The Effect of Jimmy Mac

Well, he certainly seems to be getting people talking. Everyone always finishes up with "But I like him. He gets us talking." Yeah, never mind that he's rude and a barking moonbat, and he KNOWS his ideas don't hold up because he interrupts and shouts down those who challenge them. At least people are griping about him downstairs. *cough, cough*

Excruciating. It becomes unbearable when I think about what I am paying to go here.

Vox Blogoli 2005

I see Jonathan Rauch has modified (or clarified) his article via statements at Hugh Hewitt's blog. Good for him. My criticism of him below for being tone deaf to the differences among "religious conservatives" is therefore modified as well.

I think my second point holds, however. When those who are not merely espousing wacky ideas but advocating murder or treason are allowed "in the tent" it will have a delegitimizing effect upon the tent. And it will make defending against broad brush treatment that much harder to do effectively.

More Jimmy Mac

Well, Jimmy, if everything that goes on in court becomes state action, and the only requirements for getting something into court is some private person bringing a private claim, of their own volition, doesn’t that make everything a public action?

Man, I’m always so confused in this class, I don’t know what Jimmy is saying, I don’t know what the student commentators are saying, I don’t get any of it. I’m not stupid, but hell, speak English, people.

Oh, OK, I see, Jimmy doesn’t have a problem with everything being state action. And he just used the term “irregardless” which, as we all know, is not a word.

You know what, I'm out. He doesn't listen to the points made, and relies exclusively on "what's your point?" to shut down argument. It's like being trapped in a live Democratic Underground thread. AHHHHH!

Vox Blogoli: Jonathan Rauch

Here's the passage:"“On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.”

First thoughts: Anytime someone says "we moderates" I cringe. It reminds me of the saying that a liberal is a person who thinks their position is already a compromise with you. Second, I am confused by "religious conservatives." Does he mean conservatives who go to church at all? Conservatives who are consistent church goers? Those who use their religiousness as part of their politics? Does he mean just Christian conservatives or would religious Hindu conservatives count here too? Frankly, I'd be surprised if Rauch had put any thought into it. To a certain segment of the liberal population, we are all just one big amorphous group: religious conservatives. So, with that in mind, it is not surprising that he would tar the whole group with the "clinic bomber" brush. Where's the nuance when you need it?

Finally, I second what jim geraghty says about letting bad ideas die. Besides, what is the old expression about bad apples and spoiling the bunch? I mean, if Rauch can't discern even now between murderers who read the Bible and Christians passionate about outlawing abortion, imagine how broad his brush will be once the true crazies are "welcomed into the tent."

Do as I say, not as I Do

The ACLU’s hypocrisy is all the more troubling because of their inability to see the problem. I mean, someone mentioned Larry Summers handing his enemies a sword. Isn’t that what the ACLU is doing here?

Jimmy Mac

He’s about to offend us. He mentions Doug Wilson, who said that it’d be easier to take over Latah County than NYC. Yeah, but then he’d only be in charge of Latah County, so whoop de frickin’ doo. How much more damage could a similar crank do when all the power is just as localized, but the area of influence is much greater? See Justice Jackson’s remarks.

“Why do conservatives want to wrap themselves in the flag and not apply the Constitution to everyone? Why do they want to limit the Constitution?”
Unbelievable. This guy actually believes what he is saying. Talk about someone who needs to get out more, and experience a diversity of views. I mean, students try to inflict their views on him, but he shrugs them off like a mosquito buzzing around his head. Ah, the beauty of self-induced and maintained ignorance.

He thinks multinational corporations are not the same as citizens, in terms of privacy-type rights. But are corporations just made up of people? If I have to right to be racist in my own home, and my friend has the same right, why can’t we enter into an agreement between the two of us and be racist together? Is it just the commerce clause? If that’s the justification, that’s fine, but under 14th Amendment, it seems a little sketchy. Where am I wrong?

Nothing to Say

Hey there. How's it going? Jack's asleep, so I'll write a few words. Most of this I have typed without even looking down at the keyboard even once. Hooray!! Of course, without the backspace button, it would look like "Hpprau!@@@." So, I have resolved that I spend way too much time reading politics. I need to be reading my assignments or doing paying work. So, in an effort to help keep my self on task, I will now write here in this journal if I find I am reading politics. I will stop and immediately come to this place, write a quick post about the subject and then, when the post is done, get back to work. Here's hoping.

My First New Year's Resolution

I have already implemented it. I have given up on a message board where I frequently comment, because I realized that I was spending way too much time there, checking responses, formulating my own answers, doing research, for Pete's sake! And unpaid research, when I should be doing either homework or paid research. Money talks, people, but so does the realization that I am getting old, and there are too many books I have left unread. The discussions on that board were mere argument and bluster, not furthering my understanding or faith, and too many on that board were given to sophistry. So, from this moment on, no more.

Trial Run

This is a test to see if I'm a big idiot I can do this thing.

Finals over, the work begins

Well, I made it through, and the only one I am a little worried about is Tax. It doesn't matter a whole lot, since my employers could care less about my grades. They have already given me more than I can handle this week, what with the MIL being in hospital and Christmas being on Saturday.

I am amazed at the ability of some people to misunderstand, deliberately misunderstand.

Katrina Elam

I am completely smitten with her. Her voice is awesome, go listen to any one of her songs. Please help me figure out who she sounds like. And I think she's beautiful even though she has a bit of an unconventional face (to me, at least). Well, that's all. Had a test this morning that we were allowed a cheat sheet on, but I forgot to make one, so I just went without. I think I did good enough though.

Do the Democrats WANT to lose?

There are people who will stick to a principle, even if it means they never succeed. Like certain football teams, whose coaches believe in the 3 yard out pass, even on 3rd and 17. To a certain extent, I get it. I mean, as a religious believer, I believe there are certain principles that should be adhered to, even if it costs you (honesty, for one). But what the Dems are doing now is puzzling. What principle are they adhering to when they accuse those who disagree with them of being stupid or unethical? Harry Reid gets a lot of Mormon press for supposedly being an example of a good Mormon who is also a Democrat. Listening to his talking points, sounds a lot more like he is a good Democrat who is also a Mormon.

Shouldn't the fact that Democrats have to campaign as Republicans in order to get elected give them a clue? Well, why don't they try actually acting and believing that way, instead of only campaigning that way?

Good Question

"Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?"
"What was the best thing before sliced bread?"
"We know the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second... but what's the speed of dark?"
"Why isn't 'phonetic' spelled the way it sounds?"
"What's another word for 'synonym'?"
"Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical questions?"

Kipling

God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine -
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

Lest we forget, lest we forget

Unbelieveable

OK, tonight had the greatest exchange. First, someone assumed I was offended because I disagree with them. Not the same thing at all. Second, pulled out the old passive aggressive "I guess even with my two masters degrees I'm too stupid for this" crap. Third, said it was their pet peeve for someone to say, "you shouldn't be offended by that, that's nothing" because she feels it invalidates her feelings. Well, listen lady, if you're looking for validation, go to ZCMI, cause that's not my job. And when you say, "I'm offended by something YOU do, Paddington" I'm sure as heckfire gonna have a comment on that, especially when the action in question is something TOTALLY NORMAL AND YES, EVEN COMMENDABLE like sitting with your family at church. He who takes offense where none is intended is a fool. He who takes offense where it IS intended is twice a fool. He who takes offense, imaging that people are doing a totally innocuous and even good action, JUST to piss them off and make them feel less of a person, when in reality that person doesn't give a rat's ass about he , and doesn't think about he enough to even HAVE an opinion about he, is a crazy, messed up fool. And I pity them. Hey! I pity the fool! Sweet!

Finished

I am done, done early. I finished about 12:30, with a full 4 hours left over. Moreover, I only took 11 of the 12 allowed pages. I just don't know what else to say, and since I know how smart my professor is at spotting bull, I just called it good. I'm only shooting for a C+, B- here anyway.

Miami is also done. Good riddance. USC looks to be in for a fight with UCLA. Hopefully Colorado will roll over for Oklahoma.

Criticism

I have often felt like it was worthless complaining unless you had a solution for the problem you were complaining about. I have since learned that women need to complain sometimes, without you jumping in to solve their problems. Many times they already know how to solve them, they just want to commiserate with you. Fine. It's part of marriage. Excessive complaining, however, can be destructive to a marriage, as one spouse is likely to form the idea that the other is a negative person who only focuses on the bad things, and is never happy. Even worse is the complete stranger who bitches and moans about certain things, when a) they haven't the slightest friggin' clue what they're talking about, and b) haven't the slightest friggin' clue what to do to solve the problem, even if it were a problem. I have tried not to complain, as often as I can. I mean, I'm still human, and still see problems all around, but I try not to say anything unless I can also offer something contructive in return. Otherwise, you're just bitching. And not in a good way.

Motivation

It's hard to find sometimes. Like today, where I have a test at 4:30. Even though classes ended yesterday and I should be ecstatic, I am merely relieved, and my relief is offset somewhat by the fact that I HAVE A TEST AT 4:30! It's a take home, a 24 hour take home, which may turn out to be worse than an in-class test. I mean, I have put off studying for it, in the expectation that it will save me time to only study what I need to, at the moment I need it. "Ah, but what if you don't have time to find and then write everything?" Well, it has a 12 page, page limit, double spaced. That's not that much. I seriously doubt that with 24 hours, I'm going to run out of time. But, who knows. I can't say I care too much. I'm only shooting for the C+, B- range anyway. I'm just trying to pass so I can get to work.

So, in the tradition of people whose blogs are actually read, "blogging will be light today and tomorrow. Please forgive me." Heh.

Noonan on Rather

I, like Beldar, thought the article that Peggy Noonan wrote was very kind and certainly gave old Danny boy a serious benefit of the doubt (not there is actually any doubt here about his actions). I line up much more squarely with his view, that Dan Rather is a disgrace and has forfeited whatever good his career achieved (an issue for a separate debate). The thing is, what does a "journalist" have besides his credibility? They don't have any special skills in analyzing events, or in deciding or forecasting what the effects of events are. If they did, they wouldn't be so overwhelmingly Democrat, while the rest of the country remains split. There is nothing they teach them at "journalism school" that they can't learn from a good English teacher, is there? (Leaving aside the technical aspects of journalism that they could certainly pick up on the job). I mean, at law school you learn how to understand the law in a way that you can't get anywhere else, and the bar exam is there to make sure you learned those skills. What do journalists have?

The point is that Rather blew up the only thing he ever had. Our trust. And then, instead of repairing it the best he could (with an apology) he stonewalled and slunk away to the ash heap of history. Shame.

p.s. I say "our" trust, but I never watched the news until I was an adult, and by then, CBS was not the place to go for the facts.

Striven?

That's an example of the type of word that, while correct, will get you beat up. Even when you try to educate, and show that it's just a different tense of the word "strive", which is perfectly common, right? no, it's no good, you're an egghead. The mocking of someone who is smarter than you, BECAUSE they are smarter, is 6th grade stuff, right? Well, I used to think so, but now it apparently ok for law students to advertise the fact that they are stupider than their classmates, in order to avoid a verbal pieing. That's "pieing," as in "hit with many pies preferably in the face." Law students! That'll be a good thing in a few years when someone comes in and says, "I need your help, I'm being sued because of a perfectly innocuous comment I made!" and the attorney says, "Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's take it easy on the 50-cent words, ok? What the heck is 'innocuous?' Let's speak English here people!" That lawyer will surely inspire people to hire him. Just wait til he gives the judge guff for using big words. Fireworks. Neat.