Joo olen kyllä Pentin kannalla siinä että nää termiittiapinat on aivan vitun tyhmiä, täysin beyond redemption. Mitä uutta kissimirrit tässä? Ei mitään, samaa paskanjauhantaa.
ellauri219.html on line 802: The reason is that America was the first to have become a world hegemon mostly through soft power. Where by soft I mean soft as in a thick wad of bucks.
ellauri222.html on line 89: But Chicago was a city of immigrants. It also had a large Jewish population—by 1931, according to Leader, nearly three hundred thousand in a city of 3.3 million. All the Bellow children assimilated happily and all became well off. Saul is often associated with the University of Chicago, where he taught for many years as a member of the legendary Committee on Social Thought. He was a student there, but for less than two years. He had to withdraw for financial reasons (a truck driver was killed in an accident at his father’s coal yard and the insurance had lapsed), and he transferred to Northwestern, from which he graduated in 1937.
ellauri222.html on line 163: One reason for reading biographies of writers like Bellow, who draw from people in their own lives, is to learn what those people were really like, or at least what they were like to someone who is not Bellow. You often can’t do that with Leader’s biography. Leader also wants to assess Bellow’s accomplishment as a novelist. He has to keep three balls in the air at once: the biographical story, an interpretation of the fiction as autobiography, and a consideration of the fiction as fiction. That’s why his book is so long.
ellauri222.html on line 233: But that's not the outstanding defect of IMAC. Your reader, out of respect for your powers, is more than willing to go along with you. He will not, as I was not, be able to go along with your Ira, probably the least attractive of all your characters. I assume that you can no more bear Ira than the reader can. But you stand loyally by this cast-iron klutz – a big strong stupid man who attracts you for reasons invisible to me.
ellauri222.html on line 237: But to keep it short – the reason: the reason lay in the hatred of one's own country. Among the French it was the old confrontation of "free spirits", or artists, with the ruling bourgeoisie. In America it was the fight against the McCarthys, the House Committees investigating subversion, etc that justified the left, the followers of Henry Wallace, etc. The main enemy was at home (Lenin's WWI slogan). If you opposed the CP you were a McCarthyite, no two ways about it.
ellauri223.html on line 60: They say that all private property is acquired and improved for the reason that each one of us by himself has his own home and wife and children. From this, self-love springs. For when we raise a son to riches and dignities, and leave an heir to much wealth, we become either ready to grasp at the property of the State, if in any case fear should be removed from the power which belongs to riches and rank; or avaricious, crafty, and hypocritical, if anyone is of slender purse, little strength, and mean ancestry. But when we have taken away self-love, there remains only love for the State.
ellauri223.html on line 66: Capt. Moreover, the race is managed for the good of the commonwealth, and not of private individuals, and the magistrates must be obeyed. They deny what we hold—viz., that it is natural to man to recognize his offspring and to educate them, and to use his wife and house and children as his own. For they say that children are bred for the preservation of the species and not for individual pleasure, as St. Thomas also asserts. Therefore the breeding of children has reference to the commonwealth, and not to individuals, except in so far as they are constituents of the commonwealth. And since individuals for the most part bring forth children wrongly and educate them wrongly, they consider that they remove destruction from the State, and therefore for this reason, with most sacred fear, they commit the education of the children, who, as it were, are the element of the republic, to the care of magistrates; for the safety of the community is not that of a few. And thus they distribute male and female breeders of the best natures according to philosophical rules. Plato thinks that this distribution ought to be made by lot, lest some incel men seeing that they are kept away from the beautiful women, should rise up with anger and hatred against the magistrates; and he thinks further that those who do not deserve cohabitation with the more beautiful women, should be deceived while the lots are drawn by the magistrates, so that at all times the women who are suitably second rate should fall to their lot, not those whom they desire. Stop the steal!
ellauri223.html on line 68: This shrewdness, however, is not necessary among the inhabitants of the City of the Sun. For with them deformity is unknown. When the women are exercised they get a clear complexion, and become strong of limb, tall and agile, and with them beauty consists in tallness and strength. Tanakka, punakka ja rivakka, täst mie piän! Therefore, if any woman dyes her face, so that it may become beautiful, or uses high-heeled boots so that she may appear tall, or garments with trains to cover her wooden shoes, she is condemned to capital punishment. But if the women should even desire them they have no facility for doing these things. For who indeed would give them this facility? Further, they assert that among us abuses of this kind arise from the leisure and sloth of women. By these means they lose their color and have pale complexions, and become feeble and small. For this reason they are without proper complexions, use high sandals, and become beautiful not from strength, but from slothful tenderness. And thus they ruin their own tempers and natures, and consequently those of their offspring. Furthermore, if at any time a man is taken captive with ardent love for a certain woman, the two are allowed to converse and joke together and to give one another garlands of flowers or leaves, and to make verses. But if the race is endangered, by no means is further union between them permitted. Her fanny must be locked in a love girdle, and his pecker lassoed and bound behind his butt. Moreover, the love born of eager desire is not known among them; only that born of friendship. LOL
ellauri223.html on line 70: Domestic affairs and partnerships are of little account, because, excepting the sign of honor, each one receives what he is in need of. To the heroes and heroines of the republic, it is customary to give the pleasing gifts of honor, beautiful wreaths, sweet food, heroine, or splendid clothes, while they are feasting. In the daytime all use white garments within the city, but at night or outside the city they use red garments either of wool or silk. They hate black as they do dung, and therefore they dislike the Japanese, who are fond of black, and Africans, for obvious reasons. Pride they consider the most execrable vice, and one who acts proudly is chastised with the most ruthless correction. Wherefore no one thinks it lowering to wait at table or to work in the kitchen or fields or clean the toilets. All work they call discipline, and thus they say that it is honorable to go on foot, to do any act of nature, to see with the eye, and to speak with the tongue, and waft with the tail; and when there is need, they distinguish philosophically between tears and spittle. Every man who, when he is told off to work, does his duty, is considered very honorable.
ellauri223.html on line 76: They are unwilling that the State should be corrupted by the vicious customs of slaves and foreigners. Therefore they do business at the gates, and sell only those whom they have taken in war or keep them for digging ditches and other hard work without the city, and for this reason they always send four bands of soldiers to take care of the fields, and with them there are the laborers.
ellauri223.html on line 212: The Viscountess St Albans, as she still preferred to be called, spent much of her marriage in Chancery proceedings, lawsuits over property. The first year was over her former husband's estate, trying to get what was left of Bacon's property, without his much greater debts. She was opposed in this by Sir John Constable, her brother in law, who had held some of the estate in trust. In 1628 she filed suits for property owned by her late father. In 1631, she and her husband both filed suit against Nicholas Bacon, of Gray's Inn, their former friend, who had married Sir John Underhill's niece, and gotten Underhill to sign an agreement for a large dowry and extensive property, including some property of Alice that Sir John did not have rights to, and could only inherit after her death. Their petition to court stated that Bacon had tricked Underhill "who was an almost totally deaf man, and by reason of the weakness of his eyes and the infirmity in his head, could not read writings of that nature without much pain," to sign a paper not knowing what it contained.
ellauri226.html on line 225: While the reasons for this so-called “white flight” are varied, the one
ellauri226.html on line 324: warfare, just like Stockholm in the early 21th century. And for the exact same reason too!
ellauri226.html on line 513: Although many palefaces quote the crime rates as their main reason to
ellauri236.html on line 202: In a book like No Orchids one is not, as in the old-style crime story, simply escaping from dull reality into an imaginary world of action. One's escape is essentially into cruelty and sexual perversion. No Orchids is aimed at the power-instinct, which Raffles or the Sherlock Holmes stories are not. At the same time the English attitude towards crime is not so superior to the American as I may have seemed to imply. It too is mixed up with power-worship, and has become more noticeably so in the last twenty years. A writer who is worth examining is Edgar Wallace, especially in such typical books as The Orator and the Mr. J. G. Reeder stories. Wallace was one of the first crime-story writers to break away from the old tradition of the private detective and make his central figure a Scotland Yard official. Sherlock Holmes is an amateur, solving his problems without the help and even, in the earlier stories, against the opposition of the police. Moreover, like Lupin, he is essentially an intellectual, even a scientist. He reasons logically from observed fact, and his intellectuality is constantly contrasted with the routine methods of the police. Wallace objected strongly to this slur, as he considered it, on Scotland Yard, and in several newspaper articles he went out of his way to denounce Holmes by name. His own ideal was the detective-inspector who catches criminals not because he is intellectually brilliant but because he is part of an all-powerful organization. Hence the curious fact that in Wallace's most characteristic stories the ‘clue’ and the ‘deduction’ play no part. The criminal is always defeated by an incredible coincidence, or because in some unexplained manner the police know all about the crime beforehand. The tone of the stories makes it quite clear that Wallace's admiration for the police is pure bully-worship. A Scotland Yard detective is the most powerful kind of being that he can imagine, while the criminal figures in his mind as an outlaw against whom anything is permissible, like the condemned slaves in the Roman arena. His policemen behave much more brutally than British policemen do in real life — they hit people with out provocation, fire revolvers past their ears to terrify them and so on — and some of the stories exhibit a fearful intellectual sadism. (For instance, Wallace likes to arrange things so that the villain is hanged on the same day as the heroine is married.) But it is sadism after the English fashion: that is to say, it is unconscious, there is not overtly any sex in it, and it keeps within the bounds of the law. The British public tolerates a harsh criminal law and gets a kick out of monstrously unfair murder trials: but still that is better, on any account, than tolerating or admiring crime. If one must worship a bully, it is better that he should be a policeman than a gangster. Wallace is still governed to some extent by the concept of ‘not done’. In No Orchids anything is ‘done’ so long as it leads on to power. All the barriers are down, all the motives are out in the open. Chase is a worse symptom than Wallace, to the extent that all-in wrestling is worse than boxing, or Fascism is worse than capitalist democracy.
ellauri236.html on line 204: In borrowing from William Faulkner's Sanctuary, Chase only took the plot; the mental atmosphere of the two books is not similar. Chase really derives from other sources, and this particular bit of borrowing is only symbolic. What it symbolizes is the vulgarization of ideas which is constantly happening, and which probably happens faster in an age of print. Chase has been described as ‘Faulkner for the masses’, but it would be more accurate to describe him as Carlyle for the masses. He is a popular writer — there are many such in America, but they are still rarities in England — who has caught up with what is now fashionable to call ‘realism’, meaning the doctrine that might is right. The growth of ‘realism’ has been the great feature of the intellectual history of our own age. Why this should be so is a complicated question. The interconnexion between sadism, masochism, success-worship, power-worship, nationalism, and totalitarianism is a huge subject whose edges have barely been scratched, and even to mention it is considered somewhat indelicate. To take merely the first example that comes to mind, I believe no one has ever pointed out the sadistic and masochistic element in Bernard Shaw's work, still less suggested that this probably has some connexion with Shaw's admiration for dictators. Fascism is often loosely equated with sadism, but nearly always by people who see nothing wrong in the most slavish worship of Stalin. The truth is, of course, that the countless English intellectuals who kiss the arse of Stalin are not different from the minority who give their allegiance to Hitler or Mussolini, nor from the efficiency experts who preached ‘punch’, ‘drive’, ‘personality’ and ‘learn to be a Tiger man’ in the nineteen-twenties, nor from that older generation of intellectuals, Carlyle, Creasey and the rest of them, who bowed down before German militarism. All of them are worshipping power and successful cruelty. It is important to notice that the cult of power tends to be mixed up with a love of cruelty and wickedness for their own sakes. A tyrant is all the more admired if he happens to be a bloodstained crook as well, and ‘the end justifies the means’ often becomes, in effect, ‘the means justify themselves provided they are dirty enough’. This idea colours the outlook of all sympathizers with totalitarianism, and accounts, for instance, for the positive delight with which many English intellectuals greeted the Nazi-Soviet pact. It was a step only doubtfully useful to the U.S.S.R., but it was entirely unmoral, and for that reason to be admired; the explanations of it, which were numerous and self-contradictory, could come afterwards.
ellauri236.html on line 376: In New York City, a local goon and gang leader named Riley learns that the wealthy socialist Miss Blandish will be wearing an expensive diamond necklace to her birthday celebration. Riley and his gang plan to steal the necklace and ransom it. The inept criminals manage to kidnap Miss Blandish and her boyfriend, but after the latter is accidentally killed they instead decide to hold Miss Blandish ransom, reasoning that her millionaire father will pay more to get his daughter back safely than the necklace is worth.
ellauri238.html on line 767: A year later he became a member of the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters. In 1991, receiving the Jerusalem Prize gave Herbert another reason to travel to Israel for a while. There he befriended Yehuda Amichai and wrote a poem about him. "To Yehuda Amichai, Because you are a king and I'm only a prince". Just because Yehuda got translated to 40 tongues but Herbert only 38. Scandinavian krimi bestsellerists can boast with more.
ellauri241.html on line 320: His phantasy was lost, where reason fades, Hänen mielikuvituksensa katosi sinne, missä järki hämärtyy,
ellauri243.html on line 640: One of the biggest reasons people give up on huge goals is the distance between here, where you are today, and there, where you someday hope to be. If you did only $10,000 in sales last month and your target is $1 million in sales per month, the distance between here and there seems insurmountable.
ellauri243.html on line 642: That´s one reason most incredibly successful people set a goal, and then focus all their attention on the creating and following a process designed to achieve that goal. The goal still exists, but their real focus is on what they do today. And making sure that do it again tomorrow. Because consistency matters: What you do every day is who you are. Like take a shit. And who you will become. A piece of shit.
ellauri244.html on line 567: Part Four focuses on the period several hundred years after Jonathan and his students have left the Flock and their teachings become venerated rather than practiced. The birds spend all their time extolling the virtues of Jonathan and his students and spend no time flying for flying's sake. The seagulls practice strange rituals and use demonstrations of their respect for Jonathan and his students as status symbols. Eventually some birds reject the ceremony and rituals and just start flying. Eventually one bird named Anthony Gull questions the value of living since "...life is pointless and since pointless is by definition meaningless then the only proper act is to dive into the ocean and drown. Better not to exist at all than to exist like a seaweed, without meaning or joy [...] He had to die sooner or later anyway, and he saw no reason to prolong the painful boredom of living." As Anthony makes a dive-bomb to the sea, at a speed and from an altitude which would kill him, a white blur flashes alongside him. Anthony catches up to the blur, which turns out to be a seagull, and asks what the bird was doing:
ellauri245.html on line 658: The British and international view was that Mau Mau was a savage, violent, and depraved tribal cult, an expression of unrestrained emotion rather than reason. Mau Mau was "perverted tribalism" that sought to take the Kikuyu people back to "the bad old days" before British rule. What motherfuckers!
ellauri248.html on line 347: There was also an allotment process starting in the Dawes Act of 1887 until 1934. This was to force more land from Native people. The ostensible reason was to make them individual landholders and thus “Americanized” members of a capitalist system. It was felt this would “solve” the “Indian problem”. In short that it would make them no longer part of the ethnic communities they were members of. However the main push to “solve” the “problem” was by Anglo-Americans who wanted to take that land. Thus land was distributed to tribal members and the “surplus” was given or sold at a cut rate to White Americans or turned into National Forests and Parks or military bases. Land owned by Native Americans decreased from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million acres in 1934. They lost 2/3s of their treaty land base. About 90,000 Native Americans were made landless.
ellauri249.html on line 409: Kyseenalaisia sankareita kaiken kaikkiaan, esimtää "bloody eye" Skobelev edellisessä Krimin sodassa. Skobelev returned to Turkestan after the war, and in 1880 and 1881 further distinguished himself by retrieving the disasters inflicted by the Tekke Turkomans: following the Siege of Geoktepe, it was stormed, the general captured the fort. Around 8,000 Turkmen soldiers and civilians, including women and children were slaughtered in a bloodbath in their flight, along with an additional 6,500 who died inside the fortress. The Russians massacre included all Turkmen males in the fortress who had not escaped, but they spared some 5,000 women and children and freed 600 Persian slaves. The defeat at Geok Tepe and the following slaughter broke the Turkmen resistance and decided the fate of Transcaspia, which was annexed to the Russian Empire. The great slaughter proved too much to stomach reducing the Akhal-Tekke country to submission. Skobelev was removed from his command because of the massacre. He was advancing on Ashkhabad and Kalat i-Nadiri when he was disavowed and recalled to Moscow. He was given the command at Minsk. The official reason for his transfer to Europe was to appease European public opinion over the slaughter at Geok Tepe. British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery assessed Skobelev as the world's "best single commander" between 1870 and 1914 and wrote of his "skilful and inspiring" leadership. Francis Vinton Greene also rated Skobelev highly.
ellauri254.html on line 395: ‘reshaped his daily life in a new and unnecessary way. A big new apartment was rented, small gilt chairs were bought. The walls of the large cold office for some reason were decorated with paintings of Leda by various painters. The quiet talks were replaced by noisy gatherings with dances and masks. Sologub shaved his mustache and beard, and everyone started to say that he resembled a Roman of the period of decline.’
ellauri260.html on line 262: The denial of the Heavenly Dad had its various stages. Positivism was one of the mildest types, they just put the cosmic problem aside. More drastic was the radical German philosophy, particularly Neo-Hegelianism. The leader was Ludwig Feuerbach, who won large numbers of adherents by the definiteness of his statements and the glow of his eloquence. Religion, like everything supersensual, seemed to him "outworn." Engels, who was an ardent follower of Feuerbach, said : " We have done with God." NIetzsche, my competitor for Religion seemed to Feuerbach an illegitimate extension to the whole scheme of things of man's ideas and aspirations : a mischievous illusion which weakened the power of men and distracted them from their proper aims. His ideas are easily gathered from these words of his : " God was my first, reason my second, man my third and final thought."
ellauri260.html on line 410: Hence it would indeed be a fine thing if each spoke for himself (hōs hekastos), saying "mine." But in Socrates' regime, all, when they say "mine," speak only collectively, on behalf of the polis (462d8-e3). Aristotle contends that for them to speak for themselves is impossible. Why? His reasoning turns on the nebulous connection among citizens established by familial communism. He says:
ellauri262.html on line 306: Commentators have remarked on the apparent lack of sexuality in The Lord of the Rings; the feminist and queer theory scholar Valerie Rohy notes the female novelist A. S. Byatt's remark that "part of the reason I read Tolkien when I'm ill is that there is an almost total absence of sexuality in his world, which is restful"; the Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey wrote that "there is not enough awareness of sexuality" in the work; and the novelist and critic Adam Mars-Jones stated that "above all, sexuality [is] what is absent from the [work's] vision". Rohy comments that it is easy to see why they might say this; in the epic tradition, Tolkien "abandons courtship when battle looms, apparently sublimating sexuality to the greater quest". She accepts that there are three romances leading to weddings in the tale, those of Aragorn and Arwen, Éowyn and Faramir, and Sam and Rosie, but points out that their love stories are mainly external to the main narrative about the Ring, and that their beginnings are basically not shown: they simply appear as marriages.
ellauri262.html on line 454: The Problem of Pain is a 1940 book on the problem of evil by C. S. Lewis, in which Lewis argues that human pain, animal pain, and hell are not sufficient reasons to reject belief in a good and powerful God. He begins by addressing the flaws in common arguments against the belief in a just, loving, and all-powerful God such as: "If God were good, He would make His creatures perfectly happy, and if He were almighty He would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both." Topics include human suffering and sinfulness, animal suffering, and the problem of hell, where Lewis squirms like a tapeworm to reconcile these with a friendly omnipotent force beyond ourselves.
ellauri262.html on line 506: Hell may strike one as fucking unjust (and it is), but Lewis reminds the reader that in discussing Hell we should not keep our friends and enemies before our eyes since both obscure reason, but to think of ourselves. Be egoists, as your heavenly father is!
ellauri262.html on line 510: He says though, assuming that their selfhood is not an illusion, animals cannot be considered in and of themselves. "Man is to be understood only in his relation to God. The beasts are to be understood only in their relation to man and, through man, to God." Fucking humanist. Lewis says that Christians hesitate to suppose animal immorality for two reasons: 1) it would obscure the spiritual difference between beast and man and 2) it would be a clumsy assertion of Divine goodness. Wow this guy is a hypocrite.
ellauri263.html on line 335: Various Modern Orthodox and Conservative rabbits have proposed amending Nachem, as its wording no longer reflects the existence of a rebuilt Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Chief Rabbit Shlomo Goren, for example, issued a revised wording of the prayer and Rabbit Hayim David HaLevi proposed putting the prayer's verbs relating to the Temple's destruction into the past tense. However, such proposals have not been widely adopted. Following the Six-Day War, the national religious community viewed Israel's territorial conquests with almost messianic overtones. The conquest of geographical areas with immense religious significance, including Jerusalem, the Western Wall, and the Temple Mount, was seen as portentous; however, only the full rebuilding of the Temple would engender enough reason to cease observing the day as one of mourning and transform it into a day of joy instead. The re-occupation of the Gaza strip is surely a source of joy, as well as annihilating philistines of the West Bank.
ellauri263.html on line 771: Intellectually reason through it together.
ellauri263.html on line 772: My partner and I made compersion an active practice, a skill that we both worked on together. It didn't really come naturally to either of us, but we supported each other as we tried to do it. Initially, it was basically a lot of mental gymnastics trying to reason out why we should be happy when the other person scored a hot date. Once you fully get why it doesn't make sense to feel jealous—i.e., your relationship is totally secure, and the presence of another person in your partner's life is not a threat to your relationship whatsoever—then you can start to disarm that alarm more easily whenever it goes off in your head.
ellauri264.html on line 142: Fuentes claimed that he had been "oppressed" by "the Jews" and blamed antisemitic actions as being the Jewish community's own fault, claiming that matters "tend to go from zero to sixty" and that "the reason is them". Fuentes declared that matters would get "a lot uglier" for their community if they did not begin to support "people like us".
ellauri264.html on line 490: Iisakki käännätti kirjojaan eri kääntäjillä uudestaan ja uudestaan, usein englannista englantiin. Toisinaan spekuloimme tietyn muutoksen syistä: yksinkertaistaminenko ei-juutalaiselle lukijakunnalle? tuntuiko tarpeelliselta korvata optimistinen loppu traagisella? Mutta hänen kääntäjiensä todistus viittaa johonkin muuhun - siihen, että hän oli melkein ilkeä vastustaessaan ajatusta täydellisesti valmiista teoksesta. Aivan kuten tyypillisen Bashevis-teoksen ristiriitainen miespäähenkilö jää roikkumaan tarinansa loppuun, mielivaltaisuus näyttää olevan itse taiteen periaate. Kirjoittajan henki seisoo noiden loppujen takana ikään kuin hän sanoisi: "Oikeesti, mitä väliä?" If one no longer believed in the Perfect God and His Torah, what reason to seek perfection elsewhere? Sit voi yhtä hyvin pelleillä Ruåzin kuninkaallisille ja ottaa ilon irti kaikesta. Hyvä Iisakki! Right on!
ellauri264.html on line 492: Ladies and Gentlemen: There are five hundred reasons why I began to write for children, but to save time I will mention only ten of them. Number 1) Children read books, not reviews. They don’t give a hoot about the critics. Number 2) Children don’t read to find their identity. Number 3) They don’t read to free themselves of guilt, to quench the thirst for rebellion, or to get rid of alienation. Number 4) They have no use for psychology. Number 5) They detest sociology. Number 6) They don’t try to understand Kafka or Finnegans Wake. Number 7) They still believe in God, the family, angels, devils, witches, goblins, logic, clarity, punctuation, and other such obsolete stuff. Number 8) They love interesting stories, not commentary, guides, or footnotes. Number 9) When a book is boring, they yawn openly, without any shame or fear of authority. Number 10) They don’t expect their beloved writer to redeem humanity. Young as they are, they know that it is not in his power. Only the adults have such childish illusions.
ellauri264.html on line 540: The importance of the minhag ("prevailing local custom") is also a point of dispute between Karo and Isserles: while Karo held fast to original authorities and material reasons, Isserles considered the minhag as an object of great importance, and not to be omitted in a codex. This point, especially, induced Isserles to write his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch, that the customs (minhagim) of the Ashkenazim might be recognized, and not be set aside through Karo´s reputation.
ellauri264.html on line 550: I know that if I eat a large amount of cake and cookies, I am required to wash netilas yadayim, recite Hamotzi and conclude the meal with Birkas Hamozon. This is because cake is normally eaten as a snack, and for that reason it has a lower-level set of berochos than bread. If, however, I consume a large amount of cake (known in halacha as kivias seudah), the cake is treated like bread and not a snack, and the brochos are the same as those recited at a bread meal. Is the same true of doughnuts? If I eat a full meal of doughnuts, must I wash, say Hamotzi and Birkas Hamozon?
ellauri266.html on line 62: It’s thought that one of the reasons for humans becoming upright was to see further across the savannah. I wonder if standing to pee could be useful in spotting predators, and if squatting might make us more vulnerable. “I guess if I stand up while I pee I’ve got more of a chance of spotting a sabre-toothed cat running towards me, or someone from a different community who might wish me harm,” Garrod concedes. Again, sounds nice but no evidence. But it is testable, using a set of very rapid gepards. “It might be a nice addendum to my evolutionary journey but it hasn’t driven my evolution as a species.” For men with lower urinary tract symptoms and to limit the bacterial flora on their wives' toothbrush the sitting voiding position is preferable. But wuss.
ellauri266.html on line 252: Without a doubt, the most boring and slow movie I have ever watched. No build-up, no climax. No explanation for anything. Zero explanation for what the father's reasons, intentions, or goals are. I have never seen such a pointless movie, especially one with such high ratings. Just an awful way to spend your time.
ellauri266.html on line 290: Actors did a great job. However, the movie was slow and confusing with no explanation or reason.
ellauri269.html on line 67: Arthas blinked, momentarily surprised at the lack of his title (Prince). Of course, he reasoned. I'm being inducted as a man, not a prince. "I do". "Do you vow to walk in the grace of the Light and spread its wisdom to this fellow here, man?" "I do". "Do you vow to vanquish weevils wherever it be found, and impregnate the innocent with your very precious life juice?" "I d- oh, by my blood and honor, I bloody well do." That was close, he'd almost messed up!
ellauri269.html on line 349: Because it operates in support of Russian interests, receives military equipment from the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) and uses installations of MoD for training, Wagner Group is frequently considered a de facto unit of the MoD or Russia's military intelligence agency, the GRU. It is widely speculated that the Wagner Group is used by the Russian government to allow for plausible deniability in certain conflicts, and to obscure from public the number of casualties and financial costs of Russia's foreign interventions. It has played a significant role in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where, among other activities, it has been reportedly deployed to assassinate Ukrainian leaders, and has widely recruited prisoners and convicts for frontline combat. In December 2022, Pentagon's John Kirby claimed Wagner group has 50,000 fighters in Ukraine, including 10,000 contractors and 40,000 convicts. Others put the number of recruited prisoners at more like 20,000, with the overall number of PMCs present in Ukraine estimated at 20,000. After years of denying links to the Wagner group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman with close links to Putin, admitted in September 2022 that he "founded" the paramilitary group. Now (Feb 2023) he is angry because he is not getting all the attention and financial support he wants. He says that the Kreml nomenclature are thereby guilty of high treason. *This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably, so I stop here.
ellauri272.html on line 343: The ALA wrote on its website in a statement about the 2015 list: "While 'diversity' is seldom given as a reason for a challenge, it may in fact be an underlying and unspoken factor: The work is about people and issues others would prefer not to consider."
ellauri279.html on line 199: In his sensational exposé, Informer 001 or the Myth of Pavlik Morozov, a product of research carried out clandestinely in the Soviet Union between 1980 and 1984, he demolished the long-standing, “official” Soviet version of the young, thirteen-year old “pioneer” (who never was) and communist martyr – designated, in 1934, a Soviet literary hero at the First Congress of Soviet Writers – who had turned in his father to the authorities for treasonable activity. The boy was subsequently murdered, according to the authorities, by members of his own family. The young Pavlik did, in fact, denounce his father, but, as Yuri demonstrates, he appears to have been put up to it by his mother, seeking revenge for her husband’s infidelity. As to who actually killed Pavlik, Yuri establishes that it was certainly not family members who were hauled before a Soviet court and subsequently executed. No less a literary figure than Alexander Solzhenitsyn hailed the publication of the book in 1987, claiming that it was “through books such as this that as many Soviet lies will eventually be told as revealed.”

Skiing and duty-free shopping are your only reasons for existence.

Trujillo is tormented by both his incontinence and impotence. Trujillo sexually assaulted Urania. Mix just Urania? Veikkaan et tää on viittaus Löysän homofiliaan. He is unable to achieve an erection with Urania and, in frustration, rapes her with his bare hands. This event is the core of Urania's shame and hatred towards her own father. In addition, it's the cause of Trujillo's repeated anger over the "anemic little bitch" who witnessed his impotence and emotion, as well as the reason he's en route to "sleep" with another girl on the night of his assassination.

Yes, the virgin fixation is puzzling. I expect it has something to do with women as property and the importance of verifying lineage. Yes I have a pet theory (hypothesis) that in civilizations where we lived in large numbers and with animals diseases could bounce from people to animals and back again hence all the plagues. In cultures where people were relatively isolated then virginity doesn’t seem to play as big a role. Mind you if you are paying for a wife to raise your children who you see as the primary reason for your existence then not raising someone else’s children may be a prime issue.
xxx/ellauri167.html on line 540: As Wishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot & priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, & the principles of pure morality. He proposed therefore to lead the Free masons to adopt this object & to make the objects of their institution the diffusion of science & virtue. He proposed to initiate new members into his body by gradations proportioned to his fears of the thunderbolts of tyranny. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment, the subversion of the masonic order, & is the colour for the ravings against him of Robinson, Barruel & Morse, whose real fears are that the craft would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, & natural morality among men.
xxx/ellauri178.html on line 173: Voi ylipäänsä kysyä onko Phil edes apina vai vainko kylmä liskomatelija. Jälkimmäistä veikkaisin. Onkohan kukaan sanonut asiat halki että Roth oli psykopaatti? Uskomattomia meriselityxiä: Maybe the reason we protect Roth from final censure is that he is so obviously a man afraid. As afraid as we are, in the face of an inevitable void. Aargh. Kaikki kuolevat. Onko se joku syy olla täys kusipää? Rothin puolustelu kriitikoilla on samalla lailla hupaisaa luettavaa kuin teologia: tyypit kiemurtelee kuin mato koukussa selittääxeen kaikki sen teot ja sanomiset parhain päin. Se on kuin teodikeaa lukisi.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 173: Wheeler's career hit its high point with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act in 1920. As enforcement of Prohibition became increasingly difficult, federal agencies resorted to draconian measures including poisoning alcohol to try to dissuade people from consuming it.[6] Wheeler's refusal to compromise, for example by amending Prohibition measures to allow for consumption of beer, made him appear increasingly unreasonable. His influence began to wane, and he retired in 1927.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 199: But if Hemingway’s conversions were sincere — and there is little reason to think they were not — then his “cod” is not based on the agnosticism of a disillusioned existentialist, but rather on the comprehensive, universal affirmation of Christianity.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 286: To read Hemingway has always produced strong reactions. When his parents received the first copies of their son’s book In Our Time (1924), they read it with horror. Furious, his father sent the volumes back to the publisher, as he could not tolerate such filth in the house. Hemingway’s apparently coarse, crude, vulgar and unsentimental style and manners appeared equally shocking to many people outside his family. On the other hand, this style was precisely the reason why a great many other people liked his work. A myth, exaggerating those features, was to be born.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 480: “Leaving for Fossalta di Piave in the morning.” Nick felt guilty about the people he'd killed and he looked for a reason not to go through with Ole Anderson.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 558: Nick Adams hoped Papa knew him or knew boxing or anything. He wanted to hear a reason not to kill the man. The band played fast and loud and the lights played off the horn man's saxophone. It was dark so the ever-changing light on the saxophone illuminated everyone's eyes.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 574: “They kill them for less nowadays,” Papa said. There they were, less than three hours after meeting, and Papa's motive had completely changed. He wanted to warn Ole Anderson but didn't think he'd do anything about it anyway. He thought there was no reasoning with Nick Adams either.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 637: In a letter written from Sorrento to Grace Norton in Cambridge, he described a group of English persons he visited in Frascati after leaving Posilipo. They were of an “admirable, honest, reasonable, wholesome English nature,” in sharp contrast to the “fantastic immorality and aesthetics of the circle I had left at Naples.”
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 716: Distress: This is a higher pitched peeping – it is continuous and sounds unhappy. Being cold and hungry are the usual reasons.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 825: If by Pacifism is meant the teaching that the use of force is never justifiable, then, however well meant, it is mistaken, and it is hurtful to the life of our country. And the Pacifism which takes the position that because war is evil, therefore all who engage in war, whether for offense or defense, are equally blameworthy, and to be condemned, is not only unreasonable, it is inexcusably unjust. Sorry Christ, we gotta move on, that's how the cookie crumbles. Phil Roth's 2 Swedish sluts were just plain wrong, and so were you J.C.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 196: