It’s Sunday, September 27, 2020: National Chocolate Milk Day. National Corned Beef Hash Day (my dad’s favorite), Ancestor Appreciation Day (a shoutout to A. afarensis), World Deaf Day, and World Tourism Day. At sundown today, the Jewish Holiday of Yom Kippur begins—the Day of Atonement that involves a 25-hour fast. It’s a weird Jewish holiday because there is no eating!
Today’s Google Doodle (click on screenshot) celebrates the official day claimed by Google as the advent of its search engine in 1998 (see below). There’s more information at Forbes. Here the “G” tells its story.
News of the Day: Now here’s a dumbass op-ed, and in the Washington Post to boot: “I’ve known Amy Coney Barrett for 15 years. Liberals have nothing to fear.” O. Carter Snead’s argument: she’s smart, humble, and empathic, and won’t let her faith influence her decisions. Who is the author kidding? Get a load of this:
While Barrett’s faith is the source of her selflessness, it is not a source of authority for her work as a judge. Indeed, during her 2017 confirmation hearings, she stated as much under oath.
Yes, because of course candidates never lie to get that coveted SCOTUS seat. But has Snead looked at Barrett’s record?
The Washington Post has an op-ed claiming that Ken Burns’s acclaimed documentary, “The Civil War”, hasn’t aged well. Author Gillian Brockell claims:
Re-watching the series now, after a summer of protests sparked by the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and other Black Americans, popular culture may have finally caught up to those historians. [Historians who criticized the series.]
Much of the documentary comes off as hopelessly dated, archaic even, and at times breathtakingly tone-deaf.
Brockell’s beef is not that Burns denied that slavery caused the Civil War—he argued that clearly—but that Shelby Foote, a talking head, said the war was caused by a “failure to compromise”, and that Foote gets more screen time than a black historian who indicted slavery as the cause. Brockell also says that Burns romanticized the War as a “lost cause” trope, and glorified some Confederate soldiers and officers. You be the judge. I remember liking the show, and would probably like it still.
On Friday in Paris, an 18-year-old Pakistani man stabbed two people outside the office of Charlie Hebdo. (The trial of the suspects in the big 2015 attack that killed 17 is now going on.) The suspect is reported to have said that the latest stabbing was retribution for the magazine printing cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. The insanity never ends.
Bizarre news: a 54 year old Massachusetts construction worker with no underlying comorbidities died because he ate a bag and a half of licorice candy every day for several weeks. His heart simply stopped.
“Even a small amount of licorice you eat can increase your blood pressure a little bit,” said Dr. Neel Butala, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital who described the case in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The problem is glycyrrhizic acid, found in black licorice and in many other foods and dietary supplements containing licorice root extract. It can cause dangerously low potassium and imbalances in other minerals called electrolytes.
Eating as little as 2 ounces of black licorice a day for two weeks could cause a heart rhythm problem, especially for folks over 40, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns.
I know that the Dutch and Scandinavians, for instance, eat a lot of licorice, and wonder if they’ve encountered this problem. At any rate, slow down on the licorice eating, and that include licorice teas and jelly beans.
Finally, today’s reported Covid-19 death toll in the U.S. is 204,328, an increase of about 750 deaths over yesterday’s report. The world death toll now stands 993,642, an increase of about 5,000 deaths from yesterday. And we’re approaching a million deaths worldwide, likely to happen within two days.
Stuff that happened on September 27 includes:
- 1066 – William the Conqueror and his army set sail from the mouth of the Somme river, beginning the Norman conquest of England.
- 1540 – The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) receives its charter from Pope Paul III.
- 1590 – Pope Urban VII dies 13 days after being chosen as the Pope, making his reign the shortest papacy in history.
- 1825 – The world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives, the Stockton and Darlington Railway, is ceremonially opened.
- 1908 – Production of the Model T automobile begins at the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant in Detroit.
Here’s the plant, which is still standing and is now a museum:
- 1949 – Zeng Liansong‘s design is chosen as the flag of the People’s Republic of China.
Here’s the five-star flag, with the explanation from Wikipedia:
Zeng Liansong, a citizen from Wenzhou, Zhejiang, was working in Shanghai when the announcement came out; he wanted to create a flag design to express his patriotic enthusiasm for the new country. In the middle of July, he sat down in his attic over the course of several nights to come up with designs. His inspiration for the current design came from observing how stars shine in the night sky. He thusly thought of a Chinese proverb, “longing for the stars, longing for the moon,” (盼星星盼月亮, pàn xīngxīng pàn yuèliàng) which shows yearning. He viewed the CPC as the great savior (大救星, dà jiùxīng “great saving star”) of the Chinese people, symbolized by the flag’s largest star. The idea for four small stars came from “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship,” a speech by Mao Zedong, which defined the Chinese people as consisting of four social classes, also traditionally referred to in Asian cultures as the four occupations (士農工商,shì nóng gōng shāng) (“the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie”).The color yellow implies that China belongs to the Chinese people, a “yellow race“. After working out the details of the placement of the stars and their sizes (he had tried to put all of the stars in the center, but thought this too dull), he sent his “Five Stars on a Field of Red” (紅地五星旗, hóng dì wǔxīng qí) design to the committee in the middle of August.
- 1962 – Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring is published, inspiring an environmental movement and the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
- 1998 – The Google internet search engine retroactively claims this date as its birthday.
See the celebratory Doodle above.
- 2019 – Over 2 million people participated in worldwide strikes to protest climate change across 2,400 locations worldwide.
Notables born on this day include:
- 1722 – Samuel Adams, American philosopher and politician, 4th Governor of Massachusetts (d. 1803)
- 1840 – Thomas Nast, German-American cartoonist (d. 1902)
- 1896 – Sam Ervin, American soldier and politician (d. 1985)
- 1913 – Albert Ellis, American psychologist and author (d. 2007)
- 1924 – Bud Powell, American pianist and composer (d. 1966)
Powell died in Paris at only 41 from tuberculosis, malnutrition and alcoholism. He was a tremendous talent. Here’s my favorite piece of his, a rendition of Dizzy Gillespie’s “A Night in Tunisia”:
- 1934 – Wilford Brimley, American actor (d. 2020)
- 1947 – Meat Loaf, American singer-songwriter, producer, and actor
- 1972 – Gwyneth Paltrow, American actress, blogger, and businesswoman
Those who found quietus on September 27 include:
- 1917 – Edgar Degas, French painter and sculptor (b. 1834)
- 1940 – Julius Wagner-Jauregg, Austrian physician and neuroscientist, Nobel Prize laureate (b. 1857)
This is one of several Nobel prizes awarded for dubious treatments: Wagner-Jauregg got his Prize for “for his discovery of the therapeutic value of malaria inoculation in the treatment of dementia paralytica“. The fever caused by malaria was supposedly efficacious in halting the progression of brain degeneration caused by syphillis. Then you could cure the malaria with quinine. This treatment killed 15% of the patients, and became obsolete when penicillin came into use for syphillis. Here’s a picture of one treatment, with the Wikipedia caption: “Wagner-Jauregg (center right in black jacket) watching a transfusion from a malaria patient (rear of the group) to a neurosyphilis victim (center) in 1934.”
- 1956 – Babe Didrikson Zaharias, American basketball player and golfer (b. 1911)
- 1965 – Clara Bow, American actress (b. 1905)
The “It Girl” (that was her nickname)
Here she is in a movie scene: “Clips of Clara Bow’s hit movie It’ (1927) set to a song written about her called ‘She’s Got It’ by Harry Reaser.
- 1993 – Jimmy Doolittle, American general, Medal of Honor recipient (b. 1896)
- 2009 – William Safire, American author and journalist (b. 1929)
- 2017 – Hugh Hefner, American publisher, founder of Playboy Enterprises (b. 1926)
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is sleeping on the printer, and doesn’t care if she obstructs the printing:
A: I have to print a document.Hili: That’s OK, I don’t mind.
Ja: Muszę wydrukować dokument.Hili: Mnie to nie przeszkadza.
Szaron is up in the trees again. Aren’t his markings interesting? He’s a pretty and a loving tomcat.
From reader Pliny the in Between’s Far Corner Cafe:
From Cole and Marmalade:
A clever picture from Jesus of the Day:
I tweeted twice!
SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett's response to a question during her confirmation hearing as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Does anybody really believe she's not going to let her faith influence her decisions? Bye, bye Roe v. Wade. https://t.co/FYx4T3Gwzl pic.twitter.com/V7Z0DijUj8
— Jerry Coyne (@Evolutionistrue) September 26, 2020
. . . and this:
This is the way the press should be questioning Trump, not in a deferential way. The man is a liar and an evader, and should be treated as such. https://t.co/9K30B85Q4E
— Jerry Coyne (@Evolutionistrue) September 26, 2020
Andrew Doyle (whose alter ego is Titania), tweeted these statements, which appear to be serious. Sunny Singh is a senior lecturer in Creative Writing and English Literature in the School of Art, Architecture and Design at London Metropolitan University.
This *must* be a satirical account. It’s far too close to what @TitaniaMcGrath writes in her new book… https://t.co/x5PMjoL1aw pic.twitter.com/kVW7jYFYVB
— Andrew Doyle (@andrewdoyle_com) September 25, 2020
Tweets from Matthew. It’s odd that “the dog’s bollocks” is an encomium while the rest of the usages are pejorative:
This is genuinely helpful for our friends who don’t understand the British potty mouth mentality. Interestingly – none of this relates to testicles #verybritish problems https://t.co/FmmrukRJ5X
— Charlotte Lawthom (@CLawthom) September 25, 2020
A sad but touching tweet from Matthew:
Poor Bill. But thanks, from the rest of us. https://t.co/RlgAIkvlxU
— Matthew Cobb (@matthewcobb) September 26, 2020
A cat takes selfies!
My kids like this one best. pic.twitter.com/s477BlPNcd
— Kevin Rusnak (@aerohistorian) September 25, 2020
More on Amy Coney Barrett:
Fascism will come to America wrapped in a flag & carrying a cross:
Thomas Jeffersons "wall of separation between church & state"
VS
Amy Coney Barrett: "your legal career is but a means to an end & that end is building the kingdom of God"We're watching it happening here. https://t.co/aJYxQAf0vC
— Allen Frances (@AllenFrancesMD) September 26, 2020
It’s great when entertainment media takes on important historical topics but it’s entertainment first, fact second. The criticism of bits of Burns’ iconic documentary will get lots of attention- and for good reason- but as criticism it’s pretty weak, since it is entertainment – partly dependent on suspension of judgement.
I did not watch all of the Civil War. I found it offensive – primarily because of Shelby Foote.
My bias – I do not like the South or much of anything connected to it. “Hospitality” “way of life”. Not to mention racism, authoritarianism and the rest. Shelby Foote was an apologist for all of that. The history he wrote served that purpose. About what you would expect for a novelist, not a historian.
So you wrap all the Southern crap in Foote’s folksy drawl and make it acceptable. To this day, people deny that the Civil War was caused by slavery. They accept Foote’s contention that the cause was a failure to compromise. The South never wanted compromise. It just wanted to protect and defend slavery.
Which led to another huge mistake in US history – the failure of Reconstruction. We are still suffering from the effects of that today. Sometimes I think the rest of the country would have been better off if we got rid of the South which continues to suckle at the public purse to this day,
I saw it. I thought it was a fantastic piece of work, especially for somebody like me who was only vaguely aware of the sequence of events in the US Civil War.
Shelby Foote was very watchable in it (which is probably why he got so much air time). Yes, he had certain biases but fortunately, I am an adult and I am able to make up my own mind.
If you were only vaguely aware of the events of the Civil War, on what grounds could you decide the validity of the theses of the show?
Just a guess, but perhaps by bootstrapping from the truth claims in Ken Burns’ entertaining show to consult the literature and re-evaluate all of it as one reads/consults/discusses the topics further. It’s nit like Burns’ piece is wholesale fiction.
I wasn’t really aware that it had “theses”. I’m British, so I wasn’t taught at school what even happened during the US civil war.
The show told me what happened. I drew my own conclusions about why based on things said in it and other sources.
Firstly an acknowledgement: I am a Brit. I must admit that I found Foote a bit tedious and when I read more I found McPherson vastly sounder when it came to the causes of the Civil War. Basically McPherson says that the excuse that the South gave for splitting in 1860/61 was states rights but that was purely so that they could continue with slavery.
As McPherson says in “Battle Cry of Freedom, one of the very best history books of all eras and genres that I have read, “Although speeches and editorials in the upper South bristled with references to rights, liberty, state sovereignty, honor, resistance to coercion, and identity with southern brothers, such rhetoric could not conceal the fundamental issue of slavery.”
You should read Foote’s very long and detailed history of the war before you dismiss him, but there again if you are willing to dismiss someone for their accent, or even half a country’s worth of people because they were born in the wrong half….
Foote’s book (all three volumes) was long and not what any serious historian calls history. I did not dismiss him for his accent. Foote maintained that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. He is also an apologist – admirer is a better description – for Nathan Bedford Forrest who went on to start the KKK.
Believers in the “Lost Cause” are hopeless cases.
It sounds as if you might be accusing Foote of being a racist, and I hope that you will agree that neither of us can know what the content of his mind was when he met non-white people.
And Nathan Bedford Forrest is certainly deserving or respect for his military exploits, although NOT for his later inability to accept reality.
If Forrest is so deserving then same thing goes for Attila the Hun and Genghis Kahn. Also, Tomas de Torquemada was a very effective leader. So, too, King Leopold II of Belgium.
I really admire Forrest’s military exploits like the Fort Pillow massacre.
I haven’t seen the Civil War series but I have read Foote’s books. He is upfront about his sympathy for the South, and one distrusts his political analysis for that reason. But he does seem fairly reliable about what actually happened and why (militarily).
But I do find his eulogising of the Southerners, from Davis to Beauregard to Jackson to Forrest, a bit tiresome.
The idea of the failure to compromise as a cause of the Civil War was very popular among historians in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. They argued that slavery would have eventually withered away and that although many people at the time realized this, a “blundering generation” of politicians refused to acknowledge this, opposed compromise, and the war came. Another view of why the war came was that due to the fact that the presence of slavery created by 1860 the conditions of an “irrepressible conflict.” That is, both sides adhered to certain principles, whether you like them or not, which they morally felt they could not compromise, and hence the war came.
In a sense, contemporary Civil War historians are still debating this question, but in a much more sophisticated manner. The debate revolves around the extent to which the Republicans, as they were about to take power with the election of Lincoln in 1860, were thinking about enacting measures, beyond preventing the extension of the institution to the territories, that would begin the process of crippling slavery, thus enhancing the likelihood of its early demise. Or were they honest by saying that that had no intention of interfering with slavery in the states that they already existed? If the former is true then then the slave states had legitimate reasons to distrust the incoming Lincoln administration.
What we know for sure is that Lincoln’s election set off a massive panic attack fueled by extreme paranoia in the lower South (the seven states that seceded before Lincoln took office). Conspiracy theories ran rampant that the Republicans were planning to send armies of abolitionists to the region to incite slave revolts. Like most conspiracy theories, they were groundless. I recently completed a book by historian Daniel Crofts, entitled “Lincoln and the Politics of Slavery: The Other Thirteenth Amendment and the Struggle to Save the Union,” published in 2016. He confronts head on the question of whether the Republicans (or at least the vast majority of them) were sincere in their many protestations that they did intend to touch slavery in the states where they already existed. He believes they were. Rather, above all else their concern was preserving the Union, although they would not compromise on the slavery extension to the territories issue. He focuses on the fact that Lincoln and most Republicans during the secession crisis supported a 13th amendment that would have guaranteed that Congress could not abolish slavery in the states.
My conclusions are this:
1) As was the actual case, nothing Congress could have done in terms of passing compromise measures would have allayed the fears of the lower South. Their secession was inevitable with the election of Lincoln.
2) Lincoln and most Republicans were sincere in professing that they had no intention of interfering with slavery in the states where it already existed.
3) Lincoln and most Republicans did hope that slavery would wither away some day, but except for forbidding its expansion to the territories, they had no concrete plans to accomplish this. Of course, the war changed everything and provided the opportunity to abolish slavery.
4) The lower South completely misunderstood Lincoln’s position. Slavery was safe for the time being. But, I think the slave South as a whole was correct that the long-term security of slavery in the Union was precarious. Since the preservation of slavery was their number one concern, their decision to secede was not irrational. They threw the dice and lost.
I would add a couple of points to your pretty accurate review. South Carolina was the flash point or extreme, where action to separate came first. This caused other states to follow reacting to Carolina. It is also part of their leaving bet that the north would allow them to depart. They may have been correct except for one thing – Lincoln. There was no indication prior to Lincoln that the north would go to war to prevent succession. In fact Buchanan was a prime example of inaction. The south badly misjudged Lincoln.
For a presentation of Crofts’s views, one may finding interesting this lecture he gave on C-Span.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?413750-1/lincolns-views-slavery-13th-amendment
That is very good. Crofts review is excellent in my view and would recommend it for all to hear. The south panic’d and they blew it. Probably one of the greatest overreactions in history.
I would add that the Southern states had the same beliefs about separation that the thirteen colonies did in their act of succession. First, they thought they would be ultimately better off economically by separating even if the North left existing slavery intact, and second that they could fend off a superior military power with a war of attrition. The South was wrong about the second one.
“Failure to compromise” is pretty analytically shallow. Basically it says that the war happened because the sides failed to keep the peace.
This comment happened because I failed to avoid clicking the “Post Comment” button.
At the end of the day, aren’t all wars caused by a failure to compromise?
Actually we caused a few (conflicts) where compromise had nothing to do with it. Vietnam and Iraq. We simply started them, kind of made them up.
I gotta admit I had a bit of bias against the South as a kid myself — mainly because it was the Civil-Rights era and most of the time when you heard a southern accent on teevee it was coming outta the mouth of a racist yokel like Lester Maddox or George Wallace or Strom Thurmond. Time was, I’d hear a southern accent, I’d discount the speaker’s IQ by a good standard deviation unit.
I overcame this bias when I grew up and got out in the world a bit and actually met some southerners in person — plus, goddamn, but I love the food and much of the music there. And New Orleans is one of my favoritemost cities in the whole world.
Still, when I’d find myself trying a case in a southern city, I’d always associate local counsel, someone who could speak the language. And when I’d stop in a local watering hole to have a cold beer after court and figured to be the only Yankee in the joint, I’d scan the room first to make sure to know where all the exists are and sit with my back to the wall.
If only Wild Bill Hickok would have been as cautious, Crooked Nose Jack McCall never would have got the drop on him.
Yep, and Aces over Eights wouldn’t be known as “the dead man’s hand.” 🙂
What you do is the easy part. Harder would be to look at your own part of the world today. Without much effort I see enough racism in Iowa or Kansas without going south.
That was suppose to be a reply to number 2
All the more insane because Charlie Hebdo moved and the attack occurred outside a building that is no longer their office.
I have see three people over the years with licorice induced hypertension. All women, young, with sudden, resistant, severe hypertension out of the blue. Remembering the original article in the BMJ in the 1970’s on the topic, I always asked about it, and hit the jackpot three times. Stop the licorice, the hypertension goes away and all the pills can stop.
Wow, a HHMI connection:
“The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.”
Also :
“… Even some beers, like Belgian beers, have this compound in it,” as do some chewing tobaccos, said Dr. Robert Eckel, a University of Colorado cardiologist and former American Heart Association president. He had no role in the Massachusetts man’s care.“
The poor man switched from red to black a few weeks before the tragic day.
“… He collapsed while having lunch at a fast-food restaurant. “
This ^^^ seems unfair to write – but perhaps the patient had undiagnosed problems, and, as we all know, the doctors expect everyone to “enjoy a balanced diet”, as if it’s obvious what that is and how to maintain it.
What people call “red licorice” is not really licorice at all. Licorice is a plant (Glycyrrhiza glabra) and it is from this plant that real licorice flavored candies are made. Red Vines, and such are not flavored from this plant. I love real licorice candy, but rarely have it except when we get jelly beans, although I do have some licorice candy that I bought in Iceland, but never got around to eating. Not sure if it is even edible anymore.
If you or someone you know eats quinoa, be advised:
glycyrrhizic acid is a specific type of the general class of compounds called saponins. These are interesting complexes of carbohydrate bonded to sterol, and can function as a surfactant :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saponin
(There is a distinction between surfactant and detergent that we’ll leave out here)
Quinoa contains such saponins. If you know anyone who eats quinoa, make sure they wash it extensively! Eventually, quinoa chefs figure this out – observing the foamy water from their soak, and bitter flavor, to make better dishes (or try to, like me). But one eats so much of it at once, I’m not sure how significant it is.
Yes watch out for saponins. Some are toxic enough to be useful as chemical defense against grazing or predation. IDK if that’s why quinoa seeds contain saponins, but that’s the interpretation of high saponin concentrations in some cases of animal tissues and cells.
I agree with Prof. Coyne regarding the way the press should question the “President” and have been on the record saying that since he popped up running for president in 2012. Though the reporter in this clip was admirable in her doggedness, if I were me in her place, I would have bitten down even harder when Trump pulled out his standard ad hominem attack and called her fake news. I would have turned his attack back on him and said something like, “Oh, you’re attempting to avoid answering the question by attacking me and my organization. We’ll, that must mean I’ve touched a sore spot and that you and your administration really did botch the response to COVID-19.” I know it’s easy to play armchair quarter back from where I sit, but I wish reporters would practice responses to Trump’s ad hominem and tu quoque attacks, since they surely know he will resort to them when cornered. Taking my point further, they should ask Amy Coney Barrett what her vision of the Kingdom of God is and how she sees judges and lawyers effecting this kingdom. They should further ask her how she knows that her vision of the Kingdom of God is true. I’m sure many more follow-up questions would present themselves from her responses to these, but, as Garry Wills pointed out many years ago, reporters typically fumble when it comes to asking politicians about religion.
People are acting like this is the first time we’ve ever had a Catholic or any other religious person on the Supreme Court. I am going to guess that the vast majority of Justices have been religious. They like the rest of the people of this country manage to render unto Ceasar as well as god.
Since Barrett will be the sixth Catholic on the current Court, I doubt anyone thinks she will be the first. No one is, or should be, concerned about her Catholicism, but the extremist sect, the People of Praise, that she grew up in and adheres to should be a concern. The group’s current “coordinator,” Craig Lent, confirmed that People of Praise opposes abortion, gay rights, and marriage equality, and believes that “men are leaders of their families…” along with more right-wing bs.
For a decade now, since the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010, there’ve been nothing but Catholics and Jews on the Supreme Court (depending, I suppose, on how you count Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic and attended Jesuit Georgetown Prep, but married an Anglican “outside the Church,” as the saying goes, and now has one foot in the Evangelical camp).
If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, SCOTUS’ll comprise six Catholics. two Jews, and a Gorsuch.
Sounds like a weird Dr. Seuss line.
Well, as felt the fish belonging to the kids about the behatted cat who came for a visit, I do not like Amy Coney Barrett, not one little bit.
I’m listening to Bud Powell. Smooth as silk. It’s music that helps you forget politics for a while.
That Clara Bow clip is definitely “pre-Code Hollywood”; it’s showing much too much skin and ankle to have survived scrutiny under the Hays-Code censorship rules that took effect in the Thirties.
The Sunny Singh tweet’s comment stream is pretty interesting. I find it fascinating how strange the thought processes of these people are. They remind me of the famous Star Trek Next Generation episode where they encounter an alien race whose language can’t be decoded by their “universal translator” because it refers to events in the species’ history. Her statement here can be read as “I don’t debate others as I find that prevents me from sticking to my ideas.” Really? LOL
Interesting article posted today on this kind of cognitive bias and its association with progressive identity politics in universities. Includes a link to a new book by the same author.
https://quillette.com/2020/09/26/the-bias-that-divides-us/
An interesting read, thanks Mike!
On the use of the word ‘bollocks’, Wikipedia has a number of other examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks
I particularly like the use of rhyming slang, as in the example: ‘Modern art? I reckon it’s a load of Jackson’s ‘.
I’m glad I hate black licorice…always have. Though I do like fennel as spice and vegetable. My wife loves Good & Plenty, I’ll tell her about the danger. I’ve never written Good & Plenty…sort of reminds me of an Asian to English translation gone a little wrong.
Reminds me of a story from when I was a kid.
My mom made an appointment to take my siblings and me to the dentist on the day after Halloween (because “All Souls Day” and we Catholic school kids had the day off).
We kids were waiting for her in the car, when my brother and sister found a bag of Halloween candy one of us had left on the backseat and got into some black licorice. My mom got in the car and started to back out of the driveway. As she was looking over her shoulder, my brother and sister smiled at her with black gunk all over their teeth.
Without saying a word to us, she slammed on the brake, threw the gearshift into park, swept us kids outta the car back into the house, called the dentist, and postponed our appointments.
Besides pseudo-science, Wagner-Jauregg was a wannabe Nazi. However, he had a jewish wife, so his application was declined.
Barrett is on record as having said a judge should defer first to th Pope and then to the
Court..
She is a member of a Charismatic Catholic group like Opeis Dei as such all her opinions, about everything will be Catholic dogma.
Scalia said the Devil was real and was walking the earth. Evil is real and is walking the Supreme Court.
Let’s hope her extremity will hold up her senate approval.
It didn’t the last time, when she was confirmed for Circuit Court. Democrats were criticized for bring up religion. “No religious test” blah, blah, blah.
“…died because he ate a bag and a half of licorice candy.”
The story headline is “A Mass. construction worker died from eating too much black licorice.”
How has this clear racism not been picked up and canceled yet?