Youtube comments of MarcosElMalo2 (@MarcosElMalo2).

  1. 1300
  2. 985
  3. 688
  4. 540
  5. 318
  6. 255
  7. 247
  8. 246
  9. 232
  10. 224
  11. 215
  12. 167
  13. 155
  14. 152
  15. 150
  16. 140
  17. 138
  18. 121
  19. 109
  20. 109
  21. 106
  22. 105
  23. 101
  24. 100
  25. 98
  26. 95
  27. 94
  28. 93
  29. 92
  30. 92
  31. 92
  32. 92
  33. 91
  34. 83
  35. 82
  36. 81
  37. 80
  38. 75
  39. 75
  40. 72
  41. 71
  42. 70
  43. 69
  44. 68
  45. 68
  46. 67
  47. 67
  48. 66
  49. 63
  50. 62
  51. 62
  52. 61
  53. 60
  54. 59
  55. 59
  56. 54
  57. 54
  58. 54
  59. 54
  60. 53
  61. 53
  62. 48
  63. 48
  64. 47
  65. 46
  66. 46
  67. 46
  68. 46
  69. 45
  70. 45
  71. 44
  72. 44
  73. 44
  74. 44
  75. 43
  76. 43
  77. 43
  78. 43
  79. 43
  80. 42
  81. 42
  82. 42
  83. 41
  84. 41
  85. 41
  86. 41
  87. 40
  88. 40
  89. 40
  90. 40
  91. 40
  92. 39
  93. 39
  94. 39
  95. 39
  96. 38
  97. 38
  98. 37
  99. 37
  100. 36
  101. 36
  102. 36
  103. 36
  104. 36
  105. 36
  106. 36
  107. 35
  108. 35
  109. Before there was Netflix, there was video rentals. I went through a bad breakup in the 90s. I had trouble letting it go—I unrealistically hoped there was still a chance we’d get back together. And I continued to use “our” membership to a video rental place that was secured with her credit card, until one day she took me off the membership. It felt like a slap in the face when I was denied the rental. A part of me couldn’t believe it. It seemed to me at the time that she was being petty. There was even a specific notation on her account that explicitly told the store clerk I was not permitted to rent on her rental account and I was asked to turn in the membership card. The clerk showed it to me. At the time I felt humiliated and angry. Mentally I blew it out of proportion (which is why I still remember this detail of the breakup). Of course this was me being a toxic ex. Maybe my behavior was minor, but it was toxic nonetheless. It was part of a pattern of our dysfunctional relationship and it was part of a pattern of my own dysfunction. Thankfully, this episode eventually helped me realize the relationship was over. It wasn’t the only thing, but it was a part of it. And it also taught me that a complete break when a relationship is ending is important. Even in a non-abusive relationship, making that break complete is important. Making the break abundantly clear is important (her part in all this was that she wanted to “keep the door open” and/or “let me down gently”). I’m sharing this story for the people on the other side of what Ryan is talking about. And it’s important that you do the same—secure and unentangle your digital life from the other person. You’ll feel better. And if you have the ex’s pssswords written down anywhere, delete them. Being dumped sucks, but you’ll get over it. Stay strong. Rebuild yourself—the part of you that was part of being a couple is dead and needs to be buried. I hope this helps.
    35
  110. 35
  111. 35
  112. 35
  113. 35
  114. 34
  115. 34
  116. 34
  117. 33
  118. 33
  119. 33
  120. 32
  121. 32
  122. 32
  123. 32
  124. 32
  125. 31
  126. 31
  127. 31
  128. 31
  129. 31
  130. 31
  131. 30
  132. 30
  133. 30
  134. 30
  135. 29
  136. 29
  137. 29
  138. 29
  139. 29
  140. 28
  141. 28
  142. 28
  143. 27
  144. 27
  145. 27
  146. 27
  147. 27
  148. 27
  149. 26
  150. 26
  151. We really don’t know if the fighting east of Kharkiv was completely opportunistic or planned. We do know a bit more about the Kherson counteroffensive because it was announced and we saw the various missile attacks on Russian assets to shape the battlefield (depots, air defense, air bases, supply routes). When the attack kicked off, the strategy was a little unusual and perhaps confusing. UA seemed to be attacking on across the entire Kherson front line before settling on the three main lines. The approach east of Kharkiv seems too well organized to be improvised. I think this was planned as an option all along. Ukraine has been conducting reconnaissance and surveillance to get an idea of which strategically important area was most vulnerable. (And I suspect that in addition to drones, they were sending in Long Range Reconn Patrols behind enemy lines when they discovered that the front lines were thinly defended.) Ukraine probably monitored Russia pulling out troops and equipment to send to Kherson. Kherson is not a feint or diversion, but it is being used to fix Russian soldiers in place nevertheless. Russia has concentrated a lot of artillery on both banks of the Dnipro, making it deadly for Ukraine to concentrate its forces for a big breakthrough, but it is possible to surgically isolate smaller Russian units and either push them back or defeat them in detail. The mobile reserves of Russia’s defense-in-depth are having trouble staying organized and concentrated themselves. So I think Anders is right about the strategy for Kherson. Unless the Russians collapse entirely, it’s going to be a campaign of nibbling, avoiding concentration of large masses of soldiers. You’ll notice that although it is slow going, Ukraine seems to be maintaining the initiative, forcing Russia to react to the crisis of the moment. If Russia were to rush forces from Zaporizhe to reinforce Izyum’s lines of communication, we might well see a third counterstroke in the less defended area.
    26
  152. 26
  153. 26
  154. 26
  155. 26
  156. 26
  157. 25
  158. It’s hard to tell exactly what your understanding is about U.S. economic policy in relation to global geopolitics, but if you’re worried about trade deficits, you’re barking up the wrong tree and you do not understand the economic basis of our policies. To oversimplify, trade deficits are not owed by the U.S., they are owed by individual companies. These deficits are driven by consumer demand, as Pete points out. That demand is driven by demographics. However, those trade imbalances benefit our country, both in terms of global stability and in terms of powering our economy. The trade imbalances are part of the cement that make the U.S. dollar the base currency of global trade, and this creates a stability that benefits us. It’s the keystone of U.S. “hegemony” because it’s the keystone of global trade that benefits the greatest number of people worldwide, and those material benefits go towards those countries with internal stability that follow the international rules based order, i.e Western Democracies. This is a powerful motivation for countries to move towards capitalistic democracy. (I put “hegemony” in quotes because it’s a special kind of economic hegemony. It’s not imperialism nor colonialism as the socialists would have you believe, but clear thinking was never their strong suit.) That said, you are not entirely wrong. You’ve arrived at the right conclusion from faulty reasoning. The re-ordering of the world economic system is because of the change in demographics. The world economic system is based on growth and we’ve reached the limits of that growth. Pete frames this as the problem but I think that’s the wrong way to think about it. Problems can be solved. Instead it’s better to think about the global changes in demographics as the new conditions, conditions to which we must adapt. And part of that adaptation is global economic retraction and the slow unwinding of U.S. “hegemony”. We have to think about capitalism/globalism as a vehicle. It’s a vehicle that has served a purpose in our moving forward. Now road conditions have changed and we must adapt that vehicle to a bumpier road. The system of the world must change to meet the new conditions of declining economic growth, stagnation, or even economic decline. Keyword to the above is “system”. We must think in terms of systems and systems of systems. If we don’t, we will be totally unprepared to meet the future.
    25
  159. 25
  160. 25
  161. 25
  162. 25
  163. 25
  164. 25
  165. 25
  166. 25
  167. 24
  168. 24
  169. 24
  170. 24
  171. 23
  172. 23
  173. 23
  174. 23
  175. 23
  176. 23
  177. 22
  178. 22
  179. 22
  180. 22
  181. 22
  182. 22
  183. 22
  184. 22
  185. 22
  186. 22
  187. 22
  188. 22
  189. 22
  190. 22
  191. 22
  192. 21
  193. 21
  194. 21
  195. 21
  196. 21
  197. 21
  198. 21
  199. 21
  200. 21
  201. 21
  202. 21
  203. 20
  204. 20
  205. 20
  206. 20
  207. 20
  208. 20
  209. 20
  210. 20
  211. 20
  212. 19
  213. 19
  214. 19
  215. 19
  216. 19
  217. 19
  218. 19
  219. 19
  220. 19
  221. 19
  222. 19
  223. 19
  224. 19
  225. 19
  226. 19
  227. 19
  228. 19
  229. 19
  230. 19
  231. 18
  232. 18
  233. 18
  234. 18
  235. 18
  236. 18
  237. 18
  238. 18
  239. 18
  240. 18
  241. 18
  242. 18
  243. 18
  244. 18
  245. 18
  246. 18
  247. 18
  248. 18
  249. 18
  250. 18
  251. 18
  252. 17
  253. 17
  254. 17
  255. 17
  256. 17
  257. 17
  258. 17
  259. 17
  260. 17
  261. 17
  262. 17
  263. 17
  264. 17
  265. 17
  266. 17
  267. 16
  268. 16
  269. 16
  270. 16
  271. 16
  272. 16
  273. 16
  274. 16
  275. 16
  276. 16
  277. 16
  278. 16
  279. 16
  280. 16
  281. 16
  282. 16
  283. 16
  284. 16
  285. 16
  286. 16
  287. 16
  288. 16
  289. 16
  290. 16
  291. 16
  292. That’s the “problem” with a global trade system. You can’t hoard all your wealth internally. You have to keep a certain amount outside for trade with other nations if you want to trade with them. This is a small, but crippling part of the sanctions. The other part is far worse—closing you off from the transaction system. This largely prevents you from trading at all on the global markets. You can’t pay or get paid. You can’t get short term loans to pay your trading partners. However, you can still trade with your two best friends (China and India), right? Won’t that make up for some of the economic damage? Yes, it will, but far less than you had hoped, because both these countries rely on the global financial system to move money. You’ll have to work out a way between each country, creating or using alternate exchanges. The problem is that these trade systems won’t be able to handle the volume of trading quickly enough. There will be a backlog of trades. The trades themselves, isolated from the global market, won’t be efficient, shaving value from the trades. You’ll always be one step (or more) behind the global market. Your trading partners will also be taking more from you to make up for the greater risk they are exposed to. The end result is that even with a couple of big trading partners, your trade with them is going to be a fraction of what it was. You won’t be able to stop contraction of your economy, and what little trading you can do will not slow that contraction sufficiently to help you weather the storm you have caused for yourself. Strategically, your “friends” also have you at a disadvantage. They will set exchange rates and interest rates in their favor. You cannot shop around for better rates. They will demand concessions and your bargaining position will be weak. You’re at their mercy.
    16
  293. 16
  294. 16
  295. 16
  296. 16
  297. 16
  298. 15
  299. 15
  300. 15
  301. 15
  302. 15
  303. 15
  304. 15
  305. 15
  306. 15
  307. 15
  308. 15
  309. 15
  310. 15
  311. 15
  312. 15
  313. 15
  314. 15
  315. 15
  316. 15
  317. 15
  318. 15
  319. 15
  320. 15
  321. 15
  322. 15
  323. 15
  324. 15
  325. 14
  326. 14
  327. 14
  328. 14
  329. 14
  330. 14
  331. 14
  332. I can’t say I’m doing perfectly fine, but I seem to be handling the isolation much better than others as I’m more comfortable with extended solitude. However, pre-pandemic, I could and did participate in my community and socializing when I wanted. And I made it a point to get outside (and get out of my head) to be of service to my community (mostly teaching kids English in my working class neighborhood in Mexico). I’m still subject to falling into deep depression. But I have decades of experience with depression, I know the warning signs, I’ve set up safeguards. Most of all, I know that periods of depression pass. I know that even extended periods of depression have breaks, moments of relief and even joy. I’ve learned to take advantage of these moments. This last winter was tough, but winters are often that way for me, especially around the holidays. My usual strategy of being of service to others was limited this year and I had a loss of income leading to financial anxiety. I don’t want to paint myself as some sort of saint. I’m not. The point is, one of my basic tools to deal with my depression is to act in ways opposite my natural inclinations of selfishness and self-centeredness. I can counteract my cruel tendencies (to others AND myself) with acts of kindness. I can pull myself out of morbid introspection with physical activity. (While I believe introspection is generally good, I also know there’s such a thing as too much of a good thing.) The pandemic has made my usual depression-countering strategies more difficult, but I’ve tried to adapt and I’m still adapting.
    14
  333. 14
  334. 14
  335. 14
  336. 14
  337. 14
  338. 14
  339. 14
  340. 14
  341. 14
  342. 14
  343. 14
  344. 14
  345. 14
  346. 14
  347. 14
  348. 14
  349. 14
  350. 14
  351. 14
  352. 14
  353. 14
  354. 14
  355. 14
  356. 14
  357. 14
  358. 14
  359. 14
  360. Before I try to address your question, I want to distance myself from the sexist comments in this thread. Comments that use words like “misandrist” to describe people’s struggle to win their political, economic, and social equality. Second, I identify as a conservative of the old school, i.e., Burkean conservatism if you read political philosophers. I don’t see liberals and progressives as the enemy. Rather I see them as partners in a social dialogue as we muddle through life. I guess I’m confused about what sort of an uproar you want or expect. The related issues of abortion and birth control do directly affect men, but particularly with abortion the issue’s strongest impact is on the liberty of women and their right to make decisions regarding their own health and their own bodies. The real issue is not about men’s access to sex, but it’s about the rights and freedoms of approximately half of our population. How am I doing so far? You can see how I, as a conservative, think it’s wrong to limit the freedom of people based on their biological sex. As a conservative, I full support the right of a woman to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or to let it run its course, resulting in bringing a child into the world (and all the challenge and responsibility that entails). The government should have zero role in making this decision. So here is where I get confused. I fully support the “right to choose”, and I will vote accordingly, even if that means voting for a Dem. There was once a time when the right was protected by Roe v Wade, and I could vote for an anti-abortion conservative despite their stance because I liked their other policies. I could be fairly confident that the conservative politician was merely trying to pass a social conservative litmus test. Politics, right? But I digress. So here is my dilema: how can I be a supportive and “correct” ally for women’s rights in the way you propose if I make the issue about me? I’ve tried your way, and I’ve gotten shut down for centering the issue on myself instead of centering the issue around women and letting women lead the charge. I’ve been told that the public discourse doesn’t need to hear anymore men’s voices, and that it’s finally women’s turn to speak for themselves. I’ve been told that it’s my turn to listen. And all of that is fair. It doesn’t mean I must be entirely silent, because I can still speak one-on-one with other men and try to be a voice for equality and personal freedom. Men do have a stake in the abortion debate, but it’s complicated. We do make a contribution to pregnancy, after all, even if it’s only some body fluid and genetic material. Permit me to use some personal anecdotes. I was in a serious relationship of two years when my girlfriend got pregnant. She told me she was pregnant, and then, without telling me, without any discussion, she had an abortion within the week. She was perfectly within her rights to do this, but it still hurt me because I wanted to make a family with her. She had led me believe she wanted the same. As it turns out, what was a serious relationship for me was not as serious for her. I think that the pregnancy caused her to reevaluate our relationship and decide I was not the man with whom she wanted to make a family. It hurt that she didn’t involve me in her decision making, that she just went and did it without telling me. Within six months she ended the relationship, so I suppose it was all for the best, but I was still devastated (I recognize my devastation was both the abortion and being dumped. It’s hard to separate the two events emotionally). The point is, we (men) are conflicted over the woman’s right to choose. A woman’s right to choose is absolute. And it sucks for the male partner to have no say, whether the man wants to have a child with the woman or wants to not have a child with her. Whether there is emotional involvement or not, whether the man is eager, willing, or uninterested in shouldering his share of responsibility for a child, the decision is out of our hands. And that makes us ambivalent on an emotional level. I’m not saying the ambivalence is right. I’m just saying it exists, whether it is logical or not. This ambivalence might explain why more men aren’t as vocal or as passionate about the abortion issue. We might full support a women’s right to choose despite our misgivings, but those misgivings still exist. I hope this clears up the confusion. I am a conservative because I believe in conservative values of personal freedom and the rights of the individual. I am sure many liberals also believe in these things, but the difference is a matter of emphasis. Civilization is always a balance between the individual’s rights and group rights. When the two are in conflict, I tend to favor the individual. Goddamn it, I wrote another essay in a YouTube comments thread! I’ve got to stop doing this. Probably no one will read it. But I felt the OP asked a serious question that needed a serious answer.
    13
  361. 13
  362. 13
  363. 13
  364. 13
  365. 13
  366. 13
  367. 13
  368. 13
  369. 13
  370. 13
  371. 13
  372. 13
  373. 13
  374. 13
  375. 13
  376. 13
  377. 13
  378. 13
  379. 13
  380. 13
  381. 13
  382. 13
  383. 13
  384. 13
  385. 13
  386. 13
  387. 13
  388. 13
  389. 13
  390. 13
  391. 13
  392. 13
  393. 13
  394. 13
  395. 13
  396. 13
  397. 13
  398. 13
  399. 13
  400. 13
  401. 12
  402. 12
  403. 12
  404. 12
  405. 12
  406. 12
  407. 12
  408. 12
  409. 12
  410. 12
  411. 12
  412. 12
  413. 12
  414. 12
  415. 12
  416. 12
  417. I grew up with Polish jokes. They were much more common than jokes about other ethnicities when I was very young (I’m talking about those jokes that can be repurposed for any ethnicity). How many Poles does it take to screw in a lightbulb? How do you confuse a Pole? (Put him in a round room and tell him there’s a nickel in the corner.) You know, the really corny kids’ jokes. The odd thing was, I didn’t know any Polacks. Or I didn’t know any kids that were Polish in my multi-ethnic middle class neighborhood, as far as I knew. My little brother’s best friend had the last name Kalin. Mike was half Mexican, but I never made the connection that his dad was Polish. He was just American. Mike was just American. His dad went on to become a Federal Judge (which doesn’t exactly fit the stereotype of the dumb Pollack). Fast forward a few years. My own dad’s career had advanced, we were upper middle class and we had moved to a slightly more prosperous neighborhood. Still tract houses, but bigger ones with bigger yards. My family knew another family socially a few years later, the Sobieskis. The dad was also in the legal field. They were quite educated and cultured, more than anyone in my family was. (It turned out they were related to minor Polish aristocracy, but I didn’t learn if this until much later.) But the point is that, like the Kalins, the Sobieskis were Americans. They were the children and grandchildren of immigrants, as I was. Forty or fifty years ago, when I was a kid, no one needed to point out how hard working an ethnic group was, or whether they were family oriented. It was just assumed that was so. Everyone wanted to get ahead, and everyone wanted to prepare their children to get ahead. It was understood that mostly we would get ahead with slow progress. Oh, one detail I missed. People did sometimes identify as “hyphenates”. Japanese-American, Irish-American, Afroamerican, Mexican-American, Polish-American. I don’t think anyone on my street got angry about people remembering where they came from, although you might hear from elsewhere, “Why can’t you just be Americans?” I guess this line of thought came from people who came from nowhere and wanted everyone to be like them.
    12
  418. 12
  419. 12
  420. 12
  421. 12
  422. 12
  423. 12
  424. 12
  425. 12
  426. 12
  427. 12
  428. 12
  429. 12
  430. 12
  431. 12
  432. 12
  433. 12
  434. 12
  435. 12
  436. 12
  437. 12
  438. 12
  439. 12
  440. 12
  441. 12
  442. It was a failure of doctrine, as you say. And political decisions. The doctrine flowed from the strategy, which flowed from the political decisions, which flowed from the political goals, which were based on faulty assumptions and, really, a lack of historical knowledge of the Vietnamese people. Our first error was early in the Cold War, when we supported the French effort to re-impose colonial rule. (Yes, I’m aware of the major SNAFU at the end of WW2.) This was done under the guise of anti-communism, but it was just a cover for re-colonizing a fiercely independent people. There was a sincere policy of opposing communism that the French used for its own national interest. The thinking behind anti-communist policies solidified around “the Domino Theory”, meaning that if Vietnam fell to communism, so would its neighbors, etc., until all of Asia was dominated by the Soviet Union and China. This was a faulty assumption, as was the idea that Vietnam’s nationalist movement was wholly communist in nature and obedient to Moscow and Beijing. U.S. policy makers and politicians were ignorant of Vietnam’s thousand year history of fighting the Chinese and other invaders. They were unaware that Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist first and a communist second. They did not know that the original armed nationalists, the Viet Minh, was a coalition of political groups fighting for independence. (VM later became the NVA in the north and the VC in the south). All of this ignorance led to U.S. politicians seeking a simple military solution to a complicated geo political problem that they didn’t fully understand. And that is the basic error. The war was unwinnable because the faulty goals were based on faulty assumptions. That is the cause of U.S. failure in SVN, not a socialist 5th column in the U.S.
    12
  443. 12
  444. 12
  445. 12
  446. 12
  447. 11
  448. 11
  449. 11
  450. 11
  451. 11
  452. 11
  453. 11
  454. 11
  455. 11
  456. 11
  457. 11
  458. 11
  459. 11
  460. 11
  461. 11
  462. 11
  463. 11
  464. 11
  465. 11
  466. 11
  467. 11
  468. 11
  469. 11
  470. 11
  471. 11
  472. 11
  473. 11
  474. 11
  475. 11
  476. 11
  477. 11
  478. 11
  479. 11
  480. 11
  481. 11
  482. 11
  483. 11
  484. 11
  485. 11
  486. 11
  487. 11
  488. 11
  489. 11
  490. 11
  491. 11
  492. 11
  493. 11
  494. 11
  495. 11
  496. 11
  497. 11
  498. 11
  499. 11
  500. 11
  501. 11
  502. 11
  503. 11
  504. 10
  505. 10
  506. 10
  507. 10
  508. 10
  509. 10
  510. 10
  511. 10
  512.  @MelissiaBlackheart  Even in right-to-work states, a legal employment contract prevails. At will employment laws do not automatically apply if there are terms and conditions in the contract that spell out termination. Absent a legal contract, the state employment laws are the operant laws. Marvin and Patrick are substituting their opinion for expertise. I doubt they have experience as employers or as an employee hired on contract. Of course, this doesn’t mean Musk has to let the contract employee work. He can have someone else do her job and let her sit in her office doing whatever. What he cannot legally do is take away pay or benefits or otherwise unilaterally break the contract. I joined a company where one of the managers and the owner had a dispute. The manager had a year left on the contract, so the owner still had to pay his salary and benefits until the end of the contract. The owner did this while relieving the employee of his managerial duties. Every day for about three months the guy showed up, went to his office and read the newspaper. The owner finally got sick of having him around. I wasn’t privy if the owner paid off the balance of the contract in a lump sum or just told the employee to stop coming in while continuing to pay him, but after a few months, we stopped seeing him. I later was also terminated, but as an at-will employee, so I didn’t get to sit around and get paid for doing nothing. 😂 Honestly, the owner was an SOB and I wasn’t sad to go.
    10
  513. 10
  514. 10
  515. 10
  516. 10
  517. 10
  518. 10
  519. 10
  520. 10
  521. 10
  522. 10
  523. 10
  524. 10
  525. 10
  526. 10
  527. 10
  528. 10
  529. 10
  530. 10
  531. 10
  532. 10
  533. 10
  534. 10
  535. 10
  536.  @SkyRiver1  It’s the game that moves as you play. 😆 Actions very often have unforeseen consequences. Example: A powerful country intervenes in the politics of another country militarily and prevents a communist takeover, leaving a murderous and corrupt regime in its place. The people of that country flee political persecution (which doesn’t mean they’re politically motivated, it means that the corrupt regime finds their existence inconvenient). Those refugees of war flee to one of the big cities of the powerful country where they become part of the urban poor class. Some of their young people form into gangs because they are threatened by the pre-existing gangs. It turns out that the young people are quite good at it! They become a major gang, and one to be feared. About this time, the Caribbean drug trade is interdicted and narco traffickers must reroute through Central America. (And now I’ve given the game away, so I’ll just name names.) This presents big opportunities for Mara Salvatrucha XIII (MS-13) to return to Salvador, which in turn makes life untenable for the people of that country. Those that flee from the criminal gangs taking over their country head north. The Reagan administration had good reasons to intervene. We were still in the Cold War. As you point out, it’s a futile exercise to endlessly chew over counterfactuals. The point I am coming to is this: unforeseen consequences are unavoidable, always (given a long enough time scale). But one is blinding themselves when they do not accept consequences of their actions. History is the study of past actions and their consequences. We hope that we can learn from our mistakes. And (most of us) hope we can take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
    10
  537. 10
  538. 10
  539. 10
  540. 10
  541. 10
  542. 10
  543. 10
  544. 10
  545. 10
  546. 10
  547. 10
  548. 10
  549. 10
  550. 10
  551. 10
  552. 10
  553. 10
  554. 10
  555. 10
  556. 10
  557. 9
  558. 9
  559. 9
  560. 9
  561. 9
  562. 9
  563. 9
  564. 9
  565. 9
  566. 9
  567. 9
  568. 9
  569. 9
  570. 9
  571. 9
  572. 9
  573. 9
  574. 9
  575. 9
  576. 9
  577. 9
  578. Pete is getting a bit too far out of his lane when he makes military assessments. It is true that Ukraine faces big challenges throughout the coming year, but it’s not true that Russia can win by grinding down Ukraine forces. This isn’t Russia’s war to lose. Russia has already lost. The question is really how quickly can Ukraine win and recover its sovereign territory. No one expected a Ukraine offensive before the muddy Spring Thaw, no one expects it during the thaw. Pete has a grasp of some basic operational concepts, like the weather, but glosses over others. It is true that Russia can and is throwing more bodies into the conflict, and it is true that “quantity has a quality of its own” as Stalin is reputed to have said. But it matters how and where those numbers are applied. It matters how motivated they are. It matters how they are supplied. So far, Russia’s superior numbers have made little progress over the past six months. Kilometers have come at the cost of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, until entire battalions have been destroyed in offensive operations. At the same time, Ukraine has been rotating its defensive forces and maintaining unit cohesion. When Pete implies that Russia has an endless supply of soldiers and that the quantity of soldiers alone will determine the outcome, he is quite frankly incorrect. Frankly, it is surprising that he underestimates other important factors, such as logistics, home field advantage, and motivation/morale. Pete is trying to be realistic, but I think his appraisal is overly pessimistic.
    9
  579. 9
  580. 9
  581. 9
  582. 9
  583. 9
  584. 9
  585. 9
  586. 9
  587. 9
  588. 9
  589. 9
  590. 9
  591. 9
  592. 9
  593.  @ipredictariot6371  It’s not so much whether the threat level was overestimated, it was the response to the threat that should be examined and criticized. The 9/11 attacks occurred because we underestimated the threat. After the attack there was a scramble to get a correct assessment. A truly accurate assessment of all possible threats is impossible (or at least very very difficult) because of the asymmetric nature of the conflict. The Bush defense/security/intelligence people took the “safer” course of overestimating the level of threat. Is this a huge error? I don’t know, but it did lead to what was a series of fatal errors involving the response to this overestimated threat. It was decided that the response to this estimated level of threat should be the occupation of a country in the Middle East. Iraq was selected for reasons of expedience: 1) it was conquerable, 2) Saddam was a mischief maker and a potential sponsor of terrorism, 3) Iraq had in the past tried to acquire WMDs, might be doing so, and might have them, and most importantly, 4) Iraq was politically isolated—it had no friends in the region, no Arab nation that could credibly oppose an invasion or was inclined to do so. Iraq had “accomplished” this alienation ten years before, when it invaded Kuwait. If the U.S. had a hammer, Iraq certainly looked like a nail! Iraq was the most convenient target. The Bush administration then did two things that I consider to be the fatal errors. 1) it used shortcuts to justify the invasion, including deceiving the public, and 2) it tried to graft the PNAC ideology onto the Iraqi occupation plan. Instead of open and honest debate about whether the invasion was the correct response or even a good idea was suppressed and we instead debated the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Instead of the sensible course of merely setting up military bases and insuring that Iraq’s petroleum industry continued to function, we took on the project of nation building and meddling in Iraq’s internal politics. The meddling was further complicated because we wanted both a puppet government (or at least a friendly one), but we didn’t want to impose one because we also wanted Iraq to be a democracy. Neither of these contradictory ideas are good ones, but combined they are even worse because of the contradiction. All these errors were baked into the project before the military even began to plan the invasion. Dissent was suppressed over most questions except for the WMD question, and even there, deception was used to bolster the argument, both within the administration and in the public square.
    9
  594. 9
  595. 9
  596. 9
  597. 9
  598. 9
  599. 9
  600. 9
  601. 9
  602. 9
  603. 9
  604. 9
  605. 9
  606. 9
  607. 9
  608. 9
  609. 9
  610. 9
  611. 9
  612. 9
  613. 9
  614. 9
  615. 9
  616. 9
  617. 9
  618. 9
  619. 9
  620. 9
  621. 9
  622. 9
  623. 9
  624. 9
  625. 9
  626. 9
  627. 8
  628. 8
  629. 8
  630. 8
  631. 8
  632. 8
  633. 8
  634. 8
  635. 8
  636. 8
  637. 8
  638. 8
  639. 8
  640. 8
  641. 8
  642. 8
  643. 8
  644. 8
  645. 8
  646. 8
  647. 8
  648. 8
  649. 8
  650. 8
  651. 8
  652. 8
  653. 8
  654. 8
  655. 8
  656. 8
  657. 8
  658. 8
  659. The 5-year warranty is built into the price of the car. The reason the home is priced at $350k is that it has a minimal warranty. It might cost $400k for a longer warranty. In many cases, honest builders are responding to consumer demand for lower priced homes with shorter warranties. Also, as the lawyer said, these home warranties are worded to protect the seller more than they protect the buyer. The National Electric Code (NEC) is more like a set of guidelines for local and state governments. While the NEC gets updated frequently (I think the latest was 2014), county or state government building codes lag behind. I’m somewhat troubled that the homeowner here hasn’t upgraded his circuit breakers (which would cost him $300-$1000, depending on whether he did it himself or hired an electrician) for his family’s safety. (And he’d probably want to hire an electrician if he wants to recover his cost from the builder.) Unfortunately, there are too many dishonest builders out there that undercut the honest ones on price, and homebuyers are choosing the cheaper homes. Until or unless the voters pressure their local and state governments to update their building codes and strengthen homebuyer protections, its “caveat emptor”—buyer beware. (And as always, “you get what you pay for” and “if a deal is too good to be true, it probably is”.) Buying a home is one of the biggest decisions many Americans will ever make. It’s surprising that they are not educating themselves nor doing their own visual inspections before signing the dotted line. Two of the defects in the video segment on that one house could have been detected by the buyer BEFORE or during escrow, especially the bay window misalignment. Things like cracked drywall or ineffective weather proofing might not show up for years, however. Sometimes it’s the owners’ fault if they’re not doing proper maintenance. In summary, dishonest builders are certainly a major part of the problem, but local government and the buyers themselves bear some responsibility. Local government is the responsibility of the voters, and voters that equate consumer protection and government regulation with “socialism” are also part of the problem. We conservatives have allowed ourselves to become extreme beyond common sense for the sake of party politics, enabling dishonesty in all aspects of business and industry, so we bear ultimate responsibility.
    8
  660. 8
  661. 8
  662. 8
  663. 8
  664. 8
  665. 8
  666. 8
  667. 8
  668. 8
  669. 8
  670. 8
  671. 8
  672. 8
  673. 8
  674. 8
  675. 8
  676. 8
  677. 8
  678. 8
  679. 8
  680. 8
  681. 8
  682. 8
  683. 8
  684. 8
  685. 8
  686. 8
  687. 8
  688. 8
  689. 8
  690. 8
  691. 8
  692. 8
  693. 8
  694. 8
  695. 8
  696. 8
  697. 8
  698. 8
  699. 8
  700. 8
  701. 8
  702. 8
  703. 8
  704. 8
  705. 8
  706. 8
  707. 8
  708. 8
  709. 8
  710. 8
  711. 8
  712. 8
  713. 8
  714. 8
  715. 8
  716. @HeyMildred The majority of Republican politicians sacrificed their conservative principles at the altar of Donald Trump. Not all, but most. And for as long as these enablers and cheerleaders remain in office, Trump authoritarianism will infect the GOP. It’s not true to say that Trump hijacked the GOP. It is true to say that the anti-democracy white supremacist strain already present strangled whatever conservative and American values remained in the party. Until they’re removed, the GOP’s claim on conservatism is false. It’s packaging, marketing, PR. The GOP is not going to reform itself into a party of decent, honorable, patriotic conservatives from the inside, and the Trump Republicans will fight such a change tooth and nail, as we are already seeing. As we have seen for the past 4 years. And it’s possible that the cancer afflicting the GOP is inoperable. In which case, a quick painless death is preferable, and traditional conservatives can form a new party. Fact is, the Republican Party split off from the Whig party, which went extinct. We might call this new party The Lincoln Party in honor of our greatest president and as a nod to our friends here at TLP. Creating a new party might be a Herculean effort, but it might be a better investment of time, effort, and treasure compared with trying to resurrect the decrepit and corrupt GOP. Another possibility is to form a conservative faction within the Democratic Party. This could effectively turn hyperpartisan obstructionism into factional compromise. It would turn the legislature (but not the government structure) into a quasi parliament. A lot of democrats would cry foul, if not scream bloody murder. But the fact is, a large part of the country remains conservative. Conservatives joining the Democratic Party would move the country towards unity and away from division. That’s all something for the future. Right now, the immediate goal is to do all we can to give Democrats control of the Senate, and that means the Senate run offs in Georgia.
    8
  717. 8
  718. 8
  719. 8
  720. 8
  721. 8
  722. 8
  723. 8
  724. 8
  725. 8
  726. 8
  727. 7
  728. 7
  729. 7
  730. 7
  731. 7
  732. 7
  733. 7
  734. 7
  735. 7
  736. 7
  737. 7
  738. 7
  739. 7
  740. 7
  741. 7
  742. 7
  743. 7
  744. 7
  745. 7
  746. 7
  747. 7
  748. 7
  749. 7
  750. 7
  751. 7
  752. 7
  753. 7
  754. 7
  755. 7
  756. 7
  757. 7
  758. 7
  759. 7
  760. 7
  761. 7
  762. 7
  763. 7
  764. 7
  765. 7
  766. 7
  767. 7
  768. 7
  769. 7
  770. 7
  771. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The recoil is going to send you in the opposite direction you’re shooting. Kinetic weapons wielded by individual space soldiers are going to be problematic. Energy weapons (wielded as a soldier’s weapon) are the holy grail. But really, we’re going to rethink strategy and tactics completely in this new battle space. You should make a video about that. What are the objectives? What are the strategic purposes? Space war is going to be much more analogous to air war, but rather than air supremacy being a goal, we need to think in terms of orbital supremacy. The practical application of the laws of physics will be very different (increase velocity to go higher, decrease to go lower). Higher orbit supremacy means you can control higher orbits, and even the surface (not in a boots on the ground way, but in a surface destruction via kinetic weapons way. Basically, throwing rocks.) Long term strategy is going to be about creating a logistics chain outside of the planetary gravity well. It’s very expensive to send material up the well, less expensive to bring in materiel from outside the gravity well. So, a race to control the asteroid belt? Would the moon be a viable base (either for material harvesting or fabrication of weapons)? I don’t know. I don’t know how important Lagrange points are going to be. Ultimately, automation is going to be key, whether we’re talking resource gathering, weapon construction, or war fighting. And the key to automation is AI. [trigger Skynet jokes]. Another key is viable non-planetary based society, self sustaining. If your society is not Earth based, you will always have advantage over Earth based societies. And you’re going to fight like hell to prevent other societies from becoming space based. The first one to accomplish this will control the rest of humanity. Yeah, it’s kind of fucked up (at least I think so), but that’s the reality. The society with the best technology wins. While they might eventually not need anything from the surface of the planet, they’re strategically bound to stop other societies from gaining a toe hold in space. Maybe better to kill everyone down there? Bomb them to the Stone Age and keep them there? Yes, it’s fucked up!
    7
  772. 7
  773. 7
  774. 7
  775. 7
  776. 7
  777. 7
  778. 7
  779. 7
  780. 7
  781. 7
  782. 7
  783. 7
  784. 7
  785. 7
  786. 7
  787. 7
  788. 7
  789. 7
  790. 7
  791. 7
  792. 7
  793. 7
  794. 7
  795. 7
  796. 7
  797. 7
  798. 7
  799. 7
  800. 7
  801. 7
  802. 7
  803. 7
  804. 7
  805. 7
  806. 7
  807. 7
  808. 7
  809. 7
  810. 7
  811. 7
  812. 7
  813. 7
  814. 7
  815. 7
  816. 7
  817. 7
  818. 7
  819. 7
  820. 7
  821. 7
  822. 7
  823. 7
  824. 7
  825. 7
  826. 7
  827. 7
  828. 7
  829. 7
  830. 7
  831. 7
  832. 7
  833. 7
  834. 7
  835. 7
  836. 7
  837. 7
  838. 7
  839. 7
  840. 7
  841. 7
  842. 7
  843. 7
  844. 7
  845. 7
  846. 7
  847. 7
  848. 7
  849. 7
  850. 7
  851. 7
  852. 7
  853. 7
  854. 7
  855. 7
  856. 7
  857. 7
  858. 7
  859. 7
  860. 7
  861. 7
  862. It’s 2 May today. I do not see how Russia can achieve any political goals at this point. The original goals are unreachable. What intermediate goals are achievable? A land grab? The Ukrainians get a vote on that and Kyiv has made it clear that it will not trade land for peace. As of the last week and a half the west is arming Ukraine with offensive weapons at the same time that Russia is trying to reorganize its forces and grab up as much territory it can in Eastern Ukraine. Expect the Ukrainian counter offensive to occur when Russia has exhausted its own offensive capabilities. If the Ukrainians are successful, they will expel Russia sooner rather than later. Everyday, Ukraine’s hand at the negotiating table gets stronger and Russia’s hand gets weaker. The Russians might even lose Crimea, although some would say that is going too far. Anyway, this summer will see whether Ukraine can fight an offensive war and how well the Russian’s can defend their territorial gains. Russia cannot win. if the Ukrainians are successful, we will see Russia lose sooner rather than later. An attritional war against civilians is not going to work against Ukraine. I agree with Andes that the war is pointless for Russia. Putin has lost his gamble. The war is continuing based on its own moment and according to Russian domestic politics; Putin promised the Russians a victory, and the longer he prolongs the war, the longer he prolongs his own domestic power. It’s hard to imagine Putin clinging to power after Russia loses.
    7
  863. 7
  864. 7
  865. 7
  866. 7
  867. 7
  868. 6
  869. 6
  870. 6
  871. 6
  872. 6
  873. 6
  874. 6
  875. 6
  876. 6
  877. 6
  878. 6
  879. 6
  880. 6
  881. 6
  882. 6
  883. 6
  884. 6
  885. 6
  886. 6
  887. 6
  888. 6
  889. 6
  890. 6
  891. 6
  892. 6
  893. 6
  894. 6
  895. 6
  896. 6
  897. 6
  898. 6
  899. 6
  900. 6
  901. 6
  902. 6
  903. 6
  904. 6
  905. 6
  906. 6
  907. 6
  908. 6
  909. 6
  910. 6
  911. 6
  912. 6
  913. 6
  914. 6
  915. 6
  916. 6
  917. 6
  918. 6
  919. 6
  920. 6
  921. 6
  922. 6
  923. 6
  924. 6
  925. 6
  926. 6
  927. 6
  928. 6
  929. 6
  930. 6
  931. 6
  932. 6
  933. 6
  934. 6
  935. 6
  936. 6
  937. Great interview, Jonathan! I would love it if you could get Mark Galeotti back. Two months later and the military picture looks different. I wonder what Mark thinks. I wonder if he thinks the war situation has changed with the liberation of Ukraine or if it is fundamentally the same. I feel fortunate to have discovered your channel. There’s lots of experts here that I haven’t come across who I look forward to watching, and a few with whom I am familiar (probably how your channel entered my recommendation feed). For example, Mark is new to me while I’ve already seen a lot of Vlad Vexler and General Hodges. One area of curiosity is the blending of the Russian government with Russian organized crime. I’ve never made a deep study of this topic, but I’ve somehow managed to form a perception that I want to check. My perception is not so much based on portrayals of the Russian Mafiya in mainstream western popular culture (movies and such), but from the talk of Russian emigres, a few of Bruce Sterling’s short stories in the early 90s, Solzhenitsyn, and living among Armenian emigres in Los Angeles. I’m sure that my understanding is distorted and/or incomplete. My understanding is roughly this: Elements of the criminal underground were already being absorbed into the CHEKA during Lenin’s time. Criminals were useful as informants and enforcers. Later, as the political elite began demanding smuggled luxuries (jeans, jazz records, and whatnot), smuggling became important. These activities were overseen by the KGB, resulting in KGB officers becoming crime lords and crime lords becoming KGB over decades. Quite a lot of this activity occurred on the periphery of the Soviet Union, which brings in the Armenians (and Chechens?). This was the foundation of the the Kleptocracy and the Oligarchs when the Soviet Union fell. How far off the mark am I? Edit: I am just now watching the interview of Dr. Felshtinsky!
    6
  938. 6
  939. 6
  940. 6
  941. 6
  942. 6
  943. 6
  944. 6
  945. 6
  946. 6
  947. 6
  948. 6
  949. 6
  950. 6
  951. 6
  952. 6
  953. 6
  954. 6
  955. 6
  956. 6
  957. 6
  958. 6
  959. 6
  960. 6
  961. 6
  962. 6
  963. 6
  964. 6
  965. 6
  966. 6
  967. 6
  968. 6
  969. 6
  970. 6
  971. 6
  972. 6
  973. 6
  974. 6
  975. 6
  976. 6
  977. 6
  978. 6
  979. 6
  980. 6
  981. 6
  982. 6
  983. 6
  984. 6
  985. 6
  986. 6
  987. 6
  988. 6
  989. 6
  990. 6
  991. 6
  992. 6
  993. 6
  994. 6
  995. 6
  996. 6
  997. 6
  998. 6
  999. 6
  1000. 6
  1001. 6
  1002. 6
  1003. 6
  1004. 6
  1005. 6
  1006. 6
  1007. 6
  1008. If you’re referring to the 18 minute gap in the tapes, I have some thoughts. Material on the rest of the tapes that Nixon turned over was damning enough to warrant both political impeachment/conviction, and criminal indictment/conviction. They had Nixon dead to rights. But a deal was made (or the fix was in, if you prefer). Nixon resigned without putting up a fuss and his successor (Ford) pardoned him, protecting him from criminal prosecution. So what does this have to do with the 18-minutes? I’d like to suggest some possibilities. First of all, it is quite possible that the 18-minutes contained national security information that was so sensitive that it not only had to be redacted, but the redaction also had to be concealed. Second, it’s possible that the 18-minutes contained non-criminal but embarrassing or scandalous material. Lastly, we should consider the possibility(and most unlikely one, but still a possibility) that the 18-minutes were erased accidentally. 😂 I don’t know if Nixon was a better criminal than Trump. He was certainly smarter—he made a deal and avoided criminal charges. At the time, most people thought it was a good deal all around. It would spare the country a traumatic trial if Nixon would just resign in disgrace, get the hell out of DC, and quietly hide in San Clemente. Trump could have made a deal in 2001, returning the documents and flipping on his January 6th co-conspirators. Hahahaha, who am I kidding? Trump is too dumb to ever make a deal that involved admitting he was wrong.
    6
  1009. 6
  1010. 6
  1011. 6
  1012. 6
  1013. 6
  1014. 6
  1015. 6
  1016. 6
  1017. 6
  1018. 6
  1019. 6
  1020. 6
  1021. 6
  1022. 6
  1023. 6
  1024. 6
  1025. 6
  1026. 6
  1027. 6
  1028. 6
  1029. 6
  1030. 6
  1031. 6
  1032. 6
  1033. 6
  1034. 6
  1035. 6
  1036. 6
  1037. 6
  1038. 6
  1039. 6
  1040. 6
  1041. 6
  1042. 6
  1043. 6
  1044. 6
  1045. 6
  1046. 6
  1047. 6
  1048. 6
  1049. 6
  1050. 6
  1051. 6
  1052. 6
  1053. 6
  1054. 6
  1055. 6
  1056. 6
  1057. 6
  1058. 6
  1059. 6
  1060. 6
  1061. 6
  1062. 6
  1063. 6
  1064. 6
  1065. 6
  1066. 6
  1067. I’m paying 3700 pesos/month is San Miguel de Allende. At current exchange that’s $177 U.S. What am I getting for this? 2 bedrooms, a sala, a decent sized bathroom, medium sized kitchen. There’s a small room off the sala that’s being used as a home office. The azotea (roof terrace) runs the length of flat, and there is a covered lavandería (laundry area). I’m a 15 minute walk from the centro histórico, in a neighborhood beginning to gentrify. I locked in the rent 8 1/2 years ago—the landlord has raised it 100 pesos each year after the the first year, which is quite reasonable. He pays for water, I pay for my own electricity and gas. When I moved here, the neighborhood was a bit rough, but I’ve lived in worse neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Los Ángeles. But as I said, it’s gentrifying. More rich people, both Mexicans and Gabachos are moving in. The wall of one bedroom faces a busy street, so noise is sometimes a problem. Across the street is a preparatoria, kitty corner is a public high school, a few doors up the street is a kindergarten, and two blocks down is a primary school and the neighborhood’s “commercial district”, i.e., the small grocery stores, produce stores, butchers, etc. My current monthly budget is around $900. I think I could get it down to $400-500 if I was really pressed and went minimalist. But I like my little luxuries, I like ordering things on Amazon, and I like helping friends in need (I’m currently paying for a neighborhood kid’s tuition at a private prep school). I lived in SF in the early 90s, near Lower Haight. Three bedroom, three roommates splitting $865/month rent. Dangerous neighborhood. I moved away in 93, visited in 95 and happened to see the current tenant leaving my old flat. So I asked him what he was paying: $2000/month. I can’t imagine how high the rent is now, 25 years later. Incidentally, I did previously rent what was basically a closet with an even smaller closet in the Castro. That was $300! Mind you, it was a beautiful closet in a beautifully restored Victorian. I bet it’s going for $1500 these days. Of course, you can spend a lot more in SMA, if you want a nicer and safer neighborhood closer to the historic center of town or in one of the wealthy neighborhoods. You can maintain a middle class gringo lifestyle if you’re willing to pay for it (and it will still be cheaper than the U.S.). There are plenty of Americans and Canadians here and they have their own social community. I know of people that don’t bother to learn Spanish! Personally, I’ve given all that up. Over the course of these 8 years I’ve firmly established myself in my community. If the shit hits the fan, they’ve got my back and I’ve got theirs.
    6
  1068. 6
  1069. 6
  1070. 6
  1071. 6
  1072. 6
  1073. 6
  1074. 6
  1075. 6
  1076.  @johnwilliams6880  Jacob has a point, though. Texas has robust stand-your-ground laws. Watch the video again. The person in the robe is standing their ground, a short distance away. The other person is yelling loudly and angrily. If the person with the gun was yelling, it’s not as audible or as audible. The person who was shot begins walking toward the person with the gun. I’m not sure if the “just dropping me off from work” excuse will hold up from the person who was shot. There seems to be plenty of other places where he could have been dropped off. All I know is that we only saw part of the argument. The Ring footage might reveal more. We don’t know what criminal record the woman had (I think the shooter was a woman) or that the guy had. The woman might be the upstanding citizen here, while the guy has the criminal record. We don’t know anything about the previous confrontations, but there might be Ring video of that, too. I think I’d want to hear everything better on the video. You can’t really make out what the man is yelling and I can’t hear what the woman with the gun said at all. We do know that a judge AND the prosecutor didn’t feel the woman was a risk, and allowed her to bond out. I don’t think liberal or conservative had anything to do with it, but let us note that Texas is a conservative state. Chances are the judge is a Republican and was appointed by a Republican. Morally, I think it’s wrong to shoot someone in the course of an argument over a parking space. Legally, the woman with the gun probably has a strong defense. There is a lot we don’t know that will be investigated in full by the police. There might be a lot of evidence in her favor that causes the prosecutor to drop the case.
    6
  1077. 6
  1078. 6
  1079. 6
  1080. 6
  1081. 6
  1082. 6
  1083. 6
  1084. 6
  1085. 6
  1086. 6
  1087. 6
  1088. 6
  1089. 5
  1090. 5
  1091. 5
  1092. 5
  1093. 5
  1094. 5
  1095. 5
  1096. 5
  1097. 5
  1098. 5
  1099. 5
  1100. 5
  1101. 5
  1102. 5
  1103. 5
  1104. 5
  1105. 5
  1106. 5
  1107. 5
  1108. 5
  1109. 5
  1110. 5
  1111. 5
  1112. 5
  1113. 5
  1114. 5
  1115. 5
  1116. 5
  1117. 5
  1118. 5
  1119. 5
  1120. 5
  1121. 5
  1122. 5
  1123. 5
  1124. 5
  1125. 5
  1126. 5
  1127. 5
  1128. 5
  1129. 5
  1130. Not as “chilling” as the current polar effect of climate change we might be experiencing currently! 😫 But seriously, preparations for the next pandemic should be accompanied by a deep evaluation of how our societies operate, the flexibility of the frameworks of our politics, and the management of resources. What do I mean by all of the above? I’m a conservative, and it’s clear in my mind that the conservative response to the pandemic has been insufficient at best, and counterproductive at worst. There is a time and place for an emphasis on individual liberty and free enterprise, but a global emergency is not it. (Not to mention that other structural weaknesses of the conservative program have been revealed by the pandemic that undermines the conservative stance.) What is required is more social cohesion, not less. More international cooperation, not nationalism. And though it pains me to say it, more liberal redistribution of resources to insure everyone can survive disruptions to the economy. This liberal spending has already required a near disastrous overextension of credit in my country. When the current emergency has passed, that borrowing needs to be repaid so that we can borrow again in the next emergency. (To be honest here, in my country, the more liberal of the two major parties has a better track record when it comes to deficits. I think this is more the case that the conservative party has actually gone off the rails and lost touch with the meaning of conservatism. Maybe liberals make better conservatives?) To me, the proper response to recurrent emergencies is, you lay by a reserve during fat years so that you can draw on it during lean years. You invest in the infrastructure you will need to call on during emergencies, instead of letting it whither in between emergencies.
    5
  1131. 5
  1132. 5
  1133. 5
  1134. 5
  1135. 5
  1136. 5
  1137. 5
  1138. 5
  1139. 5
  1140. 5
  1141. 5
  1142. 5
  1143. 5
  1144. 5
  1145. 5
  1146. 5
  1147.  @godschild6694  I’d be fine if he backed it up with educated opinion as to where Pete fell short. Pete made a 13 minute summary of the history of the area. There’s bound to be a lot of stuff left out. Also, Pete isn’t an expert on the area (he can’t be an expert on everything—he’s a very good generalist with broad knowledge), so he might be missing important detail or nuance. So I don’t expect Pete to be perfect. But like you, if someone who is an expert wants to criticize the presentation, I’d like some details about where Pete gets it wrong. This region of the world has a complicated political history that puts the Balkans/former Yugoslavia to shame. Like Tito did in Yugoslavia, the Soviets kept a lid on centuries of ethnic and religious strife. Before the Soviets, Armenia and Azerbaijan were under the thumb of the Ottoman Empire (the Turks). Armenia suffered greatly under the Turks (including the 20th Century’s first genocide), and I don’t think they ever recovered. The Soviets offered Armenians protection and some limited opportunities (including opportunities in the lucrative industry of state corruption under communism). The smartest, most entrepreneurial, most ambitious, and most educated Armenians have been fleeing the mother country for more than a century, forced out by the Turks first, and later escaping communist oppression. If I look at the successes and prosperity the Armenians of the diaspora have achieved in their adoptive countries, I wonder what could have been achieved in Armenia if they hadn’t been forced to leave. I suspect that the bot you responded to isn’t really a bot. It’s someone who is pro-Armenian, who grew up hearing the history from the Armenian perspective, and who isn’t ready to hear anything that challenges his world view. He really needs to hear different perspectives if he is to form a strategy for Armenia based on reality, but I don’t think he will because the Armenians are a proud people. But pride goeth before a fall.
    5
  1148. 5
  1149. 5
  1150. 5
  1151. 5
  1152. 5
  1153. 5
  1154. 5
  1155. 5
  1156. 5
  1157. 5
  1158. 5
  1159. 5
  1160. 5
  1161. 5
  1162. 5
  1163. 5
  1164. 5
  1165. 5
  1166. 5
  1167. 5
  1168. 5
  1169. 5
  1170. 5
  1171. 5
  1172. 5
  1173. 5
  1174. 5
  1175. 5
  1176. 5
  1177. 5
  1178. 5
  1179. 5
  1180. 5
  1181. 5
  1182. 5
  1183. 5
  1184. 5
  1185. 5
  1186. 5
  1187. 5
  1188. 5
  1189. 5
  1190. 5
  1191. 5
  1192. 5
  1193. 5
  1194. 5
  1195. 5
  1196. 5
  1197. 5
  1198. 5
  1199. 5
  1200. 5
  1201. 5
  1202. 5
  1203. 5
  1204. 5
  1205. 5
  1206. 5
  1207. 5
  1208. 5
  1209. 5
  1210. 5
  1211. 5
  1212. 5
  1213. 5
  1214. 5
  1215. 5
  1216. 5
  1217. 5
  1218. 5
  1219. 5
  1220. 5
  1221. 5
  1222. 5
  1223. 5
  1224. 5
  1225. 5
  1226. 5
  1227. 5
  1228. 5
  1229. 5
  1230. 5
  1231. 5
  1232. 5
  1233. 5
  1234. 5
  1235. 5
  1236. 5
  1237. 5
  1238. 5
  1239. 5
  1240. 5
  1241. 5
  1242. 5
  1243. 5
  1244. 5
  1245. 5
  1246. 5
  1247. 5
  1248. 5
  1249. 5
  1250. 5
  1251. 5
  1252. 5
  1253. 5
  1254. 5
  1255. 5
  1256. 5
  1257. 5
  1258. 5
  1259. 5
  1260. 5
  1261. 5
  1262. 5
  1263. 5
  1264.  @William1w1  William, we agree in general and some particulars, but I think you are in error over some of your claims. We agree that wars are terrible events that cause the suffering of innocents. We agree that the U.S. has made calamitous mistakes that has caused the suffering of innocents (and I think we might further agree that we have failed to reckon and atone for many of them). Maybe you would agree that some of these mistakes were the result of ill intentions, while others were well intentioned (but often arrogant). But would you agree that people have the right to defend themselves and their homeland from aggression, as the Ukrainians have been doing for 8 years? Would you agree that there is a difference between a policy of terror against civilians, such as we are seeing the Putin Regime commit, and other criminal behaviors we often see in wars? The Putzi trolls have been bringing up the My Lai massacre, but the story is more complicated when one knows how the aftermath unfolded. There was a court martial! It resulted in only one conviction (Lt. Calley), and unfortunately acquitted his higher ups (who tried to cover up the crime). But the fact is that there was a trial (or more factually, trials) as we attempted to come to terms with our national guilt. The trolls also fail to mention that three soldiers were later recognized for trying to protect the Vietnamese civilians. One more thing wrt to My Lai. It was investigated by independent journalists, most notably Seymour Hersh who broke the story. My points here is that there are many in our country, in our government, and in our military that try to do the right thing. We have a free press that holds us accountable when it does its job. We are far from perfect, but we at least try. We struggle to live up to our ideals, but at least we have them. I don’t think the same could be said about Nazi Germany, Japan’s military dictatorship, other murderous tyrants, and now Russia. They use murder and destruction as part of a policy of terror. I think a criminal like Putin murders not just to maintain his power, but to express it. As you say, Ukraine is now. Russia must be stopped. The Russian propagandists (the Putzis) that try to cover up the crimes must be stopped. Thank you for reading this.
    5
  1265. 5
  1266. 5
  1267. 5
  1268. 5
  1269. 5
  1270. 5
  1271. 5
  1272. 5
  1273. 5
  1274. 5
  1275. 5
  1276. 5
  1277. 5
  1278. 5
  1279. 5
  1280. 5
  1281. 5
  1282. 5
  1283. 5
  1284. 5
  1285. 5
  1286. 5
  1287. 5
  1288. 5
  1289. 5
  1290. 5
  1291. 5
  1292. 5
  1293. 5
  1294. You seem deeply in denial, perhaps delusional. Of course, it is useless to argue with you because you are not amenable to logic. The Russians did interfere in the 2016 election, and they did influence people. There is little doubt about this among those that investigating—the only argument and room for opinion is how much influence did the Russian operation have on the 2016 election. We can also debate what the Russian goals were. Was it to help Trump win or was it to foment division, or was it originally one and then morphed into the other? See, those are debates we can have if you could accept the basic facts on the ground. But you won’t because you’re enmeshed in system of fantasy thinking. Now, let’s address the question of collusion and Trump’s obeisance to Putin, a similar delusion among some Democrats, but not a majority. Again, the evidence doesn’t exist that Trump colluded with the Russians and was being directed by Putin. There are some facts that suggest it could have happened (Trump’s own words and the attempts by Rodger Stone), but no direct proof—despite extensive investigation. At best, we know Trump and his family have borrowed money from Russians and are predisposed to friendlier relations with Putin and Russia so as not to disrupt their business relations. But it doesn’t prove the wilder conspiracy theories put forth by a few delusional Democrats. If you are not delusional, by chance, but are merely trying to make what (you think) is the strongest case, you’re doing yourself and everyone else a disservice. Stick to the facts, be open to new facts, find a basis of agreement, and we can debate.
    5
  1295. 5
  1296. 5
  1297. 5
  1298.  @NotUnymous  Sure, they might have stockpiled supplies. But that is the point of the artillery attacks on warehouses, depots, and supply lines. Russian logistics weren’t very good to begin with, although they have improved. Dispersing the stockpiles might help protect them from artillery and careless smokers, but it also slows their distribution. Slow distribution helps prevent the Russians regaining the initiative. One of the biggest factors for successful assaults is keeping the initiative. If the Ukrainians can slow the Russian resupply, paralyze the command, and keep the field commanders guessing about which attacks are feints and which are real, they can maintain the initiative. If you study military history, attackers that lose initiative generally don’t succeed, even with superior numbers. The Normandy landings are a good example of this. The attack was extremely costly in terms of casualties and equipment, but the allied forces maintained the initiative, broke through the beach defenses, and disrupted lines of communication that prevented the German reserve force from reacting quickly. The Germans were unable to block the momentum of the attack, nor could they cut the supply lines to the beachhead. Operation Market Garden is a good example of losing momentum and losing initiative. The main body of attackers were slowed at several points. The light forces that took the bridges were not reinforced in time and the Germans were able to counterattack with surprising quickness. The main force had to divert forces to protect its flanks and supply lines. The attackers became the defenders, and were ultimately halted not far from their final objective.
    5
  1299. 5
  1300. 5
  1301. 5
  1302. 5
  1303. 5
  1304. 5
  1305. 5
  1306. 5
  1307. 5
  1308. 5
  1309. 5
  1310. 5
  1311. 5
  1312. 5
  1313. 5
  1314. 5
  1315. 5
  1316. 5
  1317. 5
  1318. 5
  1319. 5
  1320. 5
  1321. 5
  1322. 5
  1323. 5
  1324. 5
  1325. 5
  1326. 5
  1327. 5
  1328. 5
  1329. 5
  1330. 5
  1331. 5
  1332. 5
  1333. 5
  1334. 5
  1335. 5
  1336. 5
  1337. 5
  1338. 5
  1339. 5
  1340. 5
  1341. 5
  1342. 5
  1343. 5
  1344. 5
  1345. 5
  1346. 5
  1347. 5
  1348. 5
  1349. 5
  1350. 5
  1351. 5
  1352. 5
  1353. 5
  1354. 5
  1355. 5
  1356. 5
  1357. 5
  1358. 5
  1359. 5
  1360. 5
  1361. 5
  1362. 5
  1363. 5
  1364. 5
  1365. 5
  1366. 5
  1367. 5
  1368. 5
  1369. 5
  1370. 5
  1371. 5
  1372. 5
  1373. 5
  1374. 5
  1375. 5
  1376. 5
  1377. 5
  1378. 5
  1379. 4
  1380. 4
  1381. 4
  1382. 4
  1383. 4
  1384. 4
  1385. 4
  1386. 4
  1387. 4
  1388. 4
  1389. 4
  1390. 4
  1391. 4
  1392. 4
  1393. 4
  1394. 4
  1395. 4
  1396.  @Monalex89  Imagine if California became mexicanized! They’d change all the place names, streets, towns . . . Oh, wait. 🤪 (By ethnic/nationality population, L.A. is the second biggest Mexican city!) But seriously, we should take into account the very interesting cultural blending phenomenon on both sides of the frontera. I don’t believe it will lead to any changes in political boundaries, but the cultural diffusion and economic cooperation (an important thing neglected in the video) does bind both sides of the border region together. The truth is, neither the U.S. nor Mexico has any designs on each other’s political territory. This is mostly the fever dream of racists in the U.S. that have “reconquista” sand in their cracks or those that are white supremacists/imperialists and who believe that all problems can be solved with political violence (which they call “imposing order”). Partitioning any part of Mexico would destabilize the U.S. and the partitioned parts would be ungovernable. The reverse is too absurd to contemplate. Neither Americans of Mexican ancestry nor recent immigrants have any desire to stop being Americans (or residents of America), nor could Mexico hope to govern any of the U.S. states. (Governing independent-minded states like Sonora is already a challenge, no? Imagine the politicians in CDMX trying to govern Arizona!) Mexico is a big place, a huge and varied country, so I cannot make generalizations. I can say that the Bajío region, where I live, is distinctly different from the frontera, but even here there is a good deal of cultural diffusion that seeps into our lives. American style consumerism has taken hold, and certain American holidays are growing in popularity, such as Halloween and Cinco de Mayo (Yes, I’m joking about 5deMayo, but only partially). It’s also worth pointing out the influence (in both directions) of youth culture. La cultura pandilla is most certainly an import from the U.S., specifically from Southern California. With regard to Mexican influence on the U.S. beyond the border, it might be worthwhile to consult the writings of Gustavo Arellano, the “Orange County Octavio Paz”. (lol, I think he’d get a kick out that comparison, while humbling denying it.) He wrote a book with the thesis that México’s invasion of the U.S. is fait acompli, irreversible, terminado, thanks to the soft power of the soft taco. Call the process “Taco Diplomacy”. The truth is, both countries could accommodate a more open border without either side risking loss of sovereignty. DF will continue to pursue its own agenda while continuing to cooperate with both the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. (now that adults are back in charge) will pursue both cooperation and meddling, as it always has. Mexico has a century of experience responding to “gringo imperialism”, and knows how to extract concessions.
    4
  1397. 4
  1398. 4
  1399. 4
  1400. 4
  1401. 4
  1402. 4
  1403. 4
  1404. 4
  1405. 4
  1406. 4
  1407. 4
  1408. 4
  1409. 4
  1410. 4
  1411. 4
  1412. 4
  1413. 4
  1414. 4
  1415. 4
  1416. 4
  1417. 4
  1418. 4
  1419. 4
  1420. 4
  1421. 4
  1422. 4
  1423. 4
  1424. 4
  1425. 4
  1426. 4
  1427. 4
  1428. 4
  1429. 4
  1430. 4
  1431. 4
  1432. 4
  1433. 4
  1434. 4
  1435. 4
  1436. 4
  1437. 4
  1438. 4
  1439. 4
  1440. 4
  1441. 4
  1442. 4
  1443. 4
  1444. 4
  1445. 4
  1446. 4
  1447. 4
  1448. 4
  1449. 4
  1450. 4
  1451. 4
  1452. 4
  1453. 4
  1454. 4
  1455. The 30-year fixed rate hit 18% in early 1980s, and decreased to about 7% by the year 2000. Inflation peaked about the same time at 14%. At the time you got your first mortgage, inflation was at 2.75%. I don’t think we can say what is normal interest or normal inflation over the long term. At best we can say there has been a downward trend. Incidentally, one of the charts I just looked at noted that Paul Volcker was named Fed Chairman in 1979 and embarked on an anti-inflation campaign. I think I’ll have a look at what he did that began easing inflation, although I don’t think it will be directly applicable to our current situation. I’m going to take Peter’s claim about what the Fed is trying to do vis-a-vis international markets with a grain of salt, and take current Fed Chairman Jay Powell at his word. (His latest press briefing was yesterday—PBS Newshour has the full brief.) He is primarily attempting to avert persistent inflation. A secondary target is a soft landing for this weird recession we are in (and there’s your anomaly, because the job market is strong, etc.), but he expressed doubt that the Fed could land the economy softly. Maybe that is what Peter was talking about because when the U.S. is in a recession, the rest of the world feels it. Personally, I’m really glad I paid down my high interest credit card debt over the past six months. I plan to be pretty frugal this holiday season and avoid accumulating more debt. Good luck to y’all in the storm we are entering. I hope we see smooth sailing before too long.
    4
  1456. 4
  1457. 4
  1458. 4
  1459. 4
  1460. 4
  1461. 4
  1462. 4
  1463. 4
  1464. 4
  1465. 4
  1466. 4
  1467. 4
  1468. 4
  1469. 4
  1470. 4
  1471. 4
  1472. 4
  1473. 4
  1474. 4
  1475. 4
  1476. 4
  1477. 4
  1478. 4
  1479. 4
  1480. 4
  1481. 4
  1482. 4
  1483. 4
  1484. 4
  1485. 4
  1486. 4
  1487. 4
  1488. 4
  1489. 4
  1490. 4
  1491. 4
  1492. 4
  1493. 4
  1494. 4
  1495. 4
  1496. 4
  1497. 4
  1498. 4
  1499. 4
  1500.  @cdani9972  You make a good point. Cippollone took the oath to uphold the Constitution, and part of that duty is to protect the principle of Executive Privilege. Even if a court has ruled that there is probable cause to pierce that shield, a WhiteHouse Counsel’s duty is to maintain as much of that privilege as he can on any matters outside the investigation. The committee investigators will have to ask very specific questions with regard to matters directly involving Trump, counsel he gave Trump, and things that Trump asked or told him. They probably can’t ask, for example, for him to go through any particular day and what he did and who did he talk to on that day. They’ll have to ask specifically, “Did you have a meeting with so-and-so?” So I don’t think this is a fishing expedition. I think the committee has a good idea of what questions to ask, and how to ask them. I don’t think he’s a hostile witness, just a witness that isn’t free to volunteer information or answer certain questions. He is constitutionally constrained. In fact, I think the committee has been trying to portray him sympathetically (so as not to alienate him?). Here is what I think we will get: More on the day of January 6th and the part he played in keeping Trump from going to the Capitol. More on the pardons and his interactions with Kushner. Interactions with Mark Meadows. The attempt to replace Rosen with a new AG. (I’m not sure how much info he can divulge on Meadows and Kushner, given his constitutional constraints.)
    4
  1501. 4
  1502. 4
  1503. 4
  1504. 4
  1505. 4
  1506. 4
  1507. 4
  1508. 4
  1509. 4
  1510. 4
  1511. 4
  1512. 4
  1513. 4
  1514. 4
  1515. 4
  1516. 4
  1517. 4
  1518. 4
  1519. 4
  1520. 4
  1521. 4
  1522. 4
  1523. 4
  1524. 4
  1525. 4
  1526. 4
  1527. 4
  1528. 4
  1529. 4
  1530. 4
  1531. 4
  1532. 4
  1533. 4
  1534. 4
  1535. 4
  1536. 4
  1537. 4
  1538. 4
  1539. 4
  1540. 4
  1541. 4
  1542. 4
  1543. 4
  1544. 4
  1545. 4
  1546. 4
  1547. 4
  1548. 4
  1549. 4
  1550. 4
  1551. 4
  1552. 4
  1553. 4
  1554. The “audience” skews heavily towards antivax trolls that organize on outside websites and come here as a group to spread disinformation, sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and insult Dr. Campbell. If you subtract these pieces of shit and the delusional idiots, I don’t think you can make that sort of assumption about Dr. Campbell’s sincere audience. It seems to me that if you cut through the noise and ignorance in the comments, you’ll find people interested in learning the facts and the current consensus, such as they are. John is a more in-depth source than the news media in his areas of expertise. The only recommendation he’s made beyond the standard protocols, afaik, is Vitamin D (and zinc?). He’s talked about research into other therapies, but has never recommended anything else. This isn’t a channel where the “self managing” can find alternative medicine “hacks” (even as there are quite a few hacks promoting nonsense in the comments). If you are here to understand how to care for your family, it’s quite simple: mask, hygiene, distancing, air circulation/fresh air, and get fully vaccinated as soon as you can. How many times must this basic message be repeated for your supposedly rational self managing audience members to understand? The thing about mandates is no one wants them, but many understand that they are becoming necessary to avoid worse. I don’t want a Nanny State, but it’s become clear that there are many people (ostensibly adults) misbehaving like children and throwing tantrums or worse. When people’s behavior, either individually or in groups, harms society, that society must react by setting limits on those individuals and groups. Often social norms and peer pressure are sufficient, but when they’re not and the moral infants escalate their anti-social behavior, we as a society will escalate harm prevention measures. Even a small c conservative such as myself understands this. I also understand that there are certain anti-democratic types who hope to create unrest. Traditionally these types have been on the left, but it seems that the extreme reactionary right has picked up some tricks from Marx, Lenin, and Mao.
    4
  1555. 4
  1556. 4
  1557. 4
  1558. 4
  1559. 4
  1560. 4
  1561. 4
  1562. 4
  1563. 4
  1564. 4
  1565. 4
  1566. 4
  1567. 4
  1568. 4
  1569. 4
  1570. 4
  1571. 4
  1572. 4
  1573. 4
  1574. 4
  1575. 4
  1576. 4
  1577. 4
  1578. 4
  1579. 4
  1580. 4
  1581. 4
  1582. 4
  1583. 4
  1584. 4
  1585. 4
  1586. 4
  1587. 4
  1588. 4
  1589. 4
  1590. 4
  1591. 4
  1592. 4
  1593. 4
  1594. 4
  1595. 4
  1596. 4
  1597. 4
  1598. 4
  1599. 4
  1600. 4
  1601. 4
  1602. 4
  1603. 4
  1604. 4
  1605. 4
  1606. 4
  1607. 4
  1608. 4
  1609. 4
  1610. 4
  1611. 4
  1612. 4
  1613. 4
  1614. 4
  1615. 4
  1616. 4
  1617. 4
  1618. 4
  1619. We are talking about two things: criminals being tried and criminals being punished. The ICC can try accused criminals in abstentia, but of course it cannot force extradition of convicted criminals to face justice and punishment. As far as a top level leaders being tried, convicted, and punished for war crimes, this can happen when total victory is achieved, in the sense that a country would be occupied and surrender unconditionally. This also might happen if there is a change in leadership and it is desirable or convenient to the new leadership to give up the old leadership. But even in the case of a country losing or being forced to cease its war activities, there is no formal mechanism to force a war criminal to face justice. I am thinking of U.S. National Security Advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger in this case, who ordered specific operations in Cambodia that were almost certainly war crimes. It’s notable that the U.S. did in fact prosecute and convict a low level officer for the My Lai atrocity. Unsurprisingly, the officer’s superiors were never charged despite evidence that they were also culpable. It seems like a symbolic gesture (although I’m sure it wasn’t symbolic to the officer in question, Lt. William Calley.) The international community was never in a position to force war crimes trials on the U.S. And given that this was during the Cold War and the U.S. was the main supporter of NATO, it wasn’t politically possible. It is entirely possible that Russia will sacrifice some lower level officers and soldiers in a peace deal, but I think it’s unlikely Putin or any high level Russian leaders will ever be convicted and punished, regardless of moral correctness. And I’m sorry to say that Putin has a letter-of-the-law defense for the bombing of civilian infrastructure, despite our opinion. It’s probably a moot point anyway.
    4
  1620. 4
  1621. 4
  1622. 4
  1623. 4
  1624. 4
  1625. 4
  1626. 4
  1627. 4
  1628. 4
  1629. 4
  1630. 4
  1631. 4
  1632. 4
  1633. 4
  1634. 4
  1635. 4
  1636. 4
  1637. 4
  1638. 4
  1639. 4
  1640. 4
  1641. 4
  1642. 4
  1643. 4
  1644. 4
  1645. 4
  1646. 4
  1647. 4
  1648. 4
  1649. 4
  1650. 4
  1651. 4
  1652. 4
  1653. 4
  1654. 4
  1655. 4
  1656. 4
  1657. 4
  1658. 4
  1659. 4
  1660. 4
  1661. 4
  1662. 4
  1663. I went to an open mic night and some older dude got up and read a 10-minute speech about homeopathy. At first I wasn’t sure to what to make of it. Was this going to be some kind of Norm MacDonald shaggy dog story? Was this conceptual art? I was on the edge of my seat waiting for the punchline or story twist. But no. It was just his story of his experiences with homeopathy, how it cured him of something, and the “science” behind it. I was fascinated. I had to talk to this fellow. He seemed well spoken and educated. I was dying to know how, HOW, how a molecule or particle could imprint itself on water, and how water could have memory. Never mind how this imprinting and memory had any curative powers. I just wanted to understand what he thought the underlying mechanisms were. First of all, his credentials: he was a computer scientist. Well, actually more of a computer engineer. Well actually, he was a computer programmer who self-styled himself as an engineer and (why not?) a scientist. And the man had very little understanding of basic chemistry. I didn’t seek to humiliate him (and he didn’t seem humiliated when he walked away). I merely asked him questions about water molecules. Near as I can tell, he had a very idiosyncratic understanding of the Bohr model, and he used “quantum physics” to explain how a non-water molecule could impart a “memory” on a water molecule’s electron cloud. I said, “So you’re using homeopathy to program water at the subatomic level”, and he clapped me on the shoulder and said, “Now you’re getting it!” It was at this point that a friend (my ride to the open mic as it happens) called for me, and I was able to extricate myself from a lengthy water programming lesson. Not all pseudoscientists are grifters, unless they’re just grifting themselves. This guy wasn’t trying to make money, he just wanted someone to listen to his ideas that were based on his lack of scientific understanding. I got the feeling he was a lonely guy who had hit upon an idea that he couldn’t let go of, but since he hadn’t really grasped chemistry or physics, he didn’t know how test his ideas (other than mixing infinitesimal amounts of things with water and seeing if they worked.)
    4
  1664. 4
  1665. 4
  1666. 4
  1667. 4
  1668. 4
  1669. 4
  1670. 4
  1671. 4
  1672. 4
  1673. 4
  1674. 4
  1675. 4
  1676. 4
  1677. 4
  1678. 4
  1679. 4
  1680. 4
  1681. 4
  1682. 4
  1683. 4
  1684. 4
  1685. 4
  1686. 4
  1687. 4
  1688. 4
  1689. 4
  1690. 4
  1691. 4
  1692. 4
  1693. 4
  1694. 4
  1695. 4
  1696. 4
  1697. 4
  1698. 4
  1699. 4
  1700. 4
  1701. 4
  1702. 4
  1703. 4
  1704. 4
  1705. 4
  1706. 4
  1707. 4
  1708. 4
  1709. 4
  1710. 4
  1711. 4
  1712. 4
  1713. 4
  1714. 4
  1715. 4
  1716. 4
  1717. 4
  1718. 4
  1719. 4
  1720. 4
  1721. 4
  1722. 4
  1723. 4
  1724. 4
  1725. 4
  1726. 4
  1727. 4
  1728. 4
  1729. 4
  1730. 4
  1731. 4
  1732. 4
  1733. 4
  1734. 4
  1735. 4
  1736. 4
  1737. 4
  1738. 4
  1739. 4
  1740. 4
  1741. 4
  1742. 4
  1743. 4
  1744. 4
  1745. 4
  1746. 4
  1747. 4
  1748. 4
  1749. 4
  1750. 4
  1751. 4
  1752.  @anonymouse14  Liability, yes. Criminal charges, probably not. U-haul has a good mens rea defense here, and any prosecutor would think three times and then opt not to prosecute. Mens rea is intention, and it would be quite easy for the defense to prove that no one at Uhaul intended to steal. For a civil case to recover monetary damages, it’s equally clear cut that Uhaul is liable, since their negligence led to the loss of the client’s property. Any jury would award damages. Unless Uhaul is very stupid (always possible with big corporations), they would want to settle this quickly and not argue about a reasonable ask (between full value and 150% or perhaps 200% of value, depending on how high). There might be several rounds of offer/counteroffer. Probably the couple would want to settle this sooner rather than wait for the matter to come to trial. But if they are willing to wait, they might get a bigger payoff at trial. If it was me, I’d start negotiations with the company before retaining an attorney. I’d have my minimum acceptable offer in mind based on value of the lost possessions and the inconvenience of replacement. A lot of times you can get a fair settlement quicker if you DON’T retain an attorney, and you won’t be on the hook for the attorney’s contingency. Once you hire attorneys, the company won’t talk to you and everything is done between your attorney and theirs. If I was offered anything like 150% of fair value, I’d be satisfied. Less than 125%, I’d probably seek legal assistance. That said, if one is too angry and emotional, it might be better to hire an attorney from the get go, and let them handle the case.
    4
  1753. 4
  1754. 4
  1755. 4
  1756. 4
  1757. 4
  1758. 4
  1759. 4
  1760. 4
  1761. 4
  1762. 4
  1763. 4
  1764. 4
  1765. 4
  1766. 4
  1767. 4
  1768. 4
  1769. 4
  1770. 4
  1771. 4
  1772. 4
  1773. 4
  1774. 4
  1775. 4
  1776. 4
  1777. 4
  1778. 4
  1779. 4
  1780. 4
  1781. 4
  1782. 4
  1783. 4
  1784. 4
  1785. 4
  1786. 4
  1787. 4
  1788. 4
  1789. 4
  1790. 4
  1791. 4
  1792. 4
  1793. 4
  1794. 4
  1795. 4
  1796. 4
  1797. 4
  1798. 4
  1799. 4
  1800. 4
  1801. 4
  1802. 4
  1803. 4
  1804. 4
  1805. 4
  1806. 4
  1807. 4
  1808. 4
  1809. 4
  1810. 4
  1811. 4
  1812. 4
  1813. 4
  1814. 4
  1815. 4
  1816. 4
  1817. 4
  1818. 4
  1819. 4
  1820. 4
  1821. 4
  1822. 4
  1823. 4
  1824. 4
  1825. 4
  1826. 4
  1827. 3
  1828. 3
  1829. 3
  1830. 3
  1831. 3
  1832. 3
  1833. 3
  1834. 3
  1835. 3
  1836. 3
  1837. 3
  1838. 3
  1839. 3
  1840. 3
  1841. 3
  1842. 3
  1843. 3
  1844. 3
  1845. 3
  1846. 3
  1847. 3
  1848. 3
  1849. 3
  1850. 3
  1851. 3
  1852. 3
  1853. 3
  1854. 3
  1855. 3
  1856. 3
  1857. 3
  1858. 3
  1859. 3
  1860. 3
  1861. 3
  1862. 3
  1863. 3
  1864. 3
  1865. 3
  1866. 3
  1867. 3
  1868. 3
  1869. 3
  1870. 3
  1871. 3
  1872. 3
  1873. 3
  1874. 3
  1875. 3
  1876. 3
  1877. 3
  1878. 3
  1879. 3
  1880. 3
  1881. 3
  1882. 3
  1883. 3
  1884. 3
  1885. 3
  1886. 3
  1887. 3
  1888. 3
  1889. 3
  1890. 3
  1891. 3
  1892. 3
  1893. 3
  1894. 3
  1895. 3
  1896. 3
  1897. 3
  1898. 3
  1899. 3
  1900. 3
  1901. 3
  1902. 3
  1903. 3
  1904. 3
  1905. 3
  1906. 3
  1907. 3
  1908. 3
  1909. 3
  1910. 3
  1911. 3
  1912. 3
  1913. 3
  1914. 3
  1915. 3
  1916. 3
  1917. 3
  1918. 3
  1919. 3
  1920. 3
  1921. 3
  1922. 3
  1923. 3
  1924. 3
  1925. 3
  1926. 3
  1927. 3
  1928. 3
  1929. 3
  1930. 3
  1931. 3
  1932. 3
  1933. 3
  1934. 3
  1935. 3
  1936. 3
  1937. 3
  1938. 3
  1939. 3
  1940. 3
  1941. 3
  1942. 3
  1943. 3
  1944. 3
  1945. 3
  1946. 3
  1947. 3
  1948. 3
  1949. 3
  1950. 3
  1951. 3
  1952. 3
  1953. 3
  1954. 3
  1955. 3
  1956. 3
  1957. 3
  1958. 3
  1959. 3
  1960. 3
  1961. 3
  1962. 3
  1963. 3
  1964. 3
  1965. 3
  1966. 3
  1967. 3
  1968. 3
  1969. 3
  1970. 3
  1971. 3
  1972. 3
  1973. 3
  1974. 3
  1975. 3
  1976. 3
  1977. 3
  1978. 3
  1979. 3
  1980. 3
  1981. 3
  1982. 3
  1983. 3
  1984. 3
  1985. 3
  1986. 3
  1987. 3
  1988. 3
  1989. 3
  1990. 3
  1991. 3
  1992. 3
  1993. 3
  1994. 3
  1995. 3
  1996. 3
  1997. 3
  1998. 3
  1999. 3
  2000. 3
  2001. 3
  2002. 3
  2003. 3
  2004. 3
  2005. 3
  2006. 3
  2007. 3
  2008. 3
  2009. 3
  2010. 3
  2011. 3
  2012. 3
  2013. 3
  2014. 3
  2015. 3
  2016. 3
  2017. 3
  2018. 3
  2019. 3
  2020. 3
  2021. 3
  2022. 3
  2023. 3
  2024. 3
  2025. 3
  2026. 3
  2027. 3
  2028. 3
  2029. 3
  2030. 3
  2031. 3
  2032. 3
  2033. 3
  2034. 3
  2035. 3
  2036. 3
  2037. 3
  2038. 3
  2039. 3
  2040. 3
  2041. 3
  2042. 3
  2043. 3
  2044. 3
  2045. 3
  2046. 3
  2047. 3
  2048. 3
  2049. 3
  2050. 3
  2051. 3
  2052. 3
  2053. 3
  2054. 3
  2055. 3
  2056. 3
  2057. 3
  2058. 3
  2059. 3
  2060. 3
  2061. 3
  2062. 3
  2063. 3
  2064. 3
  2065. 3
  2066. 3
  2067. 3
  2068. 3
  2069. 3
  2070. 3
  2071. 3
  2072. 3
  2073. 3
  2074. 3
  2075. 3
  2076. 3
  2077. 3
  2078. 3
  2079. 3
  2080. 3
  2081. 3
  2082. 3
  2083. 3
  2084. 3
  2085. 3
  2086. 3
  2087. 3
  2088. A politburo is infinitely more desirable than a single dictator who has crushed all possible dissent and differing opinions. Compared to Xi’s authoritarian rule that quashes all debate, Vietnam is relatively a democracy because it allows different opinions, albeit within a very narrow range. A politburo atop a democracy gets things done via compromise among political factions and consensus development. As crazy as this might sound to our democratic ears, the internal factions work as a system of checks and balances. If any faction becomes too powerful, the other factions will work together to undermine and limit that power. A second reason that a politburo rule by committee is preferable to a Xi-style dictatorship is that you have more eyes looking at problems and challenges. There’s a better chance that the leadership has a grasp on the reality of a situation, whether the situation is internal or geopolitical. Lower level bureaucrats and functionaries can’t fudge the data (to keep the dictator happy) to the same degree as has happened in the PRC since Xi has consolidated absolute power. They can’t just tell the leader what he wants to hear because there is no single leader. Lastly, it should be pointed out that Mexico was a single party dictatorship for over seventy years (from the early 1920s to the middle 90s) and we were fine with that. The Party of Institutional Revolution (or however you want to translate PRI) was nominally a socialist democracy with all the corruption and fraudulent elections you’d expect, but political power was never permanently concentrated in the hands of one man. Mexico had a dictatorship with term limits. Every six years the PRI would select the next presidente behind closed doors (and he would go on to fraudulently win the presidential election). Without getting too heavily into Mexican political history (and I am far from an expert), the point is that the U.S. was fine with a corrupt socialist “democracy” on our southern border. The two countries cooperated. At times we had disagreements, but the relationship worked. There is no reason that a similar relationship with Vietnam couldn’t work.
    3
  2089. 3
  2090. 3
  2091. 3
  2092. 3
  2093. 3
  2094. 3
  2095. 3
  2096. 3
  2097. 3
  2098. 3
  2099. 3
  2100. 3
  2101. 3
  2102. 3
  2103. 3
  2104. 3
  2105. 3
  2106. 3
  2107. 3
  2108. 3
  2109. 3
  2110. 3
  2111. 3
  2112. 3
  2113. 3
  2114. 3
  2115. 3
  2116. 3
  2117. 3
  2118. 3
  2119. 3
  2120. 3
  2121. 3
  2122. 3
  2123. 3
  2124. 3
  2125. 3
  2126. 3
  2127. 3
  2128. 3
  2129. 3
  2130. 3
  2131. 3
  2132. 3
  2133. 3
  2134. 3
  2135. 3
  2136. 3
  2137. 3
  2138. 3
  2139. 3
  2140. 3
  2141. 3
  2142. 3
  2143. 3
  2144. 3
  2145. 3
  2146. 3
  2147. 3
  2148. 3
  2149. 3
  2150. 3
  2151. 3
  2152. 3
  2153. 3
  2154. 3
  2155. 3
  2156. 3
  2157. 3
  2158. 3
  2159. 3
  2160. 3
  2161. 3
  2162. 3
  2163. 3
  2164. 3
  2165. 3
  2166. 3
  2167. 3
  2168. 3
  2169. 3
  2170. 3
  2171. 3
  2172. 3
  2173. 3
  2174. 3
  2175. 3
  2176. 3
  2177. 3
  2178. 3
  2179. 3
  2180. 3
  2181. 3
  2182. 3
  2183. 3
  2184. 3
  2185. 3
  2186. 3
  2187. 3
  2188. 3
  2189. 3
  2190. 3
  2191. 3
  2192. 3
  2193. 3
  2194. 3
  2195. 3
  2196. 3
  2197. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @marvinegreen  Hey, Marvin. I was just a kid at the time of the Vietnam War. Maybe I was more aware of it than some at the time. I remember that the older brother of my best friend was in high school ROTC, and he was very informed of events, and would tell us about the conflict, including the tactics being used. His father was Korean War vet, and his grandfather was a code talker in WWII. A couple of the family’s older cousins had served or were serving tours in VN. (Just as an aside, you won’t find Americans more patriotic and more willing to lay their lives on the line than Navajos.) Anyway, the older brother was quite hawkish, up until the time he graduated. I think his family members with war experience had been trying to break through his idealism to tell him the realities of war. And now that it was going to be his turn soon, they finally got through to him. He didn’t become anti-war, but his ardor cooled. Anyway, he enlisted and went through officer training and was sent to Germany. By that time we were drawing down. It was the period of Vietnamization, Nixon’s policy of turning more and more of the war to the South Vietnamese. I also remember my father, a liberal and active Democrat. Despite being a Democrat, he always said, “Respect the President”. (This was pre-Watergate). He was a veteran of WWII, and he also said, “Whether you agree with the policies of the government, we support the troops.” To be clear, he was firmly a liberal but he was not a dirty hippy. He was a fierce centrist liberal Democrat. But he gradually became anti-war as the conflict dragged on. As I grew older and went to college, I studied the Vietnam War more in depth. I try to keep my childhood memories in a separate category from what I later learned, and not let it color my opinion. And here it is. Our leaders didn’t truly understand the nature of the war we were fighting. They thought it was one thing, but really it was another. They understood the nature of the Cold War, but they didn’t understand Vietnam. Sure, they understood that it was an insurgency, but they didn’t fully understand the nature of that insurgency at a fundamental level. They didn’t understand Vietnam and its history. They didn’t understand that the North Vietnamese communists could be fiercely communist, but with an independent streak a mile wide. The bottom line is that if your policies are based on a false appraisal of the nature of the war your military strategy will not succeed. With regard to the current conflict in Ukraine, the obvious parallels are obvious. The less obvious parallel is that Russia doesn’t understand the nature of the war they are fighting. They don’t understand who they are fighting. They don’t understand at a fundamental level the nature of Ukrainian resistance, nationalism, and independence. The Russian leadership really believes its own propaganda and ideology. They don’t get why their domino theory of NATO expansion is flawed. They don’t understand that Ukraine’s primary motivation is its independence and survival as an independent nation. If they did, they would withdraw. Because they don’t, their strategies will always be flawed and insufficient. Now we come to the thing you don’t understand. Why is “NATO North” more enthusiastically supporting Ukraine than is “NATO South”? Why are they more enthusiastic members of NATO? One reason might be that they have joined NATO more recently. But I think the strongest reason is how much they suffered under the Soviets. Thanks for reading my overly long spiel.
    3
  2198. 3
  2199. 3
  2200. 3
  2201. 3
  2202. 3
  2203. 3
  2204. 3
  2205. 3
  2206. 3
  2207. 3
  2208. 3
  2209. 3
  2210. 3
  2211. 3
  2212. 3
  2213. 3
  2214. 3
  2215. 3
  2216. 3
  2217. 3
  2218. 3
  2219. 3
  2220. 3
  2221. 3
  2222. 3
  2223. 3
  2224. 3
  2225. 3
  2226. 3
  2227. 3
  2228. 3
  2229. 3
  2230. 3
  2231. 3
  2232. Which system? Our society is a system of systems. Can you pinpoint where it’s going wrong? When you say people, do you mean everyone or a subset (for example, politicians)? I see capitalism as a social technology. It’s a method or framework for creating value and for distributing goods and services. This is why it can be integrated into a variety of political systems. We go wrong when we think that there is an ideal capitalism end sate if we strictly adhere to laissez-faire capitalism. This is religion and/or ideology. If you accept my premise that capitalism is a technology, you might ask how does it fulfill its role as a value generator and distributor of goods/services? Put another way, what is it? It’s an engine. Engines do work. More questions arise: How can it be harnessed? Who should benefit from the work that it does? In a democracy, we can answer these questions and determine how to make it work for the benefit of the greatest number while rewarding those individuals who take risks. In this motor analogy, we can tweak the engine to suit our purpose. If society is some sort of car or motor vehicle, is it a race car? A bus? Or is it a luxury sedan? Does it have safety features to protect the passengers? Now we’re talking about the design of the vehicle itself. In a democracy, we get to answer these questions. We get to negotiate between differences of opinion on the purpose and design of both the vehicle and the motor and all the other vehicle stuff (seating, drive train, steering, suspension, safety features, etc.). In non democracies, we do not. The design is imposed on us to benefit a very few.
    3
  2233. 3
  2234. 3
  2235. 3
  2236. 3
  2237. 3
  2238. 3
  2239. 3
  2240. 3
  2241. 3
  2242. 3
  2243. 3
  2244. 3
  2245. 3
  2246. 3
  2247. 3
  2248. 3
  2249. 3
  2250. 3
  2251. 3
  2252. 3
  2253. 3
  2254. 3
  2255. 3
  2256. 3
  2257. 3
  2258. 3
  2259. 3
  2260. 3
  2261. 3
  2262. 3
  2263. 3
  2264. 3
  2265. 3
  2266. 3
  2267. 3
  2268. 3
  2269. 3
  2270. 3
  2271. 3
  2272. 3
  2273. 3
  2274. 3
  2275. 3
  2276. 3
  2277. 3
  2278. 3
  2279. 3
  2280. 3
  2281. 3
  2282. 3
  2283. 3
  2284. 3
  2285. 3
  2286. 3
  2287. 3
  2288. 3
  2289. 3
  2290. 3
  2291. 3
  2292.  @HighBoss  let us not forget that Ukraine has its own intelligence service and its own intelligence gathering capabilities. Thus the U.S. could inform their Ukrainian counterparts, “Moskva heading your way at such and such a heading and speed”, and Ukraine could take it from there. It’s a matter of knowing where to look, and the U.S. could provide that information without providing targeting data. It’s completely within Ukraine’s capabilities to have drones in the right place at the right time to precisely determine where a target is. With regard to targeting meetings of generals, Gerasimov might have a secure phone, but does everyone attending the meeting? I’m not even thinking of the other generals, but of their entourages, down to drivers and orderlies. If the Ukrainians were tracking IMEIs of officers’ drivers’ phones, they could just wait for them to all show up at the same place. The name of the game here isn’t decryption, it’s metadata. The Ukrainians don’t need U.S. help for that if the Russians are using Ukrainian cel systems. But they would certainly find it helpful if the U.S. reported that Gerasimov was heading into Ukraine for a big meeting. Amd just a reminder in general: there are some people from whom you might need to ask for help, but for various reasons, you want to ask sparingly. Among those reasons is to minimize your debt and obligation to those sorts of people. (I think the idea of being beholden to a U.S. intelligence agency sucks.)
    3
  2293. 3
  2294. 3
  2295. 3
  2296. 3
  2297. 3
  2298. 3
  2299. 3
  2300. 3
  2301. 3
  2302. 3
  2303. 3
  2304. 3
  2305. 3
  2306. 3
  2307. 3
  2308. 3
  2309. 3
  2310. 3
  2311. 3
  2312. 3
  2313. 3
  2314. 3
  2315. 3
  2316. 3
  2317. 3
  2318.  @politics4816  it’s because non-specialist physicians don’t want to go out on a limb until a treatment is examined by an expert like Dr. Lawrie, who has the competence (not to mention the authority) to tie together the bits and bobs of data coming in from ad hoc clinical “studies”. Studies in quotes, because more often than not, they’re being done in desperate circumstances with varying amounts of scientific rigor. Look at where the studies are being done, and you’ll see the worst pandemic hotspots, overwhelmed hospitals, and shortages of things like oxygen. Keep in mind that while this has been going on, there’s probably ten or more other treatments also being extolled by quacks. If you’re wondering why it’s taken so long, it’s because it’s taken a certain amount of time for the signal of ivermectin to rise above the noise of quackery and pseudoscience. Let’s be clear about what Dr. Lawrie is saying. She’s saying it’s 1) Probably safe, and 2) Probably effective. Highly probable, if you like. She is saying that this meets the level she requires for “pandemic license” to prescribe ivermectin. In addition to this, she mentions the hypothetical mechanisms by which ivermectin is effective, and supplies the data that seems to back up the hypotheses. The overall message is that while more study is necessary to understand exactly what is going on, there is enough data to proceed widely with treatment, even in non-desperate situations. I was very skeptical about ivermectin, but Dr. Lawrie and her work is removing doubt. I’ll be overjoyed if my skepticism is proven wrong. I do not think I was wrong to be skeptical, however, given the amount of ignorance and disinformation surrounding the promotion of ivermectin (a lot of noise, little signal).
    3
  2319. 3
  2320. 3
  2321. 3
  2322. 3
  2323. 3
  2324. 3
  2325. 3
  2326. 3
  2327. 3
  2328. 3
  2329. 3
  2330. 3
  2331. 3
  2332. 3
  2333. 3
  2334. 3
  2335. 3
  2336. 3
  2337. 3
  2338. 3
  2339. 3
  2340. 3
  2341. 3
  2342. 3
  2343. 3
  2344. 3
  2345. 3
  2346. 3
  2347. 3
  2348. 3
  2349. 3
  2350. 3
  2351. 3
  2352. 3
  2353. 3
  2354. 3
  2355. 3
  2356. 3
  2357. 3
  2358. 3
  2359. 3
  2360. 3
  2361. 3
  2362. 3
  2363. 3
  2364. 3
  2365. 3
  2366. 3
  2367. 3
  2368. 3
  2369. 3
  2370. 3
  2371. 3
  2372. 3
  2373. 3
  2374. 3
  2375. 3
  2376. 3
  2377. 3
  2378. 3
  2379. 3
  2380. 3
  2381. 3
  2382. 3
  2383. 3
  2384. 3
  2385. 3
  2386. 3
  2387. 3
  2388. 3
  2389. 3
  2390. 3
  2391. 3
  2392. 3
  2393. 3
  2394. 3
  2395. 3
  2396. 3
  2397. 3
  2398. 3
  2399. 3
  2400. 3
  2401. 3
  2402. 3
  2403. 3
  2404. 3
  2405. 3
  2406. 3
  2407. 3
  2408. 3
  2409. 3
  2410. 3
  2411. 3
  2412. 3
  2413. 3
  2414. 3
  2415. 3
  2416. 3
  2417. 3
  2418. 3
  2419. 3
  2420. 3
  2421. 3
  2422. 3
  2423. 3
  2424. 3
  2425. 3
  2426. 3
  2427. 3
  2428. 3
  2429. 3
  2430. 3
  2431. 3
  2432. 3
  2433. 3
  2434. 3
  2435. 3
  2436. 3
  2437. 3
  2438. 3
  2439. 3
  2440. 3
  2441. 3
  2442. 3
  2443. 3
  2444. 3
  2445. 3
  2446. 3
  2447. 3
  2448. 3
  2449. 3
  2450. 3
  2451. 3
  2452. 3
  2453. 3
  2454. 3
  2455. 3
  2456. 3
  2457. 3
  2458. 3
  2459. 3
  2460. 3
  2461. 3
  2462. 3
  2463. This is the problem of taking shortcuts and getting away with it. You start to think the protocols are unnecessary because “nothing bad happened the last 9 times”. Then the shortcut becomes the new normal, and more expedient short cuts are taken, and all is well until someone gets hurt or killed. Apparently the armorer was not on set at all. The take should have been held until she arrived and checked everything, so ultimately this is the AD’s responsibility, but there is the question of why live rounds were anywhere near the location AT ALL. There are questions about why even a blank-loaded prop gun was discharged in the direction of crew members without further precautions. And lastly, there’s the question of why real weapons were used at all, when highly accurate replicas are available (or can be fabricated). Recoil can be simulated by actors and muzzle flash can be added as a special effect in post production. Part of the problem is the nature of many low budget productions. Schedules are too ambitious, shortcuts are taken to stay within budget and on schedule. Equipment might be broken, but is still functional enough to use (until a malfunction injures someone). Inexperienced crew gets hired. Days go too long to stay on unrealistic schedules—when this becomes normal and not the exception, the crew is exhausted and doesn’t function as well, leading to more delays and slow downs. Wrt to crew experience, OJT is part of learning a craft. The experienced crew members train the less experienced on the job. The problem is when the inexperienced people outnumber the experienced people. It takes twice as long to do the job. This compounds the problem of overly ambitious schedules.
    3
  2464. 3
  2465. 3
  2466. 3
  2467. 3
  2468. 3
  2469. 3
  2470. Some speculation: I’m wondering if Redfield didn’t have access to 5-eyes signals intelligence. Unlikely that 5-👁 agencies can tap internal phone calls in Communist China, but they might have ways of detecting volume: if there was a flurry of communication activity between different organizations in Wuhan in October, it would suggest some event had taken place. This isn’t proof, nor would intelligence organizations want to disclose their capabilities by presenting such data as circumstantial evidence. But one wonders how and why Redfield would form such strong opinions. A second circumstantial indicator would be a sudden drop off in communications, both internally and with external contacts/collaborators. This is the opposite scenario from the above, but in each case there’s a unmissable change in volume from normal communication. 5-Eyes are the intelligence agencies of UK, U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. They share signals intelligence (and probably human intelligence on a very limited basis), and they also collaborate from time to time with other allies, such as France, Germany, Israel, (maybe) Saudi Arabia. In the U.S., the lead agency would be the NSA. I don’t want to generate paranoia here about surveillance states, so let me explain a bit about how the NSA performs it’s work: they’re prevented from using broad warrantless phone taps by the U.S. Constitution, so they rely on metadata. Metadata can be collection and analysis of communication volumes. It can be who is talking to who, but not the content of those communications. It can be discovering who is using encrypted communication (again, without knowing the content). In the U.S., the NSA has made it clear that they don’t support the FBI’s attempts to make encryption illegal. This is because the NSA can tell a great deal from the metadata. They can discover covert networks and covert activity without violating the civil rights of U.S. citizens. The Tinfoil Hat Brigade will suggest I’m naive, that of course the NSA spies on U.S. citizens, that there is a grand conspiracy, etc. I’d say it’s not happening because it’s not in the organization’s best long term interest. Conspiracies and coverups get exposed sooner or later, and this hurts the standing (and funding) of the organization and brings attention to the organization. While each of the Five Eyes countries have different laws concerning civil rights, they generally operate under the most restrictive rules for mutual protection. The last thing they want is too much attention, scrutiny, and potential embarrassment. In addition to these concerns, there’s also the problem of the sheer volume of data if the NSA was taping everyone’s phones. There just isn’t enough computing power to comb thru everyone’s conversations, looking for signals among the vast amount of noise. Similarly, there isn’t enough computing power to try and decrypt all the encrypted communications, even if they have that capability, which is uncertain. But as I said, these agencies are able to fulfill their missions by combing through and analyzing metadata. It’s for this reason that I think these agencies discovered anomalous activity (either a sharp rise or sharp drop) in Wuhan in late autumn and early winter in Wuhan in 2019. It wouldn’t be conclusive evidence, but it would be enough for Redfield to form a “strong opinion”. This is all speculation on my part. I’m not an expert on intelligence and espionage, but I’ve got an “interested layman’s” education on the subject. I’m more interested in explanations based what is public knowledge, rather than paranoia and conspiracy theories (or too many spy movies).
    3
  2471. 3
  2472. 3
  2473. 3
  2474. 3
  2475. 3
  2476. 3
  2477. 3
  2478. 3
  2479. 3
  2480. 3
  2481. 3
  2482. 3
  2483. 3
  2484. 3
  2485. 3
  2486. 3
  2487. 3
  2488. 3
  2489. 3
  2490. 3
  2491. 3
  2492. 3
  2493. 3
  2494. 3
  2495. 3
  2496. 3
  2497. 3
  2498. 3
  2499. 3
  2500. 3
  2501. 3
  2502. 3
  2503. 3
  2504. 3
  2505. 3
  2506. 3
  2507. 3
  2508. 3
  2509. 3
  2510. 3
  2511. 3
  2512. 3
  2513. 3
  2514. 3
  2515. If people just got more exercise and better diets, they wouldn’t need hospitalization after being involved in car accidents. The body has natural immunities and healing powers against traumatic injuries. People in comas would recover more quickly if they would just release their anger and think positive thoughts. The above is a joke, and I’m sad that I have to spell that out. Alaska Anybody following what’s happening in Alaska? It’s also having a big surge in cases that is overwhelming its hospital system, despite a comparatively high vaccination rate. It’s not totally clear why, but some things stand out. Alaska is the biggest state, but with low population density, with many far flung communities served by a “spoke and hub” hospital infrastructure. Local clinics are the first line of medical care, and in normal times, they send critical patients to hospitals in the big cities that have the capacity and capability to treat critical injuries and diseases. So one of the problems being suffered in Alaska is that the city hospitals don’t have open beds for those needing critical care that are currently in the clinics. And the clinics are not equipped to handle so many patients in need of critical care. The nearest states are experiencing their own surges and do not have open beds to receive these patients. However, that doesn’t explain the surge of cases to begin with despite the vaccination rate. Perhaps the political environment might help explain. The governor will not impose any sort of health protocol mandates, including masks (and vaccines, obviously) or instituting temporary lockdowns because he feels that “freedom” is more important than community health. Local officials are following suit; some going further. A recently elected mayor of a big city ran on an anti-mask and vaccine platform, and he has pledged to never support mandates. Besides the politics, I think there might be a mistaken notion about the effective herd protection given by certain vaccination rates. If 85% vaccination rates achieve herd immunity, and your state has achieved 50% vaccination, that doesn’t mean that you will have 50% fewer infections. This is especially true if people are not masking and not following other safety protocols.
    3
  2516. 3
  2517. 3
  2518. 3
  2519. 3
  2520. 3
  2521. 3
  2522. 3
  2523. 3
  2524. 3
  2525. 3
  2526. 3
  2527. 3
  2528. 3
  2529. 3
  2530. 3
  2531. 3
  2532. 3
  2533. 3
  2534. 3
  2535. 3
  2536. 3
  2537.  @devalapar7878 Both the Democratic Party and the GOP are coalition parties. The trick has always been to hold the coalitions together long enough to get something accomplished. Pelosi and McConnell were each masters of party discipline within their respective caucus/conference. That was the basis of their power and why each was so hated by the other side. (Both Pelosi and McConnell were masters of the legislative process as well, making them effective and reviled by their respective opponents.) Hakim Jeffries seems to have the same level skills as Pelosi. Speaker otH Johnson not so much. McConnell has been kneecapped by Trump, but was on his way out anyway. Schumer isn’t bad at his job but he could never hold a candle to Mitch. What does all this mean? It means that if Trump is elected, the democrats better make damn sure that they control at least one chamber of congress. Similarly, if Biden wins, the GOP really needs to control one or both chambers. Also, the GOP conference in the House of Representatives needs to change its rules to limit the outsized power of MTG and her ilk or they’ll suffer down the line. Biden isn’t a progressive, he’s a traditional liberal. But he can be dragged to tilt toward the progressives if the progressives show up to vote. Last thing I’ll say: both the student protestors and the MAGA right are children when it comes to National Security and Geopolitics. Biden is not a child. Nikki Haley is not a child. I’m voting for Biden, but I’d definitely vote for Haley in 2028.
    3
  2538. 3
  2539. 3
  2540. 3
  2541. 3
  2542. 3
  2543. 3
  2544. 3
  2545. 3
  2546. 3
  2547. 3
  2548. 3
  2549. 3
  2550. 3
  2551. 3
  2552. 3
  2553.  @netizen_m3919  I think this is on the nose. Even emails can be subpoenaed (and I seem to remember a bit of a brouhaha over a certain Secretary of State doing an end run by using a private email server). In certain cases, official phone calls (for example, between the President and another world leader) get officially recorded, but any phone call can be recorded on either end. (Which doesn’t even get into clandestine intercepts.) Additionally, top officials memorialize conversations—they take notes during and just after conversations with the President and other top officials to keep a record of the conversations. Comey’s last conversation with Trump is an example. Most of this stuff is protected by executive privilege, depending on the nature of the conversation. Under extraordinary circumstances, congressional subpoenas can pierce this privilege. Also, executive privilege doesn’t protect the information from succeeding presidents or their administrations. If communications provide documentation of presidential crimes, there’s a good chance they’ll come to light, sooner or later. A President and his team can adapt to these conditions in two ways (or two and a half, as I’ll explain). One is to keep everything above board and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. One point five is “legal findings”, in which the White House Counsel formulates a legal justification for certain actions. And two is the President and his advisers can behave like the mob, like a criminal organization evading the keeping of records of their crimes or trying to hide such records. Both Bush and Obama engaged in 1.5 type dealings—we can debate the ethics and morals of this method another time. I think Trump has a type 2 mindset, and everyone inside knew it. Some would make recordings and keep their own records to cover their asses or even to document malfeasance.
    3
  2554. 3
  2555. 3
  2556. 2
  2557. 2
  2558. 2
  2559. 2
  2560. 2
  2561. 2
  2562. 2
  2563. 2
  2564. 2
  2565. 2
  2566. 2
  2567. 2
  2568. 2
  2569. 2
  2570. 2
  2571. 2
  2572. 2
  2573. I’m going to say one thing and then explain why Trump and his administration are the exception. We have a proud tradition in the U.S. of peaceful transition of power when one party leaves the White House and the rival party assumes the presidency. This includes the tradition of the succeeding President not going after the previous president as a political enemy. The Obama administration didn’t persecute Bush. Bush didn’t go after Clinton, and Clinton didn’t go after Bush Sr. Trump violated this tradition, making all sorts of false claims about the Obama administration and ordering the supposedly neutral Department of Justice to investigate. When those investigations revealed nothing, Trump persisted in claiming Obama engaged in criminal acts (without specifying or providing any evidence whatsoever). On top of this, Trump and his henchmen have engaged in egregious corruption and violations of the law *that we know about*, with much more suspected, but not yet proven, because Trump has violated common practice of transparency. So the question is, should we return to precedent or should the Trump administration be held accountable for its corruption, its criminal acts, and its breaking of legal and political norms? The answer is that Trump and his minions have acted so egregiously, with such malice, and have done so much damage that they MUST be held accountable. To not hold them accountable is to encourage criminality. We must prosecute the most powerful who abuse that power as warning to other crooks. Only then, after these criminals and grifters have been made to face consequences, can we return to the precedent of peaceful transition. It’s a delusion to think Trump will peacefully hand over the presidency anyway. I suggest a concurrent investigation that would include criminal investigations and a public truth commission to root out both criminal actors and those that might be shielded from the law, but who directed unlawful acts. We generally can’t retroactively criminalize acts done legally, even if those acts were done with malice and intent to damage the country. But we can hold them up to the light of truth and the moral scorn of public opinion. Meanwhile, those that actually broke the law must feel the full weight of the Justice system.
    2
  2574. 2
  2575. 2
  2576. 2
  2577. 2
  2578. 2
  2579. 2
  2580. 2
  2581. 2
  2582. 2
  2583. 2
  2584. 2
  2585. 2
  2586. 2
  2587. 2
  2588. 2
  2589. 2
  2590. 2
  2591. 2
  2592. 2
  2593. 2
  2594. 2
  2595. 2
  2596. 2
  2597. 2
  2598. 2
  2599. 2
  2600. 2
  2601. 2
  2602. 2
  2603. 2
  2604. 2
  2605. 2
  2606. 2
  2607. 2
  2608. 2
  2609. 2
  2610. 2
  2611. 2
  2612. 2
  2613. 2
  2614. 2
  2615. 2
  2616. 2
  2617. 2
  2618. 2
  2619. 2
  2620. 2
  2621. 2
  2622. 2
  2623. 2
  2624. 2
  2625. 2
  2626. 2
  2627. 2
  2628. 2
  2629. 2
  2630. 2
  2631. 2
  2632. 2
  2633. 2
  2634. 2
  2635. 2
  2636. 2
  2637. 2
  2638. 2
  2639. 2
  2640. 2
  2641. 2
  2642. 2
  2643. 2
  2644. 2
  2645. 2
  2646. 2
  2647. 2
  2648. 2
  2649. 2
  2650. 2
  2651. 2
  2652. 2
  2653. 2
  2654. 2
  2655. 2
  2656. 2
  2657. 2
  2658. 2
  2659. 2
  2660. 2
  2661. 2
  2662. 2
  2663. 2
  2664. 2
  2665. 2
  2666. 2
  2667. 2
  2668. 2
  2669. 2
  2670. 2
  2671. 2
  2672. 2
  2673. 2
  2674. 2
  2675. 2
  2676. 2
  2677. 2
  2678. 2
  2679. 2
  2680. 2
  2681. 2
  2682. 2
  2683. 2
  2684. 2
  2685. 2
  2686. 2
  2687. 2
  2688. 2
  2689. 2
  2690. 2
  2691. 2
  2692. 2
  2693. 2
  2694. 2
  2695. 2
  2696. 2
  2697. 2
  2698. 2
  2699. 2
  2700. 2
  2701. 2
  2702. 2
  2703. 2
  2704. 2
  2705. 2
  2706. 2
  2707. 2
  2708. 2
  2709. 2
  2710. 2
  2711. 2
  2712. 2
  2713. 2
  2714. 2
  2715. 2
  2716. 2
  2717. 2
  2718. 2
  2719. 2
  2720. 2
  2721. 2
  2722. 2
  2723. 2
  2724. 2
  2725. 2
  2726. 2
  2727. 2
  2728. 2
  2729. 2
  2730. 2
  2731. 2
  2732. 2
  2733. 2
  2734. 2
  2735. 2
  2736. 2
  2737. 2
  2738. 2
  2739. 2
  2740. 2
  2741. 2
  2742. 2
  2743. 2
  2744. 2
  2745. 2
  2746. 2
  2747. 2
  2748. 2
  2749. 2
  2750. 2
  2751. 2
  2752. 2
  2753. 2
  2754. 2
  2755. 2
  2756. 2
  2757. 2
  2758. 2
  2759. 2
  2760. 2
  2761. What does Pete do that is different from you? It’s easy to blame others for not recognizing your genius (and it might even be true), but if you’ve been having trouble getting your ideas across, take a hard look at what Pete actually does and how he does it, and then compare it to your own efforts. First thing is that Pete puts in a lot of work, studying and analyzing the data, and then picking out what he thinks are the important trends. Second thing is what you call his eloquence. Some of this might be a natural gift, but I’ll bet money that he has a lot of practice. However, I think much of his eloquence comes from the work mentioned above. Because he’s extensively thinking and analyzing the material, he’s boiling down the complicated into the simplified. A third part is his charisma. Maybe you have that. I don’t. 😅 Pete’s charisma is a major reason why he reaches a large audience. I think you and I are thinking about much smaller audiences. And the hard truth is that Pete puts in a lot of work to be able to condense his ideas into 5-10 minute videos, work that I’m just not going to do. Anyway, the upshot is this: 1) It’s not just you, 2) respect Pete’s expertise, 3) give yourself some credit for however much work you put into grasping the material, 4) understand that not everyone can take in your ideas, but that doesn’t make them dumb. You can get better but it’s a waste of time to disparage yourself or your audience if they don’t get it. Anyway, I hope that helps!
    2
  2762. 2
  2763. 2
  2764. 2
  2765. 2
  2766. 2
  2767. 2
  2768. 2
  2769. 2
  2770. 2
  2771. 2
  2772. 2
  2773. 2
  2774. 2
  2775. 2
  2776. 2
  2777. 2
  2778. 2
  2779. 2
  2780. 2
  2781. 2
  2782. 2
  2783. 2
  2784. 2
  2785. 2
  2786. 2
  2787. 2
  2788. 2
  2789. 2
  2790. 2
  2791. 2
  2792. 2
  2793. 2
  2794. 2
  2795. 2
  2796. 2
  2797. 2
  2798. 2
  2799. 2
  2800. 2
  2801. 2
  2802. 2
  2803. 2
  2804. 2
  2805. 2
  2806. 2
  2807. 2
  2808. 2
  2809. 2
  2810. 2
  2811. 2
  2812. 2
  2813. 2
  2814. 2
  2815. 2
  2816. 2
  2817. 2
  2818. 2
  2819. 2
  2820. 2
  2821. 2
  2822. 2
  2823. 2
  2824. 2
  2825. 2
  2826. 2
  2827. 2
  2828. 2
  2829. 2
  2830. 2
  2831. 2
  2832. 2
  2833. 2
  2834. 2
  2835. 2
  2836. 2
  2837. 2
  2838. 2
  2839. 2
  2840. 2
  2841. 2
  2842. 2
  2843. 2
  2844. 2
  2845. 2
  2846. 2
  2847. 2
  2848. 2
  2849. 2
  2850. 2
  2851. 2
  2852. 2
  2853. 2
  2854. 2
  2855. 2
  2856. 2
  2857. 2
  2858. 2
  2859. 2
  2860. 2
  2861.  @davianoinglesias5030  Agreed, but I think you left out overweening bureaucracies. And those obstacles you mentioned are not at all easy to overcome. It’s easier to identify them broadly as you have done. But the work must be done, even if it’s done imperfectly, even if there are setbacks. There is always a lot of resistance from entrenched interests that benefit from the corruption, misappropriation, and mis prioritization. And these interests are always eager to deflect blame onto the U.S. and the dollar. Still, there are developing nations that are doing the hard work and liberalizing their economies while addressing the issues. Progress can seem slow but progress is being made. The truth is, most of the anti-dollar sentiment is geopolitical not financial. Certain countries are feeling discouraged and constrained from attacking their neighbors militarily for fear of sanctions, and those that do anyway are suffering from the sanctions and providing an object lesson. The benefit to the U.S. might not be financial, but having the reserve currency is a sort of immunity for doing all kinds of heinous shit. The sanctions tool cannot be successfully applied to the U.S. As an American, I think this is unfortunate. Policymakers would have to think twice and then a third and forth time before embarking on a reckless course of action (as the U.S. does from time to time). The rest of the world will have to find some other way of keeping U.S. foreign policy honest. I don’t think financial pressures will do it, not even getting cut off from oil.
    2
  2862. 2
  2863. 2
  2864. 2
  2865. 2
  2866. 2
  2867. 2
  2868. 2
  2869. 2
  2870. 2
  2871. 2
  2872. 2
  2873. 2
  2874. 2
  2875. 2
  2876. 2
  2877. 2
  2878. 2
  2879. 2
  2880. 2
  2881. 2
  2882. 2
  2883. 2
  2884. 2
  2885. 2
  2886. 2
  2887. 2
  2888. 2
  2889. 2
  2890. 2
  2891. 2
  2892. 2
  2893.  @petef1273  I’d also add that the basic mechanisms for how D3 operates in the human body are already understood. Indeed, D3 is a part of our bodies’ functioning. It’s the insufficiency of Vitamin D that makes us MORE vulnerable to COVID-19 and other maladies. Contrast this with Ivermectin, an effective anti-parasite neurotoxin normally used at low doses. THERE IS NO KNOWN MECHANISMS BY WHICH IT WORKS AS AN ANTIVIRAL. High dosage studies are NOT showing convincingly the purported results that ANTIVAXXERS are claiming. Many of these studies are NOT controlling for other factors, making them less than gold standard. While low dosages have proven to be safe and effective for the treatment of parasites, the high dosages used in those studies that might indicate potential efficacy are also showing evidence that they are dangerous, possibly leading to depression, suicide, and god knows what else (we are talking about a neurotoxin, after all). Furthermore, ANTIVAXXERS are misleadingly playing with numbers, fraudulently linking low dosage widespread use for parasites with Covid statistics, without controlling for other factors. The statistical numbers they are using are questionable due to testing and reporting issues. In some cases these Antivaxxers are fabricating numbers entirely. These antivaxxers have demonstrated time after time a basic dishonesty. They use propaganda techniques, such as using fake accounts to create the impression that more people support their claims. They fraudulently try to support their claims by linking to studies that say the opposite of what they claim. They fabricate statistics or make unsupported cause/effect linkages between numbers. Finally, when all else fails, they bring forth their conspiracy theories. DO NOT BELIEVE ANTIVAXXERS.
    2
  2894. 2
  2895. 2
  2896. 2
  2897. 2
  2898. 2
  2899. 2
  2900. 2
  2901. 2
  2902. 2
  2903. 2
  2904.  @Simboiss  I don’t think I understand your comment about America or I’m pretending not to understand. Are you mad that colonialists have appropriated the name of a colonialist? Do you feel like anyone’s cultural heritage is being infringed upon? Are you defending “Latin Culture”? Did you know it’s kind of stupid and belittling to cram all the different cultures contained in Latin America into the container of Latin Culture? (Unless you’re talking about ancient Romans, I suppose.) Try this: call someone from any country in Latin America an American. Introduce them to others as an American. Do this repeatedly until they tell you to stop. Even the name “Latin America” is a little odd. It describes a geographic area based on colonial languages. Most citizens of the various countries that make up Latin America don’t identify as Latin American. They identify as being from their country of origin (or their parents country of origin, and so on). Unless you or your ancestors are from one of these countries, maybe stop talking about it. It’s a really stupid point that falls apart when you examine it. Besides which, it’s a lame example of “American arrogance”. There is a chingo of much more egregious examples than “they stole the name America from the rest of the (Latin) Americans. And if you are from a Latin American country, I’m on to you. But seriously. Just stop. It just makes your politics look juvenile to anyone that knows better or who has learned better.
    2
  2905. 2
  2906. 2
  2907. 2
  2908. 2
  2909. 2
  2910. 2
  2911. 2
  2912. 2
  2913. 2
  2914. 2
  2915. 2
  2916. 2
  2917. 2
  2918. 2
  2919. 2
  2920. 2
  2921. 2
  2922. 2
  2923. 2
  2924. 2
  2925. 2
  2926. 2
  2927. 2
  2928. 2
  2929. 2
  2930. 2
  2931. 2
  2932. 2
  2933. 2
  2934. 2
  2935. 2
  2936. 2
  2937. 2
  2938. 2
  2939. 2
  2940. 2
  2941. 2
  2942. 2
  2943. 2
  2944. 2
  2945. 2
  2946. 2
  2947. 2
  2948. 2
  2949. 2
  2950. 2
  2951. 2
  2952. 2
  2953. 2
  2954. 2
  2955. 2
  2956. 2
  2957. 2
  2958. 2
  2959. 2
  2960. 2
  2961. 2
  2962. 2
  2963. 2
  2964. 2
  2965. 2
  2966. 2
  2967. 2
  2968. 2
  2969. 2
  2970. 2
  2971. 2
  2972. 2
  2973. 2
  2974. 2
  2975. 2
  2976. 2
  2977. 2
  2978. 2
  2979. 2
  2980. 2
  2981. 2
  2982. 2
  2983. 2
  2984. 2
  2985. 2
  2986. 2
  2987. 2
  2988. 2
  2989. 2
  2990. 2
  2991. 2
  2992. 2
  2993. 2
  2994. 2
  2995. 2
  2996. 2
  2997. 2
  2998. 2
  2999. 2
  3000. 2
  3001. 2
  3002. 2
  3003. 2
  3004. 2
  3005. 2
  3006. 2
  3007. 2
  3008. 2
  3009. 2
  3010. 2
  3011. 2
  3012. 2
  3013. 2
  3014. 2
  3015. 2
  3016. 2
  3017. 2
  3018. 2
  3019. 2
  3020. 2
  3021. 2
  3022. 2
  3023. 2
  3024. 2
  3025. 2
  3026. 2
  3027. 2
  3028. 2
  3029. 2
  3030. 2
  3031. 2
  3032. 2
  3033. 2
  3034. 2
  3035. 2
  3036. 2
  3037. 2
  3038. 2
  3039. 2
  3040. 2
  3041. 2
  3042. 2
  3043. 2
  3044. 2
  3045. 2
  3046. 2
  3047. 2
  3048. 2
  3049. 2
  3050. 2
  3051. 2
  3052. 2
  3053. 2
  3054. 2
  3055. 2
  3056. 2
  3057. 2
  3058. 2
  3059. 2
  3060. Neoliberalism was an appropriate response to the economic conditions of the 70s. It’s continuation was “too much of a good thing”. I think of capitalism as a tool, not merely as a structure. It’s a set of social technologies that act as a motor. As with any motor, it is used to “do work”, and should be adjusted to do that work accordingly. It must be tuned, adjusted, and regulated to do that work effectively. The idea of “pure capitalism” is a motor that doesn’t do any real work. It’s like a model of a motor, almost an abstraction. There is no “Pure Capitalism” outside of the world of ideas. It’s never existed in the real world. If you think I’m moving toward a car analogy, you’re correct. If capitalism is a motor, its purpose is moving society forward. Society is the vehicle. In a representational democratic society, the members of that society determine who drives. More importantly, they decide on the goals and the route to reach those goals. There’s a lot of good comparisons with this car analogy. To determine how you tune and tweak the engine, you must decide on the purpose of the vehicle. Should it be a bus or a sports car? What safety features are included so people don’t fall off or are injured in a crash? What level of maintenance is necessary to keep the vehicle running? Also, you don’t want a crazy or incompetent driver who will drive off a cliff. 😅 Capitalism-as-ideology turns the marketplace into a religion. (Perhaps this is a tendency of any ideology.) Capitalism-as-ideology cannot adjust to changing road conditions. When the road curves, it forces the vehicle to drive off the road (perhaps off that aforementioned cliff). Capitalism-as-engine and society-as-vehicle are pretty good analogies, but they’re not perfect. Like any tool, capitalism can be weaponized. The analogy doesn’t address social hierarchies in a meaningful way. It doesn’t account for the imperfections of democracy or how democracies can be perverted by hierarchy. It doesn’t address other forms of societal organization outside of economic organization. But it’s a useful way to think about capitalism.
    2
  3061. 2
  3062. 2
  3063. 2
  3064. 2
  3065. 2
  3066. 2
  3067. 2
  3068. 2
  3069. 2
  3070. 2
  3071. 2
  3072. 2
  3073. 2
  3074. 2
  3075. 2
  3076. 2
  3077. 2
  3078. 2
  3079. 2
  3080. 2
  3081. 2
  3082. 2
  3083. 2
  3084. 2
  3085. 2
  3086. 2
  3087. 2
  3088. 2
  3089. 2
  3090. 2
  3091. 2
  3092. 2
  3093. 2
  3094. 2
  3095. 2
  3096. 2
  3097. 2
  3098. 2
  3099. 2
  3100. 2
  3101. 2
  3102. 2
  3103. 2
  3104. 2
  3105. 2
  3106. 2
  3107. 2
  3108. 2
  3109. 2
  3110. 2
  3111. 2
  3112. 2
  3113. 2
  3114. 2
  3115. 2
  3116. 2
  3117. 2
  3118. 2
  3119. 2
  3120. 2
  3121. 2
  3122. 2
  3123. 2
  3124. 2
  3125. 2
  3126. 2
  3127. 2
  3128. 2
  3129. 2
  3130. 2
  3131. 2
  3132. 2
  3133. 2
  3134. 2
  3135. 2
  3136. 2
  3137. 2
  3138. 2
  3139. 2
  3140. 2
  3141. 2
  3142. 2
  3143. 2
  3144. 2
  3145. 2
  3146. 2
  3147. 2
  3148. 2
  3149. 2
  3150. 2
  3151. 2
  3152. 2
  3153. 2
  3154. 2
  3155. 2
  3156. 2
  3157. 2
  3158. 2
  3159. 2
  3160. 2
  3161. 2
  3162. 2
  3163. 2
  3164. 2
  3165. 2
  3166. 2
  3167. 2
  3168. 2
  3169. 2
  3170. 2
  3171. 2
  3172. 2
  3173. 2
  3174. 2
  3175. 2
  3176. 2
  3177. 2
  3178. 2
  3179. 2
  3180. 2
  3181. 2
  3182. 2
  3183. 2
  3184. 2
  3185. 2
  3186. 2
  3187. 2
  3188. 2
  3189. 2
  3190. 2
  3191. 2
  3192. 2
  3193. 2
  3194. 2
  3195. 2
  3196. 2
  3197. 2
  3198. 2
  3199. 2
  3200. 2
  3201. 2
  3202. 2
  3203. 2
  3204. 2
  3205. 2
  3206. 2
  3207. 2
  3208. 2
  3209. 2
  3210. 2
  3211. 2
  3212. 2
  3213. 2
  3214. 2
  3215. 2
  3216. 2
  3217. 2
  3218. 2
  3219. 2
  3220. 2
  3221. 2
  3222. 2
  3223. 2
  3224. 2
  3225. 2
  3226. 2
  3227. 2
  3228. 2
  3229. 2
  3230. 2
  3231. 2
  3232. 2
  3233. 2
  3234. 2
  3235. 2
  3236. 2
  3237. 2
  3238. 2
  3239. 2
  3240. 2
  3241. 2
  3242. 2
  3243. 2
  3244. 2
  3245. 2
  3246. 2
  3247. 2
  3248. 2
  3249. I think you got more right than you got wrong, but your POV is definitely “second world”, showing a “kremlinesque” bias. The political leaders in DF have proven adept at dealing with U.S. soft power, maintaining sovereignty and extracting concessions. They’ve even gotten the U.S. to blink (see the Cienfuegos affair for a recent example). The “military threat” is non-existent, more a figment in the fevered minds of conservatives who think military force is the answer to everything. The truth is, a partition of Mexican states by the U.S. would be much more trouble than its worth. Likewise (and even more absurd) is the idea that Mexico might partition any part of the U.S. via “reconquista”. This fear is common to the same delusional minds that believe they can impose order on sovereign nations via military force. The fact is that a sovereign Mexico that is enmeshed culturally and economically with the U.S. is better for both the U.S., and for Mexico. Now that adults are back in charge of the U.S. foreign policy, I expect to see an increase in economic cooperation. Something that needs to be strongly emphasized is the nature of the Mexican diaspora into the U.S.: it quickly becomes American and woven into the fabric of American society, despite our famous racism. Even amongst economic immigrants that plan on returning to their ranchos in Mexico, there is a sense of participation in our country’s culture, even as they spread Mexican cultural influence by way of Taco Diplomacy (soft power from soft tacos). I think you made another error by mischaracterizing the plateau region, much of which is not “arid” desert, but is rich arable farmland that receives rain from late spring to late autumn. If it lacks forests and woodlands, it’s due to the mining of the colonial period. Mineral extraction in that period required a lot of wood for mine building and for fuel. With regard to water, there are water table issues, but it might interest you to know that SAPASMA takes truckloads of water from the bajío region to CDMX. Also, while the area (particularly Guanajuato) is the “cradle of independence”, it’s also quite a conservative place. Not only has it been a PAN (the conservative party) stronghold, it’s was the center of the counter-revolutionary Cristero rebellion in the 1930s. In many ways, Mexico already serves as a gateway to Latin America. (Literally, in the case of Americans who wish to travel to Cuba!) I suppose with the right moves, it could strengthen this role. It was quite ambitious and admirable to take on this complex subject in a short video. As I said, I detect a vestigial Soviet bloc bias that I think slants your understanding of Mexico and Mexico’s relations with the U.S., but it’s more like the tint of your glasses than gross distortions of the optics. Your overall point is correct: Mexico maintains its sovereignty and independence from the U.S. while maintaining strong relations as a partner and close neighbor.
    2
  3250. 2
  3251. 2
  3252. 2
  3253. 2
  3254. 2
  3255. 2
  3256. 2
  3257. 2
  3258. 2
  3259. 2
  3260. 2
  3261. 2
  3262. 2
  3263. 2
  3264. 2
  3265. 2
  3266. 2
  3267. 2
  3268. 2
  3269. 2
  3270. 2
  3271. 2
  3272. 2
  3273. 2
  3274. 2
  3275. 2
  3276. 2
  3277. 2
  3278. 2
  3279. 2
  3280. 2
  3281. 2
  3282. 2
  3283. 2
  3284. 2
  3285. 2
  3286. 2
  3287. 2
  3288. 2
  3289. 2
  3290. 2
  3291. 2
  3292. 2
  3293. 2
  3294. 2
  3295. 2
  3296. 2
  3297. 2
  3298. 2
  3299. 2
  3300. 2
  3301. 2
  3302. 2
  3303.  @alexandersims1613  I don’t know if I agree with your solutions, but you made an important point. The economy is a machine. More specifically, it is an engine. You are proposing making adjustments to the engine. When we have this common framework, that the economy is an engine, we have a basis for debating policy, i.e., how to make adjustments, improvements, and tweaks to the engine. We also have a framework for a more fundamental debate: to what purpose are we using the engine? Are we moving ourselves forward with the engine? Or do only a tiny percentage of us get a luxury ride while the rest of us must walk? Capitalism is a social technology (an engine) that propels this vehicle we call society. Once we decide the purpose of the vehicle (should it carry the bulk of us or only a chosen few? Do we care if people get left behind? Do we want a race car, a luxury sedan, or a bus?), we can then make the adjustments to the engine that would best serve our purpose. And now we can have our economic policy debate, and we can base our arguments on historical fact and experimental data rather than emotion and quasi-religious dogma (capitalism is NOT a religion), etc. We can debate where we are going and how to get there. Anyway, I think you’ve found a good mode of thinking, a conceptual model that most people can understand. It’s a good analogy. The economy IS a machine, and machines are tools that we use to do work. Machines should serve us. Anyone who suggests we should serve the machine, who is turning capitalism into a religion, is trying to create a dogma to conceal their real intentions.
    2
  3304. 2
  3305. 2
  3306. 2
  3307. 2
  3308. 2
  3309. 2
  3310. 2
  3311. 2
  3312. 2
  3313. 2
  3314. 2
  3315. 2
  3316. 2
  3317. 2
  3318. 2
  3319. 2
  3320. 2
  3321. 2
  3322. 2
  3323. 2
  3324. 2
  3325. 2
  3326. 2
  3327. 2
  3328. 2
  3329. 2
  3330. 2
  3331. 2
  3332. 2
  3333. 2
  3334. 2
  3335. 2
  3336. 2
  3337. 2
  3338. 2
  3339. 2
  3340. 2
  3341. 2
  3342. 2
  3343. 2
  3344. 2
  3345. 2
  3346. 2
  3347. 2
  3348. 2
  3349. 2
  3350. 2
  3351. 2
  3352. 2
  3353. 2
  3354. 2
  3355. 2
  3356. 2
  3357. 2
  3358. 2
  3359. 2
  3360. 2
  3361. 2
  3362. 2
  3363. 2
  3364. 2
  3365. 2
  3366. 2
  3367. 2
  3368. 2
  3369. 2
  3370. 2
  3371. 2
  3372. 2
  3373. 2
  3374. 2
  3375. 2
  3376. 2
  3377. 2
  3378. 2
  3379. 2
  3380. 2
  3381. 2
  3382. 2
  3383. 2
  3384. 2
  3385. 2
  3386. 2
  3387. 2
  3388. 2
  3389. 2
  3390. 2
  3391. 2
  3392. 2
  3393. 2
  3394. 2
  3395. 2
  3396. 2
  3397. 2
  3398. 2
  3399. 2
  3400. 2
  3401. 2
  3402.  @JorgeMartinez-bw7nl  to be fair, AMLO is a socialist goose. He squawks like a socialist, but is closer to being a trump-like populist (and that’s why they get along so well). I do think AMLO’s ambition is to return Mexico to single party rule under Morena, but fat chance. Remember that way back in the day he was PRI. He jumped ship to PRD so he could be in charge of something. He would like to re-nationalize the petroleum industry, but he won’t. I doubt he could. The reason I say AMLO is trump-like is that he’s made a lot of populist promises but hasn’t delivered. He made great promises about reforming Mexico’s educational system, especially at the university level. Those promises are largely unfulfilled. He dropped the ball wrt trade unions on NAFTA II. His anti-corruption campaign was aimed at political enemies. Indeed, it looks like he was primarily interested in monopolizing corruption rather than fight it. Like I said, he talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk. He had an opportunity to address COVID as a national issue that required a whole-of-society government response, but was instead quite cavalier about the pandemic. Most of the response was left up to the states. Personally, I tend towards financial conservatism (I voted for Reagan the first time I voted), but if someone is elected as a progressive, I want to see progress. Do what you said you would do. 😉 Mexico would have been better off with either the PAN (Anaya) or PRI (Meade) candidates as President (Just like the U.S. would have been better off under Clinton, as much as I detested her).
    2
  3403. 2
  3404. 2
  3405. 2
  3406. 2
  3407. 2
  3408.  @kucanusa3750  Are you also an outsider to the concept of human rights? I’m sorry that sounds harsh. I understand what you are saying and I sympathize with your reaction. But do you think that due process should be a universal right or only for people in the U.S.? Also, locking people in a cage without food or light is by itself cruel and unusual punishment, but it is even worse if you’re doing it so they kill each other. There is also a historical backdrop to this story, the civil war of the 70s and 80s, in which the government performed extrajudicial killings of dissidents, journalists, and priests. The military was sent out to the countryside where they murdered entire villages on the pretext that they were rebels. (And for additional background, the U.S. was providing arms and training to the Salvadoran military at this time.) I don’t think that the narco gangs are freedom fighters, and I don’t equate drug trafficking with communism (although both are bad). So it’s not an exact comparison. But do you see how the brutal excesses of one war might be repeated in this war against drug traffickers? Without sufficient human rights being enforced, legal rights we enjoy in the U.S., such excesses are almost guaranteed. Ultimately your initial reaction is emotional. It’s understandable why someone would feel that way. But I hope that given time to reflect, perhaps with new information, you’ll temper your emotions with a more compressive sense of Justice for All. Now, I think you can make an effective counter argument if you wish, because the problem doesn’t have clear cut solutions. Go for it if you’d like, but if you don’t have time or inclination, I understand. I don’t claim to be 100% right with my position.
    2
  3409. 2
  3410. 2
  3411. 2
  3412. 2
  3413. 2
  3414. 2
  3415. 2
  3416. 2
  3417. 2
  3418. 2
  3419. 2
  3420. 2
  3421. 2
  3422. 2
  3423. 2
  3424. 2
  3425. 2
  3426. 2
  3427. 2
  3428. 2
  3429. 2
  3430. 2
  3431. 2
  3432. 2
  3433. 2
  3434. 2
  3435. I understand and agree with your feelings, but unfortunate it’s not quite that simple. Incompetence in representing a client generally isn’t remedied by disbarment. And that’s what you and I saw in this video, piss poor lawyering (and to be fair to these Trump legal team stooges, they weren’t being paid to do what they thought was best. They were executing the legal “strategy” directed by Giuliani). So here are the remedies— First of all, the judge can impose sanctions on the individual attorneys, although it’s not entirely clear from the video on what basis (other than wasting his time). Note that they did answer his questions truthfully. He can impose sanctions on the client, making them pay all court costs. With regard to the state bar, you could file a complaint (and I am sure there will be complaints). I’m going to speculate here that the state bar is not going to give very much weight to complaints filed by you or me. We have less standing; we’re less affected than, say, the voters of Arizona. But let’s say that someone with better standing complains about these attorneys and the bar investigates. It’s doubtful they will be punished if this is the only frivolous law suit they’ve every filed. I’m fact, it’s doubtful unless there is a clear pattern of filing and arguing frivolous suits that is revealed in the investigation. If there is a clear pattern, they won’t be disbarred. They might face a suspension of their license to practice law for some period of time. With regard to their competence, they can argue that they were following the wishes of the client’s top legal advisors, the ones running the case. They can argue that the voiced their concerns, but were ordered to proceed anyway. These lawyers are scum, but that’s not illegal by itself.
    2
  3436. 2
  3437. 2
  3438. 2
  3439. 2
  3440. 2
  3441. 2
  3442. 2
  3443. 2
  3444. 2
  3445. 2
  3446. 2
  3447. 2
  3448. 2
  3449. 2
  3450. 2
  3451. 2
  3452. 2
  3453. 2
  3454. 2
  3455. 2
  3456. 2
  3457. 2
  3458. 2
  3459. 2
  3460. 2
  3461. 2
  3462. 2
  3463. 2
  3464. 2
  3465. 2
  3466. 2
  3467. 2
  3468. 2
  3469. 2
  3470. 2
  3471. 2
  3472. 2
  3473. 2
  3474. 2
  3475. 2
  3476. 2
  3477. 2
  3478. 2
  3479. 2
  3480. 2
  3481. 2
  3482. 2
  3483. 2
  3484. 2
  3485. 2
  3486. 2
  3487. 2
  3488. 2
  3489. 2
  3490. 2
  3491. 2
  3492. 2
  3493. 2
  3494. 2
  3495. 2
  3496. 2
  3497. 2
  3498. 2
  3499. 2
  3500. 2
  3501. 2
  3502. 2
  3503. 2
  3504. 2
  3505. 2
  3506. 2
  3507. 2
  3508. 2
  3509. 2
  3510. 2
  3511. 2
  3512. 2
  3513. 2
  3514. 2
  3515. 2
  3516. 2
  3517. Ivermectin has no mechanism as an antiviral. It’s a neurotoxin used to treat parasites. It attacks and destroys the primitive nervous systems worms and lice. If it was an effective therapeutic, what is the mechanism? The largest manufacturer and distributor of ivermectin is Merck. If ivermectin had any efficacy, Merck would stand to make billions of dollars. Merck just conducted the largest study so far on ivermectin. The study shows ivermectin has no efficacy in treating the virus. Merck’s own antivirus candidate failed miserably, and Merck is searching for other candidates from smaller bio-medical companies to acquire—a big financial risk to take if they were sitting on a goldmine. Oh, and the Merck study also shows that high dosages of ivermectin are unsafe. There is a therapeutic threshold in its treatment of parasites that shouldn’t be exceeded. So, no scientific mechanism for how ivermectin might work as an antiviral. The company that stands to gain the most is reporting that their medication has no efficacy as an antiviral after conducting a comprehensive study (and is dangerous at higher levels). It seems clear that ivermectin has no medical role to play as a therapeutic or a prophylactic. Yet antivaxxers continue to push it as an alternative to vaccines, while stirring up fear, uncertainty, and doubt about vaccines. Do you realize that continuation of your disinformation posts is harmful to the health of others, that you might be contributing to the unnecessary deaths of others?. I urge you in the name of decency to stop.
    2
  3518. 2
  3519. 2
  3520. 2
  3521. 2
  3522. 2
  3523. 2
  3524. 2
  3525. 2
  3526. 2
  3527. 2
  3528. 2
  3529. 2
  3530. 2
  3531. 2
  3532. 2
  3533. 2
  3534. 2
  3535. 2
  3536. 2
  3537. 2
  3538. 2
  3539. 2
  3540. 2
  3541. 2
  3542. 2
  3543. 2
  3544. 2
  3545. 2
  3546. 2
  3547. 2
  3548. 2
  3549. 2
  3550. 2
  3551. 2
  3552. 2
  3553. 2
  3554. 2
  3555. 2
  3556. 2
  3557. 2
  3558. 2
  3559. 2
  3560. 2
  3561. 2
  3562. 2
  3563. 2
  3564. 2
  3565. 2
  3566. 2
  3567. 2
  3568. 2
  3569. 2
  3570. 2
  3571. 2
  3572. 2
  3573. 2
  3574. 2
  3575. 2
  3576. 2
  3577. 2
  3578. 2
  3579. 2
  3580. 2
  3581. 2
  3582. 2
  3583. 2
  3584. 2
  3585. 2
  3586. 2
  3587. 2
  3588. 2
  3589. 2
  3590. 2
  3591. 2
  3592. 2
  3593. 2
  3594. 2
  3595. 2
  3596. 2
  3597. 2
  3598. 2
  3599. 2
  3600. 2
  3601. 2
  3602. 2
  3603. 2
  3604. 2
  3605. 2
  3606. 2
  3607. 2
  3608. 2
  3609. 2
  3610. 2
  3611. 2
  3612. 2
  3613. 2
  3614. Do you even know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was? Do you know how it was resolved? Here is the shortest version that maintains accuracy: the U.S. put nuclear missiles in Turkey. In retaliation, the Soviet Union began putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. After a very dangerous stand off, the Soviets removed the missiles from Cuba and the U.S. removed the missiles from Turkey. As far as engaging in weird hypotheticals, you’re already ignorant of Mexico’s relationship with the U.S. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Mexico is not a compliant ally of the U.S. and never has been. Just the same, your hypothetical is absurd and useless when you already have a perfectly good example which you yourself mentioned. Cuba. Cuba is a very close neighbor of the U.S., slightly more than 100 miles from Florida. Despite Cuba becoming a communist country and aligning with the Soviet Union, the U.S. never invaded Cuba. It never attacked Cuba. The last military action the U.S. saw in Cuba was the Spanish American War, in which U.S. forces fought WITH Cuba against Spain for Cuban independence. The U.S. has had very unfriendly relations with Cuba since Fidel Castro deposed Bautista in 1959 (actually more like since 1960, when Fidel fully embraced the USSR as its patron), but they’ve been peaceful. So there you have it. The U.S. has had an enemy on its doorstep for over 60 years now and has never invaded it. If you want to bring up the Bay of Pigs, make sure you mentioned who actually invaded. Answer: Cubans, not the U.S. military.
    2
  3615. 2
  3616. 2
  3617. 2
  3618. 2
  3619. 2
  3620. 2
  3621. 2
  3622. 2
  3623. 2
  3624. 2
  3625. 2
  3626. 2
  3627. 2
  3628. 2
  3629. 2
  3630. 2
  3631. 2
  3632. 2
  3633. 2
  3634. 2
  3635. 2
  3636. 2
  3637. 80% or more of the products I buy are hecho en Mexico. That might be due to the increased trade with Mexico, but really it’s probably due to my having moved to Mexico. 🤭 But some facts about trade between Mexico and the U.S.: Our economy is already deeply entwined with Mexico’s economy, especially in sectors like the automotive industry, plastics, and aerospace. NAFTA has allowed suppliers (to the car manufacturers) to pass subcomponents to be passed across the border multiple times. A sub-sub component is built in one country, shipped to the other, assembled with another sub sub component sourced in that country to create a sub component, shipped back, and assembled into a component that then gets assembled into a car. The back and forth is quite intricate in some cases. The efficiency here has a lot to do with labor costs, and this impacts the where different class of vehicles are finally assembled. Mexico builds a lot of economy cars (mostly for its domestic markets), while the high end is dominated by U.S. manufacturing, with a mix in the mid priced cars. (Have any of you seen the Toyota Tsuri? It’s a popular economy car down here. Every taxi seems to be a Tsuri, because it’s low cost but reliable. But the point is, when you buy an American made car, a substantial number of its parts where manufactured in Mexico. The converse holds true for cars built in Mexico. They all use parts manufactured in the U.S. Mexico has developed a vocational education system that we should be emulating, a post-secondary that combines college with specialized vocational training. The basis is the credential, the Licencia degree awarded after three years of post-secondary education. (The next level is Maestría, roughly equivalent to getting a Master’s degree.) The Licencia education combines basic college level instruction (such as STEM if you were going into manufacturing) and instruction on practical applications. So a student wanting to go into plastics would learn basic chemistry, organic chem, physics, advanced organic chem focused on polymers, and then they would learn how the basic science is used in the manufacturing process. This provides manufacturers with workers capable of not just supervising assembly lines, but of understanding the line and the line’s purpose. Frankly, we should be sending our young people to Mexico for training if we can’t get our educational shit together. Anyway, that’s one of the bees in my bonnet. 1) Our economies are deeply linked and both countries benefit. 2) College education and vocational training in the U.S. is screwed up and 2A) we would benefit from learning how Mexico is rapidly training a competent workforce if only we could get over false pride.
    2
  3638. 2
  3639. 2
  3640. 2
  3641. 2
  3642. 2
  3643. 2
  3644. 2
  3645. 2
  3646. 2
  3647. 2
  3648. 2
  3649. 2
  3650. 2
  3651. 2
  3652. 2
  3653. 2
  3654. 2
  3655. 2
  3656. 2
  3657. 2
  3658. 2
  3659. 2
  3660. 2
  3661. 2
  3662. 2
  3663. 2
  3664. 2
  3665. 2
  3666. 2
  3667. 2
  3668. 2
  3669. 2
  3670. 2
  3671. 2
  3672. 2
  3673. 2
  3674. 2
  3675. 2
  3676. 2
  3677. 2
  3678. 2
  3679. 2
  3680. 2
  3681. 2
  3682. 2
  3683. 2
  3684. 2
  3685. 2
  3686. 2
  3687. 2
  3688. 2
  3689. 2
  3690. 2
  3691. 2
  3692. 2
  3693. 2
  3694. 2
  3695. 2
  3696. 2
  3697. 2
  3698. 2
  3699. 2
  3700. 2
  3701. 2
  3702. 2
  3703. 2
  3704. 2
  3705. 2
  3706. 2
  3707. 2
  3708. 2
  3709. 2
  3710. 2
  3711. 2
  3712. 2
  3713. 2
  3714. 2
  3715. 2
  3716. 2
  3717. 2
  3718. 2
  3719. 2
  3720. 2
  3721. 2
  3722. 2
  3723. 2
  3724. 2
  3725. 2
  3726. 2
  3727. 2
  3728. 2
  3729.  @joex24b  I think the first step to becoming a “reform conservative” is recognizing that capitalism isn’t a religion. It’s a way of structuring the economic system of a society to create value. I like to think of it as an engine, which would make society the vehicle. In a democracy, we get to decide about the vehicle: who it should carry, what safety features it has, where we want it to take us, etc. Another thing that has modified my thinking is recognizing that the open, transparent, and free market is an abstract ideal. The level playing field is an ideal. It’s something we are moving towards and it’s worth moving towards, even if perfection is unattainable. This doesn’t mean we should tilt it in the other way, but it does mean nudging it and reassessing to see if it needs more nudging or less. You said something important. Flexibility is key. We will not be flexible if we cling to political dogmas. Example: Supply side economics was a useful tweak under certain circumstances. But it should never have become an article of faith for conservatives because under other economic conditions it is too much of a good thing. In different economic conditions, temporarily increasing government spending might get us out of a hole. If we let go of our dogmas, we will find that we have the same goals and want the same things, we just have different approaches to reach those goals. We can negotiate a viable path based on our shared values and respect for our different values. Knocking down our dearly held dogmas is the real challenge in our current political climate of division and tribalism.
    2
  3730. 2
  3731. 2
  3732. 2
  3733. 2
  3734. 2
  3735. 2
  3736. 2
  3737. 2
  3738. 2
  3739. 2
  3740. 2
  3741. 2
  3742. 2
  3743. 2
  3744. 2
  3745. 2
  3746. 2
  3747. 2
  3748. 2
  3749. 2
  3750. 2
  3751. 2
  3752. 2
  3753. 2
  3754. 2
  3755. 2
  3756. 2
  3757. 2
  3758. 2
  3759. 2
  3760. 2
  3761. 2
  3762. 2
  3763. 2
  3764. 2
  3765. 2
  3766. 2
  3767. 2
  3768. 2
  3769. 2
  3770. 2
  3771. 2
  3772. 2
  3773. 2
  3774. 2
  3775. 2
  3776. 2
  3777. 2
  3778. 2
  3779. 2
  3780. 2
  3781. 2
  3782. 2
  3783. 2
  3784. 2
  3785. 2
  3786. 2
  3787. 2
  3788. 2
  3789. 2
  3790. 2
  3791. 2
  3792. 2
  3793. 2
  3794. 2
  3795. 2
  3796. 2
  3797. 2
  3798. 2
  3799. 2
  3800. 2
  3801. 2
  3802. 2
  3803. 2
  3804. 2
  3805. 2
  3806. 2
  3807. 2
  3808. 2
  3809. 2
  3810. 2
  3811. 2
  3812. 2
  3813. 2
  3814. 2
  3815. It’s rigged, but I’m not sure if these stock market flash mobs are accomplishing anything if the big players are recouping their losses at the end of the day while many of the small investors get left holding the bag for the ones who got in early and took profits. This asymmetric warfare, but asymmetric doesn’t always win. Revolutions don’t always succeed—indeed, they often get nipped in the bud long before they get large enough to qualify as a revolution. What is required for the retail mob to win is coordination, coordination that might be illegal according to SEC rules. I say “might” because it needs to be tested in court to say definitively whether or not mob coordination is legal. Such a test might be too expensive for those individuals sued (civil case) or prosecuted (criminal). Lawyers with the special competence to handle SEC cases are not cheap! However, HOWEVER, this could also be an avenue of attack to get the SEC rules changed to favor the retail investor. (More realistically, to shift a small amount of favor towards the small investor.) Successful prosecutions, David getting smashed by Goliath, gets the attention of law makers who love votes more than they love wall street money. Going forward, I think a way to avoid SEC actions is to 1) keep everything out in the open, 2) not organize around a specific stock, although you could publicly analyze stocks, 3) use a media figure to announce targets. An example of this would be 1) & 2) the mob openly organizing into “investment clubs” and creating a tranche strategy (early, middle, late tranches, roughly) to spread out the pain and the reward. Meanwhile, they crowd research potential targets—companies that are being over-shorted, for example. 3) When a target is selected, the media personality/financial journalist/analyst goes on air to announce it. If “investment club” sounds too cheesy, maybe a publicly traded “retail fund”, with shareholders getting to vote on targets. Or some other vehicle for the pooling of money. All out in the open, with the public announcement coming at the moment the vote is tallied. The vote would be a media event in itself.
    2
  3816. 2
  3817. 2
  3818. 2
  3819. 2
  3820. 2
  3821. Incidentally, Mara Salvatrucha formed in the U.S. and was exported back to Salvador. Initially in the U.S. it was an ethnic street gang competing with other street gangs, but they got really ruthless and deadly when they got organized by ex-members of the Salvadoran military (who had been sent to the U.S to assassinate Salvadoran rebels who were hiding). It’s also important to remember exactly what as going on in El Salvador at the time. The U.S. supported the dictatorship with weapons and training for the military and the security services, with the CIA training the security services (secret police). I don’t know what techniques were taught, but the Salvadoran secret police was infamous for torture and for sending death squads to assassinate priests, journalists, dissidents, etc. Basically any sort of opposition was mercilessly destroyed. So if we wonder why Salvador is a crime infested shït hole, we need to recognize that we played a major part in it becoming that way. We can’t pretend that we had nothing to do with destabilizing that country when we are confronted by immigrants fleeing the violence. It’s much the same deal with Guatemala, although I think we were less directly involved there. Ditto Honduras. Anyhoo, U.S. policies really damaged Central America. You can argue that the region was already effed up, but we definitely made it worse. Before we get all anti-America, though, we need to remember the context. The Cold War was still on. Nicaraguan communists (the Sandinistas) had overthrown the U.S. supported dictator there. Our government feared Nicaragua would become another Cuba, and that the other Central American countries would follow suit. Imo, the Cold War fears had justification, but our methods were not justified. We fucked up, guys. I don’t know how we can fix it. For a start, perhaps we should avoid xenophobia when Central Americans come to our borders seeking refuge from the violence in their countries.
    2
  3822. 2
  3823. 2
  3824. 2
  3825. 2
  3826. 2
  3827. 2
  3828. 2
  3829.  @_John_P  It is very interesting, but it has more to do with how realistic games/simulations have gotten than how dumb non-game players are. Keeping in mind that when I saw first saw the video in question, I was pre-informed that it might be from a game, so I was perhaps watching with more attention. And on the first viewing, I think I saw what you saw although I couldn’t put my finger on it as precisely as you. My overall impression was that everything was too smooth. The vehicles seemed to follow the one ahead of it to precisely, like they were literally on a string pulling them forward, all on the same track. There was something off about the ATGMs (that you explained very well). Back to the vehicles: the headlights seemed to be on a perfect track, as if the road had no dips or variations in its surface. A perfectly flat road. That jumped out at me. But here’s the thing: the next generation of games might fool me. The generation after that might be sophisticated enough to fool you. With that in mind, Ryan’s approach is very helpful: the tactics of the video vs real tactical fundamentals. This approach will be ever more helpful as simulations get better. Fwiw, I don’t play these sorts of games. I’m really old school—I used to play with little cardboard chits on maps defined with hexes. Sometimes we’d play with miniatures on modeled terrain. All turn based. Nowadays I prefer similar turn based strategy games. But I have seen these more realistic games played and I am aware of the evolution of graphics and physics simulations that hace pushed them ever forward. I don’t blame “normal” people for being fooled. But news shows still have a responsibility and need to use “experts” to filter the real from the fake to reject the fake.
    2
  3830. 2
  3831. 2
  3832. 2
  3833. 2
  3834. 2
  3835. 2
  3836. 2
  3837. 2
  3838. 2
  3839. 2
  3840. 2
  3841. 2
  3842. 2
  3843. 2
  3844. 2
  3845. 2
  3846. 2
  3847. 2
  3848. 2
  3849. 2
  3850. 2
  3851. 2
  3852. 2
  3853. 2
  3854. 2
  3855. 2
  3856. 2
  3857. 2
  3858. 2
  3859. 2
  3860. 2
  3861. 2
  3862. 2
  3863. 2
  3864. 2
  3865. 2
  3866. 2
  3867. 2
  3868. 2
  3869. 2
  3870. 2
  3871. 2
  3872. 2
  3873. 2
  3874. 2
  3875. 2
  3876. 2
  3877. 2
  3878. 2
  3879. 2
  3880. 2
  3881. 2
  3882. 2
  3883. 2
  3884. 2
  3885. 2
  3886. 2
  3887. 2
  3888. 2
  3889.  @Chris_the_Muso  I don’t think China (or those few other countries pointedly not taking sides) is especially eager to help Russia at this point. Xi has good reason to be angry with Putin—the invasion of Ukraine heightens suspicions about Chinese ambitions and puts a focus on Chinese territorial expansion. It’s going to complicate Chinese economic expansion and compromise Chinese soft power. Any short term plans (assuming they exist) for Taiwan are off the table and back on the shelf. That doesn’t mean China won’t help, but they are going to charge Russia a premium for that help, and they will limit it. It’s not so much a matter that China doesn’t want to anger the U.S. as they don’t want to anger their neighbors or give the U.S. fuel for propaganda. Everything above about China generally applies to India, although obviously the specifics don’t apply. The main thing to remember about India’s relationship with Russia is that above all, Russia is India’s arms dealer. India needs spare parts to maintain the various military hardware they’ve purchased from Russia. The free world just made these transactions more difficult for India, so even if India wanted to send aid to Russia, it’s unlikely they could send much. The bottom line is that trade between Russia and her “friendly” trading partners won’t be shut off, but will be severely curtailed. China and India may not be forced to comply with the sanctions, but they still do the majority of their trade through the global system. That will put pressure on them to limit trade with Russia.
    2
  3890. 2
  3891. 2
  3892. 2
  3893. 2
  3894. 2
  3895. 2
  3896. 2
  3897. 2
  3898. 2
  3899. 2
  3900. 2
  3901. 2
  3902. 2
  3903. 2
  3904. 2
  3905. 2
  3906. 2
  3907. 2
  3908. 2
  3909. 2
  3910. 2
  3911. 2
  3912. 2
  3913. 2
  3914. 2
  3915. 2
  3916. 2
  3917. 2
  3918. 2
  3919. Low likelihood that he’ll even see this and respond. I realize you want an expert opinion, but it’s not always initially clear who is a credible source (and I consider John Campbell to be credible and trustworthy). You might have to do some research of your own and then using that evaluate the credibility of “expert” sources. The first thing you want to look at is the mechanism of how “treatment X” is supposedly supposed to work on the human body. For example, I did some research on an anti-parasitical that is being widely touted in some circles as a Covid medicine (both preventative and cure). I discovered that it’s widely used treatment for worms, lice, and other parasites, especially in those parts of the world where these parasites are prevalent. The mechanism is this: it’s a neurotoxin that attacks the nervous system of tiny critters like lice and worms. The effective doses are low enough that they don’t normally have an affect on the human (or animal) nervous system. However, I also could NOT find any mechanism by which it would have any effect whatsoever on viruses. Absolutely none. Neurotoxins have no effect on viruses because . . . Viruses don’t have nervous systems. There was information about its used to prevent Malaria, BUT . . . It was being used for mosquito control, a major parasite vehicle for malaria, not directly attack the virus. So despite the glowing claims from some, this medication sadly didn’t pan out. What studies that have been done have been inconclusive, and since there is no scientific reason why it would work as an antiviral, there isn’t much interest in the scientific community. As I said, it’s already in wide use throughout the world, so it has been studied for its intended use. But I’ve got a success story, too. Vitamin D, specifically Vitamin D3. My research there was much more fruitful. It’s a well known component of human metabolism, it’s interactions with other metabolic systems is understood. D3 deficiency is understood, (and is slowly being linked to increased Covid infection risk). (This research is how I found this channel, by the way.) A few other key things I learned: There is no harm in taking D3 up to some pretty high doses. If it doesn’t actually help, it won’t hurt. It’s not highly expensive. These are two key things in my search for ways to minimize risk of infection (and hopefully, lessening of symptoms if I do become infected). 1) “won’t hurt, might help”, 2) reasonable cost. So I suggest to you to first research glutathione’s specific mechanism(s). Not claims, but how it is actually supposed to work, what interactions it is having with the body. If there have been scientific studies, the studies might describe this mechanism or function. If there is no plausible mechanism, ask yourself, 1) if this doesn’t help, will it hurt?, and 2) is it a great waste of money or a trivial one? Also, there might be other benefits that are not Covid related to take into consideration. Good luck, and don’t give up hope if a supplement or substance doesn’t pan out. Move on and keep researching.
    2
  3920. 2
  3921. 2
  3922. 2
  3923. 2
  3924. 2
  3925. 2
  3926. 2
  3927. 2
  3928. 2
  3929. 2
  3930. 2
  3931. 2
  3932. 2
  3933. 2
  3934. 2
  3935. 2
  3936.  @roberttaylor3594  That’s what I was thinking might be possible. Enclaves are not a bad thing if there is social movement and respect. I didn’t know about the high real estate prices, which could put a kink in things. You don’t want your enclaves to be impoverished ghettos which will cause isolation, social problems, and hinder social movement. The “melting pot” concept of U.S. immigration is only partly true. I’m from L.A., which is one of the more multi-cultural cities in the U.S. Los Angeles is not a soup of different ethnicities mixed together. It’s a stew with chunks of ethnic cultures to give it flavor. (And sometimes the flavors clash, sometimes they complement each other, but I don’t want to take the analogy too far.) It wasn’t always like this. It happened over decades. Different minority groups suffered from prejudice at different times, there has been conflict between different communities (and there still is). But those communities also learned to be mutually supportive in fighting for their rights. I don’t want to sound like a liberal, but I want to point out why people come to Los Angeles from other countries to begin with: freedom and economic opportunity—generally more of it than in the places from where they came, even if what they found here wasn’t perfect freedom and opportunity. They don’t come to the U.S. because we are socialist. They come because we are capitalist and free. I think the U.S. could benefit from more immigration. That might sound funny coming from a conservative, but conservatism in the U.S. has become tainted, and has transformed into something else. From what Pete says, I imagine Canada could benefit from more immigration as well. It was interesting that Pete only mentioned the First Nations once and obliquely when he said “native” was a loaded word. How do the original inhabitants of Canada fit into the picture? Are they so few as to not be a big factor in Canadian society?
    2
  3937. 2
  3938. 2
  3939. 2
  3940. 2
  3941. 2
  3942. 2
  3943. 2
  3944. 2
  3945. 2
  3946. 2
  3947. 2
  3948. 2
  3949. 2
  3950. 2
  3951. 2
  3952. 2
  3953. 2
  3954. 2
  3955. 2
  3956. 2
  3957. 2
  3958. 2
  3959. 2
  3960. 2
  3961. 2
  3962. 2
  3963. 2
  3964. 2
  3965. 2
  3966. 2
  3967. 2
  3968. 2
  3969. 2
  3970. 2
  3971. 2
  3972. 2
  3973. 2
  3974. I’m very glad to hear you’re doing well! I have a point of confusion wrt to dosage requirements. It’s not a crucial question, since one can take fairly high dosages without ill effects, even if most of those high dosages are not being absorbed. But the question is this: what are the minimum dosage requirements and how can they be detected? My understanding is that vitamin supplements not absorbed by the body are eliminated. I see this when I pee. My urine is much brighter and darker. When I’m drinking plenty of water, my urine is lighter. Not enough, it’s darker. In neither case is it brighter, as when I’m taking vitamin supplements. The brightness is NOT a concern. I understand that it means I’m getting more than enough. More to the point, I’ve started taking 2000 IU daily of D3 in gel capsule form, and my pee is brighter. Am I correct that this is a good indication that I’m getting sufficient a sufficient amount (without getting laboratory tests to see if I have sufficient or deficient levels). Anyway, I am thinking of trying to get everyone on my street on vitamin D3. I live in a working class neighborhood in Mexico. I’m already buying surgical masks for several families here, and I hand out masks to maskless people on the street. Currently there is a lot of unemployment here due to Covid, and the economic situation is even more precarious than what we are suffering in the U.S. The pandemic has hit my street pretty hard: 8 people that I know of have died, many others are gravely sick. I know there’s variation from person to person in D3 deficiency, thus there’s variation in minimum effective doses. The supplemental capsules I’m taking are inexpensive for me, a single person with regular income. But it adds up if I’m going to be buying sufficient capsules for 60 people. This is the reason I’m asking, and I hope someone can give me some insight.I’m very glad to hear you’re doing well! I have a point of confusion wrt to dosage requirements. It’s not a crucial question, since one can take fairly high dosages without ill effects, even if most of those high dosages are not being absorbed. But the question is this: what are the minimum dosage requirements and how can they be detected? My understanding is that vitamin supplements not absorbed by the body are eliminated. I see this when I pee. My urine is much brighter and darker. When I’m drinking plenty of water, my urine is lighter. Not enough, it’s darker. In neither case is it brighter, as when I’m taking vitamin supplements. The brightness is NOT a concern. I understand that it means I’m getting more than enough. More to the point, I’ve started taking 2000 IU daily of D3 in gel capsule form, and my pee is brighter. Am I correct that this is a good indication that I’m getting sufficient a sufficient amount (without getting laboratory tests to see if I have sufficient or deficient levels). Anyway, I am thinking of trying to get everyone on my street on vitamin D3. I live in a working class neighborhood in Mexico. I’m already buying surgical masks for several families here, and I hand out masks to maskless people on the street. Currently there is a lot of unemployment here due to Covid, and the economic situation is even more precarious than what we are suffering in the U.S. The pandemic has hit my street pretty hard: 8 people that I know of have died, many others are gravely sick. I know there’s variation from person to person in D3 deficiency, thus there’s variation in minimum effective doses. The supplemental capsules I’m taking are inexpensive for me, a single person with regular income. But it adds up if I’m going to be buying sufficient capsules for 60 people. This is the reason I’m asking, and I hope someone can give me some insight.
    2
  3975. 2
  3976. 2
  3977. 2
  3978. 2
  3979. 2
  3980. 2
  3981. 2
  3982. 2
  3983. 2
  3984. 2
  3985. 2
  3986. 2
  3987. 2
  3988. 2
  3989. 2
  3990. 2
  3991. 2
  3992. 2
  3993. 2
  3994. 2
  3995. 2
  3996. 2
  3997. 2
  3998. 2
  3999. 2
  4000. 2
  4001. 2
  4002. 2
  4003. 2
  4004. 2
  4005. 2
  4006. 2
  4007. 2
  4008. 2
  4009. 2
  4010. 2
  4011. 2
  4012. 2
  4013. 2
  4014. 2
  4015. 2
  4016. 2
  4017. 2
  4018. 2
  4019. 2
  4020. 2
  4021. 2
  4022. 2
  4023. 2
  4024. 2
  4025. 2
  4026. 2
  4027. 2
  4028. Your teacher was talking about martial arts, which is a sport, and (probably) personal defense. He wasn’t talking about war. There are similarities between competitive sports and war. Both involve adversaries in contention, each trying to win. And each adversary will (hopefully) leverage its strengths (size, endurance, skill, physical strength) to win. But the differences are too large to apply your teacher’s lesson to war. Maybe it applies to the tactical level, but it falls short as you move up to higher levels. And the main difference is this: in competitive sport, you and your adversary are fighting for the same goal, to win a game. If you don’t achieve a better score (or pin or knock out your opponent), you lose. There are other differences (rules, time limits, agreed upon dimensions of the area), but this is the main one. In war, the two adversaries often are fighting for different goals. I’ll go so far as to say they almost always are fighting for different goals. If one side fails to understand this and fails to understand their adversary’s goals (including the reasons for those goals), they will misapply their advantages and/or their advantages don’t really apply. Size or firepower don’t win the war if you fail to understand your adversary and his goals and motivations. What about self defense? Isn’t that a much closer analogy? It is, but it still falls short. You and your adversary have different goals, but the goals are quite easy to understand. Your adversary wants to harm you or rob you. You want to prevent him from harming or robbing you. Strength, size, and/or superior firepower are paramount in self defense. Your teacher was motivating you to develop your skills, to put in the work required to perfect them, to practice, and to improve your physical body. He was training you in a sport that also has self defense applications, up to a point. But if he was only training you for self defense and nothing more, he’d be a firearms instructor. 😂
    2
  4029. 2
  4030. 2
  4031. 2
  4032. 2
  4033. 2
  4034. 2
  4035. 2
  4036. 2
  4037. 2
  4038. 2
  4039. 2
  4040. 2
  4041. 2
  4042. 2
  4043. 2
  4044. 2
  4045. 2
  4046. 2
  4047. 2
  4048. 2
  4049. 2
  4050. 2
  4051. 2
  4052. 2
  4053. 2
  4054. 2
  4055. 2
  4056. 2
  4057. 2
  4058. 2
  4059. 2
  4060. 2
  4061. 2
  4062. 2
  4063. 2
  4064. 2
  4065. 2
  4066. 2
  4067. 2
  4068. 2
  4069. 2
  4070. 2
  4071. 2
  4072. 2
  4073. 2
  4074. 2
  4075. 2
  4076. 2
  4077. 2
  4078. 2
  4079. 2
  4080. 2
  4081. 2
  4082. 2
  4083. 2
  4084. 2
  4085. 2
  4086. 2
  4087. 2
  4088. 2
  4089. 2
  4090. 2
  4091. 2
  4092. 2
  4093. 2
  4094. 2
  4095. 2
  4096. 2
  4097. 2
  4098. 2
  4099. 2
  4100. 2
  4101. 2
  4102. 2
  4103. 2
  4104. 2
  4105. 2
  4106. 2
  4107. 2
  4108. 2
  4109. 2
  4110. 2
  4111. 2
  4112. 2
  4113. 2
  4114. 2
  4115. 2
  4116. 2
  4117. 2
  4118. I think you’ve got a big gap in your knowledge with what you said about the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. What you must be thinking of is Panama being used as a staging area for support to the Contras, the paramilitary organization(s) in El Salvador fighting against the rebels there (who were mainly terrorizing the populace). The U.S. didn’t support the Sandinistas. The Soviets were able to support the various Central American insurgencies, usually channeling their limited efforts through Cuba, not Panama. Incidentally, the Sandinistas did conduct fair elections, at least the first time around, and the Nicaraguan people elected Victoria Chamorra, who was a pro-Western conservative. I’ll give the Sandinistas full credit for that. Unfortunately, the Sandinistas themselves suffered a split between the nationalist faction and the corrupt socialist faction that was led by Ortega. Ortega has been a disaster for Nicaragua on the whole, but it should be stated that Nicaragua has fared better than Salvador or Honduras over the past 30 years. Most of the immigrants fleeing Central America are from those countries with very few fleeing Nicaragua. As a side notice, it’s illuminating to note that the current border “crisis” on the U.S. Mexico border is largely due to U.S. policies in Central America during the Cold War. This is what is known as blowback, the unforeseen long term consequences to poorly thought out strategies. Still, in fairness to the U.S., it was acting during the Cold War and in response to Soviet shenanigans in Latin America.
    2
  4119. 2
  4120. 2
  4121. 2
  4122. 2
  4123. 2
  4124. 2
  4125. 2
  4126. 2
  4127. 2
  4128. 2
  4129. 2
  4130. 2
  4131. 2
  4132. 2
  4133. 2
  4134. 2
  4135. 2
  4136. 2
  4137. 2
  4138. 2
  4139. 2
  4140. 2
  4141. 2
  4142. 2
  4143. 2
  4144. 2
  4145. 2
  4146. 2
  4147. 2
  4148. 2
  4149. 2
  4150. 2
  4151. 2
  4152. 2
  4153. 2
  4154. 2
  4155. 2
  4156. 2
  4157. 2
  4158. 2
  4159. 2
  4160. 2
  4161. 2
  4162. 2
  4163. 2
  4164. 2
  4165. 2
  4166. 2
  4167. 2
  4168. 2
  4169. 2
  4170. 2
  4171. 2
  4172. 2
  4173. 2
  4174. A point of order wrt Russian organized crime. The Russian Mafiya (as it has styled itself in more recent times) has always had interlocking directorates with the communist party, particularly with the KGB. The KGB was the overseer of smuggling operations which benefited party members with luxury goods. The KGB was the court of appeals for disputes arising in the “second story economy”—the trade of pilfered public goods and labor. One could write a book about the rise of civil engineer/government bureaucrat Shoigu with regard to diversion of state resources to this criminal marketplace. He is more than a Putin stooge. He is a powerful leader of a criminal faction in his own right. This overlap between the criminal and political goes back to the CHEKA under Lenin, from the earliest days of the Revolution. While you might have a hard cadre of ideologist true believers in the party, you also had literally criminal gangs used to punish the enemies of the state with violence and robbery. (A short history lesson: These enemies of the state where not necessarily political enemies, but the “Kulaks”. Initially the Kulaks were those successful farmers that accumulated land and a bit of capital. After they were destroyed, it became the farmer that owned 3 cows while his neighbor had 1 cow. Later still, the farmer with two cows was the enemy. Finally, private ownership of cows was effectively forbidden.) Thus it is not an exaggeration to say that the FSB/KGB had interlocking directorates. The FSB oversaw the criminal factions, and the leaders of the criminal factions worked their way into the FSB/KGB leadership. As Russian organized crime began expanding internationally, the FSB paved the way and had their backs. Organized crime factions that didn’t subordinate themselves fully to this system could be punished by “anti-corruption” campaigns as well as the internecine violence you might expect.
    2
  4175. 2
  4176. 2
  4177. 2
  4178. 2
  4179. 2
  4180. 2
  4181. 2
  4182. 2
  4183. 2
  4184. 2
  4185. 2
  4186. 2
  4187. 2
  4188. 2
  4189. 2
  4190. 2
  4191. 2
  4192. 2
  4193. 2
  4194. 2
  4195. 2
  4196. 2
  4197. 2
  4198. 2
  4199. 2
  4200. 2
  4201. 2
  4202. 2
  4203. 2
  4204. 2
  4205. 2
  4206. 2
  4207. 2
  4208. 2
  4209. 2
  4210. 2
  4211. 2
  4212. 2
  4213. 2
  4214. 2
  4215. 2
  4216. 2
  4217. 2
  4218. 2
  4219. 2
  4220. 2
  4221. 2
  4222. 2
  4223. 2
  4224. 2
  4225. 2
  4226. 2
  4227. 2
  4228. 2
  4229. 2
  4230. 2
  4231. 2
  4232. 2
  4233. 2
  4234. 2
  4235. 2
  4236. 2
  4237. 2
  4238. 2
  4239. 2
  4240. 2
  4241. 2
  4242. 2
  4243. 2
  4244. 2
  4245. 2
  4246. 2
  4247. 2
  4248. 2
  4249. 2
  4250. 2
  4251. 2
  4252. 2
  4253. 2
  4254. 2
  4255. 2
  4256. 2
  4257. 2
  4258. 2
  4259. 2
  4260. 2
  4261. 1
  4262. 1
  4263. 1
  4264. 1
  4265. 1
  4266. 1
  4267. 1
  4268. 1
  4269. 1
  4270. 1
  4271. 1
  4272. 1
  4273. 1
  4274. 1
  4275. 1
  4276. 1
  4277. 1
  4278.  @jesan733  I don’t think I’ve seen that put better anywhere else. You demolished runethorsen’s bad faith argument. Or let us say you “runed” his arguments. I’m past sick and tired of soft-brained leftists and pro-dictator trolls using emotionally charged rhetoric, like “American Empire”. Is the U.S. a hegemonic power? Does it try to impose Western Democracy and values on other parts of the world? I think that is more or less true. But does it act like a traditional empire? No. If we want to see imperial ambitions, we need only look at China, Russia, and Iran. I’m not saying the U.S. is perfect. If it is the world’s policeman, there are times when it acts like an abusive cop. U.S foreign policy and defense policy has made big mistakes with tragic consequences for others. This is all true. But it is also true that the U.S. checked the Soviet’s expansionism and has helped weaker nations maintain their independence against stronger belligerent nations. And it has not done this alone. It forms coalitions and alliances. Hell, the U.S. was the motivating force behind the U.N., making its two chief rivals permanent members of the Security Council. Despite the mistakes, despite the sometimes mixed intentions of the U.S., the Pax Americana has been a net benefit for world. The conditions created by American “imperialism” has allowed hundreds of thousands, if not billions, of humans to pull themselves and their nations out of poverty. American is not above criticism. It might not always listen to it, even when it comes from close friends. But it doesn’t prevent those friends or anyone else from voicing criticism and disapproval. It doesn’t persecute internal dissent. Not like China and Russia or various other smaller dictatorships do. About the left: I only condemn the knee jerk anti-American left, its intellectually dishonest grifters, and its cud chewing followers. Once upon a time they were far on the fringe and/or limited to minor fields of academia. I don’t lump the liberal or progressive left with them. Once upon a time the childish revolutionaries were a trivial annoyance. It troubles me that they seem to be gaining influence. It’s not as troubling as what’s happening on the right side of the political spectrum, but the lefty loons are becoming a threat—they sap our ability to fight the proto-fascist right, for one thing. Anyway, I’m getting off topic. But the point is, if the U.S. is a hegemon, it’s a soft hegemon, the softest the world has ever seen. It ceased using violence to expand its borders in the 19th Century. People like runethorsen are either dumdums or wicked power worshipping nihilists, trying to “colonize” our minds with dishonest rhetoric.
    1
  4279. 1
  4280. 1
  4281. 1
  4282. 1
  4283. 1
  4284. 1
  4285. 1
  4286. 1
  4287. 1
  4288. 1
  4289. 1
  4290. 1
  4291. 1
  4292. 1
  4293. 1
  4294. 1
  4295. 1
  4296. 1
  4297. 1
  4298. 1
  4299. 1
  4300. 1
  4301. 1
  4302. 1
  4303. 1
  4304. 1
  4305. 1
  4306. 1
  4307. 1
  4308. 1
  4309. 1
  4310. 1
  4311. 1
  4312. 1
  4313. 1
  4314. 1
  4315. 1
  4316. 1
  4317. 1
  4318. 1
  4319. 1
  4320. 1
  4321. 1
  4322. 1
  4323. 1
  4324. 1
  4325. 1
  4326. 1
  4327. 1
  4328. 1
  4329. 1
  4330. 1
  4331. 1
  4332. 1
  4333. 1
  4334. 1
  4335. 1
  4336. 1
  4337. 1
  4338. 1
  4339. 1
  4340. 1
  4341. 1
  4342. 1
  4343. 1
  4344. 1
  4345. 1
  4346. 1
  4347. 1
  4348. 1
  4349. 1
  4350. 1
  4351. 1
  4352. 1
  4353. 1
  4354. 1
  4355. 1
  4356. 1
  4357. 1
  4358. 1
  4359. 1
  4360. 1
  4361. 1
  4362. 1
  4363. 1
  4364. 1
  4365. 1
  4366. 1
  4367. 1
  4368. 1
  4369. 1
  4370. 1
  4371. 1
  4372. 1
  4373. 1
  4374. 1
  4375. 1
  4376. 1
  4377. 1
  4378. 1
  4379. 1
  4380. 1
  4381. 1
  4382. 1
  4383. 1
  4384. 1
  4385. 1
  4386. 1
  4387. 1
  4388. 1
  4389. 1
  4390. 1
  4391. 1
  4392. 1
  4393. 1
  4394. 1
  4395. 1
  4396. 1
  4397. 1
  4398. 1
  4399. 1
  4400. 1
  4401. 1
  4402. 1
  4403. When I purchased my Mr. Heater, I also got the hose adapter to hook up with a propane tank. It works great and there’s no need to fiddle around with the little green camping canisters. It’s heating my bedroom right now as we speak. It dropped to 37° F last night, but my bedroom is a toasty 70°. This is its third year of operation. My #1 consideration is cost of operation. A propane tank exchange where I live costs just under $14 (including home delivery). One tank will last me about a month depending on usage. Electric heaters push up my usage tier and then ALL my electricity costs more. I don’t remember the cost of kWh offhand, but my electric bill went up by $60/month when I used an electric heater a few years ago, only using it for a few hours on cold mornings. My biggest safety concern was carbon monoxide poisoning, so I installed a carbon monoxide detector/alarm. There have been zero issues that you might get by using a gas heater designed for outdoor use. As far as fire risk, I make sure there is more than 3’ of space around the heater. If you care about money, the Mr. Heater is the way to go. Maintenance: It might require minor maintenance with a q-tip and rubbing alcohol at the end of winter. Propane can contain impurities which will eventually foul up the heater. If your propane is really dirty, you might need to open it up to get at tubes blocked with gunk. I live in central Mexico (rental) above 6000 feet elevation. Morning winter temps are often 40° or below but it rarely drops below freezing. Daytime temps reach 60° to 70° by noon on most cold days. I don’t think I use the heater much when the morning temps are above 50°. Not at all really.
    1
  4404. 1
  4405. 1
  4406. 1
  4407. 1
  4408. 1
  4409. I believe a rational person can explore irrational and suprarational thoughts, but it does require a temporary letting go of ones rational framework, a stepping outside of it in a way. You don’t need drugs to do this, but if you’ve learned meditation or self hypnosis techniques they might be helpful. It might also be useful to keep a journal, notes, or some written record. You might do it like this. Say to yourself, “Suppose that . . . .” and add something pleasant, but unlikely, unprovable, or impossible. And then suppose that it’s true. Discard thoughts about why it’s not possible, or how one could make it possible. Just suppose for the moment that it is true, and suppose what that would be like. I want to stress that the thing you suppose can really be unlimited. Suppose I am a coyote. Suppose there were two planet earths and we could travel between them. Suppose God existed. Suppose our bones were stronger than steel. Suppose farts had medicinal properties. Part of this exercise is to imagine what the experience is like living in a world that you just supposed. To imagine it so vividly that you almost feel like you have experienced it, to experience it as real. Don’t worry about all the reasons your supposition is not possible. Don’t try to undermine it. Obviously, a part of your mind will want to analyze all the ways your supposition is absurd, wouldn’t work, or is impossible. Let those thoughts drift away, reframe the question, and continue imagining. I suggested you use a pleasant supposition. The reason for this is an unpleasant or negative one, even a morbid one, might cause you worry and anxiety—this will impede you in two ways. One, it triggers your analytic mind which will strive to relieve you of the anxiety, most easily by explaining to yourself why the triggering supposition is impossible. Two, an unpleasant supposition could disuade you from repeating the exercise. Anyway, I hope this is useful. It’s possible to take time away from the hyper mechanistic and rational self without becoming an idiot or a loony. It’s quite useful to do so. I don’t want to use the word “escape” because it’s not accurate. But it is stepping outside of it, and it is possible because we are larger than our rational minds.
    1
  4410. 1
  4411. 1
  4412. 1
  4413. 1
  4414. 1
  4415. 1
  4416. 1
  4417. 1
  4418. 1
  4419. 1
  4420. 1
  4421. 1
  4422. 1
  4423. 1
  4424. 1
  4425. 1
  4426. 1
  4427. 1
  4428. 1
  4429. 1
  4430. 1
  4431. 1
  4432. 1
  4433. 1
  4434. 1
  4435. 1
  4436. 1
  4437. 1
  4438. 1
  4439. 1
  4440. 1
  4441. 1
  4442. 1
  4443. 1
  4444. 1
  4445. 1
  4446. 1
  4447. 1
  4448. 1
  4449. 1
  4450. 1
  4451. 1
  4452. 1
  4453. 1
  4454. 1
  4455. 1
  4456. 1
  4457. 1
  4458. 1
  4459. 1
  4460. 1
  4461. 1
  4462. 1
  4463. 1
  4464. 1
  4465. 1
  4466. 1
  4467. 1
  4468. 1
  4469. 1
  4470. 1
  4471. 1
  4472. 1
  4473. 1
  4474. 1
  4475. 1
  4476. 1
  4477. 1
  4478. 1
  4479. 1
  4480. 1
  4481. 1
  4482. 1
  4483. 1
  4484. 1
  4485. 1
  4486. 1
  4487. 1
  4488. 1
  4489. 1
  4490. 1
  4491. 1
  4492. 1
  4493. 1
  4494. 1
  4495. 1
  4496. 1
  4497. 1
  4498. 1
  4499. 1
  4500. 1
  4501. 1
  4502. 1
  4503. 1
  4504. 1
  4505. 1
  4506. 1
  4507. 1
  4508. 1
  4509. 1
  4510. 1
  4511. 1
  4512. 1
  4513. 1
  4514. 1
  4515. 1
  4516. 1
  4517. 1
  4518. 1
  4519. 1
  4520. 1
  4521. 1
  4522. 1
  4523. 1
  4524. 1
  4525. 1
  4526. 1
  4527. 1
  4528. 1
  4529. 1
  4530. 1
  4531. 1
  4532. 1
  4533. 1
  4534. 1
  4535. 1
  4536. 1
  4537. 1
  4538. 1
  4539. 1
  4540. 1
  4541. 1
  4542. 1
  4543. 1
  4544. 1
  4545. 1
  4546. 1
  4547. 1
  4548. 1
  4549. 1
  4550. 1
  4551. 1
  4552. 1
  4553. 1
  4554. 1
  4555. 1
  4556. 1
  4557. 1
  4558. 1
  4559. 1
  4560. 1
  4561. 1
  4562. 1
  4563. 1
  4564. 1
  4565. 1
  4566. 1
  4567. 1
  4568. 1
  4569. 1
  4570. 1
  4571. 1
  4572. 1
  4573. 1
  4574. 1
  4575. 1
  4576. 1
  4577. 1
  4578. 1
  4579. 1
  4580. 1
  4581. 1
  4582. 1
  4583. 1
  4584. 1
  4585. 1
  4586. 1
  4587. 1
  4588. 1
  4589. 1
  4590. 1
  4591. 1
  4592. 1
  4593. 1
  4594. 1
  4595. 1
  4596. 1
  4597. 1
  4598. 1
  4599. 1
  4600. 1
  4601. 1
  4602. 1
  4603. 1
  4604. 1
  4605. 1
  4606. 1
  4607. 1
  4608. 1
  4609. 1
  4610. 1
  4611. 1
  4612. 1
  4613. 1
  4614. 1
  4615. 1
  4616. 1
  4617. 1
  4618. 1
  4619. 1
  4620. 1
  4621. 1
  4622. 1
  4623. 1
  4624. 1
  4625. 1
  4626. 1
  4627. 1
  4628. 1
  4629. 1
  4630. 1
  4631. 1
  4632. 1
  4633. 1
  4634. 1
  4635. 1
  4636. 1
  4637. 1
  4638. 1
  4639. 1
  4640. 1
  4641. 1
  4642. 1
  4643. 1
  4644. 1
  4645. 1
  4646. 1
  4647. 1
  4648. 1
  4649. 1
  4650. 1
  4651. 1
  4652. 1
  4653. 1
  4654. 1
  4655. 1
  4656. 1
  4657. 1
  4658. 1
  4659. 1
  4660. 1
  4661. 1
  4662. 1
  4663. 1
  4664. 1
  4665. 1
  4666. 1
  4667. 1
  4668. 1
  4669. 1
  4670. 1
  4671. 1
  4672. 1
  4673. 1
  4674. 1
  4675. 1
  4676. 1
  4677. 1
  4678. 1
  4679. 1
  4680. 1
  4681. 1
  4682. 1
  4683. 1
  4684. 1
  4685. 1
  4686. 1
  4687. 1
  4688. 1
  4689. 1
  4690. 1
  4691. 1
  4692. 1
  4693. 1
  4694. 1
  4695. 1
  4696. 1
  4697. 1
  4698. 1
  4699. 1
  4700. 1
  4701. 1
  4702. 1
  4703. 1
  4704. 1
  4705. 1
  4706. 1
  4707. 1
  4708. 1
  4709. 1
  4710.  @gdutfulkbhh7537  I don’t think it’s the sycophants he craves. That might be a small part of it, but it’s not the crucial thing. If anything, he despises them. They probably make him feel lonely. Also, it’s nothing special for the mega-rich to have hangers-on/fans, especially if they are “public facing”. It’s hard for a mega-rich person to find genuine friends. On the other hand, he’s a con artist. So a cult like fanatical following only helps him pull the wool over people’s eyes. But thats a means and not an ends. So what is the life goal of Elon Musk? He wants to be a perpetual tyrannical toddler, not as a toddler is but how a toddler might wish to be, with no constraints (parental discipline and limitations) but all the wish fulfillment. Toddlers have no moral development and no moral constraints—the point of good parenting is to develop a young person through the various stages and prepare them for mature adulthood in our society. A sense of fairness begins to develop when we are at that stage and we begin to learn the concept of right and wrong—what behavior is acceptable and what is not. At the beginning, I demand a cookie and it’s not fair that I don’t get it immediately. But my parent teaches me that I can’t have the cookie now, but I can have one after I’ve eaten my vegetables. I learn that 1) I cannot have whatever I want whenever I want it, and 2) I might get it if I behave as another person (the parent) wants. I begin to understand basic social structure. My concept of fairness is being refined (if I indeed get the cookie after eating my vegetables). It’s simple rewards and punishment imposed by a bigger, more powerful person. Musk might or might not have learned these basic things. I suspect he did, but the “unfairness” of not having his wishes instantly fulfilled stuck in his craw. That someone or something would have authority over him was entirely unacceptable. He wants to make the toddlers fantasy into his reality, the fantasy of getting what you want and doing what you want, with no constraints. And the only real way to achieve this is to be the king of the world, to be a tyrant or dictator over everyone. Elon Musk isn’t stupid. He knows he cannot achieve this on Earth. But he might achieve it on Mars. However, time is running out. He is realizing he cannot achieve his goal. So he is lashing out at those who he believes are standing in his way, at anyone who tries to put limitations on him. He’s behaving like a toddler.
    1
  4711. 1
  4712. 1
  4713. 1
  4714. 1
  4715. 1
  4716. 1
  4717. 1
  4718. 1
  4719. 1
  4720. 1
  4721. 1
  4722. 1
  4723. 1
  4724. 1
  4725. 1
  4726. 1
  4727. 1
  4728. 1
  4729. 1
  4730. 1
  4731. 1
  4732. 1
  4733. 1
  4734. 1
  4735. 1
  4736. 1
  4737. 1
  4738. 1
  4739. 1
  4740. 1
  4741. 1
  4742. 1
  4743. 1
  4744. 1
  4745. 1
  4746. 1
  4747. 1
  4748. 1
  4749. 1
  4750. 1
  4751. 1
  4752. 1
  4753. 1
  4754. 1
  4755. 1
  4756. 1
  4757. 1
  4758. 1
  4759. 1
  4760. 1
  4761. 1
  4762. 1
  4763. 1
  4764. 1
  4765. 1
  4766. 1
  4767. 1
  4768. 1
  4769. 1
  4770. 1
  4771. 1
  4772. 1
  4773. 1
  4774. 1
  4775. 1
  4776. 1
  4777. 1
  4778. 1
  4779. 1
  4780. 1
  4781. 1
  4782. ⁠ @7936Barry  I think you’re correct that the camera person expected that the slides would be edited in, and that he made the choice to focus attention on the dynamic presentation by Steve Knott. I disagree that zooming in and out is a very good solution in this case. The wide shot will lose a lot of the vitality of this particular speaker and the zoom in (or out) will actually be distracting at a visceral level. Zooms (again, imho) are best used judiciously, intentionally, and with choreography, to emphasize a dramatic moment. It’s a weak compromise to zoom in and out over the course of a monologue to show context, especially if you’re expecting the addition of slides during editing. In this case, acting on the fly, when do you zoom in on the speaker to emphasize the right moment or zoom out for a better view of the map? That’s what I mean about choreography. The cameraman was faced with a choice, and (imho), made the strongest choice to create a more impactful video for a lay audience. I realize this is unsatisfactory for some members of the audience, but the truth is that if they are interested enough to see graphical representations of troop movements, they can find them and compare them to the presentation (especially because Steve Knott was giving dates for the activities). As for the end result, sure I would have liked a better view of the maps. But even more, I appreciate prioritizing the capture of Knott’s energetic delivery, his body language and gestures, and his mannerisms. It’s a more powerful presentation and we (or I, at least) am more focused on his words and the story he is telling. If you feel strongly the opposite, might I make a humble suggestion? You might find a way of downloading the presentation and editing in your own maps and graphics. I know this is asking a lot of a stranger. But I think you could improve upon the video because of your experience. 😊
    1
  4783. 1
  4784. 1
  4785. 1
  4786. 1
  4787. 1
  4788. 1
  4789. 1
  4790. 1
  4791. 1
  4792. 1
  4793. 1
  4794. 1
  4795. 1
  4796. 1
  4797. 1
  4798. 1
  4799. 1
  4800. 1
  4801. 1
  4802. 1
  4803. 1
  4804. 1
  4805. 1
  4806. 1
  4807. 1
  4808. 1
  4809. 1
  4810. 1
  4811. 1
  4812. 1
  4813. 1
  4814. 1
  4815. 1
  4816. 1
  4817. 1
  4818. 1
  4819. 1
  4820. 1
  4821. 1
  4822. 1
  4823. 1
  4824. 1
  4825. 1
  4826. 1
  4827. 1
  4828. 1
  4829. 1
  4830. 1
  4831. 1
  4832. 1
  4833. 1
  4834. 1
  4835. 1
  4836. 1
  4837. 1
  4838. 1
  4839. 1
  4840. 1
  4841. 1
  4842. 1
  4843. 1
  4844. 1
  4845. 1
  4846. 1
  4847. 1
  4848. 1
  4849. 1
  4850. 1
  4851. 1
  4852. 1
  4853. 1
  4854. 1
  4855. 1
  4856. 1
  4857. 1
  4858. 1
  4859. 1
  4860. 1
  4861. 1
  4862. 1
  4863. 1
  4864. 1
  4865. 1
  4866. 1
  4867. 1
  4868. 1
  4869. 1
  4870. 1
  4871. 1
  4872. 1
  4873. 1
  4874. 1
  4875. 1
  4876. 1
  4877. 1
  4878. 1
  4879. 1
  4880. 1
  4881. 1
  4882. 1
  4883. 1
  4884. 1
  4885. 1
  4886. 1
  4887. 1
  4888. 1
  4889. 1
  4890. 1
  4891. 1
  4892. 1
  4893. 1
  4894. 1
  4895. 1
  4896. 1
  4897. 1
  4898. 1
  4899. 1
  4900. 1
  4901. 1
  4902. 1
  4903. 1
  4904. 1
  4905. 1
  4906. 1
  4907. 1
  4908. 1
  4909. 1
  4910. 1
  4911. 1
  4912. 1
  4913. 1
  4914. 1
  4915. 1
  4916. What charges? And what does police lying to the father have to do with their hiring practices? I’m trying to help you out here. Your argument is emotional and illogical. We are understandably upset by what happened, but your calls for revenge are not effective. You have to understand the law, understand what went wrong in hiring process, and then figure out the best way to fix the problem. Part of that fix might be to punish anyone who failed in their duties. And it’s OK if you don’t have an instant solution. Part of what is needed is to figure out the solution. Emotional appeals are easy and do little but help you blow off steam. Fixing the problem is hard, but it’s not a waste of that steam you want to vent. Do you know what works? Writing physical letters to the state attorney general, demanding an independent investigation of the whole sheriffs department. Someone has to open the letters. And then they have to pass the letter on to someone else to deal with. Maybe that person puts your letter into a file with other similar letters. If the file gets too big, someone in the AG office has to figure out what to do with it. Here is the thing about physical mail, and why elected officials pay attention (or should pay attention). Maybe one out of a thousand citizens will send a physical letter about an issue. If they receive 50 letters, that represents 50,000 potential voters. So the thing you can do right now to be effective is look up the mailing address of the State attorney general’s office. (You can do the same for the governor and anyone else you think could help.) Then write a letter demanding an independent investigation. This one thing is a million times more effective than posting a year’s worth of YouTube comments, and you can do it in a half hour. Maybe less time, but it shouldn’t take more than an hour of your time.
    1
  4917. 1
  4918. 1
  4919. 1
  4920. 1
  4921. 1
  4922. 1
  4923. 1
  4924. 1
  4925. 1
  4926. 1
  4927. 1
  4928. 1
  4929. 1
  4930. 1
  4931. 1
  4932. 1
  4933. 1
  4934. 1
  4935. 1
  4936. 1
  4937. 1
  4938. 1
  4939. 1
  4940. 1
  4941. 1
  4942. 1
  4943. 1
  4944. 1
  4945. 1
  4946. 1
  4947. 1
  4948. 1
  4949. 1
  4950. 1
  4951. 1
  4952. 1
  4953. 1
  4954. 1
  4955. 1
  4956. 1
  4957. 1
  4958. 1
  4959. 1
  4960. 1
  4961. 1
  4962. 1
  4963. 1
  4964. 1
  4965. 1
  4966. 1
  4967. 1
  4968. 1
  4969. 1
  4970. 1
  4971. 1
  4972. 1
  4973. 1
  4974. 1
  4975. 1
  4976. 1
  4977. 1
  4978. 1
  4979. 1
  4980. 1
  4981. 1
  4982. 1
  4983. 1
  4984. 1
  4985. 1
  4986. 1
  4987. 1
  4988. 1
  4989. 1
  4990. 1
  4991. 1
  4992. 1
  4993. 1
  4994. 1
  4995. 1
  4996. 1
  4997. 1
  4998. 1
  4999. 1
  5000. 1
  5001. 1
  5002. 1
  5003. Occam’s razor tells us to go with the simplest possible answer, so I think you’re right. However, the romantic in me wants to believe that the missile was hacked, and I think there is an improbable but possible scenario, which is a hardware/firmware hack. Imagine this—the factory that builds these missiles uses CPUs and circuit boards sourced outside of Russia. However, to pocket a few extra bucks, the buying manager buys some of the CPUs at a discounted price on the black market. The provenance is unknown. The buyer assumes they are stolen from the manufacturer or some other client or vendor. He has no idea through whose hands the components have passed and doesn’t care, so long as they test OK and they work. Now imagine that some agency with the required capabilities and expertise, in some government with an adversarial relationship with Russia, inserts itself into that chain of custody. It could substitute a CPU (or whatever) that looks like the genuine component from the MFGR, but that contains hardwired instructions to misfire (or do whatever). The component is tested as normal, is used to build the missile, and voila, missile that flies back. Did this happen? Probably not. I mean, why not just have it blow up in the rack? But as Russia seeks to replenish its inventory of high tech electronic components through a “parallel market”, they are at risk of receiving hacked hardware. And due to the general level of corruption in the Russian economy, I suspect that these trade networks already existed before the sanctions and were supplying components to the Russian arms industry.
    1
  5004. 1
  5005. 1
  5006. 1
  5007. 1
  5008. 1
  5009. 1
  5010. 1
  5011. 1
  5012. 1
  5013. 1
  5014. 1
  5015. 1
  5016. 1
  5017. 1
  5018. 1
  5019. 1
  5020. 1
  5021. 1
  5022. 1
  5023. 1
  5024. 1
  5025. 1
  5026. 1
  5027. 1
  5028. 1
  5029. 1
  5030. 1
  5031. 1
  5032. 1
  5033. 1
  5034. 1
  5035. 1
  5036. 1
  5037. 1
  5038. 1
  5039. 1
  5040. 1
  5041. 1
  5042. 1
  5043. 1
  5044. 1
  5045. 1
  5046. 1
  5047. 1
  5048. 1
  5049. 1
  5050. 1
  5051. 1
  5052. 1
  5053. 1
  5054. 1
  5055. 1
  5056. 1
  5057. 1
  5058. 1
  5059. 1
  5060. 1
  5061. 1
  5062. 1
  5063. 1
  5064. 1
  5065. 1
  5066. 1
  5067. 1
  5068. 1
  5069. 1
  5070. 1
  5071. 1
  5072. 1
  5073. 1
  5074. 1
  5075. 1
  5076. 1
  5077. 1
  5078. 1
  5079. 1
  5080. 1
  5081. 1
  5082. 1
  5083. 1
  5084. 1
  5085. 1
  5086. 1
  5087. 1
  5088. 1
  5089. 1
  5090. 1
  5091. 1
  5092. 1
  5093. 1
  5094. 1
  5095. 1
  5096. 1
  5097. 1
  5098. 1
  5099. 1
  5100.  @FabiusPolis  What has been the cost in men and materiel in each case? is an important question. In the case of Ukraine’s offensive, it was unarguable that a relatively light and highly mobile Ukrainian force not only took significant territory but did so at a greater cost to Russia forces. The Ukrainians killed and captured many soldiers and destroyed or captured a great deal of Russian equipment and supplies. The current Russian offensive also seems to be very expensive for Russia. They are paying a high price for territory that now will be expensive to hold, let alone force a breakthrough. I doubt they will be able to move artillery into what is a hard to defend killing zone. Looking at previous battles in history, Operation Market-Garden was a costly strategic failure but a “tactical success”. Allied forces advance all the way to the Rhine River but failed to take the final bridge at Arnhem. And it was a very costly strategic failure, almost destroying British Airborne at Arnhem, and costing a lot of allied lives along the road to Arnhem. Market-Garden also had an opportunity cost, as the resources spent might have been put to better use elsewhere. That said, I’m pretty sure that the Dutch on the allied side of the Rhine were happy to be liberated from the Germans, even though they also suffered casualties. However,I don’t want to make a direct comparison. Market-Garden was a much greater blunder than the current Kharkiv offensive. Another difference is that the allies had a much greater industrial capacity to recover from the blunder. The one possible success for the Russians is if the shift in the front lines threatens Kupiansk. I don’t know enough about the geography or force disposition to say one way or the other. I’d say the most grievous blow that Ukraine has suffered recently was the replacement of Shoigu. That might have far reaching strategic consequences.
    1
  5101. 1
  5102. 1
  5103. 1
  5104. 1
  5105. 1
  5106. 1
  5107. 1
  5108. 1
  5109. 1
  5110. 1
  5111. 1
  5112. 1
  5113. 1
  5114. 1
  5115. 1
  5116. 1
  5117. 1
  5118. 1
  5119. 1
  5120. 1
  5121. 1
  5122. 1
  5123. 1
  5124. 1
  5125. 1
  5126. 1
  5127. 1
  5128. 1
  5129. 1
  5130. 1
  5131. 1
  5132. 1
  5133. 1
  5134. 1
  5135. 1
  5136. 1
  5137. 1
  5138. 1
  5139. 1
  5140. 1
  5141. 1
  5142. 1
  5143. 1
  5144. 1
  5145. 1
  5146. 1
  5147. 1
  5148. 1
  5149. 1
  5150. 1
  5151. 1
  5152. 1
  5153. 1
  5154. 1
  5155. 1
  5156. 1
  5157. 1
  5158. 1
  5159. 1
  5160. 1
  5161. 1
  5162. 1
  5163. 1
  5164. 1
  5165. 1
  5166. 1
  5167. 1
  5168. 1
  5169. 1
  5170. 1
  5171. 1
  5172. 1
  5173. 1
  5174. 1
  5175. 1
  5176. 1
  5177. 1
  5178. 1
  5179. 1
  5180. 1
  5181. 1
  5182. 1
  5183. 1
  5184. 1
  5185. 1
  5186. 1
  5187. 1
  5188. 1
  5189. 1
  5190. 1
  5191. 1
  5192. 1
  5193. 1
  5194. 1
  5195. 1
  5196. 1
  5197. 1
  5198. 1
  5199. 1
  5200. 1
  5201. 1
  5202. 1
  5203. 1
  5204. 1
  5205. 1
  5206. 1
  5207. 1
  5208. 1
  5209. 1
  5210. 1
  5211. 1
  5212. 1
  5213. 1
  5214. 1
  5215. 1
  5216. 1
  5217. 1
  5218. 1
  5219. 1
  5220. He’s not 100% off the mark. He is just oversimplifying what is a complex topic, a 40 year history of organized crime in five minutes. He is omitting a lot, such as what happened in Central America and South America in the 70s and early 80s that facilitated the shift of narco trafficking from the Caribbean to Mexico. And that history is complicated by our own foreign policy and anti-communist efforts in Central American countries. To a certain extent, moves we (the U.S.) made in the area have come back to haunt us. Pete’s understanding isn’t deep, but I’m interested in seeing where he goes with this. Heck, I bet your understanding (and my understanding) of this part of the criminal underworld isn’t that deep either. There’s a lot that hasn’t come out, and a lot of that hidden information will never come out. There’s a lot of guesswork and rumor among those who study the problem for a living. Even the experts don’t have a complete picture. Pete’s weakness is when he strays out of his lanes. He’s pretty good when he stays with demographics and global trade (of legal commodities). He’s searching and analyzing the data, looking for trends that his real clients (big businesses and business associations) might use to guide their operations. It’s important to put these videos he makes in perspective. They’re entertainment and marketing for his consulting services. I don’t think he panders to the audience so much as that these videos attract an audience thirsty for confirmation of their biases and quick insights. (Look at all the comments worshipfully praising him.)
    1
  5221. 1
  5222. 1
  5223. 1
  5224. 1
  5225. 1
  5226. 1
  5227. 1
  5228. 1
  5229. 1
  5230. 1
  5231. 1
  5232. 1
  5233. 1
  5234. 1
  5235. 1
  5236. 1
  5237. 1
  5238. 1
  5239. 1
  5240. 1
  5241. 1
  5242. 1
  5243. 1
  5244. 1
  5245. 1
  5246. 1
  5247. Focusing on campaign strategy and tactics is a way to ignore a deep and fundamental misogyny and racism in this country. It’s misdirection to avoid looking at the ugly foundations of power because those foundations are our souls. There is an ugly deformation in the core of our being. Let’s imagine a world where Harris ran against a “conventional conservative”, like a Romney or McCain. In other words, the differences between the Dem candidate and the GOP candidate are not terribly wide, whether we’re talking about character or policy. In this world, a Harris loss probably represents some level of racism and misogyny. It’s hard to say if it’s the deciding factor, but let’s just say it’s there in the mix. Returning to our world, the differences between Trump and Harris are staggeringly wide, whether you look at character or policy. Trump is a criminal, people. He’s not merely unqualified to be the president, he should be disqualified based on character alone or on policy alone. He is an active force of destruction and chaos who, even when not committing actual crimes, has always acted with criminal intent and a criminal mindset. We elected the worst possible person to the presidency to avoid electing a woman. We would rather elect a person who is going to destroy many of our lives, who is going to damage us, (and lord help us when there is a real crisis like we saw with Covid), than elect a woman. I’m focusing on gender here because we elected a black man to be president and then re-elected him, and apparently that’s enough to take race off the table. But the point is not that we merely prefer to have a male president over a female one, but that we’d pick the worst possible male over a female candidate that is qualified for the job by any objective measure besides her reproductive organs. If Harris was magical and could give everyone the policies they wanted on both the right and the left, we’d still elect Trump because he has a male sexual organ. My two conclusions is that 1) we have a much deeper problem than politics that politics alone can’t solve, and 2) If you want to win presidential elections, do not under any circumstances nominate a woman. The biggest political mistake the Democratic Party made was running a woman candidate for President. That’s not me being misogynist, that’s the reality. That is the state of the union. So we can accept the reality and work to change it, or we can deny it and deceive ourselves that it was about economic issues or Palestine or being too conservative or too progressive. The hardest truth is that Kamala Harris was rejected by the majority because she was too female. And being black wasn’t doing her any favors, either.
    1
  5248. 1
  5249. 1
  5250. 1
  5251. 1
  5252. 1
  5253. 1
  5254. 1
  5255. 1
  5256. 1
  5257. 1
  5258. 1
  5259. 1
  5260. 1
  5261. 1
  5262. 1
  5263. 1
  5264. 1
  5265. 1
  5266. 1
  5267. 1
  5268. 1
  5269. 1
  5270. 1
  5271. 1
  5272. 1
  5273. 1
  5274. 1
  5275. 1
  5276. 1
  5277. 1
  5278. 1
  5279. 1
  5280. 1
  5281.  @uraldamasis6887  It is possible, but super unlikely in a used car scenario. The way it would work is this: the original purchase contract (or the rebate agreement) could include “pass-thru” language stipulating future contracts between you, the original buyer, and future buyers. To sell the car, you’d need put in clauses that waive the right to sue (and the manufacturer would obviously provide the mandatory clauses). Those contract clauses would pass thru to any future sales. You’re not so much waiving the rights of future buyers as it is requiring them to waive their rights as a condition of buying your car. TLDR: a contract can control and specify the terms and conditions of future contracts between the buyer and subsequent buyers. Sounds ludicrous, right? But there are precedents for such pass-thru agreements in the armaments industry, where contract language defines future contracts with third parties. Let’s say a German tank manufacturer sells some tanks to the Italian government. The Italian government is contractually restricted from exporting those tanks to other buyers without approval from the German manufacturer. Let’s say there’s two potential buyers in third countries: the government in Myanmar and an arms broker in Spain. The manufacture has the contractual right to reject either buyer. Maybe they don’t like Myanmar’s human rights policies, so they say, “No, Italy, you can’t pass the tanks to the Myanmar government. But you can sell to the broker in Spain if they sign a pass-thru agreement that controls to whom they can sell the tanks, that gives us ultimate approval over the sale.” This is to avoid the broker turning around and selling the tanks to Myanmar. These sorts of pass-thru agreements are real. They have affected countries trying to send war fighting equipment to Ukraine, delaying the shipment. It’s unrealistic that a car dealer could make buyers sign such a contract, but it is possible. The export can even be mandated by the government of the country where the manufacturer is located, defined by export control laws of that country, which adds another layer of approval.
    1
  5282. 1
  5283. 1
  5284. 1
  5285. 1
  5286. 1
  5287. 1
  5288. 1
  5289. 1
  5290. 1
  5291. 1
  5292. 1
  5293. 1
  5294. 1
  5295. 1
  5296. 1
  5297. 1
  5298. 1
  5299. 1
  5300. 1
  5301. 1
  5302. 1
  5303. 1
  5304. 1
  5305. 1
  5306. 1
  5307. 1
  5308. 1
  5309. 1
  5310. 1
  5311. 1
  5312. 1
  5313. 1
  5314. 1
  5315. 1
  5316. 1
  5317. 1
  5318. 1
  5319. 1
  5320. 1
  5321. 1
  5322. 1
  5323. 1
  5324. 1
  5325. 1
  5326. 1
  5327. 1
  5328. 1
  5329. 1
  5330. 1
  5331. 1
  5332. 1
  5333. 1
  5334. 1
  5335. 1
  5336. 1
  5337. 1
  5338. 1
  5339. 1
  5340. 1
  5341. 1
  5342. 1
  5343. 1
  5344. 1
  5345. 1
  5346. 1
  5347. 1
  5348. 1
  5349. 1
  5350. 1
  5351. 1
  5352. 1
  5353. 1
  5354. 1
  5355. 1
  5356. 1
  5357. 1
  5358. 1
  5359. 1
  5360. 1
  5361. 1
  5362. 1
  5363. 1
  5364. 1
  5365. 1
  5366. 1
  5367. 1
  5368. 1
  5369. 1
  5370. 1
  5371. 1
  5372. 1
  5373. 1
  5374. 1
  5375. 1
  5376. 1
  5377. 1
  5378. 1
  5379. 1
  5380. 1
  5381. 1
  5382. 1
  5383. 1
  5384. 1
  5385. 1
  5386. 1
  5387. 1
  5388. 1
  5389. 1
  5390. 1
  5391. 1
  5392. 1
  5393. 1
  5394. 1
  5395. 1
  5396. 1
  5397. 1
  5398. 1
  5399. 1
  5400. 1
  5401. 1
  5402. 1
  5403. 1
  5404. 1
  5405. 1
  5406. 1
  5407. 1
  5408. 1
  5409. 1
  5410. 1
  5411. 1
  5412. 1
  5413. 1
  5414. 1
  5415. 1
  5416. 1
  5417. 1
  5418. 1
  5419. 1
  5420. 1
  5421. 1
  5422. 1
  5423. 1
  5424. 1
  5425. 1
  5426. 1
  5427. 1
  5428. 1
  5429. 1
  5430. 1
  5431. 1
  5432. 1
  5433. 1
  5434. 1
  5435. 1
  5436. 1
  5437. 1
  5438. 1
  5439. 1
  5440. 1
  5441. 1
  5442. 1
  5443. 1
  5444. 1
  5445. 1
  5446. 1
  5447. 1
  5448. 1
  5449. 1
  5450. 1
  5451. 1
  5452. 1
  5453. 1
  5454. 1
  5455. 1
  5456. 1
  5457. 1
  5458. 1
  5459. 1
  5460. 1
  5461. 1
  5462. 1
  5463. 1
  5464. 1
  5465. 1
  5466. 1
  5467. 1
  5468. 1
  5469. 1
  5470. 1
  5471. 1
  5472. 1
  5473. 1
  5474. 1
  5475. 1
  5476. 1
  5477. 1
  5478. 1
  5479. 1
  5480. 1
  5481. 1
  5482. 1
  5483. 1
  5484. 1
  5485. 1
  5486. 1
  5487. 1
  5488. 1
  5489. 1
  5490. 1
  5491. 1
  5492.  @pmw3839  Short answer is yes, but having both is not a great cause for worry if you’re vaccinated. It’s likely that these early omicron cases also include a proportion of delta. It’s still the same disease, but your question is interesting. Think of it this way: a person with both (such as the first person in whom the mutation occurred). For whatever reason the omicron variant is more effective (spike change leading to more successful or faster binding to receptors) it began spreading faster in the body of the infected person. When they infected others, it was a combination of the two in some proportion. As others were infected, the omicron variant was able to outperform the delta variant in each host body (those bodies being our fellow humans). The proportion of the omicron variant increases and delta decreases—quite literally one person at a time. My informed layman’s guess is that if one has some amount of immunity to delta through vaccination or previous illness, those immunities are further blocking or suppressing the delta variant, giving omicron a leg up, but having both variants becomes less and less likely as omicron spreads. Unknowns: 1)omicron is milder (some data) 2) infection with omicron will provide immunities for previous variants should they pop back up (no data) 3) omicron immunities will be affective against future variants (no data) There is some preliminary evidence that (1) is true, so there is reason to be hopeful. (2) and (3) are wild guesses on my part—we’ll learn more in the coming days, weeks, and months.
    1
  5493. 1
  5494. 1
  5495. 1
  5496. 1
  5497. 1
  5498. 1
  5499. 1
  5500. 1
  5501. 1
  5502. 1
  5503. 1
  5504. 1
  5505. 1
  5506. 1
  5507. 1
  5508. 1
  5509. 1
  5510. 1
  5511. 1
  5512. 1
  5513. 1
  5514. 1
  5515. 1
  5516. 1
  5517. 1
  5518. 1
  5519. 1
  5520. 1
  5521. 1
  5522. 1
  5523. 1
  5524. 1
  5525. 1
  5526. 1
  5527. 1
  5528. 1
  5529. 1
  5530. 1
  5531. 1
  5532. 1
  5533. 1
  5534. 1
  5535. 1
  5536. 1
  5537. 1
  5538. 1
  5539. 1
  5540. 1
  5541. 1
  5542. 1
  5543. 1
  5544. 1
  5545.  @garedmorort  setting aside calling each other racist (we’ll get back to that in a moment), there is a large bloc on the U.S. right that claims that immigration is ruining the country—they’ve been making the claim for more than 40 years. There has been a continual push and pull within the right wing and within the GOP between the anti-immigrants and those that see immigration as a net positive. Over the last ten years, the anti-immigrationists have won. Here is something that might sound familiar to you. A lot of immigration from Central America is driven by conditions that America had a hand in creating, meddling in the politics and supporting authoritarian dictators. France has a similar situation, no? Many immigrants are coming from countries that were once colonial subjects of France or some other European power. The point is that our immigration problems are problems of our own making. I’m not anti-American or an “America is always wrong” type. U.S. meddling might have been a mistake but it was a counter to Soviet meddling in Latin America in the context of the Cold War. We didn’t want another Cuba in Latin America, especially not in Central America. That doesn’t excuse our mistakes, it just puts into context how we should be reckoning with immigration. And we should note that the U.S. conferred legal immigration status to those who were fleeing communist countries while making illegal those who were fleeing our brutal dictator allies. All that said, the anti-immigrant faction in the U.S. is mostly racist and part of larger racist authoritarian movement. They turn a blind eye to the majority of illegal immigration which comes from Europe and Asia, and freak out about the southern border.
    1
  5546. 1
  5547. 1
  5548. 1
  5549. 1
  5550. 1
  5551. 1
  5552. 1
  5553. 1
  5554. 1
  5555. 1
  5556. 1
  5557. 1
  5558. 1
  5559.  @suomynona4607  It’s still the best legal argument Trump has in his defense. The legality or constitutionality –is–arguable. One can make the argument that Congress is overstepping its bounds. But Trump would rather use this impeachment trial to promote his lie that the election was stolen from him. Because he knows he controls enough members of the jury and because he can use the impeachment to scam more money from his dopey followers. There’s a couple of reasons why it was important that Trump’s legal team make the unconstitutionality argument the center of his strategy, one reason being that it provides senators political cover to acquit. However, the main reason is that if he’s convicted by the Senate (which isn’t impossible), he can later challenge the the conviction if he runs again. Can you imagine how that goes? In 2023 or 2024, he decides to run. Who enforces the conviction penalties and prevents his name from going on state ballots? Do primary opponents have to take him to court? Does the Democratic Nominee do it? That’s when the constitutionality defense comes into play, and a counter to that defense is, Why didn’t you use that defense at the time of your trial? Ultimately, the decision to allow or disallow Trump from running would be decided in the Supreme Court, because whatever lower courts decide, it will be appealed until it gets to the Supreme Court. And they will determine if it’s allowed by the Constitution. And Trump doesn’t automatically have the SCOTUS conservative votes on his side. Anyway, that’s my non-lawyer analysis. Trump arguing the un-, non-, or extra-Constitutionality is his best long term bet, and it helps Republican Senators. But he would rather scam his followers of their money in the short term. I’m not saying you’re wrong to argue with blake schramm, but that the thing you’re arguing apparently has been taken off the table in favor of the “stolen election” argument. But I could be wrong about this. It’s an odd case. Trump could make both arguments. Unlike a trial in a court of law, he could have two different teams of lawyers to make both arguments. At the end of the day, I don’t understand Trump’s strategy here, other than he wants to fundraise off of the impeachment—which he could do anyway. Is this not about any of the above, but about rallying the troops for another coup attempt?
    1
  5560.  @AztlanHistorian  No olvides a tu Octavio Paz. I live in a working class (poor) neighborhood. It is strongly PAN. When the Morena candidate for our town’s president came to campaign, he was accompanied by a squad of La Guarda Nacional. It was unnecessary, but the people certainly noted the atmosphere created by the presence of soldiers, setting up a perimeter around the campito where Morena held their rally. I wouldn’t say people were angry, but they were not receptive to a party that arrived in this way. All of the rally attendees were imported from other colonias. I’m not a Mexican citizen and I don’t support any particular party. But I worry about a “people’s party” that would use such tactics. When PAN or PRI has their campaign stops, they don’t bring soldiers. They bring packages of food for the poor. A kilo of rice, a few kilos of frijoles, a bottle of cooking oil. It’s almost nothing, but I think the people appreciate the gesture. They give the children cheap backpacks and pencil cases. Maybe it’s the overall political environment that caused Morena to show up in my humble colonia with soldiers. They do it “just in case”. But it also tells me that the local Morena is not engaging with the poor people, even if they are the “populist” party. What troubles me is how many of my friends in the colonia take pride in not voting. Maybe it’s is true that nothing will change when a different party comes into power, but I fear that if the right to vote is not exercised, the right can be lost. I was not impressed with AMLO. I hope Sheinbaum does a better job.
    1
  5561. 1
  5562. 1
  5563. 1
  5564. 1
  5565. 1
  5566. 1
  5567. 1
  5568. 1
  5569. 1
  5570. 1
  5571. 1
  5572. 1
  5573. 1
  5574. 1
  5575. 1
  5576. 1
  5577. 1
  5578. 1
  5579. 1
  5580. 1
  5581. 1
  5582. 1
  5583. 1
  5584. 1
  5585. 1
  5586. 1
  5587. 1
  5588. 1
  5589. 1
  5590. 1
  5591. 1
  5592. 1
  5593. 1
  5594. 1
  5595. 1
  5596. 1
  5597. 1
  5598. 1
  5599. 1
  5600. 1
  5601. 1
  5602. 1
  5603. 1
  5604. 1
  5605. 1
  5606. 1
  5607. 1
  5608. 1
  5609. 1
  5610. 1
  5611. 1
  5612. 1
  5613. 1
  5614. 1
  5615. 1
  5616. 1
  5617. 1
  5618. 1
  5619. 1
  5620. 1
  5621. 1
  5622. 1
  5623. 1
  5624. 1
  5625. 1
  5626. 1
  5627. 1
  5628. 1
  5629. 1
  5630. 1
  5631. 1
  5632. 1
  5633. 1
  5634. 1
  5635. 1
  5636. 1
  5637. 1
  5638. 1
  5639. 1
  5640. 1
  5641. 1
  5642. 1
  5643. 1
  5644. 1
  5645. 1
  5646. 1
  5647. 1
  5648. 1
  5649. 1
  5650. 1
  5651. 1
  5652. 1
  5653. 1
  5654. 1
  5655. 1
  5656. 1
  5657. Interesting avenue of speculation. First of all, the industrial Revolution wouldn’t have happened as you note. Without the Industrial Revolution, you still have slavery. You have less trade because you have fewer trade goods (because they are not being mass produced in factories). With less trade, there is less impetus to develop fiat currencies. Consequently, economic development is effectively capped. You would still see the development of science, I think. The Scientific Revolution preceded the Industrial Revolution and arguably triggered it. However, the Industrial Revolution provided resources and motivation for ongoing development of science (changing it from an upper class pursuit into something much broader. Interestingly, before either revolution, humanity knew how to use wind and hydro power to do mechanical work. We understood the principle that steam could do mechanical work. So we had some of the elements of an Industrial Revolution, but in our scenario, we lack the seemingly cheap power of fossil fuels (I say “seemingly” because today we understand that fossil fuels have high external costs.) I contend that the main impetus behind the development of civilization is work (in the physics sense, if you like)—the person who commands the most work gains the most power. In a slave based society, the person with the most slaves can become the most powerful. Resources are a close second in importance—the slaves need something with which to work: farmland, mining, impressive monuments. Both of these needs will lead to expansionism and war. Those that are best at war will become the most powerful. The result will be a constant state of war between groups, with occasional and temporary consolidations into centralized civilizations that control large numbers of slaves and large areas of land. I don’t know how you get past this stage without a cheap source of power to do work.
    1
  5658. 1
  5659. 1
  5660. 1
  5661. 1
  5662. 1
  5663. 1
  5664. 1
  5665. 1
  5666. 1
  5667. 1
  5668. 1
  5669. 1
  5670. 1
  5671. 1
  5672. 1
  5673. 1
  5674. 1
  5675. 1
  5676. 1
  5677. 1
  5678. 1
  5679. 1
  5680. 1
  5681. 1
  5682. 1
  5683. 1
  5684. 1
  5685. 1
  5686. 1
  5687. 1
  5688. 1
  5689. 1
  5690. 1
  5691. 1
  5692. 1
  5693. 1
  5694. 1
  5695. 1
  5696. 1
  5697. 1
  5698. 1
  5699. 1
  5700. 1
  5701. 1
  5702. 1
  5703. 1
  5704. 1
  5705. 1
  5706. 1
  5707. 1
  5708. 1
  5709. 1
  5710. 1
  5711. 1
  5712. 1
  5713. 1
  5714. 1
  5715. 1
  5716. 1
  5717. 1
  5718. 1
  5719. 1
  5720. 1
  5721. 1
  5722. 1
  5723. 1
  5724. 1
  5725. 1
  5726. 1
  5727. 1
  5728. 1
  5729. 1
  5730. 1
  5731. 1
  5732. 1
  5733. 1
  5734. 1
  5735. 1
  5736. 1
  5737.  @thedukeofchutney468  The Maduro Regime feeds the poor, and that is why Maduro is “popular” among the poor. If you want to eat, you come to his rallies and show support for the United Socialist Party. The middle class is the biggest part of the population that is being starved (taking a cue from the Soviets of the 20s and 30s) and devastated. They are the largest part that is fleeing their country. (Economically they are now just as impoverished as any one else, but they are still considered members of an enemy class.) The political opposition is persecuted both officially by the government security apparatus, the military and unofficially by paramilitary gangs of thugs. Peter is right to talk about the famine, but it’s important to remember that the Venezuelans fleeing the criminal socialist dictatorship of Maduro are political asylum seekers, not economic immigrants. The Central Americans are a slightly different story. They endured decades of U.S. interference in their politics during the Cold War. I’m not one of the “blame America” contingent. There were serious concerns about Communism on our doorstep, and the Soviets were materially supporting rebellions. I just think we handled it badly on the whole. Long story short, we had a hand in creating instability in Central America, which allowed organized crime to gain a toe hold. The thousands of Central Americans fleeing the violent crime in their countries is what you call “blowback”, the unintended consequences of our foreign policy.
    1
  5738. 1
  5739. 1
  5740. 1
  5741. 1
  5742. 1
  5743. 1
  5744. 1
  5745. 1
  5746. 1
  5747. 1
  5748. 1
  5749. 1
  5750. 1
  5751. 1
  5752. Please explain why Zionism is flawed. Anti-Zionism (from what I have seen of it) is a criticism of Zionism that is flawed and based on falsifications of history or ignorance of history. Theories of settler colonialism don’t apply to people returning to their homeland, rejoining fellow Jews that were already living there. Jews were living in the Levant even after most of them were exiled. The Ottoman Empire invited back the Sephardic Jews that were expelled from Spain in 1492. Invited isn’t even the right word. Jews were encouraged to immigrate to the middle east by the Ottomans because the Ottomans saw them as a group of hard working, educated, and resilient people. This stands in stark contrast with the treatment of Jews during most of their time in Europe. Jews would settle in one country for a century or two only to be expelled by that countries rulers. This happened time and again. They were not considered citizens in their countries of residence but as foreigners. And some call them European colonists? They were European refugees, fleeing a Europe that had hated them and attacked them for a millennia before that hatred culminated in the Shoah. Israel needs to declare a ceasefire immediately and immediately expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid. We have influence on Israel and we should use that influence to push for these two things. But the Anti-Zionism I’ve heard expressed in these protests IS anti-semitism. I don’t care what Bernie Sanders says. And it’s all very fine to criticize the nationalism of others when you’re enjoying all the benefits of living in a stable nation-state. Why aren’t you protesting against the Palestinians’ desire to have their own state? Your anti-nationalism seems selective, and that is highly sus.
    1
  5753. 1
  5754. 1
  5755. 1
  5756. 1
  5757. 1
  5758. 1
  5759. 1
  5760. 1
  5761. 1
  5762. 1
  5763. 1
  5764. 1
  5765. 1
  5766. 1
  5767. 1
  5768. 1
  5769. 1
  5770. 1
  5771. 1
  5772. 1
  5773. 1
  5774. 1
  5775. 1
  5776. 1
  5777. 1
  5778. 1
  5779. 1
  5780. 1
  5781. 1
  5782. 1
  5783. 1
  5784. 1
  5785. 1
  5786. 1
  5787. 1
  5788. 1
  5789. 1
  5790. 1
  5791. 1
  5792. 1
  5793. 1
  5794. 1
  5795. 1
  5796. 1
  5797. 1
  5798. 1
  5799. 1
  5800. 1
  5801. 1
  5802. 1
  5803. 1
  5804. 1
  5805. 1
  5806. 1
  5807. 1
  5808. 1
  5809. 1
  5810. 1
  5811. 1
  5812. 1
  5813. 1
  5814. 1
  5815. 1
  5816. 1
  5817. 1
  5818. 1
  5819. 1
  5820. 1
  5821. 1
  5822. 1
  5823. 1
  5824. 1
  5825. 1
  5826. 1
  5827. 1
  5828. 1
  5829. 1
  5830. 1
  5831. 1
  5832. 1
  5833. 1
  5834. 1
  5835. 1
  5836. 1
  5837. 1
  5838. 1
  5839. 1
  5840. 1
  5841. 1
  5842. 1
  5843. 1
  5844. 1
  5845. 1
  5846. 1
  5847. 1
  5848. 1
  5849. 1
  5850. 1
  5851. 1
  5852. 1
  5853. 1
  5854. 1
  5855. 1
  5856. 1
  5857. 1
  5858. 1
  5859. 1
  5860. 1
  5861. 1
  5862. 1
  5863. 1
  5864. 1
  5865. 1
  5866. 1
  5867. 1
  5868. 1
  5869. 1
  5870. 1
  5871. 1
  5872. 1
  5873. 1
  5874. 1
  5875. 1
  5876. 1
  5877. 1
  5878. 1
  5879. 1
  5880. 1
  5881. 1
  5882. 1
  5883. 1
  5884. 1
  5885. 1
  5886. 1
  5887. 1
  5888. 1
  5889. 1
  5890. 1
  5891. 1
  5892. 1
  5893. 1
  5894. 1
  5895. 1
  5896. 1
  5897. 1
  5898. 1
  5899. 1
  5900. 1
  5901. 1
  5902. 1
  5903. 1
  5904. 1
  5905. 1
  5906. 1
  5907. 1
  5908. 1
  5909. 1
  5910. 1
  5911. 1
  5912. 1
  5913. 1
  5914. 1
  5915. 1
  5916. 1
  5917. 1
  5918. 1
  5919. 1
  5920. 1
  5921. 1
  5922. 1
  5923. 1
  5924. 1
  5925. 1
  5926. 1
  5927. It’s been my understanding that Hamas is sponsored by Iran (or one of the ruling factions in Iran, such as the Revolutionary Guards). And as far as Iran is concerned, it’s already Mission Accomplished. There’s no need to stick their necks out as their goals have been mostly met: to stir up conflict between Israel and Palestine when there had been some movement towards peace and to make Israel look bad. The Iranians intent was to provoke a reaction. So it seems that the Iranians are hanging Hamas out to dry. Maybe they were hoping for a stronger reaction from Israel, i.e., indiscriminate bombing of civilians, but they’re settling for some civilian deaths because that’s what happens when war is waged in densely populated areas. Here’s the thing about conditions in Gaza and the West Bank: 1) the West Bank is governed by the Palestinian Authority, the moderate faction of the PLO when the PLO broke apart. And the PA and Israel have been cooperating, which has lead to improvement in the lives of those Palestinians. 2) Israel began some time ago to thaw relations with its former enemies (most notably Saudi Arabia) and changed their policy on Israeli settlement of the occupied West Bank. They’ve begun to dismantle the settlements and arresting those hardcore settlers who refuse to leave. They’ve done this as gestures of good faith as they seek to normalize diplomatic relations with their former enemies, and those former enemies have stopped supporting anti-Israel militants. That’s the larger context to remember here. Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, etc., recognize that Iran is the real threat. They’re moving towards formal diplomatic relations and perhaps a formal alliance. (And yes, the centuries old Sunni/Shiite split is in play here.) Iran is trying to break this up.
    1
  5928. 1
  5929. 1
  5930. 1
  5931. 1
  5932. 1
  5933. 1
  5934. 1
  5935. 1
  5936. 1
  5937. 1
  5938. 1
  5939. 1
  5940.  @ApexVenamis  That’s not exactly what happened. Bush won Florida by a thin margin. There was a recount, which Bush still won. There was a disagreement about how to count votes and the intent of the voters (remember hanging chads?). Gore demanded a second recount. Bush still won, but by fewer votes. The Florida Supreme Court granted a third recount, but this was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Gore might have still had a few Hail Mary legal options, but for the good of the country he conceded instead of pursuing those options. The idea that the Supreme Court appointed Bush to the Presidency is fallacious. Bush won, then won two recounts. Several legal deadlines had been passed to allow all the recounts (lower courts granting extensions) before SCOTUS stepped in on Dec. 12. Whether or not one agrees with the courts decision, this much is clear: SCOTUS preserved Bush’s win, it didn’t steal a win from Biden and give it to Bush. That’s one major difference between 2000 and 2020. Trump didn’t win, can’t ask SCOTUS to preserve his win because he didn’t win. If there are any parallels, Trump is in Gore’s position and Biden is in Bush’s position (But Biden has much wider and safer margins in multiple states than Bush had in Florida. The huge stink Trump is making about voter fraud doesn’t match the actual cases Trump’s lawyers are filing. But Trump is trying to turn his loss into a money making opportunity, begging for donations to his “legal fund” (actually set up as a no strings attached slush fund). The whole point of Trump’s baseless claims is conning his gullible followers out of their money.
    1
  5941. 1
  5942. 1
  5943. 1
  5944. 1
  5945. 1
  5946. 1
  5947. 1
  5948. 1
  5949. 1
  5950. 1
  5951. 1
  5952. 1
  5953. 1
  5954. 1
  5955. 1
  5956. 1
  5957. 1
  5958. 1
  5959. 1
  5960. 1
  5961. 1
  5962. 1
  5963. 1
  5964. 1
  5965. 1
  5966. 1
  5967. 1
  5968. 1
  5969. 1
  5970. 1
  5971. 1
  5972. 1
  5973. 1
  5974. 1
  5975. 1
  5976. 1
  5977. 1
  5978. 1
  5979. 1
  5980. 1
  5981. 1
  5982. 1
  5983. 1
  5984. 1
  5985. 1
  5986. 1
  5987. 1
  5988. 1
  5989. 1
  5990. 1
  5991. 1
  5992. 1
  5993. 1
  5994. 1
  5995. 1
  5996. 1
  5997. 1
  5998.  @warfarenotwarfair5655  Not even close. SDI was going to be a defense against inter-continental ballistic missiles with multiple re-entry nuclear warheads. It never got off the drawing board, and many of its component systems were theoretical. At the time it was announced, the pentagon was releasing film of aircraft shooting targets with lasers (thus the tag Star Wars defense). This should tell you something—it was credible enough to confuse and scare the Russians. They believed we were actually on the verge of gaining this capability. And they had nothing like it. So they went to work investing a lot of time and money, trying to match what they thought was a near future capability. SDI was part of the effort to bankrupt the Soviet Union and it worked. Those Democrats that decried the cost of the “Star Wars Defense” actually made it more credible to the Soviets, who thought that we were already far ahead of what was being shown to the public. SDI wasn’t the only dog and pony show that fooled the Ruskis. Remember the proposed MX Missile system? These were supposed to be vehicle mounted ICBM launchers on a “race track” with concealment structures. Basically a shell game to force the Soviets to target all the structures that might be hiding a missile equipped vehicle. The 80s was effed up for the Soviets. They couldn’t find our subs, they thought their first strike target list was about to become impossibly huge, and they thought we were close to having a laser based missile defense. The last two were bluffs, but they were bluffs that the USSR couldn’t call because they were out of money.
    1
  5999. 1
  6000. 1
  6001. 1
  6002. 1
  6003. 1
  6004. 1
  6005. 1
  6006. 1
  6007. 1
  6008. 1
  6009. 1
  6010. 1
  6011. 1
  6012. 1
  6013. 1
  6014. 1
  6015. 1
  6016. 1
  6017. 1
  6018. 1
  6019. 1
  6020. 1
  6021. 1
  6022. 1
  6023. 1
  6024. 1
  6025. 1
  6026. 1
  6027. 1
  6028. 1
  6029. 1
  6030. 1
  6031. 1
  6032. 1
  6033. 1
  6034. 1
  6035. 1
  6036. 1
  6037. 1
  6038. 1
  6039. 1
  6040. 1
  6041. 1
  6042. 1
  6043. 1
  6044. 1
  6045. 1
  6046. 1
  6047. 1
  6048. 1
  6049. 1
  6050. 1
  6051. 1
  6052. 1
  6053. 1
  6054. 1
  6055. 1
  6056. 1
  6057. 1
  6058. 1
  6059. 1
  6060. 1
  6061. 1
  6062. 1
  6063. 1
  6064. 1
  6065. 1
  6066. 1
  6067. 1
  6068. 1
  6069. 1
  6070. 1
  6071. 1
  6072. 1
  6073. 1
  6074. 1
  6075. 1
  6076. 1
  6077. 1
  6078. 1
  6079. 1
  6080. 1
  6081. 1
  6082. 1
  6083. 1
  6084. 1
  6085. 1
  6086. 1
  6087. 1
  6088. 1
  6089. 1
  6090. 1
  6091. 1
  6092. 1
  6093. 1
  6094. 1
  6095. 1
  6096. 1
  6097. 1
  6098. 1
  6099. 1
  6100. 1
  6101. 1
  6102. 1
  6103. 1
  6104. 1
  6105. 1
  6106. 1
  6107. 1
  6108. 1
  6109. 1
  6110. 1
  6111. 1
  6112. 1
  6113. 1
  6114. 1
  6115. 1
  6116. 1
  6117. 1
  6118. 1
  6119. 1
  6120. 1
  6121. 1
  6122. 1
  6123. 1
  6124. 1
  6125. 1
  6126. 1
  6127. 1
  6128. 1
  6129. 1
  6130. 1
  6131. 1
  6132. 1
  6133. 1
  6134. 1
  6135. 1
  6136. 1
  6137. 1
  6138. 1
  6139. 1
  6140. 1
  6141. 1
  6142. 1
  6143. 1
  6144. 1
  6145. 1
  6146. 1
  6147. 1
  6148. 1
  6149. 1
  6150. 1
  6151. 1
  6152. 1
  6153. 1
  6154. 1
  6155. 1
  6156. 1
  6157. 1
  6158. 1
  6159. 1
  6160. 1
  6161. 1
  6162. 1
  6163. 1
  6164. 1
  6165. 1
  6166. 1
  6167. 1
  6168. 1
  6169. 1
  6170. 1
  6171. 1
  6172. 1
  6173. 1
  6174. 1
  6175. 1
  6176. 1
  6177. 1
  6178. 1
  6179. 1
  6180. 1
  6181. 1
  6182. 1
  6183. 1
  6184. 1
  6185. 1
  6186. 1
  6187. 1
  6188. 1
  6189. 1
  6190. 1
  6191. 1
  6192. 1
  6193. 1
  6194. 1
  6195. 1
  6196. 1
  6197. 1
  6198. 1
  6199. 1
  6200. 1
  6201. 1
  6202. 1
  6203. 1
  6204. 1
  6205. 1
  6206. 1
  6207. 1
  6208. 1
  6209. 1
  6210. 1
  6211. 1
  6212. 1
  6213. 1
  6214. 1
  6215. 1
  6216. 1
  6217. 1
  6218. 1
  6219. 1
  6220. 1
  6221. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @user-ep1ks2pq5r Your all-capping “dictation” is an interesting emphasis. I think it’s directing me to the key issue at hand, but it makes me wonder if we have the same definition of the word. It even makes me wonder if I have a completely incorrect definition. As I see it, there are different levels of “dictation”. (And let’s set aside those definitions that obviously don’t apply, such as someone dictating a letter to a secretary.) I suspect that there is some overlap in these levels. First level would be when someone or something compels by force that you to comply with their system of ethical beliefs. Ultimately, compel by force means (to me) using physical violence if you do not comply. If you do not comply with the laws, the state will use violence to punish you until you do comply. A level below that is the more informal force of social pressure. The threat there is that society will reject you if you do not comply to its dictates. You could lose a job for not conforming. You could lose friends. A level below that is group and peer pressure. You could get thrown out of your group or be ostracized by your peers if you don’t conform to their ethics. The lowest level is dictation without any threat. That’s someone just telling you what to do or how you should live, without any threat or force to back it up. They might tell you to become a vegetarian or to not spit on the sidewalk or to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They are dictating to you your behavior without any force to back it up (other than the force of their personality, lol). Am I missing something here? Does this cover “DICTATED”? If so, maybe I do understand what you’re saying. You’re saying no one should tell you how to behave, at all. They should not force you to behave, they shouldn’t pressure you to behave, and/or they shouldn’t even suggest how you behave.
    1
  6222. 1
  6223. 1
  6224. 1
  6225. 1
  6226. 1
  6227. 1
  6228. 1
  6229. 1
  6230. 1
  6231. 1
  6232. 1
  6233. 1
  6234. 1
  6235. 1
  6236. 1
  6237. 1
  6238. 1
  6239. 1
  6240. 1
  6241. 1
  6242. 1
  6243. 1
  6244. 1
  6245. 1
  6246. 1
  6247. 1
  6248. 1
  6249. 1
  6250. 1
  6251. 1
  6252. 1
  6253. 1
  6254. There was bipartisan support for $1,200 payments. It’s important to know who blocked that, whether they are Republicans or Democrats (and I’ll give you a guess). Those who compromised and accepted $600 checks shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush. They knew how important it was to get something out the door. Now let’s get more philosophical for a moment. I want to touch on the orthodox GOP response to lockdowns, which is “the cure can’t be worse than the disease”, meaning jobs are more important than lives, that the economy is more important than hundreds of thousands of lives, that my job is more important than your life or even the lives of my family members. Or even my own life. Sacrificing a half million or a million is worth it if it means we “get back to normal” sooner. Before addressing the humanitarian aspects, I want to question the premise that the economy can return to normalcy when millions are getting sick, and hundreds of thousands are dying, and sane people concerned for their own health and the health and safety of their families are staying at home as much as possible. It defies logic. Pretending that the deaths aren’t real doesn’t remove them nor does it minimize their cause. But I hear a straw man conservative saying, “but if people are voluntarily locking themselves down, following mask protocols, limiting their gatherings, why do we need government imposed lockdowns, mandatory masks, and government limitations on gatherings? The reason is this: a significant portion of the populace, for various reasons (usually boiling down to ignorance, delusion, politics, or hatred of expertise), defy common sense measures and are instrumental in the spread of the virus. These self-described “free thinkers” emulate the actions and words of their political leaders, and their selfish, antisocial mindset is reinforced by those words and examples. That is why we need lockdowns. It’s not for the people already doing their best to stay safe. It’s for the jerks that don’t care what happens to anyone else, the ones that defend their “right” to not wear a mask* even when it will deprive others their right to live. As a conservative, I understand the tendency towards wanting less government control, more liberty, less government spending. I have a basic belief that, for all its problems, capitalism is the best economic engine for the development of society. However, I do not ignore the fact that we are in a national emergency of unprecedentedly proportions, and that the damage to our country is going to get worse before it gets better. Whether I measure that damage in precious human life or our precious economy, I recognize the reality, and I recognize that ordinary conservative policies are not responsive and in some cases make our national tragedy worse. And I also recognize that in a time of national emergency, the federal government must lead a national response. At the start of WWII, we did not delegate the response to Japan, Germany, and Italy to the states. There was an all of government response that harnessed the entire country to defend ourselves. Imagine how the war might have ended if each state was left to its own devices as aggressors swept across the globe, while the president insisted it wasn’t a world war. Austerity isn’t an excuse to ignore a national emergency. Individual liberty isn’t permission to thumb your nose at the society that helps protect your liberties. We face a common threat in Covid-19. Unite or die. “So, what about the stimulus checks?” asks my conservative straw man. Why everyone? Shouldn’t they be targeted only to the most needy? If their sole purpose was to help the most needy, those facing or in the midst of financial collapse, evictions, hunger, etc., yes. And the Senate could have spent the past 6 months determining who should get this assistance and how to deliver it. But that is not the sole purpose of the stimulus checks. The other purpose is right there in the name, STIMULUS. The purpose is to stimulate the economy, to encourage people to spend on goods and services, thereby preserving jobs, which maintains demand for goods and services. It’s a stop gap measure to keep the economy alive, to provide fuel to the engine so it doesn’t die. In the long run, keeping it alive now is cheaper than trying to revive it later. Letting it die increases the risk that capitalism will be replaced by a social system less amicable to human liberties and human rights. There. That’s the conservative argument FOR economic stimulus. What’s more, it harnesses the marketplace and consumer choice, rather than allowing government to pick the winners. What can be more conservative than that?
    1
  6255. 1
  6256. 1
  6257. 1
  6258. 1
  6259. 1
  6260. It undermines the argument that NATO is aggressively expanding eastward. The truth is that Eastern European countries wishing to avoid losing their independence to Russia are looking westward and applying for membership. It’s worth noting that no new members were admitted until well after Russia began (in 1994) violently attacking independence movements within other countries of the former USSR, and also worth noting that it wasn’t until 1999 that three new members were admitted in the first post-Cold War round of admissions. The point here is that admitting new members in 1999 was the NATO response to Russian aggression and breaking of agreements. If Russia wanted to maintain the freeze on NATO growth, they shouldn’t have been invading others. They invited it with their own aggressive actions. TRIGGER WARNING: anal rape analogy ahead To put this in very crude terms, it’s like blaming the Alliance Against Anal Rapists for admitting members that don’t want to be anally raped, whose fears are justified because an anal rapist keeps anally raping people that aren’t members of the alliance. Yeah, right, the alliance against anal rapists is provoking the anal rapist. And by the way, the anal rapist keeps talking about how it wants to rape again some of its former victims in the alliance, as well as the alliance itself. And now that it’s anal raping a new victim/former victim, it’s blaming the victim for flirting with the alliance. My feeling is that people that support Russia really love anal rape. How does the anal rapist get away with all this anal rape? Mainly because it threatens the world with global nuclear bukake.
    1
  6261. 1
  6262. 1
  6263. 1
  6264. 1
  6265. 1
  6266. 1
  6267. 1
  6268. 1
  6269. 1
  6270. 1
  6271. 1
  6272. 1
  6273. 1
  6274. 1
  6275. 1
  6276. 1
  6277. 1
  6278. 1
  6279. 1
  6280. 1
  6281. 1
  6282. 1
  6283. 1
  6284. 1
  6285. 1
  6286. 1
  6287. 1
  6288. 1
  6289. It’s a lot of different models. Have you ever seen a hurricane track forecast? Modeling is a bit different than making an expert addition. Scientists create and tweak these complex models with many variables that match past outcomes. Different variables are given different weights in the various models. The idea is that you could have used the model the day before yesterday to predict what happened yesterday. If that all matches up, you input all the latest data to forecast what will happen tomorrow. As you can see from the Doctor’s graph, there are many different models. They don’t all use the same variables, nor do they have the same emphasis on all the variables they share. The teams creating these models are guessing which ones are important, which less so, and which are irrelevant. A couple of things to remember: 1) a model’s forecast is only as good as the data you put in. If the data is inaccurate, the forecast will be inaccurate. 2) the model itself is based on assumptions which in turn are based on historical data. If that data was grossly inaccurate, it could be the assumptions are way off. 3) even with perfect data, you have to make assumptions and sometimes those assumptions that seem to account for events in the past are still wrong. If you’re familiar with the use of models in hurricane tracking, you’ll know that despite a wide variance in forecasts, meteorologists use them to predict what’s going to happen. They know where a hurricane is most likely to go so that the people in that area can take precautions or evacuate. You might also know that meteorologists don’t rely on a single model. They look at them all (and they make note of which have had the best track records).
    1
  6290. 1
  6291. 1
  6292. 1
  6293. 1
  6294. 1
  6295. 1
  6296. 1
  6297. 1
  6298. 1
  6299. 1
  6300. 1
  6301. 1
  6302. 1
  6303. 1
  6304. 1
  6305. 1
  6306. 1
  6307. 1
  6308. 1
  6309. 1
  6310. 1
  6311. 1
  6312. 1
  6313. 1
  6314. 1
  6315. 1
  6316. 1
  6317. 1
  6318. 1
  6319. 1
  6320. 1
  6321. 1
  6322. 1
  6323. 1
  6324. 1
  6325. 1
  6326. 1
  6327. 1
  6328. 1
  6329. 1
  6330. 1
  6331. 1
  6332. 1
  6333. 1
  6334. 1
  6335. 1
  6336. 1
  6337. 1
  6338. 1
  6339. 1
  6340. 1
  6341. 1
  6342. 1
  6343. 1
  6344. 1
  6345.  @SamAronow  The head tilt is part of it and they can’t teach that in an app. 😂 Sam, my brother, somos angelenos, somos hijos de la Reina de Los Angeles. ¡Te abrazo! When I was a toddler, I had a Mexican babysitter, an abuelita from down the block. So at the same time I was learning my native tongue English, Spanish was constantly filtering in. I don’t even remember her name or of which of the families she was the grandmother, but I remember a nice lady teaching me “manzana”, “naranja”, y “durazno”. I took Spanish as my elective throughout primary, secondary, and college. I still recall some of the lessons, but at the time, I can’t say they helped me learn to speak the language. No, the way I learned to speak Spanish initially was buying drugs around Pico & Hoover during the 80s, before crack took over. You could get better deals from the Guatemalan guys selling dime bags, 1/8ths, and 1/4s. Plus it was fun to nonchalantly hang out, exchanging pleasantries and shooting the breeze instead of being scared little yt boys eager to score and split. However, I did not really learn to speak Spanish (Mexican Spanish) until I moved to Mexico. I moved to a rancho in the rural space between Dolores Hidalgo and San Miguel de Allende. I learned how much I didn’t know when I plopped myself down in a village where almost nobody spoke English, and then I learned enough to survive, then to function, and then to where I am now, over a dozen years later, able to function and sometimes converse. I lived in this rancho for a year, until I met a gal in town and we decided to shack up. Then we decided to unshack after a few months and I found my current apartment in a working class neighborhood. That unfortunately has been gentrifying and gringo-fying lately. Ni modo. I guess I was in L.A. for a funeral and visiting while you were in CDMX. I hope that someday our paths cross. Hit me up if you ever visit the state of Guanajuato. I’m in SMA, and it would be an honor to offer you hospitality, my brother Angeleno.
    1
  6346. 1
  6347. 1
  6348. Look again. I think it’s just plastic or cloth hung up on the tree. However, even if it was a white flag of surrender, you ask a good question to which there is a good answer. If the tank commander does not see the surrender because of limited visibility (the tank is buttoned up, there’s a lot of smoke and dust being kicked up, etc.), it’s not a war crime. It’s only a war crime to intentionally shoot at actively surrendering soldiers. If some are surrendering while the ones next to them continue to fight, you aren’t expected to distinguish between them during the heat of battle. Let god sort it out. (If you’re a pantheist, then let god sort out which god should sort it out.) Here’s the thing about the cloth by the tree: even from the superior overhead view from the drone, it’s not completely clear if it’s a surrender flag. For all we know, it’s Putin’s diaper. We cannot expect anyone in a tank with the hatches closed to see clearly what we cannot see clearly from our superior viewpoint. There’s one other thing that makes me doubt it was surrender. Who the hell is going to jump out of the trench to wave a white flag while being fired on by a tank from 20’ or 30’ away? I think I’d be too busy trying to hide under the mud at the bottom of the trench. Remember how there was a lone soldier scrambling back to warn the others before the tanks crossed into the field? That was the time to prepare the white flag and come out with your hands up. Those Russian boys had a chance to surrender before the shooting started. There’s no time outs in the middle of battle.
    1
  6349. 1
  6350. 1
  6351. 1
  6352. 1
  6353. 1
  6354. 1
  6355. 1
  6356. 1
  6357. 1
  6358. 1
  6359. 1
  6360. 1
  6361. 1
  6362. 1
  6363. 1
  6364. 1
  6365. 1
  6366. 1
  6367. 1
  6368. 1
  6369. 1
  6370. 1
  6371. 1
  6372. 1
  6373. 1
  6374. 1
  6375. 1
  6376. In some ways he’s worse. He’s worse because Trump is a lazy delegator whereas Desantis follows through on his cruelties, no matter how insane or repugnant. I know, I know, Trump will be forever tagged with “Children in cages, children separated from their families”, but a lot of that was Trump not being in control of his underlings. In many other ways, Immigration was a continuation of Obama’s policies. Let’s be clear, the Trump Administration enacted a lot of policies that we conservatives should be happy about. But we are right to have misgivings about how they were enacted or whether they were worth the cost. We also must keep in mind that there were adults in the administration that managed to keep a leash on Trump. If Trump were to get a second term, I think he’d be much more unfettered. There would be fewer adults in the room. (Can you imagine Flynn as SecDef? It makes me nauseous to think about it.) Trump slid into a Christian Nationalist movement that now worships him. He views them as victims for his grift as much as he thinks of them as the base of his power, if not more. DeSantis is building his fiefdom of Christian Nationalism in Florida. I wouldn’t call him more competent than Trump. I’d call him more energetic and hungrier for political power. He’s building his base and his bonafides as the leader of the Culture Warriors with his quasi-fascist actions that draw comparisons with 1930s Germany. (Fortunately, his reach seems to be exceeding his grasp for now. His war on Disney is seen as failing, incompetent, and petty. The “Constitutional Carry” bill he just signed is a very bad look in the midst of a gun violence crisis and makes his “don’t say gay” policies look as ridiculous as they are.) With all that said, it doesn’t matter who is leading the MAGA movement. It’s an anti-democratic, anti-American cancer that has metastasized throughout conservatism, and it must be excised. Conservatives (myself included) absolutely must figure this out. Chirping at Democrats that fumble the politics is small potatoes. Speaking out against MAGA and holding our noses to vote Democrat is not enough. We must contribute financially, we must get outside and canvas, and we must organize whatever base we have left. We have to get out the vote, whether those votes are from Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.
    1
  6377. 1
  6378. 1
  6379. 1
  6380. 1
  6381. 1
  6382. 1
  6383. 1
  6384. 1
  6385. 1
  6386. 1
  6387. 1
  6388. 1
  6389. 1
  6390. 1
  6391. 1
  6392. 1
  6393. 1
  6394. 1
  6395. 1
  6396. 1
  6397. 1
  6398. 1
  6399. 1
  6400. 1
  6401. 1
  6402. 1
  6403. 1
  6404. 1
  6405. I’m very glad to hear folks are doing well with vitamin D3 supplements. I have a point of confusion wrt to dosage requirements. It’s not a crucial question, since one can take fairly high dosages without ill effects, even if most of those high dosages are not being absorbed. But it’s important to me for other reasons. The question is this: what are the minimum dosage requirements and how can the right dosage be detected without individual testing? My understanding is that vitamin supplements not absorbed by the body are eliminated. I see this when I pee. My urine is much brighter and darker. When I’m drinking plenty of water, my urine is lighter. Not enough, it’s darker. In neither case is it brighter, as when I’m taking vitamin supplements. The brightness is NOT a concern. I understand that it means I’m getting more than enough. More to the point, I’ve started taking 2000 IU daily of D3 in gel capsule form, and my pee is brighter. Am I correct that this is a good indication that I’m getting sufficient a sufficient amount (without getting laboratory tests to see if I have sufficient or deficient levels). Anyway, I am thinking of trying to get everyone on my street on vitamin D3. I live in a working class neighborhood in Mexico. I’m already buying surgical masks for several families here, and I hand out masks to maskless people on the street. Currently there is a lot of unemployment here due to Covid, and the economic situation is even more precarious than what we are suffering in the U.S. The pandemic has hit my street pretty hard: 8 people that I know of have died, many others are gravely sick. I know there’s variation from person to person in D3 deficiency, thus there’s variation in minimum effective doses. The supplemental capsules I’m taking are inexpensive for me, a single person with regular income. But it adds up if I’m going to be buying sufficient capsules for 60 people. This is the reason I’m asking, and I hope someone can give me some insight.
    1
  6406. 1
  6407. 1
  6408. 1
  6409. 1
  6410. 1
  6411. 1
  6412. 1
  6413. 1
  6414. 1
  6415. 1
  6416. 1
  6417. 1
  6418. 1
  6419. 1
  6420. 1
  6421. 1
  6422. 1
  6423. 1
  6424. 1
  6425. 1
  6426. 1
  6427. 1
  6428. 1
  6429. 1
  6430. 1
  6431. 1
  6432. 1
  6433. 1
  6434. 1
  6435. 1
  6436. 1
  6437. 1
  6438. 1
  6439. 1
  6440. 1
  6441. 1
  6442. 1
  6443. 1
  6444. 1
  6445. 1
  6446. 1
  6447. 1
  6448. 1
  6449. 1
  6450. 1
  6451. 1
  6452. 1
  6453. 1
  6454. 1
  6455. 1
  6456. 1
  6457. 1
  6458. First of all, academic credentials only go so far, even if you’re not an anti-intellectual. Someone in the role of a political scientist (or any academic, really) makes an argument and supports it with data. When you begin offering an opinion that goes beyond your argument, you’re becoming something else. When you host a talk show, you become something else again. An argument or opinion in 2015/16 that Trump was a criminal authoritarian would not be supported by strong evidence. There were hints, but nothing conclusive (although clearly there was strong evidence he was a racist and misogynist, imho). To someone on the right in 2016, Maddow was a partisan, to say the least. That’s the truth since she began her career in 2004 on Air America. She supported Democrats and railed against Republicans. She was the left wing equivalent of Hannity. It’s not that the right has done an excellent job of casting her as a partisan ideologue, she did that herself. And that’s OK, because the right was never her target audience. And once she had that reputation, it was always going to be an uphill battle to get a fair hearing from the right. It works the other way. Do you know who Sheppard Smith is? He is an excellent journalist that the left never forgave because he worked for Fox News for 23 years. Anyway, wrt to Maddow, I don’t think she’s a left wing firebrand. I think she’s a pretty middle-of-the-road liberal. She’s certainly smarter than Sean Hannity, but she’s also been wrong (Steele Dossier comes to mind). And she seems to be doing fine, so I’m not clear why you feel the need to defend her.
    1
  6459. 1
  6460. 1
  6461. 1
  6462. 1
  6463. 1
  6464. 1
  6465. 1
  6466. 1
  6467. 1
  6468. 1
  6469. 1
  6470. 1
  6471. 1
  6472. 1
  6473. 1
  6474. 1
  6475. 1
  6476. 1
  6477. 1
  6478. 1
  6479. 1
  6480. 1
  6481. 1
  6482. 1
  6483. 1
  6484. 1
  6485. 1
  6486. 1
  6487. 1
  6488. 1
  6489. 1
  6490. 1
  6491. 1
  6492. 1
  6493. 1
  6494. 1
  6495. 1
  6496. 1
  6497. 1
  6498. 1
  6499. 1
  6500. 1
  6501. 1
  6502. 1
  6503. 1
  6504. 1
  6505. 1
  6506. 1
  6507. 1
  6508. 1
  6509. 1
  6510. 1
  6511. 1
  6512. 1
  6513. 1
  6514. 1
  6515. 1
  6516. 1
  6517. 1
  6518. 1
  6519. 1
  6520. 1
  6521. 1
  6522. 1
  6523. 1
  6524. 1
  6525. 1
  6526. 1
  6527. 1
  6528. 1
  6529. 1
  6530. 1
  6531. 1
  6532. 1
  6533. 1
  6534. 1
  6535. 1
  6536. 1
  6537. 1
  6538. 1
  6539. 1
  6540. 1
  6541. 1
  6542. 1
  6543. 1
  6544. 1
  6545. 1
  6546. 1
  6547. 1
  6548. 1
  6549. 1
  6550. 1
  6551. 1
  6552. 1
  6553. 1
  6554. 1
  6555. 1
  6556. 1
  6557. 1
  6558. 1
  6559. 1
  6560. 1
  6561. 1
  6562. 1
  6563. 1
  6564. 1
  6565. 1
  6566. 1
  6567.  @brobroant6205  One aspect of the Democratic Party is that it’s a coalition of factions. Call it a feature or call it a bug, but they’ve rarely been able to achieve anything like the lockstep discipline of the GOP, and when they do unite and coordinate, it doesn’t last for long. If the GOP dissolves, I’ll bet money that a conservative faction arises within the Democratic Party, probably on a regional basis. There are many moderates and “moderate conservatives” (pardon the oxymoron) that were drummed out of the GOP for disloyalty over the past 20 years. The true believers call them RINOs even as the pool of fiercely loyal to Trump “true Republicans” shrinks with every purge. There are many Republicans and ex Republicans, purged or primary-ed, that could easily win elections under the Democratic banner in red states. As a conservative, I’m not really worried about single party rule under the Democrats, because the Democrats have never been one single thing. As I said, it’s a coalition party. It can never become too powerful because of infighting, and it can only achieve unity through compromise amongst its factions. The last time the Dems achieved the sort of unity and power that we fear was under FDR—and let us remember that even he did not have absolute power. His scheme to pack the Supreme Court failed utterly (as I suspect Biden will if he tries a similar scheme). If you think that the Dems have a unified goal of pushing the U.S. into communism or socialism, you’d been deluded by GOP propaganda. If you think that they could achieve this if it was their goal, you’re also delusional. Liberals are not the enemy. Progressives are not the enemy. Moderate Republicans purged as “traitorous” RINOs are not the enemy. The enemy is a thuggish group of fascists that have fooled the Republican base and frightened a lot of cowardly Republican politicians into obeisance.
    1
  6568. 1
  6569. 1
  6570. 1
  6571. 1
  6572. 1
  6573. 1
  6574. 1
  6575. 1
  6576. 1
  6577. 1
  6578. 1
  6579. 1
  6580. 1
  6581. 1
  6582. 1
  6583. 1
  6584. 1
  6585. 1
  6586. 1
  6587. 1
  6588. 1
  6589. 1
  6590. 1
  6591. 1
  6592. 1
  6593. 1
  6594. 1
  6595. 1
  6596. 1
  6597. 1
  6598. 1
  6599. 1
  6600. 1
  6601. 1
  6602. 1
  6603. 1
  6604. 1
  6605. 1
  6606. 1
  6607. 1
  6608. 1
  6609. 1
  6610. 1
  6611. 1
  6612. 1
  6613. 1
  6614. 1
  6615. 1
  6616. 1
  6617. 1
  6618. 1
  6619. 1
  6620. 1
  6621. 1
  6622. 1
  6623. 1
  6624. 1
  6625. 1
  6626. 1
  6627. 1
  6628. 1
  6629. 1
  6630. 1
  6631. 1
  6632. 1
  6633. 1
  6634. 1
  6635. 1
  6636. 1
  6637. 1
  6638. 1
  6639. 1
  6640. 1
  6641. 1
  6642. 1
  6643. 1
  6644. 1
  6645. 1
  6646. 1
  6647. 1
  6648. 1
  6649. 1
  6650. 1
  6651. 1
  6652. 1
  6653. 1
  6654. 1
  6655. 1
  6656. 1
  6657. 1
  6658. 1
  6659. 1
  6660. 1
  6661. 1
  6662. 1
  6663. 1
  6664. 1
  6665. 1
  6666. 1
  6667. 1
  6668. 1
  6669. 1
  6670. 1
  6671. 1
  6672. 1
  6673. 1
  6674. 1
  6675. 1
  6676. 1
  6677. 1
  6678. 1
  6679. 1
  6680. 1
  6681. 1
  6682. 1
  6683. 1
  6684. 1
  6685. 1
  6686. 1
  6687. 1
  6688. 1
  6689. 1
  6690. 1
  6691. 1
  6692. 1
  6693. 1
  6694. 1
  6695. 1
  6696. 1
  6697. 1
  6698. 1
  6699. 1
  6700. 1
  6701. 1
  6702. 1
  6703. 1
  6704. 1
  6705. 1
  6706. 1
  6707. 1
  6708. 1
  6709. 1
  6710. 1
  6711. 1
  6712. 1
  6713. 1
  6714. 1
  6715. So, here is what I’ve gleaned from what John has been telling us and some of the scientific research I’ve been reading. At the outset, my initial interest and use of vitamin D3 is that it falls under the rubric of “low risk of harm, probably helpful”, that is to say it can’t hurt, might help. Also, even if it’s preventative effects with Covid-19 are illusory, I’ll still receive other benefits from supplementing my diet with vitamin D3. Here is what I have found: vitamin D is a hormone that affects cellular operation at a genetic level. There’s a lot of science that is studying on HOW it does this, what systems D3 affects, in short, WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS by which this hormone interacts with the body. These are studies ranging from studies involving laboratory animals (mice), cell cultures, human trials, etc., all with controls for other factors in place. Summary: the BASIC MECHANISM of vitamin D3 is understood, while evidence of D3’s specific efficacy for fighting off COVID 19 is mounting, and the specific mechanisms being involved are being studied. Conclusion: There is a lot of scientific evidence that D3 could specifically help us against this specific pathogen (COVID-19), but even if it doesn’t, it’s established that D3 is a beneficial supplement for those that are D3 deprived. So take it! Also, it’s a low cost intervention that governments and health organizations should be supporting and sponsoring. Let’s contrast this with other interventions, such as ivermectin, an anti-parasite medication. It’s a well known and effective medication to treat various parasites in both humans and animals: head lice, mosquitoes, various worms and nematodes. It can also be toxic for some animals, such as dogs. Got that? It might kill your dog. The anti-parasite mechanism is neurotoxicity. It attacks the nervous system of these parasites. It doesn’t seem to have much adverse affects on humans when taken at the low dose levels used in treatment of parasites. At lower doses, it’s not crossing the brain/blood barrier, meaning that, at lower doses, it’s not attacking brain cells. THERE IS NO KNOWN MECHANISM FOR IVERMECTIN AS AN ANTI-VIRAL. The studies on the efficacy as an anti-viral are, at best, mixed, meaning that THERE IS STILL NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT IT WORKS (and we should figure out the mechanism later). In those studies that suggest efficacy, the dosage is very high, at a level considered toxic to humans. At these levels, there is an increase in depression and suicide, leaving me with the question, is it affecting the brain? Is it affecting hormones that affect the brain? And let’s be clear, the studies of high dosage Ivermectin are NOT conclusive. To say that they suggest there might be efficacy is to be quite generous. Countries that have approved ivermectin at high doses for COVID-19 treatment have rescinded that approval because of safety concerns combined with low efficacy. Low dosages (not shown to be effective for COVID) can still be used as originally intended, for parasites. My conclusion: unless my doctor suggests Ivermectin, there is no real benefit as a prevention measure against COVID-19. As a treatment if I ever tested positive, there are other treatments available. If I was in serious condition, dying of COVID-19, and there were no orate treatments available, I’d take it because “why the hell not”. It makes ZERO sense to self prescribe and self medicate with ivermectin. AND #1, IVERMECTIN IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANY OF THE VACCINES. Those going this route are putting themselves, their communities, and society at risk. They’re being worse than childish and selfish, they’re being anti-social, bordering on criminal.
    1
  6716. 1
  6717. 1
  6718. 1
  6719. 1
  6720. 1
  6721. 1
  6722. 1
  6723. 1
  6724. 1
  6725. 1
  6726. 1
  6727. 1
  6728. 1
  6729. 1
  6730. 1
  6731. 1
  6732. 1
  6733. 1
  6734. 1
  6735. 1
  6736. 1
  6737. 1
  6738. 1
  6739. 1
  6740. 1
  6741. 1
  6742. 1
  6743. 1
  6744. 1
  6745. 1
  6746. 1
  6747. 1
  6748. 1
  6749. 1
  6750. 1
  6751. 1
  6752. 1
  6753. 1
  6754. 1
  6755. Good god, where to begin? To refresh your memory, the Japanese declared war and attacked U.S. Territory (starting with Hawaii, but including other places shortly after) and other allied territories, which the Japanese saw as a necessary step in securing control of the Pacific. It was a surprise attack, in case you’ve forgotten. (OK, that was sufficient sarcasm—I don’t really think you’re dumb, please don’t hate me.) It’s important to remember that, while the belligerents might not share land borders, there is something akin to that in the Pacific that you might think of as “frontiers”, i.e. the blurred/feathered edge of a power’s ability to project power (which gets weaker the further away it gets from its bases). If you think of it like this, you can see that the Philippines share a sea-frontier with Japan. It becomes a matter of how close together or far apart are the adversaries’ possessions, and those adversaries ability to project military power. Nevertheless, before hostilities commence, there is more or less free movement on the open sea. Germany’s quick declaration of war on the U.S. has seemed to me to be odd, though. I think it was inevitable that the U.S. would be drawn into the European conflict, but it probably happened much faster after a Germany declared war. Other than that, I object to your characterization of belligerents “happily declaring wars on each other”. Contrast this with the situation in Poland and Russia, where there wasn’t easy access across a shared border.
    1
  6756. 1
  6757. 1
  6758. 1
  6759. 1
  6760. 1
  6761. 1
  6762. 1
  6763. 1
  6764. 1
  6765. 1
  6766. 1
  6767. 1
  6768. 1
  6769. 1
  6770. 1
  6771. 1
  6772. 1
  6773. 1
  6774. 1
  6775. 1
  6776. 1
  6777. 1
  6778. 1
  6779. 1
  6780. 1
  6781. 1
  6782. 1
  6783. 1
  6784. 1
  6785. 1
  6786. 1
  6787. 1
  6788. 1
  6789. 1
  6790. 1
  6791. 1
  6792. 1
  6793. 1
  6794. 1
  6795. 1
  6796. 1
  6797. 1
  6798. 1
  6799. 1
  6800. 1
  6801. 1
  6802. 1
  6803. 1
  6804. 1
  6805. 1
  6806. 1
  6807. 1
  6808. 1
  6809. 1
  6810. 1
  6811. 1
  6812. 1
  6813. 1
  6814. 1
  6815. 1
  6816. 1
  6817. 1
  6818. 1
  6819. 1
  6820. 1
  6821. 1
  6822. 1
  6823. 1
  6824. 1
  6825. 1
  6826. 1
  6827. 1
  6828. 1
  6829. That is super interesting about laundering money through legal dispensaries. (Sort of reminds me of the car wash in Breaking Bad or the fast food chicken chain.) Pete’s method of fighting the trade is simplistic. “Don’t do cocaine” is certainly an appealing non-solution for the conservative mindset because it hits our personal-responsibility button. Personal responsibility is a core principal of our philosophy*. But it’s not a practical solution for obvious reasons. Pete’s bit about the dispensaries does suggest a practical solution. Go after the cash flow. When the cash flow dries up, the cartels are much less powerful and then perhaps interdiction will have a greater impact. Without massive amounts of cash, the cartels will not be able to operate at such levels of impunity. And how do you go after cash flows? The IRS, bank regulators, FBI & DOJ. You form a task force. You fund these agencies so they have these resources to perform investigations (something the Republicans are loathe to do, unfortunately). You strengthen the penalties for participants at all levels, up to and including the executives and boards of the banks (make them personally responsible for their businesses. Cash businesses can be surveilled and monitored. Transfers, even through the dark web, can be tracked. A side benefit is that we can also stop a lot of other corruption, both domestic and international. But in any case, the first step is FOLLOW THE MONEY. * Real conservatism is a philosophy, a set of principles) not an ideology. If it’s an ideology (such as MAGA or libertarianism, for example) it’s not conservatism. As a philosophy, it shares some principles with liberalism, which itself is more of a philosophy than an ideology. (In fact, that’s how you distinguish liberalism from actual socialist ideologies.)
    1
  6830. 1
  6831. 1
  6832. 1
  6833. 1
  6834. 1
  6835. 1
  6836. 1
  6837. 1
  6838. 1
  6839. 1
  6840. 1
  6841. 1
  6842. 1
  6843. 1
  6844. 1
  6845. 1
  6846. 1
  6847. 1
  6848. 1
  6849. 1
  6850. 1
  6851. 1
  6852. 1
  6853. 1
  6854. 1
  6855. 1
  6856. 1
  6857. 1
  6858. 1
  6859. 1
  6860. 1
  6861. 1
  6862. 1
  6863. 1
  6864. 1
  6865. 1
  6866. 1
  6867. 1
  6868. Yes, you’re thinking about this the right way imho. I don’t know if sustainability is an achievable end state, but it’s a helluva lot more desirable than some of the alternatives. One of the basic questions is “how much do we need?” And then it must be asked, “how many workers are needed to fulfill that need?” And there are different implications, depending on how that question is answered. If you take an abstract high level, global view you might notice that there are perhaps a billion people that could vanish and it wouldn’t affect the economy negatively. (I realize that it sounds terrible to say that from a moral p.o.v.). Depending on which chain of implications you follow, what happens if that number increases by another billion? Two billion? What happens if 7 billion people become “redundant” in terms of sustaining the economy? The Marxists and quasi-Marxists talk about “late stage capitalism”, but (maybe) they ain’t seen nothing yet. Capitalism: Hold my beer. War, Famine, and Pestilence: Sure thing! Now, I don’t really want to personify these man-made and/or natural forces. But they highlight certain questions, such as “what is capitalism?” “to what purposes can it be harnessed?”. Maybe it’s just me, but such questions lead me to the rarified (and yet sophomoric) existential questions regarding the meaning of life. Oh, bother! (fwiw, I think of capitalism as a social technology, a tool similar to a motor that propels society forward, but forward towards what? To what end? Who decides?) Perhaps Plato was right, the ideal society is ruled by philosopher kings. 😆 I just Kant.
    1
  6869. 1
  6870. 1
  6871. 1
  6872. 1
  6873. 1
  6874. 1
  6875. 1
  6876. 1
  6877. 1
  6878. 1
  6879. 1
  6880. 1
  6881. 1
  6882. 1
  6883. 1
  6884. 1
  6885. 1
  6886. 1
  6887. 1
  6888. 1
  6889. 1
  6890. 1
  6891. 1
  6892. 1
  6893. 1
  6894. 1
  6895. 1
  6896. 1
  6897. 1
  6898. 1
  6899. 1
  6900. 1
  6901. 1
  6902. 1
  6903. 1
  6904. 1
  6905. 1
  6906. 1
  6907. 1
  6908. 1
  6909. 1
  6910. 1
  6911. 1
  6912. 1
  6913. 1
  6914. 1
  6915. 1
  6916. 1
  6917. 1
  6918. 1
  6919. 1
  6920. 1
  6921. 1
  6922. 1
  6923. 1
  6924. 1
  6925. 1
  6926. 1
  6927. 1
  6928. 1
  6929. 1
  6930. 1
  6931. 1
  6932. 1
  6933. 1
  6934. 1
  6935. 1
  6936. 1
  6937. 1
  6938. 1
  6939. 1
  6940. 1
  6941. 1
  6942. 1
  6943. 1
  6944. 1
  6945. 1
  6946. 1
  6947. 1
  6948. 1
  6949. 1
  6950. 1
  6951. 1
  6952. 1
  6953. 1
  6954. 1
  6955. 1
  6956. 1
  6957. 1
  6958. 1
  6959. 1
  6960. 1
  6961. 1
  6962. 1
  6963. 1
  6964. 1
  6965. 1
  6966. 1
  6967. 1
  6968. 1
  6969. 1
  6970. 1
  6971. 1
  6972. 1
  6973. 1
  6974. 1
  6975. 1
  6976. 1
  6977. 1
  6978. 1
  6979. 1
  6980. 1
  6981. 1
  6982. 1
  6983. 1
  6984. 1
  6985. 1
  6986. 1
  6987. 1
  6988. 1
  6989. 1
  6990. 1
  6991. 1
  6992. 1
  6993. 1
  6994. 1
  6995. 1
  6996. 1
  6997. 1
  6998. 1
  6999. 1
  7000. 1
  7001. 1
  7002. 1
  7003. 1
  7004. 1
  7005. 1
  7006. 1
  7007. 1
  7008. 1
  7009. 1
  7010. 1
  7011. 1
  7012. 1
  7013. 1
  7014. 1
  7015. 1
  7016. 1
  7017. 1
  7018. 1
  7019. 1
  7020. 1
  7021. 1
  7022. 1
  7023. 1
  7024. 1
  7025. 1
  7026. 1
  7027. 1
  7028. 1
  7029. 1
  7030. 1
  7031. 1
  7032. 1
  7033. 1
  7034. 1
  7035. 1
  7036. 1
  7037. 1
  7038. 1
  7039. 1
  7040. 1
  7041. 1
  7042. 1
  7043. 1
  7044. 1
  7045. 1
  7046. 1
  7047. 1
  7048. 1
  7049. 1
  7050. 1
  7051. 1
  7052. 1
  7053. 1
  7054. 1
  7055. 1
  7056. 1
  7057. 1
  7058. 1
  7059. 1
  7060. 1
  7061. 1
  7062. 1
  7063. 1
  7064. 1
  7065. 1
  7066. 1
  7067. 1
  7068. 1
  7069. 1
  7070. 1
  7071. 1
  7072. 1
  7073. 1
  7074. 1
  7075. 1
  7076. 1
  7077. 1
  7078. 1
  7079. 1
  7080. 1
  7081. 1
  7082. 1
  7083. 1
  7084. 1
  7085. 1
  7086. 1
  7087. 1
  7088. 1
  7089. 1
  7090. 1
  7091. 1
  7092. 1
  7093. 1
  7094. 1
  7095. 1
  7096. 1
  7097. 1
  7098. 1
  7099. 1
  7100. 1
  7101. 1
  7102. 1
  7103. 1
  7104. 1
  7105. 1
  7106. 1
  7107. 1
  7108. 1
  7109. 1
  7110. 1
  7111. 1
  7112. 1
  7113. 1
  7114. 1
  7115. 1
  7116. 1
  7117. 1
  7118. 1
  7119. 1
  7120. 1
  7121. 1
  7122. 1
  7123. 1
  7124. 1
  7125. 1
  7126. ⁠ @russellmillar7132  I moved to Mexico, which is not an undeveloped country (despite what some people think). But there is a lot of poverty and poor people know how to improvise and make do. Sometimes they’ve developed different tricks for making do that are ingenious and get passed on to succeeding generations. But sometimes stuff I see is scary and dangerous. Electrical work. Improper securing of loads on pick up trucks. People are used to doing things for themselves, but they don’t always have the knowledge or understanding of what it is they’re trying to do. I think one of my favorite things is the “shade tree mechanic” that doesn’t have a workshop but works under the shade of a tree on the side of the road. I had a friend that worked in an Autobody shop, and when the maestro retired, the workshop building was sold. So my friend moved his own equipment into my stairwell (I live on a second floor, but I’ve got my own first floor entrance), and for the last 8 or 9 years, he works on the street in front of my building, and keeps his tools, paint and other materials inside my front door, to the side of the stairs. He’s offered to pay rent, but I told him to just pay the electrical bill, because he uses it to run his compressor. The other benefits are that he’s an extra layer of security, and he’s usually there to receive packages if I’m not home. I know someone has my back. During the pandemicm he’d send his assistant out if I needed an errand. Anyway, I’m rambling. Why did I bring up Luis? Oh, yeah. The dude is a master craftsman of Bondo. And I’ve seen him teach his skills to his cousin, who works as his assistant. There’s a lot of cases when he orders replacement panels to for damaged cars, but when he knows his client can’t afford new parts, he gives them an equal result with Bondo. When it’s all painted, you can’t tell the difference.
    1
  7127. 1
  7128. 1
  7129. 1
  7130. 1
  7131. 1
  7132. 1
  7133. 1
  7134. 1
  7135. 1
  7136. 1
  7137. 1
  7138. 1
  7139. 1
  7140. 1
  7141. 1
  7142. 1
  7143. 1
  7144. 1
  7145. 1
  7146. 1
  7147. 1
  7148. 1
  7149. 1
  7150. 1
  7151. 1
  7152. 1
  7153. 1
  7154. 1
  7155. 1
  7156. 1
  7157. 1
  7158. 1
  7159. 1
  7160. 1
  7161. 1
  7162. 1
  7163. 1
  7164. 1
  7165. 1
  7166. 1
  7167. 1
  7168. 1
  7169. 1
  7170. 1
  7171. 1
  7172. 1
  7173. 1
  7174. 1
  7175. 1
  7176. 1
  7177. 1
  7178. 1
  7179. 1
  7180. 1
  7181. 1
  7182. 1
  7183. 1
  7184. 1
  7185. 1
  7186. 1
  7187. 1
  7188. 1
  7189. 1
  7190. 1
  7191. 1
  7192. 1
  7193. 1
  7194. 1
  7195. 1
  7196. 1
  7197. 1
  7198. 1
  7199. 1
  7200. 1
  7201. 1
  7202. 1
  7203. 1
  7204. 1
  7205. 1
  7206. 1
  7207. 1
  7208. 1
  7209. 1
  7210. 1
  7211. 1
  7212. 1
  7213. 1
  7214. 1
  7215. 1
  7216. 1
  7217. 1
  7218. 1
  7219. 1
  7220. 1
  7221. 1
  7222. 1
  7223. 1
  7224. 1
  7225. 1
  7226. 1
  7227. 1
  7228. 1
  7229. 1
  7230. 1
  7231. 1
  7232. 1
  7233. 1
  7234. 1
  7235. 1
  7236. 1
  7237. 1
  7238. 1
  7239. 1
  7240. 1
  7241. 1
  7242. 1
  7243. 1
  7244. 1
  7245. 1
  7246. 1
  7247. 1
  7248. 1
  7249. 1
  7250. 1
  7251. 1
  7252. 1
  7253. 1
  7254. 1
  7255. 1
  7256. 1
  7257. 1
  7258. 1
  7259. 1
  7260. 1
  7261. 1
  7262. 1
  7263. 1
  7264. 1
  7265. 1
  7266. 1
  7267. 1
  7268. 1
  7269. 1
  7270. 1
  7271. 1
  7272. 1
  7273. 1
  7274. 1
  7275. 1
  7276. 1
  7277. 1
  7278. 1
  7279. 1
  7280. 1
  7281. 1
  7282. 1
  7283. 1
  7284. 1
  7285. 1
  7286.  @ThatOpalGuy  That’s arguable (that we’ve reached a point of overspending). “America First” is a populist slogan propagated by a power hungry authoritarian movement that has a limited definition of who is American. The leaders of this movement will put themselves first, always. Back to overspending. To determine if the U.S. is overspending, we need to ask “What is the spending for?”. In other words, what is the intended result? If the answer to that is “preserving American hegemony”, we’re going to get into a long discussion about hegemony and its pros and cons. I think it’s an important conversation, but this is a frikkin’ reply in a frikkin’ video comment thread. So let’s skip it and get back to overspending. Let’s assume that we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns wrt the benefits of maintaining our hegemony. Meanwhile, other nation states have also reaped many benefits from U.S. hegemony. I think we’re at a point where it would be wise for the U.S. to unwind its hegemony IF other countries are prepared to preserve its forms and to defend against those seeking to overturn it and replace it with their empires. If the U.S. just closes up shop and leaves, there are less desirable nation states that want to fill the vacuum and impose their own less benign hegemonies. And that is why the relinquishment of hegemony must be done carefully, strengthening our friends and pushing back on the less benign empire builders where they threaten stability.
    1
  7287. 1
  7288. 1
  7289. 1
  7290. 1
  7291. 1
  7292. 1
  7293. 1
  7294. 1
  7295. 1
  7296. 1
  7297. 1
  7298. 1
  7299. 1
  7300. 1
  7301. 1
  7302. 1
  7303. 1
  7304. 1
  7305. 1
  7306. 1
  7307. 1
  7308. 1
  7309. 1
  7310. 1
  7311. 1
  7312. 1
  7313. 1
  7314. 1
  7315. 1
  7316. 1
  7317. 1
  7318. 1
  7319. 1
  7320. 1
  7321. 1
  7322. 1
  7323. 1
  7324. 1
  7325. 1
  7326. 1
  7327. 1
  7328. 1
  7329. 1
  7330. 1
  7331. 1
  7332. 1
  7333. 1
  7334. 1
  7335. 1
  7336. 1
  7337. 1
  7338. 1
  7339. 1
  7340. 1
  7341. 1
  7342. 1
  7343. 1
  7344. 1
  7345. 1
  7346. 1
  7347. 1
  7348. 1
  7349. 1
  7350. 1
  7351. 1
  7352. 1
  7353. 1
  7354. 1
  7355. 1
  7356. 1
  7357. 1
  7358. 1
  7359. 1
  7360. 1
  7361. 1
  7362. 1
  7363. 1
  7364. 1
  7365. 1
  7366. 1
  7367. 1
  7368. 1
  7369. 1
  7370. 1
  7371. 1
  7372. 1
  7373. 1
  7374. 1
  7375. 1
  7376. 1
  7377. 1
  7378. 1
  7379. 1
  7380. 1
  7381. 1
  7382. 1
  7383. 1
  7384. 1
  7385. 1
  7386. 1
  7387. 1
  7388. 1
  7389. 1
  7390. 1
  7391. 1
  7392. 1
  7393. 1
  7394. 1
  7395. 1
  7396. 1
  7397. 1
  7398. 1
  7399. 1
  7400. 1
  7401. 1
  7402. 1
  7403. 1
  7404. 1
  7405. 1
  7406. 1
  7407. 1
  7408. 1
  7409. 1
  7410. 1
  7411. 1
  7412. 1
  7413. 1
  7414. 1
  7415. 1
  7416. 1
  7417. 1
  7418. 1
  7419. 1
  7420. 1
  7421. 1
  7422. 1
  7423. 1
  7424. 1
  7425. 1
  7426. 1
  7427. 1
  7428. 1
  7429. 1
  7430. 1
  7431. 1
  7432. 1
  7433. 1
  7434. 1
  7435. 1
  7436. 1
  7437. 1
  7438. 1
  7439. 1
  7440. 1
  7441. 1
  7442. 1
  7443. 1
  7444. 1
  7445. 1
  7446. 1
  7447. 1
  7448. 1
  7449. 1
  7450. 1
  7451. 1
  7452. 1
  7453. 1
  7454. 1
  7455. 1
  7456. 1
  7457. 1
  7458.  @leonply  Hey Leon. The next steps are: 1) stay involved or get involved in politics, but avoid hyper-partisanship and tribalism, 2) when engaging with a fellow American with a different opinion, we should listen and try to get at their underlying concern. (This is assuming they’re an honest person of good will, and not a lying troll piece of shit or white supremacist. Don’t bother with those.) If we listen, we might find that we have many concerns in common, once we get past the hardened crust of political bigotry and fear. Let me give you a hypothetical example of how we might talk with someone, a friend or family member, who believes the election was rigged. Rather than arguing with them, which will get you nowhere, say to them, “Let’s set the particulars of that issue aside, and talk about elections in general. Do you generally trust them, or do you sometimes suspect they’re unfair?” León, do you see where I’m going with this? We want to find our common concerns. “Well, if you think elections might be unfair, what can we do to make them more fair?” or “Did you know that many of ordinary people of different political beliefs also worry about elections being fair?” Don’t worry if this approach doesn’t give you immediate success. It takes time for something to grow when you plant a seed. It’s certainly going to give you better results than arguing! Also, it won’t work with hardcore liars, the cynical of spirit, and others that won’t engage with you in good faith. These people are a waste of your time. They’re a waste of everyone’s time.
    1
  7459. 1
  7460. 1
  7461. 1
  7462. 1
  7463. 1
  7464. 1
  7465. 1
  7466. 1
  7467. 1
  7468. 1
  7469. 1
  7470. 1
  7471. 1
  7472. 1
  7473. 1
  7474. 1
  7475. 1
  7476. 1
  7477. 1
  7478. 1
  7479. 1
  7480. 1
  7481. 1
  7482. 1
  7483. 1
  7484. 1
  7485. 1
  7486. 1
  7487. 1
  7488. 1
  7489. 1
  7490. 1
  7491. 1
  7492. 1
  7493. 1
  7494. 1
  7495. 1
  7496. 1
  7497. 1
  7498. 1
  7499. 1
  7500. 1
  7501. 1
  7502. 1
  7503. 1
  7504. 1
  7505. 1
  7506. 1
  7507. 1
  7508. 1
  7509. 1
  7510. 1
  7511. 1
  7512. 1
  7513. 1
  7514. 1
  7515. 1
  7516. 1
  7517. 1
  7518. 1
  7519. 1
  7520. 1
  7521. 1
  7522. 1
  7523. 1
  7524. 1
  7525. 1
  7526. 1
  7527. 1
  7528. 1
  7529. 1
  7530. 1
  7531. 1
  7532. 1
  7533. 1
  7534. 1
  7535. 1
  7536. 1
  7537. 1
  7538. 1
  7539. 1
  7540. 1
  7541. 1
  7542. 1
  7543. 1
  7544. 1
  7545. 1
  7546. 1
  7547. 1
  7548. 1
  7549. 1
  7550. 1
  7551. 1
  7552. 1
  7553. 1
  7554. 1
  7555. 1
  7556. 1
  7557. 1
  7558. 1
  7559. 1
  7560. 1
  7561. 1
  7562. 1
  7563. 1
  7564. 1
  7565. 1
  7566. 1
  7567. 1
  7568. 1
  7569. 1
  7570. 1
  7571. 1
  7572. 1
  7573. 1
  7574. 1
  7575. 1
  7576. 1
  7577. 1
  7578. 1
  7579. 1
  7580. 1
  7581. 1
  7582. 1
  7583. 1
  7584. 1
  7585. 1
  7586. 1
  7587. 1
  7588. 1
  7589. 1
  7590. 1
  7591. 1
  7592. 1
  7593. 1
  7594. 1
  7595. 1
  7596. 1
  7597. 1
  7598. 1
  7599. 1
  7600. 1
  7601. 1
  7602. 1
  7603. 1
  7604. I’ll give me a better metaphor. The GOP has become the Donner Party. When Charlie was talking about Liz Cheney, he mentioned that she was “too far off in the wilderness” or words to that effect. But Liz hasn’t changed her positions or principals. She’s stands where she’s always been. It’s the GOP that has gone off to settle down in a new political territory. And they’re now stuck in the mountains in the middle of winter, engaging in cannibalism. The “moderates” are congratulating themselves that they didn’t elect Jack the Ripper as Speaker after voting three times. Meanwhile they are preparing to nominate Hannibal Lecter to be their presidential candidate. I don’t see why Cheney would want to join this orgy of self-slaughter. Who would really want to take charge of (or try to) a ravenous mob and somehow persuade them to stop murdering and eating each other? Here is the thing: without Democratic votes, no Republican speaker will be able to enforce discipline on the GOP caucus. He or she will be just as weak and ineffective as McCarthy, at the mercy of the MAGAs. Without Dem support, Speaker of the House is merely an honorific. Without Dem support, the Speaker of the House is essentially powerless. So why wouldn’t the “moderate” Republican representatives just make a deal with the congressional Democrats? Because it would be career suicide. Even openly talking about compromise would put them on a death list (possibly a literal death list). Very few (probably none) care about governing more than they do about their careers and staying in office. The first ones that Hannibal eats after he’s officially nominated will be anyone who attempted to make a deal with the Dems.
    1
  7605. 1
  7606. 1
  7607. 1
  7608. 1
  7609. 1
  7610. 1
  7611. 1
  7612. 1
  7613. 1
  7614. 1
  7615. 1
  7616. 1
  7617. 1
  7618. 1
  7619. 1
  7620. 1
  7621. 1
  7622. 1
  7623. 1
  7624. 1
  7625. 1
  7626. 1
  7627. 1
  7628. 1
  7629. 1
  7630. 1
  7631. 1
  7632. 1
  7633. 1
  7634. 1
  7635. 1
  7636. 1
  7637. 1
  7638. 1
  7639. 1
  7640. 1
  7641. 1
  7642. 1
  7643. 1
  7644. 1
  7645. 1
  7646. 1
  7647. 1
  7648. 1
  7649. 1
  7650. 1
  7651. 1
  7652. 1
  7653. 1
  7654. 1
  7655. 1
  7656. 1
  7657. 1
  7658. 1
  7659. 1
  7660. 1
  7661. 1
  7662. 1
  7663. 1
  7664. 1
  7665. 1
  7666. 1
  7667. 1
  7668. 1
  7669. 1
  7670. 1
  7671. 1
  7672. 1
  7673. 1
  7674. 1
  7675. 1
  7676. 1
  7677. 1
  7678. 1
  7679. 1
  7680. 1
  7681. 1
  7682. 1
  7683. 1
  7684. 1
  7685. 1
  7686. 1
  7687. 1
  7688. 1
  7689. 1
  7690. 1
  7691. 1
  7692. 1
  7693. 1
  7694. 1
  7695. 1
  7696. 1
  7697. 1
  7698. 1
  7699. 1
  7700. 1
  7701. 1
  7702. 1
  7703. 1
  7704. 1
  7705. 1
  7706. 1
  7707. 1
  7708. 1
  7709. 1
  7710. 1
  7711. 1
  7712. 1
  7713. 1
  7714. 1
  7715. 1
  7716. 1
  7717. 1
  7718. 1
  7719. 1
  7720. 1
  7721. 1
  7722. 1
  7723. 1
  7724. 1
  7725. 1
  7726. 1
  7727. 1
  7728. 1
  7729. 1
  7730. 1
  7731. 1
  7732. 1
  7733. 1
  7734. 1
  7735. 1
  7736. 1
  7737. 1
  7738. Shannon Kohl, your gut is telling you the truth. The “existential threat” isn’t to Russia, the threat is to a criminal organization which is clinging to its former status as an empire. Worse, they are clinging to a delusional dream of greater empire. “Imperial Russia” is like a shark that must continuously swim forward or die. And it’s been restrained from swimming forward ever since the end of the Soviet Union. It been dying for 30+ years and is in its death throes, thrashing out (and receiving a thrashing, ironically). Russia as a nation can potentially survive this thrashing, but the worse off it will be the longer it’s government clings to power and it’s dream of power. So you’re 100% right on that score. Anyway, I think you just said as much but in different words, from a different perspective. Some people view the larger geopolitical conflict as a clash of two empires (or three, considering China as a separate empire than Russia), but the U.S. was not an empire. It was a hegemonic power, to be sure, and it did benefit from its status as hegemon as the European colonial empires declined and dissolved. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. was called “the world Policeman”. You might even think it was a corrupt cop in this role if you continue this analogy. But it did manage to keep a lid on the communist empires while avoiding World War III. Along the way the U.S. made a lot of mistakes, propping up dictatorships and intervening against wars of national liberation. But it also shared power with likeminded nations, hence “the Free World” and “the Western Democracies”. Hence NATO. But I also think it is more than willing to step back and relinquish hegemonic power to other democracies and other regional powers (as long as those non-democratic powers stay in their lane and don’t try to destabilize their region).
    1
  7739. 1
  7740. 1
  7741. 1
  7742. 1
  7743. 1
  7744. 1
  7745. 1
  7746. 1
  7747. 1
  7748. 1
  7749. 1
  7750. 1
  7751. 1
  7752. 1
  7753. 1
  7754. 1
  7755. 1
  7756. 1
  7757. 1
  7758. 1
  7759. 1
  7760. 1
  7761. 1
  7762. 1
  7763. 1
  7764. 1
  7765. 1
  7766. 1
  7767. 1
  7768. 1
  7769. 1
  7770. 1
  7771. 1
  7772. 1
  7773. 1
  7774. 1
  7775. 1
  7776. 1
  7777. 1
  7778. 1
  7779. 1
  7780. 1
  7781. 1
  7782. 1
  7783. 1
  7784. 1
  7785. 1
  7786. 1
  7787. 1
  7788. 1
  7789. 1
  7790. 1
  7791. 1
  7792. 1
  7793. 1
  7794. 1
  7795. 1
  7796. 1
  7797. 1
  7798. 1
  7799. 1
  7800. 1
  7801. 1
  7802. 1
  7803. 1
  7804. 1
  7805. 1
  7806. 1
  7807. 1
  7808. 1
  7809. 1
  7810. 1
  7811. 1
  7812.  @Danster82  You’re correct on your last few points, but I don’t think you understand what the Federal Reserve System is or how it works. Its independence (or semi-independence) is a good thing. It is not subject to the expedient short term whims of politicians. It is the most transparent of any central banking system, making its decisions and the reasoning behind those decisions public. It regularly publishes the data it uses to reach those decisions. It has specific goals, the overall goal being the stability of the system. The two target benchmarks (or sub goals) it uses are low unemployment and stable pricing (i.e., moderating inflation and deflation). It also is a lot less powerful than you think. It can only nudge the economy one way or another with a handful of interventionist tools. The Fed doesn’t really control the economy, it affects it to the degree that it can. Maybe someday the Fed can be replaced with a computer program, but we are not there yet. I like to see capitalism as a social technology, and I agree with you that we, as a democratic society, get to decide what social goals capitalism should serve and how it can be adjusted to serve those goals. This is currently the case, but through apathy and ignorance we have set goals that serve the few and we have adjusted the engine of our economy to serve the few. The problem is that we have been too apathetic and ignorant to set better societal goals. We haven’t really answered the question, who is society for? Instead, we’ve defaulted to serving the wealthy no matter what. I’m a conservative and I say conservatism has had its run and we’ve gone too far in that direction. The fiscal policies promoted by conservatism are tools that were useful for a period, but its past time that we used other tools to tweak the motor of out economy (which is capitalism, if you’ve been following my analogy). As a democracy, we get to decide the purpose of our society and we get to decide how to modify the engine to suit that purpose. We get to decide if society should be a race car, a luxury sedan, a form of public transportation, or some mix. Where do we go, how do we get there, what safety features are part of the system are among the important questions we should be answering. We should be addressing those questions instead of engaging in this authoritarian culture war crap and maga populism.
    1
  7813. 1
  7814. 1
  7815. 1
  7816. 1
  7817. 1
  7818. 1
  7819. 1
  7820. 1
  7821. 1
  7822. 1
  7823. 1
  7824. 1
  7825. 1
  7826. 1
  7827. 1
  7828. 1
  7829. 1
  7830. 1
  7831. 1
  7832. 1
  7833. 1
  7834. 1
  7835. 1
  7836. 1
  7837. 1
  7838. 1
  7839. 1
  7840. 1
  7841. ⁠ @Ivan-bw6iw I’m a conservative voter, formerly registered as a Republican. I’ve never been a member of the Democrat party. The people who vote for the likes of Matt Gaetz and MTG are delusional fools that should be ashamed of themselves. They seem to be incapable of shame, however, even as they burn down the GOP. Ultimately they are to blame for the GOP disarray in the House of Representatives. There is no need for sane people to coddle these moral infants so as not to alienate them. That’s how we got to this point—a craven political class that never gave their moron constituency the hard news and always told them what they wanted to hear. You really don’t need to worry about alienating the “Dumb Voter”, my liberal and progressive friends. They could have voted for more serious problem solving conservatives, but they voted for firebrands for the entertainment value. For the entertainment value! You don’t want their votes. Maybe you want the votes of the people adjacent to them, people who are capable of remorse and who are capable of returning to reason, but you don’t need the idiot nutjobs. That’s what got us here in the first place—the GOP is hostage to extremist because they DIDN’T rein in the crazies and imbeciles. We (the GOP) used to expel people like the Birchers and discredit them with ridicule. Go ahead and laugh at the GOP clowns and rubes. They’re already making themselves the butt of a very sick joke. You do not want to become reliant on their votes in any way. Edit: I just realized you’re the leftist equivalent of the right wing moron voter. Have a nice day.
    1
  7842. 1
  7843.  @ftboomer1  So you say. But can you offer any evidence? Where are the serious candidates? The Euro? The Yen? The Rupee? The Euro and Yen have taken their places as trading currencies, but are they traded enough to realistically be the main reserve currency? Here’s the thing if either the Euro or Yen were to overtake the Dollar: it wouldn’t really matter. It would probably be the same with the Rupee, which one day might be a serious exchange currency, if you’re looking at much longer timeframes. It wouldn’t matter because the central banks that control the currencies act as the Federal Reserve does. They act transparently and telegraph their moves month a head. The closest we have to a viable replacement currency is the Euro followed by the Yen. Their volumes are orders of magnitude less than the dollar. So what about the Yuan? The Yuan is a non starter for two reasons. One, it is actually a double currency that holds wildly different values depending on if you are inside or outside the PRC. YOU CANNOT use a two-tier currency as a reserve currency. Second, no one can really trust the Yuan because of the lack of transparency. If you adopt the Yuan as your reserve currency, you giving up the transparent valuation of your own currency. You could hold a billion yuan and you don’t know what it’s really worth because you don’t know what the Chinese government or central banks is doing. The Yuan is not a serious candidate for a reserve currency. Now please talk about BRICS so I can laugh hard enough to piss my pants.
    1
  7844. 1
  7845. 1
  7846. 1
  7847. 1
  7848. 1
  7849. 1
  7850. 1
  7851. 1
  7852. 1
  7853. 1
  7854. 1
  7855. 1
  7856. 1
  7857. 1
  7858. 1
  7859. 1
  7860. 1
  7861. 1
  7862. 1
  7863. 1
  7864. 1
  7865. 1
  7866. 1
  7867. 1
  7868. 1
  7869. 1
  7870. 1
  7871. 1
  7872. 1
  7873. 1
  7874. 1
  7875. 1
  7876. 1
  7877. 1
  7878. 1
  7879. 1
  7880. 1
  7881. 1
  7882. 1
  7883. 1
  7884. 1
  7885. 1
  7886. 1
  7887. 1
  7888. 1
  7889. 1
  7890. 1
  7891. 1
  7892. 1
  7893. 1
  7894. 1
  7895. 1
  7896. 1
  7897. 1
  7898. 1
  7899. During my (rebellious) adolescence, my parents sent me to a psychiatrist, who prescribed hypnotherapy (he had a hypnotherapist on staff). While I question how much long term help the therapy gave me for my behavioral issues, I did learn how to self-induce a hypnotic or meditative state. It certainly helps with insomnia. The therapy was this: I’d sit in a room in a reclining chair. I’d listen to a hypnotherapy tape with the lights dimmed. The hypnotherapist was having work related issues (he joked about them), and it sometimes showed in his work. My appointments were at 1 o’clock, and twice he was late coming back from lunch. The second time was noteworthy. The receptionist went ahead and put me in the hypnotherapy room and had me put the headphones. I put myself into hypnotic state (or it was triggered by the environment?). About twenty minutes later I realized that no one had put on a tape. I got up and confronted the therapist, who said he would give me a full session without charge. The next week, the psychiatrist called me to tell me he was changing my therapy to biofeedback therapy. He didn’t really explain why this would be better or more appropriate than hypnotherapy, other than it would be “better suited”. I asked him what happened to the hypnotherapist, and the psychiatrist told me that he had left the group for other opportunities. Luckily, however, a biofeedback therapist had just joined the practice, etc. It was a sales pitch. I told my parents I didn’t want to go back—clearly there was some basic ethical issues going on. The next therapist wasn’t much better. He was a child psychologist who later went on to become a famous crime novelist. Our sessions was generally me talking for 15 minutes and then him reminiscing for 30 minutes on his teenage and college years. I saw him for four or five sessions before telling my parents I didn’t want to go back. They didn’t insist. We put up with each other for 3 more months and then I left home for college and never moved back. I didn’t used to think I was actually damaged in any way by this malpractice. However, I was turned off to therapy for quite a while, and didn’t seek help during several crises.
    1
  7900. 1
  7901. 1
  7902. 1
  7903. 1
  7904. 1
  7905. 1
  7906. 1
  7907. 1
  7908. 1
  7909. 1
  7910. 1
  7911. 1
  7912. 1
  7913. 1
  7914. 1
  7915. 1
  7916. 1
  7917. 1
  7918. 1
  7919. 1
  7920. 1
  7921. 1
  7922. 1
  7923. 1
  7924. 1
  7925. 1
  7926. 1
  7927. 1
  7928. 1
  7929. 1
  7930. 1
  7931. 1
  7932. 1
  7933. 1
  7934. 1
  7935. No creo que sea un problema importante en la CDMX ni a nivel nacional. Son los ricos locales los que se quejan de la “gringoficación” o gentrificación por parte de los expatriados, porque los extranjeros se están beneficiando de un sistema que los ha privilegiado durante tanto tiempo. ¿Dónde estaban los ricos que protestaban cuando colonias como La Condesa estaban siendo tomadas por ricos desarrolladores inmobiliarios? Es cierto que puede ser un problema a nivel local cuando la vida tradicional de las pequeños pueblos sufren por una avalancha de expatriados, pero también puede haber beneficios, con más empleos y oportunidades. Veamos el ejemplo de las ciudades con una industria turística. La verdadera amenaza es cuando los ricos comienzan a expandirse desde sus colonias hacia barrios vecinos que son más pobres. La siguiente parte está en inglés, porque es algo que los estadounidenses y los canadienses deberían saber. As far as the pinche gringos not learning Spanish or adapting to Mexican culture, that is their problem and their loss. In most cases of refusing to adapt they will move on after encountering obstacles and frustrations when they don’t get their way. Many give up and return to the EEUU or move on to more English friendly countries like Costa Rica. In other cases they are rich enough to afford English speaking helpers to navigate Mexican society. That’s more jobs and more money for the Mexican economy. The point is: bring lots of money if you can’t adapt. 😅
    1
  7936. 1
  7937. 1
  7938. 1
  7939. 1
  7940. 1
  7941. 1
  7942. 1
  7943. 1
  7944. 1
  7945. 1
  7946. 1
  7947. 1
  7948. 1
  7949. 1
  7950. 1
  7951. 1
  7952. 1
  7953. 1
  7954. 1
  7955. 1
  7956. 1
  7957. 1
  7958. 1
  7959. 1
  7960. 1
  7961. 1
  7962. 1
  7963. 1
  7964. 1
  7965. 1
  7966. 1
  7967. 1
  7968. 1
  7969. 1
  7970. 1
  7971. 1
  7972. 1
  7973. 1
  7974. 1
  7975. 1
  7976. 1
  7977. 1
  7978. 1
  7979. 1
  7980. 1
  7981. 1
  7982. 1
  7983. 1
  7984. 1
  7985. 1
  7986. 1
  7987. 1
  7988. 1
  7989. 1
  7990. 1
  7991. 1
  7992. 1
  7993. 1
  7994. 1
  7995. 1
  7996. 1
  7997. 1
  7998. 1
  7999. 1
  8000. 1
  8001. 1
  8002. 1
  8003. 1
  8004. 1
  8005. 1
  8006. 1
  8007. 1
  8008. 1
  8009. 1
  8010. 1
  8011. 1
  8012. 1
  8013. 1
  8014. 1
  8015. 1
  8016. 1
  8017. 1
  8018. 1
  8019. 1
  8020. 1
  8021. 1
  8022. 1
  8023. 1
  8024. 1
  8025. 1
  8026. 1
  8027. 1
  8028. 1
  8029. 1
  8030. 1
  8031. 1
  8032. 1
  8033. 1
  8034. 1
  8035. 1
  8036. 1
  8037. 1
  8038. 1
  8039. 1
  8040. 1
  8041. 1
  8042. 1
  8043. 1
  8044. 1
  8045. 1
  8046. 1
  8047. 1
  8048. 1
  8049. 1
  8050. 1
  8051. 1
  8052. 1
  8053. 1
  8054. 1
  8055. 1
  8056. 1
  8057. 1
  8058. 1
  8059. 1
  8060. 1
  8061. 1
  8062. 1
  8063. 1
  8064. 1
  8065. 1
  8066. 1
  8067. 1
  8068. 1
  8069. 1
  8070. 1
  8071. 1
  8072. 1
  8073. 1
  8074. 1
  8075. 1
  8076. 1
  8077. 1
  8078. 1
  8079. 1
  8080. 1
  8081. 1
  8082. 1
  8083. 1
  8084. 1
  8085. 1
  8086. 1
  8087. 1
  8088. 1
  8089. 1
  8090. 1
  8091. 1
  8092. 1
  8093. 1
  8094. 1
  8095. 1
  8096. 1
  8097. 1
  8098. 1
  8099. 1
  8100. 1
  8101. 1
  8102. 1
  8103. 1
  8104. 1
  8105. 1
  8106. 1
  8107. 1
  8108. 1
  8109. 1
  8110. 1
  8111. 1
  8112. 1
  8113. 1
  8114. 1
  8115. 1
  8116. 1
  8117. 1
  8118. 1
  8119. 1
  8120. 1
  8121. 1
  8122. 1
  8123. 1
  8124. Two things that Professor Clarke touches on are worthy of further thought. Clarke says one of the reasons for the civilian bombing campaign is to make Putin and his inner circle “feel good”. I break this down into two things: 1) Cruelty for cruelty’s sake, and 2) destroying another country in order to be COMPARATIVELY superior. Inflicting cruelty is an exercise in power. On a day to day basis, someone with “absolute power” of life and death over others needs to check the extent of their power. The tyrant must constantly test his boundaries to see if they are expanding or shrinking. The tyrant wakes up in the morning uncertain about his power today, and this insecurity leads him to commit atrocities to prove to himself that he can still impose his will on large swaths of humanity. However, the would-be Tyrant must take care not to push too far against his own people if he doesn’t yet have total control. Instead he tests his power against a “them”. In the current case, Russia is Putin’s “us” and Ukraine (and NATO by extension) is “them”. And of course Putin’s domestic power is now being undermined because he is now sacrificing his own imperfectly subjugated subjects. The second “feel good” factor is akin to the childish proposition, “If I can’t have it, nobody can”, but the larger component is, “If I hurt you more than you hurt me, I win”. Putin feels that damaging Russia’s economy, degrading its military, and undermining Russian society is worth the cost if he can destroy Ukraine’s ability to function as an independent democracy. This is why he goes after the electrical grid and other civil infrastructure, but it is also why he murders civilians and bombs Cultural targets. It is why the Russian Army loots and rapes. With regard to signs of Putin being removed from power, we are only seeing palace intrigues that will reshuffle his subordinates but that will not threaten Putin himself. Those that criticize him directly will become object lessons, as they have in the past.
    1
  8125. 1
  8126. 1
  8127. 1
  8128. 1
  8129. 1
  8130. 1
  8131. 1
  8132. 1
  8133. 1
  8134. 1
  8135. 1
  8136. 1
  8137. 1
  8138. 1
  8139. 1
  8140. 1
  8141. 1
  8142. 1
  8143. 1
  8144. 1
  8145. 1
  8146. 1
  8147. 1
  8148. 1
  8149. 1
  8150. 1
  8151. 1
  8152. 1
  8153. 1
  8154. 1
  8155. 1
  8156. 1
  8157. 1
  8158. 1
  8159. 1
  8160. 1
  8161. 1
  8162. 1
  8163. 1
  8164. 1
  8165. 1
  8166. 1
  8167. 1
  8168. 1
  8169. 1
  8170. 1
  8171. 1
  8172. 1
  8173. 1
  8174. 1
  8175. 1
  8176. 1
  8177. Thomas, this piece hit me unexpectedly. It engaged me not merely as an entertainment, it engaged my mind as a prompting of many thoughts. I had to keep pausing the video and going back to catch points you were making because I was distracted by my own thoughts about whatever previous point you had made. Or I had to watch some other piece of cinema to position my understanding of something in the video. For example, the scenes from Top Gun: Maverick (which I haven’t seen) that you used to illustrate hyper modernism that had a American flag backdrop reminded me of the opening scene of Patton, where George C. Scott does the Patton speech. The one about Americans being natural killers. I had to go watch the scene immediately. Something similar happened last night. I watched a documentary about the cinematographer John Alonzo, the Man Who Shot Chinatown. Immediately afterwards I had to watch Chinatown, which I thought I would watch analytically to see Alonzo’s technique. I even watched it dubbed in Spanish to take me out of the story and maintain analytical distance, but to no avail. I got sucked back into the story. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I’m not sure what this has to do with my reaction to this video. I think I’ve digressed into a stream of consciousness. Anyway, where was I? Seriously, I’ve lost my train of thought. I’m sure it will come to me later. I’m planning on watching this video again. I’m sure I’ve missed something and my reaction thoughts are racing with concatenations of possibilities so quickly that I’m going to forget what I am thinking about it all. I also enjoyed your playfulness throughout. Even the frustrating ending, where I expected a strong summation, tickled me. It invites a response. Thanks for making this.
    1
  8178. 1
  8179. 1
  8180. 1
  8181. 1
  8182. 1
  8183. 1
  8184. 1
  8185. 1
  8186. 1
  8187. 1
  8188. 1
  8189. 1
  8190. 1
  8191. 1
  8192. 1
  8193. 1
  8194. 1
  8195. 1
  8196. 1
  8197. 1
  8198. 1
  8199. 1
  8200. Same thing happened in California, more or less. In California, county authorities can still opt for more restrictions, but of course, people don’t restrict their movements to their own counties. My brother-in-law has a job that allows him to work from home (he’s an administrator for a university network, and 99.9% of the work can be done remotely). In normal times, he has a one hour commute that takes him across three counties (home, transiting county, and work county). He and my sister live an hour’s distance from his work due to home prices. He is lucky that he can work from home. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Californians must still travel to work, and a sizable number are commuting across county lines, potentially spreading infection from less restrictive counties to more restrictive counties. It’s untenable, but there is some evidence that people in the less restrictive counties have enough sense and self-discipline to practice more restrictive safety measures on their own, and have done so as California’s infection rates began to skyrocket. I hope that the vaccine availability and distribution issues gets sorted in all our states ASAP, as they re-open. And I hope that more conservatives realize they can maintain their conservative principles while maintaining the safety of their communities, their families, and themselves. The basic principle of rational self-interest needn’t and shouldn’t devolve into infantile selfishness that ultimately harms your individual self—that’s why the word “rational” is there. The extremists would have us believe that active concern for our communities and less fortunate among us is a form of communism, and that taking collective action is a form of collectivism. Perhaps they are, but then they have always have been, and wasn’t seen as a negative before pandemic. How is it that, pre-pandemic, actively working for the health of our communities was seen as a positive, and now is considered a slippery slope towards socialism? I think and hope that conservatives are waking up from the anti-social bad dream and the childish delusions that are killing us. I hope we are returning to our senses, and seeing the noisy few extremists for the absolute lunatics that they are. Side note: although the topic here is obviously gets into politics, I’ve avoided mentioning individual politicians, and I’ve avoided pointing out the well known hypocrisy of liberal politicians. What-aboutism is counterproductive in the face of a pandemic. It’s being used as a convenient excuse to deny the seriousness (or the existence!) of the pandemic. If the liberal governor of a populous state says one thing but does another, he’s setting a bad example and being a hypocrite. This isn’t justification for ignoring one’s own safety! Its just how (some) liberal politicians have always behaved. This is business as usual. It’s not shocking evidence of a nefarious global plot. (And if we are honest, some of our politicians are no better. So let’s just stop with the haggling and quibbling of “what about liberal politician X”.)
    1
  8201. 1
  8202. 1
  8203. 1
  8204. 1
  8205. 1
  8206. 1
  8207. 1
  8208. 1
  8209. 1
  8210. 1
  8211. 1
  8212. 1
  8213. 1
  8214. 1
  8215. 1
  8216. 1
  8217. 1
  8218. 1
  8219. 1
  8220. 1
  8221. 1
  8222. 1
  8223. 1
  8224. 1
  8225. 1
  8226. 1
  8227. 1
  8228. 1
  8229. 1
  8230. 1
  8231. 1
  8232. 1
  8233. 1
  8234. 1
  8235. 1
  8236. 1
  8237. 1
  8238. 1
  8239. 1
  8240. 1
  8241. 1
  8242. 1
  8243. 1
  8244. 1
  8245. 1
  8246. 1
  8247. 1
  8248. 1
  8249. 1
  8250. 1
  8251. 1
  8252. 1
  8253. 1
  8254. 1
  8255. 1
  8256. 1
  8257. 1
  8258. 1
  8259. 1
  8260. 1
  8261. 1
  8262. 1
  8263. 1
  8264. 1
  8265. 1
  8266. 1
  8267. 1
  8268. 1
  8269. 1
  8270. 1
  8271. 1
  8272. 1
  8273. 1
  8274. 1
  8275. 1
  8276. 1
  8277. 1
  8278. 1
  8279. 1
  8280. 1
  8281. 1
  8282. 1
  8283. 1
  8284. 1
  8285. 1
  8286. 1
  8287. 1
  8288. 1
  8289. 1
  8290. 1
  8291. 1
  8292. 1
  8293. 1
  8294. 1
  8295. 1
  8296. 1
  8297. 1
  8298. 1
  8299. 1
  8300. 1
  8301. 1
  8302. 1
  8303. 1
  8304. 1
  8305. 1
  8306. 1
  8307. 1
  8308. 1
  8309. 1
  8310. 1
  8311. 1
  8312. 1
  8313. 1
  8314. 1
  8315. 1
  8316. 1
  8317. 1
  8318. 1
  8319. 1
  8320. 1
  8321. 1
  8322. 1
  8323. 1
  8324. 1
  8325. 1
  8326. 1
  8327. 1
  8328. 1
  8329. 1
  8330. 1
  8331. 1
  8332. 1
  8333. 1
  8334. 1
  8335. 1
  8336. 1
  8337. 1
  8338. 1
  8339. 1
  8340. 1
  8341. 1
  8342. 1
  8343. 1
  8344. 1
  8345. 1
  8346. 1
  8347. 1
  8348. 1
  8349. 1
  8350. 1
  8351. 1
  8352. 1
  8353. 1
  8354. 1
  8355. 1
  8356. 1
  8357. 1
  8358. 1
  8359. 1
  8360. 1
  8361. 1
  8362. 1
  8363. 1
  8364. 1
  8365. 1
  8366. 1
  8367. 1
  8368. 1
  8369. 1
  8370. 1
  8371. 1
  8372. 1
  8373. 1
  8374. 1
  8375. 1
  8376. 1
  8377. 1
  8378. 1
  8379. 1
  8380. 1
  8381. 1
  8382. 1
  8383. 1
  8384. 1
  8385. 1
  8386. 1
  8387. 1
  8388. 1
  8389. 1
  8390. 1
  8391. 1
  8392. 1
  8393. 1
  8394. 1
  8395. 1
  8396. 1
  8397. 1
  8398. 1
  8399. 1
  8400. 1
  8401. 1
  8402. 1
  8403. 1
  8404. 1
  8405. 1
  8406. 1
  8407. 1
  8408. 1
  8409. 1
  8410. 1
  8411. 1
  8412. 1
  8413. 1
  8414. 1
  8415. 1
  8416. 1
  8417. 1
  8418. 1
  8419. 1
  8420. 1
  8421. 1
  8422. 1
  8423. 1
  8424. 1
  8425. 1
  8426. 1
  8427. 1
  8428. 1
  8429. 1
  8430. 1
  8431. 1
  8432. 1
  8433. 1
  8434. 1
  8435. 1
  8436. 1
  8437. 1
  8438. 1
  8439. 1
  8440. 1
  8441. 1
  8442. 1
  8443. 1
  8444. Woke up and wrote what turned into a frikkin’ essay. It’s too long to read, really. Not appropriate for a YouTube comment. But I want to put it somewhere it will be seen. Thanks for indulging me. Polishing a Turd and Putting Lipstick on a Pig These two picturesque phrases indicate in similar ways the idea of dishonesty trying to improve the appearance of something of no or little value. The first phrase, however, indicates the futility of making a turd shiny (and thereby attractive) because it will still be visible as a piece of shit. The second phrase, putting lipstick on a pig, offers the idea of beautifying something, making it more attractive than it is to a gullible person, such as touting a worthless stock as being valuable. The idea is that the lipstick applier is concealing the true nature of the thing he is trying to sell. I was thinking about these two phrases this morning, as they relate to Donald Trump and his followers. Our current crises have been either created or made worse by Trump and his administration henchmen—and he’s gotten away with it by using the two techniques of turd polishing and pig beautifying, just as he’s gotten away with all manner of scams his entire career. And you’d think by now, his base would have figured out that they’ve been kissing pigs and eating shit. Obviously, some supporters have learned this, some quite recently, and have left the fold. But those that are staying? Will they ever be convinced that Trump is a bad man? Will they ever realize that they’ve been lied to along? Even if we can stop Trump now, is there hope that these ultimate victims of Trump’s duplicity can be recuperated? I’m thinking no. These are people that cannot be brought to reason for the simple reason that they LIKE to eat shit and kiss pigs. In fact, their favorite thing to do is getting fucked by lipsticked pigs and their favorite food is shit. Look, I don’t want to kink shame. I don’t want to judge. I’m a live-and-let-live type of person. The problem here is that we’re not safe from these shit eating pig fuckers because they also want to force everyone to eat shit and fuck pigs, and they expect us to like it. Or else. Or else we can die face down in shit, our corpses humped by pigs.
    1
  8445. 1
  8446. 1
  8447. 1
  8448. 1
  8449. 1
  8450. 1
  8451. 1
  8452. 1
  8453. 1
  8454. 1
  8455. 1
  8456. 1
  8457. 1
  8458. 1
  8459. 1
  8460. 1
  8461. 1
  8462. 1
  8463. 1
  8464. 1
  8465. 1
  8466. 1
  8467. 1
  8468. 1
  8469. 1
  8470. 1
  8471. 1
  8472. 1
  8473. 1
  8474. 1
  8475. 1
  8476. 1
  8477. 1
  8478. 1
  8479. 1
  8480. 1
  8481. 1
  8482. 1
  8483. 1
  8484. 1
  8485. 1
  8486. 1
  8487. 1
  8488. 1
  8489. 1
  8490. 1
  8491. 1
  8492. 1
  8493. 1
  8494. 1
  8495. 1
  8496. 1
  8497. 1
  8498. 1
  8499. 1
  8500. 1
  8501. 1
  8502. 1
  8503. 1
  8504. 1
  8505. 1
  8506. 1
  8507. 1
  8508. 1
  8509. 1
  8510. 1
  8511. 1
  8512. 1
  8513. 1
  8514. 1
  8515. 1
  8516. 1
  8517. 1
  8518. 1
  8519. 1
  8520. 1
  8521. 1
  8522. 1
  8523. 1
  8524. 1
  8525. 1
  8526. 1
  8527. 1
  8528. 1
  8529. 1
  8530. 1
  8531. 1
  8532. 1
  8533. 1
  8534. 1
  8535. 1
  8536. 1
  8537. 1
  8538. 1
  8539. 1
  8540. 1
  8541. 1
  8542. 1
  8543. 1
  8544. 1
  8545. 1
  8546. 1
  8547. 1
  8548. 1
  8549. 1
  8550. 1
  8551. 1
  8552. 1
  8553. 1
  8554. 1
  8555. That’s a very good point. Also, the U.S. isn’t threatening to invade either neighbor. The bullshit analogy of Russian military aid to Mexico would make sense if the U.S. annexed the Baja California Peninsula, fomented rebellion in Tamaulipas, and then invaded all along the Northern border to support the fake rebellion. So far that hasn’t happened, nor has the U.S. threatened it. With regard to invading Canada, that’s completely out of the question. Canada is a member of NATO. The U.S. would experience the full wrath of NATO if the U.S. attempted to invade. History fans will remember the last time the U.S. invaded Mexico. It was during the Mexican Revolution, and one of the revolutionaries, Pancho Villa, had been raiding border towns for arms and supplies. In 1916 the U.S. sent a contingent under John Pershing to capture Villa, chasing him around the desert fruitlessly. However, they did manage to kill some of the men under Villa’s command, and some of his subordinates. Pershing’s forces withdrew in 1917. Anyway, the point of the story is that the last time the U.S. military was on Mexican soil, over a hundred years ago, no attempt was made to annex any territory. And given the chaos of Mexico during the Revolution, it would have been a perfect opportunity for conquest because Mexico was so divided. So no, it’s not the policy of the U.S. to invade Mexico. 😂 It really wasn’t the policy in 1916, either. It was a necessity because bandit revolutionaries were attacking border town, but no territory was taken.
    1
  8556. 1
  8557. 1
  8558. 1
  8559. 1
  8560. 1
  8561. 1
  8562. 1
  8563. 1
  8564. 1
  8565. 1
  8566. 1
  8567. 1
  8568. 1
  8569. 1
  8570. 1
  8571. 1
  8572. 1
  8573. 1
  8574. 1
  8575. 1
  8576. 1
  8577. 1
  8578. 1
  8579. 1
  8580. 1
  8581. 1
  8582. 1
  8583. 1
  8584. 1
  8585. 1
  8586. 1
  8587. 1
  8588. 1
  8589. 1
  8590. 1
  8591. 1
  8592. 1
  8593. 1
  8594. 1
  8595. 1
  8596. 1
  8597. 1
  8598. 1
  8599. 1
  8600. 1
  8601. 1
  8602. 1
  8603. 1
  8604. 1
  8605. 1
  8606. 1
  8607. 1
  8608. 1
  8609. 1
  8610. 1
  8611. 1
  8612. 1
  8613. 1
  8614. 1
  8615. 1
  8616. 1
  8617. 1
  8618. 1
  8619. 1
  8620. 1
  8621. 1
  8622. 1
  8623. 1
  8624. 1
  8625. 1
  8626. 1
  8627. 1
  8628. 1
  8629. 1
  8630. 1
  8631. 1
  8632. 1
  8633. 1
  8634. 1
  8635. 1
  8636. 1
  8637. 1
  8638. 1
  8639. 1
  8640. 1
  8641. 1
  8642. 1
  8643. 1
  8644. 1
  8645. 1
  8646. 1
  8647. 1
  8648. 1
  8649. 1
  8650. 1
  8651. 1
  8652. 1
  8653. 1
  8654. 1
  8655. 1
  8656. 1
  8657. 1
  8658. 1
  8659. 1
  8660. 1
  8661. 1
  8662. 1
  8663. 1
  8664. 1
  8665. 1
  8666. 1
  8667. 1
  8668. 1
  8669. 1
  8670. 1
  8671. 1
  8672. 1
  8673. 1
  8674. 1
  8675. 1
  8676. 1
  8677. 1
  8678. 1
  8679. 1
  8680. 1
  8681. 1
  8682. 1
  8683. 1
  8684. 1
  8685. 1
  8686. 1
  8687. 1
  8688. 1
  8689. 1
  8690. 1
  8691. 1
  8692. 1
  8693. 1
  8694. 1
  8695. 1
  8696. 1
  8697. 1
  8698. 1
  8699. 1
  8700. 1
  8701. 1
  8702. 1
  8703. 1
  8704. 1
  8705. 1
  8706. 1
  8707. 1
  8708. 1
  8709. 1
  8710. 1
  8711. 1
  8712. 1
  8713. 1
  8714. 1
  8715. 1
  8716. 1
  8717. 1
  8718. 1
  8719. 1
  8720. 1
  8721. 1
  8722. 1
  8723. 1
  8724. 1
  8725. 1
  8726. 1
  8727. 1
  8728. 1
  8729. 1
  8730. 1
  8731. 1
  8732. 1
  8733. 1
  8734. 1
  8735. 1
  8736. 1
  8737. 1
  8738. 1
  8739. 1
  8740. 1
  8741. 1
  8742. 1
  8743. 1
  8744. 1
  8745. 1
  8746. 1
  8747. 1
  8748. 1
  8749. 1
  8750. 1
  8751. 1
  8752. 1
  8753. 1
  8754. 1
  8755. 1
  8756. 1
  8757. 1
  8758. 1
  8759. 1
  8760. 1
  8761. 1
  8762. 1
  8763. 1
  8764. 1
  8765. 1
  8766. 1
  8767. 1
  8768. 1
  8769. 1
  8770. 1
  8771. 1
  8772. 1
  8773. 1
  8774. 1
  8775. 1
  8776. 1
  8777. 1
  8778. 1
  8779. 1
  8780. 1
  8781. 1
  8782. 1
  8783. 1
  8784. 1
  8785. 1
  8786. 1
  8787. 1
  8788. 1
  8789. 1
  8790. 1
  8791. 1
  8792. 1
  8793. 1
  8794. 1
  8795. 1
  8796. 1
  8797. 1
  8798. 1
  8799. 1
  8800. 1
  8801. 1
  8802. 1
  8803. 1
  8804. 1
  8805. 1
  8806. I wish people would stop misusing the phrases “3rd World” and “1st World” if they are discussing economic development of a country or region. If you want to discuss economic development, just use “Developed”, “Developing”, or “Undeveloped”. Or use whatever schema that corresponds to economics, material prosperity, or lack of it. “Third World” was a political label given to non-aligned countries during the Cold War. There was the First World, the Western Democracies opposed to the Communist Bloc. There was the Second World, the Communist Bloc that sought to overthrow capitalism and the Western Democracies. And there was the Third World, which were those countries that didn’t want to take sides during the Cold War, that wanted to pursue their own interests. The obsolete phraseology has picked up a lot of racist baggage over the years, used to describe non-white cultures, societies, and countries disparagingly. This is why certain white politicians will call Miami “like a Third World Country” (I think it was Pat Buchanan that said that during his run for the GOP presidential nomination). If a person is racist, they should stop hiding behind words. Just be racist. Show the courage of your racist convictions instead of cowardly using code words. Trump gave you permission to say whatever stupid dumbass thing popped into your pea brain. To be fair, I hear this misuse of language from socialists and progressive democrats all the time, too. It certainly undermines my confidence that “their revolution” will somehow magically solve racism.
    1
  8807. 1
  8808. 1
  8809. 1
  8810. 1
  8811. 1
  8812. 1
  8813. 1
  8814. 1
  8815. 1
  8816. 1
  8817. 1
  8818. 1
  8819. 1
  8820. 1
  8821. 1
  8822. 1
  8823. 1
  8824. 1
  8825. 1
  8826. 1
  8827. 1
  8828. 1
  8829. 1
  8830. 1
  8831. 1
  8832. 1
  8833. 1
  8834. 1
  8835. 1
  8836. 1
  8837. 1
  8838. 1
  8839. 1
  8840. 1
  8841. 1
  8842. 1
  8843. 1
  8844. 1
  8845. 1
  8846. 1
  8847. 1
  8848. 1
  8849. 1
  8850. 1
  8851. 1
  8852. 1
  8853. 1
  8854. 1
  8855. 1
  8856. 1
  8857. 1
  8858. 1
  8859. Thank you for creating this and posting it. I saw the Tate collection in Los Angeles in the 1980s when it was on tour. It was on display at the “Temporary Contemporary” annex of the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (LACMA), a warehouse sized space converted into a gallery. The display space was a series of rooms that were created within this larger warehouse space, much like film set is constructed in a movie studio, according to (we were told) the artist’s specifications. This included the low levels of illumination—a very knowledgeable security guard told us is this when a member of our student group asked if the lights could be turned up in one particularly dimly lit room. It was the security guard that invited us to view the paintings up close, as close as 18”, so that we might fully experience them, and it was the security guard that told us the whole set up was meant to evoke the sense that we were in a temple. The paintings really are best experienced in person. The effects I felt were like nothing before or since. Although I’ve never experienced Rothko’s work again in person, the feelings the paintings evoked have stayed with me and I can recall the memory of the sensory experience quite clearly. The only other artist that has had a similar effect (creating an emotional reaction that stayed with me) is Motherwell, although the effect was not and has not been as strong. I think Rothko would have been pleased that the security guard, a working man, had taken such an interest in his work. I had a brief chat with him and ascertained that he was indeed a security guard hired locally to watch over the work, “just some guy” as he put it, and not a museum docent. Discussing Rothko and the Tate Collection was not an official part of his job duties, but he had done his art history research on his own time, something he had never done with other artists. Rothko would have felt vindicated that his work had escaped the rarified world of fine art and had engaged a member of the working class.
    1
  8860. 1
  8861. 1
  8862. 1
  8863. 1
  8864. 1
  8865. 1
  8866. 1
  8867. 1
  8868. 1
  8869. 1
  8870. 1
  8871. 1
  8872. 1
  8873. 1
  8874. 1
  8875. 1
  8876. 1
  8877. 1
  8878. 1
  8879. 1
  8880. 1
  8881. 1
  8882. 1
  8883. 1
  8884. 1
  8885. 1
  8886. 1
  8887. 1
  8888. 1
  8889. 1
  8890. 1
  8891. 1
  8892. 1
  8893. 1
  8894. 1
  8895. 1
  8896. 1
  8897. 1
  8898. 1
  8899. 1
  8900. 1
  8901. 1
  8902. 1
  8903. 1
  8904. 1
  8905. 1
  8906. 1
  8907. 1
  8908. 1
  8909. 1
  8910. 1
  8911. 1
  8912. 1
  8913. 1
  8914. 1
  8915. 1
  8916. 1
  8917. 1
  8918. 1
  8919. 1
  8920. 1
  8921. 1
  8922. 1
  8923. 1
  8924. 1
  8925. 1
  8926. 1
  8927. 1
  8928. 1
  8929. 1
  8930. 1
  8931. 1
  8932. 1
  8933. 1
  8934. 1
  8935. The issue isn’t so simple. For example, I want a water proof or resistant phone. I can buy one from a variety of manufacturers. I want finger print ID secure my phone. Again, available from a variety of mfgrs. I currently have such a phone. If I want to replace the battery, it’s only $30 if I take it to the mfgr’s retail store or send it in. I can opt to repair that battery myself for around $15, but in opening it up I might ruin the water proofing seals. I’ve bought older used phones and replaced the battery. I even had a fire once because the battery was difficult to remove and the battery package tore. Honestly, it’s worth the extra $15. Plus, I don’t have to worry about the seals. I don’t have to worry about something happening to the finger print cable. And I’m going to be a little pissed if phone manufacturers are prevented from making phones with the features I want, to make it easier for some 10% or less of consumers to repair their own phones. I don’t want my phone’s manufacturer to use larger components to make repairs easier, or bigger cases so there’s more room for the DIYer to work with. I have been doing self repairs and DIY all my life. Usually, I like buy a quality product that will last, take care of it, and if necessary, do maintenance and repair. But I don’t want a worse product so some other DIYer has any easier time of it. If there was really a big market for DIY friendly phones, someone would be filling that demand. Probably someone is. But please don’t limit my choices for your right of repair. Please don’t restrict mfgrs’ ability to innovate with stupid rules. Make well thought out ones so I can still get what I want, and a DIYer can repair their own phones.
    1
  8936. 1
  8937. 1
  8938. 1
  8939. 1
  8940. 1
  8941. 1
  8942. 1
  8943. 1
  8944. 1
  8945. 1
  8946. 1
  8947. 1
  8948. 1
  8949. 1
  8950. 1
  8951. 1
  8952. 1
  8953. 1
  8954. 1
  8955. 1
  8956. 1
  8957. 1
  8958. 1
  8959. 1
  8960. 1
  8961. 1
  8962. 1
  8963. 1
  8964. 1
  8965. 1
  8966. 1
  8967. 1
  8968. 1
  8969. 1
  8970. 1
  8971. 1
  8972. 1
  8973. 1
  8974. 1
  8975. 1
  8976.  @TheNicii  Whether the contract was voidable is something that should be resolved in civil court. In the meantime, the cops can take the goat to the court and say, “here, you hold on to it until the matter is resolved”. (Or they could have said, “we located the goat at the Napa Goat Center and they’ve agreed to take custody of the goat until the matter is resolved”. The police do NOT decide whether or not a contract is voidable or legitimate. That’s not within their authority. So those were at least two of the mistakes the Shasta County Sheriffs made. The course of events suggest that the county fair official made a false report. I would say that the sheriff’s detective that took the call made a mistake by not questioning the official about her report of a crime. That’s the third mistake, and I hope they prosecutor is looking into the false report (if one was made). This isn’t a case where the sheriff’s hands were tied, and the deputies had to follow the law. This is a case where, among other things, the sheriff’s department made very bad decisions and didn’t follow the law. They used “self-help”. The problem is compounded by the department not checking the report and not questioning the person making the report. Isn’t that what a detective is supposed to do? “What were the circumstances of the theft? Where was the goat stolen from and who stole it?” Are these not questions that normally get asked when there is a report of stolen property? I’m not going to give the sheriff’s department a pass here because “they were just doing their jobs”. They did their jobs poorly and not according to the law. I don’t think they’re the main culprit, but they are not far behind.
    1
  8977. 1
  8978. 1
  8979. 1
  8980. 1
  8981. 1
  8982. 1
  8983. 1
  8984. There’s some important political details regarding Abolition, Lincoln, and the Civil War that are missing. Sadly, these often don’t get covered in U.S. History classes before college, and I’m not sure how deeply they’re covered in introductory college courses. First of all, the Republican Party was not unified on the question of slavery, and among those that favored abolition there was a variety of opinion on how to accomplish it. The moderate view was that it was on the way out—as long as it didn’t spread as new states were admitted it would become gradually less economically feasible. They were happy with the status quo. There were those that wanted compensation for slave owners. And there was a faction known as the “Radical Republicans” that wanted immediate abolition. The majority of Republicans did not. In the election of 1860, Lincoln promised that he would not support abolition. Abolition was not part of the Republican Party platform. Lincoln was sensitive to the politics in some swing states where slavery was still legal, such as Maryland and Delaware. Despite this, the South seceded, and did so violently. They fired the first shots (most famously in Fort Sumter, but also throughout the South were there were Federal bases and civilian installations). Lincoln’s reassurances weren’t enough. The Southern Democrats wanted to extend slavery into the new territories in the West. They wanted to roll back abolition in those states that had abolished slavery by preserving the “property rights” of slave owners who traveled with their slaves in abolitionist states. And they wanted to preserve the right of slave owners to catch escaped slaves in the North (cf. the Fugitive Slave Act). With Lincoln elected President, their chances to accomplish these goals were much less, if not impossible. Another matter that few people talk about is what would happen if the South had been allowed to secede and recognized. War between North and South would still have been inevitable because of the South’s expansionist goals. The South wanted the Southwest U.S. and they wanted to expand into the Caribbean. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not become the law of the land. It was not within Lincoln’s presidential powers; only Congress could enact such a measure. The E.P. was a military order that only applied to those states in rebellion because Lincoln did have the authority to issue such a command. This is alluded to when Ryan mentions Maryland abolishing slavery in 1864. Anyway, I think these are important details to understanding the Civil War. Some of the details are beyond the scope of Ryan’s topic, but others should not have been omitted. Other parts of the presentation are also incomplete with regard to Jim Crow, but I think Ryan hit the facts most pertinent to soldiers’ voting rights.
    1
  8985. 1
  8986. 1
  8987. 1
  8988. 1
  8989. 1
  8990. 1
  8991. 1
  8992. 1
  8993. 1
  8994. 1
  8995. 1
  8996. 1
  8997. 1
  8998. 1
  8999. 1
  9000. 1
  9001. 1
  9002. 1
  9003. 1
  9004. 1
  9005. 1
  9006. 1
  9007. 1
  9008. 1