Kong: Skull Island
Screenplay: D +/C - - -
That's my BS guess
Imagine a hand palming a human face forever
Dugin, who's been described as everything from an occult fascist to a mystical imperialist, lost his prestigious job running the sociology department at Moscow State University in 2014 after activists accused him of encouraging genocide. Thousands of people signed a petition calling for his removal after a rant in support of separatists in Ukraine in which he said, "kill, kill, kill."And:
Dugin, who has long predicted the demise of "the West's liberal hegemony," said the election of Trump promises to change the course of world history.WTH?
"Incredibly beautiful-one of the best moments of my life," he said after Trump's inauguration.
After decades of railing against Washington for seeking the "Westernization of all of humanity," Trump's elevation has led to a Damascene conversion for Dugin, who declared anti-Americanism "over."
"America not only isn't an opponent, it's a potential ally under Trump," he said.
Now Dugin's focusing on Europe, where he's been cultivating ties with anti-establishment parties that threaten a political and military union seven decades in the making.
With key elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands this year, the Russian polemicist has a new mantra for Europe that's ripped straight out of Trump's campaign playbook:
"Drain the swamp."
Those focused on Mr. Bannon’s ideology are probably barking up the wrong tree. There are plenty of reasons for concern about Mr. Bannon, but they have less to do with where he stands on the issues than with who he is as a person. He is a newcomer to political power and, in fact, relatively new to an interest in politics. He is willing to break with authority. While he does not embrace any of the discredited ideologies of the last century, he is attached to a theory of history’s cycles that is, to put it politely, untested. Most ominously, he is an intellectual in politics excited by grand theories — a combination that has produced unpredictable results before.See, that's plenty scary for me. Bannon, whatever his personal characteristics, sounds like a goddamn philosopher or something. And that ought to scare you. A lot. He's got theories, man. Untested theories. Possibly untestable theories. (But probably not. Sounds like predictions might be possible. Not that anyone will ever really try.) If you had any clear conception of how scary that is, you would, unfortunately, have a lot less time for worrying about whether he's literally Hitler.
The Trump "administration" has made it clear that it's willing to say that 500,000 = 1.5 million > 1.8 million.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, Conway said she did not consider herself a feminist, as the term is usually used.Merriam-Webster allegedly tweeted the following in response:
"It's difficult for me to call myself a feminist in a classic sense because it seems to be very anti-male, and it certainly is very pro-abortion, and I'm neither anti-male or pro-abortion," Conway said.
Lookups for 'feminism' spiked today. It's "the belief that men & women should have equal rights and opportunities."First, substantively: Conway is not disagreeing with the textbook definition of feminism, and to pretend that she is is to be intentionally obtuse. She is saying, roughly, that contemporary feminism [is, as a matter of fact, not definition, associated with the positions in question]. If M-W's tweet really is a response [and I guess it really was, hard as that was for me to believe], it's crap. Consider an analogous case on the other side of the spectrum. Bernie says: "I can't be a Republican because I think it's unfair to the poor." Suppose M-W responded: republicanism is a form of government in which citizens elect representatives authorized to govern on their behalf--the suggestion being, of course, that republicanism (in the generic sense) has nothing to do with the rich and the poor. Not that that would ever happen... But it would be analogous--and analogously dishonest/obtuse.
A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality. [my emphasis]
The two-page “Dear colleague” letter from the Trump administration, which is set to go to the nation’s public schools, does not offer any new guidance, instead saying that the earlier directive needed to be withdrawn because it lacked extensive legal analysis, did not go through a public vetting process, sowed confusion and drew legal challenges.Honestly, this seems pretty much exactly right to me. The Obama administration's use of Title IX was wrong. Horribly, inexcusably wrong, in fact. And its arguments cannot be sustained. More importantly, we have to stop misusing Title IX in these ways--that is, misusing it to accomplish whatever the progressive cause of the moment happens to be. But equally important is that last part: students have to be protected from discrimination and harassment based on sexual preference etc. [Actually: semi-scratch that. Students need to be protected, to a reasonable degree, from discrimination and harassment. Period. I don't see that the type of discrimination / harassment matters much. And, of course, it is not possible to extirpate every scrap of man's assholery to man. Thinking that it is and that we should is a blueprint for some kind of totalitarianism of niceness or something.]
The administration said that it would not rely on the prior interpretation of the law in the future.
The departments wrote that the Trump administration wants to “further and more completely consider the legal issues involved,” and said that there must be “due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing educational policy.” Although it offered no clarity or direction to schools that have transgender students, the letter added that “schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment.”
Basically, the alt-right is a group of thinkers who believe that Western civilization is inseparable from European ethnicity—which is racist, obviously. It’s people who believe that if Western civilization were to take in too many people of different colors and different ethnicities and different religions, then that would necessarily involve the interior collapse of Western civilization. As you may notice, this has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence. It has nothing to do actually with Western civilization. The whole principle of Western civilization is that anybody can involve himself or herself in civilized values. That’s not what the alt-right believes—at least its leading thinkers, people like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor and Vox Day. Those kind of folks will openly acknowledge that this is their thought process.On Trump (and the Alt-Right):
So it’s a couple-step process, and glomming onto Trump has been part of that because Trump, I don’t think, is alt-right. I don’t think that Trump is particularly racist. I think he’s an ignoramus. I think that more than anything, Trump is willing to pay heed to and wink at anybody who provides him even a shred of good coverage. So if the alt-right, which worships at the altar of Trump—if they provide him good coverage, he’s willing to wink and nod at them and not wreck them.On Steve Bannon:
I think that Steve will stop if it becomes politically convenient for him to stop. Steve is not a deeply principled guy on politics; it’s not like he’s coming in with this ramrod agenda. He’s coming in and he’s talking about big government spending. He’s talking about trillion-dollar infrastructure packages. If you had to peg Steve down on ideology or philosophy, you’d say he’s sort of like a European far-right leader. He’s more like Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage than he is like a constitutional conservative. He doesn’t like constitutional conservatism; he thinks that it’s an obstacle in the way of building this new Third Way movement, this independent political movement that is focused on heavy spending—even some redistribution inside the country—but closed borders and tariffs for everybody outside. He calls himself an economic nationalist. They say, “Are you a white nationalist?” and he says, “No, I’m an economic nationalist.” And then when he’s asked about white nationalism and its effect on the far-right in Europe, he says that will sort of fade away as time goes on, and they’ll legitimize. I don’t think so. I’ve never seen a bad movement or a bad person, yet, given power and they become better people.On the all-conservatives-are-racist left:
I think that the left is making a huge mistake by labeling everybody on the right “alt-right.” Because what they’re doing is they’re pushing people into the arms of the alt-right. You call people racist enough, and they begin to think OK, well, who’s not calling me a racist—I’ll side with that guy. So the worst thing the left can do is continue to suggest that everyone who backed Trump was a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe; everyone’s evil, everyone’s terrible. What they really should be doing is they should be saying, “Look, we understand one of the reasons that we lost is because Hillary Clinton was a uniquely terrible candidate”—she really was—“and because of that, we’re not trying to throw you guys out of the tent. We think it was a bad choice to choose Trump, but we would sort of appeal to the better angels of your nature—that if we think he’s divisive as time goes on, that you recognize that he’s being divisive.” I think it’s a big mistake to have the left pushing the notion that they’re just going to double-down on the Obama coalition and tell everybody else to go screw.On Milo being a dick:
And then there was a breaking point where he said the Constitution and conservatism were done, and it was going to be replaced by this new rising alt-right movement that didn’t care about the Constitution—you’re cucks, you’re losers, all the rest of this stuff. And then it gradually got worse, to the point where, when my second kid was born in May, Milo—who pretends that he’s not alt-right—sent a tweet at me with a picture of a black kid. Because the way that this works is that if you are not alt-right, if you’re anti-Trump, then according to the alt-right you must be what they call a “cuck”—for those who don’t follow this sort of stuff—because you have two brain cells to rub together. Cuck, according to the alt-right, means that you’re a white person who wants to watch his wife have sex with a black man, right? Because you’re poisoning the racial stock of the United States, so you want your own racial stock “poisoned.” I always found the whole thing bewildering. I’m not interested in my wife having sex with a man of any race; I’m not sure why a black guy would be significantly worse, just overall! It seems pretty terrible all the way through.Dude, seriously. I'm not kidding. Read the whole thing. This is a great interview.
Illegal immigration to the U.S. ended a decade ago and, according to the Pew Research Center, has been zero or negative since its peak in 2007Or anyway, I thought it was at first... The assertion above would be great....but...30 seconds of Googling showed that it apparently isn't true. Wikipedia (lol...I know...) says that in 2015 there were about 1,200,000 new illegal immigrants in the country. What the author seems to be saying is that enough are leaving the country to keep the number fairly steady. That--if true--is important. But it's dishonest to put it the way he puts it.