Oksana thing may be an AI hallucination. I pulled out the transcript and saw Oksana after thermometer, and I got three different stories. Don't have any Russian speakers around, so can't ask anyone.
marching band is seen as a ‘girly’ thing in Japan.
Ever seen Girls and Panzer? ;-)
(For those who are not accustomed to the franchise: The premise is that "sensha-do" (tanking) is a 100% female thing and a prestige sport for girls who battle it out in WW2-era tanks) Lots of marching music there.
Considering what Ukraine is doing to Russia, not necessarily impossible. The most surprising part is that it hasn't been front page news around the world. Where is the MSM in this??? Looks like a cover-up.
😝
check out the list of other videos from that channel.
https://www.youtube.com/@TheFallOfNations
RUSSIA JUST KILLED ITSELF
CHINA IS FALLING APART
GREENLAND DESTROYS RUSSIA
DEATH BY VODKA
THE DEATH OF RUSSIA
RUSSIA IS GOING DOWN
PUTIN IS DONE
BLACK DAY FOR PUTIN
END OF ALASKA
END OF NORTH KOREA
IMMIGRATION KILLED CANADA
While the West drowned in its own diversity, Japan watched… and remembered who it was. Not with panic. Not with shame. But with the cold, ancient clarity of a country that knows what it's willing to die for. In a world that celebrates mass immigration — Japan says no.
It is AI generated (the "Not with panic. Not with shame." is a tell) and it is astonishing that not one of the videos discusses the shitshow that the US is operating currently. It's bullshit clickbait.
Since the topic is Japan-related, here's a video on Japan's declining population numbers and its resistance to immigration. The video is a bit lengthy and overwrought, but it addresses the demographic problems Japan is facing, such as a death rate that is approximately double the birth rate.
"This video explores Japan's unique stance on immigration, contrasting it with global trends and examining the nation's internal challenges. We look at the severe Japanese population decline and the resulting aging population, which are central to current societal pressures. Learn how Japan's birth rate decline and shifting demographics are influencing its politics and future direction amidst global issues."
This would not be the first time Trump (or assorted other RW powers) drop a case as soon as it becomes clear how much discovery will reveal. Eg, the Fox News Network paid three-quarters of a billion dollars rather than let what Dominion had from discovery go public.
Actually, it is still around
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrov_Ensemble
It had to be reformed in 2016, but that was after 63 members were killed in a plane crash.
Re: the Dean Scream: The tendency of journalists to mistake their herd instinct for repeating superficialities as inspired insights and then repeat their bullshit ad nauseum has a serious effect on election outcomes. It seems to happen more to Dems than Republicans. I don't think it is a conscious act on the part of big media. I think it is mediocre people who are way too high on their own supply, have no insights, live in a bubble, and like to sneer. The don't do this to Republicans because they like to pretend to not be biased.
Unfair and unprofessional as this bullshit may be, it still has an effect. Dems get slapped with these stupid labels and the labels become truths with the low info voters which is most of them, given that so many big media journalists can't be bothered to do their jobs.
So that's why as a primary voter I try to figure out which Dem will trigger one of those mindless collective sneer fests from the msm. Newsome will. It's guaranteed. I also try to see who is best at playing the media, speaking past the media and has the ability to define themselves clearly.
I don't think that Buttigieg would be a liability. The one thing I do think is that pretty much any candidate is going to be chancy and could well lose because the media is going to lean into the sports model of reporting and focus on the drama rather than on the substance. If Buttigieg did end up losing because something he did, or something about him blew up into a negative, then I'm certain that half of the pundits would have already half-written post-election analyses arguing that his gayness was just too big a feature for swing voters to get past, and they'd blame the loss on "activists" running the Dems. And then it would be a generation before the donors would have the courage to support any LGBTQ+ candidate for national office again.
Same way I don't think Harris will ever be given another chance at the presidency. Doesn't matter that she came damn close carrying a lot of baggage that had been forced upon her by the circumstances.
Meanwhile, given where we are right now in our politics, it's hard to even fathom how The Dean Scream was enough to sink a candidacy. Really? That? What a strange moment in time.
Trump's suit against the BBC looks like turning into an own goal. The BBC has filed discovery motions demanding Trump disclosure his taxes for the last decade or more (to substantiate, or not, his claims of financial harm), his medical records (to substantiate or not his claims of other kinds of harm). All that information he has been desperately trying to keep concealed.
nous is spot on with this, and it looks like a perfect description of Buttigieg. Too bad that being gay is almost certainly as big an electoral disadvantage as being female or black.
A decade or two ago, it was probably a worse handicap. But the country has changed. Not as much as one might hope, but substantially nonetheless.
Legalizing gay marriage looks (from where I sit anyway) to have brought a lot of gays out of the closet. With the result that a lot of people discovered that their friends and relatives included gay people. And the heavens did not fall. Buttigieg, himself, took things further. High profile (thanks to his Presidential run), "young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator" -- and not particularly scary; not hitting any of the primary bigotry hot buttons.
You can argue that the country still isn't ready. But the country wasn't ready for a black President either. Obama won anyway. The bigots predictably freaked out, but he won anyway. Twice. I could see Buttigieg doing the same.
I observe that it's the Soviet/Red Army Chorus. Not a Russian Army Chorus (assuming there even is one these days).
Putin may dream of restoring the supposed glory of the Soviet Union. But his vision doesn't seem to extend beyond territory and military power. The idea that anything else might matter seems to be outside his comprehension. Economic welfare for the people? Anything resembling culture? Just no.
"I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don’t know themselves what they are going to go for, so it’s a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason."
I think that's a real problem. I also think that electability IS an factor but we need to remember that elections are based on a lot of voters who think and feel in ways that we, the primary voters, don't understand very well which makes it hard to know what will make them jump one way or another.
Republicans nearly always vote Republican. There is a growing population of independents. They are a grab bag of people who arrived at independent from different directions and for different reasons. There are infrequent voters who come out for charisma or because there is a really visceral issue for them at stake. There are one issue voters who either vote for the candidate who represents their issue or don't vote at all. Democrats nearly always vote for Democrats.
So what we are really fighting for is the votes of the indies and infrequent voters--the people Dem primary activists are least likely to understand.
What this country needs is an antiTrump. That means a Democrat who is as big and boisterous an asshole as He, Trump (for "electability") but who is ruthless about deMAGAfication (a straightforward "policy") instead of milquetoast nuance. Someone who demonizes billionaires (a smaller class than trans people, let alone immigrants) and is not afraid to call MAGAts stupid. Someone who has yet to appear, alas.
I'm not kidding. For many years, I have been pointing out that "electability" is a crock. We nominated Kerry in 2004 because he was more "electable" than Dean. We nominated Obama in 2008, but not because he was The Electable One. We nominated Clinton in 2016 partly because Sanders was "unelectable". Can anybody claim with a straight face that "electability" in any but a post hoc sense was He, Trump's selling point to the GOP?
"Electability. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
wj - The challenge will be for such a person to get thru the primaries. Those tend to have a far higher concentration of, for lack of a better term, activists — people who do care, often passionately, about policy. At least some policies.
Convincing primary voters that “someone who can win a general election” should be a necessary criteria (not sufficient, but necessary) will be a non-trivial task. Not least because they, too, tend to live in an information bubble populated by others who care about policy.
We have a real structural problem with the primaries in that the voters who need to be brought on board often don't pay any attention to the election until after the primaries are done, leaving the primary voters and the donors to pick. None of the Dem coalitions in the primary seem to have any sense of what those people are looking for. I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don't know themselves what they are going to go for, so it's a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason.
I think primaries are the place where ranked voting actually makes the most sense, in that ranked voting would not just take candidate support into account, but would also give a sense of crossover appeal. And if the primaries were done in two or three rounds it would also give the party a chance to see which candidates were gaining and which were losing support over time, and let the candidates adjust their approaches to some actual feedback.
On “The Wiles Interview”
-
On “Weekend Music Thread music thread #09 In Russia, Christmas music sings you!”
I like these: Heather Dale: Huron Carol, in 4 languages (Huron, French, English, American Sign Language)
This is a Mongolian band. It's very rich and interesting: GG 16x9 Multipants v25 0 c linh phuonglelinh hoanh
"
Oksana thing may be an AI hallucination. I pulled out the transcript and saw Oksana after thermometer, and I got three different stories. Don't have any Russian speakers around, so can't ask anyone.
"
Re: weather voice. Out here, the voice on the weather channel for boaters is referred to as "The Swede".
"
"Oksana is a woman’s name that personifies a themometer."
whatnow?
On “Weekend music thread #08 How do you get to Carnagie Hall?”
Ever seen Girls and Panzer? ;-)
(For those who are not accustomed to the franchise: The premise is that "sensha-do" (tanking) is a 100% female thing and a prestige sport for girls who battle it out in WW2-era tanks) Lots of marching music there.
"
A more viable alternative.
Fall of Civilizations
"
GREENLAND DESTROYS RUSSIA
Considering what Ukraine is doing to Russia, not necessarily impossible. The most surprising part is that it hasn't been front page news around the world. Where is the MSM in this??? Looks like a cover-up.
😝
"
Wow - Christ indeed
"
check out the list of other videos from that channel.
https://www.youtube.com/@TheFallOfNations
RUSSIA JUST KILLED ITSELF
CHINA IS FALLING APART
GREENLAND DESTROYS RUSSIA
DEATH BY VODKA
THE DEATH OF RUSSIA
RUSSIA IS GOING DOWN
PUTIN IS DONE
BLACK DAY FOR PUTIN
END OF ALASKA
END OF NORTH KOREA
IMMIGRATION KILLED CANADA
christ
"
The opening of Charles' video
While the West drowned in its own diversity, Japan watched… and remembered who it was.
Not with panic. Not with shame.
But with the cold, ancient clarity of a country that knows what it's willing to die for.
In a world that celebrates mass immigration — Japan says no.
It is AI generated (the "Not with panic. Not with shame." is a tell) and it is astonishing that not one of the videos discusses the shitshow that the US is operating currently. It's bullshit clickbait.
"
Since the topic is Japan-related, here's a video on Japan's declining population numbers and its resistance to immigration. The video is a bit lengthy and overwrought, but it addresses the demographic problems Japan is facing, such as a death rate that is approximately double the birth rate.
"This video explores Japan's unique stance on immigration, contrasting it with global trends and examining the nation's internal challenges. We look at the severe Japanese population decline and the resulting aging population, which are central to current societal pressures. Learn how Japan's birth rate decline and shifting demographics are influencing its politics and future direction amidst global issues."
Japan’s Clash With ISLAM Is Escalating — And the Nation Is Saying “NO MORE”
On “Author, author?”
This would not be the first time Trump (or assorted other RW powers) drop a case as soon as it becomes clear how much discovery will reveal. Eg, the Fox News Network paid three-quarters of a billion dollars rather than let what Dominion had from discovery go public.
On “The Wiles Interview”
That's my perception of Buttigeig.
On “Weekend Music Thread music thread #09 In Russia, Christmas music sings you!”
Actually, it is still around
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrov_Ensemble
It had to be reformed in 2016, but that was after 63 members were killed in a plane crash.
On “The Wiles Interview”
Re: the Dean Scream: The tendency of journalists to mistake their herd instinct for repeating superficialities as inspired insights and then repeat their bullshit ad nauseum has a serious effect on election outcomes. It seems to happen more to Dems than Republicans. I don't think it is a conscious act on the part of big media. I think it is mediocre people who are way too high on their own supply, have no insights, live in a bubble, and like to sneer. The don't do this to Republicans because they like to pretend to not be biased.
Unfair and unprofessional as this bullshit may be, it still has an effect. Dems get slapped with these stupid labels and the labels become truths with the low info voters which is most of them, given that so many big media journalists can't be bothered to do their jobs.
So that's why as a primary voter I try to figure out which Dem will trigger one of those mindless collective sneer fests from the msm. Newsome will. It's guaranteed. I also try to see who is best at playing the media, speaking past the media and has the ability to define themselves clearly.
"
I like Buttigieg. I like Booker a lot as well.
I don't think that Buttigieg would be a liability. The one thing I do think is that pretty much any candidate is going to be chancy and could well lose because the media is going to lean into the sports model of reporting and focus on the drama rather than on the substance. If Buttigieg did end up losing because something he did, or something about him blew up into a negative, then I'm certain that half of the pundits would have already half-written post-election analyses arguing that his gayness was just too big a feature for swing voters to get past, and they'd blame the loss on "activists" running the Dems. And then it would be a generation before the donors would have the courage to support any LGBTQ+ candidate for national office again.
Same way I don't think Harris will ever be given another chance at the presidency. Doesn't matter that she came damn close carrying a lot of baggage that had been forced upon her by the circumstances.
Meanwhile, given where we are right now in our politics, it's hard to even fathom how The Dean Scream was enough to sink a candidacy. Really? That? What a strange moment in time.
On “Author, author?”
Trump's suit against the BBC looks like turning into an own goal. The BBC has filed discovery motions demanding Trump disclosure his taxes for the last decade or more (to substantiate, or not, his claims of financial harm), his medical records (to substantiate or not his claims of other kinds of harm). All that information he has been desperately trying to keep concealed.
Oops.
"
Well, he does seem to be a steward of sorts.
On “The Wiles Interview”
nous is spot on with this, and it looks like a perfect description of Buttigieg. Too bad that being gay is almost certainly as big an electoral disadvantage as being female or black.
A decade or two ago, it was probably a worse handicap. But the country has changed. Not as much as one might hope, but substantially nonetheless.
Legalizing gay marriage looks (from where I sit anyway) to have brought a lot of gays out of the closet. With the result that a lot of people discovered that their friends and relatives included gay people. And the heavens did not fall. Buttigieg, himself, took things further. High profile (thanks to his Presidential run), "young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator" -- and not particularly scary; not hitting any of the primary bigotry hot buttons.
You can argue that the country still isn't ready. But the country wasn't ready for a black President either. Obama won anyway. The bigots predictably freaked out, but he won anyway. Twice. I could see Buttigieg doing the same.
On “Weekend Music Thread music thread #09 In Russia, Christmas music sings you!”
I observe that it's the Soviet/Red Army Chorus. Not a Russian Army Chorus (assuming there even is one these days).
Putin may dream of restoring the supposed glory of the Soviet Union. But his vision doesn't seem to extend beyond territory and military power. The idea that anything else might matter seems to be outside his comprehension. Economic welfare for the people? Anything resembling culture? Just no.
On “The Wiles Interview”
"I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don’t know themselves what they are going to go for, so it’s a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason."
I think that's a real problem. I also think that electability IS an factor but we need to remember that elections are based on a lot of voters who think and feel in ways that we, the primary voters, don't understand very well which makes it hard to know what will make them jump one way or another.
Republicans nearly always vote Republican.
There is a growing population of independents. They are a grab bag of people who arrived at independent from different directions and for different reasons.
There are infrequent voters who come out for charisma or because there is a really visceral issue for them at stake.
There are one issue voters who either vote for the candidate who represents their issue or don't vote at all.
Democrats nearly always vote for Democrats.
So what we are really fighting for is the votes of the indies and infrequent voters--the people Dem primary activists are least likely to understand.
"
What this country needs is an antiTrump. That means a Democrat who is as big and boisterous an asshole as He, Trump (for "electability") but who is ruthless about deMAGAfication (a straightforward "policy") instead of milquetoast nuance. Someone who demonizes billionaires (a smaller class than trans people, let alone immigrants) and is not afraid to call MAGAts stupid. Someone who has yet to appear, alas.
I'm not kidding. For many years, I have been pointing out that "electability" is a crock. We nominated Kerry in 2004 because he was more "electable" than Dean. We nominated Obama in 2008, but not because he was The Electable One. We nominated Clinton in 2016 partly because Sanders was "unelectable". Can anybody claim with a straight face that "electability" in any but a post hoc sense was He, Trump's selling point to the GOP?
"Electability. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
--TP
"
wj - The challenge will be for such a person to get thru the primaries. Those tend to have a far higher concentration of, for lack of a better term, activists — people who do care, often passionately, about policy. At least some policies.
Convincing primary voters that “someone who can win a general election” should be a necessary criteria (not sufficient, but necessary) will be a non-trivial task. Not least because they, too, tend to live in an information bubble populated by others who care about policy.
We have a real structural problem with the primaries in that the voters who need to be brought on board often don't pay any attention to the election until after the primaries are done, leaving the primary voters and the donors to pick. None of the Dem coalitions in the primary seem to have any sense of what those people are looking for. I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don't know themselves what they are going to go for, so it's a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason.
I think primaries are the place where ranked voting actually makes the most sense, in that ranked voting would not just take candidate support into account, but would also give a sense of crossover appeal. And if the primaries were done in two or three rounds it would also give the party a chance to see which candidates were gaining and which were losing support over time, and let the candidates adjust their approaches to some actual feedback.
On “Author, author?”
Stewart Lee!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.