June 7, 2016

At the Glass Wall Café...

IMG_1159

... look inside and outside.

25 comments:

Saint Croix said...

So I found out at dinner last night that we are voting in another primary today. Oops! And I go home and start doing research. And I find out at 11:30 pm that I'm in another damn district. Now I'm in the crazy skinny snake district in North Carolina. Almost all of our districts got thrown out in federal court, and now we have to vote again. Anyway, I found a new Republican to support for Congress. That's not the surprising part.

This morning I also voted for my first Democrat in 16 years, for the North Carolina Supreme Court.

The last time I voted for a Democrat, John Edwards was running for the Senate. And he won. This is back when I tried to switch back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. And I asked John Edwards, in an auditorium full of people, what he thought about partial-birth abortion. And he said he was "appalled" by it. And then after he was in office, and we had 66 votes to override Clinton's veto, damn John Edwards voted for partial-birth abortion. I sent him an anguished e-mail, and his aide sent me back an e-mail saying blah blah blah, it's a very hard issue, blah blah blah. I became very cynical about Democrats on that day.

Now, 16 years later, the North Carolina Supreme Court has 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats. And they divide on almost every case along partisan lines.

Anyway, judges are not supposed to be partisan. They are supposed to follow the laws, as written. On our ballots, we do not list the party of the judge. Because it's supposed to be irrelevant! But on the internet I find out that one of the 4 Republicans is the incumbent, and he's running against three Democrats.

Over the 16 years I have voted for good Republicans and bad Republicans, smart Republicans and stupid Republicans. As long as they are Republican, I figured they really are pro-life, and I probably would agree with them on a lot of other stuff too.

But I still wanted to do my research. So I went to his website. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and has a great family. Maybe he's a great judge. But I happened to read this case.

Wow.

Anyway, if my Republican Supreme Court judge is wondering why a Republican would not vote for him, that is why. I see a blatant disregard for fatherhood, and I see a callous and stupid judiciary taking us in the wrong direction. Made me mad enough to risk voting for a Democrat.

khesanh0802 said...

That "guy" has shorts on. For shame - but good legs!

chickelit said...

Donald Trump Live, welcoming Bernie supporters.

Chuck said...

Professor Althouse, I am guessing that you are at least somewhat qualified to speak to this issue flaring up over the identity of the "La Raza" group that Judge Curiel has had an affiliation. It is assuredly not The National Council of La Raza; and I expect that the University of Wisconsin Law School has a chapter of the La Raza lawyer's guild ( a different thing) on campus.

All that I can do is think of a Democrat running for president, and having a federal judge overseeing her, uh, federal charge for improper handling of classified material, and her minions saying that the judge must recuse himself because he is a member of The Federalist Society.

This is rank bullshit coming out of the Trump camp. You should call it out.

traditionalguy said...

Wisconsin Bird Trap. Do they pluck and cook up the dead ones as fast as they fly into the glass.

chickelit said...

Professor Althouse, I am guessing that you are at least somewhat qualified to speak to this issue flaring up over the identity of the "La Raza" group that Judge Curiel has had an affiliation. It is assuredly not The National Council of La Raza;

Chuck, I realize that the two groups are chartered differently. But nominally, they are closely related -- one group probably requires legal credentials of some sort. It's up to you to show their independent origins.

Sheesh, given the importance, you'd think that the MSM would have already shown that the two groups have absolutely nothing in common.

You are tilting at windmills though, Chuck. It's like you're trying to prove that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.

chickelit said...

@Chuck: Your position is akin to you saying: "WTH is wrong with the notion of La Raza anyways? You all tolerated it up 'til now."

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Much better use of a glass wall.

BN said...

Do I need to see a doctor or am I just getting old?

I'm starting to enjoy ABBA when it's played in commercials (targeted of course at baby boomers). How does it happen? How does one have a hate inside that--seems to)--suddenly turn to a gooey sort of quiet glow of a feeling, a smile without a reason. How does meeting again what you once hated make you feel happy?

I don't understand.

Anyway, Waterloo is a good song. But I do like Dylan's version better.

wildswan said...

Shouldn't it be "razix" or "cis-razix" isn't using "la" + an "a" ending a bad thing? - implying as it does that there is such a thing as "feminine" gender.

Birkel said...

So the Associated Press url seems to indicate something odd. In the Hillary Clinton has the delegates article, some people are alleging collusion.

The url reads: https://a.hrc.onl/imageman/2016_Q2-Email/20160605_hfa_graphic/secret-win-V2-060416c_02.png

Notice the secret win was written on June 4th and announced the day before Clinton might have lost California. That is convenient.

And Althouse thinks this might help Bernie?

Mark Wunsch said...

That looks like The Chazen, which is spectacular, in my opinion.

buwaya puti said...

Chuck, thats off by miles.
These people are all one, being recruited by the same college political-ethnic organizations. Its like a fraternity or the mafia. You are in if you are Mexican (the #1 qualification) and if you have paid your dues.
People complain about tribalism, here is a glaring example.
All of SoCal politics is in the grip of this corrupt organization.

Saint Croix said...

I'm starting to enjoy ABBA when it's played in commercials

I watched a funny movie one time that had so much ABBA you would not believe it. Wall to wall Abba in that damn thing. Abba was like a secondary character. And like all right-thinking people I cannot stand ABBA. But that damn beat is catchy and will lodge in your brain like that alien that grabbed hold of Chekov in Star Trek II. I was whistling Abba, and then I would be like, "oh shit, Abba!" I don't want to say it's kinda like Al Sharpton accidentally whistling Dixie because it's catchy ("fuck! wrong song!"), but it was a bit like that. Damn Abba kept sneaking into my world for like two days after that damn movie. I hate you, you catchy bad song in my brain!

Really is a funny movie, though. From Australia.

Saint Croix said...

We all say we want fair and impartial and honest judges who are not political. So we had a woman run for the North Carolina Supreme Court who was neither a Democrat nor a Republican. (You'll notice I said "three Democrats," well, you will see why in a minute!) Anyway, she ran as an Independent. She's an Independent Voice, and you can Trust Her, North Carolina.

As I was not voting for my Republican, I looked at her first. I sent her an e-mail.

"Could you tell me if you are pro-choice or pro-life?"

This was close to midnight. But she was up and ready to respond.

Judicial candidates are precluded from expressing their views on matters that may come before the court. It is a fact, however, that I have contributed to Planned Parenthood.

So I knocked MIss Independent out pretty quick. Voted for the Democrat who called himself a Democrat.

I sent my Democrat guy the same e-mail. "Could you tell me if you are pro-choice or pro-life?" He didn't respond. Said nothing.

I had a demon on one shoulder going, "Maybe he's lazy and doesn't read his e-mails." And I had an angel on the other shoulder--this is kinda like Animal House--that was going, "Maybe he's ethical and doesn't want to answer your political jailbait question!" Apparently my angel kicked my demon's ass. Hey, if Althouse can vote for Ted Cruz I can vote for this guy.

The damn Charlotte Observer tells the world that he will line up with all the Democrats and vote just like they vote. The damn newspaper is "reporting" to the world that he is a Democrat and will vote like all the other Democrats. This is a fair-minded and impartial judge who has a reputation as a fair-minded and impartial judge and he's been a trial judge for a couple of decades. He's got an A rating with all the attorneys, unlike a lot of other judges. And the damn newspapers are telling the world that he's a liberal who will vote with all the liberals.

My demon is going, "Don't trust him! Don't trust him!" But I actually met this guy when I practiced law up near Raleigh. I was in his court for an hour or so. This was almost twenty years ago, but I remember him because he was an impressive judge. No idea if he is pro-life or pro-choice. Because the ethical Democrat bastard would not answer my unethical question! "What are your thoughts on Roe v. Wade?" would have been my follow up question. Like I'm a Senator grilling some Supreme Court nominee. If I had some humble voice in my head it would have gone, "You know there are like 100,000 people voting for judges, your vote does not matter as much as you think it does, idiot!" Luckily I have no humble voices in my head.

Anyway, I think they are still counting, but North Carolina went with the Democrat and Republican, and it looks like Miss Independent is going home. Our liberal newspapers liked her the most (of course!), so the journalists are scratching their heads, wondering why the people won't listen when they tell us how to vote. Don't you want politics out of the judiciary? Well, yeah, but I object to killing babies and I can't vote for any judge who would do that.

Saint Croix said...

I have given the United States Supreme Court a lot of shit over the years, here on the Althouse blog. So I should say they have been very, very good on free speech. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Very, very good on free speech. I love the Supreme Court's free speech jurisprudence. It's very good.

My deep criticisms of the Supreme Court are in regard to its work with the equal protection clause. They have been awful with this provision. Just awful.

I would just beg them to start over. Read the words. Let the words sink in.

The word "person" is a reference to a live human being. It is a common sense word. It's synonymous with humanity. We all know this. I am telling you what you already know. A person is a human being, a human being is a person. This word is not a trick. You do not need to go to the Ivy League and study with the best and the brightest to figure out what a person is.

I feel that the Supreme Court, over the years, has subconsciously substituted the word "taxpayer" for person. That's because many of us care about money and respect people with money, or corporations with money. We respect money! We need money and we like it and we want it. "No state shall deny any taxpayer the equal protection of the laws." That's what the Supreme Court has been secretly doing for a long, long time. This is why corporations are legal persons, and unborn babies and partially-born babies are not persons. People in the government respect corporations, because they pay taxes. So corporations have equal protection rights. Babies cost money and give us stress. So we deny their humanity.

A person is a live human being. You know it's true.

I should say too that the First Amendment is not limited to people. The New York Times is a corporation, but that corporation obviously has First Amendment rights. So does CBS and ABC and Fox and Amazon and Google. The world is filled with corporations who have free speech rights. Liberals should not let their hostility to corporations cloud their minds. And conservatives should stop saying that corporations are people, or honorary people. No, they're not. They are corporations.

Follow the text. Take the text seriously. Keeping rocking on free speech. But your equal protection work is bad. It's been bad for over a century.

Here's a clue to how you should think about equal protection. It's bad to discriminate against people. But it's good to discriminate against conduct or actions. Of course we can discriminate against actions! Bad actions can become crimes. And we can discriminate against those actions we do not like. But what we cannot do is discriminate against people. In regard to equal protection, we should think about a person/conduct distinction. Are you discriminating against a person? Or are you discriminating against what people do? The former is unconstitutional, the latter is right and necessary.

tim in vermont said...

Sigh... Not even close. Crap, now I have to vote for Trump.

tim in vermont said...

Thinking they were assaulting Trump supporters, a rowdy group of Bernie Sanders fans accidentally beat up another group of Bernie supporters.

Trump is still responsible.

Junaid Shahid said...

Chuck, thats off by miles.
These people are all one, being recruited by the same college political-ethnic organizations. Its like a fraternity or the mafia. You are in if you are Mexican (the #1 qualification) and if you have paid your dues.
People complain about tribalism, here is a glaring example.
All of SoCal politics is in the grip of this corrupt organization. PkCod

MadisonMan said...

I see glass door and partitions and walls like that and all I can think of is the poor schlub who has to cart Windex around all day.

Mike said...

tim in vermont said,
Thinking they were assaulting Trump supporters, a rowdy group of Bernie Sanders fans accidentally beat up another group of Bernie supporters.


It's like a metaphorical vignette of what's happened to both "major" parties this primary season.

Trump is still responsible.

Nice coda.

Unknown said...

On a TOTALLY different subject, I've been flirting with HDR photography for about 1/2 a year, couldn't seems to get the nerve to pull the trigger and actually do it because it seems so technical and I'm so amateur.

Just found AutoHDR, freeware from Martin Sykes (which should be enough info to find if anyone's interested), and it seems to do just about anything I wanted out of HDR in a very simple way. I'm sure it isn't as good/powerful/perfect as 'true' HDR, but it's hard to see the difference.

Unknown said...

Actually, although I'm only processing single images AutoHDR supports 'true' HDR with multiple images.

tim in vermont said...

HDR, is nice if used in a very restrained way. Some people like stuff that it hurts my eyes to even look at, way overcooked.

If you use it, for example to take pictures at night, where the expansion of dynamic range helps to see into the shadows, for example, the surroundings of a full moon, that's great. But to use it to cook a picture until it's bloodshot? Not so much, IMHO, but some people seem to like it.

As for using it, it is very simple, as long as you have a tri-pod and a camera that can automatically take, for example, three shots with different light settings.

Ugly HDR

A better one

I stand corrected, it seems like a *lot* of people like that overdone look, since it is hard to find a good HDR picture on the web.

Whatever you like though, go for it. Post processing pictures is a lot of fun. You get better as you go.

tim in vermont said...

A really top rate HDR photo