lookin

Targeted marketing and data mining no doubt. Mine all say "early bird special".

Happy Father's Day from Me, Myself and I

Many thanks for all the good viewpoints guys! I think another lesson we've learned is that the Middle East abhors a power vacuum. For all the things you can say about Saddam Hussein, the man knew how to keep a lid on things. The same hand that held down the Sunnis also held down terrorist groups that weren't working for him. There was no power vacuum in Saddam's Iraq. There's no power vacuum in Saudi Arabia either. State beheadings, yes, but not so much from terrorists. I'm not as knowledgeable as you folks, but there seems to be a pretty good correlation between repressive governments and a lack of terrorist groups. So that makes me wonder if we should be so quick to support the overthrow of tyrants until we have something better in mind. I don't know much about Assad, but I'm wondering how much worse he is than an Islamic Caliphate that's bringing in aimless psychopaths to Syria from all over the world and sending them back to us as committed psychopaths. Should we have thought it through another step before we dropped him like a hot kebab? I don't know the answer, but it seems like maybe we should think twice before we throw the bully out with the Ba'athwater.

If you ask me, Obama is doing the right things, although I wish he had started a bit sooner. I've felt for some years that the answer to defeating Middle East terror groups lies primarily in the Middle East. The fact that there are now a few Middle East boots on the ground and a few Middle East planes in the sky is a good thing. But the best thing is that there are now Middle East clerics actually calling the terrorists out for the sociopaths they are, rather than ignoring them or trying to defend them. In my opinion, this is the most significant step yet in trying to rein in ISIS, and my take is that Obama and Kerry are the ones who got it to happen. A few years ago, I saw a projection that the U. S. would be energy independent within a decade or two. It now appears we are pretty close to that now, and that reduced reliance on business entanglements with the Middle East is another good thing that happened on Obama's watch. While I think it's good that the U. S. maintains a strong identity as a 'leader', I am much more comfortable in sharing that role with other like-minded nations. It's very easy to fall into the trap of being the 'only' country that can solve the world's problems. No doubt other countries would like for the U. S. to do all the heavy lifting while they enjoy the benefits, but I don't think that's fair to us. For one thing, it puts a huge target on our back alone. I like the way that Obama and Kerry have spread the responsibility of leadership among more countries. Of course, that means that our interests will not be the only ones represented, and that will be hard for some to accept. But, overall, I think it's a much more tenable position to share the labor and to also share the fruits of that labor. No doubt, there's a shift involved in going from the 'boss of the world' to being part of a group. In my opinion, it's a necessary shift and there will be discomfort along the way, as there always is with change. It will also happen over months and years, rather than days and weeks. While I would personally like to see that shift sooner rather than later, I believe there's a case to be made for having others ask for our help instead of shoving it down their throats. We already tried that under the Bush administration and we're still cleaning up that mess. In fact, my feeling is that ISIS came about primarily because of the power vacuums left by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's misadventures in the Middle East. It will take some time to re-stabilize that part of the world and, if it's to remain stable, it will take a lot more than one country and one president to keep it that way. So, yes, I'm happy with the direction Obama and his team are taking. Even if others may not be.

It would be nice to say "It wasn't me!" with real conviction.

Maple syrup! Maple sugar candy!! I could easily live in Canada, Vancouver in particular. If I could weasel my way in.

Locals accused them of defecating in the citys moat, causing accidents by driving recklessly, and defacing several tourist attractions, according to the Bangkok Post. Apparently, the Chinese have rather more casual views on excretory functions than most Westerners do. From birth, children are taught that taking a whiz or a dump in public is quite acceptable. And, after reading this little blurb on Chinese public toilets, I can see why pooping in a moat in a Thai garden might seem like a welcome upgrade from the typical Chinese loo. Most of them are squat toilets with little, if any, screening, no hooks for coats or packages, and a floor that has not been washed since Chairman Mao put the finishing touches on his Little Red Book.

Now San Francisco has joined Atlanta, Denver, Houston, Philadelphia and Portland in filing friend of the court briefs in support of the Massachusetts lawsuit. I guess I'm a bit unclear on what these folks have in mind for a strategy to curb what they call "sex trafficking", particularly as it relates to minors. If I were serious about tracking down underage prostitutes and their pimps, I think I'd be inclined to use Backpage as a very handy list of the folks I want to track down, along with their current contact info. I'd be setting up appointment after appointment to find these underage, unwilling prostitutes and get them into supportive environments before another week went by. I'd also get them to help me find their pimps and lock them up, again on a very aggressive timetable. It seems that shutting down Backpage before I snared all these folks would take a very useful tool out of my hands before I had a chance to use it. Perhaps these attorneys general think that, by shutting down Backpage, all the underage prostitutes will go back to school and all their pimps will find lawful employment elsewhere; but I'm gonna need some convincin'.

Nowise a surprise. In fact, fairly predictable when food company managers get paid on profit and not on the nutritional value of their products. With no correlation between nutrition and profitability in the food industry - in fact, some may say a reverse correlation - our capitalistic system virtually ensures a steady decline in the healthfulness of our food supply. The past half-century has brought us where we are today and it's a crapshoot where it will bring us in the next fifty years. Not that I'm pimping for the replacement of capitalism, primarily because I can't think of a better system. But what I do advocate is a better allocation of costs within our current capitalistic system. For a long time, cigarette companies found increased profit in pretending their decisions didn't worsen the health of their customers, but they eventually had to factor in more of the costs of their decisions and modified their products and their marketing tactics to be less harmful. And, in my opinion, one of the most helpful outcomes of Obamacare is the deeper discussion and focus on how our healthcare system can be rewarded financially for actually promoting better health rather than merely trying to fix bad health. A small start, no doubt, but it's a start. Eventually, my hope is that the food industry will find more profit in better nourishing their customers and see increased costs in promoting malnutrition. They certainly have the expertise, or at least a good shot at developing the knowhow, to put healthier food on the table. And, while government regulation is another way to get us there, many of our politicians will fight such regulations on principle. I'd very much like to see a system of cost allocation that puts the expense of caring for malnourished folks right back on the companies that feed them chazerai. Once food companies become responsible for the costs of removing nutritional value from their products, it's up to them to deal with these costs better than their competitors and figure out how to make a buck by improving nutrition. If they do, their stock and compensation will go up. If they don't, they'll go out of business. And isn't that what successful capitalism is all about?

I usually take a few extra, just to be sure.

You know, MsGuy, I've been thinking the exact same thing and you have put it much more elegantly than I could express it. I would indeed feel blessed if I could someday write a sentence in which the words carried their own rhythm along with them so that everyone who read it would hear just what I did when I wrote it. Some years ago, I posted another sentence which was a verse strung together and it was so awkward that no one realized what it was. Or, at least, were too kind to mention it.

Well it started out as a verse: He abjured the serial comma And it wasn't hard to see That sooner more than later A frisson would come to be For I had some things to say to him And no doubt he to me But if punctuation had no role It would drive me up a tree. And then I thought I'd take you up on your earlier challenge: So I turned it into a sentence that lacked a serial comma and, since I wasn't sure what a serial comma was, I left out all the commas one after the other. I thought perhaps it would be understandable without any commas at all. Clearly it was unclear. Its awkwardness and lack of intelligibility has given me a new respect for commas so I plan to go back to using them, liberally, serially, and, perhaps, in places, where I did not, before. And thanks for indulging some antics.

He abjured the serial comma and it wasn't hard to see that sooner more than later a frisson would come to be for I had some things to say to him and no doubt he to me but if punctuation had no role it would drive me up a tree.

. . . and seventeen calls from AdamSmith. He says he found your gym bag. He can be reached at the Peabody.

Big you say?

No doubt you are correct. Even today, we have those who snicker at their colleagues who are skittish about setting someone on fire. I'd like to think, though, that they are in the minority. And while your nasty nautical Norsemen got most of the press, my hunch is there wasn't room in the boats for the large majority who stayed at home and led their lives in a somewhat more familiar and convivial manner. Harald, dinner! Go get Bent. Not walrus again! They were out of herring. Here, have some mead. Where's Lars? Outside, tuning his fiddle. Not a duet with Garth, I hope. I never heard such an awful lyre! Did you guys see the way Harald is walking? A little light in the leggings, huh? Pul-leeze! He's gay as a lingonberry!

It took me a while to tumble to your comments in this thread but I finally came to suspect that you're conflating actions with religion, or with sexuality. I don't believe they are very closely related at all and, when you assume they are, you may fall into the very traps that are best avoided. While it may take an extra step to separate Netanyahu's actions from his religion, it's not that difficult and, I believe, well worth the effort. There are plenty of folks in Israel who consider Netanyahu an unpleasant piece of work and they are every bit as Jewish as he is. Does that make them bigots? Not in my opinion, although he would probably like to paint them as such. Often, those Jews who oppose political Zionism or nationalistic extremism are labeled self-hating Jews and it's a small step from there to be labeled anti-Semitic. Even though they themselves are Semitic. Similarly, if I were to take umbrage at the actions of another gay person, does that make me anti-gay? I've seen folks on some of the very websites we frequent call others self-hating gays because they dislike something another gay person has said or done. This is, again in my opinion, nothing more than jingoism to cover up an inability or unwillingness to separate individual actions from general affiliations. Pardon me for droning on about the distinction between the group someone belongs to and his or her actions but I've come to the conclusion that the failure to make this distinction is at the root of many of the world's problems today. And probably yesterday. And, unless we learn our lessons, tomorrow as well. My own hard-won views are that the vast majority of people the world over are pretty decent folks and don't want to cause trouble for others. But there are definitely some troublemakers, in every religion, in every nationality, in every sexual orientation, in every political party, and in just about any other group you care to mention. In my opinion, Netanyahu is one of those troublemakers and I hope the good folks in Israel will find a way to sideline him next month. And, besides a general feeling that Israel would be better off with a Herzog-Livni ticket, it just somehow tickles me to think of a Prime Minister named Tzipi.

As you say, you're not alone. He pretty nearly pissed off the Pope. Apparently, last year he gave the pontiff a book on the Spanish Inquisition. It was by Bibi's father, Ben Zion Netanyahu, and explained that the Jews were burned at the stake not because they weren't serious about converting to Catholicism but because of racial hatred dating back to the Egyptians. In other words, it was secular persecution and not spiritual. Here he is telling His Holiness there's no hard feelings.

Don't be glum. With luck, Netanyahu will wrap up early and Congress will also have time to repeal Obamacare. Something for everyone, except maybe for the ten million folks who thought they were getting health insurance. And, who knows, perhaps Bibi will invite them to come to Israel.

And now the Israeli election chief has required a five-minute broadcast delay in Netanyahu's speech to Congress so that anything smacking of campaigning can be be stripped from what the Israelis will hear on-air. I wonder if he knows how to speak without a clenched fist.

I barely made it through your post.

Hey, Guys, room for one more? I brought beer!

Is it just me or is that fringe in the middle a lot darker than the others? It is a fringe, isn't it?

Perhaps she could find a stand-in.

I found out I'm allergic to corncobs.