A few years ago, I saw a magazine article that said it takes seven positive statements or
actions to compensate emotionally for each negative one you aim at your spouse. I thought
about that insight into human nature this evening, when I got an email from Professor Bainbridge
with the Subject “First for everything.” Steve was amiably referring to my post earlier today,
in which I agreed with his conclusion that NRO’s Jonathan Goldberg had used an immature
and inappropriate brand of humor concerning the New Orleans residents taking shelter in the
“BainbridgePix” prof. b.
I immediately wrote back to exclaim “Hey, Steve, I’ve agreed with you many times!!” Just in
case Steve has truly forgotten all the nice things I’ve said about him, and wants some verification,
I searched my site for Bainbridge +agree> and came up with the following examples:
from crow with a mouthful (Dec. 11, 2004)
This time, we agree with Prof. Bainbridge: “it is grossly unethical for a
professor to take money to speak on behalf of some interest group without
disclosing the conflict of interest thereby created. “
from no losers here (Oct. 14, 2004)
I’m with Bainbridge — that was a boring debate; followed by aggravating
from bar associations as special interest groups (Aug. 8, 2005)
But, Professor Bainbridge raises another important issue today: bar
associations acting like any other special interest group when it comes
to rating judicial candidates. Although I usually favor intelligently-liberal
judges, I agree with Prof. B. that the ABA’s rating process appears titled
against conservative judges.
from just “worried” about getting to the truth (Aug. 5, 2005)
By the way, Prof. Bainbridge is the only weblogger I’ve discovered
who agrees with me, as he said, that there will likely be cases where
serious Catholic judges like John Roberts “would be religiously obligated
to put one’s faith-based beliefs ahead of, say, one’s views of precedent or
socially accepted moral norms.”
from vote for a kid-centered halloween (Oct. 31, 2004)
It must be post-sugar-trauma syndrome (yes, I delved into the candy
early), but I agree withProf. Bainbridge today about, cats and dogs,
from jobs & weblogs (Nov. 12, 2004)
A job for webloggers: Let’s join Prof. Bainbridge in urging the
President and serious politicians to remove the scourge of gerrymandering —
and then following up and staying on the case to get the job done.
from dandelion ghosts (Feb. 17, 2005)
All kidding aside, for a moment, Steve Bainbridge has some very good
questions for his fellow conservatives on private Social Security accounts.
Check his TrackBacks and decide whether their answers are persuasive.
Of course, I could probably find more, by using some fancy search terms, but you
get my point — before today, I had voiced agreement with Steve at least eight times
in less than ten months (always leaving Trackbacks, and often being downright
cordial). Why didn’t he remember? Let’s chalk it up to human nature — we always
seem to recall slaps more than strokes. (Hey, do you suppose he was trying to be
humorous? Nah, he’s a Conservative.)
Do I get extra credit for posting a picture of
puppy Sam Bainbridge last year, with a link to the original?
I’m just hoping Prof. B doesn’t hold me to that spousal “seven to one” calculus. I’d
have a lot of homework to do for a passing grade.
seeing my old shirt
on her new husband
another argument unfolds the futon
“flea market”: Frogpond XXIII:3 (2000);
“another argument”: bottle rocket 4
through the open door . . .
her smile doesn’t forgive
all my sins
August 30, 2005
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.