American Eagle Outfitters Inc.
It has 45000 employees, presumably many of those are in the 15-34 category and are therefore gainfully employed. They sell clothes that other people in that cohort wear and spies avoid like the plague, unless they want to be seen as Americans in certain parts of the world. Those parts of the world are shrinking rapidly I’d guess. Sorry CSIS. What? The Canadiens like to pretend to be Americans, even the other side knows that by now. Here’s to every “Canadien” who has been viewed by suspicious eyes at airport check ins.
Before the American Eagle became a brand for clothing and after Benjamin called it a “carrion feeder” sort of disgusting bird, there was a while there where the American Eagle was feared, respected, symbolized, put above the heads of people who wanted to project power etc. Yet the Eagle as a symbol of soaring power has been around for a very long time, throughout human history in fact. The Romans had theirs, the Russians and Ukrainians have theirs. If a person took a tour through a coat of arms museum, I dare say they’d find plenty of eagles. They have also been immortalized in Tolkien and almost always as saviours: Gwaihir is Brave’s favorite, mine is Thorondor. There is also Landroval and Melendor yet the former sounds like a Jeep and the latter sounds a bit sad. You’re welcome Translators. ;)
So it was with this sort of understanding that I saw and opened the AG Sulzberger OpEd defending the New York Times against The Times. There are at least 5 ways to write the newspaper’s name: NYT, the New York Times, The New York Times, The Times and The Paper of Record. The newspaper of record, the paper of record : those came later. Oh can’t forget, there is also nytimes.com
Today is 9/19 and the mathematical codes of 9/18 ought to be obvious to people who read this stuff I write. 9×2 = 18 for example. 3×3 =9, 6×3 = 18 for another. 81 is HA and 18 is AH. Combine them and you get AHHA or HAAH. Sept is a play on Slept. Ember is a play on Amber. What? Your mind doesn’t think like that anymore? When did you stop beating your mother? Seems like a good stock with a PE of only 7.1. Has been basing for several years. Don’t sit on it though. In and Out like the burger chain.
Michelle Goldberg wrote an OpEd yesterday, feeling a bit queasy, after watching the movie NAZA. Given my short term memory issues, I don’t typically deal in specifics, I deal in residues. Or residual impressions. From what I remember, of what she wrote, NAZA essentially means the amount of civilian casualties an op is willing to accept. And NAZA documents how the idea of civilian casualties and getting higher level approvals for such ops became standardized and delegated the lower ranks. Often much lower ranks. NCO level. Like a general providing their signature stamp to an NCO and saying do whatever you like. Now you will notice that I use the rank of “NCO” to explain to an American military audience especially in the lower ranks what I am talking about. If you read the article more carefully NAZA is some sort of Hebrew slang that rhymes with GAZA and NAZA 20 means you’re green to kill 20 civilians on this op. Sounds harsh when I write it down like that, but there it became standard practice. It was simply a number put into a computer. The movie was made by interviewing 24 Israeli military and intelligence agents many of whose faces are darkened.
Sorry, that’s the wrong picture. This is an entertainment site and AI can make mistakes. So can humans.
Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor barely look Jewish in that picture no? They’ve been remove of whiteness and color.
My quibble here was not “NAZA is Hebrew military shorthand” its more like “Hebrew military slang that rhymes with the victim’s identity and birthplace” because that is obvious to me anyway. NAZA, GAZA.. see? Easy. My quibble was with the line that followed : a sort of “hey before the movie, we already covered it!” I was like okay maybe it’s just my memory. It doesn’t remember stuff. Although I would remember The Times publishing a story critical of Israel. So I clicked the link and here’s what I found.
[Note: For anyone who follows the Middle East and The Times, it’s too easy, like cat bait to not click the link. I’ve been trained to try and avoid clicking links, hence I don’t often publish them here.]
Ah. That’s probably why I didn’t see such a beautiful large spread of feasts. It was on Dec 26 2024. The day after Christmas or Boxer Day when very few Americans were inhabiting the New York Times. Imagine the amount of work that went into creating this feast by Kingsley, Odenheimer, Shbair, Bergman, Ismay, Frenkel and Selia : they interviewed more than 100 soldiers and officials in Israel, dozens of victims and experts on armed rules of conduct. That’s an extraordinary amount of labor. And it from a Rabbi’s pissed off blog, it was put on the front page” but in a two column article on a day that was guaranteed to have minimum impact.
This is before the Haaretz revelations. It is unknown if the authors of this article knew of those revelations (that Netanyahu had advance warning from the President of UAE about an impending Hamas attack, and the UAE call with Mossad’s Director to negotiate release of hostages on the same night of Oct 7th). For many Americans like me then, even reading this article, under the other media onslaught of “What would Americans have done if you were attacked on Oct 7th the way Israelis were”, the effect would not have been as strong as it is now. The problem is, it’s 2 years later. Gaza has been flattened.
Now notice something, I am not alleging a conspiracy at The New York Times, or at American Eagle Outfitters Inc, or anywhere else to bury articles in inopportune times. Clearly I am not alleging anything because I can’t ride The Matrix currents. I can’t read people’s minds or their intentions. I am simply presenting the facts to you as they were written and when they were presented by The Times.
Anyway, I kept the article open all night, knowing, somewhere in the back of my head, knowing that there would be some sort of followup. Apart from the Sulzberger OpEd here’s what else caught my eye on the front page of another New York publication.
Ooh look a US robot running faster than a Chinese robot. The US is winning!
Oh look Shirin Ghaffary talking about AI and hacks. I did not know that Ghaffary in Islam means “Forgiver” or “Merciful”.
And finally the wink. The single quote around ‘Kill Chain’. Kill Chain is apparently American military slang used to describe active and hot kinetic operations.
Now remember Israeli Naza and Hebrew slang for civilian casualties are not related to Kill Chain at all. Totally different militaries, different command structures, different in a lot of Sec 19 ways.
American Eagle Outfitters has 5.7 Billion in sales. That’s a lot of merch.
Notes in the Margin from Brave Search.
Based on the search results, there are no specific movie scenes explicitly described as depicting a U.S. President authorizing a drone strike in the Situation Room. However, several films depict Presidents or their successors in the Situation Room (or equivalent command centers) authorizing aerial/air strikes or nuclear responses during crises:
Air Force One (1997): Vice President Kathryn Bennett (acting as President) is in the Situation Room negotiating with terrorists. While she does not authorize a strike on Air Force One itself, she authorizes military action and invokes the 25th Amendment, leading to the eventual rescue operation. The film features a scene where the Situation Room staff celebrates the successful rescue, but the authorization for military force is framed as a response to the hijacking.
White House Down (2013): After the President is presumed dead, Vice President Alvin Hammond is sworn in and orders an aerial incursion to reclaim the White House from mercenaries. Later, Speaker of the House Eli Raphelson, who briefly assumes the presidency, orders an airstrike on the White House. These decisions are made within the context of the national command structure, though the specific room is not always explicitly labeled as the "Situation Room" in the snippets provided, it is the standard location for such decisions.
Thirteen Days (2000): President John F. Kennedy and his advisers in the Situation Room (implied by the context of Executive Committee of the National Security Council meetings) debate and authorize military preparations, including attacks on missile sites and an invasion of Cuba, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, though Kennedy ultimately seeks a diplomatic solution.
Eye in the Sky (2015): While not set in the U.S. Situation Room, this film depicts military and political personnel in command centers debating and ultimately authorizing a single drone strike in Nairobi. The search context highlights this as a key plot point but does not place it in the White House Situation Room.
Note: The real-world Situation Room photographs (e.g., Obama watching the bin Laden raid, Trump authorizing strikes on Iran) show the location used for such decisions, but these are historical events, not fictional movie scenes.
