« islamic state | Main | the persistence of culture »

November 20, 2015

Comments

See my last comment posted at almost the exact time you put this post up.

Yep, part of the reason for the update!

bacteria resistant to drugs used when all other treatments have failed. Actually, that should be "when all other antibiotics treatments have failed."

Fortunately, antibiotics are not the only arrow in our quiver. Even if most of the medical community in the US is (blissfully?) unaware.

There are these things called bacteriophages. Basically, viruses which infect bacteria. Unlike antibiotics, phages can be selected to target specific bacteria. That means, you can get treatment for an infection without, for example, trashing your intestinal flora and giving yourself digestive issues.

Better yet, they evolve along with the bacteria. So you don't have MRSA-type issues.

This stuff has been around for quite a while. It is even starting to get some traction in the US -- see this from the NIH. And not before time.

Not that mere science will slow down someone like Trump, of course. Especially since he is doubtless aware that something which has as its critical feature the fact that it "evolves" won't resonate with his base.

Stock up on Purel.

wj: I think the practical problem with bacteriophages is that their specificity means that they have to be tailored to the infection.

SO, you get sick, go to a doctor, samples taken, sent to some high-end lab to make/select a bacteriophage (that is snowed under with work) and in a week or so, you get your magic pill.

But by then, you've either recovered or died.

Yes, there are more options beyond antibacterials, but there's a reason that antibacterials get used compared to other treatments.

s/antibacterial/antibiotic/

Which should warn you as to my level of actual expertise in the subject.

Great to see you posting. Thanks!

I'm not sure ISIS's degree of terror leverage vs. al Qaeda is a matter of tactics, it's a matter of the prevailing political situation. In 2001, there wasn't a black Democratic President that half the country believes is spiritually un-American and possibly a secret Muslim foreigner, Donald Trump wasn't running for President on a platform of raw bigot demagoguery, and there weren't a dozen other Republican presidential candidates scrambling to follow his lead.

Instead we had George W. Bush in office, and he could say a few anodyne things about not hating Muslims and not get pilloried for it, because he was a white Republican instead of a black Democrat.

And Bush was making a lot of noise about how his new war efforts were going to take out the bad guys. Obama has the disadvantage that he has been fighting the war already, so the only thing that will satisfy people is some kind of massive ramp-up against IS whether or not it makes practical sense.

It's time to start taking bets on which will destroy humanity first: drug-resistant bacteria or fact-resistant ideologies.

Like the prospective parson who could preach it round or preach it flat, I am willing to give six-to-five odds either way.

--TP

It's time to start taking bets on which will destroy humanity first: drug-resistant bacteria or fact-resistant ideologies.

My bet's on a mis-designed virus. You can see the day coming when an aggrieved group can afford the sequencer and other equipment. One of them will accidentally let loose something that kills everyone.

Snarki, usually the treatment isn't with a single phage specific to the exact infection. Rather, they use a cocktail which covers a range. For example, something which hits staph bacteria across the board.

For really unusual infections, they might need to do some work to find the right phage. But mostly that's exactly because they haven't become widespread problems yet.

Anyone see this?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/20/antibiotics-apocalypse-research-resistance-threat-breakthrough

Until last month I was still pessimistic about our chances of avoiding the antibiotics nightmare. But that changed when I attended a workshop in Beijing on a new approach to antibiotic development based on bacteriocins – protein antibiotics produced by bacteria to kill closely related species, and exquisitely narrow-spectrum.

My research over 37 years involved the study of a number of bacteriocins that can kill a range of clinically important bacteria. I – and many other researchers – did not believe they could be useful clinically because injecting a “foreign” bacterial protein into a patient is likely to induce a severe immune response that would make the antibiotic inactive. There were therefore gasps of amazement in Beijing at data presented from several animal studies showing this was not the case.

Brennan has the original birth certificate from Kenya. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

One can hope that's the explanation for Mr. Brennan. Another is that he is a Cossack working for the Tsar.

On a related note, apparently any of the Democratic staffers who worked on the Senate Intelligence committee report that got Brennan in hot water with Feinstein have been blackballed such that the GOP will not confirm any that have been nominated to appointed positions. Or at least that was the case several months back. Lovely.

Ugh, is there any indication that Republicans would confirm anyone else?

Did you read the Krakauer Missoula book Charley? If so, what did you think?

My bet's on a mis-designed virus.

Who remembers this doozy from the famous Rebuilding Americas Defenses?

And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

It was presented as a good idea.

Ugh, is there any indication that Republicans would confirm anyone else?

Brennan admitted the CIA spied on Senate staffers in July 2014.

Party makeup of the Senate at that time:
D (or voting D) - 55
R - 45

He should have resigned or been fired then. As it stands today, if the "strong on national defense" GOP wants to holdup the nomination of the CIA director in the current climate, more power to them.

Russell (over on the islamic state thread):
Trump as POTUS would basically just be further evidence to me that the nation had utterly lost it's remaining marbles.

I have to disagree. Not that I don't agree that Trump would be a crazy choice. But one must always consider the alternative possibilities, and how they stack up. For example, Trump almost looks like a paragon of good sense -- not to mention impressively well informed about the world -- compared to Carson.

So Trump as POTUS may mean we have lots most of our marbles. But perhaps not quite all of them. Yet.

"compared to Carson"

Also compared to Pa Kettle, Larry Fine, Ishkabibble, and Maria the Money Honey Bartiromo.

Or, wj can find a bright side in Hell.

Or, Trump has standing orders out to his people to rough wj up should the former be compared unfavorably to Dr. Irwin Carson.

Either, and a good deal more, would be an end to the Republic.

Because I would make it so. And most here would help me make it so, though I understand the procrastination until the last minute.

Some of us see the glass as half full; others see it as half empty.

Of course, I'd rather see it completely full. But that doesn't seem to be on offer....

I see a cheap glass made in China with something floating in it.

:-)

Maybe this country should be drinking from the kids' cup, since that's about all we can fill.

It was presented as a good idea.

Nobody reads classic SF any more. I was thinking along the lines of The Death of Grass for just how dangerous things could get. Killing all of the grass-related grain crops probably wouldn't wipe out humanity -- quite -- but would do a number on civilization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Grass

Trump almost looks like a paragon of good sense -- not to mention impressively well informed about the world -- compared to Carson.

Carson appears to be in so far over his head that daylight must be a dim memory to him at this point.

It is, IMO, a shame, because he apparently is a really good surgeon, and has been a genuine inspiration to a lot of people who are starting out from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Carson as POTUS would be dangerous because he's not really equipped to be POTUS. Trump as POTUS would be dangerous because he's Trump.

Over at Redstate, Leon Wolf says that Trump is polling well in the primary because he appeals to racists. I'm surprised because I thought conservatives were supposed to insist that Republicans weren't racist. Also, I'm not seeing the racism in the letter he quotes as evidence, but perhaps I'm just not sufficiently attuned to conservative dog whistles.

http://www.redstate.com/2015/11/17/mailbag-mostly-racism/

I assume that the redstate crowd does not consider Trump to be a 'true conservative' and thus he can of course be accused of anything.

Turkey shoots down Russian fighter?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/turkey-shoots-down-russian-warplane-near-border-syria-n468671

good times are a-comin'!

And five people shot at a Black Lives Matter rally.

Good times are on the way, for sure.

At least they got shot while the antibiotics are still effective.

Silver linings, everyone.

Two Russian aircrew recovered alive, according to Turkish CNN tweet.

Su-24 is a 2-seater, so that's all aboard.

They're banged up some, I would imagine.

NBC says at least one pilot was killed by Syrians.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/turkey-shoots-down-russian-warplane-near-border-syria-n468671

A spokesman for the rebels in the area told NBC News that some of its fighters had opened fire on the pilots as they fell to the ground, killing one of them. The body was being held by the rebels, said the commander Jahid Ahmed, who added that he had no information on the second pilot.

i believe shooting parachuting pilots is a war crime.

Yup.

I was reading that it's despicable, but not a war crime to shoot down military pilots. Not that I'm defending it. Does anyone have a link of any kind?

Again, not defending it.

Article 42 - Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

Article 42, Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Convention. We're signatories, w/o reservations.

"Airborne troops are not protected by this Article."

Also, "we" didn't do this.

Very ugly, but probably not technically a war crime.

"Airborne troops are not protected by this Article."

there were no airborne troops on that attack fighter.

Thanks. Didn't know that pilots weren't included in "airborne troops." Not that I see the moral difference.

Airborne troops are infantry that descend to engage the enemy via parachute. It's a military term of art.

The moral difference is that the aircrew from a distressed aircraft is considered hors de combat because they are "out of the fight" - they engage in combat by means of their aircraft and without it they are not a serious military threat; they likely have nothing more than a sidearm and light body armor. The aircrew is trained to parachute out of a damaged aircraft only when forced to do so, and then evade and escape enemy ground forces until such time as they can rejoin their unit. The paratrooper, OTOH, is equipped in the manner of any other light infantry, and is trained to parachute out of a perfectly good aircraft for the express purpose of engaging enemy ground forces in combat upon landing.

(Perhaps it would be more clear to simply observe that downed aircrew parachute in order to get out of combat, while airborne troops parachute in order to get into combat.)

Thanks again, NV and cleek.

Item (1) would seem to cover the pilots in this case. So, shooting the pilots on the way down does not seem to comply with Geneva.

My guess is that this was not a factor in the minds of the folks doing the shooting.

What a mess.

Item (1) would seem to cover the pilots in this case. So, shooting the pilots on the way down does not seem to comply with Geneva.

My guess is that this was not a factor in the minds of the folks doing the shooting.

What a mess.

If, as reported, it was members of some Syrian faction shooting at the pioleets, then they are not signatories of the Geneva convention. So one wouldn't really expect them to abide by them. Or even be familiar with them.

And unless they think that they are doing well enough that they will live to be available for war-crimes trials, that isn't likely to be a concern either. Which, given the course of events, seems unlikely.

But in one sense the mess is less than it might appear at first glance. Putin is, predictably, furious. But what are his options? If he does something which can be viewed as a direct attack on Turkey, he gets two bad effects:
1) he may lose the ability to pass ships thru the Dardanelles. At which point, the base at Tartus, which is his whole reason for being in Syria, becomes an irrelevance.
2) depending on just what kind of attack he makes, he may get NATO coming together in response. And, short of a straight nuclear exchange (which Putin doesn't want), there is no way Russia can stand against NATO.

I agree w NV and WJ. Would one of you say something irredeemably PC so that I could disagree and bring the universe back into balance?

I guess the idea of "war crime" is a bit of a diversion since the parties that shot down the pilots are not state actors. Obviously, I'd rather the pilots have lived and gone home.

I'm not sure (unless I'm forgetting) that we've had much of a discussion about Russia's role in Syria. It's always more fun (it seems) to talk about how immoral the United States under Obama is.

"depending on just what kind of attack he makes, he may get NATO coming together in response. And, short of a straight nuclear exchange (which Putin doesn't want), there is no way Russia can stand against NATO."

I don't think Putin would bring out the big bombs (fingers crossed). But he could escalate things significantly even without them. I'm not looking forward to what comes next. We're in a horribly dangerous place, and I'm glad Obama is President. I worry about Congress, and the electoral candidates (or maybe I should say "personalities").

Russia is behaving as people who, like some Americans, don't feel they should be overly constrained by human rights considerations.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/25/russia/syria-possibly-unlawful-russian-air-strikes

Perhaps the civilian suffering will teach people not to support terrorists.

Sarcasm aside, I assume most Americans would expect Russians to behave as they did in Chechnya and Afghanistan, though presumably on a smaller scale. Assad, I would assume, will continue to do most of the torturing.

On an irrelevant tangential note, there are a few people on the far left I've seen elsewhere who have decided that Assad is one of the good guys, for reasons that are depressingly familiar--they have their bad guys already picked out and their metaphysical view on how the world works does not permit the existence of multiple bad actors shooting at each other and at civilians.


Well, we can rest easy. Russia says the HRW charges of civilian casualties are lies. Never saw that one coming.

https://www.rt.com/news/319676-hrw-accusations-bogus-peskov/

The moral difference is that the aircrew from a distressed aircraft is considered hors de combat because they are "out of the fight"

Unless, of course, they spit or hurl obscenities on the way down. Then they are fair game.

Ugh, I haven't read the book but, like everyone else in town, have discussed the contents endlessly.

It's something of a black mark if the Syrians who shot at the parachuting pilot were US trained/armed/paid.

I've thought that the Paris attacks would lead to pressure on Turkey, from the US and France, to do a lot more against IS. Shooting a Russian plane is a convenient way for Turkey to change the subject.

I thought the US only trained 5 rebels. One of those 5 shot down the pilot?

The rebels involved were apparently Turkmen:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Turks

The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins summarized the situation pretty well.

But in one sense the mess is less than it might appear at first glance.

By 'what a mess' I didn't necessarily mean just this specific incident.

Apparently the air forces of something like five different nations are flying sorties in Syria and western Iraq at this point. I'm not sure of the exact number, it's hard to keep track. They each have distinct but overlapping targets and missions, some of which conflict.

To my knowledge, there is no single authority that coordinates their activities.

That's just the air sorties.

No wonder people want to get the hell out of Dodge. Swimming to Greece might seem like a pretty reasonable option.

A friend shared this on FB.

If you can watch it all the way through, you're a stronger person than I am.

I'm not usually interested in sharing stuff like this, but it's sometimes helpful to remember what it is that's actually going on. Syria is being shredded.

I doubt things there are significantly better or worse than any other place where an active shooting war is going on. But it's pretty freaking bad.

And if it's not a big enough mess yet...

Dutch biker gangs apparently want a piece of ISIS, too.

Not to be outdone, their German counterparts want in, as well.

Meanwhile, stateside, while the Gambino crime family isn't interested in going to Syria, because no cannoli, they do offer their protective services if ISIS should come to NYC.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

And if it's not a big enough mess yet...

Dutch biker gangs apparently want a piece of ISIS, too.

Not to be outdone, their German counterparts want in, as well.

Meanwhile, stateside, while the Gambino crime family isn't interested in going to Syria, because no cannoli, they do offer their protective services if ISIS should come to NYC.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

An anonymous report from ISIS controlled territory. I'm not sure how to take it, but assume it is basically accurate. The writer clams life under ISIS is better than it was under the FSA (aka the "moderate rebels") and better than under al Nusra, but just when you start to wonder if he is a convert, he then expresses concern over the territory serving as a base for terrorist ideas.

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/a-trip-to-the-caliphate-oppressive-justice-under-isis-by-omar-al-wardi/

I've heard whispers of this perspective creeping into discussions of Daesh almost from the start, and frankly it makes perfect sense even if it runs counter to any number of popular narratives in the West. This is actually very much in keeping with discussions of how Islamist groups have come into power elsewhere. The Taliban was a direct response to corruption, lawlessness, and the tyranny of warlords. It's why the Western-favored secular (and thoroughly corrupt) Fatah struggles to achieve the popularity of Hamas. Islamist organizations are very often explicitly defined as combating secular, amoral corruption and the utter collapse of rule of law and social safety nets from within as much or more than colonialism or imperialism from without. If we're honest about it, that's something the West really doesn't like to admit.

I thought of that point while running a brief errand-- I was thinking in particular of the Taliban, but the Hamas example should have come to mind as well. On the other side of the spectrum I believe communist or leftist guerilla groups have been praised for the same reasons, but that's more of a vague recollection-- I can't recall specifics. But it makes sense that a rebel group would win support this way

"But in one sense the mess is less than it might appear at first glance."

By 'what a mess' I didn't necessarily mean just this specific incident.

By "mess" I was thinking more of the geo-political mess (i.e. Russia vs Turkey, and maybe the rest of NATO). In retrospect, it is obvious that you meant the mess on the ground. Which, I agree, is a horror show all the way around. And with damn few "good guys" in sight among the combatants -- as far as I can tell, only the Kurds come even close.

But then, I am too close to the political center to think that everything is binary, and everybody is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy.

If one is very cynical, one can compare and contrast the opinions of the loudest cheerleaders for the Kurds in regard to their post-invasion conduct in Arabified regions of Iraq with their opinions on the existence of any sort of Palestinian right of return. Unsurprisingly, consistency is very often entirely lacking.

Would one of you say something irredeemably PC so that I could disagree and bring the universe back into balance?

how about...

The leader of a group of armed anti-Muslim protesters in Texas posted the addresses of dozens of local Muslims and "Muslim sympathizer(s)" to Facebook on Tuesday.

David Wright III was behind an armed protest Saturday outside of a mosque in Irving, Texas by a group calling itself the "Bureau on American Islamic Relations," according to The Dallas Morning News.

Wright prefaced the list of addresses, which appeared to be copied over from a city document, by writing that those named "stood up for Sharia tribunals":

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-wright-iii-doxxes-irving-muslims--4

where are the moderate "conservatives" ? why are they not taking to the street to protest what's being done in their name ? do moderate conservatives even exist, or is the whole philosophy, and anyone who partakes of it, irredeemably un-American ?

"where are the moderate "conservatives" "

I'm not sure how this correlates to the anti Muslim movement. I think most of the antiMuslims are disaffected liberals

"I think most of the antiMuslims are disaffected liberals"

Because 'a group of armed anti-Muslim protesters' just screams 'liberals', amirite?

Has Count finally made good on his threats to arm-up and go rogue?

I really must wonder what sort of a bubble one must be living in to conclude that most of the Islamophobe movement is disaffected liberals. You're in MA right now, IIRC. Maybe that's the sort of bubble one must live in. I assure you, further west the landscape looks quite different.

I can't speak for others, but this moderate conservative has no use for this kind of Islamaphobic nonsense. The main reason I'm not out "protesting what's being done in my name" is that I've long since given up explaining the difference between real conservatives and the radical reactionaries who have appropriated the label.

It was bad enough when it was just them. But now they seem to have successfully changed the language, to the point where even liberals act like these nut cases are really conservatives. Frustrating as hell -- but nobody ever claimed life was fair.

Some of us completely agree with you wj: we wish for the days when "conservative" meant stuff like "prudent, cautious, conserving resources"; ideas had some appeal all across the political spectrum.

But don't fret; the way things are going, the radical RWNJs will push on to being objectively FASCIST, thereby freeing up the "conservative" label for recycling.

Might take some years of cleansing the BS off it, though.

Point being, I'm pretty sure the armed antiMuslim protestors don't scream conservative either. They scream lots of things but are only "conservatives" because you define them as such.

i get that some conservatives don't want to be associated with them, but these wanna-be domestic terrorists sure as hell aren't liberal, in any sense of the word.

xenophobic, nationalistic, militant jingoism has no home on the American left. none. but there's a huge group of supporters on the right; everyone from the current GOP frontrunners, to countless Representatives and Senators, to innumerable conservative talk radio and TV hosts, to people like Pam Gellar and the hordes of pants-wetting right-wing bloggers, to the dimwits who support all the above. it's a right-wing phenomenon, period.

My Alzheimer's-ridden mother talks in her sleep. Last night, she repeated the word "macaroni" over and over for roughly twenty minutes.

That made no sense to me until I tuned into Marty's comments today and now, by comparison, my mother would be likely to garner an immediate 10 percent share in the Republican Presidential sweepstakes if I had recorded her macaroni musings and broadcast them this morning as her entry announcement into the race as a Republican candidate for the highest office in the land.

But, I'll bite. I would say the Muslim-haters and the shooters at the Black Lives Matter rally are disaffected Republicans who have had their dicks s$cked by Republican candidates and media at all levels about who to hate, when to hate and what to do to the hundreds of millions they hate for roughly 50 years and it's finally dawning on them that's it's been little more than a teasing lap dance with no money shot since Barry Goldwater shot his wad in 1964.

They want what they want, whatever they think that is and aim to get it by any and all means, and it happens the current Republican candidates are up to the challenge, rhetorically, meaning any deviation by Republican officeholders from the base's demands for 100 percent of their program goals will be met with savagery.

Forget "disaffected" The only way to end this domestic menace is to "disinfect" and the one item that is sinking in across the country is that bullets are the best disinfectant -- fast acting and long lasting.

Monsanto makes some products that can be applied aerially to get rid these pests, and there are tens of millions of them of now, but unfortunately the chemicals tend to harm the good fauna too.

The categories of liberal and conservative, meaningless now, can step aside and get the f&ck out of the way of what is coming.

If I have a chance in the next few days, maybe I'll relate my conversation last night with my brother's 15 year old stepson regarding his arsenal and ammo, some kept in his f/cking bedroom, which included an interview I was treated to on the kid's cellphone with Ted Nugent about the killing that lout wants to see.

I didn't humor the kid. He' s a good kid in many ways, but in the midst ofthestats he was throwing around, I bet him whatever amount he could afford that he is more likely in his lifetime to accidentally shoot himself or someone else than anyofthebadguys his convinced he's surrounded by, but has never once met me or confronted.

Oh yeah and Benghazi.

When I was his age, I was trying to get the adults around me to listen to Sgt Peppers lonely hearts club band.

We're f?cked. Love is not all that we need right now.


Monsanto makes some products to that can applied aerially, but
,

Met, not met me.

Point being, I'm pretty sure the armed antiMuslim protestors don't scream conservative either. They scream lots of things but are only "conservatives" because you define them as such.

So if "open carry activist" anti-Muslim xenophobe/nationalist protesters can't be associated with conservatives because they're too outré does that mean I can write off Stalinists and PETA as certainly not liberals and "mostly disaffected conservatives" because they "are only 'liberals' because you define them as such"?

If all we can say about where someone stands politically is the conventional "left of the political center" -> "liberal" or "right of the political center" -> "conservative", the OCA AM X/N protesters are fairly unequivocally "conservative", as they display far more conventionally-accepted right-leaning behavioral markers than conventionally-accepted left-leaning ones. But if you want to get away from vague and polarized political definitions, the first step is rejecting one-dimensional political classification whereby everything maps neatly onto a linear spectrum. And a good way to start doing that is refraining from tribal defense of the vaguely (and frequently opportunistically) defined terms of conservative and liberal.

i get that some conservatives don't want to be associated with them, but these wanna-be domestic terrorists sure as hell aren't liberal, in any sense of the word.

But those aren't the only two choices. In this case, those wanna-be's are definitely neither liberal nor conservative. At best, they are radical reactionaries.

Although actually, I think "radical reactionary" merely defines most of today's visible Republican Party. Those wanna-be's are orthogonal to the left-right paradigm, being more interested in their war games than in the particular political views that give them the excuse to run amok.

"Liberal" and "conservative" used to be political classifications. Now they are basically psychiatric diagnoses.

The liberal personality disorder is characterized by a pathological inclination to compassion, founded on the premise that Other People are Like Me, coupled with an addiction to empirical reality.

The conservative personality disorder is characterized by a pathological inclination to contempt, founded on the premise that Other People are Not Like Me, coupled with an addiction to fantasies of personal superiority. Often, the delusion that My God is bigger than Your God underlies the fantasies. And of course empirical reality is merely a conspiracy cooked up by pointy-headed academics in the pay of Other People.

Persons who believe they have neither disorder are to be congratulated, if you can find one.

--TP

Tony, correlation is not the same as characterization, let alone definition.

I think most of the antiMuslims are disaffected liberals

David Wright III, disaffected liberal.
Pam Geller, disaffected liberal.
Donald Trump, disaffected liberal.

And so on...

I'll spot you Bill Maher.

Really, at this point, all that anybody can do is speak for themselves. I find it completely believable that you, Marty, do not support armed anti-Muslim demonstrations outside of mosques.

I don't think you can speak for anybody else. I.e., the fact that you are a moderate conservative and do not support the actions of folks like Wright really only speaks for you, it doesn't imply anything about any other moderate conservatives. Or any other stripe of conservative.

There are probably some liberals who are anti-Muslim, for instance Maher. All that I can say is that I don't agree with Maher.

Things are getting pretty weird out there. I thought we had gotten most of this crap out of our system by, say, the middle of the aughts.

It just went underground, waiting for the next excuse to flair up.

Persons who believe they have neither disorder are to be congratulated, if you can find one.

I'm not sure I can take credit for either an inclination to compassion or an addiction to empirical reality, but I will most definitely cop to a belief that other people are like me.

Certainly as regards the crucial stuff. Some folks, from what I hear, don't dig late-period Miles. These are things we can overlook.

I think most of the antiMuslims are ...

not true Scotsmen conservatives?

Well, in all fairness to Marty, liberals are Ted Cruz's primary voting bloc, right?

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-set-up-outside-islamic-center-of-irving.html/

I have to say, this is one of my favorite lead sentences ever:

About a dozen protesters — most carrying long guns, some masked and one with his mother — lined up outside an Irving mosque on Saturday.

Was his mother his back-up?

“We tried to talk to the mosque before we did this, but they wouldn’t return our messages,” said David Wright, dressed in black all the way from his backwards baseball cap to the barrel of his tactical shotgun. “So here we are.”

Uh huh, sounds like you just wanted to talk.

Don't know about English but in German guns talk (although mostly in German made Western pulp novels and movies or dubs of spaghetti Western*)

*e.g. "Jetzt sprechen die Pistolen" (and now the pistols are talking)

the guns just keep on talking.

terrorism in the US

how long are the rest of us - those of us who do not express our frustrations and political differences by shooting people - expected to put up with this bullshit?

when you play the 'watering the tree of liberty' 'second amendment solution' card, this is what you get.

if you call yourself a conservative, you need to address this. not with a stupid blog comment, you need to engage yourself in some kind of tangible public action to dial this crap back.

whatever else you want to say about liberals and lefties, we don't shoot people who disagree with us.

it's all on your side, as far as I can tell. not mostly, all.

this guy is no doubt a freaking nutter, but he's also no doubt a freaking nutter who's been consuming a steady diet of violent rhetoric for decades.

that rhetoric has a market, that's why it persists. and when that rhetoric is expressed, nobody takes it seriously enough to speak up against it. or, has the stones to speak up against it.

next time you hear somebody blathering on about watering the tree of liberty, or pursuing the second amendment solution, or otherwise engaging in violent jerk-off fantasies, you need to tell them to STFU, get a life, and maybe get some mental health counseling while they're at it.

if you listen to any kind of media where that kind of bullshit is on offer, you need to call the station, tell them you will not be listening anymore, then call all of the sponsors of that show and tell them you will not be purchasing their products until they drop their sponsorship. and then you need to stop listening to it.

limbaugh, fox, whatever. turn it off, and tell the sponsors you are turning it off, and why.

if your elected representatives traffic in this shit, you need to call their office and tell them they will not be getting your money or your vote until they give it a rest.

if a candidate for public office in a party you are either registered for or vote for on any kind of regular basis traffics in this shit, you need to call *their* office and tell them they will not be getting your money or your vote until they give it a rest.

if you have one of those stupid fucking 'molon labe' bumper stickers on your car, take it the hell off and burn it. nobody wants your damned gun, and you're not a spartan.

if you can't be bothered to do any of the above, you're part of the problem.

if you can't be bothered to do any of the above because in fact you think the option of shooting people who disagree with is a nice one to have in your back pocket, you aren't part of the problem, *you are the problem*.

this bullshit will continue until people refuse to put up with it. i'm a lefty, i have no particular lever to bring to bear. if you're a conservative, you do.

use it.

because the rest of us are getting fucking sick of being shot at, or threatened with being shot at.

we're peaceable folks, but only up to a point.

a better link

as always: WrS

The leaders of the American terrorist network who shot up the Black Lives Matter demo and who murdered three in Colorado Springs, including a cop, and injured more, are remarkably easy to interdict, apprehend, arrest, try, and execute for their crimes.

They go by the name Republican Party and appear often in public together in terrorist debate clubs wherein they lay out their much larger plans to murder millions of Americans once they cheat, lie, and steal their way into control of the U.S. government. They already control a majority of the outlying provinces where their terrorist activity is rampant. They sit at desks in Congress discussing in plain view their murderous terrorist plots for all to hear and record.

Some of them, including one or two vying for Supreme Leader of their movement issue orders in well-attended public speeches to their operatives to carry out killing attacks against those they hate and want dead.

Tens of millions of their followers who have infested our country via ineffective immigration policies reaching back to the Mayflower and Jamestown applaud the terrorism and their leaders' and brag openly that they are becoming massively armed to overthrow civil government and murder those they deem inferior.

When will real Americans cease their inclusive politically correct passivity and do what needs to be done to this vast terrorist network that been permitted to flourish under our noses for the past fifty or sixty years.

When?

The highest Court in the land validated their fundraising activities that finance these murders.

Why?

The only lasting solution to the threat is taking the violence directly to them in their homes, in their workplaces, and to the caves, churches, and country clubs they use as their terrorist bases.

Eleven months to an election. They will kill repeatedly from now until then.

If they win, the subhuman [email protected] will use the tremendous power of government to kill us.

I could be mistaken. These terrorists could be liberals who have grown tired of lattes, electric vehicles, and affirmative action.

But I doubt it.

We also know precisely who arms the terrorists.

According to Kevin Drum, not a single Terrorist Republican running to be killer in situ in the White House has found the time yet to condemn the Planned Parenthood murders.

This must be because the cop who was murdered and the two injured cops were employed by the university, and we know what the plans these vermin have for universities.

"The only lasting solution to the threat is taking the violence directly to them in their homes, in their workplaces, and to the caves, churches, and country clubs they use as their terrorist bases."

I don't believe this, and do not call for this.

also, calling for violence against other folks certainly strains, if not violares, posting rules here.

shooting republicans doesn't seem productive, to me.

I don't believe this, and do not call for this.

Makes sense. But when the violence card is played, it should be played with care, you know, like in 1773 inciting revolt against a small tax increase.

Whenever I meet a hard core conservative who excuses this kind of cold blooded murder citing some kind of "moral imperative" to end "abortion (a manifestly legal procedure) by "any means necessary", yet berates "the left" with bromides like, "We are a nation of laws, not men" (cf illegal immigration) I think the time has come to at least spit in their eye.

They have made us the enemy, not just the opposition.

It's a big difference.

If this keeps up, at some point, the gloves will come off.

Is Trump a fascist? More fuel for the fire.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad