Wow, one of the most insane, hate filled sites I\’ve come across. Learn a little about American history, engineering and physics before posting slander as fact. Just because you put up terrible images isn\’t enough to convey truth but I guess that tactic has worked well for the government since the Sept 11 \’attack\’. Just ask yourself, if Muslims really hated this country, why would they attack ONCE and suddenly stop for over 10 years. Like you\’ve stated, they have migrated here in greater numbers since 91 so why stop with a single attack? Has our security gotten that good? Maybe the TSA agents are responsible for thwarting new attacks? In America, the law states you are innocent until proven guilty, lawyers only need to prove a reasonable doubt. So far there are no facts on this subject (you certainly haven\’t shown any). If I was a jury member reasonable doubt is all I\’d be filled with. Next time when you write fiction like this at least note it above the article so I can grab a bowl of popcorn before I sit down to read.
This resignation is not the same as messiness or moral ambiguity. It is, in fact, its opposite. Ambiguity wants desperately to know, and not just to know but to know in spades. A writer like Chew-Bose pursues multiple interpretations for why people do what they do and what it means about who they are, leaving in her wake a trail of confused feelings, theories, and metaphors; evidence that she has circled the truth like a dog has stalked its dinner—from all angles. Gaitskill never even makes the attempt. For her, there exists no obvious relationship between the complexity of human experience and the profusion of prose; no need for qualification or subordination, the pile-up of pretty phrases to approximate an awful truth that will only recede before us. For Gaitskill, part of growing up as a writer has been learning to accept “my own stringent limitations when it comes to giving form to impossible complexity.” For her reader, it feels refreshing to finally have a grownup in the room, laying down the law but not really caring whether you follow it or not.
William Irvine : A lot of philosophers, professional philosophers, who have an interest in Stoicism have an academic interest in Stoicism. So to play the academic game well, and I have played the game, because it’s what you want to do, it’s what you have to do if you want to have a career in philosophy. Well, what you do is you look at ancient texts that have been already looked at thousands of times. You write a paper about what the text says so some other academic somewhere else can write another paper that challenges your paper. Back and forth.