Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Mooom, Daaaad! But that not Fair!



The recent study on the "important" families, those of  "quality" (as they used to say before our revolution), and the spending on investment in presidential candidates, made me think of the early years of Saturday Night Live. I cannot really write dialogue, but here is a skit idea. Maybe you can flesh it out.

Setting: A nice mansion "cabin" high in the French alps.
Time: The afternoon of American Thanksgiving, dinner time.
People: A mother and father with their son and daughter have just sat down to eat, servants waiting on them.
Cast:
Chevy Chase,  father
Jane Curtin, Mother 
Gilda Radner, Daughter
Bill Murray, Son

Waiters: Laraine Newman. Garrett Morris, and that week's music guest, Patti Smith)

From the beginning to the end of the skit, the Son's is ignored by all, while he spends all his attention in a vigorous interaction with a game on his smart phone.

Mother to Daughter: Dear, what do you want for Christmas this year?
Daughter: I want my own president!
Mother and father chuckle and say what do you really want?
Daughter: I WANT A PRESIDENT! AND HE WILL BE JUST MINE AND YOU CAN'T TELL HIM WHAT TO DO!
Mother: What would you ever do with a president?
Daughter: HE WOULD DO ANYTHING I ASKED HIM TO DO. First he would make sure that where ever i looked, i saw ponies, and...ah unicorns!
Father: Sweetly, you know that it is very hard to get a president. We have to work with other families, for a couple years for to get one.
Daughter: THAT NOT FAIR! YOU AND MOMMY ALWAYS GET YOUR OWN PRESIDENT WHEN YOU WANT ONE!...

Take it from there...

No Trigger Warning

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

A follow up question about behavior if SB 338 passes



A reader of my previous post emailed me with a question. 

She said she likes to go to a bar in the town she lives in for happy hour after work. But during the annual recreational deer killing season, it fills up with "hunters" .She asked if she should just stay away from that bar for the season, being that if she went, she would be "maintaining a proximity"?

Good question. 

My suggestion would be to just not go in, out of respect for these sensitive souls. 
Other cultures have similar rules. Just consider that bar a "Zenana "of sorts. In Islamic Culture in some parts of South Asia there is a place reserved for the women of the household only. The literal meaning of the word zenana is "of the women" or "pertaining to women". The safest route is maybe to think of it like that.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Averting my eyes at the necessary moment*


A friend called me this a.m. and told me a story that i thought was a joke. But darned if it was not a joke. It was about a bill that had been introduced into the Wisconsin Legislature. I guess when your state's government has fallen to the hands it has, well, you really should not assume something is a joke, no matter how Onioneqsue it may be.

     2015 Wisconsin Senate Bill 338 has been introduced to amend Wis. Stats. 29.083 which makes it a crime to  Interfere with hunting, fishing or trapping.      SB 338 states in part: 
(from that portion of the bill entitled, Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau)
"The bill also expands the types of conduct prohibited to include  ...maintaining a visual or physical proximity to the person, approaching or confronting the person, or photographing the person."
(person means hunter/fisher).

Granted, its passage with that wording while comical, is unlikely, due to the language being unconstitutionally overbroad;
"Overbreadth is closely related to vagueness; if a prohibition is expressed in a way that is too unclear for a person to reasonably know whether or not their conduct falls within the law, then to avoid the risk of legal consequences they often stay far away from anything that could possibly fit the uncertain wording of the law. The law's effects are thereby far broader than intended or than the U.S. Constitution permits, and hence the law is overbroad." Wikipedia


But i digress.


The first thing i thought of when i read the language was actually, traveling in the more conservative areas of the Mideast. 

"maintaining a visual or physical proximity to the person, approaching or confronting the person, or photographing the person"?! WTF?

  Does that mean i cannot look at a hunter, or if one comes with in my field of view, i need to avert my eyes, look away or leave the area? 

 Is this some kind of cultural sensitivity thing? Kind of like the not looking at women in the Mideast. True, people who kill for recreation are such sensitive souls. But geez. Blaze orange = Burka?

So if this passes i guess to be on the safe side, we should treat hunters, trappers and fishing people at least like etiquette in some Muslim countries dictates we treat Muslim women in public, right?

 So here are a few basic things to remember, that i learned as a sprout, if 2015 SB 338 passes. People from other states or countries traveling to Wisconsin should be warned about this. For example:

Caution Traveler
You are entering the State of Wisconsin during a season when people are allowed to kill animals for recreation. You should treat these people in public, in a manner similar to how you would interact with women in public, if you are a unrelated man, in conservative Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. 
We recommend receiving special training since recognizing recreational killers in Wisconsin can be difficult, and their activity, and a state of serenity for them is guaranteed by law.
If you are in Wisconsin in the Autumn or Winter, it is somewhat easier at least as to those killing land animals, since they my law must wear specially colored garments, often referred to as "blaze orange". So here is some general advice for autumn travel in Wisconsin, to avoid prosecution under state law.
1. They like to be referred to as "hunters".
2. If you see one look away.
3. Do not talk to one. If it is an emergency, or your job requires you to talk to one, avoid eye contact, and speak to them by directing your statements to the nearest other person near them not wearing orange.
4. Unlike women in the Muslim countries mentioned, they customarily drive and many consume alcohol. The latter is done preparatory and following the "hunt" that is protected by law. So, if you see a vehicle with people in it in blaze orange, do not stare, but pay careful attention to your driving behavior. Always give them right of way, so your normal driving behavior is not mistaken as improper and therefore, harassment punishable by law.
5. It is perfectly legal for a "hunter" to initiate conversation, stare at you, and within normal social boundaries, "confront you". If this occurs, avert your eyes, look down, and lower your voice, and follow #3 above.
One question often asked, is if a "hunter" enters a room, is the best thing just to leave because of the law. I would suggest that you do what you feel is necessary for you own ability to comply with the law at that point. But if you do suddenly decide to leave, you do not want to have others think that by your leaving you are harassing the recreational killer by implying you do not approve of their activities. So as you leave, we suggest you voice in English, "I hope the hunt is going well."



*Averting my eyes at the necessary moment (the title comes from a line in this film.

Friday, October 16, 2015

Speculations of a Spectator at the Blame Game

"Scapegoating (from the verb "to scapegoat") is the practice of singling out any party for unmerited negative treatment or blame as a scapegoat..."

"A medical definition of scapegoating is:
"Process in which the mechanisms of projection or displacement are utilized in focusing feelings of aggression,hostility, frustration, etc., upon another individual or group; the amount of blame being unwarranted."
Scapegoating is a tactic often employed to characterize an entire group of individuals according to the unethical or immoral conduct of a small number of individuals belonging to that group. Scapegoating relates to guilt by association and stereotyping."
"The concept comes originally from Leviticus, in which a goat is designated to be cast into the desert with the sins of the community. Other ancient societies had similar practices."
We in the U.S. are fully into scapegoating season,* (or the powerless version). While driving to work today i listened to brief mention on the "news" of our Governor's interest in the destruction of the Government Accountablity Office and his support for bills to essentially remove all remaining restrictions on campaign contributions in Kochistan (the state formally known as Wisconsin). 

That and a gestalt of my country's present world line, made me wonder upon the following query:



When the GOP &/or Dominionists &/or 1% &/or etc. get to that Jennifer Government reality they so pine for, and the life experience/style of the vast majority of people still sucks, who will their blame the problems on?

They could of course keep blaming the same and tie it to creating work camps etc. A common historical direction once you go down this route.

I kind of consider at this point that Atwoodian creation:

"CorpSeCorps is the brand name of the Corporation Security Corps, a private security firm that assumes the respondsibilities of the state in a libertarian society in Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel The Year of the Flood, ...
(actually, they are a prominient player in the fist novel of hers in this series, Oryx & Crake -this writer
...Notably it assumes those responsibilities which generate licit and illicit streams of income."
http://concord.wikia.com/wiki/CorpSeCorps


What path will be taken, do you think?
If you are interested in this topic, here for your browsing pleasure:
and



*I must add to the salon list:
The poor
Poor women (the descendents of Eve after all :)
teachers
scientists
public employees
Gay people
"Liberals" (whatever that means now)
Socialists (a label for, in our politics, an empty set)
and...