Docudump Dos.

    Following are some articles that I have found interesting. Maybe some others will too. 

    Why is the media—including the liberal media—supporting these teachers’ strikes? By Corey Robin

    All the President’s Women   By Andrew Levine. 

    Is War Ever Justifiable?   This is an hour and a half video of a debate, the second of three, between David Swanson, a three time Nobel peace prize nominee and a former Army officer who now teaches "Just War" theory at West Point. On strict terms of the debate the army  representative wins IMO but Swanson makes by far the best points. Again IMO. 

    Israel Kills Palestinians and Western Liberals Shrug. Their Humanitarianism Is a Sham.  Sorry to any self-identified liberals but on this point I have thought the second sentence of the title to be obvious for a long time. 


    Strange how it takes a person with a piece of paper on their wall, written in fancy script, to do a study that arrives at a totally obvious conclusion before some people notice it. But I guess that the ‘noticing’, for anybody that does, justifies the effort of the study.  

    It brought to mind the following . My son and I are big Dallas Cowboy fans. The 49ers once had a very good receiver, Terrel Owens, who insulted the Cowboys at Dallas by catching a touchdown pass and running to the middle of the field and doing a celebration dance on the Texas star, twice. Dallas fans then hated him, and would have forever, but later Dallas traded for him. My son and I were talking about the trade when it first happened and I said I hoped that he didn’t make me hate him as a Cowboy. My son responded that he already hated him, he hoped that he would make him like him. In a political discussion years ago another friend suggested that to protect and liberalize abortion rights all the Democrats need do is come out against it.

    More later. 

    Edited to add the intent of the anecdote, Owens became popular in Dallas as a Cowboy. 

    Edited to add this link .


    Operation Hades Blamed Russia - A Model For The 'Novichok' Claims?

    I am posting from Serajevo. While the city has recovered to an amazing extent from the longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern warfare, the acne-like scars from various sized strikes on buildings are still visible in many areas I have seen. One such view is outside my window. My host was barely a teenager when the siege began. He said it was a very hard time. I believe that beats the Brits for classical understatement. This morning while reading a twitter scroll that AA posted regarding the Youtube shooting I was struck by the conclusion of one poster.    "My heart goes out to everyone at Youtube headquarters today. This hits WAY too close to home."  [Emphasis in original]  Every survivor in this beautiful city must have thought that same thing so many times for over 1400 days as they saw friends and family die by the thousands and the wounded who no longer had hospitals to go to. There is a tunnel that was dug by hand to provide some material relief. The workers dug  by hand from both ends in eight hour shifts, twenty four hours a day, and were paid one pack of cigarettes for each shift.    There are now memorial cemeteries scatted about the mountainside neighborhoods at sites which were once mass graves.  

    And the beat goes on. 

    Fortunately, in this case, there is a Third Party busy considering the competing claims as to what happened, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

    To go from questioning the British response to accusing them of performing a false flag operation is a big leap. At this point in the investigation, it looks like a leap of faith.

    Yes, to go from skepticism of the government's public evidence in a significant case such as this to an accusation of a false flag event is a big leap. That said, it is a leap that has landed on solid ground in historic cases involving every government known to be directly involved in the Novichok poisoning as well as our own.  To my reading the Moon doesn't seem to be making a leap of faith to a definite, defined, contrary belief but rather a refusal to make the leap of faith required to accept British government claims when there seems to be so many leaps in the reporting that fit vested political interests. 

     Has anyone come up with a logical theory as to why Russia, I mean Putin, would authorize a political assassination to be done in a way that pointed straight back at him? Some say it is to give a warning to potential spies but others, more credibly IMO, say that all sides want to keep open the channels by which spies or other detainees can be traded.  Why not just have him shot? 

     Has anyone come up with a logical theory as to why Russia, I mean Putin, would authorize a political assassination to be done in a way that pointed straight back at him? Some say it is to give a warning to potential spies but others, more credibly IMO, say that all sides want to keep open the channels by which spies or other detainees can be traded.  Why not just have him shot? 

      Sounds like you don't get how oligarchies work. This is not Stalin's Russia, thinking like it is will get you nowhere no matter what your leanings are.

      AA, sounds like you think you do. Do oligarchies take deliberately counter productive actions, maybe just for the fun of it?  Help me out. 

      They work in concert, not under orders. You know, like a symphony orchestra? All for one and one for all? You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? You know what I need, I don't even have to ask? Ever see those Russian doll sets where there's another and another and another inside? Ever read a 19th-century Russian novel?

      You like videos. Watch this one to the end, that might give you an idea.

      Lulu: Has anyone come up with a logical theory as to why Russia, I mean Putin, would authorize a political assassination to be done in a way that pointed straight back at him? 

      Answer: Putin would authorize a political assassination to be done in a way that pointed straight back at him because his apologists could say why would he authorize a political assassination to be done in a way that pointed straight back at him? 

      Who ya gonna believe, me? or your lying eyes?

      NCD, I have tried to follow a semi-hard rule to ignore comments that only aim to deride rather than contribute something sensible. [Not at all saying  that every comment to or about me that I do not respond to are ones that I think fall into that category] This is an exception explaining why I try to make that a rule.

         Sun Tzu said, "Know your enemy".  I say we should try to do so by listening to what the [current designated] enemy says combined with what he does and considered in light of his situation and moderated by a genuine attempt to understand etc, etc.    I believe that Sun Tzu would consider that a comment such as this particular one of yours that I  am responding to, if it demonstrates the true limits of your intellect and  attitude, would identify you as an apologist for stupidity and ignorance. 


      Referencing Sun Tzu doesn't negate the absurd circular logic of your post. "The evidence says he did it, therefore he wouldn't,  couldn't have done it."

      Putin is a pathological criminal and thug, convinced of his own omnipotence.

      that too, that's the Consortium News thing where everything's a false flag and nobody does what they want to in an obvious manner. Also the thing where George Bush is a hopeless failure and a brilliant scheming manipulator in the same body.

      Hmmm, I don't recall shrugging over 6 million killed in Congo, the many thousands (million?) killed in Syria under Obama and still being killed under Trump, the millions killed in Cambodia, the many thousands killed in Bosnia & Kosovo, the millions killed in Algeria 1960, et al. [I've been to Cambodia & China & Sarajevo & Pakistan & German concentration camps, et al - do I win a prize? does that make me not a humanitarian, not a liberal? from being in Kiev, do I get docked as being a Brownshirt?]

      I painted with abroad brush to create an image. You identify as a separate dot but one that makes you an entire image within the big picture. What I mean to say is: What's your point?

      Some of us liberals do object to massive shooting in Gaza (and post news links about it) but also try to analyze the conflicting news about different hotspots to differentiate real security from abuse and various levels of jingoism and propaganda. Like with the horrid 5-6 million atrocity in Congo (sadly ramping up again), I try to maintain perspective on which actions are more important humanitarian-wise and geopolitical without too much dismissing the littler ones. And try to stay out of the sandtraps of the politicized outrage du jour with an obvious agenda.

      Here's an article about small gun running in Ukraine and Syria nd elsewheres. Your thoughts on how it affects areas of your concern?

      I say that the article demonstrates that governments on all sides and cynical money grubbing independent actors within those sides are playing a dirty game, almost always without an honest concern for the resulting victims. 

        Some time ago evidence came out indicating that Ukraine, or some entity within it, sold powerful rocket engines to North Korea . That would explain their sudden exponential jump in ability to launch heavy payloads to long distances. Any thoughts?

      The idea, "that to protect and liberalize abortion rights all the Democrats need do is come out against it" might not be the stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet but it's definitely in the running for that top spot. If democrats came out against abortion the republicans would quite happily go about restricting abortion rights. The far right evangelicals might be disappointed in that discussions within the republican party wouldn't result in all abortion being banned. But that discussion would surely be about the degree abortion should be restricted.

      As usual we disagree vehemently about the basic proposition. While identity can increase the intensity of the polarization I think it's a "totally obvious conclusion" that fundamental disagreements over policy fuels the polarization of our two major political parties. You and I don't just disagree over the more esoteric political and policy positions we disagree over what is totally obvious.

      Maybe you could agree with these pro-life actions by Democrats:

      Declare the already obvious, frozen embryos are (1) alive  (2) independent human beings (3) temporarily disabled. (triple duhhh!...!)

      Embryos have no set limit on how long they can be frozen.

      The parents of embryo persons should be receive funding for home schooling for their embryos for embryos over age 5.

      The embryos should be eligble for SS disability when they reach 18 years if they so choose.

      They should have votng rights.

      Embryos should be allowed to join the military.....or at least the Marine Corps.

      Dems should support a pro-life Constitutional amendment on this....?

      What you're suggesting is what some have called "provo" actions though that's a more modern connotation and not how the term was originally defined. The idea is that by proposing absurd or unacceptable policy that seems to follow from an opponent's position it would sow dissent within the opponent's ranks. I don't think it would be a successful strategy. It really doesn't address the context of lulu's position that differences between political parties aren't driven by ideology or policy differences but by tribalism.

      Ok, skip the Marines and the SS, I still like the home schooling hahaha...

      .Republicans of course might fund it if it depleted $$$ for public schools, and helped destroy public education.

      You so funny. Also funny you should mention the public education thing as I was just reading this reminding me how New Yorkers know it's not just a right-wing Christian problem. The topic always makes me want to become a commie commando and free the children to live under control of the state....

      p.s. why does that identify group have such power in New York state?  Very simple: they vote as a bloc, as instructed by their leaders. Leaders who bargain with politicians for the vote, quid pro quo for special dispensation from rules they don't like and even subsidization.

      Thanks for the link. I thought all Hasidic men were rich international diamond merchants.

      Hasidic backwardness, a sinister Soros/Jewish conspiracy..??

      Reduce the elite competition? That many less to share control of one world government??

      I thought all Hasidic men were rich international diamond merchants.

      From the movies. The facts in his op-ed are correct, they are mostly very poor with large families and living off government subsidy. Those few rich with smarts, like in the diamond trade, learn business from their family, as if the rebbe who assigns careers sees them as capable, they are given the same job as their father, uncle, etc. There is the odd effect to this, other people interacting with them, like at an airport, find them rude. The thing is, it's not intentional rudeness, they are like aliens because of their lack of secular education, they don't even know how to interact with "the other" as they have zero in common with the average person. It takes a very special person to break out like this guy did. He is very brave.

      I've never been able to get the image out of my head of Hasidics in the back of a smooth riding Mercury conducting a ritual circumcision, mixed with my glimpse of the diamond district. SNL, what hath ye wrought?

      ocean-kat, I will save you the hassle of looking up the meaning of "hyperbole". It means extreme exaggeration not intended to be taken seriously but instead to make a point.

      I understand what hyperbole is. You're just not very good at doing it or conveying some point in the process when you claim you've done it.

      Vladimir Putin -- a democratically elected, peace loving statesman with a history of benevolence towards minorities, gays, and dissenters- deserves the benefit of the doubt

      Britain and the Deep State are obviously poisoning Russian spies. (A comedic take on the issue)


      The deep state is trying to start WWIII with Russia to stop Trump because typically Americans don't rally behind the president in time of war being as Americans are so antiwar and peace loving above all else.

      Latest Comments