Eh, having survived a US public education I can see both points. I hated a good chunk of the assigned school reading (the overriding theme of one particular year was "everyone dies alone in the rain"). The stuff that wasn't terrible in hindsight*, we had to analyze and dissect every single sentence and word nuance to write some ridiculous essay on the author's intent or biases or hidden meanings or anarcho-facist transcendentalist leaning or what-have-you. I can understand how four years of that could kill someone's love of reading; it nearly killed mine. Fortunately I discovered Terry Pratchett and Orscon Scott Card in about the same time frame and remembered that books didn't have to be complete dreck.

*Incidentally I picked up some of the writers (Shakespeare, Vonnegut,Hemmingway) later on in life and found, to my pleasant surprise, that they're much more readable when you're reading for entertainment and not critique.

Podcasts: "The Magnus Archives" is a collection of short horror stories, each narrated by the Head Archivists of the eponymous Magnus Institute. Each of the stories works as a stand-alone, but the writers have been slowing tying threads together into larger story arcs. Season Two finished in August and Season Three just started up last month. I also recommend "King Falls AM", which about a pair of late-night AM radio talk show hosts and the weirdness in their town. It's similar to "Welcome To Nightvale" but hasn't achieved WtN's level of pretentiousness.

For television, I recommend: "The Punisher" if for no other reason than the fight scene at the end of the first episode set to Tom Waits' "Hell Broke Loose", "Defenders", because Iron Fist is not nearly as annoying when he's part of a group,

For movies: "Gaurdians of the Galaxy Vol 2", "Valerian", "Wonder Woman", and "Going In Style" are not transcendent works of art but are are very entertaining.

Seconded. Iron Fist is WAY more tolerable as part of an ensemble.

Weird Al has you covered."

That's fair; I'll concede the point about Allied intervention. As to the Soviet-Nazi relationship, most counterfactual scenarios I can think of have them coming to blows at some point. Still, Hitler handed Stalin probably the greatest propaganda victory Ol' Joe could have hoped for.

I also recommend "In Search of Putin's Russia", if you've got the time. Another thing we tend to forget in the West is the effect the downfall of the Soviet Union had on the Russian national psyche. Communism may not have been very popular, but it was stability and there was a certain amount of prestige in being a citizen of a superpower. Imagine the US collapses one day, the economy tanks, and the Reconquista that Mexico's academia dreams of happens. What would that be like for the US, to suddenly find itself with distrustful nations at its border? Then imagine these newly independent nations of Texas, California, Arizona, what have you, start getting buddy-buddy with, say, China or Iran. How would the US react to something like that? This is a (very) rough approximation of the Russian situation following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin's demonstrating, very publicly, that Russia can and will square off against the US and that it's not some broken shell of a nation. Please note that I'm not excusing Putin or the Russian actions in Crimea. I'm just pointing out that he's hardly the mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash that television news has made him out to be.

While Allied intervention exacerbated existing problems, it's a stretch to say that it had a hand in the collapse (assuming you use the phrase "had a small hand in" to mean "was a partial cause of"). Russia had serious domestic problems and the brutality of WWI didn't help. One could arguably blame Germany for sending Lenin back, but by the time he arrived on the scene, the whole edifice of state was teetering anyway. Edward Crankshaw's "Shadow of the Winter Palace" is a good summation of the conditions that led to revolution.

The Russian people, in general, don't have a particularly hopeful view of the future and historically seem to prefer stability over autonomy, provided the living conditions aren't too bad. To borrow an internet meme, the history of Russia can be summed up in a single sentence "And then things got worse." Russia has had two major governmental collapses in the last century,* one of which the US was openly attempting. Russians see the US, and democracy in general, as an instigator of chaos. There's an excellent article in the Atlantic this month if you've got 30 minutes to read it

*Granted, there are African nations that have two government collapses before lunch, but Africa is its own basket of problems.

On the philosophical side, your argument is only valid if there is somewhere left to go that is not part of the collective. (Yes, I know Apple wants to be part of the collective, but the whole idea of social contracts bug me.)

And what qualifications do you boast that would make you such an authority?

Grandpa, did you serve in the Great Meme Wars of 2018?

It's been a while since I read Sun Tzu, but this seems appropriate: "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence. Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

I'm out of modpoints, but fortunately you're already at a +5. Thanks for writing that. It was one of the more informative comments I've seen on Slashdot in a bit.

Say it with me now "tax exemptions are not the same as subsidies." Unless of course you believe that the government has some inherit right to our money solely on the basis of its existence.

I can't decide if you're a troll or just dumb. You do realize most of those troops are Federal troops, right? As in, they take orders from the US government, not the government of California (National Guard excluded). Do you really think the entirety of the Pacific Fleet is going to suddenly start taking orders from the newly-elected President of the Republic of California? Hell do you think the training units out at 29 Palms or Fort Irwin are going to just switch allegiance?