5.2 Earthquake in San Diego
Today's earthquake in San Diego (a 5.2 earthquake) took a lot of people by surprise. You can read about the experience (and memories of a far more dangerous quake) at Moderate Voice. Kevin at Primary Main Objective, Lt. Smash, Cinediva, San Diego blog, and USS Clueless have reported in about the quake at their blogs as well.
Louis...if you're out there..how did you make out?
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
David Brooks and the Great Overgeneralization
David Brooks and the Great Overgeneralization
Someone please tell David Brooks that it doesn't matter that Dubya is a "Manager" and went to business school and drives a pick-up.
Bush is destroying America from the inside.
I don't really care that John Kerry plays classical guitar.
He might be able to turn America's disastrous tidal path. We're heading for the rocks.
Of Managers and Professionals
I worked for a major corporation most of my life as one of David Brooks' "Managers" in a "Professional's" skin. A false career for me, I suppose, when you consider my nature, although I did very well and derived a sense of personal satisfaction for a job well-done. After a post 9/11 career change, I now do the work that better suits my nature. 9/11 informed me in a way that no career-advisor could ever inform a client.
Life isn't very long.
We need to do what we can while were here.
Watching all Bush has done after 9/11..pick-up truck and classical guitar considerations aside...I know that part of what I need to do is to remind my fellow Americans that we have a dangerous man at the helm of a country so many of us love with breath and depth indescribably immense.
Brooks blames the citizenry
One look at a man like Lincoln Chaffee or Christopher Shays completely dilutes Brooks' pick-up/management overgeneralizations. Chaffee, Shays, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar...just a few examples of GOP men who do not fit Brooks' "Manager" overgeneralization. Brooks says, if not for the civil war within the educated class in America, this country would be far less polarized. I wonder why it is Brooks fails to fault leadership in Washington, D.C. for the absolutely shitty job they've done this past decade to show the American people what it means to intelligently argue their ideals without all the ad hominem attacks? These are the figureheads of our nation. If they are not charged with heavy responsibility for setting the tone of civility, who should be? To fail to assign blame where blame belongs is little more than delusional and misleading dissemination on Mr. Brooks' part.
America was born through the driving force of David Brooks' Professionals
David Brooks says:
"Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see as simple, straight-talking men and women of faith."
Let me be blunt. Ben Franklin got more tail than a toilet seat. He loved the women. That wouldn't go over big with the faith-crowd in today's technological news age. Yet, Ben Franklin's abundance of ideas fostered the creation of our nation.
David Brooks says:
"[Managers] prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas. They are more likely to distrust those who seem overly intellectual or narcissistically self-reflective."
Dear heavens. "Managers" would have HATED Ben Franklin.
If Brooks thinks he's broken some magical political code with this analysis, someone needs to know we're out here laughing...through our tears.
Someone please tell David Brooks that it doesn't matter that Dubya is a "Manager" and went to business school and drives a pick-up.
Bush is destroying America from the inside.
I don't really care that John Kerry plays classical guitar.
He might be able to turn America's disastrous tidal path. We're heading for the rocks.
Of Managers and Professionals
I worked for a major corporation most of my life as one of David Brooks' "Managers" in a "Professional's" skin. A false career for me, I suppose, when you consider my nature, although I did very well and derived a sense of personal satisfaction for a job well-done. After a post 9/11 career change, I now do the work that better suits my nature. 9/11 informed me in a way that no career-advisor could ever inform a client.
Life isn't very long.
We need to do what we can while were here.
Watching all Bush has done after 9/11..pick-up truck and classical guitar considerations aside...I know that part of what I need to do is to remind my fellow Americans that we have a dangerous man at the helm of a country so many of us love with breath and depth indescribably immense.
Brooks blames the citizenry
One look at a man like Lincoln Chaffee or Christopher Shays completely dilutes Brooks' pick-up/management overgeneralizations. Chaffee, Shays, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar...just a few examples of GOP men who do not fit Brooks' "Manager" overgeneralization. Brooks says, if not for the civil war within the educated class in America, this country would be far less polarized. I wonder why it is Brooks fails to fault leadership in Washington, D.C. for the absolutely shitty job they've done this past decade to show the American people what it means to intelligently argue their ideals without all the ad hominem attacks? These are the figureheads of our nation. If they are not charged with heavy responsibility for setting the tone of civility, who should be? To fail to assign blame where blame belongs is little more than delusional and misleading dissemination on Mr. Brooks' part.
America was born through the driving force of David Brooks' Professionals
David Brooks says:
"Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see as simple, straight-talking men and women of faith."
Let me be blunt. Ben Franklin got more tail than a toilet seat. He loved the women. That wouldn't go over big with the faith-crowd in today's technological news age. Yet, Ben Franklin's abundance of ideas fostered the creation of our nation.
David Brooks says:
"[Managers] prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas. They are more likely to distrust those who seem overly intellectual or narcissistically self-reflective."
Dear heavens. "Managers" would have HATED Ben Franklin.
If Brooks thinks he's broken some magical political code with this analysis, someone needs to know we're out here laughing...through our tears.
Less censorship! Not more!
Less censorship! Not more!
"One of the most important lessons everyone can take from 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' whether they support the war in Iraq, oppose the war or are undecided, is that we need less censorship in this country, not more!"
-- Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Releasing, which is distributing the film
[LINK-MoveAmericaForward is moving America backward]
See my story from June 11.
Blogger Tsuredzuregusa has some good ideas about how to fight the right-wing's campaign for censorship.
There's a great thread at Daily Kos..
*Discussion:
It was suggested to me by one of my good readers that this is more of a boycott than censorship since censorship is generally considered a government's action and not a function associated with the private sector. I explained that I begged to differ and that there is more to censorship than meets the popular desciption. I've heard many a Rush Limbaugh fan say "Censorship cannot be done by corporations...that's not censorship." I am here to remind them that they couldn't be more wrong.
The inescapable fact that the U.S. has an oligarchical concentration of power through corporations (especially with so many mergers over the past 30 years) cannot be discounted when those same markets decide what will be marketed and what will be relegated to silence. The markets are directly responsible for many discriminatory acts...whether or not they could be deemed legally unconstitutional. Bush and Company need not do the censoring..they can sit back and enjoy their corporate partners doing the dirty work for them. What Disney did to Moore was censorship. Disney didn't boycott Moore. They refused to distribute his film. Disney feared governmental rebuke...not a loss of profits. It was censorship, sure as you're born.
Like our Founding Fathers, we need to understand that a concentration of power in the hands of a few is a dangerous game. I urge you to look at the big picture when it comes to the people who are deciding what you'll see and what you won't be able to see.
Linked HERE is a further discussion of the issue.
"One of the most important lessons everyone can take from 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' whether they support the war in Iraq, oppose the war or are undecided, is that we need less censorship in this country, not more!"
-- Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Releasing, which is distributing the film
[LINK-MoveAmericaForward is moving America backward]
See my story from June 11.
Blogger Tsuredzuregusa has some good ideas about how to fight the right-wing's campaign for censorship.
There's a great thread at Daily Kos..
*Discussion:
It was suggested to me by one of my good readers that this is more of a boycott than censorship since censorship is generally considered a government's action and not a function associated with the private sector. I explained that I begged to differ and that there is more to censorship than meets the popular desciption. I've heard many a Rush Limbaugh fan say "Censorship cannot be done by corporations...that's not censorship." I am here to remind them that they couldn't be more wrong.
The inescapable fact that the U.S. has an oligarchical concentration of power through corporations (especially with so many mergers over the past 30 years) cannot be discounted when those same markets decide what will be marketed and what will be relegated to silence. The markets are directly responsible for many discriminatory acts...whether or not they could be deemed legally unconstitutional. Bush and Company need not do the censoring..they can sit back and enjoy their corporate partners doing the dirty work for them. What Disney did to Moore was censorship. Disney didn't boycott Moore. They refused to distribute his film. Disney feared governmental rebuke...not a loss of profits. It was censorship, sure as you're born.
Like our Founding Fathers, we need to understand that a concentration of power in the hands of a few is a dangerous game. I urge you to look at the big picture when it comes to the people who are deciding what you'll see and what you won't be able to see.
Linked HERE is a further discussion of the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)