Valsuelm
-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Valsuelm
-
-
Also heard an obvious, blatant lie on NPR today.
Just today?
You must not listen to them much.
-
I stand with Sweden in light of last night's tragic terrorist attack.
Where did he said anything about TA?
Nowhere....
It's USAToday.
A media outlet that shouldn't be taken any more seriously than the National Enquirer.
-
A killer Runaway Jim
-
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/immigration-and-crime/
Speaking of immigrants and crime...
Well, there's an article that flies in the face of one heck of a lot of human experience over the course of history, as well as other modern studies.
It's been my experience that those who make it a point to advertise themselves as representing logic, reason, 'common sense', science, skepticism, critical thinking, etc usually represent quite the opposite. Mr Novella is certainly no exception.
Also, 'Pew Research' is about as bad as it gets on the quality scale for research. If one considers truth and reality to be a standard of quality that is.
-
Trump ruined more in a month than Obama ruined in eight years.
One commie's trash is a freedom lover's treasure?
If you love government or suckle upon the 'globalist' male bovine excrement canal as a hobby then yes, Trump is far more ruinous than Obama. Maybe.
Too much remains to be seen.
About the only thing I give Trump credit for at this point is killing TPP and calling the 'press' out a couple of times (it has truly been entertaining watching them freak out). Both very good things.
-
Also, for the general entertainment value : Rolling Stone - 18 wtf moments from Trumps unhinged press conference
Watching the entire thing is much more entertaining. Nothing WTF about it though.
-
What a horribly morbid thread....
With all due respect to the various folks who have past away, celebs are nothing special. People die every day, good people and bad people. The in recent times increased obsession with 'celebrity deaths' is a reflection of some of the worst aspects of modern society.
I hope this threads dies sooner than later. -
Wegmans has nothing to fear.
Two major reasons:
A) There's only one other grocery store in the same league, an it is not commonly found in the same areas Wegmans are. No one who shops there remotely regularly and enjoys good food is going to boycott it over politics. Wegmans could make an entire aisle Hillary or Trump themed and 98%+ of the people who shop there would still shop there because it's that good. And I say that as someone who would certainly lose some of their appetite at the sight of Hillary in my grocery aisle. Not saying there wouldn't be complaints, but people would still shop there. The alternatives just don't compare.
B) It's fairly safe to say that the kind of consumer that they appeal to tend to vote red a lot more than they do blue.
An aside: It's a pretty widely held consensus by people who have been to Wegmans that it is by far the best grocery store chain in the nation. I certainly can attest to it as it's the best I've been to in the nation. Whole Foods is the only chain I've been to that is even comparable and then only in their super large stores, everything else is way behind in quality (and Whole Foods only relatively recently began to compete in the same league as Wegmans).
Having been to Wegmans' locations in suburban MD & NJ, I don't think point (B) is universal.
Everybody's gotta eat.
That may be true.
After I wrote it I thought it was kinda redundant anyways, because A. And yea.. .everyone's gotta eat.
-
I live in the area where Wegmans was born and bred, and shop there myself fairly often.
Wegmans has nothing to fear.
Two major reasons:
A) There's only one other grocery store in the same league, an it is not commonly found in the same areas Wegmans are. No one who shops there remotely regularly and enjoys good food is going to boycott it over politics. Wegmans could make an entire aisle Hillary or Trump themed and 98%+ of the people who shop there would still shop there because it's that good. And I say that as someone who would certainly lose some of their appetite at the sight of Hillary in my grocery aisle. Not saying there wouldn't be complaints, but people would still shop there. The alternatives just don't compare.
B) It's fairly safe to say that the kind of consumer that they appeal to tend to vote red a lot more than they do blue.
An aside: It's a pretty widely held consensus by people who have been to Wegmans that it is by far the best grocery store chain in the nation. I certainly can attest to it as it's the best I've been to in the nation. Whole Foods is the only chain I've been to that is even comparable and then only in their super large stores, everything else is way behind in quality (and Whole Foods only relatively recently began to compete in the same league as Wegmans).
-
For the same exact reason they made up 'weapons of mass destruction' and propped up Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ to spout the lies she did.
Gotta have a good casus belli to sell to the masses when you wanna invade and conquer. Making them up happens at least as often as it doesn't.
History is replete with them, modern times seemingly even more so.
It also helps to blame atrocities committed by one's own armies or that of one's allies upon the designated enemy. Which is very probably the case with the 'Halabja chemical attack'. Whoever was responsible (Iraq, Iran, or someone else), the allegations that Saddam did this didn't even occur until the late 90s in the western world, when the talking heads in the U.S./U.K. et al were constantly trying to drum up public support for a re-invasion of Iraq (even more than they try to drum up public support against Russia or Iran today).
No, I understand how it was useful in 2002-2003, just not in 1988 when it happened. That'd require some serious foresight in planning for a war there was no apparent reason to launch back then.
I'm not totally clear on what you're suggesting. Are you saying that it didn't happen or that it did happen but Iraq wasn't the perpetrator?
I'm saying what I said:
Not one bit of evidence has ever emerged this is the case, and when people attempted to fact check those making this accusation once upon a time, they met a brick wall.Err... not across the board. Saddam was gassing Kurds even before Kuwait.
There's never been any good evidence made public that Saddam did what he is alleged to have done. When people inquired for some back in the '90s and through the mid '00s they met a brick wall. While I personally haven't looked into this issue in ~10+ years at this point I doubt any new credible information has made the light of day. Good luck finding some if you go looking, you're very like to need it.
What happened exactly? I don't know. At this point there's likely few honest people on the planet who do. I do know that the folks making the accusations have one helluva history of lying about all sorts of things, including Saddam and Iraq (as I previously mentioned two somewhat infamous examples).
-
Love this guys stuff!
Can't say I dig the cover, just not quite as soothing as Shakira's voice, but thumbs up to tundra horseman rocking out. That was entertaining.
-
Well, adios Flynn. Talk radio here he comes?
Meh.. .Good riddance (maybe (because we don't know who we're getting next)).
Here's a much more interesting Flynn:
-
Err... not across the board. Saddam was gassing Kurds even before Kuwait.
Not one bit of evidence has ever emerged this is the case, and when people attempted to fact check those making this accusation once upon a time, they met a brick wall.
'tis more than likely a myth good sir.
Even leaving the evidence thing aside, why would they make up something like this? In 1988, the US was still supporting Iraq against revolutionary Iran.
For the same exact reason they made up 'weapons of mass destruction' and propped up Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ to spout the lies she did.
Gotta have a good casus belli to sell to the masses when you wanna invade and conquer. Making them up happens at least as often as it doesn't.
History is replete with them, modern times seemingly even more so.
It also helps to blame atrocities committed by one's own armies or that of one's allies upon the designated enemy. Which is very probably the case with the 'Halabja chemical attack'. Whoever was responsible (Iraq, Iran, or someone else), the allegations that Saddam did this didn't even occur until the late 90s in the western world, when the talking heads in the U.S./U.K. et al were constantly trying to drum up public support for a re-invasion of Iraq (even more than they try to drum up public support against Russia or Iran today).
-
Err... not across the board. Saddam was gassing Kurds even before Kuwait.
Not one bit of evidence has ever emerged this is the case, and when people attempted to fact check those making this accusation once upon a time, they met a brick wall.
'tis more than likely a myth good sir.
much like:
'Weapons of mass destruction!'
and
-
Valsuelm, you have terrible taste in music. The Worst. SAD!
-
1
-
-
Was there...
Best show I'd seen since the '97 Went (any artist (and I used to work in the industry)).
If you're a fan, I highly recommend seeing them if you can. They're on fire like they haven't been since the late 90s.
If you're not a fan, find someone who is and have them take you to a show. You'll more than likely become one once you experience it.-
2
-
-
Best song by a big hairy spider there ever was...
-
2
-
-
Best song about a big hairy spider there ever was:
-
you know he's talking to some serious mentally deficients.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYm-gW8yfA8Also, Happy New Year!!!
Belatedly -
It's amazing how much better that picture looks now than it did at the time XP came out. The quality of displays has come a long long way.
Best OS Background. Best OS startup sound. Best Microsoft OS all around.
If I could have put more than 4GB on an XP rig I'd probably still be using it to this day. No doubt so would millions of others.
Thank you for the picture. It's now my desktop background for the first time in a good 10+ years. Now I need to hunt down the XP sound suite.
-
I'm just waiting for Valsuelm to show me the way.
Good sir. I'm pressed for time and haven't much to fully explain my thinking. Rest assured I could write a small volume as I actually do have experience working in the world of charities, as well have explored the options over the years..
What's best?
Find yee someone in need and donate to them personally. All but the most closeted of us know such people. Donating to an organization oft contributes to waste, far more than one might think. If one must donate to an organization, find a local one, that has extremely little overhead. Usually one's local homeless shelter or goodwill suffices, but even these sometimes waste, especially if they are recipients of government monies.
Large charities, especially national ones, definitely international ones are rot with corruption and waste. Let not their famous advertising sway you. Dollars given to them end up being pennies given to those in need.
In short: Skip the middle men, give to those in need, not to someone else who isn't in need to give to those in need in your stead.
Random tip regarding beggars: Always give a beggar food first. If the beggar is grateful, then consider giving them monies in addition if you wish. You will find that many a beggar will spit in your face if you offer food rather than money. The ones that do this do not deserve nor probably even need your money. There are many charlatans out there posing as beggars, some of which make a lucrative full time job of it (I've seen some drive away in BMWs). If your chosen beggar is truly needful, they will let you know with their gratefulness, often exuberantly. These are the ones most deserving of your kindness.
-
1
-
-
-
TLDR: It's fundamentally dishonest and evil.
But really... this was a good discussion. Worth a listen to no matter one's point of view.
Note: Milo is easily the most qualified person on the planet to be Trump's Press Secretary. If only....
-
3
-
-
Stephen Colbert coined the term "truthiness" way back in 2006, which seems a thousand centuries ago, now sounding so quaint in the context of the Bush administration. But I had my first inkling of its 2010s incarnation of "post-truth" from a translation of a piece on the going-ons in Donbass on the tank-net forums back in 2014 and like many I still had that litany play out in my head "it couldn't happen here":
Flawless Dishonesty
Vladimir Putin runs a radical post-modern policy, he does not even believe himself. The Russia-readers* dont get this
By Boris Zhumatsky
Probably the biggest difficulty in dealing with Russia is the following: Russia is lying. This sweeping claim sounds like a slogan of the Cold War, and is at the same time the only one giving reality its due. When I was writing my first newspaper articles after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, I always avoided the reporter language "Moscow wants", "the Kremlin claims". When I read back then: "The Russians invade Chechnya", I had to think of my friends in Moscow, and it appeared about as appropriate as Ronald Reagan's phrase of the "Evil Empire". Today I'm not just writing that my birth country has become an empire of lies. Russia itself is a lie.
The lying starts at simple facts. First it was said that there were no Russian soldiers on Crimea, then there well were. First there weren't any in Eastern Ukraine, then there were, but they had just gotten lost there, no, they were just vacationing, and anyway they wanted only peace. That sounds confused, but has strategy.As an instrument of policy, the lie is particularly effective if it doesn't come with self-deceit. The political lie is only a lie if the liar doesn't believe in it himself. In Putin's lies, only his readers and supporters domestic and foreign believe. If one tries to find even a kernel of truth in the Russian house of lies, one becomes a "useful idiot" of the Kremlin. Like for example a well-known Russia expert on German television. First she repeated the lie of Putin that he had sent no soldiers to the Ukrainian Crimea. Then she even stuck to it after Putin had admitted that it were his soldiers after all. Moscow likes to refute its own lies once they are of no more use to it. How his useful stooges then look is of no concern to the Kremlin. It knows that they will rig some justification eventually.The regime mostly makes use of the lies which have been buzzing around the most obscure corners of Russian society for a long time already. Old lies have better effect, like for example the NATO lie. It says that the block of aggression was encircling the fatherland ever tighter. Other lies are newly invented and retold by Putin's friends in East and West: The Ukrainians were fascists, and the Russians had to defend their homeland against the fascists like back in World War Two.The friends of Russian autocracy are misunderstanding the policy of lying. The Kremlin is not really aiming for its lies to be believed. Putin wins if other heads of government let his lies stand unrefuted. Certainly Putin knows that at least some politicians see through him. The main thing: They call the fraud not fraud, the invasion not invasion and a hybrid war not war. In this it is secondary to the Kremlin which motives it contrahents have: Be it the fear of Russian nuclear weapons or the pacifism of their voters. As soon as the truth is no longer present, the lie wins."Try to live in truth", that is what dissidents in Real Socialism have called for, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in 1974 and four years later Vaclav Havel. From their claim to truth, a claim to rule developed after the breakdown of the Soviet block, and that did not at all sit well with the young generation which grew up under the sign of post-modernism back then, to which I belonged, too. What did a Solzhenitsyn with his nationalistic Russiandom, what a Walesa with his Catholicism have to tell us? Those grandfatherly pearls of wisdom weren't even worth to be deconstructed by us. History was at its end, and we were riding the wave of post-modernism into eternal peace.It was a brave new world of diversity and difference, detached from binding values and thinking and politics, emancipated from the dictate of universal human rights. We didn't listen to Jürgen Habermas when he recognized a new wave of counter-enlightenment in the post-modern critique of reason. But it didn't take long before our liberating post-modernism found its carricature in the media populism of a Berlusconi, as the philosopher Maurizio Ferraris writes in his Manifesto of New Realism, and then in Putin's propaganda state. Vladimir Putin is an even better post-modernist than his Italian man-friend. Putin's Russia is lying because it honestly and righteously believes that there was no truth anyway. In the late Soviet Union, neither people like Putin nor ones like me believed in the communist slogans. When the Soviet ideology faded, the search for a new "national idea" for the masses began immediately, however. The latest of these ideas is the orthodox-religious Russian world. This chimera of the Russian special way has grown on the dung heap of the blood-and-soil ideology of the past century, and of course it is constructed through and through - one would have said earlier. Today I just say - bogus. Putin's Russia is a lie. Because his subjects believe neither in God nor soil and blood, but only in two letters, PR, public relations. This belief says that everybody can be bought, from journalists to politicians, from Russians to Americans. Nobody is telling the truth, and only what is called "pee-ar" as an English loanword in New Russian counts. It is the true truth of Russia, and this truth is the lie.The Kremlin is forcing its geo-political game upon the world, and in this game political post-modernism rules. Every player has his own truth or even several, which he varies according to need. Because only one thing counts: Who is strong enough to force his truth upon the opponent. Vladimir Putin and his stalwarts don't know the rules of the game from philosopical texts, they learned them in the street.A lie told by bullies, Ernest Hemingway called fascism. The decisive difference between Putinism and Hitler's fascism is that the fascists and national socialists larged believed their lies themselves. The Putinist however believes in only one thing, in the lie as a life principle. Who has grown up in a major Soviet city like Vladimir Putin or I learned that in elementary school already. You get cornered by a group of bullies. "You ratted me out to the teacher" says one, even though you see him for the first time. If you say: "That's not true", he hits you immediately. If you apologize, you are derided first and then beat up.A victim's lamentation, coupled with a clenched fist, is not an unknown gesture. Putin's Russia, which jumps into the ring like a global power, complains about Western intrigue at the same time. The Kremlin is well aware of the weakness of the Russian state, the economy and the military. But in a streetfight you hide your own weakness. The opponent should believe you're strong. The opponent should **** his pants. He should believe that if he doubts your lies, he will get his face smashed directly. He can de-escalate, like politicians all over the world are trying to do with Putin. He can yell "peace!", but with the effect that the bully will also yell "peace!" before he hits.If the attacked doesn't defend against the lie from the get go, he won't defend against the violence either. He will get thrashed, and the attacker has really won the moment his victim didn't immediately call him a liar.Of course Russia is no country of brute hooligans who unscrupulously shoot down passenger aircraft. Of cours there is another Russia, and not just one. But the whole diversity of Russia has been banned to internal and external exile. Until the phantasm breaks down, the millions of potato farmers or math teachers, bank clerks or press editors can effect as little politically as somebody who like me has left Russia. Only one voice is to be heard in Russia now, it is the voice of the collective Putin, and it leaves you speechless.Today's political language is not up to the decay process of the traditional systems of order in Europe and the world. The old slogans about the aggressive American imperialism are just clouding the circumstances of the war for the "Russian world". Just as little the explanatory models of post-colonialism are up to the murdering of the "Islamic State". There is no terminology for this yet. For a start one could, in spite of all post-modernist doubters, call war war again, and the lie lie.With Russia's lies it's like with my heating back then in Berlin. I lived in a house with coal stoves, into which the tenants by and buy built gas heating at their own cost. One neighbor however saw a "threat to his base of existence" in this. In not-yet gentrified Kreuzberg, one used to talk about rent hikes that way. He kept hauling up two buckets of briquet daily for his four tiled stoves. He didn't greet us anymore. He became ever more grim the more neighbors joined the club of modernizers. Putin, who after all wanted to join NATO himself at the start, behaves just like this. But our cold-resistant co-tenant didn't break through the wall to my flat then, didn't occupy my kitchen in which the gas heater was hanging either, he also didn't scream like Putin about Ukraine: "You're endangering my existential interests!""There are no facts, just speculation", this phrase of Nietsche so popular in post-modernism has shown it's true meaning today, which Ferraris framed like this: "The reason of the strongest is always the best." That's paradoxically the exact opposite of what somebody like Michel Foucault always wanted to achieve: For when power always has the say, power alone is real, too. Not coincidentally the current dispute with post-modern thinking formed around the term of the Real. Speculative realism wants to think the Real idependently from our perception, the nuvo realismo distances itself strongly from the political implications of post-modernism. "What the post-modernists dreamt of, the populists have implemented", Ferraris says. Of course it was not philosophy which brought forth the Berlusconis or Putins worldwide. But the rejection of their policy of lies also requires the revision of the post-modern habitus. Post-modernism's pluralist term of truth is currently being shot up in Ukraine. Putin is forcing a retreat into reality, and the Real steps into the place of realpolitik. The old-fashioned enterprise to give names to things. The luxury of relative truths and devalued values simply is no more. In Russia, the lie has won once again, and once again a simple, black-and-white language alone does justice to this drama. With Solzhenitsyn, that sounds like this: "Violence can only shroud itself in lie, and the lie can only prevail by violence."
Who knew that most tired of modern game franchises had the most prescient words for our times? "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
??? http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=tea¤cy=cny ???
-
1
-
alternative facts
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by Valsuelm
Haha @ the underlined. I was jesting, to a degree. I did't figure you for someone who spends a lot of time listening to NPR (which is generally a good thing, unless you're actively studying the media itself).
You, I, and everyone with a smidgen of objectivity and at least a low grade BS detector realizes the latter.