A few days ago, my little one was given an extra credit assignment in either English or Social Studies class to write a letter to a soldier in Iraq, a scan of which I've posted here.
The point of the letter was to provide some words of encouragement and comfort from the home front and to send them needed supplies like toothpaste and foot powder.
Clearly, from the text of this kind note, he's more concerned about the local sports teams than he is about why the soldiers are there in the first place. Of course, contrarian that I am, I asked him why he thinks the soldiers are there?
Me: Do you think that they should be there?
L1: I dunno Dad! It's just an extra credit assignment.
Me: Yeah, but why write a letter to them telling them about home when you could write a letter to our congressman, our senators, or President Bush to demand that they bring the soldiers home and experience it for themselves?
L1: Because that's not what we were asked to write. Mom! Dad's being a jerk!
Indeed, I was being a jerk and E. laid into me for turning a simple extra credit assignment into an exercise in politics. According to her, this letter was not about expressing an opinion, but expressing empathy and compassion for our brave men and women in uniform. "The ones who are making us safer fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?" I snarked.
"Yes," E. says. "Jerk."
In that moment I realized what's wrong with this country -- we are unable to disagree with some decorum of civility, especially when it comes to politics. I told E., "They don't need our fucking empathy or supplies, which, by the way, should be paid for from DoD budget. What they all need is to be brought back home."
I slammed the front door on my way out to take Chester for his evening walk. I was pissed. All I could think about was how people are simply not allowed a voice of dissent anymore.
Tell someone you're against the war, and you're branded as a soldier hater.
Tell someone that the United States, by Constitutional decree, may not endorse any one religion over another, and you'll get shouted down that ours is a "Christian nation."
Tell someone you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not good choices for POTUS in 2008, and you are now a misogynistic, race baiter, who hates all things Oprah (yes...Oprah does drive me nuts. Always has. And in the same exact way that Cosmo Kramer goes spastic at the sound of Mary Hart's voice. It's that bad.)
It really pains me to think that this is the legacy we're leaving for our kids. Somehow, some way, it became taboo to speak your mind whenever you disagreed with someone. It is considered offensive and in poor taste to tell someone you're against the war or any currently popular stance, like (Latino) immigration reform. Never mind, that the basis of our Republic -- what is constitutionally guaranteed -- is our right to dissent. You just can't do it.
Allow me to offer a hypothetical question here.
What if my son decided to hand in to his teacher a letter to Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer expressing disapproval over the war and the Democrats inability to impeach that imperialist bastard Cheney and his Bush puppet? It's doubtful he would write such a letter because the little one is only 11. But I also think it's because he is very much afraid of the repercussions at his school. I could easily see him being sent to the dean's office for his "misconduct" in not completing the assignment as requested. And E. would be no help in this sense because the other night, she was telling me to shut the fuck up. I have no doubt that the little one -- nay, all our kids -- got the same message.
But with the latest count on the butcher's bill now at 3,879 confirmed American soldiers dead, the largest majority coming after it was "Mission Accomplished", I can't see myself shutting the fuck up now, because if I do, I fear it will not be long before I'm the one in this photo contemplating my loss at the marble slab marking 13's and the little one's final resting place.
One More Article / Un Altro Articolo
-
Over the years teaching at La Scuola d’Italia NY, I have learned that
children are not just students; they are careful observers of the world,
full of q...
6 months ago
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpartacus, you're so right about the climate in which everyone's worried about speaking out and everyone seems to take offense or demand apology for every political statement that doesn't toe whatever party line...still, I bet a soldier stuck in Iraq or Afghanistan will really enjoy reading that letter. Great post.
ReplyDeleteDCup - The irony is not lost on me. But I'd rather suffer the slings and arrows of the idiots telling me to shut up than give up my voice.
ReplyDeleteCDP - Thanks. I agree that if I were a soldier stuck in Iraq or Afghanistan on tours of duty that have been re-extended several times, a letter from the home front would be wonderful. But the predicament of these soldiers and the reasons why they're there are not easily separated for me. Hence, the post and why I wigged out about the letter. If I were the little one, I would not waste my time writing a letter of comfort to one of those young men and women, because that doesn't bring them home. I rather write a letter to my congressman and senators, or better still cast my ballot to empower candidates to bring them home. I thought I voted for that in 2006, but we all know how well that effort went.
Hi Spartacus -
ReplyDeleteDuring the first Gulf War (the alleged good one), I was working for a major defense contractor who had some aspect in the making of the smart bombs.
During that conflict, a very senior engineer (much respected and all that rot) commented on nuking the region. He talked about it with a sort of grim satisfaction, and stated that the heat from the bomb would of course make all the sand turn into a sheet of glass about 8 feet thick. But, he concluded, it would be easy to get to the oil anyway.
I spoke up - and ultimately I quit that company when I was reprimanded for it. I gave them one days notice.
You are right: sometimes you have to take Chester for a walk.
Regards,
Tengrain
Spartacus, you wrote:
ReplyDelete“In that moment I realized what’s wrong with this country — we are unable to disagree with some decorum of civility, especially when it comes to politics. I told E….”
And:
“All I could think about was how people are simply not allowed a voice of dissent anymore. Tell someone you’re against the war, and you’re branded as a soldier hater.”
First, in your example, you’re enmeshed in a domestic, household power play. Not a forum on national politics. If you feel squeezed at home, the condition has nothing to do with the law of the land or the openness of US society.
Frankly, when I started reading your comments, I thought you would end by saying something jokey about how the real power in America is in the hands of mothers who can stop grown men in their tracks with a single word, a look or a hard tone. But when I reached the end, I realized you were serious start to finish.
You wrote:
“Tell someone that the United States, by Constitutional decree, may not endorse any one religion over another, and you’ll get shouted down that ours is a “Christian nation.””
First, the First Amendment backs you up on this statement. Second, you seem to object when other people exercise their right to disagree with you. Thus, it’s not clear what principles you really support.
Taking a stand always means standing against your critics. Is it news to you that critics will say anything to undermine opponents? Moreover, I think you’ve interpreted criticisms in ways that are helpful to your critics, some of whom are probably imaginary.
You said:
“Tell someone you’re against the war, and you’re branded as a soldier hater.”
Did someone actually call you a soldier hater, or are you inferring and extrapolating? Meanwhile, IF someONE called you a soldier hater, then you heard it from a single person. I’m sure no branding or other permanent identification process was involved. That is, no lighted sign blinks over your head that declares you hate soldiers. Your response seems entirely internal. Moreover, why is it personally upsetting to you when people either willfully or ignorantly misinterpret your views?
You wrote:
“Tell someone you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not good choices for POTUS in 2008, and you are now a misogynistic, race baiter, who hates all things Oprah.”
Says who? Now you’re going overboard to pretend that roughly 50% of the population doesn’t exist. You seem to think if one person disagrees with you, everyone disagrees with you. Not only disagrees with you, but finds moral flaws in your views. Get over it.
Barack Hussein Obama hasn’t got a chance. People chuckle over the thought that after driving one Hussein from power in Iraq, another Hussein will get the top job in the US. Obama hasn’t got a chance because only a handful of US voters will vote for him. The gasbags will make many comments about why this is so. Race is a factor. But his politics are a bigger factor. He hasn’t got a chance. Let the critics scream. Who cares?
Hillary is the most likely nominee of the Democratic party. But she’s unlikely to win the presidency. Meanwhile, where does your objection to Hillary put you? If you won’t vote for Hillary next November, does that mean Rudy gets your vote if he’s the Republican candidate?
What’s the problem with reality? Millions of voters will NOT vote for a female presidential candidate. Millions of voters will NOT vote for Hillary. Those are facts. I think the numbers of people who will not vote for a woman combined with the number of those who will not vote for her add up to a number greater than those who will. Hence, she loses by a margin close to Kerry’s in 2004. Political calculus.
You wrote:
“It really pains me to think that this is the legacy we’re leaving for our kids.”
What legacy? The one where everyone can speak their thoughts and practice their beliefs? The one where everyone is free to embrace any candidate, any position, no matter how sane or insane?
You wrote:
“Somehow, some way, it became taboo to speak your mind whenever you disagreed with someone.”
Based on your comments, the only real live human being who disagreed with you was your wife. And the disagreement had nothing to do with political freedom or limits on civil society. It was purely domestic.
You wrote:
“It is considered offensive and in poor taste to tell someone you’re against the war or any currently popular stance, like (Latino) immigration reform.”
I’ve been in a lot of debates – the common kitchen forum as well as organized public debates – and I’ve heard every form of criticism. So what? I’ve faced hostility and physical threats. So what? Some people attack their opponents any way they can. So what?
You wrote:
“Never mind, that the basis of our Republic — what is constitutionally guaranteed — is our right to dissent. You just can’t do it.”
On the contrary. You can dissent all you want. You can dissent as much as you want and as vigorously as you like. It’s everyone's right to rant and rave without regard for the sensibilities of others.
Just like the people who disagree with you. But you seem unwilling to bear the heat after taking a public stand. Why do you expect others to behave or respond according to your principles? Why are you worried about what opponents think of your views?
Such sensitivity makes you appear like a politician taking polls and hoping to strike the right chord with voters. Except you seem to take disagreement way too personally.
You hypothesized:
“What if my son decided to hand in to his teacher a letter to Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer expressing disapproval over the war and the Democrats inability to impeach that imperialist bastard Cheney and his Bush puppet?”
If your kid were writing a letter to Hillary or Chuck, why would he give it to his teacher? However, if he sent a letter expressing your thoughts, its arrival at the Clinton or Schumer offices would only add to the mountain of letters already stating the same points. For some inexplicable reason, you think you are alone in your views.
You wrote:
“It’s doubtful he would write such a letter because the little one is only 11. But I also think it’s because he is very much afraid of the repercussions at his school. I could easily see him being sent to the dean’s office for his “misconduct” in not completing the assignment as requested.”
What then, is the real issue here? If you want to co-author a letter with your son to send our senators, nothing stands in the way. On the other hand, if you are directing your kid to alter the assignment given by his teacher, then you are simply butting in.
But, given the insanely liberal mandates of the teachers’ union and liberal obsessions of every teacher I know, I think you are wrong about the impact of a critical letter submitted by a student. However, if it were obvious the letter was dictated by a parent, that might change things a little.
You wrote:
“And E. would be no help in this sense because the other night, she was telling me to shut the fuck up. I have no doubt that the little one — nay, all our kids — got the same message.”
In other words, the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and how they involve intimidation, coercion, power struggles, frustration, retreat and hostility were evident. But not national politics.
Tengrain-sometimes the best thing I can do is take the pooch for a walk because it helps me think.
ReplyDeleteNo slappz - don't you know it's not a domestic dispute until the cops show up? And what part of "it got me thinking" didn't you fucking get?
BTW, the point of my post was not about what I imagined, but what5 I've actually heard in public. I've heard people called protesters soldier haters. I've heard people who don't like Obama or Hillary as anti-black and anti-woman. I havew heard the U.S. called by many a fucking "Christian Nation" as if it were fact.
I have heard this. I did not imagine it.
What I don't get is that why is that every time you comment on someone's site, it always begins with "You wrote". Who the fuck are you, Perry Mason. What is up with this litigious style of yours? Is it possible for you to string a few paragraphs together and comment on the post in it's entirety or must you always dissect each sentence and word as if they were completely and wholly unrelated.
Finally, slappz, when are we going to be exposed to your personal musings and writings. It's clear to me that you are a (right) wingnut of the highest order, when are you going to let us in and offer some counter-commentary?
Here's the deal. You can come and comment here anytime, but if you use the "You wrote" cut and paste style, it gets deleted.
spartacus, I insert chunks of other's commentaries so there is no doubt about the origins of my responses.
ReplyDeleteI've been gone many rounds with people in print and face to face. I assure you people have a remarkably limited understanding and short memory for their own thoughts and musings.
Way too often I hear or read the following: "I never said that."
But, in fact, he/she did. The Internet is great that way. Comments and full-throated blasts and raves remain available for years and years. Who knows when stuff disppears?
The second most common response is: "but that's not what I meant."
This too is fascinating because it shows that the writer is unaware of how imprecise writing can be. Either a writer is unable nail down his views in clear terms, or he is not so sure what he believes in the first place.
Anyway, my cut-&-paste style results from my background as an analyst and because I have edited lots of financial stuff published in well known venues. When work is published by people writing about the financial markets, the possibility of lawsuits is always in the air. Thus, accuracy is important. It's evident to me that most writers are oblivious when they construct a non-sequitur or make a statement that is demonstrably false.
As for me, I've got a blog. You can look it up.
As far as people claiming you hate soldiers because you oppose the war, well, that's a non-sequitur. Like claiming the crowing rooster causes the sun to rise, the two are unrelated.
Frankly, I'd argue that if you really hated soldiers, you would advocate sending them into combat whenever possible and you would encourage drinking and drug use on the rifle range, while operating heavy weapons and give special bonuses to drunken pilots if they crash.
Again, anyone who makes senseless connections, connections that lack any logical link, has a faulty point of view. Therefore it's pretty nearly a waste of time to debate most of them because they will only respond with more dopiness when you reveal the weakness of their positions.
Most of those comments that you've heard (hating soldiers, hating women, etc.) are nothing more than someone's attempt to shake the confidence of the speaker. It's often a successful technique for weakening an opponent the best way of all. You get him to doubt himself. That's a triumph.
Maybe the elbows are sharper on Wall Street, but the debates about prospects for individual stocks often reach such heights of anger and hostility that legal action is taken. Companies sue posters on message boards, and posters counter-sue. Wild accusations are made, and sometimes prove true.
HealthSouth is a public health-insurance company. A few years ago an employee who worked in the finance department posted on the company's message board that the company was a fragile house of cards ready to collapse. He was fired. But within two years the company collapsed and I think the former CEO is now in jail.
That employee started a period of intense examination of the company by Wall Street. His accusations were based in fact.
More recently the stock of Overstock.com was beaten down when a couple of analysts said the CEO was tinkering with the books in unacceptable ways. The CEO tried to sue the analysts. There are lots of examples of major fights between companies and critics. Wars of words.
Anyway, it's also unfortunate that some people can't handle criticism of their ideas. It's as though criticizing a person's ideas or beliefs is taken as a massive attack on the person.
Whether you care to admit it or not, an assessment entails an analysis of the components of a thing. If the components are faulty, how sound can their assembled whole be?
It's about fucking time you left a cogent remark on a site.
ReplyDeleteAs for dissecting and analyzing remarks the way it is done on Wall Street, as auditor I'm well aware of what an assessment entails, and yes, dissecting the components of a things is important. But it's only part of the task. In the end one must render an opinion, which is something you always seem to always fall short on.
Again, I say, you are quite welcome to visit this site and comment. But any left in the cut-and-paste style of parsed analysis without rendering a complete opinion on the matter will be deleted. This is not a trial or a debate. If you have a thought, contrary or not, let me know it. I'm not looking for an analyst.
Spartacus, you are spot on about this being no time to shut up. If the fucking media in this country had not complied so easily with the Bush administration's demand for blind obedience, we wouldn't be in this place to begin with.
ReplyDeleteAs for no_slappz, his/her interpretation of your post leads me to believe that as an analyst, the value of his/her services would always be wildly inflated.
Thanks Morse. I won't be cowed, even by an analyst who's unable to render an honest-to-goodness opinion.
ReplyDeleteDude,
ReplyDeleteI memed you. Go take a look.
OK, now we're playing on my home turf. No_slappz, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Hillary is the most likely nominee of the Democratic party. But she’s unlikely to win the presidency. Meanwhile, where does your objection to Hillary put you? If you won’t vote for Hillary next November, does that mean Rudy gets your vote if he’s the Republican candidate?
What’s the problem with reality? Millions of voters will NOT vote for a female presidential candidate. Millions of voters will NOT vote for Hillary. Those are facts. I think the numbers of people who will not vote for a woman combined with the number of those who will not vote for her add up to a number greater than those who will. Hence, she loses by a margin close to Kerry’s in 2004. Political calculus."
EXCELLENT. I WISH TO FADE YOUR PROPOSITION FOR MONEY. WHAT PRICE MAY I TAKE WITH YOU THAT CLINTON WILL BE ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE USA IN 2008 AND FOR HOW MUCH MAY I PLAY? I'M GUESSING YOU LIKE YOUR SIDE ENOUGH THAT YOU'LL WRITE ME A FAIR PRICE. LIKE I'M NOT FUCKING LAYING YOU A PRICE OR DUMB SHIT.
IF WE AGREE ON THE PRICE AND THE AMOUNT WE WILL EACH POST OUR POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO AN ESCROW ACCOUNT OR ELSE WE CAN OPEN A JOINT PAY-PAL ACCOUNT REQUIRING AUTHORIZATION FROM BOTH OF US TO TRANSACT. SIZE IS NOT AN ISSUE. I'LL PLAY IT FOR A LOT SO LONG AS THE CASH IS POSTED.
YOU LIKE "SHARP ELBOWS," DO YOU? GOOD. I, HOWEVER, LIKE SETTLING THESE THINGS THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Crickets
ReplyDeleteKelso - You rock, my brother! I will keep an eye on this one to see if he bites. I'd volunteer to hold the money while the bets are on the table, but we're not in a bar in Manhattan anymore are we? Great comment dude. You are one of my blogsphere heroes.
ReplyDeleteKelso ONE, no-slappz, ZIP :)
ReplyDeleteSpartacus: when I see a comment like those left by no slappz I am reminded of the New Yorker cartoon of two dogs sitting by a computer. The one dog turns to the other and says: On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. How true.
ReplyDeletePiNYC-I'm with Kelso on this one. Waiting for a response to his wager.
ReplyDeleteAs for slappz being compared to a dog, my Chester may take exception to that.
CR-It appears that not only are you an excellent cook, but an impeccable scorekeeper as well. LOL. Want to come down to LI and keep the books for 13's basketball games?
Thanks, Spartacus, Old School NYC generally wins the day on these things but I really like my side and I would have no problem setting No_slappz in for his house.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to take great pleasure in raising the stress level around here. The small things he gets so exercised about collectively remind me of how Jorge Luis Borges characterized the Falklands War: "two bald men fighting over a comb."
I'm good to go on the bet, so long as it's secure and transparent.
Wish I had been in BKLYN for the meet-up. It will be awhile before I next see Brooklyn :-(
I want to put in a NICE word for No_slappz. He left a few marks up the Nuts and could not have been more respectful and pleasant. He didn't AGREE with some of the sentiments express but he used his -- um -- formidable powers of analysis to advance and improve the debate.
ReplyDeleteY hay una sorpresa, mi brother. No_slappz es judio! De veras. Me da un poco de verguenza, pue', porque tenga que ser ashkenaz. Los sephardim no son tan rigidos ni mucho menos. A los sephardim les encantan la fiesta la rumba las tias y los desordenes! A los ashkenazim de todo eso tambien cierto pero a la vez hay ashkenazim como los Podhoretz y Kristol y el hijoputa carapizza Joe Lieberman que son maricas de veras sin meter ni recibir la verga!!!!
kelso, my political wagers are capped at $1. That's all there is to it.
ReplyDeleteYou want to bet me a buck? Then bet me a buck. Winner gets bragging rights.
No, I don't want to bet you a buck. I want to play the maximum. Do you do your job for $1/day salary? If you like your opinion, back it for something meaningful. What that is, I don't know because I don't count anyone's money for him. I'm certainly not looking to bet LESS than $1000 US; i'd prefer to bet $5000 or more. Not worth all the admin hassle otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI would very much consider the proposal of a bet of $1 to be at most generous to be a renege of your opinion on Clinton's chances. At worst, it's showing rank cowardice. I'll leave it at that. I appreciate that you've been respectful at my blog of the content and my regulars so I'm leaving the invective aside. When you feel like moving money, I'll be around.
ReplyDeleteKelso - You rock bro!!!! Ha ha. What an f*ing chump. Wall Street analyst and all's he got to be is a buck? The bonus pool must be a little light this year.
ReplyDeleteSpartacus:
ReplyDeleteI don't want to trash him. By reneging he's already done worse to himself by my lights. By offering such a strong opionion and subsquently not backing it, he's committed the unpardonable sin and will carry that his whole life. Back in the day, you do what he did, you can't get pussy anymore in part of town where you did it and no one signficant will talk to you. It's like almost "short eyes" in prison. Or like ratting a friend. There were a million ways to handle it which would have not gotten his shtetl pass revoked, but he wasn't streetwise enough to figure them out. And I don't even mean Borinqueno shit. I mean Wall-streetwise. I'm 46 and was trading off-shore in emerging markets equity, derivates and debt when fucking GIANTS were there. Meriwether. Leahy. Hawkins. Gutfreund. Ranieri. Strauss. Scholes. Hillebrand. Robertson. Soros. Cooperman. Chanos. Lampert. Leff. Gollust. William Simon. Fuck, I could go on...but that was a wild time. Us younger guys had HEROES.
So, the Wall Street shtick does nothing for me because I was there. The job of analyst was like getting a job of groom at a thoroughbred racing stable as your first job out of prison. Bottom of the pile. You'd put your 2 post-college years into your analyst's job mostly fetching coffee, then you'd go to B-School and come back as a junior associate in sales or trading.
I skipped all of that with the gambling post-college and after B-school, I joined some friends to found an off-shore fund. But trust me maybe for two seconds during the internet boom was "analyst" anything you'd brag about to other people on Wall St. It's a great first step with the right "bank" but in and of itself it's nothing special.
spartacus, maybe you don't see the difference between a wager on a binary discrete event like the outcome of an election occurring 12 months hence and buying shares of stock after learning about the underlying corporate entity. That's probably it. But the difference is enormous. Meanwhile, spartacus, feel free to wager your own money against kelso's. I'm sure he'll take the other side of any bet you care to place.
ReplyDeletekelso, I had no idea bravery and cowardice were revealed or demonstrated by wagering sums of money. That's news to me.
Spartacus: I'll give you an idea of how important it was to put your money where your mouth was. I was just starting out ih the gambling world and I got into an argument about Russian literature with an older player. It got down to me trying to show off and "win the argument" by saying that Turgenev had written OBLOMOV. The dude so caught me. I was stuck with Turgenev at even for $1000 when I really didn't have a clue. We called the Ready Reference Room of the Brooklyn Public Library and the reference librarian told us that the author of OBLOMOV was Goncharov. Urgh. You learn quick the old-fashioned way.
ReplyDeleteIf I hadn't backed my bullshit with at least a dime, life would have started to suck real, real bad.
N_s:
ReplyDeleteIt sure isn't your willingness to sit in Crawford, Texas as 1000s of Americans are sent into the abattoir you've set up in Iraq which is also gauged to process billions of pounds of Iraqi flesh
slappz, in fact I do see the difference. The fact is the probability of any event can be handicapped. That what Kelso does, and he does it quite well.
ReplyDeleteBut let's be clear about something -- this is your pissing match, not mine. A few comments back, you said that Hillary Clinton would not be elected in 2008. Kelso called you on your certainty with a monetary wager. You blinked, which in street terms -- Wall Street or ghetto -- that makes you a chump. It's a simple case of put up or shut up. What's it going to be slappz?
spartacus, I have predicted that Hillary will not become the next president of the US.
ReplyDeleteThat prediction is worth a dollar bet to me. It does not concern me if you think otherwise.
Meanwhile, kelso made the point when he shared the anecdote of letting his ego get the best of him. However, had he and I faced off over the Oblomov question, I would have won; I've read the book. But had that challenge arisen. I would have bet him no more than a buck.
N-s:
ReplyDeleteYou reneged on a challenge bet after you had offered the initial opinion. I didn't tell you to do that. I invited you to do the honorable thing and at least WRITE me a price and a limit. If we don't agree, we don't agree, but you know very well you don't renege. If you think that's cool, then I invite you to tell your boss that you renege a challenge bet online to a Franco-pjile Peacenik Fucking Liberal Kucinch-supporter Fucking Atheist Jew. That's bad, my friend. Very bad.
I'm not a tough guy at all. I'm a total pacifist. And so is Spartacus. And I'd never try to break him on a challenge bet because he's not about competition. He's about cooperation and friedship. If he were interested in learning gambling and finacial engineering concepts, I'd be happy to teach him, but I'd never try to get the best of him in a bet.
You presented your job as part of the discussion and offered a very strong fade opinion about Clinton. I was hitting it as I'm supposed to. Rules are rules. I know you know that. If you don't, just watch what the dudes at the desks at the end are doing on Friday or Monday afternoons.
kelso, as I mentioned to spartacus, you would have lost the Oblomov bet to me too. But the damage would have been a mere buck, no matter how hard you pushed to raise the stakes. That's how it is.
ReplyDeleteslappz, you may be right about the Oblomov bet. But the Hillary bet is still on the table. C'mon, is your certainty worth a buck? You must really suck as an analyst on Wall Street if that's the case. Like I said -- you're a chump.
ReplyDelete[This will be the last comment on the subject from me.]
ReplyDeleteYou weren't part of the Oblomov discussion back then and I really don't care one way or the other whether you would have bet $1 for fun or a huge amount to stick the knife in. I know how my world works. I give you no credit whatsoever for a quality of mercy. It's not an attribute that has too much value when you move money for a living. If you're in a money trade you do no one any favors by being merciful. Your job is to make money.
I fight various moral battles inside over this. I've gotten to a place where I know what I can do with my off-hours and my politics to give something back. That's for the few off hours. Otherwise, I'm another whore on the stroll.
Of course, I tell negative stories about myself. I love to laugh at myself. A little humility now and then didn't do anybody any harm. You know very well that no one is right 100% of the time, yet you insist that you're infallible, that you're always right. The cognitive dissonance must be horrible, no?
Well, it's down here on MSEP that you renege a challenge bet to a sissy liberal!