Top 10 Twitter Tweets of the Week

I'm a pretty big fan of Twitter. It's my favorite website by far and it has a lot of good content. The internet is a wonderful place.

Speaking of good content, here's some that I've collected from other people and put together in this blogging first: a Top 10 Twitter Tweets of the Week. So here we go. In no particular order but numbered so you can tell I'm not screwing you over, trying to get away with just nine or something.

Full disclosure: apart from the animal videos and general funny .GIFs I also really dig what's called "weird twitter". It makes me laugh a lot. Naturally there will be some of those mixed in to something like this.

Anyhow, here goes!


10.

when you drink coffee pic.twitter.com/mBVI1CTMRK

— rupy (@norupy) February 28, 2016

9.

#AlwaysTrump pic.twitter.com/dF9JNtyK1b

— Matt Christman (@cushbomb) February 28, 2016

8.

ITS FUCKIN LIT https://t.co/JnyHHUccGx

— MENACING JoJo (@JoJo_irl) February 28, 2016

7.

me: i have never been mad online

reporter: *nodding*

[later that week]

FUNGBUNGER, MAD ONLINE??

me: FKNNNNN DOGGGG

— fungbunger (@parsfarce) February 19, 2016

6.

chud 5: night yogurt https://t.co/va1VgHMYXG

— siberian pizza mogul (@3liza) February 28, 2016

5.

this is the greatest thing i've ever seen in my life pic.twitter.com/WwT5l0pMzs

— no (@welltbh) February 20, 2016

4.

A very proud new father dog pic.twitter.com/Q2t0tdreYd

— Philip Morris (@phil500) February 3, 2016

3.

me: say a big number.
millenial: DUHHhhh... 10. can i have a participation trophy now duhh
Wise 37 year old [smiling serenely]: One million.

— g0m (@g0m) September 14, 2015

2.

His psalms are sweaty, knees weak, cross is heavy pic.twitter.com/fswDx2yQ4I

— Andy Cam from online (@andycam_) November 30, 2015

1.

I'm pretty sure this many people can't be wrong. #TedCruz #ZodiacKiller pic.twitter.com/Jabg0ddPXg

— Steve Kim (@Fobwashed) February 26, 2016

There wasn't much of a U.S. Army at the beginning of the Civil War

As I've read about the U.S. Civil War, one of the things that struck me was how both sides were creating armies out of scratch, essentially.

It is noteworthy just how unprepared America was to fight a war... even one against itself. Sure, Americans had guns and knew how to use them, and had just eighty years before beaten off the British in their War of Independence. But they were nowhere near being any sort of military power. They distrusted standing armies, keeping only the tiniest numbers of soldiers employed - around 16,000, spread out in forts near the Indian territory. They had created the military training academy of West Point, but that produced perhaps a few dozen soldiers a year.... and those men were expected to be engineers building public works during peace time.

When the Civil War broke out that needed to change... but they were almost starting from scratch. Men were excited and wanted to be soldiers and almost immediately the States, North and South, were flooded with volunteers and were creating more regiments than they were asked for. They had to buy guns from Europe since most of the guns in America were fine for hunting but obsolete as far as military use goes. There were no officers so they were often elected from among their peers, or they were appointed by the State's political leaders. Neither of these ways of getting officers are in any way good.

Basically, I marvel that each side was able to raise an army and actually make it fight. Men and guns were two key ingredients, but required an incredible amount of materials and a system of supply to actually make it an army. Both sides raised armies of a little over 100,000 men at first. It took 600 tons of supplies each day for an army that size, plus well over 35,000 draft animals, and apparently the horses and mules had a life expectancy of only a few months. Little known fact: the need to get uniforms for all these men is when standard sizes were born - before clothing would have been homemade or otherwise tailored by hand.

Nowadays it seems ludicrous to imagine America as anything other than an armed-to-the-teeth military power.... but it definitely wasn't back then. That was a more recent development. One that wouldn't take hold until the Second World War. Even then, most soldiers were volunteers. The large, professional U.S. Army would only happen recently during the Cold War. It'll probably be a thing until soldiers get replaced with robots.

The forgotten contentment of a good Happy Hour

I'd just like to share a simple pleasure with you that I think we forget about, a lot of the time: the after-work beer at the neighborhood pub.

I ended up doing it two times this week, both times after working at my dad's accounting office, helping him get T4s completed and out the door. The first time I was hanging out with my brother who had a few days in between stints up North working on the census. The second time was my girlfriend and another good friend. It's good to catch up with people you care about and there's something nice about doing it after work.

Both times I was there early, sat down at one of the big wooden tables, put my phone away, and just... drank a beer. Nice and slow.... cue the beer commercial!

Ha... I think there is something that psychologists would back me up on here, which is the benefits of having a "third place" - be it for socialization or contemplation - between work and home. A lot of time we can move from one work area, where we make our money, to another, where we prepare our food, do chores, etc. The neighborhood pub (or coffee shop, etc) fills a need then. And "after work" occupies a cool space temporally: it's not really at a time that we will schedule in advance like our evenings or afternoons... or creates a transition point from "working" to "now my time is for me".

Anyways, this was something that I remembered this week. And remembering simple pleasures is a thing quite worthy in and of itself, and good for our mental health, too.

Thoughts on the Middle East's Reformation

So profound and disruptive are the changes or growing pains experienced in the Middle East right now that many believe the best historical comparable is none other than the Protestant Reformation. That is not a good thing. At least in the short term.

If the Protestant Reformation is only a vague memory from school years past then we may be forgiven for remembering the Reformation as a quaint time of religious hipsters wanting to "do church a little more local" and cool priests posting their ideas on rustic solid wooden doors that their also cool friend reclaimed from another older, church.

So... anyways. The Protestant Reformation was well over one century of chaos, violence, and new religious ideas. If you were to attribute the cause of the Reformation into one idea, it would be Luther's famous solo scriptura which meant rejecting the central interpretations in favor of direct study of the Bible by local churches and individual parishioners.

This would lead to an enormous struggle between the Catholic Church and the splintering Protestants. There would have been economic, political, and historical aspects to the civil war that ensued as well, but it was certainly a religious war... which are always the messiest. And it was long, too. Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517while one suitable enough end point for the period is the end of the Thirty Years' War in 1648... 131 years. Read the excerpt below and see how easy it would read today replacing a few words with Shia, Sunni, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc:

Initially a war between Protestant and Catholic states in the fragmenting Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers of Europe, becoming less about religion and more a continuation of the France–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence.

The more you read about the Reformation, the less comforted one feels about the Middle East, at least for the next few generations. Huge religious societal shifts in thinking can take a very long time and be very violent. 30% of Germany died in the Thirty Years' War alone; deaths were in the tens of millions. Finally, though the Reformation ultimately led to positive change in Europe there is no guarantee that what is going on in the Middle East will leave the society better off.

Some questions to think about:

1. When was the "95 Theses" moment for the current reformation? Tunisian uprisings? Birth of Wahhabism in the late 18th century?
2. The world now is far more connected. Does that affect things? How did unaffected neighboring countries behave toward the conflict in Europe?
3. If both reformations can be viewed as a "return to scripture" does it matter that the two books in question are different?


Sources:

http://www.meforum.org/4740/islam-protestant-reformation
http://www.christianpost.com/news/how-isis-is-similar-to-the-protestant-reformation-140470/

Thoughts on Gwynne Dyer

Here are some regurgitated thoughts, mostly Gwynne Dyer's, from a talk he gave recently at the U of W. Enjoy!



Why do care what happens in the Middle East? The Middle East contains 10% of the world's population and 3% of the world's GDP including oil. Which is.... surprisingly low, especially the GDP number.

Twenty years ago, you could answer that question much easier. The primary reason we cared, 1900 to 1990? Oil, of course. Throughout the last century oil from that region must have represented a large enough percentage of that strategic resource to warrant the West's interest. Since then oil has become plentiful (if a bit more expensive) through new discoveries and extraction technologies. Dyer says that most of the Middle East's oil goes to China, India, and Japan.

In his mind all this begs the question, "Why is this our problem?" We're down to humanitarian reasons (though there are people in Africa, too, but we never really cared about them), historical reasons (we helped create this mess) and religious reasons (Israel). All of these could play a part.

However given the fact that Al Qaeda, Isis and any other revolutionaries in the area are specifically trying to get the West to intervene in these countries, we should treat this whole intervention thing with caution... so as to not do anything stupid like invading Iraq again. That went far beyond "caring too much" and instead destabilized the region, created ISIS, etc.

Dyer believes that in Syria, Russia basically has it right: Assad is the lesser of the only two realistic (and horrible) options... which speaks to how awful the other side is given how Assad is a monster. In the short term I can wrap my head around this, but where do things go, longer term? Will Bashar al-Assad pass down Syria to his son, one day? There have been uprisings in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Yemen - and I'm probably missing a couple. I've heard that Tunisia is the success story of the bunch (with Egypt returning to a military dictatorship). So that's good... hopefully there can be one example that didn't devolve into a failed state with all the violence and strife that accompanies it.

Maybe the reality now is that we should certainly care a lot for our fellow human beings in the Middle East... but that we need to expect to save or fix the situation. "Helping" is probably a better word so long as we remain pragmatic and subtle about it.  Support countries that are working with financial aid and pressuring countries that are stable but corrupt to make some reforms.

I've heard the Arab Spring / failed states / extremism stage we are in described as an Arab civil war or reformation.... and that rings true to me. Last time I checked those things take time and are sorted out, for the most part, internally.

How likely is nuclear Armageddon?

Trump was - if anything - actually arguing against nuclear proliferation in his idiotic answer.

I just had to go on a rant tonight, apparently. The discussion between the three of us had progressed from the question "Why do humans have drive?" to "Where is the world going to?" and the grim specter of a nuclear Armageddon began to tantalize me.

How likely is a large nuclear exchange, say 10 detonations or more? I would like this answer to be "exactly zero".... but we can't really say that.

While there is something to be said for the fact that in the 71 years since nuclear weapons have first demonstrated their destructive power they have not been used since, I think human kind has been a dangerous flirt in this. There have been several instances where nations have come very close to exchanging nuclear weapons. In sexual parlance, we haven't "done it" yet... still holding to the "just the (nuclear) tip (....missiles) philosophy.

Some close calls:

1962... The Cuban Missile Crisis:

This was scary as fuck, looking back on it. Probably at the time, too, since that's when making actual bomb shelters in your backyard was all the rage. Basically, John F. Kennedy displayed an incredible willingness to bring the world to nuclear exchange for... pride or prestige. Nuclear missiles in Cuba didn't change the picture at all - the U.S. and Soviet Union were able to destroy each other in 15 minutes anyways. They were primarily being sent there because Kennedy had already shown himself intent on assassinating Castro and invading the island.

A great example of how insane it is having people fly or float around with these things is below:

One Soviet officer’s reluctance saved the world from nuclear war. On October 27 (1962), American destroyers forced a Soviet submarine to surface near the quarantine line using depth charges. Unbeknownst to the Americans, the sub was carrying a nuclear-tipped torpedo. The Soviet commander believed that war had started and prepared to fire. Fortunately, authorization from three other officers was needed. Two were in favor. One was not.

The pride and prestige of Kennedy... the desire "not to disgrace our navy" of the Soviet sub commander. Think those human traits have gone anywhere?


1979... Good Old Fashioned Computer / Human Error:

....(C)omputers at the North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) headquarters indicated that a large-scale Soviet missile attack was underway.

NORAD immediately relayed the information to high-level command posts and top leaders convened to assess the threat. Their response was swift: crews responsible for launching U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles were put on the highest alert, nuclear bomber crews boarded their planes to prepare for takeoff, and the Airborne Command Post—the aircraft designed to allow the president to maintain control in the event of an attack—was put in the air, though without the president on board. Six minutes later, when satellite data failed to confirm any incoming missiles, leaders decided against retaliation. It was later discovered that a technician had mistakenly inserted a tape containing a training exercise scenario into an operational NORAD computer, simulating a full-scale attack.

Missile silos were readied and pilots boarded their nuclear-armed planes because... the wrong disk was put into the computer....


1999... Right... Other Countries Have These Weapons Now

Fourteen nations possess nuclear weapons... and that includes a place as rational and sane as North Korea. Some of them hate each other. Like India and Pakistan. Sometimes they almost nuke each other:




Conclusion:

When we talk about threats to our species, we usually global warming now. But we shouldn't forget nukes. Smart people like Noam Chomsky still consistently bring up the threat of nuclear weapons as one of, if not the threat to human kind. They're used primarily as political weapons, kind of like "get out of invasion free cards" but they do still exist... and will detonate when fired.

While we can hang our hat on the fact that nukes have not been used since 1945 our capacity for violence, pride, and mistakes - both stupid and honest - mean we should count ourselves lucky. I dunno.... if humanity is progressing to a more thoughtful and loving future it would be great to not fuck it up by destroying ourselves with nuclear weapons in the meantime.

U.S. Politics & Civil War, Pt. 1

The trigger of the U.S. Civil War was the election of Abraham Lincoln in November of 1861. One month later the states of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and Georgia seceded and a bloody war that would last four years began.

Reading about the politics of America in the decades that preceded the war made me wonder what comparisons could be drawn to today. The issue then was certainly slavery, the deal-breaker being extension of slavery into new territories west of the Mississippi, while today... well just what are the issues in America, right now?

From this Canadian's perspective the big issue comes down to the more government / less government question: If citizens feel abandoned by the American Dream, is the answer large government involvement from Bernie Sanders or balanced budgets and smaller government from Donald Trump or Ted Cruz? As fundamental as this disagreement is, it probably doesn't warrant any comparison to the Civil War.

What troubles me more is the "take our country back" rhetoric, the racial overtones, the angst that many Americans apparently feel (Trump, Cruz, and others wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't resonating with a lot of people). It sounds like a segment of the population will strongly resist the end of the white, Christian majority. Plus, it sounds like that segment of the population is far more likely to own firearms. It's probably nowhere close to a majority but that doesn't mean it couldn't be hugely disruptive or influential in American politics. Like Al Capone said, "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word."

I believe that dark sentiments hinted at in the above paragraph (violence, racism, etc.) exist in all populations and in each of us. However they can be exacerbated by our environment. Both Democratic and Republican primaries have had huge support for candidates viewed as "outsiders" who will take politics back from "the establishment" and this suggests a feeling that voices are not being heard. Add to this the stagnating wages and rising costs of the "Apple Economy" (where all manufacturing jobs are outsourced leaving only a few high-paying design jobs and the low-paying retail and distribution jobs) and people will become more desperate.

I have no idea where things are going: better, worse, more of the same. Hopefully Americans have a healthy debate (it seems their primary system expresses views we shy Canadians would never air) and enter their future in a way that more or less works for everyone.

A worst-case scenario? It wouldn't be "these states" vs "those states" conflict like in the 1860s - but that's probably a rare exception as far as civil war's go. More of the Cliven Bundy / militiamen stuff, or success of politicians that are skilled at tapping into and manipulating the discontent of the masses, a la Trump.

Hope you enjoyed this! I'll go into this more in the future since I have more thoughts. If you'd like to read some fiction on a future U.S. Civil War, check out Orson Scott Card's book, Empire: