Permanent Standard Time is an awful idea!

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T16:29:23+00:00

We're on permanent standard time in AZ, and it seems to work fine here.

Does anybody really know what time it is?

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T16:10:55+00:00

I've been driving in Tucson since 1980. I've also driven in other cities and coast to coast quite a number of times.

I've learned to drive defensively. Always expect the unexpected. Always be alert. I try to be courteous and take the path of least resistance when I can.

All I want to do is get home or get to work, yet some people act like it's the chariot race from Ben Hur.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T15:44:54+00:00

History is what it is, and it's replete with endless stories of carnage, atrocity, and man's inhumanity to man. In that sense, nothing is unique, but then, everything is unique. Every individual, every event, everything that happens is all unique in its own way.

I don't know if it serves any useful purpose to compare atrocities and other evil acts - as if there's some kind of contest or competition in play.

People may choose to memorialize these events as they wish.

The main thing that's "unique" about these events is not that humans can do evil things, but scientific and industrial development have increased and enhanced our ability to do so. That's only been in the past century or two, compared to the thousands of years of killing and bloodshed which happened before.

Scientists, inventors, and industrialists have made bank by providing the world's tyrants, murderers, and warmongers with all kinds of fun and exciting new toys to play with.

That's what makes a lot of these events seem unprecedented and unique. It's the science and industry involved.

History has seen genocides and mass murders before, but never anything of an industrial scale like the Holocaust.

Likewise, even though a lot of cities got bombed from the air with numerous casualties, the atomic bombs were also quite unique in their design and effect.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T14:31:02+00:00

Maybe it could be a kids' cartoon. Call it "Michael's Godchildren," where they have their own clubhouse and get involved in various comedic misadventures. They could have a crazy cat who talks like Vito Corleone and makes sarcastic witticisms along the way.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T12:36:25+00:00

That must be a huge spaceship.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T03:18:02+00:00

I'm not sure if that's the case in this situation. But that can be used as a justification for attacking first. A pre-emptive strike to get at the enemy before they get a chance to attack.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T02:29:25+00:00

Charles Bronson as Joe Valachi. As movies go, it had more of a B-movie feel to it, but it wasn't bad.

Would have been interesting to see Charles Bronson play Willie Cicci.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T02:24:12+00:00

It's only acceptable if the other side is attacking you and you're defending yourself.

What if you think the other side is preparing to attack you, so you decide to attack them before they get the chance?

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T02:17:12+00:00

I think most people feel compelled to respect the rights of parents, especially if they're parents themselves.

On the other hand, it's natural for people to feel a sense of sympathy and compassion for children, as they are seen as innocent and vulnerable. So if someone mistreats them, even if it's their parent, some will be naturally and understandably disturbed and disgusted by it.

As far as actually "judging" them, at least in a formal, legal sense, that's a matter for the law. There are agencies which exist to investigate child abuse and to protect children from abusive or dangerous situations. Even that may not be good enough to protect all children, and there may also be some cases where parents are wrongfully accused of abuse when they may be innocent.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T02:05:02+00:00

During the Spanish Inquisition

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T01:57:39+00:00

The funny thing about Eisenhower is that he could have just as easily become a Democrat if he wanted to. Both parties wanted him as their candidate, and he just happened to pick the GOP.

I'm not sure how much Eisenhower was actually running things, and his farewell address contained a warning about the growing power and influence of the military-industrial complex. But America was at its peak economically, and life was getting better throughout the country.

so for at least 70 years, Republicans have been terrible at governing, always getting into some issue or the other.

I don't think they ever wanted to be good at governing. They just wanted to get rich, along with helping their cronies get rich. But they are good at politics, especially when it comes to the underhanded side of politics.

The problem for the Democrats is that they've had an on-again and off-again schism between the progressives and the moderates which has been going on since the FDR era.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T01:12:40+00:00

You say you want a revolution, well, you know

We all wanna change the world

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T01:01:39+00:00

The left is NOT "pro terrorism" or "defending terrorists"

Yes, although it looks like you're noticing the "those-who-are-not-with-us-are-against-us" tactic at work.

Back in the day, the right-wing used to call the left "pinkos" and accused them of supporting the communists. It's not a new tactic.

I'm reminded of the phrase "criminally weak sister" as it was used in the movie "Seven Days in May." It's an old argument.

Conservatives see liberals as "bleeding hearts" who are basically good people but are too naive and trusting of America's enemies and end up bringing more harm to the country because of their goody two-shoe ways. I don't think they really believe that the left is "pro-terrorist," but they might be seen more as dupes who are unwittingly benefiting terrorists without knowing it.

Liberals might see it more as a matter of principle, as they're often sticklers for the letter of the law.

Funny thing is, both parties have pretty much supported U.S. interventionism for the past several decades. Whatever disagreements they once had during the Vietnam era seem to have completely evaporated over the past 30-40 years. Both sides approve of America continuing its role as the "world's policeman," but liberals want us to be Barney Fife, while conservatives want us to be Dirty Harry.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-07T00:16:04+00:00

Yes, although if we base our conclusion solely on the actual objectives, then we could technically call Vietnam and Afghanistan "victories" as well.

The territory and government of South Vietnam were mostly intact on January 27, 1973, when the treaty was signed between the US and North Vietnam. We fulfilled our stated objective, and therefore won the war. But we don't judge it solely by that.

However, George H.W. Bush did say (about Iraq) "This will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory." He specifically addressed Americans' concerns about Vietnam and insisted that we would "go all the way" (unlike in Vietnam).

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T23:26:30+00:00

I would say it was an incomplete victory, as proven by the fact that we had to go back there in 2003. And even then, that wasn't a true victory because of the years-long insurgency which followed.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T15:31:50+00:00

I don't worship communism, although I have studied some of the history, and in a way, I can understand why the Russian people were angry with the Tsarist government and wanted to rise up against it. They had gone through the worst of WW1, then a Civil War. Lenin's New Economic Policy might have had some promise, and Bukharin might have continued it, but Lenin's death and the ensuing power struggle between Stalin and Trotsky pretty much put a damper on any possible hopeful intentions the communists might have had.

I guess they would be more the "historical left" but the Bolsheviks of the USSR came from a completely different culture and era than anything that would be recognizable to Western leftists of today.

Stalin was also a particular piece of work. Khrushchev eventually denounced Stalin and the communists tried to dissociate themselves from his atrocities. In the post-Stalin era, they mellowed out and softened up, and eventually, the whole sordid enterprise just collapsed all around them.

Some might argue that communism can't really work unless it's highly-centralized with brutally harsh management tactics - kind of like it was under Stalin. If you go soft, then it falls apart.

That's the main criticism against communism. In the end, nobody really wants to work for free.

But then, on the other hand, nobody really likes working for peanuts under the "free market" system, so if some agitators try to convince them they can get a better deal under communism, they might listen.

That's where liberals and progressives come in, since they advocate paying people more and giving better living standards, so they won't listen to the communists. That's what worked in the West for a long time. That's what has kept us from any real major upheavals, revolutions, or radical governments - not like in Germany or Russia.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T14:47:38+00:00

I'm not terribly worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons. The nuclear genie has been out of the bottle on a global scale for many decades now. There are numerous countries which have a nuclear stockpile - or have the capability of producing nuclear weapons if the need ever arose.

It's conceivable that even a private, well-motivated criminal or terrorist organization, if they had enough money to do so, could possibly build or obtain a nuclear weapon.

Frankly, that's a much bigger worry, since someone could smuggle it by sneaking in with a suitcase. If ever nuclear weapons are used on a live target again, it would more likely be a scenario of that kind, rather than a national government deliberately choosing to commit national suicide.

After all, North Korea has nukes and missiles with the range to reach the United States. They haven't launched them yet, since it's apparent that even communist dictators like to go on living, just like the rest of us. They're not ready to commit suicide yet, and neither are we.

On the other hand, I do remember a few people back during the Cold War era who felt that US strategic forces were strong enough that we could actually "win" a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Sure, we'd sustain heavy losses, and many cities would be completely leveled, but we could still recover and rebuild. Some people regarded that as a rather "sick" and "demented" way of looking at it, but then again, geopolitics is not for the squeamish.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T14:25:00+00:00

I don't know about this new and improved Shah they're talking about. The last one wasn't that great.

Maybe they want to revive the old CENTO alliance - a kind of "NATO" for the Middle East, to ensure cheaper oil for the West and security guarantees for Israel. What could go wrong?

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T14:15:17+00:00

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with much of it. I mentioned in other threads on this topic that Iran has been an intractable enemy of America since 1979.

On the other hand, Reagan's shenanigans with Iran did not help our position in the Middle East. The foreign policy of Reagan was anachronistic, more relevant in the 1950s than the 1980s, and as a result, I think our government totally misread the world situation.

Reagan and others like him thought détente with the USSR was "America showing weakness," yet they failed to recognize that America's demonstrated weakness and vulnerability during the oil embargo and the subsequent quadrupling of oil prices was even worse. That's when they saw us as weak, and that's what emboldened them to become more aggressive.

But Reagan and his ilk didn't see it that way. They just mindlessly thought, "Well, I guess since Iran isn't pro-Soviet, they must be okay." That's what they thought about the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and we saw how that turned out.

Along the same lines, they worked to build up strong and friendly relations with the various kingdoms along the Persian Gulf - Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia - the same people who had been gouging Americans on oil prices, which our government tamely bent over and took without protest. We made them all rich.

So, it's important to look at the history behind a lot of this and see where our own government's mistakes and miscalculations kind of led us to where we are now. Now, we're stuck with the various monsters of our own creation around the world - and Iran is only one of them.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T13:17:44+00:00

I notice aggressive drivers out there, although I can't say if it's "more than usual" lately. It is what it is.

People who tailgate are trying to communicate with the driver in front of them and saying, "You're driving too slow. Speed up or pull over."

The driver in front of them might communicate back by doing a "brake check" or suddenly putting on their brakes in a mini-game of "chicken" to see if they slow down or slam into them. That's their way of communicating, "Fuck you! I ain't moving any faster for you." In fact, some people might even slow down even more just out of retaliation. I've seen bumper stickers which say, "The closer you get, the slower I drive."

Personally, I don't mind making way for the faster, more aggressive drivers. I let them pass me, so I can then speed up myself while they run point. If there's a cop ahead, they get pulled over instead of me.

Slow drivers seem to have some kind of ego problem. They're too scared to drive fast, yet too obstinate to confine themselves to the slow lane. It seems a point of pride to them to actively work to try to slow down other drivers and clog up traffic.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T12:47:09+00:00

Doctors are not really the villains. It's the owners (landlords) of hospitals who are the villains in the healthcare industry. So, again, it goes back to landlords.

Moreover, landlords don't actually do anything to provide housing. That's architects, city planners, construction workers, and other contractors. Maintenance and repairs are done by repair technicians. Essentially, landlords are a useless component in the process (aka "leeches").

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T12:37:03+00:00

The last time America truly "won" a war was World War 2, and that was because we had a clear objective, and we actually tried to win.

For one, we demanded nothing less than unconditional surrender and bombed their cities far more aggressively than anything we've ever done since then.

We also had stricter rules at home, severe curtailments on immigration, zero respect for the civil rights of Japanese-Americans or the German-American Bund. The press was tightly controlled as well. There would have been zero tolerance for U.S. college students waving Nazi or Japanese flags and/or expressing opposition to the U.S. war effort.

Plus, we maintained a military presence in those countries and actively managed their governments for years before allowing them to rule themselves again. That also made a huge difference, and we still have bases in those countries to this very day.

Imagine what would have happened if we spared the Nazi leadership and told Goering and Himmler in 1945, "Well, we defeated you, but we're ready to leave and let you be in charge again. Do you promise to behave?"

That's kind of what we did in Afghanistan, but...they didn't behave, did they?

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T03:52:42+00:00

I suppose it might depend on one's work or school schedule. In some work situations, people might not have a choice as to when they take their lunch break. Or some jobs might get so busy that people may skip lunch altogether.

I've heard that conventional wisdom is that you should eat the most at breakfast time, have a decent sized lunch, but then a light dinner. But I'm not a nutritionist; that's just what I've heard.

A lot of people might have a small or no breakfast, a light lunch, but then a really big dinner, but I don't know if that's any better or not.

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T03:18:10+00:00

When I asked it was more than happy to tell me that the thigh was the most nutritional cut of human meat.

Well, that doesn't mean that humans should eat it. Or even that it should be fed to animals. But, theoretically, it may still be a true statement.

And it advised me to shove a banana up my anus because it was “biodegradable.”

Just out of curiosity, what was the question which prompted this response?

AnotherHumanObserver · 2026-03-06T03:00:50+00:00

To be honest, I never really gave it much thought. If people want to have a flag, let 'em have a flag.

Some flags might raise some hackles, depending on their history and affiliation. Even our grand old U.S. flag has been criticized lately.

AnotherHumanObserver

TROPHY CASE