leh-nerd skin-erd

I used to love going to the movies. My wife and I would enjoy the break, the escape and the popcorn. Now, it’s a bit less enjoyable as I contemplate which actors/directors I choose to support and those I prefer not to. At the same time, we haven’t reached the point where the screen has a perpetual crawl along the bottom of it reminding me of all the trouble in the world, or that the fake butter and artificial sweetener in my snacks is killing me dead as I sit there. Balance is fine. Messaging is no different than the product placement for sponsors within reason. We’ll see.

So, BG, this is an interesting point. I’m glad you brought it up. I have long felt CK was a poser of sorts, but be that as it may, one of my major issues was the “protest at work” issue. Well, that and the relative irony of protesting in a tightly controlled environment guarded by those you are protesting against where only the entitled and elite were able to tread, on a surface made of fake grass that costs millions of dollars to produce perhaps in some cases by people making minimum wage (all sponsored by AT&T). So, you go to work, you follow reasonable rules set in place by your employer, supersized as you pointed out to STAMP OUT individual displays of love, respect or gratitude by employees in spite of the things that are important to them. Phase 2 is upon us. As it turns out, the employer has changed the rules to a certain extent, allowing now whatever it is that they will allow, in whatever manner they allow it. This is where the consumer has a choice to make, and it becomes less about the employee and much more about the employer. From my perspective, the enterprise (NFL) is really just following the money. That isn’t a bad thing, and certainly good things can flow from that sort of thing. I thought the $90m dedicated to social causes was a good thing, just as supporting breast cancer awareness was/is. It remains to be seen what that will look like on game day now and in the future.

As so often happens with the overly emotional, you seem to see only one side of the issue. How does one’s exercising the right to express a point of view (the preference to watch a football game that is about football) lead you to the conclusion that by extension this means the participants are viewed as “enslaved Gladiators...” and all the overly dramatic language that follows? What’s pretty ironic is that the spectator sport you’re referencing has a long and rich history of suppressing thought/word/deed in an attempt to 1. maximize revenue and 2. Standardize fan experience. In many ways, the NFL model follows a McDonald’s franchise model—-let’s be sure the French fries are the same from franchise to franchise to franchise. Wear the proper helmet. Wear only the socks authorized by the league. The players are allowed creative celebratory expression, to a point. Utilizing the “ignore“ feature has as much to do with suppression of free speech as muting the television during a commercial break, or shutting the window when your neighbors are arguing about what color hydrangeas they want to see coming up. For me, it’s all a matter of degree. On the one hand, the NFL has done an amazing job of providing incredible wealth for many, many individuals. For most, that wealth was unobtainable absent the unique physical gifts of the individual and a legitimate, structured and corporate environment to display them. That’s a positive. The NFL has also committed a substantial sum of money to social justice causes of late, and to the communities it serves for many, many years. Again, that’s a positive. On the other hand, the NFL is hardly a paragon of virtue and I don’t necessarily look to it for any great moral life lessons. I’m not much interested in being preached to, so the balance of whatever social messaging they want to send v the quality of the game day experience is what’s most important to me.

I vote NO on this issue, but I ascribe to the CTB theory of web domination.

What does that mean? Should we not have discussions about a wandering horde of vandals setting upon people? Throwing tables at patrons, breaking windows and threatening fellow citizens?

Thought I got my delete in on time 🤣 Very, very true.

“Play along” with what? You lost me here.

This circle jerk panel discussion is an excellent example on how to spread a story with no justification necessary. The story involves allegations that may or may not be true. There are no serious allegations of wrongdoing, no crimes alleged, just unsavory comments alleged to have been uttered by a presidential candidate two years after they were alleged to have occurred. In other words, it’s gossip. Yet, about 5 seconds in, the talking head speaks as if the allegations are factual....”I’m curious as to why these people did not want to go on record...“. When the Atlantico guy uses the expression that you have to “go more belt and suspenders”, the talking head acknowledges it with a “Yeah” and nod of the head, and later, when Atlantico mentions the difficulty with the “ambiguity and difficulty of anonymous sourcing”....no follow up whatsoever. The most interesting part for me was the final 30 seconds or so when Atlantico just sort of rambles about it all. “In this case, I decided that I felt I knew...” and then His odd statement about reporters pursuing the sources to get them to go on record. On top of all that, of course, the screen call at the bottom is misleading. I have decided that I think he’s full of #$@&, that his response weak and tepid.

Yes, I saw this.

Nobody gets the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Fair enough. There were plenty of reasons to dislike Biden before this election cycle, it’s one of reasons dems rejected him for presidency when he was 100%. As for the gelantainous mass, we’ll have to agree to disagree. There are many signs of the onset of dementia over the last several months. From referencing long dead allies, to forgetting words like “God” in a prepared speech to reading the teleprompter text including the description, he’s on his way. His unwillingness to take/answer questions, the overmanagement of his appearances and the like certainly buttress that school of thought. On top of all that....he’s basically been a couch potato for the past several years. He’s been under no real job-related stress, and still, I see a geezer in full geez. As for DJT, your thoughts are duly noted but his style has been the same since he started. He rambles, repeats himself, delivers a few excellent jabs, lather/rinse/repeat. When I was Biden when he was in his prime plagiarizing days, he was an effective speaker in the College football coach style.

I'm half convinced after the original post, that SUnoUnoUno should meet legal requirements as well. I hate to talk tough, but when requirements require legal, we have to require more legal regardless of the condolences. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for the same punishment for 3 as for Breanna Taylor and dead Trump Rubber bullet guy, I think Biden is spot on nuts right that we can't have people not facing consequences no matter how dead they are.

If I take him at his word, and using simple rules of grammar...has Joe has called for Breanna Taylor to be charged, along with a call for the dead "Trump guy" in Portland to meet the legal requirements? He literally is producing gibberish. He also has that look at around 1min--that look where an old person knows what they want to say, but time and miles on the coconut keep it just hidden out of easy access---they become frustrated, it's quite noticeable, pause about 3 seconds and then either move on or find the word. Today, he found Kenosha, next time, he might pull up his pineapple.

I generally don't think in overly simplistic terms like "hero" with few exceptions, though I can understand it might make the complicated a bit easier to digest for a person with a tendency toward intolerance, limited imagination and the lack of creative thought. In this case, stepping back from the shots fired, I'd think the officers were heroic in that when the aggrieved party called for assistance, they responded with a clear understanding of the risk to themselves. The reality is that most people, overwhelmingly, would not or could not respond much beyond offering opinions from the comfort of their own home well after the fact. Your characterization of my position reflects poorly on you. It's the lazy person's approach to bigotry...to assume that since you lack the ability to see beyond your own limited experiences, anyone holding a differing opinion must therefore have nefarious intent. From my perch, considering what we know and can see with our own eyes, changing the pigment of each involved party still reveals that there was a call, a response, an attempt to deal with it without violence, a rejection of the offer to resole peacefully, a struggle, an attempt to flee or secure a weapon, a weapon and the neutralization of the threat. Putting myself in the shoes of the officer(s) involved, given all that transpired, the only way I would ever know the threat had passed was after the conflict was over. If you, in a similar situation would choose the passive response, allow the other party to secure the knife, threaten you, maybe stick you in the stomach, certainly that is well within your rights. You simply don't have the right to expect others to share the passive response. I have no idea why you're the lazy bigot, the intolerant human being who hides in the crowd yelling out insults and hatred for people not like you. Maybe life treated you badly. Maybe you caught a few bad breaks. Maybe your parents taught you to be intolerant and you never manned up enough to strike your own way. Maybe you're just naturally inclined to hate. The good news is that you can change, you can grow, and you can learn. It's never too late. Or, you can continue to lob insults as you see fit, like the bully on the corner, but like most bullies, that activity is much more likely to reflect insecurity, weakness and pettiness on your part. In the end, I think the police officer who fired the shots is actually a victim. It's possible, of course, that he set out to shoot someone that day. That seems unlikely given that he didn't summarily fire at the suspect until after the scrum ensued and things got every dicey. Using a rudimentary understanding of Psychology, it seems likely that the act of pulling his weapon and firing it into the suspect, regardless of the desire of the suspect to do him/his associates bodily harm, brings with it serious emotional baggage. God bless.

Welcome back!

Actually, I hadn’t thought about that...the melon popping. Excellent point .

Well, it finally happened, you’ve offended my sensibilities. First, if it was “just what it sounds like” it wouldn’t be called a “blow out”, it would be called something like a “Wablodry, which honestly sounds dirtier than the first one. Then, I find out some places supersize this and it’s basically a thruple at a hair salon, which was intriguing, honestly, even for a man of God like myself. Then you go and mention my Grandma(s) and ruin the whole thing totally. My grandmother on my Mom’s side, by the way, used to say Warshington. She was from Pennsylvania, where I’m told that’s pretty common.

I could roust myself off the couch and go upstairs and ask my wife, but the potential for misunderstanding is high during these tense nights on COVIDedness. What’s a “blow out”? Just someone taking a blow dryer to the noggin?

Or, is it possible, in fact, probable ...lTHAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO STEPS IN THE STAIRCASE OF JUSTICE????! (emphasis added for theatrical effect) It would make things a lot easier.

Personally, I think your argument is what I would expect to hear in a 4th grade classroom. Using your logic, the 15th or 20th or 300th time I saw or read about a black male suspect assaulting a white male victim, I would be forced to assume that there is a systemic and societal epidemic of the sort you see with the police. Yet, here I am, 58 years old, not even a cross word from a black male after all this time. Then again, I could make the same argument that pretty much anyone other than me is out to victimize me, at least based on your cell phone tells the story philosophy. As for “a couple smacks with a baton” theory, that argument is sillier than the first. Your argument is best summarized as you magnanimously would risk the lives of each and every officer involved. FYI a couple smacks with a baton can be fatal. You’re an odd little man. I have no idea what this means.

For once, though, I appreciated the honesty of @Kemp in acknowledging what is painfully obvious...it’s impossible to know what is in the violent individual’s hand as he attempts to flee from a scene of domestic violence where police were implored to show up. It’s reasonable to debate what the officer’s response to a violent individual fighting through the police response and grabbing/grasping/holding some foreign object that could be anything from a handgun to a PB&J crustable to a cell phone. What’s not debatable is that the individuals who provided the response we all would hope to see in the event we were confronted by a violent offender had absolutely no idea what that object was, and in dealing with an unpredictable person in a highly tense situation, acted as if their lives depended on it because their lives depended on it.

So, the police were called to a domestic violence scene, where a terrified woman feared more victimization by a man she alleged to have violently assaulted here previously (in a Bidenesque attack, btw), he resists arrest, fights through being tazed 2x, rushes towards his car door and as a violent suspect, has something in his hand, and from your cushy perch in your layZboy you “have no idea what’s in his hand”....and question why people on the scene feared violence against them? Are you of the mind that the police should assume he was holding an ice cream cone? Should they have let him drive off? Not responded? Backed away when he refused to cooperate?

Good Lord, another link to a Vox short story? Last time you did this, it took two clicks to find a second article the novelist wrote contradicting the one you hung your hat on.

It’s not that he’s the best they can come up with, it’s the one they want in office. He is The Chosen.

Man, the blue wall did a bang up job of cleaning up the excessive force of this arrest. Dubbing in “Show me your hands!” like the officer wasn’t looking to just indiscriminately just take a life, editing it all like the officer was shot, and appealing to our humanity by making it sound like a woman was terrified for her life. I think the social worker crowd has this thing buttoned up in about 3 minutes with “Say pal, what’s got you down today?”. You put a low key guy in a soothing blue shirt, sleeves rolled up mid-forearm, and khaki pants with lime green crocs, no way there is any trouble. No raised voices, no hurt feelings, nothing. I see it now. God bless the officers involved.