redhorsejacket

It's a holdover from the early days of Rainbow Six would be my guess. You had like a dozen or so operatives with mild differentiations in stats and traits. Each guy had a "service record" of sorts, which gave a little more context for what was, in essence, the games' lives system. If I remember right, some of these names were either pulled from or incorporated into the Tom Clancy Universe of novels and adaptations. It was a practically free way to inject some story and character into games that were pretty light on those details otherwise.

Of course, modern Rainbow Six has no need for these things, but inertia is a bitch, and you can be sure some grognards would piss and moan about a "feature" being removed if they stopped including these details.

You asked why Europe doesn't do the thing that you think they should do. They explained why it is economically, politically, and diplomatically fraught. They didn't challenge anything you said, they merely provided additional context, which was what your post specifically requested.

cart retrievers are paid to do a job. I allow them to do it.

You intentionally make that job more difficult under some presumption that you're ACTUALLY doing them a favor?

Cool.

You didn't let him finish. The oh fucks continue after an ellipsis of relief that it wasnt the literal worst case scenario.

In essence, that is what she did. Her letter, which is an excellent read if you like detail oriented logical takedowns of transparent corruption, only "offers" her resignation, conditional to the AG refusing to meet with her to discuss the issues she raises in the letter.

She says that dismissing the charges would be, in the first place, unethical, as the prosecution is based upon an indictment rendered faithfully by a grand jury. Furthermore no one (including Adam's defense counsel) has called into question the conduct of the prosecution. In addition, dismissing the case would also be illegal, as legal precedence states that a court may decline the Government's request to dismiss charges in instances which run contrary to the public interest. She concludes that, in light of those points, she cannot and will not comply with the request. At that point, she offers her resignation.

Despite really enjoying reading her arguments, I'm certainly no law expert. I would imagine that she would open herself up to some pretty serious charges from the Department of Justice if she refused to comply with their order. I mean, considering the brazenness of the corruption on display by the very order she is protesting here, it wouldn't shock me if she's wondering if they'd try to charge her with fucking treason or something, a crime which could result in the death penalty. Of course, something like that would only be plausible if there was demonstrated evidence of an authoritarian, Tammany Hall-style political machine situation developing at the federal level with the tacit approval of the judicial branch. Good thing there's no evidence of that happening, right?

Which is to say, I think the folks in here whining about how she isn't doing enough to fight fascism should maybe get off their pedestals a bit and have a little empathy for the position she had forced upon her by the ACTUAL villains in this story.

You're rephrasing the post as though you're making a "gotcha!" statement, when it's just the thing they said. Their argument is that the Dems needed to lose for any chance of party reform to occur, and they voted in a way that would encourage that outcome.

It's an argument that I find compelling, especially given the fact that the Democrat leadership seems to be actively trying to learn all the wrong lessons from their humiliation, where they are trying to learn anything at all. This indicates to me that, to some degree, OP is correct and there wasn't even a snowball's chance in hell that party leadership would have done anything significant had they coasted to victory based solely on being not-Nazis.

To seat his logic in another context, where the Trump of it all is not a factor, it's the same argument I've heard lefties trot out in a discussion about legal vs illegal protest tactics. Which is to say, effective protest is protest which forces people to engage with the issue being discussed, and legal protest is ineffective because, by design, it is easily ignored by both the public and the powers that be.

All that being said, the argument is not so compelling as to convince me that any pain caused to the Dems in service of organizing an actual progressive wing is worth the pain Trump's election is causing people, the environment, or the world in general. I don't know anything about OP, so I don't want to state this as fact, but, to me, it smacks of the privilege that comes with figuring they will make it through this period okay (if not particularly great). Therefore, it's worth it to them to endure this inconvenience, in the hopes that it effects change in the Dems. Attack their argument on that front all you like, but you're not contributing anything by saying "you helped elect Trump!" when that's what they said they did and they'd do it again.

These lil guys appear to be up to mischief

A charming, yet baffling, lack of guile comes to mind.

I watched Speed for the first time last night. I can't explain why it has taken me so long to see it, considering how much I love action schlock. Hell, I've seen Speed 2 multiple times.

It was great, though it had to win me over. Once Keanu boards the bus, I thought it found its stride, or maybe I finally settled into the movie's vibe. The most surprising thing about my experience (to the extent that it was nearly the only thing I wrote about in my letterboxd diary) was how compelling I found Keanu. I suspect that I'm biased by his post-John Wick resurgence and Internet darling status, but I really thought he was, in his own way, implying a huge amount about his character's interior life through his line readings and body language. As I understand it, that was not the consensus at the time.

It very much convinced me that I should get my butt into gear when it comes to looking at other 90s action movies. I feel like the whole decade is just packed with other, similar blind spots. At the very least, I'm advancing Point Break to the top of my watchlist.

fuuuuuuturrrree...fuuuuuturrrrrre...

I don't know if any specific blogs that still operate in that sort of space, but I will say I've had luck with finding folks on letterboxd who put care and thought into their reviews. Admittedly, you still have to sort through a lot of "this was good! I liked it!"to find those reviewers, but it's not impossible. My starting spot was looking up the hosts of some of the movie podcasts I listen to (shout out to Blank Check and Eye of the Duck) and then seeing who they interact with on the platform, checking those folks out, and so on.

He's making an economics joke I believe. Econ 101 was a long time ago, so I could be off the mark here, or misremembering, but I believe money is counted every time it changes hands. Alice buys something from Bob for a nickel, Bob turns right around and purchases something from Alice using that same nickel. The nickel is still only worth 5 cents, but its responsible for 10 cents worth of GDP.

Or maybe not, and I'm REALLY misremembering econ 101.