@Pygmy Hippo:  two words:  Kim Kardashian.

@jetstream:  Indiana Jones doesn't undertake his quests simply to have an adventure. In the first movie he finds the Ark of the Covenant, saves the girl, and stops the Nazis. In the second movie, he stops the Thuggee cult, frees the children, and returns the Sivalinga stone to the village from which it was stolen so the village can regain its prosperity. And so on. Seems to me those are all accomplishments by iWc's reasoning.  The fact that he has adventures (experiences) doesn't preclude him having accomplishments at the same time.

Maybe I just don't understand the point you're trying to make, but like Barkha (#20) and Larry3435 (#42), I don't break down my life into accomplishments and experiences. It is an accomplishment to take a long-desired trip to some place and experience that place or culture. It can make one a more complete person, in my view - and expanding one's life experiences is an accomplishment. It almost seems as if you're defining accomplishments as those things you do in life that improve the lives of others, as opposed to those things that improve your own life. While I don't approve of a narcissistic life, I don't agree that doing things that you like to do (for yourself) is necessarily an inferior aim to doing things that you must do (for yourself or others), or that you choose to do (for others). Perhaps your concern is that some people these days seem so self-absorbed that their only interest seems to be doing things that give them pleasure, and they care little if their actions cause pain or discomfort to others. And they avoid doing things that involve responsibility.

@ Simon Templar (#63):

(1) Because the Left already engages in a particular behavior is: (a) no reason for our side to adopt similar behavior, and (b) no reason for us to endorse the Left's behavior;

(2) (a) I'm not sure that Kevin is enforcing a "community standard" as opposed to either a personal standard or a standard with which many would agree, and (b) I'm not equating his actions with boorish behavior; I was merely commenting on the views expressed in other comments regarding how they would mediate the controversy if it came to them as judges as a result of Kevin being charged criminally or civilly. I don't think his chosen course of action was appropriate (others have suggested far better ways to handle the issue), but I also don't think he should be subjected to either criminal or civil punishment.

There's a couple of things to consider. First, while we all might applaud Kevin's course of action, we presumably do so because he responded to something of which we all disapprove. However, haven't we all seen enough examples from the Left of self-appointed "enforcers" who, seeing something that offends their beliefs, feel free to confront or assault the "offender." Do we really want a standard that says, in effect, if someone is doing something that offends your concept of civil behavior, you are free to confront them or even assault them? Consider the Ricochet comment I read yesterday about the Park Slope SUV police. Or consider the Wall Street Journal article I read today about the environmental group at Swarthmore that hijacked an open Board of Trustees meeting and shut it down. We cannot further empower the Left by establishing a rule that behavior that personally offends us can justify an assaultive response. Second, if I were the judge, I might lecture Kevin on civil behavior, private property, etc., but I'd also deny compensation because the cell phone user was the one who initially ignored the rules and therefore had (in equitable terms) "unclean hands."

@Johnny Dubya:  Park Slope - wonderful!! That brings to mind the great Park Slope "boy's hat" e-mail controversy of 2006!  See:

http://gawker.com/166214/the-park-slope-hat-spat-read-all-the-emails

and this whole page is hilarious:

http://ny.curbed.com/tags/park-slope-parents

Talk about crazy things libs say!

I hope that Professor Epstein's assessment is correct; based on the evidence of the last 4+ years, I fear that it's overly optimistic.

Well, the comments to this post have simply confirmed that, as Fred Cole states: It's really a case-by-case thing. [Excuse my pedantic tendency to edit.]  It didn't work for Majestyk; it worked for me (43 years and counting). If my wife and I hadn't decided to ignore the "suggestions" of some members of our families, and instead decided to "do the right thing," I would doubtless have screwed up at some point and lost the person who is, to me, the most important person in the world. I would also have lost an incredible daughter, a fantastic son-in-law, and two grandchildren that we treasure. So, yes, we were irresponsible at first, and then decided to be responsible, and there's not a day goes by that I don't thank God we made that decision. So I agree with Mr. Cole and Mr. Majestyk: it wouldn't necessarily work out so well for everyone. But if an unexpected pregnancy happens, and the choice is made to abort the baby, there will follow a lifetime of wondering, "what if...."

With apologies to Roberto, I think Baghdad Bob moved to Washington, had a little plastic surgery done, and emerged as "DC Carney."

Perhaps the most distressing (or depressing) thing about the MSM's nascent interest in the Benghazi narrative is that it's only when Jonathan Karl of ABC News comes out with a story, it suddenly becomes "okay" for the rest of the MSM to start looking into the details. The ludicrous video story spun (and desparately clung to) by the White House? No interest. The damning testimony of witnesses at two sets of Congressional hearings? No interest. Oh, wait, a MSM reporter has looked into this and found something questionable was going on - now we can examine what happened (and what failed to happen) during those critical hours in Benghazi. And Nick Stuart's citation of Mo Dowd's column is quite apt. Read it. She spends a great deal of time exercising her trademark snark by attacking "the right" while at the same time acknowledging that, well, maybe they are actually correct about their "paranoia." The lady's column is bipolar.

(1) I don't have sufficient data (or expertise) to determine whether global warming is occurring, but then, I'm not convinced self-styled "climate scientists" have either; (2) history informs us that the climate on this planet is continuously variable over millions of years; (3) no one that I'm aware of has shown that there is an optimal temperature range for the entire planet; (4) so far, the catastrophic problems predicted by the "warmists" have failed to occur - and specific claims, when investigated, have generally proven to be false or exaggerated; (5) it seems to me the height of hubris to expect that we can (at least at this time) fully comprehend the complexity of the planetary climate system to the degree that we can predict future climate; (6) related to (5), we have very little understanding how our planetary climate system adjusts itself to changing temperatures; (7) the Sun has a massive influence on Earth's climate, and the relative cold (or non-warming) spell over the last decade or more (which appears to coincide with a period of decreased Sun activity) suggests that the Sun is by far the most important influence on climate.

I like birthdays - my own included. I like cake. I like presents. I like having my immediate family over for dinner (wife, daughter, son-in-law, and grandkids). I like having friends send me goofy cards. I like being reminded what age I'll have to claim for the coming year. And, because my birthday falls, every few years, on Labor Day, I like that it's sometimes a national holiday! Considering the alternative to birthdays, I think they're pretty cool! If other people don't like birthdays, that's fine by me - there's no law requiring them to celebrate. They aren't even required to celebrate mine (but if they choose to, I won't mind).  Happy Birthday, everyone!

@Indaba - one and the same; it was painful to listen to. I wished that Diana Rigg could intrude and slap some sense into him. [Regarding really good audio book readers, the best I've heard is Jim Dale reading the Harry Potter books.]

Hrichard Montereggioni on the ground in Lanzarote, Canary Islands, reporting for . . . .  Doesn't that sound exotic??

I listened to Patrick Macnee read one of the Sean Dillon series novels by Jack Higgins (I believe it was "Edge of Danger"). As a huge fan of his work in "The Avengers" television series from the 1960s, it was disheartening to hear the horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE job he did reading this novel.

Everyone has seen "Pretty Woman," right??  Larry was the smarmy clothing store manager, Mr. Hollister, who couldn't do enough groveling to Julia Roberts after she shows up with Richard Gere. 

Mr. Hollister: Just how obscene an amount of cash are we talking about here? Profane or really offensive?

Edward Lewis: Really offensive.

Mr. Hollister: I like him so much.

He subsequently orders his assistant to surrender his necktie when Julia mentions that "Edward" (Gere) "would love that tie."