I spend most of my news-reading time on WaPo and the NYT because they're better, and the alternatives are worse. I've defended my practice many times. I'm so often challenged by readers when I engage with the text of these MSM outlets. They ask why I'm still reading that, and my answer has always been that it's the best there is. Readers prod me to read The Daily Caller and Breitbart, but my view has been that stuff is too trashy. I can't stand it, and I'm not interested in writing about it.
But this morning the issue strikes me in a different way because yesterday I encountered the opinion, "You should only read what is truly good or what is frankly bad." I wrote:
[The] idea seems to be that there's a special harm in exposing yourself to things that are only somewhat good. Better to read outwardly trashy things than trash that has been inflated. And then there's also the idea that those who inflate trash are dead.It was Gertrude Stein (as presented by Hemingway) who said "You should only read what is truly good or what is frankly bad." And she characterized Aldous Huxley as "dead" because his writings were not truly good but trash "inflated" to seem somewhat good. ("Why do you read this trash? It is inflated trash, Hemingway. By a dead man.") So I'm thinking about that.
Maybe the worst thing to read is something that's dressed up to seem as though it's not trash. Maybe it is better to read The Daily Caller and Breitbart... and Slate and Vox or whatever. Read the frankly bad.
Ah, but I don't need to protect myself like that. I hope you're reading me because you think I'm "truly good," and I pursue true goodness by reading the somewhat good things for you. I'm choosing to expose myself to the deleterious, inflated trash. I'll approach the corpse. Gertrude Stein still talked about the "dead" man who inflated trash. That's all I'm doing, talking about the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Bonus debate issue: Trump's tweets are frankly bad, and that's why it's good to want to read them.
Second bonus debate issue: If there's one thing that deserves to be viewed as deleterious, inflated trash, it's judicial opinions. (I am a professor emerita, having spent too many years palpating that corpse.)
Posts
155 comments:
I would say Trump's tweets fall into all three categories.
As for Thomas articles, I think David Begley is implicitly asking the question, were these articles written to inform or to make a case? Do you have an answer? How confident do you feel in your answer, based on what you know of these newspapers?
Readers prod me to read The Daily Caller and Breitbart, but my view has been that stuff is too trashy.
I suspect that you might be confusing The Daily Caller with The Gateway Pundit.
The latter can be characterized fairly as "trashy", but it does provide a lot of good information.
One of the very best reporters about the RussiaGate hoax has been Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller.
Most atheists believe in the supernatural, despite trusting science
If you quit believing in GOD
You'll believe anything...
Even the Washington Post
They sure look like newspapers.
If you think Trump's tweets are bad, try his understanding of what tariffs do and who pays for them. I keep thinking that he has to be putting us on, because what he says is so goofy.
Hint: The citizens of the US pay for tariffs imposed on imports through higher prices, retaliation from trading partners, and market dislocations. Coming soon: favored treatment for whiney domestic companies.
None of this is to say that there aren't international trade issues that need to be addressed and solved (reciprocity, protection of IP, etc.)--but tariffs are a terrible way to do it.
When the NYT does good journalism, which is not uncommon, it should be saluted.
When the NYT does bad journalism, which is not uncommon, it should be scored.
The problem is when the NYT is regarded as some kind of "authority." It's just a damn newspaper.
Mike
Trump's tweets are sometimes just entertaining (or bad) and sometimes provide the truth. They are rarely boring and/or untruthful.
The best example of trash not worth reading would be National Review or someone like David French. They're not entertaining, and they aren't truthful or interesting. You're just getting someone doing a balancing act, trying to be "conservative" while hating Trump and pleasing the liberal media. Its Fake.
I like Althouse reading NYT or the WaPo because i don't. They set the news agenda. The rest of the media (even Fox) follows them like a flock of sheep. If the NYT's sheep goes right, the rest of them go right. If the NYT sheep goes left, the rest of the MSM goes left.
If you read the NYT or Wapo you don't have to watch abc/nbc/cbs/pbs/cnn/msnbc or read any other big city newspaper for the national/international news.
Trump will save us money by not needing a library. We'll just re-read his Twitter feed.
breitbart/gateway pundit are useful correctives to the NYT and Wapo. For example, they exposed "The Trump wanted to hide the USS McCain" fake news with 48 hours.
How do you get a bad actor to the table if you refuse to use tariffs?
I'm personally glad you find stuff to Blog about in the NYT and WaPo. Even though I believe they're mostly Dem party propaganda, I fully acknowledge that it's very well crafted propaganda. NYT and WaPo presents carefully contructed narratives for consumption by elite progressives. As such it's important to know what nonsense is being fed to blue enclave bubble dwellers.
And occasionally some actual truth can sneak through, and every once in a while some actual real journalism, as well as some interesting points of view.
But let's keep exporting jobs so we can buy more cheap Chinese shit.
"The citizens of the US pay for tariffs imposed on imports through higher prices"
This is an inaccurate representation of the issue and displays a simpleton's understanding of economics.
Try this: If businesses could simply raise their prices to recover the costs of tariffs...WHY AREN'T THEY ALREADY CHARGING THOSE HIGHER PRICES? Are we supposed to believe that businesses could be charging $5.50 per widget instead of $5 and decline out of the goodness of their hearts?
There are a thousand and one factors that go into setting the prices for goods or services. It is certainly true that SOME of the impact of a tariff MAY be passed onto consumers but the suggestion that ALL of it is AUTOMATICALLY transferred is the sort of stupidity that only comes from rigid ideological truisms being substituted for reality.
Mike
The MSM is just propaganda today. They aren't just liberal Democrats - they're globalists. Anyone who just read the NYT's would have ZERO understanding of trade or immigration policy and no idea what Trump was trying to accomplish and why. All they do is put out "Free Trade" "Open Borders" propaganda. The same is true of their slanted coverage of Europe or the UK Brexit. Its absurd.
They not only don't educate people - they misinform them. All they can say about Tariffs is "OMG - its a Trade war - we'll all die!!!" with immigration its "There's no problem and Babies are dying at the border!!!" - its absurd.
Actually, the WSJ (if you read the whole paper), IBD, the Washington Examiner, and Real Clear Politics give you the complete picture if you are reading NYT and WaPo. Breitbart and The Daily Caller aren't in the same league.
Suggest you try the Wall Street Journal.
"You should only read what is truly good or what is frankly bad."
Deacon E.L. Mouse: White Lightening, White Lightening this is Ground Beef Control, do you read me? Over.
Pastor Rod Flash: I read only good books. Over.
I read you because you are more that truly good...most of you stuff is excellent (puns being the exception). Many times I have my 12yo daughter read you so she can see great analysis.
One of the very best reporters about the RussiaGate hoax has been Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller.
Yes. I think your preference for the NYT and WaPoo is your residual leftist bias. There is nothing wrong with reading the other side's arguments, if there are any. I used to read leftist blogs and HuffPo. They have been reduced to "Orange Man Bad" and do not accept comments from the other side.
Trump's use of Twitter is his way of getting a message to the people over the heads of the press, like Reagan used to do. I agree that he gets too emotional but has any president since Lincoln been demonized like he has? Nixon maybe, dating back to Alger Hiss and Helen Gahagan Douglas.
Gell-Mann amnesia effect still applies.
I hate it when someone tells me what not to read. Old lady told me not to read Fear because by God her late husband worked we Woodward and he's a liberal! No shit.
As if I'm can't read critically, knowing the book will be influencing others in positions of power and informing the common wisdom. And I thought Woodward did a good job btw.
I'll pick my own reading, thank you very much.
And yeah lots of trashy sites on my side. Can't stand black-reverse or magazine layouts with huge pull quotes. If there's anything good there, Insty or Ace or someone will let us know.
NYT/WaPo may be better presented and classier looking than the average SJW clickbait site, but the content isn't really much different. This Thomas/Eugenics Scholars article might as well be on Vox or Daily Kos, if that's still around. Seven Eugenics Scholars DESTROY Justice Thomas!
Second bonus debate issue: If there's one thing that deserves to be viewed as deleterious, inflated trash, it's judicial opinions. (I am a professor emerita, having spent too many years palpating that corpse.)
I haven't read a ton of judicial opinions outside of the big (Supreme Court) ones, so I can't really comment on whether or not they're generally trash. But it certainly wouldn't suprise me since in my experience Sturgeon's Law seems to hold true in just about every other field I've encountered.
"This is an inaccurate representation of the issue and displays a simpleton's understanding of economics."
There is a simpleton in the house, and it's not me. Tariffs are either passed on or eat into business profits. Someone suffers because costs increase artificially. Some businesses use the tariff excuse to cover price increases not otherwise impacted by the tariffs. Soon there will be a line of folks outside Trump's door asking for protection.
Think about Bush's ill-considered steel tariffs, with raised costs to domestic steel fabricators. It was later observed that domestic steel fabricators lost more jobs than were saved in steel production.
What do you do for a living, MBunge? I hope you are well-capitalized.
Deeply flawed or just ordinarily-type flawed?
This seems to be the flip side of the Naomi Wolf correction.
It hardly surprises me. People often blunder outside of their area of expertise.
I hypothesize out of my area of expertise to suggest a blind experiment. Clarence Thomas should audition on the cello behind a partition and the historians can decide if he can join their orchestra.
Listening to people blather about Tariffs is painful. We have a $20 Trillion dollar economy. Its complex. You can't discuss what Trump is trying to do, unless you have the facts and the numbers. How much trade is there? What products are being effected? How does that impact that industry? Can the industry pass on the costs, or does it reduce their profits? How much of each product is being impacted? 1%? 5%, 10%?
To use a simple example. Mexican Celery is sold at for $X/lbs to consumers. The vast of the majority of that cost is retail and transportation costs. Tariffs may increase the cost to the importers by 5%. Can they pass that cost on? Or do they have to reduce profits? In any case, they're are NOT setting the price in stores based on how much they pay the Importers. The Grocery store is trying to maximize revenue and will sell it to you for at the price that will get them the most money.
The thing is WaPo and NYT have lots of content and they set the agenda for the rest of the media. The WSJ is the only alternative as a national newspaper. I'd urge Ann to read the WSJ. It has good arts stuff too. Not all business and politics.
Ann's reading of them is great as we can see how biased they are. That was my point.
The Omaha World-Herald has been reduced to a fraction of its former self. Fewer pages and cuts in staff. Warren Buffett said last year that he was shocked at the decline in revenue. Warren fired the OWH publisher after his turnaround effort failed.
Newspapers are in BIG TROUBLE. NYT and WaPo know it. Their answer is to become liberal hacks. Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire, is the largest shareholder of the NYT. And, of course, Jeff Bezos owns WaPo. Buffett sold it to him.
The issue is not using the NYT's professional writing style v. the Breitbart trashy style or the Trump Tweet style to deliver the message. The issue is the truth or the falsehood contained in the message.That's where the Old Grey Lady has gone full Pravada Propaganda War, but the edgy internet sites like Breitbart still honor the Truth when publishing the latest in message warfare.
NYT and WaPo have done 2 things:
1. Blur the distinction between reporting FACTS, and offering OPINIONS.
2. Push their OPINIONS like a one-way ratchet to the Left.
Aside from these two things (which are big), if there's an earthquake in Guadalajara, you might get straight reporting. Well, belay that, they'll infuse the global warming angle. Never mind.
Maybe it is better to read read The Daily Caller and Breitbart
I don't look at those sites because they're a pop-up and advertising shitholes. C'mon, righties, buy yourself some class.
WaPo and the NYT are written for women. Breitbart and Daily Caller are not.
The appeal of Althouse is smart and tolerant of contrary opinions and thinks like a woman, so a living exhibit of how in the world can woman think like that if she's not actually dumb.
So far unanswered. She talks of the importance of emotion, and backs it up by saying you're emotional too at bottom.
The WSJ news coverage is usually just a clone of the NYT and WaPo. Its the same elite liberal reporters. There are exceptions. They are also even more globalist then the NYT and Wapo. There Op-ed pages are more balanced.
A guy thinks of emotion as a short circuit in a malfunctioning brain.
The WSJ started being written for women in the 90s. Until then it had just been left wing in the news and right wing in the editorial page.
It's added pro deep state now.
I think the WSJ is markedly better than the NYT.
Take the USS McCain hoax. No liberal reporter has issued a correction. Megan McCain has not apologized. All the Liberal reporters and creeps like Bill Kristol who reported - or tweeted - AS FACT that Trump wanted the navy to "Hide" the USS McCain, have not apologized or retracted.
If I hadn't read Breitbart or the Daily Caller or Red State, i would STILL Think Trump had done something he didn't do.
AA prefers the nicely attired partisanship of the NYT and Wapo.
Daily Caller and Breitbart are more gaudily dressed partisans. (Though if you read the two, you glean a fair amount of difference)
I call civility bullshit.
I read Drudge to see if there's anything important (almost never is the result) amidst the click baits, and comments to get the daily discussions.
Remember that in fact there's no market for hard news and never has been.
My market is what's being discussed.
rcocean said... If you read the NYT or Wapo you don't have to watch abc/nbc/cbs/pbs/cnn/msnbc or read any other big city newspaper for the national/international news.
*******************
The common theme here is that none of those "news" organizations even bothers to report anything that reflects positively on Trump and conservatives in general.
Try finding articles on how well the economy is doing, the fall of ISIS, the very low jobless rate or the stock market.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/20/what-gain-what-rally-biased-broadcasters-ignore-go/
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2018-01-16/the-economy-is-booming-under-trump-but-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-that
Cue the crickets, please. (and not Buddy Holly's Crickets).
WSJ arts and book section is better than the NYT or WaPo but that's not saying much. Its like saying Joe Biden is better than Bernie Sanders.
Tim Blair was a goto site but has gone into Australian politics, which is deadly dull, and put up a blog page paywall for most items anyhow. So that's that.
NYT/WaPo may be better presented and classier looking than the average SJW clickbait site, but the content isn't really much different.
Yes. truly good and frankly bad are labels on the style spectrum. Written well <---> written badly. Begley's argument is about substance.
Blogger LordSomber said...
Gell-Mann amnesia effect still applies.
Thank-you.
I think most people just want good faith reporting. It takes actual reporters, not blue check mark propagandists. They are hard to find in MSM because editors wan't publish them, and management won't hire them.
Chuck Ross at Daily Caller is top notch. The Federalist, Washington Examiner have good, solid stuff.
I haven't read Breitbart since Andrew died, so I can't say.
Since NYT fired the editors it doesn't score points on either style or substance.
I don't read anything because even the most benign stories are chock full of loaded language engineered to make you think or feel a particular way.
Shit like this is also a reason.
Ms. Althouse doing the dirty work so we don't have to. I, for one, am appreciative.
It is good to see what those outlets are printing and saying. The WaPo Eugenics or Not piece earlier today is easily sussed out for the position paper against Thomas, and in favor of abortion on demand, that it is. Interesting to me is to see their tactics: they don't address the disagreement forthrightly, rather they peddle the views of "scholars" in a appeal to authority. Tells me they aren't confident in their argument against Thomas's position.
I wasn't a fan of the Gertrude Stein quote, because I thought it snobbish and boring. I also don't like reading the really good that often. I believe in diminishing returns, and if it is really good, I want to remember that first reading that was so good.
Y
I enjoy coming here because Althose demands so much of her comments and many do rise to the occassion. And she does provide interesting topics.
Radio top of the hour news is about the future. Levies leaking in the midwest may spell disaster, movie companies may move (it's in their name) out of Georgia.
We need Dorothy Parker quotes, not Gertrude Stein.
The dumbest person in my grade school classes was named Gertrude, so it's never been a great name. Mary-Alice was the hot girl.
Why does Begley get all these important tags and front-page headlines? He is my friend, but I am very envious.
Inequality!
If you are only relying on the NYTimes and WaPo, then you are making a mistake just a big as relying only on Breitbart and The Daily Caller.
You probably should rely on aggregators. RealClear is probably the best- it is broken down into multiple categories updated twice a day during the week and on Sunday. Even Drudge has gotten more balanced as he has sunk into a kind of anti-Trumpism while still retaining his anti-progressivism.
The thing I really like about RealClear is that they will give you opposing views in little couplets of articles.
it's the best there is
At what, exactly?
Serious question. At what?
Good writing? Maybe.
Propaganda for self-styled liberal elites? Definitely.
Conveyance of good, reliable, and accurate information? Hardly.
Balanced coverage of information and happenings? Hardly; see, Propaganda.
I used to read the NYT daily. I quit. Because in every area I have expertise in, they were simply writing useless, uninformed crap meant only to propagate a particular narrative. They occasionally have an article that I find informative and/or interesting, but mostly it's liberal elitist crap.
“Better” at what, exactly?
I don’t really compare news outlets that way. For me, a news outlet has to be “good enough” to serve my needs, and my main requirement is transparency in their coverage. I like the way the UK newspapers work - everybody knows the Guardian is Leftist, and the Telegram is Conservative, and there is no pretense about being objective. Much more honest and anybody who wants to split the difference can read both and divine their own truth somewhere in between.
The idea in American media that they are even trying to be objective is SO damaging. They’re not trying, and to the extent they think they are trying, they’re in a bubble they can’t even detect. The end product is, 99% of the time, pure virtue-signalling by people whose “virtues” are both debatable and not mine.
There is not a single newspaper in America with national distribution that can honestly claim to be “conservative”. The WSJ news coverage is *not* conservative and even their editorial page is far too globalist and too absorbed by Chamber of Commerce policies, for me.
The NYT is a shit sandwich wrapped in tasteful Strathmore paper.
I read the San Francisco Chronicle, daily, for 30 years (before internet).
It took maybe 15 years to recognize what a leftist rag it was.
Now, ya just read the sports page and "skim" the news. Takes 10 seconds.
We need to thank Althouse for reading the NYT so we don't have to.
Rhhardin asserts: We need Dorothy Parker quotes, not Gertrude Stein.
Hear, hear!
Parker: The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity.
If you have any young friends who aspire to become writers, the second greatest favor you can do them is to present them with copies of The Elements of Style. The first greatest, of course, is to shoot them now, while they’re happy.”
Stein came up with: There's no there there. Referring to Oakland CA. Supposedly.
That's pretty good.
The best Stein is a beer stein.
"I haven't read a ton of judicial opinions outside of the big (Supreme Court) ones, so I can't really comment on whether or not they're generally trash."
Stein was talking about learning by experiencing examples of how to write. I think virtually all legal writing falls into her "inflated trash" category. You're absorbing badness. Doesn't matter if the judges are very good writers and dedicated to neutral principles or whatever. The problem Stein is talking about will always be there. Take the best writer who ever served on the Court — Jackson or whoever. You've still got the same problem. It's toxic for the serious writer. The elevated (inflated) quality of the prose is what makes it bad -- makes it DEAD.
Althouse, I share the need for higher-quality product. I’m a lifelong newspaper reader, who started when I was 8 years old reading the Sports and then a few years later the front page too. I’m “dug in” to the whole idea for 50+ years now.
Which is why with great sadness I had to fire all mainstream news outlets in 2015.
People consume news like oxygen and never question what it is they are allowing into their heads. If it’s toxic garbage, you’re better off ignoring it.
Most national news about politics is 100% toxic garbage.
I often remember the Susan Sontag quote about how the “intellectual elite” got their news (and with it, their world-view) from only the “best” sources: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Republic, etc.; while Joe Blow got his news from the New York Daily News (then a Republican scandal sheet) and the Reader’s Digest. During the Cold War, the “elite” were told that Soviet Communism was just another system of government, that reactionaries exaggerated its evils, and that Western leaders should understand and reconcile with whatever thugs happened to be in control of the Kremlin. Meanwhile Joe Blow read about Soviet treachery, the Gulag, the secret police, torture chambers and mass murders. And at the end of the day, Sontag had to admit, Joe Blow had gotten a more accurate picture of what the Soviet Union was actually like than his “elite” neighbor.
Ann,
At least twice, I have suggested that if you want to read decent news to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. Why you do not is a mystery to me. I used to read both the NYT and WaPo, but stopped doing so back in the 90's because that is when they turned into trash.
Ann,
At least twice, I have suggested that if you want to read decent news to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. Why you do not is a mystery to me. I used to read both the NYT and WaPo, but stopped doing so back in the 90's because that is when they turned into trash.
During the Cold War our intelligence agencies assiduously read Pravda and Izvestia for insights into the Soviet government's intentions.
The difference here is that the Soviet government owned and directed those two papers, but The Times and WaPo are just owned by wealthy private individuals who suffer from Pauline Kael syndrome, but have little actual influence with those in power - especially in the age of Trump and AO-C.
Bay:
Just my natural brilliance. And let me remind you, my script for "Frankenstein, Part II" is better than any of my comments here. I do have to admit that I got at least one idea for the script here. Frau Althouse has a bit part in the movie. I also bring in the Second Amendment, Blackstone and St. Ignatius Loyola. The Blackstone quote is central to the movie.
If anyone wants to read it, email me at dbegley@lawyer.com.
Only 95 pages!
Here's one problem with the news: Lack of curiosity.
For example, the WSJ USS McCain story. Who wrote it? Its hard to find out, unless you can read the WSJ story because all the extracts never identify him/her. But its not just who, its what is the reporters track-record. Is the fakenews USS McCain story ANOTHER example of their bias? Or do they have a record for honesty? Hard to tell, since no one seemed to care, except me.
Or Rep. Amash had a townhall that was filled with Liberals and Democrats giving him Standing O's for calling for Trump's impeachment. So how did that happen? Was an ORGANIZED campaign to get liberal/democrats to attend his townhall? Was a union or non-profit behind it? Because things like that, just don't happen by themselves. But no one in the Media is interested.
Most national news about politics is 100% toxic garbage.
Because they make everything political. For the sole purpose of promoting a specific political agenda.
Standard agitprop.
I can almost guarantee you could go to Daily Mail U.K. right now and find at least one news article most Americans would find useful or important that will not find in any U.S. news publications.
The thing to keep in mind about tariffs is comparative advantage. If China is the only source for something and Trump slaps a tariff o that good then two things are probably going to happen. First, the tariff will probably be at least mostly passed on, and as a direct result of that fewer will be sold due to the higher price. But what happens if there are competitors for supplying the good? What happens if Vietnam, and maybe the Philippines, also supply the good along with China? There, it is much harder to pass the tariff through to the end users, because they have untariffed substitutes. The result would typically be that the countries supplying the untariffed goods would increase sales, at the expense of the Chinese, whose goods are now comparatively overpriced. Some of the Tariffs on the Chinese goods might be passed through, but I would expect that the more that other countries can supply adequate substitutes, the less that will be the case.
The next question, I think, is to look at the effects on both of our countries. I think that we could potentially win there too, at least comparatively, esp if other countries supply adequate substitutes. Part of that is that China is, in many ways, more fragile politically and esp economically. They have tens, if not hundreds, of millions people who have recently moved from the countryside to the big cities in order to presumably join the middle class. And they really don’t want to return to being peasants in the countryside. So do they go back there when their factory shuts down, due to having been producing a now tariffed good that is also made by the Vietnamese, etc? A generation or two ago, the Chinese government could probably just stuffed them in trucks and run them back to where they came from. Not so much any more.
I am also in favor of Trump imposing tariffs on Mexican goods, until they, at least, quit facilitating the invasion going on right now on our southern border. I think that it will ge their attention, if nothing else. The problem is that the invasion seems to be worsening, and Obama and Clinton appointed judges are issuing countrywide injunctions blocking pretty much everything that Trump tries to do to stop the invasion by these multitudes of future Dem voters. I suspect these Dem judges are going to have a harder time blocking Trump’s Mexican tariffs, esp since their effect on the numbers of future Dem voters is more indirect.
Other than Scalia - who came up with a striking phrase here and there -most SCOTUS opinions aren't meant to be entertaining, interesting, or well written.
Reading a SCOTUS opinion for good writing is like reading a Economics text for good writing.
You can always tell when someone knows about International trade by how many numbers and facts they put in their comments. The more they talk about *theory* the less they know.
Its like the German codebreakers and their Enigma machine. The German codebreakers thought the Machine was theoretically unbreakable. So, they stopped there, and told their high command that despite all those strange coincidences where the Allies seem to be reading their messages, it was IMPOSSIBLE. Because of theory.
However, as PRACTICAL matter, Enigma was breakable. And it cost the Germans thousands of lives.
Bay:
Seriously, I'm outspoken, conservative and have a natural ability to stir the pot. I've been kicked off a Creighton sports message board - twice! - for those very reasons. The liberals there (about 80%) didn't like my views on CAGW and so my views on Creighton sports were not popular. I'd directly take on the loons. I'd also take on some of their nutty ideas about Creighton basketball e.g. firing the current head coach.
"what is truly good or what is frankly bad."
Yes, but sometimes simpler really is better. It all depends on why you are reading whatever the source may be and what you are looking to get from it. The interplay among author-text-reader is integral to understanding anything, as is the reality of selection bias, spin, perspective, group-think, confirmation bias, demands of the overarching narrative and context. We're long past the time when anyone can accept the notion of a 'spinfree zone,' or claim that their preferred source is giving 'just the facts, ma'am'.
So relax and enjoy whatever you think are the better ones, getting what you can without the delusion that it doesn't come with some unavoidable (and perfectly obvious) baggage.
A couple weeks ago, I passed up an opportunity to buy Dorothy Parker's Collected Stories at a library book sale. Maybe it was a first-edition, 1942. The price was $1.
I enjoyed browsing through it, but I already have way too many books.
@Hagar:
"During the Cold War our intelligence agencies assiduously read Pravda and Izvestia for insights into the Soviet government's intentions."
True.
And, even better, was Morris Childs of Operation Solo.
Solo (Childs) was the No. 2 man and paymaster in the American Communist Party, but became the FBI's most important double agent. Solo regularly flew to USSR to meet with Nikita and Fidel, talked geopolitics, and upon returning home, debriefed the FBI on the Soviet mindset.
Brand preservation?
The Times was wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow.
"You should only read what is truly good or what is frankly bad."
Was she referring to fiction or non-fiction? A business case study or a chemistry text or a medical paper can be written somewhat well-written yet be valuable. Non-fiction conveys analysis and facts that may be useful.
However, somewhat-well-written fiction is an entirely different situation. I agree with Stein. Trash can be great fun, for laughing with friends and the camp value if nothing else. Excellence is fun and enlightening. But middlebrow fiction or movies off the NPR list. Blech!
@Begley,
"I'd also take on some of their nutty ideas about Creighton basketball e.g. firing the current head coach."
Creighton has a basketball team??? I didn't know that:)
Go Bluejays!
yes, I still owe you an email re book.
However, as PRACTICAL matter, Enigma was breakable. And it cost the Germans thousands of lives.
Like the theoretically unsinkable Titanic.
Theoretically, Hillary was unbeatable in 2016.
There in lies the difference no one really believes truibnikov and surkov were the sources for the dossier. Unlike say gordievsky or penkovsky or the late tretyakov and putayev/scherbatov
And the Twin Towers which, if the 9/11 scenario were considered in the engineering, would not have collapsed, according to theory.
The last fellow was Chapman handler, the one before died the day they returned to moscow:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7085471/Navy-SEAL-wants-slaying-case-tossed-prosecutor-removed.html
"There in lies the difference no one really believes truibnikov and surkov were the sources for the dossier. Unlike say gordievsky or penkovsky or the late tretyakov and putayev/scherbatov"
Please, narcisco, just nockitov.
I have despised, detested, and distrusted the NYT and WaPoo for yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs.
I was comparing legitimate defectors and sources, with the carp they tell us to pay attention,
The daily mail does sometimes lean on gossip, like the Melania story that burned them then so did the journal following avenatti like almost puppy
The Gallagher story is one that hasn't got much play, recently
Most atheists believe in the supernatural, despite trusting science
Unfortunately true, he sniffed -
"On the whole, and across all our countries, atheists show the lowest levels of supernatural belief; agnostics show slightly higher levels; and within the general population such beliefs are typically rather prevalent." (because typical religious belief is belief the in the supernatural)
"While there is substantial variation both within and between countries on unbelievers’ most/least believed-in phenomena, a few points stand out.
First, the beliefs that there are ‘underlying forces’ of good and evil, that ‘there exists a universal spirit or life force,’ and that ‘most significant life events are meant to be and happen for a reason’ are the most endorsed among unbelievers globally." (in the US about 15-20% believe in each of those magickal ideas).
narciso said...There in lies the difference no one really believes truibnikov and surkov were the sources for the dossier. Unlike say gordievsky or penkovsky or the late tretyakov and putayev/scherbatov
--
Boy..read that quickly 3 times
Gordievsky gave up the able danger threat, and pointed out that Michael foot was a Soviet fellow traveller, penkovaky helped identify the missiles being delivered to cuba
If you quit believing in GOD
You'll believe anything...
Of course that's not true, but it's less false for people who do believe in god(s).
"Any man who chooses to inflict his ideas on his fellows, must expect to have them misunderstood." HLM
Narr
True dat
A business case study or a chemistry text or a medical paper can be written somewhat well-written yet be valuable.
Unless it is Lancet which has published the Autism Vaccine fiasco and the farcical report on Iraqi deaths.
"Three weeks before the 2006 [US mid-term] elections, the British medical journal Lancet published a bombshell report estimating that casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. We know that number was wildly exaggerated. It turns out the Lancet study was funded by anti-Bush partisans and conducted by antiwar activists posing as objective researchers. It also turns out the timing was no accident. You can find the fascinating details in the current issue of National Journal magazine, thanks to reporters Neil Munro and Carl Cannon. "
That was the Wall Street Journal.
"Trump's tweets are frankly bad"
Well, they are brilliant in a performance art kind of way. Provocative, distinctive, serving his purpose, setting the agenda, driving prog bats** crazy.
Read the Wall Street Journal. Its much better that the two npapers you read.
The evil of the MSM is not so much that they are liars and biased, but the pretext that they are not. That pretext gives rise to the erroneous belief that they are the “best” of the worst. It actually militates in favor of the conclusion that they are the worst.
Agree with others that the WSJ is the best. I used to subscribe but it got too pricey. When I was in high school the NYT was available in the library and I read it every day. It was, in my humble estimation, an excellent paper at that time [1960s]. Just as we subscribed to the New Yorker magazine for many years until about the early 90s, IIRC, it turned to crap. Reading foreign press is usually more enlightening about world affairs--and often even US affairs--than any US paper.
“If you think Trump's tweets are bad, try his understanding of what tariffs do and who pays for them. I keep thinking that he has to be putting us on, because what he says is so goofy.”
Tsk, tsk, you just don’t understand his humor.
"his understanding of what tariffs do and who pays for them. "
Tarriff effects can be short term and long term; and there is a continuum.
The pain of tarriffs aren't paid only by the importer but also by the exporter.
This was explained at length in Asian Development Bank seminars I attended, oh, forty years ago.
Short term -
Tariffs are paid in part by increased prices by the purchaser, and in part by lost business and lower selling prices by the seller. That is because in nearly all cases there is, even in the short term, a substitution effect, beginning with commodities. If prices of imports from Mexico have increased due to tariffs, then perhaps it is better to purchase from, perhaps, Chile instead. To compete with Chileans Mexicans have to reduce their prices.
Long term -
Business relationships are affected. If there is a structural advantage in sourcing from Mexico that is offset by tariffs, then perhaps it is better to source from an alternative country, say Honduras, and set up a relationship with them. Mexico loses much of its structural advantages in trading with the US, mainly those of proximity. That's a huge loss to Mexico, as that is an advantage vis-a-vis trade with the US only. Its likewise a lose-lose proposition for both the US and Mexico.
This is a conflict, and these things are contests of pain. Both sides will suffer pain, the outcome depends on which suffers more, and which can bear it better.
Read the Wall Street Journal. Its much better that the two npapers you read.
It's deep state rather than deranged lefty, and accounts of deranged lefties make better blog posts on the right.
"They ask why I'm still reading that, and my answer has always been that it's the best there is."
On that, one has to remember Barry's immortal words: "You can put lipstick on a pig; but, it's still a pig."
Enigma had some fatal flaws, mostly that a letter could never map into itself. So, for example, you could very quickly tell where a given clear phrase could be in a coded message, by none of its letters matching. With a long phrase this was quite powerful.
The question for Mexico is whether the pain of a tariff war with the US is worth maintaining the casual harassing policy they have begun re Central American migrants. This is a deliberate Mexican government policy to harass the Trump administration.
What the Mexican government is getting out of it or hoping to get out of it I don't know, but it does not seem to be something they have much of a stake in, and they are unlikely to bear much pain in order to maintain it.
it's more a question of what they highlight and what they leave out:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446347-trumps-approval-rating-hits-highest-point-in-two-years
vox Is just good for fisking their category error, slate, well it's often very ridiculous,
What the Mexican government is getting out of it or hoping to get out of it I don't know,
Here's a theory.
“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.” He then declared it as “a human right we will defend.”
Most political observers read this and think it sounds crazy. They make comparisons to a U.S. presidential candidate telling Americans to flee to Canada (Daily Wire example). That type of perspective shows a disconnect. The paradigm, and frame of reference, is entirely wrong.
What AMLO was saying in 2018 was not a surprise, nor is it an ideological proclamation; there is an actual strategic policy behind these statements. This has been AMLO’s strategy for years, and no-one was paying attention. Andrés Manuel López Obrador has long proposed a key economic plan for Mexico to become wealthy. However, his idea has only recently gained broad mainstream Mexican understanding.
And:
Through overwhelming the Southern border regions, the nation of Mexico will be able to influence local U.S. laws and overwhelm the local U.S. political structures. The Ameri/Mex zone penetrates into the U.S. and provides a borderless opening for migration, trade, commerce and the education of Mexican citizens through the utilization of U.S. social and economic systems.
All of the long-held grievances of Mexican nationals toward the disparity of their level of poverty and the wealth within the United States can be fixed through this plan.
Within the plan AMLO envisions the U.S. training, educating, employing and eventually paying for a growing standard-of-living for Mexico. It is a fast way for Mexico to gain wealth; as opposed to the long process of building out an entire societal system of education, investment, infrastructure and commerce.
Althouse: They ask why I'm still reading that, and my answer has always been that it's the best there is.
So was Pravda.
The NYTs and WaPo are just well-written propaganda. You complain about predictability and being boring? I can predict what the NYTs and WaPo are going to write about any topic you want to name.
And it's pure fiction. That's why I finally stopped bothering with them. The things they write about are from that other movie the liberals are watching, the one where Trump-Hitler is rounding up the gays for the labor camps. And if I am going to spend my quality time analyzing fiction, I'd would rather be reading Heinlein or Tolkien.
Worse, the Pravda's poison your mind. You may think you are too sophisticated to be taken in, but you are not. The more intelligent you are, the more complex your self-deceptions are. Eventually some part of their poison is going to seep into your subconscious and corrupt your data files.
Good example is your recent attempt to debate battery storage capacity re solar and wind farms. You got your hat handed to you by people who may not be as intelligent as you, but have better Information Brokers. And it's been a repeating pattern in the comment section here: you enter the thread to debate, with assumed "facts" you've absorbed from the NYTs and WaPo, and get crushed by commenters who are better informed.
I've always asked: would you continue to use a Stock Broker who lied to you about Enron? Then why continue to use Information Brokers like the NYTs and WaPo?
"Trump's tweets are frankly bad", said the Democrat as he picked himself up out of the dirt.
And plotted a treasonous coup attempt.
I skip any of the blog posts that link to articles in the NYT or WaPo. I can't read the original articles without paying for a subscription, and I'm not giving either publication any money. If I can't read the article myself, then I have no way to compare my response to the one at the blog post. I don't read blog posts to get my primary source information filtered.
If you quit believing in God, you'll believe anything
"Of course that's not true"
It is true. Perhaps you just don't understand why it's true.
Human's have appetites. One of those is a spiritual appetite. You can deny it, you can suppress it, but it remains nonetheless. If you choose not to believe in a higher power or some higher force, that's fine, but be aware that you are likely to redirect that appetite for the spirit in another less healthy direction, whether a "cause" (worshiping climate change) or the vanity of virtue signaling (worshiping yourself). I've known many atheists and it's a very rare one who can successfully repress his spiritual appetite without turning something else into his "faith". Usually, the fall for Marxism.
And that's the other reason why "If you quit believing in God, you'll believe anything" is true. I'm not a big fan or organized religion, but it DOES tend to inoculate it's congregations against charlatans and snake oil salesmen. Much in the same way that people getting help from a professional psychiatrist tend not to fall for the latest self-help scam. You could attempt to self-medicate by reading psychology textbooks to diagnose yourself, but you would be a fool to not recognize this is a more dangerous path that demands careful consideration and caution.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to convert you. I work for The Other Guy. I'm just obligated by contract to let you know what all your options are. But I hope you go with Pride, its SO delicious! :)
I hope you're reading me because you think I'm "truly good,"
Sorry, but no. I read your blog because it give a fascinating insight into the mind of a liberal who wants to believe that liberalism is still good, but who is slowly developing an uneasy feeling that something’s gone off the rails.
and I pursue true goodness by reading the somewhat good things for you.
Doesn’t work for me because (1) I can’t read the articles without giving my money to organizations I regard as thoroughly corrupt, and (2) I don’t trust someone else’s interpretation of the articles, not even you.
Breitbart had great promise early on (when its namesake and founder was still its driving force) but even before 2015 it was deteriorating into a smelly little orthodoxy. Since the election it has been completely useless except as a source for what shape the daily outrage is going to take. I haven't been able to stomach doing more than skim the headlines for a long while now. Mostly even that is unnecessary because the take is so predictable. I mostly go there out of habit and a sense of loyalty to Andrew Breitbart's memory, however distorted it may have become.
But don't let me discourage you. Since A comes before B I would hit this site before that one. If you are planning on distilling the fever swamp water, it would save me several minutes per day that I could be doing something less depressing.
I hope you're reading me because you think I'm "truly good,"
I'm here for the same reason I stayed 12 years ago: Althouse is the Last Liberal who honestly believes in free speech, so I need not self-censor. She picks a debate topic and, like a basketball ref, tosses it into the air for the rest of us to play with. The "commentariot", people like Bruce Hayden and Freeman Hunt, are just as interesting and enlightening as the hostess.
I know we are at odds, mainly because I've called you out a few times, but you forget sometimes that I was once your staunchest defender (Valenti's Breasts) and still am, despite whatever contempt you display towards me.
Breitbart had great promise early on
Ace of Spades is the conservative hub, always has been, unwavering and unsullied.
My daily dose of anti-GOPe Information Brokers is Insty and Ace. But Ace is my home.
Also, I'm here because Darling Meade looks hot in shorts.
When I was an adjunct history prof the first time, about 1990, teaching US history 1301 (one of two required, then sorta-required, and now who knows?) I realized real quick that the poor dears, with a handful of honorable exceptions, knew NO geography, NO politics beyond R, D, or more D, no spelling, no grammar . . . nor that books often have indexes.
Political Left and Right just weren't clear in their heads, and any news they got was from the networks in one guise or the other. But mickle clever was I.
A digression on Teaching History. Narcissism can help. Stand there, tell 'em you're going to clear up, oh, a thousand years of Byzantium, or American history up to 1877, in a few dozen hours, with time for questions and discussion. And then make sure you rub their noses in the stink and muck and greed, speak unashamed of pride and sacrifice and betrayal and exhaustion, show how a map works, make them look at paintings and sculptures and maybe even read some poetry from long ago, and talk about what they could mean; finally, you get to clue them in on terms like enfant terrible, class struggle, progress, or this was big at that time, "JAPAN, INC."
Narr
Everyone was like, they're going to eat us!
On the whole, and across all our countries, atheists show the lowest levels of supernatural belief
Socialism.
well the Horde has a different function that Breitbart, it's more of a forum like this one, whereas the comment sections of Breitbart is like venturing into the piranha filled Amazons with a belt of raw meat. it's more conversational,
Yes I've been in a lower rung of the educational establishment, and that snl sketch with jeane Kirkpatrick, seems optimistic by then, try explaining Julius Caesar in middle school to those who barely grasp Caesar salad, gates shells have made the job Sisyphean in futility,
ah yes, Japan inc, right when Fallows was assuring they had just received a flesh wound, of course the Atlantic promoted Fallows who had 'that one job' to upper management, where he woul
expand on his category error,
I got to the party late. Big mike nailed. I started reading Ann because i read the NYT article about her as a somewhat bawdy iconoclast. After reading her posts i also came to the same conclusion as Big Mike's -
" it give a fascinating insight into the mind of a liberal who wants to believe that liberalism is still good, but who is slowly developing an uneasy feeling that something’s gone off the rails."
Now as she states she is good at hiding it but she isn't that slick. She is girl who all her life has been a progressive and being an atheist her bible has been the NYT. Ask her about her voting record? Ask her about her moral code?
So that bawdy iconoclast is nothing more than a poor old little girl that has seen all that she believed in isn't kosher and has nowhere to turn but to style . Thank God she has Meade.
So you see that NYT article about Ann was fake news.
They ask why I'm still reading that, and my answer has always been that it's the best there is. Readers prod me to read The Daily Caller and Breitbart, but my view has been that stuff is too trashy. I can't stand it, and I'm not interested in writing about it.
This is funny.
Ann, your bubble is showing.
Well thank you, Otto.
Fen put out an advertisement, saying... But I hope you go with Pride, its SO delicious! :)
There's a LOT to be said for Pride; but take Sloth! It's So Easy, you don't have to do anything!
Remember when, on Saturday night, you would pick up the Sunday Times on the way home after a movie and dinner out. It was kind of a tradition. A little later, you stopped with the movie going and went to Blockbuster instead, but the Sunday Times was still a constant, and you depended on it to get you through the weekend. I remember some Sunday afternoons when, heavy with ennui and boredom, I would read about the weddings and even the book reviews on poetry. The Sunday Times was woven into the fabric of the weekends. When I went away, I used to miss the Times....You can't step into the same river twice. Worse yet, the river dries up and you don't even notice.. Can anyone recall the last time they bought the Times, or the last movie they rented at Blockbuster?....The Times is not part of my life. I vaguely remember that I stopped buying it not for ideological reasons but because the price went up.
last Sunday, $6, a block away in my little town in Central PA. Weird, huh
Fern, I think you’re talking more about “atheists” that are anti-religion than atheists that arent’t.
" it give a fascinating insight into the mind of a liberal who wants to believe that liberalism is still good, but who is slowly developing an uneasy feeling that something’s gone off the rails."
Bingo ! Could not have said it better,
She called her self Libertarian at one time, I understand.
Just like Farmer voting for Bernie. Comedy show.
The WSJ is better than both, as is the Financial Times. I subscribe to the NYT digitally but read it less and less. From the business section to book reviews it is all Trump hate with not a nod to objectivity. As someone wrote above, the Times was once the heart of my weekends. No more.
Spellcheck is sometimes your enemy.
Now having said all that about Ann, i have to agree with her on judicial briefings.
I think it would be invaluable if Ann with her knowledge of law and being an excellent wordsmith would break down these briefings in layman's term for us at this website.
In the Wapo article Paul Lombardo says:
“I’ve been studying this stuff for 40 years, and I’ve never been able to find a leader of the eugenics movement that came out and said they supported abortion,”
But Alan Guttmacher was head of the Association for the Study of Abortion, the group which brought abortion to New York State and then the US. Guttmmacher was a Vice President of American Eugenics Society 1956-1963 and a Director 1955, 1964-1966. see “Medical Application of Genetic Theory”. Eugenics Quarterly 3, 2 1956 for support of abortion for eugenic purposes The Alan Guttmacher Institute a prominent supporter of abortion is named after him. Jacqueline Darroch Forrest was a director of the Society for the Study of Social Biology 1995-1999. She spent her professional life at the Guttmacher Institute. 1978-2017; Senior Vice-President 1996-2004 (interim President 2003); Director of Research 1978-1988; v.p. for research 1988-2002; v.p. for Science 2002-2004
There are many more abortion supporters on the Eugenics Watch list of members of the American eugenics society posted on Scribd.
N.B. Prominent Society members supported abortion in the Fifties and Sixties and Seventies. In the Thirties the abortion procedure was dilation and curettage which is the absence of antibiotics was dangerous. After the development of antibiotics and suction abortion the immediate health danger to the mother was minimized. That is one reason why many more were willing to support abortion after World War II.
“I hope you're reading me because you think I'm "truly good,"....
It needs to be written here that Ann is truly good. One of the very best. She is an intellect and analyst of the first order. She’s not the same as Charles Krauthammer as what she does is different, but she’s at the same level.
Look at the crowd she has attracted. Her readers include Rush Limbaugh. And you, dear reader. Enough said!
"The best there is"?
Just today, the Times used the Newspeak "embryonic pulsing" so they wouldn't have to speak the truth: "a baby's heartbeat". They're not just liars; they're #ProfessionalLiars!(tm).
And Clarence Thomas is a Constitutional Giant in the Land of Lilliputians watching "Honey, I Shrunk The Kids" as the in-flight movie on the Fantastic Voyage.
Some of the best political, economic, and cultural writers write for the WSJ. The editorial sections feature lively debates; authors from most idealogical categories often contribute. Yes leftists do contribute to the debates, and the letters are often lively and perceptive. The weekend
cultural and literary sections are suberb, and the reviews are impressive and insightful. I can live without the Friday mansion section, however. Some of the best analytical and expository writing in America can be found in the WSJ. And yes great stylists can be found in their pages as well.I’ve discovered many great books from reading their weekend reviews. The level of rhetoric is impressive as is the level of argumentation.Notably, economic writers really tend to know economics in depth. Its the only paper paper I subscribe to. Every thing else I can find online.
Just today, the Times used the Newspeak "embryonic pulsing" so they wouldn't have to speak the truth: "a baby's heartbeat". They're not just liars; they're #ProfessionalLiars!(tm).
Yes, I was going to post that but did not see a place to do so,
I studied embryology. There is no such term.
Yes she is, and like a good socratic teacher her premises raise questions that need to be examined in our knowledge and confidence
This excuse cut a bit of ice 11 years ago.
The NYT and WaPo were slanted but factual and made some small efforts to inform. After all, the Times hired
Douthat to at least TRY to explain Deplorables to the ‘Smart Set’.
But then they went full propaganda FOR Obama, even to the point of excusing malfeasance on his part.
This is not slant. It is willful misinforming the public. This is like Bellseiles LYING about sources in his book: how do you ever trust him again?
But even if you excuse the ‘Game of Thrones’ style of political propaganda, what about the Covington Kids? That is the press propagandizing and bullying MINORS.
But that is on Althouse. She prefers the well crafted lies which show a shadow of truth. Some of those lies are probably pretty comforting in their way.
They keep re-calibrating..or promising to.
Well he made those sources out of thin air, because they perished In the 1906 San Francisco quake, here's the kicker they commissioned another book from him about 1877,
In looking at a subject I something about- Venezuela- the WaPo is generally good but they have also messed up. In reporting on the massive electricity blackout of several months ago, the WaPo initially had a reporter more familiar with Mexico or Central America cover it. She repeated the Maduro claim that it was Yanqui sabotage, without refuting it. Someone more familiar with Venezuela would know that electricity supply problems have been a recurring part of Venezuelan life since at least 2010. As such, the "Yanqui sabotage" claim was pure bunk.
The WaPo has had some articles from Francisco Toro, founder of the opposition blog Caracas Chronicles. Toro's viewpoint is sometimes hard to see, shall we say. He wrote an article claiming that Socialism isn't to blame for Venezuela's troubles. Ah, but people acting in the name of Socialism have done a fair amount of damage there.
I often source Caracas chronicles as with babllalu blog, yes Venezuela is a cannibalistic kleptocracy, but the framework was socialism, if the reporter is miroff do you know his back story.
His father in law is the late camilo pineiro the Colombia trained secret police chief for fidel
I used to think that on politics, the Washington Post was replacing the NYT. I live in DC and used to turn to the paper more than any other. I now cannot even open it. It seems to be the Huffington Post in a paper, and that may be a disservice to the Huffington Post. The change in direction and the use of the paper to please their overall new boss seems to be pretty clear. BTW, this is a pretty common viewpoint among people I know in the region who used to go to the WaPo first. The coverage is so unbalanced that it is not worth the time. I miss having some paper that was well written and That was vastly more subtle about what axes they had to grind.
Amadeus 48 said...
If you think Trump's tweets are bad, try his understanding of what tariffs do and who pays for them. I keep thinking that he has to be putting us on, because what he says is so goofy.
There is no difference between tariffs on imports and taxes on local production.
Having higher taxes than you have tariffs is economic suicide.
this link belongs in this thread also
https://twitter.com/ZachG932
I never understood Althouse's reading of the Times and Wapo along with the New Yorker, Atlantic, and others of that ilk but I get it now. She's not looking for the truth. She's looking for the subtle shifts in the messaging. Like an embedded agent in a foreign country she's reading for the, "Attack now," or "Escape now," code.
William" You can't step into the same river twice. Worse yet, the river dries up and you don't even notice.
That was nice.
gilbar: There's a LOT to be said for Pride; but take Sloth! It's So Easy, you don't have to do anything!
Hehe. I have a running joke that I'm working my way through all the vices but have been stuck on Sloth for the last decade.
I bet the other devils get really pissed at Sloth: "I had this whole temptation planned out and you've got him hunkered down in his den with no motivation to even look at it!"
Sloth: First!
Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher born in 544 b.c. said, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”...in plain English, that means that you cannot step into the same river twice because you are changing and the river is changing.
https://theinvisiblementor.com/you-cannot-step-into-the-same-river-twice/
Had not encountered this before, thanks William.
Ann, spoke like a never Trumper. Yes WAPO and NYT are not as breathless as Breitbart can be but to close one eye and maintain one’s perspicacity will be a good enough filter is a tad arrogant. No wonder your normal wont to filet any news item into diaphanous layers — something I really appreciate — fails on topics like abortion and sex-preferences.
@Amadeus 48: Tariffs only get collected (and paid for by consumers) if people continue to purchase affected goods.
Post a Comment