Dogs - and other dangerous animals like this - should be licensed like guns are. Half the reason people get pit bulls is for the deterrent and defense factor - just like gun ownership.
If "it's interpreted correctly"? Sounds like that other worldly utopia called "communism". Where do you live, anyway? I'd be willing to bet you don't actually live under Sharia law or have never done for any great length of time. And I dare say your opinions don't go down well with the chattels - sorry - women you know.
It's a double-edged sword. Much of this stuff is truly inventive - in a linguistic sense; In the sense of being meaningful actions in the real world or concepts that are authentically different from established language is another matter. But I don't think there's any long term harm to the language going on. These buzzwords and phrases live or die according to their usefulness or relevance. For example, "Thinking outside the box" may well be cringe-worthy nowadays, but it hasn't survived these last 20 years or so without an "element of truth" or veracity to it. That phrase works every day said out loud or not if you're a creative person or are looking to solve a problem or to overcome a challenge. Buzzwords are mostly crap - but only mostly. ( I had to think twice there about whether "mostly" was a word or not...)
Those women stupid enough to convert to Islam and wear a burkha in order to go and live in a stupid backward s#$%hole like Saudi Arabia as a chattel deserve all the lack of freedom they get. "Tolerate" it if you want, apologists, but try bending your logic around actually living that life 24 hours a day. What next from the Los Angeles Toe Rag? An article espousing the liberating feeling women in Africa get knowing that, having had a clitorectomy there's no pressure on them to fake orgasm for their man? Sorry Alex - why is this neat?
Personally I think "inappropriate" has become another one of those words that the politically correct holier than thou thought police have "appropriated" and somewhat ruined in normal usage for the rest of us.
Regarding the joke: I agree with Pudifoot in that if Woods had been white then there'd be no issue to discuss and nothing more would have been said. In other words - it's ok to make a joke about lynching a white guy.
And in other words there's a racist premise behind taking issue with the joke. If it's ok to make a joke about lynching a white guy but not a black guy then surely that's equally racist - is it not? Or are black guys "more equal" than white guys? (To take the Orwell theme further.)
Can you reasonable people - without a flea in your ear - Alex included - see the thought police in action here - not to mention the language police affecting your choice of words for the survey?
Matt: I did say "...approach the subtlety of a Turner.." To me one of the fundamental appeals of abstract art is the way it allows the viewer to make their own interpretations. And good abstract art rewards the viewer with continual reinterpretation. Andersen's paintings are busy, detailed, vivid and to me at least show a mastery of composition and color that you don't see in "horseshit hotel giclee-bound abstraction". I agree about the brushwork technique, but various paintings did evoke Turner to me in their dramatic use of color.
Congratulations and well done Alex! As you surely know from your first baby their first 6 months or so are your most sleep deprived. But the great thing is that after the first baby the second is like falling off a log by comparison.
Seems to me the pivotal point is where the toothpick meets the rim of the cup. That's where the toothpick+forks "structure" is resting. How does the weight of the tiny piece of wood counterbalance the two forks on the other side of the rim? I'm not dumb - explain how it works in plain English rather than just assume that anyone with more than a public education can work it out. Otherwise it wouldn't be featured as a trick - correct?
And I don't want to "try it" because "it just works". I'd rather understand it. I don't believe in magic and I have no interest in putting the phony idea of magic in an 8 year old's head by just showing it to him and letting him doubt that the laws of physics are mutable by hocus-pocus.
P. J. O'Rourke's version of "rights" are far better: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/01/samizdata_quote_295.html
http://www.dazeofourlives.com
but I would, wouldn't I...
Regarding the joke: I agree with Pudifoot in that if Woods had been white then there'd be no issue to discuss and nothing more would have been said. In other words - it's ok to make a joke about lynching a white guy.
And in other words there's a racist premise behind taking issue with the joke. If it's ok to make a joke about lynching a white guy but not a black guy then surely that's equally racist - is it not? Or are black guys "more equal" than white guys? (To take the Orwell theme further.)
Can you reasonable people - without a flea in your ear - Alex included - see the thought police in action here - not to mention the language police affecting your choice of words for the survey?
To me one of the fundamental appeals of abstract art is the way it allows the viewer to make their own interpretations. And good abstract art rewards the viewer with continual reinterpretation.
Andersen's paintings are busy, detailed, vivid and to me at least show a mastery of composition and color that you don't see in "horseshit hotel giclee-bound abstraction". I agree about the brushwork technique, but various paintings did evoke Turner to me in their dramatic use of color.
And I don't want to "try it" because "it just works". I'd rather understand it. I don't believe in magic and I have no interest in putting the phony idea of magic in an 8 year old's head by just showing it to him and letting him doubt that the laws of physics are mutable by hocus-pocus.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/p_j_orourke.html
P. J. O'Rourke's version of "rights" are far better:
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."