All Things Russia & Ukraine

[cradleandshoot]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

And that’s my issue in OS, it’s been historically so often unclear but skewing heavily, massively, in one direction only to hear “that’s not what I was saying or those aren’t my words I only posted them while quoting someone else’s in response while providing no context” as to make confidence in anything he’s putting out very low. Hence I used the term bad faith discourse wayyyy back on this and continue to pound for transparency. Otherwise he’s just Fatty with some service time.

You do know that if you read Fatty's posts that he is also former military. His opinions about Reagan and the suicide bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut if memory serves me correctly is that his allegiance is as a marine who served in some capacity. I guess you didn't know that though did you?? That is the mistake people make when they don't pay attention to detail. FTR, OS has much more going for him than your derogatory comment about him having "some service time" His record as a decorated naval aviator is beyond reproach.

decorated?
I'm going to assume that's true, though I'm not sure what you mean by that or how you would know...but ok.

Flynn certainly was "decorated"...doesn't mean he ain't a fascist, bigoted nut job....dangerously so because of the credibility given to him and claimed by him because of his "decorated" service.

For the record, I'm not saying Salty is Flynn.

I have read plenty of posts from OS over the years on this and our other forum. He never boasts or talks much about what honors he has earned. I bet over a couple of cold ones he would have quite a few interesting stories to tell. I'm guessing if asked nicely he would share that information. To my knowledge no one on this forum has ever inquired about his career as a naval aviator. I do know he passed E and E training having the ability to succeed there is no small feat. I don't know if he ever spent any time in a makeshift POW camp. Also something that is not a lot of fun. I've been there and done that and never even got a Tee shirt.

[old salt]

Apparently Russia's retreat across the Dnipro river in Kherson began on Fri.
Good news if it prevents urban fighting in Kherson city.
From Defense One :

About that Kherson withdrawal: It seems to have begun Friday from the occupied western region of the oblast, or province, and it involved the transfer of Russian "ammunition, military equipment, and some unspecified units from the Dnipro River's west bank to the east bank via ferries," according to ISW, citing Ukrainian officials. CNN reported Monday that the withdrawal is continuing; the Wall Street Journal's Yaroslav Trofimov reports Russia is merely evacuating non-essential personnel as it reinforces strong points in the city, citing a recent interview with Kyiv's military intelligence chief.

Faced with an alleged 4-1 overmatch of approaching Ukrainian troops compared to Moscow's occupying elements in western Kherson, Russian military bloggers spent late last week preparing their readers for a "very, very hard" month ahead for one writer, while another predicted "there will be no good news in the next two months, that's for sure." By Saturday, Ukraine said that Russian elements had "completely abandoned their positions in Charivne and Chkalove...and Russian officers and medics have reportedly evacuated from Beryslav," ISW reported. The British military also said this weekend that Russia had begun using a "barge bridge" to cross the Dnipro river eastward in retreat.

More on Russia's improvised river crossing: "Although the use of heavy barge bridges was almost certainly included in Soviet-era planning for operations in Europe, it is likely this is the first time the Russian military have needed to utilize this type of bridge for decades," the British said Saturday. And, "If the barge bridge sustains damage, it is almost certain Russia will seek to repair or replace damaged sections quickly, as their forces and crossing points over the Dnipro river come under increasing pressure in Kherson."

The battlefield latest: Russia is still heavily reliant upon alleged Iranian-sourced "kamikaze" drones across Ukraine; however, "Ukrainian efforts to defeat the Shahed-136 UAVs are increasingly successful," the British military said Monday, citing Zelenskyy's recent claim that up to 85% of the drones are being shot down before they hit their target (Zelenskyy's military intelligence chief puts that number closer to 66%). Moscow is "likely using them as a substitute for Russian-manufactured long-range precision weapons which are becoming increasingly scarce," the Brits say.

[Farfromgeneva]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

And that’s my issue in OS, it’s been historically so often unclear but skewing heavily, massively, in one direction only to hear “that’s not what I was saying or those aren’t my words I only posted them while quoting someone else’s in response while providing no context” as to make confidence in anything he’s putting out very low. Hence I used the term bad faith discourse wayyyy back on this and continue to pound for transparency. Otherwise he’s just Fatty with some service time.

You do know that if you read Fatty's posts that he is also former military. His opinions about Reagan and the suicide bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut if memory serves me correctly is that his allegiance is as a marine who served in some capacity. I guess you didn't know that though did you?? That is the mistake people make when they don't pay attention to detail. FTR, OS has much more going for him than your derogatory comment about him having "some service time" His record as a decorated naval aviator is beyond reproach.

If you're not going to critically read then you're just adding to the arthritis in your fingers.

It is possible maybe with the exception of this forum to read critically and not have a bizarre need to nitpick every word and disparage everything he says. So are you telling me that OS is not a decorated naval aviator?? FTR how did you know about the arthritis in my fingers. I have not been able to play my accoustic guitar in many years. Once you lose those callouses on your finger tips getting them back is not easy.

I’m talking to you. Saying words matter, asking for clarity and clean communication of thoughts, ideas and opinions is not nitpicking but obviously your missing that point.

Or if you are critically reading then there’s a cognitive disconnect between cause/effect, logic, etc. Take your pick. But to keep saying the same thing when others are saying something different? Well that’s what I’m addressing with you.

I don’t know anything about your arthritis just familiar with it because ju father had zero cartilage in his body before his 45th birthday because he had the most severe form of rheumatoid arthritis a human could function with. Know how hard typing was for him.

[Farfromgeneva]

There is no such policy and the visa process post pandemic opened up this fall.

That said, pre-Biden (Nuland) visa denials for Indians were indeed high and one would assume that continued during the rest of the pandemic.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nr ... s?from=mdr

But it's entirely nonsense that most visas for Indians take two to three years...because of Nuland...

But this is consistent with this author (pretty distinguished guy) and his various screeds against Biden and his Admin.

We want India as an ally. China is a major adversary. This makes no sense.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opin ... umps-india

US visa wars: Where China trumps India

by Maura Moynihan, May 21, 2022

The US State Department has for years prioritized visas for Communist China over democratic India.

...why does the Biden administration condemn India at every turn whilst showing favour to Communist China, after it spread its Wuhan virus across the globe, costing the United States $50 trillion in damages and destroying civilization as we knew it?

We don’t read about Indian immigrants stealing US military or industrial secrets or murdering citizens in their hour of pray. But the US State Department has for years prioritized visas for Communist China over democratic India. Every visitor to the US must fill out a questionnaire, upon arrival, which includes: “Have you ever been or are you now affiliated with the Communist Party?” The US State Department selectively ignores this question for Chinese nationals, allowing the CCP to plant its agents at every level of the US government and institutions of finance, technology and higher education. A Senate aide in Washington told me: “Basically that’s how China stole all of its high-tech weapons and industrial programs from the US. And now they’ve got cyber spies hacking into our banks and intelligence and we don’t know how this is going to end.”

Most Chinese spies prosecuted by the US Department of Justice entered the US on student or work visas and obtained citizenship. CCP entities today own millions of acres of US farmland and real estate and operate Confucius Institutes at universities nationwide. The CCP’s propaganda department, Xinhua, established in 1931 as the Red China News Agency, has a huge media tower in New York’s Times Square and a multimillion-dollar complex in Washington, DC. Every US city is peppered with China Daily newsboxes, every cable service broadcasts CCP propaganda channels, in English and Mandarin. CCP cash dominates US foundations and think tanks, which churn out books and programs proclaiming that the 21st century belongs to the CCP, a totalitarian dictatorship that openly states in Xinhua editorials its goal of “destroying America from within.”

The Donald Trump administration sought to reverse this trend by refusing visas to CCP members and labelled the CCP’s Confucius Institutes as “entities advancing Beijing’s global propaganda and malign influence.” But Biden stripped away these sanctions, returning to the pro-CCP policies of Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who cut visas to India while increasing visas for China. On 19 January 2012, US ambassador to China, Gary Locke, said, “President Obama signed an executive order to significantly increase legitimate travel and tourism to the US, with the goal of increasing visa-processing capacity in China by up to 40 per cent in 2012. In 2011, we processed more than 1 million visa applications in China, an increase of 34 per cent over the previous year, and already we have processed 48 per cent more visas in China compared to 2011.”

Obama continued the Bush administration’s War on Terror, targeted Indian visa applicants with Muslim surnames. I know of many children and relatives of Indian officials who were accepted into US universities but had their student visas rejected due to “terror alerts.” Shahrukh Khan, India’s beloved Bollywood superstar, was interrogated at Los Angeles international airport in 2016 when his name appeared on a computer “alert” list. In 2012, Shahrukh flew to New York on a private plane with the Ambani family to receive a prestigious fellowship at Yale, but was held for 2 hours for a “terror flag.” In 2009, Shahrukh was detained in New Jersey when he arrived for a South Asian cultural festival. Shahrukh later said in an interview: “I became so sick of being mistaken for some crazed terrorist who coincidentally carries the same last name as mine that I made a film, subtly titled My Name is Khan (and I am not a terrorist) to prove a point. Ironically, I was interrogated at the airport for hours when I was going to present the film in America for the first time.”

The US State Department apologised to Shahrukh for the inconvenience—US Ambassador to India, Richard Verma posted a lame tweet stating: “Your work inspires millions, including in the US”—but if you are from India your name is Khan, you will be met with suspicion, even if you are one of the most famous people on the planet. India, a vital ally and strategic partner of the US, should not be pushed to the back of the visa queue while CCP agents are allowed free reign to “destroy America from within.” I hope India raises this matter at the next Quad Summit.

Maura Moynihan is a New York based journalist and author, specialising in the Chinese Communist occupation of Tibet. Her website is: mauramoynihan.net

We want India as an ally, and given their "issues" with China, one would think they would make common cause with the US. Yet they don't.

Now, why they don't is a very,very interesting question the US should be asking itself.

Probably because they want us to wreck effect on Pakistan and we won’t/don’t.

[Farfromgeneva]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

And that’s my issue in OS, it’s been historically so often unclear but skewing heavily, massively, in one direction only to hear “that’s not what I was saying or those aren’t my words I only posted them while quoting someone else’s in response while providing no context” as to make confidence in anything he’s putting out very low. Hence I used the term bad faith discourse wayyyy back on this and continue to pound for transparency. Otherwise he’s just Fatty with some service time.

You do know that if you read Fatty's posts that he is also former military. His opinions about Reagan and the suicide bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut if memory serves me correctly is that his allegiance is as a marine who served in some capacity. I guess you didn't know that though did you?? That is the mistake people make when they don't pay attention to detail. FTR, OS has much more going for him than your derogatory comment about him having "some service time" His record as a decorated naval aviator is beyond reproach.

decorated?
I'm going to assume that's true, though I'm not sure what you mean by that or how you would know...but ok.

Flynn certainly was "decorated"...doesn't mean he ain't a fascist, bigoted nut job....dangerously so because of the credibility given to him and claimed by him because of his "decorated" service.

For the record, I'm not saying Salty is Flynn.

I have read plenty of posts from OS over the years on this and our other forum. He never boasts or talks much about what honors he has earned. I bet over a couple of cold ones he would have quite a few interesting stories to tell. I'm guessing if asked nicely he would share that information. To my knowledge no one on this forum has ever inquired about his career as a naval aviator. I do know he passed E and E training having the ability to succeed there is no small feat. I don't know if he ever spent any time in a makeshift POW camp. Also something that is not a lot of fun. I've been there and done that and never even got a Tee shirt.

How many times do people have to explain that one can separate and respect the service, a point in time, and take issue with either current behavior or anything a person is or does outside that service? Why are you so incapable of understanding this simple simple concept?

Tell me about Timothy McVeigh. You should defend his honor every day u Tim you die because he served clearly. Nothing he ever did otherwise matters.

[MDlaxfan76]

There is no such policy and the visa process post pandemic opened up this fall.

That said, pre-Biden (Nuland) visa denials for Indians were indeed high and one would assume that continued during the rest of the pandemic.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nr ... s?from=mdr

But it's entirely nonsense that most visas for Indians take two to three years...because of Nuland...

But this is consistent with this author (pretty distinguished guy) and his various screeds against Biden and his Admin.

We want India as an ally. China is a major adversary. This makes no sense.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opin ... umps-india

US visa wars: Where China trumps India

by Maura Moynihan, May 21, 2022

The US State Department has for years prioritized visas for Communist China over democratic India.

...why does the Biden administration condemn India at every turn whilst showing favour to Communist China, after it spread its Wuhan virus across the globe, costing the United States $50 trillion in damages and destroying civilization as we knew it?

We don’t read about Indian immigrants stealing US military or industrial secrets or murdering citizens in their hour of pray. But the US State Department has for years prioritized visas for Communist China over democratic India. Every visitor to the US must fill out a questionnaire, upon arrival, which includes: “Have you ever been or are you now affiliated with the Communist Party?” The US State Department selectively ignores this question for Chinese nationals, allowing the CCP to plant its agents at every level of the US government and institutions of finance, technology and higher education. A Senate aide in Washington told me: “Basically that’s how China stole all of its high-tech weapons and industrial programs from the US. And now they’ve got cyber spies hacking into our banks and intelligence and we don’t know how this is going to end.”

Most Chinese spies prosecuted by the US Department of Justice entered the US on student or work visas and obtained citizenship. CCP entities today own millions of acres of US farmland and real estate and operate Confucius Institutes at universities nationwide. The CCP’s propaganda department, Xinhua, established in 1931 as the Red China News Agency, has a huge media tower in New York’s Times Square and a multimillion-dollar complex in Washington, DC. Every US city is peppered with China Daily newsboxes, every cable service broadcasts CCP propaganda channels, in English and Mandarin. CCP cash dominates US foundations and think tanks, which churn out books and programs proclaiming that the 21st century belongs to the CCP, a totalitarian dictatorship that openly states in Xinhua editorials its goal of “destroying America from within.”

The Donald Trump administration sought to reverse this trend by refusing visas to CCP members and labelled the CCP’s Confucius Institutes as “entities advancing Beijing’s global propaganda and malign influence.” But Biden stripped away these sanctions, returning to the pro-CCP policies of Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who cut visas to India while increasing visas for China. On 19 January 2012, US ambassador to China, Gary Locke, said, “President Obama signed an executive order to significantly increase legitimate travel and tourism to the US, with the goal of increasing visa-processing capacity in China by up to 40 per cent in 2012. In 2011, we processed more than 1 million visa applications in China, an increase of 34 per cent over the previous year, and already we have processed 48 per cent more visas in China compared to 2011.”

Obama continued the Bush administration’s War on Terror, targeted Indian visa applicants with Muslim surnames. I know of many children and relatives of Indian officials who were accepted into US universities but had their student visas rejected due to “terror alerts.” Shahrukh Khan, India’s beloved Bollywood superstar, was interrogated at Los Angeles international airport in 2016 when his name appeared on a computer “alert” list. In 2012, Shahrukh flew to New York on a private plane with the Ambani family to receive a prestigious fellowship at Yale, but was held for 2 hours for a “terror flag.” In 2009, Shahrukh was detained in New Jersey when he arrived for a South Asian cultural festival. Shahrukh later said in an interview: “I became so sick of being mistaken for some crazed terrorist who coincidentally carries the same last name as mine that I made a film, subtly titled My Name is Khan (and I am not a terrorist) to prove a point. Ironically, I was interrogated at the airport for hours when I was going to present the film in America for the first time.”

The US State Department apologised to Shahrukh for the inconvenience—US Ambassador to India, Richard Verma posted a lame tweet stating: “Your work inspires millions, including in the US”—but if you are from India your name is Khan, you will be met with suspicion, even if you are one of the most famous people on the planet. India, a vital ally and strategic partner of the US, should not be pushed to the back of the visa queue while CCP agents are allowed free reign to “destroy America from within.” I hope India raises this matter at the next Quad Summit.

Maura Moynihan is a New York based journalist and author, specialising in the Chinese Communist occupation of Tibet. Her website is: mauramoynihan.net

Indeed, it would make no sense to have such a policy. And we don't.

Maura Moynihan is apparently quite a piece of work: https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/daughter- ... sian-rant/
Takes all sorts. ahh well.

She has a very strong affinity for India. Pretty viciously anti-China. No issue with that, but she's not a reasonable arbiter of the truth, unfortunately.

Yes, I quite agree that we would really like for India to be an ally, strategically aligned with the West in general and the US in particular. Makes sense for both India and for the US.

But the current government since 2014 doesn't want that alliance; Modi in specific is highly problematic.

[MDlaxfan76]

Apparently Russia's retreat across the Dnipro river in Kherson began on Fri.
Good news if it prevents urban fighting in Kherson city.
From Defense One :

About that Kherson withdrawal: It seems to have begun Friday from the occupied western region of the oblast, or province, and it involved the transfer of Russian "ammunition, military equipment, and some unspecified units from the Dnipro River's west bank to the east bank via ferries," according to ISW, citing Ukrainian officials. CNN reported Monday that the withdrawal is continuing; the Wall Street Journal's Yaroslav Trofimov reports Russia is merely evacuating non-essential personnel as it reinforces strong points in the city, citing a recent interview with Kyiv's military intelligence chief.

Faced with an alleged 4-1 overmatch of approaching Ukrainian troops compared to Moscow's occupying elements in western Kherson, Russian military bloggers spent late last week preparing their readers for a "very, very hard" month ahead for one writer, while another predicted "there will be no good news in the next two months, that's for sure." By Saturday, Ukraine said that Russian elements had "completely abandoned their positions in Charivne and Chkalove...and Russian officers and medics have reportedly evacuated from Beryslav," ISW reported. The British military also said this weekend that Russia had begun using a "barge bridge" to cross the Dnipro river eastward in retreat.

More on Russia's improvised river crossing: "Although the use of heavy barge bridges was almost certainly included in Soviet-era planning for operations in Europe, it is likely this is the first time the Russian military have needed to utilize this type of bridge for decades," the British said Saturday. And, "If the barge bridge sustains damage, it is almost certain Russia will seek to repair or replace damaged sections quickly, as their forces and crossing points over the Dnipro river come under increasing pressure in Kherson."

The battlefield latest: Russia is still heavily reliant upon alleged Iranian-sourced "kamikaze" drones across Ukraine; however, "Ukrainian efforts to defeat the Shahed-136 UAVs are increasingly successful," the British military said Monday, citing Zelenskyy's recent claim that up to 85% of the drones are being shot down before they hit their target (Zelenskyy's military intelligence chief puts that number closer to 66%). Moscow is "likely using them as a substitute for Russian-manufactured long-range precision weapons which are becoming increasingly scarce," the Brits say.

Very good news.
Is the word that Russian troops are withdrawing fully?

I'd read that they were forcing civilians out, but were sending in conscripts...pulling them out?

[old salt]

Helpful explainer on the significance of Kherson city.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 395f107648

[cradleandshoot]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

And that’s my issue in OS, it’s been historically so often unclear but skewing heavily, massively, in one direction only to hear “that’s not what I was saying or those aren’t my words I only posted them while quoting someone else’s in response while providing no context” as to make confidence in anything he’s putting out very low. Hence I used the term bad faith discourse wayyyy back on this and continue to pound for transparency. Otherwise he’s just Fatty with some service time.

You do know that if you read Fatty's posts that he is also former military. His opinions about Reagan and the suicide bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut if memory serves me correctly is that his allegiance is as a marine who served in some capacity. I guess you didn't know that though did you?? That is the mistake people make when they don't pay attention to detail. FTR, OS has much more going for him than your derogatory comment about him having "some service time" His record as a decorated naval aviator is beyond reproach.

decorated?
I'm going to assume that's true, though I'm not sure what you mean by that or how you would know...but ok.

Flynn certainly was "decorated"...doesn't mean he ain't a fascist, bigoted nut job....dangerously so because of the credibility given to him and claimed by him because of his "decorated" service.

For the record, I'm not saying Salty is Flynn.

I have read plenty of posts from OS over the years on this and our other forum. He never boasts or talks much about what honors he has earned. I bet over a couple of cold ones he would have quite a few interesting stories to tell. I'm guessing if asked nicely he would share that information. To my knowledge no one on this forum has ever inquired about his career as a naval aviator. I do know he passed E and E training having the ability to succeed there is no small feat. I don't know if he ever spent any time in a makeshift POW camp. Also something that is not a lot of fun. I've been there and done that and never even got a Tee shirt.

How many times do people have to explain that one can separate and respect the service, a point in time, and take issue with either current behavior or anything a person is or does outside that service? Why are you so incapable of understanding this simple simple concept?

Tell me about Timothy McVeigh. You should defend his honor every day u Tim you die because he served clearly. Nothing he ever did otherwise matters.

IMO a little bit of context here would be appropriate. Your not trying to compare OS to McVeigh are you? McVeigh was screwed up in the head before he served. I served with a number of soldiers whose elevator did not go all the way up to the top. I had a good friend who wound up in the army because his only other option was jail. That was not uncommon in the 70s in the US army that needed all the warm bodies it could find. There is a huge gap between an enlisted soldier just in off the street and a naval aviator who went to the naval academy to earn his wings. IMO the vast majority of criticism leveled at OS is mean spirited and vindictive in nature. The reason why is simple, his opinions are based on his experience serving this country. He has the audacity to stand by what he believes and does not kowtow to the incessant non- stop harassment he is subjected to on a daily basis. That speaks volumes to me to his integrity. The man unselfishly uses his free time to rescue dogs, foster them and find them new forever homes. My wife and I know several people who run pet rescue operations. To do so takes dedication to a cause that not too many other people on this forum possess. That type of dedication includes having an unselfish nature to help these dogs that nobody else wants. I'm guessing you have a similar dedication to a cause beyond making money that is important to you.

[Farfromgeneva]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

And that’s my issue in OS, it’s been historically so often unclear but skewing heavily, massively, in one direction only to hear “that’s not what I was saying or those aren’t my words I only posted them while quoting someone else’s in response while providing no context” as to make confidence in anything he’s putting out very low. Hence I used the term bad faith discourse wayyyy back on this and continue to pound for transparency. Otherwise he’s just Fatty with some service time.

You do know that if you read Fatty's posts that he is also former military. His opinions about Reagan and the suicide bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut if memory serves me correctly is that his allegiance is as a marine who served in some capacity. I guess you didn't know that though did you?? That is the mistake people make when they don't pay attention to detail. FTR, OS has much more going for him than your derogatory comment about him having "some service time" His record as a decorated naval aviator is beyond reproach.

decorated?
I'm going to assume that's true, though I'm not sure what you mean by that or how you would know...but ok.

Flynn certainly was "decorated"...doesn't mean he ain't a fascist, bigoted nut job....dangerously so because of the credibility given to him and claimed by him because of his "decorated" service.

For the record, I'm not saying Salty is Flynn.

I have read plenty of posts from OS over the years on this and our other forum. He never boasts or talks much about what honors he has earned. I bet over a couple of cold ones he would have quite a few interesting stories to tell. I'm guessing if asked nicely he would share that information. To my knowledge no one on this forum has ever inquired about his career as a naval aviator. I do know he passed E and E training having the ability to succeed there is no small feat. I don't know if he ever spent any time in a makeshift POW camp. Also something that is not a lot of fun. I've been there and done that and never even got a Tee shirt.

How many times do people have to explain that one can separate and respect the service, a point in time, and take issue with either current behavior or anything a person is or does outside that service? Why are you so incapable of understanding this simple simple concept?

Tell me about Timothy McVeigh. You should defend his honor every day u Tim you die because he served clearly. Nothing he ever did otherwise matters.

IMO a little bit of context here would be appropriate. Your not trying to compare OS to McVeigh are you? McVeigh was screwed up in the head before he served. I served with a number of soldiers whose elevator did not go all the way up to the top. I had a good friend who wound up in the army because his only other option was jail. That was not uncommon in the 70s in the US army that needed all the warm bodies it could find. There is a huge gap between an enlisted soldier just in off the street and a naval aviator who went to the naval academy to earn his wings. IMO the vast majority of criticism leveled at OS is mean spirited and vindictive in nature. The reason why is simple, his opinions are based on his experience serving this country. He has the audacity to stand by what he believes and does not kowtow to the incessant non- stop harassment he is subjected to on a daily basis. That speaks volumes to me to his integrity. The man unselfishly uses his free time to rescue dogs, foster them and find them new forever homes. My wife and I know several people who run pet rescue operations. To do so takes dedication to a cause that not too many other people on this forum possess. That type of dedication includes having an unselfish nature to help these dogs that nobody else wants. I'm guessing you have a similar dedication to a cause beyond making money that is important to you.

No jesus you don’t get it. Service and what people do with the other parts of their lives can be separated. By anyone who’s capable of critical thought.

Service is filled with what we could kindly called “adverse selection”-I’m sure you’ve seen Gangs of NY…but then you just shat on every enlisted foot soldier too.

And I know a guy who went to West Point graduated and had a fine career who made a habit of getting girls drunk to blackout state and then getting his ladies man on with them and he had a fine 20yr career in service on paper.

It’s individuals and the actions you observe first hand. Those are the only judgements a person can make credibly. This has been stated repeatedly and you’re still looking for clarification. You refuse to listen or read and your mind is made up and you’re telling everyone else they don’t get it. Same words different day.

Yea I’ve worked soup kitchens regularly over the years helping human beings rather than animals only have had two dogs one thankfully is still here though pretty sure she’s dead, blind and senile and I have to keep her away from the wife (who begged to get her as a pill mill puppy from a store in vestal NY dec 2006 because she pisses everywhere in our family’s house rich illiquid domicile and my wife likes to scream and throw turd). Used to go out annually to glide memorial bc my sister is out there but it turned into a photo op scene for rich people eventually. Just finished butchering my sons lacrosse season as head coach. Used to give 5% of my gross to Habitat but haven't felt like I could afford that last few years. Work MS day for people every year at their homes. I also developed mental health issues, a drug problem, have a broken marriage and a horrible temper (irony is the little wife is the one who hits though) and probably 16 other major flaws. I spend every day focused on the present and moving forward fighting off thinking about my mistakes, how I worked hard for my lonely and screws up mother but didn’t just love here and be present enough for her. I’m honest and transparent as much as I can be. People know where I’m coming from and what I mean unless my video clips are just that good a hit.

The dichotomy of man isn’t one thing. Look up the term reductive then try to work backwards when you think about things.

[MDlaxfan76]

Helpful explainer on the significance of Kherson city.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 395f107648

Yes, thanks.

Critical to both sides, for Russia it's essential to Putin's ambition in the south, strangling Ukraine's economy and forcing its ultimate annexation; for Ukraine its existence as an independent country.

Russia will lose Kherson.

Concerning indeed that Putin will be willing to destroy it completely, whether the dam or a dirty bomb etc...if he can't keep it. Which he can't.

Also interesting that it enables Ukraine to cut off fresh water to Crimea (has it previously???) given the strikes on Ukraine energy...cold winter.

[Farfromgeneva]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

And that’s my issue in OS, it’s been historically so often unclear but skewing heavily, massively, in one direction only to hear “that’s not what I was saying or those aren’t my words I only posted them while quoting someone else’s in response while providing no context” as to make confidence in anything he’s putting out very low. Hence I used the term bad faith discourse wayyyy back on this and continue to pound for transparency. Otherwise he’s just Fatty with some service time.

You do know that if you read Fatty's posts that he is also former military. His opinions about Reagan and the suicide bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut if memory serves me correctly is that his allegiance is as a marine who served in some capacity. I guess you didn't know that though did you?? That is the mistake people make when they don't pay attention to detail. FTR, OS has much more going for him than your derogatory comment about him having "some service time" His record as a decorated naval aviator is beyond reproach.

decorated?
I'm going to assume that's true, though I'm not sure what you mean by that or how you would know...but ok.

Flynn certainly was "decorated"...doesn't mean he ain't a fascist, bigoted nut job....dangerously so because of the credibility given to him and claimed by him because of his "decorated" service.

For the record, I'm not saying Salty is Flynn.

I have read plenty of posts from OS over the years on this and our other forum. He never boasts or talks much about what honors he has earned. I bet over a couple of cold ones he would have quite a few interesting stories to tell. I'm guessing if asked nicely he would share that information. To my knowledge no one on this forum has ever inquired about his career as a naval aviator. I do know he passed E and E training having the ability to succeed there is no small feat. I don't know if he ever spent any time in a makeshift POW camp. Also something that is not a lot of fun. I've been there and done that and never even got a Tee shirt.

How many times do people have to explain that one can separate and respect the service, a point in time, and take issue with either current behavior or anything a person is or does outside that service? Why are you so incapable of understanding this simple simple concept?

Tell me about Timothy McVeigh. You should defend his honor every day u Tim you die because he served clearly. Nothing he ever did otherwise matters.

IMO a little bit of context here would be appropriate. Your not trying to compare OS to McVeigh are you? McVeigh was screwed up in the head before he served. I served with a number of soldiers whose elevator did not go all the way up to the top. I had a good friend who wound up in the army because his only other option was jail. That was not uncommon in the 70s in the US army that needed all the warm bodies it could find. There is a huge gap between an enlisted soldier just in off the street and a naval aviator who went to the naval academy to earn his wings. IMO the vast majority of criticism leveled at OS is mean spirited and vindictive in nature. The reason why is simple, his opinions are based on his experience serving this country. He has the audacity to stand by what he believes and does not kowtow to the incessant non- stop harassment he is subjected to on a daily basis. That speaks volumes to me to his integrity. The man unselfishly uses his free time to rescue dogs, foster them and find them new forever homes. My wife and I know several people who run pet rescue operations. To do so takes dedication to a cause that not too many other people on this forum possess. That type of dedication includes having an unselfish nature to help these dogs that nobody else wants. I'm guessing you have a similar dedication to a cause beyond making money that is important to you.

http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/per ... -fall.html

Jean-Baptist Clamence has become a judge-penitent and offers his services to selected visitors to his office, the bar Mexico City, on the quays in Amsterdam. The clients don’t come to the Mexico City to seek his services, he trusts himself upon those selected.

But what is a judge-penitent? This is complex, even purposely a bit unclear, a bit contradictory. Being a judge-penitent involves both content and form. It seems some sort of amalgamation of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, Nietzsche’s Overman, and Heidegger and Sartre’s “authentic” man.

The entire book is first person narrative and Clamence is the sole speaker. The book is one long five day monologue to his latest…. – latest what? Victim? Client? Student? Penitent? Consoled? Initiate? It will depend more on outcome than process.

As judge-penitent Clamence first tells his own story, his life story, selected to explain several things – his quest for meaning; the process of his life crisis; his ascent or decent (choose what you will) from everyday life into the role of judge-penitent.

Clamence was a criminal lawyer and a good one. He tended to choose clients whom he had good reason to believe were guilty of murder. He then used his considerable skill and the constraints of law, to get the murders off, to set them free.

He was by most human standards a great success – wealthy, well-respected (if viewed as a bit odd), cultured, a known gourmet and man phenomenally successful among women of all sorts and classes.

Then he began to hear the laughter – voices clearly laughing some sort of cynical laughter, yet no one could be seen near him. He began to create this laugher of questioning even in his own inner being.

A decisive act occurred one night in Paris when he was walking across a bridge. After passing a woman he heard her jump into the Seine, and while he hesitated and thought about it, he kept walking. He even avoided reading the newspapers for several days after to keep from knowing the outcome.

The mysterious laughter, his guilt over the woman brought him to question his whole life.

The central thing he learned seemed to be that unlike the law or football or tennis, life itself had no rules and thus pure innocence made no sense.

To stop the laughter and guilt he first had to embrace this world of freedom. This made him a judge of and for himself, but this was not enough. To give his life meaning and silence and peace, he had to become a judge-penitent for others and he set himself up at the Mexico City.

I found the book to be brilliantly crafted. A significant part of the philosophical message of the novel is that human knowledge of both the meaning of life and the nature of “the good” are beyond any exact human knowledge. Rather, the intellect is likely, on Clamence/Camus’s view, to be contradictory, uncertain, fraught with risk of error. It is seen as difficulty and likely to produce the mechanics of escape into certainty on the part of us mere humans.

Clamence is a living model of this. His early years were a serious attempt to live a life of clear meaning and absolute rules. But in mid-life he began to have the doubts of both ontological and moral skepticism. His choices mirror the anxiety predicted in the theory he later propounded, and his acts are often contradictory and puzzling – actually suggesting a coherence toward his skepticism.

In Jean-Paul Sartre’s analysis of this novel he believed it was Camus’s best, he argues that Clamence is, in fact, Camus, and the novel is what I’ve described above and Camus’s personal “confession” to the world of who he is and what his work is about.

I don’t have any evaluation of Sartre’s thesis. But it does seem at least consistent with what we know of Camus’s quest for personal authenticity and his drive to share that view with others.

Along the way in the novel are several positions, views and insights which struck me as particularly interesting or rich and I shall comments on several below.

For Clamence the human has two dominant drives:

Toward things of the mind.
Toward passion, especially sex.
Together they adequately describe humanity.

“It always seemed to me that our fellow citizens had two passions: ideas and fornication…. A single sentence will suffice for moderns man: he fornicated and read the paper.”

I was much taken with an image Clamence uses on how society quietly, steadily and relentlessly steals human individual freedom. He likens this process to the tiny “nibbles” of one pariah fish takes of a victim.

“You have heard, of course, of those tiny fish in the rivers of Brazil that attack the unwary swimmer by thousands and with swift little nibbles clean him up in a few minutes, leaving only an immaculate skeleton? Well, that's what their organization is. "Do you want a good clean life? Like everybody else?" You say yes, of course. How can one say no? "O.K. You'll be cleaned up. Here's a job, a family, and organized leisure activities." And the little teeth attack the flesh, right down to the bone. But I am unjust. I shouldn't say their organization. It is ours, after all: it's a question of which will clean up the other.”

Part of the role of the judge-penitent is to challenge his target people to change their lives toward what Existentialists would call authenticity. Part of that would be to be more honest concerning interpersonal relations with others. Clamence argues that while human have formally barred slavery (at least in the west), what we have in effect done is to alter its form, coating it with some icing which hides the substance of the cake beneath.

He even acknowledges that having slavery but not calling it that – even denying it and congratulating ourselves for this advance is “useful.” It has two consequences:

It soothes the consciousness of the slave “owner.”
The illusion of non-slavery often, even usually, internalized by the slaves themselves, gives them at least some sense of (false) hope.
“Just between us, slavery, preferably with a smile, is inevitable then. But we must not admit it. Isn't it better that whoever cannot do without having slaves should call them free men? For the principle to begin with, and, secondly, not to drive them to despair. We owe them that compensation, don't we? In that way, they will continue to smile and we shall maintain our good conscience.”

Sartre has claimed that this novel is a brilliant phenomenology of human being and especially a real “confessional” of Camus. The passage below if worth considering in this regard:

“However that may be, after prolonged research on myself, I brought out the fundamental duplicity of the human being. Then I realized, as a result of delving in my memory, that modesty helped me to shine, humility to conquer, and virtue to oppress. I used to wage war by peaceful means and eventually used to achieve, through disinterested means, everything I desired. For instance, I never complained that my birthday was overlooked; people were even surprised, with a touch of admiration, by my discretion on this subject. But the reason for my disinterestedness was even more discreet: I longed to be forgotten in order to be able to complain to myself. Several days before the famous date (which I knew very well) I was on the alert, eager to let nothing slip that might arouse the attention and memory of those on whose lapse I was counting (didn't I once go so far as to contemplate falsifying a friend's calendar?). Once my solitude was thoroughly proved, I could surrender to the charms of a virile self-pity.”

I close these note with three pages from near the end of the book in which a critical thesis – and a tension – is resolved.

The experience of guilt, arrived at via the judge-penitent role and guidance, is the path to freedom and authenticity.

At the same time there is for me the puzzle. Since someone else, the judge-penitent leads others to this clarity of being, does the person arrive at his or her own freedom, or does the person become the slave of Clamence/Camus/The Existentialists?

I’ve wrestled with this issue for all 36 years of my own teaching philosophy. I would never describe myself as much of either a judge or penitent (in any public world, even in teaching) but I was certainly both of those in my own heart. Like Clamence, I wanted to challenge others and rather than “setting up shop” in the Mexico City or as a parish priest, I chose the venue of the university classroom, and perhaps even now in retirement, this cyber-space of my web page. But what does the judge-penitent inspire or produce? Freedom and authenticity in the other or the subtle slavery of which Clamence speaks?

Camus’s challenging passage is below:

No excuses ever, for anyone; that's my principle at the outset. I deny the good intention, the respectable mistake, the indiscretion, the extenuating circumstance. With me there is no giving of absolution or blessing. Everything is simply totted up, and then: "It comes to so much. You are an evildoer, a satyr, a congenital liar, a homosexual, an artist, etc." Just like that. Just as flatly. In philosophy as in politics, I am for any theory that refuses to grant man innocence and for any practice that treats him as guilty. You see in me, tres cher, an enlightened advocate of slavery.

Without slavery, as a matter of fact, there is no definitive solution. I very soon realized that. Once upon a time, I was always talking of freedom: At breakfast I use to spread it on my toast, I used to chew it all day long, and in company my breath was delightfully redolent of freedom. With that key word I would bludgeon whoever contradicted me; I made it serve my desires and my power. I used to whisper it in bed in the ear of my sleeping mates and it helped me to drop them. I would slip it… Tchk! Tchk! I am getting excited and losing all sense of proportion. After all, I did on occasion make a more disinterested use of freedom and even – just imagine my naiveté -- defended it two or three times without of course going so far as to die for it, but nevertheless taking a few risks. I must be forgiven such rash acts; I didn't know what I was doing. I didn't know that freedom is not a reward or a decoration that is celebrated with champagne. Nor yet a gift, a box of dainties designed to make you lick your chops. Oh, no! It’s a choice, on the contrary and a long-distance race, quite solitary and very exhausting. No champagne No friends raising their glasses as they look at your affectionately. Alone in a forbidding room, alone in the prisoner's box before the judges, and alone to decide in face of oneself or in the face others' judgment. At the end of all freedom is a court sentence; that's why freedom is too heavy to bear, especially when you're down with a fever, or are distressed, or love nobody.

Ah, mon cher, for anyone who is alone without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful. Hence, one must choose a master, God, before being out of style. Besides, the word has lost its meaning; it’s not worth the risk of shocking anyone.

[MDlaxfan76]

Apparently Russia's retreat across the Dnipro river in Kherson began on Fri.
Good news if it prevents urban fighting in Kherson city.
From Defense One :

About that Kherson withdrawal: It seems to have begun Friday from the occupied western region of the oblast, or province, and it involved the transfer of Russian "ammunition, military equipment, and some unspecified units from the Dnipro River's west bank to the east bank via ferries," according to ISW, citing Ukrainian officials. CNN reported Monday that the withdrawal is continuing; the Wall Street Journal's Yaroslav Trofimov reports Russia is merely evacuating non-essential personnel as it reinforces strong points in the city, citing a recent interview with Kyiv's military intelligence chief.

Faced with an alleged 4-1 overmatch of approaching Ukrainian troops compared to Moscow's occupying elements in western Kherson, Russian military bloggers spent late last week preparing their readers for a "very, very hard" month ahead for one writer, while another predicted "there will be no good news in the next two months, that's for sure." By Saturday, Ukraine said that Russian elements had "completely abandoned their positions in Charivne and Chkalove...and Russian officers and medics have reportedly evacuated from Beryslav," ISW reported. The British military also said this weekend that Russia had begun using a "barge bridge" to cross the Dnipro river eastward in retreat.

More on Russia's improvised river crossing: "Although the use of heavy barge bridges was almost certainly included in Soviet-era planning for operations in Europe, it is likely this is the first time the Russian military have needed to utilize this type of bridge for decades," the British said Saturday. And, "If the barge bridge sustains damage, it is almost certain Russia will seek to repair or replace damaged sections quickly, as their forces and crossing points over the Dnipro river come under increasing pressure in Kherson."

The battlefield latest: Russia is still heavily reliant upon alleged Iranian-sourced "kamikaze" drones across Ukraine; however, "Ukrainian efforts to defeat the Shahed-136 UAVs are increasingly successful," the British military said Monday, citing Zelenskyy's recent claim that up to 85% of the drones are being shot down before they hit their target (Zelenskyy's military intelligence chief puts that number closer to 66%). Moscow is "likely using them as a substitute for Russian-manufactured long-range precision weapons which are becoming increasingly scarce," the Brits say.

Very good news.
Is the word that Russian troops are withdrawing fully?

I'd read that they were forcing civilians out, but were sending in conscripts...pulling them out?

To my question above, this from Reuters a few hours ago seems to suggest Russian troops are digging in, not retreating(yet)...Salty, have you seen something indicating full retreat?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-24/

[old salt]

this from Reuters a few hours ago seems to suggest Russian troops are digging in, not retreating(yet)...Salty, have you seen something indicating full retreat?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-24/

Not yet. The Russians appear to be falling back to Kherson city. Too soon to know if it's for a last stand or covering action for the retreat already reported underway, via the pontoon bridges & ferries.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... ar-russia/

In the southern Kherson region, one of the four Moscow claimed to have annexed, Russian forces appeared to be preparing to defend the city of Kherson, amid speculation they would pull back to the eastern side of the Dnieper River, ceding crucial grounResidents displaced from Russian-occupied Kherson,

The Ukrainian military said in its Tuesday operational update that Russian troops were setting up “defensive positions” along the east bank of the Dnieper and leaving small passages for a potential retreat from the west bank.

Speculation on whether Moscow is preparing to abandon Kherson has been circulating for weeks after Ukrainian forces made steady breakthroughs in the southern direction.

“I don’t know all the nuances and plans of the command, but I don’t exclude the surrender of Kherson as from a military point of view its defense at the moment could turn into a rout,” a popular Russian military blogger, who writes under the moniker Zapiski Veterana, wrote in a Telegram post. “But I think that if a decision was made in Moscow to fight until victory, then there is nothing tragic in the surrender of Kherson because this war is here for a long time.”

Moscow may not have a choice. “The Russian position in upper Kherson Oblast is, nevertheless, likely untenable,” the Institute for the Study of War said.

Kremlin-installed officials have been forcing residents to evacuate from the west bank of the Dnieper while claiming without evidence that Kyiv is preparing attacks on the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant, as well as the “dirty bomb” allegations.

[MDlaxfan76]

this from Reuters a few hours ago seems to suggest Russian troops are digging in, not retreating(yet)...Salty, have you seen something indicating full retreat?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-24/

Not yet. The Russians appear to be falling back to Kherson city. Too soon to know if it's for a last stand or covering action for the retreat already reported underway, via the pontoon bridges & ferries.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... ar-russia/

In the southern Kherson region, one of the four Moscow claimed to have annexed, Russian forces appeared to be preparing to defend the city of Kherson, amid speculation they would pull back to the eastern side of the Dnieper River, ceding crucial grounResidents displaced from Russian-occupied Kherson,

The Ukrainian military said in its Tuesday operational update that Russian troops were setting up “defensive positions” along the east bank of the Dnieper and leaving small passages for a potential retreat from the west bank.

Speculation on whether Moscow is preparing to abandon Kherson has been circulating for weeks after Ukrainian forces made steady breakthroughs in the southern direction.

“I don’t know all the nuances and plans of the command, but I don’t exclude the surrender of Kherson as from a military point of view its defense at the moment could turn into a rout,” a popular Russian military blogger, who writes under the moniker Zapiski Veterana, wrote in a Telegram post. “But I think that if a decision was made in Moscow to fight until victory, then there is nothing tragic in the surrender of Kherson because this war is here for a long time.”

Moscow may not have a choice. “The Russian position in upper Kherson Oblast is, nevertheless, likely untenable,” the Institute for the Study of War said.

Kremlin-installed officials have been forcing residents to evacuate from the west bank of the Dnieper while claiming without evidence that Kyiv is preparing attacks on the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant, as well as the “dirty bomb” allegations.

That would make tactical sense...lots of booby traps etc as well undoubtedly.

Gonna be tougher to get across river, but seems like the better tactics would be to go around and encircle, not direct. Cross elsewhere.

[old salt]

I believe crossing the river is the Russians only avenue of escape. They are already trapped. The Ukrainians have taken back the territory upstream on the R bank of the river.
https://liveuamap.com/

Re. the canal -- restoring fresh water flow to Crimea was one of the motivating factors in Russia's invasion & a reason they want the land bridge territory. It begins well upstream from Kherson city at Kakhovka.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal
Ukraine shut down the canal in 2014 soon after the Russian annexation of Crimea. The flow of water was restored in March 2022 during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

A 2015 study found that the canal had been providing 85% of Crimea's water prior to the canal's 2014 shutdown. Of that water from the canal, 72% went to agriculture and 10% to industry, while water for drinking and other public uses made up 18%.[1]

The canal begins at the city of Tavriysk, where it draws from the Kakhovka Reservoir fed by the Dnieper river, and stretches out in a generally southeasterly direction, terminating at the small village of Zelnyi Yar (Lenine Raion). From there, a pipeline carries water to supply the city of Kerch at the eastern extreme of the Crimean Peninsula. Seven water reservoirs lie along the main canal, which is 402.6 km (250.2 mi) in length.[2]

Water flows by gravity from Tavriysk to Dzhankoy, where it is elevated by four pump stations to a height of over 100 m (330 ft) to energize its continued downstream flow. In Crimea, numerous smaller canals branch off the main channel, including the Razdolne rice canal, Azov rice canal, Krasnohvardiiske distribution canal, Uniting canal, and Saky canal. Through these, water is also supplied to the city of Simferopol.[2]

The decision was to build the Kakhovka Hydro Electric Station, South Ukrainian and North Crimean canals. In 1951 the Soviet postal service released a commemorative post stamp where the North Crimean Canal was categorized as one of the Great Construction Projects of Communism.

In 1965 the canal was completed as far as the city of Dzhankoy in the center of Crimea. In 1971 the city of Kerch was reached. In December 1976 the canal was officially put into operation.[3][4]

2014—2022
After the Maidan revolution and the subsequent Russian annexation of Crimea, Ukrainian authorities greatly cut the volume of water flowing into Crimea via the canal, citing a huge outstanding debt on water supplies owed by the peninsula.[5] This included a semi-secret project organized by presidential aide Andriy Senchenkoto that built a dam across the entire canal south of Kalanchak, about 10 miles (16 km) north of the Crimean border, which began a severe water crisis in Crimea [uk].[6] The reduction caused the peninsula's agricultural harvest which is heavily dependent on irrigation to fail in 2014.[5]

Crimean water sources are being connected to the North Crimean Canal to replace the former Ukrainian sources. The objective is to restore irrigation and urban supplies to the Kerch Peninsula and to smaller communities on the east coast of Crimea.[7] In 2014, a reservoir was built to store water of the rivers of Eastern Crimea near the village of Novoivanovka, Nyzhnohirskyi Raion. The North Crimean Canal is connected with the Novoivanovka reservoir.[8]

According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of the blocking the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016.[9] The reported rapid growth in agricultural production in Crimea is due to the fact that, with the help of subsidies in the order of 2–3 billion rubles a year from the budget of the Russian Federation, agricultural producers in Crimea were able to increase their fleet of agricultural machinery.[10][11][12]

These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017,[13] and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages,[14][15][6] with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021.[15] That same year, the New York Times cited senior American officials as stating that securing Crimea's water supply could be an objective of a possible incursion by Russia into Ukraine.[16][6]

Since February 2022
On 24 February 2022, the first day of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian troops advancing from Crimea established control over the North Crimean Canal.[17] The Head of the Republic of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, told local authorities to prepare the canal to receive water from the Dnieper river and resume the supply of water.[18][19] Two days later, Russian forces used explosives to destroy the dam that had been blocking the flow since 2014, and the water supply was resumed.

[MDlaxfan76]

So, we should expect that water to be cut off again, as long as Russia holds Crimea illegally.

Yes, I meant the Ukrainians crossing the river may be better off crossing elsewhere, not directly through Kherson, then encircling the eastern side of the city...Russians would need to leave entirely in that event.

On the other hand, destruction of the dam may be in the offing.

The whole thing is so self-destructive and wasteful.

[old salt]

So, we should expect that water to be cut off again, as long as Russia holds Crimea illegally.

Yes, I meant the Ukrainians crossing the river may be better off crossing elsewhere, not directly through Kherson, then encircling the eastern side of the city...Russians would need to leave entirely in that event.

On the other hand, destruction of the dam may be in the offing.

The whole thing is so self-destructive and wasteful.

I'm not sure the Ukrainians are looking to cross the river any time soon.
They have a chance to trap Russian forces on the N & W sides on the river.
Then, in their spring counter-offensive, they can come out of the Donbas, pushing the Russians SW down the land bridge, back into Crimea.

[cradleandshoot]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

And that’s my issue in OS, it’s been historically so often unclear but skewing heavily, massively, in one direction only to hear “that’s not what I was saying or those aren’t my words I only posted them while quoting someone else’s in response while providing no context” as to make confidence in anything he’s putting out very low. Hence I used the term bad faith discourse wayyyy back on this and continue to pound for transparency. Otherwise he’s just Fatty with some service time.

You do know that if you read Fatty's posts that he is also former military. His opinions about Reagan and the suicide bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut if memory serves me correctly is that his allegiance is as a marine who served in some capacity. I guess you didn't know that though did you?? That is the mistake people make when they don't pay attention to detail. FTR, OS has much more going for him than your derogatory comment about him having "some service time" His record as a decorated naval aviator is beyond reproach.

decorated?
I'm going to assume that's true, though I'm not sure what you mean by that or how you would know...but ok.

Flynn certainly was "decorated"...doesn't mean he ain't a fascist, bigoted nut job....dangerously so because of the credibility given to him and claimed by him because of his "decorated" service.

For the record, I'm not saying Salty is Flynn.

I have read plenty of posts from OS over the years on this and our other forum. He never boasts or talks much about what honors he has earned. I bet over a couple of cold ones he would have quite a few interesting stories to tell. I'm guessing if asked nicely he would share that information. To my knowledge no one on this forum has ever inquired about his career as a naval aviator. I do know he passed E and E training having the ability to succeed there is no small feat. I don't know if he ever spent any time in a makeshift POW camp. Also something that is not a lot of fun. I've been there and done that and never even got a Tee shirt.

How many times do people have to explain that one can separate and respect the service, a point in time, and take issue with either current behavior or anything a person is or does outside that service? Why are you so incapable of understanding this simple simple concept?

Tell me about Timothy McVeigh. You should defend his honor every day u Tim you die because he served clearly. Nothing he ever did otherwise matters.

IMO a little bit of context here would be appropriate. Your not trying to compare OS to McVeigh are you? McVeigh was screwed up in the head before he served. I served with a number of soldiers whose elevator did not go all the way up to the top. I had a good friend who wound up in the army because his only other option was jail. That was not uncommon in the 70s in the US army that needed all the warm bodies it could find. There is a huge gap between an enlisted soldier just in off the street and a naval aviator who went to the naval academy to earn his wings. IMO the vast majority of criticism leveled at OS is mean spirited and vindictive in nature. The reason why is simple, his opinions are based on his experience serving this country. He has the audacity to stand by what he believes and does not kowtow to the incessant non- stop harassment he is subjected to on a daily basis. That speaks volumes to me to his integrity. The man unselfishly uses his free time to rescue dogs, foster them and find them new forever homes. My wife and I know several people who run pet rescue operations. To do so takes dedication to a cause that not too many other people on this forum possess. That type of dedication includes having an unselfish nature to help these dogs that nobody else wants. I'm guessing you have a similar dedication to a cause beyond making money that is important to you.

http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/per ... -fall.html

Jean-Baptist Clamence has become a judge-penitent and offers his services to selected visitors to his office, the bar Mexico City, on the quays in Amsterdam. The clients don’t come to the Mexico City to seek his services, he trusts himself upon those selected.

But what is a judge-penitent? This is complex, even purposely a bit unclear, a bit contradictory. Being a judge-penitent involves both content and form. It seems some sort of amalgamation of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, Nietzsche’s Overman, and Heidegger and Sartre’s “authentic” man.

The entire book is first person narrative and Clamence is the sole speaker. The book is one long five day monologue to his latest…. – latest what? Victim? Client? Student? Penitent? Consoled? Initiate? It will depend more on outcome than process.

As judge-penitent Clamence first tells his own story, his life story, selected to explain several things – his quest for meaning; the process of his life crisis; his ascent or decent (choose what you will) from everyday life into the role of judge-penitent.

Clamence was a criminal lawyer and a good one. He tended to choose clients whom he had good reason to believe were guilty of murder. He then used his considerable skill and the constraints of law, to get the murders off, to set them free.

He was by most human standards a great success – wealthy, well-respected (if viewed as a bit odd), cultured, a known gourmet and man phenomenally successful among women of all sorts and classes.

Then he began to hear the laughter – voices clearly laughing some sort of cynical laughter, yet no one could be seen near him. He began to create this laugher of questioning even in his own inner being.

A decisive act occurred one night in Paris when he was walking across a bridge. After passing a woman he heard her jump into the Seine, and while he hesitated and thought about it, he kept walking. He even avoided reading the newspapers for several days after to keep from knowing the outcome.

The mysterious laughter, his guilt over the woman brought him to question his whole life.

The central thing he learned seemed to be that unlike the law or football or tennis, life itself had no rules and thus pure innocence made no sense.

To stop the laughter and guilt he first had to embrace this world of freedom. This made him a judge of and for himself, but this was not enough. To give his life meaning and silence and peace, he had to become a judge-penitent for others and he set himself up at the Mexico City.

I found the book to be brilliantly crafted. A significant part of the philosophical message of the novel is that human knowledge of both the meaning of life and the nature of “the good” are beyond any exact human knowledge. Rather, the intellect is likely, on Clamence/Camus’s view, to be contradictory, uncertain, fraught with risk of error. It is seen as difficulty and likely to produce the mechanics of escape into certainty on the part of us mere humans.

Clamence is a living model of this. His early years were a serious attempt to live a life of clear meaning and absolute rules. But in mid-life he began to have the doubts of both ontological and moral skepticism. His choices mirror the anxiety predicted in the theory he later propounded, and his acts are often contradictory and puzzling – actually suggesting a coherence toward his skepticism.

In Jean-Paul Sartre’s analysis of this novel he believed it was Camus’s best, he argues that Clamence is, in fact, Camus, and the novel is what I’ve described above and Camus’s personal “confession” to the world of who he is and what his work is about.

I don’t have any evaluation of Sartre’s thesis. But it does seem at least consistent with what we know of Camus’s quest for personal authenticity and his drive to share that view with others.

Along the way in the novel are several positions, views and insights which struck me as particularly interesting or rich and I shall comments on several below.

For Clamence the human has two dominant drives:

Toward things of the mind.
Toward passion, especially sex.
Together they adequately describe humanity.

“It always seemed to me that our fellow citizens had two passions: ideas and fornication…. A single sentence will suffice for moderns man: he fornicated and read the paper.”

I was much taken with an image Clamence uses on how society quietly, steadily and relentlessly steals human individual freedom. He likens this process to the tiny “nibbles” of one pariah fish takes of a victim.

“You have heard, of course, of those tiny fish in the rivers of Brazil that attack the unwary swimmer by thousands and with swift little nibbles clean him up in a few minutes, leaving only an immaculate skeleton? Well, that's what their organization is. "Do you want a good clean life? Like everybody else?" You say yes, of course. How can one say no? "O.K. You'll be cleaned up. Here's a job, a family, and organized leisure activities." And the little teeth attack the flesh, right down to the bone. But I am unjust. I shouldn't say their organization. It is ours, after all: it's a question of which will clean up the other.”

Part of the role of the judge-penitent is to challenge his target people to change their lives toward what Existentialists would call authenticity. Part of that would be to be more honest concerning interpersonal relations with others. Clamence argues that while human have formally barred slavery (at least in the west), what we have in effect done is to alter its form, coating it with some icing which hides the substance of the cake beneath.

He even acknowledges that having slavery but not calling it that – even denying it and congratulating ourselves for this advance is “useful.” It has two consequences:

It soothes the consciousness of the slave “owner.”
The illusion of non-slavery often, even usually, internalized by the slaves themselves, gives them at least some sense of (false) hope.
“Just between us, slavery, preferably with a smile, is inevitable then. But we must not admit it. Isn't it better that whoever cannot do without having slaves should call them free men? For the principle to begin with, and, secondly, not to drive them to despair. We owe them that compensation, don't we? In that way, they will continue to smile and we shall maintain our good conscience.”

Sartre has claimed that this novel is a brilliant phenomenology of human being and especially a real “confessional” of Camus. The passage below if worth considering in this regard:

“However that may be, after prolonged research on myself, I brought out the fundamental duplicity of the human being. Then I realized, as a result of delving in my memory, that modesty helped me to shine, humility to conquer, and virtue to oppress. I used to wage war by peaceful means and eventually used to achieve, through disinterested means, everything I desired. For instance, I never complained that my birthday was overlooked; people were even surprised, with a touch of admiration, by my discretion on this subject. But the reason for my disinterestedness was even more discreet: I longed to be forgotten in order to be able to complain to myself. Several days before the famous date (which I knew very well) I was on the alert, eager to let nothing slip that might arouse the attention and memory of those on whose lapse I was counting (didn't I once go so far as to contemplate falsifying a friend's calendar?). Once my solitude was thoroughly proved, I could surrender to the charms of a virile self-pity.”

I close these note with three pages from near the end of the book in which a critical thesis – and a tension – is resolved.

The experience of guilt, arrived at via the judge-penitent role and guidance, is the path to freedom and authenticity.

At the same time there is for me the puzzle. Since someone else, the judge-penitent leads others to this clarity of being, does the person arrive at his or her own freedom, or does the person become the slave of Clamence/Camus/The Existentialists?

I’ve wrestled with this issue for all 36 years of my own teaching philosophy. I would never describe myself as much of either a judge or penitent (in any public world, even in teaching) but I was certainly both of those in my own heart. Like Clamence, I wanted to challenge others and rather than “setting up shop” in the Mexico City or as a parish priest, I chose the venue of the university classroom, and perhaps even now in retirement, this cyber-space of my web page. But what does the judge-penitent inspire or produce? Freedom and authenticity in the other or the subtle slavery of which Clamence speaks?

Camus’s challenging passage is below:

No excuses ever, for anyone; that's my principle at the outset. I deny the good intention, the respectable mistake, the indiscretion, the extenuating circumstance. With me there is no giving of absolution or blessing. Everything is simply totted up, and then: "It comes to so much. You are an evildoer, a satyr, a congenital liar, a homosexual, an artist, etc." Just like that. Just as flatly. In philosophy as in politics, I am for any theory that refuses to grant man innocence and for any practice that treats him as guilty. You see in me, tres cher, an enlightened advocate of slavery.

Without slavery, as a matter of fact, there is no definitive solution. I very soon realized that. Once upon a time, I was always talking of freedom: At breakfast I use to spread it on my toast, I used to chew it all day long, and in company my breath was delightfully redolent of freedom. With that key word I would bludgeon whoever contradicted me; I made it serve my desires and my power. I used to whisper it in bed in the ear of my sleeping mates and it helped me to drop them. I would slip it… Tchk! Tchk! I am getting excited and losing all sense of proportion. After all, I did on occasion make a more disinterested use of freedom and even – just imagine my naiveté -- defended it two or three times without of course going so far as to die for it, but nevertheless taking a few risks. I must be forgiven such rash acts; I didn't know what I was doing. I didn't know that freedom is not a reward or a decoration that is celebrated with champagne. Nor yet a gift, a box of dainties designed to make you lick your chops. Oh, no! It’s a choice, on the contrary and a long-distance race, quite solitary and very exhausting. No champagne No friends raising their glasses as they look at your affectionately. Alone in a forbidding room, alone in the prisoner's box before the judges, and alone to decide in face of oneself or in the face others' judgment. At the end of all freedom is a court sentence; that's why freedom is too heavy to bear, especially when you're down with a fever, or are distressed, or love nobody.

Ah, mon cher, for anyone who is alone without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful. Hence, one must choose a master, God, before being out of style. Besides, the word has lost its meaning; it’s not worth the risk of shocking anyone.

FTR, I must be really stupid. I have absolutely no idea what your post is suppose to mean. When you start getting into writings from existentialist authors you have lost me. I read The Stranger by Camus when I was 19. There were not the proper drugs available at that point in my life to understand or even want to understand what Camus was trying to say. I did understand 100% what Dr John Valby was preaching to the yutes of America at the time...

[Farfromgeneva]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

And that’s my issue in OS, it’s been historically so often unclear but skewing heavily, massively, in one direction only to hear “that’s not what I was saying or those aren’t my words I only posted them while quoting someone else’s in response while providing no context” as to make confidence in anything he’s putting out very low. Hence I used the term bad faith discourse wayyyy back on this and continue to pound for transparency. Otherwise he’s just Fatty with some service time.

You do know that if you read Fatty's posts that he is also former military. His opinions about Reagan and the suicide bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut if memory serves me correctly is that his allegiance is as a marine who served in some capacity. I guess you didn't know that though did you?? That is the mistake people make when they don't pay attention to detail. FTR, OS has much more going for him than your derogatory comment about him having "some service time" His record as a decorated naval aviator is beyond reproach.

decorated?
I'm going to assume that's true, though I'm not sure what you mean by that or how you would know...but ok.

Flynn certainly was "decorated"...doesn't mean he ain't a fascist, bigoted nut job....dangerously so because of the credibility given to him and claimed by him because of his "decorated" service.

For the record, I'm not saying Salty is Flynn.

I have read plenty of posts from OS over the years on this and our other forum. He never boasts or talks much about what honors he has earned. I bet over a couple of cold ones he would have quite a few interesting stories to tell. I'm guessing if asked nicely he would share that information. To my knowledge no one on this forum has ever inquired about his career as a naval aviator. I do know he passed E and E training having the ability to succeed there is no small feat. I don't know if he ever spent any time in a makeshift POW camp. Also something that is not a lot of fun. I've been there and done that and never even got a Tee shirt.

How many times do people have to explain that one can separate and respect the service, a point in time, and take issue with either current behavior or anything a person is or does outside that service? Why are you so incapable of understanding this simple simple concept?

Tell me about Timothy McVeigh. You should defend his honor every day u Tim you die because he served clearly. Nothing he ever did otherwise matters.

IMO a little bit of context here would be appropriate. Your not trying to compare OS to McVeigh are you? McVeigh was screwed up in the head before he served. I served with a number of soldiers whose elevator did not go all the way up to the top. I had a good friend who wound up in the army because his only other option was jail. That was not uncommon in the 70s in the US army that needed all the warm bodies it could find. There is a huge gap between an enlisted soldier just in off the street and a naval aviator who went to the naval academy to earn his wings. IMO the vast majority of criticism leveled at OS is mean spirited and vindictive in nature. The reason why is simple, his opinions are based on his experience serving this country. He has the audacity to stand by what he believes and does not kowtow to the incessant non- stop harassment he is subjected to on a daily basis. That speaks volumes to me to his integrity. The man unselfishly uses his free time to rescue dogs, foster them and find them new forever homes. My wife and I know several people who run pet rescue operations. To do so takes dedication to a cause that not too many other people on this forum possess. That type of dedication includes having an unselfish nature to help these dogs that nobody else wants. I'm guessing you have a similar dedication to a cause beyond making money that is important to you.

http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/per ... -fall.html

Jean-Baptist Clamence has become a judge-penitent and offers his services to selected visitors to his office, the bar Mexico City, on the quays in Amsterdam. The clients don’t come to the Mexico City to seek his services, he trusts himself upon those selected.

But what is a judge-penitent? This is complex, even purposely a bit unclear, a bit contradictory. Being a judge-penitent involves both content and form. It seems some sort of amalgamation of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, Nietzsche’s Overman, and Heidegger and Sartre’s “authentic” man.

The entire book is first person narrative and Clamence is the sole speaker. The book is one long five day monologue to his latest…. – latest what? Victim? Client? Student? Penitent? Consoled? Initiate? It will depend more on outcome than process.

As judge-penitent Clamence first tells his own story, his life story, selected to explain several things – his quest for meaning; the process of his life crisis; his ascent or decent (choose what you will) from everyday life into the role of judge-penitent.

Clamence was a criminal lawyer and a good one. He tended to choose clients whom he had good reason to believe were guilty of murder. He then used his considerable skill and the constraints of law, to get the murders off, to set them free.

He was by most human standards a great success – wealthy, well-respected (if viewed as a bit odd), cultured, a known gourmet and man phenomenally successful among women of all sorts and classes.

Then he began to hear the laughter – voices clearly laughing some sort of cynical laughter, yet no one could be seen near him. He began to create this laugher of questioning even in his own inner being.

A decisive act occurred one night in Paris when he was walking across a bridge. After passing a woman he heard her jump into the Seine, and while he hesitated and thought about it, he kept walking. He even avoided reading the newspapers for several days after to keep from knowing the outcome.

The mysterious laughter, his guilt over the woman brought him to question his whole life.

The central thing he learned seemed to be that unlike the law or football or tennis, life itself had no rules and thus pure innocence made no sense.

To stop the laughter and guilt he first had to embrace this world of freedom. This made him a judge of and for himself, but this was not enough. To give his life meaning and silence and peace, he had to become a judge-penitent for others and he set himself up at the Mexico City.

I found the book to be brilliantly crafted. A significant part of the philosophical message of the novel is that human knowledge of both the meaning of life and the nature of “the good” are beyond any exact human knowledge. Rather, the intellect is likely, on Clamence/Camus’s view, to be contradictory, uncertain, fraught with risk of error. It is seen as difficulty and likely to produce the mechanics of escape into certainty on the part of us mere humans.

Clamence is a living model of this. His early years were a serious attempt to live a life of clear meaning and absolute rules. But in mid-life he began to have the doubts of both ontological and moral skepticism. His choices mirror the anxiety predicted in the theory he later propounded, and his acts are often contradictory and puzzling – actually suggesting a coherence toward his skepticism.

In Jean-Paul Sartre’s analysis of this novel he believed it was Camus’s best, he argues that Clamence is, in fact, Camus, and the novel is what I’ve described above and Camus’s personal “confession” to the world of who he is and what his work is about.

I don’t have any evaluation of Sartre’s thesis. But it does seem at least consistent with what we know of Camus’s quest for personal authenticity and his drive to share that view with others.

Along the way in the novel are several positions, views and insights which struck me as particularly interesting or rich and I shall comments on several below.

For Clamence the human has two dominant drives:

Toward things of the mind.
Toward passion, especially sex.
Together they adequately describe humanity.

“It always seemed to me that our fellow citizens had two passions: ideas and fornication…. A single sentence will suffice for moderns man: he fornicated and read the paper.”

I was much taken with an image Clamence uses on how society quietly, steadily and relentlessly steals human individual freedom. He likens this process to the tiny “nibbles” of one pariah fish takes of a victim.

“You have heard, of course, of those tiny fish in the rivers of Brazil that attack the unwary swimmer by thousands and with swift little nibbles clean him up in a few minutes, leaving only an immaculate skeleton? Well, that's what their organization is. "Do you want a good clean life? Like everybody else?" You say yes, of course. How can one say no? "O.K. You'll be cleaned up. Here's a job, a family, and organized leisure activities." And the little teeth attack the flesh, right down to the bone. But I am unjust. I shouldn't say their organization. It is ours, after all: it's a question of which will clean up the other.”

Part of the role of the judge-penitent is to challenge his target people to change their lives toward what Existentialists would call authenticity. Part of that would be to be more honest concerning interpersonal relations with others. Clamence argues that while human have formally barred slavery (at least in the west), what we have in effect done is to alter its form, coating it with some icing which hides the substance of the cake beneath.

He even acknowledges that having slavery but not calling it that – even denying it and congratulating ourselves for this advance is “useful.” It has two consequences:

It soothes the consciousness of the slave “owner.”
The illusion of non-slavery often, even usually, internalized by the slaves themselves, gives them at least some sense of (false) hope.
“Just between us, slavery, preferably with a smile, is inevitable then. But we must not admit it. Isn't it better that whoever cannot do without having slaves should call them free men? For the principle to begin with, and, secondly, not to drive them to despair. We owe them that compensation, don't we? In that way, they will continue to smile and we shall maintain our good conscience.”

Sartre has claimed that this novel is a brilliant phenomenology of human being and especially a real “confessional” of Camus. The passage below if worth considering in this regard:

“However that may be, after prolonged research on myself, I brought out the fundamental duplicity of the human being. Then I realized, as a result of delving in my memory, that modesty helped me to shine, humility to conquer, and virtue to oppress. I used to wage war by peaceful means and eventually used to achieve, through disinterested means, everything I desired. For instance, I never complained that my birthday was overlooked; people were even surprised, with a touch of admiration, by my discretion on this subject. But the reason for my disinterestedness was even more discreet: I longed to be forgotten in order to be able to complain to myself. Several days before the famous date (which I knew very well) I was on the alert, eager to let nothing slip that might arouse the attention and memory of those on whose lapse I was counting (didn't I once go so far as to contemplate falsifying a friend's calendar?). Once my solitude was thoroughly proved, I could surrender to the charms of a virile self-pity.”

I close these note with three pages from near the end of the book in which a critical thesis – and a tension – is resolved.

The experience of guilt, arrived at via the judge-penitent role and guidance, is the path to freedom and authenticity.

At the same time there is for me the puzzle. Since someone else, the judge-penitent leads others to this clarity of being, does the person arrive at his or her own freedom, or does the person become the slave of Clamence/Camus/The Existentialists?

I’ve wrestled with this issue for all 36 years of my own teaching philosophy. I would never describe myself as much of either a judge or penitent (in any public world, even in teaching) but I was certainly both of those in my own heart. Like Clamence, I wanted to challenge others and rather than “setting up shop” in the Mexico City or as a parish priest, I chose the venue of the university classroom, and perhaps even now in retirement, this cyber-space of my web page. But what does the judge-penitent inspire or produce? Freedom and authenticity in the other or the subtle slavery of which Clamence speaks?

Camus’s challenging passage is below:

No excuses ever, for anyone; that's my principle at the outset. I deny the good intention, the respectable mistake, the indiscretion, the extenuating circumstance. With me there is no giving of absolution or blessing. Everything is simply totted up, and then: "It comes to so much. You are an evildoer, a satyr, a congenital liar, a homosexual, an artist, etc." Just like that. Just as flatly. In philosophy as in politics, I am for any theory that refuses to grant man innocence and for any practice that treats him as guilty. You see in me, tres cher, an enlightened advocate of slavery.

Without slavery, as a matter of fact, there is no definitive solution. I very soon realized that. Once upon a time, I was always talking of freedom: At breakfast I use to spread it on my toast, I used to chew it all day long, and in company my breath was delightfully redolent of freedom. With that key word I would bludgeon whoever contradicted me; I made it serve my desires and my power. I used to whisper it in bed in the ear of my sleeping mates and it helped me to drop them. I would slip it… Tchk! Tchk! I am getting excited and losing all sense of proportion. After all, I did on occasion make a more disinterested use of freedom and even – just imagine my naiveté -- defended it two or three times without of course going so far as to die for it, but nevertheless taking a few risks. I must be forgiven such rash acts; I didn't know what I was doing. I didn't know that freedom is not a reward or a decoration that is celebrated with champagne. Nor yet a gift, a box of dainties designed to make you lick your chops. Oh, no! It’s a choice, on the contrary and a long-distance race, quite solitary and very exhausting. No champagne No friends raising their glasses as they look at your affectionately. Alone in a forbidding room, alone in the prisoner's box before the judges, and alone to decide in face of oneself or in the face others' judgment. At the end of all freedom is a court sentence; that's why freedom is too heavy to bear, especially when you're down with a fever, or are distressed, or love nobody.

Ah, mon cher, for anyone who is alone without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful. Hence, one must choose a master, God, before being out of style. Besides, the word has lost its meaning; it’s not worth the risk of shocking anyone.

FTR, I must be really stupid. I have absolutely no idea what your post is suppose to mean. When you start getting into writings from existentialist authors you have lost me. I read The Stranger by Camus when I was 19. There were not the proper drugs available at that point in my life to understand or even want to understand what Camus was trying to say. I did understand 100% what Dr John Valby was preaching to the yutes of America at the time...

I applaud you reading The Stranger at any point in life and only wish you tried that hard now.