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.

OK. I could give a shit . . . I was just throwing something out there in between emails figuring out lunch.

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123...BDULLAH_sm.jpg

The man never rests in his efforts to promote democracy.

they should tend to their own house first. I suspect there are some steroid abusers in the Congress.....

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/04...s12kennedy.jpg

http://richard.meek.home.comcast.net/FatTeddy1.JPG

Actually, I don't think a lot of them are illegal. It's just against the rules to use them. HGH certainly isn't illegal. There may be some off-label uses of a lot of the drugs.

Someone in the state legislature earlier this session submitted a steroid testing bill for high school football programs. He sheepishly withdrew it when pressed on who was going to pay for it.

I know Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Prof’l Baseball Clubs is still "good" law, but, really, that argument's been made and lost. See also Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

Doesn't it depend critically on whether the Longhorns or the Aggies are getting more in-state recruits? I mean, wouldn't want to cut that pipeline.

I *heart* the Poor Man.
 

I'm only Irish on the internet.

And they still can't beat the Sooners.

I do not know these cases of which you speak, but I figured that I'd get some support from all the conservatives hereabouts who complain about how the liberals always think the solution to any problem is more government. If there's harm to sporting competition, why don't the leagues have the proper incentives to address it? Why is that something government should bother with?

Posting fleshy pics of Ted Kennedy is like posting Jocko photos. It's illegal. Don't do it.

penske gave me his license

I blame FDR. Everything is susceptible of government control. And everything is susceptible of federal government control. At least with football etc. a single state couldn't regulate it, nor could a bunch of states, since they'd all have conflicting standards (well, they could, but . . .)

BTW, bear in mind that Waxman was making a lot of noise on this. It's hardly a pure Republican effort over Democrat dissent.

So you agree that the federal government ought to drop it.

I blame Congress, or at least those congressmen and congresswomen who are behind this. FDR is, after all, dead.

And I didn't blame the GOP more than the Democrats. I'm not clear who is behind this. Although the GOP controls the agenda so tightly in the House that this is only happening if the GOP leadership backs it.

Yes, but there are a lot more grievous interferences with business and society they should stay out of. This ranks pretty low on the list of problems.

As for FDR, his legacy unfortunately lives on.

I'm so confused. What is the legacy of FDR that you have a problem with? I (and most Americans) give him much credit for leading the country out of the Great Depression and winning World War II. I'm willing to overlook that he apparently inspired a crop of current Republicans to do some dumb things, since I don't think that FDR would have tried to subsidize drug companies with a prescription drug benefit, or played for headlines by requiring testing for steroids.

Yep, no Depressions since the 20s.

Morning in America.

The vast expansion of the federal government that had previously been reserved to the several states, or to the people.

There once were limits. There no longer are.

Lemme guess -- you are one of those conservatives who view environmental laws, the SEC, and virtually everything else but the military as unconstitutional. Right?

Culture is a vague concept, but as that guy quoted in his article, it is the only option left. I think the African American culture is a large factor in the reason for Economic discrepancies in income levels. My parents adopted a Kukuyu kid from Africa (who is now my older brother). This kid grew up in a mud hut until he was fourteen and learned to read by candlelight. Once he got to the United States he studied his ass off, got a BA and an MBA and is now a senior executive at Coca Cola in South Africa. My brother loves America, is a total capitalist, and by his mere presence reminds the world what a lazy and spoiled brat that I am. His first son, my Nephew, grew up in the United States. Since he grew up in my house, he was spoiled like me. He was sent to an all Black College by my liberal parents because they thought he was getting "too white". He was taught that a Black man just can't make it in the United States because of five hundred years of oppression. He joined a gang, got kicked out of school, and moved in with me in Los Angeles. My college buddy is a principle of a Los Angeles Unified School District school, and hired my brother right after he moved to Los Angeles (no teaching certificate, no college Degree). My second nephew was born ten years after my first nephew. When he was three, my overachieving brother got transferred by Coca Cola to Kenya. So my younger nephew grew up in Africa. He finished high school at fourteen and just finished medical school at the age of twenty (making it painfully clear what a lazy ass his uncle and brother are). My youngest nephew is now a social conservative Republican, who everytime he opens his fascist mouth I have to beat his ass just out of pure principle.

I digress. The point being there is definitely something going on with the American culture that ain't all the productive.

Can't you read? It's just Southern culture that isn't productive.

No, I'm lamenting the loss of principles as to what is properly federal and what is not. Ty is bellyaching about bills regarding steriods in sports. I'm saying it's the logical outgrowth of the view that the federal government has no constitutional bounds, save some odd carveouts in the penumbrae of various amendments.

What can I say. You are preaching to the choir.

Externalities and/or paternalism.

If there's harm to your lungs from smoking, don't you have the proper incentives to address it? Why is that something government should bother with?

If there's harm to your appendages from unsae factory equipment, don't you have the proper incentives to address it? Why is that something government should bother with?

the drag of liberalism as propigated and perpetuated by the Democratic Party?