Maybe because it doesn’t actually employ the verboten word. Plus, when you look into the origin of that phrase, you have to admit that it IS slightly amusing.
I understand the origin of the phrase, but it's nothing more than a way for people to say "Fuck Joe Biden" without directly saying it. I don't find that amusing at all.
But that’s probably because you’re a Biden supporter; if it was code for “Fuck Trump” you’d find it riotous. For the record, I don’t like the sentiment of “Fuck Joe Biden” either, but the coded phrase at least has the merit of retaining a modicum of taste and cleverness. Robert O’Rourke’s MF bomb had neither, and also demonstrates a lack of grace and composure that one might expect from , well, someone like Trump.
I found myself rolling my eyes reading the piece on Joe Magats yesterday until I got to the end when I read that the authors were his lawyers. If the Trib had taken your advice and put that information at the beginning, I could have saved myself a few minutes.
I am opposed to hecklers in any venue, particularly those that try to shout down or drive off the speaker. But speakers desire a positive audience reaction (applause, cheers, bravos) and learn from negative reactions (boos, hisses, silence) when the responses are not orchestrated or preplanned. O'Rourke knows how to exploit media coverage and did so effectively. Pretending that the m-f- was reacting to murdering children. I thought that the mock laugh was aimed at the idea that the reason someone buys an AR15 is to murder children. Or that the law allows the purchase of weapons for the purpose of murder. Particularly since half of the households in Texas have firearms and a third of those own AR15 type rifles.
Eric deserves credit for clarifying what the motive for the mock laugh was, even if he was dismissive of the sentiment. I’m not a gun owner, and frankly wouldn’t care in the least if they banned all of them tomorrow (although some tweaking of the Bill of Rights might be necessary). There is, however, a point to be made here regarding the level of disingenuousness that pro-gun control politicians and pundits engage in when they talk about guns, and the way this talk edifies within their bubble. Every liberal that I’ve ever quizzed on this matter seems to think that fully automatic machine guns are readily available to anyone that wants one, and that that’s what’s being used in the mass shootings that we hear about every week. This demonstrates the level of distortion that the press and politicians have achieved through relentless use of terms like “assault weapons “, and diatribes like O’Rourke’s.
The 'weapons of war' is a new variation. I assume that the people that coined this phrase knew that all firearm types have been employed by the military in wars. Pistols, revolvers, bolt-action rifles, lever-action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, shot guns, and muzzle loaders. And that military firearms have used every caliber of ammunition. It is a neat way to link firearms exclusively with the military purpose of killing people, appeals emotionally, and supports a much broader prohibition.
Only some fucking asshole would be unexpectedly concerned that some dickhead called the goddamn verge a bullshit parkway. That sentence is probably not grammatically correct, I won't write one like it again.
Thank you Eric for at least having the integrity to point out that the Beto O'Rourke heckler was not laughing at all about the tragic death of innocent children, but rather by the glaring ignorance of firearms by O'Rourke (a very common trait among those gun haters who seek to disable our Second Amendment freedoms). But I am again dismayed over your gleeful celebration of O'Rourke's response using the mf'er.
Do you not see at all how corrosive this is to civil discourse? And can you also not see how this is just more partisan red meat, and you would be horrified and outraged if someone were to refer to one of your heroes like Hillary or the soon to be departed Liz Cheney as a miserable (euphemism for a female body part)? To be all right with this is simply to be all right with our politics continuing to descend into nothing more than vulgarities and name calling instead of ever trying to find common ground to work for the benefit of our country.
“To be all right with this is simply to be all right with our politics continuing to descend into nothing more than vulgarities and name calling instead of ever trying to find common ground to work for the benefit of our country.” Says the guy who would vote for Trump a third time if given the opportunity.
Personally, I do not use vulgarities and refrain from name-calling and personal insults when engaging in even the most spirited debate with others. I also condemn the use of vulgarities and course language by any and every public figure whether they be on the left or right side of the political spectrum. I just do not see any way that benefits us or our country no matter how passionately we disagree with someone or how negatively we view them.
Perhaps some are very comfortable with living in a world where people are hurling insults and curses at each other as a matter of course, but that is not the world I would prefer to live in.
And I am free to respond with a comparable two-term disparaging description of Joe Biden, but I refuse to do so and instead will be happy to debate policies and positions instead of making everything personal. But if it is easier for you to simply make everything about Trump, that is your choice.
I am not sure how you could come up with a "two-term disparaging description of Joe Biden" as he has been in office for less than 2 years. As far as policy debate goes, I will defer to our host Eric, with whom I agree most of the time (echo chamber warning), and I am willing to appoint as my proxy.
You can't come in here riding your white horse, clutching your pearls about vulgar language, and support the most vulgar organism that has found the Oval Office in my life time, which dates back to Eisenhower.
"Two-term disparaging description" was a reference to your description of trump as a walking vulgarity. My point was that I could also come up with a course description in two words to describe Biden, but I prefer to limit my commentary on Biden to his policies and executive actions which still leaves me a lot of room for much of my vocabulary, albeit without vulgarity.
And for the record, I have never owned a white horse - my Paso Finos were both deep chestnut. And I also do not own pearls as I stubbornly cling to the biological gender identity God assigned to me. But feel free to continue to attempt to make the debate about me or about Trump as opposed to the generic issue of how people should best conduct themselves in a civilized society.
I think that I have said before that we need a new party. I would love to see Cheney (or anyone) lead the creation of a new center-right party that rejects the lies and extremism. I would be reluctant to welcome the timorous or unprincipled exploiters that currently ride the Trump wave out of expediency, but any erosion of the Trump base is good. And any interim losses to center-left candidates are an acceptable price to pay.
Except that Liz Cheney's policy views are best described as far right. A centrist coalition, if "centrist" applies to policy views, isn't likely to appeal to her. An alternative to the one-dimensional left-center-right idea might be the two-dimensional fiscal-social x liberal-conservative grid that many of us bandied about when younger (recall "I'm a social liberal but a fiscal conservative"?), which would force negotiations and compromise, and keep smaller factions from being drowned out (a benefit or a curse--think Manchin and Sinema). Another possibility: a messier collection of parties based on a wide range if sympathies, including geographic, economic, ethnic, social, environmental, etc. (Watch out: who wants the non-stop chaos that Israeli elections have become?).
I think Liz would prefer to get back to Kansas from Oz and find out that it was all just a weird dream, but she's a grown-up, believes in the rule of law, and has my respect and gratitude even if there were no other thing we agreed on.
I agree on over-the-counter hearing aids. It is just another example of regulatory inefficiency that this wasn't always the case and then took years to begin to correct. But as usual the statistics may be misleading. Prescription hearing aids can be tuned to amplify specific frequencies. Hearing amplifiers are available over the counter now and amplify all frequencies. Many people with hearing loss have the loss across the entire spectrum. There are about 1.5 million hearing amplifiers sold annually ($20 - $200). People using these devices are not in the 'only 14%' statistic. While I am sure that more than 14% can benefit from an aid rather than an amp, it is not a good stat for people using hearing enhancement. Also, the FDA numbers include a guess at the number of people that don't admit to having a problem or won't use a device (the 'stigma' problem). Original Medicare (Part A and B) does not cover dental, vision, or hearing. But most Medicare Advantage (Part C plans) do. Not sure why that is an outrage.
Thank you for informing me that I am not the only one peeved about misplaced "onlies." That has bothered me almost as much as the use of the words "jealousy" and "jealous" when what is meant is "envy" and "envious." Jealousy is a zeal for something already possessed while envy seeks what one does not yet have. The instances of this misuse of jealous and jealousy are legion, which led me to try the clarify the matter with the following poem:
Zealous for Jealous
Run your nails across a chalkboard,
that’s like music to my ears,
but use jealous when you mean envious
and you’ll bring me to the verge of tears.
Jealous is such a singular word,
with roots so clear and deep,
that its multilingual pedigree
is a legacy I’m obsessed to keep.
In Greek, Latin and Middle English,
and even in Old French, too,
the bond between jealous and zealous
holds as tight as Crazy Glue.
A zeal for something already possessed,
that’s the essence of jealousy, you see,
While envy seeks what one does not yet have,
quite the opposite you’ll have to agree.
Jealous husbands and wives are just fine,
as is also a jealous God,
but a neighbor jealous of your car
gets a head shake not a nod.
Jealousy is a vice of wayward virtue,
a passion of sometimes tragic excess,
while envy is a quite tacky sin,
a weakness we’re all loath to confess.
I care not a whit that in Roget’s and Webster’s
envy is listed as a jealousy clone.
I’ll ever resist this mistaken synonymity
though I have to be zealous for jealous all alone.
Your objection to the “only” in the Dear Abby quote makes you sound more like an editor with a tin ear than the skilled writer you are. A good editor lets good writers bend/break some rules, especially in a case like this where the positioning of “only” doesn’t change any meaning. But maybe that’s just me….
It is really hard to understand how our society seems unable to address long term problems. I was discussing the climate provisions in the absurdly named Inflation Reduction Act with a friend. She said that politicians find it difficult to act without a crisis. I said they like being Santa and telling rosy fairy stories. The Colorado River is a good example. The creators of the seven-state water usage deal, in 1922 knew they were overestimating the amount of water available. The last 100 miles of the river disappeared in the 60's. The water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powel have been declining for at least 40 years. The problem is now exacerbated by climate change. Yet the consuming states have done virtually nothing to reduce water consumption or the growth in consumption. The seven-state commission has done little, and the federal oversight has not acted, but now 'might' need to reduce the flow to Nevada and Arizona - in order to let the 'higher priority' states continue to gulp. All of these states are also drying up their aquifers. But there are bi-partisan efforts to get the federal government to build a pipeline from the Mississippi or the Great Lakes. Duh. Makes our pension problem seem smaller.
Beto's mofo was pleasing in the moment, but it remains frustrating to me that gun control advocates persist in leaving themselves open to "flyspecking" attacks on their own issue. That's a great word, all the more great when you realize that it's ironically a sort of bullshitting, but I'm not sure that's quite what's going on. I'm not convinced that such objections are meritless, and I find it disconcertingly difficult to get to the bottom of them using Google. Wouldn't it be even sweeter than Beto's mofo for a gun control advocate to call the flyspeckers' bluff and, per Reason, yes, actually know what they're talking about? That is, after all, what we should want from policymakers and regulators on any side of any issue, no?
Only wonks are interested in facts and reason. Just as misinformation and disinformation are only bad when used to support the wrong purpose. The media and political advisors encourage emotional appeals and authenticity, while relegating facts and reason to the land of robotic behavior that is disconnected from people.
The poll option for “only” should read “something only pedants care about”. You need to work harder on this!
Irony is dead!
No, apparently it’s alive and well!
And it died quite suddenly.
In The Montana town where I grew up it was known only as the boulevard. I had never heard the word parkway until I moved to Chicago.
It sure seems that a lot of people who decry the use of profanity in public discourse think that "Let's go, Brandon!" is hilarious.
Maybe because it doesn’t actually employ the verboten word. Plus, when you look into the origin of that phrase, you have to admit that it IS slightly amusing.
I understand the origin of the phrase, but it's nothing more than a way for people to say "Fuck Joe Biden" without directly saying it. I don't find that amusing at all.
But that’s probably because you’re a Biden supporter; if it was code for “Fuck Trump” you’d find it riotous. For the record, I don’t like the sentiment of “Fuck Joe Biden” either, but the coded phrase at least has the merit of retaining a modicum of taste and cleverness. Robert O’Rourke’s MF bomb had neither, and also demonstrates a lack of grace and composure that one might expect from , well, someone like Trump.
I'd expect a greater appreciation for non-vulgarity-based insults from a bow tie fiddle player sissy such as yourself.
Excellent point!
I found myself rolling my eyes reading the piece on Joe Magats yesterday until I got to the end when I read that the authors were his lawyers. If the Trib had taken your advice and put that information at the beginning, I could have saved myself a few minutes.
I agree. It was quite a stretch comparing Magats to Donovan. But I did like the recap of the Donovan story.
I am opposed to hecklers in any venue, particularly those that try to shout down or drive off the speaker. But speakers desire a positive audience reaction (applause, cheers, bravos) and learn from negative reactions (boos, hisses, silence) when the responses are not orchestrated or preplanned. O'Rourke knows how to exploit media coverage and did so effectively. Pretending that the m-f- was reacting to murdering children. I thought that the mock laugh was aimed at the idea that the reason someone buys an AR15 is to murder children. Or that the law allows the purchase of weapons for the purpose of murder. Particularly since half of the households in Texas have firearms and a third of those own AR15 type rifles.
Eric deserves credit for clarifying what the motive for the mock laugh was, even if he was dismissive of the sentiment. I’m not a gun owner, and frankly wouldn’t care in the least if they banned all of them tomorrow (although some tweaking of the Bill of Rights might be necessary). There is, however, a point to be made here regarding the level of disingenuousness that pro-gun control politicians and pundits engage in when they talk about guns, and the way this talk edifies within their bubble. Every liberal that I’ve ever quizzed on this matter seems to think that fully automatic machine guns are readily available to anyone that wants one, and that that’s what’s being used in the mass shootings that we hear about every week. This demonstrates the level of distortion that the press and politicians have achieved through relentless use of terms like “assault weapons “, and diatribes like O’Rourke’s.
The 'weapons of war' is a new variation. I assume that the people that coined this phrase knew that all firearm types have been employed by the military in wars. Pistols, revolvers, bolt-action rifles, lever-action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, shot guns, and muzzle loaders. And that military firearms have used every caliber of ammunition. It is a neat way to link firearms exclusively with the military purpose of killing people, appeals emotionally, and supports a much broader prohibition.
Only some fucking asshole would be unexpectedly concerned that some dickhead called the goddamn verge a bullshit parkway. That sentence is probably not grammatically correct, I won't write one like it again.
Vigorously stated!
Thank you Eric for at least having the integrity to point out that the Beto O'Rourke heckler was not laughing at all about the tragic death of innocent children, but rather by the glaring ignorance of firearms by O'Rourke (a very common trait among those gun haters who seek to disable our Second Amendment freedoms). But I am again dismayed over your gleeful celebration of O'Rourke's response using the mf'er.
Do you not see at all how corrosive this is to civil discourse? And can you also not see how this is just more partisan red meat, and you would be horrified and outraged if someone were to refer to one of your heroes like Hillary or the soon to be departed Liz Cheney as a miserable (euphemism for a female body part)? To be all right with this is simply to be all right with our politics continuing to descend into nothing more than vulgarities and name calling instead of ever trying to find common ground to work for the benefit of our country.
“To be all right with this is simply to be all right with our politics continuing to descend into nothing more than vulgarities and name calling instead of ever trying to find common ground to work for the benefit of our country.” Says the guy who would vote for Trump a third time if given the opportunity.
Personally, I do not use vulgarities and refrain from name-calling and personal insults when engaging in even the most spirited debate with others. I also condemn the use of vulgarities and course language by any and every public figure whether they be on the left or right side of the political spectrum. I just do not see any way that benefits us or our country no matter how passionately we disagree with someone or how negatively we view them.
Perhaps some are very comfortable with living in a world where people are hurling insults and curses at each other as a matter of course, but that is not the world I would prefer to live in.
And yet you will vote for the walking vulgarity that is Trump a third time if given the opportunity.
And I am free to respond with a comparable two-term disparaging description of Joe Biden, but I refuse to do so and instead will be happy to debate policies and positions instead of making everything personal. But if it is easier for you to simply make everything about Trump, that is your choice.
I am not sure how you could come up with a "two-term disparaging description of Joe Biden" as he has been in office for less than 2 years. As far as policy debate goes, I will defer to our host Eric, with whom I agree most of the time (echo chamber warning), and I am willing to appoint as my proxy.
You can't come in here riding your white horse, clutching your pearls about vulgar language, and support the most vulgar organism that has found the Oval Office in my life time, which dates back to Eisenhower.
Seacrist out.
"Two-term disparaging description" was a reference to your description of trump as a walking vulgarity. My point was that I could also come up with a course description in two words to describe Biden, but I prefer to limit my commentary on Biden to his policies and executive actions which still leaves me a lot of room for much of my vocabulary, albeit without vulgarity.
And for the record, I have never owned a white horse - my Paso Finos were both deep chestnut. And I also do not own pearls as I stubbornly cling to the biological gender identity God assigned to me. But feel free to continue to attempt to make the debate about me or about Trump as opposed to the generic issue of how people should best conduct themselves in a civilized society.
Death is not unexpected. Only the timing is unexpected.
Well now you've brought everybody down.
I think that I have said before that we need a new party. I would love to see Cheney (or anyone) lead the creation of a new center-right party that rejects the lies and extremism. I would be reluctant to welcome the timorous or unprincipled exploiters that currently ride the Trump wave out of expediency, but any erosion of the Trump base is good. And any interim losses to center-left candidates are an acceptable price to pay.
Except that Liz Cheney's policy views are best described as far right. A centrist coalition, if "centrist" applies to policy views, isn't likely to appeal to her. An alternative to the one-dimensional left-center-right idea might be the two-dimensional fiscal-social x liberal-conservative grid that many of us bandied about when younger (recall "I'm a social liberal but a fiscal conservative"?), which would force negotiations and compromise, and keep smaller factions from being drowned out (a benefit or a curse--think Manchin and Sinema). Another possibility: a messier collection of parties based on a wide range if sympathies, including geographic, economic, ethnic, social, environmental, etc. (Watch out: who wants the non-stop chaos that Israeli elections have become?).
I think Liz would prefer to get back to Kansas from Oz and find out that it was all just a weird dream, but she's a grown-up, believes in the rule of law, and has my respect and gratitude even if there were no other thing we agreed on.
I agree on over-the-counter hearing aids. It is just another example of regulatory inefficiency that this wasn't always the case and then took years to begin to correct. But as usual the statistics may be misleading. Prescription hearing aids can be tuned to amplify specific frequencies. Hearing amplifiers are available over the counter now and amplify all frequencies. Many people with hearing loss have the loss across the entire spectrum. There are about 1.5 million hearing amplifiers sold annually ($20 - $200). People using these devices are not in the 'only 14%' statistic. While I am sure that more than 14% can benefit from an aid rather than an amp, it is not a good stat for people using hearing enhancement. Also, the FDA numbers include a guess at the number of people that don't admit to having a problem or won't use a device (the 'stigma' problem). Original Medicare (Part A and B) does not cover dental, vision, or hearing. But most Medicare Advantage (Part C plans) do. Not sure why that is an outrage.
Thank you for informing me that I am not the only one peeved about misplaced "onlies." That has bothered me almost as much as the use of the words "jealousy" and "jealous" when what is meant is "envy" and "envious." Jealousy is a zeal for something already possessed while envy seeks what one does not yet have. The instances of this misuse of jealous and jealousy are legion, which led me to try the clarify the matter with the following poem:
Zealous for Jealous
Run your nails across a chalkboard,
that’s like music to my ears,
but use jealous when you mean envious
and you’ll bring me to the verge of tears.
Jealous is such a singular word,
with roots so clear and deep,
that its multilingual pedigree
is a legacy I’m obsessed to keep.
In Greek, Latin and Middle English,
and even in Old French, too,
the bond between jealous and zealous
holds as tight as Crazy Glue.
A zeal for something already possessed,
that’s the essence of jealousy, you see,
While envy seeks what one does not yet have,
quite the opposite you’ll have to agree.
Jealous husbands and wives are just fine,
as is also a jealous God,
but a neighbor jealous of your car
gets a head shake not a nod.
Jealousy is a vice of wayward virtue,
a passion of sometimes tragic excess,
while envy is a quite tacky sin,
a weakness we’re all loath to confess.
I care not a whit that in Roget’s and Webster’s
envy is listed as a jealousy clone.
I’ll ever resist this mistaken synonymity
though I have to be zealous for jealous all alone.
Only. And bad poetry. All in one posting. I’m jealous.
Eric, you're becoming Larry David in the Krazy Eyez Killa episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Watch the 1:07 video on YouTube.
Warning: Every bad word in the book.
BTW, after you watch it, you can add to your list of words that can be "used affectionately".
https://youtu.be/JvUKjcKzWQY
Haha. I had the link in my original comment. Edited it out. You are braver than I am! Thought it was funny and appropriate for the Beto mofo piece.
Your objection to the “only” in the Dear Abby quote makes you sound more like an editor with a tin ear than the skilled writer you are. A good editor lets good writers bend/break some rules, especially in a case like this where the positioning of “only” doesn’t change any meaning. But maybe that’s just me….
It is really hard to understand how our society seems unable to address long term problems. I was discussing the climate provisions in the absurdly named Inflation Reduction Act with a friend. She said that politicians find it difficult to act without a crisis. I said they like being Santa and telling rosy fairy stories. The Colorado River is a good example. The creators of the seven-state water usage deal, in 1922 knew they were overestimating the amount of water available. The last 100 miles of the river disappeared in the 60's. The water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powel have been declining for at least 40 years. The problem is now exacerbated by climate change. Yet the consuming states have done virtually nothing to reduce water consumption or the growth in consumption. The seven-state commission has done little, and the federal oversight has not acted, but now 'might' need to reduce the flow to Nevada and Arizona - in order to let the 'higher priority' states continue to gulp. All of these states are also drying up their aquifers. But there are bi-partisan efforts to get the federal government to build a pipeline from the Mississippi or the Great Lakes. Duh. Makes our pension problem seem smaller.
Beto's mofo was pleasing in the moment, but it remains frustrating to me that gun control advocates persist in leaving themselves open to "flyspecking" attacks on their own issue. That's a great word, all the more great when you realize that it's ironically a sort of bullshitting, but I'm not sure that's quite what's going on. I'm not convinced that such objections are meritless, and I find it disconcertingly difficult to get to the bottom of them using Google. Wouldn't it be even sweeter than Beto's mofo for a gun control advocate to call the flyspeckers' bluff and, per Reason, yes, actually know what they're talking about? That is, after all, what we should want from policymakers and regulators on any side of any issue, no?
Only wonks are interested in facts and reason. Just as misinformation and disinformation are only bad when used to support the wrong purpose. The media and political advisors encourage emotional appeals and authenticity, while relegating facts and reason to the land of robotic behavior that is disconnected from people.