The Three Whisky Happy Hour: What the Latest Hoax Teaches about Liberalism

I read an article in a peer reviewed space history magazine which had a major error. So I wrote an article which included a refutation of it. I had some problems with the peer reviewer who was probably also the peer reviewer for the earlier article. This is just one of many problems with this supposed quality control.

Here is my contribution to the analysis of "scientific politics". lol

Regarding the ending where they were talking about not stopping asking the question what is justice.

I am getting really sick of politicians that have either bar cards or oversight responsibilities in the justice system either lying about it, or confusing the public about the justice system. Adam Schiff constantly saying, "I have seen...", and now we know it was Hillary Clinton in bed with the Russians. There are a million examples. I am sick of it. They need to be shamed to the ends of the earth.

Liveblogging my listening experience:

@17:50: I'd expect no less from a pretentious intellectual, Steve.

I do enjoy this podcast.

In my limited legal writing experience, editors were more concerned that the footnotes were fully Bluebook-compliant, than they were about whether the footnoted text was at all coherent.

I have always referred to Wikipedia as The Unimpeachable Source.

@33:40 audible popping of the cork. Clearly Prof. Hayward has delegated send-off duties to Lucretia.

@35:50: Here's these two sentences while Lucretia pours another glass:

There's over a half hour to go - and we haven't even gotten to pronouns yet - this is gonna be great!

I've never studied philosophy but between law school and law practice I have seen firsthand that many – perhaps most – lawyers practice law exactly as Lucretia describes the leftists: they believe that they can create the full truth, and convince the court to rule in favor of that created truth. I've seen it happen. In a government contracts dispute, the judge actually wrote (I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly) "while it's true the [Defendant] didn't follow the published rules, what he did wasn't explicitly prohibited by the rules."

In the case, each bidding contractor was to be evaluated on five equally weighted criteria. The record was clear that the Defendant hadn't given equal weight to the criteria in his evaluations, even going so far as to state on the record his belief that "just because there are five equal criteria doesn't mean that each is worth 20 percent."

The judge bought the Defendant's created truth. But this dovetails with an earlier 3WHH discussion of how ignorance of basic arithmetic is endemic, including especially among elites. . . . certainly in the law.

@51:35 Lucretia: We know, for instance, that the percentage of progressives [audible cork popping] who seek mental health treatments is vastly greater than it is for conservatives . . .
Steve: Well the reason that prompted the synapse in my head - on my second glass of Scotch here, . . .

Second? Has innumeracy infected the Three Whisky Happy Hour? Oh well – if Scotch be the food of podcast, play on, Give us excess of it!

I get the impression that Steve was giving his "apologia" at the last class of the semester. When I was in engineering school, December 4 would still be over a week away from the end of classes. No reading gap before exams started, and there were always exams scheduled for December 23.

This was indeed great.

Let's Go Brandon!

LibertyDefender (View Comment):

Liveblogging my listening experience:

@ 17:50: I’d expect no less from a pretentious intellectual, Steve.

I do enjoy this podcast.

In my limited legal writing experience, editors were more concerned that the footnotes were fully Bluebook-compliant, than they were about whether the footnoted text was at all coherent.

I have always referred to Wikipedia as The Unimpeachable Source.

@ 33:40 audible popping of the cork. Clearly Prof. Hayward has delegated send-off duties to Lucretia.

@ 35:50: Here’s these two sentences while Lucretia pours another glass:

There’s over a half hour to go – and we haven’t even gotten to pronouns yet – this is gonna be great!

I’ve never studied philosophy but between law school and law practice I have seen firsthand that many – perhaps most – lawyers practice law exactly as Lucretia describes the leftists: they believe that they can create the full truth, and convince the court to rule in favor of that created truth. I’ve seen it happen. In a government contracts dispute, the judge actually wrote (I’m paraphrasing, but only slightly) “while it’s true the [Defendant] didn’t follow the published rules, what he did wasn’t explicitly prohibited by the rules.”

In the case, each bidding contractor was to be evaluated on five equally weighted criteria. The record was clear that the Defendant hadn’t given equal weight to the criteria in his evaluations, even going so far as to state on the record his belief that “just because there are five equal criteria doesn’t mean that each is worth 20 percent.”

The judge bought the Defendant’s created truth. But this dovetails with an earlier 3WHH discussion of how ignorance of basic arithmetic is endemic, including especially among elites. . . . certainly in the law.

@ 51:35 Lucretia: We know, for instance, that the percentage of progressives [audible cork popping] who seek mental health treatments is vastly greater than it is for conservatives . . .
Steve: Well the reason that prompted the synapse in my head – on my second glass of Scotch here, . . .

Second? Has innumeracy infected the Three Whisky Happy Hour? Oh well – if Scotch be the food of podcast, play on, Give us excess of it!

I get the impression that Steve was giving his “apologia” at the last class of the semester. When I was in engineering school, December 4 would still be over a week away from the end of classes. No reading gap before exams started, and there were always exams scheduled for December 23.

This was indeed great.

Let’s Go Brandon!

Every word of this is awesome, including "and" and "the."