Subcomandante Insurgente Steve

Put as simply as possible, I think that this distinction means that literary fiction understands itself primarily as art, while non-literary fiction understands itself primarily as entertainment.

Do you think that this is an intelligible or meaningful proposition?

I don't. I believe that there is a process by which we reach conclusions from available evidence (reason), and rules that tell us when our reasoning is valid (logic), and that's it. The term "common sense" is almost exclusively used when referring to other people that lack it by virtue of disagreeing with the person employing the term. It is a means by which to assert that your own opinion is transparently and obviously true, and to avoid having to explain your reasoning.

What do you guys think about "common sense"? Is there such a faculty?

I just don't get it. Do people really think that having more wins makes him a better pitcher? Wainwright has more Ks and more wins, and *that's about it*

Look at the numbers:

ERA

Carpenter: 2.30

Wainwright: 2.58

WHIP

Carpenter: 1.01

Wainwright: 1.21

Opponent Batting Average

Carpenter: .272

Wainwright: .297

Walks

Carpenter: 37

Wainwright: 64

Complete Games

Carpenter: 3

Wainwright: 1

Carpenter is better than Wainwright in almost every statistic, despite having been injured at the start of the season. He also beats him in stolen bases allowed, HRs allowed, total bases allowed (by almost 100!), shutouts, and wild pitches.

Is there something I'm missing, here?

Seriously, what does it have to do with the game? Go watch MTV if you're looking for catchy songs.

Any real baseball fan can find something to appreciate about the other guys, even if there's been bad blood in the past.

So, what positive things can you say about your team's rival?

For me: the Dodgers can hit up and down their lineup, and have very good discipline at the plate.

... that they need to be more patient at the plate, watch more pitches, and wait for something to drive? If these first two games against the Rockies are any indication, it seems that they've made substantial progress in this area lately.

Go Giants!

I understand that Penny is being kind of a jerk, but they're hinting that maybe the Pads should bean him when he comes up, and complaining about Bonds staying in the box too long after he hit his home runs. I mean, I don't like to see Penny make the Giants look bad, but these announcers are being just as bad.

I just finished watching the Chinese Taipai team crush Germany in the Little League WS, 15-0. And it's not like this is new, or just relegated to little league - European baseball teams always get the crap kicked out of them by Americans, Asians, and Latin Americans.

I also just read an article by some stuck-up Englishman about how terrible Americans are at soccer. So, if anyone feels like returning the favor and venting about how badly Europeans suck at baseball, this is the place.

I think Bronson Arroyo's delivery from the windup is both weird and stupid looking with the high, straightened leg kick.

Ranking 28th in runs, 29th in homers, and dead last in walks, OBP, and total pitches seen, it's clear that the Giants have only stayed in the race this season because they have the best pitching in baseball, and that they desperately need some power hitting in their lineup.

There should be some significant money available next year when several underachieving veterans' (no names will be named) contracts expire. Who would you like to see swinging the bats for the G-Men?

They've made terrible calls every game of this series, and they've *all* been against the Giants. I know that the Dodgers are flat-out better, but this is still ridiculous.

I was watching the Cubs-Rockies game, and it looked and sounded as though there were just as many Cubs fans as Rockies fans in Mile High Stadium. I've noticed this elsewhere, too - it seems like they've got a solid fanbase in every NL city.

Why is that? Is it just that everybody loves an underdog?

Questions in the philosophy section such as "Why????", or "What is the meaning of existence?", or "Do you think the things in 'The Secret' are true?"

Also, the amount of HW help (or rather "Will you do my homework for me?") is outrageous.

Don't mind me, I'm just sitting on the porch of The Academy shaking my old-man fist at passerby.

Who is your pick? And please feel free to consider more modern writers like Updike, Roth, and Bellow.

Why is it that every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks that they're qualified to accurately judge the artistic merit of a piece of literature, when at the same time they wouldn't dare claim to be qualified to judge the merit of a painting or a symphony?

In other words, what is it that makes people believe literature to be such a democratic art form?

The Democratic party encompasses so many liberal thinkers who ostensibly believe in relativist principles, i.e. that there is no objective morality and no "best" way of life - yet also so many "progressives" who seek to impose normative regulations on the lives of Americans, e.g. bans on smoking, guns, discrimination, environmental laws, etc.

And the Republican party, which encompasses so many religious conservatives who loudly proclaim the existence of an objective morality - also encompasses proponents of loosely regulated free-market capitalism, which is a distinctly amoral phenomenon, and results in a consumer culture spewing endless streams of pornography, sexualized pop culture, and miscellaneous trash.

It wouldn't be quite so contradictory if there was a bright line between these segments within the party coalitions, but the fact is that the tenets of each of the opposing sides are clearly unified and codified in their respective parties' platforms; and the religious conservative is most often also a free-market believer, just as the relativist liberal is most often also a proponent of "progressive" legislative action.

Does anyone else see this strange phenomenon?

1. The fact that different cultures and eras have had different ideas about justice and virtue does not say anything about the validity of these ideas, nor does it present any evidence against the existence of an objective morality or "natural law".

2. The premise of moral relativism, i.e. that there is no objective truth, asks us to exempt it from its own logic. We are expected to believe that there is no objective truth *except* for one: that there is no objective truth.

Or, if you don't have a favorite play specifically, what is your favorite genre of his plays (tragedy, comedy, history, romance)?

My favorites are the 4 major tragedies - Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, and Othello

Do you think that pointing out the unique attributes of gay people, and thereby emphasizing our *differences* from heterosexuals, can be detrimental to achieving total equality? Would it be more productive to emphasize how homosexuals and heterosexuals are *alike*, and not how we are different?

I don't have a set position on this, I'm just looking for your thoughts.

I went to the Garden of Love,

And saw what I never had seen;

A Chapel was built in the midst,

Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut

And "Thou shalt not," writ over the door;

So I turned to the Garden of Love

That so many sweet flowers bore.

And I saw it was filled with graves,

And tombstones where flowers should be;

And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,

And binding with briars my joys and desires.

- "The Garden of Love", William Blake