Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
David Schraub, who I've criticized frequently enough, hits about the right note in his post today, The Moderator's Voice. To use one of Tully's favorite words, we live in a pluralistic society. We will never all agree on all issues. We all have different needs, desires, goals, basic values. Despite those differences, in religion, politics, and values, we must find ways to live together in peace and relative harmony.
We accomplish this through our political system, which treats all the different factions of society equally, giving each an equal shot at setting public policy. We also accomplish this through establishing norms of civil discourse, where we can disagree, even strongly, with others' points of view, but treat them with respect... sometimes even when they don't always repay that respect.
I've long criticized Unity '08 for being founded on a fundamentally false premise, that there is some identifiable "centrist" ideology, which can be rationally arrived at. There's not. Many of our policy disputes are in fact value disputes. Not all, of course. We may all share a value in ending poverty in the country, but disagree over what policies will best accomplish that goal. Reason, facts, and logic can help us there. But abortion, to pick the hottest of hot-button examples, is simply a question of competing values, pure and simple. By insisting that it will come up with centrist positions on all of the difficult issues facing our country, Unity '08 is holding out a false promise. On some issues, I agree very strongly with the "right wing" position. On others, I see things much more from the left. On still others, I find some third way to look at things. Why should I expect anybody else to be any different? Unity '08 surely contains plenty of people who think the same way, but whose opinions are aligned differently than mine. I'm sure there are people in Unity '08 who are legitimately considered centrist (not being entirely left or right), but with whom I would not agree on any single issue.
The key is not "centrism," looking for a mythical perfect, value-neutral middle-way. The key is, as David Schraub points out, moderation. Ideology is good. Push for what you believe in. But at the same time, recognize that you still have to live with other people who don't share your beliefs, and you must respect them and their beliefs even as you fight against them.
To be sure, the partisans and ideologues seem to be running the show right now. Part of that is real, part of it is simply because covering the obnoxious loud-mouths sells more newspapers. Debates between calm, rational, moderate folks can be a bit boring. Look how much more traffic the winger blogs get than TMV, Centerfield, or Stubborn Facts. I fear the world will be ever thus.
It is the responsibility of those who see the problem to solve the problem. Those of us who understand the value and reasoning behind the concept of democratic pluralism must promote it.
We do this in two ways. First, of course, by demonstrating it in practice. Debating issues, not people. Treating others with respect even when we think they're not returning the favor. Avoiding labels in favor of substance. Second, by being the voice of reason, by looking for the common ground between the different factions, and proposing solutions to particular problems which seem likely to be at least minimally acceptable to most people on both sides.
Stubborn Facts strives to do both. We're human, so we will surely fail in the attempt from time to time, but we strive nonetheless. Our goal, since we created the site, has been to establish a strong community of truly "moderate" commenters... relatively sane, rational individuals with strong opinions who are willing to argue, civilly, in favor of those opinions, without name-calling, without lumping all of "the right" or "the left" together with the extremists on each side.
As Jason Steck noted in the comments to David's post,
... a “moderate” site requires a willingness of not just contributors to maintain it, but also a critical mass of the commenters willing to abandon easy stereotypes and acknowledge the individuality of contributors’ diverse perspectives.
So far, I think we've largely succeeded. We may not have yet achieved a "critical mass," but we have set a high standard for comment quality, and found people of diverse believes and background to participate. For which we thank all of you.
Our RSS feed
Tully touts pluralism- one
Tully touts pluralism- one of many things he's right about. SF is an undeniably smart, reasonable place that has retained a sense of balance and humor. (Note: I haven't bought any gear yet, but what the hell...)
edited to avoid sending things off topic
Get cracking, then!
Right now, to the best of my knowledge, I own the only "Stubborn Facts" t-shirt actually in existence. I think they're cool, and everybody should want one. One of these days, I've got to get one of my sister's friends to model a female version, to encourage more sales.
LOL, guess who I suggest you get to model
And soaked in a steamy room too. Now that would sell those shirts. The best Wet T-shirt shot wins what? Something great might start the sales rolling.......
Hmmmm....
I wonder how many t-shirts we'd have to pay to be able to afford to hire Ms. Hayek to model them for us.
I stand corrected about the shirts....
I just logged in to our CafePress account to set up a baby-doll T for Maxtrue, and I discovered that I don't own the only SF t-shirt in existence. We've actually sold 2 besides mine, one last November and one last April. Thanks very much to the 2 readers, wear them proudly, and come to our convention, YearlyFacts!
We haz con? When we haz con?
We haz con? When we haz con?
Baby Doll it is
I guess I'll be numero tres. Just say the word......
Ok, Max....
I've got several new shirt styles up now. Go take a look. We don't have any control over the sizes, unfortunately, but some of the options up there now are "junior" styles, so they should be smaller.
Nice selection
Just ordered the semi-sleeveless in red and white. I will tell you how it fits a petite lady (not me of course). I wonder what part of Twain will pop out....LOL
If it fits nicely, its onward to those steamy shots I promised.
Well said Pat
I am not sure however, abortion is without a solution among Centrists. This requires the sides to recognize that facts must rise above the fray. Without redirecting your intelligent post, one must prove that a fetus is a human individual or something endowed with a soul to cry moral outrage. There must be some criteria other than faith. Nor do I believe that faith in the literal interpretation of creationism adds much to a real debate over global warming. Besides moderation, I have come to believe, consistency of reasoning, support through evidence and a suspension of ideology is required for moderation to happen and solutions to appear. Religious belief is an indirect input when tolerance is a guidepost of our Constitution.
Moderation requires one side to search hard for something on the other side that offers hope. Take the elements that make rational sense from your opponent and try to incorporate them into your own position. Clinton often did this. It is not new to science. Today's evolutionary theory is a synthesis of various observations and remains open to new facts. I think this attitude towards the proper place of religious views issues from our Constitutional framework. I think that Right and Left are not so far apart among Centrists that fusing two positions together won't usually work.
An example would be Goldwater's position and let's say Kennedy's. With some imagination, I can see a compromise that would not destroy each other's values. I see the relationship between Adams and Jefferson revealing such possibilities as they neared their end.
Despite my comments, I see your point. I would still argue that a centrist plank 80% could agree to would be significant. Centrists, I think have more in common than today's Democrats and Republicans do among themselves. I would have to say I am a Democrat in waiting. You are a Republican, yet I am not sure of a position of yours that I clearly disagree with. Yet I am still Let-Leaning and you right-leaning. If we are really related species, then a criteria is possible and workable compromises achievable. That moderation is essential to Centrist discourse, is an important fact. Ideological balance seems important too.
Your blog seems to prove my point. The major brush fires here are over political spin and not usually substance. Thanks for giving the Centrist experiment another place to grow.
You're missing Pat's point
Abortion resists a "centrist" solution because it doesn't and cannot rest on empirical observation. The existence of a soul at any point is a question of faith, beyond the power of science to show. So the question becomes one of what you do about it - in the absence of evidence, you have to err on the side of caution. Well which side is the side of caution? This is the argument Brian and I have gotten into repeatedly. To me, in the absence of evidence, you have to assume that when the physical prerequisites of life are met - detectable heartbeat and brain activity - you have to assume the child's alive. You, Brian and many others - acting on no more or less faith - I take it would err on the side of caution by assuming otherwise, based on, honestly, on I don't know what.
You have to acknowledge the limits of pure reason. There can't be a purely "rational" solution to abortion until you develop a machine that detects the presence of the human soul. Until then, we're all just making good faith guesses and trying to frame policy solutions that we can morally square with those conclusions.
"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."
Leaving aside...
Leaving aside the merits of each side's arguments in the abortion front, Max, Simon's right about my point. There is NOT any other criteria other than faith. You either have faith that the fetus is a human being entitled to life from the moment of conception, or you have some kind of faith that it is not, that it is only potential "life" until some other point in the development process. Science and reason cannot solve that problem, at all. They only tell us the physical process. Everything else is definitional, and thus value-driven. One may value privacy and a woman's rights to decide matters which affect her body sufficiently highly as to outweigh the value you place on the potential human, but that is also a value judgment.
That doesn't rule out a moderate solution, however. There are a LOT of competing values out there that must be balanced together in this complex equation.
Following in the vein of the
Following in the vein of the TMV post, I would say abortion is at a "moderate" position. Present laws seem fairly in sync with public opinion. We can't confuse loud voices at either extreme as indicative of where "we're at". Theoretically as a "pro-lifer" I should be loudly pushing for more. I don't think we'll get much more and I can accept that. And frankly the "open" values discussions that occasionally occur around abortion discussions are good for both sides. (See, there I go again making it a "my side/the other side" issue.)
Chris
Echo that, and for other
Echo that, and for other reasons as well. Though not to send the thread off into that discussion (we've copiously demonstrated that articles of faith can't be proved) I'd just observe that regardless of the lack of empirical basis, history strongly suggests that some things simply cannot be stopped. That leaves the more pragmatic aspect of how to deal with the inevitable in a non-societally-crippling fashion.
Pluralism is a pragmatic political approach and principle, not an ideological one. That the founders managed to slip it into the political structure as well as they did is amazing. What ideological core pluralism has is the recognition that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and that as a society you must allow negotiated accomodation of differing beliefs, or devolve into the oppression of all groups by the prevailing ideology. That still leaves a lot of ground in which workable and acceptable societal laws and principles can be reached.
Right, Tully...
Living in harmony with one's neighbors even when they absolutely insist on doing things you really, really don't like is one of those "other competing values" I discussed above.
Though again, the point of this thread is to describe the process and values underlying "moderatism" and democratic pluralism, NOT to argue the merits of abortion one way or another. Some things our neighbors insist on doing we can't stop entirely, but we can nevertheless reduce and control via the law. We can and sometimes should outlaw things even if we know a lot of people are going to break the law. The political process allows us to hash such things out, seeing how large segments of the population feel about a particular issue, and how strongly those feelings are. That allows us to, over time, get a sense of how divisive a particular issue is, and what compromises everybody is going to have to make in order for all of us to go on living together in some kind of harmony.
Max....
I unpublished your last comment because I don't want this thread to go further down the road into an abortion debate. I still have the text, so if you want it, I'll be happy to e-mail it to you. I do want to touch on one larger point that you made, however. You said:
It's not that I think abortion is a "deal breaker" with centrists, it's that there is no "centrist" solution which can be arrived at independently of a whole host of very strongly held value judgments. I'm not saying that rationality can't help in finding a solution, just that it cannot provide a universal solution that should be accepted by all, or even most, people. The thing is, currently the "centrist" movement, to the extent that it's embodied in Unity '08, wants to just shove the issue aside as less than crucially important.
That's not to say that there aren't plenty of people with a "middle-ground" stance on abortion. Of course there are. But personally, I don't think that there's really a majority of such people who will agree that some middle ground is indeed the best solution. We need to promote the virtues of moderation and democratic pluralism so that those who feel strongly about the issue can nevertheless find a way to live with the heathen other sides.
The FINAL word
Any more comments on the subject of abortion in this thread will be immediately removed. I've let it get too far off-subject already.
Max, referencing "the soul" is short-hand for "becomes a human being which may not be killed."
Now, that is IT. No more discussion of abortion, by ANYBODY. Period.
Sorry Pat
I was writing my last thread and posted it without seeing your final injunction. Please send all you deleted to my email and I hope another thread can pick this topic up. I apologize for diverting the "moderation" thread. There is some irony, yes?
Perhaps Simon can be forwarded my remarks as well, because he presents an unusal position. Hopefully, at another time, he can frame up a good thread revisiting the issues that were raised here divergently. Legal citations are not necessary. Sorry again, Pat. Let's see how "centrists" can resolve a real road block. That was an obstacle you implied was unmovable by those who regard moderation and facts to be central characteristics of this blog.
No problem, Max....
We may or may not take up the subject in another thread. People tend to lose their temper more on debates on this issue than any other, and hurt feelings can remain, impeding polite interaction on other topics. That's why I try to have us avoid the subject as much as possible. I've sent you all of your comments, with a further exploration of my point.
Thanks Pat
I follow most threads here for some time, but perhaps I should have spent more time on a particular subject. I didn't know it was so heated except for an exchange you and Tully had at one point. Would it be safe to assume that this particular issue is the exception to the rule, or were there other intense conflicts over other issues as well? I assumed incorrectly that SF was a bit less split than my checks revealed.
If you wish to chill that particular topic, perhaps a thread on rationality v values might be in order. I am confused a bit about where some think value comes from, or that rationality has a limit in establishing morality. I fear it might be hard to discuss this with the specific area set aside, but perhaps next time, I can avoid specifics and stay focused on the more philosophical arguments. Simon suggested some reading. If anyone here has some other books or articles, please feel free. I think the greater debate was actually about this latter problem --that is, the differences between rational debate and one that includes any "values" that can only be allegedly derived from less than rational perspectives. This would touch upon some real differences between Republicans and Democrats.
No, that's about it, Max....
Certainly Simon, Tully, and I (along with the rest of our able bloggers) have plenty of differences of opinion, but I think your initial supposition is mostly correct. We all see eye-to-eye on most of the bigger picture, at least. But on this subject, I think we're like everybody else. It engages our gut much more viscerally sometimes than we would, perhaps, prefer.
I'll elaborate in a future post on the source of values and the ultimate dependence of all rationality on some ultimate "first principles."
I will be waiting
and I hope when you do discuss "first principles" they include the fundamental principles of cognition that enable us to see "I" from "not I". You know, the ones that render language and mathematics and situational awareness. When I say rational, I also include what is demonstrable and the vital role uncertainty plays in rationality.
Geez?did that sound like I was placing an order at the local diner? My apology. I meant to say what informs rationality and the emotions it engenders v what informs "first principles" prior to linguistic conversion would encompass the broad sweep I implied when comparing rationality to something else. I wonder whether a process of primary cognition, perception and self-awareness informs both.
Lastly, could a rationalist/agnostic or a believer render the same answer?
Thanks...
Well...
You want fries with that? ;-)
Hold the fries.....
but I want saut?ed onions, cheddar cheese and anything more cooked than medium rare goes back to the kitchen.
Nothing like stacking the deck, eh?
You want your chicken and
You want your chicken and pork medium rare? Well, OK, but sign the waiver first.
Hell no....
Put away that Bass-o-matic too. Fish, Chicken and Pork -medium to well done please and nothing served from China!
Now where's the beef?
You sure? That's good bass!
You sure? That's good bass!
Note
To use one of Tully's favorite words, we live in a pluralistic society. We will never all agree on all issues. We all have different needs, desires, goals, basic values. Despite those differences, in religion, politics, and values, we must find ways to live together in peace and relative harmony.
One of which is not beating on and heating up contentious issues where it has already been copiously and exhaustively demonstrated that NO immediate and justifiable and clearcut majority consensus is to be had, where there is no demonstrable universally acceptable single-view policy "solution" that will work within the society, and little if anyting that can be done to influence the views of others from where they currently stand.
Which should be 'nuff said. Pluralism will produce centrist-space "solutions" that often please no one, but that provide functional compromise in areas where absolutely no one will be satisfied, but society itself will be satisficed and remain operational within the societal compact. Without using the banned word or otherwise referencing the subject other than as an implied and unnamed example, there are many issues where NO majority consensus "solution" that fits within the societal framework is possible. And can never be possible without changing the societal framework itself into a non-acceptable form, namely, complete authoritarianism.
Pluralism provides the framework for politically arriving at the policy treatment that best accomodates the differing views, retaining and preserving the social contract of a diverse society, often while satisfying none.
Life is messy that way.
Max
He meant it, and I concur. End of discussion of the specific issue. Period. See comment above for example of theoretical versus specific discussion of issue forms without treating specific issues. And of return-to-topic chaining.
Okay, but leaving aside specific
and limited points of meltdowns, isn't there ample ground for a rational Centrist criteria without resolving every issue? Certainly, Repubicans and Democrats have some decent ideas regarding foreign policy. Would it be so wrong as to suggest a Centrist outline that takes the best of both worlds? One can apply this to energy and infrastructure rebuilding. Both sides say they want campaign reform and a clean environment.
I wasn't suggesting authoritarianism, but rather a fresh moderate plank that might rally the under-represented middle and put pressure on the extremists sides. This approach might actually advocate sending some issues back to the States for their control. I don't think I'm violating decency by suggesting talking about what a postion paper would look like is unreasonable.
But how do you achieve such
But how do you achieve such a position stance? Leaving aside the debate that "centrist" or "moderate" does not (or maybe should not) mean robotic position-splitting between political poles.
The polar issue positions you think are worthy of inclusion will likely not match those I do, yet we could both be centrists/moderates. So how do you get to a single portfolio of positions in the middle that will provide sufficient motivation for potential members to form a cohesive alliance?
To elaborate a hair, one of
To elaborate a hair, one of my major criticisms with Unity '08 is that they started with a nebulous assumption that a "centrist" platform could be developed, and proceeded to coalition-building before they ever actually had one. Which is asking the target audience to buy a pig in a poke. In advance, before you have either the pig or the poke.
Well, let's not get distracted by labels...
I'm not saying that there aren't areas where there are indeed middle-ground solutions that can be supported by a healthy chunk of the middle. Indeed, I think there are many such grounds.
But the problem I have with "centrism" is that if it becomes a party or an ideology in itself, then it will inevitably become what it claims to despise. Look at TMV, where they're having somewhat of an existential crisis over just how "centrist" its posters really are. When we watch Democrats or Republicans tussle over who is really a good Democrat, we call that "cannibalism" and ask somebody to pass the popcorn while us moderates sit back and enjoy the show.
If centrism is an ideology, then it will have just as many ideologues as every other ideology. If centrism is a political party, advocating particular approaches to particular issues, then it will have just as many partisans as any other party.
Beyond that, on a national political level, I think the problem we're seeing with the major parties right now is caused largely by the more moderate members of each party giving up the fight over control of the parties, ceding that control to the wingnuts on each side. Because I see a lot of value in the ideologies as a driving force for change, and as a simple competitive mechanism to keep each side from going TOO extreme, I don't want to see that happen. To the extent "centrism" and a centrist party will continue to pull moderate people out of the existing party system all together, I think that will actually hurt the body politic rather than help it.
Why I say pluralism, and not
Why I say pluralism, and not centrism. One is a process, the other quickly devolves into a definitional quarrel about ideology.
Exactly....
I tend to use the word "moderate" for the same concept, but the importance is the concept, not the word.
Yes, I see your point
My speculation was that there is so much the Middle can agree on, there would be far less partisans than exist in either party. The danger you and Tully suggest is real given human nature. I was thinking more about broad policy agreement and of course areas where roadblocks defer the issue to a later time. Hell, Jefferson and Adams set slavery aside.
To me, pluralism is a bit too broad to translate into opposition against the Party extremes. On the other hand, excessive ideology would be bad for Centrists; because based on my theory of rationality, policy should not be based on ideology, but rather the rational solutions to fluid situations. Basic Constitutional principles would still hold. Equality, fairness, minority rights etc. would remain. In fact, a decent Centrist ideology would be the rejection of any SupraConstitutional ideology. But then, the Constitution contains some conflicted principles and a structure to keep opposing ideology in check. Yes, complicated.
Pat, you are right about the pathologies present within the Parties. The moderates had no Party Constitution to protect them from power brokers, media, distortion and threat. If a centrist/moderate group in each Party could unite to check each Party's extremes, bravo, but I think the leadership would regard such moderate bi-partisanship as a cancer in their flesh. Look at the reaction to the gang of 14.
I am so upset about the wing nuts in my former Party (presently I'm an Independent), I felt obligated to voice anger on the internet. Liberal moderates, especially those strong on defense, have had their asses handed to them by illiberal wing nuts pushing leadership to the Left. I imagined a Centrist Party could scare them back to reality. I suspected Administration/Republican failures would correct Republican insanity. Perhaps a limited plank by a Centrist Coalition of Republican and Democratic moderates can endorse a candidate by coalition vote. Perhaps the hottest social topics can be excluded from coalition consideration like slavery was. Somehow, the Middle must flex independently if Party extremes stay in place and continue to screw the people.
How many more years will America be the leader with such politics eroding the fabric of our native universe? Unity08 could have at least floated their concept of a Centrist plank. Perhaps the only way for a Middle to emerge is when rich, respected moderates of both sides make a move to stand together. Then here comes MoveOn and the Swiftboaters. There is some strength in numbers and such a defection will have to be simultaneous and bring more than two from each side together. I suspect this won?t happen soon. Imagine 100 representatives declaring Independence of Party pressure.
Hear! Hear!
Good stuff, Pat.
The Walrus Said
Janet!
About time you showed up! We've missed you. Please tell me you're going to come back to blogging at The Walrus Said and visiting us regularly again?
I wish I could
Receptions like these will help...
I couldn't help myself today, I was so ticked off by a report out of Quebec...
The Walrus Said
I saw your post....
It was right on target. We've had problems here, too, with stuff like that, in the aftermath of Katrina. At several FEMA trailer parks, the residents weren't allowed to bring in visitors without signing them in and out, and if the visitor was a reporter, they might be denied admission. A certain level of security is necessary, of course, to prevent an already devastated community from being victimized further by random violence, but there are limits to what you can do in the name of security.
Worse, at one shelter they forbade CATHOLIC NUNS -- the real deal, Sisters of Charity in their habits -- from entering the shelter to minister to the many Catholics suffering inside. Why? Because these poor people shouldn't be prosletyzed to while a captive audience. That's what the Red Cross bureaucrat said. Fortunately, we got them in for a few days because we had a big Hollywood celebrity, who is very Catholic, with us, and he tossed a little weight around. But it shouldn't take that.
Unfortunately
I've heard far worse stories, where workers are treated more like indentured servants. Puts me in mind of Tennessee Ernie Ford's "Sixteen Tons". I don't know if these particular workers were being ripped off that blatantly, but I suspect the owner's real motivation was to prevent people from looking too closely. Makes me wonder what would be found...
The Walrus Said
Great post. There is a
Great post. There is a difference between a moderate approach or analytical method and a moderate result.
One of my teachers said that the best way to make an argument is to present the validity of the other side, then demonstrate why it is wrong or limited. Even from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there is value in recognising and understanding the competing viewpoint.
That is the great benefit....
That's the single greatest benefit of legal training. You learn that you can't successfully argue against a position until you really understand it.
Amen, brother.
Amen, brother.
Pat, about those shirts...
You seem to exclude product for petite women. Now how am I going to replace Paul with a sweat-drenched shot of a lithsome model?
You take care of the extra fat, but leave the smaller woman out in the cold.....
Extra large, then extra small? Great for kids too!
We don't control the sizes....
Alas, those are the only sizes available from CafePress for that particular item. But I can create some more styles which are available in a wider variety of sizes, baby-doll t's, etc. Heck, we can get thongs, too, but as much as I love Stubborn Facts, I wouldn't want to date a woman who would wear a thong with our logo on it... ;-)
There's a tangential
There's a tangential off-color anecdote here, but it's outside the decorum of the forum. ;-)