-#111: Rewrite to something like: (Craig's Law) Gaffes are manageable. Scandals hurt, and sex scandals hurt the most. An affair involving a member of the opposite is a harrowing ordeal; an affair with a member of the same sex sounds the death knell of your career. Hence, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office will merely destroy your political capital; getting caught propositioning for gay sex in an airport bathroom will destroy your career.
No, heterosexual affairs are fatal too more often than not. Bill Clinton is the exception. I can rewrite that entry, but both are fatal.
Vitter?
Eliot Spitzer. Wilbur Mills. Gary Hart. (Mills is my favorite one.)
You win.
Not really. Spitzer's career was killed by the prostitution scandal because he had taken a hard line on prostitution at earlier points in his career, and had somewhat of a moral crusader image. To put it simply, a sex scandal usually won't be enough to take you down. But if you mix hypocrisy with sex, that will kill a political career dead.
I'd say the book should be organized like a book about law: give each rule then a good bit of case law and analysis. Case law would obviously be cases in which it's played, but there should also be an effort to find cases in which it would be expected to apply, but didn't, and then an explanation for why it did or didn't apply, with court opinions (with majority opinions being quotes from those who advocated that it should apply and minority opinions being dissenting quotes). The analysis would be general advice about interpretation and application, quotes about the rule in general, and current debates (in the case of this rule, does gay sex by any republican count as hypocrite sex).
The book could open with a cramped listing of all the rules without the commentary but with page numbers.
I'd say the book should be organized like a book about law: give each rule then a good bit of case law and analysis.
I got more of a Murphy's Law vibe, only about politics. It'd be good to have some of them expanded upon, here's how it came about, here's why it matters, etc., but arguing political case law about not picking a horse in the Kentucky Derby... be Beatles about it, let it be.
Also, for anyone who thinks this isn't bookworthy, you should see the stuff that goes right to the humor section in any given Borders. Stuff White People Like and Barack Obama is your New Bicycle are both books, despite their entire content being available for free online.
Of course, I'd aim for something larger. Based on general impressions you'll probably end up about the size of Areas of my Expertise by John Hodgman.
Also, for anyone who thinks this isn't bookworthy, you should see the stuff that goes right to the humor section in any given Borders. Stuff White People Like and Barack Obama is your New Bicycle are both books, despite their entire content being available for free online.
Of course, I'd aim for something larger. Based on general impressions you'll probably end up about the size of Areas of my Expertise by John Hodgman.
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Holy shit, how did I manage to delete the copyright in the update? QUICK I SHALL FIX POSTHASTE
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
As for the general tone of the book, I'm trying to strike a balance of sorts.
*On one hand, I'd like to write the entries in a manner that they are, to the reader, taken semi-seriously.
*On the other hand, I've been kicking around the concept of putting inside the front cover the words "This book is a side note", followed by a giant opening parenthesis, and then putting a giant closing parenthesis inside the back cover.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I don't like the one for Mass. While the term "gerrymandering" originated here, I'm not aware of any recent cases (or even changes in the district map), probably because there aren't any republicans to gerrymander. A better rule might be "The districts of Massachusetts were first designed to advantage a now defunct political party based upon the political map of 1812. As for more recent changes and the shape of new districts, they seem to make sense to the citizens of Massachusetts, but so does the Boston street layout, which includes rotaries that can send you to Earth 2 and 7-way intersections which include turns that will send you to major events in world history, including the grassy knoll at the moment of the Kennedy assassination."
A better idea might be something along the lines of "Remember, a pedestrian in Boston is worth an additional point for every piece of Republican Party or New York Yankees paraphernalia visible on his or her person. Given that the typical pedestrian is worth only three points, this is an incentive few Boston drivers would allow to escape." or "(Joe's Law) If you are considering criticizing a member or the commonwealth for getting the citizens of Massachusetts free heating oil from a man who criticized a prominent republican, especially President George W. Bush, don't. It'll only make him more popular."
There's also "Despite the Watergate scandal having already broken, Massachusetts was the only state to go against Richard Nixon and for George McGovern in the 1972 Presidential Election, and they will never, ever let you forget it."
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Remember, a pedestrian in Boston is worth an additional point for every piece of Republican Party or New York Yankees paraphernalia visible on his or her person. Given that the typical pedestrian is worth only three points, this is an incentive few Boston drivers would allow to escape.
Yeah, I'm not going to do that one. Way more partisan a tone than I want to take. Heck, outside the state chapter, I'm taking pains not to mention specific parties at all if I can. The only reason I do it for the states is that some of them are so far in the tank for one side that the other doesn't really have a shot. And I'm trying to eliminate as much of THAT as I can if I can come up with anything better.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Remember, a pedestrian in Boston is worth an additional point for every piece of Republican Party or New York Yankees paraphernalia visible on his or her person. Given that the typical pedestrian is worth only three points, this is an incentive few Boston drivers would allow to escape.
Yeah, I'm not going to do that one. Way more partisan a tone than I want to take. Heck, outside the state chapter, I'm taking pains not to mention specific parties at all if I can. The only reason I do it for the states is that some of them are so far in the tank for one side that the other doesn't really have a shot. And I'm trying to eliminate as much of THAT as I can if I can come up with anything better.
While I understand that, the point of this book seems to be political reality, so hiding partisan realities is counterproductive. I'd say a better rationale for not using this suggestion wqould be that it's a bit close to the punch line of rule #7.
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I can live with noting partisan reality. However, I'm trying to make as many things as I can applicable to either party. Or, at the very least, I don't want to say that a Republican pedestrian is "worth three points". A Republican sees that at #21 and they're not even going to read the other several hundred, instead proceeding to scream about me advocating that Democrats run over Republicans with their cars. I don't need that kind of attention.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I can live with noting partisan reality. However, I'm trying to make as many things as I can applicable to either party. Or, at the very least, I don't want to say that a Republican pedestrian is "worth three points". A Republican sees that at #21 and they're not even going to read the other several hundred, instead proceeding to scream about me advocating that Democrats run over Republicans with their cars. I don't need that kind of attention.
Not to argue, but isn't what most repubs think Boston is like anyway? Actually, how famous are Boston drivers for their aggressiveness?
Oh yeah, there's also Romney's Law: if you insult the state you represent in elected office on the national stage, your political allies are never going to hold that seat again, and your party probably isn't either.
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
The preferred option for a state entry is something that would apply there that would not apply in any other state- a specialized local issue (like I use for Nevada), a quirk of the local legislature (like I use for Texas), a campaign note that would only apply there (New Jersey), something that would please or tick off only the locals (Wisconsin). The PERSONALITY of who they elect (Delaware) is greatly preferred to the PARTY they elect (Wyoming). The party is a last-resort thing.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
You might want to make #205 about the manga incident in Japan's parliament. Something saying that you shouldn't read non-pertinent materiel during sessions, especially not light reading, and especially not in in a genre or medium whose closest analog is looked down upon by your most important trade and diplomatic partner.
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Which of course brings us to the world's oldest dilemma: do the words "politics" and "tentacle rape" ever belong together in a sentence that does not also include the word "AAAAAACK"?
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Which of course brings us to the world's oldest dilemma: do the words "politics" and "tentacle rape" ever belong together in a sentence that does not also include the word "AAAAAACK"?
And now you just combined the words "tentacle rape" and "Cathy" in my mind, and I want to kill you.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Which of course brings us to the world's oldest dilemma: do the words "politics" and "tentacle rape" ever belong together in a sentence that does not also include the word "AAAAAACK"?
And now you just combined the words "tentacle rape" and "Cathy" in my mind, and I want to kill you.
And now you just combined the words "tentacle rape" and "Cathy" in my mind, and I want to kill you.
Which of course brings us to the world's oldest dilemma: do the words "politics" and "tentacle rape" ever belong together in a sentence that does not also include the word "AAAAAACK"?
And now you just combined the words "tentacle rape" and "Cathy" in my mind, and I want to kill you.
And now you just combined the words "tentacle rape" and "Cathy" in my mind, and I want to kill you.
Posts
I'd say the book should be organized like a book about law: give each rule then a good bit of case law and analysis. Case law would obviously be cases in which it's played, but there should also be an effort to find cases in which it would be expected to apply, but didn't, and then an explanation for why it did or didn't apply, with court opinions (with majority opinions being quotes from those who advocated that it should apply and minority opinions being dissenting quotes). The analysis would be general advice about interpretation and application, quotes about the rule in general, and current debates (in the case of this rule, does gay sex by any republican count as hypocrite sex).
The book could open with a cramped listing of all the rules without the commentary but with page numbers.
Of course, I'd aim for something larger. Based on general impressions you'll probably end up about the size of Areas of my Expertise by John Hodgman.
gordon.harless at the gmail dot com.
PSN: Corbius
creiss74 at the gmail
Reading this may be right up my alley.
*On one hand, I'd like to write the entries in a manner that they are, to the reader, taken semi-seriously.
*On the other hand, I've been kicking around the concept of putting inside the front cover the words "This book is a side note", followed by a giant opening parenthesis, and then putting a giant closing parenthesis inside the back cover.
"Iowans like corn. You know ethanol isn't necessarily the future, they know it, but God help you if you say it."
Please to be having the access? marshalljoe @ the gmail.
machineinstinct @ gmail.
A better idea might be something along the lines of "Remember, a pedestrian in Boston is worth an additional point for every piece of Republican Party or New York Yankees paraphernalia visible on his or her person. Given that the typical pedestrian is worth only three points, this is an incentive few Boston drivers would allow to escape." or "(Joe's Law) If you are considering criticizing a member or the commonwealth for getting the citizens of Massachusetts free heating oil from a man who criticized a prominent republican, especially President George W. Bush, don't. It'll only make him more popular."
There's also "Despite the Watergate scandal having already broken, Massachusetts was the only state to go against Richard Nixon and for George McGovern in the 1972 Presidential Election, and they will never, ever let you forget it."
While I understand that, the point of this book seems to be political reality, so hiding partisan realities is counterproductive. I'd say a better rationale for not using this suggestion wqould be that it's a bit close to the punch line of rule #7.
Not to argue, but isn't what most repubs think Boston is like anyway? Actually, how famous are Boston drivers for their aggressiveness?
Oh yeah, there's also Romney's Law: if you insult the state you represent in elected office on the national stage, your political allies are never going to hold that seat again, and your party probably isn't either.
Okay. But why do you say Gerrymandering never left Mass?
If you're a Republican and you're in New England, good luck. You're going to need it.
If you're a Democrat, and you're in Utah; are you sure that you're a Democrat?
If you're running for office in Wyoming, where'd you find the people to pander to?
You know it remains copyright even without the notice, right?
This is a pretty fucking sweet possibility, regardless of whether or not it actually can happen.
Also: VeritasVR at the gmail.com
Sweet.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
If you get on the Daily Show or Colbert Report, you are obligated to thank each and every PAer by name on air.
And mention that Clawshrimpy doesn't like the show's mech design.
Or get us tickets
All of us
Talk about cocks, a lot.
Also, I think I can resolve the Massachusetts dilemma. I'll put that in in a second.
EDIT: Delzhand, I think I'm going to use your Iowa rewrite.
:winky: