Ray: OK only five more weeks to go, debate tomorrow night, after that, we got ourselves a new president.
May: How are you so sure he'll be a new president?
Ray: 'Cause even if Barry wins, he'll be transformed, into a second termer. Second termers are actually very cool, because they're not looking toward the next election any more, they're looking toward their "legacy."
May: What difference does that make? They're still in it for themselves.
Ray: Yeah, but at least this self-serving road has a long term view.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Overheard at Table Four: The Evening News
The say that the Taliban is gaining strength again in Afghanistan. 11 years, and we're back to square one. Square. One.
Numbers are not significant. Small bands of insurgents can topple a country, especially when power is held by people who are generally unfollowable.
And who's this Karzai guy anyway? He looks generally mean, but more of just one of those cowardly leaders who holds power by sheer crafty manipulation. At least with the psycho dicatators, your Castros and your Chavez's, at least you knowwhere they stand. This guy is one of those puppets that we always install, and are only useful until they fall.
Numbers are not significant. Small bands of insurgents can topple a country, especially when power is held by people who are generally unfollowable.
And who's this Karzai guy anyway? He looks generally mean, but more of just one of those cowardly leaders who holds power by sheer crafty manipulation. At least with the psycho dicatators, your Castros and your Chavez's, at least you knowwhere they stand. This guy is one of those puppets that we always install, and are only useful until they fall.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Overheard at Table 2: Battleship
Mama liked it, and that was cool.
. . . because Mama hadn't liked anything we brought over recently.
But if Mama likes a movie, then the whole FAMILY
has a good time!
has a good time!
Really though, when it started out I was thinking man I sure hope this doesn't become some Top Gun focused on this one guy about how he's brash and arrogant and saves the day. Because frankly I'm tired of the "maverick-love" we've got going on, where all the "free spirits" always turn out to be right.
This one was different in that our hero is a maverick and doesn't play by the rules and because of that, people got killed. Sure, you can say they probably would have died anyway when the aliens started their gunplay, but the point is they died when our HERO pushed the alien's button.
That was cool.
My daughter thought Rihanna was the coolest part of the movie, but I have no idea why.
Special effects, completely cool. Their spaceships vs our boats. Explosions, sinkings, bombs, gunfire, whacking aliens in their clanky metal suits.
Throw in some discource of the Art of War, and you've got yourself two hours of action movie.
All in all, very well done . . . and remember, it's Mama approved!
Overheard at Booth 4: Two Teds Talking Communes
Tibor V Varga of Sweden posits:
Or is there?
Isn't love overrated? Shouldn't we aim for other types of relationships (eg. open relationships, not monogamous relationships, communes)?
Verble replies:
Love is overrated
You will never find your true love, there is no perfect relationship.Or is there?
Isn't love overrated? Shouldn't we aim for other types of relationships (eg. open relationships, not monogamous relationships, communes)?
Verble replies:
3 days ago: With your comment about communes I'm assuming you mean love in a carnal, monogomous sense. The relationship and courtship of love.
I am a monogomist. I believe in monogomy so much I've done it three times (more if you don't count the church and the paper) you might call me a serial monogamist. It's great, it's wonderful. I've screwed it up more times than I can count, but I think I finally got it right. Or at least that's what my wife tells me.
So, while I am not the best example of a continually successful monogomous relationship, I will always defend it as the ultimate expression of the completeness of the human being. There is so much of us that is only half, and two people coming together, in spiritual as well as a carnal sense, is the greatest, the ultimate, expression of how we are only complete when we finally subsume ourselves into a greater whole. It demonstrates that we are not complete on our own, but in one other, we can be a greater "together."
While open relationships or communes are wonderful ideas, especially when people can compartmentalise their living relationships, and when a greater sense of communal love permeates those collectives - basically, when everyone understands their own set boundaries enough not to get their feelings hurt - then yes, they can work for a time. To me, the main purpose is to love each other, to be kind and giving to each other, to help each other through this life.
In fact, I've even seen some communes - open relationships like this - work. For awhile. Just like marriages.
However, I will always state that a loving, monogomous relationship is the ultimate demonstration of two human beings reflecting the varied aspects of the creator God, and is the perfect example of two humans giving up a life centered around self for a life centered around a unit.
But that's just my opinion.
And lastly . . . LOVE - can never be overrated!
I am a monogomist. I believe in monogomy so much I've done it three times (more if you don't count the church and the paper) you might call me a serial monogamist. It's great, it's wonderful. I've screwed it up more times than I can count, but I think I finally got it right. Or at least that's what my wife tells me.
So, while I am not the best example of a continually successful monogomous relationship, I will always defend it as the ultimate expression of the completeness of the human being. There is so much of us that is only half, and two people coming together, in spiritual as well as a carnal sense, is the greatest, the ultimate, expression of how we are only complete when we finally subsume ourselves into a greater whole. It demonstrates that we are not complete on our own, but in one other, we can be a greater "together."
While open relationships or communes are wonderful ideas, especially when people can compartmentalise their living relationships, and when a greater sense of communal love permeates those collectives - basically, when everyone understands their own set boundaries enough not to get their feelings hurt - then yes, they can work for a time. To me, the main purpose is to love each other, to be kind and giving to each other, to help each other through this life.
In fact, I've even seen some communes - open relationships like this - work. For awhile. Just like marriages.
However, I will always state that a loving, monogomous relationship is the ultimate demonstration of two human beings reflecting the varied aspects of the creator God, and is the perfect example of two humans giving up a life centered around self for a life centered around a unit.
But that's just my opinion.
And lastly . . . LOVE - can never be overrated!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Overheard at Table 4: NYT Sources Approving Quotes
Billy: Finally! A free press again!
Jilly: Nah, this'll just make 'em have to make stuff up, because now no one'll talk to them.
Billy: Yeah, but it's the same thing if you interview some guy and he just censors what you write - even if it's stuff HE said.
Jilly: Or she.
Billy: Yeah. Or she. You're so technical. But don't you see, this is a great day! Thank you New York Times.
Jilly: I still say it won't help. It'll just make the politicians not give interviews and then we'll just have nothing but more conjecture, speculation, spurious sources, and hidden cameras.
Billy: Which is illegal in its own right.
Jilly: I just don't see what it all accomplishes. The reason why these guys were wanting to approve quotes is because the media was already taking everything they say out of context. They just wanted to make sure they were getting a fair shake. In these days, when the media is anything BUT non-partisan, they're just making sure the words are true, and not twisted.
Billy: Maybe, but I still see it as them wanting always to straddle the fence, so that they come across as being for everybody, instead of taking a hard stand on what they really believe. These guys are more interested in getting votes than in ever standing up for anything, anything except thier own revenue sources. This is just a way for the media to stop letting the Man try to control them. The media HAS to be free to print, even if it is slanted, which it always has been, the people have to decide what is slant and what isn't.
Jilly: And how can the people decide when the only education they get on these issues is the very slanted sources that disseminate the information? It's ludicrous - we've got a nation where the wolves feed the jackals who pass their shit on to the sheep.
Billy: Wow. That's a little sharp, don't you think?
Jilly: Just calls 'em like I sees 'em.
Billy: You wipe your butt with the New York Times don't you.
Jilly: If I still received the print version, probably so, yeah.
Jilly: Nah, this'll just make 'em have to make stuff up, because now no one'll talk to them.
Billy: Yeah, but it's the same thing if you interview some guy and he just censors what you write - even if it's stuff HE said.
Jilly: Or she.
Billy: Yeah. Or she. You're so technical. But don't you see, this is a great day! Thank you New York Times.
Jilly: I still say it won't help. It'll just make the politicians not give interviews and then we'll just have nothing but more conjecture, speculation, spurious sources, and hidden cameras.
Billy: Which is illegal in its own right.
Jilly: I just don't see what it all accomplishes. The reason why these guys were wanting to approve quotes is because the media was already taking everything they say out of context. They just wanted to make sure they were getting a fair shake. In these days, when the media is anything BUT non-partisan, they're just making sure the words are true, and not twisted.
Billy: Maybe, but I still see it as them wanting always to straddle the fence, so that they come across as being for everybody, instead of taking a hard stand on what they really believe. These guys are more interested in getting votes than in ever standing up for anything, anything except thier own revenue sources. This is just a way for the media to stop letting the Man try to control them. The media HAS to be free to print, even if it is slanted, which it always has been, the people have to decide what is slant and what isn't.
Jilly: And how can the people decide when the only education they get on these issues is the very slanted sources that disseminate the information? It's ludicrous - we've got a nation where the wolves feed the jackals who pass their shit on to the sheep.
Billy: Wow. That's a little sharp, don't you think?
Jilly: Just calls 'em like I sees 'em.
Billy: You wipe your butt with the New York Times don't you.
Jilly: If I still received the print version, probably so, yeah.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Overheard at Table 3: general chatter
paul ryan barack obama pawlenty mitt romney hilary clinton axelrod cheney karl rove all these names but one will be forgotten in the next ten years.
yeah. Hilary Clinton will still be famous.
yeah. Hilary Clinton will still be famous.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Overheard at Table 2: Two Teds Talking Irrational Faith
Joseph Dorrell:
I would like to propose the motion that faith is inherently irrational.
I consider rationality (in a nutshell) to be:
'An accurate apportionment of belief in a statement concerning the objective nature of reality, with respect to the available evidence.'
I can think of no better definition of faith than the exact opposite of this:
'A grossly inaccurate apportionment of belief in a statement concerning the objective nature of reality, with respect to the available evidence.'
However, I invite those who have faith, and profess it as a virtue, to submit their definition of faith.
Verble Gherulous:
Faith is not 'inherently' irrational, which is to say, faith in itself is not based on irrational thought.
Faith, in the truly Christian sense, only means that one can state with certainty that what has not yet happened has in fact already happened.
OK that does sound irrational, but let me try to put it this way: you've heard the phrase " Dress for the job you want, not for the oneyou have.". Imagine you are so certain that you will get that greeat job, that faith guides you to dress the part, and diligently to prepare for those responsibilities, to learn what you need to know so that one day,when everybody elseknows what you knew all along, that you were going to be in that position, you are ready. That's faith.
Irrational faith is just going into the office, plunking yourself down in the big chair and issuing wild orders until security comes to take you away.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/13792/is_faith_inherently_irrational.html
I would like to propose the motion that faith is inherently irrational.
I consider rationality (in a nutshell) to be:
'An accurate apportionment of belief in a statement concerning the objective nature of reality, with respect to the available evidence.'
I can think of no better definition of faith than the exact opposite of this:
'A grossly inaccurate apportionment of belief in a statement concerning the objective nature of reality, with respect to the available evidence.'
However, I invite those who have faith, and profess it as a virtue, to submit their definition of faith.
Verble Gherulous:
Faith is not 'inherently' irrational, which is to say, faith in itself is not based on irrational thought.
Faith, in the truly Christian sense, only means that one can state with certainty that what has not yet happened has in fact already happened.
OK that does sound irrational, but let me try to put it this way: you've heard the phrase " Dress for the job you want, not for the oneyou have.". Imagine you are so certain that you will get that greeat job, that faith guides you to dress the part, and diligently to prepare for those responsibilities, to learn what you need to know so that one day,when everybody elseknows what you knew all along, that you were going to be in that position, you are ready. That's faith.
Irrational faith is just going into the office, plunking yourself down in the big chair and issuing wild orders until security comes to take you away.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/13792/is_faith_inherently_irrational.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)