Random Topics.......

[Muda69]

16 hours ago, Bobref said:

It’s a point of view. There are others. 

Sorry Bob, that's a non-answer.

I do believe there is some truth in Mr. Butker's assertion of "the cultural emasculation of men".  You can see that everyday in the media.  In TV, films, advertising, etc.  men are frequently portrayed as "Homer Simpsons",  simple buffoons to be laughed at and pitied.  With the woman usually coming in to "set thing right".

 

[Bobref]

24 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Sorry Bob, that's a non-answer

Sorry it doesn’t meet your standards. 

[Bobref]

25 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

You can see that everyday in the media.  In TV, films, advertising, etc.  men are frequently portrayed as "Homer Simpsons",  simple buffoons to be laughed at and pitied.  With the woman usually coming in to "set thing right".

That’s simply a recognition by the marketing people that women are the primary drivers of consumer spending. So, much of that advertising is targeted at them. I don’t feel “emasculated” by commercials. Do you?

[swordfish]

On 5/20/2024 at 8:59 AM, Bobref said:

That’s because you like what he says. It doesn’t matter who is saying it.

Based on my years of hearing the current President, SF really wouldn't expect him to deliver a true-to-oneself speech on personal and moral ethics that would align with my outlook, but you are correct, I certainly do agree with Mr. Butker's point of view when it comes to straight marriage.  

[Muda69]

5 hours ago, Bobref said:

That’s simply a recognition by the marketing people that women are the primary drivers of consumer spending. So, much of that advertising is targeted at them. I don’t feel “emasculated” by commercials. Do you?

No I don't.

But as I said it is not just commercials.

 

[Bobref]

4 hours ago, swordfish said:

Based on my years of hearing the current President, SF really wouldn't expect him to deliver a true-to-oneself speech on personal and moral ethics that would align with my outlook, but you are correct, I certainly do agree with Mr. Butker's point of view when it comes to straight marriage.  

My point was simply that continually exposing oneself to a single point of view inevitably leads to confirmation bias, which absolutely prevents real critical thinking. If you really want to do your due diligence to give you the highest probability that you’re on the “right” side of an issue, you have to assess both sides — and not as filtered through your ideological colleagues. 

[swordfish]

Well I guess my 1970's era understanding of "right" and "wrong" that my Christian father and mother instilled in me hasn't evolved into anything much different over my lifetime.  I'm OK with that.....So I guess I'm old fashioned in a sense.  Maybe that's why it is refreshing to me to hear a mid-20's guy that shares some of my values articulate his beliefs so well.  Gives me a little more hope for our future I suppose.

Edited May 21, 2024 by swordfish

[Robert]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

Well I guess my 1970's era understanding of "right" and "wrong" that my Christian father and mother instilled in me hasn't evolved into anything much different over my lifetime.  I'm OK with that.....So I guess I'm old fashioned in a sense.  Maybe that's why it is refreshing to me to hear a mid-20's guy that shares some of my values articulate his beliefs so well.  Gives me a little more hope for our future I suppose.

So you can't empathize well.

[swordfish]

39 minutes ago, Robert said:

So you can't empathize well.

Yeah but my Caliper test showed empathy as one of strongest character traits.....So I got that going for me.....That and my stability....

[swordfish]

It appears the champions of diversity in the WNBA are not happy that a white girl is actually diversifying the league.....

[swordfish]

Imagine being a successful Grammy nominated singer getting asked to perform the National Anthem at an occasion like the MLB Home Run Derby during the All-Star week......Then showing up drunk and literally murdering the song......Way off-key and also forgetting some of the words as well.....Just WOW.

 

Imag

[Muda69]

Trump and Biden can’t wait to send more assistance to Ukraine: https://mises.org/mises-wire/trump-and-biden-cant-wait-send-more-assistance-ukraine

Quote

Trump and Biden cannot wait to send more assistance to Ukraine

The most recent presidential debate allowed American voters to compare the policies and rhetoric of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. There was a lot of posturing and insulting, but below it all were comments on foreign policy which must be addressed. With roughly two and a half years of large-scale fighting between Russia and Ukraine, increasing tension between Taiwan and mainland China, and a conflict between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors which seems to be never-ending, foreign policy should be of paramount importance to the American electorate.

The United States has not awakened to the reality of a multipolar world; neither have many of its allies. Rather than funding their own defense, Israel, Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, and the European Union want the United States to consistently subsidize their defense budgets in ways that are no longer sustainable. As long as American debt and levels of inflation are increasing, politicians in Washington have no business promising billions in aid to countries around the world.

The China question has been difficult for America to address ever since Richard Nixon reopened diplomatic relations in 1972. On one hand, an economic collapse of China would be detrimental to the United States, as would an all-out war in the Taiwanese Straits. China owns a large amount of U.S. debt, and the yuan is pegged to the dollar. Additionally, China is a large trading partner, being America’s third largest partner as of 2021. The American consumer greatly enjoys relatively affordable goods from China, and the Chinese economy benefits from being a source of these goods. When it comes to Taiwan, a full-on invasion from China would be illogical and painful. The straits of Taiwan reach a max depth of 230 feet, with a steep mountain range running down the middle. Additionally, Taiwanese soldiers have been specifically training for an invasion for years. Taiwan also hosts a large amount of the world’s semiconductor manufacturing capabilities. A serious invasion would likely damage these manufacturing facilities and pause production for a considerable amount of time. From a logistics standpoint, an invasion would be extremely costly.

An American war with China would be even more costly and complicated. While America does have fleets stationed in the Pacific, it would take weeks to consolidate the necessary vessels. War games run with the United States, Japan, and Taiwan facing off against China do usually result in a loss for the mainland but at a very high cost for the United States. America would likely lose dozens of ships and hundreds of aircraft. These losses would shift America’s global position for years to come.

Trump and Biden have both participated in economic warfare against Beijing, but these actions have not done much beyond harming the U.S. economically. Instigations against the Chinese Communist Party have so far only served to embolden China. For example, Beijing reacted to American Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan by dispatching military aircraft and vessels around the island and by firing missiles into the waters. Increased American instigation will only open the door for Putin to cooperate further with Xi Jinping. China and Russia have very different cultures and different strategic interests. They have, however, been forced to work together when the West leaves them no choice. Billions of American aid sent to Taiwan will only draw Russia and China together. The Philippines, Japan, Australia, and Taiwan must begin to act as though the United States will not always subsidize their defense capabilities.

When it comes to the Middle East, America has taken a slight step back. Boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq have been reduced greatly, but American bases still abound in the region. Additionally, the United States is still involved in bombing campaigns and in buying allies with billions of dollars in aid. Former President Trump does deserve credit for beginning the process of removing America’s presence from Afghanistan, and President Biden deserves credit for following through. This does not excuse either from their other actions in the Middle East and Central Asia.

President Trump was notably aggressive toward the Iranian regime, even as Tehran was headed toward diplomatic normalcy. In 2016, Iran had taken steps to restrict its nuclear capabilities under Obama’s nuclear Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; additionally, sanctions were lifted. Then in 2018, President Trump falsely claimed that Iran was no longer complying to the deal and decided to unilaterally exit the deal. He also placed crippling sanctions on Tehran again. In 2019-2020, the Trump administration designated part of the Iranian military as a “terrorist organization” and directed the assassination of high-ranking General Qasem Soleimani without congressional approval or a declaration of war. These actions were evidence of the Trump administration walking the United States into a stronger relationship with Saudi Arabia and away from any potential diplomatic neutrality. Similarly, Trump gave great preference to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Israel, declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel and recognizing the occupied Golan Heights as part of Israel’s legal territory.

Biden cannot claim to be much better in this region. He has repeatedly asked the Prime Minister of Israel not to cross certain redlines when it comes to the invasion of Gaza, but Netanyahu has refused to comply. Instead of removing support, the president has continued to support Israel through weapons and billions of dollars in aid. Both presidents claim to have performed better than the other in the region, but we can see that both have continued to increase tension and ensure that America remains entangled in various alliances.

Many Republicans are optimistic and believe that the United States may begin to remove itself from the Ukraine-Russia conflict. The Republican Party has paid lip service to this idea but has not shown that this will be the case. Former President Trump did deliver aid to Ukraine during his presidency and has signaled that he will not accept Putin’s terms to end the war if elected in November. Trump may be more willing to hold NATO members to their defense spending quotas, but he has not showed a willingness to truly put America first on the world stage.

On Ukraine, Biden has gone as far as he can go without putting troops on the ground. We know that the United States helped to convince Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to refuse a peace deal with Putin in 2021 and that Biden and the West have held on to a total defeat/total surrender dynamic when it comes to the war. This combined with over $100 billion in aid still being given to Ukraine makes it hard to imagine a scenario where the conflict ends anytime soon, regardless of who is president. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Ukraine will not win the conflict without a NATO force on the ground. Americans must determine if they would like the United States to become militarily involved in this conflict, or if the U.S. should remove itself from the situation altogether.

The most recent presidential debate should not instill hope in most voters. Neither president seems to recognize the obvious lessons of past mistakes or the realities of international intervention. Rather than consistently putting American interests first, both have largely continued to act according to the wishes of other nations while giving hundreds of billions in aid and military equipment. This seems to be a last-ditch effort to maintain a unipolar world, with the United States at the top. Unfortunately, this is likely a lost cause. With American debt costs spiraling out of control and China facilitating effective diplomacy in Africa and the Middle East, the next president should accept the realities of a multipolar world and embrace a restrained, America-first foreign policy. It remains to be seen if either of the current front-runners are ready to act accordingly.

More evidence that the uni-party is beholden not to the American people but to the Military-Industrial Complex.

 

[temptation]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Trump and Biden can’t wait to send more assistance to Ukraine: https://mises.org/mises-wire/trump-and-biden-cant-wait-send-more-assistance-ukraine

More evidence that the uni-party is beholden not to the American people but to the Military-Industrial Complex.

 

Good read.

[Muda69]

Hair-Braiding Business Denied Permission To Operate Over Fears of Competition: https://reason.com/2024/08/30/hair-braiding-business-denied-permission-to-operate-over-fears-of-competition/

Quote

Among the stupid ideas burdening health care in this country are "certificate of need" laws that require government permission to open new medical facilities or expand existing ones. Such laws are rackets that shield existing operations from competition, thereby limiting choices and raising prices. Leave it to government officials to take that bad idea and apply it to a hair-braiding business.

No Competition in This City

"A small business owner says she was told she could not open because her business is similar to neighboring businesses," WSB-TV reported in July of a dispute in South Fulton, Georgia. "Awa Diagne says her braid shop hasn't been able to open in the shopping plaza on Campbellton Fairburn Road for three months, because of South Fulton's like-use zoning code."

South Fulton, a city of more than 100,000 people that was incorporated in 2017, has a "like-use" restriction in its ordinances that bars new businesses from opening within one mile of similar businesses—at least its officials claim it does (more on that later). It's an inherently anticompetitive rule that puts the fate of entrepreneurs and the choices available to consumers in the hands of city officials who must decide whether sometimes idiosyncratic small businesses are in direct competition and whether they should be allowed to offer goods and services to the public.

 

Nevertheless, Diagne, a Senegalese immigrant who became an American citizen and has been braiding hair for over three decades won initial approval for her proposed business from city staff.

"The residents that attended both online and in person shared their support for Awa Best Braid and welcomed the business to the community," staff noted in their June 26 memorandum recommending the Planning Commission approve a special use permit for the salon. "The concern was about how the ordinance is keeping small businesses from flourishing."

The Planning Commission unanimously approved the recommendation.

But the city council rejected the recommendation when it met, with two members arguing the proposed hair-braiding business is too much like a hair salon and a beauty supply store located nearby. Three city council members supported Diagne's application, but four voted against it.

"We don't want any business to suffer any losses due to an oversaturation," one councilmember insisted.

"Never did I think, here in America of all places, that I would get denied a business permit because I might be too successful," Diagne told 95.5 WSB radio. "I've been braiding hair my entire life. This is a business I know, a community I love. For the Council to deny me when I've done nothing wrong just isn't right."

Blocking Competition Without Good Reason Is Unconstitutional

Subsequently, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), Diagne filed suit against South Fulton.

In a complaint filed in the Fulton County Superior Court, Diagne and IJ attorneys point out, "Respondent refused to let her open, explicitly because she would pose competition for nearby businesses. Such economic protectionism was just held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Georgia."

The complaint references Raffensperger v. Jackson, a 2023 Georgia Supreme Court case involving occupational licensing in which Chief Justice Michael P. Boggs discussed "the right to pursue a lawful occupation free from unreasonable government interference" and wrote in his opinion that protectionism is among the interests "not sufficient to justify a burden on the ability to practice a lawful profession." That is, shielding existing businesses from competition isn't good enough reason for restrictions on new entrants into a market.

 

A Law That Copies a Bad Idea from Health Care

That's a consideration that should be applied across the country—not just to occupational licensing requirements, but also to the Certificate of Need (CON) laws that make it difficult to expand medical competition in 35 states and Washington, D.C. Under such laws, approval is required from health planning agencies or other regulators to open new health facilities or expand existing facilities' services.

"Existing hospitals and other medical providers have the opportunity to oppose the CON application of a would-be competitor, simply by claiming that there is no need for that additional medical service," the Mercatus Center's Thomas Stratmann testified before Alaska lawmakers in 2017. "This is akin to McDonalds needing permission from Burger King to open a restaurant in Alaska."

Or it's equivalent to letting an existing salon and its government allies block the opening of a hair-braiding operation out of fear of competition. That expands an anticompetitive idea to a sector of the economy where entrepreneurs have fewer resources than hospitals to fight for the right to make a living.

A Regulation Created Out of Thin Air?

But does that like-use zoning law even exist in South Fulton? Diagne and IJ suggest that such a regulation is not only unconstitutional, but also a spurious excuse for standing in the way of a new business.

"At the hearings, Council members also claimed that the City had a 'like use' ordinance that limited the number of similar businesses that can operate within a mile to a mile-and-a-half of each other," according to the complaint. "On information and belief, no such ordinance exists, but Council members' repeated insistence that it does, at minimum, establishes a policy or practice of treating new businesses less favorably if they might compete with an established business."

That might explain why, after entirely too much time spent digging through South Fulton's zoning code and ordinances, I could find nothing resembling the city council's claimed restrictions on competition. 

Reached by email, Councilmember Helen Willis, in whose district Awa Diagne's hair-braiding salon would be located, declined to comment since the matter is in litigation. So did Shaheen Solomon, South Fulton's public affairs director.

"Government shouldn't be able to stop legitimate businesses from opening simply because they might compete with existing ones." IJ Attorney Will Aronin said with regard to the case. "This is America, where the government doesn't get to decide who is and who isn't able to compete in an industry. Awa has every right to open her business."

Both right and law are on Diagne's side. If she prevails, she may clear the way for other entrepreneurs hobbled by regulations intended to shield existing businesses from healthy competition.

 

[swordfish]

In what has to be the most diabolical moves ever against a terrorist organization, Hezbollah (a terrorist group) had their pagers they were using to hide explode yesterday, followed by their handheld radios doing the same thing today.......(no comment from Israel)

https://nypost.com/2024/09/18/world-news/hezbollahs-handheld-radios-explode-in-second-wave-of-remote-detonated-attacks-on-terror-group/

 

[Impartial_Observer]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

In what has to be the most diabolical moves ever against a terrorist organization, Hezbollah (a terrorist group) had their pagers they were using to hide explode yesterday, followed by their handheld radios doing the same thing today.......(no comment from Israel)

https://nypost.com/2024/09/18/world-news/hezbollahs-handheld-radios-explode-in-second-wave-of-remote-detonated-attacks-on-terror-group/

 

Not going to lie, the video is both horrific and yet quite satisfying. 

[swordfish]

2 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Not going to lie, the video is both horrific and yet quite satisfying. 

Agreed....

[swordfish]

An event I saw today reminded me of this - 

 

[Muda69]

Enough Already: Stop Provoking Russia - https://mises.org/mises-wire/enough-already-stop-provoking-russia

Quote

Like many people, I eagerly await Scott Horton’s upcoming book, Provoked, which will explain in detail the US provocations that led to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But will it come too late?

Since the Russia-Ukraine war began, the Biden administration, in collaboration with the Ukrainian government and much of Europe, has continued incessantly provoking Putin toward a wider conflict with the West. One can recognize the dangerous path we tread without justifying any of Russia’s responses to these provocations.

The US and Europe have armed Ukraine to the teeth. The West has funded Ukraine’s military effort—and a great deal of corruption—to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Supposedly this is good for the US because it aids the US military-industrial complex, but this will be cold comfort in the event of war with Russia. 

Ukraine sabotaged the Nord Stream pipeline, but everyone rushed to blame Russia initially. Ukraine launched an invasion of Russia’s Kursk region in early August, apparently surprising the US government. Since the invasion and the Wall Street Journal’s revelations about the Nord Stream pipeline, the US government’s support for Ukraine has not changed one iota. Indeed, the Kursk incursion ultimately met US approval.

The US government supplied Ukraine with ATACMS missiles that exploded a beach in Crimea in April. And now, Ukraine is again launching attacks on Moscow, this time sending drones that have attacked residential buildings and an airport. Is our blank check to Ukraine—as its action steadily increases in desperation—going to make war less likely, as the war hawks seem to imagine? Hardly.

The US makes an elementary blunder: they treat war with Ukraine as a proxy war. But to Russia, it is anything but. Our Ukrainian proxy is not fighting a Russian proxy, but Russia itself. Just because the fighting was taking place in neighboring Ukraine, rather than in Russia, changes nothing. US money, weapons, and intelligence are being used to make war on Russia. It is that simple to Russian leaders.

The US establishment is playing a dangerous game. Blinded by their own hubris into thinking that they know better, they claim that Putin bluffs when he hints that he may use nuclear weapons, or when Russian officials indicate Russia is changing its nuclear doctrine in response to the West’s actions. Establishment hacks claim Putin is a “coward” who will back down to displays of power and resolve from the West. (One might call this the “coward, coward, coward” narrative). The Ukrainian government, unsurprisingly, spins the same yarn.

Of course, this narrative is blatantly inconsistent and self-serving. Michael McFaul, former US Ambassador to Russia and a fanatical Russia hawk, at one and the same time knows Putin will back down to US deterrence, but can state with a straight face that, “Putin consistently acts belligerently even when the costs would seem to outweigh the benefits.” Moreover, he says, “American policymakers also underestimate the Russian leader’s tolerance for risky behavior, often assuming he will respond predictably to threats and inducements.” Well, which is it? Do we know Putin will back down, or is he unpredictable and willing to take costly actions driven by fear? It is no exaggeration to say that everything hinges on this single, unverifiable speculation about Putin.

When their narrative invariably runs into the harsh mistress of reality, they resort to page one of the Washington, DC playbook—unprecedented action and funding was not enough, we need to do and spend even more. If the West does not fund Ukraine or if we make peace with Russia, Putin hawks say, we are rewarding aggression. Hundreds of billions of dollars to signal that we cannot “reward aggression” is the typical Beltway or out-of-touch, think tank logic: take costly, symbolic action that makes no difference. Because in the end, it will have made no difference, other than to prolong the conflict and increase death and suffering. Doing more will only move us closer to the brink. As revealed in the New York Times in late August, the Biden administration at one point “feared the likelihood of nuclear use might rise to 50 percent or even higher.” Yet, we escalate further.

At every step, the US political establishment has been an obstacle to peace. Victoria Nuland, Biden’s former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, recently admitted what we already knew: that the US helped sabotage a peace proposal that could have ended the Russia-Ukraine war in its infancy. Their incessant refrain that Putin could not be trusted, and that he was salivating at the prospect of moving on to Eastern Europe after Ukraine, was not helpful either. History will remember that the war could have been over almost immediately, and countless Ukrainians alive today, had the US establishment had peace in mind, rather than Putin in their crosshairs.

When will US leaders say enough is enough: it’s time to end our support for Ukraine; it’s time to pull back from the bellicosity against nuclear powers; and it’s time for peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none? To paraphrase Murray Rothbard, while some may prefer death in nuclear war to Russian rule over Ukraine, most Americans—and many Ukrainians—rightly prefer not to end up in a “free world” cemetery.

Some European leaders are coming around to peace. But only an intense and sustained campaign for peace from the American people can counter the hawkish establishment impulses to defend Ukraine at all costs.

The United States of America is the world's warmonger.  Not Russia.  

[swordfish]

Anyone remember hurricane Katrina?

SF was professionally involved with the Federal response following Katrina and can attest to the efficiency of the proper chain of command that was followed by everyone except the Mayor of New Orleans that saw everyone affected getting proper and expeditious help except for the City of New Orleans.  Which was then totally put on the shoulders of President Bush as incompetence - while ignoring the true incompetence by Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin who chose to handle things themselves until they figured out (too late) they needed FEMA.   We found out many years later the corrupt ways of Louisiana & New Orleans government when Mayor Nagin went to prison.

We are witnessing a very similar situation following Hurricane Helene with the exception that the Government response is being handled by competent individuals at the State and Local levels.  The Federal response is getting started as the various requests are made, but the delays in certain areas getting the resources to the locals in the red states is very obvious to the trained eye.  

[Muda69]

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

Anyone remember hurricane Katrina?

SF was professionally involved with the Federal response following Katrina and can attest to the efficiency of the proper chain of command that was followed by everyone except the Mayor of New Orleans that saw everyone affected getting proper and expeditious help except for the City of New Orleans.  Which was then totally put on the shoulders of President Bush as incompetence - while ignoring the true incompetence by Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin who chose to handle things themselves until they figured out (too late) they needed FEMA.   We found out many years later the corrupt ways of Louisiana & New Orleans government when Mayor Nagin went to prison.

We are witnessing a very similar situation following Hurricane Helene with the exception that the Government response is being handled by competent individuals at the State and Local levels.  The Federal response is getting started as the various requests are made, but the delays in certain areas getting the resources to the locals in the red states is very obvious to the trained eye.  

[swordfish]

59 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

[swordfish]

Yeah, FEMA may have allocated a billion dollars to illegal immigrants.......BUT - It's Trump's fault!!  YEAH.....And - Katrina and Bush and stuff!

(That $5 billion border wall sure would have been a pretty good investment) - and everyone needs to forget about that Ukraine thing.....

https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/01/biden-harris-admin-used-fema-disaster-funding-for-illegal-immigrants/

The Biden-Harris administration took more than a billion tax dollars that had been allocated to the agency responsible for American disaster relief and used it to offer services for illegal immigrants.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) allocated nearly $364 million in the fiscal year 2023 and $650 million for the 2024 fiscal year to the “Shelter and Services Program” “to provide humanitarian services to noncitizen migrants following their release from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),” according to the government’s website.

The program is run in cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) “to support CBP in the safe, orderly and humane release of noncitizen migrants from short-term holding facilities,” FEMA’s website reads.

An anonymous X account highlighted the program after MSNBC pundit Michael Steele sought to portray former President Donald Trump as the commander-in-chief who denied Americans full relief from catastrophic weather events.

“In case folks forgot what Trump did to FEMA’s relief fund,” Steele wrote to frame a post about the former president pulling $271 million from DHS to detain migrants. The NBC article featured in Steele’s post said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pulled $155 million directly from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, just a fraction of the resources used by the Biden-Harris administration to care for illegal border crossers.

FEMA’s top priorities under the incumbent administration, meanwhile, do not include disaster relief among the top two goals of the emergency services agency. According to FEMA’s own website, the stated goals include, first, instilling “equity as a foundation of emergency management,” and second, “lead[ing] whole of community in climate resilience.” The goal to “promote and sustain a ready FEMA and prepared nation” ranks third.

Now, residents across the southeastern United States are suffering from the administration’s misplaced priorities, which place “equity” and “climate resilience” ahead of emergency preparedness. While FEMA routinely prepares for colossal rescue operations with resources lined up in the days ahead of major storms, such pre-staged support was clearly not available to residents in the Appalachian towns that were washed away by overwhelming rains from Hurricane Helene. Hundreds remain missing as the storm becomes the Biden administration’s “Katrina moment.”

“Democrats sailed to a massive victory in the 2006 midterms, campaigning on Bush’s allegedly flat-footed Katrina response and the unpopular war in Iraq, rendering the president impotent for his last two years in office,” wrote Federalist Senior Editor John Davidson. Now Vice President Kamala Harris is running for the Oval Office while coordinating a “staged photo pretending to work on the disaster response (earbuds not even plugged into the phone, taking notes on a blank piece of paper), together with the absence of FEMA or any other federal assistance to storm-ravaged areas of western North Carolina and Georgia.”

 

[swordfish]

Another example of the dumbing down of America.  Apparently "Wind Chill Factor" is too hard to understand.  "Feels like" will be the new term along "Extreme Cold Watch" to put a little more "scare" in the weather......

https://www.wndu.com/2024/10/08/here-is-why-there-wont-be-any-wind-chill-warnings-this-winter-us/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFyeKlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdC73AHzDApc3tJyigqfTVVw450xyYk-Z7608UY1ljApkfzDiu5C-jh2nA_aem_4w6-CsY3WcBQpAjo5EpcPQ

(Gray News) - You will no longer hear of wind chill warnings in the United States.

You also will not hear of wind chill advisories or wind chill watches.

The explanation is simple.

The National Weather Service retired the terms in exchange for terms it hopes will make weather alerts easier to understand.

A Wind Chill Watch is now an Extreme Cold Watch. It will be issued when dangerously cold air, with or without wind, is possible. You should adjust plans to avoid being outside during the coldest parts of the day and make sure you have at least half a tank of gas and an updated winter survival kit.

A Wind Chill Warning is now an Extreme Cold Warning. It will be issued when dangerously cold air, with or without wind, is expected. You should avoid going outside, but if you must, you should dress in layers, cover exposed skin and make sure at least one person knows where you are going and when you arrive at your destination.

A Wind Chill Advisory is now a Cold Weather Advisory. You should be sure to be dressed appropriately and cover exposed skin when going outdoors.

The NWS made the changes in hopes of clarifying that cold can be dangerous with or without wind, addressing a common misconception that extreme cold is only tied to colder temperatures when there is wind.

[swordfish]

Does anyone else seem to wonder why Russia would need to recruit order troops from another Dictator's military into their existing war?

https://nypost.com/2024/10/24/opinion/north-koreas-troops-in-ukraine-reveal-putins-weakness/

The war for Ukraine is widening. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed Wednesday that North Korea is dispatching thousands of troops to Russia, marking a significant escalation in its conflict with Kyiv.

Vladimir Putin is pulling Kim Jong Un deeper into the war — yet he is also revealing a weakness: The Kremlin is running low on recruitable troops at home.

North Korea’s infusion of fresh soldiers will remain practically risk-free for Pyongyang, unless the United States returns to its aggressive sanctions posture against the Kim regime.