I'm tired, but I don't want to forget to post a link to this very well done reflection by an Indian-American woman on the odd and overwrought business of finding a marriageable partner. You don't have to be Indian, or a woman, for it to hit home.
Some non-crazy people have some non-crazy reasons to think that the presidential election results weren't quite kosher.
How much do you figure that NBA scouts and GMs are susceptible to hype around college players? I'm watching the announcers on CBS talk up UNC's Sean May (not as much as they talked him up last week), and it seems blindingly obvious to me that he's going to be a crappy pro, but it's just as sure that he'll go in the first round when he comes out.
I guess the real question is whether we think GMs are "experts" who are making more sophisticated judgments than lay people, or whether they've simply wound up at a particular place in an organization, without any peculiar talent or insight. The more drafts I see, the more I think it's the latter; save for a few wily GMs, most of those guys aren't doing a much better job than a reasonably smart dude sitting on a bar stool somewhere would do.
Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, admitted in federal court that he deliberately took classified documents out of the National Archives and destroyed some of them at his office....
Rather than the "honest mistake" he described last summer, Berger told [Judge] Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him documents were missing.Wow. It doesn't seem to make much sense that he destroyed copies, when he knew the original was still in the Archives, but other stories have called those copies "versions," so it might have been that some of the revisions would have raised uncomfortable questions. It's also possible that there were marginal notes that were damaging. In any case, he just plain stole the documents, destroyed them, and tried to cover it up. He's only losing his clearance for three years? He really belongs in jail.
I bet you've often thought, damn, I should throw Gary Farber some cash, but then you've never gotten around to it. Well, we here at Unfogged want to help the angels of your better nature by crassly offering you stuff if you do so. You know how, during those NPR drives, they promise you a mug printed with a picture of Fresh Air's Terri Gross or something? (Wait, she's a skinny white chick? WTF?) Or, like, a green canvas tote with NPR on the side, so that everyone on the subway will know you hate George Bush with a soul-searing hatred the likes of which has never been seen before? Yeah, we're having a fund raiser like that.
I know that the first thing you'll think is, "damn, they've convinced Pharyngula's PZ Meyers to come to my house in tightie whities and do a suggestive dance! I'm in!!" And I'll be the first to admit that would be totally awesome. But he wouldn't go for it. Nor does Fontana Labs promise to reveal his secret identity.
No, this is different. I, the not-particularly-mysterious Alameida, will make you, dear reader, a personalized gift of a nature I cannot fully reveal here, because it is against the law, sort of. (No, not that.) Not a real law, but more of an RIAA-type law. Start imagining things that you consider legitimately fair use, but cause Jack Valenti to have near-fatal asthma attacks and flunkies have to stab him with the epi-pen. You can email me for the details.
Let's say, just hypothetically, that you were to give Gary Farber $15 (or more! Nothing wrong with more!). If you do so, you must write a note in the "Message To Seller" box with your name and address (yes, even if you typed it before for the PayPal statement). Also include some message like, "I wish I had more rare groove to listen to", or, "I wonder, if the mysterious Alameida were making a mix for her own consumption, the theme of which was 'California', what songs would she put on it?" Or, "what if the mysterious Alameida just wanted to make the most random mix ever?" Stuff like that. And what if you were able to learn the answer to these questions, just by opening a mysterious package? I think you see where I'm going with this.
So, c'mon, people, pony up. You'll get something nice of an undisclosed nature, and Gary Farber will get some of those sweet sweet prescription drugs he's been hankering for, like the ones that lower your blood pressure. (I hear that shit is amazing). But make sure to put your name and address in the "Message To Seller" box! And speculate there in a theoretical vein about the music you like best or would like to know more about!
ogged adds: Just ignore all the comments if you haven't already donated, and donate. Everything is working as it should. If you donated
in the past few days to the "wonderweather" address, you can cancel and re-donate, or wait a couple of days for Gary to find out if he's receiving those. Thanks, all.
AND: All systems go. Remember, if you want your secret gift, we do need a mailing address. Thanks to everyone who's donated so far.
UPDATE: Requests for mixes are pouring in, so at some point there will be repeats. If you are at a loss, you might consider a request for the Fafmix: "a wish for the mysterious Alameida, from the whole of the Fafblog trio: if Alameida were to make a soundtrack to a movie about a quartet of vegetable revolutionaries lost at sea, what would it sound like?" I'm telling you, this is one fine mix. Where else are you going to find Robert Johnson's "Dead Shrimp Blues", The Beach Boys' "Vegetables", and a song in Welsh?
In addition to the usual wealth of fun referrers, including "i will not suck dick in class," "do shrimp suffer when killed," and "have you hugged your banjo today?" I see that someone in the UK came to the site from a search for "lucy mangan blog wife unfogged." I can only assume that this was the fair Ms. Mangan herself. Ms. Mangan, yes, of course you should become the blog wife of unfogged. But, as Unf already has himself a lady, you'll have to settle, I'm afraid, for just Ogged. Quite a comedown, I understand, but consider please, your own rapidly advancing age, and my fine relationship with your father. I am tidy and clean, and do not object to pasty skin in my mates. The comments are open, Ms. Mangan.
Crap. If you want your children to know the pleasures of a good steak, it's time to start explaining that we eat meat not just for the taste, but to confirm our dominion over the animals.
This is all quite sad and while there are many things to be said about it they can wait for another day.
Would it be funny if I went to every blog that I read, and commented on its first post today: "This is the lamest April Fool's prank I've ever seen"?
This can also be called praeteriteo. Just sharing.
Before I knock myself out trying to tweak this, let's find out if there are many takers. There's a new site RSS feed with full posts and comments at http://www.unfogged.com/comments.xml. Try it out, let me know if it's useful, what you'd like to see changed, added, etc.
Andrew Cholakian sent me a picture that he guessed, rightly, would amuse me, but then I realized that it wasn't just a picture; it was a photographic representation of the comments here. See if you can recognize yourself.
George W. Bush, on the occassion of Terri Schiavo's death: "The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak."
John Holbo and friends have a new literary studies blog: The Valve. If this doesn't bring Chun out of retirement...
Being a glasses-half-full kind of guy, I forgot the real story of my visit to the eye doctor. I'm to be fitted for a pair of "computer glasses," to be worn at the same time that I'm wearing my contact lenses. "Cool!" I thought, for most of yesterday. But then I realized that "computer glasses" are really just "reading glasses," but for people in the 21st century. I was hoping not to cross this bridge for another 20 years yet.
You don't have to read any of the hella annoying thread at Crooked Timber to appreciate the beauty of this comment by John Emerson.
I don't think that declaring children to be public goods is really a solution to the problem. It is, however, a way of at least noticing the problem, while continuing to talk economics-talk. That way children are no longer are thought of as simply an expensive luxury.
Dipnut: "And how, exactly, do you propose to formalize that arrangement without grossly vitiating everybody's basic rights?"
I personally would prefer to formalize the arrangement by parting out your body for transplant purposes in order to pay for my child's ballet lessons. But most at CT probably would prefer to attain the goal by some combination of taxation and regulation. The effin' weenies.
Either way, of course, would vitiate your basic rights. I like my way best, because it would be more fun. But—whatever.
Opportunity knocks, people. If there's any hope, this is it.
I'd like to recommend to all our nearsighted readers the special 16-hours-a-day on the computer, skip the annual visit to the eye doctor regimen for maximum ocular health. Apparently, one of the reasons my eyes have been feeling like they're bugging out of my head lately is that the vision in one eye has gotten significantly better in the last two years. Can we call all such outcomes "bacon for health?"
First, I don't see the problem. Second, school administrators are a gift from the gods.
An investigation is continuing into the latest antics of a local fraternity that was caught with its pants down literally.
Chico's Phi Kappa Tau is on suspension for its participation in a hard-core pornographic film that's for sale on the Internet.
That's College Invasion 6 for those you shopping at home. Trailer here. Not safe for work, obviously (kinda vile actually, now that I've watched it).
Chico President Paul Zingg is unamused. Maybe.
This fraternity will be dealt with in an unmistakably firm fashion
It occurs to me just now that I'll believe that Clint Eastwood is a good actor, rather than just a compelling presence, when he plays a character who's chatty.
"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!" And (said in hat) "I'm just Johnnie Cochran in a hat!" I remember the morning of the OJ verdict very well. I was still up xing with some friends from the night before, and we had been to that funny bar under the highway in downtown SF that was made out of a 737 body, and there were little booths by the plane windows, and TV screens showing flight scenes outside? Remember? That place was sweet. And they were having some 60's DJ, and I think it was the first time I ever heard the Shirley Bassey version of "Spinning Wheel". Anyway, we were all lying in this fold-out sofa bed and watching the Teletubbies or whatever, at my friends' place in downtown Oakland, when we heard all these people coming out of their houses and yelling and hollering in the street. People were honking their horns; it was mayhem. We were all "WTF", and we changed the channel to see...that OJ got off! I have to say, I was pretty fucking surprised. But, that glove did look hella tight...
I'm also pretty surprised at this Supreme Court ruling on "neutral reporting privilege." The gist: if I call someone, say, a tax cheat, and a newspaper reports that I called him that, the newspaper can be sued for damages. Huh?
Ah: See Weiner's points in comments.
If this is the best a philosophy professor can do, maybe they should lock her up (but not for the wrong reasons!).
Given the brouhaha last election over conservative "moral values," I brought up the obvious contradiction between the pro-life position against abortion on the one hand, and on the other hand, unquestionable support for an unjustifiable invasion of Iraq that has led to over 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, mostly children. Moral Absolutism, I argued, calls for CONSISTENCY. Otherwise, if you allow for exceptions, it's no longer absolute. Make up your minds. Either you adhere to the moral imperative or you're a relativist.
(Ok, ok, this is a serious issue, much worth worrying about. But it's so hard to defend idiots. I hope she plagiarized something.)
Flea has some solid advice for young ladies.
Thing One: If your boyfriend insists on anal sex even when he knows it's hurting you, he does not love you.
Thing Two: If you are 19, you do not want to date a 40 year old man.
And the one that I want to talk about:
Thing Three, and this one is for the White young ladies: Stop bringing your boyfriend to your job interviews.
My first reaction is, "Are you friggin' kidding me?!" But no, thinking about it, it doesn't surprise me at all. What I've found, in interviewing people, and also from tutoring athletes while I was in school, is that one of the most massive obstacles faced by people not of the middle class and above is their ignorance of such obvious-seeming norms. No one ever told them, they were never around people who prepared for an interview in such-and-such a way, they're less likely to have seen the movies in which these things happen, etc.
Things get unpleasant because not getting a job because you brought your boyfriend to an interview seems unfair--what does it have to do with your how you'll do the job? But, of course, it's a sign, and all signs are magnified in interviews, that you aren't properly acculturated, and that you'll constantly surprise your employer in unwanted ways.
I was probably too tired to catch it last night, but I see that Labs, apparently without irony, called the apostropher "a gem." That has to be the gayest thing I've ever heard.
The Colorado Supreme Court overturned a death penalty decision yesterday on the grounds that the jurors consulted the Bible. This decision seems very strange.
Legal experts said that Colorado was unusual in its language requiring jurors in capital felony cases to explicitly consult a moral compass. Most states that have restored the death penalty weave in a discussion of moral factors, lawyers said, along with the burden that jurors must decide whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors in voting on execution.
Can it possibly be against the rules for a juror well versed in the bible to internally reflect on its precepts and statements? What if such a juror quoted sections of the Bible from memory? And what was the defense up to, then?
Lawyers for Mr. Harlan also specifically urged the jurors to consider biblical wisdom, according to the Supreme Court's decision, with a request that they find mercy in their hearts "as God ultimately took mercy on Abraham."
The lawyers also made several references to Mr. Harlan's soul and his habit of reading the Bible with his father, the court said.
Maybe this is the real reason:
Other legal experts say the Colorado decision touches on an issue that courts do not like to talk about: that jurors, under traditions dating to the days of English common law, can consider higher authority all they want, and can convict or acquit using whatever internal thoughts and discussions they consider appropriate.
You let those uppity jurors know about nullification, and there's no telling what they'll get up to.
Husband X woke me up last night to say that there had been an earthquake. I was skeptical at first, but the light fixture ovet he dining room table was swinging from side to side, which is pretty much the gold standard for earthquakes. Later, lying in bed, I felt a little aftershock. Just like old times in California! Earthquakes, even little temblors, always freak you out anyway, but I found that experiencing one on the 19th floor of a big concrete and steel building really upped the freak-out ante. And having little children. It's not as though I'm totally sanguine about perishing in some horrible disaster alone, but...
There are the real beginnings of a backlash, at least in right-blogdom, against radical Republicanism. There was a schism of sorts when some folks, like Glenn, and Donald Sensing, and Bill Quick said that the Republicans were behaving disgracefully in the Schiavo affair. (Just overlook the left hating for the moment.)
I hope we're seeing the beginning of the end of the alliance between libertarian conservatives like Glenn and Republican functionaries like Hugh Hewitt and the Powerline gang. They still have their left-hating in common, and lord knows that's a strong bond, but absent the feeling of an immediate horrible threat from a powerful Al Qaeda, they seem less willing to overlook differences.
This might be a passing disagreement, but the pull of its more principled libertarian wing is the only chance that any of us have to see the Republican party come back to somewhere close to reality. (I don't mean to sound as if I think that bringing around five bloggers will save the country--I take these voices as representative of lots of regular people--but this seems like a time when people are assessing the strength of their allegiances, so there could be an opportunity for dialogue of the sort that we haven't seen much of in a few years.)
There's some newly released census data on the difference in income between various race/gender groupings.
Black and Asian women with bachelor's degrees earn slightly more than similarly educated white women, and white men with four-year degrees make more than anyone else.
A white woman with a bachelor's degree typically earned $37,800 in 2003, compared with $43,700 for a college-educated Asian woman and $41,100 for a black woman, according to data to be released Monday by the Census Bureau. Hispanic women took home $37,600 a year.
Much more tasty would have been means and standard deviations for (1) hourly wages, (2) hours per week, and (3) weeks of unpaid vacation/maternity leave. As the New York Times story states immediately after the except you quoted,
The bureau did not say why the differences exist. Economists and sociologists suggest several possible factors: the tendency of minority women, especially blacks, to more often hold more than one job or work more than 40 hours a week, and the tendency of black professional women who take time off to have a child to return to the work force sooner than others.
You might look at those numbers and think, "Hey, black women are moving up!" But, in fact, as William points out, it's more likely that significant numbers of black women are working two jobs, and even so, barely making more than white women.
As for why men make more than women, it's because men have penises, which I would have expected to be obvious, but no one has mentioned.
Tim's comment and Brad Plumer's post reminded me of Brad DeLong's post from back in the day about coffee consumption among academics. Ever square, I have a caffeinated beverage once every two or three months. Aw, damn it all to hell, I can't get the poll builder to work. We'll have to do it commently, then. Are you all massive coffee slurpers, on other drugs, or clean living and naturally energized?
The OPML file has been updated, for those who care.
Gadzooks, people, don't do it. This Slate article makes it sound as if you're likely in the clear if you download songs for 5c each from sites in Russia that claim, almost surely falsely, to have rights to distribute them. Even if the RIAA never ever comes after you, you would be a complete and utter fool to give your credit card information to a shady site under a foreign country's jurisdiction. Just don't.
KF is wondering.
Where is the line between being that cool professor who shows up to student events and that skeezy professor who used to be cool but still shows up to stuff? Is it 40? Tenure? Marriage?
it's one thing to look like you're twenty-five. It's quite another to look like you're trying to look like you're twenty-five. And I never, ever, want to fall into the latter.
Indeed. A problem, and not just for professors. But as far as they're concerned, I'm not sure there is a clear line. A happily married professor, for example, can probably extend his youthful hanging out, just because people will be less suspicious. Which is to say, it all depends on how skeezy you are.
It's not funny, exactly, nor quite ironic, but China's report on human rights in the U.S. does give you a good sense of the uncharitable case against the U.S.
Sometimes I think my co-bloggers believe that we love them for who they are, not what they do.
I described the liberal as having a two-stage view about end of life issues. First, comes something like the "life as continuum" view Brooks attributes to us. Second, comes a principle of free choice -- I think that I should make my own decision on this, but that my view should not control others, though I may try to persuade others that my view is correct (non-relativism). The problem here is that I think a lot of liberals don't recognize that the second principle really does depend on something akin to the first. If you hold views about the sanctity of life and the doing/allowing distinction that lead you to the conclusion that failing to keep alive someone who could be kept alive is the equivalent to murder, then adopting a principle of free choise at the second level makes no sense. An absolutist view on the first question requires an absolutist view on the second question.
Take this more in the spirit of a speculative tangent than a disagreement, but Matt's analysis seems more like an after-the-fact analysis of a system than an accurate description of how the system comes to be. Granting people the most thoughfulness and consistency that I think we can reasonably grant them, I'd reverse Matt's description and say that liberals are less likely to adopt positions that might require them to try to control others' behavior. Which is to say that their "relativism," more than the particular substantive question, is in fact responsible for their final position.
But even that makes people sound like more systematic thinkers than they usually are. Aren't people's moral positions more a bric-a-brac of ad hoc likes, dislikes, allegiances and identifications? (And particularly so when they're part of a political discussion?)