Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. (No Mangione/Syria.)
I don’t know how to explain this to readers, but I’m going to try.
If you want to live in a good world or good society, certain types of behaviour have to be off the table and the response to them has to be harsh and overwhelming.
Understand the next statement: Anyone who will take what they want from someone else just because they are stronger is a threat to you.
The moment you say “none of my business” when someone abuses their power, you have created the conditions for Hell.
This is why certain behaviours have to be opposed. Genocide. Rape. Torture. Elites making the price of medicine a thousand times the cost.
Now, in the Middle East, Israel wants Greater Israel. They haven’t been shy about it. All of their neighbours and even some of their non-neighbours are in danger if Israel expands and grows more powerful. All of them are in danger if Israel eliminates the near enemies: Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinians because they will then be able to turn their full power and attention (and that of America) on new enemies with lebensraum.
This is so obvious I shouldn’t have to state it.
And Israel is a threat to America, too. They control your politics (no, don’t even) and make your rulers do things that are evil and against American interests, and certainly against the interests of the vast majority of actual Americans. Yeah, they aren’t genociding you, but as millions are homeless you’re spending billions on helping Israel commit genocide.
Israeli cops teach American cops how to brutalize Americans the way they brutalize Palestinians. Everything American elites are willing to do Palestinians they are willing to do to you if they ever decide it’s in their best interest. If you think they have the least fellow feeling for you you are so stupid I’m surprised you can keep breathing.
Hell is hell because evil is tolerated or even admired and suckers who do good are despised. Heaven is heaven because evil is not tolerated and people who do good are admired and emulated.
Update: Israel is now 20 miles from the northern border to Lebanon in Syria. But Syria falling is no big deal, honest.
I’ve noticed something interesting. Every time I write about what might be done to stop the Israeli genocide, actions which would require serious fighting, people say “well I understand whey they don’t want to do that because Israel will bomb the hell out of them.”
And that’s true (though not as true when it comes to Iran, which has plenty of effective AD.)
The issue here is that there’s a genocide going on. My estimate for casualties is over half a million, and other people are starting to make the same estimates. For the past two months Israel has basically let no food into Northern Gaza. The number at the end will probably be over a million dead.
So you’re either willing to do what it takes to stop it, or you aren’t. Both Hezbollah and Iran pulled their punches and let Israel set the tempo of engagement, choosing when and where to fight, instead of engaging it when Hamas still had a viable fighting force. Iran had the missile capacity to wreck Israel’s air defense and air bases. Instead they let their proxies fight alone, and that went very badly for them.
With the fall of Syria, well, it’s no longer possible to stop the genocide. Senior Iranian leadership told their juniors they were going to intervene, then didn’t.
At least half a million people are going to die because no one was willing to do what it took to stop it.
It’s unfair this was on Iran and Hezbollah. It’s an amazing indictment of every great power in the world, and the local Arab states that none of them did anything meaningful to stop a genocide and that many helped the genocide along.
As for Iran, they themselves have pointed out that one has to resist America and Israel wherever they attack, because the plan is to end up taking out Iran. Khameini, if he hasn’t already, needs to get his head out of his ass and build nukes. And if Russia and China want to keep Iran as part of their great alliance, they need to take action.
As for Hezbollah, well, they’re cut off from land resupply from Iran. Israel and America will get to them. Playing everything cautiously did not work.
America is falling, there is no question about that. But Empire’s rarely go quiet into the night. The Age of War and Revolution continues.
So, Mangione assassinated Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare, the US health insurance company with the highest denial rate in the industry.
It’s pretty clear he did it, he was found with a manifesto which amounts to a confession.
“To the Feds, I’ll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”
The problem for the prosecution is simple: most people think the assassination was justified. All it takes is one juror to hang on and refuse to convict.
Jury nullification is legal, but it’s not legal to tell jurors they have the right.
But jury nullification is part of the “deal”, the social contract. It’s one reason why people accused of a crime have the right to a jury trial. We all know that the law and justice aren’t the same thing. We gave up the right for private vengeance because it lead to feuds and violence, but in exchange for giving it up we expect the “justice” system to operate in a way which leads to a better society, not a worse one. We expect the law to protect us.
Mangione killed one person. Thompson is a mass murderer. Mangione is a criminal because it’s against the law to kill people who kill by spreadsheet, but it’s legal to kill by spreadsheet.
When the law doesn’t work; when it allows mass murder, there will be some people who take the law into their own hands. As nasty as it is, this is one the real “checks and balances”. If elites won’t work for the common good, if they loot and impoverish and kill too much the masses always have the ability, if not the legal right to fight back. America’s founders were pretty clear about this.
“when the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of the whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded. Men may betake themselves to the law of nature.”
Elites are supposed to work for the benefit of all. There must be a case that what they do benefits the majority in society. When it doesn’t there must be some force of recourse.
Mangione broke the law. He almost certainly killed Thompson.
But did he break the law of nature?
The IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp) is the most important part of the military. It’s supposed to guard the revolution: put down any internal revolts or coups. But it’s also the primary arm involved in places like Syria and Lebanon.
Among the information coming out after the fall of Assad one of the most interesting bits was on internal tensions inside the IRGC. It seems that the younger members are far more radical than the older guys currently in charge of the Republic. Khameini changed recruiting to invite only and upped indoctrination to 50% of training time, and, well, it worked. The younger members are true believers. They wanted to go into Syria and save it. They want more military action against Israel and find the missile strikes inadequate and pathetic.
Iranian leadership is renowned as cautious and conservative. They move slowly and think everything thru and risk little.
But the people who keep them in power aren’t like that: they’re happy to smash heads because they are true believers.
To make things worse, Khameini is 85. He has to arrange for a transition. And if he picks someone the youngsters won’t follow, Iran’s regime will be in great danger.
I’d say that the great problem with Iran during this last year and a half has been that it has been too cautious. Caution has served Iran well, but there are times for caution and there are times when for swift and decisive action. Iran has fumbled the war. They proved their missiles forces can break through Israel’s defenses, but have barely used them. They could have taken out Israeli air defenses and airfields directly if they were willing to be involved and not just operate thru proxies. Once they did so, Hezbollah’s strikes would have been much more effective.
The youngs were chomping to go fight and so were many of the Iran supported Iraqi militias, but they didn’t allow that. Khameini has repeatedly refused to get a nuclear deterrent, and Iran needs one. All along they have let Israel, the US and Turkey hold in the initiative and choose when and where the fighting would occur, only reacting, not forcing their tempo on the enemy. The result has been the massive weakening of Hamas and Hezbollah and the loss of Syria.
The youngs are right, and the olds are wrong. Iran needs to fight because just sitting their letting its proxies be taken out makes it look weak and untrustworthy and has degraded its actual strategic situation.
The best thing for Iran would be for the generational change to happen sooner, not later. Iran has enemies and it needs to fight, because those enemies are re-shaping the Middle East to massively reduce its power.
Israel’s air force is destroying every air defense system, missile stockpile and air asset they know about, while the Jihadis whine that they aren’t Israel’s enemy.
By doing so Israel makes sure that it doesn’t matter who’s in charge of Syria: they can hit anything they want at any time and not only can’t Syria defend itself, they can’t even strike back. (Hezbollah can’t defend against air strikes, it can strike back so has some deterrence, but not enough.)
Turkey should just cut bait and directly conquer and annex Syria. Operating thru proxy forces has too many disadvantages and the days when borders were nearly sacrosanct are over. The US won’t like it, but so what? They can’t cut Turkey loose, it’s too important, and they’ve already pissed Russia and Iran off.
The first is that frozen conflicts are poison. When Russia and Hezbollah and Iran and some Syrian units were winning, rather than make an agreement for a frozen conflict, they should have pushed on. Leaving enemies in the country and the oil fields in US/Kurdish hands was foolish and fatal. Letting enemies flee to Turkey then be sent back was fatal.
The second is that either Russia or Iran should have just stationed some significant ground forces there permanently (Hezbollah is not a full state and doesn’t have the capacity.) Yes, it would be a bleeding ulcer, but the attrition would not be enough to matter. The entire advance could have been stopped by one good, properly equipped Iranian or Russian brigade with air and drone support. The Jihadis didn’t win because they were great fighters, they won because the Syrian army wouldn’t fight.
This assumes that the strategic value of Syria was sufficient: that it was worth the cost.
If Syria’s worth having, then do what it takes. Fighting on and off for thirteen years to then have the regime fall in days is ridiculous.
This argument applies to America in Afghanistan. The difference is that while Russia and Iran have important strategic interests in Syria, or did, the US never had enough in Afghanistan to justify the costs.
Broadly speaking, don’t half-ass. Do it right or don’t do it.
This applies also to Turkey. They should probably cut the bullshit and just occupy the country. Their proxies can’t stand up to Israel and will even have difficulty against the Kurds.
By Tony Wikrent
Tim Harford [via The Big Picture 12-02-2024]
The art of good public speaking is often to say less, giving each idea time to breathe, and time to be absorbed by the audience. But the anxiety of the speaker pushes in the other direction, more facts, more notes, more words, all in the service of ensuring they don’t dry up on stage. It’s true that speaking in public is difficult, even risky. But the best way to view it is as an opportunity to define yourself and your ideas. If you are being handed a microphone and placed at the centre of an audience’s attention for 20 minutes, you’re much more likely to flourish if you aim to seize that opportunity. Everyone is watching; you’re there for a reason. So . . . what is it that you really want to say?
[TW: The ability to speak well in public is a skill that will probably become more and more important as we try to resist the Trump’s regime’s policies and actions. I have often regretted I have not learned public speaking while in high school and college.]
Strategic Political Economy
The Great Grocery Squeeze: How a federal policy change in the 1980s created the modern food desert.
[The Atlantic, via The Big Picture 12-07-2024]
…The structure of the grocery industry has been a matter of national concern since the rise of large retail chains in the early 20th century. The largest was A&P, which, by the 1930s, was rapidly supplanting local grocery stores and edging toward market dominance. Congressional hearings and a federal investigation found that A&P possessed an advantage that had nothing to do with greater efficiency, better service, or other legitimate ways of competing. Instead, A&P used its sheer size to pressure suppliers into giving it preferential treatment over smaller retailers. Fearful of losing their biggest customer, food manufacturers had no choice but to sell to A&P at substantially lower prices than they charged independent grocers—allowing A&P to further entrench its dominance.
Congress responded in 1936 by passing the Robinson-Patman Act. The law essentially bans price discrimination, making it illegal for suppliers to offer preferential deals and for retailers to demand them….
For the next four decades, Robinson-Patman was a staple of the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement agenda. From 1952 to 1964, for example, the agency issued 81 formal complaints to block grocery suppliers from giving large supermarket chains better prices on milk, oatmeal, pasta, cookies, and other items than they offered to smaller grocers. Most of these complaints were resolved when suppliers agreed to eliminate the price discrimination. Occasionally a case went to court.
During the decades when Robinson-Patman was enforced—part of the broader mid-century regime of vigorous antitrust—the grocery sector was highly competitive, with a wide range of stores vying for shoppers and a roughly equal balance of chains and independents. In 1954, the eight largest supermarket chains captured 25 percent of grocery sales. That statistic was virtually identical in 1982, although the specific companies on top had changed. As they had for decades, Americans in the early 1980s did more than half their grocery shopping at independent stores, including both single-location businesses and small, locally owned chains. Local grocers thrived alongside large, publicly traded companies such as Kroger and Safeway….
Then it was abandoned. In the 1980s, convinced that tough antitrust enforcement was holding back American business, the Reagan administration set about dismantling it. The Robinson-Patman Act remained on the books, but the new regime saw it as an economically illiterate handout to inefficient small businesses. And so the government simply stopped enforcing it….
Why did Silicon Valley turn right? The “pounded progressive ally” thesis has limits
Henry Farrell, December 04, 2024 [Programmable Mutter, via The Big Picture 12-07-2024]
…The shifting relationship between the two involves- as far as I can see – ideas, interests and political coalitions. The best broad framework I know for talking about how these relate to each other is laid out in Mark Blyth’s book, Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century.
Mark wants to know how big institutional transformations come about. How, for example, did we move from a world in which markets were fundamentally limited by institutional frameworks created by national governments, to one in which markets dominated and remade those frameworks?….
As Mark puts it in more academic language:
“Economic ideas therefore serve as the basis of political coalitions. They enable agents to overcome free-rider problems by specifying the ends of collective action. In moments of uncertainty and crisis, such coalitions attempt to establish specific configurations of distributionary institutions in a given state, in line with the economic ideas agents use to organize and give meaning to their collective endeavors. If successful, these institutions, once established, maintain and reconstitute the coalition over time by making possible and legitimating those distributive arrangements that enshrine and support its members. Seen in this way, economic ideas enable us to understand both the creation and maintenance of a stable institutionalized political coalition and the institutions that support it.”
Thus, in Mark’s story, economists like Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Art Laffer played a crucial role in the transition from old style liberalism to neoliberalism. At the moment when the old institutional system was in crisis, and no-one knew quite what to do, they provided a diagnosis of what was wrong. Whether that diagnosis was correct in some universal sense is a question for God rather than ordinary mortals. The more immediate question is whether that diagnosis was influential: politically efficacious in justifying alternative policies, breaking up old political coalitions and conjuring new ones into being. As it turned out, it was.
[TW: “The Great Grocery Squeeze” that resulted from Reagan’s decision to stop enforcing the Robinson-Patman Act, proves the accuracy of Farrell’s and Blyth’s work. So also Stoller’s discussion of federal judge Carl Nicholsm below. This is all a reflection of civic republicanism being supplanted by liberalism as capitalism developed, allowing “sanctity of private property” to become a more powerful “economic idea” than “promote the General Welfare.”]