This caught my eye earlier today, and for some odd reason it reminded me of my time behind a cash register at a kitchen goods store. Every once in a while, customers would come by with a document related to this and present it to the cashier along with their items. There were the usual purchases of dishes, utensils, and small appliances, some of which were more expensive than a religious organization could be expected to shoulder, but at least might have a reasonable use in their work. Then there was that eye-catching chalice with multicolored plastic jewels, something like a child's version of this.
This trip down memory lane was a smaller example of the current scandal - the sort of issue one protests, but nonetheless expects. I think I mentioned something earlier about the misuse of a good idea meant as a kindness. It's another example in an area that demands an overhaul (as opposed to a burning, sickles - and let's see how the challenger proposes to handle the overhaul), but the level of shock with which this is treated is deserving of an eyeroll and then some.
It's articles like the one that prompted this post, the ones that underestimate the intuition and the intelligence of those without a higher degree, that make me question journalism. If there hasn't been enough proof recently that such a thing is no guarantee of good judgment, I'm sure I can hunt down something from earlier this year, or even last year. (The woman interviewing the privileged radio guy comes to mind.) If I'm to continue the theme, I suppose I might refer to such journalists as the heralds for the out of touch and in denial.
But keep these articles coming. Memory lane has its moments.
And since the debate's going on -
Yeesh. I've seen this sort of verbal sparring between news analysts. The gist of the tone I'm getting here is career politician, used to a formal debate format, versus stubborn businessman, used to countering what he disagrees with as he hears it.
So which is it - millionaires and billionaires like him doing better than the folks in Scranton, or all the losses listed on those taxes?
When it comes to opening businesses, hasn't there already been a discussion that the federal government can't overrule the state's decision to keep businesses shut? It's disingenuous for one debater to blame small business closures on the other when it wasn't his decision to make. (And considering those around the challenger, shouldn't he know this?)
I think I've been clear enough about not believing in the challenger's ability to hold his own against a foreign regime, considering he can't even hold his own against those in his party.
Speaking of dog whistles, "If you don't vote for me..."
Speaking of spending on issues attached to climate change, who chose to build shiny stuff instead of using existing historical practices to prevent forest fires?
Uh-oh, challenger misquote.
Yeesh, sparring's the wrong word - brawling might be better.
Condolences on the one son, but I say it's fair to question whether the one that's still around is a risk for the challenger, seeing that the incumbent's adult child is fair game in that tax issue.
The Green New Deal might not be his plan, but the people around the challenger have already stated how they intend to use him.
And yeah, it sounds like that nuclear-hurricane thing happened.
Been keeping an eye, challenger, on which party argued for mail-in ballots versus in-person voting (which is not remotely like preventing people from voting)?
How many more people will be involved in mail-in ballots this time around, not just the military?
Yikes. Is this what can be expected from the next debate?
(Addendum - speaking of simple, repetitive speech drawing in the intuitive, how often are the words "war on (x)" connected to the incumbent in comparison to the challenger?)