Maggie's Farm

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." — David Hume

You can hardly see Trump's wall at all.

A Pale Blue Dot: "Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

Bill Carson: And among that hodgepodge of "all" and "every", alas, exactly zero Hillary Presidency.

That's rather the point of Anders' essay. Caesar, Shakespeare, P.T. Barnum, Trump's Wall, all encompassed in a single image smaller than his fist.

"Fifty years later, 'Earthrise' — the lingering imprint of our mission — stands sentinel. It still reminds us that distance and borders and division are merely a matter of perspective. We are all linked in a joined human enterprise; we are bound to a planet we all must share. We are all, together, stewards of this fragile treasure."

Bill Carson: The image of Hillary's non-existent Presidency occupies zero volume

Got it! It's the same volume as Trump's Wall — or Christmas spirit!

Rusty: I notice that the Northwest Passage is completely frozen. Just like it was 50 years ago.

As the Arctic Melts, the Northern Sea Route Opens for Business

NSR, Northwest Passage Open for Shipping: "According to the Global Ice Center (GIC) at Weathernews, the northeast passage along the Russian coast has been open to shipping traffic since August 18th, and the northwest passage across Canada has opened from September 1st, enabling opening of the both passages for the first time since 2013."

Rusty: - Once again proving that you do not read or comprehend the articles that you blindly link to.

Proving once again that you are impervious to evidence. The northwest passage has been open off and on during the summer since 2007. A large number of ships made the passage in 2017, and while 2018 was more difficult, at least two ships completed the journey.

Rusty: Now it's moving goalposts?

The goalposts are right where they started. You claimed that "the Northwest Passage is completely frozen. Just like it was 50 years ago." That claim was false.

Rusty: Truth is, the Northwest Passage is completely frozen. Just like it was 50 years ago.

If so, it wouldn't be navigable during the summer months. Book your cruise now!

Rusty: R: "But right now it's frozen."

But that wasn't your claim, but that it was frozen "just like 50 years ago." At the very least, your claim is misleading. And, in fact, it is false. The ice is thinner, even in winter, with multiyear ice being significantly reduced. You wanted to pretend to make a point, but didn't want to actually own your position.

Rusty: 50 years ago the passage was frozen.
Today, it is still frozen.

The word "still" reveals your ambiguity. still: up to and including the present or the time mentioned. The Northwest Passage has not been frozen for 50 years, but only for a few months. During the summer months, the Passage was mostly open in 2018, and fully traversable in 2017.

Rusty: Oh and before you plunk down $30,000 for your fossil fuel guzzling Eco-Cruise, you may want to think twice.

We discussed this above. Only two ships made the entire Passage this year, though much of the Passage was navigable.

Rusty: I'm guessing you were breast fed until you were 17.

Are you a troll?

Here's the second paragraph:


1. The editor clearly distinguishes criticizing Trump with criticizing America.
2. Criticizing Trump on policy grounds doesn't make one deranged.

The NJ: What policies?

That's irrelevant to the point that someone might criticize the U.S. president without 1) criticizing America, or 2) being deranged. Nor has criticism of Trump just gone international.

Criticisms include playing coy on the NATO treaty of self-defence, backing out of international agreements including the Iran nuclear deal, siding with authoritarian regimes while distancing the U.S. from democratic countries, the cavalier use of racially and ethnically divisive rhetoric, and Trump's shortsighted notions of America First that devalues longstanding alliances essential to maintaining stability and America's own long-term self-interest.

Christopher B: The inaccuracies they identified had nothing to do with Trump or Trump's policies, and everything to do with the article painting a biased and misleading portrait of Americans who voted for Trump and/or support Trump.

Yes, but Durden claims that criticism is the same as "Derangement" and that criticism of some Americans is a criticism of some Americans of the country as a whole. There is a case to be made for this, but that is not their position. That makes Durden's argument a strawman.

Durden: American media has made it acceptable for foreign media to write fake articles about the US president

But no one thinks that fake articles is acceptable. Indeed, Der Spiegel publicized the problem, and they are looking into criminally charging the person responsible for the fake articles.

mudbug: NATO treaty of self defense... Where does one start?

One would start with the main point, which has nothing to do with whether you agree with their policy positions, but whether one can criticize Trump without it implying criticism of America as a nation. That's part of the problem with the Presidential system, where the head of government is also the head of state. A parliamentary system typically separates the roles: so, "Down with the Prime Minister! But God save the Queen!"

mudbug: Most of the NATO countries have been using their military as a welfare program rather than a real military - spending way too much on salaries at the expense of materiel budgets.

NATO Article 5 has been invoked only once since its inception in 1949. When was that? And who invoked it?

mudbug: most NATO countries spent very little on defense in the first place.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, most countries reduced their military spending. With the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration, NATO allies committed to increasing spending to 2% of GDP within 10 years. Toward that end, NATO military spending has been increasing.

mudbug: NATO was set up to primarily counter a threat from Russia! (Russia! is one word nowadays) but Germany decided to heat their buildings with Russian natgas.

Trade with Russia has always been a part of the strategy of integration, which makes outright war less likely. Russia instead uses cyberwarfare against democratic societies, and foments troubles along its borders.

mudbug: There is another authoritative hostile government developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads with enough range to reach parts of Europe. That would be Iran of nuclear deal fame.

Yet Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons even though they have the technological capability. They surrendered most of their centrifuges and enriched uranium under the agreement. Ultimately, any country can develop nuclear weapons. It's 1940s technology after all. And they will develop such weapons if it is in their national interest, so that is the object, to convince countries that it is not in their best interest and to offer a view of the future that supplants military adventure.

mudbug: has ridiculously weak inspection provisions.

Actually, the Iranian inspection regime was the most comprehensive ever agreed to, more stringent than the Iraqi inspection regime which successfully oversaw the end of Iraq's nuclear program. The yellowcake uranium that was under U.N. seal before the war was still under seal when the American raced past on their way to Baghdad.

mudbug: That restricted the amount of "greenhouse gases" from the US and others, but "developing nations" could pollute with impunity for decades.

That is incorrect. Developing countries also agreed to cap then reduce emissions under the treaty. For instance China agreed to reduce emissions per unit of GDP by 60 to 65 percent from the 2005 level, and to increase forest stock volume by 4.5 billion cubic meters over 2005 levels.

mudbug: the US is not supposed to consider its own interests first?

U.S. interests, like all great trading empires, depend on strong alliances and global stability.

mudbug: The US has been bleeding manufacturing jobs for decades

That's because basic manufacturing is easy now. Anyone can make simple widgets. India makes as many cars as the U.S. They even make cars in Vietnam. But they don't make smart cars. If you want to compete, you'll have to make a cheaper product, or a better one.

Bill Carson: Der Speigel can criticize President Obama without being racist.

Sure.

Bill Carson: Der Speigel returned the favor in momentarily conducting objective journalism.

While not necessarily objective, it's opinion, nonetheless it contradicts your previous implication.

BD: Just negotiating. It's effective.

Sure. Siding with authoritarian regimes with small, restrictive economies while insulting democratic allies with large, open economies is "just negotiating". The end result will be to lose the trust of those with most in common with the U.S.

indyjonesouthere: I'm still waiting to see a copy of the Iran nuke deal.

Here. You're welcome.

indyjonesouthere: I see a document with no signatures or approval by the Iranian parliament or US Congress.

Baby steps. Now you have the document.

It's an agreed framework, not a treaty, that all the parties, except the U.S., have been following. As part of the deal, Iran reduced its working centrifuges used to refine uranium by 3/4, and surrendered 98% of their refined uranium stockpiles. Producing refined uranium is the most difficult aspect of developing a nuclear weapon, so surrendering the refined uranium was a significant concession. Now that the U.S. has withdrawn from the deal, Iran may increase their production of enriched uranium, but has so far said it will continue to abide by the deal.

indyjonesouthere: Nice document but nothing in it was ever verified.

The surrender of the refined uranium was verified, and Iran's facilities are still under the inspection regime. However, if the deal collapses due to U.S. sanctions, then there will be no incentive for Iran to avoid making a nuclear weapon, and no reason to trust the Americans if they want to make another deal. Not sure how this makes the situation better.

indyjonesouthere: The UN is notoriously incompetent at finding WMD's as are most international bodies.

Especially when they aren't there. It was the U.S. that insisted Iraq had WMD, but determined after the invasion that Iraq had disarmed.

indyjonesouthere: The document means NOTHING

Of course it does. It meant that Iran would and did surrender 98% of its enriched uranium, by far the most difficult part of building a nuclear weapon, and that they would and have submitted to inspections.

indyjonesouthere: An unsigned and unwitnessed contract has no meaning in any court of law.

No, but it has meaning to those working within the framework. Continuing to ignore that Iran surrendered the vast majority of their enriched uranium, and have allowed for inspections, doesn't constitute a rebuttal.

indyjonesouthere: Did they find any WMD in Iraq after the invasion?

CIA's Final Report: No WMD Found in Iraq

George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack

indyjonesouthere: You simply hope and then state that they surrendered their refined uranium.

The uranium was surrendered under international oversight.

indyjonesouthere: They did find WMD in Iraq but not the latest manufacture.

The only WMD found were degraded munitions that had been lost by the Iraqi regime. We provided two citations, including from the U.S. agency which scoured the entire country for WMD. Documentary evidence confirms that Iraq had disarmed.

indyjonesouthere: The signatories are imaginary and the investigations of fact are based on an imaginary scenario that is disputed by the involved parties.

Ignoring the facts doesn't make for a convincing argument. Iran surrendered the vast majority of its enriched uranium. Producing enriched uranium is the most difficult and time-consuming component of building a nuclear device.