The first question about the bridge collision SHOULD be, why was the container ship under it's own power at that point? Is this SOP? Second is was a harbor pilot still on board? In the video it appears to be the only vessel. I am no expert, but having watched ships to in and out of tight harbors, I have always seen tugs. And my father in law was a harbor manager and said no ship goes in or out, especially when there are bridges on the route, without a harbor pilot and powerful tugs at hand. Apparently those were the old days?
I'm fascinated how so few relevant questions are being raised.
As to RFK, well, good for him. He's still a dozen billionaires short of Biden, but at least he's now 1:1 with Trump ;-)
“Nowhere in this segment is it mentioned that government was the driving force behind this government. ” typo. I guess the last word should be censorship?
This is the way the world ends. With a bang and a whimper.
But on a lighter note. Here's this advertising headline in the Daily Mail. Empty Alaska Cruises Departing From New Mexico That Seniors Can Book For Dirt Cheap
I'm guessing they're sailing up the Rio Grande. Not sure where they go from there. I imagine that might be why they're empty.
The thing is....folks like this are fine with censoring other people. They're "right" cannot be violated. The rest of you are irrelevant, ignorant deplorables who don't know what's good for you.
This isn't even a little bit about security (it never is, kids). This isn't about protecting the masses from harmful information. This about suppressing what a few have decided is "wrong" - increasingly this sems to be anything critical of or counter to the "government's interests". It is quite interesting to me that the advocates of such "protection" are "the left" and it is those right wing whackos defending free speech. In deed, today all you have to do is look like you are defending the freedom of others and you are labeled "right wing". Not what I remember when I was young - when it was so-called liberals protesting the government.
maybe we should put it all in a blender and hit "jog".
When I was a young man, I would say the difference between D and R was which liberties they went after first. The end game was the same. Now that I'm older and no more wiser, I see the two as a single dominant party and theatre. What they say is different but what they do not so much. The only consistency is hypocrisy :-).
But yeah, when I was that young guy, "liberal" meant something else, that's for sure. The best entertainment value from Musk's takeover of twitter was listening to all these grey-haired liberals - many of whom had marched for free speech in the distant past - explaining why censorship was essential. People who knew better - but lost themselves in their party identity. Laughed my ass off!
Can't argue with any of what you well say here, TIOK.
I will say this. I consider myself an extreme libertarian (small "l", because I strongly believe a vote for the Libertarian candidate only improves the chance that the greater evil of the uni-parties wins, the *greater* evil being an *individual's* judgment of course). But to my way of thinking, that's just another phrase for classical liberal or Capitalist (*not* crony-capitalist).
That is all to say *my* partisanship is for the right side of political spectrum (less gov't, more individual freedom), not for any one political party, like the peeps you refer to, who get lost in party loyalty above all else.
But I *like* just two main parties, because at any given time, one will have the most political power (easily measured), and the only way to avoid the inevitable eventual one-party State (as we are seeing the Democrats go for increasingly since 2008) is to have an *undiluted* opposition party. In other words, a *vehicle* for the People to pool maximum opposition for the sole purpose of defeating the (usurping?) in-power party. I think this should get both major parties to respond to their base (and probably Dem for peeps who want more gov't, and Repubs for peeps who want less, so overall and over time the peeps get the level we want, for better or worse, but we would learn over time). Certainly, it requires a good number of peeps to be ready to switch who they vote for, but isn't that a freedom the People individually should have?.
I hope I am being clear. I feel we've touched on this in previous discussion. At least I know I'm repeating myself, considering how much I've posted across substack all these years now! (I never made comments until Greenwald left his Intercept.)
Here's an update on that ship which took out the bridge. Want to open a betting pool on ways the crew tried to jury-rig repairs rather than request permission to spend real money on getting the system fixed properly?
This is of course true - and the captain of this vessel is done (toast, over).
I'm a pilot and CFI and when I see something like this I avoid the "well that was stupid" automatic response and go to try and figure out "why did these guys do that stupid thing".
And look for the contributing factors. Not to cast blame, but to identify causes. So as to avoid being the stupid guys in the accident report :-).
I'm also, like Sim noted, skeptical of both government and media - more so of media when it comes to transportation as they generally have the triple charms of making no effort at all to get the facts, near perfect ignorance of the topic, and a need to make everything play to their political narrative. I'm always shocked by media coverage of aviation accidents, the "experts" they put on the air that couldn't tell an aileron from their anus (or find their buttocks with both hands), etc, It is like the "gun experts" they dredge up. Their conclusions are always predictable and irrational. So I will tend to assume everything in the media is wrong.
It's pretty much a universal folly that people in charge of anything will try to cut corners to save money and the guys marched to the gallows for the ensuing disaster are almost never them.
SC - Cogent segues. "If you only saw this piece, you might think the censors are the good guys!"
One is not limited to Houthi pirates for supply chain disruption, price gouging and stoking artificial inflation. One can buy any legislative, judicial or executive slot to gain a chair at the table. One can gain mindshare and acceptance by controlling the narrative. All influence peddling toll roads lead to Rome, a shakedown and no good guys Mr. Mulder.
I used to watch 60 Minutes, going all the way back to its first episode back in the late 1960s. Maybe I'm slow to catch on, but it was a couple of decades later when I swore I would never watch it again. And I haven't. Most episodes were fine, but more and more, they were inserting propaganda, such as the 'misinformation' segment mentioned here. Everyone has a right to express any opinion they want, but deliberate misleading is unprofessional and unethical, at the least. I also no longer watch CBS news programs, for the same reason.
As for the bridge, let's not do what progressives do, jump to conclusions. I see nothing that indicates any premeditation. The crew apparently did all they could to keep this from happening, and then radioed a mayday far enough in advance to save a lot of motorists. Terrorist attacks are generally pointless strategically, but are intended to, well, terrorize. Hence the recent slaughter in Russia. But the bridge collapse serves no such purpose. There is no strategic reason to destroy the bridge. And no terrorist organization would disguise its terrorism as an accident. That runs counter to their ideology.
The lost me with the Pinto "experiment". In that long forgotten episode, their "experts" were unable to recreate the "explodes on impact" that others claimed to have documented. So they went Hollywood, and rigged it with explosives. Made for good TV. Ford sued but lost. Partially because of testing done less fraudulently by "credible" labs - and the government mandated recall. It's not slander if it's the truth was their defense. Ford's lawyers contributed greatly, too, having a lame case - mostly claiming the Pinto met all DOT requirement ("the government said it's fine") which fell apart when DOT mandated a recall. In that decision the judge was VERY critical of the tactics of 60 minutes, condemning their fraud, but ruled it was protected fraud (freedom of the press).
Decades latter, the did the same trick with GM trucks. When it wouldn't blow up on the test range, again in came the Hollywood pyrotechnics. They aired the fabricated report of the "danger", killed truck sales, and got sued by GM. This time the network lost. GM had kilos of data along with testimony from the pyrotechnicians who rigged the truck and techs from the test lab that the network had contracted to do the original (not Hollywood) tests. That judge ruled that first amendment protections for TV networks had limits and blowing up perfectly good trucks and claiming it was GM's faulty design was not OK.
Both the truck and the Pinto were blamed for having gas tanks. The media journalists all concluded that the tanks were in the wrong place. They never offered to tell us what the RIGHT place was.
Funny thing! I had a button on my schoolbag in my HS years, a very long time ago, that said "Anarchists Unite!" There was some that didn't get the humor...
Yeah, probably a lot more today. I have a shirt that says "make Orwell fiction again" and too many people think I'm "MAGA". It's not even a red shirt ;-).
I'm a founding member of the Apathy Society. Our moto is "Join us, or not".
The power going out on this ship seems suspect and with all our involvement around the world from Ukraine to Taiwan I would not rule out anything yet. If it was terror Biden's done.
RFK Jr.s lost any of my interest because if he was going to run in the "Center' picking a sugar momma from Cali ain't it.
Leslie who? Mis-Mal-Dis or corrupt Information just ask Judge Jackson she "knows a guy" or girl?
Did you listen to his or her acceptance speech? Give ‘em a chance. 🍊💩🤡 and Biden are pro-Ukraine war. I notice you totally changed your post. Slick. and refused to listen to his or her acceptance speech. Not slick. Calling him a gun grabber misrepresents his position, which is here: https://www.kennedy24.com/position-on-the-second-amendment-faq
The D-party platform claims to believe in the second amendment, too. It's what we in the non-political world call a lie. He had me until "some kind of limitation of the right to bear arms is appropriate.". This is another way to say "reasonable restrictions" the problem with which is many fold. The words "Shall not be infringed" is clear. For a reason. Government can not decide what is "reasonable" when it comes to disarming citizens. That is why there's no mention of "reasonable restrictions" in the text.
Courts have long decided "reasonable" is OK, even in what are termed "pro-second amendment decisions", and are in every case wrong. "Shall not be infringed" is not ambiguous.
The "it's obsolete" argument falls short for a simple, inarguable reason: it is an excuse to ignore rather than amend. If the world is different and the people feel the constitution is out of date, there is an amendment process. The "ignore" argument bypasses the need to vet a change properly: with ratification of a super-majority of the states (or by constitutional convention). That's wrong. Not grey, not complicated. It's wrong.
"Shall not be infringed" is black and white. Don't like it? Amend the constitution. This is IMO on the plan for the DNC. Once they have secured control over enough state legislatures, they'll rewrite the constitution to rid us of those pesky freedoms. Revise the first, second, fourth and fifth; repeal the 9th and 10th. It's just a matter of time!
Did either of you READ what I linked to? Your long "reply" strongly suggests you didn't. Are you really one of the few most fervent Second Amendment advocates who think private citizens should be allowed to own thermonuclear bombs, weaponized anthrax, buy predator drones, Tanks, and Cruise missiles? As I see it, you must be - either that or you didn't read what I linked to before replying.
Nukes and anthrax can't be contained to your direct enemies, though I can think of many reasons 'private' corporations would want nuclear energy. The other three people should be able to own 100%.
I've just heard that contaminated i.e. dirty fuel is suspected. I wouldn't put it past a crew from India and heading to India to have done some cut-rate purchasing, especially if there were bribes to do so.
The ship is 9 years old and that thick black smoke looked like a 1982 Peterbilt semi truck. I'm wondering if it could have been hacked and became a big dumb "sea drone"? Were other ports shut down or change procedures?
This is a pattern I observed in my 20s: I'd read a "news" report about something in which I had actual first hand knowledge. Nearly everything was wrong. Finally I realized that if they were so wrong in those cases, why expect anything better when I had no prior knowledge of the events? I concluded it's all just entertainment (and for some, therapy).
This really irks me because it's so true and I don't really know what to do about it. Lots of times I want to cover events but really don't have the knowledge required to do so in a way that adds value.
"This happened, I dunno what it means" just might be the best option -- then we can discuss the issue and maybe we all learn something?
I passed "irk" decades ago and move on to "whatever" (apathy). I just don't pay any attention to "news" much. If something catches my eye, I go look for primary sources.
Want to know about a piece of legislation? You can find it on-line and read it. Too long and/or obtuse to understand? Well, there you go - if you can't get it, it's bad law. You think federal employees, law enforcement "leaders" and judges are smarter than you? Go talk to some. Clear that up fast.
Old joke: how can you tell if politicians are being untruthful? Watch their lips move.
Anyone who uses "unbiased" is clearly confused, clueless or a liar. Everyone has a bias.
There's some technical sources I trust. Mostly because I know how to read them - separate the marketing BS from the technical specs. But I did enough high energy physics to realize that politics reaches into everything - even "scientific" research and publications. So read what's not there - what they omitted, check the math, and the sources they cite. Many of the dodgy papers I read/review cite as primary sources prior papers from the same authors. And if challenge is not allowed, it's politics, not science.
Skepticism is not an attitude my friends, it's a way of life :-).
Okay, genuine question, how does RFK's VP pick settle the question of who RFK will "steal from"? I can really see it going either way after reading through an Axios article and the WSJ article Arne linked below. I know Brietbart did a frantic "hit piece" on her, because my sister sent it to me, but if you read Brietbart, I don't think you'd be voting for RFK anyway.
Have to credit RFK Jr for not obfuscating his radical agenda, by this whack job VP selection. As others noted, he’s a climate fanatic, but that has been obscured by targeting the dangers of vaccines, specifically the CLOT SHOT. But, given the progressive move of indigenous land acknowledgements by VP Whacky, they have discredited themselves to any MAGA supporter, even the soft ones. It will divide the nutty, crazy left and that is always a very good thing. Trust me, I’m Canadian, and this agenda has been it in the open for the last 5 years.
I have a different take, though I acknowledge that I think you've hit Sim's point in the 10 ring.
Whomever loses will be able to blame RFK for "stealing my votes".
That said, I think he can grab a lot of "D" votes as he can identify with D-party tradition, and a LOT of loyal followers are barely hanging on with Biden. And most have forgotten about Harris. that's not stealing, kids, that's winning. Because as whacko as he is on some things, he's less whacko than The Party. At least that's how a lot of people see it.
In a way he's taking the Trump route. He's grabbing support from those disenfranchised by both dominant parties. He'll grab votes from GOP too. Not as many. Now if Trump doesn't appear on the ballot, it'll be more. Trump's support comes from defectors from both sides - as do his opponents.
But mostly I think it will be from "real" democrats (older people who remember his dad and the principles his family once claimed to be about). Biden+Harris was a loyalty test: just how far can we push absurdity. It was also an overt sign that the DNC runs things, not the candidate. They count on people voting party, not candidate.
And it seems to me like RFK is simply running the sabotage platform -- focus on the swing states that Biden needs, and steal away part of his base. The DNC will rue the day they threw him out.
I didn't figure any MAGA people would vote for RFK anyway. It was this paragraph from the WSJ that made me waffle as to who she would hurt worse:
"Shanahan, Kennedy said, matched the list of attributes he was looking for in a running mate as someone who has worked to increase access to healthy, pesticide-free food, has an understanding of tech and AI, and is athletic. He also praised their shared skepticism of government agencies and support for more aggressive border security and legal immigration. He said it was important to him to have a running mate who was young and could appeal to pessimistic young voters."
So if you're talking Trump voters that aren't strictly speaking "MAGA" but are instead what one might have once termed the antiestablishment liberal, she would not be that unattractive a choice on that information alone. A lot of those voted for Trump in 2016 and even 2020 (if I'm anything to go by).
I think this is a sizable group, but think of why you are merely adjacent (not meaning to throw shade here). You have made the decision that to defeat this Democrat police State, you must jump on the narcissist's bandwagon, just to have any chance of success.
That's no small decision. Trump can be an ass, as we have all seen.
But it's a very wise decision, imo, and one you don't make lightly. Iow, you're gonna think long and hard about shooting the effort to defeat the Fascists by splitting the opposition vote.
I don't think most of you are jumping to RFK in the end. Again, I don't mean to be rude; I think the wise decision is to jump/stay on the Trump train.
RFK kind of soured for me when he changed his stance on funding Israel's war (I know that's something you and I disagree on, maybe?).
It really depends for me on who Trump picks as his VP. I have my doubts about how long he'll be president if he wins, so the VP pick is vital. But I've heard rumors of Tulsi Gabbard or Vivek Ramaswamy, and either would make my choice easy.
To be clear, I am against "foreign aid" in general, especially military. I believe Israel, as an existential nation, has the right to eliminate its existential threats, but it can do so on its own dime. (But Iran is a problem for all of the West.)
You are sooo right about Trump's VP. And he needs all the votes he can get, so he better pick wisely. Hey, did Trump signal that Ramaswamy will not be picked? I heard that somewhere.
Bombing 50% of the buildings in Gaza and mass murdering women and children to steal land isn't self defense it's genocide. Jews are greedy demonic scum fucks,
Oops, I forget what company I'm in (that's not a dig, just a positive observation about the range of people you attract).
For, I would definitely vote for Trump if he chooses either Gabbard or Ramaswamy as his VP. Neither one is perfect, but they're, to me, much better than any of the alternatives I've seen.
Uh...only because *all* Republicans, of any stripe, dislike police defunders, not just because they dislike Trump. (Which isn't true of the vast majority of Republican voters* anyway, who obviously love DJT.)
* You know, the *real* voters, who fill out their *own* ballot, and get to the polls on election day BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSE! >:(
This seems to be the general reaction I'm seeing, though as always there's exceptions. Republicans aren't really keen on supporting defund the police types, but perhaps could have gotten behind somebody like (but not exactly) Justin Amash.
Meanwhile, disaffected Democrats (especially young ones) are thrilled with the pick because she quite obviously cares about the same things as they do. (I'm sure it helps that she's only 38)
It is quite clearly somewhat of a "pander" pick, but from what I was reading, it was also pragmatic. She brings a lot of money to the table and she can help with getting RFK on the ballot by personally paying for signature collection without running afoul of campaign finance laws.
This is all true. She also plays extremely well to the young left. I have no problem with the pick from an RFK standpoint, but from a 'disaffected Republican' standpoint, she's a huge disappointment.
nothing they say it true. They believe that they are the professionals. Therefore they cannot do wrong, and they automatically say the right thing. How would that work? Their whole view is that they are the experts. If they are the experts, how can they be wrong? Impossible! All they need to do is open their mouths and honey comes out. The narrative is they are the experts, protecting us. And now it doesn't matter what they say. Anything will come out of their mouth. They are so used to believing in themselves (how else does one get a job with a big network? You gotta believe, man!) they now think whatever they say is correct and whatever anyone else says is not correct. This is automatically true because it is in the nature of things. Telling these newsmen and newswomen they are incorrect, about anything the say, is automatically "disinformation" or "malinformation." If you criticize them, it just "does not compute."
There's sloppiness and open opinion in the article that elite newspapers didn't have in "the old days." For example, this clumsy sentence: "She told People that she coped with her challenging childhood by throwing herself into school."
The first question about the bridge collision SHOULD be, why was the container ship under it's own power at that point? Is this SOP? Second is was a harbor pilot still on board? In the video it appears to be the only vessel. I am no expert, but having watched ships to in and out of tight harbors, I have always seen tugs. And my father in law was a harbor manager and said no ship goes in or out, especially when there are bridges on the route, without a harbor pilot and powerful tugs at hand. Apparently those were the old days?
I'm fascinated how so few relevant questions are being raised.
As to RFK, well, good for him. He's still a dozen billionaires short of Biden, but at least he's now 1:1 with Trump ;-)
The Village is the pattern for the whole world.
“where am I?”
“In the village.”
“Which side are you on?”
“That would be telling…”
youtu.be/ato5NS9dW0A
“Nowhere in this segment is it mentioned that government was the driving force behind this government. ” typo. I guess the last word should be censorship?
It's a well-known fact that it's impossible to catch all your errors until you hit PUBLISH....and even then.......
Use the modern software approach: your proof readers are your readers ;-)
It's just to prove I'm not a really advanced AI! Yeah, that's it!
( small error in a great article. )
Fixed :) Ty
This is the way the world ends. With a bang and a whimper.
But on a lighter note. Here's this advertising headline in the Daily Mail. Empty Alaska Cruises Departing From New Mexico That Seniors Can Book For Dirt Cheap
I'm guessing they're sailing up the Rio Grande. Not sure where they go from there. I imagine that might be why they're empty.
Sure that wasn't from The Onion?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/2940769/supreme-court-must-rely-on-the-first-amendment-not-its-own-precedent-when-deciding-government-censorship-case/
I fear Roberts is all-in on trading freedom for "security."
The thing is....folks like this are fine with censoring other people. They're "right" cannot be violated. The rest of you are irrelevant, ignorant deplorables who don't know what's good for you.
This isn't even a little bit about security (it never is, kids). This isn't about protecting the masses from harmful information. This about suppressing what a few have decided is "wrong" - increasingly this sems to be anything critical of or counter to the "government's interests". It is quite interesting to me that the advocates of such "protection" are "the left" and it is those right wing whackos defending free speech. In deed, today all you have to do is look like you are defending the freedom of others and you are labeled "right wing". Not what I remember when I was young - when it was so-called liberals protesting the government.
Well, I make the argument that individual freedom has *always* been on the *right* side of the political spectrum, even in the '60s and '70s.
Those wonderful hippies were protesting the *government* after all.
But it does seem like the 2 parties have flipped in certain ways.
Here's another: the neocons have joined their neoliberal twins on the left, imo.
maybe we should put it all in a blender and hit "jog".
When I was a young man, I would say the difference between D and R was which liberties they went after first. The end game was the same. Now that I'm older and no more wiser, I see the two as a single dominant party and theatre. What they say is different but what they do not so much. The only consistency is hypocrisy :-).
But yeah, when I was that young guy, "liberal" meant something else, that's for sure. The best entertainment value from Musk's takeover of twitter was listening to all these grey-haired liberals - many of whom had marched for free speech in the distant past - explaining why censorship was essential. People who knew better - but lost themselves in their party identity. Laughed my ass off!
Can't argue with any of what you well say here, TIOK.
I will say this. I consider myself an extreme libertarian (small "l", because I strongly believe a vote for the Libertarian candidate only improves the chance that the greater evil of the uni-parties wins, the *greater* evil being an *individual's* judgment of course). But to my way of thinking, that's just another phrase for classical liberal or Capitalist (*not* crony-capitalist).
That is all to say *my* partisanship is for the right side of political spectrum (less gov't, more individual freedom), not for any one political party, like the peeps you refer to, who get lost in party loyalty above all else.
But I *like* just two main parties, because at any given time, one will have the most political power (easily measured), and the only way to avoid the inevitable eventual one-party State (as we are seeing the Democrats go for increasingly since 2008) is to have an *undiluted* opposition party. In other words, a *vehicle* for the People to pool maximum opposition for the sole purpose of defeating the (usurping?) in-power party. I think this should get both major parties to respond to their base (and probably Dem for peeps who want more gov't, and Repubs for peeps who want less, so overall and over time the peeps get the level we want, for better or worse, but we would learn over time). Certainly, it requires a good number of peeps to be ready to switch who they vote for, but isn't that a freedom the People individually should have?.
I hope I am being clear. I feel we've touched on this in previous discussion. At least I know I'm repeating myself, considering how much I've posted across substack all these years now! (I never made comments until Greenwald left his Intercept.)
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/twilight-wonks-walter-russell-mead
Long, but if one has the time to peruse this Walter Russel Mead piece, then one will be rewarded, I'm sure.
Here's an update on that ship which took out the bridge. Want to open a betting pool on ways the crew tried to jury-rig repairs rather than request permission to spend real money on getting the system fixed properly?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13246079/Dali-cargo-ship-suffered-severe-electrical-problem-docked-Baltimore-days-prior-bridge-collapse-crash-saw-suffer-total-power-failure-loss-engine-failure-port-worker-says.html
There is always a way to blame those who had no power to change things.
The prime obligation of a captain of any vessel is the safety of his crew and passengers, followed by the integrity of his ship/plane.
This is of course true - and the captain of this vessel is done (toast, over).
I'm a pilot and CFI and when I see something like this I avoid the "well that was stupid" automatic response and go to try and figure out "why did these guys do that stupid thing".
And look for the contributing factors. Not to cast blame, but to identify causes. So as to avoid being the stupid guys in the accident report :-).
I'm also, like Sim noted, skeptical of both government and media - more so of media when it comes to transportation as they generally have the triple charms of making no effort at all to get the facts, near perfect ignorance of the topic, and a need to make everything play to their political narrative. I'm always shocked by media coverage of aviation accidents, the "experts" they put on the air that couldn't tell an aileron from their anus (or find their buttocks with both hands), etc, It is like the "gun experts" they dredge up. Their conclusions are always predictable and irrational. So I will tend to assume everything in the media is wrong.
It's pretty much a universal folly that people in charge of anything will try to cut corners to save money and the guys marched to the gallows for the ensuing disaster are almost never them.
Yikes.
Yup.
SC - Cogent segues. "If you only saw this piece, you might think the censors are the good guys!"
One is not limited to Houthi pirates for supply chain disruption, price gouging and stoking artificial inflation. One can buy any legislative, judicial or executive slot to gain a chair at the table. One can gain mindshare and acceptance by controlling the narrative. All influence peddling toll roads lead to Rome, a shakedown and no good guys Mr. Mulder.
I used to watch 60 Minutes, going all the way back to its first episode back in the late 1960s. Maybe I'm slow to catch on, but it was a couple of decades later when I swore I would never watch it again. And I haven't. Most episodes were fine, but more and more, they were inserting propaganda, such as the 'misinformation' segment mentioned here. Everyone has a right to express any opinion they want, but deliberate misleading is unprofessional and unethical, at the least. I also no longer watch CBS news programs, for the same reason.
As for the bridge, let's not do what progressives do, jump to conclusions. I see nothing that indicates any premeditation. The crew apparently did all they could to keep this from happening, and then radioed a mayday far enough in advance to save a lot of motorists. Terrorist attacks are generally pointless strategically, but are intended to, well, terrorize. Hence the recent slaughter in Russia. But the bridge collapse serves no such purpose. There is no strategic reason to destroy the bridge. And no terrorist organization would disguise its terrorism as an accident. That runs counter to their ideology.
The lost me with the Pinto "experiment". In that long forgotten episode, their "experts" were unable to recreate the "explodes on impact" that others claimed to have documented. So they went Hollywood, and rigged it with explosives. Made for good TV. Ford sued but lost. Partially because of testing done less fraudulently by "credible" labs - and the government mandated recall. It's not slander if it's the truth was their defense. Ford's lawyers contributed greatly, too, having a lame case - mostly claiming the Pinto met all DOT requirement ("the government said it's fine") which fell apart when DOT mandated a recall. In that decision the judge was VERY critical of the tactics of 60 minutes, condemning their fraud, but ruled it was protected fraud (freedom of the press).
Decades latter, the did the same trick with GM trucks. When it wouldn't blow up on the test range, again in came the Hollywood pyrotechnics. They aired the fabricated report of the "danger", killed truck sales, and got sued by GM. This time the network lost. GM had kilos of data along with testimony from the pyrotechnicians who rigged the truck and techs from the test lab that the network had contracted to do the original (not Hollywood) tests. That judge ruled that first amendment protections for TV networks had limits and blowing up perfectly good trucks and claiming it was GM's faulty design was not OK.
Both the truck and the Pinto were blamed for having gas tanks. The media journalists all concluded that the tanks were in the wrong place. They never offered to tell us what the RIGHT place was.
Funny thing! I had a button on my schoolbag in my HS years, a very long time ago, that said "Anarchists Unite!" There was some that didn't get the humor...
Yeah, probably a lot more today. I have a shirt that says "make Orwell fiction again" and too many people think I'm "MAGA". It's not even a red shirt ;-).
I'm a founding member of the Apathy Society. Our moto is "Join us, or not".
If only I could join with sincerity. I'd save quite a lot of money on tea.
I don't know if you know the back story to why my page is called Individualists Unite. Here it is, if you care to read it.
https://sezwhom.substack.com/p/how-free-are-you
Ha! Plus ca change!
Captains Lives Matter
The power going out on this ship seems suspect and with all our involvement around the world from Ukraine to Taiwan I would not rule out anything yet. If it was terror Biden's done.
RFK Jr.s lost any of my interest because if he was going to run in the "Center' picking a sugar momma from Cali ain't it.
Leslie who? Mis-Mal-Dis or corrupt Information just ask Judge Jackson she "knows a guy" or girl?
Not to mention he is a militant Zionist gun grabber, hard pass.
Did you listen to his or her acceptance speech? Give ‘em a chance. 🍊💩🤡 and Biden are pro-Ukraine war. I notice you totally changed your post. Slick. and refused to listen to his or her acceptance speech. Not slick. Calling him a gun grabber misrepresents his position, which is here: https://www.kennedy24.com/position-on-the-second-amendment-faq
The D-party platform claims to believe in the second amendment, too. It's what we in the non-political world call a lie. He had me until "some kind of limitation of the right to bear arms is appropriate.". This is another way to say "reasonable restrictions" the problem with which is many fold. The words "Shall not be infringed" is clear. For a reason. Government can not decide what is "reasonable" when it comes to disarming citizens. That is why there's no mention of "reasonable restrictions" in the text.
Courts have long decided "reasonable" is OK, even in what are termed "pro-second amendment decisions", and are in every case wrong. "Shall not be infringed" is not ambiguous.
The "it's obsolete" argument falls short for a simple, inarguable reason: it is an excuse to ignore rather than amend. If the world is different and the people feel the constitution is out of date, there is an amendment process. The "ignore" argument bypasses the need to vet a change properly: with ratification of a super-majority of the states (or by constitutional convention). That's wrong. Not grey, not complicated. It's wrong.
"Shall not be infringed" is black and white. Don't like it? Amend the constitution. This is IMO on the plan for the DNC. Once they have secured control over enough state legislatures, they'll rewrite the constitution to rid us of those pesky freedoms. Revise the first, second, fourth and fifth; repeal the 9th and 10th. It's just a matter of time!
EXACTLY! If you don't like it, all you have to do is find 37 states who also don't like it.....
That's the process. If you can't clear that bar -- tough luck.
Did either of you READ what I linked to? Your long "reply" strongly suggests you didn't. Are you really one of the few most fervent Second Amendment advocates who think private citizens should be allowed to own thermonuclear bombs, weaponized anthrax, buy predator drones, Tanks, and Cruise missiles? As I see it, you must be - either that or you didn't read what I linked to before replying.
Nukes and anthrax can't be contained to your direct enemies, though I can think of many reasons 'private' corporations would want nuclear energy. The other three people should be able to own 100%.
No thanks, if I wanted a militant Zionist gun grabber, I could vote for the senile hair sniffer.
I've just heard that contaminated i.e. dirty fuel is suspected. I wouldn't put it past a crew from India and heading to India to have done some cut-rate purchasing, especially if there were bribes to do so.
The ship is 9 years old and that thick black smoke looked like a 1982 Peterbilt semi truck. I'm wondering if it could have been hacked and became a big dumb "sea drone"? Were other ports shut down or change procedures?
From what I can piece together, when the ship briefly regained power it was able to drop anchor, which explains the sharp turn and the smoke.
The worst part about it is that Americans are pretty sure that if it WERE an attack, government would be lying about it.
Well, some of us.
Even if it was basic screw-up or a failure to follow procedures, we can be sure the government will lie about it.
I haven't watched 60 Minutes since 1980, when they butchered the story of the actual events at the Three Mile Island power plant.
This is a pattern I observed in my 20s: I'd read a "news" report about something in which I had actual first hand knowledge. Nearly everything was wrong. Finally I realized that if they were so wrong in those cases, why expect anything better when I had no prior knowledge of the events? I concluded it's all just entertainment (and for some, therapy).
You and me and millions!
The State (and by extension its captured media and corporations) has lost so much trust in and of the People that it's becoming a powderkeg.
This really irks me because it's so true and I don't really know what to do about it. Lots of times I want to cover events but really don't have the knowledge required to do so in a way that adds value.
"This happened, I dunno what it means" just might be the best option -- then we can discuss the issue and maybe we all learn something?
I passed "irk" decades ago and move on to "whatever" (apathy). I just don't pay any attention to "news" much. If something catches my eye, I go look for primary sources.
Want to know about a piece of legislation? You can find it on-line and read it. Too long and/or obtuse to understand? Well, there you go - if you can't get it, it's bad law. You think federal employees, law enforcement "leaders" and judges are smarter than you? Go talk to some. Clear that up fast.
Old joke: how can you tell if politicians are being untruthful? Watch their lips move.
Anyone who uses "unbiased" is clearly confused, clueless or a liar. Everyone has a bias.
There's some technical sources I trust. Mostly because I know how to read them - separate the marketing BS from the technical specs. But I did enough high energy physics to realize that politics reaches into everything - even "scientific" research and publications. So read what's not there - what they omitted, check the math, and the sources they cite. Many of the dodgy papers I read/review cite as primary sources prior papers from the same authors. And if challenge is not allowed, it's politics, not science.
Skepticism is not an attitude my friends, it's a way of life :-).
Okay, genuine question, how does RFK's VP pick settle the question of who RFK will "steal from"? I can really see it going either way after reading through an Axios article and the WSJ article Arne linked below. I know Brietbart did a frantic "hit piece" on her, because my sister sent it to me, but if you read Brietbart, I don't think you'd be voting for RFK anyway.
Have to credit RFK Jr for not obfuscating his radical agenda, by this whack job VP selection. As others noted, he’s a climate fanatic, but that has been obscured by targeting the dangers of vaccines, specifically the CLOT SHOT. But, given the progressive move of indigenous land acknowledgements by VP Whacky, they have discredited themselves to any MAGA supporter, even the soft ones. It will divide the nutty, crazy left and that is always a very good thing. Trust me, I’m Canadian, and this agenda has been it in the open for the last 5 years.
Divide the Left, it’s an essential policy.
I have a different take, though I acknowledge that I think you've hit Sim's point in the 10 ring.
Whomever loses will be able to blame RFK for "stealing my votes".
That said, I think he can grab a lot of "D" votes as he can identify with D-party tradition, and a LOT of loyal followers are barely hanging on with Biden. And most have forgotten about Harris. that's not stealing, kids, that's winning. Because as whacko as he is on some things, he's less whacko than The Party. At least that's how a lot of people see it.
In a way he's taking the Trump route. He's grabbing support from those disenfranchised by both dominant parties. He'll grab votes from GOP too. Not as many. Now if Trump doesn't appear on the ballot, it'll be more. Trump's support comes from defectors from both sides - as do his opponents.
But mostly I think it will be from "real" democrats (older people who remember his dad and the principles his family once claimed to be about). Biden+Harris was a loyalty test: just how far can we push absurdity. It was also an overt sign that the DNC runs things, not the candidate. They count on people voting party, not candidate.
And it seems to me like RFK is simply running the sabotage platform -- focus on the swing states that Biden needs, and steal away part of his base. The DNC will rue the day they threw him out.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/democrats-short-sightedness-makes
And I am totally OK with that ;-).
You stumbled across the essence of today's article ;)
I’ve been good at stumbling along in life! LOL
Said article has now been published:
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/democrats-short-sightedness-makes
Sorry, but Maga ain't voting for *this* Leftist.
There is no way RFK is going after Trump voters with this pick.
And...this shows desperation, if you ask me.
(You get answers from me, even before you ask!)
I appreciate the answer.
I didn't figure any MAGA people would vote for RFK anyway. It was this paragraph from the WSJ that made me waffle as to who she would hurt worse:
"Shanahan, Kennedy said, matched the list of attributes he was looking for in a running mate as someone who has worked to increase access to healthy, pesticide-free food, has an understanding of tech and AI, and is athletic. He also praised their shared skepticism of government agencies and support for more aggressive border security and legal immigration. He said it was important to him to have a running mate who was young and could appeal to pessimistic young voters."
So if you're talking Trump voters that aren't strictly speaking "MAGA" but are instead what one might have once termed the antiestablishment liberal, she would not be that unattractive a choice on that information alone. A lot of those voted for Trump in 2016 and even 2020 (if I'm anything to go by).
Shall we call them (you) the "Maga adjacent"?
I think this is a sizable group, but think of why you are merely adjacent (not meaning to throw shade here). You have made the decision that to defeat this Democrat police State, you must jump on the narcissist's bandwagon, just to have any chance of success.
That's no small decision. Trump can be an ass, as we have all seen.
But it's a very wise decision, imo, and one you don't make lightly. Iow, you're gonna think long and hard about shooting the effort to defeat the Fascists by splitting the opposition vote.
I don't think most of you are jumping to RFK in the end. Again, I don't mean to be rude; I think the wise decision is to jump/stay on the Trump train.
And MAGA is a populist movement. I tend to be highly sympathetic to populist movements, so, yes, MAGA adjacent is a good description.
Populism is the only thing that can save a People when its State turns rogue.
RFK kind of soured for me when he changed his stance on funding Israel's war (I know that's something you and I disagree on, maybe?).
It really depends for me on who Trump picks as his VP. I have my doubts about how long he'll be president if he wins, so the VP pick is vital. But I've heard rumors of Tulsi Gabbard or Vivek Ramaswamy, and either would make my choice easy.
To be clear, I am against "foreign aid" in general, especially military. I believe Israel, as an existential nation, has the right to eliminate its existential threats, but it can do so on its own dime. (But Iran is a problem for all of the West.)
You are sooo right about Trump's VP. And he needs all the votes he can get, so he better pick wisely. Hey, did Trump signal that Ramaswamy will not be picked? I heard that somewhere.
Bombing 50% of the buildings in Gaza and mass murdering women and children to steal land isn't self defense it's genocide. Jews are greedy demonic scum fucks,
Yes, about a week ago.
"But I've heard rumors of Tulsi Gabbard or Vivek Ramaswamy, and either would make my choice easy."
For Trump or against him?
Oops, I forget what company I'm in (that's not a dig, just a positive observation about the range of people you attract).
For, I would definitely vote for Trump if he chooses either Gabbard or Ramaswamy as his VP. Neither one is perfect, but they're, to me, much better than any of the alternatives I've seen.
You devil!
Republicans who dislike Trump hate her, but she appeals to Democrats who dislike Biden.
Uh...only because *all* Republicans, of any stripe, dislike police defunders, not just because they dislike Trump. (Which isn't true of the vast majority of Republican voters* anyway, who obviously love DJT.)
* You know, the *real* voters, who fill out their *own* ballot, and get to the polls on election day BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSE! >:(
Ah, thank you.
This seems to be the general reaction I'm seeing, though as always there's exceptions. Republicans aren't really keen on supporting defund the police types, but perhaps could have gotten behind somebody like (but not exactly) Justin Amash.
Meanwhile, disaffected Democrats (especially young ones) are thrilled with the pick because she quite obviously cares about the same things as they do. (I'm sure it helps that she's only 38)
It is quite clearly somewhat of a "pander" pick, but from what I was reading, it was also pragmatic. She brings a lot of money to the table and she can help with getting RFK on the ballot by personally paying for signature collection without running afoul of campaign finance laws.
This is all true. She also plays extremely well to the young left. I have no problem with the pick from an RFK standpoint, but from a 'disaffected Republican' standpoint, she's a huge disappointment.
Bingo.
He's desperate. RFK figures his only chance is to win by beating Biden. So, he of course names a young person who most appeals to young Dem radicals.
He's leaning into his base. I think it beats the alternative.
nothing they say it true. They believe that they are the professionals. Therefore they cannot do wrong, and they automatically say the right thing. How would that work? Their whole view is that they are the experts. If they are the experts, how can they be wrong? Impossible! All they need to do is open their mouths and honey comes out. The narrative is they are the experts, protecting us. And now it doesn't matter what they say. Anything will come out of their mouth. They are so used to believing in themselves (how else does one get a job with a big network? You gotta believe, man!) they now think whatever they say is correct and whatever anyone else says is not correct. This is automatically true because it is in the nature of things. Telling these newsmen and newswomen they are incorrect, about anything the say, is automatically "disinformation" or "malinformation." If you criticize them, it just "does not compute."
Here's The WS Journal's Nicole Shanahan coverage: https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/rfk-jr-to-name-nicole-shanahan-as-running-mate-for-presidential-bid-4b9a698e?st=q9rd2ijvzlqdqxu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
There's sloppiness and open opinion in the article that elite newspapers didn't have in "the old days." For example, this clumsy sentence: "She told People that she coped with her challenging childhood by throwing herself into school."
Can you hear me screaming out here in north western Pennsylvania? Because I can't scream any louder at Leslie Stahl than I am right now.