atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#6847: Pointless

A new version of Monopoly that gives women $240 when they pass "Go" where men get $200. Among other things.

Women are equal to men which is why they need to be given more money?

I know, I know--this is meant as some kind of "payback" for the common misconception that women are not paid as much as men. You know what I mean. But this is a game, and (worse) it's a game you have to buy in order to play, and other than a relative handful of "woke" scolds and collectors of Monopoly editions, it's not going to sell very well.

Certainly it is not a blow for womens' equality.

* * *

Rise of Skywalker is going to fail as a story but I don't think that's surprising news at this point.

"Why did Rey refuse to sell BB-8?" Because she just had to keep the thing, that's why, because PLOT DEVICIUM. Handwaving, "the Force", etcetera. But that was the first sign that this is gonna suck! because there was no motivation for her keeping the thing, and no explanation for why she did, other than, "The plot requires it!"

The entire third tranche of movies in this series is built on "The plot requires it!" so there is a ton of inexplicable crap in the stories, things that only make sense until you get up and go to the fridge to get something to drink. This is the kind of ham-handed storytelling that I was embarassed by when I was in my teens and I wouldn't ever let a story go out for critique unless every character action had a motivation attached to it. (Sometimes I miss them. Everyone does.)

How to fix the non-sale of BB-8? You could do as Cataline suggested and have a scene where the robot protested against being sold. Or:
BB-8: [bleep whir chirp]

Rey: (bothered) I don't know! I need that food! But something told me that I shouldn't.

BB-8: [querelous beep]

Rey: I don't know. It was just a feeling I got.
Four lines of dialogue from a moderately competent writer is all it takes to explain it and put it in context. And half of it is sound effects, FFS.

Note: I have only seen The Force Awakens once, or perhaps twice. I don't remember the details of the byplay between Rey and BB-8 following the scene where she decides not to sell him, so for all I know that might have been said--but the fact that so many people are questioning the motivation of the character tends to suggest that there is not anything justifying it.

I just watched a fan video on YouTube where the poster suggests that there were some adventures that Rey and BB-8 had, between their meeting and the proposed sale, which led Reey to form an emotional attachment to the thing. These adventures were shown on Disney Channel as vignettes, a few minutes long, showing heroines doing things in the SW universe.

But that's still bad storytelling; you should never expect any viewer to know something based on external sources unless it's part of reality. For example, in The Empire Strikes Back you can expect someone to know that Darth Vader killed Ben Kenobi, but you cannot expect someone to know that Han Solo once spent time on a desert planet showing a travelogue about a water world to the natives for money, and inadvertenty created a religion. (Han Solo's Revenge, Brian Daley. A good read.)

* * *

9/11 was not a government scheme. I'm not going to go over the technical details again, at least not in depth.

You try slamming an airplane-load of kerosene into a skyrise and set it on fire and see how long it lasts. A kerosene fire like that can get quite hot, more than hot enough to soften steel. If I can build a wood fire in my fireplace that is hot enough that the grate sags under the weight of the logs, then it's eminently possible for 40,000 pounds of kerosene to soften structural steel enough that it buckles.

It does not help that the buildings were stripped of asbestos insulation that was meant to keep the girders from getting that hot in the event of a fire. This was done because asbestos can cause mesothilioma. Unless you want to argue that asbestos abatement regulations were emplaced by the EPA to enable a scam like you propose?

The thing that hit the Pentagon was an airplane, not a cruise missile, and especially not a cruise missile modified to look like an airliner. The scale is completely different; a cruise missile will fit in a 2-car garage but a passenger jet will not.

There is one place--just one--that I am willing to admit the government probably had a hand in all this: flight 93.

I have absolutely nothing to base this on except for one thing, and that's the fact that after the other planes had hit the WTC and the Pentagon, Flight 93 was still in the air and had not landed. I'd further bet that the islamic savage flying the thing was not responding to repeated calls from air traffic control or the jet fighters which were doubtless pacing the thing almost immediately after the grounding order went into effect for all civilian aircraft.

Well, NPR has this timeline of the flight. Among other things, it shows that someone was asking about fighter intercept at 9:36 AM, which was after two of the hijacked planes had already crashed into their targets, the twin towers at WTC. At 9:41, Flight 93's transponder was apparently shut off. At 9:42, the order for all civilian planes to land went out after the third plane hit the Pentagon.

At 10:03 the plane crashed.

Twenty minutes is a pretty reasonable amount of time to scramble your alert fighters. I'd bet money there is some sort of military air patrol going on up and down the east coast, particularly considering how many strategic targets there are, and at Mach two it would not take long to get from DC to Pennsylvania. But that might not even be necessary; I'm sure there's an Air Force base or two within easy reach of Johnston, PA that would have "plus fives" sitting in a hangar waiting to be lit off and sent skyward on a moment's notice. I know extremely little about air defense matters but I do know our military has the ability to react to airborne threats pretty quickly.

And Flight 93 was identified as an airborne threat at least twenty minutes before it crashed.

I have no evidence, nothing but a gut feeling telling me that the plane was shot down. The passengers aboard the plane would not have known about it; the islamic savage at the controls would not have told them and the fighters could easily have kept out of their view simply by remaining on the plane's "six" at all times. You've seen out of a passenger jet's windows; how wide was your field of view? You wouldn't even be able to see a plane that was above the jet, and it could hover there where the pilot could see but no one else aboard could.

So the passengers, thinking they were on their own, not knowing that there were fighters out there, made phone calls to loved ones and rushed the cockpit, and the official story is that the islamic savage deliberately crashed the plane. But a passenger jet is a fragile beast; a few hits from 20mm cannon would damage it beyond airworthiness and crash. You don't even need to use a missile, which someone might see.

The fighters, for their own part, would be talking with the islamic savage--or trying to--telling him that if he doesn't land the airplane it'll be shot down, etcetera. They wouldn't just ease up behind the plane and blow it out of the sky. There are things they'd do to try to get him to land the thing, but--when he didn't comply, ease back and open fire. Punch a few dozen holes in the elevator and it'll probably come off, and then the airplane will crash. Or shoot out the engines; civilian turbofan engines have a certain amount of FOD resilience but they can't take machine gun fire. And it's very likely that the passengers would never hear the sound of the bullets hitting the airframe--or if they did, their cell phones certainly would not. I can't prove it. I have nothing but the official story to go by. But my feeling is that Flight 93 was deliberately shot down.

Regardless, it should have been.

Understand that this plane was still flying after a grounding order had gone out, and its transponder had been shut off, and it was not complying with orders from ATC. There had already been three deliberate crashes of aircraft and it was obviously a coordinated terror attack, and this plane's behavior showed that it was part of the same attack as the others.

So what do you do? Fly alongside for an hour, pleading with the islamic savage to please not go to his 72 virgins today? Let the thing get over a populated area, so the jerk can crash it there? Or do you make sure to drop it in the middle of a corn field so no one else gets hurt?

FFS the assholes didn't even know how to land the damned things. And the pilots were likely already dead, or so incapacitated that they couldn't fly. We don't really know.

But what I do know is that in this kind of situation, a military commander has to make a really hard, hard choice with limited information: you drop the hostile now and kill 45 innocent people, or you bet that the hostile isn't really all that hostile, and let him get to somewhere he can kill many times that number, before you find out what he's going to do. The tactically smart choice is to bet the scumbag is intent on killing as many people as possible and drop the plane with all hands.

So even if Flight 93 was deliberately shot down, it was the right thing to do. It limited the loss of life to just the people aboard the airplane, and it prevented even greater horror than was visited on this country that day.

...but however right the decision was, it wouldn't play well in Peoria. You know what I mean. US military jets shooting down an unarmed civilian airliner--that's what the headlines would say, "unarmed civilian". Maybe not on 9/12 or 9/13, but sooner or later the press would have remembered that it hated America and the military would have been excoriated for taking a perfectly logical and justified defense action.

Still, that's the height of the pile for my 9/11 conspiracy theory. I think a bunch of islamic savages perpetrated the attack, I think the two towers collapsed because jet fuel burns hot enough to soften uninsulated steel enough to deform under load, and I think the Pentagon was hit by a passenger jet, just like the two towers were. I do not see any reasonable motivation for our government to perpetrate such an act on its own people, nor justification; and even if it had, there would be far too many people involved with the setup for it to remain secret even this long. People talk. And when they talk, word gets around.

* * *

The root cause of 9/11 has not been dealt with. Doing so is politically impossible for a huge panoply of reasons. I've discussed that often enough before--but it is possible to defeat islam utterly and completely, for once and for all, if we are willing to do it. It will take doing a lot of horrible things to a great many people. That's what makes it politically impossible: as long as the islamic savages do not kill too many innocent people, our so-called "elites" can pretend they're taking the high road and not shitting themselves at the prospect of having to fight an actual war.

The only reason George W. Bush was able to do what he did stemmed from the fact that WTC was in Manhattan. If it had been in Cedar Rapids or Kansas City, the elites would not have felt personally threatened by the attack. But because WTC was in Manhattan, the elites had to see it, had to experience it, and they didn't like it and wanted someone to pay. How convenient that George Bush and the neocons wanted a war anyway.

But the elites have no stomach for war--not real war, unlimited war, the kind of war where we fight to win. They wanted punitive "kinetic action" that would only hurt people identifiable as combatants, without striking at the enormous terrorism support structure that lurks beneath the surface of islam.

The result is what we have now, of course. We are no more safe, and less free, than we were on September 10, 2001.

* * *

Coincidentally enough, Rush Limbaugh wrote an entire book called See, I Told You So, which is why that article about seminar callers elicits exactly zero surprise from me.

* * *

It's about time the Suprme Court acted to rein in the 9th Circuit. At best, the circuit court has jurisdiction over its circuit (whatever states that may cover) but not the entire country. Nationwide injunctions need to be stopped.

* * *

High-priced front-line top-tier lawyers support their cases with dubious precedents. Which is to say, the precedents they are citing as support for a particular position in a given case "...either weren't appropriate analogues to the current situation, or in one instance, the main case the other side relied upon stood for the opposite proposition of what they claimed it did."

These are the best lawyers money can buy and they can't even cite precedents which are relevant to their case? Amazing, isn't it?

...the precedents are probably researched by paralegals making $15.80 an hour while the lawyers themselves play golf and generally fuck off. The difference is, the third-tier lawyer did his own research instead of paying someone to do it.

* * *

If you are CEO of a corporation, your duty is to your stockholders. Specifically, to maximize the return on their investment. It does not include lobbying or supporting political positions unless those political positions will somehow redound to the benefit of your corporation's bottom line.

Example: gun manufacturer lobbies for an easing of restriction on magazine sales.

Counterexample: pantyhose manufacturer lobbies for banning "assualt weapons".

Banks in particular have no dog in this hunt (pun intended). The job of a bank is to serve as a clearinghouse for monetary transactions, and as storage place for money. It exists to hold money for people, and to loan that money out to others in order to earn a profit.

Banks do not exist to shape public policy, and they especially do not exist to determine how their customers may (or may not) spend their money. It is not within the purview of a bank's operations to say to a customer, "We're not going to let you buy that gun because guns are bad, mmkay?" The bank does not get a say in how the customer spends his money. It exists simply to store that money until the customer chooses to spend it.

I'd bet money that when a bank does so, it violates some law or another. When it happens, there need to be handcuffs applied to CEOs' wrists.

But this kind of thing is now a Democrat platform issue.
I can only see bad things happening when the banks are given the authority to limit our ability to purchase lawful products. It would be the ugliest runaround of the Constitution imaginable. If they can't deny us our rights by law, they will make them impossible to access by restricting our ability to purchase them with our money. Which is exactly why I can see the Democrats thinking this is such a good idea
* * *

This easy and obvious solution to the coming insolvency of Social Security will not happen, because it fixes a problem that the Democrats need.

* * *

If you still don't understand why Michael Mann's "hockey stick" was a scam, read this. The graph alone tells the tale.

* * *

This sign analogizes the Brexit situation perfectly.

* * *

So, broke off right after the 9/11 conspiracy rant to go to work on the spare room. Did some spackling and some other work, and then started sanding. Got most of the south wall done when the sandpaper came off the sander.

Oh, well, it had been a bit loose; I'll just sit down and get it back on and...oh, the holding clip came off--I'll just have to put that back in, first, and... OH. It's broken.

...which doomed today's efforts. I got a shower and went to Harbor Freight to buy another one; and since I was going out, I picked up my wife's pills, and Jersey Mike's sandwiches for dinner.

Bought that thing about two years ago, more or less. Although I have not used it continuously, I've used it pretty hard. Not bad for a $20 sander. And the motor still works; it's just that there's no way to hold the sandpaper in place on one end of the pad.

I paid the same for the new one. It was on sale for $15 and I spent $5 extra on a two-year extended warranty for it. WTF, if I'd done that in 2017 I probably would have gotten this one free.

Also picked up a few chip brushes and some dust masks. I'd closed the door to keep as much of the sanding dust out of the rest of the house as I could; opened a couple windows and stuck a fan in one to help clear the air. Now there's a white circle on the screen where the fan was blowing the air out and everything in the room is covered with fine white powder.

So, tomorrow I will finish sanding the walls and touch up what needs touching up. While the touch-ups are drying, masking! Everything! Finish sanding the touched-up spots, wipe down the walls, vacuum, and call it "ready for paint".

Saturday we go shopping for paint, of course. Whee!

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.