DAEMON: First, thy twinkish looks.
DARIO: My what?
DAEMON: Second, thy hairline. Third, thine eyesight.
DARIO: And in return?
DAEMON: That the scaling laws bear fruit.
DARIO: Then let it be done.
I will never cancel Noam Chomsky. He devoted decades of his life to tireless solidarity with oppressed people, especially by his own government, and exposing the propaganda used to subjugate them. His impact on that front is immeasurable.
This doesn't mean he's above critique. He took positions I disagreed with, especially in recent years. I think he made an error in judgement befriending Jeffrey Epstein, who, when he met Noam, had been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor.
If you think Noam Chomsky deserves banishment despite having zero complicity in that or Epstein's other crimes, OK. I'm going to decline to join you, just as I declined to join those in the establishment who've been trying to cancel Noam for a lot longer.
a frame by frame dissection from times reporters shows ICE disarming, macing, and securing pretti in restraints all before two agents fire ten rounds into him.
the agent who appears to have pretti’s gun is across the street by the time they stop shooting
https://t.co/rgt1hHS6uP
When the US sought to purchase Greenland in 1946, it was by way of secret negotiations that weren't even revealed until decades later -- as opposed to public browbeating and threats. And it was soon mooted by the 1951 treaty that essentially gives the US carte blanche to do whatever it wants in Greenland, militarily and otherwise.
The 1946 negotiations also preceded the formation of NATO, which further entrenched Greenland under the military umbrella of the US. That's why the US was subsequently able to place 50 military installations in Greenland, along with thousands of troops.
Trump's insistence that he needs to formally annex Greenland because of some "psychological" benefit he perceives, and his apparent willingness to achieve this through wild threats, really has no meaningful precedent -- as much as certain people now want to spin a convoluted rationalization for it, to make it seem totally sensible and historically well-founded. Even though it's totally wacky.
If he feels Greenland is integral to his cockamamie plan for a boondoggle "Golden Dome" missile defense system (another glorious win for the "military-industrial complex") that could obviously be arranged within the current parameters of the US-Greenland-Denmark relationship.
Instead he wants to formally seize it for reasons of personal aggrandizement, and because he's developed a second-term ideology around brutish American expansionism, as made evident in numerous other places across the world where he's recently declared himself the new ruler.
I'm a former defense attorney and currently a civil liberties attorney with no political dog in this fight. I watched the video at least 10 times from different angles and at different speeds and waited to offer an opinion, which I still reserve the right to change if additional information changes the calculus.
It is very clear that the officers instigated the confrontation. The woman initially tried to wave them past her.
ICE officers have no authority to search a US citizen or arrest her (unless there's probable cause to believe she's harboring undocumented individuals, not a contention here). A woman surrounded by masked, armed men who have no law enforcement authority over her has every right to try to escape. Video shows her steering wheel is turned to the right, clearly an attempt to leave WITHOUT hitting anyone and steer clear of the officer standing towards the front of her car. That officer had time to step to the side, which is where he was when he shot her.
Even a real police officer would not have the right to shoot at her for trying to flee. This is well-established in the case law; deadly force may not be used simply to prevent someone from getting away. Given that the ICE officers had no law enforcement authority to begin with, AND the video footage shows she was trying to escape a perceived threat, not to kill anyone, the crime is all the more inexcusable.
I'm praying for the victim's family, especially her children. I'm also praying for all the conservatives who are so unprincipled and lost they're excusing this terrible crime, and gloating over a death that will leave three young children motherless, because of the victim's politics.
@Bestofsopranos@SopranosWorld I never understood why he ran like that, except for getting rid of his gun? I assume the feds would only have a warrant out for Johnny Sack, and if they did want to arrest Tony they’ll be able to find him very easily eventually.