A quick suggestion GftNC, get a text editor (I can't remember if you use mac or windows, but for mac, BBEdit is great) and drop what you want to post in there. That will leave out all the links.
I assume that Rubio is letting Vance immolate himself. He might even be saying 'well, I've been an Iran hawk, the Iranians won't negotiate with me. On the other hand, Vance, because he doesn't have all my baggage, needs to be the one'.
I don't want to discount the possibility that Trump might send a few missiles into the negotiations, cause that seems to be what he does. [sarcasm]
In LGM, one of the commentators is that there is another sector of MAGA that he defines as this
I think you left out a critical component of the MAGA base: the chaos monkeys. These are people that are completely disaffected and isolated from society at large and they voted for the guy just because they were bored and wanted to fuck something up. Like, I think a lot of people voted for him because they thought he would be fun to see on their smartphones. There is a fundamental level of unseriousness about these people, and it is enabled by, and enables, the chaos monkey part of their base.
I remember, as a college student, developing a don't take anything seriously stance on life, and laughing and pointing at anything and everything. I'm still feel shame about that.
it would be interesting to know if your theory is about altruism, or lay people trying to understand things…
I was just being facetious, but my PhD was in metaphor and its use to teach second language writing, so I'm always struck by how particular metaphors are used in some way and end up constraining the way people think. And here in Japan, when Japanese often adapt metaphors, they are often oblivious to them and the places where their own metaphors clash with the metaphors they try to adapt is always interesting, if you have enough distance from it.
I have a theory about all this, but I'm not sure if it is a carefully thought out scientific hypothesis, supported by experimentation or if it is just a hunch based on my own prejudices...
Being able to keep track of things and having to part with them has got to be worse than the mess that are is all my stuff. 4 transpacific moves and 3 domestic ones has me with tons of stuff that I'm in the process of reducing. I'll get something out and a newspaper clipping or a photo will drop out and nothing gets done.
At the beginning of this particular shitshow, Shitheels tweeted something about how Iran was part of a great civilization in the course of saying he was for MIGA (Make Iran Great Again) Someone must have fed him that, since he's got no idea of history, but as this has gone on, it's blowing them back to the Stone Age etc. I'm really curious who had Trump's ear initially and who moved in.
Nous, a really interesting clip. A couple of things I was struck by
-the enthusiastic applause Powell got for some of his bullshit
-Powell's insistence that he was just pointing out a problem, giving voice to something out there without taking any responsibility
I heard an echo to this Bolton interview where he explains that he was in Maryland, so it didn't matter who he voted for.
Marc, yeah, that compartmentalization is something I've noticed as well. I aspire to it, though I can feel it rubbing up against that Western notion that I am a unitary personality as I go through the world.
Hartmut, that implication of a lawgiver/maker makes me think of some other things. The initial kanji for law is 法, (hou) which has two components. On the right is water and on the left is to leave, so there is no implication of a maker.
A further point is that in Japanese, people don't 'pass' or 'make' laws, they are 'established' (制定する）
I'll stop here, but it's a pretty interesting rabbit hole (at least to me)
I think of people like Bolton, Pompeo, Nikki Haley, who were and presumably still are Iran Hawks and they must feel the same way that bc feels. However, I note that none of those folks have popped up lately to help explain to the American people why we have the 101st. the 1st MEF and the USS Tripoli on its way, so either 'enough of us' doesn't include them, or they haven't changed their minds, but they see Trump as a much bigger threat. Just sayin'.
Thanks for posting the open thread, When I first went to Vietnam, I was very worried about how I, first as an American and then as a Japanese American, would be viewed, but I was pretty surprised at how well I was received. Part of it was a generational shift, but another part was that Vietnamese felt they won the war and didn't think rubbing anyone's nose in it would be valuable. With Iran, it seems clear that Iran has won, but unfortunately they are not going to be as magnanimous in victory.
Iranian officials have insisted they are not negotiating with the U.S., saying the countries have only exchanged messages via regional intermediaries. Iranian military spokesperson Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaghari suggested "Have your internal conflicts reached the point of you negotiating with yourselves?"
Another data point, the Iranian envoy Javad Zarif, who worked on the negotiations, and is not a hardliner, had sanctions put on him during Trump's first term. Zarif tweeted at that time that it was peace that was the "existential threat" to the US and Israel. Can't really argue with him on that.
https://www.mtv.com.lb/news/952572
This pull graf is of interest Senator Chris Murphy, a Democratic member of the Foreign Relations Committee, questioned the administration's move.
"If our position is really that we want to negotiate with Iran than maybe we shouldn't sanction their chief negotiator," Murphy posted on Twitter.
Wendy Sherman, who was the lead U.S. negotiator for the Iran nuclear deal under Obama, echoed that view and said placing sanctions on Zarif "risks dangerous escalation."
She linked the action to what Bolton said was a U.S. decision to renew sanctions waivers for Iranian nuclear programs that allow Russia, China and European countries to continue their civilian nuclear cooperation with Tehran.
"One assumes sanctioning Zarif is the price for those waivers. The internal administration battle of war or diplomacy apparently wages on," said Sherman, who is director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School
Sounds way more transactional to me, but what do I know?
It's not a question of what I think. It is if you can imagine that Iran may have thought they were getting screwed. A gemini summary
======
Following the September 11 attacks, Iran provided significant tactical and diplomatic assistance to the United States, primarily centered on their shared interest in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.
Military and Intelligence Cooperation
Search and Rescue: Iran offered to use its territory and personnel to perform search-and-rescue operations for any American pilots downed in Afghan territory.
Intelligence Sharing: Iranian officials provided the U.S. with maps and intelligence regarding Taliban positions.
Logistics: Tehran gave the U.S. safe passage for humanitarian aid and cooperated with the CIA and U.S. Special Operations Forces to supply the Northern Alliance, an anti-Taliban coalition that Iran had supported for years.
Military Training: Iranian officials offered to help the U.S. build and train a new Afghan National Army, proposing to quarter and train up to 20,000 recruits.
Diplomatic Assistance
The Bonn Conference (2001): During the negotiations to establish a post-Taliban government, Iranian envoy Javad Zarif worked closely with U.S. envoy James Dobbins. Zarif was instrumental in:
Persuading Northern Alliance leaders to accept a smaller share of power to ensure a stable interim government.
Insisting that the final agreement include a commitment to democracy and the war on terrorism.
Financial Aid: At the 2002 Tokyo donors' conference, Iran pledged $500 million for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the largest pledge from any of Afghanistan’s neighbors.
Security and Al-Qaeda
Border Control: Iran arrested hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives who fled across the border from Afghanistan. While some were later held under "house arrest" or used as leverage, many were deported to their home countries or detained.
Despite this cooperation, the relationship soured in January 2002 when President George W. Bush labeled Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union address.
=====
Given that 9-11 didn't have anything to do with Iran, and since they hated Iraq, some consideration might have been given to that.
Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner, I suppose. If you want to look at Frum, there is this, which is the prelude to his talk with Beto O'Rourke.
Now, if you watched my dialogue with Tom Nichols last week, you’ve noticed I have a lot of sympathy for at least the stated goals of confronting Iran: to punish the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, to stop the Iranian nuclear program, and to deliver the promised help to the brave people of Iran, who rose in January against an oppressive government, one of the most repressive and aggressive governments in the world. They rose in hundreds of thousands and were killed in the thousands. The president of the United States promised to help them, and I think, even when the president is Donald Trump, the promises of the president should be made good.
The podcast took place before Khameni jr was elected, but after he experienced this
According to Iranian state media and reports from the region, the following members of the Khamenei family were killed in that strike:
Ali Khamenei: The previous Supreme Leader (father of the current leader).
Zahra Haddad-Adel: The wife of the current Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Mohammad Bagher Khamenei: The 18-year-old son of Mojtaba Khamenei.
One of Ali Khamenei's daughters: (A sister of the current leader).
A granddaughter of Ali Khamenei: (A 14-month-old niece of the current leader).
Misbah al-Huda Bagheri Kani: The husband of one of Ali Khamenei’s daughters (brother-in-law of the current leader).
While early reports suggested Ali Khamenei's wife, Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh, had also died, Iranian state media later clarified that she survived the attack. The current leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was reportedly wounded in the strike but survived.
Given that Frum proudly takes credit for including Iran in the Axis of Evil, which made its debut after Iran offered to help the US in the wake of 9-11, I wonder if he has ever paused to wonder how he would feel is some nation-state had wreaked similar havoc on his family. Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner indeed.
Thanks Charles, always helpful to know what Grok brings to the table...
The video often refers to the US reneging on promises to Iran and it seems to me that Republicans always are in power when the dominoes are set up.
-CIA under Eisenhower along with MI6 assassinates Mosaddegh and installs the Shah
-Nixon goes to Iran and gives them a blank check for military purchases, allowing them to buy any non-nuclear weapons system the US has
-Ford encourages the development of nuclear power, which is why post revolution Iran was able to think about acquiring a nuclear capability
-Takeover of the Iranian embassy because Carter allows the Shah to be treated in the US (in line with promises made by Nixon and Kissinger)
-Reagan's October surprise of (alleged) backdoor negotiations with Iran to have Carter lose the election
-Reagan sends in US Marines to Lebanon rather than pressure Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, forced the PLO to leave, allowing Hezbollah to fill the vacuum, which led to the Marine barracks bombing
-Iran-contra under Reagan, precisely because of the US putting Marine boots on the ground in Lebanon
-Bush Sr gets help with the Lebanon hostage release but reneges on promises to ease sanctions
-Bush Jr rejects Iranian offers of help after 9-11 and declares they are part of the Axis of Evil
-first term Trump withdraws the US from Obama's JCPOA and reinstates 'maximum sanctions'
-Biden comes to an agreement with Iran that in exchange for the release of 5 prisoners, $6 billion in oil revenue be released for humanitarian aid, but the Republican House passes a law that prevents that money from being released
-2nd term Trump does one attack to 'obliterate' the Iranian nuclear programs and the 'double-dips' with the dumpster fire we now see
When you make that observation immediately after I acknowledge my problems with Klein, it makes it seem like I am being too hard on him and I should ease up.
As another example, here is David Frum talking to Beto O'Rourke
https://youtu.be/6x0O7DgC3sA?si=5-kEtlCooj9AwFRE
Frum has some interesting insights, most notably about O'Rourke's candidacy compared to Tim Walz, but he opens with a discussion of Iran as the world's leader in sponsoring terrorism. I wonder how he would deal with the points made by Vaez.
These sorts of mistakes are ones that the US does time and time again. Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson when he proclaimed the Independence of Vietnam and the OSS guys who worked with him were saying that he was the person we should support. If we had moved towards Khatami's efforts, we might not be in the shitstorm we are now.
my view is very definitely that one doesn’t have to agree with every single thing someone has ever said or done to find their contributions useful, valuable or interesting.
That suggests that I am someone who has to agree with everything that someone has ever said or done before I find it valuable or interesting, I hope you realize how that could be taken badly. (and which isn't the case, btw).
While the Charlie Kirk paean is the most egregious, I've noted that Klein is often competing for that David Broder Bloviator in Chief position. Given where we find ourselves, it seems obvious to me that this inability to call out stuff back in the day goes some way to explaining why we are experiencing this dumpster fire.
Klein often says that he wants to 'steelman' a position (more often than not, one of Trump or the administration) when he has guests who are taking issue with those policies, but when he has guests who are defending those policies, he seems to soft pedal his points. The most recent time was this one, with Nadia Schadlow who served as a deputy national security adviser during Trump’s first term (and is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, which, if her argumentation is anything to go by, the place must be an ouroboros, eating its own tail). While there are a number of points where Schadlow falls into a painful silence, I wish he had taken some of Vaez's historical facts and set them in front of her.
I think it has stayed in place because of the US defense umbrella, but to suggestion that it was the Japanese put this forward because they felt safe in the embrace of the US is ahistorical.
I've read a few articles about Spanish being either overlooked or resistant to AI. Some of the arguments were Spanish had more dialectical variants, Spain had stronger data laws. The articles vary from lauding it to complaining that AI models are English-centric. The point of your roommate may also play into it, a fully duplex language has reduced information density, which means that it is more difficult to derive logical principals out of it that a language that requires alternating turns
Apologies for the side jaunt thru my own thoughts, but that word, 'necessarily' is the one that I'm chewing on a bit. I've restarted my martial arts, and the biggest problem I'm having is to reacquire the requisite 'softness' that I need. While I don't want to engage in Orientalism or start spouting Zen koans, I'd argue that softness and hardness have to be combined to create strength and there is a tendency in the West to assume that soft=weak. Even with something that would appear to be simply applying force, like weight lifting, flexibility (something I'm sorely lacking at the moment) and pacing are essential to producing the best result.
You can see that in the current administration, where the whole idea of soft power is considered an oxymoron, so much so that they have gone to eliminate any agency that might engage in it.
That elision is reveals a bit more about the Spanish politics involved.
La ciudadanía española siempre repudió la dictadura de Sadam Hussein en Irak, pero no por ello apoyó la guerra de Irak, porque era ilegal, porque era injusta y porque no supuso una resolución real a casi ninguno de los problemas que pretendió resolver.
Del mismo modo, nosotros repudiamos al régimen de Irán que reprime, que mata vilmente a sus ciudadanos, particularmente a las mujeres.
There is a little back story to the Iraq part, Spain was part of the coalition of the willing in 2003 and the PM, Aznar, a conservative and a staunch ally of Bush, but there were train bombings in Madrid that the ruling party first blamed on ETA, but was later revealed to be a home-grown Islamist cell, something that seemed to be suppressed by the government because they knew it would f-up support for the deployment. (that summary doesn't really do justice to all of the ins and outs)
Aznar was kicked out for Zapatero, the socialist candidate, who had campaigned against the deployment and withdrew Spanish troops when he got in office.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Maybe time for an Open Thread”
A quick suggestion GftNC, get a text editor (I can't remember if you use mac or windows, but for mac, BBEdit is great) and drop what you want to post in there. That will leave out all the links.
On “That beacon of peace, China, errr, I mean Pakistan…”
I assume that Rubio is letting Vance immolate himself. He might even be saying 'well, I've been an Iran hawk, the Iranians won't negotiate with me. On the other hand, Vance, because he doesn't have all my baggage, needs to be the one'.
I don't want to discount the possibility that Trump might send a few missiles into the negotiations, cause that seems to be what he does. [sarcasm]
On “Maybe time for an Open Thread”
In LGM, one of the commentators is that there is another sector of MAGA that he defines as this
I think you left out a critical component of the MAGA base: the chaos monkeys. These are people that are completely disaffected and isolated from society at large and they voted for the guy just because they were bored and wanted to fuck something up. Like, I think a lot of people voted for him because they thought he would be fun to see on their smartphones.
There is a fundamental level of unseriousness about these people, and it is enabled by, and enables, the chaos monkey part of their base.
I remember, as a college student, developing a don't take anything seriously stance on life, and laughing and pointing at anything and everything. I'm still feel shame about that.
"
it would be interesting to know if your theory is about altruism, or lay people trying to understand things…
I was just being facetious, but my PhD was in metaphor and its use to teach second language writing, so I'm always struck by how particular metaphors are used in some way and end up constraining the way people think. And here in Japan, when Japanese often adapt metaphors, they are often oblivious to them and the places where their own metaphors clash with the metaphors they try to adapt is always interesting, if you have enough distance from it.
"
I have a theory about all this, but I'm not sure if it is a carefully thought out scientific hypothesis, supported by experimentation or if it is just a hunch based on my own prejudices...
"
Being able to keep track of things and having to part with them has got to be worse than the mess that are is all my stuff. 4 transpacific moves and 3 domestic ones has me with tons of stuff that I'm in the process of reducing. I'll get something out and a newspaper clipping or a photo will drop out and nothing gets done.
On “Materialism, rights and Japan”
At the beginning of this particular shitshow, Shitheels tweeted something about how Iran was part of a great civilization in the course of saying he was for MIGA (Make Iran Great Again) Someone must have fed him that, since he's got no idea of history, but as this has gone on, it's blowing them back to the Stone Age etc. I'm really curious who had Trump's ear initially and who moved in.
"
Grok seems to have missed out on Miller pointing out that Powell is attempting to foment the things he claims are inevitable. Why am I not surprised?
"
Nous, a really interesting clip. A couple of things I was struck by
-the enthusiastic applause Powell got for some of his bullshit
-Powell's insistence that he was just pointing out a problem, giving voice to something out there without taking any responsibility
I heard an echo to this Bolton interview where he explains that he was in Maryland, so it didn't matter who he voted for.
https://youtu.be/5KXFYjKvr4k?si=5FvcZYOavnh7Np-U&t=1034
"
Marc, yeah, that compartmentalization is something I've noticed as well. I aspire to it, though I can feel it rubbing up against that Western notion that I am a unitary personality as I go through the world.
Hartmut, that implication of a lawgiver/maker makes me think of some other things. The initial kanji for law is 法, (hou) which has two components. On the right is water and on the left is to leave, so there is no implication of a maker.
A further point is that in Japanese, people don't 'pass' or 'make' laws, they are 'established' (制定する）
I'll stop here, but it's a pretty interesting rabbit hole (at least to me)
On “Technically, it is called gastroesophageal reflux”
Another non-American swearing allegiance to some foreign power.
On “Maybe time for an Open Thread”
I think of people like Bolton, Pompeo, Nikki Haley, who were and presumably still are Iran Hawks and they must feel the same way that bc feels. However, I note that none of those folks have popped up lately to help explain to the American people why we have the 101st. the 1st MEF and the USS Tripoli on its way, so either 'enough of us' doesn't include them, or they haven't changed their minds, but they see Trump as a much bigger threat. Just sayin'.
"
Thanks for posting the open thread, When I first went to Vietnam, I was very worried about how I, first as an American and then as a Japanese American, would be viewed, but I was pretty surprised at how well I was received. Part of it was a generational shift, but another part was that Vietnamese felt they won the war and didn't think rubbing anyone's nose in it would be valuable. With Iran, it seems clear that Iran has won, but unfortunately they are not going to be as magnanimous in victory.
cf https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5760675/iran-war-military-deployment
Iranian officials have insisted they are not negotiating with the U.S., saying the countries have only exchanged messages via regional intermediaries.
Iranian military spokesperson Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaghari suggested "Have your internal conflicts reached the point of you negotiating with yourselves?"
Ouch!
On “A grammar lesson”
According to Gemini
Drones are frequently seen in propaganda footage or at military expos with Quranic verses or Shia religious invocations.
God is Great, God is good I guess,,,
On “Iran and the US”
Another data point, the Iranian envoy Javad Zarif, who worked on the negotiations, and is not a hardliner, had sanctions put on him during Trump's first term. Zarif tweeted at that time that it was peace that was the "existential threat" to the US and Israel. Can't really argue with him on that.
https://www.mtv.com.lb/news/952572
This pull graf is of interest
Senator Chris Murphy, a Democratic member of the Foreign Relations Committee, questioned the administration's move.
"If our position is really that we want to negotiate with Iran than maybe we shouldn't sanction their chief negotiator," Murphy posted on Twitter.
Wendy Sherman, who was the lead U.S. negotiator for the Iran nuclear deal under Obama, echoed that view and said placing sanctions on Zarif "risks dangerous escalation."
She linked the action to what Bolton said was a U.S. decision to renew sanctions waivers for Iranian nuclear programs that allow Russia, China and European countries to continue their civilian nuclear cooperation with Tehran.
"One assumes sanctioning Zarif is the price for those waivers. The internal administration battle of war or diplomacy apparently wages on," said Sherman, who is director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School
Sounds way more transactional to me, but what do I know?
"
It's not a question of what I think. It is if you can imagine that Iran may have thought they were getting screwed. A gemini summary
======
Following the September 11 attacks, Iran provided significant tactical and diplomatic assistance to the United States, primarily centered on their shared interest in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.
Military and Intelligence Cooperation
Search and Rescue: Iran offered to use its territory and personnel to perform search-and-rescue operations for any American pilots downed in Afghan territory.
Intelligence Sharing: Iranian officials provided the U.S. with maps and intelligence regarding Taliban positions.
Logistics: Tehran gave the U.S. safe passage for humanitarian aid and cooperated with the CIA and U.S. Special Operations Forces to supply the Northern Alliance, an anti-Taliban coalition that Iran had supported for years.
Military Training: Iranian officials offered to help the U.S. build and train a new Afghan National Army, proposing to quarter and train up to 20,000 recruits.
Diplomatic Assistance
The Bonn Conference (2001): During the negotiations to establish a post-Taliban government, Iranian envoy Javad Zarif worked closely with U.S. envoy James Dobbins. Zarif was instrumental in:
Persuading Northern Alliance leaders to accept a smaller share of power to ensure a stable interim government.
Insisting that the final agreement include a commitment to democracy and the war on terrorism.
Financial Aid: At the 2002 Tokyo donors' conference, Iran pledged $500 million for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the largest pledge from any of Afghanistan’s neighbors.
Security and Al-Qaeda
Border Control: Iran arrested hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives who fled across the border from Afghanistan. While some were later held under "house arrest" or used as leverage, many were deported to their home countries or detained.
Despite this cooperation, the relationship soured in January 2002 when President George W. Bush labeled Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union address.
=====
Given that 9-11 didn't have anything to do with Iran, and since they hated Iraq, some consideration might have been given to that.
"
Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner, I suppose. If you want to look at Frum, there is this, which is the prelude to his talk with Beto O'Rourke.
Now, if you watched my dialogue with Tom Nichols last week, you’ve noticed I have a lot of sympathy for at least the stated goals of confronting Iran: to punish the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, to stop the Iranian nuclear program, and to deliver the promised help to the brave people of Iran, who rose in January against an oppressive government, one of the most repressive and aggressive governments in the world. They rose in hundreds of thousands and were killed in the thousands. The president of the United States promised to help them, and I think, even when the president is Donald Trump, the promises of the president should be made good.
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/2026/03/david-frum-show-beto-orourke-texas-democrats/686322/
The podcast took place before Khameni jr was elected, but after he experienced this
According to Iranian state media and reports from the region, the following members of the Khamenei family were killed in that strike:
Ali Khamenei: The previous Supreme Leader (father of the current leader).
Zahra Haddad-Adel: The wife of the current Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Mohammad Bagher Khamenei: The 18-year-old son of Mojtaba Khamenei.
One of Ali Khamenei's daughters: (A sister of the current leader).
A granddaughter of Ali Khamenei: (A 14-month-old niece of the current leader).
Misbah al-Huda Bagheri Kani: The husband of one of Ali Khamenei’s daughters (brother-in-law of the current leader).
While early reports suggested Ali Khamenei's wife, Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh, had also died, Iranian state media later clarified that she survived the attack. The current leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was reportedly wounded in the strike but survived.
Given that Frum proudly takes credit for including Iran in the Axis of Evil, which made its debut after Iran offered to help the US in the wake of 9-11, I wonder if he has ever paused to wonder how he would feel is some nation-state had wreaked similar havoc on his family. Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner indeed.
"
Thanks Charles, always helpful to know what Grok brings to the table...
The video often refers to the US reneging on promises to Iran and it seems to me that Republicans always are in power when the dominoes are set up.
-CIA under Eisenhower along with MI6 assassinates Mosaddegh and installs the Shah
-Nixon goes to Iran and gives them a blank check for military purchases, allowing them to buy any non-nuclear weapons system the US has
-Ford encourages the development of nuclear power, which is why post revolution Iran was able to think about acquiring a nuclear capability
-Takeover of the Iranian embassy because Carter allows the Shah to be treated in the US (in line with promises made by Nixon and Kissinger)
-Reagan's October surprise of (alleged) backdoor negotiations with Iran to have Carter lose the election
-Reagan sends in US Marines to Lebanon rather than pressure Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, forced the PLO to leave, allowing Hezbollah to fill the vacuum, which led to the Marine barracks bombing
-Iran-contra under Reagan, precisely because of the US putting Marine boots on the ground in Lebanon
-Bush Sr gets help with the Lebanon hostage release but reneges on promises to ease sanctions
-Bush Jr rejects Iranian offers of help after 9-11 and declares they are part of the Axis of Evil
-first term Trump withdraws the US from Obama's JCPOA and reinstates 'maximum sanctions'
-Biden comes to an agreement with Iran that in exchange for the release of 5 prisoners, $6 billion in oil revenue be released for humanitarian aid, but the Republican House passes a law that prevents that money from being released
-2nd term Trump does one attack to 'obliterate' the Iranian nuclear programs and the 'double-dips' with the dumpster fire we now see
"
When you make that observation immediately after I acknowledge my problems with Klein, it makes it seem like I am being too hard on him and I should ease up.
As another example, here is David Frum talking to Beto O'Rourke
https://youtu.be/6x0O7DgC3sA?si=5-kEtlCooj9AwFRE
Frum has some interesting insights, most notably about O'Rourke's candidacy compared to Tim Walz, but he opens with a discussion of Iran as the world's leader in sponsoring terrorism. I wonder how he would deal with the points made by Vaez.
These sorts of mistakes are ones that the US does time and time again. Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson when he proclaimed the Independence of Vietnam and the OSS guys who worked with him were saying that he was the person we should support. If we had moved towards Khatami's efforts, we might not be in the shitstorm we are now.
"
my view is very definitely that one doesn’t have to agree with every single thing someone has ever said or done to find their contributions useful, valuable or interesting.
That suggests that I am someone who has to agree with everything that someone has ever said or done before I find it valuable or interesting, I hope you realize how that could be taken badly. (and which isn't the case, btw).
While the Charlie Kirk paean is the most egregious, I've noted that Klein is often competing for that David Broder Bloviator in Chief position. Given where we find ourselves, it seems obvious to me that this inability to call out stuff back in the day goes some way to explaining why we are experiencing this dumpster fire.
Klein often says that he wants to 'steelman' a position (more often than not, one of Trump or the administration) when he has guests who are taking issue with those policies, but when he has guests who are defending those policies, he seems to soft pedal his points. The most recent time was this one, with Nadia Schadlow who served as a deputy national security adviser during Trump’s first term (and is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, which, if her argumentation is anything to go by, the place must be an ouroboros, eating its own tail). While there are a number of points where Schadlow falls into a painful silence, I wish he had taken some of Vaez's historical facts and set them in front of her.
On “The penny drops”
The problem with that is that the constitution in general and Article 9 in particular were very much creations of MacArthur and GHQ.
https://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/ronten/02ronten.html
I think it has stayed in place because of the US defense umbrella, but to suggestion that it was the Japanese put this forward because they felt safe in the embrace of the US is ahistorical.
On “A little language practice”
I've read a few articles about Spanish being either overlooked or resistant to AI. Some of the arguments were Spanish had more dialectical variants, Spain had stronger data laws. The articles vary from lauding it to complaining that AI models are English-centric. The point of your roommate may also play into it, a fully duplex language has reduced information density, which means that it is more difficult to derive logical principals out of it that a language that requires alternating turns
cf: https://www.youtube.com/live/CyyL0yDhr7I?si=1RiobEdzk1GiuOHp&t=2083
"
I'm not sure what I would do with the translation, but I'd consider saying it as something like 'one simple phrase' or 'one short phrase'
Counting words reminds me of the West Wing debate between Jed Bartlett and Florida gov Ritchie
https://youtu.be/sS4UAZ5UfGY?si=-aIzURqqN19_mgbP
On “Yuja Wang, networking, transactionality and that guy”
Apologies for the side jaunt thru my own thoughts, but that word, 'necessarily' is the one that I'm chewing on a bit. I've restarted my martial arts, and the biggest problem I'm having is to reacquire the requisite 'softness' that I need. While I don't want to engage in Orientalism or start spouting Zen koans, I'd argue that softness and hardness have to be combined to create strength and there is a tendency in the West to assume that soft=weak. Even with something that would appear to be simply applying force, like weight lifting, flexibility (something I'm sorely lacking at the moment) and pacing are essential to producing the best result.
You can see that in the current administration, where the whole idea of soft power is considered an oxymoron, so much so that they have gone to eliminate any agency that might engage in it.
On “A little language practice”
That elision is reveals a bit more about the Spanish politics involved.
La ciudadanía española siempre repudió la dictadura de Sadam Hussein en Irak, pero no por ello apoyó la guerra de Irak, porque era ilegal, porque era injusta y porque no supuso una resolución real a casi ninguno de los problemas que pretendió resolver.
Del mismo modo, nosotros repudiamos al régimen de Irán que reprime, que mata vilmente a sus ciudadanos, particularmente a las mujeres.
There is a little back story to the Iraq part, Spain was part of the coalition of the willing in 2003 and the PM, Aznar, a conservative and a staunch ally of Bush, but there were train bombings in Madrid that the ruling party first blamed on ETA, but was later revealed to be a home-grown Islamist cell, something that seemed to be suppressed by the government because they knew it would f-up support for the deployment. (that summary doesn't really do justice to all of the ins and outs)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
Aznar was kicked out for Zapatero, the socialist candidate, who had campaigned against the deployment and withdrew Spanish troops when he got in office.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.