Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

A Tuesday evening musing that, taken out of context, could conceivably be viewed as a death threat. Or at least a threat of violence. Or perhaps something that, should it be allowed to continue on until it potentially becomes an actual threat of violence would then be, you know, a threat of violence of the actual kind. Or possibly even a death threat.

Never mind. I just wanted to write that headline. Making this whole “post” something of an empty gesture.

— Which, if you don’t like the way I run things here, you know where I am. Why not just drop on by and file a complaint?

Anytime, anywhere, bitches.

196 Replies to “A Tuesday evening musing that, taken out of context, could conceivably be viewed as a death threat. Or at least a threat of violence. Or perhaps something that, should it be allowed to continue on until it potentially becomes an actual threat of violence would then be, you know, a threat of violence of the actual kind. Or possibly even a death threat.”

  1. router says:

    when card check gets passed your server will be unionized

  2. N. O'Brain says:

    Where’s my fucking PIE?????!?!!??!!

  3. happyfeet says:

    I had a law professor once tell me that threatening a lawsuit could be a tort. So you were sort of screwed either way.

  4. N. O'Brain says:

    [is that complainy enough?]

  5. N. O'Brain says:

    Where’s my tart???!?!!!??

  6. N. O'Brain says:

    TORT?

    Nevermind.

  7. router says:

    i saw rahm deadfish with his finger in his nose at the teleprompter press thing on fox. the finger in the nose what does it mean?

  8. Sdferr says:

    A pal once had a torte that threatened him with a lawsuit, but he quick gave up doing the acid and ate his way out of trouble.

  9. geoffb says:

    That he hasn’t had lunch.

  10. lee says:

    on a related note, Obama says he will look for future powers to intervene in a company that could fail before it fails, to make sure there’s no bad failures like we are dealing with now (I paraphrase).

    I think he may read Patterico.

  11. or probably, “your mother wears combat boots” would have been better. whatevs. I’m distracted.

  12. Adriane says:

    So, like, uh, when Jim Morrison says, “No body gets out of here alive …” I should wack the record player before the song ends ???

    FOR TEH SAFETY!!11!1!

  13. phreshone says:

    Well, the post still had more depth than Barry’s speech

  14. Joe says:

    Patterico said it might not be a death threat. Nuance.

    Now I got a lecture from Pat Place fans who asked me, politely, to STFU and let the cat fight die. So I did. And then Patterico posted this rebuttal.

    Joe’s comment is a good example of the way some people practice a theory called “intentionalism.” In theory it is coherent, with two important principles:

    1) the author means what he means at the time of speaking, and the only interpretations that are true to the text are those that strive to ascertain the author’s true intent

    2) the author is not necessarily the most reliable interpreter of his own intent: he could be unavailable, lying, or just mistaken about his own intent.

    An intellectually honest person keeps both principles in mind at all times.

    But on the Internet, the theory is sometimes misused to give a fancy intellectual coating to what is ultimately a doctrine of “The Text Means Whatever I Say It Means.”

    Here’s how this dishonest form of “intentionalism” works:

    First, you decide if you like the speaker and his message. This drives everything else.

    Now, if there is a contest between the speaker and a listener about the proper interpretation of the speaker’s true intent, you can resolve the dispute either way you like, and claim you are applying “intentionalism.” All you have to do is choose which of the above two principles to apply to the virtual exclusion of the other. Intentionalism nose on, intentionalism nose off.

    Approach #1: listener likes speaker’s message — If you like the speaker and his message — say, because you are very conservative and so is he — then you haughtily invoke Principle #1 above, and rail about the primacy of the author’s intent. If someone claims the author meant something other than the author claims he meant, you label that listener a lying liar who is out to twist the speaker’s words. Principle #2 — the concept that, in interpretation, the speaker could be lying — is to be forgotten . . . lost amongst the swirling eddies of self-righteous rhetoric about “fascism” and “reframing” and “recontextualizing” words and “ceding language” and “turning language into a weapon.” Speakers assume the role of victim; you can often picture the cross on their backs.

    Similar to Treacher’s “clown nose on, clown nose off” complaint about Jon Stewart, I call this approach “intentionalism nose on.” (Let me be clear: when I say “intentionalism” in this context, I don’t mean the intellectually consistent theory that actually exists in the abstract, but rather the fraudulent version perpetrated by people like Joe and others like him on the Internet.)

    Approach #2: listener dislikes speaker’s message — in this instance, Principle #2 comes to the forefront. It is acknowledged for consistency’s sake that, yes, the author’s intent is admittedly what it is — but that fact is severely downplayed. We no longer hear about “reframing” or “fascism.” Instead, the question becomes a matter of the “best interpretation” — and we are reminded that authors lie! We always maintained that and we have been consistent!

    I call this “intentionalism nose off.”

    So: you like what the speaker is saying? Intentionalism nose on. What the author says he means becomes paramount.

    Don’t like it? Intentionalism nose off. It’s really a matter of interpretation, and the author could be lying.

    It’s a rigged game, in which various principles in a theoretically coherent philosophy are ripped from their own context (note the irony) to assume paramount importance, to the detriment of the other aspects of the theory. Slather on some chest-beating rhetoric and nobody will notice — at least if they’re not that bright.

    Review Joe’s comment and you’ll see how he did this. Joe purports to interpret two speakers: myself, and a speaker he likes.

    As to the speaker he likes, Joe accepts that speaker’s interpretation of his words. No threat was intended, the speaker says, and Joe accepts that. Intentionalism nose on.

    As to the speaker he doesn’t like (me), Joe rejects that speaker’s interpretation of his words. “I truly believed it was a threat at the time I instituted the ban,” the speaker says. Not liking the speaker, Joe rejects that. The speaker must be lying. Intentionalism nose off.

    (You can call it “clown nose” if you prefer. You can assign any meaning to the word, after all. You’re the speaker.)

    daleyrocks and SEK have shown how this works in other contexts.

    The theory is thus misused to make the text mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. If I like what you’re saying, I accept your interpretation over a dissenter’s. If I dislike what you’re saying, I’ll tell you what you really mean.

    In a way, there’s nothing wrong with this. We all have to make judgments in life. It’s just that the fact that we judgments (applying Principle #1) undercuts the Bold Rhetoric so often used with Principle #2.

    The misuse of this theory is very interesting to me. I’ll probably do a post about it some day. But currently, it’s interesting only to a very, very small minority of my readers. And right now I have a loyalty to my readers, who are tired of reading about what is after all a very abstract literary theory that has no real relevance to these dire political times in which we live — save the faux relevance that the bastardized forms of the theory are claimed to have by its more dishonest practitioners.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/24/2009 @ 5:31 pm

  15. geoffb says:

    “something of an empty gesture.”

    The very definition of a “virtual internet threat”. Under these rules most everyone on Usenet should have been executed, murderers all.

  16. alppuccino says:

    Obama called that white guy Major Garrett “Garrett”. Very condescending. Very racist. In some cultures, calling someone by their last name can be construed as a death threat.

  17. Phil says:

    Chris Matthews was just getting another tingle up the leg on MSDNC. Apparently, his awesomeness has not reached its apex in Christopher’s eyes.

  18. geoffb says:

    Up is down. Light is dark. Truth is fiction. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.

    Nice racket they got going over there.

  19. guinsPen says:

    headline

    Gallows humor it is, then.

  20. SmokeVanThorn says:

    I bet Patterico always wins when he shadowboxes.

  21. geoffb says:

    Forgot one. Stupidity is intelligent.

  22. cjd says:

    “…daleyrocks and SEK have shown how this works in other contexts.”

    Nice to see Pat is taking a cue from SEK. At this rate, Timb and actus/alphie/parsnip will be next.

    I need a drink.

  23. Joe says:

    And I stopped following PP and PW for a time just because of the cat fight, so, Joe, I ask you very politely to STFU about cat-fights.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/24/2009 @ 1:53 pm

    Well since you asked politely John Hitchcock, fair enough. And Dmac, your point above about Carter really was well said. And Brother Bradley, that is a powerful vision of hell you have going there.

    Comment by Joe — 3/24/2009 @ 1:56 pm

    Honest to God, if one more person starts in with the Patterico-JG kerfuffle, I am taking this site off my favorites list and replacing it with Vanity Fair!

    Enough already. If you have to continue it, do it via email and spare us all.

    Dmac, thanks for mentioning Jack Germond’s Fat Man in the Middle Seat. Worth checking in to.

    Comment by Dana — 3/24/2009 @ 2:20 pm

    Look at the time on Patterico’s post above! Dana, you might need a new home.

    Reminds me of this. Or maybe this.

  24. dicentra says:

    “Up is down, black is white, Cliff Clavin is Sam Malone.”

    I just thought of that yesterday.

    I would like to complain because we’re out of chocolate creme pie and pecan pie and fresh whipping cream.

    Or could that last item be construed as a death threat?

    The misuse of this theory is very interesting to me. I’ll probably do a post about it some day.

    You know, one common characteristic of the Theater of the Absurd is that it circles back around to the beginning and starts again. The characters are often unaware that they’re caught in a cyclical trope.

  25. geoffb says:

    Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, PIE!

  26. geoffb says:

    If we are circling, that’s what to center on.

  27. guinsPen says:

    headline… “post”… gesture… drop…

    The plot thickens.

  28. cranky-d says:

    Pat doesn’t get it, and he’s fine with that because he has decided he is right and is not interested in anyone proving him wrong. There is little point in demonstrating that fact further, IMO, by showing us what he’s writing now.

  29. guinsPen says:

    Four words, people.

    Thing about it.

  30. router says:

    this being lent i like seeing all the friday fish fries posted locally.
    and you aetheists/crazyleftists go to hell.

  31. Sdferr says:

    Thing is Joe, when you tell Pat that he damn well knows he’s not telling a straight story about what he believed back when the thing started with his assertion over a death threat, you had better quick follow up with at least something resembling persuasive evidence that he will concede to that you’ve got a point. Otherwise, you’re just asserting something about his state of mind that you have manifestly little ground to hold, and he’s got you.

    Strategically, it would be better to let his assertions as to his contemporaneous belief stand as given, then begin a process of exploration as to why he so held, what was he reading that took him there, etc. In other words, Pat may have had a reasonable point on the terms of your discussion with him, no?

  32. Joe says:

    Sdffer, go read the whole thread over there, especially the part when I agreed to leave it alone and not bring it up again. I honored that. Then Patterico brought it up again.

  33. Jeff G. says:

    That’s an awful lot of words to say “JEFF IS OUT TO DESTROY MY HONOR!”

    Wonder what Pat makes of all those times I agreed with him?

    Oh, I know. Those must have been before I was out to DESTROY HIS HONOR!

    Here’s how this dishonest form of “intentionalism” works:

    First, you decide if you like the speaker and his message. This drives everything else.

    And of course, you “first decide” whether or not you like his message how, exactly?

  34. lee says:

    you had better quick follow up with at least something resembling persuasive evidence that he will concede to that you’ve got a point

    Is it evidence to suggest only a fucking moron could believe Jeff was making a threat (by bringing a tree to his own hanging), and no one has ever said Patterico is a moron?

    Those seem to be the only choices I see, he’s either dishonest, or a moron.

  35. Joe says:

    And his toady daleyrocks jumped right into it too. Where did he come from? What is daleyrocks, a leach on Patterico’s ass?

  36. Sdferr says:

    I did read it at least what I took to be the relevant parts, particularly with a view to your exchanges with the general commentariat and Pat prior to the parts you’ve reproduced here. (Which is why I could gist the “you know damn well” bit.)

  37. Jeff G. says:

    Also, the reason Joe accepts the no threat was intended is because the evidence marshaled in defense of that reading surpasses any attempt to say that a threat was in fact intended.

    Patterico is doing a bit of clown nose down dishonest intentionalism, I guess.

    Or he’s just lying.

  38. pdbuttons says:

    good news mr ahhhh president
    your shimmy shimmy is working fine
    but your shake is broken

  39. Jeff G. says:

    His being a dishonorable person and all. In my opinion.

  40. Tman says:

    Here’s my cliff notes so far, am I close?

    Jeff:“So maybe the problem with the conservative message is that liberals are manipulating the language and we are letting them……so, who wants to get some pints?”

    Patterico“That is ASSAULT. THAT IS ASSAULT AND WE ARE GOING TO SUE.”

    The End.

    Is that about right?

  41. Jeff G. says:

    And I very much doubt daleyrocks has shown how anything works. As for SEK, well, has he answered my questions yet?

    From my reading of the comments over at edge of the west, it’s clear he had no trouble misrepresenting me.

    Seems to be a condition of joining that guild.

  42. lee says:

    Tman, did you mean pints of POISON!!!

    MURDERER!!!!

  43. serr8d says:

    Seems someone over there is desperately trying to play catch up.

    Reminds me a bit of this old toy, the one with the lead paint. Nose on, nose off..

    I can smell a pshop in there somewhere. But, I just bought the new Bond movie, so in the player it goes.

  44. Jeff G. says:

    The theory is thus misused to make the text mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. If I like what you’re saying, I accept your interpretation over a dissenter’s. If I dislike what you’re saying, I’ll tell you what you really mean.

    Not hardly. I mean, you can try that, but if someone presents better evidence to the contrary, it’s not likely that the original lie will stand up to pressuring.

    And of course, it can’t mean “whatever the listener wants it to mean.” In this instance, for example, I cannot claim that, regardless of what he meant, Patrick’s explanation of his ban and of my approaching thought crime is really the recipe for a Christmas pie.

    By sticking to an argument about intent, I am forced to look at context, at tone, at intertext, at ways Pat has reacted in the past, at how others in the threads reacted, at biography (the emails exchanged between he and nk), at which statements of mine he privileged and which he ignored in developing his narrative, how the narrative has changed over time, and so on.

    Whether I happen to like Patrick or not, I’m still appealing to his intent, and I’m still making my case based on what the evidence suggests his intent to be.

  45. Pablo says:

    Here’s how this dishonest form of “intentionalism” works:

    First, you decide if you like the speaker and his message. This drives everything else.

    If no, then call the speaker a racist. Or a homophobe. Or call them dangerous, maybe violent and unstable and accuse them of issuing death threats.

    Dishonest intentionalism? There’s no such thing. That is to intentionalism like boosting a Brinks truck is to banking.

  46. Joe says:

    I assume in the heat of argument the other night Patterico…got the vapors…about Jeff’s reaction to nk’s chickshit comments. But he is embarassed about his overreaction so he is stuck defending an undefensible position that his interpretation of Jeff’s intent was reasonable. He admits people have told him he is wrong, but he stuck saying Jeff might have meant real physical harm to nk. Pat is looking more and more like those mendoucheous jerkoffs on the left. And he knows it. That is why he is so freaked out about this.

    Just be a man, say you over reacted, and let it go. Fuck don’t even apologize if you are so freaked out about it, just let it go. Because this is one you cannot win Pat. Because you are wrong.

  47. Jeff G. says:

    You really should comment over there, Pablo.

    I’d do it, but I’m not allowed. For fear that my dishonest intentionalism is out to DESTROY PATRICK FREY’S HONOR!

    It can’t be that I actually interpreted his arguments the way I have. I mean, this is Patrick Frey! Who disagrees with Patrick Frey?

    There has to be a motive. Greed. Envy. Hatred of the letter P…

  48. guinsPen says:

    Nancy Pelosi.

    There, I said it.

  49. guinsPen says:

    No wait, Barney Frank.

  50. Jeff G. says:

    I can’t comment over there, he had SEK write a nice little fancy defense filled with the proper academic jargon (and careful to avoid letting certain facts enter in), and he still can’t win.

    Because everyone knows it’s bullshit.

    Maybe I should demand a public retraction. Loudly. Every day. Each time pointing out how he went out of his way to see a threat of violence.

    Sorry, but there is simply no way you can bend my bringing a tree to my own supposed hanging into a threat against the person who was claiming to be my hangman.

    None.

    Which is why it is clear to most everyone left who matters that Patrick Frey has no honor. In my opinion.

  51. guinsPen says:

    Dick Durbin, before he dicks you.

  52. Sdferr says:

    My minor grouse for Joe wasn’t to disagree with his conclusions, lord knows. I think Patterico’s initially claimed reading was on its face retarded, and likely done as part of some base game playing business. What I objected to was this

    I admit that sometimes I stir up trouble, but not all I do and it is really not what I am doing now. In this matter you knew damn well that Jeff Goldstein did not intend to make a death threat (and in fact did not do so), but you banned him for it because you saw an opportunity to make some hay about nk’s hurt feelings.

    So Joe has fairly worked through the problem before him and weighing all the evidence he sees, reached this conclusion. That’s fair enough. [He could even be right, for all I know.] But he’s speaking directly to Pat, who will say of course, “You calling me a liar? Prove it!” And Joe can anticipate just that response. It just seemed to me that Pat’s position is initially so absurd, that it would be easier to accept it as given and then, through question and answer demonstrate its absurdity with Pat’s assent. Instead, we get Pat grasping at “liar” straws as a means, he thinks [though I don’t], to undermine the arguments put forward here. His is an obfuscatory practice for sure, but I’m just thinking, cut him off at the pass. Outlaw!

  53. router says:

    while fishing this might be of interest”

    The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics

  54. Jeff G. says:

    I haven’t read Pat’s explanation of how it could possibly be that he interpreted me as making threats, but how he could not see the problem with nk’s posts.

    Must be more of that ‘first decide who you like’ “intentionalism” of his.

  55. psycho... says:

    it’s not likely that the original lie will stand up to pressuring

    It will, with whoever it was for.

    Like when a lawyer abandons questioning and starts to testify in place of a witness — confessing on his behalf, in a mockery of his voice, with a fake question mark on the end, say — and the judge instructs the jury to disregard that shit.

    They don’t.

  56. Sdferr says:

    Unlearning is tricky business.

  57. Pablo says:

    You really should comment over there, Pablo.

    I dunno, Jeff. I might could be misinterpreted. Or find out that I’m GAY!

    Hatred of the letter P…

    STOP THREATENING ME!!!

    /clown nose off

  58. guinsPen says:

    Am I to understand Carbuncle Joe is our Ambassador to Patterico?

  59. McGehee says:

    the author … could … just mistaken about his own intent.

    If I tell Patterico to fuck himself with the business end of a running chainsaw, I don’t think anybody’s going to be mistaken about my intent.

  60. happyfeet says:

    This guy is hopeless.. Hopeless. No more me going over there without a very good reason. He’s not just stupid he’s smarmy I think.

  61. Joe says:

    Sdferr. Fair enough. You make a good point. But then his pals said to lay off and I said I would.

    The point is people engage in hyperbole in arguments. Sometimes people just say stupid shit. But the whole “death threat” was a escallation on Patterico’s part that really was not warranted. And I think the next day, when he had those private discussions, he realized it.

    I went to a St. Patrick’s party many years ago where I got into drinking shots of Jameson and Bushmills. I had many shots. I woke up the next day with a spliting headache. Later that day a guy I worked with, about 35 years my senior, threatened to kick the shit out me. Apparently just before I passed out, I said to his 60 year old wife that she was a “good looking slut.” Not my finest moment. I was horrified when I found out. My friends dragged me home, put me down face first on the bed so I did not choke on my own vomit. But I had zero memory of it and probably had a BAC at the time of 3.0.

    I apologized profusely to her and her husband. I could not take it back, it was too late for that. It was pure id induced by lots of Irish whiskey.

    Patterico is so focused on that whole death threat issue and his own precious vanity that he cannot see the real issue Jeff is arguing.

  62. happyfeet says:

    hopeless hopeless hopeless. Make him stop being so stupid somebody.

  63. router says:

    this is good too:

    The Bear that Wasn’t

  64. Pablo says:

    It will, with whoever it was for.

    Sadly, yes. And for those who see it for the absurdity it is, but who prefer that “dishonest intentionalism” the absurdity itself doesn’t matter, as Jeff had it coming. Very disappointing, that.

  65. Jeff G. says:

    It will, with whoever it was for.

    I disagree, psycho. They may pretend, but they know.

    And inside, a little piece of them dies for being asked to play along.

  66. router says:

    so shoot me for highlighting chuck jones. it is on tcm

  67. Joe says:

    I love you too guinsPen. The ironic part is I wanted to walk away from this one.

  68. Sdferr says:

    The point is people engage in hyperbole in arguments. Sometimes people just say stupid shit.

    This is true and easily dealt with in a friendly situation. But not and never in a hostile one. In a limited sense, Jeff’s thesis recommends always maintaining a friendly situation with your author under interpretation, at least to the extent that he has your respect, you assume his life, his words had/have his meaning, and so on.

  69. Jeff G. says:

    happy —

    I read a similar article in The Weekly Standard a few years back, about how student loans were kind of like creating indentured servitude.

    So Allah is not arguing for something crazy or even far removed from the mainstream of conservatism.

  70. guinsPen says:

    The ironic part is I wanted to walk away from this one.

    Indeed. And the stupid part is that you didn’t.

  71. Pablo says:

    They may pretend, but they know.

    And inside, a little piece of them dies for being asked to play along.

    Not if they feel honorable. Letting your feelings trump facts means never having to say you’re sorry.

  72. guinsPen says:

    Insert untactical for stupid, please.

  73. Sdferr says:

    Honor may not be the best of motives anyhow.

  74. Jeff G. says:

    Not if they feel honorable. Letting your feelings trump facts means never having to say you’re sorry.

    They know they’re on the side of stupid. They must.

    They do.

  75. Pablo says:

    They should. I would hope they do. But there’s a lot of people running around out there who deeply embrace stupid and are convinced that they’re righteous because of it. This is a very common problem, though not one I was expecting to see manifest itself there.

  76. router says:

    So Allah is not arguing for something crazy or even far removed from the mainstream of conservatism.

  77. […] for you as part of the Organization of Amalgamated Outlaws.  I suggest you co-operate.  Capiche? Posted by Dan Collins @ 2:47 am | Trackback Share […]

  78. router says:

    @77

    In my case, forgiving federal loans would save me north of $8,000 a year;

    yes let us give the money you earned to the idiot who borrowed money for an education it did not need. is education a right now like health care?

  79. happyfeet says:

    It’s wrong.

    It’s un-American. People have to pay back when they borrow stuff.

    It creates moral hazard. If people borrow for an education that doesn’t get them to where they can pay what they borrowed, they are losers what made Bad Choices. It’s a lot important that we let people make these choices.

    It’s fucking nauseatingly elitist.

    It’s just handing people money. You could do that any which way. Of course, these are the right people.

    It’s stupid. This is some of the lowest interest debt in the world. The whole world.

    It’s gay. The next iteration will be paying the debts of even more better people. Climate “scientists” and community organizers and sociologists and also something to do with wymyns.

    No no no no no.

  80. happyfeet says:

    Can I have a witness what will testify?

  81. happyfeet says:

    The people with the biggest debt are exactly the ones what statistically should be most able to repay it. I can prove that using numbers.

  82. lee says:

    In my case, forgiving federal loans would save me north of $8,000 a year; toss private loans in there and it’s a cool ten grand. I’d sock some of that away, but with tens of thousands dollars suddenly freed up, I’d also start looking at home prices in the area.

    Yeah Allah, having not taken a student loan myself, if I have to pay for yours, how about you just buy me the house?

  83. happyfeet says:

    The next iteration will be paying the debts of even more better people.

    To be clear, what I mean is next time around it will be targeted in a way you don’t like. That’s dead certain.

  84. happyfeet says:

    Freedom is at stake here. I kid you not.

  85. Jeff G. says:

    I couldn’t find the Weekly Standard article, but the argument suggested that college is a prerequisite for many jobs these days, certainly the kind that tend to bring in more money, so it was almost essential to go. And yet doing so, given the outrageous cost of tuition, etc, these days, puts graduates in great debt, essentially making them indentured servants to their government loans.

    The idea was that it was a scam, and that a change to the system would provide a boost to the economy.

    If you can find the piece I’d happily link it.

    I’m not making an argument one way or the other. I’m just pointing out that this appeared in the Weekly Standard, not Mother Jones.

  86. Joe says:

    Joe – Why haven’t you told them over at Protein Wisdom that you’ve called Patterico a pussy and dared him to ban you? I see that you’ve helpfully, as is you wont, told them basically everything else on this thread as a dutiful blog bitch crapweasel.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/24/2009 @ 7:29 pm

    Okay. Since daleycocks asks, he gets.

    Spare me your wounded pride, Joe. Your reason for being is to start fights.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/24/2009 @ 7:45 pm

    I am not the one with the wounded pride.

  87. lee says:

    Fairs fair, right?

  88. cynn says:

    You guys and your cartoons. Yes, letting feelings trump facts is dumb; letting intuition trump facts is a crap shoot. Intuition is a long-term investment strategy, oddly enough.

  89. happyfeet says:

    Nothing wrong with changing the system going forward I don’t think. Lots to talk about there.

  90. I couldn’t find the Weekly Standard article, but the argument suggested that college is a prerequisite for many jobs these days, certainly the kind that tend to bring in more money, so it was almost essential to go.

    don’t get me started on this. I’ve seen too much hiring stupidity.

  91. Jeff G. says:

    It creates moral hazard. If people borrow for an education that doesn’t get them to where they can pay what they borrowed, they are losers what made Bad Choices.

    Well, that’ll be me in about a week and a half. A loser what made poor choices.

    In my case, getting out of academia and staying home with my son, hoping to make enough doing this.

    I should have been a prosecutor.

  92. Stephen M says:

    It’s not surprising. Talking about the guy who publicly, repeatedly begged a woman not his mommy to buy him a phone.

  93. Joe says:

    guinsPen, you may be right, on the untactical part. Although Patterico’s lengthy post at 5:31 p.m. was revealing.

  94. Dash Rendar says:

    My student loans set me back, per month, roughly the same as a saturday night’s worth of overpriced jack n’gingers with even a couple for that chick down the bar who I really didn’t think was a tranny. Swear.

  95. happyfeet says:

    full disclosure would be I lived a subhuman lifestyle to pay those things off over a decade early. I never used those degree thingies. After you study study study something how can you not be over it and ready for something new is what I don’t get. I learned a lot more from that experience than I did in class I think.

  96. happyfeet says:

    Also, if you are not a loser what has made Bad Choices I don’t think I want to know you.

  97. Dash Rendar says:

    Well in the spirit of disclosure my loans were like way small and now constitute something like 1.3% of my monthly gross. But my college had one of those really big endowments could be uber generous with the financial aid, so voila, another argument for 0% cap gains tax.

  98. Sdferr says:

    I’ve kind of been wanting to ask the naive question, why do we human beings seem to love our emotions so? Or is the question merely something to dismiss as a built-in, slightly better than 50-50 proposition, that in following whatever emotion we find ourselves beset by, our differential survival rates (and consequently those of our potential offspring, all unbeknownst to us of course) have turned out to militate just that thing, the embrace of them, willy-nilly, come what may?

  99. cranky-d says:

    I think you can argue that the easy availability of student loans has driven the price of tuition up faster than it should. That is something we could talk about. We could also talk about how K-12 education has been so dumbed down that you need a college degree to know things that a high-school student used to know. Futhermore, I predict that pretty soon a Master’s degree will be needed for work that a bachelor’s degree would have sufficed for in the past, because college is getting dumbed down to match the level of the graduates from high school.

    As far as student loan forgiveness, it’s not a good idea. And I say that as someone who has a huge student loan debt. I’m the one who agreed to it, and I need to be the one to pay it. Of course, Obama’s massive inflation plan might help me out while it screws everyone else, but that’s another issue.

  100. Jeff G. says:

    Going to hit the bag now. I might have to turn pro here soon.

    And no, Patrick Frey, I am not making threats against my wife nor am I thinking about becoming a gigolo.

  101. Joe says:

    For Pat: “Temper gets you into trouble. Pride keeps you there.”

  102. cranky-d says:

    Hit the bag? Sexist. I’ll bet you do it wearing a wife-beater t-shirt.

  103. Dash Rendar says:

    @101

    I compared Ron Paul to Williams Jenning Bryan the other day, friend asks who’s Ron Paul? Yea to even get anywhere near so-called second order conversations, or discussions of concepts, you have to assume other parties have the same base of knowledge, lest you come across as a know it all, or fawn over your pseudo-genius for knowing basic things that somehow fell outside the margins of hs curriculum.

  104. cranky-d says:

    BTW, taking out all those student loans? Not the best move I ever made. I thought I would be able to get a high-paying job to match my high-falutin’ degree. Turns out I mostly priced myself right out of the market.

  105. ThomasD says:

    AP is wrong, but at least he’s being fairly honest in his desire for something for nothing.

    Rather than loan forgiveness perhaps we could just change the laws so that student loans get treated like any other form of unsecured debt.

    Then AP could default and go for bankruptcy should he so choose to go that route.

    As it is he wants to loose the bonds but keep the gold within his chains.

  106. happyfeet says:

    Emotions aren’t equal. Fear is the mostest efficient one I think. Some of them are harmless. Ennui is a fave.

  107. router says:

    College student-loan debt has revived the spirit of indenture for a sizable proportion of contemporary Americans. It is not a minor threshold that young people entering adult society and work, or those returning to college seeking enhanced credentials, might pass through easily. Because of its unprecedented and escalating amounts, it is a major constraint that looms over the lives of those so contracted, binding individuals for a significant part of their future work lives.

    ?

    from a leftists statists so don’t go thinking it is plausible

  108. cranky-d says:

    I can’t see how anyone can talk about indentured servitude when they also want to raise taxes even more, and if that isn’t servitude I don’t know what is.

  109. SarahW says:

    Fear is one of the fastest, anyway.

  110. router says:

    funny how the teachers union is involved. or the educrats. they steal money and give you shit.

  111. Dash Rendar says:

    @ 106

    It’s kinda hard to feel bad for the peoples who end up 40 k in debt after a blistering four years studying the womyns, what end up making the median post-grad salary, but there’s gotta be a clever tax-centric solution, i.e placement into a lower tax bracket for x years post-grad, or suspension of payroll tax etc. If only we had clever leaders..

  112. Darleen says:

    Comment by Sdferr on 3/24 @ 9:12 pm #

    I’ve kind of been wanting to ask the naive question, why do we human beings seem to love our emotions so?

    I think the better question is when did we all start assuming emotions are illogical and influence behavior, rather than behavior influences emotions?

    Thank the idiot 60’s for the ascension the idea that we should just “feel” our way through life. Bored with your spouse, be “true to your feelings”, dump ’em screw your kids and find a new honey.

    What a parent teaches a kid early on is that “acting” a particular way soon means you start feeling that way. If one acts happy, you start feeling happy and you make people around you happy.

    Our society reaps right now the infantilization of humans that the 60’s represented — the blurring of the line between child and adult, then the elevation of children as more wise than adults. (never trust anyone over 30)

  113. Joe says:

    An ignored troll still makes noise… cluttering the noise-to-signal ratio (that’s their intent). A banned troll* makes no noise.

    Joe is only interested in keeping this going.

    *Disclaimer: Not saying that JeffG was a troll. Getting banned for making physical threats and becoming increasingly creepy is different than trolling.

    Comment by Stashiu3 — 3/24/2009 @ 8:25 pm

    FYI.

  114. Darleen says:

    oh crap I forgot to close an italics tag

  115. ThomasD says:

    About the author,

    Jeffrey J. Williams… … A full professor, he will finally pay off his graduate student loans next year.

    A full professor will finally pay off his graduate student loans. The same ones he no doubt used to gain the credentials necessary to achieve full professor status.

    Cry me a river over the performance of that investment. We should all do so ‘poorly.’

  116. router says:

    i like how the teachers union devalued the high school diploma like elephant ears is devauling our currency

  117. Sdferr says:

    What I wonder at is the fact we can examine them, study them, classify them, mull them, compare them and so on etc., but that in the main, as a species, we don’t, let alone reach actionable conclusions from our researches, eschewing a tolerance in ourselves for the occasional outburst, say, rather than what I see, again, in the main as an unexamined embrace. Or something like that.

  118. Joe says:

    I am impressed by people who attend community college for two years (low tuition, stay at home, no loans, get straight As) then transfer to a decent state school (tuition higher but in state still affordable, still get good grades) and then save their bucks for a decent graduate school to specialize in a profession. Debt levels are managable. And they have a career that pays the bills.

    Most education is sadly not about education, but getting a union card to certain professions. Even at elite schools, it is less about education than networking. Know what your goal is before you go to school.

    Unfortunately many just go to school to get laid and drink beer. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but not if you are incurring six figure debt doing it.

  119. router says:

    too bad for the O! events are out of control

  120. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    I’ve kind of been wanting to ask the naive question, why do we human beings seem to love our emotions so?

    The limbic system trumps the neocortex when the chips are down (or when you can be manipulated into believing that they are).

  121. I think the better question is when did we all start assuming emotions are illogical and influence behavior, rather than behavior influences emotions?

    well see, there’s all these chemicals they found in people’s brains. (really oversimplifying, but it’s something I’ve been dealing with lately. I think really it’s a toss up, control wise.)

  122. happyfeet says:

    Take that guy over there. He works like a dog at a job he hates to pay his student loan. The job he hates though a lot adds value and is Important Work. Allah the dirty socialist pays his student loan. What happens is our protagonist then follows his heart and goes to work for a nonprofit what has something to do with rehabilitating hamsters. Bad call, Ripley. Everyone loses.

  123. Darleen says:

    Comment by Dash Rendar on 3/24 @ 9:18 pm

    Dash, just a bit of trivia:

    James Bartley Click , Sr was born on 10 December 1793 at Scott County, Virginia. He was the son of John Click Sr and Susan Drake. James Bartley Click , Sr married Jane Salmons, daughter of Rowland Salmons and Frankie Carter, on 12 May 1822 at Floyd County, Kentucky. […]

    He appeared on the census of 8 June 1880 at Floyd County, Kentucky, listed as James Sr. age 85, farmer, head of house. He picture appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper along with a letter from William Jennings Bryan to James Click thanking him for riding his mule 6 miles to vote for him in the presidential election. The article listed James a being 106 years old.

    My several times great-grandpa

    I come by my orneriness honestly.

  124. Sdferr says:

    I wouldn’t want to be taken to suggest that we would have control over our every sufferance or display of emotional seizure but that often enough we may have and frequently, enough control to make a difference in outcomes, a control we might either already possess or be capable of developing, that is, if we have chosen to do.

  125. Darleen says:

    maggie

    Maybe I’m not being clear. I don’t discount emotions and I would say yes they are “organic” or primitive. As infants and children our emotions both give us clues and others around us information … we cry when we are sad and laugh when we are happy, etc. But as we get old, we are supposed to learn to recognize, control, focus, redirect or suppress our base emotions.

    Indulging youngsters in their unfiltered emotions is a betrayl to them. It stunts them as human beings.

  126. lee says:

    Darleen, I think you have it about right, except I would say emotions follow your thoughts, more than your behavior. That’s why you can sit in a nice, safe movie theater, and get the crap scared out of you by the thriller you are watching. Or, if you sit around all day thinking depressing thoughts, you will be depressed.

    And yes, maturity has much to do with understanding and handling emotion. Way too many people in this society never grow up, simply because the haven’t had to, and they don’t want to.

  127. no, you’re being clear, I’m just an outlier. ;D

  128. speaking of which, I have to conk out now. I WILL get eight hours o’ sleep. which annoys me.

  129. Sdferr says:

    From over at maggie’s farm this on depression, from Dr. Joy Bliss, who “wonder(s) why it took so long to notice such a simple thing.”

  130. Jeff G. says:

    Getting banned for making physical threats and becoming increasingly creepy is different than trolling.

    Hey, look! It’s becoming an accepted truth!

    Just like leftists do!

  131. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    [Ftr, anyone now tells me I’m making “death threat gestures”, well, I’m just going to double down. After all, they’re just like Holy Water is to a Vampire. Take it to the, er, bank.]

  132. Dash Rendar says:

    Heh, that old Mr. Click has got a Sitting Bull look about him.

    Oh, on the topic of interesting lineages my great-grandfather fought for the tsar’s army in WWI, was captured by the Habsburgs and ended up a hamlet on the outskirts of Prague, where he met my great-grandmother. Then they came to Cleveland. Go figure.

  133. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    From where the margin now encroaches, I can post no more no longer.

  134. Darleen says:

    Dash

    I get a kick out of family stories, especially ones where families travel long distances. It took a lot of guts to stick it out on a ship for months to get here with little more than the clothes on your back.

    Americans used to be proud and honor those hard-scrapple roots. The fruit of the tree has gotten a little mushy and wormy.

  135. Joe says:

    Jeff: Did you get Patterico and his gang to stage this as some sort of performance art of your theory of twisting language as a weapon? They put the KosKids to shame when they get on a roll.

  136. Dash Rendar says:

    @136

    Agreed. I’ve got a bunch, some maybe apocryphal, but the sands of time and memory, etc. When my grandfather (other side) was 11 he got a medal from Mussolini for saving a drowning woman.

  137. Slartibartfast says:

    Are you threatening me, Godlstein? Because I’m feeling threatened, just now.

    No, not really. Just posing. I mean, it seems to be the thing, of late.

  138. dicentra says:

    Me, I was able to pay off my student loans and I even rolled in my auto loan to get the lower interest rate. Or vice-versa.

    The whole reason that tuition prices are so high is that a third-party pays: either you get the loan or daddy does it. Same with healthcare: the third-party pays, so prices go up and up and up.

    It interrupts the customary give-and-take between buyer and seller: with the buyer setting the high end of the price range and the seller setting the low end.

    If there were no more student loans, maybe college tuition would drop back down to more reasonable levels.

    Shewt, when I enrolled at BYU in 1982, tuition was less than $400 per year. My MA was about $1000 8 years later. (At the other school I got a fellowship/teaching gig.)

  139. dicentra says:

    A distant relative of mine (fourth cousin thrice removed or something) is the daughter of Eng Bunker, as in Chang and Eng, the original Siamese twins.

    They settled in N.C. and married two daughters of a preacher. They spent half the week at one house and half the other. And bore offspring. No, I don’t know any more than that don’t ask.

  140. […] becoming a matter of contrived “fact” over at Patrick Frey’s House of Honorable Honor that I in fact made “threats of […]

  141. Sdferr says:

    21 kids between them, 10 for the one, 11 for the other.

  142. Darleen says:

    138 Dash

    Neat! … so your roots run Russian, German and Italian.

    Mine are tangled all over the place. Clicks got here in 1697, sold out of debtor’s prison in England than sold to work a plantation in Virginia. Yes, unlike Obama, I am a descendent of slaves. (took ’em over 60 years to work off the bond). Maternal family emigrated from Germany in the 1850’s. Another branch came across to Salt Lake with Brigham Young.

  143. Slartibartfast says:

    Darleen, there’s no good and timely place to say this, but as vigorously as we’ve disagreed on some topics, and as un-like you as I am, I think you’ve conducted yourself roughly five or six orders of magnitude better than our friend Patterico.

    More, if only five or six offends you. I just wanted to say that although I disagree with you extensively, you seem to get it in a way that Patterico and his commenters completely fail to.

  144. Dash Rendar says:

    Its sort of mandala-esque complex and interwoven all the circumstances that result in me sitting in front of a computer in jersey right now, fo sho. Sort of mind-numbingly sad how the entire immigration process has been poisoned in something short of a generation.

  145. Generic Hypothetical says:

    If, outside of their professional life, on a weblog or internet message board in their control, a prosecutor supported the actions of one abusive commenter and then trumped up a serious accusation (such as a death threat) against another commenter, would that be indicative of his/her ability to show proper prosecutorial discretion? Would it show a tendency for selective prosecution? Would it be indicative of their judgment during ongoing cases? Would it be a relevant factor during an appeal of a previous case?

    Or, would it not be relevant at all?

  146. Darleen says:

    Slart

    I haven’t been back to Pat’s and I won’t go. I’ve removed his RSS feed from my reader. I’m both angry and heartbroken. I never did anything to have him treat me with such utter mocking and disdain except disagree with him and call SEK’s idea that context exists as a force of nature, not human will. (what, there’s a context fairy with a special context fairywand?)

    I answered all his hypos, but because I didn’t reanswer them again and again, then I didn’t answer them at all and he (snarky comment to me) had no intention of answering ANY of my questions.

    The last straws for me was Bradley’s kabuki theater, daleyrocks uncalled for venom against me, nk’s indecent remarks (humor? I don’t think so) then Pat’s hysteria over a threat that never was with a slam against stay-at-home-parents as good measure. But of course, NO ONE there “sees” a slam against SAHP, it is *me* who is making it up.

    I’m done with the lot of them. They were as sexist and classist as anything I have encounted on Pandagon or Feministe.

  147. Darleen says:

    call SEK’s idea that context exists as a force of nature, not human will SILLY.

  148. Slartibartfast says:

    I honestly don’t think it’s worth the emotional upset, Darleen. Folks disagree on some things, and some people, like Patterico, seem more hell-bent on winning discussions that having their actual ideas and arguments win on merit.

    So, fuck ’em.

  149. Darleen says:

    Slart

    thank you for the kind words and yes, fuck ’em.

    I’m not out to “win” at any cost, especially if that cost is my peace of mind. I’m with Dennis Prager who says “clarity before agreement” … and I can agree to disagree with someone as long as we’ve dealt with each other in good faith.

    yes, Slart, we’ve had our disagreements and I’m sure they’ll come a time when we both vigorously and passionately defend our own positions. But I hope we both come back to this place where we know we can be passionate and then still talk without rancor.

  150. Slartibartfast says:

    Amen, Darleen.

  151. dicentra says:

    RE: the thing about thin right brains with history of family depression.

    That’s me. And I’m left-handed. This is starting to explain a lot. :D

  152. apotheosis says:

    The very definition of a “virtual internet threat”. Under these rules most everyone on Usenet should have been executed, murderers all.

    I plonked a man in Usenet just to watch him die.

  153. geoffb says:

    On the college loans and the cost of college. Maybe someone here knows what these actually cost in 2009.

    In 1966 one year undergrad in-state at MSU (Michigan State) including dorm living and food but not books cost roughly $1500. Adjusted for inflation that is $9823.75

    MIT 1966 out-of-state, same deal, roughly $3100 adjusted for inflation $20,302.42.

    What do these go for now and how much over the inflation rate are they?

  154. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    If I recall correctly, my students are paying roughly $500 per semester hour (the normal load for grad students is 8 hours, for undergrad it’s 12), or about 120% of your inflation-adjusted figure just for tuition. That does not include room and board and the umpteen additional fees that the school tacks on (parking fee, legal representation fee, health insurance…). Books can easily be $700 or more per semester.

    I don’t assign textbooks if I can possibly avoid it (and I generally can… I’m fortunate in that respect).

  155. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    This isn’t an Ivy school, btw. It’s a good school with good rankings in many areas, but it’s not Harvard or anything like that.

  156. thor says:

    Stop trying to arouse me, please. I love hippie chicks and 1966 was a bumber crop year from what I hear. Dressed in their flowery tops, suede vests and jeans so tight. Dispositions so sweet they only curse at powers’ domain, talkin’ the pigs, dude! Fresh wild flowers adorning their waist length sun-bleached hair, yes, they’re what I like.

  157. geoffb says:

    I knew it was quite high. The only one I have recent figures for is my local community college. 1967 was $15 per credit hour or $225 for a 15 hour semester, $450 for a year. Now it’s around $3000 per semester or $6000 per year. $450 inflation adjusted is $2859 so the price has more than doubled above the inflation.

  158. panthergirl says:

    On the college loans topic, over the past few years I’ve seen a huge increase in (adult) students who use student loans as their sole source of income. Sadly, the ones I see are mostly not that good at being students so not only are they in jeopardy of losing their loans/”livelihood” (though not nearly soon enough for my taxpayer sensibilities) but they are never going to get “real” jobs anyhow. It’s a depressing spiral to watch over and over again. And I get a little grouchy at having “students” beg and plead for me to raise their grades so they are not put out on the streets. (Just last week a student told me that if I had a heart, I wouldn’t let her suffer the consequences of her misfortune – that misfortune, apparently, including not ever coming to class or studying. Boy, did she pick the wrong instructor to use that line on.)

  159. SarahW says:

    My son won’t have tuition loans for undergrad. I got him a pre-paid tuition plan when he was a baby. Not of the hook altogether, though. Apparently the books and fees is how they get you.

    Didn’t that horrible Nadya Suleman woman say she was providing for her family with student loans? She’s an outlier to be sure, but they seem to have comprised her financial plan for the immediate future.

  160. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    panthergirl, I have to say that your experience does not match mine.

    I’ve had those students, too, but in my experience the older students who come back to school are more responsible, in general, than the younger ones.

  161. dicentra says:

    if I had a heart, I wouldn’t let her suffer the consequences of her misfortune – that misfortune, apparently, including not ever coming to class or studying. Boy, did she pick the wrong instructor to use that line on

    Yeah, I loved it when a student begged me to not give him an “unofficial withdrawal” for the Spanish 101 course because he was on the verge of losing his campus-based job. Turns out that he had another UW for another class that he’d stopped attending. And that he’d scored a UW for that class two semesters previous.

    I stood my ground, but he insisted on arguing with my supervisor, who asked him “Why did you stop attending that other class? Why did you stop attending this one?” and the guy’s only answer was a shrug and “I don’t know.”

    Dude had a wife and a kid, too. We didn’t change his grade. Prolly did him a favor, though I doubt he thought so at the time.

  162. thor says:

    In the middle of the night your tent starts to smell like human ass and Zig Zag ashes and the sweat stains of your t-shirt unless, that is, you have a hippie chick to freshen up your tent and remind you to hang your clothes outside, cause nobody needs clothes in a hippie chick’s tent.

    She won’t just swallow her pride for a ride, a hippie chick will swallow oh so much more than that.

    Mr. Broken Glass, Mr. Silver and Gold, Mr. Wall Street Pig, the hippie chick will not dance or burn incense in your palooza tent. For her a park bench is as good as your golden throne, Mr. You’re ever Home with Mrs. Not Now I’ve A Headache.

  163. thor says:

    ever = Never

  164. Enrak says:

    Here’s how this dishonest form of “intentionalism” works:

    First, you decide if you like the speaker and his message. This drives everything else.

    And of course, you “first decide” whether or not you like his message how, exactly?

    Game, set, match.

  165. EricPWJohnson says:

    Gosh and Jeff wonders why he isn’t being asked to stay on……

    Soo How many bridges can on burn when one still insists on making something out of his own bad behavior

    Jeff, you were mildly, as far as your standards of flaming people – mildly spoofed by a commentator

    And now many are all enjoying watching you self destruct

    You really ought to stop.

    really…..

  166. EricPWJohnson says:

    Darleen

    Your 148

    If you really think that you must not read everything you post

  167. Carin says:

    Oh, my. Not all the way through this thread, but the student loan thing has me seeing red. Yes, college is expensive, and yes it sucked for the years we had to pay them back. No, I don’t regret going to college, but I don’t see the difference between forgiving student loans and forgiving bad mortgages.

    Wanna see more “kids” attend college until they are 36? Make college free.

  168. B Moe says:

    And yet doing so, given the outrageous cost of tuition, etc, these days, puts graduates in great debt, essentially making them indentured servants to their government loans.

    As long as we don’t lower the cost of an education, anything but that. Who will train the Porta John Poets of the future?

  169. Carin says:

    Actually, college education v high school education is one of my current bugaboos. That college is now a ticket punch for a job that certainly doesn’t require a liberal arts degree is a travesty. I blame the teacher unions. For the dumbing down.

    Charles Murray has a new book out about this, and there have been some good rebuttal articles written that I linked a few weeks back.

  170. Carin says:

    Also, I just recently read a piece (I’m prolly not going to be able to find it) that for certain students*, the lie that by just going to college they will be able to make more money simply isn’t so. Your average low-performing high school student who takes out loans because they are confident they will make more money – it often doesn’t happen. It is not an if/then dealo.

    College should be “higher education” in the purest sense. For everyone else, there is community college with appropriate 2 year degrees.

    * you know, the ones enrolled in all those remedial courses their freshman year?

  171. Carin says:

    Oh, and whoever recommended it, I watched an hour’s worth of the chuck jones ‘toons. Introduced my kids to what I used to watch.

    And, no, I’m not 60 years old, but I suppose in my youts they simply didn’t have as much new stuff to show us.

  172. B Moe says:

    For everyone else, there is community college with appropriate 2 year degrees.

    But think of their self-esteem Carin. And the fact the poor bastards will have to deal with professors like Thersites.

  173. N. O'Brain says:

    “Comment by router on 3/24 @ 9:26 pm #

    funny how the teachers union is involved. or the educrats. they steal money and give you shit.”

    That statement is like the tao of socialism.

  174. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Yes, it’s a shame that a high school diploma is not longer a guarantee that a prospective employee can read, write, and do basic arithmetic.

    There’s a lot of great teaching in community colleges — in many respects they can provide a better student experience at the freshman level than you’ll find at an R1 university, where the faculty tends to focus more on research and graduate-level education.

    I’ve never taught in community colleges, but I have friends who do. Most of them find it rewarding.

  175. Darleen says:

    Oh, EricPeeWeeJ shows up to dribble nonsense — y’all remember PeeWee as one who figures that Attorney’s are much more important to society than parents or teachers INFINITELY. Oh, an that Jeff’s HotAir piece was “community college” drivel.

    How awful that when Pat decided to escalate it to HA in order to attempt to have the last word on his “we must be very very careful to not offend those that don’t like us in the first place because others are too stupid to understand the nuance” he thought he was writing in a vacuum and got his tidy whities in a knot because it wasn’t the last word.

    PeeWee, I did answer all Pat’s hypos and the only answers I ever got from him was he didn’t like the way I answered them, and unless I went back and answered them again, he wasn’t even going to address any of my real life examples.

    I wasn’t a person to debate, I was a witness to be cross examined.

    Then the rest of you Amanda Marcotte wannabes decided to jump in with the classist, sexist derrision.

    You know, no one needs an advanced degree in science to observe and understand how gravity works. I don’t have to have the jargon to observe and understand how language works.

    Jeff tells me that when I look at the table and I have knowledge that the carpenter that built it intended for it to be a table, then I can interpret it is a table, but if I “interpret” it as cat, that’s my right but it isn’t an interpretation… I’m inventing.

    SEK wants me accept that if a carpenter builds a table and SEK wants to call it a cat, then its a cat.

    I don’t need advanced jargon to know what common sense tell me about the positions.

    Pat has decided to dishonestly and ego driven, to say accept SEK’s position because it allows him to pretend his lack of grasp of the original argument never happened.

  176. Joe says:

    It is amazing how well made those Warner Brother shorts were. Chuck Jones being one of the best of many super talented people there.

  177. EricPWJohnson says:

    Darleen

    Thanks for confirming your 148 with my 168

  178. Rob Crawford says:

    PeeWee, meet the ‘hammer.

  179. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    PeeWee, meet the ‘hammer.

    He got that from me about two comments in.

  180. MarkD says:

    I wonder if he tells the jury to interpret what he says as they see fit?

  181. geoffb says:

    “I wonder if he tells the jury to interpret what he says as they see fit?”

    Or maybe defense attorneys going up against him might use SEK’s language argument against him.

  182. Jeff G. says:

    Gosh and Jeff wonders why he isn’t being asked to stay on……

    Soo How many bridges can on burn when one still insists on making something out of his own bad behavior

    Jeff, you were mildly, as far as your standards of flaming people – mildly spoofed by a commentator

    And now many are all enjoying watching you self destruct

    You really ought to stop.

    really…..

    What does that even mean? I was “mildy spoofed” and the result was a “death threat” — is this now the narrative going at the House of Honorable? Because I haven’t been reading, given that the majority of Pat’s commenters are to conservatism what Meghan McCain is to political comers.

  183. panthergirl says:

    #162 SBP – I do have a lot of wonderful “older” students. Non-traditional students seem to come in (roughly) two varieties however – the ones who are working their tails off and are real superstars (I have the utmost respect for them!), and the ones who are drifting through using college as another welfare program. My point was not to discount the former but to remark that over the past 5 years or so, the number of folks in the latter category has increased dramatically (from my perception anyhow). That may be because I work at a community college in a particularly “social-justice-y” town. (And it’s not just older students who use student loans frivolously by any stretch… It’s very sad indeed to see 25-year-olds who have already given up the idea that they should put forth effort for a livelihood.)

    But we’re on the same page re: your comment, SBP. Some of my non-traditional students (along with my international students) are among my favorites because I see how very hard they’re working to make a go of it (often under extremely poor circumstances).

  184. Erwin says:

    This is the same Patterico that wrote: “I am biting down on my rage right now. I’ll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I’ll say only this: it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous.”

    and this:

    CraigC: “Here’s the little missive I sent: You disgusting, despicable, self-absorbed little pricks. I wouldn’t piss on any of you if you were on fire. I hope that when the 7th-century animals pull off the next attack that’s successful because of the effective, legal programs you assholes have exposed and rendered useless, the NYT building is the first place hit. Ann Coulter was right, McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of the Times building. PIGS. FUCKING TREASONOUS PIGS.

    Patterico: I understand the emotion, believe me. I didn’t quite go the “Ann Coulter was right” route, but (as I said in the post) I understand the temptation. I, like you, am totally enraged.”

    (6/22/2006)

    I guess threats of violence are okay if the victim is the New Y

  185. panthergirl says:

    #169
    Wanna see more “kids” attend college until they are 36? Make college free.

    Especially with the lax rules the current system has. In theory, I have no problem with free education for everyone (a more educated society in general, is good for all of us). But the devil is in the details. 1) Students’ tuition is only paid if they meet certain minimum requirements (passing the class? regular attendance?), no exceptions. 2) Less emphasis on social policy in the classrooms.

  186. panthergirl says:

    #172
    Carin-
    I read a similar piece in the past year but can’t seem to find the link. It suggested that when you compare students who start at a low-wage job right out of high school and work their way up over time with a student who goes to a 4-year college and then starts a slightly higher paying job, over time, the person without the college degree “makes” more money (perhaps, is able to save more money) because they got a head start in making money and also they have no loans to repay. It was an interesting piece (sure wish I could find it!) because it compared apples to apples. Obviously, someone with a college degree is going to be ahead of the game compared to someone who can’t ever get in to college. But this article compared equally bright people (all could get in to college, but some chose not to) and found the non-college-educated came out way ahead monetarily. Not that money is the only indicator of success and happiness, but the argument for everyone to go to college because they’ll make (have?) more money over the long run is just dead wrong.

  187. panthergirl says:

    Dang it Carin – quit adding to my reading list! ;-)

  188. louchette says:

    apologies for OT: B Moe — if you see this and weren’t joking: don’t buy eq2 to join my current guild! instead please shoot me an email to ozma_of_uranus at yahoo dot com, or IM me, and i will explain why you wouldn’t like it and why i may not be there much longer. i don’ want to spam up jeff’s blog with this. but i didn’t know if you had returned to your comment and you don’t have a linkie on your name.

  189. Comment by Erwin on 3/25 @ 11:13 am #

    Lawyers aren’t into logical consistency or even coherence. They’re into advocacy.

    If you have a disagreement, this makes them miserable to live with outside of a courtroom.

  190. SarahW says:

    My husband is a sweetie and very coherent. Plus he lets me win all the fights.

  191. McGehee says:

    Plus he lets me win all the fights.

    That’s because you’re not just opposing counsel — you’re also judge and jury, IYKWIMAITYD.

  192. […] — and, if we’re going to be accused, by the opportunistically OUTRAGED, of, say, threatening violence anyway, we may as well get back to the business of being straightforward about […]

  193. Patrick Frey Has No HONOR! says:

    Hey Jeff, been awhile.

    I see you haven’t mentioned me at the beginning of your last few comments like you promised.

    I miss you.

  194. McGehee says:

    Apparently Patrick Frey also has no PRIDE.

Comments are closed.