Recent comments by azurite

josap wrote:

TPTB shut down Occupy, now they will get the violence.

Not completely.

Occupy Sandy Recovery

Occupy abolishes $4 million in other people's student loan debt - Sep. 17, 2014

Occupy Wall Street Is Buying And Paying The 99%'s Debt! | Care2 Causes

Takes awhile to build a solid political structure, build networks (social/political). Look at the civil rights movement, women's movement (suffrage, etc.), the groups (including trade unions but also women's clubs) who successfully pushed for child labor laws, laws protecting working women . . . and the evangelical christians who managed to build a socio-political network-I may strongly disagree (to say the least) w/their goals but they've been or were successful.

How much practice do people get from boomers to most recent adult/young adult generations get in organizing themselves and maintaining an organization? In the towns/cities I grew up in, there were unions, clubs by ethnicity (lots of Italian Americans, Polish Americans, Irish, where I went to HS), rotarians, elks, etc. Not so many now.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

hold your nose and write 'AAA' or the Ruh-roh economy gets it!

Worked really well the last time we did that!

Bubblisimo Gerkinov wrote:

I see a future market in "good" social credit scores.

and for hackers who can transform bad into good scores.

Bubblisimo Gerkinov wrote:

Yemen struggles to import food as more ships held up | GulfNews.com

Those drone strikes didn't kill all the evil-doers? Im shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! Snark

Jackdawracy wrote:

who are these people they are talking of?

bogeyman by any other name . . .

I still read of how it was the "environmentalists" who destroyed OR's timber industry. Timber industry did a GREAT JOB of propagandizing on that issue.

edit to add: where I live, there are 3 bins, or 2 if you do your own composting. One bin is trash, one for recyclables, the other is for food waste. When the change to 3 bins (adding recycling of food waste) was added I could not find out, despite written requests for information, why it is that only residential food waste is a problem (ie., the landfills will be FULL if there isn't recycling of food waste!!!!!!) while commercial waste isn't. Since I live in a tourist area, there are many restaurants (given full year population of the area) but somehow, their food waste isn't a problem, none of them are required to recycle their food waste. Unless they feel like it, I guess. When I did a little research, turns out only a few cities that mandate food waste recycling require the participation of commercial generators of food waste such as restaurants.

Cinco-X wrote:

Conspicuous Consumption for the Smug Environmentalist - Slate

not sure what's "environmental" (as in conserving what's left of the natural environment) about the article or the vehicles. Reads the same as any other "omigod the POWER of this thing! What a rush, dude" article I've read since the 60's.

Antipodes wrote:

Yeah, but how much did it cost to drill the well?

If it's corporate ag, the cost might very well be subsidized, if not now, then quite possibly not long after their lobbyists get busy.

The article I linked to indicated that for many in India, drilling down 150' may cost too much, so it depends on how much wealth you have to start with.

KarmaPolice wrote:

I get the subsidence...I was surprised by the depth of the well!

At least they can reach a strata w/enough water to make drilling the well worth it. Drilling holes in the Thirst Economy - The Hindu

KarmaPolice wrote:

What the hell?

"Some wells go 3,000-feet down, because the good water is being sucked out faster than nature can replenish it."

California’s Central Valley Sinking Faster Than Ever Before As Farmers Drill For Water During Drought « CBS San Francisco

Not a new phenomenon. Note date of linked article. - NY Times

and Land subsidence, USGS Water Science School

One of the hazards of monocropping:

"The National Guard became available to be activated for such efforts last week, after Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton declared a state of emergency over the spread of the strain of avian flu, which has lead to the extermination of more than 7.3 million birds in the United States so far.

Minnesota's action followed a similar move by neighboring Wisconsin a few days earlier." National Guard called up to deliver water in Minnesota bird flu fight
| Reuters

Interesting that WI's governor, Mr. small gov't/gov't do less has no problem w/using gov't to assist businesses..

dilbert dogbert wrote:

Get those little punks out of being lazy asses at school learning liebural lies and into the mines and factories!!!!

Boys AND girls, in the US of A you had equal opportunity exploitation

Historical Photos of Child Labor in NC Textile Mills | Motley News

The History Place - Child Labor in America: Investigative Photos of Lewis Hine

Women & children were usually paid less.

Jackdawracy wrote:

that just mentioning their name garners instant recognition among the public?

Isn't name recognition as much a function of marketing as anything else? Unless you believe Paris HIlton is a work of art solely because she's got (or used to get) good name recognition? Why base worth on selection for publicizing by the corporate media?

Jackdawracy wrote:

, I don't see it in young adults.

I happened to visit the National Academy NYC several years ago when there was an exhibition of student work in a variety of media. Some of what I saw looked very good to me. Fine Art School New York | National Academy Museum

Jackdawracy wrote:

will the smart CEO of a Fortune 500 company a century from now have a shriveled arm with a dragon running up and down, set in an attractive display case, on the wall?

As long as it's his own, it's ok.

Former Idealist wrote:

Debt is not investment.

Is spending tens of millions on campaign funds for Congressional/presidential candidates true investment?

Wealthy political donors seize on new latitude to give to unlimited candidates - The Washington Post

bearly wrote:

No information

There's some information, and it's all bad. For workers in the US that is, and some businesses, it's great news for BigPharma, or corporations that like protection of their patents, no matter how evergreened, to be a national priority.

poicv2.0 wrote:

Any idea how I can spice up my weekly beet rations?

I know I'm not as wise as RIF, but I suggest adding Matcha powder, so you can impress potential newsletter subscribers w/how attuned you are to new investment opportunities. What To Eat Now: is matcha the new green tea? - Telegraph

poicv2.0 wrote:

I was thinking that what might work is Clinton in a bomber jacket giving a thumbs up sign and "Mission Accomplished"

add disenfranchising people who might vote against you and having a majority of the S.Ct to back you and I think you've got it!

Take a name asswipe wrote:

and the blue team fought them every step of the way ...

Did I say I admired the craven behavior of many members of Congress during the Bush II administration? No I didn't. You were talking about presidential candidates, not Congress or Congressional candidates.

Take a name asswipe wrote:

why not. both hill and jeb disgust me.

I haven't liked stuff either of them did, Bush the nth more then Ms. Clinton. Disgust? I save that for Bush II, Cheney, and all the other neocons who felt it was fine to ravage other nations for years and wreak havoc on the lives of many of the lower ranks of the military and the National Guard and care so little they couldn't be bothered to push Congress to ramp up spending for the VAMC, et., so that those who didn't return in the box wouldn't deal with some of the same difficulties getting care (particularly mental health care) that the Vietnam vets did. But then Bush II & Cheney were above all that messy Vietnam fighting too--although Bush II thought it was ok to rip of the taxpayers for the cost of his pilot's training and then just walking away when he didn't feel like "playing" anymore--w/his dada's influence there to protect him.

JetBlue Wants to Get Into Hotel Business at JFK’s Former TWA Terminal - WSJ

For those travelers who really enjoy the noise and air pollution of the airport.

Take a name asswipe wrote:

How about images of Monica. A blue dress and a cigar. Then a close in shot of Hill, moist eyed and a sole tear running down her cheek followed by her logo and Hillary:2016

And for Jeb, images of Terri Schiavo, forced to "live"--stay hooked up to machines, w/the governor trying to take the decision away from her husband, FL laws, the state judiciary, because he's another Bushian "decider." A really good privatizer too, makes sure there's no enough funding to determine if the privatization really does save $$ or not.

I wonder if Jeb offered to pay for Ms. Schiavo's hospitalization costs or if he just left all those pesky details to the little people.

adornosghost wrote:

I just find primitive creation myths

Lots of fun to make up your own though and who says you can't incorporate evolutionary theory into one?

Nytol

sdtfs wrote:

Can't imagine church without the social bonds. What would that look like?

Don't know, I've never been a member of one. What I meant is that many people seemed to pay little attention to the teachings & doctrines when choosing which church in the area to attend, w/the exception of Catholics and LDS. Seems like many of the Protestants choose based on, like I said, best child/youth activities, or other social reasons.

As a non-religious person, I'd thought that people would choose on the basis of teachings/doctrines--I thought that was kind of the point of churches or other places of religious worship. Then I started listening to people talk about how they chose--and it seemed to be mostly social reasons.

robj wrote:

Church attendance is always pretty high in rural areas like where I grew up

Seems like it has a strongly social aspect, at least for some. In the past I noticed youngish (20's) people trying to stay sober (booze &/or drugs) would seem to migrate from church to church, looking for a support network/social group. If all of your friends were druggies, it's pretty lonely if you're trying to stay sober. Probably some ministers exploit the need, but perhaps some provide legit/useful support, if too often sexist in attitudes/behaviors. Some people seem to choose based on: does this church have good children/youth activities?

adornosghost wrote:

It must be a red state thing.

Nope. OR votes blue at national level, but quite a few people attend church. One church in town (Presbyterian) has probably the best acoustics of any structure w/in city limits, as well as a real pipe organ. Some of the people who attend like music, have money. This church also provided a place for the local food bank to distribute food and space for community gardens for people of low incomes who have no space of their own in which to garden/grow veg and hosted a rabbi for a few Saturdays, not sure if that's still happening and no, not my church, I don't have one, just gone to a few concerts there.

Plenty of LDS in OR as well. In the 1990's some of the "conservative" "christian" groups demonstrated before the county (where I live) school district building against the use of books w/devil worship, etc,. in the elementary school. It was a book/reader that included fairy tales including one by a local author Richard Kennedy (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there's the people who attend synagogues, temples, mosques. The horror Snark

sdtfs wrote:

Third paragraph.

You're right, I must be tired. Too bad.

burnside wrote:

If you read Vita's poetry, you have no doubt of how strong the ties to Harold were.

I haven't, just read some biographical material (including a collection of Nicolson's letters), seen Sissinghurst and read some of Vita's gardening columns. Nytol

skk wrote:

hmm.. are husband / wife presumed sexual ?

I suppose it could depend--(again, partly on class), for sure for some of the aristocracy (of any culture) it had more to do w/maintenance or increase of property, other types of wealth, and power (more then sexual attraction), but even so, a male heir was often desired, so, it was going to be sexual at least once or as often as it took to produce a male heir.

I believe for many religions the purpose of marriage was sexual reproduction, wasn't it?

burnside wrote:

The legal ruse of adoption made clear one's powers when medical decisions were on deck, and it also made straight the path to an undisturbed probate.

In one of Raymond Chandler's detective stories, Marlowe mentions that, in California, it's possible to adopt an adult. I wondered about that at the time, so, thanks for explaining how that came about.

skk wrote:

hen we'll be good ?

Yes.

skk wrote:

these relationships were presumed to be asexual,

ok, that's what I wanted to know. Not a husband/wife equivalent because it was presumed asexual, yes?

I wondered about differences based on socio-economic class/status partly because of marriages like those of Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West, who apparently had a pretty happy marriage (according to their children anyway), yet both had same sex affairs as well. And I think Ms. Sackville-West lived for awhile with one of her women lovers (after she was married), Violet Trefusis Vita Sackville-West - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Even at her social level though, her family seems to have been concerned about scandal.

She & her husband designed wonderful gardens in addition to their other considerable accomplishments.

skk wrote:

have we found some mutual understanding here ? I feel I did.

Sure, you can think of women in politics (or business, or the sciences) however you want--because that's just how people are, for now (judging women's abilities by their attractiveness)--but refrain from posting about how you might be judging them by their appearances rather then what they do but please do post about your considered opinions of them based on what they do/their experience/expertise, etc.

How's that?

skk wrote:

there are some delicious stories I've read in Slate.com about gay pairs living as husband and wife in the 1800s in the USA.

Could you explain what you mean when you say "husband & wife"? I'm just not sure what you're describing, whether one part of the couple appeared to be female (while actually male or vice versa) or if both partners were clearly male (or female) but lived together & presented themselves (to the world) as a married couple (or same as)?

I have read about women who disguised themselves as men in order to fight as a soldier in the US Civil War and who, after the war ended, continued to live as "men." Until they died.

Not really relevant but . . . "Monstrous Regiment" by Terry Pratchett has great (and of course, funny) descriptions of what a woman needs to do to woman can pass as a man/male soldier, and how uncomfortable/unhappy some people (of both sexes) can feel when women step outside of their traditional roles. Of course, Pratchett's books are classified as fantasy.

burnside wrote:

people were 'confirmed bachelors' and I'd say rather more of them were likely to go through life without calling attention to themselves as couples (and at the same time without apology) than we came to see later.

I have read about "Boston marriages" (for women). Do you think that there might've been differences in tolerance depending on socio-economic class? I've read that there was more tolerance in the theater world (and to some degree, among musicians) but that's just what I've read. If you have a great deal of direct observational experience of those worlds, then you'd know better then me.

I think it's rapid because I didn't expect it to happen in my lifetime based on what I saw happening when I was in my teens. That's the time frame I was using. Based on yours, I'd agree with you.

burnside wrote:

I think it's worth underscoring the distinction between observing something common, observable, done by and large, and what one would prefer or considers best.

Yes & no. Because something that is "done by and large" can be changed. May take a long time, but change is possible. I was surprised at the rapidity w/which same sex relationships have been legitimized in much of the US, particularly at the federal/national level. I think it's a good change--but I wonder how many people (in the US, not sure about other nations), perhaps 50 years ago, would've said, never going to happen, it's just a "fact" that . . .

skk wrote:

so we are agreed its a social fact ?

Nope, you say that it's a fact based on one study.

skk wrote:

Aren't facts sacred ? well in science they are.

Define "fact." I understand that once it was a "fact" (according to biologists of the time) that all male mammals were larger then females of the same species. Until someone actually checked. Then there was the "science" eugenics . . . . You're far more knowledgeable & skilled in math then I'll ever be, but I spent enough time in "science" (and members of my family were research scientists) to be aware that what is a "fact" today may not be a "fact" tomorrow, because additional research may disprove the validity of today's "fact." For years, geologists snickered re: the idea of catastrophic floods until: Missoula Floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Bretz's view, which was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, ran against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially held in disregard. The Geological Society of Washington, D.C, invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a January 12, 1927, meeting where several other geologists presented competing theories. Another geologist at the meeting, J.T. Pardee, had worked with Bretz and had evidence of an ancient glacial lake that lent credence to Bretz's theories. Bretz defended his theories and this kicked off an acrimonious 40-year debate over the origin of the Scablands"

So? So that makes it fine/ok? I understand that some people are biased by color of someone's skin, just, you know because,

"“The findings in this study are, tragically, not too surprising,” said Harrison. “We found that a light-skinned black male can have only a bachelor’s degree and typical work experience and still be preferred over a dark-skinned black male with an MBA and past managerial positions, simply because expectations of the light-skinned black male are much higher, and he doesn’t appear as ‘menacing’ as the darker-skinned male applicant.” Skin Tone More Important Than Educational Background for African Americans Seeking Jobs

burnside wrote:

You may recall she was a hit with the French at a time when we'd been on shaky terms with them.

I do remember vaguely (I was pretty young and it's not been a period of US history I was very interested in), I certainly remember the US not being happy w/de Gaulle--must've overheard my parents talking about him. Wasn't she the first to have a French chef at the White House? (I believe Bush II did too).

skk wrote:

again so you've dropped your complaint that you made earlier ?

Nope, I'm saying the same thing, you mention two women, both of whom have exercised political power, and you seem to rate them in terms of how they look/how "attractive" they may be, not in terms of what they did or do politically.

It's only afterwards that you say that Ms. Clinton is a "warmonger."

skk wrote:

guess we have data to define that. she was in power for 4 years after all

When was Hilary Clinton president? She was Sec'y of State, did not have power to declare war (that's Congress' power, or so the Constitution says) nor was she Commander in Chief, (that's Chief Executive) nor does she have any military rank that would authorize her to order any troops, etc., into action.

skk wrote:

this in every sense of reading is a comparison between Maggie and Hillary and their looks

Again, why do the LOOKS of two people who exercise/d considerable power matter to you? Why isn't it what they do (or in the case of Thatcher, did) that's worth discussing?

here are some of the definitions of harridan: a scolding, vicious woman; hag; shrew.

is the noun "hag" a compliment in terms of looks? Or do these terms: "noun shrew, witch, nag, scold, virago, tartar, battle-axe (informal), termagant, Xanthippe, ballbreaker (slang) make you think of a lovely person? harridan - definition of harridan by The Free Dictionary

Point out similar terms for men, please.

burnside wrote:

I thought Mrs Kennedy was an attractive woman.

I could never really see it but she did seem to have alot of charm and probably a good sense of style (didn't she get quite a bit of the White House redecorated?) Dressed better then Mamie Eisenhower, although that's probably not saying much.

skk wrote:

totally Maggie was way prettier than Hillary. Hillary is a puffer fish.

Again, why does it matter?

skk wrote:

I brought up Hillary and my reasons for disliking her

"but there's no way I'm gonna see Hillary as the sexiest matron."

skk wrote:

you are then agreeing that she is a war monger ?

She's a hawk. But she'd have to work hard to be as much of a warmonger as Bush II and the rest of the neocons.

skk wrote:

didn't she do something stupid regarding kid testing ?

She thought it was fun to arrange author/writer meetings--until she discovered they were going to dare to criticise her husband's actions.

I most disliked her yammering on about how MUCH the US was doing for the girls in Afghanistan, and wasn't it just WONDERFUL, etc., etc., as if that's the reason the US invaded Afghanistan, to "liberate" Afghani women (and as if they were all the same).

Not that she ever really pushed for any of it, and of course, when the Taliban gradually moved back in, not one word from Ms. Prez about the need to continue to protect the same girls, continue to help them become literate, etc. And afaik, she never even tried to use any of whatever influence she had to push the US to continue to help the women and girls of Afghanistan obtain even basic education--when the US started negotiating w/the Taliban which of course Bush "Mission Accomplished" II kept saying would never ever happen.

Just being the good little prezzy wife and supporting her man. No more tolerant of dissension then he was.

robj wrote:

I've never had sexiness as my criteria for public office, which is good, since Texas Repugs are not sexy, in my view.

I can remember hearing people (mostly men) say, oh, women will vote for JFK because he's good looking. Yet I've never heard as women discuss candidate attractiveness/"sexiness" as much as the men on this site have. Or talking head "sexiness." You don't like Ms. Clinton because of her politics, fine, but what a stupid reason to dislike her as a candidate because you don't like her looks--not saying that to you personally Robj, but to those on the board who seem to see the boobs,butt, legs first, and brains, then a little later, the face (if it's cause to criticise) skills, job experience, way way later, if at all.