I'm paging through my newspaper today
and I happen upon a small article tucked away on page 4. At first I
pass it by as I search for information on the latest happenings in
Europe with the Brussels attack and the situation with the
deportation of migrants from Greece, thinking that these are the
stories of the moment, the ones that are of the most importance. But
then I look back and realize what this small article is telling me.
It's about the SpaceX launch, and the test recovery, of a booster rocket. I
emphasize the word “ recovery”. There have been many
breakthroughs in the history of mankind, many inventions that have
improved our lives. They have been created by people who never let
set backs stop them, who strove to contribute something useful to the
world. SpaceX has tried this before only to fail. But they didn't
give up and on Friday April 8, 2016 they managed to land a rocket on
a barge at sea. A critical maneuver to making sending supplies into
space a routine and affordable mission.
On the same mission SpaceX successfully
launched a resupply rocket for the international space station. So
today I tip my hat to those at SpaceX who didn't give up.
Congratulations!
131 comments:
Btw, that video is more impressive if viewed full screen. :)
Disappointed that it only made page four of your newspaper! I watched it (almost) live on Spacex's webcast. There's a copy of it here. The successful first stage landing is very, very cool, and quite emotional (starts about 25 minutes into the vid). Don't know if you saw the previous attempt which would probably have succeeded but for a failed support strut at the base of the engine.
It's really quite amazing that they take a giant cigar tube travelling over 4000 mph and over 100 km up, decelerate it to avoid burning up on reentry, then drop it on a bullseye just a few metres across on top of a floating platform, slowing it down to a stop just as it touches down. Plus, as you can see in the video, the whole platform was heaving on a strong Atlantic swell while all this was happening.
The whole video is quite informative if you have to the time to spare, and the palpable excitement among the Spacexers is infectious.
While I'm here: I wonder have y'all seen this rather hilarious (yet scarily insightful) flow chart to guide the US voter.
"Btw, that video is more impressive if viewed full screen."
It's impressive enough they managed to hit that little barge, but… Be more impressive when they orbit first. Escape velocity is a little over 25,000 mph. This was just a launch and drop from about ¼ speed. But, it is a little barge, so, there's that.
So, which one of those answers gets you outta voting for Clinton?
1/6th speed be closer I guess.
[Lee]: "Be more impressive when they orbit first. Escape velocity is a little over 25,000 mph."
Uh, wot? That was the reusable first stage that landed. It's not supposed to go into orbit. The thing it launched is not only in orbit, it's resupplying the International Space Station for the sixth time.
"So, which one of those answers gets you outta voting for Clinton?"
The fact that it's for USian voters, which I ain't.
(But if I was, I'd be leanin' toward the "Yes" branch of "Is shit broken?")
Disappointed that it only made page four of your newspaper!
Me too. Maybe because so many things with space seem so routine now? I don't know.
It's really quite amazing that they take a giant cigar tube travelling over 4000 mph and over 100 km up, decelerate it to avoid burning up on reentry, then drop it on a bullseye just a few metres across on top of a floating platform, slowing it down to a stop just as it touches down. Plus, as you can see in the video, the whole platform was heaving on a strong Atlantic swell while all this was happening.
I know! The ocean activity becomes more apparent with the full screen, part of why I thought it more impressive to view that way. I will definitely find the time to watch the whole launch and recovery sequence. :)
The thing it launched is not only in orbit, it's resupplying the International Space Station for the sixth time.
Yes, so more than just a test, except for the recovery part. A very important mission. :)
Hmmm...I think I will go back and reword my post a bit, just to be clearer. That one sentence was poorly phrased.
Ahh, there, that feels better. If only for posterity's sake. :)
"It's not supposed to go into orbit. The thing it launched is…in orbit…"
I stand corrected.
Impressive video. I had no idea they were even attempting that.
Pete: "While I'm here: I wonder have y'all seen this rather hilarious (yet scarily insightful) flow chart to guide the US voter."
I thought that was quite insightful indeed. The one bad line was the "are women people" for deciding between Clintin and Kasich. I don't see basically anyone deciding among those two based on that.
I have to say I wouldn't know how to vote if I could vote. I can't really take Trump seriously, I think Cruz is scary, and I just plain do not like Hillary. If he was a serious contender I might have gone with Lynnettes favourite Kasich.
Pete: "I watched it (almost) live on Spacex's webcast. There's a copy of it here."
Very cool. It was pretty emotional to watch it, especially the successful landing part, and I am amazed that such a thing is even possible.
I think things have gone far enough to recalculate probabilities from in February…
"1. Trump wins the nomination before the convention.
"1. Nobody wins and they have to sort it out in Cleveland at the
convention.
(tie for first place there; once it gets on the convention floor it's
anybody's guess where they go)."
New listing of odds on bets starts out with:
"1. Nobody wins going in and they have to sort it out in Cleveland at the
convention, where Cruz wins eventually.
I have to say that Douthat piece in NYT made a pretty compelling case along those lines. And recent primary results seem to poit to Trump not being able to score 1237 before the convention.
"I'd be leanin' toward the 'Yes' branch of 'Is shit broken?'"
It has developed that statistically the single most important predictor of a Trump supporter is a high score on the ‘authoritarian’ scale. Your leanin's are seemingly in accord with those findings.
I just watched the entire video you linked to Petes. It was amazing!
The successful first stage landing is very, very cool, and quite emotional (starts about 25 minutes into the vid)
You can say that again! I smiled the whole way through. I can understand the excitement and happiness energizing the crowd at SpaceX. It's been a long road for them.
I'll have to check a little later to see how the berthing went.
According to Arrianna Huffington the reason Donald Trump behaves as he does, and makes the statements as he does, is lack of sleep. It interferes with ones ability to function and reason.
I'll have to check out the political link later...gotta run and get some chores done.
Here's a thought for the neo-cons to ponder (among several thoughts contained in this article that it would be good for neo-cons, and Hillary supporters alike, to ponder)…
"In what ranks as the ultimate irony, the circumstances that had made
the Persian Gulf worth fighting for in the first place have ceased to
pertain. If today the American way of life still depends, for better or for
worse, on having access to plentiful reserves of oil and natural gas,
then the Western Hemisphere, not the Persian Gulf, deserves top
billing in the Pentagon’s hierarchy of strategic priorities. Defending
Canada and Venezuela should take precedence over defending Saudi
Arabia and Iraq. To put it another way, the United States would be
better served to secure its own neighborhood rather than vainly
attempting to police the Greater Middle East—and it would likely enjoy
greater success, to boot."
Politico.EU
Either that Politico article is completely off track, or I'm losing my marbles. There is no "War for the Greater Middle East" that I can see. America's responses have been to relatively immediate threats. Even the Iraq war was such -- in it's establishment billing at least, if not in the minds of the left wing hoards that deplored it as the machinations of empire. There are several cases where the US might have intervened more strongly -- in post-Saddam Iraq, in post-Gaddafi Libya, in present-day Syria, in North Africa.
I was particularly puzzled by the bit about the oil, and how the US should no longer have to worry about the Middle East at all. Let's even ignore the left wing trope that the US's M.E. involvement has only been about oil. Maybe American politicians have been wittering on about energy independence for so long that people there have started to actually believe it. But you'd expect a journalist in a respectable publication to check his/her facts before declaring that the US and its near neighbours could function without the rest of the global energy market.
"There is no ‘War for the Greater Middle East’ that I can see."
That part's probably true, but that's because the neo-cons blew the first round, and the country pulled back. Nevertheless, the resurgent neo-cons do still have grand hopes, and Hillary still has her Cold War interventionist mindset, and the paid schemers in the Pentagon are still indulging both those hopes and those fears.
Another journalistic opinion that Cruz is the only realistic alternative to Trump for the Republican nomination. Let's hope Trump wins it then, since Cruz is an infinitely more scary proposition.
"Let's hope Trump wins it then…"
There it is.
"Nevertheless, the resurgent neo-cons do still have grand hopes..."
You'd expect them to be happy about a Cruz presidency, then, since he wants to "make the desert glow" in his attempt to root out ISIS. I wonder does he not know or not care that he'd have to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians along with them? And he's already called bullshit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff assessment that the ultimate solution can only be political. I'd say ISIS would wholeheartedly support Cruz for president. They are both made from the same mold -- puffed up sumbitches intent on expediting Armageddon.
"You'd expect them [the neo-cons] to be happy about a Cruz
presidency, then…"
I would not expect that, and, in fact, the neo-cons consider Cruz to be a bigger danger to their program than Trump. They consider Cruz to be an isolationist. Cruz considers it self evident that one need not engage further with the people who used to live in what has become a smoking radioactive hole lined with green glass. I'll leave it for others to work out how much ‘isolationist’ ideology that notion requires. Not much of a match the neo-con's idea for the remaking of the Greater Middle East in the image of their corporate capitalists dreams though.
"I wonder does he not know or not care that he'd have to incinerate
hundreds of thousands of civilians…"
I'm guessing he falls into the ‘don't care’ section, but he'll have plenty of time to expand on that part of the theory if he wins the Republican nomination, as I expect will happen.
OMG! I must not think I'm a person. I like Kasich.
(Yes, I just checked out Petes' flowchart.)
"I like Kasich."
I've looked into Kasich. He's not running as Kasich, the guy who's been around for 20 years or better. He's running as a nice guy who just coincidentally looks a lot like the old Kasich (‘cept for bein’ older), but talks a whole ‘nother game. And it seems to be working for him.
So, what you are saying is that looks, or behavior, can be deceiving?
I'm saying I don't yet have a good grasp on who he is.
Is he the Reagan acolyte, enthusiastic promoter of the voodoo economic theories, that he presented as for so many years?
Does he still think global warming is an "unproven theory" as he claimed just last August?
Or, has he mellowed or maybe even wised up with age?
My suspicion is that he's found himself a niche and is trying to fit into it, and was hoping maybe to wrangle a long-shot win outta the fact the Republican presidential field was populated with true crazies this cycle (that and a string of second raters presented by FoxNews Faerie Tale Machine as ‘the strongest field of prospects since Abe Lincoln himself’, and we'd have found out who Kasich is these days only after he got elected; which ain't gonna happen, so we won't find out).
Republican big-money donors, who've been granted the unprecedented opportunity this year to sequentially max out on contributions to first Bush, then Rubio, and now Cruz, are now a lil’ bit confused ‘bout what to do next. Politico.com
Krongold, who has yet to endorse another contender following Bush’s departure, added: “I’m a little disappointed as to how the race has evolved.”
For many people that would be an understatement.
But don't worry, 'cos the party establishments aren't gonna let either Trump or Sanders get nominated. A problem for the GOP, according to a Reuter's poll, is that a third of Trump supporters say they won't vote Republican if their candidate gets a majority of delegates but is denied the nomination. A sixth of them say they'll leave the party altogether (and another quarter aren't sure).
Always been like this. In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt won nine primaries (290 delegates) to William Taft's two primaries (124 delegates), but the Republican Convention awarded the nomination to Taft anyway. (Roosevelt subsequently ran as a third party candidate--the Progressive Party a/k/a Bullmoose Party, and the Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the general election; Taft came in a distant 3rd.)
Article about Sweden in todays Financial Times:
https://next.ft.com/content/a641c074-ffdd-11e5-9cc4-27926f2b110c
It's behind a pay-wall but if you google the headline: "Swedish PM describes countrymen’s gloom as ‘surreal’" and click the link there you can bypass the wall.
Over all it's kind of correct. There are a few glaring factual errors though, such as immigrant participation in the workforce which is portrayed as not good enough but is in fact much worse. It says after 10 years 50% of "immigrants" are employed. Bad enough right? Sure, and that includes all the danes, norwegians and other European and even American immigrants who have close to 100% employment if they relocate here, since they relocate for the job they were recruited to. As for refugees we have a workforce participation if you count that as fully employed or self employed (i.e you sustain yourself without benefits) of about 34% after 15 (!!!) years in country. Insanely bad. It's just a fact that we are terrible at getting low qualified immigrants to work. Very generous wellfare checks coupled with a high-skilled jobs market will do that.
Source (in Swedish): http://www.di.se/artiklar/2016/4/7/ledare-integrationen-mer-akut-an-vad-vi-trodde/
And that's not a "right wing" or "conspiracy theory" blog but the most read daily financial news outlet from out biggest media house Bonniers.
Also the Sweden Democrats fall which is depicted as a fall from 25% to 15% when 25% to about 22% is more in line with reality. It all depends on the poll chosen and about 22% would be the most realistic right now (15% is probably SIFO, notoriously unreliable). That said SD have fallen in the polls because other parties have started to pick up their policies. To me that's just great. I can get the sound policies without the people from a sometimes questionable background.
But I still think the article is worth reading and the top-rated comments answer the "surreal" feelings our Prime Minister feel quite well.
A sixth of them say they'll leave the party altogether (and another quarter aren't sure).
Some of his supporters can be rather uncompromising, I am thinking. There are many out there, on both sides, that get caught up in their political agendas and forget that there are many other Americans out there that have a voice in the outcome. They also forget that for these established parties it is their reputation and agendas on the line. For a candidate to be chosen he/she will need to at least adhere to some of that. It's why they have attracted the registered voters they have. To buck that establishment is to fly in the face of this. They do have a responsibility to others in the party.
I read the article, Marcus, although the version I found didn't pop up the comments to read. Maybe I will look again. But anyway, I get the gist. I see that Sweden has tightened up its open door policy for immigrants. But perhaps it is the benefits that need to be looked at? If Sweden offers more generous benefits than other EU countries you will always get people wanting to relocate your country. I well remember the one fellow in one of the videos talking about moving around between various European countries until he settled on Sweden for him and his family. He got a bigger house there.
Swedish fishing industry tries to ban the import of Maine lobsters to Europe.
lol!
I was just reading about that. Apparently there were some American lobsters who made their escape and there is some concern that they may squeeze out the smaller European lobsters in a competition for food. Or so they say...
"Some of his supporters can be rather uncompromising, I am thinking."
The one who are threatening not to vote Republican if Trump isn't nominated are quite tame compared to the ones who say they'll start a revolution. I suspect that's mostly huffin' and puffin' though.
Lynnette: "Apparently there were some American lobsters who made their escape and there is some concern that they may squeeze out the smaller European lobsters in a competition for food. Or so they say..."
There's probably no "or so they say..." about it. The request is for a ban on LIVE lobsters, which the article makes clear. I think it's safe to assume it's not made out of a fear of 'merican lobster meat in restaurants but precisely out of fears of live Maine lobsters in the sea.
Lynnette: "But perhaps it is the benefits that need to be looked at? If Sweden offers more generous benefits than other EU countries you will always get people wanting to relocate your country."
For sure. They should be 0 for non citizens. It's the way it is in a vast majority of nations in the world and there's no reason whatsoever why we couldn't have it that way here too.
"…fears of live Maine lobsters in the sea."
Refugees… "Refugee" lobsters, not really refugees at all, but actually just migrants intent on overwhelming the locals and taking their benefits. Ninety percent of them plate sized males fleeing induction into the food chain back home.
Lee: "Refugees… "Refugee" lobsters, not really refugees at all, but actually just migrants intent on overwhelming the locals and taking their benefits."
Right. So if you want a continued habitat for the local population you gotta stop 'em, right? Goes without saying if you're in that local population of lobsters as it were...
The new spring budget from our red/"green"* Government came today. On average the actual tax payer will be billed 5.400 SEK (about $640) more per year in taxes. Equally divided between corporate taxes and imcome taxes. The vast majority of those addtional funds will go towards "miggratio and integration" of people from far away places. People from far away places we were promised would actually contribute positively to our economy.
I knew that was a lie all along. Most people seem not to have known that. It will be interesting to see how people react when they realise this lie and when they realise the costs are just beginning to pile up and that it will be so much worse.
* And I say "green" bacause they are anything but that. Shutting down functioning nuclear plants and subsidising them with imported Russian gas and adding hundreds of thousands of people to a high energy climate/society can't be green in anything except in a communist handbook. In that hadbook you can lie all you want though, since reality is always second to policy.
"And I say "green" bacause [sic] they are anything but that."
I dunno; maybe when things warm up Scandinavia will be growing wine grapes and olive trees. (‘Course you'll be growing them in what's now the mountain passes ‘cause what's now arable land will be sea floor. )
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Fella here thinks we been screwin’ things up. I tend to agree. I'm not familiar with the author, but I've read from ‘WarOnTheRocks’ before.
I gotta admit though, I got only about ¾ of the way through it before I hit my limit for fully absorbing the rant--I'll have to go back and finish it later after I've thought over most of the stuff he's thrown into his rant so far (some of which I know I disagree with--but it's an impressive rant nonetheless).
Refugees… "Refugee" lobsters, not really refugees at all, but actually just migrants intent on overwhelming the locals and taking their benefits. Ninety percent of them plate sized males fleeing induction into the food chain back home.
ROFL!
Hmmm...I only got a little beyond this statement...
China’s unwillingness to acquiesce in perpetual U.S. dominance of its near seas is the origin of the current tensions in the South China Sea.
Somehow I think there is more to it than that, and more people are involved than just China and the US.
A rant that is. A rant that doesn't seem to take into account the agendas of others. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He doesn't seem to consider that we might have been in that position in some situations. Oh well, when I get a minute I may look back and read the rest.
Meanwhile, did anyone notice this:
Russian jet close encounter
"Oh well, when I get a minute I may look back and read the rest."
I'm definitely gonna get back to it, but probably not until morning, or maybe later. I've been thinking that he's trying to tie up a bit too much all in one theory, but he's got more than a few good points to make. I'm definitely gonna work on it some more later.
Okay, I managed to get most of it absorbed (it could get a little densely packed). With a few exceptions, I'm pretty much on-board with most of what he says there. He does try to tie a bit too much into one grand unified theory, but he's generally got a coherent theory there.
The following are the musings of an Irish-American acquaintance. He's very much a leftie in outlook (and lives on the left coast), so not someone I often find myself in agreement with. Just thought I'd throw it there, see what the Yanks think ...
"Obama's positions and politics did not change much in office, as a candidate it was pretty obvious that he was a clinton centrist and would continue the neoliberal and imperial politics of the Clinton Bush years. If you can find some contradiction between his manifesto in 08 and his policies in power I'd love to see them. Cruz is an extremist by any measure, he will never become president so we won't know how he would operate in power but the capitalists and ruling class would have very little to worry about. Where he would express himself most profoundly is on appointments, and not just the supreme court but the federal courts and the agencies and federal departments. check out his links to Dominionism, if there is an evangelical thread that is extreme even by US evangelical standards, that is it."
"For all Trump's bluster the differences between him and HRC are minimal. He talks about deporting 11 million illegals, Obama has already deported 2 million, militarized the border, etc. Trump would have great difficulty upping the pace of deportations beyond where they have been for the last 8 years. The same is true for most of his most outrageous pronouncements. Trump has become a scarecrow for the entire media and political elite to line everyone up behind Hillary."
Trump has become a scarecrow for the entire media and political elite to line everyone up behind Hillary.
Sometimes I have thought the same thing. Trump may, despite his obnoxious comments about women, do more to single-handedly get a woman elected President in the US than anyone else out there.
I am reminded of the studies which showed that the more radical ones political views, the more likely one would be to believe that the Evil ‘Mainstream Media’ was conspiring with ones less extreme political ‘enemies’. This held equally true whether the person was radical left or radical right.
Some interesting reading, and charts, here:
What young Arabs really feel about Daesh
"Some interesting reading, and charts, here:"
And yet, Da’esh seems to be gathering recruits right along.
I suspect some of these young Muslim folks are telling the pollsters what they think they should say in public.
@ Lynnette:
There's a novel interpretation circulating in legal circles regarding the ‘advise and consent’ language in the Constitution which describes the Senate's powers to participate in the appointments of Supreme Court Justices. According to this interpretation, there is nothing in there that actually says the Senate must confirm the nominee. Only that the President makes the selection ‘with the advice and consent’ of the Senate. But, this Senate has refused to even consider the matter. So (according to this theory) the Senate has waived their Constitutional right to participate--and it's a long held principle that such rights can be waived.
Theory is: Obama just announces that he's gonna give ‘em a reasonable amount of time (or just waits a reasonable amount of time without warning them) and then he appoints Garland to the position and to hell with ‘em. (This will surely spark outrage on the part of the Congress, and especially the Republicans in Congress, and a lawsuit which will make it to the Supreme Court, where presumably the new Justice Garland would recuse himself, but what if he didn't?)
I don't think Obama will do it, but it's an idea that's going around.
Lee: "I suspect some of these young Muslim folks are telling the pollsters what they think they should say in public."
Reminds me of a time at work in a situation where we were very badly organised when we had a poll whether things were OK or not. Out of 14 there was only one vote for things being OK. We collectively assumed the main ass-kisser in the group was the one voting for things being OK. Turned out it was one of my closest collegues who certainly didn't think things were OK but feared voting against the "bosses".
The reason? He was originally from Poland and given his experience with Communism he simply did not believe that poll was anonymous, and he feared reprecussions if he voiced discontent.
We swedes took for granted that an "anonymous" poll at the workplace was actually anynonomous (and I still think it was). But the Pole never had that trust and voiced the opinions he thought the "bosses" wanted.
Now that guy was extremely competent and hard to replace. He needen't worry about his job at all was my opinion. Still he had it ingrained in him from way before that speaking up against authority can get you into serious shit.
So yes, I agree completely whe you say that many polled in Muslim nations might very well answer with what they believe is the "correct" answer, and not answer by heart.
Slate says the next few Republican contests are gonna be good for Trump. Slate is a liberal leaning publication, but they tend to be clear-eyed liberals and most often get the data right.
"Shutting down functioning nuclear plants and subsidising them with
imported Russian gas…"
Given your past pronouncements I'm somewhat surprised that you're against increasing dependence on imported Russian gas. (More on that here)
Angela Merkel has personally authorized the prosecution of a German comedian for making fun of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on German TV (apparently there is a little used German statute that allows this). NYT
Not sure whether this qualifies as an OP-ED or as a CBS' Editorial, but, Will Rahn of CBSNews has a piece out explaining why the Republicans have to give it to Trump if he wins the most delegates (as he certainly will) but less than the 1237 required for a win on the first round. CBSNews
I finally finished the opinion piece by Mr. Freeman. While I think he did make some good points, especially regarding our current dysfunction in Washington, I have to wonder at his seeming bias in judgement of our past actions by his inability to place them in context. By which I mean there seems little effort on his part to take into account the actions of others involved.
If he had limited himself to criticism of current affairs, and left out his views as to our past actions, his opinion might have been listened to, but as it stands he just comes across as someone with an ax to grind, digging up stuff using questionable facts, as was pointed out in one of the comments following the article.
"…he just comes across as someone with an ax to grind…"
Well, yes, of course. He tries way too hard to wrap up all of recent history with one grand unified theory. But that's hardly the important point. Gotta get past that part.
When ya get down to individual items--he's got a lot good points (even if they don't make for a unified grand theory of everything)
On to a more immediate issue… The Huffington Post has a theory that the Republican Party is already too far gone to pull back from the coming destruction.
Ever wonder what the feds actually did with the money they got by fining some of the financial institutions for the 2008 melt-down, instead of slapping their CEOs with some well deserved jail time? A partial listing…
Marcus, I have tended to take reports of Sweden's decline with a pinch of salt. Every urbanised society has its share of crime. But it was more than a little bizarre seeing the police in a Swedish "city" (actually not much more than a glorified village with a population less than fifty thousand, barely four degrees below the Arctic circle) advising the female population not to venture out unaccompanied after dark. I've never been in Östersund, but I visited Sundsvall down the road about twenty years ago, a place of similar size and -- back then -- as sleepily provincial as I'd expect Östersund to be.
When ya get down to individual items--he's got a lot good points (even if they don't make for a unified grand theory of everything)
Perhaps the problem is that he was trying to make too many points, and trying to connect too many disjointed dots. But be that as it may, I will agree that he does make a good point about the dysfunction in Washington and its hurting our country's ability to function properly. The buck has always stopped there.
The Huffington Post has a theory that the Republican Party is already too far gone to pull back from the coming destruction.
I've always liked the idea of a knight in shining armor, so I won't count out Sir Galahad. :)
But perhaps it isn't such a bad idea to split the Republican party. I see no problem with jettisoning the far right who can then form their own Know Nothing Party.
The Swedish town in your video sounds a lot like the U of M at times. Except in that town it appears that the attacks are not being committed by an individual who has had too much to drink, but in a couple of cases by more than one person who is completely sober. That is rather disturbing.
Pete: "Marcus, I have tended to take reports of Sweden's decline with a pinch of salt. Every urbanised society has its share of crime. But it was more than a little bizarre seeing the police in a Swedish "city" (actually not much more than a glorified village with a population less than fifty thousand, barely four degrees below the Arctic circle) advising the female population not to venture out unaccompanied after dark."
It is bad and it's getting worse. not just in Östersund but all over. The reason Östersund got headlines was because of the statements from the police and that there were a large number of assaults and rapes/rape attempts in a short time. The caught a couple of arabs and at least one african and the weekly rate seems to have gone down now.
You will see much worse reports from Sweden in the coming years and you'll remember my predictions and perhaps come to think I wasn't that alarmist after all.
If these crimes are being committed by immigrants who do not have citizenship then deportation should be an option. I know I have said this in the past, but it bears repeating.
I'm of the opinion that naturalized citizens ought to be at risk of losing their citizenship in appropriate cases (so long as they've retained their original native citizenship back home, which I'd guess most of them do)
Lynnette: "If these crimes are being committed by immigrants who do not have citizenship then deportation should be an option."
I believe it should not only be an option but the norm. For serious crimes of course, not for shoplifting or jaywalking. Today it is as "option" but one that is too rarely applied.
Lee: "I'm of the opinion that naturalized citizens ought to be at risk of losing their citizenship in appropriate cases"
I think so too. I think the bar for when deportation should be part of the punishment would have to be higher than for non-citizens but for example for serious violent crime I think this should definetly be an option.
The party leader for our "Green" party sat on national public television this morning and called the 9/11 terrorist attacks for: "the September eleven accidents".
I have just a blog post so far:
http://cornucopia.cornubot.se/2016/04/asa-romson-11e-septemberolyckorna.html
There's a link to SVT and the statement is made 24 minutes into the broadcast. Let's see if this catches on. I hope the US embassy will get wind of this and demand a public apology and think maybe they will.
I would like to say that Romson is the one minister and party leader with the lowest approval ratings of any swedish current politician. I suspect she is actually insane. In any case she's just the type to try for as long as possible to weasel out of making an actual apology if one was demanded.
My command of Swedish tends towards the clueless end of the spectrum. What does ‘September eleven accidents’ supposedly imply in Swedish?
Here's an article in english:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547291/Sweden-s-deputy-PM-sparks-outcry-describing-9-11-Twin-Towers-attack-September-11-accidents.html
I forgot to mention she's our "Deputy Prime Minister". But not really. She holds that position formally but in the event of absense by our PM our foreign minister will actually be the one who steps in. The Social Democrats had to toss a few bones to their unfortunate coalition partners and that was one - the Greens got the deputy PM seat. But obviously the Social Democrats aren't insane enough to consider Romson in the role of PM so in reality the title is for show only.
That's hardly more informative. I still can't make out what she thought she was implying. I thought maybe it was some unusual Swedish idiom, but maybe not.
It looks like she was implying that the hijackers grabbed those planes by mistake and then accidentally flew them into a few buildings killing thousands of people.
I suspect she is actually insane.
With her 9/11 statement I have to wonder as well.
Lee: "That's hardly more informative. I still can't make out what she thought she was implying. I thought maybe it was some unusual Swedish idiom, but maybe not."
It was (yet another) insane comment from Romson. My best guess is that the "new left" in Europe are really marinated in what we call "identification politics". That's a sort of politics where what you say or do is not as important as who says or does it. People are cathegorised as victims (coulored, female, HBTQ, developing nations) or oppressors (white, male, straight, western nations). There are any number of combinations you can make from this but the idea is the more "oppressed" you are the more right you have to say or do whatever you feel like visavi a less "oppressed" party.
At this point Romson was speaking about 9/11 and since the perpetrators were muslim and the victims Americans she will instinctively try to defend the perps, since they are victims and the US an oppressor. I don't think this was thought out but rather came as an instinct that came from her worldview.
Nevertheless there's no difference between the swedish word "olycka" compared to the english word "accident". So the quote "the september eleven accidents" is just what she said. Then of course she later said that she meant that the "accident" was the responce in the west demonising muslims, but I find it hard to believe that's what she meant. I believe her comment was made to relativise and belitte the seriousness of 9/11 because that's how she actually feels about it. That said, that's MY opinion on the matter, but based on much previous observations.
Lynnette: "It looks like she was implying that the hijackers grabbed those planes by mistake and then accidentally flew them into a few buildings killing thousands of people."
Probably the comment was not that thought out, it was made in haste after all. But she has that instinctive feeling to play down those attacks because they do not fit with her "reality".
"Probably the comment was not that thought out…"
I kinda got that impression. She didn't want to say they were attacks, on account of it was the U.S.A. getting attacked and "brown people" doing the attacking (although Arabs are considered ‘white’ folks in America). And she didn't have a good alternative available--probably in her circles the comment would have gone unchallenged so she wouldn't have needed a good alternative, any alternative would do, but she made the mistake of talking ‘out of school’ as it were, out in public, without thinking it through.
Then again, debating minor swedish parties here is probably not the right arena. So while I wanted to show just how insane the "Greens" in Sweden are we can probably not go much further. I would have to translate a whole host of articles or you would have to just take me at my word. I think neither is very feasible and as it is after all of small importance in the big scheme of things I think we might just as well move on.
The Trumpinator - how big a win do you think he'll score in NY?
Is 1237 completely impossible for Trump to reach?
What if he scored about 1100 and Cryz didn't even get 1000, how would that play out?
Sanders, I read he's proving more resilient than expected. Does he have even the slightest chance?
But she has that instinctive feeling to play down those attacks because they do not fit with her "reality".
There are many people who will only see what they want to see.
And yet...and yet...*sigh*...they claim they want justice. But justice is only achieved by examining evidence and only, I emphasize only, acting upon proven facts. Many people believe the US government or the Israelis were behind 9/11, totally ignoring Osama bin Laden's statement that AQ was the perpetrator.
Or they like to think that the West's past behavior in the Middle East is at fault. Yet it is Muslims themselves who bear the brunt of AQ, and its successor Daesh's, brutality. Corruption and violence seems systemic in many countries in the ME without any real effort being made to correct those problems. Yet it is the West who is blamed because we have not done something or because we have done too much. If change is to come to the ME, through the actions of the local inhabitants, then those are the two problems that need to be addressed, before anything the West has or has not done.
Lee: "I kinda got that impression. ... ETC."
Yup, Lee, I would say you summed it up quite well there. That was actually about the same explanation but better worded than the one I put forth.
And of course that mandates a media storm against her. She will dodge and hide and try to come up with an alternative story. And she'll manage to hang on because her party is equally insane. But people will still take notice. No way will she be the poster child for the Greens next time around.
The right-wingers are all about to get in an uproar over Merkel giving up that comedian to Erdoğan. I can tell because the Wall Street Journal has slid their Op-Ed on the subject out from behind their usual paywall. WSJ Archives
"The Trumpinator - how big a win do you think he'll score in NY?"
Politico.com has an article on that question, but I've not read it yet. I'd say somewhere between big win, impressive win and ‘Yuuuge’ win.
"Is 1237 completely impossible for Trump to reach?"
No, but it's long odds.
"What if he scored about 1100 and Cryz didn't even get 1000, how would that play out?"
That's getting to the edge, but I'd bet on Cruz even there.
"Sanders, I read he's proving more resilient than expected."
Yes.
"Does he have even the slightest chance?"
No.
Lynnette: "Many people believe the US government or the Israelis were behind 9/11, totally ignoring Osama bin Laden's statement that AQ was the perpetrator. "
Oh no. That's not how the new Euro left thinks at all. They well know that Osama et al were behind the attacks. But since they also know Osama did those attacks in the name of Islam they have sort of a two way and contradictory responce. They feel:
1, the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of american (and to a lesser degree western) and israeli transgressions against muslims - so they were not all that bad to begin with.
2, knowing that the attacks WERE perceived as bad in the real world it's important to move them away as much as possible from Islam and muslims.
And as for #2 there are many more culprits, apart from blatant Green commies, who often cloth themselves in the "liberal" cloak who try to downplay the religous and cultural angle at every turn.
Lee:
"The right-wingers are all about to get in an uproar over Merkel giving up that comedian to Erdoğan"
I think the left wingers should be in even more of an uproar. Don't really know if they are because I've read so little about it.
But the fact that a comedian should be put in jail for slandering a foreign politician is INSANE to me. Completely unacceptable!
What if Jay Leno made fun of some dumbass politician abroad and the US government threw him in jail over it? Would you like the US law to admitt that?
BTW Lee I like those yes/no answers. If theres nothing else of value to be said, don't say it. Very Scandinavian.
"Would you like the US law to admitt that?"
No chance; never even considered it. (And, kinda disapprove of Merkel for it; that just goes against our grain; even though it was a vulgar and not very funny poem.)
Lee: I didn't even read the poem. I assumed it was derogatory and thought "so what?". But IMO I myself or any witer in my country should be able to write anything however derogatory without facing prosecution for "slandering".
OK, if someone writes blatant untruths about a person they might be sued for slander. But that's another story.
On that topic. One of my favourite holiday destinations, Thailand, has these Lese Majestete laws I really hate. The most blatant abuse was one case I read of:
In Thailand in a movie theatre they play the National Anthem before the show. You must stand when the anthem is played. Now, me as an outsider I always do these things because it's not my country and I will make an effort to behave. But this instance was a Thai teenage girl who refsed and sat during the anthem. Result? Jail for two years. And probably hard time too since most of the other convicts are royalists. That's just abuse of power in my mind - and unecessary abuse at that.
"I didn't even read the poem."
I didn't read the whole thing either. It was in German, but I've seen fairly extensive English translation excerpts. Not particularly funny.
Leno would have been in trouble for vulgarity on-the-air; one difference ‘tween European and American TV.
Lee: "Leno would have been in trouble for vulgarity on-the-air;`"
Really? I kinda would think that'd depend largely on the leader he was slandering. Can't really see him getting flak based on anything he said about for instance Putin, could you? Merkel for that matter - a bit more shielded. Wouldn't you say?
Nope, that sort of vulgarity on-the-air would get him fined by the FCC no matter who was the target (they'd also fine NBC for not bleeping it out). CBS got fined a few years ago for LaToya Jackson flashing a boob during the SuperBowl Half-time Show.
Early returns show Clinton ahead of Sanders by 20 points; 60/40. It probably won't be that big when the upstate areas come in, but it's a big win for Clinton tonight.
Trump looks like he's probably gonna get that 50% plus that'll give him the lion's share of the delegates. Big win also for Trump there; maybe ‘Yuuuge’.
Also bunch of complaints about inadequate polling facilities; people struck from the voters rolls without knowing it, major complications. Sanders is howling about it already, but it doesn't much change the fact that he's losing New York big time to Clinton.
On-air vulgarity isn't always intentional ;-)
Hmmm...it does look like she really had no idea what she said. Either that or she is a very good actress. lol!
1, the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of american (and to a lesser degree western) and israeli transgressions against muslims - so they were not all that bad to begin with.
I would be intensely interested to find out how they justify AQ and Daesh's behavior to fellow Muslims. Or Kurds. Or perhaps the unlucky Japanese who have wondered into their orbit.
Well, Hillary came in close to that 60% in New York; looks like it's gonna be around 58%. Trump did about as well; hovering around 60% himself.
This will not stop Sanders from running aggressively the rest of the way to the convention; he was a ‘cause’ candidate from the beginning; he was in this to make a statement. He was as surprised as anybody to discover Hillary's weakness among the Democratic base. This was always about getting a big megaphone for the liberal wing of the party, and he's still got that, so he'll go on. (He outspent Clinton about 2 to 1 in New York, by the way.)
Trump got a big win, big enough that people will now start talking about how the ‘establishment’ can't stop Trump. Wrong paradigm. Question is, can the right-winger crazies stop Trump? I think they can, and will. I'm still bettin’ on Cruz coming out of Cleveland with the nomination. (Trump gets up to around 1,150 delegates going in, that bet gets ‘iffy’ at best, there will be around 130-150 ‘unbound‘ delegates to share out, but at 1,100 going in; I still say Cruz probably pulls it out.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
And, on a subject of less transient interest… NYT Op-Ed; global warming theatens the planet with a new Dark Age; this one planet-wide.
Lee: "Nope, that sort of vulgarity on-the-air would get him fined by the FCC no matter who was the target (they'd also fine NBC for not bleeping it out). CBS got fined a few years ago for LaToya Jackson flashing a boob during the SuperBowl Half-time Show."
OK now I get what you meant. Yes sometimes TV/movie broadcasters are faced with morality censorship. It can vary greatly from time to time. When I was young in the 80's Sweden had a panicky stance against "video violence" and it wasn't uncommon for a movie originating in the US to be 10 minutes shorter here because just about every violent scene was cut. I remember the sort of B-movie "Cobra" with Stallone being cut by almost 20 minutes, and it isn't really THAT violent to begin with. Then it swung in the 90's and today we allow just about anything violence wise. I think the last cut of that sort I can think of was in "Casino" where they cut the scene where a dude gets his head put in a vise.
But I think these two topics are kind of like apples and pears. The situation in Germany where you can apparently get prosecuted for slandering specifically foreign dignitaries and jail time is possible is IMO something entirely different, and not acceptable as far as I see things. It would be even worse if you weren't allowed to critizise or make fun of domestic dignitaries, which is the case in many nations.
Lynnette: "I would be intensely interested to find out how they justify AQ and Daesh's behavior to fellow Muslims. Or Kurds. Or perhaps the unlucky Japanese who have wondered into their orbit."
They don't really. But they always try to skew that debate into Daesh being a consequence of the actions of the west to put the blame there. Also any links to Islam are downplayed as if Daesh were working in a vacuum and on their own entirely.
I might add I am well aware that a clear majority of muslims despise Daesh, most of them outright. But I am also aware the support for them in the muslim world is greater than many liberals/socialists in the west would like to admit. And that the support can be sort of on/off as in it's OK when they attack shia/kurd/infidel targets but not OK when they direct their draconian policies at fellow "faithful" folks.
Lee: "And, on a subject of less transient interest… NYT Op-Ed; global warming theatens the planet with a new Dark Age; this one planet-wide."
An interesting read. This was what stuck me as most important:
"As the patterns that we have come to expect are disrupted by warming temperatures, we will face huge challenges feeding a growing population and prospering within our planet’s finite resources."
I have said it before and I'll say it again. I believe the main challenge is we're stuck with a growth dependent economy and an unsustainable growth in the number of peoples in a finite environment. What was it the UN predicted, an increase in the populations of Africa with a billion os so as soon as 2030? Something like that. And already today there are wars, famine and Libya has a million would be refugees bent for Europe. How will it look with a billion more competing for the same space and recources in that arena? Add global warming to that brew and the future does not look very good.
Here's some more on that:
"The world’s population is projected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050 and exceed 11 billion in 2100"
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2015/07/un-projects-world-population-to-reach-8-5-billion-by-2030-driven-by-growth-in-developing-countries/
I don't expect that to happen though. I believe we'll reach "peak humanity" before 2100.
The only way for that increase to happen would be for people in developed nations to dramatically decrease their consumption in many areas, and for people in developing nations to be content with never ever rising to the levels of the developed world today. Just about the opposite is actually what is happening and it's happening because it's in human nature. Which makes it REALLY hard to change.
"But I think these two topics are kind of like apples and pears."
I believe what I said about that was that it was, "one difference ‘tween European and American TV." (Tue Apr 19, 02:12:00 pm)
I seem to recall that the original "Dark Ages" coincided with a major climatic shift.
Question is, can the right-winger crazies stop Trump? I think they can, and will. I'm still bettin’ on Cruz coming out of Cleveland with the nomination.
Ahh..now starts the mud wrestling...
Fight is on for Minnesota delegates
In your OpEd piece regarding climate change, Lee, I found this article by Thomas Friedman about his trip to Africa(apparently it is multi-part), but this piece supports what your main piece was saying. The unpredictability of weather will make it far more difficult in the future to plan our planting accordingly and make it far more difficult to feed people. As we have discussed in the past this will lead to mass migrations of people. I think that has started. This does not bode well for Europe, because even if the wars end and Daesh is defeated, there will still be the other cause of the migrations occurring.
Out of Africa
I'll have to look up the first part to that when I get the chance.
"I found this article by Thomas Friedman…"
He does a decent job of putting a human face on it, which is good I guess for those who tend to reason emotionally.
Lynnette: "As we have discussed in the past this will lead to mass migrations of people. I think that has started. This does not bode well for Europe, because even if the wars end and Daesh is defeated, there will still be the other cause of the migrations occurring."
About 35% of the migration stream to Europe last year was from Syria and probably only a portion of those were actually fleeing Daesh (who control areas with about 25% of the syrian population and who actually try and hinder the civvies from fleeing their reign). The largest portion is already ecoomic migration. And of course if we assume that econimic hardships might worsen those migrant numbers will only increase.
I keep coming back to the issue of growing populations and especially in poor countries.
I have posted links to this video before and I REALLY urge you to see all of it because it's so important and watching it all makes the context so clear. But it's over an hour so I will link to a specific part and just ask you to view 5 minutes on.
https://youtu.be/eOykY2SMbZ0?t=895
The jist is, if we do not choose to adress population growth nature will choose for us. It simply cannot be avoided bar for intervention by God and while some might hope for that I do not.
He does a decent job of putting a human face on it, which is good I guess for those who tend to reason emotionally.
Humans are emotional, it happens. :)
I don't remember you linking to that video before, Marcus. But it does look interesting and I will watch the entire thing when I get a minute.
"I keep coming back to the issue of growing populations and especially
in poor countries."
Poor people have more children on average, even in ‘rich’ developed countries.
It seems that having large families was a way of assuring support for parents in their declining years. Or so the theory goes.
That's one theory. There are other theories that're better at accounting for why the phenomenon persists among the poor even in societies with quite adequate social welfare programs for the aged.
There are also social welfare programs for the poor.
I miss one "solution" to over population in that video. I saw a documentary on this state in India where they focused really hard on education for girls. Made sure every girl could attend school for, I think it was, at least 10-12 years. In the corriculum family planning was discussed. That had the effect of empowering women AND it reduced the birthrate to a pretty ideal 2.2 and did so without forcing it on people. I thought that was great.
The reason I thought it was so great is I see no downside at all. Not even the cost I see as a downside but more like an investment that will likely pay off after a generation or two. It was good for the economy, good for individuals and it adressed the problem of over population without such draconian policies as Chinas former one-child policy. I could completely get behind the "rich world" doing more to sponsor such programs in poorer nations. I believe that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation are working perhaps not exactly like that but along those lines.
Lynnette, do watch that video, it's quite interesting.
"I saw a documentary on this state in India where they focused
really hard on education for girls."
Works in Africa too. In fact, it works pretty much across the board, in every culture where the effects of educating women has been studied. This phenomenon supports those ‘other theories’ that I mentioned before.
There is no downside to the education of girls or women. It seems to be those men who are very insecure in themselves who are the ones who object.
I have watched the first half of the video, Marcus. I will watch the other half when I get a chance, hopefully tonight.
Nate Silver tells us that Trump's ‘the system is rigged’ argument is working. 538
Of course it's working. It's a strong argument in a democracy if the candidate with a large lead in votes doesn't get to be the winner that the system was rigged.
That it was always so and that the primaries in each major party by the rules do not necessarily go to the one with the most popular votes is one thing.
That people see this as a rigged system is something else and it's IMO not surprising. Because an attempt at rigging it is just what it is. Then we can debate if this is good or bad and maybe a "good" thing is that it aims to keep some populists - who can sprig up in different shapes and forms at different times - at bay. It's still a rigged system though. So the argument is valid.
Not saying I'm enthralled by Thump. I still can't take him seriously and am in doubts when it comes to him as to what is bluster for votes or actual beliefs.
But if I did vote for a candidate, and that candidate got something like 30% more actual votes than the next contestor, then I would feel seriously pissed off if the "party" went with someone else. I for sure would feel then that the system was "rigged".
"It's a strong argument in a democracy if the candidate with a large
lead in votes doesn't get to be the winner that the system was rigged."
Al Gore lost the Presidency to Dubya in the year 2000 even though Gore got more votes than Dubya. The Republicans back then thought it was a fine thing that this is a republic we have here, technically not a democracy.
Rule's always been that ya gotta get a majority for the nomination for the Presidency; plurality don't cut it. Call it rigged if that pleases you, but that's always been the rule; Republican and Democrat Party both. (Trump didn't like those rules; he could have run as an independent; nothin’ stoppin’ ‘im.)
On another matter… I've been amazed at the lack of coverage, the casual disregard I've seen for the Saudi's snub of Obama when he touched down in the Magic Kingdom. He was met at the airport by a minor Royal figure, the equivalent of a cabinet officer or maybe a state governor. And, while they were waiting for the snub to became world-wide major news, Obama shrugged and laughed it off like it didn't matter (and, to him it probably doesn't).
But it's like nobody wants to talk about that now--Obama just blew it off and now nobody wants to touch it.
I did hear a small blurb about that. I think the Saudi's are not happy with regard to the potential lawsuits that could be filed against them by relatives of the 9/11 victims if our government allows the bill to pass recognizing their possible culpability in the attacks. The Saudis have threatened to dump US assets in their possession, I believe, if Obama signs that into law. Of course it has nothing to do with the Saudis maybe just needing money.
"I think the Saudi's are not happy with regard to the potential lawsuits
that could be filed against them by relatives of the 9/11 victims if our
government allows the bill to pass…"
Obama has promised to veto that one on the grounds that it'll open us up to retaliatory legislation, and everbody gonna wanna sue us. The Saudi's pique with Obama is over other matters.
Post a Comment