Subscription

Saturday, March 4, 2023

Lunar Legerdemain

 


Friends, who can you count on these days?  No one, seemingly.  The world is constantly in flux, and old norms are falling by the wayside.  Now, you'd think that the rising and the setting of the sun and moon would be constants, but guess again!  The sun is going to flame out one of these days and plunge us into total darkness (gee, thanks!), while the moon, as it turns out, is gradually, stealthily, inching away from us!  It's like it's been watching CNN and suddenly decided, "Uh, sorry, dudes -- I'm out!"  I, for one, am very disappointed in the moon.  Loyalty is a virtue, Luna!  You think Venus or Mars will treat you any better???  Good luck with that!


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230303-how-the-moon-is-making-days-longer-on-earth

 

In other news, I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis, which suggests that it's a dumb idea to start imposing "cognitive tests" or other limitations on our most venerable public servants.  Hey, it's called democracy for a reason, people!  Don't want drooling oldsters leading you?  Then stop voting for them!!!  It's not rocket science.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/03/04/while_attractive_to_many_age_limits_for_politicians_are_a_bad_idea_148938.html 


Finally, Democrats and leftists are debating with a straight face whether or not they should treat with Fox News and grant it the respect due to a legitimate news organization.  Not mentioned in this article (of course) is the fact that all of Fox's faults (and then some) are replicated in many left-wing news organizations.  Still, the article raises a fair point: why would a politician grant access to a journalist or a newspaper or a news channel that he/she knows exists for no other reason than to make him/her look foolish and/or evil?  I've been saying for years that Republicans ought to cut off the mainstream media, or at least meter access so as to punish the worst offenders.  Frankly, I'm surprised Fox News still exists, given how much the powers-that-be hate it.  Perhaps the only reason it does is because, when push comes to shove, Fox can and does toe the establishment line.


https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/04/dems-cut-fox-off-lawsuit-revelations-00085469

17 comments:

  1. Dr.Waddy from Jack: The news of the moon is appalling. And I thought I could count on that good old thing. I watch Fox regularly and I like its partisanship; my mind is closed to the dems after almost 60 years of watching them go from a mostly loyal party to a fundamentally antiAmerican shill of the radical left. Unilateral action by the dems to close down their nemesis is a necessary prerequisite to their certain objective of "lawful" suppression of all opposition in keeping with their ultimate totalitarian intent. Minds closed to such a proven threat to all we value are necessary in motivating determination to defeat it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Fox toes the establishment line." At no point in your incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this blog is now dumber for having read it. You failed completely at making a point, and may good have mercy on your soul.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Waddy from Jack: I certainly agree with you and the article. Ah but. . . as a boomer in my 76 th year I demand: where are the impassioned howls of "ageism" from those who blithely presume to add that much labored suffix which
    conveniently guarantees condemnation upon accusation, to any "blasphemy"? Where the outrage and anguish!?Were an aged President Sanders thus deposed they would chide, with a vengeance too!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RAY TO JACK

      Sorry, but anyone reading stuff like "from those who blithely presume to add that much labored suffix....." might ask "What in the hell is this guy talking about!?" Who are you attempting to imitate or impress? Clearly, you will be offended by my comments, but so be it. Most of your posts/comments on this site are like this. No one gives a damn what you say if they can't understand it. Write plain English Jack! Please!

      Delete
  4. "Fox toes the establishment line." At no point in your incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this blog is now dumber for having read it. You failed completely at making a point, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rod from Jack: But Rod, you read it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and I am dumber for it.

      Delete
  6. Dr. Waddy and Rod: This infamous exchange:"Marry, this is miching mallecho; it means mischief." For extra credit, cite the play! No compendia allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I mean that above my presumptuous quote.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And oh yes ,I meant concordances not compendia - Jack

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey, Rod is back! We missed you. Nice of you to swoop in with some gratuitous insults (and nothing else). We have to start somewhere, right? So you don't think Fox can and does toe the establishment line? That doesn't surprise me. Everything you know about Fox presumably comes from watching CNN and MSNBC. Fox is a complex organization that, yes, leans right and often tells Republicans what they want to hear, but cannot be easily pegged as, say, pro- or anti-vaccines, or pro- or anti-Trump. News analysts regularly found that Fox's coverage of Trump during his presidency was fairly balanced between positive and negative. Rod, there are forces at Fox that quite frankly want to exorcise the Trump demons from the GOP, and even some figures who might like to see Biden reelected. Did you forget that Mike Wallace was at Fox for years...before he wasn't? You think he was a conservative drone all those years? Come on! Wake up and smell the coffee, and stop beginning every discussion with a reminder to your interlocutors that you're way smarter than they are. It's not as endearing as you seem to think.

    Jack, my concordance is in the shop. I have no idea which play you're referencing, although I'm fairly confident that I didn't write it... Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ray from Jack. No.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Nor did I (its Hamlet). I just rejoice that he wrote it though how any human could have been that supremely eloquent is almost incredible. He's the glory of the beautiful English language. My wonderful college Shakespeare professor said that Elizabethan England fairly glowed with optimism and cultural brilliance so profound that Shakespeare could only have arisen then or in Periclean Athens.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hmm. I dunno if the unwashed multitudes "glowed with optimism" in Shakespeare's day, or even if he did himself, but he manufactured a nice turn of phrase or two, agreed. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dr.Waddy from Jack: That's a plausible concern but the "groundlings" ( those unable to afford a seat) nonetheless flocked to the Globe Theatre where Shakespeare held forth. Too, have we seen his equal before or after his time ( at least in English)? Elizabeth,when she addressed her army on the eve of the Armada's descent, said in part". .. for in their holds they bring the Inquisition. . . . " To have escaped that curse might well have brought about a salubrious outlook.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That's all plausible, Jack, but it's also (inevitably) quite speculative, where the lower orders are concerned. Did they "flock" to Shakespeare's plays? No more and no less than people "flock" to pornography nowadays, which doesn't prove much of anything, except that it's a people-pleaser. My point is really not to demean the Bard. It's just to remind us (you, specifically) of how little we know about the past.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dr.Waddy from Jack:Surely, surely.

    ReplyDelete