Peterkin

No kidding! It wasn't a suggestion. It was a comment on the terminology "responsible gun ownership." Agreed. How's it working out, so far? Right. No problem finding the money to bullet-proof a hundred thousand largish buildings. And I'm sure the children can have just as much fun in recycled fortress air as they would outdoors. But I suspect teachers already have more job description than would allow for a full course in combat training, and you may have trouble finding the money for extra pay. (Actually, I'm surprised there are any teachers still working in US public schools. They must be as dedicated as nurses -- but I doubt most of them up for prison guard duty.) By all means! I'm all for it. Especially as the current trend is going in the opposite direction. Who's kidding whom? There is no 10-year agenda, never mind 70. Of course. Absolutely. Maybe not perfect, but you're likely to find that they all have better overall health-care system and better access to counselling for troubled youth.

Okay, fine. All the other kinds of gun kill people too, and normal people shouldn't have any of those guns in their homes, where the five-year-old can get hold of them and kill his daddy for fun. I wasn't on about the particular gun, but about the framing of the terms. The culture - all cultures - has/have been permeated by violence for millennia, by one means of communication or another. Public executions by fire, guillotine, impalement or drawing and quartering have always been popular entertainment. Good luck trying to regulate content on the internet! What happens on the stroke of 21 to turn sociopaths, wingnuts and assholes into good citizens? Over 21, they just become more efficient at killing: an adult mass shooter acting in cold blood is a lot more dangerous than a teenage hothead. . https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2018.0021 Home schooling may be lonely, but it sounds less soul-destroying for the children than being forced to enter a fortress every morning. That part's easy. Okay, not so much easy, given the first amendment, but the mainstream press are already up against the paywall, so they can be intimidated. Except FUX broadcasting, maybe. And Sinclair. But what about the non-mainstream sources of public information? Sure... also kidney transplants and long-term care for chronic illness.... Whenever universal health care kicks in. None of that regulation can happen without a huge electoral and legislative reform. And I don't see the wealth and power and fearless popular support to bring that about.

Please be selective in the flinging of pronouns! Won't help. They've been claiming for some time now that any regulation - all the way down to the restriction of military-style assault weapons - is a blow to the rights of "responsible gun-owners" (i.e. their membership and voters) Does this mean (all appendages crossed, where too short for braiding) that his minions are turning against him, like the Georgia voters did? Or is Pence back in the crosshairs?

Why would you think that? Is there a historical basis for this belief? What is the reason women chose this option when/if they had other options? I'm not saying it's wrong; just that it's contrary to anecdotal testimony I've heard*. It also sounds vaguely like the seperate-but-equal arguments for racial segregation - the result was separation but no equality. *Anecdote very far from top elite professional world-class competition, though international. A young friend, who was eight years old at that pre-Covid time, was temporarily relocated to France with her parents. She loves hockey. They do have a Moustiques (under 9) league, but there were not enough girls in the school district to make up a team and they wouldn't even let her try out for one of the boys' teams. So, tough. She missed two years of development, at a critical age, in the sport at which she excels. Because.... Vive la differance!

That simple, straightforward, perfectly reasonable idea is the wrong shape for some people to grasp. Maybe their hands are just too small.

Unless you count the 27 chapters of Leviticus. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Leviticus-Chapter-1/

The entire process and all the mechanisms of the electoral system have been so severely damaged by many years of systematic tampering that only a comprehensive overhaul, which would have to include federal overriding of state-controlled voting rules and practices - could give anything like a majority of Americans the right to choose their representatives. Until that happens - brought about, no doubt, by a beautiful warrior princess riding a unicorn - every hundred hand-written letters to a member of Congress demanding gun control legislation is nullified by one anonymous death-threat on a social media platform. And the US in not unique in having a severely compromised democratic process.

Depends on what you mean by 'complete form'. They haven't torn out any pages, but they do select bits - even if it means truncating a sentence (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.) while ignoring other bits, to argue their particular case. And it's a young document, with lots of amendments added over time, while Magna Carta afaik hasn't been changed since the thirteenth century. And the commandments, also being cherry-picked and folded, spindled and mutilated to fit new requirements, haven't changed for even longer.

It's already in one, under glass. And this gun crazy bullshit is not about the second amendment, any more than the anti-abortion bullshit is about the sixth commandment. Sacred laws are nothing more than convenient nails to hang the soiled garments of special interests - convenient, even if you have to snip one in half to make it so. (I don't see any well-regulated militias coming out of the gun lobby.)

It is happening, though the biggest players are still based in the far East. https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/best-american-solar-panel-manufacturers However, they're still concentrating their efforts on going the wrong way. Another storm just took out the grid of a major city. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-storm-2022-a-look-at-the-storms-path-through-the-city and these storms are not going to decrease or grow tamer over time. Whatever the power-source, the delivery grid remains its most vulnerable component. So they keep building and rebuilding the same kind of grid. We're nowhere near Ottawa, and our local transformer station was damaged recently. 500-odd people were without electricity for some hours on several occasions, as crews worked at fixing it. Except us; we're 80% independent of the grid. Of course, that's not to say a big enough wind can't knock down our private array ... but that local inconvenience wouldn't affect vital functions and public services.

Suddenly I get M. Butterfly.

That's nothing to the shock of discovering just how many second-rate male athletes have applied for a sex-change operation under false pretenses, just so they can beat women to death.

Isn't that true of every ideology? Monarchy, Theocracy, Oligarchy, Technocracy, Corporatism, Martial Law, Imperialism all become dictatorial. Has anyone seen a pure Democracy that's not dominated and eventually subjugated by a special interest group for its own benefit at the detriment of the citizens?

Apparently you client doesn't. His whole statement was less than 10 seconds. Why'd you do him all that production with culture-appropriation and the king's Anglo Saxon? You haven't proved he's not a racist, or that he wasn't intending to appeal to them; you haven't shown any alternative motive for choosing such an unusual expression in just that situation, having been supplied just that perfect cue. I've given him three escape routes more than you did, and I'm the prosecution.

You kind of appropriated that culture on his behalf - and the Windsors' too, It seemed to me. He did claim that. Falsely, as I have previously pointed out. In ordinary colloquial modern English. I would have asked, "Which king?" If he answered Harold II, I'd have given him a lot more credit. In any case, I didn't object to whatever he did say; I merely questioned his motives for saying it. I did object to your giving the present royals Anglo-Saxon heritage. I've never disputed that. But since you brought him to us and presented his little contretemps for consideration, I gave it due consideration. Which of us did that? After very thorough - far more thorough than the case merits - consideration, I have come to no conclusion at all. I posited four of the most likely motives for him to have said that where and when he said.

In summary re. Polievre vs Canada: Without labelling anyone, I've narrowed the situation to four possibilities: 1. He's aware of the political climate and, signalling to a far right audience ("I speak your language.") 2. He's flipping off French Canada. ("I'm with the Anglos.") 3. He thinks Anglo Saxon words means coarse language (the common touch; man of the people, tough guy.) 4. He's using his short direct English words in blissful ignorance of their cultural and political significance. (Thick as two hot dog buns, me.)

I'm guessing a comprehensive list of people who will never go on a Jordan Peterson program and lie about their language.

Not anymore, and certainly not his.

The superficial information is of a quantity and nature and smell akin to the circumstantial evidence a preponderance of which sometimes gets people hanged. And is it really all that much more noble if he's just insulting French-Canadians?

Sure, that's possible. He may simply mean a strong repudiation of the French influence on the English language, on culture in general and Canadian culture in particular. Maybe he's just a Western Separatist - as ignorant of geography as he is of history and language.

Good advice.

One can be it, yes (Polievre is supposedly of Irish heritage) but very few academic linguists can actually speak it (Maybe he is one, but I doubt he speaks it in public: the audience would have a better chance of understanding French. Still avoiding the extreme sacrifice of listening to Peterson interview, I'm willing to give odds he said it modern, impure, French-Celt-German influenced English. To make a cultural distinction with no embedded political code.) They may have been, before the Norman conquest, though perhaps not English and not royalty as we understand the terms. Now, they're not. And I bet they don't speak it, either. It's not the same as, it's not like, it's not equivalent to or interchangeable with: it's either an informed or an uninformed lie and there was a reason for telling it. https://www.britannica.com/topic/house-of-Windsor Yes. Politicians do keep saying that, but it keeps not happening, except in the aftermath of a military attack from abroad, and what they actually do when they 'get together' is activate the mechanism of war. I don't think that will get universal health care done. So: Which specific people - by name, party affiliation and rank - should be coming together? By what practicable means can the relevant persons be brought together? And how will the forgiveness of mistakes speeches go? That was a response to the actual context, if not the intended one.

I rather think Pierre Polievre is... and it's somewhat at odds, both with his adopted name in a nation where that might otherwise be an asset, and with his own citizenship, though perfectly congruent with the values of some neighbours https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2021/04/17/new-conservative-group-would-save-anglo-saxon-traditions.html. Neither. One may question the significance of another's choice of words without calling them names. I asked questions that seemed relevant to the subject. Further to which: In what way is the term Anglo-Saxon a cultural distinction from English, and where did I say anyone was racist - let alone that their use of a specific cultural distinction makes them so? I was simply investigating the possible connotations of a particular person in a particular position making that particular cultural distinction in a particular venue to a particular audience - whether that had any political, rather than purely linguistic implications. Linguistically, it's rubbish: an obviously false claim to a language nobody has actually spoken since the middle ages; culturally, it's an implausible negation of the Norman-French influence which has so pervaded English language, political organization and law that the user would have to go re-learn it from Vikings and Angle farmers who are currently unavailable. I suspect they took their vaunted values with them. Sounds wonderful. Which people should be coming together and how is that approach to be effected?

No wonder so many minions of the F(orces)o(f)D(arkness) want to assassinate her. I'm just glad they're incompetent! But then Bernie Sanders didn't get to be president, either.

I suspect it's too late for that. The chasms are too deep and too old; assumptions and perceptions have been indelibly imprinted on generations of minds. In the graphic-saturated, metaphor-dripping, slogan-heavy, logo-encrusted symbolic communication matrix of our times, anyone speaking in plain text is inaudible.