Why not 1588 and 1648? As long as we’re taking credit for wars other people won, let’s take credit for all of them.

Wow. You’re still wrong. The judge does not have power to sentence outside the guidelines of the state. And license revocation isn’t even up to the courts, it’s up to the licensure bureau.

You actually are quite wrong about everything, beginning with your assumption that this was Paul’s 3rd DUI. Not only does the article never make that claim, it goes on to specifically clarify that his other two offenses were for Minor in Possession and MIP + assault.

I mean, fuck Rand Paul for all kinds of reasons, but why pick on his kid? Especially since he appears not to have benefited from any kind of privilege in this instance; he pleaded guilty, and his sentence is in line with 1st offence guidelines in Kentucky (which are surprisingly lenient).

The word cunt does not bother me. That this prose seems to imagine sex purely as an anatomical process, I’d say, is pretty objectifying. That even a woman’s Freudian penis must be composed of some material called ‘tenderness’ is a sexist cliche.

The difference between the erotic an the pornographic is the difference between desire and anatomy. A good writer knows, when writing about sex, to write about desire. A bad writer, like Franzen, wrestles with novel adjectives for his characters’ anatomy.

There are so many great writers whose casual misogyny troubles me. Hemingway, Faulkner, Bellow... Considering how it distorts or neglects the humanity of its feminine characters, is it wrong to take such pleasure in this gorgeous prose?

Well you're married, so not that lucky.

Well, nothing gets me going like a self-righteous tirade about municipal corruption in San Francisco and a thirty-year grudge against the high school football team.

I suppose I take a more liberal understanding of divinity. Yeah, there is a doctrine out there that defines a Christian as someone who believes the Bible is a kind of textbook or how-to manual. But this can't be the case, since the instructions are so muddy and gray.

You're making the same point I am, but we're seeing it from different angles. Yes, Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, but it was composed by people. Whether they received the book as God's vision is immaterial; what makes it divine is the lasting power of its stories and language. Those who would say it…

[redacted - duplicate post]

No one, no matter how atavistic or devout, believes in all of the Bible; even the bigots cherry-pick. That's because the Bible, like any good story, is rife with ambiguities and contradictions. Only a charlatan will tell you that it is a literal roadmap to salvation. Does anyone treat the Odyssey this way? Or the Infer…

That statement is adorably inaccurate, but please don't let me stop you from never reading up on it.

Oh good they fixed it! Eracism!

Meh. The only people who give a shit are camera nerds, and those people are insufferable. So whatever.