You mean your English teacher, right?
(I have a thing for Muphry’s Law!)
6 Likes
Agreed, except I’d make the diagramming a form of negative punishment. As in ‘I need diagrams of these by next Monday or you lose points.’
‘What’s a diagram?’
‘Google it. Stop reading when you start encountering words like morpheme and then go from there.’
‘Can’t I just rewrite it?’
‘Well yeah, but this way is much more fun for me.’
1 Like
You get a gold star. 
Anyway I have to thank her sometime, because while the sentences in the first post wer technically probably correct… their readability suffers greatly.
That’s actual a point made in Strunk & White: the rules are all well and good, but never let them overwhelm the readability of the writing.
10 Likes
Agreed, but how best to convey this to those convinced that doing so would result in Daesh taking over the world?
4 Likes
Honestly?
If lives are at stake then the opinions of people who are letting their emotions rule them aren’t worth anything. The opinions of people who are thinking responsibly and who are subject matter experts do.
I mean, as a nation we do LOTS of things our populace doesn’t want. The fundamental flaw in our current system is that the people who have their brains in exactly the wrong place are the ones making the decisions.
It’s like having a family where the toddler’s in charge. It’s the same kind of flaw and it’d be just as absurd to take a toddler’s opinions on what should be for dinner every day seriously.
8 Likes
The useful thing Sanders will be doing next week is having a presidential primary in California, when the Republicans aren’t. It won’t change the presidential results (Hillary’s beaten him by now), but it’ll drag lots more Democrats than Republicans to the polls.
California has an abomination called a “Top-Two Primary System” which, for offices below that of President, shoves everybody from every party into a shared primary, with the top two candidates having a runoff at the time we’d normally have a general election. Not only does this trash most third parties (maybe a Green would have a chance of getting past it some time), but it also means that the Democrats and Republicans end up gaming their votes and doing lots of pre-primary insider trading, especially if there are multiple credible candidates from one party and only one from the other. The benefit we get from this is that if you’re not a Democrat, you might end up with a general runoff election between two Democrats so you can pick the one you like better (or in Orange County, you might get a runoff between two Republicans, but we’ve got a lot more Democrats), so the runoff ends up acting sort of like an open primary.
So we’re going to end up with two Democrats getting into the fall election for Senator, protecting Boxer’s old seat, and probably a lot of two-Democrat House races, some of which may take back seats from Republicans. (And unfortunately, we’re still not getting rid of Feinstein.)
5 Likes
not until 2018, old chum.
2 Likes
i find this strip suspicious. it ends with:
Godzilla is a misunderstood creature; beneath his raging desire to set people on fire and eat them lies a gentle giant who just wants to cuddle.
surely, the oatmeal realizes how terrible the semicolon; how wonderful the colon:
The colon is a misunderstood creature: its raging desire to convey conclusions, to highlight them; it just wants some recognition.
2 Likes
Not running against a (a) popular (b) incumbent president in the middle of a major war? (Nixon’s favorability rating by late '72 was almost 60%.)
Now who;s being unrealistic?
After taking office; Obama pree͛̍̀͂̆͋̔mptively backed down from positions he campaigned and won on; you think the Democratic machine is going to give so much as lip service to a runner-up outsider;?;;̫͚̲̎
5 Likes
Maybe the author misconstrued “mandatory minimum sentences.”
3 Likes
nuanced economics
Austerity doesn’t work after a financial crisis and low interest rates don’t help very much at the lower bound, while progressive taxation and fiscal supports for single-payer health care, a safety net, public education, infrastructure, do help. But when confronted with Clinton’s long history of 3rd way neoliberalism, a subtle economist like Paul Krugman (who advocated Sander’s approach for a decade) pulled a u-turn, quibbled unsubtley about a third-party’s discussion of the social-democratic-republican approach to political economy… and started talking about Bernie Bros.
Whatever that was, it wasn’t a demonstration of subtle economics.
8 Likes
You were never under suspicion. And Vonnegut was born in 1922 and probably made those remarks decades ago. If someone fails to be half a century ahead of his time, I won’t hold it against him. Except jokingly.
If someone made those remarks now I might perhaps look for a way to gently point out how that might make actual hermaphrodites and transvestites feel without actually accusing them of transphobia.
[citation needed]
NOT pulling the rug out from under the fossil fuel industry - or at least not even threatening to do it a little bit will ruin communities & the lives of everyone who lives in a costal area, or near deserts, or along the routes of the refugee streams that are to be expected from the worst-affected areas.
I think you mistake the teenage mind.
Consider a smart teenager who naturally thinks he’s very smart. He constructs an atrociously complex sentence and feels proud of it. Now a teacher claims that it’s “too complex” and tries to prove that fact by challenging the student to either diagram it or rewrite it? “Challenge; accepted.”
4 Likes
I disagree strongly, even as a person who, at times, gazes at the field on the other side of the fence and wonders, “Wouldn’t that be better, just for a little bit?”
The largest economy in the world and definitely a cornerstone of the global banking system, with the most effective military forces in the world, sitting atop 60+ years of international geopolitical and economic order, and a revolution, more revolutionary than Marx’s, is the thing the U.S. needs? That doesn’t even reach the level of a pipe dream.
The U.S.‘s housing market crash in 2008 put the world economy into a tailspin for years. The U.S. government shutdown lasted over a few weeks and cost the country billions of dollars in 2013. A revolution in this country, today, would be a great way to let the streets and rivers run with blood and would do nothing to support or enact any of Sanders’ current proposals.
I appreciate the need for change. I see that wealthy people have too much power and influence with the U.S. government and that poor people have little to none–but a revolution, in my estimation, would be exactly what the world doesn’t need or want.
ALL OF WHICH IS TO SAY: I don’t care that Bernie continues to run, although I do hope that, when the time comes, he’ll voice support for the dems, if not their whole party platform. If anything, I’m more worried about post-election Bernie supporters shifting to primarily-libertarian concerns, which I don’t think would benefit anyone.
EDIT: And for those worried about USG officials using non-USG email services for their USG work:
3 Likes
First, no one said a revolution had to be a violent overthrow of the government - only that we need a massive change in priorities. By revolution, I mean we need massive change, on a fundamental level to a system that doesn’t privilege some of us over others. Sure, many of us are doing okay, but many of us are not and to fix this we need to end the rigged system we all live under.
Where do you get the idea he would do that (given his history/record of public service) as opposed to Clinton who most certainly will do that? And I do agree it wouldn’t benefit anyone.
I honestly don’t think he should stay around just to fall in life, which would be what you’re describing here - shifting to libertarian concerns. Instead, he should work within the party to hold their feet to the fire and shift them back to more sane policies.
12 Likes
Fair enough, but I’d say we all live under multiple overlapping systems, some of which oppress, and others which don’t, and changing one will inevitably exert influence on another in ways that are hard to forsee. I wonder–is there an agency or system in America that’s undergone any such realignment of priorities that you see as encouraging?
Notice that I wrote, “…post-election Bernie supporters…”, and that I made no claim as to what Sanders will do in the future. I was thinking that, much like the fringe ultra-nationalist groups (ala Malheur’s Koyboy Cowphilate), the libertarian-siding BernieBros are not going away and will exert a political influence in the coming years that will be interesting, if not maddening, to watch.
1 Like
Sure, but there are a number of aspects of our society which are intolerable at this point and that need changing. Fear of possible negative repercussions shouldn’t stop us from seeking out better ways forward.
Less agencies within America, and more the increasing public pressure for positive change that I see as encouraging. People need to see themselves as being able to changes institutions because they are meant to work for us and with us, not outside of us or above us. [quote=“wrecksdart, post:97, topic:78851”]
the libertarian-siding BernieBros are not going away and will exert a political influence in the coming years that will be interesting
[/quote]
Again, I’d argue that the number of these guys are probably pretty small and that there already exists an outsized number of libertarians in different parts of American life who already are exerting a huge influence on American life. It’s the unacknowledged ideological air that we breath.
8 Likes
Yeah, I meant to add something to that effect–that change is hard but that shouldn’t act as a barrier to attempting change. I was thinking more along the lines of my disagreement with the statement, “the system is rigged”. I don’t think there’s a unitary system that’s holding down X people, I think it’s a multi-layered set of systems, processes, and cultural attitudes that’s holding down the powerless. Like any slogan, I recognize it for what it is…but still.
Agreed on all points.
If only those idiots weren’t so loud on the media I tend to read.
1 Like
The whole thing is a bit . . . disingenuous.
-
If Sanders is hanging around because he’s waiting for the Clinton campaign to go down in a ball of flames, all he has to do is suspend. Or run soft. He doesn’t need to erode Clinton’s chances in November in order to be the only alternative when Clinton gets carted off to jail or melts when she gets caught in the rain or whatever.
-
Obama didn’t get 59% of the pledged delegates, either. So that’s proof that he couldn’t possibly win in November either.
-
Superdelegates can switch, sure. But will they for some guy who just became a Democrat last December? Only if absolutely necessary (see 1).
-
Clinton didn’t have “every possible advantage” in this primary. One advantage she lacks is the perception that she’s an outsider. Another is she has no schlong to brag about.
-
The “current hard data” this guy talks about is an advance poll for the November election. That’s not what I’d call hard data. That’s what I call nebulous early polling data which has quite often been very far from the results gained in November.
-
Sanders was surely aware of the Democratic Party’s process for selecting a nominee when he, after 30 years as an independent in Congress, joined the party in order to run for its nomination. So, for the love of God, stop pretending it all came as a horrible surprise. If you don’t like how the Democrats choose nominees, fine. Don’t run as one. Just as you’ve not run as one your entire political career. Too late for that now, but quit whining about while simultaneously trying to exploit the process. OK?
-
The “most damning” accusation against Sanders certainly is not that he’s a socialist. The idea being put forward is that we have not yet seen the fruits of any real trawl through his past. Not from Clinton, who can’t afford to pile on her own negatives or by opposition in Vermont, where it might not have made much difference. To counter that we already know “the most damning” accusation against Sanders is to beg the question. The proposition is that we don’t know the most damning accusation yet–we’re liable to hear about it in August or September. That’s speculative, but there’s stuff that’s public knowledge that he hasn’t been confronted with–what was the nature of his association with the Trotskyites, for whom he ran as a Presidential elector? I think it’s only fair to say that there may well be something new to worry about in Sanders’ past.
2 Likes
