We should all review this every few years.

Consider this.

Betcha that when our adversaries get serious, overseas bases will be ignored. I'm nearly certain the next great attack on the United States will involve nearly nothing ballistic: Disrupting our logistics and comms could/will be more destructive than five airlines' worth of commandeered flights. And any attack on military machinery will probably happen through thousands of cheap but well-coordinated drones, the kind presently used for displays on holiday evenings.

Meanwhile, CNN's pornographic obsession with the Oval Office rather than the rest of the planet increases our danger substantially. Covering an actually planet, the kind depicted in their flashy bumper graphics, is fantastically expensive.

A prophecy?

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Bell_Riots

The Mirror Universe version of an internship at Reason magazine.

https://twitter.com/tjmcnab/status/1214653879960383492

Vampire slayer, Mexican style

https://twitter.com/klara_sjo/status/1214914163325251584

Iran's missile attack was curiously imprecise, unlike (say) its missile attack on Saudi oil facilities, which was remarkably precise. ~ from a link by Crid at January 8, 2020 4:25 AM

I doubt the oil field strike had to be very precise, as flammable materials can be hit with an imprecise strike on such a target.

To hit a barracks or operational center on a military base, however, requires a bit more precision. You'd be amazed how much open space there is on a military base.

With 1 missile, we took out a moving target. With 15, the Iranians missed a stationary one. This should serve as a notice to the mullahs to stop provoking us.

Somebody tweeted a chart comparing the US military and the Iranian military.

• Their air force's main fighter is a homegrown variant of the F-14. We phased that out of service in the early '90s. Our main fighters the stealthy and modern F-35 and F-22.
• They have 1/3 the number of tanks we do; and theirs are homegrown variants of the now-ancient Soviet T-72. Ours is the M1A-1 Abrams, which made short work of the Iraqi T-72s. Throw in the A-10 and better infantry-held anti-tank weapons, and the Iranian tank force goes down in a week.
• Our navy is hundreds of ships, planes, Marines, and weapons. Theirs is a handful of gunboats.
• The iranians have very few nation-state allies in the Middle East. Their chief allies are militant groups, terrorist cells, and rebel movements - all dependent upon them for cash.
• The Iranians are heavily dependent upon their oil fields to finance their adventures. One strike and they're broke. Our financial base is global. We gave them a pallet of cash, but they've already spent that on Hezbollah and its cousins.

The Iranians go down fast and hard if they engage us in a conventional war. They will only defeat us if we stick around to nation build and get stuck in a quagmire - like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump seems unlikely to do that. He'll wage war from a distance and slowly destroy Iran by taking out oil fields, command and control structures, etc. The infamous "Pottery Barn Rule" will mean nothing to him. Whether ignoring that rule is a good idea remains to be seen.

I'm getting the impression that the Iranian missile attack was not very serious, and was mainly done for face-saving purposes in Iran. At this time, it looks like our forces are going back to standby, and Trump is going to give them an exit strategy if they will take it. We made our point that the Obama-era rules are no longer in effect; we cost Iran a valuable asset and maybe prevented some attacks that were in the works. We have the upper hand; no point in over-extending right now.

This speech can be summed up in two words: Thanks Obama.

https://mobile.twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1214950939808940032

A Facebook executive warns the company’s employees not to tilt the scales against Trump.

https://www.post-gazette.com/business/tech-news/2020/01/07/Facebook-Trump-election-executive/stories/202001070184

Note the cheapjack (lightweight) fairings just beyond the dorsal sub-nose bracing: This is a variant on the Russian Facesaver 5000 series, probably delivered through North Korea.

The rank (truly rank) & and file religious conservatives on the streets of Teheran may have adored Soleimani, but that doesn't mean the functionaries within the government in which he swam with sharklike ferocity cared for him at all. For all we know, this limp-wristed slap-back is their way of saying 'Good riddance' before they move on with other projects.

If these little weasels wanted to turn away from royalty and get jobs, they could, y'know, turn away from royalty and get jobs.

Hey, Amy Alkon... Tell us about the time you decided to "make the adjustment" and "work to become financially independent."

If these little weasels wanted to turn away from royalty and get jobs, they could, y'know, turn away from royalty and get jobs.

Get a job? You must be high. They're gonna step back from the royal responsibilities, but not from the royal income.

That is, unless the Queen has something to say about it. She, alone among the royals seems to understand that the monarchy lives and dies on public acceptance and approval; and how important it is to not be self-indulgent wankers. William is showing signs of understanding that.

My money is on Meghan realizing that her aspirations to be the next Lady Di are never going to materialize to the point that her presence is making the Brits miss Fergie with a passion.

Um, I heard on the news today that British royals are not ALLOWED to get jobs. Didn't hear the details, though.

...I heard on the news today that British royals are not ALLOWED to get jobs. Didn't hear the details, though. ~ lenona at January 9, 2020 4:46 PM

Probably because, let's be honest, most of them are not actually qualified for a job beyond minimum wage.

The distant family members, i.e., 133rd in line for the throne, are all expected to find jobs and pay for their own upkeep. The near ones, who might actually be called upon to ascend the throne, are usually required to remain somewhat distant from the grubby public. Once, Prince Harry could cavort with Falstaff and the gang, but today's Harry must remain aloof.

However, if Harry and Meghan are going to abdicate their royal responsibilities, it seems that paying for their own upkeep should be the next step. It won't happen. Like Edward, Harry will be shuffled off to some royal sinecure that ensures the government will continue to take care of him whilst he indulges his wife's desire to be an international scold and spokesperson for woke causes.

From columnist Alex Beam:

"Prince Henry and Meghan Markle are forsaking their real duty — being unhappy."

(Like Charles, for one - his father stopped him from marrying Camilla, once upon a time.)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/09/opinion/unbearable-sadness-being-royal/

> However, if Harry and Meghan
> are going to abdicate their
> royal responsibilities

Well, yeah. NO ONE IN THE WORLD could stop any of these people from getting a job... They can only be stopped from receiving royal *candy* when they do. That sweetness, and its licensing opportunities, are apparently irresistible. (The "responsibilities" will take care of themselves, whether or not the individuals in question, or anyone else, attends to them.)

Additionally:

> his father stopped him
> from marrying Camilla

NO ONE IN THE WORLD "stopped him" from marrying the woman he loved... He just didn't have the character. I'd have had much more admiration for the entire (Western) Boomer generation if the boy had come through on behalf of his own beating heart.

He wasn't up to it.