brickhistory

A. He's not "my boy." I think Stone is a loathsome human being. B. You really aren't very good at this. Roger Stone arrest raid conveniently covered by CNN.  A full-up tactical team to take down a old man.  Nice...

Indeed.

Two good things for America, I believe. One yesterday, one today. Yesterday, the current Administration announced it had brokered a deal for diplomatic relations establishment between UAE and Israel. That's a very significant development. Today, the first guilty plea occured in the Obamagate investigation. An FBI lawyer pled guilty to intentionally altering a document that was used to renew, again, one of the bogus FISA applications on the Trump campaign. While I'm too cynical to believe that any of those "too big to fail" will ever perform a perp walk, that fact that a worker bee is being held accountable might, just maybe, be a hindarance for future wannabe hop on board the corruption train riders in our government. I do hope there will be more such items to follow.

This. Mostly. However, Biden's old, frail, and, IMO, not all there anymore. For a fair number of people, his selection for his VP is also about completing the term in office, never mind a second term. In the political realm, should Biden win, he's going into his Presidency as a self-proclaimed lame duck. The levers of power will care about his VP, not so much him. But for my purposes, I think this is a good choice.

I agree. Once Biden committed himself to determining that skin color and genitalia were the paramount considerations for his pick, she is the most usable choice for him. **cough - Willie Brown - **cough edited to add: The first joke making the rounds so far: Kamala has less baggage than the other potential picks because she keeps leaving it at Willie Brown's... G'night everybody! I'll be here all week. Tip your servers....

I have to agree. I can appreciate the skill/guts it takes to ride, let alone race at insane speeds on two wheels, it just doesn't do it for me. I like F1 due to the technology being demo'd at insane speeds. But with four wheels, I can at least imagine I can relate. But the absolute dominance by one constructor massively out-spending everyone else is a dual-edged sword. Mercedes wins bigly because they are spending and performing so far in front of everyone else, so good on 'em. Fans of everyone else get bored and choose to spend their money elsewhere which isn't good for the sport overall. Hence, the new owners of F1 are going to change things up next year. But for a "race," then Surely Serious' critiques above apply.

Reasonably interesting race today.

No. That was a good call and I give President Obama full credit for the decision. Of note, of course, was that Biden is on the record as having been against the decision.

Valid. Again, if the dead terrorist was killed in combat, I'm all for it. However, we even tried those traitors in our past - both uniformed and civilian - in a court of law since they were American citizens and entitled to due process no matter their heinous crimes. Just as this terrorist was. Unfortunately, he was an American citizen. That buys him, you, me, any American a higher level of protection no matter how much he deserved killing. Those past traitors were tried either upon capture during or after hostilities or at least in absentia. But they got a trial. To turn the table, and perhaps serve as a logical place for the mods to move this to the political/next President thread, would those ok with a President ordering the specific execution of an American, no matter how deserving of the penalty, without benefit of a trial be ok if it were Trump giving the order? It's happened at least once. I am very sure that future Presidents will use that lever of power again.

And yet somebody did it. And an entire chain of command knew it, literally from POTUS down to trigger-puller. Tough if you don't like being reminded that a US President ordered the deliberate execution of a US citizen without benefit of trial. It's kinda a thing we get the right to for being an American. I'm not willing to forget it or let it go. Because otherwise, it will be done again as a precedent has been set and no one was too upset.

Don't interrupt him, he's on a roll...

So, one hallowed POTUS actually executed an American on his say-so alone. One has said they interpret the policy more broadly. Actions vs. words, it would seem. Again.

Great. A legal opinion. One with which other lawyers disagree. EDITED TO ADD: read page 1194 "Justifying the Extrajudicial Killing of an American Citizen." Not a lawyer, but pretty much against any President ordering the execution, no matter how deserved, of an American citizen without due process. Even a trial in absentia at least ensures a legal defense. And the SOB who got smoked deserved it. Did his 16 yr old kid who also got shredded deserve it? Maybe, maybe not. But an American was executed via a Presidential order without a trial. No matter how the legal "proceedings" are described, no judge and/or jury decided the defendant's fate. Take up arms on the battlefield against America and get killed fighting and I shed no tears and say "well done" to the good guys. Cursor an American and have him catch a Hellfire and I get uneasy about the executive branch becoming all-inclusive. Pretty sure if Trump did it, folks would be upset. And if any president can do it, as has been done, what prohibits such a strike on some lonely stretch of New Mexico highway one day? After all, it's a judgement call.

I'll give you the wild spending point. Shameless and so Weimar Republic like. As to most of your other points about, paraphrasing, "if the president does it, why can't I?" So can I surveil my political enemies using instruments of national power? Can I execute a US citizen based just upon my say-so? I assure you that many, many people felt as you do now but about the previous president who was very, very divisive. But were called a racist if they disagreed. Neat trick, that. I look at criminal justice reforms under the previous administration and to this one and note who actually did something. I look at foreign relations as conducted under the several previous administrations and this one and pick the America first bent of this one. I look at violence spiking and the perpertrators of it and note which "side" supports and which doesn't. No doubt I'll get a "typical," or "racist," or "Ok, boomer," since I disagree with your view point. Trump vs. Biden/whoever will actually be President. Based on past performances, I know who has actually accomplished "things." Agree or not with those things, one of those two (plus) candidates has a track record of accomplishments and is a billionaire. The other has been a Washington politician for 40 years and is a multi-multi-millionaire.

Cool. So the 20+ interviews with Democrats, op-eds in the NYT, Washington Post, and Newsweek can be discounted. Guess that trial balloon didn't float...

Another boring race until the final lap. As to Hamilton's "brilliance" on the last lap, I don't see it. He won the race, as usual, in qualifying and in building up a massive lead. The tire armegeddon experienced by so many on that last lap could've just as easily taken him out. Time and distance in front of Verstappen were his friends. As was the Red Bull decision to go for fastest lap with a pit stop for fresh tires. Woulda/coulda/shoulda...once again Mercedes and Hamilton turned in a commanding performance. Well (yawn) done.

If they, NATO, don't care enough to meet their agreed upon obligations, then why should we? We can still be a member nation without shouldering more than our fair share. If NATO kept to it's stated business, i.e, the collective defense of Western (and galloping eastward since the fall of the USSR ((which wasn't a good idea then or now)), then perhaps it wouldn't be in the state it's in. NATO in Afghanistan never made sense to me. Member nations want to play in our out of area war, then great. That's a bilateral thing between their government and ours. NATO itself? Not so much. Germany's military status is a joke. If they don't care about their own defense, why should we?

After a couple of mid-level Democrats float "no debates needed" this weekend on various cable shows, right on cue the NYT publishes a "we don't need debates" op-ed today. Almost like it's coordinated or something... Oh, and as an aside, former President Bill Clinton's name was among those revealed as being on Epstein's island by one of the accusers in the lady pimp's civil trial records that were unsealed last week. Yet hardly a peep in the media. Also almost like that's coordinated or something...

Trial balloon being floated about is that Biden shouldn't "dignify" Trump with a debate since Trump will simply be lying the entire time. Which to a sane person, seems like a great opportunity to club the baby orange seal and show the fast ball is still there (mixed metaphors acknowledged). Let's see how high this one floats...

Trump beat 24 GOP largely lookalikes in 2016 precisely because he wasn't like them and didn't seem to care if he's called names by the opposition (or the GOP for that matter). Biden won because he's the centrist-ish of the Democrat field and the party knew that some of the really wacko left-field ones would absolutely doom them again. The current push to get Biden across the line seems to "well, he's not all that, but he's our guy." There are dozens of articles/essays in this theme on-going. Doesn't seem to be enthusiasm for the selection, just a "not Trump" mantra. Not wanting to vote for someone has historically reduced turn-out since the ass pain of voting usually outweighs the resigned casting of a luke-warm vote. Not sure the "get rid of Trump" wave is strong enough to push Joe across the line. If he actually does debate and, as is expected, shows that his time mentally is well passed, then I simply don't see how he wins. If, on the other hand, he does manage to be energetic, focused, and coherent for 3 X 90 minutes, then mabye so. Will it be enough? I'm skeptical. But then I really thought Hillary was going to win in 2016. I was very pleasantly surprised to wake up the morning after and find out I was wrong. And I do take comfort knowing she is not president. Daily.

Smith & Wesson SD9VE (note: not my photo) With the current national shortage of both coins (why?) and guns (obvious as to why), one of these came my way due to a father-in-law deciding he needed a handgun for home protection in the midst of these crazy times. He bought it at the Barksdale BX because A) it was all they had in stock B) he doesn't know much about firearms and C) it was all they had in stock. I listed A) and C) above because I wouldn't choose to get this gun. It's perfectly adequate. But he wanted a pistol, this was all they had, so he took what he could get. But then couldn't rack the slide due to arthritis. So after ensuring both he and mother-in-law could work the double-action, I traded him a S&W .38 for this. And I think he got the better end of the deal, but if it gives them some peace of mind... So, on to this pistol: SPECS via S&W: Caliber: 9mm Capacity: 16+1 Safety: No Thumb Safety Barrel Length: 4" / 10.2 cm Overall Length: 7.2" Front Sight: White Dot Rear Sight: Fixed 2-Dot Action: Striker Fire Weight: 22.4 oz / 635.0g Barrel Material: Stainless Steel Slide Material: Stainless Steel Frame Material: Polymer Slide Finish: Satin Stainless Frame Finish: Black This model was introduced a fair few number of years ago. Even pre-M&P series, although the family resemblance is clear. This was/is designed to be a very price point friendly basic defensive pistol. It meets the intended purpose. The trigger is a loooooong pull and there are many reviews commenting on it, as well as trigger kits that can fix the problem. I most likely won't be doing so as this is not likely to be a regular addition to the range rotation. It's not a bad pistol. Adequate white 3-dot sights. Comfortable in the hand. Magazines are good. Too bad they aren't interchangeable with the aforementioned M&P9. I would've liked that. It's just...fine. It went bang every time through 200 rounds (which is pretty scarce or expensive to find nowadays...). It disassembles/reassembles fine. Their are too many plastic internals for my taste - guide rod, etc., but that's how S&W kept the price so low. With the exception of the current scarcity of any firearms, if you pay more than $300 for a new one, you need to look harder. But it's new to me so it at least got a good going over (sts) at the range. Not bad. Not great. Meh...

Remember all the gnashing of teeth about "diversity" and "change?" Yet, the final one standing (barely) is a really old white guy who has been in DC for 40 years doing...well, what exactly? And if one of his selling points is that he'll only do one term, I'm not thinking that's a strong one to make. And the DC leviathan will literally ignore him and kneel to his VP pick should he win.

Racing Pont's driver Perez has the 'rona so he's out for the race this weekend. And Racing Point doesn't have a dedicated reserve driver. RUMINT is that Hulkenberg will get the drive since he's the most recent driver that's available. But for him, or anyone who gets this drive, man, from 0 to 200 in a day in a strange car.