chasfh

Who’s Canary Mission and why should I believe her? EDIT: OK, not a her, per se: Canary Mission is a website established in 2014 that compiles dossiers on student activists, professors, and organizations, focusing primarily on those at North American universities, which it considers be anti-Israel or antisemitic,[1][2][3] and has said that it will send the names of listed students to prospective employers.[4]Canary Mission listings have been used by the Israeli government and border security officials to interrogate and deny entry to pro-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) American citizens,[5][6] and by potential employers.[7] Individuals listed by Canary have said it is a blacklist designed to intimidate students, faculty members, and community activists engaged in Palestine solidarity work.[8] Some pro-Israel activists consider the site's tactics to be overly aggressive, while others applaud its efforts against pro-Palestinian activists.[6] The operators of the website have maintained their anonymity,[9] justifying their secrecy by saying that "many of our detractors just want to know who we are so they can physically harm us."[10]

Pulling back from this specific topic: when you think about it, everyone is kind of brainwashed, aren’t they? I mean, even people who get their news from the mainstream media, which represent the form of information closest to the truth relative to alt media, people who regard themselves as broadly-educated and worldly, are resistant to counter-factual accounts from non-mainstream sources—accounts which might be actually true, but are discounted because of source bias. I think hardly anyone gives much shrift to literally all sides of the infospectrum. I don’t think that’s necessarily a new concept, but the rise of alt media makes it more stark.

Saw that, too. We actually "watched" it while driving to Pennsyvania on the first leg of our driving vacation. Opened the DirecTV app, it was already sitting in our DVR queue, propped the phone onto the dashboard, and voila. It works while driving because it's more like a radio play on TV, so I didn't have to actually watch it, although my wife did. In fact, you could probably listen to it podcast style and not really miss anything.

You all have probably read this before because it's really old, but it's still pretty good. A(n apocryphal) letter to "Dr." Laura, the radio lady. Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination…End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Your adoring fan, Anonymous

I bet if networks could make that happen they would have by now!

Saw it yesterday. Sweeping epic that really gets quiet during the last hour, and fatigue can set in, before the final radio show reenactment scene. The final scene between Mollie and Ernest is heartbreaking.

I tend to believe that the desire to acquire a whole arsenal of weapons of war is probably linked to mental illness.

I would assume if Jobe closes all remaining big holes in his game, whatever they are, he’ll be in Detroit sooner than later.

Almost certainly at the behest of Papa Doc. Would have liked to been a fly on the wall when he went off on it.

Speaking of broadcasts, I was borderline offended when during the NLCS, a pitcher struck out a guy to end a tense inning, came off the mound all animated and yelling, and one of the announcers blurted out something like, “YEAH! GO ON, BIG FELLA!” I doubt it was Brian Anderson—it was probably Jeff Francoeur. But regardless, appearing to pick sides and cheerlead on a national telecast, even an ex-player analyst in an exciting moment, is just such a bad look.

The problem with that implied hypothesis is that if the ratings drop, networks will do even more crazy things on telecasts in a vain bid to capture the young ‘uns.

The Frazier reboot can’t be as bad as the Night Court reboot, can it? Not that the original Night Court was necessarily comedy gold … But yeah, if Seinfeld and David want to wrap it up, they better do it quick, as long as there are still enough people on this planet who still care about it.

It’s not about you, Eric. Did you even touch on that? I don’t even know. The mental health commentary was a counter to the idea expressed by many on the right, at least on the twitter thing, that it’s not about guns, it’s about mental health. Examples:

Legislatures have been legislating against the human heart since legislatures started legislating.

Trump's their modern-day Cyrus.

That could be actionable in a court of law.

It also doesn't make sense to liquidate all our minor league talent for Established Major Leaguers™ until it is established that the Harris regime is unable to develop minor league talent in the same way the Avila and Dombrowski regimes were.

According to much of the right wing media, they most certainly are right now.

I agree that it's something more than just the proliferation of guns leading to our mass shooting situation. Like of effective gun regulations is a big part of it, but I also think it's more. Canada has one-fourth the guns-per-capita the US has, but they have far fewer than one-fourth the mass shootings we do, even on a per capita basis. Canada had four mass shootings in 2022 and have four this year so far; the US had 695 last year and have had over 500 so far this year. If the US and Canada both had the population of the US, Canada would have something more like 35 mass shootings a year, not nearly 700. And it's more than the mental illness, a universal condition that occurs in literally every country on Earth, and quite probably with similar incidence rates. Again, if it were strictly the mental illness driving the mass shootings, wouldn't we see about one-fourth the shootings in Canada that we have in America, again on a per capita basis? Wouldn't there be more like 80 mass shootings a year in Canada, if all the mentally ill people there acted out with firearms the way they do here? I think it also has to do with a few other things we have that other nations generally don't: the rhetoric around guns as a political and social right; the rhetoric around divisive politics leading to irrational hatreds of entire groups of people; the recent right of civilians to obtain and own firearms which are essentially tools of war. I think all of those factor into it. But also, maybe, it has to do with a hypothesis I've noodled over the past several years: the sense of expectations people have about living in the US, with its seemingly unlimited freedom and liberty and wealth, instilled in them by the adults and society around them starting when they are little kids. The ideas that we can be millionaires, that we can be president of the United States, that basically we can control our own destiny in any way we want without having to regard anybody else along the way, if only we work hard enough at it. And, finally, the crushing disappointment and anger when all of that expectation evaporates and leaves people with nothing. Those are ideas embedded into the DNA of the American people starting back a couple of centuries, and which are unique to us (or as Agent Orange would say, US). Not everybody who's disappointed with their life is going to engage in a mass shooting. But too many people do. I don't even want to seriously address the idea the fascist Democrats are purposely trying to stoke mass shootings by forcing certain medications onto the people, as a pretext to take away everyone's guns, because that's just to ignorant to give another second's thought to.

I think it is less about the amount involved and its possible effect on his career, and more about his sense of entitlement to all favors large and small as a privilege of his position. He must honestly believe his lifetime appointment has made him bulletproof, so why not behave as such in all matters? After all, if he were to take the amount of the loan in account in terms of the effect it would have on his career, he would be tacitly acknowledging that there is corruption at hand, and irrespective of whether he believes it does constitute corruption, to get past any sense of internal cognitive dissonance, he must behave as though it doesn't.

What other country has access to as many guns per capita, yielding the same lethality, that America has?

I don't spend much time on Politwitter, either. Just dip my toe in enough to see who saying what these days.

It's even worse than that: he's second in line. In her defense, Michelle Kinney is a creative. I believe they think of the Constitution and the Bible in the exact same way: they don't read it and they may or may not even know what's in it, but it was handed down by God to Christians to beat everyone else over the head with it.

Maybe it's not a microphone. Maybe it's a room audio microphone. Either way, I did not click on the video to study some guy's acne profile.

Regardless, I don't see how the guy survives either a shootout or a "shootout" and makes it into the justice system. The next time a cop sees him, he's dead.