Welcome to the end of the a frigid week in Chicago: it’s Friday, January 16, 2026, and National Fig Newton Day. Called “fig rolls” in the UK, the most famous U.S. version is from Nabisco, which has trademarked the name. Here’s some Fig Newton Trivia from Wikipedia:
In the 1939 promotional short Mickey’s Surprise Party, produced by Walt Disney for Nabisco’s exhibit at that year’s World’s Fair, Mickey Mouse proclaims the Fig Newton to be his favorite cookie.
And here’s the cartoon (“produced for the National Biscuit Company”). The Fig Newton bit appears at 4:52, saving the day after Minnie burns her homemade cookies, which are accidentally mixed with popcorn.
It’s also International Hot and Spicy Food Day, National Quinoa Day, and Religious Freedom Day.
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the January 16 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*If Trump continues to go after Greenland, he’ll be called a Nazi even more often, as he seems to be seeking Lebensraum. And yes, Trump appears to be serious about acquiring Greenland. But the Greenlanders and Denmark aren’t having it. (Article is archived here.)n First from the NYT:
But if President Trump gets his way and, as he has insisted, takes over Greenland “whether they like it or not,” it would be bigger than any of those [California, the Louisana Purchase and other territories acquired by conquest or purchase], according to the National Archives, the U.S. census and the C.I.A. World Factbook. At 836,000 square miles, Greenland is bigger than France, Britain, Spain, Italy and Germany — combined. It would be the largest territory the United States ever added, if the United States were to acquire it.
Mr. Trump has based his fixation on Greenland, which has been part of the Danish Kingdom for more than 300 years, on reasons of “national security,” citing threats from Russia and China. But he made a past remark about Greenland’s size, and scholars say the territorial grandeur itself is at least part of what appeals to him.
“Trump’s a real estate guy,” David Silbey, a historian at Cornell University, said in an email, “and the idea of grabbing that much land seems to me his particular guiding force: THE MOST LAND EVER.”
He added that Mr. Trump “likes to pick on targets that are too weak to fight back, which certainly describes Denmark,” he added.
This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is meeting to discuss the future of Greenland with Danish and Greenlandic officials, both of whom say that the island, the world’s largest, is not for sale.
But that has not deterred Mr. Trump and his team so far.
In an interview last week with The New York Times, Mr. Trump said the best way for the United States to handle Greenland would be to own it because ownership is “psychologically needed for success.”
But, from the WaPo:
The White House meeting, which was hosted by Vice President JD Vance, did see the two sides agree to form a “high-level working group” to discuss Trump’s concerns about Greenland, Rasmussen said. The White House and State Department did not immediately provide their own readout of the meeting, which was also attended by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Trump told reporters after the meeting that he had not yet been briefed on the talks, but said that the United States had a good relationship with Denmark and he thought something would work out. “The problem is there’s not a thing that Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland, but there’s everything we can do,” he said in the Oval Office.
This is the craziest thing that Trump’s tried to do, and that’s saying a lot. We already have a base in northern Greenland, and perhaps they’d let us build another one. But the hubris of trying to take over what is essentially part of Denmark, the EU, and NATO is breathtaking. It sound like some nutty idea that Trump had in the middle of the night, but he’s trying to make it come true. I’m betting he won’t.
*David Plouffe argues in today’s NYT that “To win everywhere, Democrats must change everything” (op-ed archived here).
. . . to win races in politically unforgiving, even hostile, territory will require the party to overhaul its broken brand and stale agenda by elevating new faces and new leaders who promise to chart a course enough voters believe in.
Why? Because to have any hope of fixing the root problems that plague our democracy and our economy, Democrats need a majority that lasts, like the New Deal coalition. At least three, maybe more, Supreme Court justices could retire over the coming decade. Without sustained Democratic political power and control during that period, a conservative 8-to-1 court is not out of the question.
That possibility should focus the mind. Right now, Democrats have no credible path to sustained control of the Senate and the White House. After the adjustments to the Electoral College map that look likely to come with the next census, the Democratic presidential nominee could win all states won by Kamala Harris plus the blue wall of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still fall short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. An already unforgiving map gets more so, equally so in the Senate.
His solutions? (condensed):
The existential question now is: How do Democrats get back to playing and winning in more places?
First, make our unpopular president and his vassals own everything — higher energy and health care costs, higher food bills, war. The Republicans in Congress stood by meekly as Mr. Trump took a wrecking ball to our economy. They deserve the blame for it.
That is Task 1. As important as it is, it’s far easier than Task 2. James Baldwin wrote, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it’s faced.” Democrats must face, honestly, where we are and how we are perceived.
That starts with offering a fresh agenda that voters believe can make a difference in their lives, not the same stuff they heard from Democratic candidates in recent years.
Each candidate is different. That said, the ideas below should find a home almost anywhere.
Here’s a list (bolding is theirs):
A plan to bring down costs. ‘
A plan to create the jobs America needs.
A plan for A.I. [Plouffe thinks it will play a big role in the next elections]
A plan for reform.
Hold your own leaders to account.
You can see all the details in the archived account. That’s a lot of plans, and yes, if most of that stuff can be conveyed to the people (Plouffe uses Mamdani as an example), the Dems’ chances will improve. But as you know, Mamdani was short on details, and can you imagine a Democratic candidate trying to explain to Americans how they would reduce any pernicious effects of A. I.? Well, as someone said, “All this is as plausible as anything else.” There is no shortage of people telling the Democratic Party what to do, but is anyone listening?
*The WSJ reports that the protests in Iran may have quieted down, which of course will impede Trump from carrying out his threat to attack with the aim of toppling the regime.
A fierce crackdown by Iranian security forces that has killed thousands of people protesting against the country’s autocratic leaders has forced demonstrators off the streets in some cities, with residents reporting an eerie quiet after days of escalating violence.
Iran’s government has blocked the internet and deployed large numbers of police and troops in an effort to quell the biggest threat to the regime since a 1979 revolution that established theocratic rule overseen by Shiite clergy. Iranians said they were afraid to leave their homes.
President Trump on Wednesday said Iran had stopped killing people, after days of threatening to take action against the regime if it killed protesters. Asked if military action was off the table, he said, “We’re going to watch it and see what the process is, but we were given a very good statement by people that are aware of what’s going on.”
The number of new protests verified by Human Rights Activists in Iran dropped to zero for the first time on Tuesday and continued at zero on Wednesday, the rights group said. It acknowledged that this could be because of the severe communications restrictions, which include disruptions to phone service.
The group said it confirmed the deaths of more than 2,600 people and more than 18,000 arrests. European and Middle Eastern officials also said they were seeing a drop in protest activity.
“The reason is very clear: The regime has created a bloodbath. They brought down the iron fist without precedent,” said Ali Vaez, an Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group. “That creates a chilling effect among protesters.”
Iran signaled Wednesday it was preparing to conduct swift trials and the execution of antigovernment protesters. In a video released by Iranian state television, Iran’s judiciary chief said on Wednesday the courts should act quickly against protesters.
The quiet is likely temporary, analysts said, since the underlying anger against the state remains high and the government has few ways to resolve the economic problems at the root of widespread discontent.
“Even if the first round is done, the next round is around the corner, because the regime is unable and incapable of addressing legitimate grievances,” Vaez said.
Some rumors say that cops with rifles are stationed on every street corner in Tehran, ready to shoot anybody who even vaguely looks like a protestor. We can’t expect people to keep protesting if they’re going to be shot willy nilly. I am torn about this, as I do want the regime gone, but not necessarily with American military intervention. On the other hand, nonmilitary intervention doesn’t seem to be working. I fully expected an American attack, but without one, things will go back to the way they were, though I’m hoping, as the piece says above, that “the quiet is likely temporary.” For the moment it looks like the score is Regime 1, Protestors 0.
*More Trump-o-centric news: the “President’ has threatened to quash the protests in Minnesota not only by sending in more troops, but by invoking the Insurrection Act.
President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to invoke an 1807 law and deploy troops to quell persistent protests against the federal officers sent to Minneapolis to enforce his administration’s massive immigration crackdown.
The threat comes a day after a man was shot and wounded by an immigration officer who had been attacked with a shovel and broom handle. That shooting further heightened the fear and anger that has radiated across the city since an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot Renee Good in the head.
Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used federal law, to deploy the U.S. military or federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement, over the objections of state governors.
“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump said in social media post.
Presidents have indeed invoked the law more than two dozen times, most recently in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush to end unrest in Los Angeles. In that instance, local authorities had asked for the assistance.
The Insurrection Act is old (from 1807), and says this:
The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The statute implements Congress’s authority under the Constitution to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.’
Normally the military, including the National Guard, is not empowered to enforce civil laws, but the Act allows them to. And the Act allows them to do this even against the wishes of the state. ICE, however, is not the military, so once again we see Trump trying to use the military to quash civilian dissent, calling it an “insurrection”. It’s been used about 30 times, most notably to enforce civil rights laws in the Sixties. But if it’s used now to supplement ICE with the military (who of course aren’t trained in law enforcement), it will only exacerbate tensions. It may quell protests, but at a steep price.
The NYT is all about the ICE attack, the shooting, and immigration. Here’s this morning’s front page:
*And things are so bad that I’m adding the last Nooz post as the equivalent of the “there’s good news tonight” segment of NBC’s Evening News. Here’s the good news from the UPI:
Police responded to a retirement home in Washington on a report of a goat attempting to break into the facility.
The Auburn Police Department said on social media that officers arrived at Wesley Homes to find “a goat was attempting to gain entry into the building.”
The officers “safely ‘detained’ the suspect until a friend of the owner arrived to pick her up,” the post said.
The goat, named Ruby, posed for a photo with the officers before being taken home.
“Charges were dropped due to extreme adorableness,” police wrote.
Here’s Ruby the perp and the cops:
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili invokes the “a pessimist is never disappointed” trope:
Hili: You’re doing fine.
Andrzej: Why do you think so?
Hili: Because you’re a pessimist, and every time you’re wrong, it’s something to celebrate.
In Polish:
Hili: Tobie jest dobrze.
Ja: Dlaczego tak sądzisz?
Hili: Jesteś pesymistą, więc ile razy okazuje się, że byłeś w błędzie masz powód do radości.
***********************
From Meanwhile in Canada:
From Cats, Coffee, & Chaos:
From Give Me a Sign:
This tweet from Masih suggests why the protersts may have cooled in Iran (sound up):
Received video with this description: “Martial law atmosphere in #Mashhad, #Iran, Tuesday, January 13, 2026.”#مشهد pic.twitter.com/y7TQZeIHKc
— Vahid Online (@Vahid) January 15, 2026
From Luana; progressives try to defund all immigration enforcement:
Ilhan Omar announces that the Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus “has adopted an official position” to defund ICE.
OMAR: “Our caucus members will oppose all funding for immigration enforcement.” pic.twitter.com/bhBSTwYC1p
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 13, 2026
From Malcolm; fixing pipe leaks without digging them up. Pretty cool:
Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) Lining is a structural “No-Dig” repair that creates a new pipe within a damaged sewer or drain.pic.twitter.com/yGuIRNAop8
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) January 2, 2026
One from my feed. How did they do this?
A Japanese restaurant in NYC has an interior designed to resemble a hand-drawn black and white sketchbook.pic.twitter.com/KY9cQbkFTg
— Interesting things (@awkwardgoogle) January 15, 2026
The Number Ten Cat argues that he did not trip a photographer:
Watch the video and judge for yourself if I “tripped” the photographer or if he stumbled and nearly squashed me https://t.co/cffwMpeL3H
— Larry the Cat (@Number10cat) January 15, 2026
One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:
This Dutch Jewish boy was gassed to death along with his mother as soon as they arrived in Auchwitz. He was four years old and would be 87 today if he had lived. https://t.co/I09S5cuZw9
— Jerry Coyne (@Evolutionistrue) January 16, 2026
Two posts from Dr. Cobb: Here they are talking about autocratic tephritids and not Drosophila (Drosophila are not the “fruit fly” that worries California):
I don’t think we should have ceded control quite so quickly and without so much as a fight.
This tweeter wrote an article criticizing panpsychism, the intellectually depauperate theory that everything has a form of consciousness. Both Matthew and I think the “theory” (for which there’s no evidence) is bogus.
Wrote a new essay: open.substack.com/pub/walterve…
— Dr. Walter Veit (@walterveit.bsky.social) 2026-01-14T08:11:15.922Z
A BIRTHDAY THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Be master of your petty annoyances and conserve your energies for the big, worthwhile things. It isn’t the mountain ahead that wears you out – it’s the grain of sand in your shoe. -Robert Service, writer (16 Jan 1874-1958)
An example: If a Good Samaritan is kind to get me a bottle of water at a convenience store, and I can’t be bothered to specify the size, I shouldn’t have the breath-taking sense of entitlement and gall to complain about the size of the bottle I receive, 20 oz. (“Didn’t they have anything smaller?!”) Especially, in the aftermath of my thusly acting out, when the Samaritan notices that I have another water bottle the same size and brand on my kitchen counter but declines to point that out to me for the sake of Keeping The Peace.
(Also, Ms. Machado has dutifully and obediently given to His Excellency the coveted material object reflecting her Nobel prize.)
Can we start a New Rule for “theories”?
Theoretical theories
Vs.
Empirical theories
It’s silly but so is panpsychism? But would we have to actually say “empirical theories”?
Sincerely,
-Ann Elk
I’m not taking the Greenland Show seriously. For a start, one needs an act of Congress to expand the size of the United States. Most of Congress, both parties, are against this hairbrained scheme.
Another impediment is the military not following an illegal order (to invade a treaty ally).
It is stupid, even for him.
He loves his shows and distractions.
D.A.
NYC/FL
Since when has Trump cared about constitutional or legal formalities?
As for the military refusing to invade an ally, don’t be so sure. Remember how Trump responded to Sen. Mark Kelly, when Kelly reminded members of the military that it is illegal to obey an illegal order?
Also remember how Trump mused that he wished he had generals like Hitler? Well, he actually does have at least a few such generals. There are ambitious, amoral people in any walk of life, and Hegspeth has almost certainly already identified the generals who would be willing to do anything their orange Fuhrer asks of them. So, it’s a slam dunk that a general of the Hitlerian ilk would be put in charge of a ‘Greenland campaign.’
As for the troops and lower-ranking officers, it is expecting too much of them, individually and collectively, to disobey a general’s order. But in any event, even a tiny risk that some troops might have taken the TRAITORS’ reminder to heart could be neutralized by a pre-mobilization briefing of the troops. The briefing would include allusions to ‘high level intel’ that makes the placement of troops in Greenland imperative for the defense of the Homeland. The details would be withheld of course – since they would be lies – but the troops would fill them in with their imagination. That would remove any reason for resistance by transforming the aktion from unlawful aggression into patriotic defense. It’s the oldest tactic in the book, and Trump uses variations of it all the f*cking time.
So, if I haven’t made it obvious, I’m not nearly as sanguine as you are. Since I think it is a real possibility that our insane president might invade Greenland, I think Americans need to be prepared to take action to force Trump to give Greenland back, if he takes it, and to force him out of office at the same time. For me, I’m already planning to join any protests, and that’s saying a lot, since about the only thing I enjoy less than being in a mob of people is natural childbirth.
President Trump has never defied the Constitution. He has behaved “unconventionally” in the constitutional sense. Parliamentary countries with largely unwritten constitutions work by bodies of “conventions” going back hundreds of years which by definition must be obeyed but can’t be legally compelled.
The United States is too young to be able to rely on conventions. Immediately after independence it had no agreed-on conventions at all — all the English conventions were on the table — , hence the need for a written Constitution. One convention is that the President must comply with the Supreme Court’s rulings even though the Court has no mechanism to compel it.
I think you’re right that President Trump could cook up a Constitutionally supportable way to invade Greenland. (He doesn’t need a declaration of war, for sure. Annexation would require an Act of Congress, but I don’t think occupation would.) You’re right about the lawful orders, too. “Following orders” especially from the C-in-C is almost always a valid defence for a soldier in his own military hierarchy, much preferable to the alternative of disobeying them. Foreigners might have different views but they won’t be judging him except in unusual circumstances, like capture or defeat.
If the U.S. does invade Greenland, please do me a favour and don’t get hurt in a protest. No matter what you do, you can’t “force him to give Greenland back” or “force him out of office.” The Secret Service will shoot you if you try that literally. The Executive ignores protests because the President stays in office by the Constitution, not by the will of The People, either broadly construed or narrowly demonstrated by the tiny minority, committed activists, who show up to protest. Your only remedy would be to convince your Congressmen to impeach and convict him, at which a new C-in-C might order U.S. forces to leave Greenland. (I’m not ruling out other measures Congress could take to rein in the President. I’m just reminding you that the voting fraction of the mob puts the President in office but the mob can’t remove him until Election Day.)
It’s because the President does respect Constitutional authority that the organs of the state will back him up if he goes after Greenland.
FSVO ‘respect’. He respects no authority outside himself, as his recent blurt makes unambiguously clear: “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” He, like any experienced bully, does respect power. For now, the legislative branch of the Constitution is cowed, so why should he respect it? The judicial branch isn’t yet, so he treats it with its ‘due’ respect. But given an opportunity to neuter it too (such as an actual emergency brought on by the current pretend ones), he surely will.
I’m beyond outrage. Not that the current Insurrection Act outrage isn’t outrageous enough, but I accept my powerless to do anything effective about it. It’s a grief process. If this tipping point does indeed tip then things will get very bad very quickly. Qué será será. I will mourn.
Fine. I just don’t want Brooke to get hurt in a protest that seeks to do what protesting cannot do, but where the authorities get worried it might try anyway.
I don’t know. Seems Walz’s recent speech telling Minnesotans to obstruct federal immigration law enforcement actions in that state might justify sending in the troops the way desegregation was once enforced on the resistant South.
Note that after Trump threatened Walz with the Insurrection Act, Walz backed down and gave a new speech calling for “peace”.
I’m not sure how you can type your opening statement with a straight face. Trump’s lies about the “stolen” 2020 election have been determined to not be protected by the First Amendment, and are thus unconstitutional. Fomenting an attempt to overturn an election is unconstitutional. The Constitution is clear that states have independent control of elections, and Trump’s executive orders attacking that premise are unconstitutional. The Constitution says that Congress controls the purse strings and Trump has consistently ignored that provision, particularly in his Retribution Tour against states such as Colorado. And so on
The President isn’t exceeding his Constitutional authority until the Supreme Court says he is. He is in defiance only if he then presses on with an Executive action that the Court has said he can’t do. An EO that is ruled unconstitutional is not a defiance if the President complies, which he always has. Everything short of defiance is just the way the Executive is always feeling for cowardice in the Legislature and deference in the Judiciary, as the healthy working of a checks-and-balances system. We’ll see what happens with the tariffs case, soon I hope.
I don’t think President Trump will ever defy the Supreme Court’s interpretation of his Constitutional authority as that would make his orders to the military and to the civil service unambiguously unlawful on their face — no guesswork. They all swear loyalty to the Constitution and not to him personally. If his order violates the Constitution, they can’t obey it.
In addition, placing himself outside (not above) the Constitution would make him an outlaw, a very dangerous status when you don’t have a personally loyal Praetorian Guard to protect you from your enemies salivating at the prospect of evicting you from the White House a couple of years early.
P.S.: To get a clear ruling from the Supreme Court that a Presidential action was unconstitutional, Congress would have to buck up and press its opposition explicitly.
That’s correct and it’s good and dandy when there is a Supreme Court that is not in the pocket of the President. There are currently 253 active lawsuits against the administration, and thus far the Supreme Court has overturned or vacated 17 lower court rulings. I’m not holding my breath to see when the SCOTUS or the Republicans rein in a rogue President
Oh I agree Brooke. Two bits of dissent: I have a lot of faith in the civilian leadership of, and our military in general, to unite against something so wildly stupid and illegal. That’s a judgement call though, I have no real evidence.
He’s been known to do threats like this all the time. One could argue a lot of the idiotic tariff nonsense was to bully the trade policies of other countries and his “I’ll leave NATO” was to push Euro defense spending.
Even this could be a warning against the damn Russkies and Commie Pukes in Beijing. (Chinese mining companies HAVE been circling Greenland I recall about 5 years ago). That said, not ALL his bluffs are bluffs so…..
Greenland is particularly stupid b/c there’s nothing … nothing.. we can get by “invading” we don’t have already via NATO framework or the 1952 treaty with the Danes. It is an idea that is all loss, Big Loss.
HHHAA. A Greenland invasion would actually get ME in the streets next to you Brooke (for just about the first time for me).
The natural childbirth I’ll have to leave to you! 🙂
cheers,
D.A.
NYC/FL
I suspect Republicans would welcome David Plouffe’s suggestion that the Democrats try to pin higher energy prices on Trump. The ads will write themselves with some devastating graphics. Highest gasoline prices? Blue states—with higher gas taxes, environmental mandates, and other fees. (I filled up last week for $2.50/gallon. How’s California doing, Gavin?) Electricity prices? If you are in a blue state, you are almost certainly paying above the national average—California is nearly triple per kilowatt-hour what you’ll find in several red states; New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are double what many red-state residents pay. Why? Again: environmental mandates, carbon policies, reduced reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear. Sure, perhaps residents of blue states like those state policies, taxes, and fees—and are fine paying much higher prices. But trying to pin that on Trump and the Republicans is pretty dumb. Or it just shows that Plouffe thinks the voters are incapable of distinguishing state-by-state differences when pointed out to them.
I’m really surprised and disappointed that Plouffe doesn’t even mention the social/cultural identity issues that have taken over the Democratic party in recent years. (See Josh Hawley question a doctor who refuses to answer whether men can get pregnant.) All the issues Plouffe mentions are important, but I know many people (myself included) who dismiss outright any Dem politician who won’t address this elephant in the room. Their views on the rest of these issues are irrelevant at that point. And I say that as a (previously) life long Dem voter.
I thimk the Dems should start by admitting a recent mistake. Any mistake. And “not going after Trump hard enough” doesn’t count. Then they should do an open post mortem on the primary process in the last several elections.
They don’t seem to be doing so though, Dr. B. They’re doubling down on trans even though, as Eric Kauffman has shown convincingly, the trans craze reached its apex lately and is in slow decline.
They’re certainly ALL IN FOR PAWETHINE!, antisemitic, and this crazy anti-ICE drama is possibly even stupider than the (very serious) Defund the Police.
I don’t see a coherent way back given the power dynamics of the party.
I can’t imagine what they’d have to do to win back my (lifelong) votes.
D.A.
NYC
Did anyone see Masih Alinejad’s speech at the U.N. Security Council yesterday? She was amazing. Forceful, unrelenting, powerful. It’s fifteen minutes long: https://youtu.be/p8106vQiXHI?si=ZdrVY3QlDKHHVODB. Absolutely breathtaking.
That was amazing. She’s one of my heroes. Thank you for the link.
I just posted it separately. Thanks for the link.
In Chicago, at the North Bridge mall on Michigan Avenue, there are a couple of installations that are shops and lounge areas made to look like black and white drawings like the place in NYC. They’ve been there since early December and will probably be gone soon since they seem to have been a holiday season diversion.
https://www.google.com/search?q=shops+north+bridge+2d+restaurant+video
Just to restate the obvious, the US already has a base in Greenland. If the US wanted more, that would surely be no problem – at the height of the Cold War we apparently had 17 bases there. Regardless, if anyone would invade Greenland, a response by NATO would be triggered. US ownership of Greenland is irrelevant.
When you have 31 friends committed to help, you don’t shove them to the side and go it alone.
And now, just after hitting Send, I hear that our Ambassador to Iceland has referred to it as “Our 52nd State”.
Having committed friends requires mutual trust. The usual concepts of trust and mistrust are entirely absent in sufferers of some well-studied generally-incurable mental conditions. (IANA clinical psychologist.)
From Veit’s article on panpsychism:
And the panpsychists urge us to accept that we’re continuous with nature in a way which is intuitively appealing but factually wrong. The mental did not exist before the nonmental — or why did brains evolve at all? We are not evidence for a universe which is continuous with us.
The belief that the theory of evolution would be unaffected if consciousness didn’t evolve but was, instead, a fundamental aspect of the universe is in my opinion high-level nonsense. As Daniel Dennett pointed out, Darwin’s dangerous idea replaced skyhooks with cranes. This not only undermined God, it undermines this sort of “spirituality.”
Even so, many of my friends accept panpsychism. I’ve asked about it. They are very sure that their beliefs are more likely to be true because they’re unfalsifiable. They seem equally sure that being a panpsychic is morally superior to not being one, which makes panpsychism even more likely to be true. Of course.
The idea that consciousness is continuous with nature is not “factually wrong”. We have no empirical evidence for the existence of consciousness other than our own subjective experience. There is no evidence of consciousness in brains, just lots of interacting cells. So we have no facts on the matter to interpret and thus panpsychism is as good (or bad) an explanation as any other. We have evidence that brains evolved, but no evidence that consciousness evolved or ever even existed. That is the basis of the so-called Hard Problem. I know I am conscious but can never know if you are because there is no way to detect consciousness objectively, only ambiguous behavioral clues as to its presence.
The cat is right. Look at the video carefully.
1) The cat is on the doorstep well before the door is opened.
2) The photographer opens the door and sees the cat to his left but does not slow down. That he does not slow down at this stage is understandable because the cat is not directly in his path.
3) Then the cat walks across photographer’s path, but the photographer STILL DOES NOT SLOW DOWN. That’s the crucial point. If he wanted to avoid harming the cat, I would expect him to slow down. That he didn’t indicates that he wanted to kill the cat and make it look like an accident. He might not have been intending to stomp on the cat. But stomping is not the only way to kill a cat. There are many ways to kill a cat. If the photographer were Bulgarian, I would expect something like ricin-filled needles in his shoes and not in his umbrella because he was not carrying one.
4) There is no contact between the cat and the photographer’s foot. You can tell by the way the cat moves. Therefore, the cat COULD NOT HAVE TRIPPED HIM.
5) When the cat escapes we see the photographer smile, probably to give the impression that nothing was afoot. Then he runs away.
6) Then the door opens again and a thoroughly evil looking chap steps out and walks in the same direction the cat fled.
I can’t read their minds and I’m not a lawyer — don’t even like lawyers or mindreaders — but I think there is enough evidence in the video to have them both locked up.
golf clap
Well done, sir.
I’m interested in the Greenland thing. I don’t have anywhere nearly enough understanding of military strategy and geopolitics to make a pronouncement, but I have learned that the US has fallen far behind Russia on hypersonic missile technology, and that we are presently quite vulnerable.
There’s more to this story than Trump’s bombast, and his disordered personality, but I’m not seeing much about that from the MSM.
I think a big part of the problem is that our media would much rather ridicule and oppose Trump than investigate and explain the actual pros and cons of the proposal.
Plus Trump makes it easy to take that position since he usually starts negotiations with the most extreme and shocking proposal.
I don’t think it is about lebensraum. We already have lots of land where the climate is too harsh or isolated to live comfortably. I think it is about having access to minerals not controlled by the Chinese, even being self sufficient in that respect.
Before Trump started in on this, the adults in the room were very concerned that Greenland was using Chinese trade and infrastructure agreements to allow the Greenlanders less financial dependence on Denmark. Not that I am any sort of expert, but I have been paying attention, since I have visited Greenland and lived in Denmark.
I think you’re right, Max. It’s the minerals
Mark Zaid, well known attorney, recommended on the social media platform Blue Sky the New York Times video analysis of the Good killing.
It’s about seven minutes long and widely available.
For what it’s worth, I can concur it’s the best video analysis yet.