I had to look up Alptraum and Fleshbot to see if this was anything anyone needed to pay attention to. It wasn't, and I could have put those 90 seconds of my life to better use. Still, whatever else one can say about this, if one felt the need to say anything, it isn't all that "complicated." It may not be correct, or particularly interesting, but it is far from "complicated."
Another example of a person in a humble calling, proud of his work, who seems to live at a decent level of material comfort. Was it really like that then?
Several years ago, I was involved in a lawsuit brought by a black professor who, among other things, used to talk often about Aaron Lopez, a Jewish merchant from Providence who was a slave trader. I'm willing to bet that Lopez is the only slave trader 99.98% of people can name, largely because this character spoke so much about him. My second-seat was a WASP whose remote ancestor (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) was, in fact, a slave trader. She always worried that this would come out during the trial. Luckily, it didn't.
If we waited for someone with something intelligent to say, the internet would be a very quiet place. And this topic, in particular, invites people with nothing intelligent to say to say it at length.
Everything we now know or think we know about Epstein's death we learned the usual way, through mainstream media reporting of an ongoing investigation, which wrapped up about as quickly as one could reasonably expect. And the conclusion was the boring one that was always the most likely one. It took a little while, though not all that long, because work takes work. Unlike the arched eyebrow, knowing wink, and off-the-shelf cynicism, which any clown on the internet can gin up whenever it fits some pre-existing agenda. It's a lot easier than finding out stuff.
Or, the government can rent out its space to private groups, religious or secular, on neutral terms. This can get tricky. The government could rent out space for a secular family counseling group, but might have to be willing to rent it to a religious family counseling group. Or it could ban certain uses, regardless of whether the sponsoring group is religious or secular. So if I can't use the space to promote a secular mud-wrestling exhibition, a religious group that uses athletic events as a recruiting device can't use the space for Mud-Wrestling for Christ (TM) either.
It occurs to me that I left an unintended ambiguity. He was "admitted" to the bar in 2008 and may have been "admitted" to law school during the drought.
Cook was admitted in 2008, so he may well have been admitted during the "drought." On the other hand, even in more demanding admissions climates, there was no screening for this sort of thing. It didn't show up in, and wasn't strongly correlated with, LSATs and GPAs.
I've managed to avoid Nicki Minaj without actually trying. Couldn't name a song of hers or recognize a performance of hers with my eyes closed. Not proud of that, or ashamed, just a fact.
Get off of my lawn.
If that's what you mean, then we don't disagree. I thought you meant that Lincoln advocated some actual move against slavery in the states where it existed.
There's nothing intuitively implausible about the general idea that a more diverse scientific community might have had a critical mass of scientists asking different questions and using different techniques, possibly leading to different results, and that they were drawn to these questions and techniques because of their status as [fill in the blank]. (Some scientific techniques do look rather phallic, after all, and may, like all too many phalluses, be misdirected.) There is just, so far as I can tell, no particular reason to believe it. I am willing to be persuaded, but this stuff just doesn't do it.
I've read them. Why don't you quote something so we can talk about "reading comprehension?" And while we are talking about reading comprehension, the original issue was what Lincoln campaigned on and promised, not what the secessionists said they feared. So even if the secession resolutions said what you seem to think they said -- and they don't -- that speaks only to what they thought, not to what Lincoln stood for.
Lincoln was elected promising to destroy vast amounts of the South’s GDP.
He promised nothing of the sort.Hhe always insisted that the federal government -- in peacetime -- had no authority to touch slavery in the states where it existed, only the authority to ban its spread into the territories and, therefore, into states yet to be formed.
In the long run, the inability of Alabama or Texas slaveholders to sell their surplus slaves to buyers in the territories or the newly-formed states would have become an economic problem, but they solved the problem by seceding, triggering the federal government's war powers, and, eventually, having no excess slaves to sell.
There is a big difference between what "we're hearing" and what's being said. The first is a function of the listener's limitations, the second is a verifiable fact about the world.
WW4: My take on the Musk case was that whatever way a jury went would stand up. It was for the jury to decide whether "pedo guy" was an actual accusation of pedophilia or just general abuse. Without having seen the witnesses, I would have leaned to the former, but I can't fault the jury for coming to the latter conclusion. I don't think the Musk case changes the law so much as it changes calculations about what a jury will do given a legally sufficient, but not factually slam-dunk, case.
The linked piece also refers to the Clifford-Trump case. There, I think something might be going on. In defamation law there is the familiar concept of a "libel-proof plaintiff," one whose reputation is so bad that even if what the defendant said was false and defamatory, it couldn't make the plaintiff's reputation any worse. What I think I see in Clifford-Trump is the possibility of the "libel-proof defendant," a defendant whose credibility is so bad that nothing he says, however false and defamatory, can be taken seriously enough to be damaging.
My unlucky youngest brother turned 18 the year NY raised the drinking age to 19 and turned 19 when NY raised the age to 21. Now, for unrelated reasons, he can't drink at all.
I always thought the drinking/driving age was badly handled. In my day, you could get a license at 16 and drink at 18. It's just a fact that young men are lousy drivers, so you have them out on the road doing their hormonal thing and -- WHAM! -- you hit them with booze. Predictably, the next few years are American Carnage until the kids learn to hold their liquor, as most eventually do. As someone whose family was in the beer business, I drank, modestly, well before the legal drinking age, in safe environments, and without the frisson of rebellion. In other countries, I saw kids as young as 12 having a bit of wine or beer with dinner. (The 12-year-old palate generally can't take hard liquor.) I always though we should lower the drinking age to 12, to allow kids to get a grip on their drinking for four years before putting them behind the wheel.
I am not surprised that I have never held public office.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Attacks on Jews in New York. Again.”
I had to look up Alptraum and Fleshbot to see if this was anything anyone needed to pay attention to. It wasn't, and I could have put those 90 seconds of my life to better use. Still, whatever else one can say about this, if one felt the need to say anything, it isn't all that "complicated." It may not be correct, or particularly interesting, but it is far from "complicated."
On “Real Shoe Shiner At Home”
I know Italians were never considered REALLY white in those days, but they were never regarded as people of color.
"
Another example of a person in a humble calling, proud of his work, who seems to live at a decent level of material comfort. Was it really like that then?
On “Attacks on Jews in New York. Again.”
Several years ago, I was involved in a lawsuit brought by a black professor who, among other things, used to talk often about Aaron Lopez, a Jewish merchant from Providence who was a slave trader. I'm willing to bet that Lopez is the only slave trader 99.98% of people can name, largely because this character spoke so much about him. My second-seat was a WASP whose remote ancestor (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) was, in fact, a slave trader. She always worried that this would come out during the trial. Luckily, it didn't.
On “Bret Stephens Unites the Internet”
If we waited for someone with something intelligent to say, the internet would be a very quiet place. And this topic, in particular, invites people with nothing intelligent to say to say it at length.
On “Everyone Seemingly Loves Them Some “Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself””
Everything we now know or think we know about Epstein's death we learned the usual way, through mainstream media reporting of an ongoing investigation, which wrapped up about as quickly as one could reasonably expect. And the conclusion was the boring one that was always the most likely one. It took a little while, though not all that long, because work takes work. Unlike the arched eyebrow, knowing wink, and off-the-shelf cynicism, which any clown on the internet can gin up whenever it fits some pre-existing agenda. It's a lot easier than finding out stuff.
On “Wednesday Writs: War on Christmas Edition”
Or, the government can rent out its space to private groups, religious or secular, on neutral terms. This can get tricky. The government could rent out space for a secular family counseling group, but might have to be willing to rent it to a religious family counseling group. Or it could ban certain uses, regardless of whether the sponsoring group is religious or secular. So if I can't use the space to promote a secular mud-wrestling exhibition, a religious group that uses athletic events as a recruiting device can't use the space for Mud-Wrestling for Christ (TM) either.
"
It occurs to me that I left an unintended ambiguity. He was "admitted" to the bar in 2008 and may have been "admitted" to law school during the drought.
"
Cook was admitted in 2008, so he may well have been admitted during the "drought." On the other hand, even in more demanding admissions climates, there was no screening for this sort of thing. It didn't show up in, and wasn't strongly correlated with, LSATs and GPAs.
On “Vox Media to cut hundreds of freelance jobs ahead of changes in California gig economy laws”
I hear things nobody else hears, too, but that's tinnitis.
On “The Unbearable Whiteness Of Being Empirical”
a lot of black people have skin that is light enough to get sunburned.
Everyone can get sunburned, including my dark-skinned wife, who is far more diligent about applying sunscreen than I am.
On “UK Elections: The Limits of Comparisons”
Team Red moving left on economics would cost its paymasters real cash money. So it won't happen. As for Team Blue, I agree with you.
On “The Unbearable Whiteness Of Being Empirical”
I've managed to avoid Nicki Minaj without actually trying. Couldn't name a song of hers or recognize a performance of hers with my eyes closed. Not proud of that, or ashamed, just a fact.
Get off of my lawn.
"
Nice impulse control there.
On “The Dark Road of Censorship”
What is it you don't understand?
"
If that's what you mean, then we don't disagree. I thought you meant that Lincoln advocated some actual move against slavery in the states where it existed.
On “The Unbearable Whiteness Of Being Empirical”
There's nothing intuitively implausible about the general idea that a more diverse scientific community might have had a critical mass of scientists asking different questions and using different techniques, possibly leading to different results, and that they were drawn to these questions and techniques because of their status as [fill in the blank]. (Some scientific techniques do look rather phallic, after all, and may, like all too many phalluses, be misdirected.) There is just, so far as I can tell, no particular reason to believe it. I am willing to be persuaded, but this stuff just doesn't do it.
On “Boris Johnson set to win a clear majority in U.K. election, exit poll suggests”
This is why we need "like" buttons.
On “The Dark Road of Censorship”
I've read them. Why don't you quote something so we can talk about "reading comprehension?" And while we are talking about reading comprehension, the original issue was what Lincoln campaigned on and promised, not what the secessionists said they feared. So even if the secession resolutions said what you seem to think they said -- and they don't -- that speaks only to what they thought, not to what Lincoln stood for.
On “Thursday Throughput: I Just Didn’t Want It To Be True Edition”
The same dynamic I pointed out to DD about what "we're hearing" in general applies to what one "hears" in the media and what is actually in it.
On “The Dark Road of Censorship”
Yes. (I see that this appears to be a response to greginak. It is actually a response to JoeSal.)
"
Lincoln was elected promising to destroy vast amounts of the South’s GDP.
He promised nothing of the sort.Hhe always insisted that the federal government -- in peacetime -- had no authority to touch slavery in the states where it existed, only the authority to ban its spread into the territories and, therefore, into states yet to be formed.
In the long run, the inability of Alabama or Texas slaveholders to sell their surplus slaves to buyers in the territories or the newly-formed states would have become an economic problem, but they solved the problem by seceding, triggering the federal government's war powers, and, eventually, having no excess slaves to sell.
On “Thursday Throughput: I Just Didn’t Want It To Be True Edition”
There is a big difference between what "we're hearing" and what's being said. The first is a function of the listener's limitations, the second is a verifiable fact about the world.
On “Wednesday Writs: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld”
WW4: My take on the Musk case was that whatever way a jury went would stand up. It was for the jury to decide whether "pedo guy" was an actual accusation of pedophilia or just general abuse. Without having seen the witnesses, I would have leaned to the former, but I can't fault the jury for coming to the latter conclusion. I don't think the Musk case changes the law so much as it changes calculations about what a jury will do given a legally sufficient, but not factually slam-dunk, case.
The linked piece also refers to the Clifford-Trump case. There, I think something might be going on. In defamation law there is the familiar concept of a "libel-proof plaintiff," one whose reputation is so bad that even if what the defendant said was false and defamatory, it couldn't make the plaintiff's reputation any worse. What I think I see in Clifford-Trump is the possibility of the "libel-proof defendant," a defendant whose credibility is so bad that nothing he says, however false and defamatory, can be taken seriously enough to be damaging.
On “The Dark Road of Censorship”
My unlucky youngest brother turned 18 the year NY raised the drinking age to 19 and turned 19 when NY raised the age to 21. Now, for unrelated reasons, he can't drink at all.
I always thought the drinking/driving age was badly handled. In my day, you could get a license at 16 and drink at 18. It's just a fact that young men are lousy drivers, so you have them out on the road doing their hormonal thing and -- WHAM! -- you hit them with booze. Predictably, the next few years are American Carnage until the kids learn to hold their liquor, as most eventually do. As someone whose family was in the beer business, I drank, modestly, well before the legal drinking age, in safe environments, and without the frisson of rebellion. In other countries, I saw kids as young as 12 having a bit of wine or beer with dinner. (The 12-year-old palate generally can't take hard liquor.) I always though we should lower the drinking age to 12, to allow kids to get a grip on their drinking for four years before putting them behind the wheel.
I am not surprised that I have never held public office.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.