#wonk unit | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theresaghostinmyhome · 1 year

Text

Kyle “Gaz” Garrick dating headcanons

• Author’s note: Starting off the romantic writings with Mista Garrick because everyone has been sleeping on him since basically he got introduced dammit! Enjoy <3 ☾ • Warnings: The tiniest bit of suggestive content. Otherwise completely wholesome! ☾

☆ Some might perceive Kyle to be a Lad™, but honestly he’s really not. He’s too much of a softboy to play girls like that or be a dudebro about anything. He’s incredibly respectful, intelligent, and loves loyalty and commitment!

☆ Speaking of being loyal, Kyle is exactly that. When he’s interested in someone he puts his all into it, hoping they’ll be the one. He’s had many heartbreaks because he puts his heart on his sleeve and he gets taken advantage of. He just wants someone to love and to love him! Someone give this man a break huh? (I volunteer as tribute)

☆ Man is all about those sweet pet names! Think: Love, sweetheart, darling, babe(s). Once he’s in love, oh boy is he in LOVE. You’ll get all these and more, trust and believe.

☆ Loves arcade dates. In my mind, Kyle is a huge fan of classic arcade cabinets. Furthermore, Mortal Kombat. He totally wants to indoctrinate you into it if you aren’t already, will play hours and hours smashing those buttons and messing around with you just to see your smile. Will also pay for dinner no matter if he wins or loses, true gentleman. He will tease you if you lose though!

☆ If you aren’t military he would want you to meet Price. That man is Kyle’s whole inspiration, his mentor. That’s very special to him and he’d love to set up a cute little brunch where you can meet the man himself. Tell stories about how many times Kyle’s fallen out of air crafts, stuff like that! You mean a lot to him, only fair that you get to meet the old man that makes him the man he is today!

☆ He doesn’t expect it or demand it, but if you ever help him in his life outside of work he appreciates it beyond everything else. Making breakfast or helping him get through the mountain of dirty laundry he always brings back, helping him out like that makes his whole week. He’ll make sure to do the same for you, returning the favor is his favorite game after all (wink wonk). If you make breakfast, he’ll make dinner. If you do his laundry, he’ll wash every dish in his vicinity. Mans will never leave you with more to be desired, trust.

☆ Will always check in on how you’re doing. Never wants you to feel as if you aren’t being listened to or heard. Making sure you’re eating and sleeping comes with this too! He wants his partner to be comfortable and happy. If you need anything he’ll always be there to get it to you.

☆ If you’re not military and are more civilian aligned, face timing him while he’s deployed is a must for him. He needs to check in on you, make sure you know he’s okay and alive, and to see your wonderful face that he loves so much. Plus, you get to see that handsome smile of his! Hearing you while he’s out in the middle of nowhere unable to sleep, it keeps him going. Ever since you came into his life things have changed in a good way, he’s always doing good for everyone else and he loves it, but now he can do good for those he loves too.

☆ Top tier cuddler, truly. Mans loves to hold and to be held, whatever you want he can be and he’ll soak up every second of it. He’s good at detecting what you want in the moment, accommodating if you need to be held after a rough day or if you sense he needs to just get lost in your arms for a while. Plenty of kisses are going to happen during any designated cuddle time too, he’s especially fond of kissing your hands and your temple.

☆ Overall a fantastic boyfriend to have, he’s a sweetheart with so much to give! Gaz girlies (gender neutral) unite <3

#Kyle G.➳#call of duty #cod mw2 #cod #call of duty modern warfare 2 #call of duty mw2 #modern warfare 2019 #modern warfare 2022 #mw2 x reader #kyle gaz garrick #kyle gaz garrick x reader #kyle garrick x reader #gaz modern warfare #gaz mw2 #gaz cod #cod x reader #suggestive #just a tiny bit. just a little. cant even tell.

168 notes · View notes

lieutenantlashfaz · 1 year

Text

What did splinter do to mikey? Poor boy I mean the rest of them look rough too but damn poor baby looks like he got dropped on the floor like a wet piece of clay.

The rest of them look rough as well

Leo and Donnie who I'm sure ate rocks and crayons

And this absolute UNIT of a child that is Raph

I still love them though. Even if they do look a bit wonk

#lashfaz ramblings #tmnt mutant mayhem

230 notes · View notes

directactionforhope · 2 months

Text

"There is a small panel of regulators in every state that holds a similar power over electricity generation and, by extension, an enormous segment of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet. By setting electricity prices, they also have a substantial impact on most people’s lives and pocketbooks. Yet, in Georgia and elsewhere, these groups — known as public service or public utility commissions — get little attention or scrutiny outside of energy wonk circles. Their hearings and documents tend to be long and jargon-heavy, covered in the media by a small group of specialized reporters, making it hard to engage with the process.

This year, Grist and WABE will try to demystify energy regulation in Georgia and beyond. We’ll bring you stories on not only how your power gets made, but how those decisions happen — and how residents who vote and pay electricity bills can get involved."

-via Grist, March 5, 2024. See link for more details (especially in Georgia) and more ways to get involved.

18 notes · View notes

warrioreowynofrohan · 4 months

Text

Les Misérables 1.1.4 - Works Answering Words

“…there are in France 1,320,000 peasants’ cottages that have but three openings; 1,817,000 that have two, the door and one window; and finally, 346,000 cabins, with on,y one opening - the door. And this is in consequence of what is called the excise upon doors and windows. In these poor families, among the aged women and the little children, dwelling in these huts, how abundent is fever and disease? Alas! God gives light to men; the law sells it.”

Okay, folks, let’s talk ✨tax policy✨!

I do not think this law was intended to be cruel to the poor. In fact, I think it was intended for the opposite.

In an age before income tax, how - beyond land taxes - does one tax the rich progressively? By taxing things of which the rich have many, and the poor have few. A wealthy man’s mansion, such as the one that Myriel gave up for the hospital, may have fifty, a hundred, or hundreds of windows. A peasant’s or factory worker’s house, even without the tax, would have only few.

I think the intent of this excise is progressive taxation. (I suspected this at first reading it, and Wikipedia backed me up.)

This is what policy wonks call a perverse incentive - you try to do one thing, but also cause a reaction that is completely unintended. It illustrates the need to think out the possible consequences of your policies beforehand, to have systems to make you aware of problems they are causing, and to make changes to fix those problems when you find about them.

This particular problem could, in theory, be fixed by applying the tax only to homes with more than a certain number of windows (and only to homes, since there are other reasons to want buildings like factories to be well-lit; and not to multi-unit dwellings like apartments), so that it in effect becomes only a tax on the mansions of the wealthy. (In Britain, in fact, it only applied to to windows after the first 10, and was applied at a higher rate to, say, the 50th-100th windows than to the 10th-20th windows - the equivalent of the graduated income tax.) They might still call it a tax on air and light, but they also called the estate tax a death tax.

#les miserables #les mis letters #lm 1.1.4 #policy

23 notes · View notes

iteratedextras · 1 year

Text

[anon]

I feel like there's a recurring pattern of discourse from people who have some idea that the left establishment is fucked up but don't want to admit how deeply unsalvageable it is, where they blame the motte-and-bailey-ing on academics being bad at communicating and using obscure field-specific jargon in inflammatory public contexts where people don't have the background to understand them, but then you actually check what the obscure field-specific jargon is and where it came from and what it means and it's always some shit like "'Slaughtering the white children' is a sociology concept introduced by scholar Joan de Cia in her 1978 essay We Must Slaughter The White Children. In the essay, de Cia describes 'the white children' as a symbol for the vain hopes of capital, and states that if a classless society is ever to be achieved, these hopes must be destroyed by means of violence."

Ah, you mean like that time a local non-insane leftist wonk read through "Decolonization is not a metaphor" and discovered the line "decolonization is not accountable to [...] settler futurity"?:

Which, well...

The surface reading of the term "decolonize" is that the entire "settler" population fucks off and leaves the continent, taking all their equipment and buildings with them and rolling the entire geographic area back to the year 1491.

Which sounds a lot like...

Breaking the settler colonial triad, in direct terms, means repatriating land to sovereign Native tribes and nations, abolition of slavery in its contemporary forms, and the dismantling of the imperial metropole. [...] For social justice movements, like Occupy, to truly aspire to decolonization nonmetaphorically, they would impoverish, not enrich, the 99%+ settler population of United States. Decolonization eliminates settler property rights and settler sovereignty. It requires the abolition of land as property and upholds the sovereignty of Native land and people.

afloweroutofstone found no more concrete description of what "decolonization" is supposed to entail.

Terms like "eliminate whiteness" and "spirit-murdering" are almost certainly no different. It's doubtful there's any proposed definition of "spirit-murdering" concrete enough to rule someone "not-guilty."

If the surface reading is extremely hostile, and the "technical" reading is a bunch of vague gibberish, it should be assumed that the speaker is intentionally choosing to be extremely hostile, especially among left-wingers who are highly focused on "harmful" language.

afloweroutofstone, like max1461, has to treat the subject with kid gloves. Noting that "Decolonization is not a metaphor" is like this is a way for him to slowly walk the insane people in his movement away from * checks notes * indigenous irredentism explicitly completely unconcerned with the fallout that might have on the vast majority of the population, and not get deplatformed by the insane ideological vanguard.

Many sane leftists are essentially followed by Nazis. Rightists are too, of course, it's just that it's often presented as only Rightists.

Some of these guys probably don't really believe in this and are just trying to push the overton window, but it should be noted that a number of right-wing Twitter users claim that they weren't right-wing 10 years ago. (I think that's credible because *I* wasn't as right-wing 10 years ago.)

Others are likely just social consensus followers that are allergic to like, math, or other elements of trying to synthesize a concrete policy.

112 notes · View notes

ashleybenlove · 4 months

Text

@lifblogs asked me a few days ago if I was gonna share the list of books I read this year. So, I'm gonna do that.

Due to character limits, I had to separate the numbered lists, so first list goes up to 100 and then the second list is the rest.

Couple of notes, my list includes the date I finished reading and a couple of marks.

Their meanings:

Started in 2022: * This book is a reread: ** Did not write down the date but probably the date: *? (Basically I decided after I had started to include the date finished.) Special notation for Dracula and Dracula Daily: **!

Bold denotes favorites.

Eight Kinky Nights: An f/f Chanukah romance by Xan West* – Jan 1*?

Through the Moon: A Graphic Novel (The Dragon Prince Graphic Novel #1) by Peter Wartman – Jan 4

Maphead: Charting the Wide, Weird World of Geography Wonks by Ken Jennings – Jan 7

The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World by Steve Brusatte – Jan 12

A Brother’s Price by Wen Spencer** - Jan 13

Gossie and Gertie by Olivier Dunrea – Jan 17

A Brief History of Earth: Four Billion Years in Eight Chapters by Andrew H. Knoll – Jan 18

Kindred by Octavia E. Butler – Jan 22

Flying Dinosaurs: How Fearsome Reptiles Became Birds by John Pickrell – Jan 25

Promised Land: a Revolutionary Romance by Rose Lerner – Jan 26

Bad Girls Never Say Die by Jennifer Mathieu – Jan 27

How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States by Daniel Immerwahr – Feb 2

Artemis by Andy Weir – Feb 4

Hunting Game by Helene Tursten – Feb 7

How the Earth Turned Green: A Brief 3.8-Billion-Year History of Plants by Joseph E. Armstrong – Feb 14

Fortuna by Kristyn Merbeth – Feb 16

After Hours on Milagro Street by Angelina M. Lopez – Feb 22

Dash & Lily's Book of Dares by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan – Feb 22

Super Volcanoes: What They Reveal about Earth and the Worlds Beyond by Robin George Andrews – Feb 28

Memoria by Kristyn Merbeth – Feb 28

American Revolution: A History From Beginning to End by Hourly History – Mar 5

Discordia by Kristyn Merbeth – Mar 6

A Thousand Acres by Jane Smiley – Mar 17

Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded by Simon Winchester – Mar 18

The Ends of the World: Volcanic Apocalypses, Lethal Oceans, and Our Quest to Understand Earth's Past Mass Extinctions by Peter Brannen – Mar 18

Big Chicas Don't Cry by Annette Chavez Macias – Mar 19

Innumerable Insects: The Story of the Most Diverse and Myriad Animals on Earth by Michael S. Engel – Mar 21

The Cause: The American Revolution and its Discontents, 1773-1783 by Joseph J. Ellis – Mar 24

Eragon by Christopher Paolini – Mar 25

Immune: A Journey into the Mysterious System That Keeps You Alive by Philipp Dettmer – Mar 25

Locked in Time by Lois Duncan** – Mar 26

Written in the Stars by Alexandria Bellefleur – Mar 28

The Mystery of Mrs. Christie by Marie Benedict – April 4

Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster by Adam Higginbotham – April 7

Bisexually Stuffed By Our Living Christmas Stocking by Chuck Tingle – April 8

Bloodmoon Huntress: A Graphic Novel (The Dragon Prince Graphic Novel #2) by Nicole Andelfinger – April 9

The Marriage Portrait by Maggie O'Farrell – April 11

The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton – April 13

The Return of Martin Guerre by Natalie Zemon Davis – April 17

What Happened to Ruthy Ramirez by Claire Jimenez – April 19

Cinder by Marissa Meyer – April 20

The Body: A Guide for Occupants by Bill Bryson – April 20

Eldest by Christopher Paolini – April 22

The Twelve Days of Dash & Lily by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan – April 23

The Sentient Lesbian Em Dash — My Favorite Punctuation Mark — Gets Me Off by Chuck Tingle – April 24

The Pleistocene Era: The History of the Ice Age and the Dawn of Modern Humans by Charles River Editors – April 26

The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie – April 27

Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void by Mary Roach – April 29

Absolution by Murder by Peter Tremayne – May 3

Matrix by Lauren Groff – May 6

The Color Purple by Alice Walker – May 7

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie – May 9

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret by Judy Blume – May 11

The Dragon Prince Book One: Moon by Aaron Ehasz and Melanie McGanney Ehasz – May 13

Mind the Gap, Dash & Lily by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan – May 15

Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Pérez – May 15

Atlas of Unusual Borders: Discover Intriguing Boundaries, Territories and Geographical Curiosities by Zoran Nikolic – May 20

How the Mountains Grew: A New Geological History of North America by John Dvorak – May 20

The Guncle by Steven Rowley – May 21

Brisingr by Christopher Paolini – May 24

Reflection: A Twisted Tale by Elizabeth Lim – May 26

Sailor's Delight by Rose Lerner – May 26

The Last Days of the Dinosaurs: An Asteroid, Extinction, and the Beginning of Our World by Riley Black – May 28

Humans are Weird: I Have the Data by Betty Adams – June 3

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro – June 4

Scarlet by Marissa Meyer – June 8

Slaughterhouse-Five, or, The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death by Kurt Vonnegut – June 9

A Tip for the Hangman by Allison Epstein – June 11

Cress by Marissa Meyer – June 20

Iron Widow by Xiran Jay Zhao – June 22

The Rise and Reign of the Mammals: A New History, from the Shadow of the Dinosaurs to Us by Steve Brusatte – June 24

After the Hurricane by Leah Franqui – June 24

Inheritance by Christopher Paolini – June 25

Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel García Márquez – June 26

Dark Room Etiquette by Robin Roe – June 30

The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking) by Katie Mack – July 4

Pests: How Humans Create Animal Villains by Bethany Brookshire – July 5

Mistress of the Art of Death by Ariana Franklin – July 7

Cosmos by Carl Sagan – July 10

1984 by George Orwell** -- July 11

What Once Was Mine: A Twisted Tale by Liz Braswell – July 17

Evolution Gone Wrong: The Curious Reasons Why Our Bodies Work (Or Don't) by Alex Bezzerides – July 20

The Planet Factory: Exoplanets and the Search for a Second Earth Hardcover by Elizabeth Tasker – July 21

Witches by Brenda Lozano – July 24

Son of a Sailor: A Cozy Pirate Tale by Marshall J. Moore – July 29

Winter by Marissa Meyer – July 29

As Old As Time: A Twisted Tale by Liz Braswell – July 30

Baking Yesteryear: The Best Recipes from the 1900s to the 1980s by B. Dylan Hollis – August 4

Half Bad by Sally Green – August 7

The Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time by John Kelly – August 14

Firekeeper's Daughter by Angeline Boulley – August 18

Gory Details: Adventures From the Dark Side of Science by Erika Engelhaupt – August 22

The Last Karankawas by Kimberly Garza – August 25

The Radium Girls: The Dark Story of America's Shining Women by Kate Moore – Sept 5

Oceans of Kansas, Second Edition: A Natural History of the Western Interior Sea by Michael J. Everhart – Sept 7

Corpus Christi: The History of a Texas Seaport by Bill Walraven – Sept 9

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury** – Sept 12

Mexican Gothic by Silvia Moreno-Garcia – Sept 18

The Last Cuentista by Donna Barba Higuera – Sept 20

The Grace Year by Kim Liggett – Sept 22

The Mammals of Texas by William B. Davis and David J. Schmidly – Sept 29

The Romance Recipe by Ruby Barrett – Oct 4

The 2024 Old Farmer’s Almanac edited by Janice Stillman – Oct 7

Half Wild by Sally Green – Oct 7

Death Comes to Pemberley by P.D. James – Oct 7

Verity by Colleen Hoover – Oct 10

Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence – Oct 15

Archaeology: Unearthing the Mysteries of the Past by Kate Santon – Oct 16

100 Places to See After You Die: A Travel Guide to the Afterlife by Ken Jennings – Oct 22

The Body in the Library by Agatha Christie – Oct 22

Summer of the Mariposas by Guadalupe García McCall – Oct 22

Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie – Oct 27

How Far the Light Reaches: A Life in Ten Sea Creatures by Sabrina Imbler – Oct 28

The Fires of Vesuvius: Pompeii Lost and Found by Mary Beard – Oct 29

Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair by Sarah Schulman – Oct 31

The Great Texas Dragon Race by Kacy Ritter – Nov 6

Dracula by Bram Stoker**! – Nov 7/8

The Wives of Henry VIII by Antonia Fraser – Nov 9

Cascadia's Fault: The Coming Earthquake and Tsunami that Could Devastate North America by Jerry Thompson – Nov 10

The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison – Nov 11

Daisy Darker by Alice Feeney – Nov 13

Untamed by Glennon Doyle – Nov 14

Nimona by ND Stevenson – Nov 18

Dracula Daily by Matt Kirkland**! – Nov 20

A Mother Would Know by Amber Garza – Nov 24

Five Little Pigs by Agatha Christie – Nov 25

How To Train Your Dragon by Cressida Cowell** – Nov 27

Hickory Dickory Dock by Agatha Christie – Dec 1

Murtagh by Christopher Paolini – Dec 8

The Labours of Hercules by Agatha Christie – Dec 8

Icehenge by Kim Stanley Robinson – Dec 9

These Holiday Movies With Bizarrely Similar Smiling Heterosexual Couples Dressed In Green And Red On Their Cover Get Me Off Bisexually by Chuck Tingle – Dec 9

The Domesday Book: England's Heritage, Then & Now edited by Thomas Hindle – Dec 10

You Sound Like a White Girl: The Case for Rejecting Assimilation by Julissa Arce – Dec 13

Himawari House by Harmony Becker – Dec 13

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck** – Dec 18

Born Into It: A Fan’s Life by Jay Baruchel – Dec 18

The Dragon Prince Book Two: Sky by Aaron Ehasz and Melanie McGanney Ehasz – Dec 23

Legends & Lattes by Travis Baldree – Dec 24

Half Lost by Sally Green – Dec 24

Understudies by Priya Sridhar – Dec 28

Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir – Dec 28

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking – Dec 31

#ashleybenlove posts #and yes I am aware that Zhao and Walker are problematic bigoted people #books #long post #i should really count how many nonfiction books I read...

13 notes · View notes

cantinaturner · 1 year

Text

Wonk Unit for life! What a band.

#wonk unit #me #blog #punk #punk rock #uk punk #Rambo #Spotify

0 notes

bidaubadeadieu · 9 months

Text

that post going around about why murdering one (1) exec of British petroleum is worth millions of tons of CO2 is so dumb and ppl are eating that shit up. I hesitate to respond to that post because I simply do not want to spread it, but no matter, you've heard arguments like this before. because I work on climate policy for a living, allow me to ask a few comprehension questions:

- why assume that the sudden death of a company official would decrease production of oil by 1% for a month? why not 0.5% or 0.25%? Whether there is any decrease and how big that decrease is are empirical questions, you can't eyeball it. The other scenario, reducing production by 25% for a day, is preposterous unless all the employees are taking a 2 hour mourning period.

- is this belief not inconsistent with the other commonly held belief on the left that CEOs are parasites and don't do shit? If value is derived from labor, do you honestly believe that 1% of BP's revenues (totaling over 100B each year) are attributable to one person? Even a few people?

- you can go online and search BP's org charts. BP has nearly 100 people with just the title "senior vice president", spread across a dozen business units like "innovation", "advocacy", "finance", "legal", and laughably, "sustainability". Anyways, which of these units contains the person you're going to shoot dead? How are you dealing with the fact that they have intentionally padded these groups to insulate from sudden shocks?

- the energy industry is, famously, characterized by inertia. The whole reason they are in this mess is due to their inflexibility. In a time of crisis, such as missing leadership, they're going to keep on chugging! The people who supposedly steer the ship are dead, and the people who actually know how to work the oilfields are still alive, couldn't that make transitional change less likely?

- ah yes! All those oilfields! BP has dozens of them, spread around the globe, filled with hordes of middle management. how, logistically, do you think that this change will happen? will it be that each worker presses buttons on the rig 1% more slowly? Or will it be that new oil sites are 1% slower to be sited and begin operation. These things employ thousands, operate sometimes for decades, and remember, they have production quotas to fill.

- what about demand? killing oil execs doesn't reduce the number of people trying to fill up their cars and keep the lights on, because oil consumption is largely inelastic. if production was lowered by 1%, the company will raise prices (just as they did during the pandemic) to maintain profit levels. In order to introduce elasticity to the market, we need real alternative choice in energy source and tech we use in our daily lives, which means subsidizing renewables, electrified transit, and regenerative agriculture, aka boring wonk shit when do I get to kill?

- this experiment has been and is already being run. In 1992 an Exxon exec was murdered and clearly that didn't solve anything. 30 years later, the guy that did it is still serving time in a prison in NJ. Russia has had a string of oil execs deaths lately for reasons I don't pretend to totally understand, but likely relating to the Ukraine war and exerting control, and no, they're clearly not worried about production declining or this hurting the Russian economy.

In short: No, this problem isn't fucking solvable by a well-placed bullet or two, or five.

#climate change #energy #policy

15 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 3 months

Text

Remembering how the world looked before Donald Trump became the U.S. president in January 2017 paints a striking picture. At that time, the idea that Beijing poses a threat to global security was not a mainstream one in Washington. Imposing tariffs on European imports seemed inconceivable. And controls on technology exports—which had fallen into progressive disuse since the end of the Cold War—were the realm of a tiny niche of policy wonks.

For better or for worse, there is no denying that Trump changed the world, especially when it comes to relations between the United States and China.

Given Trump’s incendiary rhetoric about Beijing—including his promise to escalate the U.S.-China trade war—it is easy to believe that Chinese leaders would prefer incumbent U.S President Joe Biden over Trump, who will likely be the Republican Party candidate.

Yet this view is probably shortsighted, and it eclipses the broader picture. In all likelihood, China is rooting for Trump.

Beijing knows that there is no hope for an improvement in its ties with Washington, whether under Trump, Biden, or any other U.S. president. From the perspective of Beijing’s long game vis-à-vis the West, Trump’s return to the White House may well turn out to be in China’s favor, at least in the economic field. Here are five reasons why.

1. Trump would increase divisions between the United States and Europe.

“I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade.” (Trump in July 2018)

In December 2023, the Financial Times reported that China’s intelligence services had been using Frank Creyelman, a former Belgian senator, as an asset for years. His Chinese handler neatly summarized the relationship’s objective: “Our purpose is to divide the US-European relationship.”

Beijing’s reasoning is simple: Cementing distrust between the United States and the Europe is the best way to prevent the emergence of trans-Atlantic policies detrimental to Chinese interests, such as joint export controls. From that perspective, a second Trump presidency would play into China’s hand. “I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade,” Trump said in 2018, and there is no indication that he has changed his mind.

If elected, Trump would probably be unable to resist the urge to restart trade wars with Europe—for instance, by making good on his pledge to impose a 10 percent tariff across the board. A trade fight, in turn, would likely halt U.S.-EU cooperation on measures that could hurt Chinese interests. Of course, Trump’s recent promise to impose a minimum 60 percent tariff on Chinese imports would also be painful for Beijing. But in the grand scheme of things, Beijing may assume that paying such a price is worth it if the prize is a schism between the United States and the EU.

2. Trump could make a U-turn on sanctions against Russia.

“They have sanctions on Russia—let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia.” (January 2017)

For all the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy, one constant has been his clear inclination to cozy up to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was most evident during a U.S.-Russia summit in Finland in 2018, when Trump suggested that he trusted Putin more than his own intelligence services. If his admiration for Putin remains intact, Trump could well decide to lift sanctions on Russia as soon as he enters office, much to the horror of European countries.

Such a situation would not only delight Moscow, but also play into Beijing’s favor. Despite declarations of an unlimited friendship between Russia and China, the reality is that Chinese firms have been cautious in their dealings with Russia. Although Chinese exports to Russia have jumped since 2022, this was from a low base, and there is little evidence so far that Chinese firms are in a rush to invest in Russia.

This is because of worries that Washington could impose secondary sanctions on Moscow, forcing companies around the world to choose between their U.S. and Russian customers. For most Chinese firms, sticking to the U.S. market would be a no-brainer in such a scenario. As a result, Chinese companies have little interest in developing relationships with Russian businesses that they might need to abandon soon. If Trump lifts sanctions on Moscow, this problem would be solved for Chinese firms.

3. Trump would give a boost to China’s push for alternative financial mechanisms.

“China wants to replace [the U.S. dollar] with the yuan, and it was unthinkable with us. Unthinkable. Would never have happened. Now people are thinking about it.” (August 2023)

China has long sought to vaccinate itself from U.S. sanctions, be it through de-dollarization, the creation of alternatives to the Western-controlled SWIFT global banking system, or plans for a digital yuan to settle cross-border payments. However, China can’t achieve this strategy on its own: For its financial structures to displace established Western ones, Beijing’s trading partners need to opt for the non-Western alternative as well. The path to get there will be steep; most firms and banks see no need to ditch SWIFT, which works perfectly well, to try a much smaller Chinese alternative.

A second Trump presidency could change this reasoning. The case of Russian aluminum producer Rusal in 2018 illustrates why: After slapping sanctions on the company without any warning, the Trump administration had to backtrack and lift the sanctions in a rush after realizing that the measures had massive global ripple effects.

The moral of the story was clear: Under Trump, anything can happen—and anyone can fall under sanctions without warning. As a result, many countries would seek to preemptively shield themselves from such measures if Trump were back in the White House. At this stage, the best way to do so is to switch to Beijing’s alternative financial mechanisms. That would be another win for China.

4. A Trump win would increase China’s domination for critical materials sourcing from emerging countries.

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries coming here?” (January 2018)

A global battle for influence pits Western economies against China for securing access to the raw materials that will be crucial for the green energy transition, such as cobalt, copper, graphite, lithium, and nickel. So far, this battle is mostly taking place in resource-rich emerging economies, such as Bolivia, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, and Indonesia. China is, by far, the uncontested leader in this race, controlling around 50 to 70 percent of the refining of the global lithium supply, for instance.

A second Trump presidency would not help to convince developing economies—which Trump once collectively disparaged as “shithole countries”—to partner with Washington for the supply of critical raw materials. Many mineral-rich states would fear that promises from Trump have little value, as his sudden withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal showed in 2018.

Besides, Trump’s disdain for developing economies, likely curbs on immigration, and incendiary rhetoric about Islam will not exactly break the ice with African, Southeast Asian, or South American leaders. China would rejoice and continue to advance its interests in emerging economies by portraying itself as the adult in the room—a reliable partner that does not mix business and politics.

5. China would benefit from U.S. export controls on clean tech.

“The concept of global warming was created by China in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” (November 2012)

Restrictions on exports are a key tool for Washington to implement its China-focused strategy of economic de-risking. These measures target technologies that have dual-use applications, such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum technology. So far, clean tech has been spared from U.S. export controls, but a Trump presidency would probably change this. Republicans have made it clear that they would adopt a more hawkish stance on China and seek to apply export controls to a broader range of sectors than the Biden administration did, probably including clean tech, such as renewable energy and battery technology.

Seen from China, U.S. export controls on green goods would be excellent news. In the short- to medium-term, such measures would have little impact on Chinese firms, since they are already world leaders in sectors such as solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles.

In the long term, Chinese businesses could even benefit from such controls. Deprived of the world’s largest markets, U.S. firms would have fewer revenues and be forced to slash research and development budgets. Helped by generous public subsidies, Chinese businesses would be able to double down on research, helping them surpass U.S. firms by developing the next generation of clean tech gear. In addition, a scenario of U.S. clean tech retrenchment would help China influence global standards for future clean tech goods, culminating in an all-around win for Beijing.

At a 2016 campaign rally, Trump boasted, “I love China.” Regardless of whether this is true or not, Beijing likely thinks better of a second Trump presidency than one could expect at first glance. In key economic areas, such as trade, sanctions, financial infrastructure, access to critical raw materials, and export controls, a Trump 2.0 scenario could well play into China’s long-term interests.

There are, of course, other areas to consider beyond economics. But Trump’s recent statement that he is not too keen to defend Taiwan—another crucial issue for China—will also please Beijing. Seen from China, a Trump win in November could very well look like a tempting opportunity to benefit from the chaos, the divisions, and the hit to U.S. prestige that it would unleash.

4 notes · View notes

wartakes · 9 months

Text

Setting the Stage (OLD ESSAY)

The following essay was originally posted on October 25th, 2020 (the first War Takes essay I ever did).

In this essay, I basically laid why I was writing War Takes content to begin with, using my own political development and awakening and professional background as context. (Full essay below the cut)

The last few years have seen a remarkable surge in the popularity of leftist political thought in the United States – though it is clear that leftist ideas still have a very long road to travel before reaching full, mainstream acceptance. I’ve recently seen myself take my own personal journey of “coming out of the closet” when it came to accepting my actual inner political compass – one that started in earnest around 2015/2016 and finally came to a head during the 2020 Democratic primaries.

For years I saw myself as a fairly typical, center-left, liberal foreign policy and national security “wonk” (a term I used to think was funny and now makes me cringe so hard it feels like my face might turn inside out), coming from a fairly typical white, male, middle-class background. Now I’m still getting over the whiplash of the last year, which has seen me fumbling my way through trying to identify where exactly I stand within the seemingly massive and maze-like world of leftism and its various sub-ideologies as I’ve drastically changed my political outlook. I’m still traveling on that journey and slowly trying to figure out what I think, but along the way I’ve been introduced to a number of helpful people and have been educated on a number of subjects, challenging my past beliefs and assertions and pushing me to grow.

But as someone who is relatively new to boarding the leftist train, I’ve noticed there are some areas that – to me – it seems that leftist thought in the United States either hardly touches or doesn’t address at all. None among these has been as obvious to me as the subjects I was educated in and have come to work: foreign policy and national security.

It’s understandable to me why most leftists tend not to speak about these topics. After all, most average Americans, regardless of ideology, for one reason or another, lack a general awareness or understanding about national security and foreign policy – even if they understand that it is important (it could be argued how much of this is by design, but that’s a topic for another essay). In addition to this general fact, most leftists likely see other issues like systemic racism, police brutality, lack of social services, the rampant abuses and excesses of unchecked capitalism, and so on as more immediately pressing concerns – and for good reason.

However, the result here is that it feels like what little conversation that takes place within leftist circles about war and international relations is typically dominated by groups and individuals who do not provide helpful or constructive alternative solutions. Rather, they more often than not put forward solutions that – if not unworkable or infeasible – could be outright damaging and potentially inflict just as much death and destruction on people around the globe as current policies do if adopted, rather than achieving a more peaceful and just world. While I am still new to this, these perspectives feel like they are clearly contrary to the underlying principles of international leftist solidarity.

The current thought leaders (and why they’re not great)

One such group advocating these ideas consists of individuals that come from a diverse array of different sections of leftist thought that – while maybe conflicting in other areas – generally argue that the United States should engage in little or no military actions overseas and withdraw from most if not all of its overseas bases. Some go further, asserting that the armed forces should be disbanded entirely. While I disagree with these suggestions strongly for reasons I will elaborate on further, I completely understand why people would advocate for these actions and I empathize with their proponents in why they argue for it so strongly. They are exercising sympathy with disadvantaged peoples who have suffered at U.S. expense. When you see the huge amounts of pain and suffering that U.S. military operations and foreign policy actions in the last few decades have caused to multiple innocent populations overseas, a response of wanting to take the most extreme way possible to prevent that from happening is completely understandable.

However, while the intent behind this idea is pure, it is also naïve and potentially dangerous. If the United States elected a hypothetical “President Leftist” tomorrow, it is true that a great deal would change both here at home and abroad. But what is not true is that suddenly that the United States would no longer have enemies – depending on where the cards fall globally, it might even earn the United States more enemies.

While I am challenging many of my old views from before diving headfirst into leftism and have modified or outright replaced many, one that I continue to believe is that war is a condition that humankind will likely never be rid of. War has been and will continue to be a constant for the world. Obviously, war should be avoided wherever possible and should only be a last resort for defending yourself or your friends and allies from aggression. But despite this, war will still continue to occur and it will be something that a leftist government will still have to prepare for. Will we have to spend near as much on defense as we do now? I certainly don’t think so (and that is yet another topic for another time), but it is something that resources will still need to be put into under President Leftist. War will still be a worry.

This is where the naivety – as well as a bit of ethnocentrism or even another brand of American exceptionalism – is on display in the disarmament viewpoint. If the United States destroyed all its weapons and discharged all its troops under day one of President Leftist’s administration, it is extremely improbable that every other nation in the world would decide to follow suit even under the rosiest visions of internationalism. The United States having a leftist government almost certainly wouldn’t stop China from wanting to invade Taiwan, Russia from wanting to dominate its near-abroad, or a number of other scenarios across the world. If anything, these regimes would be cautiously optimistic about such a government arising in the United States, hoping it would give them more room to maneuver and achieve their long-term objectives. They would likely be ecstatic if the U.S. suddenly disbanded all of its armed forces, as it would give them free reign to pursue a laundry list of goals they had previously been constrained in reaching – and would cause harm to many others in the process.

This brings us to two other groups that dominate the discussion of international relations and war in the leftist sphere, but I tend to think of as one overall type: “Campists” and “Tankies.” Campists, in a simplified sense, are those who think that if a country opposes the policies and practices of the United States, that country must therefore be good and is inherently an ally against U.S. imperialism and aggression to be applauded. Tankies – the colloquial term for everyone’s favorite Soviet apologists and fans of authoritarian socialists – take a similar tack, though the subjects of their affection are almost always only countries with socialist systems, while Campists may boost countries that are not exclusively socialist.

While different, both these groups broadly the same thing: that we should just let certain countries do whatever they want because the U.S. government is bad and these other states are good. The average campist’s main reason for this is that because the country is not the United States or a U.S. ally, it must be good and should be supported in its efforts – an outlook that in many ways could simply be considered in the vein of Edward Said’s orientalism, fetishizing other countries and cultures to create an imagined ideal that they may not be able to live up to. For the tankie, the logic is that since the country is socialist in any shape or form, it must be good and therefore should be supported in its efforts. Both these groups tend to turn a willful blind eye to any transgressions the states of their affection have committed against their own citizens or other states – while of course relentlessly criticizing all U.S. actions worldwide.

This leads us to a critical point, which I attach with an important disclaimer: I am not saying that the United States can do no wrong. If I did that, I’d basically be doing the same thing as a tankie or a campist in reverse. I wouldn’t be writing this multi-page rant in my free time if I didn’t think the United States was doing an incredible amount of harm through its international actions. But this still leads us to an important point:

Just because the United States is doing bad things, doesn’t mean no one else is.

Multiple things can be bad at the same time.

Multiple countries can be bad (and not just ones that are U.S. allies and partners).

This seems to be a fact that many leftists struggle with – not just the full-blown Tankies and Campists. Just because the United States and its proxies have committed inexcusable acts at home and worldwide does not mean China or Russia or Iran or North Korea have not (and they all absolutely have; fight me). This doesn’t mean we should only focus on the acts of those countries and turn a blind eye to those of the United States, but the opposite isn’t true either. It certainly doesn’t mean that we should be supporting these regimes and rooting for them in their quests to brutalize their own citizens or infringe upon the rights of people in other countries, or any number of other horrible things their regimes wish. Instead of trying to find an imagined ideal role model country, we need to accept that there is no perfect model free of transgressions for us to emulate. Leftists will need to accept that there are good things – or at least neutral things – that the United States should continue doing, while also taking inspiration from other countries both past and present in order to make right all that is wrong in our own country.

Why we need to do better

That final point reinforces why leftists need to get smarter on these issues and build up our own bench of experts in international relations and the study of war. One day – in the hopefully not-so-distant future – when President Leftist takes office, they are going to face many of the same issues that presidents past have faced, as well as a whole host of new ones we may not even be able to comprehend right now. Even after the United States ceases engaging in aggressive, imperialist actions of its own, other states will continue to do so and new contenders may come to the fore to seize their own opportunity to stake out an empire. The simple truth is that under President Leftist, the great power competition that has characterized international relations in modern times will almost certainly remain, even after the United States commits to a necessary retreat from empire. Ideally, this great power competition and its impact will be lessened over time. But my cynicism is again on display in that I don’t believe we’ll ever fully be rid of it – at least not in any near-future timeline that I can foresee.

With all this in mind, if President Leftist chose to disband the military as disarmament proponents assert, or simply let certain nations do as they pleased as Tankies and Campists would prefer, they would not only be forsaking one of the fundamental tenants of leftism – that is, internationalism, they would also be showing a fundamental lack of empathy for the fate of others. As Francis Horton and Nate Bethea of one of my favorite podcasts – What a Hell of a Way to Die – have taught me: you simply can’t be a leftist if you don’t exercise empathy. That empathy doesn’t stop at borders. If we chose to forsake other oppressed populations the world over under our own leftist government, we wouldn’t be worthy of the title. Isolationist leftism is simply an oxymoron.

Another issue that many leftists don’t consider or don’t wish to address is the way the United States has become essential to global stability (another thing I can only briefly address here, but hope to address more in a future essay). The United States ceasing its pursuit of neo-colonial empire and abandoning said empire and further imperialist activities are admittedly essential if we are to build a more stable, free, and just world for everyone who lives in it. But if the United States were to immediately withdraw all overseas military forces under day one of President Leftist’s administration and cease any and all military operations, it would likely be extremely damaging and harmful to many people across the world. Serious discussions can and should be had about how big the U.S. military should be, what it should do, how it should do it, what is better saved for diplomacy and foreign aid, and so on. But these are not the discussions that leftists are having now. The discussions are dominated by those with the ideas that could potentially do the most harm to the most vulnerable people.

This is why I decided to write this essay (with some encouragement from friends), and why I hope to be writing more like it and undertaking other efforts to distribute my thoughts. I want to explore more of what foreign policy and national security policy would look like under our hypothetical President Leftist. I think it is an area – among others – that we as leftists are fundamentally unprepared for. If we ever hope to govern and enact real, fundamental, society-altering change in this country, we’ll need to have seriously thought about what exactly that would be and how exactly we would carry it out. As someone who has spent most of their academic career learning about these subjects and has now become a practitioner of them, I feel this is a way I could give back – with the help of those that I’ve met along the way – to the community I’ve found my way into as I continue to discover myself and find a place in it.

No doubt people will disagree with me (certainly, many among the groups I’ve singled out as the target of my ire). Some people will argue against what I’m saying in bad faith (say hello to being ignored). Others will be opposed because they may have a hard time challenging their own long held views – which is understandable, as I still struggle with many of my own. But it is my hope that the thoughts I’ll be putting out here will encourage greater discussion and deliberation among leftists on these issues, and lead to a wider variety of voices becoming involved and helping to develop policies and solutions that can lead to a better world.

A better world is possible, but a perfect world is not.

#War Takes #War Takes Essay #leftism #leftist #socialism #democratic socialism #international relations #IR #national security #national defense #international security #foreign policy #foreign affairs #war #essay

3 notes · View notes

antikorpersession · 8 months

Video

youtube

Antikörper-Tipp: AVERAGE PIZZA - Barcelona Ping Pong Challenge ↯ Manchmal passiert es einfach - Bäng!! ↯ Ein guter Freund schickt dir ein Album und es ist wie eine Explosion! ↯ Du weißt sofort - diese Band bleibt bei dir, für den Rest deiner Zeit, bis es Zeit für dich ist, in die Urne zu springen! ↯ Average Pizza ist ein Trio aus Nürnberg und ihr Song Barcelona Ping Pong Challenge ist auf ihrem zweiten Album Low Budgie, dass die Band am 14. Juli 2023 auf ihrer Bandcamp-Seite veröffentlicht hat.↯ Dort findet man auch das Debütalbum Cheesy Crust von 2019. ↯ Beide Alben werden dort digital für den (viel zu niedrigen) Stückpreis von 7 Euro verkauft, also geht sofort auf die Bandcampseite von Average Pizza (Link weiter unten), lasst 14 Euro (oder mehr) dort, und taucht mit wunderbarer Musik ab in die nervöse, schrille und alberne Welt von Johnny, Jan und Fabi, die zwar manchmal nach Käse riecht, oft nach Salami schmeckt und sich wie die besten Tracks von Wonk Unit, Klaus Cornfield, Violent Femnes, Modern Lovers, Toy Dolls und Daniel Johnston anhört. ↯ Ein Album für die Jahrescharts 2023! ↯ Großartig! ↯

https://averagepizza.bandcamp.com/

#youtube

2 notes · View notes

what-do-1000-swords-look-like · 2 years

Text

Big Sky: Season 1 Thoughts

I have to be honest and say that based on watching 2x18, I wasn't expecting much. Thankfully, I was pleasantly surprised.

Love the format of the first season though tbf, the 2nd half of the season did start to feel as if it was dragging a bit more than the 1st half, despite having Britt, Michelle, Brian, Omar, Michael, Ted, Carlos, and Sebastian in the mix

Loved JW's character, more the idea and how the actor crushed the role than the actual character lol

There is SO MUCH chemistry between Jenny and Cassie, it's killing me - I know that's what makes them a great team but damn - how do they not expect me to at least entertain this ship?

saying that I LOVE Cassie and would kill for her and I LOVE LOVE LOVE Kylie - I LOVE Katheryn as well and I do appreciate Jenny's character but if you had to make me pick which gal I'd team up with, it's Cassie every time

I now see why they're most likely going the Beau/Jenny route - not only due to the whole Cody triangle but also because Mark comes into play for Cassie in sort of a similar dynamic

I love that Tubb wants Jenny to become sheriff, I'm surprised she didn't when Tubb left instead of Beau (but then again, I"m not really complaining *wink wonk*), but I suppose I'll find out why she's only an undersheriff in season 2

I didn't know Scarlet's whole back story when I saw 2x18 (and felt bad for her seeing her having to give up her daughter) but now, after getting some context, yeah my sympathy has lessened quite a bit

I love the whole Cassie, Jenny, Denise, and Jerrie vibe going on at the office - a great team in the making

I love that Britt took the role of Cheyenne - I just love watching her, she has that something

John Carroll Lynch - this man terrifies me as a villain (every time I see him in a role, I always remember Gothika for some reason), he does it so well, every single freaking time - Brooke was fantastic as his wife Merrilee

Brian, Brian, Brian - didn't know that adorable face and soft-spoken voice could give me nightmares but it does - my hat is off to you, good sir

While I enjoyed this season, I do have some logistical questions for the writers:

1) Cassie placing a tracker on Legarsky's car was against the law buttttt he seriously used his work vehicle to go to the same spot where the girls were being held captive? Over and over again? For long periods of time? He's a state cop, they already have GPS in their units I'm pretty sure; I know, story reasons but...?

2) When Erik is taken hostage, he really doesn't tell his mom or anyone that he thinks the customer is Ronald? Even when he calls her beforehand to tell her he thinks he might have found something? And more importantly, his mom doesn't have the option to track his cell phone if it's on her account? Or if it's her phone he's using, does she not have "Find my iPhone" or whatever?

3) If an ex-cop goes missing, despite a manpower issue, you better believe the siren is sounded, especially by local law enforcement, especially if foul play or kidnapping is suspected - the fact that this was left to two local PI's and Tubb just cites a manpower issue, even after the girls have been missing for a while and kidnapping/trafficking is suspected, and the ex-cop went missing trying to locate said girls after getting a lead, whether he saw a state trooper/highway patrol or not, that's getting flagged and whatever resources available are getting loaned to the investigation

4) how on earth did Ronald get Mary's body out the front door while Mark and Cassie were at the back door very near to where he was at and not only that but had a visual? How was he able to load that body into the car, start it up, and drive away without them noticing? Especially since the house doesn't seem to be on a busy road or neighborhood, and the house is not mansion size? The sound would have traveled, even if Ronald was just leaving the driveway area

5) While I'm glad that Cassie didn't get shot, are you telling me that this group of rogue officers (I'm assuming that's what they are anyway) with the specialized training that they had and displayed getting Ronald free would have left behind two witnesses, one that is very much conscious and lucid, able to see this individual? Maybe not see who they are but why else did he approach the vehicle about to shoot Cassie? She was unarmed and no longer a threat, possibly badly hurt. But he shoots Jenny with one bullet, grabs Ronald, and then runs? What? Then why didn't he grab Ronald in the first place and run, even before Jenny showed up?

6) again, while I'm glad Cassie is okay, are you telling me that Big Rick allowed her to drive away after seeing how suspicious she was of him? Not once but twice? After he killed Cody when Cody wasn't suspicious at all of him? Really?

Maybe I've watched too many true crime and law enforcement/legal procedural shows in my time but I can't help but think about these things when watching. Yes, I know. Story. I got it. But man, I want answers lol.

But continuing my list:

The scene where Cassie tells Jenny that she won't tell her son something happened to her (outside of Ronald's house) and where Jenny tells Cassie to go get Ronald after getting shot is big, big, big WIFE energy, idc what anyone says; I especially LOVED that scene where Cassie goes, grabbing the assault rifle, and steals a cop car, gunning it to get Ronald, perfect song choice btw Big Sky

That's another thing I'm loving about this show: the music selection (I have so many new songs added to the work playlist it's not even funny, whoever chooses this music is so on point)

I am literally checking out the book series because I am loving this show that much; my head is stuck in Montana with Cassie (thanks BS! no, really) so I have to check them out

"Sunshine" is now my new favorite term of endearment - thanks Michael!

I'm sorry I didn't see the first two seasons when they were airing, but then again, with the two main case arcs of season 1, kind of glad I could binge it - the week-to-week wait for answers would have tormented me (this show has mastered the art of the cliffhanger I've noticed)

I could not believe that by the end of the pilot, Ryan's character was gone just like that, I sure didn't see that coming (I thought maybe he was just in the first season and then moved on), so my hat's off to the writers on that one

I love that this show is not shy or timid to address how POC can be treated by local law enforcement - I even admire that they threw that into Rick's arc as his reasoning as to why Cassie doesn't like him and suspects him, and how she proves him so wrong on that shit while Jenny and Tubb stand behind her

I do wish that there was more Native American representation - from what I've seen so far, it's sorely lacking - especially when they mention how girls go missing in that area, sometimes Indigenous women - they had a real opportunity there to shed some light on this very important topic - I hope that changes moving forward in the show

Not gonna lie, I felt way more chemistry between Mark and Jerrie than I did Cassie and Mark - I'm interested to see how the dynamic between Cassie and Mark progresses to end up where they do in 2x18

I really enjoy Omar's performance as Mark - I would still pick Beau over him (what can I say? I have a fondness for some of the good ol' Texas boys ;-) ) but I do love what Omar has done with the character - I'm very glad he showed up to lend a hand with Ronald

All in all, I enjoyed season 1. Looking forward to season 2 (which definitely will not get done before tomorrow night's episode, man I should have binged this earlier).

#big sky #big sky season 1 #big sky season 1 watch #thoughts #bigskyposts #cassenny mention #cassie dewell

9 notes · View notes