by liberal japonicus
Harris is sitting down for an interview with MSNBC (preview here) which seems like as good a reason as any for an open thread. I'm still waiting for Harris to go on Hot Wings though…
388 thoughts on “Yet another open thread”
Comments are closed.
It gets difficult to believe in coincidences.
Has the RNG been replaced by the RNC or did the NRA load the dice?
* An ill-equipped judge gets another huge case: “The federal judge who presided over — and threw out — the criminal classified documents case the Justice Department brought against Donald Trump is now set to oversee the case into the latest apparent assassination attempt against the former president. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon — a Trump appointee — was randomly assigned the attempted assassination case Tuesday.”
It gets difficult to believe in coincidences.
Has the RNG been replaced by the RNC or did the NRA load the dice?
* An ill-equipped judge gets another huge case: “The federal judge who presided over — and threw out — the criminal classified documents case the Justice Department brought against Donald Trump is now set to oversee the case into the latest apparent assassination attempt against the former president. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon — a Trump appointee — was randomly assigned the attempted assassination case Tuesday.”
I’m betting that this defendant gets a lot less deference.
Because she’s learned her lesson? Right?
Right? Believe that and I’ve got a primo bridge that’s on sale cheap.
I’m betting that this defendant gets a lot less deference.
Because she’s learned her lesson? Right?
Right? Believe that and I’ve got a primo bridge that’s on sale cheap.
Open thread grist
via Paul Campos at LGM
This Rick Perlstein piece getting into the history of polling is worth a read
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-09-25-polling-imperilment/
If only for the link to this two part takedown of Nate Silver.
https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-art-of-losing-a-fivethirtyeight
https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-art-of-losing-a-fivethirtyeight-627
Open thread grist
via Paul Campos at LGM
This Rick Perlstein piece getting into the history of polling is worth a read
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-09-25-polling-imperilment/
If only for the link to this two part takedown of Nate Silver.
https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-art-of-losing-a-fivethirtyeight
https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-art-of-losing-a-fivethirtyeight-627
What on earth is going on? It seems the US has lost all its diplomatic influence – but will reliable deliver weapons nonetheless.
White House insists Lebanon truce was ‘coordinated’ with Israel, despite later being rejected by Jerusalem
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-insists-lebanon-truce-was-coordinated-with-israel-despite-later-being-rejected-by-jerusalem/
Seriously, what’s the endgame here? This could get much worse than it already is – very quickly.
What on earth is going on? It seems the US has lost all its diplomatic influence – but will reliable deliver weapons nonetheless.
White House insists Lebanon truce was ‘coordinated’ with Israel, despite later being rejected by Jerusalem
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-insists-lebanon-truce-was-coordinated-with-israel-despite-later-being-rejected-by-jerusalem/
Seriously, what’s the endgame here? This could get much worse than it already is – very quickly.
This sounds plausible:
Diplomatic Sources: Netanyahu Backtracked on Agreements With U.S. Regarding Hezbollah Truce Due to Political Pressure
According to sources, Netanyahu expressed his approval of the U.S.-French truce proposal but changed course after facing criticism from factions within his government. ‘The Americans faced something similar during negotiations over the hostage deal in Gaza,’ a Western diplomat told Haaretz
So Ben Gvir and Smotrich run the show.
This sounds plausible:
Diplomatic Sources: Netanyahu Backtracked on Agreements With U.S. Regarding Hezbollah Truce Due to Political Pressure
According to sources, Netanyahu expressed his approval of the U.S.-French truce proposal but changed course after facing criticism from factions within his government. ‘The Americans faced something similar during negotiations over the hostage deal in Gaza,’ a Western diplomat told Haaretz
So Ben Gvir and Smotrich run the show.
link:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-09-26/ty-article/.premium/sources-netanyahu-reneged-on-hezbollah-truce-promises-with-u-s-due-to-political-backlash/00000192-2f23-dc91-a1df-bfab00de0000
link:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-09-26/ty-article/.premium/sources-netanyahu-reneged-on-hezbollah-truce-promises-with-u-s-due-to-political-backlash/00000192-2f23-dc91-a1df-bfab00de0000
So Ben Gvir and Smotrich run the show.
Run the show? Or just have a veto over certain kinds of sanity? Not a difference here. But could in cases where they want Bibi to take some kind of action.
So Ben Gvir and Smotrich run the show.
Run the show? Or just have a veto over certain kinds of sanity? Not a difference here. But could in cases where they want Bibi to take some kind of action.
Jolly…so now there is one of those electronic marquee trucks on campus that has made billboards for the various people arrested at the encampment featuring their pictures, and labeling them as the leading antisemites on campus. The people in the truck are parking it and interviewing students.
It’s telling that this behavior gets condemnation from the campus administration, but gets dismissed as a “disturbing feature of modern political discourse,” while the encampments got shut down by force with muscle from dozens of regional law enforcement agencies.
I never feared that anyone involved in the encampments was going to provoke sympathy violence against anyone in the campus community. I very much fear that the same can not be said for the groups behind this latest bit of intimidation theater.
I think the right would be happy to turn college campuses into literal battlegrounds for the culture war.
Jolly…so now there is one of those electronic marquee trucks on campus that has made billboards for the various people arrested at the encampment featuring their pictures, and labeling them as the leading antisemites on campus. The people in the truck are parking it and interviewing students.
It’s telling that this behavior gets condemnation from the campus administration, but gets dismissed as a “disturbing feature of modern political discourse,” while the encampments got shut down by force with muscle from dozens of regional law enforcement agencies.
I never feared that anyone involved in the encampments was going to provoke sympathy violence against anyone in the campus community. I very much fear that the same can not be said for the groups behind this latest bit of intimidation theater.
I think the right would be happy to turn college campuses into literal battlegrounds for the culture war.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/09/israel-gaza-war-biden-netanyahu-peace-negotiations/679581/
This article suggests that Netanyahu is actually pretty powerless against the far right in his coalition, even if he wanted to oppose them, which is not a given. And let’s not forget that this is nothing new. From the very beginning of his career, he has been cooperating with the far right:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/labor-chief-michaeli-rabin-was-assassinated-with-netanyahus-cooperation/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/09/israel-gaza-war-biden-netanyahu-peace-negotiations/679581/
This article suggests that Netanyahu is actually pretty powerless against the far right in his coalition, even if he wanted to oppose them, which is not a given. And let’s not forget that this is nothing new. From the very beginning of his career, he has been cooperating with the far right:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/labor-chief-michaeli-rabin-was-assassinated-with-netanyahus-cooperation/
“ seems the US has lost all its diplomatic influence – but will reliable deliver weapons nonetheless.”
Biden has made it very clear that he will support Israel no matter what. His alleged desires, boilerplate expressions of compassion, and red lines have meant nothing and so Bibi only has to worry about his own domestic politics. From what I have read, attacking Hezbollah is popular in Israel and so far they seem to be a paper tiger. I have always read otherwise, but at the moment they are not striking back very hard and if that pager attack weakened them that doesn’t speak well for their competence either. It is possible they are deliberately exhibiting restraint in an attempt at avoiding all out war, but if so I don’t think it will work out well. Bibi only cares about force and so there is no reason why he can’t keep bombing as much as he wants and presumably Biden will keep supplying the bombs. Invading might be harder. Hezbollah is supposed to be very tough. But one could start to wonder if that was exaggerated. We might find out soon.
I half suspect Biden is fine with all of this so long as the US isn’t dragged in. The civilian deaths are a bit of a PR problem.
Needless, to say, I have nothing but contempt for Biden, but if he cares about the death toll it is low on his priority list and so far they deal with it by emoting ( not very convincingly) and saying that Israel needs to do better. We also get carefully leaked stories about him being upset with Bibi. It’s like an old West Wing episode, except Bartlett would never let Bibi get away with this nonsense for more than one episode.
“ seems the US has lost all its diplomatic influence – but will reliable deliver weapons nonetheless.”
Biden has made it very clear that he will support Israel no matter what. His alleged desires, boilerplate expressions of compassion, and red lines have meant nothing and so Bibi only has to worry about his own domestic politics. From what I have read, attacking Hezbollah is popular in Israel and so far they seem to be a paper tiger. I have always read otherwise, but at the moment they are not striking back very hard and if that pager attack weakened them that doesn’t speak well for their competence either. It is possible they are deliberately exhibiting restraint in an attempt at avoiding all out war, but if so I don’t think it will work out well. Bibi only cares about force and so there is no reason why he can’t keep bombing as much as he wants and presumably Biden will keep supplying the bombs. Invading might be harder. Hezbollah is supposed to be very tough. But one could start to wonder if that was exaggerated. We might find out soon.
I half suspect Biden is fine with all of this so long as the US isn’t dragged in. The civilian deaths are a bit of a PR problem.
Needless, to say, I have nothing but contempt for Biden, but if he cares about the death toll it is low on his priority list and so far they deal with it by emoting ( not very convincingly) and saying that Israel needs to do better. We also get carefully leaked stories about him being upset with Bibi. It’s like an old West Wing episode, except Bartlett would never let Bibi get away with this nonsense for more than one episode.
It is possible they are deliberately exhibiting restraint in an attempt at avoiding all out war, but if so I don’t think it will work out well.
Supposedly, Hezbollah has precision missiles they haven’t used yet. Over the past year, they’ve given the impression that they were poking Israel to the limit of not provoking a strong reaction. Likely both sides don’t want an all-out war. A pundit claimed that an all-out war would set Israel back 50 years and Lebanon back to the Middle Ages.
Several cargo planes of US troops and equipment are headed to/have landed in Israel.
It is possible they are deliberately exhibiting restraint in an attempt at avoiding all out war, but if so I don’t think it will work out well.
Supposedly, Hezbollah has precision missiles they haven’t used yet. Over the past year, they’ve given the impression that they were poking Israel to the limit of not provoking a strong reaction. Likely both sides don’t want an all-out war. A pundit claimed that an all-out war would set Israel back 50 years and Lebanon back to the Middle Ages.
Several cargo planes of US troops and equipment are headed to/have landed in Israel.
For the moment the US troops are holding up in Cyprus.
For the moment the US troops are holding up in Cyprus.
Needless, to say, I have nothing but contempt for Biden
Donald, that’s kind of like saying one gets wet in a rain storm. As far as I have ever been able to tell, you have nothing but contempt for any and every US president in my lifetime, for at least 99.9% (maybe more) of the US government, and for well over half of the entire US population.
Not saying that you are wrong about the flaws in various parts of our foreign policy. I have disagreements with various parts as well. Just that, again so far as I can tell, the idea that we ever do anything right is simply not part of your world view.
Your arguments might be more persuasive if you mentioned something we did right, if only in passing and for comparison. Like “The US did this good/right thing in case X. Why isn’t it doing the same here?” But I suppose if, for you, there is no “case X” that’s not an option.
Needless, to say, I have nothing but contempt for Biden
Donald, that’s kind of like saying one gets wet in a rain storm. As far as I have ever been able to tell, you have nothing but contempt for any and every US president in my lifetime, for at least 99.9% (maybe more) of the US government, and for well over half of the entire US population.
Not saying that you are wrong about the flaws in various parts of our foreign policy. I have disagreements with various parts as well. Just that, again so far as I can tell, the idea that we ever do anything right is simply not part of your world view.
Your arguments might be more persuasive if you mentioned something we did right, if only in passing and for comparison. Like “The US did this good/right thing in case X. Why isn’t it doing the same here?” But I suppose if, for you, there is no “case X” that’s not an option.
Supposedly, Hezbollah has precision missiles they haven’t used yet.
From what I’ve read, they have tens of thousands of missles. At that point, precision isn’t really critical.
Israel, if they take the genocidal approach they are using in Gaza, can probably reduce the area of southern Lebanon that Hesbollah controls to rubble. But Israel would be pretty thoroughly trashed in return. Israel could probably recover faster, but that’s definitely a comparative not to be confused with fast.
Supposedly, Hezbollah has precision missiles they haven’t used yet.
From what I’ve read, they have tens of thousands of missles. At that point, precision isn’t really critical.
Israel, if they take the genocidal approach they are using in Gaza, can probably reduce the area of southern Lebanon that Hesbollah controls to rubble. But Israel would be pretty thoroughly trashed in return. Israel could probably recover faster, but that’s definitely a comparative not to be confused with fast.
Wj—
I don’t feel inclined to jump through your hoops. It isn’t up to me to persuade you that Biden’s Middle East policy has been catastrophically bad. It seems self evident to many. It has to do with all the rubble and corpses created by US- supplied weapons. And the nonstop lying by the Administration. People look at this and think it is somehow not right. And predictably Bibi just keeps doing what he wants.
The rest of your mind reading is inaccurate. I think Biden has a good record on domestic issues. I don’t know what to do about a great many issues. Lots of issues people discuss here and elsewhere where I agree with others but have nothing to say that seems worth saying.
I wish him well in stopping the slaughter in Sudan, though maybe they need to talk to the UAE.
But US officials and much of our foreign policy community seems to lack any sense that they might sometimes be deeply morally wrong. We were on the right side in WW2 and ever since then every dictator we don’t like is Hitler about to invade Czechoslovakia. They are wrong and sometimes maybe it is the US that needs to be stopped. Not violently, but by our own citizens telling our leaders they are complicit in war crimes.
I don’t think the voting booth is where it needs to happen. It should be in court.
Wj—
I don’t feel inclined to jump through your hoops. It isn’t up to me to persuade you that Biden’s Middle East policy has been catastrophically bad. It seems self evident to many. It has to do with all the rubble and corpses created by US- supplied weapons. And the nonstop lying by the Administration. People look at this and think it is somehow not right. And predictably Bibi just keeps doing what he wants.
The rest of your mind reading is inaccurate. I think Biden has a good record on domestic issues. I don’t know what to do about a great many issues. Lots of issues people discuss here and elsewhere where I agree with others but have nothing to say that seems worth saying.
I wish him well in stopping the slaughter in Sudan, though maybe they need to talk to the UAE.
But US officials and much of our foreign policy community seems to lack any sense that they might sometimes be deeply morally wrong. We were on the right side in WW2 and ever since then every dictator we don’t like is Hitler about to invade Czechoslovakia. They are wrong and sometimes maybe it is the US that needs to be stopped. Not violently, but by our own citizens telling our leaders they are complicit in war crimes.
I don’t think the voting booth is where it needs to happen. It should be in court.
If Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, they’re not very good at it or they’re slow-walking it. Why put troops on the ground and get a hundred or so killed when they could just carpet-bomb the place? Pausing operations to bring in and distribute polio vaccines. Are they trying to hide genocide in plain sight?
Someone must win decisively or the conflict will continue for decades. But a regime change in Iran could take the air out of it.
If Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, they’re not very good at it or they’re slow-walking it. Why put troops on the ground and get a hundred or so killed when they could just carpet-bomb the place? Pausing operations to bring in and distribute polio vaccines. Are they trying to hide genocide in plain sight?
Someone must win decisively or the conflict will continue for decades. But a regime change in Iran could take the air out of it.
Receding the sanctions against Iran freed up money for Iran’s proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and elsewhere.
Receding the sanctions against Iran freed up money for Iran’s proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and elsewhere.
Donald, I don’t think you need to persuade me particularly.
But presumably (me mind reading again) you would like to persuade somebody. (Unless you are just venting, of course. Which is fine. We all need to do so occasionally.) If so, rants with no alternate path forward beyond “Don’t do X!” aren’t generally effective, at least in my experience.
If you wanted to take the Trump approach, and just walk away and let them slaughter each other (I’m clear you don’t) that would be one thing. But if not, perhaps an occasional picture of how we get to Peace in Our Time would be enlightening. In the case of Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah I’m not seeing one. But then, I’m not an expert.
Arguing for criminal sanctions is fine, but it still requires some persuasion. Not just to get charges brought, but to convince a jury to convict. It may seem like an ironclad, open and shut, case to you. But you might consider that you need to persuade your fellow citizens; the same folks who keep electing the people you want tried and convicted.
Donald, I don’t think you need to persuade me particularly.
But presumably (me mind reading again) you would like to persuade somebody. (Unless you are just venting, of course. Which is fine. We all need to do so occasionally.) If so, rants with no alternate path forward beyond “Don’t do X!” aren’t generally effective, at least in my experience.
If you wanted to take the Trump approach, and just walk away and let them slaughter each other (I’m clear you don’t) that would be one thing. But if not, perhaps an occasional picture of how we get to Peace in Our Time would be enlightening. In the case of Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah I’m not seeing one. But then, I’m not an expert.
Arguing for criminal sanctions is fine, but it still requires some persuasion. Not just to get charges brought, but to convince a jury to convict. It may seem like an ironclad, open and shut, case to you. But you might consider that you need to persuade your fellow citizens; the same folks who keep electing the people you want tried and convicted.
Are they trying to hide genocide in plain sight?
I suspect they are doing exactly that. The religious fanatics in coalition with Bibi want genocide, both in Gaza and the West Bank. But they are aware that saying so would get a huge negative reaction in Israel. Not to mention pretty much forcing the US to cut all support. So they slow walk it, occasionally make gestures to confuse the issue, and calmly ignore insignificant details like casualties as an acceptable cost of getting what they want.
Are they trying to hide genocide in plain sight?
I suspect they are doing exactly that. The religious fanatics in coalition with Bibi want genocide, both in Gaza and the West Bank. But they are aware that saying so would get a huge negative reaction in Israel. Not to mention pretty much forcing the US to cut all support. So they slow walk it, occasionally make gestures to confuse the issue, and calmly ignore insignificant details like casualties as an acceptable cost of getting what they want.
According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Just so we can be talking about this in conventional terms under UN law.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf
And to Donald’s points, the US is supposed to have obligations under our role as signatories to the Convention:
• Obligation not to commit genocide (Article I as interpreted by the ICJ);
• Obligation to prevent genocide (Article I) which, according to the ICJ, has an extraterritorial scope;
• Obligation to punish genocide (Article I);
• Obligation to enact the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Convention (Article V);
• Obligation to ensure that effective penalties are provided for persons found guilty of criminal conduct according to the Convention (Article V);
• Obligation to try persons charged with genocide in a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by an international penal tribunal with accepted jurisdiction (Article VI);
• Obligation to grant extradition when genocide charges are involved, in accordance with laws and treaties in force (Article VII), particularly related to protection granted by international human rights law prohibiting refoulment where there is a real risk of flagrant human rights violations in the receiving State.
…though the US has never really been much for holding itself to these obligations when we or one of our domestically significant allies is flirtatiously nibbling the ear of genocide.
Badly executed or not. Slow or not. Doesn’t matter where treaty obligations are concerned.
According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Just so we can be talking about this in conventional terms under UN law.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf
And to Donald’s points, the US is supposed to have obligations under our role as signatories to the Convention:
• Obligation not to commit genocide (Article I as interpreted by the ICJ);
• Obligation to prevent genocide (Article I) which, according to the ICJ, has an extraterritorial scope;
• Obligation to punish genocide (Article I);
• Obligation to enact the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Convention (Article V);
• Obligation to ensure that effective penalties are provided for persons found guilty of criminal conduct according to the Convention (Article V);
• Obligation to try persons charged with genocide in a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by an international penal tribunal with accepted jurisdiction (Article VI);
• Obligation to grant extradition when genocide charges are involved, in accordance with laws and treaties in force (Article VII), particularly related to protection granted by international human rights law prohibiting refoulment where there is a real risk of flagrant human rights violations in the receiving State.
…though the US has never really been much for holding itself to these obligations when we or one of our domestically significant allies is flirtatiously nibbling the ear of genocide.
Badly executed or not. Slow or not. Doesn’t matter where treaty obligations are concerned.
Wj— One can’t rely too much on polls but I have seen polls ( or reports of polls) that say the majority of Americans favor an arms embargo on Israel. Often such things depend on the exact wording of the question. But I think it is accurate to say that a great many Americans are apppalled by what Israel is doing. Enough reporting of the consequences of our policies can be persuasive. I doubt most Americans ever heard anything about Yemen and that is probably more typical.
I don’t think democracy in the US works when it comes to foreign policy. That is, most people are not informed about the worst things we do and the politicians and officials and frankly much of the press keep it that way. Gaza is the exception. And when people do find out and oppose what we are doing, it doesn’t influence the policy. There are too many issues at stake at the ballot box and so voting is an ineffective way to influence our government on things like Gaza. If enough people do protest votes, Trump wins.
And politicians know this. And the foreign policy community doesn’t want to be pestered by the hoi polloi. They want to run the world. I think for many there are crude financial incentives— I mean, hardly any Westerner would like the Saudi government if they weren’t rich. Others are true believers in our nobility. But none of them want antiwar protestors to have any power and unless American troops are dying, they generally don’t. Except possibly thiis time but unfortunately if they change the course of the election we just get someone worse in every respect.
Voting is a useless exercise on this issue unless enough people decide that they want to have nominees who are not like Biden.
I don’t think anyone knows what Harris will do if she wins.
As for Israel, the U.S. has to make plain that they have passed our red lines and won’t be getting any more offensive weapons. They can also start paying out of their own pocket for whatever components of Iron Dome they need from us. Israel has no incentive to hold back if we support them without conditions.
Hezbollah has been restrained up until now. I am not sure what theur capabilities are after recent events. But theur demand has always been for a ceasefire in Gaza. The US and Israel don’t want the issues coupled. The US would prefer a world where only the US and its pals can act without restraint.
Hamas is probably deeply unpopular with the majority of Gazans for starting a war knowing full well how brutal the Israelis are. Sinwar ( who might be dead, last I read) has been open about this. I think there should be a ceasefire. I think the Hamas leadership, whoever is left, will find that they are not seen as heroes by the people who had to suffer from their decisions. ( By the way, I am not using the human shield argument. You can’t fight in Gaza without fighting in urban areas unless you want to stand out in the open to be bombed. )
Wj— One can’t rely too much on polls but I have seen polls ( or reports of polls) that say the majority of Americans favor an arms embargo on Israel. Often such things depend on the exact wording of the question. But I think it is accurate to say that a great many Americans are apppalled by what Israel is doing. Enough reporting of the consequences of our policies can be persuasive. I doubt most Americans ever heard anything about Yemen and that is probably more typical.
I don’t think democracy in the US works when it comes to foreign policy. That is, most people are not informed about the worst things we do and the politicians and officials and frankly much of the press keep it that way. Gaza is the exception. And when people do find out and oppose what we are doing, it doesn’t influence the policy. There are too many issues at stake at the ballot box and so voting is an ineffective way to influence our government on things like Gaza. If enough people do protest votes, Trump wins.
And politicians know this. And the foreign policy community doesn’t want to be pestered by the hoi polloi. They want to run the world. I think for many there are crude financial incentives— I mean, hardly any Westerner would like the Saudi government if they weren’t rich. Others are true believers in our nobility. But none of them want antiwar protestors to have any power and unless American troops are dying, they generally don’t. Except possibly thiis time but unfortunately if they change the course of the election we just get someone worse in every respect.
Voting is a useless exercise on this issue unless enough people decide that they want to have nominees who are not like Biden.
I don’t think anyone knows what Harris will do if she wins.
As for Israel, the U.S. has to make plain that they have passed our red lines and won’t be getting any more offensive weapons. They can also start paying out of their own pocket for whatever components of Iron Dome they need from us. Israel has no incentive to hold back if we support them without conditions.
Hezbollah has been restrained up until now. I am not sure what theur capabilities are after recent events. But theur demand has always been for a ceasefire in Gaza. The US and Israel don’t want the issues coupled. The US would prefer a world where only the US and its pals can act without restraint.
Hamas is probably deeply unpopular with the majority of Gazans for starting a war knowing full well how brutal the Israelis are. Sinwar ( who might be dead, last I read) has been open about this. I think there should be a ceasefire. I think the Hamas leadership, whoever is left, will find that they are not seen as heroes by the people who had to suffer from their decisions. ( By the way, I am not using the human shield argument. You can’t fight in Gaza without fighting in urban areas unless you want to stand out in the open to be bombed. )
So I think both Hamas and Hezbollah would welcome a ceasefire. Virtually all Gazans would. Friedman is probably right about one thing— Hamas will then have some explaining to do.
Israel needs to be treated like apartheid South Africa. I don’t think they are capable of reform without outside pressure. And they have been treated as this wonderful democracy for so long, with the US leaping to their defense, I am not sure that pressure will work either. But no, I am no expert myself. My impression is that people who can see both sides ( appalled by both Hamas and their own country’s behavior) are a smalll minority. Quite a few don’t like Bibi, but that is because Bibi is Trump without the charm.
So I think both Hamas and Hezbollah would welcome a ceasefire. Virtually all Gazans would. Friedman is probably right about one thing— Hamas will then have some explaining to do.
Israel needs to be treated like apartheid South Africa. I don’t think they are capable of reform without outside pressure. And they have been treated as this wonderful democracy for so long, with the US leaping to their defense, I am not sure that pressure will work either. But no, I am no expert myself. My impression is that people who can see both sides ( appalled by both Hamas and their own country’s behavior) are a smalll minority. Quite a few don’t like Bibi, but that is because Bibi is Trump without the charm.
And if Israel refuses to reform, we start distancing ourselves. We can have relations with plenty of countries without praising their lousy human rights record.
But I think there is too much emotional attachment for a divorce, so we should pressure for reform and stop being their enablers.
And if Israel refuses to reform, we start distancing ourselves. We can have relations with plenty of countries without praising their lousy human rights record.
But I think there is too much emotional attachment for a divorce, so we should pressure for reform and stop being their enablers.
I’m pretty much with Donald on all of that. While knowing that there is (or was in the fairly recent past) a sizeable part of the Israeli population who would not have agreed with any of this kind of “warfare”, or the settlements, or many of the terrible things done under Bibi. I don’t know now. Sigh.
On nous’s genocide stuff (which I guess was mostly in response to Charles), since I was originally one of the most vocal commenters opposing the term in this context, I think Israeli actions now (and for some time past) easily meet the UN definition. I actually believe the UN definition is somewhat too broad for the crime of genocide (I think it should entail intent to extirpate a “race” in as much of its entirety as possible, but since there is no easily available definition of race that is too difficult to apply), but it is the one we have now, so that’s that. Even if I could have my fantasy definition of genocide, I would still consider what Israel has done/is doing in Gaza a heinous war crime and appalling crime against humanity.
I’m pretty much with Donald on all of that. While knowing that there is (or was in the fairly recent past) a sizeable part of the Israeli population who would not have agreed with any of this kind of “warfare”, or the settlements, or many of the terrible things done under Bibi. I don’t know now. Sigh.
On nous’s genocide stuff (which I guess was mostly in response to Charles), since I was originally one of the most vocal commenters opposing the term in this context, I think Israeli actions now (and for some time past) easily meet the UN definition. I actually believe the UN definition is somewhat too broad for the crime of genocide (I think it should entail intent to extirpate a “race” in as much of its entirety as possible, but since there is no easily available definition of race that is too difficult to apply), but it is the one we have now, so that’s that. Even if I could have my fantasy definition of genocide, I would still consider what Israel has done/is doing in Gaza a heinous war crime and appalling crime against humanity.
Donald, I think we are in agreement in much of this.
But no in the sense that voters have no influence on those policies. Who does have influence are members of Congress. In my observation, most members pay attention to what they hear from their constituents. Yes, there are some ideologues. And yes, members usually have some strong opinions of their own. But even those in safe seats (my Congressman being one) will push on something when they hear from enough of their constituents about it. (“Enough” being vastly short of enough that they would tip an election. A hundred or two would do it.) But polls alone, even back in the day when their results were meaningful, won’t.
All of the things we should do, and all of the things we think should happen, are, I think, a short term bandaid. I’m not sure there is a long term solution, at least one which has any chance of being implemented in any of our lifetimes. Even a ceasefire is unlikely to more that a pause to rearm.
Donald, I think we are in agreement in much of this.
But no in the sense that voters have no influence on those policies. Who does have influence are members of Congress. In my observation, most members pay attention to what they hear from their constituents. Yes, there are some ideologues. And yes, members usually have some strong opinions of their own. But even those in safe seats (my Congressman being one) will push on something when they hear from enough of their constituents about it. (“Enough” being vastly short of enough that they would tip an election. A hundred or two would do it.) But polls alone, even back in the day when their results were meaningful, won’t.
All of the things we should do, and all of the things we think should happen, are, I think, a short term bandaid. I’m not sure there is a long term solution, at least one which has any chance of being implemented in any of our lifetimes. Even a ceasefire is unlikely to more that a pause to rearm.
I see I got too wound up in this to tie it back to my original point. Which is that, to get even that tiny “flood” of letters to Congressmen which could have an impact on policy, you have to persuade people. And rants tend to have the opposite effect. Saying “There is a problem here. We jnow from experience elsewhere [i.e. not just from theory] that these steps will help.** We should do them.” is far more likely to have an impact.
** Something like your passing reference to South Africa.
I see I got too wound up in this to tie it back to my original point. Which is that, to get even that tiny “flood” of letters to Congressmen which could have an impact on policy, you have to persuade people. And rants tend to have the opposite effect. Saying “There is a problem here. We jnow from experience elsewhere [i.e. not just from theory] that these steps will help.** We should do them.” is far more likely to have an impact.
** Something like your passing reference to South Africa.
I half suspect Biden is fine with all of this so long as the US isn’t dragged in. The civilian deaths are a bit of a PR problem.
Needless, to say, I have nothing but contempt for Biden
This is where I part ways with Donald, not that it makes any difference to my opinion about what is actually happening. I don’t think Biden is fine with it, but that he can compartmentalise (as leaders probably have to do), is an old guy and has a kneejerk sympathy with Israel as a project, because of the 20th century history of antisemitism.
I’ve said before, and still think, that the SA apartheid comparison is a pretty good one.
I half suspect Biden is fine with all of this so long as the US isn’t dragged in. The civilian deaths are a bit of a PR problem.
Needless, to say, I have nothing but contempt for Biden
This is where I part ways with Donald, not that it makes any difference to my opinion about what is actually happening. I don’t think Biden is fine with it, but that he can compartmentalise (as leaders probably have to do), is an old guy and has a kneejerk sympathy with Israel as a project, because of the 20th century history of antisemitism.
I’ve said before, and still think, that the SA apartheid comparison is a pretty good one.
Oh no – RIP Maggie Smith. One of the greats.
Oh no – RIP Maggie Smith. One of the greats.
Pausing operations to bring in and distribute polio vaccines.
Highly infectious diseases are a threat to Israel too, so this is just self-defense with good PR attached.
Pausing operations to bring in and distribute polio vaccines.
Highly infectious diseases are a threat to Israel too, so this is just self-defense with good PR attached.
Oh no – RIP Maggie Smith. One of the greats.
There goes my hope that one day she would play Granny Weatherwax in a Pratchett adaptation.
Oh no – RIP Maggie Smith. One of the greats.
There goes my hope that one day she would play Granny Weatherwax in a Pratchett adaptation.
But a regime change in Iran could take the air out of it.
Of course! So easy!
But a regime change in Iran could take the air out of it.
Of course! So easy!
Hartmut, despite Israel’s abominable acceptance of children as collateral damage in its Gaza campaign, I think that cynical remark displays uncharacteristic and unnecessary casual demonisation. Other people’s MMV.
Hartmut, despite Israel’s abominable acceptance of children as collateral damage in its Gaza campaign, I think that cynical remark displays uncharacteristic and unnecessary casual demonisation. Other people’s MMV.
I believe that, if it had been something less notorious than polio (or measles), help would have taken much longer. And polio is a special case. It was marked for extinction a few years ago but rivalry between religious fundamentalists of several religions killed the effort on the home stretch* – a few month before the WHO intended to declare the decades long struggle successfully over. And now the whole fight has to begin anew. The radicals in the Israeli government probably do not care about Palestinian children at all but they have good reason to fear that not acting quickly risked a spread to Israel itself. And who could blame them for trying to also use that as a PR opportunity? It’s stonecold realism and I do not imply ulterior motives there. They did not introduce the infection.
In Iraq a rare form of hepatitis began to spread after the US invasion and occupation because the public health system had broken down. The US did not introduce it but efforts to fight it iirc only really started when the Pentagon saw a risk of it spreading to US troops. So, I see both cases as a typical “I would not care but now it affects me too, so I have to.” Human nature, unfortunately. For that matter, HIV/AIDS started as a mere ‘gay plague’ and was ignored by most governments until ‘normal’ people got it too. Or look at Ebola. As long as it stayed in Africa, the world (apart from some novelists and disaster movie makers) mostly ignored it. A handful of cases in Europe and America caused a panic and frantic governmnent efforts to fight it.
*Both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists in Africa and iirc both Hindu and Islamic ones on the Indian subcontinent spread the lie that the other side was running a chemical sterilization campaign disguised as vaccination. Before that deliberately spread rumor got stamped out, the beleaguered virus successfully broke out of the few remaining pockets and spread again to several neighbouring states.
I believe that, if it had been something less notorious than polio (or measles), help would have taken much longer. And polio is a special case. It was marked for extinction a few years ago but rivalry between religious fundamentalists of several religions killed the effort on the home stretch* – a few month before the WHO intended to declare the decades long struggle successfully over. And now the whole fight has to begin anew. The radicals in the Israeli government probably do not care about Palestinian children at all but they have good reason to fear that not acting quickly risked a spread to Israel itself. And who could blame them for trying to also use that as a PR opportunity? It’s stonecold realism and I do not imply ulterior motives there. They did not introduce the infection.
In Iraq a rare form of hepatitis began to spread after the US invasion and occupation because the public health system had broken down. The US did not introduce it but efforts to fight it iirc only really started when the Pentagon saw a risk of it spreading to US troops. So, I see both cases as a typical “I would not care but now it affects me too, so I have to.” Human nature, unfortunately. For that matter, HIV/AIDS started as a mere ‘gay plague’ and was ignored by most governments until ‘normal’ people got it too. Or look at Ebola. As long as it stayed in Africa, the world (apart from some novelists and disaster movie makers) mostly ignored it. A handful of cases in Europe and America caused a panic and frantic governmnent efforts to fight it.
*Both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists in Africa and iirc both Hindu and Islamic ones on the Indian subcontinent spread the lie that the other side was running a chemical sterilization campaign disguised as vaccination. Before that deliberately spread rumor got stamped out, the beleaguered virus successfully broke out of the few remaining pockets and spread again to several neighbouring states.
I am aware, thank you, of the history of polio’s near eradication and the various forces which stopped it.
To me, it is not just polio’s notoriety, it is the fact that it disproportionately affects children (under the age of five I believe), and leads, if they survive, to effects like lifelong paralysis. If you think it would have left Israel (including most particularly its public opinion) unmoved if there was no risk of it spreading to them, what other acts are you prepared to assume they would have been happy to commit? Is their appalling behaviour in their prosecution of the war in Gaza license to believe there is absolutely no atrocity they would not commit? Good to know.
Far be it from me to defend their behaviour in Gaza, and before, but it seems to me that this is the slippery slope to real and extremely worrying demonisation, and not just of “radicals in the Israeli government”.
I am aware, thank you, of the history of polio’s near eradication and the various forces which stopped it.
To me, it is not just polio’s notoriety, it is the fact that it disproportionately affects children (under the age of five I believe), and leads, if they survive, to effects like lifelong paralysis. If you think it would have left Israel (including most particularly its public opinion) unmoved if there was no risk of it spreading to them, what other acts are you prepared to assume they would have been happy to commit? Is their appalling behaviour in their prosecution of the war in Gaza license to believe there is absolutely no atrocity they would not commit? Good to know.
Far be it from me to defend their behaviour in Gaza, and before, but it seems to me that this is the slippery slope to real and extremely worrying demonisation, and not just of “radicals in the Israeli government”.
I would not call it an ‘atrocity committed’. They did not introduce it and they did not actively try to block help. Both would be atrocities and to accuse them of either would indeed be demonisation.
I still think a less notorious illness would have resulted in far slower countermeasures. It would have created far less worldwide publicity and thus less pressure.
And, cynical me again, does it really matter HOW people die in war as collateral damage? Isn’t it hypocritical to say ‘blowing to pieces, starving, dying of exposure are just unavoidable side effects of war but death through a particular disease that is not even a bioweapon is beyond the pale’?
There were official statements that it was illogical to allow food in since Gaza is essentially siege warfare and feeding the enemy defied the very purpose of that. That would be an actually atrocious act – actively starving a civilian population in order to force the (not even affected) enemy leadership into submission.
Simply not caring about how exactly the collateral damage occurs is imo secondary.
What is not called for is attributing any major merit to the act of making an exception in this particular case. Defenders of Israel constantly praise the government for allowing any food in as a proof that the IDF is the most moral and humanitarian military in history. That is absurd. But how is this different from letting vaccines in? Except of course that we are used to mostly ignore starvation (of people of all ages) that constantly occurs in many places of the world but somehow we get emotional when it’s mainly children dying of some disease that at least the older ones among us still remember as being something once close and personal.
As a German political satirist once put it, he was waiting for a newscaster to finally come up with ‘many lost their lives – fortunately only men’ [in reaction to the phrase very commonly used, if emphasis on the tragic nature of an event is intended: ‘many lost their lives – among them women and children’].
Sorry for ranting.
I would not call it an ‘atrocity committed’. They did not introduce it and they did not actively try to block help. Both would be atrocities and to accuse them of either would indeed be demonisation.
I still think a less notorious illness would have resulted in far slower countermeasures. It would have created far less worldwide publicity and thus less pressure.
And, cynical me again, does it really matter HOW people die in war as collateral damage? Isn’t it hypocritical to say ‘blowing to pieces, starving, dying of exposure are just unavoidable side effects of war but death through a particular disease that is not even a bioweapon is beyond the pale’?
There were official statements that it was illogical to allow food in since Gaza is essentially siege warfare and feeding the enemy defied the very purpose of that. That would be an actually atrocious act – actively starving a civilian population in order to force the (not even affected) enemy leadership into submission.
Simply not caring about how exactly the collateral damage occurs is imo secondary.
What is not called for is attributing any major merit to the act of making an exception in this particular case. Defenders of Israel constantly praise the government for allowing any food in as a proof that the IDF is the most moral and humanitarian military in history. That is absurd. But how is this different from letting vaccines in? Except of course that we are used to mostly ignore starvation (of people of all ages) that constantly occurs in many places of the world but somehow we get emotional when it’s mainly children dying of some disease that at least the older ones among us still remember as being something once close and personal.
As a German political satirist once put it, he was waiting for a newscaster to finally come up with ‘many lost their lives – fortunately only men’ [in reaction to the phrase very commonly used, if emphasis on the tragic nature of an event is intended: ‘many lost their lives – among them women and children’].
Sorry for ranting.
It would be interesting to know if Israel’s religious fundamentalists are as anti-vaxx (for themselves**) as religious fundamentalists here. If so, the prospect of a disease spreading to them personally could have made a difference.
** As far as I have seen, anti-vaxxers can be pretty relaxed about those they dislike getting vaccinated.
It would be interesting to know if Israel’s religious fundamentalists are as anti-vaxx (for themselves**) as religious fundamentalists here. If so, the prospect of a disease spreading to them personally could have made a difference.
** As far as I have seen, anti-vaxxers can be pretty relaxed about those they dislike getting vaccinated.
I hear tell, wj, that Google is willing to be your friend.
I hear tell, wj, that Google is willing to be your friend.
Pausing operations to bring in and distribute polio vaccines.
This was the phrase to which you brought your cynical motivation. Not pausing operations to bring in and distribute polio vaccines would have been to commit an atrocity, of which mainly children would have been the victims. I certainly do not deny (which should be obvious by now) that the Israelis have committed atrocities in Gaza, but if you think they would have hindered delivery of polio vaccines to children, and that it would not have caused widespread condemnation amongst their own public, you are demonising the Israeli population as well as their leadership. (Parenthetically, in word as in deed, I don’t understand what you mean by a “notorious disease”.)
Contrary to what you say, I believe they did in the first days hinder delivery of food and water, and this was clearly a war crime. They have certainly committed war crimes, and as I have said, also crimes against humanity. But attributing allowing the passage and administration of polio vaccines to the Gazan children purely to self-interested motives seems to me to cross the line into true demonisation.
Pausing operations to bring in and distribute polio vaccines.
This was the phrase to which you brought your cynical motivation. Not pausing operations to bring in and distribute polio vaccines would have been to commit an atrocity, of which mainly children would have been the victims. I certainly do not deny (which should be obvious by now) that the Israelis have committed atrocities in Gaza, but if you think they would have hindered delivery of polio vaccines to children, and that it would not have caused widespread condemnation amongst their own public, you are demonising the Israeli population as well as their leadership. (Parenthetically, in word as in deed, I don’t understand what you mean by a “notorious disease”.)
Contrary to what you say, I believe they did in the first days hinder delivery of food and water, and this was clearly a war crime. They have certainly committed war crimes, and as I have said, also crimes against humanity. But attributing allowing the passage and administration of polio vaccines to the Gazan children purely to self-interested motives seems to me to cross the line into true demonisation.
If anyone is starving in Gaza, it’s Hamas’ fault. In some communications between Hamas members, there were complaints about not having enough storage space for the foreign aid they had intercepted. They steal the aid and sell it to the people who should have gotten it.
If anyone is starving in Gaza, it’s Hamas’ fault. In some communications between Hamas members, there were complaints about not having enough storage space for the foreign aid they had intercepted. They steal the aid and sell it to the people who should have gotten it.
Sorry for ranting
And sorry for going at you, too. But it’s bad enough what they’re doing, without attributing worse!
Sorry for ranting
And sorry for going at you, too. But it’s bad enough what they’re doing, without attributing worse!
Both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists in Africa and iirc both Hindu and Islamic ones on the Indian subcontinent spread the lie…
The last three countries with wild polio were Nigeria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In all three cases, Islamic lies against vaccination were a major factor.
We don’t need to “both sides” this. Islam, in this respect, has been evil.
Both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists in Africa and iirc both Hindu and Islamic ones on the Indian subcontinent spread the lie…
The last three countries with wild polio were Nigeria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In all three cases, Islamic lies against vaccination were a major factor.
We don’t need to “both sides” this. Islam, in this respect, has been evil.
Some years ago the CIA was accused of embedding operatives in NGOs distributing and administering vaccines in Pakistan. Not a good way to engender trust.
Some years ago the CIA was accused of embedding operatives in NGOs distributing and administering vaccines in Pakistan. Not a good way to engender trust.
The two US agencies with expertise in this area disagree with you Charles.
https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken
A lot of people ( including me) think Blinken should be prosecuted for lying to Congress, though no doubt many in Congress wanted to be lied to on this subject.
The two US agencies with expertise in this area disagree with you Charles.
https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken
A lot of people ( including me) think Blinken should be prosecuted for lying to Congress, though no doubt many in Congress wanted to be lied to on this subject.
pathogens (viruses, bacteria, protozoa, etc) are the enemies of all humankind, and always have been.
Setting aside our intra-species squabbles to deal with the threat is just good sense. We can’t ‘negotiate’ with them: they are trying to eat us.
pathogens (viruses, bacteria, protozoa, etc) are the enemies of all humankind, and always have been.
Setting aside our intra-species squabbles to deal with the threat is just good sense. We can’t ‘negotiate’ with them: they are trying to eat us.
Wj— I haven’t ranted in letters to politicians. Currently most of what I do is participate with some ( mostly older) peace activists in a local ( extremely peaceful) protest. I am not sure what we accomplish. We get some friendly honks from passing cars. One local guy with relatives in Israel has behaved badly, ripping signs out of people’s hands and hoping that every Gazan dies. But I wonder if protests do anything. They probably do something in the sense of showing some people care.
I am not sure what it would take to get politicians to change ther attitudes. I agree with Gftnc that Biden is reacting out of kneejerk sympathy because of 20th century antisemitism, and this is true of many others, but that attitude slides into a dismissal of the Palestinian case. People need to stop doing that.
I think the Biden attitude has been cynical, They openly opposed a ceasefire until it began to look like a threat to his campaign. I am pretty sure that with Biden and Blinken the Palestinian civilian death toll is a PR problem for US foreign policy and for his campaign initially and now the Harris campaign. If Harris wins, which I hope she does, it will have the unfortunate side effect of making them think this was a vindication of sorts.
As for long term solutions to the problem, I have difficulty seeing any. I would be fine with one state or two, if anyone asked me, but I can’t see either happening. And Gaza is a hellscape.
Wj— I haven’t ranted in letters to politicians. Currently most of what I do is participate with some ( mostly older) peace activists in a local ( extremely peaceful) protest. I am not sure what we accomplish. We get some friendly honks from passing cars. One local guy with relatives in Israel has behaved badly, ripping signs out of people’s hands and hoping that every Gazan dies. But I wonder if protests do anything. They probably do something in the sense of showing some people care.
I am not sure what it would take to get politicians to change ther attitudes. I agree with Gftnc that Biden is reacting out of kneejerk sympathy because of 20th century antisemitism, and this is true of many others, but that attitude slides into a dismissal of the Palestinian case. People need to stop doing that.
I think the Biden attitude has been cynical, They openly opposed a ceasefire until it began to look like a threat to his campaign. I am pretty sure that with Biden and Blinken the Palestinian civilian death toll is a PR problem for US foreign policy and for his campaign initially and now the Harris campaign. If Harris wins, which I hope she does, it will have the unfortunate side effect of making them think this was a vindication of sorts.
As for long term solutions to the problem, I have difficulty seeing any. I would be fine with one state or two, if anyone asked me, but I can’t see either happening. And Gaza is a hellscape.
perhaps relevant
h/t Adam Silverman at BJ
Haven’t read the whole thing, I make no claim about the goodness of the reporting or analysis. It’s just information, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
There are two communities who do not trust each other, each with legitimate historical grievances, trying to live in the same place. Every time they get within sight of a possible solution, somebody fucks it up.
There is so much blame to go around it’s hard to know where to start.
perhaps relevant
h/t Adam Silverman at BJ
Haven’t read the whole thing, I make no claim about the goodness of the reporting or analysis. It’s just information, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
There are two communities who do not trust each other, each with legitimate historical grievances, trying to live in the same place. Every time they get within sight of a possible solution, somebody fucks it up.
There is so much blame to go around it’s hard to know where to start.
There are two communities who do not trust each other, each with legitimate historical grievances, trying to live in the same place. Every time they get within sight of a possible solution, somebody fucks it up.
The communities could probably muddle thru. But both of them have their small cadre of radicals and fanatics, who will only accept the eradication of the other community. They are the ones who repeatedly fuck things up.
Fantasy solution: build a huge stadium. Put the fanatics on the field, armed only with very dull knives. Last man breathing (not last man standing) is the winner. Everyone promises to acknowledge that he was right all along. And then deports him to some tiny isolated island on the edge of the Antarctic Ocean.
The proceeds from the event to be used to rebuild the area.
There are two communities who do not trust each other, each with legitimate historical grievances, trying to live in the same place. Every time they get within sight of a possible solution, somebody fucks it up.
The communities could probably muddle thru. But both of them have their small cadre of radicals and fanatics, who will only accept the eradication of the other community. They are the ones who repeatedly fuck things up.
Fantasy solution: build a huge stadium. Put the fanatics on the field, armed only with very dull knives. Last man breathing (not last man standing) is the winner. Everyone promises to acknowledge that he was right all along. And then deports him to some tiny isolated island on the edge of the Antarctic Ocean.
The proceeds from the event to be used to rebuild the area.
“notorious disease” as in
1) well-known (everyone has at least heard of it, although many may have never seen a victim personally)
2) feared (the very idea of it causes horror).
I get the impression that polio these days has a much greater fear factor attached to it than measles, although the latter in absolute numbers is the bigger killer. Cf. that anti-vaxxers’ * first target after Covid was mandatory vaccination against measles for schoolkids. Anti-vaxxers (here in Germany too) even claim that kids should get the measles and as early as possible because – as they (falsely) claim – the disease is harmless and builds up the immune system, so keeping it from kids would actually be bad. I think in case of polio the fear has a reasonable correlation to the threat while for other diseases perception and actual threat can widely diverge in both directions.
I think the other big (traditional) three ‘notorious’ ones are the plague, leprosy and tuberculosis (cholera following at a significant distance). And I see a general misperception to their actual threat there too. The plague is easily treatable these days, leprosy can be controlled (treatment takes long time) but tuberculosis is a prime candidate for complete resistance to antibiotics. But the latter is not taken seriously anymore by most while the former instill fear even with isolated cases that reach the West (cf. the attempts of the GOP to tie leprosy to illegal immigration).
*I at first typed ant-vaxxers. How does one apply the needle to these armored critters? 😉
“notorious disease” as in
1) well-known (everyone has at least heard of it, although many may have never seen a victim personally)
2) feared (the very idea of it causes horror).
I get the impression that polio these days has a much greater fear factor attached to it than measles, although the latter in absolute numbers is the bigger killer. Cf. that anti-vaxxers’ * first target after Covid was mandatory vaccination against measles for schoolkids. Anti-vaxxers (here in Germany too) even claim that kids should get the measles and as early as possible because – as they (falsely) claim – the disease is harmless and builds up the immune system, so keeping it from kids would actually be bad. I think in case of polio the fear has a reasonable correlation to the threat while for other diseases perception and actual threat can widely diverge in both directions.
I think the other big (traditional) three ‘notorious’ ones are the plague, leprosy and tuberculosis (cholera following at a significant distance). And I see a general misperception to their actual threat there too. The plague is easily treatable these days, leprosy can be controlled (treatment takes long time) but tuberculosis is a prime candidate for complete resistance to antibiotics. But the latter is not taken seriously anymore by most while the former instill fear even with isolated cases that reach the West (cf. the attempts of the GOP to tie leprosy to illegal immigration).
*I at first typed ant-vaxxers. How does one apply the needle to these armored critters? 😉
My anti-vaxx family members absolutely believe that the measles vaccine was not the reason why measles stopped being a public health concern. They’d like to make that claim about polio as well, except that they have a close family friend who contracted polio as a child, so they tread lightly around the edges of that particular disease.
None of it has a single iota of scientific legitimacy. It’s all just conspiracy theory thinking bumping up against local community necessities.
My anti-vaxx family members absolutely believe that the measles vaccine was not the reason why measles stopped being a public health concern. They’d like to make that claim about polio as well, except that they have a close family friend who contracted polio as a child, so they tread lightly around the edges of that particular disease.
None of it has a single iota of scientific legitimacy. It’s all just conspiracy theory thinking bumping up against local community necessities.
I think the problem is deeper than some small number of fanatics in each community. It may start out with fanatics, almost by definition, but then the fanaticism takes root. And people embrace myths where their side is the morally perfect victim or at worst make make a few mistakes but the other side is pure evil. It is safe to say those attitudes almost completely dominate on both sides. But one side has most of the power.
And it is an attitude that dominates American political culture when it comes to foreign policy. I know a few of you think I am unhinged or extreme in my attitude towards Biden and most US politicians, but they really do see themselves, not as victims, but as the Good Guys by definition. They are the leaders of the free world against tyranny and oppression and terrorism and yet here they are, supplying weapons they know beyond any doubt will be dropped on civilians. I think ther reaction when the ICC prosecutor requested indictments of both Israeli and Hamas leaders was in some sense sincere. They really think it is absurd that Western leaders, in this case people they arm, could be guilty of war crimes like some nasty terrorist.
This is fanaticism and it isn’t okay just because one finds this is a universal attitude amongst powerful people. That is exactly the point. Our powerful people are fanatics. They can do terrible things and feel they are the good guys.
I used to say that Assad in Syria was reacting exactly as Israel would in a similar situation. The Syrian government wasn’t just facing pro democracy demonstrators. It started that way, but the armed rebels were Islamists. Hezbollah and Hamas were on opposite sides. The armed opposition, not just ISIS ( which constituted a third side) were fanatics even if romanticized by the West. Imagine a situation where the West armed Hamas.
And Assad and his Russian allies reacted with torture, massacres and carpet bombing. And Assad had popular support from ethnic communities who see more afraid of a rebel victory than of Assad. It should sound familiar. I didn’t expect my analogy— I made this exact one repeatedly to friends of mine repeatedly — would come so literally true.
Assad lived in Britain. I don’t think he is that much different from the Western figures who denounced him.
We ought to do better than this. We shouldn’t accept that our politicians are above the laws that are used to prosecute terrorists or dictators, as though by definition our side can’t do terrible things. And even aside from international law, Blinken lied to Congress and Biden is only pretending to abide by the Leahy Law.
Google the Dahiya doctrine sometime. All of Israel’s actions are in accord with it. It is no dfferent from how Russia behaved in Syria and literally no one has bombed civilian areas as intensely as Israel in the past 20 years.
I think the problem is deeper than some small number of fanatics in each community. It may start out with fanatics, almost by definition, but then the fanaticism takes root. And people embrace myths where their side is the morally perfect victim or at worst make make a few mistakes but the other side is pure evil. It is safe to say those attitudes almost completely dominate on both sides. But one side has most of the power.
And it is an attitude that dominates American political culture when it comes to foreign policy. I know a few of you think I am unhinged or extreme in my attitude towards Biden and most US politicians, but they really do see themselves, not as victims, but as the Good Guys by definition. They are the leaders of the free world against tyranny and oppression and terrorism and yet here they are, supplying weapons they know beyond any doubt will be dropped on civilians. I think ther reaction when the ICC prosecutor requested indictments of both Israeli and Hamas leaders was in some sense sincere. They really think it is absurd that Western leaders, in this case people they arm, could be guilty of war crimes like some nasty terrorist.
This is fanaticism and it isn’t okay just because one finds this is a universal attitude amongst powerful people. That is exactly the point. Our powerful people are fanatics. They can do terrible things and feel they are the good guys.
I used to say that Assad in Syria was reacting exactly as Israel would in a similar situation. The Syrian government wasn’t just facing pro democracy demonstrators. It started that way, but the armed rebels were Islamists. Hezbollah and Hamas were on opposite sides. The armed opposition, not just ISIS ( which constituted a third side) were fanatics even if romanticized by the West. Imagine a situation where the West armed Hamas.
And Assad and his Russian allies reacted with torture, massacres and carpet bombing. And Assad had popular support from ethnic communities who see more afraid of a rebel victory than of Assad. It should sound familiar. I didn’t expect my analogy— I made this exact one repeatedly to friends of mine repeatedly — would come so literally true.
Assad lived in Britain. I don’t think he is that much different from the Western figures who denounced him.
We ought to do better than this. We shouldn’t accept that our politicians are above the laws that are used to prosecute terrorists or dictators, as though by definition our side can’t do terrible things. And even aside from international law, Blinken lied to Congress and Biden is only pretending to abide by the Leahy Law.
Google the Dahiya doctrine sometime. All of Israel’s actions are in accord with it. It is no dfferent from how Russia behaved in Syria and literally no one has bombed civilian areas as intensely as Israel in the past 20 years.
From Rashida Tlaib’s Twitter account—
Our residents keep booking those “available flights,” and they are canceled repeatedly, and guess what? The cost of airfare for the one available commercial flight is $8,000. When I told the
@StateDept
about the cost barrier, their reply is “we will provide them with a loan.”
————————-
People are pointing out that the US provided charter flights to get US citizens out of Israel last October if they chose to leave, but the danger was from Hamas invaders or rockets. In this case it is only from US supplied bombs in air raids that destroy entire city blocks, so we will give you a loan.
From Rashida Tlaib’s Twitter account—
Our residents keep booking those “available flights,” and they are canceled repeatedly, and guess what? The cost of airfare for the one available commercial flight is $8,000. When I told the
@StateDept
about the cost barrier, their reply is “we will provide them with a loan.”
————————-
People are pointing out that the US provided charter flights to get US citizens out of Israel last October if they chose to leave, but the danger was from Hamas invaders or rockets. In this case it is only from US supplied bombs in air raids that destroy entire city blocks, so we will give you a loan.
The part below the horizontal dashed line was me, not Tlaib.
The part below the horizontal dashed line was me, not Tlaib.
I know a few of you think I am unhinged or extreme in my attitude towards Biden and most US politicians,
Definitely not unhinged. Maybe extreme, in that your expectations of how politicians and leaders should behave seem unknown in leaders anywhere in the world. But on the side of the angels, for sure.
they really do see themselves, not as victims, but as the Good Guys by definition. They are the leaders of the free world against tyranny and oppression and terrorism and yet here they are, supplying weapons they know beyond any doubt will be dropped on civilians
This is all absolutely true. But, like your “lesser evil” thinking on the election, I guess a lot of people here (certainly me) think they are, if not the Good Guys, a lesser evil than all the others. Certainly in domestic policies, which I know you acknowledge about Biden. And not him alone: I can’t think of a single leader of the “democratic West” who enriches himself corruptly and obscenely at the expense of his people – with the possible exception of Trump. And where foreign policy is concerned, I do think that the intricate web of alliances, and possible repercussions of their rupture with consequent opening up of pathways for tyrants to walk through, entail such complex calculations that what seems the obviously right thing to do looks different when leaders are fully informed. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. But it is like the old trolleycar thought experiment, maybe you have to be prepared to kill x number of people (or have them die by your actions) in order to avoid the killing of 100 x.
I know a few of you think I am unhinged or extreme in my attitude towards Biden and most US politicians,
Definitely not unhinged. Maybe extreme, in that your expectations of how politicians and leaders should behave seem unknown in leaders anywhere in the world. But on the side of the angels, for sure.
they really do see themselves, not as victims, but as the Good Guys by definition. They are the leaders of the free world against tyranny and oppression and terrorism and yet here they are, supplying weapons they know beyond any doubt will be dropped on civilians
This is all absolutely true. But, like your “lesser evil” thinking on the election, I guess a lot of people here (certainly me) think they are, if not the Good Guys, a lesser evil than all the others. Certainly in domestic policies, which I know you acknowledge about Biden. And not him alone: I can’t think of a single leader of the “democratic West” who enriches himself corruptly and obscenely at the expense of his people – with the possible exception of Trump. And where foreign policy is concerned, I do think that the intricate web of alliances, and possible repercussions of their rupture with consequent opening up of pathways for tyrants to walk through, entail such complex calculations that what seems the obviously right thing to do looks different when leaders are fully informed. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. But it is like the old trolleycar thought experiment, maybe you have to be prepared to kill x number of people (or have them die by your actions) in order to avoid the killing of 100 x.
“ do think that the intricate web of alliances, and possible repercussions of their rupture with consequent opening up of pathways for tyrants to walk through, entail such complex calculations that what seems the obviously right thing to do looks different when leaders are fully informed. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. But it is like the old trolleycar thought experiment, maybe you have to be prepared to kill x number of people (or have them die by your actions) in order to avoid the killing of 100 x.”
Totally disagree. The burden of proof is on the person supplying the bombs or dropping the bombs to justify what they are doing and only in the most extreme circumstances could that be done. Every leader says they are doing the right thing. They will always say there are “ complex calculations”.
We have laws on the conduct of war. Israel is flagrantly violating them. We have laws about supplying weapons to countries that violate the laws of war. Biden is violating them. We have laws about lying to Congress about these circumstances. Blinken violated them.
We don’t have the rule of law in this country. We have powerful people who squash human beings like bugs and expect to be praised for their empathy and decency. Biden had the extraordinary gall to say last July that nobody had done more for Palestinians than he had. Given what Gaza looks like, what sort of grotesque gibbering fool say something like that? Trump would. Biden did.
So no, I don’t think Biden is some genius playing 11 d chess. I think he is an idiot. There was an article in politico last fall that said he was patting himself on the back for his wisdom in embracing Bibi and also thinking that his careful management of the Gaza crisis would make him look good in the campaign.
Calling him an idiot is charitable. But again, it isn’t just about him. It is about people with power who think themselves to be decent by definition, giving themselves permission to inflict massive suffering on innocents. They should show their sincerity by willingly going to jail for the crimes they commit in the name of avoiding bigger disasters.
The philosopher who invented the trolley car example should have been strapped to a track by himself, with 100 other people strapped to the alternative track, and then made the decisions to have himself run over. Always put yourself or someone you care about in the position of the innocent person being killed if one wishes to make that argument. Or imagine yourself facing the family of the victim, alone and unarmed, explaining why you did it.
Let Biden go to Gaza and brag about all he has done for them and why the others had to die.
Anyway, the world sees what Western morality is in practice. It is the morality of any terrorist group.
“ do think that the intricate web of alliances, and possible repercussions of their rupture with consequent opening up of pathways for tyrants to walk through, entail such complex calculations that what seems the obviously right thing to do looks different when leaders are fully informed. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. But it is like the old trolleycar thought experiment, maybe you have to be prepared to kill x number of people (or have them die by your actions) in order to avoid the killing of 100 x.”
Totally disagree. The burden of proof is on the person supplying the bombs or dropping the bombs to justify what they are doing and only in the most extreme circumstances could that be done. Every leader says they are doing the right thing. They will always say there are “ complex calculations”.
We have laws on the conduct of war. Israel is flagrantly violating them. We have laws about supplying weapons to countries that violate the laws of war. Biden is violating them. We have laws about lying to Congress about these circumstances. Blinken violated them.
We don’t have the rule of law in this country. We have powerful people who squash human beings like bugs and expect to be praised for their empathy and decency. Biden had the extraordinary gall to say last July that nobody had done more for Palestinians than he had. Given what Gaza looks like, what sort of grotesque gibbering fool say something like that? Trump would. Biden did.
So no, I don’t think Biden is some genius playing 11 d chess. I think he is an idiot. There was an article in politico last fall that said he was patting himself on the back for his wisdom in embracing Bibi and also thinking that his careful management of the Gaza crisis would make him look good in the campaign.
Calling him an idiot is charitable. But again, it isn’t just about him. It is about people with power who think themselves to be decent by definition, giving themselves permission to inflict massive suffering on innocents. They should show their sincerity by willingly going to jail for the crimes they commit in the name of avoiding bigger disasters.
The philosopher who invented the trolley car example should have been strapped to a track by himself, with 100 other people strapped to the alternative track, and then made the decisions to have himself run over. Always put yourself or someone you care about in the position of the innocent person being killed if one wishes to make that argument. Or imagine yourself facing the family of the victim, alone and unarmed, explaining why you did it.
Let Biden go to Gaza and brag about all he has done for them and why the others had to die.
Anyway, the world sees what Western morality is in practice. It is the morality of any terrorist group.
Here is the official Harris statement about the killing of Nasrallah. Biden’s statement is almost the same but a bit longer—
————-
Hassan Nasrallah was a terrorist with American blood on his hands. Across decades, his leadership of Hezbollah destabilized the Middle East and led to the killing of countless innocent people in Lebanon, Israel, Syria, and around the world. Today, Hezbollah’s victims have a measure of justice.
I have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel. I will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.
President Biden and I do not want to see conflict in the Middle East escalate into a broader regional war. We have been working on a diplomatic solution along the Israel-Lebanon border so that people can safely return home on both sides of that border. Diplomacy remains the best path forward to protect civilians and achieve lasting stability in the region.
——-
Not one word about the people in the destroyed buildings who died. This is an endorsement of the air strike. A measure of justice. One country has the right to defend itself. Palestinians and others might get some kind of happy ending, those that survive, when the godlike rulers of the United States and Israel generously decide to grant them this using a process called “ diplomacy” that involves a lot of talking while we kill lots and lots of children. And bombs. Lots of bombs for justice dispensing. Eventually we will stop and then maybe we can talk some more.
And I am not crying for Nasrallah. I just don’t think he was any worse than Western officials.
Here is the official Harris statement about the killing of Nasrallah. Biden’s statement is almost the same but a bit longer—
————-
Hassan Nasrallah was a terrorist with American blood on his hands. Across decades, his leadership of Hezbollah destabilized the Middle East and led to the killing of countless innocent people in Lebanon, Israel, Syria, and around the world. Today, Hezbollah’s victims have a measure of justice.
I have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel. I will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.
President Biden and I do not want to see conflict in the Middle East escalate into a broader regional war. We have been working on a diplomatic solution along the Israel-Lebanon border so that people can safely return home on both sides of that border. Diplomacy remains the best path forward to protect civilians and achieve lasting stability in the region.
——-
Not one word about the people in the destroyed buildings who died. This is an endorsement of the air strike. A measure of justice. One country has the right to defend itself. Palestinians and others might get some kind of happy ending, those that survive, when the godlike rulers of the United States and Israel generously decide to grant them this using a process called “ diplomacy” that involves a lot of talking while we kill lots and lots of children. And bombs. Lots of bombs for justice dispensing. Eventually we will stop and then maybe we can talk some more.
And I am not crying for Nasrallah. I just don’t think he was any worse than Western officials.
the world sees what Western morality is in practice. It is the morality of any terrorist group.
Just as a thought experiment, which governments (and their behavior) would not fit that of a terrorist group? Preferable limited to those with the capacity to behave badly. But don’t feel like that’s a hard and fast requirement,
the world sees what Western morality is in practice. It is the morality of any terrorist group.
Just as a thought experiment, which governments (and their behavior) would not fit that of a terrorist group? Preferable limited to those with the capacity to behave badly. But don’t feel like that’s a hard and fast requirement,
Any government which doesn’t support terrorism or war crimes would fit the bill. I don’t have a list. So is the argument that we can supply bombs to destroy Gaza because that’s what powerful people do? Okay, but I would be fine if we just stopped using moralistic language to justify our foreign policy decisions. Stop the gibbering about terrorism and one country’s right to defend itself. Or use the language, but be honest. Or, just as many or most countries used to practice slavery and then people said “ we should stop doing this”, we should stop assuming we have the right to support war criminals. Wouldn’t that be a nice change of pace, , to be what we claim to be.
Real life trolley problem— these are common in war. My favorite would, be the Battle off Samar, where due to Admiral Halsey’s blunder a Japanese fleet of battleships, cruisers, and destroyers came upon a small American fleet of destroyers, destroyer escorts and escort carriers. No carrier of any sort is ever supposed to be in gun range of an enemy fleet and escort carriers are slow, so this was a freaking disaster. The American admiral on the scene, I think, ordered the destroyers and destroyer escorts to attack the Japanese fleet, which was basically condemning many or most of them to death to give the bulk of the men a chance to escape. It worked. But of course that is war and people on occasion, preferably very rare occasions or something has gone wrong, know they are going to be called upon to do something heroic and possibly suicidal.
I have always wondered why that hasn’t been made into a Hollywood movie because it seems like something a scriptwriter made up but it actually happened. My guess is that you need Navy cooperation and maybe they wouldn’t want Halsey looking bad. He was a great admiral early in the war but made a few mistakes later. Or maybe nobody has thought of imaking a movie out of it, which is strange.
Not really the same as saying “Well, I gotta keep giving Bibi bombs to kill civilians because even though I claim I don’t want him doing this, he won’t stop so I will give him more bombs and leak stories about how upset I am.”
Any government which doesn’t support terrorism or war crimes would fit the bill. I don’t have a list. So is the argument that we can supply bombs to destroy Gaza because that’s what powerful people do? Okay, but I would be fine if we just stopped using moralistic language to justify our foreign policy decisions. Stop the gibbering about terrorism and one country’s right to defend itself. Or use the language, but be honest. Or, just as many or most countries used to practice slavery and then people said “ we should stop doing this”, we should stop assuming we have the right to support war criminals. Wouldn’t that be a nice change of pace, , to be what we claim to be.
Real life trolley problem— these are common in war. My favorite would, be the Battle off Samar, where due to Admiral Halsey’s blunder a Japanese fleet of battleships, cruisers, and destroyers came upon a small American fleet of destroyers, destroyer escorts and escort carriers. No carrier of any sort is ever supposed to be in gun range of an enemy fleet and escort carriers are slow, so this was a freaking disaster. The American admiral on the scene, I think, ordered the destroyers and destroyer escorts to attack the Japanese fleet, which was basically condemning many or most of them to death to give the bulk of the men a chance to escape. It worked. But of course that is war and people on occasion, preferably very rare occasions or something has gone wrong, know they are going to be called upon to do something heroic and possibly suicidal.
I have always wondered why that hasn’t been made into a Hollywood movie because it seems like something a scriptwriter made up but it actually happened. My guess is that you need Navy cooperation and maybe they wouldn’t want Halsey looking bad. He was a great admiral early in the war but made a few mistakes later. Or maybe nobody has thought of imaking a movie out of it, which is strange.
Not really the same as saying “Well, I gotta keep giving Bibi bombs to kill civilians because even though I claim I don’t want him doing this, he won’t stop so I will give him more bombs and leak stories about how upset I am.”
We have laws on the conduct of war. Israel is flagrantly violating them. We have laws about supplying weapons to countries that violate the laws of war. Biden is violating them. We have laws about lying to Congress about these circumstances. Blinken violated them.
No argument there, Donald. I don’t think you’re interested in praise, but moral clarity such as yours is necessary. It’s just hard to see how action based on it would play out in the real world, that’s all. And maybe that’s because nobody (as far as I know) has ever demonstrated it. Maybe Jimmy Carter in certain ways. And unfortunately, that turned out to be electorally unsuccessful. And as I have always said: you have to be in power to actually do anything, and particularly anything good.
We have laws on the conduct of war. Israel is flagrantly violating them. We have laws about supplying weapons to countries that violate the laws of war. Biden is violating them. We have laws about lying to Congress about these circumstances. Blinken violated them.
No argument there, Donald. I don’t think you’re interested in praise, but moral clarity such as yours is necessary. It’s just hard to see how action based on it would play out in the real world, that’s all. And maybe that’s because nobody (as far as I know) has ever demonstrated it. Maybe Jimmy Carter in certain ways. And unfortunately, that turned out to be electorally unsuccessful. And as I have always said: you have to be in power to actually do anything, and particularly anything good.
And of course I know you know this, Donald, but the whole point of the trolleycar question is that there are only 2 choices, and neither allows for your suggested one of personal sacrifice/heroism. So you’re right, real life war examples (and possibly some others) can entail personal heroism, but in the trolleycar problem that route is not available. The fact that it is hypothetical does not make it useless to contemplate.
Always put yourself or someone you care about in the position of the innocent person being killed if one wishes to make that argument.
The moral person should certainly think about it, but how does that help? You are still in the position of having to save x lives, rather than 100 x. It is just one more example of that most hated conundrum: the greater evil or the lesser evil.
And of course I know you know this, Donald, but the whole point of the trolleycar question is that there are only 2 choices, and neither allows for your suggested one of personal sacrifice/heroism. So you’re right, real life war examples (and possibly some others) can entail personal heroism, but in the trolleycar problem that route is not available. The fact that it is hypothetical does not make it useless to contemplate.
Always put yourself or someone you care about in the position of the innocent person being killed if one wishes to make that argument.
The moral person should certainly think about it, but how does that help? You are still in the position of having to save x lives, rather than 100 x. It is just one more example of that most hated conundrum: the greater evil or the lesser evil.
I don’t think that Biden, or Harris, or any person who is put into that position to make these sorts of strategic decisions, will ever take the sort of moral stance that activists are asking for. I don’t think that they can. It’s not about brilliance and 11-dimensional chess or anything like that. I simply don’t think that any current Western leader has the leverage to shift Israel’s policy in the short term. I’m down for all of the steps we have discussed here WRT Israel, but even if those steps were to be taken right now, Bibi could still push forward with his attacks. In all likelihood that is what Bibi would do, even ramping up his efforts to assert Israel’s independence, and to pile pressure on the current administration while we are close to a pivotal electoral moment.
Bibi ain’t gonna blink before November. He’s going to push this as hard and as far as he dares while Biden and Harris try to keep the situation in the region (and their own position at home) steady enough to not tip a bunch of disaffected voters towards Trump.
It’s not that they are playing a genius game of chess. They don’t ever get to actually play a full game of chess. No world leader does. They inherit a board position that is the result of a bunch of conflicting strategies at use by the people who came before them, and they have to try to improve our board position for however many turns they get agency over.
And with Biden especially, I think he’s playing a conservative and defensive game because he’s afraid the whole board is going to be overturned if he’s not careful. And now he’s also trying hard not to shift anything too radically before he has to hand it off to Harris, because he doesn’t want to saddle her with a bigger mess than what we already have.
I spend a lot of time thinking about the plight of people caught in terrible conditions with terrible choices to be made. I think it is morally important to try to get my students to think about these situations, too, because empathy and cooperation are the only path through the situation we have built for ourselves. In the long run, our decisions have to align – on balance – with those two principles.
I don’t think, however, that empathy and cooperation are always the best tactical decision. What happens when we are not yet in a position to win, but we are definitely, catastrophically, in a position to lose if we try to act morally in that moment?
This is the reason why I am a teacher, and not a politician. I don’t want to be in a position where I cannot choose to act in accordance with what I belive to be morally correct. But I recognize that the world often is arrayed in ways that run counter to moral justice, and that sometimes we have to hold our moral cards longer than we wish in order to have a chance to make a positive difference. The people who make those choices cannot think the way that I do and still do what is required to stretch the runway of possibility a bit longer so that we can give hope a chance to land.
I don’t think that Biden, or Harris, or any person who is put into that position to make these sorts of strategic decisions, will ever take the sort of moral stance that activists are asking for. I don’t think that they can. It’s not about brilliance and 11-dimensional chess or anything like that. I simply don’t think that any current Western leader has the leverage to shift Israel’s policy in the short term. I’m down for all of the steps we have discussed here WRT Israel, but even if those steps were to be taken right now, Bibi could still push forward with his attacks. In all likelihood that is what Bibi would do, even ramping up his efforts to assert Israel’s independence, and to pile pressure on the current administration while we are close to a pivotal electoral moment.
Bibi ain’t gonna blink before November. He’s going to push this as hard and as far as he dares while Biden and Harris try to keep the situation in the region (and their own position at home) steady enough to not tip a bunch of disaffected voters towards Trump.
It’s not that they are playing a genius game of chess. They don’t ever get to actually play a full game of chess. No world leader does. They inherit a board position that is the result of a bunch of conflicting strategies at use by the people who came before them, and they have to try to improve our board position for however many turns they get agency over.
And with Biden especially, I think he’s playing a conservative and defensive game because he’s afraid the whole board is going to be overturned if he’s not careful. And now he’s also trying hard not to shift anything too radically before he has to hand it off to Harris, because he doesn’t want to saddle her with a bigger mess than what we already have.
I spend a lot of time thinking about the plight of people caught in terrible conditions with terrible choices to be made. I think it is morally important to try to get my students to think about these situations, too, because empathy and cooperation are the only path through the situation we have built for ourselves. In the long run, our decisions have to align – on balance – with those two principles.
I don’t think, however, that empathy and cooperation are always the best tactical decision. What happens when we are not yet in a position to win, but we are definitely, catastrophically, in a position to lose if we try to act morally in that moment?
This is the reason why I am a teacher, and not a politician. I don’t want to be in a position where I cannot choose to act in accordance with what I belive to be morally correct. But I recognize that the world often is arrayed in ways that run counter to moral justice, and that sometimes we have to hold our moral cards longer than we wish in order to have a chance to make a positive difference. The people who make those choices cannot think the way that I do and still do what is required to stretch the runway of possibility a bit longer so that we can give hope a chance to land.
I completely agree with nous. And I should have made clear, that in no way do I think Biden, or indeed anybody else, is playing genius 11 dimensional chess:
They don’t ever get to actually play a full game of chess. No world leader does. They inherit a board position that is the result of a bunch of conflicting strategies at use by the people who came before them, and they have to try to improve our board position for however many turns they get agency over.
Exactly right.
I completely agree with nous. And I should have made clear, that in no way do I think Biden, or indeed anybody else, is playing genius 11 dimensional chess:
They don’t ever get to actually play a full game of chess. No world leader does. They inherit a board position that is the result of a bunch of conflicting strategies at use by the people who came before them, and they have to try to improve our board position for however many turns they get agency over.
Exactly right.
nous said it a lot better than I was going to, in a comment that I deleted before posting.
Which was basically a question: how many innocents dying is an “acceptable price” to reduce the probability of Trump winning from 50% to 5%?
Which is a lot more quantitative than these choices ever are, in reality. But that’s the kind of calculation that we’re talking about.
nous said it a lot better than I was going to, in a comment that I deleted before posting.
Which was basically a question: how many innocents dying is an “acceptable price” to reduce the probability of Trump winning from 50% to 5%?
Which is a lot more quantitative than these choices ever are, in reality. But that’s the kind of calculation that we’re talking about.
This is driving me absolutely nuts, so I will say this and do the laundry.
Biden put himself into this position. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-obama-divide-closely-support-israel-rcna127107
I didn’t look it up, but he has poured massive amounts of munitions into Israel since Oct 7. Israeli generals have said our aid is crucial.
If he genuinely put any priority on Israel’s carpet bombing tactics, he would have cut off the spigot. He has had 11 months and all he did was cut off one shipment of 2000 lb bombs. He just put through another 8.7 billion dollars of aid. Yeah, at this point Bibi has him over a barrel, given that November is coming up. Biden put himself there.
Also, if it weren’t for the domestic political risk, I don’t think Biden actually disagrees much with Bibi. If Bibi destroys Hamas and gratify weakens Hezbollah and Iran stays contained, I think he sees that as a win and the civilian casualties are a PR problem to be finessed. It is embarrassing that Israel no longer pretends to care about a two state solution, but that too is a PR problem so long as there is no effective military force threatening Israel.
You guys keep talking about Biden like he is balancing tough choices, building up some sort of picture of a President doing his best and while it would make a good West Wing episode, the evidence is that the Administration is not in reality upset with much of anything Bibi has done except on PR grounds. He is acting concerned for votes. Initially he thought he would be perceived as some wise foreign policy leader, sort of like Bush after 9/11, the calm resolute guy coming to the aid of our ally. His initial reaction to reports of civilian deaths in large numbers was to sneer that he didn’t believe numbers coming from Gaza and Kirby dutifully echoed his boss. That didn’t go over well, so he changed. It took him months and the campaign season for him to switch from openly opposing a ceasefire to “ working tirelessly” for a ceasefire, which meant for months pretending that Israel was on board and Hamas was not, before Bibi just made that impossible since he has his own base to play to.
This isn’t some moral issue that has Biden worried. He doesn’t care how many civilians die— he supplies the weapons that kill them. He cares only that the bad PR might lose votes in crucial states, so he has to fake it. So if you say he is walking a tightrope, yes, but only a domestic political one.
Do you really think a guy who says “ Nobody has done more for the Palestinians than me” actually feels empathy for them? To me it shows a level of deranged narcissism and ego and sheer blindness that would be worthy of Trump. I mean, even someone faking compassion should have thought to himself “ Can I really say that given what Gaza looks like now, given that people in Michigan have lost up to 100 members of their extended family?” You can’t say anything that could explain that statement as showing empathy. It is the exact opposite of empathy.
Biden has no incentive to be a decent human being on this issue because there is insufficient political pressure for him to be one. And there won’t be sufficient pressure if people make excuses for political leaders. There are very few Presidents who deserve empathy, who probably really do agonize over their choices. Mr. “ Nobody has done more for Palestinians” is not one of them.
Gftnc— Point to the 100 times as many potential victims that justify murdering over ten thousand children. Biden had to support Bibi as he committed mass murder or something bad will happen. The burden of proof is on the war criminal to do that and yes, if people make such decisions they had damn well better feel the moral weight and be very very clear who the other 100 x people are.
I hate that stupid thought experiment for the same reason I hate the ticking time bomb one. It is artificially contrived BS meant to justify something obscene with n imaginary clear cut alternative that is worse.
This is driving me absolutely nuts, so I will say this and do the laundry.
Biden put himself into this position. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-obama-divide-closely-support-israel-rcna127107
I didn’t look it up, but he has poured massive amounts of munitions into Israel since Oct 7. Israeli generals have said our aid is crucial.
If he genuinely put any priority on Israel’s carpet bombing tactics, he would have cut off the spigot. He has had 11 months and all he did was cut off one shipment of 2000 lb bombs. He just put through another 8.7 billion dollars of aid. Yeah, at this point Bibi has him over a barrel, given that November is coming up. Biden put himself there.
Also, if it weren’t for the domestic political risk, I don’t think Biden actually disagrees much with Bibi. If Bibi destroys Hamas and gratify weakens Hezbollah and Iran stays contained, I think he sees that as a win and the civilian casualties are a PR problem to be finessed. It is embarrassing that Israel no longer pretends to care about a two state solution, but that too is a PR problem so long as there is no effective military force threatening Israel.
You guys keep talking about Biden like he is balancing tough choices, building up some sort of picture of a President doing his best and while it would make a good West Wing episode, the evidence is that the Administration is not in reality upset with much of anything Bibi has done except on PR grounds. He is acting concerned for votes. Initially he thought he would be perceived as some wise foreign policy leader, sort of like Bush after 9/11, the calm resolute guy coming to the aid of our ally. His initial reaction to reports of civilian deaths in large numbers was to sneer that he didn’t believe numbers coming from Gaza and Kirby dutifully echoed his boss. That didn’t go over well, so he changed. It took him months and the campaign season for him to switch from openly opposing a ceasefire to “ working tirelessly” for a ceasefire, which meant for months pretending that Israel was on board and Hamas was not, before Bibi just made that impossible since he has his own base to play to.
This isn’t some moral issue that has Biden worried. He doesn’t care how many civilians die— he supplies the weapons that kill them. He cares only that the bad PR might lose votes in crucial states, so he has to fake it. So if you say he is walking a tightrope, yes, but only a domestic political one.
Do you really think a guy who says “ Nobody has done more for the Palestinians than me” actually feels empathy for them? To me it shows a level of deranged narcissism and ego and sheer blindness that would be worthy of Trump. I mean, even someone faking compassion should have thought to himself “ Can I really say that given what Gaza looks like now, given that people in Michigan have lost up to 100 members of their extended family?” You can’t say anything that could explain that statement as showing empathy. It is the exact opposite of empathy.
Biden has no incentive to be a decent human being on this issue because there is insufficient political pressure for him to be one. And there won’t be sufficient pressure if people make excuses for political leaders. There are very few Presidents who deserve empathy, who probably really do agonize over their choices. Mr. “ Nobody has done more for Palestinians” is not one of them.
Gftnc— Point to the 100 times as many potential victims that justify murdering over ten thousand children. Biden had to support Bibi as he committed mass murder or something bad will happen. The burden of proof is on the war criminal to do that and yes, if people make such decisions they had damn well better feel the moral weight and be very very clear who the other 100 x people are.
I hate that stupid thought experiment for the same reason I hate the ticking time bomb one. It is artificially contrived BS meant to justify something obscene with n imaginary clear cut alternative that is worse.
And then there is the questions of which side gets to suffer how much. Those are harder to balance because often the side that has already done most of the suffering gets their suffering prolonged because their suffering is of less tactical and political importance than lesser suffering somewhere else.
I’m sure we all have examples close to hand in our thoughts.
The eye of justice is bound to get blackened in such a world. And yet, we have to find reasons to keep demanding, and expanding, justice, and learn to work despite the pain of moral injury.
And then there is the questions of which side gets to suffer how much. Those are harder to balance because often the side that has already done most of the suffering gets their suffering prolonged because their suffering is of less tactical and political importance than lesser suffering somewhere else.
I’m sure we all have examples close to hand in our thoughts.
The eye of justice is bound to get blackened in such a world. And yet, we have to find reasons to keep demanding, and expanding, justice, and learn to work despite the pain of moral injury.
Donald – when Biden said that “Nobody has done more for Palestinians:”
-do you think that he is speaking candidly, for himself, advocating for his own actions, or that he is speaking strategically, with particular audiences and contexts in play?
-what audience(s) do you think he is speaking to in that moment, and for what purpose(s)?
My own best guess (based on a few years experience doing crisis communications work for corporations) is that the actual Palestinians who are upset with him are outside of the top three priority audiences that he is trying to navigate through when he makes a statement like this. Again, compartmentalization.
Donald – when Biden said that “Nobody has done more for Palestinians:”
-do you think that he is speaking candidly, for himself, advocating for his own actions, or that he is speaking strategically, with particular audiences and contexts in play?
-what audience(s) do you think he is speaking to in that moment, and for what purpose(s)?
My own best guess (based on a few years experience doing crisis communications work for corporations) is that the actual Palestinians who are upset with him are outside of the top three priority audiences that he is trying to navigate through when he makes a statement like this. Again, compartmentalization.
Nothing justifies killing ten thousand children. But, just as one hypothetical possibility (the first that springs to my mind):
Biden refuses to arm the Israelis, Trump boasts about how no-one has done more for Israel than he has, and wins the election. It is far from impossible that 100,000 children or a million, in the US or elsewhere in the world (Ukraine? Poland if Putin marches in? the possibilities are legion), die as a result of a second Trump presidency. Half a million Americans died of Covid during his administration, for example, while he said it would disappear “like a miracle”.
That is only one of a myriad hypothetical possibilities. I am not defending Biden, and certainly not the Israelis. But your counsel of moral certainty cannot survive the real world, where all these choices are between innumerable greater and lesser evils.
And, for clarity, I am not suggesting that Biden cannot and should not be seriously criticised. It is just that the tone of some of the criticism ignores the fact that he could possibly be acting this way for less narcissistic and callous motives than you ascribe to him.
Nothing justifies killing ten thousand children. But, just as one hypothetical possibility (the first that springs to my mind):
Biden refuses to arm the Israelis, Trump boasts about how no-one has done more for Israel than he has, and wins the election. It is far from impossible that 100,000 children or a million, in the US or elsewhere in the world (Ukraine? Poland if Putin marches in? the possibilities are legion), die as a result of a second Trump presidency. Half a million Americans died of Covid during his administration, for example, while he said it would disappear “like a miracle”.
That is only one of a myriad hypothetical possibilities. I am not defending Biden, and certainly not the Israelis. But your counsel of moral certainty cannot survive the real world, where all these choices are between innumerable greater and lesser evils.
And, for clarity, I am not suggesting that Biden cannot and should not be seriously criticised. It is just that the tone of some of the criticism ignores the fact that he could possibly be acting this way for less narcissistic and callous motives than you ascribe to him.
We’ve just gotten a new Prime Minister here in Japan, and despite it being a crowded field, it was a remarkably low-key contest, as compared with the US and UK. I think one reason is that Japan/Japanese automatically compensate for what nous talks about just above, about audiences and messages. Speaking from a ‘western’ perspective (which is really a US/UK one), there is a notion of a unitary person and if there are contradictions between statements, there is a lie to be uncovered. In Japan, there is an notion that a person has multiple identities and how they express themselves to one group will be different to how they express themselves to another. Sometimes when this happens (and this happens on the personal level as well as the political level), I have to grit my teeth, because it is often used as a way to avoid conflict but to avoid facing up to challenges and maintaining the status quo, (possibly why Japan has been ruled by a single political party for almost the entire postwar period) but I do see the utility.
The current (imo faux) kerfluffle that is riling up the British press is Keir Starmer accepting various gifts or donations from Labour supporters. Some of it is tone deaf (like glasses and clothes) but to me, the same press would do a deep dive as to why a politician doesn’t dress snappily enough. I’d be interested in GftNC’s take on it, here’s a Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/18/keir-starmer-100000-in-tickets-and-gifts-more-than-any-other-recent-party-leader
We’ve just gotten a new Prime Minister here in Japan, and despite it being a crowded field, it was a remarkably low-key contest, as compared with the US and UK. I think one reason is that Japan/Japanese automatically compensate for what nous talks about just above, about audiences and messages. Speaking from a ‘western’ perspective (which is really a US/UK one), there is a notion of a unitary person and if there are contradictions between statements, there is a lie to be uncovered. In Japan, there is an notion that a person has multiple identities and how they express themselves to one group will be different to how they express themselves to another. Sometimes when this happens (and this happens on the personal level as well as the political level), I have to grit my teeth, because it is often used as a way to avoid conflict but to avoid facing up to challenges and maintaining the status quo, (possibly why Japan has been ruled by a single political party for almost the entire postwar period) but I do see the utility.
The current (imo faux) kerfluffle that is riling up the British press is Keir Starmer accepting various gifts or donations from Labour supporters. Some of it is tone deaf (like glasses and clothes) but to me, the same press would do a deep dive as to why a politician doesn’t dress snappily enough. I’d be interested in GftNC’s take on it, here’s a Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/18/keir-starmer-100000-in-tickets-and-gifts-more-than-any-other-recent-party-leader
lj, it’s late here, and I’m now on my phone, so will give you more dtail tomorrow. But briefly, I think accepting the gifts showed bad judgement, but was not against the rules, and pales in significance compared to eg the Tories’ corruption in awarding billions of pounds of contracts for (often faulty) equipment to VIP pals during the pandemic. There’s a concerted attack against Labour going on, which considering they’ve been in power for less than two months and inherited a shambles is really out of order. More tomorrow….
lj, it’s late here, and I’m now on my phone, so will give you more dtail tomorrow. But briefly, I think accepting the gifts showed bad judgement, but was not against the rules, and pales in significance compared to eg the Tories’ corruption in awarding billions of pounds of contracts for (often faulty) equipment to VIP pals during the pandemic. There’s a concerted attack against Labour going on, which considering they’ve been in power for less than two months and inherited a shambles is really out of order. More tomorrow….
I’m not sure how useful it is trying to evaluate a president’s morality and psychology of individual presidents – chances are that simply by virtue of their position none of them will come across as very good human beings.
I would even go further and say that as president you need to have a capability to compartmentalize that would be judged as psychopathic in regular citizens.
What I find more worrying is how the shared moral standards in international relations, the post WW2 consensus and adherence to international law, have been contiunously slipping since the Bush 2 presidency. Now we are basically left with “might makes right” thinking, since most of those purporting to uphold international law have discredited themselves thoroughly.
And judging by what you can grasp from social media, the general public seems to have no idea that international law is supposed to apply to all actors. Most people seem to think simply in terms of in- and out-groups, whereby the latter have no rights whatsoever.
I’m not sure how useful it is trying to evaluate a president’s morality and psychology of individual presidents – chances are that simply by virtue of their position none of them will come across as very good human beings.
I would even go further and say that as president you need to have a capability to compartmentalize that would be judged as psychopathic in regular citizens.
What I find more worrying is how the shared moral standards in international relations, the post WW2 consensus and adherence to international law, have been contiunously slipping since the Bush 2 presidency. Now we are basically left with “might makes right” thinking, since most of those purporting to uphold international law have discredited themselves thoroughly.
And judging by what you can grasp from social media, the general public seems to have no idea that international law is supposed to apply to all actors. Most people seem to think simply in terms of in- and out-groups, whereby the latter have no rights whatsoever.
Sorry, the first sentence should read:
I’m not sure how useful it is to try to evaluate the morality and psychology of individual presidents.
Sorry, the first sentence should read:
I’m not sure how useful it is to try to evaluate the morality and psychology of individual presidents.
Most people seem to think simply in terms of in- and out-groups, whereby the latter have no rights whatsoever.
It’s interesting, for the past 30 years, living in Japan where high barriers for immigrants and a culture that enshrines in-group, I’ve had to gingerly argue with people about why this is backward and it doesn’t ultimately serve the country. Yet now, it seems that the rest of the world is moving to Japan’s default position. It’s disheartening and painful to watch, especially when one assumed (like I did) that Japan should be catching up with the rest of te world rather than foreshadowing it.
Most people seem to think simply in terms of in- and out-groups, whereby the latter have no rights whatsoever.
It’s interesting, for the past 30 years, living in Japan where high barriers for immigrants and a culture that enshrines in-group, I’ve had to gingerly argue with people about why this is backward and it doesn’t ultimately serve the country. Yet now, it seems that the rest of the world is moving to Japan’s default position. It’s disheartening and painful to watch, especially when one assumed (like I did) that Japan should be catching up with the rest of te world rather than foreshadowing it.
A portion of the movie “In Harm’s Way” (1965) includes a highly fictionalized version of the action at Samar, so it hasn’t been ignored by Hollywood.
A portion of the movie “In Harm’s Way” (1965) includes a highly fictionalized version of the action at Samar, so it hasn’t been ignored by Hollywood.
“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” —Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” —Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
for the past 30 years, living in Japan where high barriers for immigrants and a culture that enshrines in-group, I’ve had to gingerly argue with people about why this is backward and it doesn’t ultimately serve the country.
Is there any sign that the Japanese are beginning to figure out that their national demographics are going to require them to accept immigrants if the nation is to survive? Or are the cultural barriers still too high to allow reality to intrude on that subject?
P.S. I note that China has a similar problem. Not yet as advanced, but very real. So far, the government seems to be focused on trying to persuade women to just have more children. But built in cultural misogyny makes persuasion quite difficult.
In both cases, the xenophobia in Europe, let alone the US, seems incredibly mild.
for the past 30 years, living in Japan where high barriers for immigrants and a culture that enshrines in-group, I’ve had to gingerly argue with people about why this is backward and it doesn’t ultimately serve the country.
Is there any sign that the Japanese are beginning to figure out that their national demographics are going to require them to accept immigrants if the nation is to survive? Or are the cultural barriers still too high to allow reality to intrude on that subject?
P.S. I note that China has a similar problem. Not yet as advanced, but very real. So far, the government seems to be focused on trying to persuade women to just have more children. But built in cultural misogyny makes persuasion quite difficult.
In both cases, the xenophobia in Europe, let alone the US, seems incredibly mild.
So far, the government seems to be focused on trying to persuade women to just have more children.
Which could lead to being forced to have children. They had forced abortions in the past. Why not forced pregnancies in the future?
So far, the government seems to be focused on trying to persuade women to just have more children.
Which could lead to being forced to have children. They had forced abortions in the past. Why not forced pregnancies in the future?
lj, on reflection, I don’t have much more to add. Except to say that the campaign against Starmer has several different threads (e.g. against his chief of staff), and looks as if it is coming from the left, and possibly some infighting within his own staff. I only hope that they manage to pull something off soon to stop the rot – it’s very frustrating since I do believe that their approach will eventually undo a lot of the Tory damage, particularly if they succeed in getting a second term (this campaign has seriously damaged their always slightly unstable popularity). As I repeat ad nauseam, you have to be in power to get anything done.
lj, on reflection, I don’t have much more to add. Except to say that the campaign against Starmer has several different threads (e.g. against his chief of staff), and looks as if it is coming from the left, and possibly some infighting within his own staff. I only hope that they manage to pull something off soon to stop the rot – it’s very frustrating since I do believe that their approach will eventually undo a lot of the Tory damage, particularly if they succeed in getting a second term (this campaign has seriously damaged their always slightly unstable popularity). As I repeat ad nauseam, you have to be in power to get anything done.
Oh no! Kris Kristofferson – one of my greatest crushes of all time. And a terrific song writer. RIP
Oh no! Kris Kristofferson – one of my greatest crushes of all time. And a terrific song writer. RIP
Is there any sign that the Japanese are beginning to figure out that their national demographics are going to require them to accept immigrants if the nation is to survive? Or are the cultural barriers still too high to allow reality to intrude on that subject?
I would say that there isn’t, but I don’t know. People make the case and there are a lot more foreigners around. If I were doing south asian languages like Tamil and Sinhala, I would have more than enough informants, cause there are so many getting employed at convenience stores. The weak yen has opened the floodgates for tourists and there is some pushback. But the management of all this seems to work a lot better than what I’m seeing in the West, where any kind of opening allows demagogues to take off.
I’m just posting something about that, I’d welcome discussion there (or here, I’m easy going)
Is there any sign that the Japanese are beginning to figure out that their national demographics are going to require them to accept immigrants if the nation is to survive? Or are the cultural barriers still too high to allow reality to intrude on that subject?
I would say that there isn’t, but I don’t know. People make the case and there are a lot more foreigners around. If I were doing south asian languages like Tamil and Sinhala, I would have more than enough informants, cause there are so many getting employed at convenience stores. The weak yen has opened the floodgates for tourists and there is some pushback. But the management of all this seems to work a lot better than what I’m seeing in the West, where any kind of opening allows demagogues to take off.
I’m just posting something about that, I’d welcome discussion there (or here, I’m easy going)
“ that he could possibly be acting this way for less narcissistic and callous motives than you ascribe to him.”
The evidence is that he is in fact morally blind.. I again can point to his statements, most recently the one in July. Sure, we could fantasize about some other person genuinely torn up because he had to side with Israel— one could imagine a conventional world war where once again we fight alongside sone horrific allies but that is not the case here.
Biden adopted Trump’s dream of trying to build an alliance between Israel, the Saudis and other Arab monarchies against Iran and its alies and that, along with domestic politics, is what motivates him. The civilian deaths are barely even a secondary consideration and if they could be kept on the far back pages of the newspaper and mentioned about as often as Yemen, with virtually no protests that anyone ever heard of, he wouldn’t have to pretend to care. That is the common situation.
As for moral certainty, it is the people who supply bombs to people who drop them on apartment buildings who are showing extraordinary arrogance, yet somehow we are supposed to lean over backwards and imagine that there has to be a good reason for it. The reason is simply that US officials think they have the unquestionable right to do things that they call war crimes when Russia does them.
I watch some of the press conferences where reporters ask about the latest atrocity and the spokespeople simply say the same things each time, which I could quote from memory. Basically, they will ask the Israelis for more information, urge them to do a thorough investigation, blah,blah blah. They know in a week there will be something new and they won’t be asked again about atrocity X and if they are they just say they have nothing new to add. It’s farcical. You can’t possibly watch these things and think any of it means anything. Bibi knows it.
But novakant is right in that the problem is much deeper. We have a political culture where supporting mass murder is normal. We can’t talk about international law because we have no more use for it than the dictators we criticize. Biden said America is back and talks about democracies vs authoritarians but it is delusional.
Nous— he was talking to a reporter from a Black cultural magazine I hadn’t heard of, based in Michigan. I don’t think there was an audience physically present but would have to check. I think he was speaking to people in general. He gets contentious when criticized— weeks before the disastrous debate the WH had some TikTokkers come in order to reach the youth vote and. one asked him ( in a civil tone but it was implicitly critical) and initially he responded in a professional way, and then after speaking to someone else briefly, came back and lost his temper, threatening to toss the guy’s phone as far as he could, bragging that he had a good arm. It was like the golf handicap moment in the Trump debate. Apart from my moral contempt for him, I think he is losing it and people were kidding themselves about that.
But the deeper problem is with our foreign policy establishment, which simply doesn’t think international law applies to the West and cannot imagine a world where a western leader could be put on trial by the ICC. Sinwar, sure, if he is still alive, or Putin if he could be arrested without nuclear war, but Bibi? Let alone our people?
Back when the US debated whether we should join the ICC, Republicans opposed it because they didn’t want our official subjected to its authority. Democrats said there was no danger — we had a functioning court system which meant the ICC would have no reason to step in. Which was ludicrous, but they were only thinking of low ranking soldiers. A Presidential war criminal is unthinkable.
“ that he could possibly be acting this way for less narcissistic and callous motives than you ascribe to him.”
The evidence is that he is in fact morally blind.. I again can point to his statements, most recently the one in July. Sure, we could fantasize about some other person genuinely torn up because he had to side with Israel— one could imagine a conventional world war where once again we fight alongside sone horrific allies but that is not the case here.
Biden adopted Trump’s dream of trying to build an alliance between Israel, the Saudis and other Arab monarchies against Iran and its alies and that, along with domestic politics, is what motivates him. The civilian deaths are barely even a secondary consideration and if they could be kept on the far back pages of the newspaper and mentioned about as often as Yemen, with virtually no protests that anyone ever heard of, he wouldn’t have to pretend to care. That is the common situation.
As for moral certainty, it is the people who supply bombs to people who drop them on apartment buildings who are showing extraordinary arrogance, yet somehow we are supposed to lean over backwards and imagine that there has to be a good reason for it. The reason is simply that US officials think they have the unquestionable right to do things that they call war crimes when Russia does them.
I watch some of the press conferences where reporters ask about the latest atrocity and the spokespeople simply say the same things each time, which I could quote from memory. Basically, they will ask the Israelis for more information, urge them to do a thorough investigation, blah,blah blah. They know in a week there will be something new and they won’t be asked again about atrocity X and if they are they just say they have nothing new to add. It’s farcical. You can’t possibly watch these things and think any of it means anything. Bibi knows it.
But novakant is right in that the problem is much deeper. We have a political culture where supporting mass murder is normal. We can’t talk about international law because we have no more use for it than the dictators we criticize. Biden said America is back and talks about democracies vs authoritarians but it is delusional.
Nous— he was talking to a reporter from a Black cultural magazine I hadn’t heard of, based in Michigan. I don’t think there was an audience physically present but would have to check. I think he was speaking to people in general. He gets contentious when criticized— weeks before the disastrous debate the WH had some TikTokkers come in order to reach the youth vote and. one asked him ( in a civil tone but it was implicitly critical) and initially he responded in a professional way, and then after speaking to someone else briefly, came back and lost his temper, threatening to toss the guy’s phone as far as he could, bragging that he had a good arm. It was like the golf handicap moment in the Trump debate. Apart from my moral contempt for him, I think he is losing it and people were kidding themselves about that.
But the deeper problem is with our foreign policy establishment, which simply doesn’t think international law applies to the West and cannot imagine a world where a western leader could be put on trial by the ICC. Sinwar, sure, if he is still alive, or Putin if he could be arrested without nuclear war, but Bibi? Let alone our people?
Back when the US debated whether we should join the ICC, Republicans opposed it because they didn’t want our official subjected to its authority. Democrats said there was no danger — we had a functioning court system which meant the ICC would have no reason to step in. Which was ludicrous, but they were only thinking of low ranking soldiers. A Presidential war criminal is unthinkable.
Thanks GftNC, for the comment. I got that it was from the media, but didn’t get that it was coming from the left, though I see that a Labour MP has resigned (though Politico says she was a ‘top’ Labour MP?)
https://www.politico.eu/article/rosie-duffield-labour-mp-resign-decry-greed-power-gifts-scandal-waheed-alli-keir-starmer-party/
Thanks GftNC, for the comment. I got that it was from the media, but didn’t get that it was coming from the left, though I see that a Labour MP has resigned (though Politico says she was a ‘top’ Labour MP?)
https://www.politico.eu/article/rosie-duffield-labour-mp-resign-decry-greed-power-gifts-scandal-waheed-alli-keir-starmer-party/
Actually the most recent statement was the official reaction to Nasrallah’s assassination. Absolutely nothing was said about the method. You can watch it online. The explosions are immense. Several apartment buildings are destroyed. Biden and Harris basically applaud Nasrallah’s death as a terrorist leader and say nothing about the civilians. In a way it is refreshing. This is who we are. This is what we support. These are the rules of war as we choose to interpret them.
Perhaps we owe Putin an apology.
Actually the most recent statement was the official reaction to Nasrallah’s assassination. Absolutely nothing was said about the method. You can watch it online. The explosions are immense. Several apartment buildings are destroyed. Biden and Harris basically applaud Nasrallah’s death as a terrorist leader and say nothing about the civilians. In a way it is refreshing. This is who we are. This is what we support. These are the rules of war as we choose to interpret them.
Perhaps we owe Putin an apology.
I had never heard of her before lj and I follow UK politics quite closely. Apparently she has been in a longstanding conflict with the party about trans issues .
Starmer’s acceptance of gifts doesn’t look good though. For me it’s less the money than the thought that he can’t or doesn’t want to afford his own clothes and glasses
I had never heard of her before lj and I follow UK politics quite closely. Apparently she has been in a longstanding conflict with the party about trans issues .
Starmer’s acceptance of gifts doesn’t look good though. For me it’s less the money than the thought that he can’t or doesn’t want to afford his own clothes and glasses
Long piece about Hezbollah from a critic. It is nuanced, a word I sometimes see in the NYT deployed against protestors, but only as a rhetorical weapon and not something they do themselves.
https://www.hauntologies.net/p/hezbollah-10-things-you-need-to-know
Long piece about Hezbollah from a critic. It is nuanced, a word I sometimes see in the NYT deployed against protestors, but only as a rhetorical weapon and not something they do themselves.
https://www.hauntologies.net/p/hezbollah-10-things-you-need-to-know
I don’t know if the consensus is as strong as this ex diplomat says, but I have read claims that many people inside the State Dep and elsewhere strongly disagree with Biden and Blinken. Biden sees himself as a foreign policy guru, basically believing his own press.
From Twitter—
stunned (but not surprised) by how the US maintains this huge well-resourced foreign policy establishment and then just doesn’t listen to it. the consensus blob position is to withhold arms shipments to force a ceasefire. full stop. only the white house disagrees at this point.
11:27 AM · Sep 30, 2024
·
A-100 gecs
@PinstripeBungle
·
5h
these are not crypto-leftists or antizionists by ANY means this is just the logical move at this point if your job is to preserve stated US policy goals (two state solution regional stability blah blah) and the degree of rupture between the institutions and leadership is huge
A-100 gecs
@PinstripeBungle
·
5h
the generation before me talked and felt this way about the Iraq war but at least then there was a substantial institutional faction within State/CIA/DoD who were pilled on the neocon vision. that isn’t there now. it’s just Biden and Blinken with crusty boomer pro-Israel feelings
A-100 gecs
@PinstripeBungle
·
5h
the only rough analogy I can think of for this sort of institutional decay is “I spent all my money on this huge military I cannot mobilize because I’m scared they’ll overthrow me” it’s like I funded thirty years of MENA experts and they’re all telling me I’m a dumbass oh no
I don’t know if the consensus is as strong as this ex diplomat says, but I have read claims that many people inside the State Dep and elsewhere strongly disagree with Biden and Blinken. Biden sees himself as a foreign policy guru, basically believing his own press.
From Twitter—
stunned (but not surprised) by how the US maintains this huge well-resourced foreign policy establishment and then just doesn’t listen to it. the consensus blob position is to withhold arms shipments to force a ceasefire. full stop. only the white house disagrees at this point.
11:27 AM · Sep 30, 2024
·
A-100 gecs
@PinstripeBungle
·
5h
these are not crypto-leftists or antizionists by ANY means this is just the logical move at this point if your job is to preserve stated US policy goals (two state solution regional stability blah blah) and the degree of rupture between the institutions and leadership is huge
A-100 gecs
@PinstripeBungle
·
5h
the generation before me talked and felt this way about the Iraq war but at least then there was a substantial institutional faction within State/CIA/DoD who were pilled on the neocon vision. that isn’t there now. it’s just Biden and Blinken with crusty boomer pro-Israel feelings
A-100 gecs
@PinstripeBungle
·
5h
the only rough analogy I can think of for this sort of institutional decay is “I spent all my money on this huge military I cannot mobilize because I’m scared they’ll overthrow me” it’s like I funded thirty years of MENA experts and they’re all telling me I’m a dumbass oh no
Different Twitter account — Akbar Shahid Ahmed, the diplomatic reporter for HuffPost—
Asked a well-placed US official about the Biden administration’s framing of the imminent Israeli ground operation in Lebanon as “limited.”
Response: “It will be big. Everyone who says it’s going to be ‘limited’ is a white man who thinks a million dead brown people is ‘limited.'”
Quote
Michael Young
@BeirutCalling
·
2h
Recall that Israel’s incursion in 1982 was also billed as a limited incursion. But as Sharon understood, there will always be someone shooting at you from the next hill, so self-defense mandates taking that hill…until they reached Beirut.
Different Twitter account — Akbar Shahid Ahmed, the diplomatic reporter for HuffPost—
Asked a well-placed US official about the Biden administration’s framing of the imminent Israeli ground operation in Lebanon as “limited.”
Response: “It will be big. Everyone who says it’s going to be ‘limited’ is a white man who thinks a million dead brown people is ‘limited.'”
Quote
Michael Young
@BeirutCalling
·
2h
Recall that Israel’s incursion in 1982 was also billed as a limited incursion. But as Sharon understood, there will always be someone shooting at you from the next hill, so self-defense mandates taking that hill…until they reached Beirut.
I should have just linked to the article.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lebanon-invasion-israel-biden_n_66fae3cee4b029b6b7a6f0dc
Hopefully the article is wring.
I should have just linked to the article.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lebanon-invasion-israel-biden_n_66fae3cee4b029b6b7a6f0dc
Hopefully the article is wring.
it’s just Biden and Blinken with crusty boomer pro-Israel feelings.
Giving some reason to hope that Harris, as a non-Boomer, will take a different path.
it’s just Biden and Blinken with crusty boomer pro-Israel feelings.
Giving some reason to hope that Harris, as a non-Boomer, will take a different path.
Harris was born in 1964. Doesn’t that make her a boomer?
Harris was born in 1964. Doesn’t that make her a boomer?
Yes, the last year.
Yes, the last year.
Generations are very well defined and sharply delineated.
Generations are very well defined and sharply delineated.
“Generations are very well defined and sharply delineated.”
Does that mean that it’s time for the traditional “when did the 21st Century start?” argument? Or is it being saved for Festivus?
“Generations are very well defined and sharply delineated.”
Does that mean that it’s time for the traditional “when did the 21st Century start?” argument? Or is it being saved for Festivus?
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/us-israel-military-hezbollah-00181797
The Biden Administration supported a ceasefire and attacking Hezbollah because of their quantum superposition approach to foreign policy. Decoherence appears to be mucking this up.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/us-israel-military-hezbollah-00181797
The Biden Administration supported a ceasefire and attacking Hezbollah because of their quantum superposition approach to foreign policy. Decoherence appears to be mucking this up.
Article from last December about Biden’s long history of defending Israel— it reached embarrassing levels.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/12/how-joe-biden-became-americas-top-israel-hawk/
Article from last December about Biden’s long history of defending Israel— it reached embarrassing levels.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/12/how-joe-biden-became-americas-top-israel-hawk/
Thanks GftNC, for the comment. I got that it was from the media, but didn’t get that it was coming from the left, though I see that a Labour MP has resigned (though Politico says she was a ‘top’ Labour MP?)
Sorry lj, I’ve been dipping in and out for a few days, so missed this. Rosie Duffield was treated very badly by the party for her gender critical views, before public opinion started to turn with various new developments, and Labour had to row back a bit for (mainly?) electoral reasons. So although her resignation letter was damaging, in context it was not seen as much of a left/right thing, despite the examples she gives of what she sees as unacceptable current Labour policy (with which policies lefties certainly do vociferously disagree). But her citing of the “sleaze factor” rings very hollow when you compare Labour with the alternative, and everybody knows it!
No, my reason for saying that much of the machination against Starmer comes from the left of the party has come purely from personal conversations with (albeit unusually knowledgeable and involved) friends. My two leftiest (incidentally two of my absolutely closest) friends, one of whom is or certainly was an out and out Corbynite, and still sympathetic to that wing, say that most of it is coming from the left.
Of course the Tories are enjoying it, but standing back a bit because a cursory examination shows how truly corrupt they were in office. And again in fairness, I have to also add that a certain amount of the leaking etc seems to be coming from inside number 10, and stems from people who object to Sue Gray’s way of dealing with things, and from members of Starmer’s team who conflict over which of either a) electoral popularity both short-term or medium-term, or b) long-term likelihood of success in delivering real change and improvement of public services is most important. Obviously, in order to succeed in b) you need a second term, so a) must be taken into account, but at the moment the holders of these two views do not seem to be able to deal well together.
Let’s hope the two camps can come together, because the welfare of the country depends upon it. And let’s hope that the people who say this (particularly the so-called “sleaze” story) is minor in the long run, and will soon blow over, are right.
Thanks GftNC, for the comment. I got that it was from the media, but didn’t get that it was coming from the left, though I see that a Labour MP has resigned (though Politico says she was a ‘top’ Labour MP?)
Sorry lj, I’ve been dipping in and out for a few days, so missed this. Rosie Duffield was treated very badly by the party for her gender critical views, before public opinion started to turn with various new developments, and Labour had to row back a bit for (mainly?) electoral reasons. So although her resignation letter was damaging, in context it was not seen as much of a left/right thing, despite the examples she gives of what she sees as unacceptable current Labour policy (with which policies lefties certainly do vociferously disagree). But her citing of the “sleaze factor” rings very hollow when you compare Labour with the alternative, and everybody knows it!
No, my reason for saying that much of the machination against Starmer comes from the left of the party has come purely from personal conversations with (albeit unusually knowledgeable and involved) friends. My two leftiest (incidentally two of my absolutely closest) friends, one of whom is or certainly was an out and out Corbynite, and still sympathetic to that wing, say that most of it is coming from the left.
Of course the Tories are enjoying it, but standing back a bit because a cursory examination shows how truly corrupt they were in office. And again in fairness, I have to also add that a certain amount of the leaking etc seems to be coming from inside number 10, and stems from people who object to Sue Gray’s way of dealing with things, and from members of Starmer’s team who conflict over which of either a) electoral popularity both short-term or medium-term, or b) long-term likelihood of success in delivering real change and improvement of public services is most important. Obviously, in order to succeed in b) you need a second term, so a) must be taken into account, but at the moment the holders of these two views do not seem to be able to deal well together.
Let’s hope the two camps can come together, because the welfare of the country depends upon it. And let’s hope that the people who say this (particularly the so-called “sleaze” story) is minor in the long run, and will soon blow over, are right.
A letter to Biden and Harris from 99 American doctors and nurses and other health care workers who have been in Gaza
http://www.gazahealthcareletters.org/usa-letter-oct-2-2024
One excerpt—
“ Children are universally considered innocents in armed conflict. However, every single signatory to this letter saw children in Gaza who suffered violence that must have been deliberately directed at them. Specifically, every one of us who worked in an emergency, intensive care, or surgical setting treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head or chest on a regular or even a daily basis.”
Another —
“ Virtually every child under the age of five whom we encountered, both inside and outside of the hospital, had both a cough and watery diarrhea.”
A letter to Biden and Harris from 99 American doctors and nurses and other health care workers who have been in Gaza
http://www.gazahealthcareletters.org/usa-letter-oct-2-2024
One excerpt—
“ Children are universally considered innocents in armed conflict. However, every single signatory to this letter saw children in Gaza who suffered violence that must have been deliberately directed at them. Specifically, every one of us who worked in an emergency, intensive care, or surgical setting treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head or chest on a regular or even a daily basis.”
Another —
“ Virtually every child under the age of five whom we encountered, both inside and outside of the hospital, had both a cough and watery diarrhea.”
Another article about bad faith in the Biden Administration and its decisions to keep arming Israel.
https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-america-biden-administration-weapons-bombs-state-department
Another article about bad faith in the Biden Administration and its decisions to keep arming Israel.
https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-america-biden-administration-weapons-bombs-state-department
An interesting article about the changing demographic in Israel, and a potential brain drain:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/06/as-war-and-religion-rages-israels-secular-elite-contemplate-a-silent-departure
An interesting article about the changing demographic in Israel, and a potential brain drain:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/06/as-war-and-religion-rages-israels-secular-elite-contemplate-a-silent-departure
It was one thing when the ultraorthodox were a tiny minority that the country could afford to indulge. It’s a very different matter when they are driving government policy across the board. While still refusing to pull their weight in supporting the nation.
So, not surprising that those with the skills to prosper elsewhere are departing. And it’s the kind of phenomena which tends to cascade.
It was one thing when the ultraorthodox were a tiny minority that the country could afford to indulge. It’s a very different matter when they are driving government policy across the board. While still refusing to pull their weight in supporting the nation.
So, not surprising that those with the skills to prosper elsewhere are departing. And it’s the kind of phenomena which tends to cascade.
Shades of the Iranian Revolution, but without a Shah to depose and the secular Israelis are quiet quitting?
One more theocratic state in potentio?
It seems to me, though, that there are many more religiously inclined people that are committed to pluralism, and thus to liberalism, than there are fundamentalist types – in Europe and North America at least, clearly the Middle East and India are a problem. makes me wonder where the pluralists end up settling and making a stand against the theocracies and illiberal states?
Shades of the Iranian Revolution, but without a Shah to depose and the secular Israelis are quiet quitting?
One more theocratic state in potentio?
It seems to me, though, that there are many more religiously inclined people that are committed to pluralism, and thus to liberalism, than there are fundamentalist types – in Europe and North America at least, clearly the Middle East and India are a problem. makes me wonder where the pluralists end up settling and making a stand against the theocracies and illiberal states?
At a guess, those pluralists who can will head for places which aren’t headed towards becoming theocracies. Which will be a boon to their destinations. And an added problem for the theocracies they leave behind.
The question is, of course, where will the non-theocracies be? And how many immigrants can they absorb? At a guess, Australia, Argentina, Canada, and (one hopes) the US.
China (if you count them a non-theocracy, despite the official status of Xi Jin-Ping Thought) might be a possibility, except for the level of xenophobia. Their demographics could drive them towards change. But not, I suspect, fast enough to be significant.
At a guess, those pluralists who can will head for places which aren’t headed towards becoming theocracies. Which will be a boon to their destinations. And an added problem for the theocracies they leave behind.
The question is, of course, where will the non-theocracies be? And how many immigrants can they absorb? At a guess, Australia, Argentina, Canada, and (one hopes) the US.
China (if you count them a non-theocracy, despite the official status of Xi Jin-Ping Thought) might be a possibility, except for the level of xenophobia. Their demographics could drive them towards change. But not, I suspect, fast enough to be significant.
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-823427
I wonder if this is true. It seems ludicrous on multiple levels. How exactly would we give Israel more diplomatic support than we already do?
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-823427
I wonder if this is true. It seems ludicrous on multiple levels. How exactly would we give Israel more diplomatic support than we already do?
I can see the “trying to persuade Israel to not attack certain targets” part. But the supposed incentives do seem a bit odd.
I can see the “trying to persuade Israel to not attack certain targets” part. But the supposed incentives do seem a bit odd.
There seems to have been some initial lying about the Iranian rockets— a fair number got through and hit an air base, among other targets. They missed hitting Mossad headquarters.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/02/nx-s1-5135646/iran-missile-strike-israel-appears-to-hit-some-targets
I am not moralizing about the lying — it isn’t about atrocities and deception is normal in war. It makes it hard for us to tell what is going on.
Apparently Iran was trying to send a face saving message to Israel— they can hit them if they want, but don’t want an all out war. If so, I think they miscalculated.
There seems to have been some initial lying about the Iranian rockets— a fair number got through and hit an air base, among other targets. They missed hitting Mossad headquarters.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/02/nx-s1-5135646/iran-missile-strike-israel-appears-to-hit-some-targets
I am not moralizing about the lying — it isn’t about atrocities and deception is normal in war. It makes it hard for us to tell what is going on.
Apparently Iran was trying to send a face saving message to Israel— they can hit them if they want, but don’t want an all out war. If so, I think they miscalculated.
Sorry, quick question Donald. It ‘they’ in the last sentence Iran (for trying to do something that might have allowed Israel to save face) or Israel (to lie about the damage to think that it might tell Iran any attack is meaningless).
Sorry, quick question Donald. It ‘they’ in the last sentence Iran (for trying to do something that might have allowed Israel to save face) or Israel (to lie about the damage to think that it might tell Iran any attack is meaningless).
I meant Iran. The claim I have read is that Iran was trying to show it could hit targets in Israel but aimed mostly at military targets ( the Mossad headquarters is in Tel Aviv, so that one risked civilians).
Israel would realize that Iran could hit power plants or civilian airports or other soft targets ( or even civilians) and would therefore back off. But if that was the plan, it likeky didn’t work. Their rockets are good, but evidently not accurate enough to hit military targets very precisely. Their attack probably didn’t deter Israel at all and gives Israel an excuse to go after Iranian targets.
I meant Iran. The claim I have read is that Iran was trying to show it could hit targets in Israel but aimed mostly at military targets ( the Mossad headquarters is in Tel Aviv, so that one risked civilians).
Israel would realize that Iran could hit power plants or civilian airports or other soft targets ( or even civilians) and would therefore back off. But if that was the plan, it likeky didn’t work. Their rockets are good, but evidently not accurate enough to hit military targets very precisely. Their attack probably didn’t deter Israel at all and gives Israel an excuse to go after Iranian targets.
At this point, I doubt that anything would make Israel back off. Netanyahu, and significant parts of his coalition, want a war. The only question is just when it tries to start a full scale war with Iran.
My guess is that they will wait for the US election. If Trump wins, they will wait until he takes office, in order to get full US support. If Harris wins, they will go by mid-November. (No reason to wait any longer. And better to go while someone they know is partial to them is still in office.)
At this point, I doubt that anything would make Israel back off. Netanyahu, and significant parts of his coalition, want a war. The only question is just when it tries to start a full scale war with Iran.
My guess is that they will wait for the US election. If Trump wins, they will wait until he takes office, in order to get full US support. If Harris wins, they will go by mid-November. (No reason to wait any longer. And better to go while someone they know is partial to them is still in office.)
I think the best time to help Trump is to start bombing Iran before the election. If Iran responds, Biden will jump in. Then he gets blamed for all the chaos. If he doesn’t jump in, he gets blamed for allowing our noble ally to fight the evil hordes all by themselves. But he is certain to “help Israel defend itself”, whether that means bombing refugee camps, apartment buildings, shooting down missiles–the phrase covers quite a lot.
I want Trump to lose, so we can move on to the next phase in the nightmare idiocy of American politics (it seems to involve Vance, who is Trump with a brain), but a lot of this is in Bibi’s hands. Not that I feel the slightest sympathy for Biden, who painted himself (and Harris) into this corner.
I think the best time to help Trump is to start bombing Iran before the election. If Iran responds, Biden will jump in. Then he gets blamed for all the chaos. If he doesn’t jump in, he gets blamed for allowing our noble ally to fight the evil hordes all by themselves. But he is certain to “help Israel defend itself”, whether that means bombing refugee camps, apartment buildings, shooting down missiles–the phrase covers quite a lot.
I want Trump to lose, so we can move on to the next phase in the nightmare idiocy of American politics (it seems to involve Vance, who is Trump with a brain), but a lot of this is in Bibi’s hands. Not that I feel the slightest sympathy for Biden, who painted himself (and Harris) into this corner.
Yes to both. What Bibi decides to do depends on whether he’s prioritizing his own ability to pursue an aggressive agenda against Iran et al, or if he’s going to push hard for Trump, knowing that a Trump presidency will put Bibi more firmly in the driver’s seat whatever course he chooses.
Hard to say which one appeals more.
Yes to both. What Bibi decides to do depends on whether he’s prioritizing his own ability to pursue an aggressive agenda against Iran et al, or if he’s going to push hard for Trump, knowing that a Trump presidency will put Bibi more firmly in the driver’s seat whatever course he chooses.
Hard to say which one appeals more.
Vance, who is Trump with a brain
A brain. But with massively negative charisma. I suspect that isn’t something that he can alter.
The Republican bench doesn’t look particularly heavy with talent. There may be someone lurking there somewhere. (Did anyone, in 1988, foresee Bill Clinton?). But at this point, who can revive the party after a Trump loss isn’t obvious.
Vance, who is Trump with a brain
A brain. But with massively negative charisma. I suspect that isn’t something that he can alter.
The Republican bench doesn’t look particularly heavy with talent. There may be someone lurking there somewhere. (Did anyone, in 1988, foresee Bill Clinton?). But at this point, who can revive the party after a Trump loss isn’t obvious.
I fear the reviving already took place given the zomboid nature the party is displaying.
Admittedly, it’s on a strict no brain diet.
I fear the reviving already took place given the zomboid nature the party is displaying.
Admittedly, it’s on a strict no brain diet.
it’s on a strict no brain diet.
Well, obviously can’t eat Democrats’ brains, due to the enormous risk of psychological pollution. Which kinda restricts the foraging possibilities.
it’s on a strict no brain diet.
Well, obviously can’t eat Democrats’ brains, due to the enormous risk of psychological pollution. Which kinda restricts the foraging possibilities.
Random update on the ebike. Sending it off to the shop on Thursday for seasonal maintenance. Got just under 700 miles on it so far this year, so it is due for some attention. It’s not inexpensive to maintain a modern mountain bike, but my wife keeps reminding me that maintaining it probably costs no more than a gym membership and considerably less than medical care for poorly maintained health, and my hips feel better with regular riding (especially with a full suspension absorbing a lot of the beating from the trails).
Been having to ride with a light in the mornings – not so much to see, but to be seen in the fog from the marine layer. Lovely weather for riding, though, and I’ve seen and heard a lot of coyotes on or near the trails in the early hours just after the trails open, but before they get busy.
Really glad that I got the bike.
Random update on the ebike. Sending it off to the shop on Thursday for seasonal maintenance. Got just under 700 miles on it so far this year, so it is due for some attention. It’s not inexpensive to maintain a modern mountain bike, but my wife keeps reminding me that maintaining it probably costs no more than a gym membership and considerably less than medical care for poorly maintained health, and my hips feel better with regular riding (especially with a full suspension absorbing a lot of the beating from the trails).
Been having to ride with a light in the mornings – not so much to see, but to be seen in the fog from the marine layer. Lovely weather for riding, though, and I’ve seen and heard a lot of coyotes on or near the trails in the early hours just after the trails open, but before they get busy.
Really glad that I got the bike.
nous — glad you’re glad. 🙂
I had one year — well, half a year — of serious biking when I lived in Milwaukee. Not mountain biking but road biking … after a friend challenged me to get fit for a century in the fall of 1983. I had six weeks. We rode the 100 miles (sponsored by the local paper) and ate the huge chicken BBQ meal the event provided. Then I slept for 14 hours out of the next 24, and every minute I was awake I was eating.
Bought myself a nice road bike (skinny tires in those days) and rode 2000 miles in the non-winter phase of 1984. Flat, straight midwestern roads!!!
Then I got pregnant and moved back to twisty, hilly New England and that was the end of that.
I loved it while I was doing it, though, so your bike reports trigger nice memories.
nous — glad you’re glad. 🙂
I had one year — well, half a year — of serious biking when I lived in Milwaukee. Not mountain biking but road biking … after a friend challenged me to get fit for a century in the fall of 1983. I had six weeks. We rode the 100 miles (sponsored by the local paper) and ate the huge chicken BBQ meal the event provided. Then I slept for 14 hours out of the next 24, and every minute I was awake I was eating.
Bought myself a nice road bike (skinny tires in those days) and rode 2000 miles in the non-winter phase of 1984. Flat, straight midwestern roads!!!
Then I got pregnant and moved back to twisty, hilly New England and that was the end of that.
I loved it while I was doing it, though, so your bike reports trigger nice memories.
My own serious biking phase was from 1983 to about 1995. The local bike club membership was a nice mix of blue-collar, professional, college professors, corporate executives, etc. Good times.
My own serious biking phase was from 1983 to about 1995. The local bike club membership was a nice mix of blue-collar, professional, college professors, corporate executives, etc. Good times.
JanieM – when I lived in WI I had a road racing bike (back in the lug brazed steel frame days) and was putting in something like 100 miles a week on it during the non-slush months. That era ended when I went to Santa Fé, NM for college. Riding 20+ miles in an hour was nothing at 600 feet above sea level, but I about keeled over trying to go 3 miles at 7300 feet on steep hills with racing gearing. Absolutely humbling.
Between the steep hills and the hostile traffic, and access to all the great trails on college land, I made the switch to mountain bikes soon after. It better fit my yearning to explore without cancelling out my yearning to suffer in the process.
JanieM – when I lived in WI I had a road racing bike (back in the lug brazed steel frame days) and was putting in something like 100 miles a week on it during the non-slush months. That era ended when I went to Santa Fé, NM for college. Riding 20+ miles in an hour was nothing at 600 feet above sea level, but I about keeled over trying to go 3 miles at 7300 feet on steep hills with racing gearing. Absolutely humbling.
Between the steep hills and the hostile traffic, and access to all the great trails on college land, I made the switch to mountain bikes soon after. It better fit my yearning to explore without cancelling out my yearning to suffer in the process.
nous — lol.
I forgot to mention the Boston traffic in addition to the hills and curves. But let me not get started on bikes in Boston….
Steep hills … high elevation … I’m saving that for one of my next lifetimes. Along with hang time (for dunking).
nous — lol.
I forgot to mention the Boston traffic in addition to the hills and curves. But let me not get started on bikes in Boston….
Steep hills … high elevation … I’m saving that for one of my next lifetimes. Along with hang time (for dunking).
Something those of us from relatively flat places like north central Texas had to learn riding in places like New Mexico was that your brake pads are not dragging and you’re not having a severely bad day. That level grade or decline you’re riding on is an illusion. It’s actually an incline.
Something those of us from relatively flat places like north central Texas had to learn riding in places like New Mexico was that your brake pads are not dragging and you’re not having a severely bad day. That level grade or decline you’re riding on is an illusion. It’s actually an incline.
Amazing how much difference a bit of incline makes. Several of the creek-side trails here let you do eight miles out on a 2% average uphill grade. The eight miles back on a 2% average downhill grade is an almost completely different (easier) experience.
Amazing how much difference a bit of incline makes. Several of the creek-side trails here let you do eight miles out on a 2% average uphill grade. The eight miles back on a 2% average downhill grade is an almost completely different (easier) experience.
My local rides in OC probably average a 7% grade, but that’s punctuated by 15-24% grades in the spicy bits with a combo of clay dust and marine sandstone and granite cobble for a surface. Flatter parts of the trail are packed clay with a layer of powdery sand over top and a bit of sandstone peeking out in places. Steep bits get deep ruts and rock gardens with sharp edges that will destroy a wheel rim if you are not paying attention, or if you meet someone coming the other direction on the singletrack and get forced into the rocks to make way.
I sometimes see small groups of four or fewer riders attempting a couple of the medium spicy trails on unsuspended gravel bikes. That’s more of a risk and a sufferfest than I am up for. The gearing is not kind on the steepest parts of the uphills, and the riding position makes it super easy to go over-the-bars on the downhills. That’s not counting the pounding of riding the rough with no suspension but your own limbs. The studies I have read suggest that riding these trails unsuspended is harder on wrists and hands than operating a jackhammer for a living.
Those gravel bikes look damn sexy and fun on the more sedate trails, but I’ll stick to the full suspension bike with the bigger wheels and tires, thankyouverymuch. Don’t need to be hiking out with a broken collar bone and a concussion.
My local rides in OC probably average a 7% grade, but that’s punctuated by 15-24% grades in the spicy bits with a combo of clay dust and marine sandstone and granite cobble for a surface. Flatter parts of the trail are packed clay with a layer of powdery sand over top and a bit of sandstone peeking out in places. Steep bits get deep ruts and rock gardens with sharp edges that will destroy a wheel rim if you are not paying attention, or if you meet someone coming the other direction on the singletrack and get forced into the rocks to make way.
I sometimes see small groups of four or fewer riders attempting a couple of the medium spicy trails on unsuspended gravel bikes. That’s more of a risk and a sufferfest than I am up for. The gearing is not kind on the steepest parts of the uphills, and the riding position makes it super easy to go over-the-bars on the downhills. That’s not counting the pounding of riding the rough with no suspension but your own limbs. The studies I have read suggest that riding these trails unsuspended is harder on wrists and hands than operating a jackhammer for a living.
Those gravel bikes look damn sexy and fun on the more sedate trails, but I’ll stick to the full suspension bike with the bigger wheels and tires, thankyouverymuch. Don’t need to be hiking out with a broken collar bone and a concussion.
Those grades can be rough when simply walking, too. I don’t have that much trouble (any more) with the hills around here. Except the final uphill block. That one about does me in every time. I expect it’s not really a 30 degree climb. But it sure feels like 45!
Those grades can be rough when simply walking, too. I don’t have that much trouble (any more) with the hills around here. Except the final uphill block. That one about does me in every time. I expect it’s not really a 30 degree climb. But it sure feels like 45!
…but I’ll stick to the full suspension bike with the bigger wheels and tires, thankyouverymuch.
Kept granddaughter #3 yesterday morning. Most of our time at the park was running around the dirt bike pump track on foot. She’s not up to bicycles yet, but the day is coming. I haven’t had the dirt bike out for some years. Guess I had better plan on putting it in the shop this winter to get all the moving bits cleaned, lubricated, and adjusted, and the suspension set up for my current weight.
It’s a suburban Colorado park, so everything is a junior version of the grown-ups’ games. I’ve looked at the specs for the equipment, all of which say that the maximum distance you can fall is six feet. Yesterday I let out my aggressive 12-year old self, who pointed out several ways to get to some place where you could fall 15-20 feet.
…but I’ll stick to the full suspension bike with the bigger wheels and tires, thankyouverymuch.
Kept granddaughter #3 yesterday morning. Most of our time at the park was running around the dirt bike pump track on foot. She’s not up to bicycles yet, but the day is coming. I haven’t had the dirt bike out for some years. Guess I had better plan on putting it in the shop this winter to get all the moving bits cleaned, lubricated, and adjusted, and the suspension set up for my current weight.
It’s a suburban Colorado park, so everything is a junior version of the grown-ups’ games. I’ve looked at the specs for the equipment, all of which say that the maximum distance you can fall is six feet. Yesterday I let out my aggressive 12-year old self, who pointed out several ways to get to some place where you could fall 15-20 feet.
So the NYT, that is Bret Stephens, is now calling for escalation in Iran, and that means war eventually, and winning against Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, by which he means inflicting:
such costs on its enemies’ capacity to wage war that they accept that their interests, irrespective of their desires, are no longer served by fighting.
Considering the fact that after a year of the most brutal destruction of Gaza Israel is nowhere near “winning” against Hamas, it’s horrific to imagine the “costs” Stephens would be willing to inflict on the people of Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and Yemen.
So should I cancel my NYT subscription because of this genocidal maniac?
So the NYT, that is Bret Stephens, is now calling for escalation in Iran, and that means war eventually, and winning against Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, by which he means inflicting:
such costs on its enemies’ capacity to wage war that they accept that their interests, irrespective of their desires, are no longer served by fighting.
Considering the fact that after a year of the most brutal destruction of Gaza Israel is nowhere near “winning” against Hamas, it’s horrific to imagine the “costs” Stephens would be willing to inflict on the people of Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and Yemen.
So should I cancel my NYT subscription because of this genocidal maniac?
Oh, and of course he wants the US and “the West” dragged into this war as well – it’s like 2003 again, but it would be much worse.
Oh, and of course he wants the US and “the West” dragged into this war as well – it’s like 2003 again, but it would be much worse.
I keep subscribing to the NYT but the problem with them goes much deeper than carrying a fanatic like Stephens. I think they deliberately and consciously suppress stories that show Israel’s actions against civilians are deliberate. They constantly repeat and endorse Israel’s human shield excuse while never mentioning—
1. The Dahiya doctrine, which they did mention briefly many years ago, the doctrine calls for destroying the Dahiya neighborhood and civilian infrastructure because that neighborhood was a “ Hezbollah stronghold”. When you know about this and see Dahiya destroyed, along with most of Gaza, you see the doctrine in action.
2. Israel uses human shields in at least two senses. They use Palestinian civilians as literal human shields for their own troops. And they put important military targets in Tel Aviv. And the kibbutz ( I forget the plural) were originally meant to be in part military.
3. Sloppiness over who is a legit target— Hamas and Hezbollah function as governments, which means that many members are bureaucrats or serve other roles and are not combatants in any sense, but the NYT never makes that clear. The Israeli magazine 972 wrote about a targeting procedure “ “ Where’s Daddy” where they would blow up the homes and families of low level Hamas fighters. You don’t see that type of story in the NYT.
The NYT will publish stories, many of them, about the enormous suffering in Gaza. But it is nearly always couched in terms of people caught in the crossfire, never as intentional or the result of deliberate policy like the Dahiya doctrine.
The NYT did carry an investigation into Israeli snipers shooting a Palestinian family, murdering them in cold blood. But it had no effect in the tone of most of ther coverage.
Sexual violence— Both sides have committed rape. The NYT made that a massive story regarding Hamas. It reported the prison rape story deep within a larger story.
Hamas atrocities are reported appropriately as atrocities. Israeli atrocities are reported as tragedies of war.
I keep subscribing to the NYT but the problem with them goes much deeper than carrying a fanatic like Stephens. I think they deliberately and consciously suppress stories that show Israel’s actions against civilians are deliberate. They constantly repeat and endorse Israel’s human shield excuse while never mentioning—
1. The Dahiya doctrine, which they did mention briefly many years ago, the doctrine calls for destroying the Dahiya neighborhood and civilian infrastructure because that neighborhood was a “ Hezbollah stronghold”. When you know about this and see Dahiya destroyed, along with most of Gaza, you see the doctrine in action.
2. Israel uses human shields in at least two senses. They use Palestinian civilians as literal human shields for their own troops. And they put important military targets in Tel Aviv. And the kibbutz ( I forget the plural) were originally meant to be in part military.
3. Sloppiness over who is a legit target— Hamas and Hezbollah function as governments, which means that many members are bureaucrats or serve other roles and are not combatants in any sense, but the NYT never makes that clear. The Israeli magazine 972 wrote about a targeting procedure “ “ Where’s Daddy” where they would blow up the homes and families of low level Hamas fighters. You don’t see that type of story in the NYT.
The NYT will publish stories, many of them, about the enormous suffering in Gaza. But it is nearly always couched in terms of people caught in the crossfire, never as intentional or the result of deliberate policy like the Dahiya doctrine.
The NYT did carry an investigation into Israeli snipers shooting a Palestinian family, murdering them in cold blood. But it had no effect in the tone of most of ther coverage.
Sexual violence— Both sides have committed rape. The NYT made that a massive story regarding Hamas. It reported the prison rape story deep within a larger story.
Hamas atrocities are reported appropriately as atrocities. Israeli atrocities are reported as tragedies of war.
NYT *did* have a story today, sourced from medical workers in Gaza, about the number of children shot in the head or chest.
Including x-rays, showing the bullets inside children’s skulls.
Will it take similar treatment to get the NYT RW pundits to “change their minds”, we’ll see!
NYT *did* have a story today, sourced from medical workers in Gaza, about the number of children shot in the head or chest.
Including x-rays, showing the bullets inside children’s skulls.
Will it take similar treatment to get the NYT RW pundits to “change their minds”, we’ll see!
The Hebrew plural of ‘kibbutz’ is ‘kibbutzim’. But goyim are free to use the English plural, which is ‘kibbutzes’.
The Hebrew plural of ‘kibbutz’ is ‘kibbutzim’. But goyim are free to use the English plural, which is ‘kibbutzes’.
Better late than never. The recent letter from the medical workers came out a few days ago, but there was an earlier version (including the head shots of children) last summer. I am not actually sure what the story is about this newer letter versus the very similar one I saw in the summer. Haven’t tried to find out.
I’d say more, but only have a few minutes, so will say something about their pundits. I don’t mind that they print Stephens, but he seems to print a few columns a week on this subject or related subjects. Then they have Friedman and Kristof and occasionally Peter Beinart (just wrote one recently) and Ezra Klein. They probably think this is a fairly wide range of views.
But they don’t carry Bret Stephens’ mirror image and his mirror image is not Beinart–it is a radical leftist or embittered Palestinian who sides with Hamas and Hezbollah. I don’t support that–I am a middle of the road person like Beinart, though if the other side only attacks Israeli military targets I have no moral object, just a practical one (are they just making things worse? I guess that is moral come to think of it.) And that’s the problem–people who are opposed to the atrocities of both sides are essentially the “other extreme” from Bret Stephens and Friedman with his endless dreams of a Saudi-Israeli alliance against Iran is the middle so far as the NYT opinion section is concerned.
And anyway, if people get to read Stephens, they should also read the “pro resistance” side as they would see themselves.
Better late than never. The recent letter from the medical workers came out a few days ago, but there was an earlier version (including the head shots of children) last summer. I am not actually sure what the story is about this newer letter versus the very similar one I saw in the summer. Haven’t tried to find out.
I’d say more, but only have a few minutes, so will say something about their pundits. I don’t mind that they print Stephens, but he seems to print a few columns a week on this subject or related subjects. Then they have Friedman and Kristof and occasionally Peter Beinart (just wrote one recently) and Ezra Klein. They probably think this is a fairly wide range of views.
But they don’t carry Bret Stephens’ mirror image and his mirror image is not Beinart–it is a radical leftist or embittered Palestinian who sides with Hamas and Hezbollah. I don’t support that–I am a middle of the road person like Beinart, though if the other side only attacks Israeli military targets I have no moral object, just a practical one (are they just making things worse? I guess that is moral come to think of it.) And that’s the problem–people who are opposed to the atrocities of both sides are essentially the “other extreme” from Bret Stephens and Friedman with his endless dreams of a Saudi-Israeli alliance against Iran is the middle so far as the NYT opinion section is concerned.
And anyway, if people get to read Stephens, they should also read the “pro resistance” side as they would see themselves.
Moral objection, not moral object.
Moral objection, not moral object.
I keep subscribing to the NYT
If you feel compelled to read them, you can probably get online access via your local public library. And thus avoid giving them your money.
I keep subscribing to the NYT
If you feel compelled to read them, you can probably get online access via your local public library. And thus avoid giving them your money.
I do wonder at the persistence, and vehemence, of the hating on Iran. Sure, they’re a repressive theocracy. But so is Saudi Arabia. And it was Saudis, not Iranians, on 9/11.
Personally, I’d rather we had decided to side with Iran over the Saudis. Yeah, I know the Saudis have more, and cheaper oil. On the other hand, they used it to found OPEC and trigger the massive 1970s inflation. And we had a chance, as we prepared to go into Afghanistan. The Iranians offered us free passage (the Taliban being Sunni religious fanatics). But no, we had to pay Pakistan big bucks to move stuff thru their country, a chunk of which went straight thru Pakistani intelligence to the Taliban. Brilliant.
I do wonder at the persistence, and vehemence, of the hating on Iran. Sure, they’re a repressive theocracy. But so is Saudi Arabia. And it was Saudis, not Iranians, on 9/11.
Personally, I’d rather we had decided to side with Iran over the Saudis. Yeah, I know the Saudis have more, and cheaper oil. On the other hand, they used it to found OPEC and trigger the massive 1970s inflation. And we had a chance, as we prepared to go into Afghanistan. The Iranians offered us free passage (the Taliban being Sunni religious fanatics). But no, we had to pay Pakistan big bucks to move stuff thru their country, a chunk of which went straight thru Pakistani intelligence to the Taliban. Brilliant.
The Saudis seem to be making efforts to distance themselves from the radicalism they help create. They’re beginning to realize that sand will not be a good replacement when the oil runs out.
OPEC wouldn’t have had as much impact as it did in the ’70s if Nixon hadn’t imposed wage and price controls that discouraged domestic oil production.
The Saudis seem to be making efforts to distance themselves from the radicalism they help create. They’re beginning to realize that sand will not be a good replacement when the oil runs out.
OPEC wouldn’t have had as much impact as it did in the ’70s if Nixon hadn’t imposed wage and price controls that discouraged domestic oil production.
Iran embarrassed the US while we were still demoralized from losing the Vietnam War. The two wars in Iraq were military vindication for Vietnam and made us feel strong again, but we never got to show Iran that we were the boss, so that’s still hanging over the heads of the Big Swinging Dick Militarists.
Iran embarrassed the US while we were still demoralized from losing the Vietnam War. The two wars in Iraq were military vindication for Vietnam and made us feel strong again, but we never got to show Iran that we were the boss, so that’s still hanging over the heads of the Big Swinging Dick Militarists.
“In an unprecedented & biggest investigation into war crimes in Gaza, we expose the elite & secretive IDF sniper team, the Ghost Unit “Refaim” & their brutal executions of unarmed civilians”
Younis Tirawi
“In an unprecedented & biggest investigation into war crimes in Gaza, we expose the elite & secretive IDF sniper team, the Ghost Unit “Refaim” & their brutal executions of unarmed civilians”
Younis Tirawi
Well, wj, I’m pretty sure Iran decided to hate us first.
Well, wj, I’m pretty sure Iran decided to hate us first.
The Saudis are appalling in very, very many ways, but the oppression of women in Iran now makes every country but Afghanistan pale in comparison, so they get my “most villainous” vote. Of course, if the recent article in the Guardian is right, and there is about to be significant flight from Israel by liberal, secular Jews (with consequent significant damage to the Israeli economy), then Israel may end up being a theocratic state more like Iran than seems possible at the moment.
The Saudis are appalling in very, very many ways, but the oppression of women in Iran now makes every country but Afghanistan pale in comparison, so they get my “most villainous” vote. Of course, if the recent article in the Guardian is right, and there is about to be significant flight from Israel by liberal, secular Jews (with consequent significant damage to the Israeli economy), then Israel may end up being a theocratic state more like Iran than seems possible at the moment.
And now for something completely different:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/oct/09/hidden-underside-iceberg-dive-antarctica-laurent-ballestas-best-photograph
And now for something completely different:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/oct/09/hidden-underside-iceberg-dive-antarctica-laurent-ballestas-best-photograph
Well, wj, I’m pretty sure Iran decided to hate us first.
errrr, not really
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days
https://retroreport.org/video/the-secret-c-i-a-operation-that-haunts-u-s-iran-relations/
Well, wj, I’m pretty sure Iran decided to hate us first.
errrr, not really
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days
https://retroreport.org/video/the-secret-c-i-a-operation-that-haunts-u-s-iran-relations/
the oppression of women in Iran now makes every country but Afghanistan pale in comparison, so they get my “most villainous” vote.
There are dozens of countries with a record worse than Iran when it comes to women’s rights. As horrible as the repression against the recent protests was, the very fact that so many women stood up fearlessly for their rights paradoxically is proof of their confidence in Iranian society.
The protests were directly challenging the regime, its power was threatened and the reaction would have been similar or worse in many countries ruled by authoritarian elites.
In day to day life women have opportunities and freedoms that vastly exceed those of e.g. Saudi Arabia or, god forbid, Afghanistan. This has to do with the societies Persian identity that precedes and supercedes the Islamic ideology in the minds of many, despite the regime’s efforts to suppress it.
I very much hope that women’s rights will not be used again as an excuse for military aggression or attempts at regime change. That’s the last thing Iranians want.
the oppression of women in Iran now makes every country but Afghanistan pale in comparison, so they get my “most villainous” vote.
There are dozens of countries with a record worse than Iran when it comes to women’s rights. As horrible as the repression against the recent protests was, the very fact that so many women stood up fearlessly for their rights paradoxically is proof of their confidence in Iranian society.
The protests were directly challenging the regime, its power was threatened and the reaction would have been similar or worse in many countries ruled by authoritarian elites.
In day to day life women have opportunities and freedoms that vastly exceed those of e.g. Saudi Arabia or, god forbid, Afghanistan. This has to do with the societies Persian identity that precedes and supercedes the Islamic ideology in the minds of many, despite the regime’s efforts to suppress it.
I very much hope that women’s rights will not be used again as an excuse for military aggression or attempts at regime change. That’s the last thing Iranians want.
There are dozens of countries with a record worse than Iran when it comes to women’s rights
Really? Do tell, with particular emphasis on those sponsoring terrorism. And I explicitly excluded Afghanistan.
I do agree about the extraordinary bravery of the Iranian women, who continue to defy the clothing rules despite murders, beatings and rapes. And it probably does relate to e.g. their mothers’ or grandmothers’ memories of life under the Shah, (including his glorification of Persian history), who despite being appalling and oppressive in other ways was pretty good for women’s rights. A bit like Turkish women and the secularisation history of Attaturk etc.
The lesson is: countries ruled by clerics (of every major world religion) are, or aspire to be, oppressive to women. And the Saudis are certainly no poster boys, I grant you.
However, I am no advocate for military aggression against Iran, although in theory I would welcome regime change. However, I learnt my lesson with Afghanistan – to my shame I supported the US action against Afghanistan (not Iraq) after 9/11, partly because according to the laws of war they were entitled to do it because of Mullah Omar’s support and sheltering of Osama Bin Laden, but also largely because I thought it would improve the lot of Afghan women. We see, alas, how that turned out (although maybe if it had been carried out by people other than Dubya, Cheney et al, perhaps it would have gone better – but that way madness lies).
There are dozens of countries with a record worse than Iran when it comes to women’s rights
Really? Do tell, with particular emphasis on those sponsoring terrorism. And I explicitly excluded Afghanistan.
I do agree about the extraordinary bravery of the Iranian women, who continue to defy the clothing rules despite murders, beatings and rapes. And it probably does relate to e.g. their mothers’ or grandmothers’ memories of life under the Shah, (including his glorification of Persian history), who despite being appalling and oppressive in other ways was pretty good for women’s rights. A bit like Turkish women and the secularisation history of Attaturk etc.
The lesson is: countries ruled by clerics (of every major world religion) are, or aspire to be, oppressive to women. And the Saudis are certainly no poster boys, I grant you.
However, I am no advocate for military aggression against Iran, although in theory I would welcome regime change. However, I learnt my lesson with Afghanistan – to my shame I supported the US action against Afghanistan (not Iraq) after 9/11, partly because according to the laws of war they were entitled to do it because of Mullah Omar’s support and sheltering of Osama Bin Laden, but also largely because I thought it would improve the lot of Afghan women. We see, alas, how that turned out (although maybe if it had been carried out by people other than Dubya, Cheney et al, perhaps it would have gone better – but that way madness lies).
Well, wj, I’m pretty sure Iran decided to hate us first.
Pretty much every nation of any significance has hated on every other one as some point. (Consider US relations with Britain, Japan, etc.) The question is, What are their feelings at a specific point in time? In the case of Iran, they made an effort to improve relations. And their offer would have been massively to our benefit.
Spruning that offer may be our single dumbest foreign policy mistake of the past half century.** One that we are still paying for. As are many countries in the Middle East. As is, for example, Ukraine.
** Cue a flood of counterexamples. It was still a massive own-goal.
Well, wj, I’m pretty sure Iran decided to hate us first.
Pretty much every nation of any significance has hated on every other one as some point. (Consider US relations with Britain, Japan, etc.) The question is, What are their feelings at a specific point in time? In the case of Iran, they made an effort to improve relations. And their offer would have been massively to our benefit.
Spruning that offer may be our single dumbest foreign policy mistake of the past half century.** One that we are still paying for. As are many countries in the Middle East. As is, for example, Ukraine.
** Cue a flood of counterexamples. It was still a massive own-goal.
Bibi’s newest announcement: If Lebanon does not overthrow Hizbollah, it will suffer destruction as we currently see in Gaza.
Any bets when he will say something similar about Iran? (not before the US election, I assume. Lebanon will buy him some months before he needs a new escalation to keep his job.)
Bibi’s newest announcement: If Lebanon does not overthrow Hizbollah, it will suffer destruction as we currently see in Gaza.
Any bets when he will say something similar about Iran? (not before the US election, I assume. Lebanon will buy him some months before he needs a new escalation to keep his job.)
Really? Do tell, with particular emphasis on those sponsoring terrorism.
I’m not quite sure how exactly sponsoring terrorism and women’s rights are related, but regarding the the latter there are rankings in which Iran is certainly not among the worst countries (though of course their record isn’t stellar either):
https://giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
Also, just going by anecdotal evidence it is obvious that Iranian women are generally very well educated and partake in society at all levels. This has a lot to do with the fact that Iran has a high standard of development and that ideologically Islam is only one of several competing sources of identification.
I’m not going to downplay the repressive efforts of the hardline religious factions against women and otherwise. But Iran is a very complex society containing various incongruous elements and it is not reducible to the ruling regime, which in itself is not monolithic (many of them could care less about religion and are just in it for the money) and also has to watch its back.
They overplayed their hand during the recent crackdown because they alienated not only the urban, educated middle class, who for the most part don’t like them anyway, but also the general population across the country by killing or maiming their children.
Really? Do tell, with particular emphasis on those sponsoring terrorism.
I’m not quite sure how exactly sponsoring terrorism and women’s rights are related, but regarding the the latter there are rankings in which Iran is certainly not among the worst countries (though of course their record isn’t stellar either):
https://giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
Also, just going by anecdotal evidence it is obvious that Iranian women are generally very well educated and partake in society at all levels. This has a lot to do with the fact that Iran has a high standard of development and that ideologically Islam is only one of several competing sources of identification.
I’m not going to downplay the repressive efforts of the hardline religious factions against women and otherwise. But Iran is a very complex society containing various incongruous elements and it is not reducible to the ruling regime, which in itself is not monolithic (many of them could care less about religion and are just in it for the money) and also has to watch its back.
They overplayed their hand during the recent crackdown because they alienated not only the urban, educated middle class, who for the most part don’t like them anyway, but also the general population across the country by killing or maiming their children.
Iran has more women in college than men, but otherwise their record is horrible. Not sure there is any big distinction between them and the Saudis overall. I looked at the HRW summaries yesterday and that was my impression,
Here is what looks like a thorough analysis of the Iranian missile strike. He says what I guessed. Their missiles aren’t accurate enough for hard targets but would do real damage aimed at softer ones, like civilians or civilian infrastructure.
https://horsdoeuvresofbattle.blog/2024/10/04/imint-irans-strike-on-nevatim-airbase/
Iran has more women in college than men, but otherwise their record is horrible. Not sure there is any big distinction between them and the Saudis overall. I looked at the HRW summaries yesterday and that was my impression,
Here is what looks like a thorough analysis of the Iranian missile strike. He says what I guessed. Their missiles aren’t accurate enough for hard targets but would do real damage aimed at softer ones, like civilians or civilian infrastructure.
https://horsdoeuvresofbattle.blog/2024/10/04/imint-irans-strike-on-nevatim-airbase/
Iran has more women in college than men, but otherwise their record is horrible. Not sure there is any big distinction between them and the Saudis overall.
Sorry, but this is wrong on so many levels. Again, I’m not denying the human rights abuses, but you simply cannot judge a society as a whole by a HRW summary. Iran and SA couldn’t be more different, not to speak of Afghanistan. Nobody is served by these simplistic views.
Iran has more women in college than men, but otherwise their record is horrible. Not sure there is any big distinction between them and the Saudis overall.
Sorry, but this is wrong on so many levels. Again, I’m not denying the human rights abuses, but you simply cannot judge a society as a whole by a HRW summary. Iran and SA couldn’t be more different, not to speak of Afghanistan. Nobody is served by these simplistic views.
Novakant–
I’m fine being corrected and in fact I have seen more nuanced views being advocated, but when there are serious human rights violations I tend to focus on those. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be told about the nuances. My impression was actually that Iran was better than the Saudis, but when I read the HRW summaries (along with a different report yesterday that I can’t seem to find right now), the overall impression I got was not good.
Here is a fairly recent report about Iranian human rights violations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/iran-institutional-discrimination-against-women-and-girls-enabled-human
What would be helpful (this is not sarcasm) would be if you provided some links showing the nuances. I remember seeing some Youtube videos in Iran which were meant to show that Iran was not this dreary theocratic dungeon that Westerners might think it is and I don’t have a problem with that. But obviously the human rights violations don’t go away because the whole place isn’t some stereotypical nightmarish horror.
The same is true of Gaza prewar. There were various different stereotypes about Gaza. One was that it was the world’s largest open air prison camp–this comes from the people I tend to read. And it was true. Israel and Egypt had control over access in and out and this led to a lot of misery. Then there was the stereotype of Gaza under the rule of a brutal Islamic theocracy. Also true and there were human rights violations committed by Hamas against dissenters, though there was also a human rights group protesting these things in Gaza last I read. And then some pro-Israel types said that Gaza was actually quite well off in many ways and they would point to pictures showing real affluence in Gaza.
And all of these things were true at the same time. So yeah, nuance. Women went to universities in Gaza. People enjoyed life. Hamas was brutal and the Israeli blockade was suffocating.
Novakant–
I’m fine being corrected and in fact I have seen more nuanced views being advocated, but when there are serious human rights violations I tend to focus on those. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be told about the nuances. My impression was actually that Iran was better than the Saudis, but when I read the HRW summaries (along with a different report yesterday that I can’t seem to find right now), the overall impression I got was not good.
Here is a fairly recent report about Iranian human rights violations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/iran-institutional-discrimination-against-women-and-girls-enabled-human
What would be helpful (this is not sarcasm) would be if you provided some links showing the nuances. I remember seeing some Youtube videos in Iran which were meant to show that Iran was not this dreary theocratic dungeon that Westerners might think it is and I don’t have a problem with that. But obviously the human rights violations don’t go away because the whole place isn’t some stereotypical nightmarish horror.
The same is true of Gaza prewar. There were various different stereotypes about Gaza. One was that it was the world’s largest open air prison camp–this comes from the people I tend to read. And it was true. Israel and Egypt had control over access in and out and this led to a lot of misery. Then there was the stereotype of Gaza under the rule of a brutal Islamic theocracy. Also true and there were human rights violations committed by Hamas against dissenters, though there was also a human rights group protesting these things in Gaza last I read. And then some pro-Israel types said that Gaza was actually quite well off in many ways and they would point to pictures showing real affluence in Gaza.
And all of these things were true at the same time. So yeah, nuance. Women went to universities in Gaza. People enjoyed life. Hamas was brutal and the Israeli blockade was suffocating.
Also, of course, I think we should know about places before we help destroy them. Might have been good for people to see Palestinians in Gaza as human beings before shipping more bombs to Israel knowing full well how they will be used.
And on that note, currently the Biden people oppose a ceasefire in Lebanon. They think Israel is successfully “degrading” Hezbollah and this could lead to a change in Lebanese governance. Israel is also “degrading” hospitals, health care workers, civilians, apartment high rises, etc…, but, you know, omelettes require some egg breakage. Israel should make every effort to minimize civilian casualties, blah, blah, blah. Lebanon could be the peak achievement of the Biden policy in the Mideast–they are certainly hoping to get some nice regime change goodness out of it.
Also, of course, I think we should know about places before we help destroy them. Might have been good for people to see Palestinians in Gaza as human beings before shipping more bombs to Israel knowing full well how they will be used.
And on that note, currently the Biden people oppose a ceasefire in Lebanon. They think Israel is successfully “degrading” Hezbollah and this could lead to a change in Lebanese governance. Israel is also “degrading” hospitals, health care workers, civilians, apartment high rises, etc…, but, you know, omelettes require some egg breakage. Israel should make every effort to minimize civilian casualties, blah, blah, blah. Lebanon could be the peak achievement of the Biden policy in the Mideast–they are certainly hoping to get some nice regime change goodness out of it.
Donald, I have encountered similar problems talking to certain defensive Israelis about the situation in Gaza pre-10/7/23
Life is complicated, and many apparently contradictory things can be true at the same time. (In fact, and this is not strictly relevant but I love it, I seem to remember that someone – possibly Nils Bohr – said that while the opposite of a fact is a lie, the opposite of a profound truth is also a profound truth.)
novakant: thank you for those links, which were fascinating. You were right in that the issues of womens’ rights and the sponsoring of terrorism were not actually connected, but they were in my mind because of the context in which we were discussing them. You don’t need to stress the sophistication of Iranian (or Persian) civilisation and culture, I’m sure that is well known here at ObWi. But since I am particularly concerned with womens’ rights, and their vulnerability in religious regimes (including the other monotheistic religions), I find it hard to see the current Iranian regime as anything other than absolutely abhorrent.
Donald, I have encountered similar problems talking to certain defensive Israelis about the situation in Gaza pre-10/7/23
Life is complicated, and many apparently contradictory things can be true at the same time. (In fact, and this is not strictly relevant but I love it, I seem to remember that someone – possibly Nils Bohr – said that while the opposite of a fact is a lie, the opposite of a profound truth is also a profound truth.)
novakant: thank you for those links, which were fascinating. You were right in that the issues of womens’ rights and the sponsoring of terrorism were not actually connected, but they were in my mind because of the context in which we were discussing them. You don’t need to stress the sophistication of Iranian (or Persian) civilisation and culture, I’m sure that is well known here at ObWi. But since I am particularly concerned with womens’ rights, and their vulnerability in religious regimes (including the other monotheistic religions), I find it hard to see the current Iranian regime as anything other than absolutely abhorrent.
But the same as there are different kinds of infinity, there are also different kinds of absolute abhorrentness.
OK, that sounds a bit like ‘choose you poison and then do not complain about the effects since it was your choice.’
I would not like to be a woman who is given the choice between Taliban Afghanistan, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and theocratic Iran only (assuming not being a part of the elite that can ignore the rules).
But the same as there are different kinds of infinity, there are also different kinds of absolute abhorrentness.
OK, that sounds a bit like ‘choose you poison and then do not complain about the effects since it was your choice.’
I would not like to be a woman who is given the choice between Taliban Afghanistan, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and theocratic Iran only (assuming not being a part of the elite that can ignore the rules).
If I am looking at this right (am a bit rushed at the moment), this link novakant gave
https://giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/
shows the US and Saudi Arabia the same shade of orange and Iran is a darker red, which is worse.
Gotta look at that in more depth later, but it was a bit surprising to me–I would have guessed the Saudis were worse. I definitely need to look at it later.
If I am looking at this right (am a bit rushed at the moment), this link novakant gave
https://giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/
shows the US and Saudi Arabia the same shade of orange and Iran is a darker red, which is worse.
Gotta look at that in more depth later, but it was a bit surprising to me–I would have guessed the Saudis were worse. I definitely need to look at it later.
I can’t speak to Afghanistan. And the situation there seems to be in flux.
But I have spent time in Saudi Arabia, and have some observations. First, in nearly 3 weeks there, I saw exactly zero (0) Saudi women. Not on the streets, not in the shops, not in offices. None. I did see one non-Saudi, non-Muslin woman. But that’s it. Women are not just invisible but absent from public life.
How, you may ask, did I know that the one woman I saw wasn’t Saudi, or even a non-Saudi Muslim? Simply put, there’s a dress code. An absolute dress code. First, all women must wean a floor length dress with long sleeves. For Saudi women, their heads must be entirely covered; nothing showing except the eyes. Non-Saudi Muslim women must have their heads totally covered, but may have their faces bare. Other women can be bare headed, provided the neckline of the dress as at least at the collar bone.
Not anything like an exhaustive list of the ways women are repressed there. Just an indication. For contrast, photos from Iran indicate women out in public. And whatever the regime’s preferences, bare heads and bare calves seem to be routine, at least in the cities.
In short, however horrible the Is Iranian regime, for women the Saudi regime is worse. In pretty much all ways. Likewise in other ways. If you are a Saudi man, you best get inside at prayer times. Otherwise, as I have seen first hand, the religious police will arrive and force you. Again, indicative, not exhaustive.
As Harmut says, there are degrees of awfulness. And, IMHO, the Saudis are worse.
I can’t speak to Afghanistan. And the situation there seems to be in flux.
But I have spent time in Saudi Arabia, and have some observations. First, in nearly 3 weeks there, I saw exactly zero (0) Saudi women. Not on the streets, not in the shops, not in offices. None. I did see one non-Saudi, non-Muslin woman. But that’s it. Women are not just invisible but absent from public life.
How, you may ask, did I know that the one woman I saw wasn’t Saudi, or even a non-Saudi Muslim? Simply put, there’s a dress code. An absolute dress code. First, all women must wean a floor length dress with long sleeves. For Saudi women, their heads must be entirely covered; nothing showing except the eyes. Non-Saudi Muslim women must have their heads totally covered, but may have their faces bare. Other women can be bare headed, provided the neckline of the dress as at least at the collar bone.
Not anything like an exhaustive list of the ways women are repressed there. Just an indication. For contrast, photos from Iran indicate women out in public. And whatever the regime’s preferences, bare heads and bare calves seem to be routine, at least in the cities.
In short, however horrible the Is Iranian regime, for women the Saudi regime is worse. In pretty much all ways. Likewise in other ways. If you are a Saudi man, you best get inside at prayer times. Otherwise, as I have seen first hand, the religious police will arrive and force you. Again, indicative, not exhaustive.
As Harmut says, there are degrees of awfulness. And, IMHO, the Saudis are worse.
Wj, that’s one if the differences between Iran and SA.
GftNC, I completely agree that the current regime is abhorrent, but currently my biggest fear is that the usual suspects will try to topple it from the outside, if that makes sense.
Donald, I actually think that watching some Iranian films from the past 25 years will give the best insight into Iranian society, here’s a good list:
https://www.vulture.com/article/best-iranian-movies-streaming.html
Wj, that’s one if the differences between Iran and SA.
GftNC, I completely agree that the current regime is abhorrent, but currently my biggest fear is that the usual suspects will try to topple it from the outside, if that makes sense.
Donald, I actually think that watching some Iranian films from the past 25 years will give the best insight into Iranian society, here’s a good list:
https://www.vulture.com/article/best-iranian-movies-streaming.html
The question of comparison is an interesting and vexing one. Trying to reduce all bad treatment to one scale seems like asking for trouble.
I don’t know about the comparison between various muslim countries. I do often think about the comparison between South Korea and Japan. I want to add that I’m not making any claim about them being “as bad” as Iran or SA, but, while Japan has deep seated problems,
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/10/10/japan/society/japan-university-gender-imbalance/
South Korea is experiencing a backlash againt feminism
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524000530
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/03/1135162927/women-feminism-south-korea-sexism-protest-haeil-yoon
https://www.9dashline.com/article/understanding-antifeminist-backlash-in-the-south-korean-context-remnants-of-militarism-and-patriarchy
This makes it really difficult to try and say who’s worse. Also, as the last link points out, the Korean War is closer to the present (and still occupies a space in the minds of Koreans) than it is for the Japanese, being not just the additional handful of years, but also the societal development. Is SK “better” because feminism has a foothold there where it is much weaker in Japan? Or is japan better off because they haven’t experienced the vicious backlash that South Korea feminists are now experiencing?
Iran is, in several ways, had experiences with modernity in ways that Saudi Arabia has not
https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2014/dec/09/-sp-modernity-iran-after-revolution
Another way to get a look at modernity in Iran is Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novels, especially Persepolis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(comics)
The question of comparison is an interesting and vexing one. Trying to reduce all bad treatment to one scale seems like asking for trouble.
I don’t know about the comparison between various muslim countries. I do often think about the comparison between South Korea and Japan. I want to add that I’m not making any claim about them being “as bad” as Iran or SA, but, while Japan has deep seated problems,
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/10/10/japan/society/japan-university-gender-imbalance/
South Korea is experiencing a backlash againt feminism
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524000530
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/03/1135162927/women-feminism-south-korea-sexism-protest-haeil-yoon
https://www.9dashline.com/article/understanding-antifeminist-backlash-in-the-south-korean-context-remnants-of-militarism-and-patriarchy
This makes it really difficult to try and say who’s worse. Also, as the last link points out, the Korean War is closer to the present (and still occupies a space in the minds of Koreans) than it is for the Japanese, being not just the additional handful of years, but also the societal development. Is SK “better” because feminism has a foothold there where it is much weaker in Japan? Or is japan better off because they haven’t experienced the vicious backlash that South Korea feminists are now experiencing?
Iran is, in several ways, had experiences with modernity in ways that Saudi Arabia has not
https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2014/dec/09/-sp-modernity-iran-after-revolution
Another way to get a look at modernity in Iran is Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novels, especially Persepolis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(comics)
I’ve always wondered when Pakistan (officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) will decide they’ve reached a stalemate with India and start playing a bigger role in the Middle East. 240 million people, nukes, and solid-fuel ballistic missiles whose range includes Israel. On the scale above, they rank worse than Iran in their treatment of women.
I’ve always wondered when Pakistan (officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) will decide they’ve reached a stalemate with India and start playing a bigger role in the Middle East. 240 million people, nukes, and solid-fuel ballistic missiles whose range includes Israel. On the scale above, they rank worse than Iran in their treatment of women.
That Guardian article is very interesting, thanks lj.
That Guardian article is very interesting, thanks lj.
Iran is, in several ways, had experiences with modernity in ways that Saudi Arabia has not.
Like having been civilized for a couple of millennia. Where the Saudis are just a couple of generations from being mostly nomadic goat herders. (Yes, Mecca and Medina have been cities for centuries. But the people running Saudi Arabia aren’t from there.)
Iran is, in several ways, had experiences with modernity in ways that Saudi Arabia has not.
Like having been civilized for a couple of millennia. Where the Saudis are just a couple of generations from being mostly nomadic goat herders. (Yes, Mecca and Medina have been cities for centuries. But the people running Saudi Arabia aren’t from there.)
Given Speaker Mike Johnson’s adamant opposition to calling Congress back to pass additional FEMA funding, I wonder if someone in his conference has quietly told him, “If you call us back before the election, the first thing I’ll do is file a privileged motion to vacate the chair.”
Given Speaker Mike Johnson’s adamant opposition to calling Congress back to pass additional FEMA funding, I wonder if someone in his conference has quietly told him, “If you call us back before the election, the first thing I’ll do is file a privileged motion to vacate the chair.”
Michael Cain – if that is what is keeping him from doing it, it’s no better reason than because he is scared of Trump. Either way he is putting self interest above people’s lives.
Hope this dereliction comes home to roost with the people who are the actual derelicts.
Michael Cain – if that is what is keeping him from doing it, it’s no better reason than because he is scared of Trump. Either way he is putting self interest above people’s lives.
Hope this dereliction comes home to roost with the people who are the actual derelicts.
Like having been civilized for a couple of millennia.
Not something that the bomb Iran crowd like to note. Cyrus the Great promulgated the first Charter of Human Rights and promoted freedom of religion, which also had the Temple of Solomon rebuilt. Which is why Cyrus the Great appears in the bible.
https://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/
Like having been civilized for a couple of millennia.
Not something that the bomb Iran crowd like to note. Cyrus the Great promulgated the first Charter of Human Rights and promoted freedom of religion, which also had the Temple of Solomon rebuilt. Which is why Cyrus the Great appears in the bible.
https://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/
…and, weirdly, some evangelical Da Old Lump supporters see Agent Orange as a Cyrus figure, promoting their agenda by providence as an unwitting tool of divine influence.
The liberal reader of history sees human rights. The illiberal reader of history sees an opportunity for The People to grasp destiny and triumph over their enemies.
…and, weirdly, some evangelical Da Old Lump supporters see Agent Orange as a Cyrus figure, promoting their agenda by providence as an unwitting tool of divine influence.
The liberal reader of history sees human rights. The illiberal reader of history sees an opportunity for The People to grasp destiny and triumph over their enemies.
Well, there’s still time for the (((space lasers))) to spin up a hurricane, push it to Squeaker Johnson’s district, and let it sit there until the entire place turns into churned mud and debris.
But no, we’re far too nice for that. Dammit.
Well, there’s still time for the (((space lasers))) to spin up a hurricane, push it to Squeaker Johnson’s district, and let it sit there until the entire place turns into churned mud and debris.
But no, we’re far too nice for that. Dammit.
Which is why Cyrus the Great appears in the bible.
Which Bible they don’t actually read (except maybe for some very carefully curated bits here and there, mostly in the Old Testament). Because so much of it would be inconvenient to know about.
Which is why Cyrus the Great appears in the bible.
Which Bible they don’t actually read (except maybe for some very carefully curated bits here and there, mostly in the Old Testament). Because so much of it would be inconvenient to know about.
They like the stuff about herem (the ban = genocide) but not the part about not being allowed to take and keep the spoils afterwards.
Hey, how can we be expected not to at least recover the costs of the action*?
It’s a special mentality to prove the purity of motive for mass murder by not materially benefiting/profiting from it.
*like the Chinese government sending bills for execution costs to the next of kin
They like the stuff about herem (the ban = genocide) but not the part about not being allowed to take and keep the spoils afterwards.
Hey, how can we be expected not to at least recover the costs of the action*?
It’s a special mentality to prove the purity of motive for mass murder by not materially benefiting/profiting from it.
*like the Chinese government sending bills for execution costs to the next of kin
I found this, from Ian Leslie, interesting. I had experienced the phenomenon he describes as “Why Thinking In Pairs Is Powerful” but (obviously) not his corollary “and What It Tells Us About AI”
The late Charlie Munger had a hack for making yourself instantly smarter: explain yourself to an orangutan. Munger liked to say that if a person goes into a room with an orangutan and explains whatever his or her idea is, and the orangutan just sits there eating a banana, then at the end of the conversation the person explaining will come out smarter.
Katherine Graham related Munger’s idea in her memoir Personal History. Graham had been the publisher of the Washington Post for ten years in 1973, when Warren Buffett, Munger’s business partner, bought a large stake in the business. Graham, who had been forced to take over the Post after her husband’s suicide, still felt very uncertain about financial matters. Buffett, then largely unknown, became her business mentor and confidante; she called him her “personal business psychiatrist”.¹ It was Buffett who told her about Charlie’s theory.
“Warren claimed to be my orangutan,” said Graham. “And in a way he was. I heard myself talk when I was with him and I always got a better idea of what I was saying.”
In a recent article for Nature, two scientists, Itai Yanai and Martin Lercher, described their favourite trick for generating new ideas: “talk to someone.” When you talk, they say, you don’t just share information and insights: you improvise new thoughts into being – thoughts which wouldn’t otherwise take flight. By speaking, you give form to what is inchoate. Or as they put it: “Language imposes structures on our thinking and forces us to project a tangled network of thoughts into a linear, logical string of words and ideas.” They point to a motivational dividend from talking, too: the partners gain momentum and morale from the process.
Yanai and Lercher argue that the ideal group size is two: large enough to be more generative than working alone, but not so large that thoughts become diffuse or members start showing off. Yanai says: “Doing good science is 90% finding a science buddy to constantly talk to about the project.”
Munger’s orangutan theory implies that to some extent it doesn’t matter who your interlocutor is, how smart they are, and so on. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t seek out smart orangutans. On at least one occasion, Munger implied that it at least helps if you believe your orangutan is smart, or just that they’re listening to you.
In Conflicted/How To Disagree I relate a few stories of creative partnerships where both members relished engaging in argument. The Wright brothers spent most of their waking hours arguing with each other about how to build a flying machine. Their debates were often heated but never hostile, and they listened as hard as they argued. “Honest argument is merely a process of mutually picking the beams and motes out of each other’s eyes so both can see clearly,” said Wilbur Wright. Francis Crick and James Watson believed they were first to crack the structure of DNA because they argued more vigorously and candidly than rival teams. The enemy of true collaboration, said Crick, is “politeness”.
But orangutans don’t argue back, and productive disagreement is just one version of the process Munger is describing. What he’s getting at is, I think, something broader and even more fundamental: that we do our best thinking in collaboration with others. Intelligence is a social process, something that Socrates cottoned on to. This is how Susan Sontag put it: ‘I don’t care about someone being intelligent; any situation between people, when they are really human with each other, produces “intelligence.”‘
Being ‘really human with each other’ is, with no shade to orangutans, a lovely phrase. I imagine it means things like being tuned into what the other person is saying or trying to say, and feeling relaxed about being wrong or seeming stupid. I don’t take Sontag’s remark entirely at face value: I’m pretty sure she did care about her interlocutors being intelligent, just as long as they didn’t come across as more intelligent than her, which of course was almost never the case. But the idea that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon arising out of social interaction is a profound one.
Thinking is social even when there’s nobody around, because good thinkers have internalised the voices of others (indeed some evolutionary psychologists believe that’s what consciousness is). They can hear counterpoints and opposing arguments and alternative expressions in their head, as a composer can hear the different sections of an orchestra in harmony before a note has been played. That’s why it’s so important to absorb a diversity of facts, arguments and opinions into your mind; to generate the ‘wisdom of crowds’ inside your head.
In lieu of actual person with whom you can “be really human” in person, just speaking your ideas aloud – or indeed writing them down – can help you work out the best version of those thoughts. Software developers talking about “rubber ducking”: articulating a technical problem in spoken or written ‘natural’ language. The phrase comes from a classic book on programming which cited a programmer who carried around a rubber duck and debugged his code by forcing himself to explain his work to it, line by line. The duck was a harsh judge.
Although advanced AI has its downsides, like the potential destruction of the human race, it does offer the possibility of unlocking a vast amount of human intelligence simply by providing very advanced rubber ducks, or very smart orangutans, to people who don’t have good conversation partners for whatever reason. Already, no matter where you are, you can ask a chatbot to test your thinking. Just the process of formulating your question or idea makes a person smarter, and the chatbot’s responses are often informed and smart enough to improve your thinking further.
This is the big difference between even a very good search engine and a good AI chatbot: the latter is highly responsive to dialogue. The first answer a bot gives can be rather lame, boring or error-strewn, but once you give it a push, pointing out its flaws, criticising its arguments, it quickly raises its game. (While I’m not a heavy user of AI bots this is the one tip I give to people who ask me how to get the most out of them). As the bots get smarter, and once they are able to ‘know’ the user, their ability to unlock our intelligence will increase significantly.
I found this, from Ian Leslie, interesting. I had experienced the phenomenon he describes as “Why Thinking In Pairs Is Powerful” but (obviously) not his corollary “and What It Tells Us About AI”
The late Charlie Munger had a hack for making yourself instantly smarter: explain yourself to an orangutan. Munger liked to say that if a person goes into a room with an orangutan and explains whatever his or her idea is, and the orangutan just sits there eating a banana, then at the end of the conversation the person explaining will come out smarter.
Katherine Graham related Munger’s idea in her memoir Personal History. Graham had been the publisher of the Washington Post for ten years in 1973, when Warren Buffett, Munger’s business partner, bought a large stake in the business. Graham, who had been forced to take over the Post after her husband’s suicide, still felt very uncertain about financial matters. Buffett, then largely unknown, became her business mentor and confidante; she called him her “personal business psychiatrist”.¹ It was Buffett who told her about Charlie’s theory.
“Warren claimed to be my orangutan,” said Graham. “And in a way he was. I heard myself talk when I was with him and I always got a better idea of what I was saying.”
In a recent article for Nature, two scientists, Itai Yanai and Martin Lercher, described their favourite trick for generating new ideas: “talk to someone.” When you talk, they say, you don’t just share information and insights: you improvise new thoughts into being – thoughts which wouldn’t otherwise take flight. By speaking, you give form to what is inchoate. Or as they put it: “Language imposes structures on our thinking and forces us to project a tangled network of thoughts into a linear, logical string of words and ideas.” They point to a motivational dividend from talking, too: the partners gain momentum and morale from the process.
Yanai and Lercher argue that the ideal group size is two: large enough to be more generative than working alone, but not so large that thoughts become diffuse or members start showing off. Yanai says: “Doing good science is 90% finding a science buddy to constantly talk to about the project.”
Munger’s orangutan theory implies that to some extent it doesn’t matter who your interlocutor is, how smart they are, and so on. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t seek out smart orangutans. On at least one occasion, Munger implied that it at least helps if you believe your orangutan is smart, or just that they’re listening to you.
In Conflicted/How To Disagree I relate a few stories of creative partnerships where both members relished engaging in argument. The Wright brothers spent most of their waking hours arguing with each other about how to build a flying machine. Their debates were often heated but never hostile, and they listened as hard as they argued. “Honest argument is merely a process of mutually picking the beams and motes out of each other’s eyes so both can see clearly,” said Wilbur Wright. Francis Crick and James Watson believed they were first to crack the structure of DNA because they argued more vigorously and candidly than rival teams. The enemy of true collaboration, said Crick, is “politeness”.
But orangutans don’t argue back, and productive disagreement is just one version of the process Munger is describing. What he’s getting at is, I think, something broader and even more fundamental: that we do our best thinking in collaboration with others. Intelligence is a social process, something that Socrates cottoned on to. This is how Susan Sontag put it: ‘I don’t care about someone being intelligent; any situation between people, when they are really human with each other, produces “intelligence.”‘
Being ‘really human with each other’ is, with no shade to orangutans, a lovely phrase. I imagine it means things like being tuned into what the other person is saying or trying to say, and feeling relaxed about being wrong or seeming stupid. I don’t take Sontag’s remark entirely at face value: I’m pretty sure she did care about her interlocutors being intelligent, just as long as they didn’t come across as more intelligent than her, which of course was almost never the case. But the idea that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon arising out of social interaction is a profound one.
Thinking is social even when there’s nobody around, because good thinkers have internalised the voices of others (indeed some evolutionary psychologists believe that’s what consciousness is). They can hear counterpoints and opposing arguments and alternative expressions in their head, as a composer can hear the different sections of an orchestra in harmony before a note has been played. That’s why it’s so important to absorb a diversity of facts, arguments and opinions into your mind; to generate the ‘wisdom of crowds’ inside your head.
In lieu of actual person with whom you can “be really human” in person, just speaking your ideas aloud – or indeed writing them down – can help you work out the best version of those thoughts. Software developers talking about “rubber ducking”: articulating a technical problem in spoken or written ‘natural’ language. The phrase comes from a classic book on programming which cited a programmer who carried around a rubber duck and debugged his code by forcing himself to explain his work to it, line by line. The duck was a harsh judge.
Although advanced AI has its downsides, like the potential destruction of the human race, it does offer the possibility of unlocking a vast amount of human intelligence simply by providing very advanced rubber ducks, or very smart orangutans, to people who don’t have good conversation partners for whatever reason. Already, no matter where you are, you can ask a chatbot to test your thinking. Just the process of formulating your question or idea makes a person smarter, and the chatbot’s responses are often informed and smart enough to improve your thinking further.
This is the big difference between even a very good search engine and a good AI chatbot: the latter is highly responsive to dialogue. The first answer a bot gives can be rather lame, boring or error-strewn, but once you give it a push, pointing out its flaws, criticising its arguments, it quickly raises its game. (While I’m not a heavy user of AI bots this is the one tip I give to people who ask me how to get the most out of them). As the bots get smarter, and once they are able to ‘know’ the user, their ability to unlock our intelligence will increase significantly.
I have just lost 2 carefully formatted long comments. I wasn’t sure if the first time it was my fault, so I did it again. I’d be very grateful if someone could rescue just one of these comments!
[Done. — ed.]
I have just lost 2 carefully formatted long comments. I wasn’t sure if the first time it was my fault, so I did it again. I’d be very grateful if someone could rescue just one of these comments!
[Done. — ed.]
Thank you!
Thank you!
I can definitely relate! I work for a women who is a genius at computer networks. As in, she’s written a couple of the protocols that are used sending stuff across the Internet. Among other things.
She will frequently call me up and natter on about whatever she’s working on at the moment. Now while I’ve learned a fair amount from these conversations over the years, I am nowhere near in her league. At most, I now know enough to ask dumb questions, which can set her off on a new path. Or, perhaps more importantly, stop her going off on unproductive tangents. (This year’s efforts mostly involve pushing back on her enthusiasm for AI. Sorry, just not nearly ready for prime time.)
If I wasn’t working from home, perhaps I could get a nameplate saying “Nalini’s Orangutan”….
I can definitely relate! I work for a women who is a genius at computer networks. As in, she’s written a couple of the protocols that are used sending stuff across the Internet. Among other things.
She will frequently call me up and natter on about whatever she’s working on at the moment. Now while I’ve learned a fair amount from these conversations over the years, I am nowhere near in her league. At most, I now know enough to ask dumb questions, which can set her off on a new path. Or, perhaps more importantly, stop her going off on unproductive tangents. (This year’s efforts mostly involve pushing back on her enthusiasm for AI. Sorry, just not nearly ready for prime time.)
If I wasn’t working from home, perhaps I could get a nameplate saying “Nalini’s Orangutan”….
xkcd goes color!
https://xkcd.com/2997/
xkcd goes color!
https://xkcd.com/2997/
GftNC: this is why it’s useful to have some communists around, to critique a capitalist system.
And why it’s good to have Donald around to critique foreign policy!
Feel free to disagree with me, of course.
GftNC: this is why it’s useful to have some communists around, to critique a capitalist system.
And why it’s good to have Donald around to critique foreign policy!
Feel free to disagree with me, of course.
NYT *did* have a story today, sourced from medical workers in Gaza, about the number of children shot in the head or chest.
“Basically, for any of the X-rays to be true, these would need to be low-velocity pistols and not high-velocity rifles. The distance of fire would still not be very close range, as the damage is not significant enough. Very close range has higher velocity thus more damage.”
Cheryl E
NYT *did* have a story today, sourced from medical workers in Gaza, about the number of children shot in the head or chest.
“Basically, for any of the X-rays to be true, these would need to be low-velocity pistols and not high-velocity rifles. The distance of fire would still not be very close range, as the damage is not significant enough. Very close range has higher velocity thus more damage.”
Cheryl E
Not a new idea about the orangutan btw.
Heinrich von Kleist (1777-1811) wrote an essay
“Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden” (= about the gradual production/manufacture of thoughts while talking). In this he wrote about himself talking to his completely uneducated housekeeper when he was working on something. He knew that she did not understand a word of it but by being a silent audience she allowed him to order his thoughts until they were ready to be put to paper. This has to be distinguished from him talking in public where he did not fully prepare beyond the opening but knew that the right words would come in the process of talking, thus producing a more effective speech than with a fully prepared manuscript.
In my personal experience a very good way to better understand something is to have a pair of two persons that do not fully (but partially) understand the matter but try to explain it to each other. In the end both will more often than not have a better understanding of it. Of course the results have to be checked by someone really knowing the stuff because sometimes it does not fully work.
Not a new idea about the orangutan btw.
Heinrich von Kleist (1777-1811) wrote an essay
“Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden” (= about the gradual production/manufacture of thoughts while talking). In this he wrote about himself talking to his completely uneducated housekeeper when he was working on something. He knew that she did not understand a word of it but by being a silent audience she allowed him to order his thoughts until they were ready to be put to paper. This has to be distinguished from him talking in public where he did not fully prepare beyond the opening but knew that the right words would come in the process of talking, thus producing a more effective speech than with a fully prepared manuscript.
In my personal experience a very good way to better understand something is to have a pair of two persons that do not fully (but partially) understand the matter but try to explain it to each other. In the end both will more often than not have a better understanding of it. Of course the results have to be checked by someone really knowing the stuff because sometimes it does not fully work.
Israel has a history of shooting civilians in cold blood. Sometimes with high velocity rounds and sometimes not.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2018/10/gaza-great-march-of-return/
The idea that all of these doctors and nurses simply lied about what they saw is interesting, but sure, some of the wounds probably weren’t made by bullets entering at high velocity. Some could even be ricochets.
The NYT did do a story a few weeks ago where their forensic team analyzed what happened to a Palestinian family and their conclusion was they were shot down by Israeli snipers. Palestinians report this happens routinely. Western reporters are not allowed into Gaza except extremely rarely. War reporters, or some of them, are insanely brave. Some would go and report from the Palestinian side in a heartbeat. They are kept out.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000009614868/israel-gaza-war-family-killed.html
I know there are people who deny Israeli atrocities as a matter of faith and on the other side I have seen people who deny that Hamas killed any civilians on Oct 7. There is a legitimate question about how many were killed by Israel that day— Google “ Hannibal doctrine”. But only idiots try and pretend Hamas didn’t massacre civilians and given their history, why would anyone doubt it? They have always murdered civilians. The same is true of Israel. All of the human rights organizations that have looked at this issue are very critical of both Israel and Hamas.
Israel has a history of shooting civilians in cold blood. Sometimes with high velocity rounds and sometimes not.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2018/10/gaza-great-march-of-return/
The idea that all of these doctors and nurses simply lied about what they saw is interesting, but sure, some of the wounds probably weren’t made by bullets entering at high velocity. Some could even be ricochets.
The NYT did do a story a few weeks ago where their forensic team analyzed what happened to a Palestinian family and their conclusion was they were shot down by Israeli snipers. Palestinians report this happens routinely. Western reporters are not allowed into Gaza except extremely rarely. War reporters, or some of them, are insanely brave. Some would go and report from the Palestinian side in a heartbeat. They are kept out.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000009614868/israel-gaza-war-family-killed.html
I know there are people who deny Israeli atrocities as a matter of faith and on the other side I have seen people who deny that Hamas killed any civilians on Oct 7. There is a legitimate question about how many were killed by Israel that day— Google “ Hannibal doctrine”. But only idiots try and pretend Hamas didn’t massacre civilians and given their history, why would anyone doubt it? They have always murdered civilians. The same is true of Israel. All of the human rights organizations that have looked at this issue are very critical of both Israel and Hamas.
CharlesWT – not necessarily true. Bullets dump a bunch of velocity at longer range, or when passing through other material on their trajectory. A bullet may have passed through a parent that was holding the child, or through a car door or a windshield, or clip a door frame on its way to the child’s skull. It could have been fired at a target at closer distance with no regard for the safety of those behind who might be struck if the bullet misses, or passes through.
Anyone giving the matter a non-bias-motivated thought could have foreseen any of those possibilities, and anyone who spent any amount of time reporting in an armed conflict zone will have seen this.
The objection is propaganda.
CharlesWT – not necessarily true. Bullets dump a bunch of velocity at longer range, or when passing through other material on their trajectory. A bullet may have passed through a parent that was holding the child, or through a car door or a windshield, or clip a door frame on its way to the child’s skull. It could have been fired at a target at closer distance with no regard for the safety of those behind who might be struck if the bullet misses, or passes through.
Anyone giving the matter a non-bias-motivated thought could have foreseen any of those possibilities, and anyone who spent any amount of time reporting in an armed conflict zone will have seen this.
The objection is propaganda.
Here is an article by two of the surgeons who have been most visible on this issue.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/19/gaza-hospitals-surgeons-00167697
Here is an article by two of the surgeons who have been most visible on this issue.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/19/gaza-hospitals-surgeons-00167697
Bullets tend to be deformed when passing through objects. The bullets in the images appear to be undeformed.
Bullets tend to be deformed when passing through objects. The bullets in the images appear to be undeformed.
The New York Times article.
“I worked as a trauma surgeon in Gaza from March 25 to April 8. I’ve volunteered in Ukraine and Haiti, and I grew up in Flint, Mich. I’ve seen violence and worked in conflict zones. But of the many things that stood out about working in a hospital in Gaza, one got to me: Nearly every day I was there, I saw a new young child who had been shot in the head or the chest, virtually all of whom went on to die. Thirteen in total.”
65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics: What We Saw in Gaza
The New York Times article.
“I worked as a trauma surgeon in Gaza from March 25 to April 8. I’ve volunteered in Ukraine and Haiti, and I grew up in Flint, Mich. I’ve seen violence and worked in conflict zones. But of the many things that stood out about working in a hospital in Gaza, one got to me: Nearly every day I was there, I saw a new young child who had been shot in the head or the chest, virtually all of whom went on to die. Thirteen in total.”
65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics: What We Saw in Gaza
I am willing to listen to experts saying that photos were faked by someone and that would be disgraceful if true, precisely because it detracts from the real evidence of Israeli atrocities. The three photos in question come from Mimi Syed, according to the NYT article.
Suppose she faked it. I agree a high velocity bullet should do massive damage. So does that mean that everything else said in the article is false? That dozens of people who went to Gaza, risking ther lives to do this are all liars and didn’t see what they said they saw?
This is what drives me a little nuts about the people Charles cites. They are not arguing in good faith. They have spent the last year looking for every way they could to discredit every claim made about Israeli atrocities and it largely falls flat, because it isn’t just one person. This started with idiotic questioning of the death tolls. The figures hold up as best anyone can tell. Airwars looked at the toll for the first 17 days and largely verified it. As the war dragged on, it is probably less accurate and if anything is likely greatly understated.
https://gaza-civilians.airwars.org/
So if the claim is that one person faked photos and the man who wrote the piece was sloppy in not questioning it, that is possible. But no, that does not mean that the others are lying. It means there should be a meticulous investigation into the crimes of both sides in this war and we could get started on this right away, except that it has to be done by independent outside groups and neither Israel nor the US would agree to it. Israel consistently refuses cooperation and the U.S. always asks Israel to investigate its own crimes.
I am willing to listen to experts saying that photos were faked by someone and that would be disgraceful if true, precisely because it detracts from the real evidence of Israeli atrocities. The three photos in question come from Mimi Syed, according to the NYT article.
Suppose she faked it. I agree a high velocity bullet should do massive damage. So does that mean that everything else said in the article is false? That dozens of people who went to Gaza, risking ther lives to do this are all liars and didn’t see what they said they saw?
This is what drives me a little nuts about the people Charles cites. They are not arguing in good faith. They have spent the last year looking for every way they could to discredit every claim made about Israeli atrocities and it largely falls flat, because it isn’t just one person. This started with idiotic questioning of the death tolls. The figures hold up as best anyone can tell. Airwars looked at the toll for the first 17 days and largely verified it. As the war dragged on, it is probably less accurate and if anything is likely greatly understated.
https://gaza-civilians.airwars.org/
So if the claim is that one person faked photos and the man who wrote the piece was sloppy in not questioning it, that is possible. But no, that does not mean that the others are lying. It means there should be a meticulous investigation into the crimes of both sides in this war and we could get started on this right away, except that it has to be done by independent outside groups and neither Israel nor the US would agree to it. Israel consistently refuses cooperation and the U.S. always asks Israel to investigate its own crimes.
Btw, look at the Airwars piece I just cited or the NYT piece about the murdered family. I am extremely critical of the NYT but when they decide to do a piece they have impressive resources.
But the US government has vastly greater resources and I constantly see Matthew Miller claiming the U.S. does ongoing assessments of what is happening in Gaza and presumably Lebanon. Imagine what it would be like if some group with truly impressive resources did an open and transparent investigation into Gaza even without Israeli cooperation? The US could be doing that, but they clearly aren’t, or not out in the open.
Btw, look at the Airwars piece I just cited or the NYT piece about the murdered family. I am extremely critical of the NYT but when they decide to do a piece they have impressive resources.
But the US government has vastly greater resources and I constantly see Matthew Miller claiming the U.S. does ongoing assessments of what is happening in Gaza and presumably Lebanon. Imagine what it would be like if some group with truly impressive resources did an open and transparent investigation into Gaza even without Israeli cooperation? The US could be doing that, but they clearly aren’t, or not out in the open.
Hamas appears to have acted on its own and not at the behest of Iran.
“For more than two years, Yahya Sinwar huddled with his top Hamas commanders and plotted what they hoped would be the most devastating and destabilizing attack on Israel in the militant group’s four-decade history.
Minutes of Hamas’s secret meetings, seized by the Israeli military and obtained by The New York Times, provide a detailed record of the planning for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack, as well as Mr. Sinwar’s determination to persuade Hamas’s allies, Iran and Hezbollah, to join the assault or at least commit to a broader fight with Israel if Hamas staged a surprise cross-border raid.”
Secret Documents Show Hamas Tried to Persuade Iran to Join Its Oct. 7 Attack: The Times reviewed the minutes of 10 meetings among Hamas’s top leaders. The records show the militant group avoided several escalations since 2021 to falsely imply it had been deterred — while seeking Iranian support for a major attack.
Hamas appears to have acted on its own and not at the behest of Iran.
“For more than two years, Yahya Sinwar huddled with his top Hamas commanders and plotted what they hoped would be the most devastating and destabilizing attack on Israel in the militant group’s four-decade history.
Minutes of Hamas’s secret meetings, seized by the Israeli military and obtained by The New York Times, provide a detailed record of the planning for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack, as well as Mr. Sinwar’s determination to persuade Hamas’s allies, Iran and Hezbollah, to join the assault or at least commit to a broader fight with Israel if Hamas staged a surprise cross-border raid.”
Secret Documents Show Hamas Tried to Persuade Iran to Join Its Oct. 7 Attack: The Times reviewed the minutes of 10 meetings among Hamas’s top leaders. The records show the militant group avoided several escalations since 2021 to falsely imply it had been deterred — while seeking Iranian support for a major attack.
UN’s recent report on some of the human rights violations committed by both Israel and Hamas.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/report-of-the-independent-international-commission-of-inquiry-on-the-occupied-palestinian-territory-including-east-jerusalem-and-israel-11sep24/
No doubt further investigation will reveal more details but would expect most of those details would make both sides look even worse.
UN’s recent report on some of the human rights violations committed by both Israel and Hamas.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/report-of-the-independent-international-commission-of-inquiry-on-the-occupied-palestinian-territory-including-east-jerusalem-and-israel-11sep24/
No doubt further investigation will reveal more details but would expect most of those details would make both sides look even worse.
I’m in full agreement with Donald on this discussion. There is no justifying or excusing the human rights violations. The violations are well documented and widespread on either side. The commentary on social media is only there to sow doubt and salve the consciences of those who want to excuse their own side while keeping the other on the hook.
This is not bothsiderism. I’m not equivocating. I’m on the side of the non-combatants.
I’m in full agreement with Donald on this discussion. There is no justifying or excusing the human rights violations. The violations are well documented and widespread on either side. The commentary on social media is only there to sow doubt and salve the consciences of those who want to excuse their own side while keeping the other on the hook.
This is not bothsiderism. I’m not equivocating. I’m on the side of the non-combatants.
Feel free to disagree with me, of course.
I wouldn’t dream of disagreeing, Snarki. I find the proposition absolutely persuasive, and am naturally therefore very alarmed at the prospect of drifting into a bubble where one only hears from people with whom one agrees. Not only was I brought up to believe that it is good manners to contribute interesting conversation at social gatherings (which is one of the things ObWi is to me), but I also believe that one can learn from consequent civil disagreement, as well as refining one’s own thoughts and beliefs through discussion, whether with Orang-utans or other intelligent primates.
Feel free to disagree with me, of course.
I wouldn’t dream of disagreeing, Snarki. I find the proposition absolutely persuasive, and am naturally therefore very alarmed at the prospect of drifting into a bubble where one only hears from people with whom one agrees. Not only was I brought up to believe that it is good manners to contribute interesting conversation at social gatherings (which is one of the things ObWi is to me), but I also believe that one can learn from consequent civil disagreement, as well as refining one’s own thoughts and beliefs through discussion, whether with Orang-utans or other intelligent primates.
The bullets in the images appear to be undeformed.
And the family probably have granite countertops!
The bullets in the images appear to be undeformed.
And the family probably have granite countertops!
And, further to not keeping to one’s bubble, here’s Maureen Dowd talking to James Carville about Kamala Harris’s current messaging:
Kamala spent a week answering questions on “60 Minutes” and “The View” and on the shows of Stephen Colbert and Howard Stern. And she didn’t move the needle.
“She needs to stop answering questions and start asking questions,” Carville said. He thinks that, for her closing message, she should put the issue of Jan. 6 and who won the election on the back burner.
Instead, he said, she should ask:
“How dare JD Vance say with a straight face that Trump is the father of Obamacare when Trump tried to kill it 50 times?”
She should display pictures of right-wing judges who Trump could appoint to the Supreme Court, and ask if Americans are ready for an even more fanatical court.
She should ask: “Do you know how destructive tariffs can be? They will kill your freaking jobs.”
She should say she’s going to end the Trump tax cuts for the rich and ask voters if they would rather use those trillion-plus dollars to help young people afford their first home.
In other words, he said: “She should scare the crap out of voters. You know, Trump is just taunting us, having a rally at Madison Square Garden just like the Nazis did in 1939.
“Black men and young Black men have to think about what they have at stake in the election. Donald Trump tells you that you have nothing to lose. Well, you have health insurance you could lose, you have a job you could lose.”
I agree with him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/opinion/trump-harris-election.html?unlocked_article_code=1.R04.k_T8.Pf_jWZJd2xDX&smid=url-share
And, further to not keeping to one’s bubble, here’s Maureen Dowd talking to James Carville about Kamala Harris’s current messaging:
Kamala spent a week answering questions on “60 Minutes” and “The View” and on the shows of Stephen Colbert and Howard Stern. And she didn’t move the needle.
“She needs to stop answering questions and start asking questions,” Carville said. He thinks that, for her closing message, she should put the issue of Jan. 6 and who won the election on the back burner.
Instead, he said, she should ask:
“How dare JD Vance say with a straight face that Trump is the father of Obamacare when Trump tried to kill it 50 times?”
She should display pictures of right-wing judges who Trump could appoint to the Supreme Court, and ask if Americans are ready for an even more fanatical court.
She should ask: “Do you know how destructive tariffs can be? They will kill your freaking jobs.”
She should say she’s going to end the Trump tax cuts for the rich and ask voters if they would rather use those trillion-plus dollars to help young people afford their first home.
In other words, he said: “She should scare the crap out of voters. You know, Trump is just taunting us, having a rally at Madison Square Garden just like the Nazis did in 1939.
“Black men and young Black men have to think about what they have at stake in the election. Donald Trump tells you that you have nothing to lose. Well, you have health insurance you could lose, you have a job you could lose.”
I agree with him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/opinion/trump-harris-election.html?unlocked_article_code=1.R04.k_T8.Pf_jWZJd2xDX&smid=url-share
There are a host of pundits, speaking (or yelling) about all the things that Harris should be doing differently. Some of them simply have different takes on how a politican campaign ought to be run. (Including a couple whose take is that they ought to be the ones running it.)
But others seem to be driven by the fact that the polls aren’t moving. Which overlooks a couple of details. First, polling has been getting less and less accurate. Driven, in no small part, by changes in technology (far more cell phones and ever fewer landlines**), and be cultural changes (people simply don’t answer calls from numbers that they don’t recognize).
As a result, pollsters have to make extrapolations, based on the few responses that they do get. Those extrapolations lead to nonsense like “black men are moving from Harris to Trump!” Yeah, and if you dig down, they were extrapolating from a grand total of three (3!) black men. One guy represents 1/3 of all the black men in the country. Bah!
Another problem is that polls assume that demographic groups will turn up to vote at the same rates as in the past. Which can be a terrible assumption. Kansas had an election where an abortion measure, polling somewhat below 50%, won overwhelmingly. Some demographics who traditionally don’t much turn out to vote (e.g. young women) turned out to be highly motivated. Something pollsters didn’t notice.
It seems to me that this election will turn on how well Harris’campaign reaches those demographics that don’t much vote, and convinces them to turn out. They are definitely working hard on that. (To the immense irritation of media like the New York Times, which aren’t accustomed to being ignored as irrelevant. Which, for this campaign, they are.)
My guess is that Carville, et al, are trying to fight the last war. Or maybe even the one before. That doesn’t mean Harris is a lock to win. But it does mean that citing the polls as evidence that she is in trouble is unconvincing.
** This matters because it makes establishing the location of the phone impossible. My sister moved from California to Washington. But still has the same cell number, complete with California area code. Look at the number, and you could think you were calling a California voter. Oops.
There are a host of pundits, speaking (or yelling) about all the things that Harris should be doing differently. Some of them simply have different takes on how a politican campaign ought to be run. (Including a couple whose take is that they ought to be the ones running it.)
But others seem to be driven by the fact that the polls aren’t moving. Which overlooks a couple of details. First, polling has been getting less and less accurate. Driven, in no small part, by changes in technology (far more cell phones and ever fewer landlines**), and be cultural changes (people simply don’t answer calls from numbers that they don’t recognize).
As a result, pollsters have to make extrapolations, based on the few responses that they do get. Those extrapolations lead to nonsense like “black men are moving from Harris to Trump!” Yeah, and if you dig down, they were extrapolating from a grand total of three (3!) black men. One guy represents 1/3 of all the black men in the country. Bah!
Another problem is that polls assume that demographic groups will turn up to vote at the same rates as in the past. Which can be a terrible assumption. Kansas had an election where an abortion measure, polling somewhat below 50%, won overwhelmingly. Some demographics who traditionally don’t much turn out to vote (e.g. young women) turned out to be highly motivated. Something pollsters didn’t notice.
It seems to me that this election will turn on how well Harris’campaign reaches those demographics that don’t much vote, and convinces them to turn out. They are definitely working hard on that. (To the immense irritation of media like the New York Times, which aren’t accustomed to being ignored as irrelevant. Which, for this campaign, they are.)
My guess is that Carville, et al, are trying to fight the last war. Or maybe even the one before. That doesn’t mean Harris is a lock to win. But it does mean that citing the polls as evidence that she is in trouble is unconvincing.
** This matters because it makes establishing the location of the phone impossible. My sister moved from California to Washington. But still has the same cell number, complete with California area code. Look at the number, and you could think you were calling a California voter. Oops.
Landline phones (had one, up until a couple of years ago) get absolutely SWAMPED with scam/spam calls.
So no, you don’t answer unless you know the caller.
A habit that gets carried over to cell-phones, particularly because the “caller ID” is right in front of you, before you answer.
So the legit polling operations are going into a death spiral, while the scammy (push-poll, dishonest PR front, etc) ones proliferate.
Landline phones (had one, up until a couple of years ago) get absolutely SWAMPED with scam/spam calls.
So no, you don’t answer unless you know the caller.
A habit that gets carried over to cell-phones, particularly because the “caller ID” is right in front of you, before you answer.
So the legit polling operations are going into a death spiral, while the scammy (push-poll, dishonest PR front, etc) ones proliferate.
Since it’s an open thread… SpaceX flew their fifth integrated test flight of Starship and Super Heavy this morning. The Super Heavy booster returned to the launch site, maneuvered into position balancing on the output of three engines, and the “chopstick” arms clamped on and held it in place. That booster is 70 meters tall, 9 meters in diameter, and weighs over 250,000 kg when it’s empty. Even Musk had expressed some doubts about pulling the landing off on the first attempt.
Since it’s an open thread… SpaceX flew their fifth integrated test flight of Starship and Super Heavy this morning. The Super Heavy booster returned to the launch site, maneuvered into position balancing on the output of three engines, and the “chopstick” arms clamped on and held it in place. That booster is 70 meters tall, 9 meters in diameter, and weighs over 250,000 kg when it’s empty. Even Musk had expressed some doubts about pulling the landing off on the first attempt.
Perhaps not very useful but LLMs are getting better.
“The document is a compilation of comments from various individuals engaged in a deep and multifaceted discussion on a range of topics primarily centered around geopolitical events, humanitarian issues, and personal experiences. The conversation threads are interconnected and touch upon the following key themes:”
Comments Summary and Analysis
Perhaps not very useful but LLMs are getting better.
“The document is a compilation of comments from various individuals engaged in a deep and multifaceted discussion on a range of topics primarily centered around geopolitical events, humanitarian issues, and personal experiences. The conversation threads are interconnected and touch upon the following key themes:”
Comments Summary and Analysis
CharlesWT – it looks very familiar to me, because it is basically what my first-year college students do when presented with a reading. And like them, the LLM mistakes synopsis and summary for analysis.
The tech giants have built themselves a very literate book report machine.
It usually takes me two weeks, and three workshopped drafts, to take one of those first-years from a (less literate and organized) version of this to a paper that actually engages in analysis for a relevant purpose. In order to do that, I have to talk with them, asking probing questions, listening to their responses, goading them to dig into the linkages they summarized, and tell me why those linkages make a difference.
My better students leave the class capable of doing that process of reflection and critical analysis themselves and ready to start practicing, refining, and expanding those skills in their studies more generally. The majority of them have become aware of the need to do something more than synopsize something in a way that sounds articulate, but they may need a few more iterations of working out the critical analysis thing before they will have made it into a habit of mind. Fingers crossed that it sticks.
But the bottom of the bell curve in the class will remain impressed, comforted, and satisfied with the articulate book report.
Sadly, from what my friend who works on one of the big LLMs says, the team is made up of people in the middle and top of that bell curve, but the execs they report to mostly see the dollar signs in being able to sell their service to all the people who struggle to read an synopsize, so that’s where the development goes.
CharlesWT – it looks very familiar to me, because it is basically what my first-year college students do when presented with a reading. And like them, the LLM mistakes synopsis and summary for analysis.
The tech giants have built themselves a very literate book report machine.
It usually takes me two weeks, and three workshopped drafts, to take one of those first-years from a (less literate and organized) version of this to a paper that actually engages in analysis for a relevant purpose. In order to do that, I have to talk with them, asking probing questions, listening to their responses, goading them to dig into the linkages they summarized, and tell me why those linkages make a difference.
My better students leave the class capable of doing that process of reflection and critical analysis themselves and ready to start practicing, refining, and expanding those skills in their studies more generally. The majority of them have become aware of the need to do something more than synopsize something in a way that sounds articulate, but they may need a few more iterations of working out the critical analysis thing before they will have made it into a habit of mind. Fingers crossed that it sticks.
But the bottom of the bell curve in the class will remain impressed, comforted, and satisfied with the articulate book report.
Sadly, from what my friend who works on one of the big LLMs says, the team is made up of people in the middle and top of that bell curve, but the execs they report to mostly see the dollar signs in being able to sell their service to all the people who struggle to read an synopsize, so that’s where the development goes.
Yahya Sinwar dead, in what looks like an unplanned firefight where the rookie IDF people didn”t know who was in the building they were exchanging fire with (he was apparently without Israeli hostage human shields). I cannot mourn him. It’s going to be interesting to see what Netanyahu does next, if anything different.
Yahya Sinwar dead, in what looks like an unplanned firefight where the rookie IDF people didn”t know who was in the building they were exchanging fire with (he was apparently without Israeli hostage human shields). I cannot mourn him. It’s going to be interesting to see what Netanyahu does next, if anything different.
It’s not a war – it’s the world’s sloppiest, most careless assassination campaign.
It’s not a war – it’s the world’s sloppiest, most careless assassination campaign.
This essay is longer than it needs to be, but I think it captures the Western mindset regarding the genocide we support.
https://www.hauntologies.net/p/the-madness-they-suffer-from
Basically, it can’t be bad if we support it. If it was that bad that would mean we are wrong about ourselves. Therefore it isn’t that bad.
This essay is longer than it needs to be, but I think it captures the Western mindset regarding the genocide we support.
https://www.hauntologies.net/p/the-madness-they-suffer-from
Basically, it can’t be bad if we support it. If it was that bad that would mean we are wrong about ourselves. Therefore it isn’t that bad.
Although I am often intolerantly anti-religious, this (from today’s Grauniad) is a religion I could really get behind. For verily I say unto thee: in terrible times humour really helps.
Satan is a feminist now
The devil works hard, but the Republican party works harder. Not a day seems to go by without anti-abortion zealots on the right advancing some cunning new plan to strip women of their bodily autonomy. As well as shutting down abortion clinics, Republican states are trying to essentially outlaw abortion pills: on Friday, Missouri, Kansas and Idaho renewed a legal push to drastically reduce access to mifepristone.
Amid this hellscape, help may be at hand from a somewhat unlikely source: Satan. Or, to be more accurate – and since the devil is in the details – the Satanic Temple.
Founded in 2012, the Satanic Temple (which is not to be confused with the very different Church of Satan) is not about devil worship. Rather, it is about raising hell to fight for freedom from the religious right’s crusade to impose their beliefs on everyone else. “Right now, we have a minority religious theocratic movement, so entrenched in politics and getting away with whatever they want,” co-founder Lucien Greaves told the Guardian earlier this year.
Recognized as a religion by the IRS, the Satanic Temple uses the religious right’s tactics, and their victories, against them. When a Ten Commandments monument was erected at the Oklahoma state capitol in 2012, for example, the temple submitted an application to put a 7ft-tall statue depicting Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, alongside it. In its application, it argued that the decision to have a Ten Commandments monument paved the way for satanic representation. (They weren’t the only ones protesting: the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also requested a monument.) In the end, the Ten Commandments statue was removed by order of the state’s supreme court and the Horned One did not get immortalized in Oklahoma.
Over the years, the Satanic Temple has taken on issues like prayer in the classroom, after-class Bible study groups, and the distribution of Bibles in schools. Now, for obvious reasons, it’s increasingly turning its not-so-evil eye to abortion rights. Last year, it opened an online abortion clinic in New Mexico called The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic, in reference to the conservative justice who wrote the majority opinion that overturned Roe v Wade. “In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options, and look what happened,” Malcolm Jarry, co-founder of the Satanic Temple said at the time.
As with its other causes, the Satanic Temple brands abortion as a core part of its religious beliefs. Women are asked to recite a ritual (“By my body, my blood, by my will, it is done”) before taking abortion pills to ward off “unjust persecution”. The temple has also sued states that have banned abortion, arguing that abortion is a religious rite for their congregation and that denying them access to these ritual abortions would be a constitutional violation.
All of this has had the desired effect of driving the satanists’ adversaries bonkers. The Christian Research Institute, an evangelical group, described the group as “troll lords” and said they were “exploiting their cartoonishly dark and villainous branding to agitate the public and pester the Christian Right into a judicial showdown”.
That showdown may be forthcoming because the Satanic Temple has just opened its second telehealth abortion clinic, this time in Virginia. It’s called the Right to Your Life Satanic Abortion Clinic. “We’re also actively working to increase access in other states, including taking legal action in restrictive states such as Indiana and Idaho to provide religious abortion services there as well,” the temple said in a statement. Truly, they are doing the Lord’s work.
Although I am often intolerantly anti-religious, this (from today’s Grauniad) is a religion I could really get behind. For verily I say unto thee: in terrible times humour really helps.
Satan is a feminist now
The devil works hard, but the Republican party works harder. Not a day seems to go by without anti-abortion zealots on the right advancing some cunning new plan to strip women of their bodily autonomy. As well as shutting down abortion clinics, Republican states are trying to essentially outlaw abortion pills: on Friday, Missouri, Kansas and Idaho renewed a legal push to drastically reduce access to mifepristone.
Amid this hellscape, help may be at hand from a somewhat unlikely source: Satan. Or, to be more accurate – and since the devil is in the details – the Satanic Temple.
Founded in 2012, the Satanic Temple (which is not to be confused with the very different Church of Satan) is not about devil worship. Rather, it is about raising hell to fight for freedom from the religious right’s crusade to impose their beliefs on everyone else. “Right now, we have a minority religious theocratic movement, so entrenched in politics and getting away with whatever they want,” co-founder Lucien Greaves told the Guardian earlier this year.
Recognized as a religion by the IRS, the Satanic Temple uses the religious right’s tactics, and their victories, against them. When a Ten Commandments monument was erected at the Oklahoma state capitol in 2012, for example, the temple submitted an application to put a 7ft-tall statue depicting Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, alongside it. In its application, it argued that the decision to have a Ten Commandments monument paved the way for satanic representation. (They weren’t the only ones protesting: the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also requested a monument.) In the end, the Ten Commandments statue was removed by order of the state’s supreme court and the Horned One did not get immortalized in Oklahoma.
Over the years, the Satanic Temple has taken on issues like prayer in the classroom, after-class Bible study groups, and the distribution of Bibles in schools. Now, for obvious reasons, it’s increasingly turning its not-so-evil eye to abortion rights. Last year, it opened an online abortion clinic in New Mexico called The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic, in reference to the conservative justice who wrote the majority opinion that overturned Roe v Wade. “In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options, and look what happened,” Malcolm Jarry, co-founder of the Satanic Temple said at the time.
As with its other causes, the Satanic Temple brands abortion as a core part of its religious beliefs. Women are asked to recite a ritual (“By my body, my blood, by my will, it is done”) before taking abortion pills to ward off “unjust persecution”. The temple has also sued states that have banned abortion, arguing that abortion is a religious rite for their congregation and that denying them access to these ritual abortions would be a constitutional violation.
All of this has had the desired effect of driving the satanists’ adversaries bonkers. The Christian Research Institute, an evangelical group, described the group as “troll lords” and said they were “exploiting their cartoonishly dark and villainous branding to agitate the public and pester the Christian Right into a judicial showdown”.
That showdown may be forthcoming because the Satanic Temple has just opened its second telehealth abortion clinic, this time in Virginia. It’s called the Right to Your Life Satanic Abortion Clinic. “We’re also actively working to increase access in other states, including taking legal action in restrictive states such as Indiana and Idaho to provide religious abortion services there as well,” the temple said in a statement. Truly, they are doing the Lord’s work.
I’ve been familiar with the ToS for a while for these very reasons, and I think that Lucien’s Law may be one of the big thorns in the side of the Christian Nationalists who are being forced to unmask their illiberal authoritarian ways every time they attempt to assert hegemony under the guise of religious freedom and the “war on Christianity.”
TST Campaigns are goal-focused, and address very specific issues relating to the mission and values of The Satanic Temple. Each Campaign has a specific mission and is rooted in a theory of action for bringing about a concrete positive change in the world. The activities of the Campaigns are often, but not always, grounded on a specific principle that is directly tied to the separation of church and state. This principle has informally been termed “Lucien’s Law” in the media, and can be expressed this way:
When The Satanic Temple acts to exert religious rights or privileges taken for granted by majority religions in the United States, governments will either (1) censor The Satanic Temple, thereby opening itself to legal liability, or (2) remove the privilege entirely.
https://faq.satanicministry.com/ask/what-is-a-campaign/
I don’t know how much longer their tactic is going to work. It only works so long as we have a Supreme Court that values a pluralistic society. I’m not sure we can expect that anymore, and I think things may get rapidly worse if the Whore of Crabbylon and Wormtongue manage to steal another electoral win.
I’ve been familiar with the ToS for a while for these very reasons, and I think that Lucien’s Law may be one of the big thorns in the side of the Christian Nationalists who are being forced to unmask their illiberal authoritarian ways every time they attempt to assert hegemony under the guise of religious freedom and the “war on Christianity.”
TST Campaigns are goal-focused, and address very specific issues relating to the mission and values of The Satanic Temple. Each Campaign has a specific mission and is rooted in a theory of action for bringing about a concrete positive change in the world. The activities of the Campaigns are often, but not always, grounded on a specific principle that is directly tied to the separation of church and state. This principle has informally been termed “Lucien’s Law” in the media, and can be expressed this way:
When The Satanic Temple acts to exert religious rights or privileges taken for granted by majority religions in the United States, governments will either (1) censor The Satanic Temple, thereby opening itself to legal liability, or (2) remove the privilege entirely.
https://faq.satanicministry.com/ask/what-is-a-campaign/
I don’t know how much longer their tactic is going to work. It only works so long as we have a Supreme Court that values a pluralistic society. I’m not sure we can expect that anymore, and I think things may get rapidly worse if the Whore of Crabbylon and Wormtongue manage to steal another electoral win.
I think things may get rapidly worse if the Whore of Crabbylon and Wormtongue manage to steal another electoral win.
I can think of almost nothing that will not get rapidly worse if they win. I live in fear. I try to reassure myself with wj’s comments about how polls are conducted on landlines, thus excluding the (hopefully highly motivated but probably mainly female) youth vote, but then I read that a lot of polling these days is done online, which presumably captures those voters. I don’t know what to think about how close it seems to be, to me it is literally incomprehensible.
On Wormtongue, people were circulating this which seemed a reasonably fair summary:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-an-undecided-hobbit-torn-between-a-dark-lord-who-promises-an-age-of-chaos-and-an-elf-queen-whom-i-just-wish-i-knew-more-about
I think things may get rapidly worse if the Whore of Crabbylon and Wormtongue manage to steal another electoral win.
I can think of almost nothing that will not get rapidly worse if they win. I live in fear. I try to reassure myself with wj’s comments about how polls are conducted on landlines, thus excluding the (hopefully highly motivated but probably mainly female) youth vote, but then I read that a lot of polling these days is done online, which presumably captures those voters. I don’t know what to think about how close it seems to be, to me it is literally incomprehensible.
On Wormtongue, people were circulating this which seemed a reasonably fair summary:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-an-undecided-hobbit-torn-between-a-dark-lord-who-promises-an-age-of-chaos-and-an-elf-queen-whom-i-just-wish-i-knew-more-about