HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » UTUSN » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 63,754

Journal Archives

My generosity to you is not to accuse you of attributing those things to me, personally.

In your list:
Slut-shaming a sex-positive woman
and most recently
Ageism (how dare a woman in her 60s still be interested in sex!!!!!)"

you left out *my* stated critiques:
Boring thudding simple 4x4 rhythm, pretentiousness, copying (no, not "reinventing" self) others, no melodic beauty, monotonous sing-song, and much more than I've been exposed to.

Yeah, I'm going to lay claim to MOZART's catalog, "reinventing", doncherno.

Forgot to mention her talk show appearnces - pretentious, stupid.

& her & JACKSON's cash magnet is a mystery to me.

Dedication to PUTEEN: Dance of the Cygnets - may it be soon


How 'Swan Lake' became a symbol of protest in Russia

The famous Russian ballet may seem like an unlikely choice to foreigners, but it is a powerful historical reference for Russians that is being used as one of several coded forms of protest during the war, according to Russian State University anthropologist Alexandra Arkhipova. ....

One of those ways is through the image of ballerinas from "Swan Lake." Graffiti depicting the line of four ballerinas in the "Dance of the Cygnets" has been popping up on walls in Russian cities. Earlier last month, when independent Russian news outlet TV Rain signed off indefinitely due to pressure over its coverage of the conflict, it did so with a clip from "Swan Lake."

The moment was a nod to when Soviet state TV interrupted programming by airing the ballet on a loop after the death of Premier Leonid Brezhnev in 1982 while Soviet leaders selected a successor. The same thing happened again after the deaths of Yuri Andropov in 1984 and Konstantin Chernenko in 1985, as well as during a failed coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 -- becoming a sign of political instability and upheaval."

In the late Soviet times, this ballet was a symbol of all of the deaths of the Soviet leaders," Arkhipova said. "And so that's why it became a sign that we are waiting for Putin to die." ....


A (of many) defining vignette of Orrin "Shirley TEMPLE pout" HATCH: "Mee-gwell" Estrada

Despite his 42 years of wingnut service, he was too "moderate", Deep State, or even "Left" for today's wingnuts, Drumpf Deplorables, and troglodytes. Among the many flip-flops that marked him, hah! notice how he was the only senior Repuke to miss Drumpf's inauguration - *not* from principle - but under the PENCE-like cover of being Drumpf's choice as "designated survivor" - the way PENCE only did some "heroic" resistance when he knew he had a rock solid cover (the Constitution).

So there's no mention of Orrin's being the face shepherding Miguel ESTRADA's nomination to a Court of Appeals. This was from Poppy BUSH's playbook with Clarence THOMAS - nominating a Minority member, from a supposedly Dem constituent group, the trap being making it that bit harder for Dems to use attacks as a tool, attack on a Minority member. There are turncoats in any group. There are Right Wings in any country of whatever ethnicity. So the answer to the Poppy BUSH Gambit of nominating Minority members is for Dems not to be distracted by the ethnic/racial heritage of the nominee and JUST FOCUS on that jerk's self-proclaimed WINGNUTTINESS.

So back then the Dems were still flummoxed off balance by being faced by another nominee who was a Minority member. And there was Orrin facing the press, making Dem opposition as all about ethnicity, a bit of lauding ESTRADA's overcoming hardships to get where he was, but mostly attacking Dems with aspersions of racism, all with the pretense of being INNOCENT and pseudo-appalled at the mystery of how Dems could claim to be champions of Minorities and then oppose a (any) Minority member.

He would pout like a sweet three year old, asking, (paraphrase) "How can Democrats claim to be champions of Minorities and oppose -- Mee-Gwell Estrada?!!"

It's pronounced: mee-ghel not mee-gwell.

So my little memory of HATCH is how he would put on that Shirley TEMPLE Pout and just trade off of his pretend innocence.

Below is a sampling of his *many* disingenuous flip-flops with the veneer of high-mindedness, while all the time serving nefarious wingnut purposes.

*** ON EDIT: Can anybody explain to me why "disingenuous" is used as a pejorative, a very PALE derogative? It means "dissembling" or pretending to be other than what it really is for the purpose acting innocent while being nefarious. And its so *MILD* as a pejorative. OOoo wee, what a ZINGER!1



…. In the 2016 presidential election, Hatch originally supported former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and later endorsed Florida Senator Marco Rubio once Bush ended his campaign. On May 12, 2016, after Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Hatch endorsed him.[24] On May 27, 2016, after Trump suggested that a federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel was biased against Trump because of his Mexican heritage, Hatch said: "From what I know about Trump, he's not a racist but he does make a lot of outrageous statements...I think you can criticize a judge but it ought to be done in a formal way" and said that Trump's statements were not so inappropriate that he would rescind his support.[25][better source needed] On October 7, 2016, following the Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy, Hatch described Trump's comments as "offensive and disgusting" and said that "[there] is no excuse for such degrading behavior. All women deserve to be treated with respect."[26] Hatch maintained his endorsement of Trump's candidacy.[27] ….

In 2017, Hatch was one of 22 senators to sign a letter[129] to President Donald Trump urging the President to have the United States withdraw from the Paris Agreement. According to OpenSecrets, Hatch has received over $470,000 from oil, gas and coal interests since 2012.[130]

In 2018, over the Judge Kavanaugh Supreme Court controversy, Hatch said that it did not matter even if Kavanaugh did what his accusers alleged was true. Hatch said, "If that was true, I think it would be hard for senators to not consider who the judge is today. That's the issue. Is this judge a really good man? And he is. And by any measure he is.”[131]

Hatch voted for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999, saying "committing crimes of moral turpitude such as perjury and obstruction of justice go to the heart of qualification for public office... ….

Miguel Angel Estrada Castañeda

(born September 25, 1961) is a Honduran-American attorney who became embroiled in controversy following his 2001 nomination by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Senate Democrats, unable to block his nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the U.S. Senate in 2002, used a filibuster for the first time to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote by the full Senate. They said Estrada was a conservative ideologue with no experience as a judge.[1]

Following law school, Estrada served as a law clerk, first for Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and then for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court during Kennedy's first year on the Court in 1988. … ….

In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Estrada said he had never thought about Roe v. Wade, even while serving as a Supreme Court clerk at a time when the first Bush Administration had asked the Court to reconsider it.[3] Also, while as Justice Kennedy's clerk, an article written by Jack Newfield appearing in The Nation magazine alleged that Estrada had disqualified candidates for clerkship who were too liberal while interviewing them. When questioned about this by Senator Charles Schumer during his confirmation hearing, Estrada did not recall the incident.[4] … ….

Leaked internal memos to Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee, and because his Latino roots might make his nomination difficult to oppose.[6] A spokesman for Durbin said that "no one intended racist remarks against Estrada" and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was "politically dangerous" because Democrats knew he would be an "attractive candidate" that would be difficult to contest since he didn't have any record.[6] Democrats argued that Estrada had extreme right-wing views, although others pointed to Estrada's difference with some conservatives on Commerce Clause issues.[7] ….



Senator Susie has a middling conscience. Shouldn't the Repuke party have a whole third or more?

A cliche is that 1/3 are pro- something, 1/3 against, and 1/3 in the middle. So any vote on the correct side of things matters and is welcome, but she and those others supposedly in the Middle, the "mavericks" (we've got some of those in our Democratic side, too), claim to be "fair" and "concerned" and conscientious/whatever and sometimes buck their party and do the correct thing, but more often than not are pesky gnats to everybody on both sides, dangling their carrot and holding everybody hostage.

So COLLINS deigns to vote yes for KBJ, fine. Or insert "sarcasm" here: Whew, that was *HARD*, that doing the correct thing thingy. Seems like there should be more than a mushy *one* voting correctly on the Repuke side, on any given issue actually. Able and willing at least to pretend to torture themselves twisting into a pretzel before finally coming down on the correct thing.

Wait, no: What we suspected forever, that the Repukes' core values were all rotted, all about greed, racism, unregulated excess, has been proved out in the Drumpf era, exposing even more: Complete lack of moral ground, negative ethics, anti-government, anti-democracy, anti-country itself.

But back to those in the "Middle": Turns out that JFK was paraphrasing, not quoting, DANTE's Inferno about "the hottest places in hell" being reserved for those who in times of moral dilemmas don't take sides. Especially since in Inferno Satan's place is ICE, not fire.


The Hottest Places in Hell Are Reserved for Those Who in a Period of Moral Crisis Maintain Their Neutrality
Dante Alighieri? John F. Kennedy? John A. Hutton? Theodore Roosevelt? W. M. Vines? Henry Powell Spring? Apocryphal?

.... Quote Investigator: Dante’s poem does include a section describing the fate of individuals who were neutral between good and evil. Their experiences were gruesome, but they were not placed in a location that was scorching hot.

Dante placed Satan at the lowest part of Hell which was at the center of the Earth, but that location was also not hot. Instead, Satan was trapped with ice around his waist. ....

“Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality,” he/(JFK) declared. “This question of the basic right of each citizen to be permitted to develop his talents to the maximum regardless of his race or creed is a moral question.” ....

In conclusion, this quotation did not appear in “Inferno” by Dante Alighieri, and it does not accurately reflect the location of neutral beings in Dante’s elaborate eschatology. Nevertheless, QI conjectures that the statement evolved from a flawed re-interpretation of Dante’s work. The earliest close match in 1944 was published by Henry Powell Spring who credited Dante. The cast of sinners assigned to the worst part of hell by religious thinkers has varied substantially throughout history.


What's this, a deal? - If so, the next level needs to be Putin *OUT*!

In nod to Russia, Ukraine says no longer insisting on NATO membership

Russia Seeks UN Humanitarian Resolution Not Mentioning War
Russia has circulated a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution demanding protection for civilians “in vulnerable situations” in Ukraine and safe passage for humanitarian aid and people seeking to leave the country.

Google "I don't always/when I do" memes

Pome tonight (under construction)

Am talking to you, Universe:
Can we cut the crap with
these inexorable laws of nature?!

Like, the endless reflections, invisibles,
forgetting where everything is,
other peoples expectations and

The whole Achilles thing,
the "ACHILLES, be not you relentless,
only Death is relentless,
that's why men hate him so!"

***********(Working on it more...)

*** ON working EDIT:

A pseudo "Hippie" said,
"Don't we just want to be *understood*?!

My 85 yr old cousin posed a spiritual challenge to me. - my answer:

He sent the daily meditation type thing, quoted below, and added, "This reflection explains why and how I can belong to the fellowship. See whether you can also identify."

He sounded patronizing without meaning to, the way the quoted author uses judgmental labels while advocating the opposite.

So my answer:

I'm a mass of contradictions. I entertain being intellectual yet look at the horoscope. Not because I believe it but because I take signs from wherever, high and low, tea leaves and entrails. So I poke here and there, not profoundly, just the gist as a diletantte - Catholicism, existentialism, Taoism, Buddhism, pop psychology, anthropology, whatever.

But what I don't do is to "belong." Whatever the intellectual construct, as long as I'm living in a world with other people I have to live with all those other people's "primitive" beliefs and customs.

I can say that nobody has to live with depression, PTSD, whatever - the cure and solution being Existentialism or Buddhism: The answer to emotional pain is that it doesn't matter, the universe doesn't care, ignore/deaden the pain, it's gone. But so long as you're living, someone or something will remind you and it is back. I can say that, as an Existentialist, nothing matters, rituals and customs don't matter, but then the logical outcome is, well then commit suicide, but if not then you are still in society, which means you still have to kowtow to rituals and customs. Anthropology still reigns when there is more than one person involved.

So as for your proposition of "fellowship," yes I want it, know it, and sometimes feel it, but also am in contact with rudeness, negativity, arrogance and judgment, snobbery, absence of validation, and everything else that people, including me, dish out.

Yes, I know this thought of fellowship. I'll take it when it happens, like I do a daily horoscope. How's this for my meditation? The one you sent is wonderfully expressed by that author. (Well, he sometimes uses old pejorative language, like "gumption." ) Bottom line: I don't commit, am confused, don't belong anywhere but am stuck everywhere - which adds up to: Am a Pisces.


Richard Rohr's Daily Meditation
From the Center for Action and Contemplation
Week Four: Everyone Belongs
Fellowship for All

by Brian D. McLaren, We Make the Road by Walking: A Year-Long Quest for Spiritual Formation, Reorientation, and Activation (New York: Jericho Books, 2014), 173, 174–175.

.... Fellowship is a kind of belonging that isn’t based on status, achievement, or gender, but instead is based on a deep belief that everyone matters, everyone is welcome, and everyone is loved, no conditions, no exceptions. It’s not the kind of belonging you find at the top of the ladder among those who think they are the best, but at the bottom among all the rest, with all the other failures and losers who have either climbed the ladder and fallen, or never gotten up enough gumption to climb in the first place.

Whatever else this uprising will become, from that night we’ve known it is an uprising of fellowship, a community where anyone who wants to be part of us will be welcome. Jesus showed us his scars, and we’re starting to realize we don’t have to hide ours.

So fellowship is for scarred people, and for scared people, and for people who want to believe but aren’t sure what or how to believe. When we come together just as we are, we begin to rise again, to believe again, to hope again, to live again. ....


I've figured out what specific period America was "great (again)" that Drumpf hooked zombies with

Ever since Drumpf inflicted himself on the national psyche with the MAGA marketing slogan, somebody or other has asked occasionally what specific period he was referring to during which the greatness was being referred to.

Forget about NATO, the Marshall Plan, the New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society. That's not what the Drumpf zombies care about, that he tapped into.

What they wanted was the "simpler" things: Basically when they were carefree and not regulated or reminded of the finite resources we live with and are exhausting:: When commodes blasted full flushing, light bulbs incandescent, shower heads blasted water pressure, smoking was classy, no seat belts meant freedom, open cans while driving, and no P.C.isms, burning fuel without a thought or care.

*** And WHEN was that? ---- The answer has one word: ********CHILDHOOD*******

Yes, THAT is when America was great (for them), when they were the center of their parents' universe with no thoughts.

It's not a specific historical period. It's a moveable childhood period depending upon the generation of the Deplorables audience being pandered to.

*** The ambiguity is the key for a snake oil flim flammer in marketing like Drumpf, vague enough for the suckers to plug in whatever they think it means.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »