• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Community Reputation

900 The F'n Man!

About Homer_Rice

  • Rank
    Pilgrim Shadow

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. The Republican Party’s Sickness of the Soul "There’s a sickness on the land. You know the facts: millions of Americans lives in poverty. The number of Americans in the workforce remains low. Wages are stagnating and inequality is growing. “Deaths of despair” from alcoholism, opioid overdose, and suicide are on the rise. But it’s not just the inequality, or the poverty, or the despair, that wounds us. It’s the fact that so many Republican leaders and voters find ways to justify living with these injustices, and are now making them worse. There’s no polite way to say it: they suffer from a sickness of the soul." I'd only add that the neoliberal, donor class Democrats aren't much better.
  2. Just bought a Win10 desktop and I want to do good security/privacy practice from the get-go. Lots of tutorials on the net but I was wondering if anyone here has gone through this process and might be willing to offer suggestions. Basically, I want everything turned off that might send data back to Microsoft. Any specific tutorials you might recommend? And on the side--what email program do you suggest? Using Thunderbird now and was thinking of just migrating it to the new machine. Will be using a local account for Windows. Will be installing CCleaner. Will be installing Malwarebytes. Will install both Firefox and Opera. Thanks for thinking about this. Regards; homer_rice
  3. Cuomo's proposal is another example of incrementalism. Also, he wants to be Prez... Better to go the Sanders route. (pdf)
  4. Some reading: syria: New U.S. Air Support On Request Scheme For Al-Qaeda Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker by Publius Tacitus Ex-UK ambassador to Syria: 'No proof' of chemical attack Trump’s ‘Wag the Dog’ Moment Roaming Charges: Metaphysical Graffiti Can the president attack another country without Congress? McConnell: Trump's airstrike didn't need congressional authorization 60 Words And A War Without End: The Untold Story Of The Most Dangerous Sentence In U.S. History We are the war on terror, and the war on terror is us Extra: Brian Williams declares the "Beauty" of US Weapons against Syria 4/7/17 Roger Waters - The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range You have a natural tendency To squeeze off a shot You're good fun at parties You wear the right masks You're old but you still Like a laugh in the locker room You can't abide change You're at home on the range You opened your suitcase Behind the old workings To show off the magnum You deafened the canyon A comfort a friend Only upstaged in the end By the Uzi machine gun Does the recoil remind you Remind you of sex Old man what the hell you gonna kill next Old timer who you gonna kill next I looked over Jordan and what did I see Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris I swam in your pools And lay under your palm trees I looked in the eyes of the Indian Who lay on the Federal Building steps And through the range finder over the hill I saw the front line boys popping their pills Sick of the mess they find On their desert stage And the bravery of being out of range Yeah the question is vexed Old man what the hell you gonna kill next Old timer who you gonna kill next Hey bartender over here Two more shots And two more beers Sir turn up the TV sound The war has started on the ground Just love those laser guided bombs They're really great For righting wrongs You hit the target And win the game From bars 3,000 miles away 3,000 miles away We play the game With the bravery of being out of range We zap and maim With the bravery of being out of range We strafe the train With the bravery of being out of range We gain terrain With the bravery of being out of range With the bravery of being out of range We play the game With the bravery of being out of range
  5. Leeeeroy Jenkins....
  6. I'm assuming that most folks here are aware of recent news regarding Gayle Sayers and Dwight Clark. And there are thousands of other former players who have sacrificed their bodies and minds all for the sake of what is a brutal form of entertainment. We ask these guys to endure what they endure. We idolize them. We pay them great sums of money. These modern day gladiators--and make no mistake about it--they are gladiators in the same sense that those of the Roman period, with all the same social ramifications--are briefly in the spotlight, and then they are thrown onto a trash heap. All for the sake of our vicarious pleasure. It is what it is. Mike Brown is a pretty decent fellow. If he chooses to give another chance to a fellow human being, then so be it. Even multiple chances in this particular situation. If, as a business person, he chooses not to make a move before he absolutely has to, then he's doing smart business. If Marvin Lewis prefers to hedge his bets with respect to the composition to the squad, then that's just Manager 101 stuff. Maybe it's time to move on from Adam Jones. Maybe not. No matter what, he's a product of this particular subset of our social behavior. What it is definitely time for is this: fans need to understand they can't have their cake and eat it, too. You wanna spend so much time celebrating gladiators performing in a brutal environment, then you sometimes gotta deal with that brutality spilling over into the world outside of the lines. That so many folks just want to jettison a guy--like he was just so much meat--says an awful lot about who we are as fans. And that isn't very pretty either. Those of us old enough to remember Sayers on the field are pretty lucky. What a graceful runner he was. Take a moment to consider his condition now. Know that guys like Jones may very likely end up in the same condition some years from now. And be thankful that as a fan and not a participant on the field, the odds are pretty good you'll actually still know who you are when you hit your retirement age.
  7. For the squids and jarheads among us: Sad but not surprising.
  8. That was a nice read. I tend to come at this stuff from the economics side, so I'm not really familiar with Rorty other than in passing. I'm going to put Achieving Our Country on my list and maybe read it in tandem with a book I recently picked up, but haven't read yet: Pivotal Decade. Here's a Steve Fraser review (I've read a number of his books, too, so his word carries some weight with me.)
  9. Don't get me started on the Democrats! As I have mentioned a couple of times over the years here, I'm an old-time Labor Democrat who has been loyal to the party despite the party's internal shift away from FDR-like policies in favor of corporatist 10%er and identity politics. Decades worth. Them days are over for me. Not only did Sanders get the shaft from the party elite during the primaries, but it has become clear to me that most of the powerful people in the Dem party refuse to learn the lesson. If you watch what's happening within the party post-election, they're still punching down on working class voices (what little remains of it within the party) and thus, in my mind, are just setting themselves up for more defeat, more reaction to Repub agenda-setting, and more blame-shifting. OMG the Russkies! On Gorsuch. It's clear he's smart. Not so clear to me that he is wise. And as, Elfocko says, it should have been Garland's seat. So, even if Dem efforts are futile at this point--they should have nominated the candidate that would have won--it would be nice to see some real fights contra the Repubs. I've been an advocate of taking off the gloves for a long time now.
  10. Yeah, if high school yearbook quotes were a thing at WHHS in the early 70s, then mine would've been: "Hey, pass that doobie over here, Bogart." I turned out okay. Nevertheless, as Gorsuch is an originalist, I'm opposed. (Not to mention that his Mom was a piece of work.) Interesting read from Vanity Fair.
  11. Not only the neocons. Clintonites, too. (Although I'd just say corporate/foreign policy Democrats.) Anyhow. Let's see some proof. Tonkin Gulf? WMDs? Again, we're in a period in which it's in our best interests not to allow the propaganda-mongers to dictate events without being hard pressed for evidence.
  12. Lol. I may have been missing the point in 1982, too, when Lopez Portillo spoke at the UN. I may have been too busy singing "La Cucaracha" with some Mexican colleagues at a conference in NYC. Well, on the list of unfair things that have happened over the last four decades, I'm gonna guess that poking fun at enabling economists who flack for neoliberal horsepoop is pretty far down the list. But, as they say, if in for a dime, then in for a dollar, so: Fuck David Ricardo, too.
  13. It was originally a comment on another post at NC. Sometimes the moderators there will give an interesting comment some digital real estate of its own. Anyhow, he was blowing off steam in a fairly smart way. The question to ponder, imo, is this: Just how did we get here? This didn't happen overnight; it's the result of 40 years of policies intended to change the economic landscape from one of shared aggregate growth in our society to one in which cannibalized looting of our population (after and while continuing to loot large parts of the rest of the world) is deemed acceptable. It's bi-partisan, too. NAFTA was an important inflection in this process, despite what some neoliberal economists would have us believe. Is it any wonder that millions of people who have been deliberately squeezed out of any semblance of prosperity decided to kick over the apple cart? Despair and anger is a large part of why Trump was elected. But he didn't create the despair or anger. He just found a way to harness it.
  14. Send this to your economist friends...
  15. Well, what is your point? Did you just dredge this article up? For what purpose? Bring your thoughts to the table. While you are at it, make an argument. I've been reading DeLong for years. He self-identifies as a neoliberal. He's okay as an economic historian if you accept that he is an apologist for his POV (as we all are to a certain extent.) "I am probably an outlier among neoliberal and neoclassical economists in thinking that most of that shedding — US job shedding that exceeded German job shedding — was bad." This article isn't bad, but he frames it in a crappy way. Paraphrase: NAFTA is small piece of the puzzle when the entire context is taken into account. His presumption is that the opponents of NAFTA saw it as a cause of decline rather than a symptom of a prevailing anti-industrial shift away from material goods production into a shiny new financialized world. That began in the early 60s. There are plenty of folks, like me, who--at that time--understood NAFTA for what it was: another means to drive down wages/labor costs and to hurt the collective bargaining positions of unions. (and more...) I'll be honest, Mike. I spent the entire Spring and Summer rebutting bullshit like this from die-hard Clinton supporters. If you have some well thought out views on trade policy I'd be happy to hear them. If you are just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, then I have no interest (and not much respect, either.)