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
Monday, September 8. 2014
Viking 'ring fortress' discovered in Denmark - Historians believe distinctive geometric fortresses may have been built by Sweyn Forkbeard as a military training camp from which to launch his invasion of England
It's masculine to play football, but how is it masculine to watch football?
Jack the Ripper unmasked
Study finds that home-cooking disproportionately burdens mothers
I demand government action
The Slow Decline of American Entrepreneurship
Climate scientists scrambling for explantions on lack of warming
“Now We Are At The Lower Bound”: Draghi Reaches The Dead-End Of Keynesian Central Banking
Islamic Rape Gangs: Rotherham is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
Greta Van Susteren: White House Pressured Me to Get FOX Reporter to Drop Benghazi Investigation
Quotations of the day on the miracle of the market…..
Time To Lift the Embargo on Cuba?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
...Study finds that home-cooking ...
Oh really. I am neither a mother nor female and I don't feel burdened by cooking at home. Sometimes I am not sure which Maggies recipe to use but I cope...
I believe that the arguement about team and mascot names is racist in an of itself. It is the product of the discontented looking for something/someone to spill their bile on. If it were simply true that the name "chief" or "warrior" for example were so terrible that no can or should use them then no one should use them. But instead the truth is that they want to carve out a special group that can use them and a group that is restricted and all based on race. Seems to me to be the definition of racism. There is no doubt that "names" can be and are used to hurt others but I'm not sure making a list of names or words that cannot be spoken is the cure for that problem. I'm also pretty sure that an honest reading of the constitution would conclude that you cannot legally stop someone from using a word. The furor over this issue is beginning to look more like an inqusition then it is a fight against racism. Traps and pitfalls abound only exceeded by special privilages carved out for special groups who because of race, gender or political leaning are exempted from the rules. Is it time to burn books yet?
The 2,128 Native American Mascots People Aren’t Talking About.
Ann Althouse has an interesting critique of that article:Clumsy deployment of the dictionary at FiveThirtyEight. She went to the OED to look up the etymology of "redskin."
< red adj. + skin n. In sense 1 after Mississippi Valley French Peau Rouge (c1769 in the passage translated in quot. c1769), itself apparently after Illinois *e·rante·wiroki·ta American Indian, lit. ‘person with red skin’ (compare nitarante·wiroki I am red, lit. ‘I have red skin’ (a1720 as nitarante8irouki)) and similar expressions in other American Indian languages of the region. With quot. 1815 at sense 1 compare (in the native language of the speaker) Meskwaki e·sa·winameška·ta American Indian, lit. ‘person who has brown skin’ (high-register, rare), †me·škwinameška·ta in the same sense, lit. ‘person who has red skin’, also wa·peškinameška·ta white person, lit. ‘person who has white skin’....
< red adj. + skin n. In sense 1 after Mississippi Valley French Peau Rouge (c1769 in the passage translated in quot. c1769), itself apparently after Illinois *e•rante•wiroki•ta American Indian, lit. ‘person with red skin’ (compare nitarante•wiroki I am red, lit. ‘I have red skin’ (a1720 as nitarante8irouki)) and similar expressions in other American Indian languages of the region. With quot. 1815 at sense 1 compare (in the native language of the speaker) Meskwaki e•sa•winameška•ta American Indian, lit. ‘person who has brown skin’ (high-register, rare), †me•škwinameška•ta in the same sense, lit. ‘person who has red skin’, also wa•peškinameška•ta white person, lit. ‘person who has white skin’....
With more general references to the indigenous peoples of North America as red... compare similar uses in North American Indian languages of the south east (compare e.g. the phrases cited at red man n. 2); this contrasts with early European descriptions of the appearance of American Indians, which rarely use words meaning ‘red’. See further N. Shoemaker ‘How Indians got to be Red’ in Amer. Hist. Rev. 102 (1997) 625–44.
Ann Althouse's conclusion:
So "red skin" comes from Native Americans themselves, who had words in their own language that translate to "red skin," and, if I'm reading this correctly, early Europeans were not perceiving a skin color that fit their conception of "red." Where, then, does the dictionary establish that the opinion of racial inferiority is embedded in the word "redskin"?I was able to download the "How Indians Got to be Red" article, courtesy of my local library. It said the same: Indians themselves described themselves as "redskins." As Ann Althouse points out: if Indians described themselves as "redskins," why is it considered a racist, demeaning word?
One more case of ignorant progs. I was going to add "well-intentioned, ignorant progs," but decided that as this is but one more example of the self-righteous "You're racist and I'm not" prog one-upmanship- shades of Chevy Chase[I'm Chevy Chase and you're not]- I decided that it really wasn't well-intentioned.
Why is it politically incorrect for people to call teams "redskins," but not politically incorrect (especially for liberals) to call lower and lower middle class whites "rednecks"?
And you folks at Maggie's Farm should be outraged about a team in New York City being called the "Yankees."
King Tut's Knife: Actually, more of a narrower Smatchet than the Randall #2.
Hm, as I recall, a 'raider' is a reference to a pirate, not an Indian. See: Oakland Raiders for their mascot.
“Yet in reality, home-cooked meals rarely look this good. Leanne, for example, who held down a minimum-wage job while taking classes for an associate’s degree, often spent her valuable time preparing meals, only to be rewarded with family members’ complaints — or disinterest.”
So now women can't be expected to cook meals for their families because it might hurt their self esteem?"
"So let’s move this conversation out of the kitchen, and brainstorm more creative solutions for sharing the work of feeding families."
Proposed solutuion = Communism. I figured as much.
[Proposed solutuion = Communism. I figured as much.
A solution that has worked time and again is to withdraw the services of cook. When faced with cold cereal, kids wise up. Another solution might be, if Leanne really is a lousy cook, would be to invest in a cookbook or two. Which doesn't mean that being a good cook will necessarily stop the complaints. See above.
I do 95% of the cooking, it is something I enjoy, most of the time. I can tell you that "complaints" are not unusual and compliments are welcome and gratifying. But you have to accept that people's taste differ and their sensitivities to comments vary as well. Every meal is an adventure and I love it when everything comes together into a good meal and everyone's happy. But you must be able to accept not so complimentary input and interpret it. Right now I'm on a Mexican food kick and not everyone enjoys "hotness" but on the other hand Mexican food without the kick is pretty blah. I try to compromise and sometimes that pleases no one. But how is this so different from life in general?