« Serve the Servants | Main | "I was 21 years old and kind of a jerk." »

August 21, 2010

Comments

Cute kid. Exhibit A for the not surpising finding that pediatricians have the highest job satisfaction among all the medical specialties.

I'm not saying everyone should go have a baby right now... but I am saying this is the most fun I've ever had.

I note with interest that he's standing up next to a book titled
"Biological Exuberance" :)

--TP

All toddlers are cute and wonderful, most of the time. Its their defense against being left on a mountain top the other times.
===========================
Benen linked to this story today. It is an outrage, seriously. I immediately emailed one of my senators (Whitehouse, RI) and I hope you contact your senators and reps, too, especially if you live in a blue state or district.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/8/19/113223/843

"Biological Exuberance" is actually about homosexual (and other non-monogamous/heterosexual) behaviors in animals.

efgoldman, ugh.

"We really believe that to be a Christian in today's world, you have to be a warrior, and we feel very blessed and privileged that God has given us the tool to deliver His message and arm His army."

I seem to remember some dirty f--king hippie saying something about "Blessed are the peacemakers". Probably a socialist.

JD - I just hope it gets some legs. I have posted similar comments at BJ and as I find other open threads will do the same. Like all vermin, this general needs to be brought into the bright lights.

Don't blink.
Right mindfulness.
Be here now.

Because in what seems like a matter of weeks he'll be learning to drive, and a couple days after that he'll be gone.

nothing is safe any more.

Aw, he's just looking for something to read.


Pretty disgusting story about the coerced evangelizing of US military personnel. Major General Twinkle Toes is the one who needs to be punished. In descending order of importance, three crimes are: 1.) the coercion itself, 2.) the fact that the military is spending millions of our dollars on this, and 3.) the crime of terrible music - ever heard pure musical propaganda that wasn't bad art? I haven't.

When our first child turned one, we went to an art fair, where we encountered the parents of a child newly turned two. They told us, "You think the first year is amazing, but wait until the second year, when they start talking." We couldn't believe anything would be more exciting than the first year, but they were right. Keep enjoying! (Said child is probably about your age now, and we are still enjoying her and the others.)

It's even more amazing when they start reading at the age of 16 months. I'm quite sure I was at least three before I started reading, and I was reading adult encyclopedias by the time the school system was forcing "See Spot run!" down my gagging throat. We may have to home school this kid just to avoid his going nuts from the lack of challenge. Or at least find a good private school that can handle a kinder-gardener reading at elementary school levels.

i was rolling joints before i was reading.

as Willie Nelson once wanted to sing; momma don't let your babies grow up to be hippie teenagers with infants.

ever heard pure musical propaganda that wasn't bad art? I haven't.

Shostakovich. His propaganda pieces are not his best works naturally but not crap either.
It probably helps, if one does not speak Russian, so one can appreciate the music without being distracted by the odes to Stalin.

Shostakovich. His propaganda pieces are not his best works naturally but not crap either.

I respectfully disagree, Hartmut, but I know what you're saying. He was very skilled.

Mine was too sweeping a statement though. No reason why someone can't sit down and write non-coerced propaganda - i.e. propaganda one believes in - that isn't bad. I expect that it's difficult to do, though.

Come to think of it, is Christian Death Metal a contradiction in terms? Apologies to any Christians reading, but, not necessarily. Onward!

ever heard pure musical propaganda that wasn't bad art? I haven't.

About 40 years ago, there was a song, in the genre then called "Christian Rock," titled "Spirit in the Sky." It was far enough from pure crap that it actually made it big on the pop charts of the day. Not my favorite piece of rock music, but far from crap. (Although I suppose that you could argue that it wasn't pure propaganda.)

For that matter, things like "Battle Hymn of the Republic" come to mind. Propaganda for the North in the Civil War -- definitely pure propaganda. But as music, far better than most of the popular music of the time.

Definitely a good looking kid. Looks like he's up to no good. If he isn't, he will be. We are hoping for our first grandchild around the end of '11.

Well, Norman Greenbaum wasn't a Christian, and said he didn't have a 'message' at all. Not sure about 'Battle Hymn..'. We're talking about lyrics here (it had different words originally). But I concede that you could sit down to write propaganda and do a good job, artistically.

Does religious or liturgical music count as propaganda?

If so, I'd say there is a huge amount of musical propaganda that is actually wonderful art.

We are hoping for our first grandchild around the end of '11.

Now that's family planning. ;)

The Dead Kennedys made some good propagandist music, I think.

Since this is an open thread ...

Yesterday, driving back from NH, I spent several miles behind a Lexus with a 60-ish white couple in it and a bumper sticker (displayed through the back window, not pasted on the expensive bumper) that read:

DEMOCRAT TAX BOMB
JANUARY 1, 2011

Today, on Meet the Press, Mitch McConnell was pounding the same meme: Democrats are fixing to raise taxes next year.

It's too late to nip this in the bud, but we have GOT to push back. It was a Republican Congress that passed, and it was George W. Bush that signed into law, the Great Tax Increase of 2011.

Hey, you small businessmen struggling to create jobs while you take home $250K a year: REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR YOUR TAXES TO GO UP NEXT YEAR.

Hey, you voters who make less than $250K: Obama and the Democrats want to CUT YOUR TAXES that Republicans voted to raise next year.

Whether it's a good or bad idea to allow some, all, or none of the Bush tax cuts to expire next year is a matter of opinion. Which party voted for them to expire is a matter of FACT.

The David Gregorys of the world don't see it as their business to report facts, only to report what each side SAYS. Why the hell aren't more Democrats saying, to Gregory's face, what the facts are?

--TP


"Whether it's a good or bad idea to allow some, all, or none of the Bush tax cuts to expire next year is a matter of opinion. Which party voted for them to expire is a matter of FACT."

This is as disingenuous as anything could be. It is like the withdrawal timetable, what should drive it is conditions on the ground. The FACTS are that the Democrats are deciding to raise taxes or not, your view pretends they don't have a choice. The Republicans, to their credit, voted to ensure that a discussion would be necessary.

Come on, Marty, at the time the expiration date was a gimmick to make the deficit price tag acceptable. Nowadays of course it's "[w]hy did it [tax cuts] all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for?’"

The FACTS are that the Democrats are deciding to raise taxes or not, your view pretends they don't have a choice. The Republicans, to their credit, voted to ensure that a discussion would be necessary.

No, Marty: the Republicans voted right up front to sunset the Bush tax cuts. Why do you think they did that?

To "ensure that a discussion would be necessary"? I see. So it's the discussion they wanted, not the tax cuts? Is THAT what you're selling here?

--TP

"REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR YOUR TAXES TO GO UP NEXT YEAR."

Yeah, in exactly the same sense that Democrats voted to legalize 'assault weapons' back in 2004: As an unwanted compromise which eventually bit them.

Brett, whether or not it was "an unwanted compromise" the Republicans who pretend that Democrats are fixin' to raise your taxes are simply LYING. And people who pretend to believe them are dishonest.

People who ACTUALLY believe them are merely stupid. But that doesn't include anybody here, does it?

--TP

"Brett, whether or not it was "an unwanted compromise" the Republicans who pretend that Democrats are fixin' to raise your taxes are simply LYING."

Well, yeah, again, in exactly the same sense as the Democrats who pretended that Republicans were fixing to legalize weapons of war, just because they wouldn't vote to renew a ban on ordinary guns that happened to LOOK LIKE weapons of war.

Hyperbole is hardly the exclusive weapon of one side.

"Brett, whether or not it was "an unwanted compromise" the Republicans who pretend that Democrats are fixin' to raise your taxes are simply LYING."

So, the Democrats have a choice or not?

Yes, Marty: the Democrats have the choice to offer a TAX CUT BILL. The bill, effective 1 Jan 2011, would CUT the taxes of about 95% of Americans from the level at which REPUBLICANS VOTED TO SET THEM for 2011, back in 2001.

This TAX CUT BILL (hey: we could call it the "Obama tax cut") would, just by happenstance, NOT INCLUDE some of the "Bush tax cuts". Bring it to the floor of the House and the Senate, and let the Republicans VOTE AGAINST A TAX CUT -- if they dare. That's what I'd do if I was running the Democratic Party.

If necessary, I'd pass the Obama tax cut exactly the way the Republicans passed the Bush tax cut: under budget reconciliation. Wouldn't THAT be a hoot :)

You and I both know that as a practical matter Congress has to vote on this. The vote can be framed two ways:
1) Repeal of the sunset clause; or
2) A tax cut for almost everybody.
The Democrats are probably not smart enough to frame it the second way, so rest easy.

--TP

Now that's family planning. ;)

We are really excited. Our son and his really, really wonderful fiancee tie the knot on 11-20. He's 33, she's 30. They are both ready for children and plan to get started right away. My wife is beside herself. I am pretty stoked myself.

I've really enjoyed the posts of your son the last few months. My daughter (our first child) was born in October 2009, so her development has tracked your son's very closely. She started crawling only a few weeks ago, and yes, now she's pulling herself up on her knees to see what she can get at on the coffee table, in shelves, etc. I've packed my lower-level bookshelves and CD cases tightly, which dissuades her from pulling too much out, but I know it won't last...

It is the most fun we've ever had, too.

We are really excited.

Congratulations!

You will have a great time, I'm sure. I don't have any grandchildren yet and it doesn't look like happening for a long time to come. But my brother has four granddaughters, and one of the most fun things in my life these days is the time I spend with all of them in Ohio. Except that one of my nephews has picked up and moved to South Dakota. Whaddayagonnado?

McKT, congratulations. My mum is on another continent and this is the first time I've felt seriously guilty about moving here. It's such a miserable journey. My MIL has been out a lot from Milwaukee though.

Phil, you may also be mixing up Eric with me. Eric's baby Eric was born at almost exactly the same time as ours and he's posted lots of times as well. Although I've been posting in the same threads, so, anyway...

I blame the Obama inauguration although I think when I looked there was no actual blip in the birth statistics 9 months on. (Maybe the Obama-haters were ... discouraged?)

Whaddayagonnado?

No kidding. Our son is in NJ (Morristown), so I am expecting my bride to fly up at least once a month. You know, to help out.

It's such a miserable journey.

Yeah, but grandmothers will endure a lot to see the grandkids. A whole freaking lot.

[reposting JanieM comment from a mispost in another thread]

The subject of traveling long distances to visit beloved relatives, and the fact that McKinney is from Texas, combine to remind me of one of my favorite travel moments in the last few years. It happened when I had a long layover at Heathrow on my way to Brussels in 2008. Here's how I described it at the time in my travel blog:

I think Heathrow must be bigger (in land area) than Readfield. It is certainly more heavily populated.
My favorite moment of the 4 hours I spent there was when I got into a conversation with a woman who was traveling to Dallas. She was English, but she and her husband and kids (10 and 12 years old) have been living in Dallas for 3 years (I didn't ask why) and she expects they'll stay there permanently. She had been over here to visit her mother, who is in a nursing home.

We talked for quite a while about England, America, traveling, kids, and other topics, and then she said, "You don't have a very strong American accent."

It took me a minute (especially in my tired and jet-lagged fog) to figure out what she could possibly mean by this.

Okay, I admit it. I don't sound like a Texan.
[reposting JanieM comment from a mispost in another thread]

Janie was just thread-jacking. :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad