(1/2) "At first...Hitler and Ley tried to assure the workers that their rights would be protected..."Workers! Your institutions are sacred to us national Socialists...we will build up the protection and the rights of workers still further."
Within three weeks, the hollowness of another..."
(2/2) "...Nazi promise was exposed when Hitler decreed a law bringing an end to collective bargaining...Ley promised "to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory--that is, the employer...Now they are once again to be the 'master in the house.'"
Shirer, ch7
For me it's just, wow that sucked and I don't want to revisit it. It was dreary and frightening and depressing. I won't forget it. But the idea of spending any time at all watxhing stuff set in there makes me sad. Hard pass.
It's great if people make some. But it's not for me.
That's a dumb thing for him to believe and to say.
If he has a well-founded belief that the gun is incapable of firing a round, it's perfectly safe to pull the trigger. If he doesn't, then it's not safe to draw it and point it at a person, whatever his intentions re the trigger.
The problem here is not that an actor pulled the trigger when he shouldn't have. The problem is that an actor was handed a live weapon and led to believe that it was inert.
To suggest that your actor's trigger discipline was a reasonable thing to rely on is bonkers.
It's utterly bonkers that that's the legal standard. An actor ought to be able to rely on the armorer's expertise when he's handed a weapon and told that it's safe.
Baldwin the producer ought to be in trouble for running a dangerous production.
Makes sense. Because I think Baldwin the producer is more properly to blame than Baldwin the actor, the problem here is that I'm advocating for the devil.
I think you're over-simplifying. It'd be impossible, for instance, to properly clean a gun if you had to treat it like it was loaded.
There's qualifiers. And once you begin applying the qualifiers, maybe it IS reasonable to point a prop gun at someone when an expert tells you it's safe to do so.
We all thought it was pretty funny that the NYT was all salty about not getting enough interviews. Like they're so entitled and he's not giving them what they feel is their due, ha ha.
In hindsight, were they were venting frustration about not being able to print what they knew, because no sources?
It's especially frustrating because she was right there in plain view on the ballot in 2020. Americans have ALREADY signed up for Harris replacing Biden in a pinch.
Has anyone, ever, just as a test before pushing all-in on metal coins, just done a small scale test where they buy a tiny amount and then sell it, just to get a sense of the transaction costs?
I imagine kings felt the same way about the idea of their divinely ordained and therefore entirely just power being taken away and distributed among the unwashed masses.
The divine right of billionaires is such a widely held belief that it almost seems strange to give it a name.
In 1990 or thereabouts a friend of mine who was a welfare fraud investigator told me the same thing. He thought it'd be cheaper to just give benefits to everyone who asked. The bureaucracy around eligibility and enforcement is, I guess, expensive.
We spend that money anyway, mostly out of spite.
I have, and near as I can tell they aren't disputing the substance of the reported remarks. So I'm not sure why my distrust of the Washington Free Beacon is at all relevant.
I'm absolutely ready to believe that the photos of the Columbia remarks were doctored or faked or omit important context. Were they? Is that your claim?
And now we're back to tribalism. The LA city council leaks are okay because they (presumably) came from lefties, and the Columbia dean leaks aren't because they came from righties.
There's no principle here. It's about what's useful, not about that's true.
See, now you're back to making reasonable arguments. I'm very much at home to "what they ssaid/wrote wasn't objectionable because X."
What I objected to was "we don't need to pay attention to facts that were gathered by right-leaning people."
Gosh, I don't think they are, but if that's your claim, I'll hear you out.
I do think the LA case illustrates the point I'm making here: that the people said what they said, and that the identity and agenda of the whistleblower doesn't change that.
