Rambling Rhodes

Um... yeah.

You know what's funny, Joshua? I'll tell you what's funny: your comment from last year, when I made 2004 predictions was:

"Ryan. . . oh, nevermind."

Yeah. My chronic inability to express myself is pretty funny.

To clarify:

I was unimpressed that you based so much of this year's post on what I perceived as an inaccurate characterization of events that were, in fact, kind of fucked up (since, at the time that UN guy made the crack about Western nations being "stingy", the U.S. had committed to give about one fifth as much money to aid in the tsunami relief effort as private donors were planning to spend on George W. Bush's inauguration ceremony). So your post ended up sounding like the complaints of a spoiled teenager who has no problem claiming the right to do whatever he wants in the family house, including other people's bedrooms, but who starts pissing and moaning when someone calls him lazy for not helping to keep the place clean: "Fine then, I'll just be a slave. I predict that in 2005, after having spent every spare moment of my life cleaning up after other people, I will struggle along under the burden of barely having time to feed or bathe myself and the rest of you will still call me 'lazy' and 'ungrateful'."

But, you know, I'm such a big stinky liberal—that's probably just my political correctness talking.

Welcome back, by the way.

The thing about the initial relief that the U.S. offered is that, for one thing, early on, we had no idea just how terribly terrible that tsunami actually was. I mean, on day one, I was hearing 30,000 as the high estimate. So, yeah, in light of the 140,000 and climbing toll, the initial offering was pretty sad. Also, however, the U.S. was hampered by the fact that that small initial drop in the bucket basically wiped out the money the U.S. had budgeted for international relief, and we had to await Congressional approval for more, if I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong on that, seeing as how I was kind of out of the news loop for some time. Anyway, when Bush came forward and said "there's more coming," that was construed to mean that, yes, we were stingy, when in fact we provided what we could at that time. Could we be doing more? Probably. I just find it curious that no matter how much "more" we do, it never seems to be enough.

As for your chronic inability to express yourself, no, that's never been much of a problem. I just thought it was kind of funny that you said almost the same thing two years running.

And, thanks, it's good to be back, but only sort of.

Dear god that was funny! Laughed my ass off in May.

(but should'nt her shirt read, "You're not"?)
Oh, nevermind, just, nevermind. Duh.

"The thing about the initial relief that the U.S. offered is that, for one thing, early on, we had no idea just how terribly terrible that tsunami actually was."

That's the only reason I can think of that you would have the bad taste and worse judgement to post, two days after the event when the death toll was only a mere 150-odd thousand, an entry regarding bodyboarding, and injuries sustained thereof. To wit, allow me to quote:

"For those of you not familiar with waves, let me explain: waves are large walls of rolling water created by either one or several gods. These gods create waves for the express purpose of showing off."

But hey, if that's me being a liberal PC goody then you know what? Proud to be one mate, especially considering the alternative.

And what Joshua said, too.

Donna? There's an error on the front of her tee-shirt too - should be "That's hot". Has anyone ever seen Ms Hilton walking and chewing gum at the same time?

Oh, look, I attracted a Speckle-Breasted Simon to my blog. It's so cute! Hey, look everyone, it commented!

"For those of you not familiar with waves, let me explain: waves are large walls of rolling water created by either one or several gods. These gods create waves for the express purpose of showing off."

That's quite the smoking gun you're holding forth there, sport. Again, considering that I was writing about, QUITE OBVIOUSLY, the kind of waves that, oh, I don't know, YOU CAN RIDE ON A BODYBOARD, your attempt to somehow tie my post into something tsunami-related is, at best, pathetic. But, you keep trying, you little Speckle Breasted Simon, you. *pinching cheeks*

The particularly amusing thing, to me, is the fact that the bodyboarding post that's causing you so much PC-related ire also ran as a column in two local newspapers last week. And, gee, they didn't have any problem with running it. Gosh, it's almost like they realized their readers more than likely wouldn't be so stupid as to equate bodyboarding waves with a 40 foot tsunami or something. Go figure.

While I essentially agree with Ryan that the content of his post about body boarding was pretty innocuous, let me just play devil's advocate here. On two fronts:

One, Mr. "How could the editors fail to notice and prevent the offensive use of the word 'emancipated' in that article" Rhodes, your willingness to think creatively about which material is offensive and which is just good clean fun, impressive as it is from a purely artistic standpoint, can look an awful lot like hypocrisy in a certain light.

Two, Simon lives in Australia. And before you pull out your "well let's all get Simon a cross and some nails" trope I'll emphasize that I mention this merely by way of suggesting that Simon, living in much closer proximity to the Indian Ocean than you do, may have a somewhat different perspective on what constitutes an "obvious" reference to the death and horror that's happening in the country immediately next to his. To re-frame the discussion in terms you might be able to wrap your brain around, if Simon had posted a blog entry on September 13th, 2001, stating that he'd just seen The Towering Inferno for the first time and that it was the best movie ever, and included in his posting something along the lines of, "For those of you not familiar with burning skyscrapers, fighting a fire in a tall building is evidently completely different than regular fire fighting—and much more dangerous!" you might have considered that to be in poor taste. More than that, such disregard for the magnitude of the nearest historical tragedy might strike you, as someone in closer proximity to the tragedy, as unforgivably egocentric.

So there's that. None of which will come across to you, Mr. Rhodes, as anything other than "gobble gobble" static. Naturally.

can look an awful lot like hypocrisy in a certain light.

Right. Because "emancipated" was used purely in good clean fun. To say nothing of the fact that, given that my wave post was my column, I'd been through a couple different drafts even before the "tsunami that apparently changed our vernacular understanding of waves" hit.

As for your second point, you took an analogy that's taken, if I may say, to an outrageous extreme. Commenting on a movie about a burning skyscraper is pretty darned specific, dontcha' think? Whereas my post was about waves in general, and waves you encounter pretty much anytime you enter the freakin' ocean specifically. You can take whatever excerpt you want from that post and say "see, SEE how insensitive you are!" even though, when plugged into the post as a whole, it's pretty fucking obvious what I was talking about. Now, if I had written something like "And, sometimes, the little tiny waves that I bodyboard, following an earthquake of 8.5 magnitude, can become 40 foot monsters that can wash away entire shorelines and leave over 100,000 people dead in mangled heaps of unidentifiable flesh," well, then you'd maybe have a point. As it is, you don't.

That was me, if that wasn't already obvious.

Gobble gobble gobble gobble.

I'm almost sorry I armed you with that dismissive literary device, you jackass.

Have you seen "The Incredibles" by the way? It really is a good movie.

Hey Ryan, your attempts to ridicule my point of view by using such substanseless, patronising put-downs as "Oh, look, I attracted a Speckle-Breasted Simon to my blog. It's so cute! Hey, look everyone, it commented!" are merely a symptom of your immaturity. But then, I've been following your blog for quite a while now, and I can't honestly say that I expect any different. It can be amusing when you're posting photographs of your anus or composing ballads on the fine art of masturbation, but when you step outside your circle of expertise you tend to stuff up. And guess what? This is one of those occasions. If you don't like people pointing out to you when you've stuffed up, then take the 'comments' links off your page. And if you're going to ridicule them, use facts and not name-calling. Most of us stopped using that tactic shortly after the onset of puberty.

You re-quoted my quote back at me, so allow me to do the same back at you. Once again for those in the cheap seats (thanks Joshua!)
"For those of you not familiar with waves, let me explain: waves are large walls of rolling water created by either one or several gods. These gods create waves for the express purpose of showing off."
How is that not tasteless? C'mon Ryan, explain to me how you can justify such an error of judgement by attacking the person who's criticising you?
Now if I have made an error it is in assuming that news coverage in the US has been as widespread as it has been here in Australia. A fair assumption, as the first 24 hours of coverage I saw was provided by CNN, not by the local networks. CNN being a fairly universal news distribution service, you must have had at least 24 hours knowledge of the event before making this post. So tell me now, Ryan, that you fail to see how someone could consider this tasteless. Hmm? How can it be wrong of someone to point out the crass insensitivity of a blog entry where you talk about being injured by large waves washing you against the shore, when an estimated 150,000 people died the same way only 48 hours before?

Also, this . . .

"The particularly amusing thing, to me, is the fact that the bodyboarding post that's causing you so much PC-related ire also ran as a column in two local newspapers last week."

It's a feeble defense ('but they did it too!' - something else from childhood) but I'll address it anyway. First, judging by the context of this paragraph and those other times you've used the term against me, anybody who cares about someone else has to be PC, and that's a bad thing. How exactly? Yes, I'm PC. I don't discriminate, pre-judge or use offensive terms against those from different backgrounds. I also don't patronise people. Not even the really, really stupid. But hey, it's not something I try to be, it's just the way I was brought up. So that makes me PC, you say? Glad to be one then. That, by definition makes me a better person than you. So surely it's not a very effective insult?
Secondly your point in this paragraph seems to be a boast on the parochial nature of your local media. I'm surprised they had room to run the piece, what with the crop harvesting schedules and this years village bake sale and charity witch-burning.

Anyway, as Joshua said above, it was a pretty innocuous piece. The timing however was wrong for it and your defence of it was hypocritical. Would Rhodes Media have broadcast 'The Pope Must Die' two days after the death of the Pope? I would think not, but with you we can never be sure.

But you know what? You're not going to take any of this on board. You'll just seek to belittle me again by using infantile insults and then come away from it feeling you've won something. Well, good for you. Whatever makes you happy.

Most of us stopped using that tactic shortly after the onset of puberty.

*whistling innocently as I journey back to Joshua's blog to find:*

Go back to writing about your cock and balls, it's what you do best.

Ooh, and:

And Ryan, your burns are much bigger - you should use some vaseline next time.

Oh, but you're above that sort of thing. Since puberty, even.

I don't discriminate, pre-judge or use offensive terms against those from different backgrounds.

Really?

I'm surprised they had room to run the piece, what with the crop harvesting schedules and this years village bake sale and charity witch-burning.

How very un-PC of you. There hope for you yet.

"Go back to writing about your cock and balls, it's what you do best."

Simple statement of fact. Your posts regarding these items, amongst others, have in the past entertained me greatly. Unlike your posts on politics (and music!). Therefore the statement stands.

This one though? I can't let it pass. Much as I would like to, I can't.

"I don't discriminate, pre-judge or use offensive terms against those from different backgrounds.

Really?

I'm surprised they had room to run the piece, what with the crop harvesting schedules and this years village bake sale and charity witch-burning.

How very un-PC of you. There hope for you yet."

OK, so how to say this in such a way as it can't be misunderstood (again!) by someone who supposedly earns "several thousand dollars a year" from their ability to write professionally. It's a mechanism used by many writers, Ryan, called 'satire' - a mechanism by which I sought to illustrate the point, indeed the very nub of the gist, namely the parochial nature of your media, extrapolating said references from your own statement on the subject. This cannot therefore be described as a discriminatory or prejudicial statement, no matter how much you might like it to, and thus negates your intent of making me appear un-PC.

Well, that's it for now. 3.30am here, I'm tired and quite frankly bored with this now.

The comment about your burns, though? Totally guilty. G'night!

I don't discriminate... Really?...charity witch-burning.

Ouch. Saw that one coming.

E-rhetorical-fu for beginners: avoid, whenever possible, making unqualified statements about your own conduct, especially your conduct during an argument. So, for example, I'm generally a pretty pro-feminist kind of guy. But I'd be careful about saying, "I don't make degrading or derogatory comments about women," because the internet never forgets and I can pretty much guarantee you that at one point or another during my long history of arguing with people I've called someone a "cunt" or a "gaping twat" or some such. All it takes is a little googling and bang-o, my opponent scores a hit.

Of course, scoring hits isn't the same thing as being right. For my part I think Simon's point about that "For those of you not familiar… showing off," thing is basically valid. Even if you were being more clueless than tasteless, that one line calls for, at a minimum, a, "Yeah, oops, my bad."

Also, he's right bout the Speckle-Breasted Simon thing; lame dodge, yo. And calling someone PC is kind of like calling anyone who voted for Bush a fascist; cheap oversimplification.

Not that I'm above the occasional lame dodge or cheap oversimplification. But I try to be cool enough about it to cop to it when I'm caught red-handed, as't'were.

Oop. Cross-post.

I don't know if the Speckle-Breasted Simon thing could be construed as a dodge. It was more of a belittling segue into the comment itself, which, although I stand by the humor of it, I do agree that it wasn't necessary, and I apologize.

Simon? You were right, it should be "That's".
But aren't any of you guys getting laid? Everyone is so touchy.........

For myself, I've had a cold for about two weeks. It's making me pretty cranky.

Yeah Donna, I've been averaging 18 hours a day in front of a PC for the last several months (Christmas day included), so I'm probably a bit cranky too. Apologies, Ryan, for getting cranky with you. I need some sunshine on my skin, and I need to start my own blog. You guys just have way too much fun with this stuff.

We all need a vacation in Hawaii.
With a strap on dildo.
LOL
It's just the post holiday let down that has us all acting silly.