I have been reading what passes for high-class conservative thought for close to half a century. It gets repetitious fast. Uselessly general paeans to "prudence" - a virtue of which I am genuinely fond -- tarting up an ever-changing set of specifics that one can guarantee will be embarrassing and largely disowned in about a decade. An overstuffed leather club chair and brandy aesthetic that tries to pass itself off as something substantive, until someone calls them on it and they sniff at the vulgarity of the demand. A fondness for substituting Capital Letters for explanations, as if Right Reason, the Highest Good, and the Nature of Evil spoke for themselves.
I'm getting old, and I don't want to die in re-runs. Can't somebody give us something fresh?
One of my minor quibbles with the world is having to develop and express preferences I don't have. I don't want to go to the mental effort of choosing between a paper receipt, an e-mail receipt, or whatever the third option is. I'm perfectly happy to take whatever form you want to give me. Just don't bother me about it.
They need to focus more on the number of jobs that could be created and the economic benefit instead of constantly making it sound like they are asking everyone to give things up.
That's pretty much candidate's current playbook. Whether the message is not getting through because they aren't good at it or because large numbers of people don't want to hear what they are being told would be an interesting question.
what if there was a way that the teacher could have sought help as soon as they felt temptation and not have it nuke their careers?
Who says there isn't? There are lots of places such people can go now. Could there be more and better places? Assuredly. Does anyone dispute this? No. Any concrete ideas?
I was as horny as anyone back in the day, and I don't think I was, or am, unusually virtuous, but it simply never occurred to me that I could or should have sex with someone who didn't want to have sex with me. Looking back, I acted like a jerk at times when trying to get laid, but the worst any woman from those days could truthfully say is that she had to say "No" twice. How hard is this?
I'd be surprised if this helped. There were reasons I did not then understand that my parents discouraged my interest in becoming an altar boy. And that just implicated the people running the show. From what I knew of the audience, and how we turned out, I'm extremely skeptical.
Ninety-some percent of the time it isn't very hard, and I rarely have trouble getting clients to understand. Don't f**k minors, especially those under your care. There's a big difference between "nice dress" and "nice ass."{1} if your company has a policy about sex with co-workers or subordinates, follow it. If not, don't have sex with people in your reporting line without alerting someone in HR, or your own boss, to the situation. It's probably a good idea to let someone in HR or your own boss know if you're having sex with someone not a subordinate. That will cover most of it. If you want the definitive line that demarcates exactly how far you can go trying to get laid, well, you want too much out of life.
{1} No guarantees. There are people who will raise a stink about "nice dress" and people who won't mind "nice ass," but the odds are heavily in your favor if you follow this rule.
It’s a normal thing for people in a crowd to acknowledge their country.
It can't be politics because it's "normal." How do I know it's "normal" and not "politics"? Because it just is, dammit!
Not until you disagree with the politics does it "need" to be explained. Not that water running downhill or a desire to look at boobs don't need explanations. We just have them already.
It's not as though this "compromise" idea hasn't come up before. Remember civil unions? That was a compromise. I used to think I was a savvy political realist and thought it was a good one and that SSM advocates shouldn't be so stubborn about insisting on full-blown marriage so named. Then I looked around the negotiating table and saw that there was nobody from the anti-SSM side with whom to make the deal. Then, when full-blown same-sex marriage was rammed down their throats, they whined about the pro-SSM side not accepting the civil union compromise the anti-SSM side opposed.
I don't think we disagree. I have never advocated BS progressive versions of sports politics. I don't take my politics from sports talking heads. I don't seriously object to it, however, because I can as easily ignore it as I have managed to ignore the other type of politics, and variety is sometimes refreshing for its own sake. My point is that it's disingenuous to whine about politics in sports only when it's politics you don't like -- the only kind most of the whiners even recognize as politics.
In sports, as in so many other things, it isn't "politics" unless you disagree with it. I've managed for decades to ignore the obvious traditional politics of big-time sports and focus on the game. But I knew it was there. I didn't much mind when different kinds of politics popped up now and then, but I didn't care much about it, either. I can't disagree with a network executive whose market research tells him that his audience doesn't want the kind of politics it recognizes as politics, as opposed to the kind of politics it doesn't recognize as politics, but just "normal," dammit, and acting accordingly. But let's not kid ourselves.
On my block are two women who wear classic burkas all the time. I can tell they are two different women only because I have seen the two of them together and seen each of them separately with a different man. I have no idea whether they dress like that because they want to (for some value of "want") or think they have to (for some value of "have to"). I know neither of them more than to nod politely when I see them in the street, so it would be rude of me to ask and presumptuous to intervene if I knew. I also saw a woman wearing a hijab and, despite the warm weather, clothing that covered her from wrists to feet, but tight enough to show off a lush and enticing body. Struck me as religiously confused, but it's her religion, not mine, and it's not my place, or in my interest, to correct her.
I may be enjoying this thread for all the wrong reasons.
Depends on how hot the model is. I've seen and enjoyed plenty of pictures of gun-toting bikini models elsewhere and have hunted myself, though not in a bikini. I leave to SI whether it thinks gun-toting bikini models would appeal to its audience.
I was a huge fan of I, Claudius when it came out. (Yes, I'm that old. Hell, I knew some of the characters from real life.) I have long wanted to run across Patrick Stewart on the streets of Brooklyn, where he can sometimes be found, gape, point, and, just when he's thinking, "Oh no, not another Trekkie asshole," sputter out: "You're -- you're Sejanus!"
I'm not sure who is arguing with whom in the real world. Among my very wide circle of ideologically and ethnically diverse acquaintance, the only opinion I have heard anyone express about the SI burkini model is "Damn, she's hot," with which I heartily concur. If Muslim women are looking for ways to be both hot and modest, more power to them. Nobody owes me revealing clothing and lots of skin, however much I might appreciate it when offered. How or whether the sexy burkini fits with common -- I avoid "correct" because there is no such thing in religious matters -- understanding of Islam is for them to work out. That SI might want to appeal to a growing demographic is perfectly understandable and uncontroversial.
Given that states can't have their Senate representation reduced, even by Constitutional amendment,without their consent, making representation proportional to population is a non-starter. A work-around might be a designated number of at-large Senate seats, which would not reduce any state's representation.
Gee, pillsy, where have we read such stuff before? And how have our efforts to tease some concrete meaning out of it gone?
Until someone actually steps up and says something specific enough to wrestle with, I'm writing this sort of thing off as: "I hate Trump, and will gladly vote for the Democrats if only they would nominate a Republican."
This makes good sense. That said, it might be the case -- I don't say it is because I haven't looked at it -- that the dominance of white, western maleness in science may skew the topics of interest or favor certain techniques of investigation, to the detriment of advancing scientific knowledge. This is a topic that could be profitably explored, and has nothing to do with "ways of knowing."
Seconded. Roberts, unlike so many other conservative lawyers, with academic or government or wingnut welfare backgrounds, had a serious and lucrative private legal practice fighting for the actual pocketbook interests of paying clients. He continues to serve his former paymasters, in a more sophisticated and effective way than many of his nominal allies, rather than pursue ideological fantasies. Sadly, that's what's good about him.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Gig Is Up”
I will also say, is drag queen intolerance an actual thing we need to be super-concerned about?
Not for some values of "we," but we already knew that.
On “Conservative Thinkers So Heavenly Minded They’re No Earthly Good”
I have been reading what passes for high-class conservative thought for close to half a century. It gets repetitious fast. Uselessly general paeans to "prudence" - a virtue of which I am genuinely fond -- tarting up an ever-changing set of specifics that one can guarantee will be embarrassing and largely disowned in about a decade. An overstuffed leather club chair and brandy aesthetic that tries to pass itself off as something substantive, until someone calls them on it and they sniff at the vulgarity of the demand. A fondness for substituting Capital Letters for explanations, as if Right Reason, the Highest Good, and the Nature of Evil spoke for themselves.
I'm getting old, and I don't want to die in re-runs. Can't somebody give us something fresh?
On “The Unnecessity of Choice”
One of my minor quibbles with the world is having to develop and express preferences I don't have. I don't want to go to the mental effort of choosing between a paper receipt, an e-mail receipt, or whatever the third option is. I'm perfectly happy to take whatever form you want to give me. Just don't bother me about it.
On “Fear and Loathing Among the 1%ers”
They need to focus more on the number of jobs that could be created and the economic benefit instead of constantly making it sound like they are asking everyone to give things up.
That's pretty much candidate's current playbook. Whether the message is not getting through because they aren't good at it or because large numbers of people don't want to hear what they are being told would be an interesting question.
On “He Was So Well-Respected”
what if there was a way that the teacher could have sought help as soon as they felt temptation and not have it nuke their careers?
Who says there isn't? There are lots of places such people can go now. Could there be more and better places? Assuredly. Does anyone dispute this? No. Any concrete ideas?
"
I was as horny as anyone back in the day, and I don't think I was, or am, unusually virtuous, but it simply never occurred to me that I could or should have sex with someone who didn't want to have sex with me. Looking back, I acted like a jerk at times when trying to get laid, but the worst any woman from those days could truthfully say is that she had to say "No" twice. How hard is this?
"
I probably would have stayed in the Scouts a few more years for that.
"
I'd be surprised if this helped. There were reasons I did not then understand that my parents discouraged my interest in becoming an altar boy. And that just implicated the people running the show. From what I knew of the audience, and how we turned out, I'm extremely skeptical.
"
Ninety-some percent of the time it isn't very hard, and I rarely have trouble getting clients to understand. Don't f**k minors, especially those under your care. There's a big difference between "nice dress" and "nice ass."{1} if your company has a policy about sex with co-workers or subordinates, follow it. If not, don't have sex with people in your reporting line without alerting someone in HR, or your own boss, to the situation. It's probably a good idea to let someone in HR or your own boss know if you're having sex with someone not a subordinate. That will cover most of it. If you want the definitive line that demarcates exactly how far you can go trying to get laid, well, you want too much out of life.
{1} No guarantees. There are people who will raise a stink about "nice dress" and people who won't mind "nice ass," but the odds are heavily in your favor if you follow this rule.
On “A Grand and Glorious Connection”
How often did this sort of thing happen before credit cards?
On “She Wore a Very Modest Not Demean-y Controversial Sports Illustrated Burkini”
It’s a normal thing for people in a crowd to acknowledge their country.
It can't be politics because it's "normal." How do I know it's "normal" and not "politics"? Because it just is, dammit!
Not until you disagree with the politics does it "need" to be explained. Not that water running downhill or a desire to look at boobs don't need explanations. We just have them already.
"
The real issue is: Tyra Banks now or Tyra Banks then.
"
It isn't "politics" unless you disagree with it. When you agree with it, it isn't politics. It's "normal" or "patriotic." Thanks for the confirmation.
On “Mitch McConnell on SCOTUS Vacancy: “Oh, we’d fill it””
It's not as though this "compromise" idea hasn't come up before. Remember civil unions? That was a compromise. I used to think I was a savvy political realist and thought it was a good one and that SSM advocates shouldn't be so stubborn about insisting on full-blown marriage so named. Then I looked around the negotiating table and saw that there was nobody from the anti-SSM side with whom to make the deal. Then, when full-blown same-sex marriage was rammed down their throats, they whined about the pro-SSM side not accepting the civil union compromise the anti-SSM side opposed.
On “She Wore a Very Modest Not Demean-y Controversial Sports Illustrated Burkini”
I don't think we disagree. I have never advocated BS progressive versions of sports politics. I don't take my politics from sports talking heads. I don't seriously object to it, however, because I can as easily ignore it as I have managed to ignore the other type of politics, and variety is sometimes refreshing for its own sake. My point is that it's disingenuous to whine about politics in sports only when it's politics you don't like -- the only kind most of the whiners even recognize as politics.
"
"Cuddle parties?" Do I want to know?
"
In sports, as in so many other things, it isn't "politics" unless you disagree with it. I've managed for decades to ignore the obvious traditional politics of big-time sports and focus on the game. But I knew it was there. I didn't much mind when different kinds of politics popped up now and then, but I didn't care much about it, either. I can't disagree with a network executive whose market research tells him that his audience doesn't want the kind of politics it recognizes as politics, as opposed to the kind of politics it doesn't recognize as politics, but just "normal," dammit, and acting accordingly. But let's not kid ourselves.
"
On my block are two women who wear classic burkas all the time. I can tell they are two different women only because I have seen the two of them together and seen each of them separately with a different man. I have no idea whether they dress like that because they want to (for some value of "want") or think they have to (for some value of "have to"). I know neither of them more than to nod politely when I see them in the street, so it would be rude of me to ask and presumptuous to intervene if I knew. I also saw a woman wearing a hijab and, despite the warm weather, clothing that covered her from wrists to feet, but tight enough to show off a lush and enticing body. Struck me as religiously confused, but it's her religion, not mine, and it's not my place, or in my interest, to correct her.
I may be enjoying this thread for all the wrong reasons.
"
Depends on how hot the model is. I've seen and enjoyed plenty of pictures of gun-toting bikini models elsewhere and have hunted myself, though not in a bikini. I leave to SI whether it thinks gun-toting bikini models would appeal to its audience.
On “Tenshot: I, Claudius”
I was a huge fan of I, Claudius when it came out. (Yes, I'm that old. Hell, I knew some of the characters from real life.) I have long wanted to run across Patrick Stewart on the streets of Brooklyn, where he can sometimes be found, gape, point, and, just when he's thinking, "Oh no, not another Trekkie asshole," sputter out: "You're -- you're Sejanus!"
On “She Wore a Very Modest Not Demean-y Controversial Sports Illustrated Burkini”
I'm not sure who is arguing with whom in the real world. Among my very wide circle of ideologically and ethnically diverse acquaintance, the only opinion I have heard anyone express about the SI burkini model is "Damn, she's hot," with which I heartily concur. If Muslim women are looking for ways to be both hot and modest, more power to them. Nobody owes me revealing clothing and lots of skin, however much I might appreciate it when offered. How or whether the sexy burkini fits with common -- I avoid "correct" because there is no such thing in religious matters -- understanding of Islam is for them to work out. That SI might want to appeal to a growing demographic is perfectly understandable and uncontroversial.
On “Mitch McConnell on SCOTUS Vacancy: “Oh, we’d fill it””
Given that states can't have their Senate representation reduced, even by Constitutional amendment,without their consent, making representation proportional to population is a non-starter. A work-around might be a designated number of at-large Senate seats, which would not reduce any state's representation.
On “The Democrats’ Trump”
Gee, pillsy, where have we read such stuff before? And how have our efforts to tease some concrete meaning out of it gone?
Until someone actually steps up and says something specific enough to wrestle with, I'm writing this sort of thing off as: "I hate Trump, and will gladly vote for the Democrats if only they would nominate a Republican."
On “Ways of Knowing”
This makes good sense. That said, it might be the case -- I don't say it is because I haven't looked at it -- that the dominance of white, western maleness in science may skew the topics of interest or favor certain techniques of investigation, to the detriment of advancing scientific knowledge. This is a topic that could be profitably explored, and has nothing to do with "ways of knowing."
On “Wednesday Writs for May 15”
Seconded. Roberts, unlike so many other conservative lawyers, with academic or government or wingnut welfare backgrounds, had a serious and lucrative private legal practice fighting for the actual pocketbook interests of paying clients. He continues to serve his former paymasters, in a more sophisticated and effective way than many of his nominal allies, rather than pursue ideological fantasies. Sadly, that's what's good about him.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.