aintforever

The worst thing about the way we play is that it doesn’t even change when we are 1 or 2 up. A style that is risky at 0-0 is just suicidal when the opponent is chasing the game. I said to a mate before the Everton game, the only way we will win is if we go ahead really late on and that proved to be the case, even then we needed a huge slice of luck to see the game out. I get the passing out the back to suck the opposition in thing but without mixing it up a bit it loses all effect. When we are leading the opposition commit more and more forward and our players naturally get more and more defensive so it just leads to passes to nowhere and invites pressure and mistakes. The frustrating thing is we do play some good football in patches but are undone by our own dogmatic approach.

This from Reddit gives a pretty grim outlook of the current situation (who knows how accurate it is): Our esteemed friend Michael Koffman recently returned from Ukraine and was invited in another War on the Rocks podcast. A lot of what he discussed actually really surprised me, but I warn you from now, his analysis is almost always on the negative side. The main points were: Neither Russia nor Ukraine are able to sustain the war in the long term. It's a matter of when, and not if, negotiations begins. Trumps precidency only shortens the time-frame. The battlefield situation has significantly deteriorated for Ukraine. Back in the summer, it seemed that the worst was over, Ukraine could hold back the Russian offensive, exhaust the Russian army and begin reconsituting by the winter. Instead, the Ukrainians are pretty much in the same situation as in the summer; outstretched and exhausted. There is a non-insignificant chance of a genuine local collapse of Ukrainian defensive lines. Ukraine's situation has largely to do with political decisions in Kyiv. The mobilization wasn't as successful as predicted, most recruits went into support roles instead of infantry, and the rest went into new brigades instead of reinforcing existing ones. The Kursk salient is doomed to fail. The logistics situation for Ukraine is already tense, and the arrival of new Russian reinforcements and NK troops means that inevitably, it will be reclaimed by Russia. North Korean troops showcase Russias strength in mobilizing its allies for help; the inaction of the west showcases the opposite for Ukraine. Trumps precidency isn't seen as catastrophic in Ukraine. In their view, Trump is a gamble where there is a chance the situation improves, while if the Democrats had won, Ukraine would just slowly bleed to death due to restrictions and spoon-fed aid. Ukraine has managed to significantly outscale Russia in both quality and quantity of drones. Ukraine has also bridged the gap in artillery usage, reaching parity in sections such as Pokrovsk and Toretsk. Their territorial loses there are attributed to a clear lack of manpower. There is no world in which bombing Russia with drones will bring Putin to the table. For as long as Ukraine loses ground, Russia has no reason to stop its war. The Russian economy may be heaving, but Russia can sustain the pain for now.

Agree that membership soon is unlikely but without any sort of guarantee from NATO all stopping the war now would do is give Russia time to prepare for their next invasion. Putin will know that NATO are scared to fight so will basically be given a green light to carry on as he wants.

From what I’ve been reading there is plenty of support in Ukraine for just ending the war even if it means conceding territory to Russia. There is a feeling that the west is just drip feeding enough arms through to keep Russia at bay without giving them what’s needed to win it (if that’s possible?). Just hope Ukraine end up with, if not full membership, some sort of security guarantee from NATO going forward. If Trump just caves in to Putin and basically hands him a victory it’s not going to be great for Europe.

Maybe, but that doesn’t mean that’s why Levine was given the job.

Is it? She seems qualified enough to me. Admiral Rachel L. Levine serves as the 17th Assistant Secretary for Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), after being nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2021. As Assistant Secretary for Health, ADM Rachel Levine fights every day to improve the health and well-being of all Americans. She's working to help our nation overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and build a stronger foundation for a healthier future - one in which every American can attain their full health potential. ADM Levine also is the head of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, one of the eight uniformed services. After graduating from Harvard College and Tulane University School of Medicine, ADM Levine completed her training in Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine at the Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York City. As a physician, she focused on the intersection between mental and physical health, treating children, adolescents, and young adults. ADM Levine was a Professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry at the Penn State College of Medicine. Her previous posts included: Vice-Chair for Clinical Affairs for the Department of Pediatrics, and Chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center. In 2015, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf nominated ADM Levine to be Pennsylvania's Physician General and she was subsequently unanimously confirmed by Pennsylvania's state Senate. In March of 2018, ADM Levine was named Pennsylvania's Secretary of Health. During her time in state government, ADM Levine worked to address Pennsylvania's opioid crisis, focus attention on maternal health and improve immunization rates among children. Her decision to issue a standing order for the anti-overdose drug, Naloxone, saved thousands of lives by allowing law enforcement to carry the drug and Pennsylvanians to purchase it without a prescription from their doctor. ADM Levine is a member of the National Academy of Medicine and a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, and the Academy for Eating Disorders. She was also the President of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. In addition to her recent posts in medicine and government, ADM Levine is an accomplished speaker and author of numerous publications on the opioid crisis, adolescent medicine, eating disorders, and LGBT medicine.

What is her history that makes her so unsuitable then?

How is Rachel Levine not qualified to be Assistant Secretary for Health? From Wiki: Levine is a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at the Penn State College of Medicine, and previously served as the Pennsylvania physician general from 2015 to 2017 and as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health from 2017 to 2021. Seems quite appropriate to me.

Looks like plenty of safeguards there, I would vote for it. There’s obviously risks involved but think the amount of suffering it would stop makes it worthwhile.

Shame he's going, I think he's an excellent host and they are going to struggle to get anyone as good.

Also when I was a kid you could get into the Milton for £2, that's pay on the day, none of this buying a ticket a month in advance bollocks. Plus you could stand where you want. Nowadays you pay more, watch shitter football and end up sat amongst boring fuckers who didn't even sing. I couldn't even get a cup of Boveril last time I tried. Obviously technological advances mean many things are better today but there are a whole load of things that are worse. In 1996 you would go and see Oasis, when they were actually good, for £22.50. There are a fraction of the amount of pubs around today, and they are always full of wankers having meals not young people having good time. I remember if you were ill a doctor came out to your house, today you have to wait 2 weeks for a phone call. Dentists are like rocking horse shit, Wagon Wheels are smaller...

We’re going down anyway so I’m not overly bothered what they do to be honest. Seems like lunacy not to roll the dice now though, we might as well take a punt on someone because it can’t really get much worse.

It will have to be another Mark Hughes style appointment - chuck a shit load of cash at someone like Moyes. Or just plan for next season and hire someone who can get us promoted again.

This place tends to be more negative than St Mary’s - it’s a magnet for miserable fuckers who have nothing better to do than moan. That said, everyone I go to the games with wanted shot of him ages ago.

I dunno, it was much easier to buy a house back in the 90’s. I left uni with pretty much no debt and got a mortgage despite having zero deposit. Think many nowadays are getting a pretty shitty deal compared to my generation.

Think how the money is spent is probably going to be more important going forward with the way drones are changing how wars are fought. Some of the footage online is nuts, there are drones that cost a few hundred quid taking out brand new multi million pound missile systems, armoured vehicles and tanks. I guess the main reason for the stalemate is the fact that any serious build up of troops is instantly spotted by drones and taken out by drones, missiles or artillery. The US stopping finding is not good but Ukraine has been fighting with one hand behind their back and there are still cities just a few miles from the Russian border that haven’t been taken. The Russian army has been shown up as a paper tiger, I don’t think it would take a massive effort from Europe to keep them at bay.

Also I expect it is more than in their interests to degrade Russia’s military and project their influence abroad, it’s not like they are donating billions to help Europe out of the kindness of their heart. Obviously Trump has different ideas about what their interests are but I doubt many in congress will want another Soviet Union which is what Putin clearly desires.

We will probably have to if Trump cuts and runs. Problem is weapons cost money and that means raising taxes. And as you know, if we do that our right-wingers cry like a bunch of babies.

That's basically surrender. You're in fucking dreamland if you think they could cave in then negotiate their way back to 1991 borders.

If NATO caves in to Russia it won't end with the Dombas - that's also reality. There will have to be an agreement in the end but it can't end with Russia dictating wether Ukraine joins NATO or not, if that's the outcome it's basically surrender and we might as well prepare for a European war.

Not really the only question though is it. How much of Europe do you surrender to a brutal dictator is one pretty important question too. Also, another fairly important one is how do you stop the inevitable future invasions once you cave in to Putin over this?

Follows the pattern of incumbents getting a kicking over the cost of living. As soon as the first exit polls came out it was clear he was going to win, the Yanks are just pissed off because they can't afford their hot dogs. Biden and the Democratic Party need to take some blame, he should have stepped down sooner and given them a chance to elect a popular leader. Not sure that would have made a huge difference though, it's all about the rising prices as it was over here IMO. Just hope the orange baby doesn't stitch up Ukraine, couldn't care less what else he does over there.

Again, that’s the attitude which means nothing gets done, it’s the line of thought that has led us to where we are now. Individual countries worrying more about not being competitive than the state of the planet. I agree we should prepare because climate change is going to get a lot worse now regardless of what we do but we should also do what we can to try and limit the damage, and rich countries like our should lead the way.

It’s that way of thinking which results in the complete failure to deal with the problem. Every country on the planet can say the same thing and nothing gets done.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98eylqeg06o Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse While scientists are reluctant to say any single extreme event was caused by climate change, researchers have been quick to point out the role that rising temperatures have had in making the Spanish floods worse. “No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events. “With every fraction of a degree of fossil fuel warming, the atmosphere can hold more moisture, leading to heavier bursts of rainfall.” Weather researchers say the likely main cause of the intense rainfall was a natural weather event that hits Spain in Autumn and Winter. Called a "gota fría” or cold drop, it sees cold air descend on the warmer waters of the Mediterranean Sea, which has been experiencing extremely hot conditions over the past couple of years. The hot moist air on the surface of the sea then rises quickly, leading to tall, towering clouds that are blown ashore and deposit large amounts of rain. Researchers say that climate change directly impacted the amount of rain that these clouds carried, pushing it up by 7% for every 1C degree of warming.