On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 08:51:06 -0400, Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net>
wrote:

>suzeeq wrote:
>
>>>>>> I'm pretty sure all of us know how the Hamilton story
>>>>>> ended.
>>>
>>>>>> I'm equally sure no Representative nor Senator nor
>>>>>> Cabinet officer has perished that way since.
>>>
>>>>> He's speaking about the 1856 incident in which Charles
>>>>> Sumner was caned, which we all learned about in high
>>>>> school history as one of several important triggers for
>>>>> the Civil War. Sumner was an abolitionist and had given
>>>>> a speech, "Crime against Kansas", about Bloody Kansas.
>>>>> He denounced Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, co-author
>>>>> of the compromise Kansas-Nebraska Act, another attempt
>>>>> to maintain the slave-free state balance in the Senate.
>>>>> The Lincoln-Douglas debates for Douglas's 1858
>>>>> re-election were about expansion of slavery in the
>>>>> territories, which Lincoln opposed.
>>>
>>>>> Sumner also denounced Senator Andrew Butler of South
>>>>> Carolina, the other co-author.
>>>
>>>>> Preston Brooks was Butler's relative and a member of
>>>>> Congress. He entered the Senate chamber to cane Sumner
>>>>> before his colleagues.
>>>
>>>>> Sumner wasn't killed but did not recover from the brain
>>>>> damage he suffered. He died within a couple of years.
>>>
>>>> You had a heckuva more comprehensive high school history
>>>> class than anyone I've ever known. I've never heard of
>>>> Sumner, Butler, or Brooks, nor the caning incident.
>>>
>>> I only remembered Sumner's name because he was so
>>> important in Senate debate, and of course Douglas. Butler
>>> and Brooks, and the year, I had to look up.
>>
>>
>> I'm talking about the part you wrote "which we all learned
>> about in high school history ..."
>>
>> You do this all the time when citing some historical
>> event. No, we didn't all learn about them in HS history.
>> Only you, and I wish you'd just say that instead of trying
>> to make us out to be goof offs who weren't paying
>> attention. I like history, then and now, but never heard
>> about half the stuff you dredge up to make a point.
>
>One of my degrees is in History, and *I* had never heard
>of this incident either.
>
>Most of my studies were non-US history, but still, you'd
>think if it were as well known as Adam seems to think it
>is, it might have been brought up at some point in one
>of my general US history survey courses.
>
>Nyssa, who knows that there is *SO* much history out there
>from so many countries, one person is never going to
>know all about all of it

In fairness I didn't really know the details beyond "injured so badly
at the hands of another member while inside the House that he never
sat in Congress again" - your version is obviously more detailed. And
I >DID< know the Hamilton / Burr story long before the musical.

I had the usual high school "social studies" (aka History + Geography)
courses plus a freshman 20th century history course at university but
then I'm a history buff and have read a ton in the 40 years since
then.

About the only historical item that REALLY surprised me was visiting
the Scout museum in Hong Kong which had badges and other Scouting
memorabilia from several countries over several decades and found that
up until January 1933 Scouting used NUMEROUS badges with the swastika
and that Robert Baden-Powell was somewhat asleep at the switch as to
who else was making extensive use of the swastika but gave the order
to all national Scouting organizations that banned all further use of
the swastika on all badges and other Scouting regalia.

(And when I say 'numerous"' I'm understating it - and I certainly
never heard about it either during my own Scouting days nor my son's -
nor from my father or grandfather both of whom had been Scout leaders
in their day)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:24:21 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> Hopefully moviepig can weigh in on this: when Eunuch Derp speaks for "no
>> one" does that mean, in his megalomania, he presumes to speak for
>> everyone in the entire world?  Or does it mean he's surveyed every
>> single regular on RAT and these are his results?  Or thirdly does it
>> mean he's literally drove (sic) off a cliff again and is decimated?
>
>It means that "closing your eyes to things makes them go away" ...which
>doesn't work for gender ambiguities any more than it does for cliffs.
>
I don't think I'd enjoy having 1/10th of me snipped off!

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 16:48:17 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>>>. . .
>
>>But you have done this several times. I think it had more to do with
>>your specific teacher though, and maybe the book you used. It's not run
>>of the mill standard HS history.
>
>It was run-of-the-mill curriculum, plus what the teacher added. We were
>taught from a Houghton-Miflin textbook. Those were sold nationwide.
>
>You tell me: Who were the great orators of the United States Senate
>before the Civil War? Who led the great debates? These guys didn't
>compromise and that's what created conditions in which the Civil War
>came about.
>
>Of course you were taught these things.

I had the usual Canadian grade 12 history course which was a survey of
post Napoleonic affairs. (It was presumed we had had the Canadian
history portion of the course before grade 12).

In addition we had occasional reminiscences from my math teacher
(former International brigader), history teacher (WW2 Canadian
seconded to British intelligence) and physics teacher (former Hitler
Youth - was 13 when the war ended - he told a story about escaping
from the SS training school he was in which was pretty much like a
normal German school but with weapons training and how about 10 days
after VE Day he and his buddy found a German grenade and pulled the
pin and rolled it under a US tank parked in the town square - he was
pretty sure there was no one with 100' of it but remembers that the
GI's reaction was remarkable...)).

Fascinating stories from all 3 of them.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:24:21 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Hopefully moviepig can weigh in on this: when Eunuch Derp speaks for "no
>>> one" does that mean, in his megalomania, he presumes to speak for
>>> everyone in the entire world?  Or does it mean he's surveyed every
>>> single regular on RAT and these are his results?  Or thirdly does it
>>> mean he's literally drove (sic) off a cliff again and is decimated?
>>
>> It means that "closing your eyes to things makes them go away" ...which
>> doesn't work for gender ambiguities any more than it does for cliffs.
>>
> I don't think I'd enjoy having 1/10th of me snipped off!
>

What if it was all love handles and ear hair?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 8/2/2022 1:42 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:24:21 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hopefully moviepig can weigh in on this: when Eunuch Derp speaks for "no
>>>> one" does that mean, in his megalomania, he presumes to speak for
>>>> everyone in the entire world?  Or does it mean he's surveyed every
>>>> single regular on RAT and these are his results?  Or thirdly does it
>>>> mean he's literally drove (sic) off a cliff again and is decimated?
>>>
>>> It means that "closing your eyes to things makes them go away" ...which
>>> doesn't work for gender ambiguities any more than it does for cliffs.
>>>
>> I don't think I'd enjoy having 1/10th of me snipped off!
>>
> What if it was all love handles and ear hair?

If that were a tenth of somebody, why stop there?

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:16:28 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:

>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced
>> above?
>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled
>> law"...
>
> Isn't EVERY court decision "settled law" at least unless or until a
> later court sets it aside? (usually by saying the first court
> overlooked XYZ as a reason)

Yep. I knew as they gave their answers that they were using weasel
language to make it sound like they weren't going to touch _Roe v.
Wade_, but were saying no such thing. As pointed out elsewhere, _Plessy
v. Ferguson_ was settled law until one day it wasn't. _Roe_ was settled
law until one day it wasn't.

I was disgusted by the weaselly nature of the language, and by the
similarity all the nominees displayed in that respect, leading me to
think that they had all been coached by the same person, maybe from the
Federalist Society. But I was and still am exasperated by all the
fellow-travelers on the left saying Trump's nominees "lied" or
"perjured" themselves. Go back and read the transcripts. There's not a
single sentence that would support that charge in a court of law. And
any senator who was taken in by the "settled law" claim was at best just
hearing what they wanted to hear.

-Micky

On 8/10/2022 2:40 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 July 2022 at 17:17:19 UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>
>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rhino
>
> Politeness isn't the issue. When you have outfits like CNN and NBC fielding interviewers who basically say to Democrats "How can the media help you defeat the Republicans?" the concept of honest interviews are gone.
>

You seem to have skipped Fox News. And you're talking about "honesty"
you hypocritical fucking shitbag? Go fuck yourself with a branding
iron. Everything you have to say is horseshit.

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:16:28 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced
>>>above?
>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>>>recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled
>>>law"...

>>Isn't EVERY court decision "settled law" at least unless or until a
>>later court sets it aside? (usually by saying the first court
>>overlooked XYZ as a reason)

>Yep. I knew as they gave their answers that they were using weasel
>language to make it sound like they weren't going to touch _Roe v.
>Wade_, but were saying no such thing. As pointed out elsewhere, _Plessy
>v. Ferguson_ was settled law until one day it wasn't. _Roe_ was settled
>law until one day it wasn't.

Amazing. Still quoting BTR1701 despite claiming to have kill filed him.

>. . .

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:31:06 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>> What scientists can do is predict which gender other scientists will
>>> likely identify of a specimen when offered only two possibilities.
>>>
>>> (Except when they can't.)
>>
>> Amazing.
>
> Fancy that.
>
> I changed my granddaughter's diaper yesterday (3 months old) and
> didn't need a scientific PhD to figure out her gender.

When I was a minor, I thought that gender expression was mostly the
result of environmental conditioning to stay within the bounds of
stereotype, because it was everywhere, and the penalties for crossing
the boundaries could be intense.

What convinced me otherwise was a documentary on intersex kids who were
born anatomically hermaphrodite or otherwise ambiguous, and the parents
and the doctors, with good motives, surgically assigned the infants one
way or the other, and then brought them up as cis-gendered kids and
never told them otherwise. Yet the kids, without any prompting, felt
that something was off.

Coming out as transgendered or intersex is not something that one is
"groomed" to do. There are no social advantages to it, and quite a few
disadvantages. Transgendered kids are a small percentage of the
population, but they're disproportionately represented among the
homeless. The trangendered are more likely to commit suicide than
cis-gendered people. They're disproportionately represented among
homicide victims. You don't put yourself through potentially life-long
hassle and ostracization on a whim.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence>

Now, I've wondered if the "nonbinary" concept would have arisen if
gender stereotypes had not been so rigid, but they are, so here we be.

-Micky

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> writes:

> I don't know but suspect that what we are getting is the combination
> of the glossed over version of history that we likely all share along
> with what Adam has learned because he was quite interested in learning
> it on his own. Very few schools and certainly no public schools that
> I'm aware of were going to go into any great depth on history even
> where America was concerned.
>
> My history books in high school never went into depth on just about
> anything. If you wanted that sort of depth it was going to come from
> outside research.

I got some pretty good history instruction in my public high school, but
since it was AP American History and AP European History, arguably it
was not high-school history at all, but first semester college level.
The class textbook was only O.K., but we had outside assignments such as
the classic _Lincoln Reconsidered_, which challenged the prevalent
mythmaking that had gone on since his death. I think we also read
Richard Hofstadter's _The American Political Tradition_, and a few
chapters of the Beards' survey volume.

I've tried to build on that foundation since, but it's not a special
passion or anything. I like approaches that don't just feed you
information, but also challenge your perspective, like (ObTV) James
Burke's _Connections_ and _The Day the Universe Changed_.

-Micky