U.S. Special Ops Soldier First 2016 Casualty of War in Afghanistan That Ended in 2014
Killed in a firefight in Marja, the site of the first operations of the 2010 U.S. "surge"


A special operations servicemember became the first U.S. casualty in the war on Afghanistan, the Defense Department confirmed without releasing a name. President Obama declared an end to the war in Afghanistan in 2014, but 10,000 U.S. troops remain, with special operators involved in "train, advise, and assist" missions. A Defense spokesperson resisted characterizations of the firefight, reported by NBC News as taking place in Marja in the Helmand province, as "combat," since that would contradict the claim that the war in Afghanistan has "ended." When the Obama administration announced it was leaving nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the end of 2016 and more than 5,000 into 2017, it insisted the decision came at the behest of the Afghan government.
A recent report from The Washington Post detailing an October meeting between high level Afghan and U.S. officials in Afghanistan provided a grim view. While Afghan security forces outnumber Taliban insurgents, and are far better equipped, they suffer from mass desertions and regular surrender in the face of potential conflict. The Washington Post reported 18,000 Afghan forces in Helmand were overrun by just a few hundred Taliban fighters in Marja and nearby districts. The army and the police blame each other, and U.S. officials urge Afghans to care more about the security situation in their country than the U.S. does. Afghan government fighters reportedly pine for an increased U.S. presence and more air support, which they believe, without much evidence, would fix their problems.
In explaining today's casualty, which came during an hours-long firefight, the Defense spokesperson called Afghanistan a dangerous place with a "constant fighting season," which represents a break from previous, more cyclical fighting, even as temperatures in Kabul this winter have been comparably as warmer than average as they were last winter.
U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan are supposed to be limited to "counterterrorism" efforts, although there haven't been reports yet of U.S. forces clashing with forces associated with ISIS, or the Islamic State, which has taken root in the Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan, near Helmand. Afghan authorities insist most of the ISIS fighters are Pakistani nationals, although ISIS has set up a radio station in the province to urge Afghan youth to join the caliphate ISIS says it has established for all Muslims. The Taliban has responded to the rise of ISIS by launching its own offensive against the group, targeting bases throughout the region. Pakistan, meanwhile, has cracked down on militants with alleged ties to ISIS, arresting nearly 50 in a multicity operation. Afghanistan blames the Pakistani campaign against fighters in the Northwest Frontier Province, borders Afghanistan, for a rush of new fighters.
The use of special operators like the one killed in Helmand today is a large part of the Obama administration's contribution to the structure of the global war on terror. In a recent CNN poll, 40 percent of Americans said they believed terrorists were winning the war on terror, the highest percentage since 9/11. Leading presidential candidates on both sides offer little in the way of analyzing how the U.S. got to where it is in Afghanistan or how it should get out even as it's inevitable Obama's successor will inherit the conflict.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Special operators" is starting to raise my language hackles.
They are soldiers. If you need to be more specific, call out their unit: Force Recon, Seals, whatever.
Calling the special operators makes it sounds like they aren't soldiers, fighting a "war".
I think it's a way of avoiding the word "advisors".
Its *their* terminology, though it still doesn't make sense.
They're 'Special Operations' troops, this whole 'special operator thing is just stupid.
But its something that's arisen over the last couple of decades as each of the special forces units got more and more absorbed by the unified USSOCOM - to the point even the Marines finally gave up and created MarSOC to get in on the action.
Does it also unofficially cover CIA's paramilitary troops, or the CIA's contractors?
Exactly. The CIA does their own thing. Though they may use AD personnel from and work closely with USSOCOM, their operations are under their own command.
USSOCOM is supposed to give joint commanders access to the full spectrum of each services SpecOp forces - which they didn't have in the past under the old 'everyone operates separately' paradigm.
Thank you.
Don't thank me, thank wikipedia.
"The CIA does their own thing. Though they may use AD personnel from and work closely with USSOCOM, their operations are under their own command.'
CIA borrows active duty troops and uses them on CIA run operations, and they also have a 'permanent' homegrown cadre of ex-military people that are CIA badged to 'middle-manage' them. They've probably used a dozen different euphemisms for their paramilitary arm, but last i checked it was referred to as "Special Activities Division" (because "SAD" is such a great acronym). The last time i'd read about them were in the contexts of the Bin Laden hunt (e.g. Peter Bergen's "Manhunt"). I think the technical relationship has evolved over the years where sometimes the SAD teams are all 100% in-house personnel, or sometimes they're just 1-2 badged dudes with a bunch of Contractor meatheads on standby, who mainly serve to provide security and not supposed to get involved in the actual core-mission. (a la Benghazi)
In the biz, they are typically referred to as OGA, other govt agency
"Operator" and "operative" aren't new terms for field espionage workers. Hammet was calling his detective characters "ops" in the early 20th century. The Pinkertons probably did in the 19th.
I go with smooth operators. RC can you hear me, can you hear me, RC?
He's laughing with another girl
And playing with another heart
*Does anti gravity lean. Hurls*
Somebody doesn't like Sade, yet references Sade.
Whoosh. Sorry, but nobody remembers Sade.
Heck, I wonder how many millenials know how to pronounce her name?
Markwiss duh Saydee. Duh.
Can I haz a sade?
"Shady"
I learned how to pronounce it from Shaun of the Dead
I thought we elected the LightBringer to end all of this ...
Silly me.
Bush's fault. Definitely Bush's fault.
The man is amazing! Out of office for nearly 8 years and he's still running that war!
When Hillary is elected in November, is she going to keep blaming Bush for everything, or will she blame Obama?
She's old-school: Nixon and Reagan.
The aliens. Definitely the aliens.
But that's Trump's shtick.
Wait, are we allowed to use Yiddish words in the same sentence as Trump after schlong-gate?
I blame T.E. Lawrence.
It is not a war Ed. It's a kinetic military action. Ovama's mendacity about these issues makes me sick. And I am inclined to support going to war against these camel fuckers.
Why?
Again, unless you're going to admit that its genocide you want - nothing we do there will have any beneficial effect for us when even the people in power now don't care enough to seriously fight them.
I'm genocidal...and I vote!
Again, unless you're going to admit that its genocide you want
John doesn't want genocide, Ag, he wants to Make America Great Again, and just happens to want to accomplish that via the violent death of everyone browner than he is.
There's a lot of people browner than he is (I'm guessing), and a lot of people browner than those in Afghanistan. So, I guess I don't see it, in what way does he want to kill everyone browner than he is?
It would be genocide if you define the term broadly enough to include every war ever. Which is pretty retarded.
I think his point is that nothing short of genocide will get the Afghans to stop fucking camels.
John - You know as well as I that, as far as the tribal culture of Afghanistan goes, it would be much cheaper to pay them off rather than get bogged down in a regional conflict.
What do you have against American jobs?
Wait, there's a much better way to do this. We bomb the hell out of their cities, then we give them money to rebuild! We can put Krugman in charge of it. Their economy will be the best in the world!
Having Krugman move to Afghanistan would be a win-win.
It would never work, look at all the blowback we get from Germany, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. Hardly a day goes by without one trying to blow us up, and they're all third word shitholes to this day.
True, but the method that made that happen (dismantle the problematic government utterly, and institute a new one without the part that caused the trouble) simply wouldn't fly today.
That is why we fail.
Anyone with an iota of understanding knew attempts to change the area were a dead letter when the Taliban was allowed to keep existing and Shariah was allowed in the constitution.
It looks like they may possibly go to war against each other shortly (Shiite v. Sunni).
We need to bring our people home and let them get it on.
The Sunnis and the Shiites have been fighting each other since Big Mo went on to his reward.
And the West (first Imperial powers then during the Cold War the US and USSR) used them as balance of power chess pieces and prevented them from really engaging each other (excluding Iran v. Iraq).
Let's go ahead and let them finish it off now, huh?
? Let's... get it on
Pffft. What war? Obama ended all wars.
^^^ THIS^^^
Ah, yes, this.
Obligatory John Donne quote
Let's cheer things up with some Sting.
Now, let's amuse ourselves with the light verse of Oscar Wilde.
Weirdest article on gun control you'll read all week:
http://www.seattletimes.com/na.....-measures/
Yeah, that's useful. I couldn't have guessed from their political affiliation how they'd side.
OT: I always have fun with the conspiracy theorists who blame the low price of gasoline on the presidential election. A sizeable (minority or majority?) believes prices for a global commodity can be controlled by the push of a button.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RAISE THAT FUCKING PRICE!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?!?!
So the difference between Trump and Sanders is that Sanders wants to make laws dictating everything where as Trump will just dictate everything.
Trump will just dictate everything.
To a hot, classy secretary?
Playa! There you are. I posed this question in PM Links, but I assumed you moved on. So, my repost:
What's a good "Investing For Dummies"-type website to read? My current financial plan is "die in extreme poverty" and I'm interested in other options.
What's a good "Investing For Dummies"-type website to read?
Reason.com
Honestly, I would start with a Vanguard mutual fund. They're the lowest cost. Put whatever you can in each month, and it will grow. I did that for years, and still keep the majority of my assets in balanced medium-low risk funds. I basically use their Healthcare sector mutual fund as a savings account. They even have risk adjusted funds that are appropriate for a given retirement date.
When you get into the speculative stuff like penny stocks and naked options trading, absolutely do not do it with money that you can't afford to lose, because at some point, you will. Remember, people will usually only tell you about it when they win, myself included (because I like taunting Palin's Buttplug).
Slow and steady wins the race. Absolutely avoid websites like Seeking Alpha and Motley Fool. They are scams and their conduct borders on criminal. "These 5 stocks that you must buy!!!" are ones that you probably shouldn't.
Thank you, sir. *doffs hat*
You could visit my website, buryitinthebackyard, which is not related to my other site, buryitanywhere.
Nobody else shares your fixation on analingus.
WRONG
And furthermore, eat my ass!
buryitinme.pron
Your response to BATFE?
Slow and steady wins the race.
My portfolio has been slowly and steadily losing the race.
Also, that's what the Seattle DOT keeps telling me as they continue narrowing lanes and lowering speed limits all over town
Absolutely avoid websites like Seeking Alpha and Motley Fool.
Boom.
"These 5 stocks that you must buy!!!" are ones that you probably shouldn't.
You talking about those 30 minute videos where they tell you about Apple's Next Big Thing, and spend the first 29.5 minutes not telling you about Apple's Next Big Thing?
"You talking about those 30 minute videos where they tell you about Apple's Next Big Thing, and spend the first 29.5 minutes not telling you about Apple's Next Big Thing?"
HA! I believe that particular one was the near field chip maker for Apple Pay. I don't remember the name of the company, but they're in the shitter.
True story: I was behind a guy in line who tried to use Apple pay with his iWatch. The transaction would have been faster had he used exact change.
You shop at Whole Foods?
I've done it with my phone, and it works rather well.
What about the guy on the radio who saw a old man working at Kroger and it bothered him so much he wants to give me a free e-book that will help me retire "before it's too late", should I listen to him?
Bernie Sanders?
Isn't the typical pattern retiring and then it's too late?
No, the typical pattern is getting brutally murdered only one day before retirement. You're better off not saving for retirement - you'll live longer.
"No, the typical pattern is getting brutally murdered only one day before retirement. You're better off not saving for retirement - you'll live longer."
Personally, I've noticed a recent trend among gang members; they are always gunned-down after they start 'turning their lives around' according to their family members.
You see someone turning their life around? You stay away from that person; they are dangerous to be around.
"When you get into the speculative stuff like penny stocks and naked options trading, absolutely do not do it with money that you can't afford to lose, because at some point, you will"
You can make a small fortune this way if you start with a large one and give it some time.
I'll chalk you up under the "slow and steady wins the race" column.
Agree with Playa that if just starting out, picking a single balanced mutual fund is probably the safest bet. And vanguard is probably the best... though you should always check with your employer to see if they have a 401K plan that offers matching contributions, and discounts on any fund-families.
also = set aside a percentage of your income and set up your payroll to contribute automatically to your account... having it come out of your paycheck before you ever get it saves you the emotional struggle of having to put the pennies in the piggy bank yourself.
For a "single Mutual Fund/ETF" strategy, vanguard has a few options. There's the old 'rule of thumb' that says you should take 100 (minus) your age, and call that your Stock allocation. (e.g. a 35yr old = 65% equity) I think that's a bit outdated, and anyone under 50 should probably be 70/30 equity/bonds.... basically anywhere from Moderate Growth and up.
That is actually sound advice, PM.
Also, avoid 'Zerohedge' and anything Peter Schiff says.
I've never been to zerohedge, but when other people quote it, it sounds like gibberish. Like what stupid people say when they want to seem smart.
Actually this is the first time in my life I am not bullish on tech. All the so called tech stocks that have been working are end-stage app companies like FB and GOOG. I know GOOG is fantastic but they're $740 post split with that gigantic market cap.
Who wants a CSCO or IBM? Or Micron or Intel? I remember back in the tech boom I bought Juniper Networks as a big up and comer. They were flat for years. JDSU was another darling. I haven't looked at their share price in 5 years or seen their ticker symbol on CNBC.
Hell, just saw where JDSU changed name/symbol recently.
"Like what stupid people say when they want to seem smart."
So, like turd's posts?
I'm not in the game, cause I ain't got the green, but I've picked a couple over the years that, if i had had the cash to invest I'd be rich.
The credit/debit card standard is about to change, and the old machines won't read the new cards with chips.
There is one company that makes most of the Point Of Sale machines, i think it's Seimens, but i may be wrong. Whoever it is is about to have a banner couple of years as all the old POS machines are upgraded.
That's where I'd put my money for a couple years, if i had any.
"There is one company that makes most of the Point Of Sale machines, i think it's Seimens, but i may be wrong. Whoever it is is about to have a banner couple of years as all the old POS machines are upgraded.
That's where I'd put my money for a couple years, if i had any."
I avoid individual stocks, since there are a whole passel of very, very bright people who spend their entire times studying the issue with very strong incentives (their money, for pete's sake!) to do it well.
So usually, by the time you, me and other casual investors spot something, the price has already accounted for those sorts of predictions.
Vodafone. And you totally read that on Motley Fool.
What Sevo said. This has all been taken into account already.
I doubt that Siemens is a big player in POS machines: they are
IBM
Epson
NCR
Fujitsu
Motorola / Symbol
MaxSpeed / Neoware
TPG
Verifone
But even if Siemens were, it is a huge conglomerate. Except if their POS machine division had its own stock, one division's good -- or even exceptional -- performance wouldn't make a big lift on Siemens stock.
God damn it. Verifone. Not Vodafone.
I wasn't buying anyhow.
Nor was I. Electronics is not one of my specialties.
Fighting Saudi price controls to get favorable American price controls using threats. Which position is the moar libertarian?
Not doing that?
Too bad gas prices were tumbling well before the "election" which hasn't even really started yet. And if high gas prices were a barrier to re-election, we'd be enjoying the stylings of President Romney.
But the notion of a political business cycle is just the fever dream of lunatic "end the Fed" Paulites.
"A sizeable (minority or majority?) believes prices for a global commodity can be controlled by the push of a button."
In SF, it is well known that the real estate agents, as sellers, are the ones forcing the housing prices to 'unrealistic' levels.
Which is strange in that every 'unrealistically' priced home sells, so I guess people are buying them with 'unrealistic' money?
Bullets were fired. Flesh was injured. Blood was lost.
I'm sure that Obama is crying right now, and that he really means it.
Rights? How do they work?
"The U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to have arms, a right that is fiercely defended."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/.....smsnnews11
So do I need an amendment to, oh, eat a hot-dog at the ball-park? I mean, that's not mentioned anywhere in my copy.
No. The only non-enumerated right is to abortion.
And butt sex.
And the Commerce Clause was included so the Federal Government could do anything it wants to anytime.
A hot dog?
Next you'll want to drink a giant cup of unregulated soda. Or sell cigarettes on the street.
So do I need an amendment to, oh, eat a hot-dog at the ball-park?
Yes: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, 77 children each year choke to death in a vain, futile effort to consume hot dogs
Well we both know they were doomed anyway, as the hot dogs were likely GMOs.
FYTW.
A more popular answer than "Hitler."
"Obama made it clear he does not expect gun laws to change during his remaining year in office, but pledged to do what he can to make gun control a theme in the months leading up to the November election to replace him."
OH MY GOD, PLEASE DO
I'm guessing you're not wishing him well.
I am in his endeavor to make gun control a theme in the next presidential election. I'm wishing him very well, and I hope he succeeds.
Climate change, is there anything it can't do??
Sounds like they sent them (the unit this guy was with) in without proper air or artillery support. Gee, where have I seen this before... We don't want to appear to be going in heavy to we send just enough to not be able to accomplish the mission... ...and get a bunch of troops killed.
So, how's Angela Merkel's plan to remake Germany coming along?
Now all the thread needs is Cytotoxic explaining to all us xenophobic morons that it's all just a price to be paid for the wonderfulness of immigration.
Now, now. These men are really not welfare sucking prowling mauraders. I am told they are responsible husbands and and fathers who are patiently waiting for the papers to clear so they can bring their wives and children to invigorate the culture of old, white Europe.
They will contribute massively to the economy as soon as Germany recognizes the Human Right to Operate a Food Truck.
Hefe Wietze Falafel?
And then he can tell all the "Peacenazis" about how they are stupid for opposing war on those same people.
He does have that whole "invade them, then invite them" thing down.
Why do I keep getting ads for shower curtains printed with images of Tom Selleck dressed as an old-timey admiral? What the hell porn did I search for last night?
Somebody linked that site on the AM or PM links several days ago, and now they luv them some Reason.com
Thanks, Sevo. Good to know I haven't developed a mustache fetish.
*strokes beard pensively*
You're welcome
So, would you, Crusty?
What I wish I was Tom Selleck? Duh doy.
Progressive tolerance. No mask slippage, as there is no mask at all.
Read from the bottom up. That's how that twitter shit works, I guess.
Well, dumbassery like that takes more than one tweet to express!
Lol, he has his own Encyclopedia Dramatica page (NSFW).
Hey Playa, FdA told me you wanted my contact information, but I haven't heard from you yet.
He hadn't told me I had permission yet. Incoming.
Incoming on Facebook, I meant. I don't email like an old man
Oh. I only gave him my email. But I think you can still find my profile via my email address, right?
I hope. I already send the message.
I think I got it.
You Know Which Other President overrode constitutional rights by decree?
Abraham Hitler?
Nice.
Franklin Delano Stalin?
Darn your fast fingers!
Vladimir Roosevelt?
John Quincy Stalin?
John Quincy Palpatine?
Harry Sith Truman?
Nagasaki says, "YES!"
So is a "socially tolerant society" a contradiction in terms? In order to be tolerant we must ostracize (or even criminalize) socially unacceptable behavior and views which is by definition intolerant.
Bounce a check. Skip rent. Shoplift. Break contracts. I'm happy with a society intolerant of these behaviors. It works.
In more religion of peace news, a local Bosnian refugee was sentenced to 3 years for supporting terrorist groups. 5 more will go on trial (she pled guilty)
http://www.stltoday.com/news/l.....nd-courts/
woman-gets-years-in -terror-funding-case-with-st-louis/
an October meeting between high level Afghan and U.S. officials in Afghanistan provided a grim view.
The only 'high level' official in Afghanistan is the prophet Muhammad. Did 'high level' US officials meet with him or not?
Sorry about replying to myself, I have spent some time in Pakistan and Bangledesh, but not Afghanistan, To find a rose in a turd pile, there is pleasant absense of official and celebrity worship in Muslim countries.
Did they have 14 yo girls, willing and able?
So Gun Control. Welch and Gillespie told me that the Dems had given up on it since this is the Libertarian Moment and all.
My take is that the rank and file (D) congresspersons know that the issue is poison - doesn't have broad enough support (at least nationally). However a couple of the higher level party leaders - hilldog and obozo in particular - don't seem to have gotten the memo. I expect that pushing the issue will only get negative pushback from voters.
I am waiting to read the details of what The Lightgiver will be rolling out in his EO. From what I have seen so far it only seems to be red meat for his followers with no real substance - simply adding more ATF headcount to go after people who avoid going through an FFL for a face-to-face transfer. I suppose they will go on-line and try to get people to meet and sell them a gun without the FFL and background check.
Nick Gillespie on guns:
So, should we be pursuing new, "common-sense" restrictions on the buying, selling, owning, and operating of guns? I am not a gun person - I've gone shooting exactly twice in my life and didn't enjoy either experience - and I find many of the arguments of gun-rights advocates unconvincing or uninteresting. The notion that a rag-tag band of regular folks armed with semi-automatic weapons and the odd shotgun are a serious hedge against tyranny strikes me as a stretch (and I even saw the remake of Red Dawn!). Hitler and the Nazis didn't take away everyone's guns, as is commonly argued. They expanded gun rights for many groups (though not the Jews). When the whole mutha starts to come down, if the choice is between Jesse Ventura or Janet Napolitano, I'm not sure where to turn.
The "Cosmotarian Magazine"
Cato's Robert A. Levy proposed a 20 round magazine limit as an acceptable compromise with the gun-grabbers.
All of that said, I don't share the NRA's view that we shouldn't consider a ban on high-capacity magazines.I think a ban on magazines of 20 rounds and above seems to me to be reasonable.
Nick (in the Reason Newtown "hot take" quoted above) goes on to define magazine-capacity liberty "down".
I don't see any reason why law-abiding people should have to explain to anyone why they want a semi-automatic gun or a magazine that holds 10 bullets instead of seven.
Damn Yokel who thinks Book Larnin' is for fags!
Yeah, that was the most deplorable thing I ever read by Cato. Hopefully that was Cato's nadir.
A Libertarian Case For Expanding Gun Background checks
Due process ...
How the fuck does that work?
I am in favor of reasonable gun restrictions too. Any type of firearm that the US government put in my hands and trained me to use, expecting me to risk my life in using them, I should reasonably expect they will trust me to keep and bear in my own home.
I probably won't opt to purchase the mortars and grenade launchers but everything else sounds reasonable to me.
Gillespie loves drugs so the drug warriors have no points but he is not a gun person the gungrabbers do have legitimate points.
And I love his bit about Nazi gun rights. Sure Hitler wanted the Nazis to have guns and wanted the people he wanted to kill to not have them which is such a great rebuttal.
If we could make some headway in the WoDs I'd expect Nick to propose government regulations,special taxes and compulsory "treatment". Hell, I believe he already has.
Um, Hitler?
Final answer.
I guess he hasn't been watching the news (for about the past 60 years) about "ragtag bands" in the middle east or Africa, South America, Vietnam, etc.
I realize that having no first hand background in either firearms nor in infantry tactics he is at a disadvantage but I wish he would ask around the Reason community for some informed input.
"On Thursday, Obama will take his argument to prime time, participating in a town hall discussion of gun violence on CNN. He's slated to make his case for changes in his State of the Union address on Jan. 12."
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....hecks.html
How many family members will be in the background, weeping with him? Will he have a bust of Gandhi on the podium?
Can he wear a robe made of the flag? Will the photoger catch him with a circular fluorescent bulb above his head?
Are we insured against the resultant gagging?
So how is the libertarian moment? The Democrats, as long as they have the White House, can keep chipping away at the 2nd by fiat and they are only one vote away from SCOTUS gutting the first and second amendments. Unless there is massive civil disobedience to these actions I don't see much of a libertarian moment.
No one is "chipping away" the 2A.
You Bitter Clingers haven't lost a thing.
And you haven't gained a tenth of an IQ point, turd.
Obo would confiscate every gun in the US is he wasn't thrwarted by those horrible rethuglicans.
Go fuck your daddy.
Yeah, I guess a buttplug would know something about bitter clingers
The lower federal courts certainly have, Butthair. And your party is trying its damndest.
I've spent 3 1/2 years in Afghanistan. That the Taliban are this active in January (when they're traditionally dormant in the winter) as a bad sign of what's to come in 2016. If you want to read more in-depth about the fight our troops are facing in Afghanistan, check out "To Quell The Korengal." That book is quite a ride.
http://www.amazon.com/Quell-Ko.....e+korengal
Looking at movie boards is interesting. It seems Carol deserves to win all the Oscars because it is about lesbians who however are played by straight women. However they are white. And what about Straight Out of Compton which is about blacks? But Black MEN! Or The Danish Girl which is about a sex change operation? Of a white man, natch played by a man. Or Spotlight which is about straight white men discovering gay pedophiles? Intersectionality for the win!
I thought Star Wars threaded the needle? Wait, I don't care.
Oscar winning became synonymous with "boring as fuck" sometime, I'm not sure when.
It's like how the only worthwhile Nobel is for medicine; the only worthy Oscars are for technicals.
About the same time when audiences stopped seeing middlebrow Oscar-bait? The alternative is to either go really populist and award the big hits or go really arty and award films that few people have seen.
It seems to have started in the early 80s and really took off after LOTR won.
CA is getting some rain, as happens commonly after a drought, and portions of SF are built in what amounts to localized flood plains, so we get "Unclear on the Concept, Example = n":
http://www.sfgate.com/weather/.....738819.php
Yep, those sand bags will do a fine job of keeping the rain water out, but note the neighbor's downspout, left of center.
HAHAHA!
Good catch!
Neighbor's downspout? What the fuck? How small are the houses there?
A lot have no gap between them. It's a city.
I've spent 3 1/2 years in Afghanistan. That the Taliban are this active in January (when they're traditionally dormant in the winter) as a bad sign of what's to come in 2016. If you want to read more in-depth about the fight our troops are facing in Afghanistan, check out "To Quell The Korengal." That book is quite a ride.
http://www.amazon.com/Quell-Th.....32423011_5