I'm probably in EPU-land now... but I was too busy yesterday to be able to read any comments, or much of any posts, either, so I had missed until now your comment about the drunk candy. Poor candy. You're right... someone meant well. You might as well enjoy if them if you can.

No... but just like the congress's Democratic leaders, they don't know how to set limits.

* * *

OT, but more interesting...

Barney Frank defends refighting the 1990s:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/refight-the-nineties_b_80751.html

I find it odd that you can't see that if you kill 400 people who were going to die at a death camp anyway and in doing so save 2 million then that is in fact a net gain in life.

I detest utilitarian arguments, and I always say so.

Weren't the Nazis making similar calculations... but, of course, they were different ends justifying different means.

Don't you think that part of Oates's ability to take over the mic is because she is a novelist, among other things, and is used to have sole control over telling a story? No way would she let someone else alter it.

The scientists, otoh, are probably more accustomed to working collaboratively, and less likely to try to wield that much power. What do you think?

Perhaps we should not just be asking schools to teach more literature, but expecting more people just to try writing it. Whether they achieved "literature" or not, they would certainly think about narratives more critically.

I forget who complained earlier about the creationist crap on sale at the Grand Canyon

If it was recently, I missed it, but if it was some time ago, it might well have been me. I still think it's UNbeliev-able.

...but I couldn't let this last thought go, while reading Bob Herbert's column from yesterday. (I know, I know, but why should Herbert be made to suffer?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

from the middle of his column:

The past week has been a bad one for cynics. For all the criticism of the presidential election process — that it lasts too long, that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have too much influence, that the news media’s coverage is too much about the horse race, and so on — for all that, the early stages of this presidential race have been both compelling and heartening.

Voters are excited about this election. They have trudged through snow and frigid air in enormous numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire to see and hear and question the candidates. And most of the candidates are working incredibly hard, fighting their way through exhaustion to attend the next rally or town hall meeting or community breakfast or debate.

What is being fashioned in this process is nothing less than the face of early 21st century America.

Can anyone else ever remember the GOP field creating this much excitement, enough to mobilize many more folks than their own base, enough, in fact, to mobilize the independents, and the base of the other team to come out in greater numbers, and to cross party lines? During a primary? Not me.

However, I remember the GOP's operatives trying to repress the turnout, by whatever means they had available, and willing to hope for bad weather, to boot.

Apparently, Fox News has caved, and is now going to allow Ron Paul to be in the next GOP debate.

I found this via HuffPo: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/story/308330.html

Do you suppose it was because of all of the Ron Paul supporters who chased Sean Hannity out of that NH restaurant and back to his hotel?

Naaahh-- Of course not!

I guess that explains it... and I mean that in a good way. Better to grow up first, before you have kids.

I always appreciate your comments, too.

Thank you, Both, for the juxtaposition of Seuss and Paz.

I love them both.

Yes, what were you thinking? Ages 9 - 22? Yikes. But, then I'm the oldest of six, born in 10-year span. I never intended to have only one myself, but that's what happened.

Re: your German student, you might want to do some research into the origins of hip-hop, which is not exactly how it appears to us now, but originally emphasized being resourceful, and self-sufficiency, etc.

But thank you for validating my point.

Can you tell me how what women are taught makes them want sex?

I don't think it works that way. I think the wanting is hard-wired; it's the control/restraint that are "learned."

But that's an overly-simplified answer to a complicated question, since culture, family, religion, etc. all have some kind of impact. Not to mention, hormones.

* * *

Seriously, every woman is different, but you might want to read some books by Christiane Northrup. She's been all over the PBS stations in my part of the country. You might be able to catch her that way, and support PBS at the same time. Otherwise, try Amazon. The woman is a fount of knowledge about women. And what we need.