Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[crashcourse]

In other news Babylon Bee has been banned by twitter for naming rachel levine man of the year

[THE_WIZARD_]

JIM CROW LIVES!!! FAR WORSE TODAY!!!

CLIMATE CHANGE IS RACIST!!!

AMERIKA IS RACIST!!!

CORPORATE AMERIKA IS SYSTEMATICALLY RACIST!!!

ALL HONKEYS ARE RACIST!!!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Sorry, man, the CRT issue is legit. Racial essentialism as an issue is legit.Those are very real issues. I certainly understand the Progs desire to make-believe they aren't actual issues whilst, of course, defending their right to indoctrinate. Heh. Now, I'm a local control guy, so if schools in NYC want to break third-graders up by race and label groups "oppressors" and "oppressed" then knock yourself out. If Loudon County wants to create a partial lottery system for Thomas Jefferson HS because there are too many goddamn Asians and not enough PsOC -- well REAL POC, then knock yourself out. However, those are real issues.

Lia Thomas and trans stuff is definitely outlier stuff, however it serves as a lithmus test for an Orwellian code. Are you willing to disown the obvious, swear by the delusional and thus bend your knee to the almighty gods of intersectionalism and gender identity as well as the Woke Overlords? I mean, sure, if my daughter gets her beat out of an NCAA title by a dude I'd be pissed. But the bigger concern is if I'm somehow forced to pretend that Lia Thomas is just another "woman" swimming.

These things are actually happening. How much significance you ascribe to them is up to you. If you think it's trivial, then so be it. But, they are real.

Now, if you want to talk fantasyland, let me introduce you to JIM CROW ON STEROIDS.

Real but trivial is fair. I don't it's worth devoting a 30 minute block of questions to a Supreme Court nominee when there's little to no evidence it's influenced her work. She's on a school board (or board of Trustees) for a private school that's promoted some CRT books (among other things). Only thing from her responses that I heard is that she claims the board doesn't decide the curriculum. If you want to delve into the same realm in a more helpful direction ask her constitutional questions about affirmative action rather than attacking specific authors in a school library.

[Hannibal]

CRT isn't trivial.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CRT isn't trivial.

A lot of things are labelled CRT when they're really just PC, which is trivial.

[Dr. Strangelove]

LOL at this.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Yawn.

[Dr. Strangelove]

If your insurance policy paid up? Asking on behalf of your wi- I mean- an interested party.

[Hannibal]

A lot of things are labelled CRT when they're really just PC, which is trivial.

Indoctrination of the next generation of children isn't trivial. Especially when it is about subjects as fundamental to our society as "everything is racist, inherently unfair, and must therefore be destroyed".

[THE_WIZARD_]

If your insurance policy paid up? Asking on behalf of your wi- I mean- an interested party.

I'm worth far more dead than alive...

[Jeff Buchanan]

In case your interested the CTR website has published an article titled "What Stalemate Means in Ukraine." The link to the article is below. The takeaways are this:

• Definitions of the military doctrinal terms of “stalemate,” “campaign,” and “culmination" have specific meaning when they are used
• Since war is an extension of failed FP, the definitions of each in the current context drive future US/NATO FP.
• Stalemate means neither side is changing the front lines in any significant way.
• In Ukraine that is true of the three Axis of attack that CTR identified as probable.
• Russia's Plan A was to quickly sweep into Ukraine, seize major cites, including Kiev, and topple the Zelenski government.
• Follow on would include replace it with one suitable to Moscow.
• A campaign is what Russia undertook in Ukraine to achieve those objectives. It has culminated in a failure to obtain it's objectives.
• That is where the Russian Campaign in Ukraine is now. IOW, defeated.
• A stalemate can go on for a long time with neither side gaining an advantage.
• There are historical examples that point to this happening in Ukraine going forward.
• In 1941 when the Germans invaded Russia with the objective of seizing Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) the two sides reached a stalemate.
• During the stalemate, the Germans besieged Leningrad for 900 days. Casualties, both civilian and military, were horrendously high.
• The Russian winter and the Allied invasion at Normandy contributed to the the culmination of the German campaign in Russia.
• By 1945, the German campaign culminated without achieving any of it's objectives and eventually the Nazi's were defeated.
• Leningrad and Russia survived.

The primary FP objective for the west right now should be to insure the survival of Ukraine and it's people until something like Yalta or a hybrid version of it occurs that settles the matters at hand. That could months. It could take years The article suggests the best way to do that is to keep supporting Ukraine, distantly, in both defensive military support and humanitarian support to insure the functions of Zelenski government can persevere and be sustained. It also does not deal with the potential risks of escalation to a chemical, biological or nuclear war as a means for Putin to get his way. I find the article lacking in a means to properly confront Putin for his aggression.

I'm now leaning of a Czechoslovakian proposal to declare that a UN humanitarian "operational force" be established under the provision of the UN Developmental Program. The Czechs have already made it clear that operational force would be constructed to have a defensive military component designed to protect the lines of communication to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, the evacuation of Ukrainian people from battle zones and to establish safe corridors for passage to safe (defended) areas within Ukraine.

I can imagine all kinds of ways to inject a sizeable purely defensive military force with the mission just stated with the capability to protect itself from Russian attacks - something noteworthy at this point is that the deployed Russian Army is having a very difficult time in mounting those in an effective, combined arms way. IOW, their forces in Ukraine are weak. What about by an action like this we're risking Putin introducing chemical or nuclear weapons? I find the article wanting in actually confronting Putin and relieving Ukraine before it collapses and that's a medium term risk. If Putin introduces chemical weapons, the west responds with a signal it will deploy low yield tactical nukes. That puts a decision to escalate to higher yield nukes back in Putin's lap for him to decide if he wants to do that potentially inviting a stronger nuclear response from the west and Armageddon. Call his hand as weak as it actually is right now.

Apparently, the Czech's proposal is going to be discussed at the upcoming NATO meeting that is scheduled to take place on Thursday this week. I doubt it will be acted upon based on NATO's fear of escalation - not unjustified.

https://www.criticalthreats.org/anal...why-it-matters The technical terms “stalemate,” “campaign,” and “culmination”

[Da Geezer]

Real but trivial is fair. I don't it's worth devoting a 30 minute block of questions to a Supreme Court nominee when there's little to no evidence it's influenced her work. She's on a school board (or board of Trustees) for a private school that's promoted some CRT books (among other things). Only thing from her responses that I heard is that she claims the board doesn't decide the curriculum. If you want to delve into the same realm in a more helpful direction ask her constitutional questions about affirmative action rather than attacking specific authors in a school library.

Well, it dovetails nicely when you realize that the man Hawley pointed out who was convicted of having a huge amount of prepubescent pornography. She gave him 3 months and apologized to him for what the sentence would do to his life and that of his family. That is the essence of CRT. This guy was not a victim, but she treated him as one.

What she has made clear is that she supports the 1619 project and its objectives. She also supports CRT in schools, and she says it is not taught in schools.

She will vote to the left of Sotomayer.

[iam416]

Real but trivial is fair. I don't it's worth devoting a 30 minute block of questions to a Supreme Court nominee when there's little to no evidence it's influenced her work. She's on a school board (or board of Trustees) for a private school that's promoted some CRT books (among other things). Only thing from her responses that I heard is that she claims the board doesn't decide the curriculum. If you want to delve into the same realm in a more helpful direction ask her constitutional questions about affirmative action rather than attacking specific authors in a school library.

As far as I can tell, she’s trying to sound as moderate as possible. If I believed her answers to some questions then I’d change my view on her likely ideology.

And, IMO, the CRT stuff is not trivial. The dudes destroying women is. So, we agree on 1 out of 2. Neither are particularly fertile areas for confirmation questions.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well, it dovetails nicely when you realize that the man Hawley pointed out who wan convicted of

May have already read it but Andrew McCarthy at NRO wrote at length about Hawley's line of attack and called it both disingenuous and a smear.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/senator-hawleys-disingenuous-attack-against-judge-jacksons-record-on-child-pornography/

And in this article he goes through 7 different cases one by one that Hawley cites and again finds no serious issue with her

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ho-hum-the-cases-senator-hawley-cites-show-judge-jackson-is-an-unremarkable-sentencer-in-child-porn-cases/

In conclusion, the cases Senator Hawley cites do not show that Judge Jackson is an unusually soft sentencer in child-porn cases, much less that she is indulgent of “sex offenders” who “prey on children.” She is certainly not a harsh sentencer. The terms she has meted out, though, are compliant with the law and usually equal or exceed the sentencing recommendations of the court’s probation department. Moreover, the fact that the Justice Department’s own sentencing recommendations are sometimes dramatically lower than the guidelines range underscores that the guidelines in child-pornography cases — at least as applied to low-level, nonviolent offenders whose crimes entail consumption rather than production of pornography — are extraordinarily harsh. That is why they have drawn criticism from judges and practitioners across the political spectrum.

[iam416]

The child pornography stuff is not CRT. It’s not particularly fair, but the Ds blew the fuck up out “fair” a long time ago when it comes to these things.

The 1619 project is definitely an offshoot of CRT and racial essentialism.