heron

Which is hilarious, since I'm as queer as a three dollar bill!

QED

Predictably, I agree with nursej. That rant reminds me of the Great Tan Suit Meltdown. Feh Forfeiting the game is a business owner enforcing a dress code, as far as I'm concerned.

That's how context blindness works. Back in the 90's, it was fashionable in some circles to use HIV as an excuse for lethal homophobia, we were hearing similar damning "statistics". It turned out that the folks gathering the data had not thought about dual risk factors. So, when recording a particular case in which the pt was both having sex with men AND engaging in IV drug use, they were recording them only as gay men. It seriously skewed the numbers at the time. Here's hoping that the quality of the epidemiology has improved since then. High risk behavior =\= sexual identity. Context mattters.

back in the 70's, a linguist named Dale Spender described a phenomenon she called male context blindness. I see her point.

Econophobia? Not getting the point.

FYI, another event tomorrow in NY city at 7:30PM, free online broadcast Rise Up, Sing Out: A Concert for the First Amendment Econophobia? Not getting your point.

My comment regarding the ownership of AN has been scrubbed. What I didn't note in that comment is that the ownership is anonymous. Make of that what you will.

Addendum: the edit option seems to have disappeared, at least on this thread (for me).

I guess this is where we're giving feedback about the new site. I second the request for more info on navigating the changes. I, too, find the site extremely glitchy. I'm assuming that this is due to being a work in progress. My questions so far: E aIs the break room being phased out? Am I the only one getting ad popups on every page? Very intrusive. I don't think my phone is infected with something icky because scans come up blank and AN is the only site that does this on my phone. ‘‘Tis a mystery. Will continue to investigate.

Your writing style is similar. Welcome to AN's politics chat.

Beerman?

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one. There have been multiple overhauls of the site in the last 20 years. I 've never seen it this glitchy.

Thank you - still my shero!

Me, too. I ditched both cable and broadcast tv years ago. I just pay for internet service through which my smart tv gives me access to online content. YouTube is free with a paid option to go ad-free.

Depends on the commentary.

I'm not a "member" - I'm simply subscribed to their YouTube channel. It's free and (if you can't stand the idea of listening to principled, center-right conservatives) reversable. I dare ya! My fondest fantasy discussion is between Sarah Longwood conservative), Rachel Maddow (poli-sci PhD and center-ish progressive) and Heather Cox Richardson (professional historian and self-described Lincoln conservative).

Please check out this edition of "Illegal News" on the Bulwark YouTube channel. Sarah Longwood and Andrew Weissman have a riveting discussion of, among other things, this war with Iran. It is titled "Trump knows his election order is illegal. That's the point!” ETA: The second half of the podcast is a discussion of trump's threat to take over control of elections.

Your post and the post you quoted is a splendid example of the distinction I tried to draw between discussion of opposing opinions and gratuitous vitriol used to dominate/intimidate other users into shutting up. Yes - you get back what you give.

WBZ used to play it every Thanksgiving, too. I stopped listening when they changed to an "updated" version. And here's my non sequitur for today: Alice's Restaurant was a real place run by Alice Brock in Stockbridge, MA. My late spouse worked for her for a while (with a rubber chicken hanging out of his back pocket).

More than a few students don't actually want to be nurses. They need the degree and the license in order to get into anesthesia or NP school.

Gotta address that burning straw in the middle of the room. Regurgitated gossip and propaganda is not opinion. Name-calling is not opinion. Neither is deliberately demeaning and personally directed sarcasm. They are either bullying tactics or an inability to do effective reality testing. Mostly, I ignore the nonsense, but sometimes my reality pushes back.

To adresss your question whether the military "should" refuse illegal orders, of course they should. It's their mandate under the Constitution - still the law of the land, in spite of what the current regime wants us to believe. However, I can't get too thin in the nose with disapproval over their refusal to do so (yet). Given the nature of the current regime, any active duty soldier who refuses an order, even in the context of an undeclared and illegal war, is guaranteed to be sentenced to prison, if not execution for treason or desertion. Then there's the legal and social damages to their families and loved ones. This is a bucket of worms with no bottom. Morally, I think it's plain wrong to expect the military to pull our chestnuts out of this fire while the rest of us continue to elect, obey, and profit from the regime that put them there. Especially given how badly our troops have been treated throughout our history.

There it is - the TMB maneuver.

Generally, I don't. The only time I see your comments is when you are quoted by another user. If I'm intrigued, I'll unmute that post and respond if I choose to do so. I have no reason to change that strategy. If that distresses you, the ignore button is your friend. Frankly, I think you understand my hostility very well. You get back what you give.