Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Posts

  1. 4 points
  2. 4 points
  3. 3 points
    There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
  4. 3 points
    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
  5. 3 points
    Ted (in) Lieu (of fill in the blank) pulled out his cell phone and on the Congressional record called Candace Owens a ****er lover. I saw it !
  6. 3 points
    William, rumors of Bill Dwyer's demise have been greatly exaggerated! ;-) I don't know who Mary Ann is or was, but Bill is still going strong at age 78. Dennis
  7. 3 points
    And I'm not too proud to admit that I started leaning into the corners by the end of the second vid. J
  8. 3 points
    out of the mouths of , you know, what you call those very young uneducated beings...you know the quote, but under no circumstances could one call Jan Letendre a babe. However , that charming Billyboy has more class than nearly everyone we know, is indeed wisdom, and worth any amount of baked goods.
  9. 3 points
    Thanks for noticing, Max. It’s easy for me, to be honest. I don’t mind stupid, it doesn’t rub me the wrong way at all. It’s only when snippy gets added to stupid that I have to explode or walk away. I have, without any doubt, much more patience than most everyone here. I substitute taught elementary school for five years. Classroom teacher, gym, art, music, librarian, special needs - I filled every position in the district’s elementary schools except Principal. I raised two daughters from infancy, was the at-home parent and they’re getting (almost) straight As in high school now.
  10. 3 points
    “I'm a bit confused, so are you saying﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ that the news about packages targeting the Obamas, Clintons, and others is fake news and a false flag? If so, then why does﻿ Trump say the pa﻿ckages ex﻿ist﻿?” Oh boy. Someone doesn’t even know what a false flag is.
  11. 3 points
    I don't want to talk about it. --Brant
  12. 3 points
    I would agree with those who say that Rand's aesthetics do not cover everything. OTOH I also think that one source of puzzlement is that Rand (as usual) traces things back to their roots, and rarely speaks of proximate causes. The closest I come to art is photography, and that might be a particularly simple example. What determines what I chose to take a picture of? I think that goes back ultimately to the kind of things Rand talks about, but I am not conscious of that as I take the picture. If you asked me at the moment I might say that I loved the way the new mown hay looked in the late afternoon sun, but why that appealed to me is probably far below the conscious level. A lot of my photo work records the history of the American Industrial Revolution. Some of it is just a record of the past, but some of it has an artistic element. Why is it that when I go to these dying cities that were once centers of industry I record the mills and factories rather than the winos in the alleyways? I think it reflects a judgment of what is important.
  13. 3 points
  14. 3 points
  15. 3 points
  16. 3 points
  17. 2 points
    Totally tasteless. But funny. So, I was walking through the mall in Portland and I saw that there was a Muslim bookstore. I was wondering what exactly was in a Muslim bookstore so I went in. As I was wandering around taking a look, the clerk stopped me and asked if he could help me? “Do you have a copy of Donald Trump’s book on his U.S. Immigration Policy regarding Muslims and illegal Mexicans?” The clerk said, “F— off, get out and stay out!” I said, “Yes, that’s the one. Do you have it in paperback?”
  18. 2 points
    I haven't read the article , so I don't know who is shilling for whom. But whenever I hear about conspiracy theories relating to tech companies becoming seemingly tech behemoths it makes me wonder whether the behemothing was orchestrated by other than market forces. Especially things tech/social/media. I get there can be tons of money chasing info /data the sellers can take advantage of for marketing and such. It would be hard to direct all that spending toward mining that data if it were spread out far and wide, fortunately the behemoths aggregate a lot of it and fortunately since a large majority of everyone uses the behemoths we are pretty comfortable using them . It's odd there is Coke and Pepsi but no Google and .., or YouTube and .., no? I get Carnegie built US Steel , but he acquired and built his way to that, bought other independent companies , integrated supply chains ect. US internet behemoths feel like they sprang from nothing to everything , did Facebook ever experience a lack of servers that limited their capacity ? Or YouTube? Did they acquire others' capacities ? How much investment is/was needed for the hardware ? I am completely ignorant of the cost structure for the industry , but I assume the price of raw computing power has decreased in at least the last decade, though I doubt Mom or Pop would be able to out compete the existing titans just on the hardware costs alone. But as I said I'm ignorant of the cost structure and perhaps that just feeds my bias toward sympathy for the idea that Big Brother helped to make sure all the lovely data and control bottlenecks seem to be limited to a few players.
  19. 2 points
    Sad life? One that is someone else's fault? If only they would get out of your way... But, alas, you are doomed to constant punishment for virtues lesser souls can't even dream about as you rant, "The bastards! The bastards! The bastards!" in impotent solitude... (How am I doing so far? I can do this with my hands tied behind my back because I've been there. Never produced a goddam thing when I was in that state. Heroism is not only fighting others, it's fighting your own self-destructive urges that are seasoned with self-pity and a growing taste for laziness--and actually producing something. That's not psychobabble. Suicide is a dangerous idea to cultivate. It eventually transmutes on its own from idea to reality. It starts with a shrug...) Reality is wonderful, even with idiots in it. Brush them aside and build. Besides, how can you win a world you haven't produced? What have you actually won by pretending? A feeling? You can't lose what you don't have. Most of all, stop looking down at others. Paraphrasing Nietzsche, when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back into your soul. You become what you gaze upon. Michael
  20. 2 points
    Brant, Yes they do. That's what you are not seeing. They are using the Matt Drudge model of journalism: presenting headlines of news articles in a certain order and including only those that tweak their agenda. Notice that Drudge shows predominantly pro-progressive headlines one day, headlines that are chosen to get people riled up (threats, offensive things, etc.), then he presents the conservative knockout headlines the next day, including lots of headlines that put conservatives on the moral high ground. That's just one form of doing that. The tech giants learned it and added a gazillion others, especially through micro-targeting. Take a good look at their news feeds some day. Or the items they say are "trending." Or take a look at the same ads that keep showing up everywhere you go on the Internet. This is called "retargeting" and is mostly commercial stuff, but pay attention to the political things. You will see mostly easily debunked fringe things when conservative issues show up in these retargeted ads, and plenty of uplifting-like message ads from Dem establishment people like Kamala Harris. btw - Just for people to know, retargeting happens when a pixel of an image is placed on your harddrive with instructions embedded in it. You don't give permission for the pixel to be placed there. It just happens when you visit certain sites and interact with something on them. My joy and hope stem from the current stupidity of the social media giants. Instead of keeping to their covert stuff, they have gone full-on authoritarian and think they will persuade by persecuting certain individuals at a cartel level (notice Alex Jones was eliminated from a bunch of places all within the same 24 hour period). You can do that and be persuasive in a dictatorship where people will show up in the middle of the night, drag your ass out of bed and either put you in a political prison or kill you. You persuade thus by fear. But when you do that to Americans, they get really pissed and some strange alliances pop up to stand up to the bullies. Look at this authoritarian urge showing its ugly face with the midnight raid on Roger Stone by a large number of law enforcement people armed to the teeth. The fake news media was right there covering it all in real time. And the news feeds showed nothing but that for a time. They want nightime arrests of political opponents. They want their political opponents silenced and punished by the state with jail or worse. They salivate at the image and take joy in it. These people are enemies of individual rights, not victims of the state when they are restricted from doing harm to the individuals they wish to target for political differences. This is the press, you say? Not social media? The truth is, they are in bed with social media giants right now, sharing the same advertising sponsors. That is their leverage. Social media giants and the fake news media know what each other is doing. They are colluding. Michael
  21. 2 points
    0.5 mile north of the equator. I'm too lazy to calculate the corresponding geographic location...
  22. 2 points
    Imagine a circle surrounding the South Pole as its center and exactly a mile larger in radius than a concentric smaller circle with circumference of exactly a mile around the South Pole. Then there are an infinite number of starting points which satisfy the conditions. But it doesn't sound to me like that's what you and Jonathan are thinking of. Ellen ADDENDUM: See this post, next page. I realized a bit later that there's an infinite number of circle sets.
  23. 2 points
    We now know that this is the mechanism behind the further rolling, but Aristotle didn't understand it, as I've shown in one of my previous posts. Therefore it is no longer a real puzzle for us, while it was an enigma for those guys in the past. But I'm glad to know that you now have also been converted to the Slipping School.
  24. 2 points
    As I've shown before, cycloids are a completely unnecessary element added by you, allegedly "proving" that both wheels travel the same distance. Well, that they do, Aristotle already knew, you can read that in his text. So in that regard you don't prove anything that isn't already in Aristotle's text. The cycloids are just an irrelevant extra.
  25. 2 points
    It is time now to ride my V4 1986 VFR750F INTERCEPTOR up Squaw Pass. Our course is outlined in red on the maps. We travel uphill and west, away from Denver, from the right to the left. We begin at 8,430' elevation, just northwest of Evergreen, Colorado, and climb 315' in one minute and 54 seconds. The speed limit is 30mph but we will cover 1.63 miles, averaging 52mph. 25mph is the slowest we will go, in the tightest three turns. Then 70 and 80mph in the straights. For example after passing the car we're in a long straight and at the end of it, when we are directly beside the yellow sign advising an imminent "15mph" hairpin right, we are still traveling at 80mph. (Funny thing about brakes, they work supernaturally well when you're going steeply uphill!) The GoPro™ video camera is Chesty™ mounted at about my sternum. I'm crunched leaned over, so my eyes are only a few inches higher. Pretend you are really there, my passenger, and see if you can feel some of what the terror and adrenaline is like. This will help: We are in elk, bear and deer country. If an elk walks out on a straight we are going to die. If a bear is in the road in a corner, we will crash and he is going to try to kill us when he gets back on his feet. We will try to shoot him when he comes to kill us, but it's a 50/50 thing who emerges from crash-stun first.
  26. 2 points
    Carol, Yes, we did, as I remember too, used to talk very enjoyably. Mostly on literature. I'm sure, if time permitted, we could still talk very enjoyably, mostly on literature. On politics, however, we've not been of similar viewpoint, although I think we didn't get into our differences. On Trump, and what's "for the best of America and freedom," I see no chance of agreement, and I don't have time for a discussion. There are big bad biological schemes underway with the goal of eliminating mega millions of people, and for the last year I've been devoting much time to helping counteract those schemes, in the small ways I can help. (Primarily biologic theoretic ways.) I got into posting again here because I was curious to see what was being said, especially by Michael, about the mid-terms. And then I couldn't resist the "Aristotle's Wheel Paradox" thread. But I'll probably be vanishing again soon. Just a couple points: Regarding what Rand's reaction to Trump would have been. I think that she'd have reacted negatively at the start but then come around - unless she got stubborn, having once expressed negativity. But I think that she'd have been horrified at the thought of Hillary Clinton as President, and at some point, with accumulating evidence about Trump, would have reversed on him and become a fan with some reservations. Second, your comment "[Rand] preferred real men with minds and morals, preferably good-looking ones" reveals a gulf between your assessment of Trump and mine. I think that Trump is about as "real man" as it gets. Grizzly-bear-power "real man." I also think that he has a mind, not an abstract theoretic one, but a very shrewd logistic and practical one - badly needed in the current historic context. And that he's a man with morals, strong morals. See things Michael's said on that subject. As to "good-looking," he sure isn't my idea of male aesthetic ideal. However, I enjoy seeing his body language, how he handles himself - stance, gestures, expressions. In charge and can do. Just the sort this country desperately needs at the helm now, in my view. Ellen
  27. 2 points
    Jules, you and Jon are free to continue as you will. Jon has no more special posting status than you or I. Michael made that clear. --Brant Michael's not our paterfamilias
  28. 2 points
    Just for reference: here is the original text in Greek, Microsoft Word - ΜΗΧΑΝΙΚΑ ΤΕΛΙΚΟ-ΕΞΩΦΥΛΛΟ2.pdf and for those whose Greek is a bit rusty is here the translation (from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Aristotle/Mechanica*.html): 24 A difficulty arises as to how it is that a greater circle when it revolves traces out a path of the same length as a smaller circle, if the two are concentric. When they are revolved separately, then the paths along which they travel are in the same ratio as their respective sizes. Again, assuming that the two have the same centre, sometimes the path along which they revolve is the same size as the smaller circle would travel independently, and sometimes it is the size of the larger circle's path. Now it is evident that the larger circle revolves along a larger path. For an examination of the angle which each circumference makes with its own diameter shows that the angle of the larger circle is larger, and of the smaller circle smaller, Bso that they bear the same ratio as that of the paths on which they travel bear to each. Yet on the other hand it is clear that they do revolve over the same distance, when they are described about the same centre; and thus it comes about that sometimes the revolution is equal to the path which the larger circle traces out, and sometimes to that of the smaller. Le ΔΖΓ be the greater circle and p389 ΕΗΒthe less, with Α as the centre of both. Let the line ΖΙ be the path traced by the circumference of the larger circle, when it travels independently, and ΗΚ the path travelled independently by the smaller circle, ΗΚ being equal to ΖΛ. Fig. 13 If I move the smaller circle I am moving the same centre, namely Α; now let the larger circle be attached to it. At the moment when ΑΒ becomes perpendicular to ΗΚ, ΑΓ also becomes perpendicular to ΖΛ; so that it will have invariably travelled the same distance, that is ΗΚ, the distance over which the circumference ΗΒ has travelled, and ΖΛ that over which ΖΓ has travelled. Now if the quadrant in each case has travelled an equal distance, it is obvious that the whole circle will travel over a distance equal to the whole circumference, so that when the line ΒΗ has reached the point Κ, then the arc of the circumference p391 ΖΓ will have travelled along ΖΛ, and the circle will have performed a complete revolution. Similarly, if I move the large circle and fit the small one to it, the two circles being concentric as before, the line ΑΒ will be perpendicular and vertical at the same time as ΑΓ, the latter to ΖΙ, the former to ΗΘ. So that whenever the one shall have traversed a distance equal to ΗΘ, and the other to ΖΙ, and ΖΑ has again become perpendicular to ΖΛ, and ΑΗ has again to ΗΚ, the points Η and Ζ will again be in their original positions at Θ and Ι. As, then, nowhere does the greater stop and wait for the less in such a way as to remain stationary for a time at the same point (for in both cases both are moving continuously), and as the smaller does not skip any point, it is remarkable that in the one case the greater should travel over a path equal to the smaller, and in the other case the smaller equal to the larger. It is indeed remarkable that as the movement is one all the time, that the same centre should in one case travel a large path and in the other a smaller one. For the same thing travelling at the same speed should always cover an equal path; and moving anything with the same velocity implies travelling over the same distance in both cases. To discover the cause of these things we may start with this axiom, that the same or equal forces move one mass more slowly and another more rapidly. Let us suppose that there is a body which has no natural movement of its own; if a body which has a natural movement of its own moves the former as well as itself, it will move more slowly than if it moved by itself; and it will be just the same if it naturally moves by itself, and nothing is p393 moved with it. It is impossible for it to have a greater movement than that which moves it; for it moves not with a motion of its own, 856Abut with that of the mover. Suppose that there are two circles, the greater Α and the lesser Β. If the lesser were to push the greater without revolving itself it is clear that the greater will travel along a straight path as far as it is pushed by the lesser. It must have been pushed as far as the small circle has moved. Therefore they have travelled over an equal amount of the straight path. So if the lesser circle were to push the larger while revolving, the latter would be revolved as well as pushed, and only so far as the smaller revolves, if it does not move at all by its own motion. For that which is moved must be moved just so far as the mover moves it; so the small circle has moved it so far and in such a way, e.g. in a circle over one foot (let this be the extent of the movement), and the greater circle has moved thus far. Similarly, if the greater circle moves the less, the small circle will move exactly as the greater does. (This will be true) whichever of the two circles is moved independently, whether fast or slowly; so the lesser circle will trace a path at the same velocity, and of the same length as the greater does. This, then, constitutes our difficulty, that they do not behave in the same way when joined together; that is to say, if one is moved by the other, not in a natural way nor by its own movement. For it makes no difference whether it is enclosed and fitted in or whether one is attached to the other. In the same way, when one produces the movement, and the other is moved by it, to whatever distance the one moves the other will also move. Now when one moves a circle which is p395 leaning against or suspended from another, one does not move it continuously; but when they are fastened about the same centre, the one must of necessity revolve with the other. But nevertheless the other does not move with its own motion, but just as if it had no motion. This also occurs if it has a motion of its own, but does not use it. When, then, the large circle moves the small one attached to it, the smaller one moves exactly as the larger one; when the small one is the mover, the larger one moves according to the other's movement. But when separated each of them has its own movement.15 If anyone objects that the two circles trace out unequal paths though they have the same centre, and move at the same speed, his argument is erroneous. It is true that both circles have the same centre, but this fact is only accidental, just as a thing might be both "musical" and "white." For the fact of each circle having the same centre does not affect it in the same way in the two cases. When the small circle produces the movement the centre, and origin of movement belongs to the small circle, but when the large circle produces the movement, the centre belongs to it. Therefore what produces the movement is not the same in both cases, though in a sense it is.16 16 The ambiguity of the phrase "path of a circle" has confused the argument. It may mean (1) movement of the centre; (2) movement of a point on the circumference; (3) e.g. the impression made by a tyre on a road. Probably Aristotle usually means (3). It is not easy to be sure whether he has seen the true solution of the problem, viz.: in one case the circle revolves on ΗΘ, while the larger circle both rolls and slips in ΖΙ. "both rolls and slips" again someone who says so, that must be a conspiracy! M
  29. 2 points
    Right, and thanks. The "should" was that of the poser of the problem. I thought after I'd posted that Tony might mistakenly take the "should" as mine, even though I'd said "Here's how the problem goes" (i,e., here's how the person posing the problem was thinking), but I didn't have time to edit by adding a parenthetical stating that the "should" was the assumption of the problem's formulator. Regarding Tony's continuing to call the track superfluous: The track, like the "should," was put into the problem by the person who formulated it. Quite agreed - and I've said before - that the problem isn't a genuine paradox - defined as "an apparent contradiction between two true premises" - but instead an actual contradiction between a false assumption and reality. Ellen
  30. 2 points
  31. 2 points
    I used “Little Shit” as far back as February. I think President Trump should pay me some kind of fee.
  32. 2 points
    >> Well, at least the article gives the correct solution > I get it﻿.﻿ You believe there is only one correct solution -- merely because you like it. There are many proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. Is only one of them correct merely because you like it best? So you admit that it is a solution. However, it is the same solution that has been given and defended by Jon, Jonathan, Ellen, Baal and me. Yet you’ve many times stated that our solution was wrong, that seems to me to be a contradiction. Further it is a simple solution that goes to the heart of the paradox. >> The part with the cycloids doesn't explain the paradox. > Maybe to you. The cycloids solution is correct. What part of it do you not understand? There is nothing to understand. Your own summary states: “Summarizing, the smaller circle moves horizontally 2πR because any point on the smaller circle travels a shorter, more direct path than any point on the larger circle.” Well, duh. That the smaller circle moves 2πR when the large circle rolls without slipping one revolution is trivial, you don’t need any cycloids to prove that. Moreover, in your “second solution” you say the same thing without any cycloids, implying that these are just unnecessary embellishments. But the fact that the smaller circle also moves over a distance of 2πR is just the first part of the solution. The paradox is generated by the supposition that the small circle also rolls without slipping, implying that after one revolution it would move over a distance 2πr < 2πR: contradiction. Conclusion: the small circle cannot roll without slipping, it must slip to make up the difference 2π(R – r). QED. > This is easily shown. Add two more inner concentric circles to the usual two depicting Aristotle's wheel paradox, such as to represent the inner and outer edges of the white ring on a white wall tire. When all four are rolled together, all three inner concentric circles move the identical horizontal distance, the circumference of the largest circle. Their circumferences, all different, are irrelevant, but their centers, all the same, are relevant. The same as above: it is trivial that all those circles move the same horizontal distance, but that is just the first part of the paradoxical statement, the second part being the supposition that those smaller circles also can roll without slipping. It is only by combining those two parts that the paradox arises. Therefore the notion of slippage is essential for understanding and solving this paradox. > 'Slipping' is in fact just an unnecessary distraction compared to the second, translation solution on the Wikipedia page. The translation solution is simpler and far more elegant than 'slippage'. The center of the smaller circle matters; its circumference doesn't. Wrong. As I’ve shown above, the “translation solution” isn’t a solution, it’s just stating one half of the paradox problem. The circumference of the smaller circle is essential to the paradox and its solution. If the radius of the smaller circle equals the radius of the large circle, the paradox disappears. > On August 14 I challenged you to quantify the three terms on the right of this equation: > 2*pi*R = Rotation + Translation + Slippage > You haven't answered yet. Is answering it too difficult for you? You can’t expect me to “answer”, as you didn’t ask me anything in that post.
  33. 2 points
    Well, at least the article gives the correct solution: Physically, if two joined concentric circles with different radii were rolled along parallel lines then at least one would slip; if a system of cogs were used to prevent slippage then the circles would jam. The part with the cycloids doesn't explain the paradox. That there must be an error is trivial, 2*pi*r < 2*pi*R for r < R, that impossibility is what makes it a paradox (an apparent contradiction) but that still doesn't tell us what exactly the error in the presentation of the paradox is. That is namely the supposition that both wheels can roll without slipping. The fact that this is impossible is the easy and final solution to the paradox. Further it isn't necessary to assume that the larger wheel rotates without slipping, we can as well suppose that the smaller wheel rotates without slipping; in that case the large wheel must be slipping (skidding), as the wheels are then translated over the smaller distance 2*pi*r after one revolution. In that case a point on the rim of the large wheel will trace a prolate cycloid. But cycloids are in fact just an unnecessary distraction for explaining the paradox.
  34. 2 points
    Re this post, echoing a discussion we had before (I forget where and haven't time to search): The status of bloodline aristocrat is conferred by birth and can't be lost. An aristocrat who's socially ostracized by other aristocrats is still an aristocrat. With the academic enablers of whom I'm speaking, on the other hand, whether or not they feel that they're some sort of superior life form, they have a constant need, and anxiety, to prove to themselves and to others that they hold the right sentiments. Their "club" membership is always in jeopardy. Come the day, however, if it came, the humanities blokes would be expendable, their usefulness past. Good plumbers, electricians, carpenters, car mechanics, etc., would be needed - and persons in hard and applied sciences who actually know something about how to make technology work. But folks whose skill is talk, talk, talk....? Ta, ta. Ellen
  35. 2 points
    I was holding my breath for what the Left Dems would come up with in the runup, and this too conveniently 'fits' my concerns. Many nasties there have shown they are willing to do whatever it takes. I'll contain myself, not rush ahead of the evidence, and that might never be conclusive. 50-50 probability sounds right, and increasing. A couple of crazies cannot be ruled out, but how would any of this intimidation serve Republicans? Primitive devices, all of which were intercepted? You can hear the constant clamor: "the climate" Donald Trump created - etc. etc. Lapdog BBC is smugly making a pile of moral and political capital out of these incidents. And now a device sent to CNN, our fearless reporters - all too "Hollywood", over-scripted, over-played. Whichever way, this ratchets up tensions, not good.
  36. 2 points
    Moar Queue Pleez ...
  37. 2 points
    Jon, They think tobacco is something. They ought to try crack cocaine. I'm lucky I didn't kill myself. I'm so lucky, I still have my goddam teeth. But, still, when it started wrecking my life, I felt like Slim Pickens in Doctor Strangelove riding an A-Bomb like a rodeo horse as it was falling out of a plane. It was one wild ride while I was on it... It was my life, so no regrets. I did it. I lived it. I loved it. I paid the price. But I won't be doing that one again. One ass-kicking of that magnitude is enough. Later on, I might take up motorcycle riding, though. Every time I've been on one, I've loved it. Seeing you do it in your videos tugs and something primal in my heart and makes me see a flock of wild geese I want to chase down... Michael
  38. 2 points
    At a skim, there is a lot of dropped context and rationalizing to conflate different things, going on in that article. "Frightening parallels" with the Third Reich? "Fascists". "Ultranationalism"? That sounds like the collectivist's knee-jerk response to confronting independence, autonomy, self-sovereignty, self-responsibility--and sure, caring for your country and admiring its accomplishments, while acknowledging its errors. One quote : "...you create this false fear and panic by painting the ordinary center-left party as socialists..." (Right, I see - there aren't any socialists just those poor, hard-done by center-leftists). (And he cites Hannah Arendt approvingly...). And: "It's a future thing, our greatness, not a past thing". (Wow. Nothing to see here, America and Americans made nothing and achieved nothing. Maybe one day we can be great, when we've appeased everyone and apologized enough for existing). Then - "Trump's War On Immigrants". So why do (some, many, if not all) immigrants want to enter the US to live, if not for their liberation from others - from their own people - and under laws they won't find back at home or elsewhere? But even so, nobody has an inherent right to immigrate to any sane country today, without some controls (like several SA friends who settled happily in the USA twenty to thirty years ago, did not have that "right" - it took years and they had to fulfill many requirements, e.g. first finding solid employment there). To indulge their moral sentimentalism, and for nefarious demographic reasons, the leftists want to open the doors to everyone. By so doing, I imagine the essential nature of the nation could eventually change, exactly contrary to what some of those immigrants sought in the first place! And it's not like many caring Leftists are volunteering to take in and look after newcomers, themselves. Others will pay for us to feel good. America has its Fascists, but those I keep seeing, loudly hearing and forcing their opinions down others' throats while shutting down dissent and freedoms, are almost all plainly Leftists. The smear "ultranationalism" is camouflage to cover Jason Stanley's tracks: what he and many want is 'Internationalism', or "Globalism". Here is a plain-spoken conservative voice to clean the palate, what I've floated before, about Obama and intellectuals dedicated to Europeanizing America : Europeanize America? Not on Your Life by David C. Stolinsky September 27, 2018 at 5:00 am https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13022/europeanize-america Europe did not invent racism and religious bigotry, but it surely perfected them. Europeans lived for centuries under kings and emperors. They came to believe that power flowed from the top down. The "elite" decide what is best for the "common people" -- the "masses" -- and then cram it down their throats. The "elite" send their children to the best schools and universities, and relegate the children of the "common people" to lousy schools, where they get lousy educations, which prepare them for lousy jobs, which pay lousy salaries, which leave them dependent on the government for a lifetime of "assistance." But they expect the "common people" to be grateful for the "universal education" -- and for the "assistance." The American idea of individuals being responsible and taking responsibility is utterly foreign to the "elite," who seem much more comfortable with the European idea of infantilizing subjects to make them dependent on a parentified government to protect them, care for them, dole out money to them, and in general control their lives. If people cannot even choose their own light bulbs, toilets, or dishwasher detergent, in what sense are they free? The Normandy American Cemetery is the burial place of thousands of American soldiers who fought and died to liberate Europe during World War II, many of them on D-Day, June 6, 1944. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Wallace) If Europeanize were not a word, we would have to invent it, because that is what many are doing to America. Remember when candidate Obama was asked if he believed America is exceptional? He answered yes, but only in the sense that Britain, Greece, and other nations are exceptional. As Gilbert and Sullivan said, "When every one is somebodee, Then no one's anybody!" If every nation is exceptional, none is. It is not that Obama and his friends really think America is unexceptional. They may well believe it is exceptional, but that it should not be. So they do everything they can to end its exceptional nature, and to make it resemble other nations. They are Europeanizing America. Do not get me wrong. I love Europe. That is, I love to visit it: I love to see the towers in Ireland, where monks hid from Viking raiders while preserving knowledge for the West. But now, Ireland's church is scandal-ridden. I love to see the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, a reminder of the time when Britain controlled one-fifth of the Earth. But now the British army is a shadow of its former self. In 2013, a British soldier was murdered and almost beheaded on a London street. I love to see the unsurpassed beauty of Paris. But now France is undergoing a demographic transformation. I love to see beautiful cathedrals, where Christianity inspired great works of art. But now they have few worshippers. And there are other things in Europe that I do not love, but I feel obligated to see: I feel obligated to visit Clifford's Tower in York, England, where in the year 1190, Jews were massacred because of their faith. Europe did not invent racism and religious bigotry, but it surely perfected them. Europe invented the blood libel as far back as 1144, falsely accusing Jews of using the blood of children for Jewish rituals. I feel obligated to remember (because it no longer exists) the Vélodrome d'Hiver, the Paris bicycle-racing stadium where in 1942 the French police rounded up thousands of Jews for shipment to Auschwitz. And today in France, Jews are targeted for assault or murder. I feel obligated to visit Belleau Wood, where U.S. Marines fought and diedto liberate Europe in World War I. I feel obligated to visit Omaha Beach, where U.S. soldiers fought and diedto liberate Europe in World War II. I feel obligated to read (insofar as I can) European newspapers, to remind myself of ingrates who condemn "American militarism." I feel obligated to visit the reading room at the British Museum, where many people say Karl Marx sat and fantasized an ideal communist society -- as a result of which about 100 million died. I feel obligated to visit the site of the Munich beer hall where Hitler launched his first attempt to overthrow the Weimar Republic. Thanks a lot, Europe, for giving us two world wars, socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, and for perfecting racism as exemplified by the Holocaust. You have done so much for the world in the last century. No wonder "progressives" think Americans should be more like you. Europeans lived for centuries under kings and emperors. They came to believe that power flowed from the top down. So they felt comfortable when their new rulers called themselves Führer, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the Council of the European Union, or whatever. The idea was similar: The "elite" decide what is best for the "common people" -- the "masses" -- and then cram it down their throats. The "elite" dream up notions of the "ideal" state, and leave the "common people" to deal with the inevitable mess that results. The "elite" are cared for in the best hospitals and clinics, and relegate the "common people" to the tender mercies of "gatekeepers" who may -- or may not -- allow you to see imported doctors from who-knows-where. But they expect the "common people" to be grateful for "universal coverage." Government-run health care is a major step in the demolition process. If bureaucrats can tell people what care they and their loved ones can receive -- and what care they cannot receive -- in what sense are those people free citizens, and not subjects of a domineering government that imposes life-and-death decisions on them? The "elite" send their children to the best schools and universities, and relegate the children of the "common people" to lousy schools, where they get lousy educations, which prepare them for lousy jobs, which pay lousy salaries, which leave them dependent on the government for a lifetime of "assistance." But they expect the "common people" to be grateful for the "universal education" -- and for the "assistance." The "elite" view schools and universities as a source of indoctrination, not education. They require students to regurgitate the "correct" doctrine, whether it is Nazi, communist, socialist, or environmentalist. Original thought is punished with lower grades. The "elite" view our children as wards of the state, for whom we have only limited responsibility. They view home-schooling with alarm, and they want to imprison parents who home-school their children, as is already done in (surprise!) Germany. The "elite" view the government as the source of help for those in need. So they vote the "correct" way, but like Europeans, they give little to charity, and they actually discourage giving to charity. The "elite" see nothing wrong with the fact that 52% of American childrennow live in households receiving means-tested government assistance. In fact, the "elite" would like 100% of children to depend on government assistance ‒ that is, on them, the "elite." The "elite" care little for foreigners who suffer and die, so like Europeans, they want to shrink the military until it is too weak to intervene to stop tyranny or mass murder. They run up huge debts and push new social programs, leaving less money for defense. Europeans could let their defenses atrophy, because America defended them. But if we weaken ourselves, who will defend us? Belgium? Who will fight global terrorism? Liechtenstein? Yes, war is terrible; is surrender better? Is what China is engineering now -- total spying, grading and controlling all of its citizens -- what the West really wants for its children and grandchildren? Americans, on the contrary, believe that power flows from the bottom up. We believe in trying something, and if it doesn't work, trying something else. We do not believe in allowing the "elite" to impose their unworkable notions of the "ideal" state. We view our children as gifts, for whom we have ultimate responsibility to bring up to be self-reliant, ethical citizens. Americans, in fact, do not believe in the "elite" in the first place. So, predictably, the self-anointed "elite" do not like American ideas, and they seem to be doing their best to demolish the American system. And now, with the unaffordable Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare"), we can look forward to increasingly severe doctor shortages. Many young people are willing to spend the best years of their lives training to be independent professionals, but not to be government underlings. And waiting times are growing progressively longer. I wish you good luck and good health -- you will need both. The American idea of rights is utterly foreign to the "elite," who are much more comfortable with the European idea of privileges granted -- or withdrawn -- at the whim of the government. The American idea of individuals being responsible and taking responsibility is utterly foreign to the "elite," who seem much more comfortable with the European idea of infantilizing subjects to make them dependent on a parentified government to protect them, care for them, dole out money to them, and in general control their lives. If people cannot even choose their own light bulbs, toilets, or dishwasher detergent, in what sense are they free? Yes, the "elite" want to Europeanize America. But in view of what has happened in Europe in the last century, and what is happening there now, this seems like a really abysmal idea. And I'll keep that in mind when I vote. Dr. David C. Stolinsky, a retired physician, is based in the US.
  39. 2 points
    Is that where LP predicted a theocracy to be the imminent danger?
  40. 2 points
  41. 2 points
  42. 2 points
  43. 2 points
  44. 2 points
  45. 2 points
  46. 2 points
    Jon, I think your underground bunker in the woods is calling.
  47. 2 points
    "They think his tactic is his strategy". Good one, Michael. "They" can only see a lesser, intermediate 'sacrifice' (towards ultimate gain) to be the greater - or only one that matters. Short-term thinking? "Concrete bound"? (Altruists, accustomed to sacrifice?)
  48. 2 points
  49. 2 points
  50. 2 points
    Carol, (Image by Ward Sutton from here.) Michael