TypePad won't allow me to upload this. Go find it.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lh69yCkHIVLi/
“Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.”
“Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them.”
"When either the motivation or the ability to process issue-relevant arguments is low, attitudes may be changed by associating an issue position with various affective cues, or people may attempt to form a reasonable opinion position by making an inference about the likely correctness or desirability of a particular attitude position based on cues such as message discrepancy, one's own behavior, and the characteristics of the message source." Petty and Cacciopo, "Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion."
Here's my great aunt Ida Myers Seidell in her hot, hot roadster. Ida was my maternal grandmother's sister. She married Jake Seidell and moved to Racine Wisconsin (from Cincinnati) to open a drinking establishment. During Prohibition those drinks were frequently transferred into the trunk of that roadster on a dark lane somewhere near the Canadian border.
One of the reasons I love museums is that most of them I've dealt with LOVE to help the public. I sent this picture to the Cincinnati History Museum and got the following reply:
The picture that you have is of the Miami and Erie Canal at what is now Central Parkway in Cincinnati. The building in the lower right corner of the picture is 15 W. Central Parkway and currently houses the main office of AAA. The hill in the background is Mt. Adams, and the bridge over the canal in the center left is where Vine Street crossed the canal. The picture was taken around 1916, and is looking towards the East.
Did you know that the word "bead" comes from the Old English word "gebed," meaning ask or pray? As in "prayer bead." (We've added "prayer" to the term because we've forgotten what "bead" originally meant.)
And a rosary (rosaria) is a garland of roses.
In common parlance, a cat's paw is a person who is used as a dupe to serve someone else's interests, but where did it come from? According to the OED, it refers to “the fable or tale of a monkey (or a fox) using the foot or paw of a cat to rake roasted chestnuts out of the burning coals.” The earliest use in English was in 1657 in a political pamphlet by one Michael Hawke: “These he useth as the Monkey did the Cat’s paw to scrape the nuts out of the fire.” Fans of Fontaine will recognize this as the plot of "Le Singe et le Chat."
Loki is the trickster god of Norse mythology. At one point in the Prose Edda, a 12th century compilation of Norse mythology by the Icelandic poet Snorri Sturluson, Loki wagers his own head in a bet with the dwarf Brokkr. Loki loses the bet but doesn't lose his head because he insists that his neck was never included in the bargain. Since Loki and Brokkr cannot reach a consensus as to where Loki's neck ends and his head begins, the dispute remains forever unresolved, and Loki retains his head. It's pretty much the same principle as the "pound of flesh but not a drop of blood" in The Merchant of Venice.
In the theory of argumentation, the fallacy of Loki's Wager is "the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed." It tends to be used, whether intentionally or not, as a stalling or diversionary tactic which ensures that the real issue need never be debated because there can be no consensus on the terms of debate. In my opinion, it lies somewhere between a red herring and an equivocation on the continuum of logical errors. It is also one of the most commonly seen fallacies on the internet, especially in political debate, and sometimes devolves into name calling when the term that is being negotiated is one of opprobrium, like "terrorist," "murderer," or "liar." Usually this happens when such terms are broadened rather than narrowed so that the term of opprobrium threatens to wash over the opposing party in the debate. For example, most people can agree that they are against "murder" when it is defined as "the unlawful taking of a human life with malice aforethought," but when one party of the debate insists on defining "murder" as any form of killing and then calls for the killing of animals for food to be condemned as murder, the ethics of a commitment to vegetarianism can never be argued because the debate will remain forever in the realm of contested definitions -- obviously so, since meat-eaters cannot agree to call themselves murderers. A brief survey of the blogosphere will reveal Loki's Wager in active use for practically every contested issue in the body politic, from abortion to Iraq to globalization to fast food to health insurance to cigarette smoking.
This is not to say that arguments about word boundaries are invalid, but that an insistence on boundaries that can't be agreed upon is a barrier to further debate on issues that require consensus if those terms are to be used. The solution is to set aside the semantic debate and use mutually acceptable terminology to continue the discussion. This can't be done when the contested term forms the philosophical basis or warrant of the debate. It is virtually impossible to argue the abortion issue without a consensus on the word "person," for instance, and since the definition of the word "person" is the basis of the disagreement it is impossible to set it aside.
The first pic is the wedding photo of my great grandparents, Christina Hauser and Herman Kinz. Herman didn't last long after this was taken. The wedding was on June 20, 1887 at St. Francis Seraph Catholic Church in Cincinnati, Ohio. Herman died on Nov. 8, 1888, and my grandmother, also named Christina, but generally known as Nellie, was born on April 26, 1888. So she was a posthumous child who grew up with a step-father, Vincent Pelzel, and a large number of younger step-sisters and brothers. The second pic is the wedding photo of Christina and Vincent.