They will never be fogotten

[briansd1]

The pie is growing walter. It’s just that people who used to automatically get a slice don’t necessarily get it anymore.

Self-promotion is rampant. But the rats are not practicing better grooming. They look worse and more sloppy than before.

I’ve met more parents than I can count who claim that their kids are gifted. The Lake Wobegon effect is stronger than ever before.

I think that Arraya is on to something with social stress.

[scaredyclassic]

fyi article i saw re grooming:

More Grooming Time Is Associated with Lower Earnings for White Women, Study Finds
Posted Sep 13, 2011 6:00 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Email
Print
Reprints

White women who spend a lot of time on personal grooming tend to make less money, according to a study by Elon University researchers.

The study found that nonminority women who increase their daily grooming from 45 minutes to 90 minutes a day earn an average of 3.4 percent less money than their less fastidious counterparts, according to the Careerist and the Wall Street Journal blog the Juggle.

For minority men, however, those who increased grooming from 40 to 80 minutes a day had earnings that were about 4 percent higher on average. There was no effect on the earnings of white men.

The drop in earnings for women may be due to “negative stereotypes associated with an ‘overly groomed’ woman in the workplace,” according to the researchers. The minority men may benefit, they theorize, because grooming can help counter negative stereotypes about agreeableness or conscientiousness.

Elon University researchers conducted the study using data from a Bureau of Labor Statistics time-use survey for the years 2003 to 2007. Grooming is defined as the time it takes to shower and dress, brush your teeth, shave, comb your hair, gargle and apply moisturizers.

[scaredyclassic]

we eat julian pie.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]fyi article i saw re grooming:

More Grooming Time Is Associated with Lower Earnings for White Women, Study Finds

[/quote]

Makes sense to me.

It’s not the quantity but quality. Women who have multicolored finger nails likely make less.

Generally, I wish people would take care of their black heads and greasy skin. It’s gross.

[KIBU]

This was what pri_dk said:

“The attack was a strategic military action against the military assets an adversary already engaged in the conflict. In short, it was fair game”.

This was what Allan from Fallbrook said:

“Pri: I found the above comment curious. “…adversary already engaged in the conflict”. Where, exactly, were we engaged in the conflict? Are you speaking of the Lend-Lease Program? Or were there US forces actively participating in the war that I hadn’t heard of?”

My take on this: I think Allan made that “curious” extension from the term “conflict” to automatically be = “war”. Hence: “were there US forces actively participating in the war that I hadn’t heard of?”

In my book, “Conflict” doesn’t equate to be “war”.

And yes, the US assets were actively involved in containing Japan empire before Pearl Harbor happened. (anyway, my opinion is, I am surprised about your guys but I fully support US interests in the world). So, pri_dk’s statement above makes logical sense to me.

No need to be “curious” as a pretext for a beating. If people are curious like that, we better run fast.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

KIBU: Well, that’s an interesting take, but it does beg one question: Given that WWII had already been going on since 1939, what other conflict was there? The clear implication from pri’s email is that the US was already in the war, hence the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified. In this case “adversary” = “enemy” and “engaged” = “engaged” and thus the justification.

Mind you, I have no issue with the term “sneak attack” and happen to be a big fan of the sneak attack. Valley Forge was just such a “sneak attack” (although US grade school history books don’t seem to mention that for some reason).

Pri has had notable lapses like this before when it comes to WWII history and the actions of the various players. To assert, as Ogre did, that the Japanese had been somehow victimized by the US (the “bully”) is arrant nonsense and pri’s response followed from that, hence my question.

[scaredyclassic]

I can’t even identify the causes of the conflicts I get into, let alone historical conflicts.

[KSMountain]

Going back to mr ogre’s original statement:
[quote=John Ogre]The saddest part of all of this psycho-religious observance is that most Americans are far too ignorant to understand that 911 and Pearl Harbor were both direct responses to the USA acting as the world’s bully.

The naive masses act as if we have never bombed and killed innocents and yet we routinely kill more innocent people than what died in either incident.
[/quote]
So John, you think Bin Laden was upset with our bullying, and if only we bullied less 9/11 wouldn’t have happened? What do you think were his motivations for declaring war on the “far enemy” and executing 9/11? It’s not a mystery, he stated his positions and rationale multiple times. In my opinion he wanted to overthrow the Saudi royals, and all his actions in reality stemmed from that.

If that is so, then we didn’t really “reap what we sowed” unless you think we should try to appease any and all individuals who make demands on our foreign policy for their own ends.

To your second paragraph: anyone, please tell me the last time we bombed and killed 3000 innocents. You say we do it “routinely”. So, when was the last time? Thanks.

[scaredyclassic]

Iraq civilian body count 100,000 plus

[NotCranky]

In a pragmatic sense we were at war with Japan and they were at war with us prior to Pearl Harbor.

They were acting boldly against our interests.Embargoes were in place.
Any peace was extremely tenuous and the US was preparing war.We were aiding and abetting the enemies of her allies, in what was already a “world” conflagration.

The US had acted “imperially” in the the previous decades and had ramped up mobilization for war at least as early as 1939. We had not been sitting around eating apple pies and playing baseball. Everyone with the need to know anticipated a “sneak attack”…was certain of one, but expected it to be more of a proxy nature or at least not be as devastating as pearl harbor.

[KSMountain]

[quote=walterwhite]Iraq civilian body count 100,000 plus[/quote]
How many of them killed intentionally, by us?

[scaredyclassic]

When you act w reckless disregard for human life, you act intentionally.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Jacarandoso]In a pragmatic sense we were at war with Japan and they were at war with us prior to Pearl Harbor.

They were acting boldly against our interests.Embargoes were in place.
Any peace was extremely tenuous and the US was preparing war.We were aiding and abetting the enemies of her allies, in what was already a “world” conflagration.

The US had acted “imperially” in the the previous decades and had ramped up mobilization for war at least as early as 1939. We had not been sitting around eating apple pies and playing baseball. Everyone with the need to know anticipated a “sneak attack”…was certain of one, but expected it to be more of a proxy nature or at least not be as devastating as pearl harbor.[/quote]
I agree with most of this.

I strongly disagree with Mr. Ogre’s assertion that we were strangling Japan in order to “get in” to WWII.

[NotCranky]

They should stay the hell out of the way of our warfare and bombs if they don’t want us to unintentionally kill them.

[NotCranky]

I didn’t realize how much you and Che agree, Allan… not until you mentioned the philosophical point about having to fight sometimes. Sometimes you just are out riding your moped around and it hits you.

Also, thanks for pointing out that you don’t respond on points you agree.I thought you had me on “ignore”.Instead, we’re just really having a meeting of the minds.

[Author]

Posts