Does this just means countries that have historically been associated with the communist bloc, which is to say opposed to the US? Because I’d find it hard to make the argument that any communist or socialist country really exists today, even kind of. They’re all operating under the same fundamental worker-owner principles.
Confusingly, British English actually does treat nouns like “data” and “government” as plural where American English does not. Even more confusingly, they’re a little inconsistent with it, so you can find published examples of both.
Heritage Foundation has been running Republican policy for decades. That’s not obvious to anybody who hasn’t read a significant amount about recent history, but there was no doubt about it for people that have.
What a roundabout way to say they’ve just been stealing people’s money with no oversight or consequences.
Have to disagree with you here. I’m not a journalist, but I read easily digestible headlines all day. I had to go back and carefully parse this sentence one word at a time. It’s just a bad headline.
Boy, I’m not a lawyer, but that sure feels like being forced to incriminate yourself.
It was a really bad year for California props, people just took a hard right turn.
No to: raise the minimum wage, provide housing, abolish slavery
Yes to: harsher sentencing and some weird vendetta a rich guy has against an AIDS nonprofit
Motherfuckers complain about homeless population nonstop and then refuse to pass anything to fix it.
if this given instance is the first instance to which most people will be introduced, being the closest thing to an “official” instance, should they have a duty, or at the very least, an interest, in maximizing the inclusitivity of their community?
I think this goes back to what teawrecks said earlier:
it’s not a for-profit business
It’s a private club with a trivial admission process. It’s not just that they don’t care about maximizing inclusivity, growth, and total users, it’s that they don’t want any of that. They want like-minded people and they’re happy to keep out or ban people that don’t fit that mold.
It feels like you’re saying they should want something else, but I don’t see it as obvious why they would, and I don’t think you’ve explained your reasoning why they would.
I went to top schools in wealthy suburbs my entire childhood in blue neighborhoods in blue states, and we were taught American exceptionalism and the strength of our adherence to capitalism was what built the country, as well as what defeated communism. Slavery was a problem but it was gone now and things were fine, especially since the civil rights movement.
It wasn’t all framed quite that simply, but they were the obvious takeaways. I didn’t even realize it until I started devouring history books in my adult life. We learned an accepted view of history, but the arguments for why those things happened and their impacts were wildly disparate from what I (on the basis of what seems to be the historical consensus today) believe is realistic.
Two things I don’t see anybody saying:
Puberty blockers are reversible - that’s not a lifelong decision. That information should have been in the article, and if we didn’t live in a dumbshit rightwing dystopia where press is owned by the conservatives and also fears retribution from the conservatives, that information would’ve been in there.
Surgery? Sure, let’s have that conversation - though I would certainly argue it’s not the state’s business what happens between a child, their parents, and their doctors, any more than it would be any other lifelong medical procedure. But it’s at least a little murky. But this decision isn’t surgery, it’s puberty blockers. Not murky. Just evil.
People with that kind of money don’t work, they own. They’ll hire somebody to do those 80 hours while they rape underage trafficked girls.
Embarrassing to live in a society so puritanical news articles have to dance around this.
God, this article is awful.
There’s stuff like this:
A majority of voters nationally said Trump was a strong leader; slightly fewer than half said the same about Harris.
…which implies there’s some significant difference here without giving you the specific numbers. Is this 51% to 49%? They go into the Latino specifics, but only for Trump, but even break it down further to say what percent of Latinos think Trump is strong versus the percentage of Latinas that think Trump is strong.
The AP is always held up as this infallibly unbiased source, but even if we agree that being unabashedly both-sides centrist is unbiased, that’s not even close to what’s happening here. To even remotely both-sides this you’d have to show all the people that think asking the question of Trump’s strength is an absolute joke and it’s bizarre we’re even discussing it because the only people that believe in strongman leadership are literal fascists.
With respect to the actual headline and meat of the article, it also doesn’t challenge the assumption that Trump would be better for the economy. If you’re going to include people who were brainwashed into believing that, you have to juxtapose them with the endless historical precedents and current studies that show his policies will absolutely be detrimental to the economy. Even corporations are going to tank in the long term, because you can’t steal from the working class forever.
By continuing Trump’s campaign propaganda without serious challenge, this is a right-wing article in support of his administration. A more centrist article would say something closer to “Trump tricks public into believing he’ll be better for the economy” because that’s the reality of what happened.
Very true! It’s hard to imagine Israel would be the same today without the particular cultural choices those first immigrants made. Thanks for the addition.
I think Al Jazeera is good for news related to the middle east - Al Jazeera has an Arab bias, the same way US news has a US/Israel bias. When there’s a conflict between US/Israel and the Arabs, I tend to be more sympathetic to the Arabs, so I prefer their news. Somebody with politics different from mine would disagree.
Plus they sometimes put out absolute fire like this: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/9/11/debate-in-nuclear-armed-former-colony-fails-to-reassure-global-community
True! That’s a good one to point out. It’s hard to overstate how significantly and suddenly the Arabs turned against the Jews. Plenty were understandably going to emigrate from Europe, but Israel made them very unwelcome in the Arab world, too. It’s also another good example of how Israel couldn’t have been established without their allies, since the US/UK were the primary providers of air travel for Jews seeking refuge from Arab states to Israel.
I find it very difficult to justify most historical claims of anticipatory self-defense - it usually looks to me that it’s an aggressor using an excuse to justify their aggression. I haven’t seen nearly enough evidence to suggest Israel wasn’t the aggressor in the Six Day War. While the military mobilization of their neighbors certainly contributed toward Israel’s mobilization, that alone isn’t justification for invasion. Nasser thought Israel was preparing to invade Syria, but he didn’t preemptively invade Israel, he lined up his troops on the Israel-Egypt border and waited. We know now that Israel was not mobilizing troops on Syria’s border, but Nasser’s choice to defend his border was reasonable and nonviolent, even with false information.
But aside from that, I think it’s reasonable to suggest Israel would have attacked even had there been no mobilization of troops from the Arab states. We saw Israel attack Egypt during the Suez Crisis where they forcibly re-opened passage through the Straits of Tiran, their only shipping route to the south other than the also-Egyptian Suez Canal. Just prior to the Six Day War, Egypt cut off Israel from the Straits of Tiran again, something Israel publicly called an act of war. It’s not a coincidence Israel went ahead and took Sinai (immediately adjacent to the Straits of Tiran) during this war and didn’t give it back until the Camp David Accords. (It’s worth noting that had Nasser not gotten the original false information, he wouldn’t have done any of this, and it’s entirely possible the entire thing would have been averted. But he did, and that was a huge blunder on his part. Still, I disagree with Israel that refusing them passage through shipping routes is an act of war.)
I would also suggest that Israel’s behavior after the Six Day War doesn’t seem like the actions of a country that was acting in self-defense. They conquered land during that war and continue to occupy most of it to this day. They’ve invaded other countries since, with stated reasons that are as believable as the United States’ reasons for invading Iraq. They’ve continued to occupy additional land. These actions indicate a country interested in expansionism and power growth, not peaceful co-existence.
I’m actually okay with that not being included as a critical point in Israeli history. My understanding is it was one piece in a long line of antisemitism, and while it was known by the Nazi party, it was known by the leadership to be fictional and wasn’t used seriously as propaganda by them. That’s not to say it didn’t have any effect, just that I’m not convinced it made much difference when it comes to the creation of Israel as a state.
I’m open to alternative viewpoints if you want to provide evidence or just offer some book titles that might change my mind.
The entire business would be such a trivial government operation, and we wouldn’t have to lose money to corporate greed.