sell your ride
post your service
sell your stuff
post your class
browse all jobs
post a job
homes for sale
for sale by owner
post your listing
If you're looking for "I Spys," dating or LTRs, this is your scene.
If you're looking for full-on kink or group play, you'll get what you need here.
There is a basic misunderstanding about art underlying this essay. Art's purpose is most assuredly not "to make us see the world in new ways". Seeing the world in new ways may be a side effect of witnessing an effective work of art, but it is not "the purpose" of this most mysterious and human of activities. So far, nobody has managed to come up with a satisfying, comprehensive explanation as to why humans make art, any more than anyone has been able to articulate a workable definition of the word "art". To reduce it intellectually to a single "purpose" is a common mistake caused by desperation at the prospect of grappling with the actual complexity of the thing and the profundity and multiplicity of its roots. Such reductionism is also responsible for the decidedly minor importance of the works produced by those who engage in it, such as the film that is this essay's subject. It's nice, I suppose, that Duchamp could bore and annoy us on purpose, but I certainly don't need to turn to his film to experience these emotions, and, having experienced them, have I really learned much of anything?
Boo hiss. This kind of repressive nonsense has no place in Vermont. Teachers do the most important job there is, preparing our children to create the future, and how do we reward them? Very poorly. When school boards uniformly and routinely treat teachers with the support and respect they deserve, when communities compensate the people who educate their children in a manner commensurate with the importance and difficulty of the task, and when administrators understand that their sole function is to arrange things so as to enable teachers to do their jobs, then it might be time to forbid teachers to strike for better wages and conditions. Not before. It is a shameful act of aggression against working people to take away their last resort tool against unfairness and oppression. The legislators who voted for this should be ashamed of themselves.
The virus that infects a child or immuno-compromised adult is real. The effects of that infection are real. The protection against them provided by vaccination is real. The "philosophical" objection to vaccination exists only in some person's head along with the selfishness delusion and ignorance that are the basis for that objection. Your right to think whatever you want does not override society's right to protect its children, and it certainly does not dispose of the factual basis for providing such protection through vaccination. The "philosophical" objection is harmful, wrong, and aburd. It should go!
What kind of idiots make known, respected, long term employees apply and interview for their own jobs, just to decide whom to lay off? Seriously, if that's the quality of management at the Free Press, no wonder it's sinking fast. And a "newsroom of the future" isn't going to save it. This is practically a parody of clueless MBA desperation. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Many good memories. Our family grew up with this restaurant, and I never had a bad meal there. Much warmth and laughter. I wish good luck to the owners and their family in whatever they may do next.