My farm implements are actually pretty darn good at pictorially showing exactly how I will meet my end if I am not careful...the link below is pretty common.
Depending on the tool, the large number of pictures can make for a sort of cartoon strip of 1000 ways to die in the West. Though simple... I take them very seriously.
I think there's something about the immediacy of the warning... *everything* gives you cancer eventually.
@gabriel-conroy absolutely, I think Prospicio is indeed probably much better.
But while retrospicio makes perfect sense, I didn't recall it as an actual word - respicio is effectively retrospicio (at least according to my dictionary). Curious, I googled it and (if one can trust a random google link on Latin verbs) it seems that retrospicio came into usage in the 15th century. So I suppose Dr. H can choose his style: Cicero or Scholastic.
Still, a classicist with a much broader vocabulary could probably come up with a much cooler slogan (or would know the Roman saying).
I don't recall this as a specific Roman saying (though it easily could be). So, absent a traditional proverb, I'd try to keep the verbs paired. The first question would be, you say "look"... but what type of looking are you doing? Are you scouting? contemplating? searching? That could influence verb choice. But, keeping very simple, perhaps something like this.
specite numquam respicite
Look, never look back. (using the imperative plural for anonymity/generality).
If you want you could add "sempre" for emphasis as the first word or last (I'd put it last, for flair). Look ahead never back, always!
My composition was always very suspect (not to mention decades intervening), and I know there are some real Latinists who read this site... so quite likely they will have something more elegant. But the above should pass 21st century sensibilities. Unless, of course, you have invented a time machine and are going back to the 3rd century - but then, why would you look back? Ah, the mystery deepens... you must tell us more.
Well, this is a tension particular to America - the free exercise of religion absent a definition of religion begs the question.
Now, the Catholic Church has a long history of signing Concordats with Nations hostile and other... so I'm ok with a definition of the relationship between the Church and these United States.
But, a) I'm pretty sure that is constitutionally (not to mention politically) impossible, and b) doesn't answer for the decentralized sects/religions that couldn't (or wouldn't) enter in to a treaty with the state.
We could, however, amend the constitution to define the religions approved by the state - there are quite a few countries that do that and I'm sure would have templated language for us to borrow.
I take your point, but quoting from above, it seems that the state would have to make a case that there is both compelling interest *and* that that [insurance] would be the least restrictive means.
"Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them."
He certainly seems to prejudice the decision, but I think a Jehovah's witness could attempt to make such a claim, and focus on the alternative means of providing (if there are any)... and/or the state will have to show that alternative means were considered and that this was the least restrictive way. I don't necessarily think that such is an unjust compromise where the state wishes to compel action.
It might be that providing health care thought work is a really shitty way to provide health care - I'm ok with arguing that, and I think some of what we are seeing here is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Growing up in Chicago, my purely subjective sense was that Kansas was Mid-western (one of us), but Missouri was more Southern (one of them). But then that might just have been because Cardinals fans can never be one of us.
Some years ago when we were all younger, my closest friends were working at a small college. They thought the institution might strive for a different sort of excellence than what the current president wanted. So did the Chairman of the Board and a couple of other Board Members.
Even with powerful allies, the Boss's vision of excellence won. The board members were removed, the young professors marginalized; now all (but one) are gone save the President.
And, from the outside, I'm not sure anyone could have told the difference then or now.
It was an enlightening experience to live through.
The sweeping assumptions don't seem appropriate for any of my work experience (private teaching, small business, mid-cap, and large-cap).
I was waiting for the part that suggests we have certain protections or that the company has certain duties to us that we are not commonly aware of.
Instead, a suggestion that one do an end-around on your boss (and most often your boss's-boss) to get to someone who might see differently.
Sure, one could consider doing that... this is not a new thought. It is usually something one considers and then considers against. Sometimes the shittiest boss is the guy hiring the bosses. Sometimes the organization really does want a culture change - or even more commonly - the culture changes around you owing to merger/acquisition.
Scaled down to something like: Take heart, sometimes it is possible to bring bad behavior to the attention of superiors and expose bossly incompetence. Make note of the improprieties and document mis-steps; when ready, meet with HR and raise a formal complaint of how Mr. X is working against company priorities.
Ok. But, as I said above, sometimes a culture change *is* a culture change, and the mission statement about the importance of family/work balance really is a lie.
Or can a Corporate Lawyer have BS work that alienates him from his craft? In my dealings with corporate contract lawyers, the answer is clearly yes. Not everyone gets to work on the cool M&A projects (if that's what one went in to corporate law for).
I think Alienation is extremely high in the workforce right now (but I don't have a cool wonkblog chart for it). It's not a function of what you do, but what it is that is being done.
You are treating Mt. Rushmore as the 4 best things... Mt. Rushmore is not a list of 4 best things... it is a "one of these things doesn't belong here" game.
So, the Meat Meatmore should be: Grassfed bone-in Porterhouse, Lamb Chops, Liver pate (esp. Foie Gras), and Haggis.
Now I've prosed the joke out of my original comment.
I don't know about sushi (I'm so culturally inept that I use a fork), but one can also eat Asparagus and Lamb Chops with fingers in perfectly good company.
On “Warning Fatigue: My Dog is Giving me Cancer”
My farm implements are actually pretty darn good at pictorially showing exactly how I will meet my end if I am not careful...the link below is pretty common.
http://nasdonline.org/static_content/documents/1929/4.gif
Depending on the tool, the large number of pictures can make for a sort of cartoon strip of 1000 ways to die in the West. Though simple... I take them very seriously.
I think there's something about the immediacy of the warning... *everything* gives you cancer eventually.
On “The Messy Convergence of Sh**ty Customer Service and Net Neutrality”
Portlandia understands your Phone plan pain.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/217022
On “Latin Bleg”
@gabriel-conroy absolutely, I think Prospicio is indeed probably much better.
But while retrospicio makes perfect sense, I didn't recall it as an actual word - respicio is effectively retrospicio (at least according to my dictionary). Curious, I googled it and (if one can trust a random google link on Latin verbs) it seems that retrospicio came into usage in the 15th century. So I suppose Dr. H can choose his style: Cicero or Scholastic.
Still, a classicist with a much broader vocabulary could probably come up with a much cooler slogan (or would know the Roman saying).
"
Prospicio might be a better verb, then.
prospicite numquam respicite
"
I still watch that scene with alarming frequency... thank goodness for you tube.
"
I don't recall this as a specific Roman saying (though it easily could be). So, absent a traditional proverb, I'd try to keep the verbs paired. The first question would be, you say "look"... but what type of looking are you doing? Are you scouting? contemplating? searching? That could influence verb choice. But, keeping very simple, perhaps something like this.
specite numquam respicite
Look, never look back. (using the imperative plural for anonymity/generality).
If you want you could add "sempre" for emphasis as the first word or last (I'd put it last, for flair). Look ahead never back, always!
My composition was always very suspect (not to mention decades intervening), and I know there are some real Latinists who read this site... so quite likely they will have something more elegant. But the above should pass 21st century sensibilities. Unless, of course, you have invented a time machine and are going back to the 3rd century - but then, why would you look back? Ah, the mystery deepens... you must tell us more.
On “Big Monday 2014”
Well, this is a tension particular to America - the free exercise of religion absent a definition of religion begs the question.
Now, the Catholic Church has a long history of signing Concordats with Nations hostile and other... so I'm ok with a definition of the relationship between the Church and these United States.
But, a) I'm pretty sure that is constitutionally (not to mention politically) impossible, and b) doesn't answer for the decentralized sects/religions that couldn't (or wouldn't) enter in to a treaty with the state.
We could, however, amend the constitution to define the religions approved by the state - there are quite a few countries that do that and I'm sure would have templated language for us to borrow.
"
I take your point, but quoting from above, it seems that the state would have to make a case that there is both compelling interest *and* that that [insurance] would be the least restrictive means.
"Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them."
He certainly seems to prejudice the decision, but I think a Jehovah's witness could attempt to make such a claim, and focus on the alternative means of providing (if there are any)... and/or the state will have to show that alternative means were considered and that this was the least restrictive way. I don't necessarily think that such is an unjust compromise where the state wishes to compel action.
It might be that providing health care thought work is a really shitty way to provide health care - I'm ok with arguing that, and I think some of what we are seeing here is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
On “What Is the Midwest?”
Growing up in Chicago, my purely subjective sense was that Kansas was Mid-western (one of us), but Missouri was more Southern (one of them). But then that might just have been because Cardinals fans can never be one of us.
On “Comment Rescue: Workplace Culture”
Some years ago when we were all younger, my closest friends were working at a small college. They thought the institution might strive for a different sort of excellence than what the current president wanted. So did the Chairman of the Board and a couple of other Board Members.
Even with powerful allies, the Boss's vision of excellence won. The board members were removed, the young professors marginalized; now all (but one) are gone save the President.
And, from the outside, I'm not sure anyone could have told the difference then or now.
It was an enlightening experience to live through.
"
I can't say I found it terribly insightful.
The sweeping assumptions don't seem appropriate for any of my work experience (private teaching, small business, mid-cap, and large-cap).
I was waiting for the part that suggests we have certain protections or that the company has certain duties to us that we are not commonly aware of.
Instead, a suggestion that one do an end-around on your boss (and most often your boss's-boss) to get to someone who might see differently.
Sure, one could consider doing that... this is not a new thought. It is usually something one considers and then considers against. Sometimes the shittiest boss is the guy hiring the bosses. Sometimes the organization really does want a culture change - or even more commonly - the culture changes around you owing to merger/acquisition.
Scaled down to something like: Take heart, sometimes it is possible to bring bad behavior to the attention of superiors and expose bossly incompetence. Make note of the improprieties and document mis-steps; when ready, meet with HR and raise a formal complaint of how Mr. X is working against company priorities.
Ok. But, as I said above, sometimes a culture change *is* a culture change, and the mission statement about the importance of family/work balance really is a lie.
On “George Orwell Explains It All. In Rhyme.”
Think for a minute.
"
is it that hour again? or are you musically slipping, Glyph.
"
Or can a Corporate Lawyer have BS work that alienates him from his craft? In my dealings with corporate contract lawyers, the answer is clearly yes. Not everyone gets to work on the cool M&A projects (if that's what one went in to corporate law for).
I think Alienation is extremely high in the workforce right now (but I don't have a cool wonkblog chart for it). It's not a function of what you do, but what it is that is being done.
"
...and Apathy was happy that it won without a fight.
On “You can choose any one spell, potion, artifact, ritual, plant, or animal from any of the Harry Potter books. Which would you pick?”
Oh, so a little bit like drones and cruise missiles.
I wonder if this is the secret origin of all our smart weapons...just a desire to cast MM into the darkness.
"
Wait, what world is this where the answer isn't Magic Missile?
On “Mount Rushmore – Mount Rushmore Edition”
No that's the spirit!
"
You are treating Mt. Rushmore as the 4 best things... Mt. Rushmore is not a list of 4 best things... it is a "one of these things doesn't belong here" game.
So, the Meat Meatmore should be: Grassfed bone-in Porterhouse, Lamb Chops, Liver pate (esp. Foie Gras), and Haggis.
Now I've prosed the joke out of my original comment.
"
I'm not sure Mt. Rushmore is a good Mt. Rushmore... I mean, shouldn't the game be to name 3 really impressive things and then a Roosevelt?
Your list has two Roosevelts (well, technically, three).
In fairness, though, I'm not sure one can come up with 3 impressive presidents since 1927.
On ““Game” and The Price of the Pick Up Artist Movement”
Pas de deux... if you reciprocate. We'll never know what Saul might have missed.
"
Hey, let's not make this about the original post. I have a dangling asparagus out there that I'd rather you not notice.
"
I don't know about sushi (I'm so culturally inept that I use a fork), but one can also eat Asparagus and Lamb Chops with fingers in perfectly good company.
On “The Campus Commencement Controversy”
Shut up you kit-kat.
On “Is this cruel and unusual punishment, or is it simply space-awesome? [Updated]”
Then yet another +1 for the sign wearing to show prosecutorial restraint in *not* prosecuting the guy as a biological terrorist.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.