Stidmatt

https://bsky.app/profile/mcopelov.bsky.social/post/3l7a5uk4vay2n

Dr. Copelovitch is correct; Afghanistan led to Biden’s dropping approval ratings. The lesson is not that we can never end a war, but that if we are placed in a situation like Afghanistan again, there needs to be a lot more focus on not just fighting the terrorists with guns but also cutting the financial support, rooting out and arresting white collar crime which supports terrorism around the world. We must sanction countries that do not cooperate into poverty. We did not do this. So we were fighting an essentially endless flow of weapons into the terrorists. That’s an impossible fight to win. If you cut off their supply of weapons and money, the fight becomes possible to win.

The Ls continued for Biden when Putin invaded Ukraine. We did not respond in time to prevent it, due to this “unity” bullshit and talking about how we were going to fix our “shithole country” and not concern ourselves with foreign matters. This did Biden no favors.

There were no major legislative accomplishments in his first two years. We did not pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and there was nothing to focus on health care. We passed a one-time bailout of suburban roads, and that’s about it. Biden’s caucus blocked him on passing necessary legislation. So there was no substantial legislative boost to his popularity in 2022 and he lost the primary.

Then, after over a year of Ukraine and Russia being in a similar situation to most of World War I’s western front, Hamas attacked Israel, and Israel’s defenses utterly failed. Netanyahu’s impeachment trial has been on hold ever since. Instead of evacuating civilians as the IDF then can remove Hamas’ weapons in search of a winning scenario, they have been bombing hospitals, schools, and apartments. Moving civilians form one refugee camp to another in a truly endless war. Afghanistan had an endgame scenario if we cut off financial supplies to the Taliban and were placed in Afghanistan, similar to how we have had troops in Germany since 1945. The government of Israel does not have a realistic plan to end the endless war in their region. It’s time to pull out. The War in Israel has been going on for almost 4 times as long as the United States defended Afghanistan from foreign terrorists. How is that not an endless war?

For Presidents to see their polling numbers go up, there has to be an event that causes the president’s approval to go up. Bush’s decisiveness after 9/11 is an obvious example. It’s very unusual, however, for a President to see their approval ratings go up significantly after declining during their first term. The media loved Reagan, and his approval climbed from 1982 until the Iran Contra affair came out. Most increases in popularity are very gradual. Biden has never had a single event that would lead the 60% of Americans who disapprove of his job to change our minds. It has been one major failure after another in foreign policy. There have been no major high-profile domestic victories, while there have been multiple times he has been left with mud on his face on the domestic front.

This is not the media’s fault. Biden has always been a mediocre politician. He has been a mediocre president. He has little charisma, and cares more about making Republicans happy than doing the right thing. That has always been his brand; it is what he ran on and how he has governed. Biden has emphatically stated that he does not identify as a New Deal Progressive Democrat. He was one of the first New Democrats elected to Congress. He has been this way since the 1970s. He was a mediocre Senator. Obama deliberately kept Biden away from foreign policy when he was President while also preventing Biden from filibustering Democratic bills in the name of “Unity,” leaving only one problem Senator, Joe Lieberman.

Biden is not an evil man; he lacks inherent political talent. He is not like Barack Obama, and he never has been.

Biden was able to win in 2020 because the New Deal vote was split between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. New Democrats flocked to Biden as he was their only candidate, and if they had another candidate, the vote would have been split four ways. It almost was with Michael Bloomberg, but he was taken out in the debate by Elizabeth Warren. Anyone we ran could have beaten COVID in the election, represented by Donald Trump. That is how Biden became president.

We could make it so every abandoned railroad automatically becomes AMTRAK property. Every failed railroad becomes AMTRAK property as well. As AMTRAK reinvests in these and builds a profitable income base eventually AMTRAK becomes the national operator.

We do what I will call the America Plan, where failed railroads become part of AMTRAK and mergers are not allowed. This is what we did in 1971 with the formation of CONRAIL.

The cheapest option by far is full permanent nationalization with AMTRAK taking over every private railroad in the company. Private freight operators still exist, but now they can run on any track which is now publicly owned.

Nationalization is the only way I can see the US expand passenger railroads at a similar rate like what has been seen in Mitteldeutschland.

Assassinating bin Laden was the right thing to do. He was a dangerous man.

Assassinating bin Laden did not cause al Qaeda to collapse.

Assassinating bin Laden did not lead to America winning the War in Afghanistan.

It was still the right thing to do.

Assassination of terrorist leaders is only the first step towards building a just and peaceful world.

The hard part is building institutions that bring freedom to people instead of institutions that oppress them.

Reason 1: The Electoral College makes some votes worth more than others.

This one is pretty obvious and a common complaint. Presidential candidates campaign mostly in swing states while mostly ignoring other states. Shouldn’t we live in an America where each person is equally important? Campaigning for votes in Los Angeles or Boston should have as much value as campaigning for votes in Detroit or Philadelphia.

Reason 2: Minority winners

Four times in American history, the candidate who won the most votes did not win the presidency, and we don’t have ranked voting so this makes it unrepresentative. No candidate who has majority support should be able to lose the presidency. It’s undemocratic.

Reason 3: Slavery

The reason the Electoral College was created was to protect slave power. The structure of the Senate was designed so we would have an equal number of slave and free states, prolonging the agonizing torment of slaves across the South. The House increased slave power through the 3/5 compromise, which meant slave owners were overrepresented while slaves had no representation. If it was not for the 3/5 compromise the South would not have had nearly as much influence in early American politics.

If the President had been directly elected by the people starting in 1788, the South would not have received any electoral benefit from slavery, and the North would have dominated presidential elections. By making slaves count for the presidency while not having the votes, the South would have been more powerful than it would have been. The electoral college was a way of ensuring the South had power without having a prime minister. This is enough reason to abolish the system and move to a direct popular vote.

Reason 4: Small states don’t matter in the Electoral College

As this map demonstrates, if we divide states by population, shade all the smallest states red and all the most populous states blue. The state in the middle is Virginia, the 12th largest state in the country. Even with the Electoral College, small states don’t have enough votes to matter more than large states. There have only been three states in American history where a state with fewer than ten electoral college votes could have flipped the election alone. That’s how democracy works. Campaigning in any state with under ten votes is pointless under our current system, whereas under a direct popular vote every vote will count equally.

If Texas became a swing state, and it sure looks like it will soon, with Trump only winning a 5% margin of victory in 2020 versus Bush win, it’s possible Texas could become a swing state with shifting demographics. If this happens, Texas alone will decide as long as we keep the electoral college, but not with a popular vote.

Texas flipping in the elections where it voted for the winner would have flipped the overall result in every election since 1988.

Even though the Electoral College increases the percentage of the overall vote in small states, it only increases the power of large states.

Reason 5: We will become a unitary state if we abolish the Electoral College

This is one of the more absurd arguments. The Electoral College has nothing to do with the separation of powers between states and the federal government, which is based on the 10th Amendment. Plus, power has gradually moved more towards the federal government ever since John Marshall was chief justice, and all of this has been with the Electoral College. It’s a nutty argument.

In short, even though repealing the Electoral College will be difficult, it should still be repealed because it is undemocratic.

If you have ever been on Facebook or most newspapers, you probably notice that they push depressing media. People are more likely to stay engaged if they feel like something is threatening them, which means more scrolling and ad revenue. It’s a vicious cycle for the user.

It’s easy to walk away from this and feel like the world is horrible. Crime is at an all-time high; everyone is out to get you, the government is corrupt, and the world is a horrible place. So, there is no point in trying.

You stop engaging politically, or even worse, start voting for parties that make the world a worse place. Either way, that’s the goal.

While it is important that the news media writes articles about events, that is their job; it is our job as citizens to ensure that the constant flood of negative news stories does not capture the whole picture.

The enemy is our brains. Even after being trained, we are naturally bad at statistics. It’s easy to watch the news, feel like cities are overrun by crime, read message boards, and feel like everyone is a doomer.

However, the problem is that this is not a random sample. It is a biased sample since people are more likely to comment if they feel something is wrong than if they agree. This is where we need to pull ourselves out of our base mindset and push ourselves towards seeing the bigger picture. While we live in a world with more access to news from everywhere, we are also in an era where we have more access to big-picture statistics than any time before, and the amount of big-picture data that becomes available grows daily.

What I wish people would do more is look at the big picture when you look at an unpleasant news story. It doesn’t minimize the suffering in places like Gaza, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, which are truly horrific. Still, the trick is recognizing what is happening in those places while understanding the big picture.

That’s hard. Really hard. No one can do it all the time.

The ironic part of it is that while people fall for doomer narratives of how the world is worse than it was, we also won’t do everything possible to ensure Ukraine wins and negotiate a workable system to bring lasting peace to Israel and Palestine. Plus all the other conflicts in the world today.

We need to understand our world in a way that doesn’t lead to despair but instead leads to action. This requires a clear mindset, which is more difficult than shutting down but also far more rewarding for the practitioner and society as a whole.

• Understand where we have been. Study history as much as you can.
• Understand the current situation, good and bad. Do not bury your head in the sand.
• Dream about how to make things better. Do not despair.

If you do these three things, I have found it leads to a much more meaningful life.

The only thing you need to block out are people who deny the humanity of others and doomers.

In my opinion, Uber and Lyft’s problem is not that they have a computer that sets prices. Every company does that nowadays. That’s normal, and enables more flexible prices.

The problem with Uber and Lyft is that they pay their drivers less than minimum wage. There are two ways this can work:

1. Drivers for the platform are classified as employees and they get all of the rights afforded to them by law, including being paid at least minimum wage with mandatory benefits if they work sufficient hours.
2. Drivers for the platform are independent contractors and they can set their own prices automatically.

When I did some driving for Uber Eats and Postmates, I would often not be told the amount I would make or how far I would have to drive in order to pick up a delivery before I would end up being driven for free to the other side of the city and then only be paid a few dollars when I finally made the delivery. It’s impossible to make enough to live with such a system. They will then stop paying you enough to survive and push you into poverty if you turn down too many jobs.

In this way, they have found a way to maximize profits while taking advantage of everyone illegally.

Another illegal action by these companies is predatory pricing. They enter the market and offer extremely good deals. People who used to be taxi drivers lose business and are forced to become employees of these companies instead of running their taxi businesses. The wages start by being high enough for everyone to get a good deal. Once their competition is gone, they jack up prices and reduce wages for their drivers. This is illegal.

Part of their anti-competitive nature is also fighting against public transit. When Uber enters an area, bus ridership drops, starving routes of funds. Read more in this newspaper.

Ultimately, there is no substitute for fast, frequent, high-quality mass transit for getting around cities.

In the Ukraine war, after the war had been won, the only stable solution to this conflict is Ukraine being a member of NATO. Ukraine then can focus on reforming institutions to bring themselves in line with European Union acquis in preparation for membership.

Any time a conflict ends, the most important thing is what replaces it? How will the situation resolve in a way that does not just bring a respite but a lasting peace?

Freedom is an essential ingredient, along with equality under the law.

Ukraine had this before the war and they will have it after. All people in Ukraine are free. This means there is a very high probability that Ukraine will be able to join the European Union sooner than most people think.

Israel however is in a fundamentally different situation. While Jewish Israelis enjoy a high quality of life and protection under the law, the same cannot be said for Palestinians.

The reason why a ceasefire needs to happen is Palestine is because civilians are being targeted like Ukrainians are today. Terrorists need to be taken out and civilians need to be protected. Without this, there will not be reconciliation after the war is over and I fear there will only be more violence which does not solve the conflict.

There needs to be a political solution to any conflict.

The political solution to Ukraine is NATO membership and the end of Russian occupation of Ukraine. This is what Zelenskyy is working towards.

I do not see a sincere plan from world leaders to solve the political situation in Palestine.

That needs to change.

Radical Islamists gather in Hamburg to call for caliphate

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir_in_Deutschland

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/10/08/pro-palestinian-protest-erupts-in-frankfurt-despite-city-ban

https://www.rferl.org/a/germany-pro-russia-rallies-discrimination/31795983.html

Germany is failing the Paradox of Tolerance.

While anti-Semites can freely protest in Germany, people calling for freedom in Palestine and an end to the bombardment of Gaza face the full brutality of the law.

Supporters of Putin are allowed to rally in the streets freely while peace activists are tear-gassed.

Calling for Palestine to be free and a peace agreement in Israel/Palestine is not anti-Semitic.

Muslim Interaktiv is an anti-Semitic organization that wants to reestablish a caliphate and has called for the eradication of Jews and denying the Holocaust. This is fundamentally different from calling for a solution in Palestine!

Vladimir Putin wants to reextend the borders of the Russian Empire to include former East Germany at a minimum.

There is a tremendous difference between ceasefire activists and supporters of Putin or a caliphate.

While the far-right AfD is allowed to win seats in the Bundestag and is not outright banned for being Neo-Nazis, Germany has been weak on Ukraine and unhelpful in resolving the crisis in the Middle East.

While Scholz is doing more for Ukraine than Merkel ever did, his Middle East policy has not significantly shifted. There is still a long way to go.

The whole situation is absurd.

I believe it is important for democracies to act as locations where refugees can find peace and safety.

But one of the necessary restrictions needs to be intolerance of hate speech. Supporters of terrorist organizations and mafia states need to be deported if they are aliens and heavily fined if they have only one citizenship.

Most refugees live peacefully in their new homes and do not cause problems. A ban on refugees should never be imposed. It would be immoral and violate international law. However, when anyone in a country demonstrates that they are unwilling to follow the social contract, they must be deported on a case-by-case basis. Hate speech is one of the early warning signs that is now used to catch future terrorists in the United Kingdom, as I described in an earlier post. As a result, there have been no terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom for four years. Anyone supporting Nazism or Sharia law is violating the social contract from which democracies are designed. It is a clear red flag that they will do more in the future. It cannot be tolerated.

Freedom of speech does not mean all speech is free. The paradox of tolerance comes into play. Protesters who call for a caliphate, idolize Hitler, or support monsters like Vladimir Putin are trying to get into power and demolish freedom of speech, among other rights. For this reason, allowing them to demonstrate freely violates the paradox of tolerance and the social contract.

This makes it very easy to determine which protests violate the Paradox of Tolerance. Are they advocating for a system of government that will abolish freedom of speech? That is the key difference between the movements.

Ceasefire demonstrators have never advocated for any organization that desires to abolish freedom of speech. They must be allowed to demonstrate since they do not violate the Paradox of Tolerance. Calling for all Arab Israelis and Palestinians to have equal rights is the right thing to do. It is the opposite of calling for a Holocaust.

Vladimir Putin hunts down journalists and dissenters both in Russia and in other countries. He has all but eliminated freedom of speech from Russian life. If his supporters got what they wanted, freedom of speech would be eliminated. The same goes for anyone who supports a Caliphate. Shariah Law is incompatible with freedom of speech, so anyone advocating for it violates the Paradox of Tolerance.

That’s what Karl Popper was talking about. It’s time for people to listen.

Having some fun drawing maps this morning. I hope this is helpful in seeing long-term political trends in North America.