Ahhh. Pete Davidson. Completely amateurish as a sketch comedian but his Weekend update appearances were, to me, hilarious and great “ stand up”. His commentary on Staten Island made me laugh out loud. (“if Staten Islands so great why is it free to get there?”) or on why he was commenting on Kayes bizarre appearance ( “A lot of people think Che should be commenting because he’s Black, but I’m crazy and we all know which side of Kanye is at the wheel right now”) or his bit on mental health comparing the depression he experienced after his father died on 9/11 to Kevin Loves athletic anxieties (“ Sorry about your free throw percentage
, Kev”). Those bits were well constructed if not always tasteful (His bit with John Mullaney…great comic tmi g from them both). As for the obsession with the women he dates you know that it comes from “ how does a guy like that get a girlfriend like that. Not just once but over and over”)
I disagree with EZ that Pete was "weird and amateurish". I found him to be one of my favorite cast members. The main change I would like to see a smaller cast. There are just so many of them and they stay so long. Kenan Thompson and Cecily strong are great performers but it's time for them to go. I thought SNL was where a performer started their career, not a lifetime job.
We accidentally had a no mow May when our lawn service didn’t show up until last week. On top of being really really ugly, the lawn produced an alarming number of ticks. We even had them in the house.
Ticks are also a hazard in areas with native forbs and grasses ... like our prairies. I've made notes to self about looking into Tyvek jumpsuits suitable for wear in the future while taking a hike on a prairie trail.
"Virtuous people should advertise, promote and celebrate their conception of virtue. To reflexively criticize them is a vice."
I like the approach of not announcing one's virtues, whether from the right or left. Do the right thing, yes. Put up a sign about it? My favorite philosophical take on that is "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret." The whole chapter is an ethical masterpiece.
There's a passage in the Bible advocating 'giving your alms in secret' and being assured that your Father in heaven will see it. Sorry, I don't have chapter & verse handy now.
If armed guards are not the answer, neither is arming teachers. It's interesting that in the last few years our training has turned from barricading classrooms against armed individuals to assaulting them instead, with books, furniture, backpacks, etc. Supposedly this will distract the gunman allowing a chance to disarm and escape. I guess it's better to die fighting.
I would like to know if there is any way to identify the attributes of a homicidal lunatic. And if not, is there a useful research path. Then maybe there would be a way to treat and/or confine these people before they kill anyone. I also saw a stat that said the US has over 3200 confirmed serial killers, 20 times more than the next highest country, and the FBI says that there are 25-50 active serial killers in any year.
No to armed guards (one was at Uvalde too), no to arming teachers (ridiculous and dangerous), yes to locked doors (duh) and yes to, you guessed it, vestibules! I've seen two high schools recently redesign their main entry way so that guests need to be buzzed in from an outside intercom and then get buzzed in through a second set of doors to gain access to the school. It's an unobtrusive, relatively inexpensive way to enhance security. It remains a mystery to me why this guy -- who obviously had no business there and was ostentatiously armed -- was able to get at kids.
I share your despair about meaningful gun control. My honest view is that we should pretty much ban guns entirely, especially the ruthlessly fast, powerful, accurate, and easy-to-use semi-automatic murder machines favored by killers, confining them perhaps to sporting scenarios and such, and that we tolerate an absurd amount of horrific death and injury and trauma merely to support the ghoulish hobby of a relative handful of nutjobs and the callous industry that profits off daily mayhem.
I understand that our Constitution contains a bit of ancient text best understood as prohibiting the then-new federal government from disarming universal state militias, things that don't exist anymore, and should be understood as dead letter for that reason or at least as allowing those very states to regulate as they please. But, okay, the Supreme Court has spoken.
We could at least have universal and tough training, licensing, background checks (including for private transfers, no to unrecorded gifts, get over it), and registration, like, ya know, cars. We could at least ban sales to those under 21 as Florida does. We could at least have tough anti-trafficking and anti-wrong-hands laws that require gun owners to secure their guns and know where they are and criminally penalize carelessness and "loss." We could at least strengthen the ATF's ability to enforce such laws by not doing what the right loves to do when it comes to crimes committed by their voters -- gun violations and tax evasion -- which is to defund the police. We could at least ban bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, and the deadliest ammunition. Pick up any gun magazine and marvel at what any jackass can just buy. Abbott says that any mass murderer is, by definition, mentally ill. So is any larper arming themselves to the teeth with all this sicko crap, as far as I'm concerned.
Vast majorities of Americans support a slew of gun control measures; majorities even of gun owners support them. We're held hostage by maniacs.
"We could at least strengthen the ATF's ability to enforce such laws..."
Republicans in the U.S. Senate haven't even approved a director of ATF, at least as of Tuesday's murder spree. Every nominee has been rejected. By republicans. Every single one.
All of President Biden's nominees are "too radical" see? Enforce the law? Against republicans? That's too radical for republican senators.
Speaking of the ATF and your point in particular, I just had a brilliant thought that turns out to be unoriginal: merge the ATF into the FBI. The reasons for the separate agencies are ancient accidents of history -- just as the Secret Service used to handle counterfeiting -- and are not very logical. But, far more importantly, it would take a target off the back of this bogeyman and whipping boy of the right, at least somewhat.
Turns out, the Center for American Progress, the moderate liberal think tank, proposed the same thing 7 years ago, citing ATF's history of dysfunction, poor leadership, insufficient resources, and overly burdensome regulations -- largely out of Republican hostility to its mission. The FBI, meanwhile, has become among the world's most prestigious, professional, and effective law enforcement organizations. Give them guns. What about the DEA and ICE, you may ask? Well, why not? I wonder. Just a thought.
Regarding the "Illinois exodus," I recall Daily Southtown reporter, and later, Tribune editorial board member Kristen McQueary babbling on about the "allure" of Indiana to Illinois residents. What a load of nonsense. Thank goodness she took a buyout from the Tribune. She no longer qualifies for the rapidly declining "Chicago Week in Review,"
I don't agree with Kristen on a number of issues but she's quite smart and very well intentioned. And she wasn't wrong in much of what she said about the corruption and budgetary/regulatory woes that afflict the state. I. believe and hope she'll return to the local pundit ranks at some point where we can clash productively again.
I agree, and, more broadly, recognize the need for responsible criticism from conservative quarters in Democrat-dominated Illinois, particularly as progressive voices and ideas well to the left of Chicago Democrats of yore attain greater influence.
I've even taken to reading Wall Street Journal editorials. Many of them are pure partisan hackery and piss me off -- especially the oddly frequent ones that take aim at Chicago and Illinois, usually unfairly to at least some degree. (I dream of starting a newsletter, The Wall Street Journal Is Full of Shit, that methodically takes down every such example of GOP talking points masquerading as responsible persuasion.)
Still, many others of those Journal editorials make points with considering. One thing the Journal still does that almost all newspapers used to do, and I wish the New York Times would do again if only as a Journal counterweight, is publish about three editorials every day -- crisp, unadorned, unsigned arguments grounded in fact and reason. The best ones "steel-man" the other side rather than deceive the reader with straw men and offer compelling, straight-to-the-point debate positions. Why did the Times stop doing that?
One of our resident groundhogs apparently didn’t get the No Mow message and was observed today munching on gone-to-seed dandelions in our yard. Should I get out the shotgun?
Ahhh. Pete Davidson. Completely amateurish as a sketch comedian but his Weekend update appearances were, to me, hilarious and great “ stand up”. His commentary on Staten Island made me laugh out loud. (“if Staten Islands so great why is it free to get there?”) or on why he was commenting on Kayes bizarre appearance ( “A lot of people think Che should be commenting because he’s Black, but I’m crazy and we all know which side of Kanye is at the wheel right now”) or his bit on mental health comparing the depression he experienced after his father died on 9/11 to Kevin Loves athletic anxieties (“ Sorry about your free throw percentage
, Kev”). Those bits were well constructed if not always tasteful (His bit with John Mullaney…great comic tmi g from them both). As for the obsession with the women he dates you know that it comes from “ how does a guy like that get a girlfriend like that. Not just once but over and over”)
I disagree with EZ that Pete was "weird and amateurish". I found him to be one of my favorite cast members. The main change I would like to see a smaller cast. There are just so many of them and they stay so long. Kenan Thompson and Cecily strong are great performers but it's time for them to go. I thought SNL was where a performer started their career, not a lifetime job.
You put a lot of work into this Substack. Wide range of topics, all sourced. Very worthwhile subscription. 👍🏻
We accidentally had a no mow May when our lawn service didn’t show up until last week. On top of being really really ugly, the lawn produced an alarming number of ticks. We even had them in the house.
Ticks are definitely an issue.
Ticks are also a hazard in areas with native forbs and grasses ... like our prairies. I've made notes to self about looking into Tyvek jumpsuits suitable for wear in the future while taking a hike on a prairie trail.
No mow May is a great idea. Many insects are emerging including bees and they need a ready supply of food, such as what the spring flowers provide them: https://news.yahoo.com/no-mow-may-movement-stems-003700027.html
The idiots who consider providing for wildlife should be eliminated, but they won't be, they will simply cause more harm than they're worth.
Lyin' Ted wants armed guards in school? Sorta like a school district police force?
Uvalde school district has one. It didn't help.
That school already was a hardened target.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-security-plan-rcna30568
Money. Because no matter what the question, the answer is always: money.
No friends for the "This Is Us" (or "This Was Us") because that would mean paying someone something for those appearances.
"Virtuous people should advertise, promote and celebrate their conception of virtue. To reflexively criticize them is a vice."
I like the approach of not announcing one's virtues, whether from the right or left. Do the right thing, yes. Put up a sign about it? My favorite philosophical take on that is "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret." The whole chapter is an ethical masterpiece.
There's a passage in the Bible advocating 'giving your alms in secret' and being assured that your Father in heaven will see it. Sorry, I don't have chapter & verse handy now.
If armed guards are not the answer, neither is arming teachers. It's interesting that in the last few years our training has turned from barricading classrooms against armed individuals to assaulting them instead, with books, furniture, backpacks, etc. Supposedly this will distract the gunman allowing a chance to disarm and escape. I guess it's better to die fighting.
I would like to know if there is any way to identify the attributes of a homicidal lunatic. And if not, is there a useful research path. Then maybe there would be a way to treat and/or confine these people before they kill anyone. I also saw a stat that said the US has over 3200 confirmed serial killers, 20 times more than the next highest country, and the FBI says that there are 25-50 active serial killers in any year.
I think there's been some discussion about this on PBS NewsHour, and maybe some cable channels, today. Try Searching the web.
No to armed guards (one was at Uvalde too), no to arming teachers (ridiculous and dangerous), yes to locked doors (duh) and yes to, you guessed it, vestibules! I've seen two high schools recently redesign their main entry way so that guests need to be buzzed in from an outside intercom and then get buzzed in through a second set of doors to gain access to the school. It's an unobtrusive, relatively inexpensive way to enhance security. It remains a mystery to me why this guy -- who obviously had no business there and was ostentatiously armed -- was able to get at kids.
I share your despair about meaningful gun control. My honest view is that we should pretty much ban guns entirely, especially the ruthlessly fast, powerful, accurate, and easy-to-use semi-automatic murder machines favored by killers, confining them perhaps to sporting scenarios and such, and that we tolerate an absurd amount of horrific death and injury and trauma merely to support the ghoulish hobby of a relative handful of nutjobs and the callous industry that profits off daily mayhem.
I understand that our Constitution contains a bit of ancient text best understood as prohibiting the then-new federal government from disarming universal state militias, things that don't exist anymore, and should be understood as dead letter for that reason or at least as allowing those very states to regulate as they please. But, okay, the Supreme Court has spoken.
We could at least have universal and tough training, licensing, background checks (including for private transfers, no to unrecorded gifts, get over it), and registration, like, ya know, cars. We could at least ban sales to those under 21 as Florida does. We could at least have tough anti-trafficking and anti-wrong-hands laws that require gun owners to secure their guns and know where they are and criminally penalize carelessness and "loss." We could at least strengthen the ATF's ability to enforce such laws by not doing what the right loves to do when it comes to crimes committed by their voters -- gun violations and tax evasion -- which is to defund the police. We could at least ban bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, and the deadliest ammunition. Pick up any gun magazine and marvel at what any jackass can just buy. Abbott says that any mass murderer is, by definition, mentally ill. So is any larper arming themselves to the teeth with all this sicko crap, as far as I'm concerned.
Vast majorities of Americans support a slew of gun control measures; majorities even of gun owners support them. We're held hostage by maniacs.
"We could at least strengthen the ATF's ability to enforce such laws..."
Republicans in the U.S. Senate haven't even approved a director of ATF, at least as of Tuesday's murder spree. Every nominee has been rejected. By republicans. Every single one.
All of President Biden's nominees are "too radical" see? Enforce the law? Against republicans? That's too radical for republican senators.
Speaking of the ATF and your point in particular, I just had a brilliant thought that turns out to be unoriginal: merge the ATF into the FBI. The reasons for the separate agencies are ancient accidents of history -- just as the Secret Service used to handle counterfeiting -- and are not very logical. But, far more importantly, it would take a target off the back of this bogeyman and whipping boy of the right, at least somewhat.
Turns out, the Center for American Progress, the moderate liberal think tank, proposed the same thing 7 years ago, citing ATF's history of dysfunction, poor leadership, insufficient resources, and overly burdensome regulations -- largely out of Republican hostility to its mission. The FBI, meanwhile, has become among the world's most prestigious, professional, and effective law enforcement organizations. Give them guns. What about the DEA and ICE, you may ask? Well, why not? I wonder. Just a thought.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-bureau-and-the-bureau/
Regarding the "Illinois exodus," I recall Daily Southtown reporter, and later, Tribune editorial board member Kristen McQueary babbling on about the "allure" of Indiana to Illinois residents. What a load of nonsense. Thank goodness she took a buyout from the Tribune. She no longer qualifies for the rapidly declining "Chicago Week in Review,"
I don't agree with Kristen on a number of issues but she's quite smart and very well intentioned. And she wasn't wrong in much of what she said about the corruption and budgetary/regulatory woes that afflict the state. I. believe and hope she'll return to the local pundit ranks at some point where we can clash productively again.
I agree, and, more broadly, recognize the need for responsible criticism from conservative quarters in Democrat-dominated Illinois, particularly as progressive voices and ideas well to the left of Chicago Democrats of yore attain greater influence.
I've even taken to reading Wall Street Journal editorials. Many of them are pure partisan hackery and piss me off -- especially the oddly frequent ones that take aim at Chicago and Illinois, usually unfairly to at least some degree. (I dream of starting a newsletter, The Wall Street Journal Is Full of Shit, that methodically takes down every such example of GOP talking points masquerading as responsible persuasion.)
Still, many others of those Journal editorials make points with considering. One thing the Journal still does that almost all newspapers used to do, and I wish the New York Times would do again if only as a Journal counterweight, is publish about three editorials every day -- crisp, unadorned, unsigned arguments grounded in fact and reason. The best ones "steel-man" the other side rather than deceive the reader with straw men and offer compelling, straight-to-the-point debate positions. Why did the Times stop doing that?
One of our resident groundhogs apparently didn’t get the No Mow message and was observed today munching on gone-to-seed dandelions in our yard. Should I get out the shotgun?
A sternly worded sign ought to do the trick.