HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cyclonefence » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2

cyclonefence

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Dec 5, 2016, 05:05 PM
Number of posts: 3,267

Journal Archives

About those cotton bolls

I was engaged in arguing with a bunch of people yesterday over Hobby Lobby's cotton bolls. I was under the impression--from material posted here--that the bolls in question were in a display window (I've never seen a Hobby Lobby store, so I don't know what kind of windows they have; I know other craft stores don't have small display windows, but as I say from what I read here, the bolls were in a display window), and right up to the end, *nobody* pointed out to me "Hey dummy--it's not about a display window. It's about what they sell in the store."

Now I have an excuse--I was engaged in a solitary drinking game during Trump's UN speech (I don't know how to find the number of the post, but it's titled "A Drinking Game (yes, at 9:30 in the morning)) and I think could be excused for misunderstanding in the first place.

The people who responded to me, though--especially those who were intemperate--never corrected my misconception, although I typed repeatedly about "fucking sticks in the fucking window" and made many other references to the cotton being on public display visible outside the store. I wrote a "for example" about someone displaying primitive art in a living room window, visible from the sidewalk and being unwilling to move it farther inside after a neighbor's complaint. So I think it was pretty clear what I believed the situation to be.

Here's my problem--and it's one I've had before, though not as dramatically evident as in this case: either the responders to my posts did not read the actual words I wrote, or they were under the same misapprehension as I was and believed Hobby Lobby should not remove a display that offended at least one person in a window visible from outside the store.

I am guilty of responding without reading carefully. I think it's easy to do, especially if you've already made up your mind on the topic, and even more especially if you believe the title of the post is the actual nub of the poster's point. (Nub of a point? Interesting)

This is lazy and sloppy, and it truly does a disservice to the group. It is impossible to have exchange of ideas without really understanding what the person you're talking to is saying. I'm going to try hard not to do this in the future. I'm going to force myself to read a post twice before I respond to it.

The other reaction, apparently believing as I did that it was a matter of a display window, is actually pretty amusing to me. I was told more than once that mine was not a popular reaction, that there was "no movement" to redress this wrong--by people who *may* have thought redressing the wrong involved removing the fucking sticks from the fucking window.

He's getting red in the face

and oh my glob he called him "Rocket Man." Sweet Jeebus. We're all dead. It's been real, folks.

A drinking game (yes, at 9:30 in the morning) for Donald Trump's address to the UN

I've got my special glass and a new bottle of Redbreast (which is only one of the many wonderful things I've learned about here on DU), and I'm going to take a drink every time DT goes off-script, which as we know will be easy to detect because he'll throw in some asinine repetition or a meaningless modifier.

If I'm drunk by the end of his speech, so much the better.

Where the hell does he get off thinking he has any authority, moral or otherwise, to tell the rest of the world how to behave?

This is going to be real good.

Edited to add:

And if he starts giving a campaign speech.

Bottoms up!

Edited again to add:

If he says "a lot of people don't know this"

Edited again to add:

"Beautiful" when not used to describe a woman or a landscape
(I have some catching up to do on this one)

Edited again to add:

This is just globawful. Now I have a reason to drink regardless of what he says--he just got in a "believe me."

Anybody watching "Get Shorty" on Epix?

This is a really great show, based loosely on Elmore Leonard's novel, starring Chris O'Dowd (drool) and a magnificent supporting cast, including of all people Ray Romano--even the little kid is wonderful. It's not getting much attention that I can see, and I'm worried that there won't be a season 2. It's really, really worth a look.

It's a dark comedy about horrible criminals who you want to win--sort of like Breaking Bad, but funny as hell. The plot is intriguing, with nice twists, and it's very well-written.

You can watch all 7 episodes (so far) On Demand.

Who voted for Trump?

from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/

Asserting that Trump’s rise was primarily powered by cultural resentment and economic reversal has become de rigueur among white pundits and thought leaders. But evidence for this is, at best, mixed. In a study of preelection polling data, the Gallup researchers Jonathan Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell found that “people living in areas with diminished economic opportunity” were “somewhat more likely to support Trump.” But the researchers also found that voters in their study who supported Trump generally had a higher mean household income ($81,898) than those who did not ($77,046). Those who approved of Trump were “less likely to be unemployed and less likely to be employed part-time” than those who did not. They also tended to be from areas that were very white: “The racial and ethnic isolation of whites at the zip code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support.”

An analysis of exit polls conducted during the presidential primaries estimated the median household income of Trump supporters to be about $72,000. But even this lower number is almost double the median household income of African Americans, and $15,000 above the American median. Trump’s white support was not determined by income. According to Edison Research, Trump won whites making less than $50,000 by 20 points, whites making $50,000 to $99,999 by 28 points, and whites making $100,000 or more by 14 points. This shows that Trump assembled a broad white coalition that ran the gamut from Joe the Dishwasher to Joe the Plumber to Joe the Banker. So when white pundits cast the elevation of Trump as the handiwork of an inscrutable white working class, they are being too modest, declining to claim credit for their own economic class. Trump’s dominance among whites across class lines is of a piece with his larger dominance across nearly every white demographic. Trump won white women (+9) and white men (+31). He won white people with college degrees (+3) and white people without them (+37). He won whites ages 18–29 (+4), 30–44 (+17), 45–64 (+28), and 65 and older (+19). Trump won whites in midwestern Illinois (+11), whites in mid-Atlantic New Jersey (+12), and whites in the Sun Belt’s New Mexico (+5). In no state that Edison polled did Trump’s white support dip below 40 percent. Hillary Clinton’s did, in states as disparate as Florida, Utah, Indiana, and Kentucky. From the beer track to the wine track, from soccer moms to nascar dads, Trump’s performance among whites was dominant. According to Mother Jones, based on preelection polling data, if you tallied the popular vote of only white America to derive 2016 electoral votes, Trump would have defeated Clinton 389 to 81, with the remaining 68 votes either a toss-up or unknown.

Flood insurance and Health insurance for all

Right now, federal flood insurance is not mandatory for people living in flood-prone areas, and it is very expensive because only people (who can afford it) who are most vulnerable pay for flood insurance. People living in the flood plain where flooding is not frequent or severe probably do not feel they need this expensive insurance--premiums might cost more than the repair costs.

Making it mandatory to have flood insurance if you live in the flood plain, no matter how great your personal risk is, lowers premiums for everybody by pooling risk. Some people will benefit more than other people when it floods, but everyone would be covered, and it benefits the group for everyone to be able to afford repairs. Hence imo flood insurance for all in the flood plain makes a lot of sense.

Spreading the risk for medical costs works the same way. Some will end up paying more in premiums than they otherwise would, but all would be covered. The group--our country--benefits when all its citizens receive health care.

Whether it's fine-tuning ACA or single-payer, the larger the risk pool, the better off we all are.

I caught a few seconds of HRC on TV this morning

I have avoided seeing her interviews--my pain is too raw--but in just those few seconds I saw something that really bothered me. She was talking about the MSM's part in her defeat, and I knew exactly what she was talking about and I know she's right. She was treated unimaginably unfairly and until the very end of the campaign DT's every lie and slander was reported with little or no fact-checking, while Emails and Benghazi drums were beaten nonstop. So I'm on her side on this.

The trouble is, she doesn't communicate well (in certain, important, situations, anyway), and it truly sounded like she was blaming the media for her loss. She wasn't; she was pointing out the role of the media in the election and suggesting that some introspection on MSM's part might be a good idea before the next election. But it sounded like blaming.

It just breaks my heart.

Trigeminal Neuralgia?

Anybody with experience? My ENT suspects I have it but needs to clear up a massive sinus infection before addressing it. I was devastated to learn on the internet this morning that it's a chronic condition. The shooting, lightning-strike pain is damn near unbearable.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2