Althouse: At the Back Alley Café...

May 25, 2011

At the Back Alley Café...

... you can get past the facade.

22 comments:

windbag said...: That has to be the cleanest back alley I've ever seen.; 5/25/11, 2:03 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: Hidden in the back alley is the news that Rand Paul has taken up the torch from Russ Feingold and attacked the four year extension of government invasion of our privacy.; 5/25/11, 2:06 PM
windbag said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/25/11, 2:10 PM
windbag said...: ...not that I've spent a lot of time inspecting back alleys...; 5/25/11, 2:11 PM
garage mahal said...: Walker's numbers continue to get worse

Majority wants Senate in Dems hands, majority wants to recall Walker, Walker would get crushed by Feingold. Independents gone. Poof.

Wonder what happened?; 5/25/11, 2:17 PM
edutcher said...: Didn't Bogie and Edward G just come out of there?

windbag said...

That has to be the cleanest back alley I've ever seen.

Back lot at Warners.; 5/25/11, 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Can a man (or this specific man) breast-feed? Slate asks the really important questions. (I must admit, I found it interesting in some sick, twisted way.); 5/25/11, 2:26 PM
KCFleming said...: I love back alleys.

It's like looking under the hood, or going into the kitchen at a restaurant.; 5/25/11, 2:38 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Unsightly alley fixed with Bernies and flamingos.; 5/25/11, 3:47 PM
Almost Ali said...: Casey Anthony's attorney blamed the courtroom "acoustics" after asking the judge to repeat himself - as the judge in this case is difficult to understand. Especially when he fails to take his time articulating common or proper English - his words getting mashed in flights of Ebonics.

I believe judges should be required to meet some minimum language requirement, that they must be clearly understood by all English-speaking peoples or forfeit their judgeships. Because the lawyers have enough to worry about without having to walk the judge through a trial as if he were mentally handicapped.; 5/25/11, 4:25 PM
edutcher said...: I hate restarting this, but it's an interesting point. In the NY-26 race, Republican turnout was low.

How low?

1/3 of '10 turnout. As Hoft notes, Mediscare may not be the world beater the trolls hope it is.; 5/25/11, 4:33 PM
chickelit said...: The "c" in your "facade" lacks one of those little coat hanger hooks.; 5/25/11, 5:50 PM
Synova said...: "That has to be the cleanest back alley I've ever seen."

It's Wisconsin!; 5/25/11, 6:34 PM
Irene said...: Bill Clinton tells Paul Ryan to give him a call about Medicare.; 5/25/11, 7:43 PM
Hagar said...: I just noticed BofA charged me a foreign exchange fee for s bill I paid with PayPal.
This must be in response to some of the new regulations our Congress critters have imposed on the banks to protect us from the bankers' greed.
Well, the banks need to make a profit somewhere, and these regulations not only do not protect us, but drive up the banks' costs further, so that they actually have to find ways to charge us more.; 5/25/11, 7:44 PM
rhhardin said...: I'm astounded by the pisshole rival sect Christians calling Harold Camping's Open Forum berating him.

It's obvious to me that Camping reads the Bible with love, and maybe is having a tough time, is all.

Herewith a Wittgenstein comment on the matter:

quote

Queer as it sounds : The historical accounts in the Gospels might, historically speaking, be demonstrably false and yet belief would lose nothing by this : _not_, however, because it concerns `univeral truths of reason'! Rather, because historical proof (the historical proof-game) is irrelevant to belief. This message (the Gospels) is seized on by men believingly (ie. lovingly). _That_ is the certainty charactrerizing this particular acceptance-as-true, not something _else_.

A believer's relation to these narratives is _neither_ the relation to historical truth (probability), _nor yet_ that to a theory consisting of `truths of reason.' There is such a thing. - (We have quite different attitudes even to different species of what we call fiction!)

I read : ``No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.'' - And it is true : I cannot call him _Lord_; because that says nothing to me. I could call him ``the paragon,' `God' even - or rather, I can understand it when he is called thus ; but I cannot utter the word ``Lord'' with meaning. _Because I do not believe_ that he will come to judge me ; because _that_ says nothing to me. And it could say something to me, only if I lived _completely_ differently.

What inclines even me to believe in Christ's Resurrection? It is as though I play with the thought. - If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like any other man. _He is dead and decomposed._ In that case he is a teacher like any other and can no longer _help_ ; and once more we are orphaned and alone. So we have to content ourselves with wisdom and speculation. We are in a sort of hell where we can do nothing but dream, roofed in, as it were, and cut off from heaven. But if I am to be REALLY saved, - what I need is _certainty_ - not wisdom, dreams or speculation - and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what is needed by my _heart_, my _soul_, not my speculative intelligence. For it is my soul with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, that has to be saved, not my abstract mind. Perhaps we can say : Only _love_ can believe the Resurrection. Or : It is _love_ that believes the Resurrection. We might say : Redeeming love believes even in the Resurrection ; holds fast even to the Resurrection. What combats doubt is, as it were, _redemption_. Holding fast to _this_ must be holding fast to that belief. So what that means is : first you must be redeemed and hold on to your redemption (keep hold of your redemption) - then you will see that you are holding fast to this belief. So this can come about only if you no longer rest your weight on the earth but suspend yourself from heaven. Then _everything_ will be different and it will be `no wonder' if you can do things that you cannot do now. (A man who is suspended looks the same as one who is standing, but the interplay of forces within him is nevertheless quite different, so that he can act quite differently than can a standing man.)

unquote

_Culture and Value_ p.32-33 (1937); 5/25/11, 9:14 PM
AST said...: I think they're carrying this "atmosphere" thing a little too far.

Which door is the abortionist's?; 5/25/11, 10:08 PM
Joanna said...: "MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, suspended by MSNBC Wednesday evening for calling conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” on his nationally syndicated radio show... In a remarkably fulsome and sincere apology, though, Schultz announced that he was taking himself off the air for an “indefinite” period."
link; 5/26/11, 12:38 AM
rhhardin said...: Women as victims rank over right wingers as victimizers.

And he already censored himself to say slut!

We need a safe good-for-only-one-thing word for women.; 5/26/11, 1:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Thats really a bad scene here.
Atlanta Injury Lawyer; 5/26/11, 7:12 AM
Methadras said...: Is this the back alley that illegal abortions are performed in?; 5/26/11, 11:29 AM
ken in tx said...: Anyone can be an attorney, you have to have a law degree to be a lawyer.; 5/26/11, 12:06 PM