Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
cosmique
Published Letters: 158 Editor's Choice: 11
I'm afraid Jesus (or time) has robbed Mr. Cameron of his looks.
She's too "creepy" for 'em.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1626345/posts
Much as you (or I) might think this is the end for her, this is chump change. Good grief, she said that her only problem with McVeigh (the ONLY problem) was that he didn't target the New York Times Building.
Like the WASP she is, she'll continue to enjoy injecting her poison into the body politic... advocating murder is just another working day for her.
Offering food is one of the most primal and generous of human actions, and turning it down one of the most primal rudenesses.
So I think I can forgive Bourdain for his disdain of picky vegans, as long as we add to this list the fanatical Atkins meatarians and other restrictivists. We have a dozen friends we no longer associate with because of the conflation of veganity or other diet coupled with questionable "allergies". They're vegan AND "can't" eat onions. Or they're vegetarian AND "can't" eat mushrooms. Or they're Atkins. Or they're severely low fat. Or they can't stand any hint of spice. Where does it end? It goes on like this until the only common food a party can eat is ice cubes.
I appreciate true allergies and I appreciate having a couple of truly vegetarian only dishes available. But people, especially in the self-righteous Bay Area, have become so self-involved that they can never consider a tiny break in their diet regimen. Little things: to accomodate a bit of butter, or beef stock, or "bad carbs"-- in the spirit of friendship, camaraderie, adventure, or just being a good guest. People like this piss me off because everything is all about them and all the little rules that they and everyone around them needs to follow in order to include them. It's rude. At a very primal level.
In this way, these "enlightened" Bay Areans with the richest variety and diversity of foods available to them become as backwater and broken as the most parochial rube who proclaims, "Ooo. No, I hate Chinese food. I never had it, but I know I'd hate it. Only American food for me."
This is almost frame-for-frame my experience with a sexist creep who did exactly this, back in the 80s before sexual harassment policies had teeth. He was a peer of my boss and would love to find opportunities to sidle up behind my desk and "surprise" me with a massage.
But the worst was the one time I was presenting a proposal to a large group and this guy pulls this on his way out for a pee break. I "knew" he would do it so I flinched back and stared at him the instant he grabbed me, and I just looked at him with a sullen "What the *beep* do *you* want?" expression as the meeting grinded to a halt and the whole room stared and this jerk with his goofy leer that dissolved in the silence -- finally -- into embarrassment. He never did it again.
In a perfect world, Merkel would get up and slap Bush's Neanderthal monkey face so hard his witch mother would feel it.
Nice regret, Sen. McCain. Who legitimized and enabled the President misleading the public? Could it be the toadies within the Republican party who knew what the truth was but failed to speak up? Toadies like you, who smooched and hugged W's lying butt. Shame on you, Senator, for being one of the good men who did nothing as Iraq burned.
How much pasty skin needs to be exposed before these believe-at-any-costs dupes finally see that this Chimperor has no clothes?
Sad.
I guess there's "no point" in allowing your band of incompetent thugs to mislead the country, then.
Such language from this president to the widow unscores how little he merits those who bleed and die to serve our country.
Dear Lord, thank you for making those who would pervert your word for fascist agendas-- so dumb.
Hitting something with the soles of your feet is one of the worst insults one can deliver in the Arab world.
This is code for Bush's oil cohorts: "Anything I can do to stay in business with you great, blessed barons... up to and including screwing America."
It's Randy Graf, not Graff.
Step 1: "Guess what?"
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Kinetic Profit!
That's hot.
Don't get me wrong. Rationality is definitely the way I like my science, my education, and my governance-- Dawkins is a great scientist and I admire his work and writings, especially in the dangerous years where we teeter on the edge of theocracy and wallow in truthiness.
But when Dawkins dismisses "why are we here?" as a question that doesn't deserve an answer, he glibly sweeps aside the centuries and limitless landscape of yearning, philosophy, literature, and art that explores what it means to be self-aware. The wonder and hope of being human is not only of no interest to him, he declares that it is unimportant and therefore of no use to anyone.
And that's some big-time arrogance.
You wrote:
"If you read carefully into what he is saying, the question 'why are we here?' begs the question. In order to ask that question, you must first assume that humans have been granted a purpose by some intelligent being outside of themselves."
Um... no you don't. Plenty of philosophers have considered that very question in the complete absence of factoring in any deity. So your statement is false, and therefore so is your defense of Dawkins.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
