On this day in 1784, Holland banned the wearing of the color orange.
There’s a phenomenon where someone writes an essay about this or that but someone else wants to discuss something that has not yet made it to the front page.
This is unfair to everybody involved. It’s unfair to the guy who wrote the original essay because, presumably, he wants to talk about his original essay. It’s unfair to the guy who wants to talk about his link because it looks like he’s trying to change the subject. It’s unfair to the people who go to the comments to read up on the thoughts of the commentariat for the original essay and now we’re talking about some other guy’s links.
So!
The intention is to have a new one of these every week. If you want to talk about a link, post it here! Or, heck, use it as an open thread.
And, if it rolls off, we’ll make a new one. With a preamble just like this one.
If you were waiting to read the NYT’s endorsement for the Mayor’s race, wait no more: Our Advice to Voters in a Vexing Race for New York Mayor
Short version: THEY HATE EVERYBODY.
I’m sure on balance, there are more people who take a NYT endorsement as positive, but there are now a substantial number of people who consider the NYT not endorsing a candidate to be a positive. I suspect the latter group has been growing much faster than the first over the last several years.
Remember last year when the LA Times and the WaPo both said “no more endorsements!” and it created a huge ruckus because the November election was coming up and that was the most important election of our lifetimes?
Well, when that happened, the New York Times said this: No More Local Endorsements by The New York Times
They specifically mentioned this very mayor’s election:
It’s one thing to make a principled stand.
It’s quite another to hold it for almost a whole year.
The Jewish Community Relationships Council of New York sent out an email reminding New York Jews that this mayoral primary election is very important for Jews and reminded them to vote and how to vote. It did not directly state vote against Mandami but that was the clear implication. Most of my Jewish friends in New York, who aren’t necessarily big fans of Netanyahu, think that Mandami is going to far.
If the anti-Zionists of LGM refuse to get it, imagine what would happen if a Mayor of Los Angeles said a bone headed thing about Mexico or a Mayor of San Francisco said a bone headed thing about China when Mexican-Americans and Chinese-Americans are big groups in both cities. Nearly all Diaspora Jews, whether you like it or not, feel at least some attachment to Israel and see it’s creation as a good thing.
We don’t have to imagine a bonehead saying something stupid with regards to the AAPI community in San Francisco! We have Chesa Boudin!
I guess the question is whether the Jews of NYC have as much stroke as the AAPI community does in Frisco.
I went to the No Kings protest on Saturday here in Portland, OR. Local press is reporting that I was joined by about 50,000 of my friends. Everything I saw over the course of that four-hour period was entirely peaceful.
This was not the case at Portland’s ICE facility, which is about two miles away from downtown where the big protest was; about 300 people showed up there and things turned violent. ICE officers and protestors are blaming one another for starting it.
Seems to have gone off without a hitch here as well, though smaller (media reporting “up to 20,0000”). I didn’t attend, but many friends did. I wish I understood what the goals of the protest were (are they just worried about kings), and what they were asking people to do after the crowds dispersed. I especially wish I knew what they were asking people to do afterwards that didn’t involve just calling representatives and voting harder than likely everyone who shows up to such a thing has already voted.
I saw a lot of other causes around. Plenty of “Free Palestine” folks, several people chanting “Chinga La Migra!” and a few lefty election truthers. Mostly it was voicing objection to Trump’s plentiful overreaches.
There was no ask that I do anything in particular after the march. That’s up to me, it seems. But we did show up in large numbers, around the country. That arms lawmakers with the knowledge that they are not a small minority, that there is power they can tap into. Here’s hoping they use it.
If you’re looking for some reading on organizing and what to do next ideas, I recommend Let This Radicalize You as a good start.
I especially wish I knew what they were asking people to do afterwards that didn’t involve just calling representatives and voting harder than likely everyone who shows up to such a thing has already voted.
I personally am getting frustrated by people calling for ‘accountability’ and whatnot.
Like, we do understand, politically, the only actual action here is starting impeachment, right? Why are we pretending there is anything else that can be done besides either that, or waiting for the midterms. (As if Trump isn’t going to try to interfere with the midterms.)
I think what they wanted you to do was get up, go to your window, open it, and stick your head out and yell “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
Incidentally, anyone who thinks what is happening under Trump wasn’t obvious needs to see this: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2797782/Ideas-Trump-front-page.pdf
That’s an editorial page that’s a mockup of what will ahppen in 2017 if the GOP elects Trump, to urge the Republicans to pick someone else in the primary. Pretty much everything in it is happening now. It didn’t happen the first time because the sane Republicans around Trump stopped it, but it was _very clear_ what Trump was going to do.
Let’s look at the stuff that hasn’t happened exactly yet and see if it seems likely:
US soldiers refuse orders to kill ISIS families – well, ISIS isn’t really around anymore, but that’s about Trump ordering war crimes. I guess we’ll see what happens when we get involved in Iran.
New libel law targets ‘absolute scum’ in press – That one was too optimistic! Trump isn’t bothering to sue people who insult him under libel laws, he’s just misusing the government to injure them.
Markets sink as trade war looms – Also hilariously optimistic as Trump has just starting trade wars with Mexico and China, and not *checks notes* the entire planet and Krypton for some reason.
Pet Peeve – About a diplomatic crisis with China, which…have we had that? I forget. We’ve had them with plenty of places because Trump says stupid stuff.
So, yeah, turns out we did actually know most of this stuff. All of this. Well in advance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/nyregion/brad-lander-immigration-ice.html
ICE arrested NYC Controller and Mayoral Candidate Brad Lander for the crime of escorting an immigrant to immigration court: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/nyregion/brad-lander-immigration-ice.html
ETA: He was immeidately released without charges apparently
Asking to see a judicial warrant is not yet a chargeable offense.
He has been apparently escorting immigrants to court for weeks.
In sillier news, VP JD Vance signed up for an account on Bluesky!
He has already been suspended.
He’s back.
I would wonder at the thought processes behind banning him. Or emotive processes, I guess, given that I assume that it was the thought processes that were behind unbanning him.
Sometimes someone is a shit-starter just by being around, even if they don’t do anything, and you’re better off not having them.
Like, a red flag isn’t bad by itself, but it’s still not something you want in a bullpen…
“NO NATIONAL SOCIALISTS!” is one of the philosophies out there. You gotta keep the nicest of them out before they start showing up with friends and now your bar is a National Socialist bar, I guess.
On the other hand, if *EVERYBODY* to your right is a National Socialist by your lights, the problem may not be that everybody is a National Socialist.
The solution to the problem seems to be “just ignore him and if you can’t just send him a picture of a couch”.
I think the issue is the number of people who will not be able to behave themselves if JD Vance is around.
I mean, yeah, it sucks for JD Vance that he can’t hang out at the Fun Kids Table because the Fun Kids’ crazy friend will be a total asshole about him being there despite anything he does (including nothing), but it is the Fun Kids’ table and if they like their crazy friend more than they like JD Vance then that’s how it goes.
Back in middle school, there were the queen bee girls. I understand that the movie “Mean Girls” is about the various dynamics they get up to.
Though I’ve never seen it (what can I say? Never got around to it), I understand through various reviews that I’ve read that the kids at the fun kids table aren’t fun and aren’t having fun.
Possibly an automatic ban based on mass reporting abuse. IIRC the same thing briefly happened to Jesse Singal when he signed up, although I can’t easily find corroboration of that, because when I try to find it all I get is coverage of the Cluster-Bs demanding that he be banned.
From a spam/abuse prevention perspective, it makes sense to automatically ban new accounts that get a lot of reports quickly, but the system breaks down when your user base is highly enriched with personality disorders.
Nate Silver opens a proverbial can of proverbial worms by digging into the “so-called” Happiness Gap that seems to exist between Liberals and Conservatives.
What explains the liberal-conservative happiness gap?
Personally, I think that it’s because conservatives are more likely to cook for other people. If you want to be happy? Cook a meal for somebody.
It is certainly true that I keep seeing American liberals saying that they feel it’s a Moral Imperative to “witness” bad things happening, as atonement for the fact that they aren’t likely to have those bad things (or any bad things at all) happen to them.
As a lefty who is mostly happy I have yet to understand this alleged set of facts. I do cook for others quite regularly; I have hobbies that I take joy from; I have IRL relationships that are good for me.
I also bear witness, in no small pet because my deep faith retires it of me. And yes I am angrier by the day about the state of the world but that anger has focus and doesn’t contribute to any sense of malaise.
The alleged facts do come from a poll with a not-insignificant sample size (60,000). I suppose we could have a discussion about whether polling means anything…
Maybe Kurt Cobain explained it all:
On the other hand, if I wanted to get advice on the nature of happiness, I probably wouldn’t go to one of the grunge guys who shot himself.
On the gripping hand, maybe the Courtney Love assassination theory is correct and Cobain actually had a legit insight there.
If, however, the poll is accurate, then there’s a legit something going on and it probably is worth exploring, even if our immediate response to a bell curve is to point at someone in one of the tails and ask “AH-HA!!! WHAT ABOUT THIS GUY?!?”
Aggregate happiness numbers are notoriously problematic, but as a leftist with a long history of depression, who am I to talk?
Even if we were to accept the aggregate mood numbers, what would we do with them? What’s the direction of causality?
Well, the problem is either fixable or it’s not.
If it’s fixable:
1. How do we know?
2. Is it worth fixing? Will the tradeoffs be worth it?
If it’s not fixable:
1. How do we know?
2. How do we explain that this isn’t fixable but it’s a tradeoff worth making?
I mean, maybe it’s an eternal problem where you have liberals who see the world clearly and are depressed by it and conservatives who can think about the guy who burped drinking too much seltzer and be in a good mood all day?
I think the first question is, is it actually a problem. Recall that when they do this sort of happiness in aggregate stuff with nations, the countries with some of the highest suicide rates come out the happiest. That seems, well perhaps not contradictory, but at least an incongruity in need of explanation.
But once we’ve gotten that, we probably have to think about what sorts of things predict happiness, and what sorts of things don’t. Are they aspects of liberalism and conservatism (in the American sense/extension of the words)? Are they things that tend to be correlated with liberalism and conservatism, but aren’t necessarily causal (say, neuroticism?)? Are they things that are causally related to liberalism and conservatism?
To answer any of the questions you raised, we’d probably need to know the answer to these incredibly difficult questions. Hell, to even know what fixing it means, which comes well before deciding whether it’s feasible to do so, would require answering these questions.
Maybe it’s just a happiness baseline/hedonic set point issue? People with a naturally high one tend to wander towards Conservatism and people with a naturally low one tend to wander towards Liberalism?
That certainly would explain the whole “Perpetual Revolution” thing. They’re just on the hedonic treadmill, man.
But if we are willing to say that happiness is not a problem, then there are rather quite a few problems that just up’n evaporate.
To be clear, the “is it actually a problem” is in reference to whether the data actually means anything.
Sorry to hear that. Depression is a serious and nasty illness. Two of my family members have it.
It’s treatable with (cheap!) drugs and they have made a world of difference for both of them. If you haven’t seen someone then you should.
Thank you. Fortunately I haven’t had an extended bout of depression in many years.
In today’s “merely anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic”, two young Jewish men beat up in San Francisco by an assailant yelling “F**K Jews, Free Palestine.” How does this actually help Palestinians or make Jews particularly want to trust people saying they merely want to help Palestinians and not hurt Jews?
https://sfist.com/2025/06/16/anti-semitic-attack-reported-in-marina-district-early-saturday-morning/
Crime is actually down in San Francisco and quite significantly. Here’s the San Francisco Standard: SF crime rate at lowest point in more than 20 years, mayor says
one victim, not two. “The victim ultimately suffered a swollen lip and three bumps on his head.”
Here are my links for the week…
Nate Silver, Electoral Demographic Math flip
https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-the-electoral-math-flipped-against
with (ironic) Bonus:
Ruy Teixeira, The No Kings and the ‘Emerging Republican Majority’ kicker:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-166300033
Not pictured, MattY somewhere.
“Emerging Republican Majority”
Ouch.
The good news is that if Republican leadership reads that they’ll do to the Republicans what the Democrats did to the Democrats after reading their own version.
Heh, no doubt. I don’t think Teixeira actually goes that far, but the implication was just too great to pass-up.
MURC’S LAW! MURC’S LAW!!!
This is the Yglesias companion piece:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/why-im-obsessed-with-winning-the
No paywall.
Thanks… I could feel the disturbance in the force that it was out there; I appreciate that MattY names names in his popularist issues pile:
“Under the circumstances, it should be a no-brainer for the party to write a more moderate platform and deliberately engage in a loud and proud big tent recruiting strategy. In states where Democrats are struggling to win, there’s nothing to lose by recruiting and standing behind pro-gun candidates, candidates who are friendly to oil and gas, candidates who are okay with late-term abortion restrictions, candidates who have traditional views on gender identity, candidates who are immigration restrictionists, candidates who are old-fashioned deficit hawks, candidates who are vocally skeptical of affirmative action.”
Part of the problem is the problem of how we can’t pass gun control with pro-gun candidates, we can’t solve Global Climate Change with candidates who are friendly to oil and gas, we can’t protect a woman’s right to control her own sexual destiny with candidates who are okay with late-term abortion restricts, we can’t protect trans kids on the volleyball team with candidates who have traditional views on gender identity, we can’t protect the undocumented visitors with candidates who are immigration restrictionists, we can’t pass a budget that is fair to the 99% with candidates who are old-fashioned deficit hawks, and we can’t protect BIPOC and AAPI people with candidates who are vocally skeptical of affirmative action.
Well, BIPOCs, anyway.
What use is selling your soul to win the senate if it doesn’t mean that the most important issues in the world will have bills to back them up? Better to run Beto against Ted Cruz forever.
Yes. And ironically there’s a self-reinforcing lesson from Trump’s takeover of the Republican party. There are no lessons to be learned, only efforts redoubled.
That’s why, absent my usual shield of irony, I want to see non-constitutional aspects of the election process changed to allow for more parties to have representation in the body politic. We should have a left party (or parties depending on the race/gender/identity vs. economics cleavage); MAGA should be a party, there should be an Upper Left party and a couple flavors of squish.
Would be better for everyone to know what their proportional influence really is, and stop the Pirate Ship mentality of taking over existing brands.
If they didn’t insist on loyalty to all seven of those issues then they could get people who are loyal to only 5 of them. Ideally enough to get all 7 passed, just with different sub-sets of reps.
The reason that’s not possible is some of those causes are seriously minority views and need to be jammed down the throats of the majority by taking over the party.
We talk about this on the other blog a lot. Part of the issue is that big tent parties often have to keep it bland to keep the factions together. This makes a party look like it doesn’t stand for anything. But taking bold stances can also make a party seem self-righteous moral scolds. Plus you have constant debates about who gets thrown under the bust or who gets their policy preferences ignored.
I think it’s a slightly different issue and commented to that effect on the MY post. To me the driver is education and urban/rural polarization, combined with a fully national media market. The result is that blue primary voters in Dallas or Atlanta might be a little to the right of blue primary voters in SF or NY but not to the degree that’s going to create real material differentiation in candidate selection for the general, particularly if the voters in question are college educated.
Team red deals with some of this too. We’ve seen them tank winnable Senate seats by picking MAGA crazies to run in leans red but still legitimately contested races. Here in Maryland the GOP basically ceded the governor’s race by picking a MAGA nut from the hinterlands instead of Larry Hogan’s endorsed successor who would have at least made it interesting. The problem just happens to be worse for Democrats because of the way the Senate is designed, and while I usually see proposed process changes as a bit of a cope* this is a situation where it really may be worth examining.
*Sometimes process changes are merited but often times my reaction is to say well of course if you made the rules precisely so that you won all the time you’d get everything you want but that’s not ever going to be how the world works.
I should probably do an “abundance” thread but there are a handful of cities that has Blue win all of the time and they get everything they want and…
Well, be careful what you wish for, I guess.
Everyone thinks everyone else thinks like them and they’re middle of the road.
In today’s boneheaded comment by a politician, NYC Mayoral candidate Mamdani draws heat by comparing globalize the intifada to the Warsaw Uprising. The most amazing thing about Pro-Palestinian activists in the West is how they are basically ignoring that Hamas exists, the explicit goals of Hamas, and that 10/7 never happened. They really don’t seem to get why Jews aren’t agreeing with them and see Israel differently than they do.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5358350-nyc-mayoral-candidate-draws-criticism-for-globalize-the-intifada-comparison-to-warsaw-uprising/
Just like you ignore the 75 years prior to October 7?
I’m sure when you think of Zionism’s meaning and history, you think of the Israeli terrorist and supremacist groups, the terrorist settlers and their enablers in the IDF, etc., as well.
Chris, knowing how not to avoid a big section of the electorate and avoiding obvious gotcha questions is Politics 101. Contrary to the further left, the phrase Intifada doesn’t have a clear meaning for anybody. Most Jews associate it with suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. There are a 1,000,000 Jews in NYC and they vote. Mamdani ensured the vote will be against him from this group at least.
Today is Juneteenth. Please take a moment to read some accounts of what it is like to be freed from slavery: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/juneteenth-the-day-of-freedom-came-2025
WHEN THE WAR ENDED mother went to old marster and told him she was goin’ to leave. He told her she could not feed all her children, pay house rent, and buy wood, to stay on with him. Marster told father and mother they could have the house free and wood free, an’ he would help them feed the children, but mother said, “No, I am goin’ to leave. I have never been free and I am goin’ to try it. I am goin’ away and by my work and the help of the Lord I will live somehow.” Marster then said, “Well stay as long as you wish, and leave when you get ready, but wait until you find a place to go, and leave like folks.” Marster allowed her to take all her things with her when she left. The white folks told her goodbye.
—Hannah Plummer, enslaved in North Carolina, interviewed in North Carolina, circa 1937, Federal Writers’ Project
Denisovan Man now has a face: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/science/ancient-human-denisovan-dna.html
The Dodgers expelled people identifying as ICE officers from their parking lots. ICE has apparently denied this was them. I assume they are lying but if they are not, we now have random heavily armed dudes going around and saying they are ICE
No one could have foreseen that could they?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/efd8befd77113ff6d69185b7468ec119a33c2fc36b29e7f0e11fc048f6b20f83.png
Remember when we discussed Kamala Harris going on The View and being asked “what would you do differently than Biden?” and that turned into an argument over whether Harris saying that she would have done something differently would have been “throwing Biden under the bus”?
That was nuts, right? Anyway, The View had a sitdown talk where the executive producer talked to the folks from The View and Sunny Hostin got asked about that question!
You’ve gotta watch this and check out the framing.
“single-handedly taken down the Democratic Party – some would say democracy itself – with one question”
That is not a paraphrase of what he says. That is a direct quotation. It’s done for laughs so it’s deliberately over-the-top… but, seriously, that’s how they frame the question to Sunny.
For the record, I remain on the team that thinks that it was a good question and one that Harris bungled rather than a question that shouldn’t have been asked in the first place, lest she throw Biden under the bus.
The LA Times, in its “Climate and Environment” section, has a corker of a story: Newsom’s podcast sidekick: a single-use plastic water bottle
Now, my immediate response to this story is to attempt to come up with some joke that mingles “the long knives” and “the short buses” but I can’t come up with anything so I’ll just say that it looks like it’s signaling that “Yeah, let’s not do Newsom in 2028”. It’s not a *REAL* criticism to anybody who isn’t already nutzo but it *DOES* say “hey, if you want to pick somebody else, there’s plenty of cover whether you’re progressive or merely liberal.”
John Fetterman, however, does not interpret the headline like that. Instead, he says:
Well, believe it or not, people are jumping down Fett’s throat for this and telling him to just up’n join the Republicans.
All that to say: it’s going to get worse before it gets better and it’s not going to get better for a while.
I agree with Fetterman. Purges for purity is how we got a GOP that spent 50 years trying to cement white male “Christian” rule. Doing something similar won’t serve Democrats better.
You do not, under any circumstances, have to hand to Fetterman.
Welp – it appears the US is now actively bombing Iran. Because nothing makes America Great like getting into other peoples wars as a distraction.
Don’t forget foregoing authorization from Congress.
He has 30(?) days. We’ll be long gone before that.
Under what authority?
I wonder if they can get away with “the AUMF”.
If so then everyone in Greenland should be stocking up on provisions and building bomb shelters.
Yes, the AUMF covers this action even better than some of the other recent abuses of the AUMF. The AUMF has just been an ongoing travesty of Congressional delinquency.
Under what authority?
War Powers Resolution of 1973. And I was wrong, it’s 60+30 days.
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
Oh I am aware of it. My question is where the imminence was. Constitutional questions aside, I don’t believe this falls within the plain text of the statute.
According to wiki, the President has submitted reports according to that statute 130 times. Only once has it been because of “imminence”.
This is a bombing raid, not a war. It’s not that different from Biden’s first use of the military during his term. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/president-bidens-first-use-of-force-and-international-law/
We have been trying to talk Iran out of that tree for decades. Them getting nukes is also half the countries in the Middle East getting nukes which will create more long term problems than it will solve.
Well all the JCPOA opponents who wanted war with Iran but got indignant when it was observed that they wanted war with Iran have gotten the war with Iran they wanted but refused to admit. Let’s hope for all ours sake that Irans’ incompetence has extended to them not having plausible or undetectable plans in place to cause us grief in the event of war.
We almost had a deal with Iran. Now we will hopefully have a deal with a significantly defanged Iran (almost can’t see them not dealing with us, giving Russia’s unwillingness to dive straight into the fight).
Very glad that you’re praying for our president and all our troops’ lives. Speaks well of you.
We almost had a deal with Iran.
Iran hasn’t negotiated in good faith for decades. Since they were still claiming they only had a civilian nuclear program, they still weren’t.
Iran is trying to export it’s Islamic revolution. They would call it “promote the establishment of a just and moral society based on Islamic principles”, but that translates into “their priests are in charge”.
So their bottom line and world view are very different from ours. We aren’t going to “negotiate” them giving up their god or their world view.
So like Iraq having and exporting WMD we have no choice?
You do remember that right? And Iraq not actually having, much less using, WMD?
Who else in the region has nukes Dark? Israel, Pakistan’s and India. And we aren’t bombing them to get them to negotiate why exactly?
At some point you just have to stop. I would have thought Afghanistan would have taught you that. Or Iraq. Or Bosnia. Or Lebanon. Or Vietnam. Apparently not.
So like Iraq having and exporting WMD
Let’s ignore that Iraq killed about 40k people with it’s chemical WMDs so they had a history of both having and using WMDs.
With Iraq there were dozens of countries plus the UN who thought that they didn’t have a nuclear program anymore.
With Iran all of those countries plus the UN agree with us that Iran has a nuclear arms program AND that Iran is behaving in a way that is consistent with a sprint to a nuke. The facts here aren’t contested except by Iran itself.
we have no choice?
Of course we have a choice, but we need to be very clear on what it is.
1) We bomb their nuclear weapons sites because we’re the only ones with bunker busters that can reach them. Or…
2) We live with a half dozen or so nuclear armed states in the Middle East.
In this second case we hope really hard that Iran is lying about wanting to destroy Israel at all costs AND we hope that all of those countries remain stable AND that their leaders don’t do anything stupid.
Given that Israel
Is one of those countries and their leader is doing stupid things I’d say hope don’t win this round.
Assad also gasses thousands of his people and yet we never bimbed or invaded him for that.
Go figure
Assad also gasses thousands of his people and yet we never bombed or invaded him for that.
If he’d had nukes he would have used them or when his country fell apart we’d have random nuclear revolutionaries. We managed to strike a deal with him and Russia.
Bombing people is the absolute last stick in the bag, we’d very much prefer to use diplomacy(*). However we’ve been trying to do that for decades and it simply hasn’t worked.
If we’re not willing to bomb them now then we should admit that we’re willing to live with a nuclear Iran, quickly followed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. Followed by whoever.
(*) With Iraq, Saddam tried to have it both ways. He viewed not having WMDs as extremely dangerous, so he both allowed the UN to disarm him and pretended that he still had them. So there was believable but wrong intel that he was evading the program.
They have already had their proxies (the Houthis) attack shipping and even US warships themselves. We’ve stopped pretending these groups they create and control aren’t groups they create and control.
I voted for Harris and now we are at war with Iran, just like the internet predicted!!!
“Sure, let’s go hang out with friends. What’s going to happen on a Saturday night?”
Anyway, let’s just hope it’s over.
The Middle East right now.
https://youtu.be/SKcgikKGOIg?si=wUYr7isCj1X5AEpj
Take off the blinders Jay. No war that has been started by a Republican president in my life time has ended after a single airstrike.
I have a son who is 14. Assuming this follows pattern, we will still be fighting Iran when he becomes draft age. I’m just a tad bit concerned about that. You should be too.
Oh, yeah. If you look at the comments in this and in the last open thread, I was the guy saying “not my circus, not my monkeys”.
The counter-argument was something to the effect of “but if we just bomb them and don’t do occupation or nation building or any of that ‘pottery barn’ crap, it won’t be that bad.”
And the counter-argument to *THAT* is “BUT WE’RE GOING TO DO OCCUPATION OR NATION BUILDING”.
Personally, I hope that the idle daydreams of the “would it be that bad if we just bombed them and left?” folks come to pass.
Sure, as the guy who wrote-up the Steelman argument… I’ll remind folks that the steelman is fundamentally a diplomatic gambit. The question in the immediate future is how does the administration position diplomatic exits for Iran (and Israel).
And, for the record, I agree that I have no particular insight (or confidence) that Trump can manage that process; nor can I rule out that the steelman isn’t a Trojan Horse for the Lindsey Graham neo-con-cum-Maga faction in the Republican party that would angle for regime change and nation building.
All I can say for my commenting is that I’ll be commenting on what I see happening, not projecting random future events that I hope will damage my political enemies.
I’m not projecting random future events. I’m looking at data, discerning a pattern and drawing a conclusive prediction from that pattern. You can always do the same.
No war that has been started by a Republican president in my life time has ended after a single airstrike.
That is the big counter argument. If we’re going to use the army then we might as well try to reshape the country.
Thankfully we don’t have boots on the ground yet, so hopefully not.
And the anti-war protests have begun in earnest.
Quick! Somebody find a copy of “Fortunate Son!”
According to NBC News:
Now, there are a handful of ways to read this.
The first is that “sources said” should be translated as “sources lied”.
“There’s no way that Iran would send that threat! NO FREAKIN WAY!!!”
The second is that “sources said” were telling the truth but the people who told the sources that (US Intelligence people) were lying.
“There’s no way that Iran would send that threat! NO FREAKIN WAY!!!”
The third is that, okay, Iran *DID* say that but they were bluffing and engaging in bluster because they wanted to make a threat that would get Trump to blink because he’s TACO Trump.
The fourth is that, okay, Iran *DID* say that and they weren’t bluffing and this is going to be an interesting week.
At this moment in time, I will read this statement as 14-dimensional chess to shore up support for what ICE is doing rather than something based on actual actionable intelligence.
Years ago now, when I was getting my MA in public policy, in a class on homeland security, when the guest lecturer was head of the state agency for dealing with terrorist threats, I asked “Are there plans to deal with a couple dozen terrorists who drive up and down the back roads on the western side of the Divide on a red-flag weather day, tossing lit road flares into the woods every mile or two?” His expression was, in some sense, priceless. Clearly they had considered the scenario, and no, they had no plan for a million-acre wildfire.
I note that the weather forecast for tomorrow puts much of the Colorado western slope under a red flag warning.
We’ve already seen how California has dealt with a similar scenario. If that really gets going?
Uff da.
A couple of days ago Iran was offering to negotiate about their nuclear program AFTER Trump had Israel stop bombing.
If we’re talking about negotiations about negotiations then they’re not serious.