tvashtarkatena

Nope. Sounds like you're abreast of things.

It's not parked at the trailhead for Thermogenesis, is it?

You know what they say: Small brain, No pain.

All I have is the air that I breath, and to loooooooove you. I wouldn't be too hard on the El Pantera Escelando. It seemed like a good natured jab to me. My wife and I discussed the consequences of infidelity before we got married, and both agreed to a zero tolerance policy up front. Willingly agreeing to that decision negated any need for hen-pecking later. Well, sort of. It turns out that 'fidelity' can have a broad array of definitions depending on one's sensitivity to the issue, but that's all part of the fun. Speaking of fun, whipping and double binding are still encouraged.

"Don't look down, your...." ....oh, never mind.

Pretty standard and generic anti-islamic fear mongering, although I do agree with his assessment that the American people will readily give up their civil liberties in the wake of another attack (given how much we've laid down since 911). He conveniently negates the massive condemnation of terrorism from the the muslim world, both here and abroad. He mistakenly links terrorism soley with Islam (going along with a predictably popular but mistaken fad in Washington), when much of the bombing that occurs in Iraq and elsewhere are more motivated by political turf wars. He pretends that the American public has been asleep, when it's clear from the policies we've accepted like sheep, most notably the invasion of Iraq and our incredibly stupid choice of presidents, that we're more accurately paralyzed by paranoia. We would have been much better off had we laid off the 'global war on terror' rhetoric which has so successfully acted in favor of terrorist organizations to ensure their center stage place in history and thus stoke their recruitment and instead demoted terrorism to what it is: common criminality. We would have been much better off had we brushed off 911 instead of treating like a death blow, kicked the Taliban's ass in retaliation, and moved the fuck on towards energy independence and other policies that would have actually moved us foreward. Finally, he offers no solutions. "Tolerate" the lack of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia? What does he propose? Invasion? Sanctions? (Yeah, right). Not while we're sucking on that oil dick, Newt. Iran WILL use a nuclear weapon? Why would they and how does he know this? Standard fearmongering. Been there, done that for going on six years now. Fatter head, same old message.

fukthischeizen

OMFG is this ever demeaning to all women....

"Got a problem with man-boobs, little man?"

Do any of the rest of you losers have an iStockphoto image of yourselves available for download? I think not. I want to thank all of the little people here at CC who made this possible....

Unfortunately for the biography project, Hunter S. has already passed from our midst. Tom Wolfe?

Two dedicated threads in one week. I'm, I'm speachless.

I suspect the pseudo Christian world may have invented monotony, and I know they invented Monopoly, but I suspect monogamy came beforehand. I suck at romantic relationships, but that doesn't give me an excuse for not trying.

As long as legislation singles out forced marriages, separating them from arranged marriages with consent, it sounds like a sound way to move basic human rights forward. Now, about torture....

Yeah, how the hell did Bush get injected into this discussion? Jesus, can we take a fawkin' break already?

Some interesting points here. I think an explicit commitment to monogamy creates a framework for the kind of ongoing conflict resolution that relationships continuously require. It's a discipline, a daily decision, and, as such, isn't always fun, nor is it that lovin' feelin' that gushes from the heart. Still, we tend to idealize new love interests outside a relationship, when, in most cases, they represent just a different, if undiscovered, set of problems. A commitment to 'stay on the scene' like a lovin' machine forces partners to develop better ways to resolve issues, rather than just hitting the escape button. This is not to say that infidelity should either be accepted or spell the death blow to any individual relationship. No society wide prescription is possible in such a personal arena. I have noticed that, in the healthiest long term relationships I've observed, both partners have passions that go beyond the bounds of that relationship. I've also noticed that such successful couples work at it, it lots of little ways, every single day.

Actually, our moderators graciously deleted FW's nastier, more personal, and more misogynistic remarks on this thread. There are those who can, and those who can't and choose to scream about it.

For some, 'tired narrative' is a way of life. I thought both stories were fascinating. Herzog explicitly his exploration of the larger pathology of civilization towards nature as a theme in "Grizzly Man". Krakauer was more implicit. Both characters sought to fix what was broken both in themselves by rejecting what was broken between man and nature in their own anthropomorphized, idealized ways. Treadwell created a karmic world of reciprocity between bears and their unneeded and unwanted protector (himself) which didn't exist. By creating this world, he created a new self in the process. In doing so, he rejected a civilization that most certainly DOES have a pathological, self destructive disregard for the planet it depends on for survival. Is man's self hatred through lack of stewardship for what sustains him and gives him joy any less insane than Treadwell's make believe world of Mr. Chocolate? Is it any less neurotic than a self described intellectual global warming denier, a soft drink distributor who rails against obesity, or all the other cognitive dissonances that we observe in supposedly 'normal' individuals every day? As for McCandless, he sought an equally idealized and unrealistic model of a pure, natural existence, free from the pollution of modern complexity and human relationships. What he sought was anything but natural; his underestimation of man's need for his fellows to survive, particularly in a wilderness as unyielding as the one he chose, cost him his life. But his desire for an unfiltered, uncut relationship with the natural world describes one of the great themes of our time, particularly in an age when the natural world is in full retreat.

That joke IS funnier the eighth time. Tiger Mt. upper parking lot. 9:15 every Sunday. Free Kellogg Special K pinch tests. A standing invitation to put your tennies where your mouth is. Non-figuratively, I mean.

"Into the Wild" and "Grizzly Man" are similar stories in that they highlight a profound disconnect between modern life and nature as viewed through the lens of two of modernity's most extreme personalities. Using the psychotic/neurotic point of view to explore the institutionalized insanity of society at large has been an effective literary mechanism, from Dostoyevsky on. It seems to me that writing these two stories off as simple tabloid tales of two misfits who got what they deserved is simply missing the authors' larger points.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Hole EE SHIT!

This could be bigger than any of us can imagine....

Did you know that the Earth's magnetic field is now shaped like a giant DONUT? Coincidence? I THINK NOT.