Gosh, and I thought I was being so clever. You know “The Former Guy.” Introducing “The Current Guy” and “The Future Woman.”
And, yeah, we do have (essentially) four years to judge these two men. It seems very obvious to me that Biden, agree with his stuff or not, fits into the generally accepted mode of “successful politician” and Trump definitely does not. Given Trump’s obvious and extreme distrust of the democratic system, and the possibility that he may have learned a few lessons about implementing his desires next time around, I feel that some fear of his second shot is justified. Will he actually “destroy democracy”? The chance seems much more than zero to me…or at least dent it badly. Not many historical precedents warn me away from an institutional guy like Biden, but there are too many precedents that are too much like Trump for me to feel at all comfortable with someone like him. Fear? Yeah.
There are a great many folks out there who see “the opposition” as at least a threat to democracy. And great deal of that fear and mistrust is based more on statements made by TFG himself than on biased punditry. Do you think there is an inherent threat from TFG and his coterie? Do you think that TCG and TFW pose an equal threat?
One finger motion to achieve that string of shots. The weapon, with its add-on, does the rest of the work. Gee, the wording gets weird. Personally, I’m more concerned with the easy rain of bullets than defining which, finger or trigger, is doing the work.
So here's an ad for tonight's "Just the Facts News": "99.9% of Americans today were not murdered. And now over to Jamie with footage of several towns where tornados didn't touch down." All facts. Are you ever going to watch that show? "News" isn't just "Facts." "News" is really pretty much what is interesting or unusual. How to determine, from a wide array of choices, which facts and unusual occurrences will be viewed and thus sell ad time? Whoops. Gonna be some human fallibility/bias in that selection. Nothing that is delivered to you by any human source, personal contact, paper, or through a screen has no bias. You can choose (as much as it is possible) to not consume "News," and then the only bias you will have to deal with is your own.
2%! Yay! I'll take that. I have no idea how much art that I consume is overly or underly or just rightly ideological. Here's an anecdote that I (at this moment anyway) seems to have a bit of connection: Recently, in a conversation with an uncle...really cool guy; kind, giving soul...he said: "I've got nothing against gay, I just don't want it pushed on me." I didn't respond, but my immediate thought was, "How many movies have you seen where it is completely taken for granted that Male Lead and Female Lead are gonna fall in love? Almost all of them? Does that mean that throughout our lives heterosexuality has been pushed on us?" Well, yeah, I suppose so. Does that mean that any flick where Rock and Doris or George and Nicole get together is waving its ideology around, and is less good because of that? Maybe. Are some things better when that trope just doesn't happen? Like "The Station Agent"? Or even "Dirty Harry"? On the other hand, how often does that heterosexual ideology actually reduce the artistic worth? Would the end of "Casablanca" be better if Claude and Humphrey kissed before walking off? Ideologically, I'd be for it. Artistically? Hmmm...
Sorry, I'm not familiar with Gurren Langann, but your first paragraph seems to be saying pretty plainly that the more ideological a piece is, the less you like it. Fair enough. But all of the pieces I alluded to (many of them not particular favorites of my own) are big time, popular, well-respected works of art with a lot of ideological thrust. They are well-established quality works. Your aversion to being preached to is understandable, but that doesn't negate the value of the works. "Richard III" had a very ahistorical ideological point to make. Still a pretty decent piece of Shakespeare. And, just to set a few ears on fire, all versions of Christ's Life are fiction. (I need to insert a "Happy Face" emoji there so I don't sound so crabby.) Cheers!
“…all ideological narrative is bad…”? Atlas Shrugged? All Quiet…? For Whom…? High Noon? Death of a…? 12 Angry Men? 100 Years…? Americanization of Emily? Life of Christ (multiple media)? Life of Bryan? Sorry, Pinky, can’t possibly go along with this one.
Atheist here. If I for one moment thought that the Bible was the true word of God the Creator of the Universe, I would never be satisfied reading a translation. Back to the original(s) as much as possible is the only sane way to approach that belief. Learn a language. Read the word as written. Small sacrifice to make.
Apocalypse? For crying out loud, 50 million people died in WWII. You waiting for something bigger than that? And here's yet another thought: Let's say something wiped out 99.9 per cent of humanity. There would still be 7 million of us left.
I truly am not trying to attack any religion. Go for it. But sometimes the stories and lack of perspective get a little crazy-making. Live in peace, brother!
Nice riposte. And a very apt one. I was just snarking a bit about the selective characterization of what goes on at a Planned Parenthood facility. A guess? You're in favor is most of what goes on there, with an exception or two. YMMV, and probably does. Anyway, you win this round!
Thanks! Love your digests. Today, #10 struck me, not just because of the amazing history of the ongoing exploration of Mars, but also because watching that wonderful video made my aged old gut react in much the same way that reading of Barsoom did back in my Stone Age youth. (Dejah vu?) A lovely feeling. Thanks again.
"Popular" and "cool" are almost never the same, anywhere. The Oscars have been at least somewhat popular, but "cool" doesn't describe them very much at all.
Exceptions: David Niven's remark vis-a-vis the streaker. Isaac Hayes doing "Theme from Shaft." Even Eastwood couldn't pull off "cool" in his surprise substitute gig, but I have to say that I think Cena the other night came close. Not so much with the well-placed envelope, but with the drapery. The drapery was pretty cool. Others?
Man, I miss the days when I, a good liberal, could just be against the rising conservative because of their policies that I don't agree with, as opposed to thinking positive thoughts about the rising conservative because they aren't as blatantly horrid as that against which they rise. I'm old. I confuse easily.
Yup. I challenge you to find anything wrong with how he is functioning. Watch it. If anyone is listening to this exchange, watch the Feb 8, 2024 press conference and weigh in on the man's performance. Glad to hear some opinions. I see no problem...at all.
O.k., as you recommended, I watched the press conference. (I guess I'm not sure it's the same one, but what I watched was about 12 minutes on NBC and C-SPAN and had the usual opening statement from B and then a Doocy question and then lots of shouting by reporters and Biden responding to questions). I'm going to get a little bit stronger in my response than I have been. What the hell are you talking about? He is absolutely coherent, absolutely on point, energetic in his responses, and even owns up to his own fault in not handling the transfer of the documents as he wishes he had, and all that in a pretty stressful situation. If that person at that moment doesn't meet your standards of a functioning intellect, then you have a real problem with your prejudices. Now, possibly we are referring to different occasions, but this was a press conference with lots of shouting and noise, and the man did better than fine, he did great. What the heck do you want?
Fair enough. It's an unfortunate year. I haven't seen that much evidence of what you mention concerning Biden, but I guess there's some. Anybody in the wings (pun intended) that you would vote for?
Maybe I'm getting a bit lost here. What does "fit to run the country" even mean? No president actually "runs the country." We've had comatose, or senile, or venal, or spectacularly corrupt, or just plain dumb bunnies as president. And yet the country got "run." No president has ever had 100% approval or disapproval. All have had supporters and detractors. It's not some absolute value. Therefore it's always some kind of comparison, and a binary one at that. You continually equate TFG and B as "unfit" without noting the differences between their "unfitness." Those differences are huge. We've seen them both in action, both as presidents and as human beings. To equate them is a simple ploy, but not very productive. My understanding is that a large number of people really want there to be two other folks running for the office. Me too. Doesn't look as if that is going to happen. So, to me, the choice is obvious. No equivalence in "fitness" at all. So, because I find your comments interesting and enlightening, I would like to see you write up a posting wherein you list the pros and cons of each of our current choices and how those add up to any sort of equivalency. Cheers.
Yeah, I guess we are at an impasse. One of these guys is absolutely "unfit" to me, and the other is "less desirable." Very different concepts for me, but not for you.
"Fit" is doing a lot of work there. By "fit" do we mean the smartest, toughest, most knowledgable person anywhere? Probably not. By "fit" I'm satisfied, as I was in many jobs that I have held, with having a good administrator. One who didn't need to know it all, but needed to know who did and wasn't afraid to access that knowledge. Biden may not be the perfect choice. He may not be my favorite, but this is a two choice system. You get to pick one or the other or just not participate. No other effective actions are available. That anyone, anyone, thinks that there are any criteria where TFG is superior, or even admissible as a choice, sincerely confuses me. Our system puts the president at the head of an administration. We have seen TFG's. We have seen Biden's. Honestly, is there any real doubt who is better at the job?
Trump: absolutely unfit for office (on many fronts). Biden: someone preferable can easily imagined, but in the context of being an experienced front man for a capable and not particularly corrupt administration, easily makes the “fit for office” grade. No one sane expects POTUS to be the smartest, most capable person in the world…just the leader of a dedicated team that may add up to something like that.
On “President Biden Addresses the Nation Regarding Not Seeking Re-election”
Gosh, and I thought I was being so clever. You know “The Former Guy.” Introducing “The Current Guy” and “The Future Woman.”
And, yeah, we do have (essentially) four years to judge these two men. It seems very obvious to me that Biden, agree with his stuff or not, fits into the generally accepted mode of “successful politician” and Trump definitely does not. Given Trump’s obvious and extreme distrust of the democratic system, and the possibility that he may have learned a few lessons about implementing his desires next time around, I feel that some fear of his second shot is justified. Will he actually “destroy democracy”? The chance seems much more than zero to me…or at least dent it badly. Not many historical precedents warn me away from an institutional guy like Biden, but there are too many precedents that are too much like Trump for me to feel at all comfortable with someone like him. Fear? Yeah.
"
There are a great many folks out there who see “the opposition” as at least a threat to democracy. And great deal of that fear and mistrust is based more on statements made by TFG himself than on biased punditry. Do you think there is an inherent threat from TFG and his coterie? Do you think that TCG and TFW pose an equal threat?
"
When one starts off pretty high up on the scale, hitting a “new low” isn’t that big a deal.
On “Updated: Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle Resigns”
Sword + gravity = proper action.
On “Supreme Court Strikes Down “Bump Stock Ban” 6-3”
One finger motion to achieve that string of shots. The weapon, with its add-on, does the rest of the work. Gee, the wording gets weird. Personally, I’m more concerned with the easy rain of bullets than defining which, finger or trigger, is doing the work.
On “Safe Nerdy and the Early Adopter Problem”
So here's an ad for tonight's "Just the Facts News": "99.9% of Americans today were not murdered. And now over to Jamie with footage of several towns where tornados didn't touch down." All facts. Are you ever going to watch that show? "News" isn't just "Facts." "News" is really pretty much what is interesting or unusual. How to determine, from a wide array of choices, which facts and unusual occurrences will be viewed and thus sell ad time? Whoops. Gonna be some human fallibility/bias in that selection. Nothing that is delivered to you by any human source, personal contact, paper, or through a screen has no bias. You can choose (as much as it is possible) to not consume "News," and then the only bias you will have to deal with is your own.
"
2%! Yay! I'll take that. I have no idea how much art that I consume is overly or underly or just rightly ideological. Here's an anecdote that I (at this moment anyway) seems to have a bit of connection: Recently, in a conversation with an uncle...really cool guy; kind, giving soul...he said: "I've got nothing against gay, I just don't want it pushed on me." I didn't respond, but my immediate thought was, "How many movies have you seen where it is completely taken for granted that Male Lead and Female Lead are gonna fall in love? Almost all of them? Does that mean that throughout our lives heterosexuality has been pushed on us?" Well, yeah, I suppose so. Does that mean that any flick where Rock and Doris or George and Nicole get together is waving its ideology around, and is less good because of that? Maybe. Are some things better when that trope just doesn't happen? Like "The Station Agent"? Or even "Dirty Harry"? On the other hand, how often does that heterosexual ideology actually reduce the artistic worth? Would the end of "Casablanca" be better if Claude and Humphrey kissed before walking off? Ideologically, I'd be for it. Artistically? Hmmm...
"
Sorry, I'm not familiar with Gurren Langann, but your first paragraph seems to be saying pretty plainly that the more ideological a piece is, the less you like it. Fair enough. But all of the pieces I alluded to (many of them not particular favorites of my own) are big time, popular, well-respected works of art with a lot of ideological thrust. They are well-established quality works. Your aversion to being preached to is understandable, but that doesn't negate the value of the works. "Richard III" had a very ahistorical ideological point to make. Still a pretty decent piece of Shakespeare. And, just to set a few ears on fire, all versions of Christ's Life are fiction. (I need to insert a "Happy Face" emoji there so I don't sound so crabby.) Cheers!
"
“…all ideological narrative is bad…”? Atlas Shrugged? All Quiet…? For Whom…? High Noon? Death of a…? 12 Angry Men? 100 Years…? Americanization of Emily? Life of Christ (multiple media)? Life of Bryan? Sorry, Pinky, can’t possibly go along with this one.
On “Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled By Eclipses and Earthquakes”
Atheist here. If I for one moment thought that the Bible was the true word of God the Creator of the Universe, I would never be satisfied reading a translation. Back to the original(s) as much as possible is the only sane way to approach that belief. Learn a language. Read the word as written. Small sacrifice to make.
Apocalypse? For crying out loud, 50 million people died in WWII. You waiting for something bigger than that? And here's yet another thought: Let's say something wiped out 99.9 per cent of humanity. There would still be 7 million of us left.
I truly am not trying to attack any religion. Go for it. But sometimes the stories and lack of perspective get a little crazy-making. Live in peace, brother!
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/11/2024”
Nice riposte. And a very apt one. I was just snarking a bit about the selective characterization of what goes on at a Planned Parenthood facility. A guess? You're in favor is most of what goes on there, with an exception or two. YMMV, and probably does. Anyway, you win this round!
On “Throughput: Excited Delirium Edition”
Thanks! Love your digests. Today, #10 struck me, not just because of the amazing history of the ongoing exploration of Mars, but also because watching that wonderful video made my aged old gut react in much the same way that reading of Barsoom did back in my Stone Age youth. (Dejah vu?) A lovely feeling. Thanks again.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/11/2024”
Oh, I get how this works. "Former President Trump visits Rome, Georgia, home of enslavement and indigenous removal."
On “Are The Oscars Becoming “Cool” Again?”
"Popular" and "cool" are almost never the same, anywhere. The Oscars have been at least somewhat popular, but "cool" doesn't describe them very much at all.
Exceptions: David Niven's remark vis-a-vis the streaker. Isaac Hayes doing "Theme from Shaft." Even Eastwood couldn't pull off "cool" in his surprise substitute gig, but I have to say that I think Cena the other night came close. Not so much with the well-placed envelope, but with the drapery. The drapery was pretty cool. Others?
On “I Blame Gerald Ford”
Sorry. Sometimes you just have to tow the line.
On “Nikki Haley Is Down But Not Out”
Man, I miss the days when I, a good liberal, could just be against the rising conservative because of their policies that I don't agree with, as opposed to thinking positive thoughts about the rising conservative because they aren't as blatantly horrid as that against which they rise. I'm old. I confuse easily.
On “Ponderings on Presidents’ Day”
Yup. I challenge you to find anything wrong with how he is functioning. Watch it. If anyone is listening to this exchange, watch the Feb 8, 2024 press conference and weigh in on the man's performance. Glad to hear some opinions. I see no problem...at all.
"
O.k., as you recommended, I watched the press conference. (I guess I'm not sure it's the same one, but what I watched was about 12 minutes on NBC and C-SPAN and had the usual opening statement from B and then a Doocy question and then lots of shouting by reporters and Biden responding to questions). I'm going to get a little bit stronger in my response than I have been. What the hell are you talking about? He is absolutely coherent, absolutely on point, energetic in his responses, and even owns up to his own fault in not handling the transfer of the documents as he wishes he had, and all that in a pretty stressful situation. If that person at that moment doesn't meet your standards of a functioning intellect, then you have a real problem with your prejudices. Now, possibly we are referring to different occasions, but this was a press conference with lots of shouting and noise, and the man did better than fine, he did great. What the heck do you want?
"
Fair enough. It's an unfortunate year. I haven't seen that much evidence of what you mention concerning Biden, but I guess there's some. Anybody in the wings (pun intended) that you would vote for?
"
Maybe I'm getting a bit lost here. What does "fit to run the country" even mean? No president actually "runs the country." We've had comatose, or senile, or venal, or spectacularly corrupt, or just plain dumb bunnies as president. And yet the country got "run." No president has ever had 100% approval or disapproval. All have had supporters and detractors. It's not some absolute value. Therefore it's always some kind of comparison, and a binary one at that. You continually equate TFG and B as "unfit" without noting the differences between their "unfitness." Those differences are huge. We've seen them both in action, both as presidents and as human beings. To equate them is a simple ploy, but not very productive. My understanding is that a large number of people really want there to be two other folks running for the office. Me too. Doesn't look as if that is going to happen. So, to me, the choice is obvious. No equivalence in "fitness" at all. So, because I find your comments interesting and enlightening, I would like to see you write up a posting wherein you list the pros and cons of each of our current choices and how those add up to any sort of equivalency. Cheers.
"
Yeah, I guess we are at an impasse. One of these guys is absolutely "unfit" to me, and the other is "less desirable." Very different concepts for me, but not for you.
"
"Fit" is doing a lot of work there. By "fit" do we mean the smartest, toughest, most knowledgable person anywhere? Probably not. By "fit" I'm satisfied, as I was in many jobs that I have held, with having a good administrator. One who didn't need to know it all, but needed to know who did and wasn't afraid to access that knowledge. Biden may not be the perfect choice. He may not be my favorite, but this is a two choice system. You get to pick one or the other or just not participate. No other effective actions are available. That anyone, anyone, thinks that there are any criteria where TFG is superior, or even admissible as a choice, sincerely confuses me. Our system puts the president at the head of an administration. We have seen TFG's. We have seen Biden's. Honestly, is there any real doubt who is better at the job?
"
Trump: absolutely unfit for office (on many fronts). Biden: someone preferable can easily imagined, but in the context of being an experienced front man for a capable and not particularly corrupt administration, easily makes the “fit for office” grade. No one sane expects POTUS to be the smartest, most capable person in the world…just the leader of a dedicated team that may add up to something like that.
"
He’s dead and not running. Take a nap.
On “America Needs Farmers, Just Not Their Politics”
Yeah. Education. Diversity. Scientific Research. Literary Analysis. Doctors. Nurses. Physicists. Engineers. Poets. Environmental Awareness. Art. Theater. Those Dang Universities.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.