hello

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Hog poop.

nahhh

pole-dancing is tricky when the surroundings aren't moving

it can be dangerous at other times

http://www.moodiemair.com/blog/pole-dancing-in-a-limo-yes-it-can-cause-accidents/

Quote:

This case arose as a result of golf trip to New York State with the insured, Mr. Whipple, and a number of his friends. The group of men, described as “respectable business and professional men over the age of 50”, rented a 24-passenger luxury limousine coach for the trip. The limo bus was advertised as a party bus and included a number of amenities, including a stripper pole.

During the return trip, the men began playing with the stripper pole, experimenting with a “rudimentary form of pole dancing”. After one man slid down the stripper pole upside down, Mr. Whipple tried to top that antic with a headstand. Unfortunately, when Mr. Whipple flipped his legs up in the air he missed the pole, his arms gave out and his neck snapped. As a result, Mr. Whipple was rendered an incomplete quadriplegic and is now confined to a wheelchair.

Whipple is a famous case IRL

1 Reply

If pole dancing is the most dangerous thing you encounter on a subway in New York City...

...well...good for you.

It happens.

All sorts of stuff happens in New York City.

And most of it is interesting.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Sure. It's not something I'd do. But the police claim and the claim from our chap here is that the danger is to others and that doesn't appear to have any basis. As noted, they are going after singers and other performers too under some new version of the "broken windows" strategy (that connection seems a stretch to me).

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Yes, indeedy. I only grazed on that part of the story here, pointing to a traditional role of the church in what george would have to include in his category of "attempts to change human behavior".

Movement conservatism is deeply and profoundly invested in a project where government will or ought to or must attend to citizens' "virtue". Bill Bennett can't open his mouth without some lofty instructions for government getting Americans made virtuous through some regime of rewards and punishments. Gertrude Himmelfarb (Bill Kristol's mom) has a whole book on the topic. Phyllis Schlafly is so virtuous that she's able to exempt herself from her proscriptions on a woman's proper and most virtuous role which is in the home.

Of course, what constitutes "virtuous" behavior is to be defined by them pretty much exclusively. Definitely NOT by the rabble who might wander, drunk and horny, into some polling booth somewhere. That's the reason george resists the dangerous tentacles of the liberal elite - they are definitely the WRONG elite.

No. I don't want ANY elite coercing my behavior through the action of government - except in the well-defined areas established in our tradition of limited government.. That includes self-appointed elites that rationalize their coercion as a necessary means of correcting past injustice. The best way to end injustice is to end it, not to replace it with a counterforce.

I don't mind anyone attempting to persuade me to act in a certain way. It's the coercion I resist. You appear to be willing to accept coercion if it is rationalized as a need means of correcting past injustice even in the absence of any evidence that it is effective in doing so.

You also appear to put more energy into criticizing the motives of those who disagree with you that the substance of the issues themselves. Not the hallmark of rational debate.

The riff about the previous to 1980 "legality" of rape in marriage was also an interesting bit of gorilla dust cast in the air. Are you suggesting the incidence of rape has decreased since then?? I doubt that. If so then what was the significance of the "point" yopu were making?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

No. I don't want ANY elite coercing my behavior through the action of government - except in the well-defined areas established in our tradition of limited government..

Drug laws? Abortion restrictions?

Quote:

That includes self-appointed elites that rationalize their coercion as a necessary means of correcting past injustice.

Hard to know what you might mean by "self-appointed elites". Churches? National Review staff? Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes? Chamber of Commerce? NRA? Freedom Works? ALEC? Each of these entities actively seek to determine and manipulate the laws under which we lead our lives. Each uses government to coerce (if we copy your use of this term and formulation).

Quote:

The best way to end injustice is to end it, not to replace it with a counterforce.

A perfect example of why you avoid specifics. It allows you to say something as vacuous as that.

Quote:

The riff about the previous to 1980 "legality" of rape in marriage was also an interesting bit of gorilla dust cast in the air. Are you suggesting the incidence of rape has decreased since then?? I doubt that. If so then what was the significance of the "point" yopu were making?

I was pointing to societal structures of power. In this case, the power given to males over females. Race would be another instance. Comparisons between jail sentences for the poor compared to jail sentences for the wealthy (for drug possession, as an example) would point to another. Conservatism, from Burke on up, has been many things but subversive of existing power arrangements is the thing is has been least of all.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
No. I don't want ANY elite coercing my behavior through the action of government - except in the well-defined areas established in our tradition of limited government..

Drug laws? Abortion restrictions? Apart from the vague "emanations" found by the Supreme court, both are clearly state matters.

Quote:
That includes self-appointed elites that rationalize their coercion as a necessary means of correcting past injustice.

Hard to know what you might mean by "self-appointed elites". Churches? National Review staff? Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes? Chamber of Commerce? NRA? Freedom Works? ALEC? Each of these entities actively seek to determine and manipulate the laws under which we lead our lives. Each uses government to coerce (if we copy your use of this term and formulation). All of the above plus their counterparts on the left, which generally hold the greater sway,

Quote:
The best way to end injustice is to end it, not to replace it with a counterforce.

A perfect example of why you avoid specifics. It allows you to say something as vacuous as that.
It is not as vacuous as this reply of yours.

Quote:
The riff about the previous to 1980 "legality" of rape in marriage was also an interesting bit of gorilla dust cast in the air. Are you suggesting the incidence of rape has decreased since then?? I doubt that. If so then what was the significance of the "point" yopu were making?

I was pointing to societal structures of power. In this case, the power given to males over females. Race would be another instance. Comparisons between jail sentences for the poor compared to jail sentences for the wealthy (for drug possession, as an example) would point to another. Conservatism, from Burke on up, has been many things but subversive of existing power arrangements is the thing is has been least of all. You are pursuing an illusion of your own making. Marriage was once seen as a contract in which males and females took on different, but corresponding obligations toward each other. We have simply reduced the obligations of both parties in these contracts.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Drug laws? Abortion restrictions? Apart from the vague "emanations" found by the Supreme court, both are clearly state matters.

So what? A state government isn't an instance of government? "Coercion" is jim dandy if at the state level? Municipal wiring codes (to prevent house fires) - coercive or not? You evade the issue.

Quote:

Hard to know what you might mean by "self-appointed elites". Churches? National Review staff? Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes? Chamber of Commerce? NRA? Freedom Works? ALEC? Each of these entities actively seek to determine and manipulate the laws under which we lead our lives. Each uses government to coerce (if we copy your use of this term and formulation). All of the above plus their counterparts on the left, which generally hold the greater sway,

And thus? Any form of community organization, regardless of the make-up such a body or whether it is an instance of democracy (citizen elected reps wrangling and voting) or whether it is an instance of totalitarianism through solidified and self-protected hold on power, and whether it seeks to include all or to exclude many, is coercive and oppressive of liberty?

I won't bother with the rest. You've given up learning and the pursuit of knowledge because you think you have the answers.

1 Reply

For fun (of a sort) here's a quote from Burke...

Quote:

when the multitude are not under this "discipline" of the wiser, the more expert, and the more opulent...they can scarcely be said to be in civil society

I particularly like the presence of "opulent" in this formulation. It brings to mind the powdered wig that would look so handsome atop George Will's face.

0 Replies

Before I go, one final bit by way of personal observation/prediction.

After eight years of Bush, the catastrophe of the two wars, the economic collapse and Bush's polling at 25% (end of Oct 2008) conservatism in America needed rebranding. The "Tea Party" served that purpose quite admirably. For a time, at least. But as of six months ago, Gallup polling showed only 30% of Americans felt favorably towards the critter.

Hello "libertarianism". Handy you've come along at this moment.

Here's the prediction part. You may have noticed a recent rise in the frequency of folks on the right speaking about "populism" whether it is Michelle Bachmann declaring that Elizabeth Warren "is no populist" or right wing writers describing why Cantor lost his race.

This looks likely to be the or a fundamental marketing thrust for the GOP going into 2016. "We're the real representatives of the middle and lower classes, of the average Joe. The Dems? Those are the folks who are cozying up as cronies to capitalists and business." Watch how they are already laying this narrative onto Hillary. I recommend in particular that you attend to Bill Kristol in this regard. Over the last little while, he's been pushing a contrast between Elizabeth Warren and Hillary, with the implication that Warren is the real thing and Hillary isn't what Dem voters really want ("psst...Hillary is a fake, you dem voters"). Of course, Hillary's likely policies, domestic and foreign, are FAR closer to what Bill would like to see than Warren's would likely be, but Bill's playing a propaganda game. That is Bill's game. It's how he makes his living.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

I won't bother with the rest. You've given up learning and the pursuit of knowledge because you think you have the answers.

Bernie, hasn't it occurred to you that you are just as fixed in your point of view as you accuse me of being fixed in mine? You are projecting your own prejudgments on me: only the perspectives are different.

This country is a union of states, the power of which is fundamental, while the powers of the Federal government are limited, and specified in the Constitution. Preferences for local government over central and for extra governmental civic and religious organizations in the management of social and economic issues are part of our history. Alexis de Tocqueville described it well in 'Democracy in America'.

Since at least WWII we have steadily migrated away from this and towards a strong central government that sees itself as the sole arbitrator and remedy for any and all perceived issues, and which has increasingly sought to crush any competitors in the social fabric of the country which might limit the expansion of its role. This has included the states and local governments as well as religious and social organizations. I don't support that, and would strongly prefer a reversion back some distance towards our earlier norms.

Much of this expansion has been driven by apparent necessity and new challenges. However it has gained its own internal momentum , and we are now seeing a more systematic assimilation of the powers and functions of local government and civic organizations by a growing Federal bureaucracy which increasingly shows the ineptitude and power-seeking corruption that has afflicted such structures throughout human history.

You appear to rationalize all this by assuming such a government is the sole creator of equality and defender of freedom, and characterize any criticism of it as an act of opposition to whatever issue of freedom or equality you have in mind.

I don't buy that at all. Indeed there is a lot of evidence supporting the notion that this growing and increasingly authoritarian government is more effective at perpetuating itself and its powers than at truly solving the problems it undertakes in its continuing expansion as the exclusive arbitrator of our lives and activity.

Ultimately the freedoms and equality you profess to seek must reside in the minds and hearts of the people themselves. They can't be imposed from above, and our government has amply demonstrated its clumsy ineptitude in all these areas. It certainly has a role in making and enforcing law, but it has grown far beyond that, and even there it has shown a disregard for its prescribed boundaries and processes.

I don't expect this will persuade you to change your own perspectives. You shouldn't expect your increasingly cloying arguments on behalf of supposedly oppressed groups and largely ineffective government actions on their behalf to change mine.

You should also give up the sly insinuations that opposition to your ideas constitutes opposition to the freedoms and rights of others. They are stupid, offensive and insulting. More importantly, they are untrue. You and yours are not the sole possessors of right thinking and virtue. Indeed there is ample historical evidence to suggest that such habits of mind are often the precursors to the worst tyrannies.

Despite all this I like you and usually enjoy the discourse; the give and take; and the humor that occasionally takes over. This isn't about scoring points and we are highly unlikely to change each other's perspectives on these matters. Let's get back to that.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

And I'm fond of you, george. I think you're a good guy though defensive, possibly because you're a short person. I know I always feel I'm talking down to you and I can imagine no other reason for that feeling.

I'm not interested in scoring points. I'm interesting in trying to understand things. To get it right. The circle of folks around this household are pretty much all education adminstrators, not part of the union nor government. They're involved in teacher training, getting schools functioning well, and discerning best practices through study of ed programs and projects across North America and the world. Not ideologues, these folks, most of them, even with differing political affiliations. They rely on and demand good empirical data because they want to get it right. They are careful in thought and careful in speech because they really care about kids and those kids' education. They read and study a lot. When they discuss outcomes in Finland and how those outcomes are achieved, they know what they are talking about, in specifics.

It seems to me that people like you and I ought to approach political questions and problems in the same manner. Nobody pays us for this but that's hardly relevant. It's a matter of trying to get it right.

Over the last year, as something of an experiment, I've been engaging the community at NRO. Perhaps 200 or so such instances. I don't approach this as a troll but rather in the attempt to communicate, share information and viewpoints, and see if common ground can be located. I'm mannerly, careful in exposition, and bring in supporting data or links wherever possible and appropriate. I've had some good conversations but those have been quite rare. David Frum has observed that the modern right suffers from "epistemic closure" and he's right. It also suffers from a deeply impoverished discourse style championed by people like Coulter and Limbaugh where finding common ground is the last thing desired. That happens on the left too but it is not so much a feature as it is modernly on the right.

On another thread, Finn noted that Axelrod and Jon Chait have described the indictment of Perry negatively. He did this to support the notion that the indictment is inappropriate and political. What I think he's very unaware of is how that opinion is shared broadly in left wing and mainstream media. He could have included Matt Yglesias, Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman at the Washington Post, the editorial board at the Post and the NY Times and many, many more. These people are trying to get it right. Not gain a point for "their side".

Sincerely
Taller person

1 Reply

@blatham,

Clearly the response of an overcompensating short guy with OCD.

What is the NRO?? I don't hang around with folks involved in politics, or at least, when I do, we don't talk about it much. Instead I try to run a business efficiently; take care of my family; and enjoy them, friends and living.

Who is David Frum ? "Epistemic closure" sounds a bit abstract and pretentious to me, particularly when applied to such an amorphous group as "the modern right". Who are they? Am I one? Do you think any such disorders affect the "modern left", if indeed there is such a thing?

I believe that something like "deeply impoverished discourse" is very widespread throughout our media, from the editorial page of the NY Times to talk radio, MSNBC and Fox. It's a carnival of propaganda put forward by the fully convinced to the largely disinterested, each side selecting whatever they find in the stream of events flowing by that fits their preconceptions and distorting it as necessary to make their "point". I think serious people should avoid too much exposure to it, and I try hard to do that.

The search for common political ground has become very rare in the current presidency. Both sides accuse the other of rejecting such efforts and, as I see things, both with ample reason. Generally we look to our top leadership to take the initiative to break such non productive deadlocks, but nothing like that has happened - quite the contrary, taunts and threats occur instead. Meanwhile it still takes two to tango, and the dance goes on.

I'm not very interested in "movement" conservatism or progressive politics either. We face concrete and specific issues which require specific responses, often with less information and understanding than we would like to have. I believe far too many abstract principles and goals infect the contemporary process, and far too little competence in addressing what must be decided or done is applied. Worse, incompetence and the chaos that can result is too often rationalized as an inevitable difficulty along the road to some vaporous, distant, and abstract goal - a hallmark of political demagogues everywhere. I would prefer more modest rhetoric and more competent attention to what is going on.

I have read a brief article about Gov. Perry's veto problem, but don't think it a very important matter. What did the esteemed Mr. Axelrod have to say about it?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

NRO is National Review Online.
David Frum was a speechwriter for Bush 2 (coined "axis of evil"), author of several books (one co-written with Richard Perle and another which Buckley said was "the most refreshing ideological experience in a generation") was an AEI member until they kicked him out for criticism of the GOP.
The modern right is conservatism as it exists at this point in time in the US and as differentiated from earlier points in time.

From where do you get your political news?

1 Reply

@blatham,

A variety of sources including the WSJ, the Economist , and several channels of TV news. I don't frequent blogs and most opinion sources, preferring to form my own.

I don't have time or appetite for much more than that.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Presuming Fox is in there, it's a rather narrow band of the spectrum. As to blogs, etc, availing oneself of a variety of opinions doesn't mean adoption of them, rather the opposite, as it facilitates new ideas and ways of thinking. There are a lot of bright young (and not so young) people writing these days in a wider range of forums and independent modes than were ever possible before. It's a rich period for journalism. But if you don't have the time or appetite...

1 Reply

@blatham,

I read a great deal of modern history and analysis, and have a lot of friends who served in government, the military and others at the nearby Hoover Institute.. I read Tony Judt's 'Post War" last month and just finished an interesting history of the Bretton Woods conference by Benn Steil.

My experience is the passage of even a few years eliminates a great deal of distracting noise and speculation in understanding contemporary events. Human nature and the dynamics day-to-day politics don't change much. Indeed despite all the heat and rhetoric in the last few years of our politics, I have seen very little in the way of "new, creative ideas" in either the political discourse or the policies that have been proposed. On the contrary it is a tiresome rehash of shopworn political patronage and pandering.

I agree that an immersion in the material you suggest can be a fascinating experience for one who is interested in the action itself and the competition of ideas and insights on a day to day basis. However, I don't think that much of it has lasting value, and the action itself doesn't interest me as much as other things.

Yes, as you suspected, Fox is in there as well as MSNBC (an even narrower and meaner band of the spectrum). Frankly all the vitriol and attacks on the motives of their opponents of the moment is something I find tiresome and uninteresting. Clever self-important, but not very bright or experienced, people pontificating about the evil political forces opposing them is neither illuminating nor entertaining - at least for me. Moreover there is far less bright and new in all of this than the earnest self=promoting purveyors appear to realize.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Tony Judt! Good choice. I haven't read the book but read damn near everything he had in NYRB. One of my favorite humans and his illness and death deeply saddened me.

As to the latter three paragraphs, I don't share either your cynicism or your presumption that the eternal verities are either so settled or so easily visible. I often accuse you of fixed ideas and that criticism sits right here.

2 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

As to the latter three paragraphs, I don't share either your cynicism or your presumption that the eternal verities are either so settled or so easily visible. I often accuse you of fixed ideas and that criticism sits right here.

Well, we can agree to disagree on that point. I find Thucydides and Cicero just as relevant to contemporary disputes as the most prominent spokesmen today. (Did you know that Lincoln modeled his Gettysburg address on Pericles' funeral oration found in "The Peloponnesian War"?)

That said, I have lived a long time and done a fairly wide variety of things, from aviation & ships to academia and the business world - as well as just living. I'm probably better at seeing the repetition of old patterns than in detecting the truly novel stuff that may occasionally appear, and more inclined to do so as well. Overall I estimate there is a lot more of the repetition than the truly novel out there, and that detecting old patterns is far more often a key to right understanding than grasping the rare novelty.

While I'm not hopeful that the ephemeral creations and "innovations" of progressive politicians will actually achieve their promised ends (and the evidence of that, and their chronic failures to foresee the side effects of human nature on their authoritarian designs, truly abounds), I don't believe I am cynical as you describe. Life remains interesting and occasionally delightful, even though the story of human nature and its consequences doesn't change much.

By the way, you may find "The Memory Chalet" by Tony Judt interesting. It's his story of his last months in the progression of the awful disease that took his life. A grim story, but one that illustrates the best qualities of this remarkable character.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Another point. You're a very observant guy and gifted with a talent for understanding, expression and incisive humor. Perhaps you don't give yourself enough credit for what you have observed and learned along this journey. I suspect you may give too much credit to the writers on NRO and the more-friendly-to your-point-of-view blogs you read. They don't really know any more than you do about the important things.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Did you know that Lincoln modeled his Gettysburg address on Pericles' funeral oration

I did not know that. The man chose a good model. You and I share an affinity for Classical Greece and Rome.

Quote:

I'm probably better at seeing the repetition of old patterns than in detecting the truly novel stuff that may occasionally appear,

That's very interesting. I think my abilities, such as they are, in a similar manner. And I need a fairly broad swath of information to make that work. I think I'm less suspicious of the novel than you. I don't see it as a threat though it is very often a threat to existing systems of power and privilege. I'm guessing we'd have a different take on the French Revolution. (Go Guillotiners!) One day we can perhaps talk about Jullian Assange.

I have read Memory Chalet. That you cherish this man allows me to forgive you, even short of the many necessary confessions due.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know