Mr Weatherby

Some bitter old English professor has taken a break from yelling at kids to get off his lawn to pen a book about how whippersnappers these days are all stupid. I’m not sure he actually says “stupid”, at least on the cover, but I do think it literally says people under 30 should not be trusted. I am intentionally neither reproducing this person’s name nor providing links to his website or stories about him, because I get the distinct impression that the whole endeavor for this guy is about some combination of attention and money, and I refuse to be complicit in elevating his page rankings. Because clearly, a link from me is the golden ticket to world renown. Anyway, what I am going to do is respond to his points on behalf of the entirety of youthful humanity. This probably includes you; you’re welcome.

1. They make excellent “Jaywalking” targets

Bauerlein writes: “The ignorance is hard to believe … It isn’t enough to say that these young people are uninterested in world realities. They are actively cut off from them. … They are encased in more immediate realities that shut out conditions beyond — friends, work, clothes, cars, pop music, sitcoms, Facebook.”

I’m so sensitive about providing links to this guy because right off the bat I get the feeling that this dude is really hoping he’ll turn up in google searches made by Tonight Show fans. Seriously, what’s the point of this reference? It’s not particularly catchy, clever, or more informative than “they lack common knowledge.” Also, I don’t get the distinction between “world realities” and “immediate realities,” which provides the unnerving suggestion that my friends and music are not of this world. Also, ignorant people are everywhere. Give me a camera and an old box of trivial pursuit, and I can go make old people look stupid without any real effort. Of course that is assuming they aren’t too jaded to show enough trust to speak with me, what with my nefarious facey books and hi-fi pods and so forth.

2. They don’t read books — and don’t want to, either

“It’s a new attitude, this brazen disregard of books and reading. Earlier generations resented homework assignments, of course, and only a small segment of each dove into the intellectual currents of the time, but no generation trumpeted aliteracy … as a valid behavior of their peers.”

This is a horrible, sweeping overgeneralization. Mostly though, I really, really hope that the typo in this little diatribe about the decline of “aliteracy” is original to the author. I mean, you can’t make that up.

Anyway, I’m not convinced that any significant number of people actually trumpets “aliteracy”, and depending on how this guy is, I kind of wonder whether we might actually have higher actual literacy rates than he and his pals did when they were our ages. I don’t have any data to back that up, but I’m pretty sure that’s not really something he’s worried about. At all.

3. They can’t spell

Lack of capitalization and IM codes dominate online writing. Without spellcheck, folks are toast.

This is by far his most valid point. I am a poor speller, and I don’t really have to be a good one most of the time, so it isn’t getting much better. I don’t really know why this means we aren’t to be trusted — again, keep in mind that that’s the actual operative thesis, with our stupidity being merely implicit.

4. They get ridiculed for original thought, good writing

“On MySpace, if you write clearly and compose coherent paragraphs with informed observations on history and current events, ‘buddies’ will make fun of you,” Bauerlein says. Wikipedia writing is clean and factual, but colorless and judgment-free. Often the most clever students, with flashes of disorganized brilliance on MySpace, switch to dull Wiki-writing formats for school papers, he says. “If we could combine the style and imagination of MySpace with the content of Wikipedia, we might get good stuff.”

I have never noticed this, anywhere. We’re definitely not talking about people in general under age 30, or if we are, then this guys is just full of it. We might be talking about people under like 15 or so, because I’m losing touch with those kids; also, we might just be talking about stupid people, which would lead us to the conclusion that stupid young people are stupid. It could also lead us to the conclusion that all young people are stupid (untrustworthy — whatever) if we’re willing to make unfounded broad generalizations about millions of people.

Please note the further usage of tangentially-related but popularly-web-searched terminology here.

5. Grand Theft Auto IV, etc.

The stats tell the story here. First week’s sales: $500 million. The sales of GTA dwarf movie premieres, CD sales, or, Bauerlein notes, book sales. All that video use, Bauerlein says, has hurt in the classroom, too. Thousands of Massachusetts public school graduates are ending up in remedial reading and writing classes in college, according to a Globe story.

You can’t just throw out two facts and say that one caused the other. Usually when people do this it takes a form that has some degree of face validity, but this really jumps out as a horrible non sequitur. I mean, come on, GTAIV hit shelves a few days ago, and this guy is referencing a story about how kids in one state are experiencing a long term shift towards remedial reading? There isn’t even the wildly unfounded accusation that GTA causes kids not to read; there’s just the unstated assumption that this is true.

What’s more, GTA requires a great deal more imagination, critical thought, and problem solving skills than movies and CDs, and ditto except for the imagination part with respect to books.

Hey, do you thing GTA IV might possibly be something people might be googling these days?

6. They don’t store the information

“For digital immigrants, people who are 40 years old who spent their college time in the library acquiring information, the Internet is really a miraculous source of knowledge,” Bauerlein says. “Digital natives, however, go to the Internet not to store knowledge in their minds, but to retrieve material and pass it along. The Internet is just a delivery system.”

First of all, I’m not sure how well this dude stored his math information, because I’m only 23 and I vividly remember not having internet access. I would love, LOVE to see some actual data on this information absorption hypothesis, because it’s certainly plausible — just totally and horribly unsubstantiated here. Maybe it’s in the book, but I’ll never find out. Not because I don’t want to read this trash, just because my friends will make fun of me if I do.

7. Because their teachers don’t tell them so

Or because their parents don’t check their bedrooms at midnight to halt the instant messaging…”Kids are drowning in teen stuff delivered 24/7 by the tools, and adult realities can’t penetrate,” Bauerlein says. Another factor: “It’s the era of child-centered classrooms and self-esteem grading.”

Ok, for those of you keeping score at home, we now have “adult realities” along with the “world” and “immediate” varieties. So the idea here is that people are afraid to tell their precious little snowflakes that they’re stupid, and the snowflakes would be too busy txting to listen anyway. Apparently we’ve stopped trying to demonstrate what’s wrong as if any effective evidence had come to bear at this point, and simply start making an argument about why the situation doesn’t change. That’s ok though, he’ll probably wrap up this list with some nail-in-the-coffin argument about what an idiot I am, and I’ll have to go back and rethink this whole thing.

8. Because they’re young

Do you remember how stupid you were when you were a teen-ager? Or all that you didn’t know — and thought you did? And the skills you gained by holding back on foolish comments? Oh, the now-old guy in this picture? He once wrote: “I was so much older then/I’m younger than that now.”

Or maybe not. Maybe this list will just end some borderline meaningless tautological nonsense. To the extent that there’s anything substantial to what he’s written here, it actually directly contradicts his point that the “problem” he “observes” is generational rather than a life-cycle effect. The picture he’s talking about was of Bob Dylan, and I don’t really get the quote. I kind of wonder if Bob might not have been just the teensiest bit high when he wrote that, but whatever.

So then, that’s 1 decent reason, 5 bad ones, and 2 fake ones for why young people are morons. I’m sure that book is a substantial contribution to the field of knowledge.

Say there friends and foes, look what I bought at a British market in Mission Hills yesterday:

That’s right: haggis…in a can.

Now I just have to decide whether I want to eat it…

I was unable to make it to a party the other day. Wanting to demonstrate some regard for the host and guests, I decided to send to the festivities an envoy of sorts — a digital version of myself to engage in small talk…ineptly, as it turns out. His social graces, not to mention his capacity to make any sense at all, leave something to be desired. Here are several of my favorite questions asked and the responses he provided, organized on a loosely thematic basis:

The pessimist

Question: will the padres make the playoffs?
Geoffrey: I’m pretty sure that’s impossible.

Question: do you like san diego?
Geoffrey: No.

Question: can we kiss
Geoffrey: That could be a serious problem

The comedian

Question: do you like san diego?
Geoffrey: That’s what she said!

Question: do you like basbell?
Geoffrey: No, but I bet Stephen does.

Question: steph? seriously?
Geoffrey: IDK, my BFF Jill?

Question: stephen? seriously?
Geoffrey: That’s what your mom said.

Question: your mom is the best
Geoffrey: I’m getting hungry just thinking about it

The boozehound

Question: Hey Geoffrey, what are you drinking?
Geoffrey: Probably. Be a doll and get me another drink, will you?

Question: What are you drinking?
Geoffrey: Alright Barbara Walters, cool it with the interrogation.

Question: hello geoffrey
Geoffrey: ♪I’mmmmmmmmm saaaailing awaaaaaaaaay. Set an open course for the viiiiiirgin seeeeeaaaaaaaa.♫

Mr Manners

Question: wanna go out?
Geoffrey: Shut up.

Question: would you like a brownie, geoffrey?
Geoffrey: Shut up.

Question: how old is stephen?
Geoffrey: Shut up.

Question: how do you like sociology?
Geoffrey: How do you figure

Question: what about rene?
Geoffrey: No comment.

The protegee

Question: geoffrey – why are you so cool man?
Geoffrey: Akos Rona-Tas.

Finally, flesh and blood responses to some of your questions:

• San Diego, sociology, baseball and Rene are all things I do like to varying degrees
• I’m going to go with Burger Lounge for my favorite burger, but Lucky Buck’s as my favorite burger place
• It was rum in the glass, but I didn’t drink it
• Bourdieu is my favorite social theorist
• I did not find my shirt in a dumpster
• yes we can kiss, but no we can’t go out

Come on Kabbalah, is that the best you can do? Your army of Hollywood luminaries will never be ready for battle with that of the Scientologists if you can’t come up with a better opener than that. They offer stress tests, which is great because it presents the initial impression that they’re offering something real that people might actually want, and they just work in the twilight zone stuff later on…probably after they get your credit card number, I don’t know. Point is, you can’t* open up your theological overcoat and start wiggling your crazies at people before you attempt to establish some sort of reasonable grounds of discourse.

* Mildly amusing aside: this marks the precise point in the writing process at which I began to hear, through the walls, my neighbor delivering some kind of operatic singing performance. No fooling. Also, that trick where you put a drinking glass up to a wall in order to hear through it works better than you might expect.

My apologies to the Fark submitter who penned that headline, which sums up fairly well my initial reaction to the recent death of Charlton Heston. I figured the guy was old, got more out of life than he deserved, and we’re better off moving on without him.

I’m pretty sure I was wrong about that.

It seems like some folks might have forgotten, or never known in the first place (like me), that before taking that right turn into jerktown, Mr. Heston was a fairly enthusiastic and efficacious proponent of civil rights and racial tolerance. According to his Wiki, he campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and JFK, marched with people such as Harry Belafonte, was approached by the Democratic party to run for the U.S. Senate, and yes, even took a public stance in support of a gun control measure put forth by LBJ. Support. Of Gun CONTROL.

Now sure, when reading about this, I learned some new things he said or did that I find ignorant, offensive, or both, but the fact remains that the man very well might have done more to advance causes I believe in than I ever will — maybe even net of the stuff I don’t like.

Does the fact that the parts I would argue against constitute the later and longer component of his career as a political activist give them more weight than the earlier work I fervently admire? Possibly. Does it negate them? I don’t see how it could. I’m going to try to keep that in mind.

Look kids, I’ve changed the design here — you’ve probably noticed. If not, you’re probably reading this on facebook, in which case this note has been imported from a blog that looks different than it used to.

The header image is from a photo I took on top of the social science building. If it doesn’t look like some railing on a rooftop, then I have changed the image. Deal with it.

I recently became a distributor of an illicit good — toilet paper. At least, I think I did. It’s really not quite clear to me, not entirely.

I should first emphasize that many graduate students spend a lot of time on campus, and not necessarily at normal business hours. For the hard scientists, this probably means hanging out in the lab or something, but we sociologists mostly hover around our offices, writing and grading, whenever those activities need doing. Which is to say, always. I don’t think the odds of finding yourself alone when you show up to the grad student wing of my department climb over 50/50 until around 2 AM or so.

This sort of perpetual presence is possible thanks to a generally high level of the goods it takes to reproduce our labor power, so to speak. There are fairly comfortable couches, refrigerators, toaster ovens, computers, electricity, sources of water, and of course toilets. I’ve recently found out that the political scientists one floor down have a bathroom with a shower, to which we can gain access with our office keys. Lack of bathing facilities was the only reason I used to think one of us couldn’t literally live in the Social Science Building, at least for several mildly inconvenient days. If my apartment were commandeered for a week, I honestly don’t know whether I would set up base with the parents and make a 40 minute commute, or just camp out at school.

Although I wouldn’t find myself lacking any necessities, a life based out of the office would entail a certain asceticism when it comes to creature comforts. The toilet paper, for example, is horrible. If a sign reading “please use left hand for cleanup, and refrain from touching food or other people with it” were the accepted minimum for what a bathroom should have, that’s what would be there. Instead, thin and rough single ply is the minimum, so that’s what there is. This is fine for every now and then, but seriously, some of us are there a lot, with a commensurate usage of the local facilities.

Taking a bit of responsibility for sprucing things up, I decided several days ago that I would bring some real toilet paper from home. Not just real, but good — I don’t skimp. I get compliments on it from guests. No fooling. It was going to be a big improvement.

My decision to actually do this was largely a result of the fact that there are unused dispensers for standard rolls that are installed alongside the industrial dispensers in which the cheap stuff resides. Access to the standard dispensers is through a locked metal housing, but as it turns out the “lock” is really more of a glorified latch that is conveniently, but by no means necessarily, operated with a key. It took me about 15 seconds to jimmy it with a small knife; a paper clip would have worked as well. If I had to just bring in a roll and set it down somewhere in there I might not have bothered, but with a usable dispenser the whole operation would work out so well…or so I thought.

I brought in my roll the next day, installed it, and left, feeling a small but clearly discernible sense of accomplishment. Assuming it would be well received (and why wouldn’t it be?) I pondered a little whether my improvement of amenities would best be extended to the women’s restroom via lock-jimmying instructions to one of the girls, or a late-night installation when nobody else was around.

The point was moot. Only a day or two later, I returned to the toilet to discover that my generously donated roll of Charmin was neither in the dispenser nor anywhere else in sight. People are there a lot, but not enough to kill a roll in like 36 hours. Someone had decided, it seems, that my addition was unacceptable, and taken it upon themselves to the previous, skin-chafing state of affairs. I was not pleased.

I suspect the issue is the “illegitimate” access I gained to the dispenser. I mean, I understand having a lock on the things so that people don’t steal toilet paper that’s already there, but I was making a contribution. That’s the opposite of theft. I was saving somebody whatever pocket change it costs to replace the prison paper that gets used up instead. This state of California is in the middle of a budget crisis, you know. I don’t see how the lock should have any sort of conceptual sanctity, such that unauthorized access to it should be judged on any criteria other than the positive or negative outcome of that access. And what’s more positive than a cost-effective improvement in people’s lives? Anyway, whatever fussy reactionary it was who stood in the way of progress here could have at least left the real paper in the stall on top of the tank or something. I mean, is someone afraid I placed a fine dusting of itching powder in the thing in order to wreak a havoc of embarrassing scratching upon a handful of people? Sure, that’s kind of hilarious hypothetically, but who would actually do it? What plausible harm could there be?

I’m not sure if I’ll bring in another roll and just leave it lose. I’m sort of curious whether the lock was the issue, which seems silly, or if the presence of foreign toilet paper is really forbidden, which seems bizarre. Whatever happens, faithful reader, rest assured that I’ll keep you posted.

There’s a list of political opinions attributed to CBS commentator Andy Rooney which has been circulating for a while. I’d like to point out first of all that not only did he not write this piece, but he has condemned the content, calling it “nasty, mean, and totally inconsistent with [his] philosophy on life.” Details on this can be found at Snopes.

If you’re just interested in what Andy Rooney thinks, that should cover it. The real reason this thing circulates, however is that people agree with the content irrespective of its purported originator. I’d like to address that, because I tend to agree with Mr. Rooney’s opinion that the list is, among other things, nasty and mean.

The list is reproduced below, with my commentary in bold.
———————————-

Good for him!!!
Surprised CBS let him get away with this even though he’s right

Right on, Andy Rooney!

Andy Rooney said on ‘60 Minutes’ a few weeks back:

I don’t think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America; and see what happens…Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.

taking issue with organizations that emphasize non-white culture is one thing; it fails to acknowledge the notion that media outlets in general tend to favor white middle class protestant culture. Even if you don’t think this is true, a lot of people have put forth very good arguments for why it is. Any argument to the contrary would really need to address their evidence, as opposed to ignorantly assuming that everyone agrees there’s no existing racial bias in mainstream entertainment media.

Saying that minorities are victims of nothing but numbers is even worse. The slaves weren’t just bummed out because it was tricky to find other black folks. Racist dogmas supported the practice of kidnapping people from their homes and treating them like beasts of burden. Being a minority means a lot of people think you have less value as a person, even today.

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.

this is a straw man argument. I don’t think anyone says guns make you a killer, nor are they trying to ban you from being able to have a gun. Just like the very things in this example, people want management of how and by whom guns may be used. You need a license to drive a car, which requires passing a test. You can lose the right to drive a car if you show yourself to be incapable of doing it safely. You can’t take a bat into most ballgames, because they’re dangerous.

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, which is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU LISTENING MARTHA BURKE?

I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion.

the suffix -phobia has two related but distinct meanings, only one of which implies fear. The other simply implies intolerance or aversion. See, for example, the the concept of hydrophobia, which has nothing to do with molecules being afraid of one another

I have the right ‘NOT’ to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off. ! ! !

yeah, but being intolerant makes you a jerk

When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling; it is the Law of Probability

Great, now what about the enormous amount of cities in which the arrest rate of blacks is vastly disproportionate? Even racists don’t dispute this, they generally just say blacks commit crime at a higher rate. Here is a discussion of how blacks are prosecuted at disproportionately high rates: http://ndsn.org/sepoct98/outcomes.html

I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen, you should have to speak English!

When have you ever tried to buy something in the U.S. and suffered the disappointment of realizing you stumbled into a business where they don’t speak English? Also, some facility with English is already a requirement for citizenship ( see here) and I don’t know of anyone saying it shouldn’t be.

My father and grandfather didn’t die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come over and disrespect ours.

first of all, this sentence seems to imply that they died in vain, but for a different reason than people being able to disrespect America, which doesn’t make sense. And second, disrespecting America would generally be protected by the first amendment. If one assumes soldiers fight in support of the freedoms granted by the constitution, the right to disrespect America IS one of the things they died for.

I think the police should have every right to shoot you if you threaten them after they tell you to stop.. If you can’t understand the word ‘freeze’ or ’stop’ in English, see the above lines.

Generally the police do have the right to shoot you if you legitimately threaten them. People who object to police shootings argue that the people being shot were not threatening the police, and these claims need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

I don’t think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business .

Nobody thinks this. NOBODY. I’ll give you a hundred bucks if you can show me some material benefit for which people can qualify “just because you were not born in this country,” money which I’ll get from rounding up foreigners and taking them to collect their reward from the government in exchange for a kickback. Now, if you don’t think there should be programs for people born outside the country who qualify on the basis of other factors as well, fine. Stop making stupid generalizations, show me the actual program you object to, and I’ll be happy to have a policy discussion with you.

We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms, so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document; and open to their interpretations.

No, we went to war because a) we were attacked and/or b)because we were pursuing an imperialist agenda. Also, constitutional interpretive philosophy is a completely separate issue form foreign policy.

I don’t hate the rich I don’t pity the poor

Who says you do? I think you overvalue the rich and despise the poor, judging form your various other opinions here.

I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television. That doesn’t stop you from watching them.

Again with the straw man argumentation. Putting aside the fact that I’m not sure why this matters, this completely fails to address any common criticism of pro wrestling. Movies don’t purport to be real; actors don’t slap you if you tell them they aren’t really a robot from the 23rd century. You know wrestling is fake, but a lot of people don’t. Like this guy .

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that’s better, and put your name on the building.

given how much money Gates gives away, and how much people like he and fellow billionaire Warren Buffet talk about global poverty, I doubt even Bill Gates thinks he has every ethical right to keep every penny he has made. Also, if you don’t think there should be taxation, which seems to be an implication here, I’d love to hear how you propose funding the various services that governments provide.

It doesn’t take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid; and smack their little behinds when necessary, and say ‘NO!’

I’m with you except on the slapping, and even there I’m not going to object very enthusiastically.

I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don’t pretend they are a political statement. And, please, stay home until that new lip ring heals. I don’t wan t to look at your ugly infecte d mouth as you serve me French fries!

Hey, two in a row where you managed not to make me particularly angry.

I am sick of ‘Political Correctness.’ I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa; so how can they be ‘African-Americans’? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don’t go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from America and nowhere else.

“African” refers to their ancestry. It isn’t that complicated. If your ancestors obviously came from Africa, it has a very real effect on what it’s like to live in America today.

And if you don’t like my point of view, tough…

What if your point of view is based on ignorance and weak logic? Would you care to address that scenario?

I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don’t. It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having ‘In God We Trust’ on our money and having ‘God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don’t we just tell the 14% to BE QUIET!!!

this part was added by someone who forwarded the original piece, but I’ll go ahead and respond to this as well. I’m not aware of any legitimate objection to having “in God we trust” on money. Some possible reasons people object to the God reference in the pledge is that they think pledging allegiance to ones country shouldn’t involve having to profess a religious belief, particularly in a country with an established constitutional separation of church and state. See more here.

“ppl” is not an acceptable abbreviation for an academic assignment. It just isn’t — not even in a timed, hand-written test. I don’t even like looking at it in actual text messages. You had time for that useless paragraph restating the prompt, you have time for three extra letters. Just cut it out, ok? Please?

From a post on Alternet by Melissa McEwan, on the subject of this country’s potential outbreak of it’s Nader infection:

AlterNet: Blogs: Democracy and Elections: The Return of Nader
Nader also rejects the “spoiler” label many Democrats have applied to him since 2000, when his candidacy was blamed in some circles for helping defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore.

“That is the sign of political bigotry,” he said. “Why aren’t the major candidates spoilers? They represent parties that spoil our electoral system and our government.”

You know, it’s a good point. And I’d have a lot more respect for him if he made a concerted effort to make this point–and endeavored to either galvanize a vibrant third party or progressivize the Democratic party–in between elections, instead of popping up once every four years to indulge a vanity campaign.

Actually, at least as I see it, Nader makes a weak and crooked point. The major candidates aren’t considered spoilers because that’s not what spoiler means, and I have little doubt that he knows this. Unless you’re talking to a small child, the world “spoiler” can be safely assumed to mean someone who has little or no chance of success but who halts the progress of someone who does, and not just someone who goes around spoiling things willy-nilly.

The major candidates aren’t spoilers because they have an actual chance of winning and getting most things right. Yes, Ralph, I know you would set better policy than anyone on the ballot, but the (relative) liberals will set better policy than the rest of the field, no matter how loudly you preach otherwise. I enthusiastically second the notion that a Nader campaign would be great for this country if it started the first day after an election in an attempt to build a workable, efficacious coalition for the next one, and be willing to bow out of that election if necessary as well. As it is, all I see is an enormous ego popping up every four years to thump its chest in front of the electorate.