Overheard Today At Starbucks
From a Democrat, about her relationship with her Republican sister:
"I think she's stupid, and she thinks I'm immoral."
From a Democrat, about her relationship with her Republican sister:
"I think she's stupid, and she thinks I'm immoral."
2007-01-27 at 11.55 am
The glory of that is that they might both be right.
2007-01-28 at 8.14 pm
Yeah, there's probably an element of truth to that.
I think I'm fairly balanced in that I have some of both! Moderation in all things!
2007-01-28 at 10.15 pm
Hee hee–both Republican and Democrat, or both stupidity and immorality?
Yes, all things in moderation. It's funny–most of the time I hear that phrase is when someone is trying to justify eating some sort of rich desert.
2007-01-31 at 5.02 pm
Is this supposed to be one of those "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" moments? I've found both Republican and Democrat writers to be fairly smart in general, but there are plenty of people who choose sides, not because of a political ideology, but for moral reasons. Thus, many people vote Democrat only because they want to save the environment, and many vote Republican only because they want to save babies.
Personally, I think this is a wiser form of voting than conforming to this or that political ideology, especially since no ideology is perfect. Morals have the advantage of being absolute (even if only in the mind of the voter).
2007-01-31 at 7.17 pm
It's a joke.
2007-01-31 at 7.58 pm
Karen–the latter, I think.
Jon–you're right. Whether one is pro-life or pro-environment, one could easily be accused of being either stupid or immoral. The choice is often based on some very basic moral, right. And I think it is better to navigate by basics, like you said.
I wonder if I tend to accuse people of being stupid if I am feeling particularly smart, and accuse them of being immoral at those times when I think my own morality is impeccable? I wonder if that's more the issue, rather than an inherent stupidity or immorality in the cultural class I'm criticizing. I suspect this is true, at least with myself.
I don't quite know what you mean by "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."
P.S. I enjoy your writing and am glad you appear to have made it down to Dallas.
2007-02-01 at 8.16 am
I don't buy this argument about this joke actually being about morals. This is simply a matter of perceived statistics: detrending by income (which skews Republican), higher education is thought to imply more Democratic viewpoints because of the liberal nature of universities (this was more true 20 years ago, since then Republicans have really invested in think tanks and chaired professorships). Similarly, religous affiliation (even detrending for income), is thought to imply Republican viewpoints (as a religious progressive, this annoys me to no end, but there is some good speculation about why people think this).
2007-02-02 at 9.49 am
At the risk of explaining a joke, and having it no longer be funny:
So, I'm throwing down the gauntlet here: this quote really isn't about the actual immorality or stupidity, but a critique of the snap judgements of canonical members of either party, and its humor comes from a certain lack of self-awareness on the part of the speaker. Unreflective Republicans will critique liberal policies as immoral and compromised, while unreflective Democrats will critique conservative policies as unconsidered and imperialistic. This is about stereotypes, and when they are right.
And a second gauntlet: the quote itself arrives from an entirely secular reading of political intervention (well, to the degree that we understand demographics as a secular practice, which it seems to be, given the Biblical record on census taking). By this I mean it is an artifact of technique, rather than having any actual pragmatics or values.
2007-02-02 at 4.55 pm
Umm, yes, I realize it was a joke (or at least that the person making the comment was joking). I guess I'm just making myself obtuse. I guess my philosophical meanderings didn't quite fit into the jocularity of the moment. My purpose was to basically ignore the joke and examine the "problem" from a better point of view. FWIW, John the Statistician's analysis of the joke seems correct.
(BTW, what's up with all these anonymous comments? I can't tell who I'm reading.)
2007-02-02 at 4.56 pm
I use "I guess" way too much.
2007-02-02 at 5.07 pm
Ah, that's cool. If you want to examine the problem(s) implied by the joke, consider me interested.
The anonymous comments are comments by the original author of the post, peaking in over us from the top of the page. The color difference kind of imply this.
2007-02-02 at 5.33 pm
You guys do take yourselves very seriously. Maybe Mark should try again with a new joke.
Right, and if you make two comments in a row, your avatar is not included in the second. This is a little confusing. I think Kevin mentioned changing it at one point. Hmm, I think Jon needs to be assigned a photo. Not that the 3D glasses-spiky-haired guy isn't cool or anything. Jon is just way cooler.
P.S. Mark, I'm taking Graduate History and Analysis this semester. Lots of Shostakovich. Maybe I'll be able answer some of your tricky modal questions next time I see you. Right now we're reviewing fugues…
2007-02-02 at 6.01 pm
We take the subject at hand very seriously. As for ourselves, you're probably right about that, too. Here's a less-serious joke:
There’s this guy sitting at the bar. He says to the bartender, “Man, I feel like I’ve been mashed up, fermented, aged, mixed with soda water and poured into a glass.â€
Bartender says “That’s just the booze talking.â€
2007-02-02 at 6.38 pm
Hey, I'd never heard that one. And so I laughed. :)
2007-02-02 at 6.57 pm
I was undecided whether the white areas were for the author (Mark) or for Kevin. Perhaps we could make the author's headshot appear beside his comments? (And I like my 3D-glasses man, thank you.)
John, what makes a religious progressive these days? That concept has changed (progressed?) so much over the last few centuries that I hardly know how to take it, anymore.
2007-02-03 at 1.16 am
The idea is the author of the post shows up in the same color/format as the post itself, though I admit this is a bit confusing with multiple blog authors.
2007-02-03 at 1.45 am
Jon, I trust this avatar is similar enough.
John: Jon is a Catholic convert.
Jon: John attends a Mennonite church.
(Something tells me I should implement those conflict-resolution features I've had in mind for this blog.)
2007-02-03 at 8.28 am
Most excellent.
2007-02-03 at 11.26 am
Hey, I really like what those folks in the Catholic Worker Movement are doing, if you're familiar. Also, http://hilbertastronaut.blogspot.com/ is a friend of mine who do some great Catholic things. I think that if you wanted to reorganize the Catholic Church to be managed bottom-up instead of top-down, you'd end up with something very nearly Mennonite.
2007-02-03 at 11.44 am
"What is a religious progressive?" is a good question. I don't a solid definition, but I do have a solid example: http://longnow.chubbo.net/salt-feb02005-kennedy/salt-feb02005-kennedy.mp3
Also, I can make vague descriptive flailings if you think it would be helpful. As a very crude shorthand, you the difference is believing that reaching openly to enable the least of these is more Christ-like than the vision of a stern protector, bunkering his family and friends in provisions while waiting for the end times[1]. To me, the cross symbolizes the of dropping all defences, arms wide open, from a position of ultimate power.
Footnotes:
[1]George Lakoff takes an astoundingly crude stab at understanding this as a political difference in this talk (http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=11194).
2007-02-03 at 4.45 pm
Yes, I am familiar with the Catholic Worker Movement, though more in its history than in its modern incarnation. That MP3 looks rather long, but I'll try to finish listening to it over the weekend.