Snob

Arrancamos el programa desde la cornisa noroeste, la escena de rocknroll del Atlantic Northwest que tan agitada ha estado siempre. Ya sabes lo que decían los Ramones; hoy Galicia, mañana el mundo. Playlist; Novedades Carminha (Juventud infinita, Antigua pero moderna, Tú antes molabas), Siniestro Total (Casualidad), Oscar Avendaño y los Profesionales (El viento), Familia Caamagno (Surfistas nazis), Sex Museum (Circles in the salt), The City Lights (Esprit de corps), Help Me Devil (Tora bora baby), The Parrots (Dee Dee dangerous), Los Amantes (Lolita), Idealipsticks (Dream a Little bit, versión de Top Models) y Malcolm Holcombe (Behind the number one).

Redditor bitsAndBites01 offers an intriguing discussion topic: 

Ladies: Name a fictional male (book, TV or movie) who encapsulates as many of of the qualities you'd like to see in a man.

That's a great way to look at relationships and what you want out of them. Peevesie offers an answer from the Harry Potter series:

Arthur Weasley (an age appropriate version) - he is strong, kind, brave, caring, loving, capable, curious, respectful, intelligent, responsible, and so many other things. He clearly didn't have a dead bedroom considering the number of off spring. He was an excellent father who nurtured his kids with a gentle and firm hand. He was an equalist. He has his faults but is by far the most real family man I have encountered in fiction. Molly was super lucky

RockOnChicago wants Indy:

When I was little I wanted to marry Indiana Jones, and that pretty much still stands today.

HtheOtherAlex thinks of The Princess Bride:

Unsure why Westley/ The Man in Black/ Dread Pirate Roberts hasn't been mentioned yet...

Pirate + true love + kiss that blows away the best five kisses since the invention of the kiss + "As you wish" + eyes like the sea after a storm = Yes, yes, very much please. Yup.

Several ladies agree with starredwithjejune: Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird would be a great companion. Why? Concernedbitch explains:

For me it's his principles, and the fact that he's so gentle and emotionally insightful. IDK good single dads just do it for me. His brilliance and sense of humor are gravy.

Little Lion continues on that theme about Atticus Finch:

Oh, yes, there are a lot more. His compassion, his drive, his defiance of stereotypes about men (and humans) at that time... sigh

He's so dreamy.

Mypsychoticself has her eyes on Hannibal Lecter:

Hannibal Lecter. He's polite, intelligent, and a good cook. There's the small problem of eating people, but everyone has their flaws.

Which characters would you choose?

-via Super Punch

(Images: Warner Bros., Lucasfilm, Universal Pictuers, Orion Pictures)

Looking through a collection of historical images at reddit, this one jumped out from the list (which is heavy on World War II photos). These are the nine monarchs of Europe who attended the funeral of the United Kingdom’s King Edward VII on May 20, 1910. They are:

Standing, from left to right: King Haakon VII of Norway, Tsar Ferdinand of Bulgaria, King Manuel II of Portugal, Kaiser Wilhelm II of the German Empire, King George I of Greece and King Albert I of Belgium. Seated, from left to right: King Alfonso XIII of Spain, King-Emperor George V of the United Kingdom and King Frederick VIII of Denmark.

They were all related to Edward VII; George V was his son and the rest were in-laws or cousins. The funeral was also attended by scores of queens, princes, princesses, and other royalty. U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt was there representing the United States. See the photo full-size.

The origin of the masturbating Cheetoh is still in question. From what bag it came or who opened it, the internet remains curious. For all we know, the savory Frito-Lay snack is yet an attempt for the triune god to bless this planet with another image of his son, Jesus Christ–particularly the time when He was caught whacking off. If you don’t see it, that’s fine. We suppose it’s all in the eye of the beholder, another example of pareidolia.

For those lacking in imagination, the masturbating Cheetoh also exists in GIF form :

h/t Gawker

If you’re someone who enjoys music, you should constantly be worrying if what you listen to is considered “cool” or not among the “youth.” Because what’s the point of enjoying a work of art if it isn’t considered cool? What are you, mainstream or sumptin’?

Fortunately, science has stepped in, and we now have a graph to figure this sort of shit out for us so we can use our brains for other tasks, like parsing bizarre “True Detective” theories. The fine people at Priceonomics have created the Hipster Music Index, which charts where albums fall on an x axis of Pitchfork review ratings and a y axis of the number of Facebook likes for each review. Thus, we can finally see the “best” records that the fewest people know. Obviously, the methodology isn’t exact, but it’s close enough.

Because this chart has been widely published, the most hipster bands will soon be the least hipster bands, and the current least hipster bands will be ironically hipster again, and nothing means anything and the world is absurd and maybe we should all just like whatever the hell we want to like regardless of their classification, y’know?

Eh, whatever. That’s probably just something a hipster would say. Regardless, here are the top 10 most hipster bands:

1. The Field
2. Julia Holter
3. Iceage
4. These New Puritans
5. Fuck Buttons
6. DJ Rashad
7. The Haxan Cloak
8. Julianna Barwick
9. DJ Koze
10. Autre Ne Veut

And the top 10 least hipster bands:

1. The National
2. Boards of Canada
3. Justin Timberlake
4. The Range
5. Deerhunter
6. The Knife
7. My Bloody Valentine
8. Chance the Rapper
9. Daft Punk
10. Haim

Now quick, download and/or delete the requisite bands from your hard drive, before someone thinks you’re uncool for even a second. The horror.

h/t Gawker, image: Ned Hardy

John Waters es uno de los directores de cine underground más mediáticos que existen. Suyas son obras maestras del mal gusto como Pink Flamingos o Female Trouble. También tiene películas gamberras pero menos ofensivas, como Hairspray o Cry Baby. Waters lleva sin dirigir una nueva película desde 2004, año en el que dirigió A Dirty Shame (Los Sexoadictos). Parece que John no tiene ninguna intención de ponerse de nuevo tras la cámara. Pero eso no quiere decir que esté de brazos cruzados. Waters suele viajar allí donde le requieren para dar charlas o interpretar su famoso monólogo This Filthy World.

Jeff Koons es una artista moderno conocido porque sus obras de arte están hechas con objetos muy baratos. Tiene un montón de esculturas en forma de animales hechas con globos de toda clase de tamaños y colores, obras que vende a cambio de grandes sumas de dinero. Muchos entendidos del arte piensan que este tipo les quiere tomar el pelo. Pero Koons tiene legiones de fans que pagan por sus obras lo que Jeff les pida. Por eso se ha convertido en el artista vivo mejor pagado del mundo. Un apóstol del Kitsch y del pop.

El pasado lunes 3 de marzo, por la noche, ambos artistas se encontraron en el Orpheum Theatre de Los Angeles ante 2000 personas. El motivo: John Waters entrevistaba a Jeff Koons. Dos mitos vivientes del mal gusto, cara a cara. El evento estaba organizado por el museo The Broad, que ha programado una serie de conferencias bajo el epígrafe de Un-private Collection. El Rey de la Basura frente al Rey del Kitsch. Un espectáculo que nadie debería perderse.

Si no pudisteis estar en aquel evento, aquí os lo ofrecemos al completo:

The post John Waters vs. Jeff Koons appeared first on .

Vale. Lo admito. Con el titular que le he colocado a esta reseña estoy autoplagiándome de forma descarada y utilizando la frase con la que cerraba la entrada correspondiente al primer volumen de ‘Furia MAX’, la serie con la que Garth Ennis y Goran Parlov han redibujado, redefinido y dado una dimensión de la que antes carecía a uno de los personajes más carismáticos del universo Marvel, el coronel Furia, máximo mandatario durante muchos lustros de S.H.I.E.L.D y eje central de trece números dedicados no sólo a aportar el necesario background de tan singular ex-militar, sino a repasar varias décadas de historia bélica estadounidense.

Y si en el primer volumen nos paseábamos por la guerra de Indochina o asistíamos al fiasco de la invasión de bahía de Cochinos desde una perspectiva muy diferente, en el volumen que hoy nos ocupa, Ennis nos aproxima a Vietnam, una contienda a la que ya se acercó en las páginas de su magistral ‘Punisher MAX’ y en las que, no podía ser de otra manera, el guionista irlandés introduce la presencia de Frank Castle como uno de los “actores” fundamentales sobre los que desarrollar la acción.

De intensidad asombrosa, las páginas en las que Ennis y Parlov se pasean por las junglas del país oriental son de las mejores que han concretado ambos artistas, ya sea por lo mucho que Ennis carga las tintas en el eterno debate ético y moral acerca de la intervención de Estados Unidos en Vietnam, ya por el constante despliegue de genialidad al que asistimos de mano de un Goran Parlov que, fuera de toda duda, se alza como el mejor dibujante con el que ha colaborado el guionista, poniéndose esta maxiserie y los números que compartieron en la citada ‘Punisher MAX’ muy por delante de lo que, a nivel gráfico, podíamos encontrar en la magistral ‘Predicador’ de mano de Steve Dillon.

Retomando pues el hilo inicial, no creo exagerar al afirmar que ‘Furia MAX’ es una lectura imprescindible que funciona a dos niveles muy distintos: si eres un Marvel Zombie irredento, aquí vas a encontrar la oportunidad única de asomarte a un personaje que Steranko hizo grande y que muy pocos guionistas han sabido tratar como lo hace Ennis. Si por el contrario no te mueve la idolatría a la Casa de las Ideas y su universo, pero te interesa atender a una mirada crítica acerca de las políticas exteriores estadounidenses, este es sin duda tu cómic. Sea como sea, hazte un favor y no dejes pasar la oportunidad de comprarlo.

LA HORA LOCA 43- Dibujos de reunión.

• Escuadron Suicida 

Image by Sam Taylor

Last summer I went to Ibiza, Spain, where I was catcalled, sexually objectified, and treated like a piece of meat by men the entire week. And it was absolutely awesome. It got to the point where I couldn't even be bothered to follow any of it up. Every time some hot guy got fresh with me, I just thought, OK, I could fuck you, but there might be some even hotter stud serving it up later. I guess it’s like when I used to live by the sea and never got around to going swimming. It was just always there, you know? You forget to get wet.

So as I look around the misery we call London, England, in March, forgive me for feeling a little sad that I’m not in Ibiza, Land of Sexual Objectification. I love catcalls. I love car toots. I love random men shouting, “Hello, beautiful!” as if my mere presence just made their day. I like being called "princess" and ignoring them as I giggle inside. I like being eye-fucked on the escalator and wondering if I’ve just made him spring a boner. That eye-fuck, by the way, is an age-old mating signal. I live for it.

So yeah, I’m a bit of a slut. I also used to be a prostitute. And before that, well, a boy. Uh-huh. And I’m a total attention junkie. So I may not represent all women. Who does, though? I’m a feminist because I don’t like men telling me how to think or behave or experience the world, and I don’t like women doing it, either. Laura Bates recently wrote an article for the Guardian called “Women Should Not Accept Street Harassment as ‘Just a Compliment.’” I truly admire the work Laura does with Everyday Sexism to highlight some horrendous abuse, and you should visit the site and check out some of the shit people have had to deal with. It’s awful. And she’s not wrong. No one should accept harassment. Harassment, by its very nature, is unacceptable. But is catcalling always harassment?

The Independent's social-media editor, Felicity Morse, loves catcalls, and I’m guessing she gets loads because she’s freaking hot. Even though I’m probably not supposed to say that. She told me, “If I'm dressed up in a sexy little something, if I’m sashaying down the street and tossing a head of freshly washed hair like I think I'm Beyoncé, I find a catcall rather appreciative. But if I'm out jogging or running to the bus stop, huddling past a building site in the rain, I find it intrusive.” It also depends on the number of men and what they’re doing: “If they are working on a building site or something, where they can't really leave their work, it’s almost traditional to wolf-whistle and pretty meaningless, so I don't feel threatened. But a big gang of young men in the dark? I wouldn't even acknowledge I'd heard them.” Would she give her number to a guy in the street? “Probably, but I wouldn't have high hopes for a relationship! That's not harassment; it's flattering. If he doesn't go away? That's harassment.” She’d still ban catcalls on the basis that they upset many women, though.

This is kind of my problem with the debate around street attention. It’s part of a culture that infantilizes women and teaches them to be constantly afraid. I wasn’t brought up that way, and I don’t feel frightened when some spunky dude comes and talks to me. I hate this idea that all men are rapists-in-waiting and that all women are victims-in-waiting. It’s patronizing and doesn’t help anyone. Many women are sexual and like to look and feel and be seen sexual. I’m one of those women. But if I smile next time a man wolf-whistles at me, does that make me a bad person? What if the next person he wolf-whistles at is a woman who’s been raped? What if he ruins her day?

Nichi Hodgson, author of Bound to You, sex columnist for Men's Health, and director of the Ethical Porn Partnership, said there’s a certain kind of middle-class woman that finds catcalls particularly galling: “There’s a sense of being sullied if an uncouth or lower-class kind of man—a white-van man, for example—heckles. But if it's a Roger Sterling type who can just about pull it off with a certain retro-sexist panache, the offense isn't experienced the same.” Laura said that growing up in working-class West Yorkshire and learning to hit back with witty repartee was a kind of rite of passage. The same is true where I come from, although it’s the blokes who need the comebacks. Let’s just say Nottingham girls aren’t shy.

Speaking of which, I wanted to hear from some regular women, not professional feminists, so I called my sister. She’s super hot and cool and gets loads of attention from guys, but apart from that she’s pretty "normal," whatever that means. She’s a property-services officer in Nottingham, 28, college-educated, of mixed race, and describes her sexuality as “straight but open-minded.” Here’s what she had to say.

VICE: Sista! I’m doing an article on catcalling. What do you think about it?
Natti: I don’t find it offensive; I find that it can be a compliment, and I also think that the guys are brave because they’re just there in broad daylight, shouting down the street.

Me: Have you ever hooked up with a guy in the street?
Natti: No, no, no, no, no! I wouldn’t do that. If he’s that sure of himself… well, it’s arrogant, isn’t it?

Me: Do you ever find it sexy?
Natti: Yeah, of course, sometimes.

Me: Would you ever wear something sexy to catch men’s attention in the street?
Natti: Wouldn’t every woman if she could?

I phoned my mom afterward, and she said catcalls are like periods—she hated them when she was younger but feels sad now they’re about to dry up. Wow, mother.

One woman who emailed me in response to an enquiry I put out on Facebook—one of many who preferred to remain anonymous because they don’t want you to, you know, judge them—takes catcalling as a compliment, too: “I have friends who say they feel powerless and objectified when being catcalled. I think they made a choice about how it makes them feel, and I choose to feel empowered.” She once hooked up with a guy from the street, but the sex was “Ehhhh,” so don’t get too excited. Still, how many of you reading this wouldn’t exist had one of your parents not made a pass at the other in the street?

The Guardian’s Ellie Mae O'Hagan said it doesn’t surprise her that some women like catcalls: “One of the ways patriarchy sustains itself is by convincing women that their worth is determined by the approval of men along a strict set of terms. Getting wolf-whistled at is a small confirmation that a woman is meeting the terms patriarchy demands of her.” Couldn’t you say that about pretty much anything, though? Like, if a woman tells another woman “Great dress!” is she letting her know that she’s meeting the expectations of capitalism and the fashion industry and beauty culture? Or is she just telling her she likes her dress? Or is it a bit of both?

I’ll be honest: Ideology bores the shit out of me, but Ellie does have a point about catcalls' being an expression of power. There’s a power imbalance, for example, between those who feel entitled to express their sexuality in public (straight men) versus those who don’t (like gay men, older people, and lesbian women). Ellie goes further and cites studies that suggest sexual violence is "to an extent rooted in ideologies of male sexual entitlement,” though I struggle to see any real connection between rape and the guy who wolf-whistled at me this morning. As Nichi puts it, “I think it's a misnomer to draw a continuum between street heckling and the paltry rape-conviction rate. Street hecklers don't go on to become rapists any more than readers of lads' mags do.”

I don’t want feminists to stop campaigning against the terrible abuse girls and women face every day in Britain, and I’m grateful to anyone raising awareness about feminist issues. And men, for the record, I haven’t spoken to any woman yet who likes being told, “I’d like to fuck you up the ass” as you drive past her in the street. So stop it with that, you shitheads. I just wish we could make a distinction between harassment like this and harmless fun.

Because whether you like it or not, there’s a big difference between “Hello gorgeous” and—as Laura Bates was, abhorrently, told—“I’d hold a knife to that.” I don’t want to make other women feel pathetic if they don’t enjoy street attention, but I also don’t want to feel pathetic for enjoying it. I don’t speak for all women, and neither do you. I’ll leave you with the words of 86-year-old Jinx Allen Craig, the woman in catcalling’s greatest portrait, An American Girl in Italy: “It’s not a symbol of harassment. It’s a symbol of a woman having an absolutely wonderful time!” Jinx, call me. We need to book our flights to Ibiza.

Follow Paris Lees on Twitter.

Derivada de un fetichismo razonablemente común como es el de la excitación por los pies femeninos, cada vez tiene más popularidad una de esas prácticas difíciles de comprender y mucho más de disfrutar. El ballbusting pone a señoritas normalmente musculosas a pegar escalofriantes patadas en los santos cojones del actor, que no disimula sus gestos de dolor. Es todo un ecosistema propio lleno de cascanueces especializadas y verdaderas estrellas del mundillo, como la imponente Rapture —una amazona implacable de 1,80 aficionada al culturismo—, dispuestas a regalarnos sus mejores golpes en donde más duele.

  

repolo, calabacin, pemento cuaresmeño (o primo dos jalapeños, só que doce), zanahoira, coliflor, calabaza mini, setas e espinacas (ainda que unhas espinacas diferentes de aquí). E para darlle sabor un pouco dunh quelite local: epazote.

• O sabor do epazote: é un sabor moi, moi amargo. A moitos non vos gustará. Pero unha vez acostumbrado un, ese chisquiño fai que todo teña un sabor moi interesante.
• A combinación de limón, chile verde e cilantro ... tamén o fai moi diferente. Nos non tomamos as sopas con eses sabores. O limón faino moi refrescante, o cilantro dalle ... o sabor de cilantro, que moitos odian, pero faino moi fresquiño. Pero sobre todo está o tema do chile. Aquí úsase para a sopa chiles moi picantes, así que un pouquiño e cando te das conta, a cousa está díficil de tomar. O picor do chile fresco é algo moi intenso, moi ardente. Non é algo comparable ás salsas ou chiles procesados. 

Image by Sam Taylor

In the past, when I've asked military experts from IHS Jane's what it would take to conquer, say, America, or the UK, the idea of its actually happening in the near future was relatively far-fetched. But recent events in Crimea have raised the very real possibility of conflict, so when I asked IHS Jane's Konrad Muzyka what it would take to conquer Russia, it all suddenly felt very real.

No one wants to see Putin riding into battle on the back of a nuclear warhead, but that said, I'd like to make it clear that I, for one, welcome our new Russian overlords and would like to remind them that I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground vodka caves.

VICE: I'm going to begin with a classic cliché. Over the centuries, plenty of power-hungry leaders have tried to take on Russia, convinced that they would be the first to overcome the brutal Russian winter. How could a modern army deal with this ancient problem?
Konrad Muzyka: I agree that from a historical perspective this has been a problem many countries have succumbed to. But the advent of precision guided munitions and, more importantly, nuclear weapons have completely nullified the issue. Any potential conflict with the West would most likely be fought in the air, space, and sea. Any use of land forces would be limited to capturing strategically important facilities—bridges, airfields, and the like. Given the size of Russian territory, I don't think anyone would be interested in moving their troops to Russia and holding them there.

So how quickly might any invading force find itself plunged into a nuclear winter?
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons even in a regional conflict scenario. As such, any country taking on Russia needs to be aware of a dramatic and quick escalation that could take place. But this is a sign of weakness rather than strength.

In the days of the Red Army, it felt as though there was an endless supply of men ready to die in the name of Mother Russia. Is this still true? What's their manpower like?
That's true, but many of those sent into battle during the Second World War fought at gunpoint. Not only that of the Nazi Wehrmacht, but also that of their fellow Russian "comrades." Retreat was usually forbidden, even in a tactical sense—those who were caught falling back were either shot on the spot or court-martialed… and then usually shot.

Not a lot of TLC for the Red Army.
No. When it comes to their manpower number today, this is a question that I don't think the Russians themselves can even answer. Armed forces personnel numbers are 1 million, but we estimate that this figure is much, much lower and currently stands at somewhere between 750,000 and 800,000. The army is authorized at nearly 400,000 soldiers, but its actual strength is most likely below 300,000, perhaps as low as 280,000, due to the shortage of draftees and undermanning in certain units.

So, in the event of an invasion, basically Russia would just end up chucking loads of untrained and unwilling civilians back to the frontlines?
Although efforts have been made in recent years to modernize and restructure the armed forces—with the ultimate aim of creating a fully professionalized armed forces—the truth is that in the event of a conflict, Russia will still rely on mass mobilization of its population. What is also interesting to note is that Russia still relies on its railway systems for strategic mobility. Thus, little has changed since the Second World War.

Some things never change. Which brings me to Russia's size, which has always been a problem for its enemies. There's just so much territory to cover. Is there any army in the world capable of securing a country this size?
If I were to give you a short answer, then it would be no. Russia's territory covers more than one-eighth of the Earth's inhabited land area and stretches across nine different time zones. There is simply way too much territory to seize and then control. Unless China mobilized half of its population and sent them to cover the wilderness of Siberia.

So what you're saying is you might be able to conquer Russia if you had half a billion Chinese people marauding across Siberia?
China would be an interesting case if we considered a conventional conflict scenario. This would turn ugly and most likely develop into a war of attrition. However, with only 143 million people living in Russia, guess who the winner might be... Logistically, though, such an operation is unsustainable, even if the Chinese lived off what they looted, captured, and hunted in Russia. To give you a different perspective, it is estimated that the United States would need 500,000 troops in Afghanistan to secure the whole of the country. Russia is 26 times bigger than Afghanistan and shares borders with 16 countries.

Could a combined EU army take on Russia, or would it have to be a superpower like the US?
The EU's military capabilities are… well, not really existent. Although there are a number of EU battlegroups ready to be deployed abroad, they never have been. I just can't imagine any EU unified army, if it were ever created, taking on Russia. As I mentioned previously, any conflict with NATO countries or China would most likely involve nuclear weapons, which would, in turn, lead to mutually assured destruction (MAD).

Has there been much of a shift in relative military power between the US and Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union? And has Putin made Russia more powerful militarily in recent years?
Yes, there definitely has been. Whereas the US has reaffirmed its doctrine based on tri-service [army, navy, air force] interoperability coupled with investment into C4ISR platforms [computers and surveillance, basically], there had been no serious efforts to do the same in Russia, at least until 2008.

The short conflict with Georgia in August 2008, which was also called the last war of the 21st century, showed that in terms of wider military capabilities Russia was years, if not decades, behind the US. When, in 2008, the US could easily deploy a significant number of UAVs [drones] over Afghanistan and Iraq, Russian UAVs used in Georgia were reportedly so loud that they could be heard from miles away. As you can imagine, the quality of imagery delivered was not great either. As a result, Russian UAVs were declared useless.

A Ukrainian woman tries to talk to a Russian special forces agent in Crimea.

So the decision to get involved in that tiff with Georgia could have backfired on Putin?
In a way... It became clear that Russian armed forces needed bigger investment and that the country's defense industry was unable to match Western-produced equipment. To an extent this was rectified by the procurement of UAVs from Israel, amphibious vessels from France, and multipurpose vehicles from Italy. Although, for various reasons, Russia decided to stop importing foreign military equipment.

So where does all that leave them?
A military reform that followed in the immediate aftermath of August 2008 is seeking to introduce new quality, both in terms of equipment and leadership, to Russia's armed forces and completely transform them into a modern, agile, and easily deployable fighting force. It looks nice on paper, but the reality is that they're still unable to deliver top-notch equipment. Delays pile up, corruption is still a significant problem, hazing among personnel is prevalent, and the troops are poorly trained.

Moving on, how could you neutralize Russia's nuclear capability?
You can't. Russia possesses second-strike capability, and unless you're ready to take a nuclear hit from Russia—which no one can—you need to embrace the notion of a total annihilation of your country.

Right.
It is estimated that Russia possesses around 4,300 nuclear warheads. Another 700 strategic and 2,000 non-strategic warheads are in storage. Just like in the case of the US, Russian deterrence is based on a triad of systems [land, air, and sea]. Even if you knocked out the land and air delivery systems/platforms, submarines fitted with nuclear ICBMs would be virtually undetectable once they'd left Russian ports.

Apart from that, where do Russia's military strengths lie? Should we be worried about the navy?
Russia has never been a maritime power. Its navy relies on a small number of major combatants to support its commitment to exercises, counter-piracy patrols, and global presence missions. The newest major surface combatant is more than 20 years old. The average age of Russia's large surface combatants, even excluding the two oldest vessels, is 27 years. Its sole aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, was commissioned in 1990 and requires modernization, which is planned to take place by the end of the decade. This means that Russia will lose a significant part of its power-projection capability for two to four years. There are plans to build a fleet of carriers but Russia is not expected to commence work on the program until 2025 at the earliest.

And its air force?
In general, it's much better than the Russian Navy. A number of new aircraft is introduced to the service each year. Some of them—the Su-35, for example—are comparable to the F-22. Some would even argue that some of the Su-35's characteristics, especially its maneuverability, are better than those of Western aircraft, including the F-22 and the F-35.

Obviously Russia is flexing its muscles in Crimea at the moment. Does it have a lot of military bases along the Ukrainian border?
Russia leases a naval military base in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Its Black Sea Fleet comprises about 20 to 40 vessels, including frigates, destroyers, and corvettes. This also included approximately 15,000 personnel. I say "included" because, in the last few days, Russia has deployed another 16,000 troops to the peninsula. The core of the force is based around the 7th Guards Airborne Division. These guys are not to be played with. They have been used in various operations across Europe, including the suppression of the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian revolutions. More recently, they were stationed in the Caucasus, fighting Chechens.

Apart from that, Russia has deployed strategic airlift aircraft to Crimea and seized communication and air-traffic control centers, as well as airports. The center of political power in Crimea has also been captured. This presents a textbook case of how one can start an invasion. However, with 31,000 troops on the ground, Russia would find it hard to move north to eastern Ukraine. As such, Russia would need to open a second front in Eastern Ukraine.

To sum up, as far as Ukraine goes, Russia exports gas, oil, and fear.

Where would you begin an invasion of Russia and where would you go from there? I'm thinking surprise attack on Archangel [a city in the northwest of Russia, near Finland] and then move south with stealth and precision. That way, it gets warmer, not colder.
Let's discuss this as a conventional conflict scenario. The quick answer to your question is… anywhere. Russian borders are indefensible. Wherever you look at the map there are no natural obstacles that would hamper a military advance. Historically, every major advance that threatened Russia's existence (the Poles in 1610, Napoleon in 1812, Hitler in 1941) came from the Northern European Plain. This is why Stalin was so keen on seizing Central Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War and why Putin has called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." Russia has lost a lot of its strategic depth since 1991 and now it could potentially lose Ukraine.

Even if you started an invasion from Poland and the Baltic states, the front would be so large that Russia would either need to pray for snow and freezing temperatures or send millions of its citizens to fight. A combination of both would be preferable.

And finally, if our imagined army took control of most of Russia, where would the natives locate their efforts of guerrilla resistance? In this vast land, what would be the hardest places for an invading army to secure?
Immense land masses of central Russia would offer ample places to wage effective Daniel-Craig-in-Defiance-style insurgency campaigns. I can't also exclude Stalingrad-style urban campaigns. But as I have mentioned, this is unlikely to happen. You couldn't really live, let alone fight, in the nuclear wasteland that Russia would be turned into in the event of a conflict with China or the US.

Thanks, Konrad!

Follow Oscar and Konrad on Twitter.

Flickr

1. Just because we get an erection doesn’t mean we’re sexually aroused. I’ve gotten them at funerals before and, trust me, that’s not my scene at all. It’s horribly embarrassing.

2. Not all guys want to have sex 24 hours per day. There are times that sex sounds like the worst thing in the world and all I want to do is eat Oreos and watch Netflix.

3. Guys are in the bathroom so long because we start reading useless stuff on our phones and lose track of time. One time I realized I had been reading about old school wrestling so long my feet were asleep and it was getting dark outside.

4. If there’s something you want to try sexually, we’ll try it. We haven’t asked because we’re afraid you’ll say no or think we’re a pervert if that’s not your thing.

5. Not every female friend is someone he wants to sleep with and it’s not because he’s tried and failed. If you make that claim then basically what you’re saying is every guy you’re friends with is trying to sleep with you.

6. If your boyfriend put a password on his phone out of nowhere, he’s talking to another girl. Nobody just suddenly think, “It would be nice if it took a little longer to open my phone every single time I was to use it!”

7. We have no idea where your pee hole is or how that works. We just have one hole but you guys have an entire Play Doh fun factory going on down there. Sexually, we can take care of you, but as far as peeing goes, no clue.

8. If your boyfriend wants to hang out with just his friends, don’t ask if you can come along. It’s not an insult to you or meaning that he doesn’t want to be with you. A night apart is great from time to time, especially if you live together.

9. Please keep asking us to kill bugs and open jars. There are very few times when we get to feel like a legitimate tough guy, but that little moment definitely helps.

10. 8 hours of football doesn’t mean it’s the same game for 8 hours. He’s not avoiding you or trying to hide from you. This is seriously the highlight of his year. I know it’s sad, but please don’t judge too harshly.

11. The absolute worst thing you can do is ask if you’re prettier than someone in a movie or magazine. I don’t ask if I’m more attractive than Channing Tatum because, come on. Plus, that’s the product of a team of stylists and photo editors. You’re you. We’re here. Let’s make out.

12. Whatever you do, don’t say bad things about our moms. If she’s a jerk to you, we’ll defend you, but we know she’s insane. We’ve lived with her for the majority of our lives and have learned how to tolerate it. We may call her a psychopath, but just nod and smile.

13. If we get in a fight about something small, give it ten minutes and I promise we’re not thinking about it anymore. Sometimes I forget what the argument is about during the argument.

14. I have no use for a loofah. I’ll just squirt the body wash on my hands and rub it everywhere. I’m sorry.

15. During sex, please don’t ever ask what we’re thinking about. The answer is usually “don’t finish yet, don’t finish yet, don’t finish yet.”

16. Also, during sex, if something isn’t feeling great, feel free to switch up positions. If you’re miserable it’s not going to be enjoyable for anyone. Thanks again for letting us have sex with you. 

Want more insight into the male brain? Read this.

O entroido que muitas de nós conhecemos é umha festa que consiste em carroças percorrendo as nossas vilas e cidades. Mas para as geraçons anteriores, existiu um outro jeito de viver esta festa. Era um momento de grande ilussom no que, antes do encorsetamento imposto na páscua, o povo curtia festejando com ruadas e foliadas, preparando jantares e sobremesas próprias desta época, fazendo brincadeiras, disfarçando-se de velho e de choqueiros aproveitando o que havia pola casa.O franquismo deixou a sua pega no decair de esta celebraçom popular meiante a proibiçom da máscara e com a censura das coplas. Com todo,  nom conseguiram que a gente perdera as ganhas de sair da casa. As novas dinámicas de “entroido moderno” potenciadas polos concelhos, influirom na perda do jeito tradicional de celebrar o entroido.Desde a Gentalha do Pichel gostariamos que o jeito de sentir e festejar esta época do ano fosse entendido e recuperado.

• La jueza dice al alcalde que no puede pretender que amordace a la prensa
• Currás cree que el código ético del PP debe hacer una «excepción» en el caso de los siete ediles
• Conde Roa dice que los lingotes intervenidos son de sus hijas