Happy 4th Open Thread!


Bring me your thoughts, your links, your outrageous BBQ anecdotes yearning to be shared.

--

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Nice Try (#102575)
by M Scott Eiland

Taiwan rejects PRC Olympic Committee's proposed designation for their delegation.

They may not be ready to formally declare independence, but they're not going to put up with that sort of thing. Good for them.

*Scott raises a glass to the late, great C.K. Yang--whose epic 1960 Olympic decathlon duel with Rafer Johnson was arguably the highlight of the Rome Olympics.*

--

Speaking Spanish and other varieties of illegal alien (#102522)
by Bill White

Interesting choice of words

On the July 9 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a July 8 speech in which Sen. Barack Obama discussed the importance of learning a second language, G. Gordon Liddy claimed that Obama "wants you to be sure your child can speak fluent illegal alien." He added: "Sadly, with every legal and cultural step we take to make our life more immediately convenient for non-English-speaking illegal aliens, we merely feed the beast." Liddy later stated: " 'Round here, let's see, I speak some French, some German as well as English. Franklin [Liddy's producer] speaks fluent French, fluent Italian, as well as English. But none of us here, so far as I know, speak illegal alien."

Someone call Mitt Romney!

The ad, entitled “Mi Padre,” features Craig Romney’s fluency in Spanish. It shows some home video footage of the Romney family in addition to a few photos of the candidate from his time leading the Salt Lake Olympics.

Anyway, Obama's people should spread that Liddy clip far and wide, especially in the Spanish speaking areas of Arizona

--

. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .

NYT reporting on the downside to duping FARC (#102049)
by catchy

First it looks as if the Colombian operatives did pose as aid workers. NYT describes the intellgents agents as "disguised as aid workers, journalists and guerrillas".

Mr. Moncayo said his hopes for a negotiated release of his son and other captives had dimmed in recent days. “The humanitarian effort will be made harder because this operation generates distrust,” he said. “How are we going to ask international groups to collaborate with us and for the FARC to accept them when they have been fooled?”

4 days later, but at least it's part of the story.

What nobody seems to get about FARC and their ilk (#102050)
by BlaiseP

is this: they're essentially crooks. Somehow, when anyone stirs a little politics into their criminal enterprise, we're sposta take them seriously. The Sabbath Gasbags opine on them endlessly, Wise Heads over at a dozen think tanks pore over the entrails of some filthy little manifesto, it's all too stupid for words.

FARC began as one enraged farmer. Communism, as I've said a million times until I'm blue in the face, only arises where people can't own the land they farm. Mao Zedong: every landless peasant is already a Communist. FARC was corrupted by drugs money, then went to extortion and kidnapping with a vengeance, as many another similar movement has been corrupted. It's interesting to notice Chávez over in Venezuela, who was once sympathetic to the FARC, say FARC should release all their hostages and enter into genuine political debate. Chávez also notes FARC is the perfect excuse for the USA, who he calls The Empire, to intervene, and God knoweth well Huge Chávez has no love for the USA.

If you can't even get Hugo Chávez to back you in your struggle against repressive regimes, that's a dire indictment. Sendero Luminoso is another such group, and they do have his support, but not the FARC. There's no hypocrisy here: Chávez views himself as the next Simón Bolívar, crusading against rancid empire.

You really have to see FARC through the eyes of the truly repressed in South America. It's essentially a feudal society, benefiting a handful of people at the expense of a whole society of wretched peasants. It's hardly surprising such brutal insurgencies would arise, but it is surprising to see FARC still treated as anything other than what it truly is, a vicious gang of illiterate goons who become entrapped in this vile movement which won't even tolerate anyone leaving it. Like any other gang, there's a price to leaving, and it's usually your life.

Here's Where. . . (#102025)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .criticism of A-Rod might be completely justified. Given how much money he already had by the turn of the century, if he didn't get an airtight prenup, he's a serious doofus.*

*--note to Catchy and Tomsyl: I'm invoking the mutually agreed upon Athlete/Sportswriter exemption for this comment.

--

You said "if", so you didn't even need the exemption. (#102033)
by tomsyl

but catchy is watching you like a hawk while I dog Harley's tracks.

Wonder if NY is a community ppt state? We are, and lots of prenupts get broken that way; the courts are just looking for excuses.

--

Rust never sleeps.

I put in my work up front (#102042)
by catchy

making sure you were on board so I could sluff off.

Keep up the good work tomsyl.

I Know For a Fact Courts Are Looking for Excuses to Break Prenup (#102034)
by Traveller

...I often wonder if they do more harm than good....a prenup will almost always guarantee a trial...which no one wants.

Just to test the damned thing.

I've litigated a half dozen pre-nups but never one of my own...probably because I don't recommend them, (though I do write them).

Keep separate separate, give her one half of the net of marriage accumulations.

So what?

Be generous.

But very few people can accomplish this...lol

Traveller

Prenups Are Guaranteed To Annoy Judges. . . (#102055)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .for two obvious reasons:

--they represent an exception to black letter law, and;

--they purport to be able to tell judges what to do: most judges have rather healthy egos and tend to resent that.

That being said, if A-Rod couldn't find an attorney who could write an airtight* prenup under applicable law--and who would make sure that the future Mrs. A-Rod had counsel for the process, so she couldn't raise inadequate assistance of counsel issues--he is most definitely a doofus.

*--and, given that he is a pro athlete, a prenup that provides for nullification of the prenup in the event of adultery does not count as "airtight."

--

Used to be great friends with an attorney who handed prenups (#102044)
by BlaiseP

He implied they were basically worthless. The only useful thing in a prenup is the name and phone number of the attorney who drafted it: he'll pop up again as soon as the marriage fails.

He said he hated handling divorces: people get so petty and stupid, as if by haggling and being cruel they will somehow inflict more grief on their once-beloved. The only people who gain in such things are the lawyers. Of course, not two years after he gave me this sage advice he was divorced himself and his wife took him to the cleaners.

As the old song says, "It's cheaper to keep her"

Yup (#102052)
by HankP

I've had several friends who decided to end their marriage, and they all told me the same thing - they and their wives had amicably settled on a reasonable way to handle children, assets, etc., and as soon as they met with lawyers the attorneys were pushing them to get more.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

I have witnessed dozens of divorces, (#102076)
by Kierkegaard

many close-up, and I've known of very few I would term in any way amicable. However, as you say, the few that began so swiftly changed their tones in the hands of lawyers. But even without lawyers the law allows an almost unlimited degree of nuisance filings. One of my brothers-in-law, a bright and talented physicist, became hopelessly schizophrenic and until his suicide filed custody suits and other nonsensical motions from 'legal kits' in several states for years, even though he was homeless and had never paid a penny in child support. These cost many thousands to contest.

But few divorces rival the 'Bleak House' history of my parents-in-law's divorce, which involved the subpoenaing and forced testimony of all seven children, the importation of famous New York lawyers, the loss of millions by both parties in legal fees and IRS audits, and which stretched on for most of their subsequent lives; 25 years later my mother-in-law was still suing and counter-suing for revisions to the settlement.

My father-in-law, chastened by this experience, caused his second wife (the woman who caused his divorce) to sign a pre-nup. When he developed Alzheimer's a few years ago, she downloaded legal papers granting her power of attorney from the Internet which she forced him to sign, embezzled his entire estate, and dumped him, covered in infected bruises, into a Medicare nursing home. The cost of his care by his children until his recent death has revived the family tradition of lawsuits. So far, my step-mother-in-law has won them all. In his legal effects was found a petition for divorce that he had had a local lawyer draw up only a month before his being put in the nursing home but had never given the green-light for filing...

My 'favorite' divorce story involved some of my neighbors in the '70s. He was a middle-aged doctor, she a beautiful amateur painter and mother of his three sons. They were a local legend for their attractiveness as a family, their 'classiness' and lovely home, their great parties. Just before my own marriage I had noticed an exotic, aristocratic young Polish woman shopping with her small daughter in the health food store I was then working at. We became friendly, and I even considered asking her out. Before I could, however, she disappeared--the doctor had a heart attack, and both she and his real wife appeared at his hospital bedside (together) claiming to be his wife...

Understandably, when I witness celebrity divorces on TV, whatever the gory details, I tend to have a feeling of deja vu.

Behind every nasty lawyer is a client willing to turn nasty. (#102089)
by tomsyl

I wouldn't touch divorce work with a ten-foot pole - I already see too much of the bad side of people when friends pick the lock to my liquor cabinet. IIRC, divorce lawyers have the highest rate of suicide in the profession, not to mention getting croaked now and then by an angry ex-spouse on the other side of a sour case.

Here's what I've seen happen with friends and relatives involved in divorces: A couple has been married long enough to recognize that they are completely incompatible. Marriage is an intensely private relationship, and one spouse rarely admits that it's his or her fault when it falls apart; no one wants to admit to a failure of that magnitude. But it's human nature to keep those differences out of the public eye, and to treat someone you've been married to with decency as you part ways.

Then one side gets lawyered up, and is typically told that (1) they are not getting as much as they can in terms of material assets, child support, whatever, (2) they should go to court so a judge can make sure they are treated fairly, and (3) that judge will treat them "more fairly" if he/she is convinced that the other spouse is a scumbag.

All of a sudden, all of the bitterness, bile, resentment, slights real or imagined, and so forth have a monetary value (itself usually imagined). The intensely private barrier of the wedding bed falls ("sorry, honey, but my lawyer told me to do this"), and suddenly a declaration is filed detailing his infatuation with the Playboy Channel and frequent requests for her to dress as an underage French maid. His response is predictably "WTF?! She said that about me? Well, let's point out her excessive infatuation with our Olberman Pinscher; did I tell you she recently had its nails clipped?"

Now a he said/she said laid out in writing before any snoop who wants to search court records (it's unusual to close divorce files to the public), the fight escalates, all resolve to keep the matter private disappears, and many former couples are left with that feeling of "I thought we could still be friends after the divorce until I heard the lies he told about me in divorce court."

Of course, some lawyers make a good living doing this; the husband usually pays for both anyway, so may as well get the most bang for the client's buck, eh? Without meaning the slightest disrespect to Trav or others here who may do this work, some of the most unscrupulous lawyers I've met work in the divorce field. I've also seen more people lie in divorce courts and family squabbles over inheritances than any policeman or Federal agent that might take the witness stand elsewhere.

Where's the line between an amicable, fair parting of the ways in a civilized manner that each spouse can look back on without cringing, versus a knock down, drag out fight that each will loathe themselves for engaging in, and that taints heir otherwise "well, we had some good times, didn't we?" memories? And worse, creating spiritual baggage that each ex likely will carry with them into their next relationship? No one with any sense will let a lawyer decide that for them.

/rant

--

Rust never sleeps.

Doing This for a Living, All I Can Do is Sigh...a Few Pointers (#102093)
by Traveller

....from my almost 30 years of doing this and being a member of a number of Family Law Attorney Organizations....two good Family Lawyers will get it over quickly...and fairly inexpensively.

Usually.

But I have had such bitter fights that Bailiffs have threatened to arrest me an opposing counsel. So, I don't know.

I will say that Probate, which I'm doing a little of now, is worse than Family Law for mendacity and cheating.

1. Divorce is generally harder on a man than a woman. Just true, trust me on this, for all of our brave put on faces...men hurt, deeply.

2. Men are like dogs, women are like cats....when a woman is done, she's just done, there is no undoing it. A man? Sure, always, like a dog they'll go back.

3. Two households cannot live as cheaply as one.

4. Nothing, and I mean nothing is as important as your children. If you have to litigate it, you have to litigate it.

5. For all of its troubles, marriage is still the best way for people to live, be happy, get on with life.

6. That being said, when two people hate each other...it's tough to live together under the same roof.

Good luck out there,

Traveller (Now that you mention it, on suicide watch myself....lol)

Suicide. (#102103)
by Jordan

I've lost a few friends that way...not many, luckily. I've always thought of it as a terrible waste based on a misunderstanding.

If you believe in life after death, why not wait? The Heaviside Layer won't be going anywhere.

If you do NOT believe in life after death, again, what's the rush? There's no amount of misery and suffering in this life that won't be erased tout de suite by that first drink of cold, dark oblivion.

So hang around, soak up the experience good or bad. Experience is worth having, even the suffering kind. You might need it on the other side. If there is no other side, then it's all you've got. There are situations where giving up life might be the right thing to do, but the fact that life sucks isn't one of them. Either way, it's all over in a fraction of a gnat's wink, so why the damned hurry? And yes I realize it's easier to say as someone not horribly disfigured, family not slaughtered in war, not wracked by horrific guilt, no Jobean miseries. But it hasn't all been sunshine & roses either, and this philosophy still keeps me going. FWIW.

/sermon

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

well as someone who witnessed first-hand this year (#102105)
by catchy

the meltdown and loss of a close friend to suicide, and not for the first time, I would have to say there's suffering associated w. mental illness and then there's the normal run of bad experiences had by otherwise healthy people.

As much as the act viscerally revulses me, I honestly can't say that if I didn't have a balanced brain chemistry and wasn't given a reasonably happy childhood that I could cope w. as much suffering as people who suffer from chronic depression, etc.

Switching from mental to physical pain, as I look towards my end days, I can imagine a time in which I'd rather swallow a bottle of opiates than put up with a long + painful exit. Maybe I've just been softened up to the option lately, but lately when i've been around some of the end stages, I've wondered 'why all this struggling?'

Happy Tuesday!!

I'm probably mostly (#102109)
by Jordan

talking to someone who's far beyond my hearing now, saying something I wish I said years ago. Glad I got it off my chest.

Like I said, easy for me to preach, but there does seem to be a case of diminishing marginal returns when you compare momentary pain & suffering against eons of...whatever else there is.

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

oh I see (#102113)
by catchy

I'm not worried about the afterlife b/c there very probably is no such thing, and even if there is, the probability that it would be filled w. pain strikes me as very low. Afterall, I'll be leaving my nervous system behind.

Exactly. So giving it up early (#102116)
by Jordan

means forgoing the rest of, well, everything there is, far as we're concerned. Makes me want to go back in time and slap Seneca.

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

but perhaps there's no convincing someone, rationally, that (#102119)
by catchy

'everything there is' is valuable.

I remember a convo I had earlier in the year in which my friend said something like 'it's just life. it's not as if it's precious or anything.'

In some ways it's the quintessential pt. in favor of BG's defense of 'subjective' rationality against hobbesist's notion of an 'objective' rationality.

If BG, Hume + most economists are right there is simply no notion of rationally persuading someone re: what's valuable. There is no objective or subject-independent norms in this area.

Rationality only kicks in once you've already assigned subjective values for individual preferences. Then you can talk about ideal choice theories, conditionalizing procedures for maintaining consistency in light of new evidence, etc.

But all these rational procedures happen after you've made the initial subjective value assignments.

And really after having convos trying to persuade someone who was otherwise rational not to end things, i didn't get the sense that there was any rational argument in favor of valuing life for someone not antecedently inclined to value it. It's just a subjective choice re what to value...

My notion of 'objective' rationality. (#102530)
by hobbesist

Watzatnow?

But no, there's no ground for valuing living over the alternative; it's axiomatic (or it's not, as the case may be). But that's different from saying that it's subjective.

Relatedly: a Boston Globe article suggests, based on "several high profile scientific papers," depression may be best thought of as a kind of mild, reversible degenerative neurological disorder. That sounds pretty prima facie compelling to me.

--

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

Apologies if I'm misremembering (#102531)
by catchy

your discussion w. BG a couple of weeks ago.

I'm looking at the links, but there's a sort of standard objection to the notion of a 'disorder' that might involve exactly what's at issue here.

The only objective notion of a disorder seems to be some sort of systematic deviation from normal neurological functioning. But we don't count every such deviations as 'disorders', only the ones that lead to 'undesirable' behaviors.

E.g. taxi drivers on the job for several months typically reorganize their spatial reasoning + spatial perceptual processing and it's neurologically detectable as being a deviation from normals' neurological activity.

But no one would call such a condition a 'disorder' and it's not clear on what non-evaluative basis you'd differentiate their condition from depressed folk.

Well put. (#102538)
by Bernard Guerrero

The only objective notion of a disorder seems to be some sort of systematic deviation from normal neurological functioning. But we don't count every such deviations as 'disorders', only the ones that lead to 'undesirable' behaviors.

And generally socially undesirable, at that.

--

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
- H.L. Mencken

Disorders (#102533)
by hobbesist

Maybe there's no non-evaluative basis for differentiating the changes depressives vs. cabbies, but how much of a problem is that, really? Or are you some closet Foucauldian, catch? ;^D

I didn't bring up the article, though, to suggest that this solves the problem of giving some foundation for an argument that one shouldn't commit suicide, or anything like that. I just found it interesting when I came across it a few days ago, and thought it was (tangentially) relevant.

--

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

Traveller-- (#102100)
by Kierkegaard

I've noticed that for whatever reason, after a separation--much less a divorce--two can no longer live even as cheaply as two any more. They tend to live about as cheaply as three or four ;)

And I agree with you, marriage is the most natural of all human states--a happy marriage is a gift directly Fedexed from God.

Yeesh (#102098)
by HankP

listening to you guys could turn a guy's hair white.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

The Saxons had an interesting arrangement. (#102059)
by BlaiseP

If a man beat his wife, she was entitled to the children and half the property. She could return to her father's house and remarry. Sure cut down on domestic abuse. There were investigations for fraudulent claims on both sides, and a husband could theoretically get his wife and property back.

The Saxons paid their alimony up front: the prospective husband would give his would-be wife money up front. It was hers to dispose of in any way she wished.

All this changed when the Normans arrived. Where women and men were equal in Saxon culture, they were not in Norman culture and what followed.

Eh (#102027)
by HankP

first of all, no matter what the pre-nup, they have two kids together, so he won't beggar her because of the kids. Second, when is enough enough? It's not like the guy will have to cut back on the mansions, boats, private jets, etc.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Hey. . . (#102029)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .I'm not advocating leaving her broke--particularly since there's a pretty strong indication that he behaved badly--but she didn't marry him when he was young and penniless, either. It won't feel like a miscarriage of justice if she leaves the marriage with a few million bucks along with the probably very generous child support arrangments that will be made. "When is enough enough?" is a question that can be put to angry wives and their divorce lawyers, too.

--

Why stop there (#102053)
by HankP

that question appears to apply to a much bigger group than just people with troubled marriages. It's the flip side to people who hoard everything and never throw anything away.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

At Least A-Rod's Not Peter Cook With Christie Brinkley.... (#102031)
by Traveller

...on his back, biting nastily.

But then there are probably few husbands that have behaved as badly as Peter Cook.

Oh, and at 50+ Christie still looks fabulous...

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/ny-librin0708,0,3231...

Best Wishes,

Traveller

How To Stay Out of Trouble in Pamplona.... (#101971)
by Traveller

Here's a pretty good video from the BBC of the Running of the Bulls in Pamplona...one man has already died, but if you study this a little, there are strategies to be seen on how to stay out of trouble in such a situation.

Of course, the question may well be asked, "What in the world are you doing there in the first place?!?"....lol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7493155.stm

As another cultural artifact, from my 4th of July...I entered the image in the Challenge and people are getting a laugh, (aside from the photography, what does it mean and what will it mean in 20 years when everyone can take pictures of themselves or anything they might wish? How will this change us?)

http://www.pbase.com/cslr_challenge/image/99739340

Best Wishes,

Traveller

Here's my little contrybution to the Frolicks of the Fourth (#102001)
by BlaiseP

Under this link lies the result of much Heineken and the undue influence of a recent upgrade to my photo editing software.

Awesome shot, Trav. And the irony (#101977)
by Jordan

reminds me of Don Delillo. The Professor of Elvis Studies' speech about the "Most Photographed Barn in America." Nobody can see the barn anymore, if there ever was a barn. They're all lining up to photograph a postcard they've seen.

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

Thanks, But The REAL Lesson In All This Is....Don't Be Drunk.... (#101983)
by Traveller

...on City Walls in Pamplona.

Had I read the brief story more closely, been more attuned to what was being said, I would have noticed this:

[i]But one man died after falling from the city's walls on Sunday.[i]

You just assume that the death was caused by being trampled by huge running bulls....but no, apparently, you can be trampled and walk away...but walking on city walls, now that's dangerous!

(Of course, I'm assuming that whoever fell was drinking...which may or may not be true also.)

This seems like a good example of Anticipating the Cause Fallacy (I googled Fallacy and didn't find what I wanted...so I name my own...or maybe better yet, the human tendency to project and see what we expect to see....and this applies to everyting....lol).

Best Wishes, Traveller

Hm. Confirmation bias? (#101997)
by Jordan

Not that it matters to the poor guy now. :)

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

If I ever get killed by an (#101974)
by Brooks and B Ra...

If I ever get killed by an animal, I just hope it's not a panda. That would be really embarrassing.

I always thought a tombstone that said (#102078)
by wombaticus

Here lies Joe Smith
Born: Nov. 12, 1957
Eaten, Dec. 23, 2007

Would really stand out in the old boneyard.

--

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864

Never assume cute means harmless. (#101979)
by Jordan

(PS sorry about the ad before the ad. Kinda postmodern though. In an annoying, intrusive marketing nimrod kind of way.)

http://www.spike.com/video/star-wars-shoot/2996497

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

I haven't assumed that cute (#102000)
by Brooks and B Ra...

I haven't assumed that cute means harmless since my girlfriend kneed me in the cojones a couple of years ago (I deserved it).

One Of My Favorite Wildlife Stories. . . (#101978)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .is from an article I read in a book long ago dealing with wolverines. The author went into great detail about how vicious and clever wolverines are, and how they seem to delight in thwarting trappers and hunters (and wrecking their stuff, if the humans in question are foolish enough to leave it within range of the critter). The author then noted that the only animal he had ever seen prevail in a fight to the death against a wolverine was. . .a beaver. Apparently, the wolverine was stupid enough to ambush the beaver near a river, and the beaver was able to grapple effectively enough to get the wolverine into the water, where the beaver was in his element--he promptly sank his teeth into the back of the wolverine's neck and held him underwater until he drowned. Don't mess with a beaver on his home turf.

--

Don't mess with a beaver on (#101999)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Don't mess with a beaver on it's home turf, eh?

ok, I'll take that advice. No hitting on girls in Bloomingdales.

Cue one of my favorite immature guy-humor movie puns:


Posted without comment (#102005)
by HankP

--

I blame it all on the Internet

LOL. That's a keeper. Gotta (#102010)
by Brooks and B Ra...

LOL. That's a keeper. Gotta send that one to a few of my buddies.

Scott!! (#101939)
by Harley

I've been checking in with fivethirtyeight.com for a while now, a really great numbers crunching site re electoral votes, polls, etc.

Now, and I didn't know this, I find out that the site dude, Nate Silver, invented the PECOTA forecasting baseball stat.

Huzzah! Hard to think of a better recommendation. Check it out.

--

"How is the world ruled, and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read." -- Karl Kraus, 1909

Thanks For The Tip (#101945)
by M Scott Eiland

I'm headed out the door in a minute, but I'll check it out tonight.

--

Oops (#101857)
by M Scott Eiland

So much for the meme that "drill more now, please" is a predominantly conservative attitude.

Senator Obama--your thoughts on this?

--

Republican propoganda works (#101861)
by Spartacvs

but the focus is always on electioneering and not governance or a responsible policy. I'm confident Obama can break the cycle by appealing to voters on a different level.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

I think so too, actually. (#101923)
by Punditus Maximus

Certainly the last 4.3 trillion "waffle" diaries have shown the futility of attempting to engage on the issues. Slime and defend, slime and defend.

--

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

Ding-dong the witch is dead (#101838)
by Sulla

see ya-

The ’60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire

--

"I can no more disown him [Reverend Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community"- Senator Barack Obama, March 18, 2008

Ha (#101858)
by HankP

now if only you could get rid of the "deaaing with factual information" and "thinking logically" parts, you could capture the academy for conservatives for a generation or more!

--

I blame it all on the Internet

That assumes (#101862)
by Sulla

the academy already does those things.

--

"I can no more disown him [Reverend Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community"- Senator Barack Obama, March 18, 2008

Well (#101868)
by HankP

the courses I took, while going on 30 years ago, sure were. YMMV

--

I blame it all on the Internet

10 years ago (#101875)
by Sulla

my courses only required you to regurgitate what the professor wanted you to get out of the course in your own voice. But that was LSA, in fields with more objective course material logic and facts might be more necessary.

--

"I can no more disown him [Reverend Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community"- Senator Barack Obama, March 18, 2008

First of all (#101962)
by HankP

I don't know what LSA stands for, so if you could tell me that it would help.

My experiences were very different. In fact, I remember a history prof who appeared very liberal (pretty young, long hair, etc.) but who only told us his personal views on recent history in the last 10 minutes of the last class of the semester, after everyone in the class pressed him on it. As far as regurgitation, there was plenty of that in Cell Biology and some of the Chem courses, but of course you have to memorize a lot of stuff in those courses. As far as typical "Liberal Arts" classes, it was anything goes as long as you could make a logical argument to back up your position. For example, in a lit class I took you could interpret works however you wanted, as long as it made sense. In a comm class, you could challenge McLuhan's ideas as long as you thought it through and didn't have any glaring inconsistencies. I don't remember any ideological requirements or tests in any classes I took - this was 77 to 81.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (#102056)
by Sulla

My degrees were in history and political science and it's not that the courses were overtly ideological, it's just the key was to determine what facts and concepts you needed to drop in your essay to show you understood the professors point. It reminded me more of solving a puzzle rather than critical thinking.

--

"I can no more disown him [Reverend Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community"- Senator Barack Obama, March 18, 2008

Huh (#102058)
by HankP

I would have picked you for Business or Engineering. I guess my recollection is summed up by one professors comment that you need to understand the main school of thought in a field before you can criticize it, and if you're going to criticize the main theories in a field you have to either show where they break down or propose an idea that explains things better. That's a lot harder in the sciences than in the arts, so maybe I just wasn't exposed to it.

I'm no expert on comparisons between universities, I only went to one. Like I said, in the period when I went to school I don't remember any kind of ideological tests or requirements. The only class I took that really didn't allow much dissent was a Holocaust class taught by this guy, and he was no liberal.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Schools of thought were hinted at (#102069)
by Sulla

in a few courses, but nothing that we were really tested upon. You picked them up in the reading more than anywhere else and given that many of my peers didn't bother with the reading that may be why schools of thought weren't emphasized. So long as you took decent notes the lectures more or less spelled out for you how to answer the questions. I was pretty disappointed with the whole thing when I got there. I imagined vigorous debates over the most obscure details, but it turned out to be people biding their time while they did the bare minimum to add a line to their resume. Oh well, at least there's the internet now for obscure and vigorous debates.

--

"I can no more disown him [Reverend Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community"- Senator Barack Obama, March 18, 2008

I think it depended on the professor (#102071)
by HankP

I remember that in the history and philosophy classes I took, the profs really wanted people to mix it up, they'd throw out topics or ideas and pretty much force people to agree or disagree, attack or defend. But that was pretty rare, like I said in science classes there was so much you needed to absorb to be able to take the exams that there wasn't much discussion, just questions to clear up difficult concepts.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Actually, the funny part for me is... (#101996)
by Punditus Maximus

...the number of students I get who give me blank stares when I say, "I would have accepted three different answers to this problem, depending on the assumptions you chose to list." The idea that there isn't One Answer to any given problem is very hard for them. Part of the pleasure of teaching the courses I do is watching the intellectual toolkit obviously grow over the course of the semester.

--

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

Splitting The Difference (#101930)
by M Scott Eiland

I graduated from UCLA just over twenty years ago, and some courses more or less played it straight, and some courses were "regurgitate a paraphrased version of the professor's take to collect your A." I remember one political survey class where I intentionally wrote a sloppy rough draft of a paper for the TA to critique to get a strong sense of the TA's biases, then wrote the final draft to conform with them--and received a near-perfect score on it. Disturbing, but effective.

--

Yeah, it took me a long time to figure that out... (#101931)
by Punditus Maximus

...in undergrad. There was tremendous variation.

Of course, figuring out which folks in general are capable of handling dissent and which folks are looking for yes-men is something of a life skill.

--

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

A Case Study in Conservative Mendacity (#101683)
by Spartacvs
Federer - Nadal back after delay (#101654)
by brendanm98

If you're not watching, do yourself a favor and tune in for the conclusion of what has been an absolutely phenomenal match so far.

--

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

Good match (#101837)
by Sulla

but the rain delays reminded me how dreadful NBC sports is. Not so much the play by play announcers, but the sappy pseudointellectualism offered up by hosts like Bob Costas and his little clone Jimmy Roberts. Between Olympic events my remote is going to get a heavy workout.

--

"I can no more disown him [Reverend Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community"- Senator Barack Obama, March 18, 2008

Yep (#101655)
by M Scott Eiland

I have it on while I'm doing laundry. I was planning on going out to grab some chow. . .but I think I'll stay put for a while. :-)

--

OK, Then (#101676)
by M Scott Eiland

Unless Federer turns out to have a broken leg, Rafael Nadal's hard-won five set victory over Roger Federer makes him the greatest tennis player on this Earth, even if the rankings say otherwise for the time being.

--

Definitely the best tennis final I've ever seen, (#101681)
by Jordan

which is saying quite a bit. To see these two guys keep ratcheting up the pressure long after most pros would have cracked or given up, it was really something. I feel bad for Roger though -- he turns out to be human in spite of all appearances to the contrary.

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

I remember when I was just a kid in Australia... (#101787)
by Wagster

Being allowed to stay up with the adults up until 3AM or so to see the John Newcombe-Stan Smith final. Another 5-set nail biter, and the good guy (the Aussie, not the nasty Yank) won.

But you're right... this one was a classic. It's a great rivalry for tennis.

--

More Wagster!

Nasty Yank?? (#101834)
by Kierkegaard

My first Wimbledon--in England in '61 or '62--I got to see Rod Laver beat Roy Emerson in an all-Aussie final. As I recall Laver was the defending champion and went on to win a few more titles--Australians dominated men's tennis until the late 60s and were deeply resented for it, at least in London, where their supporters ran riot in an area of pubs nicknamed 'Kangaroo Court' ;)

Area of pubs? (#101847)
by Spartacvs

The whole city could be described accurately as an 'area of pubs', no the whole country. Earls Court, West London.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Not in 1961, (#101856)
by Kierkegaard

no. In fact, large tracts of the city were still empty lots due to the bombing 20 years before and little had been boutiqued for tourists. Britain rebuilt much more slowly than Germany.

That felt like a left-handed compliment to Federer. (#101784)
by Jordan

Let me amend a little bit. The guy defines poise and grace, and he's one of my favorite figures in sports. It's just that he *plays* like Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, i.e. like a machine or sociopath whose heartrate stays under 85, even as he rips out your shot at (name the final trophy in question). He doesn't curse, he doesn't sweat, he doesn't scramble, he doesn't change his grip on his racket. To see him end such a phenomenal game on an unforced error, even a momentary crack in that glacier of nerve is pretty jaw dropping. Of course he was emotional after the match, but we've seen that before...and who wouldn't be after 5 hours of the most white knuckle tennis played this decade?

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

Seconded, belatedly. (#101757)
by hobbesist

Averse as I am to the liberty commentators are apt to take with superlatives, there is no reason to be sparing about that match, the competitors, or their performances. Simply some of the most spectacular tennis I've ever seen, from both of them.

That being said, Brad Gilbert clearly has a case of the vapors--no way Rafael Nadal should be considered a favorite to make it to the finals of the U.S. Open, much less win it. I mean, I'm a huge fan of the guy, but hardcourts just aren't conducive to his game.

--

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

Give Him Time (#101764)
by M Scott Eiland

A few years back he was being called a "clay court specialist." No one will ever say that about him again, after today.

--

I don't think it's out of the question, Scott (#101779)
by hobbesist

--let's pause for a moment and realize that when Federer was Nadal's age, he'd won one Grand Slam final, as opposed to Nadal's five--and one can only admire the humble determination with which the Spaniard undertook and accomplished this truly herculean feat (a Spaniard winning Wimbledon is hard enough to fathom, but during the reign of one of the greatest grass-court, not to say all-around, players of all time? Gimme a break--right?). But I'm not sure I've seen the stuff from him to suggest that he can make it through a draw filled with players who, while hapless in his presence on clay or grass, can do him real harm on hard-court. I'd be thrilled, let me hasten to add, to be proven wrong.

And, yeah, anyone who put "Nadal" and "clay court specialist" in the same sentence (without some serious negation, mind) can kindly STFU now, thanks.

--

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

hobbesist, would you like... (#101788)
by vinteuil

...to extend the Diplomacy deadline for yet another day or two, so that you can go on dicussing these more important matters in greater depth?

--

Live not by lies.

Nope, I'm good. -nt- (#101794)
by hobbesist

--

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

I find comfort in this (#101635)
by Bill White

“Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional part of Judaism,” Mr. Boyarin said.

July 6, 2008

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

--

. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .

As a Christian, I don't find it surprising at all. (#101845)
by BlaiseP

Judaism was replete with such figures, both before and after Jesus of Nazareth. From the aborted sacrifice of Isaac to the many Judges to Isaiah, Jeremiah and the many prophets, the figure of a Suffering Saviour had been foretold.

Jesus himself made the statement "no sign will ye have but the sign of Jonah." Jonah saved no Jews, his mission was to the city of Nineveh in modern Iraq. We know who Jonah was: whether or not a fish swallowed him is irrelevant, his father Amitai is mentioned in the rein of Jeroboam II.

These Suffering Saviours appear in all the legends of the area. The story of Osiris is one of death, mourning and embalming by a woman and resurrection. Tammuz is yet another such myth and the Romans took it up wholesale, putting Venus and Adonis in their places, a particularly funny one, because Adonis is straight from semitic Adonai, my lord. Cybele and Attis, just another such pair of myths.

When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the congruence was so good the women of the Empire didn't even have to change out idols. Their little statuettes of the seated woman Isis with baby Horus on her lap became the first Madonna and Child. Many of our earliest Christian hymns were tunes and lyrics first sung to Osiris. The Bible never made too much of Mary the Mother of Christ, but his followers did, and for good reason. The part of the story with the sacrifice, the grieving women and the resurrection had been a part of every springtime ritual going back as far from their day as they are from us today.

There's an odd passage in the story of the Road to Emmaus. I leave this link as an exercise to the reader, with lovely ink drawings by Luca Cambiaso (1527-1585).

And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, but they constrained him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?"

I guess (#101645)
by HankP

Jews for Jesus were right after all.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Obama prefers poker; McCain prefers craps (#101634)
by Bill White

Link

Which game is better preparation for having ones finger on the nuclear button?

Quotes from the article:

McCain's passion for gambling and taking other risks has never been a secret. He was a Navy flyer, trained in the art of controlled crash landings on aircraft carriers. He spent his youth sneaking booze behind the backs of his schoolmasters and reveling in his stack of demerits. He came of age on shore leave in the casinos of Monte Carlo, in a Navy culture that had long embraced dice in the officers' clubs.

&

Only recently have McCain's aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

and this

If McCain plays craps for thrills, Obama sees gambling as a way to vent his competitive urge. His love of basketball is well known. "I could get to the rim on anybody," he told HBO's Bryant Gumbel of his high school hoops days. He could not even play golf for fun, taking lessons to lower his handicap after a few poor performances. "Barack hates to lose," says Dan Shomon, an old Chicago political aide.

* * *

But he always had his head in the game. The stakes were low enough — $1 ante and $3 top raise — to afford a long shot. Not Obama. He studied the cards as closely as he would an eleventh-hour amendment to a bill. The odds were religion to him. Only rarely did he bluff. "He had a pretty good idea about what his chances were," says Denny Jacobs, a former state senator from East Moline.

--

. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .

Not To Bring Up Inconvenient Facts. . . (#101636)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .but GWB is a rather well-known poker player, too.

Also, when played properly craps is a very low house percentage game--any suggestions that the enjoyment of it is somehow indicative of a character flaw in McCain is silly.

--

61 Seconds Of Fury (#101575)
by M Scott Eiland

A reminder that lower weight division title fights can be spectacular: Challenger gets knocked down twice--gets up and knocks champion cold. All in just over a minute.

--

Obama vs. McCain in Montana (#101565)
by John

is showing us something quite interesting.

Mark at Publius Endures points to some interesting poll stats:

Montana is currently leaning to Obama over McCain by five points. That a Republican Presidential candidate is trailing in Montana (a state Bush won by 20 points in 2004) is a particularly strong indication of how alienated libertarian-ish voters now feel from the Republican Party.

Astounding. Read the rest. short post.

It's safe to say that the GOP has hit a cord with some of its mushy leaners and weak, swing supporters (libertarian conservative and libertarian-ISH voters)...and they don't like the sound it's making.

tsk, tsk, GOP.

July Polls Are Cheap (#101566)
by M Scott Eiland

Those voters--or enough of them--will be back into McCain's column when they're reminded which candidate is rather pointedly talking about raising income *and* Social Security taxes.

--

I hope we're both wrong on this. (#101660)
by Punditus Maximus

Because I agree that libertarianism is almost always a mask for "whoever taxes me the least and borrows the most to provide me with the highest subsidies" in the West.

--

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

As The Link. . . (#101662)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .I posted a few days back pointed out, there will be a lot of libertarians voting McCain over Obama over non-tax issues that concern them, too--in spite of the fact that they have a specific dislike for McCain above and beyond any dislike they have for GWB. Heller is the most obvious flashpoint for that, but there are others.

--

Cheap, Sure (#101573)
by Harley

But a Republican candidate has never seen polls like this at this point in the race in recent history. Doesn't mean McCain can't work the taxes issue as his predecessors have, but I'm not so sure.

Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition. Or in this case, tipping point into foreign political territory.

--

"How is the world ruled, and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read." -- Karl Kraus, 1909

The numbers don't add up (#101569)
by Spartacvs

and they never have.

The GOP will need the old stalwarts of abortion and guns, hating on gays and misplaced patriotism to compensate for those who aren't so willing to vote against their economic self interests. Don't think its gonna be enough this time though. Obama may be smarter than you think and Bush has been more toxic to the brand than you care to admit.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Walt Whitman writing on the Fourth of July (#101432)
by BlaiseP

41. Battle of Gettysburg

July 4th.—THE WEATHER to-day, upon the whole, is very fine, warm, but from a smart rain last night, fresh enough, and no dust, which is a great relief for this city. I saw the parade about noon, Pennsylvania avenue, from Fifteenth street down toward the capitol. There were three regiments of infantry, (I suppose the ones doing patrol duty here,) two or three societies of Odd Fellows, a lot of children in barouches, and a squad of policemen. (A useless imposition upon the soldiers—they have work enough on their backs without piling the like of this.) As I went down the Avenue, saw a big flaring placard on the bulletin board of a newspaper office, announcing “Glorious Victory for the Union Army!” Meade had fought Lee at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, yesterday and day before, and repuls’d him most signally, taken 3,000 prisoners, &c. (I afterwards saw Meade’s despatch, very modest, and a sort of order of the day from the President himself, quite religious, giving thanks to the Supreme, and calling on the people to do the same.) I walk’d on to Armory hospital—took along with me several bottles of blackberry and cherry syrup, good and strong, but innocent. Went through several of the wards, announc’d to the soldiers the news from Meade, and gave them all a good drink of the syrups with ice water, quite refreshing—prepar’d it all myself, and serv’d it around. Meanwhile the Washington bells are ringing their sundown peals for Fourth of July, and the usual fusilades of boys’ pistols, crackers, and guns.

I am tickled by this line (#101444)
by Bill White

I walk’d on to Armory hospital—took along with me several bottles of blackberry and cherry syrup, good and strong, but innocent.

--

. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .

I never heard about this . . . (#101415)
by Bill White

I am truly tickled by this anecdote on social proof:

In April 2007, the Washington Post convinced Joshua Bell, a famous violin virtuoso to play in the Washington DC subway during the morning rush hour. So he took his $3.5 million Stradivarius violin and played. Almost no one noticed or stopped to listen. He collected a total of $32 for an hour of playing (not counting a $20 bill that was given by a person who recognized him).

Wikipedia - Social Proof

So much for Milton Friedman and the "rational man"

--

. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .