1617 Webslinger.

by

I think it would be fair to say that on some level Nina is jealous of Carol. Maybe she’ll stop feeling that way as her relationship with Ed evolves. There is an undercurrent there though, of wanting what Carol has. The kind that would fester in other people but she manages to work through. I wonder what the story would be like if she had decided she wanted Thomas all along.

I’m watching this documentary about a terror attack in Norway and, putting aside the misery of it, it’s weird to hear the language spoken and how much of it sounds enough like English, or languages I have a faint grasp of, that I can get the gist of what they are saying sometimes. There are a lot of loan words in Norwegian apparently. I’m not sure which direction it goes but they are plentiful. I ended up watching this after watching one about a terror attack in England. Hungerford? Something like that. Anyway, the Norwegian one was very much like the OKC bombing. Car bomb outside a government building, then a rampage on a youth retreat. Anyway, looking at the two attacks you can see that the kind of people who do those sorts of things share a lot of personality traits.
Also watched a video about the history of the NRA. It was very enlightening. Their version of their history and the reality of it are very different. I think if gun owners researched the organization’s history they might not want them as the face of their hobby.
In America you rarely hear news about other countries except in passing. We generally don’t care about the rest of the world in any real sense. American smiles are, by and large, lies. As a people we are very two faced. I don’t know if it was always this way and I was too naïve to notice, or if it started happening over time and I never noticed. I find it very disappointing.

They added in some mini games with that Animal Crossing update and one of them uses amiibos. It’s this surprisingly complex strategy game about getting off of an island with 3 animals you choose. Each kind of animlals has a special power. Using the powers effectively is really fun. I actually made a little team of animals I like so I can play through the whole thing. Nintendo could have sold the game separately I think for a low price, but I’m glad they included it in the update for free.
There’s also a puzzle league game in there now too, but I’m not very good at it past the 5th level. I’m not sure what I need to do to be fast enough to win. In any case it makes these amiibo cards seem much more loke a reasonable purchase than they did for a long time. Especially with how disappointing Amiibo Festival was. They need to update that game to make it more like a game and not just a virtual board game…

An animal moved in to my town from my alt town and stuck his house right in my commercial district. So I used the amiibo ghost to kick him out. HAHAHAHAHAH! Now there will be a way to boot villagers who pull that crap forever! Stupid lion, ruining my perfectly curated paths…

29 Comments

If NRA members actually looked up their organization’s history, there wouldn’t be a lot of members at all.

(I have no problem with gun ownership. I do however have a problem with gun loonies.)

I don’t know. Is “if a lot of Germans looked up Germany’s history, they wouldn’t want to be Germans” a parallel statement? A lot of organizations started out kind of creepy, but have become “enlightened” over the years. (Bu then a lot of them haven’t, so there’s that.)

The NRA is a tricky subject to broach honestly. On one hand, on paper, I agree with what they want, but on the other I disagree with the methodology with which they get it done. I honestly agree that, to a certain extent, maintaining of the second amendment in the event of complete governmental collapse, surrender, or a shift in the guard (through subversion or force) to a dictatorial regime. However the NRA panders to ALL gun owners and not all people should be allowed to carry or wield a weapon, same as there are those who shouldn’t be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. So like I said, I do kind of agree with them but just wish they’d be “enlightened” to the fact that some of their members shouldn’t be protected or lobbied for.

Agreed. By behaving like raving fanatics, they destroy their image among those who don’t share their beliefs. This makes it harder for them to be taken seriously by said people, which in turn makes it harder to persuade. So they fall back on even more fanaticism at higher volume. Reminds me of the temperance movement back in the day.

I, like many others, have a lot of opinions about who should be able to own a gun or operate a motor vehicle. Thank God the second amendment restriction on government infringement of pre-existing rights renders those opinions of as much worth as anyone else’s- none whatsoever. The second amendment doesn’t bestow a right upon citizens- it is a restriction on government. Of course, I don’t guess it matters- we don’t care that 99.99% of gun laws are blatantly un-constitutional- what’s a few more? You have to consider the founding father’s states of mind when they wrote it. How far would the war for independence have gotten if every gun had been registered with the British authorities?

The NRA couldn’t give a bent copper fiq for individual gun rights. They’re a corporate entity that makes money off the appearance of fighting for the RKBA. I can think of several times they’ve compromised their position and supported gun control legislation. Both the Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) and Gun Owners of America (www.gunowners.org) are better groups for those actually interested in protecting their right to self defense.

Sad to say, but that’s a pretty fair description. Although I honestly find it incomprehensible how so many people see the NRA as some extreme absolutist outfit, considering just how often they’ve caved, from FOPA to bump stocks. And then there was their shameful behavior in DC v. Heller, trying to jump on the bandwagon and grab some credit they didn’t deserve. The NRA is less about defending rights, more about fearmongering and fundraising.

The thing that kills me about the history of the NRA is that the first “president” of the organization was General Ambrose Burnsides. The guy who – throughout his career as a Union soldier – didn’t know why he was trusted with command or a rifle. He wanted to be a small time officer that did smaller roles, but got promoted because he people in power found him likable. At the end of his career, he didn’t like all the killing and the sacrifice that went into the war. He felt somewhat overwhelmed all his life when given too much power. But he kept going forward, and after having so many positions in military affairs, he was asked to be the first President of the NRA.

But most people remember him for his incredibly large and outrageous beard. The “sideburns” so to speak. And his terrible mistakes during the Civil War (Burnsides’ Bridge and the Crater). Not that he was a successful businessman and politician who everyone loved because he was a generally nice guy who hated confrontation (he even tried to mediate the Franco-Prussian war).

From my understanding of semi-recent NRA history, they used to be all about gun safety and in favor of (or at least not opposed to) pretty strict gun control and licensing (which, if you ask members today, a majority are also in favor of). But some time in the 70s there was a takeover by a more extreme and very vocal fraction, who made it the political group it is today.

From WW2 on the NRA was all about gun training AND safety for all. Given that almost every ablebodied man that wasnt doing anything more important at the time was drafted into military service for a few years.

Civil defense was deemed important enough to train everyone who was left in “how to not kill yourself with a firearm”

however the truth of that idea played out it was perceived by most opponents of the US that any “invasion” would face “a gun behind every blade of grass”

this was continued a bit due to cold war era thoughts of “on the off chance that the Nukes fly it stands to reason that a Militia is a good thing” were easier to manage than the actual horror of a Nuclear war.

so you are left with a generation raised to defend the American way of life against any threat.

Que the Civil Rights Era. Wherein all this social change is destroying the america that was for some newer more pinko commie like hippy shit.

It is at this point where the organization really goes off the rails. Using one side of its mouth to say that “law abiding decent folk” should be well armed to defend family and home against Crime. and with the other side of their mouth decry the rise of the super predator type criminal and cheer on the rise of the Modern Police State some of us live in… It really feeds into the dog whistle racism that the republican party was using to court southern democratic voters.
Ironically: the only US citizens to actually have their own government point guns at them

Shortly after the U.S. revolution the French people asked for assistance with theirs. I’m not sure on the exact timing, but we’d been delaying since Washington’s term and finally full on said no during John Adams’s. Yes, we didn’t have the economic strength or manpower to be useful, but the way we went about declining was dickish.

Add to that all the Loans we took out to pay for the revolution that we not only never paid back, but never even intended to. Basically it was a fuck you to Spain that was later turned on Mexico whom we’ve been giving the finger to ever since (in one form or another)

I don’t mean to be argumentative about stuff, or start a comments battle, but: if we’re looking at past debts-

[ This is all done, + calculated, off the cuff]- says wikipedia: The USA’s Lend-Lease program, on wikip., in wikip.’s article titled: Lend-Lease]: In order to help the USA + other Allies fight the Axis, in WW2, the USA loaned, or otherwise gave war materials, and supplies, to [the USA-aligned nations of France and Mexico, and to other Allied/Allied-aligned nations.

Under Lend-Lease, France received, in what is now worth, in 2016 dollars, without interest]: $530,142,900 worth of supplies.

And by the same program, Mexico received [ in what is now worth, in 2016, in US dollars, without interest]: $644,610,700 worth of supplies.
I’m sure that Mexico and France thanked The USA for these supplies, but AFAIK, the USA was not paid back by these two nations, for the Lend-Lease supplies/food/weapons/military vehicles.
Am I saying that that Mexico’s govt. + France’s govt., or any nation’s govt., were legally bound to pay back these monies for L-L?…nope.
Am I saying that Spain ever benefited from [the L-L program?]…nope.

Am I saying that the L-L makes up for the things done by the US govt. before [WW2/1946, to France, or Mexico, or Spain, or to others?]…nope.

But if we’re looking at times when a nation gave out millions of dollars, or supplies worth millions, and did not get repaid for such monies or supplies- sometimes the USA’s govt. has had to write -off large debts as well. “Thus endeth the lesson”.

Oops. My gaff. Mexico got about $6,413,200, from that plan. I am prone to the occasional gaff. But, I’d still take a $6,413, 200 gift-like thing, on any day that you’d like to give it. I’m not proud. :D

You are not incorrect in that, and more people in both the U.S. and elsewhere could do well to remember that all nations (and peoples) have done both honorable actions and otherwise. Also, I have a hard time calling it a debt paid when it is separated by over a decade of complete non payment. i.e. running out on the bill equals a dick move. donating a bunch of money equals they couldn’t run out on the bill, it was already covered. So we make up for it, maybe (matter of opinion there), but the original act was still dickish.

That being said, I hold with my statement about how we’ve essentially given Mexico a giant middle finger since day one of its existence. There’s the funding, then annexation of Texas. The Mexican American war that resulted in co-opting California. Mass deportation and slander followed by a begging for workers at the start of World War 2, then kicking said workers back out at the end. There’s the illegalization of weed (due in part to Hearst’s paper machinations and Southern politicians demonizing it by way of “Black jazz musicians”, but also specifically by the guy in charge of Narcotics laws accusing Mexican Immigrants of getting both high and violent.

Which brings us to further demonizing of the country as a whole that continues to this day.

—–

I’m still proud to be an American. This country has done a lot of great things. However, our sense of perspective tends to be a bit skewed to “The U.S. (and to a lesser extent its allies) is number one, everyone else is either a third world nation that doesn’t know anything or is actively working against us.

Yes, I realize that last statement is something of an over generalization, but theres a couple billion people in this country, so I’m more than willing to bet it fits far more often than we should be comfortable with.

You bet.

Also, to go over a good point that you have mentioned- I agree, The US, as well as other, similar, powerful nations, sadly: unfortunately has the occasional habit of thinking of itself + its close friends as Superman and his superheroes team, while all other nations are given the undeserved roles of- goofy bystanders, or villains.
Man. No wonder international diplomacy is so hard. *Shrug*

It’s not that English has loaner words from Norwegian, Jackie–it really doesn’t. It’s that both English and Norwegian share a common root in old Germanic.

English is one of the hardest languages in the world to learn, in point of fact, and I will now explain why. It’s the “deformed love-child” (my phrase) of Old French (Latin root) and Anglo-Saxon (Germanic root). This dates to the Norman Conquest of England (1066 A.D.), when William of Normandy took the crown of England. William was basically French, and so were all his top people, who he promptly appointed to be the new English nobility. So suddenly you have an Anglo-Saxon-speaking peasantry ruled by a French-speaking nobility. Over time, the two languages merged into Old/Middle English.

TLDR: Half our vocabulary and grammar comes from Latin, the other half from Old Germanic, and that’s why English is so messed up.

“It’s not that English has loaner words from Norwegian, Jackie–it really doesn’t.”

I beg to slightly differ. English does in fact have quite a few words loaned from Norwegian… Or at least from old Norse. When the Norwegian seafarers (not the vikings, that’s an old norse word basically meaning “pirate”; and there were really only ever a few of those) sailed around, they sailed around, and quite a fair few of them settled on the British isles (particularly Scotland and Ireland). And they already had quite a few words that differed from the Bavarian/pre-German region; some of which the English did indeed loan. Most of these words would be farm-related. “Knife” and “wife”, for example, are based on the Norse “kniv” and “viv”; which are arguably different from German “messer” and “frau”.

Of course, this didn’t exactly make English less messed up. On that we can agree. :)

BUT, I’ll give English this: It’s messed up, but it doesn’t immediate sound like it is. It sounds very coherent. Dutch, on the other hand, is a language with loaner words from all over the world (due to Amsterdam being -the- seaport for international trade for some time), and it sounds like someone trying to speak five languages at once.

Regarding Dutch … yeah, that really is how it sounds to me as well, and oddly enough it can kind of be understood by me for the same reason. To me it sounds mostly like a mix of English, German, and Danish (all of which I understand to varying degrees). What I find odd, though, is that so many English-speaking people will guess “Dutch” when reading Danish text or hearing Danish spoken language. They don’t look or sound at all similar to me.

As for English, there’s a quote (can’t remember who said it) that sums it up nicely: “English is a language that lurks in dark alleys, beats up other languages and rifles through their pockets for spare vocabulary”.

The quote comes from the late, great, and sorely missed, Sir Terry Pratchett, if my memory serves :)

Nope. Not if you’re thinking of this one, anyway:

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.” – James Nicoll

See this for details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nicoll#.22The_Purity_of_the_English_Language.22

English is what’s called a pidgin language. It has roots in Germanic languages (Dutch, German, Norwegian, Finnish, etc…), Latin (Spanish, French, Italian), Breton, Celtic, and Gaelic (French, Irish, Scottish, other assorted Celtic tribes).

Pre-modern age added loaner words from Native American tribes (North and South), Aboriginal Australia, Samoan, Asian, etc… Modern age most languages are adding new words in that pretty much match up aside from some inflection and accent, sometimes short forms. i.e. Television (Telly, T.V.), VCR, DVD, even Automobile, etc…

This is sort of related: I talked to a guy, who had lived in France, and also Paris, France, in the 1980s.

He said that in the 1980s-That the US’s [action films?], + musical TV shows, + fast food chains, + the big boom of the popularity of MTV’s [American] music videos, was making [A LOT ] of U.S. English words very popular in France.

This popularity was soooo big, that [the trendy people, + college kids, + grade school kids, in France], were using a lot of English words and phrases…as part of their everyday language.
This phenomenon became so big, and noticeable, that there was [one French expert, also an expert of the French language], that was trying to tell people NOT to use English words, instead of French words.

He would say things like: ” No! don’t say, “du shampooing”, use this French term, instead! No. Don’t say, “chewing gum”, use this French word(s), instead!”

I think that he was worried that- if enough English words got into the French language, that the French language would lose parts of its French culture. It’s a good question- What words, if any, make French/ any other language, become less French?

Now, as an actual Norwegian, I’d like to say that we responded better than the typical American response to the 22/7 attack by Some Major Asshole*. And yes, I suppose that by and large, we did. The mayor of the city said something to the effect of “We’ll fight this with more love, more openness”. Good words, that.

And it was also strange in that so many people somehow knew some of the victims, since they’d come from all over the country for the camp. It was like “everyone” knew either a victim, or they knew someone who knew a victim. A macabre version of the Kevin Bacon game, and it felt like most people were never further away than 3.

Such as myself. My cousin’s live-in had a niece who were among the victims of the mass shooting. And one of my friends worked in a building in the street where the bomb went off (far enough away to not be harmed, thankfully).

But I’ll also have to be brutally honest: The overall reaction would have been -nowhere near as good- if it hadn’t turned out to be a neo-fascist Christian fundie. And it inspired a time of reflection that lasted for… about three months or so.

*as per Wonderella’s news initiative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.