BIETERSBLOG

Sunday, August 30, 2009

ON MARRYING ARGUMENTATIVE FEMINISTS

On Marrying Argumentative Feminists

Why Men Aren't That Eager To Marry Argumentative Feminists

Maureen Dowd is a columnist for the New York Times. I was not familiar with her. Then I read that she had complained that men did not want to date intelligent women. The author alleged that Dowd's complaint was a personal complaint. Skeptical and curious, I decided to check her out and read some of her columns.

Thereafter, I found these observations interesting:

"Dowd's columns are distinguished by an acerbic, often polemical writing style.[10] Her columns often display a critical and irreverent attitude towards powerful figures such as former President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton, and Pope Benedict XVI.[citation needed] Dowd sometimes refers to Bush as "W.", and former Vice President Dick Cheney as "Big Time."[11] She has called President George H. W. Bush, whom she covered as Times White House Correspondent, "41";[12][unreliable source?] she also frequently refers to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket." (Emphasis added)

"Wall Street Journal said: "And then we're off down the rabbit hole, twisting and turning from subject to subject as the author wonders why Americans prefer their news anchors tall, white and male, why men aren't that eager to marry argumentative feminists, and why herds of women now inject themselves with skin-plumping bovine collagen. These are all good questions. It's a pity that Ms. Dowd never stops scrabbling long enough to answer them."[8]" (Emphasis added)"

Film critic David Denby devotes an entire chapter to Dowd in his 2009 book Snark, and identifies her as one of the foremost practitioners of "snark" (sarcasm, snide remarks). He writes: "[S]he has not - as far as I can tell - a single political idea in her head. Not one...She writes as if personality, appearance, and attitude were the only things that mattered. For her, politics is a stupid, despair-inducing entertainment, a tale told by an idiot signifying vanity. Despite all her larks and inventions, she's essentially sour and without hope."[26] " Emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org.../
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_Men_Ne ... es_Collide

Dowd remains unmarried. And at age 57, she has lost her bloom.

Why is she "essentially sour and without hope" (David Denby, supra)? Is it because men find her too intelligent? I certainly doubt that claim. Then it hit me. The answer was in Proverbs!

Men avoided Dowd, not because of her intelligence, but because she is a bitter woman!

Men remember the wisdom of Proverbs 21:19:

"It is better to be living in a waste land, than with a bitter-tongued and angry woman." http://bible.cc.../

Dowd does not!

Sunday, August 23, 2009

JACK and Me

Jack and I biking at Fort Snelling State Park:

SOTOMAYOR DEBATE

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Preventing Injustice.

During her confirmation hearing, Justice Sotomayor repeatedly, and rightly, assured the Senators that a judge's primary duty was to follow the law that applied to the particular case. The mission of courts and judges is the administration of justice. However, sometimes strictly applying the specific law that applies to a particular case will result in an obviously unjust result. Unfortunately, none of the Senators asked a general jurisprudential question that I would have asked.

I respectfully raise the following question for debate:

Does a judge, in the interest of justice, have the inherent authority to not follow the law (the specific law that incontestably applies to the case) in a particular case so as to prevent an outrageous and unconscionable result and to render justice to the litigants?

I answer in the affirmative for the following reasons:

First, it is impossible for the lawmaker to enact laws that will cover all the possible cases that can arise in society. A civilized society necessarily needs an institution (the judicial branch - courts and judges) that will engage in the administration of justice. Cases will arise, however, where there are no applicable laws, or where applying the applicable law will result in an intuitively "outrageous and unconscionable" result. Accordingly, judges necessarily have inherent authority to decide cases by rendering equitable justice to the litigants. 1

Second, in practice, a great judge (and other actors in the administration of justice) will engage in the practice of rule departure 2 in a particular case or situations so as to prevent injustice, or to prevent an obviously unjust result, which will occur if the applicable law is strictly followed. In a case where I served as defense counsel, a great trial judge departed from the applicable law so as to prevent the commission of probable future acts of injustice in prison against my client. 3

I look forward to meeting an opponent who will take the negative in this debate.

The challenge was accepted.

AUGUST 23, 2009

VIEW THE DEBATE NOW IN THE VOTING PERIOD: http://www.debate.org/debate/9218/

____________________________

1. "Equitable Justice is that kind of justice which Aristotle postulated as being a form of justice superior to legal justice. Realizing that the "universality" (generality) of the law sometimes gave rise to injustices, Aristotle postulated equity, which was to function, though the judge, as a "correction of the law where it is defective owing to its universality." (NE 421) But Aristotle maintained that it, i.e., the law, "is nonetheless correct; for the error is not in the law nor in the legislator but in the nature of the thing." (NE 421)

2.
Rule Departures: A practice distinct from, but related to, civil disobedience is rule departure on the part of authorities. Rule departure is essentially the deliberate decision by an official, for conscientious reasons, not to discharge the duties of her office (Feinberg, 1979). It may involve a decision by police not to arrest offenders or a decision by prosecutors not to proceed to trial, or a decision by a jury or by a judge to acquit an obviously guilty person. Whether these conscientious acts actually contravene the general duties of the office is debatable. If an official’s breach of a specific duty is more in keeping with the spirit and overall aims of the office than a painstaking respect for the particular duties is, then the former might be said to adhere better than the latter does to the demands of the office (Greenawalt, 1987, 281).6 http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2007/jul07/lie_court.htm

3. "9 I was once appointed to represent a naive young man who was charged, along with an accomplice (a burglar on parole), with aggravated assault, a charge which then carried a mandatory three-year prison sentence. They burglarized a lake cabin, took guns, and then drew upon the owner who unexpectedly appeared on the scene. Before the Hon. Donald Odden, a lion on the bench, (whose beloved lake cabin, incidentally, had been burglarized in the past), I argued for a rule departure, simply that it would be immoral and contrary to justice, to send my client to prison: He was retarded. He worked as a part-time garbage man. He was a dupe. Then the prosecutor, John DeSanto, told Odden to do what he thought “was right.” Odden then growled at the client, threatened prison if he screwed up, and placed him on probation." http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2007/jul07/lie_court.htm

Sunday, June 28, 2009

MUSIC

Monday, June 15, 2009

JACK

On Saturday evening we went to the A&W drive-in for dinner, their onion rings being to die for. We ate at one of the outside tables.

As I ate and shared, an elderly couple came and sat at the nearest table. I noticed that they were staring at Jack. They then told me that they recently had to put down their dog of eleven years. However, they had taken many motion pictures of her, which they now watched.

The woman then asked if she could kiss Jack on the head. I said yes and told her his name. He went to her, wagging his tail. As she enjoyed a long kiss, her husband petted Jack and the wagging tail.

They thanked me. I saw their tears. And they walked away.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

FIRST KAYAKING ADVENTURE

Today Jack and I finally got out in my new inflatable kayak. We went to the nearby Keller Lake. Fortunately, two young canoists helped me inflate the craft. And this charming lady held the craft in place as Jack and I boarded. I wish to thank these Good Samaritans. And we were off! And it was good - I had not paddled in more than a decade. The boat is amazingly stable. Jack is amazing. He is fearless. He will do whatever I want to do without any objections. I look forward to a few more outings before winter arrives.

LOYOLA CLASSMATES

On Oct. 2 Jack and I went to Mankato to have lunch with Patty Postels, Rosale, and Jane Hall. (or so I thought) To my delight, half the class was there. I had a wonderful time catching up with friends whom I hadn't talked to for many years.