HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » grumpyduck » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Dec 16, 2017, 12:51 PM
Number of posts: 5,207

Journal Archives

"If he goes down, we're going down with him."

I coudn't get myself to watch the Cohen hearings, or even to read all that much about them. I'm just overloaded and sick of the whole thing.

But, from the little I read just now about the Republican strategy of discrediting Cohen instead of defending T, and the words used, and the drama, I get this sneaky feeling that some of these people must be thinking, "Shit, if T goes down, we're all going down with him." Discrediting a witness is an old courtroom trick used to remove attention from potentially damaging testimony. Magicians call it misdirection.

Why do so many people seem to fall for "opinion as news?"

I can make snide remarks too, but I think it's fascinating that so many people nowadays seem to let others tell them what to think, especially when it pisses them off. It's like they have a need to get pissed off.

Have some people lost the ability to think for themselves? And why is that? Are we getting spoon-fed so much material that there's no room left for thinking? Is it information overload, or being addicted to TV pundits?

I know the media focuses on stuff that's controversial or that gets people to keep coming back; it's part of what they do to increase revenue. I can live with that. But why do so many people insist on swallowing it?

Or is it just that people get addicted to stuff that gives them a distraction from their everyday lives? Soap operas. So-called reality shows. So-called celebrities. Is it just a need to experience life vicariously because they don't have one?

Not making any value judgements (or snide comments) here. I just think it's fascinating, especially when you consider how it's splitting the country apart.

Any thoughts?

Global warming, Green New Deal, and stupidity

Okay, so traditional energy companies, run by very rich people, want to stay in business, and our supposedly very rich person in the Oval Office is siding with them. So they're all opposed to the idea of recognizing global warming because it could impact their businesses. But it's not just the top people at these companies -- it's also their boards of directors.

Which brings back a story about the Winchester company. They hit it big on rifles and ammo during the Indian push-back period, the Civil War, and the expansion west. But then people didn't need rifles and ammo so much. So, although it's possible that their board was pushing like hell to continue the Indian battles and the expansion, they also came up with an idea: retool and start making tools and stuff that the settlers now needed. And that's what kept them going for years.

It's like a horse-drawn carriage and buggy whip company opposing the car industry. Which I'm sure they did.

But it makes me wonder about some of these traditional energy people fighting like hell to hang on to technologies from one or two centuries ago instead of gradually switching to new technologies. In my book, and IMHO, that's absolute stupidity and useless stubborness. Is it because they're too old to understand new technology, or did they all somehow manage to not learn anything in business school?

Meanwhile, the argument (the politicized argument) is about global warming instead of about some of these people just being damn stubborn and hanging on to buggy whips. Sure, that makes a lot of sense.

Or maybe they don't know that there are very rich people running "new technology" companies too?

From The New Yorker: "Does Congress Care About Trump's Emergency?"

Personally, I think the only thing Congress cares about right now is the upcoming elections and keeping their jobs -- doing whatever they think is going to get them re-elected. The emergency is just one more thing to spin in different directions depending on which way the wind is blowing.


Okay, not to derail the dogs thread: what kind of pet would suit T?

My first thought would be something like a weasel.

Please don't say a cat. I'm sitting here with our rescued Maine Coon and he has his paw on my arm.

Thank you for the hearts! Again!

I don't know who you are, but hearts right back to you!

Thank you for my heart!

Wow, I sure wasn't expecting that!

How do you feel about "cultural appropriation?"

Long story short, the more I think about this term, the more it seems it's being used by many as a a way of saying, "we're different." IOW, we're in different groups and you can't use my stuff because it disrespects my group. It seems like a way of dividing people.

So, can cultural appropriation extend to, say, having Chinese or Indian food if you're not either? Many years ago we attended a Seder, and the host, who knew I was Catholic, asked me if I'd be offended by wearing a yarmulke. I said absolutely not; actually, I was honored that he would invite me to wear one.

Has this whole concept gone too far? I find it especially interesting in the U.S., which was traditionally seen as a melting pot.
Go to Page: 1