Write what you know
 

Turns out this was entirely inappropriate.

Thank goodness for "edit".

Look asshole (okay, this is the humor part again - I think I need to be more clear), when you give three or so responses that are based on "this is just a racist joke, right?", to comments on a work that I take seriously - do YOU give any weight to the idea that kids grow up as they are taught? - and say that I - I?! - am getting too moral and pissy - I start to get riled. And, maybe I'm too tense. ("Two tents." There's an Indian joke in there that I can't remember.) So, anyway, sorry, we just didn't hook up today. (Given the FB lines, I'm not all that sorry, of course. MMMFFffMM just doesn't do it for me.)

If I misunderstood, and I suspect I did, I apologize. Now I'm going to do the "round the cities" race. Only stupid people plan a road race when it's 37 degrees.

Oh, yeah - I planned this.

I hope no Mpls cops are reading this.

For Spanky
 

Anyone who remembers when Sully deserved respect for his writings - there's a meet-up tomorrow, at the north end of the Bay Bridge, on the west-bound side, on a 4" x 8" sheet of paper. We may have booked too large of a room.

For Spanky
 

I'll agree that Sully is a little erratic lately, but I thought that piece had some interesting moments to it. (See, e.g., this.)

The hits just keep on comin'...
 

Couldn't access it.

For Spanky
 

This article to me seemed rather confusing. I really consider myself a Neo-Liberal Republican. In other words; that Democracy and human rights are universal goods that should be shared by all human beings. I believe that free markets not only complement freedom and human rights, but the free market system provides the best standard of living for all strata of society. I also think people should be free of government intervention in their personal lives. Our Foreign policy should be focused on spreading our values to the rest of the world (because they are universal values). And I don't mean Moral values. I mean our values of human rights, popular soveriegnty, and the freedom from a government intervening to much in ones personal life.

Economic Philosophy: Free Markets

Social Policy: Government should get out and stay out of people's personal lives

Foreign Policy: Our government should focus on spreading Democracy and Free markets around the world.

To other people that makes me a conservative on Economic policy, a liberal on social policy and a neo-conservative on foreign policy.

I just think it makes me an eighteenth or nineteenth century liberal. Maybe I was born in the wrong century.

is this true?
 

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2723-8623r.htm

• Wary Democrats discover a severe 'parents gap'
  
  
  By Donald Lambro
  THE WASHINGTON TIMES
  
  
  An analysis by a Democratic think tank argues that Democrats are suffering from a severe "parent gap" among married people with children, who say the entertainment industry is lowering the moral standards of the country.
  The study, published last week by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the policy arm of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, admonishes Democrats to pay more attention to parental concerns about "morally corrosive forces in the culture," and warns that the party will not fare better with this pivotal voting bloc until they do.
  In the 2004 election, married parents supported President Bush over Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts by nearly 20 percentage points. Mr. Bush frequently talked about the importance of faith and morals in his campaign and the role that parents played in raising their children.

Anyone else seen this number? Married w/ kids supported Bush by +20? That's amazing, and if true, I can't believe it wasn't highlighted more.

The Great Man Speaks
 

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/s...005426703.html

• STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON ANNIVERSARY OF ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL
  
  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
  
  The sad anniversary of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal is now upon us. It's an appropriate time to reflect on how well we've responded as a nation.
  
  The images of cruelty, and perversion are still difficult to look at a year later. blah blah........
  
  
  Top officials in the Administration have endorsed interrogation methods that we've condemned in other countries, including binding prisoners in painful "stress" positions, threatening them with dogs, extended sleep deprivation, and simulated drownings.

How in the world can this guy have a statement released that mentions drownings? Doesn't his staff see that as something that will make everyone but the Ty's of the world mentally drift back to what a scum sucking life-taker this pig is? I mean, we didn't ACTUALLY drown anyone at Abu did we?

The Great Man Speaks
 

He's only decrying simulated drownings. He hates the dishonesty of it.

You are definitely getting too moral and pissy if you saw my response to the work as a suggestion that it was racist. I was poking fun at something I thought was stupid. I thought, and think, it was stupid because, one, I think the concept of "culture" is far too vague and variable to provide a meaningful explanation of the issue at hand and, two, because I tend to reject this sort of social science approach that says that any complex phenomenon can be traced to a single source (i.e., that we can "rule out" racism, and slavery, and so forth).

I've said that about six times. How do those comments constitute an accusation of racism?

I ask the above question in the full knowledge that you will ignore it because it is inconvenient to your thesis that I am a knee-jerk liberal who immediately cries racism whenever anyone starts talking about white and black people.



eta: The Indian joke is that a guy goes to the medicine man and says "half of me is a teepee and half of me is a wigwam." Relax, you're just too tents.

I *heart* the Poor Man.
 

Can someone explain to me why Congress should be regulating steroid testing for professional sports?

It's part of drug enforcement?

Did you compare and contrast those pictures of Christian Bale?

We already have laws making the use of steroids illegal. I don't get why the federal government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that professional athletes (in particular) don't use these drugs. The effects on sporting competition are just not the government's problem.