MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
mmmm yes I get to wake up at five tomorrow morning to get to my internship on time
that is pretty cool
aaaand it looks like BoA just dumped a bunch of fees on my checking account so I am now overdrawn and my credit card has been held, meaning I cannot pay for my metro north ticket
mmmm yes I get to wake up at five tomorrow morning to get to my internship on time
that is pretty cool
aaaand it looks like BoA just dumped a bunch of fees on my checking account so I am now overdrawn and my credit card has been held, meaning I cannot pay for my metro north ticket
I believe someone once said, "My country right or wrong is like saying my mother drunk or sober."
I think that makes a lot of sense both ways
You can love your country and still think it's doing terrible things and want to change it
At the same time, you had no control over who your parents were and even though they raised you, many other people could have just as well or better
That doesn't mean there's no reason to feel anything for your parents based on anything besides objective reasoning
You just have to remember "My dad can beat up you dad" is kid shit
my dad can actually beat up your dad though, that's the problem here.
I believe the quote is from G. K. Chesterton.
And pretty much true. Except that there are really good things about the US, despite the mostly bad food, and every time I leave I'm glad to go back.
I got bored last night and changed my facebook name to Marcus Brody. Then I added a bunch of pictures of Marcus claiming they were me. Now I am posting statuses and comments on peoples' walls in character.
I love the amount of free time I have in the summer.
mmmm yes I get to wake up at five tomorrow morning to get to my internship on time
that is pretty cool
aaaand it looks like BoA just dumped a bunch of fees on my checking account so I am now overdrawn and my credit card has been held, meaning I cannot pay for my metro north ticket
eep
what internship
working for a maritime insurance company that's like an hour away on metro north
but looking at my account it seems that it became overdrawn after they processed a charge from creditreport.com which I think came from my new employer running a credit check on me and then me saying I wanted a copy (it was indicated it would be free so I don't know what this is about) immediately after my payment to netflix, which my roomie shares access to, brought me down to only a couple bucks.
so maybe I can fix this with BoA tomorrow sometime at lunch and get some loaned cash dollars from my roomie to cover the train
there seems to be an auspicious lack of a contextual foundation in a lot of internet political debates/arguments
you could say that about any internet argument I guess
but it's especially obvious in politics arguments because people are pinging wildly from arguments consisting wholly of historical reference to viewpoints constructed entirely from a priori arguments and so on
so some people are coming at it from the standpoint of moral philosophy, some people are coming at it from demonstrable effects, some people are coming at it from (in)alienable human rights, etc. Not that these are intrinsically mutually exclusive, of course, but I get the feeling sometimes that people are arguing different points in one another's general direction.
My gut says that this might happen because some people are knowledgeable enough about all of it to construct a cohesive worldview from the various spheres of political theory, while others are just flying off the handle and grasping at whatever sphere might seem to support their instinct-/antagonism-driven argument without really fitting all the pieces together into a cogent stance?
I guess I just feel like these/those conversations would be a lot more productive if people would focus on one concept at a time, but that probably just says something about my approach. Also, I mean, political theory is not my strong suit, so I'm pretty certain that a lot of the time that it looks like someone is conceptually flailing it's some failure on my part. Maybe it's also predicated on the fact that a lot of real-life political academic debates I've had have generally consisted of either agreeing on a single/a few points as though they are inarguable truth and then examining the various effects/causes/loopholes that these points might yield in practicality, or else doing basically the same thing with a particular theorist's whole Gestalt. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a better way of doing it, of course; in fact, in text that looks awfully reflective of the fact that I've never been in a high-level political theory class for political theory majors, where establishing that type of baseline would (maybe?) be unnecessary.
there seems to be an auspicious lack of a contextual foundation in a lot of internet political debates/arguments
you could say that about any internet argument I guess
but it's especially obvious in politics arguments because people are pinging wildly from arguments consisting wholly of historical reference to viewpoints constructed entirely from a priori arguments and so on
so some people are coming at it from the standpoint of moral philosophy, some people are coming at it from demonstrable effects, some people are coming at it from (in)alienable human rights, etc. Not that these are intrinsically mutually exclusive, of course, but I get the feeling sometimes that people are arguing different points in one another's general direction.
My gut says that this might happen because some people are knowledgeable enough about all of it to construct a cohesive worldview from the various spheres of political theory, while others are just flying off the handle and grasping at whatever sphere might seem to support their instinct-/antagonism-driven argument without really fitting all the pieces together into a cogent stance?
I guess I just feel like these/those conversations would be a lot more productive if people would focus on one concept at a time, but that probably just says something about my approach. Also, I mean, political theory is not my strong suit, so I'm pretty certain that a lot of the time that it looks like someone is conceptually flailing it's some failure on my part. Maybe it's also predicated on the fact that a lot of real-life political academic debates I've had have generally consisted of either agreeing on a single/a few points as though they are inarguable truth and then examining the various effects/causes/loopholes that these points might yield in practicality, or else doing basically the same thing with a particular theorist's whole Gestalt. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a better way of doing it, of course; in fact, in text that looks awfully reflective of the fact that I've never been in a high-level political theory class for political theory majors, where establishing that type of baseline would (maybe?) be unnecessary.
Posts
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
I see nothing in IMDB or Wikipedia suggesting that
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
there are a bunch of peel sessions missing
well hitler makes a pretty good driving buddy
he has kind of a funny wave, but it's the thought that counts
FUCK EVERY COMPUTER IN THE ASS
that goes for everything though
What spring does with the cherry trees.
that is pretty cool
aaaand it looks like BoA just dumped a bunch of fees on my checking account so I am now overdrawn and my credit card has been held, meaning I cannot pay for my metro north ticket
But I fucking hate computers they make me want to murder everything
so, nope not going down that road
so when i hooked up the new monitor and turned my computer on, the mouse was dead cause of no batteries!
okay, so i put in new batteries and the mouse still isn't working, go fish me out an old mouse and plug it in
in between finding the old mouse and plugging it in, my computer died and won't turn back on
frustrations
This is when you make some pithy comment about technology.
i suspect something fixable may have crapped out
in general i'm not too worried because most of the stuff that was important on there is backed up on my external
the external that makes my netbook freeze up
eep
what internship
thank god for streaming websites these days, this computer has 0 downloaded porn on it.
but man, that old desktop i have that doesnt want to turn on anymore? soooo much good material on it
the porn is safe
if unattainable
I believe the quote is from G. K. Chesterton.
And pretty much true. Except that there are really good things about the US, despite the mostly bad food, and every time I leave I'm glad to go back.
http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
I love the amount of free time I have in the summer.
Did you really mean that?
Are you kidding, he got lost in his own museum
My current status is this:
Marcus Brody is Help! Lost in my own museum, what a tragedy. I probably shouldn't have written the map in heirogyphics, I don't even read Egyptian!
working for a maritime insurance company that's like an hour away on metro north
but looking at my account it seems that it became overdrawn after they processed a charge from creditreport.com which I think came from my new employer running a credit check on me and then me saying I wanted a copy (it was indicated it would be free so I don't know what this is about) immediately after my payment to netflix, which my roomie shares access to, brought me down to only a couple bucks.
so maybe I can fix this with BoA tomorrow sometime at lunch and get some loaned cash dollars from my roomie to cover the train
this blows I hate this bank
that is far too many clauses
credit unions for life
you could say that about any internet argument I guess
but it's especially obvious in politics arguments because people are pinging wildly from arguments consisting wholly of historical reference to viewpoints constructed entirely from a priori arguments and so on
so some people are coming at it from the standpoint of moral philosophy, some people are coming at it from demonstrable effects, some people are coming at it from (in)alienable human rights, etc. Not that these are intrinsically mutually exclusive, of course, but I get the feeling sometimes that people are arguing different points in one another's general direction.
My gut says that this might happen because some people are knowledgeable enough about all of it to construct a cohesive worldview from the various spheres of political theory, while others are just flying off the handle and grasping at whatever sphere might seem to support their instinct-/antagonism-driven argument without really fitting all the pieces together into a cogent stance?
I guess I just feel like these/those conversations would be a lot more productive if people would focus on one concept at a time, but that probably just says something about my approach. Also, I mean, political theory is not my strong suit, so I'm pretty certain that a lot of the time that it looks like someone is conceptually flailing it's some failure on my part. Maybe it's also predicated on the fact that a lot of real-life political academic debates I've had have generally consisted of either agreeing on a single/a few points as though they are inarguable truth and then examining the various effects/causes/loopholes that these points might yield in practicality, or else doing basically the same thing with a particular theorist's whole Gestalt. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a better way of doing it, of course; in fact, in text that looks awfully reflective of the fact that I've never been in a high-level political theory class for political theory majors, where establishing that type of baseline would (maybe?) be unnecessary.
No Darwin, Newton, Hume, Faraday, Maxwell, Watt, Shakespeare?
if you can't trust your gut in this day of evil turmoil and political robots, what can you trust
fucking republicons
RepubliCon sounds like the worst convention.
the republicons
libertarizards & populoids
it is a dark, robotic time we live in