After the first wave of ICE raids, the argument was made that the left was fear-mongering by giving the raids excess attention, because ICE officials don't possibly have the capacity to implement mass deportations.
The latter via you, over there.
My four-year-old was playing this morning while saying "Hey hey, ho ho, Donald Trump has got to go spend time with his mother-in-law."
This, about not taking your personal electronic devices across international borders, seems inconvenient and correct.
Never mind, the post is entirely wrong
Remember the story about mobs of refugees in Germany surrounding surrrounding and sexually assaulting women on New Year's Eve 2015/16? Turns out it was a hoax organized by an anti-immigrant bar owner.
Racists sure do lie a lot, don't they.
The 2015/16 assaults did happen. The linked story is debunking a hoax which claimed that similar assaults happened again on New Years 2016/17. I screwed up because I hadn't ever heard of the later hoax before it was debunked.
Everything about priming -- where you read words about old people and then find yourself walking slowly? Not supported by the research Kahneman relied on. The studies are too small, and analysis of the results of those studies suggests strongly that the apparent consistency in all published studies on the subject was artificially created by failure to publish unsuccessful studies. So what Kahneman said about it, that "you have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these studies are true" Not so much.
Afterthought: If you read the comments, you will note Kahneman very graciously saying "It's a fair cop."
Flynn, Russians: at least I'm no longer worried that the issue is disappearing away from the public eye. In fact, I'm quite enjoying the revelations.
I guess it's still true that you don't pick a fight with the CIA. Thanks for running that experiment, Don.
The glass half-full view is that the unaccountable deep state sucks in normal times, but it provides an important check on a crew of berserkers like the ones currently in the executive branch.
The half-empty view is that warring handfuls of anonymous guys in the FBI and the intelligence services are now controlling the political life of the nation.
Antisemitism is such a weird thorny issue. It does exist, and is perhaps intensifying, but there's also this shit - professors getting doxxed for discussing Palestinian issues:
[P]ro-Israel organizations, possibly with the financial help of the state of Israel, have been strategically targeting students and professors who espouse beliefs critical of Israel. The campaigns of harassment on these professors and students go beyond the usual forms of campus debate. They are full-frontal attacks waged by outside groups that attempt to ruin people's reputations, to call into question students' true motivations for learning or discussing Israel, to get professors fired for their beliefs, and make them subjects of mass harassment online. Anti-Semitism is a real issue on college campuses, but those most often targeted by these groups are not anti-Semitic, but critics of Israel. Pro-Israel groups seem intent on conflating the two, displaying any critique of Israel as a threat to Jewishness itself.
We would all like to spend the day in bed, or loafing around the house. If you are a Republican shithead, or a doxxer, or any number of shithead types, you could literally make the world a better place just by reading fiction in bed and staying away from your destructive inclinations. Just think how easy! Just stop destroying lives and stay in bed and be a winner!
1. I didn't really read this closely but we all love Teen Vogue these days and this purports to be the backstory.
2. How to do school lunches right in a poor county. It seems to boil down to having a director who works incredibly hard and is a really thoughtful, smart person.
See if you can spot the theme that contrasts those two articles with this one:
(I only saw the theme in hindsight. It's heavy-handed and incidental - mostly these three stories just caught my interest, but I have no commentary on any of them.)
Mossy Character writes:
Though narrow in goal, target, and method, when it comes to space and time, Obamawar is as expansive as it gets.Obviously the habit of domestic governance by EO is more dangerous, but the same principle applies. This was a feature of Weimar too: legislative dysfunction forced the government into using emergency powers which fell into gibbonous hands.
Low-visibility enables the executive branch to continue to implement the war with minimal public or congressional interference.
In response to Obama's repeated requests, Congress repeatedly "refused to take a vote" to repeal the outdated [2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force] and to issue new authorizations tailored to specific organizations. Regardless of which branch is to blame and why, the fact is that the erosion of congressional power to authorize American force is a defining feature of Obamawar.
Heebie's take: I'm slightly confused by the use of the word Obamawar as though it's a well-defined term that we've all been using for years.
That is Obamawar. Its goal is strictly and narrowly counterterrorism -- not counterinsurgency or regime change. Obamawar's targets are terrorist organizations -- not governments. And Obamawar's method is light-footprint precision strikes from the air and special operators on the ground -- not large numbers of infantry, or "boots on the ground." Obamawar is narrow in goal, target, and method.
I mean, that sounds about right for the wars we've been waging over the past eight years, but it still feels weird to me to make it sound like Obamacare.