tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95738970217731354.post3885338909188510298..comments2023-12-28T02:52:31.067-08:00Comments on Went 2 the Bridge: Grim Reaper On Seal Of Government Agency Funded By Thee & MeLisa Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06319699936783253064noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95738970217731354.post-12308298280359443492018-03-12T02:26:16.355-07:002018-03-12T02:26:16.355-07:00My blog is public and can be shared on social medi...My blog is public and can be shared on social media sites like myspace. Can you send me a link to your myspace group? thanksLisa Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06319699936783253064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95738970217731354.post-48269910882612620252018-03-11T12:56:52.829-07:002018-03-11T12:56:52.829-07:00Hi there! Would you mind if I share your blog with...Hi there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group?<br />There's a lot of folks that I think would really appreciate your content.<br /><br />Please let me know. Many thanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95738970217731354.post-41833840377585587532012-08-02T12:56:48.986-07:002012-08-02T12:56:48.986-07:00With such talents and resources, quite simply I ca...With such talents and resources, quite simply I cannot comprehend how we keep losing all these wars!!!<br />Could it be we don't have stylish enough uniforms?<br />Those Israeli berets, OMG!<br />I have a license from the Chief Rabbi to take the Lord's name in vain for purposes of national salvation.<br />It's not that the end justifies the means for some people. That's merely a definition of "end" as something to be achieved by struggle. The value of the goal determines the appropriate expense to be risked. The problem we face is people having a means but no end and yet thrashing around, lashing out, to no conscious purpose: "Ah, I see I have a hammer: well, what shall I bang on?" Or, "I have tenure and must publish, but don't want to offend any powerful person, so whom can I dump on?"<br />I've just abandoned reading, halfway through, a Ph.D. thesis published in 1973 by U. Kentucky, which was supposedly attempting to analyze the "crisis in democratic theory" arising out of a supposed clash between "scientific naturalism" and "absolutist rationalism", in which the author, who abandoned history to become a lawyer and law professor, stoutly refused to define his terms. What the hell is "naturalism" as applied to a social scientist or social philosopher? A hundred sixty pages was enough chance to define the term. The special case of it, apparently, for legal scholars is called, not just by the author, "realism": which reduces law to the actions of the government and lawyering to predicting those actions--but if you quote its own proponents to this effect the author accuses you of being "hostile". But what is "realism" here? Somehow "naturalism" has to do with empiricism, but empiricism is an abstraction, as is realism (and reality). A common noun is an abstraction, standing for both the case in point and all the other, absent, members of the category. If a name merely stands for the case in point, it's a proper noun, a George. As in, "This war is a hell of a George." If people are forbidden to use abstractions, well, we end up with cartoons and endless wars.<br />This intellectual wasteland is described by John Lennon in "Paperback Writer": "but I need a job so I want to be a paperback writer."<br />The shame is that we the consumers put up with it.<br />Think back to the first time you heard that the successor drone to the Predator was the Reaper. Or the first time you heard of the Predator.<br />That was your wake-up call.<br />Good article.chrisrushlauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11432949074147807503noreply@blogger.com