@FiveHourMarathon's banner p

FiveHourMarathon

Wawa Nationalist

16 followers   follows 6 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:02:26 UTC

And every gimmick hungry yob

Digging gold from rock n roll

Grabs the mic to tell us

he'll die before he's sold

But I believe in this

And it's been tested by research

He who fucks nuns

Will later join the church


				

User ID: 195

FiveHourMarathon

Wawa Nationalist

16 followers   follows 6 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:02:26 UTC

					

And every gimmick hungry yob

Digging gold from rock n roll

Grabs the mic to tell us

he'll die before he's sold

But I believe in this

And it's been tested by research

He who fucks nuns

Will later join the church


					

User ID: 195

By his description, everybody involved wanted to invade Iraq, but the dynamic that resulted in an invasion seemed to be that of the Abilene Paradox.

This doesn't really square with widely shared testimony from people like Richard Clarke, talking about the Pentagon meetings immediately after 9/11, like literally the next day:

I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002.

On the morning of the 12th DOD's focus was already beginning to shift from al Qaeda. CIA was explicit now that al Qaeda was guilty of the attacks, but Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy, was not persuaded. It was too sophisticated and complicated an operation, he said, for a terrorist group to have pulled off by itself, without a state sponsor—Iraq must have been helping them. I had a flashback to Wolfowitz saying the very same thing in April when the administration had finally held its first deputy secretary-level meeting on terrorism. When I had urged action on al Qaeda then, Wolfowitz had harked back to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, saying al Qaeda could not have done that alone and must have had help from Iraq. The focus on al Qaeda was wrong, he had said in April, we must go after Iraqi-sponsored terrorism. He had rejected my assertion and CIA's that there had been no Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States since 1993. Now this line of thinking was coming back.

By the afternoon on Wednesday, Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting Iraq." Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al Qaeda. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Colin Powell and his deputy, Rich Armitage. "I thought I was missing something here," I vented. "Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response Evacuate the White House 31 would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor." Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet." Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secretary Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.

Any stick will do to beat a dog. Dubya and his team intended to invade Iraq from the beginning, the GWOT and the absurd claims of ties to Bin Laden and the Axis of Evil and the invention of the WMD concept and the "welcome us as liberators" and madman theory and whatever else got thrown around at the time that I've since forgotten about; all that fundamentally didn't matter to the decision makers, they wanted to invade Iraq for mostly unrelated reasons. So for the rational planners further down the food chain, like the air force guys, the whole thing was confusing because the reasons they were getting for what they were doing were unrelated to the actual plan.

It simply doesn't have the strategic depth to handle regular hits on essential targets every single day; to win, total, unconditional and most importantly indefinite American offensive support would be necessary. Though if the Houthis are of any indication, even that might be insufficient.

I think the problem is more that Israel has all these ambitions about being a tech startup hub, and even occasional missile attacks pretty much end that prospect.

Iraq didn't stay a popular war for very long, but was it a genuinely unpopular invasion at the time?

Iraq was wildly popular at the start, though the people that make excuses that no one opposed it are equally wrong. It wasn't underwater until around 2006 or so. It didn't become unpopular until it became clear that the USA was not going to be able to get anything to stick.

It seems weird to say that I am free to punch other people (who don’t want to be punched) any time I like since they can always get their own back by slugging me in return.

But I didn't say that it was ok, just that it was different; sticking with your metaphor, there's a big difference between my punching someone who could realistically punch me back, and me punching someone who realistically could not. If I punch another large adult male who could punch me back, it's categorically less bad than if I punch a woman, child, weakling, etc. Escalating a conflict physically when I have escalation dominance is unacceptable, escalating a conflict physically when I do not may fall under acceptable mischief.

I've actually been thinking about this same kind of thing, and these kinds of social settings tend to have lower restrictions when you blend in, precisely out of a sense that you have as much to offer those around you as they have to offer you.

Just finished Norman Mailer's The Fight

I'm currently in the middle of reading, with three different people, All the Light We Cannot See, Infinite Jest, and Original Sin (the Jake Tapper book about Biden's dementia, not the probably forty seven thousand murder/romance books with the same name).

Next, I'm between continuing with Junger kick with Marble Cliffs, continuing with war stories with Band of Brothers, continuing with Mailer and war with The Naked and the Dead.

Like, this is the glitzy high-class counterpart to stories of underclass black guys vaulting the ticket barriers in BART stations.

The difference being that likely at some point the venerable @Rov_Scam will have a wedding or other event, albeit not one as high-end as all this, which someone in turn might crash. Where a bunch of guys turnstile hopping will never, in turn, have their turnstiles hopped.

As ever, we won't really know the answer until after the question is irrelevant. But we saw the 2024 elections already.

Why do repeats when the whole trail iirc from 20 years ago in boy scouts is around 12 miles?

Most guys with jobs complain about their jobs, it is nonetheless easier to have a job than not to have one.

Leaving aside those who can get all the benefits of a job without one, but those are rare individuals.

Or just keep a copy of the construction/as-built plans!

Redundancy is key! Don't keep just a single copy, and don't keep it in a digital format that might be difficult to access later. Don't count on others to keep them.

Because the house will be up for thirty or fifty years when you have a problem you need to deal with.

Re. 2, how do you recommend planning for it? Do you have an example?

Primarily by placing mechanicals (well pump, expansion tanks, water heater, air handlers, the first drain the septic system will back up into) in places where when they do leak, they won't destroy anything. Waterproof flooring, floor drains, leak protection, don't stack all your valuables and important paperwork right next to it, etc.

Do you think it would be possible to get away with less house? I'd actually prefer not to have to clean, cool, and maintain a huge house.

I've always been a fan, if not always a practitioner, of segmenting the house in ways that let you heat and clean selectively. I just have a ranch house, but the basement is on its own mini-split system, and as such we can keep it at a different temperature than the rest of the house, saving money. We also don't need to keep it as clean as it is primarily used as a hosting space other than the workout room. There's a lot of clever solutions to this. Though anyway, I'd imagine with five kids you shouldn't have problems getting chores done for cleaning the house.

Let's talk socialism and the NYC mayoral race

Why?

The primary reason Zohran won in the primary is Andrew Cuomo, the secondary reason that he won in the primary is anti-Zionism and the anti-idpol populist backlash that comes when outside forces try to tell local people who to vote for.

Andrew Cuomo was the candidate the establishment and the financial industry rallied behind in the primary, despite the fact he hasn't lived in the city in years, was covered in scandal on his way to resigning from the governor's mansion, and really didn't have a great record as governor to run on to begin with. There was no good reason for Andrew Cuomo to run for mayor of NYC.

Then the campaign begins and they go after Zohran for his supposed anti-Semitism. Twitter was filled with jokes about Israelis speaking out on the NYC mayoral race from their bunkers in Tel Aviv, and Andrew Cuomo swears allegiance to Israel. Zohran's enemies successfully made the most interesting and present aspect of the race the question of supporting or opposing Israel.

What this tells us is that accusations of racism on IdPol lines are not going to be enough, going forward, to decide elections. The antisemitism stick has been wielded so carelessly, that even cowardly urban Democrats are no longer cringing under the whip.

Specific random things, because most things are going to be covered by smarter guys than me:

  1. Plan one entrance to the house with no steps. Almost nobody does it, because it's difficult to handle the architecture/landscaping to make a ramp look good, but you totally can if you plan it from the start. Elderly people fall on steps all the time, and often hurt themselves. Also convenient for heavy stuff in general. If you plan for it now, you'll have it forever; if you have to rerig it later it will look bad, especially if it's at a time when you yourself are older/less capable.

  2. Anywhere water comes into your house will eventually leak. Plan for that now.

  3. That's a big house, think about how you're going to use the rooms. A lot of people end up with a big house with four rooms that are all variations on "couch and we watch TV in here;" or they all started as bedrooms and got adapted.

  4. Think of the repair guy. Don't put anything in a place where it will be difficult to extract when (not if, when) it needs to be serviced or replaced. Make it easy to reach the air handler, the water heater, the septic system, etc.

  5. Take pictures of the inside of all the walls before you close them up. Write notes and measurements. Store them in multiple places, hard copies, in the home, for the future.

No Hydro, I'm hearing you, but it's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about Ms. Zito. You can't really choose to live in 1890 in 2025, especially when you're in your mid twenties and your family is liberal and lives in another state. There is no realistic pressure that her family can exert on her erstwhile suitor, nor is she herself obedient to her parents' wishes regarding her dating life to begin with.

In 1890 there was an entire familial, legal, social infrastructure around the shotgun wedding. And all of that is required to produce the shotgun wedding. To start, it requires that your dad and male relatives want that for you and want to threaten force to get it done. It requires that society will look the other way when such violence occurs, and that society will look down on the cad who hits "betray" in such a way that he will have trouble finding life opportunities at all if he doesn't marry her.

Ms. Zito can't just magic all that into existence by wishing it were so. If she gets knocked up her New Jersey parents aren't going to threaten to beat the dude up if he doesn't marry her, and if they did the guy wouldn't take them seriously, and if they tried to beat him up he would call the cops and the cops would take his side, and if everyone at work knew what happened it would impact him minimally in his profession that he "stuck his dick in crazy" and "her parents stalked him" or something like that.

Great advice for a man, doesn't make "being crazy" a dominant female strategy.

Sure but that's vastly different.

"We're in a good faith relationship, and a pregnancy results, and we decide to move our timeline forward and get serious."

Has little in common with

"He thinks we're just having fun, I'm hoping to have his baby and force him to get serious."

If Congress didn't declare war, committing an act of war is illegal and unconstitutional. I didn't get this from whatever fantasy of Democratic talking points you're imagining, an opposition I haven't seen in any way in the newspapers I read, I got it from carefully reading my tattoo of the US constitution.

Yeah...I think planning to fuck without a condom or a ring and baby trap a guy and hope it works out is just about the best example of jugaad ethics imaginable.

Listening to Ms. Clark, Ms. Zito said, changed her life. She started a Bible study group, cut down her drinking and stopped dating casually as she focused on finding a husband. She stopped using birth control, taking up a natural family planning method recommended on Ms. Clark's show, and became dubious about abortions and vaccines. She no longer identifies as a feminist.

To Rightists with daughters reading this: are you concerned that they might encounter "natural family planning" on the internet and really f*** up their life?

It's fascinating to me how this line has been misinterpreted throughout this thread.

Ms. Zito started focusing on finding a husband, and at the same time swtiched to natural family planning. This pretty strongly implies, if not outright states, that Ms. Zito is still at least considering making love to somebody, despite the lack of a Mrs. in front of her name. Otherwise, after all, she wouldn't need any plan at all. If she's currently celibate, she didn't "take up" a natural family planning method! You don't need any birth control when you're celibate until marriage! You just...don't fuck, any time, until you get married!

Isn't this a great example of Jugaad Ethics from the Right? Taking the junker of Abstinence Only sexual ethics, and hitching it to the strong horse of woo-woo affirmation feminism? You don't have to not have sex that would be too difficult, just time your cum properly (in ways your male partner will be completely unable to track!) and you're trad enough!

The entire article feels that way. A pastiche of traditional femininity.

This feels much closer to Female Dating Strategy and online Gold Digging subcultures, than it does to any kind of ordered idea of patriarchy. We're getting this weird amalgamation of right wing and left wing ideas, of patriarchy and mid-century modern freedom of choice.

Did Congress declare war on Iran when I wasn't looking?

Yes. Leone literally decided to make the film while discussing Yojimbo with a colleague immediately after seeing it. Kurosawa's inspiration is less clear, but he was known to be a fan of noir and Hammett in particular, with Red Harvest being one of Hammett's best and most famous works. It seems unlikely that he missed it.

It could just be our location for whatever reason, but I have very little reason to keep going there after two mediocre sandwiches in a row.

The great advantage of any given Wawa food item is it's situation within the context of the entire Wawa menu. At 2am drunk on the boardwalk with your friends, somebody wants coffee, somebody wants cigarettes, somebody wants a sandwich, somebody wants a burrito. You all go to Wawa.

I've noticed the quality at my local jersey Mike's has declined precipitously since the PE buyout. I've basically abandoned the place.

Which is a shame as they used to send us dozens of BOGO coupons that made them fairly affordable.

My fantasy system is one where the right to buy almost any gun is licensed, but the licensing procedure is devolved to a local County Level gun club.

Virtually every gun owner I know thinks that some people shouldn't have guns, they just don't trust the government to make that determination. The anti-gun fanatics and the local range guys would agree on 95-99% of cases, but we can't get there because of agency and trust problems. If the anti-gun crowd granted gun owners the right to self-police gun licensing they would get most of what they wanted without a fight.

This is why one of my favorite policies is when I went for my CCW, I had to write down three references. At the time I thought, wow, what kind of dumbass policy is this, all I need to do to have a gun is have three friends? Then I heard of so many people who either can't find three people who will say they should have a gun and never apply; or who somehow manage to write down people who, when contacted, actively say they shouldn't have a gun! And while that's a minority of the people who shouldn't have guns, they definitely shouldn't have guns.

I'd want to see the same thing with gun clubs. To have a ccw or to buy certain classes of firearms, you have to be a member in good standing and spend time at your local gun club. This would require interacting with other people at the local gun club, who would naturally notice shitbirds or whackadoos or terrorists or the criminally insane in those interactions much more effectively than will the government.