NobodyInParticular
NobodyInParticular's Journalitem on a crossword puzzle
Someone somewhere on the net asked for help with a crossword puzzle item: Number 24 across, five letters, first letter being T with the question "white trash with money." Any ideas?
Louis CK did not physically assault nor verbally abuse any one woman
No question what Louis did was socially inappropriate and in poor taste. As to psychic damage done by action of one lone male masturbator to three women, there may be no question that the three felt the masturbator's behavior was insulting, but as with all insults the greater the number of the recipients the less intense the emotional pain tends to be. I seriously doubt that any one of several spectators of a masturbatory display by a single "jerk" would need sessions of psychotherapy to recover from the trauma.
As to the taboo against masturbation Louie in his stage appearances as well as series episodes has been an ongoing supporter for the social acceptance of masturbation. Perhaps he did not know or had forgotten that the mere suggestion of masturbation [let's not forget the more socially acceptable terms "self-abuse/gratification"] ended the career of Clinton's surgeon general, Jocelyn Elders when she mentioned masturbation as an alternative to other forms of safe sex.
Bringing sex into comedy or comedy into sex has always been risky. Let's not forget when way, way back in the early twentieth century Mae West asked a guy, "Is that a pickle in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"
Why Bernie, not Hillary--getting to the heart of the matter:
If you are passionately anti Bernie, please don't read this post (because you will be jabbing at it since you won't get the point.)The core reason for perhaps a majority of Hillary supporters is that "she is a woman and it is time for a woman to lead the country." I think it is wrong to make gender the deciding factor because there is one of far greater importance: it is the candidate's humanity. In every which way, Bernie is by far the greater human being. How do you decide who is the greater member of humankind? It is the quality of caring for one's fellow beings, and this is something that becomes obvious when watching and listening to Bernie--one sees that he not only greatly cares about people but about other living beings as well. Yes, other qualities also count, but there is nothing more important than love and respect for one's peers on this earth.
Try following experiment to get a glance at Hillary's character:
Take any youtube video in which Hillary is in a heated debate, turn off the sound and observe her body language, especially her face (sure you can do the same with Bernie) : If one is easily able to discern emotions visibly and is willing to register what is there, one may either find oneself raising an eyebrow or locking oneself into a stance in which Hillary is the epitome of compassionate, decent behavior. When one holds iron-clad opinions, there is nothing easier than to keep one's eyes wide shut.
Bernie, not Hillary: The Core Issue
If you are passionately anti Bernie, please don't read this post (because you will be jabbing at it since you won't get the point.)
Why Bernie, not Hillary--
The core reason for perhaps a majority of Hillary voters to support their candidate is that "she is a woman and it is time for a woman to lead the country." I think it is wrong to make gender the deciding factor because there is one of far greater importance: it is the candidate's humanity. In every which way, Bernie is by far the greater human being. How do you decide who is the greater member of humankind? It is the quality of caring for one's fellow beings, and this is something that becomes obvious when watching and listening to Bernie--one sees that he not only greatly cares about people but about other living beings as well. Yes, other qualities also count, but there is nothing more important than love and respect for one's peers on this earth.
Did Hillary get a boost in her ratings thanks to Charles Koch?
When Charles Koch answered the question by ABC Correspondent Jonathan Karl if "...it is possible that another Clinton could be better than another Republican this time around?" and Koch replied "It's possible, it's possible" it was clear from the get-go that Koch's endorsement was little more than a vague hint if anything. When Hillary was asked to respond to Koch's hint as an actual suggestion he might endorse her, her response that she’s “not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote” was music to the ears of many an undecided voter in the April 23 Democratic primaries. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-2016/
To a hard-core political conspiracy theorist it would make total sense that there could have been a stage-setting super-secret meeting between Koch's political strategic operatives (persons who orchestrated the rise of the Tea Party) and members of Clinton's campaign staff. If this were indeed the case, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to have this come to light, let alone to prove. In my estimate, it is much more likely that the cue for Hillary's answer came as a part of clandestine wink and nod communications.
To both Hillary and Bernie supporters: What makes Hillary's candidacy attractive to Charles Koch?
Yes, I concede, it is not an unqualified attraction, but what do you think is at its basis?
Hillary's presidentialness
Hillary comes out ahead again and again in the answer to "who among the Democratic candidates is the most presidential?" Where does this perception among the voters come from? It is from Hillary's bearing and language. She stands, speaks and moves in the manner of persons whose confident presence is based on power derived from wealth. Much of the public sees this power as a qualification to rule because in today's social, economic and political reality it is money that decides who is in charge. The more money you have of your own or your sponsors provide the more qualified you have become to be chosen as a CEO or a president. The moneyed class, by giving Hillary hundreds of thousands of dollars to make single speeches, have integrated Hillary into their class, and she in turn thinks, speaks and acts in the manner of the comfortably wealthy.
Is this okay? Yes, if you are for the status quo where the one percent are becoming more and more powerful in deciding what is in their personal interest. No, if you believe the country will be better off if the middle and working class get back the money that has been taken in myriads of ways from making higher education no longer affordable to making it nearly impossible to raise a family on a modest income. That is why a candidate like Hillary whose first sympathies lie with her wealthy peers is the wrong candidate: Bernie is simply the best!
At last it's clear why repugs call for closed door negotiations again and again
When Boehner brought up the need to cut Social Security and Medicare near the end of the Stephanapolis interview, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023798382#post10 he blurted out what's at the core of the right-wing agenda. They don't want the baby boomers to collect the benefits they earned over the years through hard work. They want the soc. sec. money siphoned off to the stock market where they can then cash it out and pocket it. But they don't dare to be open about it at a time like this--they know that the public is on to them, so they pull their cards at secret, closed-door meetings, hoping democratic negotiators will soften up and give them what they want...
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Mar 14, 2008, 01:57 PMNumber of posts: 102
