 |
| I don't think the checks are coming. But I could be wrong. |
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
that statue
As a fatty myself, I can't say I'm a hater. But I did think that this was supposed to be Letitia James. Oops.
a discussion of "The Inner Light"
"The Inner Light" was never my favorite of the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episodes, but it wasn't a bad one once you get past all of the old-people latex. One of my favorite episodes had to be the one where Picard is clinically dead, during which time he meets Q and is allowed to replay his youth, fueled by the wisdom he had gained over the years... with surprising results ("Tapestry," Season 6, Episode 15). This, too, was an alternate-life-path scenario, but it was very different in tenor and flavor, with a very different moral lesson. That said, a lot of fans loved "The Inner Light," so here's a deep-dive discussion:
on my own with taxes
For the first time ever, I'm filing my own taxes with no help from the company I worked for. If I'm not mistaken, I have until May 31. Normally, my company sends me documents like a year-end tax statement/settlement form (and I used to get monthly pay stubs until my final, freelancer contract), as well as a PDF with bank-related procedures to follow for producing documents to send to the company, which then files your taxes for you. Free floater that I am, I can either figure out how to file online or go to a local tax office.
More on this as it happens.
Germany's AfD lawsuit
The AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) is no longer listed as an "extremist organization."
soon, my sweet
David Hogg is not quite out yet as a DNC vice chair (one of five), but God willing, he will be soon. Dig this headline:
BREAKING: DNC moves to void leadership election of David Hogg, Malcolm Kenyatta"The DNC has pledged to remove me, and this vote has provided an avenue to fast-track that effort."
A committee within the Democratic National Committee has voted to void the results of a party vote that led to David Hogg becoming a party vice chair.
Per the New York Times, the credentials committee ruled that the election had not followed parliamentary procedures. The ruling came after one of the losing candidates, Kalyn Free, said the party had wrongly combined two questions into a single vote, which put defame candidates at a disadvantage due to the DNC’s gender parity rules.
The decision came after around three hours of internal debate and one vote that resulted in a tie. The issue now goes to the full body of the DNC. The DNC will decide whether to force Hogg and another vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta, to run again in another election.
Hogg acknowledged in a statement that the decision had been based on procedural grounds, but "it is also impossible to ignore the broader context of my work to reform the party which loomed large over this vote. The DNC has pledged to remove me, and this vote has provided an avenue to fast-track that effort."
Hogg was on Maher recently.
fun with resistance bands
But I'm not sure I trust the "These X# exercises are all you need!" crowd.
gee, breaking and entering? echoes of J6!
Since this behavior mirrors what happened on January 6, 2021, let's imprison these fuckers for years on the same charges (well, "charges")!
Of course, the mayor got released right away.
so bad it's good
This is hilariously bad, yet pretty damn funny. And they of course beat up on the absolute worst of the "original crew" Trek movies.
Monday, May 12, 2025
is China really ascendant?
TL;DW (too long; didn't watch): The three reasons to think China will implode: (1) population collapse, (2) economic instability/contraction, (3) governance-related issues (for an ostensibly communist government). [with thanks to a YouTube commenter for the summary]
Reason 1—demographics: you need people to have a manufacturing base.Reason 2—economy: "the economy is fake"—real estate, Evergrande, corruption, etc.
Reason 3—governance: centrally planned economy; no property rights or freedom of inquiry
the right is not what it was
Seen on Instapundit:
FASTER, PLEASE: Why Regime Change in Iran Is Becoming Inevitable. “Iran’s growing internal unrest and external failures present a strategic opportunity for the United States and its allies. The West should begin planning for a future without the Islamic Republic. The Islamic Republic’s foundational pillars—religious legitimacy, economic governance, and regional power—are in collapse. Though the regime still holds coercive control through its security forces, it has lost its societal foundation. Regime change in Iran is no longer a distant hope—it is an increasingly likely outcome. The question for Western leaders is not if it will happen, but how to help shape a peaceful, stable, and democratic transition.”
The comments are almost entirely negative because MAGA rightie/conservatives have utterly abandoned any neocon notions of nation-building. Look:
● People have been confidently predicting the imminent demise of the Iranian thugocracy for 46 years. Color me skeptical. Until the Persian people get angry enough to slaughter the mullahs (losing a lot of civilian revolutionaries in the process), instead of sitting around like typical Muslim lumps mumbling "inshallah," nothing will change. Shıthòle Muslim countries tend to remain shıthòle Muslim countries because their dysfunctional religion spawns a dysfunctional society.*
● I’m fine with regime change…so long as the United States don’t got nothing to do with it. Besides the enormous costs, regime change imposed by the West is an absolutely guaranteed way to ensure that the next regime will be even worse.
● Yes, the West must become deeply involved in the transition to peace and democracy. We can use our stunning successes in Iraq and Afghanistan as inspiration.
● How could anyone with even the slightest clue read that and not die laughing? Our culture and way of life are on the brink, and yet here, the usual suspects are still trotting out the Holden Bloodfeast neocon dreams of Iran in flames and "nation building." No, no, and hell, no! [link added]
● Very well said. “We'll be the heroes who liberate Iran” as they fight Trump's deportation of illegals and as fentanyl ravages hollowed-out American towns. Neocon scumbags destroy everything they come near, and yet they are completely incapable of any self-reflection on what they've done. The author of this particular article is an Iranian globalist feminist who, if given the power, would screw up Iran as badly as the mullahs have, just in a different way.
● Regime change in Iran has been "inevitable" for what, 25 years now?
● Because we have such a great track record with managing regime change.
And the one somewhat contrarian, not-quite-neocon voice:
● As I have told you since before the election, Trump is going to stop Iran from going nuclear, and the result of that will be to demolish the mullahs and their power. Their end is near, and anyone that loves freedom and liberty should rejoice. No boots on the ground, no massive investment in propping up a corrupt government, just let the Iranians work it out. That is how it will go down.
I don't share the final commenter's confidence. We haven't stopped North Korea, and I'd actually agree that countries have a right to defend themselves however they please. North Korea knows that its nuclear weapons, if used, will signify the end of that country, period. Not to mention, in all likelihood, the end of the whole peninsula.
Meanwhile, to all the liberal Democrats who thought, during the Dubya era, that rightie neocon adventurism was a bad thing, and that starting wars to spread "freedomquakes" throughout the Middle East was a stupid idea: you were right—even if today's righties have trouble admitting that to your face. I personally have no trouble conceding this point: I was loudly against Bush II's Iraq War from the beginning. It was misguided, had a poorly articulated purpose, no defined endpoint, and the wrong enemy. Quagmire, mission creep, all that. Neocon theocrats have never sat well with me.
But we live in an age of reversed polarities: the US left are now the humorless, "Screw your freedom" schoolmarms and warmongers, advocating for aggressive moves against Israel and more fighting in Ukraine while trying desperately not to offend anyone (liberal) at home.
__________
*Do you find this bigoted? Show me a smoothly running, non-dysfunctional Muslim country, then. The rich and prosperous UAE? Ask the women there, especially the foreign women, what life is like. The same goes for north African Muslim countries; they're all great for guys like me who don't drink or fuck around, but if you're a woman or a drug-using, orange-and-purple-haired Westerner, what're your chances of enjoying life there? How about Qatar? Yemen? These are bases for terrorism and covers for anti-West hate. Indonesia? Well, Indonesia might be less dysfunctional than its Middle Eastern counterparts, but God seems to have a special hatred for the country given its mudslides and earthquakes. And it's got human-rights issues of its own thanks to a very strict police force (to the extent that the law is strictly and consistently enforced, I'm not against the strictness per se). Or maybe you'd prefer to flip the argument against the West: America has no human-rights issues, no all-encompassing social problems, no corporate or governmental corruption? I'd agree with anyone who accuses America of being rife with problems. But explain why everyone wants to immigrate to America, then. Maybe they've all been deluded by propaganda. No, frankly, I don't see the bigotry in this comment. If you think Muslim countries are a paradise to live in, then go live in one for a year and tell me what your experience was like.
Sunday, May 11, 2025
Mother's Day
I don't really focus much on Mom for Mother's Day, given what happened to her and how unjust it was. I celebrate her memory elsewhere and elsewhen. But if you've got a mom, and/or you celebrate her memory, don't let me stop you.
For you, let this be a happy Mother's Day.
more dumbass American students
Of course, there are stupid (or uneducated, or just ignorant) people everywhere. I've met quite a few. And we're all ignorant about different things. Mock us for our bumpkins, and I'll mock you for yours. That said, I find this level of ignorance in a modern society indefensible. WARNING: there's something like an ad at around the 7:25 mark.
what was that, again?
I've tried to make this point myself, but I got shot down by people telling me that my sentiments were unconstitutional (Google AI supports my critics*). There should definitely be a minimum bar over which all people must pass if they want to vote. This guy is doing a good job of showing that many US college students lack the basic knowledge to navigate the world, let alone vote intelligently for their own and for society's good.
I had embedded this video in my previous post, but I've re-embedded it below, now cued to replay a crucial moment in what the lawyer says:
Basically, he shares my sentiments, but he recognizes that the law is the law.
__________
*Here's what Google AI has to say:
The question of whether there should be a minimum competency bar for voting in the US is complex, with strong arguments on both sides. Here's why there isn't one currently and some of the key arguments:
1. The Right to Vote is a Fundamental Right:
The US Constitution, particularly the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, expands the right to vote, emphasizing that it shouldn't be denied based on race, sex, or age (for those 18 and older). The idea of a fundamental right suggests it shouldn't be easily limited or subject to arbitrary standards, which some argue a competency test might become.
2. Concerns About Discrimination and Historical Parallels:
History shows that literacy tests and other competency-based restrictions were used to disenfranchise specific groups, particularly African Americans during the Jim Crow era. Many argue that establishing a competency test for voting could be easily manipulated to exclude other vulnerable populations, including those with disabilities or limited education, and could perpetuate existing inequalities.
3. Defining and Measuring Competency is Difficult:
There's no universally agreed-upon definition of what constitutes "competency" for voting. What knowledge, understanding, or cognitive abilities would be required? Who would determine the standards? How would they be fairly applied to all voters? Experts disagree on whether and how to measure the capacity to make informed decisions about voting.
4. Potential for Abuse and Politicization:
Some fear that a competency bar could be used to suppress votes of those who hold different political views or belong to specific demographic groups. Any system of competency testing would be open to partisan manipulation and abuse, potentially undermining the fairness and integrity of the electoral process.
5. The Focus on Accessibility and Inclusion:
Instead of focusing on restricting the vote, many argue that efforts should be directed towards ensuring equal access to the polls and promoting civic engagement for all eligible citizens, regardless of their background or abilities.
Federal laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandate equal opportunities for people with disabilities to vote.
6. Counter-Arguments and Concerns About Voter Knowledge:Some argue that a certain level of understanding about the candidates, issues, and the voting process is necessary for informed participation. Concerns exist about the potential for manipulation of vulnerable voters or the impact of uninformed votes on election outcomes.
In Summary:
While there are concerns about voter competency and the potential for uninformed votes, the absence of a minimum competency bar for voting in the US is largely rooted in the principle that voting is a fundamental right, concerns about discrimination, practical difficulties in defining and measuring competency, and the potential for abuse.
Google AI's bias: when I changed the search question to "Why would a minimum-competency standard for voting in the US be a good idea?" the result was: "An AI Overview is not available for this search." Gee, there's a surprise. So much for "strong arguments on both sides." (That said, clever prompt-writing might result in some "strong arguments," but the AI's baked-in, programmed bias is still visible for all to see.)
My original post that prompted today's reaction.
but what if you can't do a single rep?
If you can't do a single rep, I guess that's why God invented progressions.
the final half and other plans
My 60K "crazy walk" is normally from my place, past Hanam City, and all the way out to Yangpyeong. From home to Hanam is about 25 to 26 km; from Hanam to Yangpyeong is about 35 km depending on where I stop. If I stop literally at Yangpyeong Station, the count is a bit more than 58 km; if I instead hew close to the river and stop about halfway through Galsan Park, at the edge of town, it's 60 km on the nose (and then I have to turn back and walk to the station, so the final count is closer to 62 km). Because of my recent failure to walk the full 60K, I did only the 26K to Paldang Bridge next to Hanam City, then doubled back and walked to the closest bus stop to pick up the 9303 bus back into Seoul—a walk of about 30K total. So to complete the route, I need to start at Hanam and walk to Yangpyeong. I'll try the full 60K walk, all at one time, later this year, probably after the hot weather has begun to fade.
I had thought about taking the subway out this evening to Hanam and doing the walk to Yangpyeong during the night, but I've decided to postpone that until tomorrow to give myself more time to digest and poop out yesterday's prodigious meal. In the meantime, today, I'll be working on video editing: I took a lot of footage of myself as I prepped and cooked the boeuf bourguignon, the idea being to edit and jazz up the footage in several ways so as to practice what I hope are some newfound skills. To that end, I want to make a YouTube Short video with rapid-fire editing, and longer videos featuring things like text on screen, voice overlay, sound effects (I doubt I'll let any of the real, ambient audio be part of the final product for any of the videos I make), and maybe even visual effects. I'm toying with the idea of doing French and English versions of the video; if I do that, I might invite my French family to watch the vids and critique the results. While I still speak French fluently, I've gotten rusty and mistake-prone over the years, and the stroke certainly didn't help with my cognitive abilities: while I haven't lost my French, I've come to sense that I speak the language more slowly now (which may also just be a function of age).
So—video editing tonight and tomorrow during the day, then a walk Monday night, then more editing until I have something to show my boss this coming Thursday, May 15. (I had promised him sample video by "mid-May," so the 15th is almost literally mid-May.)
Later this spring, I'll do another long walk from Yangpyeong to Yeoju—one of my favorite stretches to do even if I did fall once during a nasty, rainy, nighttime walk.
I'm not hopeful
Conservative disgust with Republicans is rooted in the widely held belief that the old-guard, non-MAGA, neocon Republicans have lazily ridden the MAGA wave but have retained their inability to seal the deal, i.e., to aggressively prosecute leftist malfeasance and shenanigans, and to create right-friendly legislation. Is the supposedly Trump-stacked, right-leaning Supreme Court any better? Only a small fraction of the nine justices seem to be on board with the MAGA project; three of them (Sotomayor, Kagan, Brown Jackson) are brazenly leftist; three of the "conservative" judges seem to be, at best, squishy rightists—Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. That leaves Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch as the only solid right-conservatives on the bench. This looks bleak to me, and it's an aftereffect of Trump's poor judgment, during his first term, in picking people like Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. Kavanaugh, in particular, after the hell he went through during his nomination hearings, ought to have hardened his heart against his leftie interlocutors, but no: he's got leftie sympathies. Which brings us to this headline:
Supreme Court Poised to Grapple With Nationwide Injunctions on Trump’s OrdersThree judges have blocked the president’s order restricting birthright citizenship.
One of the many lawsuits contesting President Donald Trump’s agenda will hit the Supreme Court for oral argument for the first time on May 15.
The case arises from a challenge to Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The hearing is unusual in that it stems from a preliminary appeal in which the Trump administration is challenging a federal judge’s use of nationwide injunctions to block the president’s agenda.
The Trump administration argues that district court judges are exceeding their authority by imposing broad blocks on government policy, rather than applying them to the parties in the lawsuit. Three lower court judges had issued nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s policy of ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
With more than 100 lawsuits against Trump’s policies, lower court judges have issued a raft of nationwide injunctions halting parts of the administration’s agenda, from federal spending freezes to immigration enforcement to canceling diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
The injunctions are highly controversial because they impose policy changes for the entire country rather than offer relief only for plaintiffs in the lawsuits, drawing scrutiny from some Supreme Court justices and members of Congress.
Trump has said they are detrimental to the nation’s future.
“These Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes. They want all of the advantages with none of the risks,” the president wrote in a March post on Truth Social.
“STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!”
Meanwhile, the hearing may also touch on questions about the constitutionality of Trump’s order on birthright citizenship. The order challenged the idea that birthright citizenship allows an illegal immigrant’s child to receive citizenship if born in the United States.
In January, Trump signed an order to stop granting citizenship to individuals if a person’s mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual’s father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.
It also states that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of that individual’s birth.
The issue of whether judges have been exceeding their authority in nationwide blocks on policies has previously been raised before the Supreme Court.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court in March that it should say “enough is enough” on the practice and that the blocks on Trump’s birthright citizenship order were needlessly broad.
“While the parties litigate weighty questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purport to cover every person ... in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power,” she wrote in a filing.
Competitive Enterprise Institute attorney Devin Watkins told The Epoch Times that the dispute before the high court on Thursday “really doesn’t have anything to do with the merits of the government’s position on birthright citizenship.”
Rather, the key question of this appeal, he said, is whether lower courts have the power to issue blocks that affect those who are not parties to the lawsuit.
The administration’s position might receive sympathy from Justices Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, and Clarence Thomas, who have each criticized nationwide injunctions in previous years. In discussing nationwide injunctions, the justices could ask about the source of judges’ authority in Article III of the Constitution and federal law.
In a 2020 concurring opinion, Gorsuch said there was a problem with “the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them.”
There's a lot more. Read the rest. I'm not hopeful.
the ICE-facility lie
Go to Instapundit to learn more about how leftists are lying to cover for their own illegal behavior in Newark. Video evidence confirms the leftists were the aggressors. So what does the left say? The videos were faked. It's a conspiracy!
what's been going on in Greenland?
I still refuse to believe Trump is serious about either Greenland or Canada.
"Warfare": two-paragraph review
[WARNING: spoilers.]
With a meager run time of only 95 minutes, 2025's "Warfare" is just a wee morsel of a movie. Starring D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Will Poulter, Cosmo Jarvis (probably better known from his role as Blackthorne in the recent drama series "Shōgun"), Kit Connor, Finn Bennett, Joseph Quinn, Charles Melton, Noah Centineo, and Michael Gandolfini, the movie was written and directed by Alex Garland ("Dredd") and Ray Mendoza, the real-life SEAL JTAC communications officer who coordinated air support for the operation that this story was about. "Warfare" is based on the memories of the troops who were there just after the 2006 battle of Ramadi, Iraq; as with "Platoon," the focus is on the American troops, with enemy combatants generally either unseen or at a distance. Much of the movie is a buildup of tension as enemy forces slowly and methodically array themselves in preparation for an attack on a platoon of Navy SEAL snipers, Alpha One, who had been providing cover for a Marine operation. Most of the movie's blood and gore come from explosive devices, including one big, startling IED that detonates as the SEALs are trying to leave their position, forcing them to retreat back into the house they had commandeered and to request a second attempt at extraction (the vehicle from the first attempt was crippled). Another platoon, Alpha Two, arrives to support Alpha One, and by the end of the film, both platoons, along with their injured, are successfully extracted. As silence descends on the city, residents and insurgents cautiously appear on the streets.
"Warfare" was there and gone too fast to make a huge impression. It was tense, especially at the beginning, but once the action got going, and once the gunfire seemed to suggest that people were shooting at each other to no effect—no random headshots through windows or anything like that—the tension level dropped precipitously. Almost all of the damage to life and limb was caused by explosives. I also recognized quite a few of the actors in this ensemble cast, and once again, there were a lot of non-Americans (especially Brits) in American roles: only three of the cast members mentioned above were American. I again had to wonder whether America simply lacked the talent and the numbers to fill out the cast. If so, I'd say we're in trouble as a nation. The story of "Warfare" was meant to provide a sense of combat from the soldier's perspective: the waiting, the tense buildup, the actual fight, the accompanying confusion, and the conclusion without any sense of purpose or closure. The movie presented all of this without judging the matter one way or another, but the plot was so unpretentious that the story lacked the gut-wrenching impact of movies like "Platoon" or "Saving Private Ryan." I also felt a bit sorry for the two actors who played injured members of the platoon: they both got to scream and moan a lot, and the constancy of their noise-making often had me thinking that it'd be nice to find a way to shut them up, which unworthy thought immediately produced a sense of guilt, coupled with the impression that, since the insurgents' attack happened during the daytime amid so much smoke and noise, the men's cries did nothing to reveal the platoons' positions and so was inconsequential. In all, I came away from "Warfare" thinking it was a satisfactory film, but not much more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
