This was also not the only man involved, and not the only concern that applied. This quote is his, not that of half a nation.

While I agree that the south had racist and white supremacist behaviors, I simply point out that the north was little better.

Both were plenty racist, and both cared a lot more about their money/power than they did about slaves. Rich white people in charge today don't give 2 shits about poor black people, I find it very unlikely that the rich white people in charge way back then cared any more.

Let me illustrate the 'champion of liberty' spin with an unrelated example :
Take the ww2 pacific theater for example. Japan teaches WW2 as a war to free Asia from western colonialism. U.S. teaches WW2 (pacific) as a war to free Asia from imperial expansion and oppression by Japan. Both are telling the truth, and both are full of crap. For neither was altruistic in their motivations, but both spin themselves as champions of liberty. For you will always have people on your side if you tell them you are standing up for liberty. (A concept well illustrated in The Prince - one of the earlier 'game theory' (from before it was called that) studies of governance.)

On a side note,

Keep in mind that slaves from Africa were usually purchased from black slavers.

And just a few generations ago, my own great grandparent's era, they and their peers were white peasant property of local white counts.

Things are not really all that 'black and white' (no pun intended).

-scheherazade

Terrorist attacks are more multifaceted.

First, they are an opportunity to generate work for the defense industry.

Second, they are usually for a reason. Often some angst over our own actions in foreign countries. For example, the news says AQ is a bunch of crazies that hate freedom, however AQs demands prior to 9/11 were to get our military out of the holyland. While that's not an offense that deserves blowing up buildings, it is definitely not the same as some banal excuse like hating freedom.

Thirdly, they are often perpetrated by some persons/groups that we had a hand in creating. We install the mujahedin in Afghanistan, knowing full well what they'll do to women, and then use their treatment of women as one excuse to later invade. Saddam worked for us, was egged on to fight Iran, was egged on to suppress insurgents (the 'own people he gassed'), and we later used his actions as one excuse to invade.

At the time, the mujaheddin was useful for fighting Russia as a proxy. At the time, Saddam was useful for perpetuating a war where we sold arms to both sides. Afterwards, they were useful for scaremongering so we could perpetuate war when otherwise things got too quiet and folks would ask about why we're spending big $$$ on defense.. (In the mean time hand-waving the much more direct 9/11 Saudi connection).

... Plus if on the off chance things do 'settle down' in areas we invade, that creates new markets for US companies to peddle their wares. You can reopen the Khyber pass for western land trade with Asia, you can build an oil pipeline, and you can prevent a euro based oil exchange from opening in the middle east. All things that benefit our industry.

So in practice, as far as big industry is concerned, there's a utility in 'fighting terrorism' (and perpetuating terrorism) that just doesn't exist with internal shootings. As such, unless another 'evil empire' shows up, the terrorism cow is gonna get milked for the foreseeable future.

Sure, there's a rhetoric about preventing terrorism, but our actions do nothing to that effect. It's just a statement that's useful in manufacturing consent.

There's a particular irony, though. That is, that while such behavior is 'not very nice' (to put it mildly), it does however provide for our security by keeping our armed forces exercised, prepared, and up to date - such that if a real threat were to emerge, our military would be ready at that time. While that seems unlikely, when you look back in history at previous major conflicts, most were precipitated rather quickly, on the order of months (it takes many years to design and build equipment for a military, and the first ~half a year of any major war has been fought with what was on hand). So in a round-about, rather evolutionary way, perpetuating threats actually does make us safer as a whole.

To clarify the word 'evolutionary' : Take 10 microbes. All 10 have no militant nature. None are made for combat. It only takes 1 to mutate and become belligerent in order to erase all the others from existence. If some others also mutate to be combative, they will survive. The non combative are lost, their reproductive lines cut off. As there's always a chance to mutate to anything at any time, eventually, there is a combative mutation. So, all life on earth has a militant nature at some layer of abstraction - those that exist are those that successfully resisted some force (or parried the force to its benefit. Like plants that use a plant eater's dung to fertilize the seeds of the eaten fruit).

The relationship holds true at a biological level, interpersonal, societal, national, and international level. Societies that allow the kind of educational and military development that leads to victory, are those that have dominated the planet socially and economically. For example, Europe's centuries of infighting made it resistant to invasions from the Mongols, Caliphates, etc, and ultimately led to the age of colonialism. For the strengths built with infighting, are later leveraged for expansion. As such, the use of "terrorism" to perpetuate conflict, is ultimately an exercise in developing strength that can later be leveraged.

Our national policy is largely developed in think tanks, and those organizations are planning lifetimes ahead. So these kinds of considerations are very relevant.

TL/DR : Yes, agreed, the terrorism thing is B.S. on many levels.

-scheherazade

I'm thinking around 4 load-carrying quality quad copters and significant battery expansions.

That's what's left on the table, isn't it? I'd divide the exit option into orderly and disorderly, but the core of it remains the same.

Yet we have to keep in mind, Syriza was elected on a program diametrically opposed to the troika demands. And an EZ exit is equally far outside its mandate. Not to mention that a significant portion of Syriza is made up of former PASOK supporters, who would need a whole lot of convincing to vote for an EZ exit.

A referendum sounds decent enough, but they should have a strategy in place for the post-EZ time. Merely getting rid of the Euro won't get them out of the shit. In fact, I'd argue that a clear strategy is an absolute neccessity to even get a "favorable" outcome from any referendum. The public needs to have a clear picture of what awaits them behind any choice they might be presented with.

For starters, they should be perfectly clear about what it would take to get the Greek economy started again. Greece has very little to offer at this time, so every effort must be made to improve the domestic market. Plans for rebuilding its productive base should be worked out prior to any referendum. Industrial policy spanning at least 5-10 years would be needed.

Question is: can a non-EZ Greece muster up enough political capital to run the vast fiscal programs required to pull the economy out of the shitter? Or would they be stuck with a recessionary focus on balanced budgets, just like the rest of us?

In any case, within the constraints of a monetary union with neo-mercantilist Germany, Greece will not get the fiscal expansion it needs and will remain a shithole, just shy of a failed state.

Hey - sorta responding to your post about THIS HEAT, more specifically about your comment that John Peel was THE MAN. He was. Listened to his show via http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1 religiously for a few years prior to his death. I worshiped the guy, which is weird, being a total stranger, but if you've ever listened to him for any amount of time you'll know where I'm coming from. Just the coolest guy around. I sent him an email about some song he played that I liked(Expansion Ride by Magoo). Turns out that he was the type of guy that would actually respond to nubs like me. Not only that but he mentioned my email and said my actual name on the air, which I'm not ashamed to say still makes me smile. LIKE OH MY GOD JOHN PEEL SAID MY NAME -- JOHN PEEL IS TALKING ABOUT ME. I still have that recording and it's a treasured digital possession.

Anyway, thanks for letting me be drunk on your page.

finally!
a skyrim expansion!

I never got into the TIE Fighter or X-Wing games, my space sim experience of that era was all Wing Commander.

BUT, that video made me incredibly nostalgic for Star Wars Galaxies: Jump to Lightspeed, the space sim expansion to the MMO. Actually had really well modeled craft, customizable component loadouts, etc. I miss SWG a lot, and JTL in particular. Guess I'll wait a few more years for SWGEmu, right now the ground game is fairly solid but JTL is still in the pretty distant future.

Good song.

I read on Kotaku it's better than Civ 5 with the Brave New World expansion pack.

@entr0py

The premise is not off at all. Starbucks simply skipped all the moving around steps and located in the "middle of the beach" where the existing coffee shop already was, because (it is likely) that is the best spot in the market.

Starbucks, or any business, does not open to "drive them out of business" they open a store to sell their goods and make a profit.

As someone who has worked with several retailers in very aggressive market sectors (pizza, fast casual, etc) I can tell you that the two vital components to any successful retailer/restaurant are 1) Good location 2) Good Operations. A good location means your customer will see you and get to you. Good operations means once they are there they will be served well.

More often then not when we start working with a new client we look at their competition not because we want to "drive them out of business", but because they have already looked at and evaluated the market. We then evaluate their locations and see if that is still the correct location or not. Markets shift for a variety of reasons - housing growth, retail expansion, major retailers relocating, etc.

"It's easier to steal someone else's customer base than try to create your own." Really? I find this to be the silliest argument. There is a limited amount of money people are going to spend on a product. Lets say a town will spend $1000 a day on coffee. If you open another coffee shop they are not going to spend an additional thousand. The $1000 is just going to be divided up. Maybe there is a slight increase because of access, but by and large people are only going to spend so much. Furthermore, people are creatures of habit. They are actually more likely to continue to go where they have been going unless you offer something better. That better might be a combination of easier access, faster service, a nicer interior, cheaper prices, or better product.

In the city I work in there are several grocery chains expanding and opening new stores. Does that mean people are spending more on groceries? No. What has happened is the grocer with the weakest operations closed. Those locations (over 30) have since been taken over by a variety of both national chains and local independent grocers (all who have better operations). This competition has meant better prices and service for customers.

I buy my coffee a block from my house (and I usually just buy the beans they roast on site) from a local shop. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that other people choose to go to the Starbucks up the street. The coffee I buy is better and I pay a premium for it.

Edit: One last thought - Among the many competitive advantages corporate users have is that they can operate at a loss or lower profit than many "local" stores. That being said the same is not quite as true from franchisee business owners (who have different advantages, hopefully).

Aww, that's cute.

@robdot - It's funny because it's a running gag that elicits such a viscerally humorous reaction while exhibiting a sweet sibling relationship.

If it was just done once, it wouldn't be as entertaining, but she does it to him repeatedly over apparently a long expanse of time and she keeps eyeballing him when she does it before he finally realizes she's done it again. It's fun watching that realization happen, especially because of his subsequent reaction.

Where I live, in the boondocks of N Cal., we usually have a few days of power outage a year. On those rare occasions when there's an outage and a clear sky, we get to see this. There's nothing like sitting in your hot tub, looking up at the night sky FULL of stars, and watching the international space station get re-supplied, and noticing how many satellites cross it's path every orbit. I feel like we should have at least one 'blackout' night per year worldwide, where we do our best to not use outdoor lights in an effort to show this beautiful expanse of nature to those who never get to see it.

Hi Engels,

I just wanted to address what is a common misconception about the teachings of Jesus Christ, which is that He taught the oneness of mankind, or that we could all achieve some kind of evolutionary process of consciousness expansion. This is simply false; Jesus Christ taught that He is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that there is no other way to reach God except through Him. He taught that we are all sinners, alienated from God, and that His suffering and death on the cross and resurrection from death was the universal atonement for our sins and the hope of all mankind, which we receive by putting our faith and trust in Him.

The popular culture has distorted our understanding of Jesus, but this distortion is easily remedied by studying the scriptures. A reading of the gospel of John, for instance, will show you that the Jesus you have heard about and the Jesus of the bible couldn't be more different. I would challenge you to do so and learn more about Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who He truly was and was not, and what He taught about Himself. It is a question He posed to His disciples:

Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
Matthew 16:14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Matthew 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Technically...

It's not the ice melting that will raise the water-level. It's the thermal expansion of the oceans.

To quote the great Wittgenstein "meaning is use". Language and meaning are nuanced and complicated, but most of all, subjective and instrumental (by which I mean something we make up). This is why we frequently use otherwise restrictive and oversimplified analogies to illustrate specific points, and sometimes arbitrary (and always artificial) terms to sum up otherwise much more expansive phenomena.

In this case @Babymech used one to quite neatly surmise the different ways we interpret accidental puns and double meanings. Crude vs Prude was just a succinct way of labelling the two predominant archetypical responses to a potential double entendre.

One is to tend to overlook or ignore it (Prude)
One is to recognise and even call attention to it (Crude)

There were no value judgements implicit in the way @Babymech did this. You brought those yourself, projected them outwards and rather rudely set about insulting Babymech for the perceived slight/prejudicial remark.

The fact you got a rude response back was not validation, it was retaliation. You called him/her a dick basically without provocation!

"In some countries / regions, saying someone is crude is quite the insult."

A term charged with historical prejudicial hatred indeed! Absolutely no room for interpretation or innocent intention there. (And God forbid anyone anywhere ever be offended by something because they might have different associations with a words meanings and associations)

But let's just assume @Babymech was making a value judgement anyway. "Prude" and "Crude" create wildly varying emotional responses. From pride to shame. Who takes prescient? Who's right to not be offended counts most?

Much like considerably more sensitive words (like ones beginning with N and F for instance), context is absolutely everything. Words have no meaning outside of their context, they are entirely relativistic things. Even the cold hard definition in a dictionary is a contextual arrangement (in this case the dictionary & the linguistic paradigm which is documents).

If there was hatred in Babymech's heart when he/she made their comment I certainly did not recognise it. The same point made in a different way might have raised my ire too, but here I can only see a slight you brought to the table yourself so to speak.

I've done it myself before, but then I've also apologised for starting shit that wasn't really there before too

You would be correct if you detected a slightly snotty attitude in my reply, it pops up mostly when people start throwing around unsolicited abuse (or say unspeakably dumb things but I'm certainly not accusing you of that here, just a needless conflict). You'd be amazed how fast it can disappear though!

Much love.