gulliver
gulliver's JournalIsraeli response vs. prevention. Is this a blind spot?
It doesn't seem like a lot of folks take time into account. If I had to guess, I would say it is a lot of young folks. Perhaps they haven't observed the passing of time and interacted with it enough to really have a wise and balanced feel for it.
For some, the recent past, even as recent as Oct. 7th, evidently fades. They even seem to fight for it to fade, perhaps without thinking, by doing things like tearing down hostage pictures and trying to drown it all out with organized mob misbehavior and crude, counterproductive protests. Future Oct. 7ths, promised by Hamas, the terrorist organization that is—unfortunately for everyone—the government and military of Gaza, will happen in the future unless there is prevention.
This is the way time works, it seems silly to have to say. Something happens in the past that demonstrates something terrible can be done. The broken- and ugly-minded perpetrators vow to do the same thing again forever, eliminating all doubt as to their intentions. The future is under contract. Therefore, when we say that a response to the Gazan Hamas attack of Oct. 7th is a "response to Oct. 7th," we need to remember that it is a response to Oct. 7th, 2023 and every future repetition of it for an indeterminate, possibly limitless amount of time.
That changes the moral equation and argues absolutely clearly for prevention by Israel, for the protection of future lives on all sides and in the wider world. Can it be that this simple fact is really being missed? I hope it's just blindness. If it isn't blindness, what is it? Blindness to the need to think about whether it's blindness?
These uncharming, self-selected "lead voices" really are a burden to Liberalism and Progressivism
Just saying. Pseudo-saintery displaces the real thing. We need a lot less posing and preening on these "fringest of the fringe" issues. We need climate action, free school lunches, voting rights, reproductive freedom, health care, etc. Other things that "seem nice" need to be considered for the possibility that they actually aren't, that they're actually lazy, self-indulgent, and self-regarding at worst, peripheral and distractions at best.
If someone tells you who they are, don't believe them. If someone tells you someone else "told us who they are," don't believe either of them.
Wearing a mask to a protest is a jerk move
According to Wikipedia, it's actually illegal in some jurisdictions. I tend to think just about every protest is nothing but a chance for showboats and the self-regarding to get face time. But wearing a mask takes away even that narcissistic payoff. The KKK is calling, they want their anonymous mob idea back.
By definition, there are no "American people" who don't support the Constitution
The American people voted for presidents. The presidents duly appointed Supreme Court justices. The justices were duly confirmed by the Senate. If the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to take a candidate off its ballots, it is the American people who are, in fact, making the decision.
It's not that the American people are being denied the right to vote for Trump, in other words. They will have exercised their right to take him off of the ballot. The people who resent it can pound salt. That's the Constitution. They're Americans. End of story.
Hamas supporter social media must be on fire
I wouldn't know. An innocent Israeli taken hostage by Hamas and killed by those who were trying to rescue him? Must be thrilling for Hamas and its supporters. It will probably trend on their social media over "gays thrown off of buildings" and "Adam Lanza is my role model" posts.
Those three presidents showed they shouldn't be presidents.
They had Stefanik just sitting there, and there were three of them. And she beat them. Unforgiveable.
Dream exchange that should have happened but didn't:
Stefanik: "Does calling for genocide of Jews violate your code of conduct?"
Any of them: "Yes, I'm sure it does. The Constitution doesn't protect speech that deliberately incites violence. The Constitution is a document you may be familiar with, Congresswoman Stefanik, because (as many have argued in exercising their free speech), you violated an oath you swore to protect that Constitution."
Hamas helped link radical Islamism with sadism and unmanly, inhuman "incelism."
It's something that should have been suspected and guarded against all along. They could have gotten an economic paradise going in Gaza on some prime land. But they are sick puppies. Everyone knows it now.
And don't forget. If Israel gets rid of all the tunnels and rocket launchers, maybe puts in street cameras or the U.N. finally does its job and polices the situation, then Hamas and its like are done for.
Future innocent human lives and suffering are at stake
Those must be weighed in the balance in making the moral decision. That's a huge blind spot for many people who are willing to sacrifice the people of the future (in the world and even in Gaza) for the people of now. Hamas is a now problem and a future problem if they are permitted to exist. Supporting them, their ideology, or even playing into their schemes in any way is a moral failure.
Corporations were the good guys for about five seconds
Remember when liberals didn't like corporations? No? Anyone?
Then they started to stand up to Republican culture wars. Good guys!
Five seconds later and they're jacking up prices and hauling in record profits, wearing little pseudo-saint halos held up by pipe cleaners.
Is the main reason for antisemitism that Judaism is good and Jews are cool?
Call me crazy, but I look at Jews I know of, both in history and those contemporary with myself, and I see a pretty damned good cool-person-to-uncool-person ratio. Antisemitism is wrong, it seems, not only because it's wrong to be against peace loving, law abiding people of any profile, but because it's wrong to be against good.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 13,180
