by wj
As we keep hearing, drone aircraft are supposed to become an Amazon delivery option. And already they are spreading to hobbyists. Unfortunately, effective controls over who flies a drone, where, and with what kinds of skill are still notable mostly by their absense.
Will we have to wait for a serious accident to actually happen for the FAA (or the legislatures) to get their act together on the subject? Because we are starting to get close to the point where a drone will (accidently) bring down a manned aircraft in the US.
I thought the FAA was ramping up to do something, or maybe the NTSB.
Also, model aircraft have been around for decades, but it seems the people who played with them in the past were more responsible than the current lot.
My lawn, off of it!
once they changed the name to “drone”, flying RC aircraft stopped being the hobby of nerds, and became something cool people could do – or at least something cool people could talk about (actually flying those things is still hard!). and once it wasn’t just for nerds, and anyone could do it, losers started doing it.
which is to say: i hate the term “drone”
I’m an American, so as long as my ordered pizza gets to my window via drone, downing a 747 while in transit is a small price to pay.
I’m working on a design for a flying AK-47 drone. Sort of a shooterless weapon, which like the driverless car, will take the nation by storm, though anonymously.
Since I’m in constant radio contact with the flying weapon, I’m in possession, a right guaranteed by the Founders.
In Texas, where we’re beta-testing, I’ll be able to fly it through the doors of a Chili’s, for example, hover the thing in front of the hostess and order take-out.
If they forget the napkins, back it goes and the servers will hop to, believe you me.
Maybe I’ll fly it into a bar in Georgia, order three vodka tonics and tell em to make it snappy.
We’ll not be having any of this here gummint regulation.
Count, wouldn’t it make more of a statement to fly it into NRA HQ with a memo to them on their favority subject? Just wondering….
My lawn, off of it!
Seconded.
If I were younger, less lazy, and more hands-on, I would be tinkering with designing drone-sensing gizmos and writing drone-repelling software to protect my privacy.
Is there some maximum size limit on armed drones, which, by the way, the Founders envisioned as part and parcel of every propertied gentleman’s arsenal, which leaves me out, but never mind that?
For the NRA, I envision something about the size of the alien spaceship/drone in the movie “Independence Day”, permanently parked over NRA headquarters.
The bald spot on the crown of la Pierre’s head will be the ground-zero target and his lips moving will be our trigger warning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Erickson’s got some newspapers to shoot again today.
John Cole, who has some military training with said weapons, fires off a couple of rounds.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/12/07/not-a-suicide-pact/
Someone check Scalia and Thomas for suicide vests.
Four years away from trying KSM!
The five men accused of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks — including the alleged mastermind — are this week due back in US military court, though their prospects for an actual trial remain elusive.
Trigger warning: the term “rectal hydration” appears in the linked article.
Er, did I do that wrong?
Hobbyist “drones” are variants of quadcopters, with a lot of automatic stabilization to make them easy to fly without training.
Model airplanes are more like “real” airplanes, and it takes some serious practice to get the hang of flying them, and probably a few “prangs” along the way. Military drones are much closer to model airplanes than the hobbyist quadcopters.
Jeb! Fights ISIS!
Just shoot me.
In Ugh’s link: ““We need a strong leader with executive experience…” — Maj Gen Livingston
I realize that Jeb is aiming this at Trump. But it would seem to fit Hilary at least as well as it does Jeb himself. (Although I suppose that is a long term consideration in a situation where the short term prospects could be characterized as dire for him.)
Prediction: It will take having that serious accident to get effective regulations, just as it usually takes a pedestrian fatality to get traffic signals installed, even if the neighborhood has been requesting them.
I just hope I’m not on that plane.
JEBFIGHTSISIS!
bless his heart
JEBISBEYONDAPARODY/NOTHINGSADDRTHANALOSERWHODOESNTYETSEEMTOREALISEIT….!!!
And sadder still that right wing America seems to prefer an incipient fascist.
The Donald!
In a statement from his campaign, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States until elected leaders can “figure out what is going on.”
When asked by The Hill whether that would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.'”
@D: “Prediction: It will take having that serious accident to get effective regulations, just as” it took a mass shooting of first- and second-graders to get effective gun control through a GOP-controlled Congress.
Your optimism is so cute!
You have to wonder. Why don’t Trump, and those who agree with him about how things should be run, just skip the incrementalism?
Demand a Constitutional Convention (which Article V of the current Consitutional provides for). Rewtite the whole thing, since they don’t like big parts of the freedoms that it guarantees — or at least, don’t like them being guaranteed to anyone but themselves.
It really seems like it would be just so much easier to get what they want that way. Of course, should they pull it off, it would make their cherished victimhood harder to maintain. Which may be sufficient reason for them to avoid it.
Trump is self-destructing a little ahead of schedule. He’s supposed to wait until he’s won the Republican nomination.
We’ll see if his comments today result in self-destruction, or not.
Even if it does, apostates who abandon Him will redirect to Ted Cruz, another step in the lineage leading to the rude Beast emerging on the Right in America.
Trump and Cruz are merely glib facsimiles of what’s coming down the pike.
Look here, and see where they won’t be redirected, in case anyone’s still hoping:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-donald-trump-domain-redirect
Besides, even if Jeb or Rubio do emerge in the polls, they will have sold what little they have left of their souls to the Tea Party Republican filth to their Right so that their Presidencies will be little more than a competition to see who can be the bestest Murderer-In-Chief, lest they face impeachment from the Trump, Carson, and Cruz crowd who coattail those three into Congress, regardless of who the nominee is.
Enough mainstream conservatives will go along for awhile to get their taxes lowered, but by then it will be too late.
If Hillary is elected, four more years of lickspittle hatred, with the emphasis veering more toward women than blacks, as the Handmaid’s Tale becomes the prophetic piece of literature. Images of innocent Muslims, immigrants, gays and lesbians, and the Left at large will, of course, remain as hot-selling poster children for sale to conservative gun ranges.
I’d expect a rash of conservative cops gunning down unarmed women as conservative media re-adjusts their violent rhetoric to aim the Zeitgeist at the chosen targets.
Planned Parenthood will have to hire armed muscle to avoid being murdered in mass.
We will have pregnant women and their fetuses being gunned down as they try to enter Planned Parenthood for prenatal care.
unfortunately, there’s nothing out of the historical mainstream in Trump’s plan to prevent Muslims from entering the US.
I’m not sure if we’ve ever done that based on religion, specifically, but we have done so on national origin and general political ideology.
Then, some years later, we all agree that it was a pointless mistake.
Then, some years later, when some new bad stuff happens, we try it on again.
I don’t think Trump’s comments will have any negative effect on his chances for (R) candidate for POTUS. Just the opposite, if anything. Even if he doesn’t get the nomination, all of the other candidates are now going to have to see his nationalist ante and maybe even raise it.
People get freaked out and they’ll listen to any damned thing. The crazier the better. The more the rhetoric affirms the crazy stuff in their heads, the more sense it makes to them.
Cruz is a guy whose views are fairly consistent over time, as far as I am aware, and he’s pretty genuine whether you like what you see or not. He’s intelligent and educated.
Trump, on the other hand, is 100% self-sales. There’s not a thoughtful bone in his body; all of his energy goes into win.
Even if you hate both of them, they are not even close to being equivalent.
I agree they are not equivalent, though they both have entered the same race to the bottom.
Cruz is consistent, genuine, sincere, and un-hypocritical, all of the traits that make him more predictably and viciously dangerous, to my mind.
I’m not a big critic of hypocrites, that being the human condition. Most of the monsters in history do what they say they are going to do and rarely swerve into hypocrisy.
It’s the consistent ones you have to watch out for.
Cruz is velociraptor with a law degree to Trump’s Lord of the Rings cave troll.
Swift, adaptable, the very top of the throat-ripping reptilian food chain.
Trump bellows and bludgeons. He’s top-heavy, easy to take down.
There is some evidence that those who know Trump generally like him personally, which is thin brew and no defense from me, but so I’ve read.
There is more evidence that those who have crossed paths personally with Cruz find him repellent and would never turn their backs on him again for fear of the shiv.
The latter will ultimately prove to be more to the taste of those legions who want to punish their enemies without mercy.
Not so much LOTR troll, as simply troll.
It’s quite possible that he’ll get the nomination, a circumstance which gets a bemused shake of the head over here.
If not, as evidenced by Slart’s post above, he serves to render those such as Cruz more considered/reasonable/acceptable, which in of itself is a pretty remarkable achievement.
i’m not sure Trump is going to be easy to take down. what people seem to love about him is that he says the kinds of things that would destroy any other candidate. so, i don’t think he’s going to gaffe himself out of it.
though, when you’ve gone too far for Cheney, who knows…
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dick-cheney-donald-trump-muslim-ban-extreme
Just saw him on UK lunchtime TV reported as calling (“reluctantly”) for internment camps…
For some fair sized chunk of Americans extreme Islamophobic statements aren’t a gaffe, but what they believe and think others are too PC to say. What the fraction is we are presumably going to find out.
For some fair sized chunk of Americans extreme Islamophobic statements aren’t a gaffe, but what they believe and think others are too PC to say.
They’re like Col. Nathan R. Jessup and the Code Red. They think it and they’re pissed off that they feel like they can’t say it out loud and now finally someone in “authority” is doing it and they couldn’t be happier. Once again, it’s a big fnck you to all the liberals out there and makes them feel better about themselves.
Donald Trump is now ISIS’s #1 recruiter. Congratulations, GOP!
resentment is a hell of a drug.
It’s the triumph of Richard Nixon. I blame Ike.
Last night, Rachel Maddow floated the notion that maybe The Donald is trying to get himself disowned by the GOP.
Whatever it may be that goes on under that hair, I have to assume that Trump’s obsession is always and ever the greater glory of his “brand”. Based on that assumption, Rachel’s suspicion is not absurd.
I still want to see a Sanders v. Trump general election, FWIW. We’d find out once and for all whether the American electorate is irretrievably deranged.
–TP
Speaking of fractions, Nate Silver was suggesting that the way polls were, Trump supporters were basically the same as the number of people who think the moon landings are fake.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dear-media-stop-freaking-out-about-donald-trumps-polls/
So it may be that Trump’s support is simply the basic background noise of US politics. Though it says something that it is all concentrated in the Republican party…
It is instructive however that today’s ascendant radical right-wing nearly uniformly considers Nixon a moderate squish, a traitor to conservatism.
While of course wondering what the big deal was with Watergate.
No, this thing in 2015 is a whole different set of heads on the hydra. True, Nixon, with his southern strategy made strides in perfecting the Republican Party’s appeal to the dregs of our worst natures as a political strategy.
But now, we’re not dealing with those who were at least willing to find new and clever ways of using the word “nigger”, a la Atwater (following Nixon, Haldeman, and Mitchell, et al), in all of its forms, but with a crowd of authenticity seekers who wonder WHY we are so politically correct that we can’t just go back to calling a spade a spade, as we did in the golden era of 1954, now along with publically waving weapons around in civilians’ faces as we do it.
That Ben Carson, for example, appeals momentarily to this crowd who believes “those people” might be getting a leg up via Obamacare or think that the armed forces should not be the place for social experimentation (Harry Truman differed, my dear f*cking Doctor), among his bizarre views, is a very special ingrown type of minstrelsy, but apparently an appealing, profitable one for the purposes of his grift, which his followers are too sincere and genuine (as sincere and genuine as a German chicken farmer in 1927) to catch out as a grift.
THIS, following, is good news, until you consider that the individual will be successfully primaried by the worst of the same on his next electoral go-round, merely for suggesting that lethally stupid is abroad in the land and in his own Party and might be dangerous:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/12/devin-nunes-explains-why-hes-less-conservative-he-used-be
It is touching that FOXNews management seems a little touchy and politically correct all of a sudden about Obama being called a “pussy” and “not giving a “sh*t” about terrorism and Scarborough is cutting to commercial just to shut Trump up.
What, NOW these people are discovering the right-wing whirlwind is in the thorn tree? And NOW, the virgins should trim their wicks?
Too late.
It only gains momentum from here. There are vast forests of thorn trees that will have to be cut down before this is over in America.
What the Republican Party is hoping is that the whirlwind will somehow subside and we’ll come to look upon right-wing blue-eyed professional killers like Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand as reasonable alternatives after all.
Maddow can’t predict what Trump is up to.
He’s improvisational. He doesn’t know anymore what’s going to come out of this mouth tomorrow than a jazz instrumentalist, Sonny Mussolini, the trumpet player, can tell you what notes he’s going to play at his next gig, and the Donald doesn’t know whether he likes what he hears out of own mouth until the mob reacts.
The more they hate it, the more he likes it.
But whatever it is, it will be terrific.
If current trends continue, Texas textbooks will teach that the moon landings WERE fake.
More on the Nunes cite above:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_12/crazed_conspiracy_theories_con058906.php
And that goes for the media too.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/12/08/178385/
The media’s idea of objectivity now is to bring in Doctor Rufus P Dumbass, Director of the Center For Rock Bottom Stupidity, to provide journalistic balance to whatever expertise happens to be on camera today.
That’s about as politically correct as it gets.
And that goes for the media too.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/12/08/178385/
The media’s idea of objectivity now is to bring in Doctor Rufus P Dumbass, Director of the Center For Rock Bottom Stupidity, to provide journalistic balance to whatever expertise happens to be on camera today.
That’s about as politically correct as it gets.
That second identical post should have read “And that goes for the media two.”
I have heard this intriguing conspiracy theory that Trump is actually on a mission to guarantee a Clinton win either by totally discrediting the GOP or by going independent and doing a Ross Perot.
Clinton is a bit of a psycho in her own right, though, talking about nuking other countries – Trump only wants to put people in internment camps …
Well, OF COURSE the Trump supporters think that the moon landings were faked!
How could they trust NASA when there was a Demoncrat in the White House, amirite?
plus, how can you trust NASA, when it’s PROVEN that they faked three century’s worth of climate data?
Trump only wants to put people in internment camps . . . so far. You got to leave the man room for future statements. After all, the election is still almost a year away.
The question is, who will he propose nuking first? And how many places will he get to before he is done? My guess is that he starts with Nuking ISIS. And for his finale, just before the election, he calls for nuking Mecca. (I’d expect him to include Medina, but I doubt he is informed enough to think of it.)
Trump:
“We’re losing a lot of people because of the internet. We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.”
http://boingboing.net/2015/12/08/donald-trump-thinks-he-can-cal.html
heckofajob, GOP. stellar.
Well, Donald and Hillary seem to agree on one thing… 🙂
Your Presidential Frontrunners Discuss the Internet: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: compare ‘n’ contrast
“Your Presidential Frontrunners Discuss the Internet: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: compare ‘n’ contrast”
I’d rather have Hillary help to set up email, that’s for sure. Donald is probably still looking for the “any” key.
Hobbyist “drones” are variants of quadcopters, with a lot of automatic stabilization to make them easy to fly without training. Model airplanes are more like “real” airplanes, and it takes some serious practice to get the hang of flying them…
I’m surprised that model airplanes haven’t started incorporating automatic stabilization features.
I’m tempted to cut and paste the entire Reason.com Hit&Run blog post that CharlesWT links to, because it’s shorter than the average comment around here. The accompanying photo is good for a laugh, though.
Those wacky libertarians have a marvelous way of “reasoning”. They seem like people who “compare and contrast” songs by reading the lyrics, or paintings by looking at black-and-white photos of them.
–TP
Turns out Clinton still wants to nuke Iran, she thought she had succeeded in putting her genocidal pet peeve behind her since the campaign against Obama – but her subconscious is playing tricks on her:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clintons-freudian-slip-the-nuclear-option-should-not-at-all-be-taken-off-the-table/5494380
novakant, it’s called mutually assured destruction, the policy that kept nukes from being used since WWII. It’s understandable that you don’t get it. How old are you, 22?
The premise is: Warning: Don’t nuke Israel, or we will nuke you. (We obviously don’t want either situation to ever happen, but the threat is “not taken off the table” so the one party doesn’t presume to act without worrying about the consequences.)
Is it a good policy? Obviously it’s pretty grim, and I’m not going to be “for” nuking anyone. But arguably, it has paralyzed the people who have nukes from having used those nukes for the last 3/4 century.
Deterrence generally works better, however, if you make it a little clearer that the nuclear option is not off the table in the specific circumstances of an Iranian nuclear strike. Otherwise, it is all too easy to to misinterpret the comment as suggesting the possibility of a first strike.
Which is exactly the approach which would make the target likely to strike first. After all, if you don’t (yet) have hardened missle silos or missle subs, you wouldn’t be able to respond to a first strike at you. So you are incentivized to do the first striking.
Unlikely that Hillary wants to nuke Iran, wj. You may disagree, but i’d be a lot more worried about those singing “Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran,” and their party.
But maybe that’s just my bias.
After all, if you don’t (yet) have hardened missle silos or missle subs, you wouldn’t be able to respond to a first strike at you. So you are incentivized to do the first striking.
But the incentive would not be enough in that instance, or am i missing something?
I don’t think Hilary would make a nuclear first strike on Iran either. But the issue isn’t what you or I think she meant. The issue is what the Iranians, specifically the Iranian government (which sees itself, accurately, as surrounded by enemies), think she meant.
Whatever, wj. i’m not worried about it. The Iran deal was a many-years-long process, and kudos to John Kerry for pulling it through. But Hillary’s state department was working on it too. The Iranians are pretty knowledgeable about who’s who here.
Cruz is detestable.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-cruz-wont-be-the-republican-nominee/
All I can say is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7XvU4sWLAo
If linking to a cat video isn’t a violation of the posting rules, maybe we need to revise the rules. 😉
Around a quarter of UK voters are down with Trump’s idea:
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/674548714875277312/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Reading polls like that make me quite grateful for UKIP – it’s drained a significant portion of the right wing from the Conservative party, and has little prospect of obtaining any real power.
“Around a quarter of UK voters are down with Trump’s idea…”
I’m guessing that “Around a quarter” would be 27%, with the appropriate error bars.
Eventually, a genetic cause for this phenomenon will be discovered, no doubt.
Eventually, a genetic cause for this phenomenon will be discovered, no doubt.
They’re System 1 people. I’m 75 pages into that book and it’s fascinating, BTW>
F off, sapient, I have experienced the last 15 years of the Cold War right here at the sharp end in Europe where the nukes would have been flying.
Anyone with half a brain realizes that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is both ethically and practically problematic, well, basically insane.
How it applies to Iran remains a mystery though. What is quite clear though is that a president to be shouldn’t go around threatening to “obliterate” other nations, never mind the odds of that actually occurring. If memory serves, Reagan was the only one who made such a threat and it was supposed to be a joke that turned into a major scandal at the time – we have come a long way…
sapient seems to be highly confident in his nuclear power expertise. Either he’s a) part of an advisory thinktank on nuclear strategy, or b) talking directly out of his ass.
I am betting on b), myself.
A little less swagger would have me in a less annoyed position.
s/power/strategy
They’re System 1 people.
Everybody has a lizard brain, and barring severe neurological deficits everybody also has the capacity for considered reflection, self-awareness, empathy, and self-control.
It’s all about what you do with the equipment.
Irony ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35052505
Mind you, there are a few previous candidates who might have deserved the same treatment.
dear GOP,
Bob Dole wants you to knock off the nonsense.
Seems to be some differences of opinion and uncertainties regarding nuclear winter theory these days, but we might not be able to nuke Iran without causing a famine everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Aside from whatever one thinks about the ethics of nuclear deterrence.
The premise is: Warning: Don’t nuke Israel, or we will nuke you. (We obviously don’t want either situation to ever happen, but the threat is “not taken off the table” so the one party doesn’t presume to act without worrying about the consequences.)
Israel ambiguously possesses something between the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal and its eighth. They also complete the nuclear triad, are entirely capable of executing a second-strike nuclear launch (especially against a nation who is as of the writing not even a nuclear power), and have been quite vocal in “mad dog” MAD rhetoric even as they avoid officially admitting their status as a nuclear power. They’re all growed up; they don’t need us to be menacing their strategic rivals for them, no matter how much they enjoy Big Goy doing it for the sake of convenience.
Bob Dole — the last Republican Presidential nominee that a moderate or liberal Republican (yes, there are a few still out there) could, in good conscience, vote for. Ditto for some of us moderately conservative (albeit not “conservative” as the term is currently used) voters.
That would be maximally funny if Bob Dole had said it.
It’s even funnier if you take “knock off” in its meaning of “a cheap imitation”. Because that seems to be what a lot of the candidates’ rhetoric seems to be — cheap imitation of the nonsense being spouted by others.
They’re all growed up; they don’t need us to be menacing their strategic rivals for them, no matter how much they enjoy Big Goy doing it for the sake of convenience.
Although I agree with you about this, I also think that Hillary Clinton’s statement isn’t evidence that she’s a psychotic warmonger intent on using nukes. Even if it was a dumb thing to say, I think that the least of our worries at this particular moment is the prospect of Hillary getting elected, and then using a nuke. YMMV.
the ethics of nuclear deterrence
As long as “nuclear deterrence” is actually deterring, I think the ethics are pretty clear.
They’re really not clear, for various reasons. One is that if you target cities, you are saying it is okay in some circumstances to kill millions of civilians (in response to the killings of millions of civilians). If so, then why not apply the same reasoning on a smaller scale?
And the whole scary thing about the Cold War is that on a few occasions, either via accident (mistaken radar readings) or miscalculation (the Cuban missile crisis), it might not have worked. Suppose there was a 1 percent chance of a nuclear war per year. Then the chance of avoiding war over a 40 year period is better than even, but it wouldn’t be a great endorsement of the system.
Trump’s Muslim comments aren’t necessarily hurting him much in the polls.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-09/bloomberg-politics-poll-trump-muslim-ban-proposal
Not a huge surprise.
Not a huge surprise.
nope. sure ain’t.
they sure are making it hard to not call the GOP ‘racist’.
Then the chance of avoiding war over a 40 year period is better than even, but it wouldn’t be a great endorsement of the system.
I’m for doing whatever works. That includes nonproliferation and disarmament treaties to the extent that they can be negotiated. I’d also be in favor of unilaterally reducing our own stockpile.
All that said, the current “system” is flawed and scary, and subject to catastrophic failure, but it has worked for some time. The fact that the technology exists makes it essential to assume the possibility that someone will use it. How to stop that from happening has been a challenge (met successfully) since 1945.
And to reiterate, the subject came up because Hillary Clinton was being savaged as a psycho, intent on genocide, because of her rhetorical support for the “system”. She is not a psycho, she’s not intent on genocide, and it’s hard to imagine any scenario where she’d actually use a nuclear weapon. Obviously, one doesn’t have to agree with every position she’s taken over the decades to reject the idea that she’s a genocidal psycho.
Clinton? she’s no better than Dick Cheney.
PUMATime!
Clinton is a bit of a psycho in her own right, though, talking about nuking other countries…
This is the statement where Clinton was “savaged as a psycho, intent on genocide.” The above italicized quote may be a bit of an overstatement, but it doesn’t quite fit that particular bill.
Herbert, a former soldier from Portsmouth, who served in Iraq with the Yorkshire Regiment, lost his leg in a roadside bombing in Basra. But far from spouting hatred of Islam, Herbert’s post goes on to praise the Muslims who served next to him in Iraq and helped him recover from his injuries…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35054442
In contrast to this young man, Trump is simply a coward.
Appealing to cowardice.
Can you imagine psycho Trump’s business card, or Cruz’s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cISYzA36-ZY
The rest of the Republican primary candidates, and I suppose Clinton too, are rushing to the printers to have more exquisitely effective ones printed up to meet the competition.
Their prospective clients, the now psycho American electorate, demand only the very best in psycho killer presentation, qu’est-ce que c’est, unhh ha hunh huh, unhh ha hunh huh, for the big sales meeting next year.
I think this is the statement where Clinton was accused of being “intent on genocide”:
Turns out Clinton still wants to nuke Iran, she thought she had succeeded in putting her genocidal pet peeve behind her
I’m not a huge fan of Clinton’s, and her relative (to other D’s) hawkishness is one reason my vote and money went to Obama when she ran against him.
But (a) it does indeed appear that novakant considers Clinton to have genocidal intent toward Iran, and (b) that seems, to me, to be an overstatement measurable in orders of magnitude.
hairshirt, don’t forget this gem of novakant’s: Turns out Clinton still wants to nuke Iran, she thought she had succeeded in putting her genocidal pet peeve behind her since the campaign against Obama
Yes, it ticks me off. Sorry that I don’t subscribe to the “not a dime’s worth of difference” doctrine.
Thanks, russell, for your 6:04. I’m trying to practice anger management, but sometimes I fail. I’ll take a break now.
I stand corrected. My apologies. It seems novakant does think Clinton a genocidal maniac. Weird.
Trump’s demand to prohibit all Muslims from entering the country and putting the ones here in concentration camps seems a half measure without also keeping all female virgins out and rounding up the few left who live in the U.S for detention.
Just feel I ought to let you all know that, further to the YouAintNoMuslimBruv hashtag previously linked after the London Underground knife attack, have just heard, re Trump, YouAintNoChristianBruv. Seems about right to me.
Seems about right to me.
Yep.
Clinton threatened, and I quote, to “totally obliterate” Iran, nuff said.
If a man declares that he is a Christian — or a Republican, for that matter — who can gainsay him?
Do Christians — or Republicans — have the same obligation as Muslims do to renounce, abjure, and detest those who bring their tribe into disrepute?
And (bonus question) what gives them the standing to do so? I mean: how is an atheist — or a Democrat — expected to decide whether Pope Francis is a true Christian but Rev. Falwell isn’t, or Bob Dole is a true Republican but Donald Trump isn’t?
–TP
And just a couple of weeks ago she considered “the Iranians” her enemy, not Khamenei or whoever, but “the Iranians”.
Clinton threatened, and I quote, to “totally obliterate” Iran, nuff said.
Of course, the US totally obliterated the USSR. Not only without nuclear weapons strikes, but without any significant military action. Just a combination of economic force and a bit of cultural imperialism. Iran would hardly be a harder nut to crack.
‘Nuff said.
Baby steps. A decade ago, I had a consulting gig in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia had just held their first ever elections (for municipal offices). One of the guys I was working with (obviously an enormous optimist) said “Next time, we move up beyond just municipal offices. And we let the women vote!” Of course nothing like that happened for years.
But even in Saudi Arabia, things do change. Perhaps, like me, you missed the news in September. And this weekend, the election arrives where women finally get to vote.
It’s been a long time coming. But for the Saudis, what the rest of the world considers (long overdue) baby steps are giant strides.
Come on wj, you’re better than that
Given the current king and the likely crown prince, Saudi Arabia may reverse even those baby steps when no one is looking.
They have to out-fundie ISIS after all (while still inofficially funding the movement).
If the price of oil stays low, the Saudis will run out of money to buy off their citizens.
how about we look at her actual words?
when asked to clarify her position, in the hypothetical situation where Iran launches a nuclear attack on Israel, she said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=857guwaNbRc
Actually wj’s comment reminds me of what some say about the intent of the Iranian words when speaking about Israel– they are repeating what Khomenei said about the Soviet Union. He wanted the government to disappear.
Look, there is no question what Clinton meant and she has reiterated the threat in various versions since then. Both Obama and the UN condemned her statement at the time.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/04/dems.election/
How she could become secretary of state is beyond me – and now she is being defended here?
While there are indeed questions about what exactly Clinton did mean, I kind of have to side with novakant on this; Clinton’s foreign policy statements have a tendency to be unnuanced and rather bellicose.
And I think Obama was right, and she wrong, concerning how we deal with Iran.
Had I a vote, though, it wouldn’t be going to any of the Republican alternatives.
Is there something in the water over there ?
http://news.sky.com/story/1603371/gun-groups-to-stage-fake-shooting-at-campus
Even for gun nuts, this is nuts.
there is no question what Clinton meant
right. but it isn’t this:
Clinton still wants to nuke Iran,
she never said she wants to. she bluntly said what probably should have gone unsaid but is regardless still true: if Iran was to nuke an ally of the US, they’d be likely to get a face-full of nukes in return.
What is also (probably) true – had Clinton been president rather than Obama, the nuclear deal with Iran wouldn’t have happened.
“Is there something in the water over there?”
Whatever it is, there will be more of it in the water if some get their way.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/17/republican-assault-clean-water-laws-caused-west-virginia-chemical-spill.html
Actually, there is something in the broadcast spectrum:
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/armed_and_stupid_fox_news_viewer_threatens_man_over_his_beard
hat tip to cleek, where I stole the link.
Nigel,
Even with the “(probably)” in there, I have to ask why you think so. I’m not Hillary’s biggest fan by a long stretch; I’m not saying you’re obviously wrong; but I am sincerely curious about your reasoning.
–TP
Is there something in the water over there ?
Must be the fluoride.
If the price of oil stays low, the Saudis will run out of money to buy off their citizens.
Charles, this might be a problem eventually. But long before it happens, the Russian government will run out of money to buy off its citizens. Which upsets will, at least for a while, drop global oil production enough to raise the prices and give the Saudis some relief.
It also has to be noted that Saudi oil get produced as a far lower cost than anyone else’s. So even with low prices, they still have significant money coming in — that’s why they could afford to cut production when OPEC wanted to raise prices. Oh yes, and they have salted away (invested) enough to the vast amounts they have made in the past to keep buying off their people for quite a while even if oil income went to zero.
Clinton’s foreign policy statements have a tendency to be unnuanced and rather bellicose.
Clinton is a politician campaigning, and doubtless looking ahead to the general election. Which means that she needs to try to minimize the distance, on foreign policy, between her and the Republican nominee (whoever that turns out to be).
Democrats have a tendency to be seen as less macho (there really is no other word that captures it) than Republicans — which is why they are better off if the campaign focuses on the economy rather foreign affairs. That perception routinely leads to the Democratic nominee making bellicose statements on the campaign trail.
And, as a woman, Clinton can count on her opponent (or at least his surrogates) to be making the suggestion that a woman simply cannot be as strong as a man would be. Which also put a premium on her making aggressive statements.
I’m not a fan of hers at all. But on this one I am inclined to cut her a bit of slack. I think it was the wrong thing to say, for reasons I’ve already said. But I don’t think is was quite as bad as some here are taking it.
Except she’s been saying similar stuff since she ran against Obama, so I don’t buy that excuse.
Tony, the reasoning is pretty clear – without an executive willing to ramp down the rhetoric (and ignore the ‘surrender merchant’ nonsense from the republicans), the Iranians would never have trusted the US sufficiently to get anywhere near a deal.
In any event, it’s looking increasingly likely that Trump will be the GOP nominee. Hillary could look a great deal worse,carry a load more baggage, and I’d still support her.
In any event, it’s looking increasingly likely that Trump will be the GOP nominee. Hillary could look a great deal worse,carry a load more baggage, and I’d still support her.
Considering the rest of the Republican crew, I hope that would be true no matter who becomes the GOP nominee.
no way. Bern it down ! #bernieorbust !
from the mouths of babes comes the voices of their parents:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1006029/muslim-schoolgirl-in-new-york-called-isis-put-into-headlock-and-punched/
(my mom had subject/verb agreement)
(..trouble)
If 6th graders even know the term ISIS it is impossible to doubt that atleast some of their parents have been having hysterics about the subject. 6th graders have other kinds of interests, unless deluged with this kind of thing at home.
I hope that would be true no matter who becomes the GOP nominee…
Of the current crew on offer (& anyone else on the horizon), absolutely.
Some are more disturbing than others, though.
” Bern it down ! #bernieorbust !”
Yeah, I understand the sentiments, but bad is much better than horrible.
I’ve also met (online) people who think Bernie is insufficiently good on some human rights issues (like Israel/Palestine). Which is true, but he’s the best you could get right now. And it won’t be him, which leaves Hillary and me feeling really disgusted. But voting Hillary if necessary.
DJ, I think there may be a lot of us voting against, rather than for, come next November. That’s always a factor, of course, but this time much more than most.
I will vote for the Republican candidate, it wont be Trump or Cruz. The kid would be ok, I still anticipate a jump for Bush, and Trump keeps trying to give him one.
And it won’t be him
I think that’s likely so, and I’m also not sure Sanders would actually be an effective POTUS, so maybe it’s not a bad thing.
I say that as somebody who cuts the man a check once a month.
All of that said, he’s run (and continues to run) a credible campaign for POTUS in one of the two major parties, as a self-declared democratic socialist.
And has attracted a hell of a lot of support, with virtually no institutional, big donor, or party backing.
So however it plays out, I’m calling Sanders’ campaign a win.
Is Rubio the kid?
yes DJ
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-no-marco-rubio-didn-t-score-20151210-column.html
the kid … how endearing … is just as capable of cold-blooded murderer as Trump, Cruz, and for that matter, Bush.
Remember when we were told the lie that the Republicans had no say in Obamacare provisions.
They did, and people die as a result.
ISIS wishes it could be such a threat to life on U.S. soil as these sadistic pigs.
Spealing of bellicose, did you all hear about Putin’s remarks? Basically, he noted that the cruise missiles (which the Russians have been shooting off their ships into Syria) could carry either conventional or nuclear payloads.
And then he said that he hoped that nuclear weapons would not be needed. With the obvious implication that they might be.
Looks like Vlad is going to cancel Christmas in Russia:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/12/vladimir-putin-thought-his-boys-would-be-home-christmas
Of course, everything Putin wants to do, the Republican candidates want to do too, come January 2017, when the Russian body bags will be piling up.
ISIL’s got to be delighted.
Lesser evilism seems part of the problem rather than the solution – how far to the right does a Democratic candidate have to shift until lesser evilists stop voting for him/her ?
if Iran was to nuke an ally of the US, they’d be likely to get a face-full of nukes in return.
So Iran, which doesn’t have any nukes and hasn’t started any wars since godknowswhen, is being threatened with nuclear annihilation just because … just because … its leaders might theoretically someday somehow in a fit of suicidal madness decide to nuke with nukes they have yet to build our wonderful ally who is among the most aggressive, bellicose nations on earth, has had a ton of nukes for decades and is armed to the teeth by us.
Or are we talking about our other wonderful allies in the region: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pakistan?
Meanwhile, a former terrorist organisation appears embarrassed to be linked to its one time sympathiser… Donald Trump:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12044288/Why-this-is-the-week-that-Trump-went-toxic.html
how far to the right does a Democratic candidate have to shift until lesser evilists stop voting for him/her ?
obviously, the Dem will be preferable up until he/she is to the right of the Republican.
that’s how a two-party system works.
“vladimir-putin-thought-his-boys-would-be-home-christmas”
But remember, Orthodox christmas is Jan 7, so Putin has two extra weeks to wrap up his holiday shopping.
And get good deals on the post-Dec-25 arms sales also, too.
how far to the right does a Democratic candidate have to shift until lesser evilists stop voting for him/her?
Put another way, how far to the left can a Democratic candidate be and still get lesser evilists to vote for him/her? At least, enough of them to assure election?
At the moment, I’d say even Bernie Sanders might able to get a fair number of lesser-evilist (what a great term!) votes. But Hilary may have a different take on the situation. And she, after all, is the professional in this arena.
In other news, there were reports yesterday of Republican Party officials discussing the prospect for a brokered convention. That is, no one candidate might have enough convention votes going in to assure his nomination.
Today, Ben Carson is saying he “won’t stand for it.” Which appears to be a threat to run as a third party candidate, should it happen. (It is not clear what he thinks should if there is no candidate with a majority going in.)
Novakant, I agree with your 5:21 post and if the majority of Americans thought the same, we could maybe vote for a candidate we actually like. In the meantime, Clinton is less horrible than the Republicans. That would make a fine campaign bumper sticker.
Carson probably doesn’t even understand what a brokered convention is – and that WaPo article isn’t exactly helpful in the way it phrases things. that article implies, kindof, in places, that the RNC could just discount the delegates chosen by the primaries and force a redo.
“that article implies, kindof, in places, that the RNC could just discount the delegates chosen by the primaries and force a redo.”
Given the range of shenanigans that are possible: things like ‘credentials committees’, ‘rulings from the chair’, etc., with a quasi-parliamentary system being run by those with zero scruples…If the RNC decides it has to conduct a putsch, it’s more a question of “what is the reaction?” rather than “can they do it?”.
If Carson or Trump is worried about being cheated of the nomination, they should make sure the convention is open-carry.
So Iran, which doesn’t have any nukes and hasn’t started any wars since godknowswhen, is being threatened with nuclear annihilation just because … just because … its leaders might theoretically someday somehow in a fit of suicidal madness decide to nuke with nukes they have yet to build our wonderful ally who is among the most aggressive, bellicose nations on earth, has had a ton of nukes for decades and is armed to the teeth by us.
Not just this – the suicidal hypothetical nuking would almost certainly have to be something like Fat Man/Little Boy in both scale and quantity. So we have a presidential candidate and former SoS who we’re supposed to take seriously and view as a positive good rather than a bad-instead-of-awful calling for the US to annihilate an entire nation and most of its neighbors/those downwind from it in response to one city in a nuclear state who’s frankly not a very good ally being mostly destroyed by a certain class of weapon.
I do disagree with novakant’s classification of this politically orthodox “common sense” as genocidal; I don’t really think it is. It’s glaringly, unabashedly, baldly occidentalist racism, but I’d say its premise of “improbable actions have grossly disproportionate, indiscriminate and, collectively applied consequences” manages to avoid being genocidal, albeit by how much could certainly be debated.
calling for the US to annihilate an entire nation … in response to one city in a nuclear state
no, that wasn’t the context.
Clinton’s “obliterate” comment was in response to a question from Chris Cuomo who was asking about an answer she gave to an interview with Keith Olbermann, who was following up on a question that George Stephanopoulos had asked Obama during a debate.
this is Stephanopoulos’ original question:
for contrast, here’s part of Obama’s response:
Stephanopoulos asked Clinton to respond, and she said:
(and she goes on at length about Iran’s support for terrorism, efforts at diplomacy, other countries in the region, etc).
then, Stephanopoulos changed the topic.
the “massive retaliation” grabbed Olbermann’s attention, and he asked her about it a few days later:
she replied:
then, a few days later, she had the interview with Chris Cuomo, where he followed up on the “massive retaliation” phrase, as well:
and it’s at that point that she uttered the magic word: obliterate. and i’ve already quoted that text.
it’s not about “one city” (that was your context, NV). and she’s not saying she “wants to” obliterate Iran. she’s very clearly saying all of this in the context of deterrence. and that is in fact what deterrence means in the context of nuclear weapons: if you use nukes, we will use them in return. that’s been the implicit agreement the nuclear counties have had with each other since the end of WWII. and she’s telling Iran how that deal works.
she’s too hawkish for me. but, at the same time she’s not a bloodthisty cartoonish racist villain who’s itching for genocide.
The problem I have with Clinton is that she is smart and knows better, and still lies in ways calculated to make the US and Israel seem innocent. In her world the Iranians are the aggressors– in the real world they could argue that we are the ones who’ve picked fights with them.
Here is an example of what I can’t stand about the Clintons or really, mainstream US politicians. It might seem minor, but it’s a fairly typical example of American lying, in this case about what happened to the Gaza greenhouses when Israel withdrew–
.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.608008
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/world/middleeast/israeli-settlers-demolish-greenhouses-and-gaza-jobs.html
Anyone who follows the Gaza situation closely will have heard the morality play put out by some Israel supporters and with enough googling, you can show it is at best a half- truth. You can track down various NYT stories as the saga unfolded. Some of the greenhouses were destroyed by Israeli settlers before they left, some were looted by Palestinians afterwards, but they were saved by the Palestinian authoritiesand ultimately it was the Israeli blockade that rendered the greenhouses worthless.. Clinton can’t be this stupid, but she is cynical on this subject. I really can’t stand the Clintons on human rights issues– very smart, knowledgeable people, but you have to be crazy to trust them. I suppose they are no different from other politicians, but precisely because they are so smart I find it hard to listen to them without feeling a sense of anger.
That said, Republicans are worse, so HRC for President if it comes to that, as it probably will.. There are honest conservatives, like Andrew Bacevich, who write on foreign policy, but they don’t run for office.
You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be ‘massive retaliation.”
Again, my citation of “one city” was that it met and exceeded Clinton’s threshold for “massive retailiation”. I.e., “if Iran were to strike Israel”, “[Iran] might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel” – no mention of the size of strike that would unleash “massive retaliation”. She’s not proposing proportional response – she’s stating that we need to commit ourselves to grossly disproportionate response to any and all attacks with a particular type of weapon.
That’s not all that’s reprehensible about this, ofc; she’s also playing with the polite fiction that we’re going to place Israel under our nuclear umbrella. As you mention, there’s a lot of Cold War jargon and rhetoric being thrown around; do you actually remember precisely what nuclear umbrellas refer to? She’s being disingenuous and playing up the politically orthodox (frankly, conventional usage be damned – I’m on the verge of calling a cat a cat and saying “politically correct”) “poor little defenseless Israel” BS that gets trotted out incessantly in our political discourse. She’s playing at a particularly despicable sort of pandering, and she’s blithely proposing we intervene in a hypothetical conflict between two nuclear states when the proposed hapless victim has sufficient second-strike capability to “obliterate” their hypothetical aggressor all by themself. It’s disgusting, and the tropes she espouses and promotes have no place in serious discussions (which is why they crop up endlessly in our national security dialogues, natch).
(Or to a large degree, what DJ said.)
here is the thing.
iran is not going to nuke israel.
we are not going to nuke iran.
so, as a practical matter, the question is kind of moot.
i personally find clinton to be more hawkish than I would like, but in the big picture, considering all of the people who are running for POTUS, she’s sort of in the middle of the Bell curve.
I’m fairly certain most or all (God I hope all) of teh Donuld’s “good ideas” will never come to pass, but that doesn’t mean his having uttered them is moot, as such utterances help shape the realm of debate and influence how others approach related policy.
I kind of sympathize with you Donald in regard to the lying. The stuff I find most annoying lately is about Ukraine, but I see where you are coming from. It makes me wonder a little though, I think it is clear that even the best of the American foreign policy elite believe they have to lie to Americans about what we are doing overseas. Maybe they believe that this is essential to the support for the American empire, possibly also that the American empire is essential to the American way of life. They might believe this, they might even be right to believe this. Or maybe they are just self serving war profiteering pricks, how could we know?
IMO, Hillary was motivated by:
(a) Democrats are assumed to be ‘weak’ on defense
(b) Women are assumed to be ‘weak’ on defense
So as a woman Democrat, felt she had to amp up the ‘strong’ rhetoric. And that’s all it is: rhetoric.
I’d prefer if the US nuclear posture was: “ANY country that does a first-strike: friend, enemy, ally, whatever, gets a full-on annihilation. Period.”
Meanwhile, it looks as though Trump and Iowa might be finding each other indigestible…
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/12/12/remember-that-iowa-the-first-state-to-decide-has-a-history-of-springing-surprises/
I didn’t notice that I forgot to link to Clinton’s lies about the greenhouses–
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/179536/watch-hillary-clinton-vs-jon-stewart-on-gaza
Anyway, repeating what I’ve said several times, I am most definitely a lesser of two evils voter. If someone could explain to me how third party protest voting would bring about a better America without having to go through a President Trump or Cruz ( or Rubio or Bush), I’d do it. I sympathize with novakant and NV and probably Frank Shannon too ( I have read some dissident views on the Ukraine, but don’t feel like I know enough to have a well- thought out opinion there.). I do think most of our politicians either lie to us on foreign policy, or else in some cases they really are stupid. In the best case scenario they probably figure they would be crucified if they didn’t sound like American exceptionalists.
that doesn’t mean his having uttered them is moot, as such utterances help shape the realm of debate
That’s all good. I’m not trying to suppress anybody’s point of view, I was just looking for a little reality check.
I was just looking for a little reality check.
On the Internet????
Russell, you know better than that.
Russell is just demonstrating that reality is actually a liberal conspiracy.
OT, but this is an open thread…
Just reading Ivanhoe for the first time since I was a kid. Interesting.
Is it the first book to come up with the phrase “passive resistance” ?
Will have to revisit the old thread.
…Apparently not; Edmund Burke used the phrase in the previous century.
Edmund Burke used the phrase in the previous century.”
Probably swiped it from Shakespeare.
Who swiped it from Beowulf.
But none of them gave it as much REAL meaning as Ohm; if you disagree you must be some sort of reactionary type.
Clinton’s lies
Listening to the Republican kids’ debate. Some of y’all would fit right in.
No, pretty sure they don’t care in the least about what’s being called lies here. But even if they do, a reasonable argument doesn’t become unreasonable simply because one doesn’t like someone who agrees with it. That would be the very definition of argumentum ad hominem.
That would be the very definition of argumentum ad hominem.
Of which we have a depressingly large amount.
Actually, sapient, thinking along tribal lines is exactly what has made the Republican Party a joke. People suffering from a severe case of political ideology don’t care about facts, only about what members of the tribe are supposed to think and about who is being criticized.
You probably don’t even care what Clinton said to Jon Stewart about the greenhouses in Gaza. And, btw,since virtually all Republican politicians are extremely uncritical fans of Israel, they would agree with Clinton’s remarks on this subject.
“Shakespeare”…
“Warlike resistance”, and “awed resistance”, not passive – a word which Shakespeare seems to have used only once, in Timon of Athens.
http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org
(Fun for obsessives)
And the concept just doesn’t seem very Beowulf.
Having subjected myself to both GOP debates tonight, may I just say:
What a bunch of saber-toothed pants-wetters!
–TP
“Penetrate the internet” is getting some attention…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35109492
Perhaps not ideal to make yourself a laughing stock on a couple of continents before a single vote has been cast.
Some people are still apparently of the opinion that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
“Some people are still apparently of the opinion that there is no such thing as bad publicity.”
Sadly, in some instances they are correct. Thank goodness those instances are relatively rare.