I have really appreciated the critique and calling out the ridiculousness of the pro-Hamas/Houthi rhetoric of the progressive left on social media and at protests (along with the blatant antisemitism) but the unwavering support for Israel has baffled me a bit. I agree that if Oct 7 hadn’t happened Israel wouldn’t have just bombed the hell out of Gaza like this for no reason and these people would still be alive but the reports of 40% of bombs being used are unguided and almost 30k deaths later and countless evidence of indiscriminate bombings and killings etc (just watch any of Motaz Azaiza’s videos or people who are actually on the ground in Gaza) I don’t see how this is justified whatsoever and I’m disappointed a bit but I still like to hear all sides of the discussion.
Missiles can be “unguided” but still be launched not-indiscriminately. “Guided” means that its trajectory can be altered after launch. Advanced militaries can aim an unguided missile pretty accurately, especially at a stationary target. Guided missiles are also much more expensive and supply more restricted.
If they were just launching missiles randomly into Gaza, certainly that would be indiscriminate and unjustifiable. If they’re making efforts to identify, track, and target specific individuals for which there is evidence they are Hamas fighters or leadership, that’s totally justifiable. If, in the process of targeting those people, civilians are killed, reasonable people could disagree about how justifiable that is, but it’s still not I discriminate.
I appreciate you bringing these concerns! We should all be concerned about needless death and hold Israel to the standards it deserves as a modern nation and member of international agreements. Personally, I’ve seen little evidence that Israel is guilty of what they’re being accused of. Matti Friedman has written and spoken extensively about how media from Gaza is compromised. Reports of x percent of buildings in Gaza being damaged have been relayed as “x percent of buildings in Gaza have been destroyed.”
And of course, this is to say nothing of the tactics Hamas employs to maximize civilian casualties.
Could Israel further minimize civilian deaths by ceasing the bombing campaign and move to a ground-only assault? Probably. This is already happening to some extent as the IDF has pulled back reservists. However, this will increase Israeli military deaths (already around 200, not including O7).
How many more Israelis should be expected to die for the sake of Gazan civilians that are used as human shields by Hamas? This is a reasonable question that I won’t attempt to answer.
A lot to unpack here and thanks for the thorough response. I would say initially that yes, IDF military infantry should be used as such, that’s what an army is for. If they don’t want the high casualties because that makes it look like they are “losing” the war then maybe they shouldve tried to negotiate sooner since they showed that was possible during the pause in late November but continue to claim that Hamas won’t negotiate.
As far as I know the US didn’t bomb the heck out of Fallujah. they went into an urban war hell and used ground troops with high casualties and but also had some care with handling civilians and avoiding deaths. They didn’t bomb designated safe zones etc. and yes I realize they might be firing rockets from certain areas but these rockets rarely get through the iron dome. Didn’t Israel bomb one for the camps to kill 1 Hamas commander and killed 50ish civilians ( https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-says-it-fires-israeli-troops-pressing-gaza-ground-assault-2023-10-31/ ) is that acceptable collateral damage? They have shown extreme precision in the missile attack in Beirut and clearly money isn’t a factor since the US provides plenty of finances. And yes I know a lot of these fighters are in regular clothes probably just picking up a weapon after someone else dies and I’ve seen all that footage and countless examples. I’m not sure how to combat all that and I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers.
I’ve read some of Friedman stuff and the fog of war & propaganda is real but pictures don’t lie. I guess the perspective is what a lot of this comes down to. I think it’s pretty easy to be against the extremes on both sides and for the innocents and self determination /right to live of both. All I know is no peace or settlement is going to come with Hamas or current Israel leadership both in power.
By comparison, here is a much, much more horrific bombing by US forces in the first Iraq war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing. Unlike the Israeli attack on Jabalia, that attack did not kill any combatants. The US mistakenly believed that the public air raid shelter had been converted to a command center. And that attack used precision-guided weapons, which were only as smart as the people making targeting decisions.
And I think that’s the double standard we are seeing here. Everyone else drops bombs and collateral damage is mostly acceptable, but when Israel does it it suddenly becomes “genocide” and calls for a cease fire dominate the discussion, in the middle of a military operation.
I can’t read the WSJ article (paywall) but if Israel doesn’t have people involved offering potential scenarios/consequences at play regarding their air strikes or they do and they are ignored (perhaps at a lust for revenge) then that is a problem. To suggest that a self proclaimed democracy should be held to a higher standard of warfare seems pretty rationale to me.
I agree, I can’t stand the selective outrage/selective history crowd on social media who didn’t blink an eye at the Bucha massacre or the bombing of the theatre in Mariupol or assads and russias indiscriminate bombing in Syria or other massacres around the world. It’s asking quite a lot out of regular people to be up on everyday happenings regarding every conflict and be thoroughly informed about both sides, understanding why one group hates another and causes of a conflict which usually involves a deep knowledge of history in a region which is just unrealistic sometimes. To suggest bad things have happened in war before and one so can’t be outraged at the current situation is lacking empathy for the affected population in my mind.
I didn’t use the term genocide and just because it’s not the worst of the worst bombing campaign in modern times as many tiktokers suggest, doesn’t mean it is justified and should be continued especially with no end plan offered besides to “destroy Hamas” which is unrealistic. Israel is doing more harm in the long run.
Ditto. I’ve been hangin along with the fellas, but keep feeling like, is there something I’m missing here? In the fullness of time there will be regrets and admissions of misguided support similar to those made during the aftermath of the 9/11 wars. It still blows my mind that so many thoughtful folks want to pay more attention to idiot lefty protestors than to what’s actually going on. Ideology rearing its ugly head contra clear headed observation.
Also, while I am sensitive to the idiot-lefty-protester stuff being repetitive, it is also what is happening WHERE WE LIVE. I have been delayed by the aforementioned demonstrators by more than one hour on at least three occasions, which is extremely irritating. As is watching a small number of people shut down major transportation hubs, or precipitate government-building evacuation/lockdowns, especially in light of increased political violence & personalized intimidation on both sides; an issue that I think is worth thinking on regardless of one's politics or zip code.
I understand. What I’m concerned about is the shear destruction and the amount of military aid we are providing to Israel which is also something worth talking more about. Protests are happening all over the world, but the US gives more aid to Israel than any other country on earth. So shining a light on our country’s complicities or on the tremendous power AIPAC has in policy decisions is more than necessary. I’d say this is more unique and therefore worthy of focus and conversation than the urban protests. I know these protests are out there, I live rurally and have seen not the slightest sign of pro Palestinian voice other than in media- I know it’s a loud one and it’s out there, but do consider that there are parts of this country- big ones, where Israel flags abound without the slightest showing of empathy for those in Gaza.
I disagree that AIPAC has "tremendous power" in policy decisions, but your point about the rest of the country is well taken (and one I have often made myself). Am in the process of doing some deep-divery on the U.S.-Israel relationship, so I will consider this an encouragement!
I literally talked about my worries of 9/11-like support/aftermath in this episode, and Kmele has in just about every instance warned about unintended consequences and excess civilian deaths.
Yeah, you're missing out on justice, and it's necessity here. This is not a luxury Israel can survive without. It's unfortunate that the whole eye for an eye thing needs to happen here, but Hamas made it necessary. Here's the thing. All wars, in the fullness of time, have regrets. Even the most "just" wars. The allies have plenty of atrocities to answer for in WWII, but the consequences of not answering the call would have been considerably more then any of us were willing to pay. I grapple with the fire bombing, and nuking of Japan by remembering things like their treatment of Chinese, and other allied soldiers. The populations of the places they invaded, etc. What would a long term Japanese occupation of the South Pacific look like today? Worse then the whole of everything we did in the entirety of WWII.
So what are the consequences to the other options that Israel faces here? They can't not answer Oct. 7th with nothing, or they'll look weak, nor can they take too many half measures or Hamas, or maybe the Houthis, will just do it again.
Or lets pretend, for a hot second, that Hamas can win here. Do we discuss the regrets of their aggression in the fullness of time? Are we looking back in 20 years saying that we really should have supported Israel?
You're missing a lot. Hell even I am. We cannot contend with the unlimited potential every direction has for these events. We can only keep our principals, and try to use morality to direct our actions in upholding them. But make no mistake. This is war, and a war in a densely populated region of the world. Even a ground invasion will see the deaths of a lot of innocent lives. It's good to remind Israel of those principals of a modern western nation. But it's ideal to remember that they're the ones who have to do the surviving in a particularly rough neighborhood.
Jon Ronson comes across as such a genuine person good faith and kind person. Listening to the new season of Things Fell Apart, I was annoyed at times, but I was still excited to listen to the next episode. He is a one of a kind story teller.
He’s good at asking questions, but his challenging of one interviewee in particular demonstrated his bias (or ignorance). Otherwise he is pretty good at telling a story by just letting people talk.
The narratives often have a “just so” story feel to them when he puts them into the larger cultural war context. I am only 4 episodes in, but it seems like he gives too much explanatory value to his stories to describe the origins of much more complex and multifaceted cultural events.
His pushback about BLM’s mission stuck out in particular. If you are looking to support the family (it takes a village and all that), you don’t say your aim is to “dismantle” the nuclear family.
Ok someone is going to have to help me out here. So the maga types are supporting Trump because they are upset, devastated even, that their churches were shut down during the pandemic? Refresh my memory... who was the President when that happened? In fact, who was basically the only president who ever just straight up shut down the economy because he was too mentally weak to stand up to anyone?
Other than that, I actually find the insights that Tina Nguyen laid out to be quite interesting. That's probably why it stands out. I'll probably even read her book, but that argument seems so illogical on it's face that I am struggling with it.
Most of the shutdowns and most egregious examples thereof (i.e., surveilling that church in NorCal, or bulldozing sand on SoCal skate parks, or calling parents racist for wanting schools to finally open, or declaring various items/aisles/stores/employees "essential" or not) happened at the state and local level, with the most strenuous lockdowners tending to be Democrats, and their supporters and journalistic backers being "In THIS house we believe in SCIENCE" types who tended to look down on Red state rubes and their masklessness. I think most people give most politicians more or less a pass through around June 2020; the egregious memories were made after.
Thanks for the reply Matt. I suppose I understand all that, but I just wish there would be some pushback on Trump when it comes to this particular point. Yes, the local dems ended up being much, much worse in most areas of the country. Punish them. Vilify them. I'm all for it. But I don't think that should mean that Trump gets a pass. I live in an incredibly red state, and I often disagree with my local and state politicians, mostly because of the hyperpartisan nature of being a one party state.
They got Covid right. They get a lot of other things wrong. Nature of the beast. Trump, however, did not get Covid right. Businesses were shut down. The entire country overreacted. He was in way over his head so he did nothing to stop it. Just because there were dems that were even more wrong than Trump shouldn't give him a pass, and it just seems like that's what is going on. And this is not limited to here, by the way, I hear from friends who also have a bit of a revisionist view on Trump/Covid and it's just a bit irritating I suppose.
Can't unhear the Elizabeth Holmes in Tina's voice. I know she did the impersonation on a previous episode but I feel like it's crept into her everyday voice!
I agree that the WW3 talk seems a bit ridiculous. The Houthis are unafraid of attacking American targets, but can't fight without Iranian funding. The Iranians have (limited) funding, but lack the huevos to step up to the plate. How does this lead to WW3 if the US has the means to unilaterally inflict damage on both of those groups until they scream uncle without the need to send an occupying force?
What's most surprising to me about the whole Gaza war thing is how these people who always insist on land acknowledgements completely overlook the fact that the land that Palestine is on was STOLEN from the Phoenicians! Hypocrites much?
I find it interesting that Matt says DeSantis campaign ending would be good given the fact that he points out that the ceiling for the "establishment lane" is so relatively low. I would gladly vote for DeSantis in my state's primary if he were viable by then but if he is not my vote will not go to Nikki Haley, and I suspect the number of those who will is relatively low. (If the alternative is only Trump mine will go nowhere FWIW but I bet most will go to Trump or nowhere). If you hate Trump wouldn't it make sense for you to want for there to be a viable alternative to him that could triangulate his supporters with more "normal voters" (I say rolling my eyes)? That would seem to me the only way to actually erode his political power on the right other than his assuming room temperature and Father Time doing his thing.
There is a real pernicious feedback loop at the moment where certain forces who are ostensibly in stark opposition to Trump and Trump sycophants are simultaneously the most opposed to viable populist/Trump/whatever alternatives. The GOP isn't going to be burned to the ground due to its size and the old guard isn't waltzing back through that door as much as some think they will if we just get this *one* guy out of the way..
Honestly (and I thought I said this), I just want(ed) the field to clear enough so that either Haley or DeSantis could have (an admittedly longshot) one-on-one matchup, because I do not want Trump to be either the nominee or president. The most likely vehicle for that until last night was a big 2nd place showing yesterday for Haley. Now they're stuck in the 2016 Rubio-Cruz doom-loop, I fear.
Do I love Haley? No. Is she far better than either Trump or Biden? YES. That's my entire calculus. She's the least of three evils, which is at least a marginally better choice than "lesser of two". I would say the same for DeSantis.
Sadly, we are not presented with the choices Mr. Always Agrees W. Me and Dr. Evil. You go into an election with the candidates you have, not the ones you want.
It was even odds last time around, although last time I had given him a slight edge due to being the incumbent. The calculus has changed, the center has shifted, I'm not saying he won't have a strong showing but the truth of the matter is he ran a dysfunctional administration which accomplished little in the way of significant progress or reform.
He was divisive then, he is divisive now, but he is a former President with no meaningful accomplishments to run on which is pretty pathetic and a year from now if the economy is no worse than it is now (let alone in any way improved) he will really have nothing to offer that demands a shift.
Even more damning is the fact that he surrounded himself with the worst sorts of swamp creatures. From grift to graft, from incompetents to imbeciles, from Gorka to Bannon, he has a stained reputation and strained credibility which can now be properly exploited to expose him for what he is. Noone needs to invent scandal, everything they need to illustrate his inability to command is in the public record.
Sorry man, no, baring some miracle. Trump has no chance in the general.
edit: I mean really, if I were running the campaign to discredit him, all I would have to do is line up everyone who he had once tapped for a position who has abandoned him or been disgraced and run commercials with them stating that yeah, they had worked with him but that they would never do so again. End it with the tagline "If he can't lead an administration, how can he lead a nation?" Juxtapose that with every campaign promise he ran on and failed to deliver on. . .which is pretty close to all of them. Don't touch January 6th, don't touch Russia, pull the independents and the center which shouldn't be terribly difficult, act like a fucking grown up, and its done.
By far the most befuddling aspect of the whole thing to me is just how quickly everyone forgot just how poorly "his" candidates did in 2022. The polls post-election were not subtle for a couple weeks, i.e. that Trump was seen as electoral poison and that he needed to go away if Republicans had any chance in 2024. DeSantis had a HUGE lead on him! Now here we are, a little over a year later, and he's going to absolutely steamroll his way to the nomination. It's this kind of incongruence that gives me headaches...
It’s obviously his cult of personality. The candidates he endorsed weren’t able to capture that and so they lost on their shitty politics. Trumps ability to be Trump sets him apart from pretty much everyone else that parrots the same style of politics
I think you’re letting your biases influence your judgment. I don’t like him either but his odds are probably better than last time, if we’re being honest about it. Maybe some of your points hold true in a vacuum, but we also have to consider that Biden is practically a vegetable at this point and that is going to be a major factor. As well as his disastrous VP. We’ve got a diversity hire Sara Palin in there one heartbeat away from the presidency. Voters are going to consider all this
Well, I can say emphatically that you are wrong there. I defend Trump where he merits support and I criticize him when he acts poorly, beyond that I have no emotional investment in him whatsoever. He was a mediocre President of dismissively modest accomplishment and I see nothing to get worked up about either way. As for Biden, I have a suspicion that ticket will alter somewhat prior to the election. You're right in as much as a Biden/Harris match is a risk for Democrats but you'd be wrong if you think they are unaware of that. I think one of the two will be replaced and Harris more likely than Biden as she enjoys as little love within the party as without. No point speculating on that now though, we'll have our answers soon enough.
Yeah if they shuffle up the ticket then trump likely loses. But if they keep Biden/Harris, which I have no idea why on earth they would, I’m convinced trump likely wins. Should be interesting either way
*chants Tina, Tina, Tina while marching around the room*
*starts listening* Tina ☺️☺️☺️
As a balding never fly coach passenger, I strongly resent the end of this podcast. Consider this my resignation...see you all next week.
As a balding ten dollar homie, Matt was right. Us balds are not to be trusted.
The Wuhan Institute of Kalashnikov Studies! 😂
I want to go to there.
I love when Moynihan is a princess about wine.
"I have it on good authority that Stephen Miller was spawned from the union of a bald sperm with a bald egg."
I’ll upgrade to NFC for a photo of Nate Silver washing Kmele’s feet.
Amazing Carnac: (holds envelope up to head) Guns & Flip-Flops!
Ed: Guns & flip-flops...
Carnac: Guns. And. Flip-Flops. (Tears off end of envelope, blows it open, pulls out paper)
What are two things I never want to see someone wearing in a restaurant?
Ed: (hearty laughter)
Ed: you are correct sir!
Don’t go to Florida my friend.
I have really appreciated the critique and calling out the ridiculousness of the pro-Hamas/Houthi rhetoric of the progressive left on social media and at protests (along with the blatant antisemitism) but the unwavering support for Israel has baffled me a bit. I agree that if Oct 7 hadn’t happened Israel wouldn’t have just bombed the hell out of Gaza like this for no reason and these people would still be alive but the reports of 40% of bombs being used are unguided and almost 30k deaths later and countless evidence of indiscriminate bombings and killings etc (just watch any of Motaz Azaiza’s videos or people who are actually on the ground in Gaza) I don’t see how this is justified whatsoever and I’m disappointed a bit but I still like to hear all sides of the discussion.
Missiles can be “unguided” but still be launched not-indiscriminately. “Guided” means that its trajectory can be altered after launch. Advanced militaries can aim an unguided missile pretty accurately, especially at a stationary target. Guided missiles are also much more expensive and supply more restricted.
If they were just launching missiles randomly into Gaza, certainly that would be indiscriminate and unjustifiable. If they’re making efforts to identify, track, and target specific individuals for which there is evidence they are Hamas fighters or leadership, that’s totally justifiable. If, in the process of targeting those people, civilians are killed, reasonable people could disagree about how justifiable that is, but it’s still not I discriminate.
I appreciate you bringing these concerns! We should all be concerned about needless death and hold Israel to the standards it deserves as a modern nation and member of international agreements. Personally, I’ve seen little evidence that Israel is guilty of what they’re being accused of. Matti Friedman has written and spoken extensively about how media from Gaza is compromised. Reports of x percent of buildings in Gaza being damaged have been relayed as “x percent of buildings in Gaza have been destroyed.”
And of course, this is to say nothing of the tactics Hamas employs to maximize civilian casualties.
Could Israel further minimize civilian deaths by ceasing the bombing campaign and move to a ground-only assault? Probably. This is already happening to some extent as the IDF has pulled back reservists. However, this will increase Israeli military deaths (already around 200, not including O7).
How many more Israelis should be expected to die for the sake of Gazan civilians that are used as human shields by Hamas? This is a reasonable question that I won’t attempt to answer.
A lot to unpack here and thanks for the thorough response. I would say initially that yes, IDF military infantry should be used as such, that’s what an army is for. If they don’t want the high casualties because that makes it look like they are “losing” the war then maybe they shouldve tried to negotiate sooner since they showed that was possible during the pause in late November but continue to claim that Hamas won’t negotiate.
As far as I know the US didn’t bomb the heck out of Fallujah. they went into an urban war hell and used ground troops with high casualties and but also had some care with handling civilians and avoiding deaths. They didn’t bomb designated safe zones etc. and yes I realize they might be firing rockets from certain areas but these rockets rarely get through the iron dome. Didn’t Israel bomb one for the camps to kill 1 Hamas commander and killed 50ish civilians ( https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-says-it-fires-israeli-troops-pressing-gaza-ground-assault-2023-10-31/ ) is that acceptable collateral damage? They have shown extreme precision in the missile attack in Beirut and clearly money isn’t a factor since the US provides plenty of finances. And yes I know a lot of these fighters are in regular clothes probably just picking up a weapon after someone else dies and I’ve seen all that footage and countless examples. I’m not sure how to combat all that and I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers.
I’ve read some of Friedman stuff and the fog of war & propaganda is real but pictures don’t lie. I guess the perspective is what a lot of this comes down to. I think it’s pretty easy to be against the extremes on both sides and for the innocents and self determination /right to live of both. All I know is no peace or settlement is going to come with Hamas or current Israel leadership both in power.
The WSJ article on the Oct 31 bombing is a bit more balanced: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israeli-airstrike-hamas-commander-civilian-deaths-3b6be664
It seems like the IDF was hoping to kill the commander in his tunnel, and didn't expect the buildings to collapse.
By comparison, here is a much, much more horrific bombing by US forces in the first Iraq war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing. Unlike the Israeli attack on Jabalia, that attack did not kill any combatants. The US mistakenly believed that the public air raid shelter had been converted to a command center. And that attack used precision-guided weapons, which were only as smart as the people making targeting decisions.
And I think that’s the double standard we are seeing here. Everyone else drops bombs and collateral damage is mostly acceptable, but when Israel does it it suddenly becomes “genocide” and calls for a cease fire dominate the discussion, in the middle of a military operation.
I can’t read the WSJ article (paywall) but if Israel doesn’t have people involved offering potential scenarios/consequences at play regarding their air strikes or they do and they are ignored (perhaps at a lust for revenge) then that is a problem. To suggest that a self proclaimed democracy should be held to a higher standard of warfare seems pretty rationale to me.
I agree, I can’t stand the selective outrage/selective history crowd on social media who didn’t blink an eye at the Bucha massacre or the bombing of the theatre in Mariupol or assads and russias indiscriminate bombing in Syria or other massacres around the world. It’s asking quite a lot out of regular people to be up on everyday happenings regarding every conflict and be thoroughly informed about both sides, understanding why one group hates another and causes of a conflict which usually involves a deep knowledge of history in a region which is just unrealistic sometimes. To suggest bad things have happened in war before and one so can’t be outraged at the current situation is lacking empathy for the affected population in my mind.
I didn’t use the term genocide and just because it’s not the worst of the worst bombing campaign in modern times as many tiktokers suggest, doesn’t mean it is justified and should be continued especially with no end plan offered besides to “destroy Hamas” which is unrealistic. Israel is doing more harm in the long run.
Ditto. I’ve been hangin along with the fellas, but keep feeling like, is there something I’m missing here? In the fullness of time there will be regrets and admissions of misguided support similar to those made during the aftermath of the 9/11 wars. It still blows my mind that so many thoughtful folks want to pay more attention to idiot lefty protestors than to what’s actually going on. Ideology rearing its ugly head contra clear headed observation.
Also, while I am sensitive to the idiot-lefty-protester stuff being repetitive, it is also what is happening WHERE WE LIVE. I have been delayed by the aforementioned demonstrators by more than one hour on at least three occasions, which is extremely irritating. As is watching a small number of people shut down major transportation hubs, or precipitate government-building evacuation/lockdowns, especially in light of increased political violence & personalized intimidation on both sides; an issue that I think is worth thinking on regardless of one's politics or zip code.
I understand. What I’m concerned about is the shear destruction and the amount of military aid we are providing to Israel which is also something worth talking more about. Protests are happening all over the world, but the US gives more aid to Israel than any other country on earth. So shining a light on our country’s complicities or on the tremendous power AIPAC has in policy decisions is more than necessary. I’d say this is more unique and therefore worthy of focus and conversation than the urban protests. I know these protests are out there, I live rurally and have seen not the slightest sign of pro Palestinian voice other than in media- I know it’s a loud one and it’s out there, but do consider that there are parts of this country- big ones, where Israel flags abound without the slightest showing of empathy for those in Gaza.
I disagree that AIPAC has "tremendous power" in policy decisions, but your point about the rest of the country is well taken (and one I have often made myself). Am in the process of doing some deep-divery on the U.S.-Israel relationship, so I will consider this an encouragement!
I literally talked about my worries of 9/11-like support/aftermath in this episode, and Kmele has in just about every instance warned about unintended consequences and excess civilian deaths.
Yeah, you're missing out on justice, and it's necessity here. This is not a luxury Israel can survive without. It's unfortunate that the whole eye for an eye thing needs to happen here, but Hamas made it necessary. Here's the thing. All wars, in the fullness of time, have regrets. Even the most "just" wars. The allies have plenty of atrocities to answer for in WWII, but the consequences of not answering the call would have been considerably more then any of us were willing to pay. I grapple with the fire bombing, and nuking of Japan by remembering things like their treatment of Chinese, and other allied soldiers. The populations of the places they invaded, etc. What would a long term Japanese occupation of the South Pacific look like today? Worse then the whole of everything we did in the entirety of WWII.
So what are the consequences to the other options that Israel faces here? They can't not answer Oct. 7th with nothing, or they'll look weak, nor can they take too many half measures or Hamas, or maybe the Houthis, will just do it again.
Or lets pretend, for a hot second, that Hamas can win here. Do we discuss the regrets of their aggression in the fullness of time? Are we looking back in 20 years saying that we really should have supported Israel?
You're missing a lot. Hell even I am. We cannot contend with the unlimited potential every direction has for these events. We can only keep our principals, and try to use morality to direct our actions in upholding them. But make no mistake. This is war, and a war in a densely populated region of the world. Even a ground invasion will see the deaths of a lot of innocent lives. It's good to remind Israel of those principals of a modern western nation. But it's ideal to remember that they're the ones who have to do the surviving in a particularly rough neighborhood.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/military-experts-discuss-israels-use-of-unguided-bombs-and-harm-to-civilians-in-gaza
https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewsullivan/p/its-not-genocide-but-it-is-infanticide?r=1eyz8u&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
At least some fifth column allies are taking a careful look at things.
Jon Ronson comes across as such a genuine person good faith and kind person. Listening to the new season of Things Fell Apart, I was annoyed at times, but I was still excited to listen to the next episode. He is a one of a kind story teller.
I enjoyed season two but felt like he came off as naive at times.
I haven't listened to Things Fell Apart, but isn't a big part of Ronson's schtick a faux naivety? It helps the people he talks to onside
He’s good at asking questions, but his challenging of one interviewee in particular demonstrated his bias (or ignorance). Otherwise he is pretty good at telling a story by just letting people talk.
What are some of the things that annoyed you
The narratives often have a “just so” story feel to them when he puts them into the larger cultural war context. I am only 4 episodes in, but it seems like he gives too much explanatory value to his stories to describe the origins of much more complex and multifaceted cultural events.
His pushback about BLM’s mission stuck out in particular. If you are looking to support the family (it takes a village and all that), you don’t say your aim is to “dismantle” the nuclear family.
Gillis is in Austin, it is the first thing they talk about on Theo Vaughn‘s podcast
https://youtu.be/tFdKaG2muZ8?si=bsFvd4-6dQ5xlo3Z
Ok someone is going to have to help me out here. So the maga types are supporting Trump because they are upset, devastated even, that their churches were shut down during the pandemic? Refresh my memory... who was the President when that happened? In fact, who was basically the only president who ever just straight up shut down the economy because he was too mentally weak to stand up to anyone?
Other than that, I actually find the insights that Tina Nguyen laid out to be quite interesting. That's probably why it stands out. I'll probably even read her book, but that argument seems so illogical on it's face that I am struggling with it.
Most of the shutdowns and most egregious examples thereof (i.e., surveilling that church in NorCal, or bulldozing sand on SoCal skate parks, or calling parents racist for wanting schools to finally open, or declaring various items/aisles/stores/employees "essential" or not) happened at the state and local level, with the most strenuous lockdowners tending to be Democrats, and their supporters and journalistic backers being "In THIS house we believe in SCIENCE" types who tended to look down on Red state rubes and their masklessness. I think most people give most politicians more or less a pass through around June 2020; the egregious memories were made after.
Thanks for the reply Matt. I suppose I understand all that, but I just wish there would be some pushback on Trump when it comes to this particular point. Yes, the local dems ended up being much, much worse in most areas of the country. Punish them. Vilify them. I'm all for it. But I don't think that should mean that Trump gets a pass. I live in an incredibly red state, and I often disagree with my local and state politicians, mostly because of the hyperpartisan nature of being a one party state.
They got Covid right. They get a lot of other things wrong. Nature of the beast. Trump, however, did not get Covid right. Businesses were shut down. The entire country overreacted. He was in way over his head so he did nothing to stop it. Just because there were dems that were even more wrong than Trump shouldn't give him a pass, and it just seems like that's what is going on. And this is not limited to here, by the way, I hear from friends who also have a bit of a revisionist view on Trump/Covid and it's just a bit irritating I suppose.
Can't unhear the Elizabeth Holmes in Tina's voice. I know she did the impersonation on a previous episode but I feel like it's crept into her everyday voice!
OG Fifster found^^
I desperately want a Wuhan Institute of Kalashnikov Studies hoodie.
Me too.
I agree that the WW3 talk seems a bit ridiculous. The Houthis are unafraid of attacking American targets, but can't fight without Iranian funding. The Iranians have (limited) funding, but lack the huevos to step up to the plate. How does this lead to WW3 if the US has the means to unilaterally inflict damage on both of those groups until they scream uncle without the need to send an occupying force?
What's most surprising to me about the whole Gaza war thing is how these people who always insist on land acknowledgements completely overlook the fact that the land that Palestine is on was STOLEN from the Phoenicians! Hypocrites much?
In the words of the great seer of our time, Gallagher:
"The Phoenicians? The Phoenicians."
I find it interesting that Matt says DeSantis campaign ending would be good given the fact that he points out that the ceiling for the "establishment lane" is so relatively low. I would gladly vote for DeSantis in my state's primary if he were viable by then but if he is not my vote will not go to Nikki Haley, and I suspect the number of those who will is relatively low. (If the alternative is only Trump mine will go nowhere FWIW but I bet most will go to Trump or nowhere). If you hate Trump wouldn't it make sense for you to want for there to be a viable alternative to him that could triangulate his supporters with more "normal voters" (I say rolling my eyes)? That would seem to me the only way to actually erode his political power on the right other than his assuming room temperature and Father Time doing his thing.
There is a real pernicious feedback loop at the moment where certain forces who are ostensibly in stark opposition to Trump and Trump sycophants are simultaneously the most opposed to viable populist/Trump/whatever alternatives. The GOP isn't going to be burned to the ground due to its size and the old guard isn't waltzing back through that door as much as some think they will if we just get this *one* guy out of the way..
Honestly (and I thought I said this), I just want(ed) the field to clear enough so that either Haley or DeSantis could have (an admittedly longshot) one-on-one matchup, because I do not want Trump to be either the nominee or president. The most likely vehicle for that until last night was a big 2nd place showing yesterday for Haley. Now they're stuck in the 2016 Rubio-Cruz doom-loop, I fear.
doom-loop, yes. Jesus take the wheel. From Joe.
Fair enough. Thought got a bit cut off in the moment after the idea that him getting out would be good so I get that.
Do I love Haley? No. Is she far better than either Trump or Biden? YES. That's my entire calculus. She's the least of three evils, which is at least a marginally better choice than "lesser of two". I would say the same for DeSantis.
Sadly, we are not presented with the choices Mr. Always Agrees W. Me and Dr. Evil. You go into an election with the candidates you have, not the ones you want.
We all draw those lines in particular places, agreed.
Haley can't win the party nomination and Trump can't win the general election, it will be another walk for the left.
Trump can’t win the general? It’s pretty much 50/50 odds at this point
It was even odds last time around, although last time I had given him a slight edge due to being the incumbent. The calculus has changed, the center has shifted, I'm not saying he won't have a strong showing but the truth of the matter is he ran a dysfunctional administration which accomplished little in the way of significant progress or reform.
He was divisive then, he is divisive now, but he is a former President with no meaningful accomplishments to run on which is pretty pathetic and a year from now if the economy is no worse than it is now (let alone in any way improved) he will really have nothing to offer that demands a shift.
Even more damning is the fact that he surrounded himself with the worst sorts of swamp creatures. From grift to graft, from incompetents to imbeciles, from Gorka to Bannon, he has a stained reputation and strained credibility which can now be properly exploited to expose him for what he is. Noone needs to invent scandal, everything they need to illustrate his inability to command is in the public record.
Sorry man, no, baring some miracle. Trump has no chance in the general.
edit: I mean really, if I were running the campaign to discredit him, all I would have to do is line up everyone who he had once tapped for a position who has abandoned him or been disgraced and run commercials with them stating that yeah, they had worked with him but that they would never do so again. End it with the tagline "If he can't lead an administration, how can he lead a nation?" Juxtapose that with every campaign promise he ran on and failed to deliver on. . .which is pretty close to all of them. Don't touch January 6th, don't touch Russia, pull the independents and the center which shouldn't be terribly difficult, act like a fucking grown up, and its done.
By far the most befuddling aspect of the whole thing to me is just how quickly everyone forgot just how poorly "his" candidates did in 2022. The polls post-election were not subtle for a couple weeks, i.e. that Trump was seen as electoral poison and that he needed to go away if Republicans had any chance in 2024. DeSantis had a HUGE lead on him! Now here we are, a little over a year later, and he's going to absolutely steamroll his way to the nomination. It's this kind of incongruence that gives me headaches...
It’s obviously his cult of personality. The candidates he endorsed weren’t able to capture that and so they lost on their shitty politics. Trumps ability to be Trump sets him apart from pretty much everyone else that parrots the same style of politics
I think you’re letting your biases influence your judgment. I don’t like him either but his odds are probably better than last time, if we’re being honest about it. Maybe some of your points hold true in a vacuum, but we also have to consider that Biden is practically a vegetable at this point and that is going to be a major factor. As well as his disastrous VP. We’ve got a diversity hire Sara Palin in there one heartbeat away from the presidency. Voters are going to consider all this
Well, I can say emphatically that you are wrong there. I defend Trump where he merits support and I criticize him when he acts poorly, beyond that I have no emotional investment in him whatsoever. He was a mediocre President of dismissively modest accomplishment and I see nothing to get worked up about either way. As for Biden, I have a suspicion that ticket will alter somewhat prior to the election. You're right in as much as a Biden/Harris match is a risk for Democrats but you'd be wrong if you think they are unaware of that. I think one of the two will be replaced and Harris more likely than Biden as she enjoys as little love within the party as without. No point speculating on that now though, we'll have our answers soon enough.
Yeah if they shuffle up the ticket then trump likely loses. But if they keep Biden/Harris, which I have no idea why on earth they would, I’m convinced trump likely wins. Should be interesting either way
All of this, yes.