John Kasich is hard of hearing?

I just glanced at a quote by Ohio's John Kasich (former governor) that Biden wasn't a good communicator. Really? I understand him when he talks. He wants abortion legal to the day of birth. It's only about 10,000 viable infants who will die each year. He wants millions to come through our borders unscathed with no consequences. Some seek asylum, some wealth, some destruction of our country. He wants Israel to fail in wiping out Hamas. What country could possibly trust this guy? He wants Ukraine to win in its civil war against Russia with no options for negotiation. He wants me to drive an electric car at great expense and inconvenience. He wants girls to share locker rooms with boys and be beaten in athletic events. He wants the USA to go deeper in debt. No, John, I'm hearing him loud and clear. But sometimes Republicans are as hard of hearing as Democrats.

Male Answer Syndrome

When my children were toddlers, Phil Donahue was a local talk show personality in Dayton, Ohio, and I watched him everyday. If my friends came over with their babies, we'd watch him together. One thing I noticed 40 years ago was that no matter how famous the guest or how well-known the celebrity, when it was time for questions, the women in the audience asked questions, and the men expounded their own theories and ideas instead of mining for new information from the expert. Every program. Every guest! Many years later when I used to watch Charlie Rose on public TV, I observed that when he interviewed women authors, his questions were really expository and overly long and boring, often leaving her with nothing to say except, "Yes," or "No," or "I agree, Charlie." With male guests, he allowed them free rein and didn't interrupt them.

Today I was reading an artist's newsletter about Male Answer Syndrome, which led the artist-author to comment on the differeces between male and female artists. Apparently, it has had a name since the early 90s and I missed it.

And what do you talk about with your friends, Donna?

Donna Butts is executive director of Generations United which according to her letter to President Obama in 2008 has 4 priority areas: "maximizing tax dollars through intergenerational shared sites and resources; supporting intergenerational caregiving and family structures; engaging children, youth and older adults as resources to communities and families; providing access to quality health care coverage for all people in the U.S." Just off the top of my head after 5 minutes research, I'd say GU is one of thousands of non-profits which exist to get grants from the government and other non-profits (foundations, churches, etc.) to provide a living for their staff. (Most churches have provided for this since the beginning of the first century A.D.) And although they might not be living with their parents or children, I know very few boomers who aren't pitching in to either help their parents or their adult children and grandchildren.

However, I just want to draw attention to a quote of Donna Butts which appeared in papers today in heralding the Pew Research report about multigenerational households on the increase (they are no where near as common as 1940, but up a little between 2007 and 2009).

"All they (older people) do is talk about who died, what hurts, and what medication they're on." It's not that she's incorrect. I'm 70, and I've learned a lot about recovering from mastectomies, stroke, laproscopic robotic surgery, bronchitis, and pulled muscles just from listening to people over 45. And I've regaled a few with my story of sleeping on airport floors sicker than I've ever been in 2009. But I've also heard about apps for my I-Touch, volunteer opportunities, Twitter and Facebook, free concerts, 9-12 political events, the best travel deals and new restaurants to try.

And Donna--have you ever stood in line behind a group of teen-age girls and overheard the fascinating topics they discuss? 1) boys, 2) texting, 3) boys, 4) clothes, 5) boys. Or how about that group of millennials who were at the next table where we ate last week, meeting after work to unwind? 1) Unintelligible screeching, 2) Ear splitting howls, 3)Oh. My. God. 4) Dirty joke, 5) Workplace gossip. Or a Jane Austen fan club? Or BMW owners? Or generation 2 point 0 anything?

People talk about what they know and experience--at any time in life. If you're not into motorcycle cross country trips or saving dolphins, you'll probably be bored. Donna may talk about generation research to anyone who will listen, regardless of age.

Librarians are bossy

The younger, 2.0 librarians are quite proud that they don't "shush," can wear trendy clothes and tattoos, and have Wii and e-books streaming out the wazoo in their libraries. But they are still just as bossy as my generation and the generation who were my supervisors and revisers (in the old days of the 1960s, everything you did was revised or inspected by someone above you in seniority and position). Here are some rules to participate in an electronic list by a group called Web4Lib. Note: each statement could stand alone and be perfectly understood, but in true librarian fashion each has to be expanded and explained, some with parentheses. (Librarians love parentheses.) A version of these rules appear everywhere that people are sharing information on the web, but I'm betting that a librarian is somewhere way back in the family tree of every listserv and Usenet BB. Don't let those IT or OT folks pull your leg. They are really librarian wannabees who had better math grades. In fact, I think Moses was the first librarian--at least he was good at making lists and organizing information.

Guidelines for Appropriate List Behavior
The following guidelines are offered as advice for how to best participate in this discussion in a manner that will both contribute to the experience of all readers and also reflect well on you.

Say something substantial. Simply saying "I agree" (in so many words) or "I disagree" (in so many words) does not meet this guideline. Specific technical questions are, however, quite appropriate, as are brief answers to such questions.

Say something new. Mere redundancy will not convince an opponent of their error. Explaining the same argument differently in an attempt to make them see the light has not been proven to be an effective strategy.

"Getting the last word" is for children. [Yikes--how condescending is that!] We're all beyond the age when we should be concerned with being the one to end the argument. Just because you are the last to speak doesn't mean you won the argument.

Agree to disagree. The likelihood of convincing someone to change a strongly held opinion is nil. State your case, but give up on the idea of converting the heathen.

Take "conversations" off the list. When list interaction becomes two-sided (two individuals trading comments or arguments) it is a sign that you should take the discussion off the list and correspond with that person directly. If the discussion was of interest to the general membership you will see others posting on the topic as well.

Remember that you are being judged by the quality of your contributions. No matter whether you are employed or not, or a certain age, or have a certain education, you can create a good professional reputation by how you contribute to a large electronic discussion like Web4Lib. On the other hand, you can ruin your reputation even faster and easier.

NEVER send email in anger. [Isn't that in the Bible? I know I've heard it at church.] Go ahead and compose a message in anger, since that may help you work through what you're angry about, but don't send it. Sleep on it. You will nearly always decide to not send it or to recompose it. There's a reason for that.

Be civil. Treat others how you wish to be treated. No matter how insulting someone is to you, you will always look better to the bystanders (of which there are many, I hasten to remind you) by responding politely.

Respect the rights of others. An electronic discussion is a commons. Your right to post ends at the right of others to not be insulted, badgered, or to have their time needlessly wasted.

3591

Can 83% of Americans be wrong?

Yes. Someone surveyed Americans (don't know the source--I got it second hand from WSJ) and 83% said they wished they had more time with the family.

This is so easy! Confiscate all the i-pods and cell phones, take down/turn off the cable/internet connection. Put the whole family in the car, but don't go anywhere, not even to a movie or fast food restaurant. Find something to talk about.

It may not be quality time, but you'll change your answer on that next survey.

The rhetoric of activism

Whether you've marched in an anti-war protest or bombed a research lab, the rhetoric undergirding the action is pretty much the same. This template came from an animal rights magazine in the 90s, but you can add your politics of choice: bilingualism, environmentalism, ageism, racism, genderism, feminism, etc. You will recognize many of the points from reading this list, even if you've never heard of animal rights. This was originally about chickens and their rights--but could just as easily be about white tailed deer who have a right to eat your garden or illegal aliens who have a right to cross the border and use your benefits. My asides are in brackets. Upon reading it, you'll see the futility of arguing with these people. Move on.

1) Don't use apologetic or non-offensive statements, it deprecates your views.
2) Don't accept defeatist views; it shows self doubt.
3) Human victims often collaborate unconsciously with their oppressor; don't affirm anything the destroyer is doing. You have the moral imperative; this is not a matter of simple choice.
4) Animals [or insert the cause of your choice] are not underlings but "other nations." They should not be compared to humans with diminished capacities such as babies or the mentally defective. This is arrogant [Note: "arrogant" is a common word in activist lingo.]
5) Why even suggest that conventional views have merit? It plants doubt in people's minds about your efforts.
6) As a spokesperson, you must establish your identity. Do not ever let the other side define you or what you are about [i.e., in a GQ article or a TV ad that suggests a viable alternative to your viewpoint].
7) The combination of western science, capitalism and homocentricity can be thrown up to you in expressions like "science reports" or "it is known that," or "studies show" this is sheer epistemological deficiency, cynicism and intimidation. Do not stand for it! [Note: This is an essential point: most activist groups HATE Western Culture, especially capitalism even if they using computer technology at state supported institutions, including our system of caring for children, our textbooks, our churches, etc. Christians and Jews are particularly targeted for abuse if they cite a higher morality. Their actions are much more about capitalism and western culture than saving an animal habitat or stopping a war.]
8) Only oppressors deny the importance of suffering to the individuals who suffer (keeping a bird in a cage, or a dog as a pet, or riding a horse). [Note: Militant pro life activists would point out that a fetus feels pain and suffers; militant CUBs would stress the suffering of birthmothers. Both groups might condone stalking or picketing, but only for their group, because of the righteousness of their cause.]
9) You can't do everything. If others accuse you of not caring about people, stop explaining and take a proactive stance. You must focus your attention on this one issue.
10) The abuse of animals ["abuse" includes owning pets--it's a very broad definition] is as serious as any other abuse. Apologize TO the animals, not FOR them.

3398 Silly word choices

An article on full body scans for skin cancer for female veterans I noticed this odd phrasing, "We found that 16% of subjects would refuse the examination if the primary care provider were of the opposite sex, whereas 38% would not refuse but be less willing to be examined. "

Seems that whole sentence could be tightened up a bit by using the term, "male doctor."

And who knew our brave women soldiers were so squeamish around men?

Archives of Dermatology. 2006;142:312-316.

E.S. Browning pitches like a girl

Several times I've written posts about the differences in writing style between men and women. Most of my examples come from the Wall Street Journal. Women staff writers of this publication use fewer idioms, less colorful language, and usually include more direct quotes. Their articles also contain a "yes, but. . ." lead if they are presenting anything positive about the economy or culture. Or they hate to commit. The good news will be placed near the bottom, if you persevere through their stodgy style. Let me offer some examples by writers whose names clearly indicate their sex.

First the guys in yesterday's paper:

"The hedge-fund locomotive ran into some impossible obstacles but for the most part kept chugging ahead in 2006." Gregory Zuckerman

"Latin American stocks surged to a 4th straight year of double-digit increases, their longest streak in at least 19 years, as global investors increased bets that big economies such as Mexico and Brazil have bid "adios" to a rocky past of one crisis after another." John Lyons

"The deal-making world can hardly suppress its glee about 2006, which will go down as the best year to date. Business has been so good that some are gritting their teeth, afraid their luck may somehow run out." Dennis K. Berman

And now the ladies:

"Bond investors enter 2007 divided about the prospects for the U.S. economy. They will find out in the coming months which camp has it right." Serena Ng

"Asian stocks logged another year of gains, but it wasn't an easy ride for investors." Laura Santini

"As the air rushed in and out of the crude-oil market in 2006, the breathless rise and surprising fall dominated discussion of whether the commodity boom could last." Ann Davis

Notice the next time you read WSJ, Forbes or Business Week: The men who write about business, politics and economics heavily use gambling, sports, technological, automotive and agricultural idioms, anecdotes, methaphors and analogies. They play games with words and tease the reader just a bit--using double meanings, puns and ambiguities. They coin new words, invent proverbs, use slang, and get sloppy with foreign words, like using "adios" in my second example (for Brazil it should be Portuguese, not Spanish).

The women, on the other hand, are more literal, timid and bland. If they do use figurative language, the phrase is probably so commonplace, we don't even notice, i.e. they are as dull as dishwater but hit the nail on the head. They tend toward touchy-feely and weakly emotional words to humanize the markets--"disappointing performance," "hoping it starts strongly," "outlook is cloudy," "could fizzle," etc.

So all this leads me to E. S. Browning. He writes like a woman. The exception that proves my rule. In fact, because of his use of initials (his friends call him Jim according to one article I Googled), I'd always figured he was a female--that and his straight-forward, gloomy, no-nonsense writing style. He's a 27 year staff writer veteran for the Journal and is the writers' union representative, according to articles that quote him.

"Investors are approaching 2007 with a high degree of optimism--perhaps too high, some skeptics worry." E. S. Browning