An exposition on a pejorative, and why what I learned doesn't matter

Earlier today I had a long and drawn out Twitter conversation with someone whose opinion, though I disagree with him a lot, I generally respect.  The crux of the conversation was whether the current trend among liberal columnists, politicians, and basically everyone else of using the term "teabaggers" to describe conservatives, or people who have taken part in tea parties, or both, or whatever, is a pejorative.  If one looks at the definition of "pejorative", one sees the following, courtesy dictionary.com:

–adjective
1. having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force: the pejorative affix -ling in princeling.

By that definition, it can easily be seen that the way that "teabaggers" is used most often is a pejorative.  Some people--and for some reason a lot of them seem to be employed by the same network--are in love with the term.

Anyway, my online friend (we live in the same city, but we've never met) said that if the term originated with the tea partiers themselves, then it isn't a pejorative.  I challenged that point, and he pointed me to a Wikipedia article proving that there were protesters who fully knew the double meaning of "teabagging" and used it on their signs and webpages. 

Until today, I was unaware of anyone on what would be considered "my side" using that term that way.  I thought about it for a while (after I had to call off our debate for the day job), and I have come to the following conclusions:

1. It is not acceptable to me, as a father of young children, to be around a movement where it is necessary to use stupid double entendres to make a point.
2. Thus, had I known about what I learned today back then, I would have disavowed it.  Sigh...ignorance is bliss.
3. Yes, I would so have done.  You think I want to expose my children to that kind of language?
   
4. Most importantly, the fact that some very few people on my side used that term at one time does not make it open season on using it and still holding on to whatever shred of decorum is left in political discourse.

And my final conclusion about the whole thing:

Seriously, y'all using that term, grow up.  And that goes for you too, President Clinton.

Dishonorees #3, 4, 5 and 6

I continue to be somewhat surprised and disappointed at the number of people who run afoul of Snowed In's Theory.  The term to which my theory refers is a pejorative little term ("teabagger") used by people who apparently have little of value to say.  It's very frustrating to hear the term quite so often, and yet there are certain places--and networks--where it is commonplace.

And thus it is that two people from MSNBC, along with a guest, think that using pejoratives to define your political opposition is the funniest thing since David Letterman made a tasteless joke about a Palin daughter.

One such dishonoree--you knew this day would come quickly--is Keith Olbermann, who is so wonderfully objective that there is an entire website set up to him, and this website documents his recent (probably not the first, but the first I've seen documented since I wrote the theory) foray into the land of bad taste, a land with which Mr. Olbermann is quite familiar by now.

Also, as documented by Kathleen McKinley in a nice post here, Rachel Maddow and frequent guest Ana Marie "Don't Call Me Wonkette" Cox are frequent users of the offending term.  (There may be a silver lining to this portion of the story...see the end of this column for more.)  I could have documented Ms. Maddow's use of the pejorative term myself, except that I have seemingly blocked the short period of time during which I had MSNBC from my mind.  :)

Like I said, this is MSNBC about which we are talking, so the use of a term such as "teabagger" from its on-air personalities shouldn't surprise me.  But I expect more from our public officials (except my esteemed representative, Lloyd Doggett, from whom I expect little and yet still manage to be disappointed) than to disparage their political opponents in such a manner.  And thus I found myself a little shocked, I suppose, and very unhappy to hear that none other than President Obama has dishonored himself and his office with a quote such as "Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care?"  Lest anyone think this quote must have been made up, it was supplied to the NYTimes by a Dem representative, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, as reported by the National Review Online.

So, in case there was any question regarding what President Obama really thinks of people with whom he doesn't agree, let's make it clear:  President Obama has no respect for you whatsoever.  If you want to disagree with this, disavow the slur above.  And don't come back at me with "well, your side has said blah blah blah..."  Yeah, so that gives our president an excuse to drop down to the level of some of his critics?  The president has the responsibility to be above that kind of thing.  The end.

Ugh.  Let's move on to a better portion of this sad story.  The above-mentioned Kathleen McKinley, aka @RWSparkle (well worth following, by the way, as she is better spoken than I, and she also blogs more regularly than I apparently will be this month) challenged Ms. Cox in the post cited above to stop her use of the term "teabaggers", as shown in the following Twitter exchange (snipped so as to hold on to what little shred of a G rating this blog still has):

RWSparkle @anamariecox I have a better idea. Why don't you stop using the crude term "teabaggers" in Tony Snow's memory?


annamariecox RT @RWSparkle: Why don't you stop using the crude term "teabaggers"? // if you donate to fight colorectal cancer, I'll never use it again.


RWSparkle Why don't u stop using the crude term"teabaggers"? //RT @anamariecox if you donate 2 fight colorectal cancer, I'll never use it again// U GOT IT!


RWSparkle EVERYONE NOTE! @anamariecox promised not to use "teabaggers" anymore if I contributed. I'm the TOP contributer http://tinyurl.com/ycneyyx


RWSparkle @anamariecox I'm taking you at your word. Tony Snow would approve. A good thing to do in his memory.

If you approve of this, you should consider donating as well.

Epilogue:  since I started writing this thing, I have seen confirmation that Ms. Cox has invoked the offending term once more.  Way to keep your promise.  (courtesy this tweet from RWSparkle)  People should still donate, but Ms. Cox needs to be called out for this.  This may end up as a new corollary:  once a dishonoree, always a dishonoree.  I certainly hope that doesn't hold up as true, but nothing I have seen so far from any dishonoree has changed my perception.  Such is life in the Age of Hope and Change, I suppose.

Snowed In's Theory: New Dishonoree

About a month ago, I wrote about my theory about people who can't refer to their political opponents in a civil way:

Snowed In's Theory:  Anyone who uses the term "teabagger", or any form of that word, to refer to Tea Party or other protesters who are concerned about the direction taken by government is not interested in having a meaningful discussion about issues.

Its corollary was along those lines, as corollaries usually are:

Corollary:  Statements, articles, and/or interviews in which this theory comes into play may be ignored as a whole.

Recently Jim Hightower wrote some tripe at his website, jimhightower.com, entitled "Goofing Up Health Care Reform".  If you know anything about Jim Hightower, you know he is no fan of conservatives.  However, in his first paragraph, you can almost imagine the spit flecking from his mouth as he decries those evil tea partiers:

America's shouting match over health care reform has turned completely goofy ­ and I'm not talking about confused seniors at teabag rallies getting red-faced with anger after being told by the right-wing scare machine that "government is trying to take over Medicare."

The rest of the column decries the Democrat senators who don't lean far enough left to suit Mr. Hightower, but since, as far as I can tell, the use of the phrase "teabag rallies" is done by people who want to imply the more offensive "teabaggers" but can't bring themselves to use the actual term, the theory still applies, and thus the whole column is not worth my time, and possibly yours, as stated by the corollary to my theory.

And so, Jim Hightower, you are officially the second dishonoree who has run afoul of Snowed In's Theory.  However, given what I know about your extreme political leanings, you might be proud of this.

(Still no dishonoree graphic.  If anyone wants to make one, I'd be happy to consider it.)

Austin Radio Changes Coming

RadioInsight.com reports that massive changes are coming to the Austin radio landscape on Monday, November 2.  Many, but not all of the changes involve Spanish radio stations flipping to English formats, courtesy the financially troubled BMP Radio.  Here's a quick summary of the changes:

• 1490 KFON:  switching to an undisclosed format from Tejano.
• 1530 KZNX:  moving its local programming to 104.9 (see below).
• 92.5 KXXS:  switching to an undisclosed format.
• 98.9 KXBT (formerly KHHL):  apparently switching to news/talk.  A possible website, 989BigTalker.com, has been registered this week.
  
• 99.7 K259AJ:  the former Hot 93.3 translator is now simulcasting 590 KLBJ.
• 104.9 KHHL (formerly KXBT):  flipping to sports, possibly as "104.9 the Horn".
  

I'll be listening Monday and intend to update as I learn anything, but if you know something, feel free to comment.

Check out RadioInsight.com's entire report for more information.

Update 10/31:  It appears from a RadioInsight.com update (same link as before) and an Austin American-Statesman article that 1490 KFON will keep its current format, which is listed as Spanish oldies by the Statesman and Tejano by RadioInsight.com.  92.5 KXXS will remain a simulcast of 104.9 with the new format.  Meanwhile, former KVET morning host Sammy Allred will have a daily show on news/talk 98.9 KXBT.

Why I'm Missing Stuff in the First Place

Blogging will return to normal shortly...I've been out of town for my grandfather's funeral.  Godspeed, Grandpa.

Stuff I Missed

Well, this is what happens when one's day job eats into time that could be spent blogging.  (Given that the day job pays better*, that is probably the better choice with regard to my time management.  But that's a discussion for sometime around never.)  In any case, here are the stories I would have mentioned earlier if I had had time, but since I didn't, I'll just link to people to did it for me, and you can read it from them.

Rachelle Friberg adds yet another voice to the growing chorus stating that the Republican Party of 2009 does not represent true conservative values, as evidenced in NY-23, where the powers that be chose liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava as their candidate over Doug Hoffman, who is now the Conservative Party candidate.  As she states very well, this same divide is shown in that some of the Republican establishment (who, I suppose, think they know what is best for the party) have seen fit to try to throw Sarah Palin under the bus as well, despite the fact that what she says resonates with many.  And so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to see her endorsing Doug Hoffman.  Ms. Friberg includes Governor Palin's entire Facebook note, but you can also see it here.

Since then, several other people have weighed in to state their opinion on the happenings in NY-23, given the Palin endorsement.  Conservatives 4 Palin compiles some of these opinions here.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration apparently went right off the deep end with regard to its hatred of Fox News, as Ed Morrissey at Hot Air states.  My favorite quote:

Meanwhile, how bad is this for the White House?  They now have all of the broadcast networks on record defending their competitor as a news organization.  That reinforces reporting Fox News will do in the future, to the detriment of White House efforts to marginalize them.  Plus, obviously, they look completely foolish in having to back down from their threat.

Finally, Adrienne Ross has an update on her crusade against the defamation of Sarah Palin with regard to a display linking her to the banning of books (which, as I said earlier this week, she never did, or even tried to do).  I suppose it's a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.  Check out Ms. Ross's update for details.

With luck, I can get back on top of my workload eventually, so that I can give these types of situations the attention they deserve, not just from me, but from you, the loyal, well-informed reader. 

*Tips might change that.  Tip jar's to the right, with many thanks.

Now the Palin-haters have a book for their Christmas lists, too!

Since I know that some of my long-time readers do not share my admiration of all things Palin (such as, for example, my own parents), I present the following in an attempt at equal time.

As reported by the Guardian:

Coming out the same day at Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue:  An American Life" (which still sits at #2 in the Amazon.com bestseller list and is currently available for $9...order your copy--or mine--today!) is a not-nearly-as-rosy look at the life of Sarah Palin, entitled "Going Rouge:  An American Nightmare".  (I'd link to Amazon for that as well, but not surprisingly, they aren't listing it yet.)  As can be seen, everything is made up to look similar to Governor Palin's cover:

Going Rouge is a compilation of contributions from people who think, as the title implies, that the advent of Governor Palin's policies (or their perceptions thereof) in American would be a nightmare.

Hey, you know what?  More power to the publisher.  We Palin-supporters can see the power of capitalism at its best (particularly since Going Rogue will blast Going Rouge out of the water in sales), and you Palin-haters, or non-supporters, or whatever, can believe what you want about her, despite the fact that you're all completely wrong.  (Hey, I said this was an attempt at equal time; take what you can get.)

On a completely unrelated note, I am accepting essays for an upcoming compilation book entitled "Nightmares From His Head:  A Story of the Race Card and Government Takeovers".*

*I might be kidding.

How NOT to make people sympathetic to bicyclists' causes

Want to make people unsympathetic to the cause of bicyclists on the streets?  Only follow the rules when it suits you.

Anyone who drives on never-to-be-widened-ever-ever-ever Manchaca Road (see page 142 here for details) knows that it has the tendency to get backed up going southbound during afternoon rush.  So, it was no surprise the other day when I noticed a long line for the Stassney light.  However, in this case, there was an extra backup in the right lane.  (Thankfully, I was not in the right lane.)  As it turned out, there was a bicycle in the right lane, and cars were waiting to get a chance to move to the left lane to get around it.  That's all well and good.

However, as I sat at the Stassney light (the backup was enough that I did not make the light), I was rather surprised to see the same bicyclist riding up the sidewalk, but only until the light turned green.  At this point, he jumped right back into the right lane of traffic, cutting off several vehicles that, I assume, had just gone through the trouble of trying to pass him earlier.  I can only guess that at that point several of the drivers affected were not too happy about this situation, and about the bicyclist in general.

But Snowed, I hear you cry, it's legal to bike on the sidewalk!  Yes it is, per Austin City Code Section 12-2-13:  "Except as provided in Subsection (B) [a section that lists specific exceptions, not including any portion of Manchaca Road], a person may ride a bicycle on a sidewalk." Again, that's fine.  However, the bicyclist in question ignored Section 12-2-14:  "A bicyclist exiting from an alley, driveway, or building shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian on a sidewalk or sidewalk area, or to a vehicle on a roadway."  The drivers I mentioned earlier were cut off by the bicyclist, in total violation of this section.  I myself have almost hit a bicyclist who jumped onto Manchaca Road without even looking, about two feet in front of my car.

So, Snowed, isn't it legal for him to simply ride between the cars at a light anyway?  No, it isn't, per Section 12-2-16 (B):  "A bicyclist may not ride a bicycle between vehicles traveling or standing in the same direction within marked lanes of a roadway."  The proper thing to do would have been for the bicyclist to wait in line at the red light with the rest of us.

Again, I have nothing about bicycles on Austin streets; I simply think more people would be inclined to treat bikes nicely if their occupants know and follow the law.

A Teacher's Crusade Against a Palin-Slandering School Library

Adrienne Ross, who runs the blog Motivation: Truth, is a public-school teacher who happens, as I do, to support Sarah Palin.  To her surprise, she saw a display during "Banned Books Week" which read "Sarah Palin + Banned Books = Censorship."  This referred back to the long-dispelled myth that Sarah Palin sought to ban books.  As might be expected, Ms. Ross was surprised, and not in a good way, by this display, and she wrote about it; you can see her original thoughts here.

Well, as can be seen in the previous link, Ms. Ross had more than enough information to refute this display's assertion, and she attempted to speak to the librarian.  As days went by, she worked her way up the chain to the superintendent in an effort not only to have the display removed (because eventually it was anyway--Banned Books Week, as you might imagine, only lasts a week) but also retracted.  As of her last writing on this subject, this effort has been futile; you can read about it here.

Perhaps it's just me, but I can't imagine a similar stonewalling occurring in a situation in which the maligned person was, say, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  Maybe I'm wrong, but this is a country in which a supposed news organization is taking time out of its day to fact-check comedy shows.

Hopefully I will be able to follow up with good news; in the meantime, I'd recommend checking out Ms. Ross's blog to all my readers.

Edited to add:  Thanks a lot, Blogspot, for the way you shortened the title in the URL.

Sarah Palin: Drill

As usual, Sarah Palin, in this National Review column, speaks directly to the heart of the matter with regard to our energy policy, or the current lack thereof, starting with her very first sentence:

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them.

And, again as you might expect, Sarah Palin believes, as I do as well, that we need to have more domestic oil as a way of reducing the amount we import.  And we need to do this not just to power our vehicles but also for many other uses:

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Really, I could reproduce the whole thing here, but really, you should go check it out yourself.  (Again:  click here for the column.)

I do, though, want to draw attention to a point she made that most people do not accept as true:

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development.

Too often the debate on environmental issues has been framed as business vs. environment, as if those of us who want to see our businesses success have an innate desire to destroy the earth.  Let's not draw those distinctions; instead, let's have an energy policy that is geared toward helping both businesses and the environment, and, in doing so, help our people prosper.

(Just to be clear:  the proposed "cap-and-tax" plan is not such a plan.  You think you'll prosper more when you're paying four times as much each month in your electric bill?)

Seriously, read Mrs. Palin's column, even if (or especially if) you don't believe she has the ability to write coherently.  There's a lot of common sense to be found there, and we desperately need that right now.

Reminder:  put "#beatcancer" on all your tweets, blog posts, and Facebook status updates today (Friday, 16 October) to help raise money to beat cancer.

I'm helping to raise funds to
#beatcancer, by blogging, tweeting
and posting Facebook status
updates.

Click here to join me!