I Am At (San Andreas) Fault

Ha!  Do You See What -
O you do.  
     I refer - obviously! - to that disaster film "San Andreas", which as you should all know is about an earthquake and tsunami of apocalyptic proportions destroying San Francisco.  As I explained yesteryon, I've been watching it in bits and so couldn't recall seeing the Scummy Dirtwad meet his undoubtedly poetic end.  Well, I discovered that he most definitely does die, so perhaps I fell asleep at that point.  I am getting on a bit, after all.  
     So I rewatched it, and we do indeed see a Right Royal Comeuppance get delivered.   And even though the film is five years old, I shall still warn you that there are SPOILERS.
     Let us set the scene.  Art?

Daniel Riddick <hack spit> in full flight

      Let us pause to recollect matey's behaviour: he abandonded his fiancee's daughter, who was trapped in a car and about to be crushed.  He hurls a chap out of a doorway, to his death, so that he can take his place and survive.  By this point we realise he's not going to be on our Christmas card list.  So, that above is him on the Golden Gate Bridge, elbowing his way to safety.  Meanwhile, back at the tsunami front -

Ship happens

     By a wild coincidence (and because it's in the script), who should be passing by at that very moment, but Mister Riddick.  Art?

"Uh-oh."

     He freezes.  Not that running would have done him any good, since he cannot sprint at 100 miles per hour.  Art?

"Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure what I'm seeing here, but I'm pretty certain it's nothing good."

     You can understand his momentary confusion, it's not often you get to see a cargo container ship being rolled on it's beam ends.  Art?

"Oh - I see what it -"

     BLAMMO.  The car suffers significant damage, too.   Well, there you have it, a lesson in how to delay audience gratification and then go in for the big hit.

     Motley, what say we go for a paddle?

Fighting Food Fakery
How alliterative can I be?  Okay, a few days ago I posted clips from a BBC reporter's take on fake food videos on Youtube, several being from a channel called "Blossom".  Blossom, eh?  Yeah, well, don't forget that you make flowers grow by laying down manure, which is exactly what Blossom do.
     Now, the reporter was Chris Fox, and he featured an explanatory clip from Anne Reardon, who is an Ocker food scientist.  Bless her, she has a Youtube channel called "How To Cook That" which debunks these video lies.  Art?

Ann explaining

     She took on a Blossom video, which regurgitated and otherwise lied about food, and I may post a breakdown of the whole thing, as it's about 20 minutes long.  One recommendation she very sensibly made was that people ought to read the list of ingredients on the back of the packet*.
     Here's a shot of her testing various tablets in the oven.  Art?

The kitchen reeked afterwards

     Blossom alleged that anything "synthetic" would burn or melt, and that "natural" vitamin supplements wouldn't.  In fact the opposite happened.
     Ann also mentioned that she'd been contacted by an ex-member of the Blossom video production team, who explained that whether or not the recipes worked or the facts were true was completely immaterial; they wanted to create viral videos to generate income.

Blossoms

      Hey, I have a new target for slanderous accusations!  The Metro and First Bus will be relieved.

Sun!  On A Sunday!
Wowsers.  Actually that's a bit of a bottomache, since I wanted rain and puddles, because I have some background on Puddles Pity Party, and a photo of real life puddles would have been hilariously ironic.
     As I am sure you suspect, PPP is not the name he was given at birth, and was originally an offshoot of Big Mike Geier's band Kingsized.  "Big" because he's 6' 8" in height, not because he weighs 200 pounds.  Art?

The chap in question

     He more or less performs solely as PPP now, doing cover songs, as well as co-performing with Postmodern Jukebox.  Art?

PPP and PMJB

     One thing about BMG is that he consistently maintains PPP is a completely different person to himself, which must get confusing at times, especially when looking in a mirror.

"The German Way Of War" By Prof. Robert Cinitro
You just knew you were going to get a review of this, didn't you?  Art!

My edition

     The Prof. makes a strong case that the Prussian, and eventually German, way of war had a common pattern, traceable all the way back to the Seventeenth Century.  Back then Prussia was a small state without any great resources.  She could not afford to fight any kind of long, drawn-out war of attrition, because she would lose.  Her neighbours were usually hostile and she lacked any coalition partners.
     So, they waged war in a "kurtz und liven" fashion.  That is, "short and lively".  The Prussian (and later German) aim was to get in a smashing blow first, inflicting a decisive defeat on their opponent, and by doing it at the operational level through attacks on the enemy's flank or rear.

The Battle of Koniggratz being the premiere example

     There was a lot more to it, but I'm not here to review the entire work, only to point out that "Blitzkrieg" (a word the Teutons themselves didn't use) was merely the latest iteration in what they and the Prof. term "Bewegungskrieg" or "War of Manoeuvre", which they were surpassingly good at.
     The Prof. also mentions in passing some of the things they were not good at, and indeed in his bibliography aside from a ton of works in German, he includes Kenneth Macksey's excellent "Why The Germans Lose At War".  Which I must dig out from the book mountain.

     And with that, we are done for the afternoon!


*  Conrad is already well-known for doing this, but then I am one of a kind**.
**  Thankfully!  <the unpleasant truth courtesy Mister Hand>