Odd how you can be fatigued by listening. And I'm not even talking about active listening, while trying to understand the deep and mystical points of the speaker. I'm talking about listening with half a brain while you do another task. As I compare the dean to Jimmy Mac, I wonder if their politics are not far apart (though Jimmy Mac is certiably insane, so that might skew the comparison a bit). But listening to the dean is moderately pleasant, at worst not UNpleasant, whereas listening to Jimmy Mac spout off about his barking moonbat theories and demonize those with whom he disagrees makes me want to shoot myself. Today he actually responded to a well-reasoned argument with, "Says YOU!" Nice. Very 2nd grade. That's when you know you've won the argument, when the opponent says something like that. And he's the teacher??
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Saturday, February 19, 2005
FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Pope Criticized for Abortion-Holocaust Comparison
FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Pope Criticized for Abortion-Holocaust Comparison this is unbelievable. The person decrying the murder of babies is said to be the one with a lack of moral and ethical direction? are you kidding?
Friday, February 18, 2005
Judith Miller
Rich Lowry makes a wacky point about what Miller should have argued in her case in order to not go to jail. Doesn't he understand that this is a separate case from whether there was even a leaking crime committed? Well, Beldar gets it.
The Lunatic Left
As Powerline notes, the Left has fallen too low to fall even lower. How ironic, that I would read about that in my Constitutional Law class, where my teacher is the living example of a flaming, crazy, barking moonbat lefty. The guy makes Ward Churchill look like Winston Churchill. His constant charaterization of the right as evil because they want to own their own property, that conservatives hate the poor, etc. What a wacko, gives me a headache...
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Examples of reaction to rudeness
One
Two
Three
Of course, the offending material has been taken down so no one who comes along later will have any idea what was actually said. Eason Jordan, anyone?
Childish Debating Tricks
I love it when someone says something insulting and then insults you for taking offense.
I love it when it is implied that the reason you disagree with someone else's interpretation is because you do not care about God's will and actually seek only to excuse yourself.
I love it when "oh, you poor silly man, you misunderstood me" is constantly trotted out after someone offends. Repeatedly. Numerous people. Yes, all of us are dumb and couldn't understand YOUR brilliantly clear prose.
I love it when Pharisee-ism is rampant and yet the one who is bothered by it is "getting too emotional" while the rude person is somehow cool, above the fray, "just commenting." And yes, I know that using "Pharisee" in a Mormon context has usually the same effect as using "Nazi" in a political context. But when the shoe fits, it's important they wear it. Pharisees made up new rules and laws, remember? "A hedge about the law" After doing this, they ridiculed and called "sinners" those who did not subscribe to these man-made, minutia-type rules. If that's what happening, why not call a spade a spade?
And now, we have devolved into childish name calling. Wow, cheers all around. :eye roll:
Impromptus-17 February 2005
Jay Nordlinger on comedians and other things.
Best line:He is a caricaturist, and I'm looking for a columnist, and it is very, very hard. This applies to every liberal columnist I've tried to read. I'm not saying it doesn't happen to conservative columnists too, but after seeing the folks on Kos, it's pretty hard to get too caricature-ish.
Spousal Rape Case Sparks Old Debate
From a legal standpoint, this is thorny. I agree that the standard should be higher. This is because, absent violence, whether or not the alleged victim gave or manifested consent is the issue. And in a marital context, that is going to be trickier than tricky because a) there is already an expectation, societal and otherwise, that these two will be engaging and/or have engaged in sexual congress (which expectation is not there for unmarried "couples") and b) in a good number of marriages, a) means that the husband is not looking for, expecting, or in any other way cognizant of the manifestation of assent for sex. Put simply, a man who waits for his wife to say, "yes, Bill, I now consent to have sex with you" before each instance of sex, is one structure-craving-loony. In marriage, even good ones (heck, especially good ones), sex is sometimes spontaneous, with none of the accoutrements that accompany sex with a non-spouse.
That said, if your marriage has come to a point that your wife is pressing charges for rape, you might want to start noticing a few more of those accoutrements.
Glenn Reynolds wonders about the MSM reaction to blogs
Here. Frankly, I do too. I find it totally unreasonable for someone to be so down about a medium that allows clearer truth to be disseminated faster, and to more people, unless they are hiding serious skeletons in their closet.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Battle For The Blogosphere
Part of me would really like to be a part of the counter attack that Tom Maguire suggests here but I just don't seem to be able to find the time and energy to write enough. Besides, if I DID get noticed and/or praised, it would force me to continue the writing and reading and surfing the blogosphere, which can't be good for my grades/work product. Still, the dream continues, because here I am writing...
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Not commanded
Why do people use the scripture about “it is not meet that the Lord should command in all things” to mean, “you should come around to my way of thinking without my having to tell you”? It’s insulting. Too many times I have seen this argument advanced by someone who thinks we should all be clean-shaven or not eat sugar or some other private law that the person has created for themselves and then told themselves that this is “the higher law” or “farther from the edge” or “safer” or whatever, but that actually amounts to a hedge about the law.
If a leader thinks something is a big deal enough to be upset that you are not complying with his way of thinking, he should TELL YOU and not just assume that you'll absorb it by osmosis, all the while thinking, "well, I shouldn't command in all things, so I'll just not command and let him come around to my view on his own."
Bankruptcy and Credit Cards
Todd Zywicki discusses the relationship between bankruptcy and credit card debt.
I hope people don't judge Mormons by Harry Reid
Beldar has comments on a statement by Harry Reid that, let's say, misstates the situation about judges and the Senate. I am saddened by the fact that Senator Reid is viewed by many Mormons as "the great white hope" as it were. What a joke he is.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Jeff Jarvis is right about one thing
Jeff Jarvis is right that most people didn't want his head, just an admission and apology. Heck, I'd have taken anything better than the stonewalling that we got.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Thoughts on War
Some people have the right idea about what war is, and what it isn't. Those who have a false idea of what it is usually have a false idea of what it can and does do to politics and such.
"Progressive"
How useful is this term in political thought? We live in a three dimensional world, not two, so "forward" and "back" are not the only options. Further, int he theoretical world of "what should we do?" there are more than just three choices, so why is one course of action labeled progressive and another regressive? The idea that if we change what we're doing, and change back to something that people used to do, that's regressive, is so Newtonian-time-centric that it's meaningless! Shouldn't we care about whether the change is a change for the better, if the change will better accomplish our goal? What do we care about which time direction we're going in? Just like C.S. Lewis said, the future is attained by all, at the same speed of 60 minutes an hour, not something that only the heroes achieve.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
This is dispicable
This Cramer fellow is among the lowest forms of matter. Yes, even lower than Subway Sandwiches.
Eason Jordan and the New Media
Instapundit has a good wrap up, including insightful comments by Jim Geraghty about the effect of not revealing the video of Davos. I, for one, cannot WAIT until some other journalistic grasshole whines about "the people's right to know" or other horseshoes. It should be obvious to even the most jaded observer that this is a fat double standard of disclosure. Shame on CNN and the other news outlets.
LILEKS rocks once again
Why are pretentious art critics so clueless? And how do they manage to keep a job? Well, I suppose if there are a million New Yorkers just as clueless, this will seem high criticism to them.
Jimmy Mac rides again
Great, my damn internet is not working. So, now I have to live with Jimmy Mac and listen to his tripe. “Does the Constitution say anything about labor laws?” he asked incredulously. It was an odd statement coming from Jimmy Mac, for he had stressed a few weeks before that the constitution was a living breathing thing, and it said whatever the Supreme Court said that it said. He was all over the map and he had no clue. How can someone become a tenured law professor who doesn’t recognize the incoherence of his own ideas? He is fond of calling others “hypocrites” but he is the ultimate “ends-justify-the-means” kind of guy, which would be fine if he didn’t try to defend the means!
Another of his favorite tactics is to say, “Today I don’t think anyone except extreme right wing crazy murderer baby eater types would argue that a minimum wage law isn’t the salvation of mankind.” Of course, no one raises a hand, and Jimmy Mac can spend another day thinking how right and righteous he is.
AHA!!! He just did it again! Flat tax=flat earth. Good one, Jimmy boy. Oh, and “only extreme right wingers have a problem with redistribution of wealth.” Amazing. This is the kind of thing you can’t even parody.
What's the Rumpus?: "My duty is to my heart" . . .
This is a perfect explanation of why I am extremely uncomfortable with a large portion of Disney movies. IT seems all nice and sweet but really, they are teaching kids bunk. And harmful bunk sometimes. See The Little Mermaid.
Monday, February 07, 2005
The Law according to Homer
This little write-up is good because it reminds me of why I love the Simpsons and how a terrible day can be made right with a little Homer time. My favorite quote:
Homer: All you can eat -- hah!
Hutz: Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film, "The Never-Ending Story."
Homer: Do you think I have a case?
Hutz: Now, Homer, I don't use the term "hero" very often. But you are the greatest hero in American history.
Amen, brother.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Friday, February 04, 2005
Mormon to Be on Survivor
Obviously there'll never be a male Mormon on any of these reality shows, but good grief, would it kill them to get someone who is an impressive example of Mormondom? I mean, Ken Jennings, ok, I'll give you that, he's a freakin' genius, but we didn't get to see how he interacts with others, you know, how he treats his kids, etc.
In other news, it is apparently considered rude to say, "wow, that girl really isn't that attractive" when someone asks for your opinion.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Creditor's Rights
I am half paying attention and doing a fairly decent job of it, I must say. Not necessarily good enough that I could answer questions in class, but if it were just me and Hendersen, where the threat of public humiliation wasn’t present, I could do it.
The movie star looks amazing, but I get the feeling that she has no idea how good she looks. Actually, it may be that she just doesn’t care. Is she the type that I'd pinch under other circumstances? I don't know but I think I'd give it a shot. I mean, she's kicked Betty Boop to the curb.