That would save time, effort, money and a possible health risk, depending on the age of the building. Anything before 1977-80 is likely to contain asbestos.

Not surprising, then, they figure so largely in painting and literature.

I do like those; very delicate and sheer. Bright mornings will be like a cool forest glade; gloomy ones, like a melancholy reflection. That would work very well with a darkish blue wall - it's not bad, next to that bright blue, but that shade would be way too much for a whole room. Of course you could go deep burnt orange for the wall colour and that would be reminiscent of sunset.

Two small projects done today:
I sealed the front door. Have to do it every winter, because both the outer and inner door fit poorly into the frame. We meant to replace it some time ago, but no standard door will fit, and it's too big a job to replace the whole frame.
And I cleaned and defrosted the chest freezer. That has to wait for cold weather so I can put the bins of contents on the back porch. The damn thing is always full! It's a job I absolutely hate, but I do enjoy the extra space without 2" of frost buildup on the walls and being able to find things again.

We seriously need to expand the discussion of fascism as an economic organization that can improve our lives. — Athena

Not here, I think. Only let me observe that taking good ideas from other developed or developing nations does not logically require that you also follow their political regime.

I have to say what a pleasure it is to discuss things with a person who is so well-informed. — Athena

I can't really accept the compliment, since I didn't know many of those facts - or only the broad outlines - until I looked them up. I do a lot of research for my work, so I've developed a nose for good sources.

I have two big books of astronomy photos that I've used as models for paintings for my SO's office wall. (He's a physicist and big fan of Carl Sagan). Nebulae are especially stunning.

Quite an undertaking! I never quite mastered the list of 19th century novelists when I was younger: after Turgenev, when I input another one, a previous one fell out. (Happily, Trollope made it) At my current age, when I learn a new name, some random datum falls out and I spend half an hour searching for the flashlight I put down five minutes before or forget to turn off the stove under the beans until I smell them burning.

It's not a sunset, but worth looking at: today's astronomy picture. https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Don't get too cocky; it slides down to 23rd when scores are adjusted for GDP. Some smaller, poorer countries (Estonia being at the top) deliver services more economically. I.e. don't waste so much. It's humbling to see Canada below Mexico and Korea on that adjusted scale, but at least the UK is a little more wasteful than we are.
An effective civil service is vital to a nation's well-being and with big, diverse populations, it had better be well organized to be any use at all. If Germany got its act together sooner, their example was worth following. However, the US civil service was reformed in 1978 and again 20 years later, with more changes and cutbacks introduced in the present century, so it's a long way from the post-war model by now. Political appointments to the directorships of departments are huge drawback in policy-making and employee participation, as well as risk management - which is presumably why its effectiveness is waning. Of course, if the Trumpites take over, it'll just be torn down anyway.

Here's another fun fact: A New Hampshire boy named Benjamin Thompson, later Count Rumford, was instrumental in introducing 'modern' social services to Bavaria in the 1780's.
He was considered a traitor to America, since he was in the British colonial army and would not betray it. Having been discharged with the rank of colonel, he drifted over to the continent and did a lot of social organizing as well as military and civil inventing in Bavaria. Munich put up a statue while he was still alive, in appreciation of his work.
Hardly anything is as simple as it looks.

First, it would help to define a "moral fact".
It is a fact that the concept of morality is a human human concept. It is a fact that a human infant has no grasp of this concept. It is a fact that all human societies have some moral precepts, which they enshrine in their rules of behaviour and teach to their young. It is a fact that every culture elaborates some variants of basic rules of human interaction; many are similar, but no two are identical.
However, the content of a code cannot be factual, as it consists of dictums, not statements.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." for example, may sound like a statement of fact, but it is merely an instruction. The speaker does not have any way of knowing or proving that the hearer obeys.

I believe any such refutations rest on the definitions of the three words: Exist, moral and fact. They can be quite elastic as to usage. Not merely the so-called goal-posts in a discussion can be moved considerable distances, but the whole arena may be relocated with the meaning of a word.

No country's actual history lives up to its mythology, never mind its patriotic hype.
If it's any consolation, the US civil service ranks 11th in effectiveness (this year - it's been in the top 10 before) and Germany was way down at 24th in 2017. This is interesting.

I want an emoticon banging its head on a wall. Our governing organization in 1775 didn't come close to the Prussian Military Industrial Complex that now defines the US and all modern industrial countries today. — Athena

Great oaks from little acorns grow. Before the war of independence, the only army was Britain's. Having convinced Britain that it was too costly to wage a transoceanic war against colonies reinforced by French and Spanish assistance, the new republic could set about building its own. By 1860, it had two regular armies. By the end of the 19th century, the US was a world power.

n 1898, Cuban activists launched a war of independence from Spain, and the US intervened on their side.... but pro-imperialists succeeded in placing it under a quasi-imperialist sphere of influence.... The war also ended with the US taking three other Spanish possessions: Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, a massive and populous island nation in the Pacific. The US had become a European-style imperial power.

**
In 1917-18, the land forces were completely reorganized and bulked up and equipped to the level of any in the world. Since 1943, it's been the biggest, baddest, most outrageously expensive military force the world has ever known, and the US has been dominating the world.
** The article is worth a look - it has good maps.

You can't have all that exceptionalness without breaking a few countries and organizing up a pretty big military-economic-political complex.
The USofA has been at war with somebody though pretty much its entire existence. And its thriving industry has always been a great supporter (and supplier) of those wars; reciprocally, the army (and black ops) was always available to safeguard American enterprise in foreign lands. Friends with benefits, as it were. Even if it meant overthrowing a democratic government or any kind, really, when they threatened US business interests.

There could be a whole thread just to explore the relationship between religion and economics. — Athena

Maybe so. But since high Anglicans, Methodists, Catholics and all sorts appreciate wealth accumulation, they all preyed on the New World one way or another. AFAIK, only the Quakers objected to slavery.

We should all just beat each other into a pulp — I like sushi

Well, that would solve the human problem.

A world full of pacifists would be a miserable world lacking in drive, ambition and emotion. — I like sushi

Do you mean that violence is the only appropriate response to all stimuli?

There was a traveling exhibit of Turner paintings at our local art gallery some years ago. It lasted a month and we went into town five or six times, just to see it again. Reproductions are all very well... but, oh, how I'd like a chance to visit the Tate!



There is a certain magic about pine trees. When I was ten, we spent some eight months in Ireland, in a military base. It had along one perimeter a triple row of great tall scotch pines. Easy to climb, a deep cushion of brown needles on the floor in case you fall, and you never quite get the resin or the scent out of your clothes. To my little gang of outlaws, that was Sherwood Forest. It was a time and place out of real life; an interval of total, joyous freedom. Thanks for reminding me!

There's no smilie for that. I'm shocked and appalled! All the same, I'm rooting for you.

She might have very little poetry in her soul... or perhaps she's just very young and earnest and has not yet discovered that you can have both scientific rigour and aesthetic awareness.
I'm sad for people who don't appreciate beauty or humour - they're missing the best of life on this planet; I always hope they'll wake from their coma.

On the other hand, I also feel attached to cherry trees due to my passion for Japanese culture — javi2541997

I had an inkling from that story I liked so much.
We have some elms in the fence-line of our property, but they're all dying. We've had to cut two down before they fell on the greenhouse. It's a beautiful hard wood, even in death.

All moods are artistically interesting (even anger, but I don't much like those colours) Melancholy has certainly given a good deal of material to poets and composers.
For me, there is a particularly sad association with weeping willows - my late mother's favourite tree.

Van Gogh was especially attracted to cypresses and olives, presumably because of their visual drama. I've thought about how and when we form these attachments to a particular tree. In my mother's case, she grew up by a river fringed with willows and spent many happy hours in their shade, before WWII altered her life and her world. I saw my first larch at 14, when we bought a little property in rural Ontario. I was captivated by their gentleness compared to the pines and spruces they resemble, their silence and their changes of colour over the season.

I'm wondering why "state" continues to be described as some external, independent, sentient being "out there". It's existentially dependent on people, not some separate entity. — jorndoe

Because it is. It has borders - a configuration you can find on a map. It has laws, an economy, a social structure, institutions, trade and diplomatic relationships with other entities at that same level of organization. There are people in a family, too, and yet a family is a recognizable entity with defining characteristics. A school of fish is entity which has recognizable characteristics more specific than "a bunch of fish". A molecule is a made up of atoms, but behaves quite differently than its components. Collectives take on an identity and a life beyond that of each individual, and so the collective survives even when its individual components die, because new ones are constantly added.

Yes: we were going into town one morning. Larches are my favourite tree and they're magnificent in October. Almost bare now.

I find each season adds its own mood and ... melody of colour, if that makes sense. The long gentle pink-mauve-lilac-purple-indigo twilight of spring probably touches me most closely; it feels somehow poignant.
I would include the artistry of sunrise, especially as I live in a hilly region where shadows form in unpredictable patterns. As we drive along the highway, the world changes from moment to moment.
(I do love that picture! I wish you could hang it in your bedroom: the palette is just right.)

The larches turn gold;/ another year is ending, / sunsets burn brightly

Been there! We had a small home business after retirement, and while that brought in some revenue, we made the big improvements - like solar panels and heat exchanger - that make us more independent. The Bubble is quite snug now... but it does need maintenance and minor repairs that get harder every year.

So I started looking at stained glass. — L'éléphant

Making it? That's a terrific craft to learn. But no, not if you work from dawn to dusk; it's too time-consuming. Might be able to find some nice windows at a salvaged building supply place....

I'm sorry to hear about your setbacks. Money's always a major obstacle, isn't it?
Maybe you're up to some less physically demanding tasks this year. Tiling isn't too hard... just ridiculously difficult sometimes. Painting a roof sounds like a bigger job than I'd ever take on! I can just about manage three rungs of the ladder to wash the top windows.

Whoo, that is very convoluted and worthy of contemplation — Athena

What's convoluted about it? The English upper class owned all the land in England and thus much of the wealth. Traders and ship-builders owned the rest. When England colonized North America, the aristocracy exported its younger sons and the king gave them land belonging to the natives. Ditto retired army officers. The king also granted lands to mining and shipping operations. All under the protection of British troops. The moneyed classes were in charge from the very beginning. When they got tired of paying taxes to England, they took charge of the nascent republic. They organized its governance and law for their own benefit - which they considered no more than their due, just as they considered themselves the natural governors.
Why would Calvinism have any effect on that arrangement? The elite are never constrained by the limits and demands of religion: strict adherence is for the hoi polloi. As is the infamous "work ethic".

As I understand it, the immigrants who went to the kings domain in the Southern part of the New Land were out to find riches and those who went North wanted to manifest saints and perfect communities. — Athena

The religious communities were sent over when a European nation wanted rid of some irksome sect. The Puritans settled in New England and became farmers, whalers, fishers, ship-builders and tradesmen. And slavers, of course. The cities filled up with steerage passengers looking for work - including lots of Catholics - in the new industries.
The Anglican upper class grabbed enormous tracts of land in the southern region, bought lots of slaves and cultivated cotton, tobacco and rice.
They mostly got on rich on trading the low-cost bounty of exploited land, exploited people for manufactured goods from Europe, and shipping Caribbean products at a markup - all duty free.

I think once our military-industrial complex was established — Athena

Concord, 1775? https://www.history.com/news/what-was-the-shot-heard-round-the-world

we fought every war for nothing because we are what we defended our democracy against. — Athena

You fought every war for something - territorial expansion, resources, political advantage, economic advantage - just not defending democracy.

we sure as blazes did not begin with the desire to be a military-industrial complex! — Athena

No, but it became necessary to co-ordinate them in order to insure the American Century. You really can't have world supremacy without a strong military and a strong industrial base. This is why you're losing out to China - only the military half is worth a damn now; American industrial power has been outsourced for more profit.

However, that will not do squat for my grandchildren and their children. — Athena

It won't matter what their politics are. It won't matter what anyone's politics or religion are when the planet becomes uninhabitable.

I didn't realise that they cancelled each other. — javi2541997

Look at pairs of paint chips and see which combination is most pleasing to your eye.
It sounds like a room that will turn out very pleasant. I'd be very interested to hear about its progress. Architecture and interior design are my "alternate reality" - I've lived in and altered so many spaces, I dream about them.

The physics of popcorn walls in Spain sounds like it requires a post doc analysis. — Nils Loc

It gets worse. If they ever decide to scrape it off, they may have to take special precautions, because many of those walls were made with asbestos. Might be safer to keep covering it with paint.
For hanging things straight and true, the best option might be a picture rail: a heavy wooden molding at the join of walls and ceiling, or all the way across a wall lower down, screwed on securely. That will hold regular picture hangers and small lights, if desired. Failing that, individual curtain rods. It all depends on the original construction method.

I've got giant tapestries of Hasui Kawase prints on my walls. Wonder how kitsch this is for someone who has a more sophisticated sense of decor. — Nils Loc

I quite like them. But they would benefit from more precise horizontality.

I would go for orange too. — javi2541997

Then you'll have to be careful with the choice of blue for the walls, so they don't cancel each other. I'd go to a darker shade, edging into aquamarine.
Too bad about sticking things to the wall. Mine are covered with photos and paintings and plaques on every wall where there isn't a bookshelf (I have to keep patching the nail holes when I move them around). Of course, you can do quite a lot with a shelf-unit - say bamboo, wicker or ironwork, maybe painted orange - to brighten the mood of a room.

I wish I could relieve it with pictures or fabric wall-hangings, — javi2541997

Have you tried sticky putty? Once you have a new coat of paint on, that might stick - maybe just for posters or unframed prints, or a panel of fabric that doesn't weigh too much?
Of course, there is also the option of extending the curtain beyond the sides of the window with a longer rod. Or putting another curtain over the head of the bed. That would cover some wall surface with a cheerful pattern. (I like yellow/green/blue for curtains.)

They are red and black, and now I want them orange or yellow. — javi2541997

That is an excellent choice! Especially if the fabric is not to heavy, so that light comes through it, you have an illusion of sunshine, which lifts one's mood on a gloomy winter morning. Could be repeated in the bed covering or cushions. Dark blue walls can be quite restful, but I suggest you relieve it with some brightly coloured pictures or fabric wall-hangings. Sounds like a pleasant room for reading Bill Bryson.

It is complex to explain, but it is precisely in autumn and winter that I feel more motivated to do something. This is weird behaviour according to common sense, supposedly. — javi2541997

Not at all. I never seem to start anything in summer: summer chores in garden, yard and kitchen are always urgent. In fall, when there is no produce to harvest and preserve, no firewood to stack or weeds to chop down, I can think longer term and plan a bigger project.

Why don’t people change their expectations instead of being mad about human nature? Why isn’t there a discipline that aims to build concepts that are closer to reality? — Skalidris

We do. But reality sucks.

If there’s no 'objective meaning,' if there’s no 'afterlife,' why endure life? — rossii

Why not? If all you do is endure life (a rather whiny thing for someone in the conditions you describe to say), then maybe you are just a waste of oxygen, after all. But causing grief and loss and guilt to your family and friends is reprehensible. If you're planning to end your life for lack of some abstruse idea, you should at least discharge all obligations, make all required provisions and detach from all personal ties.
Having done that, consider again. Sometimes new-found freedom provides a reason for living.

However, our Democracy was and is polluted by the order of a kingdom. — Athena

Indeed! I didn't actually miss that. The legacy of royal land-grants, aristocratic families and fortunes founded on preferential trade with other British colonies.
Monarchy and moneyarchy.

Ah, there is a very important question. I was thinking if we all shared a good understanding of democracy the power of the people would be so strong we would not fear an enemy invasion. — Athena

Weeelll - that rather depends on how many of the nations you've helped arm will constitute the "enemy". And whether the ensuing war gives people time to decide how they feel about it.

Perhaps we can explore what makes people more or less willing to adopt the ways of other people? — Athena

Also what makes dominant cultures more or less resistant to assimilating minor differences in speech, religion, art and domestic arrangements. We seem pretty quick to accommodate new foods.

I am looking at the US today and I don't think we have a culture anymore. — Athena

Like ourselves, you never did have one culture. You had many, with people in each region or social circumstance being aware of only their own. Over time, people in the dominant ethnic group adopted some aspects of African, French and Hispanic cultures; the middle class affected some working class customs and vice versa; rural and folk moved to cities; the North and South imitated some of each other's behaviour; in cities with large immigrant populations, Italian, Irish, Nordic, Russian and Yiddish symbology and folklore crept into Anglo-American art, homes and social life. Motion pictures and television tend to homogenize these accidental overlaps and exchanges into American popular culture.
It seems to enjoy considerable success abroad, as well.

If something happened that destroyed our lives as they are today, I don't think democracy would survive. — Athena

It'll always have Sweden! In fact, atm, it's healthier in Germany than in the USA. Anyway, the concept isn't going anywhere.

Because that has not happened should we claim Christianity does not exist? — Athena

Might as well. But, no: the concept exists; the institutions exist, the buildings, the organization and agencies, the books, the doctrine. However, Christianity is not in universal practice among nominal Christians, by a very long chalk. There may be some parishes where it dominates weekday life, but I doubt it.
Similarly, the idea of democracy exists; its documents and declarations, its electoral machinery exists; its proclamations and resolutions. It's just not practised with any consistency. In some countries, the process more closely approximaties the theory, but in the US, it was never - not for a single day - put into effect according to that definition you quoted.
I didn't question the existence of those concepts nor the willingness of people to believe in them.

Why democracy? Because it stands for rule by reason, and liberty, and justice for all. — Athena

Stands for, but does not deliver.
Even if democracy were operational in the US, it would not be the reason for entering all of those wars, since the American form of government has never been under any outside threat. Every administration had its own reasons for embarking on a war or undeclared armed intervention in foreign affairs. In no case did those reasons have any bearing on the defence of their own democracy. And in no case was the polity consulted before taking the decision that would take many of their sons and lately daughters, nor were the lower ranks of the armed forces asked for their consent.

If you are interested in viewing the legislation introduced on referendums on declarations of war in the 64th Congress, the pertinent bills and resolutions are: S.5796, S.J. Res. 10, H.J. Res. 128, H.R. 15385, H.R. 20998, H.R. 21002, H.R. 21032, H.J. Res 371, H. Res. 492, H. Res. 495, H. Res. 497, H. Res. 498, H. Res. 507.

None passed. Every legislature held that power to itself. Not very democratic in my book.

Considering the US has always had to deal with immigrants who do not understand our institutions and way of life, I think the US has done amazingly well — Athena

In doing what? Treating them all fairly and decently? Or have the immigrants done well in adapting to conditions and overcoming barriers?
So why admire non-adaptive Jews in Europe more than assimilated Italians in America? And why not admire non-adaptive Chinese in America for maintaining their identity?

Liberty and justice for all means there are no favorites. — Athena

The slogan means that. The law doesn't deliver; the dominant culture doesn't deliver. That's why all the people of colour are still having to fight for what they should have been guaranteed over two centuries ago.

The Jews must be admired because no matter what happens to them, they remain Jews. Unfortunately, that is not true of our democracy. — Athena

So, not a fan of the American melting pot? My immigrant ex-compatriots assimilated in one generation and seem none the worse. (In fact, given the current state of my native land, far, far better!)
What's so admirable about stiff-necked adherence to a foreign culture at sharp variance with the country in which one is living? That national identity has brought the Jewish people no end of strife and sorrow, and culminated in occupying another people's land, marginalizing and pauperizing those other people (by 'right' of having done it once, a long time ago, then lost it to a second and third invader) with the aid and continued patronage of great imperial powers, becoming a nation that commits war crimes.
My sympathies lie with the ten lost tribes.
That's just a by-the-way about how critical culture really is.

A burden is a burden only if one consents to carry it. When you attempt to burden someone else and they reject it, your only recourse is to have a negative opinion of them. You cannot force your load on them.

They've been more an more resistant to chemical poisons - hence the rise in infestations, presumably, so the experts you need are not pest control experts but cleaning experts. The most effective methods of combatting bedbugs relate to hygiene: deep vacuum, frequent laundry, etc. The most effective, apparently, is steam cleaning, but you can't do that with home appliances. A plastic-coated mattress is a good idea, so that it can be swabbed down every time the bedding is changed.

I hate the argument over if the US is a democracy or not — Athena

People may have believed it and been browbeaten and brainwashed into believing it, but it never matched that very definition you quoted. When, in the history of the United States has there been

fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance. — Athena

?

A republic is supposed to be both constitutional and governed by an elected body, rather than a monarch, prelate or military dictator. That doesn't require equality of access to decision-making by all citizens. So, the US qualifies... so long as that flimsy parchment survives.

we have fought every war for nothing if we do not believe we are a democracy. — Athena

The word is a good slogan and recruitment tool, but is certainly not the reason for wars.

I do not about other democracies but in the US a significant number of people insist the US is not a democracy. — Athena

It never was, though its spokesmen have loudly proclaimed the very pinnacle of the democratic ideal. At the moment, nobody believes it. Indeed, a number of far-right commentators have declared that "too much democracy" is detrimental to democracy.
But that's not what universeness was talking about. Not everybody is preoccupied with the USA, and he especially has a global, rather than national, vision:

Do you think our species needs such a foundational model, to be able to obtain a broad global standard of being, for all humans? — universeness

That would not be fun. Having 3 models for humans or only one just doesn't work for me. It does not go with you can be anything you want to be and right now that includes sexual differences beyond what I thought the choices were. — Athena

don't see the problem with a democratic system being able to maintain a basic standard of living and autonomy for every citizen. — Vera Mont

How is that done? — Athena

Very simply by every vote having exactly the same value as every other. That way, when everyone votes for their own self-interest, the majority decision is always in favour of what's best for the majority - in policy, law-enforcement, services, infrastructure, economic disparity, production and distribution. That's exactly why any efforts at cleaning up the electoral system is invariably followed by a right-wing backlash: functional democracy tends inevitably toward permissive secular socialism.