Roam if you want to

— B-52's

The military applications of this are re

...well, actually, there are no military applications.

The Deeb, Deebing.

One particular spell of woke madness may be breaking. (But no promises.)

Anyone who disruptively presumes that my quiet judgment and/or the feelings in my heart are the source their deepest sorrow is deluded. It's difficult to take them seriously, but it's difficult to take a lot of people seriously. Other than that, I got nuthin' against transfolk. When everyone watches their boundaries, we all get along. People should be nice to them; people should be nice to me, too.

But the disproportion of mewling compassion they've received in recent years as a tormented underclass is inexplicable. Children of divorce, children of alcoholics, children in shitty schools, Jewish people threatened in urban neighborhoods, and on and on... There are dozens of distinctive classes of people who —through sheer numbers as well as depth of suffering— deserve earlier placement -in our attention to injustice.

Anyone who wants to trip on brown acid over this should consider the media streams of Steve Sailer. One of his themes is that M-to-F transsexuals tend to be men who were living lives of almost comically aggressive masculinity anyway.

As if they were going to be intrusively getting on your nerves no matter what... The problem was never about your response to their delicate emotional interiors.

Two "anyone who" paragraphs out of five. I feel bad.

So this explains why the last season of Game Of Thrones was a steaming turd.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ForArya/status/1188186578071556102

American tastes are powerfully distinct.

Flew over this once, arcing sharply on the way to the airport. Spooky to realize what I was looking at.

I had never, ever thought of this. We can talk now, the socialists et al. There's something to discuss.

This will be pulled down within minutes, but enjoy if you can.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/us/politics/baghdadi-isis-leader-trump.html

First paragraphs:

By Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper
Oct. 27, 2019

WASHINGTON — The surprising information about the Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s general location — in a village deep inside a part of northwestern Syria controlled by rival Qaeda groups — came following the arrest and interrogation of one of Mr. al-Baghdadi’s wives and a courier this past summer, two American officials said.

Armed with that initial tip, the C.I.A. worked closely with Iraqi and Kurdish intelligence officials in Iraq and Syria to identify Mr. al-Baghdadi’s more precise whereabouts and to put spies in place to monitor his periodic movements, allowing American commandos to stage an assault Saturday in which President Trump said Mr. al-Baghdadi died.

But Mr. Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria disrupted the meticulous planning and forced Pentagon officials to press ahead with a risky, night raid before their ability to control troops and spies and reconnaissance aircraft disappeared, according to military, intelligence and counterterrorism officials. Mr. al-Baghdadi’s death, they said, occurred largely in spite of Mr. Trump’s actions.

The officials praised the Kurds, who continued to provide information to the C.I.A. on Mr. al-Baghdadi even after Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw the American troops left the Syrian Kurds to confront a Turkish offensive alone. The Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, one official said, provided more intelligence for the raid than any single country...

(snip)

> came following the arrest
> and interrogation of one
> of Mr. al-Baghdadi’s wives

We're reminded of the musings of noted moral philosopher MP Jagger.

" ... two American officials said"

Unnamed sources who agree with our Orange Man Bad politics revealed today that we've always been right and no, you can't know who they are, but they're totally awesome and truthful.

Katie Hill resigns.

Still blaming her husband.

> American tastes are powerfully distinct.

Sophia Loren is without a doubt one of God’s most beautiful creatures, that said; the armpit hair. (Shudder). I think I’ve mentioned this before but I get so uncomfortable seeing it. I feel like I am being forced to stare at their vagina. So awkward.

Same here. Despite a lifelong pretense of cosmopolitan sophistication, it bugs me. It's kind of like when people say Americans are foolish for adoring big tits: It's a privilege that comes from living in the best country in the world has ever known

One source said that before the corset became so common, big breasts weren't really in fashion. But when women realized they were bad for their health and stopped wearing them, they were still too used to the idea of the hourglass figure - and so the bra - and the padded bra - became instantly popular.

Interestingly, though, in the 1999 book "An Underground Education : The Unauthorized and Outrageous Supplement to Everything You Thought You Knew About Art, Sex, Business, Crime, Science, Medicine, and Other Fields of Human Knowledge" by Richard Zacks, it suggests that before the 20th century or so, big breasts were considered more peasant-like than sexy.

Here's the section (starting on page 144, from the chapter, "Everyday Life"):

History's Quest: Avoiding Big Breasts

Large breasts--in the genre of Elle MacPherson, Sophia Loren, beloved Marilyn Monroe--have very, very rarely been venerated throughout the history of Western civilization. Americans refuse to believe it, but it's true: This 20th century (mostly American) obsession for over-sized mammaries on a thin frame is a complete aberration. The women who grace the covers of Playboy--with their birdlike shoulders and 3-D cleavage--would have been considered almost freaks in most of Europe and the United States through the mid-1800s. They'd have been viewed as too skinny, with a man's derriere, and their large breasts would have been deemed maternal, not sexual, and more suited for peasant wet nurses.

Martial, the Roman poet, wrote of the perfect breast as not overflowing one hand. And the Romans--so efficient in public works--left nothing to chance. The women of ancient Rome wore a "fascia," a light but firm undergarment to support and supress the bosom. "This device opposed the growth of the breasts," wrote Augustin Cabanes, a l9th-century medical historian, "just as tight shoes of the Chinese women reduced the size of their feet."

The ancient Greeks--during the so-called Golden Age of Aristotle and Aeschylus--had a temple dedicated to Aphrodite Kallipygeia, Aphrodite of the Beautiful Derriere. One Greek dramatist penning cosmetic advice to a prostitute recommends suppressing her large breasts while supplementing her hips via padding. "Like ourselves, the Greeks detested bulky breasts," stated another French medical historian in 1895, "the signs of beauty were elevation, smallness and regularity of contour."

Renaissance corsets so brutally squashed breasts that quite a few medical texts for women from that period discussed how to cure nipples inverted by a lifetime of corset-wearing.

Unlike today's Wonderbra, the prevailing challenge was always to minimize, not maximize, to understate, not poke somebody's eye out. "The formulas for reducing and firming up the breasts are countless," notes Dr. Cabanes elsewhere and cites by example a French handbook from the Renaissance. The Bastiment des receptes advises: "To make small breasts remain in that state and to reduce the size of large ones, take the main viscera (heart, liver, spleen, lungs) of a hare, mince them and mix with an equal part of ordinary honey. Apply this as a poultice to the breasts and surrounding areas and renew the application when dry."

Even the most cursory glance at sculpture through the ages reveals very few figures resembling Claudia Schiffer and many more resembling Venus de Milo, who'd be considered a bit zaftig today. Women who would have been a goddess for Sophocles are Helen Gurley Brown's mouseburgers.

(end)