[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
An angry Oklahoma woman shot at a group of teenagers working at a local McDonald’s after they explained to her that the dining room was closed due to coronavirus restrictions.
32-year-old Gloricia Woody was arrested by the Oklahoma City Police and charged with the shooting.
From the Oklahoma City Police -Last night, officers were called to the McDonalds at 9001 S Pennsylvania Ave regarding a shooting. Original reports indicated there were two suspects, however it was later determined there was only one suspect.
The suspect, Gloricia Woody, entered the restaurant and was told by employees the dining area was closed. Ms. Woody was asked to leave but refused. A physical altercation ensued between Ms. Woody and an employee. Ms. Woody was forced out of the restaurant by employees. She reentered the restaurant with a handgun and fired approximately three rounds in the restaurant. One employee was hit in the arm, a second was hit with shrapnel in the neck/shoulder and a third employee was hit with shrapnel in the side. The employee who was in this initial physical confrontation sustained a head injury, the cause of this injury in unclear.
Police say she fired three rounds in the restaurant, causing multiple employees to take cover and call 911.
From the 911 call:
Victim: “Someone came in and shot a gun. Please, I need help.”
Dispatcher: “Someone came in and shot a gun?”
Victim: “Yeah, please, I need help, please.”
Caller: “There was a lady that came in, and she didn’t want to leave. My manager, she was, my manager was trying to get her out. She was like arguing with her, and then she got out, then the lady pulled out a gun and she started shooting up McDonald’s. All the workers just ran.”
KFOR spoke with one McDonald’s employee who says this isn’t the first time a person was angry that the dining room was closed.
“She was like, ‘Why are you not open? It’s already May 1st.’ The manager explained to her that we don’t open for two weeks,” Jose Lopez said. “Then she got mad. Nothing bad happened, she just threw her sandwich at the manager’s face.”
KFOR also talked to many of the employees, who did not want to go on camera, as they were shaken up and worried about their friends’ safety.
They say in all, there were about eight employees inside and they all ran for the back door when the gunfire started.
McDonald’s released a statement about the incident on Thursday saying:
“The safety and security of our employees and customers is our top priority. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those involved, and the good news is that we can report the employees who sustained injuries are expected to make a full recovery. This is a heinous crime on our restaurant employees who were trying to support public health efforts. We are fully cooperating with law enforcement as they continue to investigate this matter.”
Plans for a new Baltic–Black Sea waterway, passing through Ukraine, Belarus and Poland, have the potential to revolutionize the geopolitics of Europe’s East as well as exacerbate East-West tensions (see EDM, February 18). The European Union has labeled the project “E40,” and the United States has signaled its support. And were the E40 waterway to be incorporated within the broader regional framework of the Three Seas Initiative (3SI), the transit project would not only help the economies of all three participating countries and their neighbors but also promote trilateral cooperation on other issues, including security, and make each one of them more attractive partners for the West. This development would thus transform the frequently dismissed “countries in between” Russia and Western Europe—the geopolitical equivalent of “flyover states”—into a unified, collective player in its own right. Not surprisingly, such prospects are gaining support in the US and part of the EU but generating ever more opposition in Moscow. Russia rightfully views E40 as a threat to its influence in the region and even, according to some analysts, as an existential threat to Russia itself. Nonetheless, Moscow faces increasing difficulty in blocking the project by using the means it has employed in the past (Ura.news, Sept 14, 2019; Deutsche Welle—Russian service, Sept 14, 2019).
For a century, Moscow has been leery of any efforts to promote East European unity, viewing them as an attempt to erect a cordon sanitaire against it and as a Polish plot against Russia. Indeed, Poland took the lead in such projects in the 1920s and 1930s with its Promethean League and regional confederal arrangements (Marek Chodakiewicz, Intermarium: The Land Between the Black and Baltic Seas, 2012). After World War II, however, the idea faded due to Soviet occupation and the division of Europe, which prompted all involved to think only in East-West terms rather than in the potential for North-South cooperation. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the notion again became realistic but gained relatively little traction at first because Central and Eastern Europeans saw their salvation in joining the West. In addition, many Westerners drew a new line between the former Eastern Bloc countries (including the three Baltic States and the former Yugoslavia) and the new republics that emerged from the disintegration of the Soviet Empire. Few in the West gave much consideration to the notion of there existing a larger region straddling both sides of this new dividing line.
Hence their program to characterize (stereotype) and vilify “The left”, misdefined as necessarily being in international Marxist, anti-ethnonational or Cultural Marxist, anti White terms.
Affidavit quotes Trump confidant Roger Stone being told by a Jerusalem contact: ‘He is going to be defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your hands!’
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, and US President Donald Trump shake hands at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, May 23, 2017. (AP/Sebastian Scheiner)
Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Donald Trump who was convicted last year in Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, was in contact with one or more apparently well-connected Israelis at the height of the 2016 US presidential campaign, one of whom warned Stone that Trump was “going to be defeated unless we intervene” and promised “we have critical intell[sic].”
The exchange between Stone and this Jerusalem-based contact appears in FBI documents made public on Tuesday. The documents — FBI affidavits submitted to obtain search warrants in the criminal investigation into Stone — were released following a court case brought by The Associated Press and other media organizations.
A longtime adviser to Trump, Stone officially worked on the 2016 presidential campaign until August 2015, when he said he left and Trump said he was fired. However he continued to communicate with the campaign, according to Mueller’s investigation.
The FBI material, which is heavily redacted, includes one explicit reference to Israel and one to Jerusalem, and a series of references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a “minister without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,” the PM, and the Prime Minister. In all these references the names and countries of the minister and prime minister are redacted.
Section of FBI document with heavily redacted references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a “minister without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,” the PM, and the Prime Minister.
Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel’s prime minister in 2016, and the Israeli government included a minister without portfolio, Tzachi Hanegbi, appointed in May with responsibility for defense and foreign affairs. One reference to the unnamed PM in the material reads as follows: “On or about June 28, 2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, “RETURNING TO DC AFTER URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH PM IN ROME.MUST MEET WITH YOU WED. EVE AND WITH DJ TRUMP THURSDAY IN NYC.” Netanyahu made a state visit to Italy at the end of June 2016.
Disclaimer: This post is on sensitive topics of sex and power. I try to make it clear when I make a claim; beware drawing indirect inferences; I rarely value signal.
As promised in my last post, I now return after a civility pause to the topic of comparing sex and income inequality and redistribution. This post will be unusually long, as I’m trying harder to speak carefully.
If a feature of individuals can be compared across individuals, and ranked, then we can say that some people have more of it than others. We can then talk about how equally or unequally this feature is distributed across a population. Some features are seen as good things, where most people like to have more of it, all else equal. And the values that people place on some good things exhibit diminishing marginal utility (DMU). That is, people put a higher value on getting a bit more of it when they don’t have much, relative to when they have more.
For good things, we usually seek policies (including informal social norms and formal programs by government, charities, and other organizations) that can raise its distribution, all else equal, and get more of it to more people. And for good things with DMU, unequal distributions are regrettable, all else equal, as any one unit is worth more to those who have less. Any policy that changes a distribution is by definition said to “redistribute” that thing. (If you doubt me, consult a dictionary.) A policy that reduces inequality more might be said to do “more” redistribution.
Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?
Of course all else is usually not equal. People vary in their ability to produce things, in the value they place on things, and in how much those people are valued by their society. Both the things that people value, and the arrangements that produce them, tend to be complex, multi-dimensional, and context-dependent. “Income” and “sex” are both labels that point to such complex, multi-dimensional and context-dependent good things. Both are usually produced via unique pairings, sex between a man and a woman, and income between an employer and an employee. The value of these pairings vary greatly across possible pairings, and also with a lot of other context.
Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like Desmond Hatchet to have 30 children with 11 different women.
For income, centuries of effort has resulted in several simple accounting methods by which we can define each person’s “income”, though we know that these measures miss a lot of what we care about. For example, regions vary in living expenses, people vary in their health-induced medical expenses, some jobs are easier and more enjoyable than others, some people have more expensive tastes than others, some assets are illiquid and unique, and there’s a key difference between what people own and what they consume. All these issues make it hard to say exactly who has more “income”.
This complexity makes it harder to analyze policies that influence income. Even so, when arguing about policy, people often mention income redistribution advantages or disadvantages of policies, such as regarding taxes, schools, medicine, housing, immigration, and much more. (Such policies usually let either side veto each particular employee-employer pairing.) Reducing income inequality is widely seen as a legitimate policy goal, even if people don’t agree on its priority relative to other goals. Income, and our related informal norms and formal policies, have changed greatly over the last few centuries, though less so over the last half century.
On sex, we might in principle compare individual counts of simple sex acts to get a rough indication of sex inequality, though we know that such a measure would miss a lot that matters. But even though sex is complex, hard to specify, and varied, it is also clearly important to many (both male and female). As is income. People often explicitly mention effects on sex when arguing for and against policies in many areas, such as marriage, prostitution, dating, birth control, nudity, pornography, drugs, child care, housing, and recreation. In the last half century, we’ve seen big changes in both informal norms and formal policies related to sex. People seem to be more sensitive today on the topic of policies related to sex, relative to those related to income, perhaps in part due to recent changes being bigger.
In my April 26 post, I noted that recently some people (self-labelled “incels”) have explicitly and publicly sought less sex inequality, a few via violence, and I wondered why they are so few relative to, and overlap so little with, those seeking less income inequality. I mentioned a few specific possible policies, such as cash transfers conditional on individual sex rates, legalized prostitution, and stronger support for monogamy and marriage. (I did not support or oppose any specific policies.)
But these were just examples; the fact that sex is so complex and integrated into so many social practices implies that a great many policy levers must exist. Who has how much sex with who is influenced by what we count as status and beauty, where people live, where and how they meet, how they talk to each other, what they can learn about each other, and especially by where and when they can talk and meet privately.
I’m far from the first person to consider such policies. Historically, societies have passed laws to discourage premarital and extramarital sex, and to limit how many wives or concubines each man could have. Informal gossip and propaganda has tried to lower the sex appeal of rakes, foreigners, and the promiscuous, and to raise that of soldiers. Policies have limited where and when people might meet in privately, such as segregating student dorms by gender, and prohibiting unmarried couples from renting hotel rooms.
.jpg?r=1586936888)
Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.
Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?
Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like