what the Church did in the Middle Ages: a constant barrage of this-is-bad that-is-bad you-should-not-do-this bullshit dumped on the uneducated masses to rein them into supporting the institution. The funny thing is, the Church depended on the masses being uneducated (and encouraged it) to avoid people questioning their "teachings."

The first universities during this period were run by the Church, and it was a matter of finding the bright (or gullible) ones, bringing them into the fold, and keeping them there to help spread the word and control the money.

So far the repukes haven't started talking about hell and excommunication, but I wouldn't be surprised if they bring those up one of these days. Heck, right now they have some evangelicals swallowing the bait.

I was raised Catholic and attended parochial schools and church for a long time, so I think I can safely say this.

Older generation... we were expected to eat what Mom put on the plate... no questions asked. My Mom was a really good cook and I generally liked what she served, but now and then I just didn't like something. So I came up with a brilliant idea: I would eat what I didn't like first, as in scarf it up, and then take my time with everything else. Worked like a charm for a while.

Until one day when an aunt came to visit. There was something I really didn't care for, so I scarfed it up. My aunt saw this, said, wow, look how much he likes it, and dropped a huge spoonful of whatever-it-was on my plate. My nine-year-old image of myself as a genius was shattered. Back to the drawing board.

This post was inspired by a piece on Huffpost about what not to say to your kids at dinner time.

I missed all that.

After reading a number of the posts about this over the last couple of days, my guess is that DOJ wants to make sure it has a galaxy-class tight case before proceeding. I think they know what a disaster it would be for our democracy if tfg were to be acquitted, so they are looking into stuff with a microscope and probably even have some people playing devil's advocate. IOW, they're prepping for the trial of the century.

And yeah, it's appalling that so much money is being wasted on that pos, when the Russians would have a much simpler solution for one of their own.

and conniptions, it is my humble opinion that they are doing it for one and only one purpose: to get and keep their voters pissed off at the Democrats. Since they don't have much to say, the only way they can get some people to support them is to "be against the other party." A lot of their moron voters may not know what the repukes are doing or what the Democrats are doing, but they sure know how to vote against "the other party."

So, AFAIC, all these hissifits are just moron-level theater.

It's a fairly new alternative to Twitter. I just found out about it.

and such remind me of the recruiting scene in Blazing Saddles.

"We don't need no stinking badges."

I've known a fair number of people over the years who love to talk, as in they talk even when they're not saying anything, or take five minutes to say what could only take one minute. You get the idea.

And I've noticed that a lot of them will stop and then immediately go "But uh..." as if to say "I'm still talking, just need a moment to think of what to say."

Anyone one else notice this?

Some (probably most) of you are far -- far -- more knowledgeable about this than I am, so I thought I'd ask here.

An old friend of mine, who happens to be a Republican, emailed me a letter sent by the Valero oil company to the California Energy Commission responding to an allegation that oil companies are inflating the price of gas here in CA as part of a conspiracy. The letter went on about how CA's requirements for energy companies are the strictest in the nation, and that they force the companies to have higher prices.

Now, I know he sent me the letter to "show" that Democrats in CA are the ones pushing these requirements and therefore responsible for the high price of gas.

So my question to you knowledgeable folks is, do you know offhand (or can you point me to any valid material) that compares how Democratic governments in CA have fared against Republican ones when it comes to making codes and requirements more restrictive? IOW, have Democrats pushed for more restrictions than Republicans, or the other way around? I'm thinking back to the Reagan era or even before then.

What I would dearly love to tell him -- if it's correct -- is that most of these restrictions were created during Republican administrations. If they weren't, then fine: I don't need to respond to him.

Thanks.

Like many others, I learned chess as a kid, maybe eleven or twelve. Played for a while, usually lost, and eventually moved on to other things. Fifteen or so years ago I download a chess app and played a few times, usually losing again. I didn't have enough interest in reading chess books or joining a club, so none of that happened. Since then, I've played the app three or four times.

And one day something hit me like a brick: I realized that the reason I had been losing was that I was playing defense, just reacting, protecting my pieces from my opponent. So I decided that I was going to go after that king from the get-go and focus totally on that, and see what happened. Voila! I started winning. Whowouldathunk? The last game I played, I lost three pieces, captured twelve of the computer's, and didn't even move ten of mine. A screenshot is still on my phone. Granted, this was beginner level.

But that's when something else hit me: have the Democrats been playing defense - just reacting - all this time while the repukes are using every trick in the book, even to cheating? So far, the DOJ seems to be ready for tfg's antics, like they've been thinking ahead. I think we need more of that in the ranks.

Okay, maybe two bits is too high. Two cents?