domain:academic.oup.com
Nice write up.
2 fairly off topic points.
-
I listened to the audio version a while back, I did so through the Libby app on my phone (you enter your library card info into the app and it lets you check out digital books and audiobooks), each library's selection is different, but I bet the audiobook version of Mere Christianity is a pretty common offering across most libraries.
-
I'm highly confident that Scott has read a fair amount of Lewis -
"The best analogy I can think of is C.S. Lewis. Lewis was a believer in the Old Religion, which at this point has been reduced to cliche. What could be less interesting than hearing that Jesus loves you, or being harangued about sin, or getting promised Heaven, or threatened with Hell? But for some reason, when Lewis writes, the cliches suddenly work. Jesus’ love becomes a palpable force. Sin becomes so revolting you want to take a shower just for having ever engaged in it. When Lewis writes about Heaven you can hear harp music; when he writes about Hell you can smell brimstone."
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/
I think that shout out was what motivated me to listen to it.
Well, about donations, a deontologist might very well say "the correct choice for me today is to donate to the starving kids; if Hamas steal some of my donations tomorrow, that is their own evil act, exercising their own free will, they could have chosen to do otherwise and I do not bear the blame if they choose evil, however likely that is". So might a utilitarian who thinks about the very big picture, and thinks maintaining a global norm of "if any children are starving anywhere on the planet, the developed world will intervene; we Do Not Do famine anymore, we have outgrown it as a species, end-of-story" has better outcomes in the very long run than examining each particular famine and determining if there could be unintended harms from intervention - just as most utilitarians agree that in practice you have a moral duty to abide by any law of the land banning murder, instead of calculating the moral cost-benefits of killing someone for the greater good all by your lonesome, because the outcomes from everybody taking it upon themselves to decide who lives and who dies are inevitably a blood-soaked hellscape.
(Similarly, America might choose to stay out of the war for virtue-ethics reasons - "it sullies the soul to ally oneself with a side that would starve children to achieve their ends, even if the other guys are also horrible barbarians" - or maintaining-global-norms reasons - "banning war crimes in a genuinely effective way that disincentivizes committing them can only be achieved if we hold to precommitments about withholding aid to people who commit them, even if those people were historically our friends and we don't want the people they're currently fighting to win".)
I read everything and never comment. It's way easier.
He’s talking about the recent incidents that have been occurring in the West Bank.
The hostages are a goal that they probably would accept as a "mission accomplished", but you ask some good questions here. Like I said in sarker's reply to this same post, starvation doesn't work unless they are somehow managing to feed everyone except Hamas, no small feat.
How do you know Hamas is gone? Dunno, but assumedly, someone is carrying out all those attacks on those food trucks. I brought up the Taliban because I think it's a similar issue here: you can occupy Palestine for decades, but the second you leave, maybe something bad springs up in your wake because the populace is fundamentally opposed to you. A hairy situation.
I am under the impression that most posters here who care about American politics would 99% endorse this statement, even though it's pretty strongly violating meritocracy and individualism---judging people based on what their ancestors were regardless of their own qualities and competencies.
I don't really think this is the correct way to look at this question. If you are selecting for proficiency at being an American you are overwhelmingly going to be choosing Americans. Being good at e.g. surgery doesn't really tell you if someone will be good at being an American.
I think this is true even if you're holding to a creedal understanding of Americanness (e.g. a random American is MUCH more likely to register vehement and enthusiastic agreement with widespread firearms ownership or an expansive definition of free speech than someone from almost anywhere else on Earth.)
Unless it is Israel's intention to starve everyone in Gaza to death how does their current strategy deal with Hamas? It is not even clear to me that would be sufficient to end the threat of Hamas, as an organization, to Israel. Is literally ever member of Hamas in Gaza? No one to pick up the torch if everyone in Gaza were gone?
Are you seriously suggesting that Israel is purposely targeting babies to starve? I thought it was a figure of speech to dramatize the ones suffering the most from general failure to distribute food in enough quantities.
In the case of it being a figure of speech, starvation has long been a legitimate tool to bring armies to their knees. The problem there is that Hamas is not an army and likely has a large stockpile that will outlast the entire population of Gaza, unless Israel can figure out how to feed the civilian populace and not feed Hamas, somehow. Since facts are lacking and there is an information war happening, I don't know if that's what they're trying to do. I usually doubt it when people are trying to convince me that Israel is actually just full of moral monsters who like being evil. That's not even true when it comes to amoral more-evil-than-good regimes like most colonial powers in the early 20th century or modern day China. I don't know that the populace is united enough to implement genocidal tactics, either.
But that's not really what interests me. If you think starvation is a bad tactic for dealing with Hamas, that's totally fine, and I think I probably agree with you. I just wonder what tactics would be good for dealing with Hamas. What should Israel do?
Fixed. Thanks.
Most Effective Tactics Available
But how is starving babies supposed to deal with Hamas?
As I said in another comment, this is a really hairy situation to have the functional equivalent of the Taliban in your backyard, and every option for dealing with it looks ugly. The United States could not stamp out the Taliban. Of course, starvation is an awful thing, but what do you think should be done about Hamas? Or should anything be done about them? Should Israel stop worrying and learn to live with Hamas?
Gonna echo mister Hale and say this is an amazing write-up! Mere Christianity was quite important for my own conversion and I whole heartedly recommend it as well. You're making me want to get the audio version at some point now...
Along the lines of my thesis “it’s literally that Israeli leaders are evil”, they are funding gangs to pillage and monopolize aid. These are the ones most likely involved in the theft of aid:
We in the humanitarian community have repeatedly stated that Hamas is not stealing our aid. That is not to say that looting has not always been a massive challenge; it has. But it was largely being carried out by armed gangs that emerged in the lawlessness and that operate in the Israeli-controlled “red zone” wastelands. I wrote about this in a CNN op-ed as far back as a year ago. Much of that looting was taking place at the Kerem Shalom or Karam Abu Salem crossing in southern Gaza. We had long speculated that the only way for armed gangs to exist in this area would be with Israel’s knowledge. In June, Netanyahu admitted himself that Israel has been arming gangs, most notably a notorious clan operating in the Rafah area, where much of the looting takes place. He defended the decision, stating these clans were helping in the fight against Hamas
The first article quotes IDF officials praising the UN system as effective in distributing aid and having found no proof that Hamas was systematically stealing aid from the UN, although they did steal from smaller organizations that didn't always have boots on the ground. It's been widely reported that various armed gangs have formed in the power vacuum to steal and resell aid at extortionate prices.
FYI the post you're replying to is Filtered.
A family member recently discussed pellet smokers with me; he recommends the Weber Searwood 600 for $999 (Weber is known for its quality), and he also listed the Green Mountain Grills Trek Prime 2.0 Wifi Pellet Grill for $399 (it is pretty small). I think Pit Bosses are considered okay, similar to Blackstone. They may not have existed long enough to have a whole lot of sentiment on forums. Check Amazing Ribs to get good reviews on smokers.
They can get pretty pricey, compared to a charcoal grill, but maybe worth it, if you like to cook a lot of briskets. Briskets are hard to do well on regular smokers or grills, but apparently a pellet grill can nail them consistently, and it's automated, so you can set it before going to work and then come back and have tasty brisket, whereas other smokers would require a free weekend. On the other hand, I wouldn't trust a pellet grill to "grill" anything.
Personally, I'm just going to stick with stuff I can do on the Weber 22 inch kettle grill for now. I did a pork butt on one a couple weeks ago. My uncle took the Weber Smokey Mountain approach, which is much better at smoking, and he claims you can take out one of the grates and just use it as a regular kettle grill if you want; he got the larger of the two models. Check Facebook Marketplace for both because they're both significantly discounted when used, and they're big hunks of metal that typically outlast their owners, so used is basically as good as new in most cases. If you want to smoke with a kettle grill, definitely pick up the Slow N' Sear.
Yes, but recognizing one entity's claim to a territory that another entity controls isn't unprecedented at all.
I think most attempts to characterize “this place” are misguided. General agreement with a principle isn’t enough to make that principle representative, especially where political coalitions are involved.
I also think that, compared to the vast majority of people who want to generalize about “this place,” you’ve put more effort into doing so politely and constructively. It’s a good post. The least I can do is answer for myself.
On the first point of argument: that’s not what I would call “individualism,” which normally refers to the weighting of individual interests as opposed to collective ones. What you’re describing is like the opposite of “collective punishment.” Perhaps “personal responsibility.”
Your use of “meritocracy” is more agreeable, though I don’t know how many people would limit “personal virtue” to avoiding self-interest.
With that out of the way,
I think the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War [Group R] have a hell of a lot more claim over America than the people who say they don’t belong [Group D].
If Group R gets privileged based only on the deeds of their ancestors, then that’s corrosive to meritocracy, to personal responsibility, and to individualism.
If the two groups start out with equal claims, but Group D has thrown theirs away by rejecting the American ethos, then it flips. Now meritocracy demands we prefer Group R, since at least it isn’t trying to wreck the project. We’re supposed to hold Group D responsible for their individual actions.
Guess which of these is closer to the modal Republican worldview?
Vance’s dogwhistle motte and bailey is consistent and defensible to his intended audience. It’s actively hostile to anybody who doesn’t already agree. I don’t think he cares.
Even with that, the PA doesn't really control Gaza anyway.
The dam is finally breaking on western support for Israel as the justifications for its post-10/7 actions have become increasingly deranged. "We must starve babies in Gaza, for the security of Israel. For they are part of an evil race tribe and would surely strangle every Jew if only their tiny baby hands had the strength."
The assertion you start this post off with has got some heavy caveats to it.
Of the 156 incidents of loss or theft reported, 63 were attributed to unknown perpetrators, 35 to armed actors, 25 to unarmed people, 11 directly to Israeli military action, 11 to corrupt subcontractors, five to aid group personnel “engaging in corrupt activities,” and six to “others," a category that accounted for “commodities stolen in unknown circumstances,” according to the slide presentation.
There's no evidence that Hamas took aid! Well, the people who took the aid were aligned with unknown forces and not wearing any uniforms, similar to how Hamas operates, but they didn't say they were Hamas into convenient nearby microphones, so I am going to heavily imply that there is no Hamas theft with sleazy lawyer-like framing. Feel free to uncritically quote me, Israel haters!
That's just appalling reporting. And USAID said this? Isn't that the one getting dismantled? I was neutral about their being dismantled, but after seeing this kind of shit, I am glad. Holy hell. They're not even an intelligence agency... The information war is real. You can't trust anyone.
I believe Israel recognizes the Palestinian Authority's claim, but they don't recognize the PA as a state.
My go to strategy as a kid was to walk through the library looking for Unicorn stickers (which signaled fantasy) in the children and/or young adult section (and later the adult section when I became a teenager). And then look at the cover, read the synopsis, and pick out books that sound interesting. (I eventually picked up intuition based on the cover art too, since that's correlated with... something something target demographic and sub sub genre, but I can't really articulate any of that in words other than to avoid books which look too much like other books you've read and disliked, and try to read books that look like other books you really liked).
However this was like 20 years ago and I have no idea to what extent the woke has penetrated fantasy. And also don't know what your niece's preferred genres are. So my actual advice is 1: have her just browse through the library and pick things out, and 2: don't be afraid to go slightly over age range. A Precocious 9 year old can handle books intended for 14 year olds, they're unlikely to have anything truly inappropriate, it's mostly an issue of word complexity and character age.
Ethics aside, it makes sense as part of a carrot-and-stick approach to making Hamas go away, although it would be a lot more workable if there was an escape hatch available for people to leave Gaza and move anywhere else in the region. Theoretically, a bad enough famine would depopulate the entirety of Gaza and eliminate Hamas that way, but this would be very bad for Israel's international standing compared to a scenario where Gaza is depopulated in a less deadly way.
More options
Context Copy link