Happy New Year’s Eve to all of our blog family. We will be spending New Year’s Eve at home this year — preparing for our annual New Year’s party on January 1st. I will be toasting to everyone on our extended blog family.
Tonight Leslie and I will share our traditional bottle of Schramsberg Sparkling wine. This is my wedding anniversary. Thirteen years ago, Leslie and I eloped on New Year’s Eve after eight years years of dating. (There is an ongoing dispute over calculating the event, I insist that this is our 22nd anniversary but Leslie insists on not counting the eight years of dating). We always celebrate with a bottle of Schramsberg. This was the bottle I bought after we got hitched at Alexandria City Hall. I used my house school ring to seal the deal.
The kids made it to midnight and watched the painful display of Anderson Cooper trying to restrain Kathy Griffin. It turns out the Mayan Apocalypse merely predicted Griffin’s appearance on New Year’s Eve. This included her attempt to throw cash into the crowd – a moronic idea that had to be physically stopped by Anderson to avert a disaster. If this was Griffin’s idea of a joke, it came across as an unhinged, unfunny person trying to fill time. The kids insisted that we turn to NBC instead.
We are expecting 200 friends to share in Wasabi Bloody Marys) and our traditional soup: The Bowl of the Wife of Kit Carson Soup. I have smoked two turkeys to put into the soup. I also have enough Wasabi to light up Tokyo.
Everyone drive carefully and have fun. I will be giving a toast to our entire blog family tonight (and, of course, my marriage).
“Wait, I am safe, I’m already married.”
Darren,
The difference is you’re married with integrity, that’s what makes you safe. 🙂
“Wait, I am safe, I’m already married.”
Are you sure, Darren? Have you seen the show? With that lot? Ehhhh, maybe, maybe not.
“Luck of the draw.”
Yep. And I just can’t quit the game, Mike. Gotta play to win as they say. 😀
“America does not debate when genocide is acceptable. We do not debate whether racism is useful. No civilized country should be having a debate about whether, much less when, it is appropriate to torture.”
-Vincent Warren, Executive Director, Center for Constitutional Rights
Does Torture Work? Wrong Question!
by Vincent Warren
Posted: 12/21/2012 11:27 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-warren/zero-dark-thirty-torture_b_2340967.html
“Our reaction to the torture depicted in Zero Dark Thirty, regardless of whether the film accurately portrays what resulted from the torture, should be one of national shame and a firm commitment never to repeat the horrors depicted there. The focus on whether or not torture was key to killing bin Laden is a symptom of America having lost its moral compass. The 20th century saw great advances in the understanding of universal human rights, largely in reaction to — and revulsion against — the horrors of the WWII era, and the United States played an important and commendable leadership role in those developments. But we have gone from being a human rights leader to a human rights laggard.
Not only is our past use of torture a “stain on our national conscience,” as Feinstein, Levin, and McCain note, but we have yet to atone for these atrocities. It is not enough to “look forward.” Legal prohibitions without accountability for their violations are meaningless. I am proud to say that… the Center for Constitutional Rights has been dogged and relentless in its efforts to hold torturers accountable for exactly that reason. From the six years we spent trying to get justice for Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen sent by the U.S. to Syria to be tortured, to the first-ever settlement in a case of private military contractors torturing Iraqi civilians at Abu Ghraib, to our efforts in Spain, Canada and Switzerland to have Bush officials prosecuted — we have used every legal avenue available to demand accountability from those who shackled, maimed, brutalized and tormented their fellow human being, those who ordered them to do so and those who wrote the policies implementing such euphemistically named “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
America does not debate when genocide is acceptable. We do not debate whether racism is useful. No civilized country should be having a debate about whether, much less when, it is appropriate to torture.”
HenMan warned:
Now that you have exposed yourself as America’s newest trillionaire,… just wait until you start dating one of the Kardashians!
~+~
Oh no! That was something truly unforseen, yikes. Maybe this vast wealth I now have is going to corrupt even me. Being married to a Kardashian gal, that would mean two weeks in hell before she would call it off. Wait, I am safe, I’m already married. Wow, that was a close one.
“And I just can’t quit the game, Mike.”
Gene,
You are far too young to quit the game.
Straw man, nick.
Diversity is encouraged by the open door and free speech policies. Anyone can comment here and state their case for their opinions. They can even do so anonymously. No one is checked at the door for their race, nationality, ethnicity, age, sex, gender, education, religion (or lack thereof) or politics. We don’t censor on substantive content. We try to avoid banning people whenever possible and go to great lengths to avoid doing so as evidenced by how few people have ever gotten banned (it’s less than 10 in many years of operation and many thousands of unique visitors). Your opinions are yours and you are entitled to them and to express them. We let someone advocate bestiality without censor, for Pasta’s sake. Anyone can say what they like about substantive matters. You have free speech here. Freer than any place I’ve seen on the Web. Most blogs would have given you an unceremonious boot to the curb for violating their rules once let alone multiple times while presenting multiple chances for you to change your ways. However and consequently, speakers can and will be challenged on what they say as a matter of both logic and evidence. You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. Faulty logic is equally open for challenge. People will be able back up their opinions and statements when challenged or they won’t. Agreement is not required. You are not free from having your statements challenged. That is at the core of the Right to Free Speech. That is how critical thought and debate interact in public discourse. That is how the marketplace of ideas works.
Posters cannot, however, willy nilly ignore the rules and attack speakers personally when they are losing an argument. Even in court, ad hominem has a very narrow, limited acceptable application. If that’s your preferred method of dealing with challenge? Then maybe this isn’t the forum for you. If you seek simple unchallenged confirmation that you are always right? I’m sure there is some site out there where you can get that and if not you can always create your own blog. If you just like attacking people instead of arguments based on substance? Huff Po, FOXNews, and Drudge Report are open 24/7/365.
Insular is your perception, not the reality, and diversity is welcome. Your attempt to change the subject is a distraction from the real issue: your persistent ad hominem attacks when what you say is challenged. Sometimes even when it isn’t. In short, your inability and/or unwillingness to follow the rules. Again, your actual respect or disrespect of anyone here is irrelevant to you being expected to follow the few rules we do have and respecting both the forum and rules.
That’s the issue at hand. Not diversity.
Evasion and straw men will not change that.
“Agreement is not required. You are not free from having your statements challenged. That is at the core of the Right to Free Speech. That is how critical thought and debate interact in public discourse.”
Gene,
True, but sadly a waste of breath. He simply doesn’t get that he gets attacked because he leads by insult and because he never responds to points made with anything other than anecdotal subjectivity. His first ever comment on the blog was the equivalent of walking into a strange bar with a swagger and saying “I can lick any man in the house”. Someone really capable of doing that of course never announces it, not having to prove anything.
Insight, Insight, insight above all.
An example: One of my favorite heroes, was one when on the commission for the Challenger crash, he used his mind to make a graphic demonstrable point, Details another time. He was a Nobel prize winner in physics.
He also wrote candid books about himself.
One was titlled using the question his tragicallly deceased fiancée said to him: “Why/What? do you care what other people think?
Many like myself would reply with a litany of misdeeds dealt me.
I wonder if he realized the true import? The question really asks “Why do you need their approval in order to regard yourself well?”
No finger pointing here. An observation made since I set the heat under my potatoes. Will continue fixing my food. Posole anyone? Maybe next time.
anonymous, Now you’re killing me too! I just came back from my 5 mile walk, something a few here should consider, and I would love a bowl of posole/pozole[I see it spelled both ways].
mespo, Thanks. I value what you say and will take note. When you suggest I need to take a breath I will always take note, I may not agree but I will pause and reflect. Maybe one or two other men here have the integrity to make me take heed. A few more women do also. I’m a very good judge of people. It’s tougher in this forum. This is a good blog, as I’ve said many times. However, it is insular in many respects. I have said numerous times we need more diversity here. And, I’m making efforts in that regard. However, whenever I bring up that topic it is a thread killer! Just go to the post following this one for evidence. I think some folks are very comfortable w/ a small club. I grew up in a big family and believe “the more the merrier.” I sense we have a few “only children” here who find more people, and more diversity, a threat. I know Mr. Turley would like more. I’m certain you do also.
“Maybe one or two other men here have the integrity to make me take heed. A few more women do also.”
For some the ego elevating insult must always be there, overtly or covertly. So much so, that it is so automatic that the person is unconscious of it. I simply note the psychology as is my wont.
A little conjecture never hurts, Mike. Well. Almost never. I remember one time that the question “I wonder what would happen if I hit on that hot red head?” didn’t work out so well.
Once bitten, forever smitten.
“I wonder what would happen if I hit on that hot red head?”
Gene,
Asked myself that same question and here I am 32 years later. Luck of the draw.
How to eat Pozole (mexican soup)
Gone to eat. CULA.
GeneH,
Your opinions and observations are welcomed. New Year’s Resolution nr 2.
Mark,
Yeah, well I do feel part of the family since my attempted conversion the last days. It is a nice feeling. Guess that was why I came here.
Your and GeneH’s latest to Nick are what maybe can dispell his fear.
To be less than perfect and told of it is terrible to the one dependent for their value on their knowledge. Speaking for myself only.
Your disclosure of where the last line came from was big-hearted.
No more drone attacks from me!!!! Promise. New Years resolution. Don’t laugh,. We make so many that fail.
“Were you counting on my paranoia, to fill the space your unspecificness left, to heighten my worry?”
Neither. An observation is not necessarily an objection (which is what the colloquial “take exception” means). Don’t fall victim to your own assumptions. It was an observation. Nothing more.
ap,
Interesting recipes. I’ll have to give them a shot.
GeneH,
You are alway so GeneH like. I love you for it.
Were you counting on my paranoia, to fill the space your unspecificness left, to heighten my worry? Never mind it is mostly at rest now.
There I am again making assumptions, mostly negative.
The general problem is learning to tolerate perceived failings by others. Hard to change that.
Rule nr nnnnn. Do not criticize based on assumption as to others motivations. Ad hominems, even witty ones, can hurt. I learn how to do them when I was 6. Time to change, Keep on trying. Words to myself.
nick,
FWIW, I agree with Mark when he says “I think you make a valuable contribution to the blawg with your substantive stuff which I agree with a lot of the time. That said, you do get into a lot of sidetracking which invokes the wrath of some. Justifiably too –sometimes — but still you seem to get more than your share of negative feedback.”
When you stick to substance, you’re fine. When you sidetrack by attacking speakers? As Mark, Mike and myself have noted, that is when you invite discord.
You have no enemies here other than yourself.
ID:
“Messpo,
The most generous comment on this thread. Congratulations from me.
Particularly like people who can take advice from their families. I never had one.”
***********************
That’s sad, but you’ve joined this little ruckus quite nicely.
AP,
Thanks for the recipe. Sound delicious. Like I said, our poor don’t eat as well nor soundly as the mexican cuisine provides. You lucky American residents.