Popular Comments

PVW said:

nan said:

And so what -- why do you care?  Do you really believe the people in Russia are dreaming of a western invasion to liberate them from a psychotic tyrant?  I'm sure they have lots of complaints but would take him over anyone we would install.  

Relevant to Ukrainians, who have been facing the choice between Russian autocracy and European democracy since independence and who -- to Putin's anger -- keep rejecting the Russian offering.

The whole point of the article on polling, which has been misrepresented as showing "support for Putin", is that the people of Russia aren't allowed to have enough information, to even consider the possibility that the "psychotic tyrant" could be removed. The people of Ukraine did have more information, and deliberately made the choice not to be dominated from Moscow - which is why Putin invaded.

Saw this one on Bluesky today.

Morganna said:

I have a feral kitty who is doing roof and gutter inspections for me.

cat on a cold slate roof.

GoSlugs said:

TOTR said:

While recent petty posts reflect disharmony in the MOL ranks, there is this happening in the political world …

I certainly don't mean to take aim at the messenger but we all agree that shooting dogs is wrong, a consensus that seems to have evaded your party.

joanne said:

Just thinking about ages, behaviour, mannerisms etc…. A couple of days ago I read this article (I’m sure you read or saw similar), and was startled that Mark Hammill is 72. 
https://www.theguardian.com/film/article/2024/may/03/mark-hamill-joe-biden-hollywood  There’s another good one in France 24, and other international media. 

Just 10 years younger than Joe Biden. And just a coupla years younger than the candidate sitting in court rooms and featuring in daily news bulletins and satirical late nights programs. 

Gosh. Kinda throws adult behaviour into sharp perspective, doesn’t it??

This guy is one year younger than Biden and 3 years older than Trump and doing a 16 city tour of the US and Canada over the next couple of months.

nan said:

You don't know if he spoke with them or not. He implies he gave them and opportunity to respond. We know they did not respond denying something.

I asked nan twice in this thread for her source for stating that Ukrainians were divided half and half by language before Russia’s 2022 invasion. Nan didn’t respond. I can now ethically and responsibly report that nan did not deny she posted a falsehood.

These examples are so rare I feel they're worth highlighting -- some Republicans show that they can put country before Party:

Geoff Duncan, Georgia Republican, says he will vote for Biden (NYT)

Geoff Duncan, a Republican who was lieutenant governor of Georgia when then-President Donald J. Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election results there, endorsed President Biden for re-election on Monday.

“I am voting for a decent person I disagree with on policy over a criminal defendant without a moral compass,” Mr. Duncan wrote in an opinion piece in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

https://www.ajc.com/opinion/geoff-duncan-why-im-voting-for-biden-and-other-republicans-should-too/LFLE5YWCBBA6VDGJAJKMNPCDKQ/

In the Mate piece, he says this:

No official contacted for this article – including former CIA chief John Brennan and senior State Department official Victoria Nuland – disputed any of his claims.

The thing is, nowhere in the article does is appear that Brennan or Nuland provided any response to Mate, or that they even acknowledged a request for comment. Indeed, later in the piece he writes

Brennan and Pyatt did not respond to a request for comment.

So while it is technically true that neither Brennan nor Nuland "disputed" any claims, the reason for that seems to be that they didn't talk to Mate at all.

I find his phrasing misleading and unethical. It's the sort of thing that makes me suspicious of anything he writes -- if he's willing to spin a "did not respond to requests for comment" as "proof that what I'm saying is true," then what else is he spinning? He's an untrustworthy writer.

nohero said:

The upcoming issue of The Atlantic has an article with a very persuasive premise, that "What Putin Wants", and what similar autocrats want, it to discredit democracy. I don't have a subscription,

Gift link good for 14 days: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/06/china-russia-republican-party-relations/678271/?gift=-CRiPP4EUVaorGx_IBy-CKvVtD2zFYJkC4iZF8ElzTM&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Morganna says (in her valuable description of civil disobedience):  "I'm mistrustful of people covering their faces."

mtierney gives a reason why masking may be prudent: "...students may well be spotted by identity technology available to employers to screen prospective job applicants."

Not to mention current employers, school administrators, police, and any opponent or random internet surfer who'd like to dox them.  Seems sensible to me, though maybe not at the level of integrity and civic-mindedness Morganna described.