Hey, they're all shake-down artists. Where are the real, respectable black leaders?
If I'm posting that "someone
is wrong has somewhat overstated his case on the internet," I've probably passed into the realm of full crankhood, but I was annoyed by the sure tone of this tweet. It's also kind of an interesting look at how people interpret evidence. At issue is whether Keynes is responsible for some quote, and the linked piece says we don't have any direct evidence that he is, which is true, but in the piece itself we learn that 1) the quote doesn't seem to predate Keynes 2) his close associate used it in a book with "it has been said," and 3) a guy in the same dining club as Keynes (60 seconds of googling didn't tell me if they knew each other personally) attributes it to Keynes about a decade later. To me, that's all pretty suggestive that Keynes did say it, although obviously I wouldn't bet on it. But to Teachout--whose name I've heard but can't place, and who I now think of as a doofus--it's enough to say that Keynes "didn't say that."
This post-op path report is hilarious:
The endocervical canal is tan glistening and 1.8 cm in length.
You noticed! *blush*
My endometrium is also tan and glistening. Lots of things are gross and unremarkable, some are purple smooth or yellow-tan convoluted, but let's stay focused on my tan, glistening lady parts. No malignancy is identified.
(Also they removed the cervix, which I'd explicitly thought was not going to happen - ie in the pre-op when the nurse asked me what operation I was having done, I answered "Full hysterectomy but not the cervix." I mean, fine, but it's a weird way to find out.)
Last night's UnfoggedCon in an undisclosed location was rather sparsely attended, with a roster consisting entirely of me and Witt. I am disappoint. Okay, that's not true, because Witt is awesome, but that is no excuse for the rest of you.
"But Meekins," I hear you saying. (I actually hear you. I am not being figurative.) "You are not much of a draw. It is only with generosity that you can be said to rise to the level of a running joke around here. Plus, you guys didn't even 'talk presidential', as we say in our Unfogged 'Lingo'. Which you probably never bothered to learn. Worst of all, you didn't even invite us."
I am sorry, Unfoggedtariat, but this is no excuse at all. Because Witt and I weren't invited either. We literally discovered the Unfogged connection during an unrelated get-together. Yes, that means blogs came up in conversation between real people. YOU SHUT UP WE ARE SO FUN! And yes, Witt has now been read into the Meekins file, bringing the total number, by my count, to 7 people if you count me. As the saying goes, "Six can keep a secret if none of them are Meekins."
I haven't checked Twitter yet, but if there's one reaction I'd like to see, it's a push to charge the shooter with terrorism.
How do you guys handle panhandlers? Do you give money? Do you make any sort of effort to distinguish panhandlers? For me, it comes down to how socially trapped I feel. If I have made eye contact, or worse yet, spoken to the person, and am clearly not in a hurry, then I probably give money. Usually around here, panhandlers are on the side of the access road along the freeway, and so it is pretty easy for me to be an ostrich.
As far as kids are concerned, I'm generally brutally honest - "That man is homeless. He is too sick and poor to have a home. It's a really awful life for him." And if the questions go there, "I'm inconsistent about giving money. Today I decided that we should keep going" and sometimes, "Our elected officials make very bad choices, and they won't give enough homes to house all the people who are too sick and poor to have homes." That kind of thing.
(The other day, they heard a line on the radio about Morsi being sentenced to death, and it turns out the little darlings are fascinated by different execution styles and the crime, trial, sentencing to death procedure. I did tell them it was a private conversation, so as not to put their teacher in a hard spot.)
Nick S writes: I liked Rebecca Traister*'s article in the New Republic reminding people that, when Hillary first appeared on the political scene she was perceived as being leftish (in certain ways), and that as Hillary adopts more progressive rhetoric, that can be seen as her returning to an older persona.
Most striking is Clinton's willingness to showcase an older iteration of her professional persona: the one that was so unpalatable when she debuted it nationally, 25 years ago.
But that's in large part because the young, driven, civil-liberties obsessed, coke-bottle-bespectacled Hillary Rodham Clinton was not welcomed with open arms. America did not much like this woman when she first came to us: ambitious and tough and liberal and feminist and interested in social progress and civil rights and reforming the world for women and children across classes.
She was called Billary, Hellary Rotten Clinton and a Feminazi; she was derided for being ugly, for being mannish, for being frigid, and for consulting with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt. Her hair was a problem, as was her desire to keep her maiden name. The Hillary happy meal was two fat thighs, two small breasts, and two left wings. There were voodoo dolls, nutcrackers. She was told to run like a man, to run like a woman, to cut her hair, chuck her glasses, be less divisive, be less conciliatory.
And so, in her quest to become a mainstream, powerful politician, she contorted; she bent and stretched to be more like what the people could stomach. These shifts were often contradictory, making them self-evidently inauthentic. She mostly stopped wearing glasses in public, she cut her hair, turned center, then right. She partnered with conservative coots on flag-burning bills and violent video games; she retreated from reproductive rights, calling abortion a "sad, even tragic choice"; she described herself as "adamantly against illegal immigrants" and voted for a terrible war.
Her willingness to shape-shift will always haunt her; she'll pay for it in low estimations of her trustworthiness and moral timbre. Those costs are on her, and they are ones she may have calculated from the beginning. This is, after all, a woman who wrote her college thesis on the radical antipoverty organizer Saul Alinsky and who shared his belief that the key to change is the accrual of power. America didn't like the woman who admired Saul Alinsky very much. So in an attempt to gain power, she changed.
* Author of "Big Girls Don't Cry" an interesting, feminist, book about the 2008 election.
Heebie's take: I don't think Bernie Sanders has a shot at the nomination, but I bet Obama looked like an even longer shot at this point in 2007. (I'm not saying that to undercut the first half of the sentence. I genuinely don't think he has a path to the nomination.) But I'm pleased with the turnout Sanders is getting.
I don't remember if I was blogging at the time, or if we discussed it if I was, but I was against the Cavs trade of Wiggins for Love*, and don't you think that if the Cavs had kept Wiggins, they'd be winning a championship this week?
As for REALITY, the Cavs have a shot tonight, but the main problem--all those very many details aside--is that the Cavs are playing seven or eight guys, and they have to play at 100% the entire game to stay competitive, and they're just too tired by the end of the game.
Of course, I've been rooting against Cleveland--because Chicago--but I can't work up any real hate for LeBron, who is certainly up for consideration as the best player ever, and seems like a decent guy who happens to be the opposite of savvy about his public image.
* If LeBron was behind the trade, well, he deserves what he gets.
If Rachel Dolezal isn't Trump's running mate, I just don't know how I can vote for him. And here's your daily dose of contemptible.
Please let this be real.
*mic drop* pic.twitter.com/q9G1slHeXP— Alex Fitzpatrick (@AlexJamesFitz) June 16, 2015
1. Too long. You could easily cut out 45 minutes.
2. Songs are crappy.
3. Characters are charming. (Angela Lansbury!)
4. Storyline is enjoyable.
5. The eldest boy, maybe once or twice, says something like, "I just had a think" or "I feel a think coming on" to mean an idea. (He's something of a schemer.) I have always been on Team Think, but this illustrates the outdated slang that lies behind the (correct) ending of "If you think that's [bad], you've got another think coming."
Should couples be sleeping apart? (a video.) Does the joy of cuddling outweigh the sins of the open mouth breathing? Does one in four couples already sleep apart?
I personally am happy to sleep next to Jammies, because he knows my laundry list of finicky demands that make me terrible, and he accommodates me. (Do not touch me, I'm simultaneously too hot and too cold and a very light sleeper who is susceptible to insomnia.)(I love Jammies very much and I am a lucky woman.)
(The link came from inside the community)
John Oliver talked about US torture of detainees in this piece from his show. At 11:50, he shows a clip of a former FBI agent talking about actually effective ways to get information out of prisoners. I found it fascinating. (Link starts at 11:50)
I'm sure that this snapshot of mothering probably excludes 80% of the author's full perspective on being a new mom. Nevertheless, as I read it, I could only think, "She sounds like she'd be a lot happier if she went back to work."
Afterthought: I suppose writing this article is probably the result of her coming to the same conclusion.
Ydnew says: Bostonians, anyone want to meet up on Sunday, June 14? Painted Burro, 4ish, would love to meet you.
Jason Derulo justifies my opinion of him with the song of the summer! (I can't say "jam".)
It's just so much fun. The video should have been filmed at the roller skating rink, though - bubble gum pop this good doesn't come around every day. Also I mentally think "Jason Derulo" whenever I read "Pablo Neruda".
Thorn writes: The girls and I will be in Pittsburgh Friday June 26 through that Sunday. Cosma has offered to host a gathering Saturday night, if any locals are up for that. I'm also interested in suggestions for family-friendly activities while we're there, I suppose.
K-sky writes: When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men. One thing this doesn't get into explicitly is the difference between "wanting sex more", "enjoying sex more", and "wanting sex with more partners," which is a big part of today's fuck-jumpy on-the-veldt ideology.
Heebie's take: super fascinating. I'd never thought directly about how women's sex drives are portrayed in ancient lit, (I'm sure I'm a minority here for saying that), but it seems so obvious once the author explicitly points it out.
Also, I'm sort of curious: how different might my sex drive have been if I'd been raised back when?