Hi all - I have news:
We are opening escrow on the house tomorrow!!! (I must be crazy!) However, the house is very old, so I am waiting to see what the pest & home inspectors have to say before I decide for sure to go ahead with the purchase. I don't mind putting some money into the house, but I don't want to buy a money pit... It's a big purchase, and I want to make sure I go into it with eyes wide open.
So, there you have....you can go back to bickering, now.
UPDATE: Well, the home inspection left a lot to be desired. Let's just say that I'm not all that keen on repairing the foundation, replacing the roof, fixing the plumbing, and removing the dry rot...bleah! The search begins anew!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
755 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 755 Newer› Newest»Ted Spe if you think that what I am saying and aiming for here can be reduced to such vulgarity, then something is stopping you from even trying to understand me. I have tried to be concrete, and share what I know about postmodernism and Marxism. However, what qua is really and basically saying does amount to such vulgar effrontery. I do think you have to reconsider your basic alignments in these skirmishes. You are not being fair to me.
"in these skirmishes"
These aren't skirmishes, or fights, or battles, or even debates. These are teaching moments, oh dilettante.
I think you're missing Ted's point, hartal. I think he's saying that the posts that you and I have exchanged during this teaching moment are, for others monitoring this blog, not worth reading. And really I guess that's the ultimate lesson I have hoped to impart. Prentitious crap, sport headbutting, buttheaded "skirmishes" -- they're all really boring to most people.
Gina's interest in all of this stuff is the angelically perverse curiosity of the artist, merely. ;)
back to tv.
moreover, pretentious crap is boring too
Angels are perverse? That must explain Kevin Smith.
Ted, I thought you knew better. ;)
wv: sodmaci
The spirit of Gimbel's lives.
Angelically perverse. I think it's the Madonna/whore syndrome.
I did have my first one on Christmas. Lots of Catholic women suffer from the malady. It's quite a chaotic mindset, let me tell you.
"I do not want to be the leader. I refuse to be the leader. I want to live darkly and richly in my femaleness. I want a man lying over me, always over me. His will, his pleasure, his desire, his life, his work, his sexuality the touchstone, the command, my pivot. I don’t mind working, holding my ground intellectually, artistically; but as a woman, oh, God, as a woman I want to be dominated. I don’t mind being told to stand on my own feet, not to cling, be all that I am capable of doing, but I am going to be pursued, fucked, possessed by the will of a male at his time, his bidding." Anais Nin.
Gotta love this quote.
Well that qua never did deliver a thing. Not on Jameson about whom he claims to be conversant or about the critical theory which he claims to have studied or the Grundrisse (Marx's economic notebooks) that he claims to have read. I have long pointed out that he is a doltish blowhard, and there was not a thing in this exchange that showed otherwise. All we got from him were insults which are only expressions of his inner fears about himself. Well justified fears as we can now all see.
Here's a fun link for you Hartal, maybe you'll learn to relax:
http://ultraorange.net/2008/05/27/milfs-are-the-new-sex-symbols-or-why-forty-is-the-new-twenties-for-
Well that qua never did deliver a thing. Not on Jameson about whom he claims to be conversant
--to the contrary, I gave you context for Jameson's marxism, introduced you to the book that begins to explain Lukasc's influence on him, and gently urged you to cease slinging the term "semiotic" around in your inimitable malapropic way when discuss Jameson. (See Prison House of Language.)
or about the critical theory which he claims to have studied
-- see above
or the Grundrisse (Marx's economic notebooks) that he claims to have read.
-- I was too busy watching tv to take it off the shelf.
I have long pointed out that he is a doltish blowhard,
-- and you've always been wrong.
and there was not a thing in this exchange that showed otherwise. All we got from him were insults
-- sorry bout that little dilettante. Will you feel better if I point out that you're a doltish blowhard?
which are only expressions of his inner fears about himself. Well justified fears as we can now all see.
-- yeah. I'm quaking in my boots!
"to the contrary, I gave you context for Jameson's marxism, introduced you to the book that begins to explain Lukasc's influence on him, and gently urged you to cease slinging the term "semiotic" around in your inimitable malapropic way when discuss Jameson. (See Prison House of Language.)"
First things first, what is it, concretely, that you said about Lukacs and about his influence on Jameson? Nothing. You threw around the words reification and dialectics. But you said nothing that would help anyone.
I did. I gave several opening definitions of the dialectic.
As for reification, I already suggested one way of approaching it. Lukacs argues that capitalism breaks up living temporal experience into reified abstract homogeneous time. Then whatever peoples' organic rhythms they are expected to wake up at a certain time, eat lunch at a certain time, go to bed at a certain time, and take only so much abstract homogeneous time to recuperate to begin the work week again. Time is reified.
See you name drop and cite things you don't understand. I begin the discussion with knowledge.
There is another dimension to time. Now by the labor theory of value whatever you produce has value in terms of the average abstract homogenous time it takes to produce it. The point is that as productivity rises more can be produced in an hour, so what counts as a hour of social time labor time is constantly changing in terms of how much has to be produced, yet that denser hour still counts as a hour. There is a treadmill effect to capitalist temporality. This too is what Lukacs is getting at in his analysis of the reification of time.
Now say something. Prove that you know anything.
Why should I see Prison House of Language? Tell us something concrete about his theory of language. Do you know anything except for the title of books? And please make sure he never talks about his own theory of semiotics because I am almost sure that he does. For example in his analysis of Deleuze.
Don't you remember a thing about critical theory or the Grundrisse? Isn't there a single idea that you could talk about? It's early in the morning; you're probably not drunk yet. Give it a shot. It's now or never.
Look this is taking too long. I gotta go to work. Speak up and say something interesting and accurate about any of the authors and/or texts whose titles you have mentioned. Tell me how he draws from structuralism, critiques it, and enriches it with Lacan in his theory of language. You claim that you understand it. I haven't read the Prison House of Language and would love to learn about it. But you have obviously not yet assimilated that knowledge. Perhaps you will have done so by the time I get back from work. I hope so. I would love for the discussion to be elevated.
Ah, doltish blowhard, so you are reading the texts now? Or at least what scraps you can find by googling. Small start, but a start.
Your grasp of "reification" is as rudimentary as your muddy view of the dialectical method. The way you skim tidbits from texts (and commentaries) and then repeat them, out of context, is a type of reification. Now, there are some post-modernists who will tell you that such aimless imitation intellectuality actually carries a subversive germ. Personally, I've never thought so. I think it's just weak bourgeois self-entertainment. So discipline and hard work little dilettante -- that's what'll lead you to the next level (as they say).
And, indeed, it's now time for step two. Stop lecturing people here about what you're (haltingly) learning and just learn it! That approach will speed your progress wonderfully. Also, it means that you and I can stop this amusing chatter now.
By the way, as a failed academic with (apparently) some actual training in economics, your familiarity with Marx really should give you a head start on this stuff. Of course, your lack of imagination will always be a problem. But don't give up.
Final note: I'm glad to see you've stopped linking Lukacs to a "Leninist party." Calling Lukacs a Leninist is like calling Freud a practising physician.
bon voyage, little dilettante!
I hope that you're not speaking about me in a round-a-bout way, qua.
My brain can only contain so much information. And I use it to study chandeliers.
ok, one final post for you Gina. Honestly, the clauses I enjoyed writing the most yesterday were these:
"the local leader of an all-white black-supremacist Maoist splinter group"
(I might channel Lyle Lovett here and say, if it's not too late, can you make that a "NEO-Maoist"? Is anyone else aware that there actually is a political party, prominent in the Bay Area, that slightly resembles that description?)
and
"the angelically perverse curiosity of the artist." That may be you. Just stay away from the dilettantish side of the street and you'll be fine. Good luck.
I told you that I'm not an intellectual, I don't live in the Bay Area so I wouldn't know about splinter groups, and I can't understand big five-dollar words like dilettante because I spend most of my brain energy studying chandeliers and refractive light. It's what I do. The only thing I do. I'm a purist that way.
A girl can dream, can't she?
WV: reemm
But you didn't tell us what we should understand by reification and dialectics--these are the ideas that you introduced. Let's hear your non-rudimentary analysis. You don't like my first take on how to understand the reification of time. Fine; I thought it was a good first attempt to communicate with people not exposed to these ideas like Gavone, Winkingtiger, dsgonzale6 and others. But elevate the discussion. No one has ever stopped your from doing this. But you can't.
And didn't you know that Lukacs wrote a book on Lenin (and wrote his defense of his major work as a Leninist). The academic Marxists interested in cultural studies and philosophy may want to forget that. But I thought you prided yourself on living outside the Ivory Tower.
One more thought for you, quatessential Man.I'm partial to dangling particles, myself. I understand those quite well.
And so we are not going to learn anything about Jameson's ideas about language from you. Not surprised. But you are the one who mentioned his book on the topic.
Sorry, participles. Dangling ones.
I can't spell well, either.
wv: balini. Ferret...are you rigging this thing again?
The "clauses" of which you are so proud are in fact phrases.
A clause is a collection of words that has a subject that is actively doing a verb.
There is no subject actively doing a verb in the following collections of words:
"the local leader of an all-white black-supremacist Maoist splinter group"
and
"the angelically perverse curiosity of the artist."
If you don't believe me that you have misidentified phrases as clauses, ask the grammar perfectionist dsgonzale6.
And by the way am I being accused by the self proclaimed critical theorist of reverse racism.
phrases, not clauses, that's correct. I realized the error as soon as I hit the orange bar. Ah well. Now I have work to do, nit picker. Everybody knows about Lukacs's dramatic approach to praxis in the early 20th century. Read the chapter on Lukacs in Marxism and Form and read Lukasc and then call a doctor in the morning, you fool. A psychiatrist, maybe. Tell him/her about being banished from sfgate. (I still can't believe you let those people bait you into stepping over the line so often. But then, look at you here.)
And dammit this time I mean quadios.
Whenever I have participles dangling, I where a long coat so nobody will notice
I always suspected that you were a flasher, Teddy.
Be careful with those particles, there may be a cowpoke or two around looking to steer you clear of errors.
There I go again. Participles. I do apologize. I'm sure that yours are participles and not particles.
Tell me what you understand by praxis. I'm not holding my breath any longer waiting for the posts on reification, dialectics or the poststructuralist theory of language. Are you referring to the Lukacsian idea that only the working class is both the object and subject of history? Is that what you mean by praxis? That Marx not only illuminated the workings of power and domination but also provided the conceptual tools for the one structurally positioned class that could change the course of history and hitherto had been its plaything to become aware of its power to change oppressive conditions of life that seemed inescapable, invariant and unchangeable.
You throw around yet another word--praxis; but I have no idea what you mean by it.
Why do you do this?
My short break is over. It took me two minutes to type that up. Can't you give us some of your oh so valuable time to explain yourself?
I hate prattle. Too many people do it.
wv: rogrod. Proxis for Rograin.
I hate chatter. You do it.
Hartal. I come from a line of people in the field of medicine. A little has rubbed off on me, so I feel imminently qualified to give you this sound advice...
Try a High Colonic.
wv: hiperfa.
Yes from a family of quacks.
Uh-huh. You don't have to take my advice, I'm giving it to you freely-- as a goodwill gesture. Butt, I do know a compacted colon when I see one. That built-up stuff becomes toxic after a while and starts affecting your health if left in there too long.
Quack, quack, quack. Mostly veggie diet; my colon is fine.
The Republicans are playing to white racial resentments to try to build a base for future elections. This is all well explained by Thomas Edsall at the Huffington Post and Krugman in today's New York Times. LaSalle is provides a meeting point for people looking to back to a simpler America. He used his blog to call Obama an empty suit starting in 2007, I think, and his nostalgia for classic Hollywood attracts people wanting to go back to a simpler America, i.e. in which colored people did not have a voice, much less run the Dept of Labor, sit on the Supreme Court, and occupy the White House. In real terms, the conservative movement has become a racial project.
There is no other explanation for your prattle. Simply put, you're full of shit.
You're as bad as that LaSalle character and his crappy excuse for a movie review.
I've always thought he was a bigot--just knows how to keep it well-hidden.
His moronic opinions are often colored with his personal life.
You just need to concentrate on passing that course. With that sense of accomplishment the world you'll feel better about yourself and others too. Good luck.
Why don't you run your ideas by Winkingtiger who seems to know a lot about your subject matter? It's a good way to push me to the margins too.
Passing those courses will be the least of my lifetime accomplishments. I have four very major ones that are immeasurablein value that some people will never be able to claim--ever. I don't measure success by my own selfish needs to be somebody important.
wv:bledi
He's a black kitty, and all he can manage to do is cough up some hairballs now and then.
Well what I don't understand is xootsuit now playing of the quas at a blog near you defending LaSalle. After all, what does he think LaSalle was signaling when he came down hard on Olberman but not Ferraro after her attempt to fan the racial flames before the PA primary? That along with calling Obama an empty suit and extolling the greatness of classic Hollywood and TCM without as much as a mention of its insidious racial limitations--well it's obvious who LaSalle is not scaring away at his blog.
Everyone needs a balance between self-regard and altruism in their lives. Don't play Sita.
I don't, I just think being a mother plays an important-- but often dismissed by LaSalle and his ilk, part of defining what determines a "good life".
I mean, who in the hell is Mr. Childless to decide what the good life is based on his limited insight into life's experiences? Pompous ass.
What does he and all the others like him say that's relevant in the Grand Scheme of Things if they have never experienced a fundamental thing like giving life and all that it entails? And then have the godawful nerve to pontificate about what the "good life" is? What in the fuck does he know about self-sacrifice? All he's ever done is take care of himself and his personal needs. Ya, life must be good if you're that selfish.
wv: demis. How fitting.
Gotta go, but while I agree that society is an ongoing intergenerational affair and that this generation has responsibilities for the next, I do not think that they can only be met by oneself raising children. There is an interesting discussion to be had about having children and the possibilities of and delusions about selfless loveve. We tried this before but you offended a lot of people. This should be a philosophical discussion, not one centered on any one individual, I think. It would be nice if Too Sense returns. He has recently some very eloquent things. It's a paradox of life that we have almost infinite value to ourselves and almost no value to people as a whole. Again paradox. And we must choose. Too Sense has written some very eloquent reflections from the latter perspective.
I mean, you know, I wish his kind would just hurry-up and retire to the margins where they belong, quit using up valuable resources, and leave the real living up to those who actually do make a concrete difference.
wv:dioxyy. I swear God must have a hand in this!
You can't have rational conversations with people who refuse to see the truth about themselves. It's too late for them to do anything about the choices they've made. Kaput. Stick a fork in it, that chicken's poached. It's 5 p.m.
No is transparent to him or herself.
They can be. Self-examination is a discipline. It's called developing your conscience. One valuable thing I learned from Catholicism. It's all about being honest with yourself.
I think LaSalle and people like him are intellectually dishonest about what they thinks success is. But to have any other opinion would make their life irrelevant, wouldn't it?
That Julia Child review sucked. Who is he to dismiss a blogger?
It just shows how out of touch he is with modern life. Blogging is a threat to his livlihood, that's for sure. His lifestyle and way of thinking is fast becoming passe. He's not Postmodern. The next generation can't relate to him and the self-indulgent Julia Child's of the world. But they can relate to Julie and her instant blogging success. Maybe that movie unnerved him--he can't handle that he's becoming a dinosaur.
I mean her line about her favorite thing to do--EATING!--says it all, doesn't? What a pig. And we're supposd to be better people for her experience? Who in the hell has the time and money to spend living that lifestyle? She won her success by not having a family and concentrating solely on her career and self-interests--indulging her hogginess. Yet she's more important than the poor slubs like you and I, Hartal? In his dreams.
From that small clip, Julia Child looked like a moron. One who only achieved success partly because she came from such a privileged background.
I think that movie was mocking her in a way.
wv:apimpa
I think my focus on grammar was fueled by the Winston cigarette commercials from my youth. You know, the ones that asked, "What do you want, good grammar or good taste?" Since I hated cigarettes, the answer was obvious to me.
And anyway, I've been trying not to be obnoxious about it. These days, I don't really comment on people's bad grammar unless (a) it's funny (and the person knows me well enough to understand that I'm not trying to be mean) or (b) someone has really made me angry and I want to demonstrate what a bonehead that person is (though I am really trying not to succumb to those impulses). I don't feel the latter way about anyone here; if I previously mocked anyone's grammar here out of meanness, I'm sorry.
It's okay, dsg. Forgive you I do now.
Thank you, Yoda, I mean, Ted. ;)
For the happy drugs your doctor is still prescribing you, he's going to end up facing criminal charges and your fate may be Michael Jackson's. This list needs to prepare an intervention for dsgonzale6.
I haven't read this yet. Well the first couple of chapters. THe last chapter is about raising children changes our life. The first chapter is about the nature of children's imagination.
The Philosophical Baby: What Children?s Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life (Hardcover)
by Alison Gopnik
But unlike you I think it's a good thing not every adult has children, not because not all adults are suited for child rearing. That's true, but it's good for society that some people keep themselves open to pursue new paths. What's wrong with teaching America how to appreciate food? I only wish LaSalle were using his time to open new vistas to people through movies. But his tastes are too conservative for me. But great Childs had time for teaching us about food. Some people may mentor many others with the time that they have. Others may make a scientific breakthrough. Others may godparent.
You don't have to have kids to be good, and people do evil things in the name of securing their children's future.
Don't be such a moralistic blowhard, Gavone.
bernardi, that was funny. Seriously, letting go is very liberating. When I succeed at it, it feels wonderful. When I fail, sooner or later I suffer for it.
I don't disagree with you at all. It's his suggestion that Child's represents the good life, and that the work of the blogger for wanting to conduct an experiment via the experience of Julia Child's is irrelevant because she didn't do the work that Child's did, was arrogant, to say the least.
Julia Childs to me, especially after I saw that small clip and reading about her privileged background, was maybe someone whose fame we should reconsider in comparison to modern day life. She shoulda been successful, she had life handed to her on a silver platter. All she had to do was gobble like a pig from it.
Who can acheive fame the way Childs did in this day and age? So what that someone did something on a blog and got famous for it in a year? What's that have to do with whether or not what she has to say has any truth?
I have news for LaSalle, modern lifeis fast-paced, and we communicate at lightening speed that allows us to advance information much faster than in times past. That's Postmodernism. Nothing is new, things are appropriated, and the use of modern technology is involved. It's Gen X's take on cooking Julia Child style in 2009. Maybe to a dolt LaSalle it would take a roadmap to understand, but for people that understand the reality of life today, and not in Shakespeare's day, this is art.
wv: buythot. That's Shakespeare, you know.
Though sincere, my compliment about your photo art should not be getting this much respect in return. You don't disagree with me? At all!?! WTF is going on here? Is dsgonzale6 sharing his pain medication for his non existent foot injury with you all? This was always the way to get me out of here. The saccharine makes me want to heave.
I am sure qua is going to peak up from reading Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution and MLS's ouvre and the televised baseball game to tell me that he agrees with me too only of course to get me to run away.
I meant that I agree that not all people should have children. But it's not up to the ones that don't have them to validate the successes of the the ones that do.
In other words, it's not up to LaSalle to brand life "Good" or who's life experience is valid or not. His scope is too narrow when it comes to life experience.
Movies, he's an authority, life, no.
I'm signing off for the night. I wanted to leave you with this link, Hartal:http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-postmd.htm
I disagreed with some of this stuff, but though the part about art was fairly accurate. I think, there is definitely a shift going on. Post-modernism is the way it's going. I think because it's sort of really starting to pick up speed, that it's still not clearly defined. And I don't recall hearing about Jameson. What I heard about started in the 70's.
A good example of post-modern music would be from CoCoRosie. Not only for the lyrics, but also the way the song is sung. To me this typifies post-modernism heck this out:
Lyrics to K-Hole :
Tiny spirit in a k-hole
Bloated like soggy cereal
God will come and wash away
Our tattoos and all the cocaine
And all of the aborted babies
Will turn into little bambies
Wounded river push along
Searching for that desert song
And mozart's requiem will play
On tiny spearkers made of clay
Tell my mother that i love her
Martin luther you're an angel
Charming monkey saunter swagger
Drunken donkey limbs disjointed
Your chest is a petting zoo
Mexican pony fucked up shoes
I dreamt one thousand basketball courts
Nothing holier than sports
Dragonfly kiss your tail
Precious robot built so frail
Universe of milk and ember
Your hot kiss in mid december
What's god name i can't remember
Trough the crack eye lovely weather
[ K-Hole Lyrics on http://www.lyricsmania.com/ ]
Or, on the other hand, this one by the Blood Brothers:
Feed Me To The Forest
These hot machine years
burning time across your face
See the smoke stacks rising up
like fuck you towers?
My girlfriend sang like a hummingbird today
until that cough stole her voice
and fed it to the furnace.
Shrew laugh, trench throat..
There's a party on the 16th floor.
this apartments paper thin walls:
you know your neighbor's sobs by heart.
Tight coil, cold grin...
Highways wrapped around my body like a snake.
Got a view of a cement lawn, amputated horizons.
Thanks for the survival rags.
thanks for the soiled skies.
thanks for the fucked up future.
We can learn to live with misery.
Was it just last night
that I woke up to a snarling baby?
Did I hear it right?
He begged his mother, Feed me to the forest!
All right-
The factory is singing us to sleepless beds tonight.
Lungs like twin garbage sacks
sucking charcoal breath tonight.
Sick squeal, dull moan...
Looks like your neighbor's found another victim.
Screams 'Help,' but no one comes.
Honey, won't you turn the TV on?
Brown summer, stench wind...
the globe spinning on a rusty hinge.
Get in your car go to your job
like a train that's being robbed...
Hey, I kinda like these guys. I was gonna treat you to "This Adultery is Ripe", but I thought that naturally, you'd take it the wrong way. Here's my pick:
This makes two songs about abortion, and in not a positive light. I think I detect a shift here. Wouldn't that be interesting thing? Maybe I can be some kinda revolutionary artist?
"The Face In The Embryo"
Send "The Face In The Embryo" Ringtone to your Cell
I spent seventeen nights
Seventeen nights in the city,
watching the horizon beckon for a buck knife
to bludgeon it's belly, to end the pregnancy.
I've spent seventeen nights
Seventeen nights in the city,
Watching the face in
face in the embryo,
pleading for cesarean, traced by fleshy twilight.
You can see it all from the rooftops
A threatening birth, a threatening birth
A swollen vagina in the sky.
A threatening birth, a threatening birth
[x2]
three shades of blood to soak its death bed.
fiery red for the shutdown of the science bled sun.
viscous black for the sex lives of the science fed youth.
fiery red for the shutdown of the science bled sun.
viscous black for the sex lives
milk white for the impossible vista of the skyline as it shorted out,
and was replaced by a network of newsprint.
You can see it all from the rooftops
A threatening birth, a threatening birth
A swollen vagina in the sky.
A threatening birth, a threatening birth
So close you can smell the morphine in its veins.
See, here's my take on this. You're gonna start hearing their voices more and more. And, my guess is those voices are gonna keep sounding more and more like this.
Just because our generation can't see the injustice, doesn't mean it's not there. I think this postmodern voice is gonna reflect back something--there's gonna be an accounting. These kids know that it coulda easily have been them. The question is, what will they do about it?
And by the way guys, don't say I didn't try to warn ya with my visions.
One more link for ya, Hartal, since you love Obama so much: Sorry, can't get the link to match with the story,but here's a small piece of it. Maybe you can dig it up:
Drug industry helping Obama overhaul health care
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall, according to numerous officials, a staggering sum that could dwarf attempts to derail Obama's top domestic priority.
The White House and allies in Congress are well aware of the effort by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a somewhat surprising political alliance, given the drug industry's recent history of siding with Republicans and the Democrats' disdain for special interests.
The campaign, now in its early stages, includes television advertising under PhRMA's own name and commercials aired in conjunction with the liberal group, Families USA.
They own us, lock, stock and barrel. They decide our values--we're just too stupid to see it.
wv: powar. It's gotta be something Divinely intervening, here.
The drug companies are going to run ads to try to stop Pelosi from ok'ing import of drugs from Canada and having Medicaire and the new public alternative from negotiating hard with the drug companies for lower prices. At the same time, the drug companies see the possibility of economies of scale, i.e. when volume is increased, unit costs come down and profits are enlarged. So with the uninsured having insurance, they'll be able to buy drugs, economies of scale will be realized, unit costs will come down, and drug companies may be able to tolerate somewhat lower prices and still come out ahead on profit basis. So the question here seems to be Pelosi vs. the Blue Dog Democrats who are receiving money from the insurers and the drug companies. Obama is probably closer to Pelosi, but how much will they compromise. We are in the middle of a big political fight. And the right wing is using nativist issues and charges of Obama's secret support of reparations to race bait him and Pelosi and thereby marginalize them to the benefit of the Blue Dog Democrats. It's ugly, albeit transparent, politics.
Gavone, your wanting not to allow pregnancy to be a choice and your moralizing against people who do not live up their putative obligation to have children even when they have no feeling for wanting children gives me the impression that you are not a happy and joyous parent but one who has had children out of external obligation, rather than personal feeling.
If obligation and feeling don't merge in your care of those pathetically dependent little ones--in fact if your care does not produce inner feeling and unconditional love--then something has gone awry.
That's a pretty hard core Marxist take on postmodernism, Gavone (it relies heavily on a guy named Callinicos who literally thinks he is today's Lenin). You do confuse me. Most of the time you're a right wing Catholic but then you gush about the intelligence of a Marxist posing as a critical theorist (qua=xootsuit) and direct us to an orthodox and tendentious Marxist analysis of postmodernism.
# of times Gina has posted anecdotes or updates about her children-0
# of comments about abortion-666
Based on these two statistics, it's more likely Gina has had four abortions than to have parented four children. That number of comments is kind of spooky also. No matter how many more Gina posts, it always remains the same.
WV- unbods: Are Gina's 'children' unbods?
They weren't when I had them, Hartal. I sacrificed a lot for the well-being of my children, for as little as I've been rewarded so far. I have no regrets when it comes to them.
For some seriously ugly reasons that you don't need to know about, they've become that, though. Not through any of my actions, however. So, in a sense, you're right.
I have some Marxist tendencies. Haven't you heard me yap about the Common Good? Christ felt and Christianity says that every person deserves to be treated with equal dignity. To treat them with anything less is inhuman. I can't help it if you can't see how I arrive at having the opinions that I do.
And if you honestly don't think the Pharma industry is running things, you're kidding yourself. They profit from this idea that women should have reproductive "freedom". Birth control pills have a failure rate calculated into them. Think about how having and promoting the sexual revolution must have advanced their profit margins. And our medical is no longer an art to be practiced, doctors are nothing more than shills for the drug companies. This industry has now expanded it into a tax-fed industry and it's only getting bigger. We now treat human life like a commodity. Obama has played right into their hands with lifting the embryonic research bans, even though there's no proof that using embryonic cells work.
Women are mostly emotional creatures. Convince us to react from an emotional aspect, and most of the battle is won.
Big Pharma assumes most Americans will fall into either category of political beliefs. Their M.O. is to exploit those differences and hope we don't notice that by dividing us, they can conquer... and they've been very successful.
And, Hartal, you're displaying a little too much interest in my children for my comfort. Why are they any concern to you?
I keep my private affairs out of the public arena--you should too.
Sorry, YC. I didn't notice that it was you that posted.
Consider my reply directed towards you.
And abortion is murder, and murder is evil.
Only an evil person would think otherwise. How do you feel about the subject?
Gina, in a perfect world, there would be no need for abortion. As it is, being pregnant is a serious medical condition, even under the best circumstances, so the patient should be able to decide for herself.
Do we really need to argue this point again? Most people know that having sex can lead pregnancy. Perhaps if you're not willing to accept the potential results of your actions maybe you should refrain from doing so. It works for all sorts of things. We're not slaves to our sexual impulses, are we?
And you know what, abortion can be just as life threatening. And so can getting in your car and driving somewhere.You ask my late aunt's family how safe abortion can be. A botched one killed her.
The medical industry doesn't want you to know about the harmful effects of abortion--it might hurt that bottom line. No pun intended.
See David Lynch's recent photos now on display in Southern California. Click slideshow
http://tinylink.com/?0Flc5kOeYd
*
Huffington Post fearing that Obama had to make too many concessions to the drug companies to get their $150 million dollar pledge of ads in favor of his health reform
The left often forgets the formidable obstacle that the Senate puts on health reform. The overrepresentation of small states and the possibility of the filibuster makes it a huge barrier to single payer. Yet Obama still has put together a good package given the constraints. And there is no reason it can't be expanded in the years ahead as Waxman expanded Medicaire.
Jonathan Cohn writes in the New Republic:
"Maybe that means those of us on the left should dwell a bit more on what reform still would achieve--even if it's not everything we hoped. The bills that passed the House committees might not mean every single American would have insurance. But they would mean that every single American could get insurance if he or she wanted it. Insurance companies couldn't deny coverage to somebody because of pre-existing medical conditions--nor could they cancel a policy retroactively, after a large claim, as insurers have been known to do. In fact, that change--an end to the practice of "rescission"--would happen right away.
The insurance people get under reform would be relatively good insurance, too: The House bills, for example, would limit out-of-pocket expenses to $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for a family. That's still more than people in other countries pay, yes, but it's a far less than what many Americans end up paying today once they get a chronic or catastrophic illness. And keep in mind the exposure would be a lot less for lower-income people.
Besides, it's not as if it will be impossible to scale up these reforms later on. If Congress passes and the president signs a bill putting in place the key institutional elements of reform now, they can always revisit, and strengthen, the measure later. During the 1980s, Henry Waxman almost single-handedly expanded Medicaid to its current levels by gradually making more people eligible and securing the funding to pay for them. All he needed was the institutional structure--the program, the rules, and the basic funding stream--on which to build the new coverage. The fact that Waxman is a chief architect for this year's program ought to give liberals confidence that, once again, these reforms needn't represent the upper limit of what might be achieved over the next few years. They are a start, and a very good start, but not a finish.
Of course, it's not a given that any of this will happen. We're still waiting to see what comes out of Senate Finance Committee, the last of five committees with jurisdiction over health reform. There, a bipartisan group of six senators are trying to hammer out a deal--and their progress has been slow. They seem likely to disgorge legislation that reaches even fewer people and offers even skimpier benefits. But the senators on the Finance committees, just like all members of Congress, respond to political pressure. The more pressure they feel to be ambitious, the more ambitious they will be. And that's important, since Congress must eventually reconcile all the committee bills, taking into account whatever Finance produces.
If the possibility of lesser reform doesn't motivate liberals, then maybe something else will: the possibility of no reform. Twice in the last few decades, once during the Nixon era and then again during the Clinton years, liberals largely shunned compromise efforts at universal coverage because they didn't live up to progressive ideals. But holding out didn't lead to better legislation. It led to twenty years of trying to rebuild the momentum for reform, followed by a debate over proposals that are, if anything, less sweeping than their predecessors."
a photographer with Marxist tendencies. No not Gavone.
http://tiny.cc/4OGkJ
Thanks for those links. I'm having a hard time getting the images to download. Babysitting the ranch, dial-up sucks. I'll check them out tomorrow. I did manage to see that Lynch is using music with his work in collaboration with another artist. Great idea. To me, the two naturally go together. So much of my work is influenced by music--especially the lyrics. I think Lynch qualifies as a post modern artist. That first image reminded me of my bitchy little sister. Put a darker shade of blond on her and it's Bridget. She's nice when she wants to be, don't get me wrong.
As far as being a Marxist. I said have tendencies. That's not quite the same as being one. But, if I were fighting for any other marginalized, voiceless group other than unborn babies, I'd be a friggin' folk hero. When they were handing out assignments, they gave the toughest one to the pro-lifers like me. I just wish I was more successful at it.
"Huffington Post fearing that Obama had to make too many concessions to the drug companies to get their $150 million dollar pledge of ads in favor of his health reform"
Those were my thoughts exactly. I didn't like it at all. It makes me think drug companies don't care about who's in power, all they have to do is grease enough wheels to get what they want.
The public would do well not to see this issue from one political side or another, but rather from the view of an American about to subsidize an evil corporate giant for a very long time to come. This country is way over-drugged.Have you ever noticed how many people need various medications? Half the time they don't even know what there taking. I know enough about health to know that diet alone can fix a lot of things. And it's not the one recommended with the food pyramid. Hell, obesity alone could be mostly eliminated if Americans would just quite eating processed foods and drinks with sugars in them. That might piss off the wheat and sugar beet growers and the packaged food manufacturers, though. And then the ad and packaging people would get mad. And then the doctor's wouldn't have as many patients and of course, people wouldn't need as many drugs. See how it works? It's big, big money to have a nation of sick people.
I also thought that was a paltry sum to get what they wanted. But I suspect that's just the beginning of the campaign.
All right, hartal. Your link to the Rogovin piece deserves response. (Your attempt to identify me with xootsuit is as misplaced as your previous conclusion that I am Michael. But . . . .)
I enjoyed both the Lynch and the Rogovin photos. But the Rogovin photos moved me very much. And here's the deal: I would enjoy spending time with the people in his photos or with him. No shit. Despite my admiration for all of Lynch's work (the stuff he did with Barry Gifford I particularly like), I would have no interest in meeting him.
Lynch is a postmodernist; Rogovin is on the cusp.
Good links, hartal. Very good.
Who are you, Qua?
What are you hiding for,huh?
Why don't you wanna meet me? I'm kinda cuspy.
For all you news junkies out there:
http://netscape.compuserve.com/pf/story.jsp?floc=MM-bus&sc=1700&idq=/ff/story/0001/20090809/1347044699.htm
Looks like community journalism will be vindicated after all. Lol. I shouldn't laugh, it's mean, I know.
I've been off the happy drugs for quite a while, other than Advil, Alleve, and the ones my body manufactures for itself. But those latter ones can be quite addicting, especially the ones generated from exercise.
BTW, Gina, I've never heard or heard of any popular songs that glorify abortion. Seals & Crofts did do an anti-abortion song way back when, though, and I thought Brick by the Ben Folds Five was an unhappy abortion song.
quadios, you say that you would not want to spend time with the people in the Lynch photos. This is a bizarre statement. Did you look at the photos? You would not want to hang with a man who could hold a sheep in his hand, or be a guest at that dinner table. Good to know. Why are you telling us this? And are we to judge art by how good dinner company the artist would make? Don't you understand that you are dooming Gavone?
Please share more of your insights about Jameson? Let's hear something more than a book title.
You're such an ass, Hartal. That might have been funny had it not been at my expense. You're getting there,though. Congratulations.
Don't you understand poster's code?
Why don't you make yourself useful and needle Qua into revealing his identity?
And dsg, if abortion is such an awful thing, why don't people do more to stop it?
This is what I don't understand about this new liberal idea that there should be fewer abortions.
I mean, it sounds like a concession that abortion is wrong, yet on the other hand, there is complicity in keeping it so available. What gives? Why concede anything--it's kinda a cop out.
Here's an interesting link for you, dsg: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=45210&tsp=1
Gina, I read that item and thought of our discussions. The baby was premature, but past viability.
Gina, when moderates say that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," they're not saying that abortion is wrong, they're saying that it can have negative effects on the woman and should be avoided when possible. Effective birth control is definitely a must.
I happened to see a few minutes of a TV show yesterday afternoon, "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant," a documentary reenactment series about women who didn't know they were pregnant until they went into labor or gave birth. Weirdness.
Speaking of weirdness....
Now that I understand that you are a right wing, anti-choice Catholic who champions the private ownership of the means of production, and has Marxist sympathies, it just occurred to me that your role model may well be the photographer in John Waters' Pecker. Is that whom you aspire to be, Gavone? Have you seen the movie?
Here's some YouTube of Pecker.
http://tiny.cc/aHXgK
Dsg, they probably each weighed in at 500lbs...things like an extra 7 lbs O flesh tend to get lost...I have to assume they knew they were having sex? Or did that sort slip by them too?
And some forms of birth control can be just as damaging.
You keep working on that humor thing Hartal. You're almost there.
I'm multi-faceted--I thought I explained that already?
That baby was born at 24 weeks. Abortions are legal at that point, dear.
wv: quating. I'm not kidding!
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court ruled that states could impose restrictions on abortion taking place after the fetus reaches viability because of the state's interest in protecting life. If you want to know why there are no laws on the books of most states restricting abortions at that time, it's due to two facts: (1) the extremists on both sides of the issue control the debate, and (2) pro-choice extremists outnumber pro-life extremists.
Gina, the two case studies I saw were fascinating. One woman had never been pregnant before, and was huge; she had a fiance and was engaging in unprotected sex with him, but they split up at least 6 months before the child was born. The other woman already had three kids, and was stocky but not huge, and was on the Pill.
Well, I think the idea needs revisiting...without all of financial and political self-interests.46 million and counting out of the collective gene pool is not a good thing if you look at it from a scientific point of view, And who knows how it extrapolates out in other areas.
I told ya the pill and other forms of birth control had failure rates calculated into them. The reproductive industry ain't stupid. We're being scammed.
I honestly don't know how a woman could not know that she was pregnant. The little buggers never stop moving, you know? Maybe some people are more lethargic. Or maybe just in denial.
wv: bundes. My suspicious mind tells me this thing is rigged.
Hartal--you're just asking for it.
Did you like my clap joke? It was classic. I'm still laughing.
You have the clap? Doesn't that decrease your fertility? No wonder you're not concerned about abortion rights. And no we are not extremists. There can be complex cases in the last trimester. I gave a horrifying example in the previous discussion of the assasinated doctor. Well these are not discussions. Gavone does not read or engage the alternative view point. She's just the internet equivalent of those people yelling others down at the townhall meetings. There are good reasons to make the right to choose open-ended and effective.
My, you have a filthy mind. I thought clap was something you did with your hands.
What are you doing posting on MSM again?
Gavone, you have no idea what global catastrophe your anti abortion and puritican values have created on a global scale.
Check out Michele Goldberg's Means of Reproduction
http://tinylink.com/?QoIrE1BnAT
Where's the handclapping joke?
I am not on LaSalle's blog; but who is quadios? I still say the last qua character was xootsuit. Xootsuit seems to think he understands cultural and literary theory because he has that friend who taught Conrad, though I doubt his friend was as oblivious as xootsuit was to the way in which his works sometimes actually reinforced colonial stereotypes. Even after he read Achebe xootsuit still did not understand. That's like quadios talking about Jameson.
You forgot to take your meds again, didn't you?
Go on Hartal. I'm signing off soon and I won't be able to diagnose you any more today.
Good night.
You're the one dragging everything down by compulsively calling women who have abortions murderers. You refuse to engage the feelings and arguments who think otherwise. So you attack, attack and attack.
I'm entitled to my opinion. Facts are facts. I don't like to sugar coat the truth. A life is taken without due process or justification. That's murder in my book.
You don't have to consider my opinion, either. No oneis forcing you to read it.Learn to disassociate your emotions from the topic. Rule number one in arguing.
Your problem Hartal is that because you did something for personal reasons that are not valid to me doesn't mean I have to be bullied into accepting whatever your reasons were. Insulting me for my opinion only makes me think you don't reason, you emote.
Maybe you can deny the truth, I can't.
You have to be kidding me? You have never engaged the alternative point of view.
Have you?
* Main Entry: 1kill
* Pronunciation: \ˈkil\
* Function: verb
* Etymology: Middle English, perhaps from Old English *cyllan; akin to Old English cwellan to kill — more at quell
* Date: 14th century
transitive verb 1 a : to deprive of life : cause the death of
2 a : to put an end to kill competition b : defeat, veto killed the amendment c : to mark for omission; also : delete d : annihilate, destroy kill an enemy
3 a : to destroy the vital or essential quality of killed the pain with drugs b : to cause to stop kill the motor c : to check the flow of current through
I dunno, Hartal. Kinda sounds like abortion to me.
And murder:
murder - kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"
bump off, off, slay, polish off, dispatch, remove, hit
kill - cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly.
execute - murder in a planned fashion.
dsgonzale6, would you agree with me that this discussion is hopeless? She has no idea why many of us don't consider the fetus a person (as opposed to life) and why a woman should not be compelled to support the life of the fetus. She never recognized our fears of the health consequences of an abortion ban; she has no concern for how the lives of young girls and women--the only lives that they have to live-- would be, and is often, ruined by early motherhood. She has no knowledge of the lives that the third trimester abortion doctor saved; he was assassinated.
Hartal, you'll never consider my POV. To do so would make you a killer of your own child simply for being imperfect.
And God knows how hard you try to convince everyone that you are perfect.
I'm sorry your parents fucked with your head and made you feel inferior.It's funny how life repeats itself.
And the drugs you take only numb that pain of filial rejection. Learn to face reality...it's far more beneficial to you in the long run.
You know, life works in mysterious ways.
Did you ever consider that having an imperfect child might have been beneficial to your life? Taught you to accept the imperfections in yourself and helped you see that you were deserving o flove despite those imperfections?
Now that opportunity is gone. You may never be presented with it again.
All people are imperfect. There's also the question of very serious problems that will seriously undermine emotionally and financially the life of an older child and the parents. I feel that any woman who thinks a pregnancy will not turn out well for the health of herself and the fetus has the right to abort. It's not a murder. It's a woman's choice. And it should be made freely. Not because the woman does not think she won't have health insurance for example.
One more thing.
That's my big issue with modern medicine. It's not driven by compassion as it traditionally was. It's driven by profit. Our medical industry is always right there with a test and an opinion to let parents know their "options". As if certain human flaws are just not acceptable. I suppose the business men get to decide, right? These business people sit there like vultures waiting to exploit the fears of people in a emotional and stressful time. It's all good.
Also, Hartal. I think you're being something of a hypocrite. If I were a democrat, you'd think I was folk hero.
For you: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/11/national/a033248D69.DTL
WV:credo
Then perhaps the solution is more public support rather than diminish the idea that every life has intrinsic value. I'd rather give my taxes for that than fat cat salaries and benefits for the UC Regents.
Catholics do think abortion is acceptable if the mother's life is in danger. You are aware of that?
"how the lives of young girls and women--the only lives that they have to live-- would be, and is often, ruined by early motherhood"
G.W. Bush couldn't have put it better.
Again the first trimester fetus is not a person. Unlike I am not just asserting this. I have presented several arguments as to why this is true or at least not false.
Moreover, a woman cannot be obligated by the state to make her body grow life into a potential person if she has other other plans and goals, if that potential person will live a miserable and short life, if that potential life was forced upon her, and if that potential life threatens her life.
I think abortion rights should be wide and even subsidized, for that is the only want to realize equality under the law.
The best and only morally tolerable way to reduce abortions is sex education and universal health care.
bernardi, my own personal opinion is that I would never want to write off any sentient person as being beyond redemption as long as that person was willing to continue to talk. But I understand the impulse, and I have reached that conclusion, with regret, with other individuals. I can't put my finger exactly on what it is about Gina, but I'm not prepared to write her off completely yet, despite the great antipathy that sometimes arises in our discussions.
bernardi, btw, thanks for the excerpt from the Cohn article. I subscribe to the "half a loaf" theory, myself.
I just remembered another anti-abortion song: Bodies, by the Sex Pistols. True to form, it's graphic and ugly.
And why has no one commented on my new avatar? Given all the music fans here, I figured I'd get some sort of a rise out of someone.
Dsg. You haven't written me off completely because I'm speaking truthfully, and somewhere in the recesses of your mind, you suspect I'm right.
As for Hartal, he certainly does make me realize that although we all deserve to be treated equally, some of us just aren't equals. I suppose it's in his genetic code somewhere that makes him believe his offspring aren't fully human from conception. That makes sense, really.
And as for your new avatar, I don't get it. Who is it? And what does it mean?
That ragrug image for a new American flag sure nailed it, didn't it?
WV: partable
No, that's not it. :)
wv: dogra
HUH? You know that I'm intellectual. Kinda slow sometimes--even with a picture.
BTW, thanks for the mention of the S.P. lyrics. If you don't mind,I'm gonna post them. I guess I'm not the only one, eh?
She was a girl from birmingham
She just had an abortion
She was a case of insanity
Her name was pauline she lived in a tree
She was a no one who killed her baby
She sent her letters from the country
She was an animal she was a bloody disgrase
Body Im not an animal
Body Im not an animal
Dragged on a table in factory
Illegitimate place to be
In a packet in a lavatory
Die little baby screaming fucking bloody mess
Its not an animal its an abortion
Body Im not animal
Mummy Im not an abortion
Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess
Im not an discharge, Im not a loss in
Protein, Im not a throbbing squirm
Fuck this and fuck that fuck it all and
Fuck the fucking brat
She dont wanna baby that looks like that
I dont wanna baby that looks like that
Body Im not an animal
Body Im not an abortion
Body Im not an animal
An animal
Im not an animal...
Im not an abortion...
Mummy! ugh!
Jeez. Not an intellectual. See? I prove it every time. It's very humbling.
I didn't say you were the only one, and I didn't say you weren't an intellectual. When I said, "No, that's not it," I was referring to this specific statement: "You haven't written me off completely because I'm speaking truthfully, and somewhere in the recesses of your mind, you suspect I'm right."
As for "Bodies," it is, as I noted, graphic and ugly. The lyrics lose some meaning out of the context of the music, but the gist is still there.
What is it then? Now you've piqued my curiosity. And that may not be a good thing. Not fair to leave me hanging. And, if your half-reference was it, my arguments are sound. They worked just fine until some people got together and found a new way to be capitalistic.
What's with the new picture? I still don't get it and I'm too tired today to figure it out.
What's your take on this health care business?
If that song is so ugly and tells of an ugly thing, then why aren't more people willing to work to stop that ugliness rather than promote it more?
Maybe it's the artist in me that wants to see more beauty in life.
About lyrics. I find myself enjoying them far more than combined with the music a lot of the times.
I usually don't like regular poetry, but song lyrics to me is poetry. Always very rough and raw and real.
Gina, it's not because I suspect you're right, it's because I think you've got a working brain. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean they're stupid; that's a too-common mistake that I'm trying to avoid.
As for speaking the truth, I don't think you're lying about what you think; I know that what you say is the truth as far as you're concerned.
As for Bodies, the Sex Pistols' whole purpose was expressing their contempt for what they considered to be society's phoniness, which was all-encompassing, in their view. All of society's niceties were, in their view, nothing but BS, and they wanted to express the ugliness without sugarcoating it. They savaged middle-class pretensions ("Holiday in the Sun," "Bodies"), upper class snobbery ("Anarchy in the U.K.," "God Save the Queen"), the music business ("E.M.I."), British youth ("Seventeen," "Pretty Vacant"), and political correctness before there was even a term for it ("Belsen Was a Gas," "New York"). Personally, I think you have to hear the music to truly appreciate the depth of their disdain for the world and its ways. Only people fundamentally disconnected from society could hold such views and make them compelling.
The new avatar is from the cover of the album "Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are DEVO!" Devo's conceit was that the human race is devolving, not evolving.
Why, thank you. You're always an interesting read, too...even though I know I'll never change your mind. It never hurts to hear a different perspective, it doesn't mean that you have to adopt it.
Are you listening,Hartal?
You're probably right about having to hear the music, too. But often I can't hear the lyrics over the screaming noise. I've got very sensitive hearing, and too much loud noise hurts. I'm one of those very visual, not audial types.That's one reason why I like Dylan and folk rock so much --I can hear the words of the lyrics and get the emotion behind the sound at the same time.
I think I would have to agree with Mr.Devo. Artists are such cynics.
Mr. Devo?
;)
dsgonzale6 is on what will surely be short lived kick to be civil. The point is that you don't listen; you have no ear for points, arguments, evidence that create problems for your position. You could not even list the best arguments against considering a first trimester fetus a person. Compare that to the Sean Carroll piece that I posted. He acknowledged the difficulties with the pro choice position and still made the argument for choice modestly and reasonably. You'll never be able to do that. dsgonzale6 will put up with that. I think that shows a lack of solidarity with women and their freedom. Bad on him. And he knows better. The drugs will wear off, and he'll see you for what you are doing. Reminds me of the Grateful Dead joke. What did the Dead Head say when he ran out of pot? "Man, this music really sucks." You're terrible, Gavone.
Yes. Mr.Devo. It worked for me.
It's becoming very apparent that you're an expert on drugs, Hartal.
Now go crawl back into your hovel, grunt at your 'wife', pet your half-child and scratch your flea bites.
bernardi, that was a pretty funny joke, but I am not on drugs.
bernardi, regardless of whether this is a short-lived kick or not, I do regret the ugly things I've said to you in our discussions; just because I didn't agree with you doesn't mean I should say such things, and I'm sorry I said them.
Ted, I always liked that face, it was clear to me that it was the one the band was referring to in "Mongoloid": "And he wore a hat/And he had a job/And he brought home the bacon/So that no one knew."
wv: prewskis
DEVO was calling Chi Chi Rodriguez a mongoloid?!?
Alright, dsg. What's with all this remorse? This is completely out character for a butthead.
Are you sick with something serious?
Mongoloid, huh? Interesting lyrics. Eunice Shriver would approve. Of course the yellow hat could be considered offensive.
I repeat, you're not sick are you, dsg?
I can't remember any spat we had. It must have happened before you began skewering all the nativists and scapegoaters at SF Gate.
Great post on the Sex Pistols, though I don't know their music. The Clash I have listened to. The Mekons too. But I never bought a Sex Pistols cd. But you make a compelling case to listen to them. think about what it was they were expressing. Alienation from niceties and pretenses. From your description it seems that they wanted to raze the Imaginary and Conventional Apects of Life. perhaps the Symbolic aspects too as if only untruth could be expressed in language. So perhaps that's why the lyrics had to be heard with the music because the music got you to the Real behind the fake politenesss, the pretenses, the conventional means of expression. But what is the nature of this Real? or can't it be represented? And what made the Real return or emerge when it did and make manifest the pretences that had been hitherto unquestioned?
there seems to be a lot sociologically interesting about the Sex Pistols.
ps I know you are not on drugs; you're one of the last internet personalities that I could imagine having a problem.
Gina, I'm not sick, it's just that I see my buttheadedness clearly from time to time and so I want to acknowledge it and express my regret when that happens. I can't say that I won't do it again, but I will try my best not to.
bernardi, thanks, before you go out and get some Sex Pistols, be forewarned that nihilism is the underpinning of their attitude (when they sing "No future for you/No future for me", it's very sincere). The Sex Pistols' world is a screwed-up place, and their music reflects that condition. Their output was limited because it's not possible to sustain such an attitude over a long period of time.
I'm glad to hear that your not sick.
Maybe the Catholics wore off on you after all. Self-examination is definitely a worthy discipline.Thank you for the effort.
Regarding nihilism. I have a tendency, or did to be that way. I think some artistic types suffer from that. It does get to be a drag and really not 100% the truth.It's far more effective to try to see things in a positive light and reflect life that way.
Just found this link over on Bronstein's blog. This why I would have voted for Hillary:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/woah-no-f-bombs-but-hillary-slams.html
She woulda been good.
Well, it looks like the Chron is finally gettin' with the program and functioning as a newspaper should. Now if only they'll include the coverage to botched abortions, they'll not only be 100% relevant but accurate investigavtive journalists. We'll see.
http://www.chron.com/deadbymistake/
wv:mones.
Convenient that in the Central Africa Hillary Clinton says that she speaks for herself, not her husband, Truth of the matter, though, is that during the Rwandan genocide she was a major behind-the-scenes actor in making sure that the slaughter would not be accurately described as genocide for that would have obligated the US to act in some way. And the ClintonS did not want to put any American lives at risk, even if one lost American military life could have saved 70,000 African lives. This was literally the calculation made in the White House. President Clinton has already apologized for his inaction. So should the Secretary of State.
The difficulty with trying to blame Hillary Clinton for the inaction of the U.S. to the Rwandan genocide is that she has the perfect cover--she was only the First Lady, and Bill was the one running the show. Whether or not that reflects the reality, it's virtually impossible to pin the blame on her.
Ted, now I am curious why Devo would put Chi Chi Rodriguez on the cover. I'd never heard that it was he until now, but when you said it, I immediately recognized him, though I never had made the connection before even after looking at that cover so many times over the years. What's the connection? I had always figured that the cover was a reference to the subject of "Mongoloid" because of the mention of the hat in the lyrics, and I had figured the golf ball was emblematic of the typical whitebread suburbanite that Devo was mocking. But Chi Chi Rodriguez? Wow.
I'd like to know why we're obligated to always use American lives to enforce peace. Isn't that what the UN is for?
I mean, most Americans resent the attitude that the rest of the world has about us, yet when expects muscle, we're the first people they ask.
Maybe they thought he was a sell-out to his race competing in a white man's sport. I guess Tiger's ok.
I hate sports, by the way.
dsg, I've never known the reason they used Chi Chi Rodriguez. I always just assumed because he's wearing yellow and it's sort of kitschy. I've also read that it's not really Chi Chi but that it was Devo's original intent to use his image.
But in truth, I really don't know.
Where's winkingtiger when you need him?
The U.S. could have brought the Rwandan situation to the U.N., the same way it did with the Bosnian situation.
Ted, Wikipedia says it's Chi Chi, but I haven't been able to confirm independently.
Or, the UN could have seen the situation for themselves and taken action.
Oh, I forgot, they take their orders from the US.
Gina, since the U.S. is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power (terms that the U.S. required when the U.N. was founded), no commitment of U.N. forces is going to happen unless the U.S. wants it to happen.
There is no mention in any memoir of anything Hillary Clinton did to challenge her husband's policy towards Rwanda. She now claims that she challenged his policy perhaps just as she faced gunfire with Sinbad in Bosnia. The First Lady was with the President in Rwanda at a crucial time. Still no smoking gun, so dsgonzale6 is correct.
Samantha Power (and this is surely one of the reasons that Obama sought her out as an advisor):
'In March of 1998, on a visit to Rwanda, President Clinton issued what would later be known as the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgment. He spoke to the crowd assembled on the tarmac at Kigali Airport: "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.
This implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective."
"
"From April 8 onward media coverage featured eyewitness accounts describing the widespread targeting of Tutsi and the corpses piling up on Kigali's streets. American reporters relayed stories of missionaries and embassy officials who had been unable to save their Rwandan friends and neighbors from death. On April 9 a front-page Washington Post story quoted reports that the Rwandan employees of the major international relief agencies had been executed "in front of horrified expatriate staffers." On April 10 a New York Times front-page article quoted the Red Cross claim that "tens of thousands" were dead, 8,000 in Kigali alone, and that corpses were "in the houses, in the streets, everywhere." The Post the same day led its front-page story with a description of "a pile of corpses six feet high" outside the main hospital."
During this time we focussed entirely on evacuating our own people.
"In the three days during which some 4,000 foreigners were evacuated, about 20,000 Rwandans were killed. After the American evacuees were safely out and the U.S. embassy had been closed, Bill and Hillary Clinton visited the people who had manned the emergency-operations room at the State Department and offered congratulations on a "job well done.""
oops did not visit Rwanda, visited the Americans who returned from the State Department. So was involved with what was transpiring, and there is no record of her ever challenging the President's blocking actions.
I am just guessing why the Secty of State was so touchy about being identified with her husband, the former President. Did Bronstein cover this angle? I would imagine that the disappointment with the President is high in the Congo too given the effects that genocide has had on border security.
Not really, other than to suggest that she's her own person--a feminist...and he seemed to be mocking her for it.
What I found was so interesting was the following commentary. There seem to be a lot of men out there who don't agree the MLS's of the world that women should be militant feminists...or at least they don't find that behavior too appealing. Which leads me to think men only support feminism to get sex...which sorta proves YC theory that men sleep with anything female.
Journal News to lay off 50 of 192 newsroom staffers.
They're dropping like flies.
Famous last words: Poor things. I hope some people never have to know what it's like to be in this position.
I shall Watch and wait. Then I'll be all done.It'll happen--mark my words. LOL!
That was a pretty dumb cryptic comment, anon.
Heh.I guess you're pre-code. That's why you don't get it.
It's called just desserts. And I'm salivating over the thought.
Some people deserve what they get. At least that's what they tell me.
I suppose it works both ways. We'll see. Snicker.
Heh.I guess you're pre-code. That's why you don't get it.
It's called just desserts. And I'm salivating over the thought.
Some people deserve what they get. At least that's what they tell me.
I suppose it works both ways. We'll see. Snicker.
Sometimes life teaches us the things we need to learn the most.
wv:merci. How French!
That was a pretty dumb cryptic comment, anon.
**
It pertains to Mick laSalle losing his job
Now why would you say that?
Maybe he's already lost it. He seems to be gone.
And I have just cause to be so joyous.
Maybe he'll be reduced to begging. Although I don't recommend it. It doesn't work.
He's Mickey the Rat. Does all sorts of dishonest things.
See what I mean?
Posted By: Mick LaSalle (Email) | Aug 12 at 09:05 AM
Funny how things take all day to show up.
I would not wish anyone lose his or her job in this economy. I dream of a world in which no one would ever have to beg. No SF Gate reporter has cost anyone a job; so it would not be just desserts for any reporter to lose his or her job. In fact I wish SF Gate would bring Edward Gomez and Ruth Rosen back.
I used to feel that way, too.
But I no longer feel that way. Some people are ruthless bastards. Why should we care about what happens to them if they don't care about what happens to others? Especially if their actions effect negatively. And they can fool themselves into thinking all sorts of things. Actions speak louder than words.
And those job cuts weren't the peons. They were the top dogs.
Apparently, I'm not the only one that knows this:
http://www.soundtrackfactory.com/wp-content/uploads/mickyratposterlg.jpg
That last link didn't work, did it?
Speaking of movies that I wished I'd never seen, here's my pick: (now don't take this the wrong way, kiddies)
http://www.soundtrackfactory.com/?page_id=3
To dang funny.
May I ask what the hell is going on here?
I dunno, bernardi.
You're a genius, can't you figure it out?
Here's a hint: what goes around comes around.
Did you 'watch' that MickeyRat movie? I'm not the only one that sees through MLS and his B.S.
Poetic Justice. I think.
Just in case you don't know what poetic justice is here's a passage from Wiki:
History of the notion
Notably, poetic justice does not merely require that vice be punished and virtue rewarded, but also that logic triumph. If, for example, a character is dominated by greed for most of a Romance or drama, he cannot become generous. The action of a play, poem, or fiction must obey the rules of logic as well as morality, and when the humour theory was dominant poetic justice was part of the justification for humor plays. During the late 17th century, critics pursuing a neo-classical standard would criticize William Shakespeare in favor of Ben Jonson precisely on the grounds that Shakespeare's characters change during the course of the play. (See Shakespeare's reputation for more on the Shakespeare/Jonson dichotomy.) When Restoration comedy, in particular, flouted poetic justice by rewarding libertines and punishing dull-witted moralists, there was a backlash in favour of drama, in particular, of more strict moral correspondence.
I noticed that before Edward Gomez lost his blog, a commentator appeared to trash his writing as one-sided and unprofessional and derivative. I gave a few reasoned responses. His comments read to me as the Hearst justification for canning him. Recently I had noticed that commentators had said any common user of SF Gate could write up as interesting movie reviews as LaSalle offers (I actually wrote a comment in defense of the quality of some of LaSalle's reviews, but it was expunged) and that his interests in classic Hollywood are better suited for a small liberal arts' school rather than a newspaper. If LaSalle has in fact been let go, perhaps comments such as those were in fact justifications for the action taken. It seems to me that Hearst management works in pretty devious ways.
It's quiet here. What happened to gavone, the quas, dsgonzale6, Ted Spe, etc.?
bernardi said...
It's quiet here. What happened to gavone, the quas, dsgonzale6, Ted Spe, etc.?
.
What happened to Jean? Are you OK FH?
bernardi, I'm just reading today, though I am mourning the passing of Les Paul, whose importance to musical performance and recording cannot be overstated.
I think Jean may have her hands full. My own experience with househunting is that it takes a ton of time.
Yes, I just read about Les Paul as well. I'm sure there's going to be one hell of a tribute concert.
I had 2 Les Pauls (well, technically one was called The Paul) in my past. Both were stolen.
That guy did more for the popularity and necessity of the electric guitar than anyone, ever.
Ted Spe,
Is what anon was talking about true?
Ted, I've never owned a Les Paul, and I probably never will. But my friend Ron has two, a flame top and a white one; back when he led his own band, he played guitar, and he has a thing about having two of everything in case one of them fails.
bernardi, I have no idea. It seems more like wishful thinking, based on the state of the industry, than anything else. But I don't know and don't even know how one would find out.
dsg, I had both my Pauls at the same time for the same reason (broken string or whatever). But sadly one was taken out the back of an El Camino on the way home after a gig and one was taken by a roadie who disappeared with all sorts of stuff. I ended up getting an Ibanez.
Why do you say you'll never get a Les Paul?
Ted, while I like the way they play, I really don't like how heavy they are, and good ones are pricey.
good ones are pricey.
**
When I was 18 or so, I was playing a Japanese Les Paul copy. I think it was a Hondo. So my band and me were sitting around having a few beers and talking about how we were going to be the next Van Halen or whatever and in a somewhat inebriated state, we all went to Guitar Center and I put a down payment on a Les Paul Black Beauty, the type Frampton plays and I was strutting around all the rest of the day.
The following morning I sheepishly went back, head lowered, and explained I really couldn't afford it. They wouldn't give me my money back. So that's how I ended up with The Paul. It was around $500 cheaper.
So yeah, they are costly.
But I really love how they play. When I play someone's guitar I'm not used to, it usually takes about half hour to start to get comfortable. But with Les Pauls (and in truth SG's as well) I can pick up a stranger's guitar and it immediately feels like I've owned that guitar for years.
Maybe it's all in my mind but that's certainly how it feels.
Post a Comment