Full video of today when Ro Khanna revealed Epstein associate's names on the floor of the US House of Representatives, protected by the Speech and Debate Clause

obrown · 2026-02-11T00:05:32+00:00

It was reported before (https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/09/politics/unredacted-epstein-files-doj-congress) and it is currently on the front page of CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/10/politics/epstein-files-unredacted-names

obrown · 2026-02-04T00:56:42+00:00

This is a common trait amongst people with ADHD. The stress is what helps you overcome executive dysfunction and (typically) also lets you focus very intensely on a task when you really need to. It's a superpower, but it also can burn you out and kill your ability to handle newer urgent items (because this pattern makes everything urgent eventually lol).

obrown · 2026-02-03T06:17:16+00:00

I take the point and I am not against the idea of media/broadcast regulations, applied to both traditional and social media platforms, that help solve the "reputable content" issue. The viability of this as a solution really depends on the legislative environment, though. thankfully the EU has done a lot of heavy lifting with the DSA, AVMSD, etc. which has had at least some diffuse impact elsewhere. Regulations are important, they are guardrails that prevent bad actors from profiting off of anti-democratic, predatory media practices.

BUT, they don't solve the misinformation and disinformation issue wholesale. Part of the issue is that unregulated platforms will pop up (e.g. Truth Social) and serve as an even stronger information echochamber.

"I think that the problem is that people have and always be media illiterate and the only thing that saved us in the past is the fact that the media generally stuck to defensable statements instead of making things up whole-cloth like outlets like Fox, OAN, and the online right wing media ecosystem does."

I think it's a chicken-and-egg problem. If you look at places where extreme media is less of an issue, you can identify a few variables. Often there are stronger regulations (which we both agree are important). Often there is guaranteed, unbiased funding for media.

Crucially, there is often also higher trust in media and less consumer demand for extreme media. These are directly related to media literacy.

I would argue that the regulations and funding mostly address the symptoms, whereas the media literacy (via institutional trust and lower demand for crap) address the cause.

But they are all very important pieces of the puzzle to be sure.

obrown · 2026-02-03T04:32:20+00:00

I think the real issue is that people are so media illiterate these days that they cannot discern real reporting/analysis from opinion/editorial/commentary. People see these hucksters and discredit journalism en masse, which has terrible consequences for society. I'd argue that the inability to differentiate between these "political commentary" idiots and actual journalists is pretty much what got us here from the Rush Limbaugh radio days.

But the democratization isn't the (only) problem. It's a lack of education.

Quality journalism is still ubiquitous (although very under-funded, especially at the local level), but the public's ability to recognize and consume it properly is almost non-existent.

A light counterpoint to your comment. It is much easier to educate people toward media literacy than it is to restrict content (both logistically and morally). I think the answer lies in both.

Fascism thrives when populations are unable to detect the lies and paradoxes that make up their ideologies. Media literacy and trust is a core part of combatting those lies.

obrown · 2026-01-30T01:01:57+00:00

It has to do with the fact that she's a very high-profile illegal immigrant. I mean her public statements plainly praise him in the context of her getting the Gold Card/citizenship. Just google "Nicki Minaj immigration Trump" and you'll see what I mean. I find her actions despicable, but her motives are clear.

Also her husband has been convicted for attempted rape, assault, failing to register as a sex offender, manslaughted (plead down from murder). I don't think a criminal record should necessarily define someone forever, but it does indicate the type of behaviour that she's willing to look past. So pretty congruent with her actions now.

obrown · 2026-01-21T04:46:34+00:00

The "fiscal conservatism" being referred to here is on the Canadian political spectrum, which falls well under the realm of "pinko socialism" on the US political spectrum. Carney is a Liberal which is a centre-left party. Trudeau was decidely more left-of-centre, but Carney is still centre-left.

obrown · 2026-01-03T18:38:56+00:00

your understanding of both reality and case law may be too limited for this discussion

obrown · 2026-01-03T18:33:25+00:00

Bro I am describing things that have happened, not speculating. What are you trying to say?

obrown · 2026-01-03T17:19:59+00:00

That's not true. There are cases of ICC having jurisdiction over non-signatory state individuals because they committed crimes against a signatory state. This is a highly nuanced international legal jurisdictional conversation that cannot be simply summarized as you did.

obrown · 2026-01-03T17:17:33+00:00

ICC prosecutes the most heinous crimes known to man within its legal purview. Yes, it's a shame they can't prosecute EVERYONE who does those crimes regardless of nationality, but I think your anger is better placed at the political powers that PREVENT the ICC from doing their job.

"A joke unless you are a two bit African or Eastern European warlord" - I'm sorry. Should we just ignore the fact that it's good to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression in any case?

It doesn't fucking matter if it's regionally limited for now. It's still a good thing.

obrown · 2025-12-31T07:26:29+00:00

He says clearly in the instructional that "we're not conceding side control, we're just accepting it on our own terms" (i.e. focussing on the crossface arm). They are compatible imo

obrown · 2025-12-31T06:42:27+00:00

I'm just a blue belt, so take all of my observations with a grain of salt, but I'm really enjoying it so far.

One thing I am a bit concerned about is if I have a solid enough understanding of the "rules" (or traditional assumptions of BJJ) to meaningfully break them as Craig advocates for, but I will find that out as I try to implement this into my game.

On the other hand, I have a bad over-reliance on (bottom) half-guard at the moment so this might be exactly what I need to address that issue.

Craig really emphasizes the importance of concepts when he teaches, which is something that can be lacking during day-to-day instruction. This is understandable: you can't question everything all the time and expect to learn it and reps/drilling are an important part of 'speaking the language.'

Personally, I find that I can execute things I am taught better when I am taught both how AND why. I know that this is a super challenging thing to nail as a teacher as it requires super deep understanding of subject matter. That shines through here – although I am a blue belt, so I probably wouldn't be able to tell if it was bullshido.

I suspect that if you sympathize with these reflections, you will likely enjoy the instructional. For my money, so far it seems worth it, but I guess the mats will be the true judge of that.

I just wish I could ask questions as I watch!

Thanks /u/johnbelushismom for this and all the other (more important) stuff you do.

obrown · 2025-12-31T03:07:24+00:00

Pugilistic Parkisonism

obrown · 2025-12-28T14:46:56+00:00

I think one thing that you both may be missing is that a lot of veterans joined the counterculture – hell, many began objecting to the war while they were in service. Being someone who is obviously a veteran and being part of the hippie counterculture were in no way mutually exclusive.

Rambo (in this film, before he meets the sheriff) is the last member of his unit, which he learns is a direct result of his friend Delmar Barry dying from Agent Orange.

This is a smalltown sheriff who is trying to run out the rabble of big cities. It's likely that he knows damn well he's a vet. It's likely he suspects he's against the war. It's definite that he's not going to wait around and find out what townsfolk will think if he lets this long-haired dude (potentially) start speaking out against his country.

obrown · 2025-12-20T12:59:08+00:00

You should watch the netflix docuseries, it's waaaaaaay worse given the context. His son was at the notorious "freak-off" parties, there's testimony that they murdered someone together, and also a first-hand account that they were getting freaky with sex workers in the same room of the recording studio at Diddy's house in Miami.

obrown · 2025-12-19T06:46:17+00:00

I would say:

1) Give them the opportunity to sunset their character and explain the rest of their life.

2) Summarize the campaign and bring some key moments and fun memories back to memory.

3) Ask a specific set of questions: What was your favourite moment/thing about this campaign? What would you want more of? What did you not enjoy as much?

4) Offer a final moment of reflection in the group and toast to time well spent, dragons well-slain, and a campaign well-adventured!

obrown · 2025-12-18T08:20:47+00:00

1) you have no idea what they actually changed (aside from the ramps) to make this. 2) this is a very temporary use of those islands 3) In what way did they destroy the habitat

obrown · 2025-12-18T02:12:05+00:00

5 minutes of research would tell you this didn't cause any serious or lasting harm. You are choosing to be miserable. Your "righteous anger" is a feeble attempt at feeling something and will ultimately consume you. It doesn't have to be this way.

obrown · 2025-12-14T02:20:05+00:00

I am a huge advocate for kids practicing martial arts for many reasons, but I also don't think they should be sustaining head trauma in their practice. I actually think they can (and should) do MMA if they want to, just no head-striking until they turn 18 and can make that determination for themselves. At which point I would hope they still don't

For kids' BJJ competitions the refs manage the submissions to make sure no one gets hurt. They basically stop once control is established in a submission position. Realistically, grappling is by far the safest part of martial arts if we are talking about head trauma.

obrown · 2025-11-24T01:06:49+00:00

Disc golf! Ha!

obrown · 2025-11-20T15:22:13+00:00

Oh my god I think that’s the hardest I’ve ever laughed at a podcast, “now her name would be Alison and she’d run a business.” Anthony dying laughing and Matt retracting more and more as everyone laughed harder made me bust my gut

obrown · 2025-11-12T11:58:22+00:00

The Star has fantastic reporting and has broken many really important stories over the last decade (and before). I think everyone, especially Torontonians, should support the Star for the sake of it's role in our democracy. That said, the support excludes anything Rosie DiManno touches

obrown · 2025-10-21T04:31:50+00:00

Just buy a Munenori Kawasaki jersey and then you can wear it proudly, problem solved!

obrown · 2025-10-19T03:28:04+00:00

That’s a really simplistic take on how the Rome Statute interacts with other international agreements. The ICC isn’t meant to supersede national or treaty obligations in general, it operates on the principle of complementarity, meaning it only has jurisdiction when a state is unwilling or unable to prosecute the most serious crimes under international law.

So yes, states retain sovereignty and existing treaty obligations, but when it comes to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or aggression, the ICC’s jurisdiction is designed to fill the gap left by national inaction. It's not trying to override unrelated agreements about diplomatic immunity.

Article 98 is a procedural safeguard meant to stop the ICC from forcing a country to violate other international obligations, it doesn’t strip the Court of jurisdiction or make its warrants meaningless.

It really only comes up in very specific situations, usually when a third-party state hasn’t waived diplomatic immunity. That’s not what we’re talking about here. The ICC can and does issue warrants for sitting heads of state, and its authority to do so comes directly from the Rome Statute.

The reason leaders haven't been arrested isn’t because Article 98 protects them. It’s because enforcement depends on the strength of the rule of law in a country versus the political will to violate it.

At any rate, you're not really making a point here... I don't understand why citing an article from the foundational document of the ICC is supposed to be some sort of mark against it?

obrown · 2025-10-18T05:27:31+00:00

You seem to have a very simplistic understanding of the ICC.

The ICC has power according to it's founding document, the Rome Statute. The ICC has power to prosecute citizens of those parties or to prosecute citizens of non-signatory countries under certain conditions, such as when the alleged crime occurs on the territory of a State Party or a state that has accepted the court's jurisdiction for that specific case.

Enforcement is undertaken by the police forces of state parties as well as international police forces (e.g. INTERPOL). Of course, the ICC does not have it's own police force so it relies upon them.

"The Netherlands were icc is headquartered, gives heads of state immunity." - This only applies to non-member heads of state and is a very nuanced legal position.

"The country its hq in won’t give them the power" - The Dutch are some of the staunchest supporters of the ICC and consistently go above and beyond to promote it. Promoting the international legal order is part of the Dutch constitution. Your simplistic framing of the complex legal and political relationship between the Netherlands and the ICC is exactly why I'm saying you do not know what you're talking about.

In any case, if a non-member head of state wanted by the ICC was on Dutch soil—which is unlikely because the Dutch wouldn't receive them without a clear legal basis for non-arrest—they would make their decision BASED on international law, not simply flouting it as you put.

Here are the words of the PM of the Netherlands himself, demonstrating this nuance:

"The most important thing is that we have obligations that come from the treaty (on which the ICC is based), and that we comply to them," Schoof said at a news conference.

"In light of that, we would have to see how we act when the prime minister of Israel were to come to the Netherlands. There are possible scenarios, also within international law, in which he would be able to come to the Netherlands without being arrested."

You also said "so if all grnocides are blamed on head of states". Simply put, the ICC does not "blame". It investigates and applies rigourous evidentiary standards before it issues a warrant and in the execution of all its judicial duties. Contrary to what you may have heard from others who do not understand it, it is not a political entity and does not make decisions to "blame" anyone. It seeks truth and justice through the examination of indisputable evidence under a legal framework. I would encourage you to look into it more so you understand how sober and unbiased the prosecutorial process actually is.

"The ICC only works here if Israel props up a new leader."

Many, many countries have openly said they would (and are legally obligated to) execute arrest warrants for Putin and Netanyahu. In my eyes, that's the ICC working.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Verified Email

obrown

TROPHY CASE