... you can talk all night.
(And please think of doing your shopping through The Althouse Amazon Portal.)
November 20, 2017
At the Fair Trade Café...
... you can talk all night.
(And please think of doing your shopping through The Althouse Amazon Portal.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
95 comments:
Prof:
Next POTUS: Liz Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand
Next VPOTUS: Gillibrand or Kamala Harris or Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar
Next Speaker: Pelosi
Next Maj Leader: Chuck Schemer
GOP is done. GOP is toast. Trump will run like a scared lion so he won't run again. He is going to be laughed at in 2020!
Cheers
Great! I love toast.
If you have a Fuji or Nex camera, this lens works very well and is extremely cheap -
A nice toy and fine present -
7artisans 25mm F1.8
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4188156
Compact and ideal for "street" photography.
On Amazon, $69.99
Chuck Schemer. A Freudian slip if ever one was.
Prof - thanks! The Drudge has an amazing photo of Franken and Rose. What a blast Matt is having now.
Cheers!
I doing one of those trendy clean diet things- no dairy or grains. Sometimes I miss toast.
I liked what Conrad Black wrote: "... he has more than doubled the economic growth rate, reduced illegal immigration by about 80 per cent, withdrawn from the insane Paris Climate accord, helped add trillions to U.S. stock market values, created nearly two million new jobs, led the rout of ISIL, and gained full Chinese adherence to the unacceptability of North Korean nuclear military capability."
Chuck and ARM and one of the three or four people labeled "Unknown" might kvetch all they want, as a country we're doing pretty good thanks to him.
Re the lens above - do not bother with a "brick wall" test, and its not suitable for Ansel Adams landscapes.
But if you are a would-be Cartier-Bresson, on your mirrorless APS-C, this thing kills.
In case there is any question who is the most valuable player in the National Football League, I refer you to the Green Bay Packers, with and without Aaron Rodgers.
"as a country we're doing pretty good thanks to him."
I agree and the left is really going insane from all I can see. Too bad as there are argument that could be made but not by people frothing at the mouth.
Fair trade coffee is anything but fair trade coffee. It's self-approbation at $5 a cup.
He is going to be laughed at in 2020!
The media and the left (although one might consider the first to be a subset of the second) laughed at him in 2016. Are you saying they're going to continue making the same mistake?
Trump Returns North Korea to List of State Sponsors of Terrorism
This is a fantastically stupid idea. Given the inconvenient fact that North Korea is not actually a "state sponsor of terror," this will simply reinforces the notion that the "state sponsor of terror" designation mostly just means "regime we do not like." Because the designation triggers certain restrictions, it's seen as a tool for applying pressure to a regime. But even ignoring that the designation is wrong on the merits, it's strategically useless. North Korea is already under severe international isolation due to its nuclear program. There continue to be tens of thousands of US troops on its border, and the US and the ROK continue to integrate their armed forces. The "state sponsor of terror" designation is a minuscule punitive measure by comparison. So while it is likely to be utterly useless, it continues the escalation of US-North Korean tensions. The reason that the US has been stuck is that there is very little pressure left for the US to impose. And it is clear that (a) China is not going to apply the kind of pressure that could result in a situation much worse than a nuclear North Korea (which has been with us for a decade); and (b) there is not much the US can do to China to get it to change this view. The best chance the US has at resolving, or at least deescalating, the crisis is through diplomatic engagement.
The notion that the US is an all mighty "superpower" that should (and can) get its maximalist demands met on the world stage and that any failure to do so is a result of a lack of will or resolve is a harmful delusion best expensed with. Call it the Churchill syndrome. Every advocate is Winston Churchill, every debate opponent is Neville Chamberlain, every enemy is Adolf Hitler, and it is always 1939.
They say blind squirrels occasionally discover nuts. Not true. Blind squirrels are eaten by hawks long before any nuts are found.
Mike Munger explains why fair trade coffee can't work even if all the middlemen are of the best intentions
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/12/munger_on_fair.html
Today Consortium News published an article by Robert Parry titled "The Lost Journalistic Standards of Russia-gate". Excerpts follow:
-----
A danger in both journalism and intelligence is to allow an unproven or seriously disputed fact to become part of the accepted narrative where it gets widely repeated and thus misleads policymakers and citizens alike, such as happened during the run-up to war with Iraq and is now recurring amid the frenzy over Russia-gate.
For instance, in a Russia-gate story on Saturday, The New York Times reported as flat fact that a Kremlin intermediary “told a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, that the Russians had ‘dirt’ on Mr. Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton, in the form of ‘thousands of emails.’” The Times apparently feels that this claim no longer needs attribution even though it apparently comes solely from the 32-year-old Papadopoulos as part of his plea bargain over lying to the FBI.
Beyond the question of trusting an admitted liar like Papadopoulos, his supposed Kremlin contact, professor Joseph Mifsud, a little-known academic associated with the University of Stirling in Scotland, denied knowing anything about Democratic emails. ....
Why does the Times trust the uncorroborated assertion that Mifsud told Papadopoulos about the emails — and trust the claim to such a degree that the newspaper would treat it as flat fact? Absent corroborating evidence, isn’t it just as likely (if not more likely) that Papadopoulos is telling the prosecutors what he thinks they want to hear? ....
None of Papadopoulos’s many emails to Trump campaign officials about his Russian contacts ... mentioned the hot news about “dirt” on Clinton or the Russians possessing “thousands of emails.” ....
Anyone who has covered court cases or served on a jury knows that prosecutors’ criminal complaints and pre-trial statements should be taken with a large grain of salt. Prosecutors often make assertions based on the claim of a single witness whose credibility gets destroyed when subjected to cross-examination.
That is why reporters are usually careful to use words like “alleged” in dealing with prosecutors’ claims that someone is guilty. However, in Russia-gate, all the usual standards of proof and logic have been jettisoned. If something serves the narrative, no matter how dubious, it is embraced by the U.S. mainstream media, which – for the past year – has taken a lead role in the anti-Trump “Resistance.” ....
Official Washington’s judgment now is that there is no real downside to joining the Resistance to Trump, who is widely viewed as a buffoon, unfit to be President of the United States. So, any means to remove him are seen by many Important People as justified – and the Russian allegations seem to be the weightiest rationale for his impeachment or forced resignation.
Professionally, it is much riskier to insist on unbiased standards of evidence regarding Trump and Russia. You’ll just stir up a lot of angry questions about why are you “defending Trump.” You’ll be called a “Trump enabler” and/or a “Kremlin stooge.”
However, basing decisions on dubious information carries its own dangers for the nation and the world. Not only do the targets end up with legitimate grievances about being railroaded – and not only does this prejudicial treatment undermine faith in the fairness of democratic institutions – but falsehoods can become the basis for wider policies that can unleash wars and devastation. ...
The New York Times and Mueller’s prosecutors owe the public better than treating questionable accusations as flat fact.
-----
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/20/the-lost-journalistic-standards-of-russia-gate/
@Jfarmer From what I have read designating Nork a terror sponsor has, as you say, little punitive effect at this time since most sanctions are in place all ready. What it does do is clarify in the minds of Americans what we think of the NORKS; puts them in a category of very distasteful people. Ask the average Joe or Janet to describe NORK now and they will respond " a state sponsor of terror". This label also signals to the rest of the world precisely what our position is regarding NORK. Unlike other spineless presidents of the last 17 years Trump is willing to call a spade a spade - just as he is willing to say "Islamic Terrorism".
Flying potentially nuclear-tipped missiles over Japan sounds close enough to "terror" for me. Neville Chamberlain thought he was right and history proved him a fool. Churchill was right, starting in the early thirties about what the threats were and the absolute lack of preparation in GB. If you wish to use Chamberlain as your exemplar feel free. I prefer to side with those who look at the world the way Churchill did.
I don't know if this has anything to do with anything, but for some time I have wondered why M/S Word does not like the word "emigrate" and tries to get you to change it to "immigrate."
Granted, though there are whole colonies of U.S. émigrés around the world, they are rarely referred to as emigrants, but when writing about people leaving the "old country" the proper verb to use is "emigrate." They do not become immigrants until they arrive in the "new country" (and with the proper papers, of course).
And really; what if you looked like Al Franken, Charlie Rose, or Harvey Weinstein?
Show a little mercy, will ya!
@Hagar.
Word for Mac 15.32 has no such prejudice against emigrate.
And, I should say, are then written about from the viewpoint of a citizen of the "new country."
@Quaestor,
I do not wish to have anything Mac in my home.
And really; what if you looked like Al Franken, Charlie Rose, or Harvey Weinstein?
As fat as Weinstein, as wrinkly as Rose, and as vacuous as Franken. Step asside, Aflred E. Neuman.
With a Hackintosh you can have a usable Unix and not pay Cook a dime.
@Khesanh 0802:
puts them in a category of very distasteful people.
That is not what the designation is for. That will only solidify the belief that America's designation of "state sponsors of terror" is arbitrary and unrelated to the actual facts. The entire purpose for granting the State department the power to make the designation will be eroded. States that are indeed sponsors of international terrorism will have a cheap propaganda win.
Ask the average Joe or Janet to describe NORK now and they will respond " a state sponsor of terror".
With all due respect to "the average Joe or Janet," I think this is utterly naive. The "average Joe or Janet" is likely to know much more about the Sony picture The Interview than they are about statecraft between the US and North Korea.
This label also signals to the rest of the world precisely what our position is regarding NORK.
Could it be made any clearer? The US is the chief advocate for punitive international sanctions against North Korea. The North has been subject to significant shows of force by the United States, including our nuclear arsenal. I cannot imagine that there is a major power in the world who believes that the US position vis-à-vis North Korea is in any way ambiguous.
Unlike other spineless presidents of the last 17 years Trump is willing to call a spade a spade - just as he is willing to say "Islamic Terrorism".
This is a meaningless cable news/talk radio myth. Every president for the last 40 years, at least, has talked tough about North Korea. Whether you believe them or not is up to you. Talking tough, while it may surge your serotonin, is mostly meaningless in international affairs.
Flying potentially nuclear-tipped missiles over Japan sounds close enough to "terror" for me.
That it is being carried out by the military wing of a political state makes it, by definition, not terrorism. A highly provocative act, for sure, but that's not the same thing as "terrorism," unless you want to contribute to the increasing dilution of that word.
Churchill was right, starting in the early thirties about what the threats were and the absolute lack of preparation in GB.
Even if I bonded that "Churchill was right," which I still believe to be a highly contested question, it has absolutely nothing to do with the foreign policy problems and decisions that confront us now. The events of the late 1930s were a result of a very particular set of historical circumstances, and the notion that they are some kind of template for an eternal historical struggle that confronts is, I think, a total myth.
I prefer to side with those who look at the world the way Churchill did.
Had Great Britain not given a war guarantee to Poland, they potentially could have formed an alliance with France and prevents Hitler from going West. There is a very plausible, empirically rigorous argument for this. The question of whether or not it would have worked remains, I believe, vexed. But you should not be so quick and easy to assume that Churchill's confrontationalism was the ipso facto better strategy than Chamberlain's accommodationism.
Flying potentially nuclear-tipped missiles over Japan sounds close enough to "terror" for me.
Don't get him started! He is deaf to any point of view but his own. If you do argue with him, don't say I didn't warn you!
A clip claims Sarah Palin is not worried about unwanted sexual advances because she is "packing heat." In Palin's case I think she is "packing" for worries about more serious attacks. For someone like Al Franken, I think the Sarahcuda would just whop him one alongside the head; hard enough for it to take a while before his ears stopped ringing.
LeeAnn Tweeden may not be quite as athletic as Palin, but she is no mimosa. Why did she not smack him one for that kissing assault? It is quite permissible, even for ladies!
Perhaps especially for ladies!
Gee, just a short time ago, Gillibrand was a congresswoman from Bumfuck, Adirondacks, NY, who believed in the Second Amendment, like 90% of the voters in her district, D and R. Now she mentioned for President! Just goes to show you how good it is. to be good looking! What are her other accomplishments? I mean besides being originally appointed to her seat after it was vacated by Hillary. Oh, that goes back to being good looking too, I am guessing.
That it is being carried out by the military wing of a political state makes it, by definition, not terrorism.
Ludicrous. From the very codification of terrorism per se in Revolutionary France, terrorism was always a state policy. Of course, terrorism as a concept is much older. Caligula practiced terrorism against the Senate. Ivan IV used terror against both the boyars and the free peasantry by way of his Black Hundreds. There are other examples.
Terrorism by non-state actors is a more recent concept dating from the runup to the uprisings of 1848.
Bob and Ray had their continuing soap opera eating establishment, The House of Toast.
I wonder if using nerve gas in a public place to assassinate somebody is considered "terrorism"?
"Every president for the last 40 years, at least, has talked tough about North Korea."
Like this one?
"The U.S. desires to live in peace and harmony with North Korea. We don't believe our different government systems should be an obstacle to full cooperation and friendship. This friendship can include mutual respect . . ." Etc.
Depends on what you mean by "president."
@Quaestor:
Terrorism by non-state actors is a more recent concept dating from the runup to the uprisings of 1848.
Fine. But it's the US Department of State tasked with the responsibility of designating countries "state sponsors of terrorism." And the State Department has a specific definition of "terrorism," which can be found here and reads as follows:
"The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
Further, here is the State Department, under Condoleezza Rice and in the George W. Bush administration:
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987. The DPRK continued to harbor four Japanese Red Army members who participated in a jet hijacking in 1970. The Japanese government continued to seek a full accounting of the fate of the 12 Japanese nationals believed to have been abducted by DPRK state entities; five such abductees have been repatriated to Japan since 2002. In the February 13, 2007 Initial Actions Agreement, the United States agreed to "begin the process of removing the designation of the DPRK as a state-sponsor of terrorism."
As far as governments providing material support to terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan, are all guilty. Yet none are considered by the US Sate Department to be "state sponsors of terrorism." Why do you think that is?
@tim in vermont:
I wonder if using nerve gas in a public place to assassinate somebody is considered "terrorism"?
I presume you are referring to the assassination of Kim Jong-nam, and no, that could not accurately be described as terrorism. But I wonder, do you think American, Saudi Arabian, Turkish, and Emirati support for various violent salafi jihadist forces is considered "terrorism?" If so, then certainly these regimes are "state sponsors of terrorism."
@Sebastian
Like this one?
Talk is cheap. It's what you do that matters. North Korea were on the State Department's "state sponsors of terrorism" list for almost 20 years. What did it accomplish?
Depends on what you mean by "president."
The same thing I presume you mean. The person occupying the office at any given time.
DOJ sues to block Time Warner-AT&T merger. Good news for consumers. The Antitrust Division of DOJ is fulfilling its mission and the Trump-CNN spat is a total red herring.
Yet again, I got a post clobbered by a simultaneous write/conflicting edit error.
Hey, Google, you buttheads! Who wrote this software? Some kid out of community college as his first software project that you guys never went back & improved? Oh, jeez, let me think... Why might a comment section have a need for simultaneous writes?
If transaction processing apps couldn't handle dozens of simultaneous writes per second, none of us would ever be able to book a hotel or flight online.
Screw "Don't be Evil", Google. You've already failed that test. How about "Write good code"?
I've casually noticed that many of the recent threads have focused on: (1) sky-writing dicks, (2) ass-grabbin', (3) pussy grabbing and (4) titty groping.
Has Laslo hacked into the blog control panel?
@Bay Area Guy,
Has Laslo hacked into the blog control panel?
No. Absolutely not. There has been no mention of butt sex.
Gillibrand didn't start out that good looking. She was chunky, and I'm guessing that there was some work done. In any event, she's better looking now than when she was first appointed to the Senate. That's not what usually happens as we move through time.
I think Anthony Weiner needs to move for a new trial. All he did was text a minor with lewd comments. It's not like he grabbed ass or groped titty or released himself on an innocent potted plant.
And, Anthony had a hot Muslim wife, who sexually frustrated him by holding out, once their baby was born.
Where's the equities, jeez?
This is not a problem I've had to confront, but I wonder if extremely good looking men ever realize how unfuckable they become as they age. I'm thinking of Charlie Rose. He was quite good looking as a young man. Probably women didn't mind spending time alone with him. Then, as he got older, he became more important and women, who had to spend time alone with him, couldn't straight up tell him that there was no pleasure in his company. He probably thought he was doing those woman a favor and is shocked to hear that they felt harassed. People have a tremendous capacity for self delusion, and among the rich and powerful that capacity is almost infinite.
J Farmer: "With all due respect to "the average Joe or Janet," I think this is utterly naive. The "average Joe or Janet" is likely to know much more about the Sony picture The Interview than they are about statecraft between the US and North Korea."
Total global box office for "The Interview" was approximately $11,000,000, only about 55% of that in the US. Call it about 1.3 million viewers total and 700,000 US viewers.
A couple showings and available on demand on premium channels probably gives you another couple hundred thousand.
Out of a nation of 323 million with about 78% of those older than 18, so call it around 350 million adults total in the US.
So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say more people have made themselves aware of the state of play between the North Koreans and the US than were familiar with "The Interview".
Plus, every lefty in the US claims to be a genius and there are tens of millions of them, so right there, based on self-appraisal, your claim falls short.
Of course, perhaps the lefties don't know as much as they think they do, but that's not possible. As lefties, they are all instant MENSA winners! Just ask them. They'll tell you!
@Drago,
Just ask them. They'll tell you!
Wait! I thought that was the vegans.
Now, I'm confused.....
CNN said something like Trump only insults people of color.
Genius son, and a couple of others reply with long, long list of white men and women Trump has insulted.
CNN inadvertently Trumped Trump.
yep. The Rand Paul thing? It was about landscaping.
About suffering they were never wrong,
The old Masters: how well they understood
Its human position:
https://www.gq.com/story/inside-rand-pauls-neighborhood-fight
"Goodwin said that part of what nagged at Boucher was the difference in grass length between his lawn and that of his libertarian neighbor's. "He had his yard sitting at a beautiful two-and-a-half, three inches thick, where Rand cuts it to the nub," Goodwin said.
Also at issue, according to Goodwin, is Paul's tendency to mow outward at the edge of his property, spraying his clippings into Boucher's yard. Boucher, he said, has asked Paul to instead mow inward when near the boundary line, and even sought help from the Rivergreen Homeowners Association but has gotten no relief.
Goodwin recalled picking up Boucher, a devout Catholic, at his home after church one Sunday afternoon several years ago. Boucher had confronted Paul about his yard-maintenance practices a few minutes before Goodwin's arrival, to no avail, and Goodwin saw Boucher grow agitated as they both watched Paul blow grass onto his lawn. "I've asked him and I've asked him and I've asked him," Goodwin recalls Boucher fuming. "How long can you sit there taking someone plucking a hair out of your nose?" Goodwin asked. "How long could you take that before losing your temper?"
Regarding Congressional sexual harassment and institutionalize silence, it looks like John Conyers (D-Mich) is one of the pervs, er, I mean Perps, who settled a claim.
But he is black, therefore, racism!
And, speaking of Racism!, apparently Lena Dunham is guilty of Hipster Racism. .
It's all so confusing now.
@Drago:
So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say more people have made themselves aware of the state of play between the North Koreans and the US than were familiar with "The Interview".
With all due respect, you have a childish naiveté with respect to what the "people" are "aware of." How many people do you think you know with IQ's under 100? That is 50%, or one out of every two, of the people in the US. The average American is much more likely to know a Kardashian than a Supreme Court justice. Polling suggests that nearly three-fourths, or 75%, of the population cannot even identify the three branches of government. Psst...American philosophy about the "American" sense of government's relation to freedom and liberty only ever applied to a tiny fraction of Americans who were intellectually superior to the "common" man.
Steve Uhr: "DOJ sues to block Time Warner-AT&T merger. Good news for consumers. The Antitrust Division of DOJ is fulfilling its mission and the Trump-CNN spat is a total red herring"
You live long enough and you can find agreement on something with just about everyone!
J. Farmer: "With all due respect, you have a childish naiveté with respect to what the "people" are "aware of."
LOL
Just perfect.
J. Farmer: " How many people do you think you know with IQ's under 100?"
Yikes. Somebody skipped stats class.
J. Farmer: "The average American is much more likely to know a Kardashian than a Supreme Court justice. "
That was not your original assertion.
Try. Again.
Look Farmer, its not my fault you chose the wrong thing for comparison purposes.
"Fair" trade is a scam. Look into the criteria to get the label. Free trade is what works, and it's fair.
"I think Anthony Weiner needs to move for a new trial. All he did was text a minor with lewd comments. It's not like he grabbed ass or groped titty or released himself on an innocent potted plant."
Anthony Weiner: "See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."
I learned this covering Charlie Rangel in 2010, here are the punishments available for House members:
1) Expulsion
2) The offender has to stand there and listen to everyone yell at him.
-twitter Alex Parker
Good Lord. And more:
Melissa Gilbert Accuses Oliver Stone Of Sexual Harassment: “It Was Humilating And Horrid” http://deadline.com/2017/11/melissa-gilbert-oliver-stone-sexually-harassment-the-doors-andy-cohen-1202212904/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter …
"Melissa Gilbert Accuses Oliver Stone Of Sexual Harassment: “It Was Humilating And Horrid”
I don't find that one difficult to believe at all.
I must admit, Charlie Rose surprised me.
So a devout leftist with a hysterically anti-Trump and anti-GOP social media history attacks Rand Paul out of the blue, and we're supposed to be relieved that it was "all about landscaping"?
First, I'm not buying that excuse. Maybe the landscaping was part of it, but it wasn't the whole thing.
Second, regardless of the excuse, the attack was cowardly and completely unwarranted.
Third, assuming it WAS all about landscaping, how unhinged does that make lefties look when one of their devoted acolytes will rise up in rage over lawn clippings or grass length? Add that to the Bernie-bro shooting in Portland, and the Congressional baseball shooter, and the violence in Democrat-voting inner cities . . . man, I'm beginning to wonder if the left is mature enough to be allowed to own firearms. Maybe the 2nd Amendment should only apply to registered Republicans or Independents.
I must admit, Charlie Rose surprised me.
Surprised me too, but I never watched his show. My facebook feed says it was obvious he was a creeper. & The Royal Tannenbaum movie had a Charlie Rose parody character groping Paltrow.
First, I'm not buying that excuse. Maybe the landscaping was part of it, but it wasn't the whole thing.
Second, regardless of the excuse, the attack was cowardly and completely unwarranted.
Grass Clippings...Of course I agree the attack was cowardly and completely unwarranted. I hope I didn't sound like I thought grass clipping were a reason to tackle someone & break their ribs.
For me, it's much more believable that a human looses his shit over something beyond idiotic like grass clippings.
And after all of these news stories about creepers, my faith in humanity is not going up.
Over grass clippings? Bummer, I was hoping it was a love triangle.
"That it is being carried out by the military wing of a political state makes it, by definition, not terrorism. A highly provocative act, for sure, but that's not the same thing as "terrorism," unless you want to contribute to the increasing dilution of that word."
Wait..which is the "dilution"?
This seems minor compared to boating over that money to Iran.
Farmer wants us to send Rodman to respect the Dong.
Ok..Rodman..some Kentucky Whiskey...
I still think, given Kim's love of basketball (and theatrics), folding him into the Harlem Globetrotters.
@ wwww
I don't agree with you much, but you didn't make it sound like that (at least to my eyes). The quotes in the article stub you shared seemed to go to lengths to make it seem as justified as any other pointless attack could be, but I don't attribute those sentiments to you.
But I'm also not entirely convinced. I could see a landscaping dispute leading to a confrontation, a verbal argument that escalates to a thrown punch or something, but a blind-tackle out of the blue? If true, this guy needs to be behind bars.
God help the hapless nerd who may someday bump his leg with a wayward drone . . .
Did they run a tox screen on Rand's attacker?
And Hopkinson saw field of dreams one too many times.
Or Hopkinson might have seen a British PSA called No Pressure.
The Guy Who Searches the Internet for Nude Pictures of an Old Girlfriend...
So I went to my ex-girlfriend's apartment to see if her nude photos were on her computer, and she had changed her password. And I stole a pair of her panties. When she was mine she was fat and her panties were big and boring. Now she is fit and her panties are sleek and exciting...
I have resumed scouring the internet to find the photos, but I am beginning to believe that I might never find them: there are just too many naked girls on the internet...
I parked out by her gym again. She was wearing her black stretch pants and a yellow sports bra. I am starting to have a reoccurring fantasy. If I could just somehow get her to my place and keep her there for a week maybe she would remember how good we fit together, and she would realize why we should be back together now...
Unfortunately, many of my thoughts about making this happen kinda sound like kidnapping. I mean, it wouldn't really be kidnapping: I would just be putting her in an environment that would help her think more clearly. But it still kinda sounds like kidnapping...
I picture us at my place, and my having sex with her and her new taut body. I hope I wouldn't have to tie her to the bed: I don't know, sometimes that happens in the fantasy, sometimes it doesn't...
I know these thoughts are not good for me. Even if you do this kind of thing for the right reason they will still probably throw you in prison. As I said, I have resumed scouring the internet to find the photos, but I can feel my heart isn't really into it. I realize I need to do more. I cannot be so passive. Maybe being passive is why she left me in the first place. Maybe she would be excited about me taking action: that might be what she wanted all along...
I am Laslo.
"When she was mine she was fat and her panties were big and boring. Now she is fit and her panties are sleek and exciting..."
Blatant fiction...
...clandestine agents
Which could include just about anyone working in such a way that he cannot be readily identified, whether civilian or military, a direct member of a government entity or a non-government organization.
the attack was cowardly and completely unwarranted
@wwww, if Democrats didn’t do cowardly and unwarranted they wouldn’t do anything at all.
I happened to be at Barnes & Noble yesterday and when I was checking out, I saw that the cover of the current issue of Newsweek has a penis-shaped balloon on the cover, which is about to be popped with a needle. I'm sure that the same people who were bitching about the Navy pilot flying a penis-shaped contrail in the sky over Washington state and saying "how will I explain that to my children?" are loving that cover.
I guess the real difference is that everybody can see the sky, but not many people read Newsweek any more.
I think I can mediate a couple of issues here
My IQ is over 100. I have seen "The Interview" at least twice. I am average. I would say I know slightly more about NORK/US statecraft than I do about "The Interview". But I have a very bad memory and can not understand why the Sienna Miller/Steve Buscemi film has any relevance here. It's not bad. (But not worth seeing twice)
re: J Farmer. I would definitely not buy any property with a lawn adjacent to his.
Unknown said: "Over grass clippings? Bummer, I was hoping it was a love triangle."
Well isn't this comment interesting. As I recall, you stated this as a fact within a few days of the commie pinko's attack on Paul. Now it's a "hope". Not surprising, it's what I've come to expect from you.
Are you, Americas Politico, and Nate Silver cell mates?
Tomorrow, the 22nd of November, 2017, is the 54th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's death in 1963. He would have turned 100 in May of this year.
Jews often light memorial (Yahrzeit) candles that burn all day on the anniversary of a loved one's death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahrzeit_candle
"Polling suggests that nearly three-fourths, or 75%, of the population cannot even identify the three branches of government."
Hell, 4/9 of the Supreme Court is confused.
How many people do you think you know with IQ's under 100? That is 50%, or one out of every two, of the people in the US.
Well, I don't think there is equal distribution. Maybe Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles are 60% of the under 100s leaving the parts of the country that voted for Trump a bit above the magic number.
"90% of this game is half mental." Yogi Berra (baseball Hall of Famer and noted statistician)
At some level I can believe the claim that the attack on Rand Paul was about landscaping issues. I have a loony lefty neighbor who calls the police every time I trim a bush.
Thankfully I haven't seen or heard from her in awhile. I think her husband finally killed her.
If anyone is interested, Fortune magazine posted a three-part online article about what North Korea did to Sony in response to Seth Rogan’s dog of a movie about assassinating Kim Jong-Un. It made good reading, especially if you’re interested in cyber security. Until they were able to rebuild their network they were reduced to using paper checks, living without voice mail, and basically functioning with late 1970s technology. “Fortune” being “Fortune” there was a lot about who was scratching whose back and who was knifing whom. But no one doubts that it was North Korea that did it, and that they’re a vicious adversary.
I guess Trumpit missed the recent denunciation of JFK in The New Yorker, I think, from a member of the press who admitted to covering for him. I bet Bill Clinton will have a drink and a cigar in his memory though, maybe he will light it with your candle!
some level I can believe the claim that the attack on Rand Paul was about landscaping issues.
Did he let the creeping Charlie get out of control? Oops, wrong thread!
Yeah, we get it Farmer. If only Donald Trump would follow your clever prescriptions for foreign policy we’d have world peace in a week! No, a day. An afternoon! Two hours, thirteen minutes, and forty-five seconds, tops!!!
@Drago:
Yikes. Somebody skipped stats class.
And what did I say that was statistically incorrect?
That was not your original assertion.
My original assertion was that the "average" American does not know much about North Korea. That was merely illustrative. If you have some evidence that the "average" American knows a great deal about North Korea, please share it. On a survey completed by 1,978 Americans, only 36% could locate North Korea on a map.
@J2:
re: J Farmer. I would definitely not buy any property with a lawn adjacent to his.
Fair enough. But what did I say that was incorrect?
@Michael K:
Well, I don't think there is equal distribution.
Certainly not. The point is that 50% of the American population has an IQ under 100. That is not a moral judgment; it's a statement of empirical fact. And remember, I was responding to the assertion, "Ask the average Joe or Janet to describe NORK now and they will respond 'a state sponsor of terror.'" If anyone thinks that is true, then I encourage them to stand on a street corner and ask.
@Walter:
Wait..which is the "dilution"?
Labeling a country a "state sponsor of terrorism" that isn't a sponsor of terrorism.
This seems minor compared to boating over that money to Iran.
Iran receiving money that was already owed to it was no big deal. It was Iranian money frozen in foreign bank accounts owed to Iran for oil purchases. For comparison, in the eight years that Ahmadinejad was president, Iran received approximately $800 billion in oil revenue. It did not alter the balance of power in the region one iota.
Farmer wants us to send Rodman to respect the Dong.
Yes, that's exactly what I want. Thank you for taking the time to actually read what I wrote and consider the argument.
@Big Mike:
Yeah, we get it Farmer. If only Donald Trump would follow your clever prescriptions for foreign policy we’d have world peace in a week! No, a day. An afternoon! Two hours, thirteen minutes, and forty-five seconds, tops!!!
Yes, we get it, Big Mike, my arguments are so obviously wrong you don't even need to be bothered to actually refute them. Just invent ridiculous straw men and attack those instead.
If people are going to be throwing around numbers and statistical figures to bolster their arguments, I highly recommend you get aquainted with the meaning of the words you are using.
Mean (sometimes known as Average but not always) versus Median and how those are determined.
• Both mean and median are measures of central tendency and summarize the data. Mean is independent of the position of the data points, but the median is calculated using the position.
• Mean is heavily affected by outliers while the median is not affected.
• Therefore, median is a better measure than the mean in the cases of highly skewed distributions.
• In the standard, normal distributions, the means and median are the same.
Cherry picking your data can give you any results that you like. (I have seen this in my previous profession all the time) Therefore until I know what the data points are, who picked them, how they were determined and what points may have been deliberately omitted......I don't believe anyone's statistical arguments, because you are usually talking out of your nether parts.
Added....Michael K gets it
Unequal distribution of data points....or cherry picking your data to prove your preconceived point.
How many people do you think you know with IQ's under 100? That is 50%, or one out of every two, of the people in the US.
NOPE NOPE NOPE Not necessarily true
Michael K correctly observes: Well, I don't think there is equal distribution. Maybe Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles are 60% of the under 100s leaving the parts of the country that voted for Trump a bit above the magic number.
@Dust Bunny Queen:
Take a Wechsler manual. Flip to the back to the distributions and look at an IQ of 100. The distribution is 50%. About half the population is below 100 and about half the population is above 100. Do the same thing with a Stanford-Binet manual, and you will find the same distribution. Nothing you have said challenges that contention.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Added....Michael K gets it
Nope. "Maybe Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles are 60% of the under 100s leaving the parts of the country that voted for Trump a bit above the magic number" is just nonsense.
How many people do you think you know with IQ's under 100? That is 50%, or one out of every two, of the people in the US.
NOPE NOPE NOPE Not necessarily true
Actually probably more than 50% of the population has an IQ < 100.
Michael K correctly observes:
Nope.
The IQ 100 = average = median is for randomly sampled (hopefully) whites only; that's the definition. The fact the average is lower in areas with ("official") minorities doesn't matter or change the distribution in other areas because the average IQ doesn't refer to the entire country.
As far as "how many people do you think you know with IQ's under 100?" that depends on who you associate with. Most people associate with people of similar IQ - family, work (depending what it is), etc., so if you're dumb you'll know more dumb people.
IIRC, Farmer said he works, or worked, with delinquents, so he probably sees a lot of people with IQ < 100.
@Fernandistien:
As far as "how many people do you think you know with IQ's under 100?" that depends on who you associate with
I agree, and that was my point.
IIRC, Farmer said he works, or worked, with delinquents, so he probably sees a lot of people with IQ < 100.
And part of my work is administering the WISC-IV. I have certainly seen a lot of people with IQs under 100.
@Farmer, I’ll content myself with point out that the President of the United States and the Secretary of State has access to intelligence information that may — probably will — invalidate just about every assumption you make in crafting your carefully constructed castles in the air. In the end we will have to look at results, as we can look at Libya and conclude that the policies pursued by Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and conclude that they blundered. We can look st the rise of ISIS and conclude that Obama and Clinton blundered in not pursuing a status of forces agreement more actively. I don’t see where enough time has elapsed so that we can conclude anything about Trump’s policies, except that he appears to be successful in attacking ISIS.
@Big Mike:
I’ll content myself with point out that the President of the United States and the Secretary of State has access to intelligence information that may — probably will — invalidate just about every assumption you make in crafting your carefully constructed castles in the air
Probably will? So then your assertion is that Trump and Tillerson have evidence that North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism, but they are keeping it secret? Why?
In the end we will have to look at results,
That's basically a rehash of "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it"
In the end we will have to look at results, as we can look at Libya and conclude that the policies pursued by Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and conclude that they blundered.
Some people also oppose things like illegal wars on principle, not on the "results." But as for Libya, no argument from me. I was against it before it went tits up.
We can look st the rise of ISIS and conclude that Obama and Clinton blundered in not pursuing a status of forces agreement more actively.
A SOFA was pursued by the previous administration and failed because the Iraqi government would not agree to immunize American forces against legal prosecution. Plus, the most proximate cause of ISIS' rise was the civil war in Syria and the political situation in western Iraq. A small residual force would have had no impact on this. And of course, the much larger blunder was pursuing regime change in Iraq in the first place.
Probably will? So then your assertion is that Trump and Tillerson have evidence that North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism, but they are keeping it secret?
You refuse to consider the possibility? Your spy network is better than the CIA's?
Why?
If they have such information, which they might but also maybe not, then exposing what they know could give away what the spy business calls "sources and methods." If you let slip what you know, you may also give away how you came to know it.
That's basically a rehash of "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it"
I used to think you were smarter than that.
A SOFA was pursued by the previous administration and failed because the Iraqi government would not agree to immunize American forces against legal prosecution.
If they had bothered to try harder, I'm certain that they would have been successful.
A small residual force would have had no impact on this.
Depends on the size of the force and the willingness to use it effectively. Modern American troops are remarkably well trained and very aggressive. A handful of today's troops armed with today's weapons would have wiped out a whole platoon from my era (Vietnam) armed with our M-79s and M-60s and unreliable M-16s, and been back to their base in time for lunch.
@Big Mike:
You refuse to consider the possibility? Your spy network is better than the CIA's?
I do not "refuse to consider" any possibility. The question is evidence. There is zero evidence for what you are proposing. And as the proverb goes, that which can be freely asserted can be freely dismissed.
If they have such information, which they might but also maybe not, then exposing what they know could give away what the spy business calls "sources and methods." If you let slip what you know, you may also give away how you came to know it.
The intelligence community makes assessments about all kinds of countries, draws all sorts of conclusions, and does not give away "sources and methods."
I used to think you were smarter than that.
I can't refute an incredulous stare.
If they had bothered to try harder, I'm certain that they would have been successful.
The SOFA was negotiated by the Bush administration and signed in 2008. It included a complete withdraw of forces by the end of 2011. The Iraqi government was under significant domestic pressure not to have US forces in the country, particularly with the kinds of legal immunizations SOFAs often include.
Depends on the size of the force and the willingness to use it effectively.
A violent insurgency and ethnic cleansing were going on when there were tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq.
Post a Comment