Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

The last time I saw him, he had to be helped on and off the stage. Frankly, I'm surprised he made to 65.

I think that's like 130 in Shane years...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So when I Google how many Hamas fighters are in Gaza it looks like 20,000. When I search how many Isis fighters were killed it is about 1000. So let’s say there were 2000 total. And they weren’t embedded in hospitals etc.

And Israel and the U.S. aren’t using our soldiers to be dumped off a DDay boat and charge at machine guns anymore, so I’m not sure your approach really is reality. But who knows.

Huh? There were multiple operations against ISIS that killed more than 1,000 - you can start here for a list of operations, and click through to some to see deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Islamic_State Do a little more googling, or even read some wikipedia, I think you'll see estimates of fighting strength for ISIS of up to a quarter million fighters, including units taken relatively intact from Hussein's armed forces that included traditionally trained (even by the US Army) military commanders as well as guerrilla forces.

Of course, if you're counting deaths of ISIS you also have to draw the line somewhere as to when al Qaeda in the Iraq/Syria area morphs into ISIS (e.g., that will exclude things like Falluja, an undoubted part of the war on terror but before the morph). It also looks like that list doesn't include ISIS deaths at the hands of, say, Syria or Turkey. Those countries actually played a pretty big role in the defeat of ISIS (though in Assad's case often replacing it with something pretty objectionable in its own right).

In general, you'll also find that the ratio of civilian deaths to ISIS deaths was sub 1:1 through most of the war on terror; it you believe the numbers that are being attributed to Israeli military sources, it's looking like the ratio in Gaza is significantly higher than 10:1 and maybe as high as 20:1; numbers from UN sources are pretty close to that 20:1 figure. That's what will create your future Hamas members and that's what the US military and Biden administration are getting much more worried about.

Hamas is a smaller, less well organized, and less well funded operation than ISIS was, whatever your googling says.

Besides those actual campaigns, though, a lot of deaths of key figures in ISIS were one-off special forces operations or police actions by the local country.

By the way, if you want the best comparison to Israel's strategy against Hamas, it is Assad's strategy against his opponents - lost of arial bombing, relatively little use of special forces, a disregard for civilian losses (though Israel is racking up civilian kills at a rate that significantly exceeds Assad's) and a willingness to use collective punishment. And that strategy has not worked well for Assad, while he is generally viewed as having "won" his civil war, he is still not in control of some parts of Syria and a very large part of Syria is only tenuously under his control.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

I think that's like 130 in Shane years...

The mere amount of damaging bacteria one acquires through open and bleeding gums should've doomed him two decades ago.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Actually, I don't think this is true at all, I think a lot of them are very well studied.

Look, I majored in Middle Eastern History, and I had no choice but to learn about this stuff, and I fell in at the time with a lot of people who became Middle East specialists of one sort or another, whether professors or government officials or NGO administrators, etc. and who keep me abreast of some of this. So I have a pretty good idea of the history, and when I talked to my kids, who have not attended any of the protests but who talk to a lot of people who have, they have not infrequently given me detail I hadn't heard before. There are smart kids in the world, much as us geezers may want to think our age gives us benefits in knowledge and wisdom.

Maybe it's geographic. These folks think it makes sense to protest in front of an Israeli restaurant and chant accusations of participation in genocide at its owner. Folks ain't too swift in these parts.

The best history for non-expert readers I've seen on "Between the River and the Sea" is here: https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-th...er-to-the-sea/ (note it is a generally pro-Palestinian publication, but most of the pro-Israeli ones are pretty rank hasbara).

In particular, I think the younger generation has come to understand how much hasbara is just pure disinformation, thanks to the fact that so much hasbara just uses the same techniques used by internet trolls and organizations like Cambridge Analytics that they have become so familiar with. They see though it. And right now many of them understand that the argument over "form the river to the sea" is not about the slogan but instead about the old trick of avoiding a reasoned debate with your opponents by seeking to discredit them instead.

There is some rhetorical fuckery afoot there. But similarly, what cannot be avoided is the double standard on display before Congress two days ago, in which university presidents stumbled over their words to dissemble on why it might be, but not might not be, a violation of school code to speak in favor of Hamas depending on "context."

Speak about the trans and various other marginalized peoples as the Jews have been spoken about on campus and you'll be expelled. Why are the Jews treated differently? Is it perhaps because of a bizarre Marcusian view that one may speak in vile fashion about those deemed "oppressors" or "colonizers" (based on a hideous stereotype of Jews as uber-successful or conspiratorial, a la Protocols of Zion). Is it that all language is actually power, and it can always be used against those in power, without limitation - the suggestion of Foucault, a discredited buffoon? I honestly don't know. But a double standard is being used.

When I was young, some of this was done through the refusal to suggest a "palestine" exists or that "palestinians" are a recognizable group that should have rights as such - and the suggestion that using the word "palestinian" was antisemitic as a result. This old trope is coming back in Israel. This is part of why Israel arrests people for simply displaying a Palestinian flag.

I see an intersection of two peculiar forces. One is Jewish sensitivity to anti-Semitism. Another is our nation's bizarre fixation with identity politics. It seems that Jews are trying to expand the definition of anti-semitism as broadly as possible at the same time the younger generations of college kids and those who like to protest things here are applying a rule that overly-harsh criticism of a group deemed to be "in power" must be forgiven. The oppressed must always be excused if they go too far because they are victims (and this includes kids at $90k per year colleges who sympathize with the oppressed). And on the other side, anything said in criticism of Israel is anti-semitism (akin to the lurid and appalling overuse and expansion of the concept of "racism" here over the past few years, designed to allow those who wish to use it as a cudgel to do so recklessly).

People are acting, as they seem to always be these days, unreasonably. And I think they all know it. Rather than try to hold conflicting thoughts, and see fault and valid points on both sides, they want to silence each other. This conflict might as well be any other in that regard.

We've lost the United States. A country of idiots refusing to compromise and think critically and engage opposing views genuinely is something. But it's not the USA.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

RIP Shane MacGowan. Fairytale of New York will hit a bit harder this year.

And the Ruby Room is closing - https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/...g-18540620.php

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Maybe it's geographic. These folks think it makes sense to protest in front of an Israeli restaurant and chant accusations of participation in genocide at its owner. Folks ain't too swift in these parts.

The article leaves out a couple of key facts there: Goldie's has been raising money specifically for Israeli soldiers and there are allegations that it fired an employee for wearing a pin showing the Palestinian flag.

When it comes to randomly targeted protests at Synagogues or against any restaurant simply because it serves Israeli or Jewish food or is run by Jews, I think it is crazy, anti-Semitic, and ineffective to boot. (I'm actually going out of my to eat at Israeli or Jewish and Palestinian restaurants these days (lots of people are harassing Palestinians restauranteurs, too). It helps that I love the food of course.) But I don't think this one was a random target.

Still, I'd rather see people targeting Bill Ackman. Dude needs to go back to pushing runs on banks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The article leaves out a couple of key facts there: Goldie's has been raising money specifically for Israeli soldiers and there are allegations that it fired an employee for wearing a pin showing the Palestinian flag.

When it comes to randomly targeted protests at Synagogues or against any restaurant simply because it serves Israeli or Jewish food or is run by Jews, I think it is crazy, anti-Semitic, and ineffective to boot. (I'm actually going out of my to eat at Israeli or Jewish and Palestinian restaurants these days (lots of people are harassing Palestinians restauranteurs, too). It helps that I love the food of course.) But I don't think this one was a random target.

Still, I'd rather see people targeting Bill Ackman. Dude needs to go back to pushing runs on banks.

Ackman seems to be everywhere these days. You'd think a busy hedge fund manager would have less time on his hands.

Yeah, Goldie's did fire the folks who wore pins and he donates to Israeli military. And I think that's a basis for protestors to picket the place. But accusing him of genocide? Let's pump the brakes a bit.

Back to Ackman, there are three problems with what he's doing. First, it's naked cancel culture. Second, among the kunckledragging actual anti-semites out there (and we all know there's a healthy number of them), firing of the Penn President and possibly Gay will be seen as "Rich Jewish financiers controlling everyone." Third, isn't the whole idea of free speech and expression to allow people to say foolish shit so that: (a) The popularity of dumb thoughts will be known to all; (b) The identity of people who think dumb thoughts will be known to all; and, (c) The dumb thoughts can be publicly countered. Call me nuts, but I want to know not only who around me is a bigot, but who around me is nuts or just plain fucking stupid. Is is better to have that sort of thing fester underground?

Final thought: Academic Admin's problem is not only having dumb ideas, but being in perpetual CYA mode. Those Presidents looked like fools because they endlessly dissembled. All one had to answer Stefanik with was, "Yes, someone stating a desire to commit genocide on any group violates our code." Nothing more, nothing less. But they couldn't, because they were so used to searching their minds for something to say that wouldn't upset someone they missed the one thing they could say that would have shut up Stefanik.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is some rhetorical fuckery afoot there. But similarly, what cannot be avoided is the double standard on display before Congress two days ago, in which university presidents stumbled over their words to dissemble on why it might be, but not might not be, a violation of school code to speak in favor of Hamas depending on "context."

Speak about the trans and various other marginalized peoples as the Jews have been spoken about on campus and you'll be expelled. Why are the Jews treated differently? Is it perhaps because of a bizarre Marcusian view that one may speak in vile fashion about those deemed "oppressors" or "colonizers" (based on a hideous stereotype of Jews as uber-successful or conspiratorial, a la Protocols of Zion). Is it that all language is actually power, and it can always be used against those in power, without limitation - the suggestion of Foucault, a discredited buffoon? I honestly don't know. But a double standard is being used.

For what it's worth, that's not right. I'm not going to defend the university presidents, because they did a shitty job, but if you want to understand why they said what they said and what the free speech policies actually are, read Popehat (Ken White) ("Stop Demanding Dumb Answers To Hard Questions") on this. You and he come from a very, very similar place on First Amendment issues, and I think you will be sympathetic to his point of view.

eta:

Final thought: Academic Admin's problem is not only having dumb ideas, but being in perpetual CYA mode. Those Presidents looked like fools because they endlessly dissembled. All one had to answer Stefanik with was, "Yes, someone stating a desire to commit genocide on any group violates our code." Nothing more, nothing less. But they couldn't, because they were so used to searching their minds for something to say that wouldn't upset someone they missed the one thing they could say that would have shut up Stefanik.

The Presidents fell flat because they they had been prepped by lawyers and HR people and had nothing beyond that to say. If you want to sound like a University President, the answer to that question is, we are running a university here and genocide is wrong. I will let the university's lawyers decide whether a specific act violates a specific policy, but the point of a university is to answer ideas with other ideas to get to the truth, and that is my focus as the university's leader.

But none of them were hired to answer yes or no questions from Rep. Stefanik, alas.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

For what it's worth, that's not right. I'm not going to defend the university presidents, because they did a shitty job, but if you want to understand why they said what they said and what the free speech policies actually are, read Popehat (Ken White) ("Stop Demanding Dumb Answers To Hard Questions") on this. You and he come from a very, very similar place on First Amendment issues, and I think you will be sympathetic to his point of view.

I agree that it was an obvious trap and am amazed they fell into it. Also agree that the desire to answer complex questions in soundbites, and the Torquemada act Stefanik used to force yes or no answers to hypotheticals she then characterized as she wanted after the fact, are unfortunately deplorable elements of modern discourse in this polarized shitshow of a country.

She was an embarrassment.

But I think there was an incredibly elegant answer to her questions which would have shut her down. "Our policy on free speech is as broad as possible, but as an institution we thoroughly investigate any speech advocating violence against any groups. If it is deemed a credible or imminent threat, it is against our policies. We do this to balance safety and the first amendment."

If that's too long, one can take the Joseph Welch vs. McCarthy route: "I'm not here to engage hypotheticals or strawmen. I'm here to be asked about facts. That's why I'm under oath."

The Presidents fell flat because they they had been prepped by lawyers and HR people and had nothing beyond that to say. If you want to sound like a University President, the answer to that question is, we are running a university here and genocide is wrong. I will let the university's lawyers decide whether a specific act violates a specific policy, but the point of a university is to answer ideas with other ideas to get to the truth, and that is my focus as the university's leader.

Yup. That's another way to do it.

But none of them were hired to answer yes or no questions from Rep. Stefanik, alas.

When put in that spot, I think you have to use the "I'm going to refrain from commenting on hypotheticals" and repeat it as many times as needed. The only way to stanch badgering is to refuse to feed it words. Run out the clock.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Small World Dept.: Her name was familiar, and I just placed it. The WilmerHale partner who (disastrously?) prepped two of the three university presidents for their congressional debacle used to work with me as a paralegal. I remember her as quite sharp.

[Hank Chinaski]

So my current NextDoor fun controversy: my tiny suburb is pretty heavily Jewish. Someone put several of the “missing” posters on street light posts. This weekend there was an outraged post about a confrontation between someone pro-poster and a guy who was tearing them down, complete with photos of the tear down guy. The posts said the police were investigating that as a hate crime. Someone replied that em felt one shouldn’t attach posters to street light posts. That didn’t go over well.

I guess I’m wondering, is tearing down those posters really different in kind from stealing political yard signs, or is it a hate crime? I see it as closer to the sign stealing, plus I’m sure there is a law against putting stuff on the street light post. Thoughts?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So my current NextDoor fun controversy: my tiny suburb is pretty heavily Jewish. Someone put several of the “missing” posters on street light posts. This weekend there was an outraged post about a confrontation between someone pro-poster and a guy who was tearing them down, complete with photos of the tear down guy. The posts said the police were investigating that as a hate crime. Someone replied that em felt one shouldn’t attach posters to street light posts. That didn’t go over well.

I guess I’m wondering, is tearing down those posters really different in kind from stealing political yard signs, or is it a hate crime? I see it as closer to the sign stealing, plus I’m sure there is a law against putting stuff on the street light post. Thoughts?

Probably depends on your state's definition of hate crime.

Maybe stealing lawn signs qualifies under some states' hate crime acts.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ackman seems to be everywhere these days. You'd think a busy hedge fund manager would have less time on his hands.

Yeah, Goldie's did fire the folks who wore pins and he donates to Israeli military. And I think that's a basis for protestors to picket the place. But accusing him of genocide? Let's pump the brakes a bit.

Back to Ackman, there are three problems with what he's doing. First, it's naked cancel culture. Second, among the kunckledragging actual anti-semites out there (and we all know there's a healthy number of them), firing of the Penn President and possibly Gay will be seen as "Rich Jewish financiers controlling everyone." Third, isn't the whole idea of free speech and expression to allow people to say foolish shit so that: (a) The popularity of dumb thoughts will be known to all; (b) The identity of people who think dumb thoughts will be known to all; and, (c) The dumb thoughts can be publicly countered. Call me nuts, but I want to know not only who around me is a bigot, but who around me is nuts or just plain fucking stupid. Is is better to have that sort of thing fester underground?

Final thought: Academic Admin's problem is not only having dumb ideas, but being in perpetual CYA mode. Those Presidents looked like fools because they endlessly dissembled. All one had to answer Stefanik with was, "Yes, someone stating a desire to commit genocide on any group violates our code." Nothing more, nothing less. But they couldn't, because they were so used to searching their minds for something to say that wouldn't upset someone they missed the one thing they could say that would have shut up Stefanik.

However dumb some univ. admin's ideas may be, I can guarantee one thing: their donors can come up with something stupider.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Probably depends on your state's definition of hate crime.

Maybe stealing lawn signs qualifies under some states' hate crime acts.

Thanks. Was looking for people's actually feelings on the issue, not a lawyer answer.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Thanks. Was looking for people's actually feelings on the issue, not a lawyer answer.

Ah, well, my feelings are that it is bad but is indeed more like stealing lawn signs. I'm actually not a fan of getting too excited about petty vandalism.

There have been a bunch of Catholic Churches vandalized over abortion issues, and I know some Catholics who have been quite upset by it. My reaction has been to contribute a bit of money to the churches to fix the vandalism and suggest that everyone move on. A good friend of mine in Israel had a similar approach when the Church of Loaves and Fishes was hit by arson by some Jewish fundamentalists. He organized a work party and contributed a bunch of fish (he's a fish farmer). I think more positivity came out of him and his Jewish friends working with the Palestinian Christians than the negativity causes by the vandals.