Monday, September 25, 2017

Monday roundup

Hello, friends. Let's start by wishing for the man who averted nuclear war that he rest in peace. And let's talk about averting nuclear war now [wonkiness warning].

On small nuclear weapons. And the zen of nuclear.
In a much longer paper, Ford's 90-page, footnote-heavy 2010 dissertation for the chaplaincy program, he examines "undertaking public policy choice through the prism of Buddhist engagement." In the paper, Ford argues in part that despite its reputation, "engaged Buddhism" is not strictly pacifist and, in some contexts, the use of force is appropriate."Sometimes 'not taking sides' is to take a side: the side of the status quo. Engaged Buddhists clearly understand this point in the context of other social justice issues, but many of them remain curiously resistant to admitting it in the arena of organized violence," he writes. "Nor is it the case that we always have an entirely nonviolent option when confronted even by the difficult choices presented by everyday life."
Refugees are good for the economy. The travel ban is not. Denying entry into the country to reasonable people is anti-life.

Aung San Suu Kyi is hardly the first opposition leader to struggle with transitioning a country to democracy, and she's not in full control of her government.

We hear a lot about how nuclear power plants may fare in a natural disaster, but not about coal ash.

Competing with coal ash for environmental menace is, the hog industry. Also, read about how the dairy industry kills its own.

Men who think that diversity has gone too far

This is a good thread on safety and free speech.

We would do well to listen to women.

Eastern Europeans don't f* around with meaning. That's one area where I certainly mirror my mother. I've written on these pages about askers and guessers, which Deborah Tannen describes in different words here:
The very first paper I published was about the confusion caused when one speaker means words literally and the other thinks they are hinting at something else. And indirectness is a key example I use in cautioning that what is sometimes attributed to psychological, even pathological, motives may simply be differing linguistic styles. Those who expect requests to be expressed directly, for example, may perceive someone being vague as being manipulative, or even passive-aggressive.
What Carolyn says here applies to so many things.

It’s natural to turn your sadness and anger onto a nearby target, but it’s not the way you’re going to feel better. On the contrary, it’s a way of rewarding those feelings with a sense of superiority, which of course will ultimately feel false to you because you’re just tearing somebody down.

Though this sounds contradictory, also look your inner finger-pointer in the eye and say, “No. I won’t do that. I’m better than that.” Love is  your most profound ally — against injustice, anger, illness, unfairness or just giving in to the feelings of envy and resentment we’re all susceptible to.

I use Russian characters because I speak Russian; don't try it at home.

I'm not married but this so, so resonates:
Like the women I knew who cheated, many of the interviewees said they liked their husbands well enough. They had property together. They had friendships together. They had children that they were working together to raise. But at the same time, they found married life incredibly dull and constraining and resented the fact that as women, they felt they consistently did a disproportionate amount of the invisible labor that went into maintaining their lifestyle. One woman in Walker’s book told her, “The inequality of it all is such an annoying factor that I am usually in a bad mood when my spouse is in my presence,” and another said that while her husband was a competent adult in the world, at home he felt like “another child to clean up after.”
These gas station signs; this text book illustration; these kittens and otter; and these tweets:

No comments: