Today's blog comments will be about things from the past week which have not yet been correctly addressed...

We begin with a softball, as it's not possible that I'm the first one to say so; because it took nearly six decades, including two years of sincere interest in the earliest times, to consciously recognize that Superman wears his underwear on the the outside of his clothes. What on Earth made a comic book author of Depression-laden America think that was a good (or heroic) look?

There's a grad thesis in the answer to that question. There's a grad thesis in everything now, because those people think they can explain everything.

And another liberal head rolls on sexual misconduct charges

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/pbs-suspends-distribution-of-tavis-smiley-after-sexual-misconduct-allegations

Come back later for more cleanup comments! Taking a vacation-day break from internet for a few hours to do chores! So come back later for more blog-participation excellence!

To whet your appetite, here are two fun comments regarding Tuesday's election in Alabama:

• One from before the polls closed


• One from after the polls closed

Has civilization been good for us? One author wonders and says the price has been high, perhaps too high.

It isn't Christmas until Hans Gruber falls from the Nakatomi Tower.

https://twitter.com/Channel4/status/940200462090940416

One author wonders and says the price has been high, perhaps too high.

As with other writings of this ilk, I will say that he can go first and get off the grid, and become a hunter-gatherer.

In fact, they have reality tv shows on just that subject. Here's one: http://www.history.com/shows/mountain-men I'm sure he'll fit right in.

Are they free to do as they please? yes, for the most part, they are. But they also live under the restriction of if thou dost not produce, thou dost not eat. And have to either dodge serious competing predators for food, or actively hunt them.

If you can hunt them, they maybe hunting you.

Ultimately, humans cultivated grains so that they could make booze. I don't know how well supported that theory is, but I like it.

Superman wears his underwear on the the outside of his clothes

That looks like some Grade-A sexual harassment there.

Superman's outfit was modeled on the outfits of circus strongmen.

More on the Anderson Cooper thingie:

CNN’s Anderson Cooper Blasts Trump — ‘You Tool! Pathetic Loser’ (Update: Hacked?)

> It isn't Christmas until
> Hans Gruber falls

Many faiths regard such sentiments as impious, and that presumably includes AMPAS.

> modeled on the outfits of
> circus strongmen.

Okay, but that asks another question: What were the ringmasters thinking when they told the guy to wear a....

Honestly, "the mists of showbiz history" is a fine explanation.)

It's pathetically —and instructively— amusing that less than twenty-four hours after a punishing humiliation...

> Awesome to watch the MSM
> self destruct:
>
> [...]
>
> Snoopy at December 12, 2017 7:36 PM

...some folks are at it again!:

> Today in #FakeNews:
>
> [...]
>
> Snoopy at December 13, 2017 6:15 PM

Let's go through this again, this reliance on #FakeNews both as a shorthand/hashtag and an expression of righteous awareness.

Y'know boys, there are certain corners of human project which are no longer susceptable to the whips & whimpering of the fashionable mind, and the nature of truth is one of those realms. New insight would have to survive the critique of not only the brightest people alive today, but that of the brightest throughout the history of civilization.

You will not be bringing that.

Chatter about "fake news" doesn't suggest healthy skepticism... It describes the schoolgirl-heartbroken disappointment which you yourselves would ascribe to the most simpleminded of your political opponents. Read a history of journalism, of literature, of science or of historiography itself: How could you ever, EVER have assumed that most of the reporting that's been coming to you since your birth wasn't meaningful adulterated with fakery?

You don't have the right to be so naive. You certainly don't have the right to be so theatrically butthurt about any source of information in recent years.

But neither ought you be so arrogant about what & who others give attention to:

> For women who don't want to get
> groped and raped in their quest
> for a career and for people who
> don't want a single-mindset media
> inserting their political opinions
> into every form of entertainment,
> yes, those are a couple of the
> problems.

> Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at
> December 12, 2017 9:04 AM

Well, okay, yeah, I recognize your attempt at moderation in there.

But it remains the case that you're trying to tell other people what or who they should be listening too.

1. You will fail.
2. You deserve to.

I think the reason they'd rather smirk (than explicate or persuade) is that they know they got nuthin'.

Have you guys heard about piegate?

https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/press-ends-piegate-feud-with-white-house-dessert-party/

I mean frikken seriously. We all know Trump is a clown. The man is a professional entertainer. He has the screen credits and everything. But people pretending to be journalists don't notice they are far more ridiculous? You didn't bake that? And this comes right after the CNN Trump soda expose.

"Okay, but that asks another question: What were the ringmasters thinking when they told the guy to wear a...."

I thought that was obvious Crid. You are paying a guy to show off his muscles. He wears as little as is legally permissible.

> But it remains the case that you're trying to tell
> other people what or who they should be listening
> too

When did I ever do that? You're making stuff up. #FakeComment. No wonder you don't have a problem with fake news.

> Ugg!

Right? Fake news! Uggggggg!

It's at least possible that you're a cartoon.

Anyone remember Elisabeth Irwin from Cathy's?

> You might have saved yourself
> twice over.
>
> Michelle at December 11, 2017 9:55 PM

That thing where your completely inexperienced, best-guess opinion on a troubling topic is substantiated by someone who knows.

> You DO know that just because
> certain stereotypes were once
> commonly believed, that didn't
> make them true, right?
>
> [...]
>
> lenona at December 10, 2017

What on Earth would make you doubt it?

> what IS wrong with making sure
> ADULTS don't get away with doing
> anything worse?

The principles at work in your thinking here are not apparent to me.

I mean, we all like to slam a door now and then. But ???

Die, corporate scum!

Wealthy CEOs Lecture Americans To Show ‘Courage’ by Submitting to Diversity and Amnesty

Clutch the pearls!

‘Scared and Demoralized’ By Trump - Meryl Streep Met with De Niro to Plot New Movie ‘The Post’

And guess what? It's name is actually pronounced "Yo Mama."

Leading Astronomers: Oumuamua Is ‘Alien Probe With Broken Engines,’ Could Have Hostile Intentions

Speaking of Oumuamua

The funny thing is, the original explanation about the Anderson Cooper thing -- "someone guessed my password and hacked my account" -- was plausible. (Which is why I didn't comment on it at the time.) If they had stopped there, it would probably be forgotten by now. But noooooo, they had to try to add more detail. But they F'ed it up; the various CNN people failed to coordinate their narratives, and now the more they try to explain, the more it's sounding like a fish story.

> modeled on the outfits of
> circus strongmen.

Conan
____________________________________

Okay, but that asks another question: What were the ringmasters thinking when they told the guy to wear a....

Crid at December 14, 2017 2:25 PM
_____________________________________

The REAL question, IMO, is: Why don't male ballet dancers wear similar costumes - or at least tights where the pelvic area is colored differently and appears, from a distance, to be a bathing suit worn over the tights?

I never get used to it; to me, such dancers just look naked from the waist down, regardless of what color the tights are. That makes them look far more vulnerable than the female ballet dancers. (Btw, to my annoyance, "ballerina" is no longer an exclusive term in most dictionaries, it seems - it USED to be that a ballet dancer could only be called a ballerina if she were the star. E.g., from American Heritage: “a principal woman dancer in a ballet company.”)

More on that:

http://www.pointemagazine.com/issuesdecember-2013january-2014defining-ballerina-2412811465.html

The principles at work in your thinking here are not apparent to me.
____________________________________

Don't know why you have such problems getting posts into the right threads - I never do - but anyway, what was wrong with my analogy of not letting people get away with violating your trust when they STEAL from you? How would you feel if you found out that those thieves could have gone to jail far earlier if only previous victims had spoken up - but they didn't, just to be "charitable"? What's the difference when it comes to molestation?

Which is not to say that I don't have sympathy with those who are too embarrassed to admit that they trusted complete strangers in situations where they really shouldn't have done so - IF they managed to escape in time, at least. (As Amy did.) Or those who were children in a time or a community where reporting a crime against a non-stranger would likely get the child branded as a liar. (Pretty ironic, since small children would hardly be likely to lie about something that, in the 1970s at least, wasn't talked about - whether by parents or by PG-rated movies or TV! How often could they invent such accusations?)

But if the situation is worse than Amy's was, or if they're not strangers, all the more reason to speak up and hope the perp can then be stopped from targeting someone else. Of course we don't trust strangers, but most attackers are not strangers anyway - and as I said, they often make sure they're trusted by society before they attack. Like priests, for one.

> You DO know that just because
> certain stereotypes were once
> commonly believed, that didn't
> make them true, right?
_________________________________________

What on Earth would make you doubt it?
_________________________________________

Well, mainly the fact that you didn't distance yourself from the people you described below. To me, the implication was that avoiding molesters was somehow easier in the PAST - that all one had to do was stay away from strangers or people who just looked creepy. Otherwise, why did you bother writing the following without pointing out how wrong people were to think that?
_________________________________________

But the general mentality of the guy on the street (or the cop on the beat) for such things, in my foggiest memories & understanding, was basically a blink-blink Huh? There are people who pester children? It was actually known that there were such criminals, but they were regarded as so monstrous that you wouldn't find them walking in daylight... Unless you were in some especially grim ethnic ghetto or hillbilly dale.

> Well, mainly the fact that you
> didn't distance yourself from
> the people you described below.

Christ, you're a sanctimonious pinhead.

"Distance yourself."

Back in Indiana, we have this expression: You are part of the problem.

"The REAL question, IMO, is: Why don't male ballet dancers wear similar costumes - or at least tights where the pelvic area is colored differently and appears, from a distance, to be a bathing suit worn over the tights?"

I thought the goal in ballet was to make everyone genderless nudes. The women are minimally chesty. The men wear tights that compress and minimize their endowments. Everyone wears near skin colored, skin tight clothes. The rough concept being the actor/dancer is irrelevant. A replaceable cog in a machine. Instead the performance as a whole is significant.

You also see this in fashion. The people there are supposed to look like walking clothes hangers. That way good looking models don't overshine the clothes.

I won't opine on this being a good or bad idea. It is just what I understood the goal was.