He used to wear an insane fro and slovenly clothes so people would think he was a genius. Now he wears suits hoping people will think he’s not a criminal.
A day or two after 9/11 I attended a memorial service at Bill Graham Auditorium in San Francisco. A black minister who spoke to the assemblage made a similar remark about US policy in the Middle East. Dianne Fienstein stood up and walked off the stage in protest.
R.I.P. bitch.
The best security policy is not manufacturing enemies.
Likely not. That’s the Israeli government’s position too. That the West Bank settlers starting a ruckus risks the conflict’s expansion.
The UN Sec Gen is essentially saying that a region that has had self rule for 20 years has been under a smothering occupation for 56 years. That’s simply untrue.
The self rule is fairly irrelevant when it’s a very small territory under a land, air, and sea blockade. The area is densely populated, unable to be self sufficient in terms of water, fuel, and agriculture, and has a huge refugee population. There isn’t a chance for a good outcome in a situation like that.
I mean if you ignore the billions of aid dollars that it’s been provided then yes. But there has been more than enough aid for it to build infrastructure and live peaceably with it’s neighbors. They’ve just squandered it on constant, useless war.
Providing a small amount of aid for basic necessities they are otherwise denied due to land theft is literally the bare minimum, nobody is living a good life in those conditions. War is inevitable because terrible conditions are inflicted upon people which causes radicalization. It’s literally a “the beatings will continue until morale improves” situation.
Providing a small amount of aid for basic necessities they are otherwise denied due to land theft is literally the bare minimum,
It’s not the bare minimum anywhere else in the world. Imagine if we had redirected the last decade’s worth of aid to Guatemala or the Dominican Republic how much more effective that aid would have been.
There are a thousand places on the planet with less than Gazans, none of them demand the God given right to genocide their neighbors.
I know plenty about this situation. Palestinians widely believe that they don’t have to accept a two state solution, and that they can and are entitled to terrorism their way to victory against Israel on the dime of international aid.
Likud is doubling down because the Israeli public is blaming them for failing to stop the attacks. They're grasping at any attention shifting straw they can.
Looking at this situation critically is an existential threat to the Israeli right wing. It would be usefu if more world leaders called them out as such.
They were always Zionist. I'm not a fan of nationalist shit like that regardless but that doesn't mean they were fascists like the current crop. Hoping to expel Arab citizens and cheering settlers murdering bedouins ain't the political history of Israel.
The nationalist concept is just so alien to me. I don’t understand how can anyone come to this conclusion unless they never left their home town in their entire existence. Most israelis have more in common with Arabs than differences. In fact even their religion is essentially the same thing. It’s trully depressing.
it's not like the region is long and storied history of feuds between people with different religions or anything.
These aren't happy little secular cultures like the west (and even the West has problems with Christianity even though Christianity is mostly neutered nowadays). These are shitty backwards ass cultures founded in false religions and theocratic dictatorships who can and will do everything in their power to purge all those who don't believe what they're supposed to.
When hamas was founded their explicit aim was to get rid of all the Jews. They were voted in by popular support.
Sand removeds gon’ sand nigg. They’ve been sand nigging for thousands of years and they will continue to sand nigg regardless of outsiders attempts to interfere.
António Guterres said in a speech to the Security Council on Tuesday that he condemned unequivocally Hamas’s deadly attacks in Israel two weeks ago but that they “did not happen in a vacuum”.
The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says more than 6,500 people have been killed in the territory since Israel retaliated with air and artillery strikes while massing troops for an expected ground invasion.
He then told the council that it was “important to also recognise the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum”, adding: “The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.”
He warned that the failure to include fuel risked a disaster, explaining that hospitals would be left without power and drinking water would not be purified or pumped.
The foreign minister of the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, Riyad al-Maliki, demanded an end to what he called the “ongoing massacres being deliberately and systematically and savagely perpetrated by Israel” against the two million people living in Gaza.
Mr Cohen said the killing of 1,400 men, women and children by Hamas constituted a massacre that would “go down in history as more brutal” than those committed by the Islamic State (IS) group.
The original article contains 985 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
We already found out just how secure rights backed only supreme court precedent are against the current court. If that taught us anything it is that any right not explicitly spelled out as an amendment can be revoked at any time. Don’t jinx it.
“If the jury does not believe him, it’s a guaranteed conviction,” Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor who has been following the trial told the BBC earlier this month.
Many analysts following this case, however, had expected the former entrepreneur to take the stand to try to offer his own version of events and undermine the story presented by prosecutors.
They have tied Mr Bankman-Fried to decisions to take money deposited at FTX and use it to repay lenders at his crypto trading firm, Alameda Research.
The former entrepreneur, who has been willing to speak publicly in the past, seems to have little to lose by testifying given the strength of the prosecutors’ case so far, said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
The founder of blood-testing start-up Theranos, who argued that she did not intend to defraud investors, was ultimately convicted of four out of 11 counts and sentenced to more than 11 years in prison.
Tom Barrack, a former private equity executive and fundraiser for former President Donald Trump, and Lebanese businessman Jean Boustani, both took to the stand in separate, unrelated criminal cases and were acquitted.
The original article contains 428 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It strikes me as wild but so much of the opposition towards LGBT rights in Japan is, effectively, a paperwork issue. Backed by bigotry, but fronted by paperwork.
The koseki system, or family registry system, basically cannot handle same-sex couples or parents. The system only allows for one male partner and one female partner, one male parent and one female parent. So Japan can't register same-sex marriages or parents.
But this might also be why sterilisation is required for trans people. Because the requirement for recognition of gender isn't actually just to be sterilised. The requirements are to be unmarried, have no children, and be permanently sterile. Because anything less than that could lead to a system where a marriage involves two same-sex partners, or a child has two same-sex parents. Which is impossible using the current paperwork, so it is forbidden.
So trans people have to be sterilised, and if they have children already, they can never be recognised by the current system. Because bureaucracy.
Maybe it’s just me, but in the digital age I don’t think there’s an excuse for systems like this to be too difficult to change. Heck, if you designed it like an idiot, then you deserve to pay the costs to fix it.
I know Japan lives in the stone age when it comes to governing, but that’s simply not an excuse. Do better. Take money from your ruling class to fix these issues.
It’s do-able. Let’s get off our fucking hands and do it.
Maybe it’s just me, but in the digital age I don’t think there’s an excuse for systems like this to be too difficult to change. Heck, if you designed it like an idiot, then you deserve to pay the costs to fix it.
Thing is. I don't even think it would be that difficult to change. It's not like it's the first time we've ever had newer versions of forms. And the change isn't even drastic, just de-gender the terms. Partner 1 and Partner 2, Parent 1 and Parent 2.
One of the simple benefits of the paper-based way Japan tends to favour is that it can be updated and overriden by the person performing the process.
Boy, thank God that you don't have to deal with the draconian legacy codebases that governments have. There's a reason no sane engineer wants to get even near them, and it's because any change, no matter how small it is, completely breaks the entire system and no-one knows how.
Sure, a new system could be developed from the side, but implies getting engineers in a higher level than interns and governments don't have good reasons to hire them. Their broken system gives them the perfect excuse for their bullshittery.
Bureaucracy does tend to be inherently conservative, because it has to condense people into neat and tidy boxes in order to make them legible to an authority, so it will only allow formally defined categories, which will always lag behind culture. It also reduces people to numbers and strips them of their identities, which is another win for conservatism.
So it’s a great excuse for conservatives, because they can just say, “computer says no” and deny you healthcare.
Bureaucracy is a necessary evil in a modern society. Perhaps if you’re using a traditional definition of “conservative,” that could be accurate in that it (purposefully) slows things down to allow the administrative state (just a bunch of regular people working in their field of expertise) to review permits, etc.
But if we’re going by the current definition as used by the Republican party? Absolutely fucking not. These people are actively and openly working to literally “dismantle the administrative state.” That is their stated goal.
No, they’re not doing that, that’s a propagandistic lie. Outlawing abortion and trans people is a massive increase in the powers and scope of the state, not to mention how much they want to increase the powers of the police in the largest carceral system in history.
And bureaucracy exists primarily to address the legibility problem that states have in condensing millions of people’s lives down to policies that can be enacted by a central ruling party. It doesn’t exist to serve the people or the society, but the state which is the enemy of the people.
Perhaps that state is what you think is necessary for a “modern society”, but I assure it’s quite old and has a long history from which to demonstrate that it acts primarily to oppress.
And please don’t just skip over those articles, that “Project 2025” is absolutely terrifying (and should surprise no one who’s been paying attention). I would even recommend reading Project 2025 yourself.
Yes, they want authoritarian rule. And they are explicitly telling us exactly what they’re going to do once they have it. Their persecution of LGBTQ+ people, and p.o.c. is a completely separate thing. One thing about fascism is that it’s never consistent. It’s a feature. They will say whatever they need to say to do what they want to do and get what they want to get.
With all due respect, as someone with a career that often works hand in hand with bureaucracy in my day to day working life, you are completely uninformed about the subject. Of course it can sometimes lead to unnecessary red tape, but the alternative would be absolute chaos, with a complete lack of public health and safety, and zero accountability when people literally die because someone thought we didn’t need the FDA anymore.
I’m not going to get into a big argument about bureaucracy, but so many people are so ill informed about why it is so important, and that’s frustrating.
People have lives, asshole. I just moved my entire house twice in the last two weeks, but I’m so sorry I didn’t drop fucking everything to answer you. I can answer what you’ve said, but after that bullshit you’d have to tell me you’re actually interested in what I have to say, otherwise I won’t bother.
Okay, so it sounds like you’re saying you’re not curious about what I have to say because you have judged me too ignorant to have anything worth saying.
Of course how you arrive at this position without being curious about what I think in the first place is a bit of a mystery.
I’m saying this conversation has been over for like a week, I have no interest in continuing dead threads for some waste of time back and forth that will accomplish literally nothing. Have a nice day.
Okay, so… the fact I took a week to reply is what made you lose interest? That’s not very convincing.
Or is it the fact you believe it will accomplish “literally nothing”? Are you convinced it will achieve nothing because you lack the curiosity that would be prerequisite to you learning something? I’m afraid that’s circular.
To be honest, I just don’t feel like spending any additional time and energy having a deeply depressing conversation I’ve had countless times already. I just don’t want to talk about the granular specifics of how conservatives are dismantling our democracy right now. Nothing personal.
Buddy, my JOB is bureaucracy. But sure, I’ll defer to you.
The fact that you’re so fixating on this is starting to become a bit suspicious.
Just to let you know for future attempts at gaslighting.
You want a response to the content of this comment? What about it? What is so important? Your appeal to your JOB? Your suspicion about me because… I kept replying? Your accusing me of gaslighting?
What exactly is it about this comment that you want me to read and understand?
Anyway, it turns out that debunking your crap is way easier than I thought it would be, because it’s so paper thin, so I may as well just do it.
The idea of dismantling these agencies isn’t novel. Republicans have long run on the idea that the federal government is too big and needs to be streamlined. Abolishing the Department of Education, in particular, has been a Republican Party goal since the agency was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.
President Ronald Reagan made it a standard applause line.
But there’s a reason it hasn’t happened.
There are so many roadblocks to any such effort, experts said, that none could identify the last time a high-level department was entirely wiped off the map.
Literally this is just campaign rhetoric that never happens. Exactly the propagandistic lie I said it was. Your own article frames it as such. They are fascists and they are full of shit.
With all due respect: As someone who works directly with this kind of thing, you need to know that this is more than rhetoric.
And it is in the process of happening already. Trump did tons of damage to the administrative state at the federal level, and GOP state governments are doing it in their respective states across the country. You maybe just haven’t been made aware of it because it’s “boring” and not “sexy,” so it gets next to no coverage.
Look at how they’re dismantling the IRS.
Look at how SCOTUS just ruled that over half of America’s wetlands (by scientific definition) aren’t actually wetlands, and therefore no longer need protection from the EPA.
Look at what Trump was doing with the USPS (in cases like these, killing the government’s involvement means private companies do it instead. How convenient. And how do those companies curry favor with a fascist leader?
You can find lists and lists of regulations that have been killed since 2016. This is very real.
There are regulations that have been in place for decades that are being gutted or removed completely.
Did you read the plan they put out at all? It’s already underway.
You seem to be missing the point. Fascism demands complete control. That means when millions of career scientists who’s research goes against your goals, you purge them.
We’re not quite at that level, but it’s in their 2025 plan. Part of it is to, over time, replace career public servants who do their job with no bias, with gop lackeys.
Complete control doesn’t always mean more. It also means purging those who may stand against you.
You’re just so confidently incorrect, and I can tell you haven’t actually looked at their very real plans for the near future. Yes, they’ve talked about it in the past… And? Now they’re in the position to do it, so they are doing what they’ve always talked/dreamed/wished about.
Business plays a big role in allowing fascism to take hold, historically. Please remember that.
In fascism, bureaucracy is not use as intended, it’s just a tool. Fascists (like they do with everything) will pick and choose between agencies, rules, and even individual career scientists with families, and use and manipulate them to fit their needs and reach their desired ends. And usually toss them away after.
So yes, in that way they do need it.
I believe that I did originally differentiate between a more “traditional” definition of the term 'conservative," and said that it probably would fit that definition in that it is meant as a check to slow progress slightly so we don’t do insanely stupid shit that puts millions/billions of people in harms way without them even knowing. Not without doing a little math first anyway.
But when it comes to fascists, it’s simply a tool. It will slow/stop when they need it to, and it’ll speed up (or more likely, disappear completely), when they want that. They use it to their own ends.
But that says nothing inherently about bureaucracy itself. Which is something a modern society needs to function properly and safely.
You seem to think bureaucracy is synonymous with organisation, which it isn’t. Bureaucracy is about exercising power through rule-keeping. An important aspect of bureaucracy is that it is mandatory and monopolistic. It is imposed by force, and tends to be quite disordered and disruptive to peace for that reason.
Societies don’t need bureaucracy to function, but top-down societies - like fascism and representative democracy - do. Horizontalist societies can organise without bureaucratic bullshit telling everyone how to live their lives.
And it always has the feature that it is used selectively, and it favours in-groups, which is another way in which it is conservative. The fact you think this isn’t an inherent feature of your own bureaucracy tells me that you are privileged enough to be favoured by the system as it currently is, and inattentive enough not to see how inconsistent it really is.
You already said it’s your job, as some sort of assertion that you must be right. In my experience people who do that aren’t very good at their jobs, because otherwise they’d be able to explain their reasons and not fall back on an appeal to authority. You sound like exactly the kind of small-minded asshole that thrives in bureaucracy.
Also, if you have to admit that bureaucracy actually is conservative, and you’re talking about some special brand of conservatism that you think is different to that, then I don’t even know where you disagree with me.
A bureaucracy is when a government is set up to allow people who are career experts in their respective fields to make policy decisions that make sense, rather than clueless politicians. They are apolitical by definition. It can only really be considered “conservative” in that it, by design, slows things down to make sure that the rules and laws we are making are safe, make sense, won’t kill people (quickly or slowly), etc. I don’t mean conservative in a political way.
When you remove replace those experts with unqualified stooges (see current GOP House budget that reduces EPA funding by 40%. See Trump rule that removed protections from over 60% of America’s wetlands. See GOP’s literal stated goals), it stops functioning. Everything stops functioning. Which is the intention of the fascistic “conservatives” that are running the GOP.
They are breaking down any such system that may improve people’s lives. They’re openly doing it, and gloating about it:
They’re doing it to the EPA.
They’re doing it to the Dept. of Education.
They are doing it to the ATF.
They’re doing it to the USPS.
They’re doing it to the friggin Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
They’re even doing it to the FBI.
And of course, they’re doing it to the IRS, because obviously that one makes the rest much easier to gut.
I said already that fascists will pick and choose when convenient, but the idea that “conservatives” (as they are currently defined in the US) are not currently dismantling all sorts of bureaucracy that literally keeps people from dying, is absurd.
Can you not see it? They want to “dismantle the administrative state,” as they say themselves. When that plays out, and we’ve reverted back to a form of feudalism, they see themselves as being the new feudal lords. THAT is when they “rebuild” the state into something built entirely to serve their own interests. Fascism designed from the ground up, with hundreds of years of lessons on what pitfalls to avoid in order to stay in power indefinitely.
When you start taking climate change into account, it starts to make even more sense. Big time preppers like Steve Huffman (spez) see themselves as the leaders of a feudalistic, post climate wars world.
I wish I was kidding. I have a source for that last part specifically if you want to read it. It’s insanity. Huffman is a psycho.
You literally just ignored everything I said or directly nay-sayed it and kept banging the same drum which is isn’t even relevant to this discussion.
It’s pretty clear you’re not interested in what I have to say.
Also?
A bureaucracy is when a government is set up to allow people who are career experts in their respective fields to make policy decisions that make sense, rather than clueless politicians.
Lol ok. Clearly you’re the one with no interest in an actual conversation. I made a pretty well thought out comment and I’m not even sure you read it.
I guess I’m going to be the one to tell you, but that’s exactly what bureaucracy means. Just because you have some warped definition in your mind, doesn’t make it true.
I can’t say I’m not curious to hear what you believe to be incorrect about what I said…
I’m actually starting to think that maybe you don’t know what the word actually means? It’s almost like maybe the only context you’ve seen/heard it used is from some commentator on YouTube that HATES bureaucracy so they only ever frame it in a certain way. And because of that, your concept of what it actually means, is completely skewed.
That’s just the vibe I’m getting.
But ok hoss, let’s hear it: What is “bureaucracy”?
I already told you the answer. It is literally two of my comments above this one.
I can’t say I’m not curious to hear what you believe to be incorrect about what I said…
You need to do better than that. I want to understand what you’re saying here, but it is difficult. I would love to have a real conversation about this, but if you can’t read what I’ve already written and respond to it, and you can’t even pretend to be genuinely curious about what I have to say - not what I think of what you have to say, there is a difference - then I think we’re done here.
If you can’t admit curiosity and demonstrate it by responding to what I’ve said, I won’t reply. If you can actually do those things after all this defensiveness then you will thoroughly surprise me, which is a genuine gift in this day and age.
I’m not sure what you think I’ve attributed to you, I read what you wrote and shared my impression of it. If my impression is incorrect in some painfully obvious (to you) way, maybe you could take the time to explain that instead of simply calling me a liar?
there’s no such thing as a bad guy and all bad ideas are easily dismissed as “campaign rhetoric”
I don’t know… like I didn’t say this. This is so obviously a strawman that I don’t think it warrants any more explanation, unless you can explain how what I said amounts to this.
Such a bad faith first impression doesn’t encourage me to share more, thanks anyway.
I’m sorry, the argument you laid out is spurious and nonsensical. I did the best I could to understand it but it really does seem like something that would apply to literally any subject based on some unstated preference. Did you mean to say something other than “campaign rhetoric therefore obvious lie because it’s impossible for campaigns to be honest”?
How is it spurious and nonsensical? If you can explain that, then you have something more than a strawman, but so far you don’t.
And I could reiterate what I’ve obviously already said, but I would just be repeating myself. I don’t know where your misunderstanding roots from because you’re not explaining yourself, so I don’t know how to help you.
bbc.co.uk
Hot