We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Interesting topic. It usually only comes up when an establishment consistently deviates far from the majority. In the case of the UK, the politics are special: Cameron was elected in part by promising a referendum on EU membership. So their national election was, in effect, a referendum on a referendum. It seems to me that, if national sovereignty can not be held to a referendum of the citizens, then nothing can be presented to the direct will of the citizens.
Lyme, CT is a quaint little village, perfectly located on the Connecticut River but close to Long Island Sound. I love this 1789 farmhouse and its easily-manageable 6 acres. It's for sale. I want it. Good for boats and birds and plenty of hunting nearby. Perfect.
And, with our friends, church, kids, and complex lives, I would never have time to get there. A shame we can't have everything we like. Even billionaires can't, because time can not be purchased and it is a rare item.
... the transnationalists created yet another institution that would subordinate the nations of Europe to its control, on the debatable assumption that the carnage of two world wars was wrought by national particularism. They confused genuine patriotism and love of one’s own way of living, with the grotesque political religions of fascism and Nazism, both as much avatars of illiberal tribalism as nationalism grown toxic. Thus was born the supranational EU, which began modestly in 1958 with the European Economic Community, and then relentlessly expanded over the years into today’s intrusive, unaccountable bureaucracy of anonymous technocrats that has concentrated power in Brussels at the expense of national sovereignty.
Similarly, in the US the progressives of the early 20th century began transforming the American Republic based on similar assumptions. They believe that economic, social, and technological progress rendered the Constitution––particularly its separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalist protections of the sovereignty of the states––an anachronism. “The age of enlightened administration had come,” F.D.R. proclaimed, and he set about creating the federal bureaus and agencies that have over the years expanded in scope and power, and increasingly encroached on the rights and autonomy of the states, civil society, and individuals.
This is not a vote against Europeans or even against Europe, nor will it divide the U.K. as the ungracious Remainers are saying. It is a vote for Britain to be governed by the British and to co-operate closely and fairly with the European countries. It is not really a vote to leave, but a vote to renegotiate for the next two years. Gove and Johnson are broad-minded, fair-minded modern Thatcherites, and they will strike the right balance between defence of British domestic interests and retention of good relations with the European powers. Prime minister Edward Heath threw Britain’s lot in with Europe, and put the Commonwealth over the side. Thatcher bet on the special relationship with the U.S., and she and Ronald Reagan were the principal victors in the Cold War, but that relationship couldn’t survive the last two American presidents. Britain has come full circle.
Cook up a batch of couscous. Thin slice or matchstick a bunch of zucchini and/or summer squash. Chop up a bunch of fresh mint - enough to make it minty. Whisk some fresh lemon juice with olive oil and salt and pepper. Mix together, serve at room temp.
To make it even more Sicilian, include some chopped pistachios and there you have the classic Sicilian ingredients: couscous, lemon, mint, olive oil, and pistachio. All it's missing is pignolis - but a recipe is either pignolis or pistachios - not both.
You want measures? When you cook Sicilian (or Italian, for that matter), you eyeball it and taste it. Just keep it light, not soggy with oil.
Now back to my gardening chores. Damn weeds, I live to kill them. Need to water the tomatoes again and tie them up again too, trim the wisteria, and shave the boxwoods. That's how the gentry become rednecked on a beautiful cloudless day like this - proud bitter clingers.
I refer to the Fitness Triad frequently. Maybe I should trademark it unless somebody else has.
Our modern notions of fitness go back to the ancient Greeks, and probably back to the earliest hominids for whom fitness was necessary for survival. In modern times, what I call "Fitness for Life" is more self-preoccupied, some might call it narcissistic, than fitness was for the farmers, hunters, shepherds, ironsmiths, builders, masons, and soldiers of the past. Modern fitness efforts are simply about staying as physically fully-functional for as long as you can for ordinary life activities and for play.
Sooner or later, something will strike you down, cripple you or kill you but, until then, why not give life your best shot? I know we all want to be strong, to look good, and to remain vigorous and competent for whatever comes our way.
The Triad is Strength, Cardio, and Calisthenics, but Strength is the foundation of the triangle because the best use of the other two depends on it. Proper nutrition - having neither too little physical structure, nor excess fat - is a separate topic.
Britain is leaving the European Union. But that reality doesn't begin to tell the story of the larger historical forces at work that are reshaping global politics, the global economy, and global culture and have been for much of the last decade...
In Western civilization, self-exposure is often a daunting process. I mean physical as well as psychological exposure. Self-exposure requires courage and trust, but fortunately it is rarely called-for.
In public, we cover ourselves up literally and metaphorically. We put our best foot forward, if sober. The only real exception is at the beach where everybody wears highly-exposing underwear and our flaws are out there for all the world to see.
My topic is shame, whether about our physical or our psychological beings. Most of the time, shame is not neurotic but a healthy human response to exposure of our flaws, imperfections, and general instinct for privacy. We all have all sorts of dirty laundry. We are all on some spectrum between shame-paralyzed and shameless. The extremes are problems.
What sorts of things are often on many peoples' shame/privacy lists?
Physical self must be exposed sometimes: physical exams, weight, strength, physique, dentist(!), beach, sexual encounters, excretory fuinctions
Psychological exposure: Our private thoughts, fears, fantasies, mental flaws and weaknesses. Sometimes we will cautiously expose these to close friends or to shrinks.
Other personal attributes: Money, personal habits and home, rotten behavior, political views, failures, public performances, job status, childrens' difficulties, etc.
Intimacy means showing aspects of our unadorned selves to somebody else. It is not something to be done lightly because our private selves are not necessarily appealing to others (note the expression "TMI").We know that better than anybody, hence shame.
Caveat: Sociopaths are quite good at faux intimacy for purposes of ingratiation and manipulation.
When has that approach ever worked in the world? Now, the US like Europe offers government benefits to new (including illegal) immigrants. Is that a good idea? It has never been tried in the US in the past, and immigrants did very well over time.
From 1925 to 1965 the US permitted essentially no immigration. The people had decided, and the politicians had agreed, that we had enough of them. The country thrived.
Though an exceptionally short book, Mind and Cosmos is nevertheless, in one respect, extraordinarily ambitious. Nagel proposes not merely a new explanation for the origin of life and consciousness, but a new type of explanation: “natural teleology.” If psychophysical reduction is implausible, as Nagel has always insisted, then no materialist neo-Darwinian explanation will ever be satisfactory. The apparent alternative, a theistic-intentional account (i.e., intelligent design by a divinity), does not appeal to Nagel. He simply lacks, he explains, any sense of the divine. His interest is in the territory between the two: a secular account that allows for the emergence of mind as mind...