Read Christopher Hitchen's article and then come back and vote. His conclusion:
I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.That being said, that's not the real question, is it? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that waterboarding is torture. Is it justifiable?
Back in the day, and it was some time ago, when I was in college there were girls who had lists of what they found exciting and acceptable in a man. Heck, I knew guys who had the same thing. For me, there was no list and no type. Whatever. You were either interesting and hot or you were not. That's rather broad and did bring a number of different guys through my life. The "List People" seemed rather self-limiting. And who wants to find out that they "measured up" and made all the checks after the fact?
Anyway, Karol Sheinen talks about a NYT article about single people eliminating dates based on the books they read (or, these days, the books they don't read, because 99% of people including the pretentious snobs pretending to read Proust being written about in the Times don't read at all). And then she talks about shared food habits and how it can make or break a relationship or at least strain it:
Does it seem strange that after years of marriage I haven't given this much thought? A certain level of comprehension and ability to communicate seems to be important. The ability to read and picking up a book now and again displays some level of intellectual curiosity. But does the reading topic matter? It's nice to have shared food and reading interests, but necessary? I guess a man with an obsession with craw fish could be a stopper. Craw fish stinks like shit and old fish. So maybe....I.C. is the first boyfriend I've had that I feel matches my eating habits almost exactly (and I don't just say that because I'm in lalaland over him, sending him texts all day declaring my affection and wearing his shirt because it smells like him). We nearly always share every dish we get. He's slightly more adventurous than me, and I love mushrooms while he hates them, but otherwise we're pretty close to a perfect fit.
So what matters to you? Books, food or neither? Is the perfect person the perfect person no matter what they read or eat?
Governor James McGreevy sued his wife, Dina, for divorce and she is claiming fraud. If a person believes they are marrying a heterosexual spouse and then the spouse, who knew he was gay continues to be gay but pretends to be straight, does the pretender commit fraud? I would say yes. It becomes a question of who knew what and when, doesn't it?
What do you think? Should people who knowingly enter a marriage being gay (when assumed straight), indebted (when assumed solvent), fertile (when assumed infertile) etc. be sued for fraud?
Remember Chloe Marshall, the plus-sized chick going for the beauty pageant in England? Yes, well, there was a swimsuit competition. What do you think?
Labels:
Poll,
Pop culture,
Women
Well, John stirs the pot yet again. Here's a taste, go over to his Townhall column to see the whole thing:Blacks are, on average, more racist than whites: As we've seen in the Democratic primary this year, black Americans are much more likely to vote for a person based on his skin color than white Americans. Also, most black Americans tend to think it's ok to belong to race-based organizations like the NAACP, while white Americans hold race-based groups like the KKK in disdain. Moreover, percentage wise, there are pretty clearly a lot more black Americans who dislike white Americans based on their skin color than vice-versa. Maybe that's understandable given the shameful treatment black Americans once had to endure in this country, but it's still the truth -- and don't even get me started on black Americans actually defending criminal scum like O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, and the L.A. rioters because they're black.
Do you believe this? I'm putting it up for a poll.
A prominent blogger who shall go unnamed, urged me to snap out of it and get back to blogging. During my very brief hiatus, I have considered refocusing my blog since the political race is giving me hives. In short, I don't like any candidate much and the one I like the most has nearly zippo chance of receiving the nomination. Said prominent blogger retorted "that's politics and you'll learn to love him". I said that I know that that's politics and that no, I will not learn to love a crappy nominee.
Politics is only one unmentionable topic I blog about--sex and religion get their due, too, and I've neglected all the multiple ways to offend people. Perhaps I should focus on sex and religion more. The prominent blogger says I should post a sexy picture and give advice like I do with my business clients and patients. Wouldn't a sexy picture (if such a thing were even possible at my advanced age and state of wrinkle) undermine my lofty messages? Men don't need sexy pictures, although Jeff is kinda hot. Not that he really exists anymore, talk about a hiatus.
So, for the next couple days, I'll continue my hiatus, sleep-deprived though its been, and consider all the ways to entertain and enlighten. I'm putting this to a vote. You're likely to be disenfranchised, I must warn you. I'm prone to ignore results that irk me ala Vlad Putin. This blog, is, after all, dictatorship, a benign one I like to think, but a dictatorship nonetheless. Since I do all the work around here, it seems only right.
Oh, and sex isn't a choice on the poll because all you wise asses would pick sex and then no helpful information would be gleaned.
So do you care that a number of baseball stars are using steroids? Perhaps your beloved Roger Clemens, the old geezer has to be doing something, right?
Well, I'm not going to taint the poll by giving my opinion. I'll talk about it tomorrow after you vote.
Yes, I'm "rushing" to judgment, after hearing about this sordid mess for years. There is going to be more than an asterisk next to Barry Bond's name.
Do you think he'll be barred from the Hall of Fame because of his criminal actions?
Friends of mine of the Gen X generation discussed the universally reviled squash. That orange blob of stringy stuff people of certain generations love.
So, I'm putting it to vote? Are you for or against Squash as traditional Thanksgiving fare? I think you know where I stand:
Labels:
America,
Ameritopia,
Poll
It turns out more people do share beds with their kids than care to admit. I don't think it's a big deal, really. With parents working so much and gone, kids sleeping in the same room is a way for them to stay connected.
When we went on the Disney Cruise and all five of us were shoved like sardines into one tiny space, everyone slept the best. I could hear all my children breathing. I knew when someone was having a bad dream. The kids slept awesome. We could all relax. I actually considered having a room constructed like that--two bunks and a baby bed in our bedroom. It worked out so well. (We had heavy drapes dividing the sleeping quarters. Wink. Wink.)
What do you think about shared sleeping quarters? Indians did it and primitive societies all over still do. Why not Westerners?
Labels:
Children,
Family,
Marriage,
Poll,
Psychology
James Lileks smacks down Professor Bainbridge and I'm inclined to agree with Lileks, but that might just be because he writes better. Or it might be that elitist snobs grate on my last Midwestern nerve. Here's the lovely retort:
Yes, they're all as dumb as sacks of soybeans. But Iowa is a lovely place, and as gratifying as it feels to micturate all over the central states, they have some good points. Now that the airplanes and the postal service have extended their reach to the inner reaches of the American continent, all manner of books and periodicals are available. The women are frequently seen in the smartest of smocks, and the men in the barber shops discourse on the latest advances in wireless telephony and moustache waxes. To the amazement of many visitors from Cali-fornia, large sections of the urban areas are not characterized by poverty and gang violence, the freeways move at a speed that many fear will bruise the internal organs, and houses of great size and comfort can be had for surprising sums of money. You can live here for $375,000.And here's part of the pithy post that prompted it:
Or, of course, you could move to San Jose, and live here for a little more. And you'd be near cutting-edge technology production, too.
How is it that we persist in allowing these unrepresentative, yahoo infested, pissant states decide who gets to run for President? The notion that the Ames straw poll matters would be preposterous were it not so pernicious.Yahoo infested? Surely the good Professor is ignoring Paris Hilton and Tom Cruise in his estimation of Californian superiority. Please. California is about to implode economically, debt-wise, the housing market will crash (again), the highways are choked, and at any moment the whole state could drop into the sea should Saint Andreas get moody. I'm not sure we want to rely on California to decide our fate.
A couple thoughts:
Come on now. She is a danger to herself and others. The plea arrangement was a 3 year probation; that plea was to keep her out of jail. People would be excoriating this judge if she were not held in some way to that plea bargain and she or someone else were later killed or injured.
Labels:
Celebrities,
Crime,
Law,
Poll,
Pop culture
Watching Fred Thompson's character talk about abortion on Law & Order the other night made me hope he'd run. Ace wonders if Thompson is a contender or flash in the pan. I vote for contender. Every candidate Republican or Democrat has serious drawbacks. In fact, most have more negatives than positives. Thompson seems to be more positive than negative--humor, easy camera manner, clear positions on issues without seeming strident, experienced and well-liked.
Labels:
Election 08,
Poll
The end-of-year madness has begun. The next two weeks will be one activity after another for school and extra-curricular stuff.
And, I've had two people talk to me out-of-the-blue about home schooling. I'm torn about it. It would free us up to do some more interesting things, but I'm worried about losing my last neuron. Any thoughts?
Labels:
Education,
Homeschooling,
Poll
UPDATED:
Iowahawk reports on a poll of Lutherns. This is significant:
Kohut pointed to one of the study's key findings that only 29% of all respondents agreed that "bloody, random violence against infidels" was "always" or "frequently" justified, versus 56% who said such violence was "seldom" or "never" justified. The approval of violence rose slightly among younger Lutherans and when the hypothetical violence was targeted against Presbyterians, but still fell well short of a majority.Well, I'm just happy about the majority. Focus on the positive, you know?
"The only demographic cohort we saw where murderous random violence had a majority support was among 18-35 year old male followers of the Wisconsin Synod," said Kohut. "And that was barely above the margin of error. Even then, fewer than half (41% to 46%) said they would personally volunteer to carry out the violence themselves."
"Overwhelming majority." 26%-69% on the terrorism justified vs. never justified question amoung young Muslim American males.Ace goes on to illustrate how the media, and the polling company itself (Pew), obscure the important data for politically correct ends.
Again, I was more hoping for something like a "unanimity."
I ask of Mr. Hooper: Would he feel relieved if I told him right now 69% of young non-Muslim males opposed, but 26% supported, killing you and fellow Muslims due to our anger at their foreign policy?
I don't think so. I think he'd call that "hatred" and "backlash."
So I'm not getting why he thinks that we should be happy that only one in four young Muslim men are open to murdering the rest of us.
The number of grown women who tell terrible tales of sexual abuse shocks many a new doctor. What is even more shocking than the abuse is the number of women who report that their mothers knew of the abuse and blamed the child or looked the other day or demanded that the child shut up about it. Or, in the case of the woman in this story, took $10,000 in hush money to lie to abstruct the police investigation and lie about the abuser. She got 65 months in prison for her lies. That's nearly five years--if she serves it all. Her lawyer thinks it's excessive. I wonder how long it will be until her disabled daughter trusts anyone again.
UPDATE: You know, the poll is unanimous so far--all ten people voting believe the by-stander should be punished, but I never hear about this actually happening. Is it to keep the child with at least one, albeit bad, parent?
A big controversy boils in Major League Baseball over Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's home run record. It is no secret that Barry Bonds and performance enhancement substances are intimately acquainted. And yet, the sports world is divided about how to view Bond's achievements. On the one hand this from John Lopez of the Houston Chronicle:
And for all those who would argue Bonds' cause, pointing to the same old arguments that Bonds was a supreme hitter before steroids, that not much evidence has stuck on him or that resentment is unfair or race-related, get real.On the other hand there are those who believe Bonds is singled out because he's black. They believe that there would be no controversy if he were white. A CBS-ESPN poll seems to bolster this opinion. Only 37% of blacks polled believe Bonds used 'roids while 76% of whites think he did. Seattle P-I writer Ted Miller sees this behind the numbers:Believe whatever you want regarding how much Bonds knew about the drugs he was ingesting from 2001 through 2003. The fact is, grand-jury testimony showed that he indeed took human growth hormone, depo-testosterone, undetectable steroids known as "the cream" and "the clear," insulin, and Clomid, a drug for female infertility that sometimes is used to enhance the effect of testosterone.
No matter Bonds' story, that's flat-out breaking the law. Bonds cheated and stole from the game.
I would buy the racial thing, except a white guy (McGwire) and a Puerto Rican guy (Sosa) will live with asterisks next to their names in the annals of baseball history, too. The mark might not be on paper, but it will be in everyone's minds.First off, few blacks really believe Bonds never took steroids, despite 36 percent saying so in the poll (call it an overwhelming, though unscientific, impression gathered from various conversations). Savvy poll respondents often don't say what they think. They break down the question and answer in a way intended to support their agenda.
If a magical being suddenly appeared and announced he would produce irrefutable proof of whether Bonds did or didn't take performance-enhancing drugs, how many of that 36 percent would rush their opinion to a Vegas bookie? Please.
This isn't to say the 36 percent is stupid or full of it. Their intention isn't to answer the question. It's to protest the process by which Bonds became a pariah. By announcing that, in effect, they won't believe Bonds took steroids until they see a needle sticking out of his rear end with their own two eyes, they are sending a message -- one of racial solidarity, one that asserts their belief in the continuing prevalence of institutionalized racism and one of stubborn resistance to a system that has railroaded so many in the past.
Is personal stuff on blogs "oversharing"? Ace thinks so:
One thing I agree with: The personal stuff on blogs? I know a lot of people consider blogs to be partly a personal journal, but I've always had a major "ick" reaction to that. Not just Sullivan's beagles, boyfriend, and bronchitis stuff, but personal stuff from anyone.So what of it, do you like when bloggers share personal stuff or is it "oversharing"?
Who cares?
I try to avoid that myself under the "who cares" principle.
I guess a lot of people do care, but it always seemed like oversharing to me.
If you believe the press and polls, everyone, including Republicans now, hate George W. Bush. To me, that conventional wisdom seemed unwise. If people like me backed Bush, but felt he wasn't pushing hard enough, aggressively enough and were asked poorly worded questions--either too broad or too narrow to really be accurate then the President's ratings could very well be in the tank, but it didn't explain the stubborn resistance of most Americans to defunding the war in Iraq. How can people hate the Commander in Chief and simultaneously want his command funded?
Given that context, this news makes sense:
The poll also shows that rank-and-file Republicans have higher regard for the president than they do Republicans in Congress. They gave GOP lawmakers a 63% job-approval rating, 13 points below Bush's. And 72% of Republicans do not think Bush made a mistake sending U.S. troops to Iraq.Additionally, I've noted before the silly framing of the Republican candidates as "weak" while the Democrats are ripe with fruity choices. Well, they are and they aren't. The Democrats have as many or more problems with the election as the front-running Republicans right now, but don't tell the media that. Newsbusters Warren Todd Huston point's to the Boston Globe's Robert Kuttner's love (or is it lust) proclaimed for all things Democrat:
So if congressional Republicans figure the key to re-election in 2008 is taking a hard line against Bush on Iraq, they could be dead wrong. They might lure some independents, but they risk alienating their GOP base. To win, you need solid support from your base plus independents, not independents alone.
In the same Boston Globe piece, the Republican candidates get savaged. Of course, they do! Just like everyone, EVERYONE, hates the President, the hopes for the next Presidential election are lost, LOST, I tell you!Kuttner... again in his show of non-love... then ridiculously equates Obama as someone on the level of a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Vaclav Havel. And, reaching for the height of absurdity, he then imagines Obama to be just like Thomas Jefferson. Yet, any perusal of these three men’s lives would show far more accomplishment, that they are men of far more consequence than Obama’s life has yet revealed. Obama appears as but a mere dabbler in achievement compared to Kuttner’s three men of history.
No, Kuttner hasn't fallen in love with Obama at all. You can REALLY tell that!
The syrup virtually drips from his pen.
Finally, Kuttner ends his piece with this laugher:
I could be wrong, of course. John Edwards, with his authentic populism, would also make a formidable nominee. Clinton, despite her flaws, has always done better than her detractors predict.
“Authentic populism”? John Edwards!? The man who owns HOW many palatial homes is an example of “authentic populism”?
