There is missing element in the Lia Thomas post today regarding trans sport competition. While true that both trans and cis participation in sport should enjoy the "excitement of competition", it fails to include the element of sport of "playing to win," which requires a level playing field.
For 36 years I trained college swimmers in a coed experience including men and women together doing the same workouts sharing the same pool lanes which gave both sexes exciting sport experiences. Periodically, I would have male and female teammates of similar speed race each other in dual meets yielding the exciting sports experience of recording personal bests most every time. However, were those male swimmers to have swum and placed in the women's championship meets, it would have violated the "level playing field" concept that enables the females to "play to win."
What Lia's performance in NCAA competition provides is an objective male to female time comparison (4:18+ to 4:33+ in the 500 free) as well as the placing (non-NCAA 1 qualifier to NCAA 1 champ) which demonstrates how unequal the playing field becomes when transgender females compete.
I do agree with your piece about Willie Wilson's gas giveaways. Unfortunately, traffic reporters have had to report on the mess created by the CTA foulup in Lakeview this morning. No one knew this would happen.
I do object to your suggestion for Wilson to give away $50 prepaid credit cards in 'the most disadvantaged neighborhoods.' That amounts to a sort of redlining by generalization. There are any number of people in neighborhoods not 'the most disadvantaged' who are more in need of that sort of giveaway than many people the 'most disadvantaged neighborhoods.'
I just remembered: years ago I created the term "fallacy of distribution" for this kind of mistake. Here, a statement is made, with supporting data, to say that this or that neighborhood is among 'the most disadvantaged.' The fallacy of distribution is to assume that this disadvantaged description applies to every individual person in that neighborhood. Similarly for neighborhoods not among the most disadvantaged.
I don't understand the heartburn over Willie Wilson. He can give away his many in any way he pleases. I am sure that any philanthropist can be criticized for any number of alternate causes or uses. I don't think this one is particularly useful, but I can also think of many more disruptive demonstrations and events in the city. These giveaways, and their attendant disruptions, hardly seem very important, and claims of damage to the community seem substantially overblown. Had he labeled it a demonstration against high gas prices caused by greedy oil companies, I doubt that he would have gotten the same reaction, and certainly no one calling for such events to be outlawed.
So basically, we have Kim Foxx on point to address corruption in Cook County and then the Feds. And in Sangamon County (Springfield) it is Dan Wright. Both supported by their local sheriff departments. A good explanation for why we have no local anti-corruption prosecutions, but hardly an excuse or something to be happy about.
I hate these obnoxious leaps in logic. Idling cars and asthma.
"Folks on the South and West sides have higher asthma rates than those on the North Side. Having hundreds of cars idling near homes and schools is not good, and it will later hurt those Dr. Wilson wants to help." It's like the people saying that Chicago doesn't need casinos for rich people to go to - when they give it to the people struggling day to day. Whether Chicago 'needs' a casino or not - it's coming. To assume that without the casino those who go there would give the money to struggling families is a similar stretch in logic. None the less, whether it was generosity, publicity stunt or some crazy rich guy - I 'assume" - and hope - that those who benefitted directly by this aren't concerned about the greater effects it had or not, but individually, someone, somewhere really needed that gas card fill up to make it one more week and lessened a burden in their sole life.
As much as I understand “cancel culture” it seems to me that it is really about speech-control and the implementation of subtle speech codes that are at least in some cases unlawful. People hate them as they grind against a common sense of freedom. What are the big threats?
When I saw the NYT opinion comments it made me wonder if they were beginning to see the light, or trying to posture as objective, or if they were checking the direction of the wind? I would like to believe that they are beginning to see the existence of the problem. Only time will tell. I agree completely with Eric's points. And I found the NYT opinion piece rather lame, tepid, and obviously fearful of progressive backlash. From a business standpoint, I think that they are trying to make themselves 'the' national newspaper and perhaps see the need to appear more objective and centrist in order to grow their subscriber base.
I always enjoy the tune section of the PS. The description of this week's song as 'anti-war' brought back a lot of memories. Once, the term 'anti-war' meant the perfectly rational desire to prevent or see the end of the carnage and destruction of war. But in the late 60's 'anti-war' came to mean opposition to the military and military suppliers generally, and the emergence of the concept that war was always wrong. I clearly recall tee shirts that said, 'Nothing is Worth Dying For', and the popular notion that every conflict was based on either a failure to communicate, or an obsession with nationhood (or religion or economics). War was only fought to serve the interests of elites. Surrender and submission were preferable to conflict. In the song, I think 'looking for the right' meant having to fight until 'right' and 'peace' could go together. Surely every Ukrainian wants peace, but the majority also know the importance of the fight.
I prefer non-fiction. I own 3 fiction books, all based in reality. However, I've been amazed at the ability of Amitav Ghosh to teach history in his fiction books; I eagerly read the Ibis Trilogy.
There is missing element in the Lia Thomas post today regarding trans sport competition. While true that both trans and cis participation in sport should enjoy the "excitement of competition", it fails to include the element of sport of "playing to win," which requires a level playing field.
For 36 years I trained college swimmers in a coed experience including men and women together doing the same workouts sharing the same pool lanes which gave both sexes exciting sport experiences. Periodically, I would have male and female teammates of similar speed race each other in dual meets yielding the exciting sports experience of recording personal bests most every time. However, were those male swimmers to have swum and placed in the women's championship meets, it would have violated the "level playing field" concept that enables the females to "play to win."
What Lia's performance in NCAA competition provides is an objective male to female time comparison (4:18+ to 4:33+ in the 500 free) as well as the placing (non-NCAA 1 qualifier to NCAA 1 champ) which demonstrates how unequal the playing field becomes when transgender females compete.
I do agree with your piece about Willie Wilson's gas giveaways. Unfortunately, traffic reporters have had to report on the mess created by the CTA foulup in Lakeview this morning. No one knew this would happen.
I do object to your suggestion for Wilson to give away $50 prepaid credit cards in 'the most disadvantaged neighborhoods.' That amounts to a sort of redlining by generalization. There are any number of people in neighborhoods not 'the most disadvantaged' who are more in need of that sort of giveaway than many people the 'most disadvantaged neighborhoods.'
I just remembered: years ago I created the term "fallacy of distribution" for this kind of mistake. Here, a statement is made, with supporting data, to say that this or that neighborhood is among 'the most disadvantaged.' The fallacy of distribution is to assume that this disadvantaged description applies to every individual person in that neighborhood. Similarly for neighborhoods not among the most disadvantaged.
I don't understand the heartburn over Willie Wilson. He can give away his many in any way he pleases. I am sure that any philanthropist can be criticized for any number of alternate causes or uses. I don't think this one is particularly useful, but I can also think of many more disruptive demonstrations and events in the city. These giveaways, and their attendant disruptions, hardly seem very important, and claims of damage to the community seem substantially overblown. Had he labeled it a demonstration against high gas prices caused by greedy oil companies, I doubt that he would have gotten the same reaction, and certainly no one calling for such events to be outlawed.
So basically, we have Kim Foxx on point to address corruption in Cook County and then the Feds. And in Sangamon County (Springfield) it is Dan Wright. Both supported by their local sheriff departments. A good explanation for why we have no local anti-corruption prosecutions, but hardly an excuse or something to be happy about.
I hate these obnoxious leaps in logic. Idling cars and asthma.
"Folks on the South and West sides have higher asthma rates than those on the North Side. Having hundreds of cars idling near homes and schools is not good, and it will later hurt those Dr. Wilson wants to help." It's like the people saying that Chicago doesn't need casinos for rich people to go to - when they give it to the people struggling day to day. Whether Chicago 'needs' a casino or not - it's coming. To assume that without the casino those who go there would give the money to struggling families is a similar stretch in logic. None the less, whether it was generosity, publicity stunt or some crazy rich guy - I 'assume" - and hope - that those who benefitted directly by this aren't concerned about the greater effects it had or not, but individually, someone, somewhere really needed that gas card fill up to make it one more week and lessened a burden in their sole life.
As much as I understand “cancel culture” it seems to me that it is really about speech-control and the implementation of subtle speech codes that are at least in some cases unlawful. People hate them as they grind against a common sense of freedom. What are the big threats?
When I saw the NYT opinion comments it made me wonder if they were beginning to see the light, or trying to posture as objective, or if they were checking the direction of the wind? I would like to believe that they are beginning to see the existence of the problem. Only time will tell. I agree completely with Eric's points. And I found the NYT opinion piece rather lame, tepid, and obviously fearful of progressive backlash. From a business standpoint, I think that they are trying to make themselves 'the' national newspaper and perhaps see the need to appear more objective and centrist in order to grow their subscriber base.
I always enjoy the tune section of the PS. The description of this week's song as 'anti-war' brought back a lot of memories. Once, the term 'anti-war' meant the perfectly rational desire to prevent or see the end of the carnage and destruction of war. But in the late 60's 'anti-war' came to mean opposition to the military and military suppliers generally, and the emergence of the concept that war was always wrong. I clearly recall tee shirts that said, 'Nothing is Worth Dying For', and the popular notion that every conflict was based on either a failure to communicate, or an obsession with nationhood (or religion or economics). War was only fought to serve the interests of elites. Surrender and submission were preferable to conflict. In the song, I think 'looking for the right' meant having to fight until 'right' and 'peace' could go together. Surely every Ukrainian wants peace, but the majority also know the importance of the fight.
I prefer non-fiction. I own 3 fiction books, all based in reality. However, I've been amazed at the ability of Amitav Ghosh to teach history in his fiction books; I eagerly read the Ibis Trilogy.