[ASPENTIMES] All this would be comical except that it carries a real risk. If everyone is racist, then nobody is. The term loses its opprobrium. It’s like accusing someone of masturbation. So what?
The net effect is that real racists get a pass. When someone calls them out for their racism, they can say, "The race card? Really? Is that all you got?"
But racism really is terrible. Judging people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character is destructive and unfair (notwithstanding that, as pointed out above, some believe today that it is racist to do otherwise).
In addition, overplaying the race card invariably plays it against people who don’t deserve it. Just because a person thinks America should have a secure border, plays chess, drives a pickup truck, believes in capitalism, socialism or Judaism, defends affirmative action, wears a beard or doesn’t like being called a racist, doesn’t make him a racist.
It’s fun to call people vile names when you disagree with them. But it’s not productive, persuasive, grown-up or honest. It’s just cheap insults and lazy thinking.
Now go ahead and prove my point in the comments by ignoring the issue and instead calling me names.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/09/2019 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
[Jpost] US President Donald Trump said he canceled a deal in the wake of a Taliban attack in Kabul that killed a US soldier. Meanwhile, Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s special envoy for Middle East peace, is also leaving before the "Deal of the Century" is completed. The US is also ostensibly seeking a new Iran deal, and US-North Korea talks are stalled. Why is the US so addicted to the notion that so many of the world’s problems can be solved with "deals" ‐ especially given the track record of previous failed efforts?
Trump adds a personal dealmaking culture to US foreign policy, borrowed from his business background and a 1987 book that sang the praises of the "art of the deal." But his approach to deals is not unique. The US notion that conflicts can be solved with agreements ‐ and deals that wrap them up with a nice start and end date ‐ is part of historic Western European concepts of diplomacy.
Deals and treaties such as those at Westphalia or the Congress of Berlin sought to create order after conflicts in Europe. These ostensibly successful treaties or conferences are pointed to as examples of how diplomacy and international law can be successful. The US played a key role in ending the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 with a treaty signed at Portsmouth, for which Teddy Roosevelt won a Nobel Peace Prize.
But this approach to international affairs has its limits. In 1928 US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Aristide Briand negotiated the Kellogg-Briand Pact signed by 15 countries, which was supposed to end war as a way to resolve disputes. In a sense, it outlawed war. Oddly, Germany, Japan and Italy all signed on. Within a decade those states would all be at war, with Italy invading Ethiopia and Japan increasing involvement in China.
The failures of 1928 haven’t ended the seduction of treaties, conferences, pacts and deals to end conflict. The Paris Peace Accords in 1973 ended the war in Vietnam, just two years before North Vietnamese troops took over Saigon, which actually ended the war. In Israel and the Palestinian territories, the Oslo Accords were never fulfilled. UN resolutions that were supposed to stop Hezbollah maintaining a massive arsenal were never adhered to. Evidence seems to indicate that the last hundred years have seen a decline in adherence to treaties and deals, yet the US still believes it can get to the end zone in dealing with a variety of files.
#1
...We are a mercantile people - we believe that if we can just make the pot sweet enough for everybody, then everybody will agree and they'll go away in peace. If you're buying a car or a washing machine, that has a chance. Wars and genocides; not so much.
I can think of exactly two 'deals' that worked - the Confederate surrender at Appomattox, and the unconditional surrenders of the Germans and the Japanese at the end of WWII. I will leave it to the reader to divine what those two deals had in common.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/09/2019 5:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The cartoon thought bubble above my head says "Did you ever see Black Friday at Walmart?"
#4
We like good deals. We don't like being had or played by our "betters" such as in the Obummer Iran bum nuclear deal. Better to walk away when deals go bad or try to find other levers to pull or buttons to push that are mutually beneficial.
#7
I find it awfully awkward that nobody at Rantburg seems to mind that Trump (as he claims) invited America's mortal enemies, who aided and abetted 9/11, to Camp David.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/09/2019 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I'm sure Merkel and Previous have been to the states as well.
#10
nobody at Rantburg seems to mind that Trump (as he claims) invited America's mortal enemies, who aided and abetted 9/11, to Camp David.
Two thoughts:
1) When they came, clone all their electronics and plant all sorts of bugs.
2) Until the plan was made, what did we really have to take away in negotiations? Now they are publicly humiliated by the reversal as well as losing a chance to meet with their contacts living in the U.S.
Besides, one doesn't make peace with friends, but with enemies, who often are not gentlemen. Vladimir Putin, for instance, used to be an officer in the KGB, the Chinese are still totalitarian communists who harvest organs from prisoners, and the PA are unreconstructed PLO terrorists with a smoother line of patter. Not that I ever expected peace talks with that particular faction of the Taliban to lead to any sort of peace — I really hoped it was never really more than an excuse to clone electronics and follow the delegates home — but they were also the only ones willing to talk at all.
#11
When America has the stomach for total war, this author might have some relevance. We try to negotiate a treaty, or deal as he puts it, to stop bloodshed. The Japanese surrendered in a "Deal" to save their homeland from total destruction. We could have certainly won Korea, the Viet-Nam war and the war in Afghanistan with a total war concept. The issues I see with the treaties is most are brokered by the UN, With that there is zero teeth in the deal if one side breaks the treaty. If the treaty says Hezbollah will abide by the treaty or we nuke them, they will comply.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/09/2019 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#12
@Bright Pebbles
That's quite a statement you make here.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/09/2019 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#13
EC, I'm willing to think it was a mistake he later corrected. He was just honest about it.
This is the same Trump strategy we saw played with DPRK. Tease them, lure them, get them leaning forward then walk away. Standard business strategy for breaking merger teams by differentiating between principal players and posturing dead weight.
#17
So much of what Trump does is easily recognizable as Business Negotiating 101. Obama was a crash course in how not to negotiate (tell the other side your bottom line up front, and never get up from the table 'cause you might lose the deal, a/k/a "deal fever".)
Posted by: Matt ||
09/09/2019 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
[IsraelTimes] After Nasrallah vowed to retaliate for deaths of his operatives in Syria, Hamas, the braying voice of Islamic Resistance®, also hopes to establish a new formula vis-a-vis Israel in response to casualties in border festivities.
The firing of five rockets into Israeli territory from the Gazoo ...Hellhole adjunct to Israel and Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, inhabited by Gazooks. The place was acquired in the wake of the 1967 War and then presented to Paleostinian control in 2006 by Ariel Sharon, who had entered his dotage. It is currently ruled with an iron fist by Hamaswith about the living conditions you'd expect. It periodically attacks the Hated Zionist Entity whenever Iran needs a ruckus created or the hard boyz get bored, getting thumped by the IDF in return. The ruling turbans then wave the bloody shirt and holler loudly about oppression and disproportionate response... Strip late Friday came as little surprise, despite the period of relative calm between Israel and the Paleostinian enclave’s Hamas rulers.
Continued on Page 49
h/t IMAO
[SlowFacts] Mass murderers know something most of us don’t know. These murderers figured out that they can break the rules. They know they can do anything they want..for a while. No one will stop the murderer until people with guns show up. Murderers get those 11 minutes to kill at will. Murderers enjoy the thrill of having their way with innocent people. They love the last free acts they will ever have. Murderers are thrilled by the notoriety that they get from the mass media..even if they never live to see it.
Murderers know that the rest of us obey the rules while they don’t have to. They know we are disarmed in "gun-free" zones. After a mass murder, these killers figured out that we will only make more rules.
...Many of us will pretend that the next rule will make us safe. In fact, the next rules will probably make things worse rather than better. The next rules will make it easier for the mass murderer to kill more people. The reason is simple. Only honest people follow the rules. Disarming more of the good guys makes it easier for the bad guys to kill. That unavoidable truth is as simple as it is unpleasant.
Go ahead and make your stores into "gun-free" zones. Murderers don’t care about plastic signs.
Go ahead and make your schools and churches into "gun-free" zones where honest citizens are disarmed. Murderers don’t care about your rules.
Go ahead and pretend that more ink on paper will stop a murderer with a gun. That is exactly what murderers want.
#1
I've always thought the mass shooting phenomenon is just a negligible cost of having the right to protect yourself in the event of being targeted, and the duty to defend your fellow citizens against predators.
Being targeted and being killed are two very different things. People dying at the hands of an insane shooter (that's what they are) are like accident victims, casualties to an aberrant gene or a relative of Screwtape in someone's mind.
To be preyed upon deliberately once you are rendered defenseless is an indignity, an injustice that has no place in the modern world. Only an enemy would wish this upon citizens.
If a state fails to save your life, it can still function as a failed state. If it denies you the very safety the social compact was formed for, it is no longer a state but the enemy.
h/t Instapundit
[GeniusTimes] This is incredibly difficult for me to do but I feel that it’s necessary to come forward and expose the type of person that Trump will select for the Supreme Court of the great country.
I was raped by whoever Trump selects to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court.
It was in the 1990s and the details are a little fuzzy. We were at a party and I distinctly remember this person coming on to me and rubbing up against me.
I told this person I wasn’t interested but whoever it was persisted and when we were alone forced himself or herself on me, pulling off my clothes and penetrating me while I constantly said, "No!"
I haven’t come forward yet because I was ashamed and afraid. This person is clearly very powerful, but now that this person is being considered for the Supreme Court, I think it’s necessary to let people know who they’re dealing with, especially after Trump picked a literal serial killer last time.
And the Soros money doesn’t hurt.
But this stain on my soul does hurt. And it will be with me forever ‐ or at least until after the confirmation hearing ‐ the very painful confirmation hearing.
There are existing laws and punishments on the books for 'bearing false witness'. Until you are willing to actually use them as the hammer they are to deter the crime from spreading like a cancer undermining society, you'll move to a zero trust society. Welcome to being a shi!hole country.
#7
But just wait until RBG dies and gets replaced. The fight over Kavanaugh, with all the lies, innuendos, etc., will look like a kindergarten brawl. Doesn't matter who Trump nominates. As long as the Republicans hold the Senate, he or she will get in. But the Demoncrats will make it as painful as possible for the nominee.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
09/09/2019 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I would not be surprised if the Left had a list of the most likely candidates as well as a corresponding list of volunteer victims and witnesses for each, all ready to go.
#9
The left is running into the "cry wolf " and the French revolutions' "I accuse " problem . After awhile people you need to influence stop listening.
They can gut an institution and where it like a skin suit but soon the skin suit starts to stink.
[Townhall] ...Back in the 70s, I remember we were promised an ice age if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. Then in the 80s, we were promised death by ozone hole if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, and then doom by acid rain if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. By the time they started promising that we were all gonna die from global warming if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, I was still wanting my ice age. It would be nice to have a white Christmas in LA. I liked polywater best
#2
I saw some environmentalist claiming that only a handful predicted ice ages in the 70s. They are trying to rewrite that unhelpful bit of history already. Enough people were predicting it that they made a horrible movie about it (starring Paul Newman). Harder to erase that.
#3
The film was Quintet, 1979. Somehow, I missed it.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/09/2019 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Maltus, whose idea inspired Darwin, never made political recommendations. He just wasn't aware of within-species interference competition that causes the per capita growth rate to decrease as population density increases.
[Quillette] In a recent New York Times op-ed, Wesleyan University president Michael S. Roth offers a defense of "safe enough" spaces on our college and university campuses. Roth seeks to establish a middle ground between proponents who aspire "to make sure all students are made to feel welcome in or outside the classroom" and critics who see safe spaces as "sanctimonious ’safetyism’‐counterproductive coddling of students who feel fragile." So, he asks, “what’s a university to do?"
"We should begin," writes Roth in answer to his own question, "by destigmatizing the notion of safe spaces and stop talking about them as if they were part of a zero-sum ideological war." He provides historic examples of space spaces for employees and managers in post-World War II manufacturing, group therapy in psychiatry, and later feminist and gay liberation community building. None of this was controversial, he suggests.
But Roth’s examples are not really on point if the risk of safe spaces perceived by their critics, as Roth puts it, is of "groups…enclosing themselves in bubbles that protect them from competing points of view." The creation of opportunities for open discussion between employees and managers, or for sharing of experiences among mental health patients, serves to burst bubbles, not insulate participants from other points of view. The building of community among feminists and gays may have reinforced narrow perspectives but their purpose was political, not educational. Safe spaces that encourage cooperation or facilitate political action are far different from safe spaces that insulate from discomfort.
Colleges and universities exist, first and foremost, to educate their students, not to consolidate shared interests, facilitate advocacy, or mask intellectual and emotional disagreements. Certainly those with common interests and shared experiences should be free to associate among themselves in clubs, advocacy groups, and private gatherings. And there is nothing wrong with colleges encouraging and facilitating such confabs as part of the life of the university, not to mention the right to freedom of association.
Roth also recounts historic threats to the physical safety of women and minorities by way of underscoring colleges’ responsibilities as parens patriae. Surely no one doubts that colleges and universities are entrusted with the physical and psychological welfare of their students, particularly undergraduates. But threats of physical and psychological harm bear little resemblance to the harms college safe spaces are intended to protect against. The former are obstacles to education (and usually illegal). The latter are essential to education. As Roth acknowledges, "our classrooms should never be so comfortable that intellectual confrontation becomes taboo or assumptions go unchallenged because everyone’s emotional well-being is overprotected."
There is a difference between true psychological harm and hurt feelings. Perhaps Roth’s “safe enough” standard is meant to recognize that difference, but the reality on many campuses is that safe spaces encourage, in Roth’s words, the "siloing of perspectives" against which "[u]niversities must push back."
There is also an important difference between student-organized clubs for people of shared interests or experiences and college safe spaces created for the express purpose of insulating students from discomfort. The former are invitations to collegiality. The latter are obstacles to the development of a true intellectual community. Click through. Quillette is an Intellectual Dark Web site that everyone should be reading.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
09/09/2019 01:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wasn't that long ago that colleges were about challenging your ideas and forcing you to think. Very sad.
#4
We should carefully look at the Democratic primaries to determine the likelihood of what we will be in the coming year:
Kamala = Racist against indians, jamacians, and blacks, as well as against law enforcement, and being sexist and against those that sleep their way to the top
Warren = Racist against Faux Native Americans, Harvard Elites, and of course sexist.
Biden = Against the elderly.
Bernie Sanders = Against the Elderly, the math challenged and of course anti-semite.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
