Peterkin

The urge to create art has certainly been with humankind for a long time. Cave painting, rock etching, bone carving, stone monuments, personal ornament, decoration on tools, weapons, vehicles, clothing and housewares, pottery, weaving, wood carving, tattoos, piercings and skin painting, ritual costumes and masks; singing, dancing, musical instruments and storytelling, decorated graves too, have been with us perhaps longer than language. Art is everywhere people have been for over 50,000 years. Today, we overcomplicate the idea of art, categorize, rate and monetize it, enshrine it, hoard it, have professional commentary dictate trends and fashions. But, really, the impulse to create and appreciate are simple, inherent human characteristics. Give a toddler a crayon and let it loose in a room with white walls. Put on some music, and they'll dance while drawing.

There are quotes wherein Einstein refers to God. That's not at all the same thing. I don't believe in any gods and yet quite often exclaim "Oh my god!" when something surprises me, or say "Dammit!" when I drop the cutlery, or "Jesus Christ!" when confronted with a dramatic instance of human stupidity. That's not faith, that's cultural reflex. The words are so deeply and generally embedded in the vernacular. 'God' is a kind of ubiquitous, handy metaphor we can pluck out of the air at any minute. If we all really, truly believed that we're taking his name in vain, wouldn't we be afraid to use it so much? Which are based on a Jewish book, about a Jewish deity - who was not especially likeable, truth be told. In Europe, as in North America, "Christian values" (generally espoused by people who did not live according to the advice Christ had given them) were inescapable - especially if you went around telling people facts about the universe. I was in hospital last February. The chaplain came to see me. She was very nice and laughed at all my jokes. My world-view didn't change one iota. Why do you need some dead smart guy in your tent? Isn't your own faith enough to support it?

You are absolutely correct.

Can't be helped. It was part of a conversation about integrity, profit and broadcasting. My contention being that integrity in reportage is not necessarily inimical to profitable broadcasting, but rather that there is third element in play: control of the message, which supersedes both news integrity and commercial interest.

No, it's not about profit; it's about control of the message. I said nothing bout integrity. It didn't fail; it was squashed. Controversy doesn't need to be manufactured: it's always out there, waiting to be reported, and it would make exciting television, quite beneficial to profits. Whether it's presented fairly - or at all - depends on what the network owners and major sponsors allow to be aired.

No - there could be lots of profit in controversy and diverse opinion. It's much more serious than that. And more pervasive. That's what became so obvious in the wake of 9/11. Perhaps so. Many young and old people now depend on streaming media. I don't know what middle-aged people are watching.

I know they're not the mainstream media - to which my only access is CBC. But I did think they were included in the swaths, since there are so many of them. Yes, I suppose they could, if they're allowed to. I don't know what the mainstream editorial constraints are since 2002. I have no idea. Maybe the bosses want it to appear so? That's kinda what I meant. Have to wonder the two dramatic little trickles of blood came from. That's unfortunate. Some of them are quite a lot more knowledgeable and thorough than the newscasters I recall from US networks a few years ago when i had access to them. Tell me about it! I can't escape the damn intrusive pop-up screens on my monitor when I'm trying to work. Can't ever get away from that odious face.

Yes, it is, extensively, by dedicated vloggers. To analyze for meaning. Which you can't do with the gibberish. The man is running for the most powerful office in the world. You can hardly blame people for trying to decipher what his intentions are. I don't know about headlines. What I saw was 2-3-minute contextual clips of the speech where he said, repeatedly, to Christian voters: "We'll fix it so good, you won't need to vote anymore." He didn't elaborate on what is to be 'fixed' or how he intends to do it, but it was not a positive statement about American democracy. I can't help but notice the perfect, unscarred, unchipped ear, two weeks after it was hit by a rifle bullet.

Specific examples of coverage that was not representative of what actually happened, or was said? I don't actually know what the network media are doing, except through another level of filters: I see it on internet forums or on You Tube. While I'm selective in the You Tube channels i watch regularly, the odd clip pops up unbidden and i might look at it. Over the years - many years, since sometime in the 80's when he became a minor noise in news - I've formed an impression of Trump that is unlikely to be changed by one biased reportage or another.

Of course. And there will be lots more back-walks and apologetics and 'splainings. But they can never clean up after him, because he'll keep spewing.

uh-hu There will be more of this twisting-and-wringing. We heard what he said. If electoral fraud had miraculously ended in 2015, he would never have had a prayer of getting anywhere near the White House.

.... Why? Since he have never once presented a charitable interpretation of anything anyone else said, he has forfeited that courtesy. Take it face value: He intends to tear up the constitution and become king by divine right. If Americans let him take this election (not so much a question of winning as how much cheating his enablers get away with) they'll be giving up their country.

No idea. Or even of what percent of the president's flying time is spent in the cockpit. My uneducated guess would be that no president has ever yet been required to emergency-land the thing.

In aviation, certainly. In legislation, I'd prefer legal savvy. Matter of perspective, I guess.

They can wade across, if they like. In fact, obviously, all the sane, clear-sighted conservatives should, regardless of who their preferred Republican candidate would have been. Because the candidates they're stuck with are unacceptable, they either vote Democrat or waste their vote on an independent or stay home and watch it on tv. What the Democrats must not do is make any cross-party overtures. They're in a fight for the the very identity of their country. No olive branches, no sacrificial pigeons. Invite voters individually, each according to their own concerns and interests, to make an independent decision.

They already have, in some places. The second biggest problem is, so far, that most of the competent, strong women in politics have not practiced feminine politics - they were just more manly (tougher) than the men they had to compete against. Before the atmosphere really changes, both the men and women in a field have to grow accustomed to working together, so they can relax, stop playing roles and bring their most authentic self to the job. To achieve that, you need the right proportion - I believe the magic number is 35% - not sure. But the biggest problem is that you're not getting candidates of either sex or any ethnicity who are the best qualified people available. You get the people who put themselves forward for reasons other than a desire to serve their community, and arrive at their highest achievable office through means other than merit.

Of course you have. Many times. It mostly comes in small, insignificant statements. "It's raining." "You have some parsley in your teeth." "The game starts at 8:00 pm." How you know whenever you encounter it is through empirical verification: look out the window, into a mirror, at the program guide. When you encounter falsehood, the most common way you recognize it is by comparing with your own observation of reality. If the statement contradicts the evidence of your senses, you generally assume it's a false statement. It takes a great deal more evidence to convince a person that their own experience is false than that a statement by someone else is false. If it were otherwise, none of us could navigate life. Can you give a theoretical example of a true statement that is self-contradictory?

I wasn't talking about the voters' skewed perception; I was talking about the woman's competence as compared to the competence of any other candidate.

Some ructions; a couple of looting sprees; an excuse to guzzle beer and shoot up some mosques and cars on fire. The next bigmouth would come along in five minutes, and vowing revenge, lead his mob toward the Capitol - along the way, only encounter six other loudmouths with the same idea of filling the power vacuum. Anyway, regarding the Supreme Court decision - they put a postscript : Only if we say it's okay.

There is no valid comparison of how people perform in public office by sex. (Especially given that some sexes haven't been given the chance to perform.) We have witnessed men and women in various settings - working together and individually, in segregated and mixed groups, and can each form some general impression of by-and-large. But the individuals elected to public office are not by-and-large; they're not statistics. Each has a public record, so we can find out exactly how they have performed these particular tasks. I think Harris can safely put her record up against any of the other contenders for that office.

That's true in a certain way. Just from marriages I've observed - solid ones, where the couple work well together: The man concentrates single-mindedly on the main thing, building the wall, digging the hole, demolishing the shed, getting to the reception on time. Then he loses interest and the woman takes care of the details - plastering the wall, saving the lilac bush, recycling the materials, bringing the gift. That's how team projects are supposed to go. The big picture is made up of thousands of little pictures. That's what the Natives have always known. We need all the elders to deliberate before committing our resources to a war, shoreline preservation or tax reform. Yay for that! But exclude the rich old brown, olive and ocher men - and women, too.

Exactly! No point trying to woo the dinosaurs. The big challenge, in a short time, is to get the disaffected left-leaning (this means having to make a meaningful connection with labour - not easy), youth and ethnic vote on side. She's got her work cut out; she'd better assemble a good team.

I wouldn't write off all white males quite so fast. Michael Moore just sent out a newsletter calling for an all female ticket. Well, he is a true blue Michigander, but also a Harris fan.

How about both? A good balance?

Next time. In the present situation, the Dems - and all the sane people depending on them to stop the Trumproller - can't afford division or indecision. There's very little time left. They have to show resolve and solidarity.