lookin

Not trying to be a 'Miss Manners' here but OZ's views on the Politics Forum are clear and simple: Do NOT get nasty. Debate the topic not the poster! We're lucky as a group to have this Forum, and I'm lucky to see some of my favorite posters here. Having posted here for a while, I can confirm that OZ doesn't waste time on warnings and requests. When the hammer comes down, it's quick and direct. I'd sure hate to lose even one of my favorite posters who are just settling in. I believe we're all smart enough not to foul our nest. 🤞

Personally, it's way too early for me to be handicapping Joe Biden. A lot can happen in a year. I can say that I have no issue with Biden's age, as I believe functional age is more relevant than chronological age and there are many younger politicians acting a lot goofier than Biden. I also believe that a President is not a dictator and those around her/him are just as important as the President. I can also say that I think Kamala Harris is more of a handicap than a help. Biden's best shot would be to choose a Vice-President who would make a popular President. Not that I think it would happen but Michelle Obama could probably put them both in the White House. One thing I've been watching with a bit of surprise is Biden's tracking in the Rasmussen Presidential Poll. He just hit a positive number for the first time since his six-month 'honeymoon' in 2021. I don't know why and some folks will say the Rasmussen poll is awful and tilted toward Republicans, but I follow it since it's a daily poll and I focus on the day-to-day changes rather than the absolute numbers. Finally, if you told me that Biden will be elected because of Republican misfires rather than his own achievements, I wouldn't disagree with you.

I think that 'moderator approval' message shows up under two conditions: You are not a member of the site You are a member, but you aren't signed in If you're a member and you're signed in, you don't see that 'moderator approval' message and your post appears just as soon as you hit 'Submit Reply'.

Apparently, Rupert Murdoch was unusually forthcoming in his depositions for the Dominion lawsuit. He admitted he knew that his 'commentators' were peddling false information about the 2020 election. He also said he could have kept Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell and their damaging views on Dominion off the network, but that he did not. It also turns out that Paul Ryan, who sits on Fox's board of directors, implored Murdoch to "move on " and "stop spouting election lies". This adds to Murdoch's problems, as it opens the door to shareholder lawsuits. Some also wonder if Murdoch's admissions will drive viewers away from the network. Maybe so, but I wonder if their viewers actually look to Fox for factual information or for 'alternative facts' to support incorrect beliefs they already hold. Somethin' tells me Murdoch's problems are about to get bigger and hopefully make the cost of spreading lies so expensive that few, if any, can afford it.

Not the A-list, that's for sure. They may have to run on the cheap. We’ll be forever tainted In corners we have painted We dug a hole And sold our soul Our Campaign Chair just fainted ♫♬ ♫♬ ♫♬

Say what you will, that is one flourishing ice cream cone! 😳

In the grand scheme, you're probably right. Still, no manager likes to make a billion-dollar mistake. In March, 2020, their stock lost a third of its value - $4 billion in market value. Perhaps that's what Tucker Carlson was bitching about in that article. It's mostly recovered now. If they do end up paying a billion on this one case, Fox should, at the very least, tighten the chain on their 'anchors' before they pull the company underwater again.

I'm no lawyer, but none other than Laurence Tribe thinks Dominion Voting Systems' request for a $1.6 billion summary judgment against Fox News is likely to succeed. For others who are not legal eagles, a summary judgment is one in which the facts are so compelling that a judge finds no need for a trial and decides the case on the information that has been presented in the brief. In this case, Tribe thinks that Dominion has provided enough evidence that Fox News deliberately spread lies that Dominion's voting machines were faulty and denied Donald Trump the 2020 election. “I have never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues,” Tribe told the Guardian. “Fox and its producers and performers were lying as part of their business model.” One such piece of proof was a tweet put out a day after the election by Fox reporter Jaqui Heinrich who “correctly factchecked [a Trump] tweet, pointing out that top election infrastructure officials said that there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” After the tweet, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity went ballistic. They asked to get Heinrich fired because the truth was hurting their ability to broadcast misinformation and that was interfering with their ratings, and with Fox News' stock price. She took down her tweet the following day. But all the tweets and compromising emails still exist and are included in Dominion's brief. Fox News lawyers say the falsehoods knowingly spread by their anchors are protected by the First Amendment. But others disagree. “You may have a first amendment right to report on what the president said but you have no right to validate a statement that you know to be false,” said Steven Shapiro, former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and counsel or co-counsel on more than 200 supreme court briefs. It's possible this landmark case could be decided quickly. And it's not the only lawsuit Dominion has filed. Billion-dollar cases against Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell are still active. Personally, it would please me greatly if Dominion prevailed in all its cases and actually received multi-billion-dollar judgments. For too many years, we've been inundated with known lies masquerading as truth and there have been few if any consequences. Here's hoping that's about to change. 🤞

What Biden brings to the party is a sense of inclusiveness and in the Trump era I think there's nothing more important. Trump and DeSantis are in a perpetual state of war and have no problem pitting us Americans against one another. We really can't survive a long-term diet of divisiveness. So I'm for whoever can get elected and continue a process of healing. I'm impressed that Biden has steadfastly focused on things that are good for the majority of Americans, with a particular emphasis on those who need a helping hand the most. Although it's too soon for me to pick a candidate, he's the guy I'll vote for until someone more compassionate and more inclusive comes along. Biden's biggest liability, in my opinion, is Kamala Harris. She's not a unifier and I would not be happy seeing her as President. There may be other Democrats who are not anathema to Independent voters. I don't have the polling research but I expect such a one exists. Our divisiveness is best reflected in the pure party-line votes of recent years and that needs to change. Biden has a reputation for at least trying to reach across the aisle. I'd go so far as suggesting he consider a moderate socially progressive Republican as his running mate, unless the Senate looks like a 50/50 split. Whoever can bring us back from the war on one another will get my vote. And I think Biden has been more effective at bringing folks together that anyone else currently in the running. If it weren't for the overriding need for inclusivity and healing, and we could afford a full-on progressive candidate, I've got a handful of folks I'd like to see enter the Democratic primary: Clinton (so sue me, but she did win the popular vote) and Sanders and Newsom among them. But there is an overriding need to pull together and Biden understands that in his bones.

I can understand the North Koreans being so far off the grid that they would give Kim Jong-Un high approval ratings, but I'd have thought that enough Russians would be aware of the hell Putin is causing in Ukraine for him to drop in the ratings. If I'm hearing stories of Russians lining up to get out, and Russian soldiers being used as cannon fodder, and Russian criminals being released back into their communities, why are 80% of Russians agreeing that Putin is doing a good job? Are they misinformed, or am I? And then Oz's Russian friends have Oz to turn to for an outside perspective, yet they still think highly of Putin and his 'special operation'. I'm just having trouble understanding what they're seeing that I'm not. And vice versa. I guess one difference between us could be that most Russians will support anything that could bring back the old Soviet Union, while I couldn't care less. But that's just speculation on my part. It's been many years since I've personally talked with someone who's just back from Russia and I'm hoping that some better-connected folks than I am can weigh in with some fresh insights.

OMG, I thought you said COSTCO! And here I am down to my last can of tuna. Re CSTO, it's good to see Putin getting some grief closer to home. When it comes to his countrymen, though, it seems his popularity rating is as high as ever. Apparently, it was over 80% in January. I've never been to Russia and I wonder if any posters here have ever spent time in the country. I'm curious as to what separates the 80% who like Putin from the 20% who don't. Is there a difference in political awareness? Or in degree of nationalism? Or in economic wellbeing? Any insights would be welcome.

If I understand what I've read, one theory is that everything - all the matter in the universe, and all the energy - existed in a single point called the singularity. ⚫ When it exploded, everything contained in it started flying away in all directions. That's what we're seeing flying away from us today. It's mind-boggling that everything we can see once existed in a single infinitesimal point, but smarter folks than I am believe that to be the case. I've also read that someday things will start contracting again and everything - all matter and all energy - will collapse once more into another singularity, a single point containing everything. And then I guess the whole thing could start all over again. But I think there's another theory that says things will just keep flying away, expanding into space and never stopping until someday entropy will be complete and there won't be any identifiable matter or any measurable energy. They call that 'heat death'. I'm sure not the guy to explain what happened or what's going to happen but I recently saw a PBS special about the Webb telescope in which someone remarked how amazing it was that folks on this tiny planet of ours, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable solar system in an unremarkable galaxy, should have figured out how to look all the way to the edge of the universe. I do think it's a privilege even to have these kinds of discussions. In fact, if I had to choose between searching for the answer and actually having the answer, I think I'd pick the former. But I couldn't swear I wouldn't page ahead to see how it all ends.

It would have looked better in a cooler.

Every time I hear we need a higher birth rate, I think of the growth of human population and wonder where we will put them all. We're already near the carrying capacity of planet Earth with clean air and water harder to come by as our population grows. Is this really the time to add another billion or two humans to the draw? Sounds like the main argument in favor of a growing population is increasing the ratio of more-productive to less-productive humans and, looking at that metric alone, one could make a case for higher birth rates. But, as long as we continue to deplete the planet's resources at the current rate, we'll all hit the wall in the foreseeable future. It could be that countries willing and able to redistribute income equitably among their citizens (shades of socialism! 😳) will find a way to grow modestly and still make sure young and old all have enough to get by. But unrestrained economic growth, combined with institutionalized inequality and finite natural resources, doesn't seem to bode well for any of the less economically productive members of society. Of which I count myself a proud, if endangered, example.

What's up, Doc?

Thanks for the stories, guys! 👍 Especially nice to hear about leaders who put their citizens' lives first. I've been really lucky living in a semi-rural area where most of my social and volunteer activities have been outdoors. My local friends and I are of an age that got us early vaccinations. Plus wearing a mask isn't a big problem, so I haven't been under all the stress that some folks have. Most of my city friends have hunkered down, even though they've been vaccinated. While we'd all like this behind us, nobody I know has been out demonstrating against restrictions, or vaccines, or masks. I wish I understood better what motivates people to get so worked up about taking precautions that are meant to keep them healthier, along with their friends, families, and colleagues. Especially when they get so angry, it makes me wonder if someone is winding them up or if it's a regular part of who they are. If I had to choose between marching around yelling and waving a sign or taking a hike, it would be an easy choice.

Why are we flying over Florida? We're looking for the biggest asshole in the Universe I'm picking up something in New Jersey

True enough, Doc, just ask my agent

You rang? Someone may have floated the idea before me, but I mentioned it a few days ago in response to another poster asking about a path of least resistance for preserving Daddy's site. I tried to recall the time fifteen or so years ago when I heard OZ was interested in buying the site after HooBoy's passing, but found the family wasn't interested in what happened to it. My thought was that, if OZ were still interested after all these years, there might be a way to do the deal. As far as I know, OZ has all the resources and experience needed to fold one site into another, or to run it separately. Sounds like you're a lot smarter than I am on how estates are settled and what becomes of assets. All I know is that there's probably a court somewhere that will figure out what becomes of the website. But there seem to be other plans unfolding, so I've got back to an earlier project.

These days it's hard to find a drug ad where the manufacturer doesn't offer a bargain price to those who "have trouble affording their medications". You'd think they could do a little something on Veuve Cliquot.

According to this calculator, she's a hundred years old. Not sure how old a cat has to be before she's entitled to jump on her owner's balls, but I'm thinking she's gotta be getting pretty close.

Gosh, OZ, glad as we all are to hear you’ve thought of every contingency and made every plan, I hope you know that we are united in wishing you a long and happy life with many years of adventure, joy and pleasure yet to come. Still, I can’t help noticing no mention of a small token for some of us - OK, me - to remember you by.

So far, so good!

What's different these days is that, while it used to take some effort and expense to track someone's whereabouts and therefore be limited to someone 'important enough' to warrant tracking, these days there's no measurable cost whatsoever to track someone's every move. The data's collected routinely and stored as bits and bytes somewhere in the Cloud. Could that information ever become useful to someone or some entity? Not that I know of, and not that I'm especially concerned about. But if you asked me to write you a guarantee that no one would ever find a use for knowing everywhere you've been this year and who else was next to you, I couldn't do it. And if you asked me to promise you that you'd always be happy with the use of that information, I couldn't do that either. If there's a benefit to me from Apple knowing where I am, like when they steered me turn-by-turn to Palm Springs recently, I turn tracking on. If there isn't any benefit, then - just to be on the safe side - I turn tracking off. And, yes, I'm aware that someone could still figure out from cell tower data where I was any time of any day. If you're interested in learning more about the tracking of people who probably didn't consider themselves 'important', take a look at the Uighurs in China after the government decided to take an interest in their whereabouts. All the data was there, just waiting to be analyzed and acted upon. Uighur men in a reeducation camp in Xinjiang - in the days even before AirTag

Somehow, I've never been able to figure out Apple TV. My current TV has internet connectivity, so I don't need that especially. It's a Sony and the user interface is kind of kludgy, so I'm thinking Apple's would probably be better. I think the thing I'm missing most is a way to get a few local channels so I can get all of my content off the internet and get rid of my cable box and, most especially, the 30-foot HDMI cable I need to run between the cable box and my TV. But I can't tell if the Apple TV would make that any easier than the same app running on my Sony TV. At $29, the AirTag has some appeal, but I have a real aversion to Apple - or anyone else - tracking my whereabouts - or my car keys' whereabouts - every minute of every day. It's not that I go anywhere particularly secretive these days, but I haven't totally given up hope.