Uh Oh

[Downthestretch55]

Interesting article Genuine Risk.
I'll say that I believe in the teachings of Jesus.
I wish those that corrupt his words to serve their own purposes would listen to Him rather than "spin".
DTS

[SentToStud]

as it has been it shall always be.

Since time began, or so it sure seems, politicians have wrapped the flag with the cloth just as preachers have wrapped the Bible with the flag.

Just the other day Bush eulogized Gerald Ford as "... a good man who put his hand on the Ford family Bible and took an oath..."

So long as people are willing to accept this stuff it will continue.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by T3B

Bees have knees??? [/u][/b]

From Wikipedia:
The phrase "the bee's knees", meaning "the height of excellence", became popular in the U.S. in the 1920s, along with "the cat's whiskers" (possibly from the use of these in radio crystal sets), "the cat's pajamas" (pajamas were still new enough to be daring), and similar phrases that didn't endure: "the eel's ankle", "the elephant's instep", "the snake's hip" and "the capybara's spats".

From another site:
The exact origin of "bee's knees" remains a topic of debate, but there is wide-spread agreement that the phrase first appeared in North America during the 1920s. Some interesting theories are listed below.

1. Bees carry pollen back to the hive in sacs on their legs. The allusion is to the concentrated goodness to be found around the bee's knee. (extract from the Phrase Finder).
2. The expression was coined in the 1920s by an American cartoonist named Tad Dorgan, who also graced the language with such corny superlatives as "the cat's pajamas" and less durable ones such as the "the flea's eyebrows" and - a real clunker - "the canary's tusks." Dorgan also came up with: "Yes, we have no bananas." I've long been puzzled why, to this day, the bee's knees expression has maintained a certain currency in Britain, something it has not had for decades in the United States. The thought occurs that perhaps, more than half a century on, it's a still lingering cultural artifact from the American occupation of the south of England in the lead-up to D-Day. (extract from the Guardian's Notes and Queries site, article by Dave Todd)
3. It's one of a set of nonsense catchphrases that originated in North America in the 1920s, the period of the flappers, nearly all of which compared some thing of excellent quality to a part of an animal. (extract from Michael Quinon's World Wide Words).
4. I think the idea is that on a bee, knees are strictly a luxury. The phrase originated in 1920s U.S. slang, which had a whole slue of such phrases: "the eel's ankle", "the flea's eyebrows", "the clam's garter", "the snake's hips", "the elephant's instep", "the kipper's knickers", "the cat's pyjamas", "the canary's tusks", "the sardine's whiskers". The fact that "the bee's knees" rhymes may have assisted its survival. (extract from the aue archives, article by Mark Israel)original article
5. The bee's knees is actually a development from something that was originally stated as "The be all and the end all of everything." this being rather long, was shortened to "the B's and E's" which eventually became "the bee's knees" (extract from the Guardian's Notes and Queries site, article by "Ogins")
6. My _Dictionary of American Slang_ says "bee's knees" was a fad started c1924. Like some Chinese menus, pick one from column A and one from column B... (extract from the aue archives, article by Robert Keller)original article
7. ...[the] _bee's knees_ may be a humorous pronunciation of _business_. I have seen this offered as a genuine derivation and it seems as plausible as the current favourite for _OK_. (from the aue archives, article by S. Z. Hanley)original article


See, that's you, Kev! "Concentrated goodness."

[GenuineRisk]

I think the most fascinating, and upsetting part of the article was the author's discussion on the loss of a sense of community, and how that can be very instrumental in a rise of totalitarianism.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by T3B

Bees have knees???

anyways...love the way he ends the interview..

"I wouldn't describe myself as particularly pious but I certainly would describe myself as religious. And when I see how these people are manipulating the Christian religion for personal empowerment and wealth and for the destruction of the very values that I think are embodied in the teachings of Jesus Christ, I'm angry."

Well Kev,
I'm not religious, but other than that, I agree.
Look what I started. OOPS!

Originally Posted by T3B

Wayne....the fact that you post a link from that website is mindboggling. The Sunday Times is yellow journalism at its worse.

Perhaps the National Inquirer next time?

What's really mindboggling is he probably got it from drudgereport since it was posted there in big red letters a few hours earlier. Maybe DTS is a closeted republican.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

What's really mindboggling is he probably got it from drudgereport since it was posted there in big red letters a few hours earlier. Maybe DTS is a closeted republican.

Pillow,
You might be amazed...I've come to my senses. Most of my latest links have been from Repub sites.
They'll be coming to my way of thinking before 2008, mark my words.
If they can't beat ya, they'll join ya.
btw, my closet is a total mess. I'm never going in there again....unless the cat needs to be let out next Tuesday. That dang kitty is too fast!
Let her learn a lesson, I say!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Speaking of other folk looking towards the rapture, here's a really interesting interview with a guy who wrote a book on the Religious Right's political ambitions:

http://salon.com/books/feature/2007/01/08/fascism/

The book, from what I can tell, is highly critical of the movement's leaders, but not the rank-and-file. Still makes me very nervous. What are your guys' thoughts?

thanks for posting that link, i just finished reading it. might have to buy that book and read more from that guy.

[timmgirvan]

We're having a takeover by the Chistian Right?? Judging by the mid-term elections...I'd say it's not likely soon! There is SO much wrong with this story! Another hit piece on those dastardly Christians! FYI..the Dominion people have it skewed in many ways..principally that one can order God to keep true to His promises to the delight of the righteous!...That AIN'T how it works! There are charlatans in every line of work...funny how preachers and polititians come so readily to mind. I can't count the number of factions in the Christian faith...but getting them all together reminds me of the story about 'herding cats'. The writer is pretty mixed up to me. Accomplished as a reporter,but his tying regimes such as Hitler and Mussolini to the Christian movement is ludicrous at best....unless you're looking for some reason not to check out your reason for being on this planet! I don't support the Faith movement as such, nor the Name it/claim it clan or Benny Hinn and his voodoo! This writer went to Harvard Divinity School....In my 'neck of the woods' we call seminaries "cemetary's" because they usually kill your faith! Hopefully, most of you won't swallow this man's brew!

[GPK]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

From Wikipedia:
The phrase "the bee's knees", meaning "the height of excellence", became popular in the U.S. in the 1920s, along with "the cat's whiskers" (possibly from the use of these in radio crystal sets), "the cat's pajamas" (pajamas were still new enough to be daring), and similar phrases that didn't endure: "the eel's ankle", "the elephant's instep", "the snake's hip" and "the capybara's spats".

From another site:
The exact origin of "bee's knees" remains a topic of debate, but there is wide-spread agreement that the phrase first appeared in North America during the 1920s. Some interesting theories are listed below.

1. Bees carry pollen back to the hive in sacs on their legs. The allusion is to the concentrated goodness to be found around the bee's knee. (extract from the Phrase Finder).
2. The expression was coined in the 1920s by an American cartoonist named Tad Dorgan, who also graced the language with such corny superlatives as "the cat's pajamas" and less durable ones such as the "the flea's eyebrows" and - a real clunker - "the canary's tusks." Dorgan also came up with: "Yes, we have no bananas." I've long been puzzled why, to this day, the bee's knees expression has maintained a certain currency in Britain, something it has not had for decades in the United States. The thought occurs that perhaps, more than half a century on, it's a still lingering cultural artifact from the American occupation of the south of England in the lead-up to D-Day. (extract from the Guardian's Notes and Queries site, article by Dave Todd)
3. It's one of a set of nonsense catchphrases that originated in North America in the 1920s, the period of the flappers, nearly all of which compared some thing of excellent quality to a part of an animal. (extract from Michael Quinon's World Wide Words).
4. I think the idea is that on a bee, knees are strictly a luxury. The phrase originated in 1920s U.S. slang, which had a whole slue of such phrases: "the eel's ankle", "the flea's eyebrows", "the clam's garter", "the snake's hips", "the elephant's instep", "the kipper's knickers", "the cat's pyjamas", "the canary's tusks", "the sardine's whiskers". The fact that "the bee's knees" rhymes may have assisted its survival. (extract from the aue archives, article by Mark Israel)original article
5. The bee's knees is actually a development from something that was originally stated as "The be all and the end all of everything." this being rather long, was shortened to "the B's and E's" which eventually became "the bee's knees" (extract from the Guardian's Notes and Queries site, article by "Ogins")
6. My _Dictionary of American Slang_ says "bee's knees" was a fad started c1924. Like some Chinese menus, pick one from column A and one from column B... (extract from the aue archives, article by Robert Keller)original article
7. ...[the] _bee's knees_ may be a humorous pronunciation of _business_. I have seen this offered as a genuine derivation and it seems as plausible as the current favourite for _OK_. (from the aue archives, article by S. Z. Hanley)original article


See, that's you, Kev! "Concentrated goodness."

thanks doll....think the world of you too

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

We're having a takeover by the Chistian Right?? Judging by the mid-term elections...I'd say it's not likely soon! There is SO much wrong with this story! Another hit piece on those dastardly Christians! FYI..the Dominion people have it skewed in many ways..principally that one can order God to keep true to His promises to the delight of the righteous!...That AIN'T how it works! There are charlatans in every line of work...funny how preachers and polititians come so readily to mind. I can't count the number of factions in the Christian faith...but getting them all together reminds me of the story about 'herding cats'. The writer is pretty mixed up to me. Accomplished as a reporter,but his tying regimes such as Hitler and Mussolini to the Christian movement is ludicrous at best....unless you're looking for some reason not to check out your reason for being on this planet! I don't support the Faith movement as such, nor the Name it/claim it clan or Benny Hinn and his voodoo! This writer went to Harvard Divinity School....In my 'neck of the woods' we call seminaries "cemetary's" because they usually kill your faith! Hopefully, most of you won't swallow this man's brew!

Breathe, Timm, breathe. The Religious Right is not your average Christian; I'd certainly not consider you part of it, for example. This guy is not attacking Christianity- read his final sentence, for the love of Pete. But a well-financed, well-organized minority can accomplish quite a lot, and I think that's what he's warning about. As he says, the Albanians didn't think it could ever happen there, either.

Being of the female persuasion, I am not a fan of any religious movement pushing for power in the government, since most of those religions seem to also advocate women being barefoot and pregnant. And it's a secular nation that best protects everyone's opportunity to worship as they wish.

My father got his Master's at a seminary- he told me the seminary's philosophy was that it did everything it could to persuade the students that Christ was not the Son of God, because if, after all the evidence to the contrary, the seminary student still believed in Christ's divinity, then that student was of the right stuff to be a minister. Doubt is an intrinsic part of faith-- if something was certain, it wouldn't require faith. I don't need to have faith that 2+2=4. It does. Belief in God requires faith. It's not wrong for a seminary to address doubt. It's part of the journey.

Faith without doubt leads one to believe that, oh, God is talking to one, and saying that He wants one to be President. And we see how well that works out. Bush could do with a little doubt, if you ask me. It's humbling.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

What's really mindboggling is he probably got it from drudgereport since it was posted there in big red letters a few hours earlier. Maybe DTS is a closeted republican.

Pillow Pants,
Here's another Republican that I agree with, Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon.
http://www.ktvz.com/story.cfm?nav=news&storyID=17970

[GenuineRisk]

And, another good article, on how whether we wind up liberal or conservative may be determined earlier than we think, and about the things that can shift our political leanings:

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/...222-000001.xml

Fascinating stuff. I laughed at "liberals are messier than conservatives" because in my case, that's very true!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And, another good article, on how whether we wind up liberal or conservative may be determined earlier than we think, and about the things that can shift our political leanings:

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/...222-000001.xml

Fascinating stuff. I laughed at "liberals are messier than conservatives" because in my case, that's very true!

That was an awesome read. Obviously, it could piss lots of people off .

I think that a couple of things really stood out to me based on personal experience. I often find myself arguing with conservative and conservative Christian friends about social issues or current events. They, by and large, see issues as very black & white. I see very little as completely black and white. I believe that very little in the entire world is either "this or that." My lack of rigidity on many issues contrasts with their very certain view of how certain things are.

EMPHASIS MINE.


The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.

Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."

-------

Studies show that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home. (completely true in my experiences in college and seeing those who have versus those who haven't)

People who venture from the strictures of their limited social class are less likely to stereotype and more likely to embrace other cultures. Education goes hand-in-hand with tolerance, and often, the more the better:

Professors at major universities are more liberal than their counterparts at less acclaimed institutions. What travel and education have in common is that they make the differences between people seem less threatening. "You become less bothered by the idea that there is uncertainty in the world," explains Jost.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And, another good article, on how whether we wind up liberal or conservative may be determined earlier than we think, and about the things that can shift our political leanings:

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/...222-000001.xml

Fascinating stuff. I laughed at "liberals are messier than conservatives" because in my case, that's very true!

Good article Genuine Risk. Back to my thoughts on the religious right steering policy, seems that one word I remember from the early days of the conflict in Iraq was the word "crusade". We might also remember why allowing stem cell research to expand was vetoed.
On both sides, there are many that will do outrageous things in support of their beliefs. Radical Islams doing suicide bombs, sure. Crazy is as crazy does.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Good article Genuine Risk. Back to my thoughts on the religious right steering policy, seems that one word I remember from the early days of the conflict in Iraq was the word "crusade". We might also remember why allowing stem cell research to expand was vetoed.
On both sides, there are many that will do outrageous things in support of their beliefs. Radical Islams doing suicide bombs, sure. Crazy is as crazy does.

But I don't think the article is intended to right-wing bash- I think it was trying to say what makes us liberal or conservative might be established very young, and our gut, emotional responses to major events in life can affect our political leanings, however, if we remember to stop and think rationally about most things in life, we can negate the "gut response."

Mostly, I find it interesting that for all of our convincing ourselves we're not as instinctive as animals, in many ways we still do respond with instinct first.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Speaking of other folk looking towards the rapture, here's a really interesting interview with a guy who wrote a book on the Religious Right's political ambitions:

http://salon.com/books/feature/2007/01/08/fascism/

The book, from what I can tell, is highly critical of the movement's leaders, but not the rank-and-file. Still makes me very nervous. What are your guys' thoughts?

GR,
I was talking about this link, not the psychology today one.
DTS

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

GR,
I was talking about this link, not the psychology today one.
DTS

D'oh! I get all confuggeeeooo sometimes.... sorry!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

D'oh! I get all confuggeeeooo sometimes.... sorry!

LOL...no sorry necessary. Heck, I was confused before I finally came to my senses.
Sanity rhymes with Hannity.
Any advice on my "cheerleader look"? Any female advice is much appreciated.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

LOL...no sorry necessary. Heck, I was confused before I finally came to my senses.
Sanity rhymes with Hannity.
Any advice on my "cheerleader look"? Any female advice is much appreciated.

I wish you'd go back to your insanity...you made more sense then!