I love mine! This is one of the few goods I chose to buy "disposable," since I can't repair a broken watch of any kind on my own. I work outdoors a lot and I'm always scratching the face and banging it on things. Usually the failure point is water getting in through those cracks, but I've had one wristband snap. I think I buy one a year roughly, and have for over 6 years.
I have always considered inflation to be a natural result of our model of constant growth and the need to inject new funds into the market, not a policy per se, can you elaborate?
Tara Reade also left a long trail of disaffected associates including multiple landlords, who told the same story about her being a prolific liar. Now of course you're welcome to believe that their testimonials were coached by the media boogeyman, but that's a conspiracy with far too many moving parts to hold up in my view.
I mean it's a false equivalency in the first place to put Hunter in some special bad place while the First Children reap the rewards of nepotism themselves. Misinformation doesn't need to be foreign, just good enough swill to distract some people from the important abuses of power.
"When we say mainstream, I think we mean aligned to the dominant power" hegemon/hegemonic is the word I use to describe this. Others have written about the Internet and "counter hegemonic discourses" which I encourage the curious to look into.
I don't remember the author but one historian of Germany (I think) used the phrase the "historicizing gaze of the camera" to describe how shooting footage of an event freezes that singular, imperfect perspective in amber. When that recording is all that survives of the event in the historical record, it becomes the single "true" way that event unfolded. At the time of film's invention, this was very remarkable, although we may take it for granted now. (It cannot be a perfect representation of the event, of course, such a film is impossible unless the event is watching paint dry, and even then the whole wall better fit in the camera's view)
Publicity is a resource that careful politicians spend wisely, according to their needs at the time. These publicized official events give them a platform to grandstand or rebuke the opposition, some of them are bound to use it that way. Meeting one on one doesn't have that possibility of publicity, unless you're really dedicated to playing the clown 24/7.
I think the point of those questions is just to establish a baseline of truth in congressional testimony, it's not really "stunt" related. It would become a stunt in retrospect if it were found ACB lied to Congress, which is a crime. Get as many factual comments on record as you can, and then you have a bigger quiver later.
I know the actors who advanced the theory into the public sphere, and I'm familiar with their past work. I'm content drawing my own assumptions about their bad faith.
I think they have the resources but that the corporate model may prevent the resources from being properly distributed (eaten up by executives before getting where they are needed, for example, and who's to say the executives are operating in good faith...)
I mean knowing what we know about Rudy and his technology abilities, it's not that difficult for me to dismiss anything he or related cronies suggest out of hand.
Don't you think it's possible that the person you're responding to has a different understanding of what a sibling relationship means? I think it's a little rude to inject your feelings about what a sibling relationship must be and resort to innuendo.
To be frank, I have no idea. It would be folly for me to guess. Still, the notion of intelligent design explaining the awesome complexity of life by waiving it away with an additional, spontaneous and inexplicable divine entity of essentially infinite complexity just occurring out of nowhere makes even less sense to me personally than the spontaneous existence of a "basic" "unguided" universe with the potential for cumulative selection to cause complex life independently of a guiding hand. Intelligent design postulates that a divine entity spontaneously existed and all complexity is the result of that entity, whereas evolution explains complexity via long term cumulative selection. I struggle to rationalize the spontaneous complexity that intelligent design must justify.
Please explain how the complexity of God arose independently of natural cumulative selection processes like evolution.
The Blind Watchmaker might be an interesting read for you.
Your reading was selective and not comprehensive. "Viewing humans and nature as entwined doesn’t mean that we should shrug our shoulders at current climatic trends, unchecked deforestation, accelerating extinction rates or widespread industrial waste. Indeed, archaeology supplies numerous examples of societal and ecosystem collapse: a warning of what happens if we ignore the consequences of human-caused environmental change."
I believe the authors are postulating about the behavior of pre-human ancestors without the capability to generate fires on demand. “The paper opens a window to stop focusing on there being fire or there not being fire, to say there are other ways to cook and we should be looking for them.”
I fail to see how this is "obvious." By the logic that nature invents things many times, isn't it possible some humans at some point did this? Obviously they didn't call it "hot pot," the article doesn't actually suggest that, it's used as a shortcut in a headline to communicate a point. Your suggestion of a link to Jung and Freud makes no sense to me...