winsor

TP for my bunghole. . . The Cornholio Ticket - I suppose there is an audience to which that appeals...

And precisely how should one address the ghastly turn of events in Nice? The situation is so appalling that, like all too many people, I have been in shock since the news came across the wires. Pictures of little kids toys next to lifeless bodies are too close to home. Oddly enough, humor is one of the ways people deal with the most ghastly circumstances. A New York Times article after the Challenger disaster discussed the process, and Jimmy Buffett put it succinctly that "if we couldn't laugh we would all go insane." In the same sense that one should 'fly as far through the crash as possible' when things go to hell in the cockpit, one should 'respond, don't react' when provoked by events such as this. People who have been shaken to the core can make some very bad decisions, and it is a cold person who is not rattled by this kind of thing. Making fun of people's tendency to 'Do Something!' by banning objects and the like serves to give pause, if nothing else. It is ironic that the cure is often worse than the disease, and the worse the affliction, the more dreadful the treatment. Subjecting otherwise healthy prisoners to chemotherapy would constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment' by any standard. Even though the author of this atrocity yelled "Allahu Akhbar!" before being dispatched and Daesh gleefully took credit - and my loathing for Islam is boundless - I think the reflexive blamestorming that is the norm at this juncture buys us nothing. As the Onion put it, "stereotypes are a real time saver." I am not ready to laugh about this, but a gentle reminder that banning trucks is our usual approach to having a malevolent asshole kill people with one of them, and that it doesn't work. The horrific nature of terrorism is the key to its success. A ghastly and photogenic outcome has a greater effect in behavior modification than more pervasive but banal threats. I know I am more likely to come to grief by being t-boned by a drunk than blown up by a terrorist, but the terrorist attacks in France have a more visceral impact than do traffic statistics. The best thing we can do is grieve over the victims and shake it off as best we can. If we respond to viciousness with viciousness, he may not have won but we most certainly lose.

I don't know what is wrong with you this morning. But you can not possibly justify what you are implying with that. Because it is very clearly untrue. You don't really believe that BHO wants to racially divide the nation do you? He may not want to, but he's stumbling his way through trying not to. Like many old white men he has an issue with a person of colour holding a position higher then him. Interesting guess. I reserve the right to like or dislike someone, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, sexual preference or whatever. If someone is gay and I think they are useless, that does not make me a "homophobe" (what a lousy use of language), if they are female and I think they are incompetent that does not make me a misogynist, if they are Norwegian and I can't stand them that does not make me anti-Scandinavian and so forth. If someone does their job and does not make an issue of their sexuality, religion, race, gender or whatever, I prefer to focus on other factors. If someone self-identifies with whatever group, and makes statements related to said self-identification, said affiliation is then fair game. Obama likes to play the race card in such a way that he can take offense at anyone who calls him on playing the race card. I call bullshit. In the same sense that finding a cure for a particular disease puts the charity related to that disease out of business (the March of Dimes narrowly dodged a bullet when Salk & Sabin resolved Polio), the people whose business is "racial equality" have to find racism under every rock or they are out of business. Obama's pals Jackson and Sharpton depend on perceived racism for their quite comfortable living. Rather than showing an identical level of concern for caucasians, orientals and negroes, there is a specified difference between the response to indignities visited upon the various groups, and that is racist. I do not distinguish between 'racism' and 'reverse racism' - it's all racism. Obama has ridden racism like a surfer rides a wave, for his whole career. Good for him, he has become a pro at it. Pointing out that the Emperors new clothes need ironing is not an unfair criticism. BSBD, Winsor

Me. Read the Koran. 1.3 billion. Getting a little nasty in here. I understand the anger, but it's not going to help. Religions don't kill people....people kill people? I agree, the Koran teaches some evil things. Those 1.3 billion still somehow find a way to focus on the good parts and not the evil parts. Mostly. Yeah, yeah, I know. If you had been through the ghastly times in the Weimar Republic where starvation was a reality, there was a lot you may have tolerated for being able to eat again, and adhering to the system that made that possible may have made a lot of sense. That doesn't change the fact that the whole ideology was fundamentally evil, and it was spelled out quite clearly in Mein Kampf. There is no surprise that things turned out the way they did. I have no sympathy for followers and apologists for psychopathic perverts of any stripe. Compared to Muhammad, Charlie Manson is a study in sweetness and light. I don't hate Muslims per se, but I despise Islam in any form. BSBD, Winsor

His agenda? You mean his agenda to reduce racial tensions and bring people together? You have a problem with that? Haters.... Oh, yeah, he is as committed to everyone getting along as is Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and David Duke. Get a clue.

Well no fucking shit. My original point was that it's what an individual does that is the problem. It makes no difference what means of destruction an individual chooses to use, yet there's many here who would blame an inanimate object. Oh, oh I see. That last line of yours wasn't making light of a mass murder. Your intention was to simply use a mass murder to promote the NRA agenda. Got it. That shows great sympathy for those who died. Good job. (Facepalm) Not quite. It pointed out the stupidity and naivete of those who blame the instrument instead of the operator. Those who don't pick up on that are, well...

Me. Read the Koran. 1.3 billion.

You won't find anyone who worked with the Bundeswehr making fun of them. In both the First and Second World Wars they came a whisker from winning. At the very worst, they gave as good as they got. We are all sorts of impressed with defeating the Afrika Korps and the invasion of Normandy, for example, but both were dwarfed by the scale of Operation Barbarossa. Had the Soviets been unwilling to sustain 13:1 losses, and/or had Berlin been free to allocate those Armies to the West, we would have been hosed. It was to our advantage that Germany in the 1940s chose to make the same blunders as did France in the 1810s. It's what happens when you put Corporals in charge. If the the Kaiser had chosen to drive to Paris, instead of wheeling left to chase the French Army in 1914, the Great War would have lasted less than a month. BSBD, Winsor

War, huh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! 24. WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS. We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception. vom Kriege - Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz

The participation of the US was just enough to nudge things past the tipping point after the bulk of the fighting was over. To most on this side of the pond that have even heard of the battle, it is but an abstraction with a few statistics. Having some direct familiarity with artillery and spending time among the seas of graves from that conflict rather changes one's perspective. My wife is an Engineer who, when viewing the forts at Verdun, concluded that surviving the pounding the forts took would leave the occupants permanently damaged. The opposing forces expended roughly one round of artillery for every square meter of the battlefield, and 100 years later it shows. The slaughter of the Somme was simply mind-blowing. We are most impressed with our high-tech weaponry, but it is awesome what was accomplished with little more than sheer savagery. We still feel the effects of a conflict that wiped out a generation. BSBD, Winsor

"A Soldier of the Great War Known Unto God" Something like 1 out of 3 Commonwealth War Graves Commission graves are similarly marked. The Douaumont Ossuary contains the skeletal remains of over 130,000 combatants of unknown identity or nationality. I could not agree more that civilians who are big on military adventure should be required to spend time exploring Verdun, the Somme, Ypres and the Marne, all of which make the graveyard at Omaha Beach seem average at best. Perusing the names of the 54,395 Commonwealth troops inscribed on the Menin Gate, who marched to Ypres never to return, should be a good preparation for the "Last Post," which is still unsettling. The butchery of war is truly insane, and leaves entire populations shell-shocked to one degree or another. All too often we come up with a new wonder-weapon that is intended to make warfare too terrible to consider - the Gatling gun, and CBR (chemical, biological and radiological) weapons are examples - and we go ahead and fight anyway. Would that the War to End All Wars had been that. BSBD, Winsor

Wait a minute - Scotland is a foreign country? Ah, it's an easy mistake to make.

Apparently there was not 100% rejection - after barebacking with someone who was reportedly HIV positive, the motive may have been payback. Much though I loathe Islam, I am not under the illusion that it is the only pathology to which a Muslim may be subject. In this case, the perp appeared to hate gays - to include himself. Suicide is the sincerest form of self criticism, and he seems to have chosen to take quite a group with him.

Ahh the Express. Bastion of journalist integrity. So in that article they're claiming the anti-federalist Poles are terrified by the plans of the French and Germans to unite the EU into one state.... and here is their article from a few days ago claiming that Brexit could have huge consequences for the next elections in anti-EU France and lukewarm Germany, while the strongly pro-EU Poles are terrified that more nations could follow the UK's lead and leave! So in short, I wouldn't pay too much heed to that story until it's reported in a real newspaper While hospitalized for a crushed leg, a guy in the next bed offered me something to read. To be polite, I took a copy of 'The Star' and perused it. I had never before opened any of the supermarket tabloids, and felt all the more vindicated as I read. I got to an article that said, in effect, 'Commie Doctors Baffled by Two Headed Baby!!!' The New York Times had recently published a blurb about the case, but the raw wire feed amounted to the doctors saying that they were surprised that such malformed conjoined twins could survive birth, but that their lives would be mercifully short. Though I have not been tempted to buy another tabloid, I am struck by the fact that, say, the National Enquirer does pay princely sums for information, which they will write up in the most lurid manner possible. Every once in a while they break a story that turns out to be surprisingly significant. Thus, though the article was not from a Fleet Street stalwart, the basics of other countries that might be tempted to leave the EU and the tendency of the EU to consolidate power after the UK's exit are plausible. I make no claim that any of this is The Truth (tm), but it is a perspective that may have merit. I recall the principle that any bureaucracy, given sufficient time, gravitates to the business of administering itself. The EU in Brussels seems to be a case in point of that principle. BSBD, Winsor

You picked translations of Hebrew Scripture. There was no such thing as Christianity, or even Messianic Judaism, when this was written. You have referenced oral history, as recorded by Ezra the Scribe, of one Very Dysfunctional Family. When these Parshas come up in the liturgy, they are often used to show just how backward we were and how far we have come. There are, admittedly, some Rabbis and other terminal literalists that take all of this as natural law that applies to contemporary reality. Luckily, most Rabbis have three digit IQs, so it is not a real problem. BSBD, Winsor

I hate to address the consequences of Brexit, but this gives me pause. If this is into what the EU was slated to morph, it may be good that the UK got out while the going was good. Looking at the unsustainable debt that is the norm for maintaining our lifestyle, the questions regarding things going to hell are limited to when and how bad. Thus, if Brexit is what sets the spark off, doing otherwise may have only delayed the inevitable. Given that we are set for implosion, leaving the EU may be both the worst and the best thing the UK could do - worst since it triggers the upheaval, and best since it will not necessarily go down with the EU as a result. Sometimes pontoon mooring, with vessels lashed alongside, is the most stable arrangement. However, when conditions go to hell and one of the craft is taking on water, it can be best to cut free and go it alone. You may still sink, but you are not doomed by another craft going under. The relative merits of Brexit are as yet undetermined. I do suspect that it may well be the black swan that results in a lot of reorganization on a global scale. Enjoy yourself - it's later than you think. BSBD, Winsor

This is one take on the issue. The people behind it have agenda (btw, agenda are plural, agendum is the singular), but, so far as I have watched it, it seems coherent.

The people being frustrated has nothing to do with whether the deal is good. The people don't have a clue what the deal is either way. For instance, one of the pro Brexit campaigns was driving a bus around saying that the £350M a week we send to the EU (much of which we get back anyway, and a lot of which we'd still need to spend to be part of the free market) could be spent on the NHS instead. Now, mere hours aft the referendum results, another Pro Brexit campaigner was asked if we could now spend those funds on the NHS and he said "Of course we can't, it doesn't work that way". That's the sort of accuracy of information people are working from. There's a reason most countries elect politicians to make decisions for them, it's because the politicians then theoretically have the time to really learn how things work before they fuck with them. Leaving major, emotional issues up to the general mass of the population is kinda like giving a tweenager the keys to a Ferrari. They've seen other people drive it and they think they know what to do but it's not going to end well. I agree with you on this one. Regardless of the merits, 'independence' has many of the downsides of either a divorce or separation of conjoined twins. For all the emotional reasons why countries want to be independent, doing so is rarely painless. Scotland and Quebec opted to stifle their separatist bent to avoid the inevitable pain. I hope Great Britain does not serve as 'Mr. Bad Example.' In politics and warfare, one can get people to act against their best interests by appealing to emotions, one way or another. Fear and anger can cause otherwise brilliant people to behave as complete morons, and morons to behave as idiots. I could be wrong, and this might turn out to be a non-event. I suspect, however, that it is rather a black swan. What the hell, it was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor

You overlook the fact that some ideologies suck out loud an in any form. Islam is a Godwin variant.

There may be a Black Swan about.

Then you should invest. I'm confident that you can afford it. Go ahead and splurge!

Ecept that right now it's 60 years on from several of our more cynical interventions in the middle east in we're still reaping the whirlwind that resulted. So that doesn't go too well either. So of two options that both have the potential to turn shitty for us, I'd rather choose the one that doesn't involve selling other poeple into slavery. But hey, maybe I've just sung kumbiya too many times. Clues - 5p

In "The Patriot," the Lord Cornwallis character makes the point to the villainous cavalry colonel that a scorched earth approach to achieving victory would guarantee hostility in the ensuing peace. I was in Serbia very shortly after Clinton's air campaign ended, and it was made very clear to me that at that time, if you were not the target, you were in the clear. For example, the military communications station above town heard a 'whoosh' one night, and the area was covered in leaflets saying, in effect, to skip work and see a movie or go to dinner tomorrow evening. The next evening, Tornadoes put a pair of 250 kg bombs through the window of the unoccupied communication station. The general consensus was gratitude that A) personnel were given the opportunity to stay alive, and B) there was NO collateral damage. An unsuccessful approach to surgical attack was Operation Phoenix in Vietnam. Getting locals to identify Viet Cong, and then having snake-eaters kill them in their sleep, sounded like a very efficient means to an end. As it turns out, the locals quite rightly concluded that falling afoul of the remaining Viet Cong by fingering any of them was a Very Bad Career Move. Thus, when someone was identified for elimination, they were more often than not the subject of personal enmity. The least vectored approach to achieving a military/political goal is that put forth by Col. Giulio Douhet in the 1920s. The theory, as adopted by almost every country capable of strategic bombing, went like this: bombers, which could come and go with impunity, would pound the opposing population into submission. The enemy would sue for peace, and accept whatever terms would end the onslaught. In practice, it had the opposite effect. Britain was defeated in 1940 by any metric, and Parliament was trying to work out terms for an end to hostilities. When the Luftwaffe went from bombing airfields to bombing neighborhoods, however, the hungry and dispirited populous instantly became furious and intractable, and sure victory slipped though the grasp of Berlin. I am uneasy around anyone who is fanatical about much of anything. Anarchists, jihadis, haredim or whatever I can generally do without. The papal approach of 'kill them all - God will recognize his own' can make some dreadful people look good by comparison, and it is wise to avoid anything resembling that policy. A cynical appraisal of what to expect after the cessation of hostilities goes a long way toward achieving any stated military/political goal. When we remove Khaddafi/Hussein/Sadat/etc. from power, what do we expect to fill the vacuum? I'd rather have an oppressive despot keeping a lid on a social shithole than to have absolute chaos among those who become free to kill each other after said oppressive despot is overthrown. This lesson is lost among many of our foreign service professionals, who grew up singing kumbiya and how they'd like to buy the world a Coke and what have you. Sometimes naivete is fatal. BSBD, Winsor

If there are enough of said troglodytes voting to get him elected, I suppose it is a valid strategy. Maybe there are enough airheads voting for Hillary to keep him out of office, but I am underwhelmed by either eventuality. Welcome to the future.

The issue is not one of stupidity so much as denial. It is wonderful to live in a society based on mutual cooperation and respect. Being able to leave your door unlocked, to be confident that any conflicts that arise can be resolved amicably, to be assured that hard work results in economic security and so forth is much more productive and less stressful than having to worry constantly about unknown and unseen dangers. Pissing away mind-boggling amounts of money on 'Defense' and 'Security' is tough to justify, and I can understand the appeal of 'can't we all just get along?' from an economic standpoint at the very least. Having said all that, among the most onerous and draconian totalitarian states that have ever existed were those whose raison d'etre was based on sweetness and light, 'liberté, égalité, fraternité' and all that. It is unfortunate that we do not live in a Nerf world engineered by Walt Disney, where all the animals get along and the good guys always prevail. Since ignorance is bliss, I am to some extent envious of people who can harness the suspension of disbelief necessary to adhere to various isms that are patent nonsense, but offer boundless happiness to whoever buys into their story wholeheartedly. Think Scientology for starts. In any event, the Liberal mindset is a disease of denial. As P.J. O'Rourke noted, Santa Claus is a Democrat and God is a Republican. Put another way, neither end of the spectrum is based on anything resembling reality. BSBD, Winsor