Ed K
@edk.bsky.social
Black Lives Matter! Math, software, science, politics, education, 日本語。(((He/They)))
You can say that it wasn't enough without making false equivalences. There was some pressure, unlike with Trump.
www.cnbc.com/2024/01/28/b...
www.cnbc.com/2024/01/28/b...
Biden administration discussing slowing some weaponry deliveries to Israel to pressure Netanyahu
U.S. is considering pausing or slowing some arms shipments to Israel to convince the government to heed U.S. calls to scale back its military assault in Gaza.
www.cnbc.com
November 12, 2025 at 7:42 AM
You can say that it wasn't enough without making false equivalences. There was some pressure, unlike with Trump.
www.cnbc.com/2024/01/28/b...
www.cnbc.com/2024/01/28/b...
I was paying attention; Biden pushed for humanitarian aid. You could say that he only gave lip service, and conditions were indeed dire -- but the actual declaration of famine was in 2025, after months with almost all aid blocked and no pressure from Trump.
That's why Netanyahu wanted Trump to win.
That's why Netanyahu wanted Trump to win.
November 12, 2025 at 7:33 AM
I was paying attention; Biden pushed for humanitarian aid. You could say that he only gave lip service, and conditions were indeed dire -- but the actual declaration of famine was in 2025, after months with almost all aid blocked and no pressure from Trump.
That's why Netanyahu wanted Trump to win.
That's why Netanyahu wanted Trump to win.
Disloyalty? We don't owe loyalty to politicians.
But we do owe it to ourselves and to others who will be harmed to work towards and vote for the best -- or least bad -- option.
You can be pissed about the world as it is without telling lies about the consequences of your actions.
But we do owe it to ourselves and to others who will be harmed to work towards and vote for the best -- or least bad -- option.
You can be pissed about the world as it is without telling lies about the consequences of your actions.
November 12, 2025 at 5:26 AM
Disloyalty? We don't owe loyalty to politicians.
But we do owe it to ourselves and to others who will be harmed to work towards and vote for the best -- or least bad -- option.
You can be pissed about the world as it is without telling lies about the consequences of your actions.
But we do owe it to ourselves and to others who will be harmed to work towards and vote for the best -- or least bad -- option.
You can be pissed about the world as it is without telling lies about the consequences of your actions.
As a concrete example of how this made the harm to Palestinians worse -- Trump was fine when Gaza starved for months this past spring. (Biden and Harris both pushed to reduce this kind of harm, i.e. pushing Israel to admit humanitarian aid.)
There's a reason Netanyahu wanted Trump to win.
There's a reason Netanyahu wanted Trump to win.
November 12, 2025 at 4:39 AM
As a concrete example of how this made the harm to Palestinians worse -- Trump was fine when Gaza starved for months this past spring. (Biden and Harris both pushed to reduce this kind of harm, i.e. pushing Israel to admit humanitarian aid.)
There's a reason Netanyahu wanted Trump to win.
There's a reason Netanyahu wanted Trump to win.
Electing Kamala Harris would have reduced the harm to Palestinians when compared with Trump's explicit support for ethnic cleansing. It also would have avoided the rest of the project 2025 goals (e.g. defunding USAID).
The question is always which path is better -- or at least less bad.
The question is always which path is better -- or at least less bad.
November 12, 2025 at 4:36 AM
Electing Kamala Harris would have reduced the harm to Palestinians when compared with Trump's explicit support for ethnic cleansing. It also would have avoided the rest of the project 2025 goals (e.g. defunding USAID).
The question is always which path is better -- or at least less bad.
The question is always which path is better -- or at least less bad.
It's a shame that Americans couldn't get our heads out of our asses, actually. Voters are to blame for our politicians because we elected them -- including by inaction.
Your deflection sounds like knowledge of your own culpability, IMO.
Your deflection sounds like knowledge of your own culpability, IMO.
November 12, 2025 at 2:24 AM
It's a shame that Americans couldn't get our heads out of our asses, actually. Voters are to blame for our politicians because we elected them -- including by inaction.
Your deflection sounds like knowledge of your own culpability, IMO.
Your deflection sounds like knowledge of your own culpability, IMO.
Yes, I blame you for choosing harm rather than harm reduction.
November 12, 2025 at 2:22 AM
Yes, I blame you for choosing harm rather than harm reduction.
She described things there as heartbreaking, rather than encouraging Netanyahu to finish the job.
Even if you assume nothing else would differ -- Trump's defunding of USAID has already killed more people.
OTOH I guess those poors don't matter to you as much as your feels.
Even if you assume nothing else would differ -- Trump's defunding of USAID has already killed more people.
OTOH I guess those poors don't matter to you as much as your feels.
November 12, 2025 at 2:21 AM
She described things there as heartbreaking, rather than encouraging Netanyahu to finish the job.
Even if you assume nothing else would differ -- Trump's defunding of USAID has already killed more people.
OTOH I guess those poors don't matter to you as much as your feels.
Even if you assume nothing else would differ -- Trump's defunding of USAID has already killed more people.
OTOH I guess those poors don't matter to you as much as your feels.
If you GAF about that, you'd have campaigned for and voted for Kamala Harris. She didn't offer all you demand, but she might have listened.
Instead, you gave Netanyahu exactly what he wanted.
Along the way you demonstrated how little you actually care for people who will be harmed by this admin.
Instead, you gave Netanyahu exactly what he wanted.
Along the way you demonstrated how little you actually care for people who will be harmed by this admin.
November 12, 2025 at 12:12 AM
If you GAF about that, you'd have campaigned for and voted for Kamala Harris. She didn't offer all you demand, but she might have listened.
Instead, you gave Netanyahu exactly what he wanted.
Along the way you demonstrated how little you actually care for people who will be harmed by this admin.
Instead, you gave Netanyahu exactly what he wanted.
Along the way you demonstrated how little you actually care for people who will be harmed by this admin.
All it would have taken for those voters to get the things you claim are so important is voting for the candidate closest to their policy preferences.
Instead, they listened to grifters talking about how you shouldn't vote for a politician who doesn't inspire you.
Spoiler: they're all politicians.
Instead, they listened to grifters talking about how you shouldn't vote for a politician who doesn't inspire you.
Spoiler: they're all politicians.
November 11, 2025 at 5:23 PM
All it would have taken for those voters to get the things you claim are so important is voting for the candidate closest to their policy preferences.
Instead, they listened to grifters talking about how you shouldn't vote for a politician who doesn't inspire you.
Spoiler: they're all politicians.
Instead, they listened to grifters talking about how you shouldn't vote for a politician who doesn't inspire you.
Spoiler: they're all politicians.
And if we want better, we (collectively) need to vote better.
November 11, 2025 at 5:22 PM
And if we want better, we (collectively) need to vote better.
I'm not enthusiastic about it, but this seems as good as was possible.
We weren't going to get a full recision of the big ugly bill. But this forces the house to convene, attempts to address Trump's unconstitutional failure to execute laws faithfully, and includes a vote on health insurance.
We weren't going to get a full recision of the big ugly bill. But this forces the house to convene, attempts to address Trump's unconstitutional failure to execute laws faithfully, and includes a vote on health insurance.
November 11, 2025 at 5:21 PM
I'm not enthusiastic about it, but this seems as good as was possible.
We weren't going to get a full recision of the big ugly bill. But this forces the house to convene, attempts to address Trump's unconstitutional failure to execute laws faithfully, and includes a vote on health insurance.
We weren't going to get a full recision of the big ugly bill. But this forces the house to convene, attempts to address Trump's unconstitutional failure to execute laws faithfully, and includes a vote on health insurance.
If men don't provide emotional support (also a WTF statement), what is his ex getting out of it?
There's the obvious hypocrisy and there's no need to go beyond that to see how messed up this is, but I can't get past the internal incoherence.
(Being friends with exes sounds OK to me, tho.)
There's the obvious hypocrisy and there's no need to go beyond that to see how messed up this is, but I can't get past the internal incoherence.
(Being friends with exes sounds OK to me, tho.)
November 11, 2025 at 5:13 PM
If men don't provide emotional support (also a WTF statement), what is his ex getting out of it?
There's the obvious hypocrisy and there's no need to go beyond that to see how messed up this is, but I can't get past the internal incoherence.
(Being friends with exes sounds OK to me, tho.)
There's the obvious hypocrisy and there's no need to go beyond that to see how messed up this is, but I can't get past the internal incoherence.
(Being friends with exes sounds OK to me, tho.)
This. If someone voted for Trump, they voted to do harm -- they just believed he would hurt people who deserved it. (That is what he promised.)
People who sat it out might have done so because they mistakenly believed the result would be better.
We're more likely to reach the latter.
People who sat it out might have done so because they mistakenly believed the result would be better.
We're more likely to reach the latter.
November 1, 2025 at 6:02 PM
This. If someone voted for Trump, they voted to do harm -- they just believed he would hurt people who deserved it. (That is what he promised.)
People who sat it out might have done so because they mistakenly believed the result would be better.
We're more likely to reach the latter.
People who sat it out might have done so because they mistakenly believed the result would be better.
We're more likely to reach the latter.
Any candidate in Maine will be pro-2A. But that's different from fetishizing guns & violence -- which is the _best_ interpretation of the totenkopf tattoo. So ... yes, Hogg's endorsement is suspicious.
Do you think Platner is the best candidate Maine Democrats can field? How about Jordan Wood?
Do you think Platner is the best candidate Maine Democrats can field? How about Jordan Wood?
October 26, 2025 at 4:27 AM
Any candidate in Maine will be pro-2A. But that's different from fetishizing guns & violence -- which is the _best_ interpretation of the totenkopf tattoo. So ... yes, Hogg's endorsement is suspicious.
Do you think Platner is the best candidate Maine Democrats can field? How about Jordan Wood?
Do you think Platner is the best candidate Maine Democrats can field? How about Jordan Wood?
No one is saying he's incapable of learning. But IMO Maine democrats should find a better candidate this time.
Anyway -- don't you find it all suspicious that David Hogg -- who claims to want gun control -- would come out so strongly for someone who clearly fetishizes guns and violence?
Anyway -- don't you find it all suspicious that David Hogg -- who claims to want gun control -- would come out so strongly for someone who clearly fetishizes guns and violence?
October 26, 2025 at 4:12 AM
No one is saying he's incapable of learning. But IMO Maine democrats should find a better candidate this time.
Anyway -- don't you find it all suspicious that David Hogg -- who claims to want gun control -- would come out so strongly for someone who clearly fetishizes guns and violence?
Anyway -- don't you find it all suspicious that David Hogg -- who claims to want gun control -- would come out so strongly for someone who clearly fetishizes guns and violence?
The idea that people won't have biases or stereotypes is contrary to how our brains work; those claiming to be free of this are either in denial or intentionally deceiving others.
The question is if we can learn and improve when others point out our biases. And also what actions we take.
The question is if we can learn and improve when others point out our biases. And also what actions we take.
October 26, 2025 at 3:48 AM
The idea that people won't have biases or stereotypes is contrary to how our brains work; those claiming to be free of this are either in denial or intentionally deceiving others.
The question is if we can learn and improve when others point out our biases. And also what actions we take.
The question is if we can learn and improve when others point out our biases. And also what actions we take.
There are too many examples to really know where to start. (E.g. the calls on Black politicians to perform in various ways that the poster thinks they're entitled to demand.)
But looking at the last 3 elections -- white folks as a group voted for harm. Fixing things in the USA requires fixing that.
But looking at the last 3 elections -- white folks as a group voted for harm. Fixing things in the USA requires fixing that.
October 26, 2025 at 2:30 AM
There are too many examples to really know where to start. (E.g. the calls on Black politicians to perform in various ways that the poster thinks they're entitled to demand.)
But looking at the last 3 elections -- white folks as a group voted for harm. Fixing things in the USA requires fixing that.
But looking at the last 3 elections -- white folks as a group voted for harm. Fixing things in the USA requires fixing that.
We should have meaningful checks and balances, and competing factions to keep each other in check.
But I can't escape the belief that no system of laws will be sufficient to restrain bad actors who are empowered by voters (especially when voters knew who they were electing).
But I can't escape the belief that no system of laws will be sufficient to restrain bad actors who are empowered by voters (especially when voters knew who they were electing).
October 25, 2025 at 6:18 PM
We should have meaningful checks and balances, and competing factions to keep each other in check.
But I can't escape the belief that no system of laws will be sufficient to restrain bad actors who are empowered by voters (especially when voters knew who they were electing).
But I can't escape the belief that no system of laws will be sufficient to restrain bad actors who are empowered by voters (especially when voters knew who they were electing).
A phrase I heard from someone pointing out the hypocrisy of farmers (it sounds like she was a farm girl growing up):
We should grant them the dignity of their choices.
youtu.be/badGHJLDpP8?...
We should grant them the dignity of their choices.
youtu.be/badGHJLDpP8?...
Why Farmers Voted For Trump
YouTube video by Farm to Taber
youtu.be
October 24, 2025 at 3:49 PM
A phrase I heard from someone pointing out the hypocrisy of farmers (it sounds like she was a farm girl growing up):
We should grant them the dignity of their choices.
youtu.be/badGHJLDpP8?...
We should grant them the dignity of their choices.
youtu.be/badGHJLDpP8?...
The idea of corporate personhood is nonsense, but this topic is whether rights are inalienable or conditional privileges.
Corporations' rights are obviously conditional privileges (cf Trump's abuse of state power).
"Inalienable rights" is a philosophical assertion, not a description of government.
Corporations' rights are obviously conditional privileges (cf Trump's abuse of state power).
"Inalienable rights" is a philosophical assertion, not a description of government.
October 22, 2025 at 2:06 PM
The idea of corporate personhood is nonsense, but this topic is whether rights are inalienable or conditional privileges.
Corporations' rights are obviously conditional privileges (cf Trump's abuse of state power).
"Inalienable rights" is a philosophical assertion, not a description of government.
Corporations' rights are obviously conditional privileges (cf Trump's abuse of state power).
"Inalienable rights" is a philosophical assertion, not a description of government.
Well, at the time I was still registered Green (I hadn't yet changed my registration; Nader convinced me), so I wouldn't claim to be advanced either. <rueful smile>
October 21, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Well, at the time I was still registered Green (I hadn't yet changed my registration; Nader convinced me), so I wouldn't claim to be advanced either. <rueful smile>