Jump to content
The obvious consequence of failing to promote Scott's slogan, "Pot Town USA." Why they'll be overcrowding the lodging as soon as they understand that Steamboat is the place to ski stoned.
Sled's comments here and on another thread set me to thinking. Our political world view is organized around a construct of right and left to which we are so committed that the thought that it isn't quite right is unsettling, although there is an argument to be made that we need a new paradigm for these times.
Suppose we organize political movements according to a scale based on human freedom instead. On the far left, I would place religious cults that have little to do with faith based ideas of salvation and most to do with absolute control of individuals, their property, labor and thoughts. Next on the line would be thought control regimes such as North Korea and Vietnam, next Stalinist Russia and Mao's China, next fascist Germany and Italy, distinguished only because Fascism allows the private ownership of property but makes it subject to state imperatives of planning and production. All of the previously mentioned political philosophis as manifested as real governments, have, of course, no regard for the sanctity of human life, and deserve to be offset from others by a great distance. Separated from these would come Socialism in which the ownership of major industries by the state is compelled and private income taxes confiscatory although essential western freedoms are allowed, then Liberalism allowing slightly greater personal freedoms and property rights, but still deeming earnings subject to redistribution for government's opinion of fairness, then, close by, Conservatism, espousing absolute freedom in a property context, but still restricting personal freedom in many social contexts, then Libertarianism, then finally Anarchism. It's anybody's opinion where modern Russia and China would fall on the scale, good bs topics over alcohol or mj.
I'm sure that others have made this argument before me.
I just get weary from observation of the sloppy use of "Fascism" as an epithet, when the author really is criticising restrictions on freedom of action chargeable to any number of ideologies. I guess that "Fascist" in the modern context means to those who use the word, any restriction on human activity except property regulation and confiscation. Words evolve. "Tyrant" was the title given to the governors of ancient Syracuse on Sicily. "Dictator" was the title of generals elected by the Senate to lead Rome when it was at war.
Sled, what do you think?
Don't forget to utilize the moniker suggested by Scott: "Pot Town USA" when you confront visitors and invite friends and relatives to ski.
Maybe this thread can regress into a debate whether groomers do a better job sober or with those medicinally heightened senses.
I understand the author's point. It was useful to provoke this discussion. Today's news indicates that McQuery now claims to have 'non-physically' stopped the incident he witnessed and to have reported it to the police, presumably the campus police. We all want to think we would have been less ambiguous in our response. I think I might have let the beast out, don't know and hope to God never to witness anything like that.
One commentator put his finger on the problem, and his analysis was narrower than the author's. He said that this outrage was very much like the scandals in the Catholic Church in that all the parties seemed to be acting as if the first priority was to protect the reputation of the institution. Add onto that the complex judgmental situation McQuery found himself in. If he beat the crap out of the pervert then and there, he could expect to be fired from an elite program in a profession with few openings at that level. The perv was above him in the corporate hierarchy. That at least had to cross his mind. He must have thought that his actions if taken and a formal report to the police would result in an expose' that would hurt Penn State. That might have slowed him down. Can we say with certitude that our modern moral climate elevating tolerance and non-judgmentalism into the highest ranks of virtues might have temporarily confused him or delayed an appropriate response? Is he more culpable than the neighbors of a generation ago who listened to the screams of Kitty Genovese as she was being stabbed to death and did nothing? Yeah, I think so. When it's one-on-one and you have the physical capability to do something, you should. He apparently weighted the choice to perpetuate his career over protecting a child.
If the author's point is that we as a society, have drifted to a point where such a calculation is arguably logical or justifiable, then I agree with her.
As one thousand of the greatest generation vets pass every day, I hope that every one of you will reach out to a veteran today and thank him for his or her service, one of the WWII vets if you know one.
Mention should be made that they came home with trained qualities that put risk taking in a different perspective. Most of the Colorado ski industry has its roots in the WWII Tenth Mountain Division and the vets from it that survived the conflict.
"There is nobody or nothing that can be compared to the atrocities undertaken by Hitler."
The opinion of the number depends on the source, but most historians think that Lenin, Stalin and Mao starved, executed, murdered or worked to death over 200 million people. Forty million, more or less, died in WW II. These grim and offensive comparisons don't take into account the Khmer Rouge, Japanese death camps and medical experiments, Ruanda, and aggressive Islamists of another era, (the governor of Cyprus was skinned alive a few hundred years ago).
Trout, what you said is the political equivalent of a Freudian slip. It confirms that our educational system since WW II uses Hitler as the touchstone for the ultimate evil villain, omitting to include, oh say, Mao, who was worse in many ways. Objectively the only argument that can be mustered to support this reaction is that the National Socialists set about using the technology of the modern state to murder selected groups of people, whereas Mao and the Soviets mostly were content to let starvation or the elements do their murdering, although Mao told a bureaucrat who indicated that the populace was restive to shoot more of them. There may be some self loathing because Hitler was European, tinged with a hint of racism that non-Europeans can't be expected to behave to civilized norms.
Our educational conditioning makes it socially unacceptable to label a group as 'communists', whereas there is no such stigma to label them 'nazis'. Why is that?
Not dope, not booze, no, those insideous folk singers bending our minds:
Pete Seegar: "If I had a hammer, I'd hammer, (and sickle), in the mornin'. I'd hammer in the evenin' all over this land... "
Paul Simon: "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail. Yes I would, if I only could. Yes I would."
No finger pointing here, but I learned a hard lesson once that positive sterotypes are just as racist as negative ones. It means among other things that the author of the remark is prone to sterotyping, which in another conversation could turn negative. I don't anguish over this concept when deciding whether or not to take a 11 PM stroll in a bad neighborhood, however. That said, I qualify my following life experiences by saying that they are three data points in a graph of millions.
I worked on the railroad with two black men my age, two of the hardest working guys I ever met. Stan had survived Khe Sahn, a misspelled name that will mean something to only a few of you. We had a white thug working with us who was a bully, went to jail for a couple of months for beating up his eight month pregnant wife, and generally menaced the co-workers, until he stuck his dirty toe over the line into Stan's territory.
Charles H. busted his ass until he caught the attention of supervisors who put him on a training track to get out of the yard and have a career.
Al F. worked an eight hour day and then had a second job where I briefly worked part time. He was smart, knowledegable and prejudice free, although we had a polite debate about whether the Beatles could have 'soul'.
Do I have prejudices? Hell yes! Do I strive to be a better human being than that? Most times, and when I don't I am ashamed of my thoughts on reflection. We are entitled to the privacy of our thoughts, but when prejudice translates into violation of the law, then there should be no shelter for our actions.
Race. An ugly thing in human relations.
This seems a little like a "man bites dog!" story, as there is a culture of the left that acts as though only people of color can be victims or rather, that only white people can be victimizers. For instance, there was righteous outrage at the inhumanity of South Afrikan laws enacted by whites to control blacks resulting in sanctions and regime change. Where is the equivalent outrage at state sponsored terror against white farmers in Zimbabwe? Why to Hindu women in South Asia and here in the USA get a pass on putting a red spot on their forehead to symbolize, A) their top caste status or B) their religious devotion, when women born into other castes can't show their religious devotion in such a way? Why does the National Organization of Women oppose marital rape here, but remain silent about the subjugation, abuse and mutilation of women in Muslim cultures? Why does the world environmental left get apoplectic about the exploitation of resources by western companies, but remain silent when indigenous peoples of Africa threaten endangered species by eating them when they have conventional sources of protein available.
I'm glad to see the law enforced without application of some prosecutorial discretion based on political correctness. After all, didn't Martin King say that a man should be judged by the content of his character, not the color of his skin?
If you love English, I highly recommend Bill Bryson's book, 'The Mother Tongue.' Bryson is very witty and a good writer. It is not a grammatical explanation, but rather a history of the language.
Among the historical phenomena he recounts is that the English we speak, anchorman English or Pennsylvania English, is more like the English spoken in England in the time of King George III than spoken today by, e.g. ,Prince Charles. 'London' English with soft "r's" and flat "a's" began as an affectation of a stage actor in the 1740s, but became popular with the upper classes like widfire and supplanted what had been spoken previously, except for the incredibly numerous dialects of the lower classes. Bryson asserts that what we understand to be a 'Southern accent" was imported from the southern regions of England when that wave of immigrants settled here. In England, as indicated by a comment in 'The Mayor of Casterbridge' by Thomas Hardy, such a drawl in the southern counties came to be associated with ignorance and low class status and disappeared by the 1860s.
My memory may fail, Spidermite, but I think you wrote in a long time ago to complain about your alien resident status as an English ex-pat and the difficulty of someone who had done everything according to law to become a citizen as opposed to illegals who coast in on successive amensties. I'm an Anglophile, watch the BBC every day and more than a few 'Britcoms'. Got to say that I'm sorry that American slang has infiltrated the language spoken in the old country. Conversely, your countrymen continue to enrich American culture with such useful epithets as, "tosser" and "wanker." Guess we have to shrug and just live with it.
Last login: Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.