Cory1848

One mule gets caught (after a tip-off); because of the distraction of that, five more get through. It's from the (fictional) movie "Brokedown Palace"; don't know of any real-life examples, although it sounds like a good plan.

And more, it doesn’t even matter if Milley and people at DOD have a hankering to attack Iran; contingency plans for such an attack have existed at least since the days of Mosaddegh, regardless of whether neocons or isolationists are running the show at any given time. As well as similar attack plans for dozens of other places (Canada maybe?). Because you never know when you may need to take action because of some sudden emergency. Trump seems to be saying that, because Milley drew up these plans (?) ("This was him!"), rather than (Trump himself drawing up the plans?), that exonerates Trump of the desire to attack Iran. None of this is of any pertinence whatsoever; the plans were there well before either of these men came to power, and the whole exchange shows yet again how utterly clueless Trump is about how US security (or anything else) actually works.

The venality of much of African leadership is indeed criminal, but most of the population is too busy trying to put food on the table to put much thought into overthrowing their government. And I don’t know anything about family planning initiatives in Africa, but obviously more needs to be done. As for responsibility, I tend to think of borders and the countries they define as purely political structures, and as such they play no part in our obligations toward each other as human beings. Practically speaking, of course, suddenly opening all borders would quickly bankrupt the Global North, but as a gradual, long-term process, it makes sense. Europe is a good model: right now, you can get in a car in Lisbon and drive all the way to Tallinn without once having to stop and pull out a passport. Thirty years ago, this would have been unthinkable, and eighty years ago it would have been a lunatic idea.

Try putting yourself in their shoes (if they even have shoes) for a moment. You likely have sufficient resources to feed and clothe yourself and pay the rent, and the leisure to sit idly behind your computer and vent. As, to be fair, do I. By accident of birth. For most of these refugees, however, risking their necks in a flimsy boat trying to get to the Canaries, or Greece, or Lampedusa is their best option at feeding their families, of survival: the situation they are fleeing is that bad. Again, by sheer accident of birth. Just as easily, you could be in their shoes, and they in yours. Grant them the right to do whatever it takes to ensure their own survival and that of their families, and acknowledge that their humanity is in common with yours.

Fair enough, but I was talking about “balance” specifically on Taiwan: Taiwan doesn’t declare independence, and they can maintain de facto independence, even be armed by and have their security guaranteed by the United States. And I’m not sure what you would propose instead at this point: what’s the solution, if not the status quo? China doesn’t exactly take what it wants: they’ve built up some islands in the South China Sea, but US warships still regularly sail through, not to mention sailing through the Taiwan Strait. As mentioned elsewhere here, the US ability to project power far exceeds that of any other nation on earth. Are the Chinese sailing carrier groups between Grand Bahama Island and Miami? No, the best they can do are the balloons. That said, a war over Taiwan would be unimaginably catastrophic, and Taiwan itself would likely be obliterated. (So, we had to destroy the village in order to save it?) I don’t see any alternative to continuing to try to talk and find common ground, and “off-ramps” as needed.

On shooting down the balloon, I’ve read good arguments that the US actually learned a fair amount about the balloon itself by letting it sail overhead for awhile, and at the same time prevented it from gathering much useful information. As for recognizing Taiwanese independence, while I agree with you that Taiwan ought to be a fully recognized, independent nation, with membership in the UN and other international bodies, simply because that’s what most people who actually live on that island want, a unilateral declaration on the part of the US at this moment would lead directly to a shooting war (over a balloon?), which would be disastrous for all. Plus, neither Japan nor anyone else in the region would be on board with this. I agree, one loses patience with decades of “diplomacy” that seems to lead nowhere. But there have been no calamitous wars, the people in Taiwan have been living freely and prosperously, and this balance has somehow been maintained for almost 70 years. As long as this remains the case, I think we have to continue to wait it out.

My Thai language teacher years ago roughly defined "khaek" as "anyone who might wear a turban." So, could be a Turk, or an Indian, or a lot of other people as well!

Whatever comes of the visit, it seems to me that having a channel of communication is better than not having a channel of communication. As for BRICS, I’m no economist, but I’m also not much for conspiracy theories. A common BRICS currency seems far off. And if it occurred, what current currencies would be backing it? The rupee (meh); the Brazilian real and South African rand (really?); the ruble (I don’t think you want rubles); and the renminbi. And while the latter may be interesting as an alternative reserve currency, it is entirely controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and thus is vulnerable to political calculations. The Federal Reserve in the US is at least theoretically an independent agency (although subject to oversight). And even then, so what? The dollar became the world’s primary reserve currency after Bretton Woods in 1944, supplanting the pound sterling, which had held that status for 150 years prior. And what’s happened to the pound since then? It’s still good, isn’t it? Frankly, I’d rather have pounds in the bank than renminbi.

The katoey thieves seem to be really good at what they do, but Mr. T would be a real challenge for them!

It’s not complicated. In most contexts, the words “woman” and “man” are perfectly clear and understandable, just as they’ve always been. And I don’t think there’s any confusion or controversy about adjectives like “straight” and “gay.” In discussions specifically about transgender people, as here, words like “cisgender” are useful because they add some clarity. It all depends on what you’re trying to say. The word “normal,” however, is a relative word, and its opposite, “not normal,” suggests that you believe there’s something wrong with the person labeled as such. Remember, to a trans person, just as to you or me, living one’s gender identity is the most normal thing in the world. Thus, we are all “normal” when allowed to live as we choose, openly, without fear or ostracism. All that said, nobody is forcing you to use any particular language at all; you can use whatever words you want.

They are two human beings who are in love with each other and want to make a go of a marriage, just like most other human beings. Evidently, they are able to provide each other with the emotional support that all humans need. It’s that easy, and that’s all you have to know. If you can't accept that, that’s not their problem, or anyone else’s but yours.

EVERY day is a heterosexual day parade!

I think you misunderstand what’s happened to the word “woke” in its descent into a meaningless buzzword. It has nothing to do with “hypnotic spells” or “leftist extremists.” It has everything to do with right-wing politicians manipulating and frightening people into voting for them, because they have nothing else to offer. Do you honestly take someone like Ron DeSantis seriously, as having serious ideas about how to actually govern? As for your comments on “men” taking hormones and undergoing sex change surgery -- you’re not listening! I’m a mid-sixties cisgender male (whoops! I mean “straight guy”), as I assume you are, and the notion of people who identify as women being born in mostly male bodies (and there are gradations, as I’ve learned, even in chromosomes), and vice versa, is strange and new to me, too, although it’s been a reality since the beginning of humankind. But that’s no reason to dismiss it out of hand, because I have no idea what’s going on in the mind of a trans person, and it’s my responsibility as a fellow human being to listen, and try to understand. Your concern about cisgender (sorry) female athletes is well taken, and there have indeed been cases such as you mention, though I think just a few that have been reported on. However, most friends of mine who are “woke” (sorry) are well aware of the problems here, so projecting their concern, I think solutions will be found that are fair to female athletes but that don’t force trans women into men’s locker rooms, or out of sports entirely, or to suicide (remember “conversion therapy” for gay people?), or other outcomes that are unfair to them.

Oh for heaven’s sake. “Transgender person” and “ladyboy” are both perfectly good words. If, in coming years, “ladyboy” comes to be considered offensive, it won’t be because of directives from “extremist woke progressives” (??) but rather the natural evolution of language, which is an entirely organic process. Nobody “controls the way people speak,” neither progressives nor bigots who revel in deliberately insulting language. And while I agree with you that some efforts by university administrators and others to institute language policies are misguided and overbearing, they are usually well intentioned -- it’s not about “control” (control over whom, and for what purpose?) but about being inclusive and nonthreatening. Don’t misinterpret it. I make every effort to be woke -- in the actual meaning of the word, as originally used by abolitionists in the US and later by Marcus Garvey, Lead Belly, and many others others who were active in civil rights and other efforts. It means to be aware, and if another person’s circumstances aren’t identical to yours, to listen and try to understand. So why aren’t you woke?

Well, (spoiler alert) it’s Alfred Hitchcock’s movie “Rear Window,” but in that story Raymond Burr planned it carefully in advance and didn’t need help from cab drivers or anyone else.

Incredible, even after two thousand years, how shallow this kind of rot lies just below the surface. We are a sick species.

Wow. Just wow. All three of the speculative “world controllers” that Moore lists are equally absurd, as Moore intended his quotation to be read, even if one of them consists of human beings. But when you plainly state your belief that this particular group of humans are in fact the “real controllers of the world,” well, you’re a big part of the problem, aren't you, and as a human being myself I feel a responsibility to call this kind of hate speech out wherever I encounter it.

Right, it’s all about unnamed, all-powerful cabals “controlling” unnamed victims, for vague purposes (although fossil fuels are still pretty profitable, so I’d look there first). I can’t do better than quote from Alan Moore, English graphic novelist and self-professed anarchist: “The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in the conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the grey aliens, or the twelve-foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control, the truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control, the world is rudderless.”

Well, I’m glad that you consider yourself wise after “scores of years” (so you’re at least sixty? I’m sixty-five and likewise still feel confidence in my ability to sort through and synthesize information). But I would hesitate to be too critical of “far younger people,” whose intelligence and ability to process information is often discounted by their seniors who disagree with them. I’m sure you’re quite right in your statement that you have nothing in common with these younger people. But what you have *least* in common with them is this: in all likelihood you’ll be gone in twenty or thirty years (?? sorry if I’m misrepresenting your age), while they’ll still be around for decades longer, living on a planet whose environment is rapidly changing. They’re likely to see the worst of it; you won’t. So I would put far more value in what these younger people have to say about the matter, because their perspective counts more than yours does. Just some food for thought …

Oh. So where do you get your news -- some 400-pound couch potato blogger who lives at his mother’s house? (One of Trump’s better lines, although I think he was talking about hackers, not bloggers.)

Well, with your references to “wokes” and “crying lefties” and other jargon, you’ve lost me. I get my information, on climate change and other issues, from professional journalists, and if you’re equating information posted on Twitter with information posted by the New York Times or the BBC, I think you’re misleading yourself. There has always been a conservative media, but in the past it tended to follow the same journalistic standards as the liberal media; with some exceptions, that’s no longer the case. Don’t create a false equivalence.

If one engages with Twitter with the foreknowledge that it is basically a cesspool of lies, misinformation, and Neanderthals letting off steam, then I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people say that they get their *hard news* from Twitter, Facebook, and the like. Then, based on their confused perception of reality, they vote into office legislators who are in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry. It’s not Twitter’s job to educate the general public. At the same time, however, Twitter should be aware of the influence it has over society, and act accordingly. Free speech has its limits.

Exactly. Americans choose to live this way by continuing to elect legislators who vote against sensible gun regulation. Unfortunately, for most legislation it takes a supermajority to get anything done. Americans also have developed a skewed emphasis on individual rights (the rights of me) at the expense of building a more livable, tolerant society (taking into account the rights of my neighbor).