Go to Naut's Thoughts
- Add a comment
- Go to Another Visit with Our Fine Feathered Friends...
I think that Jay birds are pretty
I think that Jay birds are pretty, I must say, though, that there are others that I like much better. Cardinals are one of them that I like better.
Damon
posted by
Damond
on June 30, 2007 at 1:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Wow Naut
How very pretty...thanks for the link to view!!!
posted by
Offy
on June 29, 2007 at 5:59 AM
| link to this | reply
BrightIrish
thanks! And I would love to see your birdies!
posted by
Nautikos
on November 3, 2006 at 6:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Hi .. Great pictures. Perhaps .. I'll be able to get some good picures of the birds that visit me to post for you to see.
posted by
BrightIrish
on November 2, 2006 at 9:07 PM
| link to this | reply
I like the halo of meaning image, Nautikos and you're right, there is no
dictionary definition for what is defined by behavior and action.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 1, 2006 at 5:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche, yep, I read your comment. At the end you say that you're still
looking for a clearer 'definition' of these various political labels.
However, I must tell you that definitions by themselves are useless. I used to tell certain people (I won't get into it here, but maybe you can guess) that definitions are a dime a dozen and not to bother with them until they had understood what it was they wanted to define. To de-fine something means to put boundaries around something, and you can't put boundaries around something you haven't got in the first place!
To quote myself, 'As we all know, many if not most words (and I shall restrict myself here to nouns), can mean different things to different people at different times and in different contexts. I am tempted to say that most nouns are surrounded by a halo of possible meanings, and only the context will make it clear which of the possibilities is ‘actualized’, i.e. ‘meant’ by both speaker and listener.'
How do you become familiar with that 'halo of possible meanings'? How do you even know that there is such a 'halo'? Through study! There ain't no way around it! Through reading! Through delving into and digesting and thinking about what you want to learn, in fact, through learning how to think! Because that too can be learned!
But all that takes time and effort. And in the end, definitions will emerge, almost by themselves. And you will then also understand that there are varoius valid definitions for various purposes...And everything I have said here applies not only to the world of ideas, but to all fields of enquiry, such as physics, for example...
Okay?
Next question...
posted by
Nautikos
on November 1, 2006 at 4:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, that was much earlirr that i wrote that, I went back and re-read
it and left you some comments, can't remember where, maybe on the original post.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 1, 2006 at 4:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
...skimmed !??
posted by
Nautikos
on November 1, 2006 at 4:14 PM
| link to this | reply
I did las tnight, Nautikos, I skimmed it, basically.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 1, 2006 at 8:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
cosmology is the science (basically physics) that deals with the history as well as the dynamics of the 'cosmos', i.e. our Universe...
and you didn't answer my question, whether you had looked at the neo thing...
posted by
Nautikos
on November 1, 2006 at 8:09 AM
| link to this | reply
That's the beauty of Blogit, Nautikos, it's a moveable feast, all topics
come up for contemplation. And yes, it's more complicated than that, isn't everything. What do you mean cosmology? The show I watched last night on the Discovery Channel was amazing.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 1, 2006 at 7:04 AM
| link to this | reply
And another thing, Blanche,
did you get to look at my chat with Prof Peabody? And I also, noticed that you're getting into cosmology, which happens to be one of my own 'bags'...
posted by
Nautikos
on November 1, 2006 at 6:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
just because some famous person said it doesn't make anything 'true'! And also, it's not just a question of 'concern for others' vs. 'self-interest' at all! Unfortunately it's much more complicated than that!
And how the hell did we get from feeding my blue jays into this stuff anyway...!?
posted by
Nautikos
on November 1, 2006 at 6:54 AM
| link to this | reply
MandaLee,
thanks for visiting and your comments. And there's absolutely no need to apologize for being 'nosy! There are no 'private' conversations here on Blogit, everyone is free to comment on anything that's being said!
My only complaint is that sometimes people will 'jump in' without having checked what was said before, thus taking things out of context. Again, they're free to do that, of course, but it can be annoying, and they risk not being taken seriously.
Anyway, if you're interested in this issue, and you seem to be, feel free to comment as much as you like...
posted by
Nautikos
on November 1, 2006 at 6:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, we'll have to postpone our debate to a more convenient time for
both of us. I kind of have my hands full in other areas, if you know what I mean.
However, I do want to get back into this at a more propitious time, one that's more conducive to reflection and concentration. As for the Briande/Churchill quote, it may be true that many move from a more progressive or "heart" attitude in their/our youth, to a more conservative or "brain" attitude, but there is something fundamentally flawed in the logic that I can't quite put my finger on, namely though that it implies that it is an either/or equation,and a natural progression to move from a progressive idealism and concern for others to a more self-interested conservatism. I'm not sure that I agree that it is inevitable, in fact, I am quite certain that is not.
Just because some famous person said it, does not necessarily make it true. Look at Oscar Wilde, I dislike most of what he had to say. He was quite mean.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 1, 2006 at 6:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, I am sorry for being nosy. I like and agree with your opinion on
Churchill, as mentioned in your comments to Blanche.
posted by
Amanda__
on November 1, 2006 at 6:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, great pictures! thanks for sharing our fine feathered friends
adventures with us!
Have a great day!
posted by
Amanda__
on November 1, 2006 at 6:10 AM
| link to this | reply
star4you
thank you, glad you enjoyed them!
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 7:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche,
you won't draw me into any more debates tonight...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 7:08 PM
| link to this | reply
beautiful
posted by
star4sky5
on October 31, 2006 at 6:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Wow, back atcha, Nautikos, you've given me a lot of material to digest.
and oddly enough, "Professor Peabody" nearly re-joined the other night to have a go at debating some of our regular contributors but decided that his time would be better-served on work-related projects, as tempting as it was.
So, thank you for pointing me to that link, I get a double bonus, one is your explanation of what a neo-con is, which I've wondered, and to see my own irascible yet loveable Libertarian debater in print again. Of course, I know most of his arguments by heart, lol, since we discuss them so often and do live together!
But speaking of the prof, he will be home shortly and we need sustenance of the physical kind, namely dinner, before tackling the meatier subjects of the affairs of state. it's a pleasure to banter with you, Nautikos. Who knows, some day you might see the light!
and although, technically I agree that it is the spirit of a quotation that matters most, I think that one word can change a great deal of its literal meaning, just old habits I picked up as a translator, studying Russian, words do mean a lot, even the smallest. A conservative may have no heart or a Liberal have no brain, depending on who its attributed to, the sources are always informative. Thanks and we'll chat more about this I'm sure. It's especially relevant as the elections approach here, next week. It'll be a busy day for me at the polls!
posted by
Blanche.
on October 31, 2006 at 6:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
You're raising a lot of issues, whew! Let me deal only with one thing now, 'cause it's gettin' late, and there's still other stuff I have to do.
As you know, I like to check things out, it kind of comes with the territory, lol. And in doing so, I found out that the quote many attribute to Churchill (that included myself, until now) may not have been said by him at all. Instead, it was uttered by Aristide Briand (1862-1932), who said "The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head." Briand served several terms as French prime minister, among others during WWI.
Now it's possible that Churchill said it as well, either verbatim or in some modified form. As have many others, including myself, often with slight variations in the wording. In the end it matters not at all who said it. And what is critical here is not the exact wording either, but the spirit and essence of the thought, whatever the form it takes. And whether it characterizes a not uncommon road people take in their intellectual deveopment. I happen to think it does, having observed it in myself and many others.
Also, here is nothing here that suggests that advancing years will guarantee wisdom. It clearly allows for the possibility that the wisdom leading to a conservative view of things may not be achieved.
Note also, please, that Briand does not say (nor do I) that at forty one should abandon one's heart, a conclusion that liberals (quite wrongly) like to draw, thereby unwittingly demonstrating the aptness of Briand's remark...
Now, for that whole business of what's meant by the terms 'liberal', 'progressive' and 'conservative' - the way these terms have shifted over time (e.g. Jefferson was a liberal, but not the kind of liberal today's liberal would recognize as a liberal, but he was certainly recognized by the liberals of his day as a liberal, lol), and the same applies to conservatives, which is why we get that neo thing (which I actually wrote a post about, if you want to take a look, it's here http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Nautikos/342800, and you may like it because you will find some of Prof Peabody's comments as well). Anyway, see where this is heading? Into very deep waters, far to deep for me tonight...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 6:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, when I'm more inspired, I'll look up that Churchhill quote, and
see. I don't think that age is a guarantor of wisdom, it merely provides the opportunity. However, I am interested in exploring the roots and origins of the terms "liberal", "progressive" and "conservative" and what that actually means. They seem to keep shifting.
In my terms, I suppose one thing as a progressive, is that the government can and should provide for certain programs: the highways, electricity, schools, regulation of safety of air and traffic, regulation of labor standards and safety, social security pensions, and in the best of all worlds, health care.
I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal" and "conservative" and I'm curious to find out, since you seem fairly well-spoken and rational for one. 
posted by
Blanche.
on October 31, 2006 at 2:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
Churchill didn't mean that one would become conservative through the acqusition of property. He
did mean one would become conservative through the acquisition of learning and wisdom!
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 12:53 PM
| link to this | reply
I need to refresh my memory on that Churchill quote, Nautikos, because
if I'm understanding it correctly, he wasn't saying that it was a good thing, necessarily to be a conservative after 40, merely making the observation that when someone is younger they're more fired up with idealism, as they get older and have accumulated property which they want to protect, they are more concerned with protecting their property, hence the term, "conservative" than with their earlier ideals.
Not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 31, 2006 at 12:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
I got rid of my mistaken political beliefs a long time ago, all by myself, actually. Remember the discussion we had about that famous Churchill quote?
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 12:39 PM
| link to this | reply
SoloWriter,
thanks for dropping in!
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 12:37 PM
| link to this | reply
OFFBEATS
thanks! I'm not so sure about that 'wonderful person' part, but I accept gratefully what is given...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 12:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Hm, oh, credibility, Nautikos, yeah, that's a big problem in Hollywood, lol
And yes, I do like pulling your leg, you have all these mistaken political ideas that I'd love to disabuse you of.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 31, 2006 at 7:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Enjoyed seeing your bird friend. :)
posted by
Jenasis
on October 31, 2006 at 6:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Omg I love those pictures! Such pretty birds and wonderful person making sure they are fed!!
posted by
Offy
on October 31, 2006 at 6:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
Sheesh, you really like pulling my leg, don't you? LOL! Am I responsible for the way the movie industry does it's casting? I should be so bloody lucky! All I am talking about is the 'credibility' factor on the screen! 
Personally, I like 'em ancient...well, that ain't quite true, actually...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 6:08 AM
| link to this | reply
Tanga,
thanks for the comments. I can see how bird feeders in your part of the world would be a waste of time. It would be a bit like trying to sell apples in Paradise.
And while you may not have any blue jays, I'm sure you've got a great variety of colorful birds we wouldn't even know of, unless we were ornithologists, which I am not!
posted by
Nautikos
on October 31, 2006 at 5:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, hm, I am doing some mental math here about med school,
and law school. I have some personal experience in corporate law (as a clerk/assistant). At the gigantic firm that I worked at here in Seattle, I knew several female junior associates in corporate law, who were at most early 30s. To get an undergraduate degree takes only 4 years, add another 3 (maybe 2) for a JD out of law school, and a woman could have her JD and be a full-fledged lawyer, and pass the bar exam, by the time she was oh, say, she could even be 24 or 25.
I knew a few, who couldn't have been more than early 30s, as junior associates. Hm, although working their way up to become partner will take time, but still they're not exactly ancient.
About med school, BS in 4 yrs., another 3 yrs for med school, a residency or internship for 2 or 3 yrs. that adds up to oh, say, 26 or 27, maybe 28, still under 30. Sheesh, Nautikos, you like 'em young, if you think 30 is over the hill!
No wonder Shari, is looking good!
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 11:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Beautiful birds
and great shots. What a pity we do not get them here. I am trying to set up a feeder for the birds, but as yet this has proved unsuccessful. I think the reason being that there is an abundance of food available already on the farm
posted by
Tanga
on October 30, 2006 at 10:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
oh, about 22.5! Seriously though, I am not suggesting that what I am saying here is my position, believe me, it is not. However, when it comes to women's roles, age and appearance are obviously more important factors than 'credibility'.
Let me give you one example. One would not cast a twentyfive year-old male in the role of a successful corporate lawyer, but I remember a female in that role in a movie I saw last year, the title of which escapes me, and I don't think I ever knew her name. It was ludicrous.
The producers obviously said, well, we gotta have a woman here as a 'role model', but of course she has to be young and attractive and have 'curves', to appeal to the male audience. Well, successful corporate lawyers are in their forties and fifties, that's the way the world is. But I guess they couldn't find an attractive actress in her forties or fifties that was available, so they got themselves a girl of about twentyfive, who looked decorative enough but had no 'substance' at all! It was more like a junior secretary ordering her bosses around!
Now, I'm sure there are female corporate lawyers out there. But you wouldn't find a credible version in the movies, mainly because of the conflicting demands of 'role model' and 'curves', and curves always win.
That's my point, in a nutshell, more or less...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 8:09 PM
| link to this | reply
Hm, past the age of romantic interest, Naut, which is what?
I actually meant that this woman lacked a little more substance in her anatomy.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 7:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi,
if you were to feed them a bit more, I'm sure they would be fatter, and I suspect it would also improve their disposition...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 6:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
I would never had noticed your slip, since I don't know the actor any more than I know your neighbour.
But I agree with you on that psychiatrist. Do you know how many years it takes to be a licensed psychiatrist? That one would have had to enter medical school practically out of kindergarten to have made it by her age. The problem is, of course, that by the time you are a woman 'of substance' you're generally past the point of being of 'romantic interest'. Which is why you always have these totally unbelievable female doctors and lawyers floating around movies and television...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 6:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
The Blue Jays here are not nearly so blue or fat and have a terrible disposition.
posted by
Justi
on October 30, 2006 at 6:07 PM
| link to this | reply
There's a Freudian slip Nautikos, I meant "Mark Wahlberg", Wahlstrom is
the name of my neighbor down the hall, who supposedly had his car stolen, taken on a joy ride the other weekend and crashed, the police were looking for him and did not at first believe that it was not him driving. Very interesting.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 6:04 PM
| link to this | reply
No, the violence got to be a little much, too fast to avert my eyes, bloody
but integral to the plot, I think. Mark Wahlstrom as Capt. Queenan's assistant (Martin Sheen) really did a great job, he's a better actor than I realized.
DiCaprio and Damon have matured beyond mere "pretty boys", too. Nicholson is in a class by himself, so is Martin Sheen and Alec Baldwin, they're all great actors, the only casting I had questions about was the psychiatrist, the lead actress, who I think is an unknown I've never seen before. She did not look like a femme fatale to me, not Grace Kelly by any means, but then she's irreplaceable.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 6:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
a really excellent review! I'm proud of you! Now, other than Jack N. and Martin Sheen I didn't know any of the actors, since I don't go t the movies much. I did like the intricacies of the plot, so that it wasn't just an exercise in gratuitous violence, as is the case with a lot of movies today.
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 5:58 PM
| link to this | reply
l LOVED The Departed, Nautikos, we saw it last weekend, here's my review
See what you think:
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Blanche011587/
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 5:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
well, I did of course not forget Grace Kelly, how could I? I just didn't remember that she was in that movie...
Talking about movies, I went to see 'The Departed' last night, mainly because I like Jack Nicholson, one of my favourite actors. And he played it well, as always, with that wonderful smirk of his...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 5:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut, really, who could forget Grace Kelly, so sad to die so young and
tragically, even as the Princess of Monaco, the fairy tale princess.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 5:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
I just went on a little research trip of my own, and googled it. It was Grace, we're both right! Of course, you're righter, because you suggested it first, and I couldn't remember at all who it was. How I could have forgotten Grace Kelly I'll never know...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 5:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Grace Kelly, Naut, I checked on IMDB, just fyi
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 5:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Nana,
you're a woman after my own heart! And I am not surprised at all at Mr. Short Beak's reaction to your leaving! I would have done exactly the same!
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 5:17 PM
| link to this | reply
ginnieb
you may want to wait for spring though, it's beginning to get chilly...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 5:09 PM
| link to this | reply
I'll try to keep an open mind and erase the old programming, Naut, it's an
ongoing project, I will admit, and sometimes Im better at it than others, but at least I am aware. And you're right, it's Rear Window.
The lead actress was probably Kim Novak, Hitchcock only used classic blondes like Kim or Grace Kelly, so it was probably one of those two, I can't recall which.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 5:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
boy, that's an oldie! I saw it years ago on the tube, I remember James Stewart played the lead, I can't remember who his lady was, though. But I also think it was called Rear Window, not Rear View Window.
And you should keep an open mind and promptly get rid of your grandfather-induced prejudices about blue jays...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 5:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I had a pet blue jay with a broken beak that I called 'Mister Short Beak'- he came to my window every day for peanuts and I could hand feed him. I would buy him peanuts even when I was too poor to buy anything else! The day I moved out, he actually flew into the window, surveyed all the boxes while sitting on a big plant in the middle of the room, and then squawked, pooped and flew out!
posted by
Nanaroo
on October 30, 2006 at 5:01 PM
| link to this | reply
It is Naut...I whisper to them to go back...
...and take me with them!
posted by
ginnieb
on October 30, 2006 at 4:45 PM
| link to this | reply
On the other hand, I still have that childhood aversion to them from when
my grandfather was chasing them away from his chickenhouse where they were stealing eggs. It's just early programming, hard to change that.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 4:43 PM
| link to this | reply
That sounds like your own version of "Rear View Window", Naut,
except with birds instead of bodies.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 4:36 PM
| link to this | reply
ginnieb
thanks. Yes, I think of them as typically Canadian birds myself, so if you get a few down your way, it's like a bit of home...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 4:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche.
they are mischievous, and also quite clever. Earlier this fall, when my oh-so-familiar-and-tedious condition forced me to spend a lot of time on a couch, I always chose the one that allowed me to watch them, and it was a lot of fun and really made things easier...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 4:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, blackcat,
and I'll let the jays know that you're only a
virtual black cat, that in reality you're a lady that can be trusted not to chase birds, at least I don't think you would...
posted by
Nautikos
on October 30, 2006 at 4:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Haha! Love your post Naut!
Awesome photos too! I get very excited when I see a blue jay here!
posted by
ginnieb
on October 30, 2006 at 3:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, they look very mischievous, those blue jays.
Good shots you got of them there, too.
posted by
Blanche.
on October 30, 2006 at 2:56 PM
| link to this | reply
nice photos!
posted by
-blackcat
on October 30, 2006 at 2:52 PM
| link to this | reply