Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Pretty Little Flower]

I saw Mdou Moctar last fall, and if you have a chance to see him live, do so. Unless you don’t like his brand of Saharan Tuareg guitar rock, in which case skip it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y23ewhFf_hs

Here is a bonus video of his band playing on the banks of the Niger River at dawn That sun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Ow87OwVbA

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, I'm wondering if Russia's invasion of Ukraine has prompted you to re-evaluate your thinking on the nexus between Trump and Russia. IIRC, you were skeptical of a lot of the media's reporting -- more, as I understood it, out of a sort of contrarian streak inclined to debunk what most people were thinking. But Trump's posture towards Putin and Russian looks much worse now than it did a few weeks ago, which is saying something.

No. Trump was a useful idiot for Putin. Still is. The Ukraine tragedy/criminal war is something different.

Think of it this way... Putin has certain chess moves he can make in his quest to expand or protect Russia's sphere of influence. While Trump was in office, he could blunt NATO, the biggest threat to that influence, through Trump's policies. With Trump out of office, he uses a different move - threat of war, and now war - to blunt NATO.

My criticism of the media was twofold: (1) Russia isn't an existential threat to us; (2) Trump was not in control of any of the alleged "collusion" (a very vague word, btw). I think this war validates (1) as we've seen Russia's ragtag army perform miserably so far, embarrassing Putin before the world. And I stand by (2) because the more information that comes out the more we see Trump was the textbook definition (Soviet-coined term, btw) of a useful idiot. The Russians fed him crumbs that helped him beat Hillary and they used the promise of more of them to maneuver him. To use a Breaking Bad analogy, the media wanted to make Trump "the one who knocks." In reality, he was more Saul Goodman. Hustling for the next dollar, or to get past the next political obstacle (usually created by his own fuck-up).

I agree his posture toward Putin looks worse, particularly his recent lauding of Putin's "genius."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. Trump was a useful idiot for Putin. Still is. The Ukraine tragedy/criminal war is something different.

Think of it this way... Putin has certain chess moves he can make in his quest to expand or protect Russia's sphere of influence. While Trump was in office, he could blunt NATO, the biggest threat to that influence, through Trump's policies. With Trump out of office, he uses a different move - threat of war, and now war - to blunt NATO.

My criticism of the media was twofold: (1) Russia isn't an existential threat to us; (2) Trump was not in control of any of the alleged "collusion" (a very vague word, btw). I think this war validates (1) as we've seen Russia's ragtag army perform miserably so far, embarrassing Putin before the world. And I stand by (2) because the more information that comes out the more we see Trump was the textbook definition (Soviet-coined term, btw) of a useful idiot. The Russians fed him crumbs that helped him beat Hillary and they used the promise of more of them to maneuver him. To use a Breaking Bad analogy, the media wanted to make Trump "the one who knocks." In reality, he was more Saul Goodman. Hustling for the next dollar, or to get past the next political obstacle (usually created by his own fuck-up).

I agree his posture toward Putin looks worse, particularly his recent lauding of Putin's "genius."

I'm not sure pleading "stupid" is a defense for Trump.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. Trump was a useful idiot for Putin. Still is. The Ukraine tragedy/criminal war is something different.

Think of it this way... Putin has certain chess moves he can make in his quest to expand or protect Russia's sphere of influence. While Trump was in office, he could blunt NATO, the biggest threat to that influence, through Trump's policies. With Trump out of office, he uses a different move - threat of war, and now war - to blunt NATO.

My criticism of the media was twofold: (1) Russia isn't an existential threat to us; (2) Trump was not in control of any of the alleged "collusion" (a very vague word, btw). I think this war validates (1) as we've seen Russia's ragtag army perform miserably so far, embarrassing Putin before the world. And I stand by (2) because the more information that comes out the more we see Trump was the textbook definition (Soviet-coined term, btw) of a useful idiot. The Russians fed him crumbs that helped him beat Hillary and they used the promise of more of them to maneuver him. To use a Breaking Bad analogy, the media wanted to make Trump "the one who knocks." In reality, he was more Saul Goodman. Hustling for the next dollar, or to get past the next political obstacle (usually created by his own fuck-up).

I agree his posture toward Putin looks worse, particularly his recent lauding of Putin's "genius."

Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).

I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media. That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.

I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.

At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.

eta: The WSJ article quoted in this tweet seems interesting too, but I don't have a subscription and my company is too cheap to get one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).

I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media. That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.

I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.

At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.

I had an interesting discussion with a relative who lives in a place where every other house is flag officer. She said, basically, that the universal feeling was "why the fuck didn't we do this in 2014", that this level of sanctions and unity back then would have stopped this now. The general feeling there is that if we don't push now, after Ukraine will come Moldova, the Baltics, Kazaksthan, etc., eventually back to Afghanistan and warm water ports in the Mediterranean and Indian oceans.

So it's only existential if you think it's a bad idea to recreate the Great Game of the 19th Century.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I had an interesting discussion with a relative who lives in a place where every other house is flag officer. She said, basically, that the universal feeling was "why the fuck didn't we do this in 2014", that this level of sanctions and unity back then would have stopped this now. The general feeling there is that if we don't push now, after Ukraine will come Moldova, the Baltics, Kazaksthan, etc., eventually back to Afghanistan and warm water ports in the Mediterranean and Indian oceans.

So it's only existential if you think it's a bad idea to recreate the Great Game of the 19th Century.

I think the analogy is that 2014 was the Anschluss, and this is Czechoslovakia. Agree with the larger point. Putin doesn't need to invade Moldova or Kazakhstan to have them in his orbit. The Baltics are definitely threatened, and I would think Finland too, more than Sweden. See the Fiona Hill interview for an explanation.

But also, the problem is not that Russia is a strong state. That's China. The problem is that Russia is a weak state, with grievances and a desire to overcompensate and punch above its weight. A stronger USSR couldn't control Afghanistan, nor could. Where do the warm water ports come from?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).

That is stupid, because it risks a rash act. But I do not think even the Russians are going to nuke the US. They might drop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But nuking us would be the end of everything. Somebody shoots Putin before that happens.

I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media.

That article was a just a rehash of every prior allegation rolled up into one screed. And it was weak sauce. Disinformation is not "meddling." It's a form of campaigning people have used since people have run for office. Anyone trying to call manipulation of the credulous a crime is missing the problem. The problem isn't the propagandist, but the moron who believes the propagandist. We have a lotta morons here.

That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.

Why would you think I was pro-Russia? I am anti-media.

You asked if I changed my position on Trump's relationship with Russia because of the war. I said no. And then I clarified that my only position on Trump's relationship with Russia was that it was falsely characterized (by far more than just the media) as one in which Trump was proactive, as opposed to a manipulated asset.

Trump's relationship with Russia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with this war. As I said, Putin manipulating Trump was one device to protect Russia's sphere of influence, and this war is another.

I guess one could argue that if Trump were still in office the war actually would not have happened, as Putin wouldn't feel the need to use that chess move, as he'd still have the ability to manipulate Trump, which is a far less costly one.

I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.

Russia sought to get influence with Trump by giving him stuff to help him get elected. He took that stuff, used it, and knowing he'd need a miracle to get re-elected, cozied up to Russia, hoping to get more stuff from them that'd help him. He also borrowed a ton of money from them. All of that has been exposed and acknowledged a million times. What am I supposed to say in response to a rehash of that?

At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.

Putin has lost his mind. This is the dumbest unforced error in the history of dictatorships. I still can't wrap my head around it, but there is a silver lining -- he's uniting a fractured West.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That is stupid, because it risks a rash act. But I do not think even the Russians are going to nuke the US. They might drop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But nuking us would be the end of everything. Somebody shoots Putin before that happens.

In other words, they are an existential threat. Glad to hear that you are not worried about a nuclear war. I wish your cocksure certainty gave me some comfort.

That article was a just a rehash of every prior allegation rolled up into one screed. And it was weak sauce. Disinformation is not "meddling." It's a form of campaigning people have used since people have run for office. Anyone trying to call manipulation of the credulous a crime is missing the problem. The problem isn't the propagandist, but the moron who believes the propagandist. We have a lotta morons here.

If you only look at an article like that through lens of asking if there are "allegations" against Trump that might stick in an impeachment trial, I'm sure it's weak sauce. If you were to stop and ask, what is Russia doing that, say, France is not, then the sauce is not so weak.

Indeed, we have a lot of morons here. That's exactly why the disinformation is a problem.

Why would you think I was pro-Russia? I am anti-media.

Someone might read your tendentious efforts to excuse away stories about Russia as "weak sauce" and think, well, you're just an apologist for Russia. My point, which you have repeated, is that you are anti-media, and your tendentious efforts are just a by-product of those instincts.

You asked if I changed my position on Trump's relationship with Russia because of the war. I said no. And then I clarified that my only position on Trump's relationship with Russia was that it was falsely characterized (by far more than just the media) as one in which Trump was proactive, as opposed to a manipulated asset.

Trump's relationship with Russia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with this war. As I said, Putin manipulating Trump was one device to protect Russia's sphere of influence, and this war is another.

That actually wasn't the way I put my question, and the words you have chosen -- characteristically, given your bent -- put the focus on Trump, rather than Russia. Part of my point is that we can all look back at those episodes and see that they were part of a larger tragedy about Russia, rather than (just) a smaller farce about Trump. You prefer to keep re-reading the farce.

I guess one could argue that if Trump were still in office the war actually would not have happened, as Putin wouldn't feel the need to use that chess move, as he'd still have the ability to manipulate Trump, which is a far less costly one.

Were there Britons in May 1940 who asked each other, how would the war be going if Neville were still in charge?

Russia sought to get influence with Trump by giving him stuff to help him get elected. He took that stuff, used it, and knowing he'd need a miracle to get re-elected, cozied up to Russia, hoping to get more stuff from them that'd help him. He also borrowed a ton of money from them. All of that has been exposed and acknowledged a million times. What am I supposed to say in response to a rehash of that?

If someone wants to rehash it, I guess we'll find out.

Putin has lost his mind. This is the dumbest unforced error in the history of dictatorships. I still can't wrap my head around it, but there is a silver lining -- he's uniting a fractured West.

Isn't it pretty to think so?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the analogy is that 2014 was the Anschluss, and this is Czechoslovakia. Agree with the larger point. Putin doesn't need to invade Moldova or Kazakhstan to have them in his orbit. The Baltics are definitely threatened, and I would think Finland too, more than Sweden. See the Fiona Hill interview for an explanation.

But also, the problem is not that Russia is a strong state. That's China. The problem is that Russia is a weak state, with grievances and a desire to overcompensate and punch above its weight. A stronger USSR couldn't control Afghanistan, nor could. Where do the warm water ports come from?

Warm water ports were a key goal of Russian imperialism and statecraft all through the 19th century - part of why the Crimean War was fought back in 1850s and undoubtedly part of why they want Crimea and Ukraine now.

[Replaced_Texan]

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Thanks RT! He's beautiful.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

C'mon, I really hope no one annoyed you about this. Congrats!

[Icky Thump]

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

He's wonderful.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

Big time congrats!!!