I hold the opinion that he was actually strategically one of the least competent.

People forget you could buy Amphetamines OTC up until the 70s.

My local bus system is "Space Coast Area Transit" or SCAT for short.

There's literally advertisements on TV about how smoking is bad, It's universally considered a disgusting shameful activity even by many cigarette smokers. I don't know of any example in the media where cigarette smoking is specifically glorified. There might be neutral depictions of cigarette smoking but there are no people out there in the media hailing the benefits of smoking. I personally have friends that smoke and I tell them all the time that they should stop smoking, They do not respond to me with some sort of diatribe about how actually smoking isn't that bad and I should just accept them for who they are and not focus so much on the smoking part. They don't do that because they know that's an insane thing to say. They know that I care about their health that smoking is a bad thing and it would be dumb to try to pretend that it's a good thing.

You could perhaps make a better argument that alcoholism in mainstream media has been shown as a fun activity, but alcoholism is also routinely shown as a very bad thing also. Drunk husbands that beat their wives, alcohol-related accidents and fatalities, getting drunk and being raped, are all frequent ways that alcoholism is depicted in media. It's frequently shown as a contemptible thing.

I'm not sure what media you're watching, I don't remember seeing a interview where some famous person that young people might be impressionable towards go on and on about how actually being an alcoholic is a really good and neat thing that contributes positively to you and your personality, I don't remember people saying that you should be proud to be an alcoholic or that You should look at yourself after a 3-day bender and really be proud of what you've become.

No one's doing those things, being unhealthy in any way it's not and should not be considered a good thing. Everybody has ways that they are unhealthy but those ways that you are unhealthy nobody should be proud of. You should be proud of overcoming it or at least attempting to overcome it, no one should look in the mirror and look at their stained yellow teeth and say "geez I sure am glad that I'm a smoker, My smoking habit that caused these yellow teeth made me who I am today And I love myself for my smoking habit"

I remember in one of my classes the professor was a police officer, he said that the worst people to arrest are 5 ft tall white women, It takes three officers to drag them out kicking and screaming all the way. He remembers one day he had a call to a bar about a patron who was causing a disturbance, it ended up being a huge MMA guy, someone who could easily beat him up and run away, it was a very easy arrest, no back talk or resistance, completely cooperative.

That's if they have the exact same name. George Edward Foreman Sr. named all of his 5 sons George Edward Foreman. The first one aquired Jr. status and the next 4 became II, III, IV, and V.

If they have a different middle name then they use middle names such as George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Sometimes they will refer to H. W. Bush as Bush Sr. for short but they wouldn't in any official reference such as "George H. W. Bush Sr."

This is like one of those sentences that sounds like a means something but doesn't mean anything.

Their reply to that would be "God created man not men"

Well I think the explanation is two fold. First that Adam and Eve were perfect, therefore they lived much longer. You have other historical biblical figures living for well over 150 years, it stands to reason that Adam and Eve likely lived longer, it never says how old they are or when they die or even when they had children.

Second of all it doesn't say Adam and Even had only two children, only that Cain and Abel were two of their children. It could be Eve was popping them out every 9 months or something, it doesn't say she wasn't so maybe they had a couple hundred kids, some went to live in the land of Nod.

The ultra conservative view you will find very few clergy defend in the United States at least. Most say they are just stories to get a message across and to not take the whole 7 days to create earth and Garden of Eden thing literally, they are just stories to teach people important lessons about God and humanity.

Some liberal interpretations would say that the garden of Eden and the creation myth were all parables of sorts and should not be taken literally. More conservative denominations will tell you all those people were descendants of Adam and Eve and therefore Cain's sister or nieces. They go on to say that the only problem with incest is that It increases the chance of recessive genes becoming dominant, but that isn't a problem if your a child of adam and eve because they are perfect and have no abnormal recessive genes so it's perfectly safe to have children with your sister.

One thing they kinda touch on and move past is that the "hoop jumping" doesn't necessarily find the best candidate, only the one that really wants the job, which could be a relatively poor candidate but just one willing to put in the work.

That is to say, you could have a candidate, who simply doesn't have a job and is throwing applications out there to see what traction they can get. That candidate might actually be the optimal candidate, smart, fast learner, great at adaptation, and very charming. But since they might not have put as much effort I to your application you miss out on the opportunity for that person because some other person, who is less qualified spent more time padding their resume.

From an outside perspective an employer selecting for an applicant that that puts more work into the application produces very little in terms of desirable qualities, you don't know if they are a fast worker only that their resume is marginally better than someone who may have put half as much work into their resume. You only know that they are capable of producing quality material without any reference to how much time or effort it took them, which is something you need to know if you're looking for a worker who needs to produce things on a timetable.

Consider an applicant to some colleges. You have a really smart kid, whip smart, ability to make interdisciplinary connections that would be an absolute boon for your any school, great social ability and passion for multiple subjects. They decide to apply to a lot of schools, from the very top to the very bottom. The amount of work they put into their application is relative to how much they want to attend that school.

The top schools pass on them, they put maximum effort into their application but other just put more. Maybe they had the resources to hire a consultant to do their application, they padded it with things they knew the college was looking for, maybe they are a legacy. At any rate the excellent applicant just didn't make the threshold. This could chain all the way down to the lower end schools. Constantly putting in not enough effort to make it into any school even though they are a perfect applicant for all schools and too good of an applicant for the mid and lower end schools.

The best applicant gets no offers and the lowest and mid range schools lose our on an applicant that is probably one of the better applicants they could have hoped for.

Probably the truest thing he says is basically because the employer is lazy, they are offloading the effort to find an employee to a system they can tell their boss has some relevance to quality but once you unpack the system it doesn't do anything but find the person most desperate for this particular job, which could in some cases be someone under qualified, and it could pass on people who are more than qualified and probably rarely finds the most optimal employee.

>What was funny though was that the Germans created their own stricter camp rules

Your probably referring to the fact the Nazis in the camps attempted to maintain loyalty amongst the non-nazi members who rather enjoyed not being on the front lines anymore by harsh extrajudicial discipline.

However, rank is still maintained in POW camps, POWs must follow orders of superior officers and nominally they are under the command of their superior officers who are themselves obligated to follow the lawful commands of the camp commanders. So discipline was largely handled by the prisoners rather than the guards. At the same time enlisted guards had to show superior rank prisoner a certain amount of respect and enlisted prisoners had to show superior rank camp staff the same amount of respect they would their own superior rank officers. Being in a camp wasn't like being in a prison, it was like being in the army but instead of doing combat your being kept busy because you aren't allowed to move freely.

One of my grandma's friends was British and was in Germany when the war broke out. Foreigners from enemy countries were usually rounded up and put into concentration camps (not death camps, that's just the name for them) so they got sent to one for British people. They would write each other through the red cross and there are pictures from the camp. They apparently had plays and carnivals and sports games. Not saying that not having freedom of movement wasnt bad but if I was a civilian prisoner of war it doesn't sound half bad. Near the end it obviously got bad, food and supplies became rationed, but they survived in good health before being repatriated.

The two socially acceptable places you can sleep in public are colleges and airports.

Alternative beginning to Escape from the Planet of the Apes

I've been to a lot of "rough urban terrain" and I'm going to tell you, it gets a lot tougher than some gravel and cracked sidewalks.

On the scale of the entire Earth that actually doesn't seem like very much dust at all especially considering that's spread out throughout the entire world and the amount of space the Earth flies through. Considering every year over 6,000 meteors reach the ground, and the inner solar system is probably still filled with dust from extra planetary collisions and solar winds, you would think that number would be higher.

Incompetent if incompetence was legitimately attempting to sabotage the Nazis. On more than one occasion Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, meet with Allied representatives and basically said "So what if one day Hitler were to suddenly die and all the top Nazis were rounded up and arrested, what kind of peace deal would offer?"

Canaris later being executed and the Abwehr being basically abolished after the Nazis figured out what he was up too.

A lot of the Abwehr were not sympathetic with the Nazis (Either because of ideological differences or the fact the Nazi party operated its own parallel intelligence agencies that competed with them). So as it turns out, most Abwehr agents sent over to great Britain basically turned themselves in as soon as possible and became double agents. Which usually means their job was to go to a bunch of high profile parties so they can be seen with people of influence to maintain their cover so that German intelligence would think they are doing work. In reality they were just getting drunk and spending money on both the British and German dime. I believe some of them even got to keep their German pensions after the war.

"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me"