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.
Martin Scorsese’s new movie hits the ground running with a montage of dwarf tossing, sex grappling and extreme drug behavior of a sort I don’t believe I’ve ever seen on-screen before. Then it gets really crazy.
It was in fact more like 30 months everywhere except the cited blog; 32 months to be exact. And, he doesn't report for a couple of months. In the interim, look for all kinds of chicanery that eventually will keep him from serving a day. He might use the Lockerbie ruse - only a few months to live. He'll try different ploys until something works.
Classic line from the Beale article: Beale did not go to work, lied about being a CIA agent, billed hundreds of thousands of dollars of fraudulent expenses to the EPA, lied about having malaria to get a handicap parking spot for a job he did not go to, and said he had been in Vietnam. All lies. Who does he think he is - a U.S. Senator from Connecticut?
"Tablets a hit with kids, but experts worry "
so what else is new?
First cartoons were bad for children and would stop them reading.
Then it was radio that would stop them reading.
Then it was television.
Then it was computers that would stop them writing long hand.
Then it was games that would turn them into homicidal maniacs.
Now it's tablets?
In all that time there's been one constant: parents not parenting properly causing their children to lack behind, while others that do parent properly having children that do well.
So easy to "debunk" something giving just meaningless "yes/no" statements.
Utter nonsense. E.g. soft drinks don't "cause diabetes". Maybe if you were drinking nothing else they're a contributing factor.
The rest of the statements are just as idiotic.
"Martin Scorsese’s new movie hits the ground running with a montage of dwarf tossing, sex grappling and extreme drug behavior of a sort I don’t believe I’ve ever seen on-screen before."
iow perfect Oscar material in all categories. Leftist propaganda, sex, violence, it has it all.
re What if the Germans had won the first world war?
This has always been a fun mental exercise.
Some random thoughts:
Imagine the Ottomans had been able to hang on to their crumbling empire for another 20 years? If the influx of oil money would have saved the empire, just think of the power of the Ottomans today, controlling oil production of what is now Iraq, Kuwait and the Arabian peninsula?
There would be no Poland as most of it would be under German administration.
One wonders what would have happened to a victorious Austria-Hungary? Would it have disintegrated anyway? Would a defeated Italy have broken up?
My thinking is that the Kaiser would have imposed reparations on the Allies and they would have been as unable to pay as a defeated Germany was. One wonders if the UK or France would have turned to communism as a result?
WWII looks very unlikely in Europe as Hitler would likely never come to power. Or not. Perhaps the economic downturn in postwar Germany would have still been severe enough to permit his rise to power?
Japan still probably attacks China, but do they attack far east European possessions held by defeated, weakened European nations or have those possessions been ceded to imperial Germany?
Hard to see the formation of Israel without the Holocaust.
And what about Saddam Hussein? Does he rise to power if the Ottoman's still control Iraq?
Lots of questions with no answers. It's fun to speculate but it means nothing.
Does eating sugar or consuming soft drinks cause diabetes? It doesn't but I can understand why even highly educated doctors and scientists believe it does. If you have diabetes it probably will manifest itself with noticeable symptoms in your 20's or 30's. It often "appears" to be the result of poor habits; lack of excercise, drinkng sodas, eating fast food etc. Of course almost everyone else in their 20's is also drinking sodas and eating fast food and if they don't get diabetes this "evidence" is ignored. So how does this very old wives tale about "eating sugar causes diabetes" still hang on? Because diabetes is a disease where diet is an essential tool for managing the bodily dysfunction. You can manage diabetes by limiting sugar and you can cause serious symptoms by eating sugar so it isn't difficult to connect the dots and jump to that conclusion that sugar "causes" diabetes. But the connection between sugar and diabetes is a lot closer to something we see on the CSI type TV shows where they use some black powder and a little brush to find fingerprints. The black powder and little brush didn't "cause" fingerprints it merely "exposed" them, just as sugar doesn't cause diabetes it simply exposes the symptoms in someone who has diabetes. This persistent old wives tale probably won't go away any time soon in spite of a great deal of study and advanced degrees. It only makes me wonder what else the "experts" are wrong on.
I find the apocalyptic global warming scenarios put about by Bill McKibbon and his followers to be remarkably similar to judgment day stories. Fire, flood, etc. We will all be punished in nasty ways for offending mother nature.....