Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

I watched the match and thought that:

• the umpiring was probably a wee bit heavy-handed, but
• Serena’s behavior was outrageous and unacceptable, even given that.

If Serena were to watch the video of her outburst, and after some self-reflection STILL think that her behavior was acceptable, much less warranted (in the press conference she basically said she was fighting for women’s rights), and doesn’t realize that she should obviously apologize, then she isn’t someone I’d want to be around. Her behavior was at its worst BEFORE the game penalty, and showed total disregard for her worthy and gracious opponent. In my opinion she behaved like a self-centered rude bully. I felt the same about McEnroe when he was playing.

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler, you honestly believe that they are “protesting the anthem”? You honestly believe that it is the ANTHEM that they are mad at??? Kapernick and others have made it clear from the start that they are protesting police brutality. And yet you (and others) persist in insisting that they are protesting the anthem. It’s amazing.

I know that now you’re going to say that the anthem isn’t the place to protest. That is a different argument. So just to be clear, one more time, on topic, Warbler, do you actually believe that they are “protesting the anthem”?

You can say they are not protesting the Anthem, that they are protesting police brutality. I say they are protesting police brutality via protesting the Anthem. Whatever you want to call it, I find it disrespectful.

Sorry, no, that’s not how words work. Strange, with how often you’ve brought up dictionary definitions, I’d have figured you’re the type of person to care about that sort of thing.

Fine, they are disrespecting the Anthem to protest police brutality.

Ok, that’s a more reasoned stance.

Warbler, you honestly believe that they are “protesting the anthem”? You honestly believe that it is the ANTHEM that they are mad at??? Kapernick and others have made it clear from the start that they are protesting police brutality. And yet you (and others) persist in insisting that they are protesting the anthem. It’s amazing.

I know that now you’re going to say that the anthem isn’t the place to protest. That is a different argument. So just to be clear, one more time, on topic, Warbler, do you actually believe that they are “protesting the anthem”?

Of all the things to boycott… we’ve had football players who were rapists, into dog fights, and all manner of truly horrible things that physically hurt innocent people. But which one that brings in the president and half the country, kneeling during the anthem? What a skewed sense of perspective. I hate this self-aggrandizing pseudo patriotism.

I also wonder if this alleged “adult in the room” is simply trying to appease anti-Trump republicans so that they are still comfortable voting republican, on the basis that republicans are saving the day in the white house so don’t worry about Trump. The timing would make it seem that way. Until some republican comes out and make their opposition to Trump clear, as McCain did, it’s hard for me to see it as anything but republican self-aggrandizement without actual substance.

Interesting that both the right and left sides of the media are looking a bit askance at this statement.

NeverarGreat said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Even for the Trumpster fire, this is big.

I actually find this a bit disturbing. Trump won the election, and with the help of these people. Seems like they want their cake and eat it too. Also, it’s the Trump supporters always claiming that there is some sort of Democrat-led “deep state”, when actually if this article is to be believed, there really IS a deep state and it is entirely Republican. If they were truly patriots, they would come out in the open and say what’s right, not quietly benefit from something they know is sick.

Trump just called it “gutless”. He’s right.

Actually, many scientists are religious. My statement was not intended to imply otherwise. Rather, it was intended to compare two particular groups, not to imply that they represented a tautology.

I suppose I could live with being somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic atheist.

Atheism is definitely NOT a religion, in my opinion. People even say that science is a religion, but that is even less true. Religion generally includes one or more articles of faith, and that is one thing that science has no place for. In science nothing is sacred, and anything “proven” today can be disproven tomorrow. Science strives to offer the best explanation given the limits of current measurement tools and analytical techniques. Thus its conclusions can change as tools and techniques improve. It is ironic that a highly educated scientist is less certain about his knowledge than is an uneducated but devout religious person. That is the nature of faith, and what in my mind fundamentally distinguishes atheism, agnosticism, and science from religion.

Collipso said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Could be quackery, but there is this.

That article brings up an important point… just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean that they necessarily believe there isn’t a spiritual or higher realm, or even a creator.

i think you’re referring to an ‘agnostic’ someone and not an ‘atheist’?

Right - I think that most people would categorize me as “agnostic”. However, I actually think that atheism is a more accurate label. The reason is that while I believe that there might be a creator, and I admit that one of the existing religions may be correct, I think that by far the greatest likelihood is that there isn’t a “creator” in any sense that we can conjure. More likely, the realm in which we exist is far more complex, and even the notion of a “creator” is laughably primitive, and that we aren’t even asking the right questions (nor are we capable). I also think that our scientific method would be considered quaint by a more intelligent being, although I think that higher forms of “science” are far more likely to reveal answers than any spiritual method. In other words, I don’t KNOW if there is or isn’t a God, but I very much suspect that there isn’t.

I’ll also add my belief that science must necessarily always leave the door open a crack by admitting there is a remote possibility for things like prayer, God, etc., to be true, but it doesn’t follow that scientists are therefore agnostics by definition.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Could be quackery, but there is this.

That article brings up an important point… just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean that they necessarily believe there isn’t a spiritual or higher realm, or even a creator. I consider myself an atheist, but I am quick to clarify that I haven’t a clue what is beyond our ability to sense or reason, and there absolutely could be a creator. I’m quite convinced that there are things beyond our ability to comprehend, and that there is a lot more to the “universe” than we are capable of knowing.

I even am quick to admit that Christianity (or Islam, or Buddhism, etc.) might be right. It might be possible to communicate with the creator through some sort of spiritual method, such as prayer. I might even catch myself saying a little prayer in a particularly stressful moment, as an instinctive product of my childhood upbringing.

However, I think that the greatest likelihood is that the existing religions are complete nonsense, and that the ancient texts so revered by them are utter fairy tales. I also believe that prayer is pointless, and that a presidential call to prayer is primitive. So, being completely un-persuaded by any theism, I would consider myself atheist. Maybe it will turn out that I’m wrong and I will burn in hell as a result. I think that the likelihood of that is vanishingly small. But it is a possibility.

Mrebo said:

This is all very silly. Presidents should be free to express whatever religious view that they want. If you don’t like that don’t vote for those presidents.

I didn’t - that’s my point!!
Apparently more people prefer a president who calls for prayer.

Jazz has almost 100 years of incredible recordings of every imaginable flavor. You can spend a lifetime of exploring - it’s like a giant project with all these artists trying different things.

My favorites tend towards the edgy post-bop stuff. John Coltrane, Art Blakey, Freddie Hubbard, Sonny Rollins, etc. But I also love big bands - Duke Ellington, Count Basie, etc. And really early stuff - Louis Armstrong, George Lewis, even the old King Oliver recordings. Cool stuff - Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, Chet Baker, Bill Evans. Love some of the avant garde - Art Ensemble of Chicago, George Adams and Don Pullen, Pharoah Sanders. And fusion - Weather Report, Return to Forever. Bebop and swing - Charlie Parker, Lester Young, Clifford Brown/Max Roach, Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson, Stan Getz. Gypsy jazz - Django/Stef. Man, I’m leaving a lot out.

I’m never sure where to begin as far recommending where to start. Hard to predict what would resonate for you. You mentioned piano - if you want to be amazed, you should try Art Tatum. Or for something more ethereal, Bill Evans “Portrait in Jazz”. A lot of people suggest Miles Davis “Kind of Blue”, which is hard to argue against. For saxophone, hmmm - are you ready for John Coltrane “Giant Steps”? Any of the Stan Getz bossa nova stuff is probably a gentler introduction. A lot of people started with Charlie Parker with Strings. One interesting recording is Benny Carter’s “Further Definitions”, which has four fantastic sax players (Carter, Phil Woods, Coleman Hawkins, and Charlie Rouse) on some marvelous arrangements and a fantastic rhythm section. Or you might like Dave Brubeck “Time Out”, with some nice Paul Desmond sax along with Brubeck’s own piano style, and of course the odd time signatures.

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

This issue only first bugged me when George Bush (Jr.) kept saying “we have to pray”. Every time something happened, those seemed to always be his words - “we have to pray”. Well, I’m not religious, and it just kinda bugged me that the president of a democratic country ostensibly with separation of church and state seemed so intent on having me pray.

Even though we have separation of church and state, the President is still an American Citizen and the Bill of Right apply to him just as they do with other citizens. He has freedom of religion and speech. This means he can be a Christian and pray and can say that he thinks others should pray as well.

I know he has that right. But it doesn’t seem appropriate to me to use this particular office as a pulpit. It’s not part of the job description - quite the contrary. That’s kinda what separation of church and state means.

This issue only first bugged me when George Bush (Jr.) kept saying “we have to pray”. Every time something happened, those seemed to always be his words - “we have to pray”. Well, I’m not religious, and it just kinda bugged me that the president of a democratic country ostensibly with separation of church and state seemed so intent on having me pray.

Handman said:

Public school teachers are some of the most abominable people.

Thanks.

As soon as someone is able to successfully use the links to make a DVD and watch it, let me/us know. I actually haven’t verified their correctness myself.

I didn’t GOUT-sync the mono track.

It’s been so long, I can’t even remember… is the 16mm mono actually a different mix? Or just a fold-down of the stereo? I suppose the answer is somewhere back through the previous pages.

If anyone wants to GOUT-sync the mono, they should probably get the uncompressed .WAV files from me, rather than grabbing them off the DVD.

drum roll…
It appears to be finished!

It has also been hosted (thanks, Frink!), and I have the links. Now, I have never distributed these works, and right now as I’m looking at several weeks of galley reviews of my two new textbooks, and the start of the Fall semester, I don’t have time to answer a gazillion PMs asking for copies. So, any volunteers to take on this thankless task?

NeverarGreat said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I’m almost 60, and I’ve been hearing this Fall of the Roman Empire stuff since I was in elementary school.

True, but it’s always been applied to the USA in general, not to ‘the left’.

Hmm, not so sure about that. I’ve always heard of it relation to things like homosexuality, abortion, drugs, less Jesus, etc., the usual social battle cries of the right.

I’m almost 60, and I’ve been hearing this Fall of the Roman Empire stuff since I was in elementary school.

I just watched a few of Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Who is America” skits. And while the episodes with Jason Spencer and Dick Cheney were undeniably brilliant, I was disappointed with Cohen for how he staged the Bernie Sanders and Ted Koppel segments. Whereas with Spencer and Cheney, Cohen played someone who was on their side (to get them comfortable enough to reveal their true natures), with Sanders and Koppel he played someone arguing AGAINST them. Thus, he didn’t challenge or “set up” Sanders or Koppel like he did Cheney and Spencer.

Now, I’m an unabashed democratic lefty. But I still would have preferred to see an equal-opportunity duping. We still have no way of knowing whether Sanders or Koppel would have fallen for, or would have been baited by Cohen in the same manner, and end up doing something extreme. Cohen made them look smarter than their republican counterparts, and it might not be apparent to most viewers that it was because he didn’t use the same formula with them. For instance, he could have tried to get Sanders to endorse a plan of withdrawing money from upper-income people’s accounts to pay for free housing for illegal immigrants. Or he could have gotten Koppel to rank Al Jazeera higher than Fox News (although frankly, I would).

Having said that, Cheney was downright scary.

flametitan said:

https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2018/07/27/man-changes-birth-certificate-gender-for-car-insurance/

I have no words to describe how appalled I am.

Well, according to insurance companies, it is likely that he will now have fewer accidents.

Yeah that manifesto about how we shouldn’t say “poisoned” with respect to Flint, is some of the most convoluted double-speak I’ve ever heard.

For anyone who studies computer science, Countess Ada is a serious kickass Goddess.