LTS

The question today isn't so much about what our government is doing but what our society is doing. We have become disillusioned into the belief that we are untouchable and above all others. We spend more time arguing between ourselves than paying attention to the world. We are, by all counts, a self-absorbed society that has no awareness of the world going on around us. Much like the the citizens of Rome were glued to gladiator matches, we are glued to our entertainment venues. Whether it is news about events or celebrities, games (both computer and sporting events, or movies and television shows, we are constantly distracted from life. The Romans, too, were distracted from reality. The United States, through its continued involvement in the affairs of other countries, has long been engaged in world domination. It's not physical occupation but rather control over the resources of countries to benefit the corporations that line the politicians pockets. Any attempt at war the scale of which the Roman Empire embodied or even WWI or WWII would only end in the near destruction of civilization at this point. As maniacal as any leader has been to date, none of them are necessarily ready to give up the planet (thankfully). This is what I mean by the fall of the United States via the 21st century way. It won't be direct military action, but to decay our society from the inside out until such point that we destroy ourselves. Outside agencies fueling the fires of organizations like Antifa and white supremacists to escalate conflict. Pushing the hot buttons of society until even average citizens are swearing back and forth and threatening each other on Internet forums. Of course, the United States maintains a massive military and the costs of maintaining that military are felt by cuts in other programs that could benefit society. This is hardly different than what happened with the Roman Empire as well. Certainly they were involved in more conflicts, but simply maintaining armies comes with a great cost. By all estimations, the United States spends more on its military than any other country, and its not even close. Recent 2017 estimations put the US Military budget at $610B. The 2nd largest budget is estimated at $228B (China). From there it's Saudi Arabia ($69.4B), Russia ($66.3B), and India ($63.9B). In fact, the United States spends more than the next 7 highest countries combined. (https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2018-04/sipri_fs_1805_milex_2017.pdf) Meanwhile, when comparing military expense inside the US budget alone, the discretionary spending budget of $1.11T sees the military spending roughly $598B compared to education $70B. The total budget of $3.8T (mandatory and discretionary) puts the military at $609B and education at $229B. It's certainly a lot of money to spend on education when we see the US spending more on education than any other country spends on its own military, but relative to its military spending, one can see that massive amounts of funds are used just to support the military. (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/) - 2015 budget.

Time to nap so I can stay up and watch the game!

I've read a few things regarding the case throughout today. If there's one thing I am positive of is that the ruling in this case is going to cause more division regardless of what the actual ruling turns out to be. My personal take is that race should never be a considered factor. It's irrelevant. In many cases race is substituted for ethnic heritage which inherits many more factors than just the color of one's skin. The assertion mentioned in the article is that "Asian-Americans scored lower in the "personal" ratings". Of course without a clear set of metrics I am not sure how one determines the "personal" rating. Regardless, my guess is that if we were able to change the skin color of triplets such that they appeared as different races at birth and were raised by the same family there's a good chance they would share similar "personal" ratings. They'd also likely suffer from racial bias despite basically being the same except for color. As a rule of thumb I've always been against affirmative action because it's a band-aid to the real problem. The entire concept of diversity policies is that you will, inevitably, be required to act in a way that demonstrates racial bias. I understand why they exist and it's clear we aren't going to eradicate racial bias anytime soon so policies are put in place to help police it, for better or worse. A simple example I always think of works like this: A school has a requirement to score 100 on a test to gain entrance. The school admits 25% each of race A, B, C, D to allow for diversity. No group can comprise more than 25%. There are 100 spots open each year. Race A has 37 applicants score 100. Race B has 25 applicants score 100. Race C has 24 applicants score 100. Race D has 65 applicants score 100. The only way to fill the incoming class would be to allow 24 applicants from each racial group. This would fill 96 of the 100 slots and each group would be 1/4 of the admission class. However, because Race C did not do well, the school is forced to not allow admission to someone from Races A, B, and D simply because they are not Race C. This is a racial bias. The fear, of course, with this lawsuit, is that if race is no longer allowed as a consideration then schools may actually trend towards only admitting students of a certain race because they can now create a scale that favors them (as subtly as possible I am certain).

Without getting too detailed... The Roman Empire was responsible for building a massive infrastructure that opened the world up where it ruled. This infrastructure allowed for information to move around much more easily than before. An increase information allowed people to know more, see more, obtain more. The end of the Roman Empire came when cultures who did not agree with the Roman rule increased efforts to fight back the Roman armies. The Emperors of Rome were undermined by power struggles and corruption of government and ruled a society that had become lazy and complacent. In essence, everyone wanted more of the good life and were too busy fighting each other to realize that their good life was on the brink of destruction. There are many other reasons that all feed off each other that helped precipitate the fall, but by and large that should be sufficient for now. The 21st century way is to use the speed of the Internet to spread messages to those who are against what this country and its allies have built. They cannot stand directly against the armies like the Germanic tribes did Rome. That said, they can use our complacency against us by engaging in information warfare. The concept of "fake news" isn't something just born of the last few years though the phrase might be. We've been slowly escalated against each other to the point now where people will attack each other over the smallest of things. We no longer see the fault of our own but attack those with the same faults. We are being coerced into disarray and distracted from events that really matter. While we are too busy fighting each other those states that would see our culture destroyed are waiting for the moment when we tear ourselves apart and at that point they can move. One only need to look at the divisions within the people in Germany, England, Belgium, France, United States, and so on to see that we are being set against each other in an attempt to weaken who we are. Are we so naive to think that those divisions and issues are not being driven by careful manipulation of information? That's why I am interested in what this book has to say. However, given the evidence at play in recent stories and those that go back 15-20 years on how information is being used against us, I'm not interested in determining if this is happening so much as being more informed on how it is happening. The similarities to the issues the Roman Empire experienced and what our society is experiencing are there. It's not exact, but it's not that far off either.

Well, here's the thing. At the moment, it's this particular person. It doesn't get dismissed. I don't care who she is married to and I happen to think Housley is a fine coach. It would have been posted here. If I were aware of it and so inclined I might have posted it. And I think you should step back a bit now and stop telling others why they do what they do. You've said you don't condone what she's said then stick to haranguing her about it and not attacking the other people on this board who posted it. They can't post what isn't said and you should keep that in mind. When a democratic candidate gets called out for something similar you can come here and yell it from the rooftops and but that won't make what Karin Housley suddenly justified, it will only add to the pile of ignorance.

First I have heard of it. Any recommended articles on it before I go searching?

Is there a statute of limitations? It matters only in that it sets a tone for the kind of person she is and the way she handles herself. She may have indeed changed and that would certainly be something to talk about. However, to intone that one need not be concerned, well, I think weave put it quite well. Ignorance and disrespect are not something that should be rewarded. I don't live in Minnesota either but the people elected to the US Senate, from there, vote on issues that will impact me. As such, I care.

Every day it's more and more the reality. Although one could say that we are repeating history, lots of people point to the Roman Empire and like to claim we are heading that path albeit in a 21st century way.

Came across this article, which is a lead-in to a book recommendation, but it still seems to frame up the aspects of how social media and other information outlets are being used as the new battlefield. I'll probably read the book as this kind of stuff interests me. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/12/17967544/likewar-social-media-pw-singer-interview My favorite is the reference to a US Army officer statement "Indeed, I often think about a quote in the book from a retired US Army officer, who described how every village once had an idiot. And now, the internet has brought them all together and made them more powerful than ever before."

Without even accounting for the ties to the Sabres, those are the kinds of comments that just don't need to be said and will never end well for you. Let's not even touch the sheer ignorance of using a chimp as a reference. She even states it will draw comments. But why even bother to say someone is not cool. Unfortunately this seems to be the way of society these days. Rather than champion oneself it's easier to tear everyone down. Moreover, it's not like we tear people down for significant items, but rather "not being cool" and having poor posture?

Once the author is done writing his narrative and sends it to me I will be sure to forward it on.

This is your second straight response that chooses to ignore things I have said in my prior posts. You never acknowledge when you get called out, you just ignore it and move your agenda train along its tracks. Have a great day.

You crack me up. Do you even know to what I am referring? In all seriousness though, thank you for entertaining me.

I always felt there was more... not a lot more mind you, but at least closer to 1500-2000... you would certainly know better than I would though since I don't go that often. I agree with a lot of this. One thing I also thought of while typing a reply is that these days people have their kids enrolled in 50 different activities such that the time to go to a game isn't even there. Couple that with everything you said and the rare free night usually doesn't result in an Amerks game being an option in the decision tree. I don't doubt there are a lot of other factors impacting the Amerks attendance. The area sucks, people are moving further away and traveling downtown is a pain in the butt and the city went and got greedier by extending the parking meter hours. The list goes on... A lot of it does start with being relevant however. They have to be a good team, otherwise it's a lot of fluff and hype over a mediocre product at best.

Provides a continuation of the woody feel without being wood.

Your words so fit your name and remind me of all the chatterboxes who play EASports NHL series. He's undersized right now and that's the problem. He may be tall, but he's a feather. He'll need to add 15lbs to really get formidable and i hope he can do it. He's 20 years old so if he doesn't get a little more muscle mass soon he might want to think about a career in beach volleyball.

The camera settings on the lower angle were awful. As for the broadcast looking washed out, I understand what you mean. I do wonder, and perhaps I will test, if they are broadcasting a flatter image to accommodate people who run their television picture settings on "Vivid" or the like. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. However, that picture you saw from that one camera was an indication of someone turning up the saturation waaaaay too much. This is the problem with analysis. People blame the messenger for being negative when it's situation that is negative. If you saw it in that game but want to ignore talking about it, that's fine, but it doesn't change that it happened. The Sabres were lucky the Coyotes don't score more. They had plenty of chances and the Sabres were in their own end far too much. The win is great but after the game there's undoubtedly going to be a focus from the coaching staff on defensive zone coverage. It doesn't help that they backed off the high pressure game early on (2-0) and that helped Arizona get in the zone. The Sabres are still struggling against a strong forechecking team. They will need to improve. The good news is that they are showing the capability to score. The positives are that this team is producing enough positive moments on the ice to overcome the negative moments. Recall the Vegas game where they scored on 3 of their 4 shots in the period. Most of the time if you get 4 shots in a period it means you are getting thoroughly owned by the opposition. However, the Sabres 3 goals were all absolutely grade A shots and they ended up in the net. At 3-2 there's little doubt this team is trending in the right direction and if they can keep bending on defense while still getting timely goal scoring this will continue but to beat the better teams in the league they will need to improve their puck possession, breakouts, and defensive zone play.

No one's making money with 900 people in the seats.

It doesn't... not every coach is the same either. You prefer one style, there are other styles out there. The real question will be is Housley is the style of coach that works for the team. It doesn't matter if he works for the fans. I'm not saying he is or isn't the answer. I don't think we know yet.

Well, it was an interesting addition. But overall, yeah, the name calling should stop. I don't mind people being called obtuse, but there's no need to call people minions or sycophants... unless it really fits of course. Like most things, the value and impact is not fully realized for years. This is why I generally never get all bent over these things or claim any victory/loss. Economies adapt to changes like this such that in a few years the waters are level. The reason for this is that the nature of things prevails over whatever false rules people want to create. They are band-aids to the problems and like all band-aids they will fall off eventually and either be replaced with something new or leave the festering wound exposed. The problem isn't solved, it's only moved.

You can be you. Whoever you want to be... that is all. There's nothing more to it. You are beginning to now go into your attack everything mode and just look for any word you can jostle around to try and further whatever agenda you have on your mind. (see the bolded above). I've no idea what you are even getting at with that and it comes across as just trying to fabricate some kind of attack on me. I know you never said anything about Dahlin's skin, I said that in my first response to you. It's helpful if you remember that rather than bringing it up again in a misguided attempt to justify your indignation. You'll note that Dahlin's skin has looked good at the draft as well. I wouldn't be surprised if he's had make-up applied because he's on camera. Even more interesting, in these situations, is that in person I bet it's not as obvious either. However, many digital cameras (video, etc.) have algorithms that over-sharpen images. This accentuates the problem so that when viewing through a camera it's likely more obvious. This happens to me as well. I have scarring on my jaw line from it and on camera it is far more noticeable than in person.

The guy who runs LetsGoAmerks posted that Delaware North is giving Amerks season ticket holders a $15 gift card as an apology for screwing up.

You know they aren't the same organization right? Delaware North doesn't handle the uniforms for the Sabres. Shrug.... we shall see what the future holds.

I needed that laugh...

Yes. You can continue to ignore the body of evidence that is the history of how the NHL operates or not. It doesn't matter to me. This is not my opinion, this is what happens. The business aspects of handling roster assets often interfere with what the "BEST" line up is on the ice. Arguing with me will not change that.