Monday Highlights

Well, the morning and lunchtime were busy … and Wednesday I’m back out to Western Illinois. Tuesday … well well. About six weeks ago my eldest very very introverted daughter suddenly became a baseball (White Sox) fan. So … we’re (a) learning about baseball and (b) going to the Sox/Yankees game Tuesday night with a pair of free upper deck tix. So now I’m paying for those decades a cyclist thinking that baseball is almost not a sport (and don’t let me get started on golf).

  1. On prayer and fasting.
  2. Tuff enuff?
  3. From the side of the aisle hiding the Holodomor and Katyn forest deniers … just treatment of some other deniers celebrated. In that light, I’ll recommend this book Bloodlands, which I read recently.
  4. And a little context for the above.
  5. Lilith.
  6. On the monastic calling.
  7. More books.
  8. Religion poisons everything … or perhaps not.
  9. A crazy way to make a living, eh?
  10. GM
  11. The left and right ‘splained to a youngster.

And now my other daughter wants to borrow this computer … so, perhaps more tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 comments

  1. The left and right ‘splained to a youngster.

    Not ‘splained, exemplified. A question is asked (“Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”) and instead of investigating the answer (the homeless guy probably has mental and/or physical impairments that prevent him from working) he arrogantly assumes he knows the truth (the homeless guy is just too lazy to work?)

  2. Mark says:

    JA,
    I see. When the Clinton work for welfare program went in and lots and lots of people returned to work that … never happened. Your take your blue glasses off.

    And in discussions with Boonton we (or I) have come to the conclusion that a lot of things would be fixed with a better mental health care net. But then, mental healthcare in general could do with an overhaul.

  3. Boonton says:

    Sadly the welfare reform seems to have failed to work very well through a major recession (the Clinton boom was a real period of economic growth that exceeded Reagan).

  4. I’d go so far as to say that anybody who reaches adulthood without at least having tried illegal drugs is probably either too cowardly or too blindly obedient to be trusted with the presidency. You think the founding fathers would have followed such rules?

  5. Boonton says:

    More importantly is the fact that the mode of operation here is not to formulate a narrative from reality but to pick and choose from reality to create a pre-desired narrative. 12 years ago ilk like her were writing about how brave it was for George W Bush to overcome a misspent youth partying, drinking and almost certainly drugs (youth being defined here as late as one’s early 40’s!). Previously we had Mark and others on the right telling us that Obama was an elitist because he did so well in school and attended ivy league schools versus people like Sarah Palin who did community college off and on meandering around majors and subjects with little focus.

    The issue isn’t so much whether the judgements are fair or unfair as much as has the person doing the judging merited any credibility at all for our attention?

  6. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    12 years ago ilk like her were writing about how brave it was for George W Bush to overcome a misspent youth partying, drinking and almost certainly drugs (youth being defined here as late as one’s early 40′s!).

    Hmm. So .. while it was clear and is clear when one was to compare the post-college years for, say Mr Gore and Mr Bush … Mr Bush comes out with a “less admirable”, or more succinctly, horribly in comparison. What impact has on their particular positions and suitability 30 years later is a separate question just as the question of the present comparison of Mr Ryan and Mr Obama is a separate question and indeed not one being asked. That leaves us with an interesting conundrum. Let’s see, hanging with the “Choom gang” vs working to support his family. Gosh … you guys who are trying to lay claim to credibility yet fail even bring yourself to admit that it is a better thing instead you go on about how necessary it is for everyone to have tried illegal drugs. There’s a little dissonance going on there.

    The piece JA objected too is hardly worth commenting on because not only is it written by a liar, it’s not even written as if it wasn’t written by a liar.

    So. Name something said that was a lie. How about two?

    For example, the voter id law is objected too because its critics feel it will disenfranchise many blacks.

    Here’s another crypto-racist, i.e., Boonton. Do you know it’s racist to equate black with poor?

    JA,

    You think the founding fathers would have followed such rules?

    Did you read the (excellent) biography of John Adams by David McCullough? I think the founding fathers were quite a varied bunch and blanket statements made about them are hard to make, including yours. More specifically, after reading Mr Adams biography, I’d venture that he wouldn’t have. There’s one.

  7. Boonton says:

    So. Name something said that was a lie. How about two?

    Said the problem was it was written by a liar, not that it was a lie. I didn’t bother to read the piece deeply enough to pick up on whether or not there were lies in it. A liar is a much worse thing to be than simply someone who writes a lie in a piece.

    Here’s another crypto-racist, i.e., Boonton. Do you know it’s racist to equate black with poor?

    Who did any equating? If you passed a law disenfranchising Harlem, then it’s not racist to point out that sounds like a law designed to lower the number of black and minority votes in an election. That hardly requires one equate ‘resident of Harlem’ with ‘black’. Such a law would no doubt impact some white people who happen to live in Harlem too.

    You seem to have invented a new definition of racism which is racism means anyone who makes a charge of racism you think is wrong.

  8. Boonton says:

    Let me amend that remark a bit. Language here needs to be expanded a bit so it doesn’t quite do justice to the Platonic ideals we are managing here. A liar is one who lies meaning one who purposefully puts out untruths with the intention of passing them off as truths. The piece you linked too, though, isn’t just by a liar it’s by what I’ll call a ‘liar-sqrd’.

    A liar at least flatters the truth by trying to imitate it. A liar-sqrd is one who has dropped even the pretense of respecting the truth and simply doesn’t care.

  9. Mark,

    Yeah, I was being sloppy. Obviously you are right that not all founders would have broken such rules and my earlier point about drug use was a bit of hyperbole.