Youtube comments of dixon pinfold (@dixonpinfold2582).

  1. 3900
  2. 1200
  3. 1200
  4. 1200
  5. 769
  6. 602
  7. 590
  8. 561
  9. 554
  10. 476
  11. 440
  12. 403
  13. 393
  14. 360
  15. 316
  16. 312
  17. 300
  18. 297
  19. 294
  20. 286
  21. 258
  22. 248
  23. 232
  24. 232
  25. 221
  26. 212
  27. 206
  28. 199
  29. 198
  30. 197
  31. 193
  32. 192
  33. 189
  34. 180
  35. 175
  36. 173
  37. 172
  38. 169
  39. 168
  40. 157
  41. 149
  42. 144
  43. 144
  44. 136
  45. 133
  46. 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
  47. 132
  48. 131
  49. 130
  50. 128
  51. 127
  52. 123
  53. 118
  54. 115
  55. 111
  56. 111
  57. 111
  58. 110
  59. 108
  60. 108
  61. 106
  62. 104
  63. 103
  64. 103
  65. 99
  66. 97
  67. 97
  68. 93
  69. 90
  70. 90
  71. 90
  72. 86
  73. 85
  74. 83
  75. 82
  76. 82
  77. 81
  78. 77
  79. 76
  80. 76
  81. 76
  82. 72
  83. 72
  84. 71
  85. 71
  86. 71
  87. 70
  88. 70
  89. 68
  90. 68
  91. 68
  92. 67
  93. 66
  94. 65
  95. 65
  96. 64
  97. 62
  98. 61
  99. 60
  100. 59
  101. 59
  102. 59
  103. 58
  104. 57
  105. 57
  106. 56
  107. 56
  108. 55
  109. 54
  110. 54
  111. 53
  112. 53
  113. 52
  114. 52
  115. 52
  116. 52
  117. 52
  118. 52
  119. 52
  120. 52
  121. 52
  122. 52
  123. 51
  124. 50
  125. 50
  126. 50
  127. 50
  128. 50
  129. 50
  130. 49
  131. 48
  132. 47
  133. 47
  134. 47
  135. 47
  136. 46
  137. 46
  138. 46
  139. 46
  140. 46
  141. 45
  142. 45
  143. 45
  144. 44
  145. 44
  146. 44
  147. 43
  148. 43
  149. 43
  150. 43
  151. 43
  152. 43
  153. 42
  154. 42
  155. 41
  156. 41
  157. 41
  158. 41
  159. 40
  160. 40
  161. 40
  162. 39
  163. 39
  164. 39
  165. 39
  166. 39
  167. 39
  168. 39
  169. 39
  170. 39
  171. 38
  172. 38
  173. 38
  174. 38
  175. 38
  176. 38
  177. 37
  178. 37
  179.  @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
  180. 37
  181. 37
  182. 37
  183. 36
  184. 36
  185. 36
  186. 36
  187. 36
  188. 35
  189. 35
  190. 35
  191. 35
  192. 35
  193. 34
  194. 34
  195. 34
  196. 34
  197. 34
  198. 34
  199. 34
  200. 33
  201. 33
  202. 33
  203. 33
  204. 33
  205. 33
  206. 32
  207. 32
  208. 32
  209. 32
  210. 32
  211. 31
  212. 31
  213. 31
  214. 31
  215. 31
  216. 31
  217. 30
  218. 30
  219. 30
  220. 30
  221. 30
  222. 30
  223. 30
  224. 29
  225. 29
  226. 29
  227. 29
  228. 29
  229. 29
  230. 29
  231. 29
  232. 29
  233. 28
  234. 28
  235. 28
  236. 28
  237. 28
  238. 28
  239. 28
  240. 27
  241. 27
  242. 27
  243. 27
  244. 27
  245. 27
  246. 27
  247. 27
  248. 27
  249. 26
  250. 26
  251. 26
  252. 26
  253. 26
  254. 26
  255. 26
  256. 26
  257. 26
  258. 25
  259. 25
  260. 25
  261. 25
  262. 25
  263. 25
  264. 25
  265. 25
  266. 25
  267. 25
  268. 25
  269. 25
  270. 24
  271. 24
  272. 24
  273. 24
  274. 24
  275. 24
  276. 24
  277. 24
  278. 24
  279. 24
  280. 24
  281. 24
  282. 24
  283. 23
  284. 23
  285. 23
  286. 23
  287. 23
  288. 23
  289. 23
  290. 23
  291. 23
  292. 23
  293. 23
  294. 23
  295. 23
  296. 23
  297. 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
  298. 23
  299. 22
  300. 22
  301. 22
  302. 22
  303. 22
  304. 22
  305. 22
  306. 22
  307. 22
  308. 22
  309. 22
  310. 22
  311. 22
  312. 22
  313. 22
  314. ​ @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
  315. 22
  316. 22
  317. 22
  318. 22
  319. 22
  320. 22
  321. 22
  322. 22
  323. 21
  324. 21
  325. 21
  326. 21
  327. 21
  328. 21
  329. 21
  330. 21
  331. 21
  332. 21
  333. 21
  334. 21
  335. 21
  336. 21
  337. 21
  338. 21
  339. 21
  340. 21
  341. 21
  342. 21
  343. 21
  344. 21
  345. 21
  346. 20
  347. 20
  348. 20
  349. 20
  350. 20
  351. 20
  352. 20
  353. 20
  354. 20
  355. 20
  356. 20
  357. 20
  358. 20
  359. 20
  360. 20
  361. 20
  362. 20
  363. 20
  364. 20
  365. 20
  366. 20
  367. 20
  368. 20
  369. 20
  370. 20
  371. 19
  372. 19
  373. 19
  374. 19
  375. 19
  376. 19
  377. 19
  378. 19
  379. 19
  380. 19
  381. 19
  382. 19
  383. 19
  384. 19
  385. 19
  386. 19
  387. 19
  388. 19
  389. 19
  390. 19
  391. 19
  392. 19
  393. 19
  394. 19
  395. 19
  396. 19
  397. 18
  398. 18
  399. 18
  400. 18
  401. 18
  402. 18
  403. 18
  404. 18
  405. 18
  406. 18
  407. 18
  408. 18
  409. 18
  410. 18
  411. 18
  412. 18
  413. 18
  414. 18
  415. 18
  416. 18
  417. 18
  418. 18
  419. 18
  420. 18
  421. 18
  422. 18
  423. 18
  424. 18
  425. 18
  426. 18
  427. 18
  428. 18
  429. 18
  430. 18
  431. 18
  432. 18
  433. 18
  434. 18
  435. 18
  436. 18
  437. 17
  438. 17
  439. 17
  440. 17
  441. 17
  442. 17
  443. 17
  444. 17
  445. 17
  446. 17
  447. 17
  448. 17
  449. 17
  450. 17
  451. 17
  452. 17
  453. 17
  454. 17
  455. 17
  456. 17
  457. 17
  458. 17
  459. 17
  460. 17
  461. 17
  462. 17
  463. 17
  464. 17
  465. 17
  466. 17
  467. 16
  468. 16
  469. 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
  470. 16
  471. 16
  472. 16
  473. 16
  474. 16
  475. 16
  476. 16
  477. 16
  478. 16
  479. 16
  480. 16
  481. 16
  482. 16
  483. 16
  484. 16
  485. 16
  486. 16
  487. 16
  488. 16
  489. 16
  490. 16
  491. 16
  492. 16
  493. 16
  494. 16
  495. 16
  496. 16
  497. 16
  498. 16
  499. 16
  500. 16
  501. 16
  502. 16
  503. 16
  504. 16
  505. 16
  506. 16
  507. 16
  508. 16
  509. 16
  510. 16
  511. 15
  512. 15
  513. 15
  514. 15
  515. 15
  516. 15
  517. 15
  518. 15
  519. 15
  520. 15
  521. 15
  522. 15
  523. 15
  524. 15
  525. 15
  526. 15
  527. 15
  528. 15
  529. 15
  530. 15
  531. 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
  532. 15
  533. 15
  534. 15
  535. 15
  536. 15
  537. 15
  538. 15
  539. 15
  540. 15
  541. 15
  542. 15
  543. 15
  544. 15
  545. 15
  546. 15
  547. 15
  548. 15
  549. 15
  550. 15
  551. 15
  552. 14
  553. 14
  554. 14
  555. 14
  556. 14
  557. 14
  558. 14
  559. 14
  560. 14
  561. 14
  562. 14
  563. 14
  564. 14
  565. 14
  566. 14
  567. 14
  568. 14
  569. 14
  570. 14
  571. 14
  572. 14
  573. 14
  574. 14
  575. "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
  576. 14
  577. 14
  578. 14
  579. 14
  580. 14
  581. 14
  582. 14
  583. 14
  584. 14
  585. 14
  586. 14
  587. 14
  588. 14
  589. 14
  590. 14
  591. 14
  592. 14
  593. 14
  594. 14
  595. 14
  596. 14
  597. 14
  598. 14
  599. 14
  600. 14
  601. 14
  602. 14
  603. 14
  604. 14
  605. 14
  606. 14
  607. 14
  608. 13
  609. 13
  610. 13
  611. 13
  612. 13
  613. 13
  614. 13
  615. 13
  616. 13
  617. 13
  618. 13
  619. 13
  620. 13
  621. 13
  622. 13
  623. 13
  624. 13
  625. 13
  626. 13
  627. 13
  628. 13
  629. 13
  630. 13
  631. 13
  632. 13
  633. 13
  634. 13
  635. 13
  636. 13
  637. 13
  638. 13
  639. 13
  640. 13
  641. 13
  642. 13
  643. 13
  644. 13
  645. 13
  646. 13
  647. 13
  648. 13
  649. 13
  650. 12
  651. 12
  652. 12
  653. 12
  654. 12
  655. 12
  656. 12
  657. 12
  658. 12
  659. 12
  660. 12
  661. 12
  662. 12
  663. 12
  664. 12
  665. 12
  666. 12
  667. 12
  668. 12
  669. 12
  670. 12
  671. 12
  672. 12
  673. 12
  674. 12
  675. 12
  676. 12
  677. 12
  678. 12
  679. 12
  680. 12
  681. 12
  682. 12
  683. 12
  684. 12
  685. 12
  686. 12
  687. 12
  688. 12
  689. 12
  690. 12
  691. 12
  692. 12
  693. 12
  694. 12
  695. 12
  696. 12
  697. 12
  698. 12
  699. 12
  700. 12
  701. 12
  702. 12
  703. 12
  704. 12
  705. 12
  706. 12
  707. 12
  708. 12
  709. 12
  710. 12
  711. 12
  712. 11
  713. 11
  714. 11
  715. 11
  716. 11
  717. 11
  718. 11
  719. 11
  720. 11
  721. 11
  722. 11
  723. 11
  724. 11
  725. 11
  726. 11
  727. 11
  728. 11
  729. 11
  730. 11
  731. 11
  732. 11
  733. 11
  734. 11
  735. 11
  736. 11
  737. 11
  738. 11
  739. 11
  740. 11
  741. 11
  742. 11
  743. 11
  744. 11
  745. 11
  746. 11
  747. 11
  748. 11
  749. 11
  750. 11
  751. 11
  752. 11
  753. 11
  754. 11
  755. 11
  756. 11
  757. 11
  758. 11
  759. 11
  760. 11
  761. 11
  762. 11
  763. 11
  764. 11
  765. 11
  766. 11
  767. 11
  768. 11
  769. 11
  770. 11
  771. 11
  772. 11
  773. 11
  774. 11
  775. 11
  776. 11
  777. 11
  778. 11
  779. 11
  780. 11
  781. 11
  782. 11
  783. 11
  784. 11
  785. 11
  786. ​ @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
  787. 11
  788. 11
  789. 11
  790. 11
  791. 11
  792. 10
  793. 10
  794. 10
  795. 10
  796. 10
  797. 10
  798. 10
  799. 10
  800. 10
  801. 10
  802. 10
  803. 10
  804. 10
  805. 10
  806. 10
  807. 10
  808. 10
  809. 10
  810. 10
  811. 10
  812. 10
  813. 10
  814. 10
  815. 10
  816. 10
  817. 10
  818. 10
  819. 10
  820. 10
  821. 10
  822. 10
  823. 10
  824. 10
  825. 10
  826. 10
  827. 10
  828. 10
  829. 10
  830. 10
  831. 10
  832. 10
  833. 10
  834. 10
  835. 10
  836. 10
  837. 10
  838. 10
  839. 10
  840. 10
  841. 10
  842. 10
  843. 10
  844. 10
  845. 10
  846. 10
  847. 10
  848. 10
  849. 10
  850. 10
  851. 10
  852. 10
  853. 10
  854. 10
  855. 10
  856. 10
  857. 10
  858. 10
  859. 10
  860. 10
  861. 10
  862. 10
  863. 10
  864. 10
  865. 10
  866. 10
  867. 10
  868. 10
  869. 10
  870. 10
  871. 10
  872. 10
  873. 10
  874. 10
  875. 10
  876. 10
  877. 10
  878. 10
  879. 10
  880. 10
  881. 10
  882. 10
  883. 10
  884. 10
  885. 10
  886. 10
  887. 10
  888. 10
  889. 10
  890. 10
  891. 10
  892. 10
  893. 10
  894. 10
  895. 10
  896. 10
  897. 10
  898. 10
  899. 10
  900. 10
  901. 10
  902. 10
  903. 10
  904. 10
  905. 10
  906. 10
  907. 10
  908. 9
  909. 9
  910. 9
  911. 9
  912. 9
  913. 9
  914. 9
  915. 9
  916. 9
  917. 9
  918. 9
  919. 9
  920. 9
  921. 9
  922. 9
  923. 9
  924. 9
  925. 9
  926. 9
  927. 9
  928. 9
  929. 9
  930. 9
  931. 9
  932. 9
  933. 9
  934. 9
  935. 9
  936. 9
  937. 9
  938. 9
  939. 9
  940. 9
  941. 9
  942. 9
  943. 9
  944. 9
  945. 9
  946. 9
  947. 9
  948. 9
  949. 9
  950. 9
  951. 9
  952. 9
  953. 9
  954. 9
  955. 9
  956. 9
  957. 9
  958. 9
  959. 9
  960. 9
  961. 9
  962. 9
  963. 9
  964. 9
  965. 9
  966. 9
  967. 9
  968. 9
  969. 9
  970. 9
  971. 9
  972. 9
  973. 9
  974. 9
  975. 9
  976. 9
  977. 9
  978. ​ @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
  979. 9
  980. 9
  981. 9
  982. 9
  983. 9
  984. 9
  985. 9
  986. 9
  987. 9
  988. 9
  989. 9
  990. 9
  991. 9
  992. 9
  993. 9
  994. 9
  995. 9
  996. 9
  997. 9
  998. 9
  999. 9
  1000. 9
  1001. 9
  1002. 9
  1003. 9
  1004. 9
  1005. 9
  1006. 9
  1007. 9
  1008. 9
  1009. 9
  1010. 9
  1011. 9
  1012. 9
  1013. 9
  1014. 9
  1015. 9
  1016. 9
  1017. 9
  1018. 9
  1019. 9
  1020. 9
  1021. 9
  1022. 9
  1023. 9
  1024. 9
  1025. 9
  1026. 9
  1027. 9
  1028. 9
  1029. 9
  1030. 9
  1031. 9
  1032. 9
  1033. 9
  1034. 9
  1035. 9
  1036. 9
  1037. 9
  1038. 9
  1039. 9
  1040. 9
  1041. 9
  1042. 9
  1043. 9
  1044. 9
  1045. 9
  1046. 9
  1047. 9
  1048. 9
  1049. 9
  1050. 9
  1051. 8
  1052. 8
  1053. 8
  1054. 8
  1055. 8
  1056. 8
  1057. 8
  1058. 8
  1059. 8
  1060. 8
  1061. 8
  1062. 8
  1063. 8
  1064. 8
  1065. 8
  1066. 8
  1067. 8
  1068. 8
  1069. 8
  1070. 8
  1071. 8
  1072. 8
  1073. 8
  1074. 8
  1075. 8
  1076. 8
  1077. 8
  1078. 8
  1079. 8
  1080. 8
  1081. 8
  1082. 8
  1083. 8
  1084. 8
  1085. 8
  1086. 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
  1087. 8
  1088. 8
  1089. 8
  1090. 8
  1091. 8
  1092. 8
  1093. 8
  1094. 8
  1095. 8
  1096. 8
  1097. 8
  1098. 8
  1099. 8
  1100. 8
  1101. 8
  1102. 8
  1103. 8
  1104. 8
  1105. 8
  1106. 8
  1107. 8
  1108. 8
  1109. 8
  1110. 8
  1111. 8
  1112. 8
  1113. 8
  1114. 8
  1115. 8
  1116. 8
  1117. 8
  1118. 8
  1119. 8
  1120. 8
  1121. 8
  1122. 8
  1123. 8
  1124. 8
  1125. 8
  1126. 8
  1127. 8
  1128. 8
  1129. 8
  1130. 8
  1131. 8
  1132. 8
  1133. 8
  1134. 8
  1135. 8
  1136. 8
  1137. 8
  1138. 8
  1139. 8
  1140. 8
  1141. 8
  1142. 8
  1143. 8
  1144. 8
  1145. 8
  1146. 8
  1147. 8
  1148. 8
  1149. 8
  1150. 8
  1151. 8
  1152. 8
  1153. 8
  1154. 8
  1155. 8
  1156. 8
  1157. 8
  1158. 8
  1159. 8
  1160. 8
  1161. 8
  1162. 8
  1163. 8
  1164. 8
  1165. 8
  1166. 8
  1167. 8
  1168. 8
  1169. 8
  1170. 8
  1171. 8
  1172. 8
  1173. 8
  1174. 8
  1175. 8
  1176. 8
  1177. 8
  1178. 8
  1179. 8
  1180. 8
  1181. 8
  1182. 8
  1183. 8
  1184. 8
  1185. 8
  1186. 8
  1187. 8
  1188. 8
  1189. 8
  1190. 8
  1191. 8
  1192. 8
  1193. 8
  1194. 8
  1195. 8
  1196. 8
  1197. 8
  1198. 8
  1199. 8
  1200. 8
  1201. 8
  1202. 8
  1203. 8
  1204. 8
  1205. 8
  1206. 8
  1207. 8
  1208. 8
  1209. 8
  1210. 8
  1211. 8
  1212. ​ @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
  1213. 8
  1214. 7
  1215. 7
  1216. 7
  1217. 7
  1218. 7
  1219. 7
  1220. 7
  1221. 7
  1222. 7
  1223. 7
  1224. 7
  1225. 7
  1226. 7
  1227. 7
  1228. 7
  1229. 7
  1230. 7
  1231. 7
  1232. 7
  1233. 7
  1234. 7
  1235. 7
  1236. 7
  1237. 7
  1238. 7
  1239. 7
  1240. 7
  1241. 7
  1242. 7
  1243. 7
  1244. 7
  1245. 7
  1246. 7
  1247. 7
  1248. 7
  1249. 7
  1250. 7
  1251. 7
  1252. 7
  1253. 7
  1254. 7
  1255. 7
  1256. 7
  1257. 7
  1258. 7
  1259. 7
  1260. 7
  1261. 7
  1262. 7
  1263. 7
  1264. 7
  1265. 7
  1266. 7
  1267. 7
  1268. 7
  1269. 7
  1270. 7
  1271. 7
  1272. 7
  1273. 7
  1274. 7
  1275. 7
  1276. 7
  1277. 7
  1278. 7
  1279. 7
  1280. 7
  1281. 7
  1282. 7
  1283. 7
  1284. 7
  1285. 7
  1286. 7
  1287. 7
  1288. 7
  1289. 7
  1290. 7
  1291. 7
  1292. 7
  1293. 7
  1294. 7
  1295. 7
  1296. 7
  1297. 7
  1298. 7
  1299. 7
  1300. 7
  1301. 7
  1302. 7
  1303. 7
  1304. 7
  1305. 7
  1306. 7
  1307. 7
  1308. 7
  1309. 7
  1310. 7
  1311. 7
  1312. 7
  1313. 7
  1314. 7
  1315. 7
  1316. 7
  1317. 7
  1318. 7
  1319. 7
  1320. 7
  1321. 7
  1322. 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
  1323. 7
  1324. 7
  1325. 7
  1326. 7
  1327. 7
  1328. 7
  1329. 7
  1330. 7
  1331. 7
  1332. 7
  1333. 7
  1334. 7
  1335. 7
  1336. 7
  1337. 7
  1338. 7
  1339. 7
  1340. 7
  1341. 7
  1342. 7
  1343. 7
  1344. 7
  1345. 7
  1346. 7
  1347. 7
  1348. 7
  1349. 7
  1350. 7
  1351. 7
  1352. 7
  1353. 7
  1354. 7
  1355. 7
  1356. 7
  1357. 7
  1358. 7
  1359. 7
  1360. 7
  1361. 7
  1362. 7
  1363. 7
  1364. 7
  1365. 7
  1366. 7
  1367. 7
  1368. 7
  1369. 7
  1370. 7
  1371. 7
  1372. 7
  1373. 7
  1374. 7
  1375. 7
  1376. 7
  1377. 7
  1378. 7
  1379. 7
  1380. 7
  1381. 7
  1382. 7
  1383. 7
  1384. 7
  1385. 7
  1386. 7
  1387. 7
  1388. 7
  1389. 7
  1390. 7
  1391. 7
  1392. 7
  1393. 7
  1394. 7
  1395. 7
  1396. 7
  1397. 7
  1398. 7
  1399. 7
  1400. 7
  1401. 7
  1402. 7
  1403. 7
  1404. 7
  1405. 7
  1406. 7
  1407. 7
  1408. 7
  1409. 7
  1410. 7
  1411. 7
  1412. 7
  1413. 7
  1414. 7
  1415. 7
  1416. 7
  1417. 7
  1418. 7
  1419. 7
  1420. 7
  1421. 7
  1422. 7
  1423. 7
  1424. 7
  1425. 7
  1426. 7
  1427. 7
  1428. 7
  1429. 7
  1430. 7
  1431. 7
  1432. 7
  1433. 7
  1434. 7
  1435. 7
  1436. 7
  1437. 7
  1438. 7
  1439. 7
  1440. 7
  1441. 7
  1442. 7
  1443. 7
  1444. 7
  1445. 7
  1446. 7
  1447. 7
  1448. 7
  1449. 7
  1450. 7
  1451. 7
  1452. 7
  1453. 7
  1454. 7
  1455. 7
  1456. 7
  1457. 7
  1458. 7
  1459. 7
  1460. 7
  1461. 7
  1462. 7
  1463. 7
  1464. 7
  1465. 7
  1466. 7
  1467. 7
  1468. 6
  1469. 6
  1470. 6
  1471. 6
  1472. 6
  1473. 6
  1474. 6
  1475. 6
  1476. 6
  1477. 6
  1478. 6
  1479. 6
  1480. 6
  1481. 6
  1482. 6
  1483. 6
  1484. 6
  1485. 6
  1486. 6
  1487. 6
  1488. 6
  1489. 6
  1490. 6
  1491. 6
  1492. 6
  1493. 6
  1494. 6
  1495. 6
  1496. 6
  1497. 6
  1498. 6
  1499. 6
  1500. 6
  1501. 6
  1502. 6
  1503. 6
  1504. 6
  1505. 6
  1506. 6
  1507. 6
  1508. 6
  1509. 6
  1510. 6
  1511. 6
  1512. 6
  1513. 6
  1514. 6
  1515. 6
  1516. 6
  1517. 6
  1518. 6
  1519. 6
  1520. 6
  1521. 6
  1522. 6
  1523. 6
  1524. 6
  1525. 6
  1526. 6
  1527. 6
  1528. 6
  1529. 6
  1530. 6
  1531. 6
  1532. 6
  1533. 6
  1534. 6
  1535. 6
  1536. 6
  1537. 6
  1538. 6
  1539. 6
  1540. 6
  1541. 6
  1542. 6
  1543. 6
  1544. 6
  1545. 6
  1546. 6
  1547. 6
  1548. 6
  1549. 6
  1550. 6
  1551. 6
  1552. 6
  1553. 6
  1554. 6
  1555. 6
  1556. 6
  1557. 6
  1558. 6
  1559. 6
  1560. 6
  1561. 6
  1562. 6
  1563. 6
  1564. 6
  1565. 6
  1566. 6
  1567. 6
  1568. 6
  1569. 6
  1570. 6
  1571. 6
  1572. 6
  1573. 6
  1574. 6
  1575. 6
  1576.  @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
  1577. 6
  1578. 6
  1579. 6
  1580. 6
  1581. 6
  1582. 6
  1583. 6
  1584. 6
  1585. 6
  1586. 6
  1587. 6
  1588. 6
  1589. 6
  1590. 6
  1591. 6
  1592. 6
  1593. 6
  1594. 6
  1595. 6
  1596. 6
  1597. 6
  1598. 6
  1599. 6
  1600. 6
  1601. 6
  1602. 6
  1603. 6
  1604. 6
  1605. 6
  1606. 6
  1607. 6
  1608. 6
  1609. 6
  1610. 6
  1611. 6
  1612. 6
  1613. 6
  1614. 6
  1615. 6
  1616. 6
  1617. 6
  1618. 6
  1619. 6
  1620. 6
  1621. 6
  1622. 6
  1623. 6
  1624. 6
  1625. 6
  1626. 6
  1627. 6
  1628. 6
  1629. 6
  1630. 6
  1631. 6
  1632. 6
  1633. 6
  1634. 6
  1635. 6
  1636. 6
  1637. 6
  1638. 6
  1639. 6
  1640. 6
  1641. 6
  1642. ​ @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
  1643. 6
  1644. 6
  1645. 6
  1646. 6
  1647. 6
  1648. 6
  1649. 6
  1650. 6
  1651. 6
  1652. 6
  1653. 6
  1654. 6
  1655. 6
  1656. 6
  1657. 6
  1658. 6
  1659. 6
  1660. 6
  1661. 6
  1662. 6
  1663. 6
  1664. 6
  1665. 6
  1666. 6
  1667. 6
  1668. 6
  1669. 6
  1670. 6
  1671. 6
  1672. 6
  1673. 6
  1674. 6
  1675. ​ @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
  1676. 6
  1677. 6
  1678. 6
  1679. 6
  1680. 6
  1681. 6
  1682. 6
  1683. 6
  1684. 6
  1685. 6
  1686. 6
  1687. 6
  1688. 6
  1689. 6
  1690. 6
  1691. 6
  1692. 6
  1693. 6
  1694. 6
  1695. 6
  1696. 6
  1697. 6
  1698. 6
  1699. 6
  1700. 6
  1701. 6
  1702. 6
  1703. 6
  1704. 6
  1705. 6
  1706. 6
  1707. 6
  1708. @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
  1709. 6
  1710. 6
  1711. 6
  1712. 6
  1713. 6
  1714. 6
  1715. 6
  1716. 6
  1717. 6
  1718. 6
  1719. 6
  1720. 6
  1721. 6
  1722. 6
  1723. 6
  1724. 6
  1725. 6
  1726. 6
  1727. 6
  1728. 6
  1729. 6
  1730. 6
  1731. 6
  1732. 6
  1733. 6
  1734. 6
  1735. 6
  1736. 6
  1737. 6
  1738. 6
  1739. 6
  1740. 6
  1741. 6
  1742. 6
  1743. 6
  1744. 6
  1745. 6
  1746. 6
  1747. 6
  1748. 6
  1749. 6
  1750. 6
  1751. 6
  1752. 6
  1753. 6
  1754. 6
  1755. 6
  1756. 6
  1757. 6
  1758. 6
  1759. 6
  1760. 5
  1761. 5
  1762. 5
  1763. 5
  1764. 5
  1765. 5
  1766. 5
  1767. 5
  1768. 5
  1769. 5
  1770. 5
  1771. 5
  1772. 5
  1773. 5
  1774. 5
  1775. 5
  1776. 5
  1777. 5
  1778. 5
  1779. 5
  1780. 5
  1781. 5
  1782. 5
  1783. 5
  1784. 5
  1785. 5
  1786. 5
  1787. 5
  1788. 5
  1789. 5
  1790. 5
  1791. 5
  1792. 5
  1793. 5
  1794. 5
  1795. 5
  1796. 5
  1797. 5
  1798. 5
  1799. 5
  1800. 5
  1801. 5
  1802. 5
  1803. 5
  1804. 5
  1805. 5
  1806. 5
  1807. 5
  1808. 5
  1809. 5
  1810. 5
  1811. 5
  1812. 5
  1813. 5
  1814. 5
  1815. 5
  1816. 5
  1817. 5
  1818. 5
  1819. 5
  1820. 5
  1821. 5
  1822. 5
  1823. 5
  1824. 5
  1825. 5
  1826. 5
  1827. 5
  1828. 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
  1829. 5
  1830. 5
  1831. 5
  1832. 5
  1833. 5
  1834. 5
  1835. 5
  1836. 5
  1837. 5
  1838. 5
  1839. 5
  1840. 5
  1841. 5
  1842. 5
  1843. 5
  1844. 5
  1845. 5
  1846. 5
  1847. 5
  1848. 5
  1849. 5
  1850. 5
  1851. 5
  1852. 5
  1853. 5
  1854. 5
  1855. 5
  1856. 5
  1857. 5
  1858. 5
  1859. 5
  1860. 5
  1861. 5
  1862. 5
  1863. 5
  1864. 5
  1865. 5
  1866. 5
  1867. 5
  1868. 5
  1869. 5
  1870. 5
  1871. 5
  1872. 5
  1873. 5
  1874. 5
  1875. 5
  1876. 5
  1877. 5
  1878. 5
  1879. 5
  1880. 5
  1881. 5
  1882. 5
  1883. 5
  1884. 5
  1885. 5
  1886. 5
  1887. 5
  1888. 5
  1889. 5
  1890. 5
  1891. 5
  1892. 5
  1893. 5
  1894. 5
  1895. 5
  1896. 5
  1897. 5
  1898. 5
  1899. 5
  1900. 5
  1901. 5
  1902. 5
  1903. 5
  1904. 5
  1905. 5
  1906. 5
  1907. 5
  1908. 5
  1909. 5
  1910. 5
  1911. 5
  1912. 5
  1913. 5
  1914. 5
  1915. 5
  1916. 5
  1917. 5
  1918. 5
  1919. 5
  1920. 5
  1921. 5
  1922. 5
  1923. 5
  1924. 5
  1925. 5
  1926. 5
  1927. 5
  1928. 5
  1929. 5
  1930. 5
  1931. 5
  1932. 5
  1933. 5
  1934. 5
  1935. 5
  1936. 5
  1937. 5
  1938. 5
  1939. 5
  1940. 5
  1941. 5
  1942. 5
  1943. 5
  1944. 5
  1945. 5
  1946. 5
  1947. 5
  1948. 5
  1949. 5
  1950. 5
  1951. 5
  1952. 5
  1953. 5
  1954. 5
  1955. 5
  1956. 5
  1957. 5
  1958. 5
  1959. 5
  1960. 5
  1961. 5
  1962. 5
  1963. 5
  1964. 5
  1965. 5
  1966. 5
  1967. 5
  1968. 5
  1969. 5
  1970. 5
  1971. 5
  1972. 5
  1973. 5
  1974. 5
  1975. 5
  1976. 5
  1977. 5
  1978. 5
  1979. 5
  1980. 5
  1981. 5
  1982. 5
  1983. 5
  1984. 5
  1985. 5
  1986. 5
  1987. 5
  1988. 5
  1989. 5
  1990. 5
  1991. 5
  1992. 5
  1993. 5
  1994. 5
  1995. 5
  1996. 5
  1997. 5
  1998. 5
  1999. 5
  2000. 5
  2001. 5
  2002. 5
  2003. 5
  2004. 5
  2005. 5
  2006. 5
  2007. 5
  2008. 5
  2009. 5
  2010. 5
  2011. 5
  2012. 5
  2013. 5
  2014. 5
  2015. 5
  2016. 5
  2017. 5
  2018. 5
  2019. 5
  2020. 5
  2021. 5
  2022. 5
  2023. 5
  2024. 5
  2025. 5
  2026. 5
  2027. 5
  2028. 5
  2029. 5
  2030. 5
  2031. 5
  2032. 5
  2033. 5
  2034. 5
  2035. 5
  2036. 5
  2037. 5
  2038. 5
  2039. 5
  2040. 5
  2041. 5
  2042. 5
  2043. 5
  2044. 5
  2045. 5
  2046. 5
  2047. 5
  2048. 5
  2049. 5
  2050. 5
  2051. 5
  2052. 5
  2053. 5
  2054. 5
  2055. 5
  2056. 5
  2057. 5
  2058. 5
  2059. 5
  2060. 5
  2061. 5
  2062. 5
  2063. 5
  2064. 5
  2065. 5
  2066. 5
  2067. 5
  2068. 5
  2069. 5
  2070. 5
  2071. 5
  2072. 5
  2073. 5
  2074. 5
  2075. 5
  2076. 5
  2077. 5
  2078. 5
  2079. 5
  2080. 5
  2081. 5
  2082. 5
  2083. 5
  2084. 5
  2085. 5
  2086. 5
  2087. 5
  2088. 5
  2089. 5
  2090. 5
  2091. 5
  2092. 5
  2093. 5
  2094. 5
  2095. 5
  2096. 5
  2097. 5
  2098. 5
  2099. 5
  2100. 5
  2101. 5
  2102. 5
  2103. 5
  2104. 5
  2105. 5
  2106. 5
  2107. 5
  2108. 5
  2109. 5
  2110. 5
  2111. 5
  2112. 5
  2113. 5
  2114. 5
  2115. 5
  2116. 5
  2117. 5
  2118. 5
  2119. 5
  2120. 5
  2121. 5
  2122. 5
  2123. 5
  2124. 5
  2125. 5
  2126. 5
  2127. 5
  2128. 5
  2129. 5
  2130. 5
  2131. 5
  2132. 5
  2133. 5
  2134. 5
  2135. 5
  2136. 5
  2137. 5
  2138. 5
  2139. 5
  2140. 5
  2141. 5
  2142. 5
  2143. 5
  2144. 5
  2145. 5
  2146. 5
  2147. 5
  2148. 5
  2149. 5
  2150. 5
  2151. 5
  2152. 5
  2153. 5
  2154. 5
  2155. 5
  2156. 5
  2157. 5
  2158. 5
  2159. 5
  2160. 5
  2161. 5
  2162. 5
  2163. 5
  2164. 5
  2165. 5
  2166. 5
  2167. 5
  2168. 5
  2169. 5
  2170. 5
  2171. 5
  2172. 5
  2173. 5
  2174. 5
  2175. 5
  2176. 5
  2177. 5
  2178. 5
  2179. 5
  2180. 5
  2181. 5
  2182. 5
  2183. 5
  2184. 5
  2185. 5
  2186. 5
  2187. 5
  2188. 5
  2189. 5
  2190. 5
  2191. 5
  2192. 5
  2193. 5
  2194. 5
  2195. 5
  2196. 5
  2197. 5
  2198. 5
  2199. 5
  2200. 5
  2201. 5
  2202. 5
  2203. 5
  2204. 5
  2205. 5
  2206. 5
  2207. 5
  2208. 5
  2209. 5
  2210. 5
  2211. 5
  2212. 5
  2213. 5
  2214. 5
  2215. 5
  2216. 5
  2217. 5
  2218. 5
  2219. 5
  2220. 5
  2221. 5
  2222. 5
  2223. 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
  2224. 5
  2225. 5
  2226. 5
  2227. 5
  2228. 5
  2229. 5
  2230. 5
  2231. 5
  2232. 5
  2233. 5
  2234. 5
  2235. 5
  2236. 5
  2237. 5
  2238. 5
  2239. 5
  2240. 5
  2241. 5
  2242. 5
  2243. 5
  2244. 5
  2245. 5
  2246. 5
  2247. 5
  2248. 5
  2249. 5
  2250. 5
  2251. 4
  2252. 4
  2253. 4
  2254. 4
  2255. 4
  2256. 4
  2257. 4
  2258. 4
  2259. 4
  2260. 4
  2261. 4
  2262. 4
  2263. 4
  2264. 4
  2265. 4
  2266. 4
  2267. 4
  2268. 4
  2269. 4
  2270. 4
  2271. 4
  2272. 4
  2273. 4
  2274. 4
  2275. 4
  2276. 4
  2277. 4
  2278. 4
  2279. 4
  2280. 4
  2281. 4
  2282. 4
  2283. 4
  2284. 4
  2285. 4
  2286. 4
  2287. 4
  2288. 4
  2289. 4
  2290. 4
  2291. 4
  2292. 4
  2293. 4
  2294. 4
  2295. 4
  2296. 4
  2297. 4
  2298. 4
  2299. 4
  2300. 4
  2301. 4
  2302. 4
  2303. 4
  2304. 4
  2305. 4
  2306. 4
  2307. 4
  2308. 4
  2309. 4
  2310. 4
  2311. 4
  2312. 4
  2313. 4
  2314. 4
  2315. 4
  2316. 4
  2317. 4
  2318. 4
  2319. 4
  2320. 4
  2321. 4
  2322. 4
  2323. 4
  2324. 4
  2325. 4
  2326. 4
  2327. 4
  2328. 4
  2329. 4
  2330. 4
  2331. 4
  2332. 4
  2333. 4
  2334. 4
  2335. 4
  2336. 4
  2337. 4
  2338. 4
  2339. 4
  2340. 4
  2341. 4
  2342. 4
  2343. 4
  2344. 4
  2345. 4
  2346. 4
  2347. 4
  2348. 4
  2349. 4
  2350. 4
  2351. 4
  2352. 4
  2353. 4
  2354. 4
  2355. 4
  2356. 4
  2357. 4
  2358. 4
  2359. 4
  2360. 4
  2361. 4
  2362. 4
  2363. 4
  2364. 4
  2365. 4
  2366. 4
  2367. 4
  2368. 4
  2369. 4
  2370. 4
  2371. 4
  2372. 4
  2373. 4
  2374. 4
  2375. 4
  2376. 4
  2377. 4
  2378. 4
  2379. 4
  2380. 4
  2381. 4
  2382. 4
  2383. 4
  2384. 4
  2385. 4
  2386. 4
  2387. 4
  2388. 4
  2389. 4
  2390. 4
  2391. 4
  2392. 4
  2393. 4
  2394. 4
  2395. 4
  2396. 4
  2397. 4
  2398. 4
  2399. 4
  2400. 4
  2401. 4
  2402. 4
  2403. 4
  2404. 4
  2405. 4
  2406. 4
  2407. 4
  2408. 4
  2409. 4
  2410. 4
  2411. 4
  2412. 4
  2413. 4
  2414. 4
  2415. 4
  2416. 4
  2417. 4
  2418. 4
  2419. 4
  2420. 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
  2421. 4
  2422. 4
  2423. 4
  2424. 4
  2425. 4
  2426. 4
  2427. 4
  2428. 4
  2429. 4
  2430. 4
  2431. 4
  2432. 4
  2433. 4
  2434. 4
  2435. 4
  2436. 4
  2437. 4
  2438. 4
  2439. 4
  2440. 4
  2441. 4
  2442. 4
  2443. 4
  2444. 4
  2445. 4
  2446. 4
  2447. 4
  2448. 4
  2449. 4
  2450. 4
  2451. 4
  2452. 4
  2453. 4
  2454. 4
  2455. 4
  2456. 4
  2457. 4
  2458. 4
  2459. 4
  2460. 4
  2461. 4
  2462. 4
  2463. 4
  2464. 4
  2465. 4
  2466. 4
  2467. 4
  2468. 4
  2469. 4
  2470. 4
  2471. 4
  2472. 4
  2473. 4
  2474. 4
  2475. 4
  2476. 4
  2477. 4
  2478. 4
  2479. 4
  2480. 4
  2481. 4
  2482. 4
  2483. 4
  2484. 4
  2485. 4
  2486. 4
  2487. 4
  2488. 4
  2489. 4
  2490. 4
  2491. 4
  2492. 4
  2493. ​ @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
  2494. 4
  2495. 4
  2496. 4
  2497. 4
  2498. 4
  2499. 4
  2500. 4
  2501. 4
  2502. 4
  2503. 4
  2504. 4
  2505. 4
  2506. 4
  2507. 4
  2508. 4
  2509. 4
  2510. 4
  2511. 4
  2512. 4
  2513. 4
  2514. 4
  2515. 4
  2516. 4
  2517. 4
  2518. 4
  2519. 4
  2520. 4
  2521. 4
  2522. 4
  2523. 4
  2524. 4
  2525. 4
  2526. 4
  2527. 4
  2528. 4
  2529. 4
  2530. 4
  2531. 4
  2532. 4
  2533. 4
  2534. 4
  2535. 4
  2536. 4
  2537. 4
  2538. 4
  2539. 4
  2540. 4
  2541. 4
  2542. 4
  2543. 4
  2544. 4
  2545. 4
  2546. 4
  2547. 4
  2548. 4
  2549. 4
  2550. 4
  2551. 4
  2552. 4
  2553. 4
  2554. 4
  2555. 4
  2556. 4
  2557. 4
  2558. 4
  2559. 4
  2560. 4
  2561. 4
  2562. 4
  2563. 4
  2564. 4
  2565. 4
  2566. 4
  2567. 4
  2568. 4
  2569. 4
  2570. 4
  2571. 4
  2572. 4
  2573. 4
  2574. 4
  2575. 4
  2576. 4
  2577. 4
  2578. 4
  2579. 4
  2580. 4
  2581. 4
  2582. 4
  2583. 4
  2584. 4
  2585. 4
  2586. 4
  2587. 4
  2588. 4
  2589. 4
  2590. 4
  2591. 4
  2592. 4
  2593. 4
  2594. 4
  2595. 4
  2596. 4
  2597. 4
  2598. 4
  2599. 4
  2600. 4
  2601. 4
  2602. 4
  2603. 4
  2604. 4
  2605. 4
  2606. 4
  2607. 4
  2608. 4
  2609. 4
  2610. 4
  2611. 4
  2612. 4
  2613. 4
  2614. 4
  2615. 4
  2616. 4
  2617. 4
  2618. 4
  2619. 4
  2620. 4
  2621. 4
  2622. 4
  2623. 4
  2624. 4
  2625. 4
  2626. 4
  2627. 4
  2628. 4
  2629. 4
  2630. 4
  2631. 4
  2632. 4
  2633. 4
  2634. 4
  2635. 4
  2636. 4
  2637. 4
  2638. 4
  2639. 4
  2640. 4
  2641. 4
  2642. 4
  2643. 4
  2644. 4
  2645. 4
  2646. 4
  2647. 4
  2648. 4
  2649. 4
  2650. 4
  2651. 4
  2652. 4
  2653. 4
  2654. 4
  2655. 4
  2656. 4
  2657. 4
  2658. 4
  2659. 4
  2660. 4
  2661. 4
  2662. 4
  2663. 4
  2664. 4
  2665. 4
  2666. 4
  2667. 4
  2668. 4
  2669. 4
  2670. 4
  2671. 4
  2672. 4
  2673. 4
  2674. 4
  2675. 4
  2676. 4
  2677. 4
  2678. 4
  2679. 4
  2680. 4
  2681. 4
  2682. 4
  2683. 4
  2684. 4
  2685. 4
  2686. 4
  2687. 4
  2688. 4
  2689. 4
  2690. 4
  2691. 4
  2692. 4
  2693. 4
  2694. 4
  2695. 4
  2696. 4
  2697. 4
  2698. 4
  2699. 4
  2700. 4
  2701. 4
  2702. 4
  2703. 4
  2704. 4
  2705. 4
  2706. 4
  2707. 4
  2708. 4
  2709. 4
  2710. 4
  2711. ​ @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
  2712. 4
  2713. 4
  2714. 4
  2715. 4
  2716. 4
  2717. 4
  2718. 4
  2719. 4
  2720. 4
  2721. 4
  2722. 4
  2723. 4
  2724. 4
  2725. 4
  2726. 4
  2727. 4
  2728. 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
  2729. 4
  2730. 4
  2731. 4
  2732. 4
  2733. 4
  2734. 4
  2735. 4
  2736. 4
  2737. 4
  2738. 4
  2739. 4
  2740. 4
  2741. 4
  2742. 4
  2743. 4
  2744. 4
  2745. 4
  2746. 4
  2747. 4
  2748. 4
  2749. 4
  2750. 4
  2751. 4
  2752. 4
  2753. 4
  2754. 4
  2755. 4
  2756. 4
  2757. 4
  2758. 4
  2759. 4
  2760. 4
  2761. 4
  2762. 4
  2763. 4
  2764. 4
  2765. 4
  2766. 4
  2767.  @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
  2768. 4
  2769. 4
  2770. 4
  2771. 4
  2772. 4
  2773. 4
  2774. 4
  2775. 4
  2776. 4
  2777. 4
  2778. 4
  2779. 4
  2780. 4
  2781. 4
  2782. 4
  2783. 4
  2784. 4
  2785. 4
  2786. 4
  2787. 4
  2788. 4
  2789. 4
  2790. 4
  2791. 4
  2792. 4
  2793. 4
  2794. 4
  2795. 4
  2796. 4
  2797. 4
  2798. 4
  2799. 4
  2800. 4
  2801. 4
  2802. 4
  2803. 4
  2804. 4
  2805. 4
  2806. 4
  2807. 4
  2808. 4
  2809. 4
  2810. 4
  2811. 4
  2812. 4
  2813. 4
  2814. 4
  2815. 4
  2816. 4
  2817. 4
  2818. 4
  2819. 4
  2820. 4
  2821. 4
  2822. 4
  2823. 4
  2824. 4
  2825. 4
  2826. 4
  2827. 4
  2828. 4
  2829. 4
  2830. 4
  2831. 4
  2832. 4
  2833. 4
  2834. 4
  2835. 4
  2836. 4
  2837. 4
  2838. 4
  2839. 4
  2840. 4
  2841. 4
  2842. 4
  2843. 4
  2844. 4
  2845. 4
  2846. 4
  2847. 4
  2848. 4
  2849. 4
  2850. 4
  2851. 4
  2852. 4
  2853. 4
  2854. 4
  2855. 4
  2856. 4
  2857. 4
  2858. 4
  2859. 4
  2860. 4
  2861. 4
  2862. 4
  2863. 4
  2864. 4
  2865. 4
  2866. 4
  2867. 4
  2868. 4
  2869. 4
  2870. 4
  2871. 4
  2872. 4
  2873. 4
  2874. 4
  2875. 4
  2876. 4
  2877. 4
  2878. 4
  2879. 4
  2880. 4
  2881. 4
  2882. 4
  2883. 4
  2884. 4
  2885. 4
  2886. 4
  2887. 4
  2888. 4
  2889. 4
  2890. 4
  2891. 4
  2892. 4
  2893. 4
  2894. 4
  2895. 4
  2896. 4
  2897. 4
  2898. 4
  2899. 4
  2900. 4
  2901. 4
  2902. 4
  2903. 4
  2904. 4
  2905. 4
  2906. 4
  2907. 4
  2908. 4
  2909. 4
  2910. 4
  2911. 4
  2912. 4
  2913. 4
  2914. 4
  2915. 4
  2916. 4
  2917. 4
  2918. 4
  2919. 4
  2920. 4
  2921. 4
  2922. 4
  2923. 4
  2924. 4
  2925. 4
  2926. 4
  2927. 4
  2928. 4
  2929. 4
  2930. 4
  2931. 4
  2932. 4
  2933. 4
  2934. 4
  2935. 4
  2936. 4
  2937. 4
  2938. 4
  2939. 4
  2940. 4
  2941. 4
  2942. 4
  2943. 4
  2944. 4
  2945. 4
  2946. 4
  2947. 4
  2948. 4
  2949. 4
  2950. 4
  2951. 4
  2952. 4
  2953. 4
  2954. 4
  2955. 4
  2956. 4
  2957. 4
  2958. 4
  2959. 4
  2960. 4
  2961. 4
  2962. 4
  2963. 4
  2964. 4
  2965. 4
  2966. 4
  2967. 4
  2968. 4
  2969. 4
  2970. 4
  2971. 4
  2972. 4
  2973. 3
  2974. 3
  2975. 3
  2976. 3
  2977. 3
  2978. 3
  2979. 3
  2980. 3
  2981. 3
  2982. 3
  2983. 3
  2984. 3
  2985. 3
  2986. 3
  2987. 3
  2988. 3
  2989. 3
  2990. 3
  2991. 3
  2992. 3
  2993. 3
  2994. 3
  2995. 3
  2996. 3
  2997. 3
  2998. 3
  2999. 3
  3000. 3
  3001. 3
  3002. 3
  3003. 3
  3004. 3
  3005. 3
  3006. 3
  3007. 3
  3008. 3
  3009. 3
  3010. 3
  3011. 3
  3012. 3
  3013. 3
  3014. 3
  3015. 3
  3016. 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
  3017. 3
  3018. 3
  3019. 3
  3020. 3
  3021. 3
  3022. 3
  3023. 3
  3024. 3
  3025. 3
  3026. 3
  3027. 3
  3028. 3
  3029. 3
  3030. 3
  3031. 3
  3032. 3
  3033. 3
  3034. 3
  3035. 3
  3036. 3
  3037. 3
  3038. 3
  3039. 3
  3040. 3
  3041. 3
  3042. 3
  3043. 3
  3044. 3
  3045. 3
  3046. 3
  3047. 3
  3048. 3
  3049. 3
  3050. 3
  3051. 3
  3052. 3
  3053. 3
  3054. 3
  3055. 3
  3056. 3
  3057. 3
  3058. 3
  3059. 3
  3060. 3
  3061. 3
  3062. 3
  3063. 3
  3064. 3
  3065. 3
  3066. 3
  3067. 3
  3068. 3
  3069. 3
  3070. 3
  3071. 3
  3072. 3
  3073. 3
  3074. 3
  3075. 3
  3076. 3
  3077. 3
  3078. 3
  3079. 3
  3080. 3
  3081. 3
  3082. 3
  3083. 3
  3084. 3
  3085. 3
  3086. 3
  3087. 3
  3088. 3
  3089. 3
  3090. 3
  3091. 3
  3092. 3
  3093. 3
  3094. 3
  3095. 3
  3096. 3
  3097. 3
  3098. 3
  3099. 3
  3100. 3
  3101. 3
  3102. 3
  3103. 3
  3104. 3
  3105. 3
  3106. 3
  3107. 3
  3108. 3
  3109. 3
  3110. 3
  3111. 3
  3112. 3
  3113. 3
  3114. 3
  3115. 3
  3116. 3
  3117. 3
  3118. 3
  3119. 3
  3120. 3
  3121. 3
  3122. 3
  3123. 3
  3124. 3
  3125. 3
  3126. 3
  3127. 3
  3128. ​ @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
  3129. 3
  3130. 3
  3131. 3
  3132. 3
  3133. 3
  3134. 3
  3135. 3
  3136. 3
  3137. 3
  3138. 3
  3139. 3
  3140. 3
  3141. 3
  3142. 3
  3143. 3
  3144. 3
  3145. 3
  3146. 3
  3147. 3
  3148. 3
  3149. 3
  3150. 3
  3151. 3
  3152. 3
  3153. 3
  3154. 3
  3155. 3
  3156. 3
  3157. 3
  3158. 3
  3159. 3
  3160. 3
  3161. 3
  3162. 3
  3163. 3
  3164. 3
  3165. 3
  3166. 3
  3167. 3
  3168. 3
  3169. 3
  3170. 3
  3171. 3
  3172. 3
  3173. 3
  3174. 3
  3175. 3
  3176. 3
  3177. 3
  3178. 3
  3179. 3
  3180. 3
  3181. 3
  3182. 3
  3183. 3
  3184. 3
  3185. 3
  3186. 3
  3187. 3
  3188. 3
  3189. 3
  3190. 3
  3191. 3
  3192. 3
  3193. 3
  3194. 3
  3195. 3
  3196. 3
  3197. 3
  3198. 3
  3199. 3
  3200. 3
  3201. 3
  3202. 3
  3203. 3
  3204. 3
  3205. 3
  3206. 3
  3207. 3
  3208. 3
  3209. 3
  3210. 3
  3211. 3
  3212. 3
  3213. 3
  3214. 3
  3215. 3
  3216. 3
  3217. 3
  3218. 3
  3219. 3
  3220. 3
  3221. 3
  3222. 3
  3223. 3
  3224. 3
  3225. 3
  3226. 3
  3227. 3
  3228. 3
  3229. 3
  3230. 3
  3231. 3
  3232. 3
  3233. 3
  3234. 3
  3235. 3
  3236. 3
  3237. 3
  3238. 3
  3239. 3
  3240. 3
  3241. 3
  3242. 3
  3243. 3
  3244. 3
  3245. 3
  3246. 3
  3247. 3
  3248. 3
  3249. 3
  3250. 3
  3251. 3
  3252. 3
  3253. 3
  3254. 3
  3255. 3
  3256. 3
  3257. 3
  3258. 3
  3259. 3
  3260. 3
  3261. 3
  3262. 3
  3263. 3
  3264. 3
  3265. 3
  3266. 3
  3267. 3
  3268. 3
  3269. 3
  3270. 3
  3271. 3
  3272. 3
  3273. 3
  3274. 3
  3275. 3
  3276. 3
  3277. 3
  3278. 3
  3279. 3
  3280. 3
  3281. 3
  3282. 3
  3283. 3
  3284. 3
  3285. 3
  3286. 3
  3287. 3
  3288. 3
  3289. 3
  3290. 3
  3291. 3
  3292. 3
  3293. 3
  3294. 3
  3295. 3
  3296. 3
  3297. 3
  3298. 3
  3299. 3
  3300. 3
  3301. 3
  3302. 3
  3303. 3
  3304. 3
  3305. 3
  3306. 3
  3307. 3
  3308. 3
  3309. 3
  3310. 3
  3311. 3
  3312. 3
  3313. 3
  3314. 3
  3315. 3
  3316. 3
  3317. 3
  3318. 3
  3319. 3
  3320. 3
  3321. 3
  3322. 3
  3323. 3
  3324. 3
  3325. 3
  3326. 3
  3327. ​ @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
  3328. 3
  3329. 3
  3330. 3
  3331. 3
  3332. 3
  3333. 3
  3334. 3
  3335. 3
  3336. 3
  3337. 3
  3338. 3
  3339. 3
  3340. 3
  3341. 3
  3342. 3
  3343. 3
  3344. 3
  3345. 3
  3346. 3
  3347. 3
  3348. 3
  3349. 3
  3350. 3
  3351. 3
  3352. 3
  3353. 3
  3354. 3
  3355. 3
  3356. 3
  3357. 3
  3358. 3
  3359. 3
  3360. 3
  3361. 3
  3362. 3
  3363. 3
  3364. 3
  3365. 3
  3366. 3
  3367. 3
  3368. 3
  3369. 3
  3370. 3
  3371. 3
  3372. 3
  3373. 3
  3374. 3
  3375. 3
  3376. 3
  3377. 3
  3378. 3
  3379. 3
  3380. 3
  3381. 3
  3382. 3
  3383. 3
  3384. 3
  3385. 3
  3386. 3
  3387. 3
  3388. 3
  3389. 3
  3390. 3
  3391. 3
  3392. 3
  3393. 3
  3394. 3
  3395. 3
  3396. 3
  3397. 3
  3398. 3
  3399. 3
  3400. 3
  3401. 3
  3402. 3
  3403. 3
  3404. 3
  3405. 3
  3406. 3
  3407. 3
  3408. 3
  3409. 3
  3410. 3
  3411. 3
  3412. 3
  3413. 3
  3414. 3
  3415. 3
  3416. 3
  3417. 3
  3418. 3
  3419. 3
  3420. 3
  3421. 3
  3422. 3
  3423. 3
  3424. 3
  3425. 3
  3426. 3
  3427. 3
  3428. 3
  3429. 3
  3430. 3
  3431. 3
  3432. 3
  3433. 3
  3434. 3
  3435. 3
  3436. 3
  3437. 3
  3438. 3
  3439. 3
  3440. 3
  3441. 3
  3442. 3
  3443. 3
  3444. 3
  3445. 3
  3446. 3
  3447. 3
  3448. 3
  3449. 3
  3450. 3
  3451. 3
  3452. 3
  3453. 3
  3454. 3
  3455. 3
  3456. 3
  3457. 3
  3458. 3
  3459. 3
  3460. 3
  3461. 3
  3462. 3
  3463. 3
  3464. 3
  3465. 3
  3466. 3
  3467. 3
  3468. 3
  3469. 3
  3470. 3
  3471. 3
  3472. 3
  3473. 3
  3474. 3
  3475. 3
  3476. 3
  3477. 3
  3478. 3
  3479. 3
  3480. 3
  3481. 3
  3482. 3
  3483. 3
  3484. 3
  3485. 3
  3486. 3
  3487. 3
  3488. 3
  3489. 3
  3490. 3
  3491. 3
  3492. 3
  3493. 3
  3494. 3
  3495. 3
  3496. 3
  3497. 3
  3498. 3
  3499. 3
  3500. 3
  3501. 3
  3502. 3
  3503. 3
  3504. 3
  3505. 3
  3506. 3
  3507. 3
  3508. 3
  3509. 3
  3510. 3
  3511. 3
  3512. 3
  3513. 3
  3514. 3
  3515. 3
  3516. 3
  3517. 3
  3518. 3
  3519. 3
  3520. 3
  3521. 3
  3522. 3
  3523. 3
  3524. 3
  3525. 3
  3526. 3
  3527. 3
  3528. 3
  3529. 3
  3530. 3
  3531. 3
  3532. 3
  3533. 3
  3534. 3
  3535. 3
  3536. 3
  3537. 3
  3538. 3
  3539. 3
  3540. 3
  3541. 3
  3542. 3
  3543. 3
  3544. 3
  3545. 3
  3546. 3
  3547. 3
  3548. 3
  3549. 3
  3550. 3
  3551. 3
  3552. 3
  3553. 3
  3554. 3
  3555. 3
  3556. 3
  3557. 3
  3558. 3
  3559. 3
  3560. 3
  3561. 3
  3562. 3
  3563. 3
  3564. 3
  3565. 3
  3566. 3
  3567. 3
  3568. 3
  3569. 3
  3570. 3
  3571. 3
  3572. 3
  3573. 3
  3574. 3
  3575. 3
  3576. 3
  3577. 3
  3578. 3
  3579. 3
  3580. 3
  3581. 3
  3582. 3
  3583. 3
  3584. 3
  3585. 3
  3586. 3
  3587. 3
  3588. 3
  3589. 3
  3590. 3
  3591. 3
  3592. 3
  3593. 3
  3594. 3
  3595. 3
  3596. 3
  3597. 3
  3598. 3
  3599. 3
  3600. 3
  3601. 3
  3602. 3
  3603. 3
  3604. 3
  3605. 3
  3606. 3
  3607. 3
  3608. 3
  3609. 3
  3610. 3
  3611. 3
  3612. 3
  3613. 3
  3614. 3
  3615. 3
  3616. 3
  3617. 3
  3618. 3
  3619. 3
  3620. 3
  3621. 3
  3622. 3
  3623. 3
  3624. 3
  3625. 3
  3626. 3
  3627. 3
  3628. 3
  3629. 3
  3630. 3
  3631. 3
  3632. 3
  3633. 3
  3634. 3
  3635. 3
  3636. 3
  3637. 3
  3638. 3
  3639. 3
  3640. 3
  3641. 3
  3642. 3
  3643. 3
  3644. 3
  3645. 3
  3646. 3
  3647. 3
  3648. 3
  3649. 3
  3650. 3
  3651. 3
  3652. 3
  3653. 3
  3654. 3
  3655. 3
  3656. 3
  3657. 3
  3658. 3
  3659. 3
  3660. 3
  3661. 3
  3662. 3
  3663. 3
  3664. 3
  3665. 3
  3666. 3
  3667. 3
  3668. 3
  3669. 3
  3670. 3
  3671. 3
  3672. 3
  3673. 3
  3674. 3
  3675. 3
  3676. 3
  3677. 3
  3678. 3
  3679. 3
  3680. 3
  3681. 3
  3682. 3
  3683. 3
  3684. 3
  3685. 3
  3686. 3
  3687. 3
  3688. 3
  3689. 3
  3690. 3
  3691. 3
  3692. 3
  3693. 3
  3694. 3
  3695. 3
  3696. 3
  3697. 3
  3698. 3
  3699. 3
  3700. 3
  3701. 3
  3702. 3
  3703. 3
  3704. 3
  3705. 3
  3706. 3
  3707. 3
  3708. 3
  3709. 3
  3710. 3
  3711. 3
  3712. 3
  3713. 3
  3714. 3
  3715. 3
  3716. 3
  3717. 3
  3718. 3
  3719. 3
  3720. 3
  3721. 3
  3722. 3
  3723. 3
  3724. 3
  3725. 3
  3726. 3
  3727. 3
  3728. 3
  3729. 3
  3730. 3
  3731. 3
  3732. 3
  3733. 3
  3734. 3
  3735. 3
  3736. 3
  3737. 3
  3738. 3
  3739. 3
  3740. 3
  3741. 3
  3742. 3
  3743. 3
  3744. 3
  3745. 3
  3746. 3
  3747. 3
  3748. 3
  3749. 3
  3750. 3
  3751. 3
  3752. 3
  3753. 3
  3754. 3
  3755. 3
  3756. 3
  3757. 3
  3758. 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
  3759. 3
  3760. 3
  3761. 3
  3762. 3
  3763. 3
  3764. 3
  3765. 3
  3766. 3
  3767. 3
  3768. 3
  3769. 3
  3770. 3
  3771. 3
  3772. 3
  3773. 3
  3774. 3
  3775. 3
  3776. 3
  3777. 3
  3778. 3
  3779. 3
  3780. 3
  3781. 3
  3782. 3
  3783. 3
  3784. 3
  3785. 3
  3786. 3
  3787. 3
  3788. 3
  3789. 3
  3790. 3
  3791. 3
  3792. 3
  3793. 3
  3794. 3
  3795. 3
  3796. 3
  3797. 3
  3798. 3
  3799. 3
  3800. 3
  3801. 3
  3802. 3
  3803. 3
  3804. 3
  3805. 3
  3806. 3
  3807. 3
  3808. 3
  3809. 3
  3810. 3
  3811. 3
  3812. 3
  3813. 3
  3814. 3
  3815. 3
  3816. 3
  3817. 3
  3818. 3
  3819. 3
  3820. 3
  3821. 3
  3822. 3
  3823. 3
  3824. 3
  3825. 3
  3826. 3
  3827. 3
  3828. 3
  3829. 3
  3830. 3
  3831. 3
  3832. 3
  3833. 3
  3834. 3
  3835. 3
  3836. 3
  3837. 3
  3838. 3
  3839. 3
  3840. 3
  3841. 3
  3842. 3
  3843. 3
  3844. 3
  3845. 3
  3846. 3
  3847. 3
  3848. 3
  3849. 3
  3850. 3
  3851. 3
  3852. 3
  3853. 3
  3854. 3
  3855. 3
  3856. 3
  3857. 3
  3858. 3
  3859. 3
  3860. 3
  3861. 3
  3862. 3
  3863. 3
  3864. 3
  3865. 3
  3866. 3
  3867. 3
  3868. 3
  3869. 3
  3870. 3
  3871. 3
  3872. 3
  3873. 3
  3874. 3
  3875. 3
  3876. 3
  3877. 3
  3878. 3
  3879. 3
  3880. 3
  3881. 3
  3882. 3
  3883. 3
  3884. 3
  3885. 3
  3886. 3
  3887. 3
  3888. 3
  3889. 3
  3890. 3
  3891. 3
  3892. 3
  3893. 3
  3894. 3
  3895. 3
  3896. 3
  3897. 3
  3898. 3
  3899. 3
  3900. 3
  3901. 3
  3902. 3
  3903. 3
  3904. 3
  3905. 3
  3906. 3
  3907. 3
  3908. 3
  3909. 3
  3910. 3
  3911. 3
  3912. ​ @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
  3913. 3
  3914. 3
  3915. 3
  3916. 3
  3917. 3
  3918. 3
  3919. 3
  3920. 3
  3921. 3
  3922. 3
  3923. 3
  3924. 3
  3925. 3
  3926. 3
  3927. 3
  3928. 3
  3929. 3
  3930. 3
  3931. 3
  3932. 3
  3933. 3
  3934. 3
  3935. 3
  3936. 3
  3937. 3
  3938. 3
  3939. 3
  3940. 3
  3941. 3
  3942. 3
  3943. 3
  3944. 3
  3945. 3
  3946. 3
  3947. 3
  3948. 3
  3949. 3
  3950. 3
  3951. 3
  3952. 3
  3953. 3
  3954. 3
  3955. 3
  3956. 3
  3957. 3
  3958. 3
  3959. 3
  3960. 3
  3961. 3
  3962. 3
  3963. 3
  3964. 3
  3965. 3
  3966. 3
  3967. 3
  3968. 3
  3969. 3
  3970. 3
  3971. 3
  3972. 3
  3973. 3
  3974. 3
  3975. 3
  3976. 3
  3977. 3
  3978. 3
  3979. 3
  3980. 3
  3981. 3
  3982. 3
  3983. 3
  3984. 3
  3985. 3
  3986. 3
  3987. 3
  3988. 3
  3989. 3
  3990. 3
  3991. 3
  3992. 3
  3993. 3
  3994. 3
  3995. 3
  3996. 3
  3997. 3
  3998. 3
  3999. 3
  4000. 3
  4001. 3
  4002. 3
  4003. 3
  4004. 3
  4005. 3
  4006. 3
  4007. 3
  4008. 3
  4009. 3
  4010. 3
  4011. 3
  4012. 3
  4013. 3
  4014. 3
  4015. 3
  4016. 3
  4017. 3
  4018. 3
  4019. 3
  4020. 3
  4021. 3
  4022. 3
  4023. 3
  4024. 3
  4025. 3
  4026. 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
  4027. 3
  4028.  @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
  4029. 3
  4030. 3
  4031. 3
  4032. 3
  4033. 3
  4034. 3
  4035. 3
  4036. 3
  4037. 3
  4038. 3
  4039. 3
  4040. 3
  4041. 3
  4042. 3
  4043. 3
  4044. 3
  4045. 3
  4046. 3
  4047. 3
  4048. 3
  4049. 3
  4050. 3
  4051. 3
  4052. 3
  4053. 3
  4054. 3
  4055. 3
  4056. 3
  4057. 3
  4058. 3
  4059. 3
  4060. 3
  4061. 3
  4062. 3
  4063. 3
  4064. 3
  4065. 3
  4066. 3
  4067. 3
  4068. 3
  4069. 3
  4070. 3
  4071. 3
  4072. 3
  4073. 3
  4074. 3
  4075. 3
  4076. 3
  4077. 3
  4078. 3
  4079. 3
  4080. 3
  4081. 3
  4082. 3
  4083. 3
  4084. 3
  4085. 3
  4086. 3
  4087. 3
  4088. 3
  4089. 3
  4090. 3
  4091. 3
  4092. 3
  4093. 3
  4094. 3
  4095. 3
  4096. 3
  4097. 3
  4098. 3
  4099. 3
  4100. 3
  4101. 3
  4102. 3
  4103. 3
  4104. 3
  4105. 3
  4106. 3
  4107. 3
  4108. 3
  4109. 3
  4110. 3
  4111. 3
  4112. 3
  4113. 3
  4114. 3
  4115. 3
  4116. 3
  4117. 3
  4118. 3
  4119. 3
  4120. 3
  4121. 3
  4122. 3
  4123. 3
  4124. 3
  4125. 3
  4126. 3
  4127. 3
  4128. 3
  4129. 3
  4130. 3
  4131. 3
  4132. 3
  4133. 3
  4134. 3
  4135. 3
  4136. 3
  4137. 3
  4138. 3
  4139. 3
  4140. 3
  4141. 3
  4142. 3
  4143. 3
  4144. 3
  4145. 3
  4146. 3
  4147. 3
  4148. 3
  4149. 3
  4150. 3
  4151. 3
  4152. 3
  4153. 3
  4154. 3
  4155. 3
  4156. 3
  4157. 3
  4158. 3
  4159. 3
  4160. 3
  4161. 3
  4162. 3
  4163. 3
  4164. 3
  4165. 3
  4166. 3
  4167. 3
  4168. 3
  4169. 3
  4170. 3
  4171. 3
  4172. 3
  4173. 3
  4174. 3
  4175. 3
  4176. 3
  4177. 3
  4178. 3
  4179. 3
  4180. 3
  4181. 3
  4182. 3
  4183. 3
  4184. 3
  4185. 3
  4186. 3
  4187. 3
  4188. 3
  4189. 3
  4190. 3
  4191. 3
  4192. 3
  4193. 3
  4194. 3
  4195. 3
  4196. 3
  4197. 3
  4198. 3
  4199. 3
  4200. 3
  4201. 3
  4202. 3
  4203. 3
  4204. 3
  4205. 3
  4206. 3
  4207. 3
  4208. 3
  4209. 3
  4210. 3
  4211. 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
  4212. 3
  4213. 3
  4214. 3
  4215. 3
  4216. 3
  4217. 3
  4218. 3
  4219. 3
  4220. 3
  4221. 3
  4222. 3
  4223. 3
  4224. 3
  4225. 3
  4226. 3
  4227. 3
  4228. 3
  4229. 3
  4230. 3
  4231. 3
  4232. 3
  4233. 3
  4234. 3
  4235. 3
  4236. 3
  4237. 3
  4238. 3
  4239. 3
  4240. 3
  4241. 3
  4242. 3
  4243. 3
  4244. 3
  4245. 3
  4246. 3
  4247. 3
  4248. 3
  4249. 3
  4250. 3
  4251. 3
  4252. 3
  4253. 3
  4254. 3
  4255. 3
  4256. 3
  4257. 3
  4258. 3
  4259. 3
  4260. 3
  4261. 3
  4262. 3
  4263. 3
  4264. 3
  4265. 3
  4266. 3
  4267. 3
  4268. 3
  4269. 3
  4270. 3
  4271. 3
  4272. 3
  4273. 3
  4274. 3
  4275. 3
  4276. 3
  4277. 3
  4278. 3
  4279. 3
  4280. 3
  4281. 3
  4282. 3
  4283. 3
  4284. 3
  4285. 3
  4286. 3
  4287. 3
  4288. 3
  4289. 3
  4290. 3
  4291. 3
  4292. 3
  4293. 3
  4294. 3
  4295. 3
  4296. 3
  4297. 3
  4298. 3
  4299. 3
  4300. 3
  4301. 3
  4302. 3
  4303. 3
  4304. 3
  4305. 3
  4306. 3
  4307. 3
  4308. 3
  4309. 3
  4310. 3
  4311. 3
  4312. 3
  4313. 3
  4314. 3
  4315. 3
  4316. 3
  4317. 3
  4318. 3
  4319. 3
  4320. 3
  4321. 3
  4322. 3
  4323. 3
  4324. 3
  4325. 3
  4326. 3
  4327. 3
  4328. 3
  4329. 3
  4330. 3
  4331. 3
  4332. 3
  4333. 3
  4334. 3
  4335. 3
  4336. 3
  4337. 3
  4338. 3
  4339. 3
  4340. 3
  4341. 3
  4342. 3
  4343. 3
  4344. 3
  4345. 3
  4346. 3
  4347. 3
  4348. 3
  4349. 3
  4350. 3
  4351. 3
  4352. 3
  4353. 3
  4354. 3
  4355. 3
  4356. 3
  4357. 3
  4358. 3
  4359. 3
  4360. 3
  4361. 3
  4362. 3
  4363. 3
  4364. 3
  4365. 3
  4366. 3
  4367. 3
  4368. 3
  4369. 3
  4370. 3
  4371. 3
  4372. 3
  4373. 3
  4374. 3
  4375. 3
  4376. 3
  4377. 3
  4378. 3
  4379. 3
  4380. ​ @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
  4381. 3
  4382. 3
  4383. 3
  4384. 3
  4385. 2
  4386. 2
  4387. 2
  4388. 2
  4389. 2
  4390. 2
  4391. 2
  4392. 2
  4393. 2
  4394. 2
  4395. 2
  4396. 2
  4397. 2
  4398. 2
  4399. 2
  4400. 2
  4401. 2
  4402. 2
  4403. 2
  4404. 2
  4405. 2
  4406. 2
  4407. 2
  4408. 2
  4409. 2
  4410. 2
  4411. 2
  4412. 2
  4413. 2
  4414. 2
  4415. 2
  4416. 2
  4417. 2
  4418. 2
  4419. 2
  4420. 2
  4421. 2
  4422. 2
  4423. 2
  4424. 2
  4425. 2
  4426. 2
  4427. 2
  4428. 2
  4429. 2
  4430. 2
  4431. 2
  4432. 2
  4433. 2
  4434. 2
  4435. 2
  4436. 2
  4437. 2
  4438. 2
  4439. 2
  4440. 2
  4441. 2
  4442. 2
  4443. 2
  4444. 2
  4445. 2
  4446. 2
  4447. 2
  4448. 2
  4449. 2
  4450. 2
  4451. 2
  4452. 2
  4453. 2
  4454. 2
  4455. 2
  4456. 2
  4457. 2
  4458. 2
  4459. 2
  4460. 2
  4461. 2
  4462. 2
  4463. 2
  4464. 2
  4465. 2
  4466. 2
  4467. 2
  4468. 2
  4469. 2
  4470. 2
  4471. 2
  4472.  @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
  4473. 2
  4474. 2
  4475. 2
  4476. 2
  4477. 2
  4478. 2
  4479. 2
  4480. 2
  4481. 2
  4482. 2
  4483. 2
  4484. 2
  4485. 2
  4486. 2
  4487. 2
  4488. 2
  4489. 2
  4490. 2
  4491. 2
  4492. 2
  4493. 2
  4494. 2
  4495. 2
  4496. 2
  4497. 2
  4498. 2
  4499. 2
  4500. 2
  4501. 2
  4502. 2
  4503. 2
  4504. 2
  4505. 2
  4506. 2
  4507. 2
  4508. 2
  4509. 2
  4510. 2
  4511. 2
  4512. 2
  4513. 2
  4514. 2
  4515. 2
  4516. 2
  4517. 2
  4518. 2
  4519. 2
  4520. 2
  4521. 2
  4522. 2
  4523. 2
  4524. 2
  4525. 2
  4526. 2
  4527. 2
  4528. 2
  4529. 2
  4530. 2
  4531. 2
  4532. 2
  4533. 2
  4534. 2
  4535. 2
  4536. 2
  4537. 2
  4538. 2
  4539. 2
  4540. 2
  4541. 2
  4542. 2
  4543. 2
  4544. 2
  4545. 2
  4546. 2
  4547. 2
  4548. 2
  4549. 2
  4550. 2
  4551. 2
  4552. 2
  4553. 2
  4554. 2
  4555. 2
  4556. 2
  4557. 2
  4558. 2
  4559. 2
  4560. 2
  4561. 2
  4562. 2
  4563. 2
  4564. 2
  4565. 2
  4566. 2
  4567. 2
  4568. 2
  4569. 2
  4570. 2
  4571. 2
  4572. 2
  4573. 2
  4574. 2
  4575. 2
  4576. 2
  4577. 2
  4578. 2
  4579. 2
  4580. 2
  4581. 2
  4582. 2
  4583. 2
  4584. 2
  4585. 2
  4586. 2
  4587. 2
  4588. 2
  4589. 2
  4590. 2
  4591.  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
  4592. 2
  4593. 2
  4594. 2
  4595. 2
  4596. 2
  4597. 2
  4598. 2
  4599. 2
  4600. 2
  4601. 2
  4602. 2
  4603. 2
  4604. 2
  4605. 2
  4606. 2
  4607. 2
  4608. 2
  4609. 2
  4610. 2
  4611. 2
  4612. 2
  4613. 2
  4614. 2
  4615. 2
  4616. 2
  4617. 2
  4618. 2
  4619. 2
  4620. 2
  4621. 2
  4622. 2
  4623. 2
  4624. 2
  4625. 2
  4626. 2
  4627. 2
  4628. 2
  4629. 2
  4630. 2
  4631. 2
  4632. 2
  4633. 2
  4634. 2
  4635. 2
  4636. 2
  4637. 2
  4638. 2
  4639. 2
  4640. 2
  4641. 2
  4642. 2
  4643. 2
  4644. 2
  4645. 2
  4646. 2
  4647. 2
  4648. 2
  4649. 2
  4650. 2
  4651. 2
  4652. 2
  4653. 2
  4654. 2
  4655. 2
  4656. 2
  4657. 2
  4658. 2
  4659. 2
  4660. 2
  4661. 2
  4662. 2
  4663. 2
  4664. 2
  4665. 2
  4666. 2
  4667. 2
  4668. 2
  4669. 2
  4670. 2
  4671. 2
  4672. 2
  4673. 2
  4674. 2
  4675. 2
  4676. 2
  4677. 2
  4678. 2
  4679. 2
  4680. 2
  4681. 2
  4682. 2
  4683. 2
  4684. 2
  4685. 2
  4686. 2
  4687. 2
  4688. 2
  4689. 2
  4690. 2
  4691. 2
  4692. 2
  4693. 2
  4694. 2
  4695. 2
  4696. 2
  4697. 2
  4698. 2
  4699. 2
  4700. 2
  4701. 2
  4702. 2
  4703. 2
  4704. 2
  4705. 2
  4706. 2
  4707. 2
  4708. 2
  4709. 2
  4710. 2
  4711. 2
  4712. 2
  4713. 2
  4714. 2
  4715. 2
  4716. 2
  4717. 2
  4718. 2
  4719. 2
  4720. 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
  4721. 2
  4722. 2
  4723. 2
  4724. 2
  4725. 2
  4726. 2
  4727. 2
  4728. 2
  4729. 2
  4730. 2
  4731. 2
  4732. 2
  4733. 2
  4734. 2
  4735. 2
  4736. 2
  4737. 2
  4738. 2
  4739. 2
  4740. 2
  4741. 2
  4742. 2
  4743. 2
  4744. 2
  4745. 2
  4746. 2
  4747. 2
  4748. 2
  4749. 2
  4750. 2
  4751. 2
  4752. 2
  4753. 2
  4754. 2
  4755. 2
  4756. 2
  4757. 2
  4758. 2
  4759. 2
  4760. 2
  4761. 2
  4762. 2
  4763. 2
  4764. 2
  4765. 2
  4766. 2
  4767. 2
  4768. 2
  4769. 2
  4770. 2
  4771. 2
  4772. 2
  4773. 2
  4774. 2
  4775. 2
  4776.  @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
  4777. 2
  4778. 2
  4779. 2
  4780. 2
  4781. 2
  4782. 2
  4783. 2
  4784. 2
  4785. 2
  4786. 2
  4787. 2
  4788. 2
  4789. 2
  4790. 2
  4791. 2
  4792. 2
  4793. 2
  4794. 2
  4795. 2
  4796. 2
  4797. 2
  4798. 2
  4799. 2
  4800. 2
  4801. 2
  4802. 2
  4803. 2
  4804. 2
  4805. 2
  4806. 2
  4807. 2
  4808. 2
  4809. 2
  4810. 2
  4811. 2
  4812. 2
  4813. 2
  4814. 2
  4815. 2
  4816. 2
  4817. 2
  4818. 2
  4819. 2
  4820. 2
  4821. 2
  4822. 2
  4823. 2
  4824. 2
  4825. 2
  4826. 2
  4827. 2
  4828. 2
  4829. 2
  4830. 2
  4831. 2
  4832. 2
  4833. 2
  4834. 2
  4835. 2
  4836. 2
  4837. 2
  4838. 2
  4839. 2
  4840. 2
  4841. 2
  4842. 2
  4843. 2
  4844. 2
  4845. 2
  4846. 2
  4847. 2
  4848. 2
  4849. 2
  4850. 2
  4851. 2
  4852. 2
  4853. 2
  4854. 2
  4855. 2
  4856. 2
  4857. 2
  4858. 2
  4859. 2
  4860. 2
  4861. 2
  4862. 2
  4863. 2
  4864. 2
  4865. 2
  4866. 2
  4867. 2
  4868. 2
  4869. 2
  4870. 2
  4871. 2
  4872. 2
  4873. 2
  4874. 2
  4875. 2
  4876. 2
  4877. 2
  4878. 2
  4879. 2
  4880. 2
  4881. 2
  4882. 2
  4883. 2
  4884. 2
  4885. 2
  4886. 2
  4887. 2
  4888. 2
  4889. 2
  4890. 2
  4891. 2
  4892. 2
  4893. 2
  4894. 2
  4895. 2
  4896. 2
  4897. 2
  4898. 2
  4899. 2
  4900. 2
  4901. 2
  4902. 2
  4903. 2
  4904. 2
  4905. 2
  4906. 2
  4907. 2
  4908. 2
  4909. 2
  4910. 2
  4911. 2
  4912. 2
  4913. 2
  4914. 2
  4915. 2
  4916. 2
  4917. 2
  4918. 2
  4919. 2
  4920. 2
  4921. 2
  4922. 2
  4923. 2
  4924. 2
  4925. 2
  4926. 2
  4927. 2
  4928. 2
  4929. 2
  4930. 2
  4931. 2
  4932. 2
  4933. 2
  4934. 2
  4935. 2
  4936. 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
  4937. 2
  4938. 2
  4939. 2
  4940. 2
  4941. 2
  4942. 2
  4943. 2
  4944. 2
  4945. 2
  4946. 2
  4947. 2
  4948. 2
  4949. 2
  4950. 2
  4951. 2
  4952. 2
  4953. 2
  4954. 2
  4955. 2
  4956. 2
  4957. 2
  4958. 2
  4959. 2
  4960. 2
  4961. 2
  4962. 2
  4963. 2
  4964. 2
  4965. 2
  4966. 2
  4967. 2
  4968. 2
  4969. 2
  4970. 2
  4971. 2
  4972. 2
  4973. 2
  4974.  @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
  4975. 2
  4976. 2
  4977. 2
  4978. 2
  4979. 2
  4980. 2
  4981. 2
  4982. 2
  4983. 2
  4984. 2
  4985. 2
  4986. 2
  4987. 2
  4988. 2
  4989. 2
  4990. 2
  4991. 2
  4992. 2
  4993. 2
  4994. 2
  4995. 2
  4996. 2
  4997. 2
  4998. 2
  4999. 2
  5000. 2
  5001. 2
  5002. 2
  5003. 2
  5004. 2
  5005. 2
  5006. 2
  5007. 2
  5008. 2
  5009. 2
  5010. 2
  5011. 2
  5012. 2
  5013. 2
  5014. 2
  5015. 2
  5016. 2
  5017. 2
  5018. 2
  5019. 2
  5020. 2
  5021. 2
  5022. 2
  5023. 2
  5024. 2
  5025. 2
  5026. 2
  5027. 2
  5028. 2
  5029. 2
  5030. 2
  5031. 2
  5032. 2
  5033. 2
  5034. 2
  5035. 2
  5036. 2
  5037. 2
  5038. 2
  5039. 2
  5040. 2
  5041. 2
  5042. 2
  5043. 2
  5044. 2
  5045. 2
  5046. 2
  5047. 2
  5048. 2
  5049. 2
  5050. 2
  5051. 2
  5052. 2
  5053. 2
  5054. 2
  5055. 2
  5056. 2
  5057. 2
  5058. 2
  5059. 2
  5060. 2
  5061. 2
  5062. 2
  5063. 2
  5064. 2
  5065. 2
  5066. 2
  5067. 2
  5068. 2
  5069. 2
  5070. 2
  5071. 2
  5072. 2
  5073. 2
  5074. 2
  5075. 2
  5076. 2
  5077. 2
  5078. 2
  5079. 2
  5080. 2
  5081. 2
  5082. 2
  5083. 2
  5084. 2
  5085. 2
  5086. 2
  5087. 2
  5088. 2
  5089. 2
  5090. 2
  5091. 2
  5092. 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
  5093. 2
  5094. 2
  5095. 2
  5096. 2
  5097. 2
  5098. 2
  5099. 2
  5100. 2
  5101. 2
  5102. 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
  5103. 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
  5104. 2
  5105. 2
  5106. 2
  5107. 2
  5108. 2
  5109. 2
  5110. 2
  5111. 2
  5112. 2
  5113. 2
  5114. 2
  5115. 2
  5116. 2
  5117. 2
  5118. 2
  5119. 2
  5120. 2
  5121. 2
  5122. 2
  5123. 2
  5124. 2
  5125. 2
  5126. 2
  5127. 2
  5128. 2
  5129. 2
  5130. 2
  5131. 2
  5132. 2
  5133. 2
  5134. 2
  5135. 2
  5136. 2
  5137. 2
  5138. 2
  5139. 2
  5140. 2
  5141. 2
  5142. 2
  5143. 2
  5144. 2
  5145. 2
  5146. 2
  5147. 2
  5148. 2
  5149. 2
  5150. 2
  5151. 2
  5152. 2
  5153. 2
  5154. 2
  5155. 2
  5156. 2
  5157. 2
  5158. 2
  5159. 2
  5160. 2
  5161. 2
  5162. 2
  5163. 2
  5164. 2
  5165. 2
  5166. 2
  5167. 2
  5168. 2
  5169. 2
  5170. 2
  5171. 2
  5172. 2
  5173. 2
  5174. 2
  5175. 2
  5176. 2
  5177. 2
  5178. 2
  5179. 2
  5180. 2
  5181. 2
  5182. 2
  5183. 2
  5184. 2
  5185. 2
  5186. 2
  5187. 2
  5188. 2
  5189. 2
  5190. 2
  5191. 2
  5192. 2
  5193. 2
  5194. 2
  5195. 2
  5196. 2
  5197. 2
  5198. 2
  5199. 2
  5200. 2
  5201. 2
  5202. 2
  5203. 2
  5204. 2
  5205. 2
  5206. 2
  5207. 2
  5208. 2
  5209. 2
  5210. 2
  5211. 2
  5212. 2
  5213. 2
  5214. 2
  5215. 2
  5216. 2
  5217. 2
  5218. 2
  5219. 2
  5220. 2
  5221. 2
  5222. 2
  5223. 2
  5224. 2
  5225. 2
  5226. 2
  5227. 2
  5228. 2
  5229. 2
  5230. 2
  5231. 2
  5232. 2
  5233. 2
  5234. 2
  5235. 2
  5236. 2
  5237. 2
  5238. 2
  5239. 2
  5240. 2
  5241. 2
  5242. 2
  5243. 2
  5244. 2
  5245. 2
  5246. 2
  5247. 2
  5248. 2
  5249. 2
  5250. 2
  5251. 2
  5252. 2
  5253. 2
  5254. 2
  5255. 2
  5256. 2
  5257. 2
  5258. 2
  5259. 2
  5260. 2
  5261. 2
  5262. 2
  5263. 2
  5264. 2
  5265. 2
  5266. 2
  5267. 2
  5268. 2
  5269. 2
  5270. 2
  5271. 2
  5272. 2
  5273. 2
  5274. 2
  5275. 2
  5276. 2
  5277. 2
  5278. 2
  5279. 2
  5280. 2
  5281. 2
  5282. 2
  5283. 2
  5284. 2
  5285. 2
  5286. 2
  5287. 2
  5288. 2
  5289. 2
  5290. 2
  5291. 2
  5292. 2
  5293. 2
  5294. 2
  5295. 2
  5296. 2
  5297. 2
  5298. 2
  5299. 2
  5300. 2
  5301. 2
  5302. 2
  5303. 2
  5304. 2
  5305. 2
  5306. 2
  5307. 2
  5308. 2
  5309. 2
  5310. 2
  5311. 2
  5312. 2
  5313. 2
  5314. 2
  5315. 2
  5316. 2
  5317. 2
  5318. 2
  5319. 2
  5320. 2
  5321. 2
  5322. 2
  5323. 2
  5324. 2
  5325. 2
  5326. 2
  5327. 2
  5328. 2
  5329. 2
  5330. 2
  5331. 2
  5332. 2
  5333. 2
  5334. 2
  5335. 2
  5336. 2
  5337. 2
  5338. 2
  5339. 2
  5340. 2
  5341. 2
  5342. 2
  5343. 2
  5344. 2
  5345. 2
  5346. 2
  5347. 2
  5348. 2
  5349. 2
  5350. 2
  5351. 2
  5352. 2
  5353. 2
  5354. 2
  5355. 2
  5356. 2
  5357. 2
  5358. 2
  5359. 2
  5360. 2
  5361. 2
  5362. 2
  5363. 2
  5364. 2
  5365. 2
  5366. 2
  5367. 2
  5368. 2
  5369. 2
  5370. 2
  5371. 2
  5372. 2
  5373. 2
  5374. 2
  5375. 2
  5376. 2
  5377. 2
  5378. 2
  5379. 2
  5380. 2
  5381. 2
  5382. 2
  5383. 2
  5384. 2
  5385. 2
  5386. 2
  5387. 2
  5388. 2
  5389. 2
  5390. 2
  5391. 2
  5392. 2
  5393. 2
  5394. 2
  5395. 2
  5396. 2
  5397. 2
  5398. 2
  5399. 2
  5400. 2
  5401. 2
  5402. 2
  5403. 2
  5404. 2
  5405. 2
  5406. 2
  5407. 2
  5408. 2
  5409. 2
  5410. 2
  5411. 2
  5412. 2
  5413. 2
  5414. 2
  5415. 2
  5416. 2
  5417. 2
  5418. 2
  5419. 2
  5420. 2
  5421. 2
  5422. 2
  5423. 2
  5424. 2
  5425. 2
  5426. 2
  5427. 2
  5428. 2
  5429. 2
  5430. 2
  5431. 2
  5432. 2
  5433. 2
  5434. 2
  5435. 2
  5436. 2
  5437. 2
  5438. 2
  5439. 2
  5440. 2
  5441. 2
  5442.  @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
  5443. 2
  5444. 2
  5445. 2
  5446. 2
  5447. 2
  5448. 2
  5449. 2
  5450. 2
  5451. 2
  5452. 2
  5453. 2
  5454. 2
  5455. 2
  5456. 2
  5457. 2
  5458. 2
  5459. 2
  5460. 2
  5461. 2
  5462. 2
  5463. 2
  5464. 2
  5465. 2
  5466. 2
  5467. 2
  5468. 2
  5469. 2
  5470. 2
  5471. 2
  5472. 2
  5473. 2
  5474. 2
  5475. 2
  5476. 2
  5477. 2
  5478. 2
  5479. 2
  5480. 2
  5481. 2
  5482. 2
  5483. 2
  5484. 2
  5485. 2
  5486. 2
  5487. 2
  5488. 2
  5489. 2
  5490. 2
  5491. 2
  5492. 2
  5493. 2
  5494. 2
  5495. 2
  5496. 2
  5497. 2
  5498. 2
  5499. 2
  5500. 2
  5501. 2
  5502. 2
  5503. 2
  5504. 2
  5505. 2
  5506. 2
  5507. 2
  5508. 2
  5509. 2
  5510. 2
  5511. 2
  5512. 2
  5513. 2
  5514. 2
  5515. 2
  5516. 2
  5517. 2
  5518. 2
  5519. 2
  5520. 2
  5521. 2
  5522. 2
  5523. 2
  5524. 2
  5525. 2
  5526. 2
  5527. 2
  5528. 2
  5529. 2
  5530. 2
  5531. 2
  5532. 2
  5533. 2
  5534. 2
  5535. 2
  5536. 2
  5537. 2
  5538. 2
  5539. 2
  5540. 2
  5541. 2
  5542. 2
  5543. 2
  5544. 2
  5545. 2
  5546. 2
  5547. 2
  5548. 2
  5549. 2
  5550. 2
  5551. 2
  5552. 2
  5553.  @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
  5554. 2
  5555. 2
  5556. 2
  5557. 2
  5558. 2
  5559. 2
  5560. 2
  5561. 2
  5562. 2
  5563. 2
  5564. 2
  5565. 2
  5566. 2
  5567. 2
  5568. 2
  5569. 2
  5570. 2
  5571. 2
  5572. 2
  5573. 2
  5574. 2
  5575. 2
  5576. 2
  5577. 2
  5578. 2
  5579. 2
  5580. 2
  5581. 2
  5582. 2
  5583. 2
  5584. 2
  5585. 2
  5586. 2
  5587. 2
  5588. 2
  5589. 2
  5590. 2
  5591. 2
  5592. 2
  5593. 2
  5594. 2
  5595. 2
  5596. 2
  5597. 2
  5598. 2
  5599. 2
  5600. 2
  5601. 2
  5602. 2
  5603. 2
  5604. 2
  5605. 2
  5606. 2
  5607. 2
  5608. 2
  5609. 2
  5610. 2
  5611. 2
  5612. 2
  5613. 2
  5614. 2
  5615. 2
  5616. 2
  5617. 2
  5618. 2
  5619. 2
  5620. 2
  5621. 2
  5622. 2
  5623. 2
  5624. 2
  5625. 2
  5626. 2
  5627. 2
  5628. 2
  5629. 2
  5630. 2
  5631. 2
  5632. 2
  5633. 2
  5634. 2
  5635. 2
  5636. 2
  5637. 2
  5638. 2
  5639. 2
  5640. 2
  5641. 2
  5642. 2
  5643. 2
  5644. 2
  5645. 2
  5646. 2
  5647. 2
  5648. 2
  5649. 2
  5650. 2
  5651. 2
  5652. 2
  5653. 2
  5654. 2
  5655. 2
  5656. 2
  5657. 2
  5658. 2
  5659. 2
  5660. 2
  5661. 2
  5662. 2
  5663. 2
  5664. 2
  5665. 2
  5666. 2
  5667. 2
  5668. 2
  5669. 2
  5670. 2
  5671. 2
  5672. 2
  5673. 2
  5674. 2
  5675. 2
  5676. 2
  5677. 2
  5678. 2
  5679. 2
  5680. 2
  5681. 2
  5682. 2
  5683. 2
  5684. 2
  5685. 2
  5686. 2
  5687. 2
  5688. 2
  5689. 2
  5690. 2
  5691. 2
  5692. 2
  5693. 2
  5694. 2
  5695. 2
  5696. 2
  5697. 2
  5698. 2
  5699. 2
  5700. 2
  5701. 2
  5702. 2
  5703. 2
  5704. 2
  5705. 2
  5706. 2
  5707. 2
  5708. 2
  5709. 2
  5710. 2
  5711. 2
  5712. 2
  5713. 2
  5714. 2
  5715. 2
  5716. 2
  5717. 2
  5718. 2
  5719. 2
  5720. 2
  5721. 2
  5722. 2
  5723. 2
  5724. 2
  5725. 2
  5726. 2
  5727. 2
  5728. 2
  5729. 2
  5730. 2
  5731. 2
  5732. 2
  5733. 2
  5734. 2
  5735. 2
  5736. 2
  5737. 2
  5738. 2
  5739. 2
  5740. 2
  5741. 2
  5742.  @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
  5743. 2
  5744. 2
  5745. 2
  5746. 2
  5747. 2
  5748. 2
  5749. 2
  5750. 2
  5751. 2
  5752. 2
  5753. 2
  5754. 2
  5755. 2
  5756. 2
  5757. 2
  5758. 2
  5759. 2
  5760. 2
  5761. 2
  5762. 2
  5763. 2
  5764. 2
  5765. 2
  5766. 2
  5767. 2
  5768. 2
  5769. 2
  5770. 2
  5771. 2
  5772. 2
  5773. 2
  5774. 2
  5775. 2
  5776. 2
  5777. 2
  5778. 2
  5779. 2
  5780. 2
  5781. 2
  5782. 2
  5783. 2
  5784. 2
  5785. 2
  5786. 2
  5787. 2
  5788. 2
  5789. 2
  5790. 2
  5791. 2
  5792. 2
  5793. 2
  5794. 2
  5795. 2
  5796. 2
  5797. 2
  5798. 2
  5799. 2
  5800. 2
  5801. 2
  5802. 2
  5803. 2
  5804. 2
  5805. 2
  5806. 2
  5807. 2
  5808. 2
  5809. 2
  5810. 2
  5811. 2
  5812. 2
  5813. 2
  5814. 2
  5815. 2
  5816. 2
  5817. 2
  5818. 2
  5819. 2
  5820. 2
  5821. 2
  5822. 2
  5823. 2
  5824. 2
  5825. 2
  5826. 2
  5827. 2
  5828. 2
  5829. 2
  5830. 2
  5831. 2
  5832. 2
  5833. 2
  5834. 2
  5835. 2
  5836. 2
  5837. 2
  5838. 2
  5839. 2
  5840. 2
  5841. 2
  5842. 2
  5843. 2
  5844. 2
  5845. 2
  5846. 2
  5847. 2
  5848. 2
  5849. 2
  5850. 2
  5851. 2
  5852. 2
  5853. 2
  5854. 2
  5855. 2
  5856. 2
  5857. 2
  5858. 2
  5859. 2
  5860. 2
  5861. 2
  5862. 2
  5863. 2
  5864. 2
  5865. 2
  5866. 2
  5867. 2
  5868. 2
  5869. 2
  5870. 2
  5871. 2
  5872. 2
  5873. 2
  5874. 2
  5875. 2
  5876. 2
  5877. 2
  5878. 2
  5879. 2
  5880. 2
  5881. 2
  5882. 2
  5883. 2
  5884. 2
  5885. 2
  5886. 2
  5887. 2
  5888. 2
  5889. 2
  5890. 2
  5891. 2
  5892. 2
  5893. 2
  5894. 2
  5895. 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
  5896. 2
  5897. 2
  5898. 2
  5899. 2
  5900. 2
  5901. 2
  5902. 2
  5903. 2
  5904. 2
  5905. 2
  5906. 2
  5907. 2
  5908. 2
  5909. 2
  5910. 2
  5911.  @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
  5912. 2
  5913. 2
  5914. 2
  5915. 2
  5916. 2
  5917. 2
  5918. 2
  5919. 2
  5920. 2
  5921. 2
  5922. 2
  5923. 2
  5924. 2
  5925. 2
  5926. 2
  5927. 2
  5928. 2
  5929. 2
  5930. 2
  5931. 2
  5932. 2
  5933. 2
  5934. 2
  5935. 2
  5936. 2
  5937. 2
  5938. 2
  5939. 2
  5940. 2
  5941. 2
  5942. 2
  5943. 2
  5944. 2
  5945. 2
  5946. 2
  5947. 2
  5948. 2
  5949. 2
  5950. 2
  5951. 2
  5952. 2
  5953. 2
  5954. 2
  5955. 2
  5956. 2
  5957. 2
  5958. 2
  5959. 2
  5960. 2
  5961. 2
  5962. 2
  5963. 2
  5964. 2
  5965. 2
  5966. 2
  5967. 2
  5968. 2
  5969. 2
  5970. 2
  5971. 2
  5972. 2
  5973. 2
  5974. 2
  5975. 2
  5976. 2
  5977. 2
  5978. 2
  5979. 2
  5980. 2
  5981. 2
  5982. 2
  5983. 2
  5984. 2
  5985. 2
  5986. 2
  5987. 2
  5988. 2
  5989. 2
  5990. 2
  5991. 2
  5992. 2
  5993. 2
  5994. 2
  5995. 2
  5996. 2
  5997. 2
  5998. 2
  5999. 2
  6000. 2
  6001. 2
  6002. 2
  6003. 2
  6004. 2
  6005. 2
  6006. 2
  6007. 2
  6008. 2
  6009. 2
  6010. 2
  6011. 2
  6012. 2
  6013. 2
  6014. 2
  6015. 2
  6016. 2
  6017. 2
  6018. 2
  6019. 2
  6020. 2
  6021. 2
  6022. 2
  6023. 2
  6024. 2
  6025. 2
  6026. 2
  6027. 2
  6028. 2
  6029. 2
  6030. 2
  6031. 2
  6032. 2
  6033. 2
  6034. 2
  6035. 2
  6036. 2
  6037. 2
  6038. 2
  6039. 2
  6040. 2
  6041. 2
  6042. 2
  6043. 2
  6044. 2
  6045. 2
  6046. 2
  6047. 2
  6048. 2
  6049. 2
  6050. 2
  6051. 2
  6052. 2
  6053. 2
  6054. 2
  6055. 2
  6056. 2
  6057. 2
  6058. 2
  6059. 2
  6060. 2
  6061. 2
  6062. 2
  6063. 2
  6064. 2
  6065. 2
  6066. 2
  6067. 2
  6068. 2
  6069. 2
  6070. 2
  6071. 2
  6072. 2
  6073. 2
  6074. 2
  6075. 2
  6076. 2
  6077. 2
  6078. 2
  6079. 2
  6080. 2
  6081. 2
  6082. 2
  6083. 2
  6084. 2
  6085. 2
  6086. 2
  6087. 2
  6088. 2
  6089. 2
  6090. 2
  6091. 2
  6092. 2
  6093. 2
  6094. 2
  6095. 2
  6096. 2
  6097. 2
  6098. 2
  6099. 2
  6100. 2
  6101. 2
  6102. 2
  6103. 2
  6104. 2
  6105. 2
  6106. 2
  6107. 2
  6108. 2
  6109. 2
  6110. 2
  6111. 2
  6112. 2
  6113. 2
  6114. 2
  6115. 2
  6116. 2
  6117. 2
  6118. 2
  6119. 2
  6120. 2
  6121. 2
  6122. 2
  6123. 2
  6124. 2
  6125. 2
  6126. 2
  6127. 2
  6128. 2
  6129. 2
  6130. 2
  6131. 2
  6132. 2
  6133. 2
  6134. 2
  6135. 2
  6136. 2
  6137. 2
  6138. 2
  6139. 2
  6140. 2
  6141. 2
  6142. 2
  6143. 2
  6144. 2
  6145. 2
  6146. 2
  6147. 2
  6148. 2
  6149. 2
  6150. 2
  6151. 2
  6152. 2
  6153. 2
  6154. 2
  6155. 2
  6156. 2
  6157. 2
  6158. 2
  6159. 2
  6160.  @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
  6161. 2
  6162. 2
  6163. 2
  6164. 2
  6165. 2
  6166. 2
  6167. 2
  6168. 2
  6169. 2
  6170. 2
  6171. 2
  6172. 2
  6173. 2
  6174. 2
  6175. 2
  6176. 2
  6177. 2
  6178. 2
  6179. 2
  6180. 2
  6181. 2
  6182. 2
  6183. 2
  6184. 2
  6185. 2
  6186. 2
  6187. 2
  6188. 2
  6189. 2
  6190. 2
  6191. 2
  6192. 2
  6193. 2
  6194. 2
  6195. 2
  6196. 2
  6197. 2
  6198. 2
  6199. 2
  6200. 2
  6201. 2
  6202. 2
  6203. 2
  6204. 2
  6205. 2
  6206. 2
  6207. 2
  6208. 2
  6209. 2
  6210. 2
  6211. 2
  6212. 2
  6213. 2
  6214. 2
  6215. 2
  6216. 2
  6217. 2
  6218. 2
  6219. 2
  6220. 2
  6221. 2
  6222. 2
  6223. 2
  6224. 2
  6225. 2
  6226. 2
  6227. 2
  6228. 2
  6229. 2
  6230. 2
  6231. 2
  6232. 2
  6233. 2
  6234. 2
  6235. 2
  6236. 2
  6237. 2
  6238. 2
  6239. 2
  6240. 2
  6241. 2
  6242. 2
  6243. 2
  6244. 2
  6245. 2
  6246. 2
  6247. 2
  6248. 2
  6249. 2
  6250. 2
  6251. 2
  6252. 2
  6253. 2
  6254. 2
  6255. 2
  6256. 2
  6257. 2
  6258. 2
  6259. 2
  6260. 2
  6261. 2
  6262. 2
  6263. 2
  6264. 2
  6265. 2
  6266. 2
  6267. 2
  6268. 2
  6269. 2
  6270. 2
  6271. 2
  6272. 2
  6273. 2
  6274. 2
  6275. 2
  6276. 2
  6277. 2
  6278. 2
  6279. 2
  6280. 2
  6281. 2
  6282. 2
  6283. 2
  6284. 2
  6285. 2
  6286. 2
  6287. 2
  6288. 2
  6289. 2
  6290. 2
  6291. 2
  6292. 2
  6293. 2
  6294. 2
  6295. 2
  6296. 2
  6297. 2
  6298. 2
  6299. 2
  6300. 2
  6301. 2
  6302. 2
  6303. 2
  6304. 2
  6305. 2
  6306. 2
  6307. 2
  6308. 2
  6309. 2
  6310. 2
  6311. 2
  6312. 2
  6313. 2
  6314. 2
  6315. 2
  6316. 2
  6317. 2
  6318. 2
  6319. 2
  6320. 2
  6321. 2
  6322. 2
  6323. 2
  6324. 2
  6325. 2
  6326. 2
  6327. 2
  6328. 2
  6329. 2
  6330. 2
  6331. 2
  6332. 2
  6333. 2
  6334. 2
  6335. 2
  6336. 2
  6337. 2
  6338. 2
  6339. 2
  6340. 2
  6341. 2
  6342. 2
  6343. 2
  6344. 2
  6345. 2
  6346. 2
  6347. 2
  6348. 2
  6349. 2
  6350. 2
  6351. 2
  6352. 2
  6353. 2
  6354. 2
  6355. 2
  6356. 2
  6357. 2
  6358. 2
  6359. 2
  6360. 2
  6361. 2
  6362. 2
  6363. 2
  6364. 2
  6365. 2
  6366. 2
  6367. 2
  6368. 2
  6369. 2
  6370. 2
  6371. 2
  6372. 2
  6373. 2
  6374. 2
  6375. 2
  6376. 2
  6377. 2
  6378. 2
  6379. 2
  6380. 2
  6381. 2
  6382. 2
  6383. 2
  6384. 2
  6385. 2
  6386. 2
  6387. 2
  6388. 2
  6389. 2
  6390. 2
  6391. 2
  6392. 2
  6393. 2
  6394. 2
  6395. 2
  6396. 2
  6397. 2
  6398. 2
  6399. 2
  6400. 2
  6401. 2
  6402. 2
  6403. 2
  6404. 2
  6405. 2
  6406. 2
  6407. 2
  6408. 2
  6409. 2
  6410. 2
  6411. 2
  6412. 2
  6413. 2
  6414. 2
  6415. 2
  6416. 2
  6417. 2
  6418. 2
  6419. 2
  6420. 2
  6421. 2
  6422. 2
  6423. 2
  6424. 2
  6425. 2
  6426. 2
  6427. 2
  6428. 2
  6429. 2
  6430. 2
  6431. 2
  6432. 2
  6433. 2
  6434. 2
  6435. 2
  6436. 2
  6437. 2
  6438. 2
  6439. 2
  6440. 2
  6441. 2
  6442. 2
  6443. 2
  6444. 2
  6445. 2
  6446. 2
  6447. 2
  6448. 2
  6449. 2
  6450. 2
  6451. 2
  6452. 2
  6453. 2
  6454. 2
  6455. 2
  6456. 2
  6457. 2
  6458. 2
  6459. 2
  6460. 2
  6461. 2
  6462. 2
  6463. 2
  6464. 2
  6465. 2
  6466. 2
  6467. 2
  6468. 2
  6469. 2
  6470. 2
  6471. 2
  6472. 2
  6473. 2
  6474. 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
  6475. 2
  6476. 2
  6477. 2
  6478. 2
  6479. 2
  6480. 2
  6481. 2
  6482. 2
  6483. 2
  6484. 2
  6485. 2
  6486. 2
  6487. 2
  6488. 2
  6489. 2
  6490. 2
  6491. 2
  6492. 2
  6493. 2
  6494. 2
  6495. 2
  6496. 2
  6497. 2
  6498. 2
  6499. 2
  6500. 2
  6501. 2
  6502. 2
  6503. 2
  6504. 2
  6505. 2
  6506. 2
  6507. 2
  6508. 2
  6509. 2
  6510. 2
  6511. 2
  6512. 2
  6513. 2
  6514. 2
  6515. 2
  6516. 2
  6517. 2
  6518. 2
  6519. 2
  6520. 2
  6521. 2
  6522. 2
  6523. 2
  6524. 2
  6525. 2
  6526. 2
  6527. 2
  6528. 2
  6529. 2
  6530. 2
  6531. 2
  6532. 2
  6533. 2
  6534. 2
  6535. 2
  6536. 2
  6537. 2
  6538. 2
  6539. 2
  6540. 2
  6541. 2
  6542. 2
  6543. 2
  6544. 2
  6545. 2
  6546. 2
  6547. 2
  6548. 2
  6549. 2
  6550. 2
  6551. 2
  6552. 2
  6553. 2
  6554. 2
  6555. 2
  6556. 2
  6557. 2
  6558. 2
  6559. 2
  6560. 2
  6561. 2
  6562. 2
  6563. 2
  6564. 2
  6565. 2
  6566. 2
  6567. 2
  6568. 2
  6569. 2
  6570. 2
  6571. 2
  6572. 2
  6573. 2
  6574. 2
  6575. 2
  6576. 2
  6577. 2
  6578. 2
  6579. 2
  6580. 2
  6581. 2
  6582. 2
  6583. 2
  6584. 2
  6585. 2
  6586. 2
  6587. 2
  6588. 2
  6589. 2
  6590. 2
  6591. 2
  6592. 2
  6593. 2
  6594. 2
  6595. 2
  6596. 2
  6597. 2
  6598. 2
  6599. 2
  6600. 2
  6601. 2
  6602. 2
  6603. 2
  6604. 2
  6605. 2
  6606. 2
  6607. 2
  6608. 2
  6609. 2
  6610. 2
  6611. 2
  6612. 2
  6613. 2
  6614. 2
  6615. 2
  6616. 2
  6617. 2
  6618. 2
  6619. 2
  6620. 2
  6621. 2
  6622. 2
  6623. 2
  6624. 2
  6625. 2
  6626. 2
  6627. 2
  6628. 2
  6629. 2
  6630. 2
  6631. 2
  6632. 2
  6633. 2
  6634. 2
  6635. 2
  6636. 2
  6637. 2
  6638. 2
  6639. 2
  6640. 2
  6641. 2
  6642. 2
  6643. 2
  6644.  @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
  6645. 2
  6646. 2
  6647. 2
  6648. 2
  6649. 2
  6650. 2
  6651. 2
  6652. 2
  6653. 2
  6654. 2
  6655. 2
  6656. 2
  6657. 2
  6658. 2
  6659. 2
  6660. 2
  6661. 2
  6662. 2
  6663. 2
  6664. 2
  6665. 2
  6666. 2
  6667. 2
  6668. 2
  6669. 2
  6670. 2
  6671. 2
  6672. 2
  6673. 2
  6674. 2
  6675. 2
  6676. 2
  6677. 2
  6678. 2
  6679. 2
  6680. 2
  6681. 2
  6682. 2
  6683. 2
  6684. 2
  6685. 2
  6686. 2
  6687. 2
  6688. 2
  6689. 2
  6690. 2
  6691. 2
  6692. 2
  6693. 2
  6694. 2
  6695. 2
  6696. 2
  6697. 2
  6698. 2
  6699. 2
  6700. 2
  6701. 2
  6702. 2
  6703. 2
  6704. 2
  6705. 2
  6706. 2
  6707. 2
  6708. 2
  6709. 2
  6710. 2
  6711. 2
  6712. 2
  6713. 2
  6714. 2
  6715. 2
  6716. 2
  6717. 2
  6718. 2
  6719. 2
  6720. 2
  6721. 2
  6722. 2
  6723. 2
  6724. 2
  6725. 2
  6726. 2
  6727. 2
  6728. 2
  6729. 2
  6730. 2
  6731. 2
  6732. 2
  6733. 2
  6734. 2
  6735. 2
  6736. 2
  6737. 2
  6738. 2
  6739. 2
  6740. 2
  6741. 2
  6742. 2
  6743. 2
  6744. 2
  6745. 2
  6746. 2
  6747. 2
  6748. 2
  6749. 2
  6750. 2
  6751. 2
  6752. 2
  6753. 2
  6754. 2
  6755. 2
  6756. 2
  6757. 2
  6758. 2
  6759. 2
  6760. 2
  6761. 2
  6762. 2
  6763. 2
  6764. 2
  6765. 2
  6766. 2
  6767. 2
  6768. 2
  6769. 2
  6770. 2
  6771. 2
  6772. 2
  6773. 2
  6774. ​ @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
  6775. 2
  6776. 2
  6777. 2
  6778. 2
  6779. 2
  6780. 2
  6781. 2
  6782. 2
  6783. 2
  6784. 2
  6785. 2
  6786. 2
  6787. 2
  6788. 2
  6789. 2
  6790. 2
  6791. 2
  6792. 2
  6793. 2
  6794. 2
  6795. 2
  6796. 2
  6797. 2
  6798. 2
  6799. 2
  6800. 2
  6801. 2
  6802. 2
  6803. 2
  6804. 2
  6805. 2
  6806. 2
  6807. 2
  6808. 2
  6809. 2
  6810. 2
  6811. 2
  6812. 2
  6813. 2
  6814. 2
  6815. 2
  6816. 2
  6817. 2
  6818. 2
  6819. 2
  6820. 2
  6821. 2
  6822. 2
  6823. 2
  6824. 2
  6825. 2
  6826. 2
  6827. 2
  6828. 2
  6829. 2
  6830. 2
  6831. 2
  6832. 2
  6833. 2
  6834. 2
  6835. 2
  6836. 2
  6837. 2
  6838. 2
  6839. 2
  6840. 2
  6841. 2
  6842. 2
  6843. 2
  6844. 2
  6845. 2
  6846. 2
  6847. 2
  6848. 2
  6849. 2
  6850. 2
  6851. 2
  6852. 2
  6853.  @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
  6854. 2
  6855. 2
  6856. 2
  6857. 2
  6858. 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
  6859. 2
  6860. 2
  6861. 2
  6862. 2
  6863. 2
  6864. 2
  6865. 2
  6866. 2
  6867. 2
  6868. 2
  6869. 2
  6870. 2
  6871. 2
  6872. 2
  6873. 2
  6874. 2
  6875. 2
  6876. 2
  6877. 2
  6878. 2
  6879. 2
  6880. 2
  6881. 2
  6882. 2
  6883. 2
  6884. 2
  6885. 2
  6886. 2
  6887. 2
  6888. 2
  6889. 2
  6890. 2
  6891. 2
  6892. 2
  6893. 2
  6894. 2
  6895. 2
  6896. 2
  6897. 2
  6898. 2
  6899.  @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
  6900. 2
  6901. 2
  6902. 2
  6903. 2
  6904. 2
  6905. 2
  6906. 2
  6907. 2
  6908. 2
  6909. 2
  6910. 2
  6911. 2
  6912. 2
  6913. 2
  6914. 2
  6915. 2
  6916. 2
  6917. 2
  6918. 2
  6919. 2
  6920. 2
  6921. 2
  6922. 2
  6923. 2
  6924. 2
  6925. 2
  6926. 2
  6927. 2
  6928. 2
  6929. 2
  6930. 2
  6931. 2
  6932. 2
  6933. 2
  6934. 2
  6935. 2
  6936. 2
  6937. 2
  6938. 2
  6939. 2
  6940. 2
  6941. 2
  6942. 2
  6943. 2
  6944. 2
  6945. 2
  6946. 2
  6947. 2
  6948. 2
  6949. 2
  6950. 2
  6951. 2
  6952. 2
  6953. 2
  6954. 2
  6955. 2
  6956. 2
  6957. 2
  6958. 2
  6959. 2
  6960. 2
  6961. 2
  6962. 2
  6963. 2
  6964. 2
  6965. 2
  6966. 2
  6967. 2
  6968. 2
  6969. 2
  6970. 2
  6971. 2
  6972. 2
  6973. 2
  6974. 2
  6975. 2
  6976. 2
  6977. 2
  6978. 2
  6979. 2
  6980. 2
  6981. 2
  6982. 2
  6983. 2
  6984. 2
  6985. 2
  6986. 2
  6987. 2
  6988. 2
  6989. 2
  6990. 2
  6991. 2
  6992. 2
  6993. 2
  6994. 2
  6995. 2
  6996. 2
  6997. 2
  6998. 2
  6999. 2
  7000. 2
  7001. 2
  7002. 2
  7003. 2
  7004. 2
  7005. 2
  7006. 2
  7007. 2
  7008. 2
  7009. 2
  7010. 2
  7011. 2
  7012. 2
  7013. 2
  7014. 2
  7015. 2
  7016. 2
  7017. 2
  7018. 2
  7019. 2
  7020. 2
  7021. 2
  7022. 2
  7023. 2
  7024. 2
  7025. 2
  7026. 2
  7027. 2
  7028. 2
  7029. 2
  7030. 2
  7031. 2
  7032. 2
  7033. 2
  7034. 2
  7035. 2
  7036. 2
  7037. 2
  7038. 2
  7039. 2
  7040. 2
  7041. 2
  7042. 2
  7043. 2
  7044. 2
  7045. 2
  7046. 2
  7047. 2
  7048. 2
  7049. 2
  7050. 2
  7051. 2
  7052. 2
  7053. 2
  7054. 2
  7055. 2
  7056. 2
  7057. 2
  7058. 2
  7059. 2
  7060. 2
  7061. 2
  7062. 2
  7063. 2
  7064. 2
  7065. 2
  7066. 2
  7067. 2
  7068. 2
  7069. 2
  7070. 2
  7071. 2
  7072. 2
  7073. 2
  7074. 2
  7075. 2
  7076. 2
  7077. 2
  7078. 2
  7079. 2
  7080. 2
  7081. 2
  7082. 2
  7083. 2
  7084. 2
  7085. 2
  7086. 2
  7087. 2
  7088. 2
  7089. 2
  7090. 2
  7091. 2
  7092. 🤨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
  7093. 2
  7094. 2
  7095. 2
  7096. 2
  7097. 2
  7098. 2
  7099. 2
  7100. 2
  7101. 2
  7102. 2
  7103. 2
  7104. 2
  7105. 2
  7106. 2
  7107. 2
  7108. 2
  7109. 2
  7110. 2
  7111. 2
  7112. 2
  7113. 2
  7114. 2
  7115. 2
  7116. 2
  7117. 2
  7118. 2
  7119. 2
  7120. 2
  7121. 2
  7122. 2
  7123. 2
  7124. 2
  7125. 2
  7126. 2
  7127. 2
  7128. 2
  7129. 2
  7130. 2
  7131. 2
  7132. 2
  7133. 2
  7134. 2
  7135. 2
  7136. 2
  7137. 2
  7138. 2
  7139. 2
  7140. 2
  7141. 2
  7142. 2
  7143. 2
  7144. 2
  7145. 2
  7146. 2
  7147. 2
  7148. 2
  7149. 2
  7150. 2
  7151. 2
  7152. 2
  7153. 2
  7154. 2
  7155. 2
  7156. 2
  7157. 2
  7158. 2
  7159. 2
  7160. 2
  7161. 2
  7162. 2
  7163. 2
  7164. 2
  7165. 2
  7166. 2
  7167. 2
  7168. 2
  7169. 2
  7170. 2
  7171. 2
  7172. 2
  7173. 2
  7174. 2
  7175. 2
  7176. 2
  7177. 2
  7178. 2
  7179. 2
  7180. 2
  7181. 2
  7182. 2
  7183. 2
  7184. 2
  7185. 2
  7186. 2
  7187. 2
  7188. 2
  7189. 2
  7190. 2
  7191. 2
  7192. 2
  7193. 2
  7194. 2
  7195. 2
  7196. 2
  7197. 2
  7198. 2
  7199. 2
  7200. 2
  7201. 2
  7202. 2
  7203. 2
  7204. 2
  7205. 2
  7206. 2
  7207. 2
  7208. 2
  7209. 2
  7210. 2
  7211. 2
  7212. 2
  7213. 2
  7214. 2
  7215. 2
  7216. 2
  7217. 2
  7218. 2
  7219. 2
  7220. 2
  7221. 2
  7222. 2
  7223. 2
  7224. 2
  7225. 2
  7226. 2
  7227. 2
  7228. 2
  7229. 2
  7230. 2
  7231. 2
  7232. 2
  7233. 2
  7234. 2
  7235. 2
  7236. 2
  7237. 2
  7238. 2
  7239. 2
  7240. 2
  7241. 2
  7242. 2
  7243. 2
  7244. 2
  7245. 2
  7246. 2
  7247. 2
  7248. 2
  7249. 2
  7250. 2
  7251. 2
  7252. 2
  7253. 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
  7254. 2
  7255. 2
  7256. 2
  7257. 2
  7258. 2
  7259. 2
  7260. 2
  7261. 2
  7262. 2
  7263. 2
  7264. 2
  7265. 2
  7266. 2
  7267. 2
  7268. 2
  7269. 2
  7270. 2
  7271. 2
  7272. 2
  7273. 2
  7274. 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
  7275. 2
  7276. 2
  7277. 2
  7278. 2
  7279. 2
  7280. 2
  7281. 2
  7282. 2
  7283. 2
  7284. 2
  7285. 2
  7286. 2
  7287. 2
  7288. 2
  7289. 2
  7290. 2
  7291. 2
  7292. 2
  7293. 2
  7294. 2
  7295. 2
  7296. 2
  7297. 2
  7298. 2
  7299. 2
  7300. 2
  7301. 2
  7302. 2
  7303. 2
  7304. 2
  7305. 2
  7306. 2
  7307. 2
  7308. 2
  7309. 2
  7310. 2
  7311. 2
  7312. 2
  7313. 2
  7314. 2
  7315. 2
  7316. 2
  7317. 2
  7318. 2
  7319. 2
  7320. 2
  7321. 2
  7322. 2
  7323. 2
  7324. 2
  7325. 2
  7326. 2
  7327. 2
  7328. 2
  7329. 2
  7330. 2
  7331. 2
  7332. 2
  7333. 2
  7334. 2
  7335. 2
  7336. 2
  7337. 2
  7338. 2
  7339. 2
  7340. 2
  7341. 2
  7342. 2
  7343. 2
  7344. 2
  7345. 2
  7346. 2
  7347. 2
  7348. 2
  7349. 2
  7350. 2
  7351. 2
  7352. 2
  7353. 2
  7354. 2
  7355. 2
  7356. 2
  7357. 2
  7358. 2
  7359. 2
  7360. 2
  7361. 2
  7362. 2
  7363. 2
  7364. 2
  7365. 2
  7366. 2
  7367. 2
  7368. 2
  7369. 2
  7370. 2
  7371. 2
  7372. 2
  7373. 2
  7374. ​ @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
  7375. 2
  7376. 2
  7377. 2
  7378. 2
  7379. 2
  7380. 2
  7381. 2
  7382. 2
  7383. 2
  7384. 2
  7385. 2
  7386. 2
  7387. 1
  7388. 1
  7389. 1
  7390. 1
  7391. 1
  7392. 1
  7393. 1
  7394. 1
  7395. 1
  7396. 1
  7397. 1
  7398. 1
  7399. 1
  7400. 1
  7401. 1
  7402. 1
  7403. 1
  7404. 1
  7405. 1
  7406. 1
  7407. 1
  7408. 1
  7409. 1
  7410. 1
  7411. 1
  7412. 1
  7413. 1
  7414. 1
  7415. 1
  7416. 1
  7417. 1
  7418. 1
  7419. 1
  7420. 1
  7421. 1
  7422. 1
  7423. 1
  7424.  @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
  7425. 1
  7426. 1
  7427. 1
  7428. 1
  7429. 1
  7430. 1
  7431. 1
  7432. 1
  7433. 1
  7434. 1
  7435. 1
  7436. 1
  7437. 1
  7438. 1
  7439. 1
  7440. 1
  7441. 1
  7442. 1
  7443. 1
  7444. 1
  7445. 1
  7446. 1
  7447. 1
  7448. 1
  7449. 1
  7450. 1
  7451. 1
  7452. 1
  7453. 1
  7454. 1
  7455. 1
  7456. 1
  7457. 1
  7458. 1
  7459. 1
  7460. 1
  7461. 1
  7462. 1
  7463. 1
  7464. 1
  7465. 1
  7466. 1
  7467. 1
  7468. 1
  7469. 1
  7470. 1
  7471. 1
  7472. 1
  7473. 1
  7474. 1
  7475. 1
  7476. 1
  7477. 1
  7478. 1
  7479. 1
  7480. 1
  7481. 1
  7482. 1
  7483. 1
  7484. 1
  7485. 1
  7486. 1
  7487. 1
  7488. 1
  7489. 1
  7490. 1
  7491. 1
  7492. 1
  7493. 1
  7494. 1
  7495. 1
  7496. 1
  7497. 1
  7498. 1
  7499. 1
  7500. 1
  7501. 1
  7502. 1
  7503. 1
  7504. 1
  7505. 1
  7506. 1
  7507. 1
  7508. 1
  7509. 1
  7510. 1
  7511. 1
  7512. 1
  7513. 1
  7514. 1
  7515. 1
  7516. 1
  7517. 1
  7518. 1
  7519. 1
  7520. 1
  7521. 1
  7522. 1
  7523. 1
  7524. 1
  7525. 1
  7526. 1
  7527. 1
  7528. 1
  7529. 1
  7530. 1
  7531. 1
  7532. 1
  7533. 1
  7534. 1
  7535. 1
  7536. 1
  7537. 1
  7538. 1
  7539. 1
  7540. 1
  7541. 1
  7542. 1
  7543. 1
  7544. 1
  7545. 1
  7546. 1
  7547. 1
  7548. 1
  7549. 1
  7550. 1
  7551. 1
  7552. 1
  7553. 1
  7554. 1
  7555. 1
  7556. 1
  7557. 1
  7558. 1
  7559. 1
  7560. 1
  7561. 1
  7562. 1
  7563. 1
  7564. 1
  7565. 1
  7566. 1
  7567. 1
  7568. 1
  7569. 1
  7570. 1
  7571. 1
  7572. 1
  7573. 1
  7574. 1
  7575. 1
  7576. 1
  7577. 1
  7578. 1
  7579. 1
  7580. 1
  7581. 1
  7582. 1
  7583. 1
  7584. 1
  7585. 1
  7586. 1
  7587. 1
  7588. 1
  7589. 1
  7590. 1
  7591. 1
  7592. 1
  7593. 1
  7594. 1
  7595. 1
  7596. 1
  7597. 1
  7598. 1
  7599. 1
  7600. 1
  7601. 1
  7602. 1
  7603. 1
  7604. 1
  7605. 1
  7606. 1
  7607. 1
  7608. 1
  7609. 1
  7610. 1
  7611. 1
  7612. 1
  7613. 1
  7614. 1
  7615. 1
  7616. 1
  7617. 1
  7618. 1
  7619. 1
  7620. 1
  7621. 1
  7622. 1
  7623. 1
  7624. 1
  7625. 1
  7626. 1
  7627. 1
  7628. 1
  7629. 1
  7630. 1
  7631. 1
  7632. 1
  7633. 1
  7634. 1
  7635. 1
  7636. 1
  7637. 1
  7638. 1
  7639. 1
  7640. 1
  7641. 1
  7642. 1
  7643. 1
  7644. 1
  7645. 1
  7646. 1
  7647. 1
  7648. 1
  7649. 1
  7650. 1
  7651. 1
  7652. 1
  7653. 1
  7654. 1
  7655. 1
  7656. 1
  7657. 1
  7658. 1
  7659. 1
  7660. 1
  7661. 1
  7662. 1
  7663. 1
  7664. 1
  7665. 1
  7666. 1
  7667. 1
  7668. 1
  7669. 1
  7670. 1
  7671. 1
  7672. 1
  7673. 1
  7674. 1
  7675. 1
  7676. 1
  7677. 1
  7678. 1
  7679. 1
  7680. 1
  7681. 1
  7682. 1
  7683. 1
  7684. 1
  7685. 1
  7686. 1
  7687. 1
  7688. 1
  7689. 1
  7690. 1
  7691. 1
  7692. 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
  7693. 1
  7694. 1
  7695. 1
  7696. 1
  7697. 1
  7698. 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
  7699. 1
  7700. 1
  7701. 1
  7702. 1
  7703. 1
  7704. 1
  7705. 1
  7706. 1
  7707. 1
  7708. 1
  7709. 1
  7710. 1
  7711. 1
  7712. 1
  7713. 1
  7714. 1
  7715. 1
  7716. 1
  7717. 1
  7718. 1
  7719. 1
  7720. 1
  7721. 1
  7722. 1
  7723. 1
  7724. 1
  7725. 1
  7726. 1
  7727. 1
  7728. 1
  7729. 1
  7730. 1
  7731. 1
  7732. 1
  7733. 1
  7734. 1
  7735. 1
  7736. 1
  7737. 1
  7738. 1
  7739. 1
  7740. 1
  7741. 1
  7742. 1
  7743. 1
  7744. 1
  7745. 1
  7746. 1
  7747. 1
  7748. 1
  7749. 1
  7750. 1
  7751. 1
  7752. 1
  7753. 1
  7754. 1
  7755. 1
  7756. 1
  7757. 1
  7758. 1
  7759. 1
  7760. 1
  7761. 1
  7762. 1
  7763. 1
  7764. 1
  7765. 1
  7766. 1
  7767. 1
  7768. 1
  7769. 1
  7770. 1
  7771. 1
  7772. 1
  7773. 1
  7774. 1
  7775. 1
  7776. 1
  7777. 1
  7778.  @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
  7779. 1
  7780. 1
  7781. 1
  7782. 1
  7783. 1
  7784. 1
  7785. 1
  7786. 1
  7787. 1
  7788. 1
  7789. 1
  7790. 1
  7791. 1
  7792. 1
  7793. 1
  7794. 1
  7795. 1
  7796. 1
  7797. 1
  7798. 1
  7799. 1
  7800. 1
  7801. 1
  7802. 1
  7803. 1
  7804. 1
  7805. 1
  7806. 1
  7807. 1
  7808. 1
  7809. 1
  7810. 1
  7811. 1
  7812. 1
  7813. 1
  7814. 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
  7815. 1
  7816. 1
  7817. 1
  7818. 1
  7819. 1
  7820. 1
  7821. 1
  7822. 1
  7823. 1
  7824. 1
  7825. 1
  7826. 1
  7827. 1
  7828. 1
  7829. 1
  7830. 1
  7831. 1
  7832. 1
  7833. 1
  7834. 1
  7835. 1
  7836. 1
  7837. 1
  7838. 1
  7839. 1
  7840. 1
  7841. 1
  7842. 1
  7843. 1
  7844. 1
  7845. 1
  7846. 1
  7847. 1
  7848. 1
  7849. 1
  7850. 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
  7851. 1
  7852. 1
  7853. 1
  7854. 1
  7855. 1
  7856. 1
  7857. 1
  7858. 1
  7859. 1
  7860. 1
  7861. 1
  7862. 1
  7863. 1
  7864. 1
  7865. 1
  7866. 1
  7867. 1
  7868. 1
  7869. 1
  7870. 1
  7871. 1
  7872. 1
  7873. 1
  7874. 1
  7875. 1
  7876. 1
  7877. 1
  7878. 1
  7879. 1
  7880. 1
  7881. 1
  7882. 1
  7883. 1
  7884. 1
  7885. 1
  7886. 1
  7887. 1
  7888. 1
  7889. 1
  7890. 1
  7891. 1
  7892. 1
  7893. 1
  7894. 1
  7895. 1
  7896. 1
  7897. 1
  7898. 1
  7899. 1
  7900. 1
  7901. 1
  7902. 1
  7903. 1
  7904. 1
  7905. 1
  7906. 1
  7907. 1
  7908. 1
  7909. 1
  7910. 1
  7911. 1
  7912. 1
  7913. 1
  7914. 1
  7915. 1
  7916. 1
  7917. 1
  7918. 1
  7919. 1
  7920. 1
  7921. 1
  7922. 1
  7923. 1
  7924. 1
  7925. 1
  7926. 1
  7927. 1
  7928. 1
  7929. 1
  7930. 1
  7931. 1
  7932. 1
  7933. 1
  7934. 1
  7935. 1
  7936. 1
  7937. 1
  7938. 1
  7939. 1
  7940. 1
  7941. 1
  7942. 1
  7943. 1
  7944. 1
  7945. 1
  7946. 1
  7947. 1
  7948. 1
  7949. 1
  7950. 1
  7951. 1
  7952. 1
  7953. 1
  7954. 1
  7955. 1
  7956. 1
  7957. 1
  7958. 1
  7959. 1
  7960. 1
  7961. 1
  7962. 1
  7963. 1
  7964. 1
  7965. 1
  7966. 1
  7967. 1
  7968. 1
  7969. 1
  7970. 1
  7971. 1
  7972. 1
  7973. 1
  7974. 1
  7975. 1
  7976. 1
  7977. 1
  7978. 1
  7979. 1
  7980. 1
  7981. 1
  7982. 1
  7983. 1
  7984. 1
  7985. 1
  7986. 1
  7987. 1
  7988. 1
  7989. 1
  7990. 1
  7991. 1
  7992. 1
  7993. 1
  7994. 1
  7995. 1
  7996. 1
  7997. 1
  7998. 1
  7999. 1
  8000. 1
  8001. 1
  8002. 1
  8003. 1
  8004. 1
  8005. 1
  8006. 1
  8007. 1
  8008. 1
  8009. 1
  8010. 1
  8011. 1
  8012. 1
  8013. 1
  8014. 1
  8015. 1
  8016. 1
  8017. 1
  8018. 1
  8019. 1
  8020. 1
  8021. 1
  8022. 1
  8023. 1
  8024. 1
  8025. 1
  8026. 1
  8027. 1
  8028. 1
  8029. 1
  8030. 1
  8031. 1
  8032. 1
  8033. 1
  8034. 1
  8035. 1
  8036. 1
  8037. 1
  8038. 1
  8039. 1
  8040. 1
  8041. 1
  8042. 1
  8043. 1
  8044. 1
  8045. 1
  8046. 1
  8047. 1
  8048. 1
  8049. 1
  8050. 1
  8051. 1
  8052. 1
  8053. 1
  8054. 1
  8055. 1
  8056. 1
  8057. 1
  8058. 1
  8059. 1
  8060. 1
  8061. 1
  8062. 1
  8063. 1
  8064. 1
  8065. 1
  8066. 1
  8067. 1
  8068. 1
  8069. 1
  8070. 1
  8071. 1
  8072. 1
  8073. 1
  8074. 1
  8075. 1
  8076. 1
  8077. 1
  8078. 1
  8079. 1
  8080. 1
  8081. 1
  8082. 1
  8083. 1
  8084. 1
  8085. 1
  8086. 1
  8087. 1
  8088. 1
  8089. 1
  8090. 1
  8091. 1
  8092. 1
  8093. 1
  8094. 1
  8095. 1
  8096. 1
  8097. 1
  8098. 1
  8099. 1
  8100. 1
  8101. 1
  8102. 1
  8103. 1
  8104. 1
  8105. 1
  8106.  @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
  8107. 1
  8108. 1
  8109. 1
  8110. 1
  8111. 1
  8112. 1
  8113. 1
  8114. 1
  8115. 1
  8116. 1
  8117. 1
  8118. 1
  8119. 1
  8120. 1
  8121. 1
  8122. 1
  8123. 1
  8124. 1
  8125. 1
  8126. 1
  8127. 1
  8128. 1
  8129. 1
  8130. 1
  8131. 1
  8132. 1
  8133. 1
  8134. 1
  8135. 1
  8136. 1
  8137. 1
  8138. 1
  8139. 1
  8140. 1
  8141. 1
  8142. 1
  8143. 1
  8144. 1
  8145. 1
  8146. 1
  8147. 1
  8148. 1
  8149. 1
  8150. 1
  8151. 1
  8152. 1
  8153. 1
  8154. 1
  8155. 1
  8156. 1
  8157. 1
  8158. 1
  8159. 1
  8160. 1
  8161. 1
  8162. 1
  8163. 1
  8164. 1
  8165. 1
  8166. 1
  8167. 1
  8168. 1
  8169. 1
  8170. 1
  8171. 1
  8172. 1
  8173. 1
  8174. 1
  8175. 1
  8176. 1
  8177. 1
  8178. 1
  8179. 1
  8180. 1
  8181. 1
  8182. 1
  8183. 1
  8184. 1
  8185. 1
  8186. 1
  8187. 1
  8188. 1
  8189. 1
  8190. 1
  8191. 1
  8192. 1
  8193. 1
  8194. 1
  8195. 1
  8196. 1
  8197. 1
  8198. 1
  8199. 1
  8200. 1
  8201. 1
  8202. 1
  8203. 1
  8204. 1
  8205. 1
  8206. ​ @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
  8207. 1
  8208. 1
  8209. 1
  8210. 1
  8211. 1
  8212. 1
  8213. 1
  8214. 1
  8215. 1
  8216. 1
  8217. 1
  8218. 1
  8219. 1
  8220. 1
  8221. 1
  8222. 1
  8223. 1
  8224. 1
  8225. 1
  8226. 1
  8227. 1
  8228. 1
  8229. 1
  8230. 1
  8231. 1
  8232. 1
  8233. 1
  8234. 1
  8235. 1
  8236. 1
  8237. 1
  8238. 1
  8239. 1
  8240. 1
  8241. 1
  8242. 1
  8243. 1
  8244. 1
  8245. 1
  8246. 1
  8247. 1
  8248. 1
  8249. 1
  8250. 1
  8251. 1
  8252. 1
  8253. 1
  8254. 1
  8255. 1
  8256. 1
  8257. 1
  8258. 1
  8259. 1
  8260. 1
  8261. 1
  8262. 1
  8263. 1
  8264. 1
  8265. 1
  8266. 1
  8267. 1
  8268. 1
  8269. 1
  8270. 1
  8271. 1
  8272. 1
  8273. 1
  8274. 1
  8275. 1
  8276. 1
  8277. 1
  8278. 1
  8279. 1
  8280. 1
  8281. 1
  8282. 1
  8283. 1
  8284. 1
  8285. 1
  8286. 1
  8287. 1
  8288. 1
  8289. 1
  8290. 1
  8291. 1
  8292. 1
  8293. 1
  8294. 1
  8295. 1
  8296. 1
  8297. 1
  8298. 1
  8299. 1
  8300. 1
  8301. 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
  8302. 1
  8303. 1
  8304. 1
  8305. 1
  8306. 1
  8307. 1
  8308. 1
  8309. 1
  8310. 1
  8311. 1
  8312. 1
  8313. 1
  8314. 1
  8315. 1
  8316. 1
  8317. 1
  8318. 1
  8319. 1
  8320. 1
  8321. 1
  8322. 1
  8323. 1
  8324. 1
  8325. 1
  8326. 1
  8327. 1
  8328. 1
  8329. 1
  8330. 1
  8331. 1
  8332. 1
  8333. 1
  8334. 1
  8335. 1
  8336. 1
  8337. 1
  8338. 1
  8339. 1
  8340. 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
  8341. 1
  8342. 1
  8343. 1
  8344. 1
  8345. 1
  8346. 1
  8347. 1
  8348. 1
  8349. 1
  8350. 1
  8351. 1
  8352. 1
  8353. 1
  8354. 1
  8355. 1
  8356. 1
  8357. 1
  8358. 1
  8359. 1
  8360. 1
  8361. 1
  8362. 1
  8363. 1
  8364. 1
  8365. 1
  8366. 1
  8367. 1
  8368. 1
  8369. 1
  8370. 1
  8371. 1
  8372. 1
  8373. 1
  8374. 1
  8375. 1
  8376. 1
  8377. 1
  8378. 1
  8379. 1
  8380. 1
  8381. 1
  8382. 1
  8383. 1
  8384. 1
  8385. 1
  8386. 1
  8387. 1
  8388. 1
  8389. 1
  8390. 1
  8391. 1
  8392. 1
  8393. 1
  8394. 1
  8395. 1
  8396. 1
  8397. 1
  8398. 1
  8399. 1
  8400. 1
  8401. 1
  8402. 1
  8403. 1
  8404. 1
  8405. 1
  8406. 1
  8407. 1
  8408. 1
  8409. 1
  8410. 1
  8411. 1
  8412. 1
  8413. 1
  8414. 1
  8415. 1
  8416. 1
  8417. 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
  8418. 1
  8419. 1
  8420. 1
  8421. 1
  8422. 1
  8423. 1
  8424. 1
  8425. 1
  8426. 1
  8427. 1
  8428. 1
  8429. 1
  8430. 1
  8431. 1
  8432. 1
  8433. 1
  8434. 1
  8435. 1
  8436. 1
  8437. 1
  8438. 1
  8439. 1
  8440. 1
  8441. 1
  8442. 1
  8443. 1
  8444. 1
  8445. 1
  8446. 1
  8447. 1
  8448. 1
  8449. 1
  8450. 1
  8451. 1
  8452. 1
  8453. 1
  8454. 1
  8455. 1
  8456. 1
  8457. 1
  8458. 1
  8459. 1
  8460. 1
  8461. 1
  8462. 1
  8463. 1
  8464. 1
  8465. 1
  8466. 1
  8467. 1
  8468. 1
  8469. 1
  8470. 1
  8471. 1
  8472. 1
  8473. 1
  8474. 1
  8475. 1
  8476. 1
  8477. 1
  8478. 1
  8479. 1
  8480. 1
  8481. 1
  8482. 1
  8483. 1
  8484. 1
  8485. 1
  8486. 1
  8487. 1
  8488. 1
  8489. 1
  8490. 1
  8491. 1
  8492. 1
  8493. 1
  8494. 1
  8495. 1
  8496. 1
  8497. 1
  8498. 1
  8499. 1
  8500. 1
  8501. 1
  8502. 1
  8503. 1
  8504. 1
  8505. 1
  8506. 1
  8507. 1
  8508. 1
  8509. 1
  8510. 1
  8511. 1
  8512. 1
  8513. 1
  8514. 1
  8515. 1
  8516. 1
  8517. 1
  8518. 1
  8519. 1
  8520. 1
  8521. 1
  8522. 1
  8523. 1
  8524. 1
  8525. 1
  8526. 1
  8527. 1
  8528. 1
  8529. 1
  8530. 1
  8531. 1
  8532. 1
  8533. 1
  8534. 1
  8535. 1
  8536. 1
  8537. 1
  8538. 1
  8539. 1
  8540. 1
  8541. 1
  8542. 1
  8543. 1
  8544. 1
  8545. 1
  8546. 1
  8547. 1
  8548. 1
  8549. 1
  8550. 1
  8551. 1
  8552. 1
  8553. 1
  8554. 1
  8555. 1
  8556. 1
  8557. 1
  8558. 1
  8559. 1
  8560. 1
  8561. 1
  8562. 1
  8563. 1
  8564. 1
  8565. 1
  8566. 1
  8567. 1
  8568. 1
  8569. 1
  8570. 1
  8571. 1
  8572. 1
  8573. 1
  8574. 1
  8575. 1
  8576. 1
  8577. 1
  8578. 1
  8579. 1
  8580. 1
  8581. 1
  8582. 1
  8583. 1
  8584. 1
  8585. 1
  8586. 1
  8587. 1
  8588. 1
  8589. 1
  8590. 1
  8591. 1
  8592. 1
  8593. 1
  8594. 1
  8595. 1
  8596. 1
  8597. 1
  8598. 1
  8599. 1
  8600. 1
  8601. 1
  8602. 1
  8603. 1
  8604. 1
  8605. 1
  8606. 1
  8607. 1
  8608. 1
  8609. 1
  8610. 1
  8611. 1
  8612. 1
  8613. 1
  8614. 1
  8615. 1
  8616. 1
  8617. 1
  8618. 1
  8619. 1
  8620. 1
  8621. 1
  8622. 1
  8623. 1
  8624. 1
  8625. 1
  8626. 1
  8627. 1
  8628. 1
  8629. 1
  8630. 1
  8631. 1
  8632. 1
  8633. 1
  8634. 1
  8635. 1
  8636. 1
  8637. 1
  8638. 1
  8639. 1
  8640. 1
  8641. 1
  8642. 1
  8643. 1
  8644. 1
  8645. 1
  8646. 1
  8647. 1
  8648. 1
  8649. 1
  8650. 1
  8651. 1
  8652. 1
  8653. 1
  8654. 1
  8655. 1
  8656. 1
  8657. 1
  8658. 1
  8659. 1
  8660. 1
  8661. 1
  8662. 1
  8663. 1
  8664. 1
  8665. 1
  8666. 1
  8667. 1
  8668. 1
  8669. 1
  8670. 1
  8671. 1
  8672. 1
  8673. 1
  8674. 1
  8675. 1
  8676. 1
  8677. 1
  8678. 1
  8679. 1
  8680. 1
  8681. 1
  8682. 1
  8683. 1
  8684. 1
  8685. 1
  8686. 1
  8687. 1
  8688. 1
  8689. 1
  8690. 1
  8691. 1
  8692. 1
  8693. 1
  8694. 1
  8695. 1
  8696. 1
  8697. 1
  8698. 1
  8699. 1
  8700. 1
  8701. 1
  8702. 1
  8703. 1
  8704. 1
  8705. 1
  8706. 1
  8707. 1
  8708. 1
  8709. 1
  8710. 1
  8711. 1
  8712. 1
  8713. 1
  8714. 1
  8715. 1
  8716. 1
  8717. 1
  8718. 1
  8719. 1
  8720. 1
  8721. 1
  8722. 1
  8723. 1
  8724. 1
  8725. 1
  8726. 1
  8727. 1
  8728. 1
  8729. 1
  8730. 1
  8731. 1
  8732. 1
  8733. 1
  8734. 1
  8735. 1
  8736. 1
  8737. 1
  8738. 1
  8739. 1
  8740. 1
  8741. 1
  8742. 1
  8743. 1
  8744. 1
  8745. 1
  8746. 1
  8747. 1
  8748. 1
  8749. 1
  8750. 1
  8751. 1
  8752. 1
  8753. 1
  8754. 1
  8755. 1
  8756. 1
  8757. 1
  8758. 1
  8759. 1
  8760. 1
  8761. 1
  8762. 1
  8763. 1
  8764. 1
  8765. 1
  8766. 1
  8767. 1
  8768. 1
  8769. 1
  8770. 1
  8771. 1
  8772. 1
  8773. 1
  8774. 1
  8775. 1
  8776. 1
  8777. 1
  8778. 1
  8779. 1
  8780. 1
  8781. 1
  8782. 1
  8783. 1
  8784. 1
  8785. 1
  8786. 1
  8787. 1
  8788. 1
  8789. 1
  8790. 1
  8791. 1
  8792. 1
  8793. 1
  8794. 1
  8795. 1
  8796. 1
  8797. 1
  8798. 1
  8799. 1
  8800. 1
  8801. 1
  8802. 1
  8803. 1
  8804. 1
  8805. 1
  8806. 1
  8807. 1
  8808. 1
  8809. 1
  8810. 1
  8811. 1
  8812. 1
  8813. 1
  8814. 1
  8815. 1
  8816. 1
  8817. 1
  8818. 1
  8819. 1
  8820. 1
  8821. 1
  8822. 1
  8823. 1
  8824. 1
  8825. 1
  8826. 1
  8827. 1
  8828. 1
  8829. 1
  8830. 1
  8831. 1
  8832. 1
  8833. 1
  8834. 1
  8835. 1
  8836. 1
  8837. 1
  8838. 1
  8839. 1
  8840. 1
  8841. 1
  8842. 1
  8843. 1
  8844. 1
  8845. 1
  8846. 1
  8847. 1
  8848. 1
  8849. 1
  8850. 1
  8851. 1
  8852. 1
  8853. 1
  8854. 1
  8855. 1
  8856. 1
  8857. 1
  8858. 1
  8859. 1
  8860. 1
  8861. 1
  8862. 1
  8863. 1
  8864. 1
  8865. 1
  8866. 1
  8867. 1
  8868. 1
  8869. 1
  8870. 1
  8871. 1
  8872. 1
  8873. 1
  8874. 1
  8875. 1
  8876. 1
  8877. 1
  8878. 1
  8879. 1
  8880. 1
  8881. 1
  8882. 1
  8883. 1
  8884. 1
  8885. 1
  8886. 1
  8887. 1
  8888. 1
  8889. 1
  8890. 1
  8891. 1
  8892. 1
  8893. 1
  8894. 1
  8895. 1
  8896. 1
  8897. 1
  8898. 1
  8899. 1
  8900. 1
  8901. 1
  8902. 1
  8903. 1
  8904. 1
  8905. 1
  8906. 1
  8907. 1
  8908. 1
  8909. 1
  8910. 1
  8911. 1
  8912. 1
  8913. 1
  8914. 1
  8915. 1
  8916. 1
  8917. 1
  8918. 1
  8919. 1
  8920. 1
  8921. 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
  8922. 1
  8923. 1
  8924. 1
  8925. 1
  8926. 1
  8927. 1
  8928. 1
  8929. 1
  8930. 1
  8931. 1
  8932. 1
  8933. 1
  8934. 1
  8935. 1
  8936. 1
  8937. 1
  8938. 1
  8939. 1
  8940. 1
  8941. 1
  8942. 1
  8943. 1
  8944. 1
  8945. 1
  8946. 1
  8947. 1
  8948. 1
  8949. 1
  8950. 1
  8951. 1
  8952. 1
  8953. 1
  8954. 1
  8955. 1
  8956. 1
  8957. 1
  8958. 1
  8959. 1
  8960. 1
  8961. 1
  8962. 1
  8963. 1
  8964. 1
  8965. 1
  8966. 1
  8967. 1
  8968. 1
  8969. 1
  8970. 1
  8971. 1
  8972. 1
  8973. 1
  8974. 1
  8975. 1
  8976. 1
  8977. 1
  8978. 1
  8979. 1
  8980. 1
  8981. 1
  8982. 1
  8983. 1
  8984. 1
  8985. 1
  8986. 1
  8987. 1
  8988. 1
  8989. 1
  8990. 1
  8991. 1
  8992. 1
  8993. 1
  8994. 1
  8995. 1
  8996. 1
  8997. 1
  8998. 1
  8999. 1
  9000. 1
  9001. 1
  9002. 1
  9003. 1
  9004. 1
  9005. 1
  9006. 1
  9007. 1
  9008. 1
  9009. 1
  9010. 1
  9011. 1
  9012. 1
  9013. 1
  9014. 1
  9015. 1
  9016. 1
  9017. 1
  9018. 1
  9019. 1
  9020. 1
  9021. 1
  9022. 1
  9023. 1
  9024. 1
  9025. 1
  9026. 1
  9027. 1
  9028. 1
  9029. 1
  9030. 1
  9031. 1
  9032. 1
  9033. 1
  9034. 1
  9035. 1
  9036. 1
  9037. 1
  9038. 1
  9039. 1
  9040. 1
  9041. 1
  9042. 1
  9043. 1
  9044. 1
  9045. 1
  9046. 1
  9047. 1
  9048. 1
  9049. 1
  9050. 1
  9051. 1
  9052. 1
  9053. 1
  9054. 1
  9055. 1
  9056. 1
  9057. 1
  9058. 1
  9059. 1
  9060. 1
  9061. 1
  9062. 1
  9063. 1
  9064. 1
  9065. 1
  9066. 1
  9067. 1
  9068. 1
  9069. 1
  9070. 1
  9071. 1
  9072. 1
  9073. 1
  9074. 1
  9075. 1
  9076. 1
  9077. 1
  9078. 1
  9079. 1
  9080. 1
  9081. 1
  9082. 1
  9083. 1
  9084. 1
  9085. 1
  9086. 1
  9087. 1
  9088. 1
  9089. 1
  9090. 1
  9091. 1
  9092. 1
  9093. 1
  9094. 1
  9095. 1
  9096. 1
  9097. 1
  9098. 1
  9099. 1
  9100. 1
  9101. 1
  9102. 1
  9103. 1
  9104. 1
  9105. 1
  9106. 1
  9107. 1
  9108. 1
  9109. 1
  9110. 1
  9111. 1
  9112. 1
  9113. 1
  9114. 1
  9115. 1
  9116. 1
  9117. 1
  9118. 1
  9119. 1
  9120. 1
  9121. 1
  9122. 1
  9123. 1
  9124. 1
  9125. 1
  9126. 1
  9127. 1
  9128. 1
  9129. 1
  9130. 1
  9131. 1
  9132. 1
  9133. 1
  9134. 1
  9135. 1
  9136. 1
  9137. 1
  9138. 1
  9139. 1
  9140. 1
  9141. 1
  9142. 1
  9143. 1
  9144. 1
  9145. 1
  9146. 1
  9147. 1
  9148. 1
  9149. 1
  9150. 1
  9151. 1
  9152. 1
  9153. 1
  9154. 1
  9155. 1
  9156. 1
  9157. 1
  9158. 1
  9159. 1
  9160. 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
  9161. 1
  9162. 1
  9163. 1
  9164. 1
  9165. 1
  9166. 1
  9167. 1
  9168. 1
  9169. 1
  9170. 1
  9171. 1
  9172. 1
  9173. 1
  9174. 1
  9175. 1
  9176. 1
  9177. 1
  9178. 1
  9179. 1
  9180. 1
  9181. 1
  9182. 1
  9183. 1
  9184. 1
  9185. 1
  9186. 1
  9187. 1
  9188. 1
  9189. 1
  9190. 1
  9191. 1
  9192. 1
  9193. 1
  9194. 1
  9195. 1
  9196. 1
  9197. 1
  9198. 1
  9199. 1
  9200. 1
  9201. 1
  9202. 1
  9203. 1
  9204. 1
  9205. 1
  9206. 1
  9207. 1
  9208. 1
  9209. 1
  9210. 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
  9211. 1
  9212. 1
  9213. 1
  9214. 1
  9215. 1
  9216. 1
  9217. 1
  9218. 1
  9219. 1
  9220. 1
  9221. 1
  9222. 1
  9223. 1
  9224. 1
  9225. 1
  9226. 1
  9227. 1
  9228. 1
  9229. 1
  9230. 1
  9231. 1
  9232. 1
  9233. 1
  9234. 1
  9235. 1
  9236. 1
  9237. 1
  9238. 1
  9239. 1
  9240. 1
  9241. 1
  9242. 1
  9243. 1
  9244. 1
  9245. 1
  9246. 1
  9247. 1
  9248. 1
  9249. 1
  9250. 1
  9251. 1
  9252. 1
  9253. 1
  9254. 1
  9255. 1
  9256. 1
  9257. 1
  9258. 1
  9259. 1
  9260. 1
  9261. 1
  9262. 1
  9263. 1
  9264. 1
  9265. 1
  9266. 1
  9267. 1
  9268. 1
  9269. 1
  9270. 1
  9271. 1
  9272. 1
  9273. 1
  9274. 1
  9275. 1
  9276. 1
  9277. 1
  9278. 1
  9279. 1
  9280. 1
  9281. 1
  9282. 1
  9283. 1
  9284. 1
  9285. 1
  9286. 1
  9287. 1
  9288. 1
  9289. 1
  9290. 1
  9291. 1
  9292. 1
  9293. 1
  9294. 1
  9295. 1
  9296. 1
  9297. 1
  9298. 1
  9299. 1
  9300. 1
  9301. 1
  9302. 1
  9303. 1
  9304. 1
  9305. 1
  9306. 1
  9307. 1
  9308. 1
  9309. 1
  9310. 1
  9311. 1
  9312. 1
  9313. 1
  9314. ​ @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
  9315. 1
  9316. 1
  9317. 1
  9318. 1
  9319. 1
  9320. 1
  9321. 1
  9322. 1
  9323. 1
  9324. 1
  9325. 1
  9326. 1
  9327. 1
  9328. 1
  9329. 1
  9330. 1
  9331. 1
  9332. 1
  9333. 1
  9334. 1
  9335. 1
  9336. 1
  9337. 1
  9338. 1
  9339. 1
  9340. 1
  9341. 1
  9342. 1
  9343. 1
  9344. 1
  9345. 1
  9346. 1
  9347. 1
  9348. 1
  9349. 1
  9350. 1
  9351. 1
  9352. 1
  9353. 1
  9354. 1
  9355. 1
  9356. 1
  9357. 1
  9358. 1
  9359. 1
  9360. 1
  9361. 1
  9362. 1
  9363. 1
  9364. 1
  9365. 1
  9366. 1
  9367. 1
  9368. 1
  9369. 1
  9370. 1
  9371.  @kirktierney  Wow dude, just use resources like Google Search or Wikipedia to verify basic facts like land areas. You continue to write incorrect assertions about them. Both assertions you make in part (a) are factually wrong. GDP at market exchange rates (often called nominal GDP) and GDP at PPP are measures of different things and each is valuable its own right. In my view both are essential for understanding the economic heft of any given country, but in the case of internal military procurement, PPP is especially important. Consider that if the rouble falls by half, its military budget is then deemed in a nominal GDP calculation to have also fallen by half, even though what it continues to get for its money remains the same. And it also works the other way around: say the rouble rises 50% while everything in its MoD and arms industries remains the same. Outsiders relying on nominal GDP will falsely observe that its military budget has shot up sharply. I think you should understand things better now. Although the post of yours to which I responded has been deleted, I distinctly remember that your second-last sentence was about military spending in Russia as a proportion of GDP (5-7%; 6%), not "Europe does not need Russia and will cast it loose." To me the former wasn't coherent; the latter point I understood fine and thought was basically true. Again I find that I am in close agreement with most of what you say but you are not strong on facts and figures and economics and you should face that.
    1
  9372. 1
  9373. 1
  9374. 1
  9375. 1
  9376. 1
  9377. 1
  9378. 1
  9379. 1
  9380. 1
  9381. 1
  9382. 1
  9383. 1
  9384. 1
  9385. 1
  9386. 1
  9387. 1
  9388. 1
  9389. 1
  9390. 1
  9391. 1
  9392. 1
  9393. 1
  9394. 1
  9395. 1
  9396. 1
  9397. 1
  9398. 1
  9399. 1
  9400. 1
  9401. 1
  9402. 1
  9403. 1
  9404. 1
  9405. 1
  9406. 1
  9407. 1
  9408. 1
  9409. 1
  9410. 1
  9411. 1
  9412. 1
  9413. 1
  9414. 1
  9415. 1
  9416. 1
  9417. 1
  9418. 1
  9419. 1
  9420. 1
  9421. 1
  9422. 1
  9423. 1
  9424. 1
  9425. 1
  9426. 1
  9427. 1
  9428. 1
  9429. 1
  9430. 1
  9431. 1
  9432. 1
  9433. 1
  9434. 1
  9435. 1
  9436. 1
  9437. 1
  9438. 1
  9439. 1
  9440. 1
  9441. 1
  9442. 1
  9443. 1
  9444. 1
  9445. 1
  9446. 1
  9447. 1
  9448. 1
  9449. 1
  9450. 1
  9451. 1
  9452. 1
  9453. 1
  9454. 1
  9455. 1
  9456. 1
  9457. 1
  9458. 1
  9459. 1
  9460. 1
  9461. 1
  9462. 1
  9463. 1
  9464. 1
  9465. 1
  9466. 1
  9467. 1
  9468. 1
  9469. 1
  9470. 1
  9471. 1
  9472. 1
  9473. 1
  9474. 1
  9475. 1
  9476. 1
  9477. 1
  9478. 1
  9479. 1
  9480. 1
  9481. 1
  9482. 1
  9483. 1
  9484. 1
  9485. 1
  9486. 1
  9487. 1
  9488. 1
  9489. 1
  9490. 1
  9491. 1
  9492. 1
  9493. 1
  9494. 1
  9495. 1
  9496. 1
  9497. 1
  9498. 1
  9499. 1
  9500. 1
  9501. 1
  9502. 1
  9503. 1
  9504. 1
  9505. 1
  9506. 1
  9507. 1
  9508. 1
  9509. 1
  9510. 1
  9511. 1
  9512. 1
  9513. 1
  9514. 1
  9515. 1
  9516. 1
  9517. 1
  9518. 1
  9519. 1
  9520. 1
  9521. 1
  9522. 1
  9523. 1
  9524. 1
  9525. 1
  9526. 1
  9527. 1
  9528. 1
  9529. 1
  9530. 1
  9531. 1
  9532. 1
  9533. 1
  9534. 1
  9535. 1
  9536. 1
  9537. 1
  9538. 1
  9539. 1
  9540. 1
  9541. 1
  9542. 1
  9543. 1
  9544. 1
  9545. 1
  9546. 1
  9547. 1
  9548. 1
  9549. 1
  9550. 1
  9551. 1
  9552. 1
  9553. 1
  9554. 1
  9555. 1
  9556. 1
  9557. 1
  9558. 1
  9559. 1
  9560. 1
  9561. 1
  9562. 1
  9563. 1
  9564. 1
  9565. 1
  9566. 1
  9567. 1
  9568. 1
  9569. 1
  9570. 1
  9571. 1
  9572. 1
  9573. 1
  9574. 1
  9575. 1
  9576. 1
  9577. 1
  9578. 1
  9579. 1
  9580. 1
  9581. 1
  9582. 1
  9583. 1
  9584. 1
  9585. 1
  9586. 1
  9587. 1
  9588. 1
  9589. 1
  9590. 1
  9591. 1
  9592. 1
  9593. 1
  9594. 1
  9595. 1
  9596. 1
  9597. 1
  9598. 1
  9599. 1
  9600. 1
  9601. 1
  9602. 1
  9603. 1
  9604. 1
  9605. 1
  9606. 1
  9607. 1
  9608. 1
  9609. 1
  9610. 1
  9611. 1
  9612. 1
  9613. 1
  9614. 1
  9615. 1
  9616. 1
  9617. 1
  9618. 1
  9619. 1
  9620. 1
  9621. 1
  9622. 1
  9623. 1
  9624. 1
  9625. 1
  9626. 1
  9627. 1
  9628. 1
  9629. 1
  9630. 1
  9631. 1
  9632. 1
  9633. 1
  9634. 1
  9635. 1
  9636. 1
  9637. 1
  9638. 1
  9639. 1
  9640. 1
  9641. 1
  9642. 1
  9643. 1
  9644. 1
  9645. 1
  9646. 1
  9647. 1
  9648. 1
  9649. 1
  9650. 1
  9651. 1
  9652. 1
  9653. 1
  9654. 1
  9655. 1
  9656. 1
  9657. 1
  9658. 1
  9659. 1
  9660. 1
  9661. 1
  9662. 1
  9663. 1
  9664. 1
  9665. 1
  9666. 1
  9667. 1
  9668. 1
  9669. 1
  9670. 1
  9671. 1
  9672. 1
  9673. 1
  9674. 1
  9675. 1
  9676. 1
  9677. 1
  9678. 1
  9679. 1
  9680. 1
  9681. 1
  9682. 1
  9683. 1
  9684. 1
  9685. 1
  9686. 1
  9687. 1
  9688. 1
  9689. 1
  9690. 1
  9691. 1
  9692. 1
  9693. 1
  9694. 1
  9695. 1
  9696. 1
  9697. 1
  9698. 1
  9699. 1
  9700. 1
  9701. 1
  9702. 1
  9703. 1
  9704. 1
  9705. 1
  9706. 1
  9707. 1
  9708. 1
  9709. 1
  9710. 1
  9711. 1
  9712. 1
  9713. 1
  9714. 1
  9715. 1
  9716. 1
  9717. 1
  9718. 1
  9719. 1
  9720. 1
  9721. 1
  9722. 1
  9723. 1
  9724. 1
  9725. 1
  9726. 1
  9727. 1
  9728. 1
  9729. 1
  9730. 1
  9731. 1
  9732. 1
  9733. 1
  9734. 1
  9735. 1
  9736. 1
  9737. 1
  9738. 1
  9739. 1
  9740. 1
  9741. 1
  9742. 1
  9743. 1
  9744. 1
  9745. 1
  9746. 1
  9747. 1
  9748. 1
  9749. 1
  9750. 1
  9751. 1
  9752. 1
  9753. 1
  9754. 1
  9755. 1
  9756. 1
  9757. 1
  9758. 1
  9759. 1
  9760. 1
  9761. 1
  9762. 1
  9763. 1
  9764. 1
  9765. 1
  9766. 1
  9767. 1
  9768. 1
  9769. 1
  9770. 1
  9771. 1
  9772. 1
  9773. 1
  9774. 1
  9775. 1
  9776. 1
  9777. 1
  9778. 1
  9779. 1
  9780. 1
  9781. 1
  9782. 1
  9783. 1
  9784. 1
  9785. 1
  9786. 1
  9787. 1
  9788. 1
  9789. 1
  9790. 1
  9791. 1
  9792. 1
  9793. 1
  9794. 1
  9795. 1
  9796. 1
  9797. 1
  9798. 1
  9799. 1
  9800. 1
  9801. 1
  9802. 1
  9803. 1
  9804. 1
  9805. 1
  9806. 1
  9807. 1
  9808. 1
  9809. 1
  9810. 1
  9811. 1
  9812. 1
  9813. 1
  9814. 1
  9815. 1
  9816. 1
  9817. 1
  9818. 1
  9819. 1
  9820. 1
  9821. 1
  9822. 1
  9823. 1
  9824. 1
  9825. 1
  9826. 1
  9827. 1
  9828. 1
  9829. 1
  9830. 1
  9831. 1
  9832. 1
  9833. 1
  9834. 1
  9835. 1
  9836. 1
  9837. 1
  9838. 1
  9839. 1
  9840. 1
  9841. 1
  9842. 1
  9843. 1
  9844. 1
  9845. 1
  9846. 1
  9847. 1
  9848. 1
  9849. 1
  9850. 1
  9851. 1
  9852. 1
  9853. 1
  9854. 1
  9855. 1
  9856. 1
  9857. 1
  9858. 1
  9859. 1
  9860. 1
  9861. 1
  9862. 1
  9863. 1
  9864. 1
  9865. 1
  9866. 1
  9867. 1
  9868. 1
  9869. 1
  9870. 1
  9871. 1
  9872. 1
  9873. 1
  9874. 1
  9875. 1
  9876. 1
  9877. 1
  9878. 1
  9879. 1
  9880. 1
  9881. 1
  9882. 1
  9883. 1
  9884. 1
  9885. 1
  9886. 1
  9887. 1
  9888. 1
  9889. 1
  9890. 1
  9891. 1
  9892. 1
  9893. 1
  9894. 1
  9895. 1
  9896. 1
  9897. 1
  9898. 1
  9899. 1
  9900. 1
  9901. 1
  9902. 1
  9903. 1
  9904. 1
  9905. 1
  9906. 1
  9907. 1
  9908. 1
  9909. 1
  9910. 1
  9911. 1
  9912. 1
  9913. 1
  9914. 1
  9915. 1
  9916. 1
  9917. 1
  9918. 1
  9919. 1
  9920. 1
  9921. 1
  9922. 1
  9923. 1
  9924. 1
  9925. 1
  9926. 1
  9927. 1
  9928. 1
  9929. 1
  9930. 1
  9931. 1
  9932. 1
  9933. 1
  9934. 1
  9935. 1
  9936. 1
  9937. 1
  9938. 1
  9939. 1
  9940. 1
  9941. 1
  9942. 1
  9943. 1
  9944. 1
  9945. 1
  9946. 1
  9947. 1
  9948. 1
  9949. 1
  9950. 1
  9951. 1
  9952. 1
  9953. 1
  9954. 1
  9955. 1
  9956. 1
  9957. 1
  9958. 1
  9959. 1
  9960. 1
  9961. 1
  9962. 1
  9963. 1
  9964. 1
  9965. 1
  9966. 1
  9967. 1
  9968. 1
  9969. 1
  9970. 1
  9971. 1
  9972. 1
  9973. 1
  9974. 1
  9975. 1
  9976. 1
  9977. 1
  9978. 1
  9979. 1
  9980. 1
  9981. 1
  9982. 1
  9983. 1
  9984. 1
  9985. 1
  9986. 1
  9987. 1
  9988. 1
  9989. 1
  9990. 1
  9991. 1
  9992. 1
  9993. 1
  9994. 1
  9995. 1
  9996. 1
  9997. 1
  9998. 1
  9999. 1
  10000. 1
  10001. 1
  10002. 1
  10003. 1
  10004. 1
  10005. 1
  10006. 1
  10007. 1
  10008. 1
  10009. 1
  10010. 1
  10011. 1
  10012. 1
  10013. 1
  10014. 1
  10015. 1
  10016. 1
  10017. 1
  10018. 1
  10019. 1
  10020. 1
  10021. 1
  10022. 1
  10023. 1
  10024. 1
  10025. 1
  10026. 1
  10027. 1
  10028. 1
  10029. 1
  10030. 1
  10031. 1
  10032. 1
  10033. 1
  10034. 1
  10035. 1
  10036. 1
  10037. 1
  10038. 1
  10039. 1
  10040. 1
  10041. 1
  10042. 1
  10043. 1
  10044. 1
  10045. 1
  10046. 1
  10047. 1
  10048. 1
  10049. 1
  10050. 1
  10051. 1
  10052. 1
  10053. 1
  10054. 1
  10055. 1
  10056. 1
  10057. 1
  10058. 1
  10059. 1
  10060. 1
  10061. 1
  10062. 1
  10063. 1
  10064. 1
  10065. 1
  10066. 1
  10067. 1
  10068. 1
  10069. 1
  10070. 1
  10071. 1
  10072. 1
  10073. 1
  10074. 1
  10075. 1
  10076. 1
  10077. 1
  10078. 1
  10079. 1
  10080. 1
  10081. 1
  10082. 1
  10083. 1
  10084. 1
  10085. 1
  10086. 1
  10087. 1
  10088. 1
  10089. 1
  10090. 1
  10091. 1
  10092. 1
  10093. 1
  10094. 1
  10095. 1
  10096. 1
  10097. 1
  10098. 1
  10099. 1
  10100. 1
  10101. 1
  10102. 1
  10103. 1
  10104. 1
  10105. 1
  10106. 1
  10107. 1
  10108. 1
  10109. 1
  10110. 1
  10111. 1
  10112. 1
  10113. 1
  10114. 1
  10115. 1
  10116. 1
  10117. 1
  10118. 1
  10119. 1
  10120. 1
  10121. 1
  10122. 1
  10123. 1
  10124. 1
  10125. 1
  10126. 1
  10127. 1
  10128. 1
  10129. 1
  10130. 1
  10131. 1
  10132. 1
  10133. 1
  10134. 1
  10135. 1
  10136. 1
  10137. 1
  10138. 1
  10139. 1
  10140. 1
  10141. 1
  10142. 1
  10143. 1
  10144. 1
  10145. 1
  10146. 1
  10147. 1
  10148. 1
  10149. 1
  10150. 1
  10151. 1
  10152. 1
  10153. 1
  10154. 1
  10155. 1
  10156. 1
  10157. 1
  10158. 1
  10159. 1
  10160. 1
  10161. 1
  10162. 1
  10163. 1
  10164. 1
  10165. 1
  10166. 1
  10167. 1
  10168. 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
  10169. 1
  10170. 1
  10171. 1
  10172. 1
  10173. 1
  10174. 1
  10175. 1
  10176. 1
  10177. 1
  10178. 1
  10179. 1
  10180. 1
  10181. 1
  10182. 1
  10183. 1
  10184. 1
  10185. 1
  10186. 1
  10187. 1
  10188. 1
  10189. 1
  10190. 1
  10191. 1
  10192. 1
  10193. 1
  10194. 1
  10195. 1
  10196. 1
  10197. 1
  10198. 1
  10199. 1
  10200. 1
  10201. 1
  10202. 1
  10203. 1
  10204. 1
  10205. 1
  10206. 1
  10207. 1
  10208. 1
  10209. 1
  10210. 1
  10211. 1
  10212. 1
  10213. 1
  10214. 1
  10215. 1
  10216. 1
  10217. 1
  10218. 1
  10219. 1
  10220. 1
  10221. 1
  10222. 1
  10223. 1
  10224. 1
  10225. 1
  10226. 1
  10227. 1
  10228. 1
  10229. 1
  10230. 1
  10231. 1
  10232. 1
  10233. 1
  10234. 1
  10235. 1
  10236. 1
  10237. 1
  10238. 1
  10239. 1
  10240. 1
  10241. 1
  10242. 1
  10243. 1
  10244. 1
  10245. 1
  10246. 1
  10247. 1
  10248. 1
  10249. 1
  10250. 1
  10251. 1
  10252. 1
  10253. 1
  10254. 1
  10255. 1
  10256. 1
  10257. 1
  10258. 1
  10259. 1
  10260. 1
  10261. 1
  10262. 1
  10263. 1
  10264. 1
  10265. 1
  10266. ​ @soniajulie6465  I want them to have enough to eat and something clean to put on. But the system is broken. They won't be helped properly by factory-scale approaches. It takes a person to help a homeless person, one-on-one shepherding back to well-being in real society. (Not literally at a one-to-one ratio; I just mean real personal attention.) I've seen it work many times. It might superficially sound more expensive but it isn't. It's actually the way to stanch the financial bleeding from the many very costly government-paid or -subsidized programs. One homeless person can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars over a long enough period of time. In my city each shelter bed is subsidized $80 a day, and the person will also use other taxpayer-paid services. They make heavy use of hospital ERs and generate a lot of work for police. You're quickly looking at $30k a year. Letting that go on year after year is madness when you could do something at an earlier stage. But of course the homelessness industry (let's face it, that's what it is in a real sense) endlessly pushes for more money—which when spent will actually discourage people from going back to the more reasonable life they once had. And of course these groups will be energetically backed up by politicians who know there are easy votes to be hoovered up, those of compassionate people who know nothing. These latter people are similarly the targets of our cynical and selfishly destructive friends known as the media. Journalists (and there's next to zero exceptions) will say anything for sanctimonious brownie points, anything but the real truth. They are quite likely, if any reform is proposed, to raise hell until the proposal is squashed. Sanctimony, you see. Nauseated yet?
    1
  10267. 1
  10268. 1
  10269. 1
  10270. 1
  10271. 1
  10272. 1
  10273. 1
  10274. 1
  10275. 1
  10276. 1
  10277. 1
  10278. 1
  10279. 1
  10280. 1
  10281. 1
  10282. 1
  10283. 1
  10284. 1
  10285. 1
  10286. 1
  10287. 1
  10288. 1
  10289. 1
  10290. 1
  10291. 1
  10292. 1
  10293. 1
  10294. 1
  10295. 1
  10296. 1
  10297. 1
  10298. 1
  10299. 1
  10300. 1
  10301. 1
  10302. 1
  10303. 1
  10304. 1
  10305. 1
  10306. 1
  10307. 1
  10308. 1
  10309. 1
  10310. 1
  10311. 1
  10312. 1
  10313. 1
  10314. 1
  10315. 1
  10316. 1
  10317. 1
  10318. 1
  10319. 1
  10320. 1
  10321. 1
  10322. 1
  10323. 1
  10324. 1
  10325. 1
  10326. 1
  10327. 1
  10328. 1
  10329. 1
  10330. 1
  10331. 1
  10332. 1
  10333. 1
  10334. 1
  10335. 1
  10336. 1
  10337. 1
  10338. 1
  10339. 1
  10340. 1
  10341. 1
  10342. 1
  10343. 1
  10344. 1
  10345. 1
  10346. 1
  10347. 1
  10348. 1
  10349. 1
  10350. 1
  10351. 1
  10352. 1
  10353. 1
  10354. 1
  10355. 1
  10356. 1
  10357. 1
  10358. 1
  10359. 1
  10360. 1
  10361. 1
  10362. 1
  10363. 1
  10364. 1
  10365. 1
  10366. 1
  10367. 1
  10368. 1
  10369. 1
  10370. 1
  10371. 1
  10372. 1
  10373. 1
  10374. 1
  10375. 1
  10376. 1
  10377. 1
  10378. 1
  10379. 1
  10380. 1
  10381. 1
  10382. 1
  10383. 1
  10384. 1
  10385. 1
  10386. 1
  10387. 1
  10388. 1
  10389. 1
  10390. 1
  10391. 1
  10392. 1
  10393. 1
  10394. 1
  10395. 1
  10396. 1
  10397. 1
  10398. 1
  10399. 1
  10400. 1
  10401. 1
  10402. 1
  10403. 1
  10404. 1
  10405. 1
  10406. 1
  10407. 1
  10408. 1
  10409. 1
  10410. 1
  10411. 1
  10412. 1
  10413. 1
  10414. 1
  10415. 1
  10416. 1
  10417. 1
  10418. 1
  10419. 1
  10420. 1
  10421. 1
  10422. 1
  10423. 1
  10424. 1
  10425. 1
  10426. 1
  10427. 1
  10428. 1
  10429. 1
  10430. 1
  10431. 1
  10432. 1
  10433. 1
  10434. 1
  10435. 1
  10436. 1
  10437. 1
  10438. 1
  10439. 1
  10440. 1
  10441. 1
  10442. 1
  10443. 1
  10444. 1
  10445. 1
  10446. 1
  10447. 1
  10448. 1
  10449. 1
  10450. 1
  10451. 1
  10452. 1
  10453. 1
  10454. 1
  10455. 1
  10456. 1
  10457. 1
  10458. 1
  10459. 1
  10460. 1
  10461. 1
  10462. 1
  10463. 1
  10464. 1
  10465. 1
  10466. 1
  10467. 1
  10468. 1
  10469. 1
  10470. 1
  10471. 1
  10472. 1
  10473. 1
  10474. 1
  10475. 1
  10476. 1
  10477. 1
  10478. 1
  10479. 1
  10480. 1
  10481. 1
  10482. 1
  10483. 1
  10484. 1
  10485. 1
  10486. 1
  10487. 1
  10488. 1
  10489. 1
  10490. 1
  10491. 1
  10492. 1
  10493. 1
  10494. 1
  10495. 1
  10496. 1
  10497. 1
  10498. 1
  10499. 1
  10500. 1
  10501. 1
  10502. 1
  10503. 1
  10504. 1
  10505. 1
  10506. 1
  10507. 1
  10508. 1
  10509. 1
  10510. 1
  10511. 1
  10512. 1
  10513. 1
  10514. 1
  10515. 1
  10516. 1
  10517. 1
  10518. 1
  10519. 1
  10520. 1
  10521. 1
  10522. 1
  10523. 1
  10524. 1
  10525. 1
  10526. 1
  10527. 1
  10528. 1
  10529. 1
  10530. 1
  10531. 1
  10532. 1
  10533. 1
  10534. 1
  10535. 1
  10536. 1
  10537. 1
  10538. 1
  10539. 1
  10540. 1
  10541. 1
  10542. 1
  10543. 1
  10544. 1
  10545. 1
  10546. 1
  10547. 1
  10548. 1
  10549. 1
  10550. 1
  10551. 1
  10552. 1
  10553. 1
  10554. 1
  10555. 1
  10556. 1
  10557. 1
  10558. 1
  10559. 1
  10560. 1
  10561. 1
  10562. 1
  10563. 1
  10564. 1
  10565. 1
  10566. 1
  10567. 1
  10568. 1
  10569. 1
  10570. 1
  10571. 1
  10572. 1
  10573. 1
  10574. 1
  10575. 1
  10576. 1
  10577. 1
  10578. 1
  10579. 1
  10580. 1
  10581. 1
  10582. 1
  10583. 1
  10584. 1
  10585. 1
  10586. 1
  10587. 1
  10588. 1
  10589. 1
  10590. $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
  10591. 1
  10592. 1
  10593. 1
  10594. 1
  10595. 1
  10596. 1
  10597. 1
  10598. 1
  10599. 1
  10600. 1
  10601. 1
  10602. 1
  10603. 1
  10604. 1
  10605. 1
  10606. 1
  10607. 1
  10608. 1
  10609. 1
  10610. 1
  10611. 1
  10612. 1
  10613. 1
  10614. 1
  10615. 1
  10616. 1
  10617. 1
  10618. 1
  10619. 1
  10620. 1
  10621. 1
  10622. 1
  10623. 1
  10624. 1
  10625. 1
  10626. 1
  10627. 1
  10628. 1
  10629. 1
  10630. 1
  10631. 1
  10632. 1
  10633. 1
  10634. 1
  10635. 1
  10636. 1
  10637. 1
  10638. 1
  10639. 1
  10640. 1
  10641. 1
  10642. 1
  10643. 1
  10644. 1
  10645. 1
  10646. 1
  10647. 1
  10648. 1
  10649. 1
  10650. 1
  10651. 1
  10652. 1
  10653. 1
  10654. 1
  10655. 1
  10656. 1
  10657. 1
  10658. 1
  10659. 1
  10660. 1
  10661. 1
  10662. 1
  10663. 1
  10664. 1
  10665. 1
  10666. 1
  10667. 1
  10668. 1
  10669. 1
  10670. 1
  10671. 1
  10672. 1
  10673. 1
  10674. 1
  10675. 1
  10676. 1
  10677. 1
  10678. 1
  10679. 1
  10680. 1
  10681. 1
  10682. 1
  10683. 1
  10684. 1
  10685. 1
  10686. 1
  10687. 1
  10688. 1
  10689. 1
  10690. 1
  10691. 1
  10692. 1
  10693. 1
  10694. 1
  10695. 1
  10696. 1
  10697. 1
  10698. 1
  10699. 1
  10700. 1
  10701. 1
  10702. 1
  10703. 1
  10704. 1
  10705. 1
  10706. 1
  10707. 1
  10708. 1
  10709. 1
  10710. 1
  10711. 1
  10712. 1
  10713. 1
  10714. 1
  10715. 1
  10716. 1
  10717. 1
  10718. 1
  10719. 1
  10720. 1
  10721. 1
  10722. 1
  10723. 1
  10724. 1
  10725. 1
  10726. 1
  10727. 1
  10728. 1
  10729. 1
  10730. 1
  10731. 1
  10732. 1
  10733. 1
  10734. 1
  10735. 1
  10736. 1
  10737. 1
  10738. 1
  10739. 1
  10740. 1
  10741. 1
  10742. 1
  10743. 1
  10744. 1
  10745. 1
  10746. 1
  10747. 1
  10748. 1
  10749. 1
  10750. 1
  10751. 1
  10752. 1
  10753. 1
  10754. 1
  10755. 1
  10756. 1
  10757. 1
  10758. 1
  10759. 1
  10760. 1
  10761. 1
  10762. 1
  10763. 1
  10764. 1
  10765. 1
  10766. 1
  10767. 1
  10768. 1
  10769. 1
  10770. 1
  10771. 1
  10772. 1
  10773. 1
  10774. 1
  10775. 1
  10776. 1
  10777. 1
  10778. 1
  10779. 1
  10780. 1
  10781. 1
  10782. 1
  10783. 1
  10784. 1
  10785. 1
  10786. 1
  10787. 1
  10788. 1
  10789. 1
  10790. 1
  10791. 1
  10792. 1
  10793. 1
  10794. 1
  10795. 1
  10796. 1
  10797. 1
  10798. 1
  10799. 1
  10800. 1
  10801. 1
  10802. 1
  10803. 1
  10804. 1
  10805. 1
  10806. 1
  10807. 1
  10808. 1
  10809. 1
  10810. 1
  10811. 1
  10812. 1
  10813. 1
  10814. 1
  10815. 1
  10816. 1
  10817. 1
  10818. 1
  10819. 1
  10820. 1
  10821. 1
  10822. 1
  10823. 1
  10824. 1
  10825. 1
  10826. 1
  10827. 1
  10828. 1
  10829. 1
  10830. 1
  10831. 1
  10832. 1
  10833. 1
  10834. 1
  10835. ​ @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
  10836. 1
  10837. 1
  10838. 1
  10839. 1
  10840. 1
  10841. 1
  10842. 1
  10843. 1
  10844. 1
  10845. 1
  10846. 1
  10847. 1
  10848. 1
  10849. 1
  10850. 1
  10851. 1
  10852. 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
  10853. 1
  10854. 1
  10855. 1
  10856. 1
  10857. 1
  10858. 1
  10859. 1
  10860. 1
  10861. 1
  10862. 1
  10863. 1
  10864. 1
  10865. 1
  10866. 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
  10867. 1
  10868. 1
  10869. 1
  10870. 1
  10871. 1
  10872. 1
  10873. 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
  10874. 1
  10875. 1
  10876. 1
  10877. 1
  10878. 1
  10879. 1
  10880. 1
  10881. 1
  10882. 1
  10883. 1
  10884. 1
  10885. 1
  10886. 1
  10887. 1
  10888. 1
  10889. 1
  10890. 1
  10891. 1
  10892. 1
  10893. 1
  10894. 1
  10895. 1
  10896. 1
  10897. 1
  10898. 1
  10899. 1
  10900. 1
  10901. 1
  10902. 1
  10903. 1
  10904. 1
  10905. 1
  10906. 1
  10907. 1
  10908. 1
  10909. 1
  10910. 1
  10911. 1
  10912. 1
  10913. 1
  10914. 1
  10915. 1
  10916. 1
  10917. 1
  10918. 1
  10919. 1
  10920. 1
  10921. 1
  10922. 1
  10923. 1
  10924. 1
  10925. 1
  10926. 1
  10927. 1
  10928. 1
  10929. 1
  10930. 1
  10931. 1
  10932. 1
  10933. 1
  10934. 1
  10935. 1
  10936. 1
  10937. 1
  10938. 1
  10939. 1
  10940. 1
  10941. 1
  10942. 1
  10943. 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
  10944. 1
  10945. 1
  10946. 1
  10947. 1
  10948. 1
  10949. 1
  10950. 1
  10951. 1
  10952. 1
  10953. 1
  10954. 1
  10955. 1
  10956. 1
  10957. 1
  10958. 1
  10959. 1
  10960. 1
  10961. 1
  10962. 1
  10963. 1
  10964. 1
  10965. 1
  10966. 1
  10967. 1
  10968. 1
  10969. 1
  10970. 1
  10971. 1
  10972. 1
  10973. 1
  10974. 1
  10975. 1
  10976. 1
  10977. 1
  10978. 1
  10979. 1
  10980. 1
  10981. 1
  10982. 1
  10983. 1
  10984. 1
  10985. 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
  10986. 1
  10987. 1
  10988. 1
  10989. 1
  10990. 1
  10991. 1
  10992. 1
  10993. 1
  10994. 1
  10995. 1
  10996. 1
  10997. 1
  10998. 1
  10999. 1
  11000. 1
  11001. 1
  11002. 1
  11003. 1
  11004. 1
  11005. 1
  11006. 1
  11007. 1
  11008. 1
  11009. 1
  11010. 1
  11011. ​ @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
  11012. 1
  11013. 1
  11014. 1
  11015. 1
  11016. 1
  11017. 1
  11018. 1
  11019. 1
  11020. 1
  11021. 1
  11022. 1
  11023. 1
  11024. 1
  11025. 1
  11026. 1
  11027. 1
  11028. 1
  11029. 1
  11030. 1
  11031. 1
  11032. 1
  11033. 1
  11034. 1
  11035. 1
  11036. 1
  11037. 1
  11038. 1
  11039. 1
  11040. 1
  11041. 1
  11042. 1
  11043. 1
  11044. 1
  11045. 1
  11046. 1
  11047. 1
  11048. 1
  11049. 1
  11050. 1
  11051. 1
  11052. 1
  11053. 1
  11054. 1
  11055. 1
  11056. 1
  11057. 1
  11058. 1
  11059. 1
  11060. 1
  11061. 1
  11062. 1
  11063. 1
  11064. 1
  11065. 1
  11066. 1
  11067. 1
  11068. 1
  11069. 1
  11070. 1
  11071. 1
  11072. 1
  11073. 1
  11074. 1
  11075. 1
  11076. 1
  11077. 1
  11078. 1
  11079. 1
  11080. 1
  11081. 1
  11082. 1
  11083. 1
  11084. 1
  11085. 1
  11086. 1
  11087. 1
  11088. 1
  11089. 1
  11090. 1
  11091. 1
  11092. 1
  11093. 1
  11094. 1
  11095. 1
  11096. 1
  11097. 1
  11098. 1
  11099. 1
  11100. 1
  11101. 1
  11102. 1
  11103. 1
  11104. 1
  11105. 1
  11106. 1
  11107. 1
  11108. 1
  11109. 1
  11110. 1
  11111. 1
  11112. 1
  11113. 1
  11114. 1
  11115. 1
  11116. 1
  11117. 1
  11118. 1
  11119. 1
  11120. 1
  11121. 1
  11122. 1
  11123. 1
  11124. 1
  11125. 1
  11126. 1
  11127. 1
  11128. 1
  11129. 1
  11130. 1
  11131. 1
  11132. 1
  11133. 1
  11134. 1
  11135. 1
  11136. 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
  11137. 1
  11138. 1
  11139. 1
  11140. 1
  11141. 1
  11142. 1
  11143. 1
  11144. 1
  11145. 1
  11146. 1
  11147. 1
  11148. 1
  11149. 1
  11150. 1
  11151. 1
  11152. 1
  11153. 1
  11154. 1
  11155. 1
  11156. 1
  11157. 1
  11158. 1
  11159. 1
  11160. 1
  11161. 1
  11162. 1
  11163. 1
  11164. 1
  11165. 1
  11166. 1
  11167. 1
  11168. 1
  11169. 1
  11170. 1
  11171. 1
  11172. 1
  11173. 1
  11174. 1
  11175. 1
  11176. 1
  11177. 1
  11178. 1
  11179. 1
  11180. 1
  11181. 1
  11182. 1
  11183. 1
  11184. 1
  11185. 1
  11186. 1
  11187. 1
  11188. 1
  11189. 1
  11190. 1
  11191. 1
  11192. 1
  11193. 1
  11194. 1
  11195. 1
  11196. 1
  11197. 1
  11198. 1
  11199. 1
  11200. 1
  11201. 1
  11202. 1
  11203. 1
  11204. 1
  11205. 1
  11206. 1
  11207. 1
  11208. 1
  11209. 1
  11210. 1
  11211. 1
  11212. 1
  11213. 1
  11214. 1
  11215. 1
  11216. 1
  11217. 1
  11218. 1
  11219. 1
  11220. 1
  11221. 1
  11222. 1
  11223. 1
  11224. 1
  11225. 1
  11226. 1
  11227. 1
  11228. 1
  11229. 1
  11230. 1
  11231. 1
  11232. 1
  11233. 1
  11234. 1
  11235. 1
  11236. 1
  11237. 1
  11238. 1
  11239. 1
  11240. 1
  11241. 1
  11242. 1
  11243. 1
  11244. 1
  11245. 1
  11246. 1
  11247. 1
  11248. 1
  11249. 1
  11250. 1
  11251. 1
  11252. 1
  11253. 1
  11254. 1
  11255. 1
  11256. 1
  11257. 1
  11258. 1
  11259. 1
  11260. 1
  11261. 1
  11262. 1
  11263. 1
  11264. 1
  11265. 1
  11266. 1
  11267. 1
  11268. 1
  11269. 1
  11270. 1
  11271. 1
  11272. 1
  11273. 1
  11274. 1
  11275. 1
  11276. 1
  11277. 1
  11278. 1
  11279. 1
  11280. 1
  11281. 1
  11282. 1
  11283. ​ @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
  11284. 1
  11285. 1
  11286. 1
  11287. 1
  11288. 1
  11289. 1
  11290. 1
  11291. 1
  11292. 1
  11293. 1
  11294. 1
  11295. 1
  11296. 1
  11297. 1
  11298. 1
  11299. 1
  11300. 1
  11301. 1
  11302. 1
  11303. 1
  11304. 1
  11305. 1
  11306. 1
  11307. 1
  11308. 1
  11309. 1
  11310. 1
  11311. 1
  11312. 1
  11313. 1
  11314. 1
  11315. 1
  11316. 1
  11317. 1
  11318. 1
  11319. 1
  11320. 1
  11321. 1
  11322. 1
  11323. 1
  11324. 1
  11325. 1
  11326. 1
  11327. 1
  11328. 1
  11329. 1
  11330. 1
  11331. 1
  11332. 1
  11333. 1
  11334. 1
  11335. 1
  11336. 1
  11337. 1
  11338. 1
  11339. 1
  11340. 1
  11341. 1
  11342. 1
  11343. 1
  11344. 1
  11345. 1
  11346. 1
  11347. 1
  11348. 1
  11349. 1
  11350. 1
  11351. 1
  11352. 1
  11353. 1
  11354. 1
  11355. 1
  11356. 1
  11357. 1
  11358. 1
  11359. 1
  11360. 1
  11361. 1
  11362. 1
  11363. 1
  11364. 1
  11365. 1
  11366. 1
  11367. 1
  11368. 1
  11369. 1
  11370. 1
  11371. 1
  11372. 1
  11373. 1
  11374. 1
  11375. 1
  11376. 1
  11377. 1
  11378. 1
  11379. 1
  11380. 1
  11381. 1
  11382. 1
  11383. 1
  11384. 1
  11385. 1
  11386. 1
  11387. 1
  11388. 1
  11389. 1
  11390. 1
  11391. 1
  11392. 1
  11393. 1
  11394. 1
  11395. 1
  11396. 1
  11397. 1
  11398. 1
  11399. 1
  11400. 1
  11401. 1
  11402. 1
  11403. 1
  11404. 1
  11405. 1
  11406. 1
  11407. 1
  11408. 1
  11409. 1
  11410. 1
  11411. 1
  11412. 1
  11413. 1
  11414. 1
  11415. 1
  11416. 1
  11417. 1
  11418. 1
  11419. NATO could've armed Ukraine more heavily at earlier stages but I suspect there are good reasons why it didn't. Forcing Russia back would not have been sufficient in itself. (1) Had Russia been knocked to the canvas (so to speak) early on, but without losing much of its vast ability to make war, it would've remained a colossal danger and probably would've restarted full-scale hostilities after a short pause. It is unfortunately necessary to drain it of its combat power before trying to conclude the war in a way favorable to Ukraine's future. I view this as a sad reality of the war. (2) It is unwise to drain NATO stocks at a rate which leaves it unable to fight a second or third war on short notice. A well-stocked NATO is the world's best hedge by far against widespread outbreaks of war. It must keep huge amounts of its powder dry, and perhaps what it has got is not much above a safe minimum. Its arms and ammunition production capacity needs to go way up. And that takes years, not months. (3) It takes time to see what Russia can do and will do. Know Your Enemy is a valuable maxim which entails studying what the enemy does if circumstances at all allow it. Pitfalls are everywhere in war and it is much better to be safe than sorry. It can mean the difference between winning the war and losing it. (I realize the bitter irony of invoking the concept of 'safety' at a time when Ukraine is in great peril, but avoiding haste and the errors which ensue is of prime importance in pursuit of victory.) (4) It is good during this period of attrition to convince Putin that he's never really very far from success. It encourages him to throw resources at the front faster than is advisable for his long-term chances. The appearance of timidity and reluctance on the part of NATO actually serves Ukraine well in this regard. A little of it is real but mostly, I believe, it is feigned. NATO is under no illusions about the importance of a good outcome in this conflict. I could go on for a while but I don't have all night, so I'm going to cut it short there. I welcome responses of any sort, even from vatniks.
    1
  11420. 1
  11421. 1
  11422. 1
  11423. 1
  11424. 1
  11425. 1
  11426. 1
  11427. 1
  11428. 1
  11429. 1
  11430. 1
  11431. 1
  11432. 1
  11433. 1
  11434. 1
  11435. 1
  11436. 1
  11437. 1
  11438. 1
  11439. 1
  11440. 1
  11441. 1
  11442. 1
  11443. 1
  11444. 1
  11445. 1
  11446. 1
  11447. 1
  11448. 1
  11449. 1
  11450. 1
  11451. 1
  11452. 1
  11453. 1
  11454. 1
  11455. 1
  11456. 1
  11457. 1
  11458. 1
  11459. 1
  11460. 1
  11461. 1
  11462. 1
  11463. 1
  11464. 1
  11465. 1
  11466. 1
  11467. 1
  11468. 1
  11469. 1
  11470. 1
  11471. 1
  11472. 1
  11473. 1
  11474. 1
  11475. 1
  11476. 1
  11477. 1
  11478. 1
  11479. 1
  11480. 1
  11481. 1
  11482. 1
  11483. 1
  11484. 1
  11485. 1
  11486. 1
  11487. 1
  11488. 1
  11489. 1
  11490. 1
  11491. 1
  11492. 1
  11493. 1
  11494. 1
  11495. 1
  11496. 1
  11497. 1
  11498. 1
  11499. 1
  11500. 1
  11501. 1
  11502. 1
  11503. 1
  11504. 1
  11505. 1
  11506. 1
  11507. 1
  11508. 1
  11509. 1
  11510. 1
  11511. 1
  11512. 1
  11513. 1
  11514. 1
  11515. 1
  11516. 1
  11517. 1
  11518. 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
  11519. 1
  11520. 1
  11521. 1
  11522. 1
  11523. 1
  11524. 1
  11525. 1
  11526. 1
  11527. 1
  11528. 1
  11529. 1
  11530. 1
  11531. 1
  11532. 1
  11533. 1
  11534. 1
  11535. 1
  11536. 1
  11537. 1
  11538. 1
  11539. 1
  11540. 1
  11541. 1
  11542. 1
  11543. 1
  11544. 1
  11545. 1
  11546. 1
  11547. 1
  11548. 1
  11549. 1
  11550. 1
  11551. 1
  11552. 1
  11553. 1
  11554. 1
  11555. 1
  11556. 1
  11557. 1
  11558. 1
  11559. 1
  11560. 1
  11561. 1
  11562. 1
  11563. 1
  11564. 1
  11565. 1
  11566. 1
  11567. 1
  11568. 1
  11569. 1
  11570. 1
  11571. 1
  11572. 1
  11573. 1
  11574. 1
  11575. 1
  11576. 1
  11577. 1
  11578. 1
  11579. 1
  11580. 1
  11581. 1
  11582. 1
  11583. 1
  11584. 1
  11585. 1
  11586. 1
  11587. 1
  11588. 1
  11589. 1
  11590. 1
  11591. 1
  11592. 1
  11593. 1
  11594. 1
  11595. 1
  11596. 1
  11597. 1
  11598. 1
  11599. 1
  11600. 1
  11601. 1
  11602. 1
  11603. 1
  11604. 1
  11605. 1
  11606. 1
  11607. 1
  11608. 1
  11609. 1
  11610. 1
  11611. 1
  11612. 1
  11613. 1
  11614. 1
  11615. 1
  11616. 1
  11617. 1
  11618. 1
  11619. 1
  11620. 1
  11621. 1
  11622. 1
  11623. 1
  11624. 1
  11625. 1
  11626. 1
  11627. 1
  11628. 1
  11629. 1
  11630. 1
  11631. 1
  11632. 1
  11633. 1
  11634. 1
  11635. 1
  11636. 1
  11637. 1
  11638. 1
  11639. 1
  11640. 1
  11641. 1
  11642. 1
  11643. 1
  11644. 1
  11645. 1
  11646. 1
  11647. 1
  11648. 1
  11649. 1
  11650. 1
  11651. 1
  11652. 1
  11653. 1
  11654. 1
  11655. 1
  11656. 1
  11657. 1
  11658. 1
  11659. 1
  11660. 1
  11661. 1
  11662. 1
  11663. 1
  11664. 1
  11665. 1
  11666. 1
  11667. 1
  11668. 1
  11669. 1
  11670. 1
  11671. 1
  11672.  @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
  11673. 1
  11674. 1
  11675. 1
  11676. 1
  11677. 1
  11678. 1
  11679. 1
  11680. 1
  11681. 1
  11682. 1
  11683. 1
  11684. 1
  11685. 1
  11686. 1
  11687. 1
  11688. 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
  11689. 1
  11690. 1
  11691. 1
  11692. 1
  11693. 1
  11694. 1
  11695. 1
  11696. 1
  11697. 1
  11698. 1
  11699. 1
  11700. 1
  11701. 1
  11702. 1
  11703. 1
  11704. 1
  11705. 1
  11706. 1
  11707. 1
  11708. 1
  11709. 1
  11710. 1
  11711. 1
  11712. 1
  11713. 1
  11714. 1
  11715. 1
  11716. 1
  11717. 1
  11718. 1
  11719. 1
  11720. 1
  11721. 1
  11722. 1
  11723. 1
  11724. 1
  11725. 1
  11726. 1
  11727. 1
  11728. 1
  11729. 1
  11730. 1
  11731. 1
  11732. 1
  11733. 1
  11734. 1
  11735. 1
  11736. 1
  11737. 1
  11738. 1
  11739. 1
  11740. 1
  11741. 1
  11742. 1
  11743. 1
  11744. 1
  11745. 1
  11746. 1
  11747. 1
  11748. 1
  11749. ​ @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
  11750. 1
  11751. 1
  11752. 1
  11753. 1
  11754. 1
  11755. 1
  11756. 1
  11757. 1
  11758. 1
  11759. 1
  11760. 1
  11761. 1
  11762. 1
  11763. 1
  11764. 1
  11765. 1
  11766. 1
  11767. 1
  11768. 1
  11769. 1
  11770. 1
  11771. 1
  11772. 1
  11773. 1
  11774. 1
  11775. 1
  11776. 1
  11777. 1
  11778. 1
  11779. 1
  11780. 1
  11781. 1
  11782. 1
  11783. 1
  11784. 1
  11785. 1
  11786. 1
  11787. 1
  11788. 1
  11789. 1
  11790. 1
  11791. 1
  11792. 1
  11793. 1
  11794. 1
  11795. 1
  11796. 1
  11797. 1
  11798. 1
  11799. 1
  11800. 1
  11801. 1
  11802. 1
  11803. 1
  11804. 1
  11805. 1
  11806. 1
  11807. 1
  11808. 1
  11809. 1
  11810. 1
  11811. 1
  11812. 1
  11813. 1
  11814. 1
  11815. 1
  11816. 1
  11817. 1
  11818. 1
  11819. 1
  11820. 1
  11821. 1
  11822. 1
  11823. 1
  11824. 1
  11825. 1
  11826. 1
  11827. 1
  11828. 1
  11829. 1
  11830. 1
  11831. 1
  11832. 1
  11833. 1
  11834. 1
  11835. 1
  11836. 1
  11837. 1
  11838. 1
  11839. 1
  11840. 1
  11841. 1
  11842. 1
  11843. 1
  11844. 1
  11845. 1
  11846. 1
  11847. 1
  11848. 1
  11849. 1
  11850. 1
  11851. 1
  11852. 1
  11853. 1
  11854. 1
  11855. 1
  11856. 1
  11857. 1
  11858. 1
  11859. 1
  11860. 1
  11861. 1
  11862. 1
  11863. 1
  11864. 1
  11865. 1
  11866. 1
  11867. 1
  11868. 1
  11869. 1
  11870. 1
  11871. 1
  11872. 1
  11873. 1
  11874. 1
  11875. 1
  11876. 1
  11877. 1
  11878. 1
  11879. 1
  11880. 1
  11881. 1
  11882. 1
  11883. 1
  11884. 1
  11885. 1
  11886. 1
  11887. 1
  11888. 1
  11889. 1
  11890. 1
  11891. 1
  11892. 1
  11893. 1
  11894. 1
  11895. 1
  11896. 1
  11897. 1
  11898. 1
  11899. 1
  11900. 1
  11901. 1
  11902. 1
  11903. 1
  11904. 1
  11905. 1
  11906. 1
  11907. 1
  11908. 1
  11909. 1
  11910. 1
  11911. 1
  11912. 1
  11913. 1
  11914. 1
  11915. 1
  11916. 1
  11917. 1
  11918. 1
  11919. 1
  11920. 1
  11921. 1
  11922. 1
  11923. 1
  11924. 1
  11925. 1
  11926. 1
  11927. 1
  11928. 1
  11929. 1
  11930. 1
  11931. 1
  11932. 1
  11933. 1
  11934. ​ @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
  11935. 1
  11936. 1
  11937. 1
  11938. 1
  11939. 1
  11940. 1
  11941. 1
  11942. 1
  11943. 1
  11944. 1
  11945. 1
  11946. 1
  11947. 1
  11948. 1
  11949. 1
  11950. 1
  11951. 1
  11952. 1
  11953. 1
  11954. 1
  11955. 1
  11956. 1
  11957. 1
  11958. 1
  11959. 1
  11960. 1
  11961. 1
  11962. 1
  11963. 1
  11964. 1
  11965. 1
  11966. 1
  11967. 1
  11968. 1
  11969. 1
  11970. 1
  11971. 1
  11972. 1
  11973. 1
  11974. 1
  11975. 1
  11976. 1
  11977. 1
  11978. 1
  11979. 1
  11980. 1
  11981. 1
  11982. 1
  11983. 1
  11984. 1
  11985. 1
  11986. 1
  11987. 1
  11988. 1
  11989. 1
  11990. 1
  11991. 1
  11992. 1
  11993. 1
  11994. 1
  11995. 1
  11996. 1
  11997. 1
  11998. 1
  11999. 1
  12000. 1
  12001. 1
  12002. 1
  12003. 1
  12004. 1
  12005. 1
  12006. 1
  12007. 1
  12008. 1
  12009. 1
  12010. 1
  12011. 1
  12012. 1
  12013. 1
  12014. 1
  12015. 1
  12016. 1
  12017. 1
  12018. 1
  12019. 1
  12020. 1
  12021. 1
  12022. 1
  12023. 1
  12024. 1
  12025. 1
  12026. 1
  12027. 1
  12028. 1
  12029. 1
  12030. 1
  12031. 1
  12032. 1
  12033. 1
  12034. 1
  12035. 1
  12036. 1
  12037. 1
  12038. 1
  12039. 1
  12040. 1
  12041. 1
  12042. 1
  12043. 1
  12044. 1
  12045. 1
  12046. 1
  12047. 1
  12048. 1
  12049. 1
  12050. 1
  12051. 1
  12052. 1
  12053. 1
  12054. 1
  12055. 1
  12056. 1
  12057. 1
  12058. 1
  12059. 1
  12060. 1
  12061.  @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
  12062. 1
  12063. 1
  12064. 1
  12065. 1
  12066. 1
  12067. 1
  12068. 1
  12069. 1
  12070. 1
  12071. 1
  12072. 1
  12073. 1
  12074. 1
  12075. 1
  12076. 1
  12077. 1
  12078. 1
  12079. 1
  12080. 1
  12081. 1
  12082. 1
  12083. 1
  12084. 1
  12085. 1
  12086. 1
  12087. 1
  12088. 1
  12089. 1
  12090. 1
  12091. 1
  12092. 1
  12093. 1
  12094. 1
  12095. 1
  12096. 1
  12097. 1
  12098. 1
  12099. 1
  12100. 1
  12101. 1
  12102. 1
  12103. 1
  12104. 1
  12105. 1
  12106. 1
  12107. 1
  12108. 1
  12109. 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
  12110. 1
  12111. 1
  12112. 1
  12113. 1
  12114. 1
  12115. 1
  12116. 1
  12117. 1
  12118. 1
  12119. 1
  12120. 1
  12121. 1
  12122. 1
  12123. 1
  12124. 1
  12125. 1
  12126. 1
  12127. 1
  12128. 1
  12129. 1
  12130. 1
  12131. 1
  12132. 1
  12133. 1
  12134. 1
  12135. 1
  12136. 1
  12137. 1
  12138. 1
  12139. 1
  12140. 1
  12141. 1
  12142. 1
  12143. 1
  12144. 1
  12145. 1
  12146. 1
  12147. 1
  12148. 1
  12149. 1
  12150. 1
  12151. 1
  12152. 1
  12153. 1
  12154. 1
  12155. 1
  12156. 1
  12157. 1
  12158. 1
  12159. 1
  12160. 1
  12161. 1
  12162. 1
  12163. 1
  12164. 1
  12165. ​ 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
  12166. 1
  12167. 1
  12168. 1
  12169. 1
  12170. 1
  12171. 1
  12172. 1
  12173. 1
  12174. 1
  12175. 1
  12176. 1
  12177. 1
  12178. 1
  12179. 1
  12180. 1
  12181. 1
  12182. 1
  12183. 1
  12184. 1
  12185. 1
  12186. 1
  12187. 1
  12188. 1
  12189. 1
  12190. 1
  12191. 1
  12192. 1
  12193. 1
  12194. 1
  12195. 1
  12196. 1
  12197. 1
  12198. 1
  12199. 1
  12200. 1
  12201. 1
  12202. 1
  12203. 1
  12204. 1
  12205. 1
  12206. 1
  12207. 1
  12208. 1
  12209. 1
  12210. 1
  12211. 1
  12212. 1
  12213. 1
  12214. 1
  12215. 1
  12216. 1
  12217. 1
  12218. 1
  12219. 1
  12220. 1
  12221. 1
  12222. 1
  12223. 1
  12224. 1
  12225. 1
  12226. 1
  12227. ​ @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
  12228. 1
  12229. 1
  12230. 1
  12231. 1
  12232. 1
  12233. 1
  12234. 1
  12235. 1
  12236. 1
  12237. 1
  12238. 1
  12239. 1
  12240. 1
  12241. 1
  12242. 1
  12243. 1
  12244. 1
  12245. 1
  12246. 1
  12247. 1
  12248. 1
  12249. 1
  12250. 1
  12251. 1
  12252. 1
  12253. 1
  12254. 1
  12255. 1
  12256. 1
  12257. 1
  12258. 1
  12259. 1
  12260. 1
  12261. 1
  12262. 1
  12263. 1
  12264. 1
  12265. 1
  12266. 1
  12267. 1
  12268. 1
  12269. 1
  12270. 1
  12271. 1
  12272. 1
  12273. 1
  12274. 1
  12275. 1
  12276. 1
  12277. 1
  12278. 1
  12279. 1
  12280. 1
  12281. 1
  12282. 1
  12283. 1
  12284. 1
  12285. 1
  12286. 1
  12287. 1
  12288. 1
  12289. 1
  12290. 1
  12291. 1
  12292. 1
  12293. 1
  12294. 1
  12295. 1
  12296. 1
  12297. 1
  12298. 1
  12299. 1
  12300. 1
  12301. 1
  12302. 1
  12303. 1
  12304. 1
  12305. 1
  12306. 1
  12307. 1
  12308. 1
  12309. 1
  12310. 1
  12311. 1
  12312. 1
  12313. 1
  12314. 1
  12315. 1
  12316. 1
  12317. 1
  12318. 1
  12319. 1
  12320. 1
  12321. 1
  12322. 1
  12323. 1
  12324. 1
  12325. 1
  12326. 1
  12327. 1
  12328. 1
  12329. 1
  12330. 1
  12331. 1
  12332. 1
  12333. 1
  12334. 1
  12335. 1
  12336. 1
  12337. 1
  12338. 1
  12339. 1
  12340. 1
  12341. 1
  12342. 1
  12343. 1
  12344. 1
  12345. 1
  12346. 1
  12347. 1
  12348. 1
  12349. 1
  12350. 1
  12351. 1
  12352. 1
  12353. 1
  12354. 1
  12355. 1
  12356. 1
  12357. 1
  12358. 1
  12359. 1
  12360. 1
  12361. 1
  12362. 1
  12363. 1
  12364. 1
  12365. 1
  12366. 1
  12367. 1
  12368. 1
  12369. 1
  12370. 1
  12371. 1
  12372. 1
  12373. 1
  12374. 1
  12375. 1
  12376. 1
  12377. 1
  12378. 1
  12379. 1
  12380. 1
  12381. 1
  12382. 1
  12383. 1
  12384. 1
  12385. 1
  12386. 1
  12387. 1
  12388. 1
  12389. 1
  12390. 1
  12391. 1
  12392. 1
  12393. 1
  12394. 1
  12395. 1
  12396. 1
  12397. 1
  12398. 1
  12399. 1
  12400. 1
  12401. 1
  12402. 1
  12403. 1
  12404. 1
  12405. 1
  12406. 1
  12407. 1
  12408. 1
  12409. 1
  12410. 1
  12411. 1
  12412. 1
  12413. 1
  12414. 1
  12415. 1
  12416. 1
  12417. 1
  12418. 1
  12419. 1
  12420. 1
  12421. 1
  12422. 1
  12423. 1
  12424. 1
  12425. 1
  12426. 1
  12427. 1
  12428. 1
  12429. 1
  12430. 1
  12431. 1
  12432. 1
  12433. 1
  12434. 1
  12435. 1
  12436. 1
  12437. 1
  12438. 1
  12439. 1
  12440. 1
  12441. 1
  12442. 1
  12443. 1
  12444. 1
  12445. 1
  12446. 1
  12447. 1
  12448. 1
  12449. 1
  12450. 1
  12451. 1
  12452. 1
  12453. 1
  12454. 1
  12455. 1
  12456. 1
  12457. 1
  12458. 1
  12459. 1
  12460. 1
  12461. 1
  12462. 1
  12463. 1
  12464. 1
  12465. 1
  12466. ​ 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
  12467. 1
  12468. 1
  12469. 1
  12470. 1
  12471. 1
  12472. 1
  12473. 1
  12474. 1
  12475. 1
  12476. 1
  12477. 1
  12478. 1
  12479. 1
  12480. 1
  12481. 1
  12482. 1
  12483. 1
  12484. 1
  12485. 1
  12486. 1
  12487. 1
  12488. 1
  12489. 1
  12490. 1
  12491. 1
  12492. 1
  12493. 1
  12494. 1
  12495. 1
  12496. 1
  12497. 1
  12498. 1
  12499. 1
  12500. 1
  12501. 1
  12502. 1
  12503. 1
  12504. 1
  12505. 1
  12506. 1
  12507. 1
  12508. 1
  12509. 1
  12510. 1
  12511. 1
  12512. 1
  12513. 1
  12514. 1
  12515. 1
  12516. 1
  12517. 1
  12518. 1
  12519. 1
  12520. 1
  12521. 1
  12522. 1
  12523. 1
  12524. 1
  12525. 1
  12526. 1
  12527. 1
  12528. 1
  12529. 1
  12530. 1
  12531. 1
  12532. 1
  12533. 1
  12534. 1
  12535. 1
  12536. 1
  12537. 1
  12538. 1
  12539. 1
  12540. 1
  12541. 1
  12542. 1
  12543. 1
  12544. 1
  12545. 1
  12546. 1
  12547. 1
  12548. 1
  12549. 1
  12550. 1
  12551. 1
  12552. 1
  12553. 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
  12554. 1
  12555. 1
  12556. 1
  12557. 1
  12558. 1
  12559. 1
  12560. 1
  12561. 1
  12562. 1
  12563. 1
  12564. 1
  12565. 1
  12566. 1
  12567. 1
  12568. 1
  12569. 1
  12570. 1
  12571. 1
  12572. 1
  12573. 1
  12574. 1
  12575. 1
  12576. 1
  12577. 1
  12578. 1
  12579. 1
  12580. 1
  12581. 1
  12582. 1
  12583. 1
  12584. 1
  12585. 1
  12586. 1
  12587. 1
  12588. 1
  12589. 1
  12590. 1
  12591. 1
  12592. 1
  12593. 1
  12594. 1
  12595. 1
  12596. 1
  12597. 1
  12598. 1
  12599. 1
  12600. 1
  12601. 1
  12602. 1
  12603. 1
  12604. 1
  12605. 1
  12606. 1
  12607. 1
  12608. 1
  12609. 1
  12610. 1
  12611. 1
  12612. 1
  12613. 1
  12614. 1
  12615. 1
  12616. 1
  12617. 1
  12618. 1
  12619. 1
  12620. 1
  12621. 1
  12622. 1
  12623. 1
  12624. 1
  12625. 1
  12626. 1
  12627. 1
  12628. 1
  12629. 1
  12630. 1
  12631. 1
  12632. 1
  12633. 1
  12634. 1
  12635. 1
  12636. 1
  12637. 1
  12638. 1
  12639. 1
  12640. 1
  12641. 1
  12642. 1
  12643. 1
  12644. 1
  12645. 1
  12646. 1
  12647. 1
  12648. 1
  12649. 1
  12650. 1
  12651. 1
  12652. 1
  12653. 1
  12654. 1
  12655. 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
  12656. 1
  12657. 1
  12658. 1
  12659. 1
  12660. 1
  12661. 1
  12662. 1
  12663. 1
  12664. 1
  12665. 1
  12666. 1
  12667. 1
  12668. 1
  12669. 1
  12670. 1
  12671. 1
  12672. 1
  12673. 1
  12674. 1
  12675. 1
  12676. 1
  12677. 1
  12678. 1
  12679. 1
  12680. 1
  12681. 1
  12682. 1
  12683. 1
  12684. 1
  12685. 1
  12686. 1
  12687. 1
  12688. 1
  12689. 1
  12690. 1
  12691. 1
  12692. 1
  12693. 1
  12694. 1
  12695. 1
  12696.  @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
  12697. 1
  12698. 1
  12699. 1
  12700. 1
  12701. 1
  12702. 1
  12703. 1
  12704. 1
  12705. 1
  12706. 1
  12707. 1
  12708. 1
  12709. 1
  12710. 1
  12711. 1
  12712. 1
  12713. 1
  12714. 1
  12715. 1
  12716. 1
  12717. 1
  12718. 1
  12719. 1
  12720. 1
  12721. 1
  12722. 1
  12723. 1
  12724. 1
  12725. 1
  12726. 1
  12727. 1
  12728. 1
  12729. 1
  12730. 1
  12731. 1
  12732. 1
  12733. 1
  12734. 1
  12735. 1
  12736. 1
  12737. 1
  12738. 1
  12739. 1
  12740. 1
  12741. 1
  12742. 1
  12743. 1
  12744. 1
  12745. 1
  12746. 1
  12747. 1
  12748. 1
  12749. 1
  12750. 1
  12751. 1
  12752. 1
  12753. 1
  12754. 1
  12755. 1
  12756. 1
  12757. 1
  12758. 1
  12759. 1
  12760. 1
  12761. 1
  12762. 1
  12763. 1
  12764. 1
  12765. 1
  12766. 1
  12767. 1
  12768. 1
  12769. 1
  12770. 1
  12771. 1
  12772. 1
  12773. 1
  12774. 1
  12775. 1
  12776. 1
  12777. 1
  12778. 1
  12779. 1
  12780. 1
  12781. 1
  12782. 1
  12783. 1
  12784. 1
  12785. 1
  12786. 1
  12787. 1
  12788. 1
  12789. 1
  12790. 1
  12791. 1
  12792. 1
  12793. 1
  12794. 1
  12795. 1
  12796. 1
  12797. 1
  12798. 1
  12799. 1
  12800. 1
  12801. 1
  12802. 1
  12803. 1
  12804. 1
  12805. 1
  12806. 1
  12807. 1
  12808. 1
  12809. 1
  12810. 1
  12811. 1
  12812. 1
  12813. 1
  12814. 1
  12815. 1
  12816. 1
  12817. 1
  12818. 1
  12819. 1
  12820. 1
  12821. 1
  12822. 1
  12823. 1
  12824. 1
  12825. 1
  12826. 1
  12827. 1
  12828. 1
  12829. 1
  12830. 1
  12831. 1
  12832. 1
  12833. 1
  12834. 1
  12835. 1
  12836. 1
  12837. 1
  12838. 1
  12839. 1
  12840. 1
  12841. 1
  12842. 1
  12843. 1
  12844. 1
  12845. 1
  12846. 1
  12847. 1
  12848. 1
  12849. 1
  12850. 1
  12851. 1
  12852. 1
  12853. 1
  12854. 1
  12855. 1
  12856. 1
  12857. 1
  12858. 1
  12859. 1
  12860. 1
  12861. 1
  12862. 1
  12863. 1
  12864. 1
  12865. 1
  12866. 1
  12867. 1
  12868. 1
  12869. 1
  12870. 1
  12871. 1
  12872. 1
  12873. 1
  12874. 1
  12875. 1
  12876. 1
  12877. 1
  12878. 1
  12879. 1
  12880. 1
  12881. 1
  12882. 1
  12883. 1
  12884. 1
  12885. 1
  12886. 1
  12887. 1
  12888. 1
  12889. 1
  12890. 1
  12891. 1
  12892. 1
  12893. 1
  12894. 1
  12895. 1
  12896. 1
  12897. 1
  12898. 1
  12899. 1
  12900. 1
  12901. 1
  12902. 1
  12903. 1
  12904. 1
  12905. 1
  12906. 1
  12907. 1
  12908. 1
  12909. 1
  12910. 1
  12911. 1
  12912. 1
  12913. 1
  12914. 1
  12915. 1
  12916. 1
  12917. 1
  12918. 1
  12919. 1
  12920. 1
  12921. 1
  12922. 1
  12923. 1
  12924. 1
  12925. 1
  12926. 1
  12927. 1
  12928. 1
  12929. 1
  12930. 1
  12931. 1
  12932. 1
  12933. 1
  12934. 1
  12935. 1
  12936. 1
  12937. 1
  12938. 1
  12939. 1
  12940. 1
  12941. 1
  12942. 1
  12943. 1
  12944. 1
  12945. 1
  12946. 1
  12947. 1
  12948. 1
  12949. 1
  12950. 1
  12951. 1
  12952. 1
  12953. 1
  12954. 1
  12955. 1
  12956. 1
  12957. 1
  12958. 1
  12959. 1
  12960. 1
  12961. 1
  12962. 1
  12963. 1
  12964. 1
  12965. 1
  12966. 1
  12967. 1
  12968. 1
  12969. 1
  12970. 1
  12971. 1
  12972. 1
  12973. 1
  12974. 1
  12975. 1
  12976. 1
  12977. 1
  12978. 1
  12979. 1
  12980. 1
  12981. 1
  12982. 1
  12983. 1
  12984. 1
  12985. 1
  12986. 1
  12987. 1
  12988. 1
  12989. 1
  12990. 1
  12991. 1
  12992. 1
  12993. 1
  12994. 1
  12995. 1
  12996. 1
  12997. 1
  12998. 1
  12999. 1
  13000. 1
  13001. 1
  13002. 1
  13003. 1
  13004. 1
  13005. 1
  13006. 1
  13007. 1
  13008. 1
  13009. 1
  13010. 1
  13011. 1
  13012. 1
  13013. 1
  13014. 1
  13015. 1
  13016. 1
  13017. 1
  13018. 1
  13019. 1
  13020. 1
  13021. 1
  13022. 1
  13023. 1
  13024. 1
  13025. 1
  13026. 1
  13027. 1
  13028. 1
  13029. 1
  13030. 1
  13031. 1
  13032. 1
  13033. 1
  13034. 1
  13035. 1
  13036. 1
  13037. 1
  13038. 1
  13039. 1
  13040. 1
  13041. 1
  13042. 1
  13043. 1
  13044. 1
  13045. 1
  13046. 1
  13047. 1
  13048. 1
  13049. 1
  13050. 1
  13051. 1
  13052. 1
  13053. 1
  13054. 1
  13055. 1
  13056. 1
  13057. 1
  13058. 1
  13059. 1
  13060. 1
  13061. 1
  13062. 1
  13063. 1
  13064. 1
  13065. 1
  13066. 1
  13067. 1
  13068. 1
  13069. 1
  13070. 1
  13071. 1
  13072. 1
  13073. 1
  13074. 1
  13075. 1
  13076. 1
  13077. 1
  13078. 1
  13079. 1
  13080. 1
  13081. 1
  13082. 1
  13083. 1
  13084. 1
  13085. 1
  13086. 1
  13087. 1
  13088. 1
  13089. 1
  13090. 1
  13091. 1
  13092. 1
  13093. 1
  13094. 1
  13095. 1
  13096. 1
  13097. 1
  13098. 1
  13099. 1
  13100. 1
  13101. 1
  13102. 1
  13103. 1
  13104. 1
  13105. 1
  13106. 1
  13107. 1
  13108. 1
  13109. 1
  13110. 1
  13111. 1
  13112. 1
  13113. 1
  13114. 1
  13115. 1
  13116. 1
  13117. 1
  13118. 1
  13119. 1
  13120. 1
  13121. 1
  13122. 1
  13123. 1
  13124. 1
  13125. 1
  13126. 1
  13127. 1
  13128. 1
  13129. 1
  13130. 1
  13131. 1
  13132. 1
  13133. 1
  13134. 1
  13135. 1
  13136. 1
  13137. 1
  13138. 1
  13139. 1
  13140. 1
  13141. 1
  13142. 1
  13143. 1
  13144. 1
  13145. 1
  13146. 1
  13147. 1
  13148. 1
  13149. 1
  13150. 1
  13151. 1
  13152. 1
  13153. 1
  13154. 1
  13155. 1
  13156. 1
  13157. 1
  13158. 1
  13159. 1
  13160. 1
  13161. 1
  13162. 1
  13163. 1
  13164. 1
  13165. 1
  13166. 1
  13167. 1
  13168. 1
  13169. 1
  13170. 1
  13171. 1
  13172. 1
  13173. 1
  13174. 1
  13175. 1
  13176. 1
  13177. 1
  13178. 1
  13179. 1
  13180. 1
  13181. 1
  13182. 1
  13183. 1
  13184. 1
  13185. 1
  13186. 1
  13187. 1
  13188. 1
  13189. 1
  13190. 1
  13191. 1
  13192. 1
  13193. 1
  13194. 1
  13195.  @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
  13196. 1
  13197. 1
  13198. 1
  13199. 1
  13200. 1
  13201. 1
  13202. 1
  13203. 1
  13204. 1
  13205. 1
  13206. 1
  13207. 1
  13208. 1
  13209. 1
  13210. 1
  13211. 1
  13212. 1
  13213. 1
  13214. 1
  13215. 1
  13216. 1
  13217. 1
  13218. 1
  13219. 1
  13220. 1
  13221. 1
  13222. 1
  13223. 1
  13224. 1
  13225. 1
  13226. 1
  13227. 1
  13228. 1
  13229. 1
  13230. 1
  13231. 1
  13232. 1
  13233. 1
  13234. 1
  13235. 1
  13236. 1
  13237. 1
  13238. 1
  13239. 1
  13240. 1
  13241. 1
  13242. 1
  13243. 1
  13244. 1
  13245. 1
  13246. 1
  13247. 1
  13248. 1
  13249. 1
  13250. 1
  13251. 1
  13252. 1
  13253. 1
  13254. 1
  13255. 1
  13256. 1
  13257. 1
  13258. 1
  13259. 1
  13260. 1
  13261. 1
  13262. 1
  13263. 1
  13264. 1
  13265. 1
  13266. 1
  13267. 1
  13268. 1
  13269. 1
  13270. 1
  13271. 1
  13272. 1
  13273. 1
  13274. 1
  13275. 1
  13276. 1
  13277. 1
  13278. 1
  13279. 1
  13280. 1
  13281. 1
  13282. 1
  13283. 1
  13284. 1
  13285. 1
  13286. 1
  13287. 1
  13288. 1
  13289. 1
  13290. 1
  13291. 1
  13292. 1
  13293. 1
  13294. 1
  13295. 1
  13296. 1
  13297. 1
  13298. 1
  13299. 1
  13300. 1
  13301. 1
  13302. 1
  13303. 1
  13304. 1
  13305. 1
  13306. 1
  13307. 1
  13308. 1
  13309. 1
  13310. 1
  13311. 1
  13312. 1
  13313. 1
  13314. 1
  13315. 1
  13316. 1
  13317. 1
  13318. 1
  13319. 1
  13320. 1
  13321. 1
  13322. 1
  13323. 1
  13324. 1
  13325. 1
  13326. 1
  13327. 1
  13328. 1
  13329. 1
  13330. 1
  13331. 1
  13332. 1
  13333. 1
  13334. 1
  13335. 1
  13336. 1
  13337. 1
  13338. 1
  13339. 1
  13340. 1
  13341. 1
  13342. 1
  13343. 1
  13344. 1
  13345. 1
  13346. 1
  13347. 1
  13348. 1
  13349. 1
  13350. 1
  13351. 1
  13352. 1
  13353. 1
  13354. 1
  13355. 1
  13356. 1
  13357. 1
  13358. 1
  13359. 1
  13360. 1
  13361. 1
  13362. 1
  13363. 1
  13364. 1
  13365. 1
  13366. 1
  13367. 1
  13368. 1
  13369. 1
  13370. 1
  13371. 1
  13372. 1
  13373. 1
  13374. 1
  13375. 1
  13376. 1
  13377. 1
  13378. 1
  13379. 1
  13380. 1
  13381. 1
  13382. 1
  13383. 1
  13384. 1
  13385. 1
  13386. 1
  13387. 1
  13388. 1
  13389. 1
  13390. 1
  13391. 1
  13392. 1
  13393. 1
  13394. 1
  13395. 1
  13396. 1
  13397. 1
  13398. 1
  13399. 1
  13400. 1
  13401. 1
  13402. 1
  13403. 1
  13404. 1
  13405. 1
  13406. 1
  13407. 1
  13408. 1
  13409. 1
  13410. 1
  13411. 1
  13412. 1
  13413. 1
  13414. 1
  13415. 1
  13416. 1
  13417. 1
  13418. 1
  13419. 1
  13420. 1
  13421. 1
  13422. 1
  13423. 1
  13424. 1
  13425. 1
  13426.  @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
  13427. 1
  13428. 1
  13429. 1
  13430. 1
  13431. 1
  13432. 1
  13433. 1
  13434. 1
  13435. 1
  13436. 1
  13437. 1
  13438. 1
  13439. 1
  13440. 1
  13441. 1
  13442. 1
  13443. 1
  13444. 1
  13445. 1
  13446. 1
  13447. 1
  13448. 1
  13449. 1
  13450. 1
  13451. ​ @craighuntley6547  Of course supply and demand is "the issue." That's what sets prices. But you're getting too basic here. Your point is like when a couple is discussing their strained finances and one says "The problem is we're spending way too much" [i.e. demand]. The other replies "Oh no, the problem is you don't make nearly enough! [i.e. supply]. As long as you make more it won't matter how much we spend, darling." That retort is true from a certain unrealistic point of view, but just as there's no lever marked "Pull For a Much Higher Salary," there's no lever marked "Pull For More Housing Now." Governments took that lever and smashed it long ago. They won't permit nearly enough building. What they do permit, i.e. a dotting of condo towers, is priced way out of range for most people. So the vast majority of units are snapped up by investors who intend never to occupy them, and they leave half of them vacant anyway. This is because so many rich buyers consider tenants a nuisance and the potential rent income a mere rounding error in comparison with the real aim of capital gains. In short, investors know that nothing is about to change, which makes the situation for the time being a workable Ponzi scheme. The fundamentals dictate that money will keep flowing in to support prices. Half-a-million to a million new residents a year with little being built for them means it's an ongoing party (greedfest might be a good word) for landlords—at the expense of wage earners.
    1
  13452. 1
  13453. 1
  13454. 1
  13455. 1
  13456. 1
  13457. 1
  13458. 1
  13459. 1
  13460. 1
  13461. 1
  13462. 1
  13463. 1
  13464. 1
  13465. 1
  13466. 1
  13467. 1
  13468. 1
  13469. 1
  13470. 1
  13471. 1
  13472. 1
  13473. 1
  13474. 1
  13475. 1
  13476. 1
  13477. 1
  13478. 1
  13479. 1
  13480. 1
  13481. 1
  13482. 1
  13483. 1
  13484. 1
  13485. 1
  13486. 1
  13487. 1
  13488. 1
  13489. 1
  13490. 1
  13491. 1
  13492. 1
  13493. 1
  13494. 1
  13495. 1
  13496. 1
  13497. 1
  13498. 1
  13499. 1
  13500. 1
  13501. 1
  13502. 1
  13503. 1
  13504. 1
  13505. 1
  13506. 1
  13507. 1
  13508. ​ @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
  13509. 1
  13510. 1
  13511. 1
  13512. 1
  13513. 1
  13514. 1
  13515. 1
  13516. 1
  13517. 1
  13518. 1
  13519. 1
  13520. 1
  13521. 1
  13522. 1
  13523. 1
  13524. 1
  13525. 1
  13526. 1
  13527. 1
  13528. 1
  13529. 1
  13530. 1
  13531. 1
  13532. 1
  13533. 1
  13534. 1
  13535. 1
  13536. 1
  13537. 1
  13538. 1
  13539. 1
  13540. 1
  13541. 1
  13542. 1
  13543. 1
  13544. 1
  13545. 1
  13546. 1
  13547. 1
  13548. 1
  13549. 1
  13550. 1
  13551. 1
  13552. 1
  13553. 1
  13554. 1
  13555. 1
  13556. 1
  13557. 1
  13558. 1
  13559. 1
  13560. 1
  13561. 1
  13562. 1
  13563. 1
  13564. 1
  13565. 1
  13566. 1
  13567. 1
  13568. 1
  13569. 1
  13570. 1
  13571. 1
  13572. 1
  13573. 1
  13574. 1
  13575. 1
  13576. 1
  13577. 1
  13578. 1
  13579. 1
  13580. 1
  13581. 1
  13582. 1
  13583. 1
  13584. 1
  13585. 1
  13586. 1
  13587. 1
  13588. 1
  13589. 1
  13590. 1
  13591. 1
  13592. 1
  13593. 1
  13594. 1
  13595. 1
  13596. 1
  13597. 1
  13598. 1
  13599. 1
  13600. 1
  13601. 1
  13602. 1
  13603. 1
  13604. 1
  13605. 1
  13606. 1
  13607. 1
  13608. 1
  13609. 1
  13610. 1
  13611. 1
  13612. 1
  13613. 1
  13614. 1
  13615. 1
  13616. 1
  13617. 1
  13618. 1
  13619. 1
  13620. 1
  13621. 1
  13622. 1
  13623. 1
  13624. 1
  13625. 1
  13626. 1
  13627. 1
  13628. 1
  13629. 1
  13630. 1
  13631. 1
  13632. 1
  13633. 1
  13634. 1
  13635. 1
  13636. 1
  13637. 1
  13638. 1
  13639. 1
  13640. 1
  13641. 1
  13642. 1
  13643. 1
  13644. 1
  13645. 1
  13646. 1
  13647. 1
  13648. 1
  13649. 1
  13650. 1
  13651. 1
  13652. 1
  13653. 1
  13654. 1
  13655. 1
  13656. 1
  13657. 1
  13658. 1
  13659. 1
  13660. 1
  13661. 1
  13662. 1
  13663. 1
  13664. 1
  13665. 1
  13666. 1
  13667. 1
  13668. 1
  13669. 1
  13670. 1
  13671. 1
  13672. 1
  13673. 1
  13674. 1
  13675. 1
  13676. 1
  13677. 1
  13678. 1
  13679. 1
  13680. 1
  13681. 1
  13682. 1
  13683. 1
  13684. 1
  13685. 1
  13686. 1
  13687. 1
  13688. 1
  13689. 1
  13690. 1
  13691. 1
  13692. 1
  13693. 1
  13694. 1
  13695. 1
  13696. 1
  13697. 1
  13698. 1
  13699. 1
  13700. 1
  13701. 1
  13702. 1
  13703. 1
  13704. 1
  13705. 1
  13706. 1
  13707. 1
  13708. 1
  13709. 1
  13710. 1
  13711. 1
  13712. 1
  13713. 1
  13714. 1
  13715. 1
  13716. 1
  13717. 1
  13718. 1
  13719. 1
  13720. 1
  13721. 1
  13722. 1
  13723. 1
  13724. 1
  13725. 1
  13726. 1
  13727. 1
  13728. 1
  13729. 1
  13730. 1
  13731. 1
  13732. 1
  13733. 1
  13734. 1
  13735. 1
  13736. 1
  13737. 1
  13738. 1
  13739. 1
  13740. 1
  13741. 1
  13742. 1
  13743. 1
  13744. 1
  13745. 1
  13746. 1
  13747. 1
  13748. 1
  13749. 1
  13750. 1
  13751. 1
  13752. 1
  13753. 1
  13754. 1
  13755. 1
  13756. 1
  13757. 1
  13758. 1
  13759. 1
  13760. 1
  13761. 1
  13762. 1
  13763. 1
  13764. 1
  13765. 1
  13766. 1
  13767. 1
  13768. 1
  13769. 1
  13770. 1
  13771. 1
  13772. 1
  13773. 1
  13774. 1
  13775. 1
  13776. 1
  13777. 1
  13778. 1
  13779. 1
  13780. 1
  13781. 1
  13782. 1
  13783. 1
  13784. 1
  13785. 1
  13786. 1
  13787. 1
  13788. 1
  13789. 1
  13790. 1
  13791. 1
  13792. 1
  13793. 1
  13794. 1
  13795. 1
  13796. 1
  13797. 1
  13798. 1
  13799. 1
  13800. 1
  13801. 1
  13802. 1
  13803. 1
  13804. 1
  13805. 1
  13806. 1
  13807. 1
  13808. 1
  13809. 1
  13810. 1
  13811. 1
  13812. 1
  13813. 1
  13814. 1
  13815. 1
  13816. 1
  13817. 1
  13818. 1
  13819. 1
  13820. 1
  13821. 1
  13822. 1
  13823. 1
  13824. 1
  13825. 1
  13826. 1
  13827. 1
  13828. 1
  13829. 1
  13830. 1
  13831. 1
  13832. 1
  13833. 1
  13834. 1
  13835. 1
  13836. 1
  13837. 1
  13838. 1
  13839. 1
  13840. 1
  13841. 1
  13842. 1
  13843. 1
  13844. 1
  13845. 1
  13846. 1
  13847. 1
  13848. 1
  13849. 1
  13850. 1
  13851. 1
  13852. 1
  13853. 1
  13854. 1
  13855. 1
  13856. 1
  13857. 1
  13858. 1
  13859. 1
  13860. 1
  13861. 1
  13862. 1
  13863. 1
  13864. 1
  13865. 1
  13866. 1
  13867. 1
  13868. 1
  13869. 1
  13870. 1
  13871. 1
  13872. 1
  13873. 1
  13874. 1
  13875. 1
  13876. 1
  13877. 1
  13878. 1
  13879. 1
  13880. 1
  13881. 1
  13882. 1
  13883. 1
  13884. 1
  13885. 1
  13886. 1
  13887. 1
  13888. 1
  13889. 1
  13890. 1
  13891. 1
  13892. 1
  13893. 1
  13894. 1
  13895. 1
  13896. 1
  13897. 1
  13898. 1
  13899. 1
  13900. 1
  13901. 1
  13902. 1
  13903. 1
  13904. 1
  13905. 1
  13906. 1
  13907. 1
  13908. 1
  13909. 1
  13910. 1
  13911. 1
  13912. 1
  13913. 1
  13914. 1
  13915. 1
  13916. 1
  13917. 1
  13918. 1
  13919. 1
  13920. 1
  13921. 1
  13922. 1
  13923. 1
  13924. 1
  13925. 1
  13926. 1
  13927. 1
  13928. 1
  13929. 1
  13930. 1
  13931. 1
  13932. 1
  13933. 1
  13934. 1
  13935. 1
  13936. 1
  13937. 1
  13938. 1
  13939. 1
  13940. 1
  13941. 1
  13942. 1
  13943. 1
  13944. 1
  13945. 1
  13946. 1
  13947. 1
  13948. 1
  13949. 1
  13950. 1
  13951. 1
  13952. 1
  13953. 1
  13954. 1
  13955. 1
  13956. 1
  13957. 1
  13958. 1
  13959. 1
  13960. 1
  13961. 1
  13962. 1
  13963. 1
  13964. 1
  13965. 1
  13966. 1
  13967. 1
  13968. 1
  13969. 1
  13970. 1
  13971. 1
  13972. 1
  13973. 1
  13974. 1
  13975. 1
  13976. 1
  13977. 1
  13978. 1
  13979. 1
  13980. 1
  13981. 1
  13982. 1
  13983. 1
  13984. 1
  13985. 1
  13986. 1
  13987. 1
  13988. 1
  13989. 1
  13990. 1
  13991. 1
  13992. 1
  13993. 1
  13994. 1
  13995. 1
  13996. 1
  13997. 1
  13998. 1
  13999. 1
  14000. 1
  14001. 1
  14002. 1
  14003. 1
  14004. 1
  14005. 1
  14006. 1
  14007. 1
  14008. 1
  14009. 1
  14010. 1
  14011. 1
  14012. 1
  14013. 1
  14014. 1
  14015. 1
  14016. 1
  14017. 1
  14018. 1
  14019. 1
  14020. 1
  14021. 1
  14022. 1
  14023. 1
  14024. 1
  14025. 1
  14026. 1
  14027. 1
  14028. 1
  14029. 1
  14030. 1
  14031. 1
  14032. 1
  14033. 1
  14034. 1
  14035. 1
  14036. 1
  14037. 1
  14038. 1
  14039. 1
  14040. 1
  14041. 1
  14042. 1
  14043. 1
  14044. 1
  14045. 1
  14046. 1
  14047. 1
  14048. 1
  14049. 1
  14050. 1
  14051. 1
  14052. 1
  14053. 1
  14054. 1
  14055. 1
  14056. 1
  14057. 1
  14058. 1
  14059. 1
  14060. 1
  14061. 1
  14062. 1
  14063. 1
  14064. 1
  14065. 1
  14066. 1
  14067. 1
  14068. 1
  14069. 1
  14070. 1
  14071. 1
  14072. 1
  14073. 1
  14074. 1
  14075. 1
  14076. 1
  14077. 1
  14078. 1
  14079. 1
  14080. 1
  14081. 1
  14082. 1
  14083. 1
  14084. 1
  14085. 1
  14086. 1
  14087. 1
  14088. 1
  14089. 1
  14090. 1
  14091. 1
  14092. 1
  14093. 1
  14094. 1
  14095. 1
  14096. 1
  14097. 1
  14098. 1
  14099. 1
  14100. 1
  14101. 1
  14102. 1
  14103. 1
  14104. 1
  14105. 1
  14106. 1
  14107. 1
  14108. 1
  14109. 1
  14110. 1
  14111. 1
  14112. 1
  14113. 1
  14114. 1
  14115. 1
  14116. 1
  14117. 1
  14118. 1
  14119. 1
  14120. 1
  14121. 1
  14122. 1
  14123. 1
  14124. 1
  14125. ​ @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
  14126. 1
  14127. 1
  14128. 1
  14129. 1
  14130. 1
  14131. 1
  14132. 1
  14133. 1
  14134. 1
  14135. 1
  14136. 1
  14137. 1
  14138. 1
  14139. 1
  14140. 1
  14141. 1
  14142. 1
  14143. 1
  14144. 1
  14145. 1
  14146. 1
  14147. 1
  14148. 1
  14149. 1
  14150. 1
  14151. 1
  14152. 1
  14153. 1
  14154. 1
  14155. 1
  14156. 1
  14157. 1
  14158. 1
  14159. 1
  14160. 1
  14161. 1
  14162. 1
  14163. 1
  14164. 1
  14165. 1
  14166. 1
  14167. 1
  14168. 1
  14169. 1
  14170. 1
  14171. 1
  14172. 1
  14173. 1
  14174. 1
  14175. 1
  14176. 1
  14177. 1
  14178. 1
  14179. 1
  14180. 1
  14181. 1
  14182. 1
  14183. 1
  14184. 1
  14185. 1
  14186. 1
  14187. 1
  14188. 1
  14189. 1
  14190. 1
  14191. 1
  14192. 1
  14193. 1
  14194. 1
  14195. 1
  14196. 1
  14197. 1
  14198. 1
  14199. 1
  14200. 1
  14201. 1
  14202. 1
  14203. 1
  14204. 1
  14205. 1
  14206. 1
  14207. 1
  14208. 1
  14209. 1
  14210. 1
  14211. 1
  14212. 1
  14213. 1
  14214. 1
  14215. 1
  14216. 1
  14217. 1
  14218. 1
  14219. 1
  14220. 1
  14221. 1
  14222. 1
  14223. 1
  14224. 1
  14225. 1
  14226. 1
  14227. 1
  14228. 1
  14229. 1
  14230.  @ddhqj2023  All that is nothing in light of how problems have vastly multiplied. People are poorer as real incomes have fallen.   Violent crime has risen steadily since he came into office. Living standards have fallen.   Drug use and drug overdoses are up.   House affordability has cratered, rents have more than doubled. Race animosity keeps rising the more he keeps inciting it. Canadians are more divided than ever. Trudeau picks sides on every issue and denounces those who disagree with him whether they're the majority or minority. He preaches a high-strung intolerance. In measures of well-being, where we might have once been in the top five or ten worldwide (and we were), we're now 15th or 20th or lower.   Our standing in the world has plunged. The signs are clear we're now much less respected. Canadian business has been totally hollowed out. Innovation has totally dried up.  Where once Canada would produce sizeable and successful companies to compete on the world stage, there's been one in the last decade, Shopify. Our allies have turned their backs on us, regarding us as untrustworthy and incapable. Within the G7, the other countries hold meetings and don't invite Canada. AUKUS was formed by our closest partners and they excluded us. Health care is strained to the limit and it's affecting many people's well-being and lives.  Homelessness keeps going up and up.   Not just overdoses but suicides and other deaths of despair have risen.   We've dropped several places in the rankings of the world happiness index.   Likewise the freedom and democracy indexes.   He makes people register their podcasts with the government now (!) so they're subject to censorship.   National unity is at its weakest in over a generation as Trudeau keeps alienating people in the western provinces. I don't have all night to go on, but if I wanted to I certainly could. I don't want to. It's sickening. Thanks for your terribly interesting reply.
    1
  14231. 1
  14232. 1
  14233. 1
  14234. 1
  14235. 1
  14236. 1
  14237. 1
  14238. 1
  14239. 1
  14240. 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
  14241. 1
  14242. 1
  14243. 1
  14244. 1
  14245. 1
  14246. 1
  14247. 1
  14248. 1
  14249. 1
  14250. 1
  14251. 1
  14252. 1
  14253. 1
  14254. 1
  14255. 1
  14256. 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
  14257. 1
  14258. 1
  14259. 1
  14260. 1
  14261. 1
  14262. 1
  14263. 1
  14264. 1
  14265. 1
  14266. 1
  14267. 1
  14268. 1
  14269. 1
  14270. 1
  14271. 1
  14272. 1
  14273. 1
  14274. 1
  14275. 1
  14276. 1
  14277. 1
  14278. 1
  14279. 1
  14280. 1
  14281. 1
  14282. 1
  14283. 1
  14284. 1
  14285. 1
  14286. 1
  14287. 1
  14288. 1
  14289. 1
  14290. 1
  14291. 1
  14292.  @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
  14293. 1
  14294.  @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
  14295. 1
  14296. 1
  14297. 1
  14298. 1
  14299. 1
  14300. 1
  14301. 1
  14302. 1
  14303. 1
  14304. 1
  14305. 1
  14306. 1
  14307. 1
  14308. 1
  14309. 1
  14310. 1
  14311. 1
  14312. 1
  14313. 1
  14314. 1
  14315. 1
  14316. 1
  14317. 1
  14318. 1
  14319. 1
  14320. 1
  14321. 1
  14322. 1
  14323. 1
  14324. 1
  14325. 1
  14326. 1
  14327. 1
  14328. 1
  14329. 1
  14330. 1
  14331. 1
  14332. 1
  14333. 1
  14334. 1
  14335. 1
  14336. 1
  14337. 1
  14338. 1
  14339. 1
  14340. 1
  14341. 1
  14342. 1
  14343. 1
  14344. 1
  14345. 1
  14346. 1
  14347. 1
  14348. 1
  14349. 1
  14350. 1
  14351. 1
  14352. 1
  14353. 1
  14354. 1
  14355. 1
  14356. 1
  14357. 1
  14358. 1
  14359. 1
  14360. 1
  14361. 1
  14362. 1
  14363. 1
  14364. 1
  14365. 1
  14366. 1
  14367. 1
  14368. 1
  14369. 1
  14370. 1
  14371. 1
  14372. 1
  14373. 1
  14374. 1
  14375. 1
  14376. 1
  14377. 1
  14378. 1
  14379. 1
  14380. 1
  14381. 1
  14382. 1
  14383. 1
  14384. 1
  14385. 1
  14386. 1
  14387. 1
  14388. 1
  14389. 1
  14390. 1
  14391. 1
  14392. 1
  14393. 1
  14394. 1
  14395. 1
  14396. 1
  14397. 1
  14398. 1
  14399. 1
  14400. 1
  14401. 1
  14402. 1
  14403. 1
  14404. 1
  14405. 1
  14406. 1
  14407. 1
  14408. 1
  14409. 1
  14410. 1
  14411. 1
  14412. 1
  14413. 1
  14414. 1
  14415. 1
  14416. 1
  14417. 1
  14418. 1
  14419. 1
  14420. 1
  14421. 1
  14422. 1
  14423. 1
  14424. 1
  14425. 1
  14426. 1
  14427. 1
  14428. 1
  14429. 1
  14430. 1
  14431. 1
  14432. 1
  14433. 1
  14434. 1
  14435. 1
  14436. 1
  14437. 1
  14438. 1
  14439. 1
  14440. 1
  14441. 1
  14442. 1
  14443. 1
  14444. 1
  14445. 1
  14446. 1
  14447. 1
  14448. 1
  14449. 1
  14450. 1
  14451. 1
  14452. 1
  14453. 1
  14454. 1
  14455. 1
  14456. 1
  14457. 1
  14458. 1
  14459. 1
  14460. 1
  14461. 1
  14462. 1
  14463. 1
  14464. 1
  14465. 1
  14466. 1
  14467. 1
  14468. 1
  14469. 1
  14470. 1
  14471. 1
  14472. 1
  14473. 1
  14474. 1
  14475. 1
  14476. 1
  14477. 1
  14478. 1
  14479. 1
  14480. 1
  14481. 1
  14482. 1
  14483. 1
  14484. 1
  14485. 1
  14486. 1
  14487. 1
  14488. 1
  14489. 1
  14490. 1
  14491. 1
  14492. 1
  14493. 1
  14494. 1
  14495. 1
  14496. 1
  14497. 1
  14498. 1
  14499. 1
  14500. 1
  14501. 1
  14502. 1
  14503. 1
  14504. 1
  14505. 1
  14506. 1
  14507. 1
  14508. 1
  14509. 1
  14510. 1
  14511. 1
  14512. 1
  14513. 1
  14514. 1
  14515. 1
  14516. 1
  14517. 1
  14518. 1
  14519. 1
  14520. 1
  14521. 1
  14522. 1
  14523. 1
  14524. 1
  14525. 1
  14526. 1
  14527. 1
  14528. 1
  14529. 1
  14530. 1
  14531. 1
  14532. 1
  14533. 1
  14534. 1
  14535. 1
  14536. 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
  14537. 1
  14538. 1
  14539. 1
  14540. 1
  14541. 1
  14542. 1
  14543. 1
  14544. 1
  14545. 1
  14546. 1
  14547. 1
  14548. 1
  14549. 1
  14550. 1
  14551. 1
  14552. 1
  14553. 1
  14554. 1
  14555. 1
  14556. 1
  14557. 1
  14558. 1
  14559. 1
  14560. 1
  14561. 1
  14562. 1
  14563. 1
  14564. 1
  14565. 1
  14566. 1
  14567. 1
  14568. 1
  14569. 1
  14570. 1
  14571. 1
  14572. 1
  14573. 1
  14574. 1
  14575. 1
  14576. 1
  14577. 1
  14578. 1
  14579. 1
  14580. 1
  14581. 1
  14582. 1
  14583. 1
  14584. 1
  14585. 1
  14586. 1
  14587. 1
  14588. 1
  14589. 1
  14590. 1
  14591. 1
  14592. 1
  14593. 1
  14594. 1
  14595. 1
  14596. 1
  14597. 1
  14598. 1
  14599. 1
  14600. 1
  14601. 1
  14602. 1
  14603. 1
  14604. 1
  14605. 1
  14606. 1
  14607. 1
  14608. 1
  14609. 1
  14610. 1
  14611. 1
  14612. 1
  14613. 1
  14614. 1
  14615. 1
  14616. 1
  14617. 1
  14618. 1
  14619. 1
  14620. 1
  14621. 1
  14622. 1
  14623. 1
  14624. 1
  14625. 1
  14626. 1
  14627. 1
  14628. 1
  14629. 1
  14630. 1
  14631. 1
  14632. 1
  14633. 1
  14634. 1
  14635. 1
  14636. 1
  14637. 1
  14638. 1
  14639. 1
  14640. 1
  14641. 1
  14642. 1
  14643. 1
  14644. 1
  14645. 1
  14646. 1
  14647. 1
  14648. 1
  14649. 1
  14650. 1
  14651. 1
  14652. 1
  14653. 1
  14654. 1
  14655. 1
  14656. 1
  14657. 1
  14658. 1
  14659. 1
  14660. 1
  14661. 1
  14662. 1
  14663. 1
  14664. 1
  14665. 1
  14666. 1
  14667. 1
  14668. 1
  14669. 1
  14670. 1
  14671. 1
  14672. 1
  14673. 1
  14674. 1
  14675. 1
  14676. 1
  14677. 1
  14678. 1
  14679. 1
  14680. 1
  14681. 1
  14682. 1
  14683. 1
  14684. 1
  14685. 1
  14686. 1
  14687. 1
  14688. 1
  14689. 1
  14690. 1
  14691. 1
  14692. 1
  14693. 1
  14694. 1
  14695. 1
  14696. 1
  14697. 1
  14698. 1
  14699. 1
  14700. 1
  14701. 1
  14702. 1
  14703. 1
  14704. 1
  14705. 1
  14706. 1
  14707. 1
  14708. 1
  14709. 1
  14710. 1
  14711. 1
  14712. 1
  14713. 1
  14714. 1
  14715. 1
  14716. 1
  14717. 1
  14718. 1
  14719. 1
  14720. 1
  14721. 1
  14722. 1
  14723. 1
  14724. 1
  14725. 1
  14726. 1
  14727. 1
  14728. 1
  14729. 1
  14730. 1
  14731. 1
  14732. 1
  14733. 1
  14734. 1
  14735. 1
  14736. 1
  14737. 1
  14738. 1
  14739. 1
  14740. 1
  14741. 1
  14742. 1
  14743. 1
  14744. 1
  14745. 1
  14746. 1
  14747. 1
  14748. 1
  14749. 1
  14750. 1
  14751. 1
  14752. 1
  14753. 1
  14754. 1
  14755. 1
  14756. 1
  14757. 1
  14758. 1
  14759. 1
  14760. 1
  14761. 1
  14762. 1
  14763. 1
  14764. 1
  14765. 1
  14766. 1
  14767. 1
  14768. 1
  14769. 1
  14770. 1
  14771. 1
  14772. 1
  14773. 1
  14774. 1
  14775. 1
  14776. 1
  14777. 1
  14778. 1
  14779. 1
  14780. 1
  14781. 1
  14782. 1
  14783. 1
  14784. 1
  14785. 1
  14786. 1
  14787. 1
  14788. 1
  14789. 1
  14790. 1
  14791. 1
  14792. 1
  14793. 1
  14794. 1
  14795. 1
  14796. 1
  14797. 1
  14798. 1
  14799. 1
  14800. 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
  14801. 1
  14802. 1
  14803. 1
  14804. 1
  14805. 1
  14806. 1
  14807. 1
  14808. 1
  14809. 1
  14810. 1
  14811. 1
  14812. 1
  14813. 1
  14814. 1
  14815. 1
  14816. 1
  14817. 1
  14818. 1
  14819. 1
  14820. 1
  14821. 1
  14822. 1
  14823. 1
  14824. 1
  14825. 1
  14826. 1
  14827. 1
  14828. 1
  14829. 1
  14830. 1
  14831. 1
  14832. 1
  14833. 1
  14834. 1
  14835. 1
  14836. 1
  14837. 1
  14838. 1
  14839. 1
  14840. 1
  14841. 1
  14842. 1
  14843. 1
  14844. 1
  14845. 1
  14846. 1
  14847. 1
  14848. 1
  14849. 1
  14850. 1
  14851. 1
  14852. 1
  14853. 1
  14854. 1
  14855. 1
  14856. 1
  14857. 1
  14858. 1
  14859. 1
  14860. 1
  14861. 1
  14862. 1
  14863. 1
  14864. 1
  14865. 1
  14866. 1
  14867. 1
  14868. 1
  14869. 1
  14870. 1
  14871. 1
  14872.  @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
  14873. 1
  14874. 1
  14875. 1
  14876. 1
  14877. 1
  14878. 1
  14879. 1
  14880. 1
  14881. 1
  14882. 1
  14883. 1
  14884. 1
  14885. 1
  14886. 1
  14887. 1
  14888. 1
  14889. 1
  14890. 1
  14891. 1
  14892. 1
  14893. 1
  14894. 1
  14895. 1
  14896. 1
  14897. 1
  14898. 1
  14899. 1
  14900. 1
  14901. 1
  14902. 1
  14903. 1
  14904. 1
  14905. 1
  14906. 1
  14907. 1
  14908. 1
  14909. 1
  14910. 1
  14911. 1
  14912. 1
  14913. 1
  14914. 1
  14915. 1
  14916. 1
  14917. 1
  14918. 1
  14919. 1
  14920. 1
  14921. 1
  14922. 1
  14923. 1
  14924. 1
  14925. 1
  14926. 1
  14927. 1
  14928. 1
  14929. 1
  14930. 1
  14931. 1
  14932. 1
  14933. 1
  14934. 1
  14935. 1
  14936. 1
  14937. 1
  14938. 1
  14939. 1
  14940. 1
  14941. 1
  14942. 1
  14943. 1
  14944. 1
  14945. 1
  14946. 1
  14947. 1
  14948. 1
  14949. 1
  14950. 1
  14951. 1
  14952. 1
  14953. 1
  14954. 1
  14955. 1
  14956. 1
  14957. 1
  14958. 1
  14959. 1
  14960. 1
  14961. 1
  14962. 1
  14963. 1
  14964. 1
  14965. 1
  14966. 1
  14967. 1
  14968. 1
  14969. 1
  14970. 1
  14971. 1
  14972. 1
  14973. 1
  14974. 1
  14975. 1
  14976. 1
  14977. 1
  14978. 1
  14979. 1
  14980. 1
  14981. 1
  14982. 1
  14983. 1
  14984. 1
  14985. 1
  14986. 1
  14987. 1
  14988. 1
  14989. 1
  14990. 1
  14991. 1
  14992. 1
  14993. 1
  14994. 1
  14995. 1
  14996. 1
  14997. 1
  14998. 1
  14999. 1
  15000. 1
  15001. 1
  15002. 1
  15003. 1
  15004. 1
  15005. 1
  15006. 1
  15007. 1
  15008. 1
  15009. 1
  15010. 1
  15011. 1
  15012. 1
  15013. 1
  15014. 1
  15015. 1
  15016. 1
  15017. 1
  15018. 1
  15019. 1
  15020. 1
  15021. 1
  15022. 1
  15023. 1
  15024. 1
  15025. 1
  15026. 1
  15027. 1
  15028. 1
  15029. 1
  15030. 1
  15031. 1
  15032. 1
  15033. 1
  15034. 1
  15035. 1
  15036. 1
  15037. 1
  15038. 1
  15039. 1
  15040. 1
  15041. 1
  15042. 1
  15043. 1
  15044. 1
  15045. 1
  15046. 1
  15047. 1
  15048. 1
  15049. 1
  15050. 1
  15051. 1
  15052. 1
  15053. 1
  15054. 1
  15055. 1
  15056. 1
  15057. 1
  15058. 1
  15059. 1
  15060. 1
  15061. 1
  15062. 1
  15063. 1
  15064. 1
  15065. 1
  15066. 1
  15067. 1
  15068. 1
  15069. 1
  15070. 1
  15071. 1
  15072. 1
  15073. 1
  15074. 1
  15075. 1
  15076. 1
  15077. 1
  15078. 1
  15079. 1
  15080. 1
  15081. 1
  15082. 1
  15083. 1
  15084. 1
  15085. 1
  15086. 1
  15087. 1
  15088. 1
  15089.  @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
  15090.  @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
  15091. 1
  15092. 1
  15093. 1
  15094. 1
  15095. 1
  15096. 1
  15097. 1
  15098. 1
  15099. 1
  15100. 1
  15101. 1
  15102. 1
  15103. 1
  15104. 1
  15105. 1
  15106. 1
  15107. 1
  15108. 1
  15109. 1
  15110. 1
  15111. 1
  15112. 1
  15113. 1
  15114. 1
  15115. 1
  15116. 1
  15117. 1
  15118. 1
  15119. 1
  15120. 1
  15121. 1
  15122. 1
  15123. 1
  15124. 1
  15125. 1
  15126. 1
  15127. 1
  15128. 1
  15129. 1
  15130. 1
  15131. 1
  15132. 1
  15133. 1
  15134. 1
  15135. 1
  15136. 1
  15137. 1
  15138. 1
  15139. 1
  15140. 1
  15141. 1
  15142. 1
  15143. 1
  15144. 1
  15145. 1
  15146. 1
  15147. 1
  15148. 1
  15149. 1
  15150. 1
  15151. 1
  15152. 1
  15153. 1
  15154. 1
  15155. 1
  15156. 1
  15157. 1
  15158. 1
  15159. 1
  15160. 1
  15161. 1
  15162. 1
  15163. 1
  15164. 1
  15165. 1
  15166. 1
  15167. 1
  15168. 1
  15169. 1
  15170. 1
  15171. 1
  15172. 1
  15173. 1
  15174. 1
  15175. 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
  15176. 1
  15177. 1
  15178. 1
  15179. 1
  15180. 1
  15181. 1
  15182. 1
  15183. 1
  15184. 1
  15185. 1
  15186. 1
  15187. 1
  15188. 1
  15189. 1
  15190. 1
  15191. 1
  15192. 1
  15193. 1
  15194. 1
  15195. 1
  15196. 1
  15197. 1
  15198. 1
  15199. 1
  15200. 1
  15201. 1
  15202. 1
  15203. 1
  15204. 1
  15205. 1
  15206. 1
  15207. 1
  15208. 1
  15209. 1
  15210. 1
  15211. 1
  15212. 1
  15213. 1
  15214. 1
  15215. 1
  15216. 1
  15217. 1
  15218. 1
  15219. 1
  15220. 1
  15221. 1
  15222. 1
  15223. 1
  15224. 1
  15225. 1
  15226. 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
  15227. 1
  15228. 1
  15229. 1
  15230. 1
  15231. 1
  15232. 1
  15233. 1
  15234. 1
  15235. 1
  15236. 1
  15237. 1
  15238. 1
  15239. 1
  15240. 1
  15241. 1
  15242. 1
  15243. 1
  15244. 1
  15245. 1
  15246. 1
  15247. 1
  15248. 1
  15249. 1
  15250. 1
  15251. 1
  15252. 1
  15253. 1
  15254. 1
  15255. 1
  15256. 1
  15257. 1
  15258. 1
  15259. 1
  15260. 1
  15261. 1
  15262. 1
  15263. 1
  15264. 1
  15265. 1
  15266. 1
  15267. 1
  15268. 1
  15269. 1
  15270. 1
  15271. 1
  15272. 1
  15273. 1
  15274. 1
  15275. 1
  15276. 1
  15277. 1
  15278. 1
  15279. 1
  15280. 1
  15281. 1
  15282. 1
  15283. 1
  15284. 1
  15285. 1
  15286. 1
  15287. 1
  15288. 1
  15289. 1
  15290. 1
  15291. 1
  15292. 1
  15293. 1
  15294. 1
  15295. 1
  15296. 1
  15297. 1
  15298. 1
  15299. 1
  15300. 1
  15301. 1
  15302. 1
  15303. 1
  15304. 1
  15305. 1
  15306. 1
  15307. 1
  15308. 1
  15309. 1
  15310. 1
  15311. 1
  15312. 1
  15313. 1
  15314. 1
  15315. 1
  15316. 1
  15317. 1
  15318. 1
  15319. 1
  15320. 1
  15321. 1
  15322. 1
  15323. 1
  15324. 1
  15325. 1
  15326. 1
  15327. 1
  15328. 1
  15329. 1
  15330. 1
  15331. 1
  15332. 1
  15333. 1
  15334. 1
  15335. 1
  15336. 1
  15337. 1
  15338. 1
  15339. 1
  15340. 1
  15341. 1
  15342. 1
  15343. 1
  15344. 1
  15345. 1
  15346. 1
  15347. 1
  15348. 1
  15349. 1
  15350. 1
  15351. 1
  15352. 1
  15353. 1
  15354. 1
  15355. 1
  15356. 1
  15357. 1
  15358. 1
  15359. 1
  15360. 1
  15361. 1
  15362. 1
  15363. 1
  15364. 1
  15365. 1
  15366. 1
  15367. 1
  15368. 1
  15369. 1
  15370. 1
  15371. 1
  15372. 1
  15373. 1
  15374. 1
  15375. 1
  15376. 1
  15377. 1
  15378. 1
  15379. 1
  15380. 1
  15381. 1
  15382. 1
  15383. 1
  15384. 1
  15385. 1
  15386. 1
  15387. 1
  15388. 1
  15389. 1
  15390. 1
  15391. 1
  15392. 1
  15393. 1
  15394. 1
  15395. 1
  15396. 1
  15397. 1
  15398. 1
  15399. 1
  15400. 1
  15401. 1
  15402. 1
  15403. 1
  15404. 1
  15405. 1
  15406. 1
  15407.  @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
  15408. 1
  15409. 1
  15410. 1
  15411. 1
  15412. 1
  15413. 1
  15414. 1
  15415. 1
  15416. 1
  15417. 1
  15418. 1
  15419. 1
  15420. 1
  15421. 1
  15422. 1
  15423. 1
  15424. 1
  15425. 1
  15426. 1
  15427. 1
  15428. 1
  15429. 1
  15430. 1
  15431. 1
  15432. 1
  15433. 1
  15434. 1
  15435. 1
  15436. 1
  15437. 1
  15438. 1
  15439. 1
  15440. 1
  15441. 1
  15442. 1
  15443. 1
  15444. 1
  15445. 1
  15446. 1
  15447. 1
  15448. 1
  15449. 1
  15450. 1
  15451. 1
  15452. 1
  15453. 1
  15454. 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
  15455. 1
  15456. 1
  15457. 1
  15458. 1
  15459. 1
  15460. 1
  15461. 1
  15462. 1
  15463. 1
  15464. 1
  15465. 1
  15466. 1
  15467. 1
  15468. 1
  15469. 1
  15470. 1
  15471. 1
  15472. 1
  15473. 1
  15474. 1
  15475. 1
  15476. 1
  15477. 1
  15478. 1
  15479. 1
  15480. 1
  15481. 1
  15482. 1
  15483. 1
  15484. 1
  15485. 1
  15486. 1
  15487. 1
  15488. 1
  15489. 1
  15490. 1
  15491. 1
  15492. 1
  15493. 1
  15494. 1
  15495. 1
  15496. 1
  15497. 1
  15498. 1
  15499. 1
  15500. 1
  15501. 1
  15502. 1
  15503. 1
  15504. 1
  15505. 1
  15506. 1
  15507. 1
  15508. 1
  15509. 1
  15510. 1
  15511. 1
  15512. 1
  15513. 1
  15514. 1
  15515. 1
  15516. 1
  15517. 1
  15518. 1
  15519. 1
  15520. 1
  15521. 1
  15522. 1
  15523. 1
  15524. 1
  15525. 1
  15526. 1
  15527. 1
  15528. 1
  15529. 1
  15530. 1
  15531. 1
  15532. 1
  15533. 1
  15534. 1
  15535. 1
  15536. 1
  15537. 1
  15538. 1
  15539. 1
  15540. 1
  15541. 1
  15542. 1
  15543. 1
  15544. 1
  15545. 1
  15546. 1
  15547. 1
  15548. 1
  15549. 1
  15550. 1
  15551. 1
  15552. 1
  15553. 1
  15554. 1
  15555. 1
  15556. 1
  15557. 1
  15558. 1
  15559. 1
  15560. 1
  15561. 1
  15562. 1
  15563. 1
  15564. 1
  15565. 1
  15566. 1
  15567. 1
  15568. 1
  15569. 1
  15570. 1
  15571. 1
  15572. 1
  15573. 1
  15574. 1
  15575. 1
  15576. 1
  15577. 1
  15578. 1
  15579. 1
  15580. 1
  15581. 1
  15582. 1
  15583. 1
  15584. 1
  15585. 1
  15586. 1
  15587. 1
  15588. 1
  15589. 1
  15590. 1
  15591. 1
  15592. 1
  15593. 1
  15594. 1
  15595. 1
  15596. 1
  15597. 1
  15598. 1
  15599. 1
  15600. 1
  15601. 1
  15602. 1
  15603. 1
  15604. 1
  15605. 1
  15606. 1
  15607. 1
  15608. 1
  15609. 1
  15610. 1
  15611. 1
  15612. 1
  15613. 1
  15614. 1
  15615. 1
  15616. 1
  15617. 1
  15618. 1
  15619. 1
  15620. 1
  15621. 1
  15622. 1
  15623. 1
  15624. 1
  15625. 1
  15626. 1
  15627. 1
  15628. 1
  15629. 1
  15630. 1
  15631. 1
  15632. 1
  15633. 1
  15634. 1
  15635. 1
  15636. 1
  15637. 1
  15638. 1
  15639. 1
  15640. 1
  15641. 1
  15642. 1
  15643. 1
  15644. 1
  15645. 1
  15646. 1
  15647. 1
  15648. 1
  15649. 1
  15650. 1
  15651. 1
  15652. 1
  15653. 1
  15654. 1
  15655. 1
  15656. 1
  15657. 1
  15658. 1
  15659. 1
  15660. 1
  15661. 1
  15662. 1
  15663. 1
  15664. 1
  15665. 1
  15666. 1
  15667. 1
  15668. 1
  15669. 1
  15670. 1
  15671. 1
  15672. 1
  15673. 1
  15674. 1
  15675. 1
  15676. 1
  15677. 1
  15678. 1
  15679. 1
  15680. 1
  15681. 1
  15682. 1
  15683. 1
  15684. 1
  15685. 1
  15686. 1
  15687. 1
  15688. 1
  15689. 1
  15690. 1
  15691. 1
  15692. 1
  15693. 1
  15694. 1
  15695. 1
  15696. 1
  15697. 1
  15698. 1
  15699. 1
  15700. 1
  15701. 1
  15702. 1
  15703. 1
  15704. 1
  15705. 1
  15706. 1
  15707. 1
  15708. 1
  15709. 1
  15710. 1
  15711. 1
  15712. 1
  15713. 1
  15714. 1
  15715. 1
  15716. 1
  15717. 1
  15718. 1
  15719. 1
  15720. 1
  15721. 1
  15722. 1
  15723. 1
  15724. 1
  15725. 1
  15726. 1
  15727. 1
  15728. 1
  15729. 1
  15730. 1
  15731. 1
  15732. 1
  15733. 1
  15734. 1
  15735. 1
  15736. 1
  15737. 1
  15738. 1
  15739. 1
  15740. 1
  15741. 1
  15742. 1
  15743. 1
  15744. 1
  15745. 1
  15746. 1
  15747. 1
  15748. 1
  15749. 1
  15750. 1
  15751. 1
  15752. 1
  15753. 1
  15754. 1
  15755. 1
  15756. 1
  15757. 1
  15758. 1
  15759. 1
  15760. 1
  15761. 1
  15762. 1
  15763. 1
  15764. 1
  15765. 1
  15766. 1
  15767. 1
  15768. 1
  15769. 1
  15770. 1
  15771. 1
  15772. 1
  15773. 1
  15774. 1
  15775. 1
  15776. 1
  15777. 1
  15778. 1
  15779. 1
  15780. 1
  15781. 1
  15782. 1
  15783. 1
  15784. 1
  15785. 1
  15786. 1
  15787. 1
  15788. 1
  15789. 1
  15790. 1
  15791. 1
  15792. 1
  15793. 1
  15794. 1
  15795. 1
  15796. 1
  15797. 1
  15798. 1
  15799. 1
  15800. 1
  15801. 1
  15802. 1
  15803. 1
  15804. 1
  15805. 1
  15806. 1
  15807. 1
  15808. 1
  15809. 1
  15810. 1
  15811. 1
  15812. 1
  15813. 1
  15814. 1
  15815. 1
  15816. 1
  15817. 1
  15818. 1
  15819. 1
  15820. 1
  15821. 1
  15822. 1
  15823. 1
  15824. 1
  15825. 1
  15826. 1
  15827. 1
  15828. 1
  15829. 1
  15830. 1
  15831. 1
  15832. 1
  15833. 1
  15834. 1
  15835. 1
  15836. 1
  15837. 1
  15838. 1
  15839. 1
  15840. 1
  15841. 1
  15842. 1
  15843. 1
  15844. 1
  15845. 1
  15846. 1
  15847. 1
  15848. 1
  15849. 1
  15850. 1
  15851. 1
  15852. 1
  15853. 1
  15854. 1
  15855. 1
  15856. 1
  15857. 1
  15858. 1
  15859. 1
  15860. 1
  15861. 1
  15862. 1
  15863. 1
  15864. 1
  15865. 1
  15866. 1
  15867. 1
  15868. 1
  15869. 1
  15870. 1
  15871. 1
  15872. 1
  15873. 1
  15874. 1
  15875. 1
  15876. 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
  15877. 1
  15878. 1
  15879. 1
  15880. 1
  15881. 1
  15882. 1
  15883. 1
  15884. 1
  15885. 1
  15886. 1
  15887. 1
  15888. 1
  15889. 1
  15890. 1
  15891. 1
  15892. 1
  15893. 1
  15894. 1
  15895. 1
  15896. 1
  15897. 1
  15898. 1
  15899. 1
  15900. 1
  15901. 1
  15902. 1
  15903. 1
  15904. 1
  15905. 1
  15906. 1
  15907. 1
  15908. 1
  15909. 1
  15910. 1
  15911. 1
  15912. 1
  15913. 1
  15914. 1
  15915. 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
  15916. 1
  15917. 1
  15918. 1
  15919. 1
  15920. 1
  15921. 1
  15922. 1
  15923. 1
  15924. 1
  15925. 1
  15926. 1
  15927. 1
  15928. 1
  15929. 1
  15930. 1
  15931. 1
  15932. 1
  15933. 1
  15934. 1
  15935. 1
  15936. 1
  15937. 1
  15938. 1
  15939. 1
  15940. 1
  15941. 1
  15942. 1
  15943. 1
  15944. "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
  15945. 1
  15946. 1
  15947. 1
  15948. 1
  15949. 1
  15950. 1
  15951. 1
  15952. 1
  15953. 1
  15954. 1
  15955. 1
  15956. 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
  15957. 1
  15958. 1
  15959. 1
  15960. 1
  15961. 1
  15962. 1
  15963. 1
  15964. 1
  15965. 1
  15966. 1
  15967. 1
  15968. 1
  15969. 1
  15970. 1
  15971. 1
  15972. 1
  15973. 1
  15974. 1
  15975. 1
  15976. 1
  15977. 1
  15978. 1
  15979. 1
  15980. 1
  15981. 1
  15982. 1
  15983. 1
  15984. 1
  15985. 1
  15986. 1
  15987. 1
  15988. 1
  15989. 1
  15990. 1
  15991. 1
  15992. 1
  15993. 1
  15994. 1
  15995. 1
  15996. 1
  15997. 1
  15998. 1
  15999. 1
  16000. 1
  16001. 1
  16002. 1
  16003. 1
  16004. 1
  16005. 1
  16006. 1
  16007. 1
  16008. 1
  16009. 1
  16010. 1
  16011. 1
  16012. 1
  16013. 1
  16014. 1
  16015. 1
  16016. 1
  16017. 1
  16018. 1
  16019. 1
  16020. 1
  16021. 1
  16022. 1
  16023. 1
  16024. 1
  16025. 1
  16026. 1
  16027. 1
  16028. 1
  16029. 1
  16030. 1
  16031. 1
  16032. 1
  16033. 1
  16034. 1
  16035. 1
  16036. 1
  16037. 1
  16038. 1
  16039. 1
  16040. 1
  16041. 1
  16042. 1
  16043. 1
  16044. 1
  16045. 1
  16046. 1
  16047. 1
  16048. 1
  16049. 1
  16050. 1
  16051. 1
  16052. 1
  16053. 1
  16054. 1
  16055. 1
  16056. 1
  16057. 1
  16058. 1
  16059. 1
  16060. 1
  16061. 1
  16062. 1
  16063. 1
  16064. 1
  16065. 1
  16066. 1
  16067. 1
  16068. 1
  16069. 1
  16070. 1
  16071. 1
  16072. 1
  16073. 1
  16074. 1
  16075. 1
  16076. 1
  16077. 1
  16078. 1
  16079. 1
  16080. 1
  16081. 1
  16082. 1
  16083. 1
  16084. 1
  16085. 1
  16086. 1
  16087. 1
  16088. 1
  16089. 1
  16090. 1
  16091. 1
  16092. 1
  16093. 1
  16094. 1
  16095. 1
  16096. 1
  16097. 1
  16098. 1
  16099. 1
  16100. 1
  16101. 1
  16102. 1
  16103. 1
  16104. 1
  16105. 1
  16106. 1
  16107. 1
  16108. 1
  16109. 1
  16110. 1
  16111. 1
  16112. 1
  16113. 1
  16114. 1
  16115. 1
  16116. 1
  16117. 1
  16118. 1
  16119. 1
  16120. 1
  16121. 1
  16122. 1
  16123. 1
  16124. 1
  16125. 1
  16126. 1
  16127. 1
  16128. 1
  16129. 1
  16130. 1
  16131. 1
  16132. 1
  16133. 1
  16134. 1
  16135. 1
  16136. 1
  16137. 1
  16138. 1
  16139. 1
  16140. 1
  16141. 1
  16142. 1
  16143. 1
  16144. 1
  16145. 1
  16146. 1
  16147. 1
  16148. 1
  16149. 1
  16150. 1
  16151. ​@@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
  16152. 1
  16153. 1
  16154. 1
  16155. 1
  16156. 1
  16157. 1
  16158. 1
  16159. 1
  16160. 1
  16161. 1
  16162. 1
  16163. 1
  16164. 1
  16165. 1
  16166. 1
  16167. 1
  16168. 1
  16169. 1
  16170. 1
  16171. 1
  16172. 1
  16173. 1
  16174. 1
  16175. 1
  16176. 1
  16177. 1
  16178. 1
  16179. 1
  16180. 1
  16181. 1
  16182. 1
  16183. 1
  16184. 1
  16185. 1
  16186. 1
  16187. 1
  16188. 1
  16189. 1
  16190. 1
  16191. 1
  16192. 1
  16193. 1
  16194. 1
  16195. 1
  16196. 1
  16197. 1
  16198. 1
  16199. 1
  16200. 1
  16201. 1
  16202. 1
  16203. 1
  16204. 1
  16205. 1
  16206. 1
  16207. 1
  16208. 1
  16209. 1
  16210. 1
  16211. 1
  16212. 1
  16213. 1
  16214. 1
  16215. 1
  16216. 1
  16217. 1
  16218. 1
  16219. 1
  16220. 1
  16221. 1
  16222. 1
  16223. 1
  16224. 1
  16225. 1
  16226. 1
  16227. 1
  16228. 1
  16229. 1
  16230. 1
  16231. 1
  16232. 1
  16233. 1
  16234. 1
  16235. 1
  16236. 1
  16237. 1
  16238. 1
  16239. 1
  16240. 1
  16241. 1
  16242. 1
  16243. 1
  16244. 1
  16245. 1
  16246. 1
  16247. 1
  16248. 1
  16249. 1
  16250. 1
  16251. 1
  16252. 1
  16253. 1
  16254. 1
  16255. 1
  16256. 1
  16257. 1
  16258. 1
  16259. 1
  16260. 1
  16261. 1
  16262. 1
  16263. 1
  16264. 1
  16265. 1
  16266. 1
  16267. 1
  16268. 1
  16269. 1
  16270. 1
  16271. 1
  16272. 1
  16273. 1
  16274. 1
  16275. 1
  16276. 1
  16277. 1
  16278. 1
  16279. 1
  16280. 1
  16281. 1
  16282. 1
  16283. 1
  16284. 1
  16285. 1
  16286. 1
  16287. 1
  16288. 1
  16289. 1
  16290. 1
  16291. 1
  16292. 1
  16293. 1
  16294. 1
  16295. 1
  16296. 1
  16297. 1
  16298. 1
  16299. 1
  16300. 1
  16301. 1
  16302. 1
  16303. 1
  16304. 1
  16305. 1
  16306. 1
  16307. 1
  16308. 1
  16309. 1
  16310. 1
  16311. 1
  16312. 1
  16313. 1
  16314. 1
  16315. 1
  16316. 1
  16317. 1
  16318. 1
  16319. 1
  16320. 1
  16321. 1
  16322. 1
  16323. 1
  16324. 1
  16325. 1
  16326. 1
  16327. 1
  16328. 1
  16329. 1
  16330. 1
  16331. 1
  16332. 1
  16333. 1
  16334. 1
  16335. 1
  16336. 1
  16337. 1
  16338. 1
  16339. 1
  16340. 1
  16341. 1
  16342. 1
  16343. 1
  16344. 1
  16345. 1
  16346. 1
  16347. 1
  16348. 1
  16349. 1
  16350. 1
  16351. 1
  16352. 1
  16353. 1
  16354. 1
  16355. 1
  16356. 1
  16357. 1
  16358. 1
  16359. 1
  16360. 1
  16361. 1
  16362. 1
  16363. 1
  16364. 1
  16365. 1
  16366. 1
  16367. 1
  16368. 1
  16369. 1
  16370. 1
  16371. 1
  16372. 1
  16373. 1
  16374. 1
  16375. 1
  16376. 1
  16377. 1
  16378. 1
  16379. 1
  16380. 1
  16381. 1
  16382. 1
  16383. 1
  16384. 1
  16385. 1
  16386. 1
  16387. 1
  16388. 1
  16389. 1
  16390. 1
  16391. 1
  16392. 1
  16393. 1
  16394. 1
  16395. 1
  16396. 1
  16397. 1
  16398. 1
  16399. 1
  16400. 1
  16401. 1
  16402. 1
  16403. 1
  16404. 1
  16405. 1
  16406. 1
  16407. 1
  16408. 1
  16409. 1
  16410. 1
  16411. 1
  16412. 1
  16413. 1
  16414. 1
  16415. 1
  16416. 1
  16417. 1
  16418. 1
  16419. 1
  16420. 1
  16421. 1
  16422. 1
  16423. 1
  16424. 1
  16425. 1
  16426. 1
  16427. 1
  16428. 1
  16429. 1
  16430. 1
  16431. 1
  16432. 1
  16433. 1
  16434. 1
  16435. 1
  16436. 1
  16437. 1
  16438. 1
  16439. 1
  16440. 1
  16441. 1
  16442. 1
  16443. 1
  16444. 1
  16445. 1
  16446. 1
  16447. 1
  16448. 1
  16449. 1
  16450. 1
  16451. 1
  16452. 1
  16453. 1
  16454. 1
  16455. 1
  16456. 1
  16457. 1
  16458. 1
  16459. 1
  16460. 1
  16461. 1
  16462. 1
  16463. 1
  16464. 1
  16465. 1
  16466. 1
  16467. 1
  16468. 1
  16469. 1
  16470. 1
  16471. 1
  16472. 1
  16473. 1
  16474. 1
  16475. 1
  16476. 1
  16477. 1
  16478. 1
  16479. 1
  16480. 1
  16481. 1
  16482. 1
  16483. 1
  16484. 1
  16485. 1
  16486. 1
  16487. 1
  16488. 1
  16489. 1
  16490. 1
  16491. 1
  16492. 1
  16493. 1
  16494. 1
  16495. 1
  16496. 1
  16497. 1
  16498. 1
  16499. 1
  16500. 1
  16501. 1
  16502. 1
  16503. 1
  16504. 1
  16505. 1
  16506. 1
  16507. 1
  16508. 1
  16509. 1
  16510. 1
  16511. 1
  16512. 1
  16513. 1
  16514. 1
  16515. 1
  16516. 1
  16517. 1
  16518. 1
  16519. 1
  16520. 1
  16521. 1
  16522. 1
  16523. 1
  16524. 1
  16525. 1
  16526. 1
  16527. 1
  16528. 1
  16529. 1
  16530. 1
  16531. 1
  16532. 1
  16533. 1
  16534. 1
  16535. 1
  16536. 1
  16537. 1
  16538. 1
  16539. 1
  16540. 1
  16541. 1
  16542. 1
  16543. 1
  16544. 1
  16545. 1
  16546. 1
  16547. 1
  16548. 1
  16549. 1
  16550. 1
  16551. 1
  16552. 1
  16553. 1
  16554. 1
  16555. 1
  16556. 1
  16557. 1
  16558. 1
  16559. 1
  16560. 1
  16561. 1
  16562. 1
  16563. 1
  16564. 1
  16565. 1
  16566. 1
  16567. 1
  16568. 1
  16569. 1
  16570. 1
  16571. 1
  16572. 1
  16573. 1
  16574. 1
  16575. 1
  16576. 1
  16577. 1
  16578. 1
  16579. 1
  16580. 1
  16581. 1
  16582. 1
  16583. 1
  16584. 1
  16585. 1
  16586. 1
  16587. 1
  16588. 1
  16589. 1
  16590. 1
  16591. 1
  16592. 1
  16593. 1
  16594. 1
  16595. 1
  16596. 1
  16597. 1
  16598. 1
  16599. 1
  16600. 1
  16601. 1
  16602. 1
  16603. 1
  16604. 1
  16605. 1
  16606. 1
  16607. 1
  16608. 1
  16609. 1
  16610. 1
  16611. 1
  16612.  小熊维尼  Don't you understand. these aren't the same people? It was their ancestors, and not for all of them either, for most of their ancestors were nowhere near the possessor or ruling classes, and now many people in Britain have no roots there at all but come from elsewhere, or their parents did. It's nearly complete nonsense to say "they" anything. What would be the sense in saying of the Central Committee in 2050 that "they" caused the starvation of so many people during the Great Leap Forward? You're a proud nationalist --- which I define as someone with a grudge --- and if people like you have any say in important matters in the years to come I expect they'll out of pique steer China into a number of wars. Then you'll have become just like the Britain of the mid- and late-Victoiran era you clearly despise with a good deal of justification. It's an easy trap to fall into and difficult to avoid unless you make a priority of keeping a balanced outlook. That means developing a certain hostility to people with all the answers or who say they're all in one or two books. It means Marx and the Analects have to make room for others, some of them from very far afield. I urge you to bear in mind that only a crowd can be nationalistic. And crowds are mad, so stay away from them and you can if necessary straighten out your mind concerning China's relation to other countries. In my view it's largely a matter, aside from giving and demanding tolerance and respect, of refusing to nurture a grudge about anything dating back two generations or more, or about forty years. All the best.
    1
  16613. 1
  16614. 1
  16615. 1
  16616. 1
  16617. 1
  16618. 1
  16619. 1
  16620. 1
  16621. 1
  16622. 1
  16623. 1
  16624. 1
  16625. 1
  16626. 1
  16627. 1
  16628. 1
  16629. 1
  16630. 1
  16631. 1
  16632. 1
  16633. 1
  16634. 1
  16635. 1
  16636. 1
  16637. 1
  16638. 1
  16639. 1
  16640. 1
  16641. 1
  16642. 1
  16643. 1
  16644. 1
  16645. 1
  16646. 1
  16647. 1
  16648. 1
  16649. 1
  16650. 1
  16651. 1
  16652. 1
  16653. 1
  16654. 1
  16655. 1
  16656. 1
  16657. 1
  16658. 1
  16659. 1
  16660. 1
  16661. 1
  16662. 1
  16663. 1
  16664. 1
  16665. 1
  16666. 1
  16667. 1
  16668. 1
  16669. 1
  16670. 1
  16671. 1
  16672. 1
  16673. 1
  16674. 1
  16675. 1
  16676. 1
  16677. 1
  16678. 1
  16679. 1
  16680. 1
  16681. 1
  16682. 1
  16683. 1
  16684. 1
  16685. 1
  16686. 1
  16687. 1
  16688. 1
  16689. 1
  16690. 1
  16691. 1
  16692. 1
  16693. 1
  16694. 1
  16695. 1
  16696. 1
  16697. 1
  16698. 1
  16699. 1
  16700. 1
  16701. 1
  16702. 1
  16703. 1
  16704. 1
  16705. 1
  16706. 1
  16707. 1
  16708. 1
  16709. 1
  16710. 1
  16711. 1
  16712. 1
  16713. 1
  16714. 1
  16715. 1
  16716. 1
  16717. 1
  16718. 1
  16719. 1
  16720. 1
  16721. 1
  16722. 1
  16723. 1
  16724. 1
  16725. 1
  16726. 1
  16727. 1
  16728. 1
  16729. 1
  16730. 1
  16731. 1
  16732. 1
  16733. 1
  16734. 1
  16735. 1
  16736. 1
  16737. 1
  16738. 1
  16739. 1
  16740. 1
  16741. 1
  16742. 1
  16743. 1
  16744. 1
  16745. 1
  16746. 1
  16747. 1
  16748. 1
  16749. 1
  16750. 1
  16751. 1
  16752. 1
  16753. 1
  16754. 1
  16755. 1
  16756. 1
  16757. 1
  16758. 1
  16759. 1
  16760. 1
  16761. 1
  16762. 1
  16763. 1
  16764. 1
  16765. 1
  16766. 1
  16767. 1
  16768. 1
  16769. 1
  16770. 1
  16771. 1
  16772. 1
  16773. 1
  16774. 1
  16775. 1
  16776. 1
  16777. 1
  16778. 1
  16779. 1
  16780. 1
  16781. 1
  16782. 1
  16783. 1
  16784. 1
  16785. 1
  16786. 1
  16787. 1
  16788. 1
  16789. 1
  16790. 1
  16791. 1
  16792. 1
  16793. 1
  16794. 1
  16795. 1
  16796. 1
  16797. 1
  16798. 1
  16799. 1
  16800. 1
  16801. 1
  16802. 1
  16803. 1
  16804. 1
  16805. 1
  16806. 1
  16807. 1
  16808. 1
  16809. 1
  16810. 1
  16811. 1
  16812. 1
  16813. 1
  16814. 1
  16815. 1
  16816. 1
  16817. 1
  16818. 1
  16819. 1
  16820. 1
  16821. 1
  16822. 1
  16823. 1
  16824. 1
  16825. 1
  16826. 1
  16827. 1
  16828. 1
  16829. 1
  16830. 1
  16831. 1
  16832. 1
  16833. 1
  16834. 1
  16835. 1
  16836. 1
  16837. 1
  16838. 1
  16839. 1
  16840. 1
  16841. 1
  16842. 1
  16843. 1
  16844. 1
  16845. 1
  16846. 1
  16847. 1
  16848. 1
  16849. 1
  16850. 1
  16851. 1
  16852. 1
  16853. 1
  16854. 1
  16855. 1
  16856. 1
  16857. 1
  16858. 1
  16859. 1
  16860. 1
  16861. 1
  16862. 1
  16863. 1
  16864. 1
  16865. 1
  16866. 1
  16867. 1
  16868. 1
  16869. 1
  16870. 1
  16871. 1
  16872. 1
  16873. 1
  16874. 1
  16875. 1
  16876. 1
  16877. 1
  16878. 1
  16879. 1
  16880. 1
  16881. 1
  16882. 1
  16883. 1
  16884. 1
  16885. 1
  16886. 1
  16887. 1
  16888. 1
  16889. 1
  16890. 1
  16891. 1
  16892. 1
  16893. 1
  16894. 1
  16895. 1
  16896. 1
  16897. 1
  16898. 1
  16899. 1
  16900. 1
  16901. 1
  16902. 1
  16903. 1
  16904. 1
  16905. 1
  16906. 1
  16907. 1
  16908. 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
  16909. 1
  16910. 1
  16911. 1
  16912. 1
  16913. 1
  16914. 1
  16915. 1
  16916. 1
  16917. 1
  16918. 1
  16919. 1
  16920. 1
  16921. 1
  16922. 1
  16923. 1
  16924. 1
  16925. 1
  16926. 1
  16927. 1
  16928. 1
  16929. 1
  16930. 1
  16931. 1
  16932. 1
  16933. 1
  16934. 1
  16935. 1
  16936. 1
  16937. 1
  16938. 1
  16939. 1
  16940. 1
  16941. 1
  16942. 1
  16943. 1
  16944. 1
  16945. 1
  16946. 1
  16947. 1
  16948. 1
  16949. 1
  16950. 1
  16951. 1
  16952. 1
  16953. 1
  16954. 1
  16955. 1
  16956. 1
  16957. 1
  16958. 1
  16959. 1
  16960. 1
  16961. 1
  16962. 1
  16963. 1
  16964. 1
  16965. 1
  16966. 1
  16967. 1
  16968. 1
  16969. 1
  16970. 1
  16971. 1
  16972. 1
  16973. 1
  16974. 1
  16975. 1
  16976. 1
  16977. 1
  16978. 1
  16979. 1
  16980. 1
  16981. 1
  16982. 1
  16983. 1
  16984. 1
  16985. 1
  16986. 1
  16987. 1
  16988. 1
  16989. 1
  16990. 1
  16991. 1
  16992. 1
  16993. 1
  16994. 1
  16995. 1
  16996. 1
  16997. 1
  16998. 1
  16999. 1
  17000. 1
  17001. 1
  17002. 1
  17003. 1
  17004. 1
  17005. 1
  17006. 1
  17007. 1
  17008. 1
  17009. 1
  17010. 1
  17011. 1
  17012. 1
  17013. 1
  17014. 1
  17015. 1
  17016. 1
  17017. 1
  17018. 1
  17019. 1
  17020. 1
  17021. 1
  17022. 1
  17023. 1
  17024. 1
  17025. 1
  17026. 1
  17027. 1
  17028. 1
  17029. 1
  17030. 1
  17031. 1
  17032. 1
  17033. 1
  17034. 1
  17035. 1
  17036. 1
  17037. 1
  17038. 1
  17039. 1
  17040. 1
  17041. 1
  17042. 1
  17043. 1
  17044. 1
  17045. 1
  17046. 1
  17047. 1
  17048. 1
  17049. 1
  17050. 1
  17051. 1
  17052. 1
  17053. 1
  17054. 1
  17055. 1
  17056. 1
  17057. 1
  17058. 1
  17059. 1
  17060. 1
  17061. 1
  17062. 1
  17063. 1
  17064. 1
  17065. 1
  17066. 1
  17067. 1
  17068. 1
  17069. 1
  17070. 1
  17071. 1
  17072. 1
  17073. 1
  17074. 1
  17075. 1
  17076. 1
  17077. 1
  17078. 1
  17079. 1
  17080. 1
  17081. 1
  17082. 1
  17083. 1
  17084. 1
  17085. 1
  17086. 1
  17087. 1
  17088. 1
  17089. 1
  17090. 1
  17091. 1
  17092. 1
  17093. 1
  17094. 1
  17095. ​ @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
  17096. 1
  17097. 1
  17098. 1
  17099. 1
  17100. 1
  17101. 1
  17102.  @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
  17103. 1
  17104. 1
  17105. 1
  17106. 1
  17107. 1
  17108. 1
  17109. 1
  17110. 1
  17111. 1
  17112. 1
  17113. 1
  17114. 1
  17115. 1
  17116. 1
  17117. 1
  17118. 1
  17119. 1
  17120. 1
  17121. 1
  17122. 1
  17123. 1
  17124. 1
  17125. 1
  17126. 1
  17127. 1
  17128. 1
  17129. 1
  17130. 1
  17131. 1
  17132. 1
  17133. 1
  17134. 1
  17135. 1
  17136. 1
  17137. 1
  17138. 1
  17139. 1
  17140. 1
  17141. 1
  17142. 1
  17143. 1
  17144. 1
  17145. 1
  17146. 1
  17147. 1
  17148. 1
  17149. 1
  17150. 1
  17151. 1
  17152. 1
  17153. 1
  17154. 1
  17155. 1
  17156. 1
  17157. 1
  17158. 1
  17159. 1
  17160. 1
  17161. 1
  17162. 1
  17163. 1
  17164. 1
  17165. 1
  17166. 1
  17167. 1
  17168. 1
  17169. 1
  17170. 1
  17171. 1
  17172. 1
  17173. 1
  17174. 1
  17175. 1
  17176. 1
  17177. 1
  17178. 1
  17179. 1
  17180. 1
  17181. 1
  17182. 1
  17183. 1
  17184. 1
  17185. 1
  17186. 1
  17187. 1
  17188. 1
  17189. 1
  17190. 1
  17191. 1
  17192. 1
  17193. 1
  17194. 1
  17195. 1
  17196. 1
  17197. 1
  17198. 1
  17199. 1
  17200. 1
  17201. 1
  17202. 1
  17203. 1
  17204. 1
  17205. 1
  17206. 1
  17207. 1
  17208. 1
  17209. 1
  17210. 1
  17211. 1
  17212. 1
  17213. 1
  17214. 1
  17215. 1
  17216. 1
  17217. 1
  17218. 1
  17219. 1
  17220. 1
  17221. 1
  17222. 1
  17223. 1
  17224. 1
  17225. 1
  17226. 1
  17227. 1
  17228. 1
  17229. 1
  17230. 1
  17231. 1
  17232. 1
  17233. 1
  17234. 1
  17235. 1
  17236. 1
  17237. 1
  17238. 1
  17239. 1
  17240. 1
  17241. 1
  17242. 1
  17243. 1
  17244. 1
  17245. 1
  17246. 1
  17247. 1
  17248. 1
  17249. 1
  17250. 1
  17251. 1
  17252. 1
  17253. 1
  17254. 1
  17255. 1
  17256. 1
  17257. 1
  17258. 1
  17259. 1
  17260. 1
  17261. 1
  17262. 1
  17263. 1
  17264. 1
  17265. 1
  17266. 1
  17267. 1
  17268. 1
  17269. 1
  17270. 1
  17271. 1
  17272. 1
  17273. 1
  17274. 1
  17275. 1
  17276. 1
  17277. 1
  17278. 1
  17279. 1
  17280. 1
  17281. 1
  17282. 1
  17283. 1
  17284. 1
  17285. 1
  17286. 1
  17287. 1
  17288. 1
  17289. 1
  17290. 1
  17291. 1
  17292. 1
  17293. 1
  17294. 1
  17295. 1
  17296. 1
  17297. 1
  17298. 1
  17299. 1
  17300. 1
  17301. 1
  17302. 1
  17303. 1
  17304. 1
  17305. 1
  17306. 1
  17307. 1
  17308. 1
  17309. 1
  17310. 1
  17311. 1
  17312. 1
  17313. 1
  17314. 1
  17315. 1
  17316. 1
  17317. 1
  17318. 1
  17319. 1
  17320. 1
  17321. 1
  17322. 1
  17323. 1
  17324. 1
  17325. 1
  17326. 1
  17327. 1
  17328. 1
  17329. 1
  17330. 1
  17331. 1
  17332. 1
  17333. 1
  17334. 1
  17335. 1
  17336. 1
  17337. 1
  17338. 1
  17339. 1
  17340. 1
  17341. 1
  17342. 1
  17343. 1
  17344. 1
  17345. 1
  17346. 1
  17347. 1
  17348. 1
  17349. 1
  17350. 1
  17351. 1
  17352. 1
  17353. 1
  17354. 1
  17355. 1
  17356. 1
  17357. 1
  17358. 1
  17359. 1
  17360. 1
  17361. 1
  17362. 1
  17363. 1
  17364. 1
  17365. 1
  17366. 1
  17367. 1
  17368. 1
  17369. 1
  17370. 1
  17371. 1
  17372. 1
  17373. 1
  17374. 1
  17375. 1
  17376. 1
  17377. 1
  17378. 1
  17379.  @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
  17380. 1
  17381. 1
  17382. 1
  17383. 1
  17384. 1
  17385. 1
  17386. 1
  17387. 1
  17388. 1
  17389. 1
  17390. 1
  17391. 1
  17392. 1
  17393. 1
  17394. 1
  17395. 1
  17396. 1
  17397. 1
  17398. 1
  17399. 1
  17400. 1
  17401. 1
  17402. 1
  17403. 1
  17404. 1
  17405. 1
  17406. 1
  17407. 1
  17408. 1
  17409. 1
  17410. 1
  17411. 1
  17412. 1
  17413. 1
  17414. 1
  17415. 1
  17416. 1
  17417. 1
  17418. 1
  17419. 1
  17420. 1
  17421. 1
  17422. 1
  17423. 1
  17424. 1
  17425. 1
  17426. 1
  17427. 1
  17428. 1
  17429. 1
  17430. 1
  17431. 1
  17432. 1
  17433. 1
  17434. 1
  17435. 1
  17436. 1
  17437. 1
  17438. 1
  17439. 1
  17440. 1
  17441. 1
  17442. 1
  17443. 1
  17444. 1
  17445. 1
  17446. 1
  17447. 1
  17448. 1
  17449. 1
  17450. 1
  17451. 1
  17452. 1
  17453. 1
  17454. 1
  17455. 1
  17456. 1
  17457. 1
  17458. 1
  17459. 1
  17460. 1
  17461. 1
  17462. 1
  17463. 1
  17464. 1
  17465. 1
  17466. 1
  17467. 1
  17468. 1
  17469. 1
  17470. 1
  17471. 1
  17472. 1
  17473. 1
  17474. 1
  17475. 1
  17476. 1
  17477. 1
  17478. 1
  17479. 1
  17480. 1
  17481. 1
  17482. 1
  17483. 1
  17484. 1
  17485. 1
  17486. 1
  17487. 1
  17488. 1
  17489. 1
  17490. 1
  17491. 1
  17492. 1
  17493. 1
  17494. 1
  17495. 1
  17496. 1
  17497. 1
  17498. 1
  17499. 1
  17500. 1
  17501. 1
  17502. 1
  17503. 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
  17504. 1
  17505. 1
  17506. 1
  17507. 1
  17508. 1
  17509. 1
  17510. 1
  17511. 1
  17512. 1
  17513. 1
  17514. 1
  17515. 1
  17516. 1
  17517. 1
  17518. 1
  17519. 1
  17520. 1
  17521. 1
  17522. 1
  17523. 1
  17524. 1
  17525. 1
  17526. 1
  17527. 1
  17528. 1
  17529. 1
  17530. 1
  17531. 1
  17532. 1
  17533. 1
  17534. 1
  17535. 1
  17536. 1
  17537. 1
  17538. 1
  17539. 1
  17540. 1
  17541. 1
  17542. 1
  17543. 1
  17544. 1
  17545. 1
  17546. 1
  17547. 1
  17548. 1
  17549. 1
  17550. 1
  17551. 1
  17552. 1
  17553. 1
  17554. 1
  17555. 1
  17556. 1
  17557. 1
  17558. 1
  17559. 1
  17560. 1
  17561. 1
  17562. 1
  17563. 1
  17564. 1
  17565. 1
  17566. 1
  17567. 1
  17568. 1
  17569. 1
  17570. 1
  17571. 1
  17572. 1
  17573. 1
  17574. 1
  17575. 1
  17576. 1
  17577. 1
  17578. 1
  17579. 1
  17580. 1
  17581. 1
  17582. 1
  17583. 1
  17584. 1
  17585. 1
  17586. 1
  17587. 1
  17588. 1
  17589. 1
  17590. 1
  17591. 1
  17592. 1
  17593. 1
  17594. 1
  17595. 1
  17596. 1
  17597. 1
  17598. 1
  17599. 1
  17600. 1
  17601. 1
  17602. 1
  17603. 1
  17604. 1
  17605. 1
  17606. 1
  17607. 1
  17608. 1
  17609. 1
  17610. 1
  17611. 1
  17612. 1
  17613. 1
  17614. 1
  17615. 1
  17616. 1
  17617. 1
  17618. 1
  17619. 1
  17620. 1
  17621. 1
  17622. 1
  17623. 1
  17624. 1
  17625. 1
  17626. 1
  17627. 1
  17628. 1
  17629. 1
  17630. 1
  17631. 1
  17632. 1
  17633. 1
  17634. 1
  17635. 1
  17636. 1
  17637. 1
  17638. 1
  17639. 1
  17640. 1
  17641. 1
  17642. 1
  17643. 1
  17644. 1
  17645. 1
  17646. 1
  17647. 1
  17648. 1
  17649. 1
  17650. 1
  17651. 1
  17652. 1
  17653. 1
  17654. 1
  17655. 1
  17656. 1
  17657. 1
  17658. 1
  17659. 1
  17660. 1
  17661. 1
  17662. 1
  17663. 1
  17664. 1
  17665. 1
  17666. 1
  17667. 1
  17668. 1
  17669. 1
  17670. 1
  17671. 1
  17672. 1
  17673. 1
  17674. 1
  17675. 1
  17676. 1
  17677. 1
  17678. 1
  17679. 1
  17680. 1
  17681. 1
  17682. 1
  17683. 1
  17684. 1
  17685. 1
  17686. 1
  17687. 1
  17688. 1
  17689. 1
  17690. 1
  17691. 1
  17692. 1
  17693. 1
  17694. 1
  17695. 1
  17696. 1
  17697. 1
  17698. 1
  17699. 1
  17700. 1
  17701. 1
  17702. 1
  17703. 1
  17704. 1
  17705. 1
  17706. 1
  17707. 1
  17708. 1
  17709. 1
  17710. 1
  17711. 1
  17712. 1
  17713. 1
  17714. 1
  17715. 1
  17716. 1
  17717. 1
  17718. 1
  17719. 1
  17720. 1
  17721. 1
  17722. 1
  17723. 1
  17724. 1
  17725. 1
  17726. 1
  17727. 1
  17728. 1
  17729. 1
  17730. 1
  17731. 1
  17732. 1
  17733. 1
  17734. 1
  17735. 1
  17736. 1
  17737. 1
  17738. 1
  17739. 1
  17740. 1
  17741. 1
  17742. 1
  17743. 1
  17744. 1
  17745. 1
  17746. 1
  17747. 1
  17748. 1
  17749. 1
  17750. 1
  17751. 1
  17752. 1
  17753. 1
  17754. 1
  17755. 1
  17756. 1
  17757. 1
  17758. 1
  17759. 1
  17760. 1
  17761. 1
  17762. 1
  17763. 1
  17764. 1
  17765. 1
  17766. 1
  17767. 1
  17768. 1
  17769. 1
  17770. 1
  17771. 1
  17772. 1
  17773. 1
  17774. 1
  17775. 1
  17776. 1
  17777. 1
  17778. 1
  17779. 1
  17780. 1
  17781. 1
  17782. 1
  17783. 1
  17784. 1
  17785. 1
  17786. 1
  17787. 1
  17788. 1
  17789. 1
  17790. 1
  17791. 1
  17792. 1
  17793. 1
  17794. 1
  17795. 1
  17796. 1
  17797. 1
  17798. 1
  17799. 1
  17800. 1
  17801. 1
  17802. 1
  17803. 1
  17804. 1
  17805. 1
  17806. 1
  17807. 1
  17808. 1
  17809. 1
  17810. 1
  17811. 1
  17812. 1
  17813. 1
  17814. 1
  17815. 1
  17816. 1
  17817. 1
  17818. 1
  17819. 1
  17820. 1
  17821. 1
  17822. 1
  17823. 1
  17824. 1
  17825. 1
  17826. 1
  17827. 1
  17828. 1
  17829. 1
  17830. 1
  17831. 1
  17832. 1
  17833. 1
  17834. 1
  17835. 1
  17836. 1
  17837. 1
  17838. 1
  17839. 1
  17840. 1
  17841. 1
  17842. 1
  17843. 1
  17844. 1
  17845. 1
  17846. 1
  17847. 1
  17848. 1
  17849. 1
  17850. 1
  17851. 1
  17852. 1
  17853. 1
  17854. 1
  17855. 1
  17856. 1
  17857. 1
  17858. 1
  17859. 1
  17860. 1
  17861. 1
  17862. 1
  17863. 1
  17864. 1
  17865. 1
  17866. 1
  17867. 1
  17868. 1
  17869. 1
  17870. 1
  17871. 1
  17872. 1
  17873. 1
  17874. 1
  17875. 1
  17876. 1
  17877. 1
  17878. ​ @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
  17879. 1
  17880. 1
  17881. 1
  17882. 1
  17883. 1
  17884. 1
  17885. 1
  17886. 1
  17887. 1
  17888. 1
  17889. 1
  17890. 1
  17891. 1
  17892. 1
  17893. 1
  17894. 1
  17895. 1
  17896. 1
  17897. 1
  17898. 1
  17899. 1
  17900. 1
  17901. 1
  17902. 1
  17903. 1
  17904. 1
  17905. 1
  17906. 1
  17907. 1
  17908. 1
  17909. 1
  17910. 1
  17911. 1
  17912. 1
  17913. 1
  17914. 1
  17915. 1
  17916. 1
  17917. 1
  17918. 1
  17919. 1
  17920. 1
  17921. 1
  17922. 1
  17923. 1
  17924. 1
  17925. 1
  17926. 1
  17927. 1
  17928. 1
  17929. 1
  17930. 1
  17931. 1
  17932. 1
  17933. 1
  17934. 1
  17935. 1
  17936. 1
  17937. 1
  17938. 1
  17939. 1
  17940. 1
  17941. 1
  17942. 1
  17943. 1
  17944. 1
  17945. 1
  17946. 1
  17947. 1
  17948. 1
  17949. 1
  17950. 1
  17951. 1
  17952. 1
  17953. 1
  17954. 1
  17955. 1
  17956. 1
  17957. 1
  17958. 1
  17959. 1
  17960. 1
  17961. 1
  17962. 1
  17963. 1
  17964. 1
  17965. 1
  17966. 1
  17967. 1
  17968. 1
  17969. 1
  17970. 1
  17971. 1
  17972. 1
  17973. 1
  17974. 1
  17975. 1
  17976. 1
  17977. 1
  17978. 1
  17979. 1
  17980. 1
  17981. 1
  17982. 1
  17983. 1
  17984. 1
  17985. 1
  17986. 1
  17987. 1
  17988. 1
  17989. 1
  17990. 1
  17991. 1
  17992. 1
  17993. 1
  17994. 1
  17995. 1
  17996. 1
  17997. 1
  17998. 1
  17999. 1
  18000. 1
  18001. 1
  18002. 1
  18003. 1
  18004. 1
  18005. 1
  18006. 1
  18007. 1
  18008. 1
  18009. 1
  18010. 1
  18011. 1
  18012. 1
  18013. 1
  18014. 1
  18015. 1
  18016. 1
  18017. 1
  18018. 1
  18019. 1
  18020. 1
  18021. 1