右翼分子吐槽扯淡专楼
"The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
1473 个评论
This one demographic has driven much of the GOP’s gains with Latino voters
Of all the numbers from our recent NBC News/Telemundo poll of Latino voters, this set maybe stands out the most: Conservative Latinos have gone from Democratic-leaning voters in 2012 to Republican base voters now.
In the merged NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls of 2012, 49% of self-described conservative Latinos said they preferred Democratic control of Congress, versus 40% who wanted Republicans in charge — a 9-point edge for Democrats.
But in our Sept. 2022 NBC News/Telemundo poll, a whopping 73% of conservative Latinos say they prefer Republicans in control of Congress, versus 17% who prefer Democrats — a 56-point advantage for the GOP.
That’s a net 65-point swing in a decade, and it helps to explain how Republicans have cut into Democrats’ lead among Latino voters.
It’s not the only demographic that’s shifted. Liberal Latinos, for instance, have gone from D+65 in 2012 to D+80 now.
And moderates have declined from D+49 to D+32 during that same time period.
Of all the numbers from our recent NBC News/Telemundo poll of Latino voters, this set maybe stands out the most: Conservative Latinos have gone from Democratic-leaning voters in 2012 to Republican base voters now.
In the merged NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls of 2012, 49% of self-described conservative Latinos said they preferred Democratic control of Congress, versus 40% who wanted Republicans in charge — a 9-point edge for Democrats.
But in our Sept. 2022 NBC News/Telemundo poll, a whopping 73% of conservative Latinos say they prefer Republicans in control of Congress, versus 17% who prefer Democrats — a 56-point advantage for the GOP.
That’s a net 65-point swing in a decade, and it helps to explain how Republicans have cut into Democrats’ lead among Latino voters.
It’s not the only demographic that’s shifted. Liberal Latinos, for instance, have gone from D+65 in 2012 to D+80 now.
And moderates have declined from D+49 to D+32 during that same time period.
The chilling numbers that reveal the scale of Joe Biden’s border disaster
...The US Department of Homeland Security reports that the Mexican cartels’ income from smuggling illegal migrants into America has soared from $500 million in 2018 to $13 billion this year — up 2,500%. If these criminals merged into a corporation, their 2022 gross revenues would rival that of — are you sitting down? — Fox Corporation. Fox News Channel’s parent company earned $12.91 billion in the year ended June 30, 2021, and $13.97 billion 12 months later.
......
Border Patrol agents apprehended 951,568 illegal immigrants during President Donald Trump’s final 19 months in office. In President Biden’s first 19 months, Border Patrol encountered a staggering 3,588,877 illegals — up a sickening 377%.
In Fiscal Year 2020, the last fully under Trump’s control, 69,000 illegal migrants were detected on the “border” but got away into America’s interior. FY 2021 (four months of Trump, eight of Biden) witnessed 389,155 gotaways — up 464%. In FY 2022 (all Biden’s watch), gotaways hit 599,000 — up 54% versus FY 2021 and 768% compared to FY 2020.
At least 266,000 unaccompanied migrant children/minors have been encountered at the southern border since President Biden took office, per CBP data,” Fox News Channel’s priceless southern-frontier correspondent Bill Melugin explained via Twitter on September 26. “That’s enough to fill up approximately three Rose Bowls.”
Fourteen House Republicans wrote Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Sept. 23 to complain that “between October 2021 and July 2022, more than 130,000 Venezuelan nationals were encountered after entering the United States illegally.” The Marxist Nicolás Maduro regime, they added, “is deliberately releasing violent prisoners early, including inmates convicted of ‘murder, rape and extortion,’ and pushing them to join caravans heading to the United States.”
Twelve US senators contacted the US Marshals Service about crooks cascading across the “border.” According to their August 30 letter, “So far in FY22, CBP has apprehended over 9,000 criminal immigrants, including 53 for homicide or manslaughter, 283 for sex crimes and almost 900 for assault, battery and domestic violence.”
.......
Fentanyl killed some 71,000 Americans in 2021, up 23% versus 2020. For those aged 18 to 45, fentanyl leads COVID-19, car wrecks, suicides and every other cause of death.
...The US Department of Homeland Security reports that the Mexican cartels’ income from smuggling illegal migrants into America has soared from $500 million in 2018 to $13 billion this year — up 2,500%. If these criminals merged into a corporation, their 2022 gross revenues would rival that of — are you sitting down? — Fox Corporation. Fox News Channel’s parent company earned $12.91 billion in the year ended June 30, 2021, and $13.97 billion 12 months later.
......
Border Patrol agents apprehended 951,568 illegal immigrants during President Donald Trump’s final 19 months in office. In President Biden’s first 19 months, Border Patrol encountered a staggering 3,588,877 illegals — up a sickening 377%.
In Fiscal Year 2020, the last fully under Trump’s control, 69,000 illegal migrants were detected on the “border” but got away into America’s interior. FY 2021 (four months of Trump, eight of Biden) witnessed 389,155 gotaways — up 464%. In FY 2022 (all Biden’s watch), gotaways hit 599,000 — up 54% versus FY 2021 and 768% compared to FY 2020.
At least 266,000 unaccompanied migrant children/minors have been encountered at the southern border since President Biden took office, per CBP data,” Fox News Channel’s priceless southern-frontier correspondent Bill Melugin explained via Twitter on September 26. “That’s enough to fill up approximately three Rose Bowls.”
Fourteen House Republicans wrote Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Sept. 23 to complain that “between October 2021 and July 2022, more than 130,000 Venezuelan nationals were encountered after entering the United States illegally.” The Marxist Nicolás Maduro regime, they added, “is deliberately releasing violent prisoners early, including inmates convicted of ‘murder, rape and extortion,’ and pushing them to join caravans heading to the United States.”
Twelve US senators contacted the US Marshals Service about crooks cascading across the “border.” According to their August 30 letter, “So far in FY22, CBP has apprehended over 9,000 criminal immigrants, including 53 for homicide or manslaughter, 283 for sex crimes and almost 900 for assault, battery and domestic violence.”
.......
Fentanyl killed some 71,000 Americans in 2021, up 23% versus 2020. For those aged 18 to 45, fentanyl leads COVID-19, car wrecks, suicides and every other cause of death.
‘North Korea has already won’: US urged to abandon denuclearisation ‘farce’
The US should admit defeat in its campaign to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons and focus on risk reduction and arms control measures instead, experts have urged.
On Tuesday, North Korea fired a ballistic missile over Japan for the first time since 2017, sparking renewed condemnation from Washington and its allies.
The US and South Korea responded by conducting joint military drills and firing missiles into the Sea of Japan, while the USS Ronald Reagan, an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, conducted a rare U-turn to return to waters east of the Korean peninsula after a recent visit.
But analysts said the military gestures and combative words emanating from Washington, Seoul and Tokyo belied the reality that they have run out of ideas and options for containing North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme.
Experts argued that the US and its allies should focus on agreeing with Pyongyang steps to reduce the risk of a conflict on the Korean peninsula, even if doing so amounted to a tacit acceptance that North Korea would continue to possess nuclear weapons.
“Insistence on denuclearisation is not just a failure, it has turned into a farce,” said Ankit Panda, a nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
“They test, we respond, we move on with our lives,” Panda added. “North Korea has already won. It’s a bitter pill, but at some point we’re going to have to swallow it.”
US and Korean officials insisted that even a tacit acceptance of North Korea’s status as a nuclear-armed state would have dangerous consequences for global non-proliferation efforts.
The US should admit defeat in its campaign to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons and focus on risk reduction and arms control measures instead, experts have urged.
On Tuesday, North Korea fired a ballistic missile over Japan for the first time since 2017, sparking renewed condemnation from Washington and its allies.
The US and South Korea responded by conducting joint military drills and firing missiles into the Sea of Japan, while the USS Ronald Reagan, an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, conducted a rare U-turn to return to waters east of the Korean peninsula after a recent visit.
But analysts said the military gestures and combative words emanating from Washington, Seoul and Tokyo belied the reality that they have run out of ideas and options for containing North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme.
Experts argued that the US and its allies should focus on agreeing with Pyongyang steps to reduce the risk of a conflict on the Korean peninsula, even if doing so amounted to a tacit acceptance that North Korea would continue to possess nuclear weapons.
“Insistence on denuclearisation is not just a failure, it has turned into a farce,” said Ankit Panda, a nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
“They test, we respond, we move on with our lives,” Panda added. “North Korea has already won. It’s a bitter pill, but at some point we’re going to have to swallow it.”
US and Korean officials insisted that even a tacit acceptance of North Korea’s status as a nuclear-armed state would have dangerous consequences for global non-proliferation efforts.
Libby Emmons @libbyemmons
Why is the president of the American Federation of Teachers in Ukraine while our kids' schools are failing?
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1579447190149529600
Sean Davis @seanmdav
The left-wing nutjob personally responsible for banning your children from going to school for two years is LARPing and glamour-shotting her way through Ukraine right now, in case you were still on the fence about whether the ruling regime's elites were utter garbage.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1579481878264164352
Why is the president of the American Federation of Teachers in Ukraine while our kids' schools are failing?
Randi Weingarten @rweingarten
Woke up this am to reports of disgusting Russian missile strikes in Kyiv, Lviv & other cities. Heading to the border now to assess the situation. This Russian attempt to frighten civilians & the effect on children (who are learning online today) is why this UA trip is so important.
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1579447190149529600
Sean Davis @seanmdav
The left-wing nutjob personally responsible for banning your children from going to school for two years is LARPing and glamour-shotting her way through Ukraine right now, in case you were still on the fence about whether the ruling regime's elites were utter garbage.
Randi Weingarten @rweingarten
Woke up this am to reports of disgusting Russian missile strikes in Kyiv, Lviv & other cities. Heading to the border now to assess the situation. This Russian attempt to frighten civilians & the effect on children (who are learning online today) is why this UA trip is so important.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1579481878264164352
Dr S Maitra @MrMaitra:
First time Kiev was struck since Feb. Still unanswered, where’s the missing Russian AF and missile shock and awe. They are quite clearly capable. What’s stopping them? Various theories, none comprehensive.
Sridhar Shelat @SridharShelat Replying to @MrMaitra:
Proliferation of MANPADS plus keeping powder dry for NATO deterrence
Dr S Maitra @MrMaitra Replying to @SridharShelat:
That’s one theory, from RUSI.
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1579461832745811968
First time Kiev was struck since Feb. Still unanswered, where’s the missing Russian AF and missile shock and awe. They are quite clearly capable. What’s stopping them? Various theories, none comprehensive.
AFP News Agency @AFP
VIDEO: President Volodymyr Zelensky says Russia targeted Ukraine's energy infrastructure during strikes on several Ukrainian cities on Monday, including using Iran-made drones.
Sridhar Shelat @SridharShelat Replying to @MrMaitra:
Proliferation of MANPADS plus keeping powder dry for NATO deterrence
Dr S Maitra @MrMaitra Replying to @SridharShelat:
That’s one theory, from RUSI.
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1579461832745811968
Philippe Lemoine @phl43:
At this point I think the conflict is edging towards total war that will only end after hundreds of thousands have died and one or both sides are exhausted with a very high probability. What is fascinating to observe is how war has a solidifying effect.
Slobodan Perović @SlobodanIsFree Replying to @phl43:
Bombing power lines and plants was something that NATO did when escalating attack on Serbia in the second half. Why is this surprising at all? Vietnam had the exact same timeline (just slower) as well.
Philippe Lemoine @phl43 Replying to @SlobodanIsFree:
I'm not surprised in the least, but it's still amazing to see in action the mechanics by which both sides are taking steps that will lead them to an outcome that, before the war, neither would have considered acceptable for the price.
Kosovo is another good example actually because, if the Russians hadn't started pressuring Milosevic and he hadn't caved in the end, NATO would for sure have launched a massive ground invasion, even though if they'd been told before the bombing started that it would come to this
NATO governments would never have started it in the first place. But still once the war had started and Milosevic wouldn't cave, by May, they were fully prepared to do it should it prove necessary because NATO's credibility was on the line. Same kind of insanity.
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1579455137479020545
At this point I think the conflict is edging towards total war that will only end after hundreds of thousands have died and one or both sides are exhausted with a very high probability. What is fascinating to observe is how war has a solidifying effect.
Slobodan Perović @SlobodanIsFree Replying to @phl43:
Bombing power lines and plants was something that NATO did when escalating attack on Serbia in the second half. Why is this surprising at all? Vietnam had the exact same timeline (just slower) as well.
Philippe Lemoine @phl43 Replying to @SlobodanIsFree:
I'm not surprised in the least, but it's still amazing to see in action the mechanics by which both sides are taking steps that will lead them to an outcome that, before the war, neither would have considered acceptable for the price.
Kosovo is another good example actually because, if the Russians hadn't started pressuring Milosevic and he hadn't caved in the end, NATO would for sure have launched a massive ground invasion, even though if they'd been told before the bombing started that it would come to this
NATO governments would never have started it in the first place. But still once the war had started and Milosevic wouldn't cave, by May, they were fully prepared to do it should it prove necessary because NATO's credibility was on the line. Same kind of insanity.
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1579455137479020545
Dr S Maitra @MrMaitra
There’s a great essay to be written on why technological revolution turbocharged social hierarchy and imperialism in late 17th and early 18th century only to be ended by more egalitarianism after a systemic shock of 1914. And what that implies for newer technological revolutions.
Longer term prediction, unless there’s major great power war, both class divisions and Neofeudalism within, and G10 versus the rest outside.
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1579305160618446854
There’s a great essay to be written on why technological revolution turbocharged social hierarchy and imperialism in late 17th and early 18th century only to be ended by more egalitarianism after a systemic shock of 1914. And what that implies for newer technological revolutions.
Wesley Yang @wesyang
The transformation of a key part of the tech and finance stack upon which much of the digital economy relies into a sectarian enforcer of an astro-turfed pseudo-consensus grounded in hysteria and error is profoundly disturbing. They must be made to pay a price.
Longer term prediction, unless there’s major great power war, both class divisions and Neofeudalism within, and G10 versus the rest outside.
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1579305160618446854
Philippe Lemoine @phl43:
The context is that Rumsfeld was criticizing France and Germany because they thought that invading Iraq, a famously brilliant idea that turned out great, was stupid and that the US shouldn't do it without a UNSC mandate, so I wouldn't say that he was *absolutely* right
ChilyVily @RussianTrollCap Replying to @phl43:
Chirac was 100% correct in retrospect. This is very comical
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1579190451667873792
The context is that Rumsfeld was criticizing France and Germany because they thought that invading Iraq, a famously brilliant idea that turned out great, was stupid and that the US shouldn't do it without a UNSC mandate, so I wouldn't say that he was *absolutely* right
Ivana Stradner @ivanastradner
Donald Rumsfeld was absolutely right when he said: “You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. That's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the East. Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem.“
ChilyVily @RussianTrollCap Replying to @phl43:
Chirac was 100% correct in retrospect. This is very comical
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1579190451667873792
Russia realists are the new lockdown sceptics
Less than a year after 9/11, Dick Cheney had a message for Americans: the “old doctrines of security do not apply… Containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction.”
Cheney was referring to Saddam Hussein, but it is not difficult to imagine the current President saying something similar about his Russian counterpart. Just last week, Joe Biden stated that Vladimir Putin was “not joking” about the use of nuclear weapons, warning that “we have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis”. Cheney’s hawkish worldview has been reinvigorated by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This time, however, those advocating restraint — the “realists” — are no longer just opponents, they are now enemies too.
......
Unlike idealists, who emphasise the importance of spreading democracy and human rights abroad, realists believe that countries are guided by self-interest, not abstract values. They eschew the Disneyfied view of the world of the kind recently expressed by President Biden, in which he characterised the escalating Ukrainian conflict as “a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force”.
Such enthusiastic support for Ukraine is a natural symptom of the moral absolutism he displayed during the pandemic. It forgoes rational debate in favour of a moral impulse to be seen to be doing something, even if the costs of those actions are not fully considered. However noble the intention may be, the results are often tragic, as Afghanistan (cost: $2.313 trillion), Iraq ($2.4 trillion), Syria ($1.2 trillion) and Libya ($567 billion) attest. Likewise, the cost of pandemic mitigation is still being calculated, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the economic and social consequences were seriously underestimated.
Yet for all their policy failures, America’s idealist wing appears to have suffered few professional setbacks. Joe Biden’s foreign policy team isn’t all that different from Obama’s; Thomas Friedman, who once boasted in 2003 that “we could have hit Saudi Arabia…We could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq, because we could”, still lunches with the President.
Less than a year after 9/11, Dick Cheney had a message for Americans: the “old doctrines of security do not apply… Containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction.”
Cheney was referring to Saddam Hussein, but it is not difficult to imagine the current President saying something similar about his Russian counterpart. Just last week, Joe Biden stated that Vladimir Putin was “not joking” about the use of nuclear weapons, warning that “we have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis”. Cheney’s hawkish worldview has been reinvigorated by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This time, however, those advocating restraint — the “realists” — are no longer just opponents, they are now enemies too.
......
Unlike idealists, who emphasise the importance of spreading democracy and human rights abroad, realists believe that countries are guided by self-interest, not abstract values. They eschew the Disneyfied view of the world of the kind recently expressed by President Biden, in which he characterised the escalating Ukrainian conflict as “a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force”.
Such enthusiastic support for Ukraine is a natural symptom of the moral absolutism he displayed during the pandemic. It forgoes rational debate in favour of a moral impulse to be seen to be doing something, even if the costs of those actions are not fully considered. However noble the intention may be, the results are often tragic, as Afghanistan (cost: $2.313 trillion), Iraq ($2.4 trillion), Syria ($1.2 trillion) and Libya ($567 billion) attest. Likewise, the cost of pandemic mitigation is still being calculated, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the economic and social consequences were seriously underestimated.
Yet for all their policy failures, America’s idealist wing appears to have suffered few professional setbacks. Joe Biden’s foreign policy team isn’t all that different from Obama’s; Thomas Friedman, who once boasted in 2003 that “we could have hit Saudi Arabia…We could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq, because we could”, still lunches with the President.
Sex and the Academy
...Numerous surveys over the past five years have found large and consistent differences in the preferences and priorities of men and women, and these differences cohere with a broader pattern of evolved traits and tendencies.
A 2017 YouGov survey of 2,300 US adults on issues related to free speech and tolerance on college campuses (weighted to be nationally representative) found that:
- 56 percent of men said that colleges should not protect students from offensive ideas; 64 percent of women said that they should.
- When presented with a variety of controversial claims made by speakers (e.g., men are better at math, all white people are racist, police are justified at stopping African Americans at higher rates), a majority of men supported nine of the 11 speakers’ right to speak on campus, and a majority of women opposed all 11 speakers’ right to do so.
- 51 percent of men said colleges should not disinvite speakers if students threaten violent protest; 67 percent of women said they should.
- 58 percent of men opposed a confidential reporting system at colleges which students could use to report offensive comments; 54 percent of women supported it.
- 63 percent of men thought controversial news stories in student papers should not need administrators’ approval before publication; 51 percent of women thought they should.
- 65 percent of men believed that supporting the right to make an argument is not the same as endorsing it; 51 percent of women disagreed.
......
The overall theme of these differences is that men are more committed than women to the pursuit of truth as the raison d’être of science, while women are more committed to various moral goals, such as equity, inclusion, and the protection of vulnerable groups. Consequently, men are more tolerant of controversial and potentially offensive scientific findings being pursued, disseminated, and discussed, and women are more willing to obstruct or suppress science perceived to be potentially harmful or offensive. Put more simply, men are relatively more interested in advancing what is empirically correct, and women are relatively more interested in advancing what is morally desirable.
...Numerous surveys over the past five years have found large and consistent differences in the preferences and priorities of men and women, and these differences cohere with a broader pattern of evolved traits and tendencies.
A 2017 YouGov survey of 2,300 US adults on issues related to free speech and tolerance on college campuses (weighted to be nationally representative) found that:
- 56 percent of men said that colleges should not protect students from offensive ideas; 64 percent of women said that they should.
- When presented with a variety of controversial claims made by speakers (e.g., men are better at math, all white people are racist, police are justified at stopping African Americans at higher rates), a majority of men supported nine of the 11 speakers’ right to speak on campus, and a majority of women opposed all 11 speakers’ right to do so.
- 51 percent of men said colleges should not disinvite speakers if students threaten violent protest; 67 percent of women said they should.
- 58 percent of men opposed a confidential reporting system at colleges which students could use to report offensive comments; 54 percent of women supported it.
- 63 percent of men thought controversial news stories in student papers should not need administrators’ approval before publication; 51 percent of women thought they should.
- 65 percent of men believed that supporting the right to make an argument is not the same as endorsing it; 51 percent of women disagreed.
......
The overall theme of these differences is that men are more committed than women to the pursuit of truth as the raison d’être of science, while women are more committed to various moral goals, such as equity, inclusion, and the protection of vulnerable groups. Consequently, men are more tolerant of controversial and potentially offensive scientific findings being pursued, disseminated, and discussed, and women are more willing to obstruct or suppress science perceived to be potentially harmful or offensive. Put more simply, men are relatively more interested in advancing what is empirically correct, and women are relatively more interested in advancing what is morally desirable.
>>Libby Emmons @libbyemmon Why is the president of the American Federation of Teachers in Ukraine while our kids' schools are failing?
The best answer so far:
Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacintyre
Why is the head of an American teachers union traveling to Ukraine in the middle of a war?
Because the managerial elite of the liberal world order see themselves as the ruling class of the global empire.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1579465738490105856
Kanwal Sibal @KanwalSibal
Why sh’d Ukraine cease to exist if there’s ceasefire & recourse to dialogue & diplomacy? That may well happen if conflict goes on. How can negotiated settlement create new European security order under Russian auspices? Nato will remain but expansion may end. New equilibrium.
https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1579513222788325378
Why sh’d Ukraine cease to exist if there’s ceasefire & recourse to dialogue & diplomacy? That may well happen if conflict goes on. How can negotiated settlement create new European security order under Russian auspices? Nato will remain but expansion may end. New equilibrium.
Velina Tchakarova @vtchakarova
Ukraine needs air defence systems, other vital weapons systems & a lot of ammunition to sustain the Russian attacks. If Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no Ukraine and then other neighbors will fall victim to Russia’s revisionist plans to build a new European security order.
https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1579513222788325378
IMF, World Bank Warn of Increasing Risk of Global Recession
(Bloomberg) -- The heads of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank warned of a rising risk of a global recession as advanced economies slow and faster inflation forces the Federal Reserve to keep raising interest rates, adding to the debt pressures on developing nations.
In the US, the world’s largest economy, the labor market is still very strong but is losing momentum because the impact of higher borrowing costs is “starting to bite,” IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said Monday. The euro zone is slowing as natural gas prices soar, as is China due to Covid-19 disruptions and volatility in the housing sector.
The IMF calculates that about one-third of the world economy will have at least two consecutive quarters of contraction this year and next, and that the lost output through 2026 will be $4 trillion.
At the same time, policymakers can’t let inflation be a “runaway train,” Georgieva said at a virtual event kicking off the IMF and World Bank’s annual meetings. “If you don’t do enough, we are in trouble.”
(Bloomberg) -- The heads of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank warned of a rising risk of a global recession as advanced economies slow and faster inflation forces the Federal Reserve to keep raising interest rates, adding to the debt pressures on developing nations.
In the US, the world’s largest economy, the labor market is still very strong but is losing momentum because the impact of higher borrowing costs is “starting to bite,” IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said Monday. The euro zone is slowing as natural gas prices soar, as is China due to Covid-19 disruptions and volatility in the housing sector.
The IMF calculates that about one-third of the world economy will have at least two consecutive quarters of contraction this year and next, and that the lost output through 2026 will be $4 trillion.
At the same time, policymakers can’t let inflation be a “runaway train,” Georgieva said at a virtual event kicking off the IMF and World Bank’s annual meetings. “If you don’t do enough, we are in trouble.”
Germany expects recession next year as gas crisis bites - sources
BERLIN (Reuters) -The German government expects Europe's largest economy to slide into recession next year, contracting 0.4% as an energy crisis, rising prices and supply bottlenecks take their toll, two sources told Reuters on Thursday, citing provisional figures.
The government has cut its growth forecast for 2022 to 1.4% from an April projection of 2.2%, the sources added. It had previously forecast growth of 2.5% for 2023.
The government also expects inflation to remain in the high single digits, at a level of 7.9% this year and 8% in 2023, the sources said, though these figures could change slightly depending on the effect of a gas price brake.
The government expects the economy to return to 2.3% growth in 2024, the sources said.
BERLIN (Reuters) -The German government expects Europe's largest economy to slide into recession next year, contracting 0.4% as an energy crisis, rising prices and supply bottlenecks take their toll, two sources told Reuters on Thursday, citing provisional figures.
The government has cut its growth forecast for 2022 to 1.4% from an April projection of 2.2%, the sources added. It had previously forecast growth of 2.5% for 2023.
The government also expects inflation to remain in the high single digits, at a level of 7.9% this year and 8% in 2023, the sources said, though these figures could change slightly depending on the effect of a gas price brake.
The government expects the economy to return to 2.3% growth in 2024, the sources said.
EU open to 'dialogue' with Putin in UN resolution
The EU is calling for "dialogue" with Russia in a draft United Nations resolution to condemn its annexation of Ukrainian territory.
UN countries and international bodies should support ending the war "through political dialogue, negotiation, mediation and other peaceful means" the latest draft text, dated Friday (7 October) and seen by EUobserver, said.
An original draft, dated 4 October, had voiced more vague support for international efforts on "de-escalation".
The new text also cut any explicit mention of Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.
The call for dialogue is controversial after Russian president Vladimir Putin declared in September that he was annexing four more regions in eastern Ukraine.
......
Meanwhile, Ukraine's former ambassador to the EU, Kostiantyn Yelisieiev, told EUobserver that the UN resolution should be more daring in the global battle of narratives.
It should pledge to bring Russian war criminals to justice, condemn Putin's nuclear threats, and initiate talks on suspending Russia's UN membership, he said.
The draft text was "too balanced" and should "call a spade a spade", he added from Kyiv.
The EU is calling for "dialogue" with Russia in a draft United Nations resolution to condemn its annexation of Ukrainian territory.
UN countries and international bodies should support ending the war "through political dialogue, negotiation, mediation and other peaceful means" the latest draft text, dated Friday (7 October) and seen by EUobserver, said.
An original draft, dated 4 October, had voiced more vague support for international efforts on "de-escalation".
The new text also cut any explicit mention of Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.
The call for dialogue is controversial after Russian president Vladimir Putin declared in September that he was annexing four more regions in eastern Ukraine.
......
Meanwhile, Ukraine's former ambassador to the EU, Kostiantyn Yelisieiev, told EUobserver that the UN resolution should be more daring in the global battle of narratives.
It should pledge to bring Russian war criminals to justice, condemn Putin's nuclear threats, and initiate talks on suspending Russia's UN membership, he said.
The draft text was "too balanced" and should "call a spade a spade", he added from Kyiv.
David Bernstein @ProfDBernstein
As noted in Classified, Columbus Day was created after a massacre of Italian immigrants in Louisiana, and became a permanent national holiday thanks to lobbying by Italian Americans who felt excluded from mainstream WASP America.
Perhaps ironically, Italian Americans are now so well integrated that almost no one knows this history, and instead many see the day as an affront to Native Americans because it's about "Columbus."
https://twitter.com/ProfDBernstein/status/1579570028655284224
As noted in Classified, Columbus Day was created after a massacre of Italian immigrants in Louisiana, and became a permanent national holiday thanks to lobbying by Italian Americans who felt excluded from mainstream WASP America.
Perhaps ironically, Italian Americans are now so well integrated that almost no one knows this history, and instead many see the day as an affront to Native Americans because it's about "Columbus."
https://twitter.com/ProfDBernstein/status/1579570028655284224
Wesley Yang @wesyang:
Giving someone a new name, dosing them with cross-sex hormones and slicing up their body is "affirming who they really are"
Working with someone on their mental health so they can become comfortable in their intact body is "conversion therapy" banned in 20 states
If you don't follow the logic, it's because you are a dangerous spreader of misinformation whose speech must be suppressed by the tech oligarchy
Christopher F. Rufo Replying to @wesyang:
The irony is that the former is a much greater "conversion" than the latter.
https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1579560764913831936
Giving someone a new name, dosing them with cross-sex hormones and slicing up their body is "affirming who they really are"
Working with someone on their mental health so they can become comfortable in their intact body is "conversion therapy" banned in 20 states
If you don't follow the logic, it's because you are a dangerous spreader of misinformation whose speech must be suppressed by the tech oligarchy
Christopher F. Rufo Replying to @wesyang:
The irony is that the former is a much greater "conversion" than the latter.
https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1579560764913831936
Christopher F. Rufo @realchrisrufo
University of Minnesota medical students swear an oath to "honor all Indigenous ways of healing that have been historically marginalized by Western medicine" and to fight "white supremacy, colonialism, [and] the gender binary."
They are being inducted in the cult of CRT.
The speaker is Robert Englander and his credentials are impeccable:
–MD, Yale Med School
-MPH, Johns Hopkins
-Residency, Children's National Med Center
-Fellowship, Harvard Med School
And he's suggesting that shamanism and Western science are equally valid medical practices.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1579904917761708034
University of Minnesota medical students swear an oath to "honor all Indigenous ways of healing that have been historically marginalized by Western medicine" and to fight "white supremacy, colonialism, [and] the gender binary."
They are being inducted in the cult of CRT.
The speaker is Robert Englander and his credentials are impeccable:
–MD, Yale Med School
-MPH, Johns Hopkins
-Residency, Children's National Med Center
-Fellowship, Harvard Med School
And he's suggesting that shamanism and Western science are equally valid medical practices.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1579904917761708034
The coming transatlantic rift over Ukraine
...A growing chorus of leading figures began to ask: if the rich Europeans are not going to adequately fund a war on the European continent, why should America do it?
The bill still passed and – for now – only a minority of Republicans are taking this view. But, in private, administration officials doubt they will be able to pass big aid packages for Ukraine after the midterm elections. In their view, Congress has grown wary of the enormous sums required to sustain the Ukraine war, particularly given the various domestic priorities and the looming threat of China. President Vladimir Putin’s partial mobilisation of reservists means that the war will not end quickly. Administration officials expect budget-conscious Republicans to increasingly demand that Europe step up – and to point to Europeans’ inaction as a failure of Biden administration diplomacy. Even some anti-interventionist Democrats may join them.
One can see their point. The US has already pledged $44 billion in bilateral aid to Ukraine and the administration just asked Congress to approve another $13.7 billion. These are large figures even by Washington standards. Meanwhile, the combined contributions of the United Kingdom, the EU, and all 27 EU member states totals only $33 billion. In the key area of military aid, the gap is even wider: the US has pledged $24 billion, the Europeans only $12 billion. The actual difference may be greater, as key European donors have reportedly been slow to deliver on their pledges.
All this means that the current trickle of “blame Europe” arguments may turn into a torrent if the Republicans take control of Congress in November. The advantage of such claims is that they would allow newly empowered Congressional critics to oppose Biden’s policy without having to appear soft on Russia.
...A growing chorus of leading figures began to ask: if the rich Europeans are not going to adequately fund a war on the European continent, why should America do it?
The bill still passed and – for now – only a minority of Republicans are taking this view. But, in private, administration officials doubt they will be able to pass big aid packages for Ukraine after the midterm elections. In their view, Congress has grown wary of the enormous sums required to sustain the Ukraine war, particularly given the various domestic priorities and the looming threat of China. President Vladimir Putin’s partial mobilisation of reservists means that the war will not end quickly. Administration officials expect budget-conscious Republicans to increasingly demand that Europe step up – and to point to Europeans’ inaction as a failure of Biden administration diplomacy. Even some anti-interventionist Democrats may join them.
One can see their point. The US has already pledged $44 billion in bilateral aid to Ukraine and the administration just asked Congress to approve another $13.7 billion. These are large figures even by Washington standards. Meanwhile, the combined contributions of the United Kingdom, the EU, and all 27 EU member states totals only $33 billion. In the key area of military aid, the gap is even wider: the US has pledged $24 billion, the Europeans only $12 billion. The actual difference may be greater, as key European donors have reportedly been slow to deliver on their pledges.
All this means that the current trickle of “blame Europe” arguments may turn into a torrent if the Republicans take control of Congress in November. The advantage of such claims is that they would allow newly empowered Congressional critics to oppose Biden’s policy without having to appear soft on Russia.
What Elon Musk Gets Right on Ukraine
...Ever since the war started, Ukrainians were given the impression that they are the West, that their struggle to the fullest extent is Western struggle, that they are quite simply a non-taxed state of the United States or a member of the European Union, that their bloodshed and war aims are ours, that they can expect every escalation and demand to be met, unconditionally. In the name of that cause, they were given a practically unlimited supply of weapons and material and money. Their government and budget are practically run by U.S. taxpayers, even during a time of high inflation, with billions of dollars printed in foreign aid. It is quite understandable, therefore, that they suddenly feel betrayed as the West’s war aims change in contrast to their own. Elite opinions in the West have started to shift, both in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times. U.S. intelligence has leaked stories about Ukrainian war aims and secret attacks inside Moscow. Videos of Zelenskyy demanding preemptive nuclear strikes on Russia which will lead to a full-on nuclear exchange between the Washington and Moscow are all over the internet.
The interesting implication to ponder is what those egging for a nuclear war and unlimited support for Ukraine feel about the increasing reticence of Western taxpayers, who have thus far supported Ukraine, even during high inflation, even at the cost of their own declining living standards, often without a choice or voice to back out, but are now having some doubts. If Musk, a man who did so much for Ukraine, can suffer a reputational loss for taking a rare realist position of sanity, what are the chances for the normal taxpayers during a world war hysteria?
...Ever since the war started, Ukrainians were given the impression that they are the West, that their struggle to the fullest extent is Western struggle, that they are quite simply a non-taxed state of the United States or a member of the European Union, that their bloodshed and war aims are ours, that they can expect every escalation and demand to be met, unconditionally. In the name of that cause, they were given a practically unlimited supply of weapons and material and money. Their government and budget are practically run by U.S. taxpayers, even during a time of high inflation, with billions of dollars printed in foreign aid. It is quite understandable, therefore, that they suddenly feel betrayed as the West’s war aims change in contrast to their own. Elite opinions in the West have started to shift, both in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times. U.S. intelligence has leaked stories about Ukrainian war aims and secret attacks inside Moscow. Videos of Zelenskyy demanding preemptive nuclear strikes on Russia which will lead to a full-on nuclear exchange between the Washington and Moscow are all over the internet.
The interesting implication to ponder is what those egging for a nuclear war and unlimited support for Ukraine feel about the increasing reticence of Western taxpayers, who have thus far supported Ukraine, even during high inflation, even at the cost of their own declining living standards, often without a choice or voice to back out, but are now having some doubts. If Musk, a man who did so much for Ukraine, can suffer a reputational loss for taking a rare realist position of sanity, what are the chances for the normal taxpayers during a world war hysteria?
The blunt scientific truth about transgender women’s athletic ability
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- In a new study, researchers at the University of São Paulo assessed the strength and aerobic ability of transgender women undergoing long-term hormone therapy as well as those of cisgender men and women matched by age and physical activity levels.
- The researchers found that transgender women had about 40% greater muscle mass than cisgender women. Moreover, they were about 19% stronger and had 20% greater cardiopulmonary capacity.
- By current NCAA and Olympic rules, these women are allowed to compete in women's sporting events.
......
“Long-term estrogen exposure and testosterone suppression were not enough to completely shift the body composition of transgender women to the female pattern, despite their direct and indirect effects on fat and lean mass,” the researchers wrote.
The research is undeniably limited by a small sample size. It also didn’t look at high school or even college-aged students, about whom much of the societal debate over transgender women’s participation in sports takes place. Moreover, all the transgender women transitioned after age 12, so likely experienced at least some puberty, when a lot of sexual development occurs. (Hormonal transition is generally not recommended until at least one’s mid-teens.) Lastly, while the participants tended to be quite physically active, none were technically athletes.
Still, the research does show that even transgender women undergoing long-term hormone therapy, with testosterone levels comparable to cisgender women, likely have a significant advantage in raw physical ability over women born biologically female. By current NCAA and Olympic rules, these women are allowed to compete in women’s sporting events.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- In a new study, researchers at the University of São Paulo assessed the strength and aerobic ability of transgender women undergoing long-term hormone therapy as well as those of cisgender men and women matched by age and physical activity levels.
- The researchers found that transgender women had about 40% greater muscle mass than cisgender women. Moreover, they were about 19% stronger and had 20% greater cardiopulmonary capacity.
- By current NCAA and Olympic rules, these women are allowed to compete in women's sporting events.
......
“Long-term estrogen exposure and testosterone suppression were not enough to completely shift the body composition of transgender women to the female pattern, despite their direct and indirect effects on fat and lean mass,” the researchers wrote.
The research is undeniably limited by a small sample size. It also didn’t look at high school or even college-aged students, about whom much of the societal debate over transgender women’s participation in sports takes place. Moreover, all the transgender women transitioned after age 12, so likely experienced at least some puberty, when a lot of sexual development occurs. (Hormonal transition is generally not recommended until at least one’s mid-teens.) Lastly, while the participants tended to be quite physically active, none were technically athletes.
Still, the research does show that even transgender women undergoing long-term hormone therapy, with testosterone levels comparable to cisgender women, likely have a significant advantage in raw physical ability over women born biologically female. By current NCAA and Olympic rules, these women are allowed to compete in women’s sporting events.
Biden scrambles to avert cracks in pro-Ukraine coalition
...Even as Biden scrambles to hold together his global coalition, cracks are showing in political support at home for the billions in aid the United States is sending Ukraine. Those fissures are likely to widen significantly if Republicans recapture the House on Nov. 8.
A Pew Research poll shows that the share of Americans who are extremely or very concerned about a Ukrainian defeat fell from 55 percent in May to 38 percent in September. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 32 percent say the United States is providing too much support for the war — up from 9 percent in March.
......
Early in the war, Zelensky called repeatedly and publicly on the United States and other Western countries to do more — to send additional weapons and impose harsher sanctions on Russia — even as Biden and Congress were already sending unprecedented amounts of aid and advanced weapons to Kyiv.
Biden understood as a fellow politician that Zelensky had to advocate forcefully for his people, but he also told the Ukrainian leader privately that it would be hard for him to keep asking Congress for money if Zelensky appeared ungrateful and kept saying it was not enough, according to a former White House official.
Still, when asked how long the United States can be expected to pour billions into the war effort, Biden and his top aides frequently say: “As long as it takes.”
Privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table. They say they do not know what the end of the war looks like, or how it might end or when, insisting that is up to Kyiv.
...Even as Biden scrambles to hold together his global coalition, cracks are showing in political support at home for the billions in aid the United States is sending Ukraine. Those fissures are likely to widen significantly if Republicans recapture the House on Nov. 8.
A Pew Research poll shows that the share of Americans who are extremely or very concerned about a Ukrainian defeat fell from 55 percent in May to 38 percent in September. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 32 percent say the United States is providing too much support for the war — up from 9 percent in March.
......
Early in the war, Zelensky called repeatedly and publicly on the United States and other Western countries to do more — to send additional weapons and impose harsher sanctions on Russia — even as Biden and Congress were already sending unprecedented amounts of aid and advanced weapons to Kyiv.
Biden understood as a fellow politician that Zelensky had to advocate forcefully for his people, but he also told the Ukrainian leader privately that it would be hard for him to keep asking Congress for money if Zelensky appeared ungrateful and kept saying it was not enough, according to a former White House official.
Still, when asked how long the United States can be expected to pour billions into the war effort, Biden and his top aides frequently say: “As long as it takes.”
Privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table. They say they do not know what the end of the war looks like, or how it might end or when, insisting that is up to Kyiv.
Scholz to Visit China Next Month Amid Unease Over Russian Ties
...Speaking at a business conference in Berlin, Scholz defended his nuanced approach on China. “Globalization has been a success story that enabled prosperity for many people. We must defend it,” Scholz said. “Decoupling is the wrong answer.”
The chancellor added that his government was aiming to diversify business ties. “We don’t have to decouple from some countries,” he said. “I say emphatically we must continue to do business with China. But we also have to ensure that we trade with the rest of the world, look at the rest of Asia, Africa, South America - that’s the opportunity.”
European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis told the conference Brussels shared the view that decoupling from China is not an option for European companies. “Our trading relationship needs more balance and reciprocity,” Dombrovskis said, calling China an important growth market and supplier of affordable components.
“I would therefore argue that the focus should be on diversification and better risk management. In parallel, the EU should continue engaging with China with pragmatism and without naivety,” Dombrovskis said.
...Speaking at a business conference in Berlin, Scholz defended his nuanced approach on China. “Globalization has been a success story that enabled prosperity for many people. We must defend it,” Scholz said. “Decoupling is the wrong answer.”
The chancellor added that his government was aiming to diversify business ties. “We don’t have to decouple from some countries,” he said. “I say emphatically we must continue to do business with China. But we also have to ensure that we trade with the rest of the world, look at the rest of Asia, Africa, South America - that’s the opportunity.”
European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis told the conference Brussels shared the view that decoupling from China is not an option for European companies. “Our trading relationship needs more balance and reciprocity,” Dombrovskis said, calling China an important growth market and supplier of affordable components.
“I would therefore argue that the focus should be on diversification and better risk management. In parallel, the EU should continue engaging with China with pragmatism and without naivety,” Dombrovskis said.
Pfizer did not know whether Covid vaccine stopped transmission before rollout, executive admits
A senior Pfizer executive has admitted that the drug company did not know whether its Covid vaccine prevented transmission of the virus when it began rolling out the shots globally.
Janine Small, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, was testifying before the European Union Parliament on Monday when she was asked the question by Dutch MEP Rob Roos.
“Was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?” Mr Roos asked.
“If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I’m looking forward to it.”
Ms Small — appearing in the place of Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla, who had been called to testify but pulled out of the hearing earlier this month — replied that the company had to “move at the speed of science”.
“Regarding the question around, um, did we know about stopping the immunisation [sic] before it entered the market? No, heh,” she said.
“Uh, these, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market, and from that point of view we had to do everything at risk. I think Dr Bourla, even though he’s not here, would turn around and say to you himself, ‘If not us then who?’”
Ms Small said Dr Bourla “actually felt the importance of what was going on in the world, and therefore as a result of that, we actually, um, spent $US2 billion, at risk, of self-funded money from Pfizer, to be able to research, develop and manufacture at risk, to be able to make sure that we were in a position to be able to help with the pandemic”.
Mr Roos shared a brief clip of Ms Small’s response on Twitter, describing the answer as “scandalous”.
A senior Pfizer executive has admitted that the drug company did not know whether its Covid vaccine prevented transmission of the virus when it began rolling out the shots globally.
Janine Small, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, was testifying before the European Union Parliament on Monday when she was asked the question by Dutch MEP Rob Roos.
“Was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?” Mr Roos asked.
“If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I’m looking forward to it.”
Ms Small — appearing in the place of Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla, who had been called to testify but pulled out of the hearing earlier this month — replied that the company had to “move at the speed of science”.
“Regarding the question around, um, did we know about stopping the immunisation [sic] before it entered the market? No, heh,” she said.
“Uh, these, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market, and from that point of view we had to do everything at risk. I think Dr Bourla, even though he’s not here, would turn around and say to you himself, ‘If not us then who?’”
Ms Small said Dr Bourla “actually felt the importance of what was going on in the world, and therefore as a result of that, we actually, um, spent $US2 billion, at risk, of self-funded money from Pfizer, to be able to research, develop and manufacture at risk, to be able to make sure that we were in a position to be able to help with the pandemic”.
Mr Roos shared a brief clip of Ms Small’s response on Twitter, describing the answer as “scandalous”.
Biden-Harris Administrations National Security Strategy
Stephen Wertheim @stephenwertheim
Some prior National Security Strategies have opened by delineating U.S. interests and threats to those interests. The new one does not and instead posits “the international order,” which is never really defined, as the fundamental thing to be defended and strengthened.
It is therefore hard to follow how the NSS reaches its conclusions and proposes to assess future policy. How are we to know, five years hence, if the United States is “out-competing our strategic competitors” to “shape the international order”?
https://twitter.com/stephenwertheim/status/1580372811834478592
Stephen Wertheim @stephenwertheim
Some prior National Security Strategies have opened by delineating U.S. interests and threats to those interests. The new one does not and instead posits “the international order,” which is never really defined, as the fundamental thing to be defended and strengthened.
It is therefore hard to follow how the NSS reaches its conclusions and proposes to assess future policy. How are we to know, five years hence, if the United States is “out-competing our strategic competitors” to “shape the international order”?
https://twitter.com/stephenwertheim/status/1580372811834478592
Emma Ashford @EmmaMAshford
I would characterize this NSS as the “lean-in” of national security strategies. Or perhaps the “have-it-all” NSS.
What do I mean by that? The NSS implicitly accepts that it is possible for the US to do everything it always has, and more, if it just tries harder & smarter. 1/x
......
The NSS wants to have it all: competition with China, containment of Russia, building global coalitions on climate change, and pandemics; shared democracy as a unifying principle and democracy promotion while continuing to work with autocracies... 5/x
...a diplomacy first approach while maintaining global military primacy; using trade as a core component of foreign policy while rejecting new trade agreements that don’t ‘level the playing field;’ building on existing alliances while establishing new ones. 6/x
It dismisses the notion that there is any domestic cost to America’s efforts abroad, and – aside from one throwaway line about Europe stepping up alongside the United States – doesn’t talk about burden-sharing or burden-shifting. 7/x
It adds new regions where the U.S. needs to compete (the arctic!) and offers face-saving statements about avoiding “military-centric policies” in the Middle East before promising to strengthen regional deterrence. 8/x
In short, the NSS has all the flaws folks have already pointed out about Biden’s foreign policy: it acknowledges that we live in an increasingly multipolar world, accepts that there are limitations to U.S. power, and then… doesn’t change policy in response. 9/x
To me, the most telling problem here is that this is still a fundamentally world-shaping agenda, not a national-security one. It emphasizes the protection of a “liberal, rules-based order," & commits the US to “support every country in exercising the freedom to make choices.”10/x
The NSS was rewritten after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and yet it reflects almost none of the constraints that that conflict have highlighted for U.S. policy. The US has had difficult creating a global (as opposed to a “Western”) coalition because interests diverge! 11/x
There are limits to U.S. support to Ukraine because of the risks of broader war; there are limits to how much the US can achieve every country's desires. And the institutions of the liberal order have been shown to be often irrelevant in the biggest crisis in a decade. 12/x
This NSS does have one big change: it explicitly repudiates regime change. Perhaps the most important sentence in the entire document is this one: “we do not believe that governments must be remade in the American image in order for us to be secure.” 13/x
But the document is otherwise a restatement of the status quo, a call for the US to resist the temptation to moderate its goals & instead lean in. Constraints are always going to exist, and this document doesn't do enough to reckon with the limits of US power. 14/x
Ultimately, the NSS leaves a big question unanswered: in an era of relative declining U.S. power, how is the United States supposed to achieve the things that eluded it even during the unipolar moment? 15/x
https://twitter.com/EmmaMAshford/status/1580302304003362817
I would characterize this NSS as the “lean-in” of national security strategies. Or perhaps the “have-it-all” NSS.
What do I mean by that? The NSS implicitly accepts that it is possible for the US to do everything it always has, and more, if it just tries harder & smarter. 1/x
......
The NSS wants to have it all: competition with China, containment of Russia, building global coalitions on climate change, and pandemics; shared democracy as a unifying principle and democracy promotion while continuing to work with autocracies... 5/x
...a diplomacy first approach while maintaining global military primacy; using trade as a core component of foreign policy while rejecting new trade agreements that don’t ‘level the playing field;’ building on existing alliances while establishing new ones. 6/x
It dismisses the notion that there is any domestic cost to America’s efforts abroad, and – aside from one throwaway line about Europe stepping up alongside the United States – doesn’t talk about burden-sharing or burden-shifting. 7/x
It adds new regions where the U.S. needs to compete (the arctic!) and offers face-saving statements about avoiding “military-centric policies” in the Middle East before promising to strengthen regional deterrence. 8/x
In short, the NSS has all the flaws folks have already pointed out about Biden’s foreign policy: it acknowledges that we live in an increasingly multipolar world, accepts that there are limitations to U.S. power, and then… doesn’t change policy in response. 9/x
To me, the most telling problem here is that this is still a fundamentally world-shaping agenda, not a national-security one. It emphasizes the protection of a “liberal, rules-based order," & commits the US to “support every country in exercising the freedom to make choices.”10/x
The NSS was rewritten after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and yet it reflects almost none of the constraints that that conflict have highlighted for U.S. policy. The US has had difficult creating a global (as opposed to a “Western”) coalition because interests diverge! 11/x
There are limits to U.S. support to Ukraine because of the risks of broader war; there are limits to how much the US can achieve every country's desires. And the institutions of the liberal order have been shown to be often irrelevant in the biggest crisis in a decade. 12/x
This NSS does have one big change: it explicitly repudiates regime change. Perhaps the most important sentence in the entire document is this one: “we do not believe that governments must be remade in the American image in order for us to be secure.” 13/x
But the document is otherwise a restatement of the status quo, a call for the US to resist the temptation to moderate its goals & instead lean in. Constraints are always going to exist, and this document doesn't do enough to reckon with the limits of US power. 14/x
Ultimately, the NSS leaves a big question unanswered: in an era of relative declining U.S. power, how is the United States supposed to achieve the things that eluded it even during the unipolar moment? 15/x
https://twitter.com/EmmaMAshford/status/1580302304003362817
Michael Cohen @speechboy71
The thing I find strange about this argument is that it's weirdly ahistorical. During the Cold War, the US frequently made policy decisions and compromises based on fears of nuclear conflict. None of them had the effects described here
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK made specific concessions to Khrushchev re: US nukes in Turkey in order to defuse the crisis. We avoided escalatory measures in Vietnam (and I suppose also Korea) for fear that it might lead to Soviet intervention.
... during the Yom Kippur War, we pressured our allies, Israel, to cut off their military counter-offensive in order to prevent a possible Soviet intervention.
We didn't directly intervene on behalf of Hungary in 1956 for fear that it could lead to escalation. That decision was made frequently during the Cold War, in response to Soviet military adventeurism.
Maybe I'm forgetting, but I'm not aware that any of these moves encouraged more nuclear proliferation or increased the potential for nuclear war. Indeed, the Cuban Missile Crisis produced the opposite effect -- an embrace of arms control measures.
https://twitter.com/speechboy71/status/1581014094886289408
The thing I find strange about this argument is that it's weirdly ahistorical. During the Cold War, the US frequently made policy decisions and compromises based on fears of nuclear conflict. None of them had the effects described here
Timothy Snyder @TimothyDSnyder
All of you who are saying that we have to give in to nuclear blackmail are making nuclear war more likely. Please stop. When you give in to it, you empower dictators to do it again, encourage worldwide nuclear proliferation, and make nuclear war much, much more likely.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK made specific concessions to Khrushchev re: US nukes in Turkey in order to defuse the crisis. We avoided escalatory measures in Vietnam (and I suppose also Korea) for fear that it might lead to Soviet intervention.
... during the Yom Kippur War, we pressured our allies, Israel, to cut off their military counter-offensive in order to prevent a possible Soviet intervention.
We didn't directly intervene on behalf of Hungary in 1956 for fear that it could lead to escalation. That decision was made frequently during the Cold War, in response to Soviet military adventeurism.
Maybe I'm forgetting, but I'm not aware that any of these moves encouraged more nuclear proliferation or increased the potential for nuclear war. Indeed, the Cuban Missile Crisis produced the opposite effect -- an embrace of arms control measures.
https://twitter.com/speechboy71/status/1581014094886289408
Will Vladimir Putin use a nuclear weapon?
...Nobody knows what’s going on inside Putin’s head. Conventional wisdom and common sense strongly suggest that a nuclear attack on Ukraine, whether against Ukrainian troop concentrations or conducted as a symbolic show of force in an open area, would be a highly costly affair for Putin. India and China, the two countries that have bailed Moscow out with gargantuan purchases of Russian crude oil (albeit at a hefty discount), wouldn’t take too kindly to a nuclear event. The notion that Putin could turn around a flailing war effort in Ukraine by going nuclear is also dubious.
Still, contrary to pre-war presumptions, it turns out that Putin is anything but a Svengali. Instead, he’s a mere mortal prone to making big mistakes that backfire badly for Russia. Putin's poor decision-making seems also to find foundation in the fact that he is generally surrounded by yes men who fear giving him information he doesn’t want to hear. Alongside his unwillingness to budge on policy one iota (Russia’s stated policy remains regime change in Kyiv), we need to take Putin's nuclear threats seriously.
......
The American problem: The two planks of U.S. policy in Ukraine — ensuring a Russian defeat and minimizing the prospects of a direct confrontation with Moscow — are increasingly incompatible. The more success Ukraine has on the battlefield, the more likely Putin is to respond with escalation. No U.S. policymaker, academic, or analyst has come up with a convincing way to thread this finest of needles.
...Nobody knows what’s going on inside Putin’s head. Conventional wisdom and common sense strongly suggest that a nuclear attack on Ukraine, whether against Ukrainian troop concentrations or conducted as a symbolic show of force in an open area, would be a highly costly affair for Putin. India and China, the two countries that have bailed Moscow out with gargantuan purchases of Russian crude oil (albeit at a hefty discount), wouldn’t take too kindly to a nuclear event. The notion that Putin could turn around a flailing war effort in Ukraine by going nuclear is also dubious.
Still, contrary to pre-war presumptions, it turns out that Putin is anything but a Svengali. Instead, he’s a mere mortal prone to making big mistakes that backfire badly for Russia. Putin's poor decision-making seems also to find foundation in the fact that he is generally surrounded by yes men who fear giving him information he doesn’t want to hear. Alongside his unwillingness to budge on policy one iota (Russia’s stated policy remains regime change in Kyiv), we need to take Putin's nuclear threats seriously.
......
The American problem: The two planks of U.S. policy in Ukraine — ensuring a Russian defeat and minimizing the prospects of a direct confrontation with Moscow — are increasingly incompatible. The more success Ukraine has on the battlefield, the more likely Putin is to respond with escalation. No U.S. policymaker, academic, or analyst has come up with a convincing way to thread this finest of needles.
West makes plans to avoid panic if Russia uses nuclear bomb in Ukraine
...Hints of the thinking emerged in a briefing by an official on Friday, who was asked if there would be measures in place to prevent panic buying or people fleeing cities en masse in fear of escalation after a nuclear event.
Governments were engaged in “prudent planning for a range of possible scenarios” said the western official, who was speaking on condition of anonymity, although they stressed that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia in the war would be abhorrent.
......
As Moscow has suffered reverses on the battlefield in Ukraine since September, Vladimir Putin has ratcheted up the nuclear rhetoric, saying last month that he would use “all available means” to defend Russian territory.
The western official said the Russian president’s comments about nuclear use were “deeply irresponsible” and no other country was talking about nuclear weapons. “We do not see this as a nuclear crisis,” they said.
Echoing comments made by the US, the official said: “Any use of nuclear weapons would break a taboo that has held since 1945” which would “lead to severe consequences for Russia, as well as for everybody else”.
Towards the end of last month, Jake Sullivan, the US national security adviser, said there would be “catastrophic consequences” for Moscow if it sought to deploy a tactical nuclear weapon, which can have the power of six or seven Hiroshima blasts.
The west does not want to spell out how it might respond, to preserve a deliberate ambiguity – and on Friday the official would not be drawn on what nuclear armed countries might do. But the expectation is that to avoid rapid escalation any initial response would be non-nuclear.
On Thursday, Emmanuel Macron broke ranks and said he would not order a like-for-like retaliation if there was a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine. The French president said the country’s fundamental interests “wouldn’t be directly affected at all if, for example, there was a ballistic nuclear attack in Ukraine, in the region”.
...Hints of the thinking emerged in a briefing by an official on Friday, who was asked if there would be measures in place to prevent panic buying or people fleeing cities en masse in fear of escalation after a nuclear event.
Governments were engaged in “prudent planning for a range of possible scenarios” said the western official, who was speaking on condition of anonymity, although they stressed that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia in the war would be abhorrent.
......
As Moscow has suffered reverses on the battlefield in Ukraine since September, Vladimir Putin has ratcheted up the nuclear rhetoric, saying last month that he would use “all available means” to defend Russian territory.
The western official said the Russian president’s comments about nuclear use were “deeply irresponsible” and no other country was talking about nuclear weapons. “We do not see this as a nuclear crisis,” they said.
Echoing comments made by the US, the official said: “Any use of nuclear weapons would break a taboo that has held since 1945” which would “lead to severe consequences for Russia, as well as for everybody else”.
Towards the end of last month, Jake Sullivan, the US national security adviser, said there would be “catastrophic consequences” for Moscow if it sought to deploy a tactical nuclear weapon, which can have the power of six or seven Hiroshima blasts.
The west does not want to spell out how it might respond, to preserve a deliberate ambiguity – and on Friday the official would not be drawn on what nuclear armed countries might do. But the expectation is that to avoid rapid escalation any initial response would be non-nuclear.
On Thursday, Emmanuel Macron broke ranks and said he would not order a like-for-like retaliation if there was a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine. The French president said the country’s fundamental interests “wouldn’t be directly affected at all if, for example, there was a ballistic nuclear attack in Ukraine, in the region”.
Rachel Bovard @rachelbovard
So JP Morgan de-banked the National Committee for Religious Freedom for inexplicable reasons but then said they’d let them back in if they SHARED THEIR DONOR LIST.
It should go without saying that the political right cannot say “the market will solve it” when the tools required to access and compete in the market are being limited over ideology.
Are big banks chasing away religious organizations?
The answer cannot be for conservatives to ghettoize themselves in small banks with limited depository, investment, and lending services because the major institutions have denied them access for voting for the wrong people or saying the wrong thing about vaccines.
https://twitter.com/rachelbovard/status/1580616562611875840
So JP Morgan de-banked the National Committee for Religious Freedom for inexplicable reasons but then said they’d let them back in if they SHARED THEIR DONOR LIST.
It should go without saying that the political right cannot say “the market will solve it” when the tools required to access and compete in the market are being limited over ideology.
Are big banks chasing away religious organizations?
The answer cannot be for conservatives to ghettoize themselves in small banks with limited depository, investment, and lending services because the major institutions have denied them access for voting for the wrong people or saying the wrong thing about vaccines.
https://twitter.com/rachelbovard/status/1580616562611875840
Rachel Bovard @rachelbovard
I think this is true as a rhetorical matter. But I'm curious if it will actually work out in practice in a GOP majority.
The GOP will never (& shouldn't be) anti-business. But they absolutely should de-prioritize the concerns of multinationals. Stop running defense for the world's biggest corps. Let the big banks beg Liz Warren for a bailout. And the tech companies should fend for themselves.
In practice this will look like putting their backs into something other than tax extenders or indexing capital gains to inflation. Try implementing pro-family tax policy, worker friendly immigration policy, defunding the abortion industry, wrestling tech to the ground, etc.
https://twitter.com/rachelbovard/status/1580198965969944576
I think this is true as a rhetorical matter. But I'm curious if it will actually work out in practice in a GOP majority.
Zaid Jilani @ZaidJilani
"The main issue is that a majority of the caucus will have been here less than six years and are all 'MAGA,'....They will definitely not be as reliable on corporate issues as past Republican caucuses"
GOP's political alliance with corporate America on the rocks
The GOP will never (& shouldn't be) anti-business. But they absolutely should de-prioritize the concerns of multinationals. Stop running defense for the world's biggest corps. Let the big banks beg Liz Warren for a bailout. And the tech companies should fend for themselves.
In practice this will look like putting their backs into something other than tax extenders or indexing capital gains to inflation. Try implementing pro-family tax policy, worker friendly immigration policy, defunding the abortion industry, wrestling tech to the ground, etc.
https://twitter.com/rachelbovard/status/1580198965969944576
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
And get a recession anyways.
With few exceptions, Europeans will not enact structural reforms, which are the real problem
Labor markets, pension systems, education, energy - nothing is sustainable in its current form, but neither right nor left wing governments dare to touch it
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1581294491251576832
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
Whatever one thinks of these measures, will the US be capable of simultaneously managing bad (Russia), downward spiraling (China), and deteriorating (Saudi Arabia) international relations while being hampered domestically by inflation and an unwillingness to produce more energy?
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1581230995109728258
And get a recession anyways.
With few exceptions, Europeans will not enact structural reforms, which are the real problem
Labor markets, pension systems, education, energy - nothing is sustainable in its current form, but neither right nor left wing governments dare to touch it
Live Monitor @amlivemon
Europeans aren’t serious about rate hikes
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1581294491251576832
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
Whatever one thinks of these measures, will the US be capable of simultaneously managing bad (Russia), downward spiraling (China), and deteriorating (Saudi Arabia) international relations while being hampered domestically by inflation and an unwillingness to produce more energy?
Jordan Schneider @jordanschnyc
The following is the translation of a thread posted earlier this week by @lidangzzz.
"Lots of people don’t know what happened yesterday.
To put it simply, Biden has forced all Americans working in China to pick between quitting their jobs and losing American citizenship.
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1581230995109728258
Daniel DePetris @DanDePetris
So, @ArmsControlWonk has gotten some grief for his @nytopinion piece suggesting the U.S. needs to learn to live a nuclear-armed North Korea. But nobody has come up with a better idea, one that would actually work to solve what is an unsolvable problem.
It’s Time to Accept That North Korea Has Nuclear Weapons
U.S. policy on the North has been based on denuclearization for so long that folks seem incapable of thinking outside the box or accepting the reality of the situation. You don’t need to be an expert on the region to know that nukes are the treasures sword of the Kim dynasty.
The Kim regime doesn’t trust anybody, not even China (it’s so-called “ally”) to defend it. Security guarantees mean little for North Korea, a country that is by far the weakest in East Asia and surrounded by neighbors bigger, richer, and more militarily powerful than itself.
Ever since the Clinton years, the U.S. has alternated between negotiations and pressure, oftentimes combining the two in an attempt to find the magic formula. For a variety of reasons, none of it has worked (plenty of blame to go around, but John Bolton takes the crown).
Today, Kim possesses at least 30 nuclear warheads, an array of missiles, and a more diverse set of delivery systems to mount them on. They’re working on a second strike capability. Nukes are meant to make up for the North’s shoddy conventional weapons. They aren’t going anywhere.
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1581281920910266368
So, @ArmsControlWonk has gotten some grief for his @nytopinion piece suggesting the U.S. needs to learn to live a nuclear-armed North Korea. But nobody has come up with a better idea, one that would actually work to solve what is an unsolvable problem.
It’s Time to Accept That North Korea Has Nuclear Weapons
U.S. policy on the North has been based on denuclearization for so long that folks seem incapable of thinking outside the box or accepting the reality of the situation. You don’t need to be an expert on the region to know that nukes are the treasures sword of the Kim dynasty.
The Kim regime doesn’t trust anybody, not even China (it’s so-called “ally”) to defend it. Security guarantees mean little for North Korea, a country that is by far the weakest in East Asia and surrounded by neighbors bigger, richer, and more militarily powerful than itself.
Ever since the Clinton years, the U.S. has alternated between negotiations and pressure, oftentimes combining the two in an attempt to find the magic formula. For a variety of reasons, none of it has worked (plenty of blame to go around, but John Bolton takes the crown).
Today, Kim possesses at least 30 nuclear warheads, an array of missiles, and a more diverse set of delivery systems to mount them on. They’re working on a second strike capability. Nukes are meant to make up for the North’s shoddy conventional weapons. They aren’t going anywhere.
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1581281920910266368
Patrick Porter @PatPorter76
This point is worth some worry. Tradeoff: avoiding ruthless measures (like chip ban/export controls) leaves China better positioned long term versus status quo US. Applying such measures leaves China less competitive but more desperate & more belligerent. A crisis initiated?
https://twitter.com/PatPorter76/status/1581358959599894528
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
We have a strong interest in denying China's ability to coerce us or otherwise threaten U.S. vital interests.
Where we can achieve this goal by growing our own power, then great.
Where we can only (or best) achieve it by weakening PRC, then it seems better to do so than... 1/
...hold off for fear of exacerbating a security dilemma or similar dynamics with Beijing.
This course may seem less risky. But it's only logical conclusion is China growing more powerful in ways that seriously threaten our econ and national security, which we cannot allow. 2/2
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1581368553696919554
This point is worth some worry. Tradeoff: avoiding ruthless measures (like chip ban/export controls) leaves China better positioned long term versus status quo US. Applying such measures leaves China less competitive but more desperate & more belligerent. A crisis initiated?
T. Greer @Scholars_Stage
A China that thinks time is on its side, that American decline is not just eventually inevitable but clearly happening *now* is a China with no incentive to take desperate measures.
https://twitter.com/PatPorter76/status/1581358959599894528
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
We have a strong interest in denying China's ability to coerce us or otherwise threaten U.S. vital interests.
Where we can achieve this goal by growing our own power, then great.
Where we can only (or best) achieve it by weakening PRC, then it seems better to do so than... 1/
Mike Mazarr @MMazarr
I disagree profoundly with this: There's a mountain of evidence from US official documents, memoirs, interviews w/senior leaders etc that for decades US administrations have viewed China's economic progress as a good thing and taken many steps to encourage it. However to the extent US policy begins to validate this pessimistic view, demonstrating that the United States actively seeks China's weakness, we'll be unleashing a degree of intensity, resentment, and grievance in this rivalry with hugely unpredictable consequences
...hold off for fear of exacerbating a security dilemma or similar dynamics with Beijing.
This course may seem less risky. But it's only logical conclusion is China growing more powerful in ways that seriously threaten our econ and national security, which we cannot allow. 2/2
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1581368553696919554
The dangers of letting blustery rhetoric dictate US policy in Ukraine
...Biden and company may be steering toward trouble they see clearly, but for whatever reason will not avoid, as a recent article in the Washington Post detailed:
If accurate, this quote means that the administration’s take on the war is similar to that of most experts: that despite the impressive weakness Russia has shown lately, it could manage to dig in, and with the help of locals and draftees, prevent Ukraine from retaking the rest of the Donbas region, at least anytime soon. But Ukraine’s chances of success there are far greater than in Crimea, which is easier for Russia to defend and more likely to elicit defense by tactical nuclear weapons.
The quote, again if accurate, would also mean the Biden administration shares the view of its dovish critics, who contend that the effect of U.S. policy toward the war in Ukraine is to prolong it. With billions in aid, we could be encouraging Ukraine to try to win outright rather than use its presently strong battlefield position to negotiate the war’s end, with the sacrifices of some territory, certainly Crimea, and neutrality that will almost inevitably entail.
That deference will please Ukraine, but, as much as opponents of pushing diplomacy may shout about giving Ukraine agency, deference to friends isn’t a virtue when you judge they are dangerously erring, especially when they might suffer nuclear consequences. To put it in another context, France, for example, would not have been doing the United States a favor in 2003 by agreeing with George Bush’s push to invade Iraq.
......
So why press Ukraine to settle and take political heat when it won’t work anyway? If escalation risk can be controlled, why not let Russia’s losses erode its demands and get Ukraine a better deal? I hope this is what the administration is thinking, and that they’re seriously considering the size of that “if.”
...Biden and company may be steering toward trouble they see clearly, but for whatever reason will not avoid, as a recent article in the Washington Post detailed:
Privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table. They say they do not know what the end of the war looks like, or how it might end or when, insisting that is up to Kyiv.
If accurate, this quote means that the administration’s take on the war is similar to that of most experts: that despite the impressive weakness Russia has shown lately, it could manage to dig in, and with the help of locals and draftees, prevent Ukraine from retaking the rest of the Donbas region, at least anytime soon. But Ukraine’s chances of success there are far greater than in Crimea, which is easier for Russia to defend and more likely to elicit defense by tactical nuclear weapons.
The quote, again if accurate, would also mean the Biden administration shares the view of its dovish critics, who contend that the effect of U.S. policy toward the war in Ukraine is to prolong it. With billions in aid, we could be encouraging Ukraine to try to win outright rather than use its presently strong battlefield position to negotiate the war’s end, with the sacrifices of some territory, certainly Crimea, and neutrality that will almost inevitably entail.
That deference will please Ukraine, but, as much as opponents of pushing diplomacy may shout about giving Ukraine agency, deference to friends isn’t a virtue when you judge they are dangerously erring, especially when they might suffer nuclear consequences. To put it in another context, France, for example, would not have been doing the United States a favor in 2003 by agreeing with George Bush’s push to invade Iraq.
......
So why press Ukraine to settle and take political heat when it won’t work anyway? If escalation risk can be controlled, why not let Russia’s losses erode its demands and get Ukraine a better deal? I hope this is what the administration is thinking, and that they’re seriously considering the size of that “if.”
New Generation of Combat Vets, Eyeing House, Strike From the Right
...A new breed of veterans, many with remarkable biographies and undeniable stories of heroism, are running for the House on the far right of the Republican Party, challenging old assumptions that adding veterans to Congress — men and women who fought for the country and defended the Constitution — would foster bipartisanship and cooperation. At the same time, they are embracing anti-interventionist military and foreign policies that, since the end of World War II, have been associated more with the Democratic left than the mainline G.O.P.
......
Beyond their right-wing leanings, all share in common a deep skepticism about U.S. interventionism, borne of years of fighting in the post-9/11 war on terrorism and the belief that their sacrifices only gave rise to more instability and repression wherever the United States put boots on the ground.
Where earlier generations of combat veterans in Congress became die-hard defenders of a global military footprint, the new cohort is unafraid to launch ad hominem attacks on the men who still lead U.S. forces.
......
Several Democrats with national security backgrounds, like Representatives Abigail Spanberger and Elaine Luria of Virginia and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, are running explicitly on their service records to bolster their bipartisan bona fides.
But more partisan veterans groups say this year’s candidates are pointing out a central fallacy: “People say if we just elect more veterans to Congress, things will be hunky dory, but there’s no precedent for that, no data that suggests veterans act different from anyone else,” said Dan Caldwell, an adviser to the conservative group Concerned Veterans for America.
...A new breed of veterans, many with remarkable biographies and undeniable stories of heroism, are running for the House on the far right of the Republican Party, challenging old assumptions that adding veterans to Congress — men and women who fought for the country and defended the Constitution — would foster bipartisanship and cooperation. At the same time, they are embracing anti-interventionist military and foreign policies that, since the end of World War II, have been associated more with the Democratic left than the mainline G.O.P.
......
Beyond their right-wing leanings, all share in common a deep skepticism about U.S. interventionism, borne of years of fighting in the post-9/11 war on terrorism and the belief that their sacrifices only gave rise to more instability and repression wherever the United States put boots on the ground.
Where earlier generations of combat veterans in Congress became die-hard defenders of a global military footprint, the new cohort is unafraid to launch ad hominem attacks on the men who still lead U.S. forces.
......
Several Democrats with national security backgrounds, like Representatives Abigail Spanberger and Elaine Luria of Virginia and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, are running explicitly on their service records to bolster their bipartisan bona fides.
But more partisan veterans groups say this year’s candidates are pointing out a central fallacy: “People say if we just elect more veterans to Congress, things will be hunky dory, but there’s no precedent for that, no data that suggests veterans act different from anyone else,” said Dan Caldwell, an adviser to the conservative group Concerned Veterans for America.
关于川普：
(1) 有充分的理由认为他这样的人不应当领导美国。两党建制派经常引用这些理由来反对他，比如他不具备领导国家所需的性格特质，比如他对内政外交的理解都相当有限。然而同时成立的是：
(2) 他的选民，尤其是十年前也许不会选他的人，也有充分的理由认为只有他那样的人才能领导美国。他们的理由很多出自亲身经验，比如制造业转移海外导致的失业，非法移民对地方经济、治安的冲击，在连年涉外战争中失去的亲友，等等。
可以讨论的是，(2)是否可以压倒(1)，但是否认(2)意味着缺乏严肃讨论必须预设的诚意，忽视(2)则表明缺乏全面讨论必须预设的认知基础。而阻碍对川普现象严肃而全面的讨论，正是建制派不愿言明的目的，因为讨论一旦深入，就必定触及统治集团冷战后在国境内外把持、扩张权力的种种理由，及其背后意识形态的合法性，从而危及其继续执政的基础。
(1) 有充分的理由认为他这样的人不应当领导美国。两党建制派经常引用这些理由来反对他，比如他不具备领导国家所需的性格特质，比如他对内政外交的理解都相当有限。然而同时成立的是：
(2) 他的选民，尤其是十年前也许不会选他的人，也有充分的理由认为只有他那样的人才能领导美国。他们的理由很多出自亲身经验，比如制造业转移海外导致的失业，非法移民对地方经济、治安的冲击，在连年涉外战争中失去的亲友，等等。
可以讨论的是，(2)是否可以压倒(1)，但是否认(2)意味着缺乏严肃讨论必须预设的诚意，忽视(2)则表明缺乏全面讨论必须预设的认知基础。而阻碍对川普现象严肃而全面的讨论，正是建制派不愿言明的目的，因为讨论一旦深入，就必定触及统治集团冷战后在国境内外把持、扩张权力的种种理由，及其背后意识形态的合法性，从而危及其继续执政的基础。
还有什么比推举出一位不但让人民立即丧失信心、而且自己也立刻不支持的领袖更能说明托利精英的短视、无能和脱离现实呢？
Liz Truss’s Tories slump below 20% in bombshell poll
Tory MPs turn on Liz Truss after turbulent day
Truss government on brink of collapse after firing finance minister
然而工党精英并不更好——这会在今后两年得到印证。
Liz Truss’s Tories slump below 20% in bombshell poll
Tory MPs turn on Liz Truss after turbulent day
Truss government on brink of collapse after firing finance minister
然而工党精英并不更好——这会在今后两年得到印证。
自由主义社会不但进入了断子绝孙的阶段，也进入了把断子绝孙制度化的阶段：
Michigan Is Hiding A Children’s Constitutional Right To Genital Amputation In Its Abortion Amendment
In less than one month, if Proposal 3 passes, children will have a right under the Michigan constitution to walk into one of Planned Parenthood’s 12 so-called “gender affirming” facilities in the state and, without parental knowledge or consent, obtain puberty blockers. And with Planned Parenthood of Michigan promising “gender affirming” care “via telehealth in the coming months,” Michiganders’ kids won’t even need to leave their house to obtain these sterilizing drugs.
Passage of Prop 3 will also give boys a constitutional right to be castrated and girls the right under Michigan’s constitution to be sterilized by way of a hysterectomy or the removal of their ovaries — all without their parents’ consent.
Deceptive marketing by Planned Parenthood and far-left politicians, such as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, hides this reality from Michigan voters, leading Prop 3 to be uniformly referred to as “the abortion amendment” even though the expansive language of the proposed constitutional amendment reaches far beyond abortion. And on abortion alone, notwithstanding proponents’ claims that “passing this amendment simply restores the same protections that Michiganders had for five decades under Roe v. Wade,” Prop 3 goes far beyond the controlling Roe-Casey precedent: If passed, the constitutional amendment would create an extreme regime in Michigan of abortion on demand, at any time, for any reason, without informed or parental consent, and paid for by taxpayers.
Michigan Is Hiding A Children’s Constitutional Right To Genital Amputation In Its Abortion Amendment
In less than one month, if Proposal 3 passes, children will have a right under the Michigan constitution to walk into one of Planned Parenthood’s 12 so-called “gender affirming” facilities in the state and, without parental knowledge or consent, obtain puberty blockers. And with Planned Parenthood of Michigan promising “gender affirming” care “via telehealth in the coming months,” Michiganders’ kids won’t even need to leave their house to obtain these sterilizing drugs.
Passage of Prop 3 will also give boys a constitutional right to be castrated and girls the right under Michigan’s constitution to be sterilized by way of a hysterectomy or the removal of their ovaries — all without their parents’ consent.
Deceptive marketing by Planned Parenthood and far-left politicians, such as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, hides this reality from Michigan voters, leading Prop 3 to be uniformly referred to as “the abortion amendment” even though the expansive language of the proposed constitutional amendment reaches far beyond abortion. And on abortion alone, notwithstanding proponents’ claims that “passing this amendment simply restores the same protections that Michiganders had for five decades under Roe v. Wade,” Prop 3 goes far beyond the controlling Roe-Casey precedent: If passed, the constitutional amendment would create an extreme regime in Michigan of abortion on demand, at any time, for any reason, without informed or parental consent, and paid for by taxpayers.
Blinken Says China Wants to Seize Taiwan on ‘Much Faster Timeline’
China has made a decision to seize Taiwan on a “much faster timeline” than previously thought, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Monday, shortly after China’s leader reiterated his intent to take the island by force if necessary.
“There has been a change in the approach from Beijing toward Taiwan in recent years,” Blinken said in an event at Stanford University in California.
The remarks from America’s top diplomat on Monday come as China holds its twice-a-decade Communist party congress, and shortly after Chinese President Xi Jinping used a widely-watched speech on Sunday to say the “wheels of history are rolling on towards China’s reunification” with Taiwan. While peaceful means were preferable, Xi added, “we reserve the option of taking all measures necessary.”
Blinken said China had made a “fundamental decision that the status quo was no longer acceptable, and that Beijing was determined to pursue reunification on a much faster timeline.” He didn’t elaborate on the timing or provide other details.
China has made a decision to seize Taiwan on a “much faster timeline” than previously thought, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Monday, shortly after China’s leader reiterated his intent to take the island by force if necessary.
“There has been a change in the approach from Beijing toward Taiwan in recent years,” Blinken said in an event at Stanford University in California.
The remarks from America’s top diplomat on Monday come as China holds its twice-a-decade Communist party congress, and shortly after Chinese President Xi Jinping used a widely-watched speech on Sunday to say the “wheels of history are rolling on towards China’s reunification” with Taiwan. While peaceful means were preferable, Xi added, “we reserve the option of taking all measures necessary.”
Blinken said China had made a “fundamental decision that the status quo was no longer acceptable, and that Beijing was determined to pursue reunification on a much faster timeline.” He didn’t elaborate on the timing or provide other details.
Ukraine Is a Distraction From Taiwan
The U.S. can no longer afford to spread its military across the world. The reason is simple: an increasingly aggressive China, the most powerful state to rise in the international system since the U.S. itself. By some measures, China’s economy is now the world’s largest. And it has built a military to match its economic heft. Twenty-five years ago, the Chinese military was backward and obsolete. But extraordinary increases in Beijing’s defense budget over more than two decades, and top political leaders’ razor-sharp focus, have transformed the People’s Liberation Army into one of the strongest militaries the world has ever seen.
......
The U.S. must defend Taiwan to retain its credibility as the leader of a coalition for a free and open Indo-Pacific. From a military perspective, Taiwan is a vital link in the first island chain of the Western Pacific. If Taiwan falls into Chinese hands, the U.S. will find it harder to defend critical allies like Japan and the Philippines, while China will be able to project its naval, air and other forces close to the U.S. and its territories. Taiwan is also an economic dynamo, the ninth-largest U.S. trading partner of goods with a near-monopoly on the most advanced semiconductor technology—to which the U.S. would most certainly lose access after a war.
......
The U.S. has no hope of competing with China and ensuring Taiwan’s defense if it is distracted elsewhere. It is a delusion that the U.S. can, as Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said recently, “walk and chew gum at the same time” with respect to Russia and China. Sending more resources to Europe is the definition of getting distracted. Rather than increasing forces in Europe, the U.S. should be moving toward reductions.
There is a viable alternative for Europe’s defense: The Europeans themselves can step up and do more for themselves, especially with regard to conventional arms. This is well within Europe’s capacity, as the combined economic power of the NATO states dwarfs that of Russia. NATO allies spend far more on their militaries than Russia. To aid its European allies, the U.S. can provide various forms of support, including lethal weapons, while continuing to remain committed to NATO’s defense, albeit in a more constrained fashion, by providing high-end and fungible military capabilities.
The U.S. can no longer afford to spread its military across the world. The reason is simple: an increasingly aggressive China, the most powerful state to rise in the international system since the U.S. itself. By some measures, China’s economy is now the world’s largest. And it has built a military to match its economic heft. Twenty-five years ago, the Chinese military was backward and obsolete. But extraordinary increases in Beijing’s defense budget over more than two decades, and top political leaders’ razor-sharp focus, have transformed the People’s Liberation Army into one of the strongest militaries the world has ever seen.
......
The U.S. must defend Taiwan to retain its credibility as the leader of a coalition for a free and open Indo-Pacific. From a military perspective, Taiwan is a vital link in the first island chain of the Western Pacific. If Taiwan falls into Chinese hands, the U.S. will find it harder to defend critical allies like Japan and the Philippines, while China will be able to project its naval, air and other forces close to the U.S. and its territories. Taiwan is also an economic dynamo, the ninth-largest U.S. trading partner of goods with a near-monopoly on the most advanced semiconductor technology—to which the U.S. would most certainly lose access after a war.
......
The U.S. has no hope of competing with China and ensuring Taiwan’s defense if it is distracted elsewhere. It is a delusion that the U.S. can, as Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said recently, “walk and chew gum at the same time” with respect to Russia and China. Sending more resources to Europe is the definition of getting distracted. Rather than increasing forces in Europe, the U.S. should be moving toward reductions.
There is a viable alternative for Europe’s defense: The Europeans themselves can step up and do more for themselves, especially with regard to conventional arms. This is well within Europe’s capacity, as the combined economic power of the NATO states dwarfs that of Russia. NATO allies spend far more on their militaries than Russia. To aid its European allies, the U.S. can provide various forms of support, including lethal weapons, while continuing to remain committed to NATO’s defense, albeit in a more constrained fashion, by providing high-end and fungible military capabilities.
Ukraine aid under threat in Republican-controlled House
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) publicly confirmed Tuesday what many in Washington and Europe privately fear: a Republican-controlled House could shut off the spigot funding Ukraine's efforts to defend itself against Russia's invasion.
Why it matters: Unlike aggressive oversight hearings or political messaging bills, a Republican majority's approach to Ukraine would reverberate far beyond the Beltway. A reduction or halt in U.S. military aid would create a geopolitical earthquake with the potential to alter the trajectory of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war.
What's happening: Even House Republicans who have been outspoken about supporting Ukraine — including McCarthy, who this week compared Putin to Hitler — say there has been a noticeable shift away from what was once a broad bipartisan consensus.
- "I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it," McCarthy said in an interview with Punchbowl News.
- "I've noticed it. You see it a little bit on social media, you see it with some of our members," said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), though he added he doesn't believe the majority of the conference shares those views.
- Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) said the shift is likely being driven by feedback from constituents, telling Axios: "When people are seeing a 13% increase in grocery prices; energy, utility bills doubling ... if you're a border community and you're being overrun by migrants and fentanyl, Ukraine is the furthest thing from your mind."
State of play: In May, 57 House Republicans voted "no" on a $40 billion aid package to Ukraine. That number is poised to rise considerably, especially if more skeptical Republican candidates are swept into Congress in a GOP wave.
- "After the $40 billion, there were a lot of Republicans saying, 'This is the last time I'm going to support Ukraine funding,'" said one senior House Republican.
- "Another billion to Ukraine and 87,000 new IRS agents," tweeted Texas candidate Wesley Hunt in August. "At this rate we should at least make them the 51st state so they can start paying some federal income tax."
......
What to watch: The party is united on at least one position when it comes to Ukraine: there should be a thorough accounting of every dollar sent.
- "What Republicans want to see is more accountability and oversight, and also to make sure it's going for the right purpose," said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee and another vocal Ukraine supporter.
- McCaul added that his colleagues have grumbled about the U.S. footing the bill to a greater degree than other large NATO allies, like Germany and France.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) publicly confirmed Tuesday what many in Washington and Europe privately fear: a Republican-controlled House could shut off the spigot funding Ukraine's efforts to defend itself against Russia's invasion.
Why it matters: Unlike aggressive oversight hearings or political messaging bills, a Republican majority's approach to Ukraine would reverberate far beyond the Beltway. A reduction or halt in U.S. military aid would create a geopolitical earthquake with the potential to alter the trajectory of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war.
What's happening: Even House Republicans who have been outspoken about supporting Ukraine — including McCarthy, who this week compared Putin to Hitler — say there has been a noticeable shift away from what was once a broad bipartisan consensus.
- "I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it," McCarthy said in an interview with Punchbowl News.
- "I've noticed it. You see it a little bit on social media, you see it with some of our members," said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), though he added he doesn't believe the majority of the conference shares those views.
- Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) said the shift is likely being driven by feedback from constituents, telling Axios: "When people are seeing a 13% increase in grocery prices; energy, utility bills doubling ... if you're a border community and you're being overrun by migrants and fentanyl, Ukraine is the furthest thing from your mind."
State of play: In May, 57 House Republicans voted "no" on a $40 billion aid package to Ukraine. That number is poised to rise considerably, especially if more skeptical Republican candidates are swept into Congress in a GOP wave.
- "After the $40 billion, there were a lot of Republicans saying, 'This is the last time I'm going to support Ukraine funding,'" said one senior House Republican.
- "Another billion to Ukraine and 87,000 new IRS agents," tweeted Texas candidate Wesley Hunt in August. "At this rate we should at least make them the 51st state so they can start paying some federal income tax."
......
What to watch: The party is united on at least one position when it comes to Ukraine: there should be a thorough accounting of every dollar sent.
- "What Republicans want to see is more accountability and oversight, and also to make sure it's going for the right purpose," said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee and another vocal Ukraine supporter.
- McCaul added that his colleagues have grumbled about the U.S. footing the bill to a greater degree than other large NATO allies, like Germany and France.
Daniel DePetris @DanDePetris
How can the same analyst who admits that Putin is likely to use nuclear weapons if he faces defeat also wholeheartedly argue Washington should help Ukraine achieve a full-fledged military victory? If you’re deadly worried about the former, is it smart to pursue the latter?
Also, the U.S. could send a message to Putin that the use of a tactical nuclear weapon would bring U.S. military retaliation. But how credible would the threat actually be? Would Putin believe it? Is the U.S. willing to take such risks for a non-treaty country? Lots of questions.
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1582534139580149760
How can the same analyst who admits that Putin is likely to use nuclear weapons if he faces defeat also wholeheartedly argue Washington should help Ukraine achieve a full-fledged military victory? If you’re deadly worried about the former, is it smart to pursue the latter?
Also, the U.S. could send a message to Putin that the use of a tactical nuclear weapon would bring U.S. military retaliation. But how credible would the threat actually be? Would Putin believe it? Is the U.S. willing to take such risks for a non-treaty country? Lots of questions.
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1582534139580149760
Rajan Menon @rajan_menon_
1/ On the RUS drone attacks against UKR (close to 40-plus today): In Aug, RUS bought circa 1K Iranian drones. Shahed-136 (Delta-winged, preprogrammed to hit stationary targets and then explode: range est 1,500 mls) and Mohajer-6 (125-mile range, returns after releasing payload).
2/ RUS has used Iranian drones since Sept against targets in Odesa, Mikolaiv, and Kharkiv area. The [increasing] use now is part of a strategy to wreck the UKR economy (already under great stress) as well as civilian morale. Drone attacks will help w/ the first goal but not the second.
3/ Based on my last visit to UKR I’d say that, if anything, attacks on civilian targets increases UKR determination to resist. That, incidentally, conforms to the historical record when it comes to attack on civilian targets.
https://twitter.com/rajan_menon_/status/1582190812770680832
1/ On the RUS drone attacks against UKR (close to 40-plus today): In Aug, RUS bought circa 1K Iranian drones. Shahed-136 (Delta-winged, preprogrammed to hit stationary targets and then explode: range est 1,500 mls) and Mohajer-6 (125-mile range, returns after releasing payload).
2/ RUS has used Iranian drones since Sept against targets in Odesa, Mikolaiv, and Kharkiv area. The [increasing] use now is part of a strategy to wreck the UKR economy (already under great stress) as well as civilian morale. Drone attacks will help w/ the first goal but not the second.
3/ Based on my last visit to UKR I’d say that, if anything, attacks on civilian targets increases UKR determination to resist. That, incidentally, conforms to the historical record when it comes to attack on civilian targets.
https://twitter.com/rajan_menon_/status/1582190812770680832
Dr S Maitra @MrMaitra
I was reading about realist opposition to Vietnam the other day, and here are some apt quotes.
Niebuhr - The US has found itself “drawn into a civil war in an obscure nation of Southeast Asia".
Morgenthau - Bismarck “would not have allowed themselves to get committed in a civil war which cannot be won short of a political miracle.”
Kennan - Bewildered about “what that commitment really consists of, and how and when it was incurred.”
Kissinger - “No one could really explain to me how even on the most favorable assumptions about the war in Vietnam the war was going to end.”
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1582760869494108161
The National Security Council's coordinator for strategic communications says the United States will continue to support Ukraine "as best as we can" in its fight against Russia.
"We are going to do everything we can, as we have now for going on eight months, to make sure that the Ukrainian armed forces have what they need in the field," National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told "CBS Mornings" on Wednesday.
"We're going to stay at this," he said. "You've heard the president talk about that. As long as it takes. We're committed to that."
I was reading about realist opposition to Vietnam the other day, and here are some apt quotes.
Niebuhr - The US has found itself “drawn into a civil war in an obscure nation of Southeast Asia".
Morgenthau - Bismarck “would not have allowed themselves to get committed in a civil war which cannot be won short of a political miracle.”
Kennan - Bewildered about “what that commitment really consists of, and how and when it was incurred.”
Kissinger - “No one could really explain to me how even on the most favorable assumptions about the war in Vietnam the war was going to end.”
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1582760869494108161
Mary Harrington @moveincircles
When every kids’ movie simultaneously preaches that you should accept who you are, and also that you can be whoever you want to be, is it any wonder many young adults are confused and unhappy
Youth gender transition is the logical endpoint of this message: “You must accept what I am, and also provide me every imaginable resource so I can transform myself into what I already am”
https://twitter.com/moveincircles/status/1582644861425287170
When every kids’ movie simultaneously preaches that you should accept who you are, and also that you can be whoever you want to be, is it any wonder many young adults are confused and unhappy
Youth gender transition is the logical endpoint of this message: “You must accept what I am, and also provide me every imaginable resource so I can transform myself into what I already am”
https://twitter.com/moveincircles/status/1582644861425287170
Orbán Viktor @PM_ViktorOrban
It is no help to #Ukraine if the European economy goes bankrupt. We are threatened by years of recession due to a primitive and ineffective sanctions regime. A hike in European unemployment will not help. We must aid Ukraine in a way that does not lead to our own defeat.
https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1580469950774644736
Orbán Viktor @PM_ViktorOrban
They tell me Russian gas is bad. They tell me we should stop buying it. But nobody tells us how to replace Russian gas. Not in five years, but tomorrow. We need to run our economy, it’s as simple as that.
https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1582792844565446657
It is no help to #Ukraine if the European economy goes bankrupt. We are threatened by years of recession due to a primitive and ineffective sanctions regime. A hike in European unemployment will not help. We must aid Ukraine in a way that does not lead to our own defeat.
https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1580469950774644736
Orbán Viktor @PM_ViktorOrban
They tell me Russian gas is bad. They tell me we should stop buying it. But nobody tells us how to replace Russian gas. Not in five years, but tomorrow. We need to run our economy, it’s as simple as that.
https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1582792844565446657
The meaning of Jacinda Ardern
...Ardern’s meteoric rise to power is less impressive than her ability to maintain an iron grip on the Labour party. Rogue MPs who attempt to break from the party line are dismissed not after the expected public slanging-match, but with a terse smile and conclusive phrase from the PM. Indeed, all Labour party functionaries are expected to display rigorous discipline and loyalty. This is where Ardern’s true power lies: her ability to hide her ruthless nature under a carefully-maintained presentational façade.
It is vital to understand the context behind Ardern’s enduring success, and why exactly her latest round of softly-spoken scolding is so concerning for public liberties. Speaking at the UN General Assembly last month, the New Zealand premier promoted a passion project that has long driven her political project: the importance of restricting “dangerous” speech online. She urged her fellow leaders to take action against “misinformation and disinformation online”, comparing the sharing of “misinformation” to “weapons of war”. Her comparison continued: “A bullet takes a life. A bomb takes out a whole village. A lie online or from a podium does not. But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?”
......
I don’t believe that Ardern’s commitment to ending free expression online comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about the origins of terrorist radicalisation. She is much smarter than that. It comes from an ideological distrust of unregulated speech and behaviour, wherever it might show itself. She compared online safety restrictions to weapons controls at the UN not out of foolishness, or soppy sentimentalism, but from a coldly coherent understanding that her brand of politics cannot survive without external help. This was an appeal of a democratically-elected Western leader to an unaccountable supra-state to protect her from her own electorate. This is the true face of “civility politics” — a call to remove debate and disagreement from the public sphere for our own good. Make no mistake: Ardern is the face of the coming wave of soppy, sentimental authoritarianism.
...Ardern’s meteoric rise to power is less impressive than her ability to maintain an iron grip on the Labour party. Rogue MPs who attempt to break from the party line are dismissed not after the expected public slanging-match, but with a terse smile and conclusive phrase from the PM. Indeed, all Labour party functionaries are expected to display rigorous discipline and loyalty. This is where Ardern’s true power lies: her ability to hide her ruthless nature under a carefully-maintained presentational façade.
It is vital to understand the context behind Ardern’s enduring success, and why exactly her latest round of softly-spoken scolding is so concerning for public liberties. Speaking at the UN General Assembly last month, the New Zealand premier promoted a passion project that has long driven her political project: the importance of restricting “dangerous” speech online. She urged her fellow leaders to take action against “misinformation and disinformation online”, comparing the sharing of “misinformation” to “weapons of war”. Her comparison continued: “A bullet takes a life. A bomb takes out a whole village. A lie online or from a podium does not. But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?”
......
I don’t believe that Ardern’s commitment to ending free expression online comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about the origins of terrorist radicalisation. She is much smarter than that. It comes from an ideological distrust of unregulated speech and behaviour, wherever it might show itself. She compared online safety restrictions to weapons controls at the UN not out of foolishness, or soppy sentimentalism, but from a coldly coherent understanding that her brand of politics cannot survive without external help. This was an appeal of a democratically-elected Western leader to an unaccountable supra-state to protect her from her own electorate. This is the true face of “civility politics” — a call to remove debate and disagreement from the public sphere for our own good. Make no mistake: Ardern is the face of the coming wave of soppy, sentimental authoritarianism.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Liz Truss resigns as prime minister after Tory revolt
Liz Truss has dramatically resigned as prime minister after just 45 days in the job.
The PM said her successor will be elected in a Tory leadership contest, to be completed in the next week.
Tory MPs urged Ms Truss to go after her government was engulfed by political turmoil, following the ditching of most of her economic policies.
Ms Truss was elected by the Tory membership in September, but she lost authority after a series of U-turns.
In a speech outside Downing Street, Ms Truss said: "I recognise that I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected by the Conservative Party."
Ms Truss said she would remain in post until a successor formally takes over as party leader and is appointed prime minister by King Charles III.
Ms Truss - who took office 44 days ago - will become the shortest-serving PM in British history when she stands down.
Liz Truss resigns as prime minister after Tory revolt
Liz Truss has dramatically resigned as prime minister after just 45 days in the job.
The PM said her successor will be elected in a Tory leadership contest, to be completed in the next week.
Tory MPs urged Ms Truss to go after her government was engulfed by political turmoil, following the ditching of most of her economic policies.
Ms Truss was elected by the Tory membership in September, but she lost authority after a series of U-turns.
In a speech outside Downing Street, Ms Truss said: "I recognise that I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected by the Conservative Party."
Ms Truss said she would remain in post until a successor formally takes over as party leader and is appointed prime minister by King Charles III.
Ms Truss - who took office 44 days ago - will become the shortest-serving PM in British history when she stands down.
Richard Haass to Step Down as Council on Foreign Relations Chief
WASHINGTON — When Richard N. Haass took over as president of the Council on Foreign Relations almost 20 years ago, becoming the de facto dean of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, the world was a very different place.
The United States had just toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and its power seemed unmatched. China remained a modest regional player, and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was offering himself as a U.S. ally. American democracy seemed relatively healthy, with bipartisanship strong enough to give President George W. Bush an approval rating in the 60s.
It is a grimmer picture today, as Mr. Haass prepares to step down from the Council on Foreign Relations, whose board he notified on Wednesday of his plans to depart in June. Based in New York, the 101-year-old nonpartisan organization sets out to inform and influence U.S. foreign policy, and it also publishes the journal Foreign Affairs. Its membership includes dozens of former and likely future government officials.
“It’s impossible for me, or anyone, to argue that we’ve used these decades well,” Mr. Haass said of the United States in an interview. “We face a world where we’ve got a revival of classic geopolitics on steroids. My own view is, if you’re not worried, you’re not paying attention.”
Most concerning to Mr. Haass, a former White House, Pentagon and State Department official, is the state of America’s domestic politics, which he said threatens to undermine the country’s strength abroad. “I’ve come to think that the biggest national security threat facing the United States is not Russia or China or climate change, but ourselves,” said Mr. Haass, 71, who is writing a book on the subject and hopes to remain a familiar voice in public debates about American foreign policy.
WASHINGTON — When Richard N. Haass took over as president of the Council on Foreign Relations almost 20 years ago, becoming the de facto dean of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, the world was a very different place.
The United States had just toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and its power seemed unmatched. China remained a modest regional player, and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was offering himself as a U.S. ally. American democracy seemed relatively healthy, with bipartisanship strong enough to give President George W. Bush an approval rating in the 60s.
It is a grimmer picture today, as Mr. Haass prepares to step down from the Council on Foreign Relations, whose board he notified on Wednesday of his plans to depart in June. Based in New York, the 101-year-old nonpartisan organization sets out to inform and influence U.S. foreign policy, and it also publishes the journal Foreign Affairs. Its membership includes dozens of former and likely future government officials.
“It’s impossible for me, or anyone, to argue that we’ve used these decades well,” Mr. Haass said of the United States in an interview. “We face a world where we’ve got a revival of classic geopolitics on steroids. My own view is, if you’re not worried, you’re not paying attention.”
Most concerning to Mr. Haass, a former White House, Pentagon and State Department official, is the state of America’s domestic politics, which he said threatens to undermine the country’s strength abroad. “I’ve come to think that the biggest national security threat facing the United States is not Russia or China or climate change, but ourselves,” said Mr. Haass, 71, who is writing a book on the subject and hopes to remain a familiar voice in public debates about American foreign policy.
Matt Stoller @matthewstoller
1. Just to clarify on China/US/Taiwan. There's been a lot of interpretation of these comments as if I am seeking a conflict with China. My goal is peace through risk-management. But I hear the critiques.
2. It is important to agree on four basic points. (1) It's hard to imagine a worse scenario than a military conflict with China. (2) The US national security establishment lacks credibility after years of misleading claims and bloody misadventures.
3. (3) An invasion of Taiwan is not a war of choice for the U.S., it is a war of choice for China. (4) Preparing for conflict isn't seeking conflict any more than preparing for a pandemic is seeking a pandemic.
4. The problem we are encountering is largely, though not entirely, our America's and Europe's own doing. We failed to manage risk well, and so find ourselves in a very dangerous situation.
5. The problem with China/Taiwan/US is as follows. Taiwan makes key inputs - notably high end semiconductors produced by monopolist TSMC - without which the world goes into a severe depression. China regularly says it seeks to take over Taiwan with military force, if necessary.
6. This is bad. China seeks to control Taiwan, and the U.S. (and the whole world) is highly dependent on something that only Taiwan can produce. This is why the situation is a powder keg.
7. More broadly, China itself makes a whole host of key inputs upon which depend, from packaging for semiconductors to medical supplies. If that relationship is disrupted quickly, lots of Americans die fairly quickly as medicine and vital supplies stop flowing.
8. This situation is OUR fault. Wall Street wanted to offshore vital stuff to China, and did so. Some even nicknamed this 'Chimerica.' To them, intertwining ourselves with China would bring... peace. That was insanely dumb/dangerous. But we are where we are.
9. As part of this strategy, we let financiers ruin once-great firms like Intel by prioritizing financial engineering over engineering. Who cares if the U.S. makes semiconductors? The frictionless world will provide.
10. We then fostered Taiwanese monopoly control of key parts of the semiconductor supply chain with tech transfers and investment from Apple. This was very stupid since China claims Taiwan as its own. But the Lexus and the Olive Tree was a great book right?
11. Meanwhile, China has been building an immensely powerful military - with U.S. tech help - whose goal is to launch a blockade and amphibious assault on Taiwan. Now China credibly threatens war for Taiwan regularly.
How Bill Clinton and American Financiers Armed China
12. We are where we are. That's just the reality. Immensely bad decisions over decades have severe costs. That cost is China can launch a war of choice and destroy much of our society.
Blinken Says China Wants to Seize Taiwan on ‘Much Faster Timeline’
13. So what can the U.S. do? Two things. De-couple from China and Taiwan as quickly as possible so that there are redundant sources of supply for key goods. This will reduce tension as the stakes of a war go down. But it will take years and require taming Wall Street.
14. While this decoupling happens, deter an invasion of Taiwan. If the PRC thinks that an invasion will fail, they will not launch one. So help persuade them it will fail. Remember, this is not a war of choice for the US. It is a war of choice for China.
15. A lot of people think decoupling economically is a form of war rather than the opposite. If we do not decouple economically, a military conflict becomes *more* likely as both sides remain interdependent and manipulate each other into war.
16. The ideal scenario is a peaceful and separate existence. China builds their society, we build ours. Taiwan becomes a lower stakes problem.
17. The situation is one where we have only bad choices because China can at any point launch this war of choice. The toxic interdependence we have now is leading to more tension and risk. I think the best approach is to move away from that and deter war.
18. Regardless there is no avoiding this situation. We are interdependent, yet China has power and agency and goals that could be a severe threat to us. This is manageable. But pretending it isn't a real problem is the surest route to conflict.
https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1582826588487327744
1. Just to clarify on China/US/Taiwan. There's been a lot of interpretation of these comments as if I am seeking a conflict with China. My goal is peace through risk-management. But I hear the critiques.
Matt Stoller @matthewstoller
The US needs to decouple our supply chains from China and mobilize for war ASAP. I really don’t understand the apathy.
2. It is important to agree on four basic points. (1) It's hard to imagine a worse scenario than a military conflict with China. (2) The US national security establishment lacks credibility after years of misleading claims and bloody misadventures.
3. (3) An invasion of Taiwan is not a war of choice for the U.S., it is a war of choice for China. (4) Preparing for conflict isn't seeking conflict any more than preparing for a pandemic is seeking a pandemic.
4. The problem we are encountering is largely, though not entirely, our America's and Europe's own doing. We failed to manage risk well, and so find ourselves in a very dangerous situation.
5. The problem with China/Taiwan/US is as follows. Taiwan makes key inputs - notably high end semiconductors produced by monopolist TSMC - without which the world goes into a severe depression. China regularly says it seeks to take over Taiwan with military force, if necessary.
6. This is bad. China seeks to control Taiwan, and the U.S. (and the whole world) is highly dependent on something that only Taiwan can produce. This is why the situation is a powder keg.
7. More broadly, China itself makes a whole host of key inputs upon which depend, from packaging for semiconductors to medical supplies. If that relationship is disrupted quickly, lots of Americans die fairly quickly as medicine and vital supplies stop flowing.
8. This situation is OUR fault. Wall Street wanted to offshore vital stuff to China, and did so. Some even nicknamed this 'Chimerica.' To them, intertwining ourselves with China would bring... peace. That was insanely dumb/dangerous. But we are where we are.
9. As part of this strategy, we let financiers ruin once-great firms like Intel by prioritizing financial engineering over engineering. Who cares if the U.S. makes semiconductors? The frictionless world will provide.
10. We then fostered Taiwanese monopoly control of key parts of the semiconductor supply chain with tech transfers and investment from Apple. This was very stupid since China claims Taiwan as its own. But the Lexus and the Olive Tree was a great book right?
11. Meanwhile, China has been building an immensely powerful military - with U.S. tech help - whose goal is to launch a blockade and amphibious assault on Taiwan. Now China credibly threatens war for Taiwan regularly.
How Bill Clinton and American Financiers Armed China
12. We are where we are. That's just the reality. Immensely bad decisions over decades have severe costs. That cost is China can launch a war of choice and destroy much of our society.
Blinken Says China Wants to Seize Taiwan on ‘Much Faster Timeline’
13. So what can the U.S. do? Two things. De-couple from China and Taiwan as quickly as possible so that there are redundant sources of supply for key goods. This will reduce tension as the stakes of a war go down. But it will take years and require taming Wall Street.
14. While this decoupling happens, deter an invasion of Taiwan. If the PRC thinks that an invasion will fail, they will not launch one. So help persuade them it will fail. Remember, this is not a war of choice for the US. It is a war of choice for China.
15. A lot of people think decoupling economically is a form of war rather than the opposite. If we do not decouple economically, a military conflict becomes *more* likely as both sides remain interdependent and manipulate each other into war.
16. The ideal scenario is a peaceful and separate existence. China builds their society, we build ours. Taiwan becomes a lower stakes problem.
17. The situation is one where we have only bad choices because China can at any point launch this war of choice. The toxic interdependence we have now is leading to more tension and risk. I think the best approach is to move away from that and deter war.
18. Regardless there is no avoiding this situation. We are interdependent, yet China has power and agency and goals that could be a severe threat to us. This is manageable. But pretending it isn't a real problem is the surest route to conflict.
https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1582826588487327744
在精英阶层和平民理念严重分化，选举设计又不鼓励局外人组织有生力量的情况下，民主制的优势就大大缩减了，选来选去都是选择脱离民意的人：
Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and Penny Mordaunt: Who are MPs backing?
Conservative MPs have started declaring who they are backing to become the UK's next prime minister.
Currently 158 out of 357 Tory MPs have gone public with their support:
Rishi Sunak - 93 MPs
Boris Johnson - 44 MPs
Penny Mordaunt - 21 MPs
Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and Penny Mordaunt: Who are MPs backing?
Conservative MPs have started declaring who they are backing to become the UK's next prime minister.
Currently 158 out of 357 Tory MPs have gone public with their support:
Rishi Sunak - 93 MPs
Boris Johnson - 44 MPs
Penny Mordaunt - 21 MPs
政治体就像其他有机体（甚至无机物体）一样，其卓越程度与良好状态取决于（1）是否有合宜的质料；（2）是否有优越的形式来组织质料；（3）质料与形式的相互作用是否对机体提供正反馈。过去两三代西方主流政治观察者似乎过于强调维持良好政治体所需的形式因素（民主、法制），而轻视了质料因素对良政的贡献和限制 - 比如家庭关系、出生率、人口的年龄和族群构成、群体的道德信念和行为方式，基本物资生产的自足，等等 - 同时对质料和形式的相互作用缺乏洞见。其后果是民主政治体的形式立足于越来越薄弱的物质和民意基础之上。质料之弊无法靠形式自动补救，在每一个时代都必须依赖政治精英敏锐的洞察力和强大的执行力来对症下药。“民主政治靠资质中等的人物就能运转”，这从来都是一个神话。
Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacintyre
The regime’s ability to deliver material prosperity is collapsing and the state religion has made discussion of solutions blasphemous so they’ll jail political opponents and talk about the dangers to the constitution and democracy because terrifying the base is all they have left
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1583829555806367744
Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacintyre
You really want to break yourself of this “the majority of Americans don’t support” nonsense
That’s not what matters, the majority haven’t supported the last 10 stops on the slippery slope and that hasn’t slowed our progress one bit
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1583615208743792640
The regime’s ability to deliver material prosperity is collapsing and the state religion has made discussion of solutions blasphemous so they’ll jail political opponents and talk about the dangers to the constitution and democracy because terrifying the base is all they have left
Tom Nichols @RadioFreeTom
The United States is facing the greatest danger to its constitutional system since at least the 1950s, if not the *18*50s, and millions of people are like: Yeah, but gas, man
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1583829555806367744
Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacintyre
You really want to break yourself of this “the majority of Americans don’t support” nonsense
That’s not what matters, the majority haven’t supported the last 10 stops on the slippery slope and that hasn’t slowed our progress one bit
Breitbart News @BreitbartNews
Most Americans do not support sex changes for minors, a Convention of States Action/Trafalgar Group survey released this week found.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1583615208743792640
Joe Kent for WA-3 @joekent16jan19 (US House candidate, WA-03)
Our focus should be on getting Ukraine & Russia to the negotiating table to avoid a nuclear war. Not this foolish, hollow bravado.
No aid to Ukraine unless they are at the table. Offer Putin an out if he begins a withdrawal / ceasefire.
https://twitter.com/joekent16jan19/status/1583999567540125696
Chip Roy @chiproytx (US House candidate, TX-21)
There are arguments for and against our presence in Europe - but Congress blindly throwing $70 billion to “support” Ukraine is not the same as being fully briefed & then debating, considering, and acting if appropriate to put America on a “war footing.”
https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status/1584178113965359105
Our focus should be on getting Ukraine & Russia to the negotiating table to avoid a nuclear war. Not this foolish, hollow bravado.
No aid to Ukraine unless they are at the table. Offer Putin an out if he begins a withdrawal / ceasefire.
Michael Tracey @mtracey
CBS gets an exclusive sneak peak: "The US Army's 101st Airborne is practicing for war with Russia just miles from Ukraine's border"
"It's not just about defending NATO territory," correspondent @charliecbs reports. "They're fully prepared to cross over into Ukrainian territory"
https://twitter.com/joekent16jan19/status/1583999567540125696
Chip Roy @chiproytx (US House candidate, TX-21)
There are arguments for and against our presence in Europe - but Congress blindly throwing $70 billion to “support” Ukraine is not the same as being fully briefed & then debating, considering, and acting if appropriate to put America on a “war footing.”
CBS Evening News @CBSEveningNews
HISTORIC DEPLOYMENT: CBS News has been given exclusive access to the Army’s 101st Airborne Division as they are deployed to Europe for the first time since the last World War. They are now the closest U.S. forces to the fight in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status/1584178113965359105
福山不久前反思说自由主义不能抛弃国家概念，不然无法抵御“反自由主义的民主制”的倡导者。Eric Kaufmann说这还不够，自由主义也不能搞族群政治，包括族群视角主导的平权、移民、多元文化政策等等， 自由主义阵营中民族国家观念的瓦解正是上个世纪六十年代以来族群政治的发展所致。Kaufmann说自由主义被进步派，或者用他的话说left-modernists，玩坏了。
作为一个颇有见地的自由派，Kaufmann的文章有一处背离了自由主义者的共识：他对美国林登庄逊时代以来自由主义政策的转向有相当负面的评价。这点上他倒是和声讨庄逊的post liberals异口同声。Post liberals（=自由主义要完论者）会完全接受他文章的逻辑，然后追问他几个问题：林登庄逊的“转向”难道不是自由主义逻辑的历史展开吗？Kaufmann谴责的广义族群政治是自由主义系统的bug还是其发展到后期必然显现的feature？ 进步派是自由主义的败家子还是合法接班人？
Post liberals还会说，福山最根本的错误在于，他看到自由主义在和纳粹主义、共产主义的竞争中胜出，就以为自由主义是天命所归的终极赢家。但有没有可能是这样：自由主义沦落的周期只是比纳粹主义、共产主义更长，而其最终失败的命运和两者并无差异？
假设自由主义早晚要完，替代品是什么？Post liberals也没有明确答案，但是其中的乐观主义者会指向福山和Kaufmann厌恶的（美国内外的）“反自由主义的民主制”：也许在这些正在进行的实验中，一个未来的构想将会逐渐清晰。这个愿景和将要实现它的世代如今同在襁褓之中。
作为一个颇有见地的自由派，Kaufmann的文章有一处背离了自由主义者的共识：他对美国林登庄逊时代以来自由主义政策的转向有相当负面的评价。这点上他倒是和声讨庄逊的post liberals异口同声。Post liberals（=自由主义要完论者）会完全接受他文章的逻辑，然后追问他几个问题：林登庄逊的“转向”难道不是自由主义逻辑的历史展开吗？Kaufmann谴责的广义族群政治是自由主义系统的bug还是其发展到后期必然显现的feature？ 进步派是自由主义的败家子还是合法接班人？
Post liberals还会说，福山最根本的错误在于，他看到自由主义在和纳粹主义、共产主义的竞争中胜出，就以为自由主义是天命所归的终极赢家。但有没有可能是这样：自由主义沦落的周期只是比纳粹主义、共产主义更长，而其最终失败的命运和两者并无差异？
假设自由主义早晚要完，替代品是什么？Post liberals也没有明确答案，但是其中的乐观主义者会指向福山和Kaufmann厌恶的（美国内外的）“反自由主义的民主制”：也许在这些正在进行的实验中，一个未来的构想将会逐渐清晰。这个愿景和将要实现它的世代如今同在襁褓之中。
未成年变性手术在未来的名声大概只会比脑白质切除术更糟，虽然同为医疗伤害，前者的泛滥更多地是精英阶层意识形态狂热的后果。对未成年人身心的伤害只是恶行的第一章，政府以捍卫弱者权利为名将青少年从不赞同手术的家长手中“解放”出来，进一步瓦解家庭结构，是后续的恶行。
Most children who think they’re transgender are just going through a ‘phase’, says NHS
Most children who believe that they are transgender are just going through a “phase”, the NHS has said, as it warns that doctors should not encourage them to change their names and pronouns.
NHS England has announced plans for tightening controls on the treatment of under 18s questioning their gender, including a ban on prescribing puberty blockers outside of strict clinical trials.
The services, which will replace the controversial Tavistock clinic, will be led by medical doctors rather than therapists and will consider the impact of other conditions such as autism and mental health issues.
The plans, which are currently under public consultation, are for an interim service for young people with gender dysphoria whilst Dr Hilary Cass continues her review into the treatment offered by the NHS.
They note that there is a need to change the services because there is currently “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making”.
NHS England says that the interim Cass Report has advised that even social transition, such as changing a young person’s name and pronouns or the way that they dress, is not a “neutral act” that could have “significant effects” in terms of “psychological functioning”.
Parent groups and professionals have long raised concerns that NHS medics have taken an “affirmative” approach to treating children, including using their preferred names and pronouns.
Most children who think they’re transgender are just going through a ‘phase’, says NHS
Most children who believe that they are transgender are just going through a “phase”, the NHS has said, as it warns that doctors should not encourage them to change their names and pronouns.
NHS England has announced plans for tightening controls on the treatment of under 18s questioning their gender, including a ban on prescribing puberty blockers outside of strict clinical trials.
The services, which will replace the controversial Tavistock clinic, will be led by medical doctors rather than therapists and will consider the impact of other conditions such as autism and mental health issues.
The plans, which are currently under public consultation, are for an interim service for young people with gender dysphoria whilst Dr Hilary Cass continues her review into the treatment offered by the NHS.
They note that there is a need to change the services because there is currently “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making”.
NHS England says that the interim Cass Report has advised that even social transition, such as changing a young person’s name and pronouns or the way that they dress, is not a “neutral act” that could have “significant effects” in terms of “psychological functioning”.
Parent groups and professionals have long raised concerns that NHS medics have taken an “affirmative” approach to treating children, including using their preferred names and pronouns.
怀疑过去两代人内精英阶层德性的普遍衰落也许尚有理由，新闻精英的堕落则是无可置疑。十年前美联社不会有这么肉麻的推文：
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1584401607219089408
The Associated Press @AP
One handshake, one hug and one selfie at a time, President Joe Biden is on a mission to connect with everyday Americans.
One hug and one selfie at a time, Biden’s mission to connect
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1584401607219089408
Eurozone Downturn Deepens, Germany Heads For Recession
Economic activity in the eurozone plummeted further in October and Germany, the EU's top economy, looks headed for a recession, a closely watched survey showed Monday.
The S&P Global Flash Eurozone purchasing managers' index (PMI) fell to 47.1 for October, down from 48.1 a month earlier, as soaring inflation and high energy prices buffeted Europe.
A reading below 50 signals an economic contraction.
While the 19-nation eurozone looked likely to contract in the fourth quarter, the picture was worse in Germany, where the PMI dropped to 44.1, from 45.7 in September.
That was the lowest reading since the first business shutdowns in Germany when the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
The data adds "to the growing signs of an impending recession in the eurozone's largest economy," S&P Global Market Intelligence economics associate director Phil Smith said.
Both manufacturing and services in Germany were showing accelerated rates of shrinkage, though that had yet to feed through into jobs-shedding, the survey showed.
German businesses were "deeply pessimistic" about the year-ahead outlook.
In France, the second-biggest economy in the EU, the economy is stagnating, with a PMI of 50 compared with 51.2 in September.
Economic activity in the eurozone plummeted further in October and Germany, the EU's top economy, looks headed for a recession, a closely watched survey showed Monday.
The S&P Global Flash Eurozone purchasing managers' index (PMI) fell to 47.1 for October, down from 48.1 a month earlier, as soaring inflation and high energy prices buffeted Europe.
A reading below 50 signals an economic contraction.
While the 19-nation eurozone looked likely to contract in the fourth quarter, the picture was worse in Germany, where the PMI dropped to 44.1, from 45.7 in September.
That was the lowest reading since the first business shutdowns in Germany when the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
The data adds "to the growing signs of an impending recession in the eurozone's largest economy," S&P Global Market Intelligence economics associate director Phil Smith said.
Both manufacturing and services in Germany were showing accelerated rates of shrinkage, though that had yet to feed through into jobs-shedding, the survey showed.
German businesses were "deeply pessimistic" about the year-ahead outlook.
In France, the second-biggest economy in the EU, the economy is stagnating, with a PMI of 50 compared with 51.2 in September.
Liberals urge Biden to rethink Ukraine strategy
A group of 30 House liberals is urging President Biden to dramatically shift his strategy on the Ukraine war and pursue direct negotiations with Russia, the first time prominent members of his own party have pushed him to change his approach to Ukraine.
A letter sent by the group to the White House on Monday, first reported by The Washington Post, could create more pressure on Biden as he tries to sustain domestic support for the war effort, at a time when the region is heading into a potentially difficult winter and Republicans are threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they retake Congress.
In the letter, the 30 Democrats led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, call on Biden to pair the unprecedented economic and military support the United States is providing Ukraine with a “proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a cease fire.”
The Democrats are specifically concerned that the United States is not engaging in regular dialogue with Russia as part of its effort to end a protracted war that has caused thousands of deaths and displaced 13 million people. The Biden administration has been adamant that it is up to Kyiv whether and when to negotiate with Russia, arguing that Ukrainians as a free people should decide their fate.
Many Democrats fiercely pushed back on the letter, prompting Jayapal to put out a statement later on Monday “clarifying” the position the progressives outlined in the letter, stressing that they still supported Ukraine and Biden’s commitment to ensure Ukraine is represented in any discussions about its future.
“Let me be clear: we are united as Democrats in our unequivocal commitment to supporting Ukraine in their fight for their democracy and freedom in the face of the illegal and outrageous Russian invasion,” Jayapal said. “Diplomacy is an important tool that can save lives — but it is just one tool.”
Some Russia experts say Moscow will only negotiate with the United States, a fellow superpower. The lawmakers say that opening must be seized given the war’s spreading devastation, adding, “The alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.”
The lawmakers also noted that Biden himself has said there will eventually have to be a negotiated settlement, though he has never said when.
A group of 30 House liberals is urging President Biden to dramatically shift his strategy on the Ukraine war and pursue direct negotiations with Russia, the first time prominent members of his own party have pushed him to change his approach to Ukraine.
A letter sent by the group to the White House on Monday, first reported by The Washington Post, could create more pressure on Biden as he tries to sustain domestic support for the war effort, at a time when the region is heading into a potentially difficult winter and Republicans are threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they retake Congress.
In the letter, the 30 Democrats led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, call on Biden to pair the unprecedented economic and military support the United States is providing Ukraine with a “proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a cease fire.”
The Democrats are specifically concerned that the United States is not engaging in regular dialogue with Russia as part of its effort to end a protracted war that has caused thousands of deaths and displaced 13 million people. The Biden administration has been adamant that it is up to Kyiv whether and when to negotiate with Russia, arguing that Ukrainians as a free people should decide their fate.
Many Democrats fiercely pushed back on the letter, prompting Jayapal to put out a statement later on Monday “clarifying” the position the progressives outlined in the letter, stressing that they still supported Ukraine and Biden’s commitment to ensure Ukraine is represented in any discussions about its future.
“Let me be clear: we are united as Democrats in our unequivocal commitment to supporting Ukraine in their fight for their democracy and freedom in the face of the illegal and outrageous Russian invasion,” Jayapal said. “Diplomacy is an important tool that can save lives — but it is just one tool.”
Some Russia experts say Moscow will only negotiate with the United States, a fellow superpower. The lawmakers say that opening must be seized given the war’s spreading devastation, adding, “The alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.”
The lawmakers also noted that Biden himself has said there will eventually have to be a negotiated settlement, though he has never said when.
Edward Feser @FeserEdward
1/8 Nietzsche on egalitarian decadence in Beyond Good and Evil: “Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil; and… the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors.
2/8 Eventually, under very peaceful conditions, the opportunity and necessity for educating one’s feelings to severity and hardness is lacking more and more; and every severity, even in justice, begins to disturb the conscience" ...
3/8 “There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it,
4/8 and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it. ‘Is it not enough to render him undangerous? Why still punish? Punishing itself is terrible.’
5/8 With this question, herd morality, the morality of timidity, draws its ultimate consequence” … “Whoever examines the conscience of the European today will have to pull the same imperative out of a thousand moral folds and hideouts - the imperative of herd timidity:
6/8 ‘we want that some day there should be nothing any more to be afraid of!’ Some day - throughout Europe, the will and way to this day is now called ‘progress’” (201)
7/8 “The democratic movement is not only a form of the decay of political organization but a form of the decay, namely the diminution, of man, making him mediocre and lowering his value…
8/8 The over-all degeneration of man down to what today appears to the socialist dolts and flatheads as their ‘man of the future’ - as their ideal - this [is a] degeneration and diminution of man into the perfect herd animal” (203)
https://twitter.com/FeserEdward/status/1583143917863653376
1/8 Nietzsche on egalitarian decadence in Beyond Good and Evil: “Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil; and… the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors.
2/8 Eventually, under very peaceful conditions, the opportunity and necessity for educating one’s feelings to severity and hardness is lacking more and more; and every severity, even in justice, begins to disturb the conscience" ...
3/8 “There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it,
4/8 and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it. ‘Is it not enough to render him undangerous? Why still punish? Punishing itself is terrible.’
5/8 With this question, herd morality, the morality of timidity, draws its ultimate consequence” … “Whoever examines the conscience of the European today will have to pull the same imperative out of a thousand moral folds and hideouts - the imperative of herd timidity:
6/8 ‘we want that some day there should be nothing any more to be afraid of!’ Some day - throughout Europe, the will and way to this day is now called ‘progress’” (201)
7/8 “The democratic movement is not only a form of the decay of political organization but a form of the decay, namely the diminution, of man, making him mediocre and lowering his value…
8/8 The over-all degeneration of man down to what today appears to the socialist dolts and flatheads as their ‘man of the future’ - as their ideal - this [is a] degeneration and diminution of man into the perfect herd animal” (203)
https://twitter.com/FeserEdward/status/1583143917863653376
Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacintyre
The solutions for this kind of stuff are very easy but the West has lost the will to protect its own civilization
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1584202283515944960
The solutions for this kind of stuff are very easy but the West has lost the will to protect its own civilization
Marie Oakes @TheMarieOakes
German climate activists throw liquified mash potatoes at a Monet painting to protest against fossil fuels.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1584202283515944960
Discovery of girl’s body in box in Paris sparks shock, right-wing outcry
The CCTV footage showed a 12-year-old schoolgirl entering her apartment building in the northeast of Paris at about 3:15 p.m. on Friday.
It was the last time Lola was seen alive.
Just hours later, her body would be discovered abandoned in a plastic box at the foot of the building. The slaying has shocked France and unleashed a torrent of far-right comments slamming immigration policy after a foreign national who had been ordered to leave the country was arrested and charged.
After Lola failed to return to the family’s apartment from school, her mother, Delphine Daviet, reported her daughter’s disappearance to police on Friday afternoon and appealed for help to find her.
The final hours of her life remain unclear. An autopsy revealed that the child died of asphyxiation and that the numbers zero and one had been written in red on her victim’s feet. No clear motive has been established for the killing.
Lola’s father — who works as a caretaker in the building where the family lives — reviewed the security footage and saw his daughter enter the hall accompanied by a young woman unknown to the family.
Some two hours later, the woman — identified in French media as a 24-year-old Algerian national, although officials have not yet named her or shared her nationality — left the building, this time alone and carrying two seemingly heavy bags.
The suspect was arrested the following day and appeared before a judge Monday, accused of murdering a child under the age of 15, rape, acts of torture and of concealing a body.
...
The case has added to the somber mood in France around the second anniversary of the murder of French schoolteacher Samuel Paty, who was beheaded after showing his students caricatures of the prophet Muhammad.
The far right quickly seized on Lola’s killing as an example of the failure of French immigration policy, after news broke that the suspect had been ordered in August to leave France within 30 days. The foreign minister said the suspect came legally as a student but confirmed the expulsion order — known as the obligation to leave French territory — and added that the woman was not previously known to the police.
The acting president of France’s far-right National Rally — the party of former presidential candidate Marine Le Pen — said on Twitter late Monday that the suspect “did not belong in France, yet nothing was done. We have before our eyes the complete bankruptcy of a government.” Éric Zemmour, another far-right politician, wrote on Twitter: “#Lola’s killer should never have crossed her path.”
The CCTV footage showed a 12-year-old schoolgirl entering her apartment building in the northeast of Paris at about 3:15 p.m. on Friday.
It was the last time Lola was seen alive.
Just hours later, her body would be discovered abandoned in a plastic box at the foot of the building. The slaying has shocked France and unleashed a torrent of far-right comments slamming immigration policy after a foreign national who had been ordered to leave the country was arrested and charged.
After Lola failed to return to the family’s apartment from school, her mother, Delphine Daviet, reported her daughter’s disappearance to police on Friday afternoon and appealed for help to find her.
The final hours of her life remain unclear. An autopsy revealed that the child died of asphyxiation and that the numbers zero and one had been written in red on her victim’s feet. No clear motive has been established for the killing.
Lola’s father — who works as a caretaker in the building where the family lives — reviewed the security footage and saw his daughter enter the hall accompanied by a young woman unknown to the family.
Some two hours later, the woman — identified in French media as a 24-year-old Algerian national, although officials have not yet named her or shared her nationality — left the building, this time alone and carrying two seemingly heavy bags.
The suspect was arrested the following day and appeared before a judge Monday, accused of murdering a child under the age of 15, rape, acts of torture and of concealing a body.
...
The case has added to the somber mood in France around the second anniversary of the murder of French schoolteacher Samuel Paty, who was beheaded after showing his students caricatures of the prophet Muhammad.
The far right quickly seized on Lola’s killing as an example of the failure of French immigration policy, after news broke that the suspect had been ordered in August to leave France within 30 days. The foreign minister said the suspect came legally as a student but confirmed the expulsion order — known as the obligation to leave French territory — and added that the woman was not previously known to the police.
The acting president of France’s far-right National Rally — the party of former presidential candidate Marine Le Pen — said on Twitter late Monday that the suspect “did not belong in France, yet nothing was done. We have before our eyes the complete bankruptcy of a government.” Éric Zemmour, another far-right politician, wrote on Twitter: “#Lola’s killer should never have crossed her path.”
Far-right march in Paris to protest 'barbaric' murder of Lola, 12, despite parents' wishes
Far-right politician Eric Zemmour and hundreds of others gathered in Paris to protest against the murder of a 12-year-old girl.
Lola's body was found in a suitcase in Paris last week.
Her family on Friday asked protestors to "urgently cease" using "the name and image of their child for political purposes", according to their lawyer.
France's right-wing political parties have seized on the fact the woman arrested for the murder is an Algerian immigrant that had already been ordered to leave the country.
Protesters say the killing should be a wake-up call for authorities to enforce immigration laws.
In response, France's government acknowledged that it had to "do better" on illegal immigration. However, allies of French President Emmanuel Macron denounced what they call a callous attempt to exploit a tragedy and score political points.
Far-right politician Eric Zemmour and hundreds of others gathered in Paris to protest against the murder of a 12-year-old girl.
Lola's body was found in a suitcase in Paris last week.
Her family on Friday asked protestors to "urgently cease" using "the name and image of their child for political purposes", according to their lawyer.
France's right-wing political parties have seized on the fact the woman arrested for the murder is an Algerian immigrant that had already been ordered to leave the country.
Protesters say the killing should be a wake-up call for authorities to enforce immigration laws.
In response, France's government acknowledged that it had to "do better" on illegal immigration. However, allies of French President Emmanuel Macron denounced what they call a callous attempt to exploit a tragedy and score political points.
How does Sweden’s new government want to change migration policy?
Tougher work permit requirements, a longer qualifying period for citizenship, permanent residency abolished, limits to family reunion, and a system of 'return migration': how will the policies in the new "Agreement for Sweden" affect foreigners?
Work permits
The minimum wage for work permits will be hiked to the level of a median salary in Sweden. This is currently 33,200 kronor, meaning the measure will quite drastically reduce the number of people coming to Sweden to work. The current minimum wage for work permit applicants is 13,000 kronor a month before tax.
......
Asylum
The parties intend to tighten asylum legislation to the “minimum level” allowed under European Union law or other international treaties to which Sweden is a signatory, with an inquiry into changes to asylum and immigration law launched next spring with the aim of passing a new law in parliament before the mandate period comes to an end in 2026.
Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Åkesson said at the press conference that the agreement represented a “paradigm shift” in migration policy.
......
Citizenship
Sweden Democrat proposals on extending the time it takes to qualify for citizenship have also made their way into this policy document, with the current limit of 5 years (3 years for spouses or cohabiting partners of Swedish citizens) extended to 8 years “in the normal case”.
......
Return migration
Återvandring, or “return migration” was also included in the policy document, with the parties pledging to study any legislation developed in other countries to stimulate the return of migrants to their countries of origin.
Tougher work permit requirements, a longer qualifying period for citizenship, permanent residency abolished, limits to family reunion, and a system of 'return migration': how will the policies in the new "Agreement for Sweden" affect foreigners?
Work permits
The minimum wage for work permits will be hiked to the level of a median salary in Sweden. This is currently 33,200 kronor, meaning the measure will quite drastically reduce the number of people coming to Sweden to work. The current minimum wage for work permit applicants is 13,000 kronor a month before tax.
......
Asylum
The parties intend to tighten asylum legislation to the “minimum level” allowed under European Union law or other international treaties to which Sweden is a signatory, with an inquiry into changes to asylum and immigration law launched next spring with the aim of passing a new law in parliament before the mandate period comes to an end in 2026.
Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Åkesson said at the press conference that the agreement represented a “paradigm shift” in migration policy.
......
Citizenship
Sweden Democrat proposals on extending the time it takes to qualify for citizenship have also made their way into this policy document, with the current limit of 5 years (3 years for spouses or cohabiting partners of Swedish citizens) extended to 8 years “in the normal case”.
......
Return migration
Återvandring, or “return migration” was also included in the policy document, with the parties pledging to study any legislation developed in other countries to stimulate the return of migrants to their countries of origin.
Do Anti-immigration Voters Care More? Documenting the Issue Importance Asymmetry of Immigration Attitudes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2022
Alexander Kustov
Abstract
Why do politicians and policymakers not prioritize pro-immigration reforms, even when public opinion on the issue is positive? This research note examines one previously overlooked explanation related to the systematically greater importance of immigration as a political issue among those who oppose it relative to those who support it. To provide a comprehensive empirical assessment of how personal immigration issue importance is related to policy preferences, I use the best available cross-national and longitudinal surveys from multiple immigrant-receiving contexts. I find that compared to pro-immigration voters, anti-immigration voters feel stronger about the issue and are more likely to consider it as both personally and nationally important. This finding holds across virtually all observed countries, years, and alternative survey measures of immigration preferences and their importance. Overall, these results suggest that public attitudes toward immigration exhibit a substantial issue importance asymmetry that systematically advantages anti-immigration causes when the issue is more contextually salient.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2022
Alexander Kustov
Abstract
Why do politicians and policymakers not prioritize pro-immigration reforms, even when public opinion on the issue is positive? This research note examines one previously overlooked explanation related to the systematically greater importance of immigration as a political issue among those who oppose it relative to those who support it. To provide a comprehensive empirical assessment of how personal immigration issue importance is related to policy preferences, I use the best available cross-national and longitudinal surveys from multiple immigrant-receiving contexts. I find that compared to pro-immigration voters, anti-immigration voters feel stronger about the issue and are more likely to consider it as both personally and nationally important. This finding holds across virtually all observed countries, years, and alternative survey measures of immigration preferences and their importance. Overall, these results suggest that public attitudes toward immigration exhibit a substantial issue importance asymmetry that systematically advantages anti-immigration causes when the issue is more contextually salient.
Michael Tracey @mtracey
Everyone should read this @RepRaskin statement because it's basically a manifesto declaring Progressive Holy War against Russia by way of Ukraine. I honestly think they'd be OK getting incinerated in a nuclear holocaust if it meant staying true to this ideological "struggle"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1585026799800492034
Everyone should read this @RepRaskin statement because it's basically a manifesto declaring Progressive Holy War against Russia by way of Ukraine. I honestly think they'd be OK getting incinerated in a nuclear holocaust if it meant staying true to this ideological "struggle"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1585026799800492034
很多对欧美政治的分析还停留在“凯撒是坏蛋，正在威胁元老院精英们维持的、多年来运转良好的制度”的阶段。追溯这些narrative的根源，会发现正是出自我们时代的元老院精英。过去几代的元老院政治对得起平民吗？平民没有理由把元老们看作凌驾于自己之上的异类吗？进一步探讨元老院政治沦落的因由很有必要，但凯撒登场在因果链的下端而不是上端——元老院精英们在这一点上搅混水是不希望深入讨论的表现。
当今的乱局是全球主义的配套对外政策——自由国际主义或者新保守主义——濒临破产的表现，然而策士们纷纷主张用导向破产的政策避免彻底破产。
45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’
Growing numbers of religious and political leaders are embracing the “Christian nationalist” label, and some dispute the idea that the country’s founders wanted a separation of church and state. On the other side of the debate, however, many Americans – including the leaders of many Christian churches – have pushed back against Christian nationalism, calling it a “danger” to the country.
Most U.S. adults believe America’s founders intended the country to be a Christian nation, and many say they think it should be a Christian nation today, according to a new Pew Research Center survey designed to explore Americans’ views on the topic. But the survey also finds widely differing opinions about what it means to be a “Christian nation” and to support “Christian nationalism.”
For instance, many supporters of Christian nationhood define the concept in broad terms, as the idea that the country is guided by Christian values. Those who say the United States should not be a Christian nation, on the other hand, are much more inclined to define a Christian nation as one where the laws explicitly enshrine religious teachings.
Overall, six-in-ten U.S. adults – including nearly seven-in-ten Christians – say they believe the founders “originally intended” for the U.S. to be a Christian nation. And 45% of U.S. adults – including about six-in-ten Christians – say they think the country “should be” a Christian nation. A third say the U.S. “is now” a Christian nation.
At the same time, a large majority of the public expresses some reservations about intermingling religion and government. For example, about three-quarters of U.S. adults (77%) say that churches and other houses of worship should not endorse candidates for political offices. Two-thirds (67%) say that religious institutions should keep out of political matters rather than expressing their views on day-to-day social or political questions. And the new survey – along with other recent Center research – makes clear that there is far more support for the idea of separation of church and state than opposition to it among Americans overall.
This raises the question: What do people mean when they say the U.S. should be a “Christian nation”? While some people who say the U.S. should be a Christian nation define the concept as one where a nation’s laws are based on Christian tenets and the nation’s leaders are Christian, it is much more common for people in this category to see a Christian nation as one where people are more broadly guided by Christian values or a belief in God, even if its laws are not explicitly Christian and its leaders can have a variety of faiths or no faith at all. Some people who say the U.S. should be a Christian nation are thinking about the religious makeup of the population; to them, a Christian nation is a country where most people are Christians. Others are simply envisioning a place where people treat each other well and have good morals.
Growing numbers of religious and political leaders are embracing the “Christian nationalist” label, and some dispute the idea that the country’s founders wanted a separation of church and state. On the other side of the debate, however, many Americans – including the leaders of many Christian churches – have pushed back against Christian nationalism, calling it a “danger” to the country.
Most U.S. adults believe America’s founders intended the country to be a Christian nation, and many say they think it should be a Christian nation today, according to a new Pew Research Center survey designed to explore Americans’ views on the topic. But the survey also finds widely differing opinions about what it means to be a “Christian nation” and to support “Christian nationalism.”
For instance, many supporters of Christian nationhood define the concept in broad terms, as the idea that the country is guided by Christian values. Those who say the United States should not be a Christian nation, on the other hand, are much more inclined to define a Christian nation as one where the laws explicitly enshrine religious teachings.
Overall, six-in-ten U.S. adults – including nearly seven-in-ten Christians – say they believe the founders “originally intended” for the U.S. to be a Christian nation. And 45% of U.S. adults – including about six-in-ten Christians – say they think the country “should be” a Christian nation. A third say the U.S. “is now” a Christian nation.
At the same time, a large majority of the public expresses some reservations about intermingling religion and government. For example, about three-quarters of U.S. adults (77%) say that churches and other houses of worship should not endorse candidates for political offices. Two-thirds (67%) say that religious institutions should keep out of political matters rather than expressing their views on day-to-day social or political questions. And the new survey – along with other recent Center research – makes clear that there is far more support for the idea of separation of church and state than opposition to it among Americans overall.
This raises the question: What do people mean when they say the U.S. should be a “Christian nation”? While some people who say the U.S. should be a Christian nation define the concept as one where a nation’s laws are based on Christian tenets and the nation’s leaders are Christian, it is much more common for people in this category to see a Christian nation as one where people are more broadly guided by Christian values or a belief in God, even if its laws are not explicitly Christian and its leaders can have a variety of faiths or no faith at all. Some people who say the U.S. should be a Christian nation are thinking about the religious makeup of the population; to them, a Christian nation is a country where most people are Christians. Others are simply envisioning a place where people treat each other well and have good morals.
U.S. military inspectors in Ukraine to keep further track of weapons and equipment
American military personnel are now in Ukraine to help keep track of the billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and equipment the United States has sent since the start of the Russian invasion, a senior U.S. defense official and senior U.S. military official said.
......
The U.S. has not seen any evidence of weapons being diverted to a black market or used for anything other than their original purpose, the defense official said, but the Pentagon and State Department remain aware of those risks and are taking efforts to prevent it.
“Thus far, intense internal demand for use on the battlefield by Ukrainian military and security forces within Ukraine is assessed to be impeding black-market proliferation of small arms and guided infantry weapons,” the State Department document states.
There is some concern about Russia's ability to capture U.S. weapon systems, however. The administration said in its plan that pro-Russian forces have been "the main vector of diversion so far and could result in onward transfer" of Ukrainian weapons and "donated materials."
......
Facing similar allegations in July, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov denied that donated weapons were making their way to the black market. While he acknowledged that Ukraine could do more to keep closer tabs on the weapons flowing into the country, he said that the accusations were unfounded and part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
“We need to survive," Reznikov told the Financial Times. "We have no reason to smuggle arms out of Ukraine."
The danger remains, however, and politicians such as Republican Sens. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky have stated that greater oversight was needed.
Others have also raised concerns about the sudden increase in the number of weapons in Europe.
Shortly after the Reznikov interview, the European law enforcement agency Europol said in a statement "that the proliferation of firearms and explosives in Ukraine could lead to an increase in" weapons trafficking. "This threat might even be higher once the conflict has ended."
American military personnel are now in Ukraine to help keep track of the billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and equipment the United States has sent since the start of the Russian invasion, a senior U.S. defense official and senior U.S. military official said.
......
The U.S. has not seen any evidence of weapons being diverted to a black market or used for anything other than their original purpose, the defense official said, but the Pentagon and State Department remain aware of those risks and are taking efforts to prevent it.
“Thus far, intense internal demand for use on the battlefield by Ukrainian military and security forces within Ukraine is assessed to be impeding black-market proliferation of small arms and guided infantry weapons,” the State Department document states.
There is some concern about Russia's ability to capture U.S. weapon systems, however. The administration said in its plan that pro-Russian forces have been "the main vector of diversion so far and could result in onward transfer" of Ukrainian weapons and "donated materials."
......
Facing similar allegations in July, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov denied that donated weapons were making their way to the black market. While he acknowledged that Ukraine could do more to keep closer tabs on the weapons flowing into the country, he said that the accusations were unfounded and part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
“We need to survive," Reznikov told the Financial Times. "We have no reason to smuggle arms out of Ukraine."
The danger remains, however, and politicians such as Republican Sens. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky have stated that greater oversight was needed.
Others have also raised concerns about the sudden increase in the number of weapons in Europe.
Shortly after the Reznikov interview, the European law enforcement agency Europol said in a statement "that the proliferation of firearms and explosives in Ukraine could lead to an increase in" weapons trafficking. "This threat might even be higher once the conflict has ended."
U.S. privately asks Ukraine to show it’s open to negotiate with Russia
The Biden administration is privately encouraging Ukraine’s leaders to signal an openness to negotiate with Russia and drop their public refusal to engage in peace talks unless President Vladimir Putin is removed from power, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The request by American officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, these people said. Rather, they called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.
The discussions illustrate how complex the Biden administration’s position on Ukraine has become, as U.S. officials publicly vow to support Kyiv with massive sums of aid “for as long as it takes” while hoping for a resolution to the conflict that over the past eight months has taken a punishing toll on the world economy and triggered fears of nuclear war.
While U.S. officials share their Ukrainian counterparts’ assessment that Putin, for now, isn’t serious about negotiations, they acknowledge that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ban on talks with him has generated concern in parts of Europe, Africa and Latin America, where the war’s disruptive effects on the availability and cost of food and fuel are felt most sharply.
“Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” said one U.S. official who, like other interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations between Washington and Kyiv.
Serhiy Nikiforov, a spokesman for Zelensky, did not respond to a request for comment.
In the United States, polls show eroding support among Republicans for continuing to finance Ukraine’s military at current levels, suggesting the White House may face resistance following Tuesday’s midterm elections as it seeks to continue a security assistance program that has delivered Ukraine the largest such annual sum since the end of the Cold War.
The Biden administration is privately encouraging Ukraine’s leaders to signal an openness to negotiate with Russia and drop their public refusal to engage in peace talks unless President Vladimir Putin is removed from power, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The request by American officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, these people said. Rather, they called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.
The discussions illustrate how complex the Biden administration’s position on Ukraine has become, as U.S. officials publicly vow to support Kyiv with massive sums of aid “for as long as it takes” while hoping for a resolution to the conflict that over the past eight months has taken a punishing toll on the world economy and triggered fears of nuclear war.
While U.S. officials share their Ukrainian counterparts’ assessment that Putin, for now, isn’t serious about negotiations, they acknowledge that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ban on talks with him has generated concern in parts of Europe, Africa and Latin America, where the war’s disruptive effects on the availability and cost of food and fuel are felt most sharply.
“Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” said one U.S. official who, like other interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations between Washington and Kyiv.
Serhiy Nikiforov, a spokesman for Zelensky, did not respond to a request for comment.
In the United States, polls show eroding support among Republicans for continuing to finance Ukraine’s military at current levels, suggesting the White House may face resistance following Tuesday’s midterm elections as it seeks to continue a security assistance program that has delivered Ukraine the largest such annual sum since the end of the Cold War.
Dr S Maitra @MrMaitra
The basic stupidity of this point is that everyone knows that Ukraine wouldn’t even exist without American generosity but that America has to privately beg Ukraine, because DC is trapped by its own rhetoric.
U.S. privately asks Ukraine to show it’s open to negotiate with Russia
No hegemon in history had to face this ideological trap. Not even USSR with Castro. Who, btw, would have readily dragged Moscow and the world to a nuclear war in 1962.
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1589028325871489025
The basic stupidity of this point is that everyone knows that Ukraine wouldn’t even exist without American generosity but that America has to privately beg Ukraine, because DC is trapped by its own rhetoric.
U.S. privately asks Ukraine to show it’s open to negotiate with Russia
No hegemon in history had to face this ideological trap. Not even USSR with Castro. Who, btw, would have readily dragged Moscow and the world to a nuclear war in 1962.
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1589028325871489025
Bloomberg @business
Will Twitter be able to monitor the US midterms with half the staff?
Twitter Cuts Spur Concerns About US Midterms, Human Rights
Christina Pushaw @ChristinaPushaw Replying to @business :
Excuse me? Since when is a corporation supposed to “monitor” our elections?
Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms Replying to @business :
Somehow elections happened before Twitter.
Doctor-Baron 17cShyteposter, DDS @17cShyteposter Replying to @business :
Democracy is when the US government unites with tech companies to tell the people what they can and cannot believe
Janice @jannyfayray Replying to @business :
They censored a true story before the last presidential election with a full staff.
https://twitter.com/business/status/1588687806834130944
Will Twitter be able to monitor the US midterms with half the staff?
Twitter Cuts Spur Concerns About US Midterms, Human Rights
Christina Pushaw @ChristinaPushaw Replying to @business :
Excuse me? Since when is a corporation supposed to “monitor” our elections?
Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms Replying to @business :
Somehow elections happened before Twitter.
Doctor-Baron 17cShyteposter, DDS @17cShyteposter Replying to @business :
Democracy is when the US government unites with tech companies to tell the people what they can and cannot believe
Janice @jannyfayray Replying to @business :
They censored a true story before the last presidential election with a full staff.
https://twitter.com/business/status/1588687806834130944
Dr S Maitra @MrMaitra
It was not Twitter's job to "curate" news, or make experience "equal"...all of those are subjective on the whims of midwit HR nannies. Curation and "providing context", more than anything, ruined the app.
What's happening in Twitter, should happen to Universities. The self-sustaining and totalitarian admin bloat of the last 30+ years needs to be gutted. Will make higher-ed rigorous and meritocratic, cut down toxic disciplines/debts, and massively reduce tuition costs.
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1588912818862325760
It was not Twitter's job to "curate" news, or make experience "equal"...all of those are subjective on the whims of midwit HR nannies. Curation and "providing context", more than anything, ruined the app.
Brandy Zadrozny @BrandyZadrozny
Teams dedicated to making Twitter better for individual users and the world at large have been completely decimated. Some of these folks were doing such smart, creative work to better the experience, provide context, curation, transparency, safety, equality, etc.
A bummer.
What's happening in Twitter, should happen to Universities. The self-sustaining and totalitarian admin bloat of the last 30+ years needs to be gutted. Will make higher-ed rigorous and meritocratic, cut down toxic disciplines/debts, and massively reduce tuition costs.
https://twitter.com/MrMaitra/status/1588912818862325760
Trans criminals can use ‘loophole’ to hide previous convictions when applying for jobs
Criminals who claim they are transgender are able to use a “loophole” to hide their previous convictions and avoid scrutiny when applying to work with children, The Telegraph can reveal.
Men who self-identify as women and vice-versa are able to withhold their real names and sex at birth when applying for jobs including in schools, nurseries and hospitals.
Criminal record checks are only carried out on previous identities if the individual personally notifies officials of their past, a report by Keep Prisons Single Sex has found.
It means criminals willing to lie about whether they have changed their names can avoid their convictions being discovered.
But special processes set up for people who are transgender mean that even if an employer suspects that someone has changed gender, they cannot check if that person has disclosed their previous identities to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), because of privacy restrictions.
The report warns that the system could be “abused” by “nefarious criminals” wanting to hide convictions to gain access to children and vulnerable young people.
Criminals who claim they are transgender are able to use a “loophole” to hide their previous convictions and avoid scrutiny when applying to work with children, The Telegraph can reveal.
Men who self-identify as women and vice-versa are able to withhold their real names and sex at birth when applying for jobs including in schools, nurseries and hospitals.
Criminal record checks are only carried out on previous identities if the individual personally notifies officials of their past, a report by Keep Prisons Single Sex has found.
It means criminals willing to lie about whether they have changed their names can avoid their convictions being discovered.
But special processes set up for people who are transgender mean that even if an employer suspects that someone has changed gender, they cannot check if that person has disclosed their previous identities to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), because of privacy restrictions.
The report warns that the system could be “abused” by “nefarious criminals” wanting to hide convictions to gain access to children and vulnerable young people.
Republican Opposition to Helping Ukraine Grows, WSJ Poll Finds
WASHINGTON—The majority of Americans support continuing aid to Ukraine in what will likely be a prolonged war with Russia, but support is becoming a partisan issue as Republican opposition grows to helping the country, according to a new Wall Street Journal poll.
Military and financial aid to Ukraine has emerged as one of many political flashpoints days before a midterm election in which control of the Congress is at stake. The continuing flow of aid is falling out of favor with some Republicans in the House of Representatives, who say they struggle to justify the overseas spending amid domestic concerns, including high inflation and economic uncertainty.
Some 30% of respondents overall said in the new survey they believe the administration is doing too much to help Ukraine, up from 6% in a March Journal poll. The change was driven by a big shift among GOP voters: 48% of Republicans now say the U.S. is doing too much, up from 6% in the previous survey.
The portion of GOP voters who said the U.S. isn’t doing enough to help Ukraine fell to 17%, a steep drop from 61% in March.
In a separate question that wasn’t asked in previous Journal surveys, 57% of poll respondents said they favor sending additional financial aid to Ukraine to support its war effort, while 37% said they opposed it. Among respondents, 81% of Democrats said they supported additional financial aid for Ukraine, while only 35% of Republicans and 45% of independents said the same.
WASHINGTON—The majority of Americans support continuing aid to Ukraine in what will likely be a prolonged war with Russia, but support is becoming a partisan issue as Republican opposition grows to helping the country, according to a new Wall Street Journal poll.
Military and financial aid to Ukraine has emerged as one of many political flashpoints days before a midterm election in which control of the Congress is at stake. The continuing flow of aid is falling out of favor with some Republicans in the House of Representatives, who say they struggle to justify the overseas spending amid domestic concerns, including high inflation and economic uncertainty.
Some 30% of respondents overall said in the new survey they believe the administration is doing too much to help Ukraine, up from 6% in a March Journal poll. The change was driven by a big shift among GOP voters: 48% of Republicans now say the U.S. is doing too much, up from 6% in the previous survey.
The portion of GOP voters who said the U.S. isn’t doing enough to help Ukraine fell to 17%, a steep drop from 61% in March.
In a separate question that wasn’t asked in previous Journal surveys, 57% of poll respondents said they favor sending additional financial aid to Ukraine to support its war effort, while 37% said they opposed it. Among respondents, 81% of Democrats said they supported additional financial aid for Ukraine, while only 35% of Republicans and 45% of independents said the same.
Scoop: McCarthy privately floats replacing Chamber leadership
House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy is telling U.S. Chamber of Commerce board members and state leaders the organization must undertake a complete leadership change and replace current president and CEO Suzanne Clark, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: McCarthy’s direct conversations make clear he will not work with Clark and her leadership team if Republicans win control and he becomes House speaker.
- But he’s charting a potential path forward for the business group to reestablish a relationship with the GOP conference.
What they're saying: Mark Ordan, chairman of the board of directors, told Axios that Clark continues to have the "complete support" of the executive committee.
- "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce team serves a vital role in the daily defense of American business," he said. "We serve our members, not a political party."
......
Go deeper: Conservative Republicans have been working to undercut the chamber, with the House Republican Study Committee bolstering a potential rival business lobbying group, the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce, to an official meeting in June.
- At the gathering, RSC chairman Jim Banks (R-Ind.), who is close to McCarthy, said he was "increasingly frustrated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for supporting woke policies and enriching China," Axios reported.
Between the lines: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has maintained a better relationship with Senate Republicans. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) addressing the group in September, expressed private optimism that the GOP can win back control of the Senate.
......
The bottom line: Republicans in Congress are prepared to go to war with the business community, once the cornerstone of their coalition, for what many in their ranks view as an unforgivable shift: Focusing less on profit and more on politics.
House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy is telling U.S. Chamber of Commerce board members and state leaders the organization must undertake a complete leadership change and replace current president and CEO Suzanne Clark, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: McCarthy’s direct conversations make clear he will not work with Clark and her leadership team if Republicans win control and he becomes House speaker.
- But he’s charting a potential path forward for the business group to reestablish a relationship with the GOP conference.
What they're saying: Mark Ordan, chairman of the board of directors, told Axios that Clark continues to have the "complete support" of the executive committee.
- "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce team serves a vital role in the daily defense of American business," he said. "We serve our members, not a political party."
......
Go deeper: Conservative Republicans have been working to undercut the chamber, with the House Republican Study Committee bolstering a potential rival business lobbying group, the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce, to an official meeting in June.
- At the gathering, RSC chairman Jim Banks (R-Ind.), who is close to McCarthy, said he was "increasingly frustrated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for supporting woke policies and enriching China," Axios reported.
Between the lines: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has maintained a better relationship with Senate Republicans. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) addressing the group in September, expressed private optimism that the GOP can win back control of the Senate.
......
The bottom line: Republicans in Congress are prepared to go to war with the business community, once the cornerstone of their coalition, for what many in their ranks view as an unforgivable shift: Focusing less on profit and more on politics.
Biden's Migrant Policy Worsens Central America's 'Root Causes,' Critics Say
When Vice President Kamala Harris visited Mexico last year, she cited poverty, crime, and political instability as "root causes” driving millions of migrants to cross the U.S. border.
But some critics with regional expertise say Biden administration policies, which migrants have interpreted as an invitation to travel north, have severely worsened those root causes, destabilizing large swaths of Central America and Mexico. The torrent of people moving across the region has delivered billions of dollars to the coffers of human smuggling rings and the drug cartels that have taken advantage of America’s overwhelmed border patrol to deliver fentanyl and other deadly substances to the United States.
Criminal organizations, these experts say, have stoked rampant corruption, especially in Mexico, as they pay bribes to police and other local officials to ease passage of their cargo. The migrants themselves are prey to gangster elements that, according to one account, leaves more than two-thirds of them victims of crime and nearly one-third of the women subjected to sexual assaults.
“Mexico is probably one of the most dangerous places for the transit of migrants,” said Dr. Juan Luis Hernandez Avendano, rector of the Ibero-American University of Torreon-Monterrey-Saltillo, who has been an outspoken critic of the surging corruption in his country.
......
Although the administration has claimed that the border is secure and that it has told migrants not to come to America, it has instituted many policies they see as welcoming. This began on President Biden’s first day in office, when he declared that no one would be deported for 100 days.
These policies have helped empower criminal elements. The fees paid to smugglers by this human flood have put an additional $2.6 billion into Mexican criminal cartel coffers in the past 12 months, according to an October analysis by the Washington Times. The profits have risen along with the price, as immigrants now pay roughly $8,600 in smuggling fees if they start their odyssey in Mexico, while those starting farther south can pay $11,500 or more. And those figures do not include transportation fees or bribes immigrants must pay to cross various borders across the Central American isthmus.
When Vice President Kamala Harris visited Mexico last year, she cited poverty, crime, and political instability as "root causes” driving millions of migrants to cross the U.S. border.
But some critics with regional expertise say Biden administration policies, which migrants have interpreted as an invitation to travel north, have severely worsened those root causes, destabilizing large swaths of Central America and Mexico. The torrent of people moving across the region has delivered billions of dollars to the coffers of human smuggling rings and the drug cartels that have taken advantage of America’s overwhelmed border patrol to deliver fentanyl and other deadly substances to the United States.
Criminal organizations, these experts say, have stoked rampant corruption, especially in Mexico, as they pay bribes to police and other local officials to ease passage of their cargo. The migrants themselves are prey to gangster elements that, according to one account, leaves more than two-thirds of them victims of crime and nearly one-third of the women subjected to sexual assaults.
“Mexico is probably one of the most dangerous places for the transit of migrants,” said Dr. Juan Luis Hernandez Avendano, rector of the Ibero-American University of Torreon-Monterrey-Saltillo, who has been an outspoken critic of the surging corruption in his country.
......
Although the administration has claimed that the border is secure and that it has told migrants not to come to America, it has instituted many policies they see as welcoming. This began on President Biden’s first day in office, when he declared that no one would be deported for 100 days.
These policies have helped empower criminal elements. The fees paid to smugglers by this human flood have put an additional $2.6 billion into Mexican criminal cartel coffers in the past 12 months, according to an October analysis by the Washington Times. The profits have risen along with the price, as immigrants now pay roughly $8,600 in smuggling fees if they start their odyssey in Mexico, while those starting farther south can pay $11,500 or more. And those figures do not include transportation fees or bribes immigrants must pay to cross various borders across the Central American isthmus.
The Russian gas habit Europe can’t quit: LNG
European leaders have boasted about cutting their reliance on Russian gas since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. But that’s only part of the truth.
While supplies of natural gas delivered by pipeline fell dramatically this year, liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from Russia into the EU increased by 46 percent year-on-year in the first nine months of 2022, according to European Commission figures.
For EU countries, the risk is that growing usage of seaborne LNG from Russia could put Europe at the mercy of a fresh round of Putin’s gas blackmail in 2023, just as the bloc seeks to refill its gas stores for winter.
......
Statistics shared with POLITICO by the Commission show that between January and September 2022, EU countries imported 16.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Russian LNG, up from 11.3 bcm in the same period last year.
The increase in LNG imports is small in comparison to the huge drop in Russian pipeline gas imports, which halved from 105.7 bcm in the first nine months of last year to 54.2 bcm in the same period this year, according to the Commission’s figures. But the LNG uptick cuts against the grain of EU rhetoric and is not without its own inherent risks, energy market analysts said.
......
Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a global research scholar at Columbia, said it was “very convenient for everybody to turn a blind eye to Russian LNG” flows into Europe.
In economic terms, Corbeau said, it “made sense” for Europe to keep importing LNG from Russia for now. Cutting Russian LNG out of the EU market would mean European countries buying up more LNG from elsewhere in the world, driving up prices for poorer countries in Asia.
“The prices would be stratospheric and that would be extremely bad not only for Europe but also for a lot of countries that wouldn’t be able to afford [LNG],” Corbeau said.
But she added, increased imports of Russian LNG raised the potential for “Russia to use LNG as a geopolitical weapon” — just as it has done with pipeline gas. Putin could potentially block exports to “unfriendly” countries while continuing to provide a gas lifeline to poorer states in Asia suffering severe energy shortages.
European leaders have boasted about cutting their reliance on Russian gas since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. But that’s only part of the truth.
While supplies of natural gas delivered by pipeline fell dramatically this year, liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from Russia into the EU increased by 46 percent year-on-year in the first nine months of 2022, according to European Commission figures.
For EU countries, the risk is that growing usage of seaborne LNG from Russia could put Europe at the mercy of a fresh round of Putin’s gas blackmail in 2023, just as the bloc seeks to refill its gas stores for winter.
......
Statistics shared with POLITICO by the Commission show that between January and September 2022, EU countries imported 16.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Russian LNG, up from 11.3 bcm in the same period last year.
The increase in LNG imports is small in comparison to the huge drop in Russian pipeline gas imports, which halved from 105.7 bcm in the first nine months of last year to 54.2 bcm in the same period this year, according to the Commission’s figures. But the LNG uptick cuts against the grain of EU rhetoric and is not without its own inherent risks, energy market analysts said.
......
Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a global research scholar at Columbia, said it was “very convenient for everybody to turn a blind eye to Russian LNG” flows into Europe.
In economic terms, Corbeau said, it “made sense” for Europe to keep importing LNG from Russia for now. Cutting Russian LNG out of the EU market would mean European countries buying up more LNG from elsewhere in the world, driving up prices for poorer countries in Asia.
“The prices would be stratospheric and that would be extremely bad not only for Europe but also for a lot of countries that wouldn’t be able to afford [LNG],” Corbeau said.
But she added, increased imports of Russian LNG raised the potential for “Russia to use LNG as a geopolitical weapon” — just as it has done with pipeline gas. Putin could potentially block exports to “unfriendly” countries while continuing to provide a gas lifeline to poorer states in Asia suffering severe energy shortages.
US and NATO see peace talks between Ukraine and Russia only if Ukraine liberates Kherson, says La Repubblica
The message the United States is sending Ukraine through Brussels is that if and when Kherson is regained, then negotiations can be started.
Once Kherson is liberated, Ukraine could join the negotiations from a position of strength, the newspaper wrote.
The liberation of Kherson is possible before the end of November, the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate Kyrylo Budanov said on Oct. 31.
Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov said that rainy weather had slowed down the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Kherson Oblast a little. He also noted that Ukraine controls all the bridges, so the invaders will not have the opportunity to escape from Kherson.
Previously, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Putin is not offering Ukraine peace talks, but instead “surrender on their terms.”
The message the United States is sending Ukraine through Brussels is that if and when Kherson is regained, then negotiations can be started.
Once Kherson is liberated, Ukraine could join the negotiations from a position of strength, the newspaper wrote.
The liberation of Kherson is possible before the end of November, the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate Kyrylo Budanov said on Oct. 31.
Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov said that rainy weather had slowed down the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Kherson Oblast a little. He also noted that Ukraine controls all the bridges, so the invaders will not have the opportunity to escape from Kherson.
Previously, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Putin is not offering Ukraine peace talks, but instead “surrender on their terms.”
Senior White House Official Involved in Undisclosed Talks With Top Putin Aides
WASHINGTON—President Biden’s top national-security adviser has engaged in recent months in confidential conversations with top aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to reduce the risk of a broader conflict over Ukraine and warn Moscow against using nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, U.S. and allied officials said.
The officials said that U.S. national-security adviser Jake Sullivan has been in contact with Yuri Ushakov, a foreign-policy adviser to Mr. Putin. Mr. Sullivan also has spoken with his direct counterpart in the Russian government, Nikolai Patrushev, the officials added.
The aim has been to guard against the risk of escalation and keep communications channels open, and not to discuss a settlement of the war in Ukraine, the officials said.
Asked whether Mr. Sullivan has engaged in undisclosed conversations with Messrs. Ushakov or Patrushev, National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said: “People claim a lot of things,” and declined to comment further.
“Anglo-Saxon newspapers have been publishing numerous hoaxes,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday when asked about the undisclosed communications. He deferred to the White House or The Wall Street Journal for additional comment.
The White House hasn’t publicly acknowledged any calls between Mr. Sullivan and any senior Russian official since March, when he spoke with Mr. Patrushev.
WASHINGTON—President Biden’s top national-security adviser has engaged in recent months in confidential conversations with top aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to reduce the risk of a broader conflict over Ukraine and warn Moscow against using nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, U.S. and allied officials said.
The officials said that U.S. national-security adviser Jake Sullivan has been in contact with Yuri Ushakov, a foreign-policy adviser to Mr. Putin. Mr. Sullivan also has spoken with his direct counterpart in the Russian government, Nikolai Patrushev, the officials added.
The aim has been to guard against the risk of escalation and keep communications channels open, and not to discuss a settlement of the war in Ukraine, the officials said.
Asked whether Mr. Sullivan has engaged in undisclosed conversations with Messrs. Ushakov or Patrushev, National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said: “People claim a lot of things,” and declined to comment further.
“Anglo-Saxon newspapers have been publishing numerous hoaxes,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday when asked about the undisclosed communications. He deferred to the White House or The Wall Street Journal for additional comment.
The White House hasn’t publicly acknowledged any calls between Mr. Sullivan and any senior Russian official since March, when he spoke with Mr. Patrushev.
Between the experience of living a normal life at this moment on the planet and the public narratives being offered to give a sense to that life, the empty space, the gap, is enormous. The desolation lies, lies there, not in the facts.
- John Berger
- John Berger
Fox News @FoxNews
BREAKING NEWS: In Florida, the Fox News Decision Desk projects GOP Governor Ron DeSantis will defeat Charlie Crist, with millions of votes in. https://fxn.ws/3UnYRT1
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1590150591396855809
Fox News @FoxNews
BREAKING NEWS: The Fox News Decision Desk can now project that Republican candidate and author JD Vance will defeat Democratic U.S. House Rep. Tim Ryan in the Ohio Senate race. https://fxn.ws/3tl4LYV
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1590197027031367680
BREAKING NEWS: In Florida, the Fox News Decision Desk projects GOP Governor Ron DeSantis will defeat Charlie Crist, with millions of votes in. https://fxn.ws/3UnYRT1
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1590150591396855809
Fox News @FoxNews
BREAKING NEWS: The Fox News Decision Desk can now project that Republican candidate and author JD Vance will defeat Democratic U.S. House Rep. Tim Ryan in the Ohio Senate race. https://fxn.ws/3tl4LYV
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1590197027031367680
Brad Wilcox @BradWilcoxIFS
DeSantis ‘22 margin > Trump ‘20 margin
https://twitter.com/BradWilcoxIFS/status/1590180304706506753
DeSantis ‘22 margin > Trump ‘20 margin
https://twitter.com/BradWilcoxIFS/status/1590180304706506753
Allie Beth Stuckey @conservmillen
DeSantis took risks as governor by being a relentless culture warrior & unapologetic defender of freedom, while many other Republican governors were too scared of Fauci & the leftists in their state to do the same. And, even in a purple state, this was a winning strategy.
https://twitter.com/conservmillen/status/1590148592098226176
Allie Beth Stuckey @conservmillen
Republicans, take note of DeSantis’s win: we’re done with the old, corporate tax cuts GOP. We want you to use all the power available to you to crush the entities crushing us.
https://twitter.com/conservmillen/status/1590153462951469056
DeSantis took risks as governor by being a relentless culture warrior & unapologetic defender of freedom, while many other Republican governors were too scared of Fauci & the leftists in their state to do the same. And, even in a purple state, this was a winning strategy.
https://twitter.com/conservmillen/status/1590148592098226176
Allie Beth Stuckey @conservmillen
Republicans, take note of DeSantis’s win: we’re done with the old, corporate tax cuts GOP. We want you to use all the power available to you to crush the entities crushing us.
https://twitter.com/conservmillen/status/1590153462951469056
Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacintyre
The transformation of Florida from a purple swing state trending blue to a deep red bastion of conservative leadership in a few short years should be a blueprint for how to build regional power
Unapologetic use of power to battle woke corporations, sexual indoctrination in schools and biomedical tyranny
Ignoring the mainstream conservative taboos and addressing the social issues that voters desperately wanted to see leadership on
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1590187713852248066
The transformation of Florida from a purple swing state trending blue to a deep red bastion of conservative leadership in a few short years should be a blueprint for how to build regional power
David Reaboi, Late Republic Nonsense @davereaboi
If you think DeSantis won’t use this massive mandate to push ahead with making Florida an even more based state, you don’t know him at all. 2023 is going to put the scare into the libs.
Unapologetic use of power to battle woke corporations, sexual indoctrination in schools and biomedical tyranny
Ignoring the mainstream conservative taboos and addressing the social issues that voters desperately wanted to see leadership on
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1590187713852248066
Batya Ungar-Sargon @bungarsargon
A lot of people are saying Florida is now a red state, but to me it seems like a lot of Democrats—meaning people who *still identify* as Democrats—voted for Ron DeSantis. It's a subtle but important difference: DeSantis is less part of a red wave and more part of a realignment.
Every major battle he's waged has united middle- and working-class Americans across the political spectrum against woke elites, whether it's on immigration or LGBT education in early childhood education or even his position on abortion, which is exactly where the median voter is.
There are a ton of Americans who are socially conservative and fiscally protectionist—lots of working-class Americans are in this group. Some vote Republican, some vote Democrat, but more unites them than divides them. The politician who figures this out will have a true mandate.
https://twitter.com/bungarsargon/status/1590166814537154560
A lot of people are saying Florida is now a red state, but to me it seems like a lot of Democrats—meaning people who *still identify* as Democrats—voted for Ron DeSantis. It's a subtle but important difference: DeSantis is less part of a red wave and more part of a realignment.
Every major battle he's waged has united middle- and working-class Americans across the political spectrum against woke elites, whether it's on immigration or LGBT education in early childhood education or even his position on abortion, which is exactly where the median voter is.
There are a ton of Americans who are socially conservative and fiscally protectionist—lots of working-class Americans are in this group. Some vote Republican, some vote Democrat, but more unites them than divides them. The politician who figures this out will have a true mandate.
https://twitter.com/bungarsargon/status/1590166814537154560
Pedro L. Gonzalez @emeriticus
Some people wanted to pretend culture war issues like transgenderism are dead in the water because they are somehow too far away from the lives of the average person.
That has proven totally false, and @approject and @Schilling1776 have done incredible work on this front.
...You heard this in 2020, when Karl Rove and co. tried to explain why some Hispanics were shifting right. They said it was because the GOP took a softer tone on immigration, which was false.
...You know why suburban moms turned out to vote GOP? Not just because of inflation—that is, they can’t afford to feed their kids—but because their kids have been targeted with racial blood libel and sexual depravity.
https://twitter.com/emeriticus/status/1590146316596043777
Some people wanted to pretend culture war issues like transgenderism are dead in the water because they are somehow too far away from the lives of the average person.
That has proven totally false, and @approject and @Schilling1776 have done incredible work on this front.
Terry Schilling @Schilling1776
This is humbling.
First, I want to thank all of you who have supported @approject . This was our most successful year ever.
When we first engaged this fight, we were mocked. Nobody thought this issue would resonate.
We changed that. Now we are winning and winning BIGLY. 1/
...You heard this in 2020, when Karl Rove and co. tried to explain why some Hispanics were shifting right. They said it was because the GOP took a softer tone on immigration, which was false.
...You know why suburban moms turned out to vote GOP? Not just because of inflation—that is, they can’t afford to feed their kids—but because their kids have been targeted with racial blood libel and sexual depravity.
https://twitter.com/emeriticus/status/1590146316596043777
Pedro L. Gonzalez @emeriticus
If the red wave is more of a splash, the silver lining is that a wave would likely just enable the GOP’s worst tendencies and put it on auto-pilot, guaranteeing ineffective leadership (McCarthy) remains safe 1/
There are reasons to celebrate, like Florida, Ohio, etc. However, the GOP didn’t have a national governing agenda. McCarthy’s big sell was tinkering with social security and other programs. GOP leadership was talking to Democrats about getting more money for Ukraine in Jan. 2/
People like Vance won because they were good candidates with good messaging who also didn’t back off on hard issues 3/
I am not an accelerationist by any stretch of the imagination. But if the GOP underperforms nationally when it should have a slam dunk across the board, that calls into question incumbent leadership -- and that is a very good thing in the long run 4/
Who actually thinks the GOP earned a red wave? What was the GOP's national message? What was its vision? Again, McCarthy and McConnell just promised more of the same while highlighting Biden's failures. But that is a *negative* agenda, not a path forward 5/
https://twitter.com/emeriticus/status/1590198266989522945
If the red wave is more of a splash, the silver lining is that a wave would likely just enable the GOP’s worst tendencies and put it on auto-pilot, guaranteeing ineffective leadership (McCarthy) remains safe 1/
There are reasons to celebrate, like Florida, Ohio, etc. However, the GOP didn’t have a national governing agenda. McCarthy’s big sell was tinkering with social security and other programs. GOP leadership was talking to Democrats about getting more money for Ukraine in Jan. 2/
People like Vance won because they were good candidates with good messaging who also didn’t back off on hard issues 3/
I am not an accelerationist by any stretch of the imagination. But if the GOP underperforms nationally when it should have a slam dunk across the board, that calls into question incumbent leadership -- and that is a very good thing in the long run 4/
Who actually thinks the GOP earned a red wave? What was the GOP's national message? What was its vision? Again, McCarthy and McConnell just promised more of the same while highlighting Biden's failures. But that is a *negative* agenda, not a path forward 5/
https://twitter.com/emeriticus/status/1590198266989522945
Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage
Tonight is a disappointment for the Republican Party. The polls were wrong and the red wave is a ripple. Massive early voting has changed American politics.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1590251791450443776
Will Chamberlain @willchamberlain
DeSantis won Florida by 20
Almost no other Republicans exceeded expectations, anywhere
https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1590206241992679425
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog
The Republican Party outside of Florida has no message. No discipline. No leadership. No courage to confront the important issues head on. That’s why they’re losing to literally brain damaged candidates. We need a total overhaul.
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1590221157189709824
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry @pegobry
I guess the big takeaway is libs want this. Crime, inflation, runaway homelessness & drug addiction, replacement migration. We all sort of assumed they would recoil at the brink. But no, they were like "Yes, this is what I voted for."
https://twitter.com/pegobry/status/1590209997946097665
Tonight is a disappointment for the Republican Party. The polls were wrong and the red wave is a ripple. Massive early voting has changed American politics.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1590251791450443776
Will Chamberlain @willchamberlain
DeSantis won Florida by 20
Almost no other Republicans exceeded expectations, anywhere
https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1590206241992679425
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog
The Republican Party outside of Florida has no message. No discipline. No leadership. No courage to confront the important issues head on. That’s why they’re losing to literally brain damaged candidates. We need a total overhaul.
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1590221157189709824
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry @pegobry
I guess the big takeaway is libs want this. Crime, inflation, runaway homelessness & drug addiction, replacement migration. We all sort of assumed they would recoil at the brink. But no, they were like "Yes, this is what I voted for."
https://twitter.com/pegobry/status/1590209997946097665
Ron Coleman @RonColeman
Such pedestrian takes underselling tonight’s results for the GOP.
At no point in US history has every single cultural institution - press, entertainment, academia, unions, public employees, the massive public employee sector, the professions, law enforcement, federal agencies >
> major corporations, Wall Street, non-profits, mainline Protestant denominations, the military - I could go on - been so profoundly and explicitly aligned the way they have been behind the Left in the last five years.
There’s nothing “typical” about this midterm election. >
Moreover, the GOP is bringing legitimately interesting and exciting new blood into its coalitions as candidates, young leaders and voters.
This includes many minority communities dismissed as automatic Democrat sectors for all time to come. No. >
Not that the GOP isn’t stuck with some old and stale figures - but the Democrats have no bench, no future. No one.
And their party message is and will remain rooted in resentment, nihilism, division and contempt for most Americans, their values and and their intelligence. >
And then you’ll tell me, “It was only Florida!”
I mean if you don’t understand or want to accept what Florida means - the Latino vote, the economic growth, the low taxes, the nature of the leadership that transformed its political landscape - I can’t help you. Not at this hour.
But if your response is Pennsylvania… >
Or New York… or Illinois… or California…
it is to laugh.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. The 20th century is way in the rear view mirror.
These states are the living dead of our Republic. They’re bleeding population, representation, talent, youth … >
NY escaped the fate of the rest of the rust belt by retooling as a financial center and safe tourist attraction. The quarter century of that success was mulcted to zero by Democrats in less than a decade. It’s hopeless.
NY is too, and so is PA. Just slower.>
https://twitter.com/RonColeman/status/1590195548195213313
Such pedestrian takes underselling tonight’s results for the GOP.
At no point in US history has every single cultural institution - press, entertainment, academia, unions, public employees, the massive public employee sector, the professions, law enforcement, federal agencies >
> major corporations, Wall Street, non-profits, mainline Protestant denominations, the military - I could go on - been so profoundly and explicitly aligned the way they have been behind the Left in the last five years.
There’s nothing “typical” about this midterm election. >
Moreover, the GOP is bringing legitimately interesting and exciting new blood into its coalitions as candidates, young leaders and voters.
This includes many minority communities dismissed as automatic Democrat sectors for all time to come. No. >
Not that the GOP isn’t stuck with some old and stale figures - but the Democrats have no bench, no future. No one.
And their party message is and will remain rooted in resentment, nihilism, division and contempt for most Americans, their values and and their intelligence. >
And then you’ll tell me, “It was only Florida!”
I mean if you don’t understand or want to accept what Florida means - the Latino vote, the economic growth, the low taxes, the nature of the leadership that transformed its political landscape - I can’t help you. Not at this hour.
But if your response is Pennsylvania… >
Or New York… or Illinois… or California…
it is to laugh.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. The 20th century is way in the rear view mirror.
These states are the living dead of our Republic. They’re bleeding population, representation, talent, youth … >
NY escaped the fate of the rest of the rust belt by retooling as a financial center and safe tourist attraction. The quarter century of that success was mulcted to zero by Democrats in less than a decade. It’s hopeless.
NY is too, and so is PA. Just slower.>
https://twitter.com/RonColeman/status/1590195548195213313
“这就是上帝隐秘正义的彰显” / “这是人类无法实现正义的表现”
鉴于上帝隐秘的正义在末世审判前只能通过人类行为来实现，怎样断定某一历史事实属于前者还是后者？是否对该事件的解释放进前一个筐看上去不合适的，就丢到后一个，以便轻易消除可能的反例，保证诠释框架在表面上的自洽？
鉴于上帝隐秘的正义在末世审判前只能通过人类行为来实现，怎样断定某一历史事实属于前者还是后者？是否对该事件的解释放进前一个筐看上去不合适的，就丢到后一个，以便轻易消除可能的反例，保证诠释框架在表面上的自洽？
Mark Lilla这篇专栏在自由主义立场上诊断自由民主社会当下问题，反思的深入程度远胜于同侪。他基本摆脱了占据着CNN或者The Atlantic等媒体空间的那套陈腐话语，清楚地指出两点：1. 就西方内部而言，今日自由派真正的敌人不是极右，而是左右两翼都无法驾驭的、技术-资本-意识形态合力造就的、摧毁社会良好运转所需的结构的离心力；2. 就世界而言，与民主相关的最大问题不是若干国家，比如乌克兰能否加入自由民主制的阵营，而是自由民主社会面对自我瓦解的离心力，能否找到前路。如果不能，加入阵营的新成员也不过是稍晚一点陷入迷途。
用“丧心病狂”来形容拜登的边境政策，毫不过分：
72K Migrant Got-Aways in December, 212K in Last Three Months
209K Migrants Apprehended over 4 Months in El Paso Border Sector
220K Migrants Apprehended in December Along SW Border
Biden’s DHS: ‘No Records’ on Over 350K Border Crossers Released into U.S.
844K Known Border Crossers in First Quarter of Fiscal Year
More than 1.2M Fugitive Illegal Aliens Remain Living Across U.S. Despite Having Final Deportation Orders
Healthcare for Illegal Aliens in DHS Custody Costs Taxpayers $324M a Year as Over 30M Americans Go Uninsured
72K Migrant Got-Aways in December, 212K in Last Three Months
209K Migrants Apprehended over 4 Months in El Paso Border Sector
220K Migrants Apprehended in December Along SW Border
Biden’s DHS: ‘No Records’ on Over 350K Border Crossers Released into U.S.
844K Known Border Crossers in First Quarter of Fiscal Year
More than 1.2M Fugitive Illegal Aliens Remain Living Across U.S. Despite Having Final Deportation Orders
Healthcare for Illegal Aliens in DHS Custody Costs Taxpayers $324M a Year as Over 30M Americans Go Uninsured
DeSantis终于开始对公立大学下手了：
Gov. DeSantis administration surveying for CRT, DEI in Florida higher education
DeSantis Announces Plan To Squash ‘Equity’ At New College Of Florida And Restore Merit
约束教育官僚阶层可以达到两个目的：1. 遏制公立大学沦为左翼极端主义的培训机构的倾向；2. 阻止近年来无关教学的意识形态规训团体快速膨胀导致的资金耗费，部分疏解学贷高企的问题。
Gov. DeSantis administration surveying for CRT, DEI in Florida higher education
DeSantis Announces Plan To Squash ‘Equity’ At New College Of Florida And Restore Merit
约束教育官僚阶层可以达到两个目的：1. 遏制公立大学沦为左翼极端主义的培训机构的倾向；2. 阻止近年来无关教学的意识形态规训团体快速膨胀导致的资金耗费，部分疏解学贷高企的问题。
Black Democrats differ from other Democrats in their views on gender identity, transgender issues
Republicans and Democrats in the United States differ widely in their views on gender identity and transgender issues. But there are notable differences among Democrats, too, especially by race and ethnicity.
Overall, 60% of U.S. adults say that whether someone is a man or woman is determined by their sex at birth, while 38% say someone can be a man or woman even if that is different from their sex at birth, according to a May 2022 Pew Research Center survey. Most Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (86%) say someone’s gender is determined by sex at birth, while a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (61%) say someone’s gender can differ from their sex at birth.
But Democrats’ views differ widely by race and ethnicity. Around two-thirds of Black Democrats (66%) say that whether someone is a man or woman is determined by their sex at birth. By contrast, 72% of White Democrats, 61% of Asian Democrats and 54% of Hispanic Democrats say that someone can be a man or woman even if that is different from their sex at birth. On this question, Black Democrats’ views are closer to those of Republicans than to the views of other Democrats.
When it comes to societal acceptance of transgender people, Americans as a whole are divided: 38% of adults say society has gone too far in accepting trans people, 36% say it has not gone far enough and 23% say it has been about right. A majority of Republicans (66%) say society has gone too far in accepting transgender people, while a majority of Democrats (59%) say it has not gone far enough.
On this question, too, there are some racial and ethnic differences among Democrats. In particular, Black Democrats are less likely than White, Asian and Hispanic Democrats to say society has not gone far enough in accepting transgender people.
Republicans and Democrats in the United States differ widely in their views on gender identity and transgender issues. But there are notable differences among Democrats, too, especially by race and ethnicity.
Overall, 60% of U.S. adults say that whether someone is a man or woman is determined by their sex at birth, while 38% say someone can be a man or woman even if that is different from their sex at birth, according to a May 2022 Pew Research Center survey. Most Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (86%) say someone’s gender is determined by sex at birth, while a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (61%) say someone’s gender can differ from their sex at birth.
But Democrats’ views differ widely by race and ethnicity. Around two-thirds of Black Democrats (66%) say that whether someone is a man or woman is determined by their sex at birth. By contrast, 72% of White Democrats, 61% of Asian Democrats and 54% of Hispanic Democrats say that someone can be a man or woman even if that is different from their sex at birth. On this question, Black Democrats’ views are closer to those of Republicans than to the views of other Democrats.
When it comes to societal acceptance of transgender people, Americans as a whole are divided: 38% of adults say society has gone too far in accepting trans people, 36% say it has not gone far enough and 23% say it has been about right. A majority of Republicans (66%) say society has gone too far in accepting transgender people, while a majority of Democrats (59%) say it has not gone far enough.
On this question, too, there are some racial and ethnic differences among Democrats. In particular, Black Democrats are less likely than White, Asian and Hispanic Democrats to say society has not gone far enough in accepting transgender people.
11 states considering bills to restrict transgender health care
More than two dozen bills targeting transgender health care have been introduced at the start of 2023 state legislative sessions, AP reports.
The big picture: The new bills come after 2022 saw a wave of anti-transgender legislation nationwide, with at least 34 states introducing more than 145 anti-trans bills.
- Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, uniformly recommend gender-affirming care but have faced legislative attacks and online threats.
Driving the news: Republican state lawmakers are focusing on gender-affirming health care, primarily targeting providers and the parents of trans youths.
- Eleven states — Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia — have proposed new legislation so far. Many of the bills look to criminalize helping a trans child obtain the care they're seeking.
- Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma introduced a bill this week seeking to make it a felony for anyone under the age of 26 to access gender-confirming care.
- Meanwhile in Texas, at least a dozen anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been proposed in the first week of 2023, three of which seek to label providing gender-affirming care to minors a form of child abuse.
Of note: Anti-transgender campaigns resulted in the online harassment of 24 different hospitals and health care providers in 21 states over a recent four-month period, Axios' Ina Fried reports.
More than two dozen bills targeting transgender health care have been introduced at the start of 2023 state legislative sessions, AP reports.
The big picture: The new bills come after 2022 saw a wave of anti-transgender legislation nationwide, with at least 34 states introducing more than 145 anti-trans bills.
- Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, uniformly recommend gender-affirming care but have faced legislative attacks and online threats.
Driving the news: Republican state lawmakers are focusing on gender-affirming health care, primarily targeting providers and the parents of trans youths.
- Eleven states — Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia — have proposed new legislation so far. Many of the bills look to criminalize helping a trans child obtain the care they're seeking.
- Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma introduced a bill this week seeking to make it a felony for anyone under the age of 26 to access gender-confirming care.
- Meanwhile in Texas, at least a dozen anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been proposed in the first week of 2023, three of which seek to label providing gender-affirming care to minors a form of child abuse.
Of note: Anti-transgender campaigns resulted in the online harassment of 24 different hospitals and health care providers in 21 states over a recent four-month period, Axios' Ina Fried reports.
NHL backtracks after Florida Gov. Ron Desantis' office blasts league for 'discriminatory' job fair
After Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' office blasted the National Hockey League for hosting a "discriminatory" job fair that only allows certain groups of people to attend, the league backtracked and said the event is open to all individuals over 18-years-old.
The event, titled "Pathway to Hockey Summit" is scheduled for on Feb. 2 during the 2023 All Star Festivities in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and seeks to help "diverse job seekers who are pursuing careers in hockey."
According to a now-deleted post by the NHL promoting the event on LinkedIn, the event is only open to certain groups of people.
"Participants must be 18 years of age or older, based in the U.S., and identify as female, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, and/or a person with a disability. Veterans are also welcome and encouraged to attend," the event description states.
In a statement, Bryan Griffin, press secretary for DeSantis, said that the event is discriminatory.
"Discrimination of any sort is not welcome in the state of Florida, and we do not abide by the woke notion that discrimination should be overlooked if applied in a politically popular manner or against a politically unpopular demographic. We are fighting all discrimination in our schools and our workplaces, and we will fight it in publicly accessible places of meeting or activity," Griffin said.
Griffin also said that the NHL should "immediately remove and denounce the discriminatory prohibitions it has imposed on attendance to the 2023 ‘Pathway to Hockey’ summit."
In a statement to Fox News Digital, the NHL said the "original wording of the LinkedIn post associated with the event was not accurate."
After Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' office blasted the National Hockey League for hosting a "discriminatory" job fair that only allows certain groups of people to attend, the league backtracked and said the event is open to all individuals over 18-years-old.
The event, titled "Pathway to Hockey Summit" is scheduled for on Feb. 2 during the 2023 All Star Festivities in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and seeks to help "diverse job seekers who are pursuing careers in hockey."
According to a now-deleted post by the NHL promoting the event on LinkedIn, the event is only open to certain groups of people.
"Participants must be 18 years of age or older, based in the U.S., and identify as female, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, and/or a person with a disability. Veterans are also welcome and encouraged to attend," the event description states.
In a statement, Bryan Griffin, press secretary for DeSantis, said that the event is discriminatory.
"Discrimination of any sort is not welcome in the state of Florida, and we do not abide by the woke notion that discrimination should be overlooked if applied in a politically popular manner or against a politically unpopular demographic. We are fighting all discrimination in our schools and our workplaces, and we will fight it in publicly accessible places of meeting or activity," Griffin said.
Griffin also said that the NHL should "immediately remove and denounce the discriminatory prohibitions it has imposed on attendance to the 2023 ‘Pathway to Hockey’ summit."
In a statement to Fox News Digital, the NHL said the "original wording of the LinkedIn post associated with the event was not accurate."