Peterkin

No idea. Or even of what percent of the president's flying time is spent in the cockpit. My uneducated guess would be that no president has ever yet been required to emergency-land the thing.

In aviation, certainly. In legislation, I'd prefer legal savvy. Matter of perspective, I guess.

They can wade across, if they like. In fact, obviously, all the sane, clear-sighted conservatives should, regardless of who their preferred Republican candidate would have been. Because the candidates they're stuck with are unacceptable, they either vote Democrat or waste their vote on an independent or stay home and watch it on tv. What the Democrats must not do is make any cross-party overtures. They're in a fight for the the very identity of their country. No olive branches, no sacrificial pigeons. Invite voters individually, each according to their own concerns and interests, to make an independent decision.

They already have, in some places. The second biggest problem is, so far, that most of the competent, strong women in politics have not practiced feminine politics - they were just more manly (tougher) than the men they had to compete against. Before the atmosphere really changes, both the men and women in a field have to grow accustomed to working together, so they can relax, stop playing roles and bring their most authentic self to the job. To achieve that, you need the right proportion - I believe the magic number is 35% - not sure. But the biggest problem is that you're not getting candidates of either sex or any ethnicity who are the best qualified people available. You get the people who put themselves forward for reasons other than a desire to serve their community, and arrive at their highest achievable office through means other than merit.

Of course you have. Many times. It mostly comes in small, insignificant statements. "It's raining." "You have some parsley in your teeth." "The game starts at 8:00 pm." How you know whenever you encounter it is through empirical verification: look out the window, into a mirror, at the program guide. When you encounter falsehood, the most common way you recognize it is by comparing with your own observation of reality. If the statement contradicts the evidence of your senses, you generally assume it's a false statement. It takes a great deal more evidence to convince a person that their own experience is false than that a statement by someone else is false. If it were otherwise, none of us could navigate life. Can you give a theoretical example of a true statement that is self-contradictory?

I wasn't talking about the voters' skewed perception; I was talking about the woman's competence as compared to the competence of any other candidate.

Some ructions; a couple of looting sprees; an excuse to guzzle beer and shoot up some mosques and cars on fire. The next bigmouth would come along in five minutes, and vowing revenge, lead his mob toward the Capitol - along the way, only encounter six other loudmouths with the same idea of filling the power vacuum. Anyway, regarding the Supreme Court decision - they put a postscript : Only if we say it's okay.

There is no valid comparison of how people perform in public office by sex. (Especially given that some sexes haven't been given the chance to perform.) We have witnessed men and women in various settings - working together and individually, in segregated and mixed groups, and can each form some general impression of by-and-large. But the individuals elected to public office are not by-and-large; they're not statistics. Each has a public record, so we can find out exactly how they have performed these particular tasks. I think Harris can safely put her record up against any of the other contenders for that office.

That's true in a certain way. Just from marriages I've observed - solid ones, where the couple work well together: The man concentrates single-mindedly on the main thing, building the wall, digging the hole, demolishing the shed, getting to the reception on time. Then he loses interest and the woman takes care of the details - plastering the wall, saving the lilac bush, recycling the materials, bringing the gift. That's how team projects are supposed to go. The big picture is made up of thousands of little pictures. That's what the Natives have always known. We need all the elders to deliberate before committing our resources to a war, shoreline preservation or tax reform. Yay for that! But exclude the rich old brown, olive and ocher men - and women, too.

Exactly! No point trying to woo the dinosaurs. The big challenge, in a short time, is to get the disaffected left-leaning (this means having to make a meaningful connection with labour - not easy), youth and ethnic vote on side. She's got her work cut out; she'd better assemble a good team.

I wouldn't write off all white males quite so fast. Michael Moore just sent out a newsletter calling for an all female ticket. Well, he is a true blue Michigander, but also a Harris fan.

How about both? A good balance?

Next time. In the present situation, the Dems - and all the sane people depending on them to stop the Trumproller - can't afford division or indecision. There's very little time left. They have to show resolve and solidarity.

Maybe. So, it's hopeless, because too Americans are stupid?

So? What's that to do with civilization? All ancient civilizations were some form of despotism. No, I'm telling you the reasons for t5hings that happened. Of course not. He was a mad fool to do that. Got a whole lot of people killed. But, of course, there were plenty of other mad fools to go along with the gag. Are you changing the subject?

She needs a running mate with a high profile, preferably white, male and with some experience in government - to lay to rest any notions of a feminist or minority agenda. Then the Dems have to pull together like they've never done before, and keep hammering on the message: This is what we have done - this is what they have done. No frills, no personalities, no history; just the facts.

Sez who? How do you measure degree of civilization? It was the Macedonian princeling who went on a murderous rampage across the middle east. The military threat of Germany had nothing to do with feudalism; in 1914, they just didn't have enough arable land or natural resources for the ascendancy to which their leaders aspired. In 1939, they were struggling with the harsh peace terms of WWI. There are interest groups the world over who would like nothing better than to be liege lords of a feudal kingdom. That's why they've been corrupting and suborning democracies and setting gullible people against one another. Democracy itself can't be discredited, but democratic system can be and are being demolished. Which warlord wins which border dispute matters only to the peoples involved.

I don't know if that specter is more or less frightening than the missiles Putin keeps rattling. I know Hitler's cult continues long past his ignominious passing, but he'd almost wiped out his own and several other nations by then. Trump has accomplished exactly goose-egg, beyond wasting a lot of courts' time and selling a lot of junk.

I know of no examples. In fact, they seem to degenerate with too much power. They're not killed by random discontents in the crowd; they're killed by family, trusted advisors or bodyguards. The plans are already in place to wipe out at least half of the amendments. Chairman for life is a given. (How long he lives depends on how eager Satan is to collect on the deal.) Not Trump. Without rallies, he would simply fade away and disappear.

Well, if that doesn't work, I don't know what will.

The problem word in that statement is "we". There isn't one.

Canada has generally handled it better federally, though some provinces, like some states, did better than others. Ontario wasn't the best, but Grey and Bruce counties are mostly rural, were mostly compliant with prevention protocols and the local health services carried out the vaccination program efficiently. Nevertheless, I have to take back my previous remark: I've since learned of three active cases, in towns quite far from me. If there are any more, I'll resume wearing masks. The next booster is expected in early fall. PS The GB health service is monitoring outbreaks of any contagious disease and reporting locations on their web site. They also post regular announcements of new vaccines available. We usually get them at the pharmacy, which is conveniently on our route. The first two mass inoculations were held in a sports arena and so well organized, there was hardly any waiting time. Not that this has anything to do with President Biden.....

I asked my doctor, and they stopped masking at the clinic, except people who have symptoms of some kind. Not because they're pretending, but because the vaccination program has been pretty successful and our county had no new cases for months. Some places and situations are more likely to expose one to infection. I Imagine that campaign trail has to be one of those situations. Large crowds in enclosed spaces - all it takes is one unwitting carrier. Poor old Biden didn't need the illness, and I hope he gets off lightly. But it does make a plausible cover for withdrawing from the race.

In Poland, they're religious and not exactly clumped, but swayed by the same kind of rhetoric. It's likely to be different groups, each with its own weaknesses, and maybe even hostile one to another. A clever demagogue - or, rather, his expediters - still knows what butons to push to collect them under his flag. Point them at a common enemy, or promise each a different reward. "I will protect you! My robocops will sweep up all those druggies and hookers, thieves and beggars and give you back the clean, safe city streets you deserve. I'll cut your taxes, keep foreigners out, and make the Family sacred again, with you as undisputed patriarch." The capacity for understanding resides not in the world, but in the individual. Methods of communication may have changed in the last 10,000 years, but the human brain has not.

They probably aren't clumped like in the US, but the Neo-nazis tend to stay organized, what with priding themselves on militarism, and they're never far below the surface in Europe. Religious organizations are well established and have a common dread of secularism. Then, too, even unorganized interest blocs are recognizable and targetable: threaten shopkeepers with vandalism, burghers with burglary, white men with dark men, anti-Semites (not so scarce in Europe, either) with the Elders of Zion - any suggestion that somebody wants to take something from them; followed by the accusation that they already have and it must be avenged. Fear is the easiest emotion to exploit; it can all too readily be converted to rage. There is a pitchfork leaning behind every door, just in case. And a general insecurity and anxiety is easier still, because there is no counter-argument to the vague threats. If it's a specific fear of a particular group of immigrants, measures can be taken by the established authority. When it's vague unverifiable threats and accusations, there is no practical response.