"I'm agnostic. I'm one of those wishy-washy irreligious folks who doesn't quite want to claim the title of "atheist.""
Okay, so if you aren't an atheist, which god do you believe in? Because agnosticism doesn't address the issue of faith - it's about knowledge, and EVERYONE is agnostic, whether they adopt the label or not, because it's impossible to know everything about anything.
You either believe in a god, or you don't. There is no wishy-washy middle ground.
Tru it's a nice read if you are I the young adult section of your life
Why should public safety depend on how well someone raises their dog?
There are irresponsible owners of poodles, beagles, greyhounds and I could name 300 dog breeds that will not lead to severely maimed or dead neighbors, pets and children. It shouldn't be a death sentence for any of us to depend on all pit owners to raise their pit right. That's impossible. I don't care what a dog will do in the absence of a trigger. I care what a dog will do when people are imperfect as they always are. If you think it's how they are raised, then they should be banned.
Pit-bull type dogs are responsible for 95% of severe attacks on people, pets and livestock.
Calling this book non fiction is a joke. I've read the book, and it's nothing more than a propaganda fluff piece that completely ignores the carnage caused by pit bulls on a daily basis.
There are no bad dogs just bad dog owners. Take any animal human or otherwise mistreat it, show it no love , beat it, force it to fight, encourage its aggression and its going to be mean and lash out at any perceived threat.
We should be able to euthanize abusers of any sort.
This series is an epic read. Can't wait for movie.
Agreed, a must read but did spell-check change scared to " if you're not sacred..." ?
Thank you for this very thoughtful, thorough, smart review of The Cigar Factory: A Novel of Charleston.
A day later, and I feel bad. Poetry doesn't need any assistance in keeping it generally and culturally irrelevant.
Keep on writing, Amber. I wish you the greatest success.
Yes, it's clear that the first paragraph accurately conveys the way the writer of this piece (and, let's be honest, the world in general) feels about poetry. Thank god for the next paragraph, though -- especially the first few sentences -- which reveal just how intellectually vapid Ms. Pilarski, and Amber Tamblyn, are.
Amber Tamblyn wouldn't know contemporary poetry if it was a DVD copy of "The Sisterhood of Traveling Pants" being bashed across her face by Ms. Pilarski. Sadly, all it takes is having "B-list Hollywood star" on one's résumé to get a trade publisher (only the best actual poets get this treatment) to print her book of poems. Man, I'd love to see the acknowledgements page of this book; I bet it's blank, without a single respectable literary journal on it. Where would she be without David Cross? Certainly nowhere near fame and the perks it brings.
Lacking the smarts to eviscerate a book of horrible contemporary poetry, Ms. Pilarski wisely chooses to turn this into a quasi-profile of an eternally forgettable actress. One can only assume she's keeping her powder dry for her presumed métier: critiquing reality television.
This reviewer obviously begrudges the author her success and wealth (and adhering to one of writing's cardinal rules, "write what you know"). More than anything, I was put off by the tone of the review and it certainly didn't help me decide whether or not I want to read the book. Having said that, I'd lean more toward wanting to read it to see if my assessment of the reviewer's bias is correct.
oh, the irony
No, Ron. You're saying all that. Again. And again.
Liberace, your the real coward.
Why don't you just come out and say what it is you really want. You just keep poking at the issue.
We all know you want to eliminate every firearm in the hands of private citizens.
So just say it and work towards that goal.
So you're saying the right has not become complicit in a pathos of revolutionary circle-jerking and fantasies of armed insurrection, based on their very flawed perceptions of how the country was formed?
You're saying they don't constantly complain about freedoms being taken away, and use guns as a metaphor for re-securing said freedom, yet never seem to actually stand up to the government?
You're saying they don't cling to the idea of the Confederacy because they cannot fathom being losers and on the wrong side of history?
Alright, carry on then.
Good things and bad things can happen in parallel. It's a complicated world, but it can be a lot of fun. Come join us sometime, if you care to ever leave the stark land of absolutes that you inhabit.
Your warped scenario above is a great projection which is indeed tragic, if not at all beautiful.
This is all getting very complicated, so I am going to simplify it in 10 easy steps.
1) Black man gets elected president.
2) By pure coincidence, things like national debt and deficits and birth certificates are all of a sudden a huge problem.
3) Incensed bigots start claiming they need to take their country back, and pine for the days of armed insurrection that led to the creation of the United States.
4) Said bigots use such propaganda at rallies and events, waving around their weapons in the context of taking on an incredibly oppressive government.
5) Reasonable conservatives in the GOP, instead of shunning these asshats and looking for practical solutions, decide to make them the main stage attraction, creating Frankenstein's monster.
6) More gun waving and Don't Tread On Me derp
7) NSA expands its reach, Patriot Act keeps getting renewed, bigots instead get mad about gay people getting married.
8) Realizing the narrative they have created is not feasible, said bigots do not course correct. They double down and lash out like wounded animals, becoming even more irrational, like honoring the Confederacy that waged war against the United States - another sign they do not like oppressive government.
9) More gun waving and blaming liberals because reasons
10) Let's buy some more guns and bullets because I heard for real for real that the Hilary is going to take our guns. Even though Obama didn't, and Clinton didn't, and Carter didn't. What are we going to use those bullets for? Not standing up to the government! That's for sure. I think they'd be better served by my curious grandson blowing his face off or threatening some black kids who are listening to loud music.
"No, we don't have a revolution as the response to bad policy decisions."
Someone forgot to tell that to the Teahadis and Libertarians. Remember all the "It's Time to Water The Tree of Liberty!" nonsense over the past few years? And the historical context with which you are apparently so concerned about now does, according to this worldview, indicate the framers of the Constitution were concerned with arming the population in order to prevent further government oppression.
But gun nuts are too cowardly to stand up to real oppression. Which can be evidenced by the erosion of our liberties you mentioned. After, of course, you said we are now enjoying more liberties. So confusing!
"I get that you are totally cool with the state of civil liberties in the US today, Big Bro."
Projection is a beautiful, tragic thing.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2017,
Charleston City Paper