"State Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in an interview ripped into Justice Patience Roggensack's recent comments that if re-elected she would find a way to resolve the June 2011 physical confrontation between Bradley and Justice David Prosser."
Ripped into? Why rip into Roggensack? Well, that's the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's characterization. Here are the details provided:
25 માર્ચ, 2013
Bill Gates wants to build a better condom.
He's offering a $100,000 prize.
[T]he foundation is calling for new shapes, materials and packaging that "significantly preserve or enhance pleasure, in order to improve uptake and regular use."Should this win?
Trojan and Durex have been trying to do this for decades with ribs, contours and lubricants.
But "we know empirically that those don't work as claimed," the Gates Foundation's Stephen Ward recently told the Humanosphere blog. "The idea here is to seed innovative ideas."
"Ford is quickly apologizing for a leaked ad featuring the Kardashian sisters tied up and gagged..."
"... in the trunk of a car with a winking Paris Hilton in the driver seat.... A similar ad of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi throwing a peace sign from the front seat while three women appear bound and gagged in the trunk has been removed as well."
Incomprehensible! How can something like this happen?
Incomprehensible! How can something like this happen?
Did you notice I'm guestblogging...
... over at Instapundit this week? (Not solo, so not sure how much to slip in edgewise. This blog is the main thing for me, and I feel like I'm the not-like-the-others contributor.)
"Think of a peanut between two molars, about to be crushed. At the precise millisecond the nut succumbs..."
"... the jaw muscles sense the yielding and reflexively let up. Without that reflex, the molars would continue to hurtle recklessly toward one another, now with no intact nut between. To keep your he-man jaw muscles from smashing your precious teeth, the only set you have, the body evolved an automated braking system faster and more sophisticated than anything on a Lexus. The jaw knows its own strength. The faster and more recklessly you close your mouth, the less force the muscles are willing to apply. Without your giving it a conscious thought."
Mary Roach writes about the science of chewing. She's a wonderfully fun writer. I've read 2 of her books — "Stiff" (about dead bodies) and "Bonk" (about sex) — and her new book is "Gulp," which I just pre-ordered for my Kindle. (As long as we're pre-ordering... "Let's Explore Diabetes with Owls.")
And here's "Gulp! The Quiz," where I learned that a certain celebrity had a "megacolon" — a colon two to three times normal size.
Mary Roach writes about the science of chewing. She's a wonderfully fun writer. I've read 2 of her books — "Stiff" (about dead bodies) and "Bonk" (about sex) — and her new book is "Gulp," which I just pre-ordered for my Kindle. (As long as we're pre-ordering... "Let's Explore Diabetes with Owls.")
And here's "Gulp! The Quiz," where I learned that a certain celebrity had a "megacolon" — a colon two to three times normal size.
"Ann, if you're correct and gay marriage is inevitable it might be more profitable to ask of gay marriage proponents 'How do you want to win?'"
Asks Bill in the comments, after I said: "Same-sex marriage will win whichever way the Court goes. Its opponents can only lose. Which way would they prefer to lose?" Amplifying this in the comments, I said: "Either it will win through the court cases or it will win in the political process." And:
But the reason I would like to see the win in the Supreme Court is because I think that's the right place to draw the line between the decisions that belong to the individual and the decisions that belong to majoritarian politics. I don't think the government has been able to articulate anything close to a good enough reason for treating committed couples differently because of the configuration of parts of their bodies that the government shouldn't be looking at anyway.
Meanwhile, if the Court decides against same-sex marriage, it will catapult the Democrats politically. They'll rage. But will it not be in (private) delight?
If ssm wins through the Supreme Court, conservatives can move on to the more abstract and better principled argument against judicial activism.Boldface added, because I need you to remember that. But I want to answer Bill's question. As a proponent of same-sex marriage, how do I want to win? I want to win in the Supreme Court. But I am not hoping for Democratic Party victories in 2014 and 2016. I don't want to see more left-liberal political power leveraged by the same-sex-marriage issue. I don't want more of that distortion, and conservatives should rejoice if the Court saves them from it. Rejoice privately, of course, and move on to your high-road, anti-judicial-activism game.
If the fight continues in the political process, conservatives are going to spend years getting sidetracked into this issue -- rather than the spending and economics issues -- where they will look worse and worse to more and more people.
It's obvious to me that conservative opponents to ssm will be much better off losing in court that going through this political process.
And I think smart conservatives who are writing today in the National Review or the WSJ or wherever actually know this. They are simply pre-loading their judicial activism argument. They can't come out and say what I'm saying or their judicial activism argument won't launch.
But the reason I would like to see the win in the Supreme Court is because I think that's the right place to draw the line between the decisions that belong to the individual and the decisions that belong to majoritarian politics. I don't think the government has been able to articulate anything close to a good enough reason for treating committed couples differently because of the configuration of parts of their bodies that the government shouldn't be looking at anyway.
Meanwhile, if the Court decides against same-sex marriage, it will catapult the Democrats politically. They'll rage. But will it not be in (private) delight?
"There’s no way of knowing what combination of these singular features of marriage confers which of its demonstrated advantages, culturally and psychologically."
"We do know, however, that if the state suddenly creates the institution of gay marriage by fiat, the result will lack most of the features that make marriage unique—and uniquely beneficial. It will not be the same institution that has won the unanimous endorsement of social scientists. It will be a novel and revolutionary institution owing its existence to the devaluation of an old and settled one. Should we assume that the former will confer the same social and personal benefits as the latter, the two being different in such fundamental ways? The only honest answer—the only intellectually respectable answer—is, Who knows?"
Writes Andrew Ferguson, in The Weekly Standard.
But that "only honest answer" is a question, and that question — "Who knows?" — invites another question: Who decides? Is it a matter for majoritarian or individual choice? That's the legal question to be decided by the Supreme Court.
And speaking of honesty and intellectual respectability, restricting myself to the paragraph I've quoted, I question all of the following words/phrases: state suddenly creates... fiat... lack most... unique... uniquely... unanimous... and devaluation...
Tell me: Did the state create marriage? If marriage is not the creation of the state, but a relationship the state built various welfare, pension, tax, and child custody policies around, then it would not be the state creating gay marriage, but the state readjusting its programs to accommodate more people who've made their personal, private decisions to form committed relationships. These relationships have been around for a long, long time. There's nothing sudden about them.
There's been a pretty quick social change from disparaging gay relationships to treating them with tolerance or even honor. That's been so sudden that some of the people who'd felt complacent and comfortable in their disparagement are taken aback to find themselves disparaged.
But that's not state fiat. That's freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
Writes Andrew Ferguson, in The Weekly Standard.
But that "only honest answer" is a question, and that question — "Who knows?" — invites another question: Who decides? Is it a matter for majoritarian or individual choice? That's the legal question to be decided by the Supreme Court.
And speaking of honesty and intellectual respectability, restricting myself to the paragraph I've quoted, I question all of the following words/phrases: state suddenly creates... fiat... lack most... unique... uniquely... unanimous... and devaluation...
Tell me: Did the state create marriage? If marriage is not the creation of the state, but a relationship the state built various welfare, pension, tax, and child custody policies around, then it would not be the state creating gay marriage, but the state readjusting its programs to accommodate more people who've made their personal, private decisions to form committed relationships. These relationships have been around for a long, long time. There's nothing sudden about them.
There's been a pretty quick social change from disparaging gay relationships to treating them with tolerance or even honor. That's been so sudden that some of the people who'd felt complacent and comfortable in their disparagement are taken aback to find themselves disparaged.
But that's not state fiat. That's freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
"He is a smart man... He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going."
"I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction."
So says Jean Podrasky, who is: 1. a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, 2. the cousin of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and 3. going to be sitting — at tomorrow's oral argument on same-sex marriage — in the section reserved for family and guests.
I wonder who else will be seated in that section? I'll bet it will be full of people who support same-sex marriage. Of all the family and friends of the Justices, able to get these reserved seats, who would ask to attend this session? The Ted Olson fans? I'm sure there are those.
Podrasky doesn't claim to know Roberts's views on the matter, and I'm sure he wouldn't like to be thought of as someone who decides cases based on where "he sees the tide is going." Even if he were a tide man, one could just as well stand back and let the tide go there on its own.
Same-sex marriage will win whichever way the Court goes. Its opponents can only lose. Which way would they prefer to lose?
So says Jean Podrasky, who is: 1. a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, 2. the cousin of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and 3. going to be sitting — at tomorrow's oral argument on same-sex marriage — in the section reserved for family and guests.
I wonder who else will be seated in that section? I'll bet it will be full of people who support same-sex marriage. Of all the family and friends of the Justices, able to get these reserved seats, who would ask to attend this session? The Ted Olson fans? I'm sure there are those.
Podrasky doesn't claim to know Roberts's views on the matter, and I'm sure he wouldn't like to be thought of as someone who decides cases based on where "he sees the tide is going." Even if he were a tide man, one could just as well stand back and let the tide go there on its own.
Same-sex marriage will win whichever way the Court goes. Its opponents can only lose. Which way would they prefer to lose?
"A source tipped Breitbart News off to the First Daughters’ spring vacation, which was not publicly announced or reported."
Here's a picture of Matthew Boyle, the Breitbart writer who's essentially inviting his readers to say mean things about the 2 girls who deserve their privacy.
"I’m proud of my dad, not necessarily because of where he is now on marriage equality (although I’m pretty psyched about that)..."
"... but because he’s been thoughtful and open-minded in how he’s approached the issue, and because he’s shown that he’s willing to take a political risk in order to take a principled stand. He was a good man before he changed his position, and he’s a good man now, just as there are good people on either side of this issue today. We’re all the products of our backgrounds and environments, and the issue of marriage for same-sex couples is a complicated nexus of love, identity, politics, ideology and religious beliefs. We should think twice before using terms like 'bigoted' to describe the position of those opposed to same-sex marriage or 'immoral' to describe the position of those in favor, and always strive to cultivate humility in ourselves as we listen to others’ perspectives and share our own."
Dad = Rob Portman.
ADDED: Clicking "edit" on this post, I said: "Do I have a 'humility' tag?" Then, laughing: "No, I only have a 'humiliation' tag." I love adding tags that I've already made, but I resist making new tags. Having "humiliation" but not "humility" strikes me as funny, but on further thought, I do have a tag for humility, which is "modesty." You don't want a lot of synonyms in the tags. "Modesty" is close enough — even if it sweeps together things as diverse as World Hijab Day and the judicial philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Dad = Rob Portman.
ADDED: Clicking "edit" on this post, I said: "Do I have a 'humility' tag?" Then, laughing: "No, I only have a 'humiliation' tag." I love adding tags that I've already made, but I resist making new tags. Having "humiliation" but not "humility" strikes me as funny, but on further thought, I do have a tag for humility, which is "modesty." You don't want a lot of synonyms in the tags. "Modesty" is close enough — even if it sweeps together things as diverse as World Hijab Day and the judicial philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Meade watches the NCAA tournament, but I do not.
I don't like it. And I do watch baseball and football. Not as much as he does, but enough to prove that I'm not averse to all spectator sports. But I do not like basketball. Meade tells me he guarantees that if I were to take a little time to learn a few things about what's going on in basketball that I could enjoy it.
He compares it to his learning to like "Survivor." At first, he spurned it. A fake endurance contest. Why, he's done real endurance races — 24-hour mountain bike races. What's this voting people off an island? But — motivated to share time with me — he learned some details — the strategy, the edit — and it became interesting. If I would learn a few things about basketball, I wouldn't just be putting up with it. I would actually enjoy it, as he now enjoys "Survivor."
"Did you ever notice how the women on 'Survivor' are all wearing bikinis?" I ask. The whole implied argument is painfully obvious. Basketball players in their slinky, baggy tank tops and immense, swishy skirt-pants.
But maybe women don't care so much about what a man looks like. It's the functionality of the body. The performance. This is Meade's theory.
I resist the theory. There's performance on "Survivor" too, I say. But would you enjoy "Survivor" if the women were all wearing big baggy T-shirts and big loose pants?
We compare football, which women are especially fond of watching. The big shoulders, the tight pants (bulge-enhancingly light-colored and shiny). There's something to see. That's a spectator sport. The men look like men. Basketball players are dressed like very unattractive women or horribly oversized children.
"And they're always falling on the floor, and then Dad comes over and gives them a time out," I say. "It's completely not sexy."
He compares it to his learning to like "Survivor." At first, he spurned it. A fake endurance contest. Why, he's done real endurance races — 24-hour mountain bike races. What's this voting people off an island? But — motivated to share time with me — he learned some details — the strategy, the edit — and it became interesting. If I would learn a few things about basketball, I wouldn't just be putting up with it. I would actually enjoy it, as he now enjoys "Survivor."
"Did you ever notice how the women on 'Survivor' are all wearing bikinis?" I ask. The whole implied argument is painfully obvious. Basketball players in their slinky, baggy tank tops and immense, swishy skirt-pants.
But maybe women don't care so much about what a man looks like. It's the functionality of the body. The performance. This is Meade's theory.
I resist the theory. There's performance on "Survivor" too, I say. But would you enjoy "Survivor" if the women were all wearing big baggy T-shirts and big loose pants?
We compare football, which women are especially fond of watching. The big shoulders, the tight pants (bulge-enhancingly light-colored and shiny). There's something to see. That's a spectator sport. The men look like men. Basketball players are dressed like very unattractive women or horribly oversized children.
"And they're always falling on the floor, and then Dad comes over and gives them a time out," I say. "It's completely not sexy."
આના પર સબ્સ્ક્રાઇબ કરો:
પોસ્ટ્સ (Atom)
પોસ્ટ્સ
