You can almost see the green eyeshade as he speaks. It's been noted that Daniels is short, balding (with a combover), that he speaks with just a bit of a Southern country twang (he moved to Indiana from Tennessee and Georgia at age 10): hardly a glamorous candidate.I say he defines the new glamour!
October 11, 2010
Mitch Daniels? Not glamorous?
Via Instapundit, Michael Barone profiles Mitch Daniels and ends on a predictable downbeat:
"Best to assume that we're under surveillance of one form or another most of the time."
Some advice from a professor in an article about that Duke student whose 42-page sex diary went viral on the internet. It's really sad. You know, in the old days people had God — or even just a conscience — to create that sense that they were under surveillance. And some people fretted that the government would be watching us all the time. And now, in our spiffy but impoverished age, we're supposed to manufacture responsibility out of the idea that anything can leak out into the internet.
I found that article via Instapundit, whose teaser was "INSTITUTIONALIZED SEXISM: Duke Contacting Those Affected by Sex 'Thesis.'" Sexism, eh? Maybe you can explain that to me. Are we supposed to think the university would celebrate or excuse a male student who wrote up the details of a lot of sexual encounters with female students? I get the impression Duke is trying to be equal toward the sexes by figuring out what they'd do if a bunch of female students got their privacy invaded this way and then applying the same treatment to the men.
And I still find it hard to believe that the woman — Karen Owen — wrote out her 42-page sex diary just to share it with a few friends. I imagine her laughing over the professor's advice. It may be in her interest to look like the poor girl whose friends opened her diary to the world. Look at the publicity and the readership she's getting for what was substantial literary work (plus field work!). My hypothesis is she's savvy.
I found that article via Instapundit, whose teaser was "INSTITUTIONALIZED SEXISM: Duke Contacting Those Affected by Sex 'Thesis.'" Sexism, eh? Maybe you can explain that to me. Are we supposed to think the university would celebrate or excuse a male student who wrote up the details of a lot of sexual encounters with female students? I get the impression Duke is trying to be equal toward the sexes by figuring out what they'd do if a bunch of female students got their privacy invaded this way and then applying the same treatment to the men.
And I still find it hard to believe that the woman — Karen Owen — wrote out her 42-page sex diary just to share it with a few friends. I imagine her laughing over the professor's advice. It may be in her interest to look like the poor girl whose friends opened her diary to the world. Look at the publicity and the readership she's getting for what was substantial literary work (plus field work!). My hypothesis is she's savvy.
Tweeting your weight automatically..
... from a WiFi scale — after promising — via stickK — to keep your weight below X pounds.
That's what Ian Ayres did. And you can buy his Right To Gain Weight on eBay.
It's all about incentives... and you've got to have accountability.
That's what Ian Ayres did. And you can buy his Right To Gain Weight on eBay.
It's all about incentives... and you've got to have accountability.
Things you may have missed if you didn't hang out here over the weekend.
1. "Witch! Whore!... Nazi!" How evil is it for a candidate to play the role of a Nazi in war reenactments? How evil is it for a journalist to write about that and bury — in the 13th paragraph — the news that the same man — Rich Iott — has also done reenactment as a Civil War Union infantryman, a World War I doughboy and a World War II American infantryman and paratrooper?
2. It's sexist to worry about calling Meg Whitman a whore. If women are going to join men in politics, they deserve to be called whores like the rest of them.
3. Woeful/wilful metaphor deafness: Some people just don't/won't understand what it means to say "some people are just born to be slaves."
4. "Watch Russ Feingold confidently assert that he represents Tea Party values."
5. The story of a pregnant woman who had to pee invokes an old memory of the time I was persecuted by Episcopalians.
2. It's sexist to worry about calling Meg Whitman a whore. If women are going to join men in politics, they deserve to be called whores like the rest of them.
3. Woeful/wilful metaphor deafness: Some people just don't/won't understand what it means to say "some people are just born to be slaves."
4. "Watch Russ Feingold confidently assert that he represents Tea Party values."
5. The story of a pregnant woman who had to pee invokes an old memory of the time I was persecuted by Episcopalians.
I "toast or roast" Andrew Sullivan.
At Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish.
I'm one of a bunch of bloggers invited to "toast or roast" Sullivan's blog. As he explained yesterday, today is his blog's 10th anniversary. He reflects on the occasion:
I'm one of a bunch of bloggers invited to "toast or roast" Sullivan's blog. As he explained yesterday, today is his blog's 10th anniversary. He reflects on the occasion:
I'm a Catholic, so let me start with the things I am sorry for and even, in some cases, ashamed of. When you blog in real time, day by day, hour by hour, emotions can get the better of you. The blogosphere is awash in examples of invective, abuse, cruelty, accusations of bad faith, or just bluster - in part because blogging is so much more like speaking than writing and also because it addresses people in the abstract, not face to face. I am not innocent in this, and wish I could take back a few barbs, especially in the early days, when we were all discovering what this medium could do....His greatest failure, he says "was giving in to my legitimate but far-too-powerful emotions after 9/11 and cheer-leading for a war in Iraq that remains one of the most disgraceful, disastrous and murderous episodes in the history of American foreign policy." He reaffirms that he is a conservative:
I remain deeply skeptical of government's ability to solve most human problems, but have never denied its necessity or importance in tackling the profound questions of the common good no other institution can replace. I'm a Whiggish Tory, not a pure libertarian....And he reaffirms the value of unseriousness:
I remain very proud of a few things: of my early recognition of the anti-conservative nature of the Bush administration in almost every respect - fiscal, constitutional, social...
From '80s music video contests to our now constant Mental Health Breaks; from mischief and blasphemy and black humor, from Road Runner videos to ghetto mashups, the Dish has always had an anarchic streak, what Bodenner calls "Dishness". The sardonic awards; the reader threads that became riveting - the "cannabis closet" which will soon be a book; the wonder of that simple idea - The View From Your Window - that then became a weekly puzzle; the dialogue with Sam Harris on faith and reason; the countless faces of the day that can convey things no words ever can; the Poseur Alerts; the randomness of bear culture, beard disasters, straight anal sex, South Park out-takes, Hathos Red Alerts, baby panda sneezes ... we've created an institution here that remains alive because we really don't know what the fuck we are going to do next. And yes, I used the word "fuck". Because I fucking well can, if I want to.Ah, yes. There are so many blogs that are no fun at all.
October 10, 2010
Today...
... I saw a frog. 2, actually. Not sure if the other pic — of a frog inside an old springhouse — came out.
"Pamela Geller's apartment, in the fashion of the blogosphere, doubles as her office."
"It is a modern full-floor unit in a high-rise on the East Side of Manhattan that could belong to a socialite or the editor of a lifestyle magazine. There is ample light and a tasteful lack of clutter. The kitchen appliances are made of brushed steel; the countertops are slate. In the earth-toned living room hangs a painting, in vibrant colors, of a woman in a swimsuit."
Ha ha. The NYT has its ideas about how to draw in its readers. The article is about blogging — hardcore, political blogging — but ... check out her apartment!
In spite of this lavish attention, Geller is unhappy.
Ha ha. The NYT has its ideas about how to draw in its readers. The article is about blogging — hardcore, political blogging — but ... check out her apartment!
In spite of this lavish attention, Geller is unhappy.
Another classic case of hardass New Yorkitude.
From the comments section of the NY Post:
ADDED: I'm removing the "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag, because I don't understand what really happened here. My criticism is of the journalism, and my reason for writing the post was the hilariously unsympathetic comment. I'm not entirely unsympathetic myself. I remember being pregnant in New York City — twice — and wanting people to be spontaneously helpful to me — giving me a seat on the subway or offering me a place to nap at the law firm — and feeling sad about humanity because I didn't get that help. But I never asked for special concern.
Except once, actually. It was 1982, and I was going on a religious retreat with a group of individuals from a Manhattan church. It was about a 3-hour drive to the place, and a woman in the van lit up a cigarette. Would you please not smoke? I asked. She said she would continue to smoke, so I said that the reason I felt I had to ask is that I was pregnant. The woman and everyone else in the van rejected my request. I was told that smoking is only bad for the smoker — as if I were dumb to think otherwise. I said I couldn't go with them, and they stopped the van and gave me my luggage. As they left me there on the wrong side of the West Side Highway, which I would have to cross, at night, before hiking a couple of unfamiliar blocks to get to a place where I could begin to try to hail a cab, one young woman detained me for a little lecture: I was being selfish and not considerate of others, and therefore I was not a good Christian. I used to feel chastened by criticisms like that, and it wasn't until I was in the cab, crying, heading back toward Brooklyn, that it occurred to me that I might have said to her that I was concerned for others, because I was concerned about my unborn child.
CORRECTION: That was the NY Post, not The Daily News. Sorry.
this story actually makes me furious. she peed her pants and she's suing a club. another classic case of an "entitlement cvnt".This story makes me furious too, by the way. I'm furious that a newspaper reports on a lawsuit without stating what the legal claim is. Is there a tort claim in New York for failing to give special treatment to pregnant women? "She blames Hammerstein management for the humiliation of wetting her pants"... but isn't this publicity, brought on by the lawsuit, humiliating? Or is she trying to "humiliate" the Hammerstein Ballroom into paying her off to undo the bad publicity she's giving them — with the help of a lawsuit and NY Post?
last time i checked pregnancy was a personal choice. you aren't bestowed with any special powers, knowledge, or freedoms.
don't like being pregnant in big bad ny -- then leave, and go the burbs where you and giant stroller belong.
i have a country house in CT. they'll let you pee anywhere here. get out of ny, spoiled whining cow.
ADDED: I'm removing the "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag, because I don't understand what really happened here. My criticism is of the journalism, and my reason for writing the post was the hilariously unsympathetic comment. I'm not entirely unsympathetic myself. I remember being pregnant in New York City — twice — and wanting people to be spontaneously helpful to me — giving me a seat on the subway or offering me a place to nap at the law firm — and feeling sad about humanity because I didn't get that help. But I never asked for special concern.
Except once, actually. It was 1982, and I was going on a religious retreat with a group of individuals from a Manhattan church. It was about a 3-hour drive to the place, and a woman in the van lit up a cigarette. Would you please not smoke? I asked. She said she would continue to smoke, so I said that the reason I felt I had to ask is that I was pregnant. The woman and everyone else in the van rejected my request. I was told that smoking is only bad for the smoker — as if I were dumb to think otherwise. I said I couldn't go with them, and they stopped the van and gave me my luggage. As they left me there on the wrong side of the West Side Highway, which I would have to cross, at night, before hiking a couple of unfamiliar blocks to get to a place where I could begin to try to hail a cab, one young woman detained me for a little lecture: I was being selfish and not considerate of others, and therefore I was not a good Christian. I used to feel chastened by criticisms like that, and it wasn't until I was in the cab, crying, heading back toward Brooklyn, that it occurred to me that I might have said to her that I was concerned for others, because I was concerned about my unborn child.
CORRECTION: That was the NY Post, not The Daily News. Sorry.
Solomon Burke...
"Solomon Burke, the larger-than-life "King of Rock and Soul," whose songs blended soul, gospel, country and R&B, died early Sunday at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport at age 70."
ADDED: Another great gospel singer — Albertina Walker — died on Friday. She was 81. "I wanted to stand up before audiences and deliver the message, win souls for Christ. I wanted to touch dying men and slipping women."
And when I reach the pearly gates, He will remember me.
Who called Meg Whitman a "whore"? And who cares?
"The person who said that word is someone who can't be fired... Jerry's wife can't be fired" — according to an anonymous source.
By the way, who cares if the word "whore" is used in private conversations to refer to politicians who sell themselves in one way or another? Virtually all politicians take money and much of that money is given by people that are hoping/expecting to get something. In that sense, they are all whores. It's unremarkable that rough language is used. So what's the problem with calling Meg Whitman a whore? Jerry's a whore too, isn't he?
This fuss is phony. The only way it has any substance is if you think there's something especially wrong with using the standard rough language against a woman. If you think that, you don't believe in the full equality of the sexes. And it would mean that women don't belong in politics or wielding great power in the public sphere. If we can't criticize women the same way we criticize men, then we shouldn't trust them with power.
When I wrote "Jerry's a whore too, isn't he?" maybe you started thinking about the substance of the charge. Who has Jerry taken money (or other support) from and how has he, in the past, served the interests of the people who helped him? Well, the same thing goes for Meg Whitman! What was the substantive criticism? Why aren't we talking about that? Let's treat male and female politicians the same.
IN THE COMMENTS: YoungHegelian said:
Dave points me to PJ O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores." O'Rourke wrote: "Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us."
By the way, who cares if the word "whore" is used in private conversations to refer to politicians who sell themselves in one way or another? Virtually all politicians take money and much of that money is given by people that are hoping/expecting to get something. In that sense, they are all whores. It's unremarkable that rough language is used. So what's the problem with calling Meg Whitman a whore? Jerry's a whore too, isn't he?
This fuss is phony. The only way it has any substance is if you think there's something especially wrong with using the standard rough language against a woman. If you think that, you don't believe in the full equality of the sexes. And it would mean that women don't belong in politics or wielding great power in the public sphere. If we can't criticize women the same way we criticize men, then we shouldn't trust them with power.
When I wrote "Jerry's a whore too, isn't he?" maybe you started thinking about the substance of the charge. Who has Jerry taken money (or other support) from and how has he, in the past, served the interests of the people who helped him? Well, the same thing goes for Meg Whitman! What was the substantive criticism? Why aren't we talking about that? Let's treat male and female politicians the same.
IN THE COMMENTS: YoungHegelian said:
If Prof Althouse thinks that politicians are "whores" because they take others' money, shouldn't Ms Whitman get a pass because her campaign is self-funded?I said, the discussion should shift to the substance of it, and I agree that, with so much of her own money, Whitman has more chance of winning on the substance than most politicians.
I mean, she may be a political masturbatrix, but she's not a whore!
I think apologies are owed here, Professor!
Dave points me to PJ O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores." O'Rourke wrote: "Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us."
The perfect day is here at last: 10/10/10.
What are you going to do about it?
Gizmodo says: "In binary, that's 42. And 42 is The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. Or at least, that's what Douglas Adams says."
Gizmodo says: "In binary, that's 42. And 42 is The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. Or at least, that's what Douglas Adams says."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
