Surely Eve made the first choice by taking the apple? Or even the serpent by choosing to tempt her?
What bugs me is Eve getting the blame for the whole apple thing and a fairly spiteful punishment, whilst Adam whined like a ninny to god that it was all her fault, denying personal responsibility, but you give him credit for the first decision.
A couple who were in my daughter's ante-natal class made a placenta pâté, but had some difficulty with the hospital. By law the placenta was theirs, but they were advised to bury the inedible bit very, very deeply. There was some concern about the remains being found sparking off a police investigation.
If this practise in relatively common in some countries, it leaves me wondering about law enforcement practises.
Anyway, they made their pâté, but were disappointed that it was less foie gras and more Tesco value liver pâté.
My favourite placenta story, however, is about a woman who kept all three of her children's placentas frozen. I can't tell you why she did that, but she was burgled one night, the thieves getting away with the entire contents of her freezer...
Whilst that's clearly a positive move for wildlife, I do have a few concerns.
The article cites some protection action with some small results. Having seen clips indicating there were laws preventing wet market practises, but they weren't well enforced, will this too fizzle out?
Is this action a publicity stunt and will it be sustained? Does it divert attention from an alternative source of the virus?
The article cites people who have invested large sums of money into wildlife conservation, or who may get compensation as their game farming collapses. It doesn't address the poorer end of the scale where many people may depend of game for their livelihood. Will this action drive aspects of the game market underground if some people have no other means of survival themselves?
Convince me that Biden doesn't have traits of Narcissism, malignant narcissism, psychopathy, or anything else because I'm really wondering right now.
He certainly isn't emotionally mature, nor self-actualised enough to be president.
I'm guessing you're hoping that he's just going to be mediocre, rather than dangerous, but the indicators are that he's unlikely to be nondescript in his role.
So, you'd expect some of his behaviour to controversial.
I think he was Vice President in this pic:
I saw a video clip recently, but I don't know whether it was recorded during Biden's Vice Presidency, or whether he was campaigning before the restrictions. In it he appears to offer to physically fight with a factory, or construction worker and appears to just stop short of calling him fat. Afterwards an attempt was made to smooth things over for Biden by saying he was about to say 'fact', not 'fat', even though that didn't appear to fit in with the rest of the sentence.
I'm asking because I think his behaviour is likely to change in some ways simply because he's fulfilling a different role, but I'm not sure how. It could be that he reigns in his behaviour as he'll be even more in the spotlight, but being in the spotlight doesn't seem to have rendered him self-conscious up until now. He has also seen how much Trump has got away with.
It could be a case of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If he has got away with certain behaviours up until now, will he believe he has impunity at a later stage?
To me, it all seems way too Trumpesque for comfort and very little change will be achieved either way you vote.
Perhaps the advantage of Trump being re-elected is that it's unlikely he'll get through another four years as his deterioration seems rather rapid of late, but then you'd get Pence, right?
It's not about having no baggage and it's not about just carrying your own in a partnership.
The difficulty is is knowing how to be a baggage handler, of our own and other people's.
I really think emotional welfare should be taught in schools from a very young age as part of the curriculum, rather than some people being lucky enough to learn by chance and others not.
How can we be expected to handle everything maturely if we don't have enough experience, or education in these matters?
I think I do understand where you're coming from, Jim.
You spend a lot of time and energy pointing out Trump's failings from what he says and does. You point out that he's not innocent, even though he hasn't been proven guilty for the vast majority of these issues in a court of law.
You are quite right, though. He's not fit fit for office and you currently have a really bizarre and dangerous thing going on in the US on so many levels.
You do not apply the same principles to Biden because you perceive him as being less dangerous than Trump and less dangerous than standing up for what is right.
I think the most dangerous thing you can do is stand up for what is slightly less wrong when it comes to something as important as electing the leader of the most powerful country in the world which affects us all.
As a US citizen eligible to vote, you have a responsibility not just for your own country, but for all our countries, but you're not prepared to stand up for what is right.
I was thinking particularly of the financial situation in the US where there seems to be plenty of risky public protest regarding social distancing practises.
We can speculate about people's financial situations in a broad sense, but perhaps the devil's in the details. How much do governments know about what people are actually experiencing? If you do put financial situations into broad groups, do governments know what proportion of people are experiencing each type of difficulty?
How can these issues be addressed by governments based upon assumption, or select information?
I have my story, you have yours, but there are nearly 8 billion stories.
I thought the other day on your other blog that perhaps it would be more sensible to have a petition outlining the financial difficulties people are experiencing.
Perhaps some people's claim for financial assistance has been delayed because of the volume of claimants; perhaps some people can't claim because they haven't been officially laid off, but aren't getting paid either; perhaps some people have expenses that aren't covered, or completely covered by benefits.
Do we really know what difficulties people are experiencing?
I lack even the most basic knowledge of astronomy, so help me out some more: this is about the year not being exactly 365 days of 24 hours each, the reason we have February 29th every four years, right?
It seems 2 meter distancing is a legal requirement where possible, but because shopping, commuting and other activities may interfere with the practicalities of that, plus we are all judging by eye it makes it difficult to enforce.
As a result the increased fines will only be targeted towards people who are deliberately flouting the imprecise law for non-essential activities, like parties, protests and football games with non-household members.
I think it calls for the police force and the public to act reasonably and responsibly. I don't really see that as a bad thing.
With responsibility comes a level of autonomy. My daughter took my grandchildren out of school a week before they closed, not because she was worried about them getting ill so much as she was worried about spreading the infection to others. My daughter is an essential worker keeping the supply of groceries going (and she brightens everyone's day), so she was worried about passing on infection to the school.
I do think people should have the right to make personal judgement calls if they think they might be at risk, or a risk to others.
I think that should apply to other situations, for example, if someone avoids a crowded commute and is late for work as a result, I don't think they should be penalised. I realise there are inherent problems with not everyone being responsible in their behaviour, but there has to be a bit of a buffer in all directions as we struggle with a new normal.
We're nearing 300,000 deaths globally from Covid to date, so about half the usual number of deaths on the road in the same time period with lockdown and social distancing restrictions.
I think I've had it, hopefully I've got anti-bodies and no residual infection and I'd be quite happy to get back to work and do something useful, even if that was traipsing round the village with a trolley full of groceries supplying those who are safer staying in doors.
For other people, it is too soon and it concerns me that vulnerable people might be pushed back into work against their will because they can't prove they are at risk. Some people pick up infection and succumb harder with no diagnosis of underlying medical issues.
I know I'm as tough as old boots, some people know that they aren't, but don't know why. A case in point is a work colleague who was seeing numerous consultants who couldn't work out why she was getting mildly unwell all the time until she went into cardiac arrest - my age, fit as a butchers dog, but had a virus which attacked her heart. Thankfully, she survived, but she knew something was wrong long before the doctors.
I haven't heard that the police will have no authority to enforce social distancing. In Boris Johnson's address on Sunday 10th May he said that fines will be increase for those who flout the restrictions.
I just took a peek at your profile GS and had to laugh - Occupation: unemployable.
I've been getting adverts for toilet cleaner complete with a picture of a half clean, half brown toilet ever since I read your blog about cleaning your bathroom.
Read this and who knows what kind of things are going to be popping up on my screen.
I also feel your frustration...I'm not frustrated.
I'm just taking breaks from my chores and your blog struck me as bizarre.
Something to add by whom? People commenting? You?
I must determine certain basics that at first glance seem 'bizarre.'I have often had the impression that you want to be in control of others, rather than wanting to interact with them. Perhaps this is why I find your blog odd.
Maybe if you explained your intentions in your op, that you'd like yes/no (and maybe inbetween options) to start with and then a little more about what you would like to do, it might feel a bit more like a social interaction, rather than a command.
Even if there were no guarantee that I'd be immune to getting it again, at least I'd know that I could breeze through it again.
As it is, I've no idea whether I had it, or had some other viral infection.
I've only left my flat to go grocery shopping, or walk on the mountain on my own, but I'm just a teeny bit worried I might have been incubating the virus for weeks. I've been so careful, much more careful than most, but I still could have spread it about.
On the other hand, thinking that I might have had it has left me feeling a bit more chilled about it all. Couple that with frothing at the mouth with isolation and no employment (I do not respond well to being out of work, even though I have studies and house renovations to keep me occupied) I can see how the idea of immunity certification could backfire.
It is of utmost importance to know the origins of the virus.
Whether it was the wet market, research lab, or some other source, how can we hope to prevent a similar pandemic without knowing how it started, or how it spread?
As for blaming countries, mud and rock are unlikely to be responsible.
It is likely, however, that there are lessons to be learned and that individuals are responsible for their actions.
If poor hygiene practise in wet markets, or research labs are the source, that needs to be tackled.
If poor handling has lead to more deaths than necessary, then that needs to be tackled.
Suing China is not about money, but about the first move in a game to stop this happening again. I don't think anyone realistically expects the Chinese government to cough up. I don't think it's likely that it will be transparent, either.
Legal action might set off civil unrest in China, however.
online today!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (3,001)
RE: On temptation
Surely Eve made the first choice by taking the apple? Or even the serpent by choosing to tempt her?What bugs me is Eve getting the blame for the whole apple thing and a fairly spiteful punishment, whilst Adam whined like a ninny to god that it was all her fault, denying personal responsibility, but you give him credit for the first decision.