Geoff > Status Update

All puppets, all trolls, will be blocked.

Shame it's not possible to designate individual friends-only threads rather than making it all or nothing.

2017: And here we are in the dystopian present!

Geoff wrote: "All puppets, all trolls, will be blocked."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOHy4...

2017 - I don't wanna talk about it.

Antonomasia wrote: "Shame it's not possible to designate individual friends-only threads rather than making it all or nothing.

2017: And here we are in the dystopian present!"

Meh, I don't mind blockin'.

2019- The state of Arizona is officially renamed the Richard Spencer Deviant and Ethnic Gladiatorial "Opportunity" Zone. Ruled by 'Lord Dick' Spencer, the entire state is transformed into a Hunger Games-esque territory where citizens fight each other, and various big game, for special passports exempting them from the "Liberal, Jew, and Brown Emergency Safety Deportation Bill" introduced by Jeff Sessions in 2018, though most have already immigrated to the Independent States of California at this point anyway. War between Tremendous Trumplandia of the Biggest Hands (formerly the USA), and the ISC, is expected any day.

Sterling stuff, love the phrasing.

Probably no-one else in this thread has seen the slightly trashy TV series Jericho (about people in a small midwestern town after nuclear attacks on multiple US cities, and it was made ahead of the curve before post-apocalyptic got big), but lately I keep replaying a scene in my head - basically a less comic equivalent of what you just posted - where some of the character go to a trading fair and finally find out from a set of noticeboards what's been going on in the rest of the country, reading them out hesitantly, with these strange warpy tones in the soundtrack. The country has at that point split into 6 with several warring governments at different capitals and not all the leaders' names are known. It's all done in a pretty disorientating way, the viewer can't take it all in in one play, which adds to the atmosphere.
(In case anyone cares, it's half way down this wiki page under the subheading "post attack America" http://jericho.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Jack

There is a (great) movie called Punishment Park by (the great) Peter Watkins, the premise of which seems more plausible than it did a year ago...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=suh2r2o...

Love Peter Watkins, though I liked Gladiators more than Punishment Park.

Boris wrote: "FIRE AND THE SKY

Jack was now blind to the dustpan full of snow ineffectually dropped from the oppressive, blistering sky. It really didn’t matter; as the descent of the pure, white, inimitable on..."

Of course they won't put Bonds in the HOF, he was a fucking steroid/HGH cheat. No human being keeps getting more awesome as he approaches and passes 40!

2023. A bisexual dominatrix named Black Eye, Donald Trump's choice as his VP running mate in 2020, wins both best actor and best actress Oscars for his/her role as a bisexual dominatrix in the 2020 presidential campaign. S(he) commented, while accepting the two armloads of trophies, that s(he) was thankful they had lost the election, so that s(he) could persue an acting career.

Also, a self-driving cargo ship sailed through Times Square, failing to obey traffic signals which were ten feet underwater.

And in a surprise vote, Barry Bonds was elected to the baseball HOF, one of the first two of several likely members destined to find their place in the new Outlaw section of the Hall. Pete Rose joined him.

Oh yeah, something I thought of around the time of the inaguration but forgot to post... not sure if this would be therapeutic or frustrating... but if it was your first 100 days, what would be your policies?

Am I supposed to go first? But despite lots of reading last summer I don;t think I really know American stuff well enough. (Way more intersted in hearing from people in America who see life there day in day out.) And would have to decide whether I want to post with my more mainstream social democracy type political hat or the dark green stuff that would alienate everyone.

Hey, it's 2024, two elections away, so why not...

An important read I think:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/presiden...

What is fascinating is (a) how fox will be able to charge a fortune for adds on those shows we know Trump watches; and (b) how companies are going to create the narrative he wants without him having to do much

I also enjoyed reading this paragraph today:

"And while Mr Obama liked policy option papers that were three to six single-spaced pages, council staff members are now being told to keep papers to a single page, with lots of graphics and maps. “The President likes maps,” one official said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/us...

Jonathan wrote: "I also enjoyed reading this paragraph today:

"And while Mr Obama liked policy option papers that were three to six single-spaced pages, council staff members are now being told to keep papers to a single page, with lots of graphics and maps. “The President likes maps,” one official said." "

Grade school homework sheets!

In fairness, I like maps too. I think most books and news should have more of them.

Thanks for restarting. Sometimes one suspects a post might be a threadkiller before writing (and hopes it isn't), but I had no inkling my last one was of that ilk!

I personally had just grown weary of puppets invading my space. Let's all do the thread a favor and shun them when they appear. I will respond to the last few legit posts shortly...

And I don't think this thread is killable - there's just so much raw material spewed out for it every day! The zeitgeist is a million razorblades in my eyes

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

Just a sign of things to come or a boil in the pan?

Perhaps it's too early to equate neo-Nazis methods with that of the ISIS but left unchecked I predict the two will make for a good competition.

Jibran wrote: "http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

Just a sign of things to come or a boil in the pan?

Perhap..."

Yeah, I've recently heard bits and pieces about friends of friends of friends, people I used to know &c getting sucked into parts of it or starting to believe idiotic conspiracy theories, posting on/following far right stuff. I'm so grateful that I know people who are on the left but have reservations about certain factions, e.g. militant SJWs, and are still at the same time essentially decent, kind people.

I can see how not knowing others like this to talk to frequently could have led to a slide into some murky places i.e. what some would call radicalisation: when someone gets sick of hearing blanket phrases like "white feminists", "all white people are white supremacists" and so on and isn't willing to do the digging and trying to understand what's underneath these angrily, badly communicated messages, and has the kneejerk reaction of starting to shift to the other side.
(With acknowledgements there to a friend's recent email of which I've paraphrased part.)

This has made me think more than ever that it's important to try and understand and talk to both sides when possible. In the last couple of months, I've felt the company of more optimistic or moderate friends lead me to de-emphasise some of my harder doomster views that had been in my head more in the preceding months, and I grok, in a way I didn't really before, how significant conversation and connection can be in where one ends up hanging out politically.

Antonomasia wrote: "Oh yeah, something I thought of around the time of the inaguration but forgot to post... not sure if this would be therapeutic or frustrating... but if it was your first 100 days, what would be you..."

In terms of someone inaugurated this year... I think maybe Clinton was lucky to lose. Because this must be the worst time to be a Democratic President in the last 100 years. With the Republicans having a big majority in the House, it's almost impossible to get anything done - the President has so little power compared to most world leaders.

There's foreign policy, but what do you do there? "Try not to mess things up", I guess. I'd probably have intervened rapidly in Syria and Libya (if you're going to do something in regime changes, you need to do it quickly, before the chaos and extremism set in) - but now it's probably too late.

National security policy - I'd try to move toward liberalism. At the very least impose a more robust oversight system for state executions and the like. The problem is, any moves in that area leave you open to massive political blowback - one terrorist attack by somebody you chose not to kill as a baby, and you're impeached. Well, out of office, anyway.

Judicial appointments. Problem is, you need the Senate, and you wouldn't have it. So the most you could do is try to appoint serious, moderate jurists and rely on the old-fashioned conservatives to back you on principal.

Executive orders... tricky. You can't order anything that actually requires a budget, after all. And if you do get anything done that way, it erodes democracy, gives ammunition to the Republicans, and removes the impetus for actually passing laws (since you've 'fixed' the problem with your EO) while not actually doing much or establishing anything that'll last beyond the next election. One idea might be a sort of national sanctuary city order - keep immigration officials, but make them entirely separate from other law enforcement, so that law enforcement can't pass on details except in the case of serious crimes or security threats. That would do good, while also taking some of the sting out of the sanctuary city issue (which will always be controversial because it essentially involves cities flouting the national laws). But it would be very controversial, and it would take the issue off the table for the next election. [well, off your side of the table, while keeping it on theirs, the worst of both worlds]

The President can veto things. But do that too much and you look like an obstructionist. You have to try to use the veto to block the worst while allowing some moderate Republicanism to pass (which also helps neuter the extremists). You do get to reverse the optics with the budget, where they have to block you. But you have to be careful to make it look like they're the ones being unreasonable, which is hard when you have little access to their media.

Positive things? Try to work with moderates on both sides of the aisle on relatively 'neutral', good-governance sort of stuff. Tax code simplification, maybe? The problem is, as soon as the President interferes anything they interfere in becomes a politically divisive issue. So you'd mostly have to work in the shadows, nudging people to work with one another.

And go on a lot of tours around the country trying to promote the Party at all levels. For a Democratic President right now, the most important thing by far would be getting the Party to win in two years' time.

So.... it'd be boring and depressing, basically. Because the President may get the TV time, but the elections that actually matter in the US are to Congress...

Antonomasia wrote: "I can see how not knowing others like this to talk to frequently could have led to a slide into some murky places i.e. what some would call radicalisation: when someone gets sick of hearing blanket phrases like "white feminists", "all white people are white supremacists" and so on"

I'm not well-placed to tell the difference between what are called militant SJW and the diluted variety of liberal-leftist who can see why things are shifting to the right through the wide spectrum of sociopolitical ideologies, but I don't know to what extent the rightward shift (as glimpsed from the swell in the twitter and online activity) is a consequence of SJW's PC narrative having become the one and only mainstream left/liberal position whilst not allowing a more conservative and, let's say, more nationalistic ideas to take their course. I do think everyone, regardless of their origin or background, is biased to some degree in favour of their ideas and beliefs. This is where engagement helps, dialogue and discussion clear up the more outright prejudices while keeping things within the bounds of basic civility and tolerance from a respectable distance. Again, I am not sure if this will work in the years to come as hardcore rightwing ideologies gain support and Islamist terrorism remains alive, both feeding on each other for a long time to come?

Jeez the whole world would be better if Twitter would just go away, wouldn't it?! To an oldie like me it seems to be utterly perverted. To think of the number of people who get their news and views from this source, 140 characters at a time, is sickening.

I haven't thought too carefully through the question of what I'd like to do as president, but my first thoughts suggest that I would prioritize at least these two goals:

-Work to further improve relations with Iran.
-Make any future support for Israel conditional on their ending the construction of new settlements in Palestinian territories and real progress towards a two-state solution.

If I was the president, I'd pay my mama's rent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st1N7...

-Another priority is to clarify and guarantee tribal sovereignty rights of Native Americans. And "clarify" does not mean "encroach upon." In light of historic abuses, an agreement should lean towards strengthening sovereignty rights and restoration of disputed lands. Let's have one treaty finally that's motivated more by humanity and charity than by greed and covetousness.

Zadignose wrote: "-Make any future support for Israel conditional on their ending the construction of new settlements in Palestinian territories and real progress towards a two-state solution. ."

Two-state solution is practically dead. It has been made deliberately impractical over the decades and current demographics and logistics attest to that. Even Pales don't believe in two-state framework anymore except some card-carrying members of Fatah who need to travel to the West and keep the donations coming. Any future attempt to restore land back to 1967 borders will be met with another artificially created humanitarian crisis, ie; there are over half a million people with Israeli passports who'll claim birth rights to parts of occupied territory, and the world media will attempt to find an equivalence between them and the displaced Pales since '48. If there is any eventual settlement under international pressure, Pales will be asked to accept little moth-eaten bantustans and if they refuse, they will be seen as ingrates who have only themselves to blame. And if Mahmoud Abbas wants his part of Jerusalem, he can invest in a pair of binoculars.

Jibran wrote: "Two-state solution is practically dead..."

I'm not an expert, and probably need to learn a heck of a lot. But what viable alternative is there? Permanent occupation and denial of citizenship for 4 1/2 million people, or granting full Israeli citizenship and voting rights to Palestinians so that future elections in Israel can be determined by an Arab (and primarily Muslim) majority?

@Zadignose

A de facto permanent occupation is already in place. It is 50 years old this year. The question Israelis are asking among themselves is that how long before the world stops pretending and accepts it as legal and permanent. I believe any solution will have to work with the ground reality and not some idealised notion. The internationally accepted framework of a two-state solution had potential when the occupation was new; today it is an anachronistic idea repeated from podiums for politically correct reasons whilst status quo remains the same. The truth is that Palestinians have lost and they have lost badly. No amount of lip service to justice and neutrality is going to change that for them.

A two-state thing will not work because:

- A non-contiguous Palestinian state is not viable. West Bank and Gaza strip are separated by Israeli territory. Israel will have to give free movement to Pales to move between the two wings, which, obviously, is out of question.

- A daring land swap that gives a contiguous Palestine will divide Israel in two. Unacceptable. A more daring land swap will require Gaza ceded to Israel and Israel in turn ceding part of its pre-67 territory bordering the West bank. In the unlikely event of this happening, there is a question of uprooting millions of people from one place to another in a small country. Impractical.

- The above two are technical and superficial problems. A bigger issue is that Israeli penetration in the West bank is so deep and widespread that I don't see them rolling it back. There would have to be a peaceful dismantling of settlements followed by half a million plus people migrating back Israel proper. I don't see it happening unless they are threatened by sanctions and direct military action from the outside. Of course, foreign powers will not allow this to happen.

- Israel will not accept an independent and sovereign Palestine which can defend itself. For instance, some people claimed that Israel ended its occupation of Gaza when Sharon dismantled the few paltry illegal settlements there. That's untrue. Gaza remains under Israeli blockade from air, sea and land. It is with good reason it's called an open air concentration camp. Any future Palestinian state, if it comes into existence, wouldn't look much different from Gaza.

On the other hand one-state formula goes against the raison d'être of Israel. There's no way they will let an Arab majority take over through the ballot in a single state. Completely unacceptable and for understandable reasons, I might add.

So where does that leave us? I'm afraid to say I don't have a viable alternative except wishful thinking. It goes like this (read if you're still interested!)

- Take cues from South Africa and Lebanese confessionalism next door. To start, end the faith-based apartheid and give equal citizenship and other rights to all inhabitants of the land. There should be one country. Call it Israel & Palestine or Palestine & Israel. Call it whatever you like. Agree on a loosely defined confederation of sorts or any other arrangement that works. Give autonomy to both parties in their designated territories, build a separate electorate voting system by which people are allowed, but not compelled, to vote representatives from their own communities as in Lebanon. Have them represented at a parliament that have seats in proportion to the land not population. Since pre-67 Israel was more than two-thirds of the Mandate, Israelis will retain their current decision-making majority for themselves whilst Palestinians will gain a voice and run their own affairs. Put safeguards in place against majoritarian intervention.

(Lebanese confessionalism is imperfect and problematic from a democratic point of view, but it's working for the Maronites, Shias and Sunnis after the terrible civil war. Something similar is working in Bosnia & Herzegovina with its three semi-autonomous internal republics. There's no reason why something along these lines will not work in Israel-Palestine where religious and racial identities are very strong and define people.)

- If Palestinians get a stake in the country they will have a stake in its defence. Incorporate Palestinian security force or whatever it is into the country military and defend it as one from foreign threats. If Palestinian armed resistance against occupation ends, Hezbullah is also neutralized by implication. It won't be able to justify its stance towards Israel anymore.

- The so called Law of Return will have to end once and for all. Hamas will have to end and Jihadist ideology strictly curtailed/excluded.

There are issues with what I've written above but it would take an act of immense will on both sides to try to resolve the intractable problem. I don't think it can be achieved as things stand, with hardliner Zionists voted back in power, Jihadist threat at the door, and with militant attitudes gaining popularity all over the world.

But if they don't want to keep killing each other for another fifty years the only way is to sit down and share the cake. Let me add this for effect: the onus is on the occupying party and its foreign bankrollers.

I think to a large extent it's a question of changing the political culture in the US. Israel depends on diplomatic and military support from Washington.

This is an uphill battle to say the least. On domestic issues, Sanders was able to pull Clinton somewhat to the left, but on foreign policy she remained intransigent, arguably running to the right of Trump on Israel.

(intending to return later to talk politics but wondered if Jonathan, Geoff - or anyone else - might have advice on portable speakers to post here. Did a fuckton of research last year, which only led me to one that actively spoiled music for me like nothing else ever had; need to hear from real people who've used the things, not just What Hifi and Amazon reviews from randoms.)

So now that the NY Times is reporting that Manafort had "extensive" contact with Russian intelligence agents throughout the campaign, on top of the Flynne debacle, and seeing that a good deal of the dossier rumors are being proven true, the pressing issue of the moment seems to be : let's make sure oil companies don't have to disclose payments to foreign governments! Priorities, people!
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-envi...

(Let's just pause for a moment to imagine how the Right would be reacting if a single one of these Russian-centric controversies were happening under a Democratic campaign/administration)

Antonomasia wrote: "(intending to return later to talk politics but wondered if Jonathan, Geoff - or anyone else - might have advice on portable speakers to post here. Did a fuckton of research last year, which only l..."

All the portable speakers I've ever used suck to some degree or other - you gotta kinda just choose the level of suck you're willing to put up with - I generally use portable speakers at beaches, picnics/outdoorsy stuff where the suggestion of presence of music is generally a priority over the quality of sound...

Thanks - were there any that sucked less than the others?
Though I would be using them indoors. Sort of thing that is okay in a park might be unpleasant distortion in, for example, a smallish kitchen.

Back to Trump + oil + Russia ... is nowhere starting to make a big noise about the Rosneft share thing yet? It's like nowhere is really digging into that yet but it seems really important.

(Let's just pause for a moment to imagine how the Right would be reacting if a single one of these Russian-centric controversies were happening under a Democratic campaign/administration)
Yeah, it's mindboggling. Are Democrats going to have to become McCarthyist or is everything just going to end up in a whole new weird alignment altogether?

Geoff wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "(intending to return later to talk politics but wondered if Jonathan, Geoff - or anyone else - might have advice on portable speakers to post here. Did a fuckton of research las..."

Yeah - I just ended up getting a bluetooth Jawbone Jambox which is fine for parties and stuff

Thanks. That looks not bad actually, decent reviews. It's the Mini Jambox Amazon have for about £50 (sadly I do consider them for this type of item though I don't buy much from them now due to the warehouse conditions).


Poss controversial. IMO the left also does its own version of dog-whistle politics now, with phrases like "former Exxon chairman Rex Tillerson". Does this mean it's now just a case of all's fair in love & war, each side highlighting the aspects of individuals they object to?

Antonomasia wrote: "like "former Exxon chairman Rex Tillerson". Does this mean it's now just a case of all's fair in love & war, e"

I think you are absolutely right to pick up on this point - certainly the fact that someone used to work for Exxon does not automatically make them the Devil.

Most of my clients are the energy sector - mostly offshore construction (windfarms as well as oil platforms!) and owner/operators of drilling rigs etc. Not all of them are pro-raping the environment. Not all of them are pro-deregulation etc.

The simple point being that both sides need to avoid lazy generalisations about each other.

Well, I am one of the last people on this thread to want to apologise for rudeness specifically about big energy, greenwash etc. But this sort of phrasing, which I've been seeing all over the place for the last month or six weeks, makes it very difficult to criticise the other side for "dog whistle" any more: pot, kettle, black.

I think it's better to highlight aspects of individuals I object to than to let things pass that need remarking on. Exxon covered up conclusions from their own research about the impact of climate change for something like forty years. There's a reason "Exxon" is a trigger-word for environmentalists.

Geoff wrote: "I think it's better to highlight aspects of individuals I object to than to let things pass that need remarking on. Exxon covered up conclusions from their own research about the impact of climate ..."

I suppose it would depend on the context of the reference. For instance, highlighting the fact that someone was the CEO of Exxon is relevant when one considers the connection between Exxon and Russia, and the fact that Exxon has probably the worst environmental record of all the major oil companies.

But I criticised Brietbart about 1000 comments back for describing a Judge as "Obama-appointed" in a headline and, from their perspective, this was also highlighting relevant background to which they would object....

So I guess my response is just trying to have awareness of my own double standards...

True, we should always strive to be as aware as possible about our own ideological mystifications. But I also want to avoid drawing false equivalencies - saying "Obama-appointed" concerning a judge or a cabinet member isn't the same as saying "Exxon CEO" concerning the environment, even if the right wishes it was.

But if their point is that the judge might make a politicised decision or has a Democrat-leaning view on a relevant issue....

Antonomasia wrote: "But if their point is that the judge might make a politicised decision or has a Democrat-leaning view on a relevant issue...."

But aren't we now just playing the game of "here-we-go-round-the-moral-relativist-mulberry-bush" - what Exxon did covering up decades of research about the harmful man-made nature of climate change is objectively bad - on the other side, a center-left leaning policy toward, what, immigration, LGBTQ rights?, etc. does not involve years of mass coordinated public deception - so isn't the same.

Ability to understand the other side, and therefore relativism, is one of the things being crushed by this age of new extremes. And perhaps this is partly because the current system, whether Hillary or Trump had won, is so far from how I think things should be anyway, but I believe that is something worth standing up for, that that was something worthwhile. They feel that it is similar even if you and I don't.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/0...

Phew, that's a relief.

Yes but there are ways to determine whether what I believe and how I act are logical, are ethical, are universally applicable, are just, etc. One can determine whether something is being decided from a viewpoint of justice, universal law, egalitarian principles, etc. and when they are being decided from a view toward individual/corporate/profit-motivated/nationalist/prejudiced etc. motivations. I don't think it is ideological mystification to believe law should be universally applicable, opportunity and access to the sociopolitical sphere should be egalitarian, the profit motive should be balanced by what harm is done by it, etc. You should strive to understand the other side, but you should also defend a just, ethical society - the parameters of which, despite what our times imply, can very much be determined.

howl of minerva wrote: "http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/0...

Phew, that's a relief."

It's never a good sign when you find yourself having to say it out loud.

"When a man acquires billions of dollars through complex real estate transactions, invests in many countries, goes on to phenomenal success in television and turns his name into a worldwide brand, it is very unlikely that he is mentally unstable." Huh? Howard Hughes anyone?

Geoff wrote: "Yes but there are ways to determine whether what I believe and how I act are logical, are ethical, are universally applicable, are just, etc. One can determine whether something is being decided fr..."

For instance, Sebastian Gorka, one of Trump's deputy assistants, is the son of parents who were accepted into the UK's refugee program from the Soviet Union, who then went on to flourish under that program and allow him the successful life he's had as the son of refugees. He is now one of the foremost public defenders of Trump's refugee ban. This is demonstrably hypocritical and verges on illogical reasoning, thus it is fair to criticize him.

Being able to manage one's financial affairs is a different sort of test, and a low bar... An entirely wilful mistake, I'm sure. You'll have already presumably seen the Atlantic piece in which clips of Trump are used by psychology profs as classic illustrations of narcissistic personality disorder.

Geoff wrote: "For instance, Sebastian Gorka, one of Trump's deputy assistants, is the son of parents who were accepted into the UK's refugee program from the Soviet Union, who then went on to flourish under that program and allow him the successful life he's had as the son of refugees. He is now one of the foremost public defenders of Trump's refugee ban. This is demonstrably hypocritical and verges on illogical reasoning, thus it is fair to criticize him. ."

He could put forward an substantive argument as to why it was acceptable then but is not now a good policy for his country... (I would be surprised if he had, though) or that he wouldn't expect to be taken in as his parents were, or that he wouldn't even attempt it. He is not his parents and he didn't make the decision to live in the USA.

Antonomasia wrote: "Geoff wrote: "For instance, Sebastian Gorka, one of Trump's deputy assistants, is the son of parents who were accepted into the UK's refugee program from the Soviet Union, who then went on to flour..."

True. Good point.

Changing topics somewhat, here's a good article about the situation in France with Le Pen's Front National. Unfortunately, I don't think the author has any really good solution for fighting them in the short term. The idea of rebuilding an authentic socialist left is of course important, but that will likely take years and the fact is Marine Le Pen could well be president of he republic within the next year.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/fr...

(Article answers a question I had; it sounds as if the FN's current phase of economic populism is opportunistic and superficial, much like Trump's. The party is actually controlled by elites.)

Concerning Israel-Palestine above, we need no longer worry, Trump has a plan! This is the real president's real answer when asked his thoughts on a two-state solution

"So I’m looking at two states and one state. And I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one … To be honest, if Bibi and the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians, are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best."

Holy shit!