I had this wrong. In my defense, there had been excessively little coverage of this plan on American TV or media.

Astonishingly, this was the UN, through Turkey as an intermediary, negotiating between Russia and Ukraine to allow safe passage of Ukrainian grain ships out of Ukrainian ports for sale on the world market, and more astonishingly, it’s been successful. Russia has agreed to allow and guarantee safe passage to, and Ukraine guarantees safe passage through minefields for cargo ships going in and out of these ports held by Ukraine.

rather thought some of the ribs were delicious.

no offense, but there was some 'kill, kill, kill' theme in those treatises.

in defense, learn about the Holocaust at an age most youngsters have just mastered tying their shoes. nix the naiveté or naïveté or naivete?* herr? ['tho didn't finish 'Night', as traveling through that deep of darkness, one could easily fall into the abyss.]

seriously. psycop was cool. me, chill. thee? like a blitzkrieg attack on anyone differing in the least. ya' know? like a culling of anyone un-erring.

no. not down w/pedicide. not see the upside. don't know the movie or actual events. found it questionable to put a person in a minefield and tie it to their freedom - - - is that being bold?

you're a bright guy. wound a tad tight, I'd wager, but on this subject, ya' make me yearn for something easier...like conversion with my Palestine pal or his Serbian side-kick. that was a blast.

or bantering with bob k.

are you on the west coast? hear it's like an oven out there.


BTW: missed Buhhda on a Bun, Allaha on Baba...and other expansions on the theology theme...Zoroaster in alabaster

fun isn't it!

*who was the 'nazi'?

Hilarious….you need to ask why someone doesn’t like nazis?…but who said to kill them all? Wasn’t me.
Are you under the mistaken assumption that being a mine defuser is a death sentence, and they all died? Is that what happened in the movie? This was a German plan to have them earn their freedom and not starve to death in POW camps.

I can’t abide Nazis. If you feel the urge to defend nazis, that’s on you, buddy.

So, you’re just trolling then….or are you so dense you don’t see a difference between captive invading murderous soldiers who are around 16 and who were committing a genocide and non combatant children who are 10 and not indoctrinated into violent expansionist racist and murderous fascism? Nazi youth aren’t cub scouts….Jojo Rabbit wasn’t a historically accurate documentary.

If we had not abandoned Vietnam and our soldiers were captured instead, our soldiers there should have been forced to demine Vietnam and Cambodia, including the 15 year olds (the idea that non combatant children be sent there is brain numbingly ludicrous)(Dan Bullock (December 21, 1953 – June 7, 1969) was a United States Marine and the youngest U.S. serviceman killed in action during the Vietnam War, dying at the age of 15. Yes, we use youth soldiers too.).

The mines we left all over those countries have killed and maimed numerous generations, tens of thousands, and continue to do so to this day, and if I’m not mistaken, many POWs did clear mines during captivity. Leaving an active minefield on foreign soil should be a war crime if it isn’t already. It’s definitely targeting the civilian population once the war is over.

Wow. Remind me to never be around your family then. Everyone in my family knew it was wrong to invade and murder our neighbors because we like their stuff and land, and wrong to try to exterminate an entire ethnicity by the time we were 6. If you didn’t know that by 14, you have serious issues. Nazis exterminated the mentally feeble.

The young republicans aren’t a murderous group exterminating Jews, blacks, gays, and anyone not Republican…nazis were. If the young republicans were a murderous group like the nazis, any member should get the death penalty, even the murdering racist 15 year olds….young adults kill just as thoroughly as 35 year olds, their victims were just as terrified and are now just as dead.

The nazis didn’t have a tiny majority through which they controlled German politics, they had a monopoly. Another false equivelent. Christ on a cracker. If Trump had won in 2020, and used the Jan 6 attack on congress as a false pretext to outlaw any opposition to Republicans, taking over completely through violence and intimidation and held and consolidated power for nearly a decade you would be almost there. Holy Ghost on toast!

Are you shitting me. You equate these things, refusing vaccines, creating bad state laws disenfranchising voters, to accepting and participating in genocide. Just fucking wow, buddy. Stretch much? Almighty God on cod!

Old enough to murder, and you do it, you’re an adult. I don’t give a flying fuck if you’re 9. If you know what your doing when you put that gun to a Jews head and say “your children are next, you fucking kike” or a similar slur then pull the trigger, you just became an adult and eligible for the death penalty. We try 12 year olds as adults, but you would shield murderous hitler youth, many of whom turned in their own parents for liquidation, from responsibility from committing genocide among other disgusting atrocities. These kids aren’t Jojo Rabbit. Mother Mary with her cherry!

Besides…as I informed you, it was the German commander who had the idea and gave the order. At least get mad at the right nation.

You said “ but just can't get my head around putting children in a minefield. no matter the justification. that'd be just as bad as anything the nazis could ever do: lose any sense of humanity.”
1) you have lost your ever loving mind if you think a little danger is as bad as anything the nazis could ever do….you simply have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. The atrocities the nazis committed make clearing a minefield they layed look like a nice summer job with a friendly and generous boss by comparison. Try abasination, sewing twins together, seeing how long people can live without skin, raping people to death, melting people alive in acids, starving babies, stomping babies, gassing entire populations, etc. you really climbed so far up on that high horse you can’t see reality anymore. Sweet Zombie Jesus!
2) it was something the nazis did. This was a nazi plan from a nazi officer. Get it straight. The nazis did this, not the allies. That’s what I mean by learn the history instead of getting mad over a story….you are upset over fiction….and defending nazis in your outrage over nothing.

You have a problem. Your position is that nazis shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for their actions…apparently going so far as excusing college age men for fascist, racist genocide because you know some people that age who made some mistakes. (I say that proves my point that just as being older doesn’t mean making better decisions, being younger doesn’t mean you can’t make good decisions. I learned to not hurt other people except in defense in preschool.)

I say if you pick up that gun and march, you’re a soldier and responsible for your actions. If you kill, you’re a killer, no matter your age.

what's beef w/the Hilter youth?

can't abide w/the kill all the baby adolphs vibe. seems extreme. even by WWII standards. just the bare fact that children were used to defuse bombs isn't what one would call kosher. if that was the right of the winning side, one hell of a lot of bombs lying around in Laos and Vietnam - what about sending our Boy Scouts over to take care of the US mess they left?

anyway - not meaning to be mean - at 14 most are not at the level of being correctly called 'idiots'. if you don't know - you just f'n' don't know!

christ on a cracker...know folks who now question what they were thinking joining the Young Republicans - - - AND THEY WERE OF COLLEGE AGE!!!

what is freaky is the line "If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power."

2016 mean anything? and that's the MINORITY of Americans!

christ on a cracker...what's the situation on the COVID vaccines? on voting bills? on any f'n' bill or issue in this land? the MINORITY is having their day keeping the rest in the dark.
[2nd Amendment but screw the other 26...or 24...cause 21 cancels 18 = 0]

as you said "History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes"
as he said, "And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated."
but just can't get my head around putting children in a minefield. no matter the justification. that'd be just as bad as anything the nazis could ever do: lose any sense of humanity.

This is EXCELLENT.

And I know how to talk about this subject that doesn't bring on the care....ful.

Talk about the socialization of our girls and how we need to empower them from a young age.

All the other ways to address this are valid and carry that minefield aspect to it.

And yes, we do need to train up our boys differently, to understand consent. That is a great idea.

AND if we teach our girls to empower themselves and stop making "nice", it doesn't matter if they meet up with a boy who WASN'T trained up to understand consent. Because she will school his ass. (Or as one lesbian op-ed writer said -- school HER ass, if a woman is on a date with another woman. The writer's experience was that women can ignore consent issues, too.)

Nobody has a time machine to go back to fix the past so the present is different. So let's talk about the future, yeah? That is what we can have a productive effect on.

You don't need religion of any kind to spread compassion and unity. We can teach that to people without all of the metaphysical juju, and without burying the good messages in a minefield of misogyny and xenophobia.

Also how about we learn to do good things for the sake of goodness, which is it's own reward, instead of the threat of eternal punishment.

Walk near the minefield. Drop a bunny. Bunny walks bunny goes boom. Walk up to where the bunny went boom. Drop another bunny. Rinse and repeat.

You should be able to get across with an extra bunny or three. In the end game, you can use any extra bunnies on some moving machinery as a small easter egg. Ben likes it, anyway.

Got it for Xmas 1995 for my Mac. Never did get past the minefield bunny scene.

I get it and i wouldn't do it as i assume it may be misinterpreted and people would read into "what i really mean". I don't have the want to defend myself if people don't take me at my word. Its a minefield something like this. It helps to know the person/people who make such a critique. Thats why i like the sift. i feel i know many well enough (from past experience) to see where they are coming from. If i didn't know you at all id have no clue what you might mean. Blah blah blah im not good at writing stuff but i think you can understand what im trying to say.

I was thinking the same thing all the way through the video. Sidestepping that minefield is of course the only smart move here.

@Chairman_woo

You're right. I just skimmed it, when your essay appeared to be about the mechanics of humor. Which is not what I was taking issue with. (I'm a huge fan of this guy, in general.)

Did you read the link I did to Patton Oswalt's Wall of Text?

You don't have to. However, the subject is a minefield that has a context that perhaps you are missing in your scholarly approach.

[She, by the way. This is photo of my father the year before he died. My favorite picture of him. I know it is confusing...]

Both. They must interpret the meaning/definition of the law before they can interpret whether actions are in compliance.
No, that IS judicial scope. It's what those that lose call 'judicial activism', but you never hear a winner call it that.
Judges interpret the words AND the meaning of laws. They often 'read between the lines' to determine what they think was intended, not just what was specifically written. That's not new or out of line, it's how it's always worked.
True, it creates a minefield of interpretation of written laws that may not completely jibe with the exact verbiage in the written laws, but they are documented in the decisions.
No, I'm not forgetting those laws, I'm disputing your statement that "Again, it's a matter of what people are willing to enforce.....If everyone is on board with twisting the rules, then that's the norm." Populist feelings do NOT effect the law, only legislation and interpretation do.
Until recently, there was nothing to show that the 2nd amendment addressed individuals. That's why Washington DC had a complete hand gun ban, and that case is what changed the meaning to include individuals instead of simply regulated militias.
Eminent is a word I might use to say 1) conspicuous or 2)prominent (especially in standing above others in some quality or position). I think the latter is how it's used in this case, not the former. EDIT: I expect most people confuse it with the word "Imminent".
My mother is a professional editor, so I admit I'm more familiar with odd words than many people. (Most people didn't have to read the dictionary or encyclopedia while they sat in a corner for being bad as a child). I think if you ask the populace about many legal terms, or really any >3 syllable word, most people won't know the actual definitions.

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.




You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.



The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.


Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.




Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.

-scheherazade

I'm always astounded to see people who are unable to understand that this refugee crisis can't be solved by sending the refugees away. Have you people never seen a zombie movie? There are definitely similarities. They are coming and there's no way other than starting to shoot them in the head to stop this.
So, you wanna stand on any european border and kill random people (yes, random as in 'women and children too') to make sure the borders aren't crossed? Have you people never heard about East Germany? The had the most secure border on the entire planet. They had sniper towers and minefields. People died trying to cross it, they were murdered because of it. Still, some made it anyways. No border is impenetrable. Ever.

The refugees are coming. They'd rather die trying than not trying at all. They don't see any other choice.

Our only smart play is to exploit the advantages. We have people fleeing from ISIS that we can put in our mosques to stop recruiting and radicalisation. We have skilled laborers we need to identify and put to work accordingly. We have people willing to have and raise their kids here that can help us to solve our problems with a rapidly aging society.

It'll be difficult and it'll require us to change and redefine our cultural identity but if we do this right, we'll end up stronger in the future.

We can't afford the cowardice of racism much longer.

Holy minefield, Batman. And did you know when you eat a Ritz cracker you pay money to the people who support the people who support the people that club baby seals? How do you sleep?