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, July 28. 2018
Fun: PT Barnum's Museum
Barnum commuted by train from Bridgeport to NYC daily
Annoying people in the grocery store
San Francisco Straw Update:
Will the Trend of Low Birth Rates Be Reversed?
The Remaining Obstacle To President Trump's Plan For U.S. Energy Dominance
How Social Science Might Be Misunderstanding Conservatives
Economic growth hits 4.1 percent for second quarter
Unmaking Affirmative Action
How much does George Will hate Trump?
Dershowitz: Who Leaked The Trump Tape?
We should know who President Trump is financially beholden to — a lawsuit might make that happen
Tracked: Jul 29, 09:24
Tracked: Jul 29, 09:41
Tracked: Jul 29, 10:15
Tracked: Jul 29, 10:17
Tracked: Jul 29, 10:21
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
re How much does George Will hate Trump?
Just another anti-Trump screed written by a Bolshevik. Has little to do with Will IMO.
Enforcing the "straw law".
Trump was right, again. There are shit holes in the world and California is the best example. How does a government stop bums from shitting in the street? Easy, outlaw plastic straws! That'll fix the both problems. Right?
HEY! At least California reduced the penalty for WILLFULLY infecting someone with HIV...straws = priorities! /s
I just wonder how the plastic straw jail time will play with Prop 47? In Crazyfornia you can go to jail for a plastic straw, but petty larceny, like stealing $100 dollar yoga pants, gets you a tongue lashing.
Often the stories about men or women's sexual activities seem to be written by people who never took math. Assuming we are talking about heterosexuals the simple math is that ever time a man has sex a woman does as well and vice versa. So if men are having more sex than women must be too. If men are cheating on their partners than women must be also. Regardless of what permutation you come up with to assign more blame to one gender than the other the math denies you.
Junk like that piece are for ostensible traditionalists to exercise their sexual humble brag. Look at me, I'm all straightlaced and upright except where sex goes, at which point, gosh darn it, I just can't help being a randy reductionist what believes in some good old rutting. Cause seed-sowing is in my hyper-masculine genes and Darwin and whatnot.
You know, like apes have wild rampant orgies and publish Playboy and hang out around Ashley Madison.
There's a cleansing lextionary coming tomorrow.
That was simply incoherent. Want to try again?
We get who you dislike.
I should rephrase just for you what you pretend you don't understand? How's that play out in your head?
I don't think rephrasing is going to be enough. I have more than one theory how the thoughts connect to the article and how they connect to each other. My best guess is that you are so eager to kick some group of people that you are expressing yourself in some shorthand you are sure we all follow.
However, as you have not taken the trouble to think twice and edit even a letter, I am confident you won't this time either.
Obviously, having interpreted something you claim you don't understand to fit an expectation anyway, you're entitled to it's writer rephrasing it for confirmation.
Like I said, How's that mentally play out?
I will answer one thing. I suggest nobody - including some group, as you put it - follow it. Some things are just put out there, especially when what they question had no real chance of actually ever being considered in the first place. Seems to me we believe about ourselves what we want to, while our formal beliefs about externalities follow...
We lack information about whether the group of cheating men is the same size as the group of cheating women. One man could be cheating with ten different women, or vice versa. To put it another way, one hound dog could be seducing 100 otherwise faithful wives, or a single female prostitute could be providing an extramarital outlet for 100 different men. Or both, and they average out.
This should surprise no on. We are mammals.
Evolution rewards genetic success, the more copies of you genes in the next generation, your characterics are passed on while the less successful die out.
Male breeding success is almost linearly related to the number of partners. The genes of promiscuous males dominate future generations. By comparison, female success is limited by health and life span. There is very little, if any genetic advantage to having a large number of mates.
We are all descended with the majority of our genetics on the male side contributed by promiscuos males
Oh FFS, and here we go...
Tell me, does man's will need religious hammering into shape because he's a brutish, dimensionless ape born out of some ooze by accident and endless eons, or is man a creature, as I believe some old thing once went - before everybody forgot it except maybe on Sunday - created in G-d's image?
Because if it's the latter he sure gets off on the former a lot.
Except, those pesky offspring require such an investment of time and resources, especially now. What's the point of randomly procreating, if the offspring don't mature or are subpar? Maybe there is more than one strategy, quality over quantity.
"Conservative columnist George F. Will, who has lifted American journalism on the pages of The Washington Post with countless columns championing principled conservatism, is now the most important opinion writer in America." Budowski's been smokin' some FINE weed.
Agreed, Sam. the only reason the dem-leftists like Geo. Will is he is an Never Trumper so he fits their narrative. They never liked him before.
" We should know who President Trump is financially beholden to — a lawsuit might make that happen"
Complete idiocy. NO president has made his tax returns public knowledge AFAIK. They're no doubt scrutinised by security services and the IRS but that's as far as it goes.
This is just another piece of Trump derangement syndrome writ large by what appears to be a never-Trumper.
Seriously Meh I can't tell if you are intentionally being obtuse or it is just your style. I once worked with a man who would string together multisyllable words just to impress his boss and coworkers. He seemed immune to the looks and snickers when he did this. I honestly cannot tell if you are doing that but sometimes (all the time) it seems that you are. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with speaking/writing at an 8th grade level (I guess I mean 8th grade in 1958 when I was in the 8th grade. Today I'm not sure what 8th graders are doing.). But even if you choose not to at least be aware that to many of us reading it that it is confusing. Perhaps you are Schizophrenic and don't know it. Have you talked with a mental health professional? Just looking out for you. Hope you feel better soon.
I can't tell
Bloody hell, as if that needed saying, you utter dimwit.
Wait, there's more? You going to roll out the big lumber now?
Have you talked with a mental health professional?
And there it is, the dumbest shit on the net. Since you more or less ask, I couldn't function at your reduced level after a month of trying. But nice monotonic paragraph, Shakespeare. Why even bother punctuating it.
Go back to defining bias or something else you know absolutely nothing about. Better chance there of inducing half a chuckle, imbecile.
Now that was good. Clear minded and understandable. I think insulting people comes naturally to you. Maybe this could be your coping mechanism for dealing with your issues. Good start, keep it up.
That's a cute rhetorical avoidance for the anonymous subpar who goes around securely initiating random accusations at what naturally interrupts its lapses of intellect and integrity, surmising that it's schizophrenic.
You know, the tells of disorder like that are in fact interpersonal dishonesty and projecting external appearances, which is also dishonesty.
I'd call that capitulating before you began, jeenyus. But does a fundamental intellectual dishonesty serve retarded integrity well? Beats me.
Clear and understandable enough for you?
Huh? Could you repeat that in English please? Seriously what does "That's a cute rhetorical avoidance for the anonymous subpar who goes around securely initiating random accusations at what naturally interrupts its lapses of intellect and integrity, surmising that it's schizophrenic." actually mean?
Because apparently this isn't clear to you yet: As the subpar you are, your initial reputation hangs from your consistently poor reasoning. But then, as some contributing evidence of the caliber of your integrity, you stalk and ambush folks you haven't the brights to understand, anonymously project onto them things that could just get you put on your ass had you done it in person, exhibit tells of a significant limitation of character, and with all this genius under your belt, expect that this aggressive moth-to-that-flame act of yours warrants some sort of explanation. Some clarification from the things you attack.
Well, there it is then.
Just maybe you should wise up and consider that while limited grey matter put you in that spot, staying there just amplifies the diagnosis. If you haven't figured the rest out by now, I'm probably the last guy to explain it to you.
What's with the Washington Ex article on Trump's tax returns? Seriously. That could have been written by Geo Will! Tax returns are NOT a bedrock of disclosure, as the author says. That's an invented controversy, IMO. Most politicians get their taxes "cleaned up " years before they are groomed to run. That's why they freely release them b/c normal folks don't do that.
Specious , to say the least. As if someone "owns" Trump, .. as if that even was an issue AT ALL. Pathetic. He wasn't supposed to win. He didn't win until 2am Nov 9th! If someone "owned" him, they sure were stupid.