Introducing: Over Cigars
To that end, and because we have always sort of wanted the League to be as much community as it is blog, I’m starting the “Over Cigars” series to encourage just that kind of back and forth. Today’s topic is the new Balloon Juice Dictionary that John and the crew have posted and to which Andrew et al linked (h/t). I don’t read Balloon Juice everyday, or even very frequently, but that is some funny shit they have posted.
I haven’t read it all, but I particularly enjoyed the “Going Galt” entry with the classic LOLdog, a medium that no matter is animal subject, makes me giggle like a pudgy school boy on too much cotton candy.
Feel free to email me with any suggestins for Over Cigars conversations you’d like to have and I’ll do my best to post ‘em in a timely fashion.
Cheers,
Scott
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Given Chris' favorable Co...
- Health-care isn't everyth...
- Of course that's correct,...
- oops 'the' not 'they' in ...
- I'm not sure they traditi...
- My humble exit answers:-Y...
- On that we're fully agree...
- I didn't think this was m...
- Well, you're either right...
- JK: But the bill isn't d...
-
71 comments
Ahhh I love Balloon Juice, they have a hilarious site. It’s not generally serious policy analysis or serious Wonking, but they do cut through the BS. It’s a testimony to the great comments section that they have a long list of definitions of commonly used terms that readers (like myself) know.
So Scott is a cigar just a cigar?
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Indeed, the humour sometimes takes itself too seriously and becomes the whole impetus, but I agree on the whole. And there’s just no question that Cole is a funny man.
Re: the cigar, hard to say. Are you holding it in yr hand, or sticking it in yr mouth? That’s the question I always ask, y’know?
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Also, calling Jonah Goldberg “Dough Loadpants”, irreverent as it is, is undeniably comedic genius. I should be so lucky as to have a nickname so pleasantly descriptive.
Louis B.
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I derive an unhealthy sort of amusement from any abuse directed at Jolberg.
Don’t ask…
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
You can’t say “don’t ask” and expect me actually not to ask…
Bob Cheeks
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Where did Bubba stick his cigar?
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
A gentleman never tells, Bob. Unless he’s under federal investigation…
So this is kind of like an open thread?
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Ah, sort of. The idea is the same as an open thread, but with a bit more definition in terms of the conversation to take place there within. But there aren’t any hard and fast rules.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Speaking of which: any idea when we’ll be able to add series back in?
greginak
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
so far we have cigars and nothing hard or fast. any other…umm….guidelines? Any safe words?
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Well, this Bill-O convo down further is simmering into something worth throwing some words at… Come on down and bug JB with me. It’s a rare opportunity and he’s an exceptionally good sport.
Who says I like interacting with commenters?
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
*HUGS*
I know you wanted one…
Dave
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Nihilist
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
You’re so cute when yr being obstinate.
I don’t have anything to say, but this post has reminded me to check the temp & humidity in my humidor. Thanks guys!
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
What kind do you smoke?
Bob Cheeks
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Socialists smoking? Isn’t that politically incorrect? I quit…..twenty pounds ago, no self control…..!
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Cigars is still acceptable. Especially when they’re from Cuba…
ChrisWWW
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Bob,
With that new SCHIP cigar tax, I guess us commies can be happy up to 40 cents from every cigar goes to fund health care for kids. Hopefully some of the rest goes to those poor folks growing and hand-crafting the damn things.
Bob Cheeks
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Chris, actually I’m quite moved by your confessional attitude, which btw is good for the soul. I must confess our Kenyan pres. indeed had a hand in getting me off the noxious weed, though, in all honesty I’d give a finger just now for a wiff of a full flavored Honduran beauty.
ChrisWWW
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Scott,
I don’t smoke anything too fancy. Just short smokes I can find for a reasonable price in JR’s cigar catalog… Right now my humidor is mainly filled Montecristo 444’s. Unfortunately they aren’t the Cuban variety.
Do you or any of your fellow comrades have any recommendations?
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Not really. Like Bob, I quit smoking regularly some time ago.
I was at wedding a couple of weeks ago, it was of a Jewish variety – my first – and we realized we needed cigars for the tish. So there I am in Arlington Washington on this Jewish kids camp with no clue where to go and I sort of wander into town and wind up at this smoke shack asking this woman who had hair that had refused to acknowledge the passage of time since about 1982 about what cigars were half decent unable to just go ahead and ask for Cubans…
(PS – yer embargo is dumb)
So she recommended 1812s, which weren’t good, but they weren’t bad either. That’s basically all I got.
ChrisWWW
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Good for both of you for quitting. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever had more than four cigars in an entire month, so I hardly consider myself addicted or even an Aficionado.
With that said, I think I can distinguish good cigars from bad and if money wasn’t a concern I’d have boxes of nothing but Padron Anniversarios.
As for the embargo, it’s completely insane and I hope the government can get rid of it soon. Trouble is, if the embargo is lifted, Cuban cigars will suck for at least five years while they attempt to cope with what will be a massive increase in demand.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Eh, they’ll tariff their way out of it.
JosephFM
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I’m still a smoker I guess, but I’ve never really liked cigars much. I’ll just stick with the coffee. Not sure I’ve mentioned it before, but I love Pilon.
Jaybird
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I enjoy Romeo y Julieta bully cigars, myself.
Having quit smoking, I don’t allow myself too many in a given year (1 a month is excessive for me) but, good lord, I love the aftersensation of licking one’s lips when cigars and whisky is involved.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Indeed, it was a grand thing to be able to pull out the cigars, as not very good as they were, at this friend’s wedding during the portion that is dedicated to the groom and have at. The only down side was that the glasses we were drinking from were drinky little plastic cocktail numbers. No good, I say. No good.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 7:42 am
This is where we can make “I like my scotch the way I like my women!” jokes.
Bob Cheeks
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
STOP THIS!!!! STOP IT NOW!!!!!
I WON’T SMOKE, I WON’T SMOKE!!!!!!!!
But, oh my, a decent cigar and two fingers of Buffalo Trace…the good old days!
The definition of “glibertarian” gave me an opportunity to reflect on how I must not have a sense of humor.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
You do like Bill-O.
Jaybird
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I *DID*.
Before he went apeshit.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
You said you’d go back… seems like yer trying to have yer (ape)shit and eat it too.
Jaybird
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
You’d think that it’d be easy to get back into the habit of watching Bill-O. It hasn’t happened yet, however.
I will keep you posted. I swear.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
You can’t be trusted. you once liked Bill-O.
greginak
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
shouldn’t a billo thread be titled Over Loofa’s?
he always struck me as having absolutely no sense of shame. he would rant one thing, even after ranting the opposite a few months previous. it was fun watching Olbermann completely play billy so massively to boost his own ratings. it was like billy couldn’t even see he was being used.
OBTW how could you tell he went apeshit? He always seemed on the edge of the wingularity.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
We should get E.D. in on this convo, he openly admits to liking the “non-ape shit” Bill-O.
As a means of anteing up, I’ll admit that I kind of liked Limbaugh’s CPAC speech back in… whenever it was. Rush’s latest antics just strike me as deeply counterproductive, but when the man is on he can make some decent points and well.
Bob Cheeks
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Well, well, well a closet rightest?
Jaybird
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I’d put more weight on the Charles Jay connection, myself.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Charles Jay connection?
Jaybird
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I voted for him. I campaigned (in a very minor way) for him. We even share a name.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I’m not going to lie to you, his wiki makes him seem a bit…. flaky. Want to offer some first hand experiences?
Jaybird
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Here is a first-hand experience of why I supported Charles Jay:
Look at Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“I asked her to kick me in the ass because it was better than getting kicked in the face or the nuts”?
Jaybird
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I’m a kidneys man, myself.
But only between consensual adults.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Whatever floats yer boat, I’m just looking for an insight into what you saw in Jay.
Jaybird
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Believe it or not, I voted for the party, not the man. I was in the middle of being kicked out the libertarians and discussing alternatives with my other crazy friends who were into the third party thing. A dear friend who is anarcho-socialist told me that he thought that the Constitution Party and I would fit well. I took him at his word and attempted to read the Constitution Party platform.
Here’s the first sentence of the preamble:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.
I didn’t make it to the second sentence of the Preamble.
So, in my wanderings, I stumbled across a discussion of party platforms and read this sentence:
“The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”
As it turned out, that wasn’t a preamble or anything… THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PLATFORM. Only after I climbed aboard did I discover that that was the guy who ran with Marilyn Chambers on the Personal Choice party a few years back. Yeah, he’s crazy, I thought. But, hey. I dig the platform.
But you don’t have to pretend to know that! You can assume that I’ve been with the guy for years and ask me questions about whether I’ve met (or “met”) Marilyn Chambers or similar.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
YOU MET MARILYN CHAMBERS?!!!
Jaybird
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Not only that, I “met” Marilyn Chambers.
No. Not really.
I’d take a George Carlin over both of them, funnier, brighter and more fair.
So you mean rush’s recent nastiness as compared to his old mild side.
I’ll give rush and billy this, they can present their beliefs clearly and with style. They have found their correct niche in the world and are well suited to it. but it isn’t that hard to make a good point to true believers if you have no have need of depth, detail, a desire to represent the other side fairly, or even as decent humans, and only want to keep your ratings high.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I’m referring specifically to Rush’s CPAC speech as opposed to his comments re: the Belleville school bus incident. And I would note that as far as Rush goers, I’m, not exactly a true believer and there are a moments that he makes me think. The problem here, is that often the influence of these folks has to do too much with style and not enough with substance, even when the substance is there. So I’m not oposed to Rush et al. per se, but concerned about the prominence they currently occupy and the reasons behind that prominence (aka shorter: Feeding the Hydra post).
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
PS – I didn’t spend enough time with Carlin, but got some of his sentiments by listening to Bill Hicks. How do the two compare in terms of social commentary?
JosephFM
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
What’s weird for me is that Rush and his opposite number, left-wing talk pioneer Randi Rhodes, shared a home station in my hometown (WJNO 1290AM) for many years, and still do sometimes. I honestly can’t stand listening to either though. The whole medium is nothing but insincere ranting aimed at keeping their listeners in a perpetual state of unhinged anger.
Louis B.
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I recall being so traumatized the first time I heard Carlin’s Bike Helmet monologue that I gave up cycling for a whole year.
I was… impressionable. Or more accurately he was impressive.
Carlin in his prime, which was a long time, was ferocious. He could be caustic and goofy. He was a laser on American society for good and bad and ripped into everybody. He could get away with a hell of a lot of out there statements. Carlin seemed free of the overpowering sanctimony the rush and billo emit.
It is always easier to express a frustration and pain then to understand it and offer reality based solutions. Rushy and billy seem great and stoking and poking anger but are completely limited by absolutely rigid ideological blinders in terms of solutions.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
That’s almost precisely why I eschew ideology.
Are absolutely rigidly against any ideology????
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I gotta roll here, but what I would say isn’t that I’m against ideology, so eschew might be the wrong word, but I’m skeptical of ideology because it boxes one in so. I’m happy to work with certain ideology and probably even have a leaning of sorts, but if that ideology starts to produce answers that seem off, then I’m going to be looking elsewhere. Which is also to say that I think it terribly important to cultivate a faculty for critical analysis that lies outside the parameters of established ideology.
greginak
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Ohh sure just leave……in any case only liberals and Canadians use the word eschew. They also drink latte, drive volvo’s, eat fancy cheese instead of good old American processed cheese food product, and sip wine. Enjoy wearing your Che t-shirt.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I’ll note: a.) I generally avoid lattes, I don’t do dairy and other forms are blech (though, the Starbucks egg nog latte gets me every season, b.) I drive a Corolla, it’s pink (seriously, ask Dierkes), c.) re: cheese, again my no dairy thing prohibits the consumption of cheese, fancy or otheriwse, d.) I’ll take a good microbrew over wine any day, e.) I’ve never owned a Che shirt a day in my life. Now, I am Canadian and I did have to leave to go to a yoga class, which doesn’t help my cause, nor does the fact that I’m wearing lululemon right now, but dems the breaks.
Bob Cheeks
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“but I’m skeptical of ideology…” you’re close dude! Read Voegelin essay on Reason, The Gospel and Culture, On Hegel, ect all found in Vol. 12 of the Collected Works of EV.
Scott H. Payne
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Allow mew one attempt at squaring this circle prior to reading assignment, which, I am prepared to promise, I will read and write a post upon.
It is not quite correct to make the statement, “I’m skeptical of ideology” as ideology is not the sort of thing that obtains the necessary ontological status in order to be deserving of my skepticism. Rather, ideology is a status or parameter of thought that is exhibited by a particular class or subset of mind. Namely, in your words, the doctrinal mind.
So what it is more accurate for me to say is that I suspicious of a mind (a more adequate relationship than skeptical, I’m not skeptical about the mind, but rather suspicious of its state) that has voluntarily given in to an ideological or doctrinal mode of perception. Suspicious because that mode of perception is necessarily limited, but the perceptive capabilities of the corresponding mind are not, by definition or necessity limited, they are, rather, quite open ended. So I’m suspicious of the mind that has chosen to close itself off to certain possibilities because of the cold comfort of false certainty (read: false consciousness) that the closed system of ideology provides via doctrine.
Suspicious mostly because that mind, it could be said, is in a subconscious, but consistent state of denial of the range of stimuli and realities with which it is faced day-to-day, hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute, second-to-second. How is one to regard a mind that has made the decision to assume a modal posture of cognitive minimalism given the opportunity for utter freedom and constant sharpening at its immanent disposal with anything other than suspicion?
Thoughts?
greginak
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
my first thought is, wow what kind of cigar were you smoking when you wrote this. heh i kid. I agree that dogmatism is the death of the mind and to often present when people strongly adopt ideological labels. Add a heap of Us vs. Them sickness and you have beckbaugh.
We need to be loyal to thought and learning regardless where is takes us. that was why i raised the question a few weeks about criticizing ones own belief which Mark nobly dealt with. Others (hint hint) could take up that challenge. Even some of the posters like Bob and Jay could take a hack at it. FWIW i think Jay can but i doubt Bob can critisize his own political beliefs.
PS I would also be peachy if people stopped being sure they had found the perfect political system. Until we join the Federation that aint happening.
Bob Cheeks
September 24th, 2009 at 3:31 am
G., good point! As a republican (circa 1770) and surrounded and assailed as I am from all sides by you Leftists, it is singularly difficult to critique the sundry attributes of republicanism. I should and hopefully will!
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 9:49 am
“We need to be loyal to thought and learning regardless where is takes us.”
I very much agree with this sentiment.
My problem is that folks who have reached different conclusions tend to be automatically assumed to have failed to be loyal to thought and learning regardless of where it takes them.
Bob Cheeks
September 24th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Yes, I have ‘comments’ but later. In the meantime check out the blogs and comments (including links) here where Caleb Stegall over at FPR waxes eloquent on EV, deculturation, and the collapse of the Enlightenment project…alotta reading, sorry!
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2009/09/22/the-experiential-christ/
Cascadian
September 24th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I’m having a hard time getting posts from firstthings. When I click your link all I get is a brief snippet and two comments. Is this the right link?
1770 Republican? French? As a conservative libertine that makes sense in Oregon Country.
Bob Cheeks
September 24th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Cas, dude, that’s it….republican as in 1770! Oregon??? I’m confused, I was there a couple of years ago for my buddies wedding and met Mel Counts but a whole lotta people walked around like it was the Stepford Wives thing. My buddy told me that it was ok, they were libruls!!!!
Cascadian
September 26th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I’m sure Stepford’s would be outlier libruls as far as Oregon went. The hippies, libertines, crunchies, and southern constitutionalists would be the cons.