HereAndGone2
No bio...
User ID: 4074
HereAndGone2
4d ago
Well he kinda is in the pocket of billionaires, just not all the billionaires. But the tech and Amazon-type golden goose needs to be kept alive and not slaughtered to open it for more eggs, and Newsom is smart enough to realise that. So Keep California Safe For Moguls, and the rest of the country has no moguls (except maybe Noo Yawk) and he doesn't care if the Easterners are stupid enough to kill their geese.
HereAndGone2
4d ago
Palestine maybe not, but ol' Scotty there could not do enough for the trans cause - he co-authored that family law bill seeking to include so that "if you don't affirm your child's new gender, you are a MONSTER and should HAVE NO RIGHTS you horrible ABUSIVE BIGOT and we are gonna get the judges to TAKE CUSTODY AWAY FROM YOU for the child's safety" (it got watered down in subsequent readings) so I am enjoying seeing him get the same "boo hiss fuck off we hate you" treatment he was happy to dish out to those who did not hold the Right Think Opinions On Dead Kids, such as parents who might have wondered "hey, how come my son is now a daughter? can we talk about this?"
(I know custody cases tend to be a steaming mess where kids are pawns in the parents' battle to destroy each other, and throwing changed gender orientation of a minor after the parents split up into the mix is just dumping chum in the water, but come off it Scotty).
HereAndGone2
4d ago
Possibly. Getting seats in Congress, yeah, but are there any DSA senators and not just House of Representatives? As for Newsom, I think he realises California is where his bread is buttered, even if he runs for president it'll be a Kamala-style result, so keeping on the good side of the edge cases until he can wangle some kind of move away from California into the higher echelons of the party (if there is such a thing). I wonder if he'd be interested in running for the Senate? But given the backlash against Scott Wiener, this is risky and demonstrates why he'd have to stay on the good side of the crazies.
DSA winning seats in select local districts is entirely possible. DSA as new third national party and being relevant on a national scale? I don't see it, and if any DSA affiliate did manage a run for national office (like AOC and the presidency, something often wistfully mentioned) I think the person would have to considerably soften their policy positions. Go all-in on "new, high-paying, union jobs" (which we all know are now a dying if not dead breed) and economic populism, cool it on "Stalin was the greatest person who ever lived, I find it really hard to pick my favourite between him and Mao".
HereAndGone2
4d ago
It made me laugh. I don't like Mr. Wiener so seeing him hoist on the petard of the exact same protests etc. levied against conservatives, this time by the T part of the LGBT alliance beshrewing him (during Pride Month, even!), was deeply satisfying to my worst instincts. Alas. Let me weep for my sins.
HereAndGone2
4d ago
I don't think she can be kicked out, seeing as how she's DSA not Democrat. But I also think she's not going to do much more than make a few fiery speeches, possibly try a few stunts and get slapped down for them (like early career AOC did) and settle down to cultivate a political career (like AOC did). She was selected by the same king-makers (the Justice Democrats) who got AOC and a slate of others elected, so my take on all this is: (a) it's New York, this sort of stuff will run locally but not nationally and (b) she will not, in fact, rock any boats; she'll work on keeping her seat by keeping on the right side of the college-educated white liberals who elected her.
If I'm being cynical (no, me?) expect an appearance in a couple of years time at the next Met Gala with her own designer togs emblazoned with the right-on messaging just like Sandy from the block 😁
HereAndGone2
4d ago
HereAndGone2
5d ago
What's funny, in a Schadenfreude way, is Scott Weiner getting unpersonned by the trans activist set. Gay yourself, Scott? Leather kink gay? Couldn't do enough for the T in LGBT+? Sorry, it wasn't enough! It is never enough! Get out of our space, you monster! The leopards are now eating his face, to nobody's surprise.
(The bit about praising him for protecting queer people on the sex offenders registry - uh, what???)
HereAndGone2
5d ago
the TERF intersex intersect squabble is a fight between women
Well that is the dispute: are the trans women really women, or men LARPing as women? If you think trans women are indeed the exact same as cis women and you hate all women, then too bad gay man, the trans men are coming for you as well and that fight will happen on your doorstep.
HereAndGone2
5d ago
I think it's not that he didn't have the spine, as that he couldn't be bothered to make the effort. That's his weakness, as contrasted to Darcy who does change his mind and put in the work to win Elizabeth and meet her halfway. Mr. Bennett instead retreated to his library, let his wife handle running the house, and made a pet of Elizabeth because she was smart and he influenced her in how she viewed the world (part of Elizabeth's character growth is growing beyond her father's simplistic scorn for society around him and their neighbours).
HereAndGone2
5d ago
"Democracy good" is an idea that largely skips from pagan Athens (and, to a lesser extent, the Roman Republic) to the explicitly anti-clerical French Revolution without touching the intervening Christian millennia.
Ho ho, let's roll up our sleeves and get stuck into that one! "Democracy good" perhaps, but in pagan Athens it's not democracy as we know it, Jim. Participation confined to free, male, Athenian citizens, and the definition of who was an Athenian became more rigid over time (you had to be born of an Athenian father and an Athenian mother, otherwise out of luck). You could lose your civic rights, and this might even become a heritable disqualification:
"Also excluded from voting were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city: see atimia); for some Athenians, this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification."
Some (such as Plato) thought democracy itself was suspect, others considered it could be good and bad forms, "true" democracy was distinguished from "rule by the mob" (which, of course, is always the danger and probably the form of this distinction today is "populism is the bad form of democracy").
Democracy as we think of it, the will of the people, one man one vote, everyone who is a citizen has a voice and there are no racial or gender disqualifications to citizenship, may not have "touch[ed] the intervening Christian millennia" but (a) democracy as we think of it likely would not have been recognisable to the Athenians and (b) some kind of limits, councils, advisors, parliaments, etc. did occur in the Christian era. Take our friend Henry VIII, he had parliaments which had to at least notionally agree with and consent to his desired policies, and he didn't always get his way, even though those would not have been "democracy as we know it".
HereAndGone2
5d ago
What's called a 'Hail Mary pass' in the USA is called a Garryowen over here, or at least that's the nearest thing to it. Upon first encountering the term, I had to look it up as to why it was called that. Do so, and you find out Notre Dame, and then you find out it's a Catholic prayer:
Crowley often told the story of a game between Notre Dame and Georgia Tech on October 28, 1922, in which the Fighting Irish players said Hail Mary prayers together before scoring each of the touchdowns, before winning the game 13–3. According to Crowley, it was one of the team's linemen, Noble Kizer (a Presbyterian), who suggested praying before the first touchdown, which occurred on a fourth and goal play at the Georgia Tech 6-yard line during the second quarter. Quarterback Harry Stuhldreher, another of the Horsemen, threw a quick pass over the middle to Paul Castner for the score. The ritual was repeated before a third and goal play, again at Georgia Tech's 6-yard line, in the fourth quarter. This time Stuhldreher ran for a touchdown, which sealed the win for Notre Dame. After the game, Kizer exclaimed to Crowley, "Say, that Hail Mary is the best play we've got." Crowley related this story many times in public speeches beginning in the 1930s.
Even on Tumblr, I've seen people making direct connections between the ship name and the name of the main character: Hail Mary, full of Grace.
Learning the origins of common terms is not a bad thing. "Why is this called that?" decreases ignorance, you don't end up going "Dunno" and sounding like you are dumber than a box of rocks.
HereAndGone2
5d ago
Japanese researchers, fortunately isolated from their American comrades because of their ineptitude at learning English
Oh, ouch. True, or does this writer have it in for the Japanese?
HereAndGone2
5d ago
"Drama" is mild to put it, but in the immediate aftermath of the smash hit, this was something at least some were hoping for. Then it all blew up.
HereAndGone2
5d ago
Let us be correct and pure in our thinking and expression, even if the Texans are woefully recalcitrant.
HereAndGone2
5d ago
That would be funny, adaptations tend to make the Bennetts older side of middle age. They both probably assumed they'd have a son to inherit the estate, I wonder if the five daughters were the results of efforts to get that son.
Once the New Relationship Energy wore off, they found they had nothing in common. Mr. Bennett couldn't share his intellectual interests with her and she couldn't get him to be interested in her social ambitions and (later) worries about marrying the girls off.
Still hot MILF Mrs. Bennett would be a great role in any new adaptation!
HereAndGone2
5d ago
Still a long way from that, but I'm sure Science! is working on it.
I think I read something about male genital transplants? Lemme check - ah yes, Johns Hopkins got you covered there, but only if you're cis I'm afraid.
"Can trans women get pregnant?"
No, but trans men can, and they're still men, and by the way that's non-binary erasure, bigot.
This is the linguistic jiggery-pokery which annoys most ordinary people, I think. Pregnant people are mothers, not fathers. Women get pregnant, men don't. You can talk about gender all you like and being inclusive and sensitive and all the rest of it, but right now - even with uterine transplants - biological males can't get pregnant, only biological women. EDIT: You want to be called "Bob, pronouns he/him" and after the kid is born everyone refers to you as the father, sure, okay. But you're not a male who got pregnant and you're not the father father. I can see how this leads to the kind of tip-toeing language around terminology that gives us "some people with uteri who carry pregnancies" (thankfully only confined to research papers like this so far).
Later, when technology and medical science unleashes horrors hitherto unimagined by the human mind progresses and it is possible to get an entire transplant of donor uterus, donor ovaries, construct a neo-cervix and neo-vagina to be birthing canal, a ton of immunosuppressants and hormones, make sure the entire surgically-implanted new system functions, then yes trans women could get pregnant. Probably go with donor uterus, surrogate ova implanted by IVF, and delivery by Caesarean first since creating a complete and functional reproductive system in a body not meant for one is going to be a huge hurdle and will have to be taken step-by-step.
Even uterine transplants, at present, are only good for a couple of pregnancies before needing to be removed in order to come off immunosuppressants:
If the woman is approved for the procedure, the process starts with creating an embryo using in vitro fertilization (IVF), in which the woman’s eggs are retrieved and fertilized with sperm. Next, a healthy uterus is transplanted into the patient. About six months after a successful uterus transplant, a single embryo is implanted into the uterus. If it leads to a successful pregnancy, the pregnancy is treated as high risk, and the baby will be delivered via Cesarean section, because women with uterine factor infertility (UFI) cannot delivery vaginally. Babies born from uterus transplant recipients tend to be born early, at about 35 weeks of gestation. Caring for these premature infants often requires a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit for several weeks. The entire process can take 2-5 years.
As with other types of organ transplants, the woman must take immunosuppressive medications to prevent the body from rejecting the transplanted uterus. After the baby is born and if the woman does not want more children, the transplanted uterus is removed with a hysterectomy procedure, and the woman no longer needs to take anti-rejection medications.
This is the state of the art at present even for systems set up to be child-bearing. Imagine the difficulties to be overcome for a system that is not intended for same.
HereAndGone2
6d ago
Yeah. Goldilocks is a brat, the bears leave their house open because they don't expect any intruders and she doesn't seem to have even the plea of necessity about needing shelter and food, she tries all the porridge and sleeps in all the beds and doesn't explain herself when discovered, she just runs away without making good for the damage she did.
"Don't take stuff just because it's lying there" is a very good lesson for small kids. They need to learn about "this belongs to someone else, ask first" at that age.
HereAndGone2
6d ago
Bears can and should eat bratty little girls, and if the little girls get away that's a disappointing ending.
Seems there were three versions, the first with a nasty old woman instead of a cute little girl:
Out the little old woman jumped; and whether she broke her neck in the fall, or ran into the wood and was lost there, or found her way out of the wood and was taken up by the constable and sent to the House of Correction for a vagrant as she was, I cannot tell. But the Three Bears never saw anything more of her.
Digging into it is fascinating, the history seems to be that it was originally an oral folk tale and when it was first written down seems to be difficult to pin down; this one attributes it to Eleanor Mure in 1831 written down as a version of a story told inside the family but not published, and the bears are more violent to the intruder. First published version seems to be Robert Southey published in 1837 and that kicked off mass-market popularity and new versions.
Over time, the story got tidied up (the dirty old woman becomes a beautiful young woman and then a little girl, the three bears change from three bachelor bears to three friends sharing a home and then become a family of father, mother and baby) and softened (the bears don't do anything to the intruder, she jumps out an open window and gets away scot-free so far as the ending goes) so that it became suitable for children.
HereAndGone2
6d ago
But it's not just about Jonah's punishment, it's about Nineveh being spared not capriciously, but after repenting. Caprice would be God telling Jonah after he arrived and proclaimed the message, but the people of Nineveh didn't believe and didn't change, "You know what? Changed my mind, you can go home".
The lesson for us is "don't be vindictive and punitive for the sake of it, don't try and tell God what to do based on our own desires and hatreds". If the wicked truly repent, they can be forgiven. The whores and tax-collectors enter the Kingdom of God before you, the self-righteous who look down on others.
HereAndGone2
6d ago
then chickening out when it came to follow up on his threats (remind you of anyone? Sadly, God does not always chicken out.),
With an interpretation like that, sounds like the inclusion of Bible stories is a good idea! and maybe you could attend the same class? 😁
For those of you what never heard the Mass readings, God sends Jonah as prophet with a warning message to Nineveh and they convert and He spares them. I don't know what is "chickening-out" there, Jonah is explicit that God is merciful and will spare the truly penitent:
1 The word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: 2 Set out for the great city of Nineveh, and announce to it the message that I will tell you. 3 So Jonah set out for Nineveh, in accord with the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an awesomely great city; it took three days to walk through it. 4 Jonah began his journey through the city, and when he had gone only a single day’s walk announcing, “Forty days more and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” 5 the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth. 6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh: “By decree of the king and his nobles, no man or beast, no cattle or sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water. 8 Man and beast alike must be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God; they all must turn from their evil way and from the violence of their hands. 9 Who knows? God may again repent and turn from his blazing wrath, so that we will not perish.” 10 When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out.
1 But this greatly displeased Jonah, and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the LORD, “O LORD, is this not what I said while I was still in my own country? This is why I fled at first toward Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger, abounding in kindness, repenting of punishment. 3 So now, LORD, please take my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.” 4 But the LORD asked, “Are you right to be angry?” 5 Jonah then left the city for a place to the east of it, where he built himself a hut and waited under it in the shade, to see what would happen to the city. 6 Then the LORD God provided a gourd plant. And when it grew up over Jonah’s head, giving shade that relieved him of any discomfort, Jonah was greatly delighted with the plant. 7 But the next morning at dawn God provided a worm that attacked the plant, so that it withered. 8 And when the sun arose, God provided a scorching east wind; and the sun beat upon Jonah’s head till he became faint. Then he wished for death, saying, “It is better for me to die than to live.” 9 But God said to Jonah, “Do you have a right to be angry over the gourd plant?” Jonah answered, “I have a right to be angry—angry enough to die.” 10 Then the LORD said, “You are concerned over the gourd plant which cost you no effort and which you did not grow; it came up in one night and in one night it perished. 11 And should I not be concerned over the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot know their right hand from their left, not to mention all the animals?”
Goldilocks and the Three Bears? Isn't that the kind of bedtime story parents will already be reading or telling to their kids? Depends on what version is in the curriculum, I suppose, but kindergarten is 4-5 years old, isn't it? Plenty old enough for a simple form of the story.
Also, it seems likely that blue states will retaliate by finding out what stories are most effective at turning kids away from Christianity and making them required reading.
Aren't we already there? If the books aren't explicitly all LGBT+++ friendly, the new interpretations of them are, e.g. this 1970s series of Frog and Toad which I only knew of from seeing the characters presented as gay on Tumblr posts, and the author's daughter saying "yes, my gay dad meant them to be a gay couple".
Of course, Ernie and Bert are gay. What, you thought those two were straight? Pfft!
HereAndGone2
6d ago
It's both of them. The title says it all. Both of them are proud, both of them are prejudiced, and both of them have to learn to change their minds about snap judgements, about compromise, and seeing below the surface.
HereAndGone2
6d ago
The boys can learn from Darcy and Bingley and Mr. Bennett and Mr. Collins and Wickham. Darcy nearly ruins his chances by appearing proud (really he's mostly socially awkward and bad at expressing himself) because he unthinkingly sticks to the rigid social hierarchy of the time. He does have a strong moral foundation, though, and is capable of thinking for himself without needing to destroy all the rules (that last is important, I think; you can change and grow but that doesn't mean you have to be radical rebel punk burn it all down).
Bingley is just a sweetheart who deserves to be happy and he gets to be happy.
Mr. Bennett is a neglectful parent. He may be unhappy in his marriage (which was for love, or at least lustful attraction between him and his wife, so it was not well-established from the start) but retreating into his library, indulging his favourite daughter, and neglecting his other daughters and responsibilities to them is not the way to do it. The estate is entailed so when he dies, his daughters will be turned out and have nothing to live on. That's why Mrs. Bennett is so anxious to get them all married off and settled as fast as she can. His neglect bears fruit in Lydia's caprice and what happens to her, and too late he decides to be more strict with Kitty so she won't turn out the same way.
Wickham is the superficially charming 'cool' guy who presents himself as a victim but who has not taken useful advantage of the help he received, instead he permitted envy and entitlement to shape his actions, and now he's basically a con man living off his wife and her in-laws, being bribed to shut up and go away quietly.
Making a good marriage is also an important message for the boys as demonstrated in this novel; Mr and Mrs Bennett's marriage was imprudent, Wickham's father was drowned in debt by his wife's extravagance, Mr. Collins is trying to marry based not on his own choice and judgement but 'what will please my patroness?', and Darcy almost runs off the rails by how he treats Elizabeth ("your family is terrible, I am lowering myself by being associated with them, but in spite of all the bad things this union will bring, I condescend to propose to you" is not a good way to propose marriage!) and Wickham runs himself into a shotgun marriage where his tricks of trying to compromise a rich girl in order to force such a marriage get turned on him (he runs off with Lydia but never intended to marry her). He's been fortune-hunting, the male equivalent of a gold-digger (there's another heiress he tries to nab but is foiled) and ends up caught in his own trap.
Bingley probably has the smoothest, most trouble-free, romance and marriage of them all, and that's because both he and Jane are good people. He's not foolishly proud, he's not marrying simply because of lust, she's not wealthy herself but she's a good match due to her character and upbringing, and they genuinely fell in love. Walk the middle path between greed (marriage based only on personal advantage and pecuniary gain) and lust (marriage based only on romantic and sexual attraction), be sensible, and you have the best chance of being happy.
Yeah, my view is that he was really obligated to Biden who swung the party behind him and supported him all the way during the recall election that failed. Newsom might have managed that on his own, but Biden's support was the signal that everyone better settle down and stop making waves for the rest of the Dems.
Ambition, since he is a politician. Vanity, since he's Gavin. Yearning for more, since the governorship is as high as he can get and that's term-limited. Manoeuvring for influence and moving into a position where he's a string-puller in the party at large, perhaps. He's still young in political terms, maybe if he figures the Clintons are on the way out eventually he wants the new dynasty to be the Newsoms?
More options
Context Copy link