let’s start with the 2023 rate of one reported violent incident for every 280,000 rides. Then imagine that you take the subway about 10 times a week, resulting in 500 rides per year. Also assume that you can see 20 riders whenever you take the train – if anything, a conservative assumption. Finally, let’s say you keep in regular contact with about 30 people who live in New York and have the same subway ridership habits.
You still have a low probability — about 1-in-500 — of being a victim of a reported violent crime yourself... You have a 1-in-30 chance of seeing a violent crime unfolding on the subway over the course of the year. And across your community of 30 people, there’s about a two-thirds chance that someone you know will have seen or experienced a violent crime unfolding on the train.
RE: it looks like he got away with committing felonies.
Yes.
Look at it from the Judge's point of view. He can order Trump jailed, but that puts the legal system in a direct conflict with the newly elected sitting President. So we're instantly in a Constitutional crisis, where we'll end up with the legal system needing to rule that the President is above the law.
Or the Judge can fold his hand.
It's not a perfect world, the system system's failures reflect that.
My experiences with mental illness has been varied. I've seen "a sanity pill a day makes them normal" two or three times.
I've also seen "there is no pill because that's who they are. They're determined to burn their life down while claiming it's everyone else who has a problem".
We can have most of the mentally ill respond well to treatment but also have that not mean much for the homeless because of selection bias.
This issue resists broad generalizations and is probably multiple groups with different issues being inappropriately merged.
DavidTC: Israel withdrawing from Gaza resulted in a massive dip in violence, or at least death, as Hamas... had to resort to extremely inefficient rocket attacks,
Pointing to rocket attacks as an example of "violence decreasing" is self conflicting. For that matter pointing to Israel turning Gaza into a prison to prevent suicide attacks is close to the same.
DavidTC: ...violence _by the IDF_
This takes us to whether or not the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. We normally give the state a pass on that, especially in the context of fighting terrorism.
The Palestinians literally can't make peace. If Israel makes a peace agreement the IDF will enforce it. Israel would still have these lone wolf actors but in theory each is a one off.
The Palestinian equiv of those lone wolves is Hamas and various other groups.
Both of them, however, are ‘governments’. So it’s somewhat hard to see the difference.
A big difference is the number of Jews who can live in areas Hamas controls is zero where about 20% of Israel is Arab.
The United States exists and would respond harshly to violent efforts to destroy it. It's supported by it's citizens. That reality soundly trumps any argument over who "should" control the land and/or various religious narratives.
DavidTC: The Glenn Amendment is an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act that allows the President to impose sanctions on non-nuclear weapon states that detonate nuclear weapons...
Two problems:
1) "Allows" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The President doesn't have to do this and has waved this law for India.
2) "that detonate nuclear weapons" is also an issue. According to Google's AI, Israel hasn't officially tested nukes. It is suspected of having a test in 1979 around South Africa but that's never been confirmed.
DavidTC: There is no possible waiver
Let me just quote your quote: if the U.S. government were to conclude Israel detonated a nuclear explosion after 1977, the law, unless waived,
I don’t think it was a particular failure prior to 10-7.
I disagree.
To counter 911, the USA got better doors for every cockpit and told pilots to not open them. The resource cost was almost zero per plane.
You are drawing a line between the WB and 10-7, but it wasn't a matter of resources. Israel thought Hamas wasn't willing to drop all of Gaza into a woodchipper.
Given an unlimited amount of time and the resources of a country, a ruthless Hamas will be able to do this again. That's over and above the "tens of thousands of rockets terrorizing random civilians" issue which was also a failure.
The solution is to not let them have an unlimited amount of time and resources.
That implies if it pulls out, Israel will still need to be willing to put Gaza and/or the West Bank through a woodchipper even before 10-7.
I find it hard to picture the world being comfortable with that.
This is an argument that Israel's Gaza policy was a failure on 10-7.
However was it a failure before that? Is the world really ok with Israel having a serious war with Gaza just because it's arming up and sending the occasional rocket?
If the answer is "no", and imho it is, then Israel is expected to live not only with terrorism, but with a genocidal army getting ready just outside it's borders.
the Palestinians, were Israel to do this, would be very unhappy about the ultimate map and outcome.
And does the world allow this? The UN will proclaim it "illegal" and insist (like they already are) that the "right to return" is a thing.
Worse, what Israel learned from Gaza and Lebanon is they can't let these terror camps arm up. That they should have gone to war with them much earlier.
I don't see a lot of world wide support for what Israel is doing in Gaza right now outside of the USA. Would even the USA have backed the Gaza war before October 7th?
It's not bad if it's the American version of "flood [country] demographically". Everyone gets new foodstuffs to consume. We see people wearing funny hats but don't care enough to ask what they're called.
The Middle East "No Israel, No Jews" version is serious about the "No Jews" part. We have seen that repeatedly (and currently) showcased. For that matter we have also seen that spelled out black letter in various charters and verbalized.
My paraphrase is brutal and direct but imho it's useful to reduce the desire to it's core. Using flowery words "this is only our land" doesn't change the intent.
West Bank
Fair enough. I stand corrected. Slow motion ethnic cleansing it is.
They could set their borders unilaterally at any time
Sure. The problem is if they do that strongly implies they'll be pulling out of the other places.
Which could instantly result in them being turned into terror bases.
and their governments say the same thing
The other governments are far away and can say this sort of stuff cost and impact free. The Palestinians have walked away from peace agreements and engaged in serious terrorism over it.
It's a massive leap of faith to think they're engaging in terrorism and are upset over settlements when they claim otherwise, even at a negotiating table that could end the settlements and result in them getting a country.
North: Israel was able to devastate both foes since they had little entanglement
This is true. However if we're comparing the WB to Gaza one can reasonably think the former outcome is more desirable.
North: Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal... from a given area
If someone is being forced to move from Gaza to Gaza, is that "ethnic cleansing"? I see that claim a lot from the same people who claim the same for the WB.
North: two decades of violent steady but gradual land expropriate and dispossession doesn’t count as ethnic cleansing because, what, it’s too gradual?
Do a deep dive on a specific case about a specific house and we're going to find the Arabs being removed didn't own it. Far as I can tell the settlements are new construction. The toxic part is the security needed to protect it.
North: As for the right of return? It’s a canard and we both know it. ...That the PA or other Palestinian representatives won’t say the magic words
You and I agree it's insane and Israel will never allow it. Where we disagree is you are claiming the Palestinians aren't serious but I see nothing to support that.
RoR is what they say officially, in peace negotiations, and in man-on-the-street interviews (see my previous link).
None of those random dozen Palestinians talked about "the settlements" except in the context of "all of Israel is a settlement".
We are still fighting over whether the Jews get a state. The core problem isn't the settlements, it's that the Palestinians view all of Israel as a "settlement" and want there to be no Israel and no Jews.
For what it's worth, here are some random Palestinian civilians talking about what they want. This channel does "Ask an Israeli/Ask a Palestinian Project".
They don't want peace. Nor do they want their own state if that means accepting Israel. They want the Jews to leave. "This is only our land".
Lee: Jews take up too much room and make too much noise for our population size.
Far as I can tell, if the world would just treat Jews as normal uninteresting people that's what they would be.
Normal countries are allowed to go to war over terrorism and kill civilians in the process. Witness our reply to 911 (and a long list of other wars). It's normal for "war".
For that matter normal countries are allowed to be ethnostates and even allowed to repress their minorities within limits.
North: The PA has maintained peacable de jeur relationships with Israel for many years now.
Other than having budget items for rewarding terrorists and dismissing the Trump peace plan as "hot garbage" because it didn't have a right to return; Sure, the PA can be bribed and threatened into working with Israel's security.
So... if Israel pulls out and leaves them in charge (maybe with international pressure for the PA to be less corrupt and more democratic), what should we expect to see happen?
Didn't Israel try that plan in Gaza and in Lebanon?
Israeli rights’ land seizures, vandalism, violent attacks and exclusionary development doesn’t constitute slow motion ethnic cleansing?
My claims are:
1) The dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing doesn't match what Israel is doing. That doesn't make it ethical. Unless they start forcing people to leave the West Bank (which they might) what they're doing seems to be closer to "Jim Crow".
2) The settlements don't matter because we're still stuck on "the right of return", i.e. "no Israel, no Jews".
If we want to have a detailed discussion on where Israel's borders should be, and which settlements should be removed, then there needs to be a partner for peace. The PA is still telling it's people there can't be peace without a right to return.
It's probably worth having another Camp David style sit down where we get everyone together and talk about having a peace agreement. However given that the PA can't even float "no RoR" as a trial balloon the only real purpose would be to make it clear to the West that they're not serious.
That said authority is corrupt and non-democratic is true but irrelevant.
IMHO the only reason it can cooperate with Israel on security (when it's not paying for terrorism) is because it's corrupt and not-democratic.
The generic Palestinians want their land back and that requires a war where they drive the Jews into the sea. Hamas represents the Palestinians on this issue.
The one hope from the current war is the Palestinians are getting a really good look at what war with Israel really looks like. Maybe their general ideology will be dropped if it's clearly shown to be failed.
But that's not going to happen if the world rides to the rescue to prevent the Palestinians from suffering the consequences of the war.
what Israel is up to in Gaza doesn’t meet the bar of genocide or ethnic cleansing… yet. I find the very purposeful ignoring of what Israel is getting up to in the territories intellectually dishonest
IMHO we can mostly ignore this only because the Palestinians are dialed up to eleven just because Israel exists. That has been repeatedly been made clear.
Various charters. Everything that happened before the settlements existed (the 3 no's). Various rejections of peace agreements because they don't include an Israel destroying Right of Return.
I'm sure they don't like the settlements, but there is nowhere to go after dialing it up to eleven. They've rejected peace offers that would fix the settlements (or even predate the settlements) in favor of trying for "No Israel, No Jews".
With or without the settlements this is not a fixable problem.
The big things that derailed Oslo were the assassination of Rabin (by a Jewish extremist), the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre (ditto), and Hamas' wave(s) of suicide bombings.
All of these were expressly done to disrupt the peace process and Oslo.
Yes, the settlements are also a big problem... although my impression was the Palestinians didn't get serious about peace until the settlements forced their hand.
Claiming that the Palestinians weren't involved in derailing Oslo ignores that Israel walking away from security tends to result in more terrorism.
Big picture there is absolutely a problem with lone wolf Jews engaging in terrorism and violence. However their counter parts among the Palestinians are way more organized and can even win elections from this sort of thing.
DavidTC: We’ve passed laws saying we won’t sell weapons to countries that did not sign and yet developed nuclear weapons.
My two minute search found we can't export nuclear tech or nuclear weapons to countries that haven't signed. That's not the same as "can't sell any weapons".
We do have laws that prevent us from sending weapons to countries which are committing genocide and the like. However invoking those depends on redefining 'genocide' to mean something like 'fighting a war'.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/6/2025”
If we're making genii like wishes then I want super powers.
"
did so from a morally corrupt and cynical position, a statement now backed up by empirical fact.
Female genital mutilation doesn't affect many people in the US. Ergo opposition to it must be "morally corrupt and cynical".
Adults making serious and permanent changes to the genitals of children seems like something that should get a lot of attention.
"
From your own link, about 3% of youth self identify as trans. "Youth" implies 43 million people.
Thus the potential "size" of this issue is 1.3 million people.
On “Re-Open the Asylums: A New Take”
I suspect strongly that you can't do all of those things at the same time.
"Involuntary" is a massive trade off because there will be people who insist on making bad choices.
You can treat everyone if you have "involuntary", or you can not have involuntary and accept some people will refuse to make good choices.
"
It doesn’t happen every day.
let’s start with the 2023 rate of one reported violent incident for every 280,000 rides. Then imagine that you take the subway about 10 times a week, resulting in 500 rides per year. Also assume that you can see 20 riders whenever you take the train – if anything, a conservative assumption. Finally, let’s say you keep in regular contact with about 30 people who live in New York and have the same subway ridership habits.
You still have a low probability — about 1-in-500 — of being a victim of a reported violent crime yourself... You have a 1-in-30 chance of seeing a violent crime unfolding on the subway over the course of the year. And across your community of 30 people, there’s about a two-thirds chance that someone you know will have seen or experienced a violent crime unfolding on the train.
https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/how-rare-is-crime-on-the-subway
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/30/2024”
RE: it looks like he got away with committing felonies.
Yes.
Look at it from the Judge's point of view. He can order Trump jailed, but that puts the legal system in a direct conflict with the newly elected sitting President. So we're instantly in a Constitutional crisis, where we'll end up with the legal system needing to rule that the President is above the law.
Or the Judge can fold his hand.
It's not a perfect world, the system system's failures reflect that.
"
My experiences with mental illness has been varied. I've seen "a sanity pill a day makes them normal" two or three times.
I've also seen "there is no pill because that's who they are. They're determined to burn their life down while claiming it's everyone else who has a problem".
We can have most of the mentally ill respond well to treatment but also have that not mean much for the homeless because of selection bias.
This issue resists broad generalizations and is probably multiple groups with different issues being inappropriately merged.
On “Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty”
DavidTC: There are parts that cannot be waived, and those have to do with supplying weapons.
India is openly a nuclear power and we sell weapons to them, because we've waved the parts you claim can't be waved.
"
DavidTC: Israel withdrawing from Gaza resulted in a massive dip in violence, or at least death, as Hamas... had to resort to extremely inefficient rocket attacks,
Pointing to rocket attacks as an example of "violence decreasing" is self conflicting. For that matter pointing to Israel turning Gaza into a prison to prevent suicide attacks is close to the same.
DavidTC: ...violence _by the IDF_
This takes us to whether or not the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. We normally give the state a pass on that, especially in the context of fighting terrorism.
The Palestinians literally can't make peace. If Israel makes a peace agreement the IDF will enforce it. Israel would still have these lone wolf actors but in theory each is a one off.
The Palestinian equiv of those lone wolves is Hamas and various other groups.
Both of them, however, are ‘governments’. So it’s somewhat hard to see the difference.
A big difference is the number of Jews who can live in areas Hamas controls is zero where about 20% of Israel is Arab.
"
You're over thinking this.
The United States exists and would respond harshly to violent efforts to destroy it. It's supported by it's citizens. That reality soundly trumps any argument over who "should" control the land and/or various religious narratives.
"
DavidTC: The Glenn Amendment is an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act that allows the President to impose sanctions on non-nuclear weapon states that detonate nuclear weapons...
Two problems:
1) "Allows" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The President doesn't have to do this and has waved this law for India.
2) "that detonate nuclear weapons" is also an issue. According to Google's AI, Israel hasn't officially tested nukes. It is suspected of having a test in 1979 around South Africa but that's never been confirmed.
DavidTC: There is no possible waiver
Let me just quote your quote: if the U.S. government were to conclude Israel detonated a nuclear explosion after 1977, the law, unless waived,
"
I don’t think it was a particular failure prior to 10-7.
I disagree.
To counter 911, the USA got better doors for every cockpit and told pilots to not open them. The resource cost was almost zero per plane.
You are drawing a line between the WB and 10-7, but it wasn't a matter of resources. Israel thought Hamas wasn't willing to drop all of Gaza into a woodchipper.
Given an unlimited amount of time and the resources of a country, a ruthless Hamas will be able to do this again. That's over and above the "tens of thousands of rockets terrorizing random civilians" issue which was also a failure.
The solution is to not let them have an unlimited amount of time and resources.
That implies if it pulls out, Israel will still need to be willing to put Gaza and/or the West Bank through a woodchipper even before 10-7.
I find it hard to picture the world being comfortable with that.
"
you shouldn’t redivert your defense forces
This is an argument that Israel's Gaza policy was a failure on 10-7.
However was it a failure before that? Is the world really ok with Israel having a serious war with Gaza just because it's arming up and sending the occasional rocket?
If the answer is "no", and imho it is, then Israel is expected to live not only with terrorism, but with a genocidal army getting ready just outside it's borders.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024”
Jimmy Carter is dead at age 100.
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/jimmy-carter-dies/37305624
On “Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty”
the Palestinians, were Israel to do this, would be very unhappy about the ultimate map and outcome.
And does the world allow this? The UN will proclaim it "illegal" and insist (like they already are) that the "right to return" is a thing.
Worse, what Israel learned from Gaza and Lebanon is they can't let these terror camps arm up. That they should have gone to war with them much earlier.
I don't see a lot of world wide support for what Israel is doing in Gaza right now outside of the USA. Would even the USA have backed the Gaza war before October 7th?
"
Why is this a bad thing?
It's not bad if it's the American version of "flood [country] demographically". Everyone gets new foodstuffs to consume. We see people wearing funny hats but don't care enough to ask what they're called.
The Middle East "No Israel, No Jews" version is serious about the "No Jews" part. We have seen that repeatedly (and currently) showcased. For that matter we have also seen that spelled out black letter in various charters and verbalized.
My paraphrase is brutal and direct but imho it's useful to reduce the desire to it's core. Using flowery words "this is only our land" doesn't change the intent.
"
West Bank
Fair enough. I stand corrected. Slow motion ethnic cleansing it is.
They could set their borders unilaterally at any time
Sure. The problem is if they do that strongly implies they'll be pulling out of the other places.
Which could instantly result in them being turned into terror bases.
and their governments say the same thing
The other governments are far away and can say this sort of stuff cost and impact free. The Palestinians have walked away from peace agreements and engaged in serious terrorism over it.
It's a massive leap of faith to think they're engaging in terrorism and are upset over settlements when they claim otherwise, even at a negotiating table that could end the settlements and result in them getting a country.
"
North: Israel was able to devastate both foes since they had little entanglement
This is true. However if we're comparing the WB to Gaza one can reasonably think the former outcome is more desirable.
North: Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal... from a given area
If someone is being forced to move from Gaza to Gaza, is that "ethnic cleansing"? I see that claim a lot from the same people who claim the same for the WB.
North: two decades of violent steady but gradual land expropriate and dispossession doesn’t count as ethnic cleansing because, what, it’s too gradual?
Do a deep dive on a specific case about a specific house and we're going to find the Arabs being removed didn't own it. Far as I can tell the settlements are new construction. The toxic part is the security needed to protect it.
North: As for the right of return? It’s a canard and we both know it. ...That the PA or other Palestinian representatives won’t say the magic words
You and I agree it's insane and Israel will never allow it. Where we disagree is you are claiming the Palestinians aren't serious but I see nothing to support that.
RoR is what they say officially, in peace negotiations, and in man-on-the-street interviews (see my previous link).
None of those random dozen Palestinians talked about "the settlements" except in the context of "all of Israel is a settlement".
We are still fighting over whether the Jews get a state. The core problem isn't the settlements, it's that the Palestinians view all of Israel as a "settlement" and want there to be no Israel and no Jews.
"
For what it's worth, here are some random Palestinian civilians talking about what they want. This channel does "Ask an Israeli/Ask a Palestinian Project".
They don't want peace. Nor do they want their own state if that means accepting Israel. They want the Jews to leave. "This is only our land".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH1iV1fb2pg
"
Lee: Jews take up too much room and make too much noise for our population size.
Far as I can tell, if the world would just treat Jews as normal uninteresting people that's what they would be.
Normal countries are allowed to go to war over terrorism and kill civilians in the process. Witness our reply to 911 (and a long list of other wars). It's normal for "war".
For that matter normal countries are allowed to be ethnostates and even allowed to repress their minorities within limits.
"
Asking the legal system to deal with issues that were resolved (sometimes multiple times) by wars is a bit of a problem.
"
North: The PA has maintained peacable de jeur relationships with Israel for many years now.
Other than having budget items for rewarding terrorists and dismissing the Trump peace plan as "hot garbage" because it didn't have a right to return; Sure, the PA can be bribed and threatened into working with Israel's security.
So... if Israel pulls out and leaves them in charge (maybe with international pressure for the PA to be less corrupt and more democratic), what should we expect to see happen?
Didn't Israel try that plan in Gaza and in Lebanon?
Israeli rights’ land seizures, vandalism, violent attacks and exclusionary development doesn’t constitute slow motion ethnic cleansing?
My claims are:
1) The dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing doesn't match what Israel is doing. That doesn't make it ethical. Unless they start forcing people to leave the West Bank (which they might) what they're doing seems to be closer to "Jim Crow".
2) The settlements don't matter because we're still stuck on "the right of return", i.e. "no Israel, no Jews".
If we want to have a detailed discussion on where Israel's borders should be, and which settlements should be removed, then there needs to be a partner for peace. The PA is still telling it's people there can't be peace without a right to return.
It's probably worth having another Camp David style sit down where we get everyone together and talk about having a peace agreement. However given that the PA can't even float "no RoR" as a trial balloon the only real purpose would be to make it clear to the West that they're not serious.
"
That said authority is corrupt and non-democratic is true but irrelevant.
IMHO the only reason it can cooperate with Israel on security (when it's not paying for terrorism) is because it's corrupt and not-democratic.
The generic Palestinians want their land back and that requires a war where they drive the Jews into the sea. Hamas represents the Palestinians on this issue.
The one hope from the current war is the Palestinians are getting a really good look at what war with Israel really looks like. Maybe their general ideology will be dropped if it's clearly shown to be failed.
But that's not going to happen if the world rides to the rescue to prevent the Palestinians from suffering the consequences of the war.
what Israel is up to in Gaza doesn’t meet the bar of genocide or ethnic cleansing… yet. I find the very purposeful ignoring of what Israel is getting up to in the territories intellectually dishonest
IMHO we can mostly ignore this only because the Palestinians are dialed up to eleven just because Israel exists. That has been repeatedly been made clear.
Various charters. Everything that happened before the settlements existed (the 3 no's). Various rejections of peace agreements because they don't include an Israel destroying Right of Return.
I'm sure they don't like the settlements, but there is nowhere to go after dialing it up to eleven. They've rejected peace offers that would fix the settlements (or even predate the settlements) in favor of trying for "No Israel, No Jews".
With or without the settlements this is not a fixable problem.
"
this is not the fault of Palestinians.
The big things that derailed Oslo were the assassination of Rabin (by a Jewish extremist), the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre (ditto), and Hamas' wave(s) of suicide bombings.
All of these were expressly done to disrupt the peace process and Oslo.
Yes, the settlements are also a big problem... although my impression was the Palestinians didn't get serious about peace until the settlements forced their hand.
Claiming that the Palestinians weren't involved in derailing Oslo ignores that Israel walking away from security tends to result in more terrorism.
Big picture there is absolutely a problem with lone wolf Jews engaging in terrorism and violence. However their counter parts among the Palestinians are way more organized and can even win elections from this sort of thing.
"
DavidTC: We’ve passed laws saying we won’t sell weapons to countries that did not sign and yet developed nuclear weapons.
My two minute search found we can't export nuclear tech or nuclear weapons to countries that haven't signed. That's not the same as "can't sell any weapons".
We do have laws that prevent us from sending weapons to countries which are committing genocide and the like. However invoking those depends on redefining 'genocide' to mean something like 'fighting a war'.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.