It's not about body count and that's the wrong way to look at any conflict. History is full of battles and campaigns with lots of casualties that accomplished nothing. The question is always what your goal is and whether what you are doing is helping to achieve it.
Yea, and what Hezbollah is doing contributes absolutely nothing to stopping Israel's actions against the Palestinians. In fact it only makes it worse by conflating Iran's efforts at Shi'ite hegemony in the region with the localized conflict over land between Israelis and Palestinians.
As I said above, I find it impossible to dismiss Palestinian (including Hamas) violence against Israel because it is Palestinians who are being displaced and killed. They have a right to defend themselves and whether it makes sense or not the West Bank and Gaza are now inseparable as people and political entities. I would even say their right includes freedom to take the fight to Israeli civilians, the way Israel takes the fight to Palestinian civilians. But none of this ever ends if Israel's reward for attempting to pull out of occupied territory is more provocations from those people who got the W yet continue on in the name of larger, more abstract, and unattainable goals.
No, what you're proposing is that Israel has to leave the territory, which it did, but tolerate continued pot shots from that same territory despite being fully under the control of in theory Lebanon, in actuality, Hezbollah, with no retaliation ever.
That's stupid. Hezbollah isn't Hamas or the Palestinians and that land isn't part of any possible future Palestinian state. It's part of Lebanon. Hezbollah no longer has any legitimate grievance with Israel.
Sure. They probably take the aid for help with something they want to do anyway.
But that's kind of my point. If I put myself in the position of a Palestinian in occupied and/or strangled territroy I can't completely dismiss violence against Israel as illegitimate, by Hamas or whatever other militia. Hezbollah has no similar excuse. They're in a state and enfranchised to the extent anyone in that state is.
I think it is more likely that Israel wishes it could take the approach to Hezbollah that it does to Hamas. I would further speculate that the difference is that Israel has at least some respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and/or is concerned it can't violate that sovereignty with the same level of impunity it gets away with in Gaza.
What Hezbollah is doing is slightly different, though I'm not sure any less of an invitation to this kind of thing. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon almost 25 years ago. There's no fight over territory there anymore and Hezbollah itself is a player in what passes for legitimate politics within Lebanon.
However they're also an Iranian proxy and accept Iranian funding and weapons for the purpose of attacking Israel with them. On the one hand, this kind of thing raises all the questions Jaybird brings up about Israel's tactics, and whether they really are intended to de-escalate. On the other Hezbollah is not Hamas, is not an interested party in the territorial dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, and could always stop firing rockets into Israel and focus it's efforts on its other goals in Lebanon. If they did that then would Israel did here would be impossible to excuse. But they don't, and so their agents make themselves targets for asymmetrical attacks, of the same sort that they carry out at the behest of Iran.
I think this is right and I'd take it a step further. The norms are good on their own merits. But it's impossible to take seriously those that demand the benefit of the norms while also flouting them at every opportunity.
To me the only defense for them is that they were too stupid to understand the ramifications of what they were doing. I don't buy that for all of them, and it's also no defense as far as the law is concerned.
AfD, National Front/Rally, Brothers of Italy, Law and Justice, and plenty others seem to be doing fine without a 1st Amendment, and in spite of plenty of laws criminalizing various types of speech. They aren't quite the same force in the UK but Nigel Farage seems to be able to force similar kinds of sentiments into the national agenda. As I understand it his efforts were instrumental in Brexit.
To me it's those who think all of our problems will be solved by passing a law and throwing a few of the more egregious people in jail that are being delusional. They're out there and there's no authority to appeal to or technocratic bureaucracy that's going to come save us.
Its funding is fine. It's heavily subsidized by the rest of the state which is very, very wealthy. The problem is the students and the problems that they have are not something a school can fix.
Oh believe me I put the blame for this on the Republicans, and as you rightly note being totally recalcitrant on the issue predates Trump. The biggest irony of the partisan situation is that contra Fox News or whatever, I think deep down the balance of Democratic legislators are absolutely dying to give the substance of the issue completely away to be able to say they did a great, super capital-S serious bipartisan thing. Arguably they've already proven it by the offer that was on the table that the Republicans rejected.
But I would be remiss not to notice that some version of this exact issue is playing out all over the developed world, feeding a far right backlash. Now, the left can't force the right to be sane. What it can do is use the levers of power it has to try to take the sails out of this issue with a law and order, security only posture for the time being and immediate future. If a hard line on immigration is what it takes to keep Trump down and out then to me that is a complete no brainer. That's my cards on the table partisan take. I have a longer 'how things should be take' that I've openly shared here many times.
As for Chip I'm not trying to get into some kind of partisan tit for tat. Him and I are on the same side in the voting booth. What I am trying to better understand is his worldview. My bet is that he would be one of the more interesting, free wheeling people that posts here to knock back a few beers with. Probably infuriating too but whatever.
My ask of anyone who doesn't like my approach to this conversation, is what they think the rule should be? Should anyone from anywhere at any time, who can make it to US soil be let in? Should they be given authorization to work? What does this look like in a world where, unlike the 19th century there are tens of millions of people who would be here tomorrow and all at once if given the green light? Is any kind of protection of the commons or maintenance of order in the face of massive numbers of people coming in with nothing and nowhere to go ipso facto bigotry? What does it do to other priorities and where does it sit among them? What are we conceding in the larger agenda to do this? No one ever wants to tell me.
I don't have to imagine that scenario Chip because it happens all the time. Is there some magical place you think it doesn't? People b*tch about each other in all kinds of ways that have class and cultural components to them. And that's not just an American thing. Go to Germany and ask the Wessis what they think about the Ossis and vice versa.
It isn't always nice but it isn't in itself the end of the world. I'm sure when I'm out in WVA next month camping someone will see my tags and behind my back make some comment about the wimpy city slickers. Boo hoo hoo my poor broken heart (truthfully I find people are usually really nice out in the sticks, certainly refreshingly less pretentious than around here, but ymmv).
None of it has anything to do with what public policy should be on immigration, or the commons, and what ramifications it has for the way the country's economy and social contract is set up.
What all this whistling along playing bigotry finder general, as if that is the end all be all of everything, is actually doing is implicitly arguing for turning the country into not much more than a big free trade zone. Which whatever. There's a certain kind of case that could be made for that. But don't think for a second the end result looks like our peer countries you like to talk about.
I haven't repeated any hysterical libel about the Hatians. I also don't care about whether whatever 'we' you're talking about accepts me as pro immigrant. The difference between our stances, as I see it, is that I actually take this issue seriously as a matter of public policy. I also try to think about how it fits into my other priorities.
My sense about you is that you aren't pro immigrant at all. You just hate the rednecks. Which is whatever, I'm not crazy about the wild eyed political redneck culture or whatever we call the one that dominates the right wing in America either. But as far as I can tell that's as deep as you go. If the rednecks were actually succeeding at incorporating the widespread cultural conservatism and religiosity of many immigrants into their political bloc (and news flash, they will succeed with that with many of their children and grandchildren), you'd be the most anti immigrant person on this site.
My mom is an immigrant, Chip. Her and my aunt and my grandma followed the rules and everything. I'm very, very pro immigrant. I just also believe things like citizenship and democracy matter, and are really important in a country as diverse as ours where we have to create ways of establishing commonality and solidarity, totally unrelated to ethnicity or religion.
One of the many reasons I don't take you very seriously on the subject of the right's subversion of democracy is because you think subversion of democracy is Good Actually on subjects like immigration, which is very much what is going on.
However, and someone can correct me if I am wrong about this, the reason the deportation threat is on the table is because the Hatians are here under Temporary Protected Status, which is a unilateral executive action by DHS and can be revoked any time. Many or maybe most in Springfield OH entered the country illegally then were granted a special designation to stay on an indefinite basis, due to how backed up the immigration courts are.
Now, these are human beings, and do not deserve abuse, not at the hands of the state, not at the hands of crazed right wingers. But their situation is emblematic of the severe problems we have with the system. To not talk about the system, and its problems, they have to be angels, or at least it helps. And again, if I have this wrong in what the TPS is or how it works I am happy to be corrected and will retract accordingly.
To put a finer point on it, I think the interesting observation is less about the extinction of the pro life Democrat, and more the fact that the GOP base has become way more pro choice from a revealed preference standpoint than one would have guessed from the behavior of the party leadership and elected officials.
I think pillsy's comment gets to the heart of the matter but maybe doesn't go far enough. Pre Dobbs the pro life movement could look at polls where there was strong support for Roe but disapproval and/or muddiness on various specific questions about abortion timing and access and conclude support for the legal protections, based on a couple of SCOTUS decisions was not very deep. The pro choice side I think could look at the same polls and be nervous about pushing too hard- the procedure was generally protected, but there was enough uncertainty about the future of Roe/Casey that caution was the rule.
Now that we have Dobbs and are seeing the aftermath I think it's clear what the polls actually meant. That being many Americans are conflicted in some various ways about the procedure itself or certain specific hypotheticals, and many will readily tell pollsters about those feelings, provided however, that whatever else they say, when it comes down to it, a significant majority want it to be broadly legal and available. Now that the matter has been removed to the states as Trump reiterated we are seeing the revealed preference which is way more pro choice than even optimists on the pro choice side might have expected. The parties are simply responding to public opinion.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/16/2024”
It's not about body count and that's the wrong way to look at any conflict. History is full of battles and campaigns with lots of casualties that accomplished nothing. The question is always what your goal is and whether what you are doing is helping to achieve it.
"
Who doesn't these days?
"
Yea, and what Hezbollah is doing contributes absolutely nothing to stopping Israel's actions against the Palestinians. In fact it only makes it worse by conflating Iran's efforts at Shi'ite hegemony in the region with the localized conflict over land between Israelis and Palestinians.
As I said above, I find it impossible to dismiss Palestinian (including Hamas) violence against Israel because it is Palestinians who are being displaced and killed. They have a right to defend themselves and whether it makes sense or not the West Bank and Gaza are now inseparable as people and political entities. I would even say their right includes freedom to take the fight to Israeli civilians, the way Israel takes the fight to Palestinian civilians. But none of this ever ends if Israel's reward for attempting to pull out of occupied territory is more provocations from those people who got the W yet continue on in the name of larger, more abstract, and unattainable goals.
"
No, what you're proposing is that Israel has to leave the territory, which it did, but tolerate continued pot shots from that same territory despite being fully under the control of in theory Lebanon, in actuality, Hezbollah, with no retaliation ever.
That's stupid. Hezbollah isn't Hamas or the Palestinians and that land isn't part of any possible future Palestinian state. It's part of Lebanon. Hezbollah no longer has any legitimate grievance with Israel.
"
Yes, really. At some point you have to take yes for an answer.
"
All you're doing with this is making Lee's point for him, that even when Israel does what it should it will never be enough.
"
Sure. They probably take the aid for help with something they want to do anyway.
But that's kind of my point. If I put myself in the position of a Palestinian in occupied and/or strangled territroy I can't completely dismiss violence against Israel as illegitimate, by Hamas or whatever other militia. Hezbollah has no similar excuse. They're in a state and enfranchised to the extent anyone in that state is.
"
I think it is more likely that Israel wishes it could take the approach to Hezbollah that it does to Hamas. I would further speculate that the difference is that Israel has at least some respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and/or is concerned it can't violate that sovereignty with the same level of impunity it gets away with in Gaza.
"
What Hezbollah is doing is slightly different, though I'm not sure any less of an invitation to this kind of thing. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon almost 25 years ago. There's no fight over territory there anymore and Hezbollah itself is a player in what passes for legitimate politics within Lebanon.
However they're also an Iranian proxy and accept Iranian funding and weapons for the purpose of attacking Israel with them. On the one hand, this kind of thing raises all the questions Jaybird brings up about Israel's tactics, and whether they really are intended to de-escalate. On the other Hezbollah is not Hamas, is not an interested party in the territorial dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, and could always stop firing rockets into Israel and focus it's efforts on its other goals in Lebanon. If they did that then would Israel did here would be impossible to excuse. But they don't, and so their agents make themselves targets for asymmetrical attacks, of the same sort that they carry out at the behest of Iran.
On “The Unspoken Truth About The Trump Assassination Attempts”
Well hopefully Trump is getting used to the idea of being bound up in a prison cell, where he belongs.
"
I think this is right and I'd take it a step further. The norms are good on their own merits. But it's impossible to take seriously those that demand the benefit of the norms while also flouting them at every opportunity.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/16/2024”
I'm just shocked Hezbollah is carrying pagers. What are they weed dealers in the 90s?
"
To me the only defense for them is that they were too stupid to understand the ramifications of what they were doing. I don't buy that for all of them, and it's also no defense as far as the law is concerned.
On “Missing the Forest for the Trees on Springfield”
AfD, National Front/Rally, Brothers of Italy, Law and Justice, and plenty others seem to be doing fine without a 1st Amendment, and in spite of plenty of laws criminalizing various types of speech. They aren't quite the same force in the UK but Nigel Farage seems to be able to force similar kinds of sentiments into the national agenda. As I understand it his efforts were instrumental in Brexit.
To me it's those who think all of our problems will be solved by passing a law and throwing a few of the more egregious people in jail that are being delusional. They're out there and there's no authority to appeal to or technocratic bureaucracy that's going to come save us.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/16/2024”
Heh, fair enough.
"
Its funding is fine. It's heavily subsidized by the rest of the state which is very, very wealthy. The problem is the students and the problems that they have are not something a school can fix.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/9/2024”
Oh believe me I put the blame for this on the Republicans, and as you rightly note being totally recalcitrant on the issue predates Trump. The biggest irony of the partisan situation is that contra Fox News or whatever, I think deep down the balance of Democratic legislators are absolutely dying to give the substance of the issue completely away to be able to say they did a great, super capital-S serious bipartisan thing. Arguably they've already proven it by the offer that was on the table that the Republicans rejected.
But I would be remiss not to notice that some version of this exact issue is playing out all over the developed world, feeding a far right backlash. Now, the left can't force the right to be sane. What it can do is use the levers of power it has to try to take the sails out of this issue with a law and order, security only posture for the time being and immediate future. If a hard line on immigration is what it takes to keep Trump down and out then to me that is a complete no brainer. That's my cards on the table partisan take. I have a longer 'how things should be take' that I've openly shared here many times.
As for Chip I'm not trying to get into some kind of partisan tit for tat. Him and I are on the same side in the voting booth. What I am trying to better understand is his worldview. My bet is that he would be one of the more interesting, free wheeling people that posts here to knock back a few beers with. Probably infuriating too but whatever.
My ask of anyone who doesn't like my approach to this conversation, is what they think the rule should be? Should anyone from anywhere at any time, who can make it to US soil be let in? Should they be given authorization to work? What does this look like in a world where, unlike the 19th century there are tens of millions of people who would be here tomorrow and all at once if given the green light? Is any kind of protection of the commons or maintenance of order in the face of massive numbers of people coming in with nothing and nowhere to go ipso facto bigotry? What does it do to other priorities and where does it sit among them? What are we conceding in the larger agenda to do this? No one ever wants to tell me.
"
I don't have to imagine that scenario Chip because it happens all the time. Is there some magical place you think it doesn't? People b*tch about each other in all kinds of ways that have class and cultural components to them. And that's not just an American thing. Go to Germany and ask the Wessis what they think about the Ossis and vice versa.
It isn't always nice but it isn't in itself the end of the world. I'm sure when I'm out in WVA next month camping someone will see my tags and behind my back make some comment about the wimpy city slickers. Boo hoo hoo my poor broken heart (truthfully I find people are usually really nice out in the sticks, certainly refreshingly less pretentious than around here, but ymmv).
None of it has anything to do with what public policy should be on immigration, or the commons, and what ramifications it has for the way the country's economy and social contract is set up.
What all this whistling along playing bigotry finder general, as if that is the end all be all of everything, is actually doing is implicitly arguing for turning the country into not much more than a big free trade zone. Which whatever. There's a certain kind of case that could be made for that. But don't think for a second the end result looks like our peer countries you like to talk about.
"
I haven't repeated any hysterical libel about the Hatians. I also don't care about whether whatever 'we' you're talking about accepts me as pro immigrant. The difference between our stances, as I see it, is that I actually take this issue seriously as a matter of public policy. I also try to think about how it fits into my other priorities.
My sense about you is that you aren't pro immigrant at all. You just hate the rednecks. Which is whatever, I'm not crazy about the wild eyed political redneck culture or whatever we call the one that dominates the right wing in America either. But as far as I can tell that's as deep as you go. If the rednecks were actually succeeding at incorporating the widespread cultural conservatism and religiosity of many immigrants into their political bloc (and news flash, they will succeed with that with many of their children and grandchildren), you'd be the most anti immigrant person on this site.
"
Well I can tell you I agree that's insane and he's insane and I'm not voting for him.
"
My mom is an immigrant, Chip. Her and my aunt and my grandma followed the rules and everything. I'm very, very pro immigrant. I just also believe things like citizenship and democracy matter, and are really important in a country as diverse as ours where we have to create ways of establishing commonality and solidarity, totally unrelated to ethnicity or religion.
One of the many reasons I don't take you very seriously on the subject of the right's subversion of democracy is because you think subversion of democracy is Good Actually on subjects like immigration, which is very much what is going on.
"
I think the stuff Trump said is sick.
However, and someone can correct me if I am wrong about this, the reason the deportation threat is on the table is because the Hatians are here under Temporary Protected Status, which is a unilateral executive action by DHS and can be revoked any time. Many or maybe most in Springfield OH entered the country illegally then were granted a special designation to stay on an indefinite basis, due to how backed up the immigration courts are.
Now, these are human beings, and do not deserve abuse, not at the hands of the state, not at the hands of crazed right wingers. But their situation is emblematic of the severe problems we have with the system. To not talk about the system, and its problems, they have to be angels, or at least it helps. And again, if I have this wrong in what the TPS is or how it works I am happy to be corrected and will retract accordingly.
"
To put a finer point on it, I think the interesting observation is less about the extinction of the pro life Democrat, and more the fact that the GOP base has become way more pro choice from a revealed preference standpoint than one would have guessed from the behavior of the party leadership and elected officials.
"
I think pillsy's comment gets to the heart of the matter but maybe doesn't go far enough. Pre Dobbs the pro life movement could look at polls where there was strong support for Roe but disapproval and/or muddiness on various specific questions about abortion timing and access and conclude support for the legal protections, based on a couple of SCOTUS decisions was not very deep. The pro choice side I think could look at the same polls and be nervous about pushing too hard- the procedure was generally protected, but there was enough uncertainty about the future of Roe/Casey that caution was the rule.
Now that we have Dobbs and are seeing the aftermath I think it's clear what the polls actually meant. That being many Americans are conflicted in some various ways about the procedure itself or certain specific hypotheticals, and many will readily tell pollsters about those feelings, provided however, that whatever else they say, when it comes down to it, a significant majority want it to be broadly legal and available. Now that the matter has been removed to the states as Trump reiterated we are seeing the revealed preference which is way more pro choice than even optimists on the pro choice side might have expected. The parties are simply responding to public opinion.
"
If the Harris campaign isn't doing the math correctly on something so clear cut even us midwits see the hazards we're probably f*cked regardless.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.