In Arizona, Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson has restored a law put into effect by Arizona’s Territorial legislature in 1864 and then reworked in 1901 that has been widely interpreted as a ban on all abortions except to save a woman’s life.
What a great benefit it is to receive your engaging if too often incredulous messages (of course it's not you but these times). This one today from Arizona takes the cake - and that would be Devil's Food cake, I'm sure. As I read this post, I thought to myself you should be on MSNBC with this content. As an avid viewer of their station, as I am your valuable missives, it seems just their cup of tea. By the way, I just chanced to read your Boston College faculty profile. I slightly resent them referring to your readers as a "cult following," although I'm sure they intended it in a whimsical way. Problem is Donald Trump is the main exemplar of a cult leader these days. I for one, prefer to be thought of as an appreciative and enthusiastic follower.
Russell, I agree with your comment totally. However, while messages may be "incredible", only people can be "incredulous". This is a very common language error, kind of like "affect" and "effect", no big deal. But, however one might wish to criticize HCR (neither of us does!), incredulous she is not, nor are her messages.
Former English teachers go nuts over this sort of thing. Sorry.
I, for one, do not mind having the finer elements of grammar and construction pointed out to me. And I reiterate, thank gods for the edit function. And spell check. I will neither confirm nor deny when I have changed the wording of a sentence when I cannot even get spell check to recognize a word I have butchered into oblivion.
I, for one, love the grammar sparring. Or is it grammatical sparring? Or is sparring a term that should not be used describing grammar? I transferred out of literature after my freshman year in college due to a humiliating misuse of the word restive. 🤭
When I recently studied semantics at university, one of the young professors made clear that correcting others is an old, elitist way of flaunting privilege (that of the better educated), when the purpose of language is to communicate. If we understand what another person is saying to us, the communication is complete. It’s changed the way I think about language-it’s ever changing, a living, vital human tool, not something cast in bronze.
Thank you, Patricia. It's one thing to be a copy editor (which I have been), and another to be a participant in an on-going conversation, which we are. In conversation, it's best to leave deviations of grammar, syntax, spelling, etc. be. if they don't distort the meaning. Pointing them out tends not only to disrupt the discussion, but to inhibit it. We do not speak 19th century English anymore, thank god.
Actually, I was an English lit major, and still spend a lot of my time writing. I was in a Spanish semantics class, and I was actually floored by the stance, but after thinking about it for awhile, I do get it. People are separated by language usage into educated and uneducated, by accent into elites and the rest. The study of language usage doesn't judge, it just records usage. No way to shut people up more quickly than to begin correcting their grammar!
Sparring is too gentle a description for all reactions to editing suggestions. When I took a boyfriend seriously to critique a book he'd written and told him to throw out the first chapter, he was so offended that he threw me out instead.
I once submitted an article to a newspaper where I misused the word "bantered" for "bandied." The editor didn't catch it and it went to press like that. No, when I misuse a word, please tell me the correct one.
Luckily, on a very timely article published on the anniversary of the "Loving v. Va" Supreme Court case where I was comparing the right to interracial marriage to the yet denied right for same gender marriage, my intro was "Don't Tell Me Who to Love," the Miami Herald editor changed it to "Don't Tell Me Whom to Love."
Ah yes, the battle between strict grammar and "Plain speaking." I was taught that the possessive needs to precede a gerund (which is actually a noun form). Hence, I find myself making statements like "I enjoyed your playing the flute" although "I enjoyed you playing the flute" is probably more common. Then I read somewhere that using the possessive before gerunds is now considered acceptable in informal situations. So what does that say about me that I still feel uncomfortable if I don't use the possessive?! ; )
What you just wrote is all Greek to me. :) Srsly, IDK what a gerund is or how possessive it is in its noun form.
I am lucky to have a gift for writing and having English as my native language, where many of our words are nothing better than Chinese ideograms that have to be memorized. (cough, kof).
Publishers & Editors have told me I write well, but I see my skill as a jazz musician who can't read music. I just go by sound.
On my last job I did a lot of writing assignments and when I had a technical dilemma of what word to use I consulted my very well-educated Hispanic co-worker whose English was his second language but he learned all those fine technical details.
That you're a creature of habit, maybe. And you learned the right way in the beginning. I too always use the possessive before gerunds. I'm glad it's finally being recognized as correct or acceptable.
Ah, Ally, you too. I have had to change my wording too to something I can actually spell. Sometimes I wonder why spellcheck doesn't recognize the word. I am glad to know this happens to someone else.
The edit function in the Substack app (at least on my iPhone) no longer appears when clicking on the ... at bottom right of my comments--it disappeared ~2 months ago.
Linda, you saw what I wrote about it. Honestly, I’d like to see a way for people to respond privately the way one can Message on Facebook. Many of us are more sensitive and feel “put down” or shamed more easily than others. And you are right from that standpoint. And some of us, like me, would usually rather be kindly told. I do longitudinal case study work and writing for my avocation, so I notice little differences among people that way. I, for one, would be more upset to find spinach in my teeth after I’d chatted away with other guests at a party and no one kindly told me so I could remove it. That’s how I saw the gentle response and interaction here. We’re all human, caring here, and sometimes it shows in different ways. I hope we all always feel safe enough with each other to weigh in. 😊
Deborah, I agree that Substack should have a method for us to private message each other here. Like Ally, I welcome being corrected about mistakes in grammar, spelling or fact, but, editor/proofreader that I am, when I want to do that for others, I prefer doing it privately, since, as you say, some people are sensitive about being corrected publicly. Fortunately, we know that we have each other's backs here, where facts and kindness matter.
Linda, I said I totally agree with his comment. He can google "incredible vs incredulous" for a full explanation of the difference in meaning, proper use, etc. I'm just encouraging Russell to learn a detail of English that he might find useful in the future. Precise use of the language gives clarity and force to our words. Isn't that important?
David, I have been in this group since the beginning. We have lost a number of excellent members because someone couldn't wait to jump on a spelling or grammatical error.
I reached out to a couple of them and their response was the same. Is no one listening to the content of their message? Is a misspelling more important than their message? Is it necessary to publicly embarrass someone among their peers?
As a fellow truth seeker...I wouldn't mind any helpful comment, correction or suggestion concerning my message ...or any presentation issue other than an obvious typo or common spell checker "attacks." These public forums are too valuable not to garner the full experience of learning how to express yourself honestly, correctly, and most importantly in a factually and/or logically based presentation. " Precise use of the language gives clarity and force to our words"...and our minds. Thank you David Herrick!
We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of good citizens. These platforms are not healthy for the weak spirited or sensitive types. We all should appreciate any and all participants who help us be better advocates for more responsible democracy.
Gary, I can't think of a better way to *lose* the hearts and minds of good citizens than by pointing out their spelling, usage, and grammatical errrors. If you want some advice on how to be a "better advocate for a more responsible democracy" -- practice listening to what people tell you without correcting their grammar. Because if you keep correcting them, they're going to stop telling you anything. And that will be your loss.
Usually, such rebuttal in the form of a criticism is done because there is no rebuttal to be made. They lack for knowledge. If my thoughts or points were solely determined to be of significance based on a misspelling, I would be in deep trouble.
I have apologized before after a comment I reread and can see the point of another's return remark. Or just explained what I meant. If the point is still there, the mistake is a "so what." Don't be swayed by inane return commentary.
Bill, I remember one time I responded to someone with a graceful retort. I was sure the person commenting got the point of what Heather was saying completely wrong. I made the mistake of drawing my line in the sand at 3:00 am. Hours and a good sleep later, I reread my comment. They were right. I was wrong. I couldn't get back to them fast enough with an apology. It happens.
We don't need to critique someone's point over a misstep.
I have wished from day one that Substack had a messaging feature. I suspect they don't as being a doorkeeper to our privacy.
David Herrick, I hope you see how your need to be right has hijacked the discussion and become a subject in itself. I've seen this happen a lot over the years, and it often has the effect that Linda Bailey points out: people leave the group rather than subject themselves to possible humiliation by language know-it-alls. In my experience, the worst offenders are English teachers and copyeditors. (I'm a copyeditor as well as other kinds of editor, so I can say this.)
Most of us *don't* do this, needless to say. We've learned over the years how many English-speakers are insecure about their spelling, usage, and/or punctuation, even when their writing proves them extremely capable. I want forums like this to welcome everyone who has something to say, even if they aren't professional writers or editors or teachers, even if English is their second, third, or fourth language.
So please, all you English teachers and copyeditors and every other perfectionist out there, ask yourself "How important is it?" Errors of fact and genuinely confusing statements are worth questioning -- tactfully, please! But most readers aren't likely to be confused by mixing up "incredulous" and "incredible," or "affect" and "effect," or many of the other little booby-traps that English is full of. Thank you.
Thank you, Susan, for pointing out my "need to be right", suggesting that I have somehow "hijacked" the discussion and humiliated someone, that I am a "language know-it-all" or even a "worst offender" English teacher or copyeditor.
In fact, before retiring to my vegetable garden, I did try to teach English to a fair number of Italians, and I have translated Italian into English a few times, even for payment occasionally, and I do appreciate clear, correct written English when I come across it.
Of course, it may surprise you that I am aware that many English speakers have never mastered some of the details of correct grammar and diction, and may not even compose their thoughts very well, but are nevertheless expressing important points of view (with which I may or may not agree) worthy of earnest engagement and discussion. Usually, I respond to the few comments here that are full of language errors, typing errors, auto-correction errors etc. without attempting to correct anything because it would clearly be useless to do so and distracting from the discussion at hand. But when the writing is clear and the thoughts expressed interesting, and someone who clearly cares about writing well uses "incredulous" instead of "incredible", what is wrong with pointing that out? I would hate it if I made that sort of clunky mistake and no one pointed it out to me. I mean whoops! and thank you! This has happened to me on several occasions, and after an initial momentary mortification, I am grateful to have learned or been reminded of something . The best was when I corrected some guy responding to a NYT column and he thanked me for the heads up and then corrected my even worse error committed in my correction of his error. Well jeez, I felt like a dope, but I could only laugh out loud. I mean, what is the big deal Susanna?
I have noticed that discussions in this space are sometimes hijacked for the better, sometimes not, but there is no obligation to follow the thread to some inane farthest Thule if you don't wish to, and I have yet to find out who is authorized to be the referee here. Are you? I'm certainly not. I mean, we all pay our 5 bucks a month, no?
For what it's worth, my response to Russell has received 85 likes at latest count, while only a few people have commented that I was somehow rude or demeaning to him.
Hey, another day, another Letter from an American. Have a good one!
Linda, I don't think David was trying to diminish Russell's message at all. He was very polite with his gentle correction. We need the freedom for open dialog, open means open. A certain segment of the Left has fallen into absolutism about their beliefs that is equally as fervent as that of the evangelicals. And that is impeding progress.
Linda, I enjoyed Russell's comment, read straight through to the end of it after briefly stumbling over incredulous, and I'm glad I did. I expect Russell has taken my comment in stride, tucked it away in his "Well how about that?" file, and gone on to have a most pleasant Sunday, at least I hope so.
I guess I never received the official rules for participating in HCR's wonderful blog. Do you know where I might find them? Thanx!
The problem is not with you, David, but rather with those who needed to respond and thus hijacked the conversation. IMO, your remark was fine and should be taken in stride by Russel and others; it need not have been a distraction from Heather's topic. Those objecting let themselves be hijacked; you didn't do it.
I think—devoutly hope—that Russell meant that the is incredulous at the stuff Heather has to deal with. (Surely, the present day is a powerful argument against the idea that people are perfectible.)
David , who would have imagined my grammatical impropriety would launch such an entertaining diversion to Professor Heather's post - about which I should have said, that it evoked a degree of incredulity in me that I have had trouble processing.
I do get your point Linda, and affect does matter. In David's defense, he did appreciate the content of my comment. In this instance, I didn't mind. In fact, thank you David. But then, I'm an incorrigible over-helper myself. In fact, I'm just on my way to my local Sunday meeting of Overhelpers Anonymous. However, I am left to wonder, in my incredulity, how come people like this legislator in Dr. Heather's post, do not turn into pillars of salt?
Thanks, Russell, for replying. I guess I am an overhelper -- even incorrigible -- myself. It is a relatively light cross to bear, however, and I mean no harm to anyone. I enjoyed your earlier post and this one too.
As a language (though English is not my native language, I am certainly guilty of "errors and omissions"), however I also have a few pet-peeves when it comes to sloppy use of words, but as David Herrick says above, let's not divert from the message!
I have learned more from Heather's letters than I would have by studying by myself
I’ll admit, I cringed. And, I’ll admit, I still have mastered effect and affect despite having editors who’ve taken me to the shed numerous times. 😊 And that’s why we have editors or friends who can gently remind us. Our occasional “word choice” slip can sometimes derail the reader from our intended message. Thank you.
I am enjoying this deviated discussion today. I think I became insensitive to grammatical corrections because my dear 3rd grade writing teacher wwife corrects me least I appear illiterate and I was blessed with a high school graduate assistant who proofed every grant, chapter, article and speech I wrote of coedited for the last 25 years of my career. The absence of my Ruth and Julie is too often evident as I rely upon Grammarialy and spell-check and to often find, to my 80-year old embassment, my message dumb or littered with errors gramerical, spelling, and idea-wise. No pride left for me, so I apprecite it that David and Deborah and Ally still get my meaning whilst I Menz-handle a message and dangle more than just a participle when posting a rant. We gotta have fun with each other as well, ya think? Fall came in on schedule and it is a crisp bright morning. My, how much you all learned from my run-on (or is that rambling) paragraph. 😁
Am I the only one who has the three dots next to the word "Collapse" which is next to "Reply?" I am sure you know this, but I will state it anyway for those who may not. Clicking on the three dots gives you an editing function.
Mistake away, you can always edit it, and tell the replier to your post . . . "what mistake?" :)
No, you are not the only one. I have it, too, on all of my devices so long as I don't use the actual Substack app that one must first download onto a mobile device (not a PC desktop or MacBook). It came to me as a surprise today, therefore, when on one of my mobile devices - on the actual downloaded Substack app - that the "edit" option was not provided. It may be they will get enough feedback to allow that in the near future. Thank you for trying to help.
Hmm.... I have consistently refused to download apps except for airlines and other practical applications. For LFAA and other substack writings, when I open a substack email on my cell phone, I click on the title and the item immediately opens in my web browser. So, I have been able, more than once, to correct or add to a post both on my phone and on my laptop.
A historian and psychologist should be members or all presidential cabinets and experts frequently consulted for news reports (like economists, medical experts, etc).
Gosh, I thought you said it just right. Maybe we should use "not credible;" and I'm proud to be a cult member if it makes faculty feel good. Only been on board two months and wonder why the whole world isn't subscribing.
It is my understanding that the hijab headscarf that Iranian women are burning in protest originated because men couldn't control themselves. Sigh... I sure hope this becomes the Year of the Women and the beginning of the end for patriarchy. However, the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy; it is egalitarianism. We, the People, all of us this time.
Given that the west has yet to learn about equity and equal rights, I doubt that the despotic Iranian regime will grant the brave women of Iran egalitarian rights, unless, of course, the entire country rises up against the Islamic Republic -- please god.
Cathy, it was ever thus. Men have blamed women for their own 'lack of control' for millennia. Think Eve and the apple, Bathsheba, and on and on. This is a strong archetype that plays a role in every culture, I'm sure.
Susan, The opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy it is egalitarianism. Women over men wouldn't be that different than men over women. I do believe men use an OR paradigm. If you aren't one up then you must be one down. It's us versus them. It's if you get a bigger piece of the pie than you're taking it away from me. Women use the AND paradigm. Equity and inclusion. Creating harmony and synergy by listening to all perspectives and coming up with better solutions for all not just the privileged. Baking more and bigger pies so all experience well-being. My dream is that our government measures our success by a WBI - Well Being Index -- rather than GNP as the only measure. Several countries are already doing this where all legislation must show how it improves the well being of all the People. We, the People, all of us this time!
My understanding - anyone who knows better, please correct me - is that in the Iroquois nation, councils of women elders appointed - and could replace at any time - men to be war chiefs and otherwise lead. So men led, but they were responsible to the women. It worked quite well.
What a wonderful dream...seems so obvious but certain elements within our human nature too often become counterproductive. I see your point about matriarchy! Being a primary educator for 35 years...if forced to choose only between patriarchy or matriarchy...no hesitation for the ladies to lead. However to your point...I have experienced many Elizabeth Warren types...and too many MT Greens and Boeberts types. It seems best way...from family to National leadership venues...egalitarianism will always be best chance for the reasons you so articulately list. The force is strong in you!
Good lord what is a "Warren type"? A strong, energetic, extremely informed and intelligent woman unwilling to be silenced by casual negative judgements? That does not get a pass in my book. Forgive me for this cranky retort....was her voice too high?
Using her as a "Warren type"? A strong, energetic, extremely informed and intelligent woman unwilling to be silenced by casual negative judgements? was my point... compared to the other "type"
Cathy that's exactly what I'm talking about. Women tend more towards an egalitarian society, which would include men in decision making but would also ensure that women have an equal voice. matriarchy is not dominance by women, but it does put us in charge so we can ensure that all are equally heard.
Cathy, it strikes me that this binary world view wasn't universal, even though we see it in early Middle Eastern cultures. Still, we seem, in the early 21st century, to be putting it on steroids.
Generally, there has been a separation of men's work vs. women's work in most societies starting with the hunters/men and gatherers/women. With technology and other reasons seems like we no longer need to divide jobs by gender. I'm a women with an engineering mind so why shouldn't I work as an engineer even if when I entered the field my first task was to resolve the two stereotypes of woman and engineer weren't mutually exclusive! I had a marvelous career as an engineer and broke the glass ceiling into upper management. I don't want to see women and other genders have to do that again! We, the People, all of us of all genders this time.
GOD is all love, and only love, and can not be boxed into our definition, our inability to conceive fully a love of infinite love for ALL creation, Eh!?
However, I shall find and read "When god was a woman" I am thirsty for knowledge my curiosity is insatiable
Out of curiosity, I checked my home library system to see if we hold the title "When God Was A Woman" and we not only have it, we have 6 copies plus two "On Hold" for when a copy becomes available.
OMG, Judith! That sounds like something I would do (have done). I noticed last week I had double purchased a certain book, which wasn't the first time. (Even buying at second hand bookstores, I don't need to throw money away on duplicates! )
The book is more than 40 years old, so it was written when patriarchy was pretty much the reigning paradigm, hence the title is couched in those terms.
Come to think of it, it's probably time I re-read it myself!
Interestingly, the three longest ruling monarchs in England/Great Britain/the UK have been women. (Elizabeth 1, Victoria, Elizabeth 2) It seems like the queens were more successful than the kings.
What have you all been waiting for...get rid of Moscow mitchbitch and all of his fat white rich bigoted repignatians...vote them all out of office...how could any woman support those pigs???!!!
George, I have no idea how ANYONE with a working brain could support any of these MAGATs, who claim to be all about "freedom" but constantly look for ways to restrict other people's freedoms. Of course, "working brain" is the key.
That is one of the excuses, similar to restrictions on women in the other Abrahamic religions. It's a very odd excuse, since religiously observant men in all three control themselves a great deal in the process of following the many practices of each religion that apply to them.
Men can certainly control themselves, hijab or no hijab. The hijab may partially supress the misogynistic impulses of a few, but for the most part other measures are required to keep men who are inclined to abuse women from acting on their impulses.
Thank you KG. Yes, each religion has its rules on how to show reverence to the God they worship and that should be respected. It is interesting that in the Jewish religion it is the men who cover their heads with the yamulka and the women don't. I personally would not want to live in a theocracy where the government imposes one religion on all like Iran and punishes even minor infractions. Religions including the Jews and Christians are recognized in the Quran as People of Book. We are about to find out what that would be like to be a theocracy with the Supreme Court now manipulating the United States into a "Christian" theocracy. The hate and violence and holier than thou and we have the one and only right answer to what God wants isn't my understanding of Christianity. The founding tenet of Freedom to Religion is being dismantled by the Supreme Court. We,the People, all of us even women this time!
But when a crazed religious policeman kills a young woman because he was afraid he would become aroused by seeing a whisp of her hair, this has nothing to do with the young woman’s devotion to God, does it? His inappropriate aggression and violence was what the original rule was supposed to protect her from, isn’t it?
Nope. "lower their gaze and guard their modesty" "They should not display their beauty". It's true that noone is forced (except in Iran) to wear hijab, but for the underlying reason behind it, read Geraldine Brooks's brilliant "Nine Part of Desire".
As a woman, I suspect I'd be issued a citation for indecent exposure if not arrested for it.
Back in the 1990s, when thong bikinis became the "in thing" for some women, there was a movement that attempted to get them outlawed on the beach in San Diego CA. Didn't happen though. And I think of those European men's bikini bathing suits - we don't see them very often on our beaches here in SoCal.
It's an old book, written when she was sent to the Middle East as a reporter for the Wall St. Journal. She quickly realized that she would not be doing much reporting as a woman so decided to look into the lives of women in the various countries.
Growing up attending a "high Lutheran" church in southeastern Virginia, in the 1950s and into the 1960s, girls and women were expected to wear a hat - I don't recall ever seeing a female in church not wearing a hat - and wrist-length white gloves and stockings. You can imagine how the stockings felt in hot, humid weather!
“If God created all that is, then God surely has no need of our worship…”
Alternatively, if God created all that is then everything should be worshiped as God. In other words “all that is” is God. Worship the sky, the dirt, the flowers, each and every person you see, worship all as a manifestation of God. See God in everything! (Yes, even in those who are so disconnected from their hearts such as TFG et al. Even Christ, saw God in those so disconnected from their hearts, and souls, that as he was being crucified he said “forgive them Lord for they know not what they do.” “Know” as in being consciously aware.) A great saint once said “do what you do but never put anyone out of your heart.” Developing compassion for those we oppose will help ourselves and touch the hearts of those we oppose too. They may not consciously be aware of this, but it will touch their hearts.
Thank you for these quotations. That's interesting, that the actual modesty direction for women was to "draw their veils over their bosoms…” . What does the Quran say about modesty in clothing for men?
On behalf of holding more than one idea in the conversation at the same time: we have several major themes here: ideals of non-arrogance especially before Gd, application of those ideals to clothing, and the twisting of those ideals to excuse male domination of women, and as a consequence domination of certain groups of people over others.
In the 'non-arrogance expressed in clothing' department we see many different customs regarding head coverings, including Christian men taking off their hats in church to show respect, observant Jewish men wearing head coverings (from small ones to elaborate hats, depending on their group within Judaism) all the time to show respect for Gd, and the various customs of head covering for women. Looking at all this from secular or semi-secular current American culture, any of this non-familiar can feel very odd. As long as it's actually a voluntary observance of custom, well and good.
The trouble, of course, comes when actions shift from a voluntary expression of acknowledgment of Gd, or even of local practice, and become a vehicle to subordinate women or any other group. Much as I love my own religion, and am interested in others, I have to admit religion has been horribly abused for centuries as a cloak for outright evil. We see it in Iran with forced hijab, and in this country with forced birth.
To add to your observations, Joan: When I was studying history of religions, I learned that Mohammed's only living descendants were his daughters, who lived with him in quarters attached to the mosque. His second wife and his daughters were the ones who assembled and disseminated his teachings.
Like most middle eastern quarters, the windows and doors were usually left open for air flow, and so many people (I imagine mostly male) came to ask questions that the daughters had no privacy and little time to themselves. So Mohammed ordered that the doors be "veiled" in order that his daughters were not bothered by so many people constantly calling on them at their residence.
The daughters, however, were still the primary source of all Mohammed's teachings, as he was old and frail by this time. They were not confined to their quarters, as often assumed. All those who claim descent from Mohammed are descended through one (or more, as lines intertwined over time) of his daughters. And ALL of what is known about Mohammed's teaching came through his daughters.
It was only later that those teachings (as happens in when religions become about power, often mixed in with local social practices, and reinterpreted by what are largely self-appointed pundits) that the purpose of the veils were redefined as controls of sexuality and women became second-class members of society (at best). What are often seen as Mohammedan constrictions on women were actually meant as constrictions on men.
How about the stupid behavior of those men who seek control in the middle of a land hot as hell with no water!!!
How stupid is it to decide, “Oh! Look! We are in the middle of a hot as hell land with absolutely NO water…what a splendid place to live!”
Oh! And also, let us plant a gazillion square miles of grass, (that requires a gazillion gallons of water EVERY DAY), that is good for nothing except for old fat rich white “men” to whack at a tiny white ball that most can’t see hoping the ball lands in a tiny white cup a thousand miles distant. STUPID!
Forty years from now, no matter what happens in the meantime, extreme heat and water supply scarcity will make Phoenix one of the continent’s most uninhabitable places for ALL life forms.
Today, right now, the six largest cities in Arizona, because of catastrophically dry conditions, (the last two decades have been the driest in over 1,200 years!), have ALL declared potable water shortages…
So, now, today the dummies that daily choose to have their brains baked to a crisp have decided to be governed by one crazy ancient absurdity conceived in 1864 as law! REALLY STUPID!
Agree that we should not continue to grow in a desert, but Phoenix and Prescott are two different places. Northern AZ's water supplies and climate are vastly different. Those water supplies are also threatened by the exponential growth.
We moved to Mesa, AZ (really an extension of Phoenix in some ways) 8 years ago and I remain appalled at the unparalleled growth: the building of subdivisions after subdivision, office buildings, etc as if there were no tomorrow. And only NOW there is concern about lack of water??!! There was a time in CA you couldn’t get water in a restaurant unless you requested it, here I have to say “no water” unless I really am going to drink it.
Depends on where you live. Upscale Palo Alto water is undrinkable, yet 8 miles north where I lived for 35 years has wonderful tap water. Just moved to Central Valley, and it’s just “ok” with a filter system. Eureka had fabulous water last time I was up there.
So, as a child it was preoccupation with the wave conditions of the day, two man beach volleyball superiority all mid day, and of course the perfect tan...can't remember potable water issues, but in my early twenties the air became unbreathable so off to Eugene, Oregon for a "higher" education...never returned to Santa Monica...founded my Architectural/development/construction co in Portland enjoying it's Bull-Run water that is the best in the universe!
George E Dobbs, while your characterization of the taste of water might be true on some places, it’s not true where I live. I live in Greenbrae, north of San Francisco, and our water, sourced from local reservoirs, is fine.
That's exponential growth and even more exclusive private fenced-in golf communities in the dessert in the worst drought in 1,200 years affecting ALL of Arizona and the southwest USA...
There is NO water in Arizona...it is a dessert, yes even in Prescott where both my children graduated majoring in the permaculture environmental approach to save our planet from our ignorant destruction of its limited natural resources.......Almost all gone now, Eh!?
My point was the N AZ has different water sources than Phx, Phx area or Tucson, although Salt River Project has surface water rights on the Verde which impacts Prescott. No water and people keep coming. It's nuts.
George - Based on 50 years of living in San Diego (as far south as you can get in California), my local water tastes just fine. When I've spent time in other parts of California, including in Death Valley, I have not found tap water to taste bad. It may be more a question of your own taste buds.
Your gross generalizations about water water availability in Arizona, especially Prescott (forested, altitude 5,368', higher than one mile and not desert as I understand it) are not supported by facts. It's true that population growth has outpaced water resources in many parts of the southwest including Phoenix & vicinity, but especially agriculture, will suffer with the cutbacks of Colorado River water.
Still planting grass is Maricopa, "The Lakes." But then and as they advertise, we have a large underground reservoir too. I believe they are watering with the grey water. It still does not make sense to plant grass.
So much for the "Originalist" argument in interpreting specific legislative intent for purposes desired to achieve a present-day "conservative" decision.
I was a child in the 1950s. For middle class white and temporarily-white people who had survived the world war, like my parents, the peace and quiet of the suburbs were the next thing to heaven. Not so much for people of color excluded from the postwar gains of whites, or gay people persecuted and shamed, or anyone lefty enough to sing "why can't it be Christmas the whole year round" (the Weavers were blacklisted for that song, because the appeal for peace did not suit the war industries and their lackeys), or .... Also, the pop music was terrible.
It really was not quite like that, but that is the fantasy that appears to be driving the people (male and female) who are behind some of the efforts thereoff. In the fifties, the groundwork was being laid for a resurgence of feminism. I had women teaching me math, latin, civics (critical thinking as a part of being a responsible citizen). Just because we are just now becoming aware of the role women played in the past doesn't mean it wasn't happening. And a lot of men supported these changes- I had some of those as teachers too. The ones who had trouble with those changes are the ones who created the atmosphere of anger, hate, and resistance that was exploited by power mongers and led to Reagan, the Bushes, Newt Gingrich, etc. It simmered and then with Trump, burst into flame. And here we are.
"Racist and patriarchal is largely driving the divide in the US..."
Hmmmm...
Are you referencing the quaint suburbs were minorities were only over "There" while "We Whites" were over here in our manicured lawns and seven foot high fences and women were "Home-makers" who shopped for the basics with her house allowance...those wonderful "50's"
Heather, I love it when you bring history into the present. One good thing that 1864 law did was exclude physicians so they didn't have to consult a lawyer before saving a woman's life or being afraid to act at all while watching the woman die. Would love to see the "originalists" of the Supreme Court overturn this law since it didn't originally have anything to do with banning abortion.
I shouldn't imagine for a moment, Cathy, that anyone in the Arizona GOP has actually read the law, nor, I suppose, do they actually care what it says as their only perspective is the political spin they can put on it's imagined contents.....untill, of course, it turns around and bites them at which point of course they deny whatever people say that they had said!
You are on the right track Stuart. The AZ Gov. Ducey says the Pima County Trial Judge did not expressly overrule AZ's current 15 week ban. The AZ AG has a different interpretation. Misogynistic chaos reigns; this "states rights" ugly debacle is far, far from over.
In ‘Don’t Think of an Elephant’ by George Lakoff (about reframing arguments), he reframes abortion as about controlling women and, in the case of a conservative’s “strict father mentality’ about the man’s loss of control over his wife (or daughter’s) sexuality and lives, which he is expected to manage.
That helps explain why it's more effective to advocate reproductive rights as a woman having control over when to start, and when to increase, her family.
I've read a description of ALEC being a "Bill Mill, which it is, and promptly sends them to multiple states. so their agenda goes mainstream across the country, in relatively lightening speed..
this has been true in Wisconsin throughout the Walker years, and continuing now with the rightist control of our legislature. Blatantly at first, and now under the covers. Frightening all around and with the severe gerrymandering of our legislative districts, there is no hope it will stop.
And Arizona is now leading the charge to march “forward, into the past.” (Apologies to Firesign Theater for using their phrase, but it seems most appropriate in describing Judge Johnson’s actions.)
"It" is spreading like Covid or wildfire. A red and blue map of the US looks like a spread of measles with a few chills (blue states) on the periphery.
I saw a map in the NYT that only clots the cities by red or blue. Where no one lives, the map is white. The country is far less red than they would have us believe. And far more unpopulated, too.
AZ Trial Judge, Kellie Johnson, is a Pima County judge who has been on the bench since 2017. And, I thought Fl trial Judge Cannon's ruling on the NARA docs was the worst trial court opinion I have ever read. Regardless, the 11th Circuit has cremated Judge Cannon's handiwork.
Cheech Marin has them locked in the trunk of his Chevie, trying to sneak them into the drive in movies. He broke off the key in the lock and now they all have to pee. Their eyeballs are “floatin’”
Sadly, this is not something I had ever heard of. I was probably a bit young for Firesign Theater in their heyday. I bet my Mom (even in her 50's) would have loved it!
Can it be that the judge reinstating this law is ignorant of this history or worse still ignored it? This seems like a combination of incompetence and malice. Ironically, those who profess to be originalists have to know that the law was never intended to regulate reproduction for women. Why are they failing to understand the original meaning of these laws? Just astonishing hypocrisy!
I think those who claim to be "originalists" the way Scalia talked about it are either pulling a fast one or deluding themselves that they can speak with the dead. Anyway, it is not the authority of the person who wrote a law that legitimizes it's power, it is the service to social justice that their creation proves to enable. As in the letter above, many of the founders and framers were slave owners and conquerors. And yet their attempt to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity has proved worthy and viable when kept updated and applied in good faith.
The delude themselves that the speak for God. It's narcissism gone off the rails. Scratch a cult, and find that malware at it's core.
The ego, literally our sense of "I", is vulnerable to delusions of grandeur:, "master race", the "righteous", "true patriots", Jim Jones, fill in the blank. There is always an audience for telling people that they are inherently superior to everyone else, and that they get to make the rules they impose on others, and utterly ignore the rules society presents to them.
They cover it with blather, but that cultivated sociopathy threads though everything they do. It's how tyranny attracts an ardent following. It's exactly what Lincoln, a major founder of the original Republican Party, warned of. It is Reagan's "small government" was really about.
What I read (somewhere and I now cannot find the reference article, sorry) is that the AZ judge was limited on how she could rule because of how that law was written. My hope is someone else may have read more information about this to clarify if the judges hands were tied or if she acted maliciously.
Some of my ancestors and relatives lived in Arizona. Not on purpose: that is where they were from and "Arizona" as a construct got superimposed on it. Most of my line there has either passed on or moved. Some sequester themselves from the main society. All I got to say about Arizona as a state is that it is one of the two most racist states I've ever been in. The other one is South Dakota. The only states I have not been in are side to side from Texas to North Carolina, so can't speak with direct experience about them.
It is essential that we explain where ever possible the historical and continuing brutality (indeed fascism = total supremacy) of patriarchy. It's certainly a very bad and unhealthy ideology for men, but for women it is relentless oppression. Remember: Patriarchy is a structure comprised of laws, tradition, wealth concentration, ownership, and a continuing unchallenged historical record (to name some of the basics). Dismantle the structure and the power of all those who work to maintain that structure.
"So, in 1864, a legislature of 27 white men created a body of laws that discriminated against Black people and people of color and considered girls as young as 10 able to consent to sex, and they adopted a body of criminal laws written by one single man."
This is SUCH an awesome sentence. It contains a stark set of facts, irony, humor, shock, a sense of the repugnant, and great history all in ONE single sentence.
Best sentence of the year award Dr. Richardson. No doubt.
Wow. How crazy is it that we learn so little from our previous mistakes? Thanks so much for sharing this, Professor-perhaps if we talk about it boldly and honestly, It can finally be addressed and corrected-your truth telling is so vital to that process. I’m beyond grateful to you. Our children and our children’s children deserve a better future than returning to past atrocities. When will we ever learn?
Past atrocities and future threats wrought by past and present narcissism. How crazy is it that we seem not to want to learn from our previous mistakes? It is not because we are not capable. But yes, perhaps if we talk about it boldly and honestly. That has always seemed to be the best way to get the best answers.
The book banners and people of that ilk would have us learn no history that might, in their narrow-minded eyes, in any way disturb or upset us and puncture their fact-free bubble.
The funny thing is, at least to me, that just yesterday on my dog walk I was listening to one of Heather’s previous podcasts (Then and Now) and the subject was abortion; she talked about the “quickening”, “blockages”, laws against instruments and poisons producing a miscarriage, etc. And then this letter dropped!
Once again lazy, unrealistic Repubs refuse to live in the 21st Century. Progress is one of their greatest fears; refusing to learn lessons from history is their greatest achievement. 👋🏼 Bye bye Ridiculous Party.
The Republican Party was not always anti-democratic, and should it disappear as a party, the human proclivities that it now embodies will likely reappear in another host. We need to get a much better strategy for reconciling warring elements of our human nature before we collectively foolishly and/or malignantly self-destruct. Above all, I think we need to let go of lies and self-delusion, and honor those who, as best they can, tell the truth. We fool ourselves if we think we know anything completely, but lies are a matter of choice.
Republicans seem overly bound in tradition. While traditions give us colorful aspects of humanity, the republicans seem fettered, unable to transcend and make necessary changes to their tradition. My take is that when such a society becomes too rigid they find the pitfalls of the Darwinian theory. Theirs is a society not able to evolve. Not able to take on the rigors and demands of change. Hence climate change, equal rights, basic needs, etc. are not addressed. They have consciously chosen to dead end rather than evolve. In their path that goes nowhere there seems to be a vitriolic futility emergent.
The current Republican Party will use that which provides them with control over the populace. They are not fettered by tradition but by self-interest. Their political ideology spells power of a small party of powerful White Men; White Supremacy and Autocracy.
You are spot on. I was not referring to Republican leadership, rather the red minions a sea of in which I am inundated. They do not have control over the party leadership. The interests you spoke of have that locked down. The minions have no choice of who they get to vote for. They are tradition bound and will vote for dead candidates as has been evinced in past elections. In this state you must vote the party regardless of the ghoul preferred for leadership. Republican congressional leadership has run aground because of the inability of traditional Republican voters to break with the yoke of tradition. Of course the special interests have keyed in and abused the tradition. Results are that Republican leadership has hit rock bottom in congress. I’m sorry, but Republican tradition in the masses is not going to change…ever. That the party itself is nearly moribund is clearly shown by the desperate acts put on by the Republican congress and the Republican Supreme Court. January 6 was just a shot across the bow.
Thank you, Pat. One more deeply concerning point is really the question of how much more current Republican leadership will destroy our country, along with our experiment with Democracy.
Their hand at the table is all in. They’ve gone nationally and internationally making their intentions to destroy both congress and the constitution their end game. They are not playing a game of chicken. This is it. We the people, all of us, our will to keep this country viable is on the table. No less. We are being overrun. What was it that rider said as he galloped past. “The British are coming”. Either we put up or we shut up.
A consistent Republican meme since Reagan has been that "government" as a tool of social infrastructure has been tried and found wanting; an experiment that failed; but here "government" is a euphemism for "democracy"; the government of the people, by the people, for the people, which is always pretty messy. Rather, we should entrust our fate to the superiority of wealthy and powerful lords.
"GOP" governance has become increasingly heavy handed, especially for those already deprived of political power. Their current King claims he can alter law just by thinking about it. What is being scaled back, ended, or sold off is the access to power and the benefits of goverment for the aggregated public; loss of voting rights, loss to representation to de facto bribery by wealthy interests, loss of a safe and clean environment, loss of living wages and pensions, loss of wide access to higher education, loss of privacy, loss of equal protection under law, and on and on, all tied to the increasingly aggressive "GOP" agenda.
"That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings." - Lincoln
I stood by more or less in disbelief as the GOP disintegrated. I think we all did. The governors and congressmen allegedly representing order and protocol on behalf of their Republican constituents turned out to be downright sleaze. They would have to be highly educated and imaginatively endowed to be so magnificently flawed. No common men these. They appear to be hand selected for their ability to get lower. They seem oblivious to the fact of the hole they are digging becoming their final resting place, be it an outhouse or a tomb. Whichever, we will need lime. Bring lots of lime.
It is truly amazing the Ted Cruz can still get elected.
Physically repugnant, a mental midget, and a fool.
I would sure like to believe that when I lived in TX he would not have had a chance to do anything but empty barnyard buckets into the shite pile. And, some kid would have been in charge to watch him to make sure he did not screw it up.
I notice a division between those who trust authority based on the special status of some person, vs those who trust the authority of collaborative verification and/or polling to determine which actions best fit our understanding of our circumstances. At the extreme is the authority of a hereditary king or queen, or some some other form of autocrat, vs a republic. And some seem to believe that the older an idea is, the more true it is, which is different from recognizing that some circumstances of existence remain constant over long periods of time, and may have been recognized to some degree over many generations, for example, ancient earth and stoneworks that appear aligned with astronomical cycles. And reading of ancient histories and fiction suggest that basic human nature has remained stable over long periods as well, though ideas and mores change.
While "The Enlightenment" is showing signs of age, it was still a recognition of how rethinking our circumstances can lead to improved understandings and outcomes. The thoroughness of the properly conducted scientific method and ongoing good-faith public dialog providing some anchor against throwing out babies with bathwater. Enlightenment thinking powerfully affected the tone and methodologies of some of the most reliably useful aspects of "The American Experiment".
How succinctly you cut to the core. Alito and the adherents of “older is better” seem to have missed this distinction. As Tom Toro wrote in the New Yorker, “Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. Yet those who do study history are doomed to stand by helplessly while everyone else repeats it.” There is absolutely no excuse for Alito and his ilk in modern America.
I’d take it to an even more elementary level-the original sin is greed-for power, for prestige, for money-the “more, More, MORE, mine, Mine, MINE!!!” mentality. The temperament exhibited by Trump and every narcissistic, irrational, despotic person who appears. Greed-the source of all that is evil-at least that’s my humble opinion.
"like" I saw a video last night about the fossil fuel industry which is promoting energy alternatives to the public, but assuring their stockholders they will continue to drill, drill. drill. Because, you know, the stockholders must be served. Prices must be kept high, Damn the future, greed is their real motto.
It is the men and their toys. God forbid you take anything away from them! They’ll pitch a fit! You know, like beating up a woman or killing them. It’s greed and being the almighty powerful male in the jungle.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” - John Adams
Anyway, that would seem to be "best practices", but way too often we wink at abuse of power. Abuse of power ruins everything from families to societies; even degrading the ecosphere; and even aside from malice, the "road to hell" is often paved with "good intentions".
Checks and balances are built into many of our protocols, but mean nothing if we don't support them.
The real "enlightenment" came in the form of, no lie, one man. John Adams.
His work to pull together and analyze every system of government that had pre-existed his Massachusetts Constitution was seminal and most members of the 1787 convention read it.
You can read it to. It is not easy, and I have not finished it, but it is THE reference of past governments (that nobody knows about). I believe Justice Breyer had completely read and understood this book in college based on his public statements in his life.
Except Adams, when implored by his wife Abigail to "remember the ladies" when forming the US government, deliberately chose to ignore women. The US was built for, by, and about rich white men.
Seems to me the appropriate reading of the Arizona law was to make it illegal for someone to induce a miscarriage by poisoning inferring it is without a woman's consent--perhaps to prevent a man from poisoning a woman he had impregnated to avoid the consequences of the pregnancy--more in keeping with the policing of men's behavior theme.
What's more incredible is the fragile reeds Republicans are using to get abortion bans back on the books without having to legislate new laws. The disengenuous defense will be "I am only upholding the law" not "I am actively taking away your rights"
"The laws for this territory, chaotic and still at war in 1864, appear to reflect the need to rein in a lawless population of men." Sad to see, Arizona is still there, dominated by fear, trauma, and disability to make judgements.
Grateful to have the history of our laws recorded so that we don’t make the same mistake……….damn, too late. No wonder there’s such a push on banning our history (HERstory) from the classroom.
There is such a push to fudge on history to the point of fabrication to serve the agendas of those who want to impose control. That certainly includes the censoring of inconvenient truths.
Women still need protection from patriarchy run amok; As is happening in the Republican Party, and with the aid and support of forced-birth nuts. If they won’t concede that women are capable beings (at least on the level of any gamete), then rise up we must. I never thought I’d live so long as to see such evil ooze back into our world. Wonder if Alito helped Arizona nuts come up with arcane justification to slap down any progress women have clawed their way to achieving. He certainly has the animus for the task.
This -- I don't have words (so I am glad Heather Cox Richardson is in possession of some powerful ones!) This law was drafted by a group of less than 30 men (of course) who worked rather hastily to write and quickly implement a body of laws designed to bring order to the chaos of an United States territory trying to operate in the middle of a Civil War. It is almost comical (if it were not so obscene) to think it has a place today in the state of Arizona in our United States of America.
We can only hope that the law's restoration will secure the future of both the governor's office and the US Senate with respect to Arizona, since the people of that state cannot let this stand.
No whiskey nor gambling or other vices involved in the 1864 conclave at Prescott to bring chaos under the control of a few simple laws. Can almost smell the rawhide, horses, spilled blood, burning meat, and loud voiced threats to shoot each other before the vote (if it is possible to smell loud voices from afar). Thanks Heather. Context matters.
What a great benefit it is to receive your engaging if too often incredulous messages (of course it's not you but these times). This one today from Arizona takes the cake - and that would be Devil's Food cake, I'm sure. As I read this post, I thought to myself you should be on MSNBC with this content. As an avid viewer of their station, as I am your valuable missives, it seems just their cup of tea. By the way, I just chanced to read your Boston College faculty profile. I slightly resent them referring to your readers as a "cult following," although I'm sure they intended it in a whimsical way. Problem is Donald Trump is the main exemplar of a cult leader these days. I for one, prefer to be thought of as an appreciative and enthusiastic follower.
Russell, I agree with your comment totally. However, while messages may be "incredible", only people can be "incredulous". This is a very common language error, kind of like "affect" and "effect", no big deal. But, however one might wish to criticize HCR (neither of us does!), incredulous she is not, nor are her messages.
Former English teachers go nuts over this sort of thing. Sorry.
David, please don't take away from Russell's sentiment.
As a group, we are here to encourage, not discourage participation.
I, for one, do not mind having the finer elements of grammar and construction pointed out to me. And I reiterate, thank gods for the edit function. And spell check. I will neither confirm nor deny when I have changed the wording of a sentence when I cannot even get spell check to recognize a word I have butchered into oblivion.
I, for one, love the grammar sparring. Or is it grammatical sparring? Or is sparring a term that should not be used describing grammar? I transferred out of literature after my freshman year in college due to a humiliating misuse of the word restive. 🤭
When I recently studied semantics at university, one of the young professors made clear that correcting others is an old, elitist way of flaunting privilege (that of the better educated), when the purpose of language is to communicate. If we understand what another person is saying to us, the communication is complete. It’s changed the way I think about language-it’s ever changing, a living, vital human tool, not something cast in bronze.
Thank you, Patricia. It's one thing to be a copy editor (which I have been), and another to be a participant in an on-going conversation, which we are. In conversation, it's best to leave deviations of grammar, syntax, spelling, etc. be. if they don't distort the meaning. Pointing them out tends not only to disrupt the discussion, but to inhibit it. We do not speak 19th century English anymore, thank god.
I assume you transferred into Performing Art with a specialty in humor?! Thanks!
Actually, I was an English lit major, and still spend a lot of my time writing. I was in a Spanish semantics class, and I was actually floored by the stance, but after thinking about it for awhile, I do get it. People are separated by language usage into educated and uneducated, by accent into elites and the rest. The study of language usage doesn't judge, it just records usage. No way to shut people up more quickly than to begin correcting their grammar!
Fine arts, printmaking and sculpture❤️.
Sparring is too gentle a description for all reactions to editing suggestions. When I took a boyfriend seriously to critique a book he'd written and told him to throw out the first chapter, he was so offended that he threw me out instead.
🙀
I assume you transferred into Performing Arts with a specialty in humor?! Thanks!
Fine arts, printmaking and sculpture❤️!
OK, I jest tern off my spill chicken an it do not make won bet of deference.
I don't think I've ever had as many LOL moments reading comments as I do today!!!!
LeMoine, thank you
I once submitted an article to a newspaper where I misused the word "bantered" for "bandied." The editor didn't catch it and it went to press like that. No, when I misuse a word, please tell me the correct one.
Luckily, on a very timely article published on the anniversary of the "Loving v. Va" Supreme Court case where I was comparing the right to interracial marriage to the yet denied right for same gender marriage, my intro was "Don't Tell Me Who to Love," the Miami Herald editor changed it to "Don't Tell Me Whom to Love."
Ah yes, the battle between strict grammar and "Plain speaking." I was taught that the possessive needs to precede a gerund (which is actually a noun form). Hence, I find myself making statements like "I enjoyed your playing the flute" although "I enjoyed you playing the flute" is probably more common. Then I read somewhere that using the possessive before gerunds is now considered acceptable in informal situations. So what does that say about me that I still feel uncomfortable if I don't use the possessive?! ; )
What you just wrote is all Greek to me. :) Srsly, IDK what a gerund is or how possessive it is in its noun form.
I am lucky to have a gift for writing and having English as my native language, where many of our words are nothing better than Chinese ideograms that have to be memorized. (cough, kof).
Publishers & Editors have told me I write well, but I see my skill as a jazz musician who can't read music. I just go by sound.
On my last job I did a lot of writing assignments and when I had a technical dilemma of what word to use I consulted my very well-educated Hispanic co-worker whose English was his second language but he learned all those fine technical details.
That you're a creature of habit, maybe. And you learned the right way in the beginning. I too always use the possessive before gerunds. I'm glad it's finally being recognized as correct or acceptable.
Ah, Ally, you too. I have had to change my wording too to something I can actually spell. Sometimes I wonder why spellcheck doesn't recognize the word. I am glad to know this happens to someone else.
Spelling is what Google's for, isn't it?
The edit function in the Substack app (at least on my iPhone) no longer appears when clicking on the ... at bottom right of my comments--it disappeared ~2 months ago.
Linda, you saw what I wrote about it. Honestly, I’d like to see a way for people to respond privately the way one can Message on Facebook. Many of us are more sensitive and feel “put down” or shamed more easily than others. And you are right from that standpoint. And some of us, like me, would usually rather be kindly told. I do longitudinal case study work and writing for my avocation, so I notice little differences among people that way. I, for one, would be more upset to find spinach in my teeth after I’d chatted away with other guests at a party and no one kindly told me so I could remove it. That’s how I saw the gentle response and interaction here. We’re all human, caring here, and sometimes it shows in different ways. I hope we all always feel safe enough with each other to weigh in. 😊
Deborah, I agree that Substack should have a method for us to private message each other here. Like Ally, I welcome being corrected about mistakes in grammar, spelling or fact, but, editor/proofreader that I am, when I want to do that for others, I prefer doing it privately, since, as you say, some people are sensitive about being corrected publicly. Fortunately, we know that we have each other's backs here, where facts and kindness matter.
Linda, I said I totally agree with his comment. He can google "incredible vs incredulous" for a full explanation of the difference in meaning, proper use, etc. I'm just encouraging Russell to learn a detail of English that he might find useful in the future. Precise use of the language gives clarity and force to our words. Isn't that important?
David, I have been in this group since the beginning. We have lost a number of excellent members because someone couldn't wait to jump on a spelling or grammatical error.
I reached out to a couple of them and their response was the same. Is no one listening to the content of their message? Is a misspelling more important than their message? Is it necessary to publicly embarrass someone among their peers?
Personally, I find it petty to do this.
I thought we were better than this.
As a fellow truth seeker...I wouldn't mind any helpful comment, correction or suggestion concerning my message ...or any presentation issue other than an obvious typo or common spell checker "attacks." These public forums are too valuable not to garner the full experience of learning how to express yourself honestly, correctly, and most importantly in a factually and/or logically based presentation. " Precise use of the language gives clarity and force to our words"...and our minds. Thank you David Herrick!
We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of good citizens. These platforms are not healthy for the weak spirited or sensitive types. We all should appreciate any and all participants who help us be better advocates for more responsible democracy.
Gary. Did a single word throw you off on the original commentors intent? Did that misstep force you to not understand his point?
Did you clap that someone pointed out his error?
I see more of a problem here than my original post.
Gary, I can't think of a better way to *lose* the hearts and minds of good citizens than by pointing out their spelling, usage, and grammatical errrors. If you want some advice on how to be a "better advocate for a more responsible democracy" -- practice listening to what people tell you without correcting their grammar. Because if you keep correcting them, they're going to stop telling you anything. And that will be your loss.
Well, just for instance, look how many are replying to This!!!
Content, content, and content! Please!!!!🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂
Linda:
Usually, such rebuttal in the form of a criticism is done because there is no rebuttal to be made. They lack for knowledge. If my thoughts or points were solely determined to be of significance based on a misspelling, I would be in deep trouble.
I have apologized before after a comment I reread and can see the point of another's return remark. Or just explained what I meant. If the point is still there, the mistake is a "so what." Don't be swayed by inane return commentary.
Bill, I remember one time I responded to someone with a graceful retort. I was sure the person commenting got the point of what Heather was saying completely wrong. I made the mistake of drawing my line in the sand at 3:00 am. Hours and a good sleep later, I reread my comment. They were right. I was wrong. I couldn't get back to them fast enough with an apology. It happens.
We don't need to critique someone's point over a misstep.
I have wished from day one that Substack had a messaging feature. I suspect they don't as being a doorkeeper to our privacy.
David Herrick, I hope you see how your need to be right has hijacked the discussion and become a subject in itself. I've seen this happen a lot over the years, and it often has the effect that Linda Bailey points out: people leave the group rather than subject themselves to possible humiliation by language know-it-alls. In my experience, the worst offenders are English teachers and copyeditors. (I'm a copyeditor as well as other kinds of editor, so I can say this.)
Most of us *don't* do this, needless to say. We've learned over the years how many English-speakers are insecure about their spelling, usage, and/or punctuation, even when their writing proves them extremely capable. I want forums like this to welcome everyone who has something to say, even if they aren't professional writers or editors or teachers, even if English is their second, third, or fourth language.
So please, all you English teachers and copyeditors and every other perfectionist out there, ask yourself "How important is it?" Errors of fact and genuinely confusing statements are worth questioning -- tactfully, please! But most readers aren't likely to be confused by mixing up "incredulous" and "incredible," or "affect" and "effect," or many of the other little booby-traps that English is full of. Thank you.
Thank you, Susan, for pointing out my "need to be right", suggesting that I have somehow "hijacked" the discussion and humiliated someone, that I am a "language know-it-all" or even a "worst offender" English teacher or copyeditor.
In fact, before retiring to my vegetable garden, I did try to teach English to a fair number of Italians, and I have translated Italian into English a few times, even for payment occasionally, and I do appreciate clear, correct written English when I come across it.
Of course, it may surprise you that I am aware that many English speakers have never mastered some of the details of correct grammar and diction, and may not even compose their thoughts very well, but are nevertheless expressing important points of view (with which I may or may not agree) worthy of earnest engagement and discussion. Usually, I respond to the few comments here that are full of language errors, typing errors, auto-correction errors etc. without attempting to correct anything because it would clearly be useless to do so and distracting from the discussion at hand. But when the writing is clear and the thoughts expressed interesting, and someone who clearly cares about writing well uses "incredulous" instead of "incredible", what is wrong with pointing that out? I would hate it if I made that sort of clunky mistake and no one pointed it out to me. I mean whoops! and thank you! This has happened to me on several occasions, and after an initial momentary mortification, I am grateful to have learned or been reminded of something . The best was when I corrected some guy responding to a NYT column and he thanked me for the heads up and then corrected my even worse error committed in my correction of his error. Well jeez, I felt like a dope, but I could only laugh out loud. I mean, what is the big deal Susanna?
I have noticed that discussions in this space are sometimes hijacked for the better, sometimes not, but there is no obligation to follow the thread to some inane farthest Thule if you don't wish to, and I have yet to find out who is authorized to be the referee here. Are you? I'm certainly not. I mean, we all pay our 5 bucks a month, no?
For what it's worth, my response to Russell has received 85 likes at latest count, while only a few people have commented that I was somehow rude or demeaning to him.
Hey, another day, another Letter from an American. Have a good one!
Actually, I did go back to read
Russel Bass’ comment again
because of the wording which was confusing to me.
In situations such as this, I am grateful for David’s pointing out the error and did not find it offensive.
Linda, I don't think David was trying to diminish Russell's message at all. He was very polite with his gentle correction. We need the freedom for open dialog, open means open. A certain segment of the Left has fallen into absolutism about their beliefs that is equally as fervent as that of the evangelicals. And that is impeding progress.
Linda, I enjoyed Russell's comment, read straight through to the end of it after briefly stumbling over incredulous, and I'm glad I did. I expect Russell has taken my comment in stride, tucked it away in his "Well how about that?" file, and gone on to have a most pleasant Sunday, at least I hope so.
I guess I never received the official rules for participating in HCR's wonderful blog. Do you know where I might find them? Thanx!
Lol. You're digging yourrself in deeper and deeper. You might consider laying down your shovel.
That appears to be the standard reply here when people run out of argument. I have not dug any hole I am aware of, at least not this time.
The problem is not with you, David, but rather with those who needed to respond and thus hijacked the conversation. IMO, your remark was fine and should be taken in stride by Russel and others; it need not have been a distraction from Heather's topic. Those objecting let themselves be hijacked; you didn't do it.
😆
Thanx? Thanx? THanx? Talk about incredulous!
I'm assuming you got the joke.
What in the post about devstating actioons against women was in any way relevant to "the joke"?
I think—devoutly hope—that Russell meant that the is incredulous at the stuff Heather has to deal with. (Surely, the present day is a powerful argument against the idea that people are perfectible.)
Yes
David , who would have imagined my grammatical impropriety would launch such an entertaining diversion to Professor Heather's post - about which I should have said, that it evoked a degree of incredulity in me that I have had trouble processing.
I do get your point Linda, and affect does matter. In David's defense, he did appreciate the content of my comment. In this instance, I didn't mind. In fact, thank you David. But then, I'm an incorrigible over-helper myself. In fact, I'm just on my way to my local Sunday meeting of Overhelpers Anonymous. However, I am left to wonder, in my incredulity, how come people like this legislator in Dr. Heather's post, do not turn into pillars of salt?
Thanks, Russell, for replying. I guess I am an overhelper -- even incorrigible -- myself. It is a relatively light cross to bear, however, and I mean no harm to anyone. I enjoyed your earlier post and this one too.
What in the post about devstating actioons against women was in any way relevant to "the joke"?
As a language (though English is not my native language, I am certainly guilty of "errors and omissions"), however I also have a few pet-peeves when it comes to sloppy use of words, but as David Herrick says above, let's not divert from the message!
I have learned more from Heather's letters than I would have by studying by myself
I’ll admit, I cringed. And, I’ll admit, I still have mastered effect and affect despite having editors who’ve taken me to the shed numerous times. 😊 And that’s why we have editors or friends who can gently remind us. Our occasional “word choice” slip can sometimes derail the reader from our intended message. Thank you.
... and I have a typo above and no edit button! I still haven’t mastered self-editing before clicking on Send!
Substack has an edit function, as Editor Herrick pointed out. I use it on darn near a daily basis.
I am enjoying this deviated discussion today. I think I became insensitive to grammatical corrections because my dear 3rd grade writing teacher wwife corrects me least I appear illiterate and I was blessed with a high school graduate assistant who proofed every grant, chapter, article and speech I wrote of coedited for the last 25 years of my career. The absence of my Ruth and Julie is too often evident as I rely upon Grammarialy and spell-check and to often find, to my 80-year old embassment, my message dumb or littered with errors gramerical, spelling, and idea-wise. No pride left for me, so I apprecite it that David and Deborah and Ally still get my meaning whilst I Menz-handle a message and dangle more than just a participle when posting a rant. We gotta have fun with each other as well, ya think? Fall came in on schedule and it is a crisp bright morning. My, how much you all learned from my run-on (or is that rambling) paragraph. 😁
Stream of coherence.
Ally, all the time. Also, keep in mind that many of us are commenting in the middle of the night.
Ally, "editor" with a small "e" is probably more than I deserve.
Dam? Dam? Dam? Talk about in credulous
Try clicking on the 3 little dots to the right of "collapse"...
That doesn't seem to work from within the Substack app. It works fine on my regular go-to of the Letters.
Deborah:
Am I the only one who has the three dots next to the word "Collapse" which is next to "Reply?" I am sure you know this, but I will state it anyway for those who may not. Clicking on the three dots gives you an editing function.
Mistake away, you can always edit it, and tell the replier to your post . . . "what mistake?" :)
No, you are not the only one. I have it, too, on all of my devices so long as I don't use the actual Substack app that one must first download onto a mobile device (not a PC desktop or MacBook). It came to me as a surprise today, therefore, when on one of my mobile devices - on the actual downloaded Substack app - that the "edit" option was not provided. It may be they will get enough feedback to allow that in the near future. Thank you for trying to help.
Hmm.... I have consistently refused to download apps except for airlines and other practical applications. For LFAA and other substack writings, when I open a substack email on my cell phone, I click on the title and the item immediately opens in my web browser. So, I have been able, more than once, to correct or add to a post both on my phone and on my laptop.
: )))
Maybe Prof. Heather gave me this ability knowing full well, I make numerous errors in usage and spelling. My brain moves faster than my fingers.
A historian and psychologist should be members or all presidential cabinets and experts frequently consulted for news reports (like economists, medical experts, etc).
Thank you, Russell. I didn't know that distinction. I enjoy learning from Heather and from followers' comments.
Gosh, I thought you said it just right. Maybe we should use "not credible;" and I'm proud to be a cult member if it makes faculty feel good. Only been on board two months and wonder why the whole world isn't subscribing.
Fascinating stuff. Heather, but oh so gruesome, racist, and patriarchal!!
“Written to police the behavior of men, the code tells a larger story about power and control.”
It is my understanding that the hijab headscarf that Iranian women are burning in protest originated because men couldn't control themselves. Sigh... I sure hope this becomes the Year of the Women and the beginning of the end for patriarchy. However, the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy; it is egalitarianism. We, the People, all of us this time.
Given that the west has yet to learn about equity and equal rights, I doubt that the despotic Iranian regime will grant the brave women of Iran egalitarian rights, unless, of course, the entire country rises up against the Islamic Republic -- please god.
As someone pointed out elsewhere, according to the Quran, the Iranian Islamic Republic is neither "Islamic" nor a "Republic."
Any more than the Christian Evangelicals in this country are all Christian. The mantle of religion covers a great many sins of all sorts.
Or the Christian Nationalists. They’re not Christian and they’re not patriotic. It’s much easier to call them what they are! Fascists!
Denise H.
Perhaps more to the point of saving American Democracy ALL of them are
theaceous treasonist that must be eliminated from ALL governing employment and U. S. citizenship...
They are all Fundamentalists. That is it's own religion, whether masquerading as "christian," "jewsih, "muslim,' or "hindu."
Without any apparent Scriptural basis.
Dave Conant - MO
INDEED!
So true.
❤️
I like this
❤️
Cathy, it was ever thus. Men have blamed women for their own 'lack of control' for millennia. Think Eve and the apple, Bathsheba, and on and on. This is a strong archetype that plays a role in every culture, I'm sure.
"You made me do it". -Adam
Said every domestic abuser since the dawn of time.
I'm more convinced than ever that if women ran the world everyone would be much better off! Why not give matriarchy a try?
Susan, The opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy it is egalitarianism. Women over men wouldn't be that different than men over women. I do believe men use an OR paradigm. If you aren't one up then you must be one down. It's us versus them. It's if you get a bigger piece of the pie than you're taking it away from me. Women use the AND paradigm. Equity and inclusion. Creating harmony and synergy by listening to all perspectives and coming up with better solutions for all not just the privileged. Baking more and bigger pies so all experience well-being. My dream is that our government measures our success by a WBI - Well Being Index -- rather than GNP as the only measure. Several countries are already doing this where all legislation must show how it improves the well being of all the People. We, the People, all of us this time!
My understanding - anyone who knows better, please correct me - is that in the Iroquois nation, councils of women elders appointed - and could replace at any time - men to be war chiefs and otherwise lead. So men led, but they were responsible to the women. It worked quite well.
Attempted like
What a wonderful dream...seems so obvious but certain elements within our human nature too often become counterproductive. I see your point about matriarchy! Being a primary educator for 35 years...if forced to choose only between patriarchy or matriarchy...no hesitation for the ladies to lead. However to your point...I have experienced many Elizabeth Warren types...and too many MT Greens and Boeberts types. It seems best way...from family to National leadership venues...egalitarianism will always be best chance for the reasons you so articulately list. The force is strong in you!
Good lord what is a "Warren type"? A strong, energetic, extremely informed and intelligent woman unwilling to be silenced by casual negative judgements? That does not get a pass in my book. Forgive me for this cranky retort....was her voice too high?
Using her as a "Warren type"? A strong, energetic, extremely informed and intelligent woman unwilling to be silenced by casual negative judgements? was my point... compared to the other "type"
In agreement again. WBI and our goals for We the People, totaly.
Cathy that's exactly what I'm talking about. Women tend more towards an egalitarian society, which would include men in decision making but would also ensure that women have an equal voice. matriarchy is not dominance by women, but it does put us in charge so we can ensure that all are equally heard.
Cathy Learoyd (Texas)
SEE!
Women are better.
Now DO IT!
NOW!
Please!!
Cathy, it strikes me that this binary world view wasn't universal, even though we see it in early Middle Eastern cultures. Still, we seem, in the early 21st century, to be putting it on steroids.
Generally, there has been a separation of men's work vs. women's work in most societies starting with the hunters/men and gatherers/women. With technology and other reasons seems like we no longer need to divide jobs by gender. I'm a women with an engineering mind so why shouldn't I work as an engineer even if when I entered the field my first task was to resolve the two stereotypes of woman and engineer weren't mutually exclusive! I had a marvelous career as an engineer and broke the glass ceiling into upper management. I don't want to see women and other genders have to do that again! We, the People, all of us of all genders this time.
Hands clapping, standing ovation.
Google a book called "When God Was a Woman". It's probably 40 years old, but still worth a read.
i believe some of the Polynesian cultures were matriarchies. Can anyone speak to this? Also, some Native American tribes.
Sandra P. Campbell
GOD is all love, and only love, and can not be boxed into our definition, our inability to conceive fully a love of infinite love for ALL creation, Eh!?
However, I shall find and read "When god was a woman" I am thirsty for knowledge my curiosity is insatiable
Thank you
Out of curiosity, I checked my home library system to see if we hold the title "When God Was A Woman" and we not only have it, we have 6 copies plus two "On Hold" for when a copy becomes available.
Judith Swink
Thank you for your infectious enthusiasm which is most appreciated!
So I thought you might also enjoy a bit of my enthusiasm about a highly recommended brief fifteen minute contemorization of GOD's wisdom...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0zjKbRqUjQ
Thank you
OMG, Judith! That sounds like something I would do (have done). I noticed last week I had double purchased a certain book, which wasn't the first time. (Even buying at second hand bookstores, I don't need to throw money away on duplicates! )
The book is more than 40 years old, so it was written when patriarchy was pretty much the reigning paradigm, hence the title is couched in those terms.
Come to think of it, it's probably time I re-read it myself!
Sandra P. Campbell
Wonderful!
We can begin our own little book appreciation club, Eh!?
Usually, I'd agree wholeheartedly. However, my ex-mother-in-law would have been the fly in that ointment . . .
There are exceptions to every rule.
😒She was exceptional, as was her son, that's for sure.
LOL
Interestingly, the three longest ruling monarchs in England/Great Britain/the UK have been women. (Elizabeth 1, Victoria, Elizabeth 2) It seems like the queens were more successful than the kings.
Susan Radke
YES!
What have you all been waiting for...get rid of Moscow mitchbitch and all of his fat white rich bigoted repignatians...vote them all out of office...how could any woman support those pigs???!!!
George, I have no idea how ANYONE with a working brain could support any of these MAGATs, who claim to be all about "freedom" but constantly look for ways to restrict other people's freedoms. Of course, "working brain" is the key.
Susan Radke
Susan
Here is an idea for your consideration...
Follow the money
Discover the support source of motivation for the brainless duped
Totally agree
I've been on a mission to change the accepted spelling of equality to equALLity. Clearly, that was an oversight.
John, I like that. I will do so from now on. I do love caMel case words! Thanks!
That is one of the excuses, similar to restrictions on women in the other Abrahamic religions. It's a very odd excuse, since religiously observant men in all three control themselves a great deal in the process of following the many practices of each religion that apply to them.
Attempted like
Cathy Learoyd (Texas)
BRAVA!
Men can certainly control themselves, hijab or no hijab. The hijab may partially supress the misogynistic impulses of a few, but for the most part other measures are required to keep men who are inclined to abuse women from acting on their impulses.
Rex Page (Left Coast)
Do most men turn away from looking at a beautiful woman!?
What is the allure of a woman's beauty to most men, Eh!?
Instead of yielding to misogynistic temptations, choose to marvel in thanksgiving at creations perfect match, at least for most, Eh!?
Love creation's Love!
See the story of Eve which is about blaming women.
So good. Your observation is right on.
Thank you KG. Yes, each religion has its rules on how to show reverence to the God they worship and that should be respected. It is interesting that in the Jewish religion it is the men who cover their heads with the yamulka and the women don't. I personally would not want to live in a theocracy where the government imposes one religion on all like Iran and punishes even minor infractions. Religions including the Jews and Christians are recognized in the Quran as People of Book. We are about to find out what that would be like to be a theocracy with the Supreme Court now manipulating the United States into a "Christian" theocracy. The hate and violence and holier than thou and we have the one and only right answer to what God wants isn't my understanding of Christianity. The founding tenet of Freedom to Religion is being dismantled by the Supreme Court. We,the People, all of us even women this time!
But when a crazed religious policeman kills a young woman because he was afraid he would become aroused by seeing a whisp of her hair, this has nothing to do with the young woman’s devotion to God, does it? His inappropriate aggression and violence was what the original rule was supposed to protect her from, isn’t it?
Nope. "lower their gaze and guard their modesty" "They should not display their beauty". It's true that noone is forced (except in Iran) to wear hijab, but for the underlying reason behind it, read Geraldine Brooks's brilliant "Nine Part of Desire".
"It's true that noone is forced (except in Iran) to wear hijab,..."
I ride my bike on Miami Beach without wearing a shirt. I love the feel of wind on my bare skin.
Would you like to try that?
As a woman, I suspect I'd be issued a citation for indecent exposure if not arrested for it.
Back in the 1990s, when thong bikinis became the "in thing" for some women, there was a movement that attempted to get them outlawed on the beach in San Diego CA. Didn't happen though. And I think of those European men's bikini bathing suits - we don't see them very often on our beaches here in SoCal.
Wonderful book. I read it when it was first published in 1994, but it seems even more relevant today. Perhaps it’s time for a re-read.
Love her writing but missed this one. Will get and read asap.
It's an old book, written when she was sent to the Middle East as a reporter for the Wall St. Journal. She quickly realized that she would not be doing much reporting as a woman so decided to look into the lives of women in the various countries.
Growing up attending a "high Lutheran" church in southeastern Virginia, in the 1950s and into the 1960s, girls and women were expected to wear a hat - I don't recall ever seeing a female in church not wearing a hat - and wrist-length white gloves and stockings. You can imagine how the stockings felt in hot, humid weather!
“If God created all that is, then God surely has no need of our worship…”
Alternatively, if God created all that is then everything should be worshiped as God. In other words “all that is” is God. Worship the sky, the dirt, the flowers, each and every person you see, worship all as a manifestation of God. See God in everything! (Yes, even in those who are so disconnected from their hearts such as TFG et al. Even Christ, saw God in those so disconnected from their hearts, and souls, that as he was being crucified he said “forgive them Lord for they know not what they do.” “Know” as in being consciously aware.) A great saint once said “do what you do but never put anyone out of your heart.” Developing compassion for those we oppose will help ourselves and touch the hearts of those we oppose too. They may not consciously be aware of this, but it will touch their hearts.
Interesting and thanks for posting it. How quickly the woman’s devotion to Allah segued into covering the woman herself entirely.
Thank you for these quotations. That's interesting, that the actual modesty direction for women was to "draw their veils over their bosoms…” . What does the Quran say about modesty in clothing for men?
On behalf of holding more than one idea in the conversation at the same time: we have several major themes here: ideals of non-arrogance especially before Gd, application of those ideals to clothing, and the twisting of those ideals to excuse male domination of women, and as a consequence domination of certain groups of people over others.
In the 'non-arrogance expressed in clothing' department we see many different customs regarding head coverings, including Christian men taking off their hats in church to show respect, observant Jewish men wearing head coverings (from small ones to elaborate hats, depending on their group within Judaism) all the time to show respect for Gd, and the various customs of head covering for women. Looking at all this from secular or semi-secular current American culture, any of this non-familiar can feel very odd. As long as it's actually a voluntary observance of custom, well and good.
The trouble, of course, comes when actions shift from a voluntary expression of acknowledgment of Gd, or even of local practice, and become a vehicle to subordinate women or any other group. Much as I love my own religion, and am interested in others, I have to admit religion has been horribly abused for centuries as a cloak for outright evil. We see it in Iran with forced hijab, and in this country with forced birth.
To add to your observations, Joan: When I was studying history of religions, I learned that Mohammed's only living descendants were his daughters, who lived with him in quarters attached to the mosque. His second wife and his daughters were the ones who assembled and disseminated his teachings.
Like most middle eastern quarters, the windows and doors were usually left open for air flow, and so many people (I imagine mostly male) came to ask questions that the daughters had no privacy and little time to themselves. So Mohammed ordered that the doors be "veiled" in order that his daughters were not bothered by so many people constantly calling on them at their residence.
The daughters, however, were still the primary source of all Mohammed's teachings, as he was old and frail by this time. They were not confined to their quarters, as often assumed. All those who claim descent from Mohammed are descended through one (or more, as lines intertwined over time) of his daughters. And ALL of what is known about Mohammed's teaching came through his daughters.
It was only later that those teachings (as happens in when religions become about power, often mixed in with local social practices, and reinterpreted by what are largely self-appointed pundits) that the purpose of the veils were redefined as controls of sexuality and women became second-class members of society (at best). What are often seen as Mohammedan constrictions on women were actually meant as constrictions on men.
Well said!
Rowshan Nemazee
How about the stupid behavior of those men who seek control in the middle of a land hot as hell with no water!!!
How stupid is it to decide, “Oh! Look! We are in the middle of a hot as hell land with absolutely NO water…what a splendid place to live!”
Oh! And also, let us plant a gazillion square miles of grass, (that requires a gazillion gallons of water EVERY DAY), that is good for nothing except for old fat rich white “men” to whack at a tiny white ball that most can’t see hoping the ball lands in a tiny white cup a thousand miles distant. STUPID!
Forty years from now, no matter what happens in the meantime, extreme heat and water supply scarcity will make Phoenix one of the continent’s most uninhabitable places for ALL life forms.
Today, right now, the six largest cities in Arizona, because of catastrophically dry conditions, (the last two decades have been the driest in over 1,200 years!), have ALL declared potable water shortages…
So, now, today the dummies that daily choose to have their brains baked to a crisp have decided to be governed by one crazy ancient absurdity conceived in 1864 as law! REALLY STUPID!
WTF!
Agree that we should not continue to grow in a desert, but Phoenix and Prescott are two different places. Northern AZ's water supplies and climate are vastly different. Those water supplies are also threatened by the exponential growth.
We moved to Mesa, AZ (really an extension of Phoenix in some ways) 8 years ago and I remain appalled at the unparalleled growth: the building of subdivisions after subdivision, office buildings, etc as if there were no tomorrow. And only NOW there is concern about lack of water??!! There was a time in CA you couldn’t get water in a restaurant unless you requested it, here I have to say “no water” unless I really am going to drink it.
Carol Parsons
California "Water" is so horrible, it tastes like chalk, that everybody uses either canned drinks or bottled water from France, Etc.
Depends on where you live. Upscale Palo Alto water is undrinkable, yet 8 miles north where I lived for 35 years has wonderful tap water. Just moved to Central Valley, and it’s just “ok” with a filter system. Eureka had fabulous water last time I was up there.
Citizen60
So, as a child it was preoccupation with the wave conditions of the day, two man beach volleyball superiority all mid day, and of course the perfect tan...can't remember potable water issues, but in my early twenties the air became unbreathable so off to Eugene, Oregon for a "higher" education...never returned to Santa Monica...founded my Architectural/development/construction co in Portland enjoying it's Bull-Run water that is the best in the universe!
Happy ever after!
George E Dobbs, while your characterization of the taste of water might be true on some places, it’s not true where I live. I live in Greenbrae, north of San Francisco, and our water, sourced from local reservoirs, is fine.
Barbara Stikker
The lower 2/3 of California, (80% of the Cal population), have HORRIBLE tap water...
https://www.marinwater.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/Marin%20Water%20Annual%20Water%20Quality%20Report%202019.pdf
Deb Thalasitis
Hello Deb
That's exponential growth and even more exclusive private fenced-in golf communities in the dessert in the worst drought in 1,200 years affecting ALL of Arizona and the southwest USA...
There is NO water in Arizona...it is a dessert, yes even in Prescott where both my children graduated majoring in the permaculture environmental approach to save our planet from our ignorant destruction of its limited natural resources.......Almost all gone now, Eh!?
My point was the N AZ has different water sources than Phx, Phx area or Tucson, although Salt River Project has surface water rights on the Verde which impacts Prescott. No water and people keep coming. It's nuts.
IT IS A DESERT
no human life sustaining rain in desert
https://unsplash.com/s/photos/arizona-desert
George - Based on 50 years of living in San Diego (as far south as you can get in California), my local water tastes just fine. When I've spent time in other parts of California, including in Death Valley, I have not found tap water to taste bad. It may be more a question of your own taste buds.
Your gross generalizations about water water availability in Arizona, especially Prescott (forested, altitude 5,368', higher than one mile and not desert as I understand it) are not supported by facts. It's true that population growth has outpaced water resources in many parts of the southwest including Phoenix & vicinity, but especially agriculture, will suffer with the cutbacks of Colorado River water.
As for water resources in Prescott, their water is not "almost all gone. Much of their water comes from groundwater. Reclamation of wastewater is used to recharge the aquifer as the city draws on the groundwater. https://www.prescott-az.gov/the-city-of-prescott-has-a-long-term-stable-water-supply/
As you state, they are REALLY STUPID!!
And yet Phoenix has a stunning growth rate. White shift.
Kathy Clark
No shit White Shift!!!
But it’s dry heat…
Still planting grass is Maricopa, "The Lakes." But then and as they advertise, we have a large underground reservoir too. I believe they are watering with the grey water. It still does not make sense to plant grass.
So much for the "Originalist" argument in interpreting specific legislative intent for purposes desired to achieve a present-day "conservative" decision.
We won’t let them, Spooky!
I was a child in the 1950s. For middle class white and temporarily-white people who had survived the world war, like my parents, the peace and quiet of the suburbs were the next thing to heaven. Not so much for people of color excluded from the postwar gains of whites, or gay people persecuted and shamed, or anyone lefty enough to sing "why can't it be Christmas the whole year round" (the Weavers were blacklisted for that song, because the appeal for peace did not suit the war industries and their lackeys), or .... Also, the pop music was terrible.
It really was not quite like that, but that is the fantasy that appears to be driving the people (male and female) who are behind some of the efforts thereoff. In the fifties, the groundwork was being laid for a resurgence of feminism. I had women teaching me math, latin, civics (critical thinking as a part of being a responsible citizen). Just because we are just now becoming aware of the role women played in the past doesn't mean it wasn't happening. And a lot of men supported these changes- I had some of those as teachers too. The ones who had trouble with those changes are the ones who created the atmosphere of anger, hate, and resistance that was exploited by power mongers and led to Reagan, the Bushes, Newt Gingrich, etc. It simmered and then with Trump, burst into flame. And here we are.
Annie D Stratton (VT, PacNW)
It seems like wherever we go....
Then there we are....
Eh!?
Attempted like
Citizen60
I did it for you...
Spooky Singer (CO via CA)
"Racist and patriarchal is largely driving the divide in the US..."
Hmmmm...
Are you referencing the quaint suburbs were minorities were only over "There" while "We Whites" were over here in our manicured lawns and seven foot high fences and women were "Home-makers" who shopped for the basics with her house allowance...those wonderful "50's"
Eh!?
Spooky Singer (CO via CA)
INDEED!
Thank you SS + BEAUTIFUL PHOTO
Heather, I love it when you bring history into the present. One good thing that 1864 law did was exclude physicians so they didn't have to consult a lawyer before saving a woman's life or being afraid to act at all while watching the woman die. Would love to see the "originalists" of the Supreme Court overturn this law since it didn't originally have anything to do with banning abortion.
I shouldn't imagine for a moment, Cathy, that anyone in the Arizona GOP has actually read the law, nor, I suppose, do they actually care what it says as their only perspective is the political spin they can put on it's imagined contents.....untill, of course, it turns around and bites them at which point of course they deny whatever people say that they had said!
You are on the right track Stuart. The AZ Gov. Ducey says the Pima County Trial Judge did not expressly overrule AZ's current 15 week ban. The AZ AG has a different interpretation. Misogynistic chaos reigns; this "states rights" ugly debacle is far, far from over.
In ‘Don’t Think of an Elephant’ by George Lakoff (about reframing arguments), he reframes abortion as about controlling women and, in the case of a conservative’s “strict father mentality’ about the man’s loss of control over his wife (or daughter’s) sexuality and lives, which he is expected to manage.
Exactly!
🤯
That helps explain why it's more effective to advocate reproductive rights as a woman having control over when to start, and when to increase, her family.
It has always been about control
Yeah, if you’re looking for clarity here you might be in for a wait
And has been, for quite some time. Once in a great while, I've seen mention of this in the MSM, but mostly it's ignored.
I've read a description of ALEC being a "Bill Mill, which it is, and promptly sends them to multiple states. so their agenda goes mainstream across the country, in relatively lightening speed..
this has been true in Wisconsin throughout the Walker years, and continuing now with the rightist control of our legislature. Blatantly at first, and now under the covers. Frightening all around and with the severe gerrymandering of our legislative districts, there is no hope it will stop.
Yes, ALEC been writing lots of State legislation since the 90s
And Arizona is now leading the charge to march “forward, into the past.” (Apologies to Firesign Theater for using their phrase, but it seems most appropriate in describing Judge Johnson’s actions.)
and here I thought Texas and Florida were the crazy-a** states....guess I had better add Arizona and Idaho and, and..........
"It" is spreading like Covid or wildfire. A red and blue map of the US looks like a spread of measles with a few chills (blue states) on the periphery.
I saw a map in the NYT that only clots the cities by red or blue. Where no one lives, the map is white. The country is far less red than they would have us believe. And far more unpopulated, too.
cRAZy, seems to fit together.
AZ Trial Judge, Kellie Johnson, is a Pima County judge who has been on the bench since 2017. And, I thought Fl trial Judge Cannon's ruling on the NARA docs was the worst trial court opinion I have ever read. Regardless, the 11th Circuit has cremated Judge Cannon's handiwork.
The 11th Circuit wrote their ruling using Big Crayons for Cannon
The big red crayon words say "It's the law of the case now" ... "No red herrings",
Yes, the AZ GOP are the real Bozos on this bus.
I just love a good Firesign Theater reference. Thanks for including this one.
You don’t know the half of it!
Where is Firesign Theater when we need them?
Cheech Marin has them locked in the trunk of his Chevie, trying to sneak them into the drive in movies. He broke off the key in the lock and now they all have to pee. Their eyeballs are “floatin’”
Porgie Tirebiter rides again
Well, hey! Don't be afraid to squeeze the wheeze.
America needs a return to planned absurdity, as recognition of the difference between humor and incompetence
BTW, is that Athenian is still hanging around the Garden?
Sadly, this is not something I had ever heard of. I was probably a bit young for Firesign Theater in their heyday. I bet my Mom (even in her 50's) would have loved it!
The best comedy on record
This is the stuff of dystopian historical fiction. Or the some warped version of the Twilight Zone. Sadly, it is reality in today's America.
Can it be that the judge reinstating this law is ignorant of this history or worse still ignored it? This seems like a combination of incompetence and malice. Ironically, those who profess to be originalists have to know that the law was never intended to regulate reproduction for women. Why are they failing to understand the original meaning of these laws? Just astonishing hypocrisy!
Deliberate ignorance is worse than stupidity
I think those who claim to be "originalists" the way Scalia talked about it are either pulling a fast one or deluding themselves that they can speak with the dead. Anyway, it is not the authority of the person who wrote a law that legitimizes it's power, it is the service to social justice that their creation proves to enable. As in the letter above, many of the founders and framers were slave owners and conquerors. And yet their attempt to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity has proved worthy and viable when kept updated and applied in good faith.
I think you mean “originalists,” or have I missed something?
Autocorrect strikes again! Ha!
Yes, but braincorrect read it correctly, at least in my head...
It would be nice if we could edit after it’s been posted.
I just did.
Just hit the three dots to the right of Collapse, and you get the Edit function.
You can!
ugh.
I have to agree with deluding themselves, that they can talk to the dead. I could not agree more that the power of a law is its service to justice.
The delude themselves that the speak for God. It's narcissism gone off the rails. Scratch a cult, and find that malware at it's core.
The ego, literally our sense of "I", is vulnerable to delusions of grandeur:, "master race", the "righteous", "true patriots", Jim Jones, fill in the blank. There is always an audience for telling people that they are inherently superior to everyone else, and that they get to make the rules they impose on others, and utterly ignore the rules society presents to them.
They cover it with blather, but that cultivated sociopathy threads though everything they do. It's how tyranny attracts an ardent following. It's exactly what Lincoln, a major founder of the original Republican Party, warned of. It is Reagan's "small government" was really about.
What I read (somewhere and I now cannot find the reference article, sorry) is that the AZ judge was limited on how she could rule because of how that law was written. My hope is someone else may have read more information about this to clarify if the judges hands were tied or if she acted maliciously.
Her hands were tied by those who feed her in a very literal sense. I will chose “malicious”.
Some of my ancestors and relatives lived in Arizona. Not on purpose: that is where they were from and "Arizona" as a construct got superimposed on it. Most of my line there has either passed on or moved. Some sequester themselves from the main society. All I got to say about Arizona as a state is that it is one of the two most racist states I've ever been in. The other one is South Dakota. The only states I have not been in are side to side from Texas to North Carolina, so can't speak with direct experience about them.
It is essential that we explain where ever possible the historical and continuing brutality (indeed fascism = total supremacy) of patriarchy. It's certainly a very bad and unhealthy ideology for men, but for women it is relentless oppression. Remember: Patriarchy is a structure comprised of laws, tradition, wealth concentration, ownership, and a continuing unchallenged historical record (to name some of the basics). Dismantle the structure and the power of all those who work to maintain that structure.
"So, in 1864, a legislature of 27 white men created a body of laws that discriminated against Black people and people of color and considered girls as young as 10 able to consent to sex, and they adopted a body of criminal laws written by one single man."
This is SUCH an awesome sentence. It contains a stark set of facts, irony, humor, shock, a sense of the repugnant, and great history all in ONE single sentence.
Best sentence of the year award Dr. Richardson. No doubt.
And a great letter for this Sunday morning.
Another wake up and get going letter. Thank you.
I used that very paragraph to introduce the Letter on my fb page...pretty much says it all!
Wow. How crazy is it that we learn so little from our previous mistakes? Thanks so much for sharing this, Professor-perhaps if we talk about it boldly and honestly, It can finally be addressed and corrected-your truth telling is so vital to that process. I’m beyond grateful to you. Our children and our children’s children deserve a better future than returning to past atrocities. When will we ever learn?
Hard to learn about previous mistakes if you simply have no idea what they are.
Like Americans for example.
Past atrocities and future threats wrought by past and present narcissism. How crazy is it that we seem not to want to learn from our previous mistakes? It is not because we are not capable. But yes, perhaps if we talk about it boldly and honestly. That has always seemed to be the best way to get the best answers.
The book banners and people of that ilk would have us learn no history that might, in their narrow-minded eyes, in any way disturb or upset us and puncture their fact-free bubble.
Thou shalt not notice the gigantic self-serving thumb on the "scales of justice".
The funny thing is, at least to me, that just yesterday on my dog walk I was listening to one of Heather’s previous podcasts (Then and Now) and the subject was abortion; she talked about the “quickening”, “blockages”, laws against instruments and poisons producing a miscarriage, etc. And then this letter dropped!
The answer my friend.......
A little PPM for this coffee house XMarine too?
Once again lazy, unrealistic Repubs refuse to live in the 21st Century. Progress is one of their greatest fears; refusing to learn lessons from history is their greatest achievement. 👋🏼 Bye bye Ridiculous Party.
The Republican Party was not always anti-democratic, and should it disappear as a party, the human proclivities that it now embodies will likely reappear in another host. We need to get a much better strategy for reconciling warring elements of our human nature before we collectively foolishly and/or malignantly self-destruct. Above all, I think we need to let go of lies and self-delusion, and honor those who, as best they can, tell the truth. We fool ourselves if we think we know anything completely, but lies are a matter of choice.
I think Ike would be spinning, considering how the Party has DEVOLVED!
Republicans seem overly bound in tradition. While traditions give us colorful aspects of humanity, the republicans seem fettered, unable to transcend and make necessary changes to their tradition. My take is that when such a society becomes too rigid they find the pitfalls of the Darwinian theory. Theirs is a society not able to evolve. Not able to take on the rigors and demands of change. Hence climate change, equal rights, basic needs, etc. are not addressed. They have consciously chosen to dead end rather than evolve. In their path that goes nowhere there seems to be a vitriolic futility emergent.
The current Republican Party will use that which provides them with control over the populace. They are not fettered by tradition but by self-interest. Their political ideology spells power of a small party of powerful White Men; White Supremacy and Autocracy.
You are spot on. I was not referring to Republican leadership, rather the red minions a sea of in which I am inundated. They do not have control over the party leadership. The interests you spoke of have that locked down. The minions have no choice of who they get to vote for. They are tradition bound and will vote for dead candidates as has been evinced in past elections. In this state you must vote the party regardless of the ghoul preferred for leadership. Republican congressional leadership has run aground because of the inability of traditional Republican voters to break with the yoke of tradition. Of course the special interests have keyed in and abused the tradition. Results are that Republican leadership has hit rock bottom in congress. I’m sorry, but Republican tradition in the masses is not going to change…ever. That the party itself is nearly moribund is clearly shown by the desperate acts put on by the Republican congress and the Republican Supreme Court. January 6 was just a shot across the bow.
Thank you, Pat. One more deeply concerning point is really the question of how much more current Republican leadership will destroy our country, along with our experiment with Democracy.
Their hand at the table is all in. They’ve gone nationally and internationally making their intentions to destroy both congress and the constitution their end game. They are not playing a game of chicken. This is it. We the people, all of us, our will to keep this country viable is on the table. No less. We are being overrun. What was it that rider said as he galloped past. “The British are coming”. Either we put up or we shut up.
A consistent Republican meme since Reagan has been that "government" as a tool of social infrastructure has been tried and found wanting; an experiment that failed; but here "government" is a euphemism for "democracy"; the government of the people, by the people, for the people, which is always pretty messy. Rather, we should entrust our fate to the superiority of wealthy and powerful lords.
"GOP" governance has become increasingly heavy handed, especially for those already deprived of political power. Their current King claims he can alter law just by thinking about it. What is being scaled back, ended, or sold off is the access to power and the benefits of goverment for the aggregated public; loss of voting rights, loss to representation to de facto bribery by wealthy interests, loss of a safe and clean environment, loss of living wages and pensions, loss of wide access to higher education, loss of privacy, loss of equal protection under law, and on and on, all tied to the increasingly aggressive "GOP" agenda.
Follow the money.
"That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings." - Lincoln
There never seems to be a bottom any longer for them.
I stood by more or less in disbelief as the GOP disintegrated. I think we all did. The governors and congressmen allegedly representing order and protocol on behalf of their Republican constituents turned out to be downright sleaze. They would have to be highly educated and imaginatively endowed to be so magnificently flawed. No common men these. They appear to be hand selected for their ability to get lower. They seem oblivious to the fact of the hole they are digging becoming their final resting place, be it an outhouse or a tomb. Whichever, we will need lime. Bring lots of lime.
They are bound, alright! Bound to make our lives miserable...
Conservatives want to “conserve.” It a feature, not a bug. They don’t want to go forward
Great comment.
How I wish, the fools still rule in Texas, for now.
Jeri,
It is truly amazing the Ted Cruz can still get elected.
Physically repugnant, a mental midget, and a fool.
I would sure like to believe that when I lived in TX he would not have had a chance to do anything but empty barnyard buckets into the shite pile. And, some kid would have been in charge to watch him to make sure he did not screw it up.
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Scott-Wiener-blasts-Ted-Cruz-17021270.php
Ted Cruz, graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law, questions future justice Brown-Jackson, doing his party proud.
Yes, Cancun Teddy is a piece of work, isn’t he? Princeton and Harvard should be so proud. 🤢
and speaking of Bye Bye, early voting started yesterday in Virginia. What are you waiting for, ladies?
I notice a division between those who trust authority based on the special status of some person, vs those who trust the authority of collaborative verification and/or polling to determine which actions best fit our understanding of our circumstances. At the extreme is the authority of a hereditary king or queen, or some some other form of autocrat, vs a republic. And some seem to believe that the older an idea is, the more true it is, which is different from recognizing that some circumstances of existence remain constant over long periods of time, and may have been recognized to some degree over many generations, for example, ancient earth and stoneworks that appear aligned with astronomical cycles. And reading of ancient histories and fiction suggest that basic human nature has remained stable over long periods as well, though ideas and mores change.
While "The Enlightenment" is showing signs of age, it was still a recognition of how rethinking our circumstances can lead to improved understandings and outcomes. The thoroughness of the properly conducted scientific method and ongoing good-faith public dialog providing some anchor against throwing out babies with bathwater. Enlightenment thinking powerfully affected the tone and methodologies of some of the most reliably useful aspects of "The American Experiment".
How succinctly you cut to the core. Alito and the adherents of “older is better” seem to have missed this distinction. As Tom Toro wrote in the New Yorker, “Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. Yet those who do study history are doomed to stand by helplessly while everyone else repeats it.” There is absolutely no excuse for Alito and his ilk in modern America.
If there really is an original sin, it seems to me it is abuse of power, in families, in organizations, in societies. Being the bully.
I’d take it to an even more elementary level-the original sin is greed-for power, for prestige, for money-the “more, More, MORE, mine, Mine, MINE!!!” mentality. The temperament exhibited by Trump and every narcissistic, irrational, despotic person who appears. Greed-the source of all that is evil-at least that’s my humble opinion.
"like" I saw a video last night about the fossil fuel industry which is promoting energy alternatives to the public, but assuring their stockholders they will continue to drill, drill. drill. Because, you know, the stockholders must be served. Prices must be kept high, Damn the future, greed is their real motto.
It is the men and their toys. God forbid you take anything away from them! They’ll pitch a fit! You know, like beating up a woman or killing them. It’s greed and being the almighty powerful male in the jungle.
John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” - John Adams
Anyway, that would seem to be "best practices", but way too often we wink at abuse of power. Abuse of power ruins everything from families to societies; even degrading the ecosphere; and even aside from malice, the "road to hell" is often paved with "good intentions".
Checks and balances are built into many of our protocols, but mean nothing if we don't support them.
Attempted like
JL Graham,
The real "enlightenment" came in the form of, no lie, one man. John Adams.
His work to pull together and analyze every system of government that had pre-existed his Massachusetts Constitution was seminal and most members of the 1787 convention read it.
You can read it to. It is not easy, and I have not finished it, but it is THE reference of past governments (that nobody knows about). I believe Justice Breyer had completely read and understood this book in college based on his public statements in his life.
https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Defence_of_the_Constitutions_of_Govern.html?id=Da0zAQAAMAAJ
Except Adams, when implored by his wife Abigail to "remember the ladies" when forming the US government, deliberately chose to ignore women. The US was built for, by, and about rich white men.
Seems to me the appropriate reading of the Arizona law was to make it illegal for someone to induce a miscarriage by poisoning inferring it is without a woman's consent--perhaps to prevent a man from poisoning a woman he had impregnated to avoid the consequences of the pregnancy--more in keeping with the policing of men's behavior theme.
What's more incredible is the fragile reeds Republicans are using to get abortion bans back on the books without having to legislate new laws. The disengenuous defense will be "I am only upholding the law" not "I am actively taking away your rights"
'
"The laws for this territory, chaotic and still at war in 1864, appear to reflect the need to rein in a lawless population of men." Sad to see, Arizona is still there, dominated by fear, trauma, and disability to make judgements.
Seems like there need to be some 2022 laws "to reflect the need to rein in a lawless population of men."
And the need to rein in a population of old white men, racist and misogynist.
Before this law, the Ninja recount made that obvious
Grateful to have the history of our laws recorded so that we don’t make the same mistake……….damn, too late. No wonder there’s such a push on banning our history (HERstory) from the classroom.
There is such a push to fudge on history to the point of fabrication to serve the agendas of those who want to impose control. That certainly includes the censoring of inconvenient truths.
Women still need protection from patriarchy run amok; As is happening in the Republican Party, and with the aid and support of forced-birth nuts. If they won’t concede that women are capable beings (at least on the level of any gamete), then rise up we must. I never thought I’d live so long as to see such evil ooze back into our world. Wonder if Alito helped Arizona nuts come up with arcane justification to slap down any progress women have clawed their way to achieving. He certainly has the animus for the task.
This -- I don't have words (so I am glad Heather Cox Richardson is in possession of some powerful ones!) This law was drafted by a group of less than 30 men (of course) who worked rather hastily to write and quickly implement a body of laws designed to bring order to the chaos of an United States territory trying to operate in the middle of a Civil War. It is almost comical (if it were not so obscene) to think it has a place today in the state of Arizona in our United States of America.
We can only hope that the law's restoration will secure the future of both the governor's office and the US Senate with respect to Arizona, since the people of that state cannot let this stand.
No whiskey nor gambling or other vices involved in the 1864 conclave at Prescott to bring chaos under the control of a few simple laws. Can almost smell the rawhide, horses, spilled blood, burning meat, and loud voiced threats to shoot each other before the vote (if it is possible to smell loud voices from afar). Thanks Heather. Context matters.