winsor

Killfile capability would be wonderful.

Rambo was a character in a nice little book by David Morrell (First Blood). Some 4-F Hollywood type got ahold of it and completely missed the point. FWIW, most snake-eaters of my acquaintance do not look like bodybuilders. In mufti they look fit but unremarkable, which is what put the SAS in business (SAS is more likely to infiltrate as tourists than by more dramatic means). Norris is a civilian, who was married and too old for the draft when the Southeast Asian War Games heated up. BSBD, Winsor

Not a chance. Just because two groups of people suck out loud does not mean they get along with each other better than they do with anyone else. Neither the cartels nor ISIS would be given to power sharing, and neither would dream of deferring to the other. When the previous administration suggested that Saddam Hussein was backing Al Qaeda, the necessary naivete was laughable for similar reasons. BSBD, Winsor

I hate to break it to you, but the amount of BANG necessary to breach the Hoover dam is enormous. The amount of effort necessary to, say, wipe out the power grid is infinitesimal by comparison. BSBD, Winsor

Who is John Galt?

Do you intentionally select verbiage to discredit any point you ostensibly intend to make, or does it just work out that way?

Good point. I knew someone who referred to herself as 'retarded' (she was special-ed, and attached no value judgment to the descriptor). OTOH, I heard people self described as 'nigger' in my youth enough that I did not realize it was a big deal until I lived in the suburbs. Boy, was that enlightening. After years in the Occupied Confederacy, it took some getting used to people blithely referring to themselves as 'yankees.' I still flinch when I see 'Yankee Candle' shops. It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose. It's like the old saw "I didn't expect you to get upset when I referred to you as an idiot - I thought you knew." BSBD, Winsor

Who does make everyone happy? Some phrases tend to discredit content. When someone has to tell you how honest they are, you had better count your fingers after shaking hands with them. Similarly, when someone goes to the trouble to point out how 'open minded' they are (or 'fair and balanced' or that they're 'not an idiot' or whatever), you can bank on their self-estimation being wide of the mark. When I hear cries of 'racism!' or 'blasphemy!' I suspect that the target of the charge does not view things in that light. Anyhow, I am on the skeptic side of things. This is to say that, even though I take it as a given that our species has a measurable impact on our planet, it strikes me that those who take a SISO (single input - single output) standpoint of the matter are somewhere between clueless and blithering idiots (Al Gore is a clueless blithering idiot - albeit one made wealthy by virtue of having co-opting the climate change movement). Is overpopulation and bad resource management a factor in the heat balance of our planet? Most assuredly. Is said heat balance the greatest problem faced by mankind? Not in the top ten; we will be lucky to survive as a species long enough for it to be a major concern. Does holding that view make me a 'denier?' According to those with more zeal for the issue than technical expertise, I expect it does. Anyone familiar with the history of medicine should have a certain amount of skepticism for something that involves so much hand waving. What constitutes 'the truth' from a medical standpoint is constantly evolving, and is destined to do so for some time. The same is true for physics. If someone says that humanity has no impact on climate, I call bullshit. If someone claims that humanity has control of climate, I call bullshit as well. I guess calling someone a denier is not as clear a PA as would be calling them an idiot. BSBD, Winsor

As is referring to people as "deniers."

Too tough a subject? Deliberate ignorance is nothing to be proud of. It is required if one is to be a Reich Wing Conservative. One must never view or read anything that presents facts that conflict with beliefs. I need a new irony meter. Mine just broke.

That was the result of Climate Change. The microclimate in the area around Nicole Brown Simpson's resulted in the very dangerous San Andreas Icicles on her house. Slamming the gate caused these very sharp icicles to break loose, fatally wounding both Ms. Simpson and Mr. Goldman. By the time the police got involved, the ice had melted and nobody had the presence of mind to consider the obvious cause of these fatalities. The prosecution's hatred of O.J. came from his prejudice against the Buffalo Bills; the Assistant D.A. swore he would get revenge after O.J. was traded to the 49ers. The accident that befell O.J.s ex and her pal just gave him the opportunity to show how unfair he could be. Luckily, the jury realized how absurd was the idea that O.J. could have had anything to do with it, and a great injustice was narrowly averted. The End

Look, I think it's pretty obvious. The officer, who is an absolute teddy bear according to his mother, tried to peacefully subdue the driver for questioning. The driver then took the officer's taser, used it on the officer, dropped it, and ran away. The officer, having been shocked severely by the taser, had the involuntary reflex of drawing his pistol and emptying it. It was simply an unfortunate accident that the driver happened to be in the direction that the officer was firing, since the officer had no control of his actions at that point. Still disoriented by the taser, the very polite officer then picked up the taser and gave it back to the driver "Here, you dropped this back there." It was only when the officer came to his senses that he realized that the driver was not simply taking a nap, and was very traumatized by the realization. It is all a big misunderstanding, and it will be cleared up in court. BSBD, Winsor

Him AND his elk! I never saw an elk in the video!? I thought that was a horse!?

Apathy is not neccessarily approval. Close enough for Government work.

Well, the flip side to that is deluding yourself into thinking that this country hasn't made great strides with regard to eliminating racism, and that cops simply inhabit an institutionalized form of modern-day lynching. Getting from the 1 yard line to the 20 yard line is "making great strides". It's still a long way to the 50 yard line. A number of points. So long as there is a livelihood to be made in professional racism (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Spike Lee et al. have made a good buck finding racism, real or imagined, under every rock), it will be perceived as an issue, regardless of the merits. Go figure. So long as racial identity is a primary concern in any ethnic group, that group will see themselves as being defined by their racial identity. Go figure. So long as people work hard at living stereotypes ("when you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way, from your first cigarette to your dying day..."), the image of said stereotype will persist. Go figure. I fancied myself as being singularly egalitarian until it was pointed out that I was a "racist honky motherfucker." Who knew? I try to be as indifferent to racial issues as physically possible. However, when people insist that I take race into consideration, I feel no particular compunction to take their stance on the issue. If they don't like it, xin loi. BSBD, Winsor

Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how the government uses them. Similarly, once the dollars have been given out to the recipient, they no longer belong to the government. So you have no problem with the banker bail outs, or how they bankers spent those funds. Well, the POINT is that we did bail out the bank execs and we didn't tell them that they couldn't buy luxury cars or yachts. So what we see here is a clear double standard. Different rules for wealthy campaign donors than for the poor and indigent. I'm in lock step with you on this one. The people on Wall Street and various banks should have been given the same treatment Bernie Madoff got. Orange is the new Brooks Brothers and all that.

Hey, it works for the Secret Service. What's with the double standard?

Too swift for him.

"Still here"? Were we here at those times in the past when they were at higher levels? Did our civilization's infrastructure exist and survive at those times? Phone service was much worse in the Mesozoic Era.

Laws from the Torah, Mitzvot/Commandments, are the basis of Kashrut. Thus, Kosher=Legal. The Top Ten Commandments get most of the press, but there are 613 of them. Given their Bronze Age origins, many reflect such sensibilities and are treated as artifacts; those that are more or less compatible with the modern world form the basis of current Judaic tradition. FWIW, Kosher chicken is significantly less likely to cause food poisoning than commercially processed chicken. Beyond that, it's hit or miss - I know Rabbis who like pulled pork BBQ. In any event, having used the Tanakh as the prequel to the Adventures of the Magic Jewish Zombie (aka the Christian Scriptures/Gospels/'New Testament'), the Christian world has adopted Kashrut in broad strokes. The psychotic pervert Arab who used the onset of the Dark Ages to establish his power base also used Kashrut as the basis of his laws, so Sharia is effectively Kashrut II, or New, Improved Kashrut. Since Christians typically use translated versions of the Tanakh, referring to 'Biblical Law' as Sharia is close enough. BSBD, Winsor

From a triage standpoint, climate change is a chronic issue while we face some very pressing acute issues - a few of which are real show-stoppers. Even agreeing that carbon footprint is a concern (e.g., Al Gore's jet and power bills), we will be lucky to ever reach the point where it is on the list of our top ten problems. Who benefits from raising the alarm? Mr. Carbon Footprint himself, Al Gore, has amassed over $100,000,000 touting the issue. Science, like investigative journalism, has skepticism as its backbone. Whenever there is a hint of conflict of interest, follow the money. And yes, it works both ways. BSBD, Winsor

You have no idea of that outcome, it's an assumption based on hyperbole. Past is prologue. Interesting comment, Professor. There were North Charleston folks quoted on the news this morning that there have been several police shootings where the suspect was shot in the back. All were declared "justified." None had video. Hmmm. Go figure. In highly charged situations, video is often a good thing. I have heard claims that an irate female smacked her face into the wall enough to leave a mark, then called 911 to say she had been hit. She may well have been hit, but video would have been of great use if she was simply using the authorities as an instrument of malice. Similarly, the procedure, after shouting "HALT!" or "FREEZE!," is (generally) to hold fire unless the opponent either attacks or accesses offensive means (axe, flame thrower, firearm, etc.). If the opponent is facing away and keeps their hands in sight, fine. If they reach for something out of sight, waiting for them to turn around to see what it is can be fatal, and shooting to stop is warranted. In this case, video is critical. If the individual who was shot had their hands in plain sight at all times, the shooting was not justified. If they grabbed for their waist, whether it was to go for a firearm or to divest themselves of some illegal substance, the shooting was justified. In matters of life and death, hearsay is notoriously unreliable - regardless of the source. BSBD, Winsor

Retooling for the new model will be significant, what with the new standard 5.7 litre V-8 and all.

Don't you have any little toys you could go play with.. as a substitute for the one you were born with??? Now run along like a nice little boy. How old are you? I know how old you and he are... and since you have met me numerous times...... I stand by my assessment. Now don't you need some more "furniture"?????? Sad. Sorry, not sad. There's a difference.

Don't you have any little toys you could go play with.. as a substitute for the one you were born with??? Now run along like a nice little boy. How old are you? Old enough to know better, apparently.