I listened to a bit of it. Given his height, MY's got a pretty high voice. A voice for print, perhaps. Also, I like Bloggingheads, and Wright's only problem is that he needs to occasionally reach through his monitor and throttle Kaus.
I thought he did well, considering how hard it must be to have the camera not cut away when you're listening to the other speaker. It must take a lot of self-control to listen intently to the other person and formulate your response while at the same time controlling your facial expressions because you've got a camera square-on your face.
And the headset-mic made it look like he was going to go fly a spaceship after the show. Wheee!
7 - It's probably indiscreet but I have to wonder what it's like for him to have his cubemate and (last time I heard) girlfriend involved in a throwdown over health care. You don't have to answer. I just wanted to say it amused me to think about it.
It must take a lot of self-control to listen intently to the other person and formulate your response while at the same time controlling your facial expressions because you've got a camera square-on your face.
The Daily Show correspondents have got the TV-reporter-listening-intently-so-concerned expression nailed.
Astronauts call it "space-face", the way one looks without gravity's pull, like Mr. Yglesias. Gravity seems to pull harder on on Mr. Wrights features than, say, a Saint Bernard's. Of course he could hang upside down and set the camera similarly for an instant facelift: wide-eyed and smiling.
I thought MY did pretty well; he was articulate, and he was definitely less mumbly-deferential than Umansky was. But he should shave. At this point, TAP looks like it might be the new TNR - a feeder of liberal and Dem. policy-talkers to downstream organizations. Pretty soon, one of the cable or network talking-head shows is going have to put on a Dem that the netroots can stand, just to get the carping to decrease. No one trusts TNR anymore, and the only other centrist-ish Dem magazine out there is TAP. I assume the first one to go up will be GFR. That puts MY up next up for the bigs.
At which point, all of Capp's stories about MY and the dog will be fed directly to Gawker.
You know what? I'm starting to see those bluetooth headsets more and more often and in increasingly inappropriate contexts. I saw one guy wearing one through a dinner date. Not only did it make it seem as if his date was the type to date cyborgs, but who knows what kind of intel the guy was receiving all evening?
I dunno. Has he? I meant more as one of the popinjays that Wallace talks to on his show - a regular guest. Also, GFR should be forced to always wear a belt with a buckle that says, "GFR"; like Jules's "Bad-Ass Motherfucker" wallet.
30: Ogged is just feeling superior that he reset his TiVo with the pedophilic NRO commentator, while the rest of you went with more conventional choices.
CNBC and CSPAN for sure. Hewitt for a while. It took me about 5 minutes to get the sound and lips in sync, a major process was eating CPU, and then the show stopped. I will try again later. I really miss the closed-captioning and dislike turning down my music.
I kinda enjoy watching MY think on his feet, watching the process of structuring ideas in real-time. Comparing these comments to what he has written in the last few days, a lot of the stuff was fresh. It has to be tough not to repeat yourself, but somone with his degree of exposure should keep it new.
He is not the best on TV, but very far from the worst. Definitely had bad lighting.
Hey I have a question. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I was very dumb, could someone walk me through the steps of setting up a feed reader, as one would if I hypothetically had no idea how to do this for myself?
Tia, your boyfriend is obviously good for nothing, but given that you have many computers from which you access the web, Bloglines is probably your best bet.
Tia, have you considered something like Bloglines? It's a Web-based RSS, good for people who bounce back and forth between computers. And there's nothing to set up.
OK, let's not get off on that tangent. The point is that she can and should be our media ass-kicker. Like The Bride. And she should wear the big ass "GFR" belt-buckle. Maybe a sword.
Based on that picture, she's not pretty in an overtly sexua way, which makes those comments even worse. I suppose it's because there aren't that many polibloggers to leer at.
You aren't going to Robert Kuttner fighting on Han's private island, that's for damn sure. Also, Derbyshire has written (as I keep harping on) a really and truly excellent novel.
Derb is honest and writes well. He is the most interesting of the Cornerites. He is also a misogynist of the first order and open racist, and he shows signs of serious crankhood.
He's like Kaus - maybe there's a point to him, but not point enough. Vote him off the Island!
Back when CNNfN still existed, I was on several times. I also did a long C-SPAN appearance once (and some foreign networks). MSNBC used to invite me on every once in a while as a kind of fall-back when they couldn't get an A-list liberal. Then they invited me on one time to talk about Terry Schiavo and I said something like, "the coverage of this case on the cable news networks, including this was, has been appalling" and for some reason I never got invited back.
There was, indeed, a CNNfN for several years. They didn't succeed in getting on most basic cable rosters, though a lot of digital cable packages carried them. In my view, the best thing about it is that during the weekends when the financial markets were closed, they showed CNN International content which, IMHO, is usually better than standard CNN (though I can't stand Richard Quest). Also, they sometimes had me on as a guest which, naturally, made them awesome.
I don't remember what it was about anymore, but I remember seeing a Daily Show report during the summer that looked a lot like something discussed on Unfogged just a few days before. I believe the writers do keep up with blogs, but maybe mostly the mostly political ones.
I'm sure they do; I've noticed that the tone of the show is often remarkably similar to certain liberal political blogs, which is a definite contrast from how the news media treats the same issues.
OT - My roommate and I went to see The Matador tonight and it would probably be appreciated by the crowd here. The humor is on about the same level (witty yet crude) and wins the 2006 award for Best Cock Joke in a Major Motion Film.
Ok, one more Derbyshire plug. Isn't this a thoughtful artcle, all things considered, and one worth reading? Isn't it 90% better than most political punditry?
Good stuff. You manage to be quick and thoughtful at the same time. However, while your glasses are awesome, you should make sure to stand farther away from the camera and position it higher.
That article is...not good. What in Gawd's name could you possibly find insightful about it? The only telling thing in it is the admission that conservatives are trying to send us back to 1956.
What? Maybe it's not good if good can only mean that it's in agreement with liberal orthodoxy in every respect, but for someone who is genuinely conservative to say that the abortion fight is lost, and to a give a reasonable justification for the opinion is "good" and far more helpful in bringing around other conservatives than yet another article about how a fetus is just a bunch of cells.
Well, I liked the framing quote, which (like so many Chinese saying) has a snap that English sayings lack. (another example: the 'on the tip of my tongue' feeling. In Chinese that's "a dumpling in a teapot"). "The wood has been made into a boat" will stay with me long after the latest perfectly reasonable (tm) comments from Fareed Zakaria have receeded. The quote from the Duke of Norfolk is likewise a gem. And Derbyshire usually produces one or two of these every column. He also typically evinces some historial perspective, a quality both useful and rare.
More generally I like essays that provide heuristics: I want to furnish myelf with a set of lenses that when applied to the world (or the hot issue of the moment) yield different, and perhaps illuminating, perspectives. Derbyshire's does this. What changes in mores are irrevocable, and which are not? That's a question to ask about culture and about policy, particularly if one is instinctively conservative or progressive. Derbyshire is more musing than declaritive in that essay, but it's rumination worth having.
1956 is a bigger topic, but I think if you go back to what Derbyshire wrote, you'll find his thinking worth engaging with, even if you disagree with it.
Last point: I would be *delighted* to find a left-wing version of Derbyshire. Who is that person?
At first I thought you were exaggerating about Wright. I see I was wrong. He possesses the Voice of Sonambulance. If I hadn't just woken up, I would be napping now.
Derbyshire's "1956" column: it's kind of windy, and in the end he decides the central question doesn't have an answer. "The large, general problem of how to tell whether some particular position is conservative or reactionary is, I believe, intractable." So I don't find much to engage with here. It seems like a long tour to nowhere much.
baa, what would it take to be a left-wing Derbyshire? I'm not sure how to transpose all the relevant characteristics.
As for the column, I'm glad to have a conservative tell the brethren that the abortion fight is lost, but I think he's wrong. That is, the abortion fight is lost if winning the fight means convincing people that it really is murder; I'm not convinced that that view was remotely widespread back in 1956. As for making abortion the subject of shame (for those who need them) and disgust (on the part of others), the right seems to be doing a bang-up job; ask Saletan. Not to mention that legal restrictions to access are doing OK.
[And to comment LB-style, that link he provided for "horror, disgust, and shame"? Unilluminating.]
But grant arguendo that he's right, and the abortion fight is lost. He says it's because the women's revolution has been largely assimilated. Then surely the other things he mentions, laws on divorce, marital fidelity, and homosexuality, are even better assimilated. (And I think the expressed desire for 1956, minus legal race segregation, is pretty vile, but I think that's supposed to be one of the things I'm agreeing to disagree with Derb on.)
It may be that he'd acknowledge that, too, and say that the ship has sailed on all of these. That would be fine; but I don't see much of a heuristic here, because he doesn't provide any examples of conservative fights worth fighting.
Well Matt, a left wing Derbyshire would have some batty, indefensible views, but be learned, heterodox, and interesting.
I don't see the center of the Derbyshire peice as abortion, but rather a rumination about what changes, generally, it is possible to fight. This isn't exactly a left-right issue, or isn't unless you are naive enough to think that the arrow of progress (or degeneration) automatically points towards (away from) your preferred political position. There's no doubt, for example, that American Fortune 500s experienced a cultural change that enabled CEOs to extract enormous gains in the past 20 years. No one thinks Rick Wagoner a more effective CEO of GM than Alfred Sloan, but Sloan never saw a payday anywhere near the $4.7M per that Wagoner pulls down. So, is this a cultural change worth fighting, or not? Michael Moore tries to fight cultural change all the time -- he thinks big business should feel more of a contract with workers, lie they did in the 1950s. And if someone described that idea as nonsensical, he'd be well within his rights noting that it couldn't have been so bad, because the US was an awfully productive economy in the 50s. Since Derbyshire is a conservative, he's thinking about (although here not actually endorsing) the ways in which conservatives want to 'turn back the clock' -- sexual morality and religious expression, for example.
I am not submitting this article as a high point of human thought -- it's merely the most recent thing by Derbyshire on National Review. But it's interesting, thoughtful, non-dogmatic, and contains at least three nuggets of information/interest that are well worth knowing (the framing quote, the Duke of Norfolk's complaint about literacy, and the fantastic fact that Sinatra was arrested for adultury in 1938). That's well above the bar for an op ed.
"Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility."
"I don't see the center of the Derbyshire peice as abortion, but rather a rumination about what changes, generally, it is possible to fight"
If the piece had had more to say about that -- about which changes are irreversible, which aren't, and how you tell them apart -- then fine. But instead it stuck to the noncontroversial idea that some changes can't be turned back (emphasis on "some"). You'd have to assume most intelligent people, even conservatives, realize as much.
The piece is the equivalent of a liberal op-ed on the ancient conservative themes of how human nature is imperfect and utopia is impossible. "You can't turn back the clock" has been a progressive cliche for decades. Hearing the idea come out of John Derbyshire's mouth doesn't make it any more interesting.
I can forward you the emails I received and sent today, and we can all discuss what a heinous bitch my sister in law is. (NOT the one you met, who is lovely.)
She thinks I'm, let's see.... "cold" "verbally abusive" and "frigid"; "not KIND [or] CONSIDERATE," "entirely self-involved on a good day, and just plain mean the rest of the time." Oh, and "delusional" and "self-serving" to boot.
I missed #129 because I was so eager to be a bitch. I'm so sorry, dear Ogged. That's just lovely of you, and I know that you mean every word. ::smooch!::
While I like my ex-in-laws, I was very, very glad to leave all their trauma and drama cleanly behind. Now I only have to hear stories, not participate.
If Weiner and I were bickering, which we're not, I might suggest that his offering up a surrogate to satisfy Becks would be a good reason to change his name from Weiner to, say, Hitachi.
OK, I think under the new standard for o-pwning, 177 pwns 178 if and only if it doesn't. I pulled something similar on a football message board earlier, but that's really too soaked in in-joke to explain here.
We got a silvery (actually plastic) vibrator for a coworker once and got it engraved as a going-away gift. It was more for a trophy than for actual use.
Michael, you motherfucker, no I haven't stopped commenting! I've just gone 100% Becks-style. Apparently, only able to comment between the hours of 2 and 4 am.
In the Derbyshire piece, this line pissed me off: How can we know whether, in adopting some position, we are being robustly conservative or delusionally reactionary?
I just don't understand the basis underlying that question. I recognize that conservatives self-conceptualize as conservatives, just as I do as a liberal. Nevertheless, in "adopting some position," I don't ask whether or not it is robustly liberal. I ask whether or not it is a good idea. If it is not, so much the worse for liberalism.
I have seen complaints quite similar to this before, but I can't remember where, or who was being complained about.
Haven't fully read all the comments since then but no one seems to have noted that Paul totally won the competition to name a left-wing JD with his 170. Cockburn is exactly right. Plus he's got a built-in cock jock.
It isn't conservative to add "tonk" to your logic, either.
Nor "Broccoli".
An interesting exercise is the building of a Broccoli logic: it consists in introducing new connectives, new rules, the worst you can imagine, and then to define everything à la Tarski. Miracle of miracles, completeness and soundness still hold: just because the reality has been defined from its representation: typically the semantics is the syntax in boldface; but this nonsense gets a beautiful name, the free Broccolo.
Is there a better short piece to read on "Tonk" than wikipedia's entry on logical harmony?
Also, I considered the 218 answer to my question (redifining conservatism so that it exactly overlaps with the category of the good), but was trying to be chartiable.
w/d, the original Analysis pieces by Prior and Belnap are also very short and I think readable (though my sense of that might be warped). You'd need some sort of online or paper access to the journal to read them, though. Meantime, that wikipedia entry looks pretty good, though. Unfortunately, if you don't know about introduction and elimination rules, the relevant wikipedia entry isn't very useful.
86: I just got back from the matador, it is good, here's a worthwhile review (except for the first paragraph, which really shouldn't try to glean so much significance from a poster) that I have nothing in particular to add to.
One puzzle the title prompted me to think about: since "matador" just means "killer," is the word, in Spanish-speaking countries, for describing bull fighters with another word used to signify killers, or is matador just used both in specific and a general ways?
At the bar trivia (bar is noting the location of the trivia game, the trivia is not about bars) game in which I sometimes play, there is an oppurtunity between rounds to submit a fact to the host, and whichever team submits a fact which the host likes best recieves a prize, along the lines cookies or brownies. Two weeks ago, the last time we played, I suggested to my team that we submit the fact: "The 2004 Nicholas Cage film, National Treasure, is terrible."
Also, Christopher Plummer, what do you think you're doing? Really. And you thought you'd never live down The Sound of Music. Your name is Christopher, you're 76, and you don't need a lousy screen credit.
If the new adventure you're thinking of awaits him in the bedroom of his country estate, then yes. Otherwise, your're thinking of a different utter crap movie.
I listened to a bit of it. Given his height, MY's got a pretty high voice. A voice for print, perhaps. Also, I like Bloggingheads, and Wright's only problem is that he needs to occasionally reach through his monitor and throttle Kaus.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 2:31 PM
Wow, big head.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 2:56 PM
You guys totally need to become image consultants.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 2:57 PM
On the other hand, on video, you can't even tell he's a bad reader!
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 2:58 PM
I really hate this bloggingheadstv gig. He's always chasing me and the dog around with his camera.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:08 PM
Soon he's going to want you to let his friend Mickey crash on your couch.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:10 PM
He already brings over libertarians.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:11 PM
I thought he did well, considering how hard it must be to have the camera not cut away when you're listening to the other speaker. It must take a lot of self-control to listen intently to the other person and formulate your response while at the same time controlling your facial expressions because you've got a camera square-on your face.
And the headset-mic made it look like he was going to go fly a spaceship after the show. Wheee!
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:14 PM
Who among us hasn't brought a libertarian over at least once?
Posted by Wehttam Saiselgy | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:16 PM
7 - It's probably indiscreet but I have to wonder what it's like for him to have his cubemate and (last time I heard) girlfriend involved in a throwdown over health care. You don't have to answer. I just wanted to say it amused me to think about it.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:16 PM
Funnier -- they're on a break!
Posted by Wehttam Saiselgy | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:18 PM
It must take a lot of self-control to listen intently to the other person and formulate your response while at the same time controlling your facial expressions because you've got a camera square-on your face.
The Daily Show correspondents have got the TV-reporter-listening-intently-so-concerned expression nailed.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:18 PM
I don't even know any libertarians. At least none have come out to me.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:18 PM
(Ummm...Oops! Not awkward at all. Sorry!)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:19 PM
Heh.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:21 PM
15 not to 14.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:22 PM
Astronauts call it "space-face", the way one looks without gravity's pull, like Mr. Yglesias. Gravity seems to pull harder on on Mr. Wrights features than, say, a Saint Bernard's. Of course he could hang upside down and set the camera similarly for an instant facelift: wide-eyed and smiling.
Posted by Mr. B | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:28 PM
I thought MY did pretty well; he was articulate, and he was definitely less mumbly-deferential than Umansky was. But he should shave. At this point, TAP looks like it might be the new TNR - a feeder of liberal and Dem. policy-talkers to downstream organizations. Pretty soon, one of the cable or network talking-head shows is going have to put on a Dem that the netroots can stand, just to get the carping to decrease. No one trusts TNR anymore, and the only other centrist-ish Dem magazine out there is TAP. I assume the first one to go up will be GFR. That puts MY up next up for the bigs.
At which point, all of Capp's stories about MY and the dog will be fed directly to Gawker.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:32 PM
Hasn't Yglesias already been on CNN?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:34 PM
You know what? I'm starting to see those bluetooth headsets more and more often and in increasingly inappropriate contexts. I saw one guy wearing one through a dinner date. Not only did it make it seem as if his date was the type to date cyborgs, but who knows what kind of intel the guy was receiving all evening?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:35 PM
heh as well.
i thought you looked good, matt.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:36 PM
I saw one guy wearing one through a dinner date.
!!? For real?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:37 PM
Yes. I was appalled. End of the world, dogs and cats living together. . . .
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:39 PM
Hasn't Yglesias already been on CNN?
I dunno. Has he? I meant more as one of the popinjays that Wallace talks to on his show - a regular guest. Also, GFR should be forced to always wear a belt with a buckle that says, "GFR"; like Jules's "Bad-Ass Motherfucker" wallet.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:40 PM
Cyrano de Bergerac for the 21st century. I'd write the script, but I think I'd have to pay royalties to Steve Martin.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:41 PM
I've never seen GFR. What's the deal?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:42 PM
What do you mean? I've never seen GFR, either. She just writes smart pieces well. And she can spell.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:43 PM
I thought you meant she was particularly telegenic. All I know is that she doesn't appreciate Derbyshire.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:45 PM
Yglesias's been on CNN. Once at least, maybe more. I intended to wake up to catch the appearance (7:00 am) and, miraculously, did.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:46 PM
All I know is that she doesn't appreciate Derbyshire.
We can't all have your tastes, ogged.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:47 PM
She is telegenic, though.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:50 PM
Or, seems like she might be. Maybe she falls apart on television, who can say, but she's attractive.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:51 PM
30: Ogged is just feeling superior that he reset his TiVo with the pedophilic NRO commentator, while the rest of you went with more conventional choices.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:52 PM
Hey, the Derb was in a Bruce Lee movie. How many of you can say that?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:54 PM
Well, I can say it.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:55 PM
"Hasn't Yglesias already been on CNN?"
CNBC and CSPAN for sure. Hewitt for a while. It took me about 5 minutes to get the sound and lips in sync, a major process was eating CPU, and then the show stopped. I will try again later. I really miss the closed-captioning and dislike turning down my music.
I kinda enjoy watching MY think on his feet, watching the process of structuring ideas in real-time. Comparing these comments to what he has written in the last few days, a lot of the stuff was fresh. It has to be tough not to repeat yourself, but somone with his degree of exposure should keep it new.
He is not the best on TV, but very far from the worst. Definitely had bad lighting.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:56 PM
baa is getting to ogged.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:56 PM
This rss comments feed makes everything much easier.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:56 PM
Hey I have a question. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I was very dumb, could someone walk me through the steps of setting up a feed reader, as one would if I hypothetically had no idea how to do this for myself?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:58 PM
I think Unfogged needs to become a liberal Derb appreciation site.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:58 PM
I was surprised his voice wasn't more youthful. He could be 45.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 3:59 PM
25 is the new 45.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:00 PM
No Tia, it's impossible.
What kind of computer do you have?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:00 PM
Lightning was awful.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:00 PM
This rss comments feed makes everything much easier.
So that's where it got its name.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:02 PM
I've read a few references to GFR being hot, all in a slightly creepy sorta leering tone.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:04 PM
At work, site of most Unfogged reading, a PC. At home, a PC. At boyfriends, a mac, a PC, and a PC.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:04 PM
a few references to GFR being hot, all in a slightly creepy sorta leering tone.
Wait. The references are creepy and leering, or she's hot in a creepy and leering way? Because I totally dig creepy, leering women.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:08 PM
Here she is. She has really nice hair.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:08 PM
Tia, your boyfriend is obviously good for nothing, but given that you have many computers from which you access the web, Bloglines is probably your best bet.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:08 PM
Telegenic.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:11 PM
In person, she's sort of stunning. I had the good fortune to meet her on the Dean campaign.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:13 PM
Tia, have you considered something like Bloglines? It's a Web-based RSS, good for people who bounce back and forth between computers. And there's nothing to set up.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:17 PM
In person, she's sort of stunning.
OK, let's not get off on that tangent. The point is that she can and should be our media ass-kicker. Like The Bride. And she should wear the big ass "GFR" belt-buckle. Maybe a sword.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:18 PM
The sword and buckle would only emphasize the point. Not that I'm not with you!
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:20 PM
Tim, in person, your mom's sort of stunning.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:21 PM
You're kind of right, Joe.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:22 PM
Another vote for Bloglines. I'm not particularly technical, and it is effortless to set up. And goodness GFR is pretty.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:22 PM
Does no one care that the Derb was in a Bruce Lee movie? Would it help if I said with Chuck Norris?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:26 PM
Based on that picture, she's not pretty in an overtly sexua way, which makes those comments even worse. I suppose it's because there aren't that many polibloggers to leer at.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:27 PM
I appreciate the advice, but I don't think it will work that well for Unfogged comments because it seems to be way behind.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:30 PM
That's true. If you don't mind installing something, install this and let us know if you have trouble. It's pretty simple.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 4:32 PM
You aren't going to Robert Kuttner fighting on Han's private island, that's for damn sure. Also, Derbyshire has written (as I keep harping on) a really and truly excellent novel.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 5:20 PM
Derb is honest and writes well. He is the most interesting of the Cornerites. He is also a misogynist of the first order and open racist, and he shows signs of serious crankhood.
He's like Kaus - maybe there's a point to him, but not point enough. Vote him off the Island!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 5:28 PM
But he likes Jews!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 5:34 PM
So far....
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 5:35 PM
He's also a huge Paul Peirce fan.
Also: Wally Sczerbiak?! Kill me now!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 5:55 PM
Back when CNNfN still existed, I was on several times. I also did a long C-SPAN appearance once (and some foreign networks). MSNBC used to invite me on every once in a while as a kind of fall-back when they couldn't get an A-list liberal. Then they invited me on one time to talk about Terry Schiavo and I said something like, "the coverage of this case on the cable news networks, including this was, has been appalling" and for some reason I never got invited back.
Posted by Wehttam Saiselgy | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 5:59 PM
Wally Sczerbiak?!
I saw that. You have my sympathies.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 6:02 PM
I am afraid that if they play him and Raef LaFrentz at the same time, the universe will collapse. Maybe we can get Michael Smith back too.
There was a CNNfN?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 6:06 PM
There was, indeed, a CNNfN for several years. They didn't succeed in getting on most basic cable rosters, though a lot of digital cable packages carried them. In my view, the best thing about it is that during the weekends when the financial markets were closed, they showed CNN International content which, IMHO, is usually better than standard CNN (though I can't stand Richard Quest). Also, they sometimes had me on as a guest which, naturally, made them awesome.
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 6:09 PM
Taping the magazine to the wall was a stoke of genius, Matt.
Posted by Andy Vance | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 6:24 PM
71 -- Wait you mean all along Wehttam Saiselgy has been Matthew Yglesias?!!
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 6:54 PM
Uh, Jeremy...
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 7:02 PM
Wait, Osner's not kidding?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 7:04 PM
I can't tell.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 7:09 PM
If he is, just consider 74 part of the joke.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 7:10 PM
Yeah, kidding. Thanks for humoring me though.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 8:59 PM
Any time.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 9:48 PM
At what point will Yglesias become too cool to hang out here anymore? I'm betting when he gets invited on The Daily Show.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 10:25 PM
Another good web-based RSS reader is Newsgator.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 10:27 PM
80 - Perhaps, but we'll always have Saiselgy.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 10:29 PM
Yeah, like Helen will always have Paris
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 10:48 PM
I don't remember what it was about anymore, but I remember seeing a Daily Show report during the summer that looked a lot like something discussed on Unfogged just a few days before. I believe the writers do keep up with blogs, but maybe mostly the mostly political ones.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 10:55 PM
I'm sure they do; I've noticed that the tone of the show is often remarkably similar to certain liberal political blogs, which is a definite contrast from how the news media treats the same issues.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 11:02 PM
OT - My roommate and I went to see The Matador tonight and it would probably be appreciated by the crowd here. The humor is on about the same level (witty yet crude) and wins the 2006 award for Best Cock Joke in a Major Motion Film.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 11:35 PM
Motion Picture. Whatever.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 11:36 PM
Becks style!
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-27-06 11:46 PM
All our base are belong to Becks.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 2:47 AM
should be an italize in there somwhre.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 2:49 AM
Ok, one more Derbyshire plug. Isn't this a thoughtful artcle, all things considered, and one worth reading? Isn't it 90% better than most political punditry?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 6:40 AM
Fourth occurrence of "the wood has been made into a boat" = Tom Friedman. Sorry. (That's as far as of got 'til yet.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 6:56 AM
of = I've. Tribute to Saiselgy.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 6:58 AM
Derbyshire has written (as I keep harping on) a really and truly excellent novel.
Yeah, but no sex with bears, so five points deducted.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 7:32 AM
Matt,
Good stuff. You manage to be quick and thoughtful at the same time. However, while your glasses are awesome, you should make sure to stand farther away from the camera and position it higher.
Posted by pjs | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 7:36 AM
baa -
That article is...not good. What in Gawd's name could you possibly find insightful about it? The only telling thing in it is the admission that conservatives are trying to send us back to 1956.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:31 AM
What? Maybe it's not good if good can only mean that it's in agreement with liberal orthodoxy in every respect, but for someone who is genuinely conservative to say that the abortion fight is lost, and to a give a reasonable justification for the opinion is "good" and far more helpful in bringing around other conservatives than yet another article about how a fetus is just a bunch of cells.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:58 AM
Well, I liked the framing quote, which (like so many Chinese saying) has a snap that English sayings lack. (another example: the 'on the tip of my tongue' feeling. In Chinese that's "a dumpling in a teapot"). "The wood has been made into a boat" will stay with me long after the latest perfectly reasonable (tm) comments from Fareed Zakaria have receeded. The quote from the Duke of Norfolk is likewise a gem. And Derbyshire usually produces one or two of these every column. He also typically evinces some historial perspective, a quality both useful and rare.
More generally I like essays that provide heuristics: I want to furnish myelf with a set of lenses that when applied to the world (or the hot issue of the moment) yield different, and perhaps illuminating, perspectives. Derbyshire's does this. What changes in mores are irrevocable, and which are not? That's a question to ask about culture and about policy, particularly if one is instinctively conservative or progressive. Derbyshire is more musing than declaritive in that essay, but it's rumination worth having.
1956 is a bigger topic, but I think if you go back to what Derbyshire wrote, you'll find his thinking worth engaging with, even if you disagree with it.
Last point: I would be *delighted* to find a left-wing version of Derbyshire. Who is that person?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:11 AM
Robert Wright's voice coming out in only left-channel speaker and MY's voice utilizing only right-channel speaker is annoying.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:19 AM
The Matador isn't bad at all, for a feel-good movie.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:21 AM
At first I thought you were exaggerating about Wright. I see I was wrong. He possesses the Voice of Sonambulance. If I hadn't just woken up, I would be napping now.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:28 AM
That's "somnambulance", Michael.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:45 AM
Yglesias comments here? That's really something. He and Kevin Drum have been in charge of all my political opinions for a while now.
Posted by Kyle | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:57 AM
He meant the "son of ambulance," Ben. (Who isn't even as soporific as his brother.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:06 AM
Derbyshire's "1956" column: it's kind of windy, and in the end he decides the central question doesn't have an answer. "The large, general problem of how to tell whether some particular position is conservative or reactionary is, I believe, intractable." So I don't find much to engage with here. It seems like a long tour to nowhere much.
Posted by Kyle | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:07 AM
The son of ambulance's brother, that is, ambulance's other son, or ambulance's brother?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:16 AM
Ambulance's brother.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:19 AM
Fire engine? Pattywagon?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:49 AM
baa, what would it take to be a left-wing Derbyshire? I'm not sure how to transpose all the relevant characteristics.
As for the column, I'm glad to have a conservative tell the brethren that the abortion fight is lost, but I think he's wrong. That is, the abortion fight is lost if winning the fight means convincing people that it really is murder; I'm not convinced that that view was remotely widespread back in 1956. As for making abortion the subject of shame (for those who need them) and disgust (on the part of others), the right seems to be doing a bang-up job; ask Saletan. Not to mention that legal restrictions to access are doing OK.
[And to comment LB-style, that link he provided for "horror, disgust, and shame"? Unilluminating.]
But grant arguendo that he's right, and the abortion fight is lost. He says it's because the women's revolution has been largely assimilated. Then surely the other things he mentions, laws on divorce, marital fidelity, and homosexuality, are even better assimilated. (And I think the expressed desire for 1956, minus legal race segregation, is pretty vile, but I think that's supposed to be one of the things I'm agreeing to disagree with Derb on.)
It may be that he'd acknowledge that, too, and say that the ship has sailed on all of these. That would be fine; but I don't see much of a heuristic here, because he doesn't provide any examples of conservative fights worth fighting.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 12:04 PM
Pattywagon?
Is this some sort of conveyance for hamburgers?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 12:50 PM
Pattywagon = school bus
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 1:05 PM
Well Matt, a left wing Derbyshire would have some batty, indefensible views, but be learned, heterodox, and interesting.
I don't see the center of the Derbyshire peice as abortion, but rather a rumination about what changes, generally, it is possible to fight. This isn't exactly a left-right issue, or isn't unless you are naive enough to think that the arrow of progress (or degeneration) automatically points towards (away from) your preferred political position. There's no doubt, for example, that American Fortune 500s experienced a cultural change that enabled CEOs to extract enormous gains in the past 20 years. No one thinks Rick Wagoner a more effective CEO of GM than Alfred Sloan, but Sloan never saw a payday anywhere near the $4.7M per that Wagoner pulls down. So, is this a cultural change worth fighting, or not? Michael Moore tries to fight cultural change all the time -- he thinks big business should feel more of a contract with workers, lie they did in the 1950s. And if someone described that idea as nonsensical, he'd be well within his rights noting that it couldn't have been so bad, because the US was an awfully productive economy in the 50s. Since Derbyshire is a conservative, he's thinking about (although here not actually endorsing) the ways in which conservatives want to 'turn back the clock' -- sexual morality and religious expression, for example.
I am not submitting this article as a high point of human thought -- it's merely the most recent thing by Derbyshire on National Review. But it's interesting, thoughtful, non-dogmatic, and contains at least three nuggets of information/interest that are well worth knowing (the framing quote, the Duke of Norfolk's complaint about literacy, and the fantastic fact that Sinatra was arrested for adultury in 1938). That's well above the bar for an op ed.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 1:09 PM
Left-wing Derbyshire = Hillary Clinton?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 1:45 PM
Moi?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 2:14 PM
I've been outed. I am Joseph J. Ellis:
"Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 2:28 PM
That's fantastic, Tim.
I was discouraged to learn recently that David McCollough was a Bush donor.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 4:07 PM
"I don't see the center of the Derbyshire peice as abortion, but rather a rumination about what changes, generally, it is possible to fight"
If the piece had had more to say about that -- about which changes are irreversible, which aren't, and how you tell them apart -- then fine. But instead it stuck to the noncontroversial idea that some changes can't be turned back (emphasis on "some"). You'd have to assume most intelligent people, even conservatives, realize as much.
The piece is the equivalent of a liberal op-ed on the ancient conservative themes of how human nature is imperfect and utopia is impossible. "You can't turn back the clock" has been a progressive cliche for decades. Hearing the idea come out of John Derbyshire's mouth doesn't make it any more interesting.
Posted by Kyle | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 4:37 PM
Left-wing Derbyshire: Noam Chomsky.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 6:50 PM
I watch this, and I think, what a mensch.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 8:30 PM
We need to start conspiring to ruin Ogged's new (?) relationship, b/c this is just inexcusably dull.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 8:46 PM
I'm not your monkey!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 8:48 PM
No, and you shouldn't be anyone else's, either.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:01 PM
You're not? But that's not what you said the other day...
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:07 PM
Ok, ok, I'll try to whip up something to spice up the blog...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:09 PM
Well, if you don't have anything better to do.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:09 PM
here, perhaps.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:10 PM
Accompanying article.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:11 PM
I can forward you the emails I received and sent today, and we can all discuss what a heinous bitch my sister in law is. (NOT the one you met, who is lovely.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:11 PM
Better than entertaining you, b? I can't imagine.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:12 PM
I think Mr. B should take PK and leave you. What does your sister-in-law think?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:13 PM
Is your sister-in-law Iranian by any chance?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:14 PM
For some reason I find "leave you and take PK" rolls more trippingly off the tongue.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:15 PM
She thinks I'm, let's see.... "cold" "verbally abusive" and "frigid"; "not KIND [or] CONSIDERATE," "entirely self-involved on a good day, and just plain mean the rest of the time." Oh, and "delusional" and "self-serving" to boot.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:17 PM
Not Iranian, no. Is self-righteousness an Iranian quality?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:18 PM
I missed #129 because I was so eager to be a bitch. I'm so sorry, dear Ogged. That's just lovely of you, and I know that you mean every word. ::smooch!::
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:19 PM
Iranians invented meddling relatives.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:19 PM
OK, when I click on a video link and it's named "Bi It's Raining", I want a bisexual version of "It's Raining Men". That was false advertising.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:20 PM
Wait, she sent you these emails?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:21 PM
So I can blame her on you?
(You'll be pleased to know that I, of course, told her she was being sexist.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:21 PM
Iranians invented meddling relatives.
That seems unlikely; you're a bit of a Johnny-Come-Lately as a people, aren't you?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:21 PM
Yeah, that video is lame, but Michael still isn't banned.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:22 PM
Damn straight, Becks. This site is just not meeting our needs.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:22 PM
Yep, she sent those to me. Can you imagine anyone having the nerve? I'd just sent her a very nice attempt at a conciliatory explanation, no less.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:23 PM
Can I interest you in Kevin Federline rocking out to his own single, "PopoZao"?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:23 PM
No thanks. Weiner, I think you should record a version of It's Raining Men for my own entertainment.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:24 PM
she sent those to me
That's remarkable. Can't Mr. B stop her?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:24 PM
He doesn't like to take sides, but yeah, I kind of talked him into asking her to back off and stop advising him to divorce me.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:26 PM
Garageband does seem to be installed on this thing....
(And if you read "The Superficial," you will know everything I know.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:27 PM
You're just not meeting my needs, Weiner.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:27 PM
The truthiest truth of marriage: you don't marry a person, you marry their entire family.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:30 PM
The rest of 'em are fine.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:31 PM
Exactly.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:31 PM
I thought that the truthiest truth was that it's all about compromise.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:32 PM
OK.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:32 PM
The odd part is, she was actually the one who introduced us.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:33 PM
While I like my ex-in-laws, I was very, very glad to leave all their trauma and drama cleanly behind. Now I only have to hear stories, not participate.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:33 PM
Unfortunately, Lubbock makes it pretty difficult to get drunk at home, so full needs-meeting will occur at a later date, if ever.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:35 PM
I always tell my mom I'll only marry an Iranian if every single member of her family is dead.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:35 PM
Well, I didn't want to *suggest* that in a public forum, but now that you mention it....
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:36 PM
Oddly, some families end up liking the in-law better than the family member, and keep in touch with them after the divorce, suicide, or murder.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:36 PM
My dad's sister and my mom stayed in touch after the divorce, yeah.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:36 PM
If Weiner and I were bickering, which we're not, I might suggest that his offering up a surrogate to satisfy Becks would be a good reason to change his name from Weiner to, say, Hitachi.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:37 PM
The production values on that video are charming.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:37 PM
I can't get over how much better it is to get the comments in rss.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:39 PM
Weiner, that was awesome. Thank you. Shame that a long-distance NYC-Lubbock relationship could never work.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:39 PM
Mr B. gave me a Hitachi for my birthday!
Because I'm frigid.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:39 PM
I'm pwned but I don't know why.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:39 PM
162: The Meatman Magic (Wand) Matt Weiner!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:40 PM
No, I'm not pwned! Ogged, who understands the laydeez now?
Still, I don't get 162.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:41 PM
a left wing Derbyshire would have some batty, indefensible views, but be learned, heterodox, and interesting.
Alex Cockburn, hands down. If anyone is a "left-wing Derbyshire" he is.
Ok, now I have a total blogcrush on GFR--as opposed to the only minor blogcrush I had before based on her writing and really cool name.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:43 PM
If 162 had a footnote.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:44 PM
I get that 162 is a Hitachi Magic Wand joke but I can't tell if I'm being offered one or if it's a suggestion that Weiner is the Hitachi.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:45 PM
Oh, shit, 171 is totally NSFW. I should have scrolled down, IYKWIM.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:45 PM
This may cast some doubt on my claims of laydeeziackal knowledge.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:46 PM
Hitachi is a surrogate for Weiner, I think is the idea.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:47 PM
Becks, you asked Weiner to record a version of It's Raining Men, and instead, he offered you a surrogate. Surrogate Weiner = Hitachi Magic Wand.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:47 PM
Weiner is retroactively pwned!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:48 PM
pwned, and you can't stop me from saying so.
Actually you can.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:48 PM
Yeah, scrolling was a surprise. It amuses me that you can now buy that stuff through Amazon.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:48 PM
Also, this is as good of a time to point out as any that none of you got my unexplained calf pain joke the other day.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:50 PM
OK, I think under the new standard for o-pwning, 177 pwns 178 if and only if it doesn't. I pulled something similar on a football message board earlier, but that's really too soaked in in-joke to explain here.
Wow am I trying to avoid working on this paper.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:50 PM
I am not trying. I am succeeding!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:54 PM
Join the club, Matt.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 9:55 PM
180 - I got it. Were we supposed to shout out the answer?
(I thought not.)
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:03 PM
Yay! (No, you didn't need to shout the answer. I just figured people didn't get it given past experiences.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:07 PM
I got it too. The joke, that is. Not explained calf pain.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:09 PM
Or unexplained, for that matter.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:09 PM
I would have been more worried about a business associate know I was dumb enough to worry about serious damage from a vibrator on my calf.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:21 PM
What?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:27 PM
He meant "burp."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:28 PM
I thought you were going to write a new post.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:29 PM
People, we have B's family, gay disco, and vibrators to work with here. I'm sure we can get by without a new post if we really try.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:30 PM
Maybe I should send my sister in law a vibrator. Think that's the problem?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:33 PM
That would combat the charges of being frigid and not kind or considerate. You should her a pretty engraved one.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:35 PM
Can you get engraved vibrators? 'Twould be hard to clean. Hm, that's a nice, passive-aggressive kind of thought...
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:37 PM
Apo, my reply was to Beck's link in 180.
Has Silvana stopped commenting ever since that cruel joke perpetrated by Kotsko?
Also, I think Ogged's drunk.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:39 PM
We got a silvery (actually plastic) vibrator for a coworker once and got it engraved as a going-away gift. It was more for a trophy than for actual use.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:41 PM
b, get one, and put a little card in it saying
"Thinking of you" and sign it.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:43 PM
So, so tempting. Do you earn money if you end up on Rikki Lake?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:44 PM
I think so. I mean, they're all actors, so I think they all get paid.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:45 PM
The scene opens in the strobe light illuminated Mineshaft where two patrons are discussing unfogged. In the background the music plays loudly:
"It's raining men, Hallelujah!
It's reigning men! Amen!
It's reining men, Ahem!"
Posted by Mr. B | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 10:58 PM
Why not an engraved butt plug? One of the ones with a big jewel on the end.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:01 PM
I saw "butt plug" and everyone goes away. C'mon people!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:13 PM
well, if you brought a butt plug to the mineshaft, what fun would that be?
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:14 PM
"say" obvs, in 203.
tweedle, is that a rhetorical question?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:29 PM
#202, not a bad idea. It would have to be a really tiny one, though.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:30 PM
a tiny jewel? put coal on the end. then you can call yourself santa bitch.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:31 PM
Maybe I can get a whole set, in graduated sizes, and include a note suggesting she start with the smallest one and work her way up.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:34 PM
Wait till easter and send them to her in an easter basket.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-06 11:47 PM
LOL.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 12:02 AM
Michael, you motherfucker, no I haven't stopped commenting! I've just gone 100% Becks-style. Apparently, only able to comment between the hours of 2 and 4 am.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 1:16 AM
Probably better than engraving would be a relief of some kind.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 2:54 AM
It seems that a vibrator -- cell phone -- computer combo would really catch on. People wouldn't try to borrow it, for one thing.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 5:47 AM
Why not an engraved butt plug?
Maybe one of these (not quite safe for work, of course).
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 7:32 AM
Ok, ok, I'll try to whip up something to spice up the blog...
Nothing too radical, I hope.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 10:56 AM
Silvana is Becks-style hardcore!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 12:24 PM
In the Derbyshire piece, this line pissed me off: How can we know whether, in adopting some position, we are being robustly conservative or delusionally reactionary?
I just don't understand the basis underlying that question. I recognize that conservatives self-conceptualize as conservatives, just as I do as a liberal. Nevertheless, in "adopting some position," I don't ask whether or not it is robustly liberal. I ask whether or not it is a good idea. If it is not, so much the worse for liberalism.
I have seen complaints quite similar to this before, but I can't remember where, or who was being complained about.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 5:07 PM
All good ideas are robustly conservative ideas. And vice-versa.
That's what he's imply.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 5:21 PM
ing.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 5:23 PM
There are some good examples of the phenomenon here. That's not to say, though,
that there isn't some chaff.
Actually, that search has a paucity of good examples, and if it hadn't been for "Bambiraptor" I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 5:44 PM
It isn't conservative to add "tonk" to your logic, either.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 5:50 PM
Haven't fully read all the comments since then but no one seems to have noted that Paul totally won the competition to name a left-wing JD with his 170. Cockburn is exactly right. Plus he's got a built-in cock jock.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 6:02 PM
It isn't conservative to add "tonk" to your logic, either.
Nor "Broccoli".
(PS, text)
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 6:05 PM
If I had a built-in cock jock I'd never leave the house.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 6:05 PM
SB, if you are going to include a PS to text don't you think he'd like to know what it is? Is this Friday Afternoon Secret Keeping redux?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 6:07 PM
Is there a better short piece to read on "Tonk" than wikipedia's entry on logical harmony?
Also, I considered the 218 answer to my question (redifining conservatism so that it exactly overlaps with the category of the good), but was trying to be chartiable.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 6:11 PM
What I have to share with text can't be expressed in words.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 6:12 PM
So, is quasiquotation just a hack to get macros to work in Lispy languages or does it stand on some firm logical footing?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 6:17 PM
If I had a built-in cock jock I'd never leave the house.
So you don't get out much, then...
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 6:24 PM
w/d, the original Analysis pieces by Prior and Belnap are also very short and I think readable (though my sense of that might be warped). You'd need some sort of online or paper access to the journal to read them, though. Meantime, that wikipedia entry looks pretty good, though. Unfortunately, if you don't know about introduction and elimination rules, the relevant wikipedia entry isn't very useful.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 6:34 PM
86: I just got back from the matador, it is good, here's a worthwhile review (except for the first paragraph, which really shouldn't try to glean so much significance from a poster) that I have nothing in particular to add to.
One puzzle the title prompted me to think about: since "matador" just means "killer," is the word, in Spanish-speaking countries, for describing bull fighters with another word used to signify killers, or is matador just used both in specific and a general ways?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 11:05 PM
Short review.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 11:06 PM
Perhaps I should actually link to the review I'm talking about.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 11:08 PM
I wrote 233 before I saw B-wo's comment. I am also missing the word "reserved" in the second paragraph of 231.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 11:09 PM
For a movie I expected would suck, National Treasure was surprisingly bad.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 11:31 PM
At the bar trivia (bar is noting the location of the trivia game, the trivia is not about bars) game in which I sometimes play, there is an oppurtunity between rounds to submit a fact to the host, and whichever team submits a fact which the host likes best recieves a prize, along the lines cookies or brownies. Two weeks ago, the last time we played, I suggested to my team that we submit the fact: "The 2004 Nicholas Cage film, National Treasure, is terrible."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 11:41 PM
National Treasure peed on the graves of my ancestors.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-29-06 11:53 PM
Also, Christopher Plummer, what do you think you're doing? Really. And you thought you'd never live down The Sound of Music. Your name is Christopher, you're 76, and you don't need a lousy screen credit.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 12:12 AM
Does this movie by any chance end with Cage realizing that a New Adventure Awaits? I think I've seen the last twenty or so minutes. Utter crap.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 12:21 AM
If the new adventure you're thinking of awaits him in the bedroom of his country estate, then yes. Otherwise, your're thinking of a different utter crap movie.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 12:36 AM
You're probably thinking of Peggy Sue Got Married, I'm always confusing the two films.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 12:43 AM