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.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, May 17. 2014
An interesting website: American Renaissance
From Duck Vaginas to Bumblebee Sex: The Amazingly Overlooked Science of Genitals
"Overlooked"? Who has ever overlooked genitals?
"Gluten Sensitivity" May Be a Misnomer for Distinct Illnesses to Various Wheat Proteins
I am yet to be convinced that it exists
Here’s what’s not sustainable: organic farming
No matter what the boss says about flextime, get to work early
Berkeley students say their biodegradable caps and gowns aren’t green enough and it’s an embarrassment
Sure is an embarassment, but not in the way they think
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I was raised in a time when we were taught to overlook genitals out of politeness.
Speaking of which, if Berkley students really want to go green, why aren't they doing graduation naked? Both for the environment and as a symbol of their being stripped of all their parochial thoughts.
Although, I'm in the East and global warming is proving a misnomer today. I live in the South for a reason and it isn't to enjoy the cold summer nights of New England.
If Berkley students are concerned about being green, why the pomp and circumstance? Why not save the planet by not brining in family all over, lighting and climate controlling a large building.
Heck, they should just take their diplomas digitally via text messaging.
Fm: UC Berkley
U b graduated.
A question I've been unable to get an answer to:
How many people have to die at then hand of the Marxist of the Moment before the academics decided they need a new flavor of Marxism?
New or old, Marxism is all about chains. JKB, I believe there is no number high enough for that
I am yet to be convinced that it exists
Not convinced that celiac disease exists?
You can trash marxism, but that's beating a dead horse, and I know it makes people feel good to dance on its grave, but that's just a huge deflection.
The harder question is why mass revolutionary movements like this are so popular. The better policy is to correct social inequalities before people take to the streets with rocks, spears or rifles. But that requires the system and its elites to take a hard look at themselves, and the system does its best to prevent that.
Marxism is dead, but so what? Marxism wasn't the problem.
yes. social inequalities. people tend to riot when things get past a tipping point. you're fixated on marxism because you have a myopic world view, but revolutions and rebellions have occurred throughout history for these reasons.
marx wrote right after the revolutions of 1848, which had nothing to do with marxism and were among the worst in history, and, of course, put down by troops with tens of thousands of casualties. that had everything to do with inequalities and nothing to do with communism. cf, french revolutions, wat tyler, and the hundred or so other revolts that preceded communism.
communism is failed bullshit, no doubt about that, but you can't pretend that our economic system(s) doesn't (don't) create conditions that historically and periodically result in mass uprisings. 80% of the commentary on this forum (compared to 90% elsewhere) falls for the easy finger pointing and scapegoating. Commies are bad. duh. cuber, laos, cambodia, north korea are cesspools, but so what, are you afraid of that??? and don't tell me that russia and china are communist, they have the business ethics of 1890s american capitalists.
all this blindness, this preaching to the choir, is going to wreck the conservative movement.
I doubt that it is possible to correct social inequalities any more then it is possible for all horse races to end with all the entries tied for first place. But the arguement as it applies to the U.S. is laughable on it's face. Most all the "poor" in this country have tens of thousands of dollars a year in benefits handed to them by the government. The majority of Americans are in the middle class and live pretty damned well by world standards. If you rounded up all the truely poor and homeless you would have a majority who are drunks and drug users and a minority who are very low IQ or simply clinically "nuts". Most of us are the masters of our destiny good or bad. But too many of us choose to just sit back and let life happen. Are you suggesting that in addition to the approximately $1.2 trillion in federal welfare and an almost equal amount from the 50 states we should up the ante and give them more? No! I don't think we should "correct" the social inequalities. In fact I think we should drastically cut back welfare and other government redistribution programs and encourage/nudge/force people to take care of themselves. The social inequality arguement is simply inteded to extort even more money from the beleaguered tax payers.
How about making the system peacefully end feudalism (revolutions of 1848), peacefully end slavery (Civil War), peacefully end child labor, peacefully end 60 hour work weeks, peacefully end egregiously dangerous work conditions, peacefully end racially restrictive voting laws, without the need for revolts, revolutions, civil wars, strikes and riots? Fix those problems when you become aware there are problems and commie agitation will fall on deaf ears, Little Barry and the Clintons would never become presidents.
Prediction: concerning American inequalities, the thought of fixing these problems never, not once, occurred to you because you've been trained to condemn the unemployable schlub collecting welfare (an easy target* as opposed to the middle class kids collecting guaranteed student loans which is an acceptable form of welfare for the middle class) instead of questioning the conditions that created him. As a corollary, you've been told to believe the American Way is sacrosanct, beyond reproach or question.
That a US governor can scream "segregation now, segregation forever" doesn't strike you as the system being badly screwed and not the result of lazy minorities digging into your pocket? The situation is so badly screwed up that a combat division had to be sent to escort nine year old girls to school. Does that sound like a healthy society? Step out of yourself and for 15 seconds pretend you're a black woman too tired to give up a seat on the bus and then tell me that prior to that moment she was the "master of her destiny".
Or (and this is entirely plausible) do you honestly think history is just one after another welfare queen gaming the system?
you should wonder why you've been trained to hate these people.
So which social inequality do you want to fix? You seem to think there is something out there as big as slavery was.
I will offer a social inequality that I am in favor of fixing; taxes. Everyone should pay taxes but half of Americans pay no federal tax. Lets fix this with a flat tax of 10% on all income (taht's all income not earned income). Another social inequality is federal income redistribution. Lets end all welfare at the federal level. It is after all not constitutional so lets end it. The states can choose to take it up if they want.
I thought about your argument all during my first scotch break of the morning, and I agree. there is no social inequality in America.
I must have been too sober when I wrote up 126.96.36.199.1 last night.
Why? It's the "something-for-nothing" mob. Why work hard when you can easily vote yourself someone else's money?? (or at least have the perception that wealth can be redistributed in your favor)
What do you find interesting on American Renaissance? I find the various stories of interracial crime fascinating, especially those that the media somehow forget to consider news.
My sister doesn't really seem to believe I am lactose-intolerant nor sensitive to cilantro. So I am loathe to accuse others of faking a sensitivity. However, the number of people jumping on the 'gluten-free' bandwagon is a little difficult to take. There can't be that many people with a problem.
I wish restaurants would be into cilantro sensitivity as much as they are into gluten sensitivity. You would not believe the foods that are ruined with cilantro...salads, guacamole, salsa, burritos, rice, etc. You cannot escape it. And I do not know of a restaurant that can serve you 'cilantro-free' guacamole or salsa. It stinks. (BTW, I have read that 1 in 10 people have cilantro sensitivity...you would think someone would care!)
Its not a bandwagon for people suffering form it. That's not even a valid argument you're making.
Yes, it is a band wagon, for people are claiming they cannot eat gluten, when the idea is the probably can. It is a fad for the majority who claim an 'intolerance.' That is what I was trying to say. I do not state that gluten intolerance is a load of bunk...just that the number of people claiming sensitivity seems suspect. Go to L.A. and you will see what I mean. Probably half the people in L.A. claim they are sensitive to gluten! LOL.
As for my argument, I think it is a valid one. Restaurants have bent over backwards to produce 'gluten free' options on their menus, but if I ask for no cilantro, there are no indications that anyone is aware of my intolerance for cilantro or care. So why does the gluten intolerance get special treatment? Because it is the new 'fad' for many.
Find me a mexican restaurant that will serve me 'cilantro free' salsa/food, and I will give you a gold star!
Restaurants have bent over backwards to produce 'gluten free' options on their menus, but if I ask for no cilantro, there are no indications that anyone is aware of my intolerance for cilantro
how on earth are these connected? would it make your cilantro intolerance better if gluten-free products were taken off the menu?
I get that you've got an allergy to cilantro. but slagging those who are or think they might be gluten intolerant is completely pointless.
re: No matter what the boss says about flextime, get to work early
I work to the job, not the clock, and professional staff never arrives before 10.00 as a matter of routine, so coming in early wouldn't matter. Staying late is expected.
Except at one firm, on Wed mornings. I worked in a small law office that allowed attorneys who'd been duck shooting (that being a traditional day) to arrive late if they didn't have court or an appointment in the morning and had been shooting ducks. Visiting gun dogs (almost always black or chocolate labs) were common. To first office hunt I was invited to (on a private club on the Salton Sea owned by one of the partners) I brought my A-5 auto-loader, which was taken away and replaced with a side-by-side.
>>Here’s what’s not sustainable: organic farming
I read a weekly farming publication that covers the Mid Atlantic area. The produce industry is now atizzy with the USDA audits and restrictions of the Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2010. Organics are hard hit because they rely on manure application for fertilizer and regs state that a wait period of over 270 days is necessary AFTER manure application. In most areas of the country, this is an entire growing season.
The result is food shortage.
Also, our immunity is compromised by restricting our exposure to disease causing organisms, not strengthened. we are basically evolving ourselves out of existence and increasing disease by being hyper-vigilant and being 99.9% germ free.
From Zero Hedge: Government spying on the citizenry is meant to crush dissent, not stop terrorism.