Author Topic: What you got

Who was that masked man
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2023 »
The Hunt for the Holdouts
Quote from: Anthony J. Leonardi, December '22
There is no greater symbol of SARS Cov 2’s spectral omnipresence than the mask. Thusly, there is no greater affront to the collective’s denial of the ongoing threat than a mask. The mask itself has traced a circuitous path directly from the retina, to the mind, to the animal brain of onlookers. It offers a direct confrontation with the subconscious fears of death and illness, and evokes an emotion proportional to the viewer’s coping mechanisms, be them camaraderie with a political affiliation, false reassurance of the ‘strength’ of their ‘immune system,’ or the delusion they will ‘train’ their immunity against a rapidly evolving SARS. To soothe the discomfort, some feel the need to express that disdain...

Who has covid right now?
Quote from: BeforetheFlood
I knew where I had caught it as it was so obvious! Restaurant where the tables were really close together (like only a few inches gap) and a couple came to sit next to us when we'd just ordered. He was coughing really hard every few minutes and obviously not well and every time he coughed he turned towards us, to spare his partner across the table.

I thought he must know for sure it wasn't covid as he was so blatant about it. We ate as quickly as we could, didn't have dessert and got out of there, but that was Friday evening and I started symptoms on Monday.
Quote from: twiddlingthumbs69
Absolutely infuriated me the way people seem to just carry on as if it's a cold now.
I have a friend who works in the NHS. She is a covid denier, even though she worked on the wards during the pandemic. Has always refused to test or get the vaccine.
She's had, what I think, was covid last week....really poorly with it. Refused to test, saying "we don't have to"

Wet streets cause rain
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2023 »
Michael Crichton by way of reddit {shudder} and Ovarit:
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

sing it, brother
« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2023 »

Room in hell
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2023 »
Things In Politico That Make Me Want To Guzzle Antifreeze
Quote from: Charles P. Pierce, February '15
The idea that Henry Kissinger is still considered an influential thinker by influential people is prima facie evidence of the moral bankruptcy of American foreign policy in the second half of the last century, and the beginning of this one. Just to put the "real" back in realpolitik, here's the invaluable National Security Archives file on Kissinger's meddling in Chile after the election of Salvador Allende, which made possible the coup that resulted in the death and torture of at least 10,000 Chileans under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. A taste:

At the height of Pinochet's repression in 1975, Secretary Kissinger met with the Chilean foreign minister, Admiral Patricio Carvajal. Instead of taking the opportunity to press the military regime to improve its human rights record, Kissinger opened the meeting by disparaging his own staff for putting the issue of human rights on the agenda.

« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2023 »
I can't write about Gaza
Quote from: Chris Bertram
I can’t write about Gaza because to write about Gaza would be to devise some premises, arguments and conclusions, when all I want to say is stop. I can’t write about Gaza though too many civilians have been killed. How many would be enough? I can’t write about Gaza without making mentioning all the bad things that were done before. And then the things before that. And before that. I can’t write about Gaza because if I said the things ritually then I wouldn’t be taking them seriously. And that would say something about me or The Left. I can’t write about Gaza because if I said the things and left out something of moral importance, that would be symptomatic. I can’t write about Gaza because I might commit unintended tropes which turn out to be detectable, also symptomatic. I can’t shout about Gaza without being careful that the person next to me didn’t once say something bad. Such as a trope. I can’t write about Gaza because I can’t say for certain that those kids were the intended target. I can’t write about Gaza because I don’t know those kids weren’t human shields. I can’t write about Gaza because I can’t be sure they are lying this time. She can’t write about Gaza because her nationality gives her historical responsibilities. He can’t write about Gaza because he didn’t condemn some other killings somewhere else. I can’t write about Gaza without saying that states have the right to defend themselves. I can’t write about Gaza without making fine and careful distinctions, the absence of which may be taken down and used in evidence. I can’t write about Gaza. But stop.