Recent Comments by bcglorf subscribe to this feed

Building A Leonardo da Vinci Bridge

The Day Liberty Died

bcglorf says...

"...there was only one combatant here. *facepalm"

Are you forgetting or ignoring that this incident occurred during the '6 day' war? Israel killed a whole ton of Egyptians in similar fashion that day too. I was making the very modest suggestion that arguing they mistook an American spyboat for an Egyptian spyboat is plausible, more plausible IMO than deliberately attacking an ally.

The Day Liberty Died

bcglorf says...

And then we can largely agree. Can we agree even further though that listing only one combatants crimes can become misleading?

America dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Prior to that they fire bombed virtually every other Japanese city, killing 100 thousand in Tokyo alone.

The fighting on the ground on the islands reads like one long list of horrific war crimes against dehumanized Japanese victims again and again...

I know the illustration shouldn't be necessary, but presenting a single sided selection of choice facts can be extremely misleading, and the video here, like many on Israel today, does exactly the same thing.

newtboy said:

Yes. Distrust of one untrustworthy nation doesn't translate into trust of their untrustworthy enemies.

International distress frequencies jammed. That's war crime #1. Firing on lifeboats, war crime #2.
You can convince yourself that their unambiguous identification of it as an American ship before attacking is meaningless, you still can't excuse the multiple war crimes.

The Day Liberty Died

bcglorf says...

I hope you at least extend a similar mistrust towards Nasser's Egypt and the Assad dynasty in Syria?

I know it's a stretch, but in wartime telling the difference between an American spyship and Egyptian one could be tough. Jacking up an American flag and using a different frequency for communications is something an enemy might be devious enough to think of...

newtboy said:

I don't trust Israel, not even a little bit....with good reason....and it's not my video.

Btw, you should look into what the word "literally" means, or learn to count, because there were literally 8 words in the first identification message, and it's just one of many. 8 words are all you need to hear them identify the ship.

Specifically jamming American military frequencies and international distress frequencies is a dead giveaway they knew who they were shooting if the recordings of the identification weren't enough.

Opening fire on lifeboats is another war crime.

The Day Liberty Died

bcglorf says...

I don't trust your video, not even a little bit.

I know you just dismissed opposing evidence earlier up thread, but here's a link to audio recordings and english transcripts the NSA captured and posted from Israeli helicopters in the area at the time. Again, I know you dismiss it, but they certainly were uncertain of what had just been hit/attacked.

Friendly fire is a fact of war, Canadians on a training mission in Afghanistan where killed by USAF runs despite their training operation and location being registered with the airforce. Fatal screw ups happen in war so it seems much less of a stretch to call this an accident than a deliberate scheme against an ally.

You go ahead and believe some video referring to the 'mockingbird media' and using literally 4-5 words of audio and leaving out all other communications though, I'm sure they left it out for brevity and not because it contradicts their narrative. That's something only the mockingbird media would do...

Or perhaps more briefly, provide a little better evidence before acting like this is as clear cut as our knowledge that the earth is round...

newtboy said:

So you didn't watch the video, where they included audio of them identifying the ship prior to attacking and again afterwards.

I guess you didn't read any comments either, because a few reasons why they would do this have been given.

If unmarked ships/planes were targets, they might have attacked themselves as the attacking planes were also unmarked.

They knew the American ship was there, we told them beforehand. As mentioned in the video, they had to know which frequencies to jam, and they jammed American frequencies, not Egyptian. Again, watch the video, they identified it as American before sinking it.

The Day Liberty Died

bcglorf says...


I get there is plenty of room to criticise Israeli actions and call them too aggressive. This is just not such an example, in any way, shape or form.

As vil said, this happened when Israel was actively at war. Nasser had blocked Israeli shipping and moved Egpytian forces onto the border. Israel then made a pre-emptive strike wiping out the Egyptian air-force, and then launching a ground offensive. The USS Liberty was running as an unmarked ship in the wrong place at the wrong time and Israel hit it too.

Israel knew it was a US military vessel or they didn't. If they didn't, it's highly possible they decided the unmarked military vessel was a threat and hit it. If they did, they decided it was a good idea to hit an American owned military vessel while starting/engaging a war with Egypt.

I can't reason out any situation where Israel thinks it's a good idea to deliberately kill and engage the US here, it's all bad for them. The most reasonable explanation is they attacked an unmarked military vessel in a war zone because they knew it wasn't their own.

vil said:

6 day war under way, standing orders to sink anything that moves near the shore, unmarked ship. Either pick a side or get out of the way.

Bill Burr on Parenting and Women

bcglorf says...

"You feel how nervous everyone just got in here at the fact that I just suggested that there should be due process."


Too soon to point out that particular flaw in society I suppose.

'I can think of nothing more American': Beto O’Rourke

bcglorf says...

Then IMO your deeply disrespecting the opinions of a lot of veterans. Just because Trump happens to hold a strong opinion doesn't automatically negate it. Neither does anyone sharing that opinion automatically become duped by him or some kind of protege.

There are veterans working hard to make ends meet watching guys being paid millions of dollars to play football refusing to stand for the national anthem. I don't accept that every single veteran either accepts the gesture entirely, or is a racist Trump duped evil human being. I believe there are veterans that view standing for the anthem as a sign of respect for the country and fallen comrades, and I can understand many of those people disagreeing with the gesture and wishing they'd make their protest in another way than what is to the veterans, disrespect for their country and veterans. It doesn't make them 'right' but it hardly makes them unreasonable either, no?

newtboy said:

I don't agree.
Reasonable people don't listen to Trump. Only those getting their direction and information from him (or from those repeating his blatantly racist stance) rather than listening to the protesters clear statements disagree on this issue.

I've never heard anyone who didn't take Trump's worthless word about the message or meaning complain.
Only the gullibly duped disagree, not reasonable people.

'I can think of nothing more American': Beto O’Rourke

bcglorf says...

Can you agree with as much as his opening remark:"Reasonable people can disagree on this issue?"

That stance seems pretty good as a base/starting point.

bobknight33 said:

Very well said but dead wrong.

The Flag symbolize you right to protest. Don't protest that right.
Have and event and protest.

Again pointing out cops killing blacks but the real issue is black on black ( Chicago ) ..

Only when reality wakes you up will the problem be fixed.

Missionaries Spread The Love

bcglorf says...

Did anyone ever confirm he actually ever was funded by a church or had any external benefactors to be cut off from? The articles I looked only ever listed him as claiming to be a missionary, but never did anyone specify it as confirmed nor list any claim to affiliation with any specific organisation.

Sagemind said:

This guy, got what he deserves being arrested for Assault.

BUT what about all the damage he's done to everything including slandering his own religion, racial relations, international relations and so on.

so much to say here, quitting before I rant - Have a nice day.

Edit: I hope he's sent home and de-funded by the church and benefactors who pay for his missionary work - In fact, I hope he's forced to pay back all the money he's received thus far.

The Kind of Story We Need Right Now: Server Bodyslams Jerk!

bcglorf says...

Wow, I really must be getting old. Why is society becoming so horrified by physical violence? If you grab someone like this, getting punched out is not an escalation of violence, but an appropriate deterrent.

As for between men and women, I think this is a situation where you have to be willing to offend the extreme feminists by observing that men and women although equal, are also different. A 115lb women assaulted by a 170lb man warrants a different response than a 170lb man assaulted by a 115lb woman. IMO, the larger stronger man can more easily afford to warn the woman to not repeat the offence prior to a physical response. It also seems to me that society disagrees and thinks they should be considered and handled identically, but I think society has that wrong.

Digitalfiend said:

Sexual harassment is definitely something that needs to be shamed and taken seriously but her physical response didn't really fit the crime. This wasn't a fearing-for-your-life situation and if the roles were reversed - say a drunk woman grab a male server's ass and he threw her to the floor - would the outcome be the same? Unlikely. The guy is a douche bag for sure for what he did and, personally, I think he deserved the toss, but it does raise the question whether a man reacting this way to a woman would see the same positive media attention.

newtboy (Member Profile)

bcglorf says...

it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for

I vehemently agree on this. I merely argue that giving the leg up shouldn't be based upon race but upon lack of opportunity. The two fellow black students you mentioned, who were nearly as advantaged as you would have similarly destroyed other black students from crappy inner city schools, but a race based system would give no quarter to the inner city kids in that insistence, still favouring privileged kids over the unprivileged, just so happens these privileged kids would be black.

I agree fully with helping out the disadvantaged. If a race is grossly over represented among the poor, then policies to help the poor will also grossly provide more assistance to that race. I don't consider that discriminatory though, it's just a historical consequence.

In the Canadian model, direct assistance or compensation for past harm is also something I can get behind. Of course, proving and carefully adjudicating what that should mean is a tough nut, but our courts are expressly for that kind of dispute.

newtboy said:

I don't disagree, and we have much the same thing in practice if not by law with our native people's, they even have their own separate tribal police, courts, and laws. They are in many ways a different country inside our borders.
I agree, removing the disparities in lower education is far more desirable....but at least here we're doing the opposite, defunding public schools and programs that offer assistance like breakfast and lunch while also making it easier for affluent people to use public funds to pay for private schools, effectively defunding the public schools even farther.
That leaves us trying things like affirmative action in admissions to try to mitigate the continuing unfair, unequal opportunities lower income students face. Far from ideal, but better than another poke in the eye with a sharp stick, as my wife used to say....and she ought to know! ;-)

They might put the argument in different terms. Which do you admission advantages to aboriginal students in recognition of the piss poor opportunities they've had educationally, or give sentencing advantages to aboriginal criminals in recognition of the across the board piss poor opportunities they've had, recognizing that neither approach addresses the underlying problems, only the results of those long standing issues that simply are not being addressed at all.
What doesn't work is ignoring their lack of opportunities and expecting them to perform on par with other, non disadvantaged kids. That just gets you uneducated, pissed off adults with a chip on their shoulder and no prospects for improvement.

So.....until we actually get to work improving their overall situation, easier said than done, it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for Otherwise we're likely just perpetuating a cycle of criminality that hurts us all.

newtboy (Member Profile)

bcglorf says...

I'm less familiar with American demographics, but I agree with the overall principal. Here in Canada we have IMO an even more severe segregation and unequal opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. It's severe enough up here though that not only are communities segregated by living on reserves with their own separate schools, but we have separate school divisions, and even their reporting and funding lines are different from all other schools.

That adds up to an enormous amount of differential treatment. Replacing that with equal opportunity though is much more desirable than 'waiting' till the school system has already failed kids and then 'lowering the bar' in one way or another to help them get into university.

In Canada I think our supreme court has done as at least 1 disservice greater than you guys though in making race a required consideration in sentencing. The appropriate section of sentencing:
"In sentencing an aboriginal offender, the judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection."
The goal is to address the over-representation of aboriginal people in prisons. The effect however, is ultimately discriminatory as well. Before you dismiss the discrimination against whites as ok because it balances things out as is the 'goal', that's not the only affect. Another problem in Canada is the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples as the victims of crime, because most violent crime is between parties that are related. So on the whole crimes committed against Aboriginal people will on average be sentenced more leniently...

Failing to address the real underlying unequal opportunity can't corrected by more inequality later to balance the scales. In Canada, our attempt at it are too lesson the sentencing of people with unequal backgrounds, but the expense of victims that also faced those same unequal backgrounds...

And that 'corrective' inequality is also creating similar resentment amongst white people here too. People don't like their kids not getting into a school of choice potentially because of a race based distinction, but they like it even less to see a crime committed against them treated more leniently because of race.

newtboy said:

So you get where I'm coming from, I went to 3 "good" prep schools k-12 for a total of 7 years. In that time there were a total of 3 black kids at the same schools, one of which dropped out because of harassment. I also went to 5 years of public schools with up to 70% black kids, those schools taught me absolutely nothing. That's a large part of why I'm convinced just using SAT scores (or similar) only rate ones opportunities, not abilities. That was thousands upon thousands of white kids well prepared for years to take that test and two black kids....hardly equal opportunities. It's hard to ignore that personal experience.

The Check In: Betsy DeVos' Rollback of Civil Rights

bcglorf says...

without racial preferencing FOR white kids
I know for a fact though that in Canada any law, policy or practice that in any way, shape or form stated that has been abolished long ago. Any new ones would be destroyed in court immediately and without question. I've always understood the US to be the same, is that not correct? Is there anywhere in existence in US law, or policies that discrimination based upon race, outside of affirimative action, is ever allowed to exist?

I was convinced enough that the US was like Canada in this regard that back when Obama was president I had someone tell me about a Breitbart report claiming anti-white racism being dictated directly from the President's office. I barely bothered to look for evidence to disprove such a blatant lie from a known extremist propaganda rag. It's hard to express my shock/discouragement to hear that very same refrain, not from a right winger, but from the sources on the left adamant about the necessity of it...

I don't know how else to say this without repeating myself, but you can't achieve equality with racism. It is a situation where even if you are right, your still wrong. Putting actual race based discrimination into official party policy, and now apparently even into law is no longer something society is willing to tolerate. Doubly so when their children are the ones being discriminated against. The people will vote you out of office. You can kiss swing states goodbye. They will stack the Supreme Court against you to challenge and throw out the discriminatory law as unconstitutional.

You are fighting a battle you can not win. You are wrong to think that solving the problem of underfunded schools in bad socioeconomic regions is the harder nut to crack. Maintaining a law and systematic racism against whites to 'balance' the lack of opportunity is much harder, it's being dismantled already because people will not tolerate it. Demanding that university's open up XX spots for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids, regardless of race is already normal practice here in Canada and everyone can get on board. Doing it for race though, humans just don't work that way. The only times that's been successfully maintained is through force of numbers or military strength.

The Check In: Betsy DeVos' Rollback of Civil Rights

bcglorf says...

"Discrimination by itself is not bad, it's discriminating against someone (especially based on racial assumptions) that's considered wrong."

And there we can agree. I would count assumptions of white privilege as racial assumptions that are wrong to be used as a basis for discriminating against people. I get that you disagree vehemently.

I also agree that equality and diversity and race aren't simplistic problems, and that on some level everybody has some manner of assumptions or prejudices that affect their decisions.

What I can't accept or agree with is the notion that coding into law that entities should use race to discriminate for/against people makes things better.

Again, even ceding all of your points to you(only for arguments sake) coding law to discriminate against people based upon race is still bad.

No matter how hard and long you try to explain the greater good it serves, and no matter how right you are, humans will not tolerate that discrimination. When their friends, family and especially kids are impacted or are simply potentially going to be impacted negatively by it, they will push back. When the group you are discriminating against is a majority, the push back will be all the more certain and vehement when it comes.

Mark my words, if the Democrats want to die on this hill and give not an inch on it, they will continue to lose election after election until they distance themselves from it.

Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon