... it takes next to nothing to charm us silly.
February 8, 2011
"Giddy Green Bay Packers fans poured into the frigid Lambeau Field parking lots early Tuesday to fire up their grills and throw down beers..."
"... in a final tailgate to cap a magical season that ended in Super Bowl victory. At $5 each, the 50,000 tickets for Tuesday's 'Return to Titletown' celebration at the stadium sold out in a matter of hours Monday... Tuesday's cold didn't bother Ken Hampp, 23, of Appleton, as he sipped a Budweiser. 'The weather's fine. I can barely feel it,' he said. 'That's my favorite thing about winter. You can just stick your beer in the snow.'"
LOL. That's Wisconsin.
ADDED: It was 3°.
LOL. That's Wisconsin.
ADDED: It was 3°.
Not since Napoleon XIV have psychotic individuals suffered such awful abuse from the pop culture.
Oh! Shame! Shame on Waunakee High School:
Here's some guy's video of the song...
... which you can find on this nice collection of 21 songs by Napoleon XIV.
Waunakee High School's varsity dance team is headed to a state competition today, but advocates for the mentally ill are upset by what got them there — a "we get crazy" routine featuring all 18 dancers bouncing to hip-hop music, their hair wild, heavy black makeup on their snarling faces, and costumes made to resemble straitjackets and restraints with the words "Psych Ward" on them.Do you remember the terrible tizzy in 1966 over "They're Coming to Take Me Away"? We all loved it, thought it was hilarious, it was played on the radio... and then it was gone... squelched by political correctness back before we'd seen enough political correctness to say "political correctness."
News of the routine spread fast this week after photos of the dancers in their costumes were published in the Waunakee Tribune. "The pictures are quite disturbing," says Hugh Davis, executive director of Wisconsin Family Ties. "We had parents and kids with mental health issues standing in the office with tears in their eyes. This brings up painful memories. It is incredibly insensitive."
Here's some guy's video of the song...
... which you can find on this nice collection of 21 songs by Napoleon XIV.
"In my world, the most important thing that matters is Instapundit. I'm very Instapundit-dependent."
Heh. In my world too! That's why I clipped and embedded that. Note to Glenn...
"There is no electronic-based cause for unintended acceleration in Toyotas," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood tells us now.
Surprised?
Now, let's try to remember how much trouble the Obama administration caused Toyota. Here's an article from last March:
Now, let's try to remember how much trouble the Obama administration caused Toyota. Here's an article from last March:
Ever since the Transportation Department stepped up pressure on Toyota over its recalls several months ago, two delicate questions have hung over regulators: Is the Obama administration trying to help the Detroit carmakers it bailed out last year by attacking Toyota? And, will those attacks lead to new trade tensions with Japan?...And from last February:
“It’s doubly convenient for the Obama administration to hammer Toyota excessively,” [Weekly Asahi magazine] said. “By picking on Toyota, Mr. Obama wants to reverse his falling popularity.”
Akio Toyoda, the president of Toyota, was billed as the main attraction at a House hearing Wednesday into the company’s recalls of millions of cars — recalls for which he profusely apologized and took personal responsibility....
He was criticized by a representative on the committee for failing to show adequate remorse for those who had been killed in accidents involving acceleration problems.
“I extend my condolences from the deepest part of my heart,” Mr. Toyoda said.
I have to take a 3rd shot at Larry Tribe's op-ed: That big word "choice."
Here's my first shot and here's my second shot at Larry Tribe's op-ed purporting to say why the Supreme Court will come down in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate to buy health insurance. I didn't set out to write one post after another about the op-ed, but I must go on to talk about his use of the word "choice" — which is monumentally important in the discussion of abortion rights. Tribe's op-ed has nothing to say about abortion. I wonder if he would have written it differently if abortion had crossed his mind, but I can't believe that a constitutional law professor would overlook the abortion-related significance of the word "choice."
Tribe's op-ed, as I wrote in the first post, rests very heavily on misrepresenting the Supreme Court's commerce power doctrine as referring to "commercial choices." In fact, the cases refer to "commercial activities," and a switch from "activity" to "choice" is immensely important in the health care litigation, in which opponents stress that the failure to buy insurance is inactivity, not activity, and therefore beyond even the broadest interpretations the Supreme Court has ever given to the Commerce Clause.
Tribe attempted to skew opinion by substituting "choice" for "activity," and I have called him on that. But I need to go further, because someone who uses words to get things done needs to be kept honest not only about shifting from one word to another, but also about changing the meaning of the same word from case to case. Let's look at how Tribe talked about "choice" and health insurance and then see how that squares with what "choice" is supposed to mean in the abortion context.
Tribe's op-ed, as I wrote in the first post, rests very heavily on misrepresenting the Supreme Court's commerce power doctrine as referring to "commercial choices." In fact, the cases refer to "commercial activities," and a switch from "activity" to "choice" is immensely important in the health care litigation, in which opponents stress that the failure to buy insurance is inactivity, not activity, and therefore beyond even the broadest interpretations the Supreme Court has ever given to the Commerce Clause.
Tribe attempted to skew opinion by substituting "choice" for "activity," and I have called him on that. But I need to go further, because someone who uses words to get things done needs to be kept honest not only about shifting from one word to another, but also about changing the meaning of the same word from case to case. Let's look at how Tribe talked about "choice" and health insurance and then see how that squares with what "choice" is supposed to mean in the abortion context.
"If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community."
"They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value."
Says University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, quoted in this John Tierney piece in the NYT, which gets pretty good if you read past the first half. The first half invites mockery for being so head-slappingly obvious. Glenn Reynolds already wrote just about exactly the post I was about to write. I might have gone even shorter, though. "Duh" is shorter than "Indeed." So, yeah, conservatives are so radically underrepresented in academia that it can't be mere chance.
But let's skip into the middle of the piece and think about the mechanisms of exclusion, these "sacred values" that displace scientific thinking. Haidt notes the example of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, back in 1965, who "warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks" and "was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist."
Here's Haidt on Bloggingheads, back in 2008, talking about the social psychology of conservatives and liberals. And here's Haidt's "Your Morals" website project about morality and political ideology.
Says University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, quoted in this John Tierney piece in the NYT, which gets pretty good if you read past the first half. The first half invites mockery for being so head-slappingly obvious. Glenn Reynolds already wrote just about exactly the post I was about to write. I might have gone even shorter, though. "Duh" is shorter than "Indeed." So, yeah, conservatives are so radically underrepresented in academia that it can't be mere chance.
But let's skip into the middle of the piece and think about the mechanisms of exclusion, these "sacred values" that displace scientific thinking. Haidt notes the example of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, back in 1965, who "warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks" and "was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist."
Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”According to Tierney, Haidt's audience of social psychologists "seemed refreshingly receptive to his argument."
A few even endorsed his call for a new affirmative-action goal: a membership that’s 10 percent conservative by 2020.Affirmative action? Why not just stop giving affirmative action to liberals? I think that would get you way above the 10% quota... if you could do it. Ironically, talking "affirmative action" is inherently off-putting to conservatives. It's more of those sacred values from the tribal-moral community that ward off outsiders.
***
Here's Haidt on Bloggingheads, back in 2008, talking about the social psychology of conservatives and liberals. And here's Haidt's "Your Morals" website project about morality and political ideology.
"Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system."
That's a sentence I've already quoted in the previous post, but focusing on it in isolation, I see it's a stunning example of something I've been observing more and more: Today's liberals sound like yesterday's right-wingers.
Read that sentence closely: "Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system." Doesn't Larry Tribe sound like your old man carping about welfare queens? There's no pity for people who are struggling to cover their basic expenses: Ah, don't be a bleeding heart — Larry/The Old Man scoffs — these people are choosing to sponge off the rest of us.
Tribe had to block out the possibility that people without health insurance aren't really making a choice. After paying for the things they think they need, they just don't have enough money left to cover a major expense that doesn't bring them a present good, only insurance against something that could go wrong.
Yeah, but that's why we need to force them to take responsibility, make them put insurance into their household budget along with the extra cupcakes and cars they're always blowing their money on — Larry/The Old Man snaps back at you.
Maybe now, you're thinking The Old Man was right! I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm just saying the liberals of today sound like The Old Man who used to enrage us with his heartlessness and his cynical observations about the lives of the people we thought of as vulnerable and unfortunate. That doesn't mean today's liberals are wrong. And I'll leave it to you to tease out the corresponding observation about the conservatives of today. Are they saying things that we Boomers, in our hippie days, used to scream back at The Old Man?
Read that sentence closely: "Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system." Doesn't Larry Tribe sound like your old man carping about welfare queens? There's no pity for people who are struggling to cover their basic expenses: Ah, don't be a bleeding heart — Larry/The Old Man scoffs — these people are choosing to sponge off the rest of us.
Tribe had to block out the possibility that people without health insurance aren't really making a choice. After paying for the things they think they need, they just don't have enough money left to cover a major expense that doesn't bring them a present good, only insurance against something that could go wrong.
Yeah, but that's why we need to force them to take responsibility, make them put insurance into their household budget along with the extra cupcakes and cars they're always blowing their money on — Larry/The Old Man snaps back at you.
Maybe now, you're thinking The Old Man was right! I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm just saying the liberals of today sound like The Old Man who used to enrage us with his heartlessness and his cynical observations about the lives of the people we thought of as vulnerable and unfortunate. That doesn't mean today's liberals are wrong. And I'll leave it to you to tease out the corresponding observation about the conservatives of today. Are they saying things that we Boomers, in our hippie days, used to scream back at The Old Man?
Professor Tribe would like you to know how nonpartisan the Supreme Court Justices are ... I mean, will be, when they decide the individual mandate question the way he would like.
The NYT has an op-ed by lawprof Larry Tribe that purports to demonstrate how obvious it supposedly is that the Supreme Court will find the health care law constitutional.
And yet, Larry Tribe does think it, right? That's what's behind his rhetoric. I believe. Crudely.
UPDATE: I have 2 more posts about this op-ed, one dealing with Tribe's disapproval of people who fail to take responsibility and one dealing with the meaning of "choice."
The justices aren’t likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic “activity,” not “inactivity,” like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they can’t pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation.Of course, the argument Tribe likes was presented, considered, and rejected in the 2 federal court cases. It's a perfectly comprehensible argument, but that doesn't make its success in the Supreme Court a sure thing. Acting as if it does, Tribe says "it’s distressing that many assume its fate will be decided by a partisan, closely divided Supreme Court." Oh, you terrible people who fail to bow to the obviousness of one side of a constitutional argument! You compound your sins by falling prey to the upsetting belief that the Supreme Court Justices are politically partisan!
To imagine Justice Scalia would abandon that fundamental understanding of the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause because he was appointed by a Republican president is to insult both his intellect and his integrity.That's not sarcasm. Read the whole thing. You'll see, it's not intentional sarcasm. It might be an attempt to sweet-talk Scalia into using the health-care litigation to score some political neutrality points, but it's not sarcasm. It's more: Ah! What a fine Justice, full of integrity and intellect, I will say Justice Scalia is if he decides this case my way!
Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom many unfairly caricature as the “swing vote,” deserves better as well.Oh! People are sooooo unfair to Justice Kennedy. I, Larry Tribe, will protect him from the scurrilous "swing vote" remarks people make.... when he decides this case my way!
Yes, his opinion in the 5-4 decision invalidating the federal ban on possession of guns near schools is frequently cited by opponents of the health care law.I hope they do a better job of pointing at the Lopez case than that NYT link does. Here's the right link, in case anyone cares.
But that decision in 1995 drew a bright line between commercial choices, all of which Congress has presumptive power to regulate, and conduct like gun possession that is not in itself “commercial” or “economic,” however likely it might be to set off a cascade of economic effects.Drew a bright line, eh? But the line, if you can call it a line, isn't about "commercial choices." That's Tribe's phrase — as he assures us the line is bright! — and what the Court said was "commercial activity" — which is why the argument about the distinction between activity and inactivity has been so important in the health care litigation. Tribe declares lines to be bright precisely at the point when he is shedding darkness. (If you think you can't shed darkness, I agree. I'm just riffing on the linguistic oddity of the lawyer's expression "bright line." Aren't easy-to-see lines usually dark — like black ink on white paper?)
The decision about how to pay for health care is a quintessentially commercial choice in itself, not merely a decision that might have economic consequences."Quintessentially" is such a strong word that perhaps you will not notice that it's next to the phrase that is not "economic activity."
Only a crude prediction that justices will vote based on politics rather than principle would lead anybody to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito would agree with the judges in Florida and Virginia who have ruled against the health care law.Oh, come on. Tribe's rhetorical move has become comical at this point. It reminds me of an old-fashioned mother exerting moral pressure on a child by telling him how sure she is that he is such a good little boy that he could never do whatever it is she doesn't want him to do. Put more directly, it's an assertion of authority: I'm telling you what's right and if you don't do it, you'll be wrong. Could the Justices possibly yield to pressure like that? It's crude to think that they would, isn't it? It's an insult both their intellect and their integrity.
And yet, Larry Tribe does think it, right? That's what's behind his rhetoric. I believe. Crudely.
UPDATE: I have 2 more posts about this op-ed, one dealing with Tribe's disapproval of people who fail to take responsibility and one dealing with the meaning of "choice."
February 7, 2011
At Mr. Ice's Café...
... you can pour yourself a cold one on this very cold, long night. So keep the conversation flowing.
From the ex-governor and his federal judge wife, who are separating after 40 years of marriage: "Please do not hesitate to include both of us in social occasions as we will not find it awkward or uncomfortable."
Ed and Majorie Rendell are breaking up, but please don't think you have to exclude one or the other as you plan your parties and other networking opportunities.
Are they Democrats or Republicans? Here's a clue: neither the word Democrat or Republican appears in the linked article. So?
Are they Democrats or Republicans? Here's a clue: neither the word Democrat or Republican appears in the linked article. So?
"Will.i.am said his attempt to tweet during the performance was thwarted after he discovered his cell phone had no service."
"His Twitter handle was silent until after the game, when he sent out a series of tweets beginning with: 'Att crashed ... ahhhh!!!! The worse.'"
Blame AT&T. AT&T is to blame for everything. Why not blame AT&T for how bad the Black Eyed Peas were?
Blame AT&T. AT&T is to blame for everything. Why not blame AT&T for how bad the Black Eyed Peas were?
The choice of the Black Eyed Peas was intended to bring some youthful vigor back to the halftime show after the NFL — feeling burned by the infamous "wardrobe malfunction" of Janet Jackson with the aid of Justin Timberlake in 2004 — chose a string of safe, near-geriatric icons for the halftime for the next six years, ending on a low note with a much-maligned concert by The Who last year.You did "Sweet Child O' Mine" and near-geriatric icon Slash appeared. Then you did "(I've Had) The Time of My Life." Did near-geriatric icon Jennifer Grey back out at the last moment?
Why is the New York Times just noticing this?
Liberals (including President Obama) think the Supreme Court was wrong in Citizens United to say that corporations have free speech rights, but newspaper and book publishers are corporations. For some reason, the NYT is acting like it took a year to notice this hitch (which has been perfectly evident since the Citizens United litgation began in the lower courts). I guess the excuse for pretending not to see what was obvious is that it has been hoping to rely on the notion that some corporations have more rights than others. This new piece — a column by Adam Liptak — begins to concede that is an unworkable argument.
“There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not,” Justice Kennedy wrote in Citizens United....But Liptak's column peters out with a quote from a lawprof who calls it a "difficult question" and...
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, has reviewed the historical evidence. The bottom line, he said, is this: “If ordinary business corporations lack First Amendment rights, so do those business corporations that we call media corporations.”
There good arguments both ways about whether corporations ought to be covered by the First Amendment. But it is harder to say that some corporations have First Amendment rights and others do not.Yes, yes, it's obvious what the answer needs to be, and yet the debate must go on and on because it's so important to restrict the speech of people who organize themselves into corporations. Some of them. The bad guys. Not the good guys, like the ones who take a year to getting around to half-conceding the crushingly obvious.
"Where are the liberal civil rights leaders in response to the openly racist comments and calls for violence against America's black Supreme Court Justice?"
"These same men -- all men, I believe, as per usual with the black civil rights groups -- got all in a multi-week, if not many month, tizzy with their allegation that what obviously was a 'say it don't spray it' situation at a Tea Party rally was a spit attack on a black Member of Congress, but they evidently do not care when persons at an event affiliated with one of the nation's most established liberal groups, Common Cause, publicly say they want Clarence Thomas physically attacked and put into slavery."
Says Amy Ridenour, via Instapundit, who uses the word "hypocrisy." It's something beyond hypocrisy, though, I think.
Says Amy Ridenour, via Instapundit, who uses the word "hypocrisy." It's something beyond hypocrisy, though, I think.
Remember when it was fun to mock Arianna and her little HuffPo project?
Begun with $1 million, it's now being sold to AOL for $315 million, with Arianna reigning as as president and editor in chief.
By handing so much control over to Ms. Huffington and making her a public face of the company, AOL, which has been seen as apolitical, risks losing its nonpartisan image. Ms. Huffington said her politics would have no bearing on how she ran the new business.What difference does it make? AOL as a brand meant something to me in the 1990s, but not now. Who cares whether AOL retains a semblance of political neutrality? In any case, mainstream media always feels pretty liberal, so why would anyone really notice. Now, that quote is from the NYT, so... think about it. The NYT would like to be the big news site that looks neutral (but satisfies liberals). HuffPo is the raging competition, which needs to be put in its place.
Mitch Daniels in the WSJ: "Unless you're in favor of a fully nationalized health-care system, the president's health-care reform law is a massive mistake.."
The Indiana Governor (and potential GOP presidential candidate) ponders what the states can do if the law is not repealed or judicially voided. The states cannot be commandeered to run the program, so there is leverage to bargain. These are the conditions that 21 governors have proposed to the Secretary of Health and Services:
On the other hand, you really are in favor of a fully nationalized health-care system, then you might celebrate the states failure to go along with the attempt to include them. And if what happens is, as Daniels predicts, "first-rate operational catastrophe," then that sets up the collapse into the only workable fix a fully nationalized health-care system.
• We are given the flexibility to decide which insurers are permitted to offer their products.That's a GOP proposal on how to tweak health care reform, which is what Obama and others have said they need. With the prospect of 21 states dropping out of the enforcement regime, there should be real pressure to work with them and try to draw them back in.
• All the law's expensive benefit mandates are waived, so that our citizens aren't forced to buy benefits they don't need and have a range of choice that includes more affordable plans.
• The law's provisions discriminating against consumer-driven plans, such as health savings accounts, are waived.
• We are given the freedom to move Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange, or to utilize new approaches to the traditional program, instead of herding hundreds of thousands more people into today's broken Medicaid system.
• Our state is reimbursed the true, full cost of the administrative burden to be imposed upon us, based on the estimate of an auditor independent of HHS.
• A trustworthy projection is commissioned, by a research organization independent of the department, of how many people are likely to wind up in the exchange, given the large incentives for employers to save money by off-loading their workers.
Obviously, this is a very different system than the one the legislation intends....
On the other hand, you really are in favor of a fully nationalized health-care system, then you might celebrate the states failure to go along with the attempt to include them. And if what happens is, as Daniels predicts, "first-rate operational catastrophe," then that sets up the collapse into the only workable fix a fully nationalized health-care system.
February 6, 2011
Watch the Super Bowl with us!
Come, hang out at Meadhouse.
UPDATE: Packers win the Super Bowl!!!!!!
UPDATE2: It's 28° outside, but guys are opening their doors to yell to each other what everybody already knows: Packers win the Super Bowl!
UPDATE3: I must say I enjoyed seeing George W. Bush there. George and Laura and Condi.
UPDATE: Packers win the Super Bowl!!!!!!
UPDATE2: It's 28° outside, but guys are opening their doors to yell to each other what everybody already knows: Packers win the Super Bowl!
UPDATE3: I must say I enjoyed seeing George W. Bush there. George and Laura and Condi.
Sunday on skis.
This was our second stop...
The first was Governor Nelson, but I didn't take a picture. We stopped at Steve's Liquor Store on the way home, not because we needed anything, but because we knew they were having a pre-Super Bowl tailgate party, which is to say, free brats. So we bought some beer and Nueske's bacon and grabbed a free brat to share as we drove home.
The first was Governor Nelson, but I didn't take a picture. We stopped at Steve's Liquor Store on the way home, not because we needed anything, but because we knew they were having a pre-Super Bowl tailgate party, which is to say, free brats. So we bought some beer and Nueske's bacon and grabbed a free brat to share as we drove home.
"What's on besides the Super Bowl?"
"'Sex and the City' marathon... 'Toddlers and Tiaras' marathon... 'Bewitched' marathon... 'Worst Cooks in America' marathon... 'Jerseylicious' marathon..."
"Is it harder for women to be sports fans?"
(Bonus question: Is it harder for women to speak without sounding like everything is a question?)
"Is it harder for women to be sports fans?"
(Bonus question: Is it harder for women to speak without sounding like everything is a question?)
"A young Wisconsin trio could shape the direction of the GOP."
WaPo:
They all grew up in southern Wisconsin. They are close in age, ranging from late 30s to early 40s, and have known and worked with one another for many years. [Paul] Ryan and [Scott] Walker met when they were in their 20s. Ryan's chief of staff roomed with [Reince] Priebus in college.It's all about Wisconsin....
They are not only friends but political soul mates. They share a worldview, a set of conservative values and a determination to show the country that conservative governance can solve many of the nation's problems. And in Wisconsin, they found a way to unify the party establishment with the tea party movement, avoiding many of the conflicts that occurred in other states.
"With a classic showman’s swagger, Bill O’Reilly has declared that more people will see his live pre-game interview with President Barack Obama..."
"... on Sunday than 'any other interview that’s ever been done in the history of mankind.'"
Blech. Why are those 2 non-football characters trying to horn in on the Super Bowl? Can you just leave us alone for one day?
Blech. Why are those 2 non-football characters trying to horn in on the Super Bowl? Can you just leave us alone for one day?
Movie watched last night: "Citizen Kane."
What was the motivation to pull the old reputedly-greatest-movie-ever-made down off the shelf? Some conversation about putting together a story by interviewing various people who knew a specific individual one had never met and wanted to try to understand. I said that's the famous, highly praised narrative structure of "Citizen Kane," you realize, but you didn't realize that because you'd never seen "Citizen Kane." How do you get through life without seeing "Citizen Kane"? People are always pushing "Citizen Kane," which you rightly pointed out is a reason to resist it. So thanks for not resisting it when I pushed it, which I did not because I'm shocked that you'd failed to take in the greatest movie blah blah blah — in fact, I admire resistance to that sort of pressure — but because it had to do with an idea we were already talking about that had nothing to do with the irritating pseudo-accomplishment of seeing all the things you're supposed to see.
"Citizen Kane" questions for discussion:
1. Why did you see "Citizen Kane," or how have you managed to avoid it? Have you been bullied into seeing it, or are you one of the bullies? Do you feel like there are movies you're supposed to see, and do you see them or avoid them?
2. If you've seen it, do you like it? What don't you like about it? Do you like that kind of extreme visual composition where one actor is right up against the edge of the frame and the other actor walks away into the set and looks about one tenth the size of the other guy? Do you like that stagey acting? Do those special achievements in makeup from 1941 drive you crazy or do you find them heart-rendingly touching evidence of striving after Art?
3. With all this snow we've been having, we could make a list of movies with important snow, and "Citizen Kane" belongs on that list. What else? "The Shining"...
"Citizen Kane" questions for discussion:
1. Why did you see "Citizen Kane," or how have you managed to avoid it? Have you been bullied into seeing it, or are you one of the bullies? Do you feel like there are movies you're supposed to see, and do you see them or avoid them?
2. If you've seen it, do you like it? What don't you like about it? Do you like that kind of extreme visual composition where one actor is right up against the edge of the frame and the other actor walks away into the set and looks about one tenth the size of the other guy? Do you like that stagey acting? Do those special achievements in makeup from 1941 drive you crazy or do you find them heart-rendingly touching evidence of striving after Art?
3. With all this snow we've been having, we could make a list of movies with important snow, and "Citizen Kane" belongs on that list. What else? "The Shining"...
"Do you think it's gonna be a Packers blowout? Do you see where that could happen?"
Rush Limbaugh asked Ken Hutcherson on Friday's show:
THE HUTCH: Well, I do. That's why I was gonna make you promise me that you won't turn the TV off at halftime.So, Packers win in a blowout, right? Anyway, you see the subject of women came up. It comes up again at the end of the discussion:
RUSH: I would never turn the Super Bowl off at halftime no matter what's happening....
THE HUTCH: ... But if you will notice, why do most advertisers want to advertise on the first half?
RUSH: Well, Hutch, it's because the women stop watching at halftime.
THE HUTCH: (laughing) No. Because they know, man, that the Super Bowl has a tendency to be one-sided. We've had some great Super Bowls in the last....
RUSH: Yeah, but it hasn't been the case in the last five or six years. This game has gone down to the last play...
THE HUTCH: But there is a possibility that someone could be put to shame this week. I'm not gonna push, but I believe my Green Bay Packers are gonna come through....
February 5, 2011
"Any person who vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious..."
There's a dispute in Malawi over whether that language, in a criminal statute, outlaws farting.
Hey, that remind me of an old story about George Bush:
Hey, that remind me of an old story about George Bush:
What the President thinks of the use of weird words. Having just expounded on the use of strange words, I especially enjoyed this extract--in Slate's always appreciated we-read-this-so-you-don't-have-to series--from Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack":More on the inadvisability of using the word "vitiate" here. As for farting in public, I've only written about it before in connection with Saul Alinsky and Chris Matthews. And here's that wonderful George Carlin routine.
Page 186: Bush aide Nick Calio declares his intention to vitiate a congressional filibuster. Bush says, "Nicky, what the f**k are you talking about, vitiate?"
"You know... some people get shocked about sex. I was shocked that everyone was so shocked."
What a fuss everyone made about "I Am Curious (Yellow)," back in the 1960s. The star, Lena Nyman, has died at the age of 66.
Just 2 days ago, we were talking about the death of Maria Schneider, another woman we knew through a movie that shocked us with sex long ago.
Where are all the other women, who shocked us with mere sexuality back then, when naked actors simulating sex got everyone's attention? They are all old now, almost 60 years or more. We notice their obituaries and we remember the olden days, when it was possible to shock people with nothing more than nudity and sexual intercourse.
The U.S. Supreme Court had to deal with the fuss over "I Am Curious (Yellow)." There's an opinion by Justice Douglas where — it's hard now to understand why — he saw fit to quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:
There seemed be be a lot at stake back then. It seems so creakily irrelevant today, as the once-naked, once-beautiful bodies are buried in the earth, but free speech is on the line today too. Do you notice? Do you care?
Humanity is separated from the animal world by thought and speech, and they should naturally be free.
Just 2 days ago, we were talking about the death of Maria Schneider, another woman we knew through a movie that shocked us with sex long ago.
Where are all the other women, who shocked us with mere sexuality back then, when naked actors simulating sex got everyone's attention? They are all old now, almost 60 years or more. We notice their obituaries and we remember the olden days, when it was possible to shock people with nothing more than nudity and sexual intercourse.
The U.S. Supreme Court had to deal with the fuss over "I Am Curious (Yellow)." There's an opinion by Justice Douglas where — it's hard now to understand why — he saw fit to quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:
It is time to remember that the first thing we belong to is humanity. And humanity is separated from the animal world by thought and speech, and they should naturally be free. If they are fettered, we go back to being animals. Publicity and openness, honest and complete - that is the prime condition for the health of every society, and ours too.Justice Douglas said: "If 'obscenity' can be carved out of the First Amendment, what other like exceptions can be created?"
There seemed be be a lot at stake back then. It seems so creakily irrelevant today, as the once-naked, once-beautiful bodies are buried in the earth, but free speech is on the line today too. Do you notice? Do you care?
Humanity is separated from the animal world by thought and speech, and they should naturally be free.
"So when a white person holds objectionable views — racism, for example — we rightly condemn them."
"But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them."
Prime Minister David Cameron, daring to say that his country has values.
Prime Minister David Cameron, daring to say that his country has values.
Hosni Mubarak has resigned?
"Reuters is reporting, via Egyptian state television, that President Hosni Mubarak resigned as head of Egypt's ruling party on Saturday. Al Jazeera is reporting the same."
ADDED: Question mark added to the post title.
AND: From the NYT live-blog linked above:
ADDED: Question mark added to the post title.
AND: From the NYT live-blog linked above:
While we are awaiting clarity on whether President Hosni Mubarak remains the head of the ruling National Democratic Party in Egypt-- he is definitely still president, in any case-- here is some news on one of Egypt's leading opposition bloggers.
"2 Detained Reporters Saw Secret Police’s Methods Firsthand."
Could you please read this NYT article very carefully and explain to me how we know it was the Egyptian government's secret police as opposed to an exercise by opponents of the government, done to induce reporters to write stories antagonistic to the government?
The reporters were kept in "a plain room," where they were not beaten but they could hear what sounded like beating. What did they actually see?
The reporters were kept in "a plain room," where they were not beaten but they could hear what sounded like beating. What did they actually see?
We saw a journalist with his head bandaged and others brought in with jackets thrown over their heads as they were led by armed men....
A plainclothes officer who said his name was Marwan gestured to us. “Come to the door,” he said, “and look out.”Isn't that odd? Lots of blindfolded people, and then alarming sounds coming from elsewhere? They were kept for a day and then released.
We saw more than 20 people, Westerners and Egyptians, blindfolded and handcuffed. The room had been empty when we arrived the evening before.
“We could be treating you a lot worse,” he said in a flat tone, the facts speaking for themselves. Marwan said Egyptians were being held in the thousands. During the night we heard them being beaten, screaming after every blow.
They put us in our car with orders to put our heads down. “Look down, and don’t talk. If you look up you will see something you don’t ever want to see.”Again, the hearing without seeing. Isn't this a strange article? Seriously, I am not trying to make trouble. I just read this article and felt like the reporters could have been duped by people manufacturing disinformation.
They left us that way for 10 minutes. The only sounds were of guns being loaded and checked and duct-tape ripping.
"The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty."
Says the UK Telegraph, relying on Wikileaks:
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.Oh, but don't be upset! The START treaty was Obama's chosen post-elections showdown with GOP last fall:
Just two weeks after an election that left him struggling to find his way forward, President Obama has decided to confront Senate Republicans in a make-or-break battle over arms control that could be an early test of his mettle heading into the final two years of his term.Obama proved his mettle! What's more important? Our relationship with the UK or proof of Obama's mettle after the crushing 2010 elections?
"AT AMAZON, a Valentine’s Day sale on cookware," says Instapundit... but wait!
Cookware as a Valentine's Day gift? Isn't cookware a famously bad Valentine's Day gift? I say that out loud. And Meade says: "Don't you know? Everything has flipped. It's for women to give to their men — the proud men who do all the cooking now — the proud men of true Mandom, like me and Glenn. Men, who see cookware as their tools."
Whatever you buy, if you don't buy it through Instapundit, please start here:
***
Whatever you buy, if you don't buy it through Instapundit, please start here:
February 4, 2011
"The Most Feminist Place in the World."
You know it's got to be Iceland.
[A]ctivists from Stigamot, the rape crisis center in Reykjavik, gave Knut Storberget, Norwegian justice minister, black boxer-briefs with the words I Am Responsible written down the crotch....
Feminism, or at least the notion of gender equality, has so infused politics that, a couple of years ago, women members of Parliament performed The Vagina Monologues....
There are also new feminine spaces in the economy. As the economy went into overdrive, Kristín Pétursdóttir and Halla Tomasdóttir, who had been warning of disaster from her position at the Chamber of Commerce, founded Auður Capital, a “financial service company emphasizing feminine values and social responsibility.”...
"The Fish Filet™ Commercial KFC Doesn’t Want You To See (Anymore)."
"'It is no longer airing and will not be re-aired,' said a flack for Yum! Brands, the perpetually thrilled conglomerate that owns KFC."
ADDED: That's an interesting YouTube portal into Chinese commercials. Check out this very weird Panda cheese thing, and this one made me feel like I needed to have a seizure.
"[I]f the Democrats, who called this hearing, hoped to blunt the momentum of the legal challenges by showing that the lawsuits had no merit, they failed in their objective."
Randy Barnett has some thoughts about the Senate Judiciary Committee on the constitutionality of the health care law. (Which we've already talked about here, here, and here.)
Randy says:
Randy "was particularly struck by the cordiality and collegiality shown to all the witnesses by Senator Durbin."
Now, that's nice, but, really, the hearing, from Durbin's perspective, was probably the Theater of Listening. If the courts are going to uphold the law, it will be because they decide that the appropriate judicial role is deference to Congress's decision that it has power under the Constitution to pass the law. Looking terribly interested in the details of the legal arguments creates the impression that you deserve deference.
Look! I'm living up to my independent role of determining that the law I'm drafting and voting for is constitutional.
Of course, having the hearing after the law is passed (and after the threat from the courts has materialized) doesn't really inspire the confidence that is needed to justify judicial deference to Congress.
But that's all the more reason to do good theater.
Randy says:
If anything, press coverage generally reflected the view that both sides made strong arguments, and that only the Supreme Court could settle the matter. Indeed, my impression is that the hearings served to advance the credibility of the challenges.Clearly, we've advanced beyond "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Randy "was particularly struck by the cordiality and collegiality shown to all the witnesses by Senator Durbin."
Not only did he genially greet each one of us beforehand and thank us individually afterwards, he paid close attention to everything each of us said, and what each fellow Senator said, for more than two hours of the hearing.He listened, he really, really listened!
Now, that's nice, but, really, the hearing, from Durbin's perspective, was probably the Theater of Listening. If the courts are going to uphold the law, it will be because they decide that the appropriate judicial role is deference to Congress's decision that it has power under the Constitution to pass the law. Looking terribly interested in the details of the legal arguments creates the impression that you deserve deference.
Look! I'm living up to my independent role of determining that the law I'm drafting and voting for is constitutional.
Of course, having the hearing after the law is passed (and after the threat from the courts has materialized) doesn't really inspire the confidence that is needed to justify judicial deference to Congress.
But that's all the more reason to do good theater.
Why the Pope can't be an organ donor.
For one thing: "his body belongs to the entire Church and must be buried intact." But:
Furthermore, if papal organs were donated, they would become relics in other bodies if he were eventually made a saint.I don't know enough Catholic theology to understand what's wrong with a saint's relic functioning in someone else's body. Saints are supposed to help us out only in ways that that are unachievable by ordinary dead people?
"Dan Snyder, Owner of a Team Named After an Ethnic Slur, Sues Over Perceived Anti-Semitism."
"That’s anti-Semitic? That looks to me like a public figure with devil horns drawn on his head. I mean, I’m a guy who has gotten into bar fights over how The Smurfs are anti-Semitic (I mean Gargamel. Really?), but I can hardly fathom how drawing devil horns on a photo conveys any ethnic malice."
Writes Elie Mystal, making a point but also displaying some surprising ignorance about iconography.
Writes Elie Mystal, making a point but also displaying some surprising ignorance about iconography.
Glenn Beck reacts to what they're saying about him.
Watch him watch Michelle Goldberg:
Michelle Goldberg is a lefty columnist I've done Bloggingheads diavlogs with.
Glenn Beck... I don't know what to make of him. I can't listen to him long enough to follow his theories. Seriously, those banks of creepily lit brown blackboards covered in orange chalkings... it's nightmarish. It flips my too-crazy-to-watch switch, which keeps me from ingesting the substance. But I don't turn around and call him crazy. I'd monitor him for you, but I don't have the attention. I'm suddenly like a schoolboy the teacher thinks needs Ritalin, and I just say no.
Michelle Goldberg is a lefty columnist I've done Bloggingheads diavlogs with.
Glenn Beck... I don't know what to make of him. I can't listen to him long enough to follow his theories. Seriously, those banks of creepily lit brown blackboards covered in orange chalkings... it's nightmarish. It flips my too-crazy-to-watch switch, which keeps me from ingesting the substance. But I don't turn around and call him crazy. I'd monitor him for you, but I don't have the attention. I'm suddenly like a schoolboy the teacher thinks needs Ritalin, and I just say no.
"And that was when he discovered he had a special kinda way with animals."
"They just come right up to him like he was a natural part of the wilderness."
Have you been living free in harmony and majesty like we did back in the 1970s?
Charles Sellier Jr., the man who created "The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams,” has died at the age of 67.
Wow! The 60s were so different from the 70s. The 60s had a lot of 50s in them, and the 70s had a lot of 60s, but not the part of the 60s that was leftover from the 50s. If you're not old like me, maybe those distinctions sound meaningless, but if you are, I bet you know exactly what I mean.
Have you been living free in harmony and majesty like we did back in the 1970s?
***
Charles Sellier Jr., the man who created "The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams,” has died at the age of 67.
Loosely based on an actual person who escaped into the wilderness in 1853 after being accused of a murder he didn’t commit, Grizzly Adams is a bearded, barrel-chested man (played by Dan Haggerty) who counts among his friends raccoons, skunks, ferrets, deer, coyotes, porcupines, an eagle and, of course, the abandoned grizzly bear cub who matures into a powerful companion named Ben.ADDED: Did you have the same question I had?: Is Ben the same Ben as "Gentle Ben"? The answer is no: "there is no connection between the bears."
Wow! The 60s were so different from the 70s. The 60s had a lot of 50s in them, and the 70s had a lot of 60s, but not the part of the 60s that was leftover from the 50s. If you're not old like me, maybe those distinctions sound meaningless, but if you are, I bet you know exactly what I mean.
"I hear so much of the pain from students, faculty or staff... People look at me differently because I am x, y or z."
Said Damon Williams, the University of Wisconsin Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate, at last night's Student Town Hall Meeting.
Williams presented issues progressing on campus and others that have remained the same or regressed. One of those issues progressing is the university's undergraduate enrollment of minorities, but Williams will not be happy until UW-Madison is the "national champion."Nearly a hundred students showed up to hear that and to be put in small groups to come up with specific ideas on assigned diversity subtopics like academic success and campus climate.
Students proposed ideas including giving social action leaders college credit for their volunteer work and changing ethnic studies classes to be purely discussion.
February 3, 2011
"My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years."
"All the more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time. We are reminded that, ultimately, what matters is not what other people say about us, but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God."
ADDED: "CLINGING to his religion. And perhaps even a trifle bitterly."
ADDED: "CLINGING to his religion. And perhaps even a trifle bitterly."
"I felt very sad because I was treated like a sex symbol."
"I wanted to be recognized as an actress, and the whole scandal and aftermath of the film turned me a little crazy and I had a breakdown. Now, though, I can look at the film and like my work in it.... I felt humiliated and to be honest, I felt a little raped, both by Marlon and by Bertolucci... After the scene, Marlon didn’t console me or apologize. Thankfully, there was just one take."
Maria Schneider, dead at 58.
Maria Schneider, dead at 58.
Will the Supreme Court accept an Obamacare appeal without waiting for a Court of Appeals decision?
That's what Virginia attorney general Kenneth Cuccinelli is attempting to make happen in Virginia v. Sebelius.
What is the argument for urgency here? So much effort and money are being wasted if it is in fact the case that the reform is void.Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals Before JudgmentIt is extremely rare for the Court to grant certiorari before judgment of a court of appeals.... A quick Westlaw search (in which I certainly may have missed something) indicates that the last time the Court did so — setting aside cases in which the Court took a case and consolidated it with another one coming from the court of appeals, or simply granted cert to vacate and remand in light of a recent decision — was 23 years ago in United States v. Mistretta. There, the district court had declared the newly minted U.S. Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional as a violation of separation of powers. And the need for quick judicial resolution was extremely pressing — it affected the sentencing of every single federal defendant in the country.
A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require im mediate determination in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §2101(e).
"Charlotte charred by FLOTUS roast reference."
Okay, now there's a headline. I'm choosing to blog it before even reading the article. Sounds like something terrible and First-Lady-related is going on in the southern city. But what? Let's see. It seems the city of Charlotte, North Carolina was chosen as the site for the 2012 Democratic convention. Check. Michelle Obama sent out an email listing some nice things about Charlotte: "southern charm, hospitality, diversity — 'And of course, great barbecue.'"
But it turns out the great North Carolina barbecue isn't actually in the city of Charlotte.
But it turns out the great North Carolina barbecue isn't actually in the city of Charlotte.
A local Associated Press reporter quoted a barbecue expert, retired University of North Carolina professor John Shelton Reed, who said that Charlotte for barbecue was "like Minneapolis for gumbo."Well, you can un-paste the one about "southern charm."
The gaffe was enough to make you wonder whether the White House had simply cut and pasted Southern clichés to create the first lady's announcement.
"Otherwise known as a 'Jump-the-Shark' martini?"
Comment #4 on this NYT food blog item which rhapsodizes insanely about a "grilled cheese and tomato soup martini":
ADDED: Why not just make yourself a grilled cheese sandwich, heat up some Campbell's Tomato Soup, and pour yourself a big tumbler of rum? Or if you want to be snobby, make a real martini: It's gin + vermouth. That's a martini.
Shawn Soole, a crack bartender from Brisbane, Australia... starts with his own batch of “grilled cheese rum” — dark, viscous Mt. Gay “washed” overnight with a real-live grilled cheese sandwich, a seeping process to extract essential flavors and infuse them into the rum, before adding fresh-muddled tomato and basil, salt, Lillet Blanc and Glenfiddich Scotch whiskey. The effect is extraordinary: the grilled cheese rum leaps off the palate with flavors of cheddar, bread and butter, mingled with a dark sweetness, while the Lillet Blanc prevents the texture from veering into Bloody Mary territory. Topping the cocktail off with a drop of Glenfiddich adds a hint of off-the-grill smoke and evokes sipping, grilling and dunking.There's a gut-wrenching/laughable recipe at the link.
ADDED: Why not just make yourself a grilled cheese sandwich, heat up some Campbell's Tomato Soup, and pour yourself a big tumbler of rum? Or if you want to be snobby, make a real martini: It's gin + vermouth. That's a martini.
How Patrick Leahy saved Charles Fried from revealing that many law professors think judges should decide constitutional questions to produce the best policy consequences.
At yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Republican Senator Charles Grassley asked what you might think is a very basic question: "And do you think that judges should decide cases based on their best understanding of the meaning of the Constitution or on whether they think their rulings would have good or bad policy consequences?"
The witnesses — Oregon Attorney General John Kroger, lawyer Michael Carvin, and law professors Randy Barnett, Walter Dellinger, and Charles Fried — all immediately agreed [ADDED: with the first option].
Grassley, who was running out of time, added, "Obviously, it's good to have that understanding, that we're a society based upon law and not upon what judges just happen to think it might be."
It was Senator Leahy's turn at that point, and he began, spontaneously, off-script:
But when Leahy says "They don't admit it," Fried does not answer. Fried was saved from having to admit that he knows plenty of people — I'll bet he does — who would proudly admit it. I know law professors who not only admit it but trash you as naive or evil if you won't go along with them.
Leahy moves quickly to another question thus closing the uncomfortable opening: "But do you know anybody who should disagree with it?" Ah! The relief of the word "should"! If he had said "does," Fried would, in all likelihood, have had to say "yes." But Leahy said "should," and Fried could say "Not a soul." And Leahy could totter ahead onto his prepared script. Whew! That was a close one!
(I'm sorry I don't have a transcript to link to. Here is video of the event.)
The witnesses — Oregon Attorney General John Kroger, lawyer Michael Carvin, and law professors Randy Barnett, Walter Dellinger, and Charles Fried — all immediately agreed [ADDED: with the first option].
Grassley, who was running out of time, added, "Obviously, it's good to have that understanding, that we're a society based upon law and not upon what judges just happen to think it might be."
It was Senator Leahy's turn at that point, and he began, spontaneously, off-script:
LEAHY: Actually, on that last question, Professor Fried, do you know anybody that disagrees with that, whether the left or the right?Now, Fried is a professor at Harvard Law School. Of course, he knows lots of people who think judges should decide cases based on "whether they think their rulings would have good or bad policy consequence" and not on some sort of "understanding of the meaning of the Constitution." I'll bet he knows many people whose understanding of the meaning of the Constitution already automatically is: whatever would have good policy consequences.
FRIED: Well...
LEAHY: I mean...
FRIED: Yes, I'm afraid I do.
LEAHY: They don't admit it. But do you know anybody who should disagree with it?
FRIED: Not a soul.
LEAHY: I thought you might feel that way.
But when Leahy says "They don't admit it," Fried does not answer. Fried was saved from having to admit that he knows plenty of people — I'll bet he does — who would proudly admit it. I know law professors who not only admit it but trash you as naive or evil if you won't go along with them.
Leahy moves quickly to another question thus closing the uncomfortable opening: "But do you know anybody who should disagree with it?" Ah! The relief of the word "should"! If he had said "does," Fried would, in all likelihood, have had to say "yes." But Leahy said "should," and Fried could say "Not a soul." And Leahy could totter ahead onto his prepared script. Whew! That was a close one!
(I'm sorry I don't have a transcript to link to. Here is video of the event.)
"There's a misimpression out there that... federal agents arrive in black helicopters dressed in fully equipped armed ninja costumes, kick down your bedroom door and drag you off at the point of bayonets to an insurance agency."
... hyperbolized lawprof Walter Dellinger at yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. (Video here.)
In fact, what -- all that happens is that for those who are not otherwise exempted and -- when they're filling out their federal income tax return, if you're not maintaining minimum coverage, you have to pay an additional 2.5 percent, much less than Social Security. That's all that happened.I thought the point of worrying about approaching slippery slopes is that we would otherwise accept one incremental intrusion after another and never see fit to draw the line and, thus lulled, we would lose our liberty.
So in that sense, this great intrusion on liberty doesn't approach any slippery slopes or exceed any understood limits in our legal culture.
Why does the left hate free speech?
Because they don't know how to talk about the substantive merits when they are challenged. Having submerged themselves in disciplining each other by denouncing any heretics in their midst, they find themselves overwhelmed and outnumbered in America, where there is vibrant debate about all sorts of things they don't know how to begin to talk about. They resort to stomping their feet and shouting "shut up"... when they aren't prissily imploring everyone to be "civil."
UPDATE: Scott Lemieux, the blogger I linked to above, has written a new post in which he might think he's responding to my challenge and providing substance rather than crude denouncement. If you can slog through his laughably poor writing — "It’s not just liberals but Althouse herself who don’t believe in the standards of free speech she criticizes 'liberals' for not practicing" — you'll see he's come up with 3 links to posts of mine which supposedly show that I don't have principled free-speech values. Follow those links and see what I actually wrote.
UPDATE: Scott Lemieux, the blogger I linked to above, has written a new post in which he might think he's responding to my challenge and providing substance rather than crude denouncement. If you can slog through his laughably poor writing — "It’s not just liberals but Althouse herself who don’t believe in the standards of free speech she criticizes 'liberals' for not practicing" — you'll see he's come up with 3 links to posts of mine which supposedly show that I don't have principled free-speech values. Follow those links and see what I actually wrote.
February 2, 2011
The Senate Judiciary Committee has a hearing on the constitutionality of the health care law.
Oh, look! They're finally paying attention to a little technical matter they ought to have taken account of a year or so ago.
Watch with me.
Watch with me.
"Very few people are really supportive of free speech, whether they're liberals or conservatives..."
"... The First Amendment for many years played the role, when it triumphed in the courts, of protecting the speech of people who tended to be on the left—so it was minorities or the powerless in our society. The liberals on the Supreme Court today would still protect those people and their rights... What's changed is that conservatives found some causes which they have used to vindicate genuine First Amendment rights."
So said the great First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams — in an interview, a year ago, with James Taranto, who just emailed me, a propos of my blog post today, "When did the left turn against free speech?"
So said the great First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams — in an interview, a year ago, with James Taranto, who just emailed me, a propos of my blog post today, "When did the left turn against free speech?"
"The only people for me are the mad ones..."
"... the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes 'Awww!'"
A sentence written by Jack Kerouac, submitted in a contest to pick the best sentences, chosen as one of the 3 best sentences, by Stanley Fish, who has written a book called "How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One," which I just bought, and you could buy too, using this link, causing Amazon to send 8% of the purchase price to me and making me go "Awww!"
A sentence written by Jack Kerouac, submitted in a contest to pick the best sentences, chosen as one of the 3 best sentences, by Stanley Fish, who has written a book called "How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One," which I just bought, and you could buy too, using this link, causing Amazon to send 8% of the purchase price to me and making me go "Awww!"
Most sex is bad sex, right?
It's important to draw a line between rape and bad sex. And watch what you sext...
And maybe I should watch my own on-camera gestures...
And maybe I should watch my own on-camera gestures...
"Punxsutawney Phil predicts early spring."
It's Groundhog Day.
Have you never noticed why it makes perfect sense to consider the beginning of spring on this day in the beginning of February, which seems like the middle of winter? I submit that it really is the end of winter, if you understand winter properly, in terms of the deprivation of light, as opposed to warmth. It's the darkness that hurts. The cold is bracing. Put on a fuzzy sweater!
Officially, winter begins on the solstice, but that is the darkest day of the year. If you care about light, half of the darkest days are already over when winter officially begins. And the phenomenon of each day getting darker is completely over. Winter understood in terms of darkness would put the solstice at its center and extend a month and a half in either direction. Thus, if the solstice is December 21, as it was this year, then true winter — light-sensitive winter — began around November 6 and ends a few days from now, around February 5th.
Kids, it's Spring! Wake up and smell the daffodils!
Have you never noticed why it makes perfect sense to consider the beginning of spring on this day in the beginning of February, which seems like the middle of winter? I submit that it really is the end of winter, if you understand winter properly, in terms of the deprivation of light, as opposed to warmth. It's the darkness that hurts. The cold is bracing. Put on a fuzzy sweater!
Officially, winter begins on the solstice, but that is the darkest day of the year. If you care about light, half of the darkest days are already over when winter officially begins. And the phenomenon of each day getting darker is completely over. Winter understood in terms of darkness would put the solstice at its center and extend a month and a half in either direction. Thus, if the solstice is December 21, as it was this year, then true winter — light-sensitive winter — began around November 6 and ends a few days from now, around February 5th.
Kids, it's Spring! Wake up and smell the daffodils!
Photography in the delivery room — parents feel like they have a right...
... and the doctors and hospital staff don't like doing their work on camera.
Look like you're doing the right thing, even when you're confused and you know you're hurting someone. That would be a good approach even without the cameras, but medical personnel — like politicians — need to adjust their demeanor and expression for the world of YouTube.
Many hospitals allow and even encourage recording because modern cameras, particularly those taking video, are so unobtrusive. But that same technology has introduced a wild card into a fraught scene that could shock a jury — with the mother screaming and staff responding (or not) to what may look like an emergency — all of which can be edited to misrepresent what actually took place....
“When we had people videotaping, it got to be a bit of a media circus,” Dr. Tracy said, adding that the banning of cameras evolved through general practice rather than a written policy. “I want to be 100 percent focused on the medical care, and in this litigious atmosphere, where ads are on TV every 30 seconds about suing, it makes physicians gun shy.”...Now, part of medical training is: Acting!
Dr. Elliott Main, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, which also allows filming of births, said, “The modern approach is not to ban cameras but to do drills and practice.”
“Where you get into trouble is where people panic or don’t know what to do next and have blank looks on their faces,” he said. Videotaping simulated births, he said, can help the medical staff adjust their behavior.
Look like you're doing the right thing, even when you're confused and you know you're hurting someone. That would be a good approach even without the cameras, but medical personnel — like politicians — need to adjust their demeanor and expression for the world of YouTube.
"Now that the law is 'dead,' will Wisconsin return the money or rebuff any other federal grant money?"
"Will other state governments declaring the law dead do the same? If so, how much money do they stand to lose? How will this impact their consistuents [sic]? It's a pretty worthwhile line of inquiry."
Well, yeah, it sure is. Congress larded the 2,000-page bill with so much spending that we're supposed to be so fat by now that we can't do anything more than roll over and submit to any unconstitutional excesses of power that came with the lard. How dare Wisconsin's Attorney General stand up and say no?!
I put "sic" up there because I assume "consistuents" is a typo, not a portmanteau, a deliberate incorporation of "sissy."
Well, yeah, it sure is. Congress larded the 2,000-page bill with so much spending that we're supposed to be so fat by now that we can't do anything more than roll over and submit to any unconstitutional excesses of power that came with the lard. How dare Wisconsin's Attorney General stand up and say no?!
***
I put "sic" up there because I assume "consistuents" is a typo, not a portmanteau, a deliberate incorporation of "sissy."
When did the left turn against free speech?
One of the commenters declares that my "assertion that 'the best test of the truth is its ability to get accepted in the marketplace of ideas' was probably the most offensive part of her argument." When questioned about whether I really said that, he comes back with:
She cited a Justice whose name I haven't retained, as in: "As Justice X says, ..." followed by the verbatim passage I quoted.She cited a Justice whose name I haven't retained.... Oh, for the love of God, why doesn't every educated person in America know the name of the Supreme Court Justice who said that... or at the very least know that it's embarrassing not to know? As if I'd thrown out some abstruse legalistic peculiarity!
And that was part of an argument by the commenter — echoing Bob Wright — that free speech is too dangerous because it might be false and it might inspire bad people to act out in terrible ways.
Remember when lefties were all about free speech? When did that change? Why did that change? Perhaps the answer is: Free speech was only ever a means to an end. When they got their free speech, made their arguments, and failed to win over the American people, and when in fact the speech from their opponents seemed too successful, they switched to the repression of speech, because the end was never freedom.
How are you dealing with the national blizzardification?
Here's what it looked like when I opened the door this morning:
That made me laugh, even though I'd already seen the view from the window:
That made me laugh, even though I'd already seen the view from the window:
"The juxtaposition between the portrait of this girl against the ad featuring a portrait of Krauthammer is intolerably jarring."
Wrote Chip Ahoy in the middle of the night when this was the top post. And he didn't just complain. He did something about it. He "reconciled" the photographs in a girlKrauthammer mashup:
"Why Egypt's Revolution Is Not Islamic" — Part 2.
On Monday, I linked to and we discussed this article by Haroon Moghul. Today, he's on a new Bloggingheads. Topics:
ADDED: Moghul's interlocutor is Sarah Posner, who has written about "The Roots of the American Right’s Muslim Brotherhood Panic." Yesterday, I listened to Rush Limbaugh (which I always do) and watched Glenn Beck (which I'd never done for more than 5 minutes) and thought they were making overconfident statements about things they were only guessing about.
The revolution in Egypt is not IslamicI haven't listened yet, but I was impressed by the article and am interested in hearing him questioned about it.
A primer on the Muslim Brotherhood
The Brotherhood in America
Conservatives fight against Islamic organizations in the US
What Shariah is and isn’t
How Egypt could reduce American Islamophobia
ADDED: Moghul's interlocutor is Sarah Posner, who has written about "The Roots of the American Right’s Muslim Brotherhood Panic." Yesterday, I listened to Rush Limbaugh (which I always do) and watched Glenn Beck (which I'd never done for more than 5 minutes) and thought they were making overconfident statements about things they were only guessing about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
