OK, let's have a contest and find a non-sexist synonym for the phenomenon now described as "clutching pearls." Because it is a phenomenon and it needs a name.
William Irvingson Kristol is on board with this stuff? I hadn't seen the Radical Center before. Much of the left part of the political spectrum would be delirious to get most of this through. So would I. Except, of course, that if Kristol is for it, it must be wrong, so I'll have to reconsider.
When Jesse "The Body" Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota, I would always tell people they should have elected Bobby "The Brain" Heenan instead. Not everybody got it.
I have gone through life as a cheerful pessimist. I don't believe in the power of positive thinking, because s**t happens. But I do believe in the power of negative thinking. Although positive thinking is nowhere near enough to succeed, negative thinking is usually enough to fail.
A 71-year-old white man from Queens raised by a man arrested for his part in a Klan rally has a long record of public actions and utterances tending to support the conclusion that he is a racist. Conclusive? No, but look at all of it, and then look at the utter lack of any actions and utterances that point the other way. The only arguments I can think of for the theory that Trump is not a racist are that he lacks the necessary moral seriousness to have any kind of real beliefs on that, or any other subject, or that his assholery is so comprehensive that he doesn't bother subdividing it.
Re www2: I assume the original paper explains this, but why would natural selection weed out predispositions to medical issues that don't generally become problems until we're past child-rearing ages?
It is damned inconvenient to live in a society where robbing, raping, and killing are common and unpunished, and it would be damned inconvenient whether there is a god or not. It is damned inconvenient to live in a society that does not recognize certain limits on the powers of others, like governments or our employers or our neighbors, over us -- "rights" is as good a name as any for this idea -- and it would be damned inconvenient whether there is a god or not. Whether a big, powerful being wants us not to rob, rape, and kill and wants us to recognize certain rights in others, and will kick our asses if we don't would give us a strong practical reason to do what this being wants, but this being could be God or Galactus or Superman -- or even the cops, if there are enough of them. The big, powerful being doesn't add anything to the analysis.
That's pretty close to the actual law on the subject, leaving aside obvious exceptions like a Catholic priest can be fired if he becomes a Zoroastrian.
I think this is an underappreciated point. The "gorilla" version makes no damn sense. What could it mean? Maybe if Venus was relying on sheer power, the way Serena sometimes does, to overwhelm a small, light-hitting opponent, but that's not how the game was going.
We don't have statues of Rommel here in the U.S. We don't have statues of Admiral Yamamoto. We don't have statues of Benedict Arnold. We shouldn't have statues of Lee.
There comes a point where something is so f*****g obvious that there is no point in saying it just because some a*****e trumpets a related half-truth. Anyone who cares at all about what is true here knows what is true; anyone who doesn't won't be impressed by someone pointing it out.
It made my skin crawl and I'm a man. Why shouldn't it have made Hillary's skin crawl, and why shouldn't she say so? I would have turned around, told the sonofabitch to back off, and shoved him (even though he is several inches taller and considerably heavier), but then I'm never going to be President. Neither, as it turns out, was Hillary. Maybe she should have done it
"Don't be an asshole" can get most of us through most potentially sensitive gender- or race-charged situations. It's not that hard. And I'm an asshole.
There have been legal challenges to Ladies' Nights. I know of none that have been successful. The obvious purpose of ladies' nights is to stock the pond for the men.
Given what we think we know about physics and the size of the universe, there are two possibilities: (1) we're alone, and (2) we're not alone, but we'll never know. I'm not sure which is more depressing.
Aristophanes, if I recall correctly, was on the conservative side of Athenian politics, and made it pretty clear in his comedy. Vulgar innovators, as opposed to the established powers, have long been the target of choice for satirists. Remember the cop-out, suck-up ending to Tartuffe?
The advocates of each regional style of barbeque think theirs is the best. And they're all right. Here in NYC, which used to be a barbeque desert but isn't anymore, we don't have a regional style, though Texas and North Carolina seem to be the most commonly available. I think I've had them all except for Alabama white-sauce style and Kentucky mutton, and I'll eat whatever version you put in front of me as long as it's good.
Remember when it used to be a thing to condemn Obama for not using the Magic Phrase "Radical Islamist Terrorism"? And how pumped up Trump was whenever he used it?
My impression is similar, and I think it is most apparent in fields where you don't have good objective measures of quality and where you start your career -- or if you start it at all -- is more a function of connections and networks. A bright undergraduate who wants to be a journalist (some would say that's a contradiction) and a handful of clippings has a much better shot if those clippings appeared in the Harvard Crimson or the Yale Daily News because he or she knows people who know people. Someone in the sciences, not so much.
If your field generally requires graduate education, where you got your undergraduate degree doesn't matter that much, within reason. The admissions offices at the elite graduate programs know that X State or some small regional liberal arts college is good, and if you have a sterling record there you'll beat out a middling Ivy undergrad.
But then the quality/connections-network issue repeats itself. A new Ph.D. in a hard science can point to real, measurable indicia of quality. A kid fresh out of law school can't. Is a middling Columbia Law graduate better than a Brooklyn Law Review editor? I don't know and neither do the BigLaw hiring partners. But guess who gets the easiest shot at what are regarded as the best jobs?
If we all worked very hard at something, we'd all become much better at it. We might become astonishingly better at it. If I had worked as hard at basketball as Lebron James, I'd have become an amazing basketball player, kicking a lot of ass at pickup games. But I wouldn't have gotten a scholarship to a major college program or gotten a whiff of the NBA. There is such a thing as talent. Lebron working half as hard as he does would still be a far better basketball player than I could ever have been, but if he had done nothing but sit around eating Cheetos while watching MJ play he wouldn't be anything.
There are people who are just "good at math." They'll pick it up faster and see deeper into it with ordinary effort. They're the ones who, if they work hard enough, become math Ph.D.s and solve Fermat's theorem. Few of us can aspire to that no matter how hard we work; but too many people give up on their pre-college math because they're "not good at math." It's true that they aren't as good as those who are "good at math," but they're plenty good enough, if they work at it reasonably diligently, to master what is taught through high school and, possibly, a bit beyond. We pay too much attention to talent, which is a real thing, and not enough to effort.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Politics of Everything”
OK, let's have a contest and find a non-sexist synonym for the phenomenon now described as "clutching pearls." Because it is a phenomenon and it needs a name.
"
Anything that starts by asking the reader to think seriously about some emanation from Ross Douthat is bound to end badly.
On “The Strange Death of Conservative Fusionism”
William Irvingson Kristol is on board with this stuff? I hadn't seen the Radical Center before. Much of the left part of the political spectrum would be delirious to get most of this through. So would I. Except, of course, that if Kristol is for it, it must be wrong, so I'll have to reconsider.
On “Sunday!”
When Jesse "The Body" Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota, I would always tell people they should have elected Bobby "The Brain" Heenan instead. Not everybody got it.
On “Will Teaching About Growth Mindsets and Grit Work?”
I have gone through life as a cheerful pessimist. I don't believe in the power of positive thinking, because s**t happens. But I do believe in the power of negative thinking. Although positive thinking is nowhere near enough to succeed, negative thinking is usually enough to fail.
On “Jemele Hill, or, The Politics Of Describing A Duck As “A Duck””
A 71-year-old white man from Queens raised by a man arrested for his part in a Klan rally has a long record of public actions and utterances tending to support the conclusion that he is a racist. Conclusive? No, but look at all of it, and then look at the utter lack of any actions and utterances that point the other way. The only arguments I can think of for the theory that Trump is not a racist are that he lacks the necessary moral seriousness to have any kind of real beliefs on that, or any other subject, or that his assholery is so comprehensive that he doesn't bother subdividing it.
On “Tech Tuesday – Firsts and Anniversaries Edition”
Re www2: I assume the original paper explains this, but why would natural selection weed out predispositions to medical issues that don't generally become problems until we're past child-rearing ages?
On “Human Rights & God”
It is damned inconvenient to live in a society where robbing, raping, and killing are common and unpunished, and it would be damned inconvenient whether there is a god or not. It is damned inconvenient to live in a society that does not recognize certain limits on the powers of others, like governments or our employers or our neighbors, over us -- "rights" is as good a name as any for this idea -- and it would be damned inconvenient whether there is a god or not. Whether a big, powerful being wants us not to rob, rape, and kill and wants us to recognize certain rights in others, and will kick our asses if we don't would give us a strong practical reason to do what this being wants, but this being could be God or Galactus or Superman -- or even the cops, if there are enough of them. The big, powerful being doesn't add anything to the analysis.
On “Morning Ed: United States {2017.09.11.M}”
No, it didn't.
On “Morning Ed: Business {2017.09.06.W}”
That's pretty close to the actual law on the subject, leaving aside obvious exceptions like a Catholic priest can be fired if he becomes a Zoroastrian.
On “Morning Ed: Media {2017.09.05.Tu}”
I think this is an underappreciated point. The "gorilla" version makes no damn sense. What could it mean? Maybe if Venus was relying on sheer power, the way Serena sometimes does, to overwhelm a small, light-hitting opponent, but that's not how the game was going.
"
I cannot imagine having sex with a 16 year old. Ugh. Really?
I used to imagine it all the time. But that was when I was between 15 and 17.
On “Me and the General Lee”
I doubt that any Philistines are going to make an issue of it. Besides, the Italians conceive of David as having been on their side.
"
We don't have statues of Rommel here in the U.S. We don't have statues of Admiral Yamamoto. We don't have statues of Benedict Arnold. We shouldn't have statues of Lee.
"
There comes a point where something is so f*****g obvious that there is no point in saying it just because some a*****e trumpets a related half-truth. Anyone who cares at all about what is true here knows what is true; anyone who doesn't won't be impressed by someone pointing it out.
On “Mitch Albom Is Offended By… Well… Everything”
Millenials do, in fact, suck. So did we.
On “Morning Ed: Gender {2017.08.24.Th}”
It made my skin crawl and I'm a man. Why shouldn't it have made Hillary's skin crawl, and why shouldn't she say so? I would have turned around, told the sonofabitch to back off, and shoved him (even though he is several inches taller and considerably heavier), but then I'm never going to be President. Neither, as it turns out, was Hillary. Maybe she should have done it
"
"Don't be an asshole" can get most of us through most potentially sensitive gender- or race-charged situations. It's not that hard. And I'm an asshole.
"
There have been legal challenges to Ladies' Nights. I know of none that have been successful. The obvious purpose of ladies' nights is to stock the pond for the men.
On “How UFOs Conquered the World”
Given what we think we know about physics and the size of the universe, there are two possibilities: (1) we're alone, and (2) we're not alone, but we'll never know. I'm not sure which is more depressing.
On “Linky Friday: There Will Be Concussions”
Aristophanes, if I recall correctly, was on the conservative side of Athenian politics, and made it pretty clear in his comedy. Vulgar innovators, as opposed to the established powers, have long been the target of choice for satirists. Remember the cop-out, suck-up ending to Tartuffe?
On “Tuesday!”
The advocates of each regional style of barbeque think theirs is the best. And they're all right. Here in NYC, which used to be a barbeque desert but isn't anymore, we don't have a regional style, though Texas and North Carolina seem to be the most commonly available. I think I've had them all except for Alabama white-sauce style and Kentucky mutton, and I'll eat whatever version you put in front of me as long as it's good.
On “Charlottesville Milepost”
Remember when it used to be a thing to condemn Obama for not using the Magic Phrase "Radical Islamist Terrorism"? And how pumped up Trump was whenever he used it?
On “Linky Friday: Print & Predators”
My impression is similar, and I think it is most apparent in fields where you don't have good objective measures of quality and where you start your career -- or if you start it at all -- is more a function of connections and networks. A bright undergraduate who wants to be a journalist (some would say that's a contradiction) and a handful of clippings has a much better shot if those clippings appeared in the Harvard Crimson or the Yale Daily News because he or she knows people who know people. Someone in the sciences, not so much.
If your field generally requires graduate education, where you got your undergraduate degree doesn't matter that much, within reason. The admissions offices at the elite graduate programs know that X State or some small regional liberal arts college is good, and if you have a sterling record there you'll beat out a middling Ivy undergrad.
But then the quality/connections-network issue repeats itself. A new Ph.D. in a hard science can point to real, measurable indicia of quality. A kid fresh out of law school can't. Is a middling Columbia Law graduate better than a Brooklyn Law Review editor? I don't know and neither do the BigLaw hiring partners. But guess who gets the easiest shot at what are regarded as the best jobs?
On “People are their Histories”
If we all worked very hard at something, we'd all become much better at it. We might become astonishingly better at it. If I had worked as hard at basketball as Lebron James, I'd have become an amazing basketball player, kicking a lot of ass at pickup games. But I wouldn't have gotten a scholarship to a major college program or gotten a whiff of the NBA. There is such a thing as talent. Lebron working half as hard as he does would still be a far better basketball player than I could ever have been, but if he had done nothing but sit around eating Cheetos while watching MJ play he wouldn't be anything.
There are people who are just "good at math." They'll pick it up faster and see deeper into it with ordinary effort. They're the ones who, if they work hard enough, become math Ph.D.s and solve Fermat's theorem. Few of us can aspire to that no matter how hard we work; but too many people give up on their pre-college math because they're "not good at math." It's true that they aren't as good as those who are "good at math," but they're plenty good enough, if they work at it reasonably diligently, to master what is taught through high school and, possibly, a bit beyond. We pay too much attention to talent, which is a real thing, and not enough to effort.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.