Ever watch one of those short flies where everyone converges, then stand around looking at one another as the ball drops neatly between them?
So you’ll excuse the thinn of today’s Links. Speed and necessity overcame quality.
This was a total bummer to see. Heap is, by all accounts, a fine human and was a great player, proving that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Let’s assume arguendo that there exists an attorney who has never disproved swirling rumors about his relationships with farm animals, but instead used the civil court system to bully people who offended him. This is totally hypothetical and is not meant to represent any real person, living or dead. Let’s also assume that such a hypothetical attorney weighed in on the Outrage du Jour. Let’s further assume that his analysis looks solid. I would guess that if such a hypothetical were true, the analysis might look something like this.
I am generally not in favor of important diplomatic posts being filled by appointments totally driven by politics, but sometimes you gotta make an exception.
I forgot: the custom is now to have a music link, and this one is a fuck you to sloopy.
Once a cop….
http://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/ex-officer-charged-for-assaulting-women-with-sex-toy
Does anyone know of a legit study that measures domestic violence rate for cops? Google says 40% but that seems incredibly high. I have no doubt its high but not that high.
They’re almost as violent as lesbians?
What about lesbian cops?
I think DV is already difficult to measure with some victims being reluctant to press charges, so using convictions would probably underreport the instances in the public.
Add to that the police already low conviction rate for anything ditto for arrests. Plus if you are a victim and do want to press charges the sense of hopelessness that you will probably get no help from his “buddies” in getting him arrested, convicted etc Would make documenting DV among cops even more difficult
Also, the definition of “domestic violence” has been politicized and expanded to absurdity.
I wonder to what extent the expanded definition of domestic violence is offset by the “thin blue line” effect.
I remember discussion about it in college psych classes. Highest rates of violence – criminals and cops. Highest number of alcoholism, domestic violence, suicide, incarceration, etc etc are – cops and criminals. What do they have in common? Those two groups have, by far, the most people with extra Y genes… XYY Syndrome.
Well, to be fair, they’re also both high-stress jobs that don’t pay especially well. There’s also shitty politics to contend with, although, admittedly, the shitty office politics of a heroin dealer tend to involve a higher risk of murder.
My dad was a cop, and he drank like a champ. In his case, though, he had a lot of bad shit in his life that contributed to that before he became a cop; the job didn’t help, but he was self-medicating with Jim Beam long before he became a deputy. No dv, no suicide (although arguably drinking yourself to an early grave might count), but he definitely fought a lot, before and after his career in law enforcement.
County prosecutors say Bolton illegally pulled over a 22-year-old woman and a 23-year-old woman in February and used a sex toy he found in the back seat to
rub against their genitals outside of their clothing while they were seated in the vehicle.see how many weeks left until spring.I think Mia should be ambassador to my house
Get in line, pal.
Them some thicc eyebrows.
Did she get fake tits? Every time these girls get popular they get fake tits. Uh, sweeite, the reason you got popular is because we LIKE your tits, now you went and ruint ’em.
Yes. She did, and she had a cheap, shitty job done.
Or so a friend told me.
Yes, she implants. They make me sad.
She HAS implants. Yes, I can type and proofread this morning.
I’ll be happy to take all of you guyses hot porn star body rejects off your hands.
So you want to be on a webcam performance?
With her? Sure, you her agent?
Democracy Dies in Darkness
This is the way the
worldpaper ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.A very emo-sounding whimper.
They really hate themselves and want to die (the progs)
They who shall not be named
They’re a joke outside their bubble. You’d have thought they would look at their circulation and figured that out. But they’re doubling down.
Dude, the WaPo is the pulse of a good 75% of the DMV. I could take that article and show it to the first ten people I saw walking down the street and nobody would have a problem with it. And probably 9/10 would have a problem with my taking issue with it.
I knew it. You live in Ocelot, IN.
“statements he reportedly made during the stop prompted officers to raid a house”
Really?
http://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/6000-doses-of-lsd-marijuana-growing-operation-reportedly-found-in-clark-county-drug-bust
Why does that photograph include blank ammunition?
Gotta admit, the idea of a porn star being an ambassador to one of “those” countries is hilarious.
As long as she never has to go there.
Did you see it coming?
That was a stretch. Would tackle that first chick though.
NICE! Even if it is AIG…
Geez, strafe. I never realized how dangerous your ward was. It’s like an accident warzone.
Good call. I was in Shibuya all day today. I think there is some Akihabara mixed in too.
With the teaser for The Last Jedi being released yesterday I thought about another series I am/was eagerly awaiting, Game of Thrones. I think the whole JJ Abrams SW series will be released before Winds of Winter is even finished.
I used to think GRR Martin had a shitty work ethic, but now I think he just hates/is bored with the series. He’s quoted as saying he is reworking plot elements because people have theorized aspects of the books correctly. Not only does this seem like a bad idea, and flirting with ruining the series. But it’s like some sort of superiority complex where Martin has to change things to prove readers wrong, so that they cannot be as smart and creative as he is.
Anyway, I wish Martin would just let Benioff finish the series as Benioff is probably more committed to the series, and can actually get the books published on time while there is still a decent sized audience of interested readers left.
/rant
I haven’t really followed GoT, but doesn’t the HBO series put some pressure on him to finish the books? Or will he just follow the show’s plot after it goes past where he left off?
He told Benioff and the other writer his basic ideas for the last 2 books
Ah, The Last Jedi trailor. Huge Star Wars nerd, and I must say I hated The Force Awakens and I’m that trailor does nothing to make me want to see that movie. My biggest fear right now is that Disney take advantage of the Star Wars title to churn mediocre, uninspired tripe that they’re sure people will watch because Star Wars. So far they’re right on track.
Also, am I the only one who would love to see a movie set in theOld Republic era? Thousands of years to play around with and do almost whatever you like eith the story.
Well, there’s always the original EU.
I’d like to see a story about the Wookiees breaking off from the EU.
Kashyyyxit: A Story Of Wookiee Rebellion
You mean you’ve never viewed the CIS vs Republic story of the prequels as smart, savvy businessmen vs asshole bureaucrats with too much power and a willingness to use expendable humans to fight unnecessary wars?
Oh right, you’re not a super-nerd.
I viewed it more as the Jedi are actually the bad guys. Slave army? Sure, no problem using that. They’re clones, practically no different than robots.
That’s actually one thing I really liked about the prequels was what it did to the Jedi. The CIS were just separatists who (rightly) felt they were being ognored and exploited by a corrupt senate and wanted out. Only problem was they were being lead by a sith working openly as opposed to the Republic, which was lead by a sith pretending to be a standard power hungry politician.
And what the sith did to the Jedi was simply beautiful: they basically turned them into what they hated. The Jedi prided themselves on being peacekeepers, liberators, defenders of the weak, and loyal to the Republic. Through sith machinations and their own failure they were turned into warriors and generals in a bloody war against disenfranchised systems, leading a slave army, and ultimately betrayed by the very Republic they were sworn to uphold. He’s called Darth Sideous for a reason.
Yeah, the prequel trilogy actually had the potential to be really interesting. Lucas just really badly botched it. Episode I should’ve been the start of the Clone Wars, with II being during, and III being the end.
In my opinion the concepts behind the prequel trilogy were really good. It’s just that the execution was badly botched. Contrast to Episode VII, where the execution was decent but the concepts were unoriginal at best and downright horrible at worst.
In defense of Force Awakens, I think after Lucas botched the prequels as badly as he did, they kinda had to be unoriginal for the first movie to get people to see that this isn’t going to be the prequel trilogy again. So I think this year’s Star Wars will be the real test to see if they can make an original Star Wars script that doesn’t fail spectacularly like the prequels did.
I agree they thought they had to be unoriginal, but they didn’t have to be and their mashing the reset button hurt the Star Wars universe a lot in the long term. In my humble opinion if they had made a genuinely good original movie people would have loved it. Instead they made a safe retread. Here’s hoping they can break out into a new good Star Wars stoey with VIII.
I can’t wait for the Mouse to get greedy and milk the franchise by releasing unrevised versions of the three movies over Lucas’ dead body.
Now that’s what I’m waiting for. A few years from now, the Star Wars Trilogy Trilogy Blu-Ray collection comes out, including both the Special Editions and the original theatrical editions, and both are digitally cleaned up and enhanced for the best possible experience.
You can still get the Despecialized Editions, depending on how comfortable you are with sketchy AF links out of Bosnia.
Yeah, I’ve heard about the Despecialized Editions for a while now. I’m not knowledgeable enough about all that, that I’d be comfortable with going that route. I’ll just wait for an official release if it ever happens. Worst case, I still have those half-assed official DVDs that came out a decade ago.
And those unrevised editions will have the correct titles. None of this Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope crap either.
I’d be fine with or without that title. I didn’t hate every single SE change/addition. I just want Boba Fett’s original voice, no stupid rings around Death Stars’ explosions, and for God’s sake undo those Jabba’s Palace changes, NOW!
I am having deja vue after this trailer and TFA. I think this may be like the prequel triology. Fans write off the first one saying the following movies will be better then they aren’t.
Do you gambol?
Show already did with Season 6. He’s doing his own thing because the show cut a lot of plotlines in the books, as well as killed some characters who are still alive and have important roles to play in the books yet.
Not a GOT guy, but that does sound like a bad idea. I mean the whole point of adding information into the books is to tease and help people understand what is and could be happening. Getting mad because people have surmised what you are getting at, only will ruin the stories, because it will betray what you wrote previously.
The new Star Wars is directed by Rian Johnson not Abrams.
Well, sounds like good news to me. Don’t know who Rian Johnson is, but Abrams is highly overrated, so replacing him is a big plus. I didn’t hate Force Awakens, but it definitely could’ve been better. I thought Rogue One was pretty enjoyable, so we’ll see what Disney has in store with Last Jedi.
Eh, I dunno if it’s that as much as he’s a slow-ass writer and isn’t under any particular financial obligation to finish the series. (Read: has enough money.)
I’ve heard that he’s changed/reworked plot elements, but I don’t remember him saying it was because they’ve theorized plot elements correctly. Source for that?
Here is a direct contradiction to what I posted.
I thought I read Martin wanted to change some aspects of the story due to fans’ correct theories. But perhaps it was an incomplete quote because as Martin states in the link he did consider changing things so as not to be predictable.
Anyway, after Googling I did not find the article from years ago that I (thought) stated he was going to change things.
Shorter me: I was wrong
Shorter me: I was wrong
T&T’s value in a reputation economy grew three sizes that day.
Martin is a good worldbuilder with some interesting characters, but GOT sucks in a lot of ways. He got lost in his own world and too in love with exploring it. I would think after 3,000 pages, we should have some idea of what the point of the story is.
Also, if knowing the big reveal wrecks your story and your story is not a mystery novel, then your story sucks. Knowing the ending of A Tale of 2 Cities doesn’t wreck it.
this
Has anyone ever read The Magus?
(*no, the movie doesn’t count. god, it actually counts against you if you saw it)
It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times?
[smacks monkey]
You do understand there is more than one Game of Thrones book?
Actually, the rough outlines of the overall plots are there if you want to think about it.
Martin’s big problem is he uses 10 characters when one will do. That makes his stories complex and makes it easy (for him and the readers) to lose track of what is going on.
I will skip a long dorky argument why, but i have strong suspicions that the ending of the show has a 30-40% chance of being a complete clusterfuck thrown together in the last season
because the producers are basically charting their own course, while (sorta) waiting for the author to fill in key blanks… but it seems like the 2 don’t have shared interests in the integrity of either’s vision. One has to bend to the other.
I picked the correct ending to “Lost” back in the first season..
That “this is going to suck?”
(*disclosure = i watched the first 2.5 seasons and got bored and stopped)
That would be assuming they had actually planned out an ending, instead of just throwing a clusterfuck of ideas at the wall and seeing what stuck.
Though to be fair, I binge-watched the entire series in like 6 months, so I guess that doesn’t say much for my viewing tastes.
A friend swore she wouldn’t watch it because she’d watched Alias and that was exactly what Abrams did for that show. By the time it was getting obvious that’s what he was doing again she’d just started getting into Lost and I had lost interest.
Never seen Alias. Not a fan of Abrams after Force Awakens, never watched his Star Trek reboots either.
Everyone did.
After the first season they got ambushed by fans at their panel at Comiccon asking them if it was some sort of purgatory, if the people were all dead–and the writers looked flummoxed for a second and denied heavily that it was.
After that a whole lot of people were convinced that they’d change it to aliens–but no, they stuck with it, even after having their ‘clever twist’ revealed right from the get-go.
I was under the impression the writers initially didn’t know how they were going to resolve it.
The purgatory idea goes back at least to the play (and later movie) Outward Bound in the 1920s. There’s a 1930 movie with Leslie Howard, and a 1940s remake called Between Two Worlds. Both are worth watching.
I’m pretty sure at this point that the showriters are just writing their own story, since they got fuck-all in terms of plot details from Martin, mostly because he’s got the tendency to change shit all the time. Show might end up being a clusterfuck, but at least I’ve got essentially 2 different stories to look forward to.
I only watch it to see Daenyris’ tits and all the hawt ladies..
Who cares if the show splits from the books? If it does, you get two different takes on the same story. BONUS!
It’s fantasy. There really doesn’t need to be consistency.
It may end up like the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy trilogy (that had 5 books) The radio show was different than the television show which was also different from the books, which was also different than the movie. None were similar except for the basic story. This was intentional by the author, Douglas Adams.
I saw Rogue One last night. It stunk. The Star Wars story ran it’s course many movies ago.
You stink
I agree. Rogue One and The Force Awakens were tired crap.
Figured as much which is why I have not bothered with them.. Probably rebooted PC nonsense anyway..
I thought I was the only one. On the plus side, the human GCI of Tarkin and Leia was VERY GOOD. It’s (this close) to being realistic.
Personally I thought Rogue One was mediocre, but will forgive many of it’s flaws just for that Darth Vader scene at the end (I also loved K2-S0. Didn’t really care about the other characters.)
And I disagree that the Star Wars story has run its course. It’s a huge universe with lots of stories to tell, as shown in the EU (which did have a lot of mediocre and bad stories, but also had really awesome ones like the Thrawn Trilogy.) The problem is that the last few movies released have been tripe, not the universe itself.
I enjoyed the Angry Staff Officer’s take on it.
The damn giraffe is finally birthing
Eat some bran.
My wife has been talking about that damn giraffe forever.
Its happening now
Cool. I’ll let her know
She was watching it. Should have known.
Did you hear the cheer?
I didn’t. She prollly thought I was still asleep:) Now shes waiting for it to get up.
Shes gonna be watching that all day.
Nothing is happening in this house today until it gets up and walks.
She also has The Island on. Don’t need to watch it again but don’t mind looking at Scarlet Johansson.
It was a running joke on the local TV news that the female anchor was obsessed with the giraffe and the male weather guy was baffled by her obsession.
“Bring it back and call it HIGHLY-PROBLEMATIC SAUCE!!!! All sides win!”
Has my vote
https://heatst.com/entertainment/mcdonalds-assailed-for-plan-to-bring-back-problematic-and-disrespectful-szechuan-sauce/
Gookpuke is non starter your saying?
I haven’t had McDonald’s for years and will never have that sauce but I do like seeing derptards pissed off.
Chicken chow mein and fortune cookies aren’t from China, either.
“The problem is, there’s nothing American-Chinese about Mulan, a legendary girl who grew up in China centuries before America even existed.”
Because there is nothing more Chinese than someone naming himself, “Eadweard Muybridge”.
And yet we don’t get a peep out of all the so-called Tuscan Cuisine that’s been shoved on us the last 10 years…
Don’t get me started about “Olive Garden” and all their made up Italian recipes. Anybody who thinks that crap is authentic Italian cuisine should be sentenced to eating Chef Boyadee for life.
You take that back! Olive Garden blows, but Chef Boyardee is awesome!
I ate plenty of the Chef while climbing big walls in Yosemite. Useful I would agree, “awesome” I respectably disagree.
Looks like Trump supporters are holding another rally in Berkeley today, and AntiFA is apparently planning violence. Tim Pool (he’s a YouTube journalist who actually tries to be objective) will be there. He actually got a death threat just for planning to cover what’s going on, which AntiFA has since deleted.
It’s pretty clear by their behavior that they don’t want open coverage because they’re hoping to hurt people and get away with it. I wonder if we’ll see more hoplites wielding sticks from the pro-Trump side too.
Assuming the commies don’t chase him away, he’ll be streaming on Periscope at TimCast.
Another death threat. Lovely people, these commies.
This man doesn’t cover our actions in the best light possible and in the way we want! He is obviously and evil man.
He just needs to hire Based Stickman as a bodyguard.
I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t that illegal?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
If these people attacking Trump supporters are arguably breaking the law, I don’t see why Trump couldn’t have the feds go after them.
“The new event, slated for Saturday, April 15 at The Electric Maid—a concert venue in Washington DC—is a day-long gathering, featuring a workshop on “security culture.” It’s a soft term for having a list of protocols and measures to enable evading law enforcement. Members of communities that practice “security culture,” like Antifa, do so to minimize risk of surveillance and capture by the police.”
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/anti-capitalist-anarchists-buy-facebook-ads-tinged-with-violence/
I still don’t understand why even the outlets who harbor no sympathies for these people insist on calling them things like “Anti-capitalist anarchist” when, in fact, they are communists. Why is there a moratorium on calling communists what they are, while the media has free rein to call anyone a “fascist” if they so choose?
I don’t know why more media outlets don’t call them communists. These extreme-left groups who want more government have been calling themselves “anarchist” for over a decade. I guess it sounds more radical. It’s like progressives who oppose individual liberty calling themselves “liberals”.
What I mean is that even the media who are not supportive of communists don’t call them what they are. They adopt language that the communists prefer rather than call them what they are. That strikes me as really strange.
I knew what you meant, but sorry, I don’t have an answer. Perhaps it’s to distinguish them from other Marxist groups. Calling them all communists might be to broad a brush.
“too broad a brush”
Not a bad music selection. Although I think we recently had a Deep Purple song, but I’m sure not too many people will mind.
My fave:
https://youtu.be/Wr9ie2J2690
Mine is Hush, but it’s the video with them sitting on a couch with Hefner and a few playmates.
So Going back to yesterday’s Comments on the Huffington post Link (
Gosh damnit’ I hit the wrong buttton:
So Going back to yesterday’s Comments on the Huffington post Link (About taking the right to vote from White Men)) It appears that we were correct in saying thinking that the author does not exist. He deleted his twitter profile. That or he got annoyed with the push back
So now that Verizon owns HuffPo via AOL, wonder how they would handle all male account holders dropping their service?
I think it’s funny (if my interpretation of events are correct) that HuffPo got punked by this. It also shows what they are willing to blindly publish in the name of being ‘woke’ and ‘radical’.
I have a feeling HuffPo kind of walks away like this kid after leaving a duke in the drawers.
Or this
Ouch!
Damn. I guess you could say he was really batted around.
I assumed (and still do) that they knowingly publish that drek hoping it generates ‘controversy’ + clicks and then later disavow it when (feigned surprise) OMG the author was fake??.
regardless of whether real or fake, the premise was so retarded that it makes you want to know the name of “Who read this and said, “let’s publish this”?” but no one ever digs that deep with their fellow media-outlets.
I think that’s it. It’s trolling for dollars. Although I’m sure they have enough tards among their core readership that agreed with the article. So it’s a win-win for Huffpo.
It seems to me that derpblogging is the main destination for all these people graduating with derptard degrees. Also seems to me like they probably get at least half their clicks from people who go there to laugh at how retarded they are and who never click on any of the ads. I just have to wonder how long that can last, especially given how advertisers are getting pickier and monetizing web content is getting more difficult. While the is no such thing as peak derp, does a derp bubble exist?
HuffPo Has something up today about it.
I am sure it was an oversight on the follow up to not have comments enabled. Again.
I would have thought having comments enabled would make them more money. Or is it a tactic to get people to post their opinions elsewhere to make it “go viral”?
Doesn’t surprise me HuffPo would double down. They’ve always published leftest morons but they’ve been completely off the reservation for a few years now. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out politically with future DNC platforms.
Well that was anticlimactic. I was hoping to see some kind of debate.response to some of the points made against them. This is just noise.
And that’s not the worst of it. We’ve excluded the overtly racist, sexist and violent comments that are quickly gathering in our inboxes.
They deserve more than a cat butt for that egregious display of lack of self awareness.
They dont say who the writers of those racist, sexist and violent comments are. Or who they were directed at. Interesting.
Well, it’s just obvious they’re evil, racist, sexist, violent bigpts. I mean, what more do you need, clarification?
U ALL STUPID YO
You stupidz didn’t understand that calling for the disenfranchising of a racial/gender segment of the population is totes cool in feminist theory.
that is one of the dumbest editorial-notes i’ve ever seen. it collects a bunch of vituperative comments and pretends the only criticisms of the piece amount to, “WOMEN SUX U DUMB WHORE”, basically “weak-manning” all criticism.
which is convenient because it allows them to avoid actually defending *specific* claims in the piece,
sure. but you sure as hell avoided noting any single area where the critics might be right.
instead just make general defenses that it was “feminist” ergo, why do you hate women?
What it amounts to is that they published it because they see no problem with it, they just wont come right out and say it.
It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article — or perhaps none at all.
I don’t waste time with total shit.
“It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article — or perhaps none at all.”
Right, it doesn’t say anything about white men not being allowed to vote. It’s just a mass hallucination.
They took it down because the author appears to not exist. Not because of the wildly inappropriate nature of the article. I wonder, would they publish something advocating genocide? That is essentially what they did.
yeah, the note at that link now is no longer “attacking the critics” and accusing them of all being Breitbart-misognysts anymore. They’re acting like the only thing wrong is that the author couldn’t be identified = not the actual “strip white people of due process + the right to vote” parts
I’m starting to think they knew the author couldn’t be identified all along, because they were the ones who manufactured the whole thing.
It looks like they also deleted the response, defending the article, that sloopy linked above.
“From now on, bloggers will have to verify themselves.”
You would have thought that would have been their policy all along.
pfft, there’s no need to vet people.
I’d just like to say that I called it. Obvious troll was so obvious.
I’ll stop voting if I can also stop paying taxes.
And following laws.
North Korea has unveiled a new ICBM, which has been delightfully dubbed the “Frankenmissile”.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-parades-apparently-new-long-range-missile-1492237791
If they can’t hit Los Angeles yet, it’s only a matter of time.
Meanwhile, reports have it that China has moved 150,000 troops to their border with North Korea.
One take from all this?
Incompetence is fungible.
When Obama failed to follow through on his red-line threat after Assad used chemical weapons, that sent the wrong message to North Korea. (No, I’m not saying Obama should have followed through; I’m saying that he never should have made that red-line threat. That was incompetent).
When Obama rewarded Iran’s repeated violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by killing sanctions and letting Iran enrich their own uranium, that sent the wrong message to North Korea. That was also incompetent.
To some extent, the cruise missiles Trump hit Assad with last week weren’t only intended as a message to Assad. That sort of action is also fungible. If Obama hadn’t demonstrated such weakness in our resolve on WMD in the past, with Syria and Iran, there wouldn’t be as much confusion in North Korea about the strength of our resolve on that issue today.
I suspect North Korea would still have nuclear and missile programs even if Obama hadn’t been so principled in his devotion to capitulation, but to whatever extent the brinkmanship we’re seeing today on all sides (North Korea, the U.S., and China) is due confusion over our resolve on WMD, Obama contributed to that reality with his well-meaning incompetence.
I’m just sayin’.
Our resolve to dictate terms to the rest of the world?
Here’s an idea…hows bouts we stay out of the affairs of others until they aggress against us?
I think waiting until an unstable freak like the current god-king of North Korea to actually fire a nuclear missile at Los Angeles is probably bad advice.
It’s like waiting until your house catches on fire to start looking for fire insurance.
The legitimate purpose of libertarian government is to protect our rights, and the legitimate purpose of our foreign policy is to protect our rights from from foreign threats–like North Korean nuclear ICBMs.
We can argue about the best means to do that, whether our current policies are effective, cost effective, etc., but whether we should only worry about earthquake insurance once the earthquake starts just doesn’t make sense to me.
And if you follow my argument above, I’m pointing out that Obama’s policy of capitulation has actually made war more likely rather than less so. If the point is to avoid a war, then sending mixed signals to substantial nuclear threat like North Korea may have the same effect as war mongering.
Even in individual self-defense situations, you aren’t required to wait for the bad guy to actually pull the trigger before you shoot him. If his behavior presents an immediate threat, you can shoot first.
The extent to which the Norks present an immediate threat is debatable, but on the side of “shooting first” are a couple of things:
(1) These are nukes – if the Norks “shoot first” the casualties could well be in the hundreds of thousands. Risk is damage discounted by probability – with damage high, low probability may not be enough to justify doing nothing (effective).
(2) The Norks are actively promoting their willingness to shoot first. Whether we take them at their word or not is another tough question, but like Saddam, if you want the world to believe you have WMDs are willing to use them, don’t be surprised if people decide you should be treated like someone who has WMDs and is willing to use them.
This is one of many situations that make me glad I don’t have to make the call.
I vote “not”. Their saber-rattling is usually a sign they’re running out of food again.
He will NOT nuke LA when he knows he’ll be dead 24 minutes after doing so. Way to tow the fear lion, Ken.
False analogy. Our ability to decisively retaliate is our insurance.
Concur wholeheartedly.
Problem is, that our rights aren’t being infringed upon from the words of a pompous gasbag who repeatedly makes threats without following through. And the second you attempt to force him to your will without him first initiating aggression, YOU have violated your own libertarian principles. Making your credibility…dogshit.
All foreign entanglements involving force make war more likely. STOP dictating terms. It pisses people off. How do you react when someone tells you how to run your life and threatens you with force if you don’t comply? Do you comply or find ways to fight for your liberty?
A nation needs to do two things to deter war.
1. Avoid foreign entanglements
2. Have the capability to crush anyone who initiates aggression against you.
A nation needs to do two things to deter war.
I really want to argue with you, but you keep saying reasonable shit and that makes it hard.
You seem awfully convinced that North Korea is a rational actor when the vast sum of evidence we have indicates that they aren’t. If there’s an actual state that fully deserves the moniker of being “rogue,” it seems to be North Korea to me. And it’s perhaps underselling it. Will they nuke LA? Maybe now. But the idea of North Korea deploying nukes out of stupidity and desperation is hard to discount. And they have a plethora of targets nearby that would almost certainly draw America into the region. And you shouldn’t confuse your own foreign policy views with those of the mainstream. Or pretend that they will be mainstream anytime soon (or likely ever, unless American power tails off significantly).
I don’t care much if Iran gets nukes. North Korea is a different animal altogether.
I’m kind of curious what you thought of Reagan’s approach to foreign policy.
And the first argument posed by those who want to make an exception to principle and impose their will on another is to claim their target isn’t rational.
The probability of the PRK launching a preemptive attack against a nation that can obliterate them in minutes is approaching zero. It is infinitely (literally) less expensive to deal with problems if and when they happen than attempting to preempt them. It’s less expensive AND it has the advantage of giving you the moral high ground.
1. We aren’t talking about individuals. We are talking about the interactions between states. And the North Korean regime is hardly the epitome of stability. There’s concrete evidence indicating just how perilous Kim himself considers his own position when we look at the purging and constant inflammatory rhetoric. This is a guy who used chemical agents to assassinate his own half-brother in a foreign state. People who follow that regime more closely than you can’t predict what they’ll do next.
2. Platitudes about the principles of your own idealized libertopia don’t have much to do with America’s current foreign policy.
3. What is the actual cost of what Trump is doing with North Korea currently? To the American tax payer? Answer that, and then we can compare it to the costs of North Korea doing something stupid. I wonder which scenario most people would prefer.
4. You repeated your line about North Korea attacking the US. Something they both don’t have the capability to do now and which is unnecessary to provoke a larger conflict.
You want to sit here and argue about how things should be rather than deal with how they are.
The ONLY reason things aren’t as they should be is that our own government doesn’t adhere to a noninterventionist foreign policy. Things ARE as they are only because we (our government) choose such courses of action. There is absolutely no reason for the US to be ass deep in the affairs of other nations, other than it empowers politicians.
Condoning said immoral behavior only perpetuates it. Stop enabling the beast.
You want a “non-interventionist foreign policy”, but when we say that giving the Iranians the freedom to enrich their own uranium despite having repeatedly violated the NPT is what is most likely to lead to war in the future, you look at us like we’re crazy.
You don’t seem to appreciate that the NPT was the alternative to an interventionist foreign policy.
If you don’t like our relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia now, how likely do you think we’re going to be to jettison those relationships once Iran has a nuclear weapon and the ICBMs to deliver it?
You are actively creating the situation you’re trying to avoid.
The result of Iran developing nuclear warheads and ICBMs is not peace.
Are you not aware that Iran already has a proxy army in Hezbollah, and they’ve already been using it in Lebanon, Syria, and to perpetrate terrorist attacks in Israel?
How do you think Iran is likely to use that proxy army when it no longer needs to fear being attacked directly by the United States for fear of a nuclear deterrent?
On another note, do you imagine that the reason Hezbollah hasn’t perpetrated terrorist attacks specifically targeting the United States since 1982 is out of the goodness of their hearts?
I think it’s because the Iranians are afraid that if Hezbollah targeted the United States, the U.S. would both take Israel’s leash off and retaliate directly against Iran. What happens to that calculation if and when Iran obtains a nuclear deterrent?
Do you imagine Hezbollah will still refrain from attacking us out of the goodness of their hearts?
A treaty, backed by force, signed by a government that no longer exists….???
Ken, you and I have a different definition of noninterventionist.
The only “relationship” I want with Israel and SA is the free flow of goods and services brought about by voluntary trade. Israel’s national defense is none of my concern. I suggest to them, if they need protection, they should get to providing it for themselves. Maybe even consider making peace?
Ever occur to you, Ken, that the Israelis have nukes and Iran may be afraid the Israelis might use them if Iran doesn’t also have them? Could THAT be why Iran wants nukes?
You are operating under the misconception that I care or should care. NONE of our concern.
No, it’s because they know we’d, rightfully, pound their dicks in the dirt if they did.
“A treaty, backed by force, signed by a government that no longer exists….???”
I don’t believe the Iranians even made the argument that their signature on the treaty was invalid because of the change in government.
Why would you?
And the treaty wasn’t backed by force. It was backed by sanctions. Sanctions that drove Iran to the negotiating table. Since when does gaining leverage in a negotiation amount to being “backed by force”.
You’re seeing the world through your own distorted views instead of taking the world the way it is and adjusting your views accordingly.
“You are operating under the misconception that I care or should care. NONE of our concern.”
It’s none of our concern if Iran takes Hezbollah’s leash off and lets them perpetrate terrorists attacks targeting Americans specifically–once Iran no longer fears direct retaliation because of their nuclear deterrent?
Again, the legitimate purpose of libertarian government is protecting our rights. The legitimate purpose of foreign policy is to protect our rights from foreign threats, and so it is very much the business of government to care whether Iran procuring a nuclear deterrent opens up a new threat to American security by way of Hezbollah.
It becomes our concern when Americans start dying. Not until. You don’t get to punish people for acts they haven’t committed yet, Ken.
Like “allies”, or trading partners.
best of luck with that
If I may quote myself.
Guess you overlooked that part.
“”A nation needs to do two things to deter war.
1. Avoid foreign entanglements””
Was just following the recipe you were enumerating F.
The example frequently provided …
(and not because its exceptional, but just as a stereotypical case that clarifies that foreign relations *presumes* relations, and that all forms of relations are potentially conflict-generating)
… is “what happens when my trading allies fight each other”?
(e.g. in war of 1812, the US continued to trade w/ France over objections of England)
when trade with one is seen as a threat to the other, your ‘entanglements free-of-force’ distinction ceases to matter
Usually nothing. Particularly if you are capable of dispatching either/both in short order.
A and B are at war. I trade with both A and B. B is not going to attack me for two reasons:
1. My trade with B benefits B
2. If B attacks me, I side with A
And if 2 happens, so be it. You’ll have taken the moral high ground. And it’s not like an interventionist policy has kept us out of war either.
“‘Usually nothing.””
… except in the case mentioned.
“so be it” is basically acknowledging that you simplistic theory isn’t necessarily any better way of avoiding conflict, its just one where you think retaining “moral superiority” is more important that actual conflict-prevention.
It’s nothing of the sort. Minding your own fucking business will certainly keep you out of more conflicts than not. No one said it will keep you out of all of them.
Except in the “case mentioned” the US was NOT capable
And yes, G, I do value the moral high ground. Men and nations are judged by how well they adhere to their principles. Hypocrisy is frowned upon by all except the one committing it.
supplying opposing nations in conflict isn’t generally seen as “minding your own business”, your assumptions about the neutrality of trade aside.
we became the target of aggression by asserting our right to free trade. you suggest these things simply don’t happen. My point is that simply asserting neutrality is not necessarily neutral in the eyes of others. the faux moral-superiority of neutrality is meaningless when your relations with adversaries present potential conflicts of interest. You handwave this aside like its a mere inconvenience to the obviousness of your simple formula. Its not. Its an essential flaw which fails to recognize that “Trade” itself has security implications. The frequently bandied about “trade with all, alliance with none” idea works great on paper, but doesn’t survive in the real world.
morality is nice if your goal is to pat yourself on the back, but its generally seen as a source of a lot of terrible-ideas in foreign relations theory.
and we’ve had this discussion in different shapes before. i’m not much interested in rehashing it. I just think libertarians get especially stupid trying to apply the NAP to foreign relations. It works as a practicable theory when you have a hermetic environment like “citizens in relation to the state” and “citizens in relation to one another”; it falls apart in a chaotic environment like international relations, where there is no supra-state to reconcile violations or provide some moderating oversight. Its basically “mind your own business until someone else starts minding it for you”, at which point all you’ve got is your moral-smug.
No, G, that wasn’t my suggestion. Read it again.
Yeah, G, I guess I prefer my moral-smug to your immoral-smug.
There is no difference between applying the NAP between individuals or between groups of individuals (governments).
Don’t initiate aggression. Trade isn’t aggression.
that doesn’t sound like “a theory of foreign relations” so much as a posture of convenience for a country already powerful enough to impose its own will on others.
If the theory doesn’t work for people who may be less powerful than either/any of their trading partners, its not much of a theory.
And if its a theory conditional, as you note above, on being able to “crush anyone who threatens you”… well just imagine how more powerful neighbors might feel about their neutral -trading partner’s desire to have the capability to crush them.
Basically, it either presumes a posture of total dominance (hegemony), or of some sort of perfect equilibrium of power. Neither of which applies to the vast array of potential scenarios facing different countries.
I never suggest your posture was actually moral; just that having the so-called ‘moral high ground’ is an empty reward when your theory leads to inevitable disadvantages.
things like “self-preservation” and “rational pursuit of interests” aren’t necessarily immoral. they can be completely consistent with moral behavior. But they obviously take precedence over “morality” as primary guideline in foreign relations.
Oh, make no mistake, G, I never claimed you suggested my posture was actually moral.
That was me pointing out your posture was immoral.
The only posture i’ve taken is to point out your formula is flawed.
You think its immoral to note obvious problems with people’s theories?
For all you know (and you don’t) I am far MORE pacifistic than you are. The only difference is i’m not advancing any 2-point theories for how to achieve that ideal state.
…and speaking of “morality” and sustainable foreign-policy theory..
i seem to recall one instance where it seemed like your theory of “rights” and moral-obligations produced some perverse moral requirements.
example =
We were talking about the Cuban embargo, and you said that the US had no right to stop Cuba from attaining nuclear weapons.
(and i presume that was based partly on your idea that Cuba had a ‘right’ to posses them- which i suppose is consistent with your argument that people should necessarily possess the means to crush any of their potential adversaries)
In short – you argued that it was more important – according to the NAP- to observe the “right” of tiny cuba to arm itself with nuclear wepons ….
….than it was for the US to protect itself from an imminent potential existential threat.
(and i recall you saying specifically that the US had no right to intervene at any point short of “when the missiles were actually in the air”)
The fact that Cuba got these weapons from a country we were engaged in direct hostilities with was, as far as i recall, irrelevant from your POV. Or maybe not, i forget.
Is this still the case? or was there some nuance there that i missed?
Which you claim without any justification other than “Gilmore says so”, as usual.
Other than to misrepresent my position, your usual MO, you’ve added nothing here.
I apologize. what WAS your position on the ‘morality’ of the US embargo of nuclear weapons bound for Cuba ?
And your point?
Two nations having nukes has a remarkable stabilizing effect. For some reason, they tend to not attack each other.
You realize changing the subject doesn’t mean you’re winning the argument?
I asked, “What was your position on the morality of the US embargo of nuclear missiles bound for cuba”
Answers include =
“it was moral to stop them” or
“it immoral to prevent them being armed with nukes”
Which is it?
just trying to clarify for everyone what you mean when you say my ideas about foreign relations are “immoral”. Its possible your definitions of morality are inconsistent with conventional understanding of the term.
I am not changing the subject at all. You insisted my criticism of your ideas was misrepresenting you. I am trying to give you the opportunity to clarify on what you mean by “morality”.
I am using this case-study because i think it provides a real-world test of Non-Aggression Principles in action. You claimed that i have been unable to identify any possible flaws in its application, and that its a perfectly workable and sustainable basis for foreign relations.
we ran this scenario before, and I recall you saying, “The US was wrong to block nuclear missiles from Cuba”. That doing so was a violation of the NAP and therefore Immoral. and that Cuba had every right to possess nuclear weapons (regardless of the source)”
Hopefully you’ll clear that up if i’m wrong.
It was immoral to prevent them being armed with nukes
And incredibly hypocritical given our Jupiter missiles in Turkey, wouldn’t you say?
And you still are. My position is, and has been from the beginning of this discussion, that a nation that has a noninterventionist foreign policy, while maintaining a strong military, will avoid war more than one with an interventionist policy will. All while enjoying the moral high ground, which further aggrandizes us to the of the world.
PERIOD. That’s it.
Ok.
Would you agree that the vast majority of people – both laypeople, as well as people who take ‘national security’ seriously – would find that an odd example of ‘morality’?
I’m just asking so we can clarify that what you *mean* by morality may not be consistent with what most other people would believe to be ‘moral’.
I believe others would be more likely to agree that =
“the moral choice is the one which prioritizes self preservation”
I would theoretically agree, except i don’t think anyone has ever proposed that international relations between nations with inherent power-disparities were supposed to be “fair”. And that doesn’t mean i think that putting them there was smart, or good diplomacy; just that i continue to think that injecting presumptions about ‘morality’ into foreign relations is a fools errand.
which brings us back to the very beginning, where i point out
1) that “non-interventionism” has all sorts of inherent problems in assumptions about how things actually work
(including how “trade w/ all, alliance w/none” formulas end up producing conflicts of interests)
and
2) how building up a military capable of actually beating the fuck out of anyone is basically inviting inevitable conflict regardless of your stated diplomatic posture. There mere existence of potential power makes that power a threat.
as i’ve mentioned before – it often seems like the posture you describe could only be adopted by a country that was *already* a military hegemony. Because it sort of requires it to sustain itself; but its a perverse requirement, because it sort of raises the question = how exactly did that nation Become a dominant military power in the first place? not through ‘non-intervention’ they didn’t.
its a bizarre fantasy scenario, basically.
And don’t take it the wrong way. I don’t have any simple answers either.
I just think that you’re more likely to “keep the peace” by starting from a different position, which is by recognizing the widespread diversity of other nations, and their respective perceived interests, and dealing with the potential threat/opportunity of each accordingly. Not with any one-size-fits all ‘faux neutrality’.
You mean that you don’t throw the first punch? No Gilmore, I don’t think people would find such a notion odd. Been living with it since grade school. Our entire legal system is based on such notions. Do we put people in jail because they’re likely to commit a crime, or do we have to wait until they actually do?
That’s obscene. First, you have no idea whether there is intent to initiate force until it’s initiated. You have no crystal ball. If you don’t wait, you are the bad guy. You’re “prioritizing self-preservation” by aggressing against those who may OR MAY NOT wish you harm.
You don’t get to do it to someone else and then be outraged when they do it to you. That’s the whole having credibility part.
Yes, you pointed it out and your argument, or lack thereof, was utterly unconvincing. Governments don’t trade with each other. People trade with each other. If the deal is bad, they don’t trade. If it’s mutually beneficial, they do. If a trading partner reneges on his contract, people stop trading with them. Governments need barely be involved, and then only to agree on how disputes are settled. As far as trade with someone else’s enemies being perceived as aggression, I addressed that above. It’s not in their interests to attack you for it.
Wut? Your claiming a nation can’t build a strong military without already having a strong military or that you can’t have a strong military without having used it? Not tracking on that line of reasoning.
“He will NOT nuke LA when he knows he’ll be dead 24 minutes after doing so.”
What if he becomes convinced that he’s about to be deposed?
You’re projecting rationality on someone who has repeatedly shown himself to be both extremely violent and extremely unreasonable.
“Our ability to decisively retaliate is our insurance.”
You’re missing the fact that once he nukes Los Angeles, our retaliation is pretty meaningless. The objective is to avoid a launch–not to retaliate after he’s killed millions of Americans.
“All foreign entanglements involving force make war more likely. STOP dictating terms. It pisses people off.”
If protecting our rights by enforcing the NPT is pissing people off , so what? You think we shouldn’t protect our rights from foreign threats because that might piss people off?
Fuck that noise.
Capitulation to Iran is partially what led us to this situation with North Korea. Why ignore that?
Capitulation to Iran runs the further risk of tying the hands of the next guy in power when Iran inevitably does something that openly flouts that agreement.
In the case of North Korea, the Kim’s show one desire – that’s to stay in power. Their power rests on their military and constant saber rattling and aggressive rhetoric. Both internally and externally. And it’s entirely possible that one day they’ll bungle their way into a conflict by doing something so risky it won’t be ignored. And once a war starts, they are the exact sort of regime I’d expect to use nukes. They’re too weak to survive a conventional fight and they know it. The only chance of survival at that stage is nukes.
At some point, the South Koreans may attack on their own.
It is commonly believed among Koreans I’ve talked to that the United States is the main reason why the South hasn’t invaded the North already.
In recent years, the North Koreans sank a South Korean ship without provocation. In recent years, the North shelled a village in the South without provocation.
If Mexico had done either of those things to us, we’d have bombed the fuck out of both Tijuana and Mexico City. At some point, the South Korans may decide they aren’t going to take such provocations lying down anymore.
The Chinese have moved 150,000 troops to their border with North Korea. A lot of that is about keeping potential refugees out of China, but they do have an offensive capability, too. If the Chinese ever decide to take matters into their own hands, I don’t know where North Korea aims their future ICBMs.
Maybe they lob one at us for good measure.
The idea that the North Koreans wouldn’t be aggressive towards us if we weren’t a threat to them is just naive in a number of ways.
Deposed by whom? The country NOT interfering in his affairs?
You’re missing the fact that he’s not going to Nuke LA because of our assured retaliation and his assured annihilation.
So what? Protecting our rights at the expense of someone else’s rights is a CLEAR initiation of aggression. We have no right to feel safe. We only have the right to not be aggressed upon.
A threat from a nation in response to our threat is hardly an initiation of aggression.
Do you even NAP, bro?
“Deposed by whom? The country NOT interfering in his affairs?”
China.
His own officers.
His own people.
South Korea.
Maybe he develops a health problem.
“So what? Protecting our rights at the expense of someone else’s rights is a CLEAR initiation of aggression.”
Who’s talking about violating anyone’s rights? You seem to be convinced that dealing with an aggressive nation that operates way outside the boundaries of international norms somehow makes us the aggressor.
Arresting someone for trying to burn your house down is not an act of aggression.
P.S. https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/non-agression-principle-cant-be-salvaged-isnt-even-principle
He’s going to nuke LA because China is attacking him?
Are you claiming that a sovereign nation doesn’t have the right to protect its citizenry in any way it chooses? Why do the US/Israelis get to have nukes but the Iranians don’t? You think a nuclear armed Israel doesn’t appear to be a threat to Iran from Iran’s perspective? Ken, you really have a hard time with imagining the shoe being on the other foot. What if the tables were reversed? What if Iran was the superpower telling the US it couldn’t have nukes to defend itself from the hated nuclear-armed Canuckistanis? How would you react to such a dictate?
Who, exactly, has attempted to burn our house down? Did I miss an attack on the US by Iran or the Norks?
“He’s going to nuke LA because China is attacking him?”
In 1991, Saddam Hussein shot scuds at Israel because the United States was attacking him.
In 1991, the United States attacked Iraq because Iraq attacked Kuwait.
In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq because the United States was attacked by people in Afghanistan.
Believe me, stranger things have happened.
Point is, if the god-king thinks he’s about to be deposed, he could lash out at us.
China invading North Korea isn’t completely out there, either. It would be sort of like the North Vietnamese deposing the Khmer Rouge.
“Who, exactly, has attempted to burn our house down? Did I miss an attack on the US by Iran or the Norks?”
Beware Jane Fonda Syndrome.
You start out making legitimate arguments against the Vietnam War.
Somehow, she ends up vouching for the good treatment of American POWs who are actually being tortured, posing for propaganda photos on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun with spent shells all around it, and generally making the North Vietnamese out to be the good guys.
Are we supposed to pretend the North Koreans are developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs for some reason other than trying to hit the U.S.?
That way lies danger, Hanoi Jane!
And IF this infinitely remote possibility ever came to fruition, we’d be well within our rights to obliterate him. I’m not going to lose 1 seconds sleep worrying about it. I’m more concerned that we’ll lose gravity and float into space.
Did we develop our ICBMs to strike the USSR?
And did we?
We certainly developed ICBMs to defend ourselves from a perceived threat. It’s a big leap between having the capability to do something and preemptively doing it.
North Korea is a regime that sees antagonizing the West and its neighbors not as a means of retaliation, but as a perverse method of survival. Especially in a post-Cold War environment. The regime’s legitimacy rests entirely on the notion that they are being aggressed against. To which Francisco may say well then don’t give them more ammo…only, they’re just fine inventing it because it’s all they have.
It seems like very key scenarios/arguments are being skipped over here. Scenarios where a North Korean leader could be pressured into some stupidly aggressive foreign action are almost endless. It could be some jingoistic attack on Japan or South Korea. A minor attack on an American installation overseas. Anything that provokes war. From where I’m sitting, I’d at least like some acknowledgement of this reality that isn’t changing anytime soon. The NAP – regardless of whatever merits one think it has – isn’t going to become the guiding principle of American foreign policy. We are in a democracy where we aren’t even close to a significant minority believing in such a thing, to say nothing of whether they should or not.
North Korea is not comparable to the Soviets, or even Iran. The Soviets and the US both operated under entirely different circumstances during the Cold War as world powers. Their interactions were guided by different principles. North Korea is internally unstable, and its leadership consists of a ruling family whose sole goal is to stay in power. Members of the Russians/Soviet ruling class had reason to think they could survive conflict with the US if it did not become nuclear. They also had far greater MADD power.
Obama was not incompetent nor was he well meaning. You are dead wrong on that Ken.
“Incompetence is fungible”
That is a good way of putting it and Obama knows that very well. It is a deliberate tactic of his. I could almost be swayed in my opinion if he had not gotten caught giving pallets of cash to sworn enemies of the US.
Obama genuinely believed that capitulating to Iran was the way to avoid war with them in the future.
That was naive and incompetent.
That capitulation will not make war less likely–it made war with Iran much more likely in the future.
If and when Iran develops nukes, we’ll see a couple of thing happen. 1) Egypt and Saudi Arabia will get their own. 2) Proxy wars with the U.S. and its allies on one side and Iran and their allies on the other side will become practically inevitable.
M.A.D. did not make the Cold War an era of peace. Instead, it meant a never ending series of proxy wars from El Salvador, Peru, Chile, and Guatemala, to Angola, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. And there is no guarantee that conflict will end without an exchange of nuclear weapons–or ever end at all.
The Korean news just announced a failed nK missile launch. Outside my window the ROK’s are continuing to enjoy life and after cleaning up some work stuff I will join them. All of this is within artillery range of the norks. I can’t imagine how a US proggie would act in this circumstance. Actually I can, they would be raising white flags with a vigor that would make the 1940 French Army seem more stouthearted than the Spartans at Thermopylae.
And after reading all the replies below on nK and their nuke and missile programs I have a few thoughts. First off, the nK have not proven they can have a reliable nuke explosion. Second, They have proved yet again they do have a reliable missile to put a nuke. (The 4 missile launch a few weeks ago was actually 5 launches with one failure right off the pad.) Third, they have not demonstrated the ability to miniaturize a nuke to put on top of the hypothetical ICBM. Fourth, we have multiple systems to engage a missile if it were launched. Fifth, KJU knows that to try a launch on South Korea, Japan or the US it will guarantee the destruction of his regime (and his country) even from a peacenick like Obama much less Trump. Sixth, They rolled two “new ICBM’s” yesterday in the parade but are they empty shells or actual missiles? Nobody knows since they have never test fired anything larger than a MRBM.
Trump is constrained since the ROK doesn’t want to start a war and the PRC while being fed up with the norks don’t want millions of refugees streaming towards their country. The movement of 150,000 of the PLA to north of the Yalu is enough to seal the border but nowhere near enough to invade nK. The part of the PRC north of the Yalu River is ethnically Korean and the Han Chinese who run the PRC don’t want to stir up shit with more of their ethnics.
It was argued below that the US presence helps keep the North north and the South south. I absolutely agree but I have been involved with Korean defense issues on and off for decades and think it is important to note that since the ROK observed the issues and costs involved in German unification their rhetoric has changed. In the 1980’s the ROK position was “unification, the sooner the better” since the mid 1990s it has been “unification, ……some day”. The ROK is a wealthy country which realizes the costs of unification will kill their prosperity for decades.
All the points about KJU not being a rational actor are correct. He has lashed out in unpredictable ways before and will again. But even KJU knows his military is less capable every year and any chance of a successful conventional invasion are forever gone. His number 1 strategic goal is to remain in power (and hence alive). If he is stupid enough to piss off the ROK’s enough for them to respond with overwhelming force his new strategic goal will be to stop the war by a further armistice near the current lines and to declare victory. The ROK strategic goal will be to lance the nK boil once and for all. The US strategic goal is nebulous and hence unnerving to the ROK, PRC and Jpn. Will we back two defense treaty allies to the hilt, or will we want to stop the cost to US blood and treasure by backing a new armistice? The ROK’s are good hosts and don’t often bring up US domestic issues but they are clearly happy Obama is gone since they did not trust him at all.
A “decapitation” strike even if successful in killing KJU would be a disaster. There would be multiple factions fighting for power and multiple civil wars being fought (think the SPQR Year of the 4 Caesars in 69ce). The PRC will enter the fray to seal their border and to seize the WMD sites which are concentrated in the far north. Somebody, but who knows who, will fire into the ROK with arty to help themselves and restraining the ROK from a massive response will probably be futile. Bam, we are back at the defense treaty issues I mentioned above.
KJU is a glutton and an alcoholic, shit let’s give him all the fatty food and booze he wants for free. He is already in poor health, most likely has gout and pushing 300 lbs. Let’s help him eat and drink himself to an early grave. There will be a power struggle since there is no clear family member to succeed him but the chance of the PRC to keep a lid on the power struggle and picking a compliant successor improves without a US decapitation strike. This COA has risks as well but is already in play by KJU’s dinners.
That is my $0.02 for what it’s worth.
There is a very simple solution to this problem: Declare that any nuclear attack against the U.S. or its allies originating from within North Korea will be regarded as a first strike by the Chinese. Then, sit back and do nothing when China invades North Korea.
Feel bad for Heap. Horrible story.
“…you’d all be happy with a blank page and open comments.”
*bows head in reverence for The Jacket’s Empty Article*
Sometimes Captain Obvious needs to point out the obvious.
The benefit of having a comment system is that commenters created free content.
If fewer people are going over there now (not including us), it’s because there’s less content over there now because we’re not there to create it.
Every time you see someone who hasn’t RTFA, it’s a tribute to the quality of comments.
I know I’d rather read the comments by anyone in this thread than articles by at least three of the staff members over there–and I’m sure I’m not alone.
In addition to whatever they lost, they lost a ton of free content. However much they pay what’s his name and you know who, they’re getting ripped off if the content we created for them was both of higher quality and free of charge.
And that presumably translates into page views. If people who aren’t us logged in to read our comments, even those page views are gone.
I’m just sayin’.
I certainly don’t visit there as often these days. Not because I swore them off for behaving like jackasses for a few weeks, which many here did. That’s not a criticism, I understand why a lot of people after years of support felt betrayed by the direction of the site. I’m just am not/wasn’t as long tenured or financially invested there.
The reason I don’t visit as often is because of what you stated above; the comments are a waste bin. To be fair, you still have a few people fighting the good fight but watching them fend off the three major trolls currently camping there grows tiresome.
I’d be very interested to see what their weekly page veiws count is nowadays.
I bet it is way down and will never recover. I have seen this happen with other blogs where the writers felt entitled to their audiences and suddenly found out how fickle the people they looked down on could be. Many of those abandoned sites are no longer around after their readers moved on….
I don’t agree with Alan Dershowitz, but I respect him for being consistent. Case in point, he recently called out the DNC for its hypocrisy on Spicer’s Hitler remarks.
Identity politics makes strange bedfellows.
I generally give Christianity a lot of credit for good things in our society.
Score +1 for protestant work ethic
Score +1 for emphasis on the individual. “If you have done so unto the least of these, you have done so unto me”.
Score +1 for . . .
There are negatives, and one of them is the whole cult of victimhood.
That whole progressive cult of victimhood surely comes from that, their evangelical roots with abolitionism, temperance movement, etc.
Score -1 for that.
I mean, not -1 for abolitionism, but -1 for picking a side based solely on identity groups that can be most easily associated with victimhood regardless of their actual positions.
Who cares is he’s an antisemite, so long as he has a favored, victimized identity?
-1 for that.
Didnt the progs compare trump to hitler?
Saying assad is hitler makes far more sense. As trump isnt close to assad….and assad is a murderous dictator
Outrageous comparisons of trump to hitler is ok
Assad to hitler is bad despite them being closer
If he’s talking about the Spicer comments, IIRC Spicer made the claim that Assad was worse than than Hitler, because at least Hitler didn’t gas his own people. Which is a pretty dumb thing to say.
From what I saw, it was clear Spicer was saying Hitler didn’t use gas as a weapon of war. He just said it in such a garbled way that it could easily be taken out of context to mean HOLOCAUST DENIER! Which is bad, unless you’re a muslim.
I don’t think Spicer’s a Holocaust denier or anything. I actually sympathize with him a bit: His job absolutely sucks ass and I wouldn’t want to be in his position. I think it’s more of a he Biden’d it.
Exactly.
He specified “chemical weapons”
the problem was that everyone in the media pretended he hadn’t, and he got flustered by the mendaciousness and doubled-down with more-stupid remarks about “Holocaust Centers” effectively feeding the scumbag-media’s own narrative that he was ignorant of the subject he was referring to.
I hate the whole story and anyone involved and now i hate you for reminding me about it. (don’t worry, it goes away after about a second)
His comments were dumb. No argument there.
The reaction by the progs, though, was dumber. Trying to spin Spicer’s comments into charges of Holocaust denialism is grade A derp. Anyone with a functioning brain understood what Spicer was trying to say, and it wasn’t an attempt to say that Hitler didn’t put lots of people in gas chambers.
Didn’t even hear about the outrage. But I just read the headline as well. I honestly don’t give a fuck, really, and in my mind it’s all wiped out by the fact that he burned that reporter about Russia.
Sorry I should have been more clear. What spicer said was dumb for sure. But it is hard to take their outrage seriously when they think trump is literally hitler
Progressives are obsessed with what people say in public.
They care much more about what people say than what their policies and positions are.
They don’t care if you kill hundreds of innocent children with drone strikes so long as you say the right things in public.
Sean Spicer saying awful things really isn’t a side show for them. That’s their meat and potatoes.
They believe the Trump administration should be opposed because of what he says and tweets in public–and they don’t really care what his actual positions are. . . . just like they didn’t really care about Obama or Hillary’s actions or positions anywhere near as much as they cared that they said the right things in public.
Yea ive noticed this as well. They are shallow people with no depth and substance
They’re responding to different stimuli, that’s for sure.
They’re certainly more about judging people by their intentions. Meaning well is really important.
What we think of as free markets, they see as social darwinism. People who are just doing something for the money are a necessary evil at best. It’s not that they disbelieve in the invisible hand–it’s more like they can’t trust the judgement of anyone who actually believes that something good could come from so many individuals all pursuing their own selfush interests.
The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news
The “rise of left-wing fake news”? Oh please, it’s been around for a long time.
Seems to me that they’ve been doing this since right around the start of the primaries.
And to be clear, when I say “they,” I mean the BBC and their ilk.
“One said to me, ‘Dr Steve … I want to be transgender, it’s the new black’,” he said.
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/gender-expert-teens-are-trying-to-be-transgender-because-its-trendy/
So ProPublica comes out with an absolute hatchet job on Betsy DeVos’ nominee for the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education
She once worked for the Mises Institute!! The horror!!!
THE ABSOLUTE NERVE!
The comments are somehow worse.
So basically projection on his part?
Digital 4K IMAX-level projection.
“It’s their way or the highway”
Huh, so do what you want as long as you aren’t damaging someone else’s life or property is “our way or the highway?”
Basically i think in prog land they think if you dont allow them to control you that is imposing yourself on them
It’s not really something you just think. It’s an argument that gets tossed around consistently by the left. I’m pretty sure Tony, for one, made that argument repeatedly on the old site. It’s one I’ve encountered personally dozens of times. Not letting people enforce their will on others is some sort of aggressive action in their worldview.
I mean, mention private property, and you’re sure to get some leftwing nutjob telling you how private property could not exist without aggression. Because they see no difference between aggression and self-defense.
“Because they see no difference between aggression and self-defense.”
This is true, and another example of it is how most “progressives” will tell you that “assault weapons are useless for anything other than killing!” Because again, they see no difference between using a gun in self-defense and using a gun to take the life and/or property of another.
What’s with these people and roads?
If the government can’t you do something for somebody that you don’t want to do, then you aren’t really free, are you?
can’t make you*
Libertarians are among the most authoritarian contingent of Republicans? Someone needs a dictionary and a mirror.
Literally Hitler.
Just Googled “Candice Jackson Devos.” Roughly 2/3 of the headlines on the first page are that she claims she was discriminated against for being white (and them list her personal example that shows that, indeed, she was) and he others are mostly on how Civil Rights leaders hate her, which all of the other pieces make sure to mention too. I’m still trying to decide if this is collusion or lazy journalism.
Three weeks ago, my friend was telling me how much she liked the new series of “24”. But she was disappointed that the bad guys were Muslim terrorists. I asked who else would be the bad guys? She said, maybe they could be Chinese? I replied that there are Chinese terrorists, but they were muslims too. She got perturbed and dismissed the discussion.
You’re still alive! Easter miracle!
Lots of drugs. And vodka. I will pull through.
Then two weeks ago when that guy in London smashed a truck into people, she was all horrified. I said, looks like another Presbyterian terrorist attack. Or maybe some crazed Mormon.
I could actually see the gears turning in her head. I think she actually put together what is happening. Who is perpetrating it. And why no one in her circle of friends or in MSM is willing to talk about it.
Fascinating.
Us mormans may be bad drivers, but we can keep it on the roaddata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ab044/ab0447a54ddece68d6741dd9f34518040b2d35c4" alt="😉"
What?! Unpossible. I was assured libertarians don’t believe in roads!
Should i have said straight and narrow?
But judging by the size of Mormon families you can’t keep it in your pants.
I larfed.
IIRC Spicer made the claim that Assad was worse than than Hitler, because at least Hitler didn’t gas his own people. Which is a pretty dumb thing to say.
I don’t think Hitler gassed his own people *in the wild*.
Of course, I’m not so sure, based on reasonable analysis by people right here on this little blog, that Assad gassed his own people, either.
I think the possibility that Assad’s planes hit gas hidden on the ground is most plausible.
nerve agents like Sarin aren’t stored in an active form. the way they work is that the component parts are mixed immediately on deployment. if someone blew up a stored area with lots of component parts, it wouldn’t necessarily do anything. (probably not good, but not ‘nerve gas’ effects)
eg.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/middleeast/russia-account-syria-chemical-attack.html?_r=0
Does anyone know who the victims of the attack were? Shia? Sunni? Isis supporters? Assad supporters? This will tell us who executed the attack.
They were “rebels” against Assad – they’d been bombed/attacked before too. No known affiliation with ISIS. (the kind of folks that normally get chlorine barrel bombs dropped on them…it just wasn’t chlorine this time). BTW reuters does have photos of the impact craters, etc.
I’d be interested in hearing *just* who those “international weapons experts” are.
Seriously. In the Iran/Iraq war, Sarin was deployed pre-mixed. Binary agents are stored separately. Not all militaries use binary agents in their munitions, many are pre-mixed, and “made ready”.
Furthermore, just to belabor the point, Tabun, another nerve agent very similar to Sarin in its effects, but longer-lived, is far easier to manufacture, and was found in quantity at Al Muthanna, Iraq in 2002, and as noted in that piece (with citrations from named individuals), the site had (amazingly) not been fully decommissioned.
Iraq produced very large quantities of both Tabun, Sarin and Mustard gas at Al Muthanna, and deployed it in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80’s. It’s worth noting that what was done at Al Muthanna would have been the combination of precursor reagents to create (potentially) binary agents for Sarin. Tabun and Mustard gas, as far as I’ve been able to determine, no ‘binary’ deployment mechanism. Munitions would have been loaded into and stored ‘hot’. The shelf life of such munitions can be significant, since storage under pressure and with chemical stabilizers will affect the deterioration of the reagents. It’s worth noting that the Iraqis in the 80’s were not very good at their chemistry, the purity of their binary agents for Sarin rarely gave better than 60% Sarin yield according to this article.
I continue to stand by my assertion that the agent here was Tabun, possibly from a very old stockpile that was hit with normal explosive munitions, or deliberately, by persons unknown, including, potentially, persons intending to deceive western reporters.
“Seriously. In the Iran/Iraq war, Sarin was deployed pre-mixed. Binary agents are stored separately. Not all militaries use binary agents in their munitions, many are pre-mixed, and “made ready”.”
That stuff has a very short life span if premixed, and while not that costly for a nation state to produce, is still a PITA to dispose of…
Has a short shelf life if you want maximum potency. Degradation of GB/VX agents is analogous to radioactivity, a given volume decays over time and may remain somewhat potent for long periods.
If that were not the case, a site like Al Muthanna would hardly be of any concern if it had been left alone for 10 years.
Basically i think in prog land they think if you dont allow them to control you that is imposing yourself on them
“And now, my pretty, I AM GOING TO IGNORE YOU!” *sinister laugh*
“NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!1”
Anecdote that pretty accurate encapsulates the leftist worldview. CNN planting a “gotcha” question during the Ted Cruz and Bernie debate on healthcare where some fat middle aged broad supposedly moved from Texas to Main or some shit for Medicaid. She used the line, “I like my healthcare plan – can I keep it?” Because there’s apparently no difference between a privately purchased plan that the government prohibits the sale of and welfare others are forced to pay for.
I think most progressives are unable to make these distinctions with the more intellectual types rationalizing it all through the prism of Marxism. The average prog-minded individual simply starts out with qualitative preferences and sees government as the way to accomplish it. They don’t even conceive that there qualitative preferences may run counter to the desires of many other individuals. See universal healthcare as the best example of this. These people think they are speaking truth to power and helping the little guy. The middle tier in between, the more utilitarian progressives, are simply the paternalistic cunts. This is your average class of politician. Then we get the academics who are the most sniveling form of cancerous growth on society imaginable.
I have heard them make that argument plenty of times Brooks. It is a product of the all whiteness is racism opinions are violence not giving is taking male gaze is rape rationale.
Progs do fascinate me. It amazes me to watch them in their natural habitats
if a chemical weapons facility had been hit, the resulting explosion would most likely have caused the chemical to burn up, international weapons experts say.
Ah. Thanks. I have not followed this in any close detail, so forgive my ignorance.
I’d propose that those international experts would not be the first people that would be at the scene. Furthermore, I suspect that if they were to be offered the chance to be, that they wouldn’t be prepared to go.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4414272/Married-couple-told-biological-twins.html
Husband and wife discover they are twins after shock DNA test.
Wow that sucks for them… Or did it make their sex more exciting?
Maybe they could earn money making incest porn? Anyway, kidding aside I wonder how they’ll proceed. Will they divorce? One or both get the operation done to not worry about kids? That is quite a conundrum they’re in.
They are in Mississippi. This makes their sex boring and routine.
The 2 things I find disgusting about incest are:
1) The genetic problems associated with it and procreation
and
2) Violation of the Westermarck Effect
#2 isn’t in play here, and #1 won’t be either if they adopt instead.
Some very difficult conversations with those kids when they grow up.
I’m your sister! I’m your sister!
https://youtu.be/o6T6veL5zWM
The democrats are catering to the loons.
Chuck schumer says if he doesnt release tax returns then there wont be bipartisan support for tax reform (as if he would actually do that)
I’ll just leave this here for Gilmore.
Yeah, that’s lovely and exactly the sort of thing i want to get my hands on at some point. Not sure what “rebuilt” title means?
rebuilt title means the car has been written off as a complete loss by an insurance company at some point due to collision or flood. They are siad to be *rebuilt* in the used car business.
Ocassionally a theft recovery is found after the insurance company has already paid off the owner and did not suffer significant damage but those are uncommon.
Proceed with extreme caution.
Sometimes also called a reconstructed title depending on your location.
yeah, if its un-insurable, that would basically make it a parts-car, i guess.
also, not that i’m kicking tires or anything, but it seems like “very clean” and “missing entire interior-door panels” are a little inconsistent
not sure those four little holes in the rear bumper cover are consistent either…
either way, doesn’t look like a bad candidate for an EJ207 swap
And the seller covered the engine because?
Not sure what “rebuilt” title means?
Oops- didn’t notice that. That explains why it’s so cheap. It means the car was totaled by an insurance company, then sold and brought back to life. “Should” be nothing wrong with it functionally, if done properly, and you never know what exactly the original problem was. Not all “total loss” vehicles are comprehensively destroyed. It just means the value as insured was less than the cost of repair.
I have *heard* that some insurors are reluctant to cover a vehicle with a rebuilt title, but have no personal experience.
Right now, I am working on (pretty much completely rebuilding) the front suspension of my Honda. If I and/or an insurance company were crazy enough to have full coverage on the thing, it would probably be a total, based on the market value of the car vs the retail cost of the work involved. No screeching tires or twisted metal required.
what kind of honda?
the seller covered the engine because?
That blanket is in the rear trunk (914s have two). The motor is between the trunk and the bulkhead behind the seats.
Now I remember – guess I’ve just always thought of 914s being sorta just squashed VW sqarebacks with a targa top. I had a squareback once and it was a piece of shit. I swear the crappy electronic fuel injection (Bosch?) would know when I had my tools with me ’cause it would always work when I tried to fix it. Worse than Lucas.
90 civic wagon. The stupid thing is too useful to get rid of, so I just keep fixing it.
If you don’t have one, I highly recommend the $30 harbor freight balljoint separator; it’s quick, easy, and gentle on the balljoint boots. Makes tearing apart an 88-01 honda front end fast and easy
It’s funny you should mention the ball joint separator. I went to harbor frt because mine was *wore out* but I don’t think I paid 30 bucks.
Worth it, anyway.
Did that last week as well – couldn’t find mine after our move.
So I was reading Texas Monthly while waiting to get my hair cut and a story caught my eye. Apparently there is a film called Bushwick coming out. Its about Texas seceding from the Union. When I began reading I thought cool, the premise is interesting, timely and if done right it could be a complex film showing the horrors of war painting both sides in shades of grey and even playing off of the Syrian Civil War. Then I continued reading the article and after Texas secedes it apparently decides to invade New York. WTF?!? Texas is obviously made the bad guys and filmmakers are obviously left wing loons.
Then I decided to watch the trailer and it has black clad Texas soldiers shooting Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn. With New York’s diverse population banding together to fight off the evil white Texan hicks. Way to ruin a premise!
Here is the trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWOABIn4Mzs
it better have at least one kick ass minority female freedom fighter because WOKE !
lol
hasids with guns.
less plausible than Aliens.
That doesn’t seem to be a trailer so much as a media-clip
i couldn’t find a trailer anywhere.
I did find Kevin Smith having a Q&A with the director. its not compelling.
When he asks, “why brooklyn”, the fucking idiot goes,
“uh, i was living there… and uh… its like really diverse…. and, you know, i wanted to flip it, you know, how we’re always invading other countries*….what would happen, you know ?”
the actor (the guy from Guardians of the Galaxy) helps out by saying, “he just wanted to make a movie without leaving his neighborhood”
(*contra the hipster assumption, we haven’t actually done that very often; also, someone already made Red Dawn. Twice. Dipshit.)
I lived 15 years down the street. No, its not
oh, god, its so terrible. they just make it worse and worse the more they talk
What, no love for Invasion U.S.A.?
Invasion USA =
remind me… wasn’t it the Cubans coming over the beach in Florida?
I literally haven’t seen it since the 1980s. Tho I saw Razorfist’s awesome review a while back. I recall it involving cubans and at least 1 russian in rubber boats coming ashore.
It made more sense that small-town America would defend itself from armed Invasion. NYC would submit the second the subways stopped working.
Goddamn it, you got me excited there for a minute.
Speaking of Hasidic Jews, I took the scenic route home, and passed by what decades ago when my sisters were girl scout age was a farm that was used by the girl scouts as a summer camp. It was later sold to the Boys’ and Girls’ Club down in New York as a camp to send deprived children out of the city to get some fresh air for a few weeks in the summer. When I passed by, I noticed a different sign hanging up: apparently it’s now a yeshiva summer camp for good Jewish boys from Crown Heights.
My sister actually worked there one summer in high school answering the phones and doing typing when the place was run by the Boys’ and Girls’ Club, and despite the place being two hours north of the city, she had New York City income taxes withheld. Seriously, fuck withholding.
New York’s diverse population banding together to fight off the evil white Texan hicks.
Do they hit them with their purses, and shout witty epithets?
Nah. Somehow the Orthodox Jews of New York have a stash of machine guns and the gangsters provide the rest of the firepower at least in the trailer.
nitpicking… but
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-orthodox-and-Hasidic-Judaism
Hasids aren’t so much just “Super-serious-jews” as much as they almost are like a completely different thing. Some of their beliefs are completely incompatible w/ normal jewry.
What is normal jewry? OMWC, or those annoying girls you posted a few weeks ago?
at least in my world = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism
Of course, the Texans in the movie (apparently, this is a coalition of Southern states – not just Texans) are racist white nationalists who mock NYC’s gun laws and diversity. And apparently, the good people of Bushwick are completely off guard and unaware of who is invading them. The South invading NYC without any advanced warning would be one hell of a military accomplishment, though one with little strategic value.
It’s really telling that they imagine the South is swarming with KKK members who sulk in bars and saying things like:
“I tell ya what, Leroy, I sure hates them queers what lives up nawth. I’d drive up thar in mah truck and kill ’em myself but then I’d have to burn mah boots for touchin’ yankee soil!”
“New York’s diverse population banding together…”
Stop right there.
If the Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Irish, Jews, Italians, Chinese, etc mostly live in separate neighborhoods, why would they suddenly join together? They only sit next to each other on the subway because they have to.
Wouldn’t a movie about California seceding be more plausible?
Also: I think there’s a good reason zombie movies are not set in Texas. That movie would be very short.
I think you actually don’t need to go that far.
I think far more crazy =
why would the @)#*(@() Texans want to CAPTURE Brooklyn? They could just seize a bunch of missile sites in Oklahoma and nuke it from afar. No secessionist in their right mind wants to capture NYC. its not like it has oil or mineral value…. or any important resources. Any intelligent army would just blow up the bridges and the tunnels, and let the city people eat each other.
Yes you are spot on. There are some NY’ers that comment here who seem to be decent people with non aggressive political philosophy, but what many NYC’ers don’t get (like the director of that movie) is the rest of the country does not give a rats ass about NYC, and could not care less if they did kill each other off for food. Only NYC residents like NYC. I have flown into LaGuardia and JFK. The airport in Addis Ababa is nicer.
uh, i’m from NYC.
My point re: the movie was just that NYC is an implausible place to “invade”. Whether or not you personally find it a pleasant place to visit is sort of besides the point.
I know you are from NYC. No offense intended. I am sure you would eat your neighbors before they ate you.
lol
no, i’d try and steal a boat and sail to fire island. I’m not gay, but we could form an alliance and defend the place from Long Island guidos.
Come on over to the Rockaways. We’ll raze the Flatbush Ave. and Crossbay Blvd. bridges and mine the approaches from 5 Towns.
An amusing review of Communism for Kids:
Well, if Dalton Trumbo could write an isolationist tract with the ghost of Andrew Jackson as a character….
less than amusing
thanks
So on lunch, i open the daily camera. Article titled Role Reversal: Theater students perform condensed, gender-swapped classic at Firestone School.
Its backwards odyssey.
Directed by a cu grad student.
“Oh no, theyre catcalling” is a line. This was performed by sixth graders.
Somehow the Orthodox Jews of New York have a stash of machine guns
Okay, that makes sense.
*If the Texicans stormed Little Odessa they might get some pushback.
So I came across something delightful while researching an article about roads:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riots
in 1843 in Wales, a poor harvest led to angry farmers dressing up like women and smashing toll booths. Before the riot, they would chant Bible verses.
WHY ISN’T THIS A MOVIE!?
I cannot help but think of the Monty Python skit where the old ladies re-enact WW2 by wrestling in mud while they screech and hit each other with their purses.
Last night the rioters dreamt they went to Manderley again.
Behold, the first pizza out of my wood fired oven. Not very pretty, but it tasted good.
The oven. Don’t look close at the welding, I suck.
Awesome. You da man. Are those concrete counters? Did you build the whole rig? Is it mobile? Details man!!!
Ya, concrete wings. Tis mobile on wheels. I have been working on it off and on for a month or two. I used mostly steel I had laying around. I had to buy the chimney pipe, the square tube for the legs, and the fire bricks.
What kind of fuel are you using? Is this for personal use? Is this your first design?
Hickory wood. Yes first design. The prototype. The oven needs to be higher than counter height. I screwed up there. I usually catch stuff like that, but missed it here. The deck doesn’t get as hot as I hoped. Only 450-500 F by my infrared thermometer. It did a pizza in about 4 mins, but the deck needs to be hotter to get a better crust. I might need a door for the preheat so it gets hotter.
Yes, personal use, but I hope to sell them also but I have my suspicions there will be to many hoops to jump through to make that worth the time for a one man shop. We shall see.
You probably need 600F to get a nice crispy crust quickly. Maybe 650-700?
Ya, that is what I was hoping for. 600 at a minimum. Maybe I need to get the fire going up front to heat the bricks, and then push it back for cooking. I am a wood fired oven novice here. I talked to a couple guys who had a wood fired pizza trailer. Their oven was a massive concrete and brick affair that required them to change out the suspension on their trailer because the oven was so heavy. They claimed to get 800+ on the deck. They did a pizza in about two minutes. My pizza is better though. Ha.
You might be able to get that with a blower or forced air.
I’m eventually getting a pizza oven, but my skillset isn’t there yet.
You have a very big yard.
Disappointing. Should be deep dish.
Death to the flat crusters.
It cooks a bit fast for deep dish. That takes time when one is doing a pizza casserole like deep dish.
Cool article in IEEE Spectrum: The Bunny, the Witch, and the War-Room.
Excerpt: “And so the day started with one hungover military scientist, one amateur magician turned psychologist, a professor who studied psychic dreams, two seemingly credulous physicists, and Uri Geller, the would-be psychic superweapon. It went downhill from there.”
Whoa there fellas. Not cool to drop acid on an unsuspecting person.
Your tax dollars at work!
It’s remarkable how very recent it was that experimenting on human “unfortunates” in the name of science became a no-no. The book “Patient H.M.” is another painful reminder.
That was my first thought reading that. “Nothing left to cut”. So buddy got to travel around and hang out with witches and other weirdos on the taxpayers dime. I need a gig like that. I can roll with weirdos with the best of them. I will even volunteer to drop acid, eat mushrooms or anything else needed.
Ethics, shmethics
Government is just a word for the terrible things we do to the vulnerable among our population. For the greater good.
Watching 10 Cloverfield Lane. John Goodman is a total creep.
Is it any good?
Okay so far. The premise starts wearing thin after about an hour. More a fan of Goodman than I am either of the other characters.
Was watching The Island today and people are told they can’t leave that facility because the outside world is contaminated. So when I looked up plot of your movie, thought that little similarity was interesting.
I was getting that mixed up with 10 Rillington Place.
Sweden: Columnist suggests banning cars to stop future terrorist attacks
It actually hurt to read that sentence. That usually doesn’t happen to me.
I spent a couple of years in Sweden in the 90s in grad school. It pains me to read about what has been happening there.
Even in the 90s, it was clear that some areas were turning into very non-Swedish enclaves of people who wouldn’t assimilate. It didn’t help that Swedish bureaucrats purposely concentrated the immigrants (and their offspring) into certain suburbs, all the while patting themselves on the back for how non-racist they were compared to America. It is easy for the gov’t to socially engineer neighborhoods because all rental property is OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Most leases are subleases from the person directly leasing from the gov’t. The line to get a direct lease from the gov’t is decades long.
I had a good time there as a student, but boy was I happy to get back home.
No private citizen can own rental property? How does that even work?
I’m not saying it works. But it’s what they do. It’s more accurate to say that the gov’t owns a lot of the property and all of the rights to make rental contracts. Hence most effective leases being the primary renter subleasing to the guy who actually wants to live there.
A recent article on the increasing queue for would be renters.
And don’t get me started on the free healthcare realities…
Lemme guess… it’s so good, people have nothing to complain about?
Meanwhile in Pakistan: Pakistan: Imam refuses last rites to student Muslims lynched for “blasphemy”
Meanwhile, the university’s response was to launch a probe…
…of alleged blasphemy. Including of the one who died (but that was totally an accident, really)
https://www.geo.tv/latest/138136-Mardan-university-launches-probe-against-three-students-over-alleged-blasphemy
Bigger operation than Kramer with Newmans mail van
That is a decent days work there.
Everyone has to have a hobby.
If you have less space and cash you could start that hobby here.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Collection-of-Beer-Cans-Lot-of-26-Cans-Mancave-Schmidt-Rolling-Rock-19/262934725334?_trksid=p2047675.c100623.m-1&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D40130%26meid%3D807840c8bb034736926fa7fc36b2406b%26pid%3D100623%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D172618941587
There are some popular 1970’s high school and college collectibles in that lot.
Overslept this morning. On Easter.
Jesus overslept for 3 days.