I fail to see how any part of that article should have made anyone feel “Dirty” to read. And it barely touched on “The event not to be discussed,” which was very far from the article’s main focus. All the author was really pointing out is that there is every reason to believe John Brennan and Cofer Black know each other, have possibly had dealings with each other over the years ... and NOW Cofer Black turns up on the BoD of Burisma as well as on Romney’s staff.
May I say something personal? Your emotional response (this is NOT a sexist comment; we all have emotions and psychology!) seems like an avoidance reaction to me. I was thinking, Mary, that you have some psychological training. Are you familiar with Freud’s concept of “Taboo?”
In the second graphic of #910, that statement is made @ the end.
Of course you may say whatever you wish and it will not change my fondness for you. Ever. I went to U of Chicago, which was, indeed, a Freudian school. Always hated Erik Erikson. And, personally, I adore mud even more than I adore dirt. Fondest memories are of rolling in Chicago mud in the lawn depression during a rainstorm. And never having known my father, I’m sure I would have been greatly attracted to him, had I ever had the opportunity to be acquainted.
http://www.iment.com/maida/family/father/adorespix.jpg
As I said, THAT part of the article’s discussion was good and relevant. The rest just wasn’t the kind of dirt I adore.
