It is a trivial enterprise to show that the overwhelming majority of people born before, say, the end of WWII, had attitudes, or did things, that we would consider morally reprehensible today, and that would be the safe bet for any given individual. We would like to think that, had we been around back then, we would have been better people, but that is highly unlikely. While we should not ignore, and our history classes should teach, that some of our ancestors owned slaves and most of the rest of them were OK with that, or that some of our ancestors voted for immigration laws that, enacted a few years earlier, would have kept my ancestors out of this country, and most of the rest of them were OK with that, or that men benefited from the uncompensated household labor and sexual companionship of women and thought any other arrangement bizarre, and so on and so on, pointing out that, say, an 18th-century slaveholder owned slaves in the 18th century doesn't much advance our understanding of them or of ourselves. We can't assume we are better than they were because we, ourselves, are "against" slavery. In a world where the institution doesn't exist, where no one's daily bread depends on the labor of slaves, when no one runs any risk by speaking against it, what does it even mean to be "against" slavery? Why should we assume that, in a slave-owning world, where real interests were at stake, we would have been among the heroic, protesting minority rather than the complacent or complicit majority?
Grown-up conversation of what all this means can be difficult, and I commend Kristin for her contribution.
Somebody ought to get the rights and market all four versions of A Star is Born, and the predecessor movie with a different title that I forget, in one package. It would be interesting to see how well Kristen's analysis applies to the other versions.
Somebody may have said it, but, apparently, not DOJ. The Washington Post reported that one of the two camera could not provide usable footage. It is not clear whether DOJ's current statements are based on footage from the other camera or whether the initial report was incorrect.
I still have a 32" CRT TV that we bought a dozen or so years ago when the kindly TV repairman told us (free of charge) that we could get a new TV cheaper than it would cost for him to fix the old one. If we were to upgrade, we would also have to replace the large piece of furniture that holds it (nothing bigger can fit in the section for it), along with the stereo system -- turntable, receiver, tape player (currently non-functional), and CD/DVD player.
I'm old.
If anyone around here knows, don't look for them to admit it. Now that you've raised the question, I may do some research - at least that's what I'll tell my wife - and report the results if I learn anything.
People deciding not to patronize CFA because it donates to anti-LGBT causes -- politics, dammit, can't I just eat my chicken in peace! CFA donating to anti-LGBT causes -- ?
I am, instead, wondering if the cities that we consider to be the most pro-LGBT cities (defined as cities that have the most pro-LGBT policies) also happen to be cities that have the most homeless.
Well, yes. See, they are BIG cities. They have a lot more people, with and without homes, in them. NYC has a lot more homeless people than Boise because it has a lot more of everybody. Except maybe white supremacist militiamen, and I wouldn't be too sure about that.
As Yogi Berra once said, "If people don't want to come to the ballpark, you can't stop them." CFA can donate where it pleases, people who want to eat there can eat there, those who don't want to eat there don't have to.
ABC should do what any self-respecting news organization would do, tell Congress to stuff it. And they should do that whatever prurient interest I, or others, might have in what they might say if they responded to the questions.
On “My Family’s Slaves: A Thanksgiving Story”
It is a trivial enterprise to show that the overwhelming majority of people born before, say, the end of WWII, had attitudes, or did things, that we would consider morally reprehensible today, and that would be the safe bet for any given individual. We would like to think that, had we been around back then, we would have been better people, but that is highly unlikely. While we should not ignore, and our history classes should teach, that some of our ancestors owned slaves and most of the rest of them were OK with that, or that some of our ancestors voted for immigration laws that, enacted a few years earlier, would have kept my ancestors out of this country, and most of the rest of them were OK with that, or that men benefited from the uncompensated household labor and sexual companionship of women and thought any other arrangement bizarre, and so on and so on, pointing out that, say, an 18th-century slaveholder owned slaves in the 18th century doesn't much advance our understanding of them or of ourselves. We can't assume we are better than they were because we, ourselves, are "against" slavery. In a world where the institution doesn't exist, where no one's daily bread depends on the labor of slaves, when no one runs any risk by speaking against it, what does it even mean to be "against" slavery? Why should we assume that, in a slave-owning world, where real interests were at stake, we would have been among the heroic, protesting minority rather than the complacent or complicit majority?
Grown-up conversation of what all this means can be difficult, and I commend Kristin for her contribution.
On “Wednesday Writs: Brown v. Plata and Prison Reform Edition”
All of that is true and, indeed, obvious, which makes one wonder what Oscar could have been thinking, if anything.
On “A Star Is Born: A Cold Hard Look At A Feminist Masterpiece”
Somebody ought to get the rights and market all four versions of A Star is Born, and the predecessor movie with a different title that I forget, in one package. It would be interesting to see how well Kristen's analysis applies to the other versions.
On “Will Streaming Ever Replace Cable?”
I'm planning to binge-watch The Wire after all these years.
On “Epstein Dead”
Somebody may have said it, but, apparently, not DOJ. The Washington Post reported that one of the two camera could not provide usable footage. It is not clear whether DOJ's current statements are based on footage from the other camera or whether the initial report was incorrect.
"
Thanks for the update on the investigation and reporting thereon.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Checking out Television Prices”
I still have a 32" CRT TV that we bought a dozen or so years ago when the kindly TV repairman told us (free of charge) that we could get a new TV cheaper than it would cost for him to fix the old one. If we were to upgrade, we would also have to replace the large piece of furniture that holds it (nothing bigger can fit in the section for it), along with the stereo system -- turntable, receiver, tape player (currently non-functional), and CD/DVD player.
I'm old.
On “Wednesday Writs: PGA Tour v. Martin”
If anyone around here knows, don't look for them to admit it. Now that you've raised the question, I may do some research - at least that's what I'll tell my wife - and report the results if I learn anything.
On “Chik-Fil-A: Why Can’t a Chicken Sandwich Just Be a Chicken Sandwich?”
Formatting error. It wasn't supposed to be a reply to your comment.
"
People deciding not to patronize CFA because it donates to anti-LGBT causes -- politics, dammit, can't I just eat my chicken in peace! CFA donating to anti-LGBT causes -- ?
On “Reflections on Impeachment”
In the immortal words of Kinky Friedman: "Eating ain't cheating."
On “Chik-Fil-A: Why Can’t a Chicken Sandwich Just Be a Chicken Sandwich?”
The question was what you would do, not what you'd like to think you'd do.
"
No.
"
For certain folks, harassing them more is pretty much the definition of better policy.
"
Just a matter of isolating the relevant variable from the irrelevant one.
"
I am, instead, wondering if the cities that we consider to be the most pro-LGBT cities (defined as cities that have the most pro-LGBT policies) also happen to be cities that have the most homeless.
Well, yes. See, they are BIG cities. They have a lot more people, with and without homes, in them. NYC has a lot more homeless people than Boise because it has a lot more of everybody. Except maybe white supremacist militiamen, and I wouldn't be too sure about that.
"
As Yogi Berra once said, "If people don't want to come to the ballpark, you can't stop them." CFA can donate where it pleases, people who want to eat there can eat there, those who don't want to eat there don't have to.
On “Epstein Dead”
ABC should do what any self-respecting news organization would do, tell Congress to stuff it. And they should do that whatever prurient interest I, or others, might have in what they might say if they responded to the questions.
"
In what other context would you not find disturbing a Congressional inquiry into the news-gathering process?
"
If the guards actually have something to sell, there is no shortage of willing buyers. And the prosecutors know this.
"
Thanks for the updates on the continuing investigation.
On “School Lunch: Remember When “Hungry for Knowledge” Used to Be A Metaphor?”
Oh, that's what you meant? Surely you can see why that wasn't clear.
"
The problem is that we aren’t allowed to say “I am paying an extra fifty dollars on my taxes every year and it goes to the School Lunch Program”.
Who is this "we," and who is refusing to allow them to say what they please about where their taxes go?
On “A Guide To The 2019 UK Election”
Thanks.
On “Public Impeachment Hearings Begin”
Let's be fair, Jesse, he has more shticks than that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.