« Inherent Contempt | Main | Breaking the Dictionary »

May 21, 2019

Comments

My thought is that solutions that rely on capital-intensive high technology stuff are not really gonna get it done. We should think about ways to accommodate ourselves to the world

Any reason tech can’t accomplish that, with a bit of thought ?

I guess the real 'solution' will involve killing the human 'surplus' on a scale making Hitler an Pol Pot (not to forget Stalin and Mao) envious. Don't forget, the US (upperclass) way of life is non-negotiable.

"Between 1980 and 2018, world’s population increased by 71.2 percent. The time price of commodities fell by 72.3 percent. As such, the time price of commodities declined by 1.016 percent for every 1 percent increase in the world’s population."
The Simon Abundance Index 2019: The Earth was 518.98 percent more abundant in 2018 than it was in 1980.

In anticipation of objections:

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Peak Abundance

yeah, i'm not sure adding consumers to a finite system while, making it easier for them to consume, is a path that's going to work out in the long run.

Any reason tech can’t accomplish that, with a bit of thought ?

My guess is if we maintained the same energy inputs for a LOT smaller world population (i.e., major resource input reallocation) that tech could possibly do that. Maybe some Kuznets type could look into it. But....

Our current industrial civilization and way of life is locked in.

This will not be pretty. Peak abundance (good one HSH) it is.

My thought is that solutions that rely on capital-intensive high technology stuff are not really gonna get it done.

It's interesting to run through Biden and Inslee's energy plans with this in mind.

Biden says we'll invent carbon capture and sequestration tech that will work. We'll invent new cheap nuclear fission reactors. We'll invent really, really cheap batteries. We'll figure out ways to make so much biofuel, so cheaply (and implicitly without disrupting food crops) that we can continue to use 25% thermal-efficiency internal combustion engines. In ten years we'll be ready to start deploying all of that on a big scale.

Inslee says we have enough tech: hydro, wind, solar, HVDC transmission, adequate batteries to cover >90% of the use-cases for cars, adequate tech to electrify >90% of building HVAC. Start deploying now, and we'll worry about the last hard cases last.

When you start putting the pieces together, what you find is that Inslee is proposing a plan for the Western Interconnect and Biden is proposing a plan for the Eastern Interconnect and neither one works very well in the other half of the country.

Don't mess with Texas, Michael?

Texas is its own special thing :^) Isn't that always true?

Just ask any Texan!

A lot of people in Texas seem to have forgotten the "Don't mess with Texas" message that meant don't litter the streets and highways. :( Maybe it's all those people from California...

More seriously, the Texas Interconnect lacks the resource and geographic diversity that renewables have in the West. They lack the general water richness of the East (IIRC, during the last big Texas drought they came close to having to shut down one of their nukes over cooling water limits). OTOH, if they close the pipelines at the border, they're probably sitting on a thousand-year supply of natural gas, which plays nicely with irregular wind and solar. Decisions, decisions.

Michael Cain - any good analysis articles to link to for the competing plans? All I'm finding on a shallow search are links to the press releases or to the media's summaries of the releases, which are mostly useless.

Nous, I don't know of any. I've been thinking about trying to write one, but it would be difficult. Few (if any) of the plans provide any numbers, or details about how the proposed pieces are supposed to fit together. Many have a lot of extraneous (from my perspective) stuff. Eg, the Green New Deal spends a lot of effort making the case that we can print essentially unlimited money to pay for it, whatever "it" turns out to be.

Inslee is kind of unusual. He or his staff has pretty clearly (and not surprisingly) been reading the Western Governors Association energy documents. WGA, particularly driven by the 11 contiguous states from the Rockies to the Pacific, has taken the subject seriously for many years. Their reports also point to some of the relevant work done at the national labs.

also, Biden's plan is... maybe not entirely original work.

Just think of it as an homage to his 1988 run.

All of this misses the point, perhaps ?

None of the various plans will survive contact with reality - in the same manner that our plans for WWII, other than to fight, were utterly incoherent at the start of the war.
Before any of that, you at least need an administration committed to doing something.

The good news is that the likely annual cost is likely to be far less than the near 40% of GDP that US war spending peaked at in 1945 - likely around 2-3% of GDP, and that being invested in productive rather then destructive assets.
Though it will be a decades long commitment.

Or you could re-elect this....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/05/donald-trump-tells-prince-charles-us-is-clean-on-climate-change
‘Well, the United States right now has among the cleanest climates there are based on all statistics.’...

So it starts to penetrate their thick heads that this was an own-goal:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9224876/donald-trump-nhs-not-table-trade-piers-morgan/

Some good advice from Wittes:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bows-out-what-does-congress-do-now
words, fighting over the redactions in the Mueller report is a legal slog; it risks doing institutional damage; and it’s not likely to produce much that’s useful—especially because much of the redacted information is, in any event, available already to congressional leadership.

The better approach, in my view, is to focus on live testimony from witnesses who supplied the material about President Trump’s conduct that Mueller made public in the report—mostly but not exclusively in Volume II. There are a lot of these witnesses. Congress could easily hold weekly hearings that would be riveting television. Who knows? They might even get what the president most values in the world: good ratings....

If we could only keep our bestest crystal clear cleanest waters and our can't miss extreme weathery climate from leaking out of America's porous borders and prevent other countries' air and their sense of pollution from going up, think how warm Prince Charles would feel, statistically speaking.

Just shoot me.

The problem with brownish immigrants is that they smuggle all of that up air and carbon dioxide across our borders by holding their breath in their lungs, and then once they get here, they exhale.

At the very least, we should make them exhale BEFORE they invade.

The only good immigrant is a suffocating immigrant turning blue.

The reality of Trump and the parody of Trump are one and the same.

The only good immigrant is a suffocating immigrant turning blue

I thought them being and voting blue was the problem.

Any money available for combatting climate change will be put into the (never audited) Pentagon budget. Apart from the severe shortage in horses and bayonets, there is a painful lack of coal-fired battleships in the US Navy. Time for the MAGA class of hyperdreadnoughts.

The reality of Trump and the parody of Trump are one and the same.

Not convinced. Trump manages to exceed what we thought was parody on a regular basis.

A picture to drive the wingnuts crazy. Er...crazier.
https://twitter.com/jiwandeepkohli/status/1134936235468660737

Especially since Obama apparently re-tweeted it.

Another Trump foreign policy achievement:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/06/06/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/putin-xi-hail-burgeoning-russia-china-ties/

"It is finally over, then, the state visit during which U.S. President Donald Trump treated Britain like a Moscow hotel mattress. God, we deserved it.”

The entertaining (if depressing) piece from which JDT took that quote:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2019/jun/05/donald-trump-is-the-one-person-whos-more-of-a-political-basket-case-than-britain

My favourite (if depressing) bit:

Much as a toddler intimidated by a new present will play with the box instead, Trump dealt with the aspects of the visit that were beyond his skillset by returning to areas firmly within it. In Westminster Abbey, he was shown a white marble slab commemorating the Romantic poet Lord Byron, and took the opportunity to ask what stone the flooring was made from. Doubtless it will make a lovely splashback when they refit the executive bathroom at Mar-a-Lago.

From the comments:

styxanstanes 5 Jun 2019 16:13

Excellent clinical dispatch Marina; thank christ at least one commentator is honest enough to openly laugh at the pudgy emperor and his invisible attire rather than indulge in meaningless "analysis" of the "significance" of this sick, irrelevant and utterly banal charade. Trump is in essence a stupid liar with a non-existent grasp of diplomatic and political subtlety, next to no creative proposition on any issue, and displaying a consistently stunning lack of self awareness. It's been shocking to witness the televisual media in particular being unwilling or unable to call out this charlatan. I felt for the Irish premier having to sit through a ten minute dose of embarrassing verbal slush which unfortunately accurately represented Trump's outlook on the Irish border question. Unchallenged unhinged views on climate change, delivered repetitively and meaninglessly were equally beyond ridicule. He flounders, he offends, contributing nothing but the propagation of hatred, division and untruths. God fucking help us all when there's so much obvious media complicity in keeping up the dutiful respect for this dangerous and wholly loathsome fake, seemingly smugly ensconced beyond the spears of probing criticism.

Okay, my favorite bit:

As far as the real royals go, Camilla’s possible wink at the cameras was greeted by some as “epic trolling”. Incorrect. The Tea Act of 1773 was epic trolling. Or to put it another way, in the Profit column I’ve got “a £40m state visit”, and in the Loss column I’ve got “a wink”. Wake up.

I can't help laughing out loud at stuff like this, even though the proper reaction to the whole spectacle is grief and rage.

Hyde's take on the media reminds me of a moment I had forgotten: when Diana died, someone upstairs from me put the TV on, and I stopped by now and then and watched snippets of the coverage of her funeral. I had long since stopped watching TV (I know, I'm culturally illiterate), and two things struck me immediately that would have been harder (for me at least) to notice if I were a habitual watcher:

1) the performance of a certain tone on the part of the commentators, and

2) the utter inanity of what they were saying in that tone, having, as they did, to fill hours and hours of air time without saying anything of any significance whatsoever. It was much better with the sound off, just watching the pageantry.

Funny the kind of thought trains that weave themselves around the royal family. ;-)

heh, perhaps part of the British media's problem is that they haven't seen enough of Trump. After all, it's only now, after 2+ years in office, that American media have gotten to the point of describing Trump's falsehoods as lies.

I can't help laughing out loud at stuff like this, even though the proper reaction to the whole spectacle is grief and rage.

Exactly my feelings. When I laugh at the marble question, and that the US has one of "the cleanest climates there are", I immediately afterwards feel sick at what is actually happening, and being normalised.

I still have a hard time accepting the absurd reality of the Trump presidency. It occasionally strikes me as being impossible to this day, even after 2-1/2 years of it. It's a goddam Simpsons gag come to life.

I'm not sure if part of it is my being from New Jersey and having seen him as a tabloid freak-show character over 3 decades (plus a few years). It doesn't seem to bother a good number of my fellow New Jerseyans, though. It's a head-scratcher.

i'm still baffled at just how stupid and short-sighted GOP primary voters turned out to be. yes, they won the WH, but at such an enormous cost to the country and to their own brand.

on the other hand: the insincerity of their loudly-proclaimed principles is clear for all to see. so, that's a boon.

What hsh said.

p.s. I am not from New Jersey.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." —H.L. Mencken

It's a goddamed Simpsons gag come to life:

Yeah, well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyKMbq80gjo

The Simpsons, like Shakespeare, touched on EVERYTHING in the human condition.

Beyond comprehension.

My kingdom for a horse's ass.

Fucking hell, you absolutely could not make it up:

GOP Chairwoman Claims D-Day Anniversary Should Be About ‘Celebrating Our President’ Ronna McDaniel made the comment on Fox Business while griping about the media coverage of Trump’s European trip.

Her actual tweet, on the GOP Twitter feed:

GOP ✔ @GOP @GOPChairwoman: We are celebrating the anniversary, 75 years of D-Day. This is the time where we should be celebrating our President, the great achievements of America, and I don't think the American people like the constant negativity.

I'm grateful that he didn't take the occasion of the D-Day remembrance to talk about the very fine people on both sides.

Heard Michael Benet, Senator from CO and Yet Another (D) Candiate For POTUS in 2020, on the radio night before last.

Sensible guy. I probably prefer Warren on the issues, Bennet is probably an easier sell to The Heartland.

If the primary was today, we'd probably get Biden. Dear Uncle Joe - how can we miss you when you won't go away?

the past shouts:

In Gallup's latest poll, conducted June 11-14, 2007, Clinton leads Obama by 11 points among Democrats (33% to 21%).

I got e-mail from the Inslee campaign this morning saying that the Democratic National Committee had turned down their request to have one of the debates dedicated to climate change. Perhaps more interesting, the e-mail said the DNC had threatened that any candidate taking part in a non-DNC debate on climate change would be barred from any future DNC debates.

I sent the Inslee campaign some money because I want the topic front and center. Clearly, the DNC and I disagree on its importance.

frankly, a single-issue debate with 24 people who probably all agree on the big picture doesn't seem like it would be very interesting. there wouldn't be much debate, just a bunch of "i agree with what [the last person to speak] said".

IMO

I see cleek's point, but this:

the DNC had threatened that any candidate taking part in a non-DNC debate on climate change would be barred from any future DNC debates

is mind-boggling. WTMFF?

It's a goddamed Simpsons gag come to life

JDT, it is obvious from looking at the video on that link that the writers for the Simpsons were in possession of a time machine! Who knew?

i haven't seen the DNC's actual letter (though i searched a bit for it), but i wonder if the intent there is more like "don't do non-DNC debates on any topic."

I can see where the DNC might be concerned about debates where someone restricted participation on a basis different from the one they are using. If it was a basis which allowed more participants, I would see that as a non-issue. But if it was a basis which rather tightly restricted participation, thus squeezing out candidates who might be (inconveniently) surging, that could be a real problem.

also, just for the record: the quicker this primary turns into another anti-establishment celebration of performative ideological purity, the quicker i'm going to lose interest.

(that was not directed at anyone here)

So on the D-Day see-saw of emotions, two stories:

Someone I used to know who was a young officer on D-Day, when as you know the exact date had been kept secret til that day, used to tell the story of how he was woken by his batman with the immortal words "Morning sir. Tea sir. Invasion sir."

And I've just been reduced almost to tears (I'm the equivalent of a cheap date these days) by a meeting engineered by Channel 4 News between Harry Reid, 95 years old, who parachuted yesterday onto the same beach he parachuted onto 75 years ago, and a German who was 18 on that day, fighting on the same beach. They had never met before, and discussed the blessings of the peace that D-Day bought, and which must still be fought for, and parted with the German saying "We are friends, we understand each other, we feel the same", and Harry Reid saying "We are more than friends, we are brothers."

Why not celebrate the president on D-Day? Ike has been neglected a bit lately.
Although "We salute the last decent Republican in the White House for his prior deeds in WW2" may be slightly too divisive.

the quicker i'm going to lose interest.

Boredom really isn't an option, cleek. I mean, I get what you're saying, but we have to have a plan, stick with it, and win. I'm not so confident about the elections for so many reasons. But if we can't deal with the Democratic Party's internecine arguments (which are annoying as hell), then those of us who feel that way have to figure out how to work on things in a different way.

This is the anniversary of D-Day. We were well organized then. We have to find a way to do that again. No drop-outs, even if the work is tedious and miserable.

At the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson makes an interesting point about Russian interference in our elections.

Only someone without a clue would fail to realize that he could be the victim of such meddling in 2020.
Ya know, it's true. Putin could well decide that having Trump lose, complete with accusations of foul play (albeit directed at Democrats, rather than Russians), would be to his advantage. Considering how long Trump's fans have been embracing the Lost Cause, Putin could be right that it would keep paying off for decades.

we have to have a plan, stick with it, and win.

My plan is simple. Whoever has a (D) after their name, gets my vote. Not excluding the proverbial ham sandwich.

If they dig up John Silber and run him, he'll get my vote.

It's even come to that.

WRS

+ extra enthusiasm, even if fake.

I found this surprising not sure why

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jim-sciuttos-quiet-indictment-of-the-obama-administration/ar-AACv5Ha

I'm skipping Marty's comment - not sure why.

But, I will say that fighting the current situation may require actual interaction with people in person. Because broadcasting our strategy to the world is probably not helpful?

Not sure how to organize that though. People here, who are smarter than me, can give a hint?

Bloomberg affirms his commitment to spend $500m on climate change campaign:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/447401-bloomberg-pledges-500-million-to-close-coal-fired-power-plants

The only negative I have on this is that 2030 is way to slow to shutter coal fired plants. Replacing them with CCGT plants before you can ramp renewables is the lowest hanging fruit of reducing CO2 emissions.

It could be done in half that time.

Fucking hell, you absolutely could not make it up:

That is the party of Trump.
A point reinforced by the spectacle of Trump standing in front of Normandy war graves as he delivered potshots at Pelosi and Mueller...

RIP Dr John.

If I don't do it you know somebody else will...

I found this surprising not sure why

i was surprised to see a National Review page come up under an MSN URL.

It hadn’t occurred to me before, but actually ‘gobshite’ was always the perfect epithet:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-gobshite-american-president-in-ireland

Every President with a beard has been a Republican.

I did not independently verify this assertion.l

I found this surprising not sure why

Not me.

R.I.P. Dr. John. Hard to imagine a world without him.

So Thinking about it, I was surprised that these State department folks felt a more aggressive approach was called for. Although at least the author wasn't a career diplomat.

Look, over there! Obama!

Look, over there! W!

US foreign policy toward Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been less than vigorous. Romney is the only guy I can think of other than weird old cold warriors who saw Putin and Russia as a threat.

Europeans, especially Russia's near neighbors, have been much more concerned about Putin's ambitions.

Sometimes we get things wrong. Or, sometimes different approaches are needed at different points in time.

I've posted in the past about enjoying the livestreams from Okeanos Explorer. Today I bring you another source for the same kind of thing, streaming from Exploration Vessel Nautilus. This is a project led by a foundation funded by Robert Ballard, the guy who discovered the Titanic, who's always been very enthusiastic about telepresence. EV Nautilus uses the same kind of two-remotely-operated-vehicle rig as Okeanos Explorer, one ROV to get very close to the sea floor and one to hang back several meters, tend cables, and get an overall view. You can hear the team that operates the ROVs and the science crew looking at the data coming in, requesting new targets, and like that.

Their website links to their Youtube channel with the pair of video feeds, one from each vehicle. It's a well-done site.

This morning, as I type, they're diving on a seamount in the eastern Pacific, taking temperature and gas composition samples from lil' geysers at around 2700 meters. Some of the images are just spectacular, with tight zooms that let you see the very sharp boundaries of emerging jets of superheated water from underground. And as always, for me, listening to happy scientists and engineers enjoying their work is a warm, nostalgic kind of thing.

http://www.nautiluslive.org

I'm not sure why commenting on an article about a book that happened to pop up on my news feed was Look, Over There. I thought the outlook was interesting and surprising. I guess it wasnt.

Being soft on Russia and China, especially China is a bipartisan long term problem imo. But this just caught my attention.

Europeans, especially Russia's near neighbors, have been much more concerned about Putin's ambitions.

After seeing what happened to Georgia and Ukraine, how could they not be? Especially the Baltics -- there's a reason they are among NATO's biggest fans. (And why one of them has the most, per capita, casualties of all those fighting in Afghanistan. Which is, after all, the only place where the alliance's mutual defense clause has been invoked -- a fact of which Trump is doubtless ignorant.)

I'm not sure why commenting on an article about a book that happened to pop up on my news feed was Look, Over There.

Because you appear to be attempting to deflect criticism of Trump et al by citing criticisms of Obama on a tangentially related issue.

Deciding whether that perception is arrived at fairly or not, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

US presidents can't make Putin obey them. That's not surprising.

I can't tell from the article what Sciutto wanted Obama to do about that, other than shout more.

If you're not willing to go to war over something, then all you've got is some combination of diplomatic and economic pressure. And make it as easy as possible for your adversary to do what you want. That was Obama's policy.

Or you might prefer the Trump approach - make it clear that you like Putin better than NATO, not least because he helped you get elected. Perhaps a nice guy like Putin will respond to that by forsaking aggression. Or perhaps not.

was Obama naive about Russia? sure.

but he didn't claim to have seen Putin's soul. and he didn't welcome (or receive) Russia's help in getting elected President. and he didn't relax sanctions on Russia for doing the things the article blames on Obama.

but, NR's gotta NR. they gotta shit on Dems - even if it means pretending Republicans aren't guilty of far worse.

so, i loved that article. i loved how perfectly it portrays modern Republicanism.

although... nobody embodies is as purely as Sean Hannity.


https://www.vox.com/2019/6/7/18656356/hannity-lock-them-up-pelosi-trump

China supplies ballistic missile technology to our Saudi friends...
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-arabia-secretly-purchased-ballistic-missiles-china-report

So unless a topic directly applies to Trump, preferably negatively we just dont discuss it. Got it. I wasnt actually thinking of it in relation to anything but interesting historical information.

So unless a topic directly applies to Trump, preferably negatively we just dont discuss it.

He writes after someone discusses it.

China supplies ballistic missile technology to our Saudi friends...

hey, that's our job!
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/us/saudi-arabia-arms-sales-raytheon.html

So unless a topic directly applies to Trump, preferably negatively we just dont discuss it. Got it.

surely, part of the discussion of our policy towards Russia and China is noting that the story doesn't start or end with Obama.

sorry if that wrecks the narrative.

I wasnt actually thinking of it in relation to anything but interesting historical information.

It may be helpful to introduce a topic by talking about what it was you found interesting.

What does "soft" mean?

Detail what "hard" would mean.

I'm also fascinated by the word "quiet" in the link's headline.

If I can hear it, it's not quiet.

Interestingly, everything Obama did not do ..... the fullness of time will
tell us what we need to know ...... is hardily endorsed, though of course they won't admit it, by most of the writers over at the American Conservative, who want no American involvement abroad, so that's another feather in Obama's conservative cap, if conservatives were giving out feathers, which they are not.

Larison, while somewhat an isolationist, agrees with Obama's cautious entreaties to Iran and believes p's reversals are monumentally disastrous and could lead to total war in the Middle East, and I'll add that it could lead to nuclear confrontation.

Much of Obama's distaste for international confrontation was a direct result of the disastrous second Iraq War and his reading of Americans' desire to turn inward, though of course he, according to isolationist conservatives, was too aggressive in Libya and other places.

Of course, what would Sciuttos have us do in each of the cases he "quietly" cites?

Short of military confrontation, because the populations of the relevant countries can live with trade embargos and other measures a lot longer than Americans can stand to do without the world's product?

It was conservatives who pushed the ideology of global free trade, at its root a good thing, but without attending to the unforeseen (bullshit, many foresaw the downsides for American workers, but shit conservatives and corporations wanted union busting, low wages, benefit cuts, unregulated business practices, etc) consequences (those items they are always nattering on about when a liberal sneezes in the wrong direction) and NOW it's conservatives who want to blow up the global trading system, after it is well in place, and just like their support for the system for decades, it must be utter and complete, with no compromise or even attention paid to the losers resulting from these vast changes.

How touchingly innocent Kudlow and the rest of them seemed decades ago when they thought China would not game the system, no, free trade is the absolute unalloyed good, not to be mitigated with domestic programs to assist the losers. Now, the same always-wrong asshole walks around telling us the absolute opposite, in the same absolutely certain tones, and implies his absolutely certain prosperity gospel gods came up with both ideas and shall not be questioned.

Fuck him!

Conservatism, a series of contradictory bad ideas (oh, look open free markets ... unreservedly fantastic and profitable .. Whoops, oh look, the opioid epidemic as a result, along with the unregulated corporations and medical practitioners mainlining the underemployed and forgotten working class with the stuff) one after the other, forced upon us with no attempt at softening the edges and compromising for the sake of the losers.

STFU conservatives or we'll shut you the fuck up.


russell, I will not post anything in the future unless I have a well thought out cogent reason I thought it was interesting that I can articulate in depth.

Even John couldnt bring himself to discuss it except in terms of yeah but conservatives should be shot.

This was an Obama appointee and his boss reflecting on, mostly as I read it, the hesitance to call out Russia and China. Not necessarily to act. Being more careful than was warranted and slow to take a position.

Still an open thread, so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb8E20-ZYW4

my favourite Dr John song (if you hadn't guessed from the original quotation), and probably my favourite version (although I was tempted by his his version in The Last Waltz - my favourite Rock n Roll movie).

Thank God it's still possible to be transported away from politics (and I include it all in that: Trump, Brexit, Putin etc etc) to somewhere else, and somewhere marvellous at that.

yeah man, let's take a day offa politics and just listen to Dr John all day.

Junco Partner.

the Doctor def had the NOLA party vibe but he also went some dark places.

American voodoo underbelly

I have had him in my headphones since last night Such a Night is posted in my Instagram. This week I lost, and yes I feel I personally lost, two of my all time favorites in Dr. John and Leon Redbone.

Some days I think politics not a valuable use of my time, the pace of my world dying away overcomes me and convinces me to leave it to my kids.

yes, indeed.

The Doctor wants on gilded splinters, little more modern version.

Giddi come come.

On the other hand, nothing but fun.

as an aside, and with reference to that last video, it's a crime that more people don't know what a freaking brilliant guitarist Nils Lofgren is.

tone like the finest silk

I sometimes think Rod Dreher at TAC should be shot, too, but he gets a reprieve for this post:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/chris-arnade-america-dignity/

Marty, I paid respect to you by reading the link .... Twice. And commenting on it, albeit not without my usual boilerplate.

Obama, the cautious moderate conservative, can be criticized. Also shot, by other conservatives who have the means to do it and frequently expressed the desire, by packing when Obama was in the vicinity trying to obtain the latter healthcare for the gunshot wounds the Secret Service and the FBI would have visited upon them.

But, I want to know, should those Chinese-made islands in the South China Sea be blown up by the American Navy?

It takes 90 minutes to know everything a person needs to know about nuclear weapons, according to he who knows all.

Maybe another 45 minutes for Americans at large to know .... when the warheads land here.


On the Doctor: fantastic, all of it!

(russell, I don't think your Giddi come come link is working, unless it's just me)

There's only one link in the "giddiness come come" post, I don't know why the rest of the text is underlined.

Stupid computers.

John,

In answer to your only question, not unless they fire at our ships from them. Then, yes. But, what do I know. I should have noted that the first half of your comment was on point. Thanks.

russell, Nils Lofgren is way under known, I started to say underrated but your take is right.

Another I like

https://youtu.be/hVL2_gY2-ew

Got it!

"Some days I think politics is not a valuable use of my time."

Truer words are not available. We'd all be better off splitting hogs like Slart.

But the internet would collapse.

traditions must be observed.

There's a very good article by Joseph Stiglitz on the future of capitalism in the the TLS:

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/capitalism-ethical-economics-joseph-stiglitz/

Regarding Russia, I hate Putin and everything he stands for, but what people seem to be incapable of understanding is that he's just pursuing the bog standard objectives of politics driven by the "national interest", like many other nations.

It's not pretty, and I would hope that eventually a more collaborative way of dealing with each other will take hold.
But Americans or the British singling out Putin, Iran, China, or whoever the threat du jour might be, is either complete ignorance or astounding hypocrisy.

The worst thing is, it makes a constructive dialogue impossible: if the counterpart is regarded as inherently evil or irrational, there is no way of finding a political solution.

Cf.

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/17/new-york-times-iran-israel-washington-think-tanks/


have a great big dose of the doctor.

I love the tradition, I occasionally just hum that to myself fo no reason I'm through '75 listening to his albums in order on Spotify.

While I work of course.

and I would hope that eventually a more collaborative way of dealing with each other will take hold.

since it won't, what's plan B ?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad