vxbush 2/3/2021 5:34:55 AM

1

Today's breakfast looks good but way too cold. Brrrr. 

Morning, campers. 

vxbush 2/3/2021 5:34:55 AM

2

Today's breakfast looks good but way too cold. Brrrr. 

Morning, campers. 

lucius septimius 2/3/2021 6:15:24 AM

3

Reply to vxbush in 2:

It was 28 here when I got up, which is pretty durn cold for us.  I see that up at mom's it's supposed to drop below zero by the end of the week.  Of course we could be n Alaska -- wind chill of -62 in Fairbanks today.

vxbush 2/3/2021 6:25:52 AM

4

In #3 lucius septimius said: It was 28 here when I got up, which is pretty durn cold for us.  I see that up at mom's it's supposed to drop below zero by the end of the week.  Of course we could be n Alaska -- wind chill of -62 in Fairbanks today.

I can't even think of how cold that must be. Ugh. I had a relative who lived in Alaska years ago, but that person had to move south to the lower 48 because it was too cold, medically speaking, for that person to live in Alaska. 

vxbush 2/3/2021 6:31:42 AM

5

In #3 lucius septimius said: I see that up at mom's it's supposed to drop below zero by the end of the week. 

Ugh. Same here, too. I'll be hibernating that day. 

buzzsawmonkey 2/3/2021 6:55:43 AM

6

buzzsawmonkey 2/3/2021 6:56:51 AM

7

In #3 lucius septimius said: Of course we could be n Alaska -- wind chill of -62 in Fairbanks today.

Time to curl up in a warm room and re-read Jack London's To Build a Fire.

vxbush 2/3/2021 7:10:26 AM

8

In #7 buzzsawmonkey said: Time to curl up in a warm room and re-read Jack London's To Build a Fire.

Suggestion: start by burning London's book.

lucius septimius 2/3/2021 7:16:29 AM

9

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 7:

I love that story.

buzzsawmonkey 2/3/2021 7:49:28 AM

10

Reply to lucius septimius in 9:

Jack London is a fascinating writer.  He is by turns virulently racist and somewhat compassionate/understanding/multicultural; he was, apparently, Socialist in that late-19th/early-20th century way, but recognized the importance of individual responsibility and the consequences of personal choices; he recognized that there is brutality in the world and that justice is sometimes rough, sometimes delayed, and sometimes denied.

buzzsawmonkey 2/3/2021 8:24:48 AM

11

Question for the house: Does anyone know anything verifiable about the accusations being leveled at this Marjorie Taylor Greene?  

It sounds like she is foolishly intemperate of speech.  But tend to discount things like her being "into QAnon," partly because I find the whole explanation of who or what QAnon is, or even if it exists, vague at best; it sounds very much akin to the frequent Leftist accusations of "white supremacy," which I find are generally, upon investigation, grossly (though not always) exaggerated.

Likewise, she has been accused of antisemitic utterances/endorsement of antisemitic conspiracy ideas/theories.  It is certainly possible, and would not surprise me---but, again, there's a lot of flapdoodle flying around, and a lot of people who say, "Oh, if you believe A, B, and C, then you must believe X, Y and Z," when this is their presumption leap, unsupported by evidence.  Greene may be a Jew-hating nut---or, she might be someone who's being accused of being a Jew-hating nut in order to encourage Jews, and others, to dismiss whatever she's actually saying out of hand.  

I don't know, which is why I'm asking whether anyone has anything solid on this.

JCM 2/3/2021 8:31:10 AM

12

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 11:

My understanding of QAnon is that it a couple of basement trolls. 

Yeah she's a loose cannon speech wise. Says stupid things. I don't pay much attention.

However what I've seen of what she said, there are Dems who have said much, much worse and the Dems circle the wagons.

Alinsky rules,  "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Occasional Reader 2/3/2021 8:53:52 AM

13

In #12 JCM said: Alinsky rules,  "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

The problem is, they don’t give a shit if they don’t live up to their rules. That’s just for us.

Kosh's Shadow 2/3/2021 8:54:37 AM

14

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 11:
GOP Congresswoman blamed deadly forest fire on Jewish space laser

2018 Facebook posts no longer visible. 

Among the many posts being unearthed amid renewed scrutiny of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s social media history is one in which the new congresswoman implicated “Rothschild Inc” in connection with a deadly forest fire that, she wrote, was started using secret laser beams from space.

Greene, a freshman Republican from Georgia who made waves during the campaign for her promotion of the QAnon conspiracy theory, made the accusation in a 2018 Facebook post that is no longer visible. In the post, Greene offers a mix of evidence-free speculation as to what caused the 2018 Camp Fire, which burned more than 150,000 acres and killed 85 people.

In reality, the fire was determined to have been started by electrical wiring belonging to Pacific Gas and Electric.

Occasional Reader 2/3/2021 9:01:16 AM

15

In #14 Kosh's Shadow said: In reality, the fire was determined to have been started by electrical wiring belonging to Pacific Gas and Electric.

That's what the Joos WANT you to think!

Occasional Reader 2/3/2021 9:03:19 AM

16

In #11 buzzsawmonkey said: Question for the house:

Buzz, another way to think of this is as follows (and this was posted at Instapundit the other day):

Whenever they come into power, the Left immediately focuses media attention on some fringe figure on the right, in order to distract attention from what they (the Left) are doing with their newly-acquired power.  In that sense, Marjorie Taylor Greene is just the new Michelle Bachmann. 

Kosh's Shadow 2/3/2021 9:12:25 AM

17

Reply to Occasional Reader in 16:

GOP is pushing back, and telling Democrats to remove Omar from her committee assignments. Good.

But this whole thing shows loonies on both sides are coming out. Unfortunately, there is no push back against those on the left.

buzzsawmonkey 2/3/2021 9:33:28 AM

18

Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 14:

Well, that article is pretty problematic.

First, it talks about "the QAnon conspiracy theory" without explaining what it is---like we're all supposed to know already.   I don't; I'd bet most people don't---but it sure as heck sounds booga-booga and menacing, doesn't it?  Nice groundwork for what follows.

The original Facebook comment isn't available---so we have to rely on someone else's reporting of someone else's interpretation.  That's problematic.  The mention of Rothschild is potentially problematic too---I've noticed a resurgence of "Rothschild" utterances among the Jew-haters who bob up at PJM, which seem to me to hark back to the "Protocols"---but if I'm going to get really upset, I'd like to see the actual thing I'm supposed to get upset about, not merely somebody's third-hand take on it.  I note, too, that the article said this was reported by Media Matters, which is hardly a reliable source.

The same goes for the mention of Soros.  Yes, there are some people who try to use Soros as a springboard for antisemitic utterances, but there are far more people---on the Left---who try to leverage any mention of Soros' funding, support, and behavior into claims that anyone who calls attention to these things is, ipso facto, antisemitic.   In other words, Leftists use Soros' nominal Jewishness as a sword and shield to attack anyone who opposes Leftist initiatives as being "antisemitic."  Soros" nominal Jewishness is almost as useful to the Left as his money.

The attack on Greene regarding the Parkland shooting was done by a gun-control-supporting parent of one of the victims.  Not to minimize his tragedy, but there's still no reporting of what she actually said, and her accuser is politically pre-disposed to exaggerate and distort.

The most problematic thing mentioned in the article is the video Greene apparently posted about a "Zionist plot" by Jews to "replace white majorities" by bringing in nonwhite immigrants.  I've seen at least one or two such videos; they are cleverly done, and it is disturbing that she posted one.  That said, I will tell you my late friend experienced one of her friends on Facebook posting something of the sort about a year ago. She confronted her friend, explaining why it was both wrong and offensive, and the friend, appalled, took it down.  Point being that the friend, like many non-Jews, had no idea what the allusions/references/resonance in the video was, and merely put it up on the "oh, isn't this interesting" theory. 

More to the point, having seen such videos myself, I find myself wondering whether many if not most of them are false-flaggots.  They look to create not only Jew-hate---something beloved of communists and fascists both---but Israel-hate, something particularly beloved of Leftists.  They also seek to stir up not only the "white supremacy" attitudes the Left is always shrieking about but can never seem to find unless it invents them, but a feeling of specifically race-based antipathy towards "migrants."  All these attitudes are hallmarks of the Left. 

I can readily see such a video being a Leftist false-flag to stir up the racial strife, Jew-hate, and Israel-hate it yearns for (especially since religious Christians tend to support Israel), and can equally easily someone like Greene, likely unaware of the tangled historical thickets where these issues are concerned, putting up such a video on the "oh, isn't this interesting" theory.  It doesn't say much for her sophistication, but it hardly establishes her as a raving Jew-hater, either.

I don't like the cult of personality that's developing around her, but I also am increasingly starting to smell a hit job.

vxbush 2/3/2021 9:35:31 AM

19

In #18 buzzsawmonkey said: First, it talks about "the QAnon conspiracy theory" without explaining what it is

I can provide a viewpoint on this aspect later, but I have some  important things to do first. I'll try to get back before the end of my work day. 

buzzsawmonkey 2/3/2021 9:37:29 AM

20

In #16 Occasional Reader said: In that sense, Marjorie Taylor Greene is just the new Michelle Bachmann. 

Well put.

Occasional Reader 2/3/2021 10:58:35 AM

21

doppelganglander 2/3/2021 11:42:21 AM

22

Reply to Occasional Reader in 21:

Has Little OR been watching Doctor Who? There's an episode from the David Tennant period about an intergalactic bus trip to a planet made of diamonds. 

Occasional Reader 2/3/2021 11:48:40 AM

23

Reply to doppelganglander in 22:

No, this is from one of the videos he watches about outer space; apparently there really is a working theory that this particular planet could be basically made of diamond.

JCM 2/3/2021 11:59:28 AM

24

Reply to Occasional Reader in 23:

Also if you mined 55 Cancri-E, never mind the technical and logistical challenges. The sudden glut of diamonds would drop the price and your profits.

Occasional Reader 2/3/2021 12:04:42 PM

25

Reply to doppelganglander in 22: Reply to JCM in 24:

Guys, guys, you're getting distracted from the important thing here... the band name, "The Dead Diamonds".  (I'm categorizing the rock style as "Glam-punk".)    "Did you know the band's name was thought up by a five year-old?", people will say, in the future, after we go double-platinum. 

buzzsawmonkey 2/3/2021 12:05:58 PM

26

In #25 Occasional Reader said: the band name, "The Dead Diamonds"

There are many facets to this.  Of course, they'd only thrive in the proper setting.

JCM 2/3/2021 12:11:10 PM

27

Reply to Occasional Reader in 25:

First Album would be called Cut, second Clarity, third Carat.......

PaladinPhil 2/3/2021 12:17:38 PM

28

Well it's now official. Proud Boys are considered a terrorist organization in Canada. Won't link the CBC news story since the bias is over the top. Starting with the headline that obliquely links them with "Neo-Nazis".

Occasional Reader 2/3/2021 12:17:54 PM

29

In #26 buzzsawmonkey said: There are many facets to this.  Of course, they'd only thrive in the proper setting.

Let's talk this thing out, over a couple of de beers that I enjoy, at some point. I certainly Hope we can make a go of it.

Occasional Reader 2/3/2021 12:18:29 PM

30

Reply to PaladinPhil in 28:

But Antifa are just an idea. 

JCM 2/3/2021 12:56:04 PM

31

Reply to PaladinPhil in 28:

Buildings burned by Proud Boys - 0

Buildings burned by PANTIFA and BLM - 1500

Hey, make perfect sense!

vxbush 2/3/2021 1:16:56 PM

32

In #18 buzzsawmonkey said: it talks about "the QAnon conspiracy theory" without explaining what it is

First thing to note: A lot of people are doing the exact opposite of what you are doing, buzz, and just assuming that when they hear about "Qanon" that they actually know what it is based on the discussion. I want to commend you for not assuming. 

For my part, a year or so ago (maybe longer--I can't recall) I actually went back and found one of the various sites that put all of Q's postings together in one place so people could go back and read every posting without having to find them individually on 4chan and 8chan, as they were spread out all over the place. So my analysis is based primary on what Q said himself. 

I would actually separate the Qanon phenomenon into two separate issues: Q, and the anon groupies. 

Q was the moniker of one person (or possibly more, but I still think it was just one)  who first inhabited 4chan and then, when the group was forced out, moved to 8chan. He didn't come out and say things outright at first, but posted a lot of things in a type of code that left people baffled. Slowly he started to peel the layers back and explain some of his code that he used. At first, the vast majority of what he talked about involved the 2016 election and the spying done on President Trump and who was involved and how. Later on, he expanded his comments to involve other topics, including the infamous PizzaGate issue, Jeffrey Epstein, the Deep State, the Clintons, various congressmen and women, the origins of Facebook and Google, the Rothschilds, MK Ultra, and much more. At one point--and I don't recall exactly when--he admitted he intentionally said some crazy things so if he was asked about whether he was the poster, he could honestly admit he didn't believe that crazy stuff. Which time was he lying--when he posted the original comments, or when he said he didn't believe those things? I report, you decide. 

The wider group of people who followed Q were called anons because they were anonymous on these sites. Duh. When I was reading these things, I saw a bunch of people trying to interpret Q's postings and there were several different people posting after Q would post and they would attempt to interpret his postings. These went all over the place; two Q followers could read the same set of posts and come to wildly different conclusions about what Q was saying. 

This may have been intentional, as you could conceivably read his posts in several different ways. Again, more plausible deniability. From what is saw, Q's posts on the FBI's spying on President Trump were accurate, as were the posts he made regarding Jeffrey Epstein. But I didn't track down all the additional things that were posted; you would have to spend all day every day to do that level of research, and some people did feel like they had to investigate all this stuff. So I can totally believe that some people completely disconnected from their regular lives in order to track down what they thought Q was posting. 

Towards the end of 2019 and beginning of 2020, Q was hinting that all sorts of things would be coming into public view that would explode the deep state and end up in many arrests across the country. John Durham was supposed to researching these folks and when his indictments were filed, heads would roll. Well, one person was indicted, and he got zero time, probation, and a $100 fine. 

I understand why people got roped into the Q phenomenon; it played into folks' conspiracy theory fantasies about the Deep State and hopes that a lot of folks would see justice. But it turned into a group of people who fanatically followed Trump and assumed he was playing 4D chess even when such evidence wasn't there. At the beginning, it seemed like Q was a reliable (if cryptic) source of information and was posting pictures that really made it seem like he was in the inner group around Trump. But as November 3 came and went and none of the lawsuits or demonstrations of election fraud were ever heard in a court of law, it fizzled, and badly.

My 2 cents, which won't even buy you a piece of bubblegum from the dispenser at the store. 

doppelganglander 2/3/2021 1:29:52 PM

33

Reply to Occasional Reader in 25:
Buy that child a drum kit. He can keep it at his mom's.

Kosh's Shadow 2/3/2021 2:24:11 PM

34

Reply to vxbush in 32:

I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out Q and some of his followers were a Russian or Chinese plan to destabilize the country. Put enough truth in there to get people hooked, and then slowly amp up the absurdity, so people keep believing.

JCM 2/3/2021 2:31:41 PM

35

Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 34:

Back in the old days Soviets were experts at destablization.

Kosh's Shadow 2/3/2021 2:55:55 PM

36

Reply to JCM in 35:

And Putin is KGB through and through

buzzsawmonkey 2/3/2021 2:57:01 PM

37

Reply to vxbush in 32:

Thanks for the response in detail.  I had a reply half-written, had to leave Mr. Machine for a while, and...it vanished.

So it will take a little while longer before I reply.

JCM 2/3/2021 3:09:42 PM

38

lucius septimius 2/3/2021 3:16:16 PM

39

In #37 buzzsawmonkey said: I had a reply half-written, had to leave Mr. Machine for a while, and...it vanished.

The Rothschilds nuked it, obviously.

Kosh's Shadow 2/3/2021 3:23:13 PM

40

In #37 buzzsawmonkey said: had to leave Mr. Machine for a while, and...it vanished.

If the page gets refreshed using the browser refresh button instead of the page's Refresh button, it doesn't check for a partially written post.

doppelganglander 2/3/2021 3:28:34 PM

41

Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 34:

You're overthinking it. Q is some guy sitting in his basement making shit up.

Occasional Reader 2/3/2021 4:29:04 PM

42

Reply to doppelganglander in 41:

personally, I would not discount the possibility that this is a Russian and or Chinese intelligence operation. Think of how successful the Russians were at infiltrating practically every major institution in the west during the 1950s-80s.  

doppelganglander 2/3/2021 4:42:16 PM

43

Reply to Occasional Reader in 42:

As the Chinese have done at dozens of universities in recent years. When I wanted to find out what Q was, I followed a few accounts on Twitter for a couple of weeks. The vibe I got was basement loser, not sophisticated international psyops. Just my take, that's all. You may very well be right.

buzzsawmonkey 2/3/2021 4:43:49 PM

44

Reply to vxbush in 32:

Sorry to delay in reply.  Can't quite reconstruct everything I was saying but here's a shot at it.

I don't like the cult of personality; it was that which made me initially dislike Trump when he ran the first time, and it's what makes me mistrust the building cult of personality that's growing over Greene.  

I grew to admire Trump even before the 2016 election simply because then, and thereafter, he was obviously having to contend with all manner of calumny, much of it obviously fabricated, and---loose-mouthed braggart though he was and is---he handled it with style, grace, and humor. Greene appears to be trying to pick up and wrap herself in Trump's fallen mantle, but she does not strike me as having anywhere near the personal or financial resources to pull that off.  I do not automatically equate opposition to the current gang to "Trump-support," but there appear to be many who do, and I in no way consider Greene a worthy hill for either opposition, or "Trump-support," to die on. 

As I said upthread, I'm prepared---to a limited extent---to tentatively cut her some slack regarding what appear to be utterances/posts which may well be both stupid and bigoted, but it appears that she will not have the opportunity to clarify them, and it also appears that she lacks the wit and the skill necessary to even attempt to de-fuse them.  

That's too bad; were she more able, it would be amusing to see her introduce a "Greene New Deal" that would compete with the "green new deal" being touted by AOC---especially if her supporters were to choose a shade of green that could make "Greenes" competitive with Leftist "greens." Were she an able politician in this regard we'd be in for some very interesting times.  But it does not appear that she has the knowledge, instinct, or wit to even consider it, let alone be able to pull it off.