I didn't assume that because X made no demands that he didn't have an end game worked out.
Shooting hostages everytime contact was attempted is an interesting concept. It creates a unique tension where the 'heros' are responsible for the deaths. There could be a play with that concept where every action taken by the rescue services leads to another execution, as the actions change, so do the deaths.
I'm confused by this comment.
There was reference in the story that X, or J knew everyone and I don't see how it might be relevant to the story continuing.
Except that X was pacing restlessly shielding himself with a hostage. I imagine that takes quite a lot of adrenalin fuelled energy to accomplish.
One last point: the child who was screaming in agony, or grief? If you're very badly hurt, you don't make a sound; if a child is hurt enough to scream I think you can tell the difference between the sound of that and grief; & possibly children have better survival instincts, knowing when to keep their mouths shut better than some adults.
Perhaps a mother is more likely to keen, regardless of any risk to herself, if the loss of a child renders life meaningless.
I guess I come under the All-Heart-No-Brain category, so you've already jeered at my answer, but if I might just add another point where X is deeply misunderstood: if the hostages are standing close enough to white-washed windows that their silhouettes can be seen, how does he shoot them such that their innards turn the paint pink, but the bullet doesn't break the glass?
Whilst studies show that under 20's are 56% less likely to contract the virus and are more resilient to it once infected, there is insufficient data to indicate whether children spread the infection more, or less easily than adults.
It has been suggested that June 1st is too soon to reopen schools safely and that more time is needed to set up track and trace systems in the event of another breakout.
It has been suggested that September, the start of the next academic year will be a more appropriate time.
As a key worker my daughter took my grandchildren out of school a week before they closed because she was concerned about picking the virus up at work and them passing it to school families.
The children don't seem to have suffered beyond feeling cooped up and grumpy at times, but there's quite a lot of them in one small maisonette, so isolation is perhaps less of an issue for a big family. My daughter told me that she doesn't let my granddaughter face-time her friends anymore until she's tidied since my granddaughter rushed round the flat with her phone showing off how messy it was.
My 9 year old granddaughter was telling me yesterday that she's reading the first Harry Potter book roughly aimed at 9-12 year olds, so I don't think she's falling behind with her education in any drastic way.
I think my daughter will be relieved of any difficult decision making if schools remain closed until September. I'm not quite sure how they've not all gone insane with two adults, four kids, a dog and a hamster in such a small property with no garden, but they all seem in good health and spirits.
That's where Ford may become unstuck in legal terms.
If the Michigan edict to wear masks in enclosed public places is demonstrably legitimate, but despite being informed of his legal obligation Trump refused, then it might be argued that the infringement was Trump's alone.
If there is evidence that Ford reneged on their responsibility to inform Trump that wearing a mask in an enclosed public setting is a legal requirement then the company may be liable.
Of course, that doesn't absolve Trump of personal responsibility. As President of the United States he should know and follow the laws in each state he visits, especially in times of national emergency.
If Winston Churchill had driven round a munitions factory during a night time air raid with his headlights on it probably would have altered the course of history. Maybe bigly.
Have you noticed that noone coughs, or sneezes in the supermarket anymore? I had to suppress a sneeze today. I only hope there were no security cameras capturing my St. Vitus dance.
We also emit droplets when we speak, the louder we speak, the further droplets travel.
It wasn't his choice to make.
He said he wore it on the shop floor, but he was still inside the factory when he was talking to the press. In Michigan it is a legal requirement to wear a mask in an enclosed public space, so this is yet another example where Trump thinks he's above the law.
Yes, he did highlight his own vanity and insecurity as an excuse to put other people at risk.
I understand he tested negative in the morning, but did anyone send a memo to the virus to not infect him between the test and the press meeting?
Surely Eve made the first choice by taking the apple? Or even the serpent by choosing to tempt her?
What bugs me is Eve getting the blame for the whole apple thing and a fairly spiteful punishment, whilst Adam whined like a ninny to god that it was all her fault, denying personal responsibility, but you give him credit for the first decision.
A couple who were in my daughter's ante-natal class made a placenta pâté, but had some difficulty with the hospital. By law the placenta was theirs, but they were advised to bury the inedible bit very, very deeply. There was some concern about the remains being found sparking off a police investigation.
If this practise in relatively common in some countries, it leaves me wondering about law enforcement practises.
Anyway, they made their pâté, but were disappointed that it was less foie gras and more Tesco value liver pâté.
My favourite placenta story, however, is about a woman who kept all three of her children's placentas frozen. I can't tell you why she did that, but she was burgled one night, the thieves getting away with the entire contents of her freezer...
Whilst that's clearly a positive move for wildlife, I do have a few concerns.
The article cites some protection action with some small results. Having seen clips indicating there were laws preventing wet market practises, but they weren't well enforced, will this too fizzle out?
Is this action a publicity stunt and will it be sustained? Does it divert attention from an alternative source of the virus?
The article cites people who have invested large sums of money into wildlife conservation, or who may get compensation as their game farming collapses. It doesn't address the poorer end of the scale where many people may depend of game for their livelihood. Will this action drive aspects of the game market underground if some people have no other means of survival themselves?
Convince me that Biden doesn't have traits of Narcissism, malignant narcissism, psychopathy, or anything else because I'm really wondering right now.
He certainly isn't emotionally mature, nor self-actualised enough to be president.
I'm guessing you're hoping that he's just going to be mediocre, rather than dangerous, but the indicators are that he's unlikely to be nondescript in his role.
So, you'd expect some of his behaviour to controversial.
I think he was Vice President in this pic:
I saw a video clip recently, but I don't know whether it was recorded during Biden's Vice Presidency, or whether he was campaigning before the restrictions. In it he appears to offer to physically fight with a factory, or construction worker and appears to just stop short of calling him fat. Afterwards an attempt was made to smooth things over for Biden by saying he was about to say 'fact', not 'fat', even though that didn't appear to fit in with the rest of the sentence.
I'm asking because I think his behaviour is likely to change in some ways simply because he's fulfilling a different role, but I'm not sure how. It could be that he reigns in his behaviour as he'll be even more in the spotlight, but being in the spotlight doesn't seem to have rendered him self-conscious up until now. He has also seen how much Trump has got away with.
It could be a case of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If he has got away with certain behaviours up until now, will he believe he has impunity at a later stage?
To me, it all seems way too Trumpesque for comfort and very little change will be achieved either way you vote.
Perhaps the advantage of Trump being re-elected is that it's unlikely he'll get through another four years as his deterioration seems rather rapid of late, but then you'd get Pence, right?
It's not about having no baggage and it's not about just carrying your own in a partnership.
The difficulty is is knowing how to be a baggage handler, of our own and other people's.
I really think emotional welfare should be taught in schools from a very young age as part of the curriculum, rather than some people being lucky enough to learn by chance and others not.
How can we be expected to handle everything maturely if we don't have enough experience, or education in these matters?
I think I do understand where you're coming from, Jim.
You spend a lot of time and energy pointing out Trump's failings from what he says and does. You point out that he's not innocent, even though he hasn't been proven guilty for the vast majority of these issues in a court of law.
You are quite right, though. He's not fit fit for office and you currently have a really bizarre and dangerous thing going on in the US on so many levels.
You do not apply the same principles to Biden because you perceive him as being less dangerous than Trump and less dangerous than standing up for what is right.
I think the most dangerous thing you can do is stand up for what is slightly less wrong when it comes to something as important as electing the leader of the most powerful country in the world which affects us all.
As a US citizen eligible to vote, you have a responsibility not just for your own country, but for all our countries, but you're not prepared to stand up for what is right.
I was thinking particularly of the financial situation in the US where there seems to be plenty of risky public protest regarding social distancing practises.
We can speculate about people's financial situations in a broad sense, but perhaps the devil's in the details. How much do governments know about what people are actually experiencing? If you do put financial situations into broad groups, do governments know what proportion of people are experiencing each type of difficulty?
How can these issues be addressed by governments based upon assumption, or select information?
I have my story, you have yours, but there are nearly 8 billion stories.
I thought the other day on your other blog that perhaps it would be more sensible to have a petition outlining the financial difficulties people are experiencing.
Perhaps some people's claim for financial assistance has been delayed because of the volume of claimants; perhaps some people can't claim because they haven't been officially laid off, but aren't getting paid either; perhaps some people have expenses that aren't covered, or completely covered by benefits.
Do we really know what difficulties people are experiencing?
I lack even the most basic knowledge of astronomy, so help me out some more: this is about the year not being exactly 365 days of 24 hours each, the reason we have February 29th every four years, right?
It seems 2 meter distancing is a legal requirement where possible, but because shopping, commuting and other activities may interfere with the practicalities of that, plus we are all judging by eye it makes it difficult to enforce.
As a result the increased fines will only be targeted towards people who are deliberately flouting the imprecise law for non-essential activities, like parties, protests and football games with non-household members.
I think it calls for the police force and the public to act reasonably and responsibly. I don't really see that as a bad thing.
With responsibility comes a level of autonomy. My daughter took my grandchildren out of school a week before they closed, not because she was worried about them getting ill so much as she was worried about spreading the infection to others. My daughter is an essential worker keeping the supply of groceries going (and she brightens everyone's day), so she was worried about passing on infection to the school.
I do think people should have the right to make personal judgement calls if they think they might be at risk, or a risk to others.
I think that should apply to other situations, for example, if someone avoids a crowded commute and is late for work as a result, I don't think they should be penalised. I realise there are inherent problems with not everyone being responsible in their behaviour, but there has to be a bit of a buffer in all directions as we struggle with a new normal.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,981)
RE: A story for you to finish (well out of comfort zone, call it a lockdown distraction)
I didn't assume that because X made no demands that he didn't have an end game worked out.Shooting hostages everytime contact was attempted is an interesting concept. It creates a unique tension where the 'heros' are responsible for the deaths. There could be a play with that concept where every action taken by the rescue services leads to another execution, as the actions change, so do the deaths.
I'm confused by this comment.
There was reference in the story that X, or J knew everyone and I don't see how it might be relevant to the story continuing.
Except that X was pacing restlessly shielding himself with a hostage. I imagine that takes quite a lot of adrenalin fuelled energy to accomplish.
One last point: the child who was screaming in agony, or grief? If you're very badly hurt, you don't make a sound; if a child is hurt enough to scream I think you can tell the difference between the sound of that and grief; & possibly children have better survival instincts, knowing when to keep their mouths shut better than some adults.
Perhaps a mother is more likely to keen, regardless of any risk to herself, if the loss of a child renders life meaningless.