Here is Patterico’s latest, which posits additional hypotheticals in an effort to show how intent is necessarily influenced by convention, the idea being that a knowledge of convention must perforce manifest itself in intent.
Which, of course it can — but at the same time, it doesn’t necessarily have to, or else conventions would never change, given that very rarely would one ever find himself in a situation to intend outside a matrix of social and linguistic convention. And that’s really the point. To wit, let’s use the example of Piss Christ that gets raised in the comments to his post: offense may or may not have been deliberately intended, even if we agree that the artist knew of the likelihood that some Christians would find the piece offensive. For instance, perhaps the artist meant to offend certain people in order to point out the vacuousness of their taking offense. That is, he didn’t agree with their idea of what is “offensive” and so refused to define offense in the way they would, making his piece a performative of his intent to redefine offense.
Or maybe he simply meant to denigrate Christianity — not caring one way or the other about who it might or might not offend. Alternately, perhaps he was simply making a statement about modern Christianity’s reliance on the material symbolism of religiosity, while it simultaneously (and metaphorically) pisses on (what eh artist feels are) the true spirit of the Gospels.
— The point being that the artist’s prior knowledge of whether or not something might cause somebody offense may or may not have factored into his intent (and if it did, to what degree?) — and whether it should have is a rhetorical question, not necessarily a linguistic one (other than that we’d use our knowledge of his knowledge to try to divine his intent; still, his knowledge doesn’t necessarily inform his intent in every instance: his knowledge of the chemical makeup of urine, for example, likely didn’t have any bearing on the intent behind the piece).
But back to the latest argument: in an extended hypothetical, Frey introduces us to a swastika-wearing Buddhist and asks at what point said Buddhist, having learned of the cultural weight attached to the symbol by, for instance, Holocaust survivors — a cultural weight that differs from his own (in which the symbol means something else entirely, with his adornment of the symbol meant to reference his own cultural conventions) — becomes “responsible” for the offense others might take at his choice to continue wearing the symbol. And the answer is, he is only “responsible” insofar as he cares about giving offense — that is, he is only responsible in a rhetorical sense, not in a linguistic sense. An awareness of audience and context is something speakers and writers certainly might (and some would argue should) always consider when they adopt a rhetorical strategy. But then, I don’t recall ever saying anything different — and so I don’t take the force of the argument.
Which is why when Frey writes
The intentionalist will tell you that you can’t allow the baggage associated with certain words or concepts to restrict your use of those words or concepts, if your intent is different from the baggage that society has attached to them
he is incorrect. You may or may not allow such a thing, depending on your rhetorical goals. Instead, what I’ve argued is that when you are up against a rhetorical situation in which you know you will be taken out of context no matter how hard you try to modify your expression, it makes little rhetorical sense to try to modify your expression and surrender to someone else’s idea of what constitutes acceptable speech — the better rhetorical maneuver being to assert that you meant what you meant, and disallow the legitimacy of the intentional misreading. Intentionalism just gives you the tools necessary to make the argument, in that it describes how language actually functions in the communication chain.
To amplify this further, take Frey’s second example, offered in the comments to his post:
I may enjoy ordering two beers by holding up two fingers, nail side out. But what if I go to Britain, and I am told that this is the symbol for “fuck you”? And what if I go to Britain, armed with this knowledge — but I choose to stand on my intentionalist principles, and order my beers the way I want to order them — by holding up two fingers?
First, why you’d want to fight that particular battle is up to you. Perhaps you’re spoiling for a confrontation so that you can teach the Brits that, to you, holding up two fingers in such a way means you want two beers — and so you’ve just engaged in a nice little multiculturalist teachable moment. That is, if those in your audience listen to your explanation. And yes, it would be their problem if they misinterpreted, though its a problem that I could certainly understand, their conventions being different than our own. Of course, it would also be your problem, should they decide to beset you because of it.
What it wouldn’t do, however, is make your meaning other than it was. Your prior knowledge of how the Brits use the symbol — and your subsequent decision to go ahead and “stand on […] intentionalist principles” wouldn’t make what you’ve done either obviously right or obviously wrong for the situation, precisely because your decision to go ahead and flash the sign may either teach a few Brits how different signifiers are conventionally attached to different signifieds in different cultures, or it may lead to your getting your “ass beat by some thugs with bad teeth who don’t care about […] intentionalist philosophy.” The point being, that’s a rhetorical decision. That it may end badly for you doesn’t make the facts of sign function and language that undergird it in any way wrong.
To reiterate: I have never said there isn’t blowback potential in communication. Intentionalism doesn’t make any such claims. It does, however, help mitigate the blowback potential by attempting to illustrate how and why people are able to achieve the requisite level of outrage for blowback — namely, by instructing them to be cognizant of how language actually functions. It takes away the power of those who willfully misinterpret by disallowing that meaning is fully a function of texts somehow separated from the will of their utterers.
****
see also here and here, for a response that anticipates this by several years.
If “the Reasonable Reaction of the Audience Matters to Interpreting ‘Intent,’” then the word “intent” has taken on a non-standard meaning.
related
“It takes away the power of those who willfully misinterpret by disallowing that meaning is fully a function of texts somehow separated from the will of their utterers.”
I think the examples people think up are illuminating. hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
I see there was an earlier post that no one alerted me to. In it, Frey seems to be luxuriating in his own genius. This comment is precious:
Listen: it’s rather simple. If textualists want to interpret “plain text” apart from what they believe the intent behind them is, they are being judicial activists, and they are essentially creating their own texts.
If, on the other hand, they don’t buy post hoc claims to intent that don’t match what they read as plain language in a statute, they are merely interpreting, and so can conclude the same thing without committing themselves to charges of judicial activism.
The very fact that they are reading the statute at all — that they consider it language — presumes intent.
In Frey’s example, the legislature wrote “$1,000,000” then later claimed it meant “$10,000.” Okay. So? They failed to signal their intent. Law working as it does, the judge has every right to doubt their ex post facto claims to that intent. And he has every right to tell them that, if that’s what they really intended, perhaps they should rewrite the law in such a way that their intent is signaled more clearly.
Dismissing authorial intent altogether, though, privileges the intent of the receiver only. Precedent may provide a check on that over time. But the practice is still linguistically incoherent.
If a judge reads plain language, finds no ambiguity, and proceeds from there, all that suggests is that he believes he’s properly understood the intent. And that’s the case whether he believes himself to be doing so or not.
If, however, in cases where there is ambiguity, he decides that what he reads takes precedent over what the legislators intended, he has essentially rewritten the law.
So, basically, Frey is trying to pick another blog war? I didn’t think his sitemeter was that bad…
I went over there and I thought JD’s comment summed it up well. Good for him.
Given good Patterico posts like this:
http://patterico.com/2010/04/21/michael-steele-tells-blacks-you-dont-have-a-reason-to-vote-republican/
Are we just splitting hairs?
Great post. Thanks.
The word niggardly has nothing linguistically to do with that word with is the degregation of negro (which is the Spanish word for black). However, given its similarity to a word many people find offensive (unless it is two black people using it or Quentin Tarratino), the use of niggardly in the American English has gone down considerably. So has “Jew them down,” although unlike niggardly, that phrase does have an intentional negative conotation to it.
As for Patterico’s argument, I remember traveling in Thailand and running into some American girl (who was Jewish) who was deeply offended by all the anti semitism there. She was somewhat embarassed when I told her the swastika is a ancient Buddhist symbol which has nothing to do with National Socialism.
Anyway, none of this changes the fact that Patterico is a dick.
It makes sense doesn’t it? Its easier to pick a fight with somebody out of favor then go after the “good man” running the country straight into the crapper.
Patterico has been having a ton of server issues lately. Not sure exactly what’s going on with the site, but if you’re having trouble loading it up, that’s why.
It makes sense doesn’t it? Its easier to pick a fight with somebody out of favor then go after the “good man” running the country straight into the crapper.
And it is just sad. Hair splitting while the Obamunists ruin us all.
I have yet to understand why intentionalism is so hard for some people to grasp. I guess that it was a perfect fit for my internal model of reality. For others, it must clash with their own internal models and cause great consternation. I probably cannot reasonably criticize them since I did not have to rearrange my thinking to embrace the idea, but that won’t stop me from doing it anyway at times. I’m contrary that way.
The Obamunists are able to ruin us all because too many people ignore the import of a crucial split hair.
Or split skull, when the time comes.
If, however, in cases where there is ambiguity, he decides that what he reads takes precedent over what the legislators intended, he has essentially rewritten the law.
The judicial activism comes not when they privilege their own “meaning” to the written language, failing to take into account the framers’ intent, but when they assign meaning to imaginary signs: penumbras, shadows, etc., which is supposedly an appeal to intent.
OK, let’s look at the Commerce Clause: “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”
The INTENT was to overcome the problems wherein states screwed with each other over tarrifs and stuff. Then some moron judge came along and decided that it applied to a guy growing wheat in his own garden for private use.
Do you have to appeal to intent to see that the ruling is absurd? Do you need to know the prior history? No, you can just look at the word “among,” and see it for your own self. Nor do you have to appeal to “reasonable reader” for the interpretation of “among,” you just look at the effing dictionary and common usage.
But I do stand by my analogy of written law with computer code. Law is supposed to “configure” society in some way. It’s supposed to have a certain quasi-mechanical effect. If the Commerce Clause were machine code and reality were a machine, there would not be this obscene overreach of the fed into every nook and cranny.
But because dishonest, meddling, control-freak, elitist judges ignore the plain meaning of a text and use sophistry to justify doing it, that’s NOT a privileging of the reader over the writer, it’s making stuff up.
Like when the attributed fake quotes to Rush and then accused him of racism. NOT like when they smeared Bill Bennett over his isolated phrase.
dicentra in a bumper sticker: Something can never mean what it never meant.
Pat Frey is still battling strawman legions, I see.
There ya go.
Jeff, Patterico just can’t quit you.
I’m not able to get his posts to load. Has he introduced anything new to his position?
Even a short-attention-span kind of guy like myself can keep intent and interpretation straight; how come Patterico can’t?
I’ve always thought of “Piss Christ” as a mostly accidental demonstration of how authority works: “Let’s you and him fight.”
The image, untitled, is a reverent-looking religious thing, fit for worship (or whatever). The title, regardless of its attendant image — but more so in the presence of an image that makes “Piss Christ” look like a bare claim of provenance, a context that makes it look artless — is “offensive.”
Serrano made those two things: picture, name. We don’t know how or why, really. Initially, the only thing binding them was his authority (presumed) (and I won’t go on about how and why it was presumed; it’s not the point, though it looks like it is).
Released into the world, the bond between the two things was strengthened by the competing wills of the audience, pro and con the (presumed) “offense.” No one sided with “Is this dude fucking with us?” or “Says who?” They left those thoughts behind and joined armies, crusading in his (often unspoken) name.
But the Christ has no piss, I think. If it does, it doesn’t need it.
And my point can make itself, if it wants to.
Nothing that I haven’t already hashed out with an intellectually curious steamed dumpling.
No one sided with “Is this dude fucking with us?” or “Says who?” They left those thoughts behind and joined armies, crusading in his (often unspoken) name.
Actually, I thought that the dude was late for a deadline like a high school term paper or something else equally banal. Figured he’d “freak out the normals,” sir the pot a little. Art? Yeah, not really……..
An quiet acknowledgment of the intrusion of knee-jerk reader response encountered only moments ago:
Is this footnote a mild chiding, readers? Does he intend his readers themselves to be the satisfactory solution?
Could be.
That does tend to happen on this topic.
Public service announcement: the archives and greatest hits can be found in the left hand sidebar.
Art? Yeah, not really……..
The label “art” has nothing to do with quality or skill or craftsmanship. It has to do with “artifice” and with an object that is presented for our aesthetic consideration.
Such as a photograph of a fire hydrant. The hydrant in real life is purely utilitarian. A photograph of it can be either an entry in a record that the fire department keeps (not art) or it’s an image that invites the viewer to consider the hydrant from an aesthetic perspective (art).
“Piss Christ” is art.
It’s just not an example of skill or craftsmanship or pleasing aesthetics or any degree of maturity.
“And my point can make itself, if it wants to.”
Heh.
This dude is fucking with you.
and
Says who?
And for your enjoyment, George Carlin goes off on environmentalism.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/An-Earth-Day-tradition-George-Carlin-on-the-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-saving-the-planet-91819469.html
Mild language warning.
Regarding the two-finger salute: I actually did that in a pub in London (Knightsbridge, to be exact). I’d already had a pint of 1664 and wanted two waters. I gesture that way out of simple habit and reverted to it. As I was a Yank, he took no offense to it, but when the barkeep brought my waters, he reminded me of the common British meaning. I expressed immediate embarassment and we both laughed it off.
In short, though he read my intent accurately, I was sensitive to the obvious misreading, given the circumstances. It’s amazing how these linguistic traps can be navigated with simple courtesy.
It’s amazing how these linguistic traps can be navigated with simple courtesy.
Where simple courtesy is defined as an honest, good-faith effort to interpret your intended meaning. But when was the last time a Progressive displayed an honest, good-faith effort in any category?
Too bad George wasn’t around to do a bit on global warming. He said environmentalists were arrogant, can you imagine what he would say about Algore?
At the risk of stating the obvious, the people in Patterico’s examples are all passive-aggressive dicks whose intent, as revealed by Patterico’s peek inside their brain, is to offend with plausible deniability.
I think you all are racist articulate clean tar-babies.
Message to a hypothetical from a typical Brit.
Jeff, thanks for linking those dim sumn conversations. One of them afforded me the pleasure of TrollHammering actus.
The intent here is for Rahm to signal his true feelings on working for Obama.
back in the day we used to just ‘Oh, horsehit’ when somebody took unnecessary offense … and then we’d give them necessary offense. Nowadays, it takes a heap of words to tell somebody “oh, horseshit”
We also used to wear onions on our belts, as was the style at the time.
Gimme five bees for a quarter, BS.
Were you able to get the white ones, or were you stuck with the yellow ones?
Jeff, Patterico just can’t quit you.
Patterico was trying to bait Stacy McCain a few days ago, too. Someone needs to re-post that joke about Patterico and the bears.
Ok, I just have to know where the onion on the belt thing came from.
I could tell you, Slart, but instead why don’t I engage in a long rambling story that doesn’t really go anywhere.
One of my art professors has named Piss Christ as his choice for the most important American work of art in the 20th century. His interpretation of the piece is that the crucifix, submerged in the piss, creates an ethereal glow and actually transforms the inherent violence and agony of the crucifixion of Christ into a thing of beauty. Thus the jar of pee is an effective medium. Serrano’s intent (according to the prof) is to show how Christ is willing to meet us at the ugliest depths of our human experience, and our faith in the atoning grace of his sacrifice creates a similar thing of beauty.
I like the prof’s conversation with the piece. However when I titled one of my own works, “Piss Professor___________,” he didn’t think it was beautiful. It seems the word PISS carries some cultural weight.
Ginger, you kill me!
If the intent was to create an ethereal glow, lemon Jell-O would have worked, too. And it wouldn’t spill.
Slart is lacking some pop-culture knowledge. Everyone point at him and laugh.
Pop culture embiggens even the most cromulent man.
[pointing at Slart]
Hah-Hah!
Worst comment thread ever.
Hi Comic Book Guy did you know of this? Serenity Tales.
Cause of this I did not know.
The artwork is sub-standard, the execution laughably repetitive and the pay off is almost non-existent.
Worst webcomic ever.
Worst hyphen usage ever.
Science!
Love it.
that seems very expensive, the onion x-rayings…
I have a picture of my grandpa wearing onions on his suspenders.
He wasn’t much of a trendsetter.
“Slart is lacking some pop-culture knowledge. Everyone point at him and laugh”
[pretending to be in the know] HAHA, slarti is stuupid! lutz!
Stale pulp culture take it away
True pulp culture help to redefine it
Old pulp culture day upon day
Young pulp culture serve to undermine it
Sham pulp culture buried in time
True pulp culture there to be plundered
Same pulp culture year upon year
Hey! pulp culture live to be a hundred….
What if he had titled it Marriage of the Homos instead of Piss Christ? Still Edgy?
No, in that case it would have just been h8ey, and not art at all.
Then Shakespeare was a fucking liar cranky-d. That’s one rose that smell like piss under the right circumstances.
Perhaps this might interest you.
meaning is use.
You asked so here it is:
Patterico was excited about his new rifle. So, he went bear hunting. He spotted a small brown bear and shot it. There was then a tap on his shoulder, and he turned around to see a big black bear. The black bear said: “You’ve got two choices. I either maul you to death or we have rough sex.” Patterico decided to bend over. Even though he felt sore for two weeks, Patterico soon recovered and vowed revenge. He headed out on another trip where he found the black bear and shot it. There was another tap on his shoulder. This time a huge grizzly bear stood right next to him. The grizzly says: “That was a huge mistake, Patterico. You’ve got two choices. Either I maul you to death or we have REALLY rough sex. “Again, Patterico thought it was better to comply. Although he survived, it would take several months before Patterico finally recovered. Outraged he headed back to the woods, managed to track down the grizzly and shot it. He felt sweet revenge, but then there was a tap on his shoulder. He turned around to find a giant polar bear standing there. The polar bear says:”Admit it, Patterico, you don’t come here for the hunting, do you?”
The thing nishi linked has nothing to do with intentionalism.
It’s true that the meaning of a word has to do with usage.
This assertion contrasts with meaning derived from etymology, which can show you origins but does not determine meaning.
Sometimes people make the argument that a word’s etymology determines meaning. These people are usually in a death-spiral of a comment thread where every other post is “No, what I SAID was X! Borrow a buck and buy some reading comprehension, willya.”
Use by what for what? Could be something like an intending agent, huh? Weird.
“Could be something like an intending agent”
The forgotten man who was never there.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Mea
Meaning is not use. I could say that nishi is kind, well-adjusted, with excellent social skills 915,693,5017,492,527,481,320,117,083 times and it would never become true.
I just can’t believe there are this many people who understand intentionalism less well than I do. It’s baffling, is what it is.
Not surprising that nishi doesn’t, because she could be replaced by a fairly simple computer program.
Not surprising that nishi doesn’t, because she could be replaced by a fairly simple computer program.
Not really. Computer programs are logical. If they have some inconsistent error in programing they hang up and stop working.
Sure, really. You can program a pseudorandom sequence of technobabble. A computer program can do whatever you design it to do, including idiocy emulation.
Considering her stated desire to merge herself with technology, how can we be sure that her comments here are not some beta test of that effort in progress?
Example.
For the amusement of EEs:
http://xkcd.com/730/
It looks like Frey’s thread is dead, but I left this anyway.
I completely expect Patterico to double down and assert that the deaf people were just asking for it.
An artificial unintelligence?
That’s a primo example, Dar.
The “intentionalist” will tell you that the swastika has no inherent meaning aside from that assigned to it by its wearer
Zeus on a Zamboni that guy is thick.
Dientra,
That’s the first wiring diagram I’ve ever seen that detailed the “magic smoke” component; ‘cuz as everybody knows, right after the magic smoke escapes the electronic device stops working.
“I dare say a prosecutor would strenuously fight any attempt on the part of the defense to assign any responsibility to the victims for their “righteous ass-kicking” for not being aware that one shouldn’t be using provocative hand signals in gang territory.”
Ahhh, but if the deaf people know they are in gang territory, and gangs are sensitive to hand signs, the deaf people have an obligation to shut the fuck up, lest they rile up the locals.
Duh…
So Darleen, flag-burning is OK under any circumstance?
Another interesting case is what is going on with South Park right now and Comedy Central censoring their episodes in response to Islamist threats.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_south_park_muslims
So Darleen, flag-burning is OK under any circumstance?
No, can’t do it California state parks under fire restrictions.
“Another interesting case is what is going on with South Park right now and Comedy Central censoring their episodes in response to Islamist threats.”
Or the DoD disinviting Franklin Graham for that matter.
Are you sure? I think it’s proper for Franklin to be disinvited. He’s not fit to speak to Muslims what are serving our little country after calling their religion evil I don’t think.
Why the military is having happy prayer day anyway is a little suspect I think, but hatey Graham’s Christian supremacist attitude is definitely not the future.
I don’t think he ought to be cast out for his opinions hf. Nor the Muslim Imams for theirs. Let a thousand hatreds bloom, if that’s what peoples want.
I think the affront to muslims in the service would be an own goal is all.
He can have his opinions yes yes yes, they just don’t need to be received with approbation by our military I don’t think.
He laid his cards on the table… it’s ok for there to be consequences I think.
I mean, he broke with ecumenism on purpose. He can probably still remember the tingly frisson of righteousness he got when he proclaimed the Islam to be eeeevil.
And that’s that, really.
That means he’s not an ecumenical figure. He chose that.
That means he doesn’t get to stand at the podium at ecumenical prayer thingies.
Why the military is having happy prayer day anyway is a little suspect
cause, you know, we should like ban all that icky godbothering stuff for any government employee.
Of all the problems America presently has, too much Christianity is not one of them.
Ecumenism is hooey anyhow though, isn’t it? A kind of charade, wink wink etc.? Somebody could make the point at the ecumenical gatherings and that’s ok too.
Maj Hasan certainly wasn’t too ecumenical.
Ecumenism is hooey anyhow though, isn’t it?
Yes I know what you mean but I’m one of those that buys into the idea. It’s like “the Christmas spirit” or “the American dream.”
I’m kind of a sucker like that.
More honesty, less dissembling is our watchwordcloud.
#
You’re clear on this being a thread about intentionalism, yes?
I definitely don’t fault Mr. Graham’s honesty.
“Why the military is having happy prayer day anyway is a little suspect”
Yeah, military people shouldn’t pray, everyone knows that.
That’s a beautiful photograph lee.
OT: Yikes.
Repeal.
Because socialism stinks on ice.
Islam, on the other hand, stinks on sand.
“That’s a beautiful photograph lee.”
There’s a story too:
Ecumenism is one of those dealios that seem necessary with the non-establishment of any one religion.
That said, as a godless heathen, I do reserve the right to put the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, et al, in a category apart from those who will murder you in the street if you dare put their holy man in a cartoon or throw acid in a girls face ’cause they hate the womens or throw stones until that pesky gay person stops moving.
I’d say those artist-murdering, acid-throwing, gay-stoning sorts can go fuck a pig and then die if they wouldn’t mind.
A compromise of sorts, as opposed to a doctrine, ecumenism. A shuffling of feet, a hem and haw.
I guess compromise is ok but if religion isn’t going to comprise an appeal to man’s better nature then it’s kind of a fraud I think.
J. Goldberg, touching on that other religion, socialism:
well, that won’t do…
but let me be clear that I think Franklin Graham’s hatey sentiments are inappropriate for someone what fancies himself a man of God in the of the cloth sense… I think real people, even Christian ones, can hate Islam all they want.
Just, if they want to stand up at an ecumenical pancake breakfast and represent, it’s kind of silly I think, and it’s sort of just dumb to align Islam hate with our soldiers, cause they need to not have that associated with them as much as possible cause there’s no getting away from the high killy factor. That’s just the actuarial troof.
I’m not certain what the details of Rev. Graham’s latest adventure are, but the gist I gathered was that he had spoken out about Islam back shortly after 9-11, said the harsh things he said and had just now been called to account for those sayings by some Islamics holding their justifiable grudge: so I rather doubt that the Rev. would have had anything other than nice ecumenical mumbles to say had those earlier sayings not been shoved in his face. He chose now, however, to refuse to squeal mercy, but instead maintain his disgust with the religion and that in contradistiction to the believers in that religion.
At a guess, lots of trigger pullers aren’t fond of the Islams. Nor should they be.
“Just, if they want to stand up at an ecumenical pancake breakfast and represent, it’s kind of silly I think…”
Not pragmatic.
makes for a parallel with that Kagan hoochie and her disinviteyness but my friend P needs me
It’s not so much that I hate Islam, ’cause I don’t.
I just want a whole lotta fun-loving party people to say how much they hate that stone-age goat-fucking subset so that the other subset will finally start treating the first sort like lepers. Like the unique loser geeks at the Enlightenment party that they truly are.
One of the things I like about my wife’s Church, which I attend with her is that they have a long institutional memory of dealings with Islam right from the beginning of that religion along with the more recent memories, living ones, of dealings with the Progressive Socialists right from their beginning also. Long memory. Instructive.
That’d be interesting for you to relate some time, Geoff.
Much sadness at best. Solzhenitsyn in Part III of “The Gulag Archipelago” is similar to all stories out of the Progressive/Socialist side. The stories from the much longer dealings with Islam are worse. The present day Taliban and Al Queda are trying to bring back the old ways.
As you are saying above I hope and pray that the more reasonable part of Islam can reform it and cast out the bloody handed regressives.
I like to think I coined the term “artificial stupidity” years ago.
I’m having some trouble telling whether nishi’s kind of stupid is natural or synthetic; it’s that convincing.
happyfeet, I suggest you read the Koran before you opine on the nature of Islam. Islam recognizes two states: Muslim, or enemy. Unlike Christianity, Islam explicitly commands its followers to kill, enslave, or convert anyone who is not a Muslim. By all evidence, followers of Islam emulate their Prophet, who was much more conciliatory when he wasn’t yet powerful enough to get on with the killing and enslaving part. See also hudna and taqqiya. Islam and the American Constitution are fundamentally in conflict.
Islam has no counterpart to “Render unto Caesar”. It has no counterpart to “My Kingdom is not of this world.” Christ specifically told his followers: “If someone won’t hear you, leave; God may punish them, but you shouldn’t.” (Matthew 10:14-15). Again, the contrast with Islam is stark.
What I have experienced of “Islam” provides for no mechanism of “reform” in our sense. What will eventually cause the death lovers, acid throwers, et al to lose will be indifference and irrelevancy. One Ramadan I happened to be in a bazaar (on a Friday of all days!) and was invited to come have tea with a particular fellow who sold carpets and general merchandise. When I raised an eyebrow and asked if this was OK during Ramadan his reply was “pffft..Mullahs”, whilst rolling his eyes. This was in Afghanistan, of all places. Guy just wanted a flippin’ cup of tea with a potential customer.
I didn’t even know there was such a thing as Johnny Walker Blue Label until I was offered some by Pashtun.
8th Century livin’ cannot hold resist the basic human desire to live better – at least not forever. I saw the same while in Sarajevo in 1997. The Iranians were pouring money to fix up mosques and try to Islamify the place. All the young people wanted was the latest style of jeans, latest Euro-music and a job so they could afford such (and the local beer)…they weren’t buying from the Jihad-Mart.
This is why the Iranian reactionaries hate satellite dishes, the web, etc. so much…
The point SDN is that Graham shouldn’t smear his Islam hate and his Christian supremacy all over our soldiers. Our soldiers are not a mighty Christian army battling to the glory of Jesus. Mostly these days they try at no small cost to make a better life for the people of Islam, and to help better their institutions. Graham’s hateful brand of Christian snottyness has no role in that, and he should have known that when he decided to break with a unitey ecumenical tradition our military depends upon when they are called to work towards the betterment of countries what do not share America’s cultural traditions.
In the weak and morally dissipated dirty socialist America of the future, when the military becomes a North Korea-like bastion of privilege and a safe haven from economic blight and lost opportunity, it may be that we will one day be very thankful if we have instilled a pluralistical respect in our soldiers.
Graham’s hateful brand of Christian snottyness has no role in that
Maj Hasan, hf. What is he, eh? A raging BAPTIST?
and CAIR is a front organization.
I think your priorities are off a bit.
In the weak and morally dissipated dirty socialist America of the future
Socialism is the substitute religion when you chase out all the legitimate ones. So your railing about the supposed “hateyness” of ZOMG!! It’s the Christianists!! is just helping that future right along.
I think the priority is disassociating our military from “Islam is evil” and getting through the silly prayer day festivities without inspiring rancor either among our soldiers of different faiths or among our soldiers and the people they are working amongst.
What do you think the priority is?
Socialism is not the substitute religion when you chase out all the legitimate ones. It is the state religion. And it’s the state religion we have now, if you haven’t noticed.
It is the state religion. And it’s the state religion we have now, if you haven’t noticed.
We are not Europe yet. So stop helping it along.
BTW, the Army can invite or not who it wants. But don’t back up CAIR.
Unless you think that what is happening to South Park is just fine. Maybe the Army should block soldiers from watching South Park, what with all the Mohammed hateyness in it.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists right now are Muslim. Islam means “surrender”.
word cloud!
I think the priority is disassociating our military from “Islam is evil” and getting through the silly prayer day festivities without inspiring rancor either among our soldiers of different faiths or among our soldiers and the people they are working amongst.
What do you think the priority is, Darleen? Having our military stand in solidarity with Matt and Trey? Saala means “disgust.”
Here is the fundamental problem with privileging the receiver’s interpretation. How does the receiver communicate to us his interpretation?:
A says “X”
B says “What A meant by ‘X’ is really ‘Y'”
C says “What B meant by ‘Y’ is really ‘Z'”
…
It’s turtles all the way down.
I do have one example of how the above actually makes sense:
Joe Wilson says “You lie!”
MoDo says “What he meant was ‘You lie, BOY!'”
I say “What MoDo means is ‘I can’t refute the assertion that it was a lie, so… SHUT UP!'”
this will start your day with a happy smile
As much in disagreement as I am with happyfeet on…well, a LOT, this is actually something I have some agreement with, in general.
Soldiering and Christianity aren’t all that tightly intertwined, so let’s not mix them up to much, is how I look at it. I don’t think that God really has all that much investment in the warlike doings of men, in general, and so we really, REALLY ought to avoid pretending we’re involved in some kind of holy war. That way lies pretense that $DEITY is behind you all the way, when in fact these are really the doings of Men, with all of the potential for folly that goes with the doings of Men.
Oh, and we already have chaplains. Commanding officers ought to pray in the company of the chaplain along with other like-minded souls, and let people who have different beliefs pray their own way. I don’t see anything dismissive about that; it’s just courtesy. Let the Muslims, Jews and whatever other religions our military supports pray with their chaplains as well, and leave the atheists to whatever non-prayer-like contemplations they perform. In private. Just like Jesus told us to: modestly, and not for reasons of pride or status.
Well, happy, when Islam produces something other than evil and misery, I’ll stop calling it that. Until then, I calls them as I sees them.
you can call it whatever you want Mr. SDN… you just can’t necessarily be on the marquee at happy soldier prayer fun day.
Our soldiers are not a mighty Christian army battling to the glory of Jesus.
No shit Sherlock?
Talk about building a strawman to fight against…
then it should be a lot understandable why Graham and his “Islam is evil” business isn’t welcome at the prayer festivities I should think Mikey…
I think that Pat’s main problem is that he thinks that Intentionalism lets people get away with stuff.
That’s something most people can’t abide: people getting away with something.
And I suspect that district attorneys like it even less.
Whereas by contrast, the challenge of the intentional stance tends to reveal to us that we “get” (come) away too often with nothing, as opposed to something (substantial). Strawmen and wind-eggs, that is, are too easily come by; what’s actually what in a particular consciousness at hand is much harder, where not impossible.
I think that Pat’s main problem is that he thinks that Intentionalism lets people get away with stuff.
I think that Pat’s main problem is that Intentionalism doesn’t let him get away with stuff.
Happyfeet, do you work for Comedy central?
I don’t think it’s all that related to the Graham thing, lee.
Ummm, I just noticed you are unrestrained and often harsh when speaking of Christianity, but circumspect and pragmatic when discussing the Muslim faith.
I was speaking to your attitudes, not Grahams.
The “Bing” frontpage today is apparently for you ‘feets.
I love him he has a bright future.
ok fine lee this is true
I resent being lumped in with the most noxious elements of Team Jesus just cause I don’t want out little country to devolve into dirty socialist squalor. I think what Mr. Slarticus says at #128 is a wise caution for government in the main.
But that’s quite apart from the issue with Graham. It’s a fair judgment call about on what side out military wants to err on, and I think they chose wisely.
*our* little country I mean
*our* military I mean
jeez.
I think you’re erring more on the side of being lumped in with the most noxious elements of Team No Christhumpers Allowed, really.
President Bush said Islam is not evil. So that’s good enough for me.
Oh, wait, not it’s not. Cause he could be wrong about that.
Maybe it would be better, though not necessarily better at the prayer thing, since this isn’t the point of that after all, to have an examination of the question whether Islam is evil, if only because we’d have to figure out what we mean by evil and what proponents of Islam like CAIR say they mean by evil, and so we see, (or not). And Rev. Graham can have his say with everybody else. It could be anti-ecumenical even, where people get to speak their unguarded, un-couched, ground truth sort of beliefs, without worrying whether they’re going to be offensive or not.
I think you’re erring more on the side
maybe. My new thesis in my head is that the two-party system failed America grievously. Failed failed failed. Meghan’s daddy was the apotheosis of fail, and the little president man we have now was even more apotheosisier.
It’s a pickle.
I think that’s a very sporting idea Mr. sdferr.
I would support that.
“My new thesis in my head is that the two-party system failed America grievously.”
I’m thinking it was putting education in the hands of government in the first place. Big mistake.
that’s a big problem as well, but neither of the parties is doing much to address it
Was the idea, that is “Hey, let’s have universal education conducted by government!” (and I know nothing of the history of the thing, I confess) born in the one party or the other or both? And was it born as a simple sort of “Good idea! Let’s do that!” or more one of “Good idea (with a devious ulterior motive lying behind it)”?
Either way, it puts government in a position to remove criticism of itself and its doings from the curriculum. Not a good thing, all in all.
it started in very simple well-meaning communities… in England, really I would guess… then it just sort of … snowballed.
It’s one of those deals where the people realize “hey! this education thing is really important and good!” but don’t realize that “hey! it’s so important it shouldn’t ever be surrendered to the corruption inherent in government and government’s doings!” It’s like they forgot for a minute there and then, doom.
and then teacher’s unions and then doom maybe
Teachers unions come about as a result, rather than a cause of the mis-education, I think.
It’s all so dark.
Get rid of the teachers unions, make PTA participation mandatory.
Christianity and the CIA, when they are doing it right you don’t really even know there is such a thing. You should keep that in mind happy, considering just how many Christians there are in this little country of ours.
Clear as a bell in the dialogs hf. And geez, those were writ 2400 yrs ago.
Something else about public education. It’s an opportunity for those who want to try, to lift themselves up to a place that they wouldn’t be without the opportunity. It isn’t, and wasn’t meant to be anything other than that. Jefferson called it the “scraping of the masses”.
Social con Christian ones cheapen their issues by forcing them into the tawdry realm of both our little country’s sordid politics and the unclever and often vile machinations of Team R I think Makewi.
They just don’t get it.
I don’t think I can help them.
No, it hasn’t. We’ve failed the two-party system by electing a sequence of clods. But there’ve been clods in the past; we just need to throw the fuckers out.
People who think our little situation is the worst it could possibly be need to go back and read what folks were screaming about when, for instance, banking was the big issue.
As far as government education, well, the Federal government doesn’t do much of that at all. You have your state and local authorities to kick the hell out of office for that.
Mine are just fine for the nonce, except fuck Charlie Crist. Fuck him sawfish-style. We’ll get someone else to sign that bill into law next year.
Bifurcating fed vs state (or even local) doesn’t address the root issue, I think.
It is still religious bigotry, happyfeet, whether it comes from Mr. Graham or from you.
Perhaps just saying that humans can use religion (or any other ideology, really) to justify evil deeds is the better acknowledgement. And to advocate that there are people who are agreeable to other arguments that prefer not to have religion obviously mixed with politics, and that group is one worthwhile pursuing, is also a better acknowledgement.
Just sitting and thinking here and having a post-work pre-weekend beer (or a few).
#150 sdferr:
Education was originally left to the states, but the Northwest Ordinance (passed under the Articles of Confederation) provided that each section of land in the proposed (possible) new states would have some acerage that would be sold or used for educational purposes. And then there was the Morril Land Grant system that provided lands that schools could sell or use to those finance schools.
It was rather a ‘hands off’ system providing remote support. It is only post WWII that the big connections between education and the federal government began.
Such is as I recall.
“…connections between education and the federal government began.”
The problem, still, isn’t one of the participation of the federal government, but of government as such.
I don’t think socialconism is evil though, just not consonant with limited government.
sdferr,
I believe they thought that educating the public was a good thing that would elevate society as a whole, and that by making it public, and therefore available to all in theory, essentially removed another facet of class distinction from society and helped those who embraced the opportunity.
I don’t think anyone foresaw it being used to ideologically indoctrinate, rather than actually educate, the nation’s youth.
If it were a totally private venture, then how would folks who couldn’t afford it take advantage?
I’m not nit-picking, but just curious.
“I don’t think socialconism is evil though, just not consonant with limited government.”
Really happy?
I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. How does the one interfere with the other?
“…anyone foresaw it being used to ideologically indoctrinate…”
At least anyone who hadn’t read the dialogs and understood their import. Quite a few of the framers had, though perhaps they believed they could do better? Or not possibly, insofar as they didn’t foresee unintended consequences entailed even in the grants of land Mikey cites. Again, as to the particulars of the history of the thing(s), I’m too ignorant to know. But that the relations had been fully described and demonstrated 2400 yrs back, I have no doubt.
Maybe I’m all sunny day and roses, I guess, buy I’m inclined to go with, “they thought they could do better”.
But that may be a stretch on my part.
“…educating the public…”
I take for granted that this is only a shorthand way of speaking Bob, and that you know that it isn’t “the public” that gets educated, but always individual persons, who then in turn taken together make up the public we talk about. But such shorthands are sometimes easily bent to other (social justice, anyone?) purposes.
Oh! And on topic, I hope.
Intentionalism isn’t something I was ever educated in as such. I am a lawyer, and that does skew my perspectives a bit. I fall back to my legal training in statutory interpretation which – broadly speaking – is that what the legislature wrote in the statute is what the legislature meant. To determine meaning ordinary dictionaries are used (and if the subject is a technical subject – say, pipeline construction) then technical dictionaries are used for the purpose also. And the statute is not to be read in such a way to get an absurd result (because many words can have multiple meanings), and all words in the statute are to be included and not ignored.
It is a particular way of arriving at an understanding of the intent of the legislature when it writes a statute, and the focus is supposed to be on the legislature and its legislative intent. This does not mean that the legislature cannot write poorly and produce legislation that does not convey what it actually intended – that does happen, and the legislature can always amend the statute to clear up any mistakes or ambiguity.
Obviously, in any communication there are two parties, and with any communication in this less than perfect world there can be problems. The story, above, of the two fingered salute in the British bar is a good one. The communicator intended one thing and the bartender saw another. The bartender also knew that the communicator was not likely aware (being a foreigner) of what the communicator signified (I used that correctly?) and responded to what the bartender thought the communicator intended. There can be misunderstandings between the communicator and the audience, and accidental misunderstandings are inevitable and regretable. But that only means that the intent was not transmitted – signified – correctly to the audience. It does not mean the intent wasn’t ever there.
The problem, as I see it, is deliberate misunderstanding, where the audience deliberately chooses an interpretation of the communicator’s intent with the deliberate plan of feigning outrage for some slight or another in order to achieve some advantage. That doesn’t change the communicator’s actual intent at all; it is merely a cloak the interpreter uses to achieve whatever ends the interpreter has. Which has nothing to do with the actual intent of the communicator, but has everything to do with the aims of the interpretive audience. And if truth is of any value at all, that dishonest, manipulative, audience needs to be called for its dishonesty.
Such as I understand this subject well-outside my normal training.
If they thought they could do better, then they were wrong, I’d say. And we end up here where we are, with fully __x__% (some huge) portion of the population thinking that we live under a living Constitution, and to boot, no clue where that came from.
You are correct sdferr, I did indeed mean each individual citizen that chooses to avail themselves of the opportunity.
And when I spoke of increasing the education level of society as a whole, I meant statistically, of course :)
#164 sdferr: Ah, then you have to go back to pre-constitutional days and try to root that out. And go through each states’ constitution and amend it to remove government control of education.
A job of work, I think.
A huge job Mikey, and all the more worth for that.
I guess it’s definitional Mr. Reed..
Social conservatives believe government has a role in promoting the values of these certain Americans over and against those of these other Americans over here.
I think government shouldn’t be there for that, and personally I think it’s laughable that it should ever again be allowed to operate under the
pretense that it is moral or good and that it’s naive to expect it could ever be moral or good.
What the government has done to our kids and their kids just this year is same as child rape I think.
Our little country’s government is every bit as evil as any stick you can shake at Islam I think.
This little country needs to stand in the corner and think about what it’s done. It has no place telling people right from wrong.
happyfeet: I type this only with the best of intentions – but have you reflected that you may intend one thing with your comments regarding socialcons and that how you are communicating is not transmitting your intent very well? No one here in the regular PW commenters is dishonest, I think (other than the obvious ones) but if they are not interpreting your intent the way you actually intended, then it falls to you to communicate your intent differently – perhaps in choice of word or choice of style – to prevent misunderstanding between you and the audience.
Again, I am not doing this as a slam, but as ‘constructive criticism’ to assist. And let me pull out an old phrase I used to close with in law school when a fellow student would ask me a question. After answering to the best of my ability I would say, ‘But then again – I could be wrong’.
Everyone here is fallible. Me too.
I could be wrong. But I think if you has a Value and you hold it to be precious, you best not let our little country’s government get its paws on it.
hey did we know that Alyssa’s new show was out? It has Dancing for a lead-in.
This one’s hers to blow.
sdferr,
I’m not asking you out of laziness, but deferring to your scholarship of classical philosophy and literature. Can you impart the kernal of wisdom conatined in Dialogues that spoke to the public education issue we’re discussing?
I’d really appreciate it-for reals!
“And we end up here where we are, with fully __x__% (some huge) portion of the population thinking that we live under a living Constitution, and to boot, no clue where that came from.”
Progressivism, I believe.
A few links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Wiki; forgove me, I know that they propagandize as much as inform, if only in a cliff notes fashion.
“Living constitution: The term originally derives from the title of a 1937 book of that name by Prof. Howard McBain, [3] while early efforts at developing the concept in modern form have been credited to figures including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson.[4][5]”
[3] McBain, Howard Lee (1937) The Living Constitution. The Macmillan company.
[4] Winkler at 1457
[5] Wilson often referred to the Constitution as a “vehicle of life.” See Kammen, Michael. A Vehicle of Life: The Founders’ Intentions and American Perceptions of Their Living Constitution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 131, No. 3, A More Perfect Union: Essays on the Constitution (Sep., 1987)
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Gillman-Vanderbilt%20Paper%209-2007.pdf
A paper from Vanderbilt, that I admit I only skimmed. And;
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-living-constitution-vs-original-public-meaning/
A PJM piece on the topic that also traces it’s ascendancy to the first half of the 20th century.
So it seems that the idea is an artifice of progressivism, so it’s no surprise that it would basically be taught, either directly or imputed, in the public school system.
I just offer these for your information, not as a validation or as exhibits.
I wouldn’t dare, Bob. But the reading them can.
The gist though is just as you know, that is, that Socrates is silenced permanently because of the conflict between learning and education and inherent in those enterprises the necessity of freedom, liberty, to ask hard questions, even possibly unanswerable questions of the authority of the state, which has little tolerance for such stuff.
The two honest purposes or interests, if you will, of either party, the state on the one hand, and the inquirer on the other, are at permanent odds. One has the power of coercion at its disposal, the other the power of truth, or at least, bringing to light the ignorance of the powerful (coercive) of the most important things.
Thank you sdferr,
That’s interesting, and immediately I can see in the conflict between all questions and topics being valid and the whole ideology of political corectness of that very point.
I’ll have to ruminate on that to determine if there was any solution to this conundrum; or whether we’re just having a dialogue of our own :)
words fail
Perhaps I should hasten to add however, that Athens put up with Socrates for a very long time, a time in which the city was busy about its empire, confidently building same and the monumental things we know of it today, a time when the city could afford to ignore the grubby little man, dismiss him as a crank or wise-guy and leave him to his inanities (or so they were seen). Come the destruction of that empire at the hands of the Lakedaemonians and their allies (much of the fault, of course, to be laid at the feet of the Athenians themselves, for poor decision making) old man Socrates was seen in a new light, and an unfavorable one at that.
Let me qualify #171 a bit:
I am speaking generally on the subject of discovering legislative intent in that comment. There are variations in federal law and the laws of the several states (not to speak of how foreign lawyers and courts address the subject) that I did not and will not get into.
Sufficient for the comment, I think, to demonstrate how I am thinking when I approach a text.
(Did you see what I just did here?)
With Alyssa in it, the show will most likely be even better than Cheers or Seinfeld. Don’t try and tell me otherwise.
I just can’t help wish her the best even if already she’s well in the top 1% of successful actressings. She’s just good people I think.
OT: The Panthers picked up Jimmy Clausen. Ravens snagged Sergio Kindle and Niners picked up Taylor Mays.
and caps down 0-2 midway through the first. blech, same as it ever was
Her smile once healed a crippled orphan boy. She just doesn’t talk about it because she is very modest.
Her offices are in my building where I work so we see her and her mom sometimes and they’re just nice and very normal. Her mom I’ve talked to but I’m too shy to hardly even look at Alyssa except for when she’s sort of not real far away but kinda.
What’s become of the big red-haired (blonde-haired? neither-haired?) girl?
Hendricks?
her?
the 70’s show one?
That’s very cool. She’d have been in my top ten list of very likely cool in real life actresses even before you mentioned that.
She’s two years older than me which seems weird because I used to watch her be a kid on television. I guess they put her in pigtails or something and fooled me.
Toby Gerhart a Vike.
well when I say sometimes it’s not even once a year, really.
Laura Prepon, sdferr.
I’ve seen her in lots of varied stuff. IMDB says House and How I Met Your Mother, most recently.
oh you mean the not Mila Kunis one
she directed a thing it says…
…an episode of a web series here
When those ones go to directing, is that an indicator they’ve seen handwriting on walls already?
OT (although this has already wandered pretty far afield):
I just realized that His Plastic Jesusness has completed more than 30% of his first (and likely only) term.
There may be some hope for our little country yet.
oh. Actually this says she created it partly…
#203 – yes it did, and I bear fault for some of that.
I so do not want to expand the TTP list – I so do not.
Now – how about my comment at #171 and my comment at #186? On topic? Anything to say about those comments?
Anyone?
Well played, sir.
they were on-topic… Mr. P thinks that the communicator bears responsibility for avoiding misunderstandings or even for giving your enemy a stick to beat you with…
I think of Michael Steele. I know he doesn’t intend to be feckless and to say stupid things. I’m so past caring though.
#207 happyfeet:
Both the communicator and the audience bear responsibility because without either there would be no communication. The communicator has the responsibility to transmit the intent; the audience has the responsibility to receive the intent. If there is a problem in the communication, the audience has the responsibility to ask the communicator to clarify (you said this, I heard this, is that what you meant?). Then the responsibility falls back to the communicator to send his intent in a manner the audience understands, or to expand the audience’s understanding.
That is what should happen if both parties to the communication are honest. It really breaks down when one party is not honest.
Which party is dishonest if not both is to be discovered.
Or one can just walk away from the dishonest one. Even if he’s the president you can just say talk to the hand, loser.
Not when the communicator is become words on paper and the writer is dead he can’t walk away.
this is true… but there are many documents we make liars of and just walk away.
I shan’t name any.
Point of order. The thread is over 30 something hours long already. As noted and confirmed (see #27), Patterico didn’t move the discussion forward in any way.
This post is simply a recapitulation to edify Patterico once more. To be on topic, we’d probably be entering comments into a post from five years ago.
‘T’isn’t the document made a liar though hf, ’tis the abuser of the document, which, its author isn’t around to defend hisself or his product.
We said it was self-evident that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We made a liar of that document. It’s not even a little self-evident anymores, specially about the liberty.
The document tells the same tale it ever did. We’re the ones telling a different story.
Yes we are.
The sun is set and the curtains are drawn and it’s very dark, where we are. A world of never ending unhappiness, you can never see the sun – day or night. So when u call up that shrink in Beverly Hills – you know the one – instead of asking him how much of your time is left, ask him how much of your mind. Cause in this life, things are much harder than in the afterlife I think. In this life – you’re on your own.
On the other hand a document can tell a lie from the get go, in which case it’ll keep on telling the same lie no matter what manipulations someone may make to bring about an appearance of truth telling.
So, it depends I guess.
All attempts at communication involve at the least two humans. Intentionalism, I think, demands that the audiance try to understand the intent of the communicator. And the communicator may be 2,000 years dead. The interpretation the audience brings may be other than the communicator understood and prepared for.
“Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres.”
sdferr,
Did you see #181, where I linked to information regarding the genesis of the whole “Living Constitution” Judicial outlook?
I’m not fishing for comments, just wondering if you saw it. I don’t recall seeing any of those references in Liberal Fascism save for a lot of expansion on Wison’s progressivism.
If our little country, settling a pillow by her head, should say “That is not what I meant at all…
That is not it, at all.”
They wouldn’t give a toss.
Saw it Bob, though the “no clue where that came from” the “that” I intended was as to the framers and the Constitution they made, rather than the grotesquerie of the “living” constitution.
‘feets, have you been over to Bing today? It looks like hope, no?
Ire is really more useful than despair at this point.
Just curious, but I can see the turkle at Bing if I use a different browser (netscape) but not in the firefox browser. Any ideas how come?
No idea, sdferr. I see it fine in Firefox, in all of its awesomeness.
A thousand pardons then,
I read it as wondering where so many folks got the notion that the Constitution was a “living” document.
geoff showed me… he’s got a date with destiny that one…
firefox had these weird java issues and I’m hearing lots of complaints – I can’t do yahoo stock charts anymore… it’s annoying cause I can’t fick it.
but like my friend D can do the stock charts – it’s very weird
That was just my poor locution at fault there Bob, not any misinterpretation on your part at work. I’ve always been and probably always’ll be shite for a writer.
oh no no no. shrimps is evil. Tasty, but evil.
I can’t see google maps either, haven’t been able to for a couple of years, nor the book things they do at the google either, like the inside the books type stuff. Just get frames and blanks with keywords (I assume) swiped by color bars where they’d be if they were visible.
friends not food
have you tried this Mr. sdferr?
No, but thanks happyfeet, I’ll give it a go.
This from the Ceaser 2006 Bradley Symposium may fit in to this also.
Living, growing, progressing, seems there is a theme, trope, being injected into all political speech for a purpose.
Report to hf: good to go.
Many thanks.
Fixed ’em both too. yeehaw.
nice – I tried it to see if it would help my chart problem and no luck.
Was being not being.
I think you would change your mind about evilness, but not tastiness, if I were (for example) to prepare Magnolia’s shrimp with tasso gravy over creamy grits. It is to die for, and be reborn.
Best shrimps I’ve had were caught by us using castnets wading in the muddy tidal pools. No turkles were harmed for that dinner.
“First Annual Everybody Draw Mohammad Day”*
Bay scallops are almost worth catching and cleaning yourself. Catching them and paying someone else to clean them is a no-brainer.
Bay scallop ceviche, with some habanero thrown in there with the citrus, is to die for.
Used to be a big scallop fishery below and behind Sanibel Slart. Then they built the causeway. Then the scallops were no more, gone elsewheres. progress.
that all sounds very tasty…
my maybe let’s grab dinner messenger friend hasn’t replied
Link to video found at Ace.
Really. After a long day diving, beer and cold scallops ceviche are things of beauty.
You are making me very hungry.
Bay scallops can be found in quantity up near Steinhatchee. Some places you can just float and breathe through your snorkel and reach down and pick them off the top of the weeds. It’s hardly even work. Sometimes you make it like work, just to keep it sporting.
Fresh bay scallops are nothing like what you buy in the store. Like, they were alive just a few minutes before you threw them into the citrus/habanero mixture.
This year, we’re bringing fishing tackle. There were so many fish down there in the channel, it’d be a shame to let someone else eat them.
I thought that they did a very very good job on that video.
Not an RNC production you’ll note.
“…up near Steinhatchee…”
My b-i-l grew up chasing them up there from the time he lived in Williston, so I’ve heard stories…
Republican Governors Association did it apparently.
that would be Haley Barbour… whatever you think about him he knows the nuts and bolts of how to lead a party.
This link is right up sdferrs alley and povides some turtle food for happyfeets’s thoughts.
FTA:
In George Orwell’s 1984, Comrade O’Brien describes The Party as “the priests of power,” with power itself as their god. Power is simultaneously the method and goal of this new secular religion. As O’Brien tells Winston Smith, “Power is not a means; it is an end…. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”[i]
I’ve been seeing that picture quite a bit, lately. It is the quintessence of the present-day power-mad, anti-intellectual radical left. In “killing” god, the left was merely taking out the competition, Tony Soprano-style; and now they’ve upped the ante.
Socrates, Kant, Descartes, Nietzsche and Marx (among others) were also discussed. So click the link already.
Apocalyptic apostrophes, Batman.
sdferrs = sdferr’s
happyfeets’s = happyfeet’s
Oh, and throw in a couple “” as well.
(Can I get an amen from the Preview Choir? ;-)
I think you would change your mind about evilness, but not tastiness, if I were (for example) to prepare Magnolia’s shrimp with tasso gravy over creamy grits. It is to die for, and be reborn.
South Carolina Low Country shrimp and grits are worth killing for.
#253 Danger:
Orwell’s quote is very good, but the situation described runs into problems as the late Soviet Union discovered. Over time those who are further down the power-chain do as little as possible so as not to get singled out for some punishment. The truth is not told, or even understood any longer. Paralysis results with problems ignored or explained away with lies. Despite the party’s dictates, reality does not bend. Disasters multiply with disaster on top of disaster as ineffectual responses are given to reality’s dictates (though in line with party dictates) providing a force-multiplier to the original disaster compounding the problems. Attempts to analyze what went wrong and how to respond better are complete failures as no one can or will tell the truth, and the search for a scapegoat reinforces the inertia-tendency of those further down the party chain. Those at the top of the party-chain fall prey to this because no matter what they do they can’t find a response that works. The higher-ups lash out in frustration and when that only makes the situation worse they become paralyzed. The whole system collapses as the desire for survival kicks in further down the party-chain and works its way up to those at the top.
Throw in a healthy dose of paranoia (which is always present in such a system) ambition of those lower down to replace those at the top and the desire to survive (which may turn from keep-your-head-down to I-better-get-him-before-he-gets-me) and the disintegration is complete. One spark and the party enters its own civil war phase, eats itself, and collapses.
“Social conservatives believe government has a role in promoting the values of these certain Americans over and against those of these other Americans over here.”
I don’t think that’s a fair statement.
SocCons believe we live in a representative democracy, and our values are as legitimate as any others for representation in our government.
And I hate to tell you buddy, but you want your values represented, same as social cons. Quit acting so superior.
Right. But you should temper your lust for a values laden society in light of the fact that social cons peaked many many moons ago in terms of political influence. If you want Values in this little country’s inept and venal and bloated bloated government lee, the one thing you can take to the bank is that they won’t be yours.
The deal is, soc cons aren’t the agitators, they are mostly playing defense.
It isn’t like I want my values injected through the government, because I oppose a new law that lets abortion clinics operate on 12 y.o.’s in secrecy.
wow that’s an extreme example, but for sure I will stand with you in opposition to that.
“…social cons peaked many many moons ago in terms of political influence.”
Might be a little abrupt happy,
Bell-bottoms were laugable at best and never coming back either. Nor bouncy pop music either. Nor “Charlie’s Angels”, “The A Team”, or “Mission Impossible”.
You never know what’s coming back, and what’s relegated to “the dustbins of history”. Living in L.A. might skew you’re point of view of things that aren’t so hip. But, I could be wrong too.
Too late, hf. It’s already law in California. The not-social cons were successful on forcing their values on our kids.
Maybe, I guess. But there’s a multi-decade trendline to look at. But it’s more than that… as the freedoms of our little country’s peoples are under such tremendous assault there are social con people on Team R what are just as eager to assault them. I know this from my Hot Air friends. You’re not like them Bob. But they’re very real. They have links.
***
Lee that was a court decision not a law. I support abortion restrictions mostly. I don’t care at all about the random injustice where some little 12 year old is forced to have some sicko’s baby cause her parents are lifeydoodles. It’s their choice, and there’s a sort of gothic appalachian horror what attends what makes for good short stories, but the point is that those laws protect the availability of abortion, cause the second some 12 year old dies at a clinic and her parents didn’t know where she was, that’s the sort of thing what can really really hurt the availability of abortion services I think.
I have to go cause of today is replete with imperatives.
“Lee that was a court decision not a law. ”
No, it was a ballot initiative that passed last election.
And my point wasn’t really about abortion, but that the not-soc cons are trying to force their values on us. It’s not a matter of soc cons trying to strip your liberties, it’s a matter trying to maintain traditional values.
So, maintain traditional practices and beliefs because they are right where they are right and not simply because they are traditional on the grounds that they are traditional.
And if some traditional practice comes to light as wrong or unjust, then that practice or belief would be discarded as unjust on the grounds that it is unjust, and not maintained as traditional on the grounds that it is traditional.
I did not know that about the initiative.
Maintaining traditional values in the dissipated impoverished third world shit-hole our little country is rapidly becoming doesn’t seem like all that great a prize. Tending to the values of the peasants. Many social cons don’t appreciate I don’t think the extent to which their focus on the family agenda is a luxury what is the product of affluence, but the day is nigh that the spectacle of social cons spending millions of dollars on superbowl ads will not go unremarked.
nigh I tell you
“Many social cons don’t appreciate I don’t think the extent to which their focus on the family agenda is a luxury what is the product of affluence”
What you call a luxury I think is essential (I’m talking about the literal focus on the family, not the organization), and the perversion of which has greatly contributed to the perversion of our liberties.
For example, if the black family hadn’t been destroyed by progressive government meddling, do you suppose we would be looking at a different situation in America today?
But whatever. Peasants.
Have you checked out the white family lately lee? Ain’t no prize.
Strengthen my point you do.
Which is, erosion of traditional family values isn’t unrelated to where we find our foundering country today.
The erosion of the traditional family is a.) unfortunate and b.) irrelevant to the doings what need doing.
c.) not the government’s problem.
Isn’t the reason family is essential precisely that the family is a pre-political entity?
That is, something standing before and outside the formation of government, anywhere and anytime? And as such, perhaps, something that should be and remain outside the reach of government, whether that government’s reach intends to “improve” or merely “nudge” the pre-political thing, like family or speech or religion or self-defense etc.? And as soon as we drag the pre-political into the government and its “well intentioned” nudges, sculptings and engineerings, we risk the ruins of unintended consequences on these pre-political entities?
that is very very well-said I think… I wish I could say things like that.
Feets, don’t you live in California?
yeah that was a flagrant dropping of the ball
I will google
oh. Seems like it’s backwards to how lee said. There was an initiative for notification (as opposed to consent)… and it failed. I voted against all the initiatives I remember.
oops.
it won’t let me make a link for it even with tinyurl but it’s “California Proposition 4 (2008)” what you google
I voted against all the initiatives I remember.
Thank you for your part in destroying families.
“Isn’t the reason family is essential precisely that the family is a pre-political entity?”
I think the reason family is essential is because it is the foundation for the next generation.
The only involvement the government should have is creating the conditions where the family, IE a couple procreating and raising the future citizens, thrives. All political decisions should be bound by that, as they
areshould be by the Constitution.That is, something standing before and outside the formation of government, anywhere and anytime? And as such, perhaps, something that should be and remain outside the reach of government, whether that government’s reach intends to “improve” or merely “nudge” the pre-political thing, like family or speech or religion or self-defense etc.? And as soon as we drag the pre-political into the government and its “well intentioned” nudges, sculptings and engineerings, we risk the ruins of unintended consequences on these pre-political entities?
sdferr, government’s role is to secure the rights of the individual. To that end, citizens grant the government (not the other way around) exclusive use of physical force in exchange for taking disputes to a neutral arbitration – ie police power to the state and citizens go to court to settle things. So the government to one extent or another is already IN an individual’s life. There is always this kind of friction around the “balance”…government wants to grow and individuals need to push back and constrain it where it can. But just because the individual is “pre-political” doesn’t mean no government. Same with family or religion. People participating in those institutions must bring their disputes to the same arbitration so citizens, through government, have to set up at least minimal descriptions and statutes in the law regarding legitimate standings.
So they wrote:
So we might say government is purposed here to act “for” or in consideration of or in the interests of families and all the citizens, be they family makers, merely family members or persons bereft of their natural families by death or other circumstances by: establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing common defense and promoting the general welfare: to act toward them as toward an end or goal, but not to act “upon” them as toward a material to be molded and fashioned.
“But just because the individual is “pre-political” doesn’t mean no government.”
I don’t understand this sentence, at least in the context of the argument I’m attempting here. I haven’t suggested something like “no government”, at least I don’t think I have. So help me out Darleen.
er sdferr,
you wrote And as such, perhaps, something that should be and remain outside the reach of government
I’m sorry. I took “remain outside” to mean “family” or “religion” is to have no standing with the government.
Can you rephrase it, then? What standing do you think do you think “family” should have with the government?
“What standing do you think do you think “family” should have with the government?”
This “So we might say government is purposed here to act “for” or in consideration of or in the interests of families and all the citizens, be they family makers, merely family members or persons bereft of their natural families by death or other circumstances by: establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing common defense and promoting the general welfare: to act toward them as toward an end or goal, but not to act “upon” them as toward a material to be molded and fashioned.” didn’t or doesn’t answer that question?
For instance, sdferr, government privileges “family” when it comes to immigration, military resources (family members get base housing, medical care, etc), tax policy (well, used to. Under ObamaCare and its tax schemes, families are to be penalized while single individuals are to be privileged).
sdferr
with all due apologies, I think we’ve been writing past each other (I don’t refresh before I post so I was lagging behind your posts!)
I don’t want government to discriminate AGAINST individuals re: family status. Thus, I don’t want singles to be penalized for their choice. But I can’t see how government can ignore family either. If it privileges it at all (again, allowing military families to travel with the military member) then it also has to set up minimal definitions and standards on the configuration of what it WILL privilege.
This doesn’t mean any group of people that want to live together and call itself family are to stopped from such a grouping, or to be stopped from making private, but legally enforceable contracts to cover the group, it just means they may be outside the government definition of what is “family” for the purpose of government privilege. An ideal, as it were.
So will government properly privilege family when it reaches into the family in order to improve the family by its lights?
Perhaps privileging oughtn’t to be applied to any, other than insofar as they stand as citizens merely, and not as carved off interest groups to be played one against another? Or at the least, when wise legislators and wise citizens monitoring their other than wise legislators take note of such instances (if these machinations prove to be too enticing and therefore crop up now and again), these would call for repeal of such schemes? It may be, for instance, that unintended harms resulting from such privileging schemes will come to light and these harms themselves be taken as sufficient reason to discontinue these untoward social fashionings?
No government messing about with families, no government messing about with people’s speech, no government messing about with people’s religion, no government messing about with people’s right to self defense. These seem like reasonable propositions to me, at least where we read “messing about” as reaching into the decisions people themselves (individuals) are free to make.
#257 Mikey NTH
Which is pretty much the entire plot of Atlas Shrugged… written 30+ years ahead of the collapse of the USSR. And here we stand, apparently destined to repeat history again…
Comment by sdferr on 4/24 @ 3:49
Good generalities.
Now, do military members get to take their families with them when posted overseas? How do we determine what is/is not a legitimate family for that purpose?
A couple reproduces and then decides to go their own way – there’s a conflict on arrangements for where the child will live. How do you determine the standing of that couple in court? Or the rights of the child?
Give me some practical considerations here, sdferr. If the government refuses to even recognize a family or give it any legal standing, isn’t that “messing around” with it?
It almost seems as though you are in a hurry to get some distance from these “generalities” and get straight to messing about Darleen.
Personally, rather than generalities, I’d tend to think of these propositions as principles or if not worthy of so distinguished a name, then principle-like propositions at least.
But how goes it in the practical world, where adjudication is all and real justice is done; do the adjudicators look to principles as they decide cases or do the principles fall by the wayside as they bend to the idiosyncratic decisions of adjudicators instead, a little exception carved off here, another there? Ought legislators to look to their principles as they create legislation and make that legislation fit those principles as best they can, or ought the legislators seek to accomplish current urgencies pressed on them by their constituents, principles be damned?
There’s no time like the present for ignoring the object of all that Constitutional fuss and bother though, I guess.
Reality is a hard thing to run into, no matter how much the party dictates that 2 + 2 = 5.
Wishing doesn’t make it so. And that is the reef that the Party’s ship always founders on.