I have finished reading "The Unmade Bed: The Messy Truth about Men and Women in the the 21st Century," by Stephen Marche.
I read it because NPR made it sound good. It wasn't.
Part of the inaneness of the book is that Stephen Marche, the author, gave up a career as a professor in New York to accommodate his wife's career move to Canada. The book is, in part, an effort by Mr. Marche to explain and excuse that decision. Not that he needed to. It was a perfectly fine decision, but part of the book is explained by his need to do this.
But, it is more than that.
Part of it is that it is simply incorrect.
In the book, Mr. Marche actually says, "Anything boys can do, girls can do. Anything girls can do, boys can do." That, on it's face, is false. Boys can impregnate girls. Girls can never impregnate boys. Girls can give birth to babies. Boys will never be able to give birth to babies.
But, it is an incorrect statement at a deeper level. While it is true that there are males who can do some of the things females can do, most males will never be able to do most of the things that most females can do as well as most females. While it is true that there are females who can do some of the things males can do, most females will never be able to do most of the things that most males can do as well as most males. This is a fundamental truth about men and women. While there is overlap, there is never equivalence. Men and women are not equal. To deny this truth is to deny truth. Mr. Marche attempts to deny truth.
But, it is more than that.
In his efforts to deny the truth, Mr. Marche makes assumptions that are not true.
Mr. Marche says, "Conjure up the image of a young man, and you automatically picture a loser." Really? I don't. Mr. March makes assumptions that he expresses as universal truths which are not universal.
But, it is more than that.
Mr. Marche says things that are absolutely unintelligible, except, perhaps, to an academic. I assume he does it to sound important. He certainly isn't doing it to communicate. I consider myself a fairly well-educated man, and there were times when, reading the book, I stopped, re-read a sentence, pondered over it, and still couldn't figure out what it meant.
The book is, in a word, pretentious.
All that said, Mr. Marche does come around to reality. He admits that boys and girls (using the example of his own son and daughter) are just different. He quotes some author as saying "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." He says this is true, but then points out that the fish and the bicycle keep falling in love, keep forming families together, keep having children, and keep making choices about furniture for the house.
Nonetheless, Mr. Marche's belated efforts to accept reality are marred by his initial attempts to deny it.
On a scale of 1 through 5, with 1 being the worst, I'd give it a 1.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
A Follow-Up Letter
As of April 25, 2017, I still haven't heard from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, so today I sent the following letter:
April
25, 2017
James
W. Collins
13112
Appaloosa Chase Dr.
Austin,
TX 78732
U.S. Customs and
Border Protection
1300
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington,
D.C. 20229
Re: Need for a wall through Big Bend National
Park; previously sent letter
Dear Sir or
Madame:
On March 1. 2017, I sent a letter to
Secretary Kelly asking him
“First: What will you tell Congressman Williams
regarding the need to build a wall through Big Bend National Park?
“Second: If you tell Congressman Williams that it is
necessary to build a wall through Big Bend National Park, will you tell him
that such a wall could just as effectively be built north of the park?”
Later I received a letter from the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection dated March 17, 2017, acknowledging receipt
of my letter to Secretary Kelly and stating that “DHS has asked that U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respond on its behalf.”
The letter further states that “[w]e
have forwarded your letter to the appropriate CBP office,” but it does not
state to which it was forwarded.
On March 29, 2017, I sent a letter to
this address asking for the name of the office or person to which or whom my
letter was forwarded. To date, neither
that letter nor my original letter to Secretary Kelly have received any
response.
May I please know the name of the
office or person to which or whom my letter was forwarded?
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
James
W. Collins
Cc: Secretary John Kelly
Congressman Roger Williams
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
A Response to my Letter to Secretary Kelly
So, I finally got a response to my letter to Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly. A few days ago I received a letter on what purports to be U.S. Customs and Border Protection letterhead (I have no reason to think that it is not) which reads, in its entirety:
"March 17, 2017
"Thank you for contacting the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) about border security. DHS has asked that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respond on its behalf. CBP appreciates your taking time to share your thoughts and concerns with us. We have forwarded your letter to the appropriate CBP office.
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection"
It is unsigned.
I responses, today I sent U.S. Customs and Border Protection the following letter. We'll see what they say.
"March 17, 2017
"Thank you for contacting the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) about border security. DHS has asked that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respond on its behalf. CBP appreciates your taking time to share your thoughts and concerns with us. We have forwarded your letter to the appropriate CBP office.
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection"
It is unsigned.
I responses, today I sent U.S. Customs and Border Protection the following letter. We'll see what they say.
March
29, 2017
James
W. Collins
13112
Appaloosa Chase Dr.
Austin,
TX 78732
U.S. Customs and
Border Protection
1300
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington,
D.C. 20229
Re: Need for a wall through Big Bend National
Park
Dear Sir or Madame:
On March 1. 2017, I sent a letter to
Secretary Kelly asking him
“First: What will you tell Congressman Williams
regarding the need to build a wall through Big Bend National Park?
“Second: If you tell Congressman Williams that it is
necessary to build a wall through Big Bend National Park, will you tell him
that such a wall could just as effectively be built north of the park?”
A few days ago I received a letter
from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection dated March 17, 2017, acknowledging
receipt of my letter to Secretary Kelly and stating that “DHS has asked that
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respond on its behalf.”
The letter further states that “[w]e
have forwarded your letter to the appropriate CBP office,” but it does not state
which office it to which it was forwarded.
May I please know the name of the
office or person to which or whom my letter was forwarded?
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
James
W. Collins
Cc: Secretary John Kelly
Congressman Roger Williams
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Did Anyone Else Notice This?
After his inauguration, President Trump said that he had a plan to replace "Obamacare" that was within a "few strokes" of being finished, but he wasn't going to make it public until after Tom Price, his appointment for Health and Human Services Secretary, was confirmed.
Secretary Price has been confirmed for some time now.
Yesterday, House Republicans unveiled their plan to replace "Obamacare."
Where is President Trump's plan to replace "Obamacare"?
We haven't seen it.
Did President Trump decide he wouldn't make his plan public? If so, he never said so.
What happened to his plan, finished to within a "few strokes"?
Did it ever exist?
Did President Trump lie when he said he had a plan that was within a "few strokes" of being finished?
America, you have been conned.
Secretary Price has been confirmed for some time now.
Yesterday, House Republicans unveiled their plan to replace "Obamacare."
Where is President Trump's plan to replace "Obamacare"?
We haven't seen it.
Did President Trump decide he wouldn't make his plan public? If so, he never said so.
What happened to his plan, finished to within a "few strokes"?
Did it ever exist?
Did President Trump lie when he said he had a plan that was within a "few strokes" of being finished?
America, you have been conned.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
A Letter to Secretary Kelly
Today I sent the following letter to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly:
Cc: Congressman Roger Williams
March
1, 2017
James
W. Collins
13112
Appaloosa Chase Dr.
Austin,
TX 78732
The Honorable
John F. Kelly
Secretary of
Homeland Security
Washington,
D.C. 20528
Re: Need for a wall through Big Bend National
Park
Dear Secretary
Kelly:
My name is James W. Collins. I live in the 25th U.S.
Congressional District of Texas. My
congressional Representative is Roger Williams.
I went to Congressman Williams’ Austin
office to ask him to do all that he could to oppose building a wall through Big
Bend National Park. I did not get to
talk to Congressman Williams, but I did talk to a young staffer in his office
named Aaron. Aaron said he would pass on
my request to Congressman Williams.
I returned to Congressman Williams’
office to find out what his response was.
Aaron told me that Congressman Williams intended to rely on the opinion
of the “security people” in deciding whether he would oppose a wall built through
Big Bend National Park.
I
thereupon asked him to pass on to Congressman Williams my request that, if it
was necessary for him to support the building of a wall through Big Bend
National Park, would he at least support building it to the north of the park,
not through the park? Aaron said he
would pass on my request to Congressman Williams.
When
I returned to Congressman Williams’ office to find out what the Congressman had
to say about my request, Aaron told me that the Congressman had not changed his
position: that he would support building
a wall through Big Bend National Park if, in the opinion of the “security
people,” it was necessary.
On
another day, I returned to Congressman Williams’ office and again was greeted
by Aaron. I asked Aaron if he could
provide me with the names or the position titles of any of the “security people”
on whose opinions the Congressman intended to rely. Aaron said he did not know the names or
titles of any of those “security people,” but he would ask and let me know.
When
I returned to Congressman Williams’ office, Aaron told me that he had asked the
Congressman but did not get any names or position titles.
Upon
another visit to Congressman Williams’ office, I met John. John told me that the phrase “security people”
meant anyone who worked for the federal government and had anything to do with
the border. He said it could be anyone
from a border patrol agent to you, the Secretary of Homeland Security. John told me that I could “google it” and
find out the names.
Since
yours was the only name I was able to get from Congressman Williams, I am
writing to you. If there is someone else
to whom I ought to direct my questions, please so inform me.
First: What will you tell Congressman Williams
regarding the need to build a wall through Big Bend National Park?
Second: If you tell Congressman Williams that it is
necessary to build a wall through Big Bend National Park, will you tell him
that such a wall could just as effectively be built north of the park?
Thank
you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
James
W. Collins
Cc: Congressman Roger Williams
Friday, February 24, 2017
Then They Came for Me
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Martin Niemoller
First, they came for the refugees ...
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Martin Niemoller
First, they came for the refugees ...
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
This is how
This is how he will do it.
This is how President Trump will become the first dictator of the United States of America.
President Trump issued an executive order banning several different groups of people from entering the United States: refugees from any country and anyone from one of seven countries, to name two (the travel ban).
Several groups, the American Civil Liberties Union primary among them, promptly filed legal actions challenging President Trump's travel ban.
The acting Attorney General of the United States said neither she nor any lawyer in the Department of Justice would defend President Trump's travel ban, because she wasn't convinced that it was legal or constitutional.
President Trump fired her. Her replacement is willing to defend President Trump's travel ban.
This is how he will do it.
Whenever anyone in any part of the executive branch stands up to President Trump on anything, President Trump will just replace them with someone who won't stand up to him.
He may ask the Secret Service to arrest someone and charge them with intent to harm the President - such as some American citizen who has had the courage to protest the actions of President Trump. Some member of the Secret Service may refuse to make that arrest because he or she doesn't think there's legal grounds for making the arrest. President Trump will just replace them with someone who will make the arrest, legal or not.
President Trump may ask the CIA to carry out some plan which is illegal - like secretly arresting an American citizen and sending him or her to a secret prison or handing him or her over to another country. Some member of the CIA may object to carrying out the plan on the grounds that it is illegal. President Trump will just replace the objector with someone who will carry out the plan, legal or not.
President Trump may ask the FBI to arrest someone who displeases President Trump - such as some member of the press who refuses to be cowed and continues to report the embarrassing truth about President Trump. Some member of the FBI may object and refuse to make the arrest, on the grounds that the arrest is illegal. President Trump will just replace him or her with someone who will make the arrest, legal or not.
President Trump may order the military to perform some mission that is illegal - like torturing military captives or, even worse, attacking some U.S. citizens in the United States or some U.S. city or county that displeases President Trump. Some member of the military - maybe even one of the leaders of the military - may refuse to follow President Trump's order on the grounds that it is illegal. President Trump will just have him or her replaced - or worse yet, arrested and/or executed as a traitor - with someone who will follow the order, legal or not.
And lest one think that the courts might save one of the hapless individuals who stands up to President Trump, the example of Jose Padilla is proof that an American citizen can be arrested on American soil by the American government, thrown into an American military prison, held in solitary confinement without access even to a lawyer, never charged with a crime and never tried, for years before the courts will or can intervene.
But, won't the American Congress and/or the American courts act as a check and a balance on President Trump assuming total power? Probably not.
The American Congress is controlled by President Trump's nominal party. It is difficult to see what their motivation might be to stand up to him in the beginning, though some members of the President's nominal party have tepidly done so. The American Senate either has or is primed to consent to all of President Trump's appointments, even those who are clearly unqualified for the jobs to which they have been appointed, e.g., Betsy DeVos and, probably, Governor Perry. He has already cowed the Congress on their attempt to de-fang the Office of Congressional Ethics. (It was good that he did, but troubling that he could.) Once he begins to accumulate power, as he has done with the firing and replacement of the acting United States Attorney General, it will become more and more difficult for the Congress to oppose him. With each step he takes, it will become harder to stand up to him.
The U.S. Senate has guaranteed that he will get to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice. That appointment alone will make certain that the Presidents of his nominal party have appointed a majority of the members of the Supreme Court. We don't know that they are Republicans, but they probably are. In addition, because of the age of several members of the Supreme Court who have been appointed by Democratic Presidents, President Trump will probably get to appoint at least two more members of the Supreme Court. It is reasonable to assume that President Trump will appoint people to the Supreme Court who think as he does and even agree with him. It seems that, with its current actions as an indication, the Senate will consent to whoever President Trump appoints. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether individual trial court or appellate court judges are willing to stand up to President Trump if the Supreme Court is not.
And even if the Congress and/or the courts stand up to President Trump, they don't have an army. Their power has always been dependent on the President's willingness to abide by their rulings. If the President of the United States simply refuses to abide by the rulings of either the Congress or the courts, who will stop him?
All President Trump has to do is co-opt the military.
If the military stays neutral, then all he has to do is co-opt the FBI. If they stay neutral, then all he has to do is co-opt the CIA or the Secret Service.
And his actions in firing and replacing the acting Attorney General of the United States with someone who is willing to do his bidding is evidence that co-opting either the military, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, or, in fact, any combination or all of them, will not be hard for President Trump to do.
He has shown us how he will do it.
America, you have been conned.
This is how President Trump will become the first dictator of the United States of America.
President Trump issued an executive order banning several different groups of people from entering the United States: refugees from any country and anyone from one of seven countries, to name two (the travel ban).
Several groups, the American Civil Liberties Union primary among them, promptly filed legal actions challenging President Trump's travel ban.
The acting Attorney General of the United States said neither she nor any lawyer in the Department of Justice would defend President Trump's travel ban, because she wasn't convinced that it was legal or constitutional.
President Trump fired her. Her replacement is willing to defend President Trump's travel ban.
This is how he will do it.
Whenever anyone in any part of the executive branch stands up to President Trump on anything, President Trump will just replace them with someone who won't stand up to him.
He may ask the Secret Service to arrest someone and charge them with intent to harm the President - such as some American citizen who has had the courage to protest the actions of President Trump. Some member of the Secret Service may refuse to make that arrest because he or she doesn't think there's legal grounds for making the arrest. President Trump will just replace them with someone who will make the arrest, legal or not.
President Trump may ask the CIA to carry out some plan which is illegal - like secretly arresting an American citizen and sending him or her to a secret prison or handing him or her over to another country. Some member of the CIA may object to carrying out the plan on the grounds that it is illegal. President Trump will just replace the objector with someone who will carry out the plan, legal or not.
President Trump may ask the FBI to arrest someone who displeases President Trump - such as some member of the press who refuses to be cowed and continues to report the embarrassing truth about President Trump. Some member of the FBI may object and refuse to make the arrest, on the grounds that the arrest is illegal. President Trump will just replace him or her with someone who will make the arrest, legal or not.
President Trump may order the military to perform some mission that is illegal - like torturing military captives or, even worse, attacking some U.S. citizens in the United States or some U.S. city or county that displeases President Trump. Some member of the military - maybe even one of the leaders of the military - may refuse to follow President Trump's order on the grounds that it is illegal. President Trump will just have him or her replaced - or worse yet, arrested and/or executed as a traitor - with someone who will follow the order, legal or not.
And lest one think that the courts might save one of the hapless individuals who stands up to President Trump, the example of Jose Padilla is proof that an American citizen can be arrested on American soil by the American government, thrown into an American military prison, held in solitary confinement without access even to a lawyer, never charged with a crime and never tried, for years before the courts will or can intervene.
But, won't the American Congress and/or the American courts act as a check and a balance on President Trump assuming total power? Probably not.
The American Congress is controlled by President Trump's nominal party. It is difficult to see what their motivation might be to stand up to him in the beginning, though some members of the President's nominal party have tepidly done so. The American Senate either has or is primed to consent to all of President Trump's appointments, even those who are clearly unqualified for the jobs to which they have been appointed, e.g., Betsy DeVos and, probably, Governor Perry. He has already cowed the Congress on their attempt to de-fang the Office of Congressional Ethics. (It was good that he did, but troubling that he could.) Once he begins to accumulate power, as he has done with the firing and replacement of the acting United States Attorney General, it will become more and more difficult for the Congress to oppose him. With each step he takes, it will become harder to stand up to him.
The U.S. Senate has guaranteed that he will get to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice. That appointment alone will make certain that the Presidents of his nominal party have appointed a majority of the members of the Supreme Court. We don't know that they are Republicans, but they probably are. In addition, because of the age of several members of the Supreme Court who have been appointed by Democratic Presidents, President Trump will probably get to appoint at least two more members of the Supreme Court. It is reasonable to assume that President Trump will appoint people to the Supreme Court who think as he does and even agree with him. It seems that, with its current actions as an indication, the Senate will consent to whoever President Trump appoints. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether individual trial court or appellate court judges are willing to stand up to President Trump if the Supreme Court is not.
And even if the Congress and/or the courts stand up to President Trump, they don't have an army. Their power has always been dependent on the President's willingness to abide by their rulings. If the President of the United States simply refuses to abide by the rulings of either the Congress or the courts, who will stop him?
All President Trump has to do is co-opt the military.
If the military stays neutral, then all he has to do is co-opt the FBI. If they stay neutral, then all he has to do is co-opt the CIA or the Secret Service.
And his actions in firing and replacing the acting Attorney General of the United States with someone who is willing to do his bidding is evidence that co-opting either the military, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, or, in fact, any combination or all of them, will not be hard for President Trump to do.
He has shown us how he will do it.
America, you have been conned.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
No!
No!
I will not get over it!
I'm so tired of people telling me to "just get over it."
What President Trump is doing is not just wrong! It is not just ethically wrong! It it morally wrong!
I won't get over it!
No!
I am not concerned that "my candidate" lost!
I am so tired of people telling me that I am concerned that my candidate lost, just get over it! Bigly tired!
Hillary Clinton was not my candidate!
I would have been happy if she had lost to Senator Sanders!
I would have been happy of she had lost to any one of many of the Republican primary candidates!
I am not concerned that "my candidate" lost!
I am concerned that Donald Trump won!
No!
I will not get over it!
I will not get over it!
I'm so tired of people telling me to "just get over it."
What President Trump is doing is not just wrong! It is not just ethically wrong! It it morally wrong!
I won't get over it!
No!
I am not concerned that "my candidate" lost!
I am so tired of people telling me that I am concerned that my candidate lost, just get over it! Bigly tired!
Hillary Clinton was not my candidate!
I would have been happy if she had lost to Senator Sanders!
I would have been happy of she had lost to any one of many of the Republican primary candidates!
I am not concerned that "my candidate" lost!
I am concerned that Donald Trump won!
No!
I will not get over it!
Friday, January 20, 2017
Did anyone else notice this?
On New Year's Eve (or thereabouts) a reporter asked now President Trump about the alleged hacking by the Russians. He told that reporter that he - Donald Trump - knew things that "you" don't know and that "you" would find out on "Tuesday or Wednesday."
Now, like so many of President Trump's statements, it was impossible to interpret. One thinks one knew what President Trump said, but when one reads the actual words, it turns out that he didn't exactly say what you thought - knew - he meant. Who, exactly, was that "you"? Was it the reporter specifically, the press generally, or people in general. I don't know.
However, unless I missed it - and I've been watching pretty carefully - it was never revealed to anyone what President Trump knew that someone else didn't. Not on that Tuesday or Wednesday or at any time after that Tuesday or Wednesday.
Unless I missed something - and I've been watching pretty carefully - it was another of President Trump's broken promises. Maybe it was a lie, but since we don't know what President Trump "knew" that we didn't know, we can't know whether it was a lie.
But, it clearly was a broken promise.
America, you have been conned.
Now, like so many of President Trump's statements, it was impossible to interpret. One thinks one knew what President Trump said, but when one reads the actual words, it turns out that he didn't exactly say what you thought - knew - he meant. Who, exactly, was that "you"? Was it the reporter specifically, the press generally, or people in general. I don't know.
However, unless I missed it - and I've been watching pretty carefully - it was never revealed to anyone what President Trump knew that someone else didn't. Not on that Tuesday or Wednesday or at any time after that Tuesday or Wednesday.
Unless I missed something - and I've been watching pretty carefully - it was another of President Trump's broken promises. Maybe it was a lie, but since we don't know what President Trump "knew" that we didn't know, we can't know whether it was a lie.
But, it clearly was a broken promise.
America, you have been conned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)