| Time |
Event |
| 3:48p |
Yemen V. Israel and US
The
US and UK bombed Yemen,
reportedly attacking Houthi "military facilities" (a vague term).
If these attacks make Houthi attacks on shipping hard or impossible, that could stop them.
Otherwise, I expect this retaliation to have little effect on the Houthis' actions.
Others
agree.
The Houthis knew the ways the US can attack them, and have surely figured in advance what their
anti-shipping war will cost them.
They say that their attacks will
"punish" the US for counterattacking
them, but they don't think of being counterattacked as punishment for
their own attacks. I don't think they evaluate the results of their
actions by comparing their victories with damage they take.
I don't think the Houthis' attacks on shipping will have much effect
on fighting in Gaza.
There are some who say that the US should pressure Israel to accept a
cease fire in Gaza instead of retaliating against Houthi attacks on shipping.
I agree with half of that — the US should pressure Israel to accept a cease fire in Gaza.
But not "instead of" anything. The reason to demand a cease fire in Gaza is that
Israel continues to kill
thousands
of Palestinian civilians, and that is a great crime.
That reason is so strong that no other reason is required.
By contrast, terrorist attacks against global shipping are not a reason to grant the attacker's
demands. A world order dominated by violent religious fanatics is no improvement over the
current world order.
As regards
repelling further such attacks,
the US needs a cheap anti-drone drone. It could be designed to collide with the attacking
drone, or tangle it in a net and bring it down. Since it would not need to carry a bomb, it
could be smaller and cheaper. These defensive drones could have other uses — for
instance, to deal with drones operating dangerously near airports.
|
| 3:48p |
|
| 3:48p |
South Africa V. Israel
Analyzing the legal case
of the accusation of genocide
brought by South Africa against Israel.
I do not know the law about genocide, as the author does, but I read
about what is happening in Gaza and I think I understand how to
characterize it. Killing 20,000 or more civilians out of a population
of 2.5 million is a series of atrocities, a crime, and it must stop.
However, calling it "genocide" is an exaggeration.
Some people think that exaggerative rhetoric is legitimate, that the
harsher-sounding condemnation is justified because it will be more
effective at putting an end to the atrocities. Why do I disagree?
-
Stretching the definition of a crime to apply it to lesser acts of
wrong is harmful in the long run, because it pulls on the moral
compass. It will be hard to do justice to the more severe crimes
when the terms for that have been stretched to cover lesser crimes.
In the snort run, it makes sides hate each other more and thus
interferes with deescalation.
- Committing a series of atrocities is a very grave crime. There is
no need to exaggerate that — it's sufficient to call it what it is.
- I doubt the exaggeration is effective, or necessary, for the
purpose. If we can convince the US government to recognize that this
is a series of atrocities and demand Israel stop, that will I expect
put an end to the atrocities. Convincing the US of that is the hard
part.
|
| 3:48p |
Working in the office
Research finds that requiring workers to work in the office (rather
than from home)
does not make the company more profitable.
In other words, the companies have no objective reason, in business
terms, to make workers go to the office.
|
| 3:48p |
West Bank repression
*[Olive] harvest rots as West Bank
farmers cut off
from trees.*
|
| 3:48p |
Urgent: Oppose H.J.Res 98
US citizens: phone your senators to oppose H.J.Res 98, which would
cancel a regulation Biden's officials adopted to give some outsourced
workers more of the rights of employees.
That regulation is a change for the better, since it will reduce the
exploitation of American workers, so naturally plutocratist politicians are
being paid to oppose it. But they will hesitate to do so if they hear
from enough US voters.
If you phone, please spread the word!
Main Switchboard: +1-202-224-3121
|
| 3:48p |
3rd party in elections, UK
Because Starmer has clamped down
on any proposals for more than small changes
in the Labour Party, Britons who see that big change is needed see no proposals
from any party except the even-more-right-wing competitors of the Tories.
The right wing has shut the left completely out of British politics
with the help of Labour. Britain desperately needs a progressive
party such as Labour sometimes was.
|
| 8:33p |
|
| 8:33p |
|
| 8:33p |
The insurrectionist's strategy
Robert Reich: the insurrectionist has a strategy to dominate the
election: by making a big nuisance of himself all the time, he aims to
direct all attention to him, and that he hopes will people perceive
him as powerful and perceive Biden as weak.
Some people will vote for whoever seems strong. They'd vote for a
tyrannosaurus to threaten them. It seems that many Americans don't
have a clear focus for deciding their votes based on which candidate
will do the most good.
|
| 8:33p |
Water shortage
*Water shortages disrupt the Plaquemines parish as millions of gallons
are used to construct Venture Global’s LNG terminal.*
(Humorous aside) It has also caused the encrustations on the teeth of
corpses in cemeteries, which made possible the plaque mining industry,
which gave that parish its name.*
|
| 8:33p |
|
| 8:33p |
|
| 8:33p |
Climate tipping points
*Earth on verge of five catastrophic climate tipping points, scientists warn.*
These tipping points are not easy to reverse -- if they tip, small
changes in the other direction would not tip them back. Perhaps large
changes could do that, but we would have to cool the Earth a lot
to achieve that.
|
| 8:33p |
|