From the introduction to "Culture & Imperialism" by Edward Said:
"The power to narrate, or to block other narratives from forming and emerging, is very important to culture and imperialism."
Living with less by choice has created an unexpected wealth.
From the introduction to "Culture & Imperialism" by Edward Said:
"The power to narrate, or to block other narratives from forming and emerging, is very important to culture and imperialism."
I understand that classroom management is tough, but suppressing the native intellect, initiative and originality of students is a deplorable way to do it.
Man must be “master of his own thoughts,” said Spinoza. He must never be “compelled to speak only according to the diktats of the supreme power.” That is the first task of the heretic, then: to resist compulsion. To speak as he sees. To never fear to express the truth. To refuse, at all costs, to say anything as abominable as “her penis.”
Brendan O’Neill is the chief political writer for spiked magazine, based in London. The above was taken from his new book, A Heretic’s Manifesto: Essays On The Unsayable, in which sources for the above quotations and references can be found.
but they can erode your confidence in your ability to trust your own thoughts.
First - teach conclusions, not basis for conclusions.
Second - deny correct answers that do not match the answer guide (even if true and correct).
Third - belittle with facial expression and tone of voice, those whose conclusions differ from the accepted narrative.
Fourth - count as correct, answers that are clearly incorrect.
Fifth - communicate impatience if you are caught thinking before replying (orally or in writing).
All libraries -- public, private and school -- contain curated collections. None can hold EVERYTHING; all must select how they allocate limited physical and financial resources. The goal is to serve the community without prejudice and collection development has to have a basis.
Today, too often, the basis for a place in the collection is it's immediate popularity (not quality) -- to serve the library's desire for circulation numbers which help directly and indirectly in obtaining funding.
When a child, I used the Carnegie Public Library in Pawnee City, Nebr. One person curated that library's large collection -- Miss French. The variety of material was broad but each passed her test of quality.
Illinois just passed a law REQUIRING inclusion of some material. This is censorship of a library's independence. How can you prohibit a negative? Failure to include a resource in the library is distinctly different from "banning" it. The vague law is government overreach and so vague as to be unenforceable -- except when selectively applied.
Illinois has become the first state to penalize public libraries for removing books under a new law signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on June 12.
The law requires public libraries across Illinois to adhere to Chicago-based American Library Association’s (ALA) Bill of Rights in order to remain eligible for state funding.
While the ALA standards require libraries to provide materials presenting “all points of view on current and historical issues” and not to exclude books because of the author’s background or views, the Illinois law specifically focuses on just one tenet, which says that library books “should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”
The stated goal of the law, which takes effect in January 2024, is to encourage libraries to either adopt the ALA standard or develop their own polices that “prohibit the practice of banning specific books or resources.”
Watching this hobby from an emotional but physically proximate distance, I am troubled by the current expressions that dealers and collectors are in conflict and an organization representing one cannot merge with one representing the other, as a "conflict of interest" would result.
Philatelic dealers are the link between available items and those that seek them. Much work is involved in pulling together these resources, accurately identifying them, and facilitating collector access to them -- whether through listings online, or schlepping them to a stamp show.
Being married to a man whose deepest love (perhaps besides his family) is the hobby he's pursued since childhood, I've been openly puzzled and skeptical about the validity and value of this hobby. Forty-plus years in, I can bear witness that it does indeed have value -- to the individuals for whom it meets any of various functions in their lives. The fact that the pursuit and joy is not limited to one thing, but is highly individual and various, affirms the value I observe.
A digression for a moment - the area I'm least in awe of is exhibiting. Unfortunately, for some who are overly concerned with medal levels achieved, exhibiting provides external motivation to what is otherwise a pursuit of intrinsic motivation. Numerous studies affirm that the application of external rewards, diminishes intrinsic motivation. Therefore, contrary to popular philatelic views, I see exhibiting as a diminishment of the hobby, rather than its apex.
Back to the perceived conflict of interest - I deny it wholeheartedly. Dealers are facilitators, not the enemy. Again, I've watched close up as my husband's love of the hobby has traveled the path of sharing -- from writing to publishing to hosting stamp clubs to maintaining vigilance on authenticity ... to now serving his beloved hobby as a dealer.
Yes, there are dealers whose primary personal driver is profit and who will offer appallingly little to a widow for her husband's collections. Shame on them. These are actions we feel are morally reprehensible. Yet, even then, the dealer is providing a service in disposing of something of no value to a non-collector (in this case the widow) and making it available to those who seek those items.
I can't imagine there are many who have the time or connections to scour the country for the little pieces of paper they seek. Dealers are the work horses who do this for them. We should thank them, not deride them. They are not the enemy. They are the facilitators -- most doing it secondary to the same joy they share with the collectors they serve.
Postscript - as I was writing this, an email came in from my sale of a postcard through Ebay:

Dear vintagedoky,
I don't want to live
in a world where only perfect people's contributions are accepted. (And where
the definition of perfection is fluid and changeable.)
I don't want to live
in a world where only perfect people's contributions are accepted. (And where
the definition of perfection is fluid and changeable.)
I don't want to live
in a world where only perfect people's contributions are accepted. (And where
the definition of perfection is fluid and changeable.)
Great art can be created by not-great people. Great literature can be created by flawed souls. Great legislation can come from not-great individuals. All forward progress of civilization stops when the process of reaching for new and better is frozen by the fear of error; when moments of clarity are denied based on the struggles that preceded them.
In this great demand to remove Chuck Close portraits from art museums and rethink displaying Picasso's work, remove Confederate monuments, etc., where does it stop? If we are to be consistent, we must next remove all Catholic churches.
... a useful reminder that the inexorable march of government mandates, the endless effort by our rulers to enforce their “scientifically” unchallengeable dogma on what they see as a population of ignorant drudges, can be resisted.
“Give me smoothly regulated gas-flow cooking capability or give me death!” has a flaming blue ring to it. But it lacks somehow the peal of urgency, the alarm of existential threat our stone-kiln-firing predecessors could adduce to fuel their noble cause.
Still, the little victory secured last week over the forces of progressive technocratic authoritarianism is significant in its way—even if it may prove only provisional and someday in a bleak, electrified future, our Vikings and Kenmores are eventually prised from our cold, dead hands.
The small triumph chalked up for common sense and normality is so rare these days it’s worth celebrating in itself. It’s also a useful reminder that the inexorable march of government mandates, the endless effort by our rulers to enforce their “scientifically” unchallengeable dogma on what they see as a population of ignorant drudges, can be resisted.
More than that, the way the episode played out last week has been an instructive exercise in how modern society advances, how the ascendant left is the locomotive force behind our culture and politics. We evolve today through the imposition from above of new rules and dogmas—as if that is a stable, natural process and any attempt to resist it is ignorant, reactionary extremism.
You can tell this from the way in which much of the media reported on the attempted gas-stove grab.
As conservatives—and, much of the apolitical public—began to raise their voices against Commissar Richard Trumka Jr.’s diktat declaring war on gas stoves, the media took up the familiar narrative.
“How Gas Stoves Became a Right-Wing Cause in the Culture Wars” explained Time Magazine.
An unelected official proposes some indefensible new regulation in the name of “science” that materially and adversely affects the lives of tens of millions of Americans—and it is somehow another front opened by the “right wing” in their “culture wars.”
It happens all the time. You can frame a good deal of the political and cultural evolution of the country in the past few decades in this way: The left elites compel adherence to their latest ideological orthodoxy and anyone questioning it is waging culture war. It happened with same-sex marriage, the idea that sex is independent of biology, the proposition that all white people are racist, the assertion that the planet is burning. All started out as intellectual hobbyhorses of the left fringe and quickly wound up being examples of the “far right” trying to impose its will.
This fits the wider narrative of our ruling intellectual classes: that it is the conservative side of the political spectrum that has gone extreme, that all our contemporary political woes—hyperpartisanship, divisiveness, the extremism of our political discourse—can be traced to the Republican Party’s jumping off the right of the ideological diving board into the deep end of fanaticism.
Yet the 2022 Gallup Poll Social Series, an annual survey of thousands of Americans, found new confirmation that it is the Democratic Party, not the GOP, that has moved toward the extreme in the past few decades and in the process has driven much of the cultural agenda.
Last year Gallup found that the percentage of Democrats who identify themselves as politically liberal rose by 4 points, to 54%, a new high, with 36% declaring themselves moderate and only 10% conservative. In 1994, the proportion of Democrats identifying as liberal was 25%. In 2010 it was 40%.
Over the same period the proportion of registered Republicans who identify as conservative has only edged up—from roughly 60% in the 1990s to 72% in 2022. Most others identify as moderate.
“Increased liberal identification among U.S. Democrats has occurred across all demographic categories,” writes Lydia Saad, director of social research at Gallup, commenting on the survey. “But that shift has been particularly pronounced among White Democrats.”
Since Democrats now seem heavily to favor the illiberal imposition of many of their notions, it might be time to retire the term “liberal” in describing them. But the sharp swing to the left is clear.
Some of these ideological changes do, it’s true, become quickly embedded in wider public support. Gay marriage is the obvious example. But most don’t. Resisting them, like resisting assaults on our kitchen appliances, isn’t extremism. It’s patriotism.
I avoid corporate-produced news as much as possible - but when I glance through what's being reported, it's clear to me we have a problem in our society which I believe is a failure of skill in conflict resolution.
Have you ever craved a time when you were free from society's expectations -- able to simply explore your own relationship with the world?
That special time is called CHILDHOOD and is essential to human growth and development. When short-circuited by conformity to expectations, the consequences are long-term not just for the individual, but for the entire society in which they live.
School, unfortunately, artificially promotes a sense of sameness by grouping according to age, rather than ability. Kids learn to look sideways rather than inward to determine what choices to make -- how to look, what to say.
In America, we have become so busy acquiring commodities, we lose the greatest (and most limited) one of all - time.
Now that Christmas is around the corner, my heart breaks for the anticipation focusing on acquisition of "stuff" rather than delight in time spent together.
It is time to tell this story far and wide, so that all Americans know what can happen when fear and hysteria prevail over reason and law.
https://abhms.org/about-us/mission-stories/minidoka-pilgrimage-american-story-times/
Great Aunt Elma Tharp worked at a relocation camp in Idaho - apparently the Minidoka. Seeking to confirm this, I found the Baptist website here linked. (Elma was a Baptist Missionary to Japan prior to outbreak of WW2.)
When we lost income abruptly, we found an amazing freedom from an enslavement of which we had been unaware - the pressure to constantly evaluate and improve on what we possessed. Being unable to entertain the notion of unnecessary expenditures freed us to savor where we were and what we had in ways that enriched our lives so much more than the income we lost had ever done.
Chris Hedges:
"Education should be subversive. It should give us the intellectual tools and vocabulary to question the reigning ideas and structures that buttress the powerful. It should make us autonomous and independent beings, capable of making our own judgments, capable of understanding and defying the “cultural hegemony,” to quote Antonio Gramsci, that keeps us in bondage."
“Spending money is not an assertion of your freedom. It is the key to your next enslavement,” Robin tells me.
When training dogs or children, it's quite obvious scolding and punishing do not work. All that is learned is avoidance and temporary compliance - and how to scold and punish.
It's possible to train differently - to use redirection (rather than DON'T, give a DO). When the dog chews the rug, bring him an acceptable alternative (his chewy toy).
With kids it's a little different - they are testing what works and what doesn't work. If you indulge when whined at - whining will continue. If you calmly state as reality certain protocols (wash hands before eating, use the restroom before traveling, etc.), you are creating reality rather than controlling behavior.
Setting limits need not involve anger or punishment. Limits are extremely important and ultimately create security - but they need to be clear, unemotional and consistent.
We seem to have a society that knows only anger and destruction as an outlet for frustration or dissatisfaction. What if, instead, we created the opportunity for all our young citizens to be exposed to and experience a culture of courtesy. Guess what... we demand each one of them to attend public schools. If they are not learning civility there, we are wasting our taxpayer dollars.
Children have a developmental need to see themselves in their future role as an adult - hence traditionally playing with trucks, kitchens, etc.
Children also deserve -- in the environment we require them to experience (i.e. public schooling) -- the opportunity to experience participation in a culture of courtesy. No amount of test-taking will help more in preparing them to participate in society with self-respect and respect of others.
Peach trees "are not long-lived" so plant a new one every 5-6 years...
Prune in spring.
https://www.thespruce.com/how-to-prune-peach-trees-4125536
It's been crushingly lonely to be married 41 years to a man who refuses to argue -- bypasses differences, then occasionally explodes.
Dr. Wen’s positions “assumed a capacity for personal responsibility that was not available to vast swaths of the population,” Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation epidemiologist David Swedler told Inside Higher Ed.