Quite a few people were worried for Abby Sunderland when her sailboat that she was taking around the world issued a distress signal. The boat faced rough waters in the Indian Ocean, and she was incommunicado for about a day. She’s been found, though, and the discussion over the general competence of her parents continues.

Some have questioned the responsibility and judgment of her parents: what kind of parent would encourage a child to circumnavigate by sail at such an age? Have their critics considered the commonsensical assumption her parents trained her in sailing, and that her circumnavigation is not the first long-distance sailing trip she’s done? I can’t be certain the assumption is true, but it’s very likely. Others wanted to debate whether her parents should be charged with negligence for “allowing” Abby to sail around the world. These same people, without the benefit of hindsight, wouldn’t even pass judgment on them if she completed her voyage safely. The question remains: how young is too young?

Legally, there are three age-related milestones: birth, adulthood, and retirement. There’s plenty worth discussing on these three topics, but important to understanding the Abby Sunderland issue is that adulthood is much fuzzier a concept than the other two. Children in Maryland can start working at age sixteen, and new adults can vote but still can’t buy alcohol. Young girls in some states can get an abortion without parental consent in some states.”Children” can now enjoy being on their parents’ insurance plans until the age of twenty-six.

Laws have adjusted the priveleges of adulthood beyond the legal, clear-cut definition mainly because some groups have gotten burned due to tragedy and would like to make adjustments for everyone else as a result. Abby Sunderland could have been yet another case that could have added yet another adjustment to the definition of adulthood.

What a lot of people miss is that people like Abby Sunderland, and the other children who’ve done this, are intrepid people. Not only do they have the potential to do great things, they are already on their way to realizing it. Let’s not let Abby Sunderland’s near-unfortunate outcome be another excuse for overbearing parenting. There’s plenty of that to go around as it is.

For a few moments, appreciate the paintings below.

Composition and technique really aren’t all that exemplary, but they show practice. They capture what seems to be the intended qualities in each scene: the bustle of city life, the majesty of a palace, the tranquility of a lake. If one were to use the work alone as a means to look into the mind of this heretofore unidentified artist, what insights might we gain when studying this work? (Read more…)

It’s Christmas again, and year after year, atheists around the nation do nothing but sneer at all of us who so insensitively celebrate a religious holiday at the expense of every un- and non-believer out there. Why all the humbugging from these folks, anyway? I’ll be exploring Atheism as a belief system in the days to come, but for now, a few thoughts on Christmas. First, from David Harsyani:

If I were a believer, I would have commemorated the Jewish revolt against the Greek religious imperialism of the second century B.C. this month. Fun.

You, on the other hand, are far more likely preparing to celebrate the birthday of the one true messiah, the son of God, the King of Kings, he who died for all our sins and brings peace to all mankind.

I grew up Catholic and though my lifestyle doesn’t reflect my upbringing—to be caricatural, I do not fast, nor eat merely fish on Fridays—I still celebrate the holiest of days by dropping by for Mass. I also greet people “Merry Christmas,” even when I receive a “Happy Holidays.” I hate a lot of this political correctness crap. So, what does Christmas mean to a non-Christian in the United States?

It’s a day of rest, for one. Since the country is densely populated with people who actually celebrate Christmas, they have little incentive to work. Many places offer holiday pay, which means they don’t have to work for the day, too.

It’s a day to be with family. Since they know they’re getting paid, they get to hang out with family. Some people travel across the country to do this. If for any reason, people can’t be with their families, they reach out to their friends and spend the day together.

It’s a great time for business, and the better non-Christian businessmen don’t mind greeting people “Merry Christmas,” except the obviously non-Christian clientele, of course.

It’s a time for good will. I mean, ferChrissake, a large majority of the world is celebrating the birth of our Christ and Savior on this day that our Church agreed to do so. It’s a time for people to be nice to each other, or at least, nicer than they usually are.

If you’re Jewish, Muslim, or whatever non-Christian believer, the option is there on this day to do with it as you please. This invitation applies to atheists, too, but too many of them are in this terrible funk that just makes you want to punch them in the mouth.

I mean, what do militant atheists want? They want people to reject religion for reason. Sure. By logical extension, they want people to not celebrate Christmas, which removes the reason to take off work in droves on that date. They want people to work on December 25. They want people to not go meet their families on this day. They want people to stop being nice to each other on this day. They want people to reject this holiday because it offends their sensiblities and to them, the irrational behavior surrounding this day would be imprisoning. No wonder that (from same article, emphasis Harsanyi’s):

USA Today also relayed that a University of Minnesota study taken that year found that Americans rank atheists as the most disliked minority group in the entire country, topping other groups who richly deserve such honors, like journalists, for instance.

Any other day, I would tell the militant atheists to get the fuck out of our lives and pull that stick out of their asses. But today, well, at least tomorrow, it’d be great to rub salt in their woods and greet them a “Merry Christmas.”

Christian Lander already listed it as one of those things Stuff White People Like. Of course SWPL is a tongue-in-cheek critique not of white people but of a certain cultural aesthetic, and Lander does it well.

I may never understand why someone has to jump up and take offense at something being directly quoted. Too many people read into the idea of a retweet. Jake Tapper, journalist for ABC, had to clarify that before, too, when people would give him hell for retweeting something they disagree with. There’s a reflexive nature to the response in the screenshot, too. It’s psychologically intriguing to speculate about why this person would be so quick as to publish their “disgusted” feeling.

I write about this because I need to let everyone know: my silence on a matter is not endorsement. If I had to bloviate about everything that offended me, I’d never get anything done in my life. I don’t need to express offense in order to feel that I have not endorsed that which has offended me. I have my own ways of coping. One can only hope that the perpetually offended can do so, as well.

I’ve been anticipating the release of Parcbench since it was a gathering buzz on Facebook, and today, they have launched the site. It’s basically a daily e-zine. From the email release announcement:

Parcbench will appeal to an upcoming generation of contributors and activists and will cover everything from movie reviews and celebrity gossip to the latest developments in the military and the most fashionable members of Congress. And we will cover every corner of culture without the Left-wing spin found in many other publications.

I’ll be an occasional contributor to the Health+Food section.

You know what they say about discussing politics and religion? Well, here’s a reason why I don’t discuss religion: 3 Ways Christianity Prolongs Immaturity. Found from a WordPress hot post as seen when I was checking my stats. A twisted person like myself would probably find the comments section full of funnies, on both sides of the “debate.”

I still don’t have a reason why I don’t discuss politics.

…Starbucks starts selling instant coffee (link found from the always awesome SondraK): Called Via, the water-soluble product sells in packets of three for $2.95 or 12 for $9.95 – $1 or less per cup. Just Columbia and Italian Roast varieties will be available at first, but the company will add others later.

I call it a sign of recession not for what seems to be the obvious, but because, as if in a panic, Starbucks has thrown its brains out the window and made a stupid decision. Instant coffee serves two purposes: to meet the caffeine needs of those who perceive ground coffee beans to be too expensive, and to have coffee where one can not logistically make coffee from grounds.

Starbucks’ retail operation may be built on the sale of hyper-expensive prepared coffee drinks, but the permeation of coffee culture into daily life had increased the market for home-based coffee makers, French presses, and manual and automatic espresso machines. Selling their beans has made Starbucks a visible participant in this market beyond their cafe operations. The gourmet coffee market had also birthed such luxurious monstrosities like Tassimo and other capsule coffee products: the hallmark of conspicuous consumption, environmental largesse, and just plain ol’ home-ec stupidity.

Fat years place a premium on time; lean years place a premium on cash. Unless we are plunged into such great depths of poverty that we have no power to run our coffee makers, we’re not throwing them away. Starbucks’ participation in this market, at “less than a $1 per cup,” sets unrealistic expectations. The most cruel symptom of CEO Schultz’ disconnect from reality? The dig at their instant coffee not being “our mother’s” instant coffee. Our mothers had drip coffee. Our grandmothers had drip coffee. Our great-grandmothers roasted their own coffee. Instant coffee was a luxury back in the day, and today, it just isn’t really that much of a choice.

Primarily because he never marketed himself as some kind of perfect person. He got drunk back in ’04, and toked this year. Fine by me. The funny is his record of advocating against drug use. Opinion from Hillbuzz:

Phelps has made numerous appearances channeling Nancy Reagan at the behest of his corporate patrons, telling kids to just say no to drugs, all the while smoking marijuana from bongs like a pro. Phelps is a 14-time Olympic medalist, and a confirmed and proven hypocrite.

Hungry, hungry hypocrite, as some would call him. Isn’t that the trap that people we lionize fall into? Isn’t that the price of being admired by so many? More HillBuzz:

This is why human beings shouldn’t be installed on pedestals. We’re not a species of saints. Nobody’s perfect. And everyone eventually gets caught, especially when they tell other people not to do things they, themselves, do with great pleasure (like Phelps speaking out against drugs from a podium, then partaking in them anyway).

At one point in a famous person’s life, he is faced with a choice: will you bear the standard for a way of life that you seem to represent? This was the same crisis that Rush Limbaugh faced, with a few differences in minor details. What’s really awesome is that Phelps probably did it for the money! “Promote a clean lifestyle and we’ll give you corporate sponsorship.” Lovely choice he was faced, ya? All that money, or to walk away living an honest life. Too bad, these days transparency is usually foisted upon all of us and is no longer a matter of personal choice.

Of course Radley Balko has the fictitious letter that we would all want to see, but what are the chances of that, ya?

The truth is, Michael Phelps is now my hero because he has become the kind of celebrity that Americans just love tearing down. I think it’s a large cultural problem that we have. The schadenfreude at seeing someone fall is so tempting that we have created an industry that revolves around building someone up enough to see them get torn down.

I think this mini-scandal would end with Phelps getting a slap on the wrist. This could then at least help us re-examine current attitudes towards marijuana and maybe relax the rules for everyone.

Without it, no narrative in any medium of any will carry color. Every viewer or reader determines the limits of that suspension, but it’s always there. Even when reading historical accounts or watching documentaries, I see the need for it.

I tend to be a generally skeptical guy, but I’m not the type to deconstruct what I know to be fiction. This is why I enjoy watching well-written procedural dramas on TV like House, The Closer and Criminal Minds. I also enjoy watching SciFi shows, not because I take in each and every unbelievable circumstance, but because they are, ultimately, plot points.

There is a subset of viewers and readers who actually find pleasure in breaking down a narrative into its most unbelievable elements. I am not one of them.

Take any dynamic—or relationship—between two people, or two groups of people. Now, give this dynamic enough time for both parties to discover a fair and relatively full disclosure of each other. I have come to the conclusion that whatever the consquences of that dynamic—good or bad, triumphant or tragic, whatever they may be—after a certain point in time, both parties are responsible for those consequences.

Take note, I did not say “deserve;” at worst, “beget” would be my harshest assessment.

It may seem cruel or unfair for me to say that the battered wife of so many years is responsible for the bruises on her body or the insanity that she may descend into, but at one point in her life this person has come to the realization that nothing will change in her partner and that the choice—the opportunity to choose—has come and will be made. Even if that choice was to stay in that relationship. What happens to her next is a result of her choice to stay. The animal with whom she has chosen to stay also has had the opportunity to make the choice.

It is a cold, hard calculus that applies to almost any situation in life and taking the initiative to make a change in any relationship is a responsibility of either person.

I followed a link from Radley Balko to a WaPo article about DADT that featured the ravings of one Elaine Donnelly. (Her written testimony to the House is available on the website, in PDF, along with others.) Quite frankly Elaine Donnelly is batshit crazy by today’s standards and Republicans and Democrats seemed glad to give her a big enough shovel to dig a hole for herself.

Well, and good. Radley has raised the issue of the need for linguists. Alva’s testimony is one anecdote on the cultural shifts that many of our soldiers are fine with. Elaine Donnelly and her ilk aren’t just the type of bigots who just hate gays. They’re the kind who think that our armed services personel aren’t mature enough to accept that gays serve alongside them. Elaine Donnelly and her ilk are well-rounded bigots in more ways than one, and quite honestly, the best way to deal with them is to let give them audience. The more noise they make, the more foolish they make themselves.

I haven’t been up at 3AM since the last time I decided to get drunk, which was around May of this year. I know I wouldn’t stay up for Greg Gutfield’s Red Eye on Fox News, but I’ve read through his archives often. His piece on running stood out to me tonight. He hates runners “because they talk about running. Incessantly. It’s like they falsely believe their obsession is also ours, so immersed in their own compulsion that they have no idea what they have become: bloated vehicles for nonsensical ravings spewing poop in every direction. (Running is Bad For Your Health, 2008-06-24)”

Why, the same thing can be said about: political junkies, gym nuts, hypermilers, salespersons, WOW players, sports fans, foodies, liberals, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, greenies, hippies, vegans, meat-eaters, photographers, models, writers… You know, I could go on. But the point here is the Gutfield touches on a typical aspect of human interaction: people who are passionate about something will talk about it. Perhaps the unintended consequence of this is that sometimes, we fail to ask the listening party (who at a certain point has become the party that is feigning interest) what they are interested in. In an effort to seek out validation, or conversation, the passionate tend to alienate. Then they gravitate towards each other, which makes them prime pickings for hobbyists on “the outside.”

I’ve been guilty of railing on and on about something that I know might not interest the person I’m talking to. People I’ve listened to have done the same. But when a true conversation actually happens, it’s one of those moments that leave us feeling like a part of the greater portion of humanity outside of what we are passionate about.

It’s become conventional wisdom that the power of words lay in the parties that define them: some words have become taboo; some have lost meaning and others have gained new definitions. It’s a curious thing, this aspect of linguistics. If words are the symbols for concepts, and language is the gestalt of the concepts a population holds in its mind, then I have to say that sometimes I mourn for a the mind of the group that cannot learn to call a spade a spade.

I’ve always found it a curiosity when words fall out of convention in exchange of phrases. The concept of “political correctness” is a tad broad for me to discuss now—although Bill Whittle’s Responsibility would be a nice essay that tackles it. Gone are the days when the words “janitor,” “secretary,” or “stewardess,” (or “steward”) were treated as clear words that symbolized the concepts behind those occupations. But knocking on terms like “sanitation engineer,” “office manager,” and “flight attendant” is not truly my aim. It is merely to demonstrate a point in time and culture when people decide to redefine words and how certain concepts are, conversely, redefined by the words that symbolize them.

Today what I mourn for the most is the word “elite.” Yes, I know its etymology is French. But that word used to stand for excellence. It used to be a symbol of prestige, an adjective that described great achievers.

In today’s landscape of political discourse “elite” has become a symbol of derogation. It has become a boogeyman to use in populist pandering. Senator Obama’s horrible remarks have been labeled as “elitist” by Senators McCain and Clinton. I pity the word, though, yes, it’s been used to describe the snooty snobs who loom above us long before this election cycle.

“Elite” as a word has lost its beauty, and this is the moment where I mourn its passing.

Reference added at 4:16 EDT: (Rand Simberg: In Defense Of Elitism.)