"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
Eschew obscurantism, redundancy, and prolixity. That is, avoid arcane, esoteric, recondite, or obscure expressions; avoid undue repetition, reiteration, and duplication-reduplication of statements, and, above all, refrain from extreme, inordinate, unbridled, unchecked, and exorbitant wordiness.
YW.
Addendum: dictionaries are your friend. Thesauruses? not so much.
The really disgusting thing about politicians advancing ANY kind of gun control measures is that they know, they KNOW the laws already on the books are unconstitutional, despite US v. Miller (1939) et al, and yet, despite KNOWING the current laws are unconstitutional, they thumb their noses at the Constitution because. . . they can. And that is the even more disgusting thing about “gun control”: WE allow them to flout the fundamental law of the land. WE allow them to continue to violate their oaths of office.
Even worse, WE allow them to treat any constitutional restrictions on federal power as just paper restrictions to violate at will.
And that gives us state and local governments that play follow the leader into illegitimate exercises of power.
I have quite literally had more civil and well-reasoned conversations with atheists and (genuine, practicing) pagans about the Bible than I have had rational discussions about the passing scene with any Dhimmicrap. Of course, Repugnican’ts can be (almost) as bad, but at least I have never had a rabid Trumpist scream at me when I stated that I don’t like the guy, personally.
I enjoy watching clips of Britain’s Got Talent more than I do clips of similar “talent” on America’s Got Talent for many reasons, not the least of which is the actual talent. ¯\_(?)_/¯
Recently, though, Simon Cowell got me thinking about talent. (I know – surprising, right? 😉 ) He had a comment to a guy that was an unconscious dig wrapped in a compliment, something to the effect that Michael Bublé pretty much had the guy’s genre wrapped up.
That spurred me to think a bit about Bublé’s performances and his genre. Compare his singing to the guys who defined the genre. Yeh, nopers. Bublé’s performances lack life, a certain attitude that goes beyond mere emulation of a crooner’s delivery. Compare Bublé and Sinatra singing the same piece. I’ll grant you that Bublé’s instrument – his voice – is technically a better instrument than Sinatra’s, but there’s a world of qualitative difference in their performances.
That spurred me to recall a “new classic” – a 2003 live performance of “Mary’s Boy Child” by Cliff Richards and Helmut Lotti (sorta Europe’s answer to Michael Bublé). As they performed portions separately and then together, the differences between the kid and the Olde Pharte became starkly clear. While I am not fond of everything Richards did in his performance, it had real life, while Lotti’s technically accurate performance, complete with better vocal instrument, was just kinda lifeless, no matter how much he attempted to insert Copycat Richards elements.
And that brought me to memories of what may be the ultimate “talent ain’t all there is” evidence. Early in his career, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, arguably THE best solo voice of the 20th Century, and if not the best, then in the top two, performed (and recorded) Schubert’s Wintereisse song cycle several times in his early career, and was justly famous for giving definitive performances, however. . . later in life, toward the end of his singing career (in his late 60s), he performed and recorded the same song cycle. While his vocal instrument was fading at that time, the performances are at least an order of magnitude more artful and moving.
Why? I would like to suggest that, even though Fischer-Dieskau’s voice was a lesser instrument toward the close of his singing career, his understanding of the music and text had advanced greatly, and. . . yes, even as his voice was fading, he never stopped developing his complete grasp of his art, his “chops” as it were.
Just a few synapse firings. No real conclusion or tie back to the BGT/AGT lead in.
Dug out a holster I have rarely used and customized it a bit. I’ll use it, now.
This powerfully polarizing: after 46 years of marriage to my Wonder Woman wherein I have been the “politically aware/concerned” partner, she has now become radicalized. Well, not in the sense that insane Dhimmicraps and other leftards use the term, but radicalized nonetheless. She spends much of her time searching the web for FACTS about what political leaders actually say and do (RADICAL!), listens to and watches videos of both talking heads and of actual statements/behaviors of political leaders, rather than trusting quotes of their statements by Hivemind Podpeople (and, as often as not, finding the Podpeople have constructed lies from partial quotes. Of course).
She used to spend her discretionary time watching TV or shows on the web, in reading professional development books, taking classes, attending seminars, etc., but CwaZy (pervy, racist) UnKa JoE, ZOMBIE POOPY-PANTS President in Name Only and his Fellowship of Evil Clowns have radicalized her.
I have yet to decide whether that is for the better or not. . . but then, it remains her choice and her decision about whether it’s a good thing or not.
It’s kinda crazy nowadays when what someone believes is actually firmly based in reality. I’m sure the DSM-(x) has a listing for a “disorder” like that. . . ? (After all, p-sychs nowadays are labeling all kinds of delusions as “normal” and normal behavior as “disorders,” anyway.)
Order of function error: does not compute! *heh*
Ran into someone who thought πr² meant (πr)². No, it’s π(r²). (πr)² yields a SUBSTANTIALLY different number.
Example: where r = 2: (3.14159 x 2)² = 39.4783509124, whereas 3.14159 x 4 [that is, r²] = 12.56636. That area is less than ⅓ of the incorrect computation.
Correct math can help define and comprehend the material world. Innumerates are easy prey for professional liars (like, say, politicians and mass MEdia Hivemind Podpeople).
Went to a Trivial Pursuit party, oh, about 40 years ago, held at the home of a guy who owned a moving company. OK, that’s trivializing his company. What he moved was HOUSES (was fun being a minor part of the move when he moved some Army barracks that had been declared surplus).
What impressed me most about the evening was not how trivial the Trivial Pursuit play was but the guy’s library. It was a mezzanine floor that encompassed three sides of the great room where we played our mini single-elimination tournament. I do not recall anything else about the house, but that library has featured in more than a few of my dreams over the years since. . .
Just saw someone use “belie” to mean “confirm.” That’s like Dhimmicraps “defending democracy” by promoting vote fraud.