Are Proud Boyz vandalizing Trump golf courses, because what liberal cuts down a tree?
Why would environmental activists attack the trees on Trump golf courses, considering that authentic activists would much prefer to occupy them.
The real damage is the rising costs of Trump golf vacations, Secret Service now at $36,000 in golf cart costs billed to the US taxpayer while also going To Trump as income.
Unfortunately, eco-terror is supposed to be higher on the domestic terror watch list than the RWNJ sovereign citizen / secession / white supremacist idiots presumably because of property damage.
This time, the Trump Golf Links at Ferry Point in New York fell victim. Three vandals allegedly broke onto the course and cut down four trees Tuesday morning, according to CNN. …
A similar incident happened in March at Trump National Golf Club in California. Activists broke in and carved “No more tigers. No more wood,” into the green.
The 'anonymous environmental activist collective' snuck into the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes, California and carved the phrase 'NO MORE TIGERS, NO MORE WOODS' near the fifth hole's green.
The group said the act was a rebellion against the Trump administration's 'blatant disregard' for the environment.
In a statement, the anonymous environmental group said: 'In response to the president’s recent decision to gut our existing protection policies, direct action was conceived and executed on the green of his California golf course in the form of a simple message: NO MORE TIGERS. NO MORE WOODS.'
www.dailymail.co.uk/…
Tree sitting is a form of environmentalist civil disobedience in which a protester sits in a tree, usually on a small platform built for the purpose, to protect it from being cut down (speculating that loggers will not endanger human lives by cutting an occupied tree). Supporters usually provide the tree sitters with food and other supplies.
Tree sitting is often used as a stalling tactic, to prevent the cutting of trees while lawyers fight in the courts to secure the long-term victories.
Tree-sitting was once a children's pastime. In the early 1930s, when endurance contests raged across the U.S., it became a child's contest for kids to climb into their backyard trees and, serviced by siblings and local businesses, attempt to win prizes for the longest sit.[1]
As for me I am doing mosquito abatement...
… I did better still, for I spaded up all the land which I required, about a third of an acre, and I learned from the experience of both years, … that if one would live simply and eat only the crop which he raised, and raise no more than he ate, and not exchange it for an insufficient quantity of more luxurious and expensive things, he would need to cultivate only a few rods of ground, and that it would be cheaper to spade up that than to use oxen to plow it, and to select a fresh spot from time to time than to manure the old, and he could do all his necessary farm work as it were with his left hand at odd hours in the summer.[4]
I came to love my rows, my beans… They attached me to the earth, and so I got strength like Antæus. But why should I raise them? Only Heaven knows. This was my curious labor all summer — to make this portion of the earth’s surface, which had yielded only cinquefoil, blackberries, johnswort, and the like, before, sweet wild fruits and pleasant flowers, produce instead this pulse. What shall I learn of beans or beans of me? I cherish them, I hoe them, early and late I have an eye to them; and this is my day’s work.[7]
simplicitycollective.com/…
"Proud of Your Boy" is a song with music by Alan Menken and lyrics by Howard Ashman that was cut from the original 1992 Disney animated film Aladdin, only to be brought back for the film's stage musical adaption in 2011.
The inclusion of the song has led to some critiques of the structure of songs on the musical, as now it is placed alongside a song that replaced it in the film. Variety said "That ballad, written for the film and later cut, is undeniably pretty, but emblematic of one of the problems the show’s creators need to address. “Disney’s Aladdin” has few truly earnest moments — so few that they feel out of place; they deflate next to the buoyant hijinks bracketing them. Either the transitions between the two need to be massaged or the show needs to go all-in with broad comedy and leave the tearjerking for another day."[2]
The song has become a running joke on The Gavin McInnes Show, a podcast hosted by Anthony Cumia's Compound Media. McInnes, a right-wing media personality, was exposed to the song at a children's talent show in December 2015 and took immediate dislike to the perceived self-loathing nature of the lyrics. The song has been played in its entirety on the show on several occasions, and is frequently referenced by callers and in-studio guests.[3]
Proud Boys is a far-right men's organization[1][2][3] founded in 2016 by commentator Gavin McInnes. McInnes describes the organization as a "pro-Western fraternal organization" for men who "refuse to apologize for creating the modern world."[4] They also subscribe to "no wanks" a rule which bans masturbation.[5]
Have a great weekend!
Saturday, May 13, 2017 · 2:24:55 AM +00:00 · annieli
I doubt these experts are being modest about the personal benefits of expertise. Their skepticism seems sincere, and it seems borne out by familiar stories about Freud’s mendacity, James’s anxiety, Jung’s psychosis, Wittgenstein’s weirdness, Heidegger’s fascism.
But we shouldn’t reject the Socratic principle based on mere opinion and anecdotes. We need rigorous studies of the effects of expertise in the human condition. Here is what I predict such studies will show:
Prolonged investigation of mind, morality and the meaning of life can have positive and negative effects on certain individuals. It helps some experts become kinder and more content, while it makes others more anxious or arrogant.
But in most cases expertise does not significantly alter temperament. If you were a miserable jerk at 20, you will still be one at 40 or 60, in spite of your training in philosophy, psychoanalysis or neuroscience. If you are blessed with a sanguine temperament, like Christof Koch, delving into the human condition won’t harsh your mellow.
If empirical tests falsify the Socratic principle, should humanities professors like me stop telling students that “the unexamined life is not worth living”? Let me pose that question more broadly: if delving deeply into the human condition cannot make us better people, or yield definitive answers, why bother?
Because better humanities professors would not need to ask why bother, and that posing the question only makes sense to reactionaries or anti-humanists. The best humanists can accept the need to have empirical tests falsify the Socratic principle knowing that generalizing from such tests is constrained by cultural scale and scope, aside from the usual problems of ideology.