Youtube comments of MarcosElMalo2 (@MarcosElMalo2).
-
1300
-
985
-
688
-
540
-
318
-
255
-
247
-
246
-
232
-
224
-
215
-
167
-
155
-
152
-
150
-
140
-
138
-
Too be clear, the battle for Hostemel airport was a helicopter air assault to secure an air bridge.
I think the worst factor for the first and second waves of VDV units was that they were unprepared for the mission and there was insufficient planning. Remember, the invasion was top secret until 24 hours (or less for some officers), and the intelligence was really bad: they were not expecting heavy resistance. This intelligence factor applies to the invasion forces as a whole. They didn’t plan for a worst case scenario because they 1) were told it was unnecessary, and 2) they didn’t have time to plan for it. So the first wave suffered heavy casualties and failed to secure the airport. The second wave was either shot out of the sky or turned back. The third wave, which would have included heavier equipment never left the ground.
Rather than highlighting force structure weakness (which is also a factor, no doubt), the mission failure and the larger failure point to deficiencies in authoritarian government, namely distrust (the upper echelon keeping the invasion top secret from lower echelons, and probably not discussing it among themselves) and buying into their own propaganda. The intelligence supported the propaganda, and couldn’t be questioned. Raising doubts would be tantamount to disloyalty. A VDV battalion commander couldn’t just say “I’m going to prepare for the worst, just in case” without incurring the wrath of his superiors.
121
-
109
-
109
-
106
-
105
-
101
-
100
-
98
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
83
-
82
-
81
-
80
-
75
-
75
-
72
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
The odds were in the company’s favor that the tornado would pass them by. How many times previously had there been a tornado threat and nothing happened?
However, low probability isn’t zero probability. The company could have hedged its bets by building a shelter. And where it really messed up was threatening employees that wanted to leave. It’s one thing to say, “OK, punch out, you’re done for the day. See you tomorrow,” and it’s another thing to say, “If you leave, don’t bother coming back. We’ll mail you the check.” If this case gets before a jury, that’s going to hurt the company the most. The company essentially killed 8 people through negligence. (I wouldn’t say murdered, which is too strong a word.)
I hope managers and decision-makers take note—if you decide to risk your employees’ lives, you might get away with it for a while—maybe a long while. But it might just catch up with you and then you’ll be that person that allows x number of people to die out of greed or ambition. At that point, you should probably become a politician.
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
@neil216 Well, Tim and Bill are conservatives. I’m a conservative. We used to be mainstream conservatives. To be fair, I’ve come around on issues like health care and child care/child tax credits, but I think my values and principles remain the same.
Maybe some of that has to do with conservatives like us sharing some bedrock values with liberals like you. Maybe it has to do with recognizing everything isn’t black and white.
Take privatization vs government, for example. Sometimes (I’d argue much of the time) privatization makes sense, in other cases letting government run or subsidize a service makes more sense. In this case, I’m specifically thinking of broadband access to rural areas, but there’s plenty of other examples.
Our tax system favors the wealthy. There’s no getting around that. We need to rebalance the tax code. I still believe that wealth formation fosters innovation, investment and job creation, but on the individual level how much goddamn wealth does a person need to motivate them? The wealth gap has become utterly corrosive.
We conservatives had a great run from the 1980 to 2008. We got pretty much everything we wanted, which is why there is a dearth of fresh ideas coming from conservatives. Some of what we got didn’t turn out the way we had hoped. Now it’s the liberals turn for a while.
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
Most places accept the local currency. Perhaps you’ve only been to tourist destinations, where it’s more common that businesses accept dollars. If you want to use dollars, you generally have to exchange them for the local currency. I live in a tourist town, so some but not all businesses accept dollars, usually at a terrible exchange rate. In the next town over, they do not accept dollars, rupees, yuan, rubles, yen, pound sterling, or euros.
You might have a valid point but you’re not making it very well with your poor example. You sound like a person with some limited experiences outside the U.S. extrapolating from that limited experience.
Perhaps what you are saying holds true in countries with very unstable currencies, suffering from inflation, and/or some other need for dollars.
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
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
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
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
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
Thanks for sharing your story! While I don’t believe anecdotes are a replacement for large datasets, I found your experience to be both encouraging and interesting. I’m also very glad to hear your doing much better with the gout. With regard to dosage, I’m taking 2,000 ui. I understand that requirements to avoid deficiencies will vary from person to person, although the dosage ceiling is pretty high before there are any adverse affects (one MD I follow is taking 10,000 ui, for example). I’d be interested to know more about your raising your dose from 2k to 5k, and how you felt it helped you.
As it stands, after a week of 2000 iu, my urine got slightly darker and brighter, which I believe indicates that some of the vitamin D-3 is not being absorbed. Haha, it’s all good as long as there’s no blood and it doesn’t burn, right?
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@archiedentone5950 That’s not entirely true. It IS true on a production like this, a Western with many actors portraying armed characters. Not so much on a production with a gun in a single scene—having a dedicated armorer is certainly an option, if the property master doesn’t have any experience or training with on-set firearms and practical effects. Many do have such training and experience. That said, many productions will hire an armorer for the day in such a situation, or only for those days they’re required.
I’d agree with you in the case of this production or any production that had a half dozen or more actors using firearms through various scenes. In fact, on some productions, the armorer has their own assistant or multiple assistants to help keep track of all weapon props, whether or not they’re functioning firearms.
Edit: Also, where did you hear that the property master quit with the others (from the camera department). I haven’t seen any mention of this. The only crew members that quit, according to every report that mentions it, were members of the camera department. I’ve only seen the property master mentioned once, in the L.A. Times chronology of events, and it said nothing about her quitting the show.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
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
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
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
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
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
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
It’s something we should always keep in mind whenever we think we need to use force or threat of violence to further agendas, policies, or interests.
Years ago in my bad old days, I had to appear in court for being involved in a fight. It dawned on me during the proceedings that I was the bad guy in this case. I think the judge, the city attorney, and the victim actually saw the change in my face, and I got treated leniently at the end of the day. I really was remorseful because even if I didn’t swing first, I really did provoke the fight.
Maybe the other guy shared responsibility, but that was on him to figure out. I can only take care of my own mistakes and shortcomings.
Why am I telling you this? I guess because I can’t be a better person if I cling to the idea that I’m always right and justified. And I learned from this relatively minor incident to ask myself the question, “Am I in the wrong?” before it escalates.
However, I don’t know if this type of thinking even applies to moral monsters like Putin. They don’t really think in terms of good or bad. To them, bad is anyone or anything in their way. Truth is what they say it is, and lies are anything that contradicts the story they tell themselves. And they think everyone thinks like them, or are dumb not to think like them.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
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
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
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
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Dr Mike should know better, but is subject to the same human foibles as are we all. This is a good reminder that despite his expertise in the field of Medicine, that expertise doesn’t confer wisdom or maturity. (The half-assed apology video underlines this point.)
A half hour ago I learned COVID has hit my neighborhood. The family that operates the little bodega around the corner has been infected. The father has already died and one of the daughters is in the hospital. It’s really terrible news. And right now, I’m going over in my mind my exposure risk. It’s been over a week (closer to two weeks) since I visited to store, but I’m thinking about the times I’ve been lax in following the pandemic protocols. The slip ups, the momentary lapses.
Because this is the neighborhood store, everyone in the neighborhood has potentially been exposed either directly, or second hand. It’s frikkin’ scary. I’ve primarily had contact with one person over the course of the pandemic, but we’ve rarely worn masks inside my home. I know that she wears a mask and maintains social distancing on the outside, but if I’ve slipped up, she probably has also.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Robert-uo6qi They have shipping capacity in the Sea of Azov. The Kerch Bridge wasn’t destroyed, only damaged. The constrained supply situation has certainly helped with the siege of Kherson, but the siege of Crimea is going to be different.
Forget for a moment about logistics. The Crimean Peninsula is going to be a very tough nut to crack. I think it will be the last of the Ukrainian territories the Russians will be forced to leave. It is much more defensible than Kherson, and there are a lot more ways to resupply it.
Which brings us back to the logistics. You might have noticed that Kherson has not been completely cut off. However, the supply lines have been CONSTRAINED to a sufficient degree that the Russian units have been slowly starved of supplies. This is what made their position untenable.
Crimea is not only more defensible geographically, it is also more easily suppliable. The supply lines are more difficult to choke. In a nutshell, the Russians can hold out in Crimea for a lot longer than many people seem to think.
The final assault is going to cost a lot of Ukrainian lives. It should be up to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government if they want to spend those lives and extend the war another year or two or more to retake Crimea. It might offend our sense of justice if the Ukrainians decide to trade Ukraine for peace, but ultimately it’s their call, not ours. On the other hand, if they decide to go for it, we should continue to offer our support.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@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
-
I understand your feelings on this and it seems like it would only take a small amount of extra effort. But these very large scale studies of countrywide data are designed to answer specific questions about vaccine effectiveness, particularly wrt variants. What we really want is larger scale studies on the topic of Vitamin D and what role it can play in Covid outcomes. That said, there is sufficient evidence that Vitamin D is helpful for general health, and we should already be making wise decisions about its use based on decades of knowledge.
You also have the problem of some folks latching on to any alternative, no matter the harm or risk of harm, and imagining they are themselves safe and not a risk to the people around them. So I’ll continue to take vitamin D3 in 5000 iu gel caplets, which is a safe dose. I’ve received both shots of the Pfizer vaccine, and I’ll take a booster if and when it’s time, and I’ll continue to wear a mask, practice safe social distancing, and limit my time out in public.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
It will not be difficult for the authorities to track down the hired helicopter if Trevor did indeed remove the wreckage without authorization. That said, it’s possible that the local FSDO had the wreckage removed to a more convenient location. It the investigator is smart, he might even have gotten Trevor to pay for it! 😄
I haven’t watched any of Trevor’s videos, but I understand he has some about freight train hopping, including one where he is arrested. This wouldn’t fall under the FAA purview, but the NTSB would be interested if they get involved in the investigation. In any case, such videos shed light about Trevor’s willingness to break laws in pursuit of thrills and views—Trevor has a reckless personality. I hope the previous arrest, the intentionality of the crash, and the reckless operation of his aircraft will lead to a permanent loss of his pilot license.
A part of me hopes that Trevor has done something (move the plane, attempt to erase raw video) to trigger obstruction of justice charges. It’s not really a part of myself I should be proud of, but this jerk really needs a comeuppance. Something to “bring him down to the ground”, like a stint in federal prison. Ah, well. It probably won’t happen for years, if it happens at all.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
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
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@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
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@maryjaneneels5536 I left in 2006, after 25 years or so. I was hoping to help remove the racist strains, both the overt ones and the more subtle. I guess I was the token model minority. I actually liked Bush, despite his weaknesses (his biggest mistake was choosing Cheney and Rumsfeld). I was against the war in Iraq, but once the invasion began, I backed my country. It was the “peace” in Iraq that I worried about, and I was proved right by the incompetence and corruption of Wolfowitz and Cheney, and the general imbecility of Rumsfeld.
The straw that broke the camel’s back, though, was what happened with Abu Graib and the debate about torture. I was shocked that the President, who I thought was a moral man, would allow the pretzel logic justifications of “enhanced interrogation”. But it was the rank and file “ordinary Republican” response that sickened me. Many gave up the justifications, and argued for worse torture as a matter of revenge for 911. Much of it came down to religious bigotry and racism.
It was no longer worth it to me to fight for what was right in the Republican Party. I wasn’t missed, I’m sure. I was already being called a RINO and a traitor who supported Islam.
Despite all I knew, I was still shocked by how the GOP so neatly embraced Trump’s overt racism. How easily they slid into deplorable fascism. How comfortable they were with being their worst selves. Jesus wept.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I just heard about this from my oldest and bestest friend a few months ago. He had been referring to his boyfriend as his puppy, and I thought this had to do with age disparity. During a conversation about his love life he said they had a play date with another couple and he started describing the date.
I broke in, “Wait, you’re talking like [name] is an actual dog.”
My friend giggled and said, “What did you think I was talking about?”
They’re both into standard dungeons and dragons role play games, so it makes sense. He’s a dom, so that also made sense. I had just not conceived of this particular form of role play. Shame on me for being small minded. 😅
OK, I’m going to watch the video now. I find the whole thing amusing and whimsical and cute, and that’s the sort of human behavior I can support. I wish more human behavior was this amusing, whimsical, and cute.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I’ve worked on plenty of low budget pictures that involved simulated gunfire. I’ve never been on location in New Mexico, so I don’t know what they do there.
I’ve never seen anyone involved in the recreational activity of plinking, either during the working day or after the day was wrapped. Even on the most modestly budgeted movie, the armorer kept weapons and the prop ammunition under lock and key until they were needed on set. When a set up was complete, the actors immediately turned the guns (whether real or non-firing) over to the armorer, even if they would be used in the next set up.
This is obviously for safety, but it’s even more basic than that. If we were talking about any other prop, you would never allow an actor or crew member to leave the set with it. Imagine a crew member wandering off with a prop book because he or she was bored between takes! It would never be permitted! The idea of crew (other than prop master or property assistants) taking ANY prop off the set is ridiculous, and I really have to wonder about the professionalism of that crew in New Mexico—and the producers who hired them.
The prop master, the armorer, and the ADs (not just Hall) were not doing their jobs if they allowed this behavior anywhere near the set. The boredom of downtime is not an excuse, nor is it a satisfying explanation.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
It’s certainly within his right, up to a point. That point is can the actual challenges in court change the outcome, and the answer to that is no. In court, one must show credible evidence to back one’s claims. After a certain point, further litigation is frivolous and should stop. Trump has exhausted his right.
His wild and damaging claims made outside of court are also his “right” (as in the right free speech). However, he’s not only telling lies, he’s doing great and long term damage to the country. It’s immoral, unethical, and irresponsible. If he had credible evidence for any of his claims, it would have been presented within the past month.
Al Gore had the right to challenge the 2000 election that he lost to George W. Bush. And he got two recounts in Florida (where the court challenges took place). It was during the third recount that the Supreme Court stepped in and said, “enough”! Al Gore had exhausted his right to challenge the counting of votes. Realizing this, he conceded, and then . . . HE SHUT UP. He did not continue grousing, whining, or complaining. He did not try to undermine the public’s faith in elections, for the good of the country. It would have been his right to do so but he didn’t because he’s a decent human being, whatever his liberal shortcomings. (And yes, I’m a conservative who left the GOP when it became clear that its shift to Authoritarianism couldn’t be stopped.)
7
-
@Maggie-zr2ow I recommend learning a smattering of Spanish from free apps or websites! There’s a couple of reasons to do this: One, it’s just generally enriching, and you might find it useful at home or while traveling. Two, someday you might be able to help a Spanish speaker in some way, either trivially or in an emergency. For example, I once helped an elderly couple by translating to a pet store clerk that they needed help getting a heavy bag of dog food the the check out and then to their car. Another time I was able to direct someone to the hospital (I don’t know that it was an emergency, but it could have been). It wasn’t complicated, I just told them to continue straight and they’d see it on the left.
With the little Spanish I knew, I decided on a vacation to Mexico back in 2004, and I attended a school while there to learn more Spanish (There are schools geared toward visitors where you can take classes for a week.) I fell in love with the area I visited and seven years later I retired there. The point is, learning a language can open up your horizons!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Accents are weird things. I’m native born Californian, English is my first language, but I’ve grown up around Spanish my whole life. I like to joke that Spanglish is my first language, but it’s only a tiny bit true. I didn’t really become fluent in Spanish until after living in Mexico for a few years.
So here’s the deal. I’ve got a gringo accent to my Spanish. I work at it, but I’ll probably always have it to some extent. It’s worse when I’m tired. But the funny thing is this: when I’ve been in Mexico for a while, immersed in Spanish, and I come back to L.A., I speak ENGLISH with a Mexican Spanish accent for at least a few days. I’m not trying to! And I’ll get words mixed up sometimes.
Now my mother was born and raised in South Pasadena, California. He father was born and raised in Hawaii, the son of plantation workers who came to L.A. in the 1910s. My mother used to go visit her cousins on the Big Island, and they all spoke Hawaiinized English. Sort of like pidgin, but not really. They all can speak English perfectly if they need to. My mother would come back from her visits with this accent. It was pretty funny. And she could do it on command, but right after a trip it was unconscious.
So I’m not saying that Hilaría isn’t nuts, but she has been fluent in Spanish from a young age and spent long periods immersed in Spanish speaking environments. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions about her accent.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@ConvairDart106 We found out how ingrained racism still was/is. Better to know the truth. My mother, her parents, the family, spent WWII in an Arizona concentration camp. My aunt was born in that camp. I’ve encountered racism and I’ve seen it against black Americans, mexican American, and others. Despite all that, I was very surprised to see how extensive racism had remained over the last four years, when the racists stopped hiding it. But now we know it’s there in ways we didn’t before.
Trump isn’t the first racist president, but he’s the first president since the Civil War to run as a racist with a racist platform. It’s important to remember that, and in the years to come, if we have friends that supported Trump, we need to ask them why they thought it was OK to support a racist.
By the way, I’m a conservative. I’m an ex-Republican, because the racism in the GOP preceded Trump. He’s just the face of it now.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Keep safe, don’t fall prey to the QAnon trolls. Continue watching Dr. John. He goes over mortality figures. Right now they look very low, like a 0.003% mortality rate. That’s three people in one hundred thousand. However, your concern is about the long term, so keep an eye on that number and see if it changes.
Give yourself a window. Tell yourself, “In six months, I’m going to weigh all the current informational from credible sources, and either get vaccinated, or set a new window.” And mark it down on you calendar! Pencil it in, you might decide to get vaccinated sooner. 😄
Above all, take care of yourself! Follow the health safety protocols.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@timcotterill3952 It didn’t used to be like this. It might sound like a fairy tale, but once upon a time, the GOP was the party of ideas. And the truth is, some of those ideas worked. Some only worked up to a point, and some didn’t work at all. The party was guided by principles, but could use those principles to adapt to constantly changing conditions. (And I’ll admit, sometimes conservative principles were misapplied.) There was also a foundation that conservative Republicans shared with liberal Democrats, the bedrock of American democracy and respect for its institutions.
If that sounds weird, it’s because the modern GOP is 180° from where it was. Contrary to what many believe, the cause wasn’t Trump. Trump is a cancer, but the GOP had become fertile ground for such a cancerous polyp long before Trump won the party nomination in 2016. The GOP began changing course (imho) when Newt Gingrich became ascendant. To be frank, Gingrich laid down a red carpet for fascism to enter the GOP.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@mathbrown9099 The Vaccine doesn’t treat infection, it is supposed to prevent it. If your state’s death rate is going down, that’s great! But remember death rate data is a “trailing indicator”. It’s an indication that fewer people were getting sick 2-4 weeks ago.
If the infestation rates are still going up, here is the danger: your medical infrastructure becomes saturated and then overwhelmed. When this happens, your medical workers are pushed beyond their capacity, quality of care can’t be maintained, and non-Covid medical needs, even urgent ones, don’t get as rapid a response as they would normally.
An example of this latter case is someone having a stroke, and not being able to get proper care in time, because the hospital can’t move them to the head of the line. So they die, or have much more serious effects from the stroke. Remember at the beginning of the pandemic, when the talk was about “flattening the curve”? This is what they were talking about, but now it’s more like, “trying to hammer down the spikes”.
The new variants are more infectious, meaning they spread more easily. We mustn’t get frightened, but we must not let down our guard. Even if the trends improve (as they have in your neck of the woods), we need to remain vigilant. Look what has happened in Southern California (my home state). The thought they had a handle on it and got too relaxed.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Your analysis was indeed interesting, but I think it was also unkind, especially in your conclusion. We, your fans, love your dry wit, but I felt a little uncomfortable with a few things you said that bordered on cruelty.
With a little more empathy, this rather trivial matter could be an interesting entry into a discussion about identity, how it can be formed and unformed, self-image and presentation/persona, etc. Really, there are a hundred interesting paths this could have taken without devolving into a snark exercise. Oh, well. Better luck next time.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
OSINT is suggesting that Russia is stripping out recruit instructors to address its manpower problems. This is going to lead to either a bottleneck in training recruits, or throwing untrained recruits into the fray. It especially will pose problems if Putin calls for a general mobilization.
100 days experience or no, this video supports the claim that Russia still has problems coordinating infantry and tanks (and other systems, presumably). So even if you have seasoned tankers, they’re just not getting the support they need. And this might also go back to the manpower issue and force structure issues. If your IFV is at 66% strength, that could mean you have 3 dismounts to get out of the BMP and go clear buildings. Unless those dismounts are Rambo, Jason Bourne, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, pretty soon you’ll be left with two, or one, or zero.
So maybe the 100+ day guys who put a priority on survival are stopping to have tea, or experiencing mechanical problems that are causing short delays, or going to the wrong rally point. You know, “accidentally on purpose”. Just saying.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@mfisher1952 This has been an ongoing issue for the Russians, and now a bigger related problem is ripening. Basically, the NCO problem you mention is a matter of small unit cohesion, but in Bakhmut and Vuledar, we are seeing larger units destroyed. A unit that takes 20% causalities can be replenished and still fight effectively. A unit that takes 50% or more and then replenished with fresh troops cannot. Ukraine has been able to rotate units into and out of hot spots, preventing exhaustion and preserving unit cohesion. They’ve been very effective at preserving the reserve units to prevent breakthroughs. Where necessary, tactical withdrawals to prepared defenses (such as at Soledar) have been successful.
Meanwhile, Russia is expending its most elite forces in Bahkmut. It’s been doing this from the beginning, but it’s now reached a new level. The VDV is spent. Wagner is spent. The Russian Marines are spent. Bakhmut still stands, but even if it falls, Ukraine is well positioned defensively to stave off further breakthroughs. Offensively, Russia is nearly a spent force. When the ground dries and the tanks arrive from the West, we will see how effective they are on the defense.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@brandonleemartinez5297 Interesting comment! I’m a mixed Asian/Caucasian Los Angeleno. English is my first language, but I began hearing and learning Spanish from an early age (although it wasn’t until many years that I attained anything like fluency). And yes, from my youth I spoke “Spanglish”, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
What I did want to mention is that my accent is very fluid. My actual accent in Spanish is bad: no native speaker would mistake me for a native speaker. But here is the funny part: my English accent picks up Spanish inflections and intonations! This depends on with whom I have been spending time and with whom I’ve been speaking; it’s most noticeable when I’ve returned to the U.S. after a long period in Mexico.
A little joke that you, a linguist might enjoy. Unhappy that I was neither a full gringo nor chino, nor could I be a pocho or paisano, I asked a Boricua friend from Nueva Yorque what she thought I was. “Oh, that’s easy,” me contestó, “You’re a Guanabí.”
So may I suggest that Hilaria is the same, a Guanabí, and there is no shame in it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I respect the servicemen and their non-response to the jackass, but let’s be real about the threat the jackass represents. He wasn’t terrorizing anyone. That’s hyperbole. He wasn’t a threat. Maybe we can talk about how his racist and homophobic attitudes REPRESENT a threat to all of us, because the jackass isn’t alone in his beliefs, but he wasn’t a threat that required a response.
These soldiers are trained to respond to real threats. Serious threats. They might have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, where they put their lives on the line on a daily basis. Some jerk in a shopping mall is like a pile of smelly 💩 you want to walk away from, not get entangled with.
Now I’ve sometimes gotten heated when I’ve felt insulted. I’m sure many of you have as well. But this jerk was so ridiculous, I don’t think the soldiers took him seriously. They treated him as the village idiot who had wandered away from his village. And I think they gave him the bigger insult by ignoring him and walking away.
We can’t always walk away from Nazis, especially when they pose a threat to our society and way of life. But in many cases ignoring a Nazi individual is the best tactic.
Our servicemen and women are in Poland for a reason. They are a deterrent to a real Nazi (Putin) that threatens democracy. Our forces in Poland, Romania, and the Baltic States are NATO’s teeth. Without them and their cohorts in the Polish armed forces, NATO would be a paper tiger.
4
-
@Seth9809 of the convoy ambush videos I’ve seen, the first one (that we probably all saw first) was a large group of armored vehicles entering a town. It looked like many had pulled over and were idling or parked. To be frank, it looked like how a multi-car road trip would pull into a truck stop so everyone could stretch their legs, use the restrooms, and grab snacks and coffee. If there was a security perimeter, it wasn’t obvious.
Then the shelling starts, and it also looks like there might be an ATGM or two coming in from the side. A handful of vehicles were destroyed, and the rest didi-ed the fuck out of there the way they came. And they maintained spacing. Maybe not 100 or 50 meter spacing, but close to 50 m.
The other three or four that I can remember visually showed the Russian AFVs much better spaced and turrets pointed in different directions. They maintained space.
I think in the first week, the Russians were very sloppy, possibly because they didn’t expect resistance and hadn’t yet encountered it. Remember, in the first week, the Russians advanced rapidly in many areas because the defense hadn’t yet organized to contest the advance.
After 4 months, even if green troops are being poured in, I think the Russians have at least the basics squared away.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@kasperwittrup1288 You’re correct in all but one thing. These are territorial waters. International law still provides for free passage for “innocent” commercial shipping. But international law also permits nations to conduct law enforcement activities in their territorial waters, such as inspections. Finland and Estonia each have the right to inspect each and every ship passing through its waters.
I think the pilot requirement some are suggesting is a non-starter. But inspections, especially of “suspicious” ships, could put a real kink in Russian economic activity in St. Petersburg. It’s not a blockade, since Finland and Estonia would allow inspected ships to continue their voyages.
With regards as to the type of inspections, the Finish (and Estonian, Swedish, Danish, Latvian, and Lithuanian) coastguard wouldn’t only be looking for criminal activity. They should also be equipment inspections to insure that the the inspected ships are seaworthy, mechanically sound, and safe for crew members. Such inspections can take quite a long time . . .
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Please, you’re overstating what will happen to these victims, changing the narrative so that you’re the victim. And in your narrative, the brown people are still a threat, despite your “not all” qualification. Did the Japanese Americans cruelly and unjustly imprisoned in concentration camps by the U.S. government become terrorists? No, not even just a few. How many Black Americans that suffered under slavery became terrorists after the Civil War? I seem to remember it was Southern whites that engaged in terrorism after they became the losers.
Isn’t it enough that these children are suffering horrible trauma and will go through life with this damage, done in our name? Let’s talk instead about how we will rectify this crime, how we will render justice on the criminals, and how we will help the victims. We start with removing the criminal-in-chief this Tuesday.
I’m sorry to be critical of your comment, but speaking as the child of a victim of government institutional racism, I can’t let your comment pass unchallenged. Don’t recast yourself as a victim, even a potential one, when the REAL victims are still being intentionally and cruelly hurt.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@someguyfromarcticfreezer6854 Because Putin has banned the Russian people from using Facebook and other social media, almost all Russians still posting on any social media are trolls from the GRU troll farms, getting paid (in worthless rubles) in this Russian disinformation campaign. The greatest threat to Putin at the moment is losing control of his own country. What these trolls of Russian disinformation need to realize is that their identities will be revealed and they will be held to account by the free world. The same goes for those operating outside the Soviet Union, I mean Russia.
Right now, the Russian people are being cut off from the internet by their own government. Soon, they will be cut off from the internet completely by the West, tired of the disinformation, wary of cyber attacks, and eager to impose more economic damage on the Oligarchs. It’s up to the Russian people to resist Putin’s kleptocracy.
The Ruble is worth less than toilet paper. The Russian Trolls are effectively working for free. They, like everyone else in Russia, will face shortages of consumer goods and food. The ruble will be worth even less on the black markets, while the oligarchs and their underlings hoard hard currency—dollars, euros, and gold. How ironic that dollars and euros will soon become the Russian people’s medium of exchange. They’ll be paying a dollar for a potato due to food shortages and they will have Putin to thank for it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
They’re not targeting the farmers, they’re targeting the farm. If you’re working in the building that day, it sucks to be you.
The blurry line is between international networks of activists and state sponsored farms. Or what about offshore contractors?
If I were red teaming Ryan, there’s some pretty obvious responses.
1) Work from home
2) put your troll farm/active measures facility in a third country
3) put it in the target country
Number 1 changes the math of collateral and unwanted damage. It introduces a lot more potential for blowback. Number 2 presents a diplomatic problem. If Russia puts its troll farms in China or India, the diplomatic consequences outweigh the intended result. And what if Russia is not operating the troll farms but is contracting the work to a third party? Number 3 presents a different set of problems. Maybe Russia contracts with a viral marketing firm operating out of Florida. There no way you can target them kinetically, and you’d have trouble shutting them down legally. Depending on how stacked the Supreme Court remains, you probably won’t be able to shut them down. Trolling and misinformation can still be considered protected speech.
As far as targeting individuals (which Ryan is not talking about), I have a solution. It’s called “rendition”. In this scenario, Team Ryan kidnaps the individual, spirits them to Guantanamo, and a tribunal decides their guilt or innocence. 😂
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
@hohenzollern6025 You’re ignoring some key facts. The set of “jobs only humans can do” is shrinking. Perhaps economic growth has masked this fact, but what happens if the global economy enters a long period of shrinkage?
With regard to finding technicians to operate the means of production, the socialists would say, “there are always people willing to work for altruistic motives” (or perhaps for the fun of it). The capitalists might say some people will be willing to work for more than the UBI if there is still a profit motive. And a cynic might say, in either case, there are plenty of people who will seek power, advantage and ways to manipulate the system for their benefit, and they will take over whichever system you put in place. Just like always.
The real question is not “Are humans 100% replaceable?” The questions are do we need to restructure society? How should we do it?
Also, Hard AI is probably impossible, so you needn’t worry about skynet or your Abominable intelligence war. What we call AI is a tool, a human prosthetic.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@optimusprime4443 Don’t bring up 2016, or the snowflakes will start whining how we didn’t immediately bow down and worship their unAmerican Idol. They seem to not know that EVERY President faces disgruntled people whose candidate lost. Dems were unhappy about Regan, George HW Bush, and Bush. Republicans were unhappy about Clinton and Obama. All of these presidents sought to unite us after their elections, while maintaining the wisdom that they couldn’t please everyone all the time. But the Trumper snowflakes are still bent out of shape that we didn’t all rush out to kiss the ass of the most divisive President we’ve seen in decades. (There’s been no one as divisive in my lifetime, anyway.)
FWIW, I voted for Reagan, George HW, Dole, George W, Obama, and I held my nose and voted for Hillary. And hell yes, I voted for Biden.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The imminent threat is open to interpretation. Would your mind change if the shooter was a woman? The shooter’s name is Nikki.
The truth is, there’s a lot we don’t know about the circumstances. But based on what we can see in the video, this woman’s legal justification seems stronger than that of Kyle Rittenhouse. Judging the body language and who is yelling the loudest, the woman appears calm and the burly dude with tattoos on his neck seems overly angry about being asked to move his car.
If you think Rittenhouse was justified, it’s hard to see why you wouldn’t think this woman wasn’t also justified. But again, more evidence will come out from the police investigation. I think with young Mr. Rittenhouse, the jury got it right, even though there was evidence that he went out there looking for trouble and that he technically had illegal possession of his rifle.
With regard to the judge and the bond, odds are the judge was appointed by a conservative governor. We’re talking about Texas. Also if the prosecutor felt strongly that the woman was a risk, he might have convinced the judge not to grant a bond. In matters of risk, judges are more likely to side with the prosecutor. The probability here is that the woman has a clean record while the shooting victim has a criminal record.
Honestly, if you are an advocate for Stand Your Ground laws, it’s surprising that you’d rush to judgement against this woman.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@LuvBorderCollies On the whole, I agree, although the reality is not so clear cut. Yes, it was a blunder that led to great tragedy for both the U.S. and especially Vietnam.
So here are two factors that muddy the waters, that I know of. Ho Chi Minh was educated in Paris, were he became a communist. This wasn’t a secret, even if the Viet Minh tended to downplay it—the V.M. identified as a nationalist organization, not a communist cause. It was a coalition independence movement.
Second factor is the short period of British control before the French could return in force. The British were very short handed, and were also tasked with guarding Japanese POWs waiting to be repatriated to Japan. So the British armed the Japanese POWs and set them to work against their former allies, the Viet Minh. That was the betrayal that preceded the Haiphong Incident.
But on the whole, we (the U.S.) fell short of our own ideals, we lost opportunities to help new allies achieve their independence, and thereby suffered and caused others to suffer.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@captainalex157 This comment addresses the original comment and some of your reply.
Jim Baker, U.S. Secretary of State under Reagan, made an agreement with Gorbachev, an exchange of assurances. The U.S. wouldn’t support nations on Russia’s border joining NATO, but neither would the USSR use violence and aggression to put down their independence. The agreement wasn’t one-sided, it was mutually beneficial. (And let’s note that while Baker didn’t represent NATO in these talks, the U.S. could veto or delay admittance into NATO, as can any NATO member.)
Yeltsin and later Putin broke this agreement, first in 1994. As a result, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were admitted in 1999. The Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania were added in 2004, again as a result of Russian aggression against an independence movement.
What you call provocation is the response to Russian provocation. Look at the historical context.
Also, fifteen nations, not twenty, have become NATO members since the fall of the Soviet Union, Finland being the last of the fifteen, but others applying or signaling their desire to join.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You need to specify which law it breaks if you want to claim it is illegal, Ivan.
Russia is targeting these types of cluster munitions against Ukrainian civilians from day one of this conflict. I consider that to be immoral to the point of criminality. If used against soldiers, that’s fair game. There’s a valid use of a weapon, and an invalid use when you target civilians. Ukraine could potentially commit war crimes against Russian civilians with these weapons. We can judge that if it comes up. But we know that Russia has already been committing many war crimes on civilians since 24 February, 2022, from firing artillery and missiles on apartment buildings and shopping centers, to torture, rape, and murder of civilians in Russian occupied areas, mass kidnapping of children, firing on refugees trying to escape from battle areas, and soon.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I hope Kamala Harris spells out what she’s talking about a little more, because it’s not clear what her proposed solution is. You don’t know for certain that she doesn’t mean government fixing prices, or prosecuting collusion by businesses that are fixing prices artificially high, or something else. I hope she isn’t talking about price caps, but I don’t know.
I’m also suspicious with the “$25,000 for down payments”. She hasn’t spelled out how it’s going to work, but it just seems like a bad idea in general.
But I’ll tell you what. I’m still voting for her, and if she doesn’t go into detail until after she’s inaugurated, I’m still voting for her. If she does go into detail, and I don’t like the details, I’m still voting for her. I’m pretty sure I’m not going to like her policies, but, you got it, I’m still voting for her. We can wrangle over the policies once she’s in office.
I do think it’s a good thing that she is broadly staking out her policies, though. That gives me confidence that she’s upfront and not a weasel.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I don’t think it’s some big government conspiracy. An official government agency is a bureaucracy, and even in an emergency there is a certain amount of inertia. Those pushing a big pharma conspiracy are going well beyond known facts: we know that the major pharmaceutical companies engage in shady marketing, but there is no proof whatsoever that Fauci and those working with him have ever received any “incentives”.
Also, it’s not like vitamin supplements isn’t a big business, either. They avoid making direct extravagant claims (although they pay others to suggest benefits of their supplements), and they don’t pay for major gold standard testing that might disprove their supplements hinted-at efficacy.
Also, make of this what you will: over the past couple of years, the “wellness community”, those practitioners and adherents of alternative medicine, have merged with Q Anon. The basis seems to be an irrational hatred and distrust of the government. There are rational reasons to not always put our complete faith in the government, but this cult is a rabbit hole of delusion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Two separate thoughts come to mind. One is that there are billionaires who recognize the absurdity of the taxes they pay, and are favor of increasing taxes for their level of wealth. I recall Warren Buffet pointing out that he pays less in taxes than his Secretary.
The second is that ANYONE who has become rich from the tech sector did so because of early government support during the Cold War. All the early startups received funding, contracts, and research grants, and these strategic subsidies continued for several succeeding generations of startups. We’re talking about the development of integrated circuits, shrinking transistors, telecommunication networks (including the internet), all on the government dime in whole or in part.
Besides the pre-existing infrastructure Musk needs for his current businesses, his entire fortune (mostly from eBay) wouldn’t have been possible without government supporting the early tech startups during the Cold War (and indeed up to this day, although to a lesser extent).
Like many other leaders in business and politics, Musk demonstrates a selfish childishness that seems only interested in taking while denying any responsibility to give. People like him want to suck all the milk from society’s teat, leaving none for the rest of society. Any value he has as an engineer or innovative mind is diminished by his narcissistic impulses.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I’ve never seen that show, but it’s kind of weird to me that “taking the fifth” has become normalized. Maybe it’s the zeitgeist, maybe it’s having just watched taped depositions of Trump cronies like Michael Flynn invoking their Fifth Amendment rights not to self-incriminate when asked the most basic questions, like about the peaceful transition of power between presidents. (I found it bizarre that he refused to answer such a no-brained question that boils down to, “do you believe in the basic principles of America”.)
But politics aside, it seems bizarre to me that “taking the fifth”, with all its criminal implications, has become a stand in for “none of your business”. What does this mean? On one hand, it suggests that we have a right to delve into the personal matters of other people, that they have no right to privacy. That’s troubling. More troubling is that criminality has become normalized as a behavior, that it’s a private matter and OK as long as the criminal isn’t caught. Or maybe I’m reading too much into this.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The testimony about the ex President’s behavior wasn’t completely shocking because we already had an idea about his lack of decorum, his temper, and overweening egoism. However, what we didn’t know about was his lack of self control, his inability to control his urges and regulate his behavior. Before the testimony, I might have thought that “spoiled petulant child” was true figuratively. His behavior and thinking has always been like a misbehaving child of four years of age. It was his motivating spirit. But it IS a little shocking to learn it was literally true, that his tantrums were literally tantrums and not just yelling at his subordinates.
If it was just yelling and slamming doors, that would be one thing. Not acceptable, but within the realm of a misbehaving ADULT. But the dish throwing, the grabbing at the steering wheel while someone was driving is different. It’s the behavior someone with less self control than a toddler that needs a nap.
No wonder the Pentagon’s Chief of Staff called the various commanders wrt to the nukes and delaying possible orders to attack other countries. When I heard about that, I thought, “that sounds like a little much, possibly erring on the side of caution”.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I applaud your maintaining safe distances from trucks, regardless of your motive. Honestly, respecting the size and mass of trucks, their blind spots, and the longer stopping distances makes the world a better place in a concrete way.
That said, this free-dumb convoy was populated by a small and dim witted subset of truckers that are having trouble finding work during a period of low unemployment. That should tell us all we need to know, regardless of who or what they blame for their troubles. These are the non-hacker adult babies unable to make adjustments to all the bullshit life throws at them, so they come up with fake grievances (that many of them sincerely believe).
But if they want to drive around, park, and have a camp out before driving off again the next morning, let ‘em. Call it a Loserpalooza, but if they’re enjoying themselves and not getting up to anything no good, there’s no real harm. And I applaud them for having the sense not to drive into the Capitol.
To be honest, what’s going on in Ukraine puts their dumb bullshit in perspective and highlights how childish they are. I’m not even in the mood to laugh at them. At best they will be a question in the 2045 edition of Trivial Pursuit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Of course there are, but note that Pete himself says he doesn’t know what Chinese collapse will look like, because the scale is unprecedented. When Pete makes these predictions, he’s looking at what the data is telling him about trends. When he gets into hard-to-predict territory and the unknown, he favors the worse case scenario as his best guess.
He is pretty bold with his predictions in general, but when there is uncertainty he says so. When there is more certainty on something, he gets specific—like his prediction that the collapse will begin by 2030 or earlier is specific. (And part of my enjoyment of Pete’s presentations is that he is willing to go out on a limb.)
Anyway, Pete’s strength and expertise, is demographic/economic analysis (let’s call it population, industrial and energy, and food inputs to an economy). He’s less strong in other aspects of geopolitics (imho) but is conversant in those aspects. Watch this video again (it’s worth it and not too long) and watch carefully for his specific claims and for his uncertainty. Pete often sounds over confident (and it’s true that he sometimes gets out of his specific lane), but he’s pretty clear about where he is certain and where he is uncertain.
And let me throw something out there. What if contraction of the global economy and the economic collapse of major countries IS the optimistic best case scenario?😮
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ben Dover The good old S/M defense? To win, you’d probably have to show a history of engaging in the hobby of S/M. Let’s look at a case of suspected domestic abuse. It’s not unheard of for the victim of the abuse to defend the abuser—there are laws on the books that allow prosecution anyway although such cases can be very difficult to win if the witness doesn’t cooperate.
There are also going to be situations where the victim has been intimidated into claiming there was consent in an ordinary assault. This could apply to the domestic abuse and the S/M situation, too. I don’t know for a fact, but I think one factor would be the level of injury. Visible marks, cuts, and scrapes would be one level. Broken bones, fractures, and the like would be a more serious level.
I think that in some situations, prosecutors would bring charges against the top for S/M activities if they resulted in serious bodily injuries, such as fractured or broken bones, even if the bottom claimed consent. They would be looking at circumstantial evidence as well as victim/witness testimony. Investigators might ask the neighbors if there was a history of domestic fighting. There might be hospital records from previous incidents.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There’s really too many enthralled Republican voters, not to mention the opportunistic or cowardly politicians that enable Trump for their own craven purposes. The GOP’s time as a party representing decent people has passed, and the sooner decent people realize this and leave it, the better for them and the better for America. It can be hard to let go, and there are a few bravely trying to take back their party, but I fear it’s past saving. Let’s say they’re successful for the sake of argument. What have you got? How do you pull people back from their support of white supremacy/nationalism when the bright line has been crossed? Let’s say you manage to get the racists and those comfortable with supporting racists to leave the GOP. What then? The GOP will be a rump party, with a fraction of its power nationally.
I think it’s far better for conservatives to register without any party affiliation, or, if their region would support it, back “moderate conservative” Democrat candidates. It might be the only way to wrest control of government (including state and local) from the fascists.
Perhaps at some point it will be possible for conservatives to form a new political party, but this is no easy thing to organize. Again, you’re looking at doing it on the regional, state, and local levels.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
@johmyh14 Thank you for saying it. There are all sorts of quacks out there, some of them chiropractors. Many legitimate chiropractors work with orthopedic surgeons, so I don’t dismiss the field entirely. Generally, these are chiropractors that subordinate their knowledge and experience to established medicine. They don’t make extraordinary claims they can’t support. (Generally, they don’t make claims at all, they just perform their work according to the doctor’s instructions). From my experience, after being referred to an orthopedic specialist by a neurologist, the orthopedist sent me to a chiropractor for 6 visits, and then three months of physical therapist. He had a list of recommended PTs and Chiropractors in my town, and said that if I wanted someone else, to check with him first. He said he was not receiving referral fees from anyone.
A telltale sign is if a chiropractor bills himself or herself as the equivalent of a medical doctor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidmahoney4678 I’m glad to hear you survived and will hopefully continue to recuperate. My landlord got it in April. Elderly, but in great health for his age. He survived it, but is still very weak and tires easily. After he was released from the hospital, he went to recover in his son’s house and is still there.
This is a man who used to come personally to pick up the rent and see how his tenants were doing. I’d invite him in and we’d chat over refreshments for a half hour or so. He’s a retired teacher of high school mathematics, very active socially, and very much mentally active. He’s taken up guitar in the nine years I’ve known him. He paints as a hobby (terrible paintings, but don’t tell him I said it!). When my stairs needed repair, he showed up with bags of cement, sand, and gravel and did the repair himself. I could tell he just wanted to get his hands dirty! He’s just a marvelous person, and I really hope he makes a full recovery soon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@terrysullivan1992 Use of tactical nukes by Russia actually fortifies the Western alliance, whereas Russia wants to weaken the unity of the West, decrease cooperation, and drive wedges between the Western democracies. (I use “West” as an institutional democracy descriptor, not geographical.) Russia doesn’t want to face additional sanctions, nor does it want direct military confrontation with NATO forces, whether in Ukraine or other places of our choosing.
Or at least we hope that Russia wants to avoid these consequences. So let us consider the tactical benefits of using tactical nukes. If used offensively, tactical nukes help with breakthroughs. If used defensively, tactical nukes are good for destroying troop concentrations. Tactical nukes are good against infrastructure targets. But in none of these cases will a tactical nuke deliver a knock out blow.
So let us hope that Russia maintains some operational rationality, no matter how psycho its internal politics get, because there is no rational reason for Russia to use a tactical nuke.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is a lie. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Miley’s sworn testimony is the exact opposite of your claim. Sec Def Chris Miller’s testimony contradicts your claim. In fact, Trump had JUST fired SecDef Esper and replaced him with Chris Miller. On January 3rd, Trump ordered Miller to make sure the demonstrators would be PROTECTED. On January 4th, Miller made the unusual order that the National Guard QRF (Quick Reaction Force) couldn’t be deployed without orders going through the chain of command, i.e., through him. Nor could they deploy with riot gear. They couldn’t even respond to any emergency carrying weapons, per his orders.
He authorized a small force of NG that were assigned to directing traffic in the DC area, with orders that they couldn’t be redeployed without his permission.
I don’t think this is a case of your being misinformed, because this information is publicly available, and the source is Miller himself. This is a case of you lying, of intentionally trying to deceive people with disinformation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Elon Musk: an idiot savant that has had some outstanding luck that made him incredibly wealthy rather than just “ordinarily wealthy”. Aside from being lucky, his other main talent seems to be “having big ideas and finding the right people to execute those ideas.” He is lauded for being an engineering genius, but does little if any engineering.
His two biggest liabilities are some form of Asperger’s syndrome or autism (on the spectrum, as they say), and believing the hype about himself without self-awareness. He probably does think he can save Twitter, as he believes that every problem can be solved with engineering and that he’s the man for it because he’s the world’s greatest engineering genius.
Twitter: It’s never turned a profit. In 2021 it lost $221 Million (an improvement over the nearly $4 Billion it lost over the preceding three years). Elon Musk might hasten Twitter’s demise, but if it has not managed a profit in its 16 years of operation, its demise seems inevitable.
If Twitter serves an important public utility, it should probably be owned and operated by a non-profit NGO. Maybe Jack Sparrow, sorry, I mean Jack Dorsey, should round up some benevolent billionaires and recreate Twitter as a non-profit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stovedmatt5514 It’s ambiguous at best, and even if it was a white flag, it doesn’t mean a buttoned up tank commander can see it through the smoke. Even from our better view from above, it looks like a piece of white fabric stuck on a tree branch.
It’s too bad, but you don’t always get to surrender in the middle of a fight. You don’t get to call time out while someone is shooting at you. If you didn’t take the opportunity immediately after the shooting started, you’re just going to have to hold onto your ass until after and hope you survive long enough to surrender.
The smartest thing a Russian soldier can do is surrender at the first opportunity. It’s patriotic, too, as he’ll be able to help his country after it loses to Ukraine. Right now, the Russian soldier is throwing away his own life while helping Putin throw away the well being of Russia.
Speaking of “the Russian soldier” what was the deal with the lone soldier returning to the trench? Was he a one man OP or just out taking a crap? Or is a soldier taking a crap considered to be a one man OP? Fart twice, really loudly, if you see them coming.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It’s not going to happen. The cofounders of the Lincoln Project have said as much. Almost all have renounced the GOP and registered as independent; I think it’s down to one stubborn soul who remains a Republican (Michael Steele), who refuses to let the fascists redefine the Republican Party—a quixotic endeavor, but I have to respect him.
As far as a multiple party system, I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it’s much easier to say it than to do it. Who will organize these parties? Around whom will these parties rally?
Personally, the solution I will follow is to support Democratic candidates against Republican ones until the GOP is a smoking pile of rubble. I plan to stay registered independent, but that is subject to change if a conservative faction of the Democratic Party reconstitutes itself. If you believe all Democrats are liberals and all liberals are evil, you’ve been lied to. If you equate social safety nets with socialism, you’re ignorant. If you don’t believe conservatives, liberals, and progressives can’t find common ground to forge solutions to the problems we face, you’re trapped in an ideology, not faithful to your principles.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
GTO here. My landlord got it last spring. He is still very weak and mostly bedridden. Several other conocidos died in early summer. Last month, the family that owns the tienda around the corner from me got it. 4 people in that family died. As soon as I heard this news, I’ve basically cut off all face to face social connection with everyone save my ahijada who is my helper, and runs errands for me. Even there, I know it’s a risk. I’ve gone outside twice in the last month to the store or farmacia.
After the family with the tienda got sick, I haven’t heard of anyone else in our street, but I’m taking it for granted that people in the neighborhood got infected in the store and have infected their families, etc.
I’ve heard nothing about vacunas, and who is getting them, nor of testing. I check the GTO website, but it’s the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@baronknownot780 I love the work of Tolkien, disliked them Bakshi adaptation, I loved the Jackson LOTR movies, but was very meh on the Hobbit movies, which were sort of entertaining taken on their own but quite lame within the context of the entire mythos that Tolkien had created.
Rings of Power bored me nearly to death halfway through episode 3. That’s why I hate it. It took material I loved and made it boring. A lot of people will complain about the Galadriel character being unsympathetically singleminded, a murder hobo, or whatever. But Galadriel is just a symptom.
The real problem is the writing is crap, and the reason that the writing is crap is that the show runners don’t really know how to tell a story. They think they have a formula, but all they’ve managed to create (in me, at least) is boredom.
I could go on in great detail about their storytelling failures, but I won’t. My bottom line is I don’t want to waste my valuable time being bored if I can help it. Two and a half episodes is enough time to capture my imagination or involve me emotionally with the characters. The hobbit-ish people’s subplot almost got me to entertainment town, but couldn’t overcome the wearying crap of the rest of the show.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CollectiveDefence Yes. GOSPLAN was originally (1921) constituted as an advisory board to plan Lenin’s implementation of the New Economic Policy (NEP) which was more or less a set of liberal market based reforms. As a side note, this was a bone of contention between Trotsky and Stalin, with Trotsky representing more radical views contrary to Leninism. Stalin continued Lenin’s economic policies until 1928, when he broke from Lenin’s NEP and, under GOSPLAN’s interventions, began the collectivization of Soviet agriculture, industry, and the beginning of forced labor as an economic prop. Under Stalin, GOSPLAN created the infamous 5-Year Plan and its quota system.
You might already be aware of the resulting deaths from GOSPLAN’s collectivization efforts, including the notorious Holodomor Ukraine, but not limited to it. You might also be aware of GOSPLAN’s reliance on GULAG to meet the Five Year Plan quotas, a reliance that led to ever greater repressions under Stalin to feed more bodies into the forced labor system. This is my concern about the rumor that GOSPLAN is being reactivated as Russia moves to a “militarized” economy. It goes hand and hand with the formation of a totalitarian society from an authoritarian one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That’s going to depend on local and state consumer protections and building regulations. For example, the NEC (national electrical code) is more of a set of guidelines, periodically updated. It’s up to county and state governments to implement these guidelines. The federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction over local building regulations. Ultimately, it’s up to the voters. Unfortunately, we live in a time where government regulation and consumer protections are equated with communism, and voters are swayed by emotional extremist arguments. Conservative politicians that look out for the little guy are smeared as RINOs.
Your point can also be applied to the buyers, who are making these purchases without doing their homework. I don’t know about you, but I’d want to be an educated buyer if hundreds of thousands of dollars are on the line. I can hear people saying, “But how is the consumer supposed to know? I’m not a lawyer, how am I to decipher the legalese in the contract or warranty?”. If you’re spending that sort of money, you damn well better educate yourself, from building codes to the basics of contract law. Or hire a competent inspector and competent lawyer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Pelosi dropped their ask by a trillion in late summer, McConnel’s response was to drop his demand from 900 billion to 500 billion, AND THEN COULDN’T GET IT PASSED in the Senate, even though he had a majority. (You can’t blame Senate Democrats for blocking the “skinny bill” if the Senate Republicans are in disarray.)
So at this point in the negotiations (just over a month ago) , the Democrats and the Treasury Secretary negotiate a deal of 1.8 trillion. To sum up, the Dems have dropped their ask from 2.9 trillion to 2.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion, and cut out their questionable demands not directly related to COVID relief. McConnell’s response has been to offer even less, the very opposite of compromise and negotiation.
Currently, a bipartisan Senate group has negotiated a compromise of 900 billion. Pelosi is amenable. McConnell is dismissing it, but has no workable alternative to show us. To be honest, I don’t think McConnell has enough buy in from his own party, so he’s stalling.
And the Democrats are being blamed? In what hyperpartisan bizarro world are the freaking Democrats to blame for obstructing a deal? Let’s be honest here. The Republican Congressional leadership is obstructing Covid relief.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Erin-Thor I’ve always believed that many Democratic politicians were, if not criminal, ethically challenged. They were not above lying when it suited them.
After the past four years, they cannot hold a candle to the venality, criminality, and dishonesty of the GOP. Dems seem like choirboys (or girls) in comparison. Dems might spin the truth or lie to save their skins, but Republicans lie as a matter of course, as naturally as they breath. It’s almost as if their whole purpose and agenda is to lie—lying shamelessly is the point of having political power.
So, yeah. This conservative voter will take a flawed Democratic Party over a fascist GOP. Even if one believes both parties are equally corrupt, there is an important difference. The GOP is anti-Democracy, not just anti-Democratic Party. For all its warts and defects, the Democratic Party still supports American Democracy. I’m not going to register as a Democrat. But I cannot vote for a GOP candidate so long as the National Leadership is trying to tear down democracy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is no anti-viral mechanism in ivermectin that would make it useful for combatting COVID-19. None at all. It is a neurotoxin used to treat parasites such as worms and lice. Lower doses attack the nervous systems of the parasites while not normally having an adverse effect on humans.
It is approved for human use in many countries as an anti parasitical treatment, not as an antiviral, and to reel of countries where it is used is highly misleading. It’s disinformation. Some countries, in desperate straits, initially approved its use as an experimental antiviral, but have now rescinded that approval.
In summary, there is no scientific reason why ivermectin would work, and the evidence for its effectiveness is, being very generous, incomplete. If there is some unknown mechanism at work, it’s unknown and probably magical.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If it flies, floats, etc, it’s also cheaper to buy used. I’d still avoid high maintenance models, though.
For the guy who mentioned motorcycles, every year thousands of guys who fantasized about having a motorcycle their whole lives buys a bike only to realize the reality doesn’t match their expectations. This is why there’s tons of good deals on used bikes, even ones that are recent models.
And during economic downturns, the motorcycle is the first thing to go. The dentist that lost money on the stock market or the worker who has his OT cut both face belt tightening. The easiest luxury toy to liquidate is that bike they bought new but hardly used.
There’s also seasonal variations in those parts of the country that have “real winters”. Spring, Summer, and Fall are the riding seasons. The beginning of winter is (on average) the best time to buy a bike.
If I wanted to rent a motorcycle (say for the summer), I’d buy one used and then sell it when I was done. The “rental cost” is the difference between the buy price and the sell price. You might even break even. You might even make a profit. If the bike is already used, the depreciation should already be built in to the price.
I suspect the above rules of thumb hold true for RVs. People buy them new, are disappointed, and then are willing to unload them at the end of summer, even if they haven’t had any problems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aboertmann This election gave me a better opinion of Bernie Sanders than 2016 did. He really went to battle for Biden. He did it enthusiastically.
I’ll be honest with you: I’m right-of-center, what used to be called conservative before that word got twisted. Normally, I would not support Sanders on progressive policy (which I assume, you do support). Take medical care, as an example. We’ve done things the conservative way for years and it didn’t work. ACA sort of worked, but was impeded by the GOP. I don’t know if adding a public option to ACA would be better than M4A or the other way around, but I’m willing to listen.
The point is, because we’ve joined together to battle the anti-democratic forces of Trumpism/GOP fascism, we owe it to each other to hear one another out and to keep an open mind. Even with Trump on his way out the door, the battle is far from over. Let’s keep fighting together in Georgia, in 2022, 2024, and beyond.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Someone posted a comment that got deleted that asked TGA to discuss “hyper nationalism” and Banderas. I wrote a reply but could not post it due to the comment being deleted. Here it is:
In any case, it seems that Putin’s “de-Nazification” of Ukraine was a pure pretext for a criminal invasion, unless one believes that children, mothers, fleeing refugees, the homes, hospitals, churches, museums, etc. are all Nazi and must be destroyed. Putin’s campaign is revealed to be the total destruction of a nation and a people. To judge by the actions and not the lying words, Putin believes that the very existence of Ukrainian people is an expression of Naziism. He’s demonstrated to the world what his “final solution of the Ukrainian Nazi Problem” will be.
Whether Bandera is a Nazi or not is irrelevant at this juncture, because Putin has defined Naziism as anything that stands in his way. Banderas can be debated after Putin’s army is thrown out of Ukraine (or after WWIII if it comes to it).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I don’t think I’d want to purchase a home in a HOA community, but I think that (probably) the majority of them aren’t that bad. We hear about the nightmares, not the well run HOAs. However, I wouldn’t want to get locked into even a well run HOA because you never know what might happen in the future.
My parents bought a vacation beach house in an HOA, and AFAIK they never had problems. It was going to be their retirement home someday. But when my mom died, my dad sold it. It was less than a mile inland on a terraced hill with a great view of the Pacific Ocean. There was a private parking lot near the beach, but we kids usually just walked on the footpaths that wound through the community.
I have no idea what the monthly fee was, but it couldn’t have been cheap. The HOA took care of all the front yards, the aforementioned footpaths, the community center, and the security guards.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The crew safety complaint had to do with short turn around/long days and having to drive an hour home on dark mountain roads. The production had promised hotel rooms and reneged. The D.P. (the one later killed) had tried to negotiate on behalf of her crew, even bargaining away rental equipment (I think a crane) so production could stay in budget. I think concerns were expressed about the A.D., but that had nothing to do with the camera department walking.
If you’ve worked on low budget productions as I have, you know just how sloppy some producers are, how much they cut corners, and in some cases, how they cheat their crew. You might also know the difference between the good type of control freak AD that keeps things moving, and the type that pushes the crew too hard, safety be damned.
Maybe you’ve heard this old joke about producers: Two producers are walking down the street and they walk by a beautiful woman. After they pass, one says, “I’d like to screw her!” To which the other replies, “Out of what?”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@frf5000 There is one person at the top of the chain of command, who is the top civilian executive as well as the commander in chief of the armed forces. That person, the President, CAN send our country to war intentionally or unintentionally. However, it’s also true that Presidents have consulted with others and build some sort of consensus before doing so.
So your technically wrong. But the person you replied to, M Vega, is a dummy with no clue about how our constitutional government is supposed to work and has worked for over two centuries, and why we chose an executive branch distinct from the legislative branch back when the constitution was written.
He’s basically saying, “Isn’t anybody troubled that we have an elected leader, rather than a politburo? Gosh, I sure am!”
Going back to your being technically wrong, you’re also sort of right in practice. As I said, an American President has the authority. But that doesn’t mean he has absolute power. In a democracy it’s not enough to give an order, you have to have competent people willing to execute that order. If an order is completely insane, they can block it long enough for you to be legally relieved of command.
Our President doesn’t have absolute power and we have safeguards. I think that might have been what you wanted to say.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Maybe I’m all wet, but I thought the main purpose of The Lincoln Project was to reach conservative voters, not coddle liberal voters or provide liberals with a platform to berate conservatives. Maybe I’m wrong about this. Of course, you’re free to do whatever you want, even attack Murkowski.
Honestly, though, you’ve got an opportunity here to persuade us when we’re at our most persuadable. It’s highly doubtful you’ll convert us into liberal Democrats, but you might pull us closer to the center. You might convince us on particular issues. At the end of the day, you and are are a lot closer in our world view than any of us are with Trump, his minions, and his deplorable supporters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Russia voluntarily leaves Ukraine or is ejected by force of arms, the nuclear problem remains—Russia’s criminal nuclear threats have not really been countered.
We’ve heard repeatedly that Putin is operating logically, but a logic based on a different ideology called “Russian Mir”.
It’s important that we understand that this ideology itself is irrational, delusional, and based on a weird belief system that Russia is pure and innocent, everyone else is evil, and Russia is destined to purify the world and destroy evil. When Putin or members of the Russian media say Ukraine is Satanic, it’s more than just hyperbolic propaganda.
I think the probability that Russia will use nukes is low, but it’s not zero. To the Kremlin, this is a religious crusade, a unification of the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church. We are dealing with fanatics on the same level as Islamic extremists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whutcat682 See, this is how I can tell you know zero about real estate financing. The 30-year fixed rate mortgage is what enabled many Americans to buy homes since the 1930s, while we were still recovering from a depression. Go look up Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and the National Housing Act of 1934. If your parents or grandparents own homes, it’s because government agencies encouraged lenders to make loans on such generous terms. Your inability to buy a home has nothing to do with 30-year terms. You can’t buy one because of two reasons: 1) you’re not making enough money, and 2) you don’t have a down payment. There’s also a possible third reason, that your credit is bad.
It’s a GOOD thing to have the cost of your home broken up into 360 manageable payments rather than 120 less manageable payments that are almost 3x higher. Or worse, paying the interest for 10 years and a balloon payment at the end.
You have my sympathy. Because house prices are so high, it’s extremely difficult for many Americans to get financing for houses. But if you ever want to be a homeowner, you better learn basic financial math (like why a 30-year mortgage is better than a 10 year mortgage). And you should avoid showing off your ignorance about finance. A closed mouth catches no flies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I quite agree with you, and I’ll go further.
The “fall” of the Western Roman Empire was a slow process. Although there was a significant breakdown in the empire’s government and a reduction in trade, Roman society didn’t disappear.
It’s important to note that in the centuries before the fall, Rome was already employing “barbarian” tribes in their armies, sometimes as discrete armies (large units) and sometimes as individual mercenaries. It’s hard to believe that the Germans and Gauls somehow forgot about logistics as Roman influence waned, while not forgetting about military engineering (as used in sieges and fortifications). The so-called barbarian tribes didn’t suddenly forget what they had learned from the Romans.
There is no doubt that following the political and economic breakdown, society became more primitive, more agrarian, less urban. Cities became depopulated, people moved to the countryside and engaged in subsistence farming. A new political/economic system arose from these changes. There was less material wealth to support learning and preservation of knowledge (but it did continue to a lesser degree), less wealth to support arts and other material aspects of an urban culture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the economy was your most important issue, you’d understand that the economy can’t begin to recover until the pandemic is controlled. If the Trump administration had taken decisive action from the start, we might already be at that point (and Trump would be winning). Testing, contact tracing, coordinated acquisition of PPE, social distancing, and ongoing stimulus and economic support needed to happen starting in March. Instead, the President hindered states efforts to control the pandemic, discouraged Americans from taking safety precautions, and pushed quack cures. He’s attacked and undermined his own health experts.
If you’re primarily concerned about the economy, it would be quite puzzling if you still supported Trump’s reelection. Trump still lacks a plan, still engages in irresponsible behavior that worsens the pandemic, and there is no sign that he will change his approach. If you’re a business owner, a vote for Trump is a vote for economic suicide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What she said was not overly complicated. Attending the rally/protest is not fireable. If the employee engaged in simple civil disobedience (such as peacefully entering the restricted area outside the building, sitting down, and peacefully waiting to be arrested), firing would be allowable, but a judgement call. It’s still a form of peaceful protest, even if it involves a minor violation. It’s called passive resistance, and a lot depends on the situation (quick example, occupying a sidewalk, vs occupying and blocking the freeway).
Pushing past the police (even if one didn’t attack them) is active resistance, and that crosses another line.
Not covered: There’s also the matter of statements made before, during, and after. Some employers would want to give a good employee the benefit of the doubt if they showed contrition, especially public contrition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It really depends on how they express themselves and whether those expressions make a combination more viable. A mutation that changes the color of the virus will not affect a variant that better fits the human receptor. (Yes, I know that’s s dumb example to you virus experts, but it seemed easier to visualize.) You still have a situation where the overwhelming majority of mutations are not going to combine to create a more virulent virus. In fact, I imagine that there is a limited group of genetic mutations that can, either alone or together, create more effective variants. And the fewer people providing themselves as “virus nurseries”, the fewer chances there are for a strain to mutate into a more effective strain, that will cause more infections, more etc.
In any case, it’s very important that we gain control now as much as possible. New variants will arise, probably are already out there undetected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have you ever read Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow? Not an easy read for most people, but if you can plow through military manuals, I don’t think it will give you any problems.
The title refers to the trajectory of the V2. “But it is a curve each of them feels, unmistakably. It is the parabola. They must have guessed, once or twice—guessed and refused to believe—that everything, always, collectively, had been moving toward that purified shape latent in the sky, that shape of no surprise, no second chance, no return.”
The novel is a twisting narrative, absurd and at times surreal. Have a look!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@themisanthropichumanist7050 Well, that’s the rub. This vessel was unique and deep water submersibles as a category are rare. There are no established safety protocols specific to this class of vessel and it’s not covered under the SOLAS convention. It’s only AFTER tragedies that protocols are created or adapted, and until you have a protocol, you don’t really have a basis for a checklist.
Whine all you want about capitalism and putting the almighty dollar ahead of safety, but safety standards are even worse in communist countries. I’ll take 5 deaths from experimental technology and an overall better workplace safety record, thank you.
If there were shenanigans such as misleading passengers, I mean, paying crew members, that will come out in the investigation and subsequent law suits—but keep in mind that the person who is ultimately responsible was himself on the Titan and is now beyond earthly justice. It’s also going to be hard to determine if the deceased paying crew members were fully cognizant of the risks or not, because they’re not around to tell us what they knew before signing release forms and boarding the vessel.
A full inquiry will answer some of these questions, but probably not all questions with 100% certainty. And once the inquiry/investigation is complete and a report issued, there will be a better basis for setting up a safety framework for these types of vessels, so they can be registered, certified, and inspected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@koltoncrane3099 It’s a quandary, isn’t it? I think the best we can do is to offset our participation with more participation. Do your elected representatives know your, Kolton Crane’s, feelings on the topic? This might sound corny, but have you ever written a letter to your congressperson or your state’s senators? Did you know that elected representatives’ staffers tally constituent opinions, and assign different weights depending on how you communicate your opinion? One snail mail letter is equal to 100 phone calls is equal to 1000 emails was the formula I was told. Or that one letter represents the views of 10,000 voters (don’t quote me on the number, but you get the idea). Nobody uses snail mail anymore, which makes it more effective.
I’m not saying that such activity wipes the slate clean, but it’s a start. We do what we can. Part of doing what we can is figuring out what to do. Another part is overcoming our natural tendency towards laziness.
I hope this helps. I’m doing what I can, but I’m not a saint or martyr. I hope you are also doing what you can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aw2031zap It’s relative. When he was in the Bush administration, he was the crazy war monger, even more so than Rumsfeld. When he was in the Trump administration, he was one of the cooler heads, a restraint on Trump. 🤷🏻♀️
As far as his competence, intelligence, ability, he’s second or third echelon (Schultz and Albright being in the first rank). You could call him a quack, which is to say he committed malpractice like an incompetent medical doctor. I think that’s a little harsh. I think he was in over his head in the Bush administration.
Personality-wise, he’s kind of a self-serving dirtbag. He was rude and brusque when pushing his opinion (following in the footsteps of Donald Rumsfeld), which made him well suited for the Trump administration. Anyway, there a lot to criticize. I think his war-mongering attitude was a pose which he had to drop when faced with a truly dumb superior and the stakes were higher.
Bolton is mediocre, but he was better than some of the fools that might have served in his position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CONald_is_A_false_Prophet Think about how you might feel if Trump were re-elected and things got so bad that you had to flee your country. The president of the nearby country to which you have fled tries to stage an invasion to take back the U.S. using U.S. exiles. At the last moment, as you and your countryman are on boats en route to the landing beaches, the president withdraws all support. You land on the beaches and most of your army of exiles is tortured and slaughtered by the Trump forces.
You survive and somehow make it back to your host country. Eventually, you become a citizen. Are you EVER going to trust the political party of the president that betrayed you? Probably not to your dying day.
Maybe it’s still not clear to you. My mother’s side of the family is Japanese American. My mother, my aunt, both my grandparents, and everyone else in the family living in California were imprisoned in concentration camps by a Democratic President. Until she died, my grandmother always voted Republican, never for a single Democrat because of what that Democratic president did to Japanese Americans. Do you get it how deep historical political animosity can go?
I want you to think about history a bit, and how you should learn some details about a group’s history before you might unintentionally insult them. If you understand their history, you’ll be in a better position to persuade them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jattnijjerable In case you didn’t see my answer to where you posted this question elsewhere, the way that the virus spreads is through micro droplets of moisture that comes from our lungs and mouths, from coughs, sneezes, and normal breathing. The virus is hitching a ride on these tiny droplets. It cannot really spread rapidly without these tiny vehicles.
This is where the masks come in. The mesh on a mask only needs to catch the micro droplets, which are bigger than the mesh. It’s like bollards stopping cars from entering certain areas. Now, your next intelligent question might be, well, why can’t the virus just get out of the car and walk through the bollards. It potentially can! This is why we must replace or cycle our masks. If you have two masks, alternate the days you wear them. Hang your mask taking the day off in a window where the UV rays from sunlight will kill the virus (don’t worry too much if you can’t, the virus doesn’t have a long shelf life outside the human body).
Hope this helps!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have an incredible investment opportunity for you all! 😉
Just kidding! On a more serious note, I was thinking early today how the phrase “taking the fifth” has entered the non-legal lexicon, to mean “that’s none of your business”, “that’s a private matter”, or just plain, “I’d prefer not to say or discuss it”. I find this worrying because it could be an indication that potentially criminal behavior is becoming normalized. Or information/answers that should be a matter of public record is being concealed.
Recently, the January 6th committee played a taped deposition of Michael Flynn taking the fifth when asked if he believed in “the peaceful transition of power, either morally or legally”. I found it pretty wild that either answer to that question, yes or no, could be self-incriminating. It wasn’t normal to me, but it at the same time seemed unsurprising these days for an official or ex-official to refuse to answer questions about basic American Democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Skank_and_Gutterboy I’d argue that you don’t need those administrative skills to be a lawyer, UNLESS it’s your practice. Does a law firm want all of its associates and partners to be able to run the firm? No, they want people to do the work for which they were hired. The managing partners might hire an office manager for day-to-day operations of a non-legal nature. They might hire a comptroller. But nobody else needs management skills (unless their duties require them). Administration and management skills are not a requirement to be a competent lawyer. Doing your job competently is a requirement (obviously).
The job of a district attorney is to represent “the people” in prosecuting crimes. If no crimes are being prosecuted, there’s a problem. If there are not enough prosecutors because the DA fired them, that’s incompetence. It’s like chopping your hands off. If you did that, you would not be competent to do any job that required the use of your hands.
Fortunately, the DA could have gotten new hands. Unfortunately, she chose not to or was unable to get new hands. That is incompetence to be an attorney. I bet that she’d still have her license if she had resigned and said, “I can’t do this job, this is too much responsibility, someone else take over,”.
I suspect the former-DA Manlove was some wacky conspiracy-believing right wing nutjob, and she got elected on that basis. It would be very interesting to see her work history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“We know COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing COVID-19 disease, especially severe illness and death.”
The idea is that vaccination will prevent the disease from getting a foothold in some (or most) people, and if it does get a foothold in some people, it will limit the severity. The variable is how quickly and strongly your immune system responds, should you get exposed to the virus. Vaccines do not protect you from exposure. No medication can do that. Masks, social distancing, social limitations, quarantines, washing, air filtration, etc. are the measures you can take to avoid exposure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I’m an American citizen abroad, watching conditions in the U.S. with something approaching horror. It seems that treating others, especially service workers, with decency and respect or the opposite, has become a political matter. It seems that to a certain mindset, waiters, cashiers, counter persons, medical workers, educators, etc., are the enemy who is imposing totalitarian rule.
I wish the above was tongue-in-cheek, but we’ve all seen the videos of Americans losing their minds when required to wear masks or get vaccinated. They might not represent a majority of Americans, but just that there are enough of them to constitute a movement is troubling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mantianh3339 The original goal was to replace Zelenskyy with a Putin Puppet, and since that utterly failed, the war has no other purpose but to kill people and cause destruction. They’re trying to define a new purpose based on the capabilities they have on hand, but they don’t seem to be allowing for Ukrainian capabilities or intentions.
So they’ve lost their purpose for the war, and have yet to find a new reason to be at war. Russia has reached the point of having a goal-less war. That’s pretty crazy.
But if we are to judge not by goals and intentions, but what is happening in the field, Russias goal is to commit war crimes, to kill, to destroy, and to steal food and kitchen appliances. Did you see that video? Russians are stealing kitchen appliances from houses, including refrigerators, putting them on trucks, and sending them back to Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun, fun, fun! After years and years of suffering through this insufferable man, we are beginning to get some satisfaction. He’s finally finally hit some limits on his clowning and is clowning himself. What makes these documents so great is that this is all self-inflicted. It’s all hubris. A year ago, he could have said, “Oopsie, sorry ‘bout that, here’s the records I inadvertently took.” And it would have gone away.
Another funny aspect is that this case is going to be the most clear cut in terms of prosecution. The laws are clear, the evidence is unambiguous. Nailing him for January 6th is nowhere near as clear and will be more difficult to prove.
Sure, he’d still have ALL the other legal issues he’s currently facing. But I think this is the one they will get him on first. (And regardless of which case resolves first, the documents case was the first to score a real hit. It’s finally shaken the base.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hate to say it, but aren’t the political leaders democratically elected? If so, they more or less reflect people who elected them, based on constitutions ratified by the people. If the people are electing politicians based on short sighted thinking and appeals to emotion, aren’t they getting what they wanted? It’s too easy to blame “the politicians” and conveniently forget who put them there.
I say this as a U.S. Citizen and all that implies. In 2016, we made our bed and we had to lay in that bed for the next four years, culminating in the nightmare of the pandemic. Time will tell if we made the right choice in 2020, but the point is that in a democracy, the ultimate responsibility rests with the voters. If voters are lazy, uneducated, and childish, they will get leaders with the same qualities.
There’s a very cynical H.L. Mencken quote about democracy that I can’t quite remember, the gist of which is that, in a democracy, the people get the leaders they deserve. But my point is, we must do better and we must work harder. No one ever told us that Democracy was easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) Going forward, getting a college education is going to require self discipline on the part of students. Sadly, the whole college party lifestyle will need to go away, be postponed, or needs to be heavily modified.
2) Colleges and universities that want to have physically attended classes should probably be operating as closed environments, cordoned off from the surrounding communities. If students live on campus, they should stay on campus. Faculty and admin will have to find a way to live on campus, or otherwise quarantine themselves from the surrounding community in some other way.
3) If a university or college doesn’t have the resources to isolate the school community from the surrounding community, they should stick to online learning.
This might sound extreme, but if education is important and not just 4 years of leisure prior to adulthood, it can be done and should be done. There are many students that would willingly sacrifice the “college lifestyle” to get a college education. It’s a matter of priorities. Those less serious about learning should find something else to do and somewhere else to go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deborahhebblethwaite1865 Yes, but it would be nice to avoid 10 million deaths, if possible. It’s far easier to take a cosmic view if you aren’t concerned for yourself or others (which I’m not accusing you of, btw). I get nosebleeds at that height.
My great grandmother died of the Spanish Flu, and this led to some terrible results and suffering for my grandmother and her sisters. But this also causes me to wonder, would I even be here if she hadn’t? Unanswerable, of course, more of a thought experiment.
So it’s quite possible that this Pandemic will turn out to be beneficial in some way in the long run, perhaps in some way that won’t be revealed for hundred or thousands of years. Or a hundred thousand years, if we last that long. I can’t really operate at those time scales, although I will admit it is interesting to read about how viruses have interacted with humans in the past and to wonder how they will in the future. In the meantime, we have the possibility of preventing deaths and minimizing suffering. Trusting in the universe, in nature, or in God doesn’t mean throwing in the towel.
If a cosmic view gives you serenity, great! Don’t let it turn into Nihilism, however.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@itsallminor6133 I’ll say this. Trump knows how to normalize a crazy or extreme idea. And I hate to ever admit Trump has a point, there are real reasons why it would be a good idea to colonize Greenland: climate change.
I’m assuming we’ve pretty much given up on halting, slowing, or controlling AGW. Greenland is going to increase in value exponentially as more habitable land and exploitable is uncovered by melting glaciers. Greenland becomes a very attractive target for expansionists countries. Trump just called first dibs. And if we can’t have it, no one else (other than the Greenlanders) gets it.
Similar logic for Canada, although it’s extremely, extremely unlikely that the U.S. will take over Canada or absorb it. I’m not saying it will never happen—Canada would see benefits. But the point is that Trump’s nutty ideas are forcing us to examine the U.S.-Canada relationship and the assumptions upon which it is based. And that could lead to positive change.
Personally, I think Canada, the U.S., and Mexico need greater economic cooperation and trade with each other, for security reasons as much as economic or any other reasons. Trumpian clownery and Trumpian chaos might actually accelerate the process of unifying our economies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MISINFORMATION DETECTED — Probable Liar
This post partially based on some facts, but is such an extreme distortion that it qualifies as a lie.
Governor Newsom has acted and continues to act in counterproductive and irresponsible ways, and his lax policies are resulting in worse outcomes. However, what “Carol Reid” is posting is absolutely not true. Newsom issued NO SUCH ORDERS. He has moved back to county based lockdowns, based on hospital ICU occupancy. Counties at 85% capacity are •allowed• to reopen certain types business, if the county chooses to relax their lockdowns. Throughout the pandemic, counties have always been permitted to institute stricter protocols.
Carol, if you’re not a troll or some kind of political asshole, please stop posting lies. If you hear about something, check credible sources before posting. Governor Newsom is a terrible governor (and a terrible example), but posting lies is a great disservice to everyone. Please try to keep your stinking political disinformation to yourself, it has no business on a channel devoted to medical information.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@castielysia Thank you. We are Americans that love our country and love democracy. We’ve put country over party. Unsurprisingly, we are hounded out of the GOP as “RINOs” or worse, traitors. This has been going on for a while, before Trump, but it’s gotten much worse under his leadership.
When you come down to it, both liberals and conservatives* love our Constitutional form of democracy, warts and all. Each side’s political principles rest on the foundation of democracy: equal treatment under the law and the vote. Conservatives have more in common with liberals than they do with the fascists, authoritarians, and white supremacists that have usurped the name “conservative”. In the end, we are friends and allies, and the false conservatives are the enemy, are the anti democracy fanatics that seek to destroy our country.
We are out there, even if we are few. Some of us left the GOP a decade or more ago, when the trend towards authoritarianism was gaining unstoppable momentum, when we realized that the weed of racism wasn’t so easy to pull out, but had taken over the garden.
*I define conservatives as people who hold conservative principles, and who do not sell those principles for temporary political power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Accelerationists are essentially lazy people who want a quick fix. They think that they can solve problems with complete destruction of society, and their chief problem is that they don’t have power over other people. If you look at almost every revolution, you see the new bosses are just like the old bosses, or possibly worse. Some revolutionaries might be idealists, but the motivating force is ambition for power over others, regardless of ideology.
Violence and social collapse is the shortcut used (or at least desired) for lazy sociopaths, regardless of ideology. Both the “lazy” and the “sociopath” are important here. If they were hardworking sociopath, they’d work within the system to gain power. The lazy sociopath is, above all, intellectually lazy to the point of criminality.
However, what you are seeing in U.S. politics is a movement that has formed around criminality (and it’s not the first time—we even have names for it, i.e., fascism). The ideology of this movement forms itself to justify, conceal, and normalize the criminal mentality, which is why it is both incoherent and seductive to the merely lazy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garymelnyk7910 Vlad Vexler is a very interesting political philosopher. He’s very humanist in his focus. Snyder and Hodges are also humanist, but each has a slightly different approach. I see them all as complementary. I’m a regular viewer of Vlad’s chat channel, where he posts more frequently than in his other channels.
Stephen Kotkin is another interesting figure for those interested in Russia, the Soviet Union, and Geopolitics. Like Snyder, he is a historian, but he has a different perspective. In my humble opinion, his perspective is also complementary to Vexler, Snyder, and Hodges. His most noted accomplishment is writing a highly regarded 3-volume biography of Stalin. (He also has a distinctive Brooklyn accent which many have compared to the actor Joe Pesci.)
I also watch Peter Zeihan, but Pete is too reductionist imho. He’s an analyst and trend-spotted of Geopolitics. When I watch his videos, I keep in mind that his main clients are private industry, particularly in energy and agriculture. He’s not bad, but I’m not a fanboy.
I’m not sure I’ve seen Michael Clarke. I’ll check him out. Thank you for the suggestion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That’s not actually true. The Ukrainians need to hold together, maintain cohesion, as they get battered, while they batter back. They can absorb more losses than the Russians can, if it’s necessary. Russia is already scraping the barrel for available troops and equipment. And it’s not getting much resupply help from its supposed allies, who have their own problems. Putin can still declare war, which would allow for greater mobilization, but also could hurt him domestically. The Kremlin sold this as a very limited operation, and they sold it hard. Doing an about face now is tantamount to admitting failure and to admitting they were lying. That’s would be harder to sell, even if the Russian public is brainwashed.
But either way, there is a limit to the pain Russia can take. The threshold for the Ukrainians is much higher, if it comes to that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I’m sorry hear that you’ve fallen ill. I hope you get well soon!
With regard to Ivermectin, 1) ALWAYS check with your doctor, and 2) if you decide to take it, normal doses (for its anti-parasite intended use) won’t hurt you. Even a double dose (often prescribed for severe intestinal parasite infestation) won’t hurt you. Let me emphasize: normal dosages. Not every day for a week, but one time. It might help and won’t hurt. I think people are hurting themselves by taking abnormally high dosages. Also, to be clear, I’m not recommending it. I’m just relaying the information that normal dosages are safe, not that they are a cure.
I’ve taken it for it’s intended purpose several times, maybe three or four times over ten years. Here in Mexico where intestinal parasites are not rare, ivermectin is sold over the counter, without prescription. Anyway, my personal experiences is that there were no unwanted side effects. I pooped out those little motherfuckers and life was great.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cfosnock It’s a VERY absurd scenario, but those are sometimes the good ones to explore.
I’d say that the biggest obstacle to a military invasion from Mexico (after the U.S. Armed Forces), would be all those Spanish speakers in the Southwest. They would be the MOST opposed, whether they are freshly immigrated or long established Mexican-Americans of whatever generation. Mexican Americans might identify with Mexican culture, but they most definitely do not admire Mexican politics and would have no interest in being “reclaimed”.
So even if Mexico had the military strength to mount an invasion, it would find very little succor from Mexican-Americans, despite shared language, culture, and history.
If you want to see another extremely absurd scenario, look up “reconquista”, the idea that Mexico was attacking the U.S. via immigration with the aim of reuniting the SW of the U.S. politically with Mexico. This was a big bugaboo among some conservative racists, and a handful of nutty socialists seeking to create “Atzlan”, some sort of indigenous state based on their misunderstanding of indigenous people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MotoGiant There was a time when we speculated about conspiracy theories because it was fun. We didn’t take it too seriously (although there were some people that did and spent years of work trying to gather evidence for their theories). Cryptozoology was fun. You know, the Loch Ness monster and Sasquatch and all that. And if you went backpacking in the Pacific Northwest, the legend of Big Foot created a certain spice to the adventure.
There’s an author who wrote novels about conspiracy theories, Robert Anton Wilson. He wrote the Illuminati Trilogy, which is vastly entertaining.
He was once asked if he really believed in conspiracies and he said it wasn’t a matter of belief, but of probabilities. I think this guided me. There was a tiny probability that the Loch Ness Monster was real or that we were being visited by extraterrestrials, but the overwhelming evidence indicated that probably Nessie didn't exist and there were no aliens. I accepted mainstream science, but it was fun to consider the long shot.
Anyway, "alternative science" was an entertainment for most of us. Blaming the CIA was kind of a joke more than a real suspicion.
There's also an interesting (and ambiguous) novel by Umberto Eco, named Foucault's Pendulum. It's worth read if you've got time. It's more about the mindset of serious conspiracy theorists, and not a defense of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anything, any program that has a chance of doing some good, is going to get blocked in the House of Representatives. There’s a handful of obstructionist extremists who’d rather go on TV shows than govern, and they’ve got the rest of the conference running scared.
If that weren’t bad enough, they’re pathological liars unlike anything we’ve ever seen (save one man). To hear them tell it, inflation and unemployment are killing the country and we’re halfway into a depression.
But if by some miracle the House of Representatives gets its ship together, I could see the U.S. doing a joint venture with Mexico’s state owned ship building company ASTIMAR (which builds destroyers, corvettes, and frigates at 5 different ship building facilities). I don’t think the U.S. government wants to own a ship building business (nor should they, imho), but they could provide loans to a U.S. ship building contractor that would then invest in the joint venture.
Chile is another possibility, but Mexico is close and we could make use of NAFTA so that the ship building is a cross-border enterprise. This could be very good for the gulf states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivanbacic6771 I know it sucks right now, but remember that it’s the voters that shape economic policies over time. You’re up against the Boomers even more than the super rich. As they leave the voting pool ( 💀), you’ll have greater power to elect representatives and leaders that will enact policies to give workers more opportunities—in terms of buying a house this means changes to zoning laws, changes to redevelopment policies, and incentives to build cheaper housing.
Here is the thing about capitalism you need to think about (and I think even Bernie Sanders would agree). It can be tweaked to suit the goals of society. In a democratic society (i.e., what we call the Western World), citizens get to decide those goals (by whom they elect) and they get to determine the economic tweaks (by the same democratic mechanism).
The biggest obstacles to this are apathy and ignorance.
I’m actually a conservative, but I think conservative policy has had its ride over the past 30-40 years. Conservatives have gotten everything they’ve wanted policy-wise, and there’s nowhere left for them to go. Which is why you see the phenomena of “culture war”, “Christian Nationalism”, authoritarianism, and populism based on a cult of personality. The conservative movement is dead, replaced by something both dreadful and stupid. (I’m not saying conservatism is dead; conservative principles are still valid and can still play a role if the fascists can be defeated.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
laron adams LOL, what is a 4th World country? You ignorant, mouth-breathing, excuse for a human being, do you not understand the schema behind 1st, 2nd, 3rd world? It’s not a ranking, you idiot. It’s a grouping of political interests dating back to the Cold War. 1st World = Western Countries, 2nd World = Communist Countries, 3rd World = those not aligned with either side. You need to examine your political rhetoric for any and all terms you use without understanding, or you’re going to get caught with your pants around your ankles the moment you start debating an adult. Heed these words, or continue being a mental lightweight, a dancing clown in the political circus. Lmao!! 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spawn1086 If someone’s cupboard is bare, $600 can mean a whole lot.
On the macro scale, if people are spending that $600, especially if they spend it locally, it could keep the economy on life support just a little longer.
Regarding your other point about whether Donald Trump can or can’t write legislation, over course he can’t, but normal presidents do it all the time. They write up legislative proposals, usually in conjunction with one or both chambers, and then the two chambers hash out the details, negotiate compromises, or refuse to participate, depending.
The months of negotiations between Pelosi and Mnuchin (Mnuchin serving as Trump’s lead negotiator) were done with the good faith understanding that McConnell would back whatever Trump wanted (or McConnell could have also participated in the negotiations). It was surprising that McConnell torpedoed the negotiations when they were getting very close. But the main point here is that was an example of President Trump co-writing a bill.
I’ll give you another example. President George W Bush asked for authorization to invade Iraq. He wanted specific powers and he got them. That is the executive branch writing a bill and asking Congress to enact it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I’ve worked with a couple of Marines in the movie business. One guy was about two weeks after his separation, and he needed about a week to make the adjustment to working on a film crew. Once he adjusted, he was one of the best workers as long as we feed him crayons. Just kidding, he didn’t eat crayons, but he was the one of the best at anticipating moves and changes. He made me better, even though I had a little more experience.
The other guy was still a sgt. in the reserve, and he was a model leader and problem solver. He was “squared away”, and he took care of the people he supervised. Good boss.
In the first video, I think the guys had good environmental awareness, so they didn’t have to go looking for cover because they had already noted it. They could go towards it when the firing started. They were paying attention before contact.
I have no combat experience, but I’ve lived most of my life inside cities and not in the best neighborhoods. You learn to keep your head on a swivel if you don’t want trouble. Staying safe is about situational awareness and anticipation.
1
-
Carlson would have been branded as Pat Buchanan, Jr.
Not as a traitor, but as an isolationist reactionary whose ideas were already discredited and were in the process of being further discredited. In those days of the Reagan presidency, the GOP touted itself as the party of ideas, and to a large degree this was true. Buchananites were given a fair hearing and their ideas were found weak.
We must also remember that throughout the 80s, the Soviet Union was in steep decline and suffering from internal struggles. Its Central European colonies were slipping through its fingers. It was disintegrating before our very eyes. We actually sent to its successor state, Russia, hundreds of billions of dollars to keep it and other parts of the former Soviet Union from collapse and descent into anarchy.
So, no. Carlson wouldn’t have been branded as a traitor. He would have been dismissed as irrelevant by the mainstream GOP.
So the real question is what happened to the GOP? And I would suggest that it became a victim of its own success, that the ideas that worked so well for 20 years had run their course and were no longer the best ideas to address the new problems of the 2000s. Conservatism had run out of new ideas. (I’m not saying that the liberals/Democrats offered a much better idea set, but they were perhaps marginally better or at least worth testing.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don’t think its completely delusional, just mostly delusional. 1) I don’t think Ukraine’s military is sufficiently strong. 2) I think Putin would use tactical nukes to defend Crimea. 3) the geographical challenges are great.
That said, 1) the Ukraine might (eventually) take a portion, 2) Threatening Crimea (from Kherson, if Kherson is retaken by Ukraine) will draw Russian forces away from other areas. 3) Longer term, when the peace is being negotiated, there would be an impetus to create a DMZ in the northern part of Crimea, with international peace keepers.
Maybe the biggest factor is the least predictable: what happens inside the Kremlin, inside Russia, and inside the other Republics of the Federation. As this is totally unpredictable, we shouldn’t become invested in the notion, but its a tiny possibility that Russian internal events will lead to the loss of Ukraine. One can imagine all sorts of scenarios, including a perfect storm of scenarios, but don’t bet the family farm on it.
I suspect/predict that there will be peacekeepers in Eastern Donbas as well, as part of a negotiated settlement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carefree85a He has no facts why Pete is incorrect, only feelings.
I think Pete is a little bit off about the reason Trump shut down the Border/Ukraine Aid bill. It wasn’t to deny Biden the credit, it was to deny the Senate Republicans the credit. It was (or would have been) a great Republican victory, but Trump had no way of taking credit for it. And if Trump can’t be the hero, no one can.
The GOP conference in the Senate was and is in the minority. But McConnell (or his acolytes) performed some magnificent maneuvering to get Biden, Schumer, and the Dems over the proverbial barrel. Let’s make no mistake, this was a Republican bill. Calling it bipartisan was a bandaid for the Democrats. And if the House had been doing its job instead of acting as a launch pad for maga social media influencers, maybe we would have had this legislative victory.
I don’t know how directly McConnell was involved given his cognitive problems, but this had all the hallmarks of McConnell’s street fighting. Threatening to block Ukraine Aid unless it was linked to the Border bill was a risky but genius move that paid off. And once they were linked, Republicans pretty much dictated the contents of the border bill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe the horse is a mare? Perhaps the horse will also be a bridesmaid. Of the horse is a stallion (hopefully it isn’t a gelding), perhaps she plans to marry the horse? How old is the girl, anyway?
I’m also curious if the daughter has a husband (or wife) picked out, or if this is just her plans for a wedding after she finds her one true love. This could be a filter to avoid marrying a non-lover of horses. “If you want to be my lover, you gotta get with my horse,” sang the very wise Spice Girls. Or words to that effect. I might be paraphrasing.
I do picture a Cowboy (or Cowgirl) Wedding. The couple would both be on horseback. The priest would be on horseback. If you squinch up your eyes and use your imagination, maybe you can visualize what centaur marriage ceremonies must have been like before centaurs became extinct. Anyway, both the Cowboy (or Cowgirl) and the Bride would have guitars slung on their backs. When it came time to exchange vows, they’d unsling the guitars and sing their vows to each other. Think Dale Evans and Roy Rodgers. I don’t think the priest would have a guitar. That would be too much. 😉
At the end of the ceremony, the newly married couple would ride off into the sunset, while the wedding party discharged shotguns and revolvers into the sky.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JinKee Well, OK, if you have some expertise with carbon fiber materials, polymers, reinforced ceramics and whatnot, maybe you have an idea of whether Russia already has manufacturing capacity and whether it can scale up and maintain this capacity rapidly with the tools it has. For example, does Russia already possess the capability to spin the fiber? For example, carbon fiber ceramics need precision machining with tooling that wears out rather quickly. Russia has been cut off from these machine tools. For example, does Russia have the tools to make the molds used to form carbon fiber reinforced polymer parts?
Do you see what I mean? It comes back to whether investments were made in manufacturing, and investments were not made in manufacturing because more money could be made investing in the energy sector. Domestic manufacturing would be undercut by cheaper imports of carbon fiber materials.
I realize I could be way off, but I have great doubts that Russia can reconstitute its Soviet era manufacturing capacity any time soon. Another question, more for the finance-econ people, is: will Russia see direct foreign investment after this conflict is over? I have great doubts about that, too.
There’s an idiomatic phrase in English that describes Russia’s current situation, “Trapped between a rock and a hard place”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@ErikDayne Yup. And this is why the minimum wage provision is being stripped from this COVID relief bill. Rightfully so, I might add. Manchin might be able to get the bill to focus on those most in need. There’s more than one way to target relief. For example, those with incomes under $50,000 get $1,800, those with incomes $51,000 - 75,000 get $1200, and $75,000 - $1000 get $800. The actual dollar amounts can vary, but this is a more sensible way to target relief payments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidhimmelsbach557 To be fair to Adolph (good lord, what am I saying), the allies in WW2 also used bombing of civilian targets—often with the thin excuse they were going after industrial targets. Heck, look at the two atomic bombs.
Except for the last instance, going after civilian targets has little effect in degrading enemy capabilities or morale. It might even have the opposite effect, stiffening resistance. Which is why we don’t do it anymore. In point of fact, NATO/U.S. doctrine is to go to great lengths to avoid civilian death and a lot of resources have been devoted to developing weapons to minimize civilian death and suffering while maximizing effectiveness against the enemies war fighting ability.
Still, your Adolph comparison is apt, given all the civilian atrocities Putin is committing. In a way Putin is even worse than Hitler. At least Hitler loved his soldiers.
I’m still left with wondering why would Putin do this if we know it’s not an effective tactic. Why be unnecessarily cruel if it’s not going to help you win a war, and might even help you lose it? The only thing that occurs to me is that it is cruelty for cruelty’s sake, the perverted pleasure of inflicting pain as the ultimate exercise of power over other people. It’s a taste of the totalitarian dream of a boot eternally stomping a victim’s face.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brunxcardster I feel sorry for you. Not just because of your ignorance of geo-politics and economics, but both your current and future economic situation. Your pay is worthless. Your savings are worthless, if you can even access it. Your banks are shutting down, your food will run out (you will soon be paying 120 rubles for a potato on the black market). You’re under economic siege, and it’s self imposed. Russia only needs to leave Ukraine and the damage will stop. Oh, well, your gas prices remain low. Maybe you will learn to eat and drink petrochemicals.
Your “friends” will have difficulty propping you up. The support will slow to a trickle, and most of that trickle will go to the oligarchs, not the Russian people. Not to you. Truthfully, the Chinese are already pissed. This invasion is already messing with their plans to expand their own influence. Xi himself is angry with Russia and Putin, and help from him will be minimal. And what help he does give will not be free.
Venezuela is a joke. Maduro is only a threat to his own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the Taliban leadership does want us out of their hair, but it should be recognized that the Taliban is made up of factions. The Taliban of 20 years ago was more unified, but to survive they had to become a coalition and cut deals with other groups. As a side note, this is what we fail to understand, that the taking of Kabul and the fall of the Afghan government was more of a deal-making victory than a military victory.
But now that the Taliban is in power, what does that mean? It means they have to deal with competition between their internal factions and external challenges to their power. They don’t (at least not yet) have the same level of control they had 20 years ago. The leadership in Kabul might control the airport there, but a different faction might control the airport in a different city. This complicates and delays negotiations. Countries trying to get their people out must negotiate with the leadership, but the leadership then has to negotiate with their sub-faction, which is (possibly) using foreign nationals as a bargaining chip to negotiate their own power in the government.
Yes, it’s a huge clusterfluck. But it would be a lot worse if the country was plunged into civil war, which could still happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No they didn’t. You are a liar.
The timeline:
The Lakers qualified for the Payment Protection loan of 4.6 million and received the money. Their business had been shut down at that point while the NBA was figuring out its next steps.
When there was an outcry because of the PP program being depleted of funds, the Lakers returned the money and withdrew from the program so that businesses with more urgent needs could be assisted. The Lakers’ need wasn’t AS urgent, but the money would have been helpful in keeping people on the payroll, especially considering that at that point they didn’t know if there even would be a season. “Returned” is a misleading term, because they hadn’t yet actually received the money, but that’s how it was reported so let’s just go with it.
So let’s examine your statement. “they got the money” – FALSE. “and didn’t need it” – partly FALSE, the didn’t need it as urgently as other businesses. So you’ve told one and a half lies, making you a liar and twister of the truth.
Maybe you’re a natural liar. Maybe you lie to yourself, and tell lies to support your self deception. (You might tell yourself that it’s OK to lie because “everyone does it”, another example of self justifying your self deception.) Whatever your motivations, I urge you give up this habit of casually lying. Ultimately, it hurts you. It will twist you as an individual. It’s a descent into your worst self.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
D MO Interesting point, but that wasn’t the strategic object. It was all about the canal, and not letting it fall into the hands of drug trafficker/drug addict. The Panama Canal has a huge strategic importance.
Now, I fully believe that Noriega was paid by the CIA for various things, but he became unreliable. A threat, really, to CIA shenanigans in Central and South America, if Noriega was threatening to expose what he knew. So when an ex-CIA director became president, it was time to clean up some messes that would have been very embarrassing to the U.S. government in general and the CIA specifically. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence for this (including the fact that Noriega was making the threats publicly), so I’d count it as the second objective of the campaign. Still, #1 was protecting the canal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He’s flushing them out. It can be difficult to discern a foreign bot from domestic or a bot from a delusional homegrown American Golfer (making America golf again), so this also performs a taxonomic function by keyword.
To separate rational opinion from bots and delusional RW golf fanatics, “Not paying attention to Tucker puts you into an echo chamber” and similar reveals who they are.
Associating Pete with the CIA = foreign bot, Russian origin
Associating Pete with the M.I. complex = Chinese bot
Anti-Israel = foreign bot posing as a leftist (very few actual leftists watch Pete)
Pushing conspiracy theories = homegrown idiot 50%, foreign bot 50%
LATE STAGE CAPITALIZATION = homegrown horseshoe moron, leftist leaning, possible golfer
Make America Golf Again = moron
FJB = homegrown moron or foreign amplification bot servicing golfing moron campaigns
Trump + Current Year = ditto
Talking about OIS in an intelligent manner = worthwhile person, guided by truth, and really sexy. I mean really really devastatingly sexy. 👉🔥 🍑 Szzzzzzzzzsexy
If Pete is “working” clandestinely here, it’s for the OIS community. This kind of video creates a rich data set in the comments section. The bots making the comments can be traced and associated with one another, and in this way the OIS community surfaces disinformation networks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think sending the Abrahms is a non-starter. It’s just not going to happen. WRT to training on other platforms, it’s possible. But it will take considerable time, even to bring an experienced pilot of one aircraft to full combat effectiveness on another aircraft. Indeed, this is an issue with the Polish MiGs. They share the same airframe as the Ukrainian MiGs, but cockpit layout, avionics, capabilities, etc all need retraining that would take months, if not years. The same goes for western aircraft, but even more so.
(And this is why the Polish MiGs can’t be sent quickly to Ukraine. They need to be reconfigured as Ukrainian MiGs which takes time. That is to say, if this is being done. Who knows? 😉)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What I got from this video is that the statistical numbers, the datasets, back up your experience. This is good, because there is a natural human tendency to put a lot of stock in anecdotal evidence, i.e., these stories of success that we share. The numbers and the histories are mutually supporting, unlike the miracle cures, where the miracle cure proponents resort to fabricating numbers, false associations, bad science, and when asked to provide better evidence, blame the lack of evidence on government and corporate conspiracies.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. May I ask what dosages you and your family are using?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let’s see if we can identify what you got wrong, Gregor.
“entire west” — no
“turned Iraq into ashes” — no
“Indiscriminate bombing for a full month” — no
The other stuff seems irrelevant. Sadam Hussein could have avoided invasion of his country by honoring treaty requirements to allow for weapon inspections. He broke the treaty. Ukraine broke no treaty with Russia. It’s weird of you to bring up the terrain that the invaders faced. Maybe Putin will be a little more careful selecting who he invades, next time.
But back to the first three errors. No the entire west was not part of Bush’s coalition. No, Iraq wasn’t turned into ash. No, there wasn’t indiscriminate bombing. There was an air campaign to seize and maintain air supremacy, to disrupt and destroy Iraqi command and control, and to degrade fighting capabilities of Iraqi units. The bombing was the opposite of indiscriminate. The coalition went to great pains not to hit civilians—it certainly never targeted them.
There is plenty to criticize about the occupation of Iraq, including the rationale. But you didn’t do that. You ignorantly tried to use one invasion to make an other invasion more palatable, on a channel devoted to military history. What are your people thinking, sending you to do a man or woman’s work? If you are any indication of the quality of soldier recruited by the Russians and thrown into battle, you’re confirming everything in the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xm377Moyocoyatzin While you have a point about using Mexican sources, what makes you think those sources aren’t “woke”?
What is “woke”? It’s a weaponized word you use to attack anyone who questions the use of race, identity, or class as weapons, something that has been going on since before the nation’s inception. To even bring them up is to give away the game. To investigate how race-based policies formed the nation is an anathema to those who benefit, hope to benefit, or enjoy feeling victimized by equality.
I’m a conservative, but one of my conservative principles is an adherence to the facts. Objecting to pronouns and the use of -x is just a strategy to avoid looking at the facts. Maybe it’s younger generation nonsense, maybe it’s not. To me the pronoun business is a non-controversy. If someone wishes to identify themselves using a certain pronoun or suffix, it doesn’t take much effort to be courteous and respectful. I might make mistakes, so what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My first babysitter was a Spanish speaker, someone in the neighborhood’s abuelita. I don’t remember her because I was too young, but I grew up knowing that manzana, naranja, and plátano were the Spanish words for apple, orange, and banana.
I didn’t learn Spanish in school until 7th grade, but I’d already heard it more or less daily, growing up in Los Angeles. By the time I graduated high school, I had pretty good “Spanglish”. But it wasn’t until I really immersed myself in Spanish that I gained any fluency.
So I agree with your proposal (the earlier the better), but I would add a semester (or more) abroad component. I’d also recommend Mexican grandmother babysitters, but I’m not sure if that’s really practical. 😄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tombragalone7250 I posted this on someone else’s comment, but maybe it’s a better suited response to your comment.
You either believe the COVID pandemic is real or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re delusional and not worth arguing with. If you do believe it’s real, and are taking the position that “the cure shouldn’t be worse than the disease”, what you are saying is that your job is more important than the lives of your neighbors, your family, even yourself. Get it? You think your job is more important than your own life! That’s just crazy.
Measures like this package are what will keep the economy alive, and will make a recovery possible in the next year. Government measures limiting the economy, mandating masks, social distancing and gatherings limit long term economic damage as well as deaths to hundreds of thousands of Americans. Denying that the pandemic exists is delusional. Believing the pandemic is a government conspiracy is delusional.
Agreed? I hope so, because debating the contents and structure of the relief package is futile if we don’t agree on basic reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HashknightGaming 1) Guerrillas. Yes, it can be hard to spell. Think Guerra (Spanish for war) + illa (Spanish diminutive). But in normal English conversation, it does sound closer to “gorillas”.
2) I can prove the existence of a bio lab just a few blocks away. Shocking, I know! They operate under cover of being an ordinary medical lab, testing various blood, tissue, and stool samples, but really they . . . Actually I don’t know what they’re really doing because all they seem to do is ordinary testing work like a normal lab. That’s what triggered my suspicions, actually. 😉
3) But seriously, whisper Maskirovka to any QAnon idiot worth his ivermectin, and you’ll trigger an infinitely regressive chain of “but I know that you know that I know that you . . .” worthy of the Great Vizzini (Princess Bride).
I also remember when the Art of War craze first hit the U.S. public in the 80s. It was considered a must read for . . . . corporate America. It topped the charts of business best sellers. The way these people talk about it and quote from it, though. 🤦🏻 Yet another must read for YouTube strategists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1