Sunday, April 9, 2017
this article ignores the possibility that the united states - which has the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons on earth - may have smuggled in the sarin through it's contacts with the rebels, which is the theory i'm operating under.
the united states routinely ships weapons to these rebels, and nobody has the authority to inspect these shipments.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-syria-chemical-weapons-20170408-story.html
the united states routinely ships weapons to these rebels, and nobody has the authority to inspect these shipments.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-syria-chemical-weapons-20170408-story.html
so, a peer-reviewed article published by researchers at yale says one thing.
and a not-even-funny skit by a bunch of film majors (if they even got through the program) at the "college humour" youtube channel contradicts it with a vague understanding of a controversial (and entirely analytical) sociological (i almost typed sociolological. freudian slip?) theory via a startlingly poor use of satire.
which source will you take more seriously?
see, i actually know that this is a trick question, though - because most of us are really that stupid. it sounds outrageous when i say it like this, but the actual truth is that most people will actually react better to something that argues the point using emotion than something that argues the point intellectually. nerds don't get laid, so we're probably never going to evolve into cold cyborgs. this is a defect in "human nature" we'll have to deal with. well, maybe it's even a tragic flaw - but let's hope it doesn't take us down, in the end.
i can only sit at a distance and shake my head. that's the story of my life.
and a not-even-funny skit by a bunch of film majors (if they even got through the program) at the "college humour" youtube channel contradicts it with a vague understanding of a controversial (and entirely analytical) sociological (i almost typed sociolological. freudian slip?) theory via a startlingly poor use of satire.
which source will you take more seriously?
see, i actually know that this is a trick question, though - because most of us are really that stupid. it sounds outrageous when i say it like this, but the actual truth is that most people will actually react better to something that argues the point using emotion than something that argues the point intellectually. nerds don't get laid, so we're probably never going to evolve into cold cyborgs. this is a defect in "human nature" we'll have to deal with. well, maybe it's even a tragic flaw - but let's hope it doesn't take us down, in the end.
i can only sit at a distance and shake my head. that's the story of my life.
of course it was the jews.
even when it was the nazis, i knew it was the jews, deep down. it's always them pesky jews, every time...
the collapse into jew-baiting is consistently the death of a conspiracy theory. it represents the point when the conspiracy theory passes out of the realm of reasonable speculation, and into the realm of knuckleheads and white supremacists.
this won't die, it will just pass into the fringes, where it always belonged.
because it was always ridiculous. and, the candidate that proposed it was always ridiculous, too.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/the-happy-go-lucky-jewish-group-that-connects-trump-and-putin-215007
even when it was the nazis, i knew it was the jews, deep down. it's always them pesky jews, every time...
the collapse into jew-baiting is consistently the death of a conspiracy theory. it represents the point when the conspiracy theory passes out of the realm of reasonable speculation, and into the realm of knuckleheads and white supremacists.
this won't die, it will just pass into the fringes, where it always belonged.
because it was always ridiculous. and, the candidate that proposed it was always ridiculous, too.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/the-happy-go-lucky-jewish-group-that-connects-trump-and-putin-215007
yeah. see, this is...
if you put aside the chemical attack thing, and grasp the reality of it - which is that the us is trying to support rebels in a proxy war, but can't provide air support because the russians are blocking it - this intuitively insane proposition is actually tactically necessary, in addition to being insane. and, the fact that this was floating around just cements the argument that the chemical attack line is utter bs.
this is what they're really angling for: they want to take out the air defenses. consequences aside, it's not even clear that they could do it, given that the russians have defenses in place. i mean, yes - the americans in theory have these stealth bombers sitting in idaho, or whatever, that can evade russian defenses. but, the technical ability to evade a defense is not the same thing as the ability to overwhelm it.
i've been arguing for years that the obvious reason that the americans haven't been bombing in syria is that they can't. this was clinton's own level of ignorance (and she was the one calling for a no-fly zone, remember), as a consequence of being misled by extreme hawks.
as i stated before, the us central command no doubt had to face up to the choice in front of them: they could acknowledge that the russians have blocked any moves in the region, or they could go full retard and just start balls out bombing shit. these are caricatures, of course, but just barely - there's a real truth in the extremity of it. there's really no end point in continuing to support these rebel groups, when the russians have air superiority. i guess maybe the hope at some point was that they could overrun the air defences from the ground, but that's obviously not happening any time soon, or probably at all.
so, what's the point in continuing to offer support for terrorist groups, if they have no ability to actually win? the pragmatic basis of it, whether you agreed with it or not, is now lost. it's a "shit or get off the pot" kind of thing.
the smart thing to do is to accept the reality of it and back off. i know trump wants to play war and stuff, but he has no space to play games on this front. maybe he can bomb the faulklands or something. or maybe he can go invade the moon.
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/u-s-weighs-saturation-strike-on-syrian-government-in-response-to-chemical-attack/
if you put aside the chemical attack thing, and grasp the reality of it - which is that the us is trying to support rebels in a proxy war, but can't provide air support because the russians are blocking it - this intuitively insane proposition is actually tactically necessary, in addition to being insane. and, the fact that this was floating around just cements the argument that the chemical attack line is utter bs.
this is what they're really angling for: they want to take out the air defenses. consequences aside, it's not even clear that they could do it, given that the russians have defenses in place. i mean, yes - the americans in theory have these stealth bombers sitting in idaho, or whatever, that can evade russian defenses. but, the technical ability to evade a defense is not the same thing as the ability to overwhelm it.
i've been arguing for years that the obvious reason that the americans haven't been bombing in syria is that they can't. this was clinton's own level of ignorance (and she was the one calling for a no-fly zone, remember), as a consequence of being misled by extreme hawks.
as i stated before, the us central command no doubt had to face up to the choice in front of them: they could acknowledge that the russians have blocked any moves in the region, or they could go full retard and just start balls out bombing shit. these are caricatures, of course, but just barely - there's a real truth in the extremity of it. there's really no end point in continuing to support these rebel groups, when the russians have air superiority. i guess maybe the hope at some point was that they could overrun the air defences from the ground, but that's obviously not happening any time soon, or probably at all.
so, what's the point in continuing to offer support for terrorist groups, if they have no ability to actually win? the pragmatic basis of it, whether you agreed with it or not, is now lost. it's a "shit or get off the pot" kind of thing.
the smart thing to do is to accept the reality of it and back off. i know trump wants to play war and stuff, but he has no space to play games on this front. maybe he can bomb the faulklands or something. or maybe he can go invade the moon.
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/u-s-weighs-saturation-strike-on-syrian-government-in-response-to-chemical-attack/
so, does assad need to step down?
he does, actually. but, not for the reasons you think. i've been over this previously, but perhaps not here...
it's been clear for a while that the russians are going to succeed in clearing out the rebels, and there's not much that the americans can do to stop it short of sending in their own troops, which can't actually happen because the russians are sitting there, in the way. the americans have to fight this by proxy to avoid a direct conflict with the russians, and the russians are just about done eliminating these forces. let's skip the delusional bullshit and fast forward to a point where assad has reasonably secured the borders on the west of the country (as that is inevitable) and turns his focus entirely on isis. they're not going to win that over night, but let's say they do, and they're able to think about recreating their own borders.
well, then, they'd have to get into a hot war with the kurds. but, what happens after that?
it's very hard to believe that assad is going to stop once his borders are secured, and you have to get your head around a culture shock to really grasp that. there's all kinds of concepts of honour and retribution worked into this. as assad is aware that his primary enemies are the saudis and turks, who will continue to provide a joint existential threat even when the borders are re-secured, he will have no choice but to continue fighting them, even if we see a long period of peace and a subsequent military buildup or potential arms race.
if you leave assad in power, you are guaranteeing a hot war between iran and the saudis. assad cannot let it go. and, he will need iran's help.
while iran is no match for the saudis on paper, iraq is a potentially decisive wildcard - as is israel.
so, you have to get assad out. and, you have to get the whole alawite sect out, too, as they will not think any differently than him.
but, the idea that you're going to replace assad with one of these rebel groups, or some combination of them, is a non-starter.
fun fact: he actually wants to step down. he was trying to transition into a democracy. but, the saudis didn't like that. and, hence the armed rebels (there were never peaceful protests of any notable size...) moved in to prevent assad from transitioning the country into a secular democracy.
a transition needs to be done peacefully and orderly and needs to reflect the will of the syrian people, as expressed by the ballot box.
but, it needs to happen.
and, the russians don't disagree, either.
he does, actually. but, not for the reasons you think. i've been over this previously, but perhaps not here...
it's been clear for a while that the russians are going to succeed in clearing out the rebels, and there's not much that the americans can do to stop it short of sending in their own troops, which can't actually happen because the russians are sitting there, in the way. the americans have to fight this by proxy to avoid a direct conflict with the russians, and the russians are just about done eliminating these forces. let's skip the delusional bullshit and fast forward to a point where assad has reasonably secured the borders on the west of the country (as that is inevitable) and turns his focus entirely on isis. they're not going to win that over night, but let's say they do, and they're able to think about recreating their own borders.
well, then, they'd have to get into a hot war with the kurds. but, what happens after that?
it's very hard to believe that assad is going to stop once his borders are secured, and you have to get your head around a culture shock to really grasp that. there's all kinds of concepts of honour and retribution worked into this. as assad is aware that his primary enemies are the saudis and turks, who will continue to provide a joint existential threat even when the borders are re-secured, he will have no choice but to continue fighting them, even if we see a long period of peace and a subsequent military buildup or potential arms race.
if you leave assad in power, you are guaranteeing a hot war between iran and the saudis. assad cannot let it go. and, he will need iran's help.
while iran is no match for the saudis on paper, iraq is a potentially decisive wildcard - as is israel.
so, you have to get assad out. and, you have to get the whole alawite sect out, too, as they will not think any differently than him.
but, the idea that you're going to replace assad with one of these rebel groups, or some combination of them, is a non-starter.
fun fact: he actually wants to step down. he was trying to transition into a democracy. but, the saudis didn't like that. and, hence the armed rebels (there were never peaceful protests of any notable size...) moved in to prevent assad from transitioning the country into a secular democracy.
a transition needs to be done peacefully and orderly and needs to reflect the will of the syrian people, as expressed by the ballot box.
but, it needs to happen.
and, the russians don't disagree, either.
this is the art of the deal, i suppose - make shit up and throw it in their face and then demand something be done about it.
i've been arguing for years that the neo-liberals - and also the marxists trying to analyze them - were wrong to reject the age of empires in favour of some kind of transnational conspiracy of capital. those class interests were always lurking. their arguments always ranged from naive to preposterous.
but, here we have it.
i don't even know how to analyze this. it's just ridiculous. look at this language:
"Tillerson will also charge Russia with..."
what?
they don't appear to be attempting to work through any legal institution. they literally appear to be planning on marching into moscow and yelling at them.
i guess the russians should let them finish their tantrum, suggest it's nappy time for rex and then tell the delegation to bring it up at the security council?
if i was in moscow, i would have absolutely no patience for this kind of idiocy.
http://nypost.com/2017/04/09/us-to-accuse-russia-of-complicity-in-syrian-chemical-attack-report/
i've been arguing for years that the neo-liberals - and also the marxists trying to analyze them - were wrong to reject the age of empires in favour of some kind of transnational conspiracy of capital. those class interests were always lurking. their arguments always ranged from naive to preposterous.
but, here we have it.
i don't even know how to analyze this. it's just ridiculous. look at this language:
"Tillerson will also charge Russia with..."
what?
they don't appear to be attempting to work through any legal institution. they literally appear to be planning on marching into moscow and yelling at them.
i guess the russians should let them finish their tantrum, suggest it's nappy time for rex and then tell the delegation to bring it up at the security council?
if i was in moscow, i would have absolutely no patience for this kind of idiocy.
http://nypost.com/2017/04/09/us-to-accuse-russia-of-complicity-in-syrian-chemical-attack-report/
i don't have an interest in walking into conservative establishments, or upper class enclaves. i seek out radical people with radical viewpoints, and go places where i can reasonably expect people to have radical viewpoints as an expression of a culture that promotes the politics of the revolutionary left. that's a part of the fucking point of going out and talking to people - i'm looking for radicals by going to places where radicals ought to be. and, if these spaces are just full of poseurs that don't understand the politics of the music scene they're participating in, there needs to be some pushback on the point in getting them out.
if i'm going to an industrial night, for example, it had fucking better be full of anarchists and nihilists and atheists and open-as-fuck queers, because that's what the music is fucking about. and, if i'm somehow "subversive" in the crowd, it's a lame fucking crowd that's at the wrong fucking bar, dammit.
if i'm going to an industrial night, for example, it had fucking better be full of anarchists and nihilists and atheists and open-as-fuck queers, because that's what the music is fucking about. and, if i'm somehow "subversive" in the crowd, it's a lame fucking crowd that's at the wrong fucking bar, dammit.
just as an example that i have documented.
i got into a debate with an alt-right jerk on this night, who was going around ranting and raving a bunch of nonsense about the superiority of white culture and needed to be talked to. i approached him and tried to counter his bullshit, but he wasn't capable of understanding why he was wrong. and, i took a lot of verbal shit about identity, but i mostly ignored it.
he was apparently completely unaware that the bar was named after harvey milk.
so, i was in the right place.
...why did he show up there?
i mean, it's not like windsor isn't full of hick bars, either.
i got into a debate with an alt-right jerk on this night, who was going around ranting and raving a bunch of nonsense about the superiority of white culture and needed to be talked to. i approached him and tried to counter his bullshit, but he wasn't capable of understanding why he was wrong. and, i took a lot of verbal shit about identity, but i mostly ignored it.
he was apparently completely unaware that the bar was named after harvey milk.
so, i was in the right place.
...why did he show up there?
i mean, it's not like windsor isn't full of hick bars, either.
hey, btw - i go to punk shows, mostly. the odd jazz show. and, underground dance clubs. i bring an anti-establishment attitude, sure. i'm a little dangerous, even. but, i'm where i'm supposed to be. the important question is this: what is your boring, status quo supporting ass doing at the punk show?
i went to the right bar, man. maybe you didn't...
i went to the right bar, man. maybe you didn't...
n-n-n-n-n-no.
stop.
this is consistent.
everything that this white house has done up to this point exists in this "post-truth" space, where accusations are thrown around without proof and conspiracies are presented as fact. what just happened in syria, where the administration is accusing syria of using weapons that all evidence suggests they did not have, is entirely consistent with this. it is more accusation without proof, more conspiracy presented as fact, all in the realm of this "post-truth" reality.
the fact that you might like this narrative better, or think it might sell more papers or something, doesn't negate a damned thing - not in the real world, not in a reality where truth still exists.
what is amazing is the doublethink. because, mark my words - the same journalists and the same media outlets that are willing to swallow this whole will be back on the offensive within days, and without a hint of irony or the slightest clue that they understand their own hypocrisy.
stop.
this is consistent.
everything that this white house has done up to this point exists in this "post-truth" space, where accusations are thrown around without proof and conspiracies are presented as fact. what just happened in syria, where the administration is accusing syria of using weapons that all evidence suggests they did not have, is entirely consistent with this. it is more accusation without proof, more conspiracy presented as fact, all in the realm of this "post-truth" reality.
the fact that you might like this narrative better, or think it might sell more papers or something, doesn't negate a damned thing - not in the real world, not in a reality where truth still exists.
what is amazing is the doublethink. because, mark my words - the same journalists and the same media outlets that are willing to swallow this whole will be back on the offensive within days, and without a hint of irony or the slightest clue that they understand their own hypocrisy.
when the balance of evidence is on your side, you're not a conspiracy theorist for pointing it out. rather, it is the americans that are presenting a conspiracy theory, in claiming that the russians helped the syrians stump their own monitors.
the americans don't get some monopoly on truth, or something; a claim is not a conspiracy theory merely for questioning the official state position, and especially not when it is presented without proof.
the russians have the better argument. deal with it.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/06/on-that-gas-attack-we-dont-need-conspiracies-to-oppose-us-war-in-syria/
the americans don't get some monopoly on truth, or something; a claim is not a conspiracy theory merely for questioning the official state position, and especially not when it is presented without proof.
the russians have the better argument. deal with it.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/06/on-that-gas-attack-we-dont-need-conspiracies-to-oppose-us-war-in-syria/
so, what just happened?
well, i spent last weekend catching up on sleep, which was necessary after not being able to sleep all of last week. i did groceries on tuesday. i was at shows on wednesday (a punk show) and thursday (a guitar concerto at the dso & a jazz band at the magic stick). i spent half of yesterday reacting to the egregious bombings in syria, and the other half finishing research on shows for this month. i then slept most of the day today. and i'm just finishing up the show research.
there's lots of jazz this month in detroit. i'm kind of guessing that this might be a consequence not just of the collapse of "edm", but also of the dumbing down of rock music over the last twenty years to the point that there's really nothing left. there's not a lot of options for an actual musician nowadays - your choices are between various types of non-music. i'll pick anti-music over non-music. but, it's an unsustainable status quo - it has to break. the musicians have to eventually find an outlet. or what? not be musicians?
so, what does that outcast that would otherwise be in a musical alt-rock band do when faced with the reality that there is no longer a distributional framework to cater to the market in musical alt-rock? they could join a metalcore band. that would suck, for them. chances are high that they're not into all of the brazen macho posteuring and overt stupidity of it all. they might be more interested in joining a synth-driven jazz band and trying to eek out an audience in some crossover between rock and techno. or, perhaps they may be more interested in bypassing the whole thing and just trying to start a psych band. i mean, you've heard frusciante's solo work, right?
this is all speculative. i guess you'd have to ask around. and, if there are similarities, people probably aren't cognizant of them.
but, it seems like this will be the focus for the month - trying to find a way to squeeze in as many of these jazz shows as i can.
well, i spent last weekend catching up on sleep, which was necessary after not being able to sleep all of last week. i did groceries on tuesday. i was at shows on wednesday (a punk show) and thursday (a guitar concerto at the dso & a jazz band at the magic stick). i spent half of yesterday reacting to the egregious bombings in syria, and the other half finishing research on shows for this month. i then slept most of the day today. and i'm just finishing up the show research.
there's lots of jazz this month in detroit. i'm kind of guessing that this might be a consequence not just of the collapse of "edm", but also of the dumbing down of rock music over the last twenty years to the point that there's really nothing left. there's not a lot of options for an actual musician nowadays - your choices are between various types of non-music. i'll pick anti-music over non-music. but, it's an unsustainable status quo - it has to break. the musicians have to eventually find an outlet. or what? not be musicians?
so, what does that outcast that would otherwise be in a musical alt-rock band do when faced with the reality that there is no longer a distributional framework to cater to the market in musical alt-rock? they could join a metalcore band. that would suck, for them. chances are high that they're not into all of the brazen macho posteuring and overt stupidity of it all. they might be more interested in joining a synth-driven jazz band and trying to eek out an audience in some crossover between rock and techno. or, perhaps they may be more interested in bypassing the whole thing and just trying to start a psych band. i mean, you've heard frusciante's solo work, right?
this is all speculative. i guess you'd have to ask around. and, if there are similarities, people probably aren't cognizant of them.
but, it seems like this will be the focus for the month - trying to find a way to squeeze in as many of these jazz shows as i can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)