Racist Lying Hecklers

 

On Joe Wilson’s “heckling President Obama” with “YOU LIE!”, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) offered this prescient quotable in today’s LA Times (House admonishes Wilson, A15):

“He (Wilson) did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks. I would say it instigated more racist sentiment….I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and rdiding through the countryside intimidating people. That’s the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked.”

The logical conclusion indeed. Critical thinking made easy, courtesy of one of Georgia’s elected officials.

The logical conclusion of the quote above, I daresay, is that calling a person of color a liar indicates the presence of a racist. It also assumes that “folks” are waiting for a ballsy racist to call someone a liar so they can don the white sheets and run around terrorizing people.

On a sort of unrelated side note, I really do wonder why the content of the accusation itself hasn’t been discussed at length in the media. If Wilson was inaccurate, it should be fairly easy to establish him as an ill-informed blowhard, or an outright liar himself. It’s not exactly possible for Wilson to be telling the truth, and Obama to be telling the truth (at least when it comes to Obama “LYING” or not). A bit ironic that there is so much twinkle-toeing around the meat of the accusation, especially when it all started with someone calling the president of the United States a liar. Perhaps it’s supposed to be an open-ended, postmodern mystery for us to wrestle with. 

On another unrelated side note, the pro-Wilson demonstrator pictured alongside the article is holding a sign that has the word “believe” spelled incorrectly. Just another dumb hick Republican that can’t spell “believe,” I guess.

When Post-Modernism Attacks

This is the inspiration behind Farts and Letters.

It takes me back to an American Lit survey class, junior year. I disagreed with a student on an interpretation, pointing to a line of text as evidence. She looked at me aghast, and asked:

“You mean you can’t read something and get one interpretation, and I can’t read something and get a different interpretation?”

I replied that sure, we could, and we were. But that didn’t mean both of our interpretations were equally valid. 

My prof. then looked down wisely, and condescended to inform me that I was a “new criticist,” which we were all to understand was an outdated form of literary criticism. I hadn’t taken critical theory yet, and I had no idea what it was. The matter was sufficiently concluded, and we could all get back to talking about how the poems and stories meant whatever the heck we felt like they meant.

Via Joanne Jacobs via Maggie’s Farm.

Back to school

I’m back at university, studying schools and what-not for an MA. First quarter is down. I was a bit intimidated the first time through (I still am, actually), but I wrote a few quality papers, and I understood a lot of the mountain of reading material. It’s been a good call so far. 

Post-modern thought is undeniably pervasive here (and I’m sure elsewhere), which is sort of a broccoli fart, but I’m being challenged, and it’s forcing me to do more reading. Some instruction has been surgically one-sided, however my experience on the whole has been that professors make an effort to ensure all voices are heard. One class was truly emblematic of the diversity-of-thought ideal. One was not, and often I was too weary to deal with the awkward consequences of making a respectfully challenging comment. Once in a while I did, and then the class would get quiet and stare at the floor. But all instructors have demonstrated themselves to be knowledgeable, helpful, kind, and enthusiastic.  

That was last quarter, and so far I’ve only had one meeting for each of my winter classes, but so far so good. Here are a few post-modern nuggets from this week’s reading (Scott, 1998, in Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems, pp. 3-29). Take me out with a puff of putrid green gas.

Number 1:

“It is essential to remember that definitions are neither true nor false, but are only more or less helpful in calling attention to certain aspects of the phenomenon under study.”

Sort of an irrelevant comment if it’s neither true or false. I understand the point, but there’s no need to say things like “definitions are neither true nor false,” which is statement that sort of loses it’s pop if it’s not true or false. 

Number 2:

“Each (conception)…carries it’s own truths as well as its own biases.”

Truths, just coming and going, floating too and fro. Never can have enough of them. Also, it’s sort of weird to have truths, yet not have definitions that are either true or false. Weird. 

Definitely farts in the letters.