SeanF

Just now, Maithanet said:

Ridiculously premature to say that.

If this passes the House (without some kind of poison pill that Dems will never support), then it'll get through the Senate+WH in a matter of days.  But I would personally put the odds that this doesn't get torpedoed one way or another at only a shade above 50/50. 

Perhaps I’m over optimistic- but I think it will pass.  

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, depends on your definition of bipartisan these days, but the three foreign aid bills are being proposed by the Republican Speaker and endorsed by the Democratic president.

As Kal suggested, MAGA Senators may whine and moan and demand votes on dumbass amendments for a few days, but if they pass the House, Biden WILL sign them into law within a week.

Speaking of dumbass amendments, MTG is currently trolling the House with absurd amendments.  My favorite is this response:

 

Credit where it’s due.  Mike Johnson has realised that it’s time to act like an adult.

Just now, Rippounet said:

Analyses have shown that by the 19th century, Britain was consuming 2 or 3 times the raw materials that it could produce.

Annoyingly enough, I don't have the references handy right now. But those are the studies that are described as "woke" by the right here. The right wants such facts burried, because they show that there was something deeply predatory about the Western model from the start.

This is the "standard" conservative narrative, and funnily enough it's deeply misleading.

The industrial revolution and capitalism put people in factories to produce stuff. That was possible because fewer people were required to man the fields, which itself had been made possible through several factors (technical progress, a stable climate, better trade... ). And at first it was absolute hell on Earth, until sanitation, urbanisation, and unions made the thing livable.
To credit technological progress or capitalism for the benefits of history is... biased.
 

Of course it’s biased.  My bias is that private enterprise, free trade, and industrialisation were and are all good things.  If GDP per head was still at the level of 1800, the world would be a far more brutal place than it is today.

12 minutes ago, Gorn said:

America?

Two key raw materials for the industrial revolution were iron and coal, and Britain (as well as other Western European countries) didn't need colonies for that, since they had plenty on their own soil. It wasn't until 20th century that demand for rubber and oil caused colonies to become a crucial part of the industrial ecosystem.

The Industrial Revolution and modern capitalism floated (almost) all boats.  In 1820, 89% of the world’s people lived in absolute poverty, compared to 8% now (and 55% when I was born, in 1967).  Even Marx realised that capitalism created abundance.

Reading up about Mark Menzies’ history of drunken and erratic behaviour, I wonder what the Conservatives were thinking, by keeping him as an MP.  But then, that applies to so many of the MP’s.

52 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If it's a Tory MP then most likely he couldn't pay for the call girls (or boys) he had hired, or the blow. I'm sure the pimp had come round and demanded payment. 

That seems the most likely explanation.  These people don’t offer credit.

29 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It's surely socially unacceptable to do it now anyway, and I would suspect that the people who smack their kids will not be too worried about the law. 

There are times with young children, though that you cannot just sit them down and discuss why what they did was wrong. I used to think parents who scream at their kids were just awful, and yeah they are if they do it all the time. There is a point where kids need to understand that they have REALLY done something wrong. 

6 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

It should also be noted that there's also, among some of the Iranian population, resentment towards what they pretty much consider as upstart camel-herders from Arabian desert, who conquered their great and wealthy Persian empire and ruled over the whole Persian land for many centuries.

Yet there's also the Shia/Sunni schism, which complicates matter because the divide isn't exactly an ethnic/linguistic one and the Shiite world overlaps a bit into the Arab peoples bordering Iran, and actually all along the Fertile Crescent. Ironically, this was a purely internal Arab affair at the beginning, but eventually Persians/Iranians chose the minority side in part to set them apart from the Arab world.

I think some Iranians view the Arab conquest as a national humiliation.

25 minutes ago, mormont said:

While this evening’s tally shows quite a few Tories have an issue with the measure on that latter principle, or at least think there are votes in that stance n, mostly they’re content with the usual ‘liberty for me, not for thee’ position.

As for supply, since your ‘dealer’ only needs to be someone born before 2008, there seems no space for organised criminal involvement.

https://x.com/number10cat/status/1780228873247948916?s=61&t=VAHy5UztwfQqm4Pp6VIw0w

“Liberty for me but not for thee, “ is, I think, a common position.  Think of the fairly big minority who wished to ban nightclubs for good, during the pandemic.  There was a pollster interviewed on Radio 4 this evening, who said that 30%+ will automatically agree with the government when they say they want to ban something.  So long as it’s not something they themselves care about.

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Truss likes to appear to be an purist and an ideologue, but the opposite is true. There isn't a position she won't take if it means it will advance her career. She might have some sort of point about the impartiality of the civil service, but it doesn't help her point if they played a part in preventing her doing what she wanted to do.

I get the sense however that she has had some sort of breakdown after stepping down. There are more than a few whiffs of persecution complex about her now, a lot of bitterness in the way she talks. Ok she admits to making mistakes, but not really on the big fundamental mistakes.

Also, the smoking ban is surely a stupid idea in the first place? I hate smokers and would for everyone to stop, but aren't we already at a point where smoking is dying out anyway? It seems pretty rare to see someone actually smoke a cigarette these days. 

Truss is quite lacking in self-awareness.  

Just now, Heartofice said:

It just seems like an area where the government doesn’t really even need to intervene. Smoking has been going down with young people and I’d bet that trend will continue.

So if society is pretty much achieving this result on its own, why do we need the government to step in and take a much harder step?
 

 

Vaping has just become a lot more popular than smoking, with younger people.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah its essentially saying nobody born after 2009 can ever buy a cigarette, so it is a ban for those people. As I said, I'm hugely anti smoker, but even I think the law is mostly just completely unnecessary. 

Agreed.  Prohibition of drug possession has not been notably successful.  All that happens is that distribution of the product passes into the hands of criminals.

And, it’s quite illiberal.

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The same in the ye olde golden age of Athenian democracy!

 

Often, a "tyrant" in the Greek world was someone who did terrible things like freeing slaves, or proclaiming debt relief, and based his political power on lower class supporters, at the expense of decent, landowning, slave-owning folks.

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Speaker Johnson announced last night that Ukraine and Israel aid were going to come to a vote in the House on Friday.  Details of exactly what will be included are not clear, but it is expected to be close to the $60 billion that has been discussed.  It may include some less favorable things like loans for a portion of the aid (but not even close to the full amount, maybe like $10 billion in long term loans and $50 billion in aid).  This is Donald Trump's stupid idea and so we should assume Johnson will probably include it. 

Now, there are still a lot of potential hurdles.  The biggest is probably Johnson straight up changing his mind before Friday, but this is the first time that we've had an actual date on a vote.  In all likelihood if it comes up, it will pass, because there are plenty of Republicans and virtually all Democrats that will vote for this.  It will then almost assuredly need to go to the Senate which will slow things down again, but probably it goes through there without too much issue, since McConnell and Schumer are both pro-Ukraine. 

So...we'll see but there's reason for cautious optimism. 

MTG will rant and rave.

12 hours ago, Zorral said:

For sure, and not only weak, but misinformed as to these soldiers not cognizant in Latin.  That was at least as much the mission of the Roman armies in disputed and conquered lands -- it latinized not only the mercenaries or auxiliaries, but the populations as a whole, and not only terms of language.  And even by the days of the dominance of the Eastern Empire, christianizing them.  Which then leads to those who argue that "Rome" never "fell," since ultimately so many of those Goths who moved into what was the western empire had been so successfully Romanized in administration and taxes, the army, the language and religion. As you are aware, Theodoric and Ravenna are sort of these historians' and arguments' crucible.

I do think the fall of the Western Empire was bad news, for the next 4-500 years.  Trade slowed to a trickle, warfare was endemic, populations declined, livestock became smaller, literacy became less widespread (even if serious historians now dismiss the notion of the Dark Ages).

But, by 1200, the standard of living in England, France, Italy, the Low Countries was well above where it had been 1,000 years previously, and societies were somewhat freer (being a villein beats being a chattel slave).  The sheer inventive cruelty that the Roman elite devised for the lower classes who stepped out of line makes their medieval counterparts seem liberal by comparison.

Gibbon’s claim that the best time to be alive was the 2nd century could be only be made by a man who envisaged himself as a senator, rather than a peasant, a slave, a woman, or a religious dissident. To paraphrase Brett Devereaux, your chance of being a senator would be 1 in 19,200.  Your chance of being the latter would be 9 in 10.

On 4/13/2024 at 6:38 AM, HexMachina said:

When Joe writes clichés it seems to be done in an intentional way, and there's always that Abercrombie twist that makes it his own.

BSC is probably still my favourite book of his and at its core its a run of the mill revenge story but so well done

Eta: Obligatory "please listen to the audio books because Steven Pacey is incredible"

I agree that it’s my favourite, too.  Cosca, Friendly, and Morveee, the ethical poisoner, are just hilarious.

12 minutes ago, .H. said:

This series of blog posts has been posted on the board numerous times, but I guess some might not have come across it before, but it covers the trope that the Freman seem to operate under pretty well.

Brett Devereaux is recommended by so many people, and of so many different political persuasions.

The only other person who can explain operations, battles, tactics as well as he does is Bernard Cornwell.

Dune (like ASOIAF to some extent), relies on the trope that a harsh environment creates almost unbeatable warriors (Sardaukar, Fremen), who can rout ten times their number of soft, “civilised” peoples.

Whereas in reality no army is that good.  And civilised peoples are actually pretty good at inflicting lethal violence.

In reality, Paul’s military dominance comes down (as in real life), to logistics.  He has a monopoly of spice, the Universe’s equivalent of petrol.

Zorral, this is in response to the piece you linked to on the Ukraine thread.  Since, I'm dealing with Rome, I'll post here.

Thanks.  That's interesting, but I disagree with a lot.

I think the section on Rome is weak.  Rome's most "native" soldiers - the Praetorian Guards - were repeatedly disloyal, and venial, and increasingly despised as parade ground soldiers by the legions.  Conversely, many German tribesmen took their oaths of loyalty to the Emperor  extremely seriously.

I don't actually think there was very much wrong with the Western Roman Army in the Fifth Century.  Stilicho, Aetius, Majorian, Aegidius were all able to pull off comfortable victories over "barbarians".  And, or course, Eastern Rome survived intact. What destroyed the Empire was endemic civil war.  The first three were murdered, for the crime of being competent. Tribes like the Goths, who were not badly disposed towards the empire, were repeatedly fucked over by imperial authorities, and made into enemies.

There's nothing at all wrong with training up local forces, provided they have something they feel is worth fighting for.  Kurdish and Shia militias in Iraq had every reason to fight Islamic State.  The ARVN and Afghan army simply had no commitment to governments that lacked any real support among the wider population.

The Taliban are abysmal, but their cruelty is directed at women, and religious minorities, and most powerful Afghans are untroubled by that. The Viet Cong were nationalists, more than they were communists, to most of the South Vietnamese population - unlike say, the insurgents in Malaya.  Nationalism is way more popular than Communism.

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This article illustrates, again, how the Ukraine war, on the Ukraine side, is quite different from how contemporary powers have conducted their colonial wars, i.e. Ukraine unlike Russia is not engaged in a grab for territory and resources.

What it means when the mercenaries appear
Elliot Ackerman’s new novel is “2054,” written with retired Adm. James Stavridis. This piece is adapted from an essay in the spring 2024 issue of Liberties, a journal of culture and politics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/15/liberties-mercenaries-wagner-group-warfighting/

 

Sean -- I sent the full text of the piece to you via private message, thinking lots of bits in it would be of interest to you -- not necessarily informing you -- unlikely! -- but still of interest.  It goes rather well, too, in places with Brett D's latest entries.

 

I thought it an interesting piece, but I disagree with a lot.  But, rather than derail the Ukraine thread with my comments on Rome, I thought I'd post my response to the History in Books Section, as well as PM you.

On 12/10/2023 at 9:12 PM, KingStoneheart said:

I do believe that a large portion of what "generally" happened in the show will play out in the books in some way or another (in a significantly better and more well thought out way) and one of those things that I think will happen is some sort of "ceasefire" between Dany and Cersei after a while (so that Dany and her dragons can fight some zombies). I know many people in the fandom also feel that Cersei will kind of be an afterthought to the Long Night / War against the dead (many compare her to Saruman in LotR during the Scouring of the Shire) and so I'm wondering how people think this will play out in the Books?

Of course, we are A LONG way away from this moment happening, but still what sort of things do you think will lead up to Daenerys willingly sending her army North whilst she still knows Cersei is in the game - as that just seems like an insane move. I know in the show, they had a Wight Hunt but that is also a ridiculous plot that will not make the book, so what will be the persuading factor do we think?

Personally, I think something along the lines of the North plead for help, Dany rejects that to fight her war, eventually the Others break through the Wall and Dany's like "oh... they were right" and flies North. But by this point, King's Landing may have already been burned to the ground and Cersei could either be missing (en route back to Casterly Rock somehow) or already back there and hiding inside the impregnable rock (both impregnable by siege and wildfire). Because of this and her being trapped there, it makes it a lot easier to head North and leave her behind as an afterthought.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that Aegon will take Kings Landing with the Dornish and Golden Company.  Likely he weds Arianne, and they enjoy a honeymoon period.

But, I expect that Jon Connington and the Sands will be out for revenge.  That means that Tommen, Myrcella, and Margaery will be put to death, creating enemies in the West.

Euron will also be raiding the West, and who knows if he takes Kings Landing.

The North will be controlled by Stannis or Jon, and who knows who the Vale will side with?

By the time Dany arrives, I expect the Seen Kingdoms to be in a state of anarchy.

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

That's an interesting idea, but I see the Prologues as alternating between Others/wights and not-Others/Wights.  I don't think Pate's prologue chapter in AFFC really has anything to do with fire unless you're really seeking to make everything in the story about either ice or fire.

This is what I'm thinking and hoping.  I hope Sybell Spicer Westerling is the POV character in the Prologue, and even though George Martin said he isn't committed to the POV character always dying in the Prologues, I would not be sad to see her go.  She sacrificed her son for a power-grab, and I don't believe for a moment that she didn't have a good idea that Raynald was walking into a massacre.  I generally don't like the claim of "If you didn't see them die, they aren't dead", but I hope Raynald is alive and has joined the Brotherhood, and Sybell sees her son that she betrayed watching as Lady Stoneheart hangs her.  Sybell Spicer Westerling is definitely one of the most despicable minor characters in the story.

Her readiness to sacrifice her own children for gain is disgusting.

14 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I'm sorry but the seeming current trend in US political discourse to equate support for Ukraine and support for Israel as morally similar things or even vaguely similar issues

is

fucking

insane

Unfortunately, it’s probably the only way of getting aid to Ukraine through Congress.

Tansy the prostitute was once intended to be Hoster Tully’s illegitimate daughter.

Had the five year gap been implemented, Pretty Meris would have been Brienne, after years of brutalisation.

Val is related to the Others.

On 4/11/2024 at 6:03 PM, sifth said:

Yea, but why aren’t any of these locations just creating their own armies? Trusting a sellsword company seems a lot more risky than using your own army of loyal soldiers.

A standing army is hugely expensive, and most of the time, it’s idle.  Only the mightiest empires would consider that the expense justified it - because mighty empires need to maintain garrisons, use soldiers to extract taxes from subject populations, and to repress insurgencies.  Imperial armies (eg Rome, China, the East India Company), are just as much gendarmeries, as forces intended to fight external enemies.

That simply does not apply in Westeros.  Nobody views the Kings as a foreign imperial power.  And the free cities aren’t empires either, although Volantis is the closest to one, and their tiger soldiers likely are a standing army.

What Westeros does have is a standing navy, and that makes sense as piracy is a constant menace.