The pendulum *may* be beginning to swing the other way on some issues. For a number of years the bulk of the populace has been cowed into obedience over LGBTQ/Pride stuff with threats ranging from being called names to losing their jobs… but more and more people are ceasing to care. Some of this is doubtless due to the over-use of Cancel Culture tactics. And a lot of it is doubtless due to people being fed up with the utter insanity that many weirdos are trying to normalize. “Drag Queen Story Hour” may go down in history as the moment when people, parents of small children in particular, said “enough.”
The video below describes a *lot* of recent events, both of the weirdos trying to threaten people for not going along with the ideology, and with normal folk pushing back.
If Turkey becomes an EU member, it will immediately be the most populace EU member, with about 85 million compared to second-place Germany with about 83 million (some sizable number of which are actually Turks). Those Turks would have the right to go anywhere in the EU and settle; any “migrants” who get to Turkey – certainly easier than getting to Italy or France – would immediately be able to go anywhere in the EU and live on the local taxpayers dimes. This will flood Europe with non-Europeans (even more so than is happening already) who have neither the desire nor intention of assimilating into the local cultures. As Turkey is officially in Asia, not Europe, being in the EU would be just weird regardless of all other arguments.
The Turks in the form of the Ottoman Empire spent the better part of a millennium invading and attempting to conquer Europe; their main remaining success is Turkish-occupied Constantinople. If the EU admits Turkey, that conquest could finally be completed, without the need to fire a single shot.
Turkey seems to believe that they will finally receive EU membership after agreeing to let Sweden join NATO. Which, again, is weird… the EU is not NATO, NATO is not the EU. But if they are correct… better by far for Turkey to be booted from NATO and Sweden admitted than to let the Ottomans conquer Europe at long last.
Disney has done some amazing things with Star Wars since buying the property. In short, Disney turned Star Wars from a license to print money into a series of disappointments and flops and failures. These are generally well known… how “Solo” was the first Star Wars movie to actually lose money, how the sequel trilogy PO’ed the fans and got progressively less profitable, how “Galactic Starcruiser” shut down after only a year, how the various TV shows have ranged from occasionally quite good to generally awful.
But then there’s “The High Republic.” This was a brand-new income stream for Disney, set 200 or so years before the movies. The Jedi were supposedly at their prime, the galaxy was at peace, everything was awesome, and Disney would make a mountain of money from the books, comic books, movies and TV shows set in that timeframe. Disney spent something like a billion dollars promoting “The High Republic”
Chances are pretty good you’ve either never heard of THR, or you’ve forgotten that it existed.
The video below goes through the sales numbers for the books and, wow, they’re bad. The best seller – the first book – sold over 150,000 copies. The latest book sold less than 10,000. Now, I’d be pretty pleased if one of *my* books sold a mere 9,000 copies. But then, unlike Star Wars, nobody knows who I am. Unlike Disney, a billion dollars wasn’t lavished on publicizing my books.
Even that initial 150K seems pretty sad when you consider that Timothy Zahn’s “Thrawn trilogy,” novels published in the early 1990s which revitalized Star Wars at the time, and which were “de-canonised” when Disney bought Star Wars, have sold five million copies. Specifically, they’ve sold five million copies *since* Disney bought Star Wars. The Thrawn trilogy sold something like *fifteen* million copies before that.
The thumbnail image chosen for the video below is appropriate: it shows what I presume to be one of the main “High Republic” characters complete with a modern Mental Illness Haircut. That’s who they marketed to, not the existing Star Wars fanbase. So they didn’t get the fanbase interested. One of the main authors actually told the potential customers that if they didn’t like her hyperactively leftist politics, don’t buy her books. “Okey-doke” the fanbase said.
Me? If you agree with or disagree with my politics… buy my books and other publications. If you like aircraft and/or spacecraft, you’ll like what I’ve produced. My politics and your politics will barely enter into it.
The whole thing is some weirdo perv’s bleating demand that Kirk and Spock be made gay, because reasons. These people are sad and pathetic, but unfortunately they often have the ears of those in charge. Consequently, they often have the power to see to it that beloved cultural icons – Luke Skywalker, Jean Luc Picard, Indiana Jones – are converted into sad pathetic wretches, their legacies trashed and trod upon. The purpose of doing so falls somewhere between “the narcissism of a mentally ill person” and “the need to see civilization destroyed.”
One of the “arguments” that is made is that Kirk was a “lothario,” a “womanizer” who was nailing any female alien who wasn’t nailed down. And that is kinda the reputation the character has. However, if you look at his actual history of romancing the women on the show, there’s a whole lot less of it than you might remember. From HERE: a list of Kirks love interests. I’ll trim out the non-canonical stuff from the nuTrek movies:
Ruth (Star Trek: TOS, “Shore Leave”): she’s not real, but a robot made in the image of a *past* romance of his.
Dr. Janice Lester (Star Trek: TOS, “Turnabout Intruder”) : a *former* interest of his. No interest in the episode.
Dr. Carol Marcus (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) : a *former* interest of his. No interest in the episode.
Doctor Janet Wallace (Star Trek: TOS, The Deadly Years) : a *former* interest of his. No interest in the episode.
Lt. Areel Shaw (Star Trek: TOS, “Court Martial”) : a *former* interest of his. No interest in the episode.
Lenore Karidian (Star Trek: TOS, “The Conscience Of The King”) : ok, kinda
Edith Keeler (Star Trek: TOS, “City On The Edge Of Forever”) : Ayup
Miramanmee (Star Trek: TOS, “The Paradise Syndrome”) : Ayup, though his memory has been wiped. Is it really *him?”
Shahna (Star Trek: TOS, “The Gamesters Of Triskellion”) : Ayup… but is it real romance, or a means of escape?
Antonia (Star Trek Generations): his off-screen wife. Is it “womanizing” to get married?
Not in that list:
Dr. Gillian Taylor (Star Trek IV): Flirts, but seemingly goes no further than that. For the purposes of saving the world.
Yeoman Janice Rand (TOS: “The Enemy Within”): Sorta. the “evil” Kirk assaults here. So, ummm…
Lt. Marlena Moreau (TOS: “Mirror, Mirror”): Kinda. Alternate universe, he plays along with the Mirror Kirk’s relationship as a way to survive/escape
Sylvia (TOS: “Catspaw”): not really… he puts the moves on her as a way to escape
Dr. Miranda Jones (TOS: “Is There In Truth No Beauty”): Naw… he flirts a bit, but gets nowhere.
Rayna Kapec (TOS: “Requiem for Methuselah”): Ayup: he falls for and puts the moves on a robot.
Elaan (TOS: “Elaan of Troyius”): Not really… he is *drugged* and mind controlled.
So by my count, there are approximately four “Ayups” in all of Star Trek. Does getting lucky four times (and it’s not entirely clear he actually got *that* far with any of them) over a span of 20 or so years make Kirk a “womanizing” “lothario?”
But more than that: there are around a dozen and a half examples of Kirk being interested enough in a woman to do something about it. In all those episodes and movies, there are zero incidents suggesting he had any such interest in a *male.*
Yet another corporation feels the sting of their social media marketing disasters:
Ben & Jerry’s Insufferable Overpriced Ice Cream decided that the US needed to be destroyed on July 4. Oddly enough, the American market seemed to not think very highly of that.
So the Russians are claiming that the Ukrainians are gonna blow up the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and then blame it on Russia. That’d certainly be a neat trick for the Ukrainians, since the Russians occupy and control the place. Ukraine claims the Russians are going to blow it up and blame it on Ukraine, but it seems that the wind would tend to blow the fallout into Russia.
There have been two similar “false flag” attacks in this war: the Nord Stream pipeline and the Kakhovka dam. Small problem… sober analysis seems to indicate that both of those were destroyed by incompetence and/or neglect rather than direct action. But the nuclear power plant is shut down; it should be nicely inert. So if it explodes… somebody exploded it. Who is more likely to do that, Ukraine or Russia? Ukraine could probably only pull that off with some sort of major assault… a lot of troops, planes and armor, aided by HIMARS and the like raining down. While possible, that could hardly be disguised as a Russian attack. And of course, Ukraine wants the reactor back. It’s theirs, after all. Never mind the environmental devastation of its destruction, it’s worth a bucket of cash. Repairing it would be cost prohibitive, and resuming power generation would be an economic boon.
On the other hand, the Russians could well have mined the place. At the push of a button their could turn it into garbage.
Why would they do something so crazy? I dunno. Ask Prigozhin. Why do Russian military/political leaders do *anything,* and is there anything resembling reason, logic or sense to it?
If it happens… things will likely get sporty. An attack on Ukraine is not an attack on NATO. But intentionally causing a reactor meltdown or setting fire to spent fuel rods? That *might* send clouds of fallout over Germany, Poland and the like. They could consider that a radiological attack, and might invoke Article 5. And then it’s NATO vs Russia.
The court ruled that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and are therefore unlawful. The vote was 6-3 in the UNC case and 6-2 in the Harvard case, in which liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was recused.
Affirmative action, i.e. systemic racism, is a bad idea on several levels. Firstly, it’s simply racist; it foment distrust and discord. Second, it’s not only unfair to those who are excluded, it’s unfair to many of those it purports to help. For example:
How insane did Harvard's affirmative action policies get?
An African American student in the 40th percentile of their academic index is more likely to get it than an Asian student in the 100th percentile.
Harvard is an elite institution in part because it’s *difficult.* Just because you get in doesn’t mean you get through. It’s my understanding that the curriculum and grading policies there are such that you have *got* to be the best of the best. but if you got in while being the best of the mid, your chances of making it through a Harvard degree are in serious doubt. How much debt did you put your family in to go to a school you’re very likely going to fail out of? After you’ve been made to feel inadequate *and* impoverished, are you going to go to the mid-level school you should’ve in the first place, or are you going to simply bail on the whole thing?
When I was getting ready for college, I had dreams of going to MIT or Stanford or the like. My advisors, fortunately, were both smart and honest and, indeed, *good* enough to tell me that that was an insane notion. I was *not* at that level. It would have been ruinous to try, even if I had someone squeaked in. Fortunately, I didn’t have some institutionally racist program in place to bend the rules to jam my piddly ass into a program I was ill-suited for.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, it’s unfair to society: by driving away the best and brightest in favor of the mediocre, society is denied the opportunity to be served by the best and brightest in their best capabilities.
The Supreme Court just ruled against Affirmative Action. Why?
Because it is systemically racist.
Harvard applicants in the top academic decile have different chances of admission depending on their race:
Obama just released a statement on today's SCOTUS decision in which he said affirmative action "allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged."
Did he just say that he and his wife were not qualified to get into college and only did because of their… pic.twitter.com/IEUVqjKztk
This popped up on ebay a few years ago. It purported to be a Boeing design for an advanced subsonic stealth bomber… but the design is, clearly, rather silly. Supposedly it dates from 1984 and was produced at, by and for Boeing, intended to be a decoy for the B-2 Advanced Technology (Stealth) Bomber competitors. I’m not sure Lockheed or Northrop would have looked at this and seen a serious design, however.
*Some* aspects of it seem like they might have been taken from an actual stealthy bomber design… the inlets and exhaust, indeed much of the middle part of the wing/body, look about right. But the stubby wing and especially the straight-vertical fins in substantial numbers are goofy aerodynamics and spectacular corner reflectors.
At least two of these were made and wandered out into the wild over the years.
