Yes indeed. China is, of course, another subject. Not so much as a member of such an Axis, exactly, so much as simply the emerging opposite pole of a bipolar global scene and the pole that's more sympathetic to the Russian Axis while having a number of self interested red lines- nuke use for instance where is expects the Axis to toe their line and they have to or else.
I acknowledged we're both speculating on alt history. The point remains that W's speech and subsequent actions on that speech closed off an opportunity for lowering the temperature on that relationship when the Iranians had every reason, at the time, to want that temperature lowered. It was foreign policy malpractice- it had real opportunity costs while gaining us nothing.
That's a lot of assertions of fact that're more opinions and alt-history speculation than actual fact. Saudi Arabia and Iran are pretty much equally hideous and the primary reason the Saudis don't want to upset the applecart while the Iranians do is that the Saudis have a deal with us/the developed world while the Iranians don't (and were never offered one when they had the temerity to throw out the government we chose for them). Had W and his administration not been a passel of chuckleheaded idiots possibly we could have moved Iran more towards a Saudi Arabia state and away from an Iran-of-Now state.
Which brings us back around to Jaybirds point which was that W approached the subject of Iran deontologically rather than in a more transactional manner. I can't know that an attempted deal with Iran would have succeeded in making them engage more productively in the Middle East- that's alt history- but neither can you know that it would have failed. The point is they didn't even try. Yet another example of how catastrophically badly that awful administration handled things.
Yeah that wasn't such a prominent problem in 2002 as it is now. It also bears noting that the Iranians adhered to the (later) nuclear deal until Trump reneged on it. Also we were in Afghanistan and Iraq on either side of Iran- cutting any level of deal with them could have made life a lot easier and they indicated openness to the idea but W and his lackeys wanted an idiotic speech item so we got the Axis of Evil instead. Yet another lump of crap on the wagon full of fecal matter that is neocon reputation in hindsight.
The vibe I've gotten is they're genuinely terrified of pushing the Russians too far and then ending up with some kind of nuke use on their hands. I personally think that fear is overwrought but I also can see even, say, a 10% chance of it making the Administrations hair stand on end. But over all I agree they played it tolerably well but one can always, in hindsight, imagine playing it better.
The Saudi Wahhabi's are evil religious despots and we get along "fine" with them. The Iranians were trying to talk it's entirely conceivable that some level of de-escalation or arrangement could have been achieved- certainly an outcome better than W and his neocon clowns achieved by simply labelling them part of the Axis of Evil. We had, after all, just knocked over Iraq which was a major benefit to Iran. An earlier nuclear deal could have easily been conceivable, any level of de-escalation was at least theoretically possible. Being able to play Iran off the Saudi's and off the Israeli's would have been potentially useful.
Jay beat me to it. A lot of states in that miserable region indulge in that behavior. Arguably Israel is a sponsor of terror too (ironically mostly against the Palestinians and themselves) - they encouraged, funded and propped up Hamas to say nothing of the settlement movement. I never said Iran was ready to join the side of the angels- I said they were nervous and wanted to cut a deal- and got the Axis of Evil idiocy instead.
It bears keeping in mind that historically it didn't have to be this way. The Axis of Evil was, to some degree, a self fulfilling prophecy. Iran, looking askance at the sunni terrorism of 9/11 and their sunni neighbors in Afghanistan and Iraq, quietly put out feelers about peace and W, in one of his many (more than Trump even- I still consider W's administration the most destructive in modern history) historic idiocies, lumped the Iranians into the "Axis of Evil" for their troubles.
I agree! It's entirely possible. That's the quantum torture of our current polling. When the wave function collapses we could discover that the cat is alive, there's a Trump route and it'd be -entirely- within the existing polling margin of error unless it's a landslide loss for Trump.
And I would LOVE for there to be a landslide Harris victory- especially because seeing Nate Silver have to eat a but a la Wang would be funny as heck.
Hey, I am fine with certain amount of hopium but I temper it with gloomium- I don't think I can go into an election optimistically after '16- it might kill me.
Yeah only #3 turns my head, possibly because it aligns with a notion I had that Trump voters who were willing to vote for him already overtly want to vote for him and those who're hesitating/uncertain about voting for Trump will end up breaking away from him.
Still, it's just gonna be an agonizing two weeks and change.
I don't think of it as ignoring early voting data as being un-reassured by it. And, frankly, since Complacency is one of the two great plagues of Democrats along with its vile twin Purity, I'm not worried about us leftists being anxious about the outcome. Anxiety is good. Go vote. Go encourage some low engagement acquaintance to vote. I've done several myself.
As for the Senators- I don't give one flat fart what somewhat nice things they say the great Pumpkin so long as they end up in the Senate and neither should you.
I have no idea how it's actually going to turn out. The polls are too close. The squishier indicators look nice but they looked fine in '16 too. And on top of it I'm going to be on a cruise on election day with spotty internet access. It's going to be a unique election for me to watch, that is for sure.
I'm still predicting and hoping for a Harris win and for the Dems to run the table but after '16 I simply can't have any strong confidence about it.
One thought tho: Harris has a lavishly funded ground game and my understanding is Trump simply doesn't. Will this be a good election for us to measure if that element actually makes a difference or if it's pure election industry grift?
Not necessarily moronic- even if Harris wins the Trump positivish adds help those Senate candidates appeal to squishy Trump voters. In WI and OH especially playing to that bunch is smart even if it gives us highly engaged leftier voters a sad. At the same time I don't think it indicates that either candidate necessarily thinks Trump is going to win- just that saying vaguely nicish things about some aspects of him is a way to play for votes and good for them for doing so.
An entertaining internet digression once theorized that Tom Bombadil was an eldritch evil contained by Gandalf and the Elves to his particular corner of Middle Earth. He is unaffected by the ring because his own power transcends it. Tom releases the hobbits, and the Ring, back into Middle Earth because he very much wants Sauron to fail, the ring system to collapse and the Elves to fade departing middle earth and leaving Tom free to rampage.
I trudged through the poetry in total but gave each line little thought and definitely endured it with no enjoyment.
I agree that Tom Bombadil is in the story because Tolkein is a world builder and Tom was an early creation and, thus, could not be left out. If Dungeons and Dragons had existed in Tolkeins time his players no doubt would ruefully have complained about old Tom. Also if D&D had existed as a creative outlet back then it may be that the novels wouldn’t have been written so let’s give thanks for that.
Toms’ inclusion in the Rings of Power Season 2 somehow manages to be indulgent, ham handed and utterly contrary to Toms cannonic role and nature. It’s uniformly so bad it’s almost impressive.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Ukraine and the Axis of Evil”
Yes indeed. China is, of course, another subject. Not so much as a member of such an Axis, exactly, so much as simply the emerging opposite pole of a bipolar global scene and the pole that's more sympathetic to the Russian Axis while having a number of self interested red lines- nuke use for instance where is expects the Axis to toe their line and they have to or else.
"
I hadn't realized quite how deep your neocon sympathies lie in this area I admit. It's refreshing, makes me feel fifteen-twenty years younger!
"
I generally agree though China is, in of itself, a pretty complicated subject.
"
I acknowledged we're both speculating on alt history. The point remains that W's speech and subsequent actions on that speech closed off an opportunity for lowering the temperature on that relationship when the Iranians had every reason, at the time, to want that temperature lowered. It was foreign policy malpractice- it had real opportunity costs while gaining us nothing.
"
That's a lot of assertions of fact that're more opinions and alt-history speculation than actual fact. Saudi Arabia and Iran are pretty much equally hideous and the primary reason the Saudis don't want to upset the applecart while the Iranians do is that the Saudis have a deal with us/the developed world while the Iranians don't (and were never offered one when they had the temerity to throw out the government we chose for them). Had W and his administration not been a passel of chuckleheaded idiots possibly we could have moved Iran more towards a Saudi Arabia state and away from an Iran-of-Now state.
Which brings us back around to Jaybirds point which was that W approached the subject of Iran deontologically rather than in a more transactional manner. I can't know that an attempted deal with Iran would have succeeded in making them engage more productively in the Middle East- that's alt history- but neither can you know that it would have failed. The point is they didn't even try. Yet another example of how catastrophically badly that awful administration handled things.
"
Agreed but that kind of shimmy regarding Afghanistan and Iraq is the only arrow neocons have left in their quiver.
"
Yeah that wasn't such a prominent problem in 2002 as it is now. It also bears noting that the Iranians adhered to the (later) nuclear deal until Trump reneged on it. Also we were in Afghanistan and Iraq on either side of Iran- cutting any level of deal with them could have made life a lot easier and they indicated openness to the idea but W and his lackeys wanted an idiotic speech item so we got the Axis of Evil instead. Yet another lump of crap on the wagon full of fecal matter that is neocon reputation in hindsight.
"
The vibe I've gotten is they're genuinely terrified of pushing the Russians too far and then ending up with some kind of nuke use on their hands. I personally think that fear is overwrought but I also can see even, say, a 10% chance of it making the Administrations hair stand on end. But over all I agree they played it tolerably well but one can always, in hindsight, imagine playing it better.
"
The Saudi Wahhabi's are evil religious despots and we get along "fine" with them. The Iranians were trying to talk it's entirely conceivable that some level of de-escalation or arrangement could have been achieved- certainly an outcome better than W and his neocon clowns achieved by simply labelling them part of the Axis of Evil. We had, after all, just knocked over Iraq which was a major benefit to Iran. An earlier nuclear deal could have easily been conceivable, any level of de-escalation was at least theoretically possible. Being able to play Iran off the Saudi's and off the Israeli's would have been potentially useful.
"
Jay beat me to it. A lot of states in that miserable region indulge in that behavior. Arguably Israel is a sponsor of terror too (ironically mostly against the Palestinians and themselves) - they encouraged, funded and propped up Hamas to say nothing of the settlement movement. I never said Iran was ready to join the side of the angels- I said they were nervous and wanted to cut a deal- and got the Axis of Evil idiocy instead.
"
It bears keeping in mind that historically it didn't have to be this way. The Axis of Evil was, to some degree, a self fulfilling prophecy. Iran, looking askance at the sunni terrorism of 9/11 and their sunni neighbors in Afghanistan and Iraq, quietly put out feelers about peace and W, in one of his many (more than Trump even- I still consider W's administration the most destructive in modern history) historic idiocies, lumped the Iranians into the "Axis of Evil" for their troubles.
"
A pretty cogent analysis but left out is the problem that for the war to end both sides need to want it to end and neither side is ready yet.
On “From The Atlantic: Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’”
That is deliciously circular- I love it!
"
I agree! It's entirely possible. That's the quantum torture of our current polling. When the wave function collapses we could discover that the cat is alive, there's a Trump route and it'd be -entirely- within the existing polling margin of error unless it's a landslide loss for Trump.
And I would LOVE for there to be a landslide Harris victory- especially because seeing Nate Silver have to eat a but a la Wang would be funny as heck.
"
Hey, I am fine with certain amount of hopium but I temper it with gloomium- I don't think I can go into an election optimistically after '16- it might kill me.
"
Yup, he gets to be lawless but she has to be flawless. It sucks but seems like the game the media billion-dollar question: do the voters agree?
On “From Semafor: Los Angeles Times won’t endorse for president”
That's a laudable stance- though, being a more centrist dem, I would say that.
"
That is impressive.
On “The Election’s Home Stretch”
Yeah only #3 turns my head, possibly because it aligns with a notion I had that Trump voters who were willing to vote for him already overtly want to vote for him and those who're hesitating/uncertain about voting for Trump will end up breaking away from him.
Still, it's just gonna be an agonizing two weeks and change.
On “Campaign Scratchpad: Known Unknowns”
That's my normal haunting grounds for cruising but husbando wanted something new.
"
Small world! I'm cruising out of LA to Baja Mexico for a friends 50th birthday. I'll keep an eye out for you. I hope your cruise goes very well.
"
I don't think of it as ignoring early voting data as being un-reassured by it. And, frankly, since Complacency is one of the two great plagues of Democrats along with its vile twin Purity, I'm not worried about us leftists being anxious about the outcome. Anxiety is good. Go vote. Go encourage some low engagement acquaintance to vote. I've done several myself.
As for the Senators- I don't give one flat fart what somewhat nice things they say the great Pumpkin so long as they end up in the Senate and neither should you.
"
I have no idea how it's actually going to turn out. The polls are too close. The squishier indicators look nice but they looked fine in '16 too. And on top of it I'm going to be on a cruise on election day with spotty internet access. It's going to be a unique election for me to watch, that is for sure.
I'm still predicting and hoping for a Harris win and for the Dems to run the table but after '16 I simply can't have any strong confidence about it.
One thought tho: Harris has a lavishly funded ground game and my understanding is Trump simply doesn't. Will this be a good election for us to measure if that element actually makes a difference or if it's pure election industry grift?
"
Not necessarily moronic- even if Harris wins the Trump positivish adds help those Senate candidates appeal to squishy Trump voters. In WI and OH especially playing to that bunch is smart even if it gives us highly engaged leftier voters a sad. At the same time I don't think it indicates that either candidate necessarily thinks Trump is going to win- just that saying vaguely nicish things about some aspects of him is a way to play for votes and good for them for doing so.
On “POETS Day! Why Is Tom Bombadil?”
An entertaining internet digression once theorized that Tom Bombadil was an eldritch evil contained by Gandalf and the Elves to his particular corner of Middle Earth. He is unaffected by the ring because his own power transcends it. Tom releases the hobbits, and the Ring, back into Middle Earth because he very much wants Sauron to fail, the ring system to collapse and the Elves to fade departing middle earth and leaving Tom free to rampage.
I trudged through the poetry in total but gave each line little thought and definitely endured it with no enjoyment.
I agree that Tom Bombadil is in the story because Tolkein is a world builder and Tom was an early creation and, thus, could not be left out. If Dungeons and Dragons had existed in Tolkeins time his players no doubt would ruefully have complained about old Tom. Also if D&D had existed as a creative outlet back then it may be that the novels wouldn’t have been written so let’s give thanks for that.
Toms’ inclusion in the Rings of Power Season 2 somehow manages to be indulgent, ham handed and utterly contrary to Toms cannonic role and nature. It’s uniformly so bad it’s almost impressive.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.