It's just rush hour rules. Lots of parkways have this sort of arrangement. I'd bet that the commuters don't mind the sign as much as they would the gridlock if the lanes stayed the same through the day.
@Zombie: Of course it wouldn't be the responsibility of the zoo. Some security issues were illuminated, but you are, legally speaking, shit out of luck if you break the rules in order to actively screw with dangerous animals.
People are free to be incredibly stupid. It is not the fault of the environment in which they decide to perform their stupid acts if something bad results from that monumentally insane behavior.
So sorry, by the way, if the term evolution in any way distracted you from the central query. Call it "quasi-intelligent forward motion" if that's better.
Hey Evil Pundit: was there ever a time you tried to be credible? Or did it start as just a minor thrill in being a non sequitur-prone contrarian, then morph, as you realized the satisfaction to be had in hit-and-run absurdities, into a fully-ripened troll identity? Do you have perspective on your evolution, or was it always, for you, about making anonymous barbs without purpose?
@Anthony: Me too. I submit that the percentage is probably much, much higher. The way the percentage of people that won't vote for a Black man is probably much higher than the number who admit it.
I am someone who is green by relative convenience, to be perfectly honest. I think it's generally psychologically difficult to connect an empty glass bottle to melting ice caps or whatever, and that the environmental crisis is similarly abstract to most.
Crime will always go on. How we respond to it reveals something about our own humanity and respect for it (or lack thereof).
Americans enjoy their sense of themselves as pioneering, free-range sorts. They value their "freedom" and their scrappiness. That's all well and good, if somewhat simplistic. But I feel like some of the responses here are born out of that kind of blind renegade spirit--a spirit that, while certainly useful at the dawn of our country and in all our various creative endeavors, has morphed in contexts such as this into a rigid, ignorant and dangerous attitude of fear masked as aggression.
I love this country, a lot. But we can be brave and righteous and compassionate all at the same time. Those who seek to justify a killing that was not strictly necessary are at the very least at risk, I think, of perverting the pride and spunk they associate with their national identity into a rather barbaric version of its former self-- of disrespect, or at least lack of meaningful consideration, for human life.
@Kiki: Yeah, there is definitely a spectrum, and the artists themselves would probably make the case for a clear distinction. But I think there's overlap, and I think a lot of street artists started out tagging.
If the vandals were only taggers, their point is lost in that they don't really contribute to whatever street art culture they're making a statement about preserving. However, I think there is a worthy element somewhere in there, and to me it's located around the idea that street art is arguably what it is by virtue of its context both culturally, as a means of expression by those who generally don't have art world connections or gallery gigs, and physically, in that pieces are inexorably linked to the landscape in which they are created and displayed. The point would be (had it been made more effectively) that in taking the art out of the street and commodifying it, you lose a rather important chunk of its original meaning and purpose.
Addendum: I'm becoming fond of you, but if we spar in future, could you ease up on the parodying of my language and points? They deserve to be considered on their own merits and not recycled as a convenient retort. I appreciate it. (I'm not being snide; this a real request. Thanks.)
Well, thanks for at least being respectful. I still wish I could get an honest "wtf" about SP, but that's minor in the grand scheme. It's truly weird to me how we, and by we I mean all those who represent the two of us in this context, are so diametrically opposed in our conceptions of what's going on. But hey, nobody said life made sense. Or if they did, they were lying.
Personal best wishes to you; may your party go up in flames. (Friendly joke attempt, damn it. Honestly, I'm tired of the vitriol. Perhaps you will accept the fact that my convictions come from a place as legitimate as yours and we can agree to throw up our hands and have a rueful laugh. Enough said.)
So from the paragraph you devoted to addressing my question, you give me the following profoundly lukewarm defense: "...there is nothing wrong with her as a VP candidate."
You then assert without support that she has "more real life experience than Obama and Biden put together" (wow, how is this even literally, chronologically, possible...) and go on to claim that any problem I might have with her is a product of my own ignorance. Hm. How...creepily illogical. I simply wanted solid reasons.
Finally, you assure me that her small town accomplishments DON'T mean that she's NOT qualified to run this country "in a pinch" (ouch). I...don't even know how to respond to that. For a person who obviously has a critical mind, you have got to recognize that statement as fantastically lame in the context of the importance of that prospect.
I consider my question unanswered and my challenge unmet. And I think that your helplessness in resorting to exactly the kind of rhetoric and attack I predicted would be the only rebuttal to an eminently legitimate inquiry is quite telling. You accuse others of dishonesty. You want me to think critically about the problems with my candidate. Your record of doing same in the context of the issue I brought up is nonexistent.
Look, I know I'm not going to change your mind. I respect that you believe things that I don't understand. My post was and continues to be about Sarah Palin. If you think she's appropriate as our President, I'm extremely surprised. The thought is very, very frightening to me. I believe she was a reckless, dangerous choice, and I just had thought that anyone who had truly, vividly visualized her in the Oval Office would at least admit it's not a comforting image of the future of our country. If that same image fills you with confidence and peace, then this conversation necessarily has nowhere left to go.
People are free to be incredibly stupid. It is not the fault of the environment in which they decide to perform their stupid acts if something bad results from that monumentally insane behavior.
It's fascinating, either way.
I am someone who is green by relative convenience, to be perfectly honest. I think it's generally psychologically difficult to connect an empty glass bottle to melting ice caps or whatever, and that the environmental crisis is similarly abstract to most.
Americans enjoy their sense of themselves as pioneering, free-range sorts. They value their "freedom" and their scrappiness. That's all well and good, if somewhat simplistic. But I feel like some of the responses here are born out of that kind of blind renegade spirit--a spirit that, while certainly useful at the dawn of our country and in all our various creative endeavors, has morphed in contexts such as this into a rigid, ignorant and dangerous attitude of fear masked as aggression.
I love this country, a lot. But we can be brave and righteous and compassionate all at the same time. Those who seek to justify a killing that was not strictly necessary are at the very least at risk, I think, of perverting the pride and spunk they associate with their national identity into a rather barbaric version of its former self-- of disrespect, or at least lack of meaningful consideration, for human life.
I'm going to need some time to digest this breaking news.
If the vandals were only taggers, their point is lost in that they don't really contribute to whatever street art culture they're making a statement about preserving. However, I think there is a worthy element somewhere in there, and to me it's located around the idea that street art is arguably what it is by virtue of its context both culturally, as a means of expression by those who generally don't have art world connections or gallery gigs, and physically, in that pieces are inexorably linked to the landscape in which they are created and displayed. The point would be (had it been made more effectively) that in taking the art out of the street and commodifying it, you lose a rather important chunk of its original meaning and purpose.
And while not really "neat," whatever the definition of that is, it's certainly an eerie and compelling piece of information.
Personal best wishes to you; may your party go up in flames. (Friendly joke attempt, damn it. Honestly, I'm tired of the vitriol. Perhaps you will accept the fact that my convictions come from a place as legitimate as yours and we can agree to throw up our hands and have a rueful laugh. Enough said.)
So from the paragraph you devoted to addressing my question, you give me the following profoundly lukewarm defense: "...there is nothing wrong with her as a VP candidate."
You then assert without support that she has "more real life experience than Obama and Biden put together" (wow, how is this even literally, chronologically, possible...) and go on to claim that any problem I might have with her is a product of my own ignorance. Hm. How...creepily illogical. I simply wanted solid reasons.
Finally, you assure me that her small town accomplishments DON'T mean that she's NOT qualified to run this country "in a pinch" (ouch). I...don't even know how to respond to that. For a person who obviously has a critical mind, you have got to recognize that statement as fantastically lame in the context of the importance of that prospect.
I consider my question unanswered and my challenge unmet. And I think that your helplessness in resorting to exactly the kind of rhetoric and attack I predicted would be the only rebuttal to an eminently legitimate inquiry is quite telling. You accuse others of dishonesty. You want me to think critically about the problems with my candidate. Your record of doing same in the context of the issue I brought up is nonexistent.
Look, I know I'm not going to change your mind. I respect that you believe things that I don't understand. My post was and continues to be about Sarah Palin. If you think she's appropriate as our President, I'm extremely surprised. The thought is very, very frightening to me. I believe she was a reckless, dangerous choice, and I just had thought that anyone who had truly, vividly visualized her in the Oval Office would at least admit it's not a comforting image of the future of our country. If that same image fills you with confidence and peace, then this conversation necessarily has nowhere left to go.