Rice and beans in the instant pot with a pinch of Goya Adobo, maybe a bit of sour cream when it's done. Delish, cheap, easy, low cleanup, and good for ya.
And civil disobedience that breaks the law in multiple ways: trespassing on private property, disrupting a private event, terrorizing Cornell's guests on its own campus, and destroying those guests' private property, has consequences.
Cornell is completely within their rights to expel all of the students involved, and I strongly support their decision. Violent and aggressive acts of civil disobedience have always had consequences, and if people choose to participate, they must be ready to accept those consequences.
If this guy had stayed outside and actually peacefully protested, he'd still have a position. But he didn't, and now he's kicked the fuck out of his grad program and out of the country.
What?? Peaceful protest my ass - they violently broke into the Statler Hotel past a whole ring of security and completely trashed multiple career fair tables in the middle of the crowded career fair. The company reps and the students trying to make professional connections fled the hall in fear, and the event had to be completely cancelled.
This guy (and all of the other students being kicked out) deserve every bit of what they're getting, and this kind of bullshit one-sided reporting completely justifies my ever-increasing skepticism whenever I hear people bitching about consequences at so-called "peaceful" protests.
Unless you’re suggesting that this man was involved in that situation, there’s room to feel sympathy for both murder victims.
This cop is either one of the ones committing atrocities, or one of the ones that stand by, hold the "thin blue line", and enable the ones committing atrocities.
Great question! The answer is that, well, you don't, but that's not what I'm intending unstained to mean here.
As it turns out, "unstained" is structurally ambiguous, because English has two different "un-" prefixes, each of which has different functions and different category selection requirements.
The first attaches to verbs, and means "reverse the action of", e.g. un-tie, un-do, un-stain, etc.
The second attaches to adjectives, and means "not X", e.g. un-happy, un-satisfied, etc.
So, if we want to form the word "undoable", we can either take the verb "do" and attach "-able" first, giving us an adjective "doable" to which we can then add "un-" to give us "undoable", an adjective meaning "not able to be done" ("Flying by flapping your arms is undoable")
OR
We can take "do" and add the other "un-" first, giving us a verb "undo" meaning "to reverse the action of something" to which we can then add the suffix "-able", giving us "undoable", a different adjective meaning "able to be undone" ("Simple knots are easily undoable")
So, while both of these look and sound like the same word, they actually have different structures that correspond to the differences in their meanings.
In my OP, you read "unstained" as "unstain-ed", with "un-" attaching to "stain" to give a verb "unstain" meaning "to reverse the staining of", and then added the participle suffix, while my intended structure was to attach "stain" and "-ed" first, giving a participle (adjective) "stained", to which we can then add the other prefix "un-", giving "un-stained" "not stained".
Rice and beans in the instant pot with a pinch of Goya Adobo, maybe a bit of sour cream when it's done. Delish, cheap, easy, low cleanup, and good for ya.