A fine article. What cultural conservatives too often overlook is that many of the developments that broke down traditions they mourn were the responsibility not of lefty ideologues or SJWs, but of conservative businessmen out to make a buck. Henry Ford, a string of motel owners, and Big Pharma probably did more to create a sexual revolution than Hugh Hefner.
So if veronica had spoken the language of resentment rather than psychology, that would be OK? Or of character rather than trauma? I much prefer the former language myself, though I consider that more a matter of style than of morals.
Just want to make sure I understand the rules around here.
Much of modern politics is driven by resentment of large masses of people who hate other folks for being cooler or classier -- which seems to be jaybird's idea of "elite" -- than they are. There's nothing wrong with pointing out an example that screams to be pointed out.
Maybe it's just that I'm older than most of the folks here, but I have over a half-century of memories -- some deeply personal -- of folks disparaging the morals of anyone who dissented from what passed for political correctness in the Mad Men, Rat Pack, and later eras. And in case no one has noticed, it's still going on today.
Romney got what he deserved, and it had nothing to do with virtue signalling. He had his "binders full of women," and needed them, because he could not credibly claim identifiable, high-powered female supporters who might fill significant spots in his administration. And why do people think his banal comment about Russia made him Thucydides? What he said wasn't wrong, it was vacuous. Nobody needed to be reminded that there was only one country on earth that would have to think for more than 5 minutes before deciding that war or other high-intensity conflict with the United States was a very, very bad idea.
Sometimes a doof is just a doof. And nobody has a right to a pass on it when he puts himself out as a potential Leader of the Free World.
Although I had a casual acquaintance with country music (mostly classic and outlaw), knew who Billy Ray Cyrus was, and had heard of his big hit, when I clicked on the link to Achy, Breaky Heart I realized that I had never heard it until today. Not that I'd missed much, but I try not to be completely out of touch.
So people who voted for Trump before will do it again. I think we knew that. It would be foolish to underestimate the Democrats' chances of blowing 2020, but if they do, it won't be because they didn't appeal to people who wouldn't vote for them anyway.
We've spent far too much time figuring out why people voted for Trump and what to do about it. There really isn't much mystery. The vast majority of people who voted for Trump were -- drum roll, please -- Republicans. They would vote for almost anyone with an (R) after his name -- which they proved by voting for Trump. A rather small number stayed home in 2016 rather than hold their nose and vote. There is reason to believe that that number will increase in 2020. The people who want that sort of thing knew what they were getting and came out in 2016 precisely because he was what he clearly is. There just aren't that many more potential Trump voters out there. They may be angrier when they come out in 2020, especially when they get a steady diet of baby-killing open borders socialism, but they're the same people and their votes count the same whether they are worked up or noy.
Tonto and the Lone Ranger were surrounded by hostile Apaches. The Lone Ranger looked at Tonto and says: "Looks like we're done for." Tonto replied: "Who is this 'we' you speak of, white man?"
Makes me think of the movie Solitary Man, with Michael Douglas, Susan Sarandon, Danny DeVito, and Parker Posey. Nice movie, glad I watched it, but no commercial movie producer could have put it out paying this cast what it could normally command. I've often wondered what the deal was.
That's all very true, but this post, at this site, wasn't designed to do any of those three things. There is simply no point in trying to explain why someone who could produce or believe this crude caricature is, in fact, wrong. The reasons won't matter.
In the outside world, such boob-bait for the bubbas may well do exactly what you suggest, but engaging it there on the grounds that it is wrong is equally useless. You need to do something else.
People who would never vote for a Democrat won't vote for one in 2020. The particular reasons this time don't matter, so there is no point in explaining why they're wrong.
I'm trying hard, but without success, to recall a recent image of someone who is not operating in a white supremacist context using the OK sign in a context where it would make normal, non-white-supremacist sense. I have seen it used in contexts where it seems to make no sense at all, which makes one wonder
My local bar association will be presenting a roast of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Knowing the crew involved, I was looking forward to a vicious catfight over who would get the lead role. (I have the plum male role of Antonin Scalia.) But the writers, taking a cue from RBG's answer to a question about the appropriate number of women on the Supreme Court, wrote nine scenes where RBG appeared, and the conceit of the show was that we were producing an opera about RBG and no one woman could do her justice, so nine different women were cast as RBG, depriving me of the catfight.
Having represented public universities in litigation for the last 25 years and attended both pretty-good public and elite private universities in my own education, I have been advising my grand-niece, who is in the middle of the application process.
She is an African-American girl of middle-middle-class status who has gone through a dozen years at an elite private school -- the name would be recognizable nation-wide -- and managed not to become an entitled little shit. She is surrounded by entitled or driven classmates obsessed with getting into the brand-name places: the major Ivies, the comparable SLACs, and good schools that have become brands for reasons other than their undoubted quality, e.g., Duke.
I get that Lowells are failures if they don't end up in Harvard, Witherspoons are failures if they don't get into Princeton, and if you're one of those science geeks who belongs in Cal Tech or MIT, you'll know.
I have advised her not to get caught up in this. I can, off the top of my head, name well over 100 high-quality public and private colleges where you can get an excellent undergraduate education. I mean that both in an absolute sense and, to a lesser extent, in a positional good sense.Through some additional research, I found that the number is roughly twice what I can name.
If you can get into a super-premium school, then, by all means, go for it. The regular undergraduate education at Princeton won't be noticeably better than the education you'll get at, say, Bowdoin or Gettysburg. (Why someone who can get in-state tuition rates would choose Duke over North Carolina unless money doesn't matter is puzzling to me.) The real advantage of going to Harvard is that you're surrounded by people who got into Harvard. Those connections can pay off, especially if you go into a line of work where connections are more important than objectively observable skills. But if you're going into a career that requires graduate education -- medicine, law, science, etc. -- the admissions office at the grad school or law school or med school knows the quality of the roughly 200 competitive schools and if you do well at Stony Brook or Fordham, you will get into a good program and be judged on how well you did there as opposed to where you did your undergraduate work.
I believe my grand-niece's first choice is still a brand-name school, where, on the numbers, she might get in and might not, but she has already got a few good options in her back pocket, and I think I have reduced her stress levels about the whole process.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Signals and Noise of Virtue”
A fine article. What cultural conservatives too often overlook is that many of the developments that broke down traditions they mourn were the responsibility not of lefty ideologues or SJWs, but of conservative businessmen out to make a buck. Henry Ford, a string of motel owners, and Big Pharma probably did more to create a sexual revolution than Hugh Hefner.
"
So if veronica had spoken the language of resentment rather than psychology, that would be OK? Or of character rather than trauma? I much prefer the former language myself, though I consider that more a matter of style than of morals.
Just want to make sure I understand the rules around here.
"
Memory can be short and selective.
"
Much of modern politics is driven by resentment of large masses of people who hate other folks for being cooler or classier -- which seems to be jaybird's idea of "elite" -- than they are. There's nothing wrong with pointing out an example that screams to be pointed out.
"
Well, yes. You make that sound like a bad thing.
"
Maybe it's just that I'm older than most of the folks here, but I have over a half-century of memories -- some deeply personal -- of folks disparaging the morals of anyone who dissented from what passed for political correctness in the Mad Men, Rat Pack, and later eras. And in case no one has noticed, it's still going on today.
"
Romney got what he deserved, and it had nothing to do with virtue signalling. He had his "binders full of women," and needed them, because he could not credibly claim identifiable, high-powered female supporters who might fill significant spots in his administration. And why do people think his banal comment about Russia made him Thucydides? What he said wasn't wrong, it was vacuous. Nobody needed to be reminded that there was only one country on earth that would have to think for more than 5 minutes before deciding that war or other high-intensity conflict with the United States was a very, very bad idea.
Sometimes a doof is just a doof. And nobody has a right to a pass on it when he puts himself out as a potential Leader of the Free World.
On “And Just Like That, Billy Ray Cyrus is Cool Again”
Although I had a casual acquaintance with country music (mostly classic and outlaw), knew who Billy Ray Cyrus was, and had heard of his big hit, when I clicked on the link to Achy, Breaky Heart I realized that I had never heard it until today. Not that I'd missed much, but I try not to be completely out of touch.
On “Woman Commits Crime, Victim Goes To Jail”
We can be sure that Donald Trump will have DOJ look into this, can't we?
On “Oh Man! The Big Speech”
People would actually pay to hear a politician speak back then? Without it being a thinly-disguised campaign contribution?
On “Never Say Never NeverTrump: Dems Far-Left Fringe Will Re-Elect Trump”
So people who voted for Trump before will do it again. I think we knew that. It would be foolish to underestimate the Democrats' chances of blowing 2020, but if they do, it won't be because they didn't appeal to people who wouldn't vote for them anyway.
"
We've spent far too much time figuring out why people voted for Trump and what to do about it. There really isn't much mystery. The vast majority of people who voted for Trump were -- drum roll, please -- Republicans. They would vote for almost anyone with an (R) after his name -- which they proved by voting for Trump. A rather small number stayed home in 2016 rather than hold their nose and vote. There is reason to believe that that number will increase in 2020. The people who want that sort of thing knew what they were getting and came out in 2016 precisely because he was what he clearly is. There just aren't that many more potential Trump voters out there. They may be angrier when they come out in 2020, especially when they get a steady diet of baby-killing open borders socialism, but they're the same people and their votes count the same whether they are worked up or noy.
"
If prior form holds, it's about time for Trump to change that.
"
Tonto and the Lone Ranger were surrounded by hostile Apaches. The Lone Ranger looked at Tonto and says: "Looks like we're done for." Tonto replied: "Who is this 'we' you speak of, white man?"
On “Let Not the Sins of The Client Be Cast Upon the Lawyer”
Makes me think of the movie Solitary Man, with Michael Douglas, Susan Sarandon, Danny DeVito, and Parker Posey. Nice movie, glad I watched it, but no commercial movie producer could have put it out paying this cast what it could normally command. I've often wondered what the deal was.
On “Save Our English”
I actually prefer the other usages precisely because they are all rape, and the other usages tell us what kind of rape it is.
On “Never Say Never NeverTrump: Dems Far-Left Fringe Will Re-Elect Trump”
People who can say or believe such things will not be convinced by mere facts.
"
That's all very true, but this post, at this site, wasn't designed to do any of those three things. There is simply no point in trying to explain why someone who could produce or believe this crude caricature is, in fact, wrong. The reasons won't matter.
In the outside world, such boob-bait for the bubbas may well do exactly what you suggest, but engaging it there on the grounds that it is wrong is equally useless. You need to do something else.
"
With whom?
"
People who would never vote for a Democrat won't vote for one in 2020. The particular reasons this time don't matter, so there is no point in explaining why they're wrong.
On “Not OK With Losing OK”
I'm trying hard, but without success, to recall a recent image of someone who is not operating in a white supremacist context using the OK sign in a context where it would make normal, non-white-supremacist sense. I have seen it used in contexts where it seems to make no sense at all, which makes one wonder
On “American Sandwich Project – Reubens, Rachels, and Monstrosities”
The classic reuben is made with corned beef, but a pastrami reuben is a nice change of pace.
On “A lady, or subscribers?”
My local bar association will be presenting a roast of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Knowing the crew involved, I was looking forward to a vicious catfight over who would get the lead role. (I have the plum male role of Antonin Scalia.) But the writers, taking a cue from RBG's answer to a question about the appropriate number of women on the Supreme Court, wrote nine scenes where RBG appeared, and the conceit of the show was that we were producing an opera about RBG and no one woman could do her justice, so nine different women were cast as RBG, depriving me of the catfight.
On “Blessed Be The Sun Devils”
The school -- Horace Mann -- gave the family a stunning financial aid package. They really loved the kid. So do I, but I'm biased.
"
Having represented public universities in litigation for the last 25 years and attended both pretty-good public and elite private universities in my own education, I have been advising my grand-niece, who is in the middle of the application process.
She is an African-American girl of middle-middle-class status who has gone through a dozen years at an elite private school -- the name would be recognizable nation-wide -- and managed not to become an entitled little shit. She is surrounded by entitled or driven classmates obsessed with getting into the brand-name places: the major Ivies, the comparable SLACs, and good schools that have become brands for reasons other than their undoubted quality, e.g., Duke.
I get that Lowells are failures if they don't end up in Harvard, Witherspoons are failures if they don't get into Princeton, and if you're one of those science geeks who belongs in Cal Tech or MIT, you'll know.
I have advised her not to get caught up in this. I can, off the top of my head, name well over 100 high-quality public and private colleges where you can get an excellent undergraduate education. I mean that both in an absolute sense and, to a lesser extent, in a positional good sense.Through some additional research, I found that the number is roughly twice what I can name.
If you can get into a super-premium school, then, by all means, go for it. The regular undergraduate education at Princeton won't be noticeably better than the education you'll get at, say, Bowdoin or Gettysburg. (Why someone who can get in-state tuition rates would choose Duke over North Carolina unless money doesn't matter is puzzling to me.) The real advantage of going to Harvard is that you're surrounded by people who got into Harvard. Those connections can pay off, especially if you go into a line of work where connections are more important than objectively observable skills. But if you're going into a career that requires graduate education -- medicine, law, science, etc. -- the admissions office at the grad school or law school or med school knows the quality of the roughly 200 competitive schools and if you do well at Stony Brook or Fordham, you will get into a good program and be judged on how well you did there as opposed to where you did your undergraduate work.
I believe my grand-niece's first choice is still a brand-name school, where, on the numbers, she might get in and might not, but she has already got a few good options in her back pocket, and I think I have reduced her stress levels about the whole process.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.