Lord Ratner

Same. Best way to hone a position is to have it challenged. Because that's how lots of humans are? That's just how we act, we want other people to value what we value, do what we do, and fail how we fail. That's why drug addicts are always trying to make those around them addicts too. I however am not trying to do that, I think. I truly do commend your honesty. I hope that it's obvious we are debating the merits of the argument, not your honesty or what you should *say* rather than *do.* And that mostly we are talking about what we as a country should do, not as individuals. No, but that's not the only option. There are many ways to support. As far as doing enough, we have also tied their hands for many years, as much of the West has. Each administration approaches Israel differently, but we have certainly pressured them to take sub-optimal approaches to Palestine in the past. This is not happening. First, they didn't "tolerate" their existence, they whole-heartedly supported Hamas and voted for them. Second, the "innocents" are not dying for their support, they are dying because Hamas intentionally hides in hospitals, schools, and "refugee camps," even though there are no refugees in Gaza. The difference between killing civilians because they supported the bad guys and killing them because they are literally shielding them is huge, and a moral difference that separates Israel from Palestine. Poorly phrased, lemme try again. But when your adversaries, who demonstrate in the most blatant way possible that they do not value civilian life, use your morals as a shield when they build their military facilities literally in schools and hospitals, it is not immoral to destroy those schools, and the unfortunate children inside. It is tragic, yes, but not evil. It is, however, evil to use civilians as shields. Well literally, no. But for the purposes of exposing hypocrisy, yes. I assume you understand that, and the gif made me actually LOL. Reasonable as an argument, sure, but I don't think it's accurate. The foreign policy blunders of the US are often viewed in isolation of the often more-severe blunders (or outright aggressions) of the other countries. I believe the world of the past 80 years has been more stable that it otherwise would have been without our intervention. That doesn't mean we didn't make things worse at times. And of course you can, but we are here to debate those lines. Obviously. Because hypotheticals are vital to creating moral frameworks and testing moral hypotheses. They allow us to set the upper and lower bounds on a concept, then work towards the truth in the middle. And because the arguments made about what Israel or the US have done wrong to encourage/cause/instigate the current conflict are equally hypothetical, because they assume a different outcome if the inputs had been changed. That's an assumption. Good post.

BCBS is not the only plan administrator, and they were not contractually selected. They were chosen by AA, just like AA chose to use their network. We could have negotiated for that, but no one really considered that a priority. If AA wanted to pay them to do so, they could have BCBS and UNH create a fully customized network just for the AA plan. We wouldn't be able to do anything about that either, because we didn't negotiate for it. Sure, it's a change, but it's an allowed change. There's nothing to fight (other than what is already being fixed). There is only something new to negotiate, assuming the pilots care, which I doubt they will now that the out-of-network component is fixed. It was always a part of our plan, if desired, to max out the out-of-network caps so that you could go to any doctor at any location at any price and have it fully covered by AA. That's a pretty significant benefit that few Americans have.

I'm all for ALPA, but your insurer, which is AA, gets to decide what is in-network and out-of-network. And Supplement K (Now section 5) does not mandate what is in-network, it only mandates an out-of-pocket max for out-of-network care. The ALPA cheerleaders are going to be thoroughly disappointed with ALPA based on the myriad industry norms they seem to think only affect APA.

Are there wars with a better cost/kill? WWII was about $4 trillion. Vietnam was about $1 trillion. And if you factor in the value associated with each lost American life, the math is even more favorable. I've been pretty consistent throughout this war. If the Ukrainians no longer wish to fight and die, then they should end the war. They have every ability to do so. They were given the best opportunity they'd ever have to win, and it looks like they failed at their stated objective. But the entire world has a much different view of what the "superpowers" (China particularly) can accomplish in an invasion of a Western-supported nation. Does that mean the idiots in charge have or ever had a plan? Almost certainly not. I'm not making a commentary on the decision making of the people in charge, merely the reality of what has happened and where we are after it. And as you and I have talked about before, I disagree with your financial reasoning. The money is not going to be saved, there is not going to be fiscal discipline. We are going to spend ourselves into hyperinflation, as evidenced by the fact that the "hardcore" conservative elected as speaker of the house is in favor of another continuing resolution. We are not going to get politicians on either side who will control spending, because the voters electing them do not want spending controlled. You and I are in the minority. That's why I don't care about the deficit contributions implicit in support for Ukraine. I see our financial collapse (not societal collapse) as a set point in the future, and the only question is what the deficit spending is going to go towards. I would rather it go towards weakening our adversaries than extending social security or Medicare for another couple years at the end of this fantastically irresponsible debt bender.

And people wonder why Israel gets so combative with the rest of the world... Yeah, Israel had the "moral advantage" as long as they were willing to sit by and allow their people to be massacred with no real response. That's a super neat place to be isn't it? And exactly what should they do? Lick their wounds, and wait for the next attack? Does anyone believe there won't be another attack? They were given a bad hand, a death cult islamo-fascist terrorist government next door, and the rest of the world so fat, dumb, and happy that they could sit thousands of miles away and criticize another country for doing exactly what they would do themselves if their wife was raped while their kid was burnt alive. Any country has to deal with the response from their allies, adversaries, and neighbors. But the narrative surrounding this seems to be encroaching on some sort of immorality as to what Israel is doing, and that is such a steaming heap of relativist bullshit that it's honestly stunning me that people who I thought were intelligent now seem to be making this argument, and I don't just mean on this forum. What we fucked up in the global war on terror had nothing to do with the people that we killed in response to 9/11. Like Israel, we went through great pains to ensure that the collateral damage was minimized to some sort of logical extent. But when your adversaries, who demonstrate in the most blatant way possible that they do not value civilian life, use your morals as a shield when they build their military facilities literally in schools and hospitals, there is no moral question about destroying those schools, and the unfortunate children inside. The only way you can get to that is by disregarding the concept of morality entirely, which is basically postmodernism, which is absolute and utter bullshit. Morally bankrupt yes, but not even logically sound. The reason CNN isn't supporting Israel is because the media never supported Israel. Ever. There were always political realities that made the political left more hospitable to Israel than the activist and academic left, but the fact that the liberal media is supporting Ukraine and not supporting Israel should have been obvious to anybody who actually understands what drives the left in this era. This particular attack was simply so horrific that only the most fervent anti-semites and progressive shills could bring themselves to spew their anti-Israel nonsense after the attack. Now that the shock is wearing off, the left will return to their usual positions. Everybody likes to blame the British and the Israelis for this mess, because in the 1940s the state of Israel was established in a very sloppy way. What they conveniently leave out is the immediate war launched on the Israelis by the Arabs in the late 40s, and the failure of the many Arab states surrounding Israel to do anything to help the Palestinians, leading up to what we have now. That all sucks, and there are people responsible for that situation, but they're all dead. What matters now is what the living israelis have to deal with, and how the living Arabs surrounding them choose to participate. I would love to see what would happen if a bunch of Mexicans crashed through the border and massacred 1500 Americans, including some of the most gruesome deaths of women and children we've seen in a generation. This new populist conservative isolationism is not inherently illogical in and of itself, but it is going to great lengths to reframe or outright ignore obvious moral conundrums in an effort to bolster their isolationist position. All the while failing to recognize that our increasingly isolationist position in the world has not led to the flourishing of peace and tranquility. There is no escaping the conflict ahead. It has been brewing for 30 plus years, and the only question at this point is who will come out on top. That doesn't mean we should send troops into Ukraine or Israel, but supporting the good guys, yes, even when the good guys have skeletons in their closet too, is a societal trait that we can very much lose. If someone can't see the moral difference between Israel and Palestine, or if they downplay that difference because it does not support their geopolitical philosophy, they should not be in any position of national power. Remember that the politician/person who can't make a correct moral determination on one issue is almost certain to make the incorrect moral determination on an issue that matters deeply to you down the road. There is a simple hypothetical that, when answered, will tell you everything you need to know about someone opining on this topic. If Israel were to lay down their weapons, dismantle all defenses, and open their border, how many Israelis would be slaughtered by Palestinians in the days that followed? Conversely, if the Palestinians did the same, how many would be killed by Israelis?

You think this guy had his pick of all of the women in the world? 😂🤣 Besides, everyone should know the sweetest wine is the one you can't have... At a certain point everybody should have the revelation that their own internal resolve is probably not as bullet proof as they'd like to believe. It's a humbling and altogether disconcerting feeling. I remember when Mike pence was in the news for saying he wouldn't have dinner alone with a woman who wasn't his wife. He was lambasted for being a prude, or a sexist, or a fool in general, but I saw a man who had probably ops tested the limits of his faithfulness in the past, and came up with a way to mitigate the risk.

I think we're going to see a whole lot of small businesses in this exact problem going forward. They did not adequately assess the inflationary pressures on their supply chains over the last 3 years, got used to incredible order volume from the 2021 2022 discretionary spending glut, and now are going to get hammered by a complete collapse in order volume as Americans realize they don't have money for frivolous purchases like airplane kits, RVs, boats, and vacation homes. No one ever thinks the party is going to end, then the music stops, the lights come on, and the bar hag you were hitting on turns out to be a lot less attractive than you thought she was a minute ago. I hope they come out of it on the other side, I was planning to build one of those planes one day.

I was court-martialed for drunken Frat by a wing commander who gave speeches about being a recovering alcoholic, and a squadron commander who married an enlisted chick in his unit. The irony was a bit rich

That's good to hear. But that single poor choice should still have harsh consequences.

The WFH people are one recession away from being back in the office. Obviously some will get to do it forever, sure, but there were WFH jobs before COVID. The productivity of the average person in a WFH position is not great. No one should be surprised by this.

I don't know about you guys, but I've looked at ejection handles and cutoff switches hundreds of times thinking about what it would be like to just pull them. But I never had the plums to go for it 😂🤣 You gotta be in a bad place to do something like that.

Also, what is this post from 20 years ago? The boomers are now on welfare.

And that's why I'm okay with it. People like you will find a way to tie yourself in knots making it about everything else instead of their own responsibility for their actions, and nothing will happen. Thank you for proving my point. Bill Ackman didn't just wake up one day and decide to ruin some college kids' lives. Those *grown ass adults* proactively chose to do something following a tragedy. If no letter was written, no billionaire could sleuth. Does anyone here actually think the reason we stop being stupid as we age is because the numerical representation of how long we've been alive goes up? Absurd. It's because we exist in the world and start to see the consequences of actions. Cause and effect. It's experience. If you aren't old enough in college to be responsible for your actions, why do we think that you should be responsible for your actions when you are older than 22, or 25 as you wrote?

Yes, but then the follow up is, if losing a job offer is too much, what's the right punishment? So far all I hear is a whole bunch of nothing. No real consequences. So I'll take the Ackman approach. I would accept a year-long suspension as a fair punishment, but there's a 0% chance the universities take a stand on anything their DEI department doesn't explicitly forbid.

Pretty sure he never said that.

💯 I would say whenever you start drawing Social Security benefits, you're done voting. Once you become a ward of the state you have an incentive structure that no longer considers the long term success of the nation. All the conservative firebrands like my father who can quote the last 3 days of Fox News, but don't you DARE talk about reining in SS or Medicare spending, he earned that money! I've personally decided I will not vote for anyone over 65. That puts the president at 73-75 after two terms, which is right at the upper limit of where you can be reasonably sure the person is still sharp. Bonus points for getting under 55. This is a new red line for me after seeing Biden and Trump doing their amateur acting troop version of Grumpy Old Men, Mitch McConnell taking some involuntary naps at the podium, and Diane Feinstein literally dying from old age while still voting on Senate business. No more.

Exactly. Conservatives thought for decades that they didn't need to engage with this nonsense because it wouldn't survive a week in the real world. The business environment would crush whatever college nonsense the students had picked up. But it didn't work that way, the students forced their nonsense onto the corporate world, and now every major corporation in America has a DEI department. The pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction, but only after a complete takeover of the political and corporate world by this neo-marxist nonsense. I'm still a little conflicted on Bill Ackman jumping into the funny farm and going after the job offers of college students, but it might be the right amount of punishment for some of the absurdist shit that college kids believe they are free to say with impunity. If anything, that's the biggest lesson they need to learn, that opening your mouth almost always has consequences. I used to complain a lot that high school doesn't set anyone up for the real world, but now that college has just become high school part 2, we're sending 22-year-olds out into the world with absolutely no idea what they should be doing, as opposed to just 18-year-olds. The entire education system needs a reboot.

Power dynamics. The entire liberal philosophy has been pushed aside in favor of a simple hatred for hierarchies and those at the top. Since the top of most hierarchies (most, not *all*) in America are white Christian males, then the reflex is to side with whoever isn't one of those. It works great until you get into conflicts between two groups that are both lower on the totem pole. Sometimes it's easy to tell who has more power in the match up, and therefore who is the villain: Man vs woman - man bad White man vs White woman - White Man bad White woman vs Black Man - white woman bad Black woman vs Black gay woman - black woman bad Black Man vs gay Man - uh... Hmmm. Muslim man vs lesbian woman - well... It's... Trans woman vs lesbian woman - oh boy. But once you realize the foundation of the philosophy is simply "power bad," you start to understand it, and you can predict the position they will take with perfect accuracy. It's a philosophy built from jealousy and guilt, but remember that the jealousy is always stronger than the guilt. That's why wealthy liberals will decry school voucher programs, but still send their kids to private school. Well I'm not going to let my kids fall behind while we fix the problem......

I said multiple times, forced by the US. I do not care if Ukraine forces their men to fight. We have a draft as well. He wasn't in a "defensive position" because no one was going to attack Russia. Are we in a "defensive position" when Mexico elects an anti-US president? No. We aren't. It is Ukraine's job to decide what is worth fighting. It is our job to decide what is worth supporting. Mixing the two makes a false argument.

The Ukrainians are not being forced to fight. They are doing so (at a national level) of their own free will. Obviously they would not be able to do it without our support, but that doesn't change the fact that the United States is not forcing Ukraine into fighting for longer. So when people start talking about the morality of throwing Ukrainian bodies into the meat grinder, I find it curious that they do not consider the Ukrainian point of view on whether it is a worthwhile loss of life to resist Russia. Personally, I trust the Ukrainian perspective on whether you Ukrainian lives are worth resisting Russia. Certainly more so than I trust the opinion of Americans who, while many of us have served our country and suffered for it, none of us have been even remotely close to living under an authoritarian boot. The Ukrainian memory goes back a while. I said from the start that I believe the concept of sovereignty is vital in both the moral sense and in preserving some sort of global stability. So I'm inclined to support any country that is in a war of sovereignty, which Ukraine very much is. Arguing about Russian borders from before the Cold war seems silly and irrelevant to me, as the USSR waged a decades long war to build their empire and lost. Losing the western territories was part of that loss. There is no allowance to the concept of sovereignty for historical borders. I also do not believe as many populist republicans seem to believe that there is a world where we can isolate and avoid conflict. I see the coming storm as inevitable, and given the opportunity to annihilate the fighting forces of one of the most likely major adversaries in the coming conflict, I say we take it. Again, I would not support expending American lives to do so, and I certainly wouldn't support forcing the Ukrainians to expend their lives, but so long as they are willing, I believe the cost is worth it. When you compare that cost to the other things we are deficit spending on, it might be the greatest deal in the history of Fiat currency. What better way to spend made up money? Would I support the same action against China? You betcha. If China wants to try to invade another country, and that country can bleed their military out using our intelligence and weaponry, and the people of that country are willing to fight, it's a no-brainer. Taking two geopolitical adversaries off the board before our economic death spiral starts to seriously impact our ability to project global power would be an incredible advantage going into the fourth turning. I think part of the key difference is that the populist conservative movement (best exemplified by Tucker Carlson) seems to believe that there is an option for some sort of perpetual status quo going forward, if only we don't rock the boat too hard. I disagree emphatically with that belief. History moves in waves, and just like real waves, trying to stop them is pointless, and potentially fatal. Move with them, even try to ride them, and you might end up on top. Might.

That's not true. Very at-risk groups, such as those over 70-80, had a very, very high chance of surviving the vaccine, and a not-great chance of surviving covid. Especially if fat. For them it was a no-brainer. What's mind boggling to me is how effective the current corporatist-governmental establishment has "team-ified" so effectively that Americans are now seemingly incapable of seeing anything that doesn't completely inspire their political opposition. The vaccine, especially for the alpha and Delta variants, absolutely reduced serious illness and death from covid-19. It was also rushed into production, had real and meaningful side effects for certain demographics, was misrepresented by the people and organizations that stood to profit from it most, and treated a disease that was almost certainly developed in a Chinese lab, and accidentally released. Making the vaccine mandatory was immoral because it was new, unproven, and effective in a way that did not benefit from compulsory distribution. Not because it didn't do anything at all.

The vaccine for COVID-19 does not stop transmission. This is not disputed at any level. It reduces it somewhat, but only if you are susceptible to infection in the first place, which teenagers and young adults are not. The concept of herd immunity never involved low-risk demographics increasing their exposure to negative outcomes to protect high-risk demographics. That's an insane proposition.

God bless the algorithm

I get that he killed the dog, but with vice grips? How?

He's never been a textualist, but I don't recall him ever arguing against the Constitution.