Pages
-
Categories
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
Guns, God and Gays
I hope the left doesn’t get in a hissy about the SCOTUS ruling - at least not until after the election.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
Somewhere over there
Today I was in line at Subway and I overheard an asian girl talking on the phone “yeah, kelly is in New York studying abroad.”
Steve is not Happy
A Fimoculous Link Mash-up (kill me now for using that word).
Take this YouTube video:
With CNN t-shirt project:
CNN Headline Project
You get:
Steve is not happy
Some thoughts on CX
One of the more difficult things to teach in debate is how to properly execute a cross-examination that is effective and useful.
1. There is no shame in asking clarification questions: If you don’t know what your opponent is talking about, make them explain it to you in cx. You can’t win if you don’t understand what you’re debating against.
2. Always go for yes: You will not get your opponent to admit that their case is wrong. People who start cx with a question like “Doesn’t your standard contradict your second contention?” will likely run into a brick wall quite quickly. Instead, you should lead your opponent (and your judge) down the path where they are forced to acknowledge what you are attempting to get at. Questions in the series of questions should always be answered with an affirmation by your opponent.
3. Save the argument for rebuttals: Once you have gone down the path of getting your opponent to answer a series of questions in a way that you think you have them, don’t give them the opportunity to answer or explain away the impact you are going to be going for. As such, resist the temptation to make the argument in cx. Instead, wait for rebuttals where you, alone, can paint the picture of what transpired in cx. There are a couple of benefits to this: 1) your opponent won’t get to make the argument against you in cx. 2) they won’t be able to use your prep time to prepare an answer.
4. Stick to the case: Too many debaters allow cx to turn into extra constructive time for their opponents. You can combat this by asking your opponent to explain things as they did in their case. If your opponent makes some empirical claim in cx, ask them where they make that claim in their case. If they provide some logic or warrant in cx about an argument, ask them were that same warrant appears in their case. Do not allow them an extra 3 minutes of constructive.
5. Clarify burdens: If you do #2 correctly, you should be able to go down the path of having some very clear burdens of you can win using your opponent’s standard or logic. You will have a much easier time with time management, rebuttal organization, and voting issues if it is clear what burden your opponent has for your side to win. However, make sure you follow the advice of #3 and do not start making those arguments in cx. Make sure you are taking steps to get to the burden(s) by asking questions they will answer yes to. By the time you get to the “so this is my burden” it should not be a question at all.
6. Use your cx in rebuttals: Don’t let your cx time go to waste, especially if you had an effective cx. Make sure you can revisit the logic you illuminated in cx once you get to your rebuttals. Remind the judge of what was agreed upon. Remind the judge that this was the burden your opponent set up for you. Bringing it back to cx is a great way to NOT allow the judge to intervene because it shows the judge what you accomplished in cx constructs how you are executing your rebuttals.
Top Chef 4:1
I’m rooting for Erik and Mark.
links for 2008-03-09
-
Scientists have discovered a blacker black than black… (via)
The Book of Love
Stephin also lives in LA, now. He talked about the mold problem in his apartment, which is in Echo Park. LA Times catches up with him.
Here is an LA Times review of the show.
I was afraid the show was going to end up as described over at Corporate Casual:
Dear Audience from Last Night’s Magnetic Fields Show at Town Hall,
Fuck you. I hate you. With your glasses and your sweaters and your need to let everyone know that you are enjoying yourselves. Granted, I was wearing glasses and a sweater and enjoying myself. But the thing that really got me was when you would scream and applaud at the beginning of songs with this seeming surprise, as if you couldn’t believe that the Magnetic Fields were playing Magnetic Fields songs?… But some of you were laughing a little too hard, and some of you needed the people around you to understand that you got it a little too desperately.
I actually came to the realization that the indie crowd in LA is more tolerable than elsewhere. There isn’t much pretension and, what I noticed most, there isn’t the requisite hipster uniform. And when Stephin and Claudia were bantering about the Village Voice, there weren’t as many fake laughs as I would expect in other parts of the country. Finally Stephin noted that none of the audience probably cares.
Other notable things:
1. The only time the audience became unbearable was when people started to sing along with “Grand Canyon.” But I think someone told those people to shut up because we weren’t at a Bon Jovi concert.
2. A cell phone went off during the beginning of the first song. They all stopped playing. And then started the song over.
3. California Girls, obviously, was a big hit.
4. We arrived late because we skipped the opening act. The place was packed but the doorman must have liked my face because he said he would find us a place up front. Which he did. We were 4th row.
5. I thought John Woo and Sam Davol (guitarist and celloist? bassist?) were probably music slaves to Stephin that lived in chains in his basement or something… brought out only for recording records and playing live shows. They seem so docile during the show. They don’t get a mic. And they are almost always looking down. I did some research and it turns out that Davol actually has a life and a law degree from NYU. The New York Times actually did a piece on him. I think John Woo still only gets 3 hots and a cot.
It’s 3AM
Fear > Hope. Cynicism > Optimism. Nice work HRC.
If HRC is going to run on security, and security is what is drawing voters, won’t those same voters prefer McCain over Hillary? I wouldn’t call myself a supporter of Obama, I’ve voted for Nader twice before, but the cynicism of the HRC campaign is quite outrageous. Strategically it is dividing the democratic party on an issue that Obama is right on (diplomacy over military) instead of emphasizing the things she is right on (health care). Alright, she isn’t “right” on it, a single-payer is best, but her plan makes more sense.
There is a reason Rush and others want HRC in the race. She can tear down Obama, split the Democratic party and McCain remains unscathed and better than HRC on the issues she is now running on.
It’s 3AM. This strategy is getting tired.
Update: And maybe NRO has it right.