married is they find themselves attracted, at one point in their life, to another woman, and then they become disappointed when, after marriage, the attraction to other men doesn’t disappear. Too many “straight” men fall prey to this, too – they think if they marry their one true love, other women will no longer be attractive, and that doesn’t happen, either.
I have a hard time understanding the significance of “homo-social” or “homo-emotional” relationships, or how they are exclusive to gay men. In other words, I have had, and continue to have, very close emotional relationships with other men that are in no way sexual. Are you saying a close relationship between people of the same gender is the exclusive province of homosexuals? Because if that’s the case, your labels are far more confining than mine are.
I certainly wasn’t trying to imply that any of these decisions are made flippantly, or that they deserve ridicule. Nor did I think that Republicans have a monopoly on sexual restraint or heterosexuality.
I can’t really comment on this, as I’m not sure what it means, or what a “balanced” brain is. If you’re trying to argue that homosexuality has biological origins, I have no counter-argument. I don’t think we’re anywhere near understanding what those origins are, but I do think the idea that people actively choose, out of the blue, which gender they are attracted to is kind of silly.
Again, we’re in agreement here. I don’t think, for a moment, that homosexuality negates any of the great and good things that people do. My point, for the past three days, has not been that gay people are scum or that they should only be defined by their sex acts. It’s that the nuclear family matters, and that it shouldn’t be redefined to accommodate the changes sexual mores of the day.
To sum up: Nancy Pelosi is an imbecile. Thank you.
A 500 million monthly job loss in a country of 300 million people is pretty staggering, since it means that every American loses his or her job at least once a month, and 200 million of them are losing it twice. But since I haven’t lost my job this month, that means at least one person may have lost their job thrice. Pelosi still has her job, too, as do a lot of people I know, which leads me to believe that maybe 200 million jobs are safe, and maybe a hundred million or so are fired, on average, five or so times a month. Having been fired myself – albeit not this month – that’s gotta really, really suck.
Anyway, to my point: I want to welcome Abbot of Arbroath and thank him for his thoughtful and insightful comments to this blog. It’s always more fun to discuss things when I can find intelligent people who disagree, and I hope Abbot feels welcome to continue to do just that. It also makes it cooler when I have people from outside the US taking an interest in what I’m saying. This is no provincial digital backwater, no, sir. We’re an international blog.
You can read Abbot’s comment in full without interruption in yesterday’s comments. I’ll be reposting them in this post, too, but I’m going to break it up with my own replies to create the illusion of a real-time exchange, but it is only an illusion. If you want to read Abbot unfiltered, you’d best go back to the original source.
Abbot begins:
apologise for my generalisations which I do, however, feel entitled to given the register of the blog ;-)
Nothing to apologize for. There’s always danger in generalizations, but it’s very hard to discuss big ideas without them.
Your understanding of homosexuality – seems to be based on men having sex! The sexualisation of “same sex attracted” people is reductionist and belittling. Their entire lives have been reduced to a physical act. There is no appreciation of homo-social, homo-emotional, homo-intellectual, homo-erotic, homo-ethical – it’s all been reduced to sex. This is the responsibility of undereducated people on both the left and right as American society seems to need to polarise, emotionalise, and simplify just about everything – and sex is a great lowest common denominator and has the moralistic superiority element.
Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of this, except I would put it in a contrasting context. That is to say, defining people as “gay” or “straight” ignores the fact that sexuality is a lot more fluid than these labels would indicate. One reason that some “gay” men get married is they find themselves attracted, at one point in their life, to another woman, and then they become disappointed when, after marriage, the attraction to other men doesn’t disappear. Too many “straight” men fall prey to this, too – they think if they marry their one true love, other women will no longer be attractive, and that doesn’t happen, either.
I have a hard time understanding the significance of “homo-social” or “homo-emotional” relationships, or how they are exclusive to gay men. In other words, I have had, and continue to have, very close emotional relationships with other men that are in no way sexual. Are you saying a close relationship between people of the same gender is the exclusive province of homosexuals? Because if that’s the case, your labels are far more confining than mine are.
Men don’t leave their wives for just for sex – heck many men stay married and have it on the side including Republicans with either sex! Gay married men make a choice to be themselves. Sometimes that means staying with the family which might include antidepressants, counselling, non-sexual marriage and sometimes they make a choice to split. Neither choice is made in haste or in a flippant manner and neither choice deserves any ridicule. In fact, its none of our business unless you are a personal friend.
I certainly wasn’t trying to imply that any of these decisions are made flippantly, or that they deserve ridicule. Nor did I think that Republicans have a monopoly on sexual restraint or heterosexuality.
On the 17th June 2008, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences US Journal, you can find the results of brain scanning of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Have a read! The brain of gay men and straight women are far more aligned (and balanced) than that of straight men and lesbians. This is significant to use the word scientifically. Interestingly, lesbian brains are unequal in hemisphere size and response patterns which are closer to the heterosexual male.
I can’t really comment on this, as I’m not sure what it means, or what a “balanced” brain is. If you’re trying to argue that homosexuality has biological origins, I have no counter-argument. I don’t think we’re anywhere near understanding what those origins are, but I do think the idea that people actively choose, out of the blue, which gender they are attracted to is kind of silly.
“Tabloid” thought reduces homosexuals to a mere sex acts. In the meantime, when you listen to music, try and fix your economic problems, read your bible, use your computer to read this blog, thank God for your nuclear defences – just remember Handel, Di Vinci, King James, Turing, Keynes
Also deomcracy as we understand it based upon our classsics - generated by homos! Also guardians of christianity during 2 millenia to allow a "restoration" - that would be those darn homos again! I am glad they were not all suffering from compulsive behaviour disorder but actually used their different minds to be someone.
Again, we’re in agreement here. I don’t think, for a moment, that homosexuality negates any of the great and good things that people do. My point, for the past three days, has not been that gay people are scum or that they should only be defined by their sex acts. It’s that the nuclear family matters, and that it shouldn’t be redefined to accommodate the changes sexual mores of the day.
To sum up: Nancy Pelosi is an imbecile. Thank you.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 8:47 AM
8 Comments:
Pelosi needs that "anvil on her head" to keep it from floating away.
Two reactions:
1) If Pelosi accidentally recites a wrong number (or any other fact) five times a day for the next eight years, she will still be in second place behind the President who you graded as a "B". LOL
2) Yeah, Abbot is definitely a VERY intelligent guy! And obviously very well educated. He impresses me a great deal. It is also fun to actually "read" something with an accent attached to it.
VERY OLD OBSERVATION (not mine, but I agree with it): When someone says something with an English accent he sounds very intelligent (no matter how dumb he may really be).... And when someone says something with a Southern accent he sounds dumb (no matter how intelligent he may really be). May not be fair.... but what in life is?
Cheers,
POUNDS
Bush is yesterday's news, POUNDS. Pelosi is today's stupidity.
Gee Shucks - Sadly, hate to break the illusion but I can be fabulously dumb - but you are right we, British, just gloss over it with self depreciation before anyone else gets a chance - good trick!
Abbot
A quick response to one point made at the end of the post about the homosexual origins of the classics. While male-on-male sexuality was certainly a part of ancient Greek society, it is a mistake to identify this with the modern concept of homosexuality. There is nothing in ancient Greek literature comparable to the modern idea of sexual identity, i.e. Greek men who had sex with Greek boys didn't think of themselves as homosexual as opposed to heterosexual; the categories simply didn't exist. Furthermore, it is a mistake to read ancient male sexuality as a the result of a more open and enlightened set of sexual attitudes. A large part of male-on-male sexuality in ancient Greece was tied up in frankly misogyinistic theories of female sexuality. The gist of it was that male-on-male sex was better because it didn't involve women, who because of their lower intellectual and spiritual capacities were inferior companions. Since Abbot likes bibliographic refereces, there is some nice work that has been done on this by Martha Nussbaum.
"In the meantime, when you listen to music, try and fix your economic problems, read your bible, use your computer to read this blog, thank God for your nuclear defences – just remember Handel, Di Vinci, King James, Turing, Keynes."
Is the claim here that there was something about homosexuality that accounted for the accomplishments of Handel, Di Vinci, King James (who actually had nothing to do with the KJV), Turing, Keynes, etc. That would be a cool set of arguments if you could make, but it is by no means obvious to me. I have seen a set of (largely specious IMHO) claims with regard to Keynes. The idea is that his economic theory is based on a short time horizon ("In the long run we are all dead"), a position that he took because the sterility of his sexuality meant that he didn't have children and therefore lacked any real posthumous concerns. As I said, I think it is a flimsy claim.
Sounds like someone has a man crush.
"LAWGEEK: Is the claim here that there was something about homosexuality that accounted for the accomplishments of Handel, Di Vinci, King James (who actually had nothing to do with the KJV), Turing, Keynes, etc."
Yep more or less. What I am saying is maybe that not inspite of being homosexuals they came up with important thought, but actually BECAUSE they were homos, thus came up with insight which leads to benefit to society.
As for King James, he actually commissioned the KJV and the state Church he was hed of paid for it!The record of the meetings leading up to, and His letter of instruction are all on record.
As for Greeks and homos - you can get into the semantics. It did not bother them too much and I am not too disturbed either. Categorisation is a tool of oppression
Lets talk about healthcare......
Abbot
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home