|
Post by michaelw on Dec 2, 2018 20:30:58 GMT -5
The phrase "river to the sea" is certainly not anti-Semitic in and of itself, although it's been used often by those who are anti-Semitic (like Hamas).
It seems to me quite unfortunate, actually, that the idea of a free Palestine would be seen as ipso facto a negation of Israeli/Jewish freedom. Is the reverse also true: that a free Israel is a negation of Palestinian freedom as a matter of course? If so, that's certainly bad news for those who still support a two-state solution. It's bad news for those who support a democratic one-state solution, too.
And there's the rub, IMO. What a "free Palestine" actually means is highly dependent on the intent of the speaker. Hamas might very well take it to entail the destruction of Israel, no doubt. (Although I'm almost certain the phrase pre-dates the existence of Hamas). Others might envision a bilateral state in which Jews and Palestinians coexist under a single democratic government (the classic one-state solution). Obviously supporting the latter doesn't make one an anti-Semite. Plenty of Jews support it too and have supported it for years.
I have to say I'm deeply disappointed in the reaction to Hill's comments. He used a phrase which has some real baggage, to be sure. But I see no clear evidence that Hill's use of it came from racial feelings rather than political ones. The worst I can say is that it was poor politicking, assuming he never saw the backlash coming. Maybe he should have, but that by itself doesn't put him in the wrong, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 26, 2018 19:54:32 GMT -5
I heard the Saudis turned over their calendar to the US senate and sure enough, there were no murders on it. Just some innocent meetings in Riyadh and such.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 26, 2018 2:25:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 14, 2018 10:43:07 GMT -5
But as she also notes--and as Ms. O-C does as well--these incentives subtract from the actual economic benefit the areas receive from these companies moving in. But hosting the Olympics is still a solid investment, right?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 8, 2018 18:59:01 GMT -5
I guess we can just set people in their fifties getting laid off and/or needing a job on an ice floe and set them adrift. The fact that most of us will live thirty years and maybe more beyond that...meh. There are younger folks. Yes, that's exactly what I said. One might even call my proposal a Holocaust in the making, at the very least... A Modest Proposal, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 8, 2018 10:19:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 6, 2018 20:28:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 19:35:21 GMT -5
I agree it's sad, but people spending money they don't have on shit they shouldn't spend it on is always sad. I know there's a difference between the government protecting us from bad choices and the government actively enabling bad choices, but frankly, the difference isn't great enough to convince me that those people won't make equally bad choices regardless of who enables them. I agree, if we didn't have state lotteries, someone buying loads of tickets might spend their money on something else equally bad. But we (society)could still credibly say that we care about such people, and we can even offer help. If people are addicted to gambling, we can offer counseling. If people are addicted to drugs, we can treat it like a medical issue and offer treatment. (But to me, it's just descending into absurdity to offer those things while also encouraging the issues that lead people to needing that help in the first place.) Someone might spend their gambling money on drugs or alcohol, or even on non-state gambling, but I couldn't imagine taking lotto money from someone and justifying it by telling myself that that money is pegged for something unwise one way or the other, so hey, it might as well line my own pockets instead of someone else's.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 18:45:24 GMT -5
I think that's mostly down to the fact that no one is forced to buy them, and the belief that people DO know winning is a massively long shot. I'll go out on a limb and guess the guy who bought $20,000 worth of tickets didn't correctly understand his chances. And I just think it's sad as hell that people actually feel comfortable taking that money. That we can help to ruin someone's finances and paper over it by pretending they knew what they were doing.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 8:52:57 GMT -5
So I *think* I get what you and rob are saying. I just disagree. And also maybe I really like that I have the choice to opt out of this particular government "scam." Heh. But that would be true of most scams, right? I mean, if the government started raising funds by running some version of the Nigerian prince scam, people could simply "choose" not to fork over any money. But I think it's pretty obvious that would still be a messed up thing to do. So, I guess I don't really see how the fact that people have a choice in the matter has much bearing on whether it should be considered predatory.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 3:45:30 GMT -5
Do you really want the government deciding how people should spend their money? No. That's why they should get out of the lottery/gambling business. No more dishonest ad campaigns from the state that try to influence what people spend their money on. Treat it the same way we treat alcohol or cigarettes. People should be allowed to spend money on it, if they want. But that doesn't mean the state has to provide or promote the service.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 1:16:53 GMT -5
Okay so cigarettes are overtly harmful; smoking them can kill you. Faith healing is a scam; believing in it and eschewing medical treatment could kill you. But buying $10 worth of tickets each week is not going to kill you. Or bankrupt you. Or even reduce the quality of your life in any discernible way, as far as I can tell. Well, I think state lotteries are also a scam. Everything about them is a scam, from the advertising and slogans, to the way they're falsely touted as boons for education, so that well-meaning people will get duped into feeling good about them. Did you ever see the John Oliver segment on state lotteries? www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHAHe's spot-on, IMO. Obviously it's understandable to want to support education. And obviously it's understandable to want to win millions of dollars, especially if you're struggling. But the whole thing is set up to be predatory, not to actually help people. And sure, I agree $10 a week might not kill you. But it can absolutely hurt people in discernible ways. $10 a week for someone making $10,000 a year would be about 5 percent of their income, right? If that's just peanuts, why don't we have a 5 percent income tax on people making $10,000 a year? Well, for one thing, I think many would agree that 5 percent can be tough when you're on a low income, much tougher than 20 percent would be for someone making more money. And then, of course, there's the people who spend way more than $10 a week on this stuff, as Oliver noted.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 21, 2018 21:22:25 GMT -5
I take your point that, perhaps, government shouldn't encourage wishful thinking Well, it's more than just that. I'm also saying the government shouldn't encourage wishful thinking while also, at the same time, discouraging it. At the very least, they should pick a side and be consistent. I don't know that it promotes gambling that wouldn't otherwise occur, but I'm not sure that matters so much. I mean, I realize that people will always smoke cigarettes no matter what, but I still don't want the state to sell cigarettes and encourage people to buy them. Maybe more on point: people will always shell out money for faith healers, but I don't want the state to offer faith healing as part of a government healthcare program, and sell access to it for $1 or $2, and promote it on the grounds that, hey, it's only $1 or $2 and there's an outside chance it could be effective. And as Rob noted, lotteries offer particularly long odds, compared to other forms of gambling. Slot machines give way better odds. So would betting on horse racing and other similar things.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 21, 2018 20:07:36 GMT -5
I think the angst over lotteries targeting the poor is one of those conservative mantras akin to lifting oneself up by one's own bootstraps. It really needs to die. Yeah, if a poor person won the Mega Millions, they'd be getting out of poverty via a government program, and that would be a damn outrage. No, the opposite. It's the state's fault. I'm with Rob on this one. The fact is, there are people who really do misunderstand the chances of winning. You support public education, right? And you don't have a problem with teaching probability theory in math class, right? Well, these lotto ads are basically telling people to disregard what would be taught about probability in a decent math class. To disregard all of that in favor of a lucky feeling, because the next winner could be you. In any case, don't you think there's a fair argument to be made that this is essentially a regressive program that funds education primarily through lower-income citizens? That's what it looks like to me, anyway. I'd rather just fund education via income taxes.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 20, 2018 10:20:44 GMT -5
Because let's be clear here: Erdogan--who is hardly as pure as the driven snow--is milking this for all it's worth, for his own advantage. Erdogan abhors the murder of journalists. Just ask Serena Shim.
|
|