Sorry. There is just something particularly vile about any human being claiming hereditary power over another, no matter how ceremonial. If I had it my way, I would make it a capital offense for the holder of any title of hereditary nobility to step foot on US territory. I don’t care how well liked a king is or how well funded their PR department. You cannot be a good person while claiming the right from birth to rule over other human beings. It’s a moral abomination.

Call me a militant anti-monarchist if you want. But I truly believe the only good king is a dead one.

The only good king is a dead one.

Exactly. Classic monkey’s paw. You end up dying homeless and in the gutter. On your corpse the police find millions of dollars worth of checks to your name. You get to be a millionaire that dies of hunger and exposure to the elements.

Yes. Except in my mind it’s a monkey’s paw deal. You win endless discrimination lawsuits, but you just end up with a bunch of checks no bank will cash.

I’m pretty sure Ea-nāṣir stole it.

We moved into our new place in December. We had a fence post that needed replacing. The post was in a place that would work great for a fence gate. So I’m adding a new gate to our fence. This will serve to make the property as whole more accessible. It will also provide a means for those with mobility issues to enter the home without having to climb the big set of stairs at the front door.

I decided to make a proper project out of it. I could have just put in a simple gate, but I decided to go for something grander. I’m building a pergola gate! I’ve finished the columns and installed the first of two beams this evening.

The foundation of the gate are two 8’ long steel fence posts driven 3’ into the ground with a sledge hammer. The posts are approximately 5"x7", each made from five 2x6s laminated together. The beams are made from two cedar 2x6s edge joined together into a 2x12 beam. There will be two beams all together.

Tomorrow I’ll hang the second beam, add some cross pieces at the top of the beams, add some foundation reinforcement, and start building the actual fence gate.

Covid-19.

No you’re thinking of Woody from Toy Story. He died in an Apartheid South African prison in 1978.

As an actual trans woman, let me lay out the actual decision you have to make as a trans woman when deciding whether to carry for self defense. (I know the story had a trans guy, but I’ll speak from my perspective.)

I know that first of all, I have had dark times in my life, times I am now very glad I did not have access to a firearm. But beyond that, even using a gun in a true self defense situation is a Faustian bargain.

If I were to use a gun in self defense, I would almost certainly face charges regardless of the actual circumstances involved. The system really doesn’t like it when minorities use lethal force to defend themselves. Self defense situations are never clean. There’s always something they can charge you with if they really want to.

I can hear your objection already, “better judged by twelve than carried by six!” you say. First, juries don’t treat minorities defending themselves either. A third of the jurors will assume I’m a cannibalistic pedophile simply by default. But even if I can miraculously get a fair trial, being judged by twelve may still not be the better outcome.

Look up v-coding. In short, trans women tend to get sent to male prisons, regardless of the state of our identity or anatomy. Like I transitioned physically as far as it is possible for one to do so. I don’t even have male anatomy at all. My legal identity was charged years ago, and random strangers never read me as anything other than a middle aged woman. None of this matters. In many states in the union I would be sent to a men’s prison, simply because of what body I was born with. And once in prison, the norm is daily sexual assault and rape by prisoners and guards alike.

Even if I’m able to beat the charges, I’ll still realistically be looking at months in prison subject to daily sexual assault and rape.

Honestly, I’m not sure being carried by six is the worse option. Sorry, but I would rather take my chances and do everything I can to get away. I think I would prefer death over the consequences of actually using a firearm in even legitimate self defense.

If I’m looking for a charitable interpretation, this may be just the easiest crime to book him on. Actual charges can be changed later. I could see this maybe being the easiest charge to book him on, maybe the one that requires the least proof on intent. The goal initially is not to make the charge fit the crime, but to just get the guy in custody as quickly and easily as possible. Though this is admittedly a deliberately charitable interpretation.

The opposite could also happen. Countries facing direct threats to their own territory are less able to provide military aid.

This isn’t a language issue. The two forms I’m contrasting use the same definition of “could.” But there is a world of difference between:

1. A scenario which is uncertain, but real information indicates there is a decent chance of happening. (The “could” used in the article.)

2. A scenario which theoretically could happen, but is unlikely and there is no particular evidence available that the scenario is likely. (The “could” you’re using in your hypothetical about Russia disintegrating.)

An infinite number of things are theoretically possible. The article isn’t some baseless speculation saying, “hypothetically, there’s nothing in the laws of physics preventing Russia from invading NATO.” The article is instead saying, “while the intelligence is still uncertain, intelligence indicates a substantial probability of Russia invading NATO territory.”

It’s an issue of probability. The article is probably talking about a scenario with a 30% chance of happening in the next year, a scenario that has real evidence suggesting it’s likely in the near-term. You’re raising a scenario that probably has less than a 1% chance of occurring in the next year, one backed by pure speculation with no evidence at all behind it.

Intelligence is never certain. That doesn’t mean it’s useless.

It makes a lot of sense. You’re ignoring what a realistic action and response would look like.

The goal wouldn’t be to conquer large swathes of NATO territory. The goal would be to test the integrity of the NATO alliance, and to see if the Russian sympathizer sitting in the White House will renege on the US’s obligations.

Imagine Putin sends a few hundred troops over the border and seizes a small amount of land. NATO is not going to use that as an excuse to launch a total war against Russia. Sure, if the full might of the Russian army comes storming into Poland, NATO would let loose everything we have. But a limited incursion like in Georgia? If NATO is living up to its promises, sufficient force would be deployed to drive them out. There would be no need to launch a total war.

This would be a way to test the NATO alliance at relatively low cost and risk. We don’t actually know how Trump would respond to this. He could very well say, “not our problem” and refuse to render aid. If he did command the US military to defend NATO territory, then the cost to Russia would be small. A few hundred casualties in a war that’s caused hundreds of thousands. A rounding error. A small price to pay.

But imagine what Putin gains if Trump doesn’t offer assistance against even a small incursion. NATO’s guarantees will have proven fruitless. Even if someone more friendly to NATO gets elected after Trump, the promise will still be broken. Every NATO member from then on knows that the NATO guarantees cannot be relied upon. A guarantee that is subject to the whims of which American political party is in power is not a guarantee that nations can rely on for their national defense.

Do you understand the difference between the two forms of could used below?:

In theory, I, a regular person, could put in a lot of time, effort, and money, and become an Olympic athlete.

I am an Olympic athlete. I am set to compete in the Olympics tomorrow. I’ve regularly placed in the top levels of my sport. I could win a gold medal tomorrow.

Those chicks at the supply store are for small hobby farms. The rotisserie chicken comes from a big factory farm. That factory farm either doesn’t have to pay for chicks at all (they just breed their own), or they buy them for a fraction of the retail cost by buying them in bulk directly from suppliers.

Yeah the hate is weird. I’m not the biggest stream watcher, but I can respect the medium. Streamers are just doing the modern version of what AM talk radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh did. Not in terms of content or politics, but in terms of format. Limbaugh ran multi-hour long shows reacting to news and headlines. His listeners primarily listened passively, letting the radio run in the background of daily life. He would take calls and engage with his audience directly. Streaming is just modern talk radio.

Millennials had our share of people that were famous just for being famous. Paris Hilton anyone? We’ve always had influencers, people famous for no particular accomplishments or creative works. I actually prefer the modern version. The past versions were mostly folks from very wealthy backgrounds who came into the limelight due to family connections. If you’re already around a bunch of celebrities and media types because your family is incredibly wealthy, it’s easy for someone to translate that access into fame of their own.

In contrast, at least modern influencers have a decent shot at being from humble backgrounds. They’re still vapid and famous just for being famous, but at least they had to hustle to earn any amount of fame in the first place.

Sure. My point is that every generation that’s existed since mass consumer culture began will have their versions of this. Contrast Precious Moments figurines among Boomers to Funko Pops for Millennials.

Behold the inevitable future of funko pops.

You’re referring to Syncretism, and it’s extremely common in the Western world. 25% of American Christians report believing in reincarnation.