dogyks

I hate to break it to you, but if someone adheres to an ideology that stipulates my immediate death, I take it at face value and seek to avoid them at all costs. They may try to reassure me that they don't follow those particular dicta, but you'll forgive me if I err on the side of caution. FWIW, I do not wish to kill anyone. I might find it amusing if an awful person comes to grief, but I will not contribute to their demise.

I am perfectly fine with being boarded by Coast Guard, who strictly follow the rules. My documents are always in order, I keep all navigation and safety equipment operational and up to date, and I am profoundly grateful for the knowledge that they will routinely risk death to come to my aid if things go wrong. I do not ever use, possess or transport proscribed drugs. I have, however, been SWATted, and am not okay with getting blown out of the water on the basis of a false accusation. I also had an altitude encoder say I was in Class A airspace when I was at 2,600 feet, and would hate to be targeted because of an instrument malfunction. If simply following the rules kept one in the clear 100%, that would be one thing. However, sending a get well card when the wrong boat gets hit isn't okay.

You have no idea.

If I drive on roads amongst people full of ethanol or barbiturates, I think some concerns are warranted. If someone ODs or aspirates vomit at home, I'll send them a get well card.

After I signed approval to amputate my leg, I was waiting to be wheeled into the OR. The anaesthesiologist ran something into the IV, and losing my leg wasn't a big deal. In fact, life was wonderful. "What was that?" "Fentanyl." "I love fentanyl." I have spent decades in the pharma industry since then, and am quite familiar with the lethality of various drugs - to include fentanyl. I don't have any particular sympathy for the people aboard the boat carrying drugs. My point is sinking it involved the kind of good intentions with which the road to hell is paved.

The plot of the Fredrick Forsyth book "The Cobra" had a paramilitary organization flying Buccaneers to down aircraft and sink vessels transporting cocaine in bulk. As I recall, the upshot was that the drug trade recovered rapidly - nature abhors a vacuum - and the people who were corrupted by the handling of so much power were hoist with their own petard. The war on drugs was won by drugs long ago. The legislation in place simply serves to keep prices high enough to support the illegal drugs' economy. I am lucky to live in an environment where people don't smoke, drink to excess, or risk failing a random drug test, so my perspective is skewed. My libertarian view that it should pretty much all be legalized is tempered by the realities of the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia and the Sihlquai truce in Zurich some time back, but I still think Prohibition is a poor solution. In any event, though blowing up boats full of drugs reflects the anger felt by some, the reality is that it's against the rules coming and going. If you want to wear the white hat, you have to follow the rules. If you pick and choose which rules you choose to obey, you are in no position to criticize those who also break the rules.

It's a racist light, I get it. I have heard compelling arguments to the effect that rape is a good thing overall. You will excuse me if I reserve the right to find rape repellant across the board. Similarly, explanations of 'good' vs 'bad' racism fall on deaf ears. It is no more okay for Ibrahim X Kendi to make a good living from racism than for David Duke. Germany in the '30s made amazing progress, which fails to compensate for their slightly racist agenda.

Because it is purely racist by any measure. I find racism to be nauseating and dislike racists.

Going through the paper, the basis of its argument is Petito Principii, a classical fallacy of relevance. CRT, like DEI, is terminally flawed. Those who eapouse these doctrines are either contrarian or simply hard of thinking.

Anyone want some tulips?

They told me I was gullible and I believed them.

As I recall, in Monty Python's bit about 'The Art of Camouflage," the first lesson was 'don't stand up.' Thus, someone who's more dangerous with access to a Home Depot than you'd expect from a sporting goods emporium isn't likely to let on. Just a guess.

She nailed it. I happen to revere what the flag represents and dislike those who disrespect it. Ironically enough, what it represents includes the right to demonstrate said disrespect. Though I am given to Schadenfreude when, say people burning the flag catch fire themselves, I consider it imperative that such people be accorded the full range of rights against which they are railing. If you want to wear the white hat, you have to follow the rules.

I seem to recall a Louisiana law that said that you could do whatever you wanted to the flag, but the penalty was limited to $5 for someone who beat the shit out of somebody defacing the flag. Seems like a fair and balanced approach to me.

I think of myself as a skeptic, but have been described as a heretic. I know too many people in Clementine's position, and have to pick my battles carefully. I think transitioning children is insane (intersex is a different issue), but there's not much I can do besides being supportive of the kids as people. When teaching, if a female student said something inappropriate I would respond to a totally different subject and let her conclude that I was too dumb to understand what she was saying. When gay students tried to shock me, I would similarly fail to rise to the bait. Kids that I've known who have switched teams I treat the same either way. It is my goal to assist them academically, or to become Eagle Scouts - their sexuality is not a factor. I can only guess what kind of fucked up things go on in someone's life that they find invisible friends or conclude that biological fundamentals are an imaginary construct. When it hits them that what they've done is absurd, I'm reminded of the Larsen cartoon that has a cow looking up saying "wait a minute - this is grass! We've been eating grass!"

Patton was certifiable. As H. S. Thompson put it, "when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

At the 'hold your nose and vote' moment, about all the sleazy sonofabitch had going for him was negative - he's neither a lawyer nor a Democrat. Musk being on hand gave a glimmer of hope that, after a career of turning gold mines into septic tanks, he might show a hint of fiscal responsibility. Yeah, right. The fact that the toxicity of DEI is being addressed by his administration is a welcome surprise. The fact that more illegal aliens are self deporting than are apprehended by ICE is remarkable. The melting pot can do with less slag. At best Trump is one of what Lenin described as 'useful idiots.' I don't encourage Lenin's exact recommendation on how to deal with the revolutionary post revolution, but a hand-off to someone competent is preferred. According to Dave Barry, "When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that person is crazy." I'd say Trump is a case in point of Dave's observation.

Victor Davis Hanson has a pretty good track record, and his take is generally insightful. As I have stated, I think Trump is a truly awful human being but prefer the changes pointed out by VDH to anything proffered by the competition. Trump is enough older than Hitler was, so he won't be viable for much longer. I don't think he'll last into a 5th term. The changes we are seeing could only come from a seriously disruptive actor, and Captain Chaos is the best we could do. If the deficit could be addressed as Javier Milei seems to be doing in Argentina, I'd feel a little better. As it is, it looks like we're fucked. Maybe we could get to the onset of the next election and Trump could choke on a chicken bone. Unfortunately, further progress would require selecting someone competent for the next go around, and we seem to weed out the competent right out of the gate.

One problem with having an effective kill file is trying to figure out what is the original point from the responses. 'Sokay, life's too short to wade through the drivel from the usual suspects.

Unfortunately, we seem to be following Zimbabwe's economic model as well. Pity we didn't choose that of Argentina of late. In a sense, I'm impressed that we've made it this far. Though John's right that I put the economy first, I've effectively thrown in the towel on that issue and vote against those whose policies are worse otherwise. That doesn't mean that I "support" the one that appears somewhat less bad. It'd be nice if someone ran the show who had a knack for turning a profit.

I can't bring myself to use your level of racism and sexism to address your stance. You win.

So all you have to add is vitriol and abuse. I suppose that enhances your credibility.

You fail to get specific, not that it matters.

So he's a narcissistic sociopath. What else is new? Kennedy would and did fuck anything that moved, kept us in Vietnam to get through the 1964 elections, and was the scion of a criminal family that would make the Gambinos proud. LBJ was truly evil across the board, and his indiscretions were a given. Bill Clinton, like JFK, would fuck anything that moved, and wasn't overly concerned about the willingness of his conquests. I don't approve of any of these people, and would love to select a candidate where the concern wasn't picking the manure that fosters preferred growth.

I agree that he sucks out loud, but the opposition panders to racism, sexism and discrimination (all for the noblest of reasons) and he's too busy being a scumbag to be bothered.