I'd have voted for the M.A.I.D. cover if I didn't find AI's capacity to mask the difference between fact and fiction so dangerous. But I laughed first, I must admit, and chuckled at all of them. Good batch this week! (Hint to those who didn't get the Oval Office one: Find out who Colbert's guests were for the episodes that aired last week.)
It would be funnier and more accurate to have the caption read that younger generation doesn’t realize there were two people in the Oval Office when that picture was taken.
This reminds me of a joke from the late great Lin Brehmer back when this was a current event. He said that he was reading letters to one of his favorite magazines and it started, "Dear Forum, I can't believe it happened to me! I was the the leader of the free world alone in my office working late when I heard a knock on the door..."
News of former governor Jim Edgar's recent prostate cancer diagnosis arrived just after I posted above. I've posted about votes I cast and now regret. My votes for Jim Edgar, despite my overall preference for policies espoused and carried out by Democratic majorities, are the opposite.
Gov. Edgar's high character and his concern for the people of Illinois, his generally non-divisive tone, his operating according to principles of good government, his respectful albeit firm disagreements with--rather than demonizing of--those who saw things differently on this issue or that: They all are hallmarks of what our elected officials should be like, what we the voters should look for first in deciding whom to vote for. Those candidates are out there. Out of respect for the way Gov. Edgar conducted his political life, let's try not to vote for those who try to win or hold office with negative campaigning, harsh rhetoric, preposterous promises, bombast, and divisiveness, and who have unleashed hot tempers and petty partisanship once voted in, seeking instead the opposite traits that were the hallmarks of Gov. Edgar's time in office.
He was owned and operated by the DuPage Republicans that ran and used the Tollways for decades as their gravy train and by the totally corrupt horse racing industry in Illinois. He should’ve been indicted convicted and sent to prison alone with his rotten mentor Thompson who let Black and Radner loot the Sun Times.
I'm willing to modify my opinion of him if you'd cite some objective, nonpartisan support for that assertion. Members and supporters of both major parties have been willing to cast aspersions on their political opponents, making it tough sometimes to distinguish clear fact from mild distortion to severe twisting of the truth to outright lies. Before modifying my opinion of Edgar, I'd need more than someone else's differing opinion. Nothing against you, just how weigh what to take to heart and what to reserve judgment about.
I liked Edgar, and one reason we think more highly of him than Thompson is that he didn’t get associated with questionable causes after his time in office. (Think Thompson and Giuliani)
Getting rid of DEI assumes that everything will be on equal footing and only merit will count. That’s the biggest load of hogwash since PT Barnum. Many minorities still start life in the worst circumstances, attend the worst schools and are looked at as being less capable. It allows whites to assume they are best for the job. It allows the keeping down of minorities every bit as much as whites believe too much government assistance does. The person who posed this uses a lot of fancy language to justify his views. I have a masters degree but prefer simplicity. We are still a racist society. We still see whites as superior in most ways. That is no more unifying that what the writer claims.
I am a conservative, but joined my company’s diversity council 24 years ago. I mentioned to them that it’s hard to be diverse without getting rid of nepotism in hiring. But HR shut me down. Some things are hard to change.
You brought up a very important point. It doesn’t matter whether conservative or liberal. One can still believe in diversity and I congratulate you. It’s one of the stereotypes I detest. I do not assume all conservatives are racist. That begs the assumption that minorities can’t be conservative. Conservative simply means embracing traditional values and being somewhat averse to change. It has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity. Unfortunately in our present political climate, it has come to mean people averse to giving a hand up to minorities denied opportunity. It is no more true for all conservatives than all liberals being people of God, open to all. I’m too old and have known too many exceptions to these standards.
I believe the term Conservative has been misapplied to the current bunch of GQP thugs. They are conservative in the sense that they want to conserve their money. But they are radicals when it comes to throwing morals, ethics, and facts out the window.
sorry, i have to disagree w- your assertion that 'we are still a racist society'.
many racists remain in our society, and that's sad and bad. but if you compare the USA in 2025 to 1925,1950,1975, or even 2000, there's been huge progress in reducing racism and its impact in the USA.
how about critiquing the failed democratic leadership of major cities and blue states in the USA that leave low income minorities with poor schools, poor healthcare, poor housing and environmental degradation?
Then we’ll just need to disagree. It might not be, as you say, as overt as it used to be with lynchings and laws specifically designed to hold back blacks. But there are many different forms of racism and laws cannot deter what is in people’s minds or hearts. I can read the comments of others online with people mimicking what they see as black or Latino speech. I still see white people cringe if they are approached by black people, especially when they have different hairstyles or what is interpreted as “gangsta” clothing. If a black person assumes a responsible professional position, many assume it is because of preferential hiring. If you want to see us as not racist, that’s your privilege. I am waiting for the day a white and black person can walk down the street, hand in hand, and no one will care.
Was there a small unheard group of people lobbying to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico? When a statue is removed or an army base is renamed or a brand changes its design (Land o Lakes, Aunt Jemima, etc) some people argue that it was fine for all these years, why change it now? Ignoring or not realizing that it did bother a small marginalized group that didn't have a voice until they did.
I find it hard to believe that anyone gave a crap about what the Gulf was named for **checks notes hundreds of years but instead found yet another thing to be Jingoistic about.
There is definitely truth in what you say. I think it’s less about jingoism than it being Trump’s idea- on both sides of the issue. How many here are extremely concerned over Mount Denali vs Mount McKinley? I imagine there are some in Alaska concerned, especially native Alaskans. I spent most of my life living with Mount McKinley and didn’t think much about it one way or another. If jingoism exists, it falls on Burger Boy, not us.
The anti "woke," anti-DEI people are using all sorts of justification for their racism, misogny, and blood and soil nationalism, all cloaked in pieties about merit (Dan Bongno, anyone?). See the firing of distinguished general C. Q. Brown by trump because he is a Black man who made a moving statement about the murder of Mr Floyd, and the firing of the two distinguished women in charge of the Navy and the Coast Guard for no reason other than their gender by Hegseth--among the least meritorious White men in trump's cabinet of clowns, crooks, and charlatans.
Hmmm. I wonder what criterion he used to pick that bunch of losers and morons? It’s almost funny to hear him carry on about how terrible DEI is as he brings forth one cretinous pick after another.
Joan, I respect your views. But that’s a cherry pick. How close can someone put their lips to Burger Boy’s derrière while genuflecting? That’s criterion enough.
While the removal of the Chiefs was clearly racist and mysoginistic, not all - a few anyway - of the replacements aren't morons. But that doesn't mean they're appropriate to the job. The guy for new Joint Chief appears to be a good guy, but he has never overseen combat situations or managed a large organization. Non-morons who lack experience for their enormous responsibilities seem to me at least as big a problem as the appointees who are in fact jerks.
Caine will have to have a presidential waiver, since the law says the appointee must either be a four star general or have been the head of a service. Caine apparently met trump at some time and told him "he could defeat ISIS in a week' and, according to trump "that I would die for you, sir.' (Caveat, trump anecdotes that have people calling him 'sir' are usually lies.) An ambitious ass-kisser, it seems.
I believe this pick as well as the firing or the JAG (is that right?) staff will open the door for the military to open fire and kill civilian protesters-upon the king's order, of course
The fact that the Joint Chiefs pick doesn't meet the stated legal requirements for the post doesn't make him the moron. It makes the person who fired the Joint Chief and picked him the moron.
And Pete Hegseth's commitment to "Sphere Sovereignty" makes him even more dangerous than some of us thought. From the Guardian: "Hegseth expresses agreement with the principle of sphere sovereignty, which, in CR doctrine, envisions a subordination of “civil government” to Old Testament law, capital punishment for infringements of that law such as homosexuality, and rigidly patriarchal families and churches."
I would like to congratulate you on choosing 5 visual jokes that are ALL funny. Ordinarily, there might be one or two, often none. You've outdone yourself.
Regarding effectiveness/purpose of prayer. I can accept the benefits of prayer as meditation, but it's naive to think it's possible to influence God's feelings or course of action, like causing him to relieve suffering. There is a dissonance in monotheism, often summarized as the problem of evil - if God is both all-powerful and benevolent, why does he allow suffering? The problem indicates that God is either not benevolent or not all-powerful, there is no other option. If evil is a way to make people connect with God or learn some lesson, an all-powerful and benevolent God would be able to achieve that connection without the suffering.
I was recently reading "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari (highly recommended), he explains this contradiction by pointing out that in most ancient polytheistic religions, people prayed to the gods that were in control of the specific area of concern - Ares for help in war, Poseidon for the weather at sea, etc. These Gods were human-like - they could be convinced, they had motives, personalities, desires, and human faults and shortcomings. With the right sacrifice, they would help you out.
These gods were usually descendants of more abstract creator deities, like Uranus and Rhea, who were powerful, but far less human like - they were not interested in human affairs and could not be persuaded to assist. There were no temples or sacrifice ceremonies to appease Uranus.
So, when monotheism emerged, these two qualities of all-powerful but indifferent gods and human-like, persuadable, but fallible gods merged together, creating the dissonance. I just thought that explanation made a lot of sense explaining the problem of evil.
If god isn’t all powerful then god doesn’t exist and never did! I have been an atheist for over 50 years now and nothing but nothing can change my mind. The concept of god is flat out ridiculous as god was obviously invented by primitive humans who had no clue about why the sun went down every night or why the seasons changed or how babies were made. They were scared of everything then so they made up this ridiculous fantasy being in the sky.
I became a Christian years ago and with the talk on how good heaven is I always have wondered why you have to drag some people out of this life kicking and screaming.
Well, count me out! I am GLAD that I don't believe in heaven. As depicted in the churches I was forced to attend, it sounds completely boring. Sitting around doing exactly what for eternity? No thanks.
There are days (especially lately) that I wish I could believe in Hell.
I still consider myself to be a Christian, but I don’t believe that God is a being or entity separate from people, and I don’t believe in heaven or hell. I believe that love is the most powerful force in the universe, and that when we selflessly love other people and other living things, we are connecting with that force, that God. I think human beings have the power to make the present time on earth either heaven or hell.
The idea that you get rewarded with heaven, where all the sanctimonious blowhards assume they’re going when they die, is highly suspect to me. Why would I want to spend eternity with a bunch of people I can’t stand? That sounds like hell to me…
In "The Devil's Dictionary", Ambrose Bierce defines "PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy."
It has been my belief since I was 5 that if God were omnipotent and omniscient there would be no need to pray for anything because God knew everything and could do everything. Just one factor among many for deciding way back when that I was an atheist (although I didn't know the word yet.]
I do keep wondering if the losing teams form a prayer circle and thank God for the outcome the way the winners do?
The explanation for evil that I was taught was that humans are given the gift of choice-therefore evil. Who knows, but some people think that they are kings or god's gift -crazy town
That confuses me even more. If humans are given the choice then what is God's role in the world? If any person can act contrary to God's will that would mean that He is not all-powerful. It means if another person decides to kill me then I will die - God will not stop it no matter how much I have prayed to be spared or how good of a Christian I've been. That would make Him not benevolent.
I guess it is confusing and lets God off the hook for every single event. There is compelling evidence that there is no such thing as free will. That would pose quite a threat to the traditional theology. I think there was a sci-fi movie with this theme, but I don't know the name of the movie. Some techno source had determined that a character would commit a crime before the person had even conceived of the crime. No free will-no choice to crime or not to crime.
I think you mean Minority Report - a Spielberg movie with Tom Cruise, based on a Phillip K Dick short story. It's a great movie and I'm big fan of Phillip K Dick.
I'm also pretty convinced that Free Will is only an illusion. Everything, including human actions is caused by external events and circumstances. It's a little ironic that people who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God with an unchangeable grand Plan also believe that humans can still choose their course of action. On the other hand atheists like me believe that everything was pre-ordained by the interlinked chain of conditions and events set in motion by the Big Bang like a row of falling dominoes.
There are a bunch of videos on YouTube by Robert Sapolsky, a highly respected neurologist from Stanford, where he advocates for the absence of Free Will and talks about the implications of that on personal responsibility and things like crime. He also has a book called "Determined".
In Putin’s past, he expressed regret for the dissolution of the USSR. Think about it. The USSR was a superpower. They were feared. They controlled an awful lot of territory and struck terror through the thought of their tanks rolling through the territory of others such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The average Muscovite might have been standing in breadlines. But that had little meaning for the all powerful Kremlin and the KGB. Now look at them. Run by criminal oligarchs and negotiating for business like everyone else while worrying over NATO. Putin has retro dreams and a big appetite. Trump doesn’t care and has his “open for business” sign out and morality be damned.
My wife and I have traveled to many of the former Soviet block countries -- East Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania -- and the one thing they are unanimous about is that they Hate the Russians and more particularly Russian rule.
Alas I am not a paid subscriber to the Free Press, so it grayed out on me after this sobering paragraph: "The dramatic foreign policy reversals began with Trump’s pledges to acquire Greenland, absorb Canada, name the Gulf of America, retake the Panama Canal, and own the Gaza Strip. Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on global trade, mused over cutting the defense budget in half and stopping nuclear weapons production, and signaled his openness to a “verified nuclear peace agreement with Iran.” Trump called Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator without elections,” suggested that Ukraine provoked Russia’s invasion, and bypassed Kyiv and Brussels for direct peace talks with Moscow...."
Yes - that opening is the throat-clearing, wherein the writer acknowledges the thoughts the reader may already have, in order to suggest that the reader is not wasting their time on a one-sided screed. Personally, I’m not a fan of throat-clearing in essays. However, I’m a big fan of when the writer anticipates my take on their point and addresses it. That’s how I know that the writer is not just superficially engaged with the topic.
I believe praying for the health and healing of others is beneficial. It's not that I believe that God is up there listening to us and intervening to heal (maybe don't tell my pastor I said that, LOL). More like my prayer is putting good energy out into the world as well as reminding me of others' suffering and the need for empathy. It also reminds me that prayer alone is not enough, that I need to take actions to help where I can and at least offer a listening ear and comfort where I cannot. It's all part of a framework of caring for others, which is what my religion boils down to for me. It's not about rigorous belief in the literal truth of the myths and stories but in living a life of caring for and serving others.
I have tried to see personal prayer as good for the individual soul, thus good for the collective soul of caring humanity, regardless of your religion. However, once introduced to the notion that you are in some way communicating with a higher power that differs from another’s, you lose the collective spirit and become much more likely to be taken in by those who use that supposed higher power simply for gain and profit here on Earth.
I personally don't believe that my higher power is different from any other. I believe we're all guided by the same spirit regardless of what we call it - God, Yaweh, Allah, Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, Buddha, The Great Spirit, Aja, Wane, and so on - or interpret it. It all boils down to aspiring to be the best humans we can by treating others as ourselves. It also isn't about getting to heaven or any other afterlife, it's about establishing heaven here on earth. We're not guaranteed an afterlife, we need to make the best of the actual life we have now, for ourselves and others.
This is the spirit that I wish was predominant in our US culture as we hear about the “persecution” of Christians here and see how govt. leaders want to inject Christianity into our rules and norms (and not because they value sincere forms of prayer that you’ve mentioned).
The very act of praying for someone else's wellness or healing means that the issue is worth your time and effort. Your investment can lead to action or at minimum it can lead to comfort and self reflection upon your own values. In the Hindu tradition there are very elaborate cures for various conditions-many times the cures require huge time and possible gem stone purchases. If the problems involve relationships with women, the cure might involve working at a women's shelter or helping young mothers. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the Hinduism-but the point is that a huge investment is made in effecting a cure. The problem is highlighted in one's life-prayer can do the same thing
"Prayer doesn’t “work” in that we cannot manipulate God by praying. But it is still effective. … Prayer changes us. God wants us to pray because that is how we connect with him."
God wants us to pray because he wants attention, wants us to worship him. That's the human definition no matter which gods are in vogue at the time, throughout history. Humans also define which rewards or punishments can be credited to "God".
i'm conflicted on the issue of praying to god for a positive medical/health intervention. on the one hand, i believe it's a waste of time, as to the outcome. if there is a god as most people [christians, muslims, jews] believe there is a god, then i doubt that god is picking favorites - or, conversely, who's gonna suffer in the earthly realm. rationale: too many good people suffer, too many bad people don't.
on the other hand, if praying makes the pray-er feel good, &/or they believe that praying sometimes/somehow works, then it's not a waste of the pray-er's time or energy.
You called Jane Fonda the then young actor. Actually, she was then a young actress. I consider the elimination of the term actor for women to be unnecessary.
Or perhaps we could let the root form of the term be associated with women for a few centuries and assign a new suffix to distinguish men who act from women who do. But let's not. The suffix "-ess" has functionally indicated a role for women that is less worthy of respect than the superficially similar term for men. We don't need to assign "less than" suffixes to any group of people, period.
I never looked at “ess” as “less”, just as “female”. But AI tells me it has become “offensive to some”. I think some ess’s are cool! Lioness, Countess, Heiress, Duchess…
As an aside, it would be fun to go back and choose who you think the best actor would have been each year if there had only been one category. Cillian Murphy 2024, Michelle Yeoh 2023…
Unnecessary and, I am confident, unlikely to ever happen. There are persistent attempts by some in the media to enact this transformation (like when celebrity birthday are listed), but they don’t seem to be catching (notice how seldom you see “Latinx” these days?). Not only does it jar to see women described as “actors”, but if women are supposed to be aggrieved parties here, then why do so few of them seem to agree? I always enjoy when, on “Finding Your Roots With Henry Louis Gates” someone like Scarlett Johansson or Glenn Close is being profiled, and in the the narrative segments Gates refers to them as “actors”, but then in the interview segments they describe themselves as “actress”. I guess they’re just not sophisticated enough.
IL Lawmakers: Prohibited wire tapping. I swear there was just someone on WGN recently that decried conspiracy that why do charges only stem from the Feds - but you never see state prosecutors tapping phones and producing charges. I guess we know part of the reason. How can law makers create laws that only protect themselves? Prayer: I'm guessing answers are biased. There are those who believe in prayer in all things and those that don't believe prayer at all. Which is worth the time and energy - praying for recovery or praying for Philly to win Superbowl? For the marketing people in the back - "Lab grown meat' needs a little re-wording help.
Hence, pescatarians. According to Wikipedia, there are a variety of reasons that people have used to make the distinction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetarianism I rather like this one: "fish, being born in and of the waters, and without any sexual connexion on the part of other fishes, are free from the taint which pollutes all animals"
I found this podcast earlier this week called Master Plan. It lays out exactly what the business community has been up to the past 50 years taking over our country. We are currently in the end game. It explains so much kf what is going on. I encourage everyone to listen
Regarding prayer. This is probably my favorite YouTube clip. The subject is giving thanks to god for favorable outcomes. If you can spare 2.5 minutes of your life.
I'd have voted for the M.A.I.D. cover if I didn't find AI's capacity to mask the difference between fact and fiction so dangerous. But I laughed first, I must admit, and chuckled at all of them. Good batch this week! (Hint to those who didn't get the Oval Office one: Find out who Colbert's guests were for the episodes that aired last week.)
Ole Slick Willy looks pretty happy in that picture.
Doh -- I just got it!!! ;)
It would be funnier and more accurate to have the caption read that younger generation doesn’t realize there were two people in the Oval Office when that picture was taken.
As I recall, she was reported to be under the desk.
Exactly. Someone that can’t be seen is not IN the picture. They are in the room though.
This reminds me of a joke from the late great Lin Brehmer back when this was a current event. He said that he was reading letters to one of his favorite magazines and it started, "Dear Forum, I can't believe it happened to me! I was the the leader of the free world alone in my office working late when I heard a knock on the door..."
News of former governor Jim Edgar's recent prostate cancer diagnosis arrived just after I posted above. I've posted about votes I cast and now regret. My votes for Jim Edgar, despite my overall preference for policies espoused and carried out by Democratic majorities, are the opposite.
Gov. Edgar's high character and his concern for the people of Illinois, his generally non-divisive tone, his operating according to principles of good government, his respectful albeit firm disagreements with--rather than demonizing of--those who saw things differently on this issue or that: They all are hallmarks of what our elected officials should be like, what we the voters should look for first in deciding whom to vote for. Those candidates are out there. Out of respect for the way Gov. Edgar conducted his political life, let's try not to vote for those who try to win or hold office with negative campaigning, harsh rhetoric, preposterous promises, bombast, and divisiveness, and who have unleashed hot tempers and petty partisanship once voted in, seeking instead the opposite traits that were the hallmarks of Gov. Edgar's time in office.
Edgar had high character?
He was owned and operated by the DuPage Republicans that ran and used the Tollways for decades as their gravy train and by the totally corrupt horse racing industry in Illinois. He should’ve been indicted convicted and sent to prison alone with his rotten mentor Thompson who let Black and Radner loot the Sun Times.
I'm willing to modify my opinion of him if you'd cite some objective, nonpartisan support for that assertion. Members and supporters of both major parties have been willing to cast aspersions on their political opponents, making it tough sometimes to distinguish clear fact from mild distortion to severe twisting of the truth to outright lies. Before modifying my opinion of Edgar, I'd need more than someone else's differing opinion. Nothing against you, just how weigh what to take to heart and what to reserve judgment about.
I’m not taking sides in the Jim Edgar debate, but I do remember this.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/17/us/illinois-campaign-donor-is-convicted-of-bribery.html
ah, the NYT - 'all the news that's fit to print'
Do you like anyone?
I like Pritzker and Duckworth but consider Durban to be useless.
Well, speaking of spelled correctly, it is Senator Durbin!
I was thinking of the town in Africa. My bad.
I liked Edgar, and one reason we think more highly of him than Thompson is that he didn’t get associated with questionable causes after his time in office. (Think Thompson and Giuliani)
Would that it were prostate cancer, which is very curable and treatable when caught early. In fact, it's pancreatic cancer, which is far more lethal.
I appreciate the correction. Thanks, Eric.
Getting rid of DEI assumes that everything will be on equal footing and only merit will count. That’s the biggest load of hogwash since PT Barnum. Many minorities still start life in the worst circumstances, attend the worst schools and are looked at as being less capable. It allows whites to assume they are best for the job. It allows the keeping down of minorities every bit as much as whites believe too much government assistance does. The person who posed this uses a lot of fancy language to justify his views. I have a masters degree but prefer simplicity. We are still a racist society. We still see whites as superior in most ways. That is no more unifying that what the writer claims.
I am a conservative, but joined my company’s diversity council 24 years ago. I mentioned to them that it’s hard to be diverse without getting rid of nepotism in hiring. But HR shut me down. Some things are hard to change.
You brought up a very important point. It doesn’t matter whether conservative or liberal. One can still believe in diversity and I congratulate you. It’s one of the stereotypes I detest. I do not assume all conservatives are racist. That begs the assumption that minorities can’t be conservative. Conservative simply means embracing traditional values and being somewhat averse to change. It has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity. Unfortunately in our present political climate, it has come to mean people averse to giving a hand up to minorities denied opportunity. It is no more true for all conservatives than all liberals being people of God, open to all. I’m too old and have known too many exceptions to these standards.
I believe the term Conservative has been misapplied to the current bunch of GQP thugs. They are conservative in the sense that they want to conserve their money. But they are radicals when it comes to throwing morals, ethics, and facts out the window.
sorry, i have to disagree w- your assertion that 'we are still a racist society'.
many racists remain in our society, and that's sad and bad. but if you compare the USA in 2025 to 1925,1950,1975, or even 2000, there's been huge progress in reducing racism and its impact in the USA.
how about critiquing the failed democratic leadership of major cities and blue states in the USA that leave low income minorities with poor schools, poor healthcare, poor housing and environmental degradation?
Then we’ll just need to disagree. It might not be, as you say, as overt as it used to be with lynchings and laws specifically designed to hold back blacks. But there are many different forms of racism and laws cannot deter what is in people’s minds or hearts. I can read the comments of others online with people mimicking what they see as black or Latino speech. I still see white people cringe if they are approached by black people, especially when they have different hairstyles or what is interpreted as “gangsta” clothing. If a black person assumes a responsible professional position, many assume it is because of preferential hiring. If you want to see us as not racist, that’s your privilege. I am waiting for the day a white and black person can walk down the street, hand in hand, and no one will care.
Was there a small unheard group of people lobbying to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico? When a statue is removed or an army base is renamed or a brand changes its design (Land o Lakes, Aunt Jemima, etc) some people argue that it was fine for all these years, why change it now? Ignoring or not realizing that it did bother a small marginalized group that didn't have a voice until they did.
I find it hard to believe that anyone gave a crap about what the Gulf was named for **checks notes hundreds of years but instead found yet another thing to be Jingoistic about.
There is definitely truth in what you say. I think it’s less about jingoism than it being Trump’s idea- on both sides of the issue. How many here are extremely concerned over Mount Denali vs Mount McKinley? I imagine there are some in Alaska concerned, especially native Alaskans. I spent most of my life living with Mount McKinley and didn’t think much about it one way or another. If jingoism exists, it falls on Burger Boy, not us.
Actually most of Alaska is furious about this atrocity of renaming. Even the state legislature is against renaming it.
The anti "woke," anti-DEI people are using all sorts of justification for their racism, misogny, and blood and soil nationalism, all cloaked in pieties about merit (Dan Bongno, anyone?). See the firing of distinguished general C. Q. Brown by trump because he is a Black man who made a moving statement about the murder of Mr Floyd, and the firing of the two distinguished women in charge of the Navy and the Coast Guard for no reason other than their gender by Hegseth--among the least meritorious White men in trump's cabinet of clowns, crooks, and charlatans.
Hmmm. I wonder what criterion he used to pick that bunch of losers and morons? It’s almost funny to hear him carry on about how terrible DEI is as he brings forth one cretinous pick after another.
Joan, I respect your views. But that’s a cherry pick. How close can someone put their lips to Burger Boy’s derrière while genuflecting? That’s criterion enough.
While the removal of the Chiefs was clearly racist and mysoginistic, not all - a few anyway - of the replacements aren't morons. But that doesn't mean they're appropriate to the job. The guy for new Joint Chief appears to be a good guy, but he has never overseen combat situations or managed a large organization. Non-morons who lack experience for their enormous responsibilities seem to me at least as big a problem as the appointees who are in fact jerks.
I was under the impression that to be one of the joint chiefs you must have four stars and he only has three.
Caine will have to have a presidential waiver, since the law says the appointee must either be a four star general or have been the head of a service. Caine apparently met trump at some time and told him "he could defeat ISIS in a week' and, according to trump "that I would die for you, sir.' (Caveat, trump anecdotes that have people calling him 'sir' are usually lies.) An ambitious ass-kisser, it seems.
I believe this pick as well as the firing or the JAG (is that right?) staff will open the door for the military to open fire and kill civilian protesters-upon the king's order, of course
The fact that the Joint Chiefs pick doesn't meet the stated legal requirements for the post doesn't make him the moron. It makes the person who fired the Joint Chief and picked him the moron.
And Pete Hegseth's commitment to "Sphere Sovereignty" makes him even more dangerous than some of us thought. From the Guardian: "Hegseth expresses agreement with the principle of sphere sovereignty, which, in CR doctrine, envisions a subordination of “civil government” to Old Testament law, capital punishment for infringements of that law such as homosexuality, and rigidly patriarchal families and churches."
Certainly hope that he's a decent person-they do take an oath-not that that seems to matter
"Cabinet of Clowns" is surely going to be a forthcoming book title.
Yes. "Ship of Fools" (Narrenschiff) is already taken.
I would like to congratulate you on choosing 5 visual jokes that are ALL funny. Ordinarily, there might be one or two, often none. You've outdone yourself.
Yes, but some of them are pretty old (I’ve seen the Clinton one for a long time).
Regarding effectiveness/purpose of prayer. I can accept the benefits of prayer as meditation, but it's naive to think it's possible to influence God's feelings or course of action, like causing him to relieve suffering. There is a dissonance in monotheism, often summarized as the problem of evil - if God is both all-powerful and benevolent, why does he allow suffering? The problem indicates that God is either not benevolent or not all-powerful, there is no other option. If evil is a way to make people connect with God or learn some lesson, an all-powerful and benevolent God would be able to achieve that connection without the suffering.
I was recently reading "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari (highly recommended), he explains this contradiction by pointing out that in most ancient polytheistic religions, people prayed to the gods that were in control of the specific area of concern - Ares for help in war, Poseidon for the weather at sea, etc. These Gods were human-like - they could be convinced, they had motives, personalities, desires, and human faults and shortcomings. With the right sacrifice, they would help you out.
These gods were usually descendants of more abstract creator deities, like Uranus and Rhea, who were powerful, but far less human like - they were not interested in human affairs and could not be persuaded to assist. There were no temples or sacrifice ceremonies to appease Uranus.
So, when monotheism emerged, these two qualities of all-powerful but indifferent gods and human-like, persuadable, but fallible gods merged together, creating the dissonance. I just thought that explanation made a lot of sense explaining the problem of evil.
If god isn’t all powerful then god doesn’t exist and never did! I have been an atheist for over 50 years now and nothing but nothing can change my mind. The concept of god is flat out ridiculous as god was obviously invented by primitive humans who had no clue about why the sun went down every night or why the seasons changed or how babies were made. They were scared of everything then so they made up this ridiculous fantasy being in the sky.
That's a really interesting historical explanation. I need to read more books - and less news - these days so thanks for adding "Sapiens" to my list.
I became a Christian years ago and with the talk on how good heaven is I always have wondered why you have to drag some people out of this life kicking and screaming.
“Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.”
Well, count me out! I am GLAD that I don't believe in heaven. As depicted in the churches I was forced to attend, it sounds completely boring. Sitting around doing exactly what for eternity? No thanks.
There are days (especially lately) that I wish I could believe in Hell.
I still consider myself to be a Christian, but I don’t believe that God is a being or entity separate from people, and I don’t believe in heaven or hell. I believe that love is the most powerful force in the universe, and that when we selflessly love other people and other living things, we are connecting with that force, that God. I think human beings have the power to make the present time on earth either heaven or hell.
The idea that you get rewarded with heaven, where all the sanctimonious blowhards assume they’re going when they die, is highly suspect to me. Why would I want to spend eternity with a bunch of people I can’t stand? That sounds like hell to me…
In "The Devil's Dictionary", Ambrose Bierce defines "PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy."
Bierce’s book is one of the great works of literature and commentary!
It has been my belief since I was 5 that if God were omnipotent and omniscient there would be no need to pray for anything because God knew everything and could do everything. Just one factor among many for deciding way back when that I was an atheist (although I didn't know the word yet.]
I do keep wondering if the losing teams form a prayer circle and thank God for the outcome the way the winners do?
The explanation for evil that I was taught was that humans are given the gift of choice-therefore evil. Who knows, but some people think that they are kings or god's gift -crazy town
That confuses me even more. If humans are given the choice then what is God's role in the world? If any person can act contrary to God's will that would mean that He is not all-powerful. It means if another person decides to kill me then I will die - God will not stop it no matter how much I have prayed to be spared or how good of a Christian I've been. That would make Him not benevolent.
I guess it is confusing and lets God off the hook for every single event. There is compelling evidence that there is no such thing as free will. That would pose quite a threat to the traditional theology. I think there was a sci-fi movie with this theme, but I don't know the name of the movie. Some techno source had determined that a character would commit a crime before the person had even conceived of the crime. No free will-no choice to crime or not to crime.
I think you mean Minority Report - a Spielberg movie with Tom Cruise, based on a Phillip K Dick short story. It's a great movie and I'm big fan of Phillip K Dick.
I'm also pretty convinced that Free Will is only an illusion. Everything, including human actions is caused by external events and circumstances. It's a little ironic that people who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God with an unchangeable grand Plan also believe that humans can still choose their course of action. On the other hand atheists like me believe that everything was pre-ordained by the interlinked chain of conditions and events set in motion by the Big Bang like a row of falling dominoes.
There are a bunch of videos on YouTube by Robert Sapolsky, a highly respected neurologist from Stanford, where he advocates for the absence of Free Will and talks about the implications of that on personal responsibility and things like crime. He also has a book called "Determined".
A slightly more comprehensive description of the Ukraine/Russia resolution process:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-standoff-ukraine-europe-competing-un-resolutions-russia-ukraine-war-rcna193458?utm_source=join1440&utm_medium=email&utm_placement=newsletter&user_id=66c4be175d78644b3a9f12fc
Sounds like appeasement to me. What could go wrong?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/neville-chamberlain
In Putin’s past, he expressed regret for the dissolution of the USSR. Think about it. The USSR was a superpower. They were feared. They controlled an awful lot of territory and struck terror through the thought of their tanks rolling through the territory of others such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The average Muscovite might have been standing in breadlines. But that had little meaning for the all powerful Kremlin and the KGB. Now look at them. Run by criminal oligarchs and negotiating for business like everyone else while worrying over NATO. Putin has retro dreams and a big appetite. Trump doesn’t care and has his “open for business” sign out and morality be damned.
My wife and I have traveled to many of the former Soviet block countries -- East Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania -- and the one thing they are unanimous about is that they Hate the Russians and more particularly Russian rule.
Here's a piece that gives more background on what the administration might be trying to accomplish. https://www.thefp.com/p/trump-foreign-policy-revolution?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&hide_intro_popup=true
Alas I am not a paid subscriber to the Free Press, so it grayed out on me after this sobering paragraph: "The dramatic foreign policy reversals began with Trump’s pledges to acquire Greenland, absorb Canada, name the Gulf of America, retake the Panama Canal, and own the Gaza Strip. Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on global trade, mused over cutting the defense budget in half and stopping nuclear weapons production, and signaled his openness to a “verified nuclear peace agreement with Iran.” Trump called Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator without elections,” suggested that Ukraine provoked Russia’s invasion, and bypassed Kyiv and Brussels for direct peace talks with Moscow...."
I'm sure it gets better from there!!!!!!
Yes - that opening is the throat-clearing, wherein the writer acknowledges the thoughts the reader may already have, in order to suggest that the reader is not wasting their time on a one-sided screed. Personally, I’m not a fan of throat-clearing in essays. However, I’m a big fan of when the writer anticipates my take on their point and addresses it. That’s how I know that the writer is not just superficially engaged with the topic.
I believe praying for the health and healing of others is beneficial. It's not that I believe that God is up there listening to us and intervening to heal (maybe don't tell my pastor I said that, LOL). More like my prayer is putting good energy out into the world as well as reminding me of others' suffering and the need for empathy. It also reminds me that prayer alone is not enough, that I need to take actions to help where I can and at least offer a listening ear and comfort where I cannot. It's all part of a framework of caring for others, which is what my religion boils down to for me. It's not about rigorous belief in the literal truth of the myths and stories but in living a life of caring for and serving others.
I have tried to see personal prayer as good for the individual soul, thus good for the collective soul of caring humanity, regardless of your religion. However, once introduced to the notion that you are in some way communicating with a higher power that differs from another’s, you lose the collective spirit and become much more likely to be taken in by those who use that supposed higher power simply for gain and profit here on Earth.
I personally don't believe that my higher power is different from any other. I believe we're all guided by the same spirit regardless of what we call it - God, Yaweh, Allah, Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, Buddha, The Great Spirit, Aja, Wane, and so on - or interpret it. It all boils down to aspiring to be the best humans we can by treating others as ourselves. It also isn't about getting to heaven or any other afterlife, it's about establishing heaven here on earth. We're not guaranteed an afterlife, we need to make the best of the actual life we have now, for ourselves and others.
This is the spirit that I wish was predominant in our US culture as we hear about the “persecution” of Christians here and see how govt. leaders want to inject Christianity into our rules and norms (and not because they value sincere forms of prayer that you’ve mentioned).
No one needs any religion to be the best human they can be. They need morals, ethics, respect for others, etc.
Agreed - however some of us like a framework to put it in and a group of like-minded people to work with toward a better world.
The very act of praying for someone else's wellness or healing means that the issue is worth your time and effort. Your investment can lead to action or at minimum it can lead to comfort and self reflection upon your own values. In the Hindu tradition there are very elaborate cures for various conditions-many times the cures require huge time and possible gem stone purchases. If the problems involve relationships with women, the cure might involve working at a women's shelter or helping young mothers. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the Hinduism-but the point is that a huge investment is made in effecting a cure. The problem is highlighted in one's life-prayer can do the same thing
"Prayer doesn’t “work” in that we cannot manipulate God by praying. But it is still effective. … Prayer changes us. God wants us to pray because that is how we connect with him."
God wants us to pray because he wants attention, wants us to worship him. That's the human definition no matter which gods are in vogue at the time, throughout history. Humans also define which rewards or punishments can be credited to "God".
i'm conflicted on the issue of praying to god for a positive medical/health intervention. on the one hand, i believe it's a waste of time, as to the outcome. if there is a god as most people [christians, muslims, jews] believe there is a god, then i doubt that god is picking favorites - or, conversely, who's gonna suffer in the earthly realm. rationale: too many good people suffer, too many bad people don't.
on the other hand, if praying makes the pray-er feel good, &/or they believe that praying sometimes/somehow works, then it's not a waste of the pray-er's time or energy.
so i didn't vote in the poll.
You called Jane Fonda the then young actor. Actually, she was then a young actress. I consider the elimination of the term actor for women to be unnecessary.
Or perhaps we could let the root form of the term be associated with women for a few centuries and assign a new suffix to distinguish men who act from women who do. But let's not. The suffix "-ess" has functionally indicated a role for women that is less worthy of respect than the superficially similar term for men. We don't need to assign "less than" suffixes to any group of people, period.
I never looked at “ess” as “less”, just as “female”. But AI tells me it has become “offensive to some”. I think some ess’s are cool! Lioness, Countess, Heiress, Duchess…
As an aside, it would be fun to go back and choose who you think the best actor would have been each year if there had only been one category. Cillian Murphy 2024, Michelle Yeoh 2023…
Unnecessary and, I am confident, unlikely to ever happen. There are persistent attempts by some in the media to enact this transformation (like when celebrity birthday are listed), but they don’t seem to be catching (notice how seldom you see “Latinx” these days?). Not only does it jar to see women described as “actors”, but if women are supposed to be aggrieved parties here, then why do so few of them seem to agree? I always enjoy when, on “Finding Your Roots With Henry Louis Gates” someone like Scarlett Johansson or Glenn Close is being profiled, and in the the narrative segments Gates refers to them as “actors”, but then in the interview segments they describe themselves as “actress”. I guess they’re just not sophisticated enough.
The Academy Awards are for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress not for female actors!
But the SAG awards go to Best Female Actor and Best Supporting Female Actor (as well as Best Male Actor and Best Supporting Male Actor)
The SAG awards and a buck will get you a nickel candy bar! Few people outside of acting give a damn about them.
It's the one awards show started and operated by the actors themselves and they choose to use "actor" regardless of gender. That is telling.
Not really, just a bunch of extreme activists in the group did that & the rest didn't give a damn!
How about this? -- An actor is a person who pretends to embody a character when telling a story. An actress is someone who says she is an actress.
IL Lawmakers: Prohibited wire tapping. I swear there was just someone on WGN recently that decried conspiracy that why do charges only stem from the Feds - but you never see state prosecutors tapping phones and producing charges. I guess we know part of the reason. How can law makers create laws that only protect themselves? Prayer: I'm guessing answers are biased. There are those who believe in prayer in all things and those that don't believe prayer at all. Which is worth the time and energy - praying for recovery or praying for Philly to win Superbowl? For the marketing people in the back - "Lab grown meat' needs a little re-wording help.
I've always found it interesting what we consider meat: pork, poultry and beef and some other animals but fish gets its own classification.
Hence, pescatarians. According to Wikipedia, there are a variety of reasons that people have used to make the distinction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetarianism I rather like this one: "fish, being born in and of the waters, and without any sexual connexion on the part of other fishes, are free from the taint which pollutes all animals"
So they say fish are 'clean?' Only fish caught in the wild vs farmed?
I'm certainly hoping that definition was tongue in cheek.
I found this podcast earlier this week called Master Plan. It lays out exactly what the business community has been up to the past 50 years taking over our country. We are currently in the end game. It explains so much kf what is going on. I encourage everyone to listen
https://www.levernews.com/masterplan/
Regarding prayer. This is probably my favorite YouTube clip. The subject is giving thanks to god for favorable outcomes. If you can spare 2.5 minutes of your life.
https://youtu.be/9dMSvXE9Gxw?si=9HIQeFEi1GAujk2_