A potential benefit of the episodic personality type is the ability to grieve
failures and move on.
> On Sep 2, 2021, at 7:50 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I do feel pity for Dave and the obsolete people/modes being left
> behind. Nostalgia is difficult. On his deathbed, with so much time to sit and
> think about dying, my dad finally admitted that his "type A personality" was
> an artifact of the circumstances within which he was reared ('30s). And it
> wasn't at all successful under the circumstances/times in which me and my
> sister were reared. My sister took something more like Marcus' stance, an
> unvarnished "get with the program". I took a more apathetic stance, "you're
> gonna to die soon, anyway, at which your pain will end."
>
> I feel the same way when I see lions at the zoo, once glorious masters on the
> Serengeti, now pathetic creatures burdened with claws and teeth and nobody to
> fight with. It's truly sad. But it's also terrifying to me. Am *I* capable of
> recognizing the signal when it comes my way? Or am I destined to be a scared
> little snowflake, hiding in my nostalgia? ... aggrieved, petulant, and
> burdened with my teeth and claws?
>
> I took a morning walk to downtown Olympia right after the pandemic. I
> walk/run around 6am. As I was returning, walking, a man in a black gaiter,
> sunglasses, and black hoodie, covered so well I couldn't see any of his flesh
> ... hell, I don't even know if it was a man. Was walking toward me. I didn't
> think much of it at the time. There was a new building across the street with
> some weird structure (e.g. a kitchen on the 1st floor with no other rooms
> attached ... WTF?). So I crossed to peer through the various floor to ceiling
> plate glass windows to see if I could figure out what it was for?
>
> When I was done peering into the windows, I noticed the man on the other side
> of the street, stopped, staring at me. That scared me. Did he intend harm?
> Was he offended that I crossed the street? Should I go back across and say
> something? ... well, a couple of women walked past me audibly wondering what
> this building was for and that distracted me. I talked to them for a minute.
> And when I looked back the guy was gone.
>
> Have I become just like the scared little old lady that lives next door?
> Afraid of progress? Afraid of diversity? Scared of my own shadow? I honestly
> don't know.
>
>
>> On 9/2/21 7:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> The signal to the welfare rancher is “Find a new line of work and quit your
>> whining.”
>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "The fact that you agree with the policies and actions does not mitigate
>>> the harm caused."
>>>
>>> This seems to be a recurring theme in conversations I am having recently,
>>> in several venues. I make a factual claim about damages caused by a
>>> policy/action/decision. Someone objects to the factual claim because they
>>> agree with policy/action/decision. I'm never quite sure where to go in the
>>> conversation after that.
>>>
>>> Like, I saw someone post, non-sarcastically, a meme claiming that Biden's
>>> withdrawal from Afghanistan was more peaceful that Trump's final days in
>>> office. When I pointed out how obviously wrong that was, the
>>> otherwise-sensible-seeming person couldn't do anything but insist that
>>> withdrawing was the right thing to do. Like... come on man... I get that...
>>> but what does that have to do with pretending things went well, or were
>>> "peaceful"?!?
>>>
>>> So, like... yeah... you might agree with restrictions on the uses of public
>>> lands... but that doesn't mean you need to pretend it has no negative
>>> consequences for individuals. Just own that those harms will happen, as
>>> part of your supporting the policy.
>>> <mailto:echar...@american.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 8:09 PM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm
>>>> <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote:
>>>
>>> __
>>> Marcus, you seem to miss my point; perhaps just baiting me.
>>>
>>> Honors at Highlands: this was part of a policy, stated publicly at a
>>> Board of Regents meeting, "Highlands exists to provide degrees to Hispanic
>>> students that could never obtain one at any other university. Honors
>>> degrees, curricula, and courses are racist reasons that students from
>>> northern New Mexico cannot succeed at other universities and, as such,
>>> cannot be tolerated at Highlands."
>>>
>>> Posters: woman in question was a 30+ year old grad student (we shared
>>> the same advisor). The posters were in my office for my enjoyment,
>>> purchased at the university bookstore. Meeting was held in my office at her
>>> request. They were prints of Dali work considered "great art." The human
>>> figures are totally androgynous as well as being distorted in typical Dali
>>> style. Her motive for filing the complaint was, she stated in an email a
>>> year later, to discredit me with our advisor who she thought showed a
>>> preference for my work over hers. The HR office, because of their
>>> "enlightened liberal policies" accepted her complaint on its face, no
>>> investigation; as the same policy stated one was not needed because, as a
>>> male and academic staff, I had no defensible position to consider.
>>>
>>> Ranchers: this particular family took 'stewardship' seriously and made
>>> hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of improvements to public land. but
>>> my point is simply that bureaucrats, kowtowing to liberal environmental
>>> lobbyists set policy without regard to any 'facts on the ground' or any
>>> science, simply on liberal philosophy of how things "should be."
>>>
>>> Access: I too am a taxpayer. There are some very nice hot springs on BLM
>>> land near by. They are maintained and upgraded by a volunteer public group
>>> (pretty informal, word of mouth kind of stuff). Being old and feeble, my
>>> access is increasing dependent on the use of an ATV. BLM policy dictates
>>> constant reduction of motorized transport on that land, so it will not be
>>> long before my access is de facto denied. This is a personal example of a
>>> "woke" policy on increasing wilderness designations thereby denying access
>>> to elderly, handicapped, and otherwise marginally abled.
>>>
>>> You asked for examples of liberal actions/policies that caused harm, to
>>> me specifically, but by implication in general. These are tangible
>>> examples. The fact that you agree with the policies and actions does not
>>> mitigate the harm caused.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, at 4:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Welfare ranchers, indeed. The rest of us have to constantly modernize
>>>> our skills.. But freeloading off the public land and environment that’s
>>>> “multigenerational” and must be preserved? Why?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com
>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:17 PM
>>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>>> <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Liberal dilemmas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I owned 40 acres in Torrance County, NM which was adjacent to a
>>>> national forest. Ranchers were charged $1.21 per acre per year to use the
>>>> NF land for grazing. I could have made $48 per year by charging a little
>>>> less than the feds. My property taxes were $40 per year.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Frank C. Wimberly
>>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>>>
>>>> 505 670-9918
>>>> Santa Fe, NM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 1:50 PM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com
>>>> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>> < More significant: I have had my curricular materials censured and
>>>> have had my job threatened on a number of occasions because it was deemed
>>>> inconsistent with liberal values. Ironically, many of these events
>>>> occurred when I was teaching at a Catholic university where I could, with
>>>> impunity, challenge religious orthodoxy, but not liberal woke snowflake
>>>> orthodoxy. I was once censured by the University of Wisconsin HR
>>>> department because a female student filed a sexual harassment complaint
>>>> because I had a meeting with her in my office where I had three Salvador
>>>> Dali prints on my wall and "she was forced to look at breasts the entire
>>>> meeting." Her complaint was upheld because neither the content of the Dali
>>>> prints nor my intent or rational for having them in my office mattered —
>>>> only her subjective feelings. At Highlands I was forbidden to offer Honors
>>>> courses or any opportunities to earn extra credit in a class by tackling
>>>> extra hard problems (these were software
>>>> courses) because doing so was racist and unfair — simply because
>>>> more non-Hispanic students obtained the extra credit or the honors
>>>> designation. >
>>>>
>>>> So the university had the expectation that before advanced classes
>>>> could be offered, there needed to an unbiasing of the candidate pool for
>>>> those classes by adequately training everyone (every demographic) that was
>>>> potentially feeding in to them? Ok. If the university wants to do this,
>>>> or incentivized to do this, it is really just a matter of private/public
>>>> strategy. If you don't want to work for a university that has this
>>>> "fair" strategy, then don't. As for subjecting young students to
>>>> strange imagery, I can see why one would not want to do that. Just as it
>>>> would strange for a female professor to dress like a hooker.
>>>> Organizations can have dress codes. Don't be a fool, universities are
>>>> just another kind of business. You mess with the business, you will have
>>>> a problem. It would be better if your department heads were "upstanders"
>>>> and just said, "Hey Dave, how is this art helping your students?"
>>>>
>>>> < Not personal, but a relative: multi-generational ranch with
>>>> Federal grazing right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years
>>>> were spent enhancing the Federal land, containment ponds for water that
>>>> reduced erosion and flash flooding without diminishing runoff contribution
>>>> to watershed; planting of native grasses, elimination of deadwood, etc.
>>>> etc. End result was the ability to safely and sustainably graze X number
>>>> of cattle. About five years ago, BLM issued a new policy dictating the
>>>> maximum carrying capacity of Federal lands. The math was based on lowest
>>>> common denominator. The policy was, at the behest of preservation groups,
>>>> written with the specific intent to minimize and eventually eliminate the
>>>> use of public lands for grazing. (Also mining and motorized recreational
>>>> vehicle use.) Bottom line, allotment was taken away because it violated
>>>> the numbers — not because there was any evidence of actual harm. >
>>>>
>>>> I'm a taxpayer. Why should I want off road vehicles or cows on
>>>> federal land? I don't care about either of those things. This is a
>>>> weird entitlement that these folks have in mind. As far as I was
>>>> concerned the Bundy principals in Oregon deserved to be met by A-10s.
>
> --
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
