domain:mattlakeman.org
So! There's a tiny chance I'll be booted out of the US because 5 decades ago my parents were illegal immigrants and the SCOTUS might agree they were foreign invaders.
Meanwhile, right-wing nativist Chuds in my parents' country have decided they think bloodline-based citizenship is the actual menace and are taking steps towards ending it.
I don't really want to live in the old country, but to add insult to injury it's narrowly possible I'll lose residency in the US while my kids lose residency in the old country and navigating that sounds really unpleasant.
This is really speculative of course. But for peace of mind, are there any decent countries that I can buy a citizenship in? Either cash money or via "investment"? The obvious contenders like Cyprus and Portugal seem to have scaled back the enticements recently.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
5m ago
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.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
23m ago
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.
hydroacetylene
25m ago
I do remember all those photos; I remember lots of democrats awful proud of Iraqi elections even if they didn't like Bush. The war was well-defended on 'liberal' grounds and maybe I'm just confusing liberal and leftist here but I recall plenty of definitely-not-Bush voters awfully supportive of the war.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
36m ago
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.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
39m ago
Look, maybe I’ve wildly misinterpreted the character of your coworker. It’s possible.
Maybe he’s a genuine stoic and competent and successful badass in a way that an internet tough guy such as myself can only dream of.
Unfortunately, I only have the anecdotes you provide, and which you are using to bolster your argument, and you don’t paint a flattering picture of him.
Having a wife is a job in itself - my coworker every day.
My recently divorced coworker begs to differ.
I've never had a single person tell me it's easier to have a wife. In fact it's the one thing I hear most guys complain about at work.
Maybe these are different guys, but I’ve never met someone who complained about one thing as often as you allege this guy complains, who wasn’t just a generally bitchy loser at life. Telling you what it looks like from outside of whatever pre-existing relationship you have with this guy is a suggestion, a blunt but fair one in my opinion, to take stock of the amount of credibility you give this guy.
Because the male winners of the world are clearly finding something in marriage that is valuable enough to keep going back for it. A quick glance at the world’s 10 richest men tells me that they are all either currently married or have had multiple marriages. Larry Ellison, 80, has had 6! He clearly thinks his current 33-year old Chinese fuck doll/trophy wife is bringing something to the table that he couldn’t get from a rotating stable of prostitutes and 3 additional assistants. Even Elon, who seems most willing to break the mold, appears to pine for marriage in general and Grimes specifically.
The richest men who ever lived, wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of kings and potentates, easily able to move to Thailand or Dubai and have more concubines than Solomon, are still choosing to get married. So maybe “wife guys” are more directionally correct than your coworker, because his constant griping does not appear to bear out in reality.
Maybe to you I’m just another internet tough guy loser. That’s fair if you want to think that way! But Bezos isn’t. Shit, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un aren’t. These are guys who are still ruthlessly having their opposition beheaded or AA gun’d to death.
So maybe “wife guys” are more directionally correct than your coworker, because his constant griping does not appear to bear out in reality. Maybe he is just the male version of:
Why should the women who win at life pay heed to the women who lose? And why should anyone take the advice of the women who are by comparison losers?
Which is the same as my argument, except mine had more rude words, I guess. Although I want to reiterate; you paint a very unflattering picture of your coworker.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
48m ago
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.
it_is_so_weird_to_be
53m ago
It's interesting because eating food "just for the taste" is in a way affirming the evolutionary reason. Our taste buds evolved for a reason. Just because we've figured out how to make some tasty foods that lack nutrition doesn't mean we like to eat doritos despite our evolution. Our bodies literally think we are getting nutrition when we seek that out.
Likewise, a woman painting her face and dressing scantily may tell herself it's for her own confidence or whatever. But it doesn't refute that she's doing it for male attention and reproductive success. I think the audience discussion is a bit of a red herring, although there are some interesting points to be made there.
iprayiam3
58m ago
Right which is why she can’t criticize it on that front. So the present moral distaste is transferred onto something else
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
59m ago
Homies: Ride or Die
FINALLY got most major issues with car solved. Switched to PBR ("physically based rendering") from old school Phong-style. Really took this to the next level (pic attached).
Also the wheels now spin properly, the lighting and normal maps stay consistent, I can even select the brake callipers and steer them along with the the front wheels.
The problem the entire time is seemingly that the obj/mtl data files were garbage, and I lost several weeks worth of time using those. I cannot believe how consequential stupid shit like choice of file format is. I'm sure there are dev teams that have wasted millions of dollars from this one decision.
Anyway! I'm told the next thing I want to do is add environment mapping (having the skydome, etc reflect off the car) to really make it pop.
TRON bike lighting
Finally getting back to this. The parts arrived for the $4 PC case fan and charcoal filter and I made myself a fume extractor that impressed my daughter.
The war was always unpopular with the left, though at the time even anti-war activists would do a lot of throat clearing about how evil Saddam was. It was very popular with the right, who mostly, as you say, thought removing Saddam would turn Iraqis into democracy-lovers. (Remember all those photos of Iraqis proudly showing off their purple fingers?)
More options
Context Copy link