>County by County, guess what correlated with higher support for Florida's $15 minimum wage amendment! Here's a Hint: It isn't Race or Party!

>It's probably not income either. Unless you count the ever so slight correlation of support for a higher minimum wage in counties with higher median household income (not average, median, i.e. half the people make more than X amount of money, so its not multi-millionaires billionaires living there skewing the stats or something). I can't say for sure though, the data is from 2010, but I can tell you for sure the current richest county (St. Johns) and the current poorest county (Madison) were both about 50/50 split on a $15 minimum wage (and also the two largest outliers in general, I found) so there probably isn't any correlation and if there is, it's far weaker than the real divide, which is...

>County population! Which, of course, is a good proxy for good old Urban vs. Rural. For this I have fully up to date numbers on Florida's 67 counties, as it comes directly from Florida's election board

>Additional data on Florida demographics can be found here.

>Party registration can be found through wikipedia, some counties data is more updated than others, but it's all from at least 2016 and also not the most important question here anyhow.

>It's actually amazing:

>Sarasota County, 42% registered Republican, 30% registered Democrat, 83% white, 6% poverty rate, 14th in county population. 58% support for a 15 dollar minimum wage!

>Franklin County, 61% registered Democrat, 26% registered Republican, 77% white, 16% poverty rate, 65th in county population, 48% support for a 15 dollar minimum wage!

>Palm Beach County, 42% registered Democrat, 29% registered Republican, 55% white, 8% poverty rate, 3rd in county population, 69% support for a 15 dollar minimum wage!

>Desoto County, 48% registered Democrat, 30% registered Republican, 54% White, 18% Poverty Rate, 48th in county population, 46% support for a 15 dollar minimum wage!

>It's incredible, nothing but county population consistently matters, party affiliation, poverty rate (if anything a lower poverty rate might correlate with a higher degree of support for a 15 dollar minimum w

Why is LVT not so used? What are the political constraints/actors which impede its proliferation across the world? What could be done to overcome these political impediments? Policy-wise, what could be done?

This new type of engine was developed in the Polytechnic University Catalonia, Spain by a team headed by Dr. Francisco Arias and presented in the 2016 AIAA/SAE/ASEE Propulsion Conference. You can read Dr. Arias' published academic paper detailing this design here... if you're willing to part with 25 dollars, that is. If you don't, the next best thing is to read about it on wikipedia, and on the atomic rockets website.

What made me excited but also very skeptical about this concept is that it claims, among other things, that:

• It can heat the rocket propellant a lot hotter than the reactor fuel elements using neutron energy, much like a microwave can heat up food without itself getting hot by using microwave energy. This is despite neutron energy making up around 5% of the energy emitted by fission.

• It can produce specific impulses on par with if not greater than fission fragment rockets, in spite of those having Isp in the order of 1.000.000s of seconds.

• It can produce thrust on par with that of chemical rockets.

• Its reactor needs additional molten metal coolant and a heatsink to deal with waste heat, yet this is somehow not a problem.

To make matters worse, finding information about this - which isn't paywalled, that is - is beyond difficult. The best I've been able to find is some forum discussions, and the information there isn't much more than speculation.

But still, this is an actual design made by actual scholars published in an actual academic paper and presented in an actual conference. I can't just dismiss this as another EM dive. There might be something that I'm missing here that makes this whole concept make sense.

I want to start my own sport casual clothing line (white label at first, designs later) , but I am having a hard time finding a supplier, most ask for an established business with website and social media presence, I have none of that, all I have is a feasibility analysis I'm doing and I'm figuring out costs and potential suppliers, but in order to estimate costs and order amounts I need to find a supplier, I've hit a brick wall since some websites won't let people outside the USA register (I'm in Panama) and others won't even talk to me.

Any advice on how to find a supplier to complete my feasibility study and launch my business would be helpful....

Hi! I wanted to see what was the most agreed upon ideology among sociopaths is so I set up this poll. Please choose a option that you align with and only choose a option if your a sociopath (undiagnosed or diagnosed with ASPD). If you don't align with any of these, let me know your other alignment in the comment section. Thank you!

View Poll

So I'm going to lay out a couple of political facts about Russian politics and the politics of Vladimir Putin in bullet points. These will include certain facts that might surprise people. So here goes:

(i)The incarceration rate in Russia under Putin has fallen significantly.

• We know about how during the history of the Soviet Union the Gulag was a major fact of life. Eventually the Gulag system was dismantled. However during the 1990s there was a spike in incarceration rates in Russia just like America and many Western countries. This was due to the rise in organised crime in the 90s under President Boris Yeltsin.
• When Vladimir Putin inherited the Presidential office Russia had a prison system where 1 million people were incarcerated for various criminal offenses. The Putin presidency has significantly reduced Russia's prison industrial complex and its incarceration rate. As of 2021 there are about 500,000 prisoners incarcerated. That's still a fairly high number. And while Russia's prison population has fallen, the conditions of Russia's prisons are still a major social issue of dissidents like Alexey Navalny who are still in jail.

(ii)Russia has a moratorium Capital Punishment in the 90s and Putin is against it.

• Under Boris Yeltsin's presidency a decree was signed that established a moratorium on capital punishment. This was extended by the constitutional court of Russia in 1999 and then again under Vladimir Putin's presidency by the Russian Duma(Parliament) in 2006. In 2013 when asked about it Putin stated that lifting the moratorium is not "advisable". Which is an interesting statement because certain Russian nationalists want the death penalty to be brought back.

(iii)The poverty rate during the Putin years has fallen for a number of factors.

• The measuring criteria used to determine poverty is itself contested. For this I am going to be looking at what could be categorised as "absolute poverty". Which is essentially living off 5 dollars a day. When it comes to absolute poverty when Putin inherited the presidency that number was at 48%. This is largely due to the neoliberal economic reforms as well as the "shock therapy" that Boris Yeltsin introduced where the was a massive privatisation scheme put in place.
• During Putin's time in office the poverty rate has fallen from 48% in 1999 to around 4%. There are a number of factors for this. Part of it has to do with the oil boom that took place in the 2000s. Part of it though also

Team,

I've been a recent lurker on this sub and I'm looking to get more deliberate on the real-estate front; I appreciate any thoughts on taking the plunge into a multifamily property in DC.

My previous forays were just from moving often, and an unwillingness to sell if I didn't need to..... So currently more of an accidental land lord.

However, looking back on where my wealth has grown, I see big pluses from holding real estate and want to start making moves to maximize this.

Financial position: Paying mortgages on 3 Single Family Homes; Current cumulative Mkt estimate is $1,255K versus outstanding mortgage debt of $678k (no other debt)

-  Property 1 is in KY and slightly cash flow negative on a 15 year loan; with a property manager

-  Property 2 is in VA is also cash flow negative on a 15 yr ; self-managed

-  Property 3 is in NY and is my personal residence (my family to remain so not an income producing property; although looking at a basement conversion to generate something)

Situation: My work is taking me back to DC; therefore, instead of renting I'm looking for a 3+ unit property where I live in one unit (most of the time), and then self-manage remaining units.

I have some additional cash for a down-payment, but likely not enough to hit 20% for properties in the $1M+ range.  I will live in one unit part time for at least 3 years and then fully rent out the property.

Questions:  Big picture, my questions are about what is feasible on the financing side; e.g. What is a lender likely to look at in my situation?

• Will I need to liquate and exchange one of the single family properties to make this next purchase viable, or will they look at the combined equity across my "portfolio"?  If I need to, selling either of the Single Family homes that I'm renting out should generate enough for 20% down.

• My assumption guiding property selection of the multi-family property is to be cash flow neutral while living in one unit.  With an additional allowance for vacancy, I may again end up slightly cash flow negative.  However, I estimate I could easily handle another ~$700/mo negative cash flow without changing anything in my budget.... So I guess the question is how important is cash flow to the lending decision given I have a long history of handling cash flow negative ownership within my income, and aggressive pay down of debt?

• Do assets in tax sheltered accounts (IRA/401k) matter for loan qualification; basically should I include them

https://doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1383

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33939330

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) is one of the most devastating diseases among children with cancer, thus novel strategies are urgently needed.

AIMS

We retrospectively evaluated DIPG patients exposed to the carbohydrate restricted ketogenic diet (KD) with regard of feasibility, safety, and overall survival (OS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified five hits meeting the search criteria (diagnosis of DIPG and exposure to KD). One additional case was identified by contact with experts. Individual patient data were extracted from publications or obtained from investigators. The inclusion criteria for analysis of the data were defined as DIPG patients who were exposed to the KD for ≥3 months. Feasibility, as described in the literature, was the number of patients able to follow the KD for 3 months out of all DIPG patients identified. OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Five DIPG patients (males, n = 3, median age 4.4 years, range, 2.5-15 years) meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Analysis of the available data suggested that the KD is generally relatively well tolerated. Only mild gastro-intestinal complaints, one borderline hypoglycemia (2.4 mmol/L) and one hyperketosis (max 7.2 mmol/L) were observed. Five out of six DIPG patients identified adhered for ≥3 months (median KD duration, 6.5 months, range, 0.25-2 years) to the diet. The median OS was 18.7 months.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides evidence that it may be feasible for pediatric DIPG patients to adhere for at least 3 months to KD. In particular cases, diet modifications were done. The clinical outcome and OS appear not to be impacted in a negative way. KD might be proposed as adjuvant therapy when large prospective studies have shown feasibility and safety. Future studies might ideally assess the impact of KD on clinical outcome, quality of life, and efficacy.

------------------------------------------ Info ------------------------------------------

Open Access: True

Authors: Alexandre Perez - Elles Louw - Janak Nathan - Moatasem El‐Ayadi - Hadrien Golay - Christian Korff - Marc Ansari - Coriene Catsman‐Berrevoets - Andre O. Bueren -

Additional links:

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/cnr

Recent news seems to hint that Trump is mis-ranking the feasibility & political consequences of these three potential parting shots, which would be correctly ranked as follows:

A. Pardons of Snowden, Manning, Assange, Kiriakou, Sterling, Winner:

FEASIBILITY: 100%. 10 seconds to sign each order after 10 minutes spent drafting it. The only question would be whether Bill Barr is loyal enough to draft the orders correctly.

POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES:

1. too big for MSM to black out,
2. distract from simultaneous pardons of Trump children (& son-in-law),
3. accelerate Democrats’ intra-party civil war,
4. deepen the self-destructive security state-fetishizing & Russia-demonizing of the Democratic establishment, &
5. deepen more voters’ association of Democrats & MSM with surveillance & censorship.

B. Russiagate records de-classification:

FEASIBILITY: presumably nobody would gun down a convoy of executive order-brandishing Trump loyalists who made a no-knock appearance demanding entrance to CIA and NSA vaults, especially if Trump himself went with them (hella photo-op). But it might be a closer call whether the cabinet would declare Trump incapacitated while the vault-keepers were stalling.

POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES: There would be no better gambit to maximize public suspicions that future prosecutions of Trump were political payback. That might raise the political costs of such prosecutions so high that some type of settlement is more attractive to the TPTB. (Many VIPs would already prefer a settlement, since they probably expect that no outsider will become President again, and they certainly don’t want to raise public expectations that high-level miscreants of both parties will be prosecuted).

C. Afghanistan withdrawal:

FEASIBILITY of full withdrawal within two months? ZERO. At the extreme, contractors and allied foreign troops could probably hold their ground for a few weeks (especially w/US air cover) until US troops poured back in (from Tajikistan?) a few minutes after Biden’s inauguration.

POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES: The smartest uni-party imperialists are probably salivating at the chance for ‘Br'er Biden’ to blame Trump for the strategic failure of this war.

This is part two of my analysis of Tywin Lannister. For part one check this link here.

When we last left Tywin off it was just after the events of the Rebellion. Now little is known about what he did between the Rebellion and canon, and politically the answer is presumably not much. There is however one thing that we do know that he did.

Tysha. Possibly Tywin’s greatest horror (which is saying a lot), the brutal gang rape of his own daughter in law, while not particularly politically relevant (until it literally killed him that is) is a standing reminder of the kind of man Tywin Lannister is. There is nothing ruthlessly pragmatic or “Machiavellian” there as so many people describe him. There is just pure and utter psychopathy and sadism.

Recklessness and Ego: The Leadup to War

Other than that however little is known of his actions in the years leading up to canon, not even what he did during Balon’s Rebellion. Throughout the first half of AGOT he is also present only through his reputation. In fact Tywin only makes his first move once Tyrion is abducted by Catelyn.

Now the validity of Catelyn’s actions there has been a subject discussed and talked about endlessly, so we won’t go into that. For our purposes all that matters is that Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion.

Now, Tywin is this case had a lot of options. The first and foremost thing he should have done is appeal to the King (maybe take a guard of a couple hundred men with him while doing this just to secure redcloak control of the Red Keep), since Tyrion’s kidnapping was illegal.

Pushing forward, he could have used such a situation to demand (and probably be successful in forcing) Ned’s resignation as Hand.

Alternatively, if Tywin wanted to do more of a show of force, he could have used Ned’s very exposed position in KL and ordered Cersei to take Sansa or Arya hostage. While a much more aggressive move, it would have been similar in magnitude to what Catelyn did to Tyrion and thus it would have been hard if not impossible for Ned and Robert to do anything about it.

But Tywin did neither of these things. Instead he chose the most extreme option possible. War. Now, there’s no way around this, this was a blunder of the highest order, for several reasons.

• First off, the moment Tywin goes to war, he was (as far as he knew) declaring war on three kingdoms all at once, the Riverlands, the North a

Australia’s economic and political duopoly

Australia is run as a duopoly, and where it’s not as a highly concentrated oligopoly. This fact is found in business from supermarkets, to banking, mining, building materials, telecommunications and airlines among others.

But nowhere is the duopoly more strongly felt than in politics, dominated by the Liberal National Coalition and the party that calls itself Labor. There are smaller players in the Greens, One Nation and UAP which is akin to Aldi, IGA, Bendigo & Adelaide Bank and BoQ – they have alternative branding and some different products but on closer inspection are part of the same political neoliberal capitalist family. Australia is not unique in this respect and this pattern is repeated across the English speaking world.

The purpose of duopolies is to maintain and reinforce the interest of the incumbents. Like all duopolies it’s important to appear on the surface to present an alternative while maintaining the core interests of the incumbents. If one party to a duopoly were to deviate too far and create a real competition it would lead to the weakening of the established order as third parties would find space to compete as well.

Therefore incumbents in a political duopoly are very careful to only compete on non-core interests – and these non-core interests always revolve around social not economic policies. Examples of social policies include the level of spending on education, hospitals, general social justice issues, and environmental targets – but there is very little debate on core economic policies. Any deviation from the neoliberal economic script is quickly punished – for example Labor’s short-lived and abandoned tax on miners, policies around changing tax in the property sector, regulation of banks or any discussion around the level and rate of immigration that isn’t related to refugees.

The Alternatives

The Greens

The Greens on their policy page present a diverse range of policies. In fact they list 46 policy areas, however closer inspection few of these are core areas of concern for a neoliberal capitalist system – they are mostly focused on social justice issues. When it comes to core economic interests the Greens present policies areas amounting to 6 of those 46 being: Banking, Economics, Global Economics, Housing, Population and Mining.

On closer inspection the policy aims under these sections represent improved governance but no struct

The UFO amendment to the NDAA, to be voted on Tuesday in the Senate, has long been discussed in this community and elsewhere.

But, what is the motivation behind the legislation?

Let's start with Senator Kristen Gillibrand.

Senator from New York appointed in 2009 to fill Hillary Clinton's former Senate seat, Gillibrand ran for president in 2020, but dropped out very early. (It was said that many democratic donors disliked her because she was a key player in the resignation of former Senator Al Franken. Franken resigned due to sexual harassment claims; Gillibrand was the first from her party to suggest he resign.)

Here's where it gets interesting: Senator Gillibrand is on the Senate intelligence committee, as is Marco Rubio, another presidential hopeful, from the Republican side.

What do they have in common:

1. Both Senators Rubio and Gillibrand have been key advocates of UAP legislation.
2. Both Senators Rubio and Gillibrand serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
3. Both Senators Rubio and Gillibrand campaigned to be President of the United States and are likely to do so again.

Both of these Senators are privy to TOP SECRET intelligence briefings. By virtue of the constitutional offices they hold, they do not need security clearances. (Congressional staffers are treated differently.)

Politicians don’t put their necks on the line, especially for something still considered fringe like UFOs, unless there’s some benefit to them politically.

A few years ago, proposing UFO legislation would have been career suicide. Now we have presidential hopefuls trying to outdo each other proposing UFO legislation.

I CANNOT OVERSTATE THE SIGNIFICANCE: Two senators who have run for president of the United States and are likely to do so again, are key proponents of UFO legislation.

What do they know?

To me, it seems clear that there is something they have come to realize given their exalted positions on the Senate Intelligence committee, that leads them to believe that UFOs are not secret US technology nor adversarial technology, but something likely off-world.

They are taking a political bet that disclosure will upend life as we know it, and they will be seen as having been on the right side of history, and moreover advocated to make it happen.

Hello everyone, have been a longtime lurker but I've wanted to start writing my own takes for fun instead of just chatting to people about politics. Do let me know if this isn't the place to dump this stuff but I've written a (pretty fucking lengthy) post about where I think the Tories are going and if it gets any of you thinking or starts a discussion I'll call that a win x

Now that the media have started saying things like ‘this is the beginning of the end for Boris Johnson’ we can be fairly sure there’s at least a reasonable chance Tory MPs are thinking the same and feeding back to their contacts in the BBC, Spectator, Daily Mail and elsewhere that they’re very cross with the PM.

An inexhaustive and brief summary of why different parts of the party (all of which have large and complex overlap) are angry with Johnson would look something like this:

The remaining (in both sense of the word) liberal-conservatives are frustrated with Boris because of all the Brexitish, culture warrish, right-wing stuff; the Tory right are annoyed about all the Channel migrant crossings, the existence of (limited) COVID restrictions and the lack of progress on ruining the Irish peace process; the economic liberals see Boris as betraying the small-state, low-spending traditions of the party; plenty of particularly older men in the parliamentary party are anxious that they’ve either been passed up for promotion or been demoted to make way for fresh Northern and/or minority ethnic blood; and all Tory factions are angry about The Trolley’s (as Dominic Cummings calls him) lying and inconstancy on issues as varied as whether or not he knew who was paying for the redecoration of his Downing Street flat, whether or not Owen Patterson should be rescued from suspension for breaking lobbying rules, and whether or not illegal Christmas parties took place at Downing Street last year.

Apparently, his flirtation with compulsory vaccination, which the BBC has used as a basis for producing a fairly supportive sounding explainer on the subject, has Tory MPs feeling like they no longer know him. Throw into the mix Labour’s new lead in the polls and the survey findings showing that a majority of the public think Johnson should resign, and you can see, even after decades of self-serving melodrama which has yet to bring him down, why the parliamentary party are beginning to think Boris may no longer be a winner.

So, imagine that in six months time Johnson has been unable to steady the shi

This is Part 1 of 2. I initially wrote it all as one big post, however, the list of Tywin's blunders and the explanation behind them is too big to cover in a single post. Therefore, this post shall focus on his actions before canon, while the next will focus on his actions during the time of the books. I originally posted this on r/asoiaf and several people have told me to post it here too, so I'm doing that.

Tywin Lannister is a hard figure to get a grasp on. On one hand is a complete and utter psychopath that commits some of the most vile crimes in the story, including, but not limited too: the Sack of King’s Landing, the brutal murder of Elia and her babe(s, jury’s still out on the number), Tysha’s rape and the burning of the Riverlands to name just a few.

On the other hand, his character emanates a constant image of reason and competence, an interpretation which is in some ways supported by a surface level reading on the text. This dissonance has led to many mixed and contradictory interpretations of the character, and even a fair number of fans. So let's see if Tywin’s reputation is supported when one does a more profound reading of the text.

The Early Days

Most of Tywin’s actions before the Rebellion are unclear to us other than the very broad strokes. For example, of his involvement in the War of the Ninepenny Kings very little can be said other than the fact that Tywin struck up a friendship with Aerys. While this certainly says a lot about Tywin’s ambition it fails to provide us with any more knowledge.

In truth, politically and militarily the only part of his early life we do know is the Reyne Tarbeck Rebellion. Despite a number of blunders which we will analyze in good course, the Reyne Tarbeck rebellion was politically and militarily probably Tywin’s greatest achievement.

The setup to it was mostly competently done. A two stage operation, first to secure the loyalty of some of House Lannister’s smaller vassals by demanding repayment or hostages, and then once a tenuous hold over his vassals was secured, incite the Reynes and Tarbecks into rebellion and then make an example out of them.

The plan itself worked well enough, though it should be said that the pause between the stages Tytos enforced by releasing Walderan without a doubt helped Tywin as it allowed him to further concentrate House Lannister’s power. Tywin’s intent to execute Walderan Tarbeck shows us three glaring faults of Tywin which will quickly become important late

This is Part 1 of 2. I initially wrote it all as one big post, however, the list of Tywin's blunders and the explanation behind them is too big to cover in a single post. Therefore, this post shall focus on his actions before canon, while the next will focus on his actions during the time of the books.

Tywin Lannister is a hard figure to get a grasp on. On one hand is a complete and utter psychopath that commits some of the most vile crimes in the story, including, but not limited too: the Sack of King’s Landing, the brutal murder of Elia and her babe(s, jury’s still out on the number), Tysha’s rape and the burning of the Riverlands to name just a few.

On the other hand, his character emanates a constant image of reason and competence, an interpretation which is in some ways supported by a surface level reading on the text. This dissonance has led to many mixed and contradictory interpretations of the character, and even a fair number of fans, though they are most certainly for the most part brought about by Charles Dance’s excellent performance in the show.

But we are not here to talk about the show, but instead we are here to talk about the books, and see if Tywin’s reputation is supported when one does a more profound reading of the text.

The Early Days

Most of Tywin’s actions before the Rebellion are unclear to us other than the very broad strokes. For example, of his involvement in the War of the Ninepenny Kings very little can be said other than the fact that Tywin struck up a friendship with Aerys. While this certainly says a lot about Tywin’s ambition it fails to provide us with any more knowledge.

In truth, politically and militarily the only part of his early life we do know is the Reyne Tarbeck Rebellion. Despite a number of blunders which we will analyze in good course, the Reyne Tarbeck rebellion was politically and militarily probably Tywin’s greatest achievement.

The setup to it was mostly competently done. A two stage operation, first to secure the loyalty of some of House Lannister’s smaller vassals by demanding repayment or hostages, and then once a tenuous hold over his vassals was secured, incite the Reynes and Tarbecks into rebellion and then make an example out of them.

The plan itself worked well enough, though it should be said that the pause between the stages Tytos enforced by releasing Walderan without a doubt helped Tywin as it allowed him to further concentrate House Lannister’s power. Tywin’s intent to execute W

This is part two of my analysis of Tywin Lannister. For part one check this link here.

When we last left Tywin off it was just after the events of the Rebellion. Now little is known about what he did between the Rebellion and canon, and politically the answer is presumably not much. There is however one thing that we do know that he did.

Tysha. Possibly Tywin’s greatest horror (which is saying a lot), the brutal gang rape of his own daughter in law, while not particularly politically relevant (until it literally killed him that is) is a standing reminder of the kind of man Tywin Lannister is. There is nothing ruthlessly pragmatic or “Machiavellian” there as so many people describe him. There is just pure and utter psychopathy and sadism.

Recklessness and Ego: The Leadup to War

Other than that however little is known of his actions in the years leading up to canon, not even what he did during Balon’s Rebellion. Throughout the first half of AGOT he is also present only through his reputation. In fact Tywin only makes his first move once Tyrion is abducted by Catelyn.

Now the validity of Catelyn’s actions there has been a subject discussed and talked about endlessly, so we won’t go into that. For our purposes all that matters is that Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion.

Now, Tywin is this case had a lot of options. The first and foremost thing he should have done is appeal to the King (maybe take a guard of a couple hundred men with him while doing this just to secure redcloak control of the Red Keep), since Tyrion’s kidnapping was illegal.

Pushing forward, he could have used such a situation to demand (and probably be successful in forcing) Ned’s resignation as Hand.

Alternatively, if Tywin wanted to do more of a show of force, he could have used Ned’s very exposed position in KL and ordered Cersei to take Sansa or Arya hostage. While a much more aggressive move, it would have been similar in magnitude to what Catelyn did to Tyrion and thus it would have been hard if not impossible for Ned and Robert to do anything about it.

But Tywin did neither of these things. Instead he chose the most extreme option possible. War. Now, there’s no way around this, this was a blunder of the highest order, for several reasons.

• First off, the moment Tywin goes to war, he was (as far as he knew) declaring war on three kingdoms all at once, the Riverlands, the Nor