Re: Non-orientable

1

Did you see that they are opposed to teaching set theory? Presumably because it involves unions.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 6:49 AM
horizontal rule
2

I honestly think that if I made that joke in one of my math classes, none of the students would get it. They would have no reference point for ever having heard of a union.

(I'm not mocking them for being stupid, just saying how non-existent the concept is down here.)


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 6:55 AM
horizontal rule
3

I sometimes wonder whether GOP party platforms are actually intended as a form of performance art.

I've read in the past that the craziest of the crazies are invited to write the platforms because the platforms don't really have much of an impact on anything in practice but they make the nutters in question feel important.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:10 AM
horizontal rule
4

Via TPM, this part of the platform is odd:

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values. [my emphasis]

Are they concerned someone's going to make it a crime to be a bigot? I'm pretty sure it's still legal in all fifty states and the territories.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
5

(I'm not mocking them for being stupid, just saying how non-existent the concept is down here.)

Really? So who do people scapegoat?


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:16 AM
horizontal rule
6

Mexicans.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:16 AM
horizontal rule
7

If you have a something including sexual orientation as a form of discrimination, then hiring/firing bias, hate crimes, etc, all become fraught for your innocent bigot just trying to honestly beat up gay people.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:17 AM
horizontal rule
8

4: Bigoted nurse blocks gay spouse from seeing patient. Damages ensue somehow. Holding the nurse responsible for those damages would be a 'civil penalty'. I haven't worked out a realistic cause of action yet, but there's clearly a possibility for legal penalties for bigoted action.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
9

I do not think I've met a unionized person since I've been in Texas, and I've been here twelve years.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:20 AM
horizontal rule
10

Really? So who do people scapegoat?

Poor people.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:21 AM
horizontal rule
11

legal penalties for bigoted action

That makes sense. I was initially reading it to be concerned with thoughtcrime alone.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
12

2
(I'm not mocking them for being stupid, just saying how non-existent the concept is down here.)

Really, they haven't even heard of the concept? I'd almost blame that more on the education system than anti-union culture or government policies. I can imagine someone not personally knowing any union members (even Texas has a NEA affiliate, but who knows how membership works), and it's very easy to imagine someone knowing union members but not being aware of it. But it seems like it would be hard to get through history class without some mention of the union movement.

Of course, a problem with education in Texas shouldn't come as a surprise either, no offense to the fine Texans here.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
13

Yeah. When in doubt, blame the powerless.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:37 AM
horizontal rule
14

3.last yeah I would imagine. On the one hand more internal party democracy all round would be awesome, on the other hand jesus christ keep the loons down please.


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
15

But it seems like it would be hard to get through history class without some mention of the union movement.

I think it would be quite easy, given who controls the history textbook standards.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:41 AM
horizontal rule
16

You could make a colorable (colourable?) arguement that Texas is the rest of us keeping the loons down.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:41 AM
horizontal rule
17

But it seems like it would be hard to get through history class without some mention of the union movement.

Seriously, it's common. A friend of mine is a labor prof at a nearby university, and has plenty, plenty of students who come to his class knowing what a union is.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
18

Good lord. That hurts to even read, heebie.


Posted by: Annelid Gustator | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:43 AM
horizontal rule
19

I'm pretty sure cops, firemen and teachers are all still unionized in Texas. (Sometimes they're called "associations" but they fulfil the same function. Apparently they're in a pitiful state -- at least in the opinion of That One Fireman I Know -- but they're there.) I haven't read the links, but I bet anything there's something in them about banning unions.


Posted by: Lord Castock | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
20

Wow that manifesto is even worse when you read the whole thing. Hard as it is to believe, cherrypicking makes it look good.


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
21

It's possible that nobody was expected to read the whole thing.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
22

I do know some firefighters and plenty of teachers.

As a right-to-work state, Texas prohibits unions and employees from making union membership and/or the payment of dues mandatory as a condition of employment. The right to bargain collectively -- which Walker is trying to strip from some public and state employees -- is also generally restricted. It isn't even allowed among state employees. No public employee in Texas may legally go on strike. Not surprisingly, unions have significantly less power here and in other right-to-work states than in labor strongholds like Wisconsin.

Still, some workers in Texas are unionized -- about 5.4 percent of the total labor force here (including private and public jobs) belongs to a union, compared to 14.2 of Wisconsin's total labor force. Firefighters and police officers in most big Texas cities have collective bargaining rights, says Ed Sills, spokesman for Texas AFL-CIO, as do Houston's city employees. They have that right because the municipalities have voted to allow it.

Texas public school teachers may vote to have a group represent them in discussions with school management in a process known as "elected consultation" -- if the local school board allows it. Elective consultation is similar but not identical to collective bargaining, with the most crucial difference being that any agreement reached through elected consultation is not binding on the school board, says Rob D'Amico, spokesman for the Texas branch of the American Federation of Teachers, one of several public school employee organizations. Texas AFT represents 65,000 public school employees but not administrators.

So I guess I know some unionized people after all. Although I don't know if the people I know have joined the unions.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
23

Further to 19, looks like there are also state employee unions and various other labor unions from farm workers to communication workers to machinists, just like one would expect to find anywhere else. I don't see how anyone could credibly claim not to know what a union is, unless they were affecting not to know because they think their parents or peer group disapprove of unions. (This might also explain the not-encountering-anyone-unionized thing. Maybe unions are the sort of thing you don't bring up in polite company?)


Posted by: Lord Castock | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
24

Cross-posted with 22. So it's just the unionization has been appallingly restricted/gutted by "right-to-work" bullshit. It's making more sense now.


Posted by: Lord Castock | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
25

Moderately on-topic, my very-culturally-red-state (Western NY would be a red state if it were a state) nephew-in-law (the one married to the niece who just joined the Marines) just put up a Facebook status cheering over the survival of the healthcare law. I knew I liked that boy.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
26

Drat, wrong thread.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
27

21: it is a classic case of the weirdos being given the manifesto to play with on condition nobody ever fucking mentions the thing again. Look at the rather pathetic attempts to get this thing taken seriously: Texas House Leadership Town Hall, Texas House Leadership Caucus, and (the real giveaway) Enforcing the Platform.

(Corporal punishment in schools? WTF? Boy Scouts of America? Uh? The 1932 Republican Party economic platform?! What? I could write a better manifesto for the Texas Republican Party in two hours ffs.)


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
28

I don't see how anyone could credibly claim not to know what a union is, unless they were affecting not to know because they think their parents or peer group disapprove of unions.

Unions occupy so little of people's attention that they would never bother to mention it, around their kids or students. It's like some piece of obscure legislation - it's easy to get to college without hearing about something obscure.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
29

have their heads so astonishingly far up their own assholes that they form a Klein bottle

Is this original? Either way, I'm totally stealing it.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
30

No call to ban unions... but they do want to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act! And the Federal Reserve system!

27: it is a classic case of the weirdos being given the manifesto to play with on condition nobody ever fucking mentions the thing again.

Why would one do this? Don't they know what the purpose of a manifesto is?


Posted by: Lord Castock | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
31

I do not think I've met a unionized person since I've been in Texas, and I've been here twelve years.

You have if you've met a UPS driver, postal worker, or airline pilot. A decent chance of it if you've shopped at a Kroger.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
32

They would have no reference point for ever having heard of a union.

What did they think that NBA lockout thing was all about?


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
33

You have if you've met a UPS driver, postal worker, or airline pilot.

IYKWIMAITYD.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
34

No Krogers in heebie's part of the state, I believe.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
35

I didn't realize Kroger was more labor-friendly and now I feel like an asshole for shopping at Giant Eagle.


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
36

I thought Giant Eagle was unionized.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
37

Yeah, where you live they are, but not where I live.


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
38

We don't even have a Kroger.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
39

29: Is this original?

I did "characterize Ben Stein as a "human Klein bottle" once--forget if I stole that.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
40

9: I'm pretty sure you had one as a guest at your wedding.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
41

29: I at least came up with it on my own! I don't claim uniqueness.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
42

40: Well, I was trying to think if Kraab is actually considered a part or not. I mean, she doesn't work for the actual company?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
43

I texted a friend of mine who's a labor prof at a local state university and asked "What percentage of high school seniors in Texas know what a union is?"

His answer: 10%.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
44

"What percentage of high school seniors in Texas know what a union is?"

That's, like, what gay people do instead of getting married, right?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
45

43 surprises me, though. I figured they'd have absorbed it along with socialists and Muslims as a standard item on the list of things that are destroying freedom.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
46

I mean, you're even less likely to encounter a union member in NC than in TX, but oh man do I have a bunch of old high school acquaintances who spit venom at the very mention of them.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
47

you're even less likely to encounter a union member in NC than in TX

Because the greater tree cover means they blend in.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
48

Who on this thread is in a union?


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
49

I used to be in AFSMCE.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
50

I joined the union when I worked part-time at Kroger in high school.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
51

I'm in one. It's alright. A lot of infighting, but they've managed to keep our pension fund intact.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
52

30
Why would one do this? Don't they know what the purpose of a manifesto is?

To give busybodies who really care about symbolism but not so much about achieving results something to do where they can't do much harm to your actual agenda.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 10:46 AM
horizontal rule
53

How does this:

You have if you've met a UPS driver, postal worker, or airline pilot. A decent chance of it if you've shopped at a Kroger.

square with this:?

Texas prohibits unions and employees from making union membership and/or the payment of dues mandatory as a condition of employment.

Serious question.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
54

Lots of people join unions (where they exist) even in right-to-work states, don't you think. A UPS driver in Texas might have the option not to be a union member, but would still be likely to be.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
55

Texas prohibits unions and employees from making union membership and/or the payment of dues mandatory as a condition of employment.

What about employers? In less mad parts of the world, many companies encourage union membership as making it easier for them to communicate and generally deal with a large workforce.

Would that cover 53?


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
56

Pwned by 54, I think.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
57

Our union is IUPA which is chartered under AFL-CIO and I'm also a member of FOP.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
58

I'm also a member of FOP.

The best dressed union in law enforcement.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
59

I'm a Dapper Dan man.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
60

53: Same law holds here, but people do still join. Less so at a low-wage employer like Kroger, which is why I qualified it as just a "decent chance".


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
61

In less mad parts of the world, many companies encourage union membership as making it easier for them to communicate and generally deal with a large workforce.

I've never heard of a company doing that.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
62

I have definitely never in my life had a conversation with a Texan about the union which they are a part of. Actually, I can't think of a single person in my life with whom I've ever had such a conversation, outside of communist family members and possibly Kraab. And people on Unfogged.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
63

4:

Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.
Are they concerned someone's going to make it a crime to be a bigot? I'm pretty sure it's still legal in all fifty states and the territories.

I think this is targeted at anti-bullying rules in schools, so that you can be in the clear bullying the queers if your hatred for queers is based in "faith" or "traditional values". The issue has come up in a few states now; I haven't kept up with which ones actually included such an exemption.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
64

Two parents and three grandparents were in unions and got those decent retirement benefits. I was in a union in college when I worked in the dining hall. No union for me, but I represent a union as a lawyer (not in labor negotiations).


Posted by: unimaginative | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
65

48: Just finished my first year as a union member--my U is the first place I've ever worked at which it was an option.


Posted by: J Robot | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 4:46 PM
horizontal rule
66

4

Are they concerned someone's going to make it a crime to be a bigot? I'm pretty sure it's still legal in all fifty states and the territories.

This is the sort of thing they are upset about.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 6:04 PM
horizontal rule
67

66: Was that supposed to have been self-evidently horrible?


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 6:44 PM
horizontal rule
68

40: Well, I was trying to think if Kraab is actually considered a part or not. I mean, she doesn't work for the actual company?

Kraab is. I work for a union, but I'm also a member of another union and have a collective bargaining agreement, praise be. And M/tch is an NTEU member.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
69

Lots of people join unions (where they exist) . even in right-to-work states, don't you think. A UPS driver in Texas might have the option not to be a union member, but would still be likely to be.

Right. Frex, about 85% of eligible AT&T workers in Texas (and N.C.) are members, versus essentially 100% in rational states. Unions are still required to represent everyone, though, member or not, so the other 15% are free riders. Rates at other strongly union companies (like UPS) are going to be similar.

Membership rates at other union-represented companies in RTW states can be much lower.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 06-29-12 9:55 PM
horizontal rule
70

||

Continued:why I wouldn't live in Japan, inspired by reading dialogue from Cronenburg's M. Butterfly

I have seen several real life observations of American (Canadian, British) expatriates, and they are all men, living in Japan, usually resident for decades and they all seem a little...umm, passive. Cowed. Gentle. Intimidated. Submissive. Over-polite. Tentative. They all seem to have a permanent hunch, as if they were unconsciously bowing all the time. Even in conversation with the gentlest of Japanese intellectuals they are unassertive in comparison. Even when alone, or in conversation with other expatriates they seem beaten down, especially in comparison with most Japanese, both men and women, and definitely in comparison with how Americans act in their native country.

Internalized the tatemae hierarchy and have become too terrified of giving offense. Like Edo era peasants. The politeness structures are important but rude, crude and offensive on occasion is something a native Japanese can and must get away with in order to establish trust and sociality.

lj over at ObsWi, who lives there, said she felt unsure about using politeness forms in a sarcastic manner. I should crosspost this.

Anyway, kind of a scarey place, not because the Japanese are scarey, but because apparently presuming not to presume can become an identity for an ex-pat.

From a movie about Sen no Rikyu, to a young Christian circa 1600:"No matter how much tea you drink, your eyes will still be round."

|>


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
71

||

Famous story on the webs about an American ex-pat in Tokyo with a Japanese girl who dumped him after 3-4 years.

"I can't stand you anymore, you talk and act like a girl."

Part of this is most instructors are women, and the language is highly gendered. Part of it might be see above. Ex-pats can't be assholes like Japanese men. Or don't think they can.

I wouldn't last weeks.

|>


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
72

I think they reincarnate you over there, so you'd be fine in the end.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
73

||

And as I close my browser, the wallpaper is a still from Ali:Fear Eats the Soul

And this:

Song: Comrade. Why in Beijing Opera are women's roles traditionally played by men?

Chin: I don't know. Most probably a remnant of the reactionary and patriarchal social structure . . .

Song: No. It's because only a man knows how a woman is supposed to act. (Cronenberg, 1993)

A hegemony works by making you insecure and tentative in performing your role. Women can't understand the patriarchy, in either acquiescence or resistance, they can only know how men are supposed to act.

|>


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
74

||

And of course part of the way good men are supposed to act is to say that only women can understand the patriarchy, even though the men are the beneficiaries of privilege and the patriarchs. Also:colonialism, racism, class, heteronormativity and homophobia. And residing in an alien land.

We define ourselves by our reflections, in relation to how the other acts, how we expect or want or demand the other to act. ("Easily offended, are you? Fragile and emotional? sumimasen gozaimasu, -sama") Usually we become disappointed and resentful, expressed in various ways, for instance sarcastic and ironic submission.

Enough. Too much.

|>


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
75

70 Ha, I always thought lj was a dude. But then I haven't been reading ObWi regularly for some time.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
76

Is this a "never the twain shall meet" argument Bob?

I studied Islam academically for a number of years before having a chance to actually live in a Muslim country for a few years. Living there and speaking the language I learned things about Islam, Muslims and North Africans that I'd never have picked up in a thousand books.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
77

76:I would hope that a thousand books by Muslims and North Africans would not be totally without value in learning about their areas, traditions, etc.

Hey, I can't respond to that without being just a little bit insulting, but God knows, not being a speaker or reader of the language, I have encountered, directly or indirectly, enough American expat experts.

The post-war Japanese resident experts said the Emperor must be retained and that Japan would never be an industrial or export. They recommended toys and trinkets. It was the blithe ignorant young New Dealers who wrote the Japanese Constitution (served them well, and protected to this day) and helped the Japanese construct a managed economy.

People, oh not you Barry, me and many others, manage to spend our whole lives looking seeing tasting fucking and still don't learn a damn thing. I am not impressed by direct experience.

(lj needs to come by, and use the Unf-style sheet.

"Bob, you have everything wrong. That is all")


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 4:56 PM
horizontal rule
78

Bernard Lewis ...spent a whole lot of time in Turkey.

I went all through this interminably during the Iraq Invasion.

"No, trust "our" ME experts because of their credentials and experience. Those other ME "experts" are biased Imperialist racist thugs, who have obviously learned nothing from lifetimes of study and residence."

I don't even trust the the Japanese on Japan, and I believe that visiting or residency would tempt me to privilege my direct experience way way too highly, and make me overconfident in my judgements. I assume my privilege and biases distort my own perceptions.

Seems to work that way for many people.

I seem to need a whole lot of different sources to overcome skepticism.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
79

I am not impressed by direct experience.

That's one hell of a statement. But ok then...

I don't even trust the the Japanese on Japan, and I believe that visiting or residency would tempt me to privilege my direct experience way way too highly, and make me overconfident in my judgements. I assume my privilege and biases distort my own perceptions.

Fair enough.

Bernard Lewis...

Ouch.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 06-30-12 8:11 PM
horizontal rule