I just want to say it once, slowly, enjoying every syllable:
Former. President. George. W. Bush.
Who is now flying away!
On a broomstick? With a coterie of flying monkeys?
#6 ::: Diatryma
We're looking at getting a rescue dog this summer. What is "agility training"? I suspect it's not the "doggie-yoga" which is where my brain first went with the term. Is this tricks, like jumping through hoops, or is it a functional training, like companion dogs have?
xeger I thought so too, til I saw the graphic. No reason we can't mine this thread with non-political happiness, though.
We've got lots of snow, and I managed to score a Shakespeare seminar for my last class for my masters (yay me!)
Or, of course, the other way:
Cheney on the way out and Bush having kittens
A bright future rising as Obama is sworn in
The truth that reveals the lies of the right-wing
These are a few of my happiest things
#17 ::: Madeleine Robins
The tower is falling, the orcs are fleeing. Now, if we can just convince Aragorn to permit a full investigation of Saruman's deal with Sauron...
Unfortunately, Wormtongue has succeeded in maintaing her hold on the Shire, and is prepared to raze the shire for timber and oil
Jennifer Pelland @ # 65
Boston NPR is WBUR at 90.9 FM
Abi, and friends and lurkers,
Thank you for this.
Today I had a master's class after teaching high school, then came home and graded for three and a half hours. I decided to treat myself to fifteen minutes of this before bed.
I haven't time to read all the entries yet, much less post, but I want you to know I am sitting in a chair in my living room, after midnight, surrounded by the silent noises of my sleeping family, crying great pearly tears of joy at memories both joyous and bittersweet which I have not thought of or considered in years.
A precious gift indeed.
May you all find such happiness, and, when appropriate to your timezones, sweet dreams.
Thank you.
-PP
So, when we get to the part where we eat Sir Robin's minstrel (and there was much rejoicing), does that mean the digestion of FOX news?
xeger @ 300:
Congratulations and good luck!
To Numerous:
Sorry I was unable to post yesterday ...
I thought twice about posting that, and should apparently have taken "third thoughts." I knew I was having trouble with the words, and couldn't get what I was trying to say to come out right.
But I also recognize and realize that, in this, what I have to say doesn't matter. I tried to pour oil on troubled water and apparently grabbed kerosene instead.
My sincerest apologies to any and all whom I unintendedly offended. You are, of course, correct that you are the only one(s) who can know your situation, and others should not attempt to tell you how to do that. In so far as my poorly chosen words were doing the same, you have my most profound and abject apologies.
I am amazed and awed by your strength and perseverence, and as was said earlier by others, you have my sympathy and admiration always, and I appreciate your bravery in opening yourself here, and the honor and trust you show by including me in that forum.
Thank you.
-pp
I am so very fortunate not to have had anything more than the regular misunderstandings between linear-minded semi-conservative father and a creative, linguistically-minded kid.
But I know too many others who've had issues.
I think there are two "things" going on with the forgiveness issue.
One is, it is so hard for someone who hasn't observed or experienced abuse to imagine and understand the extent of the fear and etc., nor the extent to which a truly irrational abuser will follow and stalk you.
The other is a question of ... I don't know .. perspective? interpretation? definition? If you think of it from the perspective of the twin cliches "forgive and forget" or "Forgive, but never forget." The "forgiveness" meme is NOT "say it's OK" it's about putting it behind you or getting past it.
If you do not 'get past it' then you are reliving it, consciously or unconsciously. It does not allow you to heal, it does not allow you to rebuild strength. You end up reliving the problems and stressing yourself out more. Not to mention, if you take the wrong mental twist, the drive for vengeance/closure/dialogue can drive you back in that direction.
By "putting it behind you" you aren't denying it, but acknowledging that part is over. I think, to the extent I can empathize on the issue, that this is encouraged because getting rid of that constantly running undertone results in a similar sense of relief and a similar reduction in stress to that "funeral feeling" discussed above. The idea that now that you are "free" you won't be hurt like that again. It is not really seeking an acknowledgment of victim-hood, as trying to sever that last reverberating chord, to restore peace.
[And of course, sometimes people are just too egocentric/insensitive/lucky to be able to understand the true consequences of the situation.]
I am not aware if I was previously aware of how "forgive" could be a loaded term. Thank you for making me think about it.
You are, all of you My Friends, wonderful people. Remember you have friends here who love and respect you, and more importantly, perhaps, will listen. As the seasons close in, may you find the peace, self-confidence, and yes, love to wrap about you like the mother of all warm, soft, snuggly blankets to keep you safe, secure, and comforted until the warmt and light of spring reveals new beginnings.
Blessings, one and all.
As a complete and total aside, here's an amusing and slightly different perspective on The challenges facing moderators.
Enjoy ...
Paula Lieberman @ 28 and Abi @ 30:
I don't think Paula's wrong though. Lord knows, from the single-by-choice, to the divorced, widowed, or "everyone moved away" set, being alone is hard. Humans are evolved as social beasts, and the rhythms of our society are structured around occasions designed for communal celebration.
I'd love to see in real life the type of place that occasionally shows up in fiction, where those who don't have these connections have a place to go. And by this, I'm talking more of something like a non-gendered Victorian gentleman's club than I am of something like Cheers. A home-away-from-home where one can find, develop, and celebrate with the "chosen family" as opposed to the genetic one.
Failing that, well, Making Light is a great place; possibly y'all can decide to mash in a "Singles Day" holiday between American Thanksgiving and New Years?
On this day remember:
You are precious and loved
You have had a positive influence on people and don't even know it.
People you have never met look at you, look to you, and respect you.
Families are an accident of genetics; you are the result of a lifetime of struggle that has polished, shined, and formed you into the work of art you are today.
The old proverb is NOT, "You can judge a man [or woman] by the family they were born into."
Family obligations, like respect, are earned, not a right enabled by existence.
Family are those who care for you, not those who spawned you.
A stopped clock may be right twice a day, that doesn't mean it isn't a worthless piece of junk.
God, whatever He She or It may be (including an infinitely complex set of multi-variable equations) created you especially as a worthwhile and amazing project in your own right, not as someone else's servant, slave, accessory, or punching bag by divine right.
Live your life, and add joy to the lives of those who appreciate you.
To one and all, friends and family of the electronic bloodline, blessings, joy, strength and self-esteem be with you on this day.
And a last thought for the day, (quoted from memory, so perhaps not word-perfect) Keanu Reaves line from Parenthood:
"You need a license to buy a gun, hell, you even need to get a license to drive, but any butt-ream ing motherfucker can be a father."
As if we needed a reminder -- The world is not fair. But the corollary to this is that as with any game where people are cheating, your right is to leave and find a better game, our obligation from the outside is to watch the games of others and help those who need it.
Paula Lieberman @ 84:
Did you mean iconoclasm or iconography?
CHip @ 114 or Paula Lieberman, generally:
If you don't mind, could one of you explain the following comment (or link back to the original):
"whenever I was inclined to consider McCain worthwhile, I remembered what Paula said about fighter pilots (e.g., observing that the colored lights in Close Encounters of the Third Kind were obviously such"
I am highly intrigued, and cannot parse it from context.
Thank you
Lee @ 64
Yes, once the ticket is elected, they're the candidates, so if McCain/Palin gets the nod, and anything happens to McCain, Palin becomes the #1, even if it's before the inaugural. And, based on West Wing (because IANACS either) at that point as I understand it, Palin could nominate a VP, but Congress must approve (25th amend).
My question is what happens if the issue occurs between convention nomination and election?
-If it's before the election, can someone just be appointed to the ticket as VP, since then it can be claimed the election itself confirms their approval?
-Does the VP naturally assume the presidential spot on the ticket, or is it necessary to re-nominate? (I suspect this may be a party regulation, as with the primary dates issue this year.)
I am reminded of (I believe) Ashcroft losing for Senator of Missouri to the deceased Carnahan. Would people who like the McCain/Palin ticket be more or less likely to vote a Palin/TBA ot Palin/hurried-nominee ticket?
C.E. Petit @ 44:
Interesting analysis of the Palin phenomenon. I don't know if you are right about that as the primary philosophy behind the nomination or not, but it certainly is possible -- even probable -- that it figures somewhere in their calculations.
As has been said in other threads, it is frustrating in the extreme to hear about liberal media bias, while the media seemingly ignores important issues like McCain's health, and runs with asinine stories like the lipstick issue.
And how is it liberals and Democrats get touted as whiners, but comments like "No one likes us. It's all that liberal media bias." get swallowed and accepted without being perceived as whining?
Craig R @ 45:
I was not saying they were female traits, I said they were the traits misogynists use to "explain" why women aren't suited to office.
Much like Xeger's "glass cliff" analogy at #37, I am commenting on the likelihood that if Palin does serve, and does a poor job, those who are against women serving in office -- and who therefore lump Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Sarah Palin together as all being equivalent to each other -- would use her as an example of what "all women" would do.
geekosaur @ 59 I assume you mean that Palin rates as equivalent to GWB?
If so, I agree. I am just predicting the likely consequence if the situation of her actually reaching the Oval Office arises.
As far as the GWB analogy goes, I thought of that as soon as Jim posted the previous "Wimps" thread, and I thought at the time that it served as an excellent object example to answer Teresa's inquiries in the "That's how it goes / Everybody knows thread. Would Palin be so boldfaced in her contempt to all and sundry over the investigation if it hadn't been for the various claims of immunity and executive privelege from the White House? As someone else said there, IANAL, and IANA-Alaskan, but even if Alaskan state law allows for some variation of privelege as has been claimed elsewhere, I'd argue it probably has not previously been done in such a cavalier manner, nor accompanied by the verbal equivalent of a poke in the eye, and that this attitude is the direct result of the past and continued claims of President Bush and his Band of Favorites.
This is kind of an illustration of that claim that any law that isn't or can't be enforced weakens the strength of the rule of law.
Whatever the cause, whatever the reason,
Palin scares me and I hope the news starts to cover this stuff as the date approaches.
And that raises another question:
Is it better for this stuff to come out early, before they have more time to fabricate cover, or bury it in people's minds,
Or for it to come out later, when the more stubborn voters have "known" who they're voting for for weeks, and "have already made up their minds and won't be misled by the facts"?
NPR had the author of Angler, the new tell-all type book about Cheney on the other night on "Fresh Air."
Among the many other things discussed: Cheney not only nominated himself, he also (big surprise) did not have himself vetted to the same degree as all the other "candidates." [Also interesting, the fact that Cheney knew he was the nominee before looking at candidates, so the vetting only served as a way for him to "prove" other candidates were unacceptable.] In particular, no one checked his medical records. He assured everyone he was fine, and when they wanted an "independent analysis," Cheney's doctor called the independent doctor and assured the "independent" medical expert Cheney was healthy. According to Gellman (the author), when he interviewed the "independent medical expert," said expert said he'd never met or spoken to Checey, and had never seen Cheney's medical records.
I remember hearing (here at Making Light, I think) that the swelling in McCain's jaw was a good indication he was having major medical issues, and that his cancer was more serious than he was letting on. I suspect he's trying to use the Cheney playbook to duck the news on that.
While I am not wishing ill on McCain (at least, not in the form of physical harm or death) does anyone know what happens, election-wise, if before the election he dies or even if the illness just worsens enough that he is unable to run? Does that make Palin the presidential candidate with no running mate? And would that make the ticket more or less popular?
And, as another speculation:
While I prefer Obama, I have no doubt Hillary would also have made a spectacular, and spectacularly competent, president. In the event the worst happens, and McCain is elected and doesn't finish out his term, I have grave doubts of Palin's ability to do the same. And in that event does anyone doubt that 2/3 of the country will then cite that idiocy as "proof" that women can't/shouldn't be President, because they can't do the job? Listen to the complaints about Palin and narcisism. Setting aside her right-wing pit-bull positives, do not most of the "complaints" against her sound like the stereo-typical fear-mongering complaints to "prove" why females shouldn't serve: emotional decisions, changing of opinion every three weeks, inability to think logically, taking things personally, temper tantrums, etc. We all know these are all excuses, not reasons, and are not true besides. But if the first woman to serve displays these traits, what are critics going to say?
The flourosphere cheer'd:
The disemvow'ler returns!
Now, All, let her rest.
It was a thing that brought great trepidation
To all in our electronic nation.
Our moderator, host, and bon vivant
Struck down by some myocardial jaunt;
Twas plain to all here what had occurr-ed
Once we'd gotten over the shock of what we'd heard:
Laboring for a love of literate art,
She'd given too much of her precious heart.
But tho' corporally confined and contained,
Her words still flew to those she had retained:
Brightly-illumined cohorts flocked to hear
The thoughts of her who makes the 'Net fogs clear.
And now let all rejoice in voice and text
For Teresa has returned unto her nest.
Glad to hear you're being discharged:
Stay calm, stay well, stay sane,
And best wishes for a quick return of full health and a minimum of life-altering changes.
You've gotta love the oh-so-carefully chosen language. They don't say he's done it, just want to know how you'd feel if he had/did. Yeah, right.
I know it's wrong, and we're supposed to be "better" than that, but I'd so love to see someone endow some non-profit, fact checking machine that would play tit for tat. [Kind of a cross between politics and trolls.]
Call it "Keeping the Balance", or something like that, and every time a candidate, campaign, or independent group leveled a negative (but true) campaign ad, this group would fire back an equally true negative ad.
And when blatantly false crap like the PLO ad comes out, it will intiate an equally false ad campaign of the same sort, like "Would it change your mind if you knew McCain accepted huge campaign funds from Planned Parenthood" [or the NAACP].
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 3 |
| 2008 | 60 |
Total: 63 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by pedantic peasanr:
Show all comments by pedantic peasanr.