June 24, 2019

At the Good Life Café...

fullsizeoutput_3025

... you can talk all night.

109 comments:

JackWayne said...

A pretty good summation of Germany’s probable future at the hands of the Greens.

Original Mike said...

Still wondering what those are.

Meade said...

Cotyledons.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

oh.
Thought Arthur had babies.

Michael McNeil said...

Brought forward from the 500+ posting thread from last night….

The attack on Pearl Harbor did not give FDR the right to go to war with Japan.

–and–

The only constitutional rule I've been “harping on” was the power to declare war, which belongs to the Congress and not the President. So, for example, Obama's Libya War was blatantly unconstitutional, and I would have supported the Congress restricting him from waging that war.

This, I believe — with regard to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (not to speak of their simultaneous attack on the Philippines) — is flat wrong; or rather, correct but irrelevant.

The fact is that, as a result of the foregoing attack on Americans, American property, and American territory, war was already underway and happening. The enemy (Japan in this case) always has a choice and a vote in this regard, and they chose… war with the U.S. (The Japanese even declared it — as well as striking by surprise.)

(With regard to Libya, contrariwise, they didn't attack America!)

No subsequent declaration of war (by the U.S. against Japan) was really needed for FDR to thenceforward pursue war against Japan (though of course Congress had to authorize paying the bills).

UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh discusses this principle in the context of constitutional requirements for a declaration of war: 1 2 3

For this reason, a would-be enemy country (or one playing at skirting the outer edge of such) should be very cautious about actually striking at the U.S. and its possessions (which obviously includes American drones flying around in international airspace). War can happen whether Congress declares it or not.

Original Mike said...

Cotyledons just means "little plants."

Ann Althouse said...

Still?

First picture of these.

Original Mike said...

Cotyledons all look alike to me.

Unknown said...

Cotyledons all look alike to me.

Actually, that's one of the most basic differences there is. We are looking at a tub full of dicots.

narciso said...

What's below the marianna trench, kaiju I think
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cooper-cuts-interview-short-after-e-jean-carroll-calls-rape-sexy?fbclid=IwAR2tHgT1752DnQ2HRRCFqj1usOElGYFIUKZHPLwDb9ZfxhizvTXVK70Tp-g

narciso said...

On a less cringe inducing note:

https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/politics-current-affairs/2019/06/what-iran-is-really-up-to

narciso said...

Reality is slightly strange than fiction:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/my-fictional-abimael-guzman-turned-out-to-be-eerily-accurate/amp/

JackWayne said...

Yeah, she’s a little bit nuttier than Christine Blasey Ford. But they both attended the same school of method acting. There’s madness in their method.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

and she seems to have the same voice coach as Pelosi: Jack Daniels

narciso said...

Isnt it fascinating how on point, this other Shakespeare was, kind of like the fellow behind the idi Amin film.

traditionalguy said...

Are those green peas? It's late to plant peas. Or you could be re-doing Mendel's work for fun.

The times they are a changing. There was a solstice snow storm in the Colorado Rockies today, where the snow pack is 40 times normal this year. And the President fired away at the Federal Reserve Bank's incompetence, cutting it down to size.

Lawrence Person said...

Enjoy this week's Democratic presidential clown car update.

loudogblog said...

It's funny how little seedlings look so similar when they first sprout out of the ground and then they differentiate into radically different plants later.

DanZenner said...

Congrats to Giannis for winning the NBA MVP award tonight!
He is a truly nice person.
He gave a very heartfelt acceptance speech.
Well done. Hopefully the Bucks can put enough pieces around him to win the Championship in the next couple of years.
https://youtu.be/2OZZp3k_EqI

narciso said...

You probably werent even aware if this film
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/anna-movie-review-luc-besson-849308/amp/

Michael K said...

narciso, that Mosaic article has been rejected By Farmer who knows it can't be true.,

Oh well, the Wizard has spoken.

JackWayne said...

The Mosaics article was interesting but kinda not. Clinton, Bush and Obama have screwed the pooch so thoroughly on Korea and Iran that any move will get the thumbs-down from some party. It’s War Games redux. Or is it the Hillary Reset that we need? It’s similar to the Palestinian Question. They're so messed up, some President needs to ignore them for 8 years so the next Pres can make a new fuck-up.

DanZenner said...

And Congrats to the Bucks Coach - Mike Budenholzer for winning the NBA Coach of the Year award tonight!
He gave a very humble, thoughtful acceptance speech.
Giannis and Coach Bud represented Milwaukee very well tonight.
https://youtu.be/BpAICRhsdvM

narciso said...

We are giving them one more opportunity, natch, re this plan Kushner cobbled together

narciso said...

Now the problem is the Iran deal gave them enough nuclear fuel to probably built a dirty bomb, or coat conventional missiles which have considerable rangr.

narciso said...

I remember I had seen the dancer upstairs but it didnr go into that much detail in its nearly three hour runtime

StephenFearby said...

Notable obit...

Legendary [NY] Post columnist Steve Dunleavy dead at 81

'...Perhaps the most memorable [tale] involves a snowy night at the Upper East Side media hangout Elaine’s, where Dunleavy met the Norwegian fiancée of an Australian journalist.

While his pals decamped to another bar across the street, Dunleavy and the fiancée wound up outside, “humping in the snow, arses going up and down,” former Daily Mail correspondent George Gordon told The New Yorker for a profile of Dunleavy in 2000.

“As we were watching, a snowplow came up the street and ran over Dunleavy’s foot,” Gordon said.

“By this time, the entire bar was in uproarious laughter.”

Dunleavy “was so loaded, it didn’t matter,” Gordon said, but was eventually taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a broken foot.

Upon learning of the incident, rival journalist Pete Hamill bitterly sniped, “I hope it wasn’t his writing foot.”'

https://nypost.com/2019/06/24/legendary-post-columnist-steve-dunleavy-dead-at-81/

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

narciso, that Mosaic article has been rejected By Farmer who knows it can't be true.,

Oh well, the Wizard has spoken.


Yep, how dare I disagree with an article. Actually, I'm not too eager to rehash the Iran debate so soon after Sunday's marathon, but I will bring this response to the Mosaic article forward:

Critics of the deal would be more believable if they did not have to constantly resort to misstatements and distortions to make their case. The nuclear deal did not bestow "unfettered control of the nuclear-fuel cycle." There are limits to the activities that can be performed at Arak and Fordow, there are limits on the amount of uranium that can be stockpiled, there are limits on the level of enrichment, there is continuous monitoring of uranium mines and mills, and there is continuous monitoring of centrifuge production. This is, in fact, a very fettered nuclear-fuel cycle.

narciso said...

Ah Dunleavy was an entertaining fellow, he wrote a very pulpy Roman a clef about essentially a whitey bulger type aspiring to become president, but then his wife wins the match

narciso said...

I only found out about bulger some 15 years after the novel came out, but a southie gangster following Jack Kennedys path, who could that be.

buwaya said...

Something earlier today raised curiosity about English writers brought up in another language.
How do they speak?
Unfortunately I have not found a recording of Joseph Conrad, though he lived quite a way into the recording era (d. 1924). There is after all an 1890 recording of Tennyson reciting "Charge of the Light Brigade"

VS Naipaul giving his Nobel speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAQswLNMW-I

Very Oxbridge, with hardly a trace of anything Indo-Caribbean. He did learn English young, his father was a journalist in English, and spoke English well.

Vladimir Nabokov discussing writing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbtvWnvbXTE

Somewhat Oxbridge, if not mid-Atlantic with a hint of the foreign but unplaceable.
Granted he learned English from his parents and nanny. Maybe he could be counted a native speaker.

Salman Rushie discussing, of course, writing, and his famous troubles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-63CYNxY6c

Oxbridge too. His father went to Cambridge, so maybe Rushdie too is a native speaker.

Ayn Rand discussing her philosophy (yes she does have crazy eyes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s

Now here we have a real foreigner, and one who I think learned English as an adult, or at least a teen. She sounds Russian.

J. Farmer said...

For those interested in the subject, this report provides a good overview of the nuclear issue.

narciso said...

I speak it clearly, but there is occasional code switching to Spanish.

Does Shakespeare (the other ones) account resemble that of the phillipines exoeriebcs with the npa

narciso said...

Experience, the shining path and the new peoples are both Maoist, rely on indigenous peasants rather than middle class elements

Guildofcannonballs said...

'Twere there such be a thing, "bad" life isn't what imaginations here may bring.

Limits known.

narciso said...

Kavanugh needs to get better clerks as for roberts:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/thomas-dissent-rips-kavanaugh-scotus-opinion-racial-politics/

rightguy said...

Interesting article linked by Drudge :

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9365741/russia-warns-cuban-missile-crisis-warship-havana/


All this talk about Trump being Putin's wanger holster is silly. In addition to taking energy dollars away from him, Trump has been quietly placing ABM's on his doorstep.

Fen said...

"how dare I disagree with an article."

You claim to be a shrink? I will now make broadly ignorant statements about psychology based on articles I read on The Huffington Post and Wikipedia. Because I'm a subject matter expert on psychology just like you!

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

You claim to be a shrink? I will now make broadly ignorant statements about psychology based on articles I read on The Huffington Post and Wikipedia. Because I'm a subject matter expert on psychology just like you!

Ah, this again. I have never (and never would) claim to be an "expert." I say what I think and why I think it. If I have said something you believe is false or illogical or unreasonable, point it out and I will try to defend it, if I can. That's how normal human conversation works. Saying I'm not an expert (a charge I gladly concede) does not say one thing about the soundness of any argument I have made. Certainly you do not believe that only "experts" are permitted to have opinions on matters. Can you think of times that "experts" got things catastrophically wrong? "Experts" like Susan Rice and Samantha Power thought Libya was a great idea. I didn't. Maybe "experts" don't know everything.

chickelit said...

The only constitutional rule I've been “harping on” was the power to declare war, which belongs to the Congress and not the President.

The Founder’s Congress declared War on Britain back when Congress had balls and George Washington was a hired gun.

These days, Congress is a Panseatic League of bicoastal pansies, united by trade in bad political info. Pelosi’s Congress would dither to death on whether to fight Iran. Iran so far away.

chickelit said...

When women like Pelosi get power, why do politics devolve into dithering?

Rhetorical and frankly, I don’t give a damn.

J. Farmer said...

@chickelit:

Pelosi’s Congress would dither to death on whether to fight Iran.

That is a feature not a bug. The system was designed specifically to prevent a rush to war. The ease and frequency with which we believe the president can order attacks on foreign states is pretty remarkable.

Fen said...

Certainly you do not believe that only "experts" are permitted to have opinions on matters.

I am trying to get you to see yourself through my eyes. Which are currently under the couch, having rolled so far into the back of my head they fell out. You don't even have a clearance, you are speaking with authority and making judgements based on facts you could not possibly know.

You are free to have a strong opinion on anything you like, just as I am free to wish you would pick a hobby that doesn't involve nuclear weapons & the Middle East.

Oh, here's that "source" you linked to and some detail others might want to know before taking it's analysis at face value:

"“If the front office puts emphasis on neutrality, balance and even-handedness, there is little room for careful, expert analysis.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/at_congressional_research_service_a_long_history_of_pointed_questions-219130-1.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/political-corruption-congressional-research-service-ed-whelan/

"Today, in specific and systemic ways, each of the CBO, CRS, and JTC is operating in a biased, partisan fashion."

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/eliminating-partisan-analysis-congresss-support-agencies

There was also an insider account of a former CRS staffer complaining about how the front office was massaging language to avoid implying Trump was right to question the computer modeling behind climate change:

“From the perspective of an attorney working on climate matters in 2017 and 2018, there was a lot of pressure not to imply too directly that the Trump administration, and Republican position against climate science, was wrong,” Wyatt said. She added that clear statements about climate risks and science were “watered down” either in the editing process or preemptively by authors who anticipated their language would be diluted."

https://www.rollcall.com/news/public-get-rare-look-inside-crs-work-culture-point-contention

chickelit said...

“The ease and frequency with which we believe the president can order attacks on foreign states is pretty remarkable.”

Ike (or rather Robert Taft) was supposed to fix that in the ‘50’s. That’s when that horse left the barn.

Fen said...

"It's amazing how this story of an illegal alien [still at large] released by judge after raping disabled woman twice, went straight back to her and tried to kill her is still not in the news"

Illegal alien rapist released by sanctuary city allegedly attacks same disabled victim three days later.

If it happened to my family I would kill the judge. There needs to be a law that holds such judges accountable under the Rule of Law, so that people like me don't feel we have no choice but to engage in vigilante justice.

Fen said...

Farmer: The nuclear deal did not bestow "unfettered control of the nuclear-fuel cycle." There are limits to the activities that can be performed at Arak and Fordow, there are limits on the amount of uranium that can be stockpiled, there are limits on the level of enrichment, there is continuous monitoring of uranium mines and mills, and there is continuous monitoring of centrifuge production

And when those limits are breached, where will you be? Moving on to your next intellectual hobby? Might I suggest history? There was this guy talking about limits much the way you were, waving a piece of paper over his head and promising peace in our time. I think you could learn alot from him.

Fen said...

Lawrence Person 10:48pm said: Enjoy this week's Democratic presidential clown car update.

Thanks for that. It's obvious that you put a lot of work into it and it was informative.

I wonder how many Dems will vote according to the candidate's comfort food?

Fen said...

The only constitutional rule I've been “harping on” was the power to declare war, which belongs to the Congress and not the President.

The last time Congress exercised their constitutional duty to declare war was 57 years ago.

Oh, to live in the era where nation-states declared their intent to wage war and marched their troops at each other in nice little rows. With a fife and drum leading the charge.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

I am trying to get you to see yourself through my eyes.

Frankly, I don't care how I look through your eyes. Your personal opinion of me is of no consequence.

You don't even have a clearance, you are speaking with authority and making judgements based on facts you could not possibly know.

Are you saying you have no opinion on the matter? You are agnostic on Iran's nuclear program, the nuclear deal, and the course of action to take with Iran? Presuming you do have some opinion these matters, what is the source of your information?

You are free to have a strong opinion on anything you like, just as I am free to wish you would pick a hobby that doesn't involve nuclear weapons & the Middle East.

If you have no interest in what I say, there is a simple remedy. Ignore me.

Oh, here's that "source" you linked to and some detail others might want to know before taking it's analysis at face value:

The really isn't any analysis. No conclusions or recommendations are given. It's mostly an expository summation of the Iran nuclear issue. But I will take your point regarding CRS' bias.

And when those limits are breached, where will you be?

I'll continue to have an opinion on matters of foreign policy and will continue to communicate my opinion to others. I have an opinion about what I think the government should do, and I have very little expectation it will do it. I'm fine with that.

There was this guy talking about limits much the way you were, waving a piece of paper over his head and promising peace in our time. I think you could learn alot from him.

The most boring cliche in the interventionist toolkit. Ever since the end of WWII, it's been the template for all kinds of bad military ideas. Some relatively minor threat is portrayed as Hitler, someone advocating a recklessly aggressive policy is Churchill, and anyone cautioning against it is Chamberlain. Lather, rinse, repeat. The Germany of 1930s was a powerful nation with strongly territorial expansionist aims. Iran is a weak and impoverished country that can barely project military force outside its borders.

Fen said...

Did you know that during the Revolutionary War snipers were considered war criminals?

Period infantry tactics dictated that individual initiative on the part of infantryman was never allowed. You fired muskets only in volleys, and only when directed. Your target was not an individual enemy soldier, but rather a “rank” of soldiers, and ranges were short, always less than fifty meters. Muskets were “leveled,” not “aimed.” Such volleys, sometimes several in number, where followed by bayonet charges, because reloading could often not be accomplished before the enemy closed the distance and was upon you.

I remember reading that a British soldier swept General Washington into his sights, but did not fire because it was considered poor form to target enemy officers. Not sure how true that is, but imagine the outcome if he had fired and killed him, even if we had still won the war - an America without Washington?

The ignorance re warfighting even persisted into the Civil War. Even the experts kept repeating the same mistakes of History:

...several Confederate sharpshooters fired upon Sedgwick’s entourage from a great distance. Some of Sedgwick’s subordinates quickly got down and went to cover. Sedgwick was annoyed, considering himself and his party well out of range of enemy rifle fire.

He scolded them, with:

Iran can't develop nukes, you ninnies!
...

...Oh my bad, a bit of artistic licence there. What he really said was:

“They couldn’t hit elephants at this distance…”

Just as he completed his sentence, a bullet struck him under his left eye. He instantly collapsed, dying within seconds. His precipitous death was devastating to the Union Army, and to General US Grant personally.


Ironic and sad. But at least he paid for his own ignorance, as opposed to say... the complete incineration of Jerusalem because of his strong opinion.

Fen said...

Are you saying you have no opinion on the matter? You are agnostic on Iran's nuclear program, the nuclear deal, and the course of action to take with Iran? Presuming you do have some opinion these matters, what is the source of your information?

The Senate Intelligence Committee.

The Germany of 1930s was a powerful nation with strongly territorial expansionist aims

No, Germany was not powerful. People like you made it powerful. By employing language and analysis very similar to your own re Iran.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

Ironic and sad. But at least he paid for his own ignorance, as opposed to say... the complete incineration of Jerusalem because of his strong opinion.

This presumes that deterrence cannot work against the Iranian regime. If it's out of Islamic fanaticism, it would of course require destroying the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. And it would imply that the Iranian leadership is suicidal. And if that is true, that Iran cannot be deterred by conventional means, then how can Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign possibly succeed?

The Senate Intelligence Committee.

Who get their information from Deep State briefings.

No, Germany was not powerful. People like you made it powerful. By employing language and analysis very similar to your own re Iran.

Oh, my bad. I thought Bismarck and the Franco-Prussian War had something to do with it.

Fen said...

Sadly, most military leaders were naively training and gearing-up, as they always do, to fight the last war, so individual marksmanship training and tactics lagged far behind these fast-moving technological developments, but some innovative and visionary Operators, who were also expert marksmen, saw the potential, and were not about to wait around for the rest of the world to catch up.

Recognize the pattern? People working under ignorant assumptions, placing their faith in the status quo. And along comes someone who thinks outside the box and, all of a sudden, accomplish that thing which can't be done.

Apply it to your Sanctions Regime re Iran's nuclear program. Use the UN Sanctions regime re Saddam Hussein/Iraq as your template. And tell the troops that found NBC material in Iraq that Saddam didn't have a WMD program. Maybe a few of the Iraq scientists working on the nuclear bomb program outsourced in Libya will back you up: "There were no WMDs in Iraq! Sanction regimes work!", promise the staff at The Huffington Post...

Fen said...

This presumes that deterrence cannot work against the Iranian regime. If it's out of Islamic fanaticism, it would of course require destroying the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. And it would imply that the Iranian leadership is suicidal. And if that is true, that Iran cannot be deterred by conventional means, then how can Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign possibly succeed?

See, I don't even know where to begin with this. So many things wrong. And I'm still back on your WW2 comments, wondering if you missed the fact that Czechoslovakia had the 4th largest army on the continent and could have ended "powerful" Germany as early as 1938?

How about we discuss how atrocious Bill Belichick's play-calling has been? I played football in high school so I know what I'm talking about... Maybe we can bring in an Asst NFL Coach and torture him with our stupidity?

"The Senate Intelligence Committee." Who get their information from Deep State briefings.

Again, you simply do not know what you are talking about. And that's fine, just try speaking with less authority on the topic. It's annoying as hell and, if you want the freedom to express ignorant opinions, you must grant me the freedom to express my annoyance with those ignorant opinions. That's how this works.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

Recognize the pattern? People working under ignorant assumptions, placing their faith in the status quo. And along comes someone who thinks outside the box and, all of a sudden, accomplish that thing which can't be done.

Apply it to your Sanctions Regime re Iran's nuclear program.


It is highly unlikely that someone will come along who will accomplish covertly developing a nuclear weapon program without (a) having a covert source of nuclear materials; and (b) having a means of weaponizing that material (e.g. covert enrichment plant, covert centrifuge manufacturing, cover reactor).

No deal can 100% guarantee that this cannot happen. But what a deal can do is mitigate the risks of it happening. Natanz and Fordow were both discovered before either was even operational, and that was with no monitoring or verification measures in place.

The alternative to diplomacy, is the pressure campaign. Which is most likely to result in recalcitrance on the other side. And thus further tension and escalation. The "maximum pressure" campaign will lead us towards a confrontation with Iran. Because that's what it's designed to do.

J. Farmer said...

Again, you simply do not know what you are talking about. And that's fine, just try speaking with less authority on the topic.

By all means, please correct me and let me know where the Senate Intelligence Committee gets its information.

It's annoying as hell and, if you want the freedom to express ignorant opinions, you must grant me the freedom to express my annoyance with those ignorant opinions. That's how this works.

"If its intentions change, we will know. Right now the agreement, with all its faults, is working and is putting off realization of the Iranian nuclear vision by 10 to 15 years."
-IDF Chief Gadi Eisenkot expressing his "ignorant opinions."

You are more than free to express your annoyance with me. I just wanted to let you know that I don't care about your feelings.

h said...

Because it's open forum:

1. There has been so much discussion about how and why Trump and Trump administration contacts with foreigners is “obviously illegal” that it has been difficult to discern whether those claims have a legal basis, or whether they are simply based on the OMB theory that anything Trump or his associates have done are bases for impeachment/removal. This opinion piece by a former member of the Federal Election Commission provides a clear and believable interpretation of what must be legal and illegal regarding foreign contacts by campaigns. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hans-von-spakovsky-sorry-media-talking-to-foreigners-does-not-violate-federal-campaign-laws?fbclid=IwAR1VKr2IwNaxG44CafTMyuYXZ2RQEA4QqQYDYbpdY_--meSFlKScnZ3rxeo


2. John Hirschauer at National Review, writes about accusations of racism and includes this:
In time, ideology so subsumes the rationalist that he finds “it difficult to believe that anyone who can think honestly and clearly will think differently from himself.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/angela-rye-knows-youre-racist/

stevew said...

The range 10 to 15 (years) is so wide and general that it strains credulity, is more likely a fictional or made up 'fact'.

William said...

Saddam would have been better served if he had bent over backwards in his efforts to convince Bush that he did not have a program for developing nuclear weapons. Instead he tried to convince his followers and the mullahs in Iran that he had a secret program going on. When it turned out that he did not, in fact, have such a program, Bush sure looked foolish. On the other hand, Saddam was hanged so Saddam can't really claim that he won that bit of brinksmanship.

William said...

One of Genghis Khan's kids conquered Persia and Mesopotamia. The Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad was defeated. After defeat, every last man in Baghdad was murdered. The Mongols then moved on to Damascus. The mullahs there consulted their holy books and determined that there was no holy duty not to pay tribute to unbelievers. The gates of Damascus were thrown open and Damascus submitted to Mongol rule....It might turn out to be in Iran's best interests to try to convince the world that they do not have some kind of clandestine nuclear program.

Rusty said...

" There are limits to the activities that can be performed at Arak and Fordow, there are limits on the amount of uranium that can be stockpiled, there are limits on the level of enrichment, there is continuous monitoring of uranium mines and mills, and there is continuous monitoring of centrifuge production."
But there are no limits to the activities that can be performed elswhere.Are you absolutely certain that those are the only two nuclear enrichment sites? Are you absolutely certain those mines and mills are the only source of Irans uranium? Are you absolutely certain tht is the only facility that produces centrafuges?
You wanna bet 10,000 imaginary internet ollars on it?
"The amount of nuclear materialin a smoke detector isn't dangerous." And then some kid build a nuclear reactor in a garden shed that nobody knows about. It;s still a hot zone.
"Death to America!!" But I totally believe they are'nt going to build a nuke.
Sucker.

donald said...

Whatever the Bucks do, DO NOT let Budenholzer do anything other than coach.

Temujin said...

What to do about Google...

Howard said...

The Freak is soft at the playoff intensity of physicality, donald. You can't coach toughness.

Robert Cook said...

"Ah, this again. I have never (and never would) claim to be an "expert." I say what I think and why I think it."

Fen can be easily ignored. This is a tired little trick of his, stating lies he knows are lies as a rhetorical provocation.

Robert Cook said...

"These days, Congress is a Panseatic League of bicoastal pansies, united by trade in bad political info. Pelosi’s Congress would dither to death on whether to fight Iran. Iran so far away."

We have no reason to fight Iran...or any of the other countries we're currently fighting in. The modern era's Congress--going back to at least 9/12/2001--has abdicated its responsibilities simply by allowing each succeeding president to continue with our expanding wars in the Middle East. A proper Congress would have yanked all funds from these criminal enterprises.

walter said...

Fen,
That documented undocumented migrant needs to spend time chez Pelosi to reconstruct his spark of divinity.

Robert Cook said...

"And tell the troops that found NBC material in Iraq that Saddam didn't have a WMD program."

He didn't...at the time we claimed he did and used that lie as a basis to illegally invade Iraq. The materials found in Iraq were old, forgotten dregs from a decade before when Saddam did have a WMD program.

But you know that.

Robert Cook said...

Too late to avoid war with Iran?

narciso said...

RIP herbert meyer, one of the greats, in the heart of the nuclear freeze he saw ahead.

narciso said...

The experts were wrong then, counseling surrender and trusting the soviets

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/06/herbert-meyer-rip.php

walter said...

Wow Cookie.
Cockburn sure serves up a load of speculations there.


Meanwhile,

Donald J. Trump Retweeted
Vice President Mike Pence
‏Verified account @VP
18m18 minutes ago

Mexico is keeping its promise & now sending 15,000 troops to border to help with crisis. Meanwhile Dems won’t fund beds for migrant children. Mexico continues to do more than Congressional Dems to secure our border, and its time for them to STEP UP!

Mary H said...

Back to E. Jean Carroll--and her disastrous interview with Anderson Cooper. Poor Cooper's body language was telling as he leaned away from Jean after she said she found rape sexy and seemed to hit on him... In this segment she looked like the Bill Nighy character from Love, Actually, the aging demented rock star pushing one last record.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9-_NvAlbhA

Chuck said...

Yesterday's fun; Trump announcing personal sanctions against Ayatollah Khomeini, who died in 1989.

Otto said...

Can't wait to see post of Althouse backing Greenhouse's interpretation of the establishment clause - Beware the Christians are coming.

narciso said...

So the Houthis have struck twice in the kingdom, the sepah have attacked tankers, shot down a drone, but we are the problem got it.

daskol said...

NYC's specialized schools to stay that way:

"Amid Racial Divisions, Mayor’s Plan to Scrap Elite School Exam Fails"

It was never more than a publicity stunt for DeBlasio, or thinking more strategically, an attempt to shift the Overton Window on these schools.

Key bit (this was being pushed by a coalition of DeBlasio, his chancellor, media allies and some minor useful idiot types, who it turns out don't cut a lot of ice in Albany):

There were no rallies in support of the mayor’s plan on the Capitol’s grand staircase and almost no lobbyists pushed it — except Mr. de Blasio and Mr. Carranza and their staff members.

Humperdink said...

You've seen one Ayatollah Rock'n Rolla, you've seen them all. Too funny LLR.

walter said...

That's it Chuck.
Impeach the motherfucker!

walter said...

Using Google to track news coverage of Veritas' Google expose

Humperdink said...

It was reported after three tries and some coaching, Trump was able to spell potato.

OTOH, unemployment remains under 4%.

alanc709 said...

Yes, Chuck, how dare Trump confuse Khomenei with Khamenei. It's unforgivable. Next thing you know, he'll be claiming there are 57 states in the US. Impeach him now.

Drago said...

Anybody catch the hilarious self-own of fake conservative LLR David French yesterday?

He went Full LLR Chuck with his support of the Kavanaugh-Accuser-like Carrol on Twitter, and I mean ALL IN, only to have CNN cut off this latest lunatic accuser after she gets exposed.

Too funny.

Once again the LLR's position themselves on the far far left of the dem party!!

We really owe a debt of gratitude to Trump for exposing the French's and LLR Chuck's for the leftists in conservative clothing that they have always been.

Drago said...

alanc709: "Yes, Chuck, how dare Trump confuse Khomenei with Khamenei. It's unforgivable. Next thing you know, he'll be claiming there are 57 states in the US. Impeach him now."

Uh oh.

You made a negative comment about LLR Chuck's "magnificent" (his word) obama!!

Get ready for a triggered LLR Chuck Automatic-Democrat-Defense response and further online attacks against children, per yesterday.

It could get quite ugly.

walter said...

Vowelgate!

buwaya said...

Spectacular SpaceX Falcon heavy launch.
Missed recovery of core booster by that much.
Still, the core tech of SpaceX is not recovery so much, I think, as cheap manufacture.
You have to see their factory in Hawthorne to understand this.
These are very simple rockets, modular and standardized components.
If manufacture is scaled up they can easily make these in vast numbers.

If this manufacturing system ever moved to China, China would own the skies.

I am from the old days, I knew aerospace mfg from when it was complex, expensive, and mostly one-offs, even if to a common design.

Drago said...

"Vowelgate!"

We will never get the Train to Hawaii built now!

Drago said...

You know, its funny. Like his antifa brethren, LLR Chuck gleefully goes after children but when confronted with an adult challenge, like Birkel's to Chuck, he runs away.

Its really quite telling.

Has anyone notified MI authorities to investigate the almost certain history of animal cruelty that is likely in LLR Chuck's background?

Thats always a solid indicator of violence towards children and women and would explain much.

Chuck said...

alanc709 said...
Yes, Chuck, how dare Trump confuse Khomenei with Khamenei. It's unforgivable. Next thing you know, he'll be claiming there are 57 states in the US. Impeach him now.


It's "Khomeini" (ko-MAY-nee) and "Khamenei" (ka-men-AY). You misspelled the usual English transliteration of the first Supreme Leader's name.

And about that "57 states..." Before that day (in May 2008) was over, Obama was publicly kidding himself for having said it, and apologized for the error. The kind of thing that the witless, humorless Trump never does. And of course Trump himself tried to run with the "media never covered Obama saying 57 states" story. When in fact the reason that we all know about it is precisely because the media did cover it.

Hagar said...

Iran and its Iraqi Shia allies placed all those IEDs in Iraq after the fall of Saddam.

Iran does not need any high-tech long distance rockets to deliver a nuclear strike when they have enough fissionable U-235. Two sub-critical chunks can be delivered in a Toyota Corolla and brought together.

Israel will not allow that to happen regardless of what the US thinks.

Drago said...

It has not been a good week for the dems and the LLR's (but I repeat myself) so I expect a redoubling of the dems/left/LLR-left efforts at generating lie-filled "controversies" before the dem/LLR debates.

Such as continued lies about our border enforcement (some LLR Chuck-like Smear artist posted pics from the "magnificent" obama era showing kids in space blankets and cropped the date stamp to remove "2015' in order to smear Trump) as well as further hoax sexual assault perpetrators that the LLR's enjoyed so much during the Kavanaugh hearings that our own LLR Chuck had to bite his lip thru in order to feign support for Kavanaugh.

And certainly not a good week for LLR-fave Biden. What a loser he is!

narciso said...

They buried caches of materials and used them against coalition forces it's all throughout wiki leaks and in cj chivers reporting

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narciso said...

The conservative review demonstrates Cavanaugh took no lesson to actually follow the statutes

Drago said...

Who could have foreseen LLR Chuck leaping to defend the honor of our domestic spymaster in chief obama?

Besides every human alive?

LOL

Its like Chuck desperately wants to be an obama corpse-man!!

Fernandistein said...

If you're having breakfast, check out this lizard having breakfast.

Drago said...

walter: "That's it Chuck.
Impeach the motherfucker!"

LLR Chuck is simply doing to Trump what he and his lefty/dem pals did to Reagan and both Bushes.

Humperdink said...

"And about that "57 states..." Before that day (in May 2008) was over, Obama was publicly kidding himself for having said it ..... "

LLR embarks on an apology tour for the president who made apology tours famous. Who didn't see this coming?

Humperdink said...

Ever wonder why our resident LLR doesn't make it his life's work to smear the former president as he does with vigor towards the current occupant of the White House?

Chuck said...
"I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him."

3/4/16, 4:46 PM

Michael McNeil said...

The last time Congress exercised their constitutional duty to declare war was 57 years ago.

Wrong. According to the then-Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden — the person who drafted the bill — both the 2001 (and thus also the 2002) Authorizations for the Use of Force passed by Congress and signed by the President were, in fact, full-blown and constitutional declarations of war. Moreover, (libertarian-leaning) UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh agrees with this assessment: a constitutional declaration of war does not require the specific wording “declaration of war.”

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

But there are no limits to the activities that can be performed elswhere.Are you absolutely certain that those are the only two nuclear enrichment sites? Are you absolutely certain those mines and mills are the only source of Irans uranium? Are you absolutely certain tht is the only facility that produces centrafuges?

There are few things that am I "absolutely certain" about. That water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, for example. Am I "absolutely certain" of any of those things? No. No system can be designed that would prove "absolutely certain." Even if Trump arranged a deal with Iran where the agreed to no enrichment or centrifuge research, they could still pursue a clandestine option.

You wanna bet 10,000 imaginary internet ollars on it?

No, but I won't mind betting real money. I'll be more than happy to set up an escrow account and provide you with proof of funds if you're game.

Michael McNeil said...

He [Saddam] didn't … at the time we claimed he did and used that lie as a basis to illegally invade Iraq. The materials found in Iraq were old, forgotten dregs from a decade before when Saddam did have a WMD program.

They weren't old and they weren't forgotten. Those materials (working nuclear-fuel centrifuges, complete documentation of everything, etc., et al.) were deliberately stashed away on Saddam's orders to save them for the moment when the sanctions regime would be lifted (which political effort was already ramping up at the UN prior to the U.S.'s 2003 invasion: clearly the handwriting was on the wall for the near-term demise of the sanctions), at which point Saddam's nuclear WMD program would obviously resume instantly.

All such materials were required to be turned over to the UN inspectors — and not be hidden away instead. Their existence alone was sufficient violation of the UN Security Council resolutions to legally justify the invasion.

Read the story in the word's of Saddam's former chief nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi, in The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind — Kindle Edition, via Althouse's Amazon portal (I think… if I did it right).

Robert Cook said...

@Michael McNeil

NOPE!

The Bush administration pushed the idea that Saddam had an ACTIVE, ONGOING program producing NEW stocks of nerve agents and chemical weapons. In one speech, Bush even itemized how many of each type had been newly produced. The famous warning about the "smoking gun in form of a mushroom cloud" was intended to have us believe Saddam was actively working to develop nukes. None of that was true.

You say there weren't old, but if they had been buried years before, by definition they were old.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael McNeil:

Read the story in the word's of Saddam's former chief nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi, in The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind — Kindle Edition, via Althouse's Amazon portal (I think… if I did it right).

Here is Dr. Mahdi Obeidi in Saddam, the Bomb and Me:

"Iraq's nuclear weapons program was on the threshold of success before the 1991 invasion of Kuwait -- there is no doubt in my mind that we could have produced dozens of nuclear weapons within a few years -- but was stopped in its tracks by United Nations weapons inspectors after the Persian Gulf war and was never restarted. During the 1990's, the inspectors discovered all of the laboratories, machines and materials we had used in the nuclear program, and all were destroyed or otherwise incapacitated.

By 1998, when Saddam Hussein evicted the weapons inspectors from Iraq, all that was left was the dangerous knowledge of hundreds of scientists and the blueprints and prototype parts for the centrifuge, which I had buried under a tree in my garden.

In addition to the inspections, the sanctions that were put in place by the United Nations after the gulf war made reconstituting the program impossible. During the 1980's, we had relied heavily on the international black market for equipment and technology; the sanctions closed that avenue.

Another factor in the mothballing of the program was that Saddam Hussein was profiting handsomely from the United Nations oil-for-food program, building palaces around the country with the money he skimmed. I think he didn't want to risk losing this revenue stream by trying to restart a secret weapons program.

Over the course of the 1990's, most of the scientists from the nuclear program switched to working on civilian projects or in conventional-weapons production, and the idea of building a nuclear bomb became a vague dream from another era."

Robert Cook said...

"They buried caches of materials and used them against coalition forces it's all throughout wiki leaks and in cj chivers reporting"

No Iraqis used any chemical weapons against invading forces in Iraq in 2003 or later. The soldiers who were exposed to the old chemical weapons were exposed when they found and uncovered the buried caches.None of the discovered WMD had been manufactured later than 1991, and the discovery of these weapons did NOT support Bush's rationale for going to war, as per this article by...C.J. Shivers.

Michael McNeil said...

Farmer: Nothing you posted contradicts mine. No doubt Iraq's nuclear program would have continued to seem like a “vague dream” — until the moment when it was abruptly revived, those materials dug up, dusted off, and put to work by a reconstituted scientific staff.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael McNeil:

Farmer: Nothing you posted contradicts mine. No doubt Iraq's nuclear program would have continued to seem like a “vague dream” — until the moment when it was abruptly revived, those materials dug up, dusted off, and put to work by a reconstituted scientific staff.

Those "materials" consisted of a few pieces of a prototype centrifuge machine. Obeidi claimed he kept them in 1991 under the orders of Hussein Kamel, who defected in the mid-1990s. Even had Hussein managed to get completely out of sanctions, there was no real dormant nuclear program (other than intellectual capital) that could be "dusted off and put to work." Construction of a program would essentially have to start from scratch. And even by then the intellectual capital had degraded. Many of the people involved in centrifuge design had fled the country by the late 1990s.

Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

But there are no limits to the activities that can be performed elswhere.Are you absolutely certain that those are the only two nuclear enrichment sites? Are you absolutely certain those mines and mills are the only source of Irans uranium? Are you absolutely certain tht is the only facility that produces centrafuges?

There are few things that am I "absolutely certain" about. That water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, for example. Am I "absolutely certain" of any of those things? No. No system can be designed that would prove "absolutely certain." Even if Trump arranged a deal with Iran where the agreed to no enrichment or centrifuge research, they could still pursue a clandestine option."

So the the safe assumption is that the gun is loaded. Human behavior being what it is and past behavior being indicative of future performance it is safe to conclude they will cheat, or are cheating as we speak.

You wanna bet 10,000 imaginary internet ollars on it?

No, but I won't mind betting real money. I'll be more than happy to set up an escrow account and provide you with proof of funds if you're game.

Howard said...

water is one part hydrogen and eight parts oxygen