And now, the moment you self-aggrandizing mirror-gazers of the blogosphere have been waiting for. The 103rd Carnival of the Vanities. This is my second time hosting the Carnival, and the setup is identical to the last one I did.
The basic gist, for my regular readers, is that bloggers will submit entries that they’ve posted over the past week that they think is noteworthy or in need of more attention. The Carnival host (That’s me this week) takes the submissions and puts them all together and displays them for the world to see.
So, now that we’ve got that out of the way, ON WITH THE SHOW!
• Though now resolved, Blogborygmi brings us a story of a missing grad student’s implications on Homeland Security from the perspective of an inventive and paranoid journalist. ::: I’m really surprised that the article didn’t mention any black helicopters.
• Matt Schuh Online explores the concept of Almost Winning a raffle. ::: For that, he ALMOST got the top spot in the carnival. Better luck next time, Matt.
• Simon, of Simon World, has something to say about copy-protected CDs: F*ck EMI. ::: Now don’t hold back, Simon, tell us how you REALLY feel.
• Setting the World to Rights has come to the conclusion that the present world crisis is not a war on terrorism but a war against conspiracy theories. ::: Interesting stuff — I just wish it were a little longer.
• Tight Security, from The British Pickle writing at Dodgeblogium, isn’t really about security at all… but about British coverage of the RNC. ::: In other news, Pickles can type.
• In this article, Empowering Dominance on Taken In Hand, Max Maximovich explains how his laid-back dominance helps the woman he loves become her truest self. ::: So sappy and romantic that, for fear of ruining the moment, I can’t even bring myself to mention that it made me want to gag.
• Watcher of Weasels has their eye on that Screwball Chris Matthews this week. ::: Honestly… “screwball?” I bet I could come up with 25 better names than that for that worthless sack of shit.
• The Confessions of a Single-Issue Voter are afoot at CognoCentric. ::: I’d guess that single-issue voters scare the crap out of Kerry — I’m still trying to find an issue that favors him.
• Tim Worstall writes on a Polly Toynbee article in Polly Wanna Cracker and from the email exchange she actually seems not to be a total moron. ::: Maybe she’s learned a thing or two since this incident.
• Sneakeay’s Joint has a fairly long list of interesting quotes about Republicans from Bartletts in Outspoken Republicans of Old. ::: “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understnd it.” ~Abe Lincoln
• As a follow-up to a post in Last Week’s Carnival, The Cycling Dude has A Look at TIME’S UP. ::: I found it smirk-worthy that an organization called “Time’s up” has been around for 10 years. Apparently nobody’s listening.
• Freedom, the Constitution, and Civil War are the issue over at The Smallest Minority. ::: Very intersting stuff — I also think the lefties are going to go nuts when Bush is re-elected.
• The Big Picture thinks that We Can Protest Against the Abuse of Freedom of Speech. ::: That’s a very capitalistic way of looking at things. I think we ought to just ship those people to the sun.
• In Lake Wankerbegone Garrison Keillor lets loose a barrage of politcal garbage that requires a fisking. Fringe is up to the task. ::: Absolutely Fantastic.
• Parableman does the third part in a series on Affirmative Action in which he covers the issue of role models. ::: The post wasn’t even remotely critical enough… it glossed over some MAJOR points and made some bad assumptions. Oh well… that’s what you’ve got to do to make an argument for Affirmative Action.
• With tongue firmly in cheek, Spacecraft notes that the GOP Questions Patriotism of Democrat Congressman. ::: Just remember: you can’t criticize a Vietnam vet unless you went to Vietnam… and even then, you can’t unless John Kerry says you can.
• Dean’s World discusses the beauty of the female form in Forgotten Ideas and Forgotten Masters. ::: As to the competition between Sarah Jessica Parker and Marilyn Monroe… honestly… I’d have to test drive them both before signing the lease on either.
• Democrats admit “massive and systemic” intelligence failure led to Kerry candidacy according to Point2Point. ::: I’d believe it, too.
• Dustbury.com weighs in this week with Alas, poor bloggers. ::: Because, apparently, blogging parodies of classics hasn’t been run far enough into the ground.
• Is Islam The Devil’s Religion? To find out, see Dissecting Leftism for the answer. ::: Hint: Basically, yes.
• Political Correctness Watch has an example of feminist tyranny. ::: Not that examples of such a thing are difficult to find.
• Oh, While we’re watching things, Greenie Watch wants us to know about some Lesser Known Greenie Ideas. ::: I’m all out of funny.
• There are Stereotypes about Gun Users? Apparently Gun Watch thinks so. ::: I’m also out of poor imitations of funny.
• I’m shocked to find that Education Watch has found class war mentality among Aussie teachers. ::: Are we STILL watching things? Jesus christ.
• Wicked Thoughts has a list of some very apt advertising slogans. ::: So if you’re looking for something to email around the office to annoy your cow-orkers, this one is for you!
• What AM I? is a very thought-worthy post on race relations from Marty’s Big Journey. ::: I know what I am: pure, un-cut, 100% unadulterated white boy… and I dance like it, too.
• Think you’ve got the election predicted? Aaron’s Rantblog challenges you to Post your Electoral College Outcome Predictions. ::: Fools. Kerry won’t carry California. The governator is going to deliver for W.
• A pre-emptive strike to those who might “question the timing” of a bin laden capture, Idler Yet compares it to the Unexpected Hanging problem, but neglects that the capture of bin Laden is no certainty. ::: Interesting read, but I question the timing of it.
• Interested Particpant has an interesting piece on those participating in Child Suicide Bombers. ::: No, I couldn’t resist the pun. Shut up.
• I’m no Superman, courtesy of The Electric Commentary suggests that bloggers think themselves to be super-heroes. ::: I’m not so sure… I think they just want everyone else to think that they’re super-heroes.
• Life in the Subjunctive Lane from Classical Values suggests that idealism is at war with reality. ::: It is… but reality always wins.
• La Shawn Barber’s Corner says Shame on the World for it’s piss-poor coverage of the Russia affair. ::: For more from La Shawn, see this stunningly good Memo to White Conservatives.
and, going last because he couldn’t be bothered to turn the entry in even remotely close to “on time”…
• Superman, Jesus Christ, and Jim Caviezel from Jollyblogger. :: With a title like that, it has to be good!
Many thanks to the entrants who made my life easy by (for the most part) using the form. If you’re still hanging around and need to read more… ummm… you might be SOL, because I haven’t written anything worth a crap in months… but you can go back and read through the archives. These two are alright, I guess.
Thanks again, everyone. Have a great week!
Update: Posts below came in after the post was published. I did say it was a “flexible” deadline, after all.
• The People’s Republic of Seabrook tries desperately to help us answer the burning question: “Why do guys like beach volleyball so much??“. ::: There’s more evidence to support his point, as well.
Note: Next week’s Carnival is the TWO YEAR ANNIVERSARY and will be back at BigWig’s Place.
The Devil Went Down to Georgia
I have nothing definite to apologize for, I'm just sorry about everything in general.
My post is one of six arguments commonly offered for affirmative action that I think can easily be outweighed by the negatives that I haven’t gotten to yet later in the series, and I said as much in the post. (If you’re going to argue against something, it’s best to give the opponent the best presentation possible, so I’m conceding a number of points in favor of affirmative action simply because some of the arguments agasinst those arguments are stupid, as I’ll argue in later posts.)
If you’re insightful enough to see some things I should have dealt with but didn’t, I’d appreciate knowing what they are instead of just reading your insults. I know it takes time to put a carnival together, but if you’re going to say something negative about a post you’d better back it up, or people will call you on it.
Yeah!!! How dare you criticize people who willingly send you things in the name of shameless self-promotion under the warning that you reserve the right to criticize them! And worst of all…to do it on your OWN WEBSITE…people like you make me SICK!
A few points here, Jeremy:
1. The carnival isn’t the place for rebuttal. I have room for a few words worth of snarky commentary, and that’s the best I could do.
2. You obviously failed to read the disclaimer on the submission page. The very first sentence of which was as follows: “I reserve the right to poke fun at you.” The very next sentence is: “In fact, I probably will.”
3. You obviously failed to read the last carnival I did, clearly linked on the submission page, in which I made several criticisms of posts with… *gasp* NO SUPPORTING ARGUMENT (the horror!).
4. You failed to link parts I or II in any obvious manner, expecting, I suppose, that all of the readers would immediately know where to find them. This made the intent of your post foggy at best and I can assure you that I looked for the harder than most of the carnival visitors will. (Then again, this comment may be self-defeating)
5. Finally, you claim “… I said as much in the post.” I’ve read it three times and, as best I can tell, you’ve done no such thing. I would love to see the quotes which you claim have “said as much.”
I’ll be waiting for what I’m sure will be an ever-so pleasant and cheerful response.
target=”_blank” PLEASE
Thanks, Pete, for the amusing take on the name TIME’S UP.
Wish I’d thought of it myself.
As for your comment:
“You failed to link parts I or II in any obvious manner, expecting, I suppose, that all of the readers would immediately know where to find them. This made the intent of your post foggy at best”
You make a very good point.
I think no-one should take offense at such an important observation.
I’ve done a 4 part series, & a 21 part series, of related posts, and knew that one of the best things I could do to keep readers was add a note at the end of Part one that leads people to the rest of each series.
Even though the 1st and earliest,
such series I ever did has a category archive of its own I think I’m gonna go back and add similar links to part one.
I don’t even think about targets much any more… using a browser with tabs makes it almost meaningless, since you can drag the links to a new tab as quickly as you can click on them.
Just a thought… there’s no contest between Sarah Jessica Parker and Marilyn Monroe. I’ll take the latter.
J: I’d guess that I would too… but it never hurts to test drive, ya know?
I wasn’t complaining that you criticized me or made fun of me. I was expecting some sort of snide comment. I was simply pointing out that you seem to think you have some way to improve my argument but haven’t told me what it is. I’d appreciate knowing if you have in mind issues that I didn’t consider or if it’s just stuff I didn’t bring in with this very specific component of my overall argument against affirmative action. I wasn’t even mad that this criticism didn’t appear in the Carnival. A quick comment on the post itself would have been sufficient.
Both other posts in the series are on the front page of my blog, by the way. I was going to put links in once the posts were getting to the bottom of the page, which will be in a couple days. Since they’re going off the page soon, I’ve now linked them.
The clear statement I was talking about is at the end of the post, where I say that this isn’t an absolute moral argument but can (and as we’ll see will) be outweighed by other considerations. That’s as clear as you get.
Jeremy:
Well, I did check the first page, but you hvae a ton of articles on it and I wasn’t paying attention to how much there was left. That’s my fault.
Second: I didn’t comment for two reasons. One is that I was finishing up the post at 2am and had been up for almost 20 hours at that point… I knew what I thought was missing but I didn’t feel like I could elucidate it. Further, I wanted to avoid comment until I had read parts I and II where you might have set up additional stipulations, assumptions, or something else that might invalidate what I was going to say.
Third: I ought to point out that while I did say that you didn’t treat the topic as critically as I think you should, I didn’t sling a single insult. That was an insinuation from your first comment that I missed the first time around.
Finally: to split hairs (because that’s what I do), the comment in your post only suggested that there was going to be “more to come”… it didn’t say that it was one of six arguments and didn’t ever actually state that you’d be overturning that particular good-making factor, only that it was possible to “counterbalance” a good-making factor with a bad-making factor and that you’d demonstrate the possibility.
Your paraphrasing here in your last comment was much more clear, direct, and unambiguous than what was actually in your post. I can elaborate if you wish, but the two things are not the same, and indeed if you had said the above in your post it would’ve been different.
Uh, J? In “the contest between Sarah Jessica Parker and Marilyn Monroe”… Marilyn’s dead.
Eeeeeewww!
I guess I just see it as insulting to tell someone that they’re working from bad assumptions, glossing over major issues, and not being critical enough without bothering to explain what you mean. After all, isn’t an insult simply when you say something bad about someone without any basis for it? I can’t see such a statement as anything more than an insult, particularly from the standpoint of a philosopher.
Honestly, if you took any of that as insulting you need to lighten up. Lots.
I’m not sure how anyone could claim as an insult something so clearly targeted to an action and not a person.
Then again, some folks are over-sensitive.
There are people that live in their blog. Ever meet them at the Bloggers anonymous meetings pete?
Saying this sort of thing to a philosopher is like telling a wide receiver he doesn’t catch very well. Criticizing an idea is one thing. Telling a trained philosopher that a post intended to be fairly balanced and nuanced is not remotely critical enough may not have been intended to target the person but it’s an insult nonetheless.
That doesn’t mean that I have any emotional investment in your comment. Something can be an insult that I don’t take to heart. Over-sensitivity is not one of my failings, believe me. I separate discussion of ideas from emotional responses more than I should. It’s not over-sensitivity here. It’s bewilderment that repeated attempts to get you to say what you disagreed with haven’t yet drawn it out. My complaint isn’t about what you said. It’s about what you failed to say.
Actually, as a trained philosopher, I’m sure you realize the fact that the wide-receiver analogy is a poor one. The appropriate analogy is telling a wide receiver that he didn’t catch one particular pass well. I wasn’t making any sort of generalized comment about your standard habit, your intelligence, or your status as a trained philosopher. Only that I was unimpressed by one post on your site. Had my comment actually been analogous to your Wide Receiver comparison, I’d have said something like “you don’t reason well.” Which is not at all what I said. I don’t know enough about you or your writing to make that claim.
I’m tiring of this discussion for a few reasons… a) If your intent was simply to elicit information, email works better than “calling someone out” on their own site. b) I’ve already enumerated why I did post more before, and some of those reasons still hold. If this is, indeed a 6-part series, why should I bother rebutting an unfinished argument? As it stands, I’m unimpressed. Maybe you’re just going about it a different way than I would have. I don’t know. c) (this is not your issue) but I’ve run affirmative action into the ground, and I tire of the topic because it seems hopelessly mired in excuses, prejudice, and inherent (hypocritical) discrimination.
So, in closing, if you’d like to carry on, you can email me. If not, let’s just consider this a closed issue.