I disagree with almost every word written here. Yet, I thought it was well written and I hope everyone on all sides of this argument can find the ability to listen to what each other is saying.
Actually my question is *what* do you disagree with? My bottom line premise is was is awful, there are no good guys, sometimes war is necessary. I assume it’s the last bit maybe?
I think the main points of disagreement flow from:
1) Analyzing through different lenses. For example, you categorize Freddie's position as the far left position. He may be far left, but the analytical process he's using is the mainstream view of realism. Marxists disagree with it normatively but not descriptively. This is why someone like Freddie (or myself, who is to the right of him but is still a realist) or Henry Kissinger can come to the same conclusions. We're essentially arguing across each other. This is how someone like John Mearsheimer - with whom I've spent my entire life disagreeing with but is an absolute titan of foreign policy analysis - is now being ridiculed online by people who discovered foreign policy two weeks ago. The very question of whether the invasion is bad is either irrelevant or a question with an answer so obvious that it's functionally irrelevant.
2) I don't agree with Freddie on the relevance of America's role - morally - in the world. And I also disagree with some of his rhetoric about this. I don't think the average American is floating down the river of blood. I think the average American chooses to ignore or minimize the rivers of blood, which is probably the best thing to do from an emotional health standpoint because, well, it's fucking grim. The fact that we're a democratic republic makes it worse for me. That I can criticize the government is great! That enough Americans support the awful things we do that it makes no difference is not great.
3) War is absolutely necessary, but the line should not be "stopping someone else from doing something we're okay with and do ourselves." And any discussion of whether AMERICAN involvement is necessary should focus on how fucking terrible we are at this. We genuinely suck at this. When was the last time we involved ourselves and it a) worked b) wasn't morally deplorable and c) didn't have horrific unintended consequences? Is it the Berlin Air Lift? The Marshall Plan?
Which all takes us back into a loop because now we're back to realism. So at the end of the day this is just going to be people endlessly talking past each other because we're viewing the world through different lenses. But hopefully that lays out some of the irreconcilable points of disagreement.
I don’t particularly disagree with anything you’ve said here. Including #3. Especially since I’ve acknowledged the many many failings of the US and the things the US has done pursuant to some plundering class’s interests—which I don’t support.
So that’s what I’m asking: what is the line? Where is the line that makes us getting involved in anything, anywhere more morally defensible than not?
I'm not going to be able to satisfactorily answer this on behalf of the left because my answer is that I will defer to the Church. I think St Augustine nailed this one. Unfortunately, I'll need one of my more leftist brethren to give an answer to the question I think you're asking.
Hi there. You don’t know me, but I followed you over from Freddie’s page. Thanks for laying out your thoughts on this. Hope you don’t mind if I comment.
To your question: where’s the line? When we are directly threatened. That’s my line. Not a threat to our global economic hegemony or to the bottom lines of Western energy conglomerates, but to our actual lives and freedom.
If I may turn it back on you a bit, why does this particular instance cross your line (if it indeed does) and the countless other instances in the world in recent history have not (if indeed they haven’t)? Were you as upset about Chechnya? Georgia? Or take a look at post-colonial Africa. There have been many outrages that barely even make the news here. What role should the USA have had, if any, in these examples? In other words, why this time? Because it’s Europe and we’re unaccustomed to such things there, but entirely too accustomed to them in Asia, Africa, and Latin America?
Well, this particular instance doesn’t cross any line I would have for our involvement. People keep assuming that because I think there may be a time for American military intervention in the world, that I think this is it, or that I’m personally upset by the situation in Ukraine, or that I’m not upset by terrible situations elsewhere. (I’m not saying you’re assuming those things, because you clearly aren’t, which I appreciate).
I don’t think energy or economics are reasons to go to war.
I’d say we’re in fact very accustomed to those things happening in Europe: WWII and the soviet era loom large in the world’s imagination, and perhaps what has gotten so many people het up about THIS war is it is indeed a backward step for some level of peace and stability that was so sorely fought for in Europe. Not because Europe = white but because Europe was so thoroughly devastated and rebuilt in recent history.
Ultimately, what concerns ME about the situation is that Putin clearly doesn’t answer to anyone in any meaningful way AND he controls a vast nuclear arsenal. For these reasons, it is imperative to pay close attention and consider the “what ifs,” which Freddie insisted was “whataboutism.”
I’m not operating from a place of “well I think we should go to war so I’m going to use what-abouts to do post hoc justification.”
I’m not a scholar or even an amateur historian, but I’m aware there was heated debate in the US prior to joining WWII, and it wasn’t until the awful attack on Pearl Harbor that the political and popular will overwhelmingly supported involvement. That being the case…what IF Pearl Harbor hadn’t happened?
If waiting until we are directly attacked or threatened on our own soil is the line, then that’s the line. However, I’m saying that would not absolve us of all responsibility for what happens while we choose not to act. Simply because we are a meaningful world power. That’s not a reality we can undo.
I agree that the West did not force Putin to invade Ukraine. Putin owns this war and its horrors.
That said, I think the West missed a chance at a diplomatic solution, as late as a few months ago. The solution would have been criticized as "appeasement" because it would have had to involve no-NATO for Ukraine for some period of time. People will disagree that this would have satisfied Putin, citing everything he's done and said in the past few months. But people forget that everyone reacts to events and no one really has a master plan for the future
Finally, what does it say that Captain Winters (BoB premiered on 9/92001) became the evil "Axe" on Billions?
If more of us used nuance in our attempts to influence how other people think about complex issues, our wonderful social experiment for better or worse might last several more centuries.
Thank you Erin for sharing such a well written essay, and tell your husband an elderly veteran left over from the Vietnam era suggests he should "never forget."
Clearly it’s a mess and clearly the US needs to butt out of foreign elections. Yet the biases of that publication are evident too: the characterization of the Ukrainians who don’t want to be under the Russian thumb as nearly exclusively led by neonazis, while ethnic Russians are just trying to live their lives.
I think you’re not exactly responding to what Freddie was act saying, but rather making your own set of points, which is totally fine —it’s your substack. Maybe that’s your intention anyway, to have your say.
Your view seems to hinge on our superior form of government. We do not have a representative democracy. That’s what the Founders tried to set up — “a republic, if you can keep it”—and it was an amazing attempt (!) but it _failed to function_ after the Supreme Court determined that corporations are “persons” and that money is a form of “protected political speech.” We kissed our republic / our representative democracy goodbye at that point, and with predictable results.
There’s a story— and I’ve looked in vain to find it again — all I can say is that it was in a respectable publication like the Atlantic or the Nation or something, in the 21st century sometime— of a woman in Southern California who was very involved in the community, very involved politically, and decided to run for some small local office as a Democrat. It was a good fit for her experience, so she threw her hat in the ring. Soon after she was contacted by some local Democratic Party officials who wanted to have lunch with her— she was thrilled to have a chance to discuss her campaign, her chances, etc.
What she encountered instead was a Mafia-style “Nice political aspirations. Be a shame if something happened to them.” They essentially told her they had someone in mind to run, and further, if she ever wanted to run for anything, they’d be letting her know. That was the end of her political career.
Even the people who want to run for small local offices need the permission and blessing of one of our “two” parties.
If you want an understanding of why the rare starry-eyed person, whether they lean right or left, who makes it to Congress chooses to walk away (Justin Amash, say, or Tulsi Gabbard), I recommend so highly this interview of Amash where he describes the insider’s view of how Congress runs now (TL;DR— the members of Congress are there to rubber stamp and obey the party wishes, and the legislation is written by donors—but he describes it in great detail and convincingly, from a point of view of a disillusioned Republican-turned-libertarian). https://youtu.be/yo1C6uXy8qU
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, has said some similar things. She was groomed as the “next big thing” in the Democratic Party, as a “woman of color” who served in the military. She describes being given assignments far beyond her experience level in the Party (like the high-level role at the DNC) — until she had an opinion of her own, broke ranks, and then she was essentially “out”— no longer the darling of the Democrats. AOC sort of fills that niche now, and indeed she makes a lot of statements the “left” likes, but she just votes for the same resource-plundering, donor-appealing things that she’s told to.
So — regardless of what we each might think of Ukraine and how we got to this point: we agree “Putin bad.” We agree “It’s unclear what the best course of action is.”
I think Freddie would agree on those things too.
I think ALL he was saying is that we don’t get to take the moral high ground, we don’t get to flatter ourselves and claim to be the world’s good guy, and if your counterclaim is that our government is in the hands of the people and if we don’t like our rulers we can vote them out, I’m simply here to say “No, that is evidently and abundantly not true.”
Also— I cannot tell you who won any election in the US since about 2000. No one knows who won the elections.
Early on (and this is easily Googleable, but I need to leave, and I’m typing quickly on my phone) it was shown that the electronic voting machines were very easily hackable, to the extent that an 11-year-old child was able to do it. I think The Nation ran an in-depth article on the voting machines years ago. Early 2000s.
Other nations, large modern nations, use hand-filled, hand-written, publicly counted paper ballots for a reason. We could too. We choose not to. Why? It’s a question worth asking.
Add to this: since the advent of these electronic voting machines, there has been a sharp divergence in the reported election results and the exit poll results.
What does that mean? Well, exit poll results are the best tool we have to tell whether an election is honest. If a candidate’s exit polling is 57 percent and the margin of error is two points, that means you will expect the election results to be that he gets 55-59 percent of the vote. If an election on the electronic machines says he got 49 percent, that is essentially impossible and screams fraud— so much so that exit poll results are the basis for the UN and other organizations making international claims of fraud in other countries’ elections. (They ignore the US though.)
Our elections have been “off” the exit polls, regularly, since the electronic machines began.
This is easily Googleable too. A lot of “numbers people” have written about our elections in depth. For instance, Amy Klobuchar was exit polling at about 6 or 7 percent in New Hampshire and then got 20% in the primary. She didn’t win so it wasn’t closely looked at, but it was one in a series of unexpected results that changed the narrative that Bernie was ahead in many places.
Following that, a lot of “unexpected” results happened, making it seem like “Hey this is anyone’s race! Who knew?!” That became the story— “who knew?” Then the most unexpected thing of all happened and Biden turned out to be the “most popular” Dem candidate. Yet I don’t know a single person who preferred him.
I can’t say what really happened in the election. Nor can anyone. I make no claims beyond, “There have been a series of statistically impossible results since we started using the machines.” And in fact, while exit polling used to be commonly reported, it’s more or less vanished now because it started to be so off.
The danger is, once large swaths of the population stop trusting the election results, you have a lot of them believing that “Trump really won” and they are very angry. I loathed Trump but don’t have an opinion about whether he really won, because our machines and our process can no longer be trusted. If people are suspicious, I can’t fault them even if I detest their candidate.
We live in a dystopian simulation of what our representative democracy was supposed to be, and the plundering class is plundering. It won’t end well.
So, whatever “we” (or rather, the people in charge of the US, which is not “us”) decide is done for Ukraine, it will be because it benefits the plundering class and not the people of Ukraine or the people of the US. You can bet on it. I wish I had a magic way to get Putin out of Ukraine.
Freddie and I disagree on a few important things politically but his point that the US should live up to the standards it claims to impose on others is a valid one. My takeaway is not “we shouldn’t help.” My takeaway is “we should be very suspicious of the US’s ‘help’ “… ok bye for now and thanks for writing this!
That’s really good. Most places have electronic machines; or the paper ballots fed into machines. I thought there was maybe one state with hand counted ballots but I could be out of date.
It's hard to square the idea that the West didn't force Putin's hand with the fact that US politicians are now openly calling for his assassination. How close was he supposed to let NATO missiles get before he was allowed to be concerned about them?
Interesting. What I keep getting hung up on is how much that way of thinking mirrors the aspects of the BLM radicals or “successor ideology” that I can’t support: that the prime issue is white supremacy, that every other issue is subordinate to that monocausal evil.
Also I found that Leila Al-Shami piece really compelling. It’s the same reason I give a lot of credence to the opinions of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I may not fully understand or completely agree with their assessments, but I’m giving more weight to their opinions than my own.
Edited to add: same thing for the letters of dissent signed by Russians and the Russian scientists etc. I find it incredibly infantilizing to think anyone in the west knows better than them what’s going on.
“The Marxists in question support anyone that opposes the United States.” Straw man. Conveniently ignores everything Freddie was saying, which was not “America bad. Russia good.” That was not remotely his point, not even if you turn it sideways and squint. So it’s impossible to reply to your comments, really, especially if you believe what you wrote.
I didn’t see him do that, but I left early on because work beckoned, so I missed a lot. But we agree that there are no good guys. I suspect any of our involvement will make things worse for the people of Ukraine, not better, but of course I don’t know.
Either way, Erin, I think the real question is: When you do weep, is it rivers of blood? Hmm? HMM???
FWIW, I think I'm largely where you're at, on the whole thing. But I didn't (and still don't, really, yet here I am) want to touch internet commenting on the topic with a ten-foot pole. Props to you, though, for making this case -- you're a braver and less lazy soul than I.
Matt Taibbi, in explaining why he was wrong about the chance of Russia invading, had said he succumbed to something like "reverse chauvinism" in regards to the US. I suspect he's not the only one to whom that diagnosis applies, but I'm gonna leave it at that, and otherwise GTFO, to preserve my already-questionable sanity.
That’s a great question and frankly I’m pretty shocked that more people haven’t question me about my record of fights in parking lots. And also I’ve decided this is the last I’m going to think or talk about this for right now.
I disagree with almost every word written here. Yet, I thought it was well written and I hope everyone on all sides of this argument can find the ability to listen to what each other is saying.
That’s all I’m asking. Though I’m interested in the reasons *why* you disagree.
Actually my question is *what* do you disagree with? My bottom line premise is was is awful, there are no good guys, sometimes war is necessary. I assume it’s the last bit maybe?
I think the main points of disagreement flow from:
1) Analyzing through different lenses. For example, you categorize Freddie's position as the far left position. He may be far left, but the analytical process he's using is the mainstream view of realism. Marxists disagree with it normatively but not descriptively. This is why someone like Freddie (or myself, who is to the right of him but is still a realist) or Henry Kissinger can come to the same conclusions. We're essentially arguing across each other. This is how someone like John Mearsheimer - with whom I've spent my entire life disagreeing with but is an absolute titan of foreign policy analysis - is now being ridiculed online by people who discovered foreign policy two weeks ago. The very question of whether the invasion is bad is either irrelevant or a question with an answer so obvious that it's functionally irrelevant.
2) I don't agree with Freddie on the relevance of America's role - morally - in the world. And I also disagree with some of his rhetoric about this. I don't think the average American is floating down the river of blood. I think the average American chooses to ignore or minimize the rivers of blood, which is probably the best thing to do from an emotional health standpoint because, well, it's fucking grim. The fact that we're a democratic republic makes it worse for me. That I can criticize the government is great! That enough Americans support the awful things we do that it makes no difference is not great.
3) War is absolutely necessary, but the line should not be "stopping someone else from doing something we're okay with and do ourselves." And any discussion of whether AMERICAN involvement is necessary should focus on how fucking terrible we are at this. We genuinely suck at this. When was the last time we involved ourselves and it a) worked b) wasn't morally deplorable and c) didn't have horrific unintended consequences? Is it the Berlin Air Lift? The Marshall Plan?
Which all takes us back into a loop because now we're back to realism. So at the end of the day this is just going to be people endlessly talking past each other because we're viewing the world through different lenses. But hopefully that lays out some of the irreconcilable points of disagreement.
I don’t particularly disagree with anything you’ve said here. Including #3. Especially since I’ve acknowledged the many many failings of the US and the things the US has done pursuant to some plundering class’s interests—which I don’t support.
So that’s what I’m asking: what is the line? Where is the line that makes us getting involved in anything, anywhere more morally defensible than not?
I'm not going to be able to satisfactorily answer this on behalf of the left because my answer is that I will defer to the Church. I think St Augustine nailed this one. Unfortunately, I'll need one of my more leftist brethren to give an answer to the question I think you're asking.
Classic Dan, deferring to a saint! If I had a nickel for every time...
Hi there. You don’t know me, but I followed you over from Freddie’s page. Thanks for laying out your thoughts on this. Hope you don’t mind if I comment.
To your question: where’s the line? When we are directly threatened. That’s my line. Not a threat to our global economic hegemony or to the bottom lines of Western energy conglomerates, but to our actual lives and freedom.
If I may turn it back on you a bit, why does this particular instance cross your line (if it indeed does) and the countless other instances in the world in recent history have not (if indeed they haven’t)? Were you as upset about Chechnya? Georgia? Or take a look at post-colonial Africa. There have been many outrages that barely even make the news here. What role should the USA have had, if any, in these examples? In other words, why this time? Because it’s Europe and we’re unaccustomed to such things there, but entirely too accustomed to them in Asia, Africa, and Latin America?
Well, this particular instance doesn’t cross any line I would have for our involvement. People keep assuming that because I think there may be a time for American military intervention in the world, that I think this is it, or that I’m personally upset by the situation in Ukraine, or that I’m not upset by terrible situations elsewhere. (I’m not saying you’re assuming those things, because you clearly aren’t, which I appreciate).
I don’t think energy or economics are reasons to go to war.
I’d say we’re in fact very accustomed to those things happening in Europe: WWII and the soviet era loom large in the world’s imagination, and perhaps what has gotten so many people het up about THIS war is it is indeed a backward step for some level of peace and stability that was so sorely fought for in Europe. Not because Europe = white but because Europe was so thoroughly devastated and rebuilt in recent history.
Ultimately, what concerns ME about the situation is that Putin clearly doesn’t answer to anyone in any meaningful way AND he controls a vast nuclear arsenal. For these reasons, it is imperative to pay close attention and consider the “what ifs,” which Freddie insisted was “whataboutism.”
I’m not operating from a place of “well I think we should go to war so I’m going to use what-abouts to do post hoc justification.”
I’m not a scholar or even an amateur historian, but I’m aware there was heated debate in the US prior to joining WWII, and it wasn’t until the awful attack on Pearl Harbor that the political and popular will overwhelmingly supported involvement. That being the case…what IF Pearl Harbor hadn’t happened?
If waiting until we are directly attacked or threatened on our own soil is the line, then that’s the line. However, I’m saying that would not absolve us of all responsibility for what happens while we choose not to act. Simply because we are a meaningful world power. That’s not a reality we can undo.
I agree that the West did not force Putin to invade Ukraine. Putin owns this war and its horrors.
That said, I think the West missed a chance at a diplomatic solution, as late as a few months ago. The solution would have been criticized as "appeasement" because it would have had to involve no-NATO for Ukraine for some period of time. People will disagree that this would have satisfied Putin, citing everything he's done and said in the past few months. But people forget that everyone reacts to events and no one really has a master plan for the future
Finally, what does it say that Captain Winters (BoB premiered on 9/92001) became the evil "Axe" on Billions?
Well now I’m going to have to rethink my stance on Captain Winters 😂
I appreciate nuance, Erin.
If more of us used nuance in our attempts to influence how other people think about complex issues, our wonderful social experiment for better or worse might last several more centuries.
Thank you Erin for sharing such a well written essay, and tell your husband an elderly veteran left over from the Vietnam era suggests he should "never forget."
He'll know what I mean.
The Victoria Nuland angle troubles many.
https://geopolitics.co/2022/03/01/ukraine-the-mess-that-victoria-nuland-made/
Clearly it’s a mess and clearly the US needs to butt out of foreign elections. Yet the biases of that publication are evident too: the characterization of the Ukrainians who don’t want to be under the Russian thumb as nearly exclusively led by neonazis, while ethnic Russians are just trying to live their lives.
Role of Victoria Nuland is important to this.
I think you’re not exactly responding to what Freddie was act saying, but rather making your own set of points, which is totally fine —it’s your substack. Maybe that’s your intention anyway, to have your say.
Your view seems to hinge on our superior form of government. We do not have a representative democracy. That’s what the Founders tried to set up — “a republic, if you can keep it”—and it was an amazing attempt (!) but it _failed to function_ after the Supreme Court determined that corporations are “persons” and that money is a form of “protected political speech.” We kissed our republic / our representative democracy goodbye at that point, and with predictable results.
There’s a story— and I’ve looked in vain to find it again — all I can say is that it was in a respectable publication like the Atlantic or the Nation or something, in the 21st century sometime— of a woman in Southern California who was very involved in the community, very involved politically, and decided to run for some small local office as a Democrat. It was a good fit for her experience, so she threw her hat in the ring. Soon after she was contacted by some local Democratic Party officials who wanted to have lunch with her— she was thrilled to have a chance to discuss her campaign, her chances, etc.
What she encountered instead was a Mafia-style “Nice political aspirations. Be a shame if something happened to them.” They essentially told her they had someone in mind to run, and further, if she ever wanted to run for anything, they’d be letting her know. That was the end of her political career.
Even the people who want to run for small local offices need the permission and blessing of one of our “two” parties.
If you want an understanding of why the rare starry-eyed person, whether they lean right or left, who makes it to Congress chooses to walk away (Justin Amash, say, or Tulsi Gabbard), I recommend so highly this interview of Amash where he describes the insider’s view of how Congress runs now (TL;DR— the members of Congress are there to rubber stamp and obey the party wishes, and the legislation is written by donors—but he describes it in great detail and convincingly, from a point of view of a disillusioned Republican-turned-libertarian). https://youtu.be/yo1C6uXy8qU
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, has said some similar things. She was groomed as the “next big thing” in the Democratic Party, as a “woman of color” who served in the military. She describes being given assignments far beyond her experience level in the Party (like the high-level role at the DNC) — until she had an opinion of her own, broke ranks, and then she was essentially “out”— no longer the darling of the Democrats. AOC sort of fills that niche now, and indeed she makes a lot of statements the “left” likes, but she just votes for the same resource-plundering, donor-appealing things that she’s told to.
So — regardless of what we each might think of Ukraine and how we got to this point: we agree “Putin bad.” We agree “It’s unclear what the best course of action is.”
I think Freddie would agree on those things too.
I think ALL he was saying is that we don’t get to take the moral high ground, we don’t get to flatter ourselves and claim to be the world’s good guy, and if your counterclaim is that our government is in the hands of the people and if we don’t like our rulers we can vote them out, I’m simply here to say “No, that is evidently and abundantly not true.”
Also— I cannot tell you who won any election in the US since about 2000. No one knows who won the elections.
Early on (and this is easily Googleable, but I need to leave, and I’m typing quickly on my phone) it was shown that the electronic voting machines were very easily hackable, to the extent that an 11-year-old child was able to do it. I think The Nation ran an in-depth article on the voting machines years ago. Early 2000s.
Other nations, large modern nations, use hand-filled, hand-written, publicly counted paper ballots for a reason. We could too. We choose not to. Why? It’s a question worth asking.
Add to this: since the advent of these electronic voting machines, there has been a sharp divergence in the reported election results and the exit poll results.
What does that mean? Well, exit poll results are the best tool we have to tell whether an election is honest. If a candidate’s exit polling is 57 percent and the margin of error is two points, that means you will expect the election results to be that he gets 55-59 percent of the vote. If an election on the electronic machines says he got 49 percent, that is essentially impossible and screams fraud— so much so that exit poll results are the basis for the UN and other organizations making international claims of fraud in other countries’ elections. (They ignore the US though.)
Our elections have been “off” the exit polls, regularly, since the electronic machines began.
This is easily Googleable too. A lot of “numbers people” have written about our elections in depth. For instance, Amy Klobuchar was exit polling at about 6 or 7 percent in New Hampshire and then got 20% in the primary. She didn’t win so it wasn’t closely looked at, but it was one in a series of unexpected results that changed the narrative that Bernie was ahead in many places.
Following that, a lot of “unexpected” results happened, making it seem like “Hey this is anyone’s race! Who knew?!” That became the story— “who knew?” Then the most unexpected thing of all happened and Biden turned out to be the “most popular” Dem candidate. Yet I don’t know a single person who preferred him.
I can’t say what really happened in the election. Nor can anyone. I make no claims beyond, “There have been a series of statistically impossible results since we started using the machines.” And in fact, while exit polling used to be commonly reported, it’s more or less vanished now because it started to be so off.
The danger is, once large swaths of the population stop trusting the election results, you have a lot of them believing that “Trump really won” and they are very angry. I loathed Trump but don’t have an opinion about whether he really won, because our machines and our process can no longer be trusted. If people are suspicious, I can’t fault them even if I detest their candidate.
We live in a dystopian simulation of what our representative democracy was supposed to be, and the plundering class is plundering. It won’t end well.
So, whatever “we” (or rather, the people in charge of the US, which is not “us”) decide is done for Ukraine, it will be because it benefits the plundering class and not the people of Ukraine or the people of the US. You can bet on it. I wish I had a magic way to get Putin out of Ukraine.
Freddie and I disagree on a few important things politically but his point that the US should live up to the standards it claims to impose on others is a valid one. My takeaway is not “we shouldn’t help.” My takeaway is “we should be very suspicious of the US’s ‘help’ “… ok bye for now and thanks for writing this!
Thanks this was a lot of good info about your position and has given me plenty to think about.
Right. My state uses exclusively paper ballots.
That’s really good. Most places have electronic machines; or the paper ballots fed into machines. I thought there was maybe one state with hand counted ballots but I could be out of date.
Electronic scanning = similar problem. Until we have hand filled, hand counted, publicly counted ballots, we’ve got a problem.
Yes this is true.
It's hard to square the idea that the West didn't force Putin's hand with the fact that US politicians are now openly calling for his assassination. How close was he supposed to let NATO missiles get before he was allowed to be concerned about them?
The call for assassination is outrageous. And the answer to your last question is, I don’t know.
That’s what I’m wanting people to engage with: if this democracy is a dystopian farce, what next?
Has more than one politician done so?
Lindsay Graham never runs out of ways to prove that he is the world’s biggest ass.
And upon this rock shall we build our political friendship.
Interesting. What I keep getting hung up on is how much that way of thinking mirrors the aspects of the BLM radicals or “successor ideology” that I can’t support: that the prime issue is white supremacy, that every other issue is subordinate to that monocausal evil.
Right.
Also I found that Leila Al-Shami piece really compelling. It’s the same reason I give a lot of credence to the opinions of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I may not fully understand or completely agree with their assessments, but I’m giving more weight to their opinions than my own.
Edited to add: same thing for the letters of dissent signed by Russians and the Russian scientists etc. I find it incredibly infantilizing to think anyone in the west knows better than them what’s going on.
“The Marxists in question support anyone that opposes the United States.” Straw man. Conveniently ignores everything Freddie was saying, which was not “America bad. Russia good.” That was not remotely his point, not even if you turn it sideways and squint. So it’s impossible to reply to your comments, really, especially if you believe what you wrote.
He was the one who accused me of not weeping for America’s rivers of blood while weeping for Ukraine—neither of which is remotely true.
My point is there are no good guys. So now what?
I didn’t see him do that, but I left early on because work beckoned, so I missed a lot. But we agree that there are no good guys. I suspect any of our involvement will make things worse for the people of Ukraine, not better, but of course I don’t know.
Either way, Erin, I think the real question is: When you do weep, is it rivers of blood? Hmm? HMM???
FWIW, I think I'm largely where you're at, on the whole thing. But I didn't (and still don't, really, yet here I am) want to touch internet commenting on the topic with a ten-foot pole. Props to you, though, for making this case -- you're a braver and less lazy soul than I.
Matt Taibbi, in explaining why he was wrong about the chance of Russia invading, had said he succumbed to something like "reverse chauvinism" in regards to the US. I suspect he's not the only one to whom that diagnosis applies, but I'm gonna leave it at that, and otherwise GTFO, to preserve my already-questionable sanity.
That’s a great question and frankly I’m pretty shocked that more people haven’t question me about my record of fights in parking lots. And also I’ve decided this is the last I’m going to think or talk about this for right now.