Gromnir

americans and a few others will be able to leave on aircraft o' various types. what o' the thousands (millions) whom we enticed with the promise o' a better tomorrow? the new generation school teachers and university students? the businesses owners who catered to foreigners? anybody gonna be shocked by purges where anybody even accused o' working with or for kabul government faces horrible repercussions? and again, am not actual suggesting that a perpetual US presence in afghanistan with no end possible were an appealing alternative. tell troops who fought in afghnistan or families o' those who died there that the 2020 situation were what so many had died and suffered to protect is the worst kinda dark humor. we f'd this up at the start by being cheap and by being dishonest about goals. nevertheless, pretend as if the US does not bear considerable responsibility for the predictable atrocities which is gonna happen in our absence is also repugnant. the plan to go in were bad. not enough troops and treasure to achieve goals. the "plan" to get out is gonna result in horrors.

obvious alternatives are simply not reviewing for accuracy (complete free market of ideas) or having government get involved (1984). the parentheticals is tongue in cheek, but am thinking the alternatives is equally problematic. is too much information to be accurate reviewed, but do nothing is leading to a dangerous spread o' stoopid. any kinda attempt to review is necessarily gonna be private or government and both o' those options have drawbacks. some kinda independent private review o' the vast amount o' information maybe sounds like a swell idea, but if facebook is paying the folks who do the reviews is doubtful anybody will be convinced o' the independence o' the reviewers. however, it is amusing that a meme based on some version o' our george washington post a few pages previous were resulting in facebook misinformation tags. the problem were the title o' our linked story: How George Washington Used Vaccines to Help Win the Revolutionary War facebook does a quick search and learns that jenner didn't invent vaccines until 1796. the american revolution took place two decades previous. therefore, the george washington claim is obvious misinformation and were labeled as such. simple. the thing is, the linked story, as 'posed to the memes, clarified the misunderstanding: FULLY AWARE of the disaster in the north, George Washington realized that merely evading smallpox would no longer suffice; he wanted to prevent it altogether. Inoculation was already available, although the procedure -- called variolation -- was not without risks. The vaccines we're accustomed to today were not invented yet, so doctors would simply make a small incision in the patient's arm then introduce pus from the pustules of an infected victim into the wound. Variolation often resulted in a minor smallpox infection with a speedier recovery and vastly lower fatality rates, around two percent. Survivors were granted lifelong immunity. so is the meme misinformation or not? the story we linked clear explains variolation as 'posed to vaccination, but if you are a private or government body finding yourself tasked with fact checking, how do you decide where to draw the line? and if you is some nameless drone doing endless misinformation checks, what would make you look past the meme for a deeper explanation for how george washington coulda' embraced what we think o' today as vaccines? maybe just skip memes as impossible to review? 'course the ridiculous memes is the nonsense which goes (forgive the pun) viral. is too much information to be accurate reviewed, but do nothing is leading to a dangerous spread o' stoopid. is gonna be private or government and both o' those options have drawbacks. some kinda independent private review o' the vast amount o' information maybe sounds like a swell idea, but if facebook is paying the folks who do the reviews is doubtful anybody will be convinced o' the independence o' the reviewers. HA! Good Fun!

so, need advanced 'cause otherwise it would take 40 or more years to reach advanced, and oh yeah, correlation. circular and correlation is mighty compelling and insightful. *eye roll* and again, the projections were never for long-term deployment o' massive numbers o' troops. 500k and within 3-5 years your presence would be decreasing rapid. didn't need wait for advanced. peaceful and largely self-sufficient? yes. we ended up with decades 'cause the initial investment were deemed too much. HA! Good Fun!

reminds us how the US contributed something over $2.8 billion to road improvements in afghanistan, and by 2016 there were very little actual improvement. link But those development dollars often lined the pockets of insurgents, shady contractors and corrupt government officials. And roads have little benefit if they are controlled by militants or criminals. is more than a little justification in being angry with American foreign wars, but am actual personal just as angry with the stoopid. didn't take a prophet to foresee the endemic corruption and it were hardly surprising that american military commanders would be less than capable o' sniffing out swindlers and crooks. is not as if state department couldn't hire folks to do oversight. is actual the one job trump mighta' been suited for in government, 'cause if anybody knew 'bout construction swindels, it were trump. oh well, missed opportunities. tell us the start point is better for an educated population following a war? argue with your self on that point if it makes you feel better 'cause am not contesting, but is not relevant to your earlier observations. yeah, education becomes a priority for nation building if you don't have education, which is precise why the US spent so much effort trying to make japan's educational system a bit more egalitarian. regardless, is nothing you have stated which suggests not advanced is preventative insofar as nation building efforts or that such would resulting in 40 years before the nation building sponsors could see some kinda success worthy results. thinktankism? *chuckle* will take it it as 'posed to naked correlation reasoning. japan was relative advanced by some subjective scale, so of course afghanistan nation building failed because it was not. is same reason the yokels believe 5g towers cause covid-19. stability is not direct linked to advanced, and advance woulda' happened natural in time with the benefit o' peaceful stability and continued real support from the US. the US didn't need bring advanced to afghanistan if it had managed peaceful stability and had helped develop the foundation o' basic infrastructure (which includes education). again, w/o much useful practical input from the US, afghanistan has made impressive strides in improving one o' the worst educated populations on the planet. all those gains is gonna be erased, and we genuine shudder to think what is now gonna happen to all those educated afghani women. *shrug* regardless, there were never enough committed troops in iraq or afghanistan and is unlikely the US public woulda' agreed to either occupation if the US government were honest 'bout costs in troops and treasure. however, with honest we sure as heck wouldn't be facing the humanitarian crisis in afghanistan we see today. tell the US public the real costs o' anticipated nation building or, tell 'em nation building is off the table, but that an extended US presence would prevent any major terrorist actions for many decades to come at the admitted yearly cost o' american blood and a relative small pile of loot. given the events o' 9/11, am thinking there is a decent chance the american people woulda' agreed to less than nation building, but we were never trusted with that option. HA! Good Fun! ps am thinking it also should be self evident, but in the case o' iraq, the US efforts at nation building likely woulda' purposeful avoided genuine commitment to achieve advanced, whatever you might think is the essential qualities o' that rather non-specific descriptor. being dependent on resource exports as 'posed to capital good production has been a trap many o' the world's major oil producers has been unable to escape. have iraq become an example o' how to bootstrap at least into industrialized competition would not be in the interest o' the US or many other western powers. advanced as a goal? doubtful.

last time we were in naples were 'round christmas... 1999. had just seen the sixth sense. ... am knowing is ridiculous, but we couldn't get it outta our head what a nightmare it woulda' been for cole to be visiting pompeii. seeing as we don't drink, we do not have an excuse for why such a stoopid notion were distracting us. HA! Good Fun!

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/two-tennessean-doctors-covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-yltudq/ is a couple weeks old at this point but might be worth watching, particular at ~7:35 (dr. explaining vaccine hesitancy explained by patients) and ~9:13 (the former head of the TN vaccine program explaining the continued embrace o' the inexplicable by those refusing the vaccine even after a 1.5 years o' the pandemic.) almost 25k new cases today in florida alone. cases inevitable translate to hospitalizations in a bit more than a week and hospitalizations still lead to a disturbing number o' deaths after 'bout two additional weeks. as such, current numbers is always two to three weeks behind the deaths. the university of texas (austin) model suggests the actual peak o' the current surge is gonna come mid-to-late september. on the positive side, it would appear vaccination rates have increased more than a little. fear appears to be a significant motivator for at least a few o' the vaccine holdouts. am suspecting if there were a way for southerners to get their jab not at a pharmacy or public vaccine site but in some place and way their anonymity would be preserved, it would significant boost vaccine numbers. some large % o' conservative and white males would rather risk death than look like a punk. HA! Good Fun!

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9241.html Priorities. The prime objective of any nation-building operation is not to make an authoritarian government democratic or a poor nation rich, but to make a violent society peaceful. If basic needs for safety, food, and shelter are not being met, money spent on political or economic development is likely to be wasted. (achieving advanced is not a priority and as you should see, is not considered one o' the primary hurdles. advanced is what in your mind distinguishes, but is not a noteworthy factor or element. also, the china discussions in the other thread should also make abundant clear advanced is hardly a necessity for stability. the afghani tribalism would indeed be an obstacle to attaining "peaceful" but advanced is just something zor imagined as a necessity. ) Security is provided by soldiers, police, and a judicial and corrections system. Establishing a modicum of security requires a military force that is large enough—as many as 20 soldiers per thousand inhabitants—to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate former combatants. Military or international civilian police forces are needed to protect citizens from criminals and violent political groups and to mentor a reformed local civilian police force. Sufficient support and funding must be extended to the police force and the judicial and corrections system. (initial security is the practical insurmountable hurdle in selling nation building to the US public. the sheer numbers o' troops required is improbable, although such numbers were indeed achieved in bosnia. huzzah.) Humanitarian relief agencies are, for the most part, professionally staffed and well resourced. The challenge is in coordinating with the intervening military organizations, with which most humanitarian agencies are reluctant to align themselves, because any such alignment could limit their access to people in need. Governance is a high priority because local institutions will have to provide education, health care, electricity, telecommunications, water, and sanitation. Funding from the intervening authorities will have to run around 10 percent of the country's preconflict gross domestic product. (again, advanced is not pivotal. however, a substantial investment o' capital needs be anticipated.) Economic stabilization requires a reasonably stable medium of exchange. Early attention should be given to creating or strengthening a central bank and other financial institutions. Donor support will be required to balance government expenditures and revenue. Democratization should be viewed as a way to redirect the competition for wealth and power from violent into peaceful channels, not as an abstract exercise in social justice. Ideally, elements of civil society should be allowed to develop before national elections are held. However, institutions based on representative government are typically the only form of reconstituted state authority acceptable to most of the population. Infrastructure and development will depend on the ability of the intervening authorities and the host government to control inflation and finance the government's budget, among other things. Early efforts should focus on the repair, not the improvement, of existing infrastructure. Improvements should be funded via loans, not grants. all the above were clear achievable in a place such as afghanistan. is notable we mentioned education as part of developing infrastructure. again, not need advance. japan education in the 30s and 40s were indeed universal but ended at sixth grade. the vast majority o' the population were not well educated; only elites were given access to higher education. that changed with the nation building efforts. is not as if nation building would require placing afghanistan into educational or industrial parity with european nations, but getting the process started to the point where it became self perpetuating were hardly unforeseeable. in fact, one o' the true tragedies o' the taliban regaining power in afghanistan is that it is gonna wipe out the considerable improvements the US brought to education in Afghanistan in spite o' the fact US efforts to improve education were relative meager. anybody know japanese enrollment in its few select universities were pre occupation? dunno. we do know current afghanistan university enrollment is ~300k, a substantial (if still vast underrepresented) portion o' whom are women... women who are now facing a terrible future, yes? what a waste. what a tragedy. furthermore, japan, unlike afghanistan, had been devastated by mass bombings attacks. tokyo alone had a million homeless and hundreds of thousands dead. tens o' thousands o' buildings gone and manufacturing capacity complete wiped out. compared to afghanistan, took a great deal more effort rebuilding portions o' japan so they were capable o' sustaining populations w/o the fear o' rampant disease and hunger. bosnia is also a very good example given the actual goals. but again you are stuck on the "advanced" aspect for some reason. and yeah, US total troops for iraq in 2007 were approx 168k which would include the ~20k surge. the 168k were well below required estimates... which is kinda how we came up with the "3x" observation. which brings us back to the start and the primary issues: troops and money. the troops were available, but am not seeing how such woulda' ever been ok with the american public. the money were available, but the billions more it woulda' cost were untenable, and the billions which actual were spent were wasted 'cause the US did not direct how the money were spent. is kinda puzzling why the US thought the afghanistan troops could police themselves and handle their own infrastructure efforts. eventual the afghanistan and iraqui people coulda' taken over such tasks, but pretending like they were capable from day one were stoopid and actual a bit cruel. throw a kid into the deep end o' a pool and then shake head sadly as she struggles to swim is not helpful. the biggest mistake were lack o' honesty. US knew they could achieve nation building with enough troops and treasure, and it wouldn't have taken anywhere near 40 years. the folks at the pentagon had good estimates on costs and troop requirements to achieve nation building based on past expericens in japan and bosnia, but tell americans they are sending 500k troops and many billions to afghanistan so that the country might become economically self sufficient and reliably peaceful were gonna be difficult to sell. HA! Good Fun!

our camp toilet is 'bout the size o' a briefcase when folded for transport and we have a goodly supply o' biodegradable one-use bags for solid waste which is then sealed, but yeah, when your bathroom and bedroom become indistinguishable and you don't mind, you has perhaps gone to a place am unwilling to follow. HA! Good Fun!

didn't see the movie. however, am gonna concede nowadays am able to stomach no more than a couple weeks o' camping in places where regular showers is not gonna happen. yearly we do sierra nevadas or channel islands. again, weeks is our threshold. am knowing you eventual get accustomed to your own stink, but the feel 'o being filthy all the time is... gross. hobo baths in gas station bathrooms? no thanks. our adolescent and teen self would soundly mock and ridicule the finicky fastidiousness o' aged Gromnir. HA! Good Fun!

if the goal were to prevent the taliban from being in power, then the strategy were actual pretty dang effective. however, is decades o' US involvement with no end in sight worth the cost in american lives and us monies to keep the taliban from gaining power? am suspecting there is a few afghanistan citizens who currently think the cost were worth the investment. am suspecting is getting tougher for americans to look at the internet and tv video without wondering if this withdrawal coulda' been handled different. am pretty confident most US non-command level military who served in afghanistan is gonna suggest the costs have been way too great. am admitted conflicted similar to hurl, but a smidge different we s'pose. am recognizing the value in a diminished goal following an invasion o' someplace like afghanistan. am just not certain the US public could ever be convinced that invasion and a functional perpetual presence is worth the kinda fuzzy and unspecific goals achieved by doing not save prevent the taliban from returning. am knowing some will be offended by the comparison, but is a bit like trying to convince peoples o' the need to address climate change. sure, the intelligence folks may give the president convincing reports explaining all kinda possible nightmare scenarios if the taliban returns, but how do you convince people o' the significance o' a maybe future threat? the thing is, we wouldn't recognize the human costs our troops need pay in the name o' some potential future threat if it reached up and bit us in the arse. Gromnir telling nineteen and twenty year old versions o' shady and gd that their sacrifice is worth the cost feels kinda pathetic. again, no real dog in this race, but am thinking the real change needed is government being honest 'bout goals and costs. nation building in afghanistan, if it ever were a genuine goal, were attainable, but the costs is way beyond what were ever presented to the public. converse, if after 9/11 the goal for afghanistan were communicated honest as a long term effort to achieve a stalemate with the taliban which would cripple their efforts to engage in and promote global terrorism, am thinking it woulda' been a hard sell but not impossible. woulda' been honest though. HA! Good Fun!

there is no fundamental difference in nation building efforts 'tween so-called advanced nations and afghanistan save for cost to modernize. japan had its manufacturing infrastructure largely demolished. repairing japan's infrastructure were costly. cost to develop necessary infrastructure in afghanistan would also be costly. education and roads. the tribalism endemic in nations such as libya and afghanistan is indeed a unique problem, but not as significant as one might expect, rand studies make kinda clear the difference 'tween success and failure in policing occupied populations is a willingness to use enough troops and to invest enough treasure wisely. is kinda threshold numbers where there has been success compared to failure, and afghanistan and iraq is examples o' going extreme cheap compared to the success stories. compare nato efforts in bosnia to nation building in afghanistan and iraq and the differences is clear, if perhaps unexpected. is 'bout sending enough troops and spending enough money. long term is cheaper to invest the money and troops wisely in the first few years as 'posed to decades o' relative drips and drabs, but how do you legitimize those costs to the american voting public? surge numbers as a counter example explains the problem. US commitment were never gonna reach the levels required. surge felt like a huge investment, but given the population o' iraq were nowhere near enough. 3x as many troops as were allocated post invasion were needed based on conservative end o' rand estimates... which again, as has been stated, is the genuine crime o' the bush administration as they knew what numbers and monies were required from the start. just so is clear, the numbers pentagon and rand were giving the wh pre invasion o' iraq were that initially in the range o' 500k troops would need remain in iraq as a police force and those numbers would diminish significant over a period o' 3-5 years. 500k. not an unexpected number given the US had 350k troops in japan and the US had never actual invaded mainland japan. iraq surge numbers were 20k in 2007. the costs o' nation building is known and results may be achieved with the requisite investment o' troops and money. however, if the US were to communicate those costs honest to the public, then is doubtful any would support such efforts. converse, explain that nation building is too expensive, but following initial invasion a relative small investment o' troops and an admitted perpetual presence, enough could be done to prevent talibans from returning to power, am suspecting the "forever war" option would not embraced with any more vigor. HA! Good Fun!

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Rejects Indiana Students’ Bid to Block COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate in the should be a surprise to nobody category. Led by lead plaintiff Ryan Klaassen, the eight students argued that the vaccine mandates violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, a theory that has failed before every court that heard it. The emphatic defeats had not been unexpected, since the Supreme Court has found vaccine mandates legal for more than a century. “To answer the question today, the court travels back in time to 1905: a time before the modern tiers of constitutional analysis (strict scrutiny and rational basis) and one rampaged by the smallpox epidemic,” U.S. District Judge Damon R. Leichty, a Donald Trump appointee, noted in June, citing the case of Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. “In that year, the United States Supreme Court issued a leading decision in answer to this question,” Leichty added. Three GOP-appointed judges soon concurred that century-old settled law was still binding. U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook, appointed by Ronald Reagan to the Seventh Circuit, noted that there cannot be a constitutional problem with state-enforced vaccine mandates, which have been permissible since the time of smallpox. “To the contrary, vaccination requirements, like other public health measures, have been common in this nation,” Easterbrook wrote. ... btw, the lawyer for the indiana u students were no slouch. The students’ attorney James Bopp Jr.—a Republican power broker behind the landmark Supreme Court precedent Citizens United, which paved the way for the rise of super PACs in political financing—promptly filed an emergency application for an injunction on Aug. 6. Barrett put the kibosh on that request on Thursday. whatever issues folks have with vaccine and mask mandates, hopes the Court will declare such unconstitutional becomes increasing unlikely, which is kinda impressive considering how such were always a presumptive non-starter. HA! Good Fun!

indeed, but lesson could be opposite o' what you have learned. a few thousand US troops 'coulda staved off the current humanitarian crisis for a long time and am thinking is tough to argue americans 'round the world will be safer once the US is complete gone from afghanistan. the real lesson, arguably, is that nation building can't be done on the cheap; usa keeps making that mistake. gd won't like to hear, but if your goal is nation building then more troops and treasure is the solution. however, if you wanna prevent what you have been seeing the past few weeks, and if you believe the security benefits o' preventing groups such as the taliban from gaining/regaining control o' nations such as afghanistan, then there is at least a good argument the real lesson learned here is kinda opposite o' what gd believes. am not having a dog in this race. however, am recognizing that as much as obama wanted to get out o' afghanistan, he were persuaded by the intelligence he were receiving that the long-term costs to americans were too high to get out and get out cleanly were impossible. imagine some kinda illuminati conspiracy where the clintons, george soros, and the faceless boogeymen o' the military industrial complex managed to muscle obama into maintaining an afghanistan presence is not plausible. obama lost considerable political clout keeping troops in afghanistan, and he did anyway. whatever imagined future body county he saw in his nightmares if the US withdrew from afghanistan, it were enough to dissuade a guy who had promised his voters he would do just that. converse, while is true US combat deaths in afghanistan had dropped to handful kinda numbers in recent years, those is nevertheless deaths which is difficult to place on a balance w/o needing a particular heavy counterweight to validate. how many us marines or soldiers need die in a year in afghanistan 'cause o' unspecific future security concerns which the pentagon and President either cannot or will not share with those asked to die. regardless, what gd sees as a clear lesson am betting will not be viewed 'quite so narrow by those needing make the same choices in the future. HA! Good Fun! ps only read this article moments following our posting, but while am certain gd will find unconvincing, it might cement the notion that the afghanistan lessons is not gonna be viewed through an identical lens.

so she recognizes covid-19 cases is exploding across the nation. she admits georgia emergency room admissions are up by at least 1/3 but somehow don't consider that figure alarming. seeing as how the vast majority o' those admitted to the hospital for covid-19 related problems is unvaccinated and given that +99% o' the people who need icu care or is gonna die is unvaccinated, one would think the efficacy o' the vaccine is self evident, but somehow mtg sees opposite? 'cause unvaccinated people is needing hospitalizations, the vaccine is a fail? furthermore, mtg opines full fda approval o' the vaccines should be delayed with the basis for such a delay not being a science concern but the recognition numerous states and localities will indeed choose to mandate vaccines no doubt after voting on such measures. lord knows we can't have can't have democracy decide issues o' public safety and general welfare, eh? most who watch will be dismissive o' majorie taylor greene's misinformation peddling and ignorance embrace, but am expecting the trump base and antivaxxers is doing their bestest animated bobblehead impressions as they nod along and at least silent cheer mtg stoopid. am getting that with american polarization at levels not seen in 100 years, there is no issue which is fair game, but if in 2016 you had told us a pandemic would divide americans we woulda been dubious. woulda' assumed a rally to the flag moment which likely woulda turned whomever were President into a heroic figure whether they deserved the applause or not. tell us multiple vaccines would be developed in less than a year (thanks in large part to independent darpa efforts and funding) we woulda probable dismissed as perhaps hollywood movie plot material... too good to be true. the notion conservative white americans (mostly male) would then be unwilling to take the vaccine woulda been just stoopid. antivaxx were always a thing in the US but were also relative fringe-- minority communities and hippie moms. none o' this makes sense. mtg is clear spewing nonsense. unvaccinated people is being hospitalized at rates we saw last november when no vaccine were available, and the mtg folks is just digging in with their nonsense. ... we got nothing. HA! Good Fun!

gonna need to send troops to evacuate the embassy. would be funny if it were not so ugly. HA! Good Fun!

am recognizing a low-carb diet is something we should consider. invariably we order a pizza and the urge to explore low-carb options vanishes at least temporarily. that said, am admitted at least curious 'bout low car alternatives which ain't just some kinda cheese wrapped with bacon or a cheeseburger which is served to us in multiple layers o' lettuce but sans the bun. have seen numerous recipes which call for coconut flour. the flour is not used as part o' crafting a bread substitute, but looks to be a staple for those recipes which call for a dredge before frying. maybe worth a look, right after we order a pizza. HA! Good Fun!

am not too often using what could be recognizable as a barbecue sauce for our pulled pork. after low and slow barbeque, we pull the pork and then add a bit o' moisture back to our spicy pile o' pig meat. chicken stock, white wine, dates, roma tomatoes, garlic, cider vinegar and dark molasses is the constants, but what we eventual throw in the pot, simmer and then reduce is likely changing with each iteration. even after the reduction, our sauce is gonna be relative thin. HA! Good Fun!

what china achieved in spite o' its poverty is kinda amazing, but geography were the pivotal factor. a european population a fraction o' the size o' china, constant on the edge o' starvation, would be intractable and difficult to control, especially as the native european populations had developed independent. two valleys east or west in what is now germany or france mighta had a culture evolve with its own unique traditions and languages and even when those peoples eventual began to mix, they retained their tribal identities for many centuries. china were different. two river valleys representing the near entirety o' the population, and in spite o' extremes o' poverty and starvation which woulda' driven people elsewheres to revolt (instability such as were the norm in european colonies) china had incredible cohesion over an inspiring span o' centuries. homogenous culture and a population limited to only two main waterways allowed for a bureaucracy to develop in ways not possible o' replication anywhere else on the planet save egypt which you already mentioned. unlike the tigris and euphrates, the nile flooded regularly and the flooding were instrumental in reinvigorating the rich soil which the egyptians farmed. explains why egypt enjoyed similar longevity, eh? 'course in spite o' homogenous populations and a concentrated population, poverty and starvation is ordinary disruptive to smooth running o' a government. eventual a bureaucracy will find it impossible to control a starving population... even with the benefit o' a state religion which convinces the population that suffering is natural and even godly... or somesuch. which is why chinese police power and force resources were constant directed inwards. colonization is unlikely if all efforts is focused on preventing internal strife and discord. current chinese authoritarianism and brutality is not shocking when one considers history. but again, is curious that success were exact what led to so much chinese suffering. 'cause o' the unique rivers, chinese homogenous populations grew beyond that which were achieved anywhere else. once populations grew too large to be sustainable by conventional farming, the bureaucracy were able to impose nationwide laws regarding cultivation which allowed the population to grow even further. success! 'course the success only magnified the future problem o' impossibility o' sustainability. in spite o' advantages o' geography leading to homogenous populations, china still required police power directed internal to maintain control as the chinese population suffered at levels which would (and did) drive european populations to rebellion. in a land o' plenty, the chinese eventual produced arakis like scarcity. weren't lack o' water which led to suffering. were the excess o' people which were the problem, and the excess had only been possible 'cause o' unique circumstances o' geography and culture. is easy to dismiss chinese authoritarianism and brutality as inhumane, but for much o' chinese history, the bureaucracy were trying to stave off mass starvation (and enrich themselves while developing a tradition o' improbable cronyism, but prevent famines were also a major motivation). genuine fascinating if a bit horrifying as well. HA! Good Fun!

am knowing is a double post, but is complete different and has another twitter link, so apologies in advance. am knowing this feels to many at this point like same old, same old. why is this different than all the other examples we know o' where trump tried to compel white house lawyers, military leaders or doj officials to do his illegal bidding? senator grassley would have you believe that because those lawyers, leaders and officials didn't comply, there is no crime, which is ridiculous. the problem has always been clear evidence o' intent to do illegal. the thing is, the instant case is a bit different and if you get pretty much any o' those doj officials who advised mr. pak regarding wh intentions to fire him that the wh did indeed make it know they would fire pak if he failed to contest the election results, you got clear evidence o' intent. nowadays, is near impossible to recognize a smoking gun even if you can smell gunpowder and you see a victim crumple to the floor with a bloody chest wound. this ain't the smoking gun, but somebody is gonna interview who in doj advised pak, which is gonna necessarily lead to wh connections. HA! Good Fun!

with your recent russia post, you triggered all too predictable whataboutism. am stare at the highway accident curious what your new post will trigger. HA! Good Fun!

largest economy is also utter bs. imagine a family o' four living on $100k a year in 2021 milwaukee-- hardly sooper rich by american standards. now imagine a family o' forty living on same $100k. the reason why china eventual adopted their draconian and self destructive one-child policy is 'cause o' the widespread famine. as large as is the chinese population, near all o' that population lived along two river valleys. chinese bureaucracy were indeed a marvel, but it had stretched the limits o' an agrarian society past sustainable limits. ask for per capita gdp o' chinese in the 1500s. have no idea what the numbers would be, but would be shocked if it resulted in top or best or most wealthy. china were dirt poor and were struggling yearly to stave off mass starvation event. pretend like they were some kinda enlightened exemplar o' peaceful restraint is worst kinda dark humor or just simple ignorance. HA! Good Fun!

kinda looks like the foundation o' our dream diet. add eggs and call it breakfast. add a bun and condiments and then call it lunch. add more sausage and call it a last meal. HA! Good Fun!

well, that was something. bruce campbell is getting too old for this kinda thing? HA! Good Fun!

is where we differ. am thinking it would matter very much "what he did." defending a man or woman senator from stomach churning charges which has a great deal o' evidence to support is presumptive gonna be untenable regardless o' numeric splits. keep senate majority today and lose a considerable number o' voters in the next election is not a winning strategy. you can add all kinda what ifs to make more or less plausible, but after #metoo, am thinking the democrats in particular is gonna find it difficult to sanitize a sexual harassment scandal once it inevitable becomes public. any politician who is later seen as having been covering up such a scandal is likely gonna personal pay with lost votes. maybe you see such long view pragmatism as no less skeevy than myopic and mindless defense? fair. that said, while am not able to look into hearts and minds, am thinking there is bound to be at least a couple individuals who, like romney during the trump impeachment stuff, choose conscience over practical political concerns... also recognizing these guys in the senate serve six years so if you just got reelected you personal is insulated for a good period o' time from potential backlash. gonna suggest you once again wanna oversimplify based on your they are all bad world view. HA! Good Fun!