Forum Replies Created
-
Sorry for the terrible formatting above. The poem is much better read on the site linked to.
Nittany,
Was that caption yours? Again, pretty cool language.
No, the caption was attached to the photo. I didn’t care for it myself because the “when young” part is redundant since the caption already mentioned nit’s a chick. I do like the poem though.
I also like the name of the bird. Ceroneous mourner. I like melodic names. My all-time favorite is Serratia marcesens.
Lovely, right?
It’s a bacterium found in your GI tract that we’ll sometimes isolate from urine specimens when the patient has a UTI.
A great deal of the best English-language poetry from the 17th through the 19th century was filled with apparent knowledge of birds, botany and biology. And alliteration, too.
Not sure how much came from the GI tract, though. James Joyce in the 20th century, however, utilized GI in his great novel, Ulysses. He had a lot of guts.
;>)
I agree with WV that the planet and its atmosphere are the top of the heap of issues, and epitomize the whole Nero plays the fiddle while Rome burns thing.
As we’ve discussed before, I also agree that it’s a huge problem that the media and our politicians and our schools won’t talk about the obvious connection with corporate capitalism — though I’d just leave out the “corporate” qualifier and say capitalism all by itself, in any form. IMO, it’s a mistake to think a different kind of capitalism would work, or that the corporate part isn’t already baked in or inevitable.
But, yeah, I’d say that all tops the list.
. . . .
I disagree, however, with the perspective and the truth-claim that says using “identity politics” is necessarily a rejection of . . . . something. Who makes that call? Who decides? What, exactly, is being rejected? There are obviously different ways of using the term, and people coming from vastly different points of view — left, right and center, etc. etc. So does it make any sense to claim that anyone and everyone who uses the term is automatically rejecting — whatever it is we’re supposed to be rejecting? I don’t think so.
My own occasional use of the term stems from the lack of alternatives. If there are better ways to shorten the field from “issues of race, gender, sexuality . . . .” then I’m all ears. To me, it’s clumsy and takes up too much space to repeat that list, which can still offend people for not being inclusive enough. Saying “identity politics” is pretty neutral, IMO, and I’ve seen it used “positively” by feminists, black activists and so on, so I just don’t see it as necessarily being a rejection, or dismissive, or . . . what have you. And, again, of what? It’s yet another form of “prejudice” to make the truth claim that it is necessarily a rejection, etc. etc.
Anyway . . . I need to practice what I preached above, so fuck all of this. I saw a mermaid riding on the back of a dinosaur the other day, and it completely destroyed my concept of what is true and what is an illusion.
Also, Nietzsche and the double-edged sword:
When someone says straight up, in paraphrase, alludes to or echoes, etc. etc. that There is no truth, only perspective . . . . Well, that’s a perspective too and, ironically, a truth-claim.
So you can end up with a kind of infinite regress of sorts, with all kinds of shaggy dogs chasing their tales of woe and wonder.
bnw,
Please don’t click “quote” if you’re not going to quote someone.
Beyond that, Heston shows the complete and utter idiocy of anyone who would prefer death to a slight reduction in consumer choice, or a slight increase in paper work.
Death: “I choose death rather than giving up my access to guns that weren’t even legal twenty years ago!!!! Arrrrrrrgggggghhhhh! Frotttthhh, blagggghhhh!!!”
“I choose death rather than going back to the way things were in pretty much every state in the US until roughly twenty years ago, when conceal carry laws were virtually non-existent!!! Arrrrrrggghhhhh!!!!! Grrrrrrhhh, barrgggle gurrrrgggle!!!”
Since the amendment was written — and isn’t “original intent” a big deal for gun nuts? — since it was written, consumer choice for weaponry has accelerated astronomically, beyond the wildest dreams of anyone in the late 18th century. So people in 2016 now have options for weapons that did not exist one, five, ten, twenty, thirty years ago. If you couldn’t own an AR-15, for example, but you could still buy shotguns and .357 magnums and a host of other kinds of guns . . . . you’d rather die than lose the massive increase in consumer choice that wasn’t even there in the past? You’d rather die than lose something that was never, ever your “right” in the first place?”
Oh, well. If you’re intent on committing suicide . . .
ZN,
But could you actually describe his policies? I try my best, but it’s extremely difficult, for the reasons listed. If you know them, please list them
Yes. We all can. “Policies” is a very general term. It doesn’t mean “specific plans.” If you don’t like the term “policies” say “general ideas and attitudes concerning ________ “.
And if you’re watching the game tonight join us in the chat room gawddammit.
Thanks for the invitation, ZN. Much appreciated.
I suspend my cable service (Directv, currently) every summer. Usually for two months or so. So I can’t watch the game. Am hoping when I call them in early September, I’ll get a good deal on the NFL ticket, which has been the norm for me for a long time. We’ll see.
I suppose I could go to a sports bar tonight and watch it, but, frankly, I’ve never been really big on exhibition games. In fact, I wish they’d do away with them. I really hate the idea of players getting hurt in games that don’t count. I hate them getting hurt, period, of course. But it seems especially perverse when the games are meaningless.
No sale. You’re using “Gun Safety” as a ruse to deny 2nd Amendment right. It won’t work.
No “ruse” necessary. The 2nd amendment never gave you the “right” you think it did. It’s never given you the right to unfettered, unregulated, unlimited consumer choice or firepower.
All it says is that if you’re in a state-run militia — which no longer exist — you can “keep or bear arms.”
That’s it. There is no “right” there to endless consumer choice of weaponry, free from restrictions, restraints or constraints. And we’ve always had restrictions, restraints and constraints, and the courts have always upheld them — even Heller.
No such absolute “right” has ever existed in the history of humankind. The radical right, led by the NRA, invented it out of wholecloth, and Trump is pandering to them. It sounds like you agree with their invention.
