The British are a galacticly silly people, and there's not much argument about it anymore. But Wakeman is one of their best, and we all know this, too.

I'd give him a medal just for the right-hand work at the end of this 20-second passage.

Amy once described the importance of selecting one's favorite "speeding music"… Wakeman's arpeggios over those modulations are my favorite way to spank a freeway on-ramp.

Additionally, he deserves credit for telling these jokes.

Dining out? This technology is our only hope.

Here all week, two shows Saturday, but there's no waitress to tip.

Saturday shout-out to all my magnetized nurses in Ohio!

Speaking of Tee Vee, NBC has stopped production on their new reality show 'Ultimate Slip-n-Slide'.

Apparently the water they used was infested with giardia and 40 people came down with - in their words - explosive diarrhea.

The execs are missing an opportunity here. Surely there's a specialty video market for the combination of Slip-n-Slide and explosive diarrhea.

When your Abuela calls you out on your BS:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9676791/AOCs-aunt-says-Trump-NOT-blame-lack-aid-struggling-island.html

It's time for "Is it pretentious architecture or meant to deter gay men for using it as a cruising spot?"

https://twitter.com/harryaaron/status/1403496758773157894

The profound metaphysical musings of the man who drunkenly coined the expression "sugartits."

Bill Maher has composed a special comedy routine just for Lenona, who will "believe things are getting REALLY better when all the nations unite to stop ___________"....

It was a pleasant surprise to find an old column of Rosemond's that got reprinted this week.

It's from 2000. How do I know? Because it was memorable (and eye-opening) enough that I was able to search on the right key phrases - that is, the ones that DON'T appear in the new version. The phrase I chose was "But 50 toys? I don't think so!" You can read the original if you have access to newspapers dot com. (Also, the parents mentioned spanking their kid - which Rosemond wisely removed, this time.)

So, here's the slightly edited version from two days ago:

https://www.nny360.com/artsandlife/familyandrelations/john-rosemond-limit-number-of-toys-to-preventto-help-toddler-keep-tidy/article_96ccfa62-6cee-5f0d-bfc1-32d0f37be326.html

Q: "Is it too much to expect a 2-year-old to pick up his toys? Our little fella, when we tell him to pick up his toys, just stands there and looks at us. We’ve tried making a game of it. We’ve tried punishing. We’ve tried bribing him with ice cream. Nothing has worked. At most, he will pick up one toy and put it where we tell him, but that’s it. Any ideas?"

A: "Consider that by age 2, the typical child has already acquired more than 50 toys. Under the circumstances, 'play' consists of making a mess.

"Nothing truly creative is going on, and furthermore, telling a toddler to pick up a chaos of toys that are scattered all over the floor is akin to someone telling you to re-park 50 automobiles in a parking garage. It’s daunting, which is why when you tell your son to pick up his toys, he just stares at you. He depends on you to make sense of the world and you’re making no sense at all!

"Even expecting that only 10 playthings be picked up and properly put away is too overwhelming for the average 2-year-old. Keep in mind that toddlers have difficulty focusing on tasks that do not engage the imagination, which includes picking up a mess of toys. Punishing, bribing and trying to turn this into fun and games are exercises in futility.

"The solution involves managing the situation such that the task is doable. That can mean only one thing: giving a toddler access to only the number of toys he can, and will, pick up. And how many is that? No more than one, initially.

"Set up a 'toy lending library' and allow your son to 'check out' no more than one at a time. The library ought to be maintained in some relatively secure place, at least until your son understands the routine.

"He begins by selecting a toy. When he’s done playing with that one, he simply brings it to you and exchanges it for another one. Eventually, the number of toys he can check out at any given time can increase to two, then three. But until a child is at least 36 months of age, three should be the limit.

"Parents who use this approach discover that a toddler needs very few toys. Three is more than enough to keep a toddler occupied throughout the day. It’s certainly paradoxical, but a toddler can play imaginatively with one or two toys for a much longer period than he can play with 10. At three toys, a toddler’s ability to make choices becomes overwhelmed, at which point he begins to whine and do other annoying things.

"Perhaps best of all, by promoting longer periods of independent play, the 'toy library' makes it possible for mom and dad to enjoy relatively long periods of uninterrupted time. Can’t beat that."

Lenona, consider having children.

Aside from having studied psychology and finding it fascinating when it's actually used in realistic ways, I find blatant common sense to be too delectable NOT to pass on by any indirect means necessary, for the sake of happier families everywhere. (Common sense is becoming pretty UNcommon, after all.)

In other words, I wouldn't push Rosemond's books on any unwilling friends of mine, even when they're having lots of problems with their children. (I just demonstrate his principles and then let them marvel at the results. Which is how I got that free trip to Italy - I was helping to take care of my best friend's kid at the same time.) HOWEVER, I see no reason not to talk about his column/books when I'm not completely sure who in my audience has young kids and who doesn't. That way, I get to be somewhat indirect.

You can direct if you want… Why not.

On Bill Maher:

Apples and oranges, and even HE admitted that, near the end, when he said the environment is worse than it's ever been. (But given the point he was trying to make, I can't quite blame him for NOT saying that we should be making the environment our top priority now - and not making phony or misguided efforts, which Frontline recently spelled out. I'm sure he'll say it later.)

To put it another way, I don't KNOW anyone who thinks or says that "America is more racist now than ever, more sexist than before women could vote and more homophobic than when blow jobs were a felony."

Not even among my more lefty friends. (And neither do I.)

Arcamax—

Biden calls Pulse 'hallowed ground,' will sign bill enshrining it as national memorial
Current News / News & Features / Jun 12, 2021

ORLANDO, Fla. — President Joe Biden said Saturday he would sign legislation making the Pulse nightclub site a national memorial, but added that more needs to be done to prevent gun violence in America on the fifth anniversary of one of the worst mass shootings in American history.

The memorial destination, Biden said, is ”enshrining in law what has been true since that terrible day five years ago: Pulse nightclub is hallowed ground.”

And it reminded me of this.

Wokies can imagine no greater risk than invoking the wrong emotion around someone who's suffered.

> he said the environment is
> worse than it's ever been.

Is there any reason to believe it's true?

Of course not. The first work people do when they get rich is clean things up, and the world is getting rich at a fantastic pace.

You can direct if you want… Why not.
_______________________________________

Because I'm not outgoing enough to be a teacher (let alone to give kids all the loving and guidance a lot of them aren't getting at home - especially when even FEMALE teachers are not supposed to hug kids any more).

Besides, like many people who worry about kids growing up to be spoiled or hoodlums, I still only enjoy kids when I can send them home at the end of the day. Like a grandparent who has no interest in doing the hard work anymore.

Btw, for those who believe, without evidence, that MOST people without children will regret it when they're over 60, it's important to remember that you can't tell, just by looking, which of those people ever said, repeatedly, "I don't WANT children" and which people never said that and are merely childless, whether due to infertility, poverty, or just being too unpopular. (Hint: if you keep trying to find a spouse who will change ALL the diapers, that will definitely make you unpopular.)

This wouldn't be the worst, especially if you enjoyed removing wallpaper.

The first work people do when they get rich is clean things up, and the world is getting rich at a fantastic pace.
_____________________________________

From what I've seen, the first thing people do when they get rich is, they buy all the latest electronic gadgets, which contribute greatly to pollution (think mining) and the cancer rate.

Too many things simply can't be recycled easily. Also, as I've mentioned, even second-hand goods have to be transported. (I buy a few second-hand clothes maybe once every five years. Of course, I'm choosy, so I won't have to give them back.)

And paying Third World countries to take our garbage won't last forever either - they want a healthful environment for their children too.

This wouldn't be the worst, especially if you enjoyed removing wallpaper.

Crid at June 12, 2021 5:45 PM

21,000 in property taxes per year. Whooo doggies!

Oh, guess... Just guess.

> which contribute greatly to pollution
> (think mining) and the cancer rate.

This is lunacy. You hate humanity.

Ever heard of the Cancer Belt, in the South?

All I know is, if Fox News has contradicted that statement, they haven't done it very often. So I doubt they have.

(Much in the same way that I didn't have to hunt very hard, last year or so, to find a Fox News story about the long record of forced sterilization of female prisoners in California, I think it was. In other words, Fox couldn't deny that story, because too many people already knew it was true.)

In the meantime, check out "The Last Mountain" (2011). I met one of the West Virginia creators of that documentary. He said (in person) that those in power make it almost impossible for the miners to get green jobs if they wanted to, so it's little wonder many miners take on a "crabs-in-the-bucket" mentality. (I'm not claiming that he - or anyone else, for that matter - knew about the inherent problems with at least some green jobs back then. But, of course, there's no reason NOT to keep trying to find a way for people to earn a living that will also lower the cancer rate.)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1787816/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_43

BAD THINGS HAPPEN. Stipulated. That doesn't mean it's sane, or decent, to sing in a tone of smug disregard for progress. Such a naive attitude demonstrates social neediness, not compassion or concern.

Forgot to say: there are only four user reviews, but 23 external reviews.

Maybe you didn't get a chance to read my 6:52 post, but I think it's clear I support progress. Especially when it comes to finding solutions that will make everyone, rich and poor, healthier. (Hint: crying kids don't give a damn when you tell them that Coke and ice cream are completely bad for breakfast - they just want to be "happy," which is one reason they don't get to vote.)

> Maybe you didn't get a chance
> to read my 6:52 post, but I think
> it's clear I support progress.

What's clear to me is that what you'd regard as "progress"…

> I'll believe things are getting
> REALLY better when all the nations
> unite to _____________

…involves some seriously intrusive politics.

And condescending politics, at that. After all, until your threshold of 'belief' is attained, the world's not meaningfully better, right?

This is solipsism, lefty stuff. Listen to the podcast with Sullivan & Murray last week. Sullivan still can't believe that most of the dislike for Obama can be explained by anything but racism.

It can, of course. The bulk of dislike of Obama can be explained by his ideas and his policies, but only if you're will to regard him as a human being with agency. If you insist that his whole purpose in public life is to give you the illusion of social elevation in matters of race, the politics don't matter.

And so it is with environmental matters and every other kind of human progress.

Those who demand that the world's truths be flattering to them personally aren't concerned with public affairs. Even the pandering comedian Bill Maher recognizes this, at least in in a momentary and glancing way.

I don't think it's a matter of "belief" that we are in serious danger because of environmental problems. Not just poor people. (At the very least, those millions displaced by flooding, drought, etc., will need to move into the richer neighborhoods - and then we'll be fighting over resources even more than before. With real armies.)

Mathematically, it stands to reason that SOME global problems deserve more attention from voters than others. Nuclear terrorism is obviously one. I don't see why environmental problems shouldn't be near the top as well.

> he said the environment is
> worse than it's ever been.
Is there any reason to believe it's true?
Of course not. The first work people do when they get rich is clean things up, and the world is getting rich at a fantastic pace.
Crid at June 12, 2021 5:38 PM

Los Angeles is a wealthy city. Why isn’t it clean? The first work people do when they get rich is build fences.
Is there any reason to believe the environment is worse than it’s ever been? There must be somebody somewhere tracking that kind of thing. Give me a couple days to find out.
In the meantime, here’s an exercise: Calculate how soon rich people will take an interest in cleaning up the Athabasca Tar Sands Project.

https://www.google.com/search?q=athabasca+tar+sands+project&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS766US766&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt1oqU45PxAhXTpJ4KHVUSDZ0Q_AUoAnoECAEQBA

This toxic pustule on the face of the Earth is being created by a polite, green-weenie country. It’s conveniently located next to the Athabasca River because they need 1.3 million gallons of fresh water every day. Every engineer working on the project, every politician who voted for it, every scientist who looks at it knows that this is a toxic sinkhole. A nearly criminal despoiling of the environment. A 1,000 year problem. Screw it. Gas will be 10 cents a gallon cheaper and Saskatchewan gets the royalties right now. When will there be funds for the cleanup?
I have this vision that the cleanup never takes place. That, preserved in the tar sands, the tailings pond sinks into geologic time. Millennia from now some uber-wealthy intergalactic Goth girl stops by the Earth Museum and buys an Athabasca Pit Stone pendant because her Druid parents always told her that it was a place of great evil.
Bill Hicks was right. We’re a virus with shoes.

> We’re a virus with shoes.

Speak for yourself: You should probably drink bleach for the disinfectant consequences, but I'm a blessing to everyone around me and across the globe. There are probably others here who feel that way as well.

> This toxic pustule on the face
> of the Earth

Where else did you have in mind?

This isn't environmentalism, it's trite social theater.

When people are so proud of expressing their bitter hatred for the modernity of their own lives, I can't understand why they never just complete the implicit suicide they so desperately crave.

Y'know, to get on with it.

> trite social theater

"The scale of Alberta’s oil sands operations, the world's largest industrial project, is hard to grasp. . . ."

https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/environment/article/alberta-canadas-tar-sands-is-growing-but-indigenous-people-fight-back

You proud of your ignorance.

> Mathematically, it stands to reason

"It stands to reason" is prayer, not an argument. There's specifically nothing mathematical about it, or you/they would share the numbers.

> SOME global problems deserve more
> attention from voters than others.

Exactly! This principle is an important source of progress, and I'd invite you to consider the thoughts and writings of Bjorn Lomborg in that regard.

> Nuclear terrorism is obviously one.

I suppose. The truth is that nuclear terrorism requires an assailing venture to really have its shit together scientifically, operationally and financially… and almost none of have, thus far. And across our lifetimes, the threat of nuclear atrocity has been diminished remarkably.

> I don't see why environmental
> problems shouldn't be near the
> top as well.

Okay, cool. Per Lomborg, above, scratch out a cost/benefit analysis in Excel, and then we can all look it over.

But leave out the smug, evidence-independent satisfaction of your "beliefs," m'kay? And forgo the 'nations uniting' thing. We're pulling people out of poverty and wretchedness at a clip undreamt of just a couple of generations ago. (Hell, when I was a kid, even science fiction didn't detail a future this good for so many.) We don't have time for campfire-song allusions to religious brotherhood and individual, personal fulfillment. In some regards, we will each be on our own, because that's the most decent way to live.

You weak of your spelling.

Another good & brisk Lomborg about prioritizing our battles.

> You weak of your spelling.

Pidgin used for emphasis.

Good TED talk from Lomborg. $75 billion isn't that much, even on 2005.

in, in.

Chatter about "toxic pustules" neither enobles nor informs.

I can well believe you've heard "toxic pustule" until you're tired of hearing it.

It ain't the wording that offends, it's the neediness of the speaker.

These pustuloid beliefs can be ridiculed so as to freeze them in place in their full posture, because with the passage of time, they're going to become ever-more untenable… And it will be fun to remember how they came to you.