And here all I wanted to do was second Patrick's "EEEUW" and I get a lesson in Web acronyms.
Web acronyms? Didn't anybody here see American Pie?
Chad: She pronounces it "Teyreyza".
This isn't the first time you've spoken highly of Garry Wills, but I've never been particularly impressed by his writing. What about his work do you like so much?
Personally, I think you're straining at gnats.
Perhaps. This camel sure is tasty, though.
Josh, how does "posing" as "uncooperative" make it any less bad? Yeah, Patrick's "the moment" is a bit of rhetorical overstatement; they didn't start beating him until he, what, didn't do what they told him to?
I was responding to the rhetorical overstatement. I think this story is disturbing enough that engaging in rhetorical overstatement about it does a disservice to the cause of making sure it's dealt with appropriately and doesn't happen again.
The moment the other soldiers thought this guy was a detainee, they started beating him hard enough to deal out a traumatic brain injury.
From the article Jim Henley linked, it seems that the soldier in question was posing as an uncooperative prisoner, so it's not *quite* as bad as your quote makes it sound. It's still horrific.
Of course, David Neiwert might have been wrong about one or another tiny point, which means he's wrong about everything.
Well, for me, whether or not he's wrong on one or another tiny point is irrelevant; I think his history of fascism is bunk.
But I have to say I'm surprised to see you channeling Steven Den Beste, Patrick.
And indeed, if you click on any links to LGF from Nathan’s site, LGF redirects you to a “404 Not Found” page on the web site of the Israeli Defense Forces. As Newman observes, “talk about being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it!”
That's pretty much SOP for LGF at this point; he's done the same thing to Tacitus and Obsidian Wings because both of them dared to criticize him.
To the extent there is a standard practice, it's to add water. A drop or two to standard-strength whiskey, to release the esters (this may be specious, but it seems to work); noticeably more to cask-strength whiskey (like Booker's) so that you can actually taste it, instead of just getting a vague burning sensation.
Just a vague burning sensation? We're clearly not drinking the same stuff. (Drinking it out of a brandy snifter is a challenge, since my eyes start watering.) I have to say I've never actually had Booker's with water; the bartender who introduced me to the stuff served it neat, and I've never seen any reason to dilute it. I'll have to try it and see if the trick with the esters works.
And MKK, I should add that even if I were so inclined, I'd hardly be in any position to look down my nose at other people's choices in booze: I actually like vermouth in my martinis.
Explain to me, please, how this is not a pointless superiorty dance which allows you to look down your nose at others. He pays for the booze he can drink it any damn way he likes. People vary; tastes vary. This does not mean one is superior to the other. This is a lesson which must be learned on the way to adulthood.
I fear you have greatly misread the spirit (ha ha - I kill me) in which I posted. I'm not exactly up for playing Stalinist Truth Squad when it comes to other people's taste in booze. I wouldn't mix Booker's, but Tim's more than welcome to do whatever he pleases with it.
Re Old Potrero: The whole idea is that it's made according to colonial practice, which means a short maturing time. It's young on purpose. The one-year is so young they can't legally call it whiskey.
It's an interesting approach, at least, but an expensive experiment for the buyer!
It may be authentic, but it doesn't exactly make for good drinking. I'm a big fan of Fritz Maytag's, but I wonder what he's thinking sometimes.
But Tim Walters, you mix Booker's? That's sacrilege in my book! Of course, adding water is sacrilege in my book too. (Maker's Mark or Woodford for mixing, Booker's for sipping. Goes really well with cigars, too.)
Patrick said, quoting Mris:
"How much more politically prominent do we get than Jimmy Carter, for heaven's sake?"
Who left office over 20 years ago.
Or, as I remarked earlier, Martin Luther King.
Who was murdered before I was born.
You wanna know why people today don't think of liberals as religious? That's why. The examples you come up with don't mean much in an emotional, I-saw-that-person kind of a way to anyone younger than the Baby Boomers. Martin Luther King was a great man, but he's not directly relevant to a current conception of non-conservatives in the way that, say, Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry is.
Hitler believed that we lived on the inner surface of a hollow Earth (think Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Pellucidar). Visiting a radar installation designed to locate British fighters and bombers, Hitler personally ordered that it be aimed to a much higher elevation, i.e. to cut UP to where the Earth purportedly curved, instead of straight across the English Channel. So the Battle of Britain went our way, not his.
There are a whole host of reasons the Battle of Britain went our way, not Hitler's. The notion that the UK only won the Battle of Britain because Hitler demanded that German radar be re-aimed is... unusual, to say the least.
Not that Hitler didn't interfere in German warmaking. But that's not a good example.
Graydon: What makes you think these pheasants weren't on the wing? That's my understanding of the way these outings work: the birds may be pen-raised, but once they're in the field it's just like any other hunt. I've never heard anything to indicate that the birds were shot on the ground.
My reservations have to do with how competent the animal is in the "wild" once it is released. If, being farm-reared, it is significantly less skillful at hiding from hunters than its wild counterparts, then it seems a bit like cheating, to me. Still, I assume we're talking about hunting within the normal permits and limits, right?
I've seen hunting farms advertising that they raise their birds as wild as possible, so that hunting them isn't like hunting chickens. As far as limits go, the package includes a certain number of birds seeded in a field, and you take as many of them as you can shoot. If you want to shoot more, or if you want to increase your odds of taking at least one bird home, you can pay to have more birds put in the field.
Lydia: No, I was referring to this one (posted December 10, 2003 05:52 PM):
Available resources make more throughput in the field necessary if more than the rich with time and money to travel are going to have the experience. To bar put and take hunting is truly to limit hunting to the wealthy - the resident in a depopulating state who's on food stamps won't have to travel but also won't have the time
Possibly what they're buying is convenience. A pheasant hunt without any of the difficulties associated with a wild pheasant hunt. What is convenience, though, but wealth? I think that what they are buying is an experience of wealth.
clark e myers specifically pointed out above that put-and-take hunting makes hunting more accessible to people who aren't rich.
And when the price is as low as $125 per person for a hunt, you're not talking about the experience of wealth anymore, you're talking about something that's moved from being the province of the wealthy to being available to everyone.
Did I miss it, or is Patrick the only person who's even mentioned class in this discussion?
You missed it. clark e myers and Stefan Jones both mentioned that this kind of pheasant hunting is available to blue-collar people, and I mentioned that my dad had done it (although you have no way of knowing where my father and I are class-wise).
Moreover, Googling for " 'pheasant hunting' farm" will net you a ton of links, to many different places around the country that offer this kind of thing. Lost River Game Farm (to which I can't post the link 'cause of "questionable content", but it's what you'd expect) offers the following package: "12 PHEASANTS, 5 CHUKARS, 5 QUAIL, A DOG AND A GUIDE FOR HALF A DAY. FOR TWO HUNTERS. TOTAL COST $225"
On the higher end of the scale, there's Carr Pheasants, which costs $1500 for three days of hunting, but includes airfare, food, drinks, and lodging.
Actually, Kevin, what bugs me is that Cheney went out to act manly for the cameras and 70-odd pheasants died for that--and apparently, that alone. Life is worth more than a photo op.
Except that it wasn't a photo op. If it had been a photo op, presumably there would have been photos of it... or at least Cheney's spokesman would have been willing to discuss it.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 14 |
| 2003 | 43 |
| 2002 | 17 |
Total: 74 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Josh:
Show all comments by Josh.