Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. And I regret it.

    <

    p>
    A.) Yes, it is true John Keller wrote a book.
    B.) What the hell was the thesis? Or was this just a summary of Keller’s book?
    C.) David has written and plans on writing extensively on Keller’s book. I’ll refer you to his posts and the attached comments.
    D.) Why not offer an original thought of your own or at least highlights of Tucker’s thesis you find worthy of discussion? Or post in David’s threads.

    • I have not been following the critique of Keller's book closely, but  D. R. Tucker's post has the typical response I see on RMG about liberals. Apparently, liberals don't think; we just emote. All our responses are hysteria. After paragraphs of him laying on that perspective thickly, I was ready for no extra helpings. (Of course, conservatives got us into Iraq after very careful, non-emotion-laced thinking because they're oh so very mature and unhysterical. They weighed every decision with extra care. That's why the electric grid works so well in Baghdad now.)

      Shorter D.R.Tucker:  They're moonbats at BMG.

       

            • In fact you can read a hilarious description of this thread over at RMG:

              at BMG…came across this thread DR Tucker reaction while on the communist site and it is a classic example of the hate filled rants ( read the whole thing)of radical left wing jackals that absolutely refuse to acknowledge ANY dissenting view in their echo chamber.

              Actually, in a fit of both vituperation and unintended irony, the author goes on to describe how some folks who post at BMG go over to RMG to “spew bile”.

              So I say to you, my fellow hate-filled, radical left-wing, communist jackals, when you are a guest at RMG, please, please, keep the bile to yourselves. Do not be discourteous. No rants. You should behave like a guest. If you must spew, please spew nothing but kindness.

              • …that “Toms opinion” is “Asa Bearse”. Notice how Asa goes out of his way to project his own innocence by saying “I’m sure whoever the guy is who posted it will soon be booted”.

                <

                p>
                Note also that Asa has animosity to RMG by calling it “BMG II”.

              • i’m a sloppy typist and often hit the semicolon when i mean to hit the apostrophe.  i am neither proud nor ashamed of this.  it’s just the way it is.  i just thought you should know.

                • I can’t do homonyms to save my life. I always omit punctuation or over use commas.

                  <

                  p>
                  My record here clearly demonstrates my flawed typing. Today I mislabeled the title of a post.

                  <

                  p>
                  I probably wouldn’t have said anything about “Toms” name if I didn’t think it fit into a larger pattern.

                • I make a typo in a comment discussing typos. I often accidently add or omit prepositions in random spots.

                  <

                  p>
                  And I can’t spell worth a spit.

                • that we are all one in the universe of poor grammer & sloppy punctuation?  dig it!  in the spirit of universal grandschemery, Toms opinion, this tilde is for you:  ~

                • btw, an asterix looks like this: *

                  <

                  p>
                  kudos on properly punctuating “learnin'”, btw.  i have always been fascinated by the careful use of proper punctuation in what is essentially “poor english” (that is, not textbook english).  am i the only one to find it ironic that there are “correct” spellings for words like “aint” (that is, “ain’t”) that require attention to punctuation?  if ya don’t care enough about being textbooky to say “isn’t”, can you really be expected to put an apostrophe in there?

                • If you are fascinated, you should read a little bit on linguistics and English dialects and vernaculars. I’ll try to dig up some good stuff, but in the mean time, I’ll try to preview basically what the main idea is.

                  <

                  p>
                  All English these English dialects, one’s you might see from a lower economic class or in certain ethnic groups like in Appalachia or African American Vernacular English (AAVE or Ebonics) may not be the standard business/academic English, but that doesn’t mean the are devoid of grammar and syntax rules. The way the humans learn language, any language, requires consistency in grammar and syntax. While you and I might speak what is called Standard English, these “poor English” dialects are no more or less grammatically or syntactically superior to  Standard English. Yes, culture and society privileges (for good reason) Standard English over dialects and vernaculars (how would we ever communicate with each other), but if the majority of English speaking people spoke in one of these “book learnin'” dialects, and a vast minority spoke in what is presently considered Standard English, we’d be just as fine and equally successful. Scientifically and communicatively, no one language or dialect is superior to another. And remember, and I know Laurel knows this, just because one speaks in a dialect and my not have had access to proper Standard English instruction, it doesn’t have any bearing on that person’s intelligence. That person may actually be quite gifted linguistically.

                  <

                  p>
                  Another reason for standardization: have you ever read Zora Neale Hurston, Toni Morrison, August Wilson or any other African American author who writes dialogue in an African American vernacular? These authors consistently use syntax, grammar, and vocabulary consistent with a certain place, time, and group of Black people. These works would be impossible to read if from page to page the punctuation and verb tenses were hap-hazzardly decided on the spot.

                  <

                  p>
                  The fact is the rules these writers used for there dialogue were established long before they authors put pen to paper and they masterfully and authentically recreate the dialect. ANd if you take any one of their novels or plays and analyze the syntax and grammar, you will see that, although they ignore the rules of Standard English, they faithfully follow the rules and patterns of the vernacular and there is no deviation.

                  <

                  p>
                  Also, consider this: have you ever heard a white person try and fail to “talk black”? These people did not learn the rules as a kid. Where as people who “talk Black” fluently do so because they probably became familiar or well versed in the dialect during the so-called “golden age” of language learning between ages 2-11.

                  <

                  p>
                  I’ll try to find some stuff that makes all this clear and post it here in the next day or so.

                  <

                  p> 

                • Matches some of my own observations, too. I look forward to this post. Perhaps it will come sooner than the Giuliani post CentralMassDad promised.

                • But work is busy, and one must make hay while the sun shines.  I've tried to give samples, though.

                • Some Q&A’s about AAVE and the difference between slang and dialect, etc…
                  http://privatewww.es…

                  <

                  p>
                  Here’s a quote that states more clearly what I said above:

                  <

                  p>

                  It is perhaps easiest to dispel the notion that Black English and other dialects are “corruptions” of the standard language. Modern linguistics has repeatedly shown by empirical evidence that all languages and dialects are rule-governed (communication would be impossible if they were not) and that while there are important differences in the structures of languages, none from a purely scientific perspective are considered “inferior” to any other. Dialects such as AAVE are not ungrammatical; they have, rather, a different grammar than the standard variety of English, one that may perhaps not be as socially esteemed, but it is a grammar nonetheless.

                  <

                  p>
                  Here’s a study of AAVE grammar. It’s not explanatory and deserves more context, but the examples should help elucidate the point that there is plenty of evidence that dialects like AAVE are rule-based. 

                  <

                  p>
                  http://individual.ut…

                  <

                  p>
                  There are a few good essays that synthesize good scholarship and clear explanations of the facts.  I hope I can find them.

                • i think what i’m trying to say is that it is silly for standard english to require the use of standard english punctuation by non-standard dialects.  to me it is incongruous, and just another way to imply that dialects are “fallen” forms of standard english.  i don’t think they are.  i think standard english has evolved just as have dialects.  therefore, i think that it is silly to have to spell “aint” using standard english punctuation (“ain’t”).  “aint” is perfectly understandable as is, as are yall, learnin, etc.

                  <

                  p>
                  btw yes, i have read stuff written in “black”.  the stuff i remember best is work by alice walker.  if my memory serves, she of course was consistent in her forms, but wasn’t hostage to standard english rules punctuation.  but i could be remembering in a way that i wish things to be – it’s been years since i read anything by her. 

                • Mark Twain wrote in dialect, too, as did William Faulkner.

                  <

                  p>
                  I actually like things written in dialect, although they are oftentimes difficult to parse.  Have you ever tried to parse a Faulkner sentence that might go on for pages?  It is almost as difficult as parsing a German language sentence.

                • I (currently) find Faulkner unreadable. I say currently because one of my English profs once said she detested Faulkner until the age of 44, ten years after she received her Ph.D. Now she’s loves the guy’s work.

                • …at least trying to use the correct punctuation, but I’ll admit to not always being successful. 

                  <

                  p>
                  “Its” and “it’s” misused is often difficult to parse.  Homonyms not so much, but sometimes “their,” there” and “they’re” can be, too. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Do a google search for the “eats shoots and leaves” story, and you might find it somewhat humorous.

            • nyah nyah

              <

              p>
              Tom, I for one would be happy to debate you on the merits of you argument, if only you would state what that is.  However, it seems clear that you only posted this diary to try to raise some dust.  Sorry, dude.  You really have to make more effort if that’s what you want to happen.  Your weak effort was so transparent, i can read through it to the serial number pasted on the backside of my monitor. 

              <

              p>
              why do you suppose it’s so boring over there at RMG that you feel compelled to come over here and try to make trouble?

              <

              p>
              been nice chattin with ya.  have a great labor day holiday tomorrow!

            • other than insults. You should provide some original content that we can talk about, or you should leave.

              I'm damn proud of most of the commentary and discussion that we get at this site, and I'd put it up against just about any online forum that I've ever seen. The level of discussion here is generally very, very high — including that of some of our conservative commenters. Someday I'll hope you'll join us in that, Tom.

              • Are you serious? I posted a link to a counter argument regarding Keller's book and now it's “insulting”? What happened to “reality based commentary? Wow.

                • You haven't even read D.R.Tucker's post yourself! Let me help you out in the insult deparatment:

                  I'm surprised they haven't tried to key Jon Keller's car yet.

                  … 

                  A major Bay State progressive site is currently in the process of publishing a chapter-by-chapter takedown of the book: on the site's comment sections, Keller's work is being demonized as the hate-filled rantings of a cranky right-wing hack who despises his state and his generation.

                  It appears that Mr. Keller has cut too close to the bone for these hypersensitive souls. Far from the mindless screed his detractors insist the book is, The Bluest State is a brilliant, heartbreaking, dead-on depiction of the ultra-liberalism that has made this beautiful Commonwealth so ugly.

                  Let's see:

                  • We key people's car we disagree with.
                  • We don't read the book or offer counter-evidence; we demonize.
                  • We're hypersensitive.
                  • Our liberalism is not sensible; it is ultra.

                  Perhaps we should not park our cars anywhere in your vicinity?

                • …I won’t see any insults? Hmm…

                  <

                  p>
                  By the way, a counter argument must first have an argument to counter.  Nowhere in your one line post does it reference an original argument, so how can your link be a counter argument?

                  <

                  p>
                  Here, let me re-write your post for you:

                  <

                  p>
                  “DR Tucker argues at RMG that [insert whatever the hell it is that you expected us to divine from the word ‘it’ in your original post].  He supports his argument by stating [insert examples X, Y, & Z]. My experience in Massachusetts says this observation is dead on. So, commie pinko bastards…er…BMG, is [repeat main point of post] true or not? If untrue, please explain why.”

                  <

                  p>
                  Any questions? Because I believe in socialized education, there is no charge for the lesson.

        • You're expecting that we study an essay that begins in such an unpromising manner. We're supposed to compare it to the volume of material written here. We're supposed to weigh whether D.R.Tucker's claims or David's claims make more sense.

          Your post is laziness itself. You don't single out anything from D.R.T. to which we might attend. You don't compare what s/he says to what is said here. We must simply respond to “it”. We must write your post for you and then respond to it. And when we don't take on this herculean effort, you're disappointed.

          I suspect you will find many people in this world disappointing.

          That may not be a statement about the world, though. 

           

          • Was there an argument to the original post, or was it just a summary?

            <

            p>
            Apparently the art of a strong opening has been lost in certain corners of the world.

            <

            p>
            🙁

                • This is an in-joke I'm afraid.

                  At one point, a Certain Party suggested that tblade needed to take a course in critical thinking when it was obvious to me that tblade required no such remediation.

                  I marvel at how Beethoven's musical jokes are also beautiful music. I never thought that my bloggerific jokes would turn into useful suggestions. You and the muses smile upon me, Mr Lynne!

                • … sections of development that seem to go into the wrong key and then 'recover'… … timpani in 'tonic – tonic' rather than 'tonic – dominant'…

                  I think Mozart actually did the musical joke thing better, but you need to be very well versed in classical forms to 'get' most of them.

                • RAHeinlein argued persuasively that you cannot learn anything from logic (and, by extension, symbolic logic) that you do not already know.

                  <

                  p>
                  Grammar and punctuation allow you to communicate, one with another.  Inflection in spoken language does, too. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Logic does none of that.  If the discussants cannot agree to the premises, they are discussing at cross purposes.  That is the problem with logic.

                  <

                  p>
                  I repeat.  Do a google search on the little story about the panda and “eats shoots and leaves.”

                • … logic would include development of skills to recognize when premises differ.

                  For example… abortion is often framed as a “murder” / “autonomy” issue, but when you get into specifics you will find that most of the time the argument around abortion is actually reducable to differing premises about what is life, when it begins, is human life special… etc.

  2. I notice that about a third of the content on RMG are basically reactions and accusations about Blue Mass Group.

     

    The Republican party is in shambles in state and staggering on the national level.  You'd think we'd see a lot more about that and a lot less sniping about the clubhouse across the street… 

  3. fantasy and childish humor when confronted with the horror of reality and what their pre- adolescent minds can not bear.

    So this is where the “bar” is set for adult discussion and “reality based commentary”  at BMG? .. How sad ..how embarrassing for the founders of this site where children run rampant and undisciplined .

  4. …the interest in this post.  The poster merely posted a link to a silly review of a stupid book.  It should be a big yawnfest.

  5. Here we are asked to be sincere about reality-based commentary, yet in the link we are invoked (not actually linked to or quoted, but invoked) as the liberal blogosphere.

    <

    p>
    I’m tempted to say I was liberal before I was reality-based, but instead I’ll remind you of Stephen Colbert’s dictum: The facts have a liberal bias.

    <

    p>

  6. Three of the last five posts there are about BlueMassGroup.  This is just really sad…can we send them a fruit basket or something?

  7. …is what comes of reviewing a book BEFORE IT IS AVAILABLE!

    NONE of you except David – and maybe Charley, who infers he did – has read the damn BOOK themselves! 

    I pre-ordered my copy through the handy RMG web site, and I imagine that Amazon will ship today, along with the Margolis book I ordered to get up to free shipping level.  AFTER I have read said tome, I will be happy to weigh in, but I stongly disapprove of condemning or praising a book on reputation alone.

     

    • The honorific of “published author” has just lost a chunk of prestige in my book. This is a sad day for aspiring writers everywhere. Che triste.

      <

      p>
      Peter, this thread is supposedly about Tucker’s commentary on the Keller book. I think when the book has been discussed in this thread, it is in reference to Tucker’s commentary. 

      • …so naturally, the credulous now know what to think.

         Me, I'm gonna read the book first.

        Hey – have you read 'Legacy of Ashes'?  My 9/11 post will be about that – GREAT book!

        • But the comment title makes it seem as if it is directed at this thread, not David.

          <

          p>
          I have not read that book. I read a few good books over the summer, but today is back to school so extra-carricular reading will be minimized.

          <

          p>
          I have a great article I’m going to post about 9/11 in the next few days. It’s non political so everyone who reads it should find it excellent.

        • of the concept of the “book review” (a form that has been around for quite some time), as well as your estimate of my apparently limitless ability to influence, to be quite hilarious.

          <

          p>
          Just sayin’.

    • …question. 

      You repeat this canard that talking about a book before you have read it is somehow intellectually dishonest.

      The book review industry is in for quite a shock when it turns out that there is no use in anyone reading a review of a book since nobody is allowed to form any opinions before reading the book itself.

Archives