The discussion below has moved to the forum. See homepage.

Through a private email IS has forwarded a brief discussion with sociologist Howard Becker, one of the pillars of 20th century sociological thought (home.earthlink.net/~hsbecker)(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_S._Becker) . I make it a policy not to argue with living legends. IS was seeking from Becker a resolution to a discussion here about the validity of observations. Becker is a particularly good source on the subject, since observation is a methodology he raised to a science. The question IS raises is the epistemological concept of "special knowledge" which means that some people, by virtue of their training can understand things the uninitiated don't. People readily accept that brain surgeons and physicists have special knowledge but some sociologists deny the possibility of "special knowledge" even to physicists. People who claim special knowledge are usually "priests" like doctors and lawyers and even physicists, who use occult and ritual words and processes to complicate things that should be simple and accessible to everyone. On the other hand, I agree that when a person takes on a systematic study of something, they are likely to have a deeper understanding than someone who hasn't. Becker is famous for being a pragmatic sociologist, espousing the use of sociological methodologies and insisting on the use of clear, simple language. In his work he spans both sides of the discussion, agreeing that there are special ways of seeing but essentially denying that they are available only to "priests." In his discussion, he declined to offer an opinion because he is busy; Becker at 80 is still a globetrotter. I will concede the point to IS on this, but still encourage her to broaden her methodologies. Again, the venerable Berger and Luckmann work on social reality is a good place to start. I'll keep in mind that IS might bring more sociological heavies to the site, and watch my citations!

I'm sorry I can't give proper credit to the comedian who originally said this, I can't remember her name, but she said "Dick Cheney shot someone in the face, and nothing happened to him. Bill Clinton shot someone in the face and almost got impeached." To me, that highlights the upside down values of Americans. I'd love to see Cheney in prison, preferably along side Bush. They would be held indefinately, without charges ever being filed, without benefit of attorney, if there were really any justice in this world. But there ain't so I'm sure he'll get through this just fine.

The following deserves some attention. McALLEN, Texas â?? Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have been indicted on state charges involving federal prisons in a South Texas county that has been a source of bizarre legal and political battles under the outgoing prosecutor. Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees because of his link to the prison companies.

Aha! Now I know your true identity! You're Nancy Reagan, aren't you! I hope your hip is feeling better. Some of my fondest memories were doing things I don't want my kids doing. I think your turn around of "don't do what I do, do what I say" into "don't do what you don't want your kids doing" is pretty silly! They are going to do things I don't want them to that I can't even imagine, like become attorneys or vote republican. You can't keep kids from doing stupd things. Every choice you make rules out other choices, it's the nature of choosing. Finally, you miss the whole point of not being straight if you think you should use good judgement while stoned. We don't use intoxicants to make good decisions, we use them to escape good decisions. Irie Ights!