Friday's Book Review: Dogbert's Clues for the Clueless

Title: Dogbert's Clues for the Clueless

Author: Scott Adams

Date: 1993

Publisher: Andrews & McMeel

ISBN: 0-8362-1737-3

Length: 112 pages of cartoons

Quote: "You could buy some other book on etiquette, and in it you might find such useful tidbits as what kind of uniform the upstairs servants should wear, or the proper way to address the Pope when you meet him in person. But if you want practical information--like what to do after you sneeze in your hand--then you have to buy this book."

This book is for giving to the outstandingly rude co-worker. It shows and tells rude people:

"If your lips are extended beyond your nose, then you are about to do something rude."

"Don't try to crush people by pushing the 'close' button" (on an elevator).

"For some strange reason it is expected that guests bring gifts to parties. Generally, a host will know if your gift is something you found in your glove compartment."

How reliable is Dogbert as a guide to etiquette? What would you expect from a fat neutered male albino lapdog? He confuses Manx cats, which have extra-thick fur and short or missing tails, with Rex cats, which have very sparse fur and normal tails. He suggests that it's normal for Dilbert's dates to flirt with other guys, perhaps rude when Dilbert's dates forget that Dilbert is still there and kiss other guys, and definitely rude when Dilbert's dates get too carried away to stop kissing other guys when Dilbert tells them that in another five minutes he'll go home.

Dogbert also seems to think it's normal to be traumatized when new mothers feed their babies in public. I think it would be healthier if new mothers kept their babies at home, away from airborne germs, too, but I could wish that some of the other Dilbert cartoon characters (perhaps Angry Alice?) had at least suggested that Dogbert and other males might benefit from therapy to deal with the inferiority complex they're showing.

Anyway, if you know the cartoons, you know the very special etiquette and logic of Dilbert's world already, so why bother about inaccuracies? Dogbert's Clues for the Clueless contains more than a hundred cartoon strips that, at the time of publishing, had not appeared, in the newspaper. 

Book Review: The Strong-Willed Child

Title: The Strong-Willed Child

Author: James Dobson

Date: 1978

Publisher: Tyndale

ISBN: 0-8423-6661-X

Length: 240 pages

Quote: “Most parents have at least one such youngster who seems to be born with a clear idea of how he wants the world to be operated.”

It’s James Dobson, so you know what to expect, right? Religious Right? Right! Dobson may be remembered as an advocate of physical correction for children.

I personally believe that parents have a right to use reasonable physical correction on children. I was spanked as a child, by other older people as well as my own parents, and I don't think it did me a bit of harm. In fact one of the more loving things my father ever did for me, as a child, was to knock me down flat...before I could step on a venomous snake. I'd hope I'd be able to do that for a child today. However, apart from a few obvious correctives like "Don't step on that snake" or "Don't play with matches" or "You're not allowed to hit other people," I don't remember spanking doing me any good, either. It didn't leave physical or psychic scars but it completely failed to teach me what adults wanted me to do instead of whatever I'd been doing. Before trying to justify slapping a little hand, adults need to consider what we want the child to learn. If it's "Keep the house clean," then instead of slapping the child who carelessly spills food on the floor, it makes more sense to direct the child to clean up the mess. Venting emotions at children may or may not scare them; it does distract them from absorbing information. It teaches them "Teacher doesn't like me" instead of "Kicking the back of the seat ahead of me is rude."

If you have a reasonable level of tolerance for Dobson’s school of thought, there’s still room for doubt about how useful a book about rearing children can be. Dobson can’t even claim extensive firsthand experience with being the parent of a strong-willed child; according to him, the member of his household who best exemplified this trait was a dog. Dobson is an expert on applying Bible teachings to family matters, but in this book he is admittedly out of his field, and it shows. Strong-willed children can be introverts or extroverts and this is one case where the distinction is crucial: the way adults relate to an introvert child’s will needs to be almost opposite from the way they relate to an extrovert child’s will. Dobson’s approach is geared only toward extroverts.

Dobson’s dog was never very well trained, but it did eventually learn to obey “a few simple commands.” One day, after years of obeying “Go to your bed,” the dog defied Dobson and wanted to spend the night on the fluffy toilet lid cover near the heater. It growled, snapped, tried to bite. “That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast” before Dobson moved the dog into its bed. The next night, when told “Go to your bed,” the dog went. Dobson reports that during the next four years it didn’t challenge Dobson again.

Strong-willed children, Dobson is saying, are like his little “alpha dog.” They challenge adults. A young father whose idea of quality time with his child was to take a three-year-old to a basketball game told the kid, “don’t go past this line.” “He had no sooner returned to his seat than the toddler scurried in the direction of the forbidden territory...and deliberately placed one foot over the line.”

The archetypal, or Archie-Bunker-typal, right-wingers in Dobson’s intended audience clearly believed that parents and others who work with children need to be “tough enough to make [the children] obey.” Those who believe that humans should “obey” other humans only in the sense of respecting others’ rights and boundaries, that the way to teach children math or manners or morals is to call their attention to our examples when necessary, may not like this book.

The strong-willed or Type A personality trait is sometimes considered basically an extrovert trait—the only functional personality trait that is correlated with extroversion. That may account for Dobson’s neglect of introvert children. However, the trait is independent of extroversion. In fact Type A’s who don’t show the more fully developed neurological “wiring” of true introverts still tend to be high-functioning extroverts, who “like to get things done, whether with others or alone,” and while they like to take control of their environment they don’t compulsively clamor for control of other people’s attention. To assume that “the strong-willed child” is an extrovert is probably a mistake. 

Introverts are not shy so much as inner-directed; if what they want to do can be better done with a group, they can organize and lead the group without showing any interest whatsoever in maintaining “social leadership” as a form of ongoing control of other people. The “natural leader” of one activity may, in the absence of personal hostility, prefer to let someone else be the “natural leader” of another activity. It’s possible for Type A’s who identify as extroverts to be survivors of twentieth century America’s cultural war on introversion, during which we were told things like “You aren’t, or don’t want to be, an introvert—you’re not shy, you’re attractive, persuasive, a natural leader when you choose to be...” Neurological tests might quantify how many Americans who consider themselves to be extroverts are, in fact, no such thing. It would be interesting to know the results of neurological studies on many celebrity politicians, movie stars, athletes, and business leaders. Successful musicians are typically introverts; I suspect successful people in other fields may be strong-willed introverts too.

Little introverts may or may not be particularly strong-willed, but when they are, it’s unlikely that even the human version of a “vicious fight” will do them much good. Unlike dogs, children grow bigger and stronger, and see that adults grow less strong, every year. A strong-willed introvert child who is subdued for the moment by forcible correction will eventually hit back. On the other hand introverts have that inner sense of “rightness” that, if the child is not battered, will naturally teach the child that hitting other people is as wrong as singing off key, coloring outside the lines, or leaving a mess on the floor. Parents can recruit the strong will of an introvert child. This is the child who may need occasional correction, but generally behaves reasonably. Misbehavior is usually best corrected by addressing the reason for it. Attempts to “break” a strong-willed introvert child can be physically dangerous to the adult, or to a younger or slower-witted child on whom a child like Charles Schultz’s “Lucy” may dump emotions. This child must be reasoned with.

Practical rewards and punishments for these two types of children are almost mirror images. Almost all children perceive candy as a reward and beating as a punishment, but obviously neither candy nor beating can be used every day. What introverts want in social relationships is the kind of respect that backs off and allows them to do things by themselves; they don’t particularly want attention, and may perceive group attention as a punishment. What extroverts want is control of as many people’s attention as possible; they like to be liked or respected, but they’d rather start a fight and lose it than be left to do something by themselves. Parents can use their attention to reward and punish specific behavior. Introvert children respond well to directives like “When you’ve accomplished X, you earn points toward (money, computer time, etc.).” Extrovert children may need directives like “When you’ve been completely quiet for one hour, then I’ll listen to you for five minutes.”

Confusion is understandable since strong-willed Type A’s are the ones who invented the idea of “ambiverts.” Either they have introverts’ neurological assets or they don’t. Mostly they don't but, given adequate motivation, they can be comfortable either working alone or organizing groups of people to focus on the tasks of their choice. Usually they’re intelligent enough to see the advantages of working well with others, so after the toddler tantrum stage they develop good, often charming, social manners. Their strong personalities can easily seem to have both introvert and extrovert “personality strength.” They tend to like this idea; they like to think they’re in full control of their own personalities. However, for purposes of behavior modification, it will help adults to know which a child really is.

While Dobson is probably right about it being good for young children to know that their parents’ wills are even stronger than theirs, the image of a “vicious fight” may still be inappropriate. Type A’s can perceive their ability to laugh off punishments as desirable enough that they actively invite punishments. While some Type A’s internalize the idea of not only strict but harsh physical discipline, and grow up to be child abusers, others convince themselves that they’ve been martyrs for their “cause” of sloppiness, irreverence, profanity, sexual self-indulgence, or disrespect of their elders. The prudent adult will use insight into their temperament to reinforce desirable behavior with positive rewards. Type A’s respect a firm consistent stand longer than they do a “vicious fight.”

By overlooking neurological differences, Dobson produced yet another twentieth century book that may be useful to parents of extroverts, but drifts in and out of touch with reality as introverts know it. By 1978 the world didn’t need any more of those.

Morgan Griffith on Trump's Joint Address to Congress

Editorial note: There are those who've complained that scolding Al Green for his unparliamentary behavior during the speech was somehow racist or ageist...Hello? Ageist? Because he's well preserved and full of energy, or maybe because his wife really is younger than he is and looks younger than she is, herself...some people seem to forget that the President is close to the same age. The position of this web site is that Rep. Green has a right to express his feelings, but he's old enough to know how to do that in a proper parliamentary fashion.

And if any Ds are going to snub Lady Melania because she's not the original Mrs. Trump...I think it's best not to start any traditions of cruelty toward divorcees. Yes, it would be nice if we had more politicians who were good examples of chastity and continence within a fifty-year or longer marriage. It would be nice if women as well preserved as Senator Pelosi or as young and cute as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez would show us an example of appreciating what Nature has generously given them, and appreciating Melania Trump for what she is, too. Liberation from envy would be a beautiful thing to watch them demonstrate.

And, to Senator Warner: There's no shame in admitting it when one of the opposition does something right! Stand your ground, Sir, and represent your Commonwealth. We are supposed to be more gracious than some people in Washington.

From US Representative Morgan Griffith, R-VA-9:

"

On March 4, I witnessed President Trump deliver his Joint Address to Congress.

This was his first speech at the U.S. Capitol since his inauguration.

In that inaugural speech, Trump proclaimed the Golden Age of America begins right now.

During his Joint Address, he struck a similar tune.

The Golden Age of America consists of numerous Administration policies and goals, some of which are already seeing success.

Trump touted the border security measures his Administration has implemented. In just six weeks, the number of encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border has dramatically plummeted.

According to CBS News, U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded 8,450 apprehensions in February.

In February of 2024 under Biden, Border Patrol recorded more than 140,000 apprehensions!

Even U.S. Senator Mark Warner went on Fox Business to say that Trump made great progress to secure the border (though he would backtrack on MSNBC).

Trump rightly proved that all we needed to secure the border was a new president.

A new president is also needed to reverse the inflationary policies of the Biden Administration.

As grocery prices, fuel costs and the cost of living skyrocketed, it was clear that Biden policies, including the “green new deal”, contributed to the economic pain in our homes and communities.

Such policies included halting the approval of new liquified natural gas licenses and even killing the Keystone XL Pipeline.

On Day One, Trump declared a national energy emergency to undo the damage done by Biden’s green new deal policies.

The impacts of these Trump energy policies will not be felt right away. In fact, it may take over a year for us to see the results. But Trump’s energy policy is aimed at restoring our economy and putting more money into your pocketbook.

Another major Trump talking point was rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in federal programs.

Look no further than the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The federal agency has been caught red-handed in funneling millions of dollars all over the world for leftist pet projects.

Some projects include:

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) scholarships in Burma

(Even though the U.S. State Department continues to officially recognize the country as Burma, the country calls itself Myanmar, and according to the State Department’s website, the USAID mission in Burma closed in 1989. It’s a totalitarian regime that has little regard for its minority population. Having traveled there, I doubt any Christian Karen minority or Rohingya Muslim minority members ever saw a penny of this money.)

• Journalism efforts promoting non-binary language in Sri Lanka
• Male circumcision in Mozambique
• Election initiatives in India, Moldova and Liberia
• And the list goes on and on

While most American taxpayers do not mind helping starving children and communities, they did not consent their funds to be used for such outrageous programs.

Trump rightly discussed some of those programs in his Joint Address to Congress.

As I sat in the House chamber during Trump’s Address, I was surprised by the reaction of my Democratic colleagues.

To start the night, Texas Representative Al Green disrupted the beginning of Trump’s remarks by standing up and yelling at Trump.

Speaker Johnson repeatedly asked Representative Green to respect the decorum of the House. When it was clear Green wouldn’t relent, the Speaker instructed the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove Green from the floor.

I voted days later to censure Green for his intentional staged misconduct. Some of his Democratic colleagues joined Republicans in the censure vote.

Democratic disrespect did not end there.

When First Lady Melania Trump was recognized, I saw nobody from the Democratic side stand up and applaud.

It is a fairly standard practice for both parties to express respect to the first lady, regardless of political affiliation.

Other individuals who received a cold shoulder from Democrats were an American hostage returned home from Russia and a child survivor of brain cancer.

Additionally, the widow of a New York police officer killed by an illegal alien, the family of Laken Riley, and the mother of a 12-year-old girl killed by two illegal aliens did not receive much of a welcome reception either from Democrats.

The deaths of these individuals are all heartbreaking, and for Democrats to dismiss their tragic experiences is disappointing to see.

While I may vehemently disagree with Democratic tactics and policies, I will continue to celebrate policies that bring good to the American people and contribute to America’s Golden Age.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office.  You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at morgangriffith.house.gov.

"

Why Can't People Eat on Metro?

Last week I mentioned being disgusted by a scofflaw encouraging a child to lick a sticky sweet on Washington's Metrorail. I was disgusted because everyone learns that, even on Metrobus, there is a very real possibility of attracting literal "bugs in the system." Many parts of the city are overrun with German roaches. People who dsn't want these "friendly" little insects crawling from a sewer right up their legs. in pursuit of the warmth and chemical odor inside their laptops, have fairly intense feelings about the idea of attracting roaches to the public transportation system.

But a glance at an old newspaper I was about to burn reminded me that Metrorail has an additional reason to be vigilant about food and drink on the trains. 

Several, actually. Trains move. Crowds jostle. Food and drink spill. Nobody wants to step in other people's snacks, nor do Metrofolks want to scrub it off floors.

Then there's the fact that Washington is full of small restaurants and snack wagons run by nice people who need money, and if you feel a need to eat while you're in the city, you are supposed to pick a local entrepreneur to support. Noshing on packaged snacks is tacky. Everything has been done to attract the tourist's eye to all the nice places to sit down and eat the city offers. If, as it might be because you're on a one-week temporary job that is the first temp job you've had in a month, you do feel obligated to carry your own food around town, for goodness' sakes don't advertise the fact. 

But the reason why Metrorail is more vigilant than Metrobus is that Metrorail runs on electricity. Food and its containers are fuel that could easily catch fire. 

"In 1987," Richard Garrison of Arlington informed the editor of the City Paper, "31 people died in London's King's Cross underground station in a fire...caused by rubbish beneath wooden escalators being ignited." Metrorail's escalators are not wooden, but the prospect of all those electrical wires catching fire while people are somewhere in the middle of 160 steps is an effective way to suppress any normal appetite.

Metrocops have been somewhat inconsistent about enforcing the law. There's been a tendency to avoid getting involved if top government officials or big-spending tourists violate local laws, while enforcing the laws strictly on private local citizens. While most Metrocops are Black themselves, this still adds up to an unacceptable frequency pf Black youth going to jail for offenses like eating or littering on Metrorail, while older and richer-looking people might be politely ignored or, at worst, required to go to court and pay a $50 fine. So it's very likely that tourists ignore the law, stuff their bloated faces on Metrorail, and go home to tell their friends that city laws are enforced only by dirty looks and an occasional unfriendly comment. The sad truth is that those people probably don't even care that they're participating in a little sociological drama that is elitist, not racist, but is perceived as racist by ghetto youth. 

Like it or not, violating the law while rich and pale-complexioned is a way of grinding the faces of the poor into the fact that you are lapping up the benefit of prejudice that works against them. Not that people who think they are entitled to munch, slurp, and dribble in public places care. 

They won't care unless they are trapped in an elevator during a fire, and while that's a development all Washingtonians--even the ghetto youth--want to avoid, there would probably be some small compensation in considering that some two-legged swine deserve to be trapped halfway up a 500-foot elevator shaft in a fire.

Wal-Mart Cheated by Own Chatter-Cheat. Hoot.

At some point during the long holiday weekend some of us went to Wal-Mart. Fireworks were popping outside. Store employees were blaring at people to shop fast and get out--the store would be closing in another hour. Obviously they wanted to go out and watch the fireworks rather than watch the cash registers. At any given time only one employee was actually tending a cash register. 

As usual I placed one item at a time on the counter and watched to see that Chatty Cathy scanned each item only once. As often happens, Chatty Cathy found this terribly distracting and intimidating.

These yappy cashiers always claim that they feel a need for reassurance that they are human, and that that's why they chatter like monkeys. Learning to work in silent dignity like a human being might help them feel more secure in their species identity. Their body shapes look human to me, but they need to work on specifically human skills like being able to concentrate on their job instead of fretting about the little status displays that are of such concern to dogs and monkeys.

Though clearly not Highly Sensory-Perceptive, "Cathy" was able to see that I was intentionally withholding eye contact and watching the cash register. A smarter or nicer girl would have taken this as a tactfully silent reminder to her to focus on her job and not try to play the chatter-cheat game--distracting the customer from "mistakes" in her own favor. Cathy compulsively displayed the lack of a healthy sense of shame by persistently chattering, even running around the end of the counter and having to be told to stay in her place. Blessed with enough sadism to enjoy watching how badly extroverts can humiliate themselves before they just shut up and act like human beings, I watched the cash register more closely, expecting to catch Cathy trying to cheat me anyway. 

A fully human mind can accept that, when people sign contracts to work as employees in big chain stores, they are entering an unequal relationship with the stores' customers. Their emotional feelings, and particularly their self-esteem, are of no importance to the customers. We think it's good that they are employed, we prefer letting them add up purchases and make change to letting machines do it, but their social lives are of no interest to us. They need to conduct their social lives on their own time. Finding people who care about their feelings is up to them. As customers we care about finding what we want to buy, paying for it without being cheated, and taking it home.

But something goes wrong in the fetal brains of people like Cathy. Lacking clear senses of who they are and what they're meant to be doing, their consciousness beats about in what seems to be continual fear that other people are going to attack them. Their social status displays are bids for control of situations in which they need, instead, to work through their fear of not having control. They badly need to learn to deal with the fact that other people are not interested in them. They tremble visibly with frustration when customers break up the bad thought pattern many stores allow them to form while working as cashiers, "I can manipulate this person into making conversation with me as if I were the person's equal, while at the same time cheating the person out of money; I don't have to feel afraid of this person because I'm so clever--enough to cheat the person even if I don't need and don't take home the money."  

It is indeed unfortunate for humankind that people with that kind of brains are born. In any case, this thought pattern needs to be broken up. If Chatty Cathy can be helped, it will be by replacing it with a more helpful thought pattern like, "I can live with the fact that this person is completely uninterested in me. I can find my own friends on my own time."

Cathy's hands trembled and her voice rose as she continued to try to force the distracting conversation and I continued not to open one. In her anxiety Cathy forgot to count the items she'd scanned and, in fact, cheated Wal-Mart. I had made it really easy for her by buying canned goods in bulk--half a dozen of each kind--and, finding empty boxes on the shelves, packing twenty-four cans in two boxes. Cathy scanned only twenty-three cans...and the can she failed to scan was the most expensive item that she had undoubtedly planned to scan twice. 

Well, everyone wanted to go out and watch the fireworks, including the wheelchair shopper waiting behind me. I figured I'd take the receipt home and explain Cathy's problem to store management at their web site. 

What a pity Wal-Mart has chosen to add more annoying cookies to walmart.com this summer. The site worked for me in May but this morning it didn't work. 

Oh, well, I could always tag Wal-Mart on Twitter. I typed "x.com" into the browser bar. X has added cookies that kept it from working, too.

Attention Wal-Mart. Attention X.com. I have not changed any settings since the last time I used your sites. Either you have added new cookies that violate previous contractual restrictions, or your sites are generating that message because the sites are too cluttered to get through the storm-damaged local server. You need to strip your sites down, remove invasive cookies and memory-hogging screen clutter, and keep your sites accessible to people from communities that value privacy. Try cleaning up the graphics, making sure nothing moves, blinks, or pops. 

Anyway...When we unexpectedly take home more than we have paid for from a locally owned business, of course, we go back to the store, explain the situation, and pay the manager what we owe. 

When it's a big chain store...many people would say, "Never mind! It's free money!"

This morning I think I'll just post it on the web site and see whether any Wal-Mart managers care about their stores' image enough to thank me for explaining the situation. If they do, I'll send them the receipt and the $1.82.

Hateful, Offensive, Other...

A few years ago a study asked people whether certain statements were “hateful,” “offensive,” or neither.

I think the only way some of these statements qualified in either category was that the study must have defined “hateful” or “offensive” in a very broad way.

In order to answer the study for myself, I find it necessary to begin with working definitions:

“Hateful” means that I hear the statement as identifying someone who genuinely hates the people described, at least if it’s made seriously by an adult.

“Offensive” means that the statement offends me, such that I wouldn’t want to talk to the person any more if person affirmed the statement was made seriously.

Several "Other" categories would call for the Dreaded Blue Pencil if someone wanted to publish the statement here.

And, mind you, I think people have a right to say all of these things. If they are haters, by all means they should make it easy for others to avoid them.

The study used twelve statements. Its biases were made obvious by its not including twelve more. Here are the twelve it used:

1. “A racial slur” we’re too nice to print. Word meaning Black Americans that starts with N. Word meaning Asians that starts with G. A word meaning White Americans that starts with H might be considered analogous. Funnily enough, although there are words for various tribes, parties, and denominations of Europeans and Native Americans that have been used to express real hate during past wars, those words aren’t heard as communicating real hate today because so few of those people really hate each other today. “Roundhead” is a word for a British anti-monarchist that used to be screamed at people identified as such before someone shot at them, but nobody is shooting at them any more. "Hun" is still a term of hate, but it usually expresses free-floating petty spite toward humans generally, or clients/customers/bosses, with no violent intentions and not necessarily even a belief that the people at whom the word is spat are German. Anyway, yes, the N Word is most often used by Black people trying to detoxify it, but it still offends older Black people enough to be considered hateful.

2. “Person says one race is genetically superior to another race.” Person is probably spouting ignorance, but that’s not the same as hate. We still don't know much about genes but we know that some genes are more desirable than others. People who know what they’re talking about usually talk about specific genes or traits. Still, in saying “I want to marry a man who is tall, dark, and handsome” a girl may be saying that her expectations for more relevant character traits are so low that she doesn’t care what a good character a short blond man may have, or that she’s chosen a mate who is tall and dark, but she’s not saying that short blond men should be treated badly by the rest of society.

Personally I find it easy to ignore “race” traits because I’ve found that people who are congenial to me share the High Sensory Perceptivity trait, which is much more important in predicting how well people can work together. I don’t want to waste a lot of time even trying to work with non-HSP’s. I wish them well. Fellow HSP’s are my people. Non-HSPs live in their own perceptual world, which seems to me like a darksome land of wild wolf-cliffs and windy wilderness, but pity seems more appropriate than hate.

3. “Person calls homosexuals vulgar names.” I’d say hateful, despite the probability that person is simply being vulgar. Hatecrimes against homosexuals happen. If you spout hateful words about them you can reasonably expect to be suspected of committing or encouraging those crimes. Don't.

4. “Person calls women vulgar names.” Definitely hateful, though people doing this are likely to be women. Vulgar names for women are usually used to disparage and discourage various behaviors. The behaviors may deserve to be discouraged but women need to clean up our act, name the behaviors, and present evidence if we think a particular woman is guilty of those behaviors.

5. “Person says that all White people are racist.” That’s hatespeech. Jesus said that lustful thoughts amount to “adultery in the heart” but we don't call people adulterers in the absence of evidence of sins actively committed in the flesh. Left-wingnuts need to feel the weight of society’s censure of hatespeech when they call anyone a racist without evidence of positive racist activity.

6. “Person says that ‘transgender’ is a mental disorder.” I’d say ignorant. Because (a) few people are physically gender-confused and (b) some so-called male-to-female trannies are physically normal men whose "transitions" are part of a strategy to commit hatecrimes against women, many people don’t realize that genetic gender-confusion is a real biological possibility; they don’t know that one of their acquaintances is a “woman” who was married five years before “she” found out that she wasn’t having babies because not all of her chromosomes are female. Calling a physical quirk a mental disorder is obnoxious. If you’re not interested enough to study human atypicalities in a scientific way, you shouldn’t talk about them.

(Though, yes, it's also possible that an individual's claim to be transgender may be a symptom of that individual's mental disorder--there's a pattern of multiple personality disorder with "alternate personalities" of different sexes--just as an individual's claim to be a victim of a crime, or have a physical disease, or some other claim that's not true, can be a symptom of a mental disorder. But although there's a well-known pattern of mental illness in which nerve damage feels to the patient like, and is reported as, being bitten by invisible ants, nobody says "Being bitten by ants is a mental disorder.")

7. “Person says that America is an evil country.” Person may merely be an old-time preacher who believes that telling people they’re evil, doomed, and damned is the way to lead them to repent and reform, but I hear this as offensive and ignorant. It’s not an effective way to lead people to repent and reform. “America” is not the name of a country. It’s the name of two continents. Evil has certainly been done on both continents, but talking about “an evil country” suggests that you believe that one country is more evil than another, and when you don’t even know the name of the country you’re blaming most...I’d go so far as to say “stupid.” And, if you don’t love it, leave it.

8. “Person says that homosexuality is a sin.” Person is misrepresenting some religion and probably doesn’t even realize it. Homosexual acts are a sin, according to the sacred texts of many religions. Homosexual tendencies that cause people to feel tempted to commit that sin are part of their sinful nature, in the same way that the heterosexual proclivities that cause people to feel tempted to adultery are part of more typical humans’ sinful nature, but they’re not active sins. A lot of other things are active sins. Many of the religious traditions that teach that homosexual acts are sins also teach that not attending services at those churches is a sin. We are all sinners. Which sins we choose to repent of is up to us.

9. “Person says that the police are racist.” Depending on which police department person is talking about, person might be right. There will always be temptations to abuse any authority society gives one person over others. If a person saying the police in per neighborhood are racist can provide evidence, person is addressing a real concern and should be listened to. If the person is saying that having a police department is racist, person is babbling idiotically and should be ignored.

10. “Person says that illegal immigrants should be deported.” That’s what the word “illegal” means. The problem with this argument is that it was tried, for many years, and it worked like saying to criminals “If you regularly commute to a city on our side of the border to commit crimes, we’ll give you a free ride home.” Anyway, as long as there are laws saying that someone shouldn’t be here, then saying that person should be sent back to where person came from is reasonable and humane. Saying they should be hanged or drowned or herded into a building which is then set on fire would be hateful. Saying that the laws should be changed might be reasonable, if we were still an uncrowded nation with acres of arable land and nobody to farm it, but it would be revolutionary. Also, as things are today, stupid.

11. “Person says Islam is taking over Europe.” Evidence is what determines whether this is a statement of panic or of fact. When countries have been taken over by socialism, Islam is probably an improvement.

12. “Person says military women should not serve in combat.” Person should take that up at the Pentagon, not here. It’s a biblically based opinion. Modern combat is mechanized enough that a valid case can be made for saying that women can do it as well as men. All this web site has to say about it is that we ask readers kindly to refrain from disparaging or discouraging women who may be serving in combat. We lost the claim that the U.S. Army should follow biblical rules when we allowed the draft. 

Now some blue pencil bait that left-wingers don’t seem to realize is hateful and offensive, but it is:

13. “Person says anything implying that socialism is still a viable idea, which is bad enough, and/or identifying ‘conservatives,’ or even right-wingnuts, with Germany’s Nazional Sozialism.” While Hitler was able to sell his brand of socialism to the “more conservative” faction in Germany (largely by Big Lies, such as claiming that he was a Christian), relative to the positions considered “conservative” in the United States Hitler was indeed a “Man of the Left.” Anyone in any confusion about this should read Jonah Goldberg's book. Fascism, considered as a simple political program for co-opting the nominal owners of big businesses instead of overtly “nationalizing” their businesses, is not inherently an unreasonable idea, though it gives enough power to its leader almost to guarantee his corruption, and is therefore unlikely ever to serve any country well; still, Spain survived Franco. Mussolini’s peculiar twist on fascism, which aligned him with Hitler’s Nazism, added a violent tyrannical dictator and policies of blaming and persecuting arbitrarily chosen groups of citizens. If you do happen to know of any right-wingnuts who are advocating shooting the conductors of trains that run late, putting all the Jews or all the Muslims or all the Scientologists in prison camps, requiring the head of state to be saluted in every greeting exchanged between citizens, etc., please inform this web site. We do not know of any and so we will regard people who confuse Republicans, even old conservatives like Barry Goldwater, with Nazis as badly confused wingnuts who need therapy not publication.

14. “Person wants to go to war with anybody, even Russia.” Modern war means killing non-combatants: children and old people and animals. At the time of writing the urge to apply a two-by-four plank to the Russian leader is understandable, though it’s stooping to his little-boy level. The urge to try filling the Internet with examples from recent history, of how trying to overrun smaller nations as a tyrant conqueror has worked less well than trying to sell them the benefits of a close alliance has done, is worth trying. Talk about war appeals to haters. God has not guided us to our current levels of technological sophistication, wealth, and enlightenment so that we could waste more of anything on more wars.

15. “Person expresses confusion about the nature and purpose of sexuality, with specific confusion about whether person wants to share pleasure with Biden, Putin, or some other public figure or to do them some other sort of ill-defined bodily harm.” The sexual act is about sharing the joy of life and love and the commitment to rear a child together. If people don’t feel and want to share those things, their imagining that they’re ready to think or talk about sex is hateful. 

Google, not I, is the source of the policy that this web site will not display a comment like “Hi, I’m back, I just got married and went on a Caribbean cruise and didn’t even gain any weight because we spent all our time in our cabin trying different ways to make babies.” That is a delightful time in life and deserves to be celebrated, but because of Google this web site would have to request that the celebrant stop after "didn't even gain any weight." Let readers fill in the explanation from our own memories.

But I object to the “F’k Trump/Biden/whomever” kind of thing. If you want to kill a leader, say “kill.” If removing him from office would do, say “remove” or “impeach” or “down with.” Google would object to a comment saying “Kill Trump/Biden/whomever” too...remember how, when posting the “What a Difference a K Makes” puns, I substituted William McKinley for Bill Clinton because no reader could possibly think “Kill McKinley” was a suggestion? Some might say that, as long as “Kill (whomever I’m criticizing or disagreeing with)” was clearly a fantasy not an actual order, it’s all right. I have no problem with that. Google has. It does make a sort of sense. In a democratic republic it's not necessary to kill people to remove them from office. We want to make that point clear to our international readers.

15a. Person claims to be comfortable with the “F’k (whomever)” expressions of ill will but is not comfortable with substituting “Snip (whomever).” Actually I think a case could be made for the position that if a male has directed an “F’k (you/her)” toward a female, he should not be allowed to say anything but “I humbly beg the honorable lady’s kind pardon, and that of all the other kind ladies present who are allowing me to speak today” without generating an instant, incessant, loud chorus of “SNIP YOU, SNOTBOY!”

16. “Person advocates censorship as a way to ‘keep people safe’ from ‘harmful’ content.” The way to keep people safe from genuinely harmful content, like “Everybody, even babies, should have an experimental vaccine against a disease that’s mostly harmless” or “If you don’t feel like smiling, you should be popping feel-good pills!” or “Spraying poisons on unwanted plants or animals is safe and effective,” is to put more accurate content out there and let people see for themselves which ideas are non-starters. Censorship actually functions as a way to suppress corrections to profitable Big Lies. The people demanding censorship are the ones who’ve just blown another million dollars on a lying ad campaign. They are enemies of society and deserve public humiliation.

17. “Person advocates spraying poison on anything under any circumstances.” That always harms third parties, even when what’s being sprayed is paint or perfume. This web site endorses using paint and perfume, especially the mosquito-repellent kind, but not in a sprayable form.

18. “Person talks about ‘safety’ and ‘fighting crime’ and then suggests that people, or people in some category or other, just stay home.” You’re not safe when you’re hiding in some sort of corner or burrow. You’re cornered. Giving people false safety tips qualifies as a way of harming people you hate.

19. “Person talks about ‘going Green’ and then goes on to talk about unsustainable anti-Green ideas like living in cities, building apartment towers, using the Internet instead of real books, building cars to run on batteries that have to be plugged into the power grid every few hundred miles, or implanting microchips in any living thing.” These misrepresentations of Green ideas offend True Greens. Work out whether you are talking about True Green ideas or “Agenda 21” ideas. As a clue, if Wendell Berry said it, it’s probably Green, and if Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez said it, it’s probably Agenda 21.

20. “Person suggests that women, especially women who have studied a topic scientifically and debunked a profitable Big Lie, are irrational, incompetent, or less intelligent than men.” That’s hate, and it should be a total career-ender. In scientific matters the way to express disagreement, if any, is to present conflicting facts and discuss ways further study might reconcile the conflicting data. In matters of opinion, the way to express disagreement is “I disagree; I think/feel X because...” And, if a woman’s or girl’s competence is seriously being evaluated, in honor of all the women who have been declared incompetent, individually or collectively, by men who didn’t want to accept their differences of opinion, only mature (post-menopausal) women should be asked for opinions. The #MeToo campaign did some good despite its excesses. Women could profitably follow it with a #MadMan campaign used to identify and punish males who set themselves up as fit to judge women’s competence or intelligence. It's a man's responsibility to present impeccably realistic, logical, and impersonal arguments that support his claim that he is competent to debate anything with any woman. A reasonable default assumption, not always true but always possible, is that a man is disagreeing with a woman because his male hormones predispose him to quarrel with everybody and the woman is less physically intimidating to him than a man would be. A man's competence to debate is partly a matter of demonstrated freedom from this merely emotional urge to quarrel--ability to listen, learn, and support women's arguments.

21. “Person says it’s acceptable to use force, violence, intimidation, harassment, or censorship to silence people who refuse to participate in gender-confused persons’ day-by-day arbitrary gender reassignments for themselves.” If your pets have been cats and chickens, animals whose gender identity is hard to ignore after puberty but often hard to guess before puberty, you learn to tolerate gender confusion. There are, however, limits to everything. The gender-confused don’t have to participate in conversations with anybody. If they do want to participate in conversation, they should be able to handle people’s assumptions about their gender with good will and good humor. If they are going to become suicidal about "being misgendered," they should take advantage of the institutions society offers mental patients. Every American has an unalienable right even to chant in that annoying way, “Na na na na na, Bruce Jenner is a boy.” To which Jenner has a right to say “Act your age." That's all.

22. “Person fails to participate in a ‘hue and cry’ raised against people who have failed to pay others for work done.” The distinction between “property crimes” and “crimes against persons” is specious. Depriving people of what they have earned is a crime against persons. Theft and property damage are also crimes against persons, but the general rule should be that, the less the person robbed or cheated has, the more heinous is the crime of depriving the person of per earnings.

23. “Person demands, or expects, that any individual will endorse any self-celebratory displays of any demographic group even if the individual belongs to it, much less if the individual does not.” For example, it’s been reported that some federal offices demanded that heterosexual employees turn out in support of a “Gay Pride” event. That was unethical and immoral, and costs all similar events all credibility since we now know that the participants may have been bullied and blackmailed into being there. Irish people have never demanded that anyone else celebrate St Patrick’s Day; we just enjoy it enough that they want to. Other demographic groups that may conceivably be facing as much hardship and hostility as Irish people faced in the mid-nineteenth century (although offhand we can't think of any such groups) should profit by our example.

24. “Person says it’s acceptable for government to demand that any person buy any thing.” In a democratic republic government should never try to do for one person what it’s not doing for all, so, in the absence of a clear consensus that government should require every citizen to buy whatever it is you make or sell, including long free-verse poems about your self-focussed emotions, government should not require that you buy anyone else’s product either. That includes insurance, and it includes any part of any “public service” you do not intend to use, too. Supporting the use of either public funds or government mandates in this way is discriminatory, hurtful, and hateful. No decent human being would seriously suggest any such thing. 

Faye Park's Tips for a Tidier Barbecue

It may or may not be too late to use these tips for this year's Fourth of July gathering (my family's bash took place yesterday), but summer's only starting...we can always incorporate these tips into the rest of the season's outdoor parties. If only to show support for the students doing their first grown-up jobs at the PIRG, trudging around the cities in the heat, knocking on doors and asking people to support efforts to reduce plastic waste...

From Faye Park of the US Public Interest Research Group: 

"

Who doesn't love a good Fourth of July barbecue?

Hamburgers on the grill, watching the fireworks display, and at the end of the night ... cleaning up lots and lots of plastic waste?

Here are five tips for how to cut back on plastic at your cookout:

1. Choose reusable serveware

Rather than rely on single-use plastic plates, cups and utensils, opt for reusable alternatives instead. The most environmentally friendly plate, glass or fork is the one you already own -- and if you don't have enough on hand for the whole party, make it a BYO BBQ and encourage your friends and family to bring their own from home!

2. Ditch the single-use straws

Plastic straws are one of the most common forms of plastic waste found in our oceans.1 You can avoid contributing to this problem by providing your guests with reusable or biodegradable straws. Consider offering paper, bamboo or stainless steel straws as a sustainable alternative -- or, simply skip the straws altogether.

3. Say no to plastic bottles

Plastic bottles are another major source of plastic waste, and fortunately, it's easy to find an alternative. Instead of purchasing individual plastic bottles, opt for beverages that come in aluminum cans or glass bottles. You can also offer pitchers of water, homemade lemonade or other refreshing drinks in large, reusable dispensers, and provide your guests with a designated area for refilling their reusable water bottles.

4. Choose eco-friendly decorations

Store displays are full of disposable plastic decorations for the Fourth. But there are plenty of plastic-free alternatives, perhaps even right in your own backyard. Consider using cloth tablecloths or picnic blankets you already have on hand and natural materials such as flowers, leaves or branches to make centerpieces.

5. Have a plan for waste management

Set up clearly labeled trash, recycling and composting bins to help your guests dispose of their waste correctly. By doing so, you can minimize your barbecue's environmental impact by ensuring cans and bottles get recycled and food and paper waste can be composted.

By following these five tips at your Fourth of July barbecue, you can significantly reduce plastic waste and inspire others to adopt eco-friendly practices. Together, we can celebrate our independence while also safeguarding the planet for future generations.

" 

By the way, although Zazzle does use plastic and polyester, it's reusable plastic and polyester.