I'm reposting this here since Wordpress stinks for editing. There's a quote in here which it doesn't do. I also wanted to add a video. That said:
I made a comment about how people in Europe kill each other over what religion they practise or language they speak. Slavic languages have the added factor of varying alphabets, which is interesting when you deal with the pan-Slavic crowd. They sort of have a point in that the languages are similar enough that you can be understood about the way most Scandanavians can understand each other. Then you get to the Alphabets. The former Yugoslavia was torn apart by religion and differences in Alphabets. Likewise, Polish and Ukrainian are fairly similar until you get to the Alphabet.
This is the Polish alphabet.
The Ł is pronounced like Elmer Fudd saying the letter "W". So, Wrocław is pronounced like Vroswav. In my opinion, the German transliteration of Breslaw (with a German accent) works better for non-Poles. The alphabet is a romanised version of Ukrainian/cyrillic.
Ukrainian and Russian both use the Cyrillic alphabet, but slightly different versions. There are four letters in Ukrainian missing from Russian (ґ, є, і, ї), and four letters in Russian missing from Ukrainian (ё, ъ, ы, э). Also:
One frequently cited figure is that Ukrainian and Russian share about 62% of their vocabulary. This is about the same amount of shared vocabulary that English has with Dutch, according to the same calculations. If you expand your sample by scraping internet data to compare a broader range of words than just those 200 ancient “core” words, the proportion of shared words declines. One computational model suggests that Russian and Ukrainian share about 55% of their vocabulary.
Using that higher figure of 62%, though, a Russian with no knowledge of Ukrainian (or vice versa) would understand roughly five in eight words. To understand this, have a friend cross out three out of every eight words in a newspaper and see how much of the text you can follow.
Anyway, the Cyrillic alphabet also was a force which prevented Russians from invading a good part of Western Europe. I mean, can most people read Cyrillic? Now, turn it around to the Roman alphabet for the average Slavic language speaker. You don't need guns to prevent a Russian invasion--Road signs work quite well.
On the other hand, these nations have different enough cultures that it requires a certain amount of sensitivity toward that fact which gets into how one transliterates Kyiv (or pronounces it for that matter).
More like Kew, or the "ł" in Polish, which I learned from my Ukrainian cousin.
My "slavic" heritage is more western (Ukraine, Poland, "Czechoslovakia"{1}, etc.) with my ancestors being definitely Austro-Hungarian. This is why I was musing on this topic: way more variation in Slavic languages outside of Russia.
Footnote:
{1} this saves listing a bunch of former and current countries due to European cartographical changes.
I used a picture of a costume Gendarme the last time I did this post on this subject. This time I am using actual material from the French Gendarmerie Nationale. Those who do not understand French can turn on autotranslated English subtitles.
The Maréchaussée, a precursor to the Gendarmerie Nationale dates back to the Middle Ages. Some historians tracing it back to the early 12th century around the commencement of the Hundred Years War.. The Current version of the Gendarmerie dates to when Maréchaussée was organised in 1536, or, formally, the Constabulary and Marshalcy of France (connétablie et maréchaussée de France). Gens d'Armes (men at arms) is a term used in even older sources. That's why I included "Second Amendment History" as a subject here. The Gendarmerie is a force of the nation for the protection and security of the people. It has been a military force since its inception. This is different from the Anglo-American sense of the police, and military, as being subordinate to the citizenry.
The basics:
The National Gendarmerie is one of two
national law enforcement forces of France, along with the National
Police. The Gendarmerie is a branch of the French Armed Forces placed
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, with additional
duties from the Ministry of Armed Forces.
In short, it is an internal army, which is a no-no in Anglo-American, especially American, tradition.
The first video is a short video on the history of the Gendarmerie Nationale:
The next clip requires some explanation since there are two different branches of the Gendarmerie Nationale: the Gendarmerie Départementale and the Gendarmerie Mobile (OK, three if you count the Garde Républicaine). The next video has more than you ever wanted to know about the organisation of the Gendarmerie Nationale. It does a lot of things.
Now, let's get specific as to the two main groups
The Gendarmerie Départementale is best explained by comparing it to US state police forces. It is in charge of policing small towns and rural areas. The Departmental Gendarmerie carries out the general public order duties
in municipalities with a population of up to 20,000 citizens. When that limit is exceeded, the jurisdiction over the municipality is turned over to the National Police.
The Gendarmerie Mobile is an internal military force organized into the seven regions of the Mobile Gendarmerie (one for each of the seven military regions of metropolitan France, called (Zones de Défense). It comprises 18 Groups (Groupements de Gendarmerie mobile) featuring 109 squadrons for a total of approximately 11,300 personnel. Its main responsibilities are:
crowd and riot control
general security in support of the Departmental Gendarmerie
military and defense missions
missions that require large amounts of personnel (Vigipirate counter-terrorism patrols, searches in the countryside...)
Nearly 20% of the Mobile Gendarmerie squadrons are permanently deployed on a rotational basis in the French overseas territories. Other units deploy occasionally abroad alongside French troops engaged in military operations (OPEX or external operations).
The Mobile Gendarmerie includes GBGM (Groupement Blindé de la Gendarmerie Nationale), an armored grouping composed of seven squadrons equipped with VXB armoured personnel carriers, better known in the Gendarmerie as VBRG (Véhicule Blindé à Roues de la Gendarmerie, "Gendarmerie armoured wheeled vehicle"). It is based at Versailles-Satory. This unit also specializes in Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense (CBRN) defense.
This system is unlike the US, which has the Posse Comitatus Act a United
States law which limits the powers of the federal government in the use of
federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the
United States, France has a professional military which works internally with no issues to that. To some extent, the British also use their military for civil defence. The Militia in the United States, which is now the National Guard, and has the powers to enforce internal order given to it under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming,
and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as
may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the
States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority
of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress;
The founders' intent was to have a civilian force, instead of a professional military one, to handle the tasks which are delegated to the Gendarmerie Mobile in France. This is due to a cultural difference where the Anglo-American tendency is to dislike large standing military forces. Or as the Virginia Constitution of 1776 states in its Bill of Rights:
Sec. 13. That a well-regulated militia,
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper,
natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time
of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all
cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed
by, the civil power.
I should add that modern police forces are a new thing in Anglo-American tradition dating back to the early to mid 19th Century. There were night watches and other non-professional forms of law enforcement early on. Modern policing only began to emerge in the U.S. in the mid-nineteenth century, influenced by the British model of policing established in 1829 based on the principles of Sir Robert Peel.
Sir Robert Peel created what is termed an ethical police force. The approach expressed in these principles is commonly known as policing by consent in the United Kingdom and other countries such as Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
In this model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.
The first organized, publicly-funded professional full-time police services were established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854.
As I said, the difference in attitude is based upon cultural differences.
This is interesting. I wouldn't say that I am a total Tucker Carlson fan, but I did start watching him during the Covid. This is an interesting take on him and his show. I have to agree with this since I feel the same way as Russell Brand does and he makes a lot of very interesting points.
These videos are more press release than research paper, designed to show
the subject in the best possible light. I doubt we’ll see Atlas running
cross-country races any time soon, and there are a whole host of
limitations, from battery life to noisiness, which would need to be
overcome for success in the wild, or even a warehouse. Still, if you’re
in any doubt as to what its creators have accomplished, or how hard this
is to do, I’ll leave you with a compilation of some of its peers.
Sure, it's neat to see videos of robots jumping up and down while doing things that would be impossible for most people. On the other hand, I wonder how fake those happen to be. Are the interviews with AI chatbots staged by people who know what to ask.
Yes, yet another attempt to get information from a computer "gatekeeper" which ended in failure.
You can't really complain to the company since the AI won't let you talk to a person: especially if your query isn't in their menu of options. This is why a human is far better than a machine--no matter how "intelligent" it may appear.
In this current case--I have received notice that a shipment is on its way from a company I am not familiar with. I contacted the company, but this shipment appears to be a mistake. So, I thought I would try to find out more from the carrier.
Unfortunately, the AI works as a gatekeeper to prevent me from actually getting help with my issue.
As I said, AI is more useless than trying to talk to someone in a call centre who happens to speak my language as a second language: if even that. At least the person in the call centre will make some effort. The machine lacks empathy and understanding of the actual issue.
The only thing to worry about artificial intelligence is that there isn't some form of human check to keep if from doing what it does best.
It was very weird for me to watch the coronations of Charles and Camilla on French TV. There was the distance caused by the language and commentary. Also, it seemed like something from the past, which it is. But it seemed even more anachronistic.
Toss in that it is way more ostentatious than any of the other European monarchies, there are 12 of them, six of which are members of the EU (Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden). Things have changed quite a bit since at the start of the 20th century only France, Switzerland and San Marino were the only European nations to have a republican form of government.
Unfortunately for the people who want to say the US is a republic, not a democracy, the only real difference between those two systems of government are that democracy has the ability to be a monarchy. Euronews has an interesting article: Politics and popularity: Why are there still so many monarchies in Europe? It's not the only news source discussing European monarchies.
I'm not sure how I feel about monarchy these days. Although I do side with the comment that “There is no contradiction between a country being a monarchy and being an advanced democracy”. Also, “One of the roles for the royal family is to be a symbol for the nation as a whole and therefore the monarch as an institution has to strive to represent the whole of the nation.”
Monarchy unifies a nation as Clement Atlee said: “Far less danger under a constitutional monarchy of being carried away by a Hitler, a Mussolini or even a de Gaulle.” That's an interesting thought to ponder in light of US politics.
Hang around me and start talking about technology and you will hear the term Luddite. The Luddites were people in early 19th Century England who hated technology. They are the ones who put the spanner in the machine. These days, they would just unplug the thing. Or to quote History.com:
“Luddite” is now a blanket term used to describe people who dislike new
technology, but its origins date back to an early 19th-century labor
movement that railed against the ways that mechanized manufactures and
their unskilled laborers undermined the skilled craftsmen of the day.
I'm not exactly sure where I stand in this spectrum, but I am less enthusiastic, or frightened, about AI than most people. On the other hand, it does tend to replace humans who are actually much better at interacting with other humans than a machine.
Machines are like people who have a limited understanding of a language, yet are working where they need total fluency and proficiency. Sometimes, they don't even rise to that level as the Comcast "intelligent assistant demonstrates". I kept asking it the same question and wanting to speak to a human, but it ended up disconnecting me.
I find interactions with Artificial Intelligence to be more frustrating than helpful. And once one sees past the illusion, AI proves to be totally useless. One doesn't need Luddites to smash the machine: the machine is useless. Still, the bosses would prefer to spend the money on technological toys than hire people to actually do the job.
I was going to give ChatGPT a try to see how long it would take to show it isn't worth the hype, but I would need to sign up for an account. That doesn't make me trust it since there is no disclaimer as to what this company will do with my information.
I have tinkered with AI art programmes with varying results: most of which I would consider crap. Of course, some people find the results to be incredible.
On the other hand, AI is worse than the call centres in some country where they do not speak my language as a first language. Although, in reality, they are both pretty bad. At least the human is making an effort to communicate.
A computer can't.
It cannot truly empathise with your situation. It doesn't really understand what is happening. It only compares what it is being told to possible scripts, but life is not scripted.
So, don't worry--just unplug the thing. And hope that business will realise that it isn't saving money in the long run--especially if they start haemorraging customers.
As I detail in my book, DNA samples recovered in Egypt from the New
Kingdom to the Roman Period reveal that Egyptians had predominantly
southern European and Near Eastern ancestry; sub-Saharan African
ancestry didn’t exceed 15 percent in the ancient times and doesn’t
exceed 21 percent in Egypt today. So it’s safe to say that even with
some Egyptian heritage, in today’s terms she wouldn’t have been Black
but biracial.
There are quite a few important things to keep in mind here since the Mediterranean is surrounded by three continents: Europe, Africa, and Asia and there was trade between those continents from pre-historic times (yes). OK, this map is modern, but the geography is pretty much timeless.
You might be able to try and waffle that sub-Saharan Africa wasn't part of the trade, but the Gahanian and Malian Empires pretty much refute that: toss in the Kerma culture of Nubia for good measure.
It's simplistic to think of Europe as being this island in the upper parts of the Eastern (and some Western) Hemisphere isolated from the rest of the "known world": especially when you think of "here be monsters" on old maps. But the Hereford Mappa Mundi includes India.
I have no problem with the actress playing Cleopatra since she pretty much looks like what I would expect a Cleopatra to look like, instead of Elizabeth Taylor. Biracial and lighter complected.
Just because I identify with the Eastern Hemisphere, and Europe, doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that other cultures haven't been influential in Europe. It's hard to deny when Africa is touching Iberia at the west.
I know the person who repaired Hunter's laptop--this sucker is real.
It's not Russian disinformation.
The same thing applies to my lack of support for Hillary Clinton. I was an early Sanders supporter and I considered it a joke since I knew the Democrats would never allow him to run.
The nice thing is that the Democrats can continue to neglect the problems with their party, but I will never vote for the duopoly.
Russell Brand hits the nail on the head about Biden, Trump, and the fake US elections. The stories about Biden's corruption would be everywhere if it had been Trump.
Crickets for Biden.
You can fix an election by controlling the information the voters have to make their decisions.
I am going to make a disclaimer that I believe in true public broadcasting, but US public broadcasting is commercial. It has commercials in the form of "underwriting" by large corporations, which is pretty much the same thing as being commercial. Yes, the fact that it is not free of big money influence make it a part of the rest of US media. Big business can threaten to take away its money and PBS is SCREWED--BIG TIME!
Which takes us to this clip from PBS News Hour where one of the commentators says "There hasn't been any obvious gaffes, big scandals,or anything like that."
Funny how Hunter's Laptop has been missing from the media (and I never heard back from Burisma about my job application).
It will probably also be missing again this election cycle (PBS shut off comments to this).
I should add that these two clowns are from the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos who would be eating 50 cent burritos if the duopoly wasn't in power and was whacked by someone vaguely like Bernie Sanders enforcing US competition laws.
I live in hope for that day.
But this gets to where Fox News is wrong: The Democrats are nowhere near left wing. In fact, the Republicans have also strayed from their true populist roots, which makes it even funnier when I read Shot in the Foot's blog: they might want to look up Minnesota Justice Harry Blackmun. Or even better, look up Richard Nixon's comments about firearms ownership.
As I like to say, I was rather shocked when I watched a documentary about Nixon (on PBS) and realised how lefty he seemed in the early 1990s!
Sorry for the digression, but US Politics has moved to the right. The Democratic Party has pretty much extinguished anything vaguely New Deal-Roosevelt, which means that someone like Bernie Sanders has no part in that party. Which is why I distrust anyone who claims to be to the left and is associated with that party. It cannot be fixed from within.
The reason that Biden is president is that he appeals to the big donors, which is why the Tech giants can deny the existance of Hunter's laptop and what it means to Joe Biden. So, that really wasn't that much of a digression.
There isn't much of a "lefty media" in the US other than some things on the internet (E.g.: Real News Network and Democracy Now), but they don't have much of an audience. Which means we are left with Fox News and Sky News Australia who get only part of the story, and are taken about as seriously as Democracy Now.
I feel like someone in occupied Europe trying to get reliable information when I look at the US media because it isn't there.
"All the News fit to Print" is propaganda, or at least explains their editorial policy in that they only feel they need to print what they believe should be printed.
And Hunter's laptop and associated scandal is nowhere to be seen.
I hate that both sides are failing to acknowledge that there are problems with the system and "bickering about which propagandist network is the worse isn't going to save an American life, or improve the life of a single American child."
More than a century of burning fossil fuels as well as unequal and
unsustainable energy and land use have led to global warming of 1.1°C
above pre -industrial levels. This has resulted in more frequent and
more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly
dangerous impacts on nature and people in every region of the world. But
there are multiple, feasible and effective options to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and adapt to human-caused climate change, and they are
available now, said scientists in this IPCC report. Taking effective and
equitable climate action will not only reduce losses and damages for
nature and people, it will also provide wider benefits, the report
points out, underscoring the urgency of taking more ambitious action now
to secure a livable sustainable future for all.
The US bizarrely holds onto the car as a practical form of transportation while pretty much neglecting high speed rail. The reason I say bizarrely is that the US was once on the vanguard of train technology, but cars were subsidised and have led to the destruction of cities, which is another post, and are enviornmentally unfriendly.
The French are incredibly train friendly with the National Assembly voting to abolish certain domestic air routes, in case of alternatives by train of less than 2h30. This climate bill intends to eliminate links between Paris (Orly) and Nantes, Lyon or Bordeaux, but provides for exceptions for connecting journeys. The Citizens' Climate Convention had called for domestic flights to be waived in the case of alternatives of less than 4 hours by train, not 2.5 hours.
Transposing that onto the US, transportation on the east coast would be pretty much transformed to primarily rail: especially if the four hours by high speed train limit were imposed. Fortunately, US trains are pretty slow compared to those in other countries. Even Acela is pokey by the standards of other countries.
Again, there are other issues here in how environmentally and socially unfriendly modes of transport have been supported, which don't make sense here. What I really want to talk about is the concepts of Flygsam and Tågskryt, or flight shame and train pride. Greta Thunberg hasn't flown since 2015 in order to reduce her carbon footprint. Some Swedes are trying to emulate her. I would like to do so, but unfortunately, I have to fly sometimes, but I buy carbon offsets and have been doing so for a while now.
On the other hand, she has the option of taking the train in Europe. The US continues to invest in technologies which are soon to be obsolete, if they haven't been obsoleted based upon their harm to the planet. Yes, people can pretend that change is unnecessary until it becomes obvious to even the most ignorant.
The US needs to reassess itself in the light of reality.
I've been thinking about posting this video clip since I first saw it.
I have a weird feeling this post will be pulled by the overly sensitive pro-gun crowd: which is why I titled it what I did.
This video is (1) A good reason to check out the words to a foreign song...and also the video (2) disturbing.
"Tu me Manques" is French for I miss you. Of course, It can also mean "missing" in the context of "missing the target". She misses him in the first sense, but not the other. It's a nice song if you just listen to the lyrics and music.
The video is something else.
It's weird how even "progunners" when pressed begin to realise that maybe the right they believe to exist is actually limited.
It would be nicer if they would just use their brains and do some serious research.
But that would mean that they would have to admit that they have been living a lie.
It would be nice if I gave a translation of the words:
I'm wasting my time and my spring Wandering around Paris I don't care about the people who are always telling me You gotta forget about him
I should erase your face I'm not sure what to do, I'm not sure what to do But your words are echoing I'm drowning in them
I'm drowning in it
And I miss you I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me And I miss you I'd like to forget you but you haunt me
I'm pretending, absent gaze To fill my boredom I don't care about the people who keep telling me You gotta forget about her I should erase you And go straight to the front But there's your words that resonate I get lost in it
I get lost in it
And I miss you I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me And I miss you I'd like to forget you but you haunt me
We've got our whole life to do over We're wasting time, we're wasting time I don't care about the whole world I'm not pretending, I'm not pretending I'm ready to do anything to please you I'm not gonna let you down, I'm not gonna let you down And you're gone in a flash I'm waiting for you
And I miss you I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me And I miss you I'd have to forget you but you haunt me
Wow! Thanks. I've screen capped the Good Guys And Gals With Guns? post since you just made the argument for why the relaxing of concealed carry is bullshit from a practical point of view.
According to some reports, the Nashville Covenant school was not a gun free zone...
Some of the usual suspects are already trying to use this factoid to indict the idea of armed school staff:...
Even in “Stand your Ground” states, self-defense law doesn’t as a rule allow citizens to close with and engage perpetrators, acting as cops or infantry.
The proper role for an armed staffer, according to the way actual self-defense law works,
is to barricade themselves and the kids they’re responsible for into a
room, and be ready to shoot at a perp who comes through the door with
mayhem in mind.
So, really armed citizens are as ineffective as unarmed ones since as you point out the only people who should be going after the "orcs"are the first responders. Armed citizens with handguns can only hope to stop someone with a long gun which is going to be far more accurate and have a higer velocity than their weapon.
So, the armed citizen hopes they might get a shot off before being
turned to hamburger by someone with an AR-15 or similar weapon. Which
does jackshit since the progunners neglect that sometimes mass shooters
have shoot outs with real trained professionals to go on to further
carnage as was the case with the Columbine Shooters.
Quite likely a mass shooter could have a bullet proof vest which would protect against handgun rounds as well.
Let's toss in the armed citizen could be confused with the active shooter for good measure as to WHY someone has to have shit for brains for even buying this argument for concealed carry in the first place. Nothing like adding to the confusion by being a halfwit with a gun.
Alas, the dumbfucks who have bought into the "pro-gun" horseshit have probably bred and are not candidates for Darwin Awards. They have progeny which we can only hope will be smarter than their parents. Emphasis on hope since I would hope most people would use their brains, but most people, especially Amerloques, tend to be intellectually challenged.
It would be nice if other pro-gunners were as honest as you. Although, it would be nice if you took your statements to their logical conclusion and realise that you are just full of shit. Also that you have been lied to by the people you see as "leaders". You are one of the sheep if you have bought into this without question.
As I like to say, the pro-gun arguments don't stand scrutiny.
And you just shot yourself in the foot.
Stop shooting in the dark, Mitch.
And thank you from all the anti-gun organisations who now have copies of this post. You are going to be the anti-gunner poster child for this statement against interest.
You should have a serious rethink of the "pro-gun" position since deep in your subconscious you know it's a pile of horsehit.
Oh, and stop using the word "ignorant" since you obviously have no idea what it means, or you would understand the irony of your posts: this one post in particular.
French media is talking about this in a disinterested manner.
And pointing out how much the Democrats have blown it with continuing their witch hunt on Trump while ignoring their own problems, which I'm not going to bother mentioning if you aren't aware of them by now.
This story is only "à la un" on the broadcast media. The print media are like the Private Eye "Heir of Sorrows" series where it listed off headlines from the British dailies. In this case, the French are concerning themselves with issues of French interest.
That is pretty much the strike relating to the change in retirement regulations making people have to wait longer to retire.
And you wonder why I prefer Europe to the US. Especially when the US has become a banana republic having to resort to political prosecutions instead of addressing the issues it needs to. The partisanism is totally disgusting to me.
On the other hand, we can keep going with two parties which don't represent most people and are out of touch with the electorate.
Also, Italy uses first past the post (winner take all) instead of the ranked choice voting/instant run-off which is another reform I like. I am in favour of proportional representation and run off elections/ranked choice voting.
As the mans says: "democracy needs policies. And it needs effective policies."
Not the "partisan" bullshit that is going on the the US.
It's interesting what he is saying. It's not exactly what my last two posts have been about, but very similar.
Liberalism in Europe, today, is something like
“libertarianism”—it is a right-wing ideology. There used to be a left
libertarianism, which is probably better called anarchism, and that
persists in various sectarian versions, but it isn’t much in the public
eye. And then in the United States, liberalism generally means “New Deal
liberalism.” It’s our very modest version of social democracy, and it
isn’t a very strong doctrine, since many of its practitioners became
neoliberals much too easily. So, the -ism is not a strong or coherent
doctrine. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t liberals. But liberals are
people who are best defined morally or psychologically; they’re what
Lauren Bacall, my favorite actress, called “people who don’t have small
minds.” A liberal is someone who’s tolerant of ambiguity, who can join
arguments that he doesn’t have to win, who can live with people who
disagree, who have different religions or different ideologies. That’s a
liberal. But those liberal qualities don’t imply any social or economic
doctrine. So, there are liberals in the world, and I can recognize
them, but liberalism does not describe their actual political
commitment. The word is better used to qualify the kinds of commitments
that I write about: democracy, socialism, nationalism, et cetera.
He's making a good point since "liberal arts" is a field of study "based on rational thinking, and it includes the
areas of humanities, social and physical sciences, and mathematics. A
liberal arts education emphasizes the development of critical thinking
and analytical skills, the ability to solve complex problems, and an
understanding of ethics and morality, as well as a desire to continue to
learn." That means the division is between closed mindedness and open mindedness: not whether one is on the left or the right.
The problem with US politics is that it is based upon fallacious thinking. "The Democrats are progressives/socialists/liberals/etcetera" and "The Republican Trump supporters, etc." Is the divide that clear cut? Fox news calls the democratic party "socialist", yet that party has a long track record of destroying the moderate "socialist" policies of the new deal. What Sanders was proposing wasn't too far out from where FDR was going, and what is pretty much expected in the rest of the world as far as social policy goes.
As I said, not exactly what I have been saying in the past few posts, but definitely something I agree with:
I was told the French government subsidises newspapers, which is an interesting concept if it is true. Although, I was under the impression I was reading a wider variety of viewpoints then just centrist. I read the following: Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération, L'Express, and L'Obs. The first three being dailies and the last two are weeklies. This list puts me at being left of centre in French/European politics.
On the other hand, I am extreme fringe left in the United States being aligned with Bernie Sanders. I find my home in the US with the Green Party and Democratic Socialists. I'm trying to figure out which party comes closest when I start looking at European politics, which gets interesting since some things which are called "Socialist" in the US are taken for granted in European politics. In fact, trying to take them away would make one an incredibly unpopular candidate.
But the US doesn't talk about how overworked it is until someone mentions that Europeans usually start a job with 3 weeks of vacation and work up. They also don't work more than 40 hours a week.
It's things like that that make me question the 2020 election where people were prevented from working, yet a candidate who talked about not living in fear during a period of enforced unemployment lost the election. Things like Universal Basic Income make sense when someone is told they cannot work. Likewise, so does having housing and medical care paid for.
On the other hand, it is easier to play the ad hominem card of "that candidate/party/person is a progressive..." when it's obvious that the term doesn't really apply when one properly looks at the issues.
As I like to say, if the Democratic Party were as socialist or progressive as the right/Fox news likes to claim: wouldn't it have made sense to run Bernie Sanders instead of the candidates who they did run???? Of course, Fox news would be even more embarassed since it seems that Sanders was popular on a town hall they ran.
Anyway, despite this I have to admit that I am blissfully ignorant of US politics, which was made apparent since I had no idea who Ketanji Brown Jackson was or what made up the US Supreme Court. For good reason, the institution is blatantly political. It makes decisions which are not really based in law.
And it fucking well doesn't need to.
I'm not sure if being a US Supreme Court Justice is something worthy of being: especially since it it is a purely political position. The reason I go by Laci is that someone joked that my dog had been in more courtrooms than Harriet Miers, which was probably true.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to pretend reverence for a document most people don't understand and is horrible out of touch with modern society. And they forget can be amended. Even though they say they like certain of the Amendments.
Yes, diversity is a good thing, especially if it is properly applied.
Unfortunately, there isn't too much diversity in the marketplace of US ideas, despite the First Amendment. Which is why it is amusing to me that French Newspapers could be government subsidised.
The United State is locked in partisan nonsense and needs to get parties which actually represent the people. The only way that will happen is on a local basis, where the duopoly have less control. The non-duopoly parties begin to "infect" the legislature, which is where the real change comes.
I was pleasantly surprised when Doggone told me that Antonin Scalia agreed with me about the parliamentary system.
I don't like it because of Westminster. I like it because the power is where it belongs: in the lesiglature. Additionally, because of that, there is an absolute necessity for political cooperation.
One needs to come up with a consensus for a parliamentary system to work. The government literally falls if there can't be a consensus, which is why it is necessary. A lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion.
Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System
or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer
funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is
constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a
budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply
is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence
in the government. Not all "money bills" are necessarily supply bills.
For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are
required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business".[1]
When a loss of supply occurs, a prime minister is generally required either by constitutional convention or by explicit constitutional instruction to either resign immediately or seek a parliamentary dissolution.
Some constitutions, however, do not allow the option of
parliamentary dissolution but rather require the government to be
dissolved or to resign.
Given how many budget crises happen in the US, it would probably go through governments like Italy or Belgium until the teething period was over. On the other hand, digging in on the budget would make it clear where the real power lies in government.
The presence of third parties would ensure that there was a way to gain consensus, or withhold it to bring the government more in line with the will of the people. There's a reason why the duopoly do everything they can to keep the power to themselves.
I don't have any illusions about some of the reforms which would be nice to see in US politics since Europe has them and people like Marine Le Pen are prominent in politics. On the other hand, there is a far better representation of political viewpoints in Europe than the One Party-Duopoly United States.
There's a reason I don't like discussing politics with Americans: they are worse than people who lived behind the Iron Curtain in how badly they are propagandised.
There needs to be a real free market of ideas, which isn't happening in the US.
I've had this problem quite a bit with voice recognition, which shows as anyone well versed in this technology will tell you: "it would make more sense to call it artificial stupidity, than intelligence." In fact, it was dealing with artificial intelligence only to be shunted to a call centre where they don't speak my language (yet again) that led to me writing this.
Yes, a computer can appear intelligent as can someone with dementia appear lucid. But as Alan Turing pointed out, a human can tell the difference. Where artificial intelligence appears superior is that it can process a lot of information quickly. But there'a another computer saying:
"GIGO" or "Garbage in, Garbage out."
I wouldn't trust a machine to make decisions without a human there to veto that decision.
And computers need electricity or some sort of power. They can only run things as long as their batteries can power up. Otherwise they are just expensive paper weights.
The reality is that they can only deal with what they are written to do. They might add some other variations to their data base, but it might confuse them since it's really just pattern recognition and not true knowledge. Or as this cartoon points out:
Of course, later versions of the Daleks could fly. The aliens in M. Night Shyamalan's Signs were able to achieve interstellar travel, yet were unable to deal with doorknobs.
Or the fact that Earth is covered with water.
I think Robots would have even more difficult tasks to deal with if they had to actually deal with the real world instead of their limited universes.
I've known about Fred Hampton for a while, but I became much more interested in him post-Riots.
I've tossed "gun rights" in here since he talks about "self-defence", which would be be a very heated argument since Hampton was assassinated by the Chicago Police. A lot of people, myself included, believe this was because Hampton was very charismatic and unified, rather than divided.
I'm sorry I don't live in the alternative reality where Malcolm Little became the first black US Supreme Court Justice and Hampton the first black president.
Joseph
Bologne, lived during the era of the American Revolution, 1745 -1799.
He was French, the son of a slave mother and a wealthy planter father.
His father essentially bought a title in 1757, and had taken his son to
France for his education, along with his mother who continued to be a
slave. He excelled in swordsmanship. He was SO unusual, so excellent at
this skill, that when he graduated he directly became a member of the
King's bodyguard, and was knighted. He also fought duels with prominent
swordsmen who insulted him because he was bi-racial.
An obvious polymath, Saint-Georges was also an accomplished violinist at
an early age (hence the comparison to Mozart) and became an
accomplished composer in his own right as well. Saint-Georges was
subsidized during his younger years by his father, but that money went
to his apparently white and legitimate half-sister when his father died,
leaving Saint-Georges to support himself by what he earned from his
music and from the Orchestras he conducted. He continued to enjoy both
tremendous popularity, but also periodic racism against him. He became a
great favorite of Marie Antoinette. Saint-Georges began writing
operas, met other famous talents in the music world, including the
actual Mozart and Haydn. During this time his mother, who had continued
to live with him, died - apparently still at least technically a slave
by legal status if not in how she lived.
Subsequently, Saint-Georges spent time in England, including rubbing
elbows with the Prince of Wales. Throughout his life among the nobility
and wealthy, Saint Georges was an ardent supporter of the abolition of
slavery.
When the French Revolution began, Saint-Georges volunteered, and headed
up a legion of 'colored' troops, holding the rank of colonel. He
fought on the side of the Republic against the monarchists, was
imprisoned during the 'Terror', was released when the worst excesses of
the Revolution were over. Without the patronage afforded him by the
nobility prior to the revolution, he was somewhat less successful.
At one point he left France for about two years when there was a slave
revolt on Caribbean island where he was born. Two years later he
returned to France, again tried to rejoin his legion and again began
composing and conducting music, as well as resuming playing the violin.
He died in 1799 in comparative poverty. He left behind as his legacy a
large body of musical compositions, including operas, symphonies,
concertos, chamber music, music for string quartets, and vocal music,
many of which are still performed and recorded.
And he was also a character in the TV Show Nicholas Le Floch (Le Dîner de Gueux)!
Alexandre
Dumas, AKA Alexandre Dumas père, author of The Three Musketeers and The
Count of Monte Cristo (and father of Alexandre Dumas fils, who wrote La
Dame aux Camélias). Alexandre père's father (or, if you prefer, the
père's père), General Alexandre (Alex) Dumas, was black Haitian, the son
of an aristocratic French father, Marquis Alexandre Davy de la
Pailleterie, and a freed slave, Marie-Cesette Dumas. Toss in that the
father was a general in Napoleon's grande armée!
The writer's father's dad sold the boy as a slave to pay for his passage to France
(that's remedial parenting classes for you, Marquis de la Pailleterie)
before buying his freedom. Later, Alex rose through the ranks of the
army to become a general before he was 30. He was so effective that that
the Austrians called him Der schwarze Teufel ("the Black Devil").
During the French revolution fought with other black men in a unit
called the African Legion.
Study up on this French writer and have a great time challenging people's stereotypes on race.
OK, I didn't vote for John Fetterman in the last Pennsylvania Election (FYI once one emmigrates from the US, one votes in the last place they were domiciled--it seems I am currently stuck with Philadelphia due to bureaucratic BS). I don't like him for a variety of reasons, but I also Demexited in 2016 and haven't looked back on the duopoly since. I'm not going to get into why I dislike the "Berners" who have remained within the Democratic Party other than to say that I dislike them.
I voted Green in 2022 even though Dr. Oz was not my type. Although, I was walking around singing "Arc en Ciel" the day of the election...
De toute façon...
My point, My vote for Jill Stein in 2016 didn't change the election result, the electoral college did that. And the Russians had nothing to do with that, unless you want to tell me that Catherine the Great promised the Continental Congress a "Donkey Show" a few centuries later on.
My Green Party votes haven't changed the results since the duopoly pretty much runs things for the time being in the US. And no matter what Fox news tries to tell people, there really isn't that much of a difference between the two parties.
Seriously, if the "Democrats" really were socialists, they would have run Sanders in 2016 (and 2020) and won.
Electoral college or not.
But the duopoly doesn't want that to happen. And anyone who remains within the duopoly is a traitor to the movement behind Bernie.
I definitely agree with this: AI needs to be taken with careful skepticism. My car can pretty much drive itself, but I wouldn't trust it to drive anywhere without me having a veto power over what it does.
Lets toss in mistakes Siri and other voice recognition systems make. I used to collect them, but they became overwhelming.
AI cannot be trusted blindly, but it can help make life better when used WITH a human check on the system.
Like it or not, the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, are anything BUT popular documents. It was written in secret by a select group of people. Sure, there were debates, but they were anything open and above board until after the document was written. People forget that some people, the anti-Federalists, were against ratification of the constitution.
I don't totally agree with his analysis (the pronouns bit is anachronistic as heck), but he does make some very good points.
It wasn't written for the benefit of my ancestors who fought for independence and revolted at Morristown. It was written for the elite who said "We the people".
I occassionally watch Fox News for an opposing opinion, which is where I heard about Kari Lake. I am pretty sure I don't agree with her on most issues, but her being questioned about "election denial" was very interesting. One thing I learned is that one needs to use the same vocabulary when discussing an issue. If "election denial" is a term meaning that there is some sort of conspiracy to steal an election, then it makes things look like anyone who points out the fact that US elections are anything other than free and fair and held on a secret ballot sound cray-cray.
On the other hand, one of the essential principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
The United States and other western nations spent a good part of the 20th Century pushing these principles on other countries, yet the US has moved further and further from this principle since the end of the Cold War.
The funny thing is that the election denial comes from the results of the electoral college and the fact that US elections are not "democratic". Bernie Sanders would probably be president if that were the case.
And people would probably love him. Just remember that Vermont is pretty much a "red state", and I mean that in the ass backward US sense where "red" is conservative. Otherwise, it might make sense that they have a socialist representing them. Yet another thing which gets lost in the US media.
Which is another thing Kari Lake attacks.
The reality is that the US needs serious election reform, yet it won't get it if it obfuscates the issues. The Electoral College is problematic, yet no one is willing to address it. Point out that Trump won the election despite losing the popular vote and his supporters aren't upset. I won't get into the machinations of the 2020 elections, but they are another glaring example of the need for election reform in the US. Had Barack Obama won an election with only 23% of the vote, I am sure that the people defending the "Constitution" would realise what an Amendment actually means and that the founders were well willing to use that process when the Constitution proved to need tweaking.
Among the 16% of U.S. adults who say they have everinvested in, traded or used a cryptocurrencysuch as bitcoin or ether, 46% report their investments have done worse than they expected. By comparison, 15% of these Americans say their investments have done better than they expected; 31% say they’ve worked out about the same as they expected. The overall share of U.S. crypto users is unchanged since September 2021.
One of the reasons I Demexited in 2016 was that the Democratic Party really has no ideology: despite what Fox News and other rightwing media outlets would like to pretend. On the other hand, the Republicans have firmly planted themselved in the right. Had there been a real opposition, the US wouldn't be in the situation it is.
I strongly believe that there will be a radical reshaping of US Political system since it really isn't a Democratic Republic, or even the promised republic, by any stretch of the imagination. The founders knew there would have to be systemic changes, but the system has stagnated such that it is a one party system.
Three Arrows has a really super analysis of how the system will collapse: and it isn't from the duopoly kayfabe.
Which is what Trump was really talking about, Not "Kovfefe".
Cryptocurrencies and Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) remind me of the stereotypical scam of buying the Brooklyn Bridge. NFTs could actuallty put that scam into practise since they are a digital asset that represents real-world objects like art, music, in-game items and videos.
I've got an NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge: you want to buy it?
Something about fools and money anyone?
Anyway, there has been a Cryptocurrency crash which has become public with Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency by market value, having a recent fall of more than 72 percent since its November high.
[At one time,] there were about 19,000 cryptocurrencies in existence. By the time you
read these words, many of them will have failed. If you have heard of
only one cryptocurrency, it is almost certainly Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a
decentralized peer-to-peer network with no single clearinghouse and no
equivalent to a central bank or money-issuing authority. Bitcoin the
platform issues currency units called “bitcoins,” whose value is
determined by supply and demand on several different exchanges. There is
no single price of bitcoin. Demand is driven by its use in
transactions. Supply is determined through “mining”: using computer
processing power to solve increasingly complicated math problems. The
inventors of Bitcoin have consistently maintained that there will be a
finite supply of bitcoins, alleviating the danger of inflation and
creating instead an intentionally deflationary system. All transactions
are anonymous, and bitcoins are held in a digital “wallet.” A bitcoin
spent in a transaction is really a unique code and a series of past
transactions of that code in a kind of digital ledger, known as the
blockchain. Imagine if every dollar you spend came with a list of every
past transaction that dollar had been used in, thereby proving that you
obtained it legally. It’s a way to verify transactions while preserving
anonymity. Once a transaction happens, notice of it is sent to the
entire Bitcoin network, and all the “miners” in the system race to
verify the ledger of past transactions. If you win the verification
race, you are awarded with new bitcoins.
He then gets into how problematic the crypto currency system happens to be, which is very.
As I said, if you don't like Fiat Currencies, you should avoid crypto like the plague. Fiat currencies at least have something backing them up. Crypto isn't even a commodity based currency, which also have their problems.
Big points to Judge Mitch Perry of the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Kentucky for doing what should be done in regard to this debate:
His July 22 ruling extended that order, saying there is “a
substantial likelihood” that the new abortion ban violates “the rights
to privacy and self-determination” protected by the state constitution, the Associated Press reported.
But he also assumed that the laws are based on sectarian doctrine.
“The
General Assembly is not permitted to single out and endorse the
doctrine of a favored faith for preferred treatment,” Perry wrote. “By
taking this approach, the bans fail to account for the diverse religious
views of many Kentuckians whose faith leads them to take very different
views of when life begins.”
Perry said there is “nothing in our laws or history that allows for such theocratic based policymaking.”
Exactly. The First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, and Separation of Church and State are based on the fact that a lot of early Americans came here for religious freedom. In other words, not to have the government, or anybody else, tell them how to practise their relgious beliefs.
This also gets down to what pro-choice means:
Don't have an abortion if you are against them, but don't tell someone else what to do with their body.
The founders were for a secular society because they didn't want a bunch of Catholics telling them What the Fuck to do in regard to religion.
The Catholics on the Supreme Court should admit to that fact.
I often note that the Declaration of Independence is a historic document, not a legal one, under the US Constitutional Framework. Per the US Constitution itself:
Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, mentions of inalienable rights, all men being created equal, and so forth really don't carry much legal weight.
That's because the Declaration of Independence was written as a justification for why the US should be independent from Britain. And in light of current events, it's full of bullshit.
Take, for example, these two complaints:
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
One of the main complaints of the people drafting this document was that the unelected, government in Britain was abrogating laws made by the colonial legislatures.
Or more concisely, unelected officials were taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent
should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to
attend to them.
In short, the unelected officials wearing robes were destroying popularly enacted laws.
The gets to the topic of judicial deference, which also means that judges are umpires, not legislators.
There are reasons of public safety and good public policy WHY some laws should be on the books.
Also, there is the rule of law, which seems to have disappeared under the "conservative" atmosphere in the US.
On the other hand, the US was founded on the concept that unelected officials shouldn't be messing with laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
On the other hand, the tories pointed out that they would rather be ruled by one tyrant a thousand miles away than a thousand tyrants a mile away.
Oh, and since I mention the Second Amendment, these were complaints made by the colonists:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
What don't you get about taking shit out of context?????????
Seriously! If you are only going to look at a part of the Second Amendment, then why not just use the bit about domestic violence to make it a federal issue?
The Second Amendment was obsolete before the ink was dry on the Constitution,which if you clowns would know if you would actually do some serious research and look into the issue instead of taking shit out of context. Gun fetishists like to quote George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who said:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.
Now, if you read the entire statement from the transcript you see:
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people,
except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia
of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the
militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low,
and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle
classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of
people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject
to militia duty." 3 Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 425-426. (J. Elliot ed., 1836).
Actually, people were getting out of serving in the militia during the War for Independence and it was a burden for the average person to have to serve. Look up the Morristown Rebellion by the Pennsylvania Line.
Anyway, Mason had a drastically different view of what exactly the Second Amendment was supposed to do and it wasn't to make sure that any dickhead who wanted to could walk down the street carrying a concealed weapon (BTW, carrying concealed weapons was considered something done by criminals, not respectable people in them days). Here is his proposal for the "right" from the above convention:
That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the Military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.
So, do me a favour, and unless you are actively suggesting a drastic reorganisation of the US military to be what Switzerland once had, please don't say you support the Second Amendment. Or as Joseph Story pointed out:
The importance of this article will scarcely be
doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the
subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country
against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections,
and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against
sound policy for a free people to keep up large military
establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both
from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended,
and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious
and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government,
or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the
citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,
as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers
a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary
power of rulers; and will generally, even if these
are successful in the first instance, enable the people to
resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth
would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated
militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised,
that among the American people there is a growing
indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a
strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid
of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people
duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.
There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may
lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually
undermine all the protection intended by this clause
of our national bill of rights. ( Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833. Section 1890)
The Second Amendment fell victim to desuetude long ago.
In law, desuetude is a doctrine that
causes statutes, similar legislation, or legal principles to lapse and
become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of
time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become
obsolete.
And it’s time the Supreme Court owned up that the Second Amendment has
fallen victim to desuetude. It would be a truly conservative act to make
that admission. Here is Judge Robert Bork (The Tempting of America (1990)) on this issue:
“There is a problem with laws (which are not enforced).
They are kept in the code books as precatory statements, affirmations of
moral principle. It is quite arguable that this is an improper use of
law, most particularly of criminal law, that statutes should not be on
the books if no one intends to enforce them. It has been suggested that
if anyone tried to enforce a law that had moldered in disuse for many
years, the statute should be declared void by reason of desuetude or that the defendant should go free because the law had not provided fair warning.”
The Second Amendment relates to a framework of national defence which died out probably before the ink was dry on the Constitution, which is something I've gone into ad nauseum.
But if the game of the day is to take obsolete sections of the US Constitution, I say let's take the domestic violence clause out and let it run havoc! Full text of Article IV, Section 4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this
union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them
against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the
executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic
violence.”
Scalia demonstrated ignorance of the law when he said:
Undoubtedly some think that the
Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our
Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and
where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but
what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the
Second Amendment extinct.
Actually, you dumbfuck, that is precisely what you should have done if you didn't want to make the US system of justice into a blatant joke (it already was a joke).
On the other hand, there are loads of domestic violence victims who could benefit by the reinterpretation of the Domestic violence clause.
Narcissists have a hard time admitting defeat or that they were wrong. Argue with my ex-wife is you don't believe me. Anyway, the drama seems to have toned down. So back to the Russian overt narc.
People are beginning to believe the Ukrainians when they releast the casualties and losses for the Russian army.
Ukrainian kids grow up hearing how their parents, grandparents, and Greatgrandparents fought the Germans and the Russians. It's the home of the partisan Otriads from Defiance. Of course, they are kicking Russian ass.
As for Nato expansion, all the former Eastern Block countries get it. The current spate of war crimes in Ukraine show why the West should have been doing all it could to supply the Ukrainians in the war to save their homeland.
