Okay, well-stated. Now I have a story to tell. When I was twelve or so, my mother moved my sister, myself, her friend Anita, and my father's sister Reva to a farm in a very rural part of Michigan. It was totally foreign to me. Anyway, one day my mother and Anita invited some people home for a visit--not sure how they met them, and we never saw them again, for cause. My father (who died when I was very young) was Jewish and his sister Reva was also Jewish. This came up in conversation. Our visitors had never met a real live Jew in person before, and they were inquisitive. "What do you call yourselves? Jew is an insult, so...." Or words to that effect. I remember the feeling I had more than the words. Well, what DO we call ourselves? We call ourselves Jews, regardless of the ignorance or bigotry of others. Arabs call themselves Arabs. The problem (usage or otherwise) is not in the name that people use to identify themselves. It is ignorance. It is bigotry. What I say is no knuckling under to either.
Now that The Gene Pool "adult swim" whistle has blown, those of you who have chosen instead to invest in other means of self-flagellation, will very likely receive an email asking you to select from a long list of reasons why you decided against taking advantage of the enlightenment opportunity of a lifetime. These reasons tend to be of the "don't like the font," or "wrong size," variety and never really get to the underlying motivations for a declination. So, in the interest of actionable market research, I offer the following justifications (feel free to add your own):
* Can't compete week in and week out with Gene's and Pat's love children
* There is not as much discussion of bodily functions and fluids as expected
* I am still "Most Likely to be Amusing" whether Pat & Gene agree with my yearbook superlative or not
* Pat and Gene hate me. I can hear it in their posts. (And by the way, I can't stand moustaches or tiaras)
* I am distantly related to the Romanovs and am offended by the appropriation of my birthright
Gene, I remember entering the NY Mag contest that asked you to "string names and names of things together in a 25-item list that would return to the original name through clever associations." (Although I remember it being only 10 items.) In addition to printing the winning answers in full, they printed bits from lists that they considered clever -- and they included a very brief bit from mine: "Bluebeard, Percy Kilbride. . . "
Commanders is not a great name, but it could have been worse. It's been my experience as a logo designer for 45 years that any decision like that made by committee results in the winner being everyone's third choice. A colleague once tried to outsmart that inevitable outcome by submitting two terrible choices along with the obviously best one. Guess how that turned out.
I'm sure you've heard the classic analogy that a camel is a horse designed by committee. It was coined by the guy who designed the enormously successful and iconic Mini in the '60s. A fine case study of what is often missed in group decision-making: everyone can have a say, but not everyone should have a vote. Put another way, the danger of confusing weak-kneed consensus with collaboration. As you point out, that consensus is too often a third choice.
I'm sure we'll mention this next week, but just to let you know how the subscription thing going to work with Invite entries:
If you're not a paid subscriber, you'll still be able to fill out the entry form for the contest and send in your jokes. But we'll have the list of email addresses for paid subscribers, and if your email address isn't on that list, we won't use your entries.
If for some reason you need to send in an entry on a different email from the one that's linked to your Substack account, just explain that to me, tell me what the right account is, and that's fine. As long as you're subscribed. We're still small enough that we can handle it manually.
Is manually handling Invite entrants a fringe benefit of a paid subscription ? You might want to play that up in these closing moments before the paywall descends.
Just sayin'....entering the SI by snail mail might take a month. Fax would only take a day and a half to track down a fax machine and another 20 or 30 minutes to transmit.
People continued to fax the occasional entry into the 2000s, when we finally removed the option. And one beloved Loser, who did not own a computer, was given permission to hand-write (in cursive) his entries and snail-mail them in, even though after the post-9/11 anthrax attacks in newsroom we had to open letters in a special room, etc. I did eventually persuade him to get a computer.
Okay, I'm a little lost. What's the issue with "Arab?" Arabs are people from countries, mostly North Africa, where people speak Arabic. Is there some other word that the questioner prefers?
A perfectly fine description for individuals actually from Arab countries (generically what would you call a native of the UAE, for example ?). The usage issue usually arises either from ignorance (Iranians obviously live in the Middle East but are not Arabs and speaking Arabic doesn't make you an "Arab." See: Egypt) or, as a comprehensive slur for people from that part of the world or even those who might look like they come from there. For example, how many Sikhs have been targeted by the wilfully ignorant, simply because they may be dark complexioned and wear a turban ?
Here's a recent Massachusetts high court decision on that state's version of the First Amendment that is well worth a read. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/03/07/k13284.pdf. It's a rare situation in which the person who brought Hitler into the conversation won. Here are some excerpts:
The provision also has a distinct, identifiable history and
a close connection to public participation in town government
that is uniquely informative in this case. As more fully
explained infra, art. 19 reflects the lessons and the spirit of
the American Revolution. The assembly provision arose out of
fierce opposition to governmental authority, and it was designed
to protect such opposition, even if it was rude, personal, and
disrespectful to public figures, as the colonists eventually were
to the king and his representatives in Massachusetts.
* * *
Taking the facts, including the video recording, in the
light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Barron exercised her
constitutional right under arts. 19 and 16 to address the
meeting of the board and complain about the open meeting law
violations. Her comparison between Kolenda and Hitler was, at
least in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, simply
hyperbole, describing Kolenda as behaving in a dictatorial
manner, that is, domineering or authoritarian. Although a
comparison to Hitler is certainly rude and insulting, it is
I felt that vetting the pokes would be difficult. I considered using my archival searches from my now-discounted Washington Post subscription to find the prior Below the Beltway articles in which they appeared. Then, I thought even I'm not that obsessive.
The porch joke was on the shortlist, and someone's Yo Mama joke got in. We tended not to choose pokes that were so short, there wasn't that much cleverness on display in transforming it into a poem.
Yeah, that turned out to be a problematic element, to know which jokes Gene had already "poked" at length. It's hard to even find those pokes now. I'll share three of the best of these submissions in the Style Invitational Devotees group later today. (Join at on.fb.me/invdev and tell the admins I sent you from The Gene Pool.)
If a national divorce or separation did happen, the red countries would ABSOLUTELY institute Jim Crow laws again, as well as the laws outlined in The Handmaid's Tale, and mandatory conversion camps for Queer and Trans people.
Okay, well-stated. Now I have a story to tell. When I was twelve or so, my mother moved my sister, myself, her friend Anita, and my father's sister Reva to a farm in a very rural part of Michigan. It was totally foreign to me. Anyway, one day my mother and Anita invited some people home for a visit--not sure how they met them, and we never saw them again, for cause. My father (who died when I was very young) was Jewish and his sister Reva was also Jewish. This came up in conversation. Our visitors had never met a real live Jew in person before, and they were inquisitive. "What do you call yourselves? Jew is an insult, so...." Or words to that effect. I remember the feeling I had more than the words. Well, what DO we call ourselves? We call ourselves Jews, regardless of the ignorance or bigotry of others. Arabs call themselves Arabs. The problem (usage or otherwise) is not in the name that people use to identify themselves. It is ignorance. It is bigotry. What I say is no knuckling under to either.
Now that The Gene Pool "adult swim" whistle has blown, those of you who have chosen instead to invest in other means of self-flagellation, will very likely receive an email asking you to select from a long list of reasons why you decided against taking advantage of the enlightenment opportunity of a lifetime. These reasons tend to be of the "don't like the font," or "wrong size," variety and never really get to the underlying motivations for a declination. So, in the interest of actionable market research, I offer the following justifications (feel free to add your own):
* Can't compete week in and week out with Gene's and Pat's love children
* There is not as much discussion of bodily functions and fluids as expected
* I am still "Most Likely to be Amusing" whether Pat & Gene agree with my yearbook superlative or not
* Pat and Gene hate me. I can hear it in their posts. (And by the way, I can't stand moustaches or tiaras)
* I am distantly related to the Romanovs and am offended by the appropriation of my birthright
* I thought this was the David Sedaris website
Gene, I remember entering the NY Mag contest that asked you to "string names and names of things together in a 25-item list that would return to the original name through clever associations." (Although I remember it being only 10 items.) In addition to printing the winning answers in full, they printed bits from lists that they considered clever -- and they included a very brief bit from mine: "Bluebeard, Percy Kilbride. . . "
That is indeed excellent.
Commanders is not a great name, but it could have been worse. It's been my experience as a logo designer for 45 years that any decision like that made by committee results in the winner being everyone's third choice. A colleague once tried to outsmart that inevitable outcome by submitting two terrible choices along with the obviously best one. Guess how that turned out.
I'm sure you've heard the classic analogy that a camel is a horse designed by committee. It was coined by the guy who designed the enormously successful and iconic Mini in the '60s. A fine case study of what is often missed in group decision-making: everyone can have a say, but not everyone should have a vote. Put another way, the danger of confusing weak-kneed consensus with collaboration. As you point out, that consensus is too often a third choice.
I'm sure we'll mention this next week, but just to let you know how the subscription thing going to work with Invite entries:
If you're not a paid subscriber, you'll still be able to fill out the entry form for the contest and send in your jokes. But we'll have the list of email addresses for paid subscribers, and if your email address isn't on that list, we won't use your entries.
If for some reason you need to send in an entry on a different email from the one that's linked to your Substack account, just explain that to me, tell me what the right account is, and that's fine. As long as you're subscribed. We're still small enough that we can handle it manually.
Is manually handling Invite entrants a fringe benefit of a paid subscription ? You might want to play that up in these closing moments before the paywall descends.
Just sayin'....entering the SI by snail mail might take a month. Fax would only take a day and a half to track down a fax machine and another 20 or 30 minutes to transmit.
People continued to fax the occasional entry into the 2000s, when we finally removed the option. And one beloved Loser, who did not own a computer, was given permission to hand-write (in cursive) his entries and snail-mail them in, even though after the post-9/11 anthrax attacks in newsroom we had to open letters in a special room, etc. I did eventually persuade him to get a computer.
Okay, I'm a little lost. What's the issue with "Arab?" Arabs are people from countries, mostly North Africa, where people speak Arabic. Is there some other word that the questioner prefers?
A perfectly fine description for individuals actually from Arab countries (generically what would you call a native of the UAE, for example ?). The usage issue usually arises either from ignorance (Iranians obviously live in the Middle East but are not Arabs and speaking Arabic doesn't make you an "Arab." See: Egypt) or, as a comprehensive slur for people from that part of the world or even those who might look like they come from there. For example, how many Sikhs have been targeted by the wilfully ignorant, simply because they may be dark complexioned and wear a turban ?
My response went way up top. That's the last time I try to respond via email rather than via the Substack Comments section.
I believe the term for a native of the UAE is "Emirati."
Yes, in terms of nationality. Ethnically, Emiratis are Arabs.
Here's a recent Massachusetts high court decision on that state's version of the First Amendment that is well worth a read. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/03/07/k13284.pdf. It's a rare situation in which the person who brought Hitler into the conversation won. Here are some excerpts:
The provision also has a distinct, identifiable history and
a close connection to public participation in town government
that is uniquely informative in this case. As more fully
explained infra, art. 19 reflects the lessons and the spirit of
the American Revolution. The assembly provision arose out of
fierce opposition to governmental authority, and it was designed
to protect such opposition, even if it was rude, personal, and
disrespectful to public figures, as the colonists eventually were
to the king and his representatives in Massachusetts.
* * *
Taking the facts, including the video recording, in the
light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Barron exercised her
constitutional right under arts. 19 and 16 to address the
meeting of the board and complain about the open meeting law
violations. Her comparison between Kolenda and Hitler was, at
least in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, simply
hyperbole, describing Kolenda as behaving in a dictatorial
manner, that is, domineering or authoritarian. Although a
comparison to Hitler is certainly rude and insulting, it is
still speech protected by art. 16.1
I felt that vetting the pokes would be difficult. I considered using my archival searches from my now-discounted Washington Post subscription to find the prior Below the Beltway articles in which they appeared. Then, I thought even I'm not that obsessive.
which jokes did you submit? just a word or two on each. i'll tell you if you were bumped for that reason.
Shovel off my porch/Porsche
Not even God can hit a one-iron
Doctor with a thermometer behind his ear
Blind guy swinging his guide dog (old Gallagher joke)
Pull my finger
What's a ten-letter word that starts with gas?
Bear asks a rabbit about poop sticking to his fur (old Eddie Murphy joke)
The ladle hidden in a bed (ancient joke from as early as 1840)
Heard about the optometrist who fell into his lens grinder and made a spectacle of himself?
Knock Knock joke about a visitor named Boo
The obligatory "Your Mama so fat" joke
The porch joke was on the shortlist, and someone's Yo Mama joke got in. We tended not to choose pokes that were so short, there wasn't that much cleverness on display in transforming it into a poem.
None of yours was eliminated for that reason. I hadn't done any of those jokes.
That's a relief.
Typically, I don't post my noinks as it always seems like sour grapes (and it precludes their use in Do Over contests).
Yeah, that turned out to be a problematic element, to know which jokes Gene had already "poked" at length. It's hard to even find those pokes now. I'll share three of the best of these submissions in the Style Invitational Devotees group later today. (Join at on.fb.me/invdev and tell the admins I sent you from The Gene Pool.)
They're in the comment thread of the link to the Gene Pool, pinned to the top of the page.
If a national divorce or separation did happen, the red countries would ABSOLUTELY institute Jim Crow laws again, as well as the laws outlined in The Handmaid's Tale, and mandatory conversion camps for Queer and Trans people.