ellauri020.html on line 399: For years, Ivana appeared to have studied the public behavior of the royals. Her friends now called this “Ivana’s imperial-couple syndrome,” and they teased her about it, for they knew that Ivana, like Donald, was inventing and reinventing herself all the time. When she had first come to New York, she wore elaborate helmet hairdos and bouffant satin dresses, very Hollywood; her image of rich American women probably came from the movies she had seen as a child. Ivana had now spent years passing through the fine rooms of New York, but she had never seemed to learn the real way of the truly rich, the art of understatement. Instead, she had become regal, filling her houses with the kind of ormolu found in palaces in Eastern Europe. She had taken to waving to friends with tiny hand motions, as if to conserve her energy. At her own charity receptions, she insisted that she and Donald form a receiving line, and she would stand in pinpoint heels, never sinking into the deep grass—such was her control.
ellauri046.html on line 351: His master-work Either/Or is odd. It uses a selection of pseudonyms to present and contrast what are supposed to be the papers of a sensual or 'aesthetic' young man called 'A' and a sternly ethical and religious judge 'B', reflecting on the meaning and value of existence, boredom, drama, luck, fate, choice and Mozart. It is considered to be the foundation of the 'Existential' way of thinking - with its concentration on the absolute necessity of choosing and inventing one's self - and was highly influential on writers like WH Auden, Jorge Luis Borges, JD Salinger and John Updike as well as, famously, the philosophers John-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche.
ellauri119.html on line 758: Alisa is right that an existential sentence is in principle easier to prove than its negative. Just produce a specimen. I bet she filched it from Karl Popper. The negation takes another universal premise to prove it from. But God is a harder nut. If God supporters could produce the specimen, they'd still need to prove uniqueness and the requisite universal properties. God opposers try to argue they do not need that hypothesis. Thing is the supporters clearly feel that need. It's not logic, it's a eusocial insect's builtin circuit. Less stupid egomaniacs are aware of its usefulness as a mind numbing anesthesiac, opium for the masses. Fiction or fact, its a great hypothesis. It would deserve inventing if it did not come pre-installed. Alisa was a silly hag.
ellauri153.html on line 347:
If the situation is (question Job, disaster), then Job moves. He can either play (question God) or (⌐question God). If Job plays (⌐question God), he loses as he does not seek justice for the evil (disaster). Wot? Where is this in the rulebook? Wouldn't it be best for Dog if Job didn't pester him? L would lose the bet. Or why not blame Moby Dick instead! Seems we are inventing rules here as we go along. Vähän tällästä lassipalloa. If Job plays (question), he curses creation and attempts to be like God, putting the evil (challenge) into play.
ellauri159.html on line 1093: Build your topic around a visual element. It is way easier than reading. This might be a chart, a graphic—even a quotation. They may follow a template that’s worked in the past, rather than inventing something new. Just be sure to give a new slant on the old idea to keep it fresh.
ellauri163.html on line 893: But now comes something rather suspect: There are no gospels which are immortal, but neither is there any reason for believing that humanity is incapable of inventing new ones (1954, pp. 475-476).
ellauri222.html on line 325: The foremost theme in The Adventures of Augie March is the search for identity. Unsure of what he wants from life, Augie is pulled along into the schemes of friends and strangers, trying on different identities and learning about the world through jobs ranging from union organizer to eagle trainer to book thief. His path seems random, but as Augie notes, quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “a man’s character is his fate.” As Augie goes through life, knocking on various doors, these doors of fate open up for him as if by random, but the knocks are unquestionably his own. In the end of the novel, Augie defines his identity as a “Columbus of those near-at-hand,” whose purpose in life is to knock some eggs. Augie notes that “various jobs” are the Rosetta stone, or key, to his entire life. Americans define themselves by their work (having no roots, family or land to stick to), and Augie is a sort of vagabond, trying on different identities as he goes along. Unwilling to limit himself by specializing in any one area, Augie drifts from job to job. He becomes a handbill-distributor, a paperboy, a Woolworth’s stocker, a newsstand clerk, a trinket-seller, a Christmas helper at a department store, a flower delivery boy, a butler, a clerk at fine department stores, a paint salesman, a dog groomer, a book thief, a coal yard worker, a housing inspector, a union organizer, an eagle-trainer, a gambler, a literary researcher, a business machine salesman, a merchant marine, and ultimately an importer-exporter working in wartime Europe. Augie’s job changing is emblematic of the social mobility that is so quintessentially American. Augie is the American Everyman, continually reinventing himself, like Donald Duck. Olemme kaikki oman onnemme Akuja, joopa joo. Yrmf, olet tainnut mainita. You are telling me!
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 582: There are two prevalent theories people like to allude to, Demand Side (Keynesian) and Supply Side ( Championed bt Reagan and theorized by Laffler). Neither has worked well. They are just different approaches to solve the same problem. Sluggish economic growth. In truth, Reagan never really implemented true Trickle Down economics. His was a hybrid of tax cuts and simplification coupled with a massive increase in government spending. You see the thing is, when you have an unregulated job market and limited government employment, there will always be a segment of the population that will be out of work and large sections of the economy reinventing itself. The U.S. has reached virtually full employment since the 80’s.
xxx/ellauri218.html on line 150: Ralph was the inspiration for the animated character Fred Flintstone. Alice (née Alice Gibson), played in the first nine skits from 1951 to January 1952 by Pert Kelton, and by Audrey Meadows for all remaining episodes, is Ralph's patient but sharp-tongued wife of 14 years. She often finds herself bearing the brunt of Ralph's tantrums and demands, which she returns with biting sarcasm. She is levelheaded, in contrast to Ralph's pattern of inventing various schemes to enhance his wealth or his pride. She sees his schemes' unworkability, but he becomes angry and ignores her advice (and by the end of the episode, her misgivings almost always prove correct). She has grown accustomed to his empty threats—such as "One of these days, POW!!! Right in the kisser!", "BANG, ZOOM!" or "You're going to the Moon!"— to which she usually replies, "Ahhh, shaddap!" Alice runs the finances of the Kramden household, and Ralph frequently has to beg her for money to pay for his lodge dues or crazy schemes. Alice studied to be a secretary before her marriage and works briefly in that capacity when Ralph is laid off. Wilma Flintstone is based on Alice Kramden.
9