CSotD: Good things upon which to click
Skip to comments
Today's post is going to look a little short, but don't be fooled: I'm sending you off to other places, so the time spent will be about average. And worthwhile, I promise.
First item is a fun piece by Don Asmussen, better known for Bad Reporter, and is a critique of a Roz Chast exhibit currently in San Francisco.
Starring Nancy and Sluggo. Asmussen's piece, not the exhibit.
Nothing profound but it made me laff several times and, if I were headed for San Francisco anytime this summer, I'd stop in and see Chast's work. Go read the rest of Asmussen's piece.
However, being at the other end of the continent, I'll miss that and, instead, will toddle an hour down the highway to Brattleboro next weekend for this, the difference being that Chast can get pretty heavy and deeply meaningful.
I don't see any threat of that happening at this event.
Here's the link for tickets and directions and so forth.
Juxtaposition of the Day
Reading Horsey and Jones's commentaries on the health care issue brings home something bizarre to me.
I'm always been aware that the lack of compassion for women with either unintended or medically problematic pregnancies is, at least in part, a kind of Scarlet Letter game in which Puritans believe that God wanted women to bring forth children in sorrow and that giving birth is some kind of cosmic punishment for having sex.
And that, consequently, seeking to terminate or even avoid pregnancy in the first place is kind of like ordering the lobster and then refusing to pay the waiter.
That attitude is a sad symptom of a very unhappy, unpleasant world view that I'm glad I don't share.
And it's one that drags religion into the sphere of public policy where it doesn't belong, though that's a different rant, I think.
Or maybe it's not, because, as Horsey in particular points out, the Republicans seem to want to avoid frustrating God's intentions.
It's one thing to believe in the "Gospel of Prosperity," but quite another to believe God actually curses babies with PPP Syndrome, those initials standing for "Piss-Poor Protoplasm."
It's as if they believe, on the one hand, that poor health is caused by a lack of character in the case of those who don't work out or who smoke or who eat the wrong foods, while, on the other hand, it's God's will that some kids are born with PPP and we ought not to interfere with the plans of the Almighty.
Or maybe they're just assholes.
In any case, go read what Dave Horsey and Clay Jones have to say on the subject, and here's Jimmy Kimmel's viral monologue, which is 13 minutes long and the "OMG he's making this political" part starts at about 10:30.
But the whole thing is worth hearing.
Also on the topic of parents and kids
Sarah Laing has a blog posting about watching "13 Reasons Why" with her 14 year old and, like everything else today, it's longer than this sample and well worth the click.
I haven't seen the program but I've seen the frantic headlines and I'm not sure what to make of them.
Between movie companies wanting to hype the impact of their work with publicity stunts like stationing nurses in theaters during horror films, and self-important experts using fads as springboards to help pump up their own ruminations, I've become pretty skeptical over the years.
I mean, I remember "surfer's knobs" from way back in the Sixties and that was pretty important, too, particularly for doctors who needed a publication to put on their CVs.
Or maybe this really is something to worry about.
But I got a kick out of Laing's maternal fretting, particularly since I have strong feelings about people who talk during movies, even with the best of intentions.
And really really finally
This long piece at The Oatmeal can only fit at the end of the posting because there's a good chance you'll walk away from it kind of dazed and not want to come back here anyway.
There's a fashion, particularly among the heartlessly rational, to blame "confirmation bias" for anyone who holds a different viewpoint. It is, I've noticed, an accusation they rarely turn upon themselves.
But Matthew Inman's takedown on "The Backfire Effect" is even-handed and kind of scary if you had hopes of ever bringing people together on anything.
And he is careful to make it an explanation, not an accusation. He's even created a profanity-free version for classroom use.
I won't try to tell you what to think about it, only that you will think about it.
Comments 2
Comments are closed.