Youtube comments of dixon pinfold (@dixonpinfold2582).
-
3900
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
769
-
602
-
590
-
"Inna, 59, pensioner" has me doing forehead palms. (1) She thinks WWII started in 1941, despite Germany's invasion or bombing of numerous countries beforehand. (2) She says "We won't initiate an attack."😂 Sure, except Finland, Afghanistan, Georgia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland...
Ah, the glories of the Soviet 'education' system.🙄 Still bearing fruit in the over-45 population.
561
-
554
-
476
-
440
-
403
-
That man who threatened the police officer has to be found, arrested, jailed, charged and tried. Then deported.😠🤬
*******EDIT, One Month Later: 🎉 He has been found, arrested and charged! 🎉 Absolutely fantastic!👏
From the CP24 site: "Toronto police arrested Amro Abufarick, 19, and Malek Abufarick, 34.
Amro has been charged with one count of unlawful assembly, one count of being a member of an unlawful assembly while masked, one count of mischief interfering with property, one count of assaulting a peace officer, and one count of uttering threats.
Malek has been charged with one count of unlawful assembly, one count of mischief interfering with property and one count of assaulting a peace officer."
393
-
360
-
316
-
312
-
300
-
297
-
294
-
286
-
258
-
248
-
232
-
232
-
221
-
212
-
206
-
199
-
198
-
197
-
193
-
192
-
189
-
180
-
175
-
173
-
172
-
169
-
168
-
157
-
149
-
144
-
144
-
136
-
133
-
1) There were always homeless shelters all across Canada. I think you mean street homelessness. Before that became common, un-sheltered homelessness existed on the outskirts of towns, or anywhere there were disused buildings or properties.
2) It was around the late 1980s that crack made its appearance in Canada. Soon after, homelessness exploded.
3) The emptying out of mental hospitals began in the 1970s, due to immense pressure from activists and media.🤨 For many years, group homes and cheap rooming houses alleviated the problem, but in later decades exploding real estate prices and a reduction or freeze in welfare rates greatly decreased the supply of such accommodation. When this occurred, causing homelessness, the activists blamed governments for closing the hospitals as they had demanded.😠
4) The surge in homelessness around 20-25 years ago had to do mainly with opioids ('opiates', until synthetic forms not derived from opium necessitated a new term). Again, this was thanks to activists.🤨 They publicly badgered the medical field until doctors finally relented under incredible pressure to begin writing vastly more opioid prescriptions. The activists had insisted that people with pain were being inhumanely denied relief, while the doctors, who knew their field quite well, insisted that a vast increase in addiction would follow. The decisive factor was the media.
Reporters, spurred by activists, wrote countless emotionally-charged articles calling the doctors callous and unfeeling, and as I said, they finally got their way. Later, when addiction, homelessness, overdoses and deaths skyrocketed, the media then blamed the doctors for doing exactly what they had demanded.😠
Moral: when activists and media team up to force change, disaster is quite likely to follow.🤨 It is my belief that every major problem facing Canadian and Western society is rooted in activist pressure to follow their theories about how to improve society and increase justice.😠 In my view they are not the right people to decide anything. They are unaccountable to anyone and never admit guilt for their serial blunders. Never.
132
-
132
-
131
-
130
-
128
-
127
-
123
-
118
-
115
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
108
-
108
-
106
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
99
-
97
-
97
-
93
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
86
-
85
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
@5Cdarkwing "Not even similar" Let's see about that....
"The American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) was the foundation (parent breed) used to create the American Bully. One particular APBT strain was crossbred to create a stockier physique. Eventually, enough breeders agreed that these dogs were disparate enough from APBTs that they should be called a different breed. The bloodline of these mixed breeds was further influenced with openly-acknowledged breeding with the American Bulldog, English Bulldog, and Olde English Bulldogge."
Right, "not even similar."🙄 There's much more, let's go on:
"The American XL bully has a bite force of around 305 PSI (pounds per square inch) — among some of the highest ranking for Bully dog breeds. According to Topdogtips, Pitbulls come close with a PSI bite force of 235. Next is Alano Español with 227 PSI and English Bulldog with 210 PSI. Sep 15, 2023"
"In the UK, [American] Bully dogs were responsible for more than 50% (10 out of 19) of the dog-related human deaths between 2021 and June 2023, despite being estimated to only make up a few thousand of the also estimated 13 million dogs in the UK,"
"In December 2023, the UK Government added the breed to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, making it illegal to sell, breed, abandon or have a[n American] XL Bully in public without a lead and muzzle in England and Wales."
"Bully Watch, which campaigns for controls on the breed, places the number of deaths related to XL Bullies at 14 between 2021 and September 2023. Victims have included a young toddler, professional dog walkers, and elderly individuals."
"According to Dr. Richard Barker, a National Health Service (NHS) consultant surgeon, wounds caused by XL Bullies are more severe than those caused by other breeds. He stated that the dogs' bite can shred skin and crush bones, carrying particular risk of irreparable nerve damage."
Right, "not even similar."🙄
Defenders of these breeds are the ones responsible for the deaths of numerous people and injuries like the ruined leg of the little boy in this story. Congratulations. Sleep well.
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
In early December 1939 the first contingents of Canadian soldiers arrived in Britain to serve alongside British soldiers in the Expeditionary Force. Not many months afterwards, I have read more than once, the only battle-ready division on British soil was Canadian. For reasons such as these, the phrase "Britain Stood Alone" may well stick in the craw of any Canadian who's aware of them.
At the time, it pains me to remind you, Canada was a fully-fledged country in its own right, was a founding member of the League of Nations, etc. The monarchy was meaningful to Canadians generally, but generally only as a symbol of national heritage, of the days before nationhood. Though the constitutional provisions held otherwise, the King was regarded as England's king, not Canada's, and Canada's parliament had decidedly ceased to answer to Westminster. In most ways that had happened a full lifetime earlier.
Thus Canadians went to the war in Europe as Canadians, and as friends and allies of the nations there, not as colonial subjects. All this is to say simply: Britain did not stand alone. Credit where credit is due.
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
@SuperKripke "Emotions weaponized", "increase the temperature", "gain a following", "roll the dice", "political gain", "randos", "vague", "cynical" — all this intemperate language could just as easily be deployed in the other direction. Far better, I think. Especially perhaps "rando," which certainly does not fittingly describe Professors Kulldorff, Gupta and Bhattacharya.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
I think your first paragraph is astute but your second is a complete misreading of the Western allies' strategy. My take is that they believe it would be a mistake to try to equip Ukraine for an all-out rush to victory, for the reason that Russia simply will never concede until its ability to fight is drained past a realistic point of carrying on to a win. Wherever it's pushed back, it will just try to advance again as long as it's got artillery, ammunition and men enough.
It certainly has the artillery, it still has ammo enough to carry on (especially since it's sourcing more from North Korea and who knows where else) and the TV and internet propaganda machine at home is doing a great job at convincing the populace that more must be done, meaning that it will support further mobilization and fully tolerate more casualties.
So the West's wise strategy has been to get Russia to put its men and materiel into action at a pace not far from the maximum it's capable of—but to minimal effect. Only in that way can it be hoped that an eventual push of Russian forces back to the borders will be decisive and lasting. The US defence secretary made this clear enough last spring when he said the aim was to see Russia "weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine." That includes attacking and invading Ukraine again, and until such weakening is accomplished it is too early to try to end the war.
The US and NATO are thus intent on boiling the frog of the Russian war machine so slowly that it doesn't realize what's happening. Zelenskyy's constant begging and the West's continued reluctance are just for show, calculated to do just what they are in fact doing: perpetuate Putin's mistaken belief that the West lacks determination and resources, and that he isn't really all that far away from a win. But he's not. Whatever he does, Ukraine, with Western aid, will match.
If I'm correct, the hope is that when the futility of his attempts finally sinks in, it will be too late. He'll be low on everything he needs and unable to effectively fight back against a major Ukrainian counter-offensive. By that time, improved Ukrainian weapons and air defences will mean that even throwing his air force into the battle in earnest (he's mostly kept it in reserve so far) won't help much.
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
@annaclarafenyo8185 You: "IQ scores depend on personal training in puzzles, mathematics, and literacy. high IQ scores therefore cluster in clumps around highly literate people and people who love puzzles and mathematics."
And why do some people end up being "highly literate people and people who love puzzles and mathematics"? Just by chance? No, it's because they're good at those things. People like doing things they're good at. (They likewise shun activities they suck at.) And why are these people good at those things? It's because they're more clever than average.
In other words, you've got it backwards. Highly intelligent people, unsurprisingly, tend to be highly literate and like puzzles and mathematics.
Bear in mind that children's IQs can be and often are tested long before they have any chance to become "highly literate" or to immerse themselves in puzzles and mathematics. I was perhaps 8 when I and everyone in my school was tested, and I can assure you that none of us in my class was highly literate. I did not love mathematics or any other school subject, and enjoyment of puzzles came much later.
I take it that either you've never had occasion to teach things to children, or you have done, and are deliberately denying what was in front of you to learn.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
@SuperKripke There's no basis for you to speculate on why I sided with Professors Gupta, Kulldorff and Bhattacharya, for I didn't get into those reasons. Your flat assertion that it was to confirm my feelings, along with your dwelling on the fact that the three professors were outnumbered, however, do give me a basis for speculating on why you'd say so. More like an open invitation or an insistence, nearly.
But on grounds of infra dig I shan't oblige you. I'll just address the two matters generally.
First, as to their being outnumbered, there is no automatic obligation to stand with majority opinion qua majority opinion on any matter. Only a blindness to one's own positive delight in obedience to social or institutional pressure could lead to a belief in such an obligation.
When it comes to science that goes double at least. (Majority opinion and "scientific consensus" on Galileo was that he was a poor scientist and a wicked heretic besides.) I hold that scientific consensus as an aim in itself is deeply un- scientific, for it ignores the fact that scientific truth — or any truth — ultimately resides in the individual mind, not in authorities, textbooks, government agencies, holy books or inquisitions, or anywhere else.
This latter view also happens to be the only one which justifies scientific debate. For without it we all might as well just come to blows and settle every matter that way. The opposite view can be summarized by saying that scientific 'consensus' (a word very loaded and rather empty at the same time, but let that pass) is always to be obeyed because it has a tendency to be upheld over the longer term. A mere tendency, notice. (If speaking about Galileo strikes you as mawkish and dated I offer the example of the Nobel laureate Dr. Barry Marshall. Incidentally, my best friend probably owes his life to Marshall's gallant disregard for consensus.)
Such an opposite view is all very well if one's ideal is "getting on," but it ignores the striving after truth value which is the aim of science in the first place. Not helpful. A rigid commitment to getting on smacks of politics. Corrupt politics at that, as a glance at today's Russia will suggest.
(The counterpart of the consensus-is-all view in the political realm is that any elected leader is the best leader because the people are always right, which is patently and axiomatically untrue. The real legitimacy of elected leaders rests in an un-exalted, perhaps somewhat surprising and probably depressing locus; namely, the people's right to be wrong. This helpfully indicates to us why science and politics are thankfully two very different realms, and why to mix the two is to court disaster.)
It pains me to explain such things to a grown person who's obviously "been to college."
Secondly, as for my feelings, I don't hesitate to acknowledge that I have them, nor am I the least bit ashamed of them. Anyone claiming not to have them, or even disclaiming the high value personally put upon them, is merely flaunting her or his vanity.
What is important is not to extirpate or even ignore one's feelings but to be aware of them, first, and secondly to examine them. Only then can we assign value and mental work to them. Feelings alone can lead one to choose science as one's life's work in the first place, after all, and only feelings can command strictness of thought in carrying out scientific or any other kind of work.
It's only unexamined feelings running loose at their own service which are to be disparaged. It is very important to keep this in mind at all times.
Lastly I turn to the other topic you raised, the next pandemic. On it I perforce have almost nothing to say. I'm not vain enough to imagine I can anticipate its nature. My sole view at this stage is that the very idea that we can decide in advance of it what the best course of action ought to be is pure folly. An opposite view reveals everything one might possibly need to know about how anyone's mind works, or doesn't.
I regard any further communication with such a mind as lost time. So I insist on being left alone. But I shan't use the mute button and deprive anyone of an opportunity to show a redeeming social virtue. Whatever you wish to say, if anything, just write it in reply to one of your own above posts.
Forgive the length of this reply, and thank you for occasioning the opportunity and the desire to express these thoughts.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
@drjulief I stated clearly what I think. EDIT: Thanks for your reply. On second thought I should try to satisfy your polite and sincere desire to know in more detail what I think, assuming that's what it was. (Tbh, I couldn't tell, but now I do think so.)
Think of it like milk versus that beverage in cartons which is made from soybeans and water. People trying to get others to accept and to drink the latter stuff want us to call it "soy milk," and also to call milk "cow's milk." That way, we'll have to alter our minds to conform to what we're saying, namely that they're simply two varieties of milk.
But no. They are not, and I will never adopt those terms. There are few things I resent so much as attempts to mentally and verbally corral me through cunning whether subtle or crude, into going along with anything I wouldn't naturally and freely agree to otherwise.
The two things in question are: milk (never cow's milk except in distinction to goat's milk, sheep's milk, or mother's milk, etc.) and soy beverage. Or soy drink.
(Cp. William Blake: "Words are the sons of man, while things are the daughters of heaven." I understand and agree with him, although, being myself totally irreligious, I am not attempting to invoke any sort of religion, religious thinking, or 'spirituality' here whatsoever. It is only the philosophical aspect of his remark which I am in sympathy with.)
21
-
21
-
I've been hearing how bad men are every day of my life, stretching back more than 50 years now. Literally, in one way or another, every single f⸺g day, unless it was one I spent entirely alone with no electricity, newspapers, magazines, etc. It ranks not so far below the air that I breathe as a presence in my life.😱🤯
And so too, by the way, has any woman born when I was, every one I ever met, dated, worked with.🤯😱
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
Yes, and fright must be met with courage. Otherwise what is frightening will devour the afraid. Fear of rejection and isolation lead in a straight line to paralysis and submission, things which themselves cause the self to reject the self, to isolate the self from the self. These are forms of a person breaking apart. Thus courage is no aspirational ideal, frill or luxury. It is as necessary as one's wits, one's food, air and water. In this light, seeking support and giving it to others—support meaning encouragement, the spreading of courage—become necessary to the point of being duties.
It dismays me to see you doing the opposite, for your remarks are discouraging—they militate against courage and emphasize and spread fear. Instead you ought to promise to support and encourage, and appeal to others to do the same. Remind them, as I remind you, that with effort they'll succeed in swallowing their fear. Warmly wish them, as I wish you, good luck also.
18
-
18
-
18
-
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
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
Clumsy? No, first polite, then irritated. Pictures show that the woman was dressed in clothes clearly traditional to a faraway place. Who could fail to notice that she appeared to be from abroad (or, failing that, vociferously and most proudly announcing her non-British ethnic heritage)? Not a soul. Thus, for anyone to ask her about that background was nothing less than a polite acknowledgment of her beyond-obvious pride. The question was amply to be expected.
For this reason, the micro-aggressive behaviour was on her part, for when Lady Hussey asked her, understandably and indeed politely (anyone dressed like that is practically begging for a show of interest), "Where are you from?" she skirted the question, I've no doubt in the hope of making trouble. (For in the context of her extremely unusual garb it was obvious no one was asking where she worked. To find that out, Lady Hussey would've asked "Which organization are you with?" and she knew it.)
Polite answer: "I'm from [Cheapside, e.g.]. But I see you've noticed what I'm wearing, which is a traditional costume in [Jamaica, e.g.]. My parents were from there. [Or other breezy detail, such as 'It's from Ghana, where I've been many times']."
She was looking for a scrap.
She knew it, Lady Hussey quickly knew it, I know it, anyone with experience of a range of people and life knows it.
For her part, Lady Hussey might have quickly come to her point when the woman showed her intent, by saying "Yes, and does this impressive costume hail from your ancestral homeland? Where would that be?" But I don't blame her much for being less than fully congenial when faced with such a charmless and passive-aggressive person with a problem personality.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
llewellyn evans I see no reason to use the word cruel in light of the care and expense they went to in outfitting the return modules with parachutes. Mechanical failure was obviously not expected, so the monkey deaths were accidents, certainly sad ones.
The noise, vibrations, and acceleration at launch and descent could have been distressing, I grant you. Whether such distress, if any, were passing and mild, emotionally shattering, or in between, I cannot guess. As for weightlessness, I'm not sure the Alberts would have sensed it, strapped in as they were, or if it would have bothered them if they did.
On the whole I would say, because of the deaths being accidental, that if you want to talk about human failings and cruelty you could easily find much worse very near at hand. (Not that I find what you say ludicrous.)
One could say things were more clear-cut in the case of Laika, the Russian space dog. She was never meant to return alive, and died up there.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@MrJohnnyDistortion Yes, it's thoroughly, obviously wrong. Indeed in my view there's no way the post was even sincere. It's just an attempt to get the OC ratioed. (Ratioed: when a comment has more replies than likes, i.e. a ratio below 1.0, it is downgraded and shown to fewer people.) The reason is that such comments are presumed controversial, negative and unpopular, thus bad for the platform's atmosphere. For this reason paid commenters identify the comments they need to fight hardest against (i.e. the best ones, from another point of view) and target them with upsetting replies intended to generate many more replies in turn.
Just the right remarks, and presto: ratioed, meaning buried. (Did you know about this, btw?)
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
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
-
The VP grew up in Canada between 5th grade and her freshman year at college, so she has experience from her formative years of such things as extensive government ownership of industry and, notably, wage & price controls (1975-78).
All her social and political ideas and policies bear a strong imprint from those years, all of them during the prime ministership of Pierre Trudeau when Canada was actually much more left-wing than it is now, economically at least.
Yet he was considered a center-left moderate, and in truth he was — compared to her. Canadians will understand when I say she would be America's first NDP president. (It's Canada's leftmost national party.)
She promises to introduce price controls, probably thinking of them as within the bounds of normality due to that experience. But they failed in Canada, taking barely 1% off inflation over three years (!) but shaving 2.5% off wages. Living standards fell.
Although Trudeau finally ended the controls, angry voters soon afterwards threw him out of office. But I bet she sees that as totally beside the point, since leftists and no-limits liberals never care whether left policies work or not. To them success resides in imposing them, not in producing positive results.
It's interesting to note that she and the appalling Justin Trudeau, whom I call Prime Minister Peter Pan, grew up in adjacent wealthy neighborhoods in Montreal (Westmount and the Golden Square Mile). They didn't know each other, but are political soulmates to this day and probably forever.
Everybody talks about her various identities as American, African-American, Indian and Jamaican, but in my opinion she's an absolutely standard, mass-made old Canadian lefty.
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
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
"must be really bad" Nah, it's not. Covid levels are low (92nd in the world for past-7-days per-capita new infections), restrictions are light (everything open), mood not great but ok.
Bad points: Vaccine passports reqd for plane and train travel, restaurants except outdoor sections, larger indoor gatherings like concerts, a couple of other spots. Vaccine mandates for many govt jobs, some jobs in govt-regulated sectors, and numerous large companies. Some vital services losing some staff to mandates but not many, as vaccination coverage is high (90% of over-11s).
Anyone who says it's a nightmare or as bad as Australia has a screw loose. Govts trying to steer a middle course as people on both sides are yelling at them (and each other).
Crime up somewhat (e.g. murders in Toronto (pop. 3m) 74 vs. 61 last year (early-Nov. both years). For comparison, LA (pop. 4m) 325 vs. 277, late-Oct. both years).
Vaccination coverage higher than US (79% vs. 67%; doses per 100 people 156 vs. 129). New infections per million, past week: Ontario 230, Canada 447, Calif. 1,071, US 1,518.
Peterson is justified in railing against the difficulty of leaving the country if unvaccinated, but then international borders are always more of a hassle than the rest of life. To me the big problem is that authoritarians have had the upper hand at times, damaging the customs surrounding individual adult choice. The media are consistently more authoritarian in spirit than the people, but that spirit has simmered down across the board whenever spread has.
I feel disappointed in many ways but reassured in many others. Canada didn't lose its head. Yes, authoritarians feel emboldened and that's a serious danger, but on the other hand consciousness of individual rights is far higher too.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Yeah he did embarrass himself, even if the voiceover is a cringingly over-the-top hired person instead of him.
Actually this guy is himself Canadian, or at least he lives here, or he used to. I keep spotting the stock photos and video clips of Canada, plus the subject matter of his uploads frequently includes Canada, or centrally concerns it. For some reason he seems to think it would be a bad idea to mention it, and also that no one will figure it out if he doesn't.
Weird dude, makes a lot of errors, including factual ones. Especially crazy is the way he thinks the St. Lawrence Seaway is truly important on a world scale, like it really developed Chicago, Toronto, and the whole North American economy. It certainly is not, and it certainly did not, in that order.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Always top-quality discussion, humor, thought, analysis and all the rest. Penetrating questions plus incisive and challenging follow-ups. Great editing, pacing, translation, subtitles, camera work, graphics, bla-bla-bla.
[yawn] Frankly, it's all becoming a bit boring. Can we please have stupid trash once in a while?
😂 Just kidding. Thanks very much, Daniil, Artyom and everybody at 1420. Keep it up!
— DP, a happy subscriber
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@nevanmasterson46 True. However, (1) in any work (e.g., this video) to be circulated publicly, only the right words for things should be used. There should be no difference between what is said and what is meant.
(2) To say that "the word 'casualty' conventionally refers to deaths and injuries" (italics mine) is inadequate. In a war context the word 'casualty' always refers to deaths and injuries. Always.
(3) Anyway, your point that people got what the narrator meant, while true, was something the OC appeared to understand in the first place. His objection was to the "weird[ness]," and, after all, weirdness has no proper place in published material except where weirdness is the deliberate aim.
Of course this was by no means a major issue or defect in the video, but let's get it straight or not discuss it at all. (It likely won't surprise you that I'm a writer and editor.😄)
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
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
I think he's completely right. What madness to go from 2.5 to 8 billion in a single lifetime. What irresponsibility. The amount of resources consumed, animal life annihilated, forests cleared and ruined, air, land, rivers, lakes, and oceans poisoned is ridiculous. Where the hell do people think global warming came from? There's no way 2.5 billion people could have made such a mess. It has caused a hell of a lot of suffering along the way, too, including starvation and armed conflicts.
All because people can't use birth control, or keep their zippers up or knees together otherwise. In my view the population explosion is one of the most embarrassing things humans have gotten up to, and although the West let up by about 1975, overall since 1945 it's been quite the team effort.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
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
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
His counterparts today, now that ISIL apparently is rooted out, are the Western stooges who say we can perfect humanity. All we have to do is take away all its rights, deluge it with commands, arrest and imprison the disobedient, and strike terror into the hearts of the rest. Like ISIL, but out of Yale and Berkeley. (E.g. no men, no women, no races, but it's all about race and there are really 100+ "genders".) Stalin, from hell, 2021: "Oh, these guys are good. Really good."
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@sweetleaf9668 You're profoundly misinformed. You should care about that.
He always files a tax return and always pays his taxes. In the US, income taxes are payable on income, whether salary or employer stock options exercised. Hence the name 'income tax.'
As he collects no salary and has exercised no stock options (or an extremely small number) for years, he has been assessed a very small tax bill over that time.
Since five weeks ago he has been in the process of realizing income by selling shares, doing it in full public view. This creates a tax liability which will run to the several billions of dollars.
He is aware of this and is expressly doing it largely in order to make a tax payment. Depending on at what point he wraps it up, the bill will come to perhaps $10bn, maybe even $15bn according to some.
The cash proceeds of the share sales will be applied to the tax bill. He will owe it. It is the law, which he has never been accused of evading or breaking, even by his red-faced enemies.
He will be taxed at the highest possible rate, 53%. The payment will be the greatest amount of tax ever paid by anyone, anywhere, at any time in history.
In fact, by delaying all this for some time, he has created a multi-billion-dollar bonanza for US and California tax coffers. If he had done it when the shares were a small fraction of what they are now, the tax proceeds would have been similarly scanty in comparison.
(And who deserves the credit for that meteoric rise in Tesla's value? Musk himself and the employees he hires and manages. The government helped somewhat, by giving customers rebates in some cases—other automakers enjoyed the same arrangement—and by forcing Telsa's legacy competition to make cash payments to it as punishment for making no or few EVs. But as far as I'm aware, no taxpayer money ever went to Tesla itself. In fact the government is now in effect slapping a huge tax on Teslas alone, by denying its customers the same rebates they can get if they buy an EV from any other US maker.)
Despite all that, Sen. Warren decided to take a cheap shot at him a couple of days ago by calling him a freeloader on Twitter and exhorting him to do what he is already very much doing. Grandstanding in its purest form.
So sit down, and breathe. Just breathe.
And in the future, look into things to determine the truth, not to have your opinions confirmed, your feelings assuaged or to open up opportunities for sanctimony. Develop some greater respect for the facts.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
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
-
Good, I've been looking around for such a treatment of this subject. Three points/questions:
(1) Are your counts confirmed losses only, combatant claims, independent estimates, or a combo?
(2) It'd be even better to break them down into equipment type, as it's much worse to lose, e.g. an air defense battery or truck-mounted radar, than multiple APCs or fuel tankers. But I'm still very grateful.
(3) How do we put these losses into a sustainability context? If the Russian average has been 100 per week, it's now closing in on 10,000 vehicles/artillery pieces lost. (Much higher, though, I think.) Given its estimated (but classified) production rates, how much longer can that continue? I know, it's a huge and likely unanswerable question.
Thank you.
—Impressed new subscriber
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Yeah, it's weird. I don't know. In no particular order, my thoughts are that maybe: The bureaucracy is slow and unresponsive, that stopping the system would punish influential US companies too much for their tastes, and it takes years to get anything through Congress. I suppose even corruption is possible, since you'd think a lot of big US companies must be mad as hell about it, and US companies are supposed to boss Washington around, aren't they?
My final guess is that there are numerous secret side deals in US-China trade, informal ad hoc agreements to smooth the waters in private. It is always possible for each to agree to overlook one or two of each other's violations for the time being. Only a limited amount could be done, but I suspect they co-operate in this one way, almost a bit like the prisoner exchanges in the Cold War.
From what I gather trade treaty flexibility is a thing. Both sides get something out of it.
10
-
(1) He uses the same very strange, affected vocal delivery as Glenn Greenwald. (Who copies whom?) I dislike it intensely.
(2) He strikes me as a charlatan because he's interested in convincing people rather than persuading them. It's probably because he can't persuade them, due to incoherence.
(3) I'd frame the central problem of democracy very briefly as: Democracy is the best system for fostering human development, dignity, prosperity and security, but it's the hardest one to sustain. It's not a system for nitwits, it's a system for the best people. Yet by fostering human development, dignity, prosperity and security, it also creates the ideal conditions for people to slack off and deteriorate.
In short, democracies have trouble producing the people needed to sustain them. (The US holds the all-time record at only 247 years.) This is hardly a full explication of the problem, but I think it's the matter that most needs addressing and it's where we should start.
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
Wilde was definitely Irish by birth, but was of English heritage and descent (along with considerable Dutch on his father's side). Both sides of his family moved from England, in the 17th (father's side) and 18th centuries (mother's side). Thus both his parents were protestants and therefore there was scant chance if any at all that intermarriage with Irish catholics had taken place.
The Anglo-Irish, as the English settlers were and still are called, although they tended to consider themselves simply British, are sometimes said to have felt "English in Ireland, Irish when in England." In any case, those Irish with no English heritage, as everyone knows, just wanted them out. So while it is unknown to me whether Wilde at any point in his lifetime was prized by many Irish catholics as a native son, there is ample reason to doubt it.
It seems likely that people who really know a lot about Wilde and the Anglo-Irish will find something to correct me about, and they are welcome to do so.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@londonsparrow9531 It could mean the outbreak of multiple wars over a period of years, some spreading well past Russia's borders.
It could mean widespread or even global economic upheaval or catastrophe resulting from interruptions to the supply of key commodities, most prominently oil. War in Russia could spell $200+ oil. That would mean worldwide double-digit inflation in very short order. Living standards would drop, unemployment would rise, global tensions would rise, alliances could snap, new ones would form in their place.
It could mean nuclear proliferation. What if some part of a former Russian Federation, desperate for money and power, conceived of allying itself to Iran and selling it nuclear weapons? Or selling them to Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Saudi Arabia?
It could mean a long period of the splintered republics continuously brandishing their nuclear weapons at each other, at Asian neighbours, at the West, at the world. It seems highly possible that even worse and more unstable gangsters than Putin would take power in some of them.
In short, a more unstable, more violent, more chaotic, less prosperous world.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@dimelo8826 Well, if you set up shop selling hatred as a way of improving society, the twisted people of the world flock to your door, each demanding to be served first.
Thanks, MSNBC. Thanks, CNN. Thanks, Democrats, American universities, Hollywood, the book publishers, the ad agencies and all the rest. Who am I forgetting?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
As you know, in all English-speaking countries but the US, the system of govt. is based more on the local party representatives than the national leader. People don't even vote for the PM, they vote for the local house member. The party that has the most of those (most seats) becomes the govt. Its leader becomes PM.
So the Liberals won the most seats, so they won a 4-year term. Now their leader resigned, and since the system is party-based, the party is entitled to the balance of its elected term. I wouldn't say it's perfect but I don't mind it much, because in such a situation, the replacement PM soon calls an election.
Consider this: Nobody voted for JD Vance to be president, but if Trump resigned, he would be president. (Clearly Vance would've lost to Harris if they were the two presidential candidates. After all, she only missed beating Trump by 1.48 percentage pts.)
So there's no such thing as an early election in the US due to resignation or any other reason whatsoever. But there is in Canada! And there will be one, probably in April, maybe May.
The more one compares the two systems, the less questionable Canada's seems.
9
-
9
-
@ArtCurator2020 <---"Over and over again, Capitalism shows that it values financial profit over human life." More like on rare and highly newsworthy occasions, owing to the twin facts that business people are human beings who nearly always want to be good (part of which is adhering to regulations), and that human beings—capitalists and non-capitalists alike—are occasionally bad.
And don't forget it was the workers who messed up in this instance as well. Shall we say that "Over and over again, workers show that they value sloppiness over human life"?
It is very illogical to adduce an extremely rare collapse to assert that "capitalism always plays the short game." If that were true, building collapses be very common. They would be so common that making a documentary about a partial building collapse 54 years after it happened would be ridiculous, and it certainly wouldn't achieve a million views after six months.
You ignore things like the fact that profit-making companies make the airplanes which, even after decades in service, people board in their millions every day, with scarcely the slightest worry. Short game, indeed!
Actually, under our free enterprise system (and thanks also to sensible regulation) products and services of all types have become immeasurably safer, as well as more plentiful. Under what I assume is your favoured alternative, socialism, people inevitably remain poor or return to poverty, which is hardly conducive to a high degree of safety. (The real aim of socialism, it turns out, isn't to banish poverty. In fact we see an entrenchment of poverty in the absence of free enterprise. Socialism's real aim, since its foundation is envy, is to destroy the well-off...while paradoxically and hypocritically heaping privilege and luxury on the nomenklatura.)
We owe it to ourselves and others to stick to things which we know something about and have thought through, instead of indulging in cheap sanctimony. (We also Shouldn't use initial Capital Letters for Emphasis.)
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Yes, she's certainly in on it. She's central to it. The Fed and the Treasury are now one thing, having effectively merged a couple of years ago. Together, with the approval or at the behest of two presidents, they decided to deflate the debt—indeed all debts, public, commercial and private—through inflation. It has been deliberate, and when Yellen called the prospect of it transitory, she was, uh, not being candid. You can't trigger inflation and then admit you're doing it.
Anyway I think it's probably the right thing for the country, given the alternatives, which would lead to worse impoverishment. It addresses the critical problem of the holes blown in balance sheets either by Covid and its effects, or greatly exacerbated by it.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@bigbrisk8423 Yes, really. It's really offensive. Death camps do not have an ever-increasing population. Death camps have no overweight people. Death camps allow no one out, unlike Gazans who, before their leaders started this war, could leave the country, could work in Israel in limited numbers, and could travel to the West Bank.
Gaza is instead a war zone, and it's a war zone thanks to Hamas. Tragically, civilians die in war zones. Speaking of WWII, civilians died in the Allied liberation of Holland. It was tragic, but the Dutch still welcomed the Allied forces as the liberators they were.
Think. Just take your time and try and think.
Thanks for your courteous reply.🙄
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
-
I think women like her are a large part of the explanation for the collapse of good looks. At one time a very attractive woman would be pursued by many men eager to plant their seed in her. She'd select a 'good provider' to marry (even if she had a good job herself) and, like other women, have 2 to 5 kids, but they'd be good-looking.
For the past 40 years at least, the same woman has seen fit to stay single and enjoy being pursued for many years longer, living better, etc. She doesn't want, by having kids, to 'ruin' the body that underwrites the good life of romance and a certain amount of luxury. If she finally does marry she'll have one or two kids.
Meanwhile, the meh or unattractive woman snags a husband a lot earlier while she still has a shot at one, and has multiple (not very attractive) kids, also earlier.
If she can't marry or doesn't want to, she may well turn to the government for money and have all kinds of kids. (The govt. pays them more the more they have.) The important thing is that she is likely to have more kids than the 1 to 1.5 that the really attractive woman does. Four to six in a lot of cases.
In this way the population becomes less attractive. And since good looks correlate with intelligence and wealth, the population becomes stupider and poorer at the same time.
Btw, hardly do I exclude men from this process of decline. Good-looking men likewise shun or postpone marriage and children for the most part more than the less-attractive ones, and for reasons similar to those of good-looking women.
Lastly let me add that these are of course generalities and of course exceptions abound. But I think it's safe to say that there's a bit of a Pareto distribution going on. E.g., the least attractive 60% of women are having 80% of the babies. Something like that.
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
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
That's not a real point. It's a cheap rhetorical mess. However, your opening question is worth answering.
Under our system, the Speaker runs the House of Commons. Not politically, but procedurally he's the boss. So when a foreign leader visits the House, up to a point it's his show. On this occasion he thought he'd make a personal contribution to the Zelenskyy visit, i.e. the old man, who lives in his hometown. The Speaker, unfortunately, because he enjoys respect simply by virtue of his office, was not supervised by anyone on the matter. He screwed it up through incompetence and no one caught his mistake.
In my view this wasn't right at all. The Prime Minister's Office is very powerful and in any case should take the reins on all important matters of state to make sure no blunders occur. Here they should have ensured proper vetting, but did not.
For that reason I believe that the Prime Minster's Chief of Staff should certainly resign or be fired. There's no excuse for a government allowing a Speaker to make such a mistake. Absolutely unacceptable.
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
-
@cowmath77 His dad was a hard-working engineer who had the energy to also be a businessman. He was supposedly bad to his family, but also supposedly earned his money fairly. Most of us know at least at second-hand of that sort of thing, someone good at what they do, who succeeds. It's not ugly.
Much is made of him "owning" an emerald mine, but it was just some shares in the thing (maybe quite a few, but a minority stake anyway). They were given him as pay from a client instead of cash, for work he did.
I see nothing wrong with having parents who earned a lot of money. But maybe you do, and it is your right.
(Btw, what is "extremely wealthy"? And how exactly do you know that about someone else? As a rule it is something you never know about anyone for sure. His family had a nice house and paid for private schooling. Were there yachts or something? Are there gory details you should share?)
Anyway, it resulted in him having a childhood in a family able to afford what people want. I see nothing wrong with that either.
As a teenager he ceased to further benefit from the family's resources, as I understand it, and moved to Canada with $2,000 in his pocket. He worked as a manual labourer at first, on a farm and at a sawmill in Saskatchewan. He lived a frugal and bare-bones existence for several more years as a university student in Canada and Pennsylvania until he made some money in his 20s. He had racked up $100k in student loans.
This is what I've gathered from my reading. It is necessarily incomplete, as is yours no doubt, but even if he did get money from his family—I've heard that he did ($40k from his mother) and I've heard that he didn't—I don't think that counts against him.
If you lent or gave some money to your child, would you then think less of them, or think it right if others thought less of them? I doubt it, but if you did, let's hear why.
I confess your reply smacks strongly of envy.
As for Tesla batteries, you should look into their recyclability. I take it you have not.
Let's also hear your ideas for transportation. Aside from fossil fuels and batteries, where can we turn except to the bicycle? We can't propel cars like Fred Flintstone did.
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@xiaoq8329
"China refuses to be TAUGHT as an elder brother who has survived with its own teachings for 5000 years."
No, it abandoned its own teachings in 1949.
China does not refuse to be taught, the Communist Party of China refuses to be taught.
The CPC is not China. They have just been telling you so for your entire life.
The CPC rules China and China has no choice. It imposes a non-Chinese system on China. It came from Europe.
The West has no desire to make China non-Confucian. The West likes the Chinese people. It welcomes them by the million into its countries, universities, companies, public positions, and into its people's homes as friends, guests, and even family members. Chinese people are respected in Western communities and enjoy life here.
If you personally are born to be ruled and like it that way, you can have it. Stick with the CPC. You're living under your strict and ruthless dad, for life.
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Maté is a master class in talking out of six sides of one mouth. All evasion, platitudes, sanctimony.
Aware of his high profile, I spent maybe 20 long hours watching him both on medical and contentious other subjects. It's the same each time: It all makes him seem wonderful. Then you try to get it straight in your own mind and it dawns on you that it does not cohere at all. You are forced to a realization that it's all grift, wokeness, gobbledegook.
He's a contrast with Canada's other famed interpreter and healer of the human psyche, Dr. Jordan Peterson, whom he attacks savagely as though he is history's worst monster. Peterson when he lays out an analysis and proposed solutions to problems always makes coherent sense. One may disagree with him but you are in no doubt about what he thinks and will always have to concede that he has presented evidence in a logical manner, even, I repeat, if you entirely or on the whole oppose his conclusions (which I do about quite a number of things.)
So why would Dr. Maté attack him like that? For one thing, careerism. He, too, gives talks and writes books for the general public, and the strong emotion with which he condemns Dr. Peterson, unaccompanied by anything more than name-calling, to me indicates obvious envy. For another, political antipathy: His own career is built on a weepy sort of wokeness which betrays a passionate commitment to left political thinking. He was brought up mostly under the communist regime of Hungary, remember, which might have a lot to do with it.
His professional critics are many. They notice that he always emphasizes the weakness of people, blames their problems on other people and the world, stresses the importance for their chances of getting better (or being healthy in the first place) depending on the society around them changing, rearranging itself to suit their needs, etc. If you see an emaciated, deeply-miserable addict smoking Fentanyl on the streets of Vancouver, protected now by the law, you have Dr. Maté to thank in part. He fought for their legal right to destroy themselves unimpeded, and I wonder if he wasn't somewhat motivated by the hope of inflicting a sense of guilt on Vancouverites.
A therapist of any sort must of course be capable of profound empathy (Peterson finds himself fighting back tears when talking about people's pain to his audiences), but in my view Maté speaks a language of victimization which makes himself a crusading hero and afflicted people a sort of supporting cast. The way he diagnosed Prince Harry with PTSD and multiple other afflictions on the spot (!) during a live-streamed interview this year was beyond stagy. Many mental health professionals were shocked and appalled by what they saw as his recklessness. Prior to the interview he had only read Harry's book.
I hoped to find him an authentic genius of redemption and recovery with a gift for imparting strength. Instead I found him at best deeply misguided, at worst a sneaking low-key mountebank, and this interview only reinforces that view. If you tried to cross a Canadian lake in a canoe made of his maunderings you'd soon be swimming back to shore, if you could.
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
-
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
-
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
-
Ok, so because of China's aggression, South Korea and Japan think they should have nuclear weapons. But they are extremely hesitant, for fear that if they did have them, China would react aggressively.
Well, it looks to me as though they'd better act. When you're that afraid of your bully, it's time to get stronger.
Maybe all four Western-allied democracies should move simultaneously. Maybe South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Australia should all arm themselves with nuclear weapons, and do it now. Perhaps they should also sign a nuclear defence pact, even one that includes the US.
A cute and cuddly panda-bear China seemed a possibility 20 to 25 years ago. But it was never going to happen. That's been clear for over a decade now.
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
-
@mikerodent3164 I wasn't "guessing." Some things are just a matter of one's point of view. Simple declarations on them by anyone, even entities such as national governments, are not the last word. And views based only on politics can be called narrow, since politics are just one aspect of geography, peoples and civilizations.
Let's put it this way (based on what I've read, which as I say, repeating myself for the third or fourth time, is just one point of view): Had England never made war on them, it would never have occurred to Ireland's inhabitants to stop considering Ireland British (as a secondary identity based on history, geography and shared Celtic ethnicity, even if to them its identity as Irish would have mattered vastly more).
But 'Britain' was officially part of the name of the UK as well as the island on which it had been situated. And since they were invaders, the Irish at that point wanted nothing more to do with the word.
Consider an analogy: Let's say the US were to invade Canada and engage in a brutal repression. At present Canada holds a secondary identity of itself as North American. But if the Americans were thoroughly and bitterly despised as invaders, the very presence of the word 'America' in 'North America' might well put paid very soon to that identity, and Canadians would thenceforth consider themselves Canadians, full stop.
Not a perfect analogy, but it expresses what I have in mind.
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
-
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
-
@kippz1337 I tend to side with your view of IQ here, but definitely diverge from you on your final point. That is not an argument and no rational person should resort to it. It degrades the discussion to a sub-logical level of empty rhetoric. It's lower than a simple accusation of bias, because it's impossible to refute.
The impossibility of refuting it is what makes it so attractive as a debate tactic, much like accusing people of being witches. They can never prove you wrong.
Of course, anyone could say the same thing to you: "You're ignorant of your own bias. You're just coming to conclusions that make you feel better because they don't come into conflict with anything you already think, nor your interests."
(Actually, tactically speaking, maybe it's a good idea to say such a thing — but only if one's argument has run out of steam and failed. It's properly viewed as being ordinarily (not always) an act of desperation at the least; gaslighting at worst.)
And so opposite sides can say that to each other all day long, the whole time neglecting the subject at hand.
If you desire credibility and respect, as well as (ultimately) self-respect, don't go there. Don't tell people they're just unaware of their own motivations, unless you're happy to sit there and listen to them say the same thing back to you.
I'm not hostile towards you. I expect that when you think it over it's quite possible you'll thank me. If not, I hope you at least can sense my good faith. All the best to you.
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
-
It's like when you were a little kid and your parents wouldn't let you watch certain movies. They let on (not in so many words) that they were basically bad and that's why you couldn't watch them. Then you found out that they were the ones they considered the most serious, interesting, enjoyable, funny, best-acted, best-made, and all the rest.
When I was about eleven they (accurately) deemed that I was ready, rather swiftly began to relent, and I got to see what all the fuss was about.
Once you've seen all those great movies from the great directors of the 1967-75 era, the ones my parents loved, the ones that dealt with every imaginable subject, that left nothing or next to nothing out, there's no going back. I never again fully believed anything any authorities told me, except rarely.
(The whole time since has essentially been an attempt to find my own ways of confirming or disproving what others just swallow whole when it's passed to them.)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@matteymat In a case where someone isn't as well informed as can be, the right thing is to at least ask the right questions, and Kisin certainly did. He repeatedly challenged them to explain why manufacturing should not be re-shored and they repeatedly steered clear, revealing themselves completely.
Offshoring results in more pollution of every type because when China needs more electricity to satisfy Western demand—and remember, Western consumption is far higher than it would be without globalization, because globalization means the West can afford to pay for many, many more shiploads of Chinese stuff—when it needs more power, I say, it simply digs more coal out of the ground, or pays Russia, Australia or Canada to do it, builds several more generating stations, and proceeds to burn it without restraint or proper environmental controls at all. As Kisin pointed out, British managers of energy production and goods-producing factories would do it much more cleanly.
So when offshoring of manufacturing drives down domestic rates of pollution, people like Kisin's interlocutors support it, patting themselves on the back even though the situation has actually worsened from an environmental perspective, as well as from economic, social and national security perspectives. I'm certain the Chinese political leadership just can't believe how fortunate it is, having the West act totally against its own interests and in favour of those of China itself. It's an ongoing, stunning, total victory for them.
You don't need to be a genius to realize all this, you just need ordinary good sense and a sufficient lack of desire to run with the herd and parade your sanctimony. That panel, almost all the media, and almost all political leadership are shameless panderers to mentally ill neo-Marxist bullies. The fact of this is crying out for a full explanation.
He trapped them and they got mad at him because they know he's right. If they really believed otherwise they would have addressed his question directly in a friendly manner, wishing to help him understand. But they were only concerned with protecting their rhetorical 'sunk costs' (their investment, metaphorically speaking) in globalist policies and left-activist dogma. The latter two things are actually not even a match for each other. Indeed they're very much at odds, which is why anyone trying to stand behind both of them simultaneously has to perform the most awkward and embarrassing contortions to get through even a minute of debate.
Anyone could see all these things I've pointed out about these people from the heights of space, unless he or she were a total hypocrite not on speaking terms with the truth. And that's a good way of describing them—as well as perhaps half the population, perhaps more.
The fact that Kisin is rising out of total obscurity and into prominence is really somewhat heartening. Now just watch as they gang up on him to annihilate his reputation. Smooth-talking savages that they are, It's the tactic they rely upon most.
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
-
@Bat-Cat-Meow Thanks for your reply.
As a seasoned cynic from way back, I'm not impressed. A seasoned cynic is a reformed one, meaning no longer an extremist.
I freely grant that money has too much influence on American politics. Yet I will begin by pointing out that the rich do not have to feel assured that they can own politicians before deciding to throw money at political parties. They would do it even on the faintest hope of getting what they want, and would continue to do so despite turning up no results decade after decade. The fact that income taxes are at all north of 5% is proof enough of that.
And even then, who is to blame except the American people themselves, who worship money like almost no others on Earth? You think that in a democracy the leaders might ever be lacking in any of their countrymen's worst and most widespread faults? Not possible.
I grant also that the political deliberations held in public are of course deeply flawed, and I could go on all day about those flaws, yet the deliberations in the clip shown here are far better than most. Every point made is germane. The positions are well contrasted. The tone is civil. There is a certain amount of clear respect for the facts. (Just what the facts are is an important and separate matter.)
You need to understand that whatever degree of justice there is, whatever sound management, whatever order and peace, is entirely down to good debate (i.e. that which is open, sincere, practised, informed, and free) and respect for good debate. Without them, all is chaos, tyranny, and vicious rule by gangs and the mob with no recourse for people like you and me. Together they keep an enormous number of balls in the air, if you look at our civilization as a grand juggling act, which is what it is.
Your problem is that until you wise up your only way of appreciating how good you have it (assuming you're a Westerner and not a grossly unfortunate one) is to lose it all. You're judging it, I don't doubt, by utopian standards (i.e. a fantasy) rather than by realistic possibilities, which is why you think it's all garbage.
I respectfully suggest you get to know humankind and civilization better by looking at them around the world and across time.
Psychology and history would be good places to start, and at the outset you should rid your mind of cant, sanctimony, and the idea that conceptions of justice and morality have reached dizzying new heights in the American universities since 1970, after wallowing in blindness for an eternity beforehand. They haven't. They've actually deteriorated badly at the hands of bitterly deformed, usually not-very-bright, opportunistic, spoiled dupes, except for a few certain improvements. As valuable as they may in fact be, they have been purchased at a needlessly disastrous or even pyrrhic cost.
It could be a nicer society, I'll give you that. Income inequality is ballooning under the liberal order and that means misery is increasing. This is why I think we already hit all-time peak human niceness (prosperity and security as well). Real niceness (as well as the real prosperity and real security) is way down.
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
-
@hcpalmer Why should Musk donate a large fortune while Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and all the rest are not expected nor asked to donate so much as one dime? They were not made to, not asked to, and they have not.
Btw, the US govt. only began paying for Starlink late in 2022, and only for 80%. SpaceX continues to pony up the remainder. It is unique as a US company making major donations.
It's the only generous one, yet you paint devil's horns on Musk. And you don't think that's twisted; you think you have the finest moral sense possible.😮
As for Musk "being enriched from taxpayer dollars," SpaceX has been saving US taxpayer dollars for years, billions of dollars. NASA was costing them an arm and a leg, yet still had to totally shut down human space flight operations. NASA astronauts had to fly to the International Space Station from Russia, on Russian spaceships.
Now NASA is going back to the Moon, and it's 100% down to Musk. He made it possible and affordable. (Meanwhile Russia's space operations, devastated by competition from SpaceX, are now bare-bones.)
Once again your reasoning, limited factual awareness, personal antipathies and sense of ethics fail you.
6
-
6
-
@Garret Phegley But the US did want it; it simply didn't have the appetite for another war with Britain. At least the people pulling the strings didn't. That's why they folded, for example, on the border dispute over British Columbia. 54'40" or Fight! ended up as "OK, you win, 49."
As the Civil War progressed, the Manifest Destiny crowd was clamoring for an invasion of Canada to replace the territory of the departed South. Britain and Canada paid close attention to that, and as the Americans closed their deal for Alaska (1867) they decided to end Canada's colonial status and make it a country of sorts on July 1st of that year (the qualifier is that it had no foreign office until around 1930).
American yahoos of course are always in favor of invading other countries, but they don't always get their way. That's good for America, since its record of success is very spotty, as you well know. For every Grenada there's a Vietnam, Cuba, or Afghanistan.
Even the war with Canada in 1812-14 didn't go so well, which is exactly why Americans today know so little of it. I would imagine a similar reason explains why you think the US didn't want Canada --- it doesn't have it, so surely it didn't want it. (And one could say Mexico now stands a little doubtfully in the win column, as that country is slowly reconquering the Southwest.)
Britain was simply too rich and powerful in the Manifest Destiny days. Americans forget how Britain towered above them in riches, productive capacity, and military might in the 19th century. US per-capita GDP didn't surpass Britain's until after the First World War.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Musk doesn't belong on that list. He doesn't even own a house, let alone private islands or holiday estates, almost never goes on vacation, and owns no boats or other costly toys except for a movie prop Lotus car. He doesn't even wear conspicuously expensive clothes, as anyone can see.
He does own a few cars (4 Teslas, a Model T, a Porsche and an old Jaguar) and uses a Gulfstream 700 plane frequently. I don't know if he owns or leases it but doing a lot of flying is certainly an inescapable requirement of his work. In that sense I would say it can't be looked on as part of an 'extravagant lifestyle.' His favourite restaurant in Austin where he lives, serves Mexican food.
I would bet that someone else does his housekeeping, but apart from that he has zero personal staff, running his life entirely on his own. (He also has no assistant at work.)
Concerning his living arrangements, he's been living at the houses of friends for a few years since selling his house in SF. It's been rumored for some time that he's having a house built near Austin, but this is unconfirmed. (Some years back he owned several houses in LA as investments and rented them out until getting rid of them all.)
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@swervedriver5260 Take heart. Tesla's popular Model 3 costs $39,990...minus a $7,500 federal rebate. Presto, $32,490. Then in some states there are more rebates. In Colorado it's another $5,000, so you end up paying $27,490. In California it's another $7,500, so you end up paying $24,990.
Meanwhile the average selling price of a new car in the US is $48,275. (Source: Cox Automotive)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@peterw8532 "Sweden too a stupid gamble." Every nation took a gamble, you can't deny that.
Considering that Sweden's has (1) so far resulted in lower death rates than in the worst-hit strict mandatory lockdown countries (UK, Spain, France, Italy, Belgium), (2) put it much closer to the end of its epidemic than its neighbours (with Stockholm, according to Swedish officials being mere weeks away from herd immunity, for instance), and (3) has meanwhile risked a lot less economic ruin and collateral health damage, I'd say it was more intelligent, not less.
Calling someone lucky after they've outwitted you is not impressive.
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
-
Is there anything false in Perplexity's response to my query "Has Switzerland provided aid of any kind to Ukraine since February 2022?" ? Here it is:
"Answer: Yes, Switzerland has provided significant aid to Ukraine since February 2022. Here are the key points (Sources: kyiv independent, swissinfo, wikipedia, statista, ifw-kiel [Kiel Institute], 5 more) :
Financial and Humanitarian Aid
Switzerland has provided substantial financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine:
* Over $3 billion in economic and humanitarian aid since February 2022.
* Plans to allocate 5 billion Swiss francs ($5.5 billion) to support Ukraine's economic development and reconstruction by 2036.
* An initial 1.5 billion Swiss francs ($1.7 billion) earmarked for Ukraine's recovery efforts from 2025 to 2028.
Refugee Support
Switzerland has taken in and supported Ukrainian refugees:
* Introduced a special "S" status for Ukrainian refugees in March 2022, allowing them to work and access integration measures.
* Received approximately 86,000 applications for this status as of February 2024.
* Expects an additional 25,000 applicants in 2024.
Humanitarian Projects
The Swiss government has funded various humanitarian projects:
* Sent supplies for healthcare, water, sanitation, hygiene, and shelter.
* Purchased and distributed food within Ukraine.
* Deployed Swiss Humanitarian Aid Unit specialists to Ukraine.
Reconstruction and Development
Switzerland is contributing to Ukraine's long-term recovery:
* Hosted the 2022 Ukraine Recovery Conference in Lugano.
* Allocated 58.7 million Swiss francs ($65.5 million) for the digitalization of Ukraine's public administration over four years.
* Supports projects in healthcare, education, and humanitarian demining.
Diplomatic Efforts
Switzerland has also engaged in diplomatic initiatives:
* Plans to host a global peace summit on Russia's war against Ukraine.
* Continues to support Ukrainian NGOs documenting human rights ab uses.
While Switzerland maintains its neutrality policy and does not provide military aid, it has significantly increased its humanitarian and economic support for Ukraine since the start of the conflict in February 2022." [End of Perplexity response]
If you want to check the sources, just pose the same query and each one will be linked. Free, no account needed.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@asgard5281 Tbh, I see the last four years as a drive, mostly successful, to confront and challenge, meet no real resistance, energetically suppress dissent, declare victory, and thus leave little anyone can say. Act like sanctimonious bullies the whole way, and get your way.
But yeah, they would almost equally welcome the chance to win in a more hardcore and dramatic fashion. They don't know history or much of anything, but they do know movies.
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
-
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
-
On meaning, bear in mind that life was full to overflowing with meaning for the 9/11 hijackers as they raced towards their targets, and for the Crusaders on their way to Jerusalem. On the creative spirit, recall that Hitler was an artist, that Charles Manson was a songwriter, musician and singer, and that Richard Gatling's creative spirit gave us the first successful machine gun.
Of meaning we must ask, Just what does this mean, and what is it worth?; of the creative spirit, Just what has it created, and what is it worth?
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@LTPottenger "They were killed by the allied bombing though, they don't tell you that part LOL" This seems a childishly simplistic 14-year-old's point to make.
A great many German industrial workers died from Allied bombs and we can safely assume many of them were thoroughly decent human beings, plenty of whom had voted against Nazis in earlier elections. You could say something similar about numberless Wehrmacht conscripts, too, for that matter.
So what were the Allies to do? Ought they to have said "Oh, no, we mustn't make war on Germany. We can't know if we're killing Nazi enthusiasts, reluctant participants, or innocent bystanders. Best to write letters to the Reich Chancellery instead, denouncing them in strong language and pleading with them to leave off'?
Dresden may count as an atrocity, but bombing armaments factories cannot.
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
-
@Muzakman37 False. He absolutely denied it, in some detail. There was no service there to "turn off." Starlink coverage is continuing to roll out as more satellites are sent up, but most of the world still has no service. In fact, Musk specially re-deployed existing satellites to cover Ukraine starting around the end of Feb. 2022. But, exactly like NATO allies have done with their military assistance since Day One, he has placed restrictions on the use of his aid, very limited restrictions.
From the beginning, years and years ago, he vowed that SpaceX would not become a military company. It's his right. He has made a glaring exception, very justly in my view, for Ukraine, and that is his right too. But he isn't obliged to do every last thing Ukraine asks if it makes him too uneasy or violates his principles. Destroying Russia's navy and largest naval base by far would be a major escalation of the war. He doesn't want to have responsibility for WW3 on his shoulders. He never signed up for that.
If you want someone to blame, blame the Western govts. They could easily find ways to help Ukraine sink the Black Sea fleet and have not. Think about that.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@deathbyathousandcats The guy claimed that Lois is the only FG character whose character is lambasted by commenters. It's an assertion so flagrantly untrue that I can only call it warped.
And what is the precise nature and origin of this indignant and weepy warp-age? Ten-to-one, in my view, it comes out of woman-worship, a feeling that femaleness ipso facto sets a person above criticism. What else could account for his overlooking all the (equally deserved) abuse heaped on Brian? And if that isn't exemplary simp-hood, nothing is.
Well, an impersonal and generalized form of simp-hood, anyway. If it doesn't meet your definition, (being not specifically connected to an actual individual, but to an entire gender) then 'simpiness' at least.
It's common. On another section just now I was called "extra misogynistic" for vigorously criticizing the tax policy (!) of my city's mayor (a woman). Also "extra racist," simply because she happens to have been foreign-born — the same place my wife came from, btw. There's just a crap-ton of mental problems out there.
Hope that's clear. It's not easy to word all that so as to be sure it's understood.
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
-
5
-
5
-
What do you think these mini-favelas are going to be like after a few months or years?
And besides that, either this is on such a small scale that it amounts to nothing, or it'll be massively scaled up and then it's not a mini-favela but a large favela. It's not sensible at all, it's a failure.
If big, nice apartments like the one we see here were actually available, they could just hand them out. What need would there be for an air-conditioned tool-shed first? You were tricked. The woman shown is 100% not like typical homeless people. This was a staged segment.
Fast forward five years: hundreds of thousands of these things are all over California, many with more than one person in them. They frequently catch fire. There's more violence in and around them than in shelters or on sidewalks today. Rape, drugs, murder, disease, stench, you name it. And it's partly thanks to this report.
The same MSM campaigned intensively and tirelessly in the 90s for more opioid prescriptions. Horrified doctors said 'No, addictions will skyrocket and it'll be a disaster.' 'Doctors are heartless', the MSM said, and kept up their campaign until it succeeded. Now look at your country.
Stop listening to the MSM.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Dr. Campbell strikes a well-meaning moral pose here. He gets huffy and a little indignant. But Sweden at this point is broadly in the statistical middle of the western European nations. Of the big countries, Germany kept deaths much lower, France somewhat lower, but the UK, Italy, and Spain fared quite a bit worse. See the countries table at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Moreover, the sustained and striking resurgence of infections he points to was accompanied by a by an equally sustained and equally striking drop in deaths. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ But this crucial fact does not fit with Dr. Campbell's narrative and he indeed fails to mention it.
As in Canada, the problem was focused squarely on long-term care homes (median age of the deceased in Sweden: 86 years), which were not adequately protected (in Ontario, 80% of deaths, in Sweden 75%). It amounts to a scandal, to be sure, and I hope investigations will be carried out; these are in the works in Canada. Thus the numbers suggest a major failing in one area; they do not indicate a disastrous mishandling of the government and public health authorities' overall response.
Some people just naturally like seeming strict and stern. Perhaps they were spanked a lot as children, then went on to spank their own children quite a lot. They hate it when family members are untidy or don't save every possible penny, take a very dim view of candy, and are apt to become quite indignant when someone else sleeps in on Saturdays or has a couple of drinks except at a wedding party. They are often great people, certainly, and their conscientiousness is an asset to society, but they are not always to be taken very seriously when they are merely expressing their individual personalities.
5
-
Don't mistake the party names, Democratic and Republican , for the generic words democracy and republic , which are essentially synonyms.
Check your dictionary and get back to me if you find a really significant difference. The only one I can find is that republic , rather than democracy , is usually the word used as an antonym of monarchy.
But, yes, Clinton made huge mistakes concerning China. Absolutely.
So did GW Bush and Obama. So did US companies, universities, media, other institutions of every sort, and of course consumers. So did the whole West. It's been a real dumbass team effort.
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4 brief points: (1) Wow. I found this reasonable and sober the entire way. No hype, hyperbole, sanctimony (aka virtue-signalling), overwrought emotion, or detectable pseudo-science. Speculation was flagged as such, and seemed restrained.👍
Bravo, Frank Celia. Thanks for respecting my wish to choose my own level of alarm.
(2) Solitary point of dispute: Natural gas, not diesel, is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel.
(3) It flirted with negating point (1) to show us John Oliver, even with no audio.😄
(4) Until micro- and even nanoparticles can be safely filtered out from recycling plant discharges, all plastic waste ought to be disposed of in stable underground rock formations which are isolated well away from groundwater.
It is absurd to restrict the ethic of the Oath of Hippocrates to the profession of medicine. "First, you shall do no harm": Let's spread its wisdom all over the place — including to self-satisfied and moralizing activists of all kinds, who seem in very urgent need of 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
-
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
-
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
-
Here are some words of Jiang Qing, wife of Mao Zedong and a Party senior leader: "If good people beat bad people, it serves them right; if bad people beat good people, the good people achieve glory; if good people beat good people, it is a misunderstanding; without beatings, you do not get acquainted and then no longer need to beat them."
This gives some idea of the crude idea of violence and physical coercion so often found in women in positions of power, whenever they are not completely against it. It seems to be black and white: either it is never ok, or it is completely necessary for the achievement of approved goals and therefore highly desirable. With male leaders it is nearly always a matter of very difficult line-drawing, with violence and physical coercion ordinarily viewed as a highly regrettable last resort. (By physical coercion I mean the threat of violence.)
These three administrators put me in the mind of the old ladies during the Reign of Terror who would arrive early in the morning at the scaffolds in Paris to sit all day in the front rows, knitting and watching as the revolutionaries chopped the heads off aristocrats (men, women, even children). The quality of empathy ordinarily found so frequently in women is evidently absent.
It seems to me that a precondition for such a frame of mind is that the women themselves expect never to face risk of such treatment themselves, presumably by right of being female. I think that to them it is an abstraction rather than a matter of direct experience, whereas only a very rare man hasn't lived through a single bout of violence. But I don't think I fully understand this not-uncommon female attitude. It's very alien to me.
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
-
@stevantammy6779 That makes sense. There's an old aphorism, probably British and some centuries old, that runs "Charity is for the succour of the recipient and the moral improvement of him who gives it." Quite true.
And when you realize that handing them cash is not succour at all, since even without a penny from panning the person need never go hungry for more than a couple of hours (in a typical big city, anyway), it no longer counts as morally improving to do it. It's actually closer to the opposite.
Instead I source the cheapest cigarettes possible and hand out a few packs a week. I know there's zero chance of them quitting anyway, and this prevents them picking butts up off the sidewalk, which is damaging to their self-respect. They cannot afford to lose any more.
Also, I never respond to a direct request, for I don't want to reward that practice. I walk up to people just quietly standing or sitting there, ask them in a cheerful and respectful way if they smoke—it's a yes nearly every last time—and politely offer them a pack. The lift to their mood from the nice treatment is salutary even if the cigarettes aren't.
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
-
@etcwhatever Short version: the Constitution says he is prime minister until voted out or he loses control of Parliament.
Long version: As a novice politician he won a majority government in 2015. Everyone agrees it was because his father was PM from 1968 to 1984. (Many Canadians disliked the elder Trudeau thoroughly — Nixon used a remarkably obscene word for him — but overall he was popular. He was a tough and impressive person, born into wealth, exquisitely well-educated, well-rounded, accomplished from an early age.)
The magic-slipper-wearing Trudeau the Younger has faced re-election twice since then, his party coming 2nd in the popular vote behind the Conservatives both times: 33, then 32%. (!)
The problem is that under Canada's system the government is not necessarily formed by the leading vote-getting party, nor the one that wins the most seats in Parliament (i.e., electoral districts). Ordinarily it is, but it can also go to a coalition of 2nd- and 3rd-place parties when the most popular party fails to spread out its vote geographically and win most of the seats.
Trudeau has pulled this off twice, putting together just enough seats to govern. He is supported by the turban-wearing leader of the 3rd party, who call themselves "democratic socialists."
Now the Conservatives are ready to hand both of them a shellacking. But the 3rd party stands in the way. Instead of OG you could call them OW (Original Wokesters) which tells you why they'd rather do anything than force an election by withdrawing from their coalition-type agreement with the Liberals.
Alas it looks like we have to wait till the fall of 2025 unless we somehow get lucky before then. Trudeau could resign rather than face obliteration at the polls, and then his Liberal replacement could call a vote quickly, but that also seems far-fetched. (Remember how there was no election in Britain when Boris Johnson resigned.)
And no, there's no recourse to the Monarch. King Charles is indeed our king, but by constitutional provisions he already delegates all of his (theoretical) authority to the de facto head of state, a person called the Governor General. The GG would only step in under the very most extreme circumstances imaginable, involving not just great unpopularity but outright and extensive criminality or some sort of truly gross unconstitutionality.
The King himself would only get involved if it was ten times worse even than that, which may be beyond my powers of imagination to conceive of. Not in a million years. Wait, no: maybe if Ottawa were blown off the face of the earth by a really large nuclear strike.
That was too long, sorry.😂 It's gotta answer your question though.😂
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
-
Ironically, while 'Western' democracy works quite well in Asia (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc., where the people are free and much richer than in China), in China a thoroughly un-Asian philosophy, Communism, had led to poverty and unhappiness.
Communism has made China the retarded giant of Asia, and only the partial institution of Western-inspired economic freedoms has allowed its GDP per person to rise to $10,000 a year.
Meanwhile democratic Asian lands enjoy $40,000 to $60,000.
You confuse communism with being Asian, the result of 70 years of government force-feeding. It's little surprise, but still tragic. Cheers.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Innocent_Villain You assist me in making my point. Yes, corporations have power. (It went without saying when I pointed out that they can be corrupt.) But that is a feature, not a bug, for power must be spread around for freedom to even exist, let alone to thrive.
Individuals, civil society and, yes, companies, must all have some power. The danger is great concentration of power, including great concentration of power in the government, something which is immensely helped along by government producing not only the laws but the news. That pairing, as we have seen, is the sine qua non of full-scale repression.
Down with government news.
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
-
The idea that social stigma is an evil to be eliminated is a great misconception. It is in fact a most salutary necessity for not only thriving societies, but any society which will survive. A place where there is chaos, widespread violence, exploitation, criminality, poor treatment of children, drug abuse, high rates of obesity, elevated school dropout rates, and every other form of social decay, is also a place where social stigma has withered away, or been attacked as harmful, or both.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Fine, but you don't know what 'civil society' means. Civil society does NOT mean 'a society characterized by niceness.' It does NOT mean 'social conditions of peaceableness, tolerance,' or any such things at all. It has the specific meaning "Those elements of organized society apart from government and business, taken as a whole." In other words, clubs, associations, political parties qua political parties, charities, bodies for professional regulation, amateur sporting organizations, and all the rest—even, in the very widest sense, families. I could go on but you must get it by now. Don't try to get fancy, just say "a good society", for I think that's what you meant.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@garygjl9036 "you cant ride in T.O.? lol weak". Yes you can. The word can't should not be in this video's title.
I ride about 51 weeks a year and don't consider it any sort of stunt. I'm not a diehard, it's just not a big deal.
There's a week or two every winter when it's better to get around some other way or just try to stay home due to heavy snow, deep cold, or constant rain. (Again, no stunts to prove anything. No diehard nonsense.)
But ordinarily it's all right despite a few problems, namely: In places, the lanes aren't cleared properly or are centre-bare but narrowed by encroaching ice. Many drivers stop parking tightly to the curb, so that can take away a foot or more from a painted lane. At intersections you encounter the same problem pedestrians do, deep slush or pools of water on the street within about four feet of the curb, even where snow clearing is overall not bad.
A major reason few here cycle in winter is that now most Torontonians aren't even from Canada. They come from places where it doesn't snow or rarely does, so it never occurs to them to cycle in winter. They quite naturally assume it's dangerous and unpleasant, which is too bad.
Thus I would venture to say that when you see a winter cyclist in Toronto, the odds are very high that his or her grandparents were born in Canada. But I should probably just say his, because it's a rare female who doesn't put her bike away for the winter—very, very rare.
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
-
Ho Chi Wang Oh, so if it's someone else's culture, we must respect it? God, you're a dumbass. This is what someone thinks if they've been to ten countries, and it reassures them that they're enlightened and sophisticated. (They're not.)
Then unless they insist on remaining eternally in early adulthood, by the time they've spent time in dozens, it dawns on them that a lot of things in a lot of cultures are not cool. (Various cruelties, crudenesses, barbarities, stupidities, corruptions, filthinesses, etc.)
Grow up. "Judge not" is for religious fools and the callow of all sorts.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@drjulief If he does indeed view it that way I think it's regrettable, because whatever one's views, it should be allowed that this type of person has always been with us and always will be. To me that fact itself constitutes or automatically generates a claim of an irrefutable sort, just as being gay, lesbian or bisexual does. The claim, and by claim I mean justified claim, is having the right to be what one is.
But I don't hear anyone threatening that. I hear some howling over what they see as the grosser intrusions on ordinary decency, yet I don't hear anyone saying 'You people have to follow special rules,' let alone 'You people have to disappear.' I could be wrong, that's just my opinion.
———————————
At the same time, there could be a view that the murderer, the stabber and the ravisher* will always be with us too, yet we are not in much doubt about how to handle them. After all, we unanimously agree they're acutely bad for the civilization. So if it's about ineradicability, ineradicability looks like a pretty dubious criterion. So where is the line between what's unhealthful for the civilization and what's just people living their lives? (Turns out there's a line, the same as most places in life.)
Yes, I'm saying there's an argument that a civilization's future dims if norms alter too fast or too far. Civilizations are fragile. When you're talking about liberal democratic societies, think of sprinting with an egg on a spoon. And they are prone to neurosis, as well as political capture by very narrow interests.
The more famous and big-time ones, if history has any truth to it, survive long enough to get depressed and really corrupt, and they exhibit behaviors of wanting not to carry on.
Anyway, it ends at some point and the last tide a civilization sees is the one which strands it on the rocks because it refuses to stand up and walk ashore.
There are ways to prolong it, though. Just about all the famous civilizations you've heard of made one or more comebacks. Often, historically, a ruler of particular intelligence, talent and vision may turn things around. (Diocletian is the most famous example.)
That's what some people say.
* Excuse the archaic stealth word for it. It's in order to sidestep moderation.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I'm continually surprised at the unanimity of opinion on Trump. Several short points:
(1) Notice, for a start, that he's never said Ukraine should surrender. He's never said that Ukraine must concede anything. He only says, without disclosing his peace plan, that he will negotiate an end to the war within 24 hours of being sworn in. I think this is a ruse, and a clever one of which I approve.
(2) From February 26, 2022: " 'The Russian attack on Ukraine is appalling. We are praying for the proud people of Ukraine. God bless them all,' Trump said." — Reuters
(3) In my view Trump's most fondly-felt foreign policy aim is to have Europe pay a lot more for its own security. I don't really need to elaborate on that. He's railed about it endlessly since before he entered politics.
Who can doubt that he would see the Ukraine war as an opportunity to put the screws to Europe and force it to fend more for itself? It's the kind of man he is. He's always on. He's relentless in attempting to achieve his most cherished goals.
(4) Despite the fact that all his grandparents were European villagers, Trump has little in the way of warm feelings for Europe. He seems disdainful of it. I suppose one must bear in mind that his father's parents, and also his mother, chose to leave Europe and move to America. They prospered in America, so I'm inclined to guess they taught him that Europe is pretty much a loser place compared to the US.
(5) Trump knows (and who doesn't?) that if Russia thinks that it's to its benefit, it will do all it can to support his candidacy. Considering the gaping vulnerability of the US political system to gaming of its social media by hostile foreign powers, such covert support could certainly make the difference in the election outcome. I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt at any rate.
(6) So I think he's baiting them, and intends a switch. If I'm correct that this is so, it would be brilliant, for if it worked he could get what he wanted, not only for the US but also for Ukraine and Europe. In a way it would be like ending the war before he's even president again, a sort of reaching forward through time.
(7) My thought here is that he would trick Russia into helping get him elected, then — once sworn in — immediately put an ultimatum to the major European powers that if they want the US to put down the Russian threat, they will have to ante up their share of the money for it. And if they don't, then they're on their own. Not negotiable.
The reply would be predictable. At which point Putin would be faced with the one thing he never expected, could not tolerate and could not overcome: a Western world which is united, which is bent on completely frustrating his aims outside Russia's borders in Eastern Europe, and which has the co-operation in place to do so. He would be able to demand something in return for agreeing to end hostilities, but it would be a fraction of his original ambitions.
Maybe just the pre-2022 extent of Russian-occupied territory in the Donbas would be conceded to Russia. But not Crimea. And maybe a commitment not to allow Ukraine into NATO but in placed of that a more informal or diluted Western security guarantee for Ukraine.
I'm not sure about all of this. It's just my opinion, I could be wrong. It does smack somewhat of a stunt, and a risky one. Also, Putin has siloviki to answer to and they may not tolerate it. But they probably have more than just a streak of realism to their outlook, especially if it's about sheer force backed by riches.
And if all this is so, then the war will end and the stage will — perhaps — be set for a long resumption of the peace in Europe.
4
-
@k_tess There was sweet bugger all in the NYT. I watched for it, because I was appalled by the effect cuts would have on wealth disparity. I submitted comments pointing this out which were not printed. Every one was rejected. Liberals do not accept criticism. They think 'Conservatives have horns growing out of their temples, and cloven hooves. I hate them, so how can there be anything wrong with me? The very idea is ridiculous.'
I also watched Judy Woodruff every night at that time. Zero from her, zero from her chummy underlings. Of course: she and her staff like money as much as anyone, and have quite a bit of it. As I understand it she makes a couple of million a year thanks to taxpayers, advertisers and donations. I no longer watch.
What world do you live in? Many liberals—most, perhaps—consider themselves very morally upright simply for putting on a hat that says 'Liberal' on it. You sound like one of them, and I suppose you think this video is right-wing nonsense, since that's the point it makes. If so you are deeply deluded.
My experience as a Times subscriber and on social media elsewhere (comments far friendlier than this one, carefully composed to scrupulously meet rules, are routinely reported and scrubbed wholesale by obliging illiberal-liberal moderators)—this experience, I say, tells me you'd delete this comment if only you could, by pressing a button. Clicking away with indignation yet?
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
-
@danielwarton5343 Thanks for your reply. First, on global temperatures, I think there's a bit of room for disagreement. There's almost certainly been warming but it's less certain why this has happened. As I said there's ample reason to suspect it's human-caused but I don't consider it proved. It's something to watch carefully and adopt a cautious approach on. As fossil fuels are horribly polluting anyway---entirely apart from any carbon effects---the current move away from them led by private business and individual consumers can only help. Who doesn't want a clean environment?
But yes I think people have been increasing our numbers much too fast and it threatens the environment, prosperity, and global security. Did you know that 10% of all humans ever to live are alive today?
If we could drift slowly back down towards four or five billion simply by couples having three or fewer children, thereby amounting to a replacement rate just under 2.0 per couple, we'd ameliorate those threats. (I don't recall the planet seeming barren of people back in 1985 when there were five billion people. Nor was it in 1900 for that matter.) Besides that, the better parents can afford their children, the better for the whole family.
I'm not talking about social engineering nor, as one moron accused me, eugenics (!). I'm suggesting merely that the whole world do what all the rich countries have done for the past 50 years: have small families. And it's really too bad they didn't join us earlier. All people could live in greater security.
All the best.
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
-
I agree with 'left-libertarian'. But 'classical liberal' is quite a tricky term. I think you, like Dave Rubin and some others, use it to mean the moderate mainstream liberalism of the 1960s-90s. Kennedy liberalism, I guess.
But classical liberalism really means the liberalism of the later 19th century which favoured free enterprise, free speech, public schools, and so on—but which was socially conservative and would have blanched in horror at the size of today's governments, today's levels of taxation, today's social permissiveness.
So classical liberalism was very conservative by today's standards despite the fact that in large part it's where today's liberalism came out of. (Today's liberalism also in part came out of Marxism/socialism, but in pretty bleached-out form obviously.)
When people use the modern term 'neo-liberal' disparagingly to refer to what are really today's somewhat moderate right-wing libertarians, they are basically accusing them of resembling the classical liberals of 150 years ago.
I hope all this is clear, but if it's not, think of an analogy with how Democrats and Republicans in America switched places in fundamental ways about a century ago. The word 'liberal' really changed in meaning around the same time as well.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@charliec.3518 You sound really sheltered. A masked teenager in a robbery is incredibly unpredictable. And very, very dangerous. Bear in mind that there is a strong chance that such a kid (1) has things to prove to his (or her) peers and himself, like how brave and vicious he can be, (2) is highly conscious that he has little to fear from the justice system if caught, (3) is living a deeply unpleasant and hopeless life and may feel he has nothing to lose, (4) isn't in good mental health, being afflicted with emotional or other disorders, and moreover is temporarily in an abnormal, highly-charged state of mind, (5) is high or drunk, meaning his already-poor judgement is further impaired, (6) thinks that his disguise protects him from the consequences of any violent crime he commits, (7) is doing something to pass gang initiation and has been instructed to injure or kill the store worker.
I could go on. A masked teenager coming at you in a robbery has crossed a highly serious line and does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Young criminals like that fill courtrooms everywhere, and pack hospitals and graveyards with their victims.
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
-
Ah, but the hatchet job is only beginning, I should imagine. (It was yesterday, actually, in that upload below which comments were quickly suspended and erased. They contained what Justin Trudeau would call 'unacceptable views.') In the coming days, months, etc. we'll see him accused of racism, transphobia, antisemitism, adoring Vladimir Putin — the limits are the limits of newsroom imaginations. It will come out in a steady stream, every day or every other day. That's how it's done.
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@cityhawk Yeah. I agree with all that. Although maybe not in the least a bad guy to the people who know him, he was factory made. Totally the product of all the latest mass thoughts, tastes, temperaments, and leanings of all sorts.
If you're obsessed with being up to date you're simply a wind vane. As if nobody knew anything before the year one's adolescence began, but taste and awareness have been rapidly developing and growing since then!
Besides that, by approving your own mere up-to-dateness, you give yourself permission not to develop in the really valuable ways.
I don't want a revolution, but I wish there was some kind of reform, congenial to all, that would reduce the number of these people. I hate to think it, but maybe reform can only come in the form of hard times.
lol Pretty sombre and serious of me in comments on a nutrition video.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@frankfahrenheit9537 Beware such economic comparisons. GDP at market exchange rates is good for judging an economy in some ways (its international financial heft, for instance, or the nature of its trade relationships) but is a distortion in all other ways. When judged by the purchasing power of the rouble domestically, Russia's economy is far larger. In 2021, viewed on this basis, it was about 5% smaller than Germany's, meaning close to $5trn, not $1.7trn.
Neither GDP at market exchange rates (also called nominal GDP) nor GDP at PPP (purchasing power parity) tells the whole story. Looking at both is absolutely necessary. For a valid overall judgement you'd be a lot better off averaging the two than looking at only one.
So my point is that, say what you will about Russia's economic weaknesses, it does indeed have a larger economy than Canada, Italy or Spain, three countries often invoked for comparison. Closer to Germany or Britain. It seems headed downwards in the near future, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It strikes me that the goal of flattening the curve is probably at odds with avoiding the impoverishment of us all, perhaps for no payoff whatever in lives saved. Lives may be at first be saved by slowing an otherwise uncontrolled spread, but slowing the spread roughly means shutting down the country until most people are vaccinated or have caught the virus and recovered. Pausing the economy for a full year or longer (the mayor of New York now says the shutdown there will last into next year) would likely be a disaster in many ways worse than letting the disease run its course whilst the sick and the old are safely hunkered down for several months.
And drawing out the spread over time is not guaranteed to save a great many lives anyway, as hospitals may be overwhelmed even by a relative trickle of patients: it's clear that they can't handle an influx of the sick amounting to 5% of the population, but what makes anyone think they could handle even 0.5%? Hospitals will no doubt rise to the occasion in astonishing ways, but they operate within realistic limits against which there is ultimately no remedy.
Thus the best way to save the most vulnerable might be to focus on isolating them in the most thoroughgoing manner possible, a task more achievable if people are working at their jobs and circulating freely, maintaining the normal functioning of things needed to support such an effort. To isolate those most at risk for, say, half a year is not only much easier on them and all of us than doing so for twelve months or more---it also gives the virus much less time to get through to them.
Imagine on the one hand emerging from the summer with herd immunity achieved at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and with a quick economic and social recovery at hand.
Contrast this with, on the other hand, having the disease hanging over us all for a year or longer whilst it slowly but inexorably picks off the vulnerable one by one, at the cost of a similar---or greater---number of lives and also an economic and financial hole so deep that it takes several years or a decade to climb out of it.
All the while we would swing back and forth agonizingly between tantalizing reprieve and resurgent outbreaks which continue through 2021. Quality of life and standards of living, obviously, but also the health of the people in all other respects would be sure to be seriously impacted. Do we know whether society could hang together throughout all that? We are most certainly (we in the anglosphere nations at least) not the same people who withstood the Second World War with such stoic resilience.
And what if the net effect of an unnecessarily protracted struggle against the disease is a sudden massive transfer of political and economic power to China?
The UK national science advisor may have been right to float the herd immunity idea. The country which gets through this soonest will enjoy an enormous feeling of gladness and will also be the envy of the world. Possibly it could mean considering how many lives we permit (or cause) to be ruined in favour of the uncertain chance of saving a single one. Possibly it could mean sacrificing a certain number of younger lives for a vastly greater number of older ones.
As Orwell said, "It is disagreeable to weigh human lives like groceries", but in the worst circumstances that may be precisely what is wisest.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@peetsnort So far as I can tell, in the UK only The Economist has a leg to stand on, and it's only half what it used to be, as through hiring it samples a degenerated group of millennial graduates. (I also grew out of their 19th c. Liberalism, i.e. present day globalism. It spurs wealth creation, true, but just one family in a thousand hoovers up half of it, and the colours of life round the world all turn gray, i.e. monoculture. Screw that.)
The rest of the papers and broadcasts are just crippling and warping the public's mind with current University Taste and hipsterism. You say the BBC reached down to SA and damaged it. I can well believe that, and what's worse is it emboldened them to ramp things up.
If you don't mind a question, is emigration much on the minds of you and those you know? If so, to where? I know, nosy question.
All the best.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's not even feminism any more, so we should stop calling it that. Feminism was a thoroughly necessary quest for equal status. Now the culture clearly pronounces women the superior sex in every way except moving heavy objects, boys and men have been demoralized out of entering universities and the professions in equal numbers, and continue to be denied their rights as fathers. What we have now is female triumphalism, the counterpart of the male triumphalism evident, for example, in Greek culture after the overthrow of the matriarchy. I suppose it's human nature: once the whip changes hands, it's unlikely to be thrown into the sea or some deep cavern. It's put to immediate retaliatory use, if such use is allowed.
For anyone slavering to leap at my throat for a lack of 'success' with women, I point out that I have myself been exceedingly fortunate in my personal relationships (not sure why). Rather less so in the workplace, where for a good number of women it's, uh, let's just say 'all business' in a way that the men don't dare emulate.
3
-
3
-
@abrahamdozer6273 There is a cost for separating the seat of government from the seat of intelligence, learning, talent, energy and culture domiciled in a country's metropolis, or leading city. Say what you will about the usefulness of electronic communications, for intellectual and creative ferment, and for administrative efficiency, there is no substitute for frequent face-to-face contact.
Wellington did not choose Ottawa as the capital, he chose it as one of the end-points of the Rideau Canal, constructed decades earlier. His decision would later factor into its attractiveness as a location, but he was not involved in that process. In fact he was dead, as it was over 40 years later.
[This is a repost, not word-for-word, of what I replied to you earlier. I came by to read a new post to me and noticed my reply had disappeared into thin air.]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@oboogie2 It is idle to even hint at any possibility of NATO attacking Russia without Russia having first attacked some part of NATO.
(Concerning Libya, recall that the UN Security Council authorized the use of force there in order to protect civilians. Russia was at liberty to use its veto against the authorizing resolution, but abstained. Concerning Syria, recall that Syria shelled towns in Turkey and shot down one of its jets over international waters in the Mediterranean. As a NATO member Turkey exercised its right to ask for assistance. Concerning Serbia, naturally Russia would have vetoed any UN proposal to bomb Bosnian Serb targets in order to halt a genocide. That made NATO's move a necessary one, except from the Bosnian Serb-Russian standpoint that the genocide was fake. The answer to Putin's continued aggrieved objection to it is that Putin, with his nuclear arsenal, is free to commit all the genocide he likes on Russian citizens, and that should be good enough for him. I don't doubt he will, given enough time.)
In any case, NATO went nowhere near Russian military adventures for the past two decades. The closest it came was the US-flag bombing of a Syrian airstrip after an alleged poison gas attack on civilians, and that is not close at all. Now it has finally done something, yet without firing a single shot towards Russian soil or Russian forces. There's a limit to how much appeasement it owes a dangerous autocrat and maniac who thinks he has the right to wrap Russia in a thick blanket of neighbouring countries. (Spare a thought for them, will you?) And that limit has been reached. If he doesn't want trouble, he shouldn't court it with actual violence and land-grabbing.
Yes, there is a danger in standing up to Putin by daring to put Eastern Europe under NATO protection…from Russia. Of course there is. Though he can properly be called sane, he’s nonetheless a proven psychopath. The greater danger, in my view, obviously lies in not protecting Europe (and elsewhere, possibly) against him. To do so would be to knowingly set up the rest of the 21st century to outdo the 20th in rivers of blood. I for one would like to avoid that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Canada's de facto independence can be dated from as early as 1848, when its government became formally responsible to the Canadian electorate rather than Westminster. The process was well under way in 1830. After that, layers of symbolic British rule were removed one by one, Lord Balfour declaring in his 1926 report that Britain and its dominions were constitutionally "equal in status." One area of partial integration remained, the foreign office, but this lone survival was at Canada's sole discretion. It decided to end it four years later.
(Even this was largely symbolic, as Canada had already been a founding member of the League of Nations (1919), had its own seat at the Paris Peace Conference (1919), had concluded a treaty with the US on its own (1923), had sent its own ambassadors abroad, etc.)
Canada can de jure never be more than (as Mr. Biggar put it) virtually independent, as long as the Monarch is its head of state. But not a soul on earth disputes that this last remaining tie is ceremonial, and it first became effectively so when Queen Victoria was in the 11th year of her reign, aged 29. The statute passed in 1931 codified and finalized a reality born 83 years earlier.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You ask "Why can't Canada just get some dang bike paths in our towns and cities already??" The answer is that Canada is gradually becoming impoverished and can only afford the basics like health care and public transit with increasingly great difficulty. Even what we do get is more and more bought with borrowed money, so how senseless would it be to borrow billions more for something like bike lanes which aren't even an investment, but simply an expense. (Bike lanes save very little on things like road construction and maintenance, public transit, and health care, despite what professional advocates might claim.)
I use bike lanes/paths every day and am greatly in favour of them, so don't get me wrong. My point is only that the solution to their relative scarcity is greater prosperity. Prosperity: everybody wants it, everyone thinks we deserve it and should make use of it, but few seem to think we should create it. Many people think it's just there, like the air.
When it finally disappears altogether, such people will scratch their heads and wonder where it went. After a brief pause they'll then angrily blame anyone less poor than themselves, and consider themselves smart and wonderful for having such insight.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's only gonna get worse. Whatever replaces it will shock, sicken, endanger, and terrorize you worse. Soon we'll yearn nostalgically for today, when it hadn't yet totally fallen apart and we still had hopes of retrieving it.
Journalism is a telling part of it, but still just a part. Termites have been going at the whole thing, the whole Western civilization edifice, for somewhat longer than 150 years. It's all one big, slow demolition, even though jerry-built additions are constantly being tacked onto the upper and lower floors alike.
Rome went rapidly downhill for a long, long time. Imagine falling out of an airplane and not hitting the ground for three hundred, four hundred years. But whereas Rome's most major adversaries were the ragged Germans of the time, the West is up against a far more formidable Half The Whole Rest of the World, but especially two distinct zones of it, which I need not name. So we won't last that long, but it's still going to be a very drawn-out, lightning-fast-yet-slo-mo crash. It'll outlast many or most of us.
Glad you're not 25?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Dickie Chaznick Thanks for your reply. Firstly, suppose someone said: "Dickie Chaznick an idiot? I don't see how anyone could possible claim it!" Nothing wrong with that, not as to form nor meaning. On to the next matter.
Regarding her comments on the German atrocities, I take your point, as what I found an acknowledgement was, I agree, not a thoroughgoing one. But I don't agree completely, as it was easily close enough to one to flop as a denial.
You surely know more about her than I do, and I admit I mostly forget what was in The Rules of the Games, written by her son Nicholas. Certainly, if elsewhere she denied the Holocaust, then I deplore her very memory. Other deniers might on that account visit her grave to leave flowers; let others still drop by whilst walking their dogs, if you get my meaning. My point is merely that her remarks her seemed an acknowledgement, and did not constitute a denial. Again, you might know more about it.
All the best, Dickie. P.S. How do you get text rendered in italics?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Bornana7 Russia and Canada do have this in common, that they devote a great portion of their wealth to paying for the energy required for transportation and heating. Generally whatever you buy, whether produced at home or imported, has a long way to go by rail and truck before it gets to you, and every building requires plenty of gas or electricity to keep it warm for half the year or more. In this regard they both compare unfavourably with, say, the US, France or the Netherlands.
All the most energy-thirsty countries are some combination of either very hot (Qatar, Singapore) or cold (Norway, Canada, Iceland), very spread-out (Canada, Russia, Australia), very rich (US, Norway, Luxembourg), or blessed with fantastically cheap energy (the Gulf States, Norway until a recent spike).
In the case of Russia it's also true that they still haven't been at the potent wealth generator of free enterprise, such as it is in that country, for very long. Thirty years might sound like a long time, but it isn't. The fact is that Russia outside of the metropolitan areas is still modernizing. And of course Putin and his cronies siphon off outlandish amounts of wealth.
(Yet, interestingly, its income inequality overall—world rank by Gini coefficient: 87th—is actually quite a bit lower than that of the US, which is 48th. It's the other ex-Warsaw-Pact countries like Slovakia (167) and Ukraine (162) which dominate the lowest, most-equal end of the rankings. See Wikipedia "List of countries by income inequality.")
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JonAnthony3 Well obviously he's been not only determined and intelligent but also highly rational. Sole rulership of Russia must surely be like herding 140 million cats (except ten times harder) and mental weakness, if it were in him long ago, would have been exposed long ago.
But minds and personalities deteriorate, alas, very often by a lot. Age does it, isolation does it, unhealthful seeds planted in the psyche several decades before do it, steroids do it, drugs do it, microbes do it, things we can't even imagine do it.
Thanks for giving me occasion to point these things out.
3
-
@davecitizen1107 Sure, maybe. But don't forget that there's a lot of failed ambition out there, possibly including hers. There's a real chance she's struggling energetically, though fecklessly.
Not that you exactly said it, but it's simply not true that everyone can succeed. "Nature introduces inequalities against which there is no remedy," someone once wrote, pointing out that the luck of the precise genes inherited and not inherited from one's parents is a big part of destiny in life.
Other factors in life, along with moral agency, make up the rest, but the important thing is that for some to succeed, others must fail. I cannot get further than this, unless I propose not just social reform but some monstrous reshaping of humanity by force.
Some who realize this have accurately called it 'The Loser Problem'. There it is, verbally pared down to its essence, the one that will matter eternally: There will always be losers, and it's a problem.
It has to be faced honestly and courageously. Intelligently and kindly, too.
No matter who we are, when we talk about these things we are all trying to draw social lines sufficiently far from the two extremes of jungle and nursery.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Try holding both.
Because it costs miners typically $1k to produce an ounce, if gold doubles from $2k, their profits triple. So in theory anyway mining stocks should provide great leverage to rising prices. But other factors enter into it, such as how high the miner's P/E is at the time you buy --- if it's already got a rich valuation then some of your potential leverage has already been booked and enjoyed by earlier investors. Then there's the fact that the leverage works both ways --- your shares plunge faster than bullion when gold drops.
So you can dial down your potential share gain or loss by mixing in bullion. But if you don't, and go for a pure miner position, just realize that it's far riskier. It can even trail bullion when gold rises, and sometimes does --- yes, mining shares can even fall as gold rises, as investor sentiment around gold miners tends to be pretty unstable. But then, Buffett just dove in, didn't he? (I don't think his bullion position, if any, is public, but since he has badmouthed it as an investment before, he might not have much. I think we can only speculate.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@markp6621 Sweden is actually behind the UK in per capita hospital beds. But then, it is also famed for the healthiness of its people.
Yet it ranks very high in doctors per capita, above Germany, with a slightly higher ratio than it had ten years ago. Nurses per capita are also high for Europe.
Despite searching energetically, I was unable to find any corroboration of your assertion that thousands of doctors and nurses have been fired.
A 2017 EC report makes Sweden's health care system look like one of best, most effective, and best funded in Europe. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/355998/Health-Profile-Sweden-Eng.pdf?ua=1 The only deterioration noted in this or any other report was in waiting times. Measures of health care effectiveness have steadily increased since 2000 at an impressive rate.
Data from the last two years is hard to find, and comparisons are always tricky. But if your assessments are correct, I wonder why people who agree with you are essentially impossible to unearth. A couple of labour-union-associated sources lamented that Sweden is becoming a right-wing country and its health care system is a disgrace, but I find it difficult to take them seriously, as they seemed labour-activist and indeed histrionical in tone and offered little data to back up their claims. Thanks for your reply, though.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
And you'd think a pandemic would pour cold water on house prices, but no, they've actually picked up steam. Thanks, Fed! Thanks, other central banks!
Together they have swelled the money supply to an amazing extent and fuelled outlandish asset price inflation. As time proceeds they shall have no choice but to open the fire hydrant some more, partly to avoid economic collapse, partly to provoke the inflation which alone, with its consequent devaluation of the currency, can do something about debts, public and private, of such enormousness. And enormity.
At that point, as now, they are simply postponing a massive drop in wealth and the ordinary standard of living. By doing so they will actually make these things worse than if it happened quickly.
Some well-known investors are predicting a lot of wealth destruction in all or nearly all asset classes, btw. Worldwide, and within one to three years. It could begin in the second half of this year.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@olgatomenko1828 No! It is factually untrue that "the USA did not give any support to the UK for 2+ years during WWII." The US did provide the UK with extensive support including war materiel during that period. In November 1939, during the so-called "Phoney War" before major hostilities began, the US govt. amended the Neutrality Laws to allow weapons sales.
Besides a rapid pace of such sales, it later made a deal (September 1940) to send 50 old destroyers to Britain for base rights. At that point, much in the way of other desperately-needed supplies had already been sent as well: raw materials, food and medical supplies.
Later in 1940, when financial conditions in Britain left it too strapped to pay cash for war materiel, the US began putting together the Lend-Lease Program, requiring no immediate payment for arms and ammunition. This was enacted in March 1941, 18 months after the declaration of war, but 11 months into major hostilities.
In your remarks, "2+ years" would indicate that support likely began after the start of 1942 (2 years, 4 months after war was declared). To me it might even imply that the US was strictly neutral, which was likewise untrue.
In summary, the US provided extensive material assistance to Britain during the first 24-30 months of the war, only some of which it required cash payment for.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It won't stop here either. There are endless shining horizons of sexual and other identities to explore, as hinted at by the emergence into the spotlight of the 2,000 genders.
What about three-way marriages? Four-way? Thirteen-way?
Indeed, what if a whole artists' colony or alternative theatre troupe show up at city hall demanding the right to plight their mass troth into a single great union? Shall their human rights be denied by the chaplain present?
Can't people marry their pets? And not just sheepdogs and pekingese, but gerbils, spiders and gnats?
Is it right that in the 21st century society refuses to recognize the intimate love between grandmothers and their grandsons, great-uncles and their grand-nieces? And should they be denied bathrooms dedicated to them alone? Why do none sit together on even a single company board of directors across the whole land?
What if you fancy a piece of timber—shouldn't it be eligible for your workplace benefits? You know, a fresh coat of shellac yearly, and a survivor's pension when you shove off?
And is it not high time we ended the exclusion of ethereal unions? Are we so closed-minded that we can't allow marriage between a woman and her ghost, a man and his fairy, five ladies and their three cherubs?
I do apologize to all whom I've left out of this unfairly, inexcusably short list. I am deeply sorry and pledge to dedicate myself to making amends.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
George V Thanks for your reply. Call it speculation if you like, but it's university scientists, health agencies, and heads of state who are predicting 40 to 80% infection rates, and I mean they've done it this week. Actually I think I stopped hearing 40% last week.
As for the 0.5% to 3.4% fatality rates, South Korea, which is now a rich country on a par with Japan, is the only one so far to achieve 0.5%, and that was only through an extremely focused effort, making all the right moves, and massive unity.
Let's face it, the US, with all its impressive strengths, is much more unruly and socially untidy, with huge swathes of poverty, ignorance, and disorganization (crime, drugs, etc.) that South Korea actually doesn't have.
People in LA are lining up around the block to panic-buy guns. I saw the footage.
I'm a foreigner, so you know your countrymen and I basically observe them through the telescope of exported TV and Internet. Cheers and good luck (your majesty lol).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@cathygr "They do it on purpose. Channel 4, Sky news ... desperate ... to use such tactics."
Yes, yes, and yes. Blame it on the 90s, when the culture went all-out to teach us that playing fair was for losers and 'wimps'.
And who put on that show? The Me Generation, born between 1945 and 1964.
The disappearance of integrity, manners, and any charm in social life are all part of what I call The Collapse of Character, the result of The Great Slackening. Coming next, the disappearance of prosperity, security, and freedom. Thanks, baby boomers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gildedpeahen876 Actually, although the pandemic was a wealth transfer, it wasn't the kind you think it was. It was a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, or at least the less rich. Who do you think paid actual money for all those bonds the government issued to pay for all the cheques it was writing to regular people?
Certain regular people lost a lot, to be sure. Anyone who lost their job or their small business, for example. But median after-tax incomes actually rose, and so did median savings rates and median net worth.
And if those bonds are ever retired rather than being rolled over, it will be the rich who are repaid, but likewise it will be the rich who pay the taxes that make the repayment possible.
The wealth gains by billionaires were a transfer of wealth of a sort, as they tend to dilute or debase the wealth of those less rich, primarily through various mechanisms of inflation. But then, a lot of those gains can easily be reversed, and we somewhat appear headed in that direction. At least there's no prospect of a tax cut for them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's intensely striking how people will zero in on one thing Trump says and then ignore the next because it doesn't cast him in the disparaging light they prefer. Even the estimable Michael Clarke. Here he says Trump will force Ukraine to surrender.
But here's Trump in an interview with Maria Bartiromo last year (Part 3 at the 3-minute mark): "I would tell Zelenskyy, 'No more, you've got to make a deal.' I would tell Putin 'If you don't make a deal, we're going to give them [Ukraine] a lot. We're going to give them more than they ever got if we have to.' I will have the deal done in one day, one day."
That clearly is not a one-sided pledge to end aid to Ukraine. The threat to Putin to escalate US aid to Ukraine to the highest-ever level is something of a very different nature. It's also illuminating to read Trump's social media posts immediately following February 24, 2022. I for one expect that Trump, if he wins, will confront Putin aggressively. For now, in my view, he does not wish to appear to Putin as though he is more hawkish than Biden. He has a close election to contest.
TDS is real, very real. People in its grip, steadfastly determined to uphold their virtue and decency, lose their reason.
3
-
3
-
3
-
It strikes me that the goal of flattening the curve is probably at odds with avoiding the impoverishment of us all, perhaps for no payoff whatever in lives saved. Lives may be at first be saved by slowing an otherwise uncontrolled spread, but slowing the spread roughly means shutting down the country until most people are vaccinated or have caught the virus and recovered. Pausing the economy for a full year or longer would likely be a disaster in many ways worse than letting the disease run its course whilst the sick and the old are safely hunkered down for several months.
And drawing out the spread over time is not guaranteed to save a great many lives anyway, as hospitals may be overwhelmed even by a relative trickle of patients: it's clear that they can't handle an influx of the sick amounting to 5% of the population, but what makes anyone think they could handle even 0.5%? Hospitals will no doubt rise to the occasion in astonishing ways, but they operate within realistic limits against which there is ultimately no remedy.
Thus the best way to save the most vulnerable might be to focus on isolating them in the most thoroughgoing manner possible, a task more achievable if people are working at their jobs and circulating freely, maintaining the normal functioning of things needed to support such an effort. It would also free up things like masks and medicines for those who need them most, including medical workers. To isolate those most at risk for, say, half a year is not only much easier on them and all of us than doing so for twelve months or more---it also gives the virus much less time to get through to them.
Imagine on the one hand emerging from the summer with herd immunity achieved at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and with a quick economic and social recovery at hand, versus having the disease hanging over us all for a year or longer whilst it slowly but inexorably picks off the vulnerable one by one, at the cost of a similar (or greater) number of lives but also an economic and financial hole so deep that it takes several years or a decade to climb out of it.
All the while we would swing back and forth agonizingly between tantalizing reprieve and resurgent outbreaks which continue through 2021. Quality of life and standards of living, obviously, but also the health of the people in all other respects would be sure to be seriously impacted. Do we know whether society could hang together throughout all that? We are most certainly (whichever anglosphere nation we inhabit) not the same people who withstood the Second World War with such stoic resilience.
And what if the net effect of an unnecessarily protracted struggle against the disease is a sudden massive transfer of political and economic power to China?
The UK’s national science advisor may have been right to float the herd immunity idea. The country which gets through this soonest will enjoy an enormous feeling of gladness and will also be the envy of the world. Possibly it could mean considering how many lives we permit to be ruined in favour of the uncertain chance of saving a single one. Possibly it could mean sacrificing a certain number of younger lives for a vastly greater number of older ones. As Orwell said, "It is disagreeable to weigh human lives like groceries", but in the worst circumstances that may be precisely what is wisest.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Robots. Droll, that. Yes, all four, in fact, are inadequate at framing the overall importance of their findings within the question at hand, making you wonder why. The moderator could do it for them with ease, and must be biting his tongue. It'd be less frustrating for us if he could play the lion tamer a little, and have the authority to ask questions, demand answers, switch around from one panellist to the other, etc.
Hey, if you miss Hitchens, try his brother Peter (who wrote incisively on cannabis earlier this month). I myself ignored this advice for a few years and regret it a bit.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@BrotherAlpha Bunch of inaccurate claims.
G7 inflation rates: US 3.3%, Canada 2.9%, Japan 2.8%, Germany 2.4%, France 2.1%, UK 2.0%, Italy 0.8%. Average: 2.3%
G7 wage growth: Italy 7.9%, UK 5.9%, US 4.9%, Germany 3.8%, Canada 3.7%, France 3.3%, Japan 2.1%. Average: 4.5%
Canada immigration rates: "Just" 1.25%? Far higher than formerly.
Year Population Immigration I/P
1986 26,100,278 99,400 0.38%
1987 26,446,601 152,100 0.58%
1988 26,791,747 161,600 0.6%
1989 27,276,781 191,600 0.7%
1990 27,691,138 216,500 0.78%
1991 28,037,420 232,800 0.83%
1992 28,371,264 254,800 0.9%
1993 28,684,764 256,600 0.89%
1994 29,000,663 224,400 0.77%
1995 29,302,311 212,900 0.73%
1996 29,610,218 226,100 0.76%
1997 29,905,948 216,000 0.72%
1998 30,155,173 174,200 0.58%
1999 30,401,286 190,000 0.62%
2000 30,685,730 227,500 0.74%
2001 31,020,902 250,600 0.81%
2002 31,360,079 229,000 0.73%
2003 31,644,028 221,300 0.7%
2004 31,940,655 235,800 0.74%
2005 32,243,753 262,200 0.81%
2006 32,571,174 251,600 0.77%
2007 32,889,025 236,800 0.72%
2008 33,247,118 247,200 0.74%
2009 33,628,895 252,200 0.75%
2010 34,004,889 280,700 0.83%
2011 34,339,328 248,700 0.72%
2012 34,714,222 257,900 0.74%
2013 35,082,954 259,000 0.74%
2014 35,437,435 260,400 0.73%
2015 35,702,908 271,850 0.76%
2016 36,109,487 296,350 0.82%
2017 36,545,236 286,480 0.78%
2018 37,065,084 321,040 0.87%
2019 37,601,230 341,180 0.91%
2020 38,007,166 184,370 0.49%
2021 38,226,498 405,330 1.06%
2022 38,929,902 437,500 1.12%
2023 40,097,761 471,550 1.18% *
* More than 1.27 million people moved to Canada in 2023, with 97.6% of this growth attributed to immigration. The number of temporary residents increased by 804,901 during this period.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@marissaalonzo7997 In fact, the word 'propaganda' itself is commonly no more than propaganda, which is why I try to avoid it, but I'm impressed that you offered actual reasons.
Still, for someone professing to be against (over-) simplicities, you do a lot of simplifying yourself. Anyway, a label like 'pro-life' contains vastly more truth value than labelling Ukraine a Nazified country. So I see the parallel as one of those speck-vs.-log-in-the-eye ones.
I'll never compare a country like Russia to a Western democracy like you do, because people in the latter have the right to throw the bums out of power when they like. That right is one I closely liken to the right to be in all senses an adult. (Of course I hardly mean that there's any ban on childishness here, but that's another matter.) Russians and Chinese, for example, are all children living under their strict dad, who beats the family and then brags about how smoothly the household runs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Disagree. I think what he said was true, even though I oppose his overall outlook totally. The fact is that it's the same in every country and always will be: Elites lead public opinion.
It's simply natural to the human social creature (except in rare and unusual individuals) and we're stuck with that aspect of ourselves permanently. The thing is to face it, accept it, and to modify it and put it to the general advantage of people. It can be made into a feature, not a bug, and often is.
Same, for example, with human aggressiveness, which can never, never, never be rooted out—but which can be channelled ('sublimated') into healthy pursuits like sporting competition and other friendly rivalries (i.e., striving and competition in business and every other walk of life). Aspects like violence and war can definitely be minimized.
Apart from protection against cold, hunger, fire and so on, such channelling is the sole aim of civilization.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TRYHARDGAMER604 You get at least one helper, preferably two. You wrap your leading hand in a piece of clothing. You use a briefcase, knapsack, bag, anything, as a shield in your other. You close, you parry one thrust or ignore the result if you fail to, you go for the forearm or elbow as you pull or knock him down. You hang onto that elbow or forearm for dear life, do whatever it takes to inflict pain, bite him if you can't do anything else. Someone else smashes the knife hand any way they can, stomps on his face, snaps the other arm or wrist—any of those, whatever it takes. Two seconds later he's pinned, he's incapacitated, he's disarmed, it's over.
I would do that rather than watch people get killed. But probably not if unaided.
Civilians on a London bridge did this a few years ago. And the guy had a fake bomb vest as well.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@deathbyathousandcats Yeah, I don't like simp myself, as I said in the very first place. At last I wry-humoredly used it for the first time. The real point lies elsewhere, in overvaluing a gender to a ridiculous point, even so far as to merit a designation of illness or disorder. Believe it or not, at earlier times women were sometimes worshipful of men. It's as absurd as hatred of the other sex, and can come to no good.
Anyway, if you're not buying the idea of gyniolatry being a thing, it doesn't surprise me. You're a woman, right? Trust me, if you hear what some men say when there's no women around you'd hear some pretty messed-up stuff, and it's intensifying as time goes by. There's now dads with this, uh, syndrome, who're now raising sons and inculcating it in them. I'm guessing the moms do the really heavy lifting though. These kids talk about women like North Koreans talk about their Dear Leader. I mean seriously, they more or less need cult deprogramming. (And I contend that your dismissal of this by claiming that millions worship Hitler (!) is highly dubious.)
So just stick with saying women are judged harshly, treated terribly by men everywhere, etc. The culture of denigrating maleness is working so far. Pew Research: "As of 2022, nearly half of all young adults are single: 34 percent of women, and a whopping 63 percent of men."
Thanks for your reply.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Four panelists. 2 with ties to the Liberals. 1 NDP politician. 1 disaffected Conservative.
(1) Michele Cadario, was Deputy Chief of Staff to Liberal PM Paul Martin, Sr Adv to Premier Christy Clark, BCU (formerly known as the BC Liberal Party) (Source: Twitter bio).
(2) Emilie Nicolas, in the early 2010s campaigned for the Quebec Liberal Party (Source: Wikipedia FR).
(3) Matthew Dubé, NDP MP, Quebec riding, 2011-19 (Source: Wikipedia).
(4) Kate Harrison, PR consultant, Conservative supporter known for frequent public admonitions to Conservative supporters not to be so critical of other parties (Sources: National Post op-ed, 2020 Jan. 28; many Twitter posts).
I know. Real shocker.🙄
You'd never have guessed from the discussion itself.😄
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
After repeated viewings and having given it some thought, my opinion is that this incident was staged by the security detail. It even appears the minister and her aide were unwitting accomplices.
The same cop has arrested Menzies before. He saw that Menzies was there, he knew the minister was coming that way, he knew Menzies would approach her, and he knew he would walk in front of her.
The real giveaway is that the cop didn't walk out to meet her and the aide; he remained standing behind the pole. It served as a barrier which Menzies would have to walk to the left of. Freeland and her aide would quite naturally walk towards the cop and his fellow officers. The idea would've been for them to 'deliver' Menzies to him.
In the event, Freeland and her aide's path steered Menzies towards the waiting cop, the narrowness of the gap between the pole and the building ensuring that the cop would only have to move scarcely half a step and Menzies would bump into him. Once Menzies moved leftwards as he had to do, the minister and the aide's path was blocked, yet only the aide adroitly bailed out onto a rightwards path. Freeland stayed with Menzies until the contact with the cop, which is strange since that portion of the sidewalk was about to end.
So who knows, maybe they did know what was intended. Beforehand there's an unnatural look of slightly smirking nonchalance. As the actual incident unfolds, neither woman's face shows surprise or concern and neither of them slows much, which it would be natural to do if what happened between Menzies and the cop were truly unexpected. The aide's face especially does not match the situation.
It just all looks choreographed like a basketball play. This didn't even come close to crossing my mind initially, and in fact not until I'd seen it several times while watching news reports on several channels. It's the last thing I'd ever expect, but the realization, or perception, has been forced upon me by simple close attention.
I know it sounds weird, and indeed it is weird by any standard, but it looks that way. This is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
3
-
3
-
@worldpeace8299 Haha, hilarious. Why on earth not "react to" your screen name? (As if I'm ridiculing the one you were born with! You chose it. )
So you're not only a childish senior citizen, you sound like a Marxist to boot. Nothing matters but exploitation! No such thing as talent, effort, likability, or conscientiousness. No way for people to mess up their lives by way of stupidity or slacking off. Even luck doesn't exist, just cutthroat exploitation resulting in mass victimhood.
Like Marx himself, Marxists are simply personality cases, themselves victims of psychological projection. He exploited everyone he could, even screwing his maid under his wife's nose, then denying paternity of the resulting child. Things like that were why he pointed fingers at others. "Everyone is out to exploit the weak," he would say, "except me." 'Right, I like the sound of that. Except me! Brilliant!' said you when you heard it.
In fact, countless social and legal rules moderate people's inborn instincts to take mean advantage of one another. If it were not so, you'd have no right to stand up and chatter your nonsense about universal exploitation. The powerful would simply shut you up and you'd disappear.
Funny, though, the systems of governance where things like that actually happen on an industrial scale are any based on Marx's teachings and those of his disciples. That's where the real meatpackers set up shop. Psychological projection again: 'I'd love nothing more than to dominate ruthlessly, so let's round up people and kill them, and say it's in order to make abuse a thing of the past.'
Thanks, but no. A number of countries set a workable example of freedom within a framework of moderate regulation sufficient to restrain pirates, and taxes enough to level the playing field within reason. I agree those things should be supported.
Beyond that, improving the world starts with a long look in the mirror. If you abuse the man you see there, no one cares, so have a go.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@polishtheday Your point is well taken, yet the years between the opening of the Seaway and the close of the '76 Summer Olympics, apart from the separatist troubles, were some of the most glorious in Montreal's history, a flowering in many ways. The Expo was a smash, McGill's profile grew, aerospace and pharma burgeoned, finance thrived. The world took serious notice of it for the first time.
Yes, today Montreal retains good quality of life and other notable strengths, but if it weren't for the political rife that went on for several years and the low-key demoralization and money evaporation that followed, it would vie with Toronto for leading-city status today.
At the same time I don't mean to let on that my assertions stretch out any further than this, that they extrapolate to an overall portrait of decay and misery. No, not that; just something of a stunting of potential. (And in the present context I'm suggesting that some of Chicago's potential may well be scooped up by places like Austin and Miami.) Thanks for your interesting reply.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ratnakordosshu6291 I never, ever do it. I'm not that type of person at all. I would do it to my wife or girlfriend and no one else. I consider it tacky and likely bad manners, but that's just my opinion.
(Yes, opinion. For it's important to understand that people in, for example, Japan, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Italy and Brazil all have different cultural standards and such differences have to be respected short of extreme limits.)
In any case, I can see criticizing it, absolutely, but it's not something for billions of women to get enraged over. The people howling for blood really have to get over themselves and spend some quiet time reflecting. Histrionical overreaction is becoming a religion, or maybe a better word is cult. Thanks for your reply and remember to act like an adult yourself. Seriously.😄
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Hutch-b2p First, no one's talking about doing away with reportedly lucrative LCBO wholesaling. (In fact the Ford govt. set up provincially-run wholesaling for private cannabis retailing just a few years ago, so they're clearly not against that sort of thing.) So subtract wholesaling profits from that $2.5bn figure.
Second, once LCBO retailing is done away with, a flood of private-retail taxes will flow into government coffers. So subtract a further amount from that figure to represent such inflows.
Whether the new totals will amount to less than $2.5bn, about the same, or more than $2.5bn, should be (and has been, surely?) the subject of carefully calculated projections. I'm not about to trust union-hired tax consultants or economists on the matter, by the way.
And I will preemptively point out to you that it cannot be presumed that, simply because profits will be made by private retailers, the net result will mean comparatively lower provincial revenues. Microeconomics and taxation don't work that way. It may very well be that the whole alcohol retailing ecosystem (including payroll and other business taxes quite apart from corporate income taxes, as well as those generated by increased real estate investment and activity, as well as investment and activity in other spheres), may yield higher total government revenues.
Thanks for raising that important subject.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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've got a bit of an issue with a guy named Steve-something who goes with "Destiny (-no last name)." Cher, Madonna, Beyoncé...Destiny?😂 Just the weirdness of that nearly stops my brain. But with that out of the way....
Brief excursus on What's up with people under ~40:
(Not all people under 40. I'm only talking about notable major currents.)
It seems significant to me how he explicitly attaches great importance to what's "appropriate." I bet appropriate/inappropriate were the #1 and #2 words his and many other parents of his generation used in bringing up their kids. And I assume that when they heard "inappropriate" it went along with the withholding of affection and the inflicting of punishment. When you hear them use inappropriate, everything in their tone tells you they think it's the most serious word they know of.
Now as adults they're so incredibly hung up on appropriate. It's their magic word. Their goal politically is to cleanse the society of everything inappropriate.
It made me sad for him when it made him so happy that Ben freely conceded Trump had used "inappropriate" means to stall or forestall the handover of power. It was a more important matter for him than criminality was.
Boomer parents went with pretty experimental forms of child-rearing (later picked up on by GenX parents) that really aren't working out. Their own libertine pasts boomeranged into an exaggerated polarity of, on the one hand, their famously over-the-top praising of their children and on the other hand a heavy censoriousness. ("You're the greatest!" and "Don't do that! Inappropriate!" ten times each per hour, every hour of every day.)
I think their kids are as a result guilt-plagued and full of boxed-in rage with really unhealthy outlets: mostly it's either banal, frenzied, consumerist hipsterism or creepy, reality-ignoring political activism/posturing. And absent any outlets at all, crap-tons of porn and serious drugs. (Also, there needs to be tons of study and discussion of what internet porn has done to 25 years of kids who saw a really huge amount of really intense stuff beginning in mid-childhood, starting say between 9 and 12. There's no way passwords kept it away from them. No way. I think it's a prime factor in how they've turned out, in their 'gender identity' confusion and disorders for instance, but a lot more too. A lot more.)
I can't, shouldn't and do not want to do an amateur psychological evaluation on a stranger based on next to nothing here, but dude here was so nervous, fidgety, upset and clearly angry. (Just keep your eyes on him.) He can't smile or laugh, unlike Ben Shapiro, who's cheery, humorous, relaxed and confident, all while maintaining admirable focus and seriousness. Ben shows zero of the other problems either.
Which brings me to religion, or the lack of it, another thing I think enters into the situation with younger adults in a major way. I am completely irreligious myself but I can confirm that it's not the easiest path. It's full of hazards and challenges and offers quite unattractive odds of a great outcome. Anyway, I want to wrap this up, so I'll just say that you can tell that most people under 40 have a religion-shaped hole in their hearts as easily as you can tell that religion is working for Ben.
Go ahead and throw darts at my analysis, which is no more than a little sketch. It's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tiberio1352 With each passing week I see Western society ripening for totalitarianism. The descent is so fast that I really can't see the elections falling on time past mid-century, if they even make it that far.
At one time we saw the Germans of the 1930s as pathetic and weak-minded for what became of them. Now, in our own way, we're copying their decay from most-advanced status to dumbass ignominy.
(Cf. Elvis Costello, 'The Invisible Man', 1983:
"Never mind, there's a good film showing tonight,
Where they hang everybody who can read and write,
Well, that could never happen here,
But then again it might."
(The allusion was to a book by Sinclair Lewis, "It Can't Happen Here", which you can look up if you like. Cheers.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Skygrey2943 The world is going to have security services the same as it's going to have earthquakes and glaciers. So one has to choose which ones to hope do their job better (or turn one's eyes away from the world entirely, but I can't). And I choose the ones Palantir works for, leaning towards the belief that, aided by Karp and company, their success will make the world less scary, not more.
Likewise I cheer on Starlink because it's at the service of Ukraine, not Russia. Likewise Lockheed, because it serves the US government, not the CCP. I left childish things like Utopian hopes and dreams behind when I left childhood. A couple of years before that, actually.
So instead of sanctimony and pearl-clutching and groaning, I have the mental energy left over to proofread what I write. It ain't much, but it's something rather than nothing.
You've done well so far, I'm pretty sure, and I congratulate you on that. I also wish you the best on the rest of your journey. Thanks for your reply.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@VictorLyuba You are mistaken on what the First Amendment is about. It says that the US government shall pass no laws restricting what people can say (apart from slander, libel, incitement to criminal acts such as rioting for example, or revealing state secrets). Even almost all lies are protected speech (but not slander, libel).
On the other hand, what you speak about is vigorous social disapproval of certain statements a person may make. There is no protection against such disapproval, nor is there such protection in any other country, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be.
Allow me to illustrate by analogy. If you go to an Italian village, enter a café, and make insulting remarks to the staff and patrons about the Pope, you are likely to be told to leave. That cannot be construed as an infringement on your right to free speech, never mind what the Italian constitution may or may not say about free speech protection. You are still allowed to stand on a street corner and announce your views, or in the home or place of business of anyone willing to hear them. You can publish them in a book or on a website.
I hope I have made myself clear about the difference between people rudely telling you to "Shut up!" and the government charging you with a crime.
Thanks for your reply. I am entirely sympathetic to your views on the intolerance of what are called 'politically correct' Americans.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, the US doesn't want Ukraine to "fight to the last Ukrainian."
More like to the last Russian tank, ship, AWACS plane, air defense battery, artillery piece, radar installation, Sukhoi fighter, etc., etc.
Is it getting warm in that frog fondue pot, Pooty?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mrburn6119 Archaeologists understandably get very excited about sizeable archaeological discoveries, especially ones that alter timelines significantly, as this one did. The fuss needs no more explanation than that.
But I don't see what it has to do with springing up out of nothing. Civilizational changes (we're thinking of them as advances in this context) are neither incremental to the point of being slow and steady, nor do they occur overnight (alien visits excepted—lol). They are sort of lumpy, with a lot of small, slow changes and a far smaller number of larger, quicker ones. All I can say is that if scholars were formerly in the habit of talking about the great suddenness of events in the Fertile Crescent 8k or so years ago, they surely must have meant 'apparent suddenness'. In other words they would have assumed there was missing evidence. Lo and behold, they found some.
And are they now saying that Göbekli Tepe sprang up out of nowhere? I doubt it. Breaking news events aside, they are sober people (unlike our host, let's face it, who is all about the passion and the narrative).
But if you even more literally mean 'news' in the sense of large media outlet news, that's another question. To that I'd just answer that they do what they do for reasons that make sense to them. (Not being rude, I just find them an unpleasant subject.)
I don't mean to let on that I find you unreasonable in the least. I don't. We're probably much less in disagreement than this thread makes it seem. Cheers and thank you for your reply.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@G360LIVE Thankfully, it's not necessary for everyone to be vaccinated to keep the flu down. (Nor will it be for SARS-CoV-2.)
As you have no doubt heard, transmission can be suppressed effectively with levels of immunity across the population as low as 40% or even lower, depending on the virus in question.
If you are suffering anxiety over the pandemic, I suggest you spend some time watching the YT channel of the Yale University epidemiologist Dr. David Katz.
The media ignores all scientists who don't fully believe in the most dire predictions expressed in breathless, panic-making language. In reality these more balance-minded people constitute at least half the research community.
The media think they are absolutely doing the right thing by cherrypicking the most scaremongering scientists, believing that only by doing so can they make people behave correctly. I find this not only dishonest, but also patronizing, officious, insulting, and paternalistic, and it has ended my longstanding trust in news organizations.
In the end, I think their distortions will lead people to be surprised when the pandemic fizzles out. They've been media-conditioned to think it will be worse and last longer than is likely. I would bet that many will refuse to believe it's ending.
Recently I've noticed that US deaths (7-day trailing daily averages) have fallen quite steadily to a 94-day low. From the August peak of 1,178 deaths they are down to 725, which is 40% lower. They were last this low on July 10. Yet this is not mentioned in the news, a typical sort of occurrence throughout the pandemic.
Hear out Dr. Katz. This professor is a highly qualified researcher into epidemics from one of the world's highest-ranked universities, and he is very, very far from alone.
Best wishes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@channelofstuff Sounds right. The wealth of 60 years ago was sustainable only through sensible and united action. That didn't happen. Half the country decided to take drugs, 'find themselves', explore their personalities, try new child-rearing techniques ("Yay! You're awesome! You can do anything! Yay!"), watch TV, play video games, borrow money, commit crimes, read junk, and so on. Meanwhile the rest of the world gradually got its act together. It all adds up to a much lower standard of living on its way very, very 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
-
@Myndir Yes, the panel, esp. those on the right hand side, and a lot of commenters were/are talking past each other.
The men were saying personality type, with all its consequences, cannot much be swayed by parenting. The women seemed to miss that, defending parenting as making a big difference in lives. The men never denied that it does, denying just that it makes you a different person in character. Women's self-image is very tied up in their self-serving if understandable view that they are all-important in children's outcomes. The thought that they might not be so important is crushing to them.
Men can be thoughtless assholes, but women have much less ability on average to look at things without instinctively factoring in their self-interest in the matter, and so they resist seeing the truth in anything that might harm their personal advantage or that of their side. When boys are growing up this is gradually knocked out of them---not just at school, by other boys and their fathers but often, ironically, by their mothers, who tell them, over and over, to 'be a man.' It's a major cause of divorce, and it's a pity. How much it's innate and how much it's socialization, I don't know.
Sorry to go on at length and off topic quite a bit, but the debate brought all this to the front, I thought. Cheers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
高东锋
It's hard for me to see a great imbalance of costs and benefits in the trade relationship between China and the West. Your people massively mobilized and worked extremely hard to provide us with cheap goods of decent quality.
As a result of that massive effort, the European and North American continents groan under the weight of trillions of dollars worth of Chinese goods which raised our standard of living, as they would have cost ten times more to produce domestically.
The cost was the disappearance of tens of millions of jobs, undermining longer term economic and social stability, and the loss of consumer and capital goods independence, undermining longer term economic and national security.
Any imbalance of benefits is in the eye of the beholder. Overall, China appears to have made a good long term investment, but their people also had to make a great sacrifice. Time will tell.
You and Gregory Moore both make several good points, but I encourage you both to see each other's lands as competitors, not enemies. A competitor one tries to outperform, an enemy one tries to destroy.
Also, both sides should be careful not to overestimate the racism of the other side. There is also a lot of respect on both sides.
Chinese racism of the present day is rooted in the experience of a class of rapacious Westerners in the past, Western racism of the present day is rooted in 70 years of CPC cruelty. (Note the great respect of Westerners for Japan, which is on account of Japan's successful adoption of a free and open system.) So not much of the racism on either side is real ethnic hatred.
If it were real ethnic hatred, tens of millions of Chinese would never have moved to the West, and the West would never have accepted them. If you've never seen it, I can tell you the relationship in the streets and in the workplace and socially is quite harmonious.
All the best. Cheers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@apsert No surprise there. As equipment and medicines have gotten better, people on average, for unrelated reasons I won't get into, have gotten less acute of mind and more selfish. They are kept quite busy by their cost-conscious managers, but---again, on average---they're not really thinking and care less than formerly. I'm not singling out health care, it's the same pretty much everywhere. It's the highly competent and energetic minority that's shrinking fastest, the able few, whether staff or management, who keep it all afloat, or used to. Thus medical mistakes loom as large as ever, if you're to believe the studies, and are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Michael is very right about today's anti-humanism. Now and then I lighten up by watching some pet videos, and below them I read endless avowals that animals are divine and humans are lower than dirt.
No wonder young people are depressed, anxious, don't date, don't want to have families, can't believe in a positive future, are obsessed with finding demographic groups to blame, demand that all others radically change themselves, etc., etc. They're misanthropes. They simply h8 people.
Sooner or later they've got to realize that they're with humanity till the end, so they better find a way to reconcile themselves to it. They've got to realize that their only real option is to try and improve themselves. There's actually no other way of improving humanity and the world.
And guess what, no sooner will they embark on that journey than their outlook on other people will brighten.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@janpamua7714 That's sort of word-salady. While GDP of course includes private, non-government economic activity, on the public side, every dollar (or peso) of government spending counts towards GDP.
Having said that, there are multiple ways of stating GDP. For example, instead of private plus public sector economic activity, GDP can also be closely rendered as simply the sum of wages, profits and taxes. It does add up that way too.
In the present context the important thing is that in Argentina, slashing govt. spending has slashed GDP dollar for dollar. I mean peso for peso.😄 As one would guess, it works the same in the other direction too: if a govt. borrows money and then spends it, GDP rises by that amount. Deficit spending literally grows the economy, even though it's correct to view it generally as growth of dubious quality and not conducive to lasting prosperity (depending somewhat on just how wisely or unwisely it is spent).
I'm not an economist, economics is just a lifelong interest of mine and I learned all this through reading and in my job as research editor at a global investment bank which has economists on staff. Among other things I research, edit and write on economic matters every day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're hearing what was already playing in your head. She actually said People used to take our word for things and no longer do. She was speaking generally, but as far as generalities go hers were quite accurate. She actually seemed realistic and a bit humbled.
And don't get me wrong: I firmly believe that the direction the mainstream media has taken in the past 10 to 20 years — a direction that's been power-serving and self-serving at the same time, at the expense of the truth and the interests of nearly everyone outside of the elites — has been disastrous and morally contemptible, often morally criminal. (At times criminal in the full legal sense, for that matter.)
But I do not hesitate to add that, having said all that, the media which have rushed in to fill the trust vacuum left behind by the corporate and state media is by and large no better and often worse. It is rarely much better at resisting the urge to bias and ordinarily makes no attempt at all.
Indeed most such outlets practically brag that pure bias to be the best or only avenue to truth, accuracy and fairness. They're filled with rigid ideologues, lack of brainpower, poor writing, poor editing, poor trains of thought and laughable amateurism.
Most of its content campaigns openly for ill-thought-out solutions in line with some orthodoxy, a lust for revanchism, or just whatever popped into their heads while in thrall to strong emotion. All of that may be fine up to a point in certain contexts and it doesn't necessarily bother me that it's published, but it isn't journalism and journalism is what we need.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@willguggn2 I had time while I was eating, so I did watch it again!
This highlight version of the actual TV program only covers a handful of survey questions from among (presumably) many more in the survey itself. But ok, lets assume it a was scrupulously representative sample. (I doubt it; I think Mr. Hoffman has an axe to grind here, but let that pass.)
Two answers were very unappetizing, I'll agree with that. One is unequivocal: 52% admitted cheating on a test (one time only or many more times, we don't know). That's pretty bad, to be sure. Yet who knows? What if it's typical of high school kids? What if it shows merely that a high percentage of them had character good enough to admit their character had a serious flaw? Overall, not a flattering finding at all, but possibly not the end of the world. I think that before the age of seventeen, most of us have done something wrong at school.
The other one was that their cars were what they "cared most about." But let's be careful. Hoffman points out that this response edged out "looks". These don't sound like answers to the unadorned question "What do you care most about?" I really doubt people who truly did care most about looks and cars would actually say so. They'd either conceal it or wouldn't quite realize it. I think we're in the dark about the actual question. Perhaps it was "What is most important to you when it comes to social success at school?" or "What do your fellow students care about most?" which are very different questions.
When students answered that the keys to social recognition at the Friendship Dance are looks, money, being from the 'right family', and three others, this does not mean they approve. Isn't it likely they deplored this state of things?
The student body at large is being asked to evaluate an elite social institution. They may be right; their answers, on the other hand, might result from lack of first-hand experience of the dance, or for any other reason be tainted by social envy.
Some people admire their social betters mindlessly; we call them snobs. Even more people bitterly resent their social betters mindlessly; I'm not sure we even have a word for it.
(How can 83% of the kids choose the identical answers, anyway? Five out of six tick off all the same six boxes in a list of about a dozen? Why wouldn't many of them select three, five, or seven?)
As far as other survey answers are concerned, what is wrong with wanting good grades, a college education, a good non-demeaning job, and a nice place to live? Nothing. A what on Earth could possibly be wrong with dance lessons?
What is wrong with liking the comfortable, pleasant town you grew up in and wanting to stay there? Nothing. Others, like me, who have a taste for much more exploration and excitement, and who consider small towns and suburbs the height of boredom, have no right whatsoever to look down on it. To do so would itself amount to a nasty species of snobbery.
I can't go on forever here. The original documentary maker, I sense, had it in for this town and all the places similar to it. He used the filmmaker's craft and things such as tone of voice and rhetoric to guide his audience to certain emotional responses. It is very difficult to put into a few words just what it was I saw to make me think this, but I think he made sure to make them look bad, despising them as philistines.
But all but a few per cent of all people deserve that label. Philistinism is everywhere. Why he wanted to pick on these people who seemed pleasant, harmless, productive and law-abiding escapes me. Maybe he hated them for being prosperous and content, and if they were poor and miserable he would have made heroes of them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@realfreedom8932 But is that not perhaps a promising indicator? When I was much younger and foolishly mixed up with investment bankers, a couple of them once told me that they paid attention to the parking lot when they visited clients. If the senior management drove expensive cars, they told me, they took it as a bad sign. If they saw instead Subarus, Maximas, Oldsmobiles, Passats, and the like, they deduced they were dealing with more solid and trustworthy people and conducted business afterward in part with that in mind. I never forgot the distinction. (They themselves sometimes preferred M series sedans and Jaguars, but let that pass. They didn't have shareholders and thousands of employees depending on them, just scores of women and bartenders.) Cheers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No matter in which decade or century, few if any wars don't involve the leading powers of the day. If they're not between the leading powers themselves, even if they're civil wars, they end up being to some degree indirect wars between them anyway. One should be shocked if a leading power sits out a war entirely via genuine neutrality.
Lack of involvement is somewhat likely to shorten its leading-power tenure or, as in the case of China, delay its full efflorescence. So Xi was not going to pass up this chance to serve China's interests. Indeed it's my belief that he egged Putin on determinedly, if most likely in a low-key manner and or even with feigned reluctance. This war is chock full of goodies for him and China, one of which Sanger mentioned at the end.
Another is the chance of securing a more reliable supply of grain. China imports great quantities of it in order to put pork and chicken on its tables (it is mainly used as animal feed), but the supply is vulnerable to Western trade embargo or naval blockade. A reliable supply of tens of millions of tons of grain a year coming into the country overland by rail from Ukraine, besides strengthening national security in a general sense, would be an enormous boost to the odds of a successful war on Taiwan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sirdrake1177 I certainly don't think they chose to kill him. I think they were determined to pin him to the ground till he calmed down and became compliant. I think they probably thought when he went silent and stopped moving that he had passed out or fainted from exhaustion or panic. I also think they could have done all the same things on a hundred other occasions and the suspect would be all right and not even pass out, or if passed out would come to a minute or so later.
When he stopped moving and talking, they should have stopped restraining him except for his legs, turned him over, and checked his vitals. They did check his pulse and call an ambulance, but in those three final minutes before it arrived they should have checked whether he needed reviving or had instead fainted, and attempted to revive him if needed, instead of maintaining all their restraints.
Maybe they just thought it seemed obvious that he was strong and vigorous, and thought that their restraints were pretty safe since they learned them in training, so they never suspected his heart had stopped, just that his pulse was not easy to find.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hl5910 Ok, but it's not anything blatant. The N.'s never showed much if any genuine socialistic tendencies, policies or actions. The "S" in the party name was more of a ruse than anything else. It's fairer to say that fascism and socialism share some things in common. I'm fine with that, with listing them, and with delving into all the meaningful similarities, but really it's the differences which are more major.
Mostly the N.'s were just capitalizing on the spirit of the times, because people were pretty mad about the poor economic conditions, the inflation, the drop in the standard of living, the global depression, etc., while the rich were still doing fine. Many people (unfortunately) believed socialism was the answer, so it was helpful to a radical new party to claim socialist leanings. Really, however, the N.'s were all about (1) ethnic nationalism and (2) the supremacy of the state over the people, commerce, churches and everything else. They did believe in private property, which isn't something socialism really stands for, but their economic vision beyond that was pretty unfocused.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It took intelligence to come up with that thought, but in my view no megalopolises straddle the border.
BosNYwash is the only real American megalopolis aside from LA-San Diego, and no Canadians are very close to it. A few people in southern Nova Scotia are fairly near to Boston, but they're separated by ocean, which negates the nearness.
The Great Lakes megalopolis is phony. There's too much rural space between all the cities, unlike BosNYwash. Look at the south shore of Lake Erie between Cleveland and Buffalo, for example. It's a long drive. And you could point out other examples all day long.
It's too spread out. If you can call the Great Lakes area a megalopolis you can call nearly the entire continent of Europe a megalopolis. Call it an economic zone, call it a climate zone, call it an ecosystem, call it whatever, but it's just a heavily populated region, like northern France-The Netherlands-Belgium.
And never mind megalopolises, the only US metropolis abutting Canada is Detroit, next to relatively small Windsor, and the rest aren't very close. It's 2.5 hrs from Seattle to Vancouver. Again there's Cleveland, only 40 miles or less from Canadian soil, but the lake makes it seem quite far away. Trust me, next to zero Ontarians have been ever there and vice versa.
The Niagara Falls-St. Catharines region is close to Buffalo and the two areas are sort of integrated in some ways a little bit, I'll give you that.
So no, I don't see it your way, although I understand perfectly well why you thought that. I don't speak for all Canadians, but I think to most of them Canada just doesn't feel as close to the US as you would think.
You're onto something with the island idea. Canada is made up of widely separated population islands along the southern temperate belt. (Australia is similar in that way.)
Cheers and best wishes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertburns3605 Neither British nor living in the UK, I cannot make a comment about Question Time, but I spend some time watching political coverage on Channel 4 and Sky. Overall the tone is as follows: A Conservative minister or member is addressed with clear skepticism (this much is quite all right in my view) and antagonism verging on hostility. Interruptions are frequent and rude. Had Scruton extended his reference concerning humiliation to Channel 4, he would have been justified. Anyone hating conservatives or Conservatives must find the attempts at it, which regularly succeed, deeply satisfying to his or her hatred.
A Labour member or shadow minister is addressed in a manner much closer to that one uses with a colleague, even a friend at certain times. Skepticism may make an appearance but on the whole it is ordinarily a skepticism bordering on curiosity ("I'm not convinced; let us explore this further.") It is usually absent altogether, as are antagonism and hostility. The whole tone is very close to what a Labour guest would ask for if invited to do so.
In short, Conservatives are treated much as foreign enemies of the UK might be. Were they really foreign enemies, we would all like it. Labour representatives are treated, not as perfect, but nonetheless clearly the way defenders of the nation against foreign enemies might be.
In this way, supporters of the Conservatives who are watching are made to feel as though they are possibly foreigners themselves in some sense, but certainly at any rate enemies of the nation.
It is this sort of display of power which most thoroughly makes ridiculous any claim that conservatism is responsible for society's ills, by demonstrating that its opponents are the ones firmly in charge. The media, the TV media at any rate, have set themselves up as a sort of a third house of parliament with a permanent left majority. When a Conservative government is in power, they must accommodate themselves to the demands of this third chamber, which is always in session with members standing to speak.
'Just doing their job,' you might reply, with a certain amount of justification. That justification, in my view, falls short at the point where the media are participants in a battle which they are supposed to be covering. If they were to leave the battle and return to the impartial stance Scruton asserts they once had, they would remain rightly powerful of course, but their virtual parliamentary innovation would disappear in an instant, its arrogated power shifted back to the Commons, the cabinet, and Downing Street.
These are the views of a foreigner quite sympathetic to the future of Britain, who has no home anywhere on the political spectrum but rather always finds himself a nomad, pitching tents somewhere within a stone's throw from the centre (perhaps occasionally two) on either side of it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrKerri888 Thanks for your reply.
Yes, even science has no way of insulating itself from the mental decline of a dumbed-down populace. (Feel free to use my term 'The Great Dumbening'.)
Not only are they, IQs somehow aside, less bright, they are much more venal. So science is warped by the age nearly as much as any other aspect of the civilization, but it entered the mid-postwar period in sturdier shape than the others. I'd say it was still on the rise till about 1985 or '90.
It had been much bolstered by the counterweight of traditions built up and scrupulously maintained during the previous century, say 1870-1970. At various points in the same period, religion, politics, social usages, art, culture, philosophy, basic education, academia outside of science, and most other things, had entered a phase of decay.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Freedom has limits. If it didn't, everyone would have the freedom to shoplift, stand on a street corner to incite a riot, or to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. An elected government has the right to enact laws which are constitutional and pass legal challenges in the courts. Any law is nothing more nor less than a limitation on freedom. Any and all laws.
That said, it's also clear that not all the laws are automatically rendered just by the fact that clean elections fall on time. And no one ought to claim the constitution is perfect. But it's the only one we have and there are ways to amend it. Governments can be wrong but they have the right to be wrong.
These limits on freedom of course include economic freedom. A business owner doesn't have the right to hire someone for a dollar an hour. In my view the law which penalizes this is not only legitimate, but just and beneficial as well.
I doubt what I've said so far has roused any disagreement. But now I'll go just a bit further and assert that the $15 law is just and beneficial too, for the same reasons. I assert that $9 an hour is destructive to society in ways that are worse than the disappearance of the lowest paid jobs. It leads to inequalities that are dangerous to democracy by eventually filling the workers who earn that amount with, first, disillusionment, then hopelessness, then desperation. True, unemployment can do these things to people, but not as badly. It has in my view less power to foster hopelessness because there will remain some hope of finding work -- and it has the added consolation that, if the minimum wage is not too meagre, it will pay enough to avoid abject poverty.
Try a thought experiment: Would we pass a law cutting the minimum wage to $6 so that an extra 50,000 jobs could possibly be created? It depends on what kind of country you want.
My feeling is that one of the chief advantages of living in the West over other places is the relative rarity of desperate and hopeless people. The ratio must be kept down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I watched the White House piece with interest. Curiously, it brought to my mind something with a very faint parallel, namely the rise to positions of great power of eunuchs in the imperial court of China during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 CE).
Here is a very bare-bones summary (please, no snickering; that wasn't a pun):
The presence of eunuchs in the Chinese imperial court dated back to at least the 8th century BC. However, their power rose to extremes during the Ming Dynasty.
In the early 15th century CE, eunuchs established their own mini-bureaucracy at court, which grew to rival the official state bureaucracy. By the end of the 15th century CE, there were approximately 10,000 eunuchs in the imperial palace.
By the latter stages of the Ming Dynasty, the number of eunuchs had increased to about 70,000, and they had established almost complete domination of the imperial court.
During this period, four infamous eunuch dictators — Wang Zhen, Wang Zhi, Liu Jin, and Wei Zhongxian — wielded enormous power.
The Ming Dynasty is considered the height of eunuch influence in Chinese history. Their power was so great that they could select and remove emperors, control state affairs, and even cause the fall of dynasties.
(It has been said that powerful eunuchs were responsible for ending China's incipient era of maritime exploration of the world. A great fleet of ships was dedicated to the purpose in the mid-15th century, but the plans came to an abrupt end.
However, eunuchs were mainly responsible for the exploration program in the first place, and the view that they ended it is not widespread. Most attribute its end to the death of an emperor, Confucian insularity, war with Mongol tribes, and objection to the expense.
Of course, around the same time, Europeans began their own energetic program of maritime exploration, leading to results with which we are all familiar.)
After the fall of the Ming Dynasty, the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) initially reduced the number of eunuchs to 3,000 due to concerns about their excessive influence. However, eunuchs played a role in Chinese politics until the abolition of the imperial system in the early 20th century.
Of course my point is not to say that any peril to the US is posed by any group, but it is interesting to note that there is a historical precedent for a takeover of the topmost machinery of state by a minority comprised of people with sexual differences.
2
-
In fact, his popularity suffered almost zero over his crushing of the protest against him with martial law. The reason: The media supported him on it a thousand per cent.
It thoroughly demonized the protestors as right x stream mists, though clearly they were not. The ploy worked because most Canadians have been programmed over the decades to regard even moderate conservatives as morally unacceptable, practically as monsters. The education system has been tightly in the grip of the left for half a century.
So this video gets the trucker protest issue wrong. Actually, polling records clearly show that the PM's popularity took its decisive and lasting hit immediately when his wife left him a year and a half later. (Freddie badly misinterprets most of what happens across the Atlantic, and always with an air of great confidence.)
It sounds ridiculous, and it is, yet it is profoundly revealing about liberal and farther-left Canadians, who are broadly speaking about 60% of the electorate: Most think that women are ipso facto wonderful, undoubtedly superior to men, and humanity's natural moral leaders. Indeed it was the very fact of his flagrant effeminacy that put Trudeau in office in the first place and kept him there for 9½ years. For the electorate he was the most acceptable type of man, namely an ersatz woman.
Note that the coup de grâce for his prime ministership came last month, not when Trump launched his fresh round of attacks on him, but when his finance minister Chrystia Freeland resigned in anger at her upcoming demotion.
Simply put, Trudeau was installed in office, kept there, and at last removed, by the country's left-indoctrinated gyneolaters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@V_for_Vovin Blanchett lives in the US now but has lived in Britain and comes from Australia where, at least in the social milieu where and when she grew up, British ideas of social class prevailed. And middle class to them means something far different from it does to Americans. Just accept that, please, because it's a fact.
Americans are stunned to learn that a rich and decidedly 'classy'-seeming person is considered middle-class in the UK but that's just the way it is.
It's middle in the sense of middle-rank, not literally close to the 50th percentile of wealth of income.
Think of it this way: In an army having 10,000 officers, a colonel may rank about 300th, with 9,700 majors, captains and lieutenants below him. But he is still a middle-ranking officer in the sense that there are five ranks above him and five ranks below him.
2
-
@V_for_Vovin Economics I love, but here we're concerned with social class, which is properly in the domain of sociology. And not American sociology either, but British-Australian. They have their own quite different system whether Americans like it or not. Brits and Australians know just what she means and would nod their agreement.
A married couple comprising a teacher and a personnel manager would be considered middle-class in America, absolutely; but not in the UK or Australia. What are called middle-class Brits are top professionals like doctors in major metropolitan hospitals, London bankers, well-reputed barristers, very successful and well-educated entrepreneurs and the like.
Kate Middleton before marrying William was middle-class despite her parents having made tens of millions of pounds, despite going to the same university as him, despite her posh manners and tastes, despite even having traces of nobility on her father's side. His first career was in British Airways' operations nerve centre and then he made his own money by starting a business, therefore he is middle-class. He is thoroughly rich now, has a marvellous large old house, and his daughter is to be Queen of England, yet he will always be middle-class and he would be the first to tell you that. End of story.
Stop struggling and have some respect for the facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fair take. Views collected with scientifically methodical scrupulosity have greater value in an important sense.
But there's value in other ways too. Video of students walking around tearing down posters of hostages, e.g., tells us things that a well-conducted survey cannot. (Not to imply you said anything directly contrary to this view of mine.)
Speaking of surveys, consider that Pew Research found that Democrats and Democratic leaners aged 18-30 sympathize far more with the Palestinians than the Is rae lis — 47% vs. 7%. (Survey results published April 2, 2024.)
Views on elite college campuses — where people are younger than the 18-30 group as a whole, and lean politically farther left — are likely even more lopsided.
While absence of sympathy for Isr. does not equate to endorsement of H.s., we can safely assume that among the callow & sanctimonious on elite college campuses, there is some relation between the two. In my view, any relation greater than zero is disturbing, wrong, harmful, and deserves to be publicized.
Anyway, thanks for making a fair point in a measured way.
EDIT: Note the multiple blank spaces above, inserted not by me but by the omniscient algo overlord at the moment of posting. Experience has taught me that they indicate that disapproval of my views which always precedes a period of shadow-you-know-what-ing. So dark, so very 2024.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Flashback_Jack Yes, I've seen males and females both. But only perched or standing around, posing like supermodels, and never in attack mode. I'm guessing other birds tend to stay the hell out of their way.
Which reminds me of one time when, as I was sitting in a downtown park ordinarily populated by countless pigeons, a huge red-tailed hawk set down for a while. He was around ten feet above ground, atop the broken trunk of a big tree that had recently snapped in a storm. Despite his being preoccupied with feasting on the massive rat he had brought along, all the pigeons, thousands of them, took wing in huge flocks and fled the park within about half a minute.
Replacing them, a crowd of at least a hundred people gathered just to watch this magnificent bruiser eat lunch. It was gruesomely worth it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Now in Canada on the CBC (i.e. government news) they are no longer expectant mothers or pregnant women. They're not mothers, not women at all. They are 'pregnant individuals'. Ovaries, Fallopian tubes, wombs, lactating breasts, wide hips, a baby inside them, the works—yet none of them are any longer women giving birth. No, because motherhood—indeed femaleness itself, just like maleness—is now "transphobic" and a hate crime, punishable by law.
The CBC has comments sections appended to its 'news' stories. If you write a comment objecting to this nonsense, it is deleted by a censor, called by them a "moderator". This is done with taxpayer dollars, the CBC budget being well over a billion a year.
Horrifying, I'm sure you find it. (I'm taking you for an American.) But up here we find stuff down there stupefying, trust me. It's a tough call to judge on which side it's worse. I defy anyone to say for sure.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cattymajiv The population of First Nations reserves in Canada is 400,000 (2021 census, out of a total 1.05m who have First Nations status). Of course not all have unsafe drinking water. And bear in mind that an unsafe water advisory may pertain to a source which serves as few as five people.
According to the federal government, "Canada will spend at least $6bn on First Nations water infrastructure between June 20, 2021 and March 31, 2030." The provinces also provide some funding.
This follows the earlier commitment to provide $4.6bn in infrastructure funding in the five years to 2021.
The number of public system long-term water advisories for reserve residents is going down. It fell for 7 of the 8 years in the 2015-22 period: 69 were issued, 130 were lifted. (In the first pandemic year, it rose by two.)
According to Indigenous Services Canada, "As of Feb. 3, 2023, there were 32 long-term boil water advisories in 28 communities in Canada."
They say that 81% have been lifted, a lift is pending in 9% where the work is finished, in 7% construction is in progress, 2% are in the project design phase, and 1% are being assessed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Smj1303 Elite, yes. But 'elite,' for all the significance of its meaning, is not a social class.
She's actually thinking and speaking in the way members of her class are raised to do: namely, to consider that she's a member for life of the class she was born into, rather than thinking she's risen in social rank through financial and professional success. The latter belief would be considered objectionable, conceited and quite impossible anyway.
Her parents were middle class according to the conventional class system, her mother being a property developer and her father an advertising executive. If you think those occupations smack of being higher than middle class, they likely would in most places since they would tend to place one in the top few percentiles of income and wealth. But they don't in Britain. There they're considered middle class, never mind if the people concerned have a considerable pile of money, received a good education, live in an expensive and tastefully-appointed house in an upscale metropolitan area, speak marvellously well in a good accent, never behave with vulgarity, and all the rest.
Let's put it this way: the overwhelming majority of British people would love to be middle class but know they never will. But they hope that their children might, if they are taught to conduct themselves well, attend an elite university, move in higher social circles, become successful barristers in Westminster firms or specialist doctors in top hospitals, vacation on the Côte d'Azur and go skiing in the Alps, send their children to Oxbridge, and so on. Yes, all that is still middle class.
Do not be thrown off by the word middle. It's not middle in the sense that the quantity 'six' is in the middle between one and eleven. It's middle in the sense that an army colonel is a middle-ranking officer between 2nd-lieutenant (the lowest officer rank) and field marshal (the highest): that is, that there are five ranks below him (or her) and five above. The 6th rank out of 11 ranks is square in the middle. It ignores the flagrant fact that out of 10,000 officers only 300 outrank him and 9,700 are below (8,000 being lieutenants), and that's just the way it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Good lord that is....well, I'm not going to say the word. But suffice it to say that you're implying Elon has an IQ of 5.
Obviously she is a refugee from WEF-ism and wokeism. Fn obviously, dude. It stands to reason that she was dying inside, but really had nowhere else to go and continue work at the one thing she knows, hustling ads. When she started 30 years ago it wasn't like it is now.
Ok, she was somewhat too conformist, I guess, but give her a break. There's a hundred million other people in the country who don't like what's going on either, but want to keep their jobs. They're not all p.o.s.'s. They have kids to support. They're up against something vastly larger than them.
So praise the heroes openly fighting it; try to forgive those who haven't gotten there yet because they'd be jobless, cancelled, or both. Hero is a big word because heroes aren't that common, so just salute her for what she's now done: by which I mean turning her back on the whole world of woke garbage. That's really all we need everybody to do, and we could breathe again.
2
-
2
-
@gregbors8364 Not that I think you necessarily care (I bet the whole subject bores you) but your reply got my curiosity going. So here are the basic facts (if I may give them that lofty label) for my own sake and that of other readers, if not you yourself.
According to the Commerce Department (Oct. 28, 2020): "In 2019, U.S. manufacturing accounted for $2,359.9 billion in value added or 11.0 % of GDP, according to BEA data. Direct and indirect (i.e., purchases from other industries) manufacturing accounts for 24.1 % of GDP."
And: "China was the largest manufacturing nation, producing 28.6 % of global manufacturing value added while the U.S. was the second largest, producing 16.6 %, according to the United Nations Statistics Division data."
Finding out the value of weaponry production isn't easy for some reason, but it looks like the Pentagon spends around $150b a year on gadgetry and US companies export another $175b, so call that $325b. Add a generous $25b for sales to individuals and other security forces (police, private security).
Thus weapons industry sales appear to be roughly $350b out of $2.4t, or 15%, of US manufacturing. Huge, to be sure, but leaving lots of room for other stuff.
I'm not a professional researcher, so someone else might arrive at different figures. (I'm also not an American, by the way. So congrats on knocking 90% off your rate of Covid infections. Cheers, DP)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@meganh9460
It seems uncertain just how expansionist China will become. I prefer to ignore its historical record, because of the huge remoulding of the nation and its culture which the CPC have had roughly a lifetime (70 years) to achieve. But it still bears pointing out that conquering other countries isn't very Confucian.
To judge by the present, the country keeps much more to itself than is strictly necessary, but I see this mainly as an expression of prudence and patience. The reason I see it that way is that as China gains economic and military power, it begins to use it, again with prudence but something quite opposite to timidity.
Much depends on what the Party tells its people. If it teaches grievances and grudges, the results will be predictable. If it teaches benevolence, likewise. It will probably do both, and try to maximize the benefits of each.
The other wildcard within the country is the rich. There are now about 500 billionaires there. The rich could foment hostility against other countries for commercial reasons but under a cloak of patriotic spirit. In this way, mercantilist-inspired expansionism could quite conceivably take over in time This has happened before in the world.
Or the rich could even go the other way and have a pacifying influence, or even outright oppose an expansionist government. Although they and the government are now comfortably allied, either one could cancel the partnership eventually. It may seem far-fetched that rich Chinese people would counter their government, but it doesn't have to stay far-fetched forever.
The balance of the uncertainty comes from abroad. We don't know how voters in Western countries, India, Southeast Asia, and Japan are going to feel about China down the road, nor the Russian government. People and governments try to serve their own best interests, but they do make mistakes.
You didn't ask to hear all this, so I hope you don't mind my expressing it.
Cheers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Bob94390 True, what he said was greatly exaggerated. In my opinion this was not just in a factual sense but also in a moral one. Moreover, I strongly sense that the pace of aid has been strategically very adroit.
The massive damage done to Russia's war-making capacity could only have been accomplished over this lengthy period. A decision to supply Ukraine with enough for an all-out defensive and counter-offensive response to Russia's invasion might have backfired horribly, with Russia possibly pulling back at little cost to it in terms of equipment, manpower and financial expenditure.
Thus, with much of its NATO-provided materiel used up in early hostilities, Ukraine would have been vulnerable to a massive regrouping and fresh offensive by a still-healthy Russian army, navy and air force.
In my view it has been vital that Russia be deeply attritted, i.e. weakened militarily, in order that any peace achieved will be both just and lasting. Nothing else will do.
I think that NATO's delays and internal bickering, as well as its outward dithering and fearfulness, have been partly genuine but largely feigned. It gambled that Russia would buy it hook, line and sinker, and it was right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danielwarton5343 wrote: "After this is past we will see what the true cost of the last few months have been."
I don't see how the cost across the Western world alone can come in under $20t---cash costs, lost production, future interest on borrowed money, deflated asset prices of all sorts, the future cost of lost education, the future cost of damaged health aside from covid-19 itself, and much more. Even if the shutdown doesn't go on that much longer it could easily hit $50-100t. And is there much reason to believe that even 2m lives were saved across all its billion people? (This is a plausible IFR of 0.25% with a very high infection rate of 80%.)
These mere Fermi calculations imply a stupendous cost of $10-50m per life saved.
I don't begrudge families the necessary money spent sparing the lives of their loved ones. I should hardly wish to be the one deciding on the matter. But it's got to be admitted, we've never spent so much money saving lives ever in history. Not even remotely close. It surely stands very high among the most staggering sacrifices in human history, perhaps even at the top, I don't know. Its effects will be felt well past mid-century, its reverberations for much longer still.
And how much was necessary and how much avoidable? How much better could we have done if the coolest heads and brightest minds were in charge, as it seems was the case in the East Asian democracies? What did it cost us to allow the media to whip up fear and stifle reasoned debate on the pandemic response? And how much political and economic power is swiftly being transferred to China?
It makes me nauseous to consider all these questions. I feel rather like the doctor at the end of Bridge on the River Kwai, moved by what he saw to no more coherent response than to simply utter "Madness... Madness... Madness!"
My worst fear is that the friendly, smooth-running, stable, and prosperous order achieved in the West after the Second World War, which was already damaged significantly in the present century through sheer mishandling by its governments and citizens alike, will very shortly be washed up. If I considered the West my loathsome enemy, I would at this moment be squirming and howling with pleasure.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Wolfpaw754 The CDC tabulation of doctors' entries on death certificates did not reveal what you think it did, because you don't know anything about death certificates.
Doctors are supposed to enter the proximal cause of death (and can also enter supplemental information, depending on the form in their state). Therefore it must never be, for example, diabetes or influenza , but instead things like sepsis or pneumonia , respectively. Those are proximal (meaning near) causes.
Nor should it ever be covid-19 , but instead heart attack, ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), pneumonia, stroke, kidney failure , or whatever was the nearest cause.
Things like covid-19, influenza, and diabetes are supposed to be listed only as underlying contributing factors.
Thus the 94/6 ratio should have been 100/0, but 6% of forms were botched.
Don't blame the CDC, or me, or anyone else for how death certificates work. Blame the 6% of doctors who need remedial training in how to fill out a form.
And don't take my word for it. Hear out a highly respected covid-19 ICU doctor and UC Riverside professor of medicine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TECf3xSFbU&t=632s&frags=pl%2Cwn
How are we supposed to battle coronavirus hysteria based on incorrect arguments if we don't make the right arguments ourselves?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Mr. Walsh sounds a bit fevered to me. I think Trump has rather different ideas than he lets on publicly about NATO, Russia and Putin. I think he spouts off and hints at these various positions for tactical purposes only.
I think he wants a strong NATO, a neutered Russia and Putin, and a restoration of Ukrainian territory, probably all of it, plus reparations.
Attack, flattery, deception, threats—these are his ways of dealing with people he's up against whether friends, mere competitors, adversaries or enemies. Possibly he can succeed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1) Gad Saad, Elon Musk and Neil Young all happen to be Canadian citizens — Young by birth, Saad and Musk by emigration in their youth. And all three have their claim to greatness. In my view Neil Young has tarnished his, but that certainly can change.
2) Let's be clear on Lemon's X program. It wasn't cancelled and can remain on X. All that happened is that Musk immediately after the interview withdrew from the generous partnership deal he'd signed with Lemon.
So Lemon blew it, but can continue the show. It's just that he's on his own unless he finds another partner, which he's 100% welcome to do. Solo or with a partner (or partners), his choice. Musk is all about the inclusion and the choice. Liberals, conservatives, wokesters, Trump, everyone can come in — and be, and do, and say, what they want. It just has to be lawful.
3) It's true, Trudeau faces political obliteration in the 2025 election. The Conservatives, according to poll aggregator site 338Canada, have a ">99% chance" of a majority win to form the next government. Ahhhh! Such a heavenly state of pleasant expectation. A remarkable 74% of Canadians want Trudeau to step down, not next year or soon, but quite literally now.
4) SkyNA, please don't use that graphic saying "Quebec, Canada." Gad Saad is in Montreal, Quebec. If an Australian professor were in Sydney, surely the graphic would say Sydney, Sydney, NSW or Sydney, Australia. It would never say New South Wales, Australia, I think.
Affection, gratitude and respect as always to Rita Panahi and Sky News Australia from Canada.🇨🇦🇦🇺 Sibling nations always and forever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Logically Irrational Yet she goes out of her way to make fun of Stephen Miller's. My, but she goes to town on him, on how 'icky' he is. She seems to want us to know more than anything else that there's no way she is going to go out on a date with him. He's just so, like, conservative. Borrowing in advance the language of Justin Trudeau, she harps on the word "fringe" as a synonym for both 'non-left-wing' and 'cuckoo.'
She would love have loved how Trudeau also to "fringe" added "often ra cist and misogynist" and "holding unacceptable views" in describing people who disagreed with his firing people from their jobs if they hadn't gotten vaccinated against Covid. (Bill Maher recently read many of these statements to his studio audience, following them by saying to Trudeau (who wasn't present) "Now you do sound like Hitler," and he wasn't joking or even quipping. Watch the clip.)
She's one of these "progressives" who paints devil's horns on all conservatives, who along with others has destroyed the country's political center, and who, as a denizen of the Left Pole, finds anything to the right of it Far-Right. (This is by analogy to the North Pole, compared to which even the North Slope of Alaska seems downright subtropical.). People like her are why I'm politically homeless in the center.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MarcosElMalo2 It surprises me how many people think that American political and military leadership are perpetually unthinking blunderers and how few think that they are acute and realistic but simply have to conceal their real strategy.
In this regard I put Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Ukraine all in the same basket. In each case I think they knew (or know) that attaining an absolute victory was/is not realistic in light of the enemy's commitment and resolve, the immutable facts of the terrain, the (un)willingness of the American public, the need to conserve American military and financial resources, and the willingness of the enemy's allies to back it with their own military and financial resources.
Afghanistan may serve as a prime example. No one is ever going to conquer and pacify Afghanistan—perennially quite well armed and innately highly defensible owing to terrain—without a force of at least a few million, and at a great cost in lives.
Knowing this, the US and the UN-mandated ISAF were under no illusions. They sent in small numbers of men and a lot of materiel with the aim of controlling Kabul, some other large towns, large areas of countryside, and that's all. That they were able to do it so well and for so long, without huge numbers of casualties, was in fact very impressive.
They made their point about terra wrist training, they made it for 20 years, and they made it well. That point was that if the West is attacked, the nation sponsoring the attacks will receive some very unpleasant visitors who will stay for a very long time. And what was its effect? I say that the relative absence of Isla mist terra wrist attacks on the West for many years now strongly suggests that it created a strong deterrent. And the US left at a time of their own choosing. Mostly their own choosing, that is: it would appear that Russian troop massing near Ukraine in early 2021 was the cue that US military commitments were best trimmed to the minimum. Hence the Afghanistan pullout, which when seen in that light was well timed.
(The disappointing aspect was the relative lack of passion among Afghanis for retaining democratic government. This largely had to do with an understandable exhaustion and a longing for peace after so many decades of warfare since the 1970s. It was this that led the Western forces to simply hope that all the kit they'd left the national army with would be wielded with conviction. Few, however, were greatly shocked when the Afghans quickly surrendered. But the notion that US and their partners left defeated with their tails between their legs is nothing more than anti-Western PR.)
It must be borne in mind that the US cannot publicly admit its real goals in every conflict. It cannot begin by telling the American people that it cannot win outright and must settle for attriting enemies over a period of many years. They wouldn't accept it. Yet the outcomes of such attrition are successful. Vietnam succeeded in keeping China from attempts to spread Communism in the Indo-Pacific during all these years since. The hope of the US and NATO now is that Russia will learn a lesson similar to those learned by China (in Vietnam), North Korea and the Taliban, namely that over the long term they cannot win.
Thanks for reading my even longer spiel.😄
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Roger Scruton was sent to us, as it were, to give us as full a picture as possible of the many things we are losing, the terribly beautiful, useful, charming, and profound things that have become in this day forgotten, perished, outmoded, lost, circling the drain. The more thoroughly proletarianized we become (Paul Fussell called the process Prole Drift) the simpler, the cruder, the more foolish, the more childish, the stupider, the crueller, the more cowardly we become. Poor us. Lucky us we had Scruton.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So what would you have done? Built a thousand new hospitals, something that takes a generation to do? Invented a vaccine, something that takes a full year to do? Trained thousands of doctors and nurses, something it takes a decade to do? Expanded the manufacturing of masks, something it takes years to do?
Testing capacity ought to have been ramped up, I would agree, but I don't think that's necessarily possible. The governments have money and authority but they don't have magic wands. Aside from that the only reasonable measures to take in advance of the spread were to alert the public and hospitals to be ready to take basic precautions and make basic preparations.
Drug companies and university labs need no prompting whatever to begin doing whatever they can. The public would never have accepted travel bans, nationwide shutdowns, and extensive quarantining while under one person in a million was infected.
Now that economic effects are emerging, governments are taking steps on that front. Their timing has been just about right.
You can warn, you can inform, you can succour, you can write some cheques, and you can reassure, but you can't confine every person on Earth and you can't write a law against a plague.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1:36 Here an estimate of the value of the Merkers treasure is quoted, $7 billion. At the current gold price of about $1,850 per troy ounce, a ton of gold is worth $53.9 million. Thus $7 billion will buy 129.8 tons. And as a ton of gold can be cast into a cube measuring a mere 14.75" on a side (1.86 cubic feet), the pictures would seem to call the estimate into serious doubt.
There is little in them besides the light bulbs and the ceiling height to give scale, but it appears unlikely the gold in all those bags could be formed into a cube measuring only 6'3" on a side. It appears, I stress. Maybe each bag contains only a single bar, and a small one at that. But maybe the cache amounted to many thousands of tons, not 130. At any rate, the estimate wasn't Mr. Felton's own.
12:50 At the current price of about $1,850 per troy ounce, 10.5 kg of gold is worth not $1,772,000 but around $625,000.
I know I am picking nits, but there you have it. Of course the video is marvellous, just as we always expect!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Redfoxx-pg7km You wrote: "... right wing/mainstream (same thing really...)"
The mainstream is right-wing, you say? This assertion is unhelpful in every way except one: it tells us how far left you are.
From the North Pole all points, however frozen and bleak they may in fact be, are South. In like manner, from the Left Pole all points are Right.
I've come to believe that Left extremism and Right extremism alike are, far from being separate phenomena of thought, in fact a single aspect of personality. You and your mirror-image counterparts on the Right are indeed brethren and sisters at heart, less in thought than in character, with highly similar feelings, reactions, hopes, and instincts to one another. Extremes meet, I was told in boyhood, and I have found it to be true.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aishwaryalakshmi7500 Any sensible person would be inclined to think wider is better if they didn't know for certain from direct experience.
I nonetheless go with the direction I've gotten from these skinny, longhaired, veteran bike mechanics whenever I go in for parts or service and pump them for advice.
They say go for skinny and smooth. The first time I said "What?" and probably sort of made a face, but after the third time I said ok, and it's worked out fine since then. 35 mm seems to be good.
But as they say, your mileage may vary. Who knows, maybe these guys are lunatics who give horseshit advice and I'm just lucky to be a fantastic and brilliant rider who keeps cheating death against the odds.
LOL I don't think so. I think I'm a good rider, not a great one. Try it tentatively for a while, and ride the best way you know how. See if it agrees with you and the bike.
Concerning my bike, I use a pre-1990 Fuji which I set up commuter style. It's steel and my summer bike is aluminum, so it sounds crazy on the face of it, but I don't want salt getting at the steel parts of my better bike. If it's out commission I use the good one—well, to me it's good—a Trek 7500FX, and it rides just as well as in the summer. These are both road as opposed to mountain bikes, but are hybrid/commuter-y in configuration.
Rinse the salt and mud off the thing after (all or most) sloppy rides with a bucket's worth of tepid water, and let it dry off indoors somewhere after bouncing most of the water off. Later take two seconds to dot lube where it needs it, and don't be cheap.
Instead of a wool hat/winter hat/toque, wear your helmet with a thin cap thing (whatever that's called) underneath. I almost want to say du rag, but that's not what it is. They're $15-40 at bike stores.
Your ears and head will definitely be warm enough under the two items, as the temp almost never goes down much below minus 20C, which you know. It's about minus 3C practically 90% of the time, in other words a piece of cake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What you say is striking and evokes pity in us all. But I must strongly disagree with your respondents who claim that the Allied attacks there constituted an immorality on those grounds exactly.
Say a Wehrmacht unit of a hundred kills ten people in a Dutch village. The unit, having left the village, is then encircled by Allied troops and a firefight begins. Is the Allied commander obliged to estimate the German casualties as it proceeds and then at some point say "Right, cease fire! We've now killed fifteen of them and that's more than enough. It's not right to go on, since they only killed ten. We move out now."? No. It is right to battle them until they are wiped out or surrender.
In like fashion, it is in my view right to bomb armaments factories in a war without qualms specifically about the record of destruction of the devices made there. It is right in the same sense that makes it wrong to bomb factories where uniforms are sewn together. Bombing the bomb factories is very much an act of self-defence, an effective one at that, which also might save more enemy soldiers and civilian lives than civilian lives are lost at the time, by ending the war earlier.
And, not to seem hostile, but tell me, are there statistics enumerating war deaths which are not awful to contemplate?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Capitalism and religious myth certainly do have similarities in the foundation of each in the human mind. They strive and succeed at offering relevance to people's vital self-interest, they offer explanatory power, and they offer prescriptions for living--that is to say, morals. And, like religious myth, faith in money does indeed rest on trust, including trust in 'magic', if I may use that term for the aspects of money that are just about that murky.. The more you learn about economics and finance, the clearer this will be to you. Look into how banks create money, if you don't already have a solid idea of it, for example. If necessary, you can then move on to the hocus pocus of the securities markets.
I guess you don't see 'story' as being anything but a narrative, like a creation myth or the gospels. Give Prof. Harari a break. English is not his first language and he picks up what he hears when he listens to Anglophones, the younger, more liberal, and more female among which use the word to mean just about anything we're told about. For the past ten or 20 years, everything's a 'story'. Whenever anybody says anything, they 'have a voice'. (See Prof. Harari onstage last year with Natalie Portman (!) if you want to see evidence of what I mean.) Canting, yes, but innocently used and not in his case evidence of errors in thought. Many Eurasians are understandably out of tune with how loosely most Americans talk, even supposedly educated ones like Portman (BA, Harvard).
I don't doubt he's aware of and in agreement with the boilerplate financial markets epistemology you outlined, though not with the extension to pure maths. (So I would guess.)
Check him out in his talk at the Royal Institution. In the Q&A he is taken to task for referring to millions of future AI-idled people as 'useless'. He patiently explains that he means for us to hear viciously skeptical quotation marks installed around the word. (Portman and RI talks are on YouTube.) First language or not, he has great power over English; whether 'provocative' (his term for his use of 'useless' at the RI), ironic, or neither, his use of it, as of historical learning, aims high. Since in my view, if you hit a bullseye every time, you're standing too close to the target, I approve. Many would not.
Among the broadest thinkers, some with the most merit strike narrower ones as outlandish in their vision and unjustified in their conclusions. The latter say 'how does he know that? How can anyone know that?' The answer, in this case, is brainpower, learning, experience, character and I assume a rich family life, all combining to produce vision. The word fallacy weighs about a thousand pounds. When heaved, if the reasoning behind it is weak, it can fall on one's toe.
All the best. I appreciate your clear style.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@maccarf516 Thanks, I appreciate it. You know, I should have looked it up myself!
So if you call the Covid pandemic an even 8 months old, then the run rate over that time has been 1.33m deaths a year or 3,630 day, one or two percent below the road accident rate.
The current rate, though, is 5,312 a day (past-seven-days average) or 1.94m a year, so it's running at a pace far above road accidents. (At least it fell 10% from 5,879 on August 11.)
You can combine these two ways if you take the current total and add a projected number for the rest of the year at this week's rate. You get 1.53m.
So it looks like road accidents are being bumped down one place this year. Still amazing, though, both ways: It's amazing the world's been turned upside down by something at this point no more calamitous than car crashes, and it's amazing there's so many road deaths in a year.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
At around 1,700 hours of sunshine per year, Germany is below the overall European average of around 2,300. But it is roughly average for European countries above the Alps. Countries with less sunshine include Switzerland, Belgium, the UK, the Netherlands and Ireland. But yes, Spain, Portugal and Greece are far sunnier, up around 2,800. (Not Italy, however: just 1,900.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sirdrake1177 The autopsies didn't show signs of asphyxiation, they fully concluded that he was asphyxiated. But you clearly don't know what that is. It is the failure of oxygen to be delivered to the tissues, period.
It does not have to be from choking, blockage or compression of the airway, strangling, suffocation or anything like that. For example, committing suicide by sitting in an idling car in a closed garage is classified as asphyxiation, even though the victim can breathe freely the whole time. Carbon monoxide destroys the blood's capacity to carry oxygen, so the definition of asphyxiation is met.
Likewise, pressing firmly enough on neck arteries prevents blood from reaching the brain, so it shuts down and therefore stops sending the nerve signals to the heart which are needed constantly to cause it to beat, and to the chest to cause breathing. That, too, is asphyxiation even though breathing and the airway are unaffected the whole while.
But make no mistake, according to the autopsies, he could breathe until the moment of death. Notice from the video that he complained loudly that he couldn't breathe well before he was pressed on the ground, when they were simply trying to shove him in the car. He was, in my view, clearly high, having a panic attack, and not in his right mind.
deliriously, maybe it was just meant to have an impact on the officers, or maybe
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@masakichin6009
If you ever had freedom you would never want to give it up.
In the West you can criticize the government all day long and never suffer ill consequences.
It allows you to feel a type of dignity that's very reassuring and energizing. You may still be an undignified loser in the West and you may still feel dignity and be a winner in China.
But there's a difference: Under one-party rule you are living like a boy under your tough dad. He can beat your mother and the whole family and then brag about how smoothly the household runs. And you can't say anything.
Yes, I believe the countries (e.g. South Korea, Indonesia, Chile) that have gotten a lot richer in the last 40 years owe a lot their gains to democracy. It builds trust, and a lot of things can happen with a little money and lots of trust.
Democracy breeds kleptocrats, yes, but compared with other forms of government, much, much less---and they are rarely bureaucrats or party officials but rather business people who at least produce something.
The best system is a multi-party democracy with high taxes that finance excellent education, health care, and infrastructure. Its free citizens can sort the rest out from there.
Yes, I believe the social credit stuff. You mean the CPC publicly disputes it? Not to my knowledge.
Cheers.
2
-
@masakichin6009
Thanks for your interesting reply. It's true, one can criticize democracy all day long. People in the West certainly do that all the time, whether they realize it or not. It's a major pastime.
Among its many demerits, democracy has never been long-lasting. It goes on for a few or several generations and then tips over into the mud. Ordinarily the cause is its tendency towards oligarchy.
Oligarchies are implicit in human nature. As Freud pointed out "nature introduces inequalities against which there is no remedy." Clever and useful people, especially if pleasing everybody isn't their goal, soon come out on top. They then marry the children of others like them.
A sense of guilt, perhaps, in the end overcomes a corrupt oligo-democratic elite which does not answer to the people. Children, not least the children of the rich, never believe all the justifications told them their parents. It might also be fake guilt, but either way countless family-level abdications take place across the classes.
In any case, a major weakness of liberal democracy seems to be its feebleness at producing the kind of people who can sustain it.
And democracy certainly does not do an ideal job of promoting good society generally, because it opens up to people the possibility of improving their rank by the accumulation of money. Where there are different arrangements, as in an aristocracy, urges to rise in social rank are curtailed, being as a rule so far-fetched. But in a liberal democracy, the fact of plausibly having a shot at social distinction distorts individual personalities on a large scale and thus goes a long way towards harming the chances of good society.
However, sensibly high taxes and the best possible public education (and health care and infrastructure) go a very long way towards moderating these problems. Of course in any democracy the best-off ten percent will be decently-behaved and will promote stability; the trick is to continually show to the rest that they can succeed with just average merit.
In light of this, democracy is thus a juggling act with many balls, dinner plates, axes, and smoking chain saws in the air.
But then, what is the alternative to it? If you live under a king, you can only hope he and his son and grandson will not abuse and rob you. That is not likely And whether under a king or a repressive bureaucratic state, how pleasant is it to be utterly without a say in what the laws are? And not just for oneself, but for everybody outside a ruling elite numbering just several thousand or even only a few hundred. I recall you mentioning that public protest in China can affect government policy, but such an outcome is at the pleasure of the government, for they cannot be thrown out.
Protest in such a case is not a right protected by the constitution, courts, and police. It is specifically opposed by the constitution, courts, and police, never mind the party, a restricted press, and an intimidated society at large.
No, such a ruling party merely have to appear flexible enough to prevent a serious attempt at revolution. That is a standard low enough to guarantee that the people will be abused, as long as the the government's power is great enough.
If that is so, large numbers of people can be imprisoned or starved to death, without its rule facing danger of overthrow. Unrestricted power is not safely put in the hands of a small number. To disagree with this is to forget about the role of instinct in human behaviour, to forget that human lives are run on hormones, appetite, and fantasy more than anything else, to forget how our cousins the chimpanzees live and the fact that they make war on one another. It also ignores millennia of history.
In my view, if an unelected government not only has a monopoly on force, but also omnipotence in counteracting opposition (as when it has 400m surveillance cameras plugged into facial recognition software) great abuses of the people are absolutely guaranteed.
What the absolute monarchy, dictatorship, or one-party state can offer is a sort of stability. But then, the government is something like a strict dad, and one lives under his roof. In a way you can never really leave your teens.
And that is only if you are lucky. If you are unlucky, you live under cruel gangsters and spend your life not like a teenager but like a dog.
I enjoyed your reply. We might have different opinions, but I can see you have observed life carefully for a long time.
Forgive the length of my reply. All the best. DP
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jebus Bhrist I have been unable to find confirmation of this. There is reference to it in a YouTube video, but if it were an actual thing I think I'd find reference to it somewhere else as well, e.g. on an official US armed forces site, on army marksmanship enthusiast sites, veterans' discussion forums—somewhere, anywhere.
The DoD site for the Army Marksmanship Unit makes no mention of it whatsoever. It notes that this unit is the "Best of the Best", and that "Fewer than 100 soldiers, at the top of their marksmanship game, make up this elite unit. They are the best of the best, not just in the military, but throughout the competitive shooting world." But nothing about a black hat, a black cap, any color hat, or any special honor.
Black hats for snipers do however show up in a bunch of private-sector merchandising websites. So it appears to be something out of popular culture. ( Appears, I say.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kimwit1307 I regard GDPs of countries with severely undervalued currencies as being more suitably looked at by PPP. Nominal and PPP both have their aspects of reality and unreality, and are both important, but when an economy grows in domestic terms while shrinking in market exchange rate terms, you know something's not right with the USD-terms picture.
Pre-war, Russia's GDP at PPP was just 10% smaller than Germany's, i.e., pretty close to $5trn. All that talk one hears about its economy being "the size of Italy or Canada" stems from a serious lack of understanding and knowledge, and in many cases bias and strong emotions.
(Don't get me wrong, Germany's economy was a fundamentally stronger, more advanced and richer one, hands down. But GDP is a measure of size, not quality.)
Thanks for your reply.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brandonf1260 Not that many years ago I would've agreed with you, eight or 10 maybe. It's a very common opinion, and I thought the reason was that it was simply true. But at last, a little while later, I realized than my view of conservatives was highly caricatured. And I realized I'd been had.
For opinions like the one you expressed are what one is taught by: most university faculty (especially younger ones and TAs of course), most of one's fellow students at almost all universities, most American movies, most American TV shows, most American news outlets, most American magazines, most American celebrities, most or perhaps nearly all American teachers, very nearly all American liberals, all American left-wingers and all American wokesters. And it's been that way since about 1980.
The demonization of conservatism has been so energetic, so thoroughgoing, that you actually owe it to yourself to consider how it is that they haven't gone away. If your answer to that is that "Uh, because they're evil and immortal like vampires" and you say it because you don't think the question even deserves a moment's thought, I understand. I was once like you. It's what I would've said.
But I suggest you take it seriously anyway, simply out of non-conformity — if your original liberal spirit of non-conformity still has a flicker of a pulse after however many years spent conforming to liberal ideology and prejudices.
Consider if you will what liberal Americans have shown themselves willing to do and willing to give up in the past ten years alone in order to spare themselves the horrors of conservatism. Consider how many of them are grimly (or cheerfully) determined to re-elect a less-honest-than-average president with a clearly shrunken and wizened brain. Consider that they have joined forces to revamp the language down to its very pronouns. Consider that they stand up for the right of men to walk into women's locker rooms and showers and expose their sex organs in front of the women. Consider that they supported unnecessarily depriving their children of a year or more of irreplaceable education and socialization in the classroom.
I could list another hundred irrational things they've done simply to thwart conservatism. And again, I understand. I understand that they think they have to do whatever it takes. They simply want to be good people. They want to oppose evil. They want to avert chaos, save democracy, ensure decency, save lives, rescue the planet and entrench everything else wholesome and desirable. Because conservatives are evil, ignorant, full of hate, they're a bunch of cartoon characters beyond redemption.
Only it's all a hoax. Conservatism is relentlessly straw-manned. What they are is simply people who believe that the oath of Hippocrates, First, you shall do no harm, is well suited to more walks of life than just medicine, and especially to politics and social engineering. They are profound disbelievers in utopian solutions, in the idea that we today really might be the most morally enlightened and wonderful people of all time (we're not), in the idea that after numberless millennia of humanity struggling with eternal problems, it's the people born after 1945, '55, '65, '75, '85 or '95 who've Finally Figured It All Out far, far more thoroughly and better than anyone ever has! Nay, perfectly! (Cf. Confucius: "The answers were all found long ago.") Actually we're just the latest cohort set to blunder childishly and spectacularly if we make the mistake of believing in ourselves like that.
That's what I finally realized after decades as a liberal. Not all at once, not right away. At first it was barely at all, in a painful haze of cognitive dissonance as what I believed and what I saw with my own eyes were in direct contradiction with each other. Then it was more and more, gradually, as I began to trust the rational and not the socialized part of myself. And at last I realized that my initial attraction to the 'truths' of liberalism was in fact an attraction to being in the 'right' community all along. I wanted to be "the sort of person who knows that [insert any of a thousand liberal tropes about how every liberal/left-wing tenet is by its very liberalness/left-ness inherently superior in morality]" and who is recognized for it.
And I realized that it had cost me very dearly. It had cost me access to the very truth I thought I was picking off the shelf as easily as consumer packaged goods. I'd been had by a bunch of really rather awful people whose sole merit was sometimes or usually meaning well — especially when other people were looking — and whose demerits would take forever to plumb.
I shouldn't have taken so long to realize all this. I actually stifled the budding of these realizations for a long time because I genuinely feared it meant no longer "being a good person." Oh, what an id io t I was! But late is better than never.
(I also shouldn't have waited so long to start writing all this out. Again, better late than never. At least I've started now. Your comment somehow made it seem like the right time. So thanks.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A bit hard to believe, but the homicide rate in Toronto isn't far above what it was five decades ago.
1971 Pop. 2,089,729, 42 homicides, rate 2.01 per 100,000 ("Metro Toronto", same boundaries)
2022 Pop. est. 2,863,880, 71 homicides, rate 2.48 per 100,000
2023 Pop. est. 2,887,677, 1st six months 30 homicides (annualized to 60), rate 2.08 per 100,000
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
(1) Well, at least Global gave both leaders time to speak. But unequally: Trudeau, 2m40s. Poilievre, 59s.
(2) Notice that Trudeau focused on justifying Ukraine aid, which most Canadians support. But he offered no justification for forcing the carbon taxes, which most Canadians oppose, on a Ukraine trade deal. ("Majority of Canadians want carbon tax dropped or waived for three years — poll" (Reuters, Nov.16, 2023)
(3) Every day Prime Minister Peter Pan looks more and more like Celine Dion. What's with that?
(4) Anti-Americanism is Trudeau's shadow platform, his ace-in-the-hole, if you will. When he's in trouble, it's the card he plays. But if you look closely it's really his platform's central plank.
Is it because the late Matthew Perry, an American and the son of his father's Press Secretary, beat him up one day on the way home in Grade 5? (They attended the same school in Ottawa.) In some ways Matthew Perry was a great man. May he rest in peace.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Thanos1908 That is false. He supports Ukraine and puts his money where his mouth is: SpaceX has donated over $100 million in equipment and services to Ukraine, and this continues. Please name any other person or company that's done anywhere near as much. Name one that's done anything, for that matter. Actual support for Russia would never include advocating for clean, binding, UN-run referendums on whether Russia must withdraw, since at the time they would've resulted in No To Russia outcomes, except probably in Crimea.
I did not agree with his proposals, for the reason that I think Ukraine can win. Musk on the other hand (and I intensely hope he is wrong) does not believe Ukraine can win, and that was the source of his proposals. As much as I hope and still believe he is wrong, it may turn out that I am the one who is wrong. After all, although he is of course wrong at times, he is smarter than me. Thus I disagree but do not condemn him.
Think. Determine the facts without bias as best you can, then respect them. Do not accept the shame of the only mind you have being mass-made by dishonest people and institutions. (Here I refer to the media businesses which instantly turned on Musk the moment he withdrew his support for the Democratic Party, the party which 99% of them quite openly support.) Despise the liars in your own country — all of them, not just selected ones — as much as the liars in Russia. Thinking is hard, fairness is hard, establishing the facts and the truth is hard, but there's no other way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Soloviev (oddly, pronounced SO-lav-yov) didn't come up with the idea, of course. It's been around since at least the time of Horace (65 BCE - 8 BCE), who wrote of it in one of his odes, Book iii.2, sometimes called Dulce et Decorum est after its most famous line, indented below (">>>") :
Let the boy, toughened by military service,
learn how to make bitterest hardship his friend,
and as a horseman, with fearful lance,
go to vex the insolent Parthians,
spending his life in the open, in the heart
of dangerous action. And seeing him, from
the enemy’s walls, let the warring
tyrant’s wife, and her grown-up daughter, sigh:
‘Ah, don’t let the inexperienced lover
provoke the lion that’s dangerous to touch,
whom a desire for blood sends raging
so swiftly through the core of destruction.’
>>> It’s sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.
Yet death chases after the soldier who runs,
and it won’t spare the cowardly back
or the limbs, of peace-loving young men.
Virtue, that’s ignorant of sordid defeat,
shines out with its honour unstained, and never
takes up the axes or puts them down
at the request of a changeable mob.
Virtue, that opens the heavens for those who
did not deserve to die, takes a road denied
to others, and scorns the vulgar crowd
and the bloodied earth, on ascending wings.
And there’s a true reward for loyal silence:
I forbid the man who divulged those secret
rites of Ceres, to exist beneath
the same roof as I, or untie with me
the fragile boat: often careless Jupiter
included the innocent with the guilty,
but lame-footed Punishment rarely
forgets the wicked man, despite his start.
[I don't vouch for this translation. I wanted Samuel Johnson's but couldn't find it online at no charge.]
2
-
2
-
Our national broadcaster in Canada, the CBC (taxpayer-funded counterpart of the BBC, NPR, etc.), also goes for 'pregnant people', 'pregnant individuals', etc. Whenever they do, many people reading the story on their website leave comments below it, objecting in strong and often hilarious terms. All such comments, if they manage to make it past the censor in the first place, are soon scrubbed, despite the many upvotes they earn.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anneb889 That was an interesting reply. Thanks.
I'll point out that as a boy I found it merely annoying and ridiculous but the moment I arrived at university I realized how deadly earnest the man-haters were. They had a department devoted to their activities which was called Women's Studies. They weren't about making sure women got paid equally or anything like that; their entire purpose was to raise women by degrading men. Or simply to degrade men. When I would point that out to girls, they'd say 'What's wrong, can't you take it? That's what men did to women forever' or similar things. They realized that they had pit bulls working on their behalf and valued them on that basis, expecting that they'd get to wear the pants. Where I grew up women dominated at least half of marriages anyway, so they were just looking for an even sweeter deal.
It was around that time that talk of equality dried up. The tone moved to: 'Men are simply terrible and don't deserve anything. Whatever they have is illegitimate. We are through with men and don't like them or need them.'
By this time I was looking back on the messaging I was drenched with as a youth and began to feel a complete fool for sympathizing with and backing their earlier campaigns. I'd been had.
Which is why I now just laugh at the gall of feminists' asking men to help them deal with 'trans' 'men' invading their territory. Of all the damn nerve, after how you've treated us for nearing on a whole lifetime!
Trans people are copying their whole awful, irrational, histrionical, society-destroying, fake-academic playbook and I think it serves the feminists bloody well right. I'm enjoying watching the thing they spawned come back to bite them. Hoist with their own petard, and it couldn't happen to a lovelier bunch of self-serving mentally-ill hate merchants.
More than you bargained on hearing, I'll bet, and if you read all this way you have my gratitude and affection. This will be all though, unless you happen to ask me something, which I'll be glad to answer (tomorrow). All the best to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ryananderson5202 You wrote that the boomers have to get out of the way. I get how tempting that idea is, I really, really do. But it's no solution. You would quickly find their replacements more appalling yet.
The civilization is in a long down-cycle of an even longer decline. No respite is on the horizon, despite what a few like you in the generations that followed the boomers ardently hope are possibilities their cohort can reverse it. I'm not sure you realize you are even more rare in your generation—it pains me to say it but you're far, far, far more rare— than your worthy counterparts were in theirs, back in the 60s, 70s, 80s etc. when they took over. They couldn't contain the landslide, so you and your skeleton crew, no matter how sharp-eyed and determined, have absolutely no chance at all.
Go ahead and try, though. Trying delays the total collapse a little bit, so it's worth it. It will also hasten the onset of a minor counter-cycle if there is indeed even one of those left before the end. (Rome, as you may know, had several whilst remaining stuck on its course of total doom, but then its threats from outside were pretty manageable, so I'm wary of hoping too much.)
Even if there is a bit of a counter-cycle on its way, I doubt you'll live to see it, as I would say our current momentum precludes it. I suspect you're Gen-X, and if so there's not enough time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, he's an intellectual. The problem is that something's happened to him in the past four or five years. He was already majorly rattled, as so many psychologists and psychiatrists are, by years of absorbing the problems of his patients, and since then he's had to deal with the stress of illnesses both chronic and sudden, the illness of his wife, combined with an extreme amount of travel, money pouring in, criticism and controversy. It has not done his mind or his brain (he's had neurological problems, according to him) any favours and he's nowhere near as sharp as he was five or ten years ago. If he can pull himself fully together again I'll be amazed.
I'm inclined to agree with you about 'air time.' He's qualified to speak on the psychology of whole nations, even maybe on that of Putin a little, but here he spent too much time ranging far outside the list of subjects suitable for him to comment publicly on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
🤨Uh, no. That itself is pure misinformation. Nobody touched any of his degrees, nor did anyone try to, nor has anyone even contemplated it.
The body persecuting him is not a university or educational body at all. it's a professional regulatory body called the Ontario College of Psychologists, and it licenses clinical psychologists to practice in Ontario. (He retired from practice some years ago but maintains his licence.)
So far he has been given a choice between taking remedial social media training or losing his licence. He appealed and lost in court a few months ago, but has yet to announce what his choice will be.
(Btw, it had zero to do with "misinformation." Zero. His posts were judged by the College to be unprofessional, but for other reasons. In one, he tweeted that a particular Sports Illustrated swimsuit model was "Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that." That was it. That was the entire tweet.)
So no, he hasn't had anything "removed." Not yet.
And even if he does lose his licence it would still be entirely proper to call him a psychologist. Many psychologists do not practice clinically. According to the BLS, over 40,000 teach psychology at the post-secondary level, being generally university professors. For Peterson himself, clinical work was part-time, as he was professor of psychology first at Harvard then at University of Toronto, and those were full-time appointments. Having retired in 2021, he is now professor emeritus at U of T. But he's still a psychologist, no question.
Thus, though you spelled his name right at least, every single thing in your post was untrue.
Yet you're accusing him of misinformation.
Oh my god. How perfectly emblematic of his adversaries and detractors.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A lot of people are single, young and in robust health, and love working hard. You don't have to be one of them, but don't pretend they don't exist in numbers, and don't resent them either. If they disappeared from the workforce overnight, or suddenly started doing the minimum, the world's standard of living would soon fall substantially. If you're working 37.5 hours a week, they're actually doing you some good.
(Btw, it's a sad and eternal fact that many people in families hate each other anyway, but are stuck being together, so if work is a refuge for any of them, or spares the others their unpleasant presence, so much the better for all concerned. How I wish that the parent I couldn't stand had hardly been home, and I wasn't the only one who felt that way. We would've been far happier.)
As Frederick the Great said, "Let every man be saved after his own fashion."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You make some good points (and I commend you heartily for correct and apt use of the word admittance.😄) But mark my words, when Trump desires to enter Canada, he will — with the full, prompt and unconditional approval of the Canadian govt. He will attend the G7 leaders' summit in Canada next June, you may depend upon it; and if he wants to visit as president-elect, he will do that too. One must always maintain one's sense of realism.
As for the threatened tariffs, I consider it very unlikely that they will be imposed, but not because they are ridiculous and unreasonable. Rather, I expect the threat will be withdrawn when Trudeau makes concessions on tightening the border from our side, as, in the circumstances, he certainly ought to. (We shall see if he obtains any reciprocal concessions, as he likewise ought to.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1:00:15 The questioner, making a show of disrespect that surely played well with all her friends, taxes Scaramucci with hypocrisy for esteeming party loyalty whilst decrying political division. She does it with a rudeness scarcely possible to attain without one's considering oneself rather wonderful and indisputably righteous. Fellow audience members acted in a similar, for me regrettable, way. But as I'm not on Scaramucci's side politically, it was for other reasons that I cringed and felt disappointed for all those present to witness it.
I invite anyone to speculate whether she would have been the least bit critical of another speaker taking the same stance were she fully congenial to his or her politics. My own speculation is that, no, had such a speaker said that division threatens us gravely, but we of the left, we women, we feminists, progressives, etc. must stand together, her rejoinder to Mr. Scaramucci would never have crossed her mind.
It's not easy to feel sorry for her, for I think she'll have an easy time of carrying on in this manner for some years, perhaps decades. In our times, loathsome and pitiable as she may strike us at certain moments, she is actually much to be envied in many ways.
I well remember my own hypocrisy during my youth. The trait is endemic in the young, for hypocrisy is on sale at a deep discount for a number of years following the onset of adolescence, in the anglosphere of the present lifetime anyway. Going easy on oneself, which is what hypocrisy amounts to, has many attractions, until at last its costs catch up with you. The sooner that happens the better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That lack of confidence is justified. Canada, the UK, and Israel are at 73, 70, and 68% vaccinated right now, and 66, 62, and 63% double-vaccinated. Yet thousands of new infections a day: 2.5k, 33k, and 7.7k, among populations of 38m, 68m, and 9m.
Still light restrictions in Canada and the UK despite the infections, but then we're not barking mad like Oz, are we? You guys would be under virtual mass house arrest, with soldiers in the streets.
[Numbers from Our World in Data (vax coverage), Worldometer (7-day avg. new infections)]
Note that those vaccine coverage numbers include young children, who are ineligible. Counting only the eligible, it's in the 80s/70s. Sorry to say it, but you don't appear to have a hope.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think he understands Russia and even Putin fairly well. In the war he sympathizes with Ukraine and thinks Russia is in the wrong, but he understands the Russian perspective and thinks that weak understanding of it has led to strategic mistakes on the part of the West. He also thinks (wrongly, in my view) that it's impossible for Ukraine to win.
In this way he resembles Elon Musk, who strongly sides with Ukraine and has made enormous donations to help it defend itself, but thinks that Russia is somewhat justified from its own point of view and, like Peterson, that Ukraine can't win. Of course, if one thinks that struggling any further will be pointless and can only mean greater death and destruction, the best course logically is to sue for peace.
I disagree with them, but they're not stupid, they're not "jokes," and they are good men. I think they're influenced up to a point (and with considerable justification) by respect and admiration for certain aspects (not all) of Russian society and culture — but not of Putin. Musk I am sure despises Putin thoroughly. Peterson perhaps not quite as much, I don't know. His profession teaches the avoidance of black-and-white character assessments except rarely.
I do worry that neither of them questions the publicly-made Russian case enough. For my part I think it's exaggerated to the point of being spurious, despite its core of easy plausibility. If it were completely sound, all Russia (or 95%) would accept it and back it, yet a large minority of perhaps one-third or more do not.
Finally, it's possible that they have zero conviction that NATO will see things through. Again, such a belief would necessitate the view that the war should end now rather than later. It's not my own view, but NATO has its believers and its non-believers. Many are totally surprised it's still backing Ukraine at this point and expect it to give up at any time.
Not me. I see quiet and shrewd resolve in NATO and adroitness in its actions to date. It's my belief that Russia is on a slippery slope to defeat not hugely different from the 1989 defeat in Afghanistan.
But I bet both Peterson and Musk are better-informed than I am.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MethodiousMind It's a tactic of rulers known throughout the ages, because ever since they've applied abusive force to their people they've faced the problem of police or soldiers who quite understandably don't want to abuse the people amongst whom they have always lived and will continue to live.
It's repugnant to any mentally and morally healthy human being, including police and soldiers, to abuse people in the first place, but add the further complication that the people live on their own street, and even the terrible ones won't want to do it.
So, as you suggest, you get them from out of town or out of province or state. At Kent State almost none of the National Guardsmen were from Kent. Occasionally they're sourced from abroad: King George III hired Germans to push around his American subjects (they were called Hessians). In the present war in Ukraine, Putin has brought in Chechens, who are neither Ukrainians nor really Russians (although Chechnya is unfortunately part of the Russian state).
If you can't easily get local authorities to act and thus source them from elsewhere, it's highly likely you're doing something that's not right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@istvanglock7445 Because it's still too early. But AI—specifically AGI (artificial general Intelligence, meaning AI that's at least as smart as a smart human)—is going to really turn things upside down, perhaps making life fantastic. (Also maybe getting all of us violently wiped out.)
AI advancement, it is said, is going to go wildly exponential. Once AGI is achieved it will take off quickly under its own power, so to speak. One day it'll finally be as smart as an average professor; a month later it'll be rewriting Shakespeare in a far superior fashion; then after another month it'll be as smart as a hyper-intelligent alien. A further week later and it'll be as smart as God. I'm not trying to be accurate and precise, I'm trying to give the general idea. If such a pathway came to pass, environmental problems would be addressed quickly—as long as, I stress, the AGI does not decide to kill us all. Survival in that case would be impossible.
This is the real reason Elon Musk wants a human colony on Mars. It's not really so much about asteroids, nuclear war or new deadly plagues. Stephen Hawking, too, said that AGI could be extremely dangerous to the existence of humanity. Go up to the search box and enter "hawking danger of artificial intelligence."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joannewilson6577 (1) I am intensely partisan in favor of Ukraine, but his points of view, although I disagree with him, were nonetheless legitimate and not pro-Russian but rather anti-war. I regret to say he may eventually be proved right.
His belief is that Ukraine cannot win and will simply be destroyed at a great cost in lives.
His proposal was to halt hostilities and hold binding referendums in the occupied areas, including Crimea, under the direct supervision of the UN. If the people voted against being part of Russia, then Russia would permanently withdraw. There are now problems with such an idea, since Ukrainians have fled in the meantime and Russians have moved in to replace them. But at the time it was more reasonable. The "will of the people" would've resulted in a Russian withdrawal, which I think would be ideal.
(I hope your placement of quote marks around the phrase the will of the people was not a sneer, btw. In a free and democratic society the will of the people is a highly respectable principle, perhaps highest of all. If it so happened that, before the conflict began in 2014, a clean referendum would've resulted in a majority voting to separate and join Russia, I think that probably should've been respected, at the very least as a basis for negotiations. In Canada in 1995, Quebec separation was rejected by a mere 50.5% to 49.5% margin. At the time Canada would've respected a narrow Yes win. A clean referendum is better than a war.)
(2) No one despises Russian bots on Western social media more than me. But they are everywhere, including countless hordes of them on this platform.
It's a terrible problem, because it dares us to hold on to the openness and freedom of our system and society at the expense of the propagandization of our people. In the past we have partially shelved free speech and accepted systematic repression of opinion only during wartime.
(Such repression via private media still went on, in peacetime included, but was generally disapproved of. Unlike today, people demanding or even accepting it were few in number. There was great debate on whether it was really significant in scope. Not like today. Everyone knows that public expression is quite tightly controlled, except now on X, where the control is looser.)
Besides that, even as a practical matter it is extremely difficult to identify and remove posts from foreign govts. The latter can automate posts into a flood of enormous volume. They now use AI very effectively to mimic native-English-speaker expression.
Your point about the EC may be perfectly true yet is very misleading. For one thing, the problem did not begin as result of his purchase. Foreign bots were highly active on Twitter before Musk bought it, and would still be if he hadn't. For another, he doesn't want the foreign bot traffic any more than you or I do. But it can only be addressed, as I understand it, by wholesale deletion of posts not only from overseas but also those of our own countries. (And for practical and technical reasons the effort still might fail.) And then what good will social media be, if you can only post what the tech titans approve of? Many people, including a great many liberals, find that notion abhorrent.
It is an incredibly thorny problem which no simple answers can solve. I am not terribly optimistic, although it might become somewhat easier if Russia were defeated.
(3) I sense that you are insufficiently skeptical of the news you read. Musk is clearly pro-Ukraine. SpaceX has donated over $100 million in equipment and services to Ukraine and continues to do so. (The US govt. now covers 80% of the ongoing amount.) Check into what Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin have donated and you will find that it is zero. SpaceX stands alone among corporations of any type.
The large media outlets turned on Musk overnight, as soon as he withdrew his support for the Democratic Party, which is the one 99% of them support. They now publish an enormous number of hit pieces about him. Formerly, for many years, they praised him.
If the author of these (very much unproven) allegations against Musk had instead written the opposite, the media would have ignored him entirely. You would not be commenting here, because Times Radio would not have uploaded a video concerning claims in a book by an unknown author about Musk if they were favorable to him.
Thanks for your reply.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ernestinebass4371 Come on, put some thought into it. It was the Dems' own choice to put the two things (Ukraine funding and border security funding) in the same bill. No one could've forced them to do that. So why do you think they did? It's because they know damn well the border is the top issue for Americans, including a great many if not most Democrat supporters, so they know they have their own hides to save. So what do they do?... Quite naturally they hand House Republicans a bill with a lever on it marked "Pull Here to Get Your Way on the Border (wink, wink)".
Fake "grudgingly giving into the awful Republicans" is just the cover they need for assuaging the emotions of the farther left wing of the party. As for the Republican reaction to such a thing, well, they have mirror-image base support concerns, so they're more than happy to play ball if they can claim a win. Indeed, I would think it was probably as much their idea as the Dems, since they're actually as ok with funding Ukraine as Biden and the Democrats are with a major tightening of the southern border.
It's going to be fine. Both parties have to pretend that their arms are being twisted horribly because if they didn't, they couldn't sell any compromise to their respective bases as easily. That's why all this wasn't done in December. There has to be a respectably long period of refusing each other for appearances' sake.
But it'll be done soon. And it's politics the way any adult person would realistically hope it would work: that is to say, that multiple issues get moved along with some fairly efficient give-and-take, and a reassuringly large amount of power-sharing. It's usually not that good, so if it turns out I'm right, I suggest you feel really, really good about it. We'll see in the next month or so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matt9999 I felt in a rare mood to stir the pot.😄 It can't be all earnest platitudes and easy black-and-white hand-wringing all the time. There's a popular view of life and the world which although it's got something to it, is too smugly one-sided now. People display it like a crucifix or head-covering, to ward off aspersions about their moral propriety as they go about their lives.
Difficulties and danger, dead-ends and misery, are spread around a lot more freely than formerly. It's perhaps the greatest time ever to be rich or at least in the top 5-10%, but that's about it.
Anywhere outside of that, people in all demographics are under pressure from others in other demographics (and countries), as well as their own, who are straining to submerge them after taking their money, their position, or both. Not equally of course. Some of us are better swimmers than others, but 90% of us are in the water while the rest are in motorboats, or yachts. Virtually unassailable security has returned almost to the levels of 80 or 90 years ago, i.e. it's rare again.
Concerning the non-boat people I just mentioned, no magical fake-curated list of categories from an academic journal article can tell you how good or bad, deserving or undeserving, safe or unsafe anybody is. It won’t survive much contact with life.
Pardon my rant, which I've never articulated before. I do mean well.
1
-
@matt9999 I felt in a rare mood to stir the pot.😄 It can't be all earnest platitudes and easy black-and-white hand-wringing all the time. There's a popular view of life and the world which, although it's got something to it, is too smugly one-sided now. People display it like a crucifix or head-covering, to ward off aspersions about their moral propriety as they go about their lives.
Difficulties and danger, dead-ends and misery, are spread around a lot more freely than formerly. It's perhaps the greatest time ever to be rich or at least in the top 5-10%, but that's about it.
Anywhere outside of that, people in all demographics are under pressure from others in other demographics (and countries), as well as their own, who are straining to submerge them after taking their money, their position, or both. Not equally of course. Some of us are better swimmers than others, but 90% of us are in the water while the rest are in motorboats, or yachts. Virtually unassailable security has returned almost to the levels of 80 or 90 years ago, i.e. it's rare again.
Concerning the non-boat people I just mentioned, no magical fake-curated list of categories from an academic journal article can tell you how good or bad, deserving or undeserving, safe or unsafe anybody is. It won’t survive much contact with life.
Pardon my rant, which I've never articulated before. I do mean well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jrgzmn3692 Breathe, Mr. Guzman, just breathe. Maybe sit down. Maybe playing too much Call of Duty isn't helping.
I didn't spice up anything, I stated facts.
As for that Ringling Bros. complaints board, yes of course the woke brigade is abusing it to try to take Jordan Peterson down. Yes, they've submitted fake and trumped-up woke complaints. They're a disgrace and so is the kangaroo-kourt panel itself.
Concerning religion, it's clear from his lectures that he considers religion profoundly important to humanity; vital for a healthy society, and perhaps for a healthy mind; a font of meaning, culture and intellectual riches; and far more than mere superstition.
After calming down, perhaps acquaint yourself with actuality. Then embrace it for dear life. Perhaps finding a better pastime than playing Call of Duty would be an aid to that.
And so, with that, I end our little colloquy. I had fun, but maybe too much fun, and now must go. I like my foes worthy.
Here's wishing you a nice life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whatever Iran, Yale, Russia, Harvard, China, Berkeley, Syria, The Guardian, North Korea, Oxford, Venezuela, Stanford, Cuba, NYU, Nicaragua, the BBC, Eriterea, Rashida Tlaib, Ethiopia and Ilhan Omar howl that Israel, supported by its allies must not do, that is exactly what Israel, supported by its allies must do.
1
-
Definitely true. There's still a big bill for restocking, though. And lower stocks mean less ability to address other hotspots. My opinion is that we're still in the early stages of a massive ramp-up in conflicts. The new axis of China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea and who-knows-who-else is just getting warmed up. I think they want to trigger so many wars and crises that the US has its Suez Moment like Britain in 1956.
Except this time the baton of global security wouldn't be passed on smoothly as it was on that occasion from Britain to the US. It gets swiped from the grip of the US by the authoritarian axis. Game over, world ruined, Europe crushed. Developing nations bullied, enslaved or annexed; the US itself under threat on its own soil, no doubt. And certainly impoverished, absolutely no question.
So it's important not to fall into traps. Xi and Putin would love nothing better than for the US and NATO to blow half their armaments on one or two or three emergencies and then be so weakened that they can mount no response to the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, tenth ones. (E.g., Venezuela is clearly on the way to forming an intention to invade and annex most of oil-rich Guyana, which is flush with huge recently-made US investments. They want to steal all of them. A referendum seeking a de facto endorsement from Venezuelans for that will take place one week from now.)
Each conflict will be selected for its potential to trap the US and its allies, and ruin them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Somehow in the past six to 12 months The Rubin Report, already a great show, has just blossomed into something at a new level. I can't quite put my finger on it but it seems like something to do with focus, intensity, clarity and depth of insight. Great guests, messages, presentation, great hilarity from Dave. Was it life changes behind it, the move to Florida, new staff? All those and more? Anyway, it's been fantastic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Charlieband
"Shares and voting rights." That's quite clear, and up to a point valid, too. Thanks for rephrasing.
But I don't know if the UK's influence on Europe has been in sufficient proportion to Europe's influence on the UK. If you're the tail and you can wag the dog, stick with it. If you're just a tail on the dog, maybe you should go off and be your own dog. To tell the difference one would have had to pay close attention for a long time, and I haven't, for I don't even live there.
I also like your pointing out the limitations of democracy. Pretending it's perfect is dangerous. One must search for its weaknesses, identify them, accept them, and think hard about them. Then one is ready to do something about them. The whole process takes the brittleness out of it. Suppleness lasts.
Thanks again for your interesting reply. Merry Xmas to you, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't forget the endocrine (hormone) disruptors in everything from plastics to cash register receipts (see NYT article "The Types of Plastics Families Should Avoid"). Plastic particles are in our food and water. Even in the air (yes, your home has considerable plastic dust). They're surely embedded in our flesh—they're in the flesh of fish caught in the middle of the ocean, so why not?
Very widely prescribed anti-depressants also tend to significantly decrease sex drive. They do this by an unknown mechanism, often sharply and not just temporarily.
So I don't know how much we should blame social factors. I suspect that if they were fine biologically, with hormones similar to humans of the past, young people would tell the social engineers to stuff their weird ideas, and then go out on the hunt for the opposite sex, as formerly.
As it is, they are suddenly temperamentally very open to outlandish concepts concerning sex. Many of them don't know what gender they are. Many are grossed out by the idea of sex entirely. Tbh, I find they look funny. Younger women show less interest in becoming mothers every year. Males' sperm quality and quantity is very low, and deep voices have become very rare.
Between 1990 and 2019, annual per capita childbirths fell 18%. But in the 20-24 group it was -72%. Those 25-29: -43%. Of course, some of that is down to skyrocketing infertility.
Our endocrine systems seem to be collapsing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roxximusik8958 It's been reported that Prigozhin was flying the plane, so if the blast(s) were around the middle of the plane, he may have been in a good place to avoid injury due to it/them. As for the loss of pressure, it's necessary to turn on one's oxygen mask immediately, I do happen to know that. Upon losing 8,000 of the plane's 28,000 feet of altitude, he could have tentatively tried to go without it.
Although I think you're speculating or joking about the door, the fuselage is said to have broken in half in the final seconds. If I were him I wouldn't have waited and hoped, but instead opened the door as soon as I was ready to jump out.
As for shock, I don't know but I should expect Prigozhin wouldn't be the type to lose his wits. Even when people panic, they usually orient themselves away from the danger and towards safety, and they move quickly. Sometimes they do freeze, however.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@americanpatriot4227 Thanks. On the matter of the useful period of consciousness following depressurization, I'm pretty steamed to have confirmed that you are right. Turns out I was wrong even though my source, which I can't name anymore, was definitely a qualified one. As I say, the claim was that is there are mere couple of seconds without oxygen—i.e., get that thing on your face right away or die.
It seemed incredible at the time (this was just a year or two ago) but what can someone do as a non-specialist? One is pretty much powerless when up against an authoritative-seeming, assertive, pushy 'expert.' Grrr!😠 I appreciate being set straight.
Concerning other parts of what you wrote, tbh I'd like to counter one or two things as speculative (i.e., I'm not sure the events went the way you quite reasonably suspect/assume they did—for instance eyewitnesses reportedly say the plane actually continued level flight for a while) but there's not much point, so I won't bother. No desire to mess up again!
Again, thanks for your interesting and courteous replies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brucewayne3892 The EU countries are crazy and twisted, but far less crazy and twisted than Putin. (No big accomplishment there!)
They are far saner, far richer, far more well-armed, far more numerous and far more productive than Russia. They also have the US backing them up, plus a good number of other large or strategically important high-GDP countries (UK, Turkey, Israel, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea—and no doubt India and many others if it ever came down to it). Game, set, match.
Five or six billion people are going to vigorously oppose any attempt by China and Russia to take over the world. They all know the Pax Americana is good for them, because it is, and they're not fools.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Flash forward to 2029, when Mahuta is prime minister of New Zealand:
Having banned US navy vessels from entering New Zealand's ports after one year in office (2025), she now invites China to build both a military base and a naval seaport in her country, citing the risk of eventual invasion by the US. In her speeches and interviews she has dwelt on the possibility for two years. She has repeatedly claimed to have reliable intelligence proving the danger, but says she cannot share the reports for fear of endangering lives.
The media have fully cooperated, running frequent reports and opinion columns demonizing the US and praising China. The issue appears to have helped get her re-elected. New Zealanders are behind the government's China invitation by a slim majority.
The US scoffs at the idea they ever wanted to invade, despite New Zealand's abrupt severance of military ties and cooperation four years earlier. They say that New Zealand does not make itself a US target as a non-aligned nation and that the US is eager for a normal friendship. But they warn that they may now have to take steps to maintain global security. (The security of Australia, Japan, and Taiwan would be seriously compromised by the New Zealand plan, as would that of a dozen other countries in the region. The US navy's ability to guarantee open sea lanes in the western Pacific, which the bulk of the world's traffic and cargo transits at some point, is in peril.)
The US does not specify what steps those may be. Thus by her own actions Mahuta has created the thing she used to justify a close alliance with China---the possible threat of a US invasion.
The US considers telling China it won't allow it to build in New Zealand, and eventually decides that it's worth it, simply because there's a chance it will work. (But they do not plan on starting a war with China. They are bluffing.) Australia backs the US, devastating relations with the Kiwi government. So do Britain and Canada, but in Europe only a few lesser powers do so, Denmark the most stalwart among them. The major powers unleash a diplomatic offensive instead. Russia makes numerous public statements in favour of China.
The bluff works. China does not abjure building the base and port in New Zealand altogether, but announces postponement of the plan to begin building immediately. US and its aforementioned allies increase the number of naval vessels in the waters off Australia, greatly vexing Prime Minister Mahuta.
Although she retains strong media support, polls show that New Zealanders are turning on her, the collapse of relations with Australia being called a disaster and completely avoidable. In response she announces plans for New Zealand to become a republic and to leave the Commonwealth, calling them racist, colonialist institutions tied to US hegemony. A new constitution will thus be needed. She receives significant public support for these measures, vigorously emphasized by the media, but still slides further in the polls, now with just 30% approval. The next election is three years off.
committing to actions at this time. The US issues a warning to New Zealand that it may damage itself by alienating itself from the West, and urges it to change course.
Mahuta spins this as a direct threat of imminent invasion, and the media go along. A week later on a Friday afternoon she declares a state of emergency and curtailment of freedoms as preparation for militarily defending the country begins. Parliament is prorogued. Press freedom is suspended and opinion polls can no longer be published. Internet connections with the rest of the world are broken and social media are censored. Capital is forbidden to leave the country. By-elections to fill vacant seats are cancelled. Snitch lines are set up for reporting New Zealanders suspected of being American spies or agents. It is announced that international phone lines are monitored.
Travel is not halted and tourism continues, so many New Zealanders leave the country, reporting that the people are furious but have no way to fight the government. Many with yachts or sailboats load them with belongings and head for Australia or Singapore. Others must leave with only their luggage.
Departures are only allowed for 16 days. At that point Mahuta declares them too damaging to New Zealand to be permitted anymore and ends them. She blames the US for all the measures she has taken in the last five weeks, promising to restore freedoms as soon as it is safe to do so, but warns that this may not be possible soon. She likens the situation to the Coronavirus Pandemic of 2020-21, saying that, as then, sacrifice alone can make New Zealanders safe...
------------------
I may or may not add to this (probably not) but if I don't, I at least know I've made my point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The thing I like most about Lindsey Graham is that that he hates to lie so much that if you're sharp you can tell when he's doing it. (Other things I like include his extreme quickness and the fact that his family, like mine for a part of my boyhood, prospered as tavern-keepers.)
Late in the interview when he addresses the subject of the impeachment inquiry, he expresses support for Trump's conduct during the phone call with Zelenski. It's sham support. He is lying. And he's lying for a pretty bad reason (namely, ambition), so you have to sort of like him or at least sort of dislike Trump in order to forgive it. But here it is: He thinks Trump's goose might be cooked over Ukraine. If impeachment, however far it goes, comes to appear as though it is tanking the party's chances in 2020, there will be moves to open up the nomination to others.
Lindsey Graham wants to be president very badly (good! I say) but he realizes, I say, that if Republicans end up looking for a new nominee, they will not choose him from among those who have participated in and supported Trump's ouster. Graham, therefore, out of ambition, is playing to Trump's base because it's tantamount to the Republican base. He knows, to spell it out, that he can't appeal to the party as a replacement candidate sporting a Judas hat. He will take his chances with a 150m-strong Republican base six or so months from now, rather than mere millions of centrist swing voters 55 weeks from now. And he probably has the confidence to think he can get the centrists anyway.
Partisan Democrats and some Republicans never tire of labelling Graham as a Trump enabler or Never-Trump quisling. They actually know better, surely? Obviously (to me) he has the real, serious, dyed-in-the-wool-democrat respect for voters and decided to honour both the country and himself by offering his services to the duly-elected president---whilst holding to his principles (e.g. on NATO since 2017 and the Kurds this week) and placing a side bet on himself. Why distance yourself from a president from your own party and his 150m supporters when you can get close to him and at least have your say? For a guy with brainpower to burn like Graham, I daresay the choice was inevitable if stomach-churning. (Trump took the support for reasons fairly alike.)
If I'm not mistaken, nobody but a weirdo really wants to be president anyway. But in my view, Graham is the weirdo with political and personal virtues salutary for the future of the country. Not only is he a good guy, he'll bring the real chess-playing skills to the job we variously call American president, leader of the West, and the leading role on Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nauda999 Your reply tells us more about the nature of your personality and imagination (both of which may well be very respectable) than anything else.
I'll just toss in this about banks and debt: A very large bank with $2trn in debt on its loan book isn't worth $2trn. More likely 5-10% of that. You could buy it for $100-200bn, since it is valued on its profits, not its assets. Banks don't merely lend out deposits; mostly they create the money they lend.
Few people know this. Most believe central banks create money, which is false except now and then. A customer 'borrows' money at the instant a bank creates it out of thin air. They largely don't subtract it from anyone's deposits in any sense; mostly they just write a line in the ledger depositing the sum in the borrower's account. Presto!, as magicians say.
And this about who owns banks: for the most part institutions like pension funds and mutual funds ("groups"). But also many individual shareholders, rich and not rich.
And this about who owns government debt: besides banks, the same institutional funds, plus foreign govts in a form of cross-ownership intended to bolster stability. But yes, ultimately the wealthy for the most part. And yes, the richest 1%, let's say—i.e. 80m people—own half of everything, it would appear.
I'm not against the Fermi estimates of highly-knowledgable brilliant people. Actually they interest me intensely; incompetent guesswork doesn't. Don't trust me though, nor any sole other party particularly. Determining the facts on these matters for the most part is the work of a lifetime. (That one thing, and no other, you can indeed trust me on.)
Please excuse the length of my reply.
1
-
@juliogonzo2718 You have to visualize what was described. The truck, according to the officer if I understood him correctly, was in the right-hand curb lane, not the centre lane.
Making such a left turn is inherently dangerous, as it involves turning into and across a lane of traffic going in the same direction. It is of course ordinarily unlawful for that reason. If in special circumstances it is permitted, as it may have been here, it has to be performed with the utmost possible attention and care.
The truck, it would certainly seem, surprised the cyclist by initiating the turn. That is quite understandable at least up to a point, since one rarely if ever encounters such a vehicle turning left from the right-hand curb lane. Possibly the cyclist ignored a warning signal, gesture or shout from the curbside worker to make way for the truck. (I wonder if the cyclist's attention was inappropriately divided or if he/she was listening to headphones.)
Still, in my view the onus is on the driver to allow for such things. I can't see the excuse to not check what's going on in the centre lane before moving. One can always simply put one's head out the window first.
Perhaps you interpreted the officer's account differently. If so, you are welcome to let me know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Slavery wasn't seen as criminal in our modern sense by almost any powerful force until the English-speaking countries made up their minds that it was. By philosophers or priests in certain times and places, certainly. By sensitive and visionary individuals in small numbers, everywhere and forever. But entire societies and civilizations? There have been brief or isolated exceptions here or there intermittently, but they were rare to say the least, and it's a little hazy whether history records any. (Ashok outlawed the slave trade, but not slavery itself. The Aztecs are more compelling. A constituent republic of Dubrovnik? That may be.)
For thousands of years (tens or hundreds of thousands of years, I'm assuming, but history doesn't go back that far) slavery was thought of as something that happened to unfortunate people, just as military invasions in which nations were conquered were viewed up until perhaps a century and a half ago. It was accepted almost totally that at the national level the weaker party got waxed.
The modern view, the view of today, is exactly that. Modern. Today's view. Actually, 'modern' is too small a word, since modernity supposedly kicked off in 1750. Let's say contemporary. The contemporary view.
What we call white people, too, were of course enslaved any time some other peoples managed to get the upper hand, to raid a European coastline and kidnap people onto boats. Many were taken away to the Arabic lands, for example.
In any country, both those who were captured and those who avoided such a fate and remained in the kingdoms they inhabited, hated it passionately, naturally to the maximum degree. But it wasn't seen the way it is today. It was seen as a miserable defeat, which is something quite different.
Look on slavery for a moment if you like as a concept something akin to living under a tyrant monarch. It went without saying that you wished for far better, but it was taken for granted that the way the world worked, it was an ugly fact of life, and permanently so. Not resembling a clear-cut crime as murder so much as the oppression of a king or warlord, or wartime conditions. In other words a harsh reality.
It was an ugly wrong in the category of "Yeah, but what're you gonna do?" Moreover — and this is the main thing I have to say — the same nation which burned with resentment and anger at the enslavement of its people would, when its own turn came, gladly enslave the people of some other nation or race.
This, I hope, gives an idea of how slavery in profound ways wasn't widely questioned for a really long time. It took that long to prepare the ground for the way we look on it today.
The failure of people to understand the values and meanings of things in previous lifetimes at its worst amounts to an intellectual disability, a mental blindness, a debilitating ignorance, a regrettable, sad and weak incapacity. In a person who has been fortunately educated it might be looked on as a childish refusal to recognize how lucky one is to be alive in an impossibly lucky time and 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
-
I offer here a response to your question about financial costs.
Russia's estimated bill for direct military costs alone is $10bn a month. The US says its military aid cost $2.6bn a month for the 49 weeks from the start of the war to February 3, 2023 (a total of $29.3bn). Despite considerable effort I have been unable to obtain a military aid total for all Ukraine's allies, but it is often stated that the US provides more than 50% of the overall total. If this is true, then military aid altogether is no more than $5bn a month.
If the estimates I have given are more or less valid and accurate, then Ukraine's allies' military spending has totalled $55bn so far, versus $120bn by Russia. (Obviously I have not accounted for spending by Ukraine itself, but that is a matter outside the narrow scope of the subject you raised.)
Russia's $120bn would compare with its 2021 military budget of $66bn and its GDP in 2022 of about $1.7trn.
The allies' $55bn would compare with the total military budget of NATO countries in 2021 (thus excluding Japan, South Korea and Australia) of $1.6trn, and total GDP in 2022 in the neighbourhood of $50trn (including Japan, South Korea and Australia).
Thus Russia's military spending on the war is 200% of its 2021 military budget and 7% of its GDP.
For Ukraine's allies the figures would be 3.4% (of NATO military budgets only) and 0.15% of GDP (all allies).
(Indirect and other costs—including, for Ukraine's allies, humanitarian and financial aid—are of course much more for both sides, but here I am addressing the part of your comment concerned with military spending.)
The upshot is that Russia's military financial burden is immensely greater than that of Ukraine's allies. It appears to be something on the order of 45x greater in proportion to its total economic resources. Against this, a number of factors may be considered relevant, including the undervaluation of Russia's currency versus the dollar.
I wish to stress that I have little expertise in these matters, despite having a longstanding interest and some knowledge and work experience in finance and global economics. Nor am I a professional researcher.
It may interest you to know that on Tuesday, February 21 the Kiel Institute, a high-profile German think tank, will publish online a major update to its Ukraine Aid Tracker.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@greganderson7216 I'm not sure Ukraine is even the main consideration in Blinken or Biden's mind. I suspect they think it's high time Poland had some decent stuff anyway.
I found your reply reasonable but I'm very far from ready to regard Putin as desperate. I suspect rather that he is attempting to draw NATO into a trap. His Ukraine tactics have been half-hearted considering the troops and weaponry at his disposal, and this argues that they are for the most part bait.
Keep in mind the numerous long meetings and phone calls he has had with Xi in the past year or two, and also that the Indo-Pacific is of greater strategic importance to the world even than Eastern Europe. Far greater.
It's the big prize, and an overextended and exhausted NATO could put many significant countries, some of them highly important, within China's grasp, to be either conquered outright or put under domination: Taiwan (home to 60% of the world's semiconductor production), Japan, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia.
And if even two of those go, I don't see how Guam would be likely to last.
The countries and peoples of the West have to come together immediately, lest we find ourselves in a fight for our survival. It's absolutely not out of the question. (So far Germany is setting the best example, despite keeping its head in the sand until the last possible moment.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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, the US monitors communications. But they are not doing it in the service of repressing or controlling their people. I think that to believe they are is paranoia.
Governments have extraordinary powers, and they ought to. They can lock people up, fine them, police can commit violence, etc. That's fine as long as it's all in obedience to laws to which the people have given their consent, albeit indirectly, via the ballot box.
In a one-party state the people have not given their consent. Thus the government's exercise of power is illegitimate, suspect, and dangerous. It is bound in ways to benefit the party at the expense of those governed. That is how human self-interestedness works. Democracy is a check, imperfect but indispensable, on that self-interest.
In short, the exercise of power is inevitable. In one's own neighbourhood, armed force will always be a fact of life. But there is a difference between a police force ultimately answerable to the community and a gang answerable only to itself.
I could go on all day about the flaws and weaknesses of law enforcement and the justice system, likewise about the flaws and weaknesses of democracy, but I prefer it to a one-party system as much as I prefer police to gangs, and for the same reasons.
An elected government, because it can be thrown out, has a built-in advantage in trustworthiness. That is why US spying does not scare me the way Chinese spying does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wokesters think human nature itself can be changed by their activism. It's the classic far-left, socialist, communist, radical feminist error. They think that, well, we get people to drive on the correct side of the road, so surely we can turn humans into ethereal beings by just trying harder. But we are flesh and blood, and that's what horrifies them, what gives them their anxieties, neuroses and all their obvious tics and outright mental illnesses. They're the New Puritans yearning to have no body, only a soul.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gorkyd7912 Sorry, you're making a rookie mistake in your stats. You're describing case fatality rates (CFR), not death rates (usually called mortality rates).
A mortality rate is deaths divided by infections, a CFR is deaths divided by documented cases.
These are very different things, because the great majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected people are undiagnosed. In fact the great majority of infected people clear the infection and have no idea it even happened. This is revealed by the presence of antibodies in their blood serum.
Current estimates of the multiple of infections to documented cases in the US range from 5 to 81 times, with most ranging from 10 to 30 times. The real number will emerge over time as more Americans are randomly blood-tested.
So it's an error to proceed from a 1.5% CFR and 20m infections to 300,000 deaths.
Thus, using the 10-30x range, 20m infections in the US would, at present rates, show up as 667,000-2m diagnosed cases. And a 1.5% CFR would result in 10,000 to 30,000 deaths.
So you should feel quite relieved, as 270,000 to 290,000 people just had their death sentences rescinded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianlevine249 Educated people nonetheless had no idea of the details of this unknown old man's life. The Speaker told the House that he was "a WW II veteran" and that he "fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians" but they were never told these two things were one and the same.
For all they knew, his WW II service was in the Red Army, battling the Germans, while his fight for Ukrainian independence was against the Soviet government at another time (or even concurrently). Ukraine had both for enemies, after all. The last thing MPs would have assumed in the context was that he indeed never served in the Red Army.
The Speaker, who meant well but isn't perhaps very bright, is the boss of the House of Commons and by right of that respected status he invited the man on his own, not even (according to the Govt. House Leader) informing anyone else in the PMO, nor Global Affairs, nor the Ukrainian delegation. He blindsided all involved with his mother's-little-helper stunt and should have resigned hours later, not days. The delay made it appear to many that he was a fall guy. Spectacularly, effortlessly inept.
Thus he was in my view at least 90% personally at fault for the whole fiasco, except that the PMO should have had such airtight control over this important state visit that the Speaker's plans did not escape their scrutiny.
It's important for us to always analyze events for ourselves and never carelessly rely on the judgement of journalists (the quality of whom is much degraded in our day from a generation ago) and common internet mobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Classical Liberalism isn't what Rubin seems to think it is. It's a 19th-century term which means something close to libertarianism --- espousal of lightly-regulated capitalism, free trade, minimal government, plenty of civil liberties.
I've seen Rubin use it a few times. By contrast with the correct definition, he seems to think Classical Liberal means 'traditional 60s-70s-80s Western liberal', an adherent of the liberalism espoused by the Kennedys, LBJ, centrist/free enterprise/high-tax Europeans of the era, etc. If he wants a term for that I think he should say Post-50s Liberalism or maybe Boomer Liberalism. I think people would then understand what he means.
If Rogan really does dislike Rubin on account of this matter, possibly he, unlike Rubin, does know the right definition, i.e. knows that it comes close to 1980-2010 Republicanism --- yet he doesn't realize Rubin is ignorant of it. So he thinks Rubin is trying to hide something. Rogan is a bit dozy, and has been hit in the head countless times, so I can easily imagine that Rubin confuses and angers him. Neither one of them is really so bright that he deserves a huge following, actually.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@corneliussmiff2773 I agree to an extremely limited extent, putting the Iraq War in its own miserable category and viewing GW Bush and others in his administration as culpable for war crimes on account of it.
But I view the rest of American actions—Bay of Pigs, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc.—as actions to liberate peoples from oppression or to protect or restore national sovereignty.
As an anti-communist absolutist I even endorse the installation of Reza Pahlavi in Iran. Despite his serial vicious crimes I think it justified on the grounds that a communist regime would have been far worse. The US knew quite well what kind of staggering industrial-scale atrocities had gone on in communist countries in the previous 40 years or so: the gulags, the deliberate starvation of several tens of millions or people, the treatment of entire nations as prisoners, the dehumanizing loss of all human rights, the impoverishment, the infantilization—when the government is your strict dad, you never attain to adulthood—and the simple insanity.
Under the corrupt and awful Shah at least a large and fairly relaxed middle class emerged into relative prosperity. At least that's what Iranians tell me. (When he was toppled he was replaced by a cadre of slavering yokels whose rule has produced nothing redemptive in the least. Again, according to Iranians.)
There as elsewhere, in opposing communism there was seldom if ever a shining white alternative to it. Some sort of bog standard criminal dictator was the usual resort. But such a lowlife still appeared more amenable to eventual democratization of his land than the arch-communists. Look at Cuba and China: after about 65 and 75 years respectively, still the same. Vietnam roughly likewise since 1975. Look in contrast at all the right-wing governments turned democratic over the decades.
Imagine a world today without that US interventionism. Billions more would live under an iron fist of entrenched communist rule. Not only Eastern Europe but perhaps all Western Europe too, Britain included. Perhaps all Asia, Africa and South America.
It's so easy to point fingers at America as so many do, to preposterously assert that the alternative to its actions was a paradise of daisies and apple trees, bunny rabbits and sunshine. It wasn't. It would've been closer to a nightmare dystopia of a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This MedCram video, Coronavirus Update #106, tells you how to interpret the CDC announcement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TECf3xSFbU&t=632s
If you don't have the time, he makes two main points. First, realize that it wasn't truly CDC research in the sense you may have in mind, it was merely their tabulation of death certificate data entered by doctors across the country.
Second, the MedCram video doctor explains how the 94%/6% should really have been 100%/0%, since the proximal cause of death listed in a Covid-19 fatality should always be pneumonia, kidney failure, heart attack, etc. and never Covid-19.
To put it very bluntly, his point is that in 6% of these death certificates, the dumb doctor needed remedial training in how to fill them out. The other 94% knew what to do, listing as they are supposed to do the immediate cause of death.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 understand perfectly why you are upset. I am too. However, there's been an incredible amount of rot talked on the internet about this story. Here is my version and analysis of what really happened:
1) The role of the Speaker of the House
The Speaker of the House is a Member of Parliament elected by fellow MPs to run the House of Commons, not politically, but procedurally and administratively. Both the office and the holder of the office are traditionally accorded considerable respect, especially the office itself. As the senior official, the Speaker presides not only over day-to-day legislative sessions, debates, etc., but also over visits to the House of Commons by foreign heads of state. Overall responsibility for state visits, however, falls on the Ministry of Global Affairs and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
2) Zelenskyy's visit
The visit from Volodymyr Zelenskyy was an important one politically for the government. President Zelenskyy is popular in Canada, while Prime Minister Trudeau himself has been suffering from low popularity, so this was a chance to perhaps borrow some of the president's prestige. Perhaps to assist in this way, the Speaker, Anthony Rota, who is also a Liberal, came up with an idea.
He knew of a man in his hometown (where he is the serving MP) said to have been a Ukrainian freedom fighter several decades back, so he conceived that the man could attend the goings-on, sit in the gallery, be announced by him (Rota), and be briefly lauded by him. This was entirely his own idea. One would expect that the PMO would have to approve the idea, but it turns out that, according to the (Liberal) Government House Leader, Rota informed no one in the government, nor anyone in the Ukrainian delegation.
Now, the PM in Canada is a more powerful figure than the national leader in many other liberal democracies, and the PMO is said by many to practically run the country, so it is hard to know how this came to pass, but I suspect that it stems from a parliamentary tradition that the Speaker does not answer to the government. Rather, in the House of Commons, it is the other way around.
So Speaker Rota invited the man, who agreed to come. Rota, no student of history, failed to vet his invitee, or at least failed to vet him properly. And as it appears the PMO and Global Affairs were unaware of his invitation, they did not, and possibly under the rules could not, subject him to supervision on this aspect of procedure.
3) The fateful minute-and-forty-five seconds
He thus went ahead and wrote his one-minute introduction of the man, presumably carrying it into the House in his briefcase or pocket.
When the moment came, Speaker Rota told the assembled MPs, the Ukrainian delegation and the two national leaders that the old man was "a World War II veteran who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians." He called him "a Ukrainian hero and a Canadian hero," to general applause and two standing ovations.
It obviously wasn't clear to anyone listening that this unknown old man's WW II service was the same as his "fight for Ukrainian independence against Russia," nor that they were even concurrent. (As we all now know, they in fact were the same thing.)
I doubt anyone imagined any more than Speaker Rota that anything was wrong. Perhaps some were puzzled, but they likely just assumed that there were hostilities between Ukrainians and the Soviet government at some point in that era (perhaps before the war, perhaps during, perhaps shortly afterwards). A few maybe assumed that the Speaker misspoke; still others may have thought it best to trust that the Speaker and the PMO somehow knew what they were doing. In any case, it appears no one guessed that the two biographical details referred to the same thing, and that the man had in fact never served in the Red Army!
And if some did suspect that perhaps something was amiss, who would risk withholding their applause only to later find out that they themselves had not thought things through adequately during a mere 100-second tribute?
Allow me to repeat myself, to stress that No one applauding knew he was a Nazi, nor even that it was during WW II that he "fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians" as the Speaker worded it. (Of course, one certainly doesn't even have to be a soldier to fight for a people's independence. Besides soldiering there's fearless open activism, underground partisan activity, appeals to diaspora for money — there are a lot of possible roles.) They clearly didn't know or they most certainly would not have applauded.
4) The blame
Thus in my view the entire fiasco is about 80% the Speaker's personal fault. Although he meant well, he blundered.
The remainder of the blame I place on the PMO, specifically on the PMO Chief of Staff. I don't even know this person's name and I don't care what it is. But I do know that the onus for ensuring that the visit of a head of state goes well (i.e. perfectly) is on the top staff member of the head of government. That's the PMO Chief of Staff. That person should resign or be fired.
—————————
Ms. Cain, I'd like to hear your reaction to my reply. Thanks for hearing me out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Beginning at 12:40 Fox gropes for a political self-evaluation and gets around to mentioning having taken a Political Compass test. (Google it and take one for what it's worth. It takes just a few minutes.)
But beware, it has a hard time labelling someone who's untidily all over the place and who finds there's something to be said for many points of view. I took it and it told me, like it told Fox, that I'm a left-wing Nazi. A less ham-handed designation would be Left Libertarian, again probably just like him. It means you don't want the rich rolling over everybody, and not the government or anybody else either, but disagree strongly with the radical decentralization or dismantling of authority. You think there should be very restrictive laws which ensure restrictions remain loose.
Left Libertarians don't often think people who disagree with them are immoral or bad, they think they're unbalanced and not at all sensible. Being one may in fact mean you'd like a centrist or conservative government to take power and really raise taxes on the rich and increase regulation, all in the name, perhaps oddly, of moderation, fairness, and a certain mind-your-own-business decency.
It seems to mean you are more skeptical of heroes than any generation except the current 15-to-24s, but thinking highly of the essays of George Orwell (the lapsed Marxist) seems to be very common. LL representatives struggle to access political power. Obama and Bill Clinton had some of it in them but were too cozy with Goldman Sachs to really qualify. Boris Johnson though being off type for preferring low taxes is actually not a much weaker exemplar. John Kennedy and the Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau are to some LLs inspirations from decades ago.
They are the group most incensed (or are they the only group incensed?) when their opponents are shut up, have their free speech trampled on, or are in any way deplatformed. They have strong distaste for anything smacking of repression unless it's repression of repression itself on the part of fascists, communists, or religious zealots. The orientation is strongest among educated people who think they're clever and who were born between 1960 and 1980 or slightly before those dates, and is otherwise spread pretty freely across the lower-middle, middle, and upper middle classes, and the sexes.
It's an odd group which refuses to do its part in the important work of dividing society and pulling it apart into shreds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 noticed a frequent linguistic oddity in both Ukrainian and Russian: the word treat is synonymous with regard, view or look upon, in the sense of have an opinion about. In English treat means to behave towards (a person or thing). One may have a certain opinion of something or someone, yet treat (behave towards) it/them in another way.
For example, a conversation in English might go as follows:
1st person: "What do you think of Americans?"
2nd person: "I have a poor opinion of them."
1st person: "And how do you treat them?"
2nd person: "Well, I'm careful to treat them decently. I wouldn't want to be unfair to an individual, give offence, or display prejudice gratuitously."
In contrast, here's a native English-speaker talking to a Russian or Ukrainian:
1st person: "What do you think of Americans?"
2nd person: "I treat them negatively."
1st person: "Your opinion of Americans is not good?"
2nd person: "Yes, I just told you that."
1st person: "Ok, sorry. And how do you behave towards them?"
2nd person: "Well, I'm careful to behave decently towards them. I wouldn't want to be unfair to an individual, give offence or display prejudice gratuitously."
1st person: "But you treat them negatively?"
2nd person: "Yes. You seem confused for some reason."
It's so weird.😄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The numerous meetings and phone calls between Xi and Putin in the lead-up to the war evince clearly that this war is a China-Russia joint venture. China's visible role is limited so far to its tacit approval of the invasion, its financial support via trade, its provision of strategic materials and components, and its public pressure on Ukraine to "negotiate" (surely meaning to cede territory or surrender outright). But its involvement by stealth is almost certainly greater.
It has space-based intelligence resources which could aid Russia greatly. It can campaign quietly on the diplomatic front, applying coercion to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America to withhold their official support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia. It may already be sending finished non-lethal war materiel or even weaponry.
Its involvement, whether covert or overt, could escalate rapidly at any time. It might step in to aid a Russia in the ascendancy or in the midst of a crisis. It has a lot of levers at its disposal—each of which, I hasten to add, would carry elements of risk, but how much risk is very difficult to say. The risks might be palatable.
All this makes it far from outlandish to say that:
(1) This war would not have begun without Xi's blessing,
(2) It is really a war between China and the US every bit as much as the Vietnam War was,
(3) Its purpose is to weaken the West militarily, financially, economically and diplomatically as far as possible, with an eye to making its support for Taiwan of any type (but especially, of course, militarily) untenable; likewise Western support for any country in Asia which China wishes to intimidate, dominate or invade,
(4) A secondary and related purpose may be to secure large-scale supplies of (Ukrainian) grain which would allow China to forego Western exports, currently vital for putting pork and chicken on Chinese tables (it is mainly animal feed), thus making a Taiwan invasion much more feasible at an earlier date,
(5) It is possible that China's relationship with Russia is far closer to what Putin claims than Western observers have reason to believe.
Make no mistake, this is at bottom a US-China conflict, for if they weren't adversaries it would not have begun; and if it somehow had, they would have ended it through their joint influence by now.
Among the many other fruitful ways of viewing it is to bear in mind that Xi and Putin are both 70 years old. Unlike Biden, they know that the direction of their respective countries can change vastly after their departures. (The direction of the US and other Western countries is far more predictable in most ways, since their leaders are chosen by electorates whose desires are not especially volatile. The difference between, e.g., Biden and his successor can hardly be as great as would be the difference between Putin and, say, Navalny.)
Putin and Xi are thus Men in a Hurry. I have no doubt whatsoever they are trying to rapidly turn the world upside down, to place their own countries on top, to marginalize, weaken and impoverish the West; in short, to gain the whip hand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamwalter4992 Sure. Whenever the US chooses right-wingers over left-wing meatpackers it's somehow the wrong thing to do. Like favouring Taiwan over China today? US business is much better of with Taiwan and its 60% share of global chipmaking, as you know.
The one thing you got right is that Russia is paranoid. You know this, yet you swallow its narrative on 2014, ignoring the legitimate desires of the Ukrainian people. And if Ukraine joining NATO is somehow an 'existential' issue for Russia, how does stopping it do anything about the 'existential' threat of NATO along Russia's eastern border? The Baltic states are considerably closer to Moscow than Ukraine, and so is Finland, whose accession to NATO Putin himself in recent months pronounced a matter of indifference.
All these arguments of yours fall apart in the slightest breeze. It's time for you to admit that Putin constitutes an enormous ongoing and mounting threat to global security, including US national security, and absolutely must be opposed with an iron will until his threat vastly diminishes or ends altogether.
That is all to say nothing about the imperative of supporting Ukraine militarily for moral reasons. Mass murder, mass rape, mass torture, mass destruction, mass theft, not to mention a mountain of hateful lies—if you're fine not opposing those things with force you are morally bankrupt.
Have a nice day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who are you? Who owns "Velocity"? I don't trust channels with a concealed identity behind AI voice narration.
You claim above that "Velocity bring[s] you up-to-date and cutting-edge news about the automotive and technology industries." From your channel page: "Velocity is here to deliver the best Tech, Tesla, Space X, Ford, EV Industry, Elon Musk content." But your recent uploads are about China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, NATO, N. Korea, Yemen, and now Israel and the US.
Who are you? What are you?
Why are you promoting Macgregor, who is the American counterpart of Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose? He has appeared on Russian state TV, i.e., RT (Russia Today). He has spoken publicly many times over the past nine years in support of Russia's military invasions of Ukraine and is Putin's most prominent supporter in the Western world.
Reveal who you are. YouTube users deserve transparency! Transparency, now!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Oners82 No one, I think, would fail to grant that the panelist has attained to the status of adulthood, as opposed to childhood. But would you not grant that such a bipartite scheme is a rather crude and insufficient one in this context, which requires the most fully-developed qualities of mind and judgment, backed up by considerable if not thoroughgoing learning and experience? Not to grant this, in my view, is tantamount to accusing the other panelists of wasting their additional decades by omitting to gain anything from their reading, thinking, and experience.
I do not say that only a panel of eighty-year-olds could do the subject justice, only that the young woman, in her fourth or first year of adulthood depending on one's definition, simply hasn't had enough time yet. She's of course fully entitled to her opinions; so is any 34-year-old in the US entitled to vote, but that person is not permitted to stand for election to the presidency.
There's something disagreeable about weighing things of this nature like groceries, yet it's impossible to avoid completely.
Finally, I wonder what sort of objections might have been raised had she been middle-aged, facing in the debate a lad of just 21 summers.
1
-
1
-
@Oners82 It was you, not me, who asked about her age. You chose the topic. I addressed the matter of her age because you raised it. I addressed other matters elsewhere. Are you ok?
Yes, a 21-year-old hasn't had the opportunity to give consideration to these things. Would you want one as your president or prime minister? I bet you'd be open to the idea, as you sound quite daft.
If you're looking for a way to improve the world, never mind others for now and start with yourself. The world will appreciate it and you'll be glad, too! Consult a professional, maybe.
Lastly, thanks for sharing the term genetic fallacy. Though I knew of the thing since boyhood, I didn't know of the term for it. It's misleading, though, to one unfamiliar with it, having the word 'genetic' in it. It's likely older than the science of genetics, I suppose.
Do have a nice life, my dear little pompous one. You'll be fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
His rants don't hang together and he's not clever enough to understand the subjects he tries to tackle. But he's also not clever enough to be intimidated by that. He's like a manual labourer who goes after the university mathematics establishment, just a joke.
What I like is that he's got something bad to say about everybody, so it practically doesn't matter who you're against, he's got a dig at them that you'll like. However, that's the bad side at the same time: He gets everybody riled up to no good effect because he calls everybody a liar—except for those who, like him, call everybody a liar. For example, Joe Rogan.
So he's actually contributing to confusion, distrust, nihilism and chaos. If the day comes when everybody starts shooting at everybody else (a civil war or whatever will be the right word for it) he will have made a serious contribution to making it happen...while making a pretty damn good living at it. I'd say his conscience is weak in that regard.
But calling Barack Obama "black Santa Claus" had me in stitches and you could see KK and FF got a huge kick out of it too.
EDIT: Omg then he went on to point out that Bill Gates is only a high school graduate yet the media treats him like a virologist, and also that he was a buddy of Jeffrey Epstein. KK and FF almost fell out of their seats laughing. Oh ffs I did love 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
-
People are dying because of the Russians who, like Putin himself, miss the days of the USSR, when 150m Russians pushed around 130m other Soviets and kept over 100m Eastern Europeans in fear. They want to savour that power and inflict that fear again.
So, the same motivation as someone who buys a pit bull. Putin is the Russian chauvinists' pit bull. E.g., Svetlana, 62, government worker; Irina, 49, mother; Vladimir, 35, sportsman. Zero class, all of them, like pit bull owners.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tracer0017 Well, them too. Sure.
But as you may be aware, no army flies the WEF flag. I of course meant Chigh Nuh, Rush Uh, Ear On, North Curry Uh, and all such garbage-regime-ruled countries as they may from time to time pull into their orbit. (Cube Uh, Seer Ee Uh, Air a Tree Uh, e.g.)
In my opinion it all really went without saying, but thanks nonetheless. All the best to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TedEhioghae I watched a Hiking With Kevin Nealon video recently and his guest happened to be Sarah Silverman. It went well enough, I guess, until he used the word comedienne. It was in the context of praising Silverman in the most lavish and generous terms, moreover in the precise context of her status as a woman in the comedy business and a venerated idol of young women making their name in it. It really was a solid gold tribute.
Not to put too fine a point on it, she practically bit his great big head off for daring to use such a term, which according to her was an enormous insult, a belittling of her as "something less than," to quote her locution. She went on for a while, and in my opinion made herself look very small in her own effort to belittle him.
My point is that if you're trying to communicate unctuous respect with your would-be correction, I doubt you should bother. All too often it seems they don't want respect, but rather something on a higher tier altogether: trembling and uncertain submission.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're so wrong. You're feverishly joining an internet mob. He is an immense benefactor to Ukraine, literally the reason it still exists. And Ukrainian high officials have said as much.
They criticized him for saying — because he believes (rightly or wrongly) that they can never win — that they should have potentially compromised by agreeing to clean UN-controlled and -administered referendums which both sides would bind themselves to accept the results of. The referendums would have consisted of a sole question: Do you wish to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine?
At that time, pro-Ukrainians would have carried the vote everywhere but Crimea, and maybe even there. (Russians thought they would win in all four regions — Musk knew this, and that was exactly why he proposed it — but like Russians so often are, they were wrong.)
I did not support his proposal, as most Ukrainians did not, simply because I thought Ukraine could win militarily instead of compromising in the very least, as most Ukrainians did.
But possibly he was right. I don't know. He's almost certainly smarter and far better informed than me. Who t.f. am I compared to a guy like him capable of accessing extremely high-quality information and opinion?
You have zero awareness that you're multiple steps behind him in your thinking. You're just leaping at the chance to paint devil's horns on a public figure and assuage the feelings of dissatisfaction within you, never mind if you've thought it through or not, never mind if you even can think it through or not. So saddening to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JS-es5ep The American writer Susan Sontag, born about the time your European friend was, and though not everybody's idea of a great sage (that's me in dry understatement mode), was right when she said around 25 years ago that, while in the 1950s it made sense for people to relax a little, people took it way too far, and that by that time (the second half of the 90s) it was well past time they started getting much more serious again.
I think some people did begin trying around that time (some, of course, were always appropriately sober-minded) but it was too late. A 'laid-back' cluelessness was by then entrenched and couldn't be stopped. People's commitment to letting their personalities run wild, just to see where they ended up, was too strong.
People thought things like order, prosperity, and freedom were bulletproof, were just 'there' like the sun and the moon. Any necessary adjustments to the 60s-rebellion let-the-kids-rule program could be handled in the far-off future.
But the future has a strong tendency to show up early, and here we are.
Thanks for that reply, which I read with interest and sympathy.
I'm surprise these posts aren't being truncated, as mine often are if they are long and have a low Positivity and Cheerfulness Quotient—as measured by the electronic overlord minding our conversations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This analyst appears to realize what few do: that a rare event in the history of business is unfolding before us. Falling sales, falling stock prices, mergers and bankruptcies await a great many auto makers. How many is unclear but the total could be reduced to a mere several in the West and China each. A lot of brands are going to disappear. Musk is going to make superior cars that are five, ten or twenty thousand dollars more profitable, and that'll be the end of them.
Talent usually enters the auto industry to suffer and die, but Musk is making sure it rules at Tesla. Musk alone makes its C-suite bolder and more brilliant than any other the auto industry has to offer. The minority that believe this have awarded Tesla over half the global auto sector market cap.
Only Apple could spoil things, because they can attract and manage talent fairly well, and for every hundred billion Tesla can muster towards its efforts, they can raise perhaps half a trillion. Two sumos are set to go at it, it appears. One is an absolute behemoth already, but the other one is huge and getting much bigger with astonishing speed. I'm betting on the second one, who is half sumo, half badger, half Einstein, half Tesla, half Edison.
There, that's the same as what you said; it's just my way of expressing 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
-
It strikes me that the goal of flattening the curve is probably at odds with avoiding the impoverishment of us all, perhaps for no payoff whatever in lives saved. Lives may be at first be saved by slowing an otherwise uncontrolled spread, but slowing the spread roughly means shutting down the country until most people are vaccinated or have caught the virus and recovered. Pausing the economy for a full year or longer would likely be a disaster in many ways worse than letting the disease run its course whilst the sick and the old are safely hunkered down for several months.
And drawing out the spread over time is not guaranteed to save a great many lives anyway, as hospitals may be overwhelmed even by a relative trickle of patients: it's clear that they can't handle an influx of the sick amounting to 5% of the population, but what makes anyone think they could handle even 1%? Hospitals will no doubt rise to the occasion in astonishing ways, but they operate within realistic limits against which there is ultimately no remedy.
Thus the best way to save the most vulnerable might be to focus on isolating them in the most thoroughgoing manner possible, a task more achievable if people are working at their jobs and circulating freely, maintaining the normal functioning of things needed to support such an effort. It would also free up things like masks and medicines for those who need them most, including medical workers. To isolate those most at risk for, say, half a year is not only much easier on them and all of us than doing so for twelve months or more---it also gives the virus much less time to get through to them.
Imagine on the one hand emerging from the summer with herd immunity achieved at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and with a quick economic and social recovery at hand, versus having the disease hanging over us all for a year or longer whilst it slowly but inexorably picks off the vulnerable one by one, at the cost of a similar (or greater) number of lives and also an economic and financial hole so deep that it takes several years or a decade to climb out of it.
All the while we would swing back and forth agonizingly between tantalizing reprieve and resurgent outbreaks which continue through 2021. Quality of life and standards of living, obviously, but also the health of the people in all other respects would be sure to be seriously impacted. Do we know whether society could hang together throughout all that? We are most certainly (whichever anglosphere nation we inhabit) not the same people who withstood the Second World War with such stoic resilience.
And what if the net effect of an unnecessarily protracted struggle against the disease is a sudden massive transfer of political and economic power to China?
The national science advisor may have been right to float the herd immunity idea. The country which gets through this soonest will enjoy an enormous feeling of gladness and will also be the envy of the world. Possibly it could mean considering how many lives we permit (or cause) to be ruined in favour of the uncertain chance of saving a single one. Possibly it could mean sacrificing a certain number of younger lives for a vastly greater number of older ones. As Orwell said, "It is disagreeable to weigh human lives like groceries", but in the worst circumstances that may be precisely what is wisest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 strikes me that the goal of flattening the curve is probably at odds with avoiding the impoverishment of us all, perhaps for no payoff whatever in lives saved. Lives may be at first be saved by slowing an otherwise uncontrolled spread, but slowing the spread roughly means shutting down the country until most people are vaccinated or have caught the virus and recovered. Pausing the economy for a full year or longer would likely be a disaster in many ways worse than letting the disease run its course whilst the sick and the old are safely hunkered down for several months.
And drawing out the spread over time is not guaranteed to save a great many lives anyway, as hospitals may be overwhelmed even by a relative trickle of patients: it's clear that they can't handle an influx of the sick amounting to 5% of the population, but what makes anyone think they could handle even 1%? Hospitals will no doubt rise to the occasion in astonishing ways, but they operate within realistic limits against which there is ultimately no remedy.
Thus the best way to save the most vulnerable might be to focus on isolating them in the most thoroughgoing manner possible, a task more achievable if people are working at their jobs and circulating freely, maintaining the normal functioning of things needed to support such an effort. It would also free up things like masks and medicines for those who need them most, including medical workers. To isolate those most at risk for half a year is not only much easier on them and all of us than doing so for twelve months or more, and cheaper---it also gives the virus much less time to get through to them.
Imagine on the one hand emerging from the summer with herd immunity achieved at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and with a quick economic and social recovery at hand, versus having the disease hanging over us all for a year or longer whilst it slowly but inexorably picks off the vulnerable one by one, at the cost of a similar (or greater) number of lives---and also an economic and financial hole so deep that it takes several years or a decade to climb out of it.
All the while we would swing back and forth agonizingly between tantalizing reprieve and resurgent outbreaks which continue through 2021. Quality of life and standards of living, obviously, but also the health of the people in all other respects would be sure to be seriously impacted. Do we know whether society could hang together throughout all that? We are most certainly not the same people who withstood the Second World War with such stoic resilience.
And what if the net effect of an unnecessarily protracted struggle against the disease is a prompt, massive transfer of political and economic power to China?
The UK national science advisor may have been right to float the herd immunity idea. The country which gets through this soonest will enjoy an enormous feeling of gladness and also be the envy of the world. Possibly it could mean considering how many lives we permit to be ruined in favour of the uncertain chance of saving one. Possibly it could mean sacrificing a certain number of younger lives for a vastly greater number of older ones. As Orwell said, "It is disagreeable to weigh human lives like groceries", but in the worst circumstances that may be precisely what is wisest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mentalphilanthropist35 Please acquaint yourself with actuality. First of all, the safe drinking water problem has been almost entirely addressed. Try to keep yourself up to date once every five or ten years.
Second, contrary to the impression given by the media, the so-called problem largely amounted to settlements that couldn't qualify as villages or even hamlets. In most cases we were talking about a few houses with maybe 10 or 20 residents demanding a multi-million-dollar water treatment plant. (Or at least city-dwelling activists demanding it on their behalf.) And before safe supplies were provided at multi-billion-dollar expense, govts. provided bottled water.
Third, the claim that one in four people are using food banks, meaning over 10,000,000 Canadians (!), is a simple and abominable untruth. A disgraceful falsehood which should be immediately retracted.
As for people working three jobs, surely that in itself isn't a problem. For one thing, it's hours on the job that make work potentially over-burdening, not how many employers one has. For another, it's a good thing that they could find places that were hiring.
Yes, life for some in Canada is hard. That has always been true and always will be, but better times come for nearly all. In the meantime, even being poor in Canada remains something better than being poor nearly anywhere in the world.
It's sad that you think the best response is sanctimony and hatred of your own country. Such an outlook would spell personal misery for anyone, even in a country that were a virtual Eden. As I began by saying, please try to be less out of touch and more realistic. You'll be glad you did. Now please have a really nice day.😀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 not saying Canada deserves a gold star or anything, maybe we were just lucky, but she's wrong saying that we're doing worse than the States, economically or health-wise. Cases per million 3,325 vs. 17,856; deaths per million 240 vs. 547; July unemployment compared with February, up 5.3 percentage points vs. 6.7; second-quarter GDP -12% (estimate) vs. -33% (actual).
Federal government Covid spending is very tricky to compare. The year's not over, plus Canada has approved all its measures but the US still hasn't approved Phase Two stimulus. The bill in both places should be between 10 and 20% of GDP but that's a huge range. It'll probably be about 15% in both, not counting state/provincial spending. At this point it's murky, to me anyway.
Our stock market is down close to 8%, though, while yours came all the way back.
Otherwise Laura delivered a good commentary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JMack1053 "Read this one book that I totally believed." That's your answer?
I've read thousands of books and read more all the time. One suggested by you is not going turn my view of the world upside down, certainly not one containing a single person's alleged confessions. Something so intellectually undignified is for uneducated people.
I've no doubt the US has always pulled a certain number of dirty tricks. Every country has. Every person, or nearly every person, has too, on a scale petty or not so petty. I bet you yourself have. The odds, simply at random, are very high.
So reading your little book won't introduce me to the world of government misdeeds.
If it's really true (as is sounds you might have it) that it proves US actions around the world are on the whole malign, not benign, and that this has been true not only during the time of the author's involvement with them, but also during previous and subsequent eras, then it must be one of the finest and most enlightening books of non-fiction written anywhere by anyone in history.
Oh, and such a super-fine book would also cogently show that quite a few other major countries are saintly, and not just by comparison. It would force us to conclude that the US isn't better in this regard than the vast majority of countries to have achieved Great Power status.
How many volumes is it? How much does the whole set weigh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@julianbransky7168 He said 'Republicans' not 'House Republicans.' So you're omitting not only Senate Republicans but Republicans across the country. Let's be fair, let's be accurate.
Including the 2/3rds of Republican senators (31-15) who voted Yes, a narrow majority of Republicans in Congress supported the aid bill. As for Americans identifying as Republicans, their sympathies lie 59% to 7% with Ukraine vs. Russia. (Neither: 29%. YouGov poll of 1,682 Americans, March 16-19).
In fact, you have to go to MAGA Republicans only in order to find a majority wishing to see Ukraine aid reduced (51%, YouGov poll of 1,651 Americans, April 21-23).
Surprised? If you are, that itself is hardly a surprise. The media simply never mention any Republican support for Ukraine — let alone for direct Ukraine aid — except for that in the Senate. It is necessary to do one's own digging. Thanks media, for helping people not know stuff!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed. Bunch of sociopaths. Instead of mere prison buildings there should be a state created out of hundreds of square miles of unpopulated land, with wells for drinking water and tents for shelter, an enormous wall put around it, and all the men and women like them tossed inside for good. Bags of food, clothing and other necessities can be airdropped. No guards or police; let them deal with each other. They basically have to be completely cast out from society. Let them be free within their own country which they cannot leave.
Imagine the peace everywhere outside of that place ever after.
Oh well, it makes for a good daydream anyway.
(By the way, it has been said, perhaps without a great deal of exaggeration, that doing pretty much those very things in the 17th and 18th centuries made Britain such a success in the 19th century that it practically ruled the world. It sent a great many of its criminal dregs, its fanatics and troublemakers to the New World.)
Edit: Forgive my wild rant. I did it to soothe myself, I guess. It did work, but I know it was probably annoying. Sorry if it was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
(1) Pinfold's Dictum: Two wrongs don't make a right. They make a leftist.
(2) Tedros Adhanom, head of the WHO, is in fact a politician, the first non-physician to hold that position.
A former health researcher, he showed his dedication to the field of health by abandoning it entirely from 2012 to 2016 in order to hold a job as Ethiopian foreign minister.
The government was at that time headed by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. (!)
According to the World Bank, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (now dissolved since its electoral loss in 2019) stood for “close co-operation with China on economic and trade policies”.
A gloss of the “close co-operation” may be found on Wikipedia, part of which reads:
“Between 2000 and 2014, China provided over $12 billion in loan finance (usually tied to infrastructure projects undertaken by Chinese firms). [...] The Chinese appear to be interested in Ethiopia for political reasons (among African countries, its governance and developmental orientation is closest to that of China, and it hosts the African Union headquarters).”
And let me point out that all this didn't come to an end in 2014. That was merely the year up to which this statement covers. Ethiopia-China relations have remained close. And I want to stress that Adanom was the foreign minister, Ethiopia's point man for its deep ties to China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@janpeterbaark7540 I am the most pro-Ukraine person you will ever find. But I still have to admit that your point, although fact-based and morally valid, would seem small in the aftermath of a Russian nuclear rampage.
I am so pro-Ukraine, in fact, that I wish Musk had taken that chance — and gotten away with it. But who am I? The choice was his to make and I am certain he made it after careful thought. Imagine feeling responsible for such a disastrous outcome.
It is wrong to blame Musk. The people who could really help Ukraine defeat Russia are the ones in Western governments with the world's largest arsenal of military power in their hands. They could have provided Ukraine with 3x more firepower and equipment than they have done. If Biden really wanted to, he could find the legal means to compel Musk to give Ukraine whatever it asked for, just as he can force Lockheed Martin to produce more missiles. He did not. So if you want to blame anyone, blame the political leaders with the resources and the real authority, not somebody with an internet services company.
But bear in mind that they and Musk alike are highly conscious of the importance of avoiding a third world war, as they should be. If they followed your implicit advice and then millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of deaths resulted, I doubt you would be generous enough to forgive them. And you would be right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonymousperson6119 Thanks for your cordial reply. I must admit I was careless for tossing the useful word pirate around without some needed qualification, because its associations are somewhat complex.
We love it when an upright navy rids the sea lanes of them, yet there's something about them we respond to and inwardly relish, too --- the idea, at least, that their cavalier unruliness and lawlessness doesn't preclude an enviable and healthy cheerfulness nor absolutely a certain gentlemanliness (e.g. Walter Raleigh). Myth for the most part, to be sure, but we value our myths.
It takes a thoroughgoing socialist or Marxist --- meaning, to me, someone with personality problems --- to work up feelings of ressentiment and unreserved hatred for all billionaires, I think. Everyone else just agrees they should be judiciously taxed and regulated, lest they enslave us all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 Musk's point is analogous to the point of antitrust laws, the laws that regulate monopolies. That's because Twitter is in a monopolistic position: It's like Microsoft and its Internet Explorer, like the old AT&T, like Standard Oil—yes, they had (minor) competitors and were not pure monopolies. And they might have had pure intentions. (Please do snicker.) But they grew into positions so dominant that the public had to be protected from harm. So that's why governments moved on them.
Now, that's not going to happen with Twitter. Governments are not about to micromanage social media (although some left politicians want to so badly that they are bound to try eventually). And so, as the harms mount and no one is protecting the public, Musk has gallantly decided to do something: He's going to undo the micromanagement of the discussion, the suppression of the discussion, where such suppression is doing social damage and is dangerous to the health of democracy—namely on Twitter, to where practically all the high-level discussion moved years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pauly230678 <---"The likes of Norway, Sweden and UK would be in full noise regardless of what the rest of NATO do." Yes, I agree. And they already have a mechanism for that: the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), a UK-led force which consists of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden), the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), and the Netherlands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Satoshi is not only anonymous but indistinguishable from fiction. Who says there was any Satoshi? Who says he isn't a fabrication of the government, who foresaw no normal way to gain control of every penny of all the US dollars in the world, aside from converting it all to crypto? What public wouldn't receive such a plan with outrage?
And so one can easily imagine Satoshi was really a government team who launched it as a math and programming thing, only to soon seed it in the public mind as a freedom thing.
Then, after it caught on sufficiently, the government could say, as they now have, "This is very dangerous. Crypto is good, but it must be government crypto." Presto, the end of paper money and the least bit of un-traceability. Guess where we'll be when we have only the Internet, the 5G cell networks, and crypto?
Landlines, gone. The post office, closed. Physical money, gone. No need for the Big Brother tele-screen in every home. You won't be able to spend a cent nor communicate with anyone except the person beside you anymore, without the government observing and recording every detail. Whether the government invented Bitcoin or not, I would say the ante in this game for the future of human dignity is being upped massively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamc4221 Ok, he did say—or rather, mumbled, as he does so often—'in this business'. I didn't hear that even though I indeed was paying attention. Happens a lot. Conceivably he meant 'in this matter', i.e. the matter of the loser stocks on the screen. Probably not, though. Twenty times more likely he did mean in investing.
In which case I think one has to doubt he meant it in the most literal possible way: e.g., you buy a stock, it immediately falls below your purchase price and stays there for 10 days, so you sell it. This seems to be what you made of it, but I think there's not much chance of that, and that's why I replied to you in the first place.
I my view nothing makes any sense at all except that he meant you must not be too patient, or endlessly patient, as in: "In this business, having a deep well of patience is not a virtue."
That means his problem is having (in this instance, though not ordinarily) a sloppy manner of speaking. A moment's carelessness in choice of words, not a confused and mistaken view of investing and when to sell stocks.
It sounds like you hate him, or you wouldn't have been concerned and seen it the way I do instead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A plot twist which will surprise most people: His eyebrows outlasted the rest of his person and survive to this day. Initially they were revived, which was reportedly not difficult, and maintained on life support by the notably odd — and more oddly yet, Jewish — Sir Keith Joseph. This was a year after he left Mrs. Thatcher's cabinet. (He was Minister of State for Education and Science, which in this story is the sole unsurprising element.)
Later they dwelt in the spare bedroom of an obscure rich woman in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, widow of a onetime successful skier and owner of petrol stations. Rumours have Michael Jackson, David Cameron and Boris Johnson as later owners, but these appear to be entirely speculative, defamatory, or meant to be funny.
No one knows who has the brows now.
But if one is to believe specialists in video identification who have certified its authenticity, on a Dark Web site you can observe 24-hour streaming video of Deputy Führer Hess's last chapter, still without an ending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@miguelurdaci7884 Thanks for your reply.
What sort of prop? On the whole it looks like the sort of coat he would have acquired a taste for whilst riding the elevator, decked out himself in a barn jacket of the type he nearly always favours, up to Goldman Sachs on cold mornings long ago. Investment bankers wear that sort of garment with considerable (often revolting) dignity, and sometimes panache. But he abjured the Goldman ethos long ago.
The effect of his leaving it on, like that of eliding so many letters and syllables, was to impress upon me a severe lack of couth. Not what you want with an Oxford Union audience unless you enjoy antagonizing them (and if you do, why not go just a little further and wear a MAGA cap?).
Then again, maybe he was truly worried he'd have to flee an invading storm of hooligans with so little warning that it seemed incautious to take the coat off lest he lose it.
(And if, lastly, he had no such worry and merely wanted to give off that air, it lumps him in with the men who at other times and places would wear a beret to make it seem they might have to tangle with fascists or police on the way home from the café or International Socialists meeting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Would" love this? "Would"? My dear man, he was the director, DOP, executive producer, screenwriter, camera operator, editor, costume designer, choreographer, lighting guy, key grip and receptionist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Clinical psychologists don't prescribe psychiatric drugs, psychiatrists do. You know that, of course? Thus psychologists, though they can acquire some knowledge of some medicines, tend to have pretty patchy familiarity with the vast majority. I would venture to say that pharmacists know more. Perhaps owing to his professional's respect for formal training, Professor Peterson relied on his doctor's judgment.
Benzodiazepines are still very widely prescribed because of a dearth of alternatives, and they help most people without harming them. That's why they remain on the market. Professor Peterson probably heard this from his doctor. I assume so, really, because doctors discuss medicines with their patients before prescribing them. Perhaps the doctor mentioned risks but downplayed them.
Who knows? It's pretty poisonous to accuse someone of lying on such threadbare grounds.
(By the way, academics/psychologists/authors don't have constituents, elected politicians do.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think he's as bad as he looks. He was rather clueless in the immediate lead-up to the war and in its early weeks, but he has adjusted and recovered since, and his army's retreats and let-ups seem to have been voluntary and tactical. I expect battle strategy was rewritten in the late spring and stressed a large accumulation of men and resources requiring half a year at least, without much other activity.
I lean towards thinking that he intends to strike as soon as possible with overwhelming force, making full use of the army, navy and air force. When everything will be in place is known to very few if anyone.
Ukrainian air and other defense installations would exact a heavy toll in losses of aircraft, materiel, ships and men, but to win a battle by incurring heavy losses would be a rather Russian way to do it. (I listed those four losses in descending order of significance to Putin and the military leadership.) Whatever his motto is, I think it ends with "or die trying."
If our luck is any good, various supply constraints and shortages will get in his way. And there are a host of other ways to potentially impede him besides that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇨🇦🇨🇦🇺🇸🇺🇸🇬🇧🇬🇧 I'm not agreeing with your prediction of war, but if it did come to that, Canada would never fail to come to Australia's aid. Never, you can depend upon it. (Look up Passchendaele, Vimy, Ypres, Battle of the Atlantic, Normandy, Holland, Italy, Hong Kong, Kuwait, Kandahar.) I was shocked we were left out of your comment. Wtf?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I decided to find out about the guy sitting next to Rosamund Pike who, in the course of a 90-second question-speech 59:28, pointedly called Eagleton an elitist, then alluded about half a dozen times to "controlling" elites. As might be guessed from her spectacular eye-roll at 1:00:06, he was, and is reputed to still be, her boyfriend and partner, one Robie Uniacke. From his tendentious question one would think he is as far as can be from privileged, controlling elitism, surely?
Not quite.
Details are few and perhaps unreliable, but he is called a businessman and "mathematical researcher".
An Old Etonian, at 22 he married the daughter of an earl. While married to her, he reportedly gave up a job in the City to scuba dive for sunken Spanish treasure for several months. The marriage ended after about five years, multiple sources claiming both he and his wife were treated for serious heroin addiction not long afterward.
In 2004, when he was 43, the 19-year-old daughter of former Tory minister Lord Hesketh (once the owner of a £50m mansion) had to publicly deny that she was his girlfriend. The two had been seen out together at London cinemas and restaurants. "Just good friends," she said of Uniacke, who was more than twice her age. He was at the time "a City speculator."
A company of his went insolvent and folded a few years ago. It was reported he failed to pay £179k in taxes and was overdrawn by £133k, although he had withdrawn £144k for personal use.
He has six children with his two wives and Pike. His current partner's net worth is variously estimated at $6 million and $9 million.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While it's true that business is way down, Russia does sell a good deal of gas to Chigh Nuh via pipeline. Neither the volume of gas nor the price is publicly known with certainty, but based on published figures for the volume, at prices common around the world, it's worth around $10bn a year. Not massive but fairly sizeable. (Also, a new line is under construction.)
Other neighbours buy Russian gas too, in smaller quantities, and there are also LNG exports which may (or may not) reach about $15-20bn this year.
A lot of guesswork is involved here, especially concerning prices, but the total is likely over $25bn. (Of course that's revenue, not profit.) It's along the lines of revenue that a non-sanctioned country would earn by selling maybe 800k to 1.2m barrels of oil a day. There's a very wide margin of error.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JRufu "Editorial independence" is an unverifiable claim, not a fact, and Twitter ought not to support or deny such claims made by anyone.
It ought to continue doing what it is doing (and so should Google here on YouTube) — namely, alerting people to the potential link between the news as presented and the government of its originating country. Readers can take it from there. It's just a low-key factual heads-up, not "Enter, and hold on to your purse."
In the case of the CBC, I think the claim of editorial independence is preposterous. The twelve directors, the president and the chairperson are all federal cabinet appointees. That is the salient fact. It constitutes a rather enormous similarity to a government department, and not by any coincidence.
I loved Neil Macdonald, Peter Mansbridge and even Knowlton Nash a little bit. As a little boy I had a crush on Barbara Frum. But as in so many other ways, it's 2023 and a great many institutions are going sour. There's no proper place left for such an optimistic venture. It's impossible to imagine the return of lightly-biased journalism at the CBC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 the US plus an additional 9 to 15 countries, not "5". The following countries are confirmed participants: UK, Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles, Spain. Reportedly, additional Arab states are involved but prefer not to be publicly named, including: Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Egypt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@John_1_0 It has never meant 'lady', that much is sure, but it has certainly not been "always somewhat discourteous." It almost always is now, but well within living memory it has ranged all the way up to merely informal, as well as affectionate. Social class had a lot of bearing on its use. People much above lower-middle class, meaning the 'top' half or third of society, used it more rarely.
Period movies and other depictions don't properly indicate its onetime popularity and versatility (not that I've seen many thousands of movies). Its main purpose, I daresay, was to indicate a certain freedom from sentimentality. Women, of course, used it too. ("I'm at the bowling alley with the rest of the broads from work. We're havin' a great time, Marilyn, you should come down.")
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, charlatan. Where's all these rockets, spaceships, and satellites he promised? What about the NASA astronauts he was supposed to send up? Oh, yeah, he did all that stuff.
But it all cost the taxpayers so many billions! Oh, yeah, he did it so much cheaper than before that he still saved NASA and the taxpayers billions.
But he's still a charlatan! Where's all those cars he said he was going to make? Oh, yeah, Tesla makes 50% more cars every year and will reach 1 million deliveries this year.
Charlatan! His company makes no money! Oh, yeah, it'll make around $6 billion this year and more than twice as much next year.
And so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
$40trn GDP for Ukraine's allies is certainly too low. Their GDPs: US: $25.6trn (Source: US Gov Bureau of Economic Analysis); EU, $16.6trn (Source: IMF); then there's other big economies adding another $12.2 trn: Japan 4.5; Canada 1.8; UK 2.9; Australia 1.4; South Korea 1.7. Total: $54.2trn. There are also some other smaller ones, plus you have to include Ukraine itself.
As for Russia, valuing its GDP is difficult. For one thing, the rouble is very undervalued in dollar terms in light of how much a rouble can get done within Russia itself (this is called PPP, or purchasing power parity). It is not fully true that Russia's economic output is similar to Italy or Canada's (i.e. in the neighbourhood of $2trn).
For another thing, Russia's government-compiled national statistics are in martial-law mode. A great deal of data is no longer released, and what they do release is quite suspect.
But it is well at least to recall that the year before the pandemic Russia's GDP at PPP wasn't even 10% smaller than Germany's. Even this year it's forecast to remain within 15% (something which certainly remains to be seen).
Neither GDP at currency market USD exchange rates nor PPP are the whole story. Both measures have their own aspects of reality and unreality. But they are complementary, and together they give a good idea. It is thus reasonable to consider Russia as having economic weight somewhat on the scale of the UK. It is probably next behind it in the national economy rankings, which makes it a fairly close 7th worldwide, not a far-back 11th or 12th.
I am less competent to comment on Russian alliances and their value in money terms. But I daresay only North Korea, Belarus, Iran, Syria, Nicaragua, Cuba and Eritrea show relatively or fully firm support, whether military, economic, financial or diplomatic. And either separately or as a group, they have minor economic and productive heft and extremely scanty financial heft. As for India and China, I am satisfied that neither fully backs Russia or even comes close. If Putin were wise, and he probably is in this regard, he would regard India and China as frenemies. They are most eager to take more from Russia than they give, or lend, or hint at providing. India could do far more to make or break Russia than the other way around, and the same thing is obviously even ten times more true for China. Either of them (up to a point, both of them) may be simply feigning support. Ukraine's key allies, as well as being vastly richer, are in my judgment a lot more sincerely enthusiastic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Method9 The loud noise was stopped voluntarily some days before martial law was imposed. I can't remember how many, but I think I can say several; it wasn't in any case mere hours, which might be too little time to reverse a planned course of police action. Thus, not an excuse for martial law.
Parliament Hill may have people living not far from it but it is not properly thought of as a "residential neighbourhood." It's the most appropriate possible place for protest against the government of Canada.
Anyway, "late-night partying," if there was any, is risible as a justification for the suspension of civil liberties which is the purpose of martial law. Ordinary police action is sufficient for any such nuisance.
As for "the resolution to their demands," it is a simple departure back to their respective hovels and the resumption of their work and studies, if any. They have made their point (illegally, mind you, and most arrogantly). And now it's well past time to sawed off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Naschira No, it's true: the world did have sympathy for Russia's people. Absolutely. Why shouldn't they? You think they don't have human decency? Bro, stop this "The world despises Russia" nonsense. Everyone wants a good future for Russia.
No one's coming to get you. Finland is not going to march on Moscow, nor the US, nor NATO. The world simply wishes Russia to have leaders with no desire to threaten other countries or abuse the Russian people. Aside from maybe theoretically China, no country, no alliance of countries, will ever attack Russia first. Ever. And Putin knows this, right down to the marrow of his bones.
Stalin created NATO, remember. Just get a govt without the desire to insulate Russia with a thick blanket of other people's countries. Then slowly NATO will dissolve, automatically, unquestionably. As a friendly nation with a free people, Russia would likely become the richest, happiest and most advanced country in Europe.
1
-
@Naschira No, you had a president capable of taking you out of communism with a chance of no civil war. That's what he was good for. So after that he had to go.
After that you needed a different president to mop up the mess left by one-party corruption. But there was next to no chance for a seamless transition into prosperity, because no Russian leader could ever make that happen except Superman. Yeltsin was not Superman. So after that he had to go.
After this waking bad dream, Putin.
[By this time, even in the '90s, NATO expansion was inevitable, not because NATO wanted to expand but because all Eastern Europe badly wanted in. They had zero trust of Russia. They knew Russia, they knew Putin and they knew what's good for themselves. Lifetimes of being the neighbours of Russia are going to leave lessons that aren't about go to away in five or ten years.
So on their one side, Europe: relaxed, free, prosperous, smoothly-running, friendly, respectful. On their other side, Russia: chaotic, dangerous, crooked, autocratic, poor, domineering, contemptuous. Their choice was overwhelmingly obvious.]
Back to Putin: He put the ex-KGB and the oligarchs in charge under him, and the economy improved and gang network crime went down. But now he is the gang, now he wants to be tsar, now he's taking away prosperity. So now he has to go.
It's time for the next leader. Shed this one like an old skin, and get someone comfortable with having neighbours he does not yearn to dominate and treat like garbage, who is ready to show them normal respect.
To that add greater rights and freedoms for the people, and all problems with foreign countries will evaporate quickly. You can immediately move on to competing in business, where owing to Russian talent, you will kick EU, American and Asian rear ends. Russia with a free people and good international relations would have double the GDP of Germany within 25 years. No question.
Thanks for your polite reply, Maximova.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kamala Harris' Canada: She moved to Montreal, Quebec at age 12. There she did 6th grade, middle school and high school, plus the post-high-school transition they have in that province before university. Her stay there was around 6 years in total, until, as you say, she moved to DC to attend Howard Univ.
Although the city of Montreal is mainly French-speaking, she never picked up much French. She went to Westmount High, a public high school in an English-speaking area which was then more than halfway in a transition from being rich-establishment to well-off multicultural. The school also drew many students from a nearby largely black Caribbean-Canadian area, not nearly as prosperous but with reasonably good social conditions.
There were very few Indians in Montreal at that time. By ethnicity her own area would've been maybe majority-British-Canadian (or maybe not, by that time), but also Jewish-Canadian, French-Canadian, plus smatterings of many other European ethnicities and small numbers from other races. Not many blacks in her neighborhood, but definitely at her high school.
It's worth noting that the city, the province and a lot of Canada were fairly left-wing in that era. Definitely liberal, with socialist-leaning people being not all that uncommon. Communists were rare but not unheard-of.
The government had its tentacles in everything, the federal and provincial governments still owning many things: railways, airlines, a lot more infrastructure, two aircraft makers, a big oil company, most universities and hospitals. At the same time, the commitment which people typically had to personal freedom and civil liberties was extremely strong, stronger than today. It was a very free country, no question.
Just as she got to Quebec the situation there quickly worsened. Language-based ethnic political turmoil swiftly knocked Montreal off its perch as the largest, richest and most powerful city in the country. So she has seen the costs of division.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The answer is easy: tariffs on American goods mean fewer Canadian people & businesses will elect to buy them, resulting in lower volumes of those goods being exported.
Most Canadian people and businesses have other options for these items (e.g. Canadian brands of ketchup, Asian or European brands of autos or machinery), so if they don't simply go without, they'll just switch suppliers. And for countless US companies, Canada is 10-20% of their sales. Thus their lower exports to Canada will result in weaker profits and inevitably job losses.
As for how things will work in the other direction, it may be quite different. For most of Canada's exports to the US, there are fewer options for just sourcing domestically or looking overseas instead.
That's because the US generally buys stuff from Canada that it very much needs but cannot supply itself and prefers not to buy from far-off countries which charge more, are unstable, or are hostile to it. For example, heavy crude oil: the other options are Venezuela, Iran and Iraq. Forget about getting it for $55-60 a barrel from them, or counting on them to always be there. Zero chance. If I were them, knowing how little choice the US has, I'd set my price over the Brent benchmark and dare the US to pass it up. (A lot of refineries would close.)
Many other things too will be a challenge to replace or will cost more. Or both. Some examples are potash fertilizer, various kinds of food, all kinds of other metals and minerals (uranium and aluminum especially), lumber, and the list goes on and on. When it comes to manufactured goods, the average price of a Big Three SUV is forecast to rise by $9,000. Expanding domestic auto production much would take until the mid-2030s — and at great expense, so that $9k increase isn't going anywhere.
Only a small minority of US corporations will be eager to expand production at home at a cost of billions of dollars, when the next president could simply remove the tariffs with the stroke of a pen. You wouldn't believe how much planning, permitting, investment, construction, supply chain building and sheer time it takes to open a US aluminum smelter, especially unattractive since they'll never, ever match Canada's minuscule electricity cost. US aluminum executives say it takes 30-40 years. (!)
There's much more detail but I gotta go now. Thanks for having the curiosity to ask. You're practically one of a kind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for your reply. Yes, the federal debt is indeed a massive problem. But I stop short of crediting the president with any intention of addressing it. There's only one way to go about it, and that's to shrink the size of the debt relative to that of the economy.
As far as I can tell, he intends to cut spending and taxes at the same time, which may not reduce the deficit at all. Unless he takes it down to zero, he'll increase debt, and nearly everyone expects the latter to happen. (So do I. In fact I bet the deficit won't shrink much, and debt-to-GDP will barely budge or indeed rise. In theory, rapid GDP growth could come to the rescue, but I doubt it will. Private capital doesn't like what it sees right now and I think it's good at judging these matters.)
And speaking of things the average person doesn't know, Europe is already outspending the US on Ukraine aid, and has been doing so for the past year and a half. On military equipment and ammo alone, the US is still covering well more than half, but there's a lot of other aid besides that.
The average person also doesn't know that a great deal of the materiel delivered by the US to Ukraine has been costed as though it were paid for in cash rather than paid off decades ago. Much of it was mothballed or marked for disposal due to obsolescence or sheer age. So it had to either be used up or tossed out anyway.
As he normally does, the president has exaggerated on all these matters to a degree I can't excuse, and it's gotten far worse since November 5. He sounded reasonable during the campaign and had my support (whatever that's worth) for that reason. Not anymore.
Finally, regarding your first assertion in this thread, I always felt the same way until lately. Now I no longer believe he's merely playing chicken with allies on military spending, which seemed like a good course of action. If he really does hand eastern Ukraine to Russia on a silver platter as he appears set to do, then he's not trying to strengthen NATO after all; he means to marginalize or even end 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
-
I've never heard anyone in Canada lump it in with Scandinavia to call it a social democracy, because it isn't one. Canada is a medium-tax capitalist liberal democracy. That shows you how much Davis is in his own world, patting Canada and himself on the back as he compares the best of Canada to the worst of the US. (Objectionable Americans, of course, with equal injustice compare the best of the US to the worst of Canada.)
He strikes me as an old Canadian-left quasi-hippie who's done very well out of the Canadian taxpayer. Not everything he says is wrong, to be sure, but he's very politically biased, which I consider a demerit.
And he not only sees nothing wrong with not restraining his bias; indeed he presumably thinks it's morally essential not to, since his political views are so advanced, so intelligent, and so salutary. Like the FDA bending the rules for a new drug to fight the pandemic: sensible, considering the potential benefit in a time of crisis.
The whole segment shows the problem with PBS: They interview one or two staunch liberals/leftists and consider that they've surveyed a huge subject quite well --- despite consulting only the left, or perhaps both the rather-left and the very-left. They and their loyal viewers then pat themselves on the back for being so damn smart and so very good.
And I'm a patriotic Canadian liberal, but I find this comments section a ridiculous echo chamber: 'Canada is a super-wonderful social-democrat paradise and not inferior to the US in any way, except that the US has The Grateful Dead. The US is a horrible country that deserves a horrible fate, it was never much good, and it serves it right that it will soon be supplanted by China.' That about sums up the comments: views covering the full range from the rather smug self-satisfied to the very smug self-satisfied.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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, quite a few people in that world are in the top 1% of 'earners,' with shoplifters, beggars, whores making 150,000 a year and more. [Ja, nicht wenige Menschen auf dieser Welt gehören zu den Top 1% der "Verdiener", mit Ladendiebern, Bettlern, Huren, die 150.000 pro Jahr verdienen und mehr.]
1
-
The 8 Stages of Truth in 2022:
1) Honest people with healthy minds allege or assert something ('X'); the other kind of people say it is definitely untrue and amounts to proof that the first people are deranged, lying, uneducated, cruel, bigoted, or all five.
2) It becomes forbidden to say X. Saying it on social media means having the post deleted by censors or suspension of one's account, or both. If a famous person says X it makes the news, framed as a scandal and disgrace.
3) In a few isolated locales, the number of which tends to diminish (see 2), some people, stubbornly and often at serious cost, decide to uphold X anyway. They refuse to give up.
4) The thing that makes X worth mentioning in the first place, whatever that is, grows in importance, worsens, or simply for some reason(s) fails to fade away completely. The issue itself maintains a heartbeat, if a weak one.
5) The evidence for X accumulates, simmering well out of sight of most people, who still believe with both obedience and enthusiasm what they've been told about it by the mass media and the self-appointed keepers of public truth and morality.
6) Suddenly and without warning it is acknowledged by one or two prominent among those who had consistently denied X that it might well be true, or indeed is true. It is not acknowledged, mind you, that their earlier denials were for the purpose of discrediting their opponents and advancing their own primacy or ascendancy. In other words, for power and its conspicuous exercise.
7) X slowly becomes—if not mainstream—licensed speech.
8) The obedient livestock engage in their usual mimicry and nodding their heads up and down. "Well, of course it's true. Now that there's evidence!"
In this way, the viewpoint in the above video will become somewhat widespread accepted wisdom—but only after the thing it refers to does significant, pointless and preventable damage and harm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Q: Could all the seemingly hostile and illogical US trade moves against basically the whole world, especially the ones against its best friends and traditional allies, all be part of a scheme by Trump to beat up on everyone, China included, in order that at some point he can leave off trade attacks on just about everyone except China?
In this way he could perhaps pull off a stunning feat. Namely, to have declared economic war on China, while making it look as though it was China's fault, by casting it as the only one among America's significant trading partners unwilling to make peace on trade.
There would be plausible deniability for going after China, without which he and the US might very well land in hot water internationally. He could thus escape worldwide (as well as domestic) blame.
Whether this is his aim is one question, whether he could succeed in it is indeed another; but I think they're good questions. Who could fail to notice, after all, the very stagy quality of all these events?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IB4U2Cme Thank you for your reply. In no order: 1. You may deal with the devil all you like; others may do it as little as they like. That's the nice thing about a boycott. It is an individual voluntary action.
2. Boycotting is not always about knowing the supplier and their dirty secrets. In this instance, for me, it's about not wishing to support the CCP and the Xi regime, which is hostile to my country and by extension to me. It has nothing to do with Chinese manufacturers and their secrets (although they most certainly have them). In like manner I would not have been buying German products in 1942, even if they were available (which they presumably weren't) or Soviet goods in 1975.
3. What I consider a reasonably non-exploitative wage depends on what food, housing and other normal purchases cost in the country concerned.
4. As for how much more I am willing to pay in order to avoid buying Chinese, 5, 10, and 20% all sound workable to me. But it isn't necessary in all instances. The shirt from Bangladesh costs no more than the Chinese one.
But when my (Chinese) salad spinner broke this summer and I needed a new one, I paid twice as much for one from Italy ($28, I think) than the Chinese alternative next to it cost. It felt good. (And the salad spinner is certainly very nice indeed.)
The story is similar for my hammer, pots and pans, headphones, and many other things I've bought in the past few years.
Perhaps you just have warmer feelings about the government of China than I do. Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@4everBroadwayfan Thanks, but that party membership number doesn't help much. Which is ok, I can find out what I want to know without much trouble.
You give off something that tells me Orwell's non-fiction would be your kind of thing. As a man who embraced Marxism (up to a point but not thoroughly) then dumped it, he takes you through his deliberations (though not always in so many words) .
The essays, first of all, then Down and Out in London and Paris, then Road to Wigan Pier, but read them in any order you like.
(Animal Farm and 1984 are to Orwell's best work what T.S. Eliot's The Book of Practical Cats is to The Waste Land, Four Quartets, and The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock---more famous, not as good.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IusedtohaveausernameIliked I repeat, that's not what it is. It's hatred of the West, whipped up by propaganda worldwide on every conceivable communications platform for decades now—by China, Russia, Iran and certain other ME nations; N. Korea as well.
If you've heard all your life that the West is evil and deliberately causes your low standard of living, you are somewhat or very likely to celebrate anything which the West condemns. Even if, like the Ukraine War, it's vicious brutality on a great scale.
Propaganda works. (It is of course thick with outrageous slander, but I will allow that the Iraq War was completely wrong and is costing the US and its allies to this day in many ways. In money terms, the oft-cited trillion dollars is now far, far out of date, and many trillions more in indirect costs are yet to be added. The future of Western prosperity will rest on its reputation as much as anything else.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm one of Musk's strong admirers, but I find him misguided here and I have an idea of perhaps why.
Numerous publications (Bloomberg, Newsweek, The Independent, The New Yorker, etc.) attribute some credibility to reports, denied by Musk, that around the time of the invasion he talked by phone with Putin, who told him he was willing to use nukes if thwarted in his aims in Ukraine. I bet that's what did it.
(Musk went ahead and provided Starlink service to Ukraine anyway—free for the better part of a year, and at a discount since then—which I think was an exemplary move. Without his help it's likely Russia would've annexed most of Ukraine in short order, reducing it to a rump state with Lvov as its capital.)
So I'm saying that Musk is seriously spooked about standing up to the Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis. He thinks they totally mean business and will escalate with few to no limits. War terrifies him. Of course, Putin is very, very good at issuing threats and having them taken seriously, and for this reason I can't really blame Musk. Even the US government and NATO are clearly somewhat intimidated.
For my part, I too think the authoritarian axis means business. I think they likely are indeed willing to start wars all over the place. I am close to saying eagerly intent on.
But I differ with Musk nonetheless. Standing up to them isn't optional. If the US and the other democratic countries don't, then we'll be finished in relatively short order: China, Russia and Iran will basically start running the world. Thinking resistance extremely dangerous, the vast majority of lesser powers will quickly submit to the turning tide.
The West will be thus isolated, marginalized, rapidly impoverished and soon under direct threat itself. And fewer than ten years might suffice for all this to materialize. For these reasons, I see this as not only the best but probably the only time to stand up for ourselves and for a world where people can for the most part breathe free. Before very long it would likely be too late. We have everything to lose, so the choice right now is to oppose or capitulate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stalinesque tyrannical instinct is wherever you find it. It's all about hateful bullies hatefully bullying others in the name of anti-bullying. And yes, it's dangerous. You think they're heroes till you find they've made the world safe for bullying for anyone, because bullying loses its bad name. Then someone comes for you.
Peterson is very interested in your rights and freedoms and, I think, is happy, nay eager, to stand up for them unless your claims reach the point of unfairness to others, or absurdity. And rights, alas, aren't absolute and infinite. It's about a civil, good-faith debate on the exact placement of the lines that need to be drawn. Not about who gets to have all the power, not about shutting others up.
I assert those are values that will stand the test of time. Abandon them and invite a future where Trump looks like Bob Rae by comparison.
All the best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justanothernick3984 Well, for one thing he's been training in multiple martial arts disciplines from time to time since Zucky was in diapers. The latter took up such training only in 2020 at 36.
"Musk has trained in Kyokushin karate, taekwondo, judo and 'Brazilian jiu-jitsu briefly' throughout his life, he revealed on Joe Rogan's podcast, and he has also shared a photo of himself fighting a sumo wrestler in the past."—Daily Mail.
He lost to his 350-lb. opponent, but he won the first round, in which he actually lifted the sumo champion up and threw him.
For another, he has a large size advantage including about 6" in height and at least 30 lbs. in weight. How strong can a guy be who's 5'7" and 155?
When Musk was a young adult he worked as a manual labourer on a farm on the Canadian prairies and in a sawmill in British Columbia. As you may know, a lot of one's strength when young can easily be regained through training. When Zucky was a young adult, his exercise consisted of tapping a keyboard in his dorm room.
It seems to me that the outcome will depend a lot on what kind of shape Musk is in, by which I mean the results of his recent strength training and his cardiovascular capacity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct. He could breathe.
But consider the autopsy findings: One, he died of heart failure.
Two, his heart failure was caused by asphyxiation.
(And asphyxiation is not necessarily choking --- it is simply a failure, from any cause, of oxygen to reach the tissues. Carbon monoxide poisoning deaths in garages are asphyxiation deaths too, even though the victim can breathe with perfect freedom the whole time, simply by virtue of the fact CO deprives the blood of its capacity to carry oxygen. Technically, a death from a slit throat is an asphyxiation death, too, because oxygen stops being delivered to the brain. Now you know what asphyxiation is all about.)
Three, the asphyxiated tissue in question was the brain. When a brain does not receive oxygenated blood it shuts down. When the brain shuts down, it stops sending the nerve signal that makes the heart beat.
Four, the cause of the asphyxiated brain tissue was pressure on the arteries of the neck.
So according to the autopsy, breathing or not breathing did not enter into it. Pressure on his neck arteries killed him.
Drugs and heart disease were listed, I believe, as possible contributing factors, but you might as well check that yourself (don't quote me).
You made an important point, though, and I hope my reply was a little bit useful for understanding what happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lidiaspazzard Why are you assuming 2.5x greater transmissibility ought to result in 2.5x more infections? One could only expect that if there were only a single cycle of transmission. But it's not over when one infected person infects another. It goes on, and so the numbers mount.
By the same token, were transmissibility to fall by half, infections will fall by much more than half, other things being equal.
Yet other things are not equal, are they? The level of human contact is a major factor, and it is surely far higher this summer (where I live, as well as in the UK).
So take a variant that spreads much more easily, add more contact, subtract vaccine-conferred protection, subtract infection-conferred immunity, allow for many other relevant factors, and you get where we're at right now.
I could go on, but the algo truncates long replies when I try making them. Cheers.
1
-
@lidiaspazzard Concerning death rates, I checked Worldometer for cases vs. deaths, this year vs. last.
On Sept.7, 7-day avg. deaths were up 16.9x (from 8 to 135); infections were up 18.8x (from 2,028 to 38,015). (I should have staggered the dates by 20 days to compare properly, for that's an average timespan from a positive test to death, but I'm trying to keep this simple where it's not too unreasonable to do so.)
So the survival rate is quite similar.
Confounding factors abound. For one thing, a great number of the vulnerable are already dead. You can't die twice. One would expect crude mortality to fall for that reason. Hospital protocols thankfully are constantly improving.
As for backing up my claim about this summer's spread if we had last summer's variant, I don't think I have to. The vaccine efficacy numbers make it axiomatic. (Initially (e.g. January) they were in the mid-90-percents for infection, now they're down to the 70s neighbourhood, depending on the brand.)
I say axiomatic because I'm not making any inferential leaps. If your infections are at x and you vaccinate 75% of the people with a 75%-efficacious vaccine, the new level, y, will plunge dramatically. It's the 2.5x higher transmissibility of the delta variant that's preventing that (although increased social contact and less mask-wearing are contributing).
(I should add that vaccine efficacy is still around 90% for preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. This would help explain why infections are 30% of the winter peak while deaths are only at 10%.)
If this whole post makes it up I'll be amazed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Something seems wrong with the arithmetic of the "1 in 10 Torontonians" claim.
User visits to pick up food total 2.5 to 3 million per year. But food bank users can visit once per week. So the total visits divided by 52 gives us 48,000 to 58,000 year-round-equivalent users.
That raw range is 1.6% to 1.9% of the population of Toronto. Some visits, however, cover multi-person households. Multiplying by the average number of people in a Toronto household (2.4, according to StatsCan) yields 115,000 to 138,000 people. (Food bank users, however, skew towards smaller or single-person households, but let that pass.) This is about 4% of Torontonians, which is a far cry from 10%.
I suspect that the food banks are trying to report total unique users visiting at least once per year, a much higher figure based on user registrations. Presumably there are many people who only visit very occasionally, or whose income rises, enabling them to stop getting assistance. But if so, is it right to say that there are 300,000 people "relying" on food banks? (Toronto population 2023 est.: 3.0m.)
I also suspect that, since the food banks do not require ID, but just ask for users' names, some users visit multiple food banks and give different names in order to (dishonestly, if perhaps understandably up to a point) be eligible for more food. This would inflate the number of unique users.
For these reasons I take "1 in 10" with a grain of salt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JustSavageThings
My bad. I suppose I interpolated "wonderful" or some such word between 'that's' and 'coming'. I don't know about you, but my reading comprehension becomes rather numb at times from reading YT comments, for when they're not in broken English because written by ESLers, they're in broken English because we're well into the 21st century, decades since most people in the anglosphere gave up on careful writing. In other words I took it I was replying to a poor writer. I ask your forgiveness for that.
But it worries me that you angrily jumped all over what was pretty obviously a misunderstanding, flirting with histrionics in the process. It's all good though, just as long as it didn't make your day.
Btw, I've thought it over and decided he's a putz, a victim of Loser in One's Own Eyes Syndrome, which is a pity because it was probably unmerited and probably avoidable. I mean he judged himself too harshly ("God, I'm such a loser"), a mistake which can wreck a personality. But I doubt you care what I think by now. Cheers anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 Niall Ferguson for your able defence of support for Ukraine. The cost for the 50 liberal-democratic allies has been about $300bn over 28 months during which their GDP has totalled about $125trn and their defence spending has been $3.5trn.
That $300bn is lunch money compared to the many dozens of trillions they would hemorrhage across all forms of spending, output and wealth in later war(s) with the Authoritarian Axis (AA) which a further $0.5trn in Ukrainian aid would, it is to be hoped, forestall permanently. At the least, that amount could be deployed and maximized in order to put off such a conflict for a further decade, during which time they could properly prepare themselves for it.
The AA want such a conflict, make no mistake, for they badly want a double, triple or quadruple share of world power over what they have now. They passionately want to end the West and they are energetically seeking additional allies.
Freddie's problem — similar to that of the wokesters chiselling away at the masonry of the Western edifice of civilization in the name of Utopianism — is that he thinks Western power and wealth and collective security are just "there." They don't have to be nurtured, safeguarded, actively defended. They're just there, like the sun and the moon are just there in the sky.
Sir Niall is thank God free of that problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KimNguyen-hz1eh It appears some would, but very few.
Head-to-head in a YouGov poll Jan. 24-30 (1,000 surveyed), it was a bit tricky. She would narrowly lose to Biden (while Trump would narrowly win). But when people were asked to set aside their own preferences and just predict the outcome, they rated Trump's chances against Biden far better than Haley's. No breakout of numbers by party leaning.
In another YouGov poll she gets a 32% favorable rating, 28% from both Dems and Inds, and 42% from Reps.
Biden overall gets 45%, the same sub-groups giving him 86%, 35% and 11% respectively.
So while Dems approve of her more than Trump, there's little to suggest they would vote for her. (Numbers from Feb. 4-6, 2024; 1,591 surveyed.) Other polls will vary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're referring to the so-called "law of regression to the mean," long rendered in ordinary language as "What goes up must come down." It can also be tied with some justification to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states (in simplified terms) that heat tends to even out across matter.
But not everything that goes up comes back down again. For instance, numerous spacecraft have gone up in the air and ended up on Mars or have left the Solar System entirely, and they're not coming back.
More profoundly, perhaps, it also tends to be uncertain just when a given thing will regress to the mean. The New York Stock Exchange periodically falls for a while and then resumes rising, but overall its rise has been persistent for at least the 139 years since the inception of the Dow Jones Index, and probably since the exchange's founding in 1792. Although a steady daily rise over one year or a thousand years seems extremely unlikely, it is in theory possible. More realistically, it should be expected that it will eventually return to its original now-minuscule value, since even the Solar System will not last forever. But no one knows when.
My point is that it's not axiomatically true that the majority of people would be against wokeism at this time. Logically speaking, it could have gone on becoming more and more popular, or maintained a steady popularity, for a much longer time. A lot of uncertainty can lie behind the word eventually.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alanfriesen9837
Our assessment of the business-govt relationship is quite the same, I think. Although I said 'comfortably allied', I thought it went without saying that the govt absolutely wears the trousers. And like you (it seems anyway) I'm watching for signs that the rich will start very very carefully to assert themselves. They will have to wait for men born later and with more regard for rich businessmen to move up in Beijing, I believe. And even then they'll be risking their necks.
What I wonder is, can that day ever arrive? Rich people get their way in this world, but I hear rumblings about govt intentions to swing way Marxist again as soon as growth has funded enough civil infrastructure, productive capacity, and weaponry. That would be one colossal stratagem. If it were to come about, fortunes would be seized, their owners exiled, jailed, or, you know, disposed of by New Red Guardsmen, surely?
Till next time. I'll always keep my eyes open for your comments. I don't know about you but I dabble all over the place. Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alanfriesen9837 Thanks for your reply. I'm not going to dig through the thread for my old comment, but I certainly never meant to "advocate for private fortunes". I probably just said Xi or his CPC successor is likely coming for them. So that's your inference, one made, I would imagine, after accurately detecting that I'm not a socialist or communist.
And it's not a surprising one given your overall tone, which matches that of typical Western sympathizers of the Soviet state in the mid-1930s---haven't seen any abuse by Stalin, great advances made, some things slightly troubling, injustice probably no worse than things in the US or Britain, repression no more than breaking some eggs on the way to an omelet, etc., etc.
That worked out well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It strikes me that the goal of flattening the curve is probably at odds with avoiding the impoverishment of us all, perhaps for no payoff whatever in lives saved. Lives may be at first be saved by slowing an otherwise uncontrolled spread, but slowing the spread roughly means shutting down the country until most people are vaccinated or have caught the virus and recovered. Pausing the economy for a full year or longer would likely be a disaster in many ways worse than letting the disease run its course whilst the sick and the old are safely hunkered down for several months.
And drawing out the spread over time is not guaranteed to save a great many lives anyway, as hospitals may be overwhelmed even by a relative trickle of patients: it's clear that they can't handle an influx of the sick amounting to 5% of the population, but what makes anyone think they could handle even 1%? Hospitals will no doubt rise to the occasion in astonishing ways, but they operate within realistic limits against which there is ultimately no remedy.
Thus the best way to save the most vulnerable might be to focus on isolating them in the most thoroughgoing manner possible, a task more achievable if people are working at their jobs and circulating freely, maintaining the normal functioning of things needed to support such an effort. It would also free up things like masks and medicines for those who need them most, including medical workers. To isolate those most at risk for half a year is not only much easier on them and all of us than doing so for twelve months or more, and cheaper---it also gives the virus much less time to get through to them.
Imagine on the one hand emerging from the summer with herd immunity achieved at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and with a quick economic and social recovery at hand, versus having the disease hanging over us all for a year or longer whilst it slowly but inexorably picks off the vulnerable one by one, at the cost of a similar (or greater) number of lives and an economic and financial hole so deep that it takes several years or a decade to climb out of it.
All the while we would swing back and forth agonizingly between tantalizing reprieve and resurgent outbreaks which continue through 2021. Quality of life and standards of living, obviously, but also the health of the people in all other respects would be sure to be seriously impacted. Do we know whether society could hang together throughout all that? We are most certainly not the same people who withstood the Second World War with such stoic resilience. And what if the net effect of an unnecessarily protracted struggle against the disease is a massive transfer of political and economic power to China?
The national science advisor may have been right to float the herd immunity idea. The country which gets through this soonest will enjoy an enormous feeling of gladness and also be the envy of the world. Possibly it could mean sacrificing a certain number of younger lives for a vastly greater number of older ones. As Orwell said, "it is disagreeable to weigh human lives like groceries", but in the worst circumstances that may be precisely what is wisest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
(1) Cost to replace a Tesla battery: "The cost of a new Tesla battery ranges from $5,000 to $20,000." (Source: Insurify, 2023) Most sources say around $12,000.
(2) Lifespan: "A survey of 350 Tesla owners in Europe found that their cars dropped around five percent of their capacity after 50,000 miles before dropping much slower thereafter. The group extrapolated the data to claim they would have lost 20 percent of the original capacity after 500,000 miles." (Source: Inverse) Tesla itself says it their batteries should last 300,000 to 500,000 miles. Their warranty is for 8 years or 150,000 miles. (A Tesla motor has the same warranty and costs $6,000 to replace.)
(3) Engines/motors: Please compare this cost, longevity and warranty to those of a gasoline engine. And be sure to compare to premium cars in Tesla's range. E.g. BMW 3-Series: You can buy a knock-off brand, but "[engines made by BMW itself] cost between $15,000 and $17,000. The labor cost will vary between $2900 and $4000 ." (Source: YourBMWBlog) Total: $17,900-21,000.
(4) A gasoline-engine car has a transmission as well. A Tesla doesn't.
So you & your upvoters can feel relieved that you were earlier fed misinformation😄.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marktheo1563 I really wish no ill on ordinary Russians. I think that they are a great people in many ways and that Russia one day could be the last good country on Earth. But it is also unfortunately true that they remain born to be ruled.
Someone close to Putin needs to "do him a favor," as the macabre saying goes.
Concerning Trump, I confess that shortly after his inauguration I did suspect him as an authoritarian at heart. I still (foolishly and to my present embarrassment) had a little trust in the corporate media. I later realized that he wasn't at all, and that the real anti-democrats were those who had made the accusation. It is they who inwardly long for a one-party system, while supporters of the former president shrink in horror at the very idea.
I believe in the so-called Trump Derangement Syndrome as a widespread and destructive malady in the US. As I say, I once had a mild case of it myself, but thankfully now carry the antibodies. Beware the American left. George Orwell, an exceedingly clever man, foresaw clearly that it was the left, not the right, who threatened democracy in the West, and he was a socialist himself. In the end they disgusted him. There is poison in the left and they will never get it out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@footballnerd277 Thanks for your reply.
An IFR is not a single number that applies everywhere. Just like a homicide rate, it's an average that applies to a given population. So when the dust settles on the pandemic it will have been observed that the US , Canada, Japan, and Somalia all had different IF rates. The extent of their respective hospital resources and the average health and average age of their populations will have been among the important factors in this. So would the whole shape of their overall pandemic responses. For the same reasons NYC and Idaho can be expected to have differing IFRs just as they have differing homicide rates.
And differences are sustained through increasingly granular examinations. The Bronx and Brooklyn Heights too have differing homicide and IF rates. As do New England boarding schools and New England nursing homes, as well as various population cohorts such as UK young adults vs the UK middle-aged.
So don't be too quick to point to a population with a higher IFR (e.g. New York state) and conclude that it falsifies the professor's assertion. In time the New York IFR may to an extent be offset by far lower IFRs such as we are seeing elsewhere in the US and around the world. The US northeast, southern England, and Lombardy may well prove to be outliers .
A 0.05% IFR across a billion infected people (very roughly the maximum number of people in the West that could pick up the virus) implies 500,000 deaths. So as the IFR at present looks more like 0.2-0.6% (or 4 to 12 times higher) her estimate does indeed appear too low.
But as it is very unclear how many people remain susceptible to infection and also how many of those would be vulnerable to a serious case or to death, we don't know how close to the end of the pandemic we are.
Possibly the virus, as the professor asserts, has already picked the vast majority of the low-hanging fruit available to it (excuse the metaphor for people elderly, sick, and crowded together) and will make its way through the rest of the population causing a vastly lesser rate of serious illness and death. It's too soon to tell.
She is not alone among epidemiologists and other academics in expecting the IFR to plunge to below 0.2%. And I don't know about you, but putting---as she does---special emphasis on keeping one's head while others grow panicky, on developing the widest and longest-term outlook possible, and on resisting all temptation to join the herd for the sake of its security, are all things that I ordinarily see as merits. They are not to be found everywhere, to say the least.
1
-
@footballnerd277 Fine. Just remember that party feeling is death to intellect.
(The term is Orwell's and means belonging totally to one side of a struggle, cheerleading for it, and not merely favouring it for what one perceives as its legitimacy and superiority, but clinging to it because it confers that legitimacy and superiority to oneself. It's for pathetic people who are nothing if not part of a winning team. It warps the mind, makes it rigid, and makes admitting to fault, error, or even the least weakness on one's own side the last thing one would ever want to do.
Roughly speaking, it's thoroughgoing partisanship of any sort, a thing in the present day almost unnoticeable in its ubiquity.
Its opposite is the impartial independent-mindedness which couldn't care less which team it's on, and which results in the real self-respect, or allows for the possibility of it, anyway.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's no secret. Most export bans don't work well. A target country having good relations with any neighboring country can route most things through them. Sales of iPhones to Armenia, e.g., are now surprisingly high for a country of less than 3m people.
But the intermediary country earns a mark-up for the service, so sanctions are inflationary for the target country. (Also, obviously, after-sales service, warranties, parts, and software updates can be a problem.)
Of course, export sanctions are not the only sanctions. Import sanctions are far more damaging. Russia has lost hundreds of billions of dollars due to lost European gas sales and much lower prices for its oil.
(It turns out that if your market shrinks because of sanctions, the remaining countries can offer you a fairly insulting low price and there's not much you can do. India and China are both laughing all the way to the bank.)
Then there are sanctions related to the international financial system which are also hurting Russia.
Things like this are part of why the Russian bank rate is 16% and (according to the Russian govt.) inflation is 7.4%. The year before the war, 2021, the bank rate averaged 6% and inflation was 5%.
So sanctions are slow poison, not a sword thrust. This isn't news, it's always been true. Carlson isn't blowing the lid off anything.
Be very, very careful taking anything Carlson says at face value. I was burned a couple of times and started checking out everything. Most of the time his story doesn't check out worth a damn. He's a sneak. As far as I'm concerned he's good on social issues and nothing else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I feel like at some point we're going to be told on some flimsy pretext that we have to get on trains and go somewhere "for our safety," that we have to leave everything behind, that because of some "emergency," elections are temporarily suspended, i.e. indefinitely. The news will be news as they knew it in Germany in WWII, there'll be no more travel, no more decent food, no more ability to speak up at all, countless things all of a sudden against the law. Total powerlessness.
You know that notorious motto "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy"? It'll have other de facto ones to go with it: "You'll have no idea what's going on and you'll be happy," "You'll have no idea what's going to happen to you and you'll be happy," "You'll be silent and you'll be happy"....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sacul135 I agree with every word of that. I just think the creative drive, as impressive as it is, is no better nor any worse than any other of the drives. I would neither put it down nor exalt it in general terms, but instead do both. As it took all of our drives to get us here, we should respect all of them up to a point, and not place any too far above the others. Attempts to bury or annihilate any of the leading ones are mistaken in the sense that they will cost more than they return, over a lifetime or the span of a society or both. In the long run we cannot get away with savaging our natures.
This makes moderation the great virtue in a way, by virtue of which we are here as much as any other, or perhaps more; underrated and unsung but actually the star of the show, because it's the only one that's at all very artificial and strained. Intelligence, courage, and kindness reside in people pretty naturally or not much at all. Civilization is little more than an effort to extract it (moderation) from everyone, which explains why it is the primary function of religion and why religion is a permanent part of civilization.
So it's fine for anyone to say things like 'religion reveals eternal truth and meaning,' but they only refer to how useful it is for producing moderation in the name of civilization. Whatever system doesn't, we try to deny the status of religion, judging it cultic, heretical, Dionysian, dogmatic, fundamentalist, witchcraft, madness. In the same sense we have always been tempted to call the godless (i.e., atheists) wicked, and many still do.
This is how I look at it instead of judging it on its own terms, which is the other option and the more vastly more popular one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Possibly the total cost to the NATO countries ex-Japan, all told in cash, debt-repayment including interest, asset value destruction, lost production, future health care costs including those stemming from present neglect of other ailments, lost future income due to lost education, and all else, could be $50t. (I don't see how $20t covers it, anyway.) Generously assert that 5m lives were spared, and that's S10m per life, and we're talking about a 75-year-old on average. Wow, just wow. Don't like my numbers? Then call it $20t for 2m lives. Same thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hnhl2770 Sure, I understood it. Then, finding it inane, I contradicted it. Is that a first for you or something?
And I never said anything about preventing AI, any more than I would've said anything about preventing future war by putting the UN Security Council in charge of the world. (That last part is an analogy for the hopelessness of your bold plan.)
"Decentralized and free" AI is the unlikeliest thing I've ever heard of. And even if it were to come to pass, the best result it could generate would be AGI wars, to which humans would be mere spectators, and which would devastate the world with breathtaking speed.
No, our best hope is something like the race, which the United States won, to build nuclear weapons during the Second World War — except that this time the US had better make sure some fiend nation or other fiend entity doesn't build its own shortly afterwards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Viewer-qm3qx You ought to use Google to test your ideas, not just to try confirming them. Consider the engine, transmission, radiator, starter, alternator, exhaust system, fuel pump and fuel tank of a given BMW which costs the same off the lot as a given Tesla. Those components are the counterparts of a Tesla's battery and motor(s).
(It doesn't have to be a BMW. You can choose another premium make and model. Just don't make it a Corolla, Equinox etc.)
Find out what it costs to replace these items in the respective cars once each is off warranty and has been driven, say, 300,000 or 400,000 miles. Get back to me if you like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UzumakiNaruto_ I agree with all that, although I want to clarify a point about "if Canada had [...] only brought in people who were mostly peaceful, law abiding and hardworking".
I believe that most immigrants do already fit that description. The vast majority, no doubt whatsoever. But I will allow that it's probably 99.5% from Japan—yet only 95, 90 or 85% from a small group of other countries with an unfortunately strong culture of criminality across a minority of their people. One country which is a source of immigrants to Canada has a murder rate 25x the Canadian rate (!), 8x even the US rate. Heaven help the country which accepts the wrong people from it.
Few people realize what mayhem very small numbers of criminal troublemakers can cause. Consider a hypothetical group of just 100 people on the streets of, say, Toronto, who are addicted to hard drugs. They need anywhere from $50 (Fentanyl) to $500 (cocaine) per day in order to stay high most of the time. They don't have jobs, so they take to shoplifting, stealing bikes, or smashing their way into parked vehicles for valuables.
Fencing shoplifted and other stolen goods is not lucrative. Thieves commonly receive 5-10% of retail value. That's $50-$100 for a $1000 bike; $10 for $80 perfume; $20 for a $250 jacket. So that means that for a very minimal $100 a day for drugs, food, drink and other expenses, they need to steal $1,000 or more worth of stuff per day. They may on average need to commit 10 thefts in order to finance that, ranging from failed to petty to more major ones. (A car may turn out to have nothing of value inside, a stolen pair of pants may not find any takers.)
One hundred people x 10 crimes a day x 365 days in a year equals 365,000 (!) crimes a year. (These people work 7 days a week.) The total bill to their victims comes to $365,000,000. (So for 300 thieves it's over $1,000,000,000.)
Thus it's incredibly important not to allow people in who are prone to end up like that. But how can immigration officials tell? Even in the most chaotic, violent and lawless countries most people are fairly honest and law-abiding. That's the problem and I don't know what to say.
People would be up in arms if the government announced Canada will not take immigrants from the most violent or high-crime countries. Canadians want to think of themselves as "nice," even if there's a cost to society for that. They hate harsh realities which come up against their treasured self-image of "niceness." (This self-image, however, is often not justified at all. In fact, the more unjustified it is, often, the more loudly they cling to it and trumpet it.) We live in highly sanctimonious times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What are you, ten? They've turned their populace into docile sheep, through 70 years of brutal oppression and ceaseless propagandizing from cradle to grave. While the West proceeded straight to becoming wealthy after the Second World War, the communists ruled a very poor people with a vicious iron hand, putting an estimated 100,000,000 to death. Educated people were wiped out, so its is nearly impossible to find people in China today whose grandparents weren't illiterate peasants.
I do happen to like Chinese people a lot, but who can fail to notice their uniformity of personality? Something terrible has been done to them. Namely, it was murder, oppression, and forced indoctrination.
Do you think North Korea is "real amazing", too?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 a theory which others may wish to help me evaluate: Namely that the cult of hypersensitivity, victimhood, fragility, hurt and mental illness—and last but not least, gender switching—has to do with seeking attention. For when do even the busiest, the most selfish and indifferent parents give their children attention and care? When they're injured and in pain, of course. When do divorced or separated parents come together with their child or children? At a time of crisis, when something is threatening him/her/them.
So who can doubt that children neglected in any significant way—or conversely, fussed over to the point where they become addicted to it—will come to realize that the attention they crave can easily be obtained by claiming hurt, or by asserting the need for an enormous program of medical intervention?
And how likely is it nowadays that parents will fail to respond? It's now the law that they have to follow orders from their children on 'transitioning', is it not?
Please let me know what you think: Are child-generated crisis and perma-crisis a way for emotionally desperate children to get attention—or at any rate something they need that they're not getting from their parents, in the form of attention?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Assuming you mean 'publicly,' sorry but that wouldn't be smart. She took a job working for Musk, the guy who publicly said "If we can't get rid of the woke mind-virus, nothing else matters," and that tells you all you need to know. There's no need for us to imitate the wokesters themselves and start demanding public declarations of repentance. That's commie crap, and we don't want it becoming cemented in as a lasting part of our culture.
The crucial fact right now is that she has a job to do at X, namely attracting advertisers. That's her job, that's what she's good at. She was good at it at Comcast and she's perhaps not very good at anything else. So if she grandstands about the evils of wokeness (which she was presumable sick to death of at Comcast) she's bound to fail, thus harming the company she and Elon are trying to turn around and build. It would be the least smart and most totally pointless thing she could possibly do.
It's us—Elon, you, me and as many hundreds of millions of X users as possible—who should be the ones speaking out against wokeism. Literally everyone else in the world, but not her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AmateurishAstronaut China are already de-industrializing like the West and Japan. It happens as you become rich; it's just happening to China while it yet has many poor. Look how much low-skilled production has moved to Vietnam and Bangladesh, for example.
Factory to the world is just a stage for China. So is billionaire capitalism, by the way. It's all just the fastest way to get to Superpower Maoism (my term, but the idea is not mine).
And they're happy to see manufacturing go away. It pollutes their country, for one thing. For another, robots are going to hollow out manufacturing anyway, which can then can be domiciled in any country, not just low-wage ones. China is thus turning away from exports and converting to a situation more like the US: limited but high-value exports in a service economy focused on domestic demand.
Sending consumer products to the West will be so 2010; sending the People's Liberation Navy all over the place and spreading superior Chinese culture and the CCP model will be the new order of business.
——————
Bezos' comments on India ring false to me. I think it will miss the superpower boat and play 1980s Cold War Russia to China's 1980s Cold War US. They're already so far behind China in economic and military development and China seems set to totally sew up the region. Even rich and well-connected Australia is in danger, so India with all its problems will be busy trying to advance at all, let alone to the status of master of the globe.
Bezos is probably just trying to puff up Indian pride to encourage Indian industrialization for selfish purposes. Amazon could be desperate not many years from now for somewhere to source its crap from.
———————
Oh, but why, you asked, does China relish the West sinking into the metaverse? Simply because if the West allows it to happen it will stupefy, impoverish and weaken the West socially, economically and militarily. It will speed up the whole process of the CCP ascending to total world rule. But I guess that practically went without saying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I retroactively withdraw my sympathy for Hungary over the brutal 1956 invasion by the USSR. (This is unfair, but no matter. It was well before my time, but no matter.)
May their callousness towards Ukraine, while basking in the security of NATO (!), be repaid in low-dose karma.
2) Finland is golden!
3) The Kyiv Post really botched the name of the Chinese premier, Li Qiang. He should be called Li, since Li is his surname, not Qiang. (And they they misspelled it 'Quiang').
Incidentally, the 'q' in Chinese romanization, for some confusing reason, has no 'k' sound. It's pronounced as 'ch.' Thus: chee-ONG, roughly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, we vaccinate ourselves, many of us, for influenza, yet the typical wintertime flu is survivable by ~99.9%. That's not controversial, it's agreed-upon fact.
For about the middle ten months of the pandemic, the survival rate for Covid-19 was generally thought to be 99.7 to 99.85%, in the West at least. Multiple indirect measures (it is not possible to measure the mortality rate of a virus directly in the usual sense) suggest, however, that it has been rising. 99.7 is starting to look pretty outdated as an estimate, I'm glad to say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In fairness to the voluble and often impulsive Mr. Trump, election results which are fraudulent (as he professes to believe) can hardly be constitutional themselves. Yet if they are upheld by corrupt means (as he likewise professes), means which are nonetheless upheld, accepting them necessarily entails accepting an illegitimate government. If I am not mistaken, the leaders of the American Revolution regarded Britain's rule as illegitimate, consequently rebelled, and thereby violated the British constitution which was then the law of the land.
I grant that this is in no wise a sophisticated nor even, I assume, an adequate view of constitutional law. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and neither is Mr. Trump. But I think it is a line of rough-and-ready moral reasoning which many if not most Americans would find generally acceptable if it suited their partisan leanings in the case of an allegedly fraudulent election outcome. (In other words, if they believed their own side, not their opponents, had been unlawfully deprived of an electoral victory.)
In this light we may consider a few reflections of eminent Americans:
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." — Abraham Lincoln
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." — Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?" — Henry David Thoreau
I of course realize that many quotations could be marshalled against Mr. Trump, perhaps including the one of Lincoln's above.
Indeed, all this is not to express my support for Mr. Trump. For one thing, I am in no position to form a belief about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. For another, he might even be acting in part or entirely on ill intentions. No, it is merely to give whatever credit is due to him, marginal though it might in fact be. I don't know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not so. It's merely an intermediate tactical goal on the way to the ultimate strategic one: sending boys and men and people of European ancestry (unless in the 1%) to the back of the bus, forever.
I never thought that more than a few radicals wanted anything like that, nor that they could possibly make any headway towards it, but as usual my lifelong refusal to ignore evidence has steered me right.
The progress of their efforts to date is down to the grotesque alliance formed between left radicals and the power elites.
The elites are terrified to death of the pitchforks which history indicates would otherwise be sure to result from class resentment generated by the gross inequalities of income and wealth in the present era.
So they've rushed to wear the mantles of "caring," "empathy" and "social justice," endorsing them to draw attention away from the collapsing economic futures of most people. (Girls and women especially have drunk the Kool-Aid, hearing loud and clear that there's something for them in all this.)
It's almost impossible to say which group is which's useful idiots, the radicals or the elites. But eventually one of two things will happen: one will eliminate the other, or they'll merge into a single thing. Either way it'll end in totalitarianism, guaranteed. Unless they can be stopped soon, before our fairly free speech and fairly clean elections cease to exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@notsunnydaysahead But an average Canadian resident, whether born in Canada or not, continually sends whackloads of money out of the country for imported goods, most of it you-know-where. And for vacations, where he or she delivers the money in person.
I expect "almost his entire pay" is a major overstatement. Just to house himself and eat likely consumes most of his earnings, remittances to his family coming at the expense of Amazon, Best Buy, imported clothes, a lease on an imported car, etc.
I say a solid person with a respectful attitude towards Canada's people, traditions and institutions is a welcome asset to the country even if he sends a thousand or two a month abroad to support family members. (This one sounds like he'll soon be voting Conservative besides.)
It's people who are hostile to us and who commit crimes whom we need to exclude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PoliticsAndCoffee_1865 That is highly misleading, buddy, and flirts with outright falsehood, buddy. It is misleading because it implies that people of non-French background will no longer be allowed to live in France. In fact that would be true in a tiny minority of cases. In normal cases the usual pathway to French citizenship would remain open; it would simply not be automatic.
Nor is not to grant automatic citizenship to those born to foreigners at all extreme, for such an automatic grant is given in only 22 out of 190+ countries in the world. Japan, for instance, would like to have a word with you.
I don't have all day to improve upon the truth value of your crude assertion, so to help speed things up, here is Perplexity's response to the query Does the Rassemblement National say that people born in France who are not of French background should be deported? :
"Based on the search results provided, there is no indication that the Rassemblement National (RN) explicitly states that French-born people who are not of French background should be deported. However, the party does propose significant changes to French citizenship and immigration policies that would affect people born in France to foreign parents:
* The RN wants to abolish France's "droit de sol" (jus soli), which currently grants French nationality at 18 to people born on French soil to foreign parents, provided they have lived in France for at least five years since the age of 11.
* Instead, the RN proposes restricting automatic French nationality by blood, granting it only to people born to at least one French parent.
* The party aims to impose "very strict conditions" for naturalization, based on guarantees of assimilation, mastery of the French language, and respect for French laws and customs.
* The RN suggests that naturalized French citizenship could be withdrawn in cases where naturalized citizens commit acts "incompatible with French nationality or prejudicial to the nation's interests".
* Jordan Bardella, the RN president, has made comments about "French people of foreign origin locked into in repentance and hatred of France," suggesting a distinction between different categories of French citizens based on their origins.
While these proposals do not explicitly call for the deportation of French-born people who are not of French background, they do indicate a desire to restrict access to French citizenship and create distinctions between different categories of French citizens based on their origins. The party's overall stance appears to be focused on significantly reducing immigration and tightening citizenship requirements, rather than explicitly calling for the deportation of French-born individuals without French background."
—Sources listed: Le Monde, Reuters, France24, Radio France Internationale
[And note that these sources are known more for hostility to conservative points of view than for freedom from political bias. Two are owned and funded by the French state, buddy.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dianebooth745 I don't see how Canada enters into it. I didn't say a thing about Canada. The original post concerns the US, and so did my reply.
But I certainly DID blame leftist nutjobs. Sounds like you smoked too much pot in Vancouver, lady, cuz you can't even read. Read my comment again.
As for class and money, yes, ultimately a people obsessed with them definitely will get warped in various ways, which may appear to have no connection to them. Not everyone has a mind capable of seeing this, alas.
If the US didn't have class and money problems it would never have become susceptible to the myriad cons presented by leftists.
Calm down, breathe, read everything twice, and watch who you call a liar. But especially calm down. No frenzied person ever thought well. Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dbochner Good comment as far as it goes. But, yeah, well, that's your country. For 55 years you set the dial on Do As You Like, and this is where you ended up. Not to mention Parent to Child: "Yay! You're special! You can go anywhere in life! You're amazing!" for the last 30 or 40 years.
But while you're on such a roll don't mess things up and fail to notice that Democrat supporters are not much less clueless if at all. In some ways, of course, they're stupider. I recommend strongly against thinking for an instant that there is an enlightened segment of American society. They're spread around pretty freely, for it's less about than money, class, education, and political affiliation and more about personality than most people suppose (character is of course another word for it). I don't think many of them at all inhabit the political polar quartiles. That's territory for people with poor personalities.
It gives me no pleasure to add that it ('enlightenment') does have quite a bit to do with intelligence, and unfortunately as time goes by the link between intelligence and money grows stronger, because of semi-meritocratic policies and practices throughout the institutions and in people's choice of marriage partners (i.e. few people now marry much up or down in economic status).
In some ways all the other trends pale beside the concentration of intelligence and wealth in the ruling class of the US because when the middle class is really gone, the country is gone. At that point the what used to be a strikingly original country is just the Hamptons----1% mansion-dwellers; 90% staff, other poor service people, and casual labour;.with Other, meaning the middle and upper middle classes, thus totalling a mere 9% (down from perhaps close to 50% in 1980). And right now the middle class is on its last legs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your fantasy, your folly, your delusion, your dying dream. Russia is spent—militarily, financially, economically, diplomatically, demographically, geopolitically, industrially .... morally —except for its nuclear arsenal, which is unusable. Let it fire nukes and a deluge like the sun will rain down on it from every point on the compass. But let it withdraw from Ukraine and it will be granted the mercy of survival as a nation, a people. Survival.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ordinarily I would pass over your comment without comment of my own, but considering that good English is itself the subject, I feel it apposite to suggest that you recast it, removing the awkwardness so that readers may understand it first time through. (f you do, I'll remove this paragraph. Fair is fair.)
As to your point itself, invoking Shakespeare, I think I'll leave the Lloyd Bentsen-Dan Quayle debate largely out of it, but wasn't there a Roman saying along the lines of 'Jove is permitted what an ox is not'?
P.S. I'd like to be helpful, not just critical. If you like, you may avoid all caps by italicizing. Type an underscore on both ends of the text concerned, no spaces, and presto, italics !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@francoislechanceux5818 Thanks for your reply. I agree with all that. I would add that this war is not just about Putin. Mark my words, this is just the first fruit of the China-Russia alliance. Much larger, much bloodier, much more disastrous proxy wars will come out of it. Direct wars between major countries are also probable within a generation or two, possibly within a few years, even conceivably this year.
The first half of the 20th century is storming back. It can't be stopped entirely, it can only be slowed down, reduced in scale. A significant number of countries are going to attack and attempt to impoverish, subjugate and destroy the West; it will have to respond with massive militarization.
Enjoy the rest of the Pax Americana while you can. Get your travelling done if you can. A world which in many areas, including the West, are relaxed, open, free and prosperous is likely slipping away. The one we grew up in will be seen as an aberration, and I expect most children will be taught that it was wicked and hellish.
1
-
@francoislechanceux5818 Nominal GDP means something, to be sure, but it means a lot less when a currency is quite over- or undervalued.
All you need to know is this: some years a country's currency goes up against the US dollar, sometimes it falls. But, up or down, the change may be totally irrelevant to what happened to output. From 2012 to 2016 my own country's currency fell from $1.05 to under 70 cents US. Its nominal GDP in USD terms fell sharply. So it had become massively impoverished, right? No, not at all. It had enjoyed steady economic growth the whole time, with rising incomes, rising production volumes, and rising per capita net worth.
Both GDP measures describe reality accurately up to a point; neither does it perfectly. I trust I've at least raised serious doubts in your mind about your position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carlson is right about nearly all of this but I think he's wrong that they'll try to prolong the lockdown far, far past all bounds of sanity. Yes they're evil up to a point, but they've also just made themselves slow and dumb with their ideology, just like otherwise pretty bright people who're far too religious. They'll get around to wising up when stark reality sinks in through those thick skulls. To me a clear advance signal is Tom Friedman in the NY Times insisting we take a close look at the Swedish pandemic response. In a couple of weeks, once they know they've had us in obedience training long enough, they'll start talking about how important the economy is and how urgent saving it is. When someone like Carlson points out that they were calling others monsters for the same thoughts just days earlier, they'll smugly reply that "When you say it, it's dumb, crazy, evil, ignorant, callous, and dangerous. When we say it it's intelligent, educated, humane and wise."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 know nothing about climatology, though I do have a science background (U. Toronto). I am thus lost in this ongoing debate and have little to offer, except to relate, if it's worth anything, the somewhat inspiring example of those two Australians who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2005, and those who preceded them in their work. For years, 97% of scientists working in gastric medicine pointed to an established consensus that acid causes peptic ulcers and they rejected and personally shunned those few researchers who felt their work showed that a spiral bacterium, H. Pylori, was the culprit. They were right, of course, and now we take antibiotics for stomach ulcers, which are cured by them.
In my view, that story offers a chance to learn some very important things about science, life, and people. It was very much in my mind as I watched the treatment offered to Dr. Lindzen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CP24, here is a short grammar lesson: "[I]f Trump was re-elected" should've been "If Trump were re-elected."
Were, not was. Don't use "was" for a hypothetical or so-called conditional construction like this one.
Usage example: It's wrong to say "If he was here, he'd put you in your place." Was is past tense, so logically he must be gone. Someone who's gone can't be here to put someone in their place. It's correct to say "If he were here, he'd put you in your place." Were indicates the hypothetical nature of the proposition that follows.
(N.B. In the conditional tense the verb is always were: If he were, if I were, if you were, if they were, if it were, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IliyaOsnovikov 😂Ok, then. If Russia has achieved its goals, Russia's goals must have been to lose thousands of tanks, to lose thousands of other armoured vehicles, to lose hundreds of aircraft, to lose over 100,000 men plus an equal number of wounded, to lose its European markets for gas, to lose half its oil & gas revenues, to lose 28% of the rouble's value to its lowest point ever, to lose its credibility as an international arms supplier, and to lose many hundreds of thousands of its most capable workers to emigration.
Also to unite NATO, to expand NATO by two more countries (one of which is on its border), and to cause Germany to rearm itself while vaulting German military spending into 3rd place globally after only the US and China... And I could go on.
Thanks for correcting me.😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JewTube - Censor Yourself. Or we'll do it for you. No. The mortality rate is obtained by dividing deaths by infections --- total infections. So we start with deaths and confirmed infections to get the raw global case fatality rate (CFR) This is at present 3.2% (925k deaths divided by 29m confirmed cases). In Australia and the US it's 3.0%.
But in jumping from there to the mortality rate, a large adjustment to this number is necessary because of numerous infections not recorded during their active course --- typically not even suspected --- but clearly indicated after the fact by random antibody testing. Infections of this sort which go under the radar greatly outnumber those we know about. The multiple of actual infections to confirmed ones depends on the population tested. According to the CDC in late July, in the US it is 6x to 24x.
That's quite a range, and it will take more time yet to discover the real rate of infections as the research comes in. You can do your own digging into results of the antibody seroprevalence studies, but mine suggests that so far it appears a multiple of 6 to 12 is likely. If that is shown to be true, then the mortality rate is 0.25 to 0.5%. Most authorities I've read who are willing to share their expectation say 0.2 or 0.3%.
It's also true that the CFR has been dropping around the world. Medicines have been approved, doctors have improved treatment protocols, and it's possible the virus is weakening through mutation. Based on a 3-week lag from diagnosis to death, the current 7-day average of 5,075 deaths, and the 7-day average of 251,851 new cases three weeks earlier, the CFR is currently running at 2.0% worldwide and 1.7% in the US.
But that's not the last of the good news. Last week the British Medical Journal decided that for various technical reasons it's time to ask "Are we underestimating seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2?" https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3364 One they didn't mention is the immune benefits of memory T cells, which may be clearing the infection in many people without the need for antibodies. If it's true that we are underestimating infections in multiple ways, the actual mortality rate may in time prove to be about the same as for influenza: 0.1% or even lower. Time will tell, but as far as I know no one is saying 1% these days.
1
-
1
-
@birgittabirgersdatter8082 The CDC tabulation of doctors' entries on death certificates did not reveal what you think it did, because you don't know anything about death certificates.
Doctors are supposed to enter the proximal cause of death (and can also enter supplemental information, depending on the form in their state). Therefore it must never be, for example, diabetes or influenza , but instead sepsis or pneumonia . Nor should it ever be covid-19 , but instead Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, heart attack, pneumonia, stroke, kidney failure , or whatever was the nearest cause.
Things like covid-19, influenza, and diabetes are supposed to be listed only as underlying contributing factors.
Thus the 94/6 ratio should have been 100/0, but 6% of forms were botched.
Don't blame the CDC, or me, or anyone else for how death certificates work. Blame the 6% of doctors who need remedial training in how to fill out a form.
And don't take my word for it. Hear out a highly respected covid-19 ICU doctor and UC Riverside professor of medicine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TECf3xSFbU&t=632s&frags=pl%2Cwn
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shanewatson2491 They're estimates in a sense, but they're also findings based on tests which have been validated for high accuracy (two German tests are actually rated at 100.0%), far higher accuracy than the PCR tests used for diagnosis. Embedded in confirmed case rates, too, is a range of uncertainty owing to test sensitivity and specificity limitations.
So there's a range in antibody seroprevalence findings, yes, but it's not due to guessing. It's due to the fact that every population has a different rate of actual infections --- every country, every state, every county (and every demographic group, too) and it's not easy to project these to the whole country, not all of which has been studied. No single massive study of the entire US population has been done, for some reason (hello, CDC?) although Canada has managed to do it.
In the meantime, the range for the blended national number has been narrowing and the middle of the range, though slowly falling, is starting to stabilize around 0.25 to 0.4%. So while I agree that 0.24% looks like false precision, at least it's close to the middle of the range and outstanding compared to your earlier pronouncement of 3%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WompWompWoooomp Birthright citizenship isn't "incredibly rare." It's the law in 21 countries with a combined population around 1.5 billion, including the US, Brazil, Germany, Italy, France, Canada, the UK, Spain, Mexico, Pakistan and Australia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 risible how she talks about a supposed lack of support for Trump.
In fact, despite Trump not even being on the ballot in the Feb. 7 Nevada primary, Haley still lost — to "None of the above," (!) and by 27 percentage points.
Also, calling him "a de facto incumbent president" is a silly and illogical reach.
——————
Edit: Ever curious, I looked up this guest, Shannon Felton Spence, putatively a "politics and communications strategist." It turns out that description is belied by the fact that her job is PR person for a "science and international affairs" institute at Harvard.
Just to be clear, she's not one of the many experts there. She does PR. If a reporter phones up with a question concerning what one of the experts has written or said publicly, she fields the call. In the other direction, she calls reporters trying to get more press for the expert academics and researchers she works for.
In other words she's office staff, not talent. She graduated from Brown (MPA) in 2017, so I guess she's nearing age 35. No grey hairs yet, that's for sure. She's not even in a good PR job, which would be at a big agency in New York or Washington, not a university in Boston. What she has is the public relations counterpart of being a lawyer in the sleepy and depressing legal department of a corporation rather than a partner at a prestigious metropolitan firm.
So clearly she wants out of PR (not a soul could blame her) and hopes for a better life as a political pundit. I'm assuming she used her PR skills and pitched herself over the phone to an editor at TR. Great for her; for us, not so much.
In short, TR has puffed up her real significance here. She's just on to take swipes at Trump and cheerlead for a female candidate, the leftmost politically of all Republican hopefuls back when there was a real race.
In my view the opinions of a young female Boston Democrat on Republican Party affairs are as predictable as they are bound to be highly caricatured, i.e. leaning towards the useless.
Why is TR's guest booking so erratic? How can they have Michael Clarke and Richard Shirreff on one day and then this person the next?
I can see why the estimable Lucy Fisher baled out last year to become an important editor at the Financial Times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@salvatoredebaldarellis4632
Thanks for your reply.
As you say you're all about strengthening democracy, we're in agreement that far anyway.
I like co-operation between neighbours, too, but when it amounts to your neighbours having veto rights on how you run your own house, scaling down the co-operation becomes appropriate. We probably agree on this principle, too.
And I like a lot of government, laws, and regulation myself but there can be such a thing as too much government, too many laws, and too much regulation. When that occurs, they should be reduced. We probably agree on that too.
I think we just disagree on whether the EU came to be an intrusive burden on the UK.
So cheers. Sorry for the long reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donaldkasper8346 "It is how it is working. Got a problem with reality?" No, it is NOT how it is working. If it were, all 30 NATO members would have been obliged to send troops into battle in Ukraine weeks ago. That, my friend, is reality.
NATO support is not equivalent to NATO membership. Also, not every NATO member is militarily supporting Ukraine, indicating that support is optional. Thus, strictly speaking, military aid to Ukraine comes from various European and North American countries, Japan, Australia, NZ, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No doubt narcissism is a major problem and study of it is very interesting as well as helpful to humanity, but it's also no doubt also a good topic behind which to safely hide and lob diagnoses of illness at anyone who triggers your sense of inferiority.
This monologue might have been titled "10 Ways I've Been Made To Feel Mediocre and Why Every Time It's Because the Person Who Excited My Awareness of This Was a Sick Bastard, Because I Don't Have a Mediocre Mind, They Do. Now Where's My Soybean and Quinoa Salad in a Tupperware Container? I'm Going to Eat It While Reading Something Postmodernist That Flatters Me in My Dullness." In other words, although he has valid things to say about people who are jerks, I think he uses all this to defensively soothe his worries about his own cleverness.
His remarks on IQ sound very suspiciously like an attempt to deal with envy and resentment by twisting things to validate himself, most particularly his sad assertion that someone with an IQ of 120 "will function pretty similarly" to someone with an IQ over 140. What? IQ point differences in my view should be thought of, very roughly speaking, as analogous to inches of difference in height between people, not millimetres. A healthy ego thus requires that you freely admit, when someone's IQ is more than 20 points higher than your own, that they are a lot more intelligent.
Parts of this are like a harangue about how unimportant and shallow physical beauty is---a tenable position maybe---but coming in a defensive tone from a notably homely person. You sense that what they're saying is really about their feelings, not the subject at hand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 don't get how anyone thinks any store owes them a break on the price of anything. If you don't like it, don't give them your business. I doubt Mr. Chapman here is in the habit of lowering his prices for his consulting work (or however he makes his living).
In any case, Loblaws' gross margin, an exact reflection of their mark-up, has been pretty stable since rising from 24% in 2011 to 29.4% in 2017.
(If a company pays 75¢ for an item and sells it for $1.00, their mark-up is 33.3% and their gross margin is 25%. Note that the company does not disclose their gross margin on food vs. non-food items. It's unlikely they've been trending identically. Non-food items include pharmacy, housewares, personal care items and Joe Fresh clothing.)
Loblaws' quarterly gross margins in the past 5 years (Source: YCharts):
Latest: 31.38% (Sep 2023)
Minimum: 29.92% (Sep 2020)
Maximum: 32.37% (Mar 2023)
5-Year Average: 31.29%
5-Year Median: 31.34%
Having said all that, I personally felt somewhat bitter about the decreased discount, and in my view the most valuable maxim for any business is: If you want to keep your customers, keep your customers happy. Loblaws has done well in that regard over the years, but like every company it can't afford any major stumbles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregsimpson9391 There are Canadians like you, too. During the 70s and 80s they thought the Cold War was just a game being played by opposite but equal idiots.
I can't blame them. Such a long period of freedom, prosperity, and stability lulls people into a sense that those things just exist. People struggled for them long ago, but now they are just fruits to be enjoyed.
They get used to a routine of career, home, and partying (golf, too, I'm afraid) and lose sight of, or never become aware of, the reality that our situation is extremely fortunate, an incredibly unlikely historical aberration sustained by innumerable juggler's balls, as it were, kept continuously in the air. It's actually, like all rare and precious things in life, quite fragile.
This is what history teaches us about democracies. They eventually they fall into tyranny, always quite suddenly. The problem (as strange as it is sad) is that they lose the ability to produce the people needed to sustain them.
They are eventually saddled with too many people unconvinced that sustaining it is a serious business and not a game, unconvinced even that it's better than one-man or one-party rule. 'The Republic or the Caesars, who cares?' 'The US or China, which one pays better?' 'The US is racist.' (You must think it pretty unimportant to know about these things, or you'd have learned by now that the Chinese are actually much more racist yet.)
Because to them it's all a game, China included. To them, deep down even the Chinese are the same as the double-chinned suburbanite golfers of the Anglosphere. 'Can't they and the Americans move the game along and conclude those trade deals, can't they leave off with their battling for influence around the world? How it bores me when I'm trying to enjoy life. They should be good fellows and let us play through.'
Not you specifically of course. I have no clue as to the number of your chins or what part of your town you live in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@agarbis6571 No, he wants to preserve global peace with a show of strength.
I take it you want to see a weak US/Europe and a strong Authoritarian Axis (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and every other country with a garbage repressive regime). The choice is between those two contrary opposites.
But the stronger the US and Europe (plus Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia and a few others), the longer the Pax Americana will last. By Pax Americana I mean the post-WWII period during which the world has enjoyed much less war than in the first half of the 20th century, as well as the greatest prosperity in history by far.
During this era, parts of the world not subject to the influence of American power have been the areas with the greatest degradation of human dignity and the greatest loss of life. (E.g. under all the communist regimes.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Coming soon: A special quasi-martial law, hastily passed to deal with a normal situation that's labelled an "emergency." Just like Trudeau did in Canada to quash a loud but entirely peaceful protest specifically against him. And just as in Canada, the illiberal liberal media will go to the ends of the earth to back it, to praise it, and to sell it to the public. Presto! People silenced, people jailed, people held without bail, their bank accounts seized even though there are no charges, no accusations, not a whisper, of any financial wrongdoing in the least.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow, 0.6% in March alone. The annual rate, which rose just one click to 2.9%, is misleading in a way. It tells you an awful lot about the rate 13 months earlier. Because that month (in this case March 2023) drops off the data in each report. So any time you see an annual rate change, it's just the difference between 13 months ago and one month ago.
Well, 13 months ago, it was a hot month, at 0.5%. So in today's report, it was bound to take a lot of inflation for the rate to stay near to February's annual rate, 2.8%.
And so it did: That 0.6% was definitely high. Only March 2023 dropping off kept it from looking as bad as it was. If we'd had a more moderate 0.2%, the annual rate would now be a very promising 2.5%.
So we stand at 2.9%, but the last two months have not been good. Together February and March totalled almost a full per cent (0.9%), which is very fast for a mere two months. It's about 6% annualized.
One more of these and the Bank of Canada would be well advised to reconsider cutting rates. One more and it'll be just about time to say hello to stagflation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 US is circling the drain. Sensible people---and you know who you are---you can't remain silent any longer. All you have is your voice and you have to use it by phoning, writing, or emailing your elected representatives. All of them. Your mayor, your councillors, state rep, governor, congressman/woman, senator, the president. It'll take some time but do it. It's something, as opposed to nothing. Then get others to do it, too. Politicians take it seriously when they receive piles of emails, letters, or phone messages.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Almost no one gets Donald Trump on the America-Europe alliance. They're so stubbornly thick.
Trump wants a strong alliance. But he accurately perceives that it's only possible with a strong Europe. The US can't defend all Europe, plus Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Canada, Israel, the Philippines, and all the other places which must be defended from the Authoritarian Axis. Simply impossible. And even if it could, the burden would be morally unjustified.
American presidents' cajoling and pleading for decades has had little to no effect. Now Europe has at last begun to wake up, but it has still barely budged (with a few notable exceptions). And it's almost too late. Freedom and prosperity in all our countries could easily evaporate to a major degree over the course of less than one eventful decade.
He is thus stuck with a sole stratagem: threatening to withhold protection if Europe doesn't get its security act together. I say good for him. He may succeed. (I think he will.)
Because of deeply-rooted European recalcitrance, no other pathway appears to have any chance of working. So he (wisely) aims to pull it out down to those roots in order to save the Transatlantic alliance, not end it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tocarules I'm certain a lot of that's true, although close to none of it's germane to this instance. Here it was just incompetence. Still interesting though, and I salute your attentiveness to spin in any case. It's the work of a lifetime to attune oneself to it.
(From this point on I'm just rambling and you probably shouldn't read it. Sometimes I just write to find out what I think.)
Twice as hard yet is to stop yourself from seeing it when it's not even there or only in trace amounts. There's always the element of people trying (and either failing or succeeding) to do their jobs well. There's always people new in their positions, people on the verge of getting fired, people hung over or on drugs at that very moment, people sucking up or (not too likely) rebelling.
It's also a challenge to keep up with changing currents in technique, the degeneration of the j-schools, the rot in the minds of the readership, changing vocabulary, and all the rest. Human motivations never change but which ones are dominant and the forms they take morph day and night, year by year.
So having a well-thought-out opinion is not automatically an accomplishment of any sort, it's being right that counts. Any analysis of things at the 98th percentile or below isn't much good.
Like you, I gather, I've been a student of all of it for a long time. I've watched and read the news since I was 10 or 12 and indirectly it's been my bread and butter. Thanks for your interesting reply and sorry for blathering on. My compliments to you on your style and clarity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sbkenn1 Yes, because of a deeply-rooted culture of criminality. In large and identifiable portions of the society crime is glorified, entrenched, respected. Face it.
It's been there since not long after the Puritans and it's been stepping up in waves ever since. (Cf. Samuel Johnson: "Sir, they are a race of convicts." He meant Americans.) Lighter enforcement of laws, if it is ever to be even thinkable (and it likely will never be) awaits success in efforts to root out this culture entirely.
I think that's obvious, and few in these communities are even close to realizing it. The music, the movies, the schools, the street corner culture, it's all soaked in it. The churches included: look no further than the preacher in this video, who said nothing against stealing.
But you're determined to believe lighter punishments will help. Terrible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ГалинаБрагина-п2т Hahaha. You think you just presented an 'educated' point of view? The US has a lot of people in its jails and prisons because it has a lot of crime—theft, robbery, drug trafficking, murder, sex crimes, fraud and all the rest.
As for the A-bombs used in Japan, Japan went after the US in the first place. Ukraine didn't even so much as drop a piece of litter on Russian soil. And the bombs actually saved millions of Japanese and American lives. A ground invasion of Japan would have been an incredible bloodbath.
If the USSR had the bomb eight years earlier than it did, it most certainly would have dropped it on Germany, thus saving who tf knows how many lives. Something like 25 million altogether, perhaps.
Go back to school, Professor Genius, if you're not still in fact a high-schooler.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@claytonjean6385 Autopsies would be needed to find out if they were abused. Based solely on what I gather at this point, the evidence as yet shows only that children are buried there, and that they were not granted the dignity of grave markers (unless, in theory, they were placed there and later removed, but I have no reason to hypothesize that).
(Did any or all of the various aboriginal nations consider a marked grave an important dignity, or one of any significance at all? Did that depend on certain things, like whether or not they had been brought into one of the Christian faiths? I don't know any of these things. Do you, by any chance?)
Why do you presume these particular children to have been abused? And are you saying that abuse caused their deaths? It certainly seems a possibility, but are there sufficient grounds to assert that it is a fact? Were not outbreaks of fatal contagious disease common in past times, claiming many children's lives? My mother lost two school-age brothers to childhood illness, one in the 1930s, one in the 1940s. Were the children in question healthy or not healthy when they arrived at the schools?
Along with other important questions such as what were conditions like at these specific schools and how good or poor was the public oversight of them (if this has not already been established by previous investigations or inquiries), these questions must all be duly answered and the proper forensic work completed. And it must be done with all reasonable speed and thoroughness.
In the meantime, it seems wrong to jump to any conclusions as you have done, and it is most egregiously wrong to condone a campaign of arson. To name just one reason, many First Nations people are now deprived of their place of worship. But there are numerous other reasons as well, many of them each sufficient in their own right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Certainly the cute cuddly panda China that was hoped for 35 years ago never materialized and clearly never will. Instead the younger generations there are predominantly contemptuous of other systems, cultures, races, and countries. Deeply contemptuous. For the real jingoism, the real racism, and the real cultural entitlement, forget about the US. China is rapidly coming to resemble the Germany of about 1936. So, yes, watch out Australia.
Best to keep your alliances as strong as possible, something I will not say is easy or straightforward. Notice I used the plural: if the US even after Trump is gone is too wrapped up in its own many problems to pay you much mind, make sure you at least are as tight as possible with the rest of the anglosphere and EU.
1
-
1
-
@williambunting803 Oh, and I should have added that the US wasn't thrilled about battling Germany either, but became a lot more interested when they saw that its regional domination would cost the US plenty: lots right away (trade, finance, shipping, tourism, strategic resources) and then massively later on (the security of the US homeland itself once Germany had absorbed, as it threatened to succeed in doing, the productive capacity of Russia as well as dozens of other countries).
Thus I suggest you take it all very seriously but do not worry in quite the same fashion. Americans if the time comes will see a Chinese move on Australian territory as a massive threat to themselves and will respond appropriately, by which I mean sanely in their own interest as much as Australia's. Britain and Canada, too, would really see red, you can count on it. So all together that's 440m rich and armed-to-the-teeth friends whom you could expect to have fully on your side.
You'd do the same for all of us, wouldn't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raptornomad1221 Benjamin, can you tell me the meaning of the phrase in English, please? Here's how Google Translate rendered it: "In addition to gold and jade, defeat in it." lol It seems to mean "Money doesn't equal success."
The rest of your comment seems very astute. When people look to one book, one party, one philosophy, one religion, one culture, one leader, or one system for all the answers, they are making a mistake. Thanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yep. It's because so many smaller numbers divide evenly into 60, making it easy to work with. (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30. Lovely number, 60.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chobin7982 I did answer you, over a month ago. My last two posts began with "What a dull" and "Who said humans." Those were my replies to your direct questions. I did not reply to your final post which began "Well I've yet" (1) because it asked no question of me and (2) (more importantly) it didn't interest me.
You're a rude a*s*o*e and that is your problem. Just look at your replies to me. It's why you get fired and it's why you don't get along in the world. It also accounts for your misanthropy. Of course you hate people, since your behaviour makes them hate you, and they end up showing it—like me right now. Unsatisfactory relationship with your parents? It's the usual reason in cases, such as yours, of addiction to p---ing people off.
You're also not very bright. E.g.: "Probably [...] guaranteed." Hahaha, which is it? And "worked a blue collar work" (!) What? What else but dullness can account for semi-literacy in a person who reads books? And yes, I've done manual labour. (And no, I have no religion or religious feelings of any sort.)
I've no interest at all in dealing with a silly and ill-tempered child such as yourself. Once again you've demonstrated that adherence to far left politics arises out of personality deformations, but even the people shown to us by Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier come off looking a lot better than you. You're the second-worst-behaved person I've ever faced online, and the worst was also a flaming leftist.
So have a nice life. You may enjoy your adulthood once you reach it. As for me, I'm glad to say I'll be unable to receive posts from you anymore. Ta!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donwilson2848 Why, you ask? Because they innocently believe that if you destroy something, an ideal replacement appears in its place, through the mere intensity of your wish that it happen.
When you burn down a house you get a new larger, nicer house from the insurance money, right? When you blow all your money your parents give you more, right? That's how life and the world work.
So let's tear down society, learning, values, reasoning, language, all the institutions that got us here, all human relations slowly worked into passable shape over millennia, and it'll be great.
Does that answer your question?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wrong, my dim-sighted friend. Ukraine, the US, UK, Europe, NATO, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan and the others have political and social values in common which you will probably never understand, probably because of bigotry and racism and your part, or at least a severe lack of understanding, learning, experience and wisdom. Indeed, hundreds of millions of sensible Indians, too, share them to a great degree. Even many Russians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samplumber8786 Please take a remedial reading class at a location near you, my Plumbum-brained friend. I made it clear I think it possible that the virus was engineered to prefer non-East-Asian hosts. As for South America, India, and "the rest of China", I am unable to discern your point and unwilling to make it for you. Spell it out, would you?
And what I'm saying, by the way, is hardly anything so grand as a theory. It's a potential hypothesis that begs for investigation. So let's have one. Oh, right, communist dictatorships don't much care for investigations of anything, let alone their own misdeeds.
1
-
1
-
@samplumber8786 To address a few of your points summarily with brief reactions:
——
— Regarding cultural/behavioural differences, they certainly enter into it, as do many other factors, including demographics apart from race, household size, indoor ventilation rates, the nature of social contact churn, intercity travel, and many others. Lots of things matter and are difficult if not impossible to tease apart from one another, but some are surely more powerful than others.
—truly novel proteins, nor even special talents. It would just have a special target.
There's a UN document, btw, on biological warfare, published in 2011 (pre-Xi, notice). China, in its contribution, predicted the engineering of viruses to target a specific race or races, adding that it could be done so as to conceal its lab origins. I just learned of it yesterday and haven't looked at it yet. (Not that I'm sleuthing. Just keeping an eye open.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@americaofthenorth655 The investigation of that Indigo hate crime should not bother anyone (since it's totally normal police work). Unless, that is, they think that Kristallnacht (1938) was a mostly peaceful and cozy gathering.
As for carjackings, I have zero doubt they are promptly and vigorously investigated by the TPS. Zero. If you think that they are not prioritized like the serious violent crimes they are, I'd like to look at your evidence for that belief. Seriously, if that were the case I'd like to know. So get back to me with that evidence so I can start raising hell about it. I'm waiting.
Ordinary car thefts are a serious problem in their own way, to be sure. They really upset those whose vehicles go missing and disrupt their lives. That's why I'm glad to see the province respond with this increased funding.
It's what you yourself want as well, yet instead of saying "Good!", you complain as though Ford just announced he was slashing police funding by $18m.🤨
But I understand, in a way. Hyperpartisanship is a popular way for people to spend their time enjoyably and kid themselves that it makes them a good person, that it makes society better, etc.
Thanks for your reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whatever Iran, Yale, Russia, Harvard, China, Berkeley, Syria, The Guardian, North Korea, Oxford, Venezuela, Stanford, Cuba, UCLA, Nicaragua, the BBC, Eritrea, Rashida Tlaib, Ethiopia and Ilhan Omar howl that Israel, supported by its allies, must not do — that is exactly what Israel, supported by its allies must do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Although you may have a good point, at the same time it's really a massive project to introduce a major tricky piece of hardware into a military. Countries ordinarily take years to handle it. Crews, ground crews, supply chains and facilities have to be planned and implemented very carefully and at great expense.
If such a thing can be done in, let's say, 6 months, it is a real achievement, so it had better be done for the right plane.
Possibly the other fighters, though of high quality and having certain advantages, just can't be scaled for the task, making it unwise to pour resources into a small parallel rollout of them.
(But for all I know a 2nd fighter program will still happen at some point, and for the reasons you stated.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marie-christineb.4817 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOmOhtfKwhY
It's nothing that properly makes any case. It's just one man with an opinion, reciting a few very brief quotes. My point was simply to show you that not only conservatives are frightened, disgusted and dismayed by Trudeau. (I myself have identified and voted as a liberal all my life.)
He hastily wrote a new "emergency" law along the lines of martial law, suspending freedoms at protest locations, in order to end a protest against him. (He had made vaccination mandatory for some people, or they would lose their jobs; and for anybody to be able to travel except by private car, bus or on foot.)
He told lies about the protest, which was entirely 100% non-violent. These were definitely not political extremists, only ordinary people from ordinary walks of life who vehemently opposed his policies.
He had the protesters expelled by force, arrested, and held without bail. Their personal bank accounts were seized. Canadian were prohibited from coming near their own parliament. It was all legal within the context of the law he passed.
No, it wasn't exactly like A.H. More like Putin, Lukashenko, Orban, Erdogan, maybe Franco in the 1970s. But actually, yes, somewhat like Germany around 1933. Believe me, for a very free country like Canada, it was a complete departure from traditions of political freedom. It is very serious.
I understand your skepticism. It's because of Canada's well-deserved reputation. But things have suddenly changed.
Best regards
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CRVNBrewer The number of people within the legal boundaries of Hamburg is unimportant, except maybe to its Burgermeister. What makes a city a certain size in the relevant urban geography sense is the number of people in the whole continuous bulit-up area which ends either at farmland or where the next truly separate city starts.
In other words you must include the suburbs and any other town which the learned geographers have decided exists firmly and distinctly within the central city's orbit.
Thus New York is properly thought of as having 18m inhabitants, not 8m. Boston is a metropolis of around 4.5m despite the mayor of Boston overseeing the part home to only about 600,000.
When a city's borders expand, as they sometimes do, it's still the same place to urban geographers in terms of greater area population; it's merely that various municipal governments have shuffled people.
In 1998, Toronto expanded its boundaries somewhat, going from 700,000 to 2.5m, but it was still the same place.
Even that wasn't the whole story. Huge suburbs farther out still weren't absorbed politically, and the real total was 5.5m (today 6.3m).
In most cases a city's true extent can be more quickly and easily guessed from the air than from a map showing mere municipal boundaries.
Bremen might be too far away and too unconnected with Hamburg, but there are definitely around 3 million other non-Hamburgers who are part of Metropolitan Hamburg in a fully correct geographical sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Oh really?🤨
Democracy ratings: (1) Freedom House: Canada 97, UAE 18, Russia 13. (2) The Economist Index: Canada 8.7, UAE 3.0, Russia 2.2. (3) Democracy Matrix: Canada 0.86, UAE 0.17, Russia 0.26
Per-capita GDP: Canada $55,890; UAE $51,290; Russia $14,953
Mineral wealth per capita: Canada $595k; UAE $1,100k; Russia $188k. [Note that including all natural resources puts Canada in 1st.]
1
-
1
-
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 same thought resides permanently in my mental foreground. Life, society, politics, philosophy, religion and all the rest are about little more than what human nature is, and how much we ought to restrain the bits of it which cause trouble in groups (ones large enough and settled enough to go by the name civilization).
Not enough renunciation of our natures, and misery multiplies owing to our apish elements and how unsuited they are to present arrangements. It leads straight to things such as murder, rape and slavery. Too much, and misery multiplies because over-restraint amounts to a savaging of elements of ourselves which we will never root out, any attempt to do so being thus a dumb error.
To fancy that through laws, schools, priests, regulations, prisons and so on, we can approximate ethereal beings—the utopian aim is nothing less—is the grossest delusion conceivable. You could call it sub-adult. It leads straight to things like hair-shirts, to Aztec holy men in front of crowds, ripping out the beating hearts of poor victims, to Soviet gulags, to the beatings in the street by which hundreds of thousands died in the Cultural Revolution. (Estimates run as high as two million.) Less dramatically, the delusion leads also to soul-sickness, disorders of personality, and simple maladjustments both small and large which we call mental illness.
It's much calmer in the centre.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Me Actually it's not that at all. I was being quite silly as a matter of fact, and surely risked offending people. (Not totally considerate, I admit.)
It's a shout-out to Norm Macdonald fans based on one of his jokes. On a Late Show appearance he said the same thing to David Letterman, except he named someone else, that mid-20th century German guy, you know the one I mean? First initial 'A'? I don't want to write his name or the YT computer will take a horrible disliking to me.
Anyway, Letterman totally cracked up, and now to fans it's classic Norm. They (I mean we) recycle it over and over, on the least pretext, in an attempt to amuse each other.
No offence meant except against your professional output, Ms. Lorenz, if you're reading this!
Thanks for cheerfully not thinking the worst and hating me. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, the US and NATO are pursuing a strategy of 'incrementalism.' But I think it is not solely for the reason Mr. Volker offers. (And I think he knows it.) Yes, it is in part for the purpose of denying Putin a rationale for unleashing his military's full destructive capacities on Ukraine, and rousing his country into total war mode.
This Mr. Volker deems overly cautious, and he is plausibly correct there. What he (understandably and prudently) doesn't mention—the other reason and indeed the main one for incrementalism—is that pushing the invaders back to or near the Russian border is unwise if their forces still retain sufficient destructive capacity to come storming right back after whatever interval spent recovering. No, the wisest course is to do what defense secretary Lloyd Austin openly alluded to a few months into the war: Sap Russia's war-making abilities to the point where it cannot recover. Or at least not for many years.
On this view, the correct course is to let Putin believe that because of NATO timidity he is always just a few weeks or months from victory on his terms. This of course is what he would like to believe. Only in this way will he see fit to pour resources into the fight (i.e., deplete them) at a pace somewhere near the maximum realistically to be expected. So only by granting his wish to appear profoundly intimidating, if not invincible, can he be weakened and defeated in the shortest possible timespan.
In a word, there is a way to boil him like the proverbial frog in the saucepan, and this is it. It will go on until at last he realizes, too late, that his forces are unable to hold the line against a large Ukrainian offensive. They'll be finished—meaning the war will be, too, and likely Putin himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People here fret over Cameron "escalating," "revealing," "raising risks" etc. I totally disagree. Haven't they noticed the course of things over 26 months? To me it's clear that NATO's intent is (very shrewdly) to open the armament taps a little more every month or two, in order that Putin realize his troubles will only mount as time passes.
And he does recognize this. But when and if NATO were to cease these increments, he would be greatly emboldened and tempted to throw a decisive quantity of resources at a final push to Kiev. His response to the pause in incrementalism in the past couple of months shows this.
In my view Cameron, the US and all the rest of NATO's allies (yes, Scholz included) have got it just right. Their adroitness has actually surprised me. Putin still has a great deal of military power at his disposal, but Russia's forces have been (in the original sense of the word) decimated over and over.
Most of his armor is gone, likewise multiple key materiel categories and vast numbers of trained and experienced personnel. His air force is effectively neutered at present; at least, he knows that deploying it over Ukraine will cost him dear.
And speaking of costs, the total financial and economic impact of the war for Russia begins to near 200 trillion roubles ($2.2trn), which is on the order of a full year's GDP.
Its bank rate is 16%. Its wealth is hollowed out. Apart from the artificial, temporary, unsustainable and drug-like wartime stimulus, so too is its economy. Its standard of living, already on the decline, is ripe for a major near-term hit. Inflation and government debt stand to rise sharply. Downwards pressure on the rouble will soon (i.e. this year) overwhelm the government's efforts, so far successful, to prop it up.
I do not suggest near-term economic collapse. The patient is ailing and growing sicker, but it is on the table being administered a steady adrenaline drip.
Nonetheless, to switch metaphors, all this amounts to classic frog-simmering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thchen8312
Thanks for your reply.
True, China and Japan are not to be too closely compared.
But if you think Japan did not scare the US throughout the entire 1980s, I suspect you were not alive at the time, or if so were in short pants. Surely even in China people knew this.
Many people in the US, even the educated, though not most I believe, thought that Japan could replace the US as the world's leading economic power. I'm not kidding.
The loss of manufacturing capacity, rising imports from Japan, massive inflows of Japanese capital to buy up major companies and landmark real estate in the US, technological outpacing by Japan, the strong yen, incredible real estate prices in Japan, and the immense size and strength of Japanese banks were some of the most important reasons, but not the only ones.
Now you know more.
My impression, moreover, is that Japan was at that time a bigger worry to Americans that China is to them now. That is, if the culture and media are any indication. I think Americans worry somewhat about war with China, but not that China will buy their country or do much more to threaten its economic future than it already does.
I can only guess why, but it's an easy guess. I think Americans vaguely believe that China will sooner or later stumble so badly that it is set back for a few decades or longer, because it does not have a multi-party system, in contrast to Japan, which they expect to persist for a long time. When China's crisis hits, I think it is assumed, its form of government will change and it may splinter, in all of this scenario surely recalling the example of the USSR, with whose flag the Chinese flag shared its colours. Americans think communism, even the sham communism of China, doesn't work. They think a people who are not free could never defeat them. This surely includes many or even most important politicians and many journalists.
They may be proved wrong or right. For my part I feel their belief is too strong. Cheers.
1
-
1
-
@thchen8312
You convince me of the likelihood that your disposition is dominated by sweetness, which is itself a fine thing, but I maintain that vigorous criticism is the job of educated people in a free society. Such a society quickly falls apart without what you call critical judgments. If you don't care much about whether a society is free, you may wish to consider that Confucius himself is relentlessly critical of unenlightened men and their errors.
No conversation is over just because somebody utters the word 'bias'. If you think you are free of bias I respectfully suggest you ponder it further. One may with hope in their heart regard themselves as low on unfair bias, but that's not the same thing.
Moreover, while you stress how full you are of love, respect, spirituality, and acceptance of difference, one can't fail to notice the strength of the criticism you direct at me in your last post. Although it's couched in polite language, you're actually saying I'm biased and disrespectful. But while I find this frankly hypocritical, mealy-mouthed, and passive-aggressive, I'm not in the least hurt or offended. I'm a big boy and I can take criticism whether I feel it's fair or unfair. I merely assert that improving the world starts with looking in the mirror.
Still, I do appreciate and see value in a veneer of politeness, as long as it's within certain limits of sincerity. We ought not to be at one another's throats, after all. The estimable Confucius would approve, too, I think.
Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@altyhaaf4 Oh come on. As if Russia isn't soaked in hypocrisy and lies! Its strengths and weaknesses differ somewhat from those of the West, but its hypocrisy and lies plague it no less severely, possibly more severely. It's a little less ashamed of itself, probably because of a stronger commitment to denial of its shortcomings. Let's face it, every country around the world indulges in cheap anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism to kid itself and sweep its own failures of culture, system and character under the rug. "Say what you will, at least we're not Americans." Meanwhile their own faults fester.
It's human nature, alas. Poor people in your city and mine, failures and so on, also say it about the rich, the good-looking, everybody who has something. "Those people are vicious. I have nothing, but I'm good, and honest." Meanwhile they're not, to any particular degree. I'm always skeptical of people's blanket condemnations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 true. It is best to add to one's judgements of individual ideas and values (important and valuable as those judgements may be) an understanding of how wrong it is not to recognize others' right to their own. Well within living memory, for example, tolerance of LGBT people was considered wrong, as non-normal sexuality itself was considered wrong and was in ways illegal. Should that have been the case? Was tolerance wrong?
Liberal values require acceptance of a range of values— acceptance, tolerance, notice, not agreement with them, endorsement or promotion of them—otherwise repression of people is inevitable, and it is repression to which liberalism is opposed, not to particular political thought (ordinary conservative thought of the present day, for example).
For this reason a so-called liberal who is intolerant of conservative opinion is properly called illiberal, and is doing exactly the thing that the far right did which bothered the left-of-center in the first place and all along. Such a person has become what they despised. Liberalism isn't about being left-of-center, it's about rights and freedoms and tolerance. Thus, between the right-winger who sincerely insists on thoroughgoing tolerance of right-wing and left-wing thought alike, and the left-winger who wants repression of right-wing thought, it's the right-winger, or conservative, who's the liberal.
The most dangerous person by far is the illiberal liberal, who in that way is not a liberal at all, who stands for justice but works for repression, which is injustice. That's the type of person whom Orwell, himself a committed socialist, made the Party enthusiast in society and government in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm. The petty commissar O'Brien, while he tortured Winston Smith, thought of himself as good, because he was against the right wing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 a matter of understanding media itself. Understand media and you can consume it to your benefit, because you'll know exactly how to take what you're reading, watching, or listening to. But it's a long road. To work on understanding media, you have to already be well on your way with politics, business, history, economics & finance, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. Those are in no order, and art, science, and technology also are probably indispensable. One other thing:
"Take care that your light be not darkness." (M. Arnold) You will waste your efforts unless you look closely into ideas opposite to your own and scrutinize them for merit. If you find merit there, accept it, disturb you though it may.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThinkingDoesMakeMeImportant The worst sort of reply, tedious, puerile, fizzing with unwarranted self-assurance.
There were the founding peoples of the country—the original inhabitants, the French and the British—then there were more, and then more, and then more and more and more until all identity, cohesion, harmony is lost. We find out that diversity is a strength, until finally it is not and instead it's what splinters, fragments, pulls things down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 professor seems to regret the job the US has done. Yet it was Europe who gave them the job, because if they really did want to see better outcomes and a multipolar world, they could have put much more into NATO---perhaps enough to ensure that the US would not be the conductor running the entire performance, but more like the concertmaster sitting amongst them, leading them but with much less authority. In choosing not to do so, Europeans were shrewd in some sense because it left them free to focus on quality of life, social stability, health, and other things instead. But wouldn't it come in handy in the present century to be part of an even stronger NATO, a more balanced one, and one that for that reason would meet with more success in its global security efforts? Such a NATO might have kept Putin out of Crimea. As it was, he guessed easily and correctly that it wouldn't say much nor say it for very long.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dump Big Tech. Get it out of your life. Instead of using you-know-who, start using a search engine that doesn't track you. I mostly use DuckDuckGo: Stupid name, good service, no tracking. Dump Facebook and Instagram. Instead, use nothing. Text, e-mail or phone people you know instead. When you want or need real privacy, simply use the mail. Dump Amazon. Instead visit stores. It's better for your health and better for the city or town where you live. It's better for your country. Consider a flip phone so Google and Apple aren't looking over your shoulder constantly. Delete Chrome. Dump them all and get Big Tech out of your life now. Convince your family and friends to do the same.
Sorry YouTube, at some point we'll have to part ways, unless your parent company cleans up its act. The other options, like Dailymotion, aren't very appetizing, I'll admit, so right now I'm hanging on to YouTube as my last and only significant connection to Big Tech.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blessingjohnchelliah4317 Hungary ranks well above the median in all the various freedom indexes. For example in The Economist's Democracy Index it is 55th out of 167 countries. The US is 25th. Being 55th, it can obviously stand a good deal of improvement, but there are 112 other countries that need it more.
I don't see how not visiting most countries, or condemning them, is the way to move forward, or is a sign of a true democrat, let alone a moral person.
Hungary's freedom scores are too high to flatly qualify as authoritarian. In ordinal ratings it's in the second-highest categories out of a possible three to five, e.g. 'Partly free', or 'Flawed democracy', and gets scores just above or just below those of Poland and Israel.
Lastly I would point out that there's nothing wrong with vehemently insisting one's own country should score 9.9 while understanding that another country isn't evil just because it scores 6.6, as Hungary does. (Actually, btw, the US scores 7.9.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monalee7687 You call what I said a "blanket statement", overlooking the fact that I said "commonly." I think you know the difference between 'frequently' and 'always.' [sigh]
Anyway, gold-digging, although it's out there, not only isn't what I said, it isn't at all what had in mind either.
What I had in mind is that some given woman could be a more or less unselfish and loving partner, but divorce arrangements as they stand simply often make it tempting to end it when dissatisfaction creeps in. That's not gold-digging, it's just normal human self-interest and not even reprehensible. Neither men nor women are made of stone. We're all flesh and blood and fallible. Learning takes time, and we'd all do better in our second through fifth centuries if only we lived to 500.😕
My strongest belief is that neither women nor men are the better sex, and I run screaming (so to speak) from anyone who disagrees much at all. They're sort of like nuclear waste, so I wish they could be safely stored underground for millions of years.😄 So long.😘
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 strikes me that the goal of flattening the curve is probably at odds with avoiding the impoverishment of us all, perhaps for no payoff whatever in lives saved. Lives may be at first be saved by slowing an otherwise uncontrolled spread, but slowing the spread roughly means shutting down the country until most people are vaccinated or have caught the virus and recovered. Pausing the economy for a full year or longer would likely be a disaster in many ways worse than letting the disease run its course whilst the sick and the old are safely hunkered down for several months.
And drawing out the spread over time is not guaranteed to save a great many lives anyway, as hospitals may be overwhelmed even by a relative trickle of patients: it's clear that they can't handle an influx of the sick amounting to 5% of the population, but what makes anyone think they could handle even 1%? Hospitals will no doubt rise to the occasion in astonishing ways, but they operate within realistic limits against which there is ultimately no remedy.
Thus the best way to save the most vulnerable might be to focus on isolating them in the most thoroughgoing manner possible, a task more achievable if people are working at their jobs and circulating freely, maintaining the normal functioning of things needed to support such an effort. It would also free up things like masks and medicines for those who need them most, including medical workers. To isolate those most at risk for, say, half a year is not only much easier on them and all of us than doing so for twelve months or more---it also gives the virus much less time to get through to them.
Imagine on the one hand emerging from the summer with herd immunity achieved at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and with a quick economic and social recovery at hand, versus having the disease hanging over us all for a year or longer whilst it slowly but inexorably picks off the vulnerable one by one, at the cost of a similar (or greater) number of lives and an economic and financial hole so deep that it takes several years or a decade to climb out of it.
All the while we would swing back and forth agonizingly between tantalizing reprieve and resurgent outbreaks which continue through 2021. Quality of life and standards of living, obviously, but also the health of the people in all other respects would be sure to be seriously impacted. Do we know whether society could hang together throughout all that? We are most certainly (whichever anglosphere nation we inhabit) not the same people who withstood the Second World War with such stoic resilience.
And what if the net effect of an unnecessarily protracted struggle against the disease is a sudden massive transfer of political and economic power to China?
The UK national science advisor may have been right to float the herd immunity idea. The country which gets through this soonest will enjoy an enormous feeling of gladness and will also be the envy of the world. Possibly it could mean considering how many lives we permit (or cause) to be ruined in favour of the uncertain chance of saving a single one. Possibly it could mean sacrificing a certain number of younger lives for a vastly greater number of older ones. As Orwell said, "It is disagreeable to weigh human lives like groceries", but in the worst circumstances that may be precisely what is wisest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But here's Trump in an interview with Maria Bartiromo last year (which you can watch yourself): "I would tell Zelenskyy, 'No more, you've got to make a deal.' I would tell Putin 'If you don't make a deal, we're going to give them [Ukraine] a lot. We're going to give them more than they ever got if we have to.' I will have the deal done in one day, one day."
That"s clearly not a one-sided pledge to end aid to Ukraine. Threatening Putin with an escalation of aid to Ukraine to the highest-ever level is something of a very different nature.
It's also illuminating to read Trump's social media posts immediately following February 24, 2022.
I for one expect that Trump, if he wins, will confront Putin aggressively. For now, in my view, he does not wish to appear to Putin as though he is more hawkish than Biden. He has a close election to contest, and although Putin's active measures powers are hardly unlimited, they are considerable enough that it is unwise to make oneself his target. (Don't take my word for it. Ask Hilary Clinton.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buckodonnghaile4309 Regarding the 300+ MPs, I'm quite certain they didn't realize what was going on. On the subject of her personally, I can only speculate.
If she had known beforehand what the real facts of the matter were, she would've shut his appearance down instantly. She'd know the disaster that would come out of it. (Or maybe not!—maybe she'd know what it could do for her own chances of becoming PM, for if Trudeau resigns, she almost certainly gets his job. Very speculative of me here, and I'm partly joking, but stranger things have happened in this world.)
That leaves the matter of what she thought during the Speaker's remarks, not knowing in advance what this was really all about. In those remarks he mentioned two things: The old man's WW II service, and that he "fought for Ukrainian independence." They weren't made to sound necessarily like the same thing, or even concurrent. His "fight" for Ukraine could've been post-WW II. And one certainly doesn't have to be a soldier to fight for a people's independence. There's fearless open activism, there's underground partisan activity, there's appealing to diaspora, there's a lot of possible roles.
So, knowing the history of the era as she does, she might assume that his Ukrainian separatist activities had nothing to do with his (presumed) service in the Red Army.
Or, more likely, she could've felt deep dread in the pit of her stomach, simply out of fear that the well-meaning but not-terribly-bright Speaker had blundered, that the man had never been in the Red Army. But she wouldn't know for certain, would she? There's a difference between "No, this is wrong! I can't participate in this!" and "Oh my god, please don't let this be what I fear it is." So what's she going to do, applaud, or stand there grim-faced with her arms folded in front of her chest? Remember, the whole boring thing unfolded in the span of about one minute.
Thanks for putting me through that, i.e. making me speculate on what went on in the mind of someone who sickens me. (Yes, I cannot stand the Trudeau government, and she is the Deputy PM.) I need a bath now!😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@direwolf6234 Dude, the OP is simply a foreign troll talking point. Below all videos concerning one of the ongoing wars or just about any world issue, over 50% of the comments are really from hostile foreign governments.
They have ways of mass posting them with millions of accounts, polishing them up to native-English-speaker proficiency with AI, etc. etc. They also mass-downvote and falsely report the better pro-US, pro-Israel, pro-Ukraine, pro-Taiwan, pro-West posts, clearing them out as though with bulldozers. They've totally gamed YouTube and probably all Western social media. It makes me sick.
FWIW, I completely agree with your reply. The OP is a total false dichotomy. The US can walk and chew gum at the same time, having the wealth to do what's really necessary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards
"Safer"? His constituents, the people of North East Somerset, who elected him and then re-elected him with a strong majority, are thus lovers of violence, you say? He's violent, and was selected by violent supporters to do violent things? HIs presence in the House of Commons threatens the safety of the UK?
Yes, just look at what a menace to public safety he is, stretched out weakly in a naff suit on a green bench. Children cry, women flee, and stout-hearted but unarmed men tremble at his sight.
A grateful nation extends its honours to you for your penetrating vision. Fools are they who call you brainless, callow, and contemptibly destructive of the language. You, sir, are truly a British, nay, a world hero and in no way one of the most idiotic [here a bad word is deleted] who ever walked the face of the Earth. The entire globe is safer for your wise pronouncements. I humbly thank you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Le Ploutonomiste I wondered whether, in borderline cases, native intelligence and sensitivity (neither in any way pathological, meaning healthy) lead to pathology on account of preventing healthy social development (or, to make it simple for you to grasp, if life is easier for average people), or if poor social development owing to any reasons at all can foster high intelligence and sensitivity by forcing a search for answers in the face of painful maladjustments (again translating so you can get it: if being a fucked-up social loser benefits perspicacity and cleverness).
I didn't say anything about myself. So your empathy and advice, though appreciated for its earnestness, is misplaced. A very neat line in presumption, officiousness, and vulgarity. You understood what didn't exist to be understood and did not understand what I did write.
(By the way, gay and homosexual may be different things to you but they mean the same thing in the Anglosphere, and gay is an English word.)
I won't wish you well with your mental problems, if any, as they are none of my business. But please accept a cordial adieu.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, like, I can't personally fire Trump. So, that's like literally unjust. So, like, we have to become more militant. Abstract debate and like logical arguments and politeness are not going to achieve our goals. Trying to make a debate just shows that you already have, like, total power. Total power is not right unless you have, like, good morals.
(This is what happens when people born after about 1960 have children, bringing them up to be Peter Pan. Just wait 25 or 30 years till people his age have kids who go on news shows. They'll make this one look like Thomas Jefferson.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3 points: (1) Mika Brzezinski actually has a great political bloodline. Her dad Zbigniew was the highly-respected National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter throughout his term (1977-81). Alas, as the case of Justin Trudeau attests, children of distinguished statesmen may well turn out to be total duds.
(2) I finally figured out why Biden chose Kringela Harris. It was specially for her total awfulness, in order that when at last he became truly, completely, undeniably, functionally incapacitated (as he clearly is now) it would never occur to a soul to remove him and put her in his place.
Think about it: if his VP were even halfway competent-seeming, Democrat calls for his removal on grounds of mental degeneration — indeed, the calls of Republicans and the entire nation — would have by now resulted in his replacement by that VP. But no, the Biden the strategy has worked. She is so deeply unpalatable that Biden will remain in the Oval Office until January 2025, unless he dies or sinks into a literal coma.
(3) October/November 2023 is when Dave Rubin absolutely caught fire. I always liked you, Dave, but I can say now what I wouldn't have said four years ago, that you have blossomed into a political and social pundit of the top tier.👏👏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlesdavis3802 Precision wasn't the problem, validity was. By analogy with the game of darts, precision is landing your darts in a tight grouping; validity is centering them around the bullseye (or wherever you're aiming). In science, validity is the great object. As I said, although the study results more or less concurred with later work by others, Dr. Bhattacharya acknowledged it wasn't a great piece of work.
It wasn't truly terrible, but it was science done on the fly, and if most papers were of that quality a lot more buildings would fall down as a result, planes would fall out of the sky more often, computers wouldn't work, and medicines would save a lot fewer people. Roughly speaking, let's say it deserved 4 to 4 1/2 stars out of five, while a pass in science is 4 1/2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sunseeker2009 Ignore that accusation of elitism and racism, kiddo. Don't let frivolous crap like that get you down, and do hang on to your sense that careful use of language is important and has something to do with personal merit.
But I disagree somewhat on your point about the "poor old lady [who] died from coronavirus." Keep in mind that it's extremely important for officials to know exactly what level of illness and death the virus is causing. I ask you this: What are we to make of it if we see a surge of deaths recorded in one period of the year followed by a period a short while later with a much lower number than we'd expect based on the average rate of deaths during the same months in recent years?
Accurate collection of data and careful analysis is important, but through them it may be established that the 'missing deaths' may be a result of the very old and sick dying mere weeks or months before they would have, had no pandemic occurred. The loss of any days of life is tragic, as indeed a loss of mere hours may be considered tragic in its own way. But the tragic element, although present in the background while an epidemiologist is thinking about this (why would there even be a field of epidemiology if we didn't all find death tragic?), is not the primary concern here, it's the power of the virus to shorten lives, and like it or not, weeks don't count as much as decades.
When death totals during a pandemic are looked at, we subtract expected deaths from the total because deaths happen at a certain rate anyway and it's pandemic-caused deaths we're studying. Subtracting expected deaths doesn't mean we don't care those people died. It's not callous. Death is a part of life and can't be avoided, so we accept it. Not to do so is unhealthy psychologically. Those deaths we can potentially postpone through medical and epidemiological research are what we focus on.
So don't make too much of anyone minimizing up to a point a slight curtailment of life. When someone is dealing with numbers that describe huge populations it's only natural to consider the larger effects more important. That's why people will be happy when the national rate of deaths falls from hundreds a day down to a couple. It's not like two people dying isn't sad, it's just immensely less sad than hundreds dying. Just my opinion. Cheers.
1
-
@sunseeker2009 I suggest caution in giving credit to the Guardian article of 2009 and the Wikipedia article on Prof. Sikoram. There is an eerie similarity to accusations made against another UnHerd interviewee, the German epidemiologist Dr. Knut Wittkowski.
Formerly a professor in Germany, he was afterward long the head of an epidemiology department at Rockefeller University, a graduate research university in New York City. Despite his senior role he was not a professor there, but it was alleged incorrectly, according to him, either carelessly or deliberately, by USA Today, that he claimed to be one.
He was a successful and respected academic, so it seems unlikely that he would make such a bizarre and easily falsifiable claim. Yet after publicly sharing unpopular opinions concerning the pandemic, he was faced with the accusation. Rockefeller University promptly issued an indignant statement to the effect that not only was he not a professor there, but that they also abjured his opinions on the pandemic.
In my view it appears he was smeared for his opinions. Having watched his UnHerd interviews (now removed from this channel by YouTube!) I find him more credible than USA Today (and YouTube management). I hasten to add my view that university administrators are a species of invertebrate whose indignant news releases are best completely ignored. The more someone knows about university presidents and their underlings, the more likely they will agree with me.
So I'm not surprised to find Prof. Sikoram accused of an offence so unlikely-sounding for a man of his eminence, to find his Wikipedia article edited to include this material, nor to find the university he was formerly affiliated with distancing itself from him vigorously on the least pretext, nor to find a very left-wing paper like the Guardian making allegations against him after he criticized the NHS whilst also characterizing it as being the darling of the left.
Ordinarily, Wikipedia, ICL, and the Guardian are acceptable sources on a range of topics. But this is the age of thoroughgoing partisanship, and institutions that could at one time be trusted for impartiality no longer can be. I'm sad to say that all three can be considered creatures of it. Thus, none of the three can be trusted on matters the least controversial. It's a pity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*Combatting. Everyone should ignore the Microsoft dictionary, which is what started all these misspellings. Double consonants are not useless, they serve the purpose of indicating how the preceding vowel is pronounced: One consonant, long vowel; double consonant, short vowel. Examples: Ratted, Rated. Batted, Bated. Latter, later. Hatter, Hater. Tatter, Tater. Matted, mated. Fatted, fated. (Bill Gates should've left such things to people with more than a high school education.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TL;DR version of this comment: America needs a third party, one to split the left, like Canada has long enjoyed.
Canada is supposed to be a pretty left-wing country, and it sort of is, but this kind of DNC convention stuff doesn't fly so well in our major liberal party. The imaginatively-named Liberal Party of Canada is the counterpart, not to say the equivalent, of the Democrats, and they usually govern the country. And luckily something helpful happened here to keep them from really, really going off the rails.
Decades ago the farther left in Canada went off on their own to form a third party, the New Democratic Party. At one time the NDP were bookish or faux-bookish, sentimental, nerdy, earnest, democratic socialists. They still, are, but this being 2020 they're a much worse grade of democratic socialist than formerly, for reasons I need not specify to readers here. In 2020 the far left everywhere is a crazed menace.
Perennially in distant third place, they were concerned about class and things like keeping the wealth distribution and income distribution curves flat. They actually were pretty flat in those days, perhaps in part thanks to the NDP. Unions practically owned them, hairy-faced and -legged university professors held a minority stake.
They're far-leftier now, somewhat like the people in this video, but they're much easier to ignore than them because no one thinks they will ever run the country, That is, they can never win by placing first and, unlike the radicals in the Democratic party, neither can they ever take over a party which can place first, because they're not in it. They have their own playpen, if you will, and they are stuck in it. Who knows, maybe they're the real reason Canada is not nearly so divided as the US.
Over the years they sometimes won 20% of the vote but usually took around 10% of the parliamentary seats, and now and then they won a provincial government election. But mostly they helped the Conservatives win more elections than they otherwise would have done, and spared the Liberals of the need to accommodate them in their platform, their nominees, and their cabinet..
Warming to my vision? Go ahead. It's a vision in which the people in this video are effectively absent at election time because they're electorally irrelevant.
My suggested action is, if you reside in the center or the right (or even if you're left of center but despise dangerous far-left nonsense anyway) give money to any left splinter party there is that will run candidates in federal elections. Give money to Kanye West, perhaps, if he'll take away Democratic votes.
But foster the emergence of a party at the Left Pole, from which --- as from the North Pole all points are south --- all points are Right. You'll thank me when the Democratic Party improves greatly and stops presenting the grave threat it does today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Right. That's true and it's what you and I think. But to some of the high-priest, champagne-socialist, Whole Foods, MSNBC-watching hipster elites, the 'real' heroes were figures like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Stalin, and the poster boy himself, the "Butcher of La Cabana," Che Guevara. [enormous great whanging cringebarf 🤮]
I am definitely with you. But we need reinforcements.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's a lot to what Carlson is saying here. I gave the clip an upvote for its overall merit. But has it occurred to him yet that Biden and the WH might be putting his incipient senescence to work by letting it introduce doubt and fear into the Kremlin's deliberations? If you've heard of words for paradoxical human signalling such as 'frenemies' and 'humble-bragging,' you can probably get how Biden's utterances might amount to 'official messaging with plausible deniability and instant walkbackablilty, but they'll get the drift, trust me'? In other words: Scare them, make yourself clear (although perhaps not in so many words, or do it glancingly), but do it incompetently enough that you can later disclaim it and thereby move it safely down from the status of escalatory Provocation, yet Putin will be stuck not knowing for sure.
If you find it hard to accept this possibility, you may be thinking that anyone in the Oval Office is surely enough of a man and possessed of enough class that he'd never operate like that. It's high-risk, dangerous. It seems weak, sneaky, indirect. It seems 'street'. Simple and vague expressions of determination, strength and commitment to principle, repeated over and over, should do the job better, surely?
You'd think so. But maybe you're not thinking about how much more unmanly and low-class the political class and the whole country have become in this century. (Hell, most of the world in many ways.) In that light, the introduction into presidential brink-of-war messaging of tactics a little feminized, a little street-sourced, a little reality-TV, wouldn't be so surprising. What would be surprising is if they never made an appearance at all in this decade, so young but already so loathsome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IndoGunsnGear F off, kid. Who says I'm American?
Anyway, I've never heard anyone publicly or privately say "China is stupid and their people are weak". That's rubbish and you've been had if you believe it.
If anyone ever says "China is bad," they certainly mean it's the illegitimate totalitarian government of China that's bad. Big difference. If they did actually hate Chinese people, they would disparage Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, which is never, ever done. I defy you to source a single instance of such disparagement.
Your last remark sounds racist. Obama, though hardly without fault, is a brilliant and talented man with great character. That's why people elected (and re-elected) him.
I have no more time for you. Any reply is most unwelcome. Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crusaderslayer 1989 is on its way again, Ivan. It's coming. So is 1991. Politicians will be sidelined, answering only to the siloviki warring amongst themselves. A great split or splits will take place: a splintering army, ethnic factions, extremists suddenly armed, etc., etc. No one can predict details but your state is not built to survive heavy strain.
It could've been so different. No European, no American wanted to destroy Russia, or to see it destroyed. It's simply that to know Russia is to not trust it, to feel the need to guard very carefully against it. You made a great mistake, Russia. (Two, actually: You also hopped into bed with the most dangerous country on earth.) You overplayed your hand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 got to know a guy who described the work his father did in the City of London. After a while, I said "He sounds like the Mitt Romney of Britain" (recall what Romney did at Bain Capital---homing in on companies like the Cabela of this segment, pulling them apart to "unlock shareholder value", wrecking them in the process, and making immense personal profit). "Very much so," he replied.
I never met the man. In fact he died before I became good friends with his son. But it will perhaps surprise no one that this selfish man married a selfish woman, and that together they had two children whom they went on to selfishly ignore throughout their childhoods. My friend as a result of this isolation and neglect (in a posh but empty house or away at school) has ended up with rather poor mental and emotional health. He is not ok. I wonder if he'll ever get much better.
I also wonder how many of the people making the most money in the financial sector similarly put money above everything else to the point they ruin everything they touch. After all, from a selfish and greedy point of view, an unwillingness to ruin things is a scruple that merely stands in the way; conversely, a willingness to inflict damage actually opens the door to success (defined, to adapt someone else's phrase, as making a pile of money and leading a life untroubled by conscience). It would therefore be an imperative. The fellow would have enjoyed golfing with Singer, I bet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@masakichin6009
Thanks for your reply.
All I have to say is that if an all-powerful king is so wonderful that he is never unjust, never unwise, and a brilliant genius, then it's a good idea to leave him unopposed in absolute power permanently, and hope that his children are just as wonderful when they inherit his rule.
But it is probably safer to have a mechanism to remove him. In the west it is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If this is true, then absolute trust is unwise. Without power, trust is simply hope.
You have to wonder how many fewer people would have starved to death in the Great Leap Forward if Mao and the CPC were removed by defeat in elections once the disaster began.
Democracy certainly has its problems, but when a government is bad at least there is a way to throw the buggers out.
A thoroughly free press also provides a way to find out if the government is bad. They are a type of police, or at least public prosecutor, who balance the government's powers.
Thanks again for your courteous reply. Best wishes.
P.S. By the way, just for fun, here is an old Soviet joke: Under capitalism you have the exploitation of man by his fellow man. Under communism, the opposite is true.
1
-
@masakichin6009
Ha ha, I understand your English perfectly and quite enjoy it, my friend. But I am surprised to learn you are so young. You must read a lot of challenging books and articles and have smart friends and family.
It's interesting to hear your hopes that the Chinese government will continue to improve as it did in recent decades. I hope so, too, but I'm worried. For many years bad signs were very few, but there is a permanent temptation to achieve goals through very vigorous moulding of the public mind and stricter control over people. The treatment of Muslims, the AI cameras, and the indefinite extension of Xi's presidency are all bad signs. I think of Rome, where power sharing was demanded and promised century after century but never came.
Major difficulty---politically, economically, socially---can't be avoided forever, surely, for governing is hard. When it comes, what form will it take?
The character of the next generation of people cannot be known for certain. Can the three pillars of communism, capitalism, and Confucianism really co-exist for a lot longer? They seem like unlikely long-term partners. When the next major shift in the balance between them occurs, will China suffer a hard landing? I feel that something sudden and surprising will have to come out of China eventually. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it won't happen in this lifetime.
As to where I live, I'd rather not mention it, although I cannot think of exactly why not. I will just say it's a large metropolis not in the US or Asia, very lucky, and enviably quiet in most ways. Sydney and Hamburg answer to that description, but it's neither of them, so that leaves maybe six or seven others.
Thanks for you warm reply and sorry for one last long answer. Something got my inspiration going! Best luck and health. DP
P.S. It would be so good to correspond with you again in five or ten years, once we see what happens after a while. I plan to keep my screen name and maybe you will too. And it doesn't have to be years, it could be soon instead!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Comm.DavidPorter If Russia had attacked NATO countries on its western flank in retaliation, it would have been difficult or, more likely, impossible to repel them. That is the opinion of Gen. Sir Richard Shirreff, Deputy Commander of NATO in Europe, 2011-14.
NATO's $1trn-plus annual military budget seems immense, yet it is spent in such a way as to provide a shockingly low level of preparedness for war. Such vulnerability argues powerfully against the sort of risk-taking you wish had occurred.
Another aspect arguing for prudence was the unpredictability of the political outcome in Russia were Putin to have been quickly and ignominiously thrashed. His ouster by the siloviki might well have been absolutely disastrous for European, Asian and global security. Multiple wars could've broken out, possibly ones larger than the one in Ukraine.
It's too soon to say for certain, but I expect history will judge NATO's response so far to have been, all things considered, highly (and surprisingly) adroit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 an incredible amount of rot being talked on the internet about this story. Here is my version and analysis of what really happened:
1) The role of the Speaker of the House
The Speaker of the House is a Member of Parliament elected by fellow MPs to run the House of Commons, not politically, but procedurally and administratively. Both the office and the holder of the office are traditionally accorded considerable respect, especially the office itself. As the senior official, the Speaker presides not only over day-to-day legislative sessions, debates, etc., but also over visits to the House of Commons by foreign heads of state. Overall responsibility for state visits, however, falls on the Ministry of Global Affairs and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
2) Zelenskyy's visit
The visit from Volodymyr Zelenskyy was an important one politically for the government. President Zelenskyy is popular in Canada, while Prime Minister Trudeau himself has been suffering from low popularity, so this was a chance to perhaps borrow some of the president's prestige. Perhaps to assist in this way, the Speaker, Anthony Rota, who is also a Liberal, came up with an idea.
He knew of a man in his hometown (where he is the serving MP) said to have been a Ukrainian freedom fighter several decades back, so he conceived that the man could attend the goings-on, sit in the gallery, be announced by him (Rota), and be briefly lauded by him. This was entirely his own idea. One would expect that the PMO would have to approve the idea, but it turns out that, according to the (Liberal) Government House Leader, Rota informed no one in the government, nor anyone in the Ukrainian delegation.
Now, the PM in Canada is a more powerful figure than the national leader in many other liberal democracies, and the PMO is said by many to practically run the country, so it is hard to know how this came to pass, but I suspect that it stems from a parliamentary tradition that the Speaker does not answer to the government. Rather, in the House of Commons, it is the other way around.
So Speaker Rota invited the man, who agreed to come. Rota, no student of history, failed to vet his invitee, or at least failed to vet him properly. And as it appears the PMO and Global Affairs were unaware of his invitation, they did not, and possibly under the rules could not, subject him to supervision on this aspect of procedure.
3) The fateful minute-and-forty-five seconds)
He thus went ahead and wrote his one-minute introduction of the man, presumably carrying it into the House in his briefcase or pocket.
When the moment came, Speaker Rota told the assembled MPs, the Ukrainian delegation and the two national leaders that the old man was "a World War II veteran who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians." He called him "a Ukrainian hero and a Canadian hero," to general applause and two standing ovations.
It obviously wasn't clear to anyone listening that this unknown old man's WW II service was the same as his "fight for Ukrainian independence against Russia," nor that they were even concurrent. (As we all now know, they in fact were the same thing.)
I doubt anyone imagined any more than Speaker Rota that anything was wrong. Perhaps some were puzzled, but they likely just assumed that there were hostilities between Ukrainians and the Soviet government at some point in that era (perhaps before the war, perhaps during, perhaps shortly afterwards). A few maybe assumed that the Speaker misspoke; still others may have thought it best to trust that the Speaker and the PMO somehow knew what they were doing. In any case, it appears no one guessed that the two biographical details referred to the same thing, and that the man had in fact never served in the Red Army!
And if some did suspect that perhaps something was amiss, who would risk withholding their applause only to later find out that they themselves had not thought things through adequately during a mere 100-second tribute?
Allow me to repeat myself, to stress that No one applauding knew he was a Nazi, nor even that it was during WW II that he "fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians" as the Speaker worded it. (Of course, one certainly doesn't even have to be a soldier to fight for a people's independence. Besides soldiering there's fearless open activism, underground partisan activity, appeals to diaspora for money — there are a lot of possible roles.) They clearly didn't know or they most certainly would not have applauded.
4) The blame
Thus in my view the entire fiasco is about 80% the Speaker's personal fault. Although he meant well, he blundered.
The remainder of the blame I place on the PMO, specifically on the PMO Chief of Staff. I don't even know this person's name and I don't care what it is. But I do know that the onus for ensuring that the visit of a head of state goes well (i.e. perfectly) is on the top staff member of the head of government. That's the PMO Chief of Staff. That person should resign or be fired.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just looking at Ms. Gessen's eyeglasses is like a punch in the stomach, telling me how conventional, naive, and outdated I am. It's an epiphany, a moment of awakening. I feel enlightened, alive, reborn, with eyes open for the first time. My heart bursts with gratitude for the gift of understanding and awareness I've received courtesy of Ms. Gessen and the Dolce & Gabbana, Dior, Guess, or Prada company.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billmeeker774 I agree with around half of that, but the problem there and then was radicalism, violent radicalism, not liberalism. The separatists at that time especially were shot through with real communist pieties. They would rob banks and put bombs in mailboxes and then take off for Cuba.
The prime minister at the time (Pierre Trudeau) was a thoroughgoing Robert Kennedy or JFK-type liberal (like the Kennedys, inspired by Harold Laski at firsthand) but his response was sensibly enough to arrest the lot of them (some 400) and order patrols of heavily-armed soldiers in carefully-chosen areas. He was required to pass a martial law provision in Parliament, which a large minority of people, especially well-off liberals, opposed.
Trudeau could probably be impressed by gentleman communism if he were to witness it, but he had no use for low-class rebels. His dad was a Montrealer of pretty humble roots who married above his station on the way up, made a total mint in gas stations, and afterwards lavished all there was to lavish on his son's very classy upbringing. I think all that made his son's response to the October Crisis quite predictable (not to mention decently solid).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markmuller8829 That sounds rather like an argument against freedom of expression as dangerous and in need of policing by authorities with the power to decide what is an opinion, what's a fact, what is valid data, which studies are valid, what are 'reputable sources' (!). Chilling.
It's half a step or less from 'We need truth police to combat this danger. Your public expression will be evaluated for truth by me and my group or those we appoint. We'll determine whether it constitutes a lie. Freedom is tyranny. Censorship is freedom.'
Don't you realize that is simply a return to the pre-democracy era, to the stranglehold of absolute monarchs, to theocracies, to the totalitarian horrors of the 20th century, to the China and North Korea and Iran of today?
Who on earth taught you that freedom of expression is a deadly poison? Yes it can cause harm, but only in the same sense that any human faculty can. Far more poisonous and destructive are attempts to restrict it beyond bare necessity, i.e. the prohibition of incitement to crime, libel, slander, revealing of state or military secrets. That's about it. Want to do battle against lies? Your weapon is the truth, not force.
If freedom of expression is so bad, how did two centuries of it produce anything so wonderful as you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blind people read books in Braille, but when they listen to an audiobook, they're not reading. Someone is reading to them. (When anybody listens to an audiobook, they're not reading.)
Mr. Ragusea is correct there, and he's correct about "lived experience". It's a tautology. Deleting "lived" removes no meaning whatsoever.
So when he says "Jumpcut!", I feel sorry for him. I'm sure he has his share of joys, but he suffers, acutely, as the brilliant always suffer.
Edit: I went back and watched a few minutes longer, and god, it is nauseating how she talks down to him, just so casually, over and over. Very easy smugness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeteQuad The answer is simple: They're misfits and psychological cases, every last one of them, starting with Marx himself.
Such people, many of them hopeless beyond any chance of redemption, need something that somehow validates them as people. (Otherwise abusing drugs or alcohol, or a flight to profound madness are the only options.) Marxism provides them with an excuse for not making any adjustments: "People can't handle me because I have radical ideas. That's what unenlightened people are like. Turns out I'm not inferior to them after all, I'm better than them. Far better."
Misfit issues solved. Sort of.
(For those who are allergic to the whole subject of politics, there's always piercing yourself with a hundred studs, dyeing your hair one color after another, endless tattoos, unusual eyeglass frames, a ridiculous hipster accent, etc. Other classic remedies include gang membership and religious fanaticism.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 source of my own doubt is that The Times tracked down hundreds (their word) of his sex partners to get dirt on him. We don't know what they said to all those women, whether they made promises of material support, whether they led them along with all the (female) rhetorical support they could muster, manipulated them, etc. — in short, whether they did whatever they had to in order to amass four accusers.
There's no doubt about it, they were on a mission. They assigned multiple reporters and spent four years on it, as well as presumably hundreds of thousands of pounds in wages and expenses (travel, legal, etc). A group that determined could probably nail Santa Claus.
Then there are the sheer statistical odds that some people who've had casual sex with a celebrity will end up resenting that person. Surely the tryst itself means much more to them than to the famous person, so that sets up a massive potential for resentment all by itself. Add to that the fact that Brand's political leanings have taken a turn from ten-plus years ago, which may add to any sense of affront. If you search long and hard enough you can probably find a few people that will say things that aren't true, people who are also intelligent enough to present those things in a well-thought out and credible-seeming fashion.
Another possibility is that some of the accusers are being truthful and others aren't.
It's certainly impossible for me to be sure one way or the other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism, the guest tells us, is great because it spells dignity for all. This is a conclusion, not an argument; an assertion, not a case. As such it is an evasion which no intellectual worth his salt will try to get away with and borders on question-beggaring. It also looks very bad on Harvard. Carlson saw through it at once, asking him repeatedly for "details, details" but to no avail. (Full professors at Harvard, by the way, average over $220,000 in salary, with benefits on top of that. Pretty dignified.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jessa9877 You're right, it isn't justified. But the support it does have was handed to him by the hapless protest tacticians. They needed some first rate PR help but they stupidly thought they already knew what to do. They didn't.
The thing to do wasn't to spread the trucker actions, it was move back from the centre of the stage and to share it by bringing in great numbers of ordinary, interested and sympathetic Canadians. (Such Canadians did begin flocking there last weekend, but incompetent organizers had doomed the whole thing by then.)
This they could have done, and if they had, the mandates would already be history. Instead they squandered public support by going after bridges that made absurd targets. The proper targets of course were politicians in their offices on Parliament Hill and that's where the protests should have remained, although provincial legislatures would have been fine, too.
If they're smart they'll start over, in Ottawa, without trucks (or without many of them anyway), and with the maximum number of demonstrators from all walks of life. I think protests are banned near Parliament Hill but they can get as near as possible until the ban is removed—and in the meantime the government will look terrible for using near-martial-law to keep them at bay.
1
-
1
-
You resort to the same "so you're saying" tactic as the interviewer.
Nonsense. If that's what they tell him, and he says that's what they tell him, his statement is accurate. He makes no claim about billions of men---your choice of punctuation between the two sentences you quote is your own, not his. One could insert a comma, semi-colon, or dash. (Anyway, though I'm asserting he was generalizing little in this instance, generalizations can be valuable; thus if one wishes to refute or even merely attack them, the attempt must be made on the basis of demerits shown to be inherent to them, not on the basis of the worthlessness of generalizing.)
I know a doctor who treats young people for their problems. He tells me something similar. He says many of his young male patients tell him they are ashamed of their maleness and see it as inferior to femaleness. Unsurprising, considering several decades of the media, schools, and other areas of culture and society telling boys and men how terrible they are. And this generation of men and boys are for the women of like age the men and boys from among which non-lesbians must select their partners. Not very appetizing, I would think.
It's hard to see sexism where you believe it can't exist. It's hard to believe it can exist when it's in your interest to disbelieve it. Cheers.
1
-
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 all about the feminization of men. There's no male-female balance now, as there passingly was in the latter part of the last century. Culture and society are now subordinated to female instincts, tastes and desires to an outlandish degree. Women and girls, naturally fearful owing mainly to their lack of strength, formerly admired male courage. Now, thanks to indoctrination in anti-male ideology from earliest childhood, they have on the whole come to despise and resent it. (Not entirely, I stress, nor does this apply in a significant degree to all women, but a large enough majority to predominate and to create a great society-wide imbalance.)
Such resentment quickly entails a rejection of mere equality between the sexes in favour of the emasculation of boys and men. For indoctrinated women, of course, equality to the sex they regard as innately inferior and tyrannical would itself amount to a tyranny, an injustice, a humiliation. And so a culture of Safety Above All quite naturally appeals to a desire for the emasculation of men which has been planted in them.
And by necessity a culture of safety entails the elevation of fearfulness, courage's opposite, from a weakness to a virtue — a supreme virtue, an indispensable one. We saw this writ large in the 2020-22 period, years which marked an apotheosis of fear and enforced cowardice.
But how did they do it? How could something that sounds so impossible be made reality? In a word, gradually. One man (and one woman) at a time. One by one, as I said, they taught women to abhor male courage — by relentless repetition. One by one, as time went on, they taught men the same thing — by repetition. And at the same time, one by one they set the men they had feminized against those they had not. It's amazing how just a little change each year — say, a mere 1% — adds up over a number of decades. "Drops of rain removeth mountain ranges into the sea, not by sheer force, but by oft falling."
And a society or civilization whose men are fearful and emasculated, it hardly needs to be pointed out, will of course before long crumble and be overtaken by another whose men remain men.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheWhyFiles Careful with the term 'socialism.' So-called 'social programs' generally aren't socialism. Welfare isn't, for example, even though prized by socialists. Public ownership of the means of production is. No need to call that "pure socialism." It's just plain socialism.
To regard public schools, fire departments, old-age pensions, and publicly-paid-for streetlights and sidewalks as (watered-down) socialism isn't right. The farthest-right libertarians may call them that, but they're wrong.
(Publicly-funded single-payer health care might qualify as watered-down socialism, though, if it bans private insurance of most or all kinds.)
Anyway, debating over terms is useful up to a point, but I think we're agreed on what's best, and that's far more important. Cheers and thanks for your reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, but who dislikes being told no, who throws toddler-style tantrums, more than socialists in Western countries? It's always so hilarious when they source their contumely from the mirror. Well, hilariously empty, appalling, hypocritical and tedious.
And full of false claims: Joly is a Liberal. She has never belonged to the NDP. She is a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal. Indeed her parents are both prominent lifelong Liberals, her dad being a senior Liberal Party functionary (Finance Committee president in the Quebec wing), her stepmother a Liberal MP from 2000 to 2004. You simply can't find anyone more Liberal than Melanie Joly.
Moreover, it's not just that she's never had anything to do with the pretend-socialist NDP, neither is there even a single NDP member in the Liberal cabinet. Any such claim or assumption is false. I suppose you've surmised that the Liberals and NDP have a coalition. They don't. It's not a formal coalition. The Liberals govern alone with support from the NDP under a far less extensive agreement than what is commonly seen in actual coalitions around the world.
Moving on to Canadian arms exports, Canada is not a "major supplier" to any country, and certainly not to Israel. The value of its exports to the US is kept secret, but in 2021 its arms exports to all other countries totalled a paltry $2 billion, about 60% of that to Saudi Arabia. To Israel it sold a minuscule $19 million.
Finally there's the matter of Canada's standing in the West. To put it bluntly it has next to none at all. Its reputation has been systematically demolished by Prime Minister Peter Pan over the last nine years. Its lack of contributions to NATO prior to the Ukraine War (under Trudeau and also under previous governments) sealed its fate in this regard. Canada is well-known for publicly condemning things and then doing nothing else about them. That's something that gets a country ignored and that's what has happened to Canada.
Like published socialist material generally (if not exclusively), this video and its little causerie in the description section show a disturbing — but unsurprising — lack of respect for the facts. A total disregard, actually.
Get back to me if you have questions about politics in Canada or Canada's relation to the world. I see you have problems conducting 'research.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mollysmeow3455 Thanks for your reply. No, I don't have links to offer. The US, UK and Canada all did what they could in the first approximately 20 months (the US less so, I would say), but they couldn't save Poland, Holland, France, Norway, Denmark or any of the others, could they? They had largely disarmed following the First World War and had massive tooling up to do before they could really do battle with armed-to-the-teeth Germany.
(Canada sent a battle-ready division to the UK pretty quickly, but (owing to Dunkirk if I recall correctly) it was actually the only one on British soil at the time. Imagine that, in a country that was still by global consensus in 1939 considered the world's leading power.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Swing towards the right over the last few years"? This is a pretty clear sign you live at the Left Pole. (Just as from the North Pole all points are South, from the Left Pole all points are Right.)
There has been a swing all right. A group from well left of centre has lurched hard far leftward. Racism, sexism, and homophobia by 2010 were all incomparably lower than ever and while they still needed much attention, the gap between rich and poor, having grown to the levels of ninety years earlier, needed attention even more urgently. Progress in wealth inequality had reversed to the point where if the same thing happened to sexism, racism, and homophobia, the universities would close admissions to women, white mobs would hang blacks from trees once more, and gays would go to prison again.
But the left forgot about class, because it was now the conservatives who were poor and the liberals who had money.Thus, to liberals the class situation looked all right. Suddenly from the humanities, education, and women's studies faculties it was instead announced that sexism, racism, and homophobia were as bad as ever and were the biggest problems in the country.
The wage gap had disappeared below the executive suite, in fact young women were earning more than young men, but it was declared that sexism was still rampant. Intolerance of gays reached such a low that the gay bars closed down, but homophobia was still rampant. Jobs and admissions were provided to people of colour on a large scale, but racism was as bad as ever.
The pitiable young of the time, reared on Care Bears then demoralized by environmental degradation and evaporating economic opportunity, were ripe to believe the only view of humanity, life, and the world permitted in schools and academe, the neo-Marxist feminist one. They were taught that working to decrease respect and opportunity for normal white men was the sole way to be a decent human being and they took it completely to heart. Language offensive to minorities and women was rightly discouraged; offensive language and attacks against white people, men, and non-gays were at the same time normalized and came to be recognized as a sign of virtue.
When Trump was elected largely in reaction to these developments, it riled the left terribly and just added momentum to its race ever more leftward. Now, they claim, anyone who criticizes them just proves what a sexist, racist, and homophobe they are. Denying you're a racist makes you one. Lifelong mainstream liberals now find the New Puritans see them as not much better than the far right. Moderates are considered counterrevolutionary. Only the ideologically correct of an approved race, sex, and sex orientation do not need to fear the litmus tests, demands for professions of loyalty to the cause, or purges from politics, professions, culture, and community.
So let me guess: you were in school in 2010, and you did not swim against any tide at all. You swam with the school of fish you found yourself in and took all of its claims at face value. Just like a religious fundamentalist, there's no need to think for yourself, since what you've been taught is complete and completely right. To entertain any other thoughts would be inviting moral self-ruin. You're the first fully decent and fully enlightened generation in history, a great leap forward to something so close to moral perfection that you're entitled to just bask deservedly in your wonderfulness and wait to be imitated by all. Your achievement above all is to set the example now and for all time.
But no, not for all time. Just until the pushy, self-congratulatory intolerance you're normalizing sets up the next process of vilification, this time one that'll be worked on you. Mark my words, Mr. Sakho, they'll come for you one day, inspired by the illiberal approach of this generation. Who is to do it I don't know. But it will be a punishment that fits the crime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some commenters are mad about the now-rejected herd immunity idea floated by the Chief Science Advisor's (it was his idea, not the government's). He's dropped the idea because of flaws in it and many loud objections, but it was nothing sinister. At face value, it sounded like an effective way, and possibly a noble way, to save hundreds of thousands of lives. It's no wonder to me at all that he raised it for discussion.
It wasn't about infecting everyone. The idea was to isolate the elderly, whom it kills much more frequently, and then let the younger people catch it. The death rate for them might be similar to that of a seasonal flu. Once that was over the old could rejoin an immune nation and be spared the illness entirely. The idea was to save many lives, perhaps the better part of a million. The virus also could not return the following year, as the Spanish Flu did.
I'm not saying it should be done but neither does it sound the least bit sinister. Perhaps it would save many lives. What people probably didn't like about it was that it would spare many seniors at the cost of a much smaller number of younger people's lives, amounting to a sacrifice of the young for the old.
The question was along these lines: Is it more preferable that 200,000 younger people and 50,000 older people die, or that 50,000 younger people and 800,000 older people die? The totals are 250,000 and 850,000. I'm not saying these are the right numbers, but this is the sort of thing he had in mind. He's the Chief Science Adviser, not a supervillain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NeoclassicYT What I said was correct. My point is that he quickly added, a few hours later, that the future of Crimea, too, should be up to the Crimeans. I think that was an improvement to his proposal, although I repeat once again that Ukraine should not pursue it. Conceivably, circumstances could make it more appropriate, but I sure hope not.
I think it's ok to admit the previously established Russian-ness of Crimea, because it does have some basis in history, although I still 100% condemn Putin for invading it instead of pursuing annexation by peaceful means of negotiation.
My personal view is that Ukraine must be supported in its aims to recapture all its territory if that's what it wants. If that means outspending Putin, I say we do it.
Thanks for your reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@mhun3y I'm not sure I understand your question. Starlink has ~4,500 satellites right now, about 1,000 more than last year, which is about 10% of its planned eventual 40,000 for serving customers almost anywhere on Earth. (Except uninhabited areas, most of Antarctica, etc., but including even moderately busy sea and air lanes).
It puts them there by sending up around 50 every few days at the current rate, which is faster than before. They launch from Texas, California and Florida. They position them above regions where they are signing up paying internet customers and have set up ways for people to order terminals and get them delivered.
As I understand it, there's some flexibility for setting up customer connections. By that I mean that, e.g., a particular satellite may be serving customers in Peru, but then, when the moment comes that they've signed up a bunch of subscribers in Colombia, the same satellite can serve customers there too. Starlink satellites can be aimed.
Did I answer your question?
Concerning trust, trust is one of the biggest words we use in our whole lives. So I know where you're coming from. I also know somewhat a lot about Musk. Not as though it's everything there is to know, but what I know, I like. On the whole I consider him trustworthy, based not on gut feeling but on things I've actually learned about him and his actions. A lot of people don't get him, but I get him.
Know is another extremely big word. (As you know — there's that word again— that an entire large domain of philosophy is concerned purely with what it is to know.) But eventually after a certain number of decades of devoting yourself to learning and knowing, you end up with doubts in one hand and confidence in the other, and you understand the difference between the two and when you can reconcile them.
But you still have to mentally impersonate a beginner, like you know nothing, and be full of desire to learn. That's my way of saying yes, I'm pretty sure. And I'm less sure of most things than most people.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Thanks for your reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevenleighton1947 You must be a far-leftist. They're the only people who try to deny that Orwell's books were anti-Stalinist (and anti-Fabian).
Ideas like 'he only opposed atrocities, whether left or right' and 'INGSOC was ambiguous in its leaning and was just as right-extremist as it was left-extremist' just couldn't be more misleading or self-serving on the part of such people. (Yes, he opposed the atrocities of Hitler, Franco and Mussolini. Of course. But his books except for Homage to Catalonia declined to preach to the choir on them. He instead went after the communists and socialists who revulsed him but were actually still getting good publicity in Western left circles.)
Orwell somehow remained a committed socialist himself, but going all the way back to The Road to Wigan Pier, his chief concern was how objectionable socialists and communists were as people and, later, how prone they were to getting carried away with themselves, violating basic norms of human decency and descending into wholesale meatpacking violence.
Say what you will, he just didn't feel the same way about, for example, Churchill (even though he deplored the latter's commitment to maintaining the British Empire).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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, but where the US balked was at giving its official and most explicit imprimatur: delivery from a US base.
In other words, for the US "NATO—ok; Ramstein—not ok." And for Poland it was "Ramstein—ok; Polish base—not ok."
In my view Poland did what it had to do: One, make the offer in front of the world. Two, protect Poland. Three, put all the onus on the US, which is calling the shots anyway, and with the power comes the responsibility.
From the US point of view I'm afraid they did the right thing, too. In time they might well take part in the handover of planes, but not until Putin raises the stakes with (I'm sorry to say this) an even greater river of Ukrainian blood. In the meantime I trust Biden is quietly ramping up every other sort of assistance to Ukraine. The analogy is stark, but the US is 'going all Iran' on Putin, feeding his opponent everything it can without sending a single soldier. It does work up to a point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 a huge amount of experience in this area. First of all, they're all in genuine need, so don't cloud the issue. But if you have in mind people living decent lives responsibly and with ok mental health who end up on the streets, they are very uncommon. I'd say it's maybe two per cent of them but probably one.
It's unlikely, by the way, that they will "receive more hatred". Unless you happen to see one emerging from a tent on the sidewalk, you'd never know they are homeless. They simply don't "look homeless" in practically every case. At any rate, they will continue to get help, so you're wrong there too.
People like you, who know nothing but think you do, and want to "show you care," and be seen in the act of criticizing others for not caring, might actually be the group most responsible for the problems in the system. If not, you're at least way up there. You would do well to read this man's book, for he actually knows something and you don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reuvenpolonskiy2544 BS. In this case there are parties analogous to police, meaning armed defenders: namely the US and the rest of NATO, plus other democracies in the West Pacific.
Or, if you like to think of everything as gangs (how Russian of you!), fine, have it your way. But remember that the biggest, strongest richest gang is the Ukraine-Western alliance, not Russia with its ragtag little buddies Khamenei, Kim, Lukasahenko and Assad. 😄
Xi has it in for the West, too; I'll grant you that. But he's not a friend of Russia's, he's more like its usurer. He gave Putin a dirty wedding dress and a tube of lipstick to put on. Russians will be working very hard and eating a lot of beets and carrots for a long time to pay him off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who are you? Who owns "Velocity"? I don't trust channels with a secret, concealed identity behind AI voice narration.
Description from your channel page: "Velocity is here to deliver the best Tech, Tesla, Space X, Ford, EV Industry, Elon Musk content as fast as it happens." But your recent uploads are about China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, NATO, North Korea, and now Yemen and Japan. Transparency, please! Now!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronburgandy1475 Fuck you, you incoherent semi-literate putz. You sound drunk.
China under the Party was never trustworthy, not now, not in the 90s, not when they backed North Vietnam, not during the Cultural Revolution, not when they backed North Korea, not during the Great Leap Forward.
Anybody who got into bed with them in the past 70 years is an asshole, Australian, New Zealander, American, German, I don't care.
What a dumb fuck, thinking you're teaching me history by telling me which side China was on in the Second World War. Tells me what morons you hang out with. (Simpson by any chance?)
"Educated yourself on how global trade works." Why, because that's the one thing you know anything about? Drunk ignorant pompous fool. Read your post again when you're sober.
Have another glass of local plonk you fat fucking dumb trade consultant or whatever the fuck you are. Drink to the Party you owe it to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How is "the market" so poisonous that it destroys one's sexuality, yet fails to destroy one's entire self?
Apart from time spent isolated with only one's thoughts, or with nature, or with partner, family or friends, not much of life doesn't come out of someone else making a living.
Every book, every painting, every movie and song we take in may be a transaction of an intellectual, artistic, 'spiritual' or social sort, but it's also a money transaction. Somebody got paid for it.
How indeed is 'erotica' supposed to be free of the 'taint' of money? Or religion, since the priest is paid for his sermon? Or academic work, for that matter? A professor is many things and well-paid is one of them. How does money fail to corrupt and degrade anything it touches?
I find Bret's position smacks of Marxist or even woke neo-Marxist analysis. Also of guilt, whether religious or another kind. It somehow makes sex holy, which is all right if that's how one likes it. Sex, however, can also be earthy and unserious, even 'sinful,' if that's how one likes it instead. Bret disclaims any prudery, but let's hear him do it more cogently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AbcDino843 You could if you like point to the cost of NORAD, but even that would lack sense. There's no way the US would ever trust any other nation to monitor the Arctic frontier vital to America's own security, so it would always pay for and maintain it. In any case, Canada and the US divide the cost of it, and always have done.
The fact is that the US need never dedicate spending to protect Canada from military threats. It is enough that the rest of the world knows that to attack Canada would result in instant and harsh retaliation from the US, and thus it's never happened. (Nor shall it, God willing.)
With Europe it's vastly different. Vast billions of dollars in cash outlays are committed by the US to its security every year. Likewise Japan, South Korea, Taiwan.
As for your vague reference to "support," I challenge you to provide evidence for it. It's absolute h og w a sh, and that's paying it a handsome compliment.
Go ahead, I'm waiting.
Thanks for your charming reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@s0ycapitan I feel that is a lot better set of assertions, even though I hardly agree much with many of them. I can agree there's bias up to a point. Neutrality is absent. But then it's only decent to express more sympathy for a victim than a perpetrator, isn't it?
(I mean, would it be seemly, by way of analogy, to poke into the lives and characters of holocaust victims and ruthlessly expose their shortcomings or any misdeeds they'd committed at various points in their lives? This has got nothing to do with that episode in history, of course, but I'm reaching for a way to make my idea clear.)
It's true that Russia's mistakes have been heavily emphasized and its military accomplishments downplayed, while no mention is made of Ukrainian blunders, I'll grant you that. They must have made at least a couple, one would think. But I haven't noticed any firm contentions that Putin will be deposed. The subject is frequently raised but each time they say there's no sign it's going to happen. "But eventually that might change" is usually added afterwards, never with any real conviction. Only hope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonhone1 Yes, it is fair, because it's not a street fight, but a discussion. In group discussions of any sort, I always seem to be in the minority, but I have never considered that unfair.
Even if three members of the State Council of China were debating against one member of the Western intelligentsia, it would not be unfair, so long as the conduct itself of the debate were not unfair.
The professor was not excluded nor shouted down; in my view, since you ask, there was no unfairness.
In China, it would have been four against zero. I struggle to understand what sort of fairness you believe in. Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a strangely unaddressed question. To me the answer is that they foresaw it quite well but were not afraid of unpopularity, nor afraid if the West made moves to arm Ukraine or to impoverish Russia. They have plans for dealing with all that, which involve the withstanding of self-inflicted pain for the sake of eventual victory—victory not necessarily in Ukraine, but in the world. I allude here to the China-Russia alliance, which everyone is avoiding talking about.
In my view it explains everything that is happening, everything that is making people scratch their heads in confusion. Russia and China, I fear, have agreed to each start a war in their respective regions and to draw the West into them. They intend also to win them, and thereby to start winning the world whether sooner or later. China at this point would be waiting for a gusher of NATO resources to be definitely committed to eastern Europe before making its move. It expects to soon start receiving reliable shipments of Ukrainian wheat and other grains, a supply which will obviate the need for the Western imports on which it currently relies for putting pork and chicken on Chinese tables. The matter is not simple, but food insecurity is a major factor holding China back from invading Taiwan. An attack would definitely mean the end of Western grain and soybeans except possibly from Brazil.
The overall aim would be to strain the West to the breaking point, probably by forcing it to spend immensely on arming itself, as well as by spawning proxy wars in numerous countries. (Recall that outspending the USSR in an arms race is commonly regarded as the way the West indirectly brought about its collapse.) Their long-term aim is less to defeat the West's armed forces head-on than to spread them thinly, and above all to use any means to weaken the West financially, socially and diplomatically, at every step of the way making it thus easier to draw other countries into a China-Russia-led sphere, to be expanded as quickly as possible.
Russia as the very junior partner in the alliance with China would finally be free to move back into eastern Europe and indulge in irredentism and revanchism. The rest of Europe, according to this vision, would be so afraid of Russia that it could be dominated permanently. If all or parts of Western Europe decided to make war on Russia (with or without the US) they would have the whole China-Russia-sphere to deal with. (It probably has just Serbia, Iran, Syria and North Korea as auxiliary members at present. Pakistan perhaps. Many others are watching and saying little, not wanting to commit themselves either way before getting a better idea of how things will play out.)
Instead of looking at it this way, people are calling Putin irrational. No, he's not irrational at all. He's got China solidly backing him up. You or others may think his plans are falling apart, but I don't know. Perhaps, or perhaps they're going almost exactly to plan. A quick victory over Ukraine would have afforded little opportunity for the West to rack up costs by the tens or hundreds of billions as it has done already (in military expenses, but also including its higher bill for energy and significantly higher inflation, all of which undermine the dollar).
Little old me seems to be the only one talking about this, which is mad. I think it's because people find the thought so disturbing that it calms them to see it as far-fetched.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukerichardson2404 Omg, he said Putin's invasion was the fault of the US and NATO, parroting Putin. If he says it's the fault of the US and NATO, and also what you claim, then he simply blames everyone, which is preposterous. He's just a crank who enjoys taking his shirt off in public. Something's wrong with him.
He reminds me of Trudeau, another son of a famous politician who accomplished little to nothing in his own life, and then after all that time waltzes in out of nowhere and wants to be the national leader. Trudeau has been a great disaster for Canada. Beware such privileged, unaccomplished offspring with entitlement delusions.
Having said that, most of his supporters are Democrats, so I wish him the best! Let him come in 2nd!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ This statement is not entirely accurate. While blowing snow can contribute to hazardous runway conditions, it does not directly cause black ice formation in seconds on a dry runway.
The World Meteorological Organization definitions of black ice are:
"(1) A popular alternative for the term glaze. A thin sheet of ice, relatively dark in appearance, may form when light rain or drizzle falls on a road surface that is at a temperature below freezing point or, alternatively, when water already on the road surface subsequently freezes when its temperature falls below freezing point. It may also be formed when supercooled fog droplets are intercepted by buildings, fences, and vegetation.
(2) Thin, new ice on freshwater or saltwater, appearing dark in color because of its transparency, a result of its columnar grain structure."
Blowing snow alone on a dry runway would not create the necessary conditions for black ice formation. For ice to form, there needs to be a source of moisture and the right temperature conditions. The temperature at the time was around -9C (16F).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonr-vp4if You didn't realize anything. You only internalized false teaching.
If only 8% of firefighters are women, that is not tantamount to the starvation of women. Your inflamed rhetoric of mere analogizing amounts to rampant and inexcusable category inflation, like an adolescent likening her wise parents to Nat's Ease. ("You're the worst parents ever!")
You're forgetting, in your show-off self-flagellating recollection of youth, that 9 out of 10 people (if not 19 out of 20) were all eating well at the same cluster of tables in a warm and convivial dining hall.
Thanks to the vision you've bought unthinkingly off the shelf like consumer packaged goods, they've now been taught that they're enemies, that they should be snatching at the food on each other's plates, that they should clutch their knives in readiness. And all too many of them have taken that teaching to heart, utterly ruining the charm which formerly belonged to dining together as one.
As a vision it's an extremely backwards-moving embrace — no, a celebration — of baseless resentment, baseless division and baseless conflict, under a false mantle of Utopianism. Check, please!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franciscoriverarojas4936 You hategirls aren't funny at all, because idiocy and hyperpartisanship are scary, not hilarious.
Never mind mere financing—the Saudis own hundreds of billions of dollars of US strategic assets including agricultural land, prime metropolitan real estate, the largest refinery in the US (in Port Arthur, TX), large shareholdings in the most important companies and 12-figure Treasury holdings. They poured $90bn into Silicon Valley through one investment firm alone (SoftBank). And one can't just count the visible and declared part, or the sovereign wealth fund portion. Much more is owned via Caribbean tax havens, Swiss-registered corporations, Luxembourg, etc.
It might be in the trillions, and you're talking about a single financing deal (not a purchase, a loan) which amounts to lunch money by comparison—and it didn't even 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
-
Marx had the grasp of human nature, the psychological acumen, the emotional intelligence...of an Asperger's case, and a serious one at that.
To many it's obvious at once; to others ---- his followers and disciples, sympathizers and dupes ---- it's so perfectly untrue that the opposite is the case: Marx, they will swear passionately, knew all there is to know about people.
On that count most people dismiss them, finding their foolishness palpable.
Marxism is the natural habitat of people whom other people shy away from. Marxists aren't unpopular because they're Marxists...it's the other way around: unpopular people gravitate towards Marxism.
Unlovable and unlikable losers, the creepy, and the unbalanced, all turn towards the far left. Unhappy people are spread around pretty freely, awful people aren't. Marx himself was bitterly quarrelsome in his correspondence, his debates, and his journalism.
ne often hears choice ordinary say continuous say the closer worse some any people find it.
Edit: ... YT is cutting off the last couple of sentences of my post. What can I do? Nothing, obviously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thenewwavejoeshow [The following is the best I can do to restore my reply following its garbling and clipping by YouTube. There was no foul language, of course, no vitriol or slurs against any groups except ones that people joined by deciding to, which are supposed to be fair game. Their computer just did its best to understand what I wrote and decided, in agreement with you, that it just didn't qualify as their/your 'truth'. I'm going to copy it and keep posting it until it looks like it made it through in unexpurgated form. It may or may not.]
"My fiction"? Let's figure out what that refers to.
I never disagreed that he's not a "real reporter". He's of course not a reporter at all, and that goes without saying, just as it goes without saying for Michelle Goldberg, Charles Blow, David Brooks and all others of the sort. They're all opinion columnists, or news commentators if you like, and thus, yes, journalists whether we care for them or not.
What I said was that I doubted you've been around for much real journalism, not that there's a universally accepted definition for it. And it turns out you've actually got some grey hairs. (Good!) So was that "my fiction"?
[Here I can't remember what I originally wrote, if anything. Google left a blank space, though, so it appears likely they removed something.]
I also directly implied I think you're wrong about Carlson.
(Not that he's right every time on every detail. Often he's not, but more often he is, and he's certainly right about the Times. And by being so much the lesser of two evils, he actually does qualify as a 'real journalist' in relative terms, now that the currency has been debased in a real team effort across the entire industry --- the NYT, PBS Newshour, and Fox News included. What started out as a pity became a disgrace and is now a tragedy.)
And that's about it. That's the second and the only other thing I put across. Is that what you call my "fiction" then? Countering your opinionated generalization about Carlson with my own is "my fiction"?
("My fiction". Oh, I really get a kick out of that. It would follow then, that whatever you say is, Oprah-like, 'your truth'. Just like Meghan Markle!)
So it turns out my "fiction" is daring to say I consider any of your opinions incorrect. That's how you people are. Anyone who deviates from the Times or PBS or NPR or WAPO orthodoxy spouts "fiction" --- and is far-right, ill-educated, racist, treats women terribly, loves guns, voted for Trump twice, and all the rest.
You set up straw men and then do battle with them, afterwards awarding yourselves hero badges. I bet you gave yourself one for your last reply to me.
So what good are your grey hairs? You might as well be a youngster. Why didn't you learn much if anything from Jim Lehrer?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisbirmingham5132 That's a very neat line in just-so-ism itself. Evidence "suggest[ing] that humans are attracted to people who behave likably and are repelled by people who behave unpleasantly" is all well and good, but could easily be presumed anyway, given the emergence of orderly and relatively peaceful societies.
They emerged because eventually the likeable and the pleasant, whether genuinely or deceptively so, banded together to overwhelm the openly violent and the aggressively coercive. At least, they legitimized violence and aggressive coercion on their own part. The weak, some might say, beat the strong at their own game. Improved verbal strategies and advancing technology (agriculture and better, cheaper weapons) were surely instrumental. But, as needs little pointing out, their victory was hardly a final one.
I don't see any grounds for hoping that racism as we now think of it was an 18th- or 19th-century invention practically out of nowhere, like the steam engine. I see it as an outgrowth of the cooperative instincts of humans rather along the lines of those we see in our cousins the chimpanzees when they go out hunting for other chimps, strangers from nearby clans, to tear apart if they can.
Atavistic tribalism doesn't lend itself terribly well to scientific discovery (the great number of unearthed old skulls smashed in or with holes in them, e.g., could've resulted from personal quarrels as easily as from war drums and border skirmishes, and even where dozens of them are found together the conflict might have been internecine). Yet neither does a social-constructionist view of tribalism that smacks of Rousseauian yearnings and Neo-Marxist finality.
It's all very difficult to say, but the conversation's certainly not over the minute we conclude that the precise nature of tribalism can't be measured like the three sides of a triangle.
Anthropology, in any case, doesn't have the last word. History and psychology, the gropings towards truth of which are of course as open to interpretation as anything else, demand their say.
Even common sense, disparage it with scare-quotes as you may, should never be set up as anything antithetical to "the known set of anthropological facts." If facts they indeed are, it's because common sense, insufficient but necessary, is embedded in them.
Thanks for your reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People here need to realize, if they're capable of grasping such subtlety of meaning, that not having a book on the curriculum for a certain grade is not "banning" it. To ban a book, in a public school context, is to remove it from schools entirely, to prohibit its inclusion in classrooms and libraries. The present book was merely taken off the 2nd-grade curriculum. It may be found suitable for 3rd- or 4th-graders, and may still be put on library shelves.
Rep. Foxx was an unfortunate victim here of what appears to me disingenuous grandstanding and con artistry on the part of Rep. McGovern. He knows it wasn't banned. He knows that's the wrong word. He merely lacks the moral fortitude to withstand the temptation to use it for the purpose of deceiving voters in his district.
For my part, I do question what fraction of 7-year-olds would profit from a book written at that level, a marvellous book though it may in fact be. At age 7 they are still really little kids, and some are much slower than others. But that is a matter for unbiased educational specialists to look at — not people like us who only heard a short passage read from it. Indeed, it's likewise not something for members of the House of Representatives to pass judgment upon.
What a miasma of hollow sanctimony and even pearl-clutching down here in the viewer reactions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 2021, Russian gas was 47% of EU consumption. Now it's down to about 12%.
Most of that is direct pipeline deliveries to former Warsaw Pact countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Serbia. (Also non-NATO Austria.)
Throw in the UK (not an EU member) and 12% becomes 10%.
The story on oil is less clear, but Russia's exports are certainly down. It's clear many countries are buying less Russian oil, while the PRC is buying much more.
India is buying more too, and is re-exporting some as refined fuels, less than $20m a day or $6.7bn a year. This is around 250,000 bpd, with an estimated 120,000 bpd ending up in the US and other Western countries.
This is something like 1/300th of Western consumption, and only 1/50th of Russian exports.
In conclusion: Western consumption of Russian energy is now small potatoes. Most importantly, Russian oil and (especially) gas production and revenues are down substantially due to sanctions.
Although Russian oil is still vital to the global supply-demand balance and price stability, it's less important than it was.
Meanwhile production in the Western Hemisphere has risen steadily and continues to do so.😄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, and there's more: depending on the country, a majority of people, even a strong majority, believe that those who questioned government actions were (and are) completely wrong. A probable majority of those simply regard them as dangerous political radicals. In regions of some countries it might be 75% or more who believe that their strict-regime governments committed few errors. It was an extraordinary collaboration (or conspiracy, depending on your point of view) of government, industry and media. The media were the lynchpin, and I regard them as the leading power in the rich democratic world.
Yes, the combined power of the media, along with Big Social Media which itself is a major conduit of news, now outstrips that of elected governments, for they have shown that they can at times—most of the time, it may be—install and remove governments nearly at will (although the elections still fall on time). Governments, in contrast, can do virtually nothing about the news media for constitutional reasons. And not much more about social media, with some notable exceptions. Thus the media decidedly have the upper hand. Simply put, journalism is now the most powerful profession, the most powerful institution. And the most powerful business.
Thus the most power, though not most power, is in the hands of those who own and control the news media/Big Social Media. I think that this development merits absolutely unrestricted scrutiny and absolutely unrestricted discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fronker7581 Then there's another commenter who details her dislike of her stepson's wife who is from Croatia and is lax on teaching her son to be polite. And this is supposed to have something to do with racism in Canada.
Unfortunately there is a cult-like Salem-esque frenzy of racism accusations in North America right now. A large minority of people are excitedly trying to explain every facet of life with racism.
For instance, if you're a young white person who's never dated an Asian person, someone can call you racist, even if many of your friends are of differing races. If you have friends from many races and countries, but none from some certain race or country, you're under suspicion as a racist by some people. If you're an immigrant having trouble establishing yourself in a tight job market after ten years, it's common to announce that it's because of racism, never mind the fact that white and non-white Canadians alike are having a hard time. Basically, if any person of colour is not happy in life, now is the time to blame it on white Canadians, who are presumed to be racist until it's proved otherwise.
Some will say there's nearly zero racial discrimination. Some will say it's everywhere and all the time without exception. The truth is in between: there is some, but less than the vast majority of places in the world. I am a mixed race person myself.
And the fact is that a lot of racial discrimination has been imported into Canada in the last few decades. I won't name names but people from Asia, Europe, and Africa are frequently very vocal about their dislike and contempt for other races and nationalities, whereas native born Canadians consider such talk abhorrent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 an old-fashioned way of speaking that most people now find affected, strange, annoying, or all three. It has survived in strong families and subcultures the least subject to changes in values and social usages, and thus pronunciation, meaning a small percentage of upper and lower class people. Broadly speaking, the lower-middle and middle classes are where linguistic changes have been most ubiquitous. Geographical region enters into it as well---I would assume the Stewie "wh" is an Appalachian thing too, but I don't know that for a fact .
At one time everyone pronounced "wh" like that. It goes back to Anglo-Saxon, also called Old English. That in turn goes back to Old High German, which English comes from. The w and the h were reversed, including in spelling. So Stewie says, phonetically spelled, "Cool Hwip." Norm MacDonald adheres to the practice, too, having lower class roots. So do quite a few preppy old ladies of the Barbara Walters type. They're all dying off and not being reconstituted in succeeding generations.
So it indicates old-school socially isolated roots, whether lucky or unlucky. (I mean 'hwether', lol.) That's the story, no kidding. Cheers. @ThePParadigm
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 watched their original video, the one taken down. I found it riddled with rookie-mistake assertions about the pandemic. They might be good guys with intentions untainted by desires to boost their business, but they're not, in my view, knowledgeable enough to make a contribution to the debate. It's apparent to me that their toned-down message here and expression of willingness to 'talk about the validity of our data' with others (my paraphrase) indicate they've been chastened by some of the intense and valid criticisms.
So I think there's little for a journalist here to root out, in contrast to the interviews with Drs. Ioannidis, Katz, and Wittkovski.
Yet they're entitled to their opinions like anyone else, including non-medical people like me. So the story, if any, is YouTube's removal of their video. But although I don't have exhaustive knowledge about what happened with that, I doubt there's much there.
YouTube is a private service and legitimately feels a responsibility to remove potentially harmful material. In my view, the doctors in their April video should have appeared in regular clothes and been up front about the limitations of their capacity to analyze pandemic data. YouTube might have left their video up if they had done so.
Their responses in this interview I find much more circumspect. For that reason, I really doubt it'll be removed, and I hope it won't. They seem like nice people who really care about their patients' health and everybody's hardship and future.
Journeyman hasn't made the greatest choice here, but their earlier videos I found outstanding so they certainly have my strong support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honesty, Democrat-style: Telling a lie for 2, 5, 10 or 20 years, then reversing as though they never said it
Intelligence, Democrat-style: Spouting foolishness for 2, 5, 10 or 20 years, then reversing as though they never said it
By that time they've taken a wrecking ball to society, justice, the economy, culture, values, the American future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Obscurai Blah blah blah, bellyache bellyache. So what? I never "attacked" immigrants and I never will. I merely corrected you on an obvious point.
If two workers side by side both came from abroad four months ago, and one has temporary status and the other has resident status, it matters little. They're both foreign workers.
If I moved anywhere, be it to Australia or Zimbabwe, and found a job, whether my status was permanent or not I'd certainly consider myself a foreign worker and an immigrant as well, even though temporary workers are not ordinarily classed as immigrants, certainly not officially.
Speaking of moving, I must move on now. If you want to have the last word, it's all yours and I won't receive it anyway. This is past tedious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cdb5001 Btw, Statscan disagrees with your statement that Toronto had the highest homicide rate of any major city in Canada in 2018. Edmonton and Winnipeg had higher rates, as did five other CMAs (Windsor, Saskatoon, etc.) The Toronto rate dropped back below the national rate in 2020 and 2021.
The City of Toronto proper had the lowest number in 2022 (70) since 2015. And the number of shooting victims (194 injured or killed) appeared to be far below levels seen in the 2010s (2018: 604). The latter levels are shown in a table in the same Wikipedia article you quoted in your last reply.
Finally, to repeat myself, the count so far in 2023, which is 3, bodes well for this year.
—————————————
My point in all this is not to paint a rosy picture. In recent years the homicide rate in Toronto has been 50-100% higher than in Montreal, and in 2018 and 2019 it was higher than the rate for Canada as a whole. Governments have to show more determination to investigate, prosecute and generally fight organized crime any way they can.
My point was just to encourage looking at all the facts, not just the worst and scariest ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kurtpena5462 Your reply has nothing to do with what I said, so you probably want to re-post it to the correct person.
Btw, since I am a liberal (a real one, not one of these excrescences upon liberalism which I call illiberal liberals) and a moderate centrist, I tend to disagree with both liberals and conservatives—whenever either type isn't moderate enough for my liking. I don't specialize, except to the extent that since conservative comments are bulldozed away at industrial scale from most platforms, there are fewer of them left to respond to.
(I never, incidentally, spent even a single second on Twitter, having perceived long ago what a rhetorical cesspool and high-school cafeteria table crowed with mean girls (and boys) it was.)
Whoever you are, your use of the cant word 'triggered' tells me instantly what sort of person you are: deeply boring, deeply unappetizing. Have a nice life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@headshot6959 Bogus? Countries can just steal other countries and it's not immoral?
And the West did not defend Kuwait saying they were defending the West. They were quite explicit that they were concerned with Middle East stability and security, concerns which they were right to have.
Furthermore, the war to liberate Kuwait was authorized by the UN Security Council. Only Cuba and Yemen voted against it. That means Asian, African and South American countries voted for it, as did the USSR. China abstained, meaning it did not exercise its veto.
Finally, your statements on Rwanda are not worth responding to, except to say how funny they are, especially in light of your claim that "you can't draw a meaningful comparison between Kuwait and Ukraine."
That's four posts here, two of yours and two of mine, and I have no interest in discussing this any more. Not with you, anyway. Have a nice day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You've really drunk the Kool-Aid on the US handling of the coronavirus. The American pandemic has been a real team effort and just shows how chaotic, unruly, and just plain stupid the country is. Trump didn't make NYC a disaster, the virus, New Yorkers, and their local and state govts did. What bearing the federal govt had on it is down to the bumbling CDC as much as anything.
I'm guessing that Saad, like me, would give Trump a D or maybe a C-minus on the pandemic, while you probably, like most Democrats, consider him some sort of murderer.
I'm also guessing that you, like most Democrats, if you had seen the same outcome during a Hillary Clinton presidency, would be praising her as a hero.
As for the brains of the two candidates, neither one is in the greatest shape, but Biden's is clearly in a much worse state of deterioration. Let's face it, both men have long been fools, but Biden is now both a fool and idiot.
1
-
1
-
@Vinthis1 Thanks for your reply. Again I find plenty to agree with in what you say.
I agree that Trump's speech is ordinarily painful and embarrassing to listen to. It gives the impression of mediocre verbal intelligence and an unattractive personality, which are of course serious demerits in a president. These and other shortcomings led me to vehemently oppose his election four years ago.
And I agree that of many of his supporters seem like disturbed cranks, some of whom are frightening. Indeed, If the dullard, the ignoramus, and the paranoiac could find a warm welcome only in the Republican Party, I would save all my revulsion for it alone.
Four years ago, I did. But since then I've had a much closer look at the Democrats and found such people in great abundance there too. It turned out the party had changed a lot since Obama was elected, without my really noticing, and now is actually on top for sheer psychiatrical derangement. Quite an accomplishment.
So looking for a party open only to the fully sane appears to be out of the question. The US doesn't have one.
As for the cognitive fitness of the two candidates, I guess we're not going to agree. All I would like to add is that if the same mental lapses we've seen coming from Biden came instead from Trump over the past year, the media would have somehow hounded him off the ticket, or at least tried to. But they have given Biden a pass because they revile Trump.
When it comes to uniting the country I find neither Trump nor Biden up to the task, nor even willing to sincerely attempt it.
There's more political hay to be made in disparaging the other side than in reaching out to it, and in fact the partisans who dominate both parties like it that way and demand it.
Here, too, I give the prize to the Democrats, for dividing the people along lines of identity seems much more baked into their messaging, and that's a deal-breaker.
Biden's powers, not just mental but political, too, were never quite formidable, and they now appear spent. Despite being their nominee, he is not at all popular among Democrats and for that reason seems unlikely to be able to lead them. Thus they will lead him, the more extreme and the rabid partisans among them, I mean, and I greatly fear a wind vane in high office.
I don't trust him on China either, and it's the most important foreign policy file of the era by far. China is not on the same team as the US in any way. Since Xi came to power in 2013 its government has been distinctly hostile to the US, the West, and the countries in its region, and increasingly harsh to its own people.
To me this spells serious danger and demands a strong response, but I sense Biden is still as overly trusting and accommodative of China as he was during his eight years as vice president. Trump's China policy, while leaving a certain amount to be desired, has still been a major step in the right direction.
Thanks for the chance for me to sound out my own thoughts on these things in a little bit of detail. It can be a way of finding out more exactly what I think.
I will end by agreeing that the choices are pretty terrible --- again. Last time I thought Clinton was less terrible, this time I think it's Trump. Possibly a show of previously unseen merit by Biden or a Trump debacle of some sort during the remaining campaign could change my mind. I doubt it but it's not inconceivable. At least Biden finally agreed to debates.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1