{"id":4046,"date":"2005-08-30T00:12:55","date_gmt":"2005-08-30T04:12:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/08\/30\/selective-memory-slaps-vs-str"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:27","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:27","slug":"selective-memory-slaps-vs-strokes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/08\/30\/selective-memory-slaps-vs-strokes\/","title":{"rendered":"selective memory: slaps vs. strokes"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

A few years ago, I saw a magazine article that said it takes seven<\/EM> positive statements or <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
actions to compensate emotionally for each<\/EM> negative one you aim at your spouse.  I thought <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
about that insight into human nature this evening, when I got an email from <\/FONT>Professor Bainbridge<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
with the Subject “First for everything.”   Steve was amiably referring to <\/FONT>my post<\/FONT><\/A> earlier today, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in which I agreed<\/EM> with <\/FONT>his conclusion<\/FONT><\/A> that NRO’s Jonathan Goldberg had used an immature <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and inappropriate brand of humor concerning the New Orleans residents taking shelter in the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Superdome.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“BainbridgePix”  prof. b.<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
I immediately wrote back to exclaim “Hey, Steve, I’ve agreed with you many times!!”  Just in <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
case Steve has truly forgotten all the nice things I’ve said about him, and wants some verification, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I searched my site for Bainbridge +agree<\/STRONG><\/EM>> and came up with the following examples:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny from <\/FONT>crow with a mouthful<\/FONT><\/A> (Dec. 11, 2004)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
This time, we <\/FONT>agree with Prof. Bainbridge<\/FONT><\/A>: “it is grossly unethical for a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
professor to <\/FONT>take money to speak on behalf of some interest group without <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
disclosing the conflict of interest <\/FONT>thereby created. “<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
\"tiny from <\/FONT>no losers here<\/FONT><\/A> (Oct. 14, 2004)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
I’m with <\/FONT>Bainbridge<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A> — that was a boring debate; followed by aggravating <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
post-debate commentary.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny from <\/FONT>bar associations as special interest groups<\/FONT><\/A> (Aug. 8, 2005)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
But, <\/FONT>Professor Bainbridge raises<\/FONT><\/A> another important issue today: bar   \"hugSmall\"  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
associations acting like any other special interest <\/FONT>group when it comes <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to rating judicial candidates.   Although I usually favor intelligently-<\/FONT>liberal <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
judges, I agree with Prof. B. that the ABA’s rating process appears titled <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
against <\/FONT>conservative judges.  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"tiny from <\/FONT>just “worried” about getting to the truth<\/FONT><\/A>  (Aug. 5, 2005) <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
By the way, Prof. Bainbridge is the only weblogger I’ve  <\/FONT>discovered <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
who <\/FONT>agrees<\/FONT><\/A> with me, as he said, that there will  <\/FONT>likely be cases where <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
serious Catholic judges like John Roberts <\/FONT>“would be religiously obligated <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to put one’s faith-based beliefs <\/FONT>ahead of, say, one’s views of precedent or <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
socially accepted <\/FONT>moral norms.”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"tiny from <\/FONT>vote for a kid-centered halloween<\/FONT><\/A>  (Oct. 31, 2004)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
It must be post-sugar-trauma syndrome (yes, I delved into the candy <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
early), but I agree<\/EM> with<\/FONT>Prof. Bainbridge today about, <\/FONT><\/FONT>cats and dogs<\/FONT><\/A>, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
crooked business<\/FONT><\/A>, and needing to <\/FONT>close his eyes<\/FONT><\/A> after the election.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny from <\/FONT>jobs & weblogs<\/FONT><\/A>  (Nov. 12, 2004)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
A job for webloggers<\/EM><\/STRONG>:  Let’s <\/FONT><\/FONT>join Prof. Bainbridge<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> in urging the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
President and serious politicians to remove the scourge of gerrymandering<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A><\/EM> — <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and then following up and staying on the case to get the job done.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
 \"hugSmallN\" <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN>and<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
The Law Professor’s Job<\/EM><\/STRONG>:  <\/FONT><\/FONT>Prof B<\/FONT><\/A>. also has a tribute to his professor <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Stan Henderson<\/FONT><\/A> and quotes from<\/FONT>Henderson on the job of a law professor <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(and that of a lawyer, too): [lengthy quote inserted] <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny from <\/FONT>dandelion ghosts<\/FONT><\/A>  (Feb. 17, 2005)<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/DIV>
\n

\n
All kidding aside, for a moment, Steve Bainbridge has some very good  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
questions <\/FONT>for his fellow conservatives on <\/FONT>private Social Security accounts<\/FONT><\/A>.  <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Check his TrackBacks and <\/FONT><\/SPAN>decide whether their answers are persuasive.<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Of course, I could probably find more, by using some fancy search terms, but you <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
get <\/FONT><\/SPAN>my point — before today, I had voiced agreement with Steve at least eight<\/EM> times <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in less <\/FONT><\/SPAN>than ten months (always leaving Trackbacks, and often being downright <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
cordial).  Why didn’t he remember?   Let’s <\/FONT><\/SPAN>chalk it up to human nature — <\/FONT><\/SPAN>we always <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
seem to recall slaps more than strokes.   (Hey, do you suppose he was trying to be <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
humorous? Nah, he’s a Conservative.)<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"puppySam\"  Do I get extra credit for posting a picture of <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
puppy Sam Bainbridge last year, with a link to the <\/EM><\/FONT>original<\/STRONG><\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>?<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
I’m just <\/SPAN><\/FONT>hoping Prof. B  <\/SPAN><\/FONT>doesn’t hold me to <\/SPAN><\/FONT>that spousal “seven to one” calculus.  I’d <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
have a lot<\/EM> of homework to do for a passing grade.   <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
flea market-
seeing my old shirt
on her new husband<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                        another argument unfolds the futon<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
W.F. Owen<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A>, from A New Resonance 2: <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A><\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“flea market”: Frogpond<\/EM> XXIII:3 (2000); <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“another argument”: bottle rocket<\/EM> 4<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
through the open door . . .<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
her smile doesn’t forgive<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
all my sins<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
    Randy Brooks<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> from School’s Out<\/A><\/EM> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
<\/EM><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/EM> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n
sunrise<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I forget my side<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of the argument<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
    George Swede<\/FONT><\/A> from  <\/FONT>Almost<\/EM> Unseen<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n


\n

<\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

<\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n


\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
                                                              \"boxer<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-13g","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4046","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4046"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4046\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13061,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4046\/revisions\/13061"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}