Let us not forget AGs of the recent past.  Harris is indeed an attractive woman, but she doesn't blur the lines between AG and goddess like this divine creature.

I agree with Valiuth.  I prefer erring on the side of preservation, but it is hard to see how this place could have any historical value.  It certainly is not architecturally interesting or even in very good shape.  (The plaque they put there will almost necessarily be more aesthetically valuable, however plain.)  The fact that Reagan lived at that location for a couple years as a tot is the only thing of interest. Given the lack of anything beyond sentimental value for a few and the clear benefit to the University and the neighborhood, the large practical, daily benefit gained by the University's plans pretty easily outweigh the cost.

From my little perch very happily ensconced in a hotbed of the Aristotelian resurgence, I worry some Ricochet readers might make a mistaken assumption based on your post, knowing your political worldview and the nature of Ricochet.  This resurgence is not at all coextensive with any sort of conservative revival.  There are a lot of Marxists in this movement.  Those who approach Aristotle through Smith, Hume, Hutcheson, and Shaftesbury are less common.

Jay,

The philosopher you were looking for is J. L. Austin, author of Sense and Sensibilia.

I had family on the ship.  It was my cousin's "get away from it all" after a year or so of a rather hellish life trying to pick up the pieces after the untimely death of her husband.  One of the buses taking the passengers back to Texas broke down.  We were literally surprised it wasn't her bus.

It was one of the buses taking folks to New Orleans airport to fly their last leg home though.  But, c'mon... your cruise ship went kaput; your bus broke down; you sure you really want to get on a plane now?

Or--to better highlight the sheer absurdity of not allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines--why not allow a NY resident that lives a stone's throw from Pennsylvania to buy a cheaper policy from Pennsylvania?  They're paying something like 3x the cost because their homes aren't a mile or two further south.  Cutting costs by three times is not useless.

I hope the crowd welcomes Elizabeth Warren this way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvz-l9SGoW8

Eastwood struck me as outrageously bizarre, and equally fantastic.

You're probably right, Blake, that the media will focus on the bizarreness as an excuse to avoid the substance of the night.  You're also probably right that Breitbart would know the best way to fight back on that.  It's a real mystery to me.  In real life, all my friends (vast majority liberal) are perfectly capable of joking around for a bit here and there within serious conversation.  It's a politically motivated sickness that renders the media incapable of doing the same.

double post...

My impression was that Romney donned kid gloves and then proceeded to beat President Obama to a pulp anyway. If Romney was to be true to himself--vitally important--this speech was top notch.

I've seen 'pitch perfect' used somewhat often throughout the convention.  My response has often been, 'close, but not quite.'  Perhaps I'm alone, but this one seemed to hit that mark.

Mama Toad in #6 hits the real highlight.  I have little experience speaking publicly, but I imagine it is quite hard to let pauses linger that long to let a point sink in.  But it struck me as masterful.  The remarks Romney was pointing out are truly absurd.  The sense of absurdity only swelled throughout the pause.  Then he followed it with the comfort of realism that hopefully even the most pessimistic American feels in her heart is still attainable at this point in our history.

Foxfier, best I can tell, you're right about a significant portion of people who use the phrase.  But those who do mean it that way should be pushed away from the phrase as well.  They should be pushed to clarify what they mean by it: since they recognize that the unborn is not a part of the woman's body, but are pointing to the manner in which he/she 'inhabits' the woman's body for nine months, we should ask what the nature of this inhabitation is such that it gives the mother moral authority to end its life?  Shall we think of it as trespassing, or as a parasite, etc.?

It's a point about the language of the debate.  Unfortunately, when it comes to influencing public policy and popular opinion of those less engaged, the terms used in a debate no less important than the debate itself.

I've been waiting for this one to get slapped down in the new media by quips about President Obama thinking the proper way to be informed by trickle down fairy dust is to snort it.  Anyone seen something to that effect around?  It just seems too obvious of a response to miss.

The following question is on some level obviously nit-picky.  I guess what I'd really like to hear people's thoughts on is if--looking beneath that nit-picky layer--there might nonetheless be some truth lurking.  It concerns one of the closing lines:

Companionate love may not be as romantic or fiery as passionate love, but scholars seem to agree that it ultimately makes couples happier and keeps them together longer.

There's a passivity about the second clause in this sentence that sits ill with me.  I'm wondering if that might be an indication of just how deeply the myth runs? if it shows that even folks Emily's and my age who on some level see through the myth, remain affected by it?  Rather than characterizing the virtues of companionate love as something impinging on us from the outside, isn't the contrast better put by emphasizing our agency with regards to it?  Perhaps,  "couples who love companionately stay together longer and better achieve happiness."

Entirely nit-picky?

I could hardly imagine a case where I'd be more pleased to be accused of such.

I think this is an uncharitable interpretation.  The photo on the right in comment #4 absolutely bears a resemblance to photos of the President in his younger days that I've seen.  Like it or not, human sympathies are aroused more powerfully by those who remind us of others we have strong feelings about, including ourselves.  I haven't seen the President's remarks in context--they may well prove me wrong--but my gut reaction is that there is no need to assume that the only resemblance President Obama sees is race.  This matter is heated enough with regards to race; no need to fan the flames.

I'd be there.

Addressing all who agree with this (and I don't): Let's go out with a bang, not a whimper.  Vote Gingrich.