Salman Rushdie: Man arrested after author attacked on stage - "Author Salman Rushdie, who suffered years of Islamist death threats after writing The Satanic Verses, has been attacked on stage in New York state. The Booker Prize winner, 75, was speaking at an event at the Chautauqua Institution at the time. New York State Police said a male suspect ran up onto the stage and attacked Mr Rushdie and an interviewer. "Rushdie suffered an apparent stab wound to the neck," the police statement said. The author was transported by helicopter to a local hospital. His condition is not currently known. The interviewer, Henry Reese, also suffered a minor head injury. Mr Reese is the co-founder of a non-profit that provides sanctuary to writers exiled under threat of persecution... Dozens of people died in the violence that followed its publication, including murdered translators of the work. The bounty over Mr Rushdie's head remains active, although Iran's government has distanced itself from Khomeini's decree. The author, who has British and American citizenship, is a vocal advocate for freedom of expression and has defended his work on several occasions. When he was knighted in 2007 by Queen Elizabeth II, it sparked protests in Iran and Pakistan, where one cabinet minister said the honour "justifies suicide attacks". Literary events attended by Mr Rushdie have been subject to threats and boycotts in the past."
Dutch Police Arrested a Bird for Its Part in a Robbery - "A Dutch bird was spotted at the scene of the crime, and the police evidently had a lot of fun doling out a punishment. Police in Utrecht, in the Netherlands, found the “sneaky witness” when arresting a shoplifting subject. Politie Utrecht shared a picture of the bird on their Instagram... The police allegedly gave the bird bread and water to keep it satiated in the police station. Responsible! When initially reporting on the bird’s arrest, news organization RTV Utrecht blurred out the bird’s eyes to keep his identity private. Also responsible!"
Low quality video | Facebook
Crayfish/crawfish walks into hot oil and cooks itself
Mirror
Therapeutic dog helping rape victims in Afghanistan goat
Facebook - "Myself, along with rest of Singapore: "Yay super long weekend. How to spend it?"
Cyclist: "Yay. Super long weekend. Feeling cute. Maybe I shall try to ruin someone's life today by throwing my meat in front of 2 tons of moving steel."
(Yeah this from my car camera this morning)"
Time for cyclists to hate on motorists again!
Cyclist 'jumped red light and killed pedestrian Peter McCombie' - "A cyclist killed a 73-year-old pedestrian after riding through a red light, leaving him "bleeding" in the road, a court has heard. Ermir Loka, of Manor Road, Leyton, east London, is accused of the manslaughter of Peter McCombie, who was struck on Bow Road, Tower Hamlets on 3 July. Mr McCombie died from severe brain injuries eight days after the crash."
The cyclists will just use this as "proof" that they are being "persecuted", and claim that this shows that there needs to be even more support for cycling (even though existing infrastructure is already under-utilised)
Facebook - "This is the main reason why kids these days are not strong physically. They have never been through such intensive physical training. Best compound exercise that combines endurance, strength and agility workouts to stimulate the brain, and to activate every single muscle fibre in the body while improving VO2max. And this exercise trains motor skills and promotes good judgement too, as the child needs to constantly turn his head while running, to have immediate judgement on how fast he needs to run.
*Kid running from mother who's going to cane him*"
Quiet strength? LOL! George Takei BOASTS he’s ‘more of a man than someone like Tucker Carlson’ and WOW that’s a lotta backfire - "George Takei tweeting about himself, calling himself ‘more of a man than someone like Tucker Carlson’, and then babbling about his quiet strength is one of the funnier moments we’ve seen on Twitter that was accidentally funny. We’re pretty sure George wasn’t trying to make himself look like a total doorknob and yet, he succeeded...
'There’s much talk these days of what being a man entails. I’m more of a man than someone like Tucker Carlson will ever be because I have experienced grave injustice yet chosen the path of compassion, truth and forgiveness. It’s a quiet strength he’ll never know.'
Quiet strength doesn’t mean going on Twitter and babbling about it, George.
'But really, it's your humility we most admire. You never talk about yourself.'"
Comments (elsewhere): "Same side talking about what it is to be a man can't even define what a woman is. Piss off George."
"God Takei is such a bitch. Dude your people were locked away during ww2 by the same politicians you blow today."
"No wonder shatner couldn’t stand him"
"Sounds like toxic masculinity to me... đ insulting others based on who is "more of a man" is some undeserved ego driven dumb shit. Talk about elitist Naked hypocrisy with a splash of "please pay attention to me. I want to be relevant". Tucker is the number one rated news opinion hour on the number one media station.. George is a has been who's career has has devolved from campy 60's has been actor to "being the snarky gay Asian guy on twitter that says edgy things for attention sometimes""
"When you have to announce that you’re actually a man on social media."
"Quiet strength? Dude is anything but quiet. He's the biggest blowhard on the internet. His entire personality is "I'm a gay actor." Good for you, George. But the fact remains, you were a sub-par supporting role in a mediocre TV show that's pretty much been your only achievement. At least Shatner had a career after Star Trek."
"Wasn't this man saying stuff down the lines of "anyone who doesn't get vaccinated should be forbidden from using health services and be left to die"?"
">it's a quiet strength
>tweets it to his millions of followers
Lol"
George Takei on Twitter - "Ben Carson says that poverty is a "state of mind." You know what else is a state of mind? Always being a blithering idiot."
George Takei on Twitter - "My only critique of Joe Biden calling Peter Doocy a stupid son of a b*tch over a hot mic was that he didn't do it sooner."
George Takei on Twitter - "What a sad pathetic little man."
George Takei on Twitter - "Tucker Carlson thinks it’s cool to mispronounce Kamala Harris’s name. Hmmm. What sounds like “Tucker”?"
So much "compassion, truth and forgiveness" and "quiet strength". George really needs to fire his whole social media team for incompetence. Not to mention still hating Shatner after 60 years because Shatner was the star and he was only a supporting cast member
Richard Hanania on Twitter - "Imagine what a nice guy Tucker must be for them to write a ten million word series on how bad he is and not to find even a single alleged case of “racism,” etc. in his personal dealings with people. We know how low the standards of the press are for this sort of thing."
On the New York Times hitjob
Meme - "*Move from suburbs to city* Liberal: "Nooooo thats gentrification!"
*Moves from city to suburbs* Liberal: "Nooooo thats white flight!""
Despite how they mock conservatives of being afraid of change, when it comes to housing liberals hate change
Industry City Project in Brooklyn Defeated by Progressives - The New York Times - "It was slated to be one of the biggest real estate projects in New York City in years, a major expansion of the Industry City complex on the Brooklyn waterfront that could have created as many as 20,000 jobs at a time when local unemployment has soared because of the pandemic. But on Tuesday night, the project’s owner canceled the expansion in the face of fierce opposition from left-leaning Democrats, ending the biggest clash over development in the city since the collapse of the Amazon deal in Queens last year, and highlighting the growing influence of the left in local politics. The project, which required the city’s approval to rezone the area, had been cast as a way to bring jobs to an underdeveloped industrial section of Sunset Park, and supporters argued that the city’s massive job losses in recent months gave them an even more compelling reason to move forward with plans to create a shopping and office behemoth there. New York City’s unemployment rate last month was 16 percent, nearly twice the national average. But the area’s councilman and some community groups opposed the rezoning, saying that it would be a “luxury mall” that would worsen gentrification, and contending that job estimates were inflated... the progressive wing of the Democratic Party saw the proposal as a favor to big business, one that could lead to displacement in Sunset Park, a diverse, working-class neighborhood on the Brooklyn waterfront."
Anything that benefits big business is bad, even if others benefit. Big business must be burnt down, even if everyone loses their jobs
The Anti-growth Alliance That Fueled Urban Gentrification - The Atlantic - "Among some leftists and liberals alike, as well as the politicians who court them, the idea that developers of pricey apartments and condo buildings are to blame for high housing prices has long been an article of faith. In this telling, new luxury housing is the reason that former working- and middle-class neighborhoods in their cities have become fancy enclaves... Fighting the construction of such housing would not only reverse the trend of unaffordability, but from the perspective of politicians and activists would also demonstrate support for working-class residents in the process... in portraying new housing as the proximate cause of gentrification, it exacerbates the very housing crisis it seeks to solve. Choose any major city in America with a high cost of living, and you’ll find that the suspicion of new housing is pervasive in local politics... Skepticism about growth has been a powerful force in urban politics for more than half a century... Architectural preservationists, who preferred ornate older buildings to modernist designs and saw their work as integral to keeping urban living appealing, worked to designate some of American cities’ first historic districts. Homeowner groups mobilized against highways, commercial establishments, multi-family apartment buildings, and other nuisances that they perceived as threats to their property values and “neighborhood character.” And left-wing organizations constituting what the activist Harry Boyte later called the “backyard revolution”—a movement that emphasized small-scale community organizing and other place-based advocacy as a means of effecting social justice—participated as well, calling for processes that would allow vulnerable groups, such as tenants, to veto new projects they did not feel were in their best interest... Nature enthusiasts, architectural historians, homeowners, and rock-ribbed socialists all found it advantageous to portray developers as a shadowy, parasitic force in metropolitan politics"
Yet liberals mock conservatives for being afraid of change
New Report Recasts Gentrification as a Potential Force for Social Justice - "For many on the Left, gentrification remains a dirty word, synonymous—or at least closely associated—with racism, oligarchic developers, neoliberalism, and even genocide... A just-released working paper from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve could shake up the conversation. Several previous studies have already cast doubt on the conventional wisdom that gentrification causes widespread displacement of poor, longtime residents. “The Effects of Gentrification on Well Being and Opportunity of Original Resident Adults and Their Children” goes further by recasting gentrification as a potential force for income integration and social mobility. Unlike many previous studies, the paper, by Quentin Brummet of the National Opinion Research Center and Davin Reed at the Fed, is longitudinal, giving not just a snapshot of neighborhood residents but a picture over time... Gentrification displaces very few people. An influx of college-educated residents into formerly lower-income neighborhoods—the accepted definition of gentrification—increases the probability that vulnerable, less-educated renters move to another neighborhood by about 3 percentage points. The effect on resident moves to a neighborhood at least one mile away is higher, at about 5 percentage points. These findings demonstrate that gentrification has only a modest impact on displacement, debunking previous research that failed to consider just how dynamic urban neighborhoods are. Urbanites move a lot: 68 percent of less educated renters and 79 percent of more educated urban renters will haul their furniture to different lodgings over the course of a decade. That’s the case even where there are no latte-sippers snapping up nearby condos. The constant churning of the population means that gentrifiers are generally not forcing out locals so much as taking their place as they leave. The authors conclude that when the gentrifiers come, less educated residents—the most vulnerable ones—are only 10 percent more likely to move than they would have been if everything had stayed the same. The bigger surprise is what happens to low-income residents who stay put compared with those who do move out. The stayers remain at the same poverty levels as before gentrification, but they see less poverty in their midst (the gentrifiers themselves see considerably more). Homeowners enjoy a big increase in their home values, enough to offset the inevitable rise in taxes. The authors also find, “somewhat surprisingly,” that rent increases for less educated residents remain much as they would have been if the gentrifiers had never arrived; educated stayers and newcomers, on the other hand, pay more. Most work on gentrification relies on median rents, but medians disguise considerable variation. The paper’s most intriguing finding concerns gentrification’s effect on children. Kids living in gentrified neighborhoods see less poverty and more educated neighbors, and they develop more advantageous networks. Most strikingly, gentrification increases the probability that children of less educated homeowners will attend and graduate college. One of the most popular ideas for improving poor kids’ life chances is to move them into better neighborhoods... gentrification is allowing less advantaged families to “move to opportunity”—without even moving."
Why Do Progressives Hate Gentrification? - "On the whole, progressives ought to love gentrification. It makes black inner-city homeowners wealthier... What’s more, gentrification breaks up concentrated poverty and reduces residential segregation. Progressives have frequently observed that poor blacks are more likely to live in concentrated poverty than poor whites. As a result, they lose out on the advantages that come with living in a mixed-income neighborhood. Gentrification helps solve this problem. Moreover, progressives often observe that residential segregation remains pervasive half a century after the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Gentrification helps solve that problem too. If a Democratic president were to implement a policy that substantially increased the net worth of tens of thousands of black inner-city residents, decreased residential segregation, and broke up concentrated poverty—all at no cost to taxpayers—they would go down as one of the greatest progressive presidents in recent history. Yet, despite the fact that its effects are identical, progressives view gentrification as at best, regrettable, and at worst, evil... you will never hear about the thousands of black inner-city renters and homeowners who don’t care about, or love, gentrification. Whether or not concerns about cultural change have merit, it’s clear that they are not the driving force behind progressive opposition to gentrification. Indeed, the main reason progressives oppose gentrification has less to do with the well-being of the gentrified than with the race of the gentrifiers. If you doubt this, consider the following hypothetical: imagine that the gentrifiers, instead of being white, were high-skilled immigrants from India... Progressive anti-whiteness more closely resembles communist hatred of the bourgeoisie. It is a conspiratorial bigotry that ascribes to white people a mercenary nature, a high level of competence, and an innate desire for dominance... opposition to gentrification has consequences. Measures intended to curb gentrification, such as rent control and zoning laws, perversely make housing less affordable for the poor and wealthy alike. But more importantly, anti-white sentiment does not go unnoticed outside of the progressive bubble. And whatever wall of irony allegedly separates progressive white-bashing from true bigotry gets lost in translation across the political divide."
Democrats Are the Real Party of War - "An adept lawyer and legal scholar, Obama didn’t technically violate a promise about leaving Iraq. On the campaign trail he never said he would end the Iraq war immediately on gaining office, only that he would start ending it immediately, the kind of technically-not-lying he excelled at in 2008. In playing three-card monte with anti-war sentiment, Obama imitates no-one so much as Democratic predecessor Woodrow Wilson, who was narrowly reelected in 1916 on the slogan “he kept us out of the war.” Strictly speaking, this was true, but Wilson had also spent 1916—against the will of a powerful, mobilized and largely forgotten peace movement—preparing and expanding the armed forces. Within five months of his reelection, the United States entered World War I. Indeed, all of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century—World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam—were entered by Democratic administrations. Harry Truman, a Democrat, is still the only world leader to use a nuclear bomb on a population. And with the exception of World War II, where almost all anti-war sentiment collapsed after Pearl Harbor, these wars were entered over the objections of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But while the presence of that left wing has guaranteed that anti-war liberals rally to the Democratic side, it not yet stopped a Democratic administration from going to war. What about the way that war has been used throughout the 20th century to stomp on Civil liberties? Certainly the Republicans hold more responsibility for the Cold War and “patriotic” repression? It’s true that we tend to think of right-wing nationalist “Cold Warriors,” of Joseph McCarthy sneering at Hollywood screenwriters or Reagan yelling at Gorbachev in absentia. But blocking out the role the Democrats played in the Red Scare is a victory of liberal historicism, nothing else. McCarthyism’s founding political act was an executive order by Harry Truman creating the “loyalty review boards” for federal employees. Under the review boards’ auspices, mere suspicion of any communist leaning was grounds for firing and blacklisting. And it was Democrats who founded and first staffed the infamous House Committee of Un-American Activities (HUAC). These organizations were the legal backbone and administrative agents of McCarthyism. Furthermore, many of the more extreme strategies of McCarthyism go back to the first Red Scare of 1917-1920. Coordinated by the FBI’s predecessor (the Bureau of Investigation), the Committee on Public Information (Woodrow Wilson’s war-propaganda branch), and Wilson’s attorney general Mitchell Palmer (of Palmer Raids fame), Democrats gave the Federal government extraordinary legal powers to repress radical groups. The first Red Scare saw anarchists, communists, peace activists, immigrants and labor organizers targeted with arrest, detention, deportation and vigilante violence. But the Democratic Party wasn’t only at the heart of the anti-communist witch hunt and its attendant restrictions of free speech and civil liberties. It is Truman’s administration that developed the doctrine of Containment that would set the bloody and disastrous course for the Cold War to come. And while JFK may have prevented nuclear apocalypse in the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was his administration’s hawkish deployment of missiles in Turkey, alongside their botched invasion of Cuba that brought the crisis to a head. Meanwhile, it was Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford who began the dĂ©tente with China and the USSR, an easing of military tensions that Nobel peace-prize winner Jimmy Carter would end in a cynical (and failed) reelection ploy. Considering the bloodthirsty militarists that make up today’s party, it can be hard to remember that for most of the 20th century Republicans were (at least avowedly) isolationist. Which is not to say that Nixon, Eisenhower, or Teddy Roosevelt weren’t all proponents of imperialism and violence. But since Reagan, the Republican right has come snarling out of its isolationist bunker. Ronnie and both Bushes started foreign wars of choice, each bigger and more deadly than the last. The aggressiveness with which Republicans have wrapped themselves in a blood-drenched flag since then encourages us to falsely project that kind of positioning backwards into the past... The (relative) progressive positioning of their domestic policy, along with the vulgar patriotic chest-thumping of Republican populism, and the fact that, when they’re out of power, Democrats loudly and publicly oppose war on principle, are all used to produce a false history of Democratic opposition to military intervention and war. But in fact, whenever they get a chance to vote on it, a majority of Democrats in power turn out to be hawks."
Safe Consumption Sites not as effective as predicted - "A bombshell study has been released on Alberta’s Safe Consumption Sites (SCS)... Some of the key findings included conclusions that disprove long time adhered to talking points of SCS supporters. There were variations in site operators’ definition of the term “overdose reversal,” and opioid-related calls for emergency medical services and death rates in the immediate vicinity of the sites continued to increase after the sites opened. Calls to police to report criminal activity also generally increased near safe consumption sites, except in Edmonton. Local residents complained about lack of response to calls for police service, as well as “de-policing” near the sites. There was an increase in needle debris on public and private property where SCS sites were located. This was a major concern for those who lived nearby, and helped create a perception among community members that the sites both decreased safety and increased crime. “While there were no deaths recorded among people who used drugs at the SCS sites,” the report goes on to say, “death rates in the immediate vicinity of the SCS locations increased. Opioid-related calls for emergency medical services (EMS) also increased in the immediate vicinity following the opening of the sites.” One of the main arguments in support of SCS is that there are no deaths at the sites themselves. While only a doctor or a coroner can declare a person legally dead, there are usually none of these professionals on site. EMT’s can respond to an overdose event at a site and take the person to a hospital where they are declared dead in the emergency room, removing the death event from the location of the site. Alternatively, an overdose victim can be saved by Naloxone on site but refuse further treatment, then leave the facility and die elsewhere. Neither of these deaths would be attributed to the site. The report describes possible manipulation of data by SCS staff. “In many cases, ‘adverse events’ (even if non-life threatening or minor) are reported as overdoses, and the term ‘reversal’ is used even when the response was a simple administration of oxygen. This leaves the public with an inference that without these sites thousands of people would fatally overdose or no longer be alive.”... “The Review Committee also learned about questionable practices (for example, introducing non-injection users to injection practices by SCS staff); the use of 40 Naloxone reversal kits by a single client; the alleged misrepresentation of site statistics; and an apparent under-utilization of the full scope of care while inappropriately favouring harm reduction”... the amount of crime increased substantially in the area immediate to the SCS. This could also be attributed to the fact that “Site users and operators typically believed that the Section 56.1 exemption allowed for a no-go zone for police within the proximity of the site. Evidence suggested a level of ‘de-policing’ near some sites.”... "it was asserted that the SCS served as a magnet that attracted drug users and drug dealers into the neighbourhood,” the report said. “As this population purportedly increased, crime and social disorder reportedly increased, thus causing property values to decline. Business owners also indicated that the overall level of crime and social disorder had a direct effect through property theft and an indirect effect through the reluctance of customers to visit the area through fears of victimization, harassment and one’s general personal safety.” Site proponents argue that by providing a safe, non stigmatizing environment, drug users will use the SCS rather than consume their substances on the street or elsewhere in unsafe settings. During the site reviews, it became evident to the Committee that a significant amount of drug use and illicit drug dealing continues near SCS sites. Several current and former drug users who appeared before the Review Committee indicated that they preferred not to use the SCS. Even some drug users who verbally supported the sites noted that they often injected themselves outside a SCS... Another concern for residents was the appearance of homelessness near the site."
Nathan on Twitter - "There’s this guy at the gym that I frankly thought was possessed, schizophrenic or something. Some days he’d be super friendly, other days he’d be cold like he never knew me Found out today he’s an identical twin They came to work out together today and I kept staring for 5 minutes with what must’ve been a retarded look on my face"
Supreme Court says Boston unconstitutionally barred Christian flag from city hall - "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the city of Boston must let a Christian group fly its flag over city hall, but the decision was sufficiently narrow that other cities, indeed Boston itself, could construct rules that would limit flag flying to government-approved messages. Just outside Boston's city hall, once named "the world's ugliest building," are three flagpoles. One flies the American Flag, the second flies the state flag, and the third usually flies the city's flag. Usually — because Boston has, for years, allowed the hoisting of other flags on the third pole when groups get permission to hold ceremonies on the city plaza. Between 2005 and 2017, Boston approved the raising of 50 such flags, most of them marking the national holidays of other countries. Still, a few of the flags were associated with other groups or causes—national Pride Week, emergency medical service workers, and a community bank. In fact, the city had never rejected a flag-raising request until 2017 when Harold Shurtleff, the director of an organization called Camp Constitution, asked to hold a flag raising ceremony for a "Christian Flag."... The decision, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, managed to navigate a clash involving both religion and politics... Three justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas—agreed with the result in the case, but rejected Breyer's reasoning. They wrote 30 pages worth of concurring opinions. In contrast, the 13-page majority opinion was classic Breyer, managing to achieve consensus in a restrained opinion that left both sides with a clearer idea of what is and is not permissible... on a court that has been deeply divided along liberal/conservative lines of late, Breyer's skill in bridging that divide will likely be sorely missed when he retires at the end of the term this summer."
On the NPR Facebook, people were very upset about this. Given that 50 other flags were previously raised - including one of their favourite (Pride) - it's clear that they just hate Christians
Given that this was unanimous and that the majority opinion was written by one of "their" justices, their apoplexia is even more hilarious
One complained about separation of church and state - apparently that means that the state needs to discriminate against religion
Did people drink water in the Middle Ages? - "One of the oddest myths about the Middle Ages is that people did not drink water. Many books and articles have repeated the notion that water was so polluted during this period that medieval men and women would only drink wine, ale or some other kind of beverage. However, there is plenty of evidence that people regularly drank water. If one did a quick glance through medieval letters and chronicles, one would find few references to people drinking water. Instead, they would speak of drinking ale or wine. This is not surprising – water is relatively tasteless – and few people would have preferred it compared to the alternatives. Like today, one doubts that too many writers from the Middle Ages would have praised their hosts for providing a cup of water instead of wine. While medieval people rarely wrote about a love of water, that does not mean they avoided drinking it. Several types of sources offer more insight into drinking water during the period. Medical texts and health manuals throughout the Middle Ages often note the benefits of drinking water, as long as it came from good sources."
NUS abruptly replaces Cherian George and Donald Low as webinar speakers - " Professors George and Low published a book last week entitled “PAP vs PAP: The Party’s struggle to adapt to a changing Singapore.” The original announcement for the Raffles Hall Alumni Learning webinar reads that its title is “PUBLIC DISCOURSE: Truth & Trust,” asking that in this “Covid-19 world” of fake news and disinformation, “How can public discourse have its full might when technology enables deep fakes, where in the name of national interest and security, information and discourse is constrained or perhaps manipulated?” The two academics were to answer these questions “at a global label and specifically in the Singapore context” in the light of their recently published book. However, in the new announcement for the webinar, the lineup of speakers is completely different: Al Ramirez Dizon, a former journalist with Singapore Press Holdings, Shobha Avadhani, a lecturer in New Media from NUS, and Arun Mahizhnan, a special research adviser at the Institute of Policy Studies... one of the speakers, ISP’s Mr Arun Mahizhnan, has withdrawn from the webinar."
It pays to believe obviously untrue things - "Assuming you do want to believe things that are true, Harford has recommendations: one key one is observing your own feelings about some claim, and seeing whether it makes you feel angry, or happy, or vindicated, and if it does, to wonder whether you believe it because you think it’s true, or you believe it because it’s socially advantageous. Simler, meanwhile, suggests that since crony beliefs are driven by social incentives, the trick is to create social incentives for believing true things. He points to the rationalists, a group of online nerds, as one group who are obsessed with being “less wrong”, and who have created a community where you are rewarded for obeying norms of truth-seeking and debate, rather than for believing specific things."
Meme - David Rothschild: "About 40% of wealth in US controlled by people who inherited it, and most of the rest of wealth controlled by people who built their wealth on back of social goods paid for by *taxes*: infrastructure, education, etc ...
Ensuring that Fred Trump's great-great grandkids are born into insane wealth, is to ensure an economy that grows grows stagnant by blocking economic opportunity: ensuring wealth not in hands of most innovative."
A Rothschild condemning inherited wealth...
Deer eat meat: Herbivores and carnivores are not so clearly divided. - "Any third-grader can tell you the difference between herbivores and carnivores. Herbivores eat plants and carnivores eat meat, and then there are a few oddball omnivores that eat both. The dichotomy of plant-eaters and meat-eaters has become more than a set of rules for animals—it helps shape our view of the world. But is nature really so clear-cut? The more I looked around, the more exceptions I began to find. It turns out that deer of various species have long been observed eating the flesh of the dead. Scientists have recorded deer devouring dead fish that had drifted to shore, gobbling them up at a rate of up to eight per minute. Deer have often been spotted feeding on larger carrion—sometimes even on the guts of other dead deer. Deer belong to a group of animals called ruminants, which have a special organ called a rumen for digesting tough plants. Cows are probably the best-known ruminants (and have been witnessed eating birds). Yet even animals from this highly plant-specialized group will eat meat when given the chance. The various species of duiker (imagine a very small antelope with a fat belly) in Africa often eat carrion and have also been observed hunting for small birds and frogs. Other groups of herbivores have also been caught crossing the divide. Hippopotamuses have been filmed eating meat often enough that it can’t be dismissed as a fluke. In fact, they have even been witnessed in the act of cannibalism. Most reports of hippos eating meat involve the scavenging of animals killed by other causes. But sometimes hippos will hunt, kill, and eat prey. In 2002, there were news reports from Ethiopia’s Kaffa Province of hippos killing and eating livestock... A flexible diet makes an animal more adaptable and more likely to survive than a fully-committed herbivore."
Could the Soviet Union Have Survived? - "in 1983 the Soviet Chief of Staff admitted that ‘We will never be able to catch up with [the Americans] in modern arms until we have an economic revolution. And the question is whether we can have an economic revolution without a political revolution’... Russians call Gorbachev a traitor for failing to prevent the collapse by force. Foreigners dismiss him as an inadequate bungler. No one has suggested a convincing alternative scenario."
"Attempts to crack down on the widespread drunkenness that plagued the Soviet workplace proved especially unpopular with large parts of the population... On my first trip to Moscow, as a language student in the 1980s, I bought a record of that Soviet national anthem. I paid more for the plastic bag to carry it in than for the actual record. It is a small example of the economic contradictions that meant the Soviet Union could not have survived."
"The Soviet Union could not have survived, because by 1991 the Communist Party had lost control of the media and thus the public sphere. Key to the survival of any dictatorship is strict control of the media, which shapes public opinion and promotes tacit acceptance of a regime. Though many Soviet citizens may have claimed not to believe what was written in their newspapers, they were never aware of just how far removed from reality the reports were. When Mikhail Gorbachev ascended to power in 1985, it was his policy of glasnost that let the genie out of the bottle... in 2006, Gorbachev pinpointed Chernobyl and the resulting media fallout as the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union."
This is why liberals want to control the media
