The Golden Lion Tamarin Monkey lives in monogamous pairs in lifelong heterosexual bonds along a very tiny strip of the Brazilian coast. About 1000 copies of the animal remain in the wild. Another 500 copies exist in zoos.
The pressure of capital continues to destroy what remains of their habitat. People scream that they must therefore stop capital and so they start screaming let's go socialist, or let's go communist. Both systems are capitalist, but communism is one in which the government controls all the capital (in its most extreme forms -- it is forbidden to trade anything on a private basis, as only the government has the right to economic activity). Socialism redistributes the money of the harder-working population to the lazybones who'd prefer to watch Reality TV.
But they are both still capitalism. Just capitalism that doesn't work very well.
Which is better for the environment? China dumps tons and tons of mercury into the oceans, and has no regulatory aspect. The Soviet Union under the Stalinists gave us nightmares such as the drying up of the Aral Sea (once the fourth largest sea in the world).
The Golden Lion Tamarin monkey has a mane like a lion, but is rather gentle. They never fight one another, and spend their time in trees, eating, dreaming, and completely clueless as to their nearly extinct status, and unable to tell us whether they prefer communism or laissez-faire capitalism, or some kind of socialist blend of the two.
One of the things I like about these monkeys is their monogamy. In the Philadelphia Zoo, they don't even cage them. They have a jumble of trees as their habitat, and they know to stay inside that jumble (about the size of a traffic circle). They have some kind of inner sense to stay put, and they do. Their boundaries are interior ones.
83 comments:
Do they taste good?
That's a strategy that has worked for chickens, cows, and pigs. Indeed it even brought bison back and is working for salmon and swordfish (as efforts to stop overfishing are beginning to take hold).
They're pretty skinny, and I think it would be a bad idea to eat one. They are so much like us, it would be almost cannibalism.
I don't think Americans would enjoy eating monkeys.
I don't know if the Brazilians eat them. They only occur naturally in Brazil.
Maybe there are some Brazil nuts who eat them. I hope not, but I can see what you mean.
Many copies are made if something is edible, as they can then be mass-produced, and sold as protein.
These things are so cool, that perhaps ethics might have some slight dent in the consciousness, but I doubt it.
Do they make good pets? How are they at reproducing?
Do they eat anything bad? Can they be trained to eat, say, Kudzu or carp?
Socialism redistributes the money of the harder-working population to the lazybones who'd prefer to watch Reality TV.
Actually, under real socialism--assuming you survived--you'd probably be forced to give up your quill and work in a bicycle shop, tractor repair, or help with the harvest, etc. TS Eliot with a wrench in his grubbies--Ghastly.
Marx had no love for belle-lettrists--and we might do well to consider his thoughts on the division of labor. (and even your old protestant leaders detested clerics and scribes).
Luther believed in colleges and in teaching, although he recognized that the pay was often quite low.
Lutheranism helped enormously in terms of the German college system.
Marxism has been far less willing to allow for freedom of thought.
Dammit this post is about monkeys!
Keep your Marxism off my monkeys!
Luther had a bit of engineering training (and influenced by Ockhamists, actually), and favored technical training--not the Klassix. Luther wanted belle-lettres tossed out along with those "rascals" Aquinas and Aristotle & Co. One might argue that Marx was, indirectly at least, following Lutheran-yeoman tradition to some extent, modified--greatly--by Hegelian historicism. The bolsheviks tossed a few poets and thespians in mineshafts
An off-topic link about one of Kirbster's main themes:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091027/lf_nm_life/us_prosperity_index
all this talk about monkeys is
driving me up a tree
i don'tt suppose young male golden lion tamarin monkeys spend much time writing verses of love poetry to the girls they woo
eee eeee
kirby are you implying that civility between the natural gender divide is actually possible amongst all primates...if it works for one type it must work for another
the final say on things like life long commitments is it is boring otios un vivre ennui not good material for stories if you want to sell stories no we need terrible breakups and human discord for stories
but finally kirby lands on a phenomenon of genetically culturally determined monogamy
tres etrange
perhaps as a species they only have sex once at the very moment when conception is possible and they all only have one offspring and everything is defined by sanquine oneness
i like the idea of hanging out in a tree all the time just watching life go by with a girl i love by my side but as for now i'll just sit down on this bank a sand and watch the river flow
why is it that monkeys were never introduced to the forests of south united states it seems that would be perfect for them and they would fit into what has developed in terms of southern culture
ya can't teach a monkey to write a novel
or a pome
eeee eeee
i'd give anything to walk out on a long branch and have my feet to depend upon to work with
says one monkey to another up the tree in the zoo
"how's your aim today"
the lonliest monkey
the the the the the melody of night
kirby whn r u going t stp mnkEing arnd and tk LIFE sriUs
fnky mnky
jh
i'm sort of a jealous monkey i used to have some say and some swagger on this blog i used to be somebody but now this J bozo has stollen the show
awe well
maybe i'll start posting controversial stories on my blog
it will take awhile for me to get out of the rut of deliberate programmatic boredom as the ideal to which i aspire
not painters not art
but paint drying
paint drying
drying paint paint drying paint
paint drying drying drying paint drying paint paint drying paint drying paint
p d
d
p
JH, you still have sway. Most primates are not like the Golden Lion Tamarin Monkey (in terms of monogamy). They are, and I love them for it.
Most monkeys monkey around a lot more.
Spider monkeys!
Orangutangs are apparently quite solitary most of the year, but get gregarious only during mating season once a year when they share lugubrious glances, and a martini.
The lips of monkeys are not very flexible.
But JH is right. I'm trying to get at what is "natural."
By bringing in the Golden Lion Tamarins...
I'm trying to posit a norm.
However, there are probably all kinds of monkeying around amongst the primates.
Any primates that have lifelong gay couples? Does that exist?
Or is it unique to our species?
Ah it's Kirby's update of the fallacy of naturalism. Some new world monkeys appear to be hetero, and wedded for life; ergo, humans should be too! GE Moore tossed that out decades ago (though was hetero). Wolves eat a few pups once in a while--so, humans should too (and thereby advance the genetic interests of the remaining few)
The g-word chat is boring, trite, and futile. Barney Frank may be scum, but he doesn't even compete with a Dick Cheney or BushCo or JP Morgan on the scum-o-meter.
(yo JLH, vers libre master--yr great at badminton--at least with the net down)
As we saw during his last transit through these heavens, comet-flash J. will turn out to be a low-rent positivist.
Oy vey.
My favourite high-profile public politician, Dick Cheney--and especially for his gangsterish sneer. Glad he's speaking out on the issues. . . . Go Cheney!
J - Kirby likes to have fun. We all do, to an extent. You oft seem not to get the joke (or pretend not to in an unfunny way).
In any case, Bonnobos are highly sexual - they're just all sex all the time!
Nature has no norms. Nature is a bad place to look to for norms.
I think inherently, though, Kirby is playing off of the 'it's natural' arguments Others make about human behavior.
Lefty douchebags all the time say stupid things like 'Marriage/monogamy isn't natural.' It's a social construct, you see.
And here's Kirby saying, well, it Is natural, for these monkeys.
Why not for us?
A behavior being 'natural' should have no bearing on whether or not we decide it's moral.
By bringing this up to argue For marriage, Kirby is killing off that line of argument.
So it's done now. Forever.
Thanks Kirby!
High rent, actually, Kirby-chimp-stein. More Frege than Russell. I do find your generalizations about positivism interesting however--are they part of the Enemy as well, notwithstanding both Frege and Russell's opposition to the marxists? Probably.
Either way, you suggest that because monkeys do it, humans should as well. Kirby-logic. So baboons cannibalize a few baboon-infants once in a while--ergo, humans should! You and yr fellow chimps may think that's preposterous--but that's essentially your point.
According to Kirbyland's xtian postmodernism--truth, facts, evidence don't really matter. Just make it sound like some WC Williams-ish ode in the New Yawker... or McJacques' ebonics Nabakov.
Brett is the only person who seems to always get what I'm doing. It's very odd. It feels nice though to be understood.
Here is a vid with the golden lion tamarins. They are very cute.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=golden+lion+tamarin+monkey&www_google_domain=www.google.com&hl=en&emb=0&aq=0&oq=%22golden+lion+tamarin%22#
When we're coding bonobos, can we in any sense claim that what we're doing is parallel to what they're doing?
Since there are so many other primate species and each one has its own distinctive behavior, making claims back and forth across the species line seems to be more political than biologically sound.
But it is amazing to me how the gay left is hitting from every side: going through the bible and finding phrases, looking to nature, wiping out all argument and saying don't judge lest ye be changed.
It's an amazing assortment of arguments, and each one seems to be a full-time endeavor toward legitimation. I love going through it, and I know you're not supposed to challenge it, but I have to admit that everything the left does I find now to be wrong.
I've gotten quite bad. Last night I watched a documentary on PBS of all places about Herbert Hoover and about how he's being rehabilitated politically. His rehabilitation is based on his having been very generous with foreign groups (the Belgians having been smashed during WWI, and later after WWII, he went around trying to help odd populations of the world to get food).
But because this appeared on PBS, I had massive doubts about it, and kept thinking, what are they trying to convince me of now?
I hope you're not addressing me, Herr Kirbster, or I might have to like jack ya. For one, neither left, or queer. But don't attend sunday school, or support GOP. Your cheesy ID politics, moralism, and generalizations are even beneath the usual Foxnews rhetoric.
Capichay?
I'm never addressing you. I consider you beneath address.
uh wah wah wah what
i mean hey
i come over here i make
i admit idiotic interpretations of your innanities kirby olson and you just dismiss me and why i stay here or come back i don't know i mean it's been this way ever since you gave france to brett
and relegated me to lichtenstein
hell i would have taken macao over lichtenstein but nOOOOOOOOOOOOO
and now brett is the only one who seems to understand
i think i understand
i'm just not sayin
seeno
hearno
speakno
i have come to realize that the real radicals in the world are republicans they get into heavy weight skirmishes with the renegades and zealous warriors of the world they rape the hell out of landscapes they set up schemes for high profit they trust the force of money they think business is the highest value known to mankind and they talk like phuqqin idots on tv like knowitall friggin idiots who won't shut up and they get paid millions for talking like phuqqin idiots and that is pretty radical i mean who wouldn't debase themselves in public for millions and even win some credibility even if it isn't intellectual credibility
i guess monkeys are sort of shameless even in public they jerkoff and defecate and make ridiculous faces while people watch them and laugh
are we monkeys watching political news entertainment
or are the pundits the monkeys and we watch them and laugh like we would if they were in cages in the zoo or up in trees
sKREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH EEEEEE EEEEE AARAAARAAA SkREEEEEEEEEECH
jh
Logos--assuming it exists for a few nano-seconds--considers you beneath address, neo-con Nabakov-supporter.
With most of us here there is some kind of Venn diagram overlap allowing for an appeal to a common value. I can't find that with J.
No face is part of it!
I've "faced" this problem before.
Most of us here yack at each other but we still have a common source of appeal in either christianity or an interest in poetry or at least in the avant-garde. With J. I see nothing at all in common.
I don't think he has any values at all.
So how do you appeal to such a blockhead?
You could replace the phrase "Golden Lion Tamarin Monkey" with "right wing Americans with Christian values." That would make a hilarious post.
WW
"right wing Americans with Christian values."
You'd be insultin' the bloody f-ing chimps, dearie.
Yes, J Is like a pair of panties.
(He's beneath a dress).
ZING!
And I do wonder about the choice of pic...
It says Something about his persona and the way he wants to be viewed. I just can't decide what...
GM's saying "I'm a dad!" I'm saying "Cheers, let's have some spirited, genial, tipsy debates!" JADL's saying "I'm kinda old, but I have an awesome hat and could probably kick your ass."
Wendy says "I may be a cat-lover, but I'm a well-dressed badass chick with a bit o' sass, respect this shit aight?"
And J says "I'm a weird drawing of a glaring soulless lizard-eye." Strange...
Put your blog up, Brettski, texass basura. Or are you too scared.
You're nothing--just another WASP pedazo who confused lit. with his favorite sermons
WASPs no se puedan
Sounds like tweek-squeak as well, Texxas puta. (as does much of Kirby's hysteria)
Maybe some meth screening, pronto
Hey, I'm the one that's beneath a dress. And it pays well, won't be coming out anytime soon. I favor the fashions modeled by Jamie Farr on MASH.
I say we flip for JADL's hat.
I don't really have a blog, J - I have Had blogs, but lacked the focus/dedication to update them regularly, and if they are out there somewhere I'm probably embarrassed by 'em...
Blogs shmogs...
So sorry to disappoint.
Never done meth, though I worked with kids who did a ton o' that shit. Makes you look old and wrinkly. My youthful good-looks are all the evidence you need that I'm no methfreak.
Now I'm not sure what sorts of drug turns ones face into crazygreenreptilianaliencyclopse.
LSD maybe?
Now don't get all popcorn-style non-denominational-prayer on me with your limp and useless poopin' out of the word 'just.'
Does no one no good, loo-boy!
And if I'm nothing, then you're arguing with nothing, and are therefore insane. (And I'm from Austin, not Texas. Big difference).
I like that you still have your Catholicism-inspired disdain for WASPs.
(I don't think I've ever asked all you rando Christians here this - maybe this was just a symptom of youth, but in corporate prayer in highschool/college the word 'just' was used about every fourth word...'Dear lord, just give us the strength to just' yada yada yada....I dropped out of a few Christian organizations because I couldn't take it anymore...that happen to anyone else?).
And GM -
I call heads.
Hey Tejano-puto, as I said before,step in a ring, and talk some sh**t, legal n proper. Not my fault your mama-puta never taught you the meaning of Honor,or manhood for that matter. Capichay, lil light of mine?
Maybe you can like set up your fave Ted Haggard sermons site.
You're n a d a, Texski. Not even capable of following the conversation on Kirbys' ESL xtian-beat site
i have detected a real lack of class in ole J i mean he was welcomed and then he spits and shits and slaps to no end
maybe he needs the attention i don't know
i've been amazed at how some people fight and hassle on these blogs i guess it goes with the territory you can exercise the right of free speech and vent your personal agendas at strangers all at the same time...i suppose it's more entertaining than the innocuous blather on most blogs or perhaps the rhetorical sparring is enjoyable and without the fight there's no getting at the truth in the middle ages it was common at the beginning of the school term for professors to stand in the public square and duke it out with words as it were
for me it has always been a matter of perceiving something rather amusing and responding to it in a equally amusing way or perhaps push it over the edge of ludicrousity mountain which is often the case
does cyberdialect require rules
i should think that basic decency is one thing to expect
but vituperation or obscenity or incendiary remarks all seem to be part of the scene no matter what
somedays it sounds like the chatter monkeys having a big ole bad day screechin and throwin thangs and chasin each other around the zoo
i like those pictures in national geographic where the monkeys are sweetly picking lice off one another...rather than sling verbiage across the abyss of cyberspace why not just pick a little lice off your nemisis
i'm gettin to the point were i don't like this J guy at all
but then it is important to recognize he may just need some friends
my best friend in grade school was a guy whom i fought on the play ground he gave me a bloody lip that bastard but we became real good friends after that we were young terrorists in a boring town and we made the best of it
so maybe the fighting is necessary i don't know that's why i like the girls voices in here they tend to civilize things a bit
i'm most impressed with Js language distortions he takes words and torques them around and while his words cut and slash they also stand there in comic distortion missing the mark every time but not caring
my sense is that most everyone who comments on this blog is a mensch even the girls are mensches or the yiddish equivalent for females
ed gets a bit twisted and says so quite honestly but then pieces together in phoneme wit a statement hard to ignore
JDL gets his enormous encyclopedic brain goin in high gear and is almost too much
kirbyz like a kid who tried his dads liqour and liked it and is walkin around the house a little drunk no worry after awhile he'll lie down and take a nap
gm explores the boundaries of absurdity and then comes back and makes searing insights
stu clarifies with patience kindness and brilliant displays of broad and deep thinking
curtis rails and then swims along with everything and then reacts with disgust but is ever amusing to match kirby being amusing
brett seems to me the only one here who has grown he's become more honest and patient with the craziness here and makes his case with humility and jest and zingers when appropriate i think
i think i am therefore i must be
what do i do
i just respond with a sober mind to what i read
there's too much to read
if i read half the stuff on these blogs i'd never read novels
and i prefer the novels and the pages of poetry and the philosophy i read
but i suppose i start little rhetorical fires as well
reading a good novel by richard russo EMPIRE FALLS
wendy enters like turning on a light in a dark room
emmy steps into the public square hurls a few smiling zingers around
adn then retreats to medieval celttic poems or something
sally pops in once in awhile with questions
craig is like a sailboat sailin smooth on the high sea gettin high off sailn and he writes some great stuff and always with the cyberdemeanor of a gentleman and a scholar
what the hell
these things are toys
these machines i guess people just want to play
i suppose even the golden lion tamarind monkeys like to play once in a while
i like kirbyz streetcorner cybernetix
it's late
i pray lord that everyone who comments on this blog might have a good day of work and play tomorrow
amen
jh
Brett --
It was never "just" but the repetition of "Lord"
Lord, dear Lord give us Lord what we, Lord, have asked Lord in your name, Lord. Lord, we praise you Lord, and Lord we know that you, Lord, have a plan for us, as our Lord.
And on and on.
I wrote a college paper about Eliot aping these sorts of prayers in Ash Wednesday. My prof (an elder in the Whiskey-P church among other things) was not amused.
I was, though.
Haven't read Empire Falls yet, but I did read Straight Man ten or twelve years ago. It came highly recommended by my youngest brother, the golf pro. He had earned an associates degree at the commmunity college he attended on a golf scholarship, but his English professor wouldn't accept late work and told him he'd need to retake the course if he wanted his degree. He'd played in fourteen tournaments that term and was medalist in more than half of them. Never retook the course, but did turn pro and one of his first students was a writer with a National Book Award and several fairly successful screenplays to his credit. In fact, he wrote the screenplay for Michael, featuring John Travolta playing an angel.
I kant
think
of
a
single phunnie thing to say
about monkeys..
my frien, Bobbie McDonald had a spider monkey in
1953 this monkey ran wild in their house
tore-up everything
shit/peed everywhere
had fleas ate the gold phish
finally
they called on their Indian friend.. he came over
killed the monkey
and his mother cooked up the monkey brains in the skull and ate them.
we used to sell tons of pig-brains in the store..
the store-front church across the street every sunday would to raise money cook up a breakfast that included scrambled eggs and pig brains with home-fries, biscuits and thick gravy..
they were "holy rollers" and the music was terrific!
has anyone ever thought it strange that the answer pop culture in america gave to england in terms of viable rock and roll was a group called the monkees...what kind of cultural mind bending crap was that....was that just one big media brainwashing so american kids would'nt go crazy like the british over rock and roll or was it simply OK you british assholes have your Beatles but hey we can put together the Monkees and voila
and yet the beatles stand out as a band whose lyrics are still stuck in the heads of kids who grew up in the 60s...who remembers what the monkees sang....and then they came out with a cartoon...to match the beatles cartoons
man those were weird times
but times is just as weird or weirder now
we're livin in zoos tis just a matter of discerning the cage
who taught the parrot to say
spectacle
tv watching you
jh
speaking of tv..
do check out Hans Conried's 1953 movie THE TWONKY
pro:phetick! and his character is a college professor!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046475/plotsummary
Take the Last Train to Clarksville had a great tune to it, I can still sing it in my head. They were a studio band. Hollywood execs held tryouts. They apparently tried out Charlie Manson but the notes said, "Not crazy enough!"
I have no idea if Last Train to Clarksville had a philosophy of some kind in it.
Is Clarksville even a real place?
I guess it was whipped together the way that Betty Crocker was whipped together as a marketing tool. I love her cookbooks and used to use them a lot when I had to cook in a group house (Thursday nights was my night and I tried not to poison everybody -- brandishing that book was my way of calming everyone down).
Back in the sixties there were still trains to take to some place called Clarksville, where "Ill meet you at the station don't be slow, oh no no no!"
I Youtubed the Last Train to Clarkesville (in the original Monkeys' hit there is the silent e in one flashing town sign somewhere in a desert area), but in the hit as it was released on record the e disappears.
Here's someone named Kirby Swinemar (no relationship) telling you how to play the song chord by chord. Might be a number one hit again in your monastery, JH!
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=take+the+last+train+to+clarksville+the+monkees&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=take+the+last+t#
J-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1afXZslc9w8
GM -
Yeah, that was a problem too - "Lord" being used as a comma, or an 'ummm.' "Lord, just, just, Lord, Just just , Lord lord, Amen."
Lord,
Just Lord,
lord justly Lord.
Just lordly Lord.
Amen.
I believe Neil Diamond wrote the hits that became the Monkees.
yeah OK i hear that
yadada da da da da da da
yada da da da da da da da
yada da da da da da da da dahhhhhh
that was supposed to be a train????
god how crazy
it's too bad charlie didn't get a better shake
he somehow represented something more goulishly real
i can honestly say i never experienced the rocky horror picture show
but if charlie manson was in the the monkees (with two ees please)
maybe i would have thought them to be a real answer to the stones
the doors
that was a renegade american band
my favorite band of the 70s
crazy horse (by far)
toot toot
LTTC
it was catchy
that's what i'm afraid of
like a virus is to be feared these days
jh
so i guess we could call the monkees a jewish LA pop synthesized klezmer band
lounge act
jh
I googled it. Neil Diamond wrote I'm A Believer. Daydream Believer was written by John Stewart of the Kingston Trio. And Last Train To Clarkesville was written by some guy named Tommy Boyce.
Clarkesville is about 50 miles northwest of Nashville near the Kentucky stateline.
Humor--the divine butcher (Corso).
Monkees--come to think of it, some of Olsonator's greeting card material might work wit' a monkeees-medley
PMS Eliot? Def. one of the greatest cuckolded poetasters of the 20th century. Shan't we....
Johnny Cash sings one version of Last Train to Clarkesville -- he just does the opening line, and then the Monkees jump in, but they're just swell when he does them.
I can't believe how fun it is to listen to those tunes again.
Several things about the song come to mind:
1. The song is plaintive when a lot of their songs are simply up.
2. It's kind of nice that he's placed the reservation for her -- it shows thoughtfulness, doesn't it?
3. It's weird that the last train goes at 4:30. It doesn't say whether it's am or pm, but if it's pm that's kind of early, and if it's am, that's very late.
He says he doesn't know whether he's ever coming home. He's in the station. Where is his home? Is it in Clarkesville? Something strange is going on, but I can't figure out the scenario.
I used wikipedia and found this information on the song. Who knew the song had such content? Who then was the reservation made for? It says it's for family members getting together, but I doubt if family members are going to be exchanging "coffee flavored kisses" but you never know. It is Tennessee.
"According to the song's authors, Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, the song is their protest of the Vietnam War and tells the story of a young man who has been drafted. He is waiting for the train that will take him to an army base, and he knows he may die in Vietnam. At the end of the song he states, "I don't know if I'm ever coming home."[1] Like many hit Monkees songs of the era ("Cuddly Toy," "Pleasant Valley Sunday"), the song pairs a fast, chipper melody with darker lyrics. Micky Dolenz performs the lead vocals, with Boyce playing acoustic guitar.
The song has been compared to The Beatles' "Paperback Writer", both in the style of "jangly" guitar and the chord structure. It also resembles the guitar riff in "Blue's Theme", by Davie Allan and the Arrows, from the Peter Fonda biker movie The Wild Angels.
Though the Clarksville in the song's title appears to refer to the city of Clarksville, Tennessee—and by implication to nearby Fort Campbell, Kentucky, which is home to the 101st Airborne Division—Hart who did not create the theme for the song states that this is a coincidence and that the choice of the name "Clarksville" was settled on for the way it sounded, after similar names like Clarkdale had been rejected. There are a few other "Clarksvilles" in the U.S., near military training centers, where the song could be set, which helped to make the song a favorite for many people during the Vietnam War. Phillip E. Meyers who conceived the theme for the song said that the song is specifically intended to imply Fort Campbell and any military center near the other Clarksvilles. The song is not intended to be a protest, but a sensitive focus upon the sacrifices that our gallant men and their families were making to serve in Vietnam.The reason they were taking the last train was because they wanted to spend all of their last hours with their families before possibly dying in Vietnam. The song was used in an Army produced film shown to new inductees, as early as November, 1967, and at least in the big induction center at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina. It played as the film showed new recruits getting off the train at Ft. Jackson, and would get a big laugh from the men watching the film."
I don't know where the "Jewboy" comments appeared.
They may have been taken out by now.
I don't know.
Here's a bit that gives you an inkling -- he keeps calling me Stein, as if it's clever:
"We're going to chat with yr pastor, Kirbystein, lover of the Knesset.
Even have you banned from your own church. Temple time, and change your name, Olsenberg."
I suppose that Jacques does something like this when he's teasing those to the left, but suffice it to say, it doesn't ever seem to sink below a certain level.
And maybe there are people who prefer this kind of challenge -- I'm going to punch you, I'm going to jack you up. I find it appallingly puerile, along with the Jewish taunts.
I love the Jews, and always have. If I were not a Lutheran, I'd be deeply honored to be a Jew.
Best people in the whole world, if you ask me. Good, warm, funny, folks.
Generally erudite to boot.
It's just too bad when they lapse, because they often go Marxist in order to keep an orientation.
But I always find it boring after a while to talk to people with no name and face. So I'm going to stop doing it.
However, for those of you who want to continue talking with him, go right on.
It sends up my numbers, which I like. When he came in, he was a bit more polite, and I had hoped I might learn something.
Now it's just endless scurrilous diatribes.
That kind of thing does send the numbers up (many blogs -- like althouse's) seem to depend on this kind of contributor.
I try to run mine a bit more like a seminar. I always hope to learn something new. But he throws half-facts, and then is all threatening, which I find isn't amenable to learning.
J. tends to jump on one fact (tsunamis, say) and then harps on it, and can't pull back and see the larger picture. Christianity is bad because some bishop may have blessed a concentration camp. You finally pin him down and get him to admit that he made it up and was just gassing on, and then he just flits on and throws another bunch of half-facts.
I can see why Stu would like him because he gives him coverage in the battle with Jacques.
But he hates Christians, so ultimately, I don't see how he will make any sense to anyone. I think quite frankly that he's insane.
Fox is mostly religious contributors. I would say that that's the commonality. Even Greta is a scientologist, but most are serious Catholics.
I like them immensely compared to the usual secularists who just want to tear down belief in anything and everything.
I think none of the Fox people would have anything to do with a chain-smoking atheist like Ayn Rand.
Such simple simple categories.
Scientologists are crazy.
Kirby:
Two quick points:
"You wouldn't say lapdog to my face, Jadlofski. You wouldn't have a face." (J)
"I never threatened anyone, and haven't made any serious anti-semitic comments." (J; just jokey ones?)
"One man's lapdog is another man's pit bull. As it happens, J is his own man, full [sic] responsible for his own positions, and evidently capable of mounting a vigorous defense." (stu)
Yeah, "vigorous."
(1) Don't think I've ever used an racial/ethnic slur on this or any other blogsite, nor ever would (or sexual obscenity for that matter, though I have played with names--to which you objected in stu's case--who graciously said he wasn't offended, but nevertheless, I left off). Sure, the "-ski,
-berg, -stein" junk, along with the Knesset (though with Muslim members), Zionist, Kissinger, etc. tags do add up to a pretty junky mind (I am one-eighth Jewish by ethnicity), but they roll off me pretty easily--it's actually sign of verbal defeat over the real person without a face or real name, "J." btw, there are Jewish members of the Front National in France. . . .
(2) Did you or anyone of the regulars here understand the au courant tech meaning stu gave for "spoofing"? I remember calling him out on this way back, but there was no response at the time. Em's pretty tech-savvy, but had never heard of the term.
National front,eh? Scaw-ee. What, you like service them? Or maybe su madre works in one of their brothels. Heh heh
You're just another vichy-aesthete Jadl, which is to say pedazo de mierda. Not a philosopher, nor capable of Aynnie Rand level sophistries.
Comment boxes are not the NY Times op-ed page, pedazo. No one's required to produce some David Brooks-like wheeze-bag rhetoric. Quick, fast, even a bit colloquial at times: like, chinga tu madre, puerca
I've tried to stay out of this thread, although I thought Kirby's starting point a curious one given his commitments. But since I've come up a couple of times, I thought I'd weigh in.
Kirby: I can see why Stu would like him because he gives him coverage in the battle with Jacques.
J is very much his own man, with his own positions, and an approach to discussion (especially with JADL and Kirby) that is markedly different from mine. In practical terms, J doesn't so much "give coverage," as inflame that particular battle, which had been quieting down.
And the weird thing is that many of J's commitments seem closer to JADL's than mine. J is anti-left at least as stridently as anti-right, but is very much on the "traditionalist" side regarding issues like women's roles and homosexuality, and also very much anti-Protestant. That he now seems aligned with me rather than with JADL, it seems to me, has more to do JADL's tendency to insult and attempt to demean people (and its early expression in J's case) than with the JADL's or my particular positions.
Let me note that I've sustained a strong disagreement with J regarding Achebe on the "Black Book of Communism" thread, without it spilling over into incivility by either party.
Kirby: But he hates Christians, so ultimately, I don't see how he will make any sense to anyone.
This strikes me as an incredible oversimplification, especially given some of the ground that we've covered. J has already disclosed a Catholic background, but also a real alienation from Catholicism. It seems to me that he feels a pull towards the church, but there is something in his experience and/or present situation that is stopping him. Moreover, his participation in this venue is clearly a consequence of his searching. Unfortunately, it seems to me that what he's finding are many of the same knee-jerk, cock-sure attitudes, and closed minds, that pushed him away from the church in the first place. I've been very glad to see JH engage him, as always in a civil, thoughtful, and creative way.
I think quite frankly that he's insane.
Kirby, many would say the same of you. Indeed, it seems to me that anyone who is truly sane would walk away from these discussions. Saying that he's insane is no more than saying that he meets one of the preconditions for regular participation.
to be continued...
JADL: "One man's lapdog is another man's pit bull. As it happens, J is his own man, full [sic] responsible for his own positions, and evidently capable of mounting a vigorous defense." (stu)
Yeah, "vigorous."
While there are things about J that I enjoy and value, I don't approve at all of his tendency to insult, especially given that he tends to do so by making seemly random ethnic assignments, and making some odd identifications of blog participants with notorious public personalities (as Brett eloquently noted). That said, it should be apparent to everyone that JADL has gone out of his way to bait J, but that's just JADL—he'd rather bully people than engage them honestly. For JADL to be calling foul when J retaliates is absurd. If this blog passed out 15 yard penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, JADL would be starting his trip from Michigan to Newfoundland from San Francisco.
JADL: Don't think I've ever used an racial/ethnic slur on this or any other blogsite, nor ever would (or sexual obscenity for that matter, though I have played with names
Insulting and demeaning people are primary tools in JADL's effort to secure a position of advantage over everyone else. He seems to think that that's o.k., though, because there are certain kinds of classes of insults that he avoids. J doesn't respect the same limits. I don't approve of J's use of those classes, but neither do I approve of JADL's basic approach. It seems to me that they come from ultimately from the same place.
JADL: Did you or anyone of the regulars here understand the au courant tech meaning stu gave for "spoofing"? I remember calling him out on this way back, but there was no response at the time. Em's pretty tech-savvy, but had never heard of the term.
Let me suggest to any readers that they consult my posting near the end of the "Black Book" thread, where I explained to JADL the sense in which I had used the word. I do not recall any earlier "calling out." As it is, let me suggest to him typing "spoofing" into Google. When I just did this, the first 10 hits all used the term in the same sense that I used it, although the 11th did not. My point, though, is that my use hardly relied on some obscure meaning of "spoofing." It is the main meaning of the word today, even though it is a meaning that JADL did not know.
Henh, henh--same ol' lying pachuco muck emanating from the mouth of a sewer--hope it remembers to chew before spitting out its fetid cud--from the coward with no face, sense or name, AKA J. . . .
Kirby:
stu's "we-are-not-entirely-amused" approach to "no-face" J's cowardly hangjaw staccato glossalalia (like the murderous "la-la-la!" psycho in "Aguirre, Wrath of God") and stu's affectedly fastidious-cum-sanctimonious-indignation-on-stilts style are entirely unconvincing self-defences as he dumps his prejudice-stuffed burning sacks on our doorsteps about Fox News and Repub "bs" (one of his favourite terms) and calumnies about committed patriots like former Veep Cheney (I sport a pro-Cheney button) and Berkeley law Prof Yoo being proven "war criminals" (I'd probably count as one as well vis a vis some of stu's colleagues for volunteering to soldier in
Vietnam--and would that stu deliver my gift-wrapped Spanish fig to them all!).
Nor does the tu quoque charge or sidewalk psychology linking me with the mouthy "brainstormed" (in the old sense, as befalls the protagonist in Charles Brockton Brown's dreadful Early National period novel "Wieland") moron work.
Part of the diff between stu and me probably stems from our different lives and experience--for I've not spent my life in charge of college-age students in classrooms and in chatting with chums in faculty lounges, though no stranger to either. Em noted at once how in their early exchanges stu's attitude seemed to be that of a avuncular faculty mentor rather than an ideological opponent, and she said so.
Diminishment is a major part of humour, and though I've tried to concentrate on words and ideas rather than just delivering personal digs, as I said, talking politics tends to be roughhouse but can be fun (you're a puckish agent provocateur, Kirby, as Brett probably first noted here, though serio ludere) if we're not overly priggish about it. But "no-face" J's done little else other than deliver no-brain abuse from the start. I expect we'll tire of it and just ignore it, unless stu thinks he can learn from his new ideological pal. . . .
Heh heh. Pachuco this, basura.
Muck would be your anti-rationalist brain, Jadlovski, specialist in "ressentiment."
Jadlovski (and Kirby, really) started this spat. Merely object to Fox, GOP, Cheney, the neo-con hawks, and you're ...a maoist!
Completely utter BS, and merely ID politics of the right--you don't care for Glenn Beck, and you don't attend church?? You're a commie!!! The usual lit-biz hysteria. Joe McCarthy level muck, really.
You are correct, Stu, that I m not with the PC-left, or Obamaites. And no La Misa or sunday school, for years. So? In a sense you're helping them by conflating the political with the religious issues. One can object both to Glenn Beck hucksters, to biblethumpers, AND to maoists (except in Kirbyland).
Had you read those crackers Madison and Jefferson (or Federalist papers), or even the cliffsnotes to Locke instead of Odes to the Daffodil you might have realized that. Jefferson had issues, but he did not bless theocracy and tory-aristocratic tradition (ie he's no Burke), nor did he approve of Marat and the sans cullottes.
Stu, true enough about the insanity charge. I've been called that, and continue to be called that, and am somewhat proud of it, and do think it's an important aspect of all of us, to be at least mildly squirrelly.
I also appreciate your attempts to smooth feathers and put us all on a talking basis once more. I don't know anything. Monkeys certainly know more.
I didn't like that everybody started getting angry here, and do admire JH for keeping a sense of humor around here, and Brett, too.
Nietzsche called Luther and protestants leftist--at the very least populist and plebian, which is to say, chandala. Glenn Beck's a populist leftist, appealing to the herd (That includes the Olsonator and those who defend him, by definition).
J—
You are correct, Stu, that I m not with the PC-left, or Obamaites. And no La Misa or sunday school, for years. So? In a sense you're helping them by conflating the political with the religious issues. One can object both to Glenn Beck hucksters, to biblethumpers, AND to maoists (except in Kirbyland).
I certainly think that you can object to all three classes, even in Kirbyland. Don't assume that because I don't join the chorus against the Maoists, that somehow signals that I am with them. It's just that I haven't run into any Maoists of late, and do not feel them to be a threat worth denouncing—we might with as much effect object to Mithraism. Whereas, "Glenn Beck hucksters and biblethumpers" represent a present danger.
But let's work a bit on that "conflating the political with the religious issues." This is a religiously themed (and indeed, specifically Lutheran themed) blog. It is hardly surprising that most of the participants have religious commitments, and indeed specifically Christian commitments. The great majority of the long term participants in this blog (Kirby is perhaps an exception) believe that religion is more than a matter of belief, but instead it is something that should permeate your life, and that all of your life's other commitments should stand on the fundamental religious commitment.
That said, it is somewhat discouraging that there is such a diversity of opinion over so many issues of importance to the participants on this blog, as each of us likes to believe that our stands are either entailed by, or at least consistent with, God's will. If you wanted to argue that religion does not actually inform commitments, but instead is a flexible tool that can be used to justify almost any belief, you'll get an argument here, but not much evidence to the contrary in our observable behavior. It is sometimes one of the hardest things in the world to acknowledge the voice of God saying, "You're wrong, you need bring your heart back to me." All of us in principle try to do this, all of us fail.
For my part, I think that it is the nature of venues like this to expose disagreements within the community of faith, and that it is arguments over these disagreements that come most to the fore, not the much larger set of commitments we hold in common.
Now, having said this, I am certainly one who believes that government needs to be religiously neutral. The notion that the US is somehow a "Christian Nation" shows both a disconnect with our present reality, and with our nation's founding conception. Any who doubt that ought to read the following:
Treaty of Tripoli,
paying particular attention to the content and discussion of Article 11. In this, the translation issues hardly matter—what matters is how the treaty was understood and perceived in the US, by the founders, and for this, the English language version is normative.
Kirby—
Stu, true enough about the insanity charge. I've been called that, and continue to be called that, ...
No kidding?
and am somewhat proud of it,...
Of course you are :-).
and do think it's an important aspect of all of us, to be at least mildly squirrelly.
Indeed.
If China is abandoning Communism for Capitalism, then everything they're doing there must be good, right? Including the pollution and despoiling of their country, in the interests of profit for a few and the drudgery of factory and slum life for the many.
See? The Industrial Revolution was good after all! At least in China the common people aren't plotting to take power away from the capitalists! Don't even think it! The Second Communist Revolution!!
Curtis - capitalism in Asian countries has brought millions out of poverty.
Communism IS capitalism, CURTIS! Heavens to Betsy. What else could it be?
What the Communists won't allow is freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of RELIGION.
Goooooooodnneessss!
Stu, I think that religion is about LIMITS on behavior (you don't believe in limits, apparently), and I think that it also limits what we must do for the lazy neighbor, who's a bonehead and a jerk.
Luther redefined neighbor as other Lutherans who are doing as well as they can to stay within the 10 commandments. Sade is NOT my neighbor.
You on the other hand have no limits as to who is your neighbor nor do you have any limits on what you are supposed to do for them.
In essence, your branch is identical to the Social Gospel beliefs, which are in turn identical to Marxist beliefs.
Otherwise you'd have no truck at all with the Big O, who is a Social Gospel guy from the ground up, like the people he keeps hiring, who spout Mao.
I don't see anything necessarily wrong with this, but I don't see it as coherent with what I see Luther as having said.
If you're a Lutheran, you can't be simultaneously a Maoist.
One or the other.
I think it begins with the question: who is my neighbor? And I think I will now have to post something along those lines to start a new thread, because I believe that the essence of our difference is THAT.
Kirby—
Luther, in his sermon "Of the Office of Preaching," wrote (VI.19):
Christ is the door, and whoever enters by him will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. Here Christ speaks of the Christian liberty, which means that Christians are now free from the curse and the tyranny of the Law, and may keep the Law or not, according as they see that the love and need of their neighbor requires.
Likewise, in "On Faith & Coming to Christ" (II.20):
What is the proof by which one may know that this heavenly bread is his and that he is invited to such a spiritual supper? He needs only to look at his own heart. If he finds it so disposed that it is softened and cheered by God’s promises and is firm in the conviction that it may appropriate this bread of life, then he may be assured that he is one of the invited; for as one believes, even so is it done unto him. From that moment on, he loves his neighbor and helps him as his brother; he rescues him, gives to him, loans to him and does nothing for him but that which he would desire his neighbor to do for himself. All this is attributable to the fact that Christ’s kindness to him has leavened his heart with sweetness and love, so that he has pleasure and joy in serving his neighbor; yea, he is even in misery if he has no one to whom to show kindness.
And (II.21):
St. Peter teaches us in 2 Peter 1:10 that we should make our calling unto salvation sure by good works; there he is really speaking of the works of love, of serving one’s neighbor and treating him as one’s own flesh and blood. This is sufficient on this Gospel.
These are not isolated passages in Luther. And of course, the classic text when it comes to defining one's neighbor is this, from Luke 10:25ff:
Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he said, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? What do you read there?" He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live."
But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.' Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
It seems to me that Jesus is here making clear that he intended to present a definition of neighbor that always strained our boundaries. Indeed, here indeed is a place where I'll grant you part of your claim. I think that if your definition of neighbor is so narrow that it excludes anyone, it is defective. Of course, not all neighbors can be helped—our means are limited, and not all want or know now to receive help.
So if on this basis you want to tar me with the phrase "social gospel," go ahead. It beats antisocial gospel any day.
In stu's case in the last several posts Buffon's "le style, c'est l'homme meme" (the style is the man) is apparent in his change from a laboured, defensive and combative style to one of affirmative credo, which often facilitates ease of composition.
Except of course (knew it was coming, right?) for the patent silliness about "Glenn Beck hucksters and bible [sic]-thumpers . . ." as a great "present danger" and as opposed not only to Maoists (perhaps restricted to the stray White House communications functionary), but other Marxists, eco-radicals, socialists, statists, anti-military militants, violent extremists--ethnically self-identified (like the one shot down yesterday in a gun-battle near here by the FBI--among the dozen or so others sought on conspiracy, weapons-smuggling and other charges) or ideologically-orientated (like the unpunished domestic terrorist act, Ayers & Dohrn, now comfortably enfolded in academia's warm embrace--stu might describe their former act as, ahem, "inappropriate behaviour,"
--which also conveniently describes his students'use of cell phones during his classes), drug gangs--whether illegals or home-grown, corrupt politicians of both parties and the like. More subtle and thus more insidious are the lib-Demo challenges to certain American freedoms, like those of speech (the attack on free talk radio misnamed the "fairness doctrine" at the same time as public funds are squandered on lib-left organs like PBS and NPR), press, self-defence, equal protection of the laws, etc (so conspicuously compromised or denied outright at many higher-ed institutions by naggin' lib-left pc nannies who often miserably betray their offices and authority)
--as opposed to the lib-left's championing of universal and federal-government ensured "rights" to free condoms, under-age no-tell-parents abortions, and after-school snacks. stu knows academia is politically lib-left bubble and not at all reflective of divided political affinities in the country as a whole--that's what scares the current lib-left political administration and provokes the hubristic contempt of academics, many of whom have abandoned all patriotic loyalty and common sense as they pass through the entry-portals to their classrooms and even more, to their comfy faculty-lounge wing chairs ("Godi . . . poi che . . . per lo 'nferno tuo nome si spande"--"Rejoice . . . for . . . through Hell spreads wide your name," to adapt Dante's address to his disloyal Florence).
Not to be condescending, I think it helpful to recall the rhetorical triad of informative, persuasive, and expressive kinds of writing and to add that while sometimes we can be informative, and we affect a persuasive style, the most common purpose is pure and simple expression--some from the left (like Tom, stu, Curtis Faville, sometimes Brett and Ed Baker--when intelligible, though he may be the purest surrealist here), some (like myself, Emmy, often GM and Kirby) from the right, a few from the middle (often Wendy, sometimes Brett on some issues, and most of us at some time or other). Nevertheless, few of us are going to be moved from our parti pris positions our thought, faiths, and experience have brought us to, so that mostly leaves expression as our purpose for writing. As I said before, political exchanges tend to be sharper than most (as I'll ever sharply oppose Obamaite statists' shameless power grabs, their dithering and fatal non-support of our military personnel risking their lives overseas as we speak), but it can be an occasion for exchanging a bit of humour if we don't take ourselves too seriously. . . .
In short, Go Glenn Beck! Go Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity!
In Jadl's case, it's "le style, c'est l'femme meme". Mlle. Jadl's got booo-cooo moxie
And those great literary minds of the neo-cons, GOP, Fox, Objectivism, etc.--cest Le Style! Of course, since Jadl's shown itself to be incapable of rational disputation or actual argumentation, it must rely on the usual parlor aesthetics. Non non non!
chupame, puerca
scanning back brett i must concur with your observation of just just just just just just just prayer...i have found pockets of praying evangelical adults who express themselves very naturally and address very real concerns in the world with prayer
benedictine prayer is very sober very undemonstrative very steady very straighforward very everyday
morning noon and night...the holy father coined a term recently...sober inebriation...referring to the sustained intensity that goes with catholic prayer and singing
so when i meet with noncatholics who pray in a fervent manner using the word just all the time it is a bit of a strange experience but it happens and i guess god hears them too but it wouldn't be my cup of tea for a steady diet
i'd prefer buddhist silence to that
to some like the 60 8th graders to whom i gave a tour of our church today this style of prayer seems pretty tedious but they were interested when it was all over...i think they found it hard to imagine praying like that morning noon and night
the cacaphonous din of humans praying rattlin the floors of heaven
jh
Do you think Kid Galilee approves of that fat circus barker Rush Limbaugher, Frater JL???
(hint: nyetski). Into the FLAMES of Fire, Limbaugher
More astonishingly deep and perceptive philosophical apercus from the tri-gendered fish-face space alien in desperate need of a hockey-mask (preferably without a mouth-hole) to avoid generating a public outbreak of raw disgust. . . .
'Course the eminent conservative entertainer and political commentator Rush Limbaugh's not Kant or even Wittgenstein (though Jew-baiting J's not too keen on
--steins, whether half-Catholic or otherwise), but neither are utter intellectual voids like: Screamin' Randy Rhodes ("No, that's Kant, RR, not C*nt . . . Try finishing your GED someday. . . ."); Keeper of the Drunk-Tank and Lord Chamberlain of the King's Rape-Porn--Sir Al Franken; "Slob-ola" Ed Schultz (recent White House pet-honoree and flatulent lunk who played football too long sans helmet); or Jane-Jean "Garbage-Mouth" Garofalo. . . .
Apples and oranges, algae-clad Space-Invader.
J—
Into the FLAMES of Fire, Limbaugher
While I agree with the basic sentiment, given that our God is a God of Truth, and Limbaugh seems to possess a rather Pilatesque conception of Truth, but there are practicalities to consider.
(1) Is Hell rated for the heat generated by the addition of so much fuel?
(2) The smell would be horrific.
Here is where I think the Catholic notion of Purgatory has real utility. Limbaugh and Beck could be condemned to serve as fact-checkers for one another, and each held fully responsible (via lengthening term) for erroneous statements of fact made by the other, either on Earth, or while in Pergatory. An open mike, and an audience that lives only for controversy, ought to be provided to both.
I think even our conservative commentators would find this a pleasing solution, believing that their mutual sojourn in Pergatory of their beloved duo would be brief, rather than (as seems so much more likely) Eternal.
stu's beginning to contribute to the smirk-parade--I like that, for it's all the intellectually nugatory mouthings of scaly-skulled J are worth in instigating. . . . We all like to spar politically and have some expressive rhetorical fun, though the difference is (since J's initial scoffing and smarmy attempts at rational commentary on the existence proofs, which I didn't really participate in) that the others on Kirby's blogsite contribute something of redeeming value as well (even the Sphinx without a riddle, Ed Baker). But we're still waiting for the (to date) scaly-skulled cyber-space invader to redeem his/her/itself by showing us more than a stream of Robin Williams-like coke-headed jabbering one-liners. . . . And this from a professed rationalist. . . .
But to clue in stu a bit, NB: Rush's slimmed down quite a bit recently, though can't say slobbering Schultzie has (as if in either case size mattered--it's just when physical and mental characteristics seem to mesh). None of us can avoid (at least) purgatory, sometimes of our creation. . . .
I'd say stu's low-ball estimate of my contibution at two percent is less based on a sound statistical survey, but rather just another typical, as Clouseau had it, writ of fellous jayge or bit of bilious or palsied drive-by spleen.
Non non non!
Time again for Jadl's attempts at invective against his imaginary strawmen leftists. Stu's obviously not a communist, Mlle Jadl. You don't even know what this game concerns. For that matter, I doubt you've yet to make it through the anglo-french pony text version of the First Amendment and the separation clause.
Maybe try your ESL Limbaugher-libel out at the frenchy version of Little Green Footballs--you're obviously not quite ready for Swift 101.
JADL writes: stu's beginning to contribute to the smirk-parade
I think that Brett is right, I should be better behaved. That said, a person can only look at so many hanging curve balls, grooved right down the center of the plate, before the temptation to swing becomes overwhelming.
And I'll admit that there's always been a bit of a class clown in me. A ferociously engaged class clown, but a class clown nevertheless. What's the point of living without a bit of laughter?! Especially if a point is to be made, or understanding to be furthered. Humor remains an important part of my toolkit as teacher, and I hope always will be. If my students laugh, they remember.
Separately, I believe I owe J a minor apology. In an earlier note, I credited JADL with greater erudition. As their discussion has progressed, I'm less certain of this. I still wish J would knock off the ethnic insults, though, along with trying to put JADL in a skirt. Honestly, people read that stuff, and they discount your input. You'd help your cause by cleaning that up.
Peace, guys.
does god look kindly upon shallow minded blowhards??
now there's a theologically loaded question
i don't regard rush " limbo" limbaugh as real
i think he is a media robot the first one he's an experiment in technomedia comedy a way of steering the course of thinking for some folks and even the folks who react against him so watch out they could get you...i mean if you were to touch him it would be like feeling polyester on cold metal
you know he's a robot because every once in awhile they forget to recharge him...he stares at the wall for minutes on end until they boot him up again
and then he starts talking incessantly of course
jh
that is sort of brilliant J
i like your effort to give purgatory some new life
maybe beck and limbaugh would learn to delight in it though
i think theire purgatory should have a few smart nuns who slap their hands with rulers when they make false statements which they would everyday they wouldl never learn not even in purgatory so that would be a good one for them
purgaotary for me would be haveing to listen to those bozoz morning noon and night i'd bring back the whole system of indulgences to get away from those freaks
oreilly too
i'd have to take some refuge over in steven colberz repohr that'd be the last door out of purgatory before meeting st paul
hey paul dude howz it goin like hey yeah ma man lets digg this gate wow
sm dys t lks lYke wr phqqt
jh
Post a Comment