Politics for DilettantesKawaii -- Wednesday, October 08, 2003 -- 10:08:43 PM
Apathetic? Uninformed? Don't even vote? Have your bread and want your circus?This thread is tagged: politics, republicans, democrats
(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
Oh, I see. Science = I took three or four survey courses of Western philosophy in college.
Everything is clear now.
It ought to be clear, but I'm pretty sure it's not, if only because your misplaced sarcasm is the only sincere thing about you.
A survey course in philosophy is nothing more than an introduction to the best or most influential philosophy that the experts in the field (i.e. philosophers) think should provide the basis for an understanding of the history of their field.
Texts were provided in these courses - and probably still are - that cover nearly three thousand years of philosophy, from the Presocratics to Heidegger or Sartre.
I can't remember a single woman being covered in any of them. Doesn't mean there wasn't one, but if there was, I can't recall her name.
In fact, I can't even remember a single woman philosopher being covered in the popular treatments done by men who were as sympathetic to women's rights as any liberal man has ever demonstrated in this forum.
Bertrand Russell, who was a feminist who wrote often about women's rights, mentions not a single woman in his The History of Western Philosophy.
Will Durant, who supported women's suffrage, and who was helped assiduously throughout his long scholarly life by his remarkable and intelligent wife, Ariel, mentions not a single woman in his The Story of Philosophy.
Now you might have some excellent reason for why you believe all these male (and female) authors conspired to keep out all the famous women philosophers that you've failed to name, but I'm pretty sure you'd just be full of shit.
And, no, the woman philosopher who teaches at the local college, or who you bumped into at the local South Orange grocery store, is not adequate to counter this information about what philosophers are actually teaching your children in college.
I am indeed a mere simpleton who has no idea why the link feature inserts an https prefix before YouTube URLs, but you're even dumber for not figuring it out yourself.
The problem should be fixed now, and if it isn't, that's just further proof that there's something wrong with you.
But I'm posting it because of how Carla Bruni was passed around by men older than she.
Mick Jagger? Eric Clapton? These are all guys who were almost 50 when she was in her early 20s (the time of the interview). Moreover, she's an heiress in her own right and was making in the millions from her modeling, so it's not as though she was "with the band."
I doubt Trump's description of her being reluctant to model is accurate because she signed professionally when she was 19.
All of these guys are geezers now, but I'm sure it was a big brag for a then-middle-aged Trump to be able to claim he'd stolen a hot 24-year-old model away from the approximately 50-year-old rock star.
I feel similarly about Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall.
I bet Rupert saw Jerry (and Mick) numerous times during his years in London and New York, while thinking to himself, "What a dish."
Decades later, Rupert finally gets his chance.
Hall has held up pretty well, and I have the impression she's a nice woman (don't know much about her, honestly, but her smile seems genuine, and she has that Southern lady voice).
Compared to Bruni, though, she was the daughter of a librarian and a truck driver. So, if ambitious, she of necessity had to trade on her looks more than Bruni did.
Rupert Murdoch? Yech.
Just goes to show that if you want to hook up with a super model, all you need to do is wait...
My new theory of presidential politics is the more boring candidate loses, at least going back to Eisenhower - Stevenson. I don't remember that campaign, naturally, but I would assume that Eisenhower--despite being a war hero--was more boring than Stevenson (who was reputed to be witty).
1968 is hard to say, but even if we say Nixon was more boring than Humphrey, that still means boring is 1 for the last 14.
HRC pants suits and campaign themes? Boring!
I don't know. Goldwater and McGovern seem more exciting candidates than LBJ and Nixon. Some might say that was their problem.
The dullness of Bush/Gore in 2000 is hard to calculate, because they were both pretty dull, but then perhaps that's why the election was so close and turnout so low.
Carter/Ford in 1976? Another close election between two pretty dull men.
Goldwater and McGovern were more exciting in that their views were out of the mainstream, but they were less interesting individuals than their opponents.
Your retrospective hatred of Bush makes you reluctant to give him any credit, but he was definitely more interesting than Gore in 2000.
Carter was quite exciting when he first burst on the scene. He gave an interview to Playboy, remember. He lusted after women in his heart. And there was all that born again business.
Gerald Ford's boring presentation undermined someone who in retrospect was not a bad President at all, considering everything. I'd take him and his competence today in a heartbeat, Panama Canal Treaty and all.
"Interesting" in the context of a discussion on Trump's candidacy makes the term seem value-neutral to me, even given your claim that it's predictive of victory.
I agree that Nixon and LBJ were both very interesting people, but their most interesting features were hidden away from the public and not on display in their campaigns, which kind of makes it difficult to say that those interesting characteristics were responsible for their electoral victories.
Goldwater, on the other hand, was interesting in the way Trump is interesting - he just said what was on his mind with little in the way of a filter.
McGovern was different. A dull man with a breathtaking agenda. Sort of like Bernie Sanders. So I would still go with McGovern over Nixon.
As for Bush/Gore and Carter/Ford, the two elections were so close and the four men so dull that it doesn't make it worthwhile advancing a strong argument for either case. Suffice it to say that when two dull men run for president, you get a close election in which not many voters care about the outcome (proven by the fact turnout was so low despite the closeness of the two elections).
Given the recent discussion, I thought this was apropos.