coynedj wrote:Cleopatra wasn't Greek, and judging by the bust I see a photo of on the webernets her reputation for great beauty may be overstated.

Actually, the Ptolemaic Dynasty (which ended with Cleopatra) was indeed Greek; Ptolemy was one of Alexander's generals.

According to Plutarch, IIRC, Cleopatra wasn't necessarily the most beautiful woman of all time, but did possess a beauty that, combined with her intelligence and other charms, was still extremely enchanting.

People like to argue about whether Cleo was black. It can get quite passionate at times. I don't recommend searching the interwebs for that discussion, it's usually full of stupid.

I have also read that she was not really a great beauty in a superficial sense at least, but she clearly had something special. She's an interesting character.

rpm wrote:Caesarion was executed after Cleopatra killed herself.

doh, I knew that. fail.

chemvictim wrote:People like to argue about whether Cleo was black. It can get quite passionate at times. I don't recommend searching the interwebs for that discussion, it's usually full of stupid.

I have also read that she was not really a great beauty in a superficial sense at least, but she clearly had something special. She's an interesting character.

Informed people do not assert that the Greek Cleopatra was black. The arguments may be passionate, but they are wrong and, because so easily refuted by historical fact, stupid.

The marginally less stupid assertion is that the ancient Egyptians were black, which is also wrong. The Egyptians own art differentiated between their own features and skin, and that of the Libyans, who are indeed portrayed with the color and features we know as black.

Afrocentrism and the risible attempts to show every great ancient civilization was really black (rather like the Soviets asserted every great invention and idea was Soviet or Russian) is one of the larger piles of excrement foisted upon us by multiculturalism and the decline of academic standards from the 1960s on.

jawlz wrote:Actually, the Ptolemaic Dynasty (which ended with Cleopatra) was indeed Greek; Ptolemy was one of Alexander's generals.

According to Plutarch, IIRC, Cleopatra wasn't necessarily the most beautiful woman of all time, but did possess a beauty that, combined with her intelligence and other charms, was still extremely enchanting.

You get the prize on this one: coynedj's goat.

A little wikipedia goes a long way, and there are online versions of many of the classical sources for historical accounts of the very Greek Ptolemies and Cleopatra on line. Google is your friend.

rpm wrote:You get the prize on this one: coynedj's goat.

A little wikipedia goes a long way, and there are online versions of many of the classical sources for historical accounts of the very Greek Ptolemies and Cleopatra on line. Google is your friend.

I think Cornell might have a pretty large online archive also.

rpm wrote:You get the prize on this one: coynedj's goat.

A little wikipedia goes a long way, and there are online versions of many of the classical sources for historical accounts of the very Greek Ptolemies and Cleopatra on line. Google is your friend.

I guess you could call her Greek. After all, she was the queen of Egypt, born in Alexandria, who never stepped foot in Greece until the age of 29, and whose great great great great great great great great grandfather was Greek and had settled in Egypt more than 200 years before her birth. QED.

Back at ya!

coynedj wrote:I guess you could call her Greek. After all, she was the queen of Egypt, born in Alexandria, who never stepped foot in Greece until the age of 29, and whose great great great great great great great great grandfather was Greek and had settled in Egypt more than 200 years before her birth. QED.

Back at ya!

Eh, I'm Italian. Same deal.

In other news. Damn Joe. Not bad, not bad at all. Thought the laughing was kinda douchey though.

coynedj wrote:I guess you could call her Greek. After all, she was the queen of Egypt, born in Alexandria, who never stepped foot in Greece until the age of 29, and whose great great great great great great great great grandfather was Greek and had settled in Egypt more than 200 years before her birth. QED.

Back at ya!

The family was entirely ethnically Greek, and spoke Greek. Cleo was apparently the first one in the history of the dynasty to actually learn Egyptian. She was no more racially Egyptian than a Boer is racially an African.

bhodilee wrote:Eh, I'm Italian. Same deal.

In other news. Damn Joe. Not bad, not bad at all. Thought the laughing was kinda douchey though.

I prefer a slightly douchey response to an anemic one.

bhodilee wrote:Eh, I'm Italian. Same deal.

In other news. Damn Joe. Not bad, not bad at all. Thought the laughing was kinda douchey though.

I've watched all of the presidential (and, I think, all of the vice presidential) debates back to, and including, JFK/Nixon in 1960.

Biden made Al Gore's 2000 smirking look respectful. He behaved like a smarmy schoolyard bully, one whom the schoolmarm did nothing to restrain.

The moderator - whose husband is a big Obama supporter and whose wedding Obama attended, as if she could even pretend to be even handed - wasn't bad on foreign policy (which she apparently actually knows something about), but frequently cut Ryan off, while letting Biden interrupt and make a mockery of the format. And it was obvious to everyone she was trying to help Slow Joe.

It's sad, really, because had he merely been respectful he would have helped his case. He didn't do badly at all, other than when he was lying through his teeth.

On substance, I would score the debate barely to Ryan on points, primarily because of Ryan's strong and Biden's weak performance on Libya. I did not like the way Ryan handled the abortion question, but Biden was pandering on entitlements and taxes, trying to sprinkle fairy dust that would make the the very real problems with entitlements go away.

Ramierez or someone else should do a cartoon of Obama (with an adoring Raddatz a few feet away) gleefully letting go of a leash 'round a rabid Biden's neck, captioning it A boy and his dog.

rpm wrote:I've watched all of the presidential (and, I think, all of the vice presidential) debates back to, and including, JFK/Nixon in 1960.

Biden made Al Gore's 2000 smirking look respectful. He behaved like a smarmy schoolyard bully, one whom the schoolmarm did nothing to restrain.

The moderator - whose husband is a big Obama supporter and whose wedding Obama attended, as if she could even pretend to be even handed - wasn't bad on foreign policy (which she apparently actually knows something about), but frequently cut Ryan off, while letting Biden interrupt and make a mockery of the format. And it was obvious to everyone she was trying to help Slow Joe.

It's sad, really, because had he merely been respectful he would have helped his case. He didn't do badly at all, other than when he was lying through his teeth.

On substance, I would score the debate barely to Ryan on points, primarily because of Ryan's strong and Biden's weak performance on Libya. I did not like the way Ryan handled the abortion question, but Biden was pandering on entitlements and taxes, trying to sprinkle fairy dust that would make the the very real problems with entitlements go away.

Ramierez or someone else should do a cartoon of Obama (with an adoring Raddatz a few feet away) gleefully letting go of a leash 'round a rabid Biden's neck, captioning it A boy and his dog.

That cartoon would be EPIC. And I thought Biden handled himself FAR better on everything than I ever would have thought. I just did not like the laughing though, you're right, it was classic bullying and detracted from what otherwise was quite a pleasant debate, which he won.

Also, I didn't like how he kept referring to Ryan as "my friend." I doubt they're actually friends and seemed a little demeaning. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe they are (or were) friendly to each other.

I must confess, I did not watch the debate. Late night/early this AM for work and to be quite frank and honest, Im voting against obama, so to me, it did not matter.

I didn't watch it either. But I did see one comment this morning that said "If you're complaining about the moderator, you lost".

Most reviews say that Biden carried the day. But it will matter little if Obama doesn't step up his game on Tuesday.

bhodilee wrote:That cartoon would be EPIC. And I thought Biden handled himself FAR better on everything than I ever would have thought. I just did not like the laughing though, you're right, it was classic bullying and detracted from what otherwise was quite a pleasant debate, which he won.

Also, I didn't like how he kept referring to Ryan as "my friend." I doubt they're actually friends and seemed a little demeaning. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe they are (or were) friendly to each other.

I was less troubled by the "my friend" locution than the rest of it: senators traditionally call each other "my friend" regardless the other senator's party affiliation or their personal relationship (or lack of one). It was inappropriate, but not - by itself - condescending in the context that Biden was a longtime senator and Ryan is a sitting congressman.

coynedj wrote:I didn't watch it either. But I did see one comment this morning that said "If you're complaining about the moderator, you lost".

Most reviews say that Biden carried the day. But it will matter little if Obama doesn't step up his game on Tuesday.

Actually, the reviews were mixed. With which I would agree. I think you could reasonably come up with either Biden or Ryan as narrowly winning on substance. On demeanor, however, Biden lost overwhelmingly.

As to complaints about the moderator, given her ties to Obama she should never have been chosen. That's specific, personal bias and conflict, not simply the general conflict of being somewhere to the left of the Gang of Four, as are most reporters and reporterettes.

I thought that Ryan could not explain how he would make the math work on tax cuts, and Biden could not explain how he'd make the math work on SS/Medicare.

I didn't like either response to my favorite issue, abortion. I don't care about their tender feelings, I care about policy. But then, I guess the moderator did ask about personal feelings.

Obviously, we here are more highbrow (proving the veracity of my statement by making the statement at all) than the average person, how much do you think the debates really matter to the vast majority of voters?

kylemittskus wrote:Obviously, we here are more highbrow (proving the veracity of my statement by making the statement at all) than the average person, how much do you think the debates really matter to the vast majority of voters?

I don't know about the *vast* majority of voters, but without any real research or knowledge, I would think that the debates matter little to the majority of voters, simply because the majority of voters already know how they're going to vote; the number of undecideds is likely lower than the number of party-line voters (though I could be very wrong on this, and am making an assumption here), which mean the debates are keyed to persuading a minority of voters who can swing either way (which is not to say that the debates or that minority swing group is unimportant, as the two parties have roughly the same number of supporters).

jawlz wrote:I don't know about the *vast* majority of voters, but without any real research or knowledge, I would think that the debates matter little to the majority of voters, simply because the majority of voters already know how they're going to vote; the number of undecideds is likely lower than the number of party-line voters (though I could be very wrong on this, and am making an assumption here), which mean the debates are keyed to persuading a minority of voters who can swing either way (which is not to say that the debates or that minority swing group is unimportant, as the two parties have roughly the same number of supporters).

Correct. The debates are mostly keyed to the undecideds, since it seems that polling shows that Obama & Romney are around the 48/46% for Registered Voters and 47/49% for Likely Voters. So the Undecided voters will most likely decide who gets the next 4 years.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Correct. The debates are mostly keyed to the undecideds, since it seems that polling shows that Obama & Romney are around the 48/46% for Registered Voters and 47/49% for Likely Voters. So the Undecided voters will most likely decide who gets the next 4 years.

But do those undecided actually pay attention to the debates? I find them interesting from a political perspective, but I wonder how many other people who don't spend time in a thread dedicated to politics do.

kylemittskus wrote:But do those undecided actually pay attention to the debates? I find them interesting from a political perspective, but I wonder how many other people who don't spend time in a thread dedicated to politics do.

Basically, they're undecided because they don't give a [Goodnight, everybody!] (how's that for highbrow ). and probably weren't paying attention to the debate anyway.

Hell, I only paid attention so I'd have something to talk about here today.

kylemittskus wrote:But do those undecided actually pay attention to the debates? I find them interesting from a political perspective, but I wonder how many other people who don't spend time in a thread dedicated to politics do.

Like bowtie posted, probably not many. But there will hopefully be some that do pay attention so that they can make an informed decision.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Like bowtie posted, probably not many. But there will hopefully be some that do pay attention so that they can make an informed decision.

My guess is that they don't watch the debates, but do pay some attention to the press coverage the next day.

coynedj wrote:My guess is that they don't watch the debates, but do pay some attention to the press coverage the next day.

Bingo. And the press coverage is heavily about how badly Slow Joe behaved.

We were talking about affirmative action earlier. I ran across this article about possible gender bias in college admissions today. I don't think they reached any real conclusions, just anecdotal evidence that suggests some colleges might favor men in effort to even out the gender imbalance. What do you all think about this? This is the kind of thing that could benefit you, white males! Is it okay?

I think it's okay. I can see why they'd want a more even balance.

chemvictim wrote:We were talking about affirmative action earlier. I ran across this article about possible gender bias in college admissions today. I don't think they reached any real conclusions, just anecdotal evidence that suggests some colleges might favor men in effort to even out the gender imbalance. What do you all think about this? This is the kind of thing that could benefit you, white males! Is it okay?

I think it's okay. I can see why they'd want a more even balance.

One can certainly understand why colleges would want more balance: as the percentage of women rises above some critical mass (I think I read a few years ago it was around 55-60%), the women students start to complain and women become less likely to apply and enroll. And, above some level, men become less interested in applying to the college because it seems female-oriented. The danger, in the colleges' minds is that they will become almost all female or wither away.

Which is ironic given that for 40 years feminists waged war on both all male and all female colleges, demanding the former admit women and the latter admit men. I don't really see why we can't have both men's and women's colleges. Of course, there was discrimination even in that, since there are a number of elite women's colleges left and only one or two all male colleges left.

Private colleges and universities (that don't take public money) ought to be free to do as they please with respect to gender in admissions, as well as race or any other factor.

The key distinction is whether the institutions are funded with private or public money: any state institution, or institution with substantial public support for research or scholarships, should not be able to discriminate on the basis of gender or race or what-have-you other than academic merit. (I might be persuaded to support some sort preferences for highly-gifted students from seriously economically disadvantaged backgrounds, as long as it was racially and gender neutral - one of the original missions of public higher education was to make higher education available to those who could not have afforded it regardless of ability, the other main mission, especially in the West and Far West, was to make higher education locally available at all.)

I think that it makes sense to require that most public colleges and universities be co-educational and free from gender bias in admissions.

The only exception to that rule is that I do think it was a mistake to require the historically male public military colleges that did not want to go co-ed to do so. I will admit, however, that as an alumnus of a formerly all-male state military college, my view is hardly unbiased. I think the jury is still out whether that has significantly negatively affected the ability of those colleges to do what they have done so well for their 150 or more years before integration .

There are those that will disagree, but to me this is no joking matter, and fraud/abuse of the voting system is both real and has affected the outcome of elections.
rpm, isn't this up in your woods?

A tidbit on voting fraud/corruption.
Bridgeport's Democratic mayor Bill Finch, a supporter of Connecticut congressman Chris Murphy's bid for the U.S. Senate against Republican Linda McMahon, jokes about corruption: video
Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch is at it again. The Democrat who presided over a 2010 vote casting and counting scandal in the tight race for governor was caught on video Friday guaranteeing Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Christopher Murphy a big result in the state’s largest city–even if it takes days to count.

rjquillin wrote:There are those that will disagree, but to me this is no joking matter, and fraud/abuse of the voting system is both real and has affected the outcome of elections.
rpm, isn't this up in your woods?

A tidbit on voting fraud/corruption.
Bridgeport's Democratic mayor Bill Finch, a supporter of Connecticut congressman Chris Murphy's bid for the U.S. Senate against Republican Linda McMahon, jokes about corruption: video
Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch is at it again. The Democrat who presided over a 2010 vote casting and counting scandal in the tight race for governor was caught on video Friday guaranteeing Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Christopher Murphy a big result in the state’s largest city–even if it takes days to count.

Yes. Bridgeport is a sinkhole of corruption and an economic disaster. In the 2010 election for Governor, there was a mess in Bridgeport, and it provided the Democrat, Malloy, with the margin of victory. There was a fair amount of discussion of challenging the fraud in Bridgeport, but the Republicans, as they have ever since Nixon refused to contest the Illinois vote in 1960, backed off.

Voter fraud isn't only perpetrated by Democrats, but by far the majority of it is: the city Democratic machines, the unions busing people around, the intimidation. Remember, in 2008 there were more registered voters (and more votes cast) in Democrat-run Philadelphia than adults aged 18 and over.

This really shouldn't be a partisan issue. Every American should want the vote to be clean, so that whoever wins, wins fair and square, even if by one vote.

rpm wrote:
This really shouldn't be a partisan issue. Every American should want the vote to be clean, so that whoever wins, wins fair and square, even if by one vote.

My post was apolitical, it just happened to be a "D" this time.

I'm not to the 'why vote' stage, but without ballot integrity I see how some could easily slip there, and others work to abuse the system we don't have. The voter suppression argument is, imo, a crock of hooey.

rjquillin wrote:My post was apolitical, it just happened to be a "D" this time.

I'm not to the 'why vote' stage, but without ballot integrity I see how some could easily slip there, and others work to abuse the system we don't have. The voter suppression argument is, imo, a crock of hooey.

QFT

The later Brtish Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm came up in the discussion a week or so ago. This essay by Ron Radosh (which links to other interesting thoughts) is definitely worth reading: The Case of Eric Hobsbawm: Can a Stalinist Be a Good Historian?

A little light reading for a Sunday morning....

rjquillin wrote:There are those that will disagree, but to me this is no joking matter, and fraud/abuse of the voting system is both real and has affected the outcome of elections.
rpm, isn't this up in your woods?

A tidbit on voting fraud/corruption.
Bridgeport's Democratic mayor Bill Finch, a supporter of Connecticut congressman Chris Murphy's bid for the U.S. Senate against Republican Linda McMahon, jokes about corruption: video
Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch is at it again. The Democrat who presided over a 2010 vote casting and counting scandal in the tight race for governor was caught on video Friday guaranteeing Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Christopher Murphy a big result in the state’s largest city–even if it takes days to count.

That's an incredibly stupid joke to make.

chemvictim wrote:That's an incredibly stupid joke to make.

Welcome to the Democratic party machine in CT....

Nauseating, isn't it?

Drinking game needed for tonight's debate.

chemvictim wrote:Drinking game needed for tonight's debate.

Thanks! I'm going to have to modify that somehow, or die of alcohol poisoning within the first five minutes.

chemvictim wrote:Thanks! I'm going to have to modify that somehow, or die of alcohol poisoning within the first five minutes.

You asked!

chemvictim wrote:Thanks! I'm going to have to modify that somehow, or die of alcohol poisoning within the first five minutes.

wait, you're drinking ALCOHOL for this game?!?!?

I've prepared for the debates by looking at cat cartoons for a solid hour. Hopefully I've built up enough cheer to carry me through.

Still working on drinking game modifications. Edit: moderate suggestions at the end