Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
US will not allow Assad to murder civilians with chemical weapons: Secretary of Defense
But it's 100% OK to just send in troops to kill everybody. No problem. ISIS as well does this, usually based on religion, but not necessarily.
This isn't much of a moral line IMO. Chemical weapons have become one, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Kill 10,000s (or much much more depending on whom you believe), fine. Kill 100 with chemical weapons, get rebuked/toppled/whatever.
Maybe it's just me trying to make sense of the insanity of war where there is no sense to be had.
But it's 100% OK to just send in troops to kill everybody. No problem. ISIS as well does this, usually based on religion, but not necessarily.
This isn't much of a moral line IMO. Chemical weapons have become one, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Kill 10,000s (or much much more depending on whom you believe), fine. Kill 100 with chemical weapons, get rebuked/toppled/whatever.
Maybe it's just me trying to make sense of the insanity of war where there is no sense to be had.
U.S. and Russia agree on Syria probe
Thank fucking God. No nuclear war for a few weeks at least... from Russia. NK/China, who knows, but one crisis averted for now. I put no guarantee to what this means long-term, but "fine right now" is better than "looks bad right now" in my book.
X
Thank fucking God. No nuclear war for a few weeks at least... from Russia. NK/China, who knows, but one crisis averted for now. I put no guarantee to what this means long-term, but "fine right now" is better than "looks bad right now" in my book.
X
Dave
Staff member
I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless the UN gets rid of the fucking idiotic veto power of only a certain few countries, it will never be an effective organization. The superpowers could and should be able to be sanctioned by the UN and yes, that includes the US.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/assad-syria-sarin-gas/index.html
Russia just vetoed a resolution that would force Syria to accept inspections and oversight.[DOUBLEPOST=1492028250,1492028202][/DOUBLEPOST]@Eriol you might need to reread that link you posted. They've made edits.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/assad-syria-sarin-gas/index.html
Russia just vetoed a resolution that would force Syria to accept inspections and oversight.[DOUBLEPOST=1492028250,1492028202][/DOUBLEPOST]@Eriol you might need to reread that link you posted. They've made edits.
I don't get editing articles like that. It's just... write a new one, or a footnote at the bottom. Changing the whole tone of something is just... that's not helpful to see where things have BEEN, not just where they ARE. Probably better for number of links to the article though for ranking, etc.
Alright, I hope that we will get the chance to exchange views on the role of morality in international politics at some point in the future.
Perhaps, though getting the major powers, the movers and shakers of the world, to relinquish the best safety catch they have against getting ganged up on by their rivals in the UNSC, might not be easy. And it's not just about their own issues, possessing a veto in the security council is a useful tool to distribute political patronage by shielding your allies against undesirable actions (Russia-Assad, USA-Israel), making your support that much more valuable to them.
A big part (not the only part, but a big one) of the reason why we have a veto system in the first place is because it was thought necessary to have the Soviet Union in the fledgling UN, lest the organisation devolves into a western debating club with little to no significance in territories influenced by the communist bloc. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, knew well the animosity and pariah status it was laboring under before WWII, and wondered how long their new-found friendships would last before the issues of disagreement, swept under the carpet in the face of war against common enemies, would begin to resurface. They were heavily outnumbered in the UN, and the Soviet Union was NOT ready to trust the western powers that far. If the Soviet Union was to join the UN, they wanted guarantees. So, veto.
I'm not sure I see why the basic great power logic behind that would have changed, and why countries like the US, Russia and China would be willing to give up such a useful thing.
Me too. Not today, but that could be interesting. And I appreciate how you phrased that too, in that it's unlikely for either of us to convince the other, but I like the idea of exchanging views. +1
One of the best summaries I've ever seen about both the history of the UNSC veto, as well as why it still matters.
OTOH I don't think that the UN should be given any more veneer of legitimacy, given they are (basically) a dictator's debate club. Some sub-agencies do good work but in general they are the debate club that you describe above, but for dictators.
Weird: Couple says CAS took foster kids because they wouldn't say the Easter bunny is real
These people are obviously on the more "extreme" end of things, but doesn't seem like anything harmful happening here.
These people are obviously on the more "extreme" end of things, but doesn't seem like anything harmful happening here.
It is weird. I was expecting the parents to be hard core atheists (well, just no-nonsense skeptics) and it turns out to be the opposite.
This is kinda political, but nice to see it happening in some places: The joy of a Christian-Muslim wedding among Egypt's Nubians
@Dirona and I were in Egypt in 2010 and were in that area (Aswan) for a few days, so we know the general idea for what they mean about the villages on the west side of the river down there.
@Dirona and I were in Egypt in 2010 and were in that area (Aswan) for a few days, so we know the general idea for what they mean about the villages on the west side of the river down there.
When you agree to be foster parents you essentially agree to not raising the children exactly how you would if they were your own, in order to ease the transition into the intended long term position - either adoption or reuniting with the parents - where the belief system may be different from your own. This does include teaching them things you might not agree with. For instance, if you take in foster children who have been attending a specific church regularly, you may be required to take them to that church regularly, whether you believe what is being taught there or not. In theory the foster care system attempts to put children with foster parents that are close in values and childrearing style as to their previous or expected parenting, but that isn't always possible - and it's the foster parents who must adjust, not the children.
So while they've gone ahead and publicized what seems to be a trivial reason for removing their foster license, the reality is that they broke the agreement by choosing not to follow the guidelines they agreed to when they agreed to be foster parents. It isn't a matter of abuse, so much as a willful disregard for the foster care system and the agreements that permit them to foster other people's children.
That said, it appears there may be motive on the CAS side of things to remove them for reasons not allowed. The couple allege that CAS started working on having these children adopted by a same sex couple, and the CAS worker was concerned that these foster parents would cause problems during the adoption process. They can't remove foster children from parents who hold certain religious beliefs, though, so it may be that the CAS worker insisted on a parenting style (easter bunny is real) they knew the foster parents wouldn't agree to, then re-placed the children the instant the parents showed resistance to that requirement.
If that is true, then there is an issue with religious discrimination. But teasing out intent in a case like this is almost impossible, and the children were removed a year ago so it's a moot point in this case. While foster parents agree to many things, they still have many rights, and it's quite possible their rights were violated by the case worker.
GasBandit
Staff member
Huffpo: "Time to revoke the right to vote from white men."
No, really. That's the article.
Best Imgur comment:
"Can't I just identify as something other than a white male and continue to vote? Isn't that the way their system works?"
Bonus: Author bio is exactly what you'd expect.
No, really. That's the article.
Best Imgur comment:
"Can't I just identify as something other than a white male and continue to vote? Isn't that the way their system works?"
Bonus: Author bio is exactly what you'd expect.
Last edited:
It's somewhat disingenious to just say "HuffPo". its the South-African Huffington Post - where, after the death of Mandela, the move towards a more Zimbabwean style of "redistribution" is sadly getting stronger and stronger. Which makes no sense at all given the wealth of poor people in SA versus even average people of Zimbabwe (source: having been to both countries).
GasBandit
Staff member
If it had been exclusively referencing South Africa, I'd probably be more inclined to say "it's just those wacky South Africans," but right off the bat the author blamed White Males for Brexit, Donald Trump, and the 2008 economic crash.
It's not like confusing a local FOX affiliate for Fox News. This is definitely under the Huffington Post masthead.
Works for me. Let the lady apes fight the bugs.
To be fair, and speaking as a white male....Can you say she's wrong? Admittedly, the same holds true for the over-65 crowd. In both cases, if that group hadn't voted, Brexit and Trump wouldn't have happened. 2008 crash....well, it was caused by white men because we're the ones who hold all the power and money. If the banks ahad been stuffed with black women, the crash would still have happened, probably.
She uses Brexit and Trump as examples - nowhere does she say all white men everywhere should lose the right to vote. She's specifically aiming at and talking about the SA situation. She's still a moron and a would-be oppressor and wrong, but that's another matter.
GasBandit
Staff member
They gave her an author page, that's a little bit more than a letter to the editor.
Also, they put up a response to it going viral:
"Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory. It has been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now. In that sense, there was nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody (or so we thought.) It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article -- or perhaps none at all. Dismantling the patriarchal systems that have brought us to where we are today, a world where power is wielded to dangerous and destructive ends by men, and in particular white men, necessarily means a loss of power to those who hold it. A loss of oppressive power. Those who have held undue power granted to them by patriarchy must lose it for us to be truly equal. This seems blindingly obvious to us.
This doesn't necessarily mean we agree or endorse everything in Garland's blog. The point of our Voices section is to invite a wide array of voices and views. We hope, as reads continue to rack up on this blog, that those who are tempted to fire off an angry email to us would first engage with the underlying analysis in Garland's blog."
In other words, "We think this is rational and accurate, and it espouses a viewpoint that we think everyone should accept as normal, but we know deep in our hearts it (and we) are batshit crazy and we're going to hide behind a standard boilerplate statement to deflect criticism."
So, yeah, they picked that signal to boost.
Isn't this basically A Modest Proposal, feminist edgelord edition? I would hope that the point is to discuss group privilege dynamics through the inevitable outrage this idiotic article is causing.
GasBandit
Staff member
In other words, Poe's Law is in effect
As far as I can tell, they do that for everyone. Probably ask them to give a little blurb about themselves. Por ejemplo: Sikhulekile Duma, Chris Nortje, Benedict Peters
So Alex Jones is locked in a bitter custody dispute, and his ex-wife intend to use his infowars rants against him. His lawyer responds that the inforwars Alex is "just a character," and shouldn't be used against him as it's just "performing a role."
So confirmed. infowars is fictional bullshit.
So confirmed. infowars is fictional bullshit.
It does make the Turkish president a lot more powerful, that's for sure, making it easier for the President to implement his policies. And, as far as regional peace has been of concern, those policies don't seem to fit too well with the general western view of what is needed. Turkey has supported ISIL in the past and been one of the main buyers and the transit corridor in the ISIL oil trade, in which the turkish energy minister who is Erdogan's son-in-law and probable successor (Erdogan's own two sons are more interested in business than politics) appears to be involved. That cozy relationship seems to have soured after ISIL terror attacks inside Turkey. But Turkey, together with Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states, appears to have continued it's support for the Army of Conquest, a coalition of rebel groups including hard-line extremists such as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra which was the main Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria (and the mail rebel rival to ISIL, itself formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq, thought the groups have also co-operated when the situation called for it).
Erdogan's increased powers bringing peace to the region? Seems doubtful, as we understand it. But as long as he is sitting on top of a couple of million more asylum seekers ready to be bussed to the EU border, I'm not sure I'd be too vocal in my outrage.
Last edited:
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.