Mammals and amphibians kind of together – UPDATED

To show you just how much cross-species solidarity I’m capable of, I’m actually kind of watching the Yankees and rooting for them.  At least it’s on in the other room, and I intend to consider paying close attention.   I may even wait to go get dinner until the game is decided.

That’s about the most I can spare positive vibe-wise.

Maybe I should have kept my blog shut.  Texas just went ahead 3-1.

UPDATE – sorry, Mr. Cluck.  I tried.  Guess I’ve got to work a little harder on my vibes.  Isn’t it an odd coincidence, though, that the Rangers would win the playoff on the same day as the WikiLeaks dump?  I mean, GWB-wise.


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

15 comments on “Mammals and amphibians kind of together – UPDATED

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Say it ain’t so, CK. You were pulling for Fuster’s Yanks? C’mon. That’s not going with the good vibes. GWB connection aside, Texas is the feel-good story of the year. Now they’re positioned to have Cliff Lee pitch the first game of the WS. Even if the Phillies get there, they’re vulnerable with Halladay hurt. I’m a Giants fan, but given everything Washington and Hamilton have overcome, I’ll be happy if the Rangers win it all.

  2. You’ll still root for the Gs won’t you? Just for Lincecum’s sake? And now for Cody Ross, who apparently is burning Dodger fan butts (tho I heard that there was really no excuse for how the Phils were pitching him)?

    I was yanking for fuster’s pulls because that’s just the kind of kumbaya, everyone-in-it-together kind of a guy I am, and also because I thought the Goats post was funny but I didn’t really contribute, and also because I’m a sucker for a sob story and Gwen Verdon.

  3. See. Scott, wasn’t so bad, and the Wikileaks, if properly framed, boy I am an optimist today, indicates the dimensions of the struggle we face

  4. miguel cervantes wrote:

    You’ll still root for the Gs won’t you?

    We’ll see. It’s part of my natural born liberalism to reserve the right to not only cut and run, but run to another cause for barely any reason at all.

  5. @ CK MacLeod:
    Never in a million years would I ban sports. I believe in liberty. Liberty includes the right to ignore professional sports. It includes the right to think thoughts that nobody else has ever thought. I am the first person in the world who thinks with enough originality to have discovered that professional sports has no importance and is of no interest.

  6. CK MacLeod wrote:

    I am not miguel cervantes and miguel cervantes is not me.
    How did you do that?

    Scorpio-ADD electrical power.fuster wrote:

    Hell, a day or two ago, Scott thought that George was me.

    CK wasn’t just marveling at the confusion, he was wondering how I managed to post his quote with miguel’s handle. For my next trick, I’ll pull a mid-level pitcher out of my hat and sell him to the Yanks for twice market value.

  7. @ Scott Miller:
    and I was replying that you had posted a quote from myself with George’s handle. You are a marvel of muddle.

    Good luck with your middling pitcher pitching. I think that your best hope is if the guy is an Iranian/Japanese.

  8. @ fuster:
    Good idea. But I’d think that since everything I came up with last week about baseball played out accordingly, you might consider the possibility that you’re just not appreciating the equal measure of clarity happening with me on other fronts.

  9. He’s got a point there, Cluck. The interesting question – pace the new post – is whether it would work in a betting environment, or whether the very thing that makes it work for him when he has no “clear” material interest would reverse and destroy him (or anyone else seeking to exploit it) when he (anyone else) did.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins