Someone has to bring up the directly *related https://videosift.com/video/Benny-Hill-Ernie-the-fastest-milkman-in-the-west.

It's currently dead, but here you go to save you the bother..

Happy Birthday Milkman! "I don't like looking back. I'm always constantly looking forward. I'm not the one to sort of sit and cry over spilt milk. I'm too busy looking for the next cow." Gordon Ramsay

I think Milkman's angle on things is relevant in a different way.

We don't need to form our morality to coddle, consider or otherwise care in the least about cultural or other reasons for doing stuff. However, when it comes to affecting change in a groups behaviour, those cultural traditions are a factor, whether we agree with it or like it or not. Bull fighting is really pretty small in that picture. Women's rights in a country like Saudi Arabia is a much bigger deal.

When we want to help out those we believe are negatively affected by what we see as immoral, we can't ignore the weight of cultural momentum holding it in place. We can easily say women should have equality and that it is morally the right position. When it comes to lobbying for changes or protections for human rights in those places though, identifying how to be least disruptive to existing culture is helpful. No, it's not our job to adapt their culture for them. However, if we want to see the change, we might have put in some of that work anyway when those we see as behaving immorally show no interest in doing it.

I tried to track down a Wings game summary video last night after getting home from a different hockey game; too many barley pops to seal the deal so thanks Milkman Dan for posting this and thanks for detailing the significance; I'd just heard young Russian scores shootout gamewinner and had visions of Datsyuk v2.0 even though that it will likely not work out as well for Evgeny; a boy can dream though...

Um, I don't think that was Bob's or Milkman's point. And the point is all that matters because the fact that America is fucked up is irrelevant. Just as saying country A is okay so all government will not fall into the trap.

Fact is EVERY government since the start of mankind has fallen into this trap. Some take longer than others, and there are insulating features (such as nations that are sheltered by natural terrian, those with rich resources, those with low populations, and those that have never had a TRULY meaningful impact on the world but just kinda get by.)

America's problems are myriad but I think it's because they won too much in the last century and are about to fall, as any great boxer has.

Edit added later:

And no, most other governments are not. Russia, China, North Korea, many South American nations, Mexico, the Middle East, all those examples are not minor. Now you could say "many" governments.

Yeah, I think he'd keep truckin' and run on his own as an independent. I think his ego is big enough. Plus, he'd have a pretty legitimate beef which would solidify his supporters and potentially draw in some more who are displeased with the modern GOP. I think he'd take somewhere between 30%-60% of the republican votes with him all the way to the general election.

That thought made me wonder what other independent or 3rd party candidates have done in presidential elections, and I found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_elections#Presidential

I think he'd be somewhere between Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992. Roosevelt got nearly 30% of the vote, took 88 electoral votes, and placed 2nd of 6 in the race. Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote, but took no electoral votes and placed 3rd of many.

I think Trump running as a 3rd party could take somewhere between 20%-30% of the popular votes (40%+ of Republican-leaning voters, semi conservatively). It would be hard to match Roosevelt's percentage of electoral votes, but he'd get at least *some*, unlike Perot, because of states with proportional rules about allocating electoral votes. And I think he'd place second, like Roosevelt. In that sense, you could argue that the Republican candidate (whoever that would be) "stole" the election from Trump, rather than vice-versa as would be the GOP's narrative.

--I should note that I'm not an expert about any of this, these are just my thoughts--

About Reid Fleming, I hadn't actually heard of that before -- but I got my handle from a character from a different (web) comic called Red Meat:
Homepage
Milkman Dan comics

@GenjiKilpatrick
i don't think thats what milkman was getting at.
not the way i read his post.

i think we can agree that we can appreciate someones accomplishments while,at the very same time,condemn them for abhorrent behavior.

i think woody allen is a gross,lecherous douche nozzle,but he has created some of the most poignant and satirical movies ..ever.

one does not negate the other because they are entirely different points to ponder.

ray lewis was one of the most intense,aggressive and prolific middle linebackers in NFL history....and a murderer.

now you are totally within your rights to conflate the person with their accomplishments and hold to the opinion that anything improper,heinous,illegal negates/overshadows anything positive.

but lets be clear,that is an argument of conflation,based on distinctions.

milkman is addressing each item separately,and judging accordingly based on his own morality.

@milkman
Thanks for your great deal of thought on this subject.

However, I have ZERO regret over not "socking the creep."

It was inappropriate under those circumstances to hit this tiny guy. I was much bigger than him and I could have really hurt him. His assault on me was psychological more than physical -- my first response was to laugh! He didn't hurt me physically, clearly wasn't assaulting any more, and I was going to attack him?

Excuse me, but that seems a very male response to a situation. I don't see a single woman in this comment stream writing that I should have slugged or kneed him. Every comment about physically striking him came from men -- correct me if I am wrong, I might have the gender of some posters incorrect.

I am very clear, after thinking about this for a long time, that my single regret is that I didn't call him out verbally. It was my first regret, and I struggled to get to the place where I wasn't ashamed of my lack of action in not calling him out. I got myself out safely and that was the most important thing that had to happen. I did that. I was successful in protecting myself. I won.

But I learned from this -- if it happens again, because of this experience, I am prepared next time to SHAME THE HOLY HELL OUT OF HIM.

That is, IF I can do it safely. My first priority will always be to protect myself.

So if I do not feel threatened physically, I will call the perv out in such a way as to stay safe and embarrass the hell out of him. I do so want to "strike a blow" on behalf of all girls and women who have to suffer this shite, and maybe be a role model for any women and girls who happen to be watching.

If I feel threatened with additional physical assaults, I WILL use my training to protect myself -- which starts with body language and a strong NO, and physical strikes if necessary.

Here's a little factoid for you -- 78% of assaults on women are by single unarmed assailants. As we were taught in class, they are looking for a victim, not a fight. Strong body language, strong use of voice -- that is often all that is needed to protect yourself. Assholes will run away when you show you are willing to stand up for yourself.

No need to hit anyone, except with your chi.

How was it a once proud nation? We didn't want to save the Jews in the holocaust, we had to. We didn't want to give blacks freedom, it was kind of a labor dispute. We didn't ah hell, we just have sucked since we became a nation.

Ah, but you Milkman are a romantic!

^-- ... gleam in the milkmans' eye

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I see! Thanks.>> ^Zifnab:

I found this PDF http://otterlimits.org/pics/wallet.pdf which said:
The Milkman’s Wallet is so called because old-fashioned British milkmen would carry a leather wallet of this design when they went to collect payment from their customers. Many British people over the age of about 45 will remember the milkman’s regular Friday night visit and many will have been fascinated as mysterious things seemed to happen to the money placed inside the wallet. A few people still use them today and they may also have been used in other countries.>> ^dag:
So why is it called so?

I found this PDF http://otterlimits.org/pics/wallet.pdf which said:

The Milkman’s Wallet is so called because old-fashioned British milkmen would carry a leather wallet of this design when they went to collect payment from their customers. Many British people over the age of about 45 will remember the milkman’s regular Friday night visit and many will have been fascinated as mysterious things seemed to happen to the money placed inside the wallet. A few people still use them today and they may also have been used in other countries.>> ^dag:

So why is it called so?

You have my Sword!

Also Milkman, it's called money and HBO broke the bank making that episode, they simply didn't have enough money to do it like the book. I have plenty of problems with how the series is and I haven't even read the books. It's still the best fantasy series I've ever seen on TV.

Who's the man? Milkman Dan! I definitely appreciate you taking that time.

>> ^coolhund:

I agree completely with visionep. Milkmans points are just not true or avoidable.
Theres also the point of engines not being able to run Ethanol at all. Vintage cars for example.
In the end this bio ethanol is just another farce to make money, at a very high cost to... as always... the poor.
What this guy says in the video is just not true. Even with only E10, a higher priced gasoline will still give you better mileage (up to 10%). This is happening in Germany right now. Nobody is buying this ethanol crap because it simply isnt worth it. Not to mention because of the detrimental effects on people and cars.


Yes, some older cars do not run well with an ethanol blend, and some might take that to a point where they wouldn't run at all.

You say bio ethanol is a farce to make money (aren't all businesses?) and the cost targets the poor. That makes a good soundtext-bite but I don't see how ethanol production is particularly detrimental to the poor, at least not in any way that isn't heavily outweighed by other competitors. Care to elaborate?

About mileage: yes, any blend of ethanol will give lower gas mileage than pure gasoline. The point that I would suggest is that when you burn that gallon of gasoline, it isn't coming back. At least not for a few million years. We can/will keep on burning through oil for a while, but as we do so the prices will go up.

Right now, today, the market settles out so that in Brazil the cost per unit of distance traveled may actually favor gasoline; car owners "vote" at the pump. But I'm talking about the long term, in the future. Corn, or better yet switchgrass, grows back. Not in millions of years, *next* year. We're just a few years down the line from the initial introduction of ethanol and ethanol blends as a fuel. And yet already it is making a bit of competition with big oil.

If better alternative fuels come along (hydrogen fuel cells or whatever), I'll be open to them. But at this point ethanol seems like one that actually works, and has been working, in spite of the fact that it doesn't have a fully stable infrastructure yet.