![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Scattered Fleurys
Mar. 26th, 2006 10:37 pm
High today, here: 7. Dewpoint then: -6. High dewpoint: -1.
High today in TO: 7. Dewpoint then: -5. High dewpoint: -1.
Low today on the balcony: -0.8. High: 7.2. Currently: 2.3.
Picking up Fleury to play against the obviously tired Habs obviously wasn't such an obviously bright move. Yikes. And the dead-in-the-water Leafs are now seven points back of the free-falling Devils. And tomorrow's another day. Life goes on, until it doesn't.
Trying to finally finish off the Republic tonight, before going off early tomorrow for another day of student papers, this time at York, to, like, Support The Scene, man. Unless I wake up in the morning feeling unsupportive. I think I'm feeling a bit less supportive all the time. Quid pro quo, Dr. Lecter.
Today's bit of Plato intrigue: in Book X, amid the discussion on why art needs to be banned from the city, Socrates says that if Homer was so wise, he would've been celebrated by the people in his own time (I have no idea whether it was actually supposed in Plato's time to be a fact that Homer was neglected in his own time, but Socrates assumes that to be the case)--look how much people today love the sophists. Now, this looks really bad for the idea that Socrates really wants to banish the poets. You could make the comment about the sophists go away by interpreting it to mean "even those idiot sophists are more widely acclaimed than Homer was", but you can't make their earlier agreement that the true philosopher will be vilified go away.
Down the pipe from angus-reid.com: a lot of polls over a long time showing a definite trend toward a sea change coming in the US mid-term elections. The only question is, will all the analysis of why the Democrats will continue to lose forever stop before they actually win. (Here, again, the usefulness of sports: when teams lose, the analysts come up with the reasons they lost; in light of the reasons they lost, it is inevitable that they lost, and until the reasons they lost go away, it is inevitable that they will never win. But most of why a team loses a particular game, or a particular series, is accidental and/or hidden from public view. (If the Habs had lost today, there would've been no way they could've won their third game in four nights after two huge games against the Leafs. Instead, the Penguins were helpless in the face of a red-hot juggernaut.))
High today in TO: 7. Dewpoint then: -5. High dewpoint: -1.
Low today on the balcony: -0.8. High: 7.2. Currently: 2.3.
Picking up Fleury to play against the obviously tired Habs obviously wasn't such an obviously bright move. Yikes. And the dead-in-the-water Leafs are now seven points back of the free-falling Devils. And tomorrow's another day. Life goes on, until it doesn't.
Trying to finally finish off the Republic tonight, before going off early tomorrow for another day of student papers, this time at York, to, like, Support The Scene, man. Unless I wake up in the morning feeling unsupportive. I think I'm feeling a bit less supportive all the time. Quid pro quo, Dr. Lecter.
Today's bit of Plato intrigue: in Book X, amid the discussion on why art needs to be banned from the city, Socrates says that if Homer was so wise, he would've been celebrated by the people in his own time (I have no idea whether it was actually supposed in Plato's time to be a fact that Homer was neglected in his own time, but Socrates assumes that to be the case)--look how much people today love the sophists. Now, this looks really bad for the idea that Socrates really wants to banish the poets. You could make the comment about the sophists go away by interpreting it to mean "even those idiot sophists are more widely acclaimed than Homer was", but you can't make their earlier agreement that the true philosopher will be vilified go away.
Down the pipe from angus-reid.com: a lot of polls over a long time showing a definite trend toward a sea change coming in the US mid-term elections. The only question is, will all the analysis of why the Democrats will continue to lose forever stop before they actually win. (Here, again, the usefulness of sports: when teams lose, the analysts come up with the reasons they lost; in light of the reasons they lost, it is inevitable that they lost, and until the reasons they lost go away, it is inevitable that they will never win. But most of why a team loses a particular game, or a particular series, is accidental and/or hidden from public view. (If the Habs had lost today, there would've been no way they could've won their third game in four nights after two huge games against the Leafs. Instead, the Penguins were helpless in the face of a red-hot juggernaut.))
