Maybe this simplest form of blogging will get me back into the blogging habit.
My favorite TV show: How It’s Made. Today I watched how clothespins are made. The youtube channel is here. The shows mesmerize me. What’s really engaging is walking in after the announcement of what it is they’re making and trying to guess what it is. One that I never guessed was the wheels on skateboards.
Something on which the left, the right, and independents agree: Drug tests for Congress. Personally, I’d add a history test, a math/logic test, and — if there is such a test — one for psychopathy.
Now Mickey Kaus was endorsing this post of Noah Smith’s: Redistribute wealth? No, redistribute respect. Neither article made complete sense to me. Neither one of them rang “always true”. Neither one of them seemed to consider respect to mean the same thing I’ve always thought it did. Basically, I feel and show respect to everyone I meet until they give me a reason not to. Those close to me, whose lives I know much more intimately, have greater or lesser degrees of respect even though my love for them might know no bounds.
On the surface, I agree that “the hard work of an unskilled laborer is considered worthwhile in social interactions, regardless of how many dollars it brings home”. And as far as I know nothing of someone beyond whether he works hard or not, he has gained my respect for his work. However, both articles leave out what comes afterwards regarding respect. The hard worker who drinks or gambles away his paycheck rather than spending it on food for his children gets no MORE respect from me. I might love that person, I might help him if I can, but I don’t respect him beyond his ability and willingness to work hard. I don’t hold him in high esteem.
What sense does it make to talk of ‘equality’ of respect in any case? Is it equal like you have equal rights under the law? The reason you can talk about human equality in that sense — it is the only way in which it is possible to talk about humans as equals and avoid speaking nonsense — is that there is a single source for the rights you have under the law, which creates those rights the same way for every entity. Respect is not like that. Respect is not the creation of a single source, but is created (or not) by each individual you encounter. Some will elect to respect you more than others. You don’t even get equal respect with yourself: how much respect you get depends on whom you ask. (Free advice: ask your dog.)
You know the drill. Read the whole thing. And when you’re through with that, read this.
This video made the rounds a few months ago and I like listening to the guy sing. The Star Spangled Banner is not an easy song to sing and he does a good job. At about 50 seconds in, this former Marine sings the 2nd verse of our national anthem.
He could learn something from Isaac Asimov. There are four stanzas.
One of my favorite bloggers, Eric at Classical Values has finally put Asimov’s essay “All Four Stanzas” online.
His reason for doing so is important. In his words:
Sometimes I have trouble sleeping peaceably in my bed at night because I know that rough men stand ready to do violence to quotations on the Internet.
And I’ve got stories to tell. Too many for one post, so I’ll just put up a photo of the reason for the trip to Arizona:
My youngest grandchild, Penelope, was born on April 6 and I think she’s beautiful! That’s a completely unbiased assessment.
Along with more photos of the baby and her big sister, I’ve got stories about my Amazon account being hacked, my car breaking down, a stinky motel room, a horrible hospital stay, rigid unreasonable health insurance rules, my husband’s 27 hour Greyhound bus trip. Let’s just say it was all interesting.
While neo-neocon may be correct in her assessment of the strategy behind Obama’s war on Fox, I think it’s possible that she is over-thinking the whole thing.
I think Obama is declaring “war” on Fox because he knows he can’t keep “running” against Bush forever and this is the next best thing.
It’s a proxy war.
There is very little that Obama is “for” that does not meet with protest from the electorate. Actually, there is little that Obama is “for” unless one turns upside down language and accepts a negative for some as a positive for all.