The ethic, of course, is this. The actually guilty guy is going to commit another crime sooner or later, so he'll wind up behind bars anyway no matter what anyone does. That frees up energy and resources to focus on the far more important objective of covering the asses of people in the justice system, so as to not diminish public confidence in its institutions.
Methinks most of the Founders, and John Adams in particular, would have some issues with this. But tell me why I'm wrong.
It is also a function of a government that governs, with small variations, both to and from the center. A frequent complaint made about the spectrum of viable political choices available to the U.S. voter is that they can choose between a center-right party and a centrist party; both are beholden to and servants of their big business donors; the policies they produce are functionally the same and differ from one another only in degree and rhetorical packaging. Both parties liked NAFTA, except for the elements of both parties that didn't. Clinton cut welfare. Bush adopted Medicare Part D. Bush and Obama pushed for TARP and financial bailouts. Obama kept Guantanamo Bay open.
I'm not entirely sure I personal agree with this sentiment, outside of the realm of foreign policy where I really do percieve no substantial difference between what Democratic and Republican Presidents do. The disparity in the timbre of judical nominees from Presidents of the different parties is dramatic, and important. And it seems to me that partisan control of government at the state level can produce some dramatic differences. But if you were one to perceive that there is only going to be a marginal, incremental difference in the policies the government will adopt regardless of which party is in power, then politics in general becomes a fool's debate, full of sound and fury yet resulting in no real impact upon one's own life.
After around 25, a woman’s basically off the ‘hot market’, and after 40, well, you may as well forget being beautiful.
Oh, I couldn't disagree more.
Exhibit A:
Lauren Graham. Born 1967.
Exhibit B:
Ashley Judd. Born 1968.
Exhibit C:
Kristy Swanson. Born 1969.
Exhibit D:
Jennifer Connelley. Born 1970.
The list could go on and on. Obviously, these are celebrities, who have succeeded in Hollywood by virtue in part of being physically attractive. But the point should still be clear: women over 40 can be and frequently are beautiful enough to attract more men than they know what to do with. Best of all, they only get more interesting with the passage of time, which at the end of the day counts for a lot more than physical attractiveness.
So no need to get depressed about turning 25, Miss Mary. Have fun with it.
Allowed? Because we try to err on the side of free expression. Enjoyed? No. The remedy is to call the offending commenter out on the misbehavior. Which has happened.
But rules on coal fired plants are good for other businesses like nuclear, wind, and solar generators. And construction and environmental cleanup companies who get retrofitting work.
Restricting child labor is good for worker's compensation insurers because kids get injured more frequently and are more expensive to fix or support on long term disability than adults.
These rules might count as "picking winners," but no matter what the rule is, I bet I can identify a winner as well as a loser.
TVD good buddy, if you're calling Comedy Central the subversive channel I'll cop to that. But the bulk of mainstream programming is just that: mainstream. The number of people watching "Dancing With The Stars" and thinking about subverting the dominant paradigm may exceed single digits, but not by much.
But in typical contemporary rhetoric it doesn't just mean "nuclear families." It stands for discouragement of anything that smacks of teh ghey; social opprobrium for non-marital sexual behavior, divorce, or single parenthood; disapproval of religious belief other than Christian/Jewish; and in some cases insulation of children from "liberal secular humanist" ideas like evolution and sex education in public schools. Those sorts of notions deserve derision.
On a more seroius note, I would not agree with the proposition that the right has lost the culture war. America just spent three months talking about contraception. Same-sex marriage is specifically banned by the constitutions of roughly three-quarters of the States. Church attendance is up, nationally. There's an ABC-Family channel on cable, but no CBS-Subversive channel to counteract it. There was and still is no significant hue and cry over the TSA looking at live-action nudie pictures of airline passengers who are not even suspected of committing a crime.
I like this one. The phrase doesn't mean much of anything on its face, but instead serves as code for a suite of social policies which no respectable person few people would overtly articulate.
On “Jonah Goldberg’s Very Small Penis : How One NRO Correspondent Plans to Kill Your Children, Eat Your Puppies & Sodomize Your Kittens”
I love haikus.
Could be a good thread.
But all Tod gets are dick jokes.
The dog whistles sing.
"
Against. I'm pointing out the craven ethics that lead to the horror story Mike describes.
"
I, for one, can't wait to learn what I need to do in order to make my penes happening.
"
...Not that there's anything wrong with that, at least in the abstract.
"
Of course, Goldberg's primary objective is to produce a salabale book so as to enrich himself.
"
The ethic, of course, is this. The actually guilty guy is going to commit another crime sooner or later, so he'll wind up behind bars anyway no matter what anyone does. That frees up energy and resources to focus on the far more important objective of covering the asses of people in the justice system, so as to not diminish public confidence in its institutions.
Methinks most of the Founders, and John Adams in particular, would have some issues with this. But tell me why I'm wrong.
"
It is also a function of a government that governs, with small variations, both to and from the center. A frequent complaint made about the spectrum of viable political choices available to the U.S. voter is that they can choose between a center-right party and a centrist party; both are beholden to and servants of their big business donors; the policies they produce are functionally the same and differ from one another only in degree and rhetorical packaging. Both parties liked NAFTA, except for the elements of both parties that didn't. Clinton cut welfare. Bush adopted Medicare Part D. Bush and Obama pushed for TARP and financial bailouts. Obama kept Guantanamo Bay open.
I'm not entirely sure I personal agree with this sentiment, outside of the realm of foreign policy where I really do percieve no substantial difference between what Democratic and Republican Presidents do. The disparity in the timbre of judical nominees from Presidents of the different parties is dramatic, and important. And it seems to me that partisan control of government at the state level can produce some dramatic differences. But if you were one to perceive that there is only going to be a marginal, incremental difference in the policies the government will adopt regardless of which party is in power, then politics in general becomes a fool's debate, full of sound and fury yet resulting in no real impact upon one's own life.
"
Congratulations, Tod. A serious piece with some important points to make, and what do you get in the first ten comments?
Dick jokes.
On “Advertising and Manipulation”
Oh, I couldn't disagree more.
Exhibit A:
Lauren Graham. Born 1967.
Exhibit B:
Ashley Judd. Born 1968.
Exhibit C:
Kristy Swanson. Born 1969.
Exhibit D:
Jennifer Connelley. Born 1970.
The list could go on and on. Obviously, these are celebrities, who have succeeded in Hollywood by virtue in part of being physically attractive. But the point should still be clear: women over 40 can be and frequently are beautiful enough to attract more men than they know what to do with. Best of all, they only get more interesting with the passage of time, which at the end of the day counts for a lot more than physical attractiveness.
So no need to get depressed about turning 25, Miss Mary. Have fun with it.
On “Words And Phrases”
Well, if that's right then neither you nor I have called her out either. At this point, I agree it would be diffuse. But better late than never, so:
Kimmi, please mind your language and respond to the point. Calling Scott names was out of line.
"
Those jokes are both funny and not funny at the same time.
"
Allowed? Because we try to err on the side of free expression. Enjoyed? No. The remedy is to call the offending commenter out on the misbehavior. Which has happened.
"
No monarch in Venice. Oligarchy to be sure. Rome too and the smites ran the show one way or another in Merrye Olde England until Pitt the Younger.
The lesson seems to be that republic equals elites having lots of power. Part of the beast.
"
Hm. Mrs. Likko will be out of town. Maybe I can scare up a buddy and make a trip down the hill. No promises yet but it'll be under discussion.
"
But rules on coal fired plants are good for other businesses like nuclear, wind, and solar generators. And construction and environmental cleanup companies who get retrofitting work.
Restricting child labor is good for worker's compensation insurers because kids get injured more frequently and are more expensive to fix or support on long term disability than adults.
These rules might count as "picking winners," but no matter what the rule is, I bet I can identify a winner as well as a loser.
"
Rome, pre-Caesar.
Venice.
Probably late Stuart and Hanoverian England.
"
TVD good buddy, if you're calling Comedy Central the subversive channel I'll cop to that. But the bulk of mainstream programming is just that: mainstream. The number of people watching "Dancing With The Stars" and thinking about subverting the dominant paradigm may exceed single digits, but not by much.
"
But in typical contemporary rhetoric it doesn't just mean "nuclear families." It stands for discouragement of anything that smacks of teh ghey; social opprobrium for non-marital sexual behavior, divorce, or single parenthood; disapproval of religious belief other than Christian/Jewish; and in some cases insulation of children from "liberal secular humanist" ideas like evolution and sex education in public schools. Those sorts of notions deserve derision.
"
Example, please?
"
Yes. For an hourly fee to be negotiated with the executor of your estate.
"
Will H., I may not agree with what you're saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
"
It's "Four legs good, two legs better"!
On a more seroius note, I would not agree with the proposition that the right has lost the culture war. America just spent three months talking about contraception. Same-sex marriage is specifically banned by the constitutions of roughly three-quarters of the States. Church attendance is up, nationally. There's an ABC-Family channel on cable, but no CBS-Subversive channel to counteract it. There was and still is no significant hue and cry over the TSA looking at live-action nudie pictures of airline passengers who are not even suspected of committing a crime.
"
...Except for the "War on Christmas." If the "War on Christmas" gets you upset, chances are you think Christmas is a very good thing.
There are seriously people who call the AMA a "cartel"? Wow.
"
I like this one. The phrase doesn't mean much of anything on its face, but instead serves as code for a suite of social policies which no respectable person few people would overtly articulate.
"
Maybe that one deserves to go in a special Alanis Morrisette - Inigo Montoya subcategory.