Back in Louisiana …

[Pilgrim]

Well said, Uwe.  It's true that there is an alarming tendency to demonize those with whom we disagree.  It is important to remember that those with whom we disagree are people  with lives and emotions.  Somehow we observe what's happening in the world and reach very different conclusions about what those events mean.

This sentence sounds familiar, given the rise of the right wing in the US: "And yesterday, Alternative für Deutschland, a populist party mostly against things (and very little agreement on what they want in the alternative) + disturbingly unconcerned about flirting with the darkest aspects of Germany's past, won a so far unheard of 18% of the state election vote in Hesse where I live."  That sounds similar to things I observe happening in the US.

I and others here are old enough to look back on the events of the 60's and 70's, and then listen to reports of control oriented teachers, principals and school boards and ask "Hey, didn't we already work through that in the 60's?" But if it's not control squabbles over hair length or reading the wrong book, it's re-writing the curriculum to hide the events of the past or forbid people from discussing anything but binary genders.

It seems the urge to control others never goes away, it just hides for a while until it finds a few friends, then re-emerges as a small movement that goes to the school board or the library with the goal of forbidding others from doing things that group doesn't like. At present, Texas and Florida are giving us plenty of examples.

Both sides use these movements, but I'm a lot more alarmed by those who want to control reading and behaviors than I am about those who want to expand options and recognize "non-traditional" aspects of society.

[patman]

The thing about polar opposites is that...

The truth is always in the middle somewhere. Not on the polar fringes.  If you find yourself on the fringes, you're ideas are probably wrong.

I think the Buddha called it the middle path (or something like that)...

My opinion. I could be wrong.

[westen44]

The thing about polar opposites is that...

The truth is always in the middle somewhere. Not on the polar fringes.  If you find yourself on the fringes, you're ideas are probably wrong.

I think the Buddha called it the middle path (or something like that)...

My opinion. I could be wrong.

I agree with the importance of moderation.  In the U.S. at least, it is almost unknown.  Instead, we have polarization in which the two extremes have gone berserk.  It reminds me of the 1850s preceding the Civil War.  Although in that case at least the North was right about slavery being wrong.  But both sides were hellbent on confrontation.  It was actually much like things today.  Each side's mantra is "I'm right, you're wrong; the hell with you."  I'm glad the Founding Fathers agreed on compromise.  Otherwise, we would have never ended up with a country in the first place. 

[uwe]

"I and others here are old enough to look back on the events of the 60's and 70's, and then listen to reports of control oriented teachers, principals and school boards and ask "Hey, didn't we already work through that in the 60's?" But if it's not control squabbles over hair length or reading the wrong book, it's re-writing the curriculum to hide the events of the past or forbid people from discussing anything but binary genders."

Yup, I understand, it's like the Catholic Church persecuting teachings about the Earth turning around the sun and not vice versa. I always ask myself how shaky or indefensible your own set of beliefs and rules must be that you fear anything that questions them? Children at school should be confronted with a diversity of views and philosophies: look around you, watch, learn, understand, digest, make up your own mind. We don't need more people raised in silos cordoned off from each other, we need less. Willful ignorance is not an educational concept. And history teaches us that it never works in the long run in any case.

Since the gender stuff seems too rile everyone:

I'm no gender studies specialist, but our knowledge of the statistical spread between a "complete woman" and a "complete man" is today more in depth and sophisticated than is was 50 years ago. Not that there weren't always people who were somewhat and somewhere in between - if you were born in the 50ies or 60ies as an infant with less than clear primary and secondary sex organs (it happens), they would simply operate you into a woman because it was surgical easier than the other way around and in your then assumed best interest - you weren't asked (nor told in the aftermath) and more often than not your parents weren't really either on an informed basis. Maybe, just maybe there is an alternative to that.

And I'm not ruling out that gender fluidity might be a passing trend and overplayed currently; if that is the case then like any mistaken biological or psychological theory it will be invalidated over time. We didn't need to forbid teaching that mice evolved from wet straw (--> spontaneous generation) or that there is a "serial killer chromosome" (there can be a genetic disposition towards violence and lack of emotional control, but thankfully the vast majority of people who have that do not turn into serial murderers), we just eventually realized that these things didn't exist and dropped them from any sane curriculum.

Things always play out in the long run. In the meantime, you can take an inquisitive look at them and discuss. It's one thing that differentiates us from animals.

[uwe]

When did compromise and moderation become four letter words? They're achievements of a modern, inclusive society. Banish them and it gaetz you right back into the Neanderthal cave clubbing your fellow man to death because he doesn't smell like your own tribe.

[Dave W]

Okay, guys, I've gotten a couple of emails and a PM unhappy with the political posts in this thread. Let's get back to the Louisiana situation and leave the rest out. Thanks.

[uwe]

It was an excess of abandoned
immorality there, the vulgar face
of Beelzebub himself.

[westen44]

Let's work together!!!

[uwe]

Or stick!



Guest appearance of the girl from Gonzales, Texas, Mick Jagger didn't really marry, supposedly! I still preferred him to her next husband.

[westen44]

There is also a Status Quo version. 



This Bryan Ferry version might be considered too lascivious for some school boards, though.  It should be viewed with caution. 

[uwe]

Even as a Quo fan I have to say that the Quo version is pretty anodyne and awful. It's from an album of covers they try to disown these days - rightfully so. Blame it on the record company, yeah right, lazy bums just didn't feel like writing themselves!

Canned Heat did it best, but Ferry's version has some merit due to his lounge lizard shtick. Though I never thought that the card-carrying Conservative-voting son of a Northern England coal mine employee/farmer (that Bryan was) transported the solidarity message of the song in an especially credible manner. I forever thought that he was singing to/imploring some bird wishing to dump him to give him another chance!  But to be fair, Ferry loves Americana and is also a passionate Dylan fan.

[Dave W]

Let's not forget the original.

?

And the earlier original of the original.

[uwe]

How could we, Dave, you played
it on your gramophone all day in
the Great Depression!



"Mom, I have the new
Harrison shellac!"

[Dave W]

I do have a few shellac 78s.

[uwe]

Yes, you kept them, Dust Bowl Dixieland and such.