glabrousbear
Glabrous Bear
glabrousbear

“We have exchanged ideas, and you seem to understand my position despite not agreeing with it—that’s enough for me.”

“In the real world, unfortunately, it takes more than a rousing musical performance to inspire wealthy countries to care about the welfare of poorer countries—if it’s even possible at all.”

“The idea behind an infrastructure bill is supposed to be allocate money for resources that neither party has staked out, or made a part of their very identity.”

Idle gossip of the who-said-what-to-wh0-how-did-they-react has been a source of public entertainment since the Greeks were stuffing themselves into horses in Troy. You’d do better at demonstrating your superiority to it by not frequenting websites where it is discussed.

Hospitals, schools and public housing have always been considered to be infrastructure. They’re shared and tangible resources, from which individuals directly benefit. This isn’t meaningfully different.

Presumed innocent is a legal standard for the courts. Saturday Night Live is - and you might want to sit down for this, because it is a revelation that will rock your world - not a court.

“Crazy what the wider world of science could accomplish if people whose bodies produce periods were as closely observed as those who do not during clinical testing phases—a gendered oversight with a long, unfortunate history.”

New York’s mayoral politics, are - much like New Yorkers themselves - not nearly as interesting as New Yorkers believe them to be.

“Hypoallergenic” is more a marketing ploy than a medical reality with dogs. Some breeds are less likely to cause problems for your typical allergy sufferer, but they all still have saliva and dander, so a person that is extra sensitive will still suffer in their presence.

Just a thought, it could be that the friend has become distant because the letter writer has revealed themselves to be the sort of person who calls themselves “European” after living on the continent for 30 whole months.

It explains who they are in the article. Which is to say, Googling would be a waste of time for this guy, who would not comprehend the results.

Williamson uses four words to make a joke. Jezebel makes the same joke, but uses 400 words to do it. Another day of dignified work in the click-mines.

Scott Rudin is an evening shift manager at a cardboard box assembling plant in Cleveland. *Such* an entitled asshole, but he married the VP finance’s daughter, so he’s untouchable.

“It’s not necessarily a smoking gun, but it’s curious: Why would he request a blanket pardon if he didn’t do anything wrong?”

Just in case it wasn’t clear, I think there is a case to be made that the Jan 6 crew could reasonably be described as terrorists. My point was is that for the purposes of the author’s argument it wouldn’t have mattered whether they were or not - she would have interpreted either outcome as supporting her view, which

The casualness with which the author implied ethical failings by this scientist, or that she or the field as a whole are not looking for solutions was just breathtaking. On one side you have a sneering writer who can’t even bother to carefully read or contextualize the article she’s linking to, and on the other a

“Austin American Stateman raises many more questions about the ethics and point of the two-part study, which involved 2,540 children, than it answers”

The section on terrorism went from “A viral debate blossomed about whether “terrorist” was the right word to use to describe coup participants” and concluded with “Applying that label to the January 6 participants creates a blur in which mainstream America appears ever more perfect in contrast to the barbarians who

The Foucault quote in paragraph two is great, but I have a hard time believing, as the context implies, that a book published in 1976 by a guy that died in 1984 was talking about cancel culture as we understand it today.

“I really thought she would never again make her debut”