The monthly jobs report for the U.S. was released at 8:30 am EST. The unemployment rate stands at 5.7% and 257,000 jobs were added, which is exactly the size of Jersey City, NJ, proud home to the world's largest electric shaver.
Friday, February 06, 2015
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Putin to the Baltics.
So predicts--a "high probability"--NATO's former secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen who was head of the alliance until last September. Putin, says Rasmussen, is determined to reassert the role Russia had in Eastern Europe under the Soviet Union, to restore Russia's "greatness." Rasmussen predicts not a 1956 or 1968-style full invasion but more "little green men" as Putin inserted into Ukraine.
Rasmussen says Putin knows that Russia would be defeated in any war with NATO but that Putin wants to test the alliance's stickiness. That sounds irrational, implausibly irrational, but that is similar to what Khrushchev attempted with JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev had sized up Kennedy as a soft pretty-boy at Vienna in their first meeting. Putin thinks Obama is weak: he draws red lines that turn into yellow lights.
Khrushchev certainly knew that in any war with the U.S. the Soviet Union would be utterly obliterated, that the only "missile gap" that existed in 1962 was on the Soviet side. Knowing that, Khrushchev tried to sneak the missiles into Cuba. Putin sees an opportunity to pick some low-hanging fruit from under Obama's nose and doesn't think Obama has the stomach to stop him.
Khrushchev did not know how pissed JFK was at how Khrushchev had treated him in Vienna, how eager JFK was to reassert his manhood. JFK's response, pushing the world to the brink, was completely disproportionate to the strategic change that would have been affected had the missiles been installed in Cuba. Once Kennedy went on television however Khrushchev knew and didn't challenge the "quarantine."
So, there seems to me to be a predisposition in Russian leaders to see their American counterparts as weak and subject to fleecing. Beyond that predisposition however the parallels end. Putin knows how pissed Obama is. Cuba was not invaded by the Soviets, Cuba was friendly to the Soviets and, of course, America was not treaty-bound to defend Cuba. Just the opposite, Kennedy had a predisposition to invade Cuba and Obama is treaty-bound to defend the Baltics.
For about the millionth time since 2002 I restate my position that NATO should not have expanded East. But it did and Barack Obama has given no indication that I know of that he is not going to enforce Article 5's collective security agreement in defense of Vilnius. Therefore I assume that Obama does not share my strong feelings, in fact he seems to feel at least as strongly the other way and if Mr. Rasmussen is correct there will be war. If I, or one of my ilk, were president America, via NATO, would not go to war with Russia over Vilnius, treaty be damned.
I am unaware that Vladimir Putin knows that Russia would surely lose a war with NATO. In fact, at the height of the Ukraine crisis different Russian advisers were stating that Putin believed he could win even a limited nuclear war in Europe. One of those advisers "reminded" "Comrade Obama" that Russia was still the only power on earth capable of reducing the United States to "ashes."
"We must be clear," wrote Bernard Lewis after 9/11/01 about the messages we send to Islam. So too with Russia. Article 5 of NATO's treaty is clear and is in writing. I assume that President Obama has been clear to Russia and to Putin that an attack on Vilnius is an attack on Washington but treaties, agreements, road maps, red lines, those writing things never meant anything to the Soviet bear and they mean nothing to the Russian bear. "We Russians may not understand puts and calls but we understand tanks and missiles!" a Russian defense official told the Clintons in protesting NATO expansion. Obama's intent is not clear enough for a Russian to understand. If the Obamas share Rasmussen's assessment and intend to defend Vilnius as they would Washington maybe a nationwide address to the American people establishing a line of steel bear traps would get through to them.
Rasmussen says Putin knows that Russia would be defeated in any war with NATO but that Putin wants to test the alliance's stickiness. That sounds irrational, implausibly irrational, but that is similar to what Khrushchev attempted with JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev had sized up Kennedy as a soft pretty-boy at Vienna in their first meeting. Putin thinks Obama is weak: he draws red lines that turn into yellow lights.
Khrushchev certainly knew that in any war with the U.S. the Soviet Union would be utterly obliterated, that the only "missile gap" that existed in 1962 was on the Soviet side. Knowing that, Khrushchev tried to sneak the missiles into Cuba. Putin sees an opportunity to pick some low-hanging fruit from under Obama's nose and doesn't think Obama has the stomach to stop him.
Khrushchev did not know how pissed JFK was at how Khrushchev had treated him in Vienna, how eager JFK was to reassert his manhood. JFK's response, pushing the world to the brink, was completely disproportionate to the strategic change that would have been affected had the missiles been installed in Cuba. Once Kennedy went on television however Khrushchev knew and didn't challenge the "quarantine."
So, there seems to me to be a predisposition in Russian leaders to see their American counterparts as weak and subject to fleecing. Beyond that predisposition however the parallels end. Putin knows how pissed Obama is. Cuba was not invaded by the Soviets, Cuba was friendly to the Soviets and, of course, America was not treaty-bound to defend Cuba. Just the opposite, Kennedy had a predisposition to invade Cuba and Obama is treaty-bound to defend the Baltics.
For about the millionth time since 2002 I restate my position that NATO should not have expanded East. But it did and Barack Obama has given no indication that I know of that he is not going to enforce Article 5's collective security agreement in defense of Vilnius. Therefore I assume that Obama does not share my strong feelings, in fact he seems to feel at least as strongly the other way and if Mr. Rasmussen is correct there will be war. If I, or one of my ilk, were president America, via NATO, would not go to war with Russia over Vilnius, treaty be damned.
I am unaware that Vladimir Putin knows that Russia would surely lose a war with NATO. In fact, at the height of the Ukraine crisis different Russian advisers were stating that Putin believed he could win even a limited nuclear war in Europe. One of those advisers "reminded" "Comrade Obama" that Russia was still the only power on earth capable of reducing the United States to "ashes."
"We must be clear," wrote Bernard Lewis after 9/11/01 about the messages we send to Islam. So too with Russia. Article 5 of NATO's treaty is clear and is in writing. I assume that President Obama has been clear to Russia and to Putin that an attack on Vilnius is an attack on Washington but treaties, agreements, road maps, red lines, those writing things never meant anything to the Soviet bear and they mean nothing to the Russian bear. "We Russians may not understand puts and calls but we understand tanks and missiles!" a Russian defense official told the Clintons in protesting NATO expansion. Obama's intent is not clear enough for a Russian to understand. If the Obamas share Rasmussen's assessment and intend to defend Vilnius as they would Washington maybe a nationwide address to the American people establishing a line of steel bear traps would get through to them.
The Day.
German day today. First time I can recall Germany dominating the stats over a 24-hour period. 58 pageviews to 27 for the U.S. The Czech Republic (11) and Slovenia (10) the only other countries in double figures. First The Day of the year.
Unpopular Posts.
Some viewpagers have gone backbackbackbackback today, way back to November 27, 2004, two posts on "More Proust-isms," and to November 29, 2005, "On 'Dead Sparrow Overshadows Domino World.'" Xiexie, viewpagers.
4,199
It's 19 in Yurino, Tver Oblast, Russia; 12 in Northern Cambria, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Major vigor today. Worldwide vigor.
I bet Northern Cambria is the largest city of that name in America too. So Syracuse has nothing on them. And Northern Cambria is more invigorating. And has bigger pumpkins. Syracuse sucks in pumpkins, I bet.
Major vigor today. Worldwide vigor.
I bet Northern Cambria is the largest city of that name in America too. So Syracuse has nothing on them. And Northern Cambria is more invigorating. And has bigger pumpkins. Syracuse sucks in pumpkins, I bet.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
Jordan today and Georgia. Norway yesterday (That "Wonderful Norway" post six years ago. That was fun.). Serbia a few days ago, Mongolia last week.
I've been making an effort to be less angry since I f-bombed the three religions in the Middle East. I read one time that following the news will put you in a bad mood. This is Public Occurrences though, I have to read the news and write about it when it's significant. I can't ignore Islam. Or Russia. They're too important, too prominent in the world, and too violent. And that's going to make me angry and I'm going to write what I feel. I don't know if it would suit, or would suit me anyway, to be light-hearted about Islam or Russia when I'm heavy-hearted. I have always felt an obligation (1) on this blog and (2) to myself, to express what I feel. "Fuck Pope Francis." Hard to read that. Hard to write that. I was furious with him and wrote furiously. I'm not going to write much about the common man and his common concerns, about the "species," as Shakespeare did. I'm going to write about my concerns.
I feel light-hearted about other things, like Norway, like Kim Kardashian, and can write light-heartedly about them. So that's what I've done.
I've been making an effort to be less angry since I f-bombed the three religions in the Middle East. I read one time that following the news will put you in a bad mood. This is Public Occurrences though, I have to read the news and write about it when it's significant. I can't ignore Islam. Or Russia. They're too important, too prominent in the world, and too violent. And that's going to make me angry and I'm going to write what I feel. I don't know if it would suit, or would suit me anyway, to be light-hearted about Islam or Russia when I'm heavy-hearted. I have always felt an obligation (1) on this blog and (2) to myself, to express what I feel. "Fuck Pope Francis." Hard to read that. Hard to write that. I was furious with him and wrote furiously. I'm not going to write much about the common man and his common concerns, about the "species," as Shakespeare did. I'm going to write about my concerns.
I feel light-hearted about other things, like Norway, like Kim Kardashian, and can write light-heartedly about them. So that's what I've done.
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Holy mackerel! That is the most awesome eagle picture I've ever seen! I looked up "aigle royal de profile" and that's the third Google image. I thought that meant Royal English profile, like a profile of the English Royal Family or something like that...What! I did! What's wrong with that? "Royale" royal, "Aigle" Angle Anglo, that's close!
Okay! Fine! I was wrong! I admit it, okay? The point is that is the most awesome picture of an "aigle" in the history of awesome pictures of aigles, THAT's the point! Okay?
Fine! I'll go back to eating worms if that'll give you an O. Umm, love worms, yum, yum, YUM!
Harris on Shakespeare.
Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature.
...
Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature; the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirrour of manners and of life. His characters...are the genuine progeny of common humanity, such as the world will always supply, and observation will always find. His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated...
...
...Shakespeare excells in accommodating his sentiments to real life...
Actually that wasn't me, that was Dr. Johnson in 1765. Could have been though! Probably "mirrours" betrayed me.
Actually this post isn't even mostly on Shakespeare. It's more on Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and reality shows. I have often wondered why any of them exist, what the fascination is, why they have such a hold on the public. If Dr. Johnson was correct, even partly, then realism is Shakespeare's appeal too. "Common humanity" appeals to the common humanity. They don't appeal to me but then I haven't read Shakespeare either.
That's one thing that struck me about Dr. Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare.
Harris on Philosophy.
Actually this part of the post is by me. "Representations of general nature," "mirrour:" Those are, like, so 1765, a-ha. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Richard Rorty. Rorty broke all those mirrors.
Art. Art broke those mirrors also, broke with representations of nature before philosophy did. Come the camera, come impressionism. You see something different when you're not looking in the mirror.
...
Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature; the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirrour of manners and of life. His characters...are the genuine progeny of common humanity, such as the world will always supply, and observation will always find. His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated...
...
...Shakespeare excells in accommodating his sentiments to real life...
Actually that wasn't me, that was Dr. Johnson in 1765. Could have been though! Probably "mirrours" betrayed me.
Actually this post isn't even mostly on Shakespeare. It's more on Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and reality shows. I have often wondered why any of them exist, what the fascination is, why they have such a hold on the public. If Dr. Johnson was correct, even partly, then realism is Shakespeare's appeal too. "Common humanity" appeals to the common humanity. They don't appeal to me but then I haven't read Shakespeare either.
That's one thing that struck me about Dr. Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare.
Harris on Philosophy.
Actually this part of the post is by me. "Representations of general nature," "mirrour:" Those are, like, so 1765, a-ha. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Richard Rorty. Rorty broke all those mirrors.
Art. Art broke those mirrors also, broke with representations of nature before philosophy did. Come the camera, come impressionism. You see something different when you're not looking in the mirror.
A Comparative Analysis of the Merits of Pluto and Kim Kardashian's Ass as Planets.
Harvard science historian Owen Gingerich, who chairs the IAU planet definition committee, argued at a forum last month that "a planet is a culturally defined word that changes over time."
I wish to give my colleague Professor Gingerich a virtual high-five for that. Pluto is sooo 1930's. The culture of the 1930's defined Herbert Hoover as a "president" for heaven's sake. This is the 21st Century! Culture has changed! This epoch's culture demands that Kim Kardashian's ass be classified a planet.
...Gareth Williams, associate director of the IAU's Minor Planet Center, said that Pluto is not a planet, citing the official definition, which states that a planet is a celestial body that:
But, wait! We make further citation to the science publication cheezburger.com and this headline:
• Is in orbit around the sun.
• Is round or nearly round.
• Has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit, meaning it is not surrounded by objects of similar size and characteristics.
• Is round or nearly round.
• Has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit, meaning it is not surrounded by objects of similar size and characteristics.
Williams said Pluto failed on that third qualification, since it had several other "dwarf planets" near it and also overlaps Neptune's orbit at times.WhyKimKardashiansAssShouldBeAPlanetNOTPluto
Now, let's apply Professor Williams' criteria to Kim Kardashian's ass:
- It is on Earth which orbits around the sun. CHECK. (I think he'd buy that.)
- Is round or nearly round. Duh.
- "Has 'cleared the neighborhood'...is not surrounded by objects of similar size..." So, I think we have all three.
But, wait! We make further citation to the science publication cheezburger.com and this headline:
Kim Kardashian's Ass Totally Looks Like The Planet Jupiter.
Jupiter! Which we think is even bigger than Pluto. We wish to give Professor Cheezburger a fist-bump for that.
With this "weight," this "mass", this "heft" of cultural opinion "behind" us...Well, need we say more we think not.
a.jpg)
Monday, February 02, 2015
An Experiment on a Seahawk in the Airpump.
I was googling naked last night and didn't realize how the Super Bowl had finished until reading about it this morning.
It is rare for the outcome of any tackle football game to turn on one play. Don't know if it ever happened before in a Super Bowl. It did last night. The Seattle "Seahawks" were on New England's one-yard line with 20 seconds left and had the best running back in the sport ready to bulldoze home a victory. They called a pass play.
Didn't turn out good.
On the legal gridiron I caution young lawyers "Never get a brilliant idea in the middle of trial." Pressure distorts judgment. Experiments under pressure often don't turn out good.
It is rare for the outcome of any tackle football game to turn on one play. Don't know if it ever happened before in a Super Bowl. It did last night. The Seattle "Seahawks" were on New England's one-yard line with 20 seconds left and had the best running back in the sport ready to bulldoze home a victory. They called a pass play.
On the legal gridiron I caution young lawyers "Never get a brilliant idea in the middle of trial." Pressure distorts judgment. Experiments under pressure often don't turn out good.
Sunday, February 01, 2015
Have you ever googled: nude? Just that word. I had never googled just "nude." What do you think comes up? I would not have thought just porn would come up. That's all that came up. I was so surprised I cleared my "history," all "search data" "since the beginning of time" just in case!, shut down the computer and restarted it. Same thing, all porn. Did the same on my phone. Same thing.
Usually, I can never remember this not happening before, the first page entry is a definition, no matter how common the word, or a Wikipedia entry. Not with "nude." The top-of-the-page first entry is "Best Celebrity Nudes," the Wikipedia page (for "nudity") is fourth. The first Google image is a spread-leg shot. I thought you had to google "porn" to get that! And as far down on the image page as you go it's all women. Not a single guy.
All porn photographs, too. I couldn't believe it, I mean, there are tons of nude paintings, there's nude art, cartoons, drawings. None of that comes up. Nude is a color too, right? Or a shade, like nail polish or lipstick or dress color or something. Don't google "nude" if you're looking for any of that!
And guys get nude too! Not a single picture of a nude guy....I take that back, like, the 500th picture is a guy standing nude. The first eight photos are open leg, the eleventh is a dildo insertion and the fourteenth is anal sex (I had to enlarge it to tell. (I had to.))
I was shocked, I am NOT complaining but my surprise went beyond surprise to shock.
So then I googled "naked." There's a difference, right? "Nude" is sexual, "naked" is unclothed? The search results are different: pink shots don't lead off, the first three and four of the first five are of the same woman, standing naked but these are clearly sexual...OMG, I think it's that Kim Kardashian woman!...NOW I'm complaining, Oh God, I'm done.
Usually, I can never remember this not happening before, the first page entry is a definition, no matter how common the word, or a Wikipedia entry. Not with "nude." The top-of-the-page first entry is "Best Celebrity Nudes," the Wikipedia page (for "nudity") is fourth. The first Google image is a spread-leg shot. I thought you had to google "porn" to get that! And as far down on the image page as you go it's all women. Not a single guy.
All porn photographs, too. I couldn't believe it, I mean, there are tons of nude paintings, there's nude art, cartoons, drawings. None of that comes up. Nude is a color too, right? Or a shade, like nail polish or lipstick or dress color or something. Don't google "nude" if you're looking for any of that!
And guys get nude too! Not a single picture of a nude guy....I take that back, like, the 500th picture is a guy standing nude. The first eight photos are open leg, the eleventh is a dildo insertion and the fourteenth is anal sex (I had to enlarge it to tell. (I had to.))
I was shocked, I am NOT complaining but my surprise went beyond surprise to shock.
So then I googled "naked." There's a difference, right? "Nude" is sexual, "naked" is unclothed? The search results are different: pink shots don't lead off, the first three and four of the first five are of the same woman, standing naked but these are clearly sexual...OMG, I think it's that Kim Kardashian woman!...NOW I'm complaining, Oh God, I'm done.
Have you ever tried to get rid of Facebook? Jesus Christ. I thought I had deleted my account months ago so imagine my irritation when I got this email today from a friend:
Subject: Do you know Benjamin Harris?
To: "Anne Joseph" [And then my friend's email!]
Date: Saturday, January 31, 2015, 3:24 PM
Facebook
Do you know Benjamin Harris ? Here are some people you may know on Facebook. Connect with friends, family, classmates and coworkers to see their updates, photos and more. Benjamin Harris Add Friendfacebook
My friend is not "Anne Joseph." I don't know who Anne Joseph is although I'm sure I could be friends with Anne Joseph.
Anne Joseph, we can be friends, just not on Facebook. I am not friends with Facebook. Send me a friendly email at publocc@gmail.com.
I hated getting those "Do you know's" from Facebook and those blasted email updates. I never "got" Facebook, didn't get the point, did not find it useful or helpful or fun or whatever! So I deleted my account, or thought I did until today. I had to go back into Facebook, log the *swear word* in again to check the status, it said my account was "deactivated." Okay! Deactivated works for me So?! WTF?
Deactivated is not the same as "deleted." SWEARING! I WAS SWEARING! Push the "delete account" button. Okay, now? Not for two weeks. In case I change my mind. !$%*%#@^*( #)!!
They're like cockroaches. You think you're rid of them and they come right back.
Subject: Do you know Benjamin Harris?
To: "Anne Joseph" [And then my friend's email!]
Date: Saturday, January 31, 2015, 3:24 PM
Do you know Benjamin Harris ? Here are some people you may know on Facebook. Connect with friends, family, classmates and coworkers to see their updates, photos and more. Benjamin Harris Add Friendfacebook
My friend is not "Anne Joseph." I don't know who Anne Joseph is although I'm sure I could be friends with Anne Joseph.
Anne Joseph, we can be friends, just not on Facebook. I am not friends with Facebook. Send me a friendly email at publocc@gmail.com.
I hated getting those "Do you know's" from Facebook and those blasted email updates. I never "got" Facebook, didn't get the point, did not find it useful or helpful or fun or whatever! So I deleted my account, or thought I did until today. I had to go back into Facebook, log the *swear word* in again to check the status, it said my account was "deactivated." Okay! Deactivated works for me So?! WTF?
Deactivated is not the same as "deleted." SWEARING! I WAS SWEARING! Push the "delete account" button. Okay, now? Not for two weeks. In case I change my mind. !$%*%#@^*( #)!!
They're like cockroaches. You think you're rid of them and they come right back.
Guns Don't Kill People, Toddlers Kill People.
Toddler Shoots Father and Pregnant Mother in New Mexico.-Time
Now this is the second time in a month or so. We have got to do something about this epidemic of toddler violence. I call for a summit meeting of world leaders on Toddler Extremism.
The Ugly Israeli.
Today on CBS News' Face the Nation former Secretary of State James Baker was asked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech before the United States Congress, arranged without consulting with the White House:
"Is that a significant breach of protocol?"
"Yes. It is."
And from the New York Times, January 30:
"A quarter-century ago, James A. Baker III, then secretary of state, was so angry that Israel’s deputy foreign minister had said American policy was built “on a foundation of distortion and lies” that for a while he banned him from even entering the State Department. Who was that deputy foreign minister? Benjamin Netanyahu." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/world/middleeast/a-strained-alliance-obama-netanyahu-rift-grew-over-years.html?_r=0
"Is that a significant breach of protocol?"
"Yes. It is."
And from the New York Times, January 30:
"A quarter-century ago, James A. Baker III, then secretary of state, was so angry that Israel’s deputy foreign minister had said American policy was built “on a foundation of distortion and lies” that for a while he banned him from even entering the State Department. Who was that deputy foreign minister? Benjamin Netanyahu." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/world/middleeast/a-strained-alliance-obama-netanyahu-rift-grew-over-years.html?_r=0
The image above is of historical importance because it is the only known image of a ship other than the Titanic ever to appear in National Geographic magazine but in addition, I say, there's another thing besides that.
Isn't that beautiful? But doesn't it look off a little? Yes, the painter's palette is not as precise as the photographer's lens. No! That's not a painting imitating the realism of a photograph, that is a photograph! It's from 1930 and is an early color photograph made with a newfangled technology using potato starch! Delightful. Potato starch color photography was cumbersome, it gave way to Kodachrome which of course has since been supplanted by the hyper-precision of digital.
That's a girl sitting on a dock in a bay--Did she do the whistle?--in Tampa, Florida, U.S.A. Delightful photograph. More potato starch color photography here.NationalGeoPhotoNOTofTitanic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
