Blowhard, Esq. writes:
Fredrikstad, Norway
Related
- Sir Barken Hyena points out that this design, shaped to deflect artillery, is basically what the medieval castle evolved into in response to the development of the canon.
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
Fredrikstad, Norway
Related
Paleo Retiree writes:
My tax dollars helped pay for this piece of feel-good-about-yourself propaganda:
But, hey, maybe this is a message that’s urgently needed … because we all know that, if today’s girls and young women are lacking in anything, it’s self-esteem.
Paleo Retiree writes:
It often seems to me that one of the big diffs between men and women is that many women believe that the world can be made into a safe place — like a big progressive school, with sweet, encouraging teachers and a trustworthily fair, firm-but-kind principal. This conviction/fantasy is baked into the female system so thoroughly that a lot of women feel indignant that the world hasn’t already been transformed into a wonderful progressive school. Most men disagree about this, and on a very deep level. To us, the larger, beyond-high-school, beyond-college world is, at its heart, a jungle or a Wild West. It’s a Darwinian, driven-by-survival (ie., ego, sex, power and money) place. No matter what anyone’s pretentions, no one’s ever really in charge, and there’s no legitimate Higher Power (and especially no fair-minded high school principal type — Ha! to that) to appeal to. Or, if there is a legit Higher Power out there, he/she is extremely unlikely to give our appeals much of a listen. To us, it’s a miracle whenever anything fair occurs, or whenever any degree of safety and calm comes along to be enjoyed.
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
Paleo Retiree writes:
As I was scrolling through some pics I snapped during a trip the Question Lady and I took through the Midwest a few years ago, I was struck — for about the zillionth time — by the contrast between the buildings our elites used to build for us and the ones they inflict on us these days. Let me illustrate. Some old official buildings from the Midwest:
Hey, you get a glimpse of the Question Lady in a few of those shots. Cool.
Now a sampling of far-more-recent official buildings:
When and why did our elites start erecting dreary structures? Part of the rationale for the new concrete-and-glass shoebox style is that it’s more accessible and democratic — it’s literally more leveled-out. Does that rationale work for you? Or is it bullshit? Do the new-style (ie., modernist concrete/glass shoeboxes) buildings express more or less respect for everyday people than the older buildings do?
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
Common-law legal reasoning, or the method by which lawyers and judges analyze a problem, has roots that stretch back almost 1,000 years to the educational method known as Scholasticism. Before we get to exactly what Scholasticism is, though, it’s important to know a little about Monasticism, the type of learning it replaced.
Monastic learning was passive by design. One was not supposed to question the Biblical text or writings of the Church fathers. Monks sat quietly and listened during their mealtimes as someone read to them. Didn’t understand a point? Had a question? Too bad. Monastic vows usually prohibited speaking. The point wasn’t to assert your will — the point was to obliterate it. (Sounds a bit like undergrad education today, if you ask me.)
The favored genre of Monastic learning was Biblical commentary. Commentators would gloss a text line by line, word by word, speculating on the spiritual significance of what they read. While these commentaries were restricted by the text, they were also meditative, associative, and stream of consciousness. There wasn’t much logical organization to these Monastic glosses, so the monks sort of just ramble on.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, approached things quite differently. While Monasticism was a product of the rural, contemplative countryside, Scholasticism arose in the towns and cities that were thriving during the Commercial Revolution. The Scholastics emerged from milieu in which people were quite comfortable speaking, haggling, and arguing — they sought out conflict.
As for the method itself, the Scholastics started with a question, for example, “Is it ever permissible to lie?” They would then comb through the recognized authorities — the Bible, texts of the Church fathers, Church communications, Papal letters, the pagan philosophers — looking for points of agreement and disagreement. The next step was the juxtaposition of these authorities, lining them up pro and con. Then, via a dialectical process, they would reconcile the authorities, arguing that if you looked closely, they actually didn’t disagree at all. This reconciliation was accomplished in two ways: 1) via philological analysis (the Scholastics loved to split hairs over the meaning of words) and 2) via logical, formal analysis.
The Scholastic method should sound awfully familiar to any lawyers in the audience because this is exactly how modern legal reasoning works, as well as providing the basic blueprint of judicial appellate opinions. An appellate opinion usually begins with the “question presented,” i.e. the legal issue to be determined. Then, the judges review the controlling legal authorities — decisions of prior courts that have ruled on similar issues, influential law review articles, treatises, etc. If there is a direct conflict among the authorities, the judges will do their best, via philological analysis and formal logic, to synthesize and reconcile the conflict. Most United States Supreme Court decisions follow this model — the Justices are not usually deciding a novel legal issue, they’re trying to reconcile a conflict between two different federal appellate jurisdictions who are coming to opposite outcomes on the same issue.
Related
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
The site LAist just released its list of the best burritos in Los Angeles. PR decided there was a disturbing lack of food blogging around here, so I’ve been sent on assignment to evaluate their findings. Hey, no problem, happy to oblige and besides, one of the joints on the list is a regular lunch place of mine. So without further ado, let’s check out Super Mex located at 4711 East 2nd Street in Long Beach, CA.
Whenever I eat here I get the carne asada one, but LAist recommends the carnitas, so that’s what I’m ordering.
Whether you order it to go (at a little place next door) or dine in, you get chips ‘n salsa, por supesto. The salsa is very tasty — nice consistency, spicy but not too hot. The staff is good about refilling it promptly, too.
The main course. As the menu says, the burrito contains meat, refried beans, rice and lettuce topped with red sauce, two kinds of cheese, and guacamole.
Being a wet burrito, you need a knife and fork to eat it.
So how is it? It’s pretty solid. There’s a generous portion of meat and the red sauce has a nice touch of sweetness. A lot of food too, as you can see, so it’s quite filling. However, the rice and beans are average and the guacamole is a bit thin. (Personal preference, but I don’t like tomatoes in my guac. Most tomatoes are little more than watery cardboard.) Also, the lettuce in the burrito doesn’t add much — the only thing pleasant about iceberg lettuce is the crunch but it gets steamed by the hot contents and goes limp. Nitpicking aside, though, it’s a fine wrap. But one of the best in L.A.? Hmmm, we’ll see about that…
Oh, on my way back to the office I came across Super Mex’s food truck, which I didn’t even know they had. I guess these things are required by law now.
Related
Split Pea Soup
Prep time: About 2 hours
Makes about 3 quarts
Ingredients:
1 pound split peas
1 ham hock
1 large onion, diced
3-4 carrots, sliced
3-4 celery stalks, chopped
1 large potato, cubed
3-4 garlic cloves, minced
8 cups of chicken stock (I used two containers of Pacific brand chicken stock, which I think is the best)
1 sprig rosemary, minced
A few sprigs of thyme, minced
Extra virgin olive oil
Kosher salt
Pepper
Directions:
1. Cover the ham hock in water, bring to a boil, then simmer for 45 mins. Dump the water, set the ham aside to cool.
2. In large pot, sweat the onions, garlic, and herbs in the olive oil over medium heat until the onions are translucent, about 10-15 mins.
3. Add the chicken stock, carrots, celery, potato, and half the peas. Bring to a boil, then simmer for 40 mins. Make sure to stir occasionally.
4. While the soup is simmering, cut and cube the meat off the ham hock. Set aside.
5. Add the rest of the peas and the cubed ham. Simmer another 40 mins.
6. Season with salt and pepper to taste.
Paleo Retiree writes:
Was trickery (CGI? editing tomfoolery?) involved, can anyone tell? In any case, I want to point out what a shrewdly constructed little piece of entertainment this 37 second long, all-in-one-shot clip is. Here’s how it goes:
I could be wrong, but among other things I’m seeing two Rules of Three going on here. In one of them, we’re given a Prologue (girl, pineapple and Knife Guy set themselves up — an introduction), an Action (the stunts), and a Coda. And embedded within the Action act itself is another example of the Rule of Three: 1) first knife; 2) second knife; 3) Climax (pineapple); and 3.5) Coda/wrapup/return-to-origin (ping pong ball).
Hats off to whoever worked this act up, and staged, designed and shot it — as well as, of course, to the performers. It’s just a handheld, 37-second-long clip, but real thought, skill and preparation went into it. And thanks to co-blogger epiminondas for turning up this brilliant little clip.
Here’s some more ping pong amazingness.