TrickstaPriest

Meanwhile, the ugliness continues in Texas...
 

If that follows through, I may put Germany again on 'places I could move to'

Germany PULLS PLUG on Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10538807/Germany-PULLS-PLUG-Nord-Stream-2-gas-pipeline-pressure-builds-Biden-tougher-Putin.html
 
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced Tuesday morning in his stunning reversal of previously standing behind the natural gas pipeline: 'The situation has fundamentally changed.' 
Scholz has long resisted including the Russia-to-Germany $10 billion natural gas pipeline as a potential sanction if Russia invaded Ukraine.

You get that kind of sentiment routinely from Chinese who proclaim that Tibet and Taiwan have always been part of China, so that's the natural order of things. It's a sort of manifest-destiny dogma that isn't subject to reason or compromise.

He already did that with Georgia and Moldova, so, sure. Except that Ukraine is a special thorn in Putin's side because he believes, apparently sincerely, that there is not, never was, and never should be a separate country called Ukraine, the Ukraineans are just deluded Russians. Putin's strategy tree almost certainly involves using any attack on the separatists and their Russian allies as pretext to attack and take Ukraine in toto.
 
One of the great problems in dealing with Putin is that he *does* have strategy trees, and doesn't make a move until he is sure all paths lead to victory. (I suspect that even if Putin pulled his troops back today, he'll have learned a great deal about Western intelligence sources, methods and assets in Russia.) And Western governments are always timidly reactive. Western strategies always seem to be minimax -- minimize your maximum possible losses -- because they don't want to inflict pain on their own people, whether in the form of body bags or just higher gas prices.
 
But minimax is not a strategy to win. It is just a strategy to avoid losing big. Against a patient opponent who can predict your responses, it may be just be a strategy for losing by inches. Putin is such an opponent, and the democratic West is losing.
 
Rationally, I am not in a position to make intelligent suggestions of strategy in dealing with Putin. But I hope Western leaders are ready to be audacious, and irreversible. No more hedging. No more "off ramps." The Cold War has been back on for years, from Russia's side. It's past time Western leaders accepted it and began behaving appropriately.
 
Dean Shomshak

This is going bad fast.

A very fast moving afternoon with Russia and Ukraine.
 
Putin announced Russia is recognizing the two separatist areas of Ukraine to be independent nations.
 
A couple of hours later, the EU and US announced sanctions on Russia. UK said sanctions would be announced tomorrow.
 
Putin a few minutes ago announced he was sending troops into the two separatist areas for peacekeeping operations.
 
=================
 
EU responding with sanctions against Russia
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/02/21/press-statement-by-president-charles-michel-of-the-european-council-and-president-ursula-von-der-leyen-of-the-european-commission-21-february-2022/

UK announcing sanctions against Russia tomorrow


US announcing Executive Order to ban new investment, trade, and financing by U.S. persons to, from, or in the so-called DNR and LNR regions of Ukraine. It will also provide authority to impose sanctions on any person determined to operate in those areas of Ukraine. And will also soon announce additional measures related to today’s blatant violation of Russia’s international commitments.

These are in addition to economic sanctions we have been preparing in coordination with Allies and partners should Russia further invade Ukraine.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/21/statement-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-on-russian-announcement-on-eastern-ukraine/  
 
Putin orders Russian troops to separatist states for ‘peacekeeping operations’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/feb/21/russia-ukraine-news-latest-crisis-putin-biden-summit-kyiv-kiev-russian-invasion-threat-live-updates

Truth Social, a social media network developed by former president Donald Trump’s new media company, is now live on the iOS App Store in the US.
 
There appears to be some glitches downloading it but it is at least collecting people's names and emails at the moment.
 
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/21/22944179/truth-social-launch-ios-donald-trump-twitter-platform
 
It'll be nice when this gets rolling so Trumpists will have less time to troll other forums I frequent.

20 years ago, I would've LOVED to be physically 18 again, while mentally retaining the things I'd learned.  
 
Now?  No way.  That hand basket is just too close.

Remember when the tobacco industry was accused of marketing to kids?

I don't believe that's the key.  Understand:  
--US gas consumption is ~300 million gallons.  
--a gallon of gas has about 5.5 pounds of carbon, therefore produces about 20 pounds of CO2.  (Oxygen has a higher molecular weight.)
 
So *every day in the US alone* about 3 MILLION TONS of CO2 get generated.  Just from burning gasoline, not from any of the other ways.  I mention that to note that people don't understand the scope.  Each and every day.
 
From USGS:
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate
 
So fossil fuels aren't small.  Quite the opposite;  they are, I believe, THE LARGEST single factor.
 
This is a prime example of the ecological problem.  No, one person, 100 people, even 10,000 people don't have that much influence.  But there's 7 billion people.  And their cars, and industry, and animals.  
 
https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/food/animal-agricultures-impact-on-climate-change/
 
 
It's the scale that people can't comprehend.  
 
Now...forest fires?  The massive fires we've seen the last few years?  Not sure, but actually, it wouldn't surprise me that those are also worse than volcanoes, because not only do they emit massive amounts of CO2, they destroy a significant amount of carbon capture.  This is also a major concern with the rain forest destruction.
 
To Mr. P's point:  if you want the most obvious examples of how much man can do, it's probably the major dams like Hoover.  Lake Mead covers about 250 square miles.  Its overall impact on weather might be hard to say, but its creation *massively* impacted obviously the lake area, and the entire downstream area.  Granted, that isn't on a planetary scale;  it's one dam.  It can't have influence over that large an area.  

But people are everywhere...so they can.  

My favorite argument (if one can justify calling it that) is, "I don't believe that us puny humans can change the weather. We're not that powerful."*
 
My counterarguments:
 
1. Less than 20 miles from my classroom is a hole in the ground big enough to be seen from space. The leftover rock from that hole has been piled into geologic forms that have altered the mountains on that side of the valley. We've demonstrated that we're powerful enough to move mountains. It took a hundred years, but we did it. So why not the climate?
 
2. Could one puny human, in a single human lifetime, have a significant impact on the global climate (not weather)? No, of course not. But fifteen or twenty billion humans over the course of two and a half centuries? It would be foolish just to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
 
Again, the inability to think beyond one's own experience is telling.

The other form of climate denial I've encountered from people who ought to know better, is that human CO2 emissions are small compared to volcanic eruptions and things like that, so they can't be significant. Maybe the climate activists should be trying to stop volcanic eruptions! <snerk>
 
They forget human CO2 emissions happen on top of those natural sources. Here's the comparison I've devised, though I haven't had a chance to try it on someone who claims to be scientifically literate and rational:
 
Imagine a swimming pool. There are numerous faucets pouring into it, ranging from fire hydrants to dribbling taps. There are also numerous drains, both large and small. Some taps and drains are open all the time; others open and shut on a regular schedule. But over time, inflows and outflows balance. The water level fluctuates little, if at all.
 
Then you turn on another tap, that's stayed shut all this time. There is no corresponding new drain. It doesn't matter how big or small the new inflow is, compared to the other taps. Fast or slow, the water level rises. Eventually, the pool overflows.
 
Fossil fuels are one such tap. There are others. As a percentage of Earth's total carbon cycles, they may be small -- but decade after decade, it adds up.
 
Dean Shomshak

Climate science is largely the study of feedback loops. For example:
 
Higher temperatures → greater evaporation of water → higher atmospheric capacity to store heat → higher temperatures Higher temperatures → loss of sea ice → reduced reflection of sunlight back to space → greater heat absorption at the surface → higher temperatures  
...and so on.

I've come to believe there's a significant percentage of the human population -- which seems to be even higher among our political/economic elite -- who selfishly tell themselves that they'll be dead by then anyway, so why should they care, so long as they get everything they want while they're alive.

A humorous exchange in a not-very-serious discussion about the Democrats' mid-term elections chances:
 
 
Tongue-in-cheek pretending to be Biden: "The Democrats will do well in the mid-term elections. And anyone who says otherwise is a dog-walking My Little Pony soldier."
 
Reply from a random guy: "I disagree fats! I challenge you to a push-up contest!"
 
From the Peanut Gallery: "Judging from the pictures, I don't think Biden wears push-up bras. So you'd probably win...."

Was there 1500 trucks?  I heard it was only a couple dozen actual trucks.  Also I'm not one for vindicative behavior by the government... they have a legal framework for that already.

Wouldn't achieve that, even if it was possible, without disabling all the cell towers...and THAT would never fly, not just for this.  The situation would need to be massively, massively more important, more time critical.  For a protest?  It's using a dozen sticks of dynamite to kill a fly.

And let's also note that Canadian Covid fatigue is likely far more justified than most US Covid fatigue...health care workers being a massive exception.  Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh, I don' wanna wear a mask!!!!  Yes, I'm belittling it.  Intermittent working conditions, financial insecurity...those are huge.  But hey, in most areas?  There've been annoyances...not crises.  Those same issues have hit Canadians, too.  Too many of us feel too entitled and anything that denies us anything, no matter how small, is a personal insult.

Here is a different perspective on the handling of the Ottawa demonstrations, which I believe is worth consideration.
 
 
BTW Ottawa law enforcement have already started cracking down on the suppliers to the protestors, as Beau suggested.
 
 
I do thank you for the sentiment, but you shouldn't take all the responsibility. Canada has its share of reactionaries, and COVID fatigue is as much a social factor here as it is to the south. This demonstration snowballed because it drew in many people besides truckers who are generally fed up with it.
 
IMO the worst that can be said is that events in the US have catalyzed these responses in other countries.

So attempts to mimic the BS in Ottawa failed in both Toronto and Vancouver.  In Toronto police shut down the attempted process with ease and in Vancouver, citizens had the COVIDiots corralled before the police could even arrive.  In Ottawa, well I'd call the Ottawa Police Service a bunch of Zapp Brannigans but they don't even talk a good game.  Efforts are being made but it's clear that the Ontario Provincial Police or the RCMP, or both, will have to be sent in for the mess in Ottawa to be handled competently.  I expect many "protesters" to be arrested before this is over and many members of the OPS to lose their jobs, at the very least.

No, it isn't. Sauce for the goose is emphatically not sauce for the gander. Tempting though it may be to see how prominent Republicans enjoy being threatened by screaming maniacs or receiving anonymous death threats by phone or email, I would never recommend that, even in sarcasm.
 
For one thing, it would reinforce their own myths, that it's really the evil liberal Democrats who are the violent extremists and they are just defending themselves or giving as they've gotten.
 
There is *no* chance that any Trump-fawning conservative would see the irony, because the core of conservatism is different rules for different people. As one person I heard recently summarized it: Laws exist to protect some people, without binding them, and to bind other people, without protecting them. It fpollows that lawless violence by their side is patriotic resistance to tyranny, while lawless violence by the other side is mob anarchy.
 
And just as a practical matter, the Left + Center + Moderately Right can never be as good at political violence as the Far Right. It's an intrinsic part of their tribalist worldview. Under attack, they'll just find validation and double down.
 
I feel the temptation too, but... No. <sigh>
 
Dean Shomshak
 
 

That's just because they aren't anchored to the sinking ship.
 
 
It will be a victory of sorts if Trump-endorsed candidates fall in droves during the primaries, either to challengers for Republican candidacy or to Democrat opponents on election day. Trump and Trumpism need to be discredited as a viable route to victory, and Trump's influence over the GOP needs to be undercut.

According to the RNC, the only loose cannons in Congress are Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney.

Lead para from NYT story:

 
 
We've discussed whether the Trumpist election refulsal etc. was considered socially acceptable?
 
There is no more question.  If one of the only two mainstream parties does this, the answer is Yes.
 
EDIT:  I'll amend this slightly.  I'll stick by it unless a significant fraction of registered Republicans leave the Party.  Because this is a line in the sand move on their part, IMO.  You cannot call this "legitimate political discourse" while asserting you support democracy.