Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

OTP - Jan 2013: Jewish Journal:E1: An error in baseball and Mideast politics

Tripon Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:48 PM | 2805 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: ot, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 27 of 29 pages ‹ First  < 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 > 
   2601. CrosbyBird Posted: January 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM (#4355377)
The point, though -- is I hate paying for something continually if I can plunk down a one-time payment to have it forever.

Sure, but you can pay a one-time payment for digital download and have it forever too.

It's true that storage of discs is inefficient, but it's not like even a few hundred of them are exactly enormous. I love owning entire runs of TV shows on discs.

I own about 150-200 DVDs, which take up two shelves on my bookshelf. Since I live in a studio apartment, and I can't give up my physical library of books, that space is at a real premium. I'd transfer all of those DVDs to an external hard drive but it's time-intensive and I'm just too lazy to do it.

I definitely understand wanting to own something physical when it comes to books, or special edition DVDs and CDs, but most DVDs come in an unremarkable plastic box.
   2602. CrosbyBird Posted: January 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM (#4355381)
This seems like a pretty tech savvy bunch, but every so often a development occurs that blows my mind a little bit. Cell phones didn't faze me at all, perhaps because of their appearance in Star Trek when I was a kid, but this kind of capacity on a key chain staggers me a little.

I think I had that moment when I bought my first computer with my own money, and it came with the Encyclopedia Britannica on one CD-ROM. I don't think technology has the same wow factor that it did in the past; we'll never see something as impressive to us as the first moving picture or the first computer or the first transmission of information over the air rather than a cable. That said, it's still pretty amazing stuff.

I used to talk to my stepdad about this before he died, and he said that teleportation would one of those mind-blowing inventions.
   2603. Greg K Posted: January 26, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4355386)
I've got somewhere over 8000 books, and though the answer to the first question I always get ("Have you read all of these books?") is obviously "No", I can tell you where each of them came from, and how each of them fit(s) into history at the time it was written.


Dick: I guess it looks as if you're reorganizing your records. What is this though? Chronological?
Rob: No...
Dick: Not alphabetical...
Rob: Nope...
Dick: What?
Rob: Autobiographical.
Dick: No ####### way.

I'm a bit of a pack rat when it comes to books...I've actually cleaned out more than a few professors who were doing an office move. Plus my dad more or less lives at the national clearing house for Canadian Good Will. He's always picking up early edition 19th century histories for me. I also move around way too much to actually have them on hand, but luckily my parents keep my old bedroom in their house full of them. I haven't updated my database of books in a while but last time I checked I think I was near 1000. Similarly, I haven't read all of them by any means, but I can't imagine not having them. (Or since I don't actually have them with me, I can't imagine not owning them, would be more accurate).

One of my favourite projects of the last few years was organizing them by Library of Congress call number. The vast majority of my stuff is in the Ds. My current university uses some kind of system that only uses numbers. I hate it.
   2604. Publius Publicola Posted: January 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4355387)
If the lefties here don't like Bob Beckel, that's fine — I'm no fan myself — but claiming that a guy who has, for years, appeared several times per week on the highest-rated shows on the highest-rated cable network and also has a column on the op-ed page of USA Today doesn't qualify as a "prominent" political pundit is beyond absurd.


Joe, liberals don't watch Fox "News", except for comic relief or in a carwreck curiosity fashion. Beckel has very little influence on liberal thinking. If he had any real political juice, he wouldn't be on Fox "News". Fox trots him out there as a pinata for their conservative tagteam, like they used to do with Alan Colmes until Colmes realized he couldn't continue that gig and maintain his self respect at the same time, or to be able to point to him to counter criticism they don't present a "balanced" view. Guys like Bob Shrum and Lawrence McDonnell and Steve McMahon and other Dem stalwarts wouldn't be caught dead on Fox "News". To serious people who are interested in critical analysis and truth, Fox "News" is a very bad joke. To say that it's the highest rated news show says nothing about its value or its credibility or its journalistic integrity. People magazine, I'm sure, outsells The New Yorker. Fox "News" gets all the viewers who don't want to learn something, they just to be comforted by having their preconceived prejudiced views "validated".

USA Today is in the same populist bucket, except that it isn't as loopy when it comes to the facts as Fox is. Liberals don't read USA Today either, except at the breakfast table when they're on the road to catch up on the sports scores. If USA Today was a restaurant, it would be Denny's.
   2605. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 26, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4355389)
I'm a bit of a pack rat when it comes to books...I've actually cleaned out more than a few professors who were doing an office move. Plus my dad more or less lives at the national clearing house for Canadian Good Will. He's always picking up early edition 19th century histories for me. I also move around way too much to actually have them on hand, but luckily my parents keep my old bedroom in their house full of them. I haven't updated my database of books in a while but last time I checked I think I was near 1000. Similarly, I haven't read all of them by any means, but I can't imagine not having them. (Or since I don't actually have them with me, I can't imagine not owning them, would be more accurate).

One of my favourite projects of the last few years was organizing them by Library of Congress call number. The vast majority of my stuff is in the Ds. My current university uses some kind of system that only uses numbers. I hate it.


I'm not quite that organized. (smile) There are about a dozen subjects (photography, baseball, various periods and themes of 20th century history, etc.) that make up my main collections, and those all have dedicated cases, with rough sub-groupings within them. And then there are other subjects like film and music, where I may have fewer than 100 titles and only rate a few shelves of their own. The real problem is that since I'm a lazy ############, the only way to deal with category overflow is to double-shelve the secondary titles and to take the ones I'm most likely to read in the next few months and put them in the cases in the computer room and the bedroom, which are a mix of subjects. If I ever tried to be any more organized than that I'd wind up in a bughouse way earlier than I'd otherwise expect.
   2606. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 26, 2013 at 11:00 AM (#4355394)
Footnote to yesterday's D.C. Circuit Court decision that invalidated presidential recess appointments....

Has anyone seen any notice in any paper, or heard any mention in any broadcast, that the three judge panel that issued this decision was made up entirely of appointees of one of the two Bushes?

Chief Justice David B. Sentelle - appointed by G.H.W. Bush in 1987 and promoted to Chief Justice by G.W. Bush in 2007

Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson - appointed by G.H.W. Bush in 1990

Judge Thomas P. Griffith - appointed by G.W. Bush in 2005---I wonder whether Ralph Nader would have approved of this appointment (/sarcasm)

Given the pedigree of these three judges, it's hardly surprising that they ruled the way they did. But it is surprising, to me at least, that the unanimous nature of their decision hasn't been put into perspective by our media watchdogs. Apologies if it's been brought out elsewhere, but so far I haven't seen or heard any mention of of the fact that not a single Democratic-appointed judge was represented on that three judge panel.
   2607. Shredder Posted: January 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4355397)
Sentelle is also a tenther hack.
   2608. Publius Publicola Posted: January 26, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4355406)
I'm assuming this can be appealed?
   2609. Morty Causa Posted: January 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM (#4355423)
Sentelle was "promoted to Chief [Judge]...." Not Chief Justice. That's bad enough.
   2610. Mefisto Posted: January 26, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4355424)
Yes, there are 2 avenues for review of the decision. One is review by the entire D.C. Circuit (en banc review). However, there are only 8 judges on the D.C. Circuit, so all 5 of the others would have to agree to reverse. That's not likely; it's an extremely conservative group. However, this opinion is so crazy they just might take it up.

The other option for review is to take it straight to the Supreme Court. The decision conflicts with at least 2 other Circuits, so the Court would almost certainly take it. While I'm usually pretty cynical about the Court's conservatives, I could see Roberts and Kennedy voting to reverse.
   2611. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 26, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4355426)
Sentelle was "promoted to Chief [Judge]...." Not Chief Justice. That's bad enough.

My bad, and it sure as hell is bad enough.

------------------------------------------------

The other option for review is to take it straight to the Supreme Court. The decision conflicts with at least 2 other Circuits, so the Court would almost certainly take it. While I'm usually pretty cynical about the Court's conservatives, I could see Roberts and Kennedy voting to reverse.

Point of information: What other two circuits would those be, and what decisions?
   2612. Morty Causa Posted: January 26, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4355444)
Maybe I'm missing it, but in all this recent talk of priorities and agendas for the second term of the president, where does appointing judges fall? I just don't get the President's rationale for not caring about this.
   2613. Greg K Posted: January 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM (#4355453)
I'm not quite that organized. (smile) There are about a dozen subjects (photography, baseball, various periods and themes of 20th century history, etc.) that make up my main collections, and those all have dedicated cases, with rough sub-groupings within them. And then there are other subjects like film and music, where I may have fewer than 100 titles and only rate a few shelves of their own. The real problem is that since I'm a lazy ############, the only way to deal with category overflow is to double-shelve the secondary titles and to take the ones I'm most likely to read in the next few months and put them in the cases in the computer room and the bedroom, which are a mix of subjects. If I ever tried to be any more organized than that I'd wind up in a bughouse way earlier than I'd otherwise expect.

I'm in the annoying position of writing an essay about my short and long term career plans once I finish this degree (hopefully in the fall). I'd very dearly love to put "guy who goes around to people's houses and sorts their books for them" as a possible option. Though I'm not sure how much that would pay.
   2614. Mefisto Posted: January 26, 2013 at 01:13 PM (#4355479)
Point of information: What other two circuits would those be, and what decisions?


Actually it's 3 other circuits. The 11th in Franklin v. US (the case of Judge William Pryor); the 2d in US v. Allocco, and the 9th in US v. Woodley. The 11th Circuit opinion is notable because (a) the 11th is very conservative; and (b) Pryor was a Bush appointee and the Bush DOJ argued in favor of the recess appointment.
   2615. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: January 26, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4355495)
Greg, you're in a doctoral program, right? Early modern history? Are you on the job market this cycle?
   2616. Greg K Posted: January 26, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4355511)
Greg, you're in a doctoral program, right? Early modern history? Are you on the job market this cycle?

Early modern with a twist of gender!

I'm hoping to be done Septemberish and be on the market soon after. Though that may be getting ahead of myself...I have a draft in right now and the time-frame's going to depend quite a bit on how viciously it is ripped apart at my next meeting. I haven't actually started looking yet, though I plan to start soon. So far I have a line on a post-doc position at my current university, but I'll be casting a wide net I imagine.
   2617. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: January 26, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4355516)
Sounds like a good plan. I got a tenure track job before I finished, and while I'm certainly not complaining I'm wondering how the hell I'll ever finish now with my full teaching load, advising, committees, etc.
   2618. Greg K Posted: January 26, 2013 at 02:10 PM (#4355519)
Sounds like a good plan. I got a tenure track job before I finished, and while I'm certainly not complaining I'm wondering how the hell I'll ever finish now with my full teaching load, advising, committees, etc.

On the one hand that sounds great!

On the other, I'm incredibly lazy, and horrible at multi-tasking so I'm probably going to aim as much as possible to finish first.

Are you in the early modern period as well?
   2619. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 26, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4355540)
I'm in the annoying position of writing an essay about my short and long term career plans once I finish this degree (hopefully in the fall). I'd very dearly love to put "guy who goes around to people's houses and sorts their books for them" as a possible option. Though I'm not sure how much that would pay.

Your problem is that you were born about 30 years too late. Doing that for nearly 30 years is what's given me the leisure time to annoy people here with my comments, but if I were starting out today I'd be better off taking up blacksmithing. Every currently successful book dealer I know began 30 or 40 years ago, back when you could find underpriced gems in nearly every book shop in the world. There are plenty of such finds online today, but when they're underpriced to the point where you can turn them over for resale they're almost always going to be snapped up by someone else before you're even aware of them.

------------------------------------------

Point of information: What other two circuits would those be, and what decisions?

Actually it's 3 other circuits. The 11th in Franklin v. US (the case of Judge William Pryor); the 2d in US v. Allocco, and the 9th in US v. Woodley. The 11th Circuit opinion is notable because (a) the 11th is very conservative; and (b) Pryor was a Bush appointee and the Bush DOJ argued in favor of the recess appointment.


Thanks, that's good to know. I also wonder how any recess-appointed judges are going to feel if the Supreme Court upholds this inane decision, which by its applied logic would void many hundreds of decisions that those judges have made over the years, not to mention their standing to remain in office. I'd like to think that not even this Supreme Court is going to be crazy enough to open that can of worms, but in the meantime it better be a ####### wake-up call.

------------------------------------------

Maybe I'm missing it, but in all this recent talk of priorities and agendas for the second term of the president, where does appointing judges fall? I just don't get the President's rationale for not caring about this.

Obama's partly to blame for not sending up more appointments and pushing for them more openly, but given the willingness of the Republicans to stall and block those appointees by any possible means, I'm not sure how much good that would have done.

I can only hope that the Dems are going to be mobilizing their base to make them realize just how much is at stake here in these court and agency appointments----and BTW in a related point of fact, the last time the Supreme Court consisted of a majority of Democratic-appointed justices was in 1969.
   2620. Morty Causa Posted: January 26, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4355554)
Well, if you're not going to appoint judges when your party holds the majority in the Senate, when are you going to?
   2621. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 26, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4355568)
Well, if you're not going to appoint judges when your party holds the majority in the Senate, when are you going to?

I'm not disagreeing with that, but take a look at how those court and regulatory agency appointments have fared in the face of Republicans' "Iron Pants" Molotov strategy, and you'll see the larger issue involved.
   2622. flournoy Posted: January 26, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4355575)
Early modern with a twist of gender!


I liked this phrase better before I figured out the context.
   2623. tshipman Posted: January 26, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4355576)
The other option for review is to take it straight to the Supreme Court. The decision conflicts with at least 2 other Circuits, so the Court would almost certainly take it. While I'm usually pretty cynical about the Court's conservatives, I could see Roberts and Kennedy voting to reverse.


From New Process Steel vs. NLRB:

NEAL KATYAL, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL: They were named in July of last year. They were voted out of committee in October. One of them had a hold and had to be renominated. That renomination took place. There was a failed quorum — a failed cloture vote in February. And so all three nominations are pending. And I think that underscores the general contentious nature of the appointment process with respect to this set of issues.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?


So you'd have to think that Roberts at least would be a vote to reverse the decision.
   2624. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: January 26, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4355577)
Greg--yup. Shakespeare. With a dash of late medieval lit.
   2625. tshipman Posted: January 26, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4355587)
With a dash of late medieval lit.


What's your opinion of Chretien de Troyes?
   2626. Morty Causa Posted: January 26, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4355600)

I'm not disagreeing with that, but take a look at how those court and regulatory agency appointments have fared in the face of Republicans' "Iron Pants" Molotov strategy, and you'll see the larger issue involved.

Well, it has to be done, and if as president he doesn't think it does, and is not willing to push for his judges, he's abdicated the field. And that's not good. There is no bigger legacy for a president, and no greater institutional effect he can have--as your note that not since 1969 has the Court had a majority of Democratic appointees testifies to.
   2627. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 26, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4355605)
What's your opinion of Chretien de Troyes?


Medieval mommy porn.
   2628. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 26, 2013 at 08:40 PM (#4355713)
@2600: You bet--I don't know how many of your 8,000 you've read, but it seems to me like I've at least read through every one of books I have (currently around 1,000 on the premises, which doesn't seem like a lot until I move), and I do feel... more in the world for having them handy. I never quite forget that I might be holding real intelligence, careful thought, and occasionally, wisdom. I love the weight of a book. @2606: fwiw, I did hear in one place (don't remember where) that "3 Republican-appointed judges" made the decision, but it was in the nature of an aside, rather than the focus of the piece.

Apropos of nothing, in tax arguments these days, how come no one uses John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' any more?

I think I had that moment when I bought my first computer with my own money, and it came with the Encyclopedia Britannica on one CD-ROM. I don't think technology has the same wow factor that it did in the past; we'll never see something as impressive to us as the first moving picture or the first computer or the first transmission of information over the air rather than a cable. That said, it's still pretty amazing stuff.

I used to talk to my stepdad about this before he died, and he said that teleportation would one of those mind-blowing inventions.



It would, and 3D printing had something of that effect on me. For some reason I had no idea it was coming, so I was shocked, literally, to learn of it. I've glanced at some of the ideas surrounding teleportation, and it seems there are two methods. One, you actually break the thing down and send its particles to its destination, where you reassemble it, which brings up issues of soul and so forth. Two, you copy the thing, and send the information necessary to build it to a destination, which brings up all the issues cloning does.

3D printing is very much the latter. I'm sure someone, somewhere, is working on 'printing' the first organism.

edit: Hmm. 10 books per foot of shelf space. Typical bookshelf 3 feet wide, 4 shelves high, so 120 books per bookshelf. That sounds about right.

And 2604 nailed it.
   2629. Greg K Posted: January 26, 2013 at 09:03 PM (#4355723)
Greg--yup. Shakespeare. With a dash of late medieval lit.

Cool! My tenatative project for a post-doc is on gesture and political authority (as gesture seems to be all the rage with the historian set these days). I'm mostly curious how guys like Buckingham and Strafford seemed to piss everyone off just by the way they walked down the street, or sat and listened to a speech against them.

It's probably going to involve looking into the theatre, and how outward actions didn't just reflect the self, but served to construct it as well in the early modern period. Which should be interesting. I come from a pretty traditional political history tradition which deeply mistrusts all this "New Historicism" business, but I'm finding myself wading into it more and more with gender and now material culture.
   2630. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 26, 2013 at 09:04 PM (#4355725)
Apropos of nothing, in tax arguments these days, how come no one uses John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' any more?

Because when you're talking to a crowd that mocks the entire concept of a social contract, it's like trying to teach sabermetrics to Murray Chass. The resistance factor is just too high for Rawls's point ever to be understood.
   2631. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 26, 2013 at 09:22 PM (#4355730)
Apropos of nothing, in tax arguments these days, how come no one uses John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' any more?

Probably because, at the current level of government spending, just about no one is paying his or her "fair share" — or, to put it another way, almost everyone is getting a great deal.
   2632. Morty Causa Posted: January 26, 2013 at 10:47 PM (#4355762)
No. It's because delusion and dishonesty precludes even an attempt at considering it as theoretical thought experiment. It's too close for comfort to seeing the enemy as us rather than as them . (At this point Kehoskie will "scat" to another tangent.)
   2633. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: January 26, 2013 at 11:21 PM (#4355772)
Ewwww ... even on ignore, I don't want to see Kehoskie "scat" ...
   2634. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 27, 2013 at 12:40 AM (#4355802)
There's an interesting section on the veil of ignorance in Wikipedia. Maybe someone can help me with the last part:

Examples

An application of the veil of ignorance towards a recognition of the worst-off members of society is captured in Mahatma Gandhi's Talisman, given in 1948.

"I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."



What could Gandhi have meant by that last sentence? How do you find your doubts (after being IN doubt, according to his initial sentence) ...? I'm missing the relationship between finding doubts and the self that then departs.
   2635. Publius Publicola Posted: January 27, 2013 at 01:00 AM (#4355813)
I think he means that your thoughts become clear and the meaning of your doubts give way to the correct course of action.
   2636. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 27, 2013 at 01:05 AM (#4355817)
I also wonder how any recess-appointed judges are going to feel if the Supreme Court upholds this inane decision, which by its applied logic would void many hundreds of decisions that those judges have made over the years, not to mention their standing to remain in office. I'd like to think that not even this Supreme Court is going to be crazy enough to open that can of worms, but in the meantime it better be a ####### wake-up call.

What makes this case different from the recess nominated judge is that Pryor was eventually confirmed, and he was one of the very few recess nominated Judges in recent decades. An even greater distinction is that the Obama nominations were made when the Senate was NOT in recess, but was holding pro forma sessions to prevent recess nominations - a practice Democrats began during the Bush Administration. The DC Circuit decision can be upheld without endangering any other President's nominees.
   2637. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 27, 2013 at 01:30 AM (#4355820)
2635: Okay, so doubt is... uncertainty, which in turn is a threat to, and induces pain in, the self. I think it's Gandhi's use of 'find', in 'find your doubts', that's throwing me. Find the nature of your doubts? Discover them for what they are? Locate them in the talisman Gandhi offers, which is very much a test? Or, trade your doubts for Gandhi's focused question [i.e. "find your doubts", and thereby measure the action you are contemplating {is it the "correct course of action"?)], and, as focused as that is outside the self, and on the Other, "your self [will] melt away".
   2638. Greg K Posted: January 27, 2013 at 05:24 AM (#4355852)
I think he means, "you will find that your doubts melt away. And you will also find your self melt away".
   2639. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 27, 2013 at 07:16 AM (#4355855)
Trying to parse individual words from a non-native speaker is largely pointless. I mean would any native English speaker use the word talisman in that way? Was the quote originally even given in English? Because if it's a translation, then forget about it. Idioms and figures of speech don't cross language barriers well.
   2640. Lassus Posted: January 27, 2013 at 07:53 AM (#4355856)
One of the terminal reports rated him as "good at English, fair in Arithmetic and weak in Geography; conduct very good, bad handwriting." He passed the matriculation exam at Samaldas College in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, with some difficulty. Gandhi's family wanted him to be a barrister, as it would increase the prospects of succeeding to his father's post.
In 1888, Gandhi traveled to London, England, to study law at University College London, where he studied Indian law and jurisprudence and to train as a barrister at the Inner Temple.

He obviously was non-native, but I can't imagine his English wasn't pretty good by the time the above quote was spoken.
   2641. CrosbyBird Posted: January 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4355873)
He obviously was non-native, but I can't imagine his English wasn't pretty good by the time the above quote was spoken.

Whether he was a good English speaker or not is irrelevant. If the quote was given in a different language and translated (without some adaptation), it would present the same problem.
   2642. thok Posted: January 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4355882)
I think he means, "you will find that your doubts melt away. And you will also find your self melt away".


Give that this is in context of "Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test", this is exactly what he means. Is it really that difficult to connect the last sentence of a seven sentence paragraph with the second sentence?
   2643. bobm Posted: January 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4355899)
. I'd very dearly love to put "guy who goes around to people's houses and sorts their books for them" as a possible option. Though I'm not sure how much that would pay.

It would pay more if the books were blank.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/jeff_pealman_blog_this_weeks_sicom_column

I was thinking this morning about Pudge Rodrizguez [sic]. A bunch of years ago I visited Pudge’s house in Miami. He was friendly and nice and sorta dull, but two things stand out: First, he had a ton of books in his library—stuff like biographies of FDR and Lincoln; profiles of great debates, etc. I picked up one of the books to read through it—and the pages were empty. One hundred percent empty. All the books. They were merely for show, brought in by some interior decorator. ...

5. Tim Marchman Posted: December 23, 2009 at 03:14 PM (#3420648)

I used to do interior design work with books and the funny thing about this story is that blank books are much more expensive than printed ones, which are sold by the foot and are sometimes sold by weight for just this purpose. After all any decent used bookshop will be filled with unread Father's Day type books whereas blank books in the dimensions of a hardback book are quite rare. Actually if Pudge has a library full he probably took a decent chunk out of our national reserves of such books.

By the way, if you're wondering there is very little more soul crushing than dealing with rich people who want to buy thousands of dollars worth of books chosen strictly by color and volume.
   2644. Mefisto Posted: January 27, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4355900)
What makes this case different from the recess nominated judge is that Pryor was eventually confirmed, and he was one of the very few recess nominated Judges in recent decades.


Eventual confirmation wouldn't validate the rulings he made while a recess appointee. The problem with the DC Cirtuit ruling is that it invalidates all of the actions of the NLRB taken while operating with a recess appointee (it's a bit broader than otherwise for technical reasons I'll omit for simplicity). By that logic, if Pryor was in the majority on any 2-1 panel decisions, those cases would need to be reversed and re-heard.

An even greater distinction is that the Obama nominations were made when the Senate was NOT in recess, but was holding pro forma sessions to prevent recess nominations - a practice Democrats began during the Bush Administration.


I think it's possible for the SCOTUS to define "recess" more broadly than the DC Circuit, and therefore cover Pryor, but narrowly enough to invalidate the NLRB appointment. The decision as it stands, though, combines both an extreme definition of "recess" and the retroactive invalidation. That combination is hard to defend.
   2645. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 27, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4356108)
Didn't see the Anonymous attack on the Justice Department and leak threats linked.

Two weeks ago today, a line was crossed. Two weeks ago today, Aaron Swartz was killed. Killed because he faced an impossible choice. Killed because he was forced into playing a game he could not win — a twisted and distorted perversion of justice — a game where the only winning move was not to play.

...

Through this websites and various others that will remain unnamed, we have been conducting our own infiltration. We did not restrict ourselves like the FBI to one high-profile compromise. We are far more ambitious, and far more capable. Over the last two weeks we have wound down this operation, removed all traces of leakware from the compromised systems, and taken down the injection apparatus used to detect and exploit vulnerable machines.

We have enough fissile material for multiple warheads. Today we are launching the first of these. Operation Last Resort has begun…

...

The contents are various and we won’t ruin the speculation by revealing them. Suffice it to say, everyone has secrets, and some things are not meant to be public. At a regular interval commencing today, we will choose one media outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents of the file. Any media outlets wishing to be eligible for this program must include within their reporting a means of secure communications.

...

We make this statement do not expect to be negotiated with; we do not desire to be negotiated with. We understand that due to the actions we take we exclude ourselves from the system within which solutions are found. There are others who serve that purpose, people far more respectable than us, people whose voices emerge from the light, and not the shadows. These voices are already making clear the reforms that have been necessary for some time, and are outright required now.

It is these people that the justice system, the government, and law enforcement must engage with. Their voices are already ringing strong with a chorus of determined resolution. We demand only that this chorus is not ignored. We demand the government does not make the mistake of hoping that time will dampen its ringing, that they can ride out this wave of determination, that business as usual can continue after a sufficient period of lip-service and back-patting.

Not this time. This time there will be change, or there will be chaos…

-Anonymous

The recognition that those working in justice who do "believe in those principles that it has lost, corrupted, or abandoned ... do not bear the full responsibility for the damages caused by their occupation" was a thoughtful touch.
   2646. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 27, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4356136)
That's nice, but can someone please translate that jargon-loaded missive into plain English? Who's threatening to do exactly what to whom, and towards what ultimate end? That's not a snark, it just reflects honest confusion.
   2647. robinred Posted: January 27, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4356156)
Andy,

If you Google "Operation Last Resort" there are articles up that explain the basics. Apparentlty the USSC site had to shut down for awhile. I am sure there are many guys here at BTF who can explain it very well.
   2648. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 27, 2013 at 06:59 PM (#4356165)
I think it's possible for the SCOTUS to define "recess" more broadly than the DC Circuit, and therefore cover Pryor, but narrowly enough to invalidate the NLRB appointment

That's the most likely outcome, IMHO. I don't think the part of the DC Circuit opinion indicating that the vacancy has to occur during the end-of-session recess will be upheld, but the Supreme court might not reach that issue or the restriction on recess appointments to the end-of-session recess. They can easily find that the Senate was not in recess without addressing the other issues.

I'm a little surprised for the support here for Obama's expanded definition of "recess". Such a construction allows a President to place in office an unconfirmable individual or even a series of unconfirmable nominees despite the Senate's best efforts to block them. Not exactly what the Founders envisioned. I suspect some would be reacting differently if George W. Bush had made such appointments when Harry Reid was keeping the Senate in pro forma sessions.
   2649. Publius Publicola Posted: January 27, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4356169)
   2650. Tripon Posted: January 27, 2013 at 07:56 PM (#4356184)
2646. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship Posted: January 27, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4356136)
That's nice, but can someone please translate that jargon-loaded missive into plain English? Who's threatening to do exactly what to whom, and towards what ultimate end? That's not a snark, it just reflects honest confusion.


Basically, Anonymous decided to pull another wikileaks, but it sounds like they actually hacked a government site instead of relying on an Army Private to walk out with a CD-Rom.
   2651. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 27, 2013 at 07:58 PM (#4356186)
Robin and Tripon, thanks.

I'm a little surprised for the support here for Obama's expanded definition of "recess". Such a construction allows a President to place in office an unconfirmable individual or even a series of unconfirmable nominees despite the Senate's best efforts to block them.

Except if the Senate isn't even allowed an up-and-down vote on the nominee, what's the basis for saying he or she is "unconfirmable"? As it stands today, the "filibuster" isn't even a filibuster in any real historical sense. Nobody plays the part of Jimmy Stewart or Strom Thurmond. It's just a crude and rather robotic way of a minority blocking an eminently confirmable series of nominees. And I'd be saying that no matter who the president was.
   2652. CrosbyBird Posted: January 27, 2013 at 08:03 PM (#4356189)
Basically, Anonymous decided to pull another wikileaks, but it sounds like they actually hacked a government site instead of relying on an Army Private to walk out with a CD-Rom.

I wonder where this is going to go. I can't imagine that the government will give in to their demands, no matter how sensitive the information is.
   2653. Tripon Posted: January 27, 2013 at 08:25 PM (#4356197)

I wonder where this is going to go. I can't imagine that the government will give in to their demands, no matter how sensitive the information is.


If they really were able to get the information, it will probably get leaked. The people in Anonymous are true believers of 'hackitivism'. I don't agree with their message, but I understand why they do it.
   2654. Lassus Posted: January 27, 2013 at 10:15 PM (#4356256)
Coconut Grove redux

My GF's grandparents were in the Coconut Grove that night, and left because her grandmother was upset over losing a pair of expensive gloves on the way from dinner to there. It was like 45 minutes after they left the whole thing happened.
   2655. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 27, 2013 at 10:27 PM (#4356262)
The references to "Coconut Grove" had me thinking there was some big disaster in Miami that I didn't know about. This sent me to Google, where I learned the Boston tragedy was actually at the "Cocoanut Grove." First time I've ever seen that spelling (and first time I had ever heard of that disaster).
   2656. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:08 AM (#4356333)
My GF's grandparents were in the Coconut Grove that night, and left because her grandmother was upset over losing a pair of expensive gloves on the way from dinner to there. It was like 45 minutes after they left the whole thing happened.

It wasn't just your GF's grandparents who lucked out that night. So did the entire Boston College football team.

   2657. Tripon Posted: January 28, 2013 at 03:02 AM (#4356378)
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of senators has agreed on a plan to grant legal status to most of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., which could form the basis for a far-reaching overhaul of immigration laws this year.

The Senate blueprint, drafted during weeks of closed-door meetings by leading senators from each party, will probably set parameters for a contentious legislative battle over the next several months. The eight senators involved intend to release their proposal publicly Monday. A copy was provided to The Times' Washington bureau on Sunday by Senate aides.

The Senate plan is more conservative than President Obama's proposal, which he plans to unveil Tuesday in a speech in Las Vegas. But its provisions for legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants go further than measures that failed to advance in Congress in previous years — a reminder of how swiftly the politics of immigration have shifted since Latino voters' strong influence in the November election.

In terms of the number of people who would potentially receive legal status, it would be more than three times larger than the amnesty plan passed under President Reagan in 1986, which legalized about 3 million immigrants.
   2658. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 28, 2013 at 03:52 PM (#4356682)
From what I have seen the proposed basis is much better than I would have guessed from the cast of characters who put it together. Obviously until it becomes legislation (and not just a framework) it is hard to tell though. Still not sure the GOP house critters will sign off on it though.
   2659. Tilden Katz Posted: January 28, 2013 at 04:50 PM (#4356761)
Assuming immigration reform passes the Senate (which is a big assumption, none of the GOP guys here command a lot of power within the caucus), wouldn't there be a tremendous pressure on House GOP to pass some kind of immigration reform?
   2660. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4356769)
That's not immigration reform. It's grandstanding by a bunch of status seeking Senators.
   2661. GregD Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4356772)
Assuming immigration reform passes the Senate (which is a big assumption, none of the GOP guys here command a lot of power within the caucus), wouldn't there be a tremendous pressure on House GOP to pass some kind of immigration reform?
Cantor has been setting the groundwork--we have to pass an immigration bill we don't have to do anything else--and perhaps even in the negotiations for the framework. I would imagine they think they can get it through the House, but presumably not without breaking the Hastert rule.
   2662. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:12 PM (#4356797)
Except if the Senate isn't even allowed an up-and-down vote on the nominee, what's the basis for saying he or she is "unconfirmable"?

Allowing recess appointments when the Senate is NOT in recess isn't dependent on any level of Senate support. That allows unconfirmable appointees, or even a series of unconfirmable appointees, a path to office that would not otherwise be there, and uses a process that Senate intentionally tried to block. Quite a power grab. If you're OK with Obama's appointments, you have no standing to object when the same process is used by another President to "recess" appoint someone widely regarded as unfit for the office.
   2663. GregD Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:18 PM (#4356806)
Allowing recess appointments when the Senate is NOT in recess isn't dependent on any level of Senate support. That allows unconfirmable appointees, or even a series of unconfirmable appointees, a path to office that would not otherwise be there, and uses a process that Senate intentionally tried to block. Quite a power grab. If you're OK with Obama's appointments, you have no standing to object when the same process is used by another President to "recess" appoint someone widely regarded as unfit for the office.
That's true. It's also true that the number of appointments gummed up is unprecedented and the use of refusal to block the creation of agencies authorized by prior law is unprecedented.

It is always a difficult journey when norms disappear, and no one will be perfectly consistent. But the only logical outcome of the present system is a drive to never approve candidates for positions that don't draw media attention which means an evacuated federal government and judicial system. Either there has to be a way to get the Senate to once again vote or there has to be a way to get around the Senate's votes.
   2664. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4356819)
Cantor has been setting the groundwork--we have to pass an immigration bill we don't have to do anything else--and perhaps even in the negotiations for the framework. I would imagine they think they can get it through the House, but presumably not without breaking the Hastert rule.


Considering the proposal on the table is "we will only address immigration reform after the Joe Arpaio segments of Texas and Arizona sign off that the border is 'secure,'" it's pure theater to call this an immigration reform bill. This is a method to pretend like you did something while creating the roadblocks you know will doom it to fail in the real world.
   2665. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4356823)
Except if the Senate isn't even allowed an up-and-down vote on the nominee, what's the basis for saying he or she is "unconfirmable"?

Allowing recess appointments when the Senate is NOT in recess isn't dependent on any level of Senate support. That allows unconfirmable appointees, or even a series of unconfirmable appointees, a path to office that would not otherwise be there, and uses a process that Senate intentionally tried to block. Quite a power grab. If you're OK with Obama's appointments, you have no standing to object when the same process is used by another President to "recess" appoint someone widely regarded as unfit for the office.


That's fine, and when Senate Democrats conspire to refuse to allow the full Senate an up-or-down vote on any appointment by a Republican president, you'll never see me object to a similar tactic by that president. In both cases, the only "power grab" is by the Senate minority, not by the president. What's the objection to even allowing the full Senate to have a vote? It's not hard to figure out the real objection here---the Republicans know that they'd lose any such vote.

   2666. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4356826)
Considering the proposal on the table is "we will only address immigration reform after the Joe Arpaio segments of Texas and Arizona sign off that the border is 'secure,'" it's pure theater to call this an immigration reform bill. This is a method to pretend like you did something while creating the roadblocks you know will doom it to fail in the real world.

The only thing that stops me from reacting that same way is the identity of some of the Democratic co-sponsors of the proposal. I'm willing to wait and see how it plays out.
   2667. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4356854)
. . . when Senate Democrats conspire to refuse to allow the full Senate an up-or-down vote on any appointment by a Republican president, you'll never see me object to a similar tactic by that president. In both cases, the only "power grab" is by the Senate minority, not by the president.

Senate Democrats did just that during the Bush Administration, even using unprecedented filibustering of Supreme Court and other judicial nominations, as well as various Executive Branch nominations, But again, keep in mind that nothing limits the rationale for the Obama "recess" nominations to a filibuster situation - he could just as easily nominate someone who was never sent to the Senate, or never made it out of committee, or who was even voted down by the Senate. Once you allow recess nominations when the Senate is NOT in recess you, you've seriously eroded the Senate's confirmation power.
   2668. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:31 PM (#4356906)
Dreams of Libertopia:

Detroit — As the broken city thinks big and radically about its future, a developer is stepping forward with a revolutionary idea: Sell the city's Belle Isle park for $1 billion to private investors who will transform it into a free-market utopia.

The 982-acre island would then be developed into a U.S. commonwealth or city-state of 35,000 people with its own laws, customs and currency.

City officials are likely to reject the plan. But on Jan. 21, supporters including Mackinac Center for Public Policy senior economist David Littmann, retired Chrysler President Hal Sperlich and Clark Durant, co-founder of Detroit's Cornerstone Schools, will present the Commonwealth of Belle Isle plan to a select group of movers and shakers at the tony Detroit Athletic Club.

   2669. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:37 PM (#4356910)
Senate Democrats did just that during the Bush Administration, even using unprecedented filibustering of Supreme Court and other judicial nominations, as well as various Executive Branch nominations, But again, keep in mind that nothing limits the rationale for the Obama "recess" nominations to a filibuster situation - he could just as easily nominate someone who was never sent to the Senate, or never made it out of committee, or who was even voted down by the Senate. Once you allow recess nominations when the Senate is NOT in recess you, you've seriously eroded the Senate's confirmation power.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my bottom line is that all nominees deserve an up-or-down vote by the full Senate, no matter which party controls either the Senate or the White House. Would you agree to that? If the Senate minority would only observe this elementary courtesy, the question of recess appointments should never arise. But if the Senate minority refuses to allow that, my sympathy is wholly with the president, again no matter which party.
   2670. GregD Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:48 PM (#4356920)
Senate Democrats did just that during the Bush Administration, even using unprecedented filibustering of Supreme Court and other judicial nominations, as well as various Executive Branch nominations, But again, keep in mind that nothing limits the rationale for the Obama "recess" nominations to a filibuster situation - he could just as easily nominate someone who was never sent to the Senate, or never made it out of committee, or who was even voted down by the Senate. Once you allow recess nominations when the Senate is NOT in recess you, you've seriously eroded the Senate's confirmation power.
Your last point is a good one, but I'm confused about the first. Who was the Supreme Court justice nominee filibustered by the Democratic Party?

More broadly, as with other discussions of the use of Senate procedure, it's clear that things started to shift in the 1980s and 1990s, and that Democrats were part of the relative normalization of previously unusual actions. It's also black-letter clear that the Senate Republicans have used these tools in an exponentially greater way than ever before and to purposes--preventing the establishment of already legislatively created agencies--that has never been contemplated in history. The "just that" line is inaccurate. One can be critical of Senate Democrats without being forced into false equivalence.
   2671. DA Baracus Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:55 PM (#4356923)
Dreams of Libertopia:


I would like to see this happen. This will test people's commitment. You want a libertarian city state? Fine, it's in Detroit.

It would take $300,000 to become a "Belle Islander," though 20 percent of citizenships would be open for striving immigrants, starving artists and up-and-coming entrepreneurs who don't meet the financial requirement.


Freeloaders!
   2672. Steve Treder Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:55 PM (#4356924)
One can be critical of Senate Democrats without being forced into false equivalence.

Yeah, but false equivalence helps the rationalization work. There is that.
   2673. spike Posted: January 28, 2013 at 07:54 PM (#4356958)
   2674. Tripon Posted: January 28, 2013 at 07:55 PM (#4356961)
2673. spike Posted: January 28, 2013 at 07:54 PM (#4356958)
The end of the affair... Fox News declines to renew Sarah Palin's contract


From what I read on a different web site. She wanted a raise, and Fox News only wanted her back on a severely reduced contract.
   2675. spike Posted: January 28, 2013 at 08:05 PM (#4356967)
I am sure each would have you believe it's their own decision - but in either case, the net is the same.
   2676. Steve Treder Posted: January 28, 2013 at 08:08 PM (#4356969)
She wanted a raise, and Fox News only wanted her back on a severely reduced contract.

Cue Strother Martin: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

While this is no doubt not the end of Sarah Palin's thrill ride through fame, it's also rather clear that she's never seeing her peak again. A most peculiar figure in the history of American politics and political/popular culture. One imagines students of history, a century or two from now, discovering her story and saying, "Wait -- what?"
   2677. DA Baracus Posted: January 28, 2013 at 08:11 PM (#4356971)
Palin spent more time as a Fox News talking head then as Governor of Alaska.
   2678. spike Posted: January 28, 2013 at 08:30 PM (#4356987)
it's also rather clear that she's never seeing her peak again.

I wonder how long before she gives in to being a full-time paid product endorser.
   2679. Steve Treder Posted: January 28, 2013 at 08:40 PM (#4356993)
I wonder how long before she gives in to being a full-time paid product endorser.

So you're saying the Talk Show window is closed?
   2680. zenbitz Posted: January 28, 2013 at 09:09 PM (#4357008)
3D printing is very much the latter. I'm sure someone, somewhere, is working on 'printing' the first organism.


Only for an extremely broad definition of "printing".

Let assume we start with a little ionic buffer. We aren't printing phosphate ions out of atoms, are we?
Add a cocktail of building blocks - lipids, amino acids, carbohydrates, RNA/DNA nucleotides (monomers). Probably another dozen critical small molecules I am over looking. The lipids will self-assembly into bilayers.

You can create a synthetic genome on a DNA synthesizer. You would need to bootstrap, at a minimum, Transcriptional (make RNA) and Translational (make protein) machinery. Possibly you could engineer this with RNAs (also created on a synthesizer)

Or you could skip all this and just take a living cell, and use a suite of virii to add a new one and "delete" the old. Eventually the "hosts" existing proteins would get scavenged, I suppose.
   2681. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: January 28, 2013 at 09:10 PM (#4357010)
Who was the Supreme Court justice nominee filibustered by the Democratic Party?

I was wondering about this, too. Harriet Meiers?
I thought Republicans turned on her because of her lack of judicial experience and conservative bona fides. Which was interesting to me when BHO nominated Kagan, who might have presented much the same issues to liberals, except Dems rolled over onto their backs like widdle puppies.
   2682. spike Posted: January 28, 2013 at 09:20 PM (#4357017)
According to wikipedia, no Bush SC justice appointee was filibustered. 10 appellate justices were filibustered.
   2683. GregD Posted: January 28, 2013 at 09:27 PM (#4357019)
I was wondering about this, too. Harriet Meiers?
Miers withdrew before she went to the Judiciary Committee so she couldn't have been filibustered. And as you say Republicans were the source of opposition.

Roberts and Alito were confirmed.

If there's a filibuster in there, I can't see it.

There were hints in the back and forth with the White House that the Dems would try to filibuster Luttig. However one feels about such hints, they were standard practice by that point, as they are exactly what Hatch laid on Clinton when the Reps had the majority. That's the standard deal for the last two decades between the Senate Judiciary, when controlled by the non-president, and the president. The president gets to make the list; the Senate Judiciary chair gets to ding--by hints--the people on the list. Hatch actually went farther and wrote up the list for Clinton, asking the Chamber of Commerce to give him pro-choice, pro-business candidates, so he submitted R. B. Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sunstein as acceptable choices, while suggesting others would be filibustered.

The Supreme Court and high-level cabinet has stayed the same, though. McConnell hasn't acted differently than Reid or Dole on that front. Good or bad, that compromise is basically set, and any party that violated it by blocking a vote on a major cabinet official or SC justice would face immense bad press.

The difference is the unprecedented breadth of the slowdowns of lower-level appointees.
   2684. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 28, 2013 at 10:31 PM (#4357047)
Who was the Supreme Court justice nominee filibustered by the Democratic Party?

Alito was unsuccessfully filibustered by Senate Democrats - including Obama & Biden, who both also voted against John Roberts. Compare that to the large GOP majorities to confirm Ginsburg & Breyer.

It's also black-letter clear that the Senate Republicans have used these tools in an exponentially greater way than ever before and to purposes--preventing the establishment of already legislatively created agencies--that has never been contemplated in history.

Each party has been pretty good on building on what the other party did while not holding the Presidency. Harry Reid pushed the envelope in opposition to Bush, and now the same tactics are being used against Obama.
   2685. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 28, 2013 at 10:34 PM (#4357051)
Trying to parse individual words from a non-native speaker is largely pointless. I mean would any native English speaker use the word talisman in that way? Was the quote originally even given in English? Because if it's a translation, then forget about it. Idioms and figures of speech don't cross language barriers well.


Sure, but there are nonetheless excellent reasons to dive into it. Just thinking about doubt and self is worthwhile. Second, 'talisman' here is smartly evocative, and adds a dimension to the idea (that the idea is something as material as anything else, and can be taken out and held up, much as a favorite smooth stone) that had not previously occurred to me. If you're going to try to divine precisely what Gandhi meant, then, yeah. But if you're using the statement as a reason to dive deeper into the issue, this is a perfectly sensible approach.

I think he means, "you will find that your doubts melt away. And you will also find your self melt away".



Interesting. So, there's a real correspondance between having doubts, and having a [presumably false] sense of self? I wonder how doubt reinforces that brittle, contrived, construct of 'self' and 'I' buddhists urge us to let go of. Doubts melt away, replaced by a certainty; said certainty, here an idea, replaces the 'I'. The I is given over to an idea, a universal (as Gandhi implies). Anyone taking on the talismanic idea Gandhi wants to give us becomes more that idea and less the doubt-plagued self.

That makes sense to me.
   2686. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 28, 2013 at 10:55 PM (#4357068)
Who was the Supreme Court justice nominee filibustered by the Democratic Party?


Alito was unsuccessfully filibustered by Senate Democrats - including Obama & Biden, who both also voted against John Roberts. Compare that to the large GOP majorities to confirm Ginsburg & Breyer.

You answered the question posed, but the more important question is this: Was the Senate allowed a full vote?

It's one thing for a united minority to vote down a nominee for philosophical or whatever reasons. It's another thing altogether to prevent a nomination from even reaching the floor.

----------------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court and high-level cabinet has stayed the same, though. McConnell hasn't acted differently than Reid or Dole on that front. Good or bad, that compromise is basically set, and any party that violated it by blocking a vote on a major cabinet official or SC justice would face immense bad press.

The difference is the unprecedented breadth of the slowdowns of lower-level appointees.


That's the real issue here, and it feeds into the Catch-22 situation the Republicans are trying to foist upon the country: First, you block appointments to the regulatory commissions and lower courts. And then, like the boy who killed his parents and pleaded for mercy as an orphan, you complain that these agencies aren't working. It's a conscious strategy of paralysis by obstruction, and it's only going to get worse if it keeps on going unchecked.
   2687. GregD Posted: January 28, 2013 at 10:58 PM (#4357069)
now the same tactics are being used against Obama
flies in face of basic facts.


chart on filibusters

Alito was unsuccessfully filibustered by Senate Democrats - including Obama & Biden, who both also voted against John Roberts. Compare that to the large GOP majorities to confirm Ginsburg & Breyer.
72-25 vote to end the filibuster.

Cherry pick much?

Last four justices nominated:
Kagan 63-37
Sotomayor 68-31
Alito 58-42
Roberts 78-22

   2688. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 28, 2013 at 11:11 PM (#4357072)
one of the great benefits of being around a long time is you learn to appreciate the impact of time. it's incredibly powerful. you see people who for some amount of time seem to hold the public's attention. to impact public opinion. but they don't endure. they cannot sustain. they are unable to hold up over............time.

so basic. and so amazing.

gov palin was an embarrassment on multiple levels. thanks to some fundamental common sense of the electorate and now time she will soon be a permanent footnote to history.

i have no issue throwing dirt on her public grave. i considered her a lightweight as governor, i was appalled when senator mccain chose her as his running mate, i ridiculed her supporters and i am grateful for time having shown what should have been immediately obvious.

i say good riddance and i do not wish her good luck. she has already feasted far too long and too much at the public trough
   2689. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 28, 2013 at 11:38 PM (#4357085)
Elitist.
   2690. Steve Treder Posted: January 28, 2013 at 11:51 PM (#4357093)
Clearly Harveys has been hoodwinked by the Lamestream Media. A pity, that is.
   2691. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2013 at 12:02 AM (#4357097)
Alito was unsuccessfully filibustered by Senate Democrats

I dated Kim Deal in 1994.

I mean, I unsuccessfully dated her when I asked her out after an impromptu set on the second stage at lollapalooza 1994 and she laughed. Same thing, though.
   2692. Steve Treder Posted: January 29, 2013 at 12:52 AM (#4357119)
I repeat: false equivalence helps the rationalization work.
   2693. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 29, 2013 at 01:36 AM (#4357141)
Given the original image/topic for this thread, has this been discussed already?

Israel gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent.

One comment I've seen is "This story pretty much Godwin's itself."
   2694. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 29, 2013 at 02:15 AM (#4357150)
Alito was unsuccessfully filibustered by Senate Democrats - including Obama & Biden, who both also voted against John Roberts. Compare that to the large GOP majorities to confirm Ginsburg & Breyer.

72-25 vote to end the filibuster.

Cherry pick much?

Last four justices nominated:
Kagan 63-37
Sotomayor 68-31
Alito 58-42
Roberts 78-22


Ginzburg was approved 96-3 and Breyer by 87-9; and then many Senate Democrats opposed Roberts and almost all opposed Alito. Like Ginsburg & Breyer, Roberts & Alito were widely respected attorneys even before they served on the Court of Appeals, and they received the ABA's highest rating. They were no more conservative than Ginsburg & Breyer were liberal. Democratic opposition, including the filibuster (which they also used on Circuit nominees) changed the landscape for judicial confirmations, which is reflected in the Kagan & Sotomayor votes. Don't see how Democrats can complain, given the votes by Obama & Biden when they were in the Senate.

A significant reason for the increase in filibusters is Harry Reid's unprecedented use of Senate procedures to prevent a vote on GOP amendments. That has consequences, too. Shutting down minority amendments was another escalation that folks seem willing to ignore when it benefits their favored party.


   2695. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 29, 2013 at 02:49 AM (#4357152)
Detroit — As the broken city thinks big and radically about its future, a developer is stepping forward with a revolutionary idea: Sell the city's Belle Isle park for $1 billion to private investors who will transform it into a free-market utopia.

The 982-acre island would then be developed into a U.S. commonwealth or city-state of 35,000 people with its own laws, customs and currency.

City officials are likely to reject the plan. But on Jan. 21, supporters including Mackinac Center for Public Policy senior economist David Littmann, retired Chrysler President Hal Sperlich and Clark Durant, co-founder of Detroit's Cornerstone Schools, will present the Commonwealth of Belle Isle plan to a select group of movers and shakers at the tony Detroit Athletic Club.


While I'm in favor of all kinds of consensual experiments in governance, I have a hard time imagining the Feds or Michigan are going to allow anyone to create their own laws. I have to think Liberwhooptia would only be able to establish laws the feds or the state did not reserve for themselves. The IRS isn't going to waive federal taxes, right? Nor would Libertripetia be able to do away with the most restrictive of the the federal or state (and perhaps county--I don't know how Michigan structures this) building codes, or the food and drug admin's regulations... Not even if 100% of Liblubberozma's electorate voted to suspend those regs in favor of free contracts freely arrived at between cheeseburger vendor and cheeseburger buyer.

I'd love, though, to see how they handled something like the regulation of the disposal of toxic wastes if all other regulations in that regard at all levels could be waived.

While this is no doubt not the end of Sarah Palin's thrill ride through fame, it's also rather clear that she's never seeing her peak again. A most peculiar figure in the history of American politics and political/popular culture. One imagines students of history, a century or two from now, discovering her story and saying, "Wait -- what?"


I think the sheer, breathtaking cynicism of McCain's decision is understood even without the advantage of a long, historical distance. Desperate candidate drowning in the polls picks a popular female governor in the hopes of denting the Democratic edge among women and Independents, and without any regard at all for the consequences of that selection for the country.

3D printing is very much the latter. I'm sure someone, somewhere, is working on 'printing' the first organism.


Only for an extremely broad definition of "printing".

Let assume we start with a little ionic buffer. We aren't printing phosphate ions out of atoms, are we?

Add a cocktail of building blocks - lipids, amino acids, carbohydrates, RNA/DNA nucleotides (monomers). Probably another dozen critical small molecules I am over looking. The lipids will self-assembly into bilayers.

You can create a synthetic genome on a DNA synthesizer. You would need to bootstrap, at a minimum, Transcriptional (make RNA) and Translational (make protein) machinery. Possibly you could engineer this with RNAs (also created on a synthesizer)

Or you could skip all this and just take a living cell, and use a suite of virii to add a new one and "delete" the old. Eventually the "hosts" existing proteins would get scavenged, I suppose.


Yup. Pretty basic, really.
   2696. Dan Evensen Posted: January 29, 2013 at 09:00 AM (#4357193)
Back to the book discussion for a second.

I don't really have much of a collection, though I do have a large number of books. I'm really not that concerned with the resale value. Rather, I hope to maintain a home with plenty of books for my children to read as they grow older.

I guess it's sort of how I grew up. Starting when I was in middle school, I'd bring one of my parents' books with me to school to read during our mandatory "reading period" and lunch breaks. I read stuff like A Separate Peace, 1984, The Chosen and a few other books that I would later read in 11th and 12th grade literature courses. I also read Ball Four back when I was 14 or 15 or so.

Anyway, there's really nothing quite like reading a used book.

My current collection is mostly centered around foreign language books. I've got a pretty sizable collection of Chinese books. My most recent addition is a Chinese copy of The Cambridge History of China, including translations of all volumes that have been released so far (it's amazing that they haven't finished that series after 40+ years). I got the whole thing on Amazon's Chinese website for a little over $100, including next-day shipping. The books are nice hardcover volumes, pretty good compared to the sort of flimsy stuff you usually find out in these parts.

I've also got a good collection of classic Chinese novels and classical history, mostly from Taiwan. My Classical Chinese is still very rudimentary, but I'm hoping to build it up over time. It would help to stay off BBTF and get cracking.

I've got a small collection of German books. I'd love to go back to Germany one of these years and purchase a few more. My latest addition (and currently in my reading rotation) is a complete copy of Richard J. Evans' Third Reich trilogy. I've read the English, but there's nothing quite like reading the quoted text in the original. I've also got a 1909 Luther Bible, which cost me only 30 Euros in Augsburg back in 2004. I remember browsing goodwill shops back then that would sell books by the kilogram, usually at insanely cheap prices.

Most of my German books are little Reclam paperbacks, which are cheap, portable and relatively durable. I guess I should be happy that my eyes are still good enough to read them.

I've also got a number of Korean books, though my reading level is still pretty low. I was able to score a translated copy of The New Thinking Fan's Guide to Baseball on my last trip to Seoul, over at the Kyobo Bookstore in downtown. It wasn't very expensive, either.

The books I'm proudest of, though, are the ones that you simply can't find anywhere else. On one of my recent trips to Yanji (in the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, near the North Korean border in Jilin Province), I picked up a three volume set on the history of ethnic Koreans living in China. I don't think you can buy that outside Yanbian, and I know there's no way you can find it outside China.

I guess those books aren't really all that special when you're living abroad, but it sure will brighten up the shelves when we finally settle back down in the US.

Naturally, my wife thinks I'm insane. And this isn't even counting all my Strat, APBA, Pursue the Pennant and Skeetersoft cards.
   2697. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 29, 2013 at 09:16 AM (#4357199)
Considering the proposal on the table is "we will only address immigration reform after the Joe Arpaio segments of Texas and Arizona sign off that the border is 'secure,'" it's pure theater to call this an immigration reform bill.


I don't like those involved (much) and am skeptical of the bill, but this is an oversell and a big one.

Regarding Palin: Basically what others said.

Regarding Libertopia: Not in the proper US (Detroit still counts). Feel free to go to some other nation/island and give it a shot. Maybe a Native American Nation/Tribe would be willing to do something, or Mexico, Pacific Island, whatever.

Regarding Senate confirmations. Finger pointing is feeble, can we agree a President not able to make appointments by any means to be kind of a problem, needing a solution? If so I like the Senate must vote in X days or confirmationn happens. Give them a chance to "consult" if they dodge then too bad. Then go ahead and restrict recess appointments.

Regarding books: Love them. ebooks don't do it for me, but I have an ereader (Nook) and use it for some stuff I guess.
   2698. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 29, 2013 at 09:23 AM (#4357203)
Finger pointing is feeble, can we agree a President not able to make appointments by any means to be kind of a problem, needing a solution? If so I like the Senate must vote in X days or confirmation happens. Give them a chance to "consult" if they dodge then too bad. Then go ahead and restrict recess appointments.

Does anyone here have any objection to that? Seems to me it accommodates the "advise and consent" mandate without taking it to the point where courts and regulatory agencies lose their ability to function. What's the problem with it?
   2699. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2013 at 09:24 AM (#4357204)
During my my itinerant days as I moved from coast to coast and city to city I would ship my books via AMTRAK, which for a time in the 90s worked great for 15/20 large boxes. Cheap, even.

   2700. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 29, 2013 at 09:36 AM (#4357209)
When we moved from a DC apartment to a house in Maryland, it was only 6000 books instead of 8000. We just loaded them in boxes and rented a truck. The real work was packing them and labeling the boxes on the DC end, and then having to wait for the cases to be put into the house, most of which were custom-built to fit the walls. I think it was something like half a year before the last book got on what was then the last case. I wouldn't use an e-reader if you gave me 100,000 free books to go along with it, since IMO they're alien devices, but I can definitely see the upside if you move around a lot, or if you're stuck in a small apartment.
Page 27 of 29 pages ‹ First  < 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogGraphic designer creates Star Wars/MLB mash-up logos for all 30 teams
(15 - 4:14am, Aug 02)
Last: Barnaby Jones

NewsblogMike Carp designated for assignment, Mookie Betts called up - Over the Monster
(31 - 4:00am, Aug 02)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(218 - 3:08am, Aug 02)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(10 - 2:46am, Aug 02)
Last: Every Inge Counts

NewsblogCubs deal Emilio Bonifacio, James Russell to Braves
(47 - 2:38am, Aug 02)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(43 - 2:22am, Aug 02)
Last: Norcan

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(35 - 1:33am, Aug 02)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogMiklasz: Mozeliak sets off a loud wake-up call
(14 - 1:13am, Aug 02)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGiants Designate Dan Uggla, Tyler Colvin
(13 - 12:26am, Aug 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-1
(29 - 12:13am, Aug 02)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogRosendo ‘Rusty’ Torres found guilty of 5 counts of sex abuse, acquitted of 3 other charges
(15 - 12:11am, Aug 02)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1081 - 10:39pm, Aug 01)
Last: Quaker

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(160 - 9:12pm, Aug 01)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogBill James Mailbag - 7/13/14 - 7/22/14 (Subscription Required)
(11 - 8:40pm, Aug 01)
Last: robinred

NewsblogJose Bautista, Casey Janssen “frustrated” and “disappointed” by Jays’ lack of deadline activity
(6 - 8:31pm, Aug 01)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

Page rendered in 0.6321 seconds
52 querie(s) executed