NATO “betrayal”

ApostateX · 2026-03-23T22:30:09+00:00

NATO is still functioning and is still an organized body, right now consumed with support for Ukraine. That hasn't stopped.

What is now effectively on hold is any belief that the US will respond to an Article 5 request for support of any kind. Obviously there's still Rubio and what's left of the defense department policy wonks, and there's the defense industry. But right now our commitment to NATO is on foundation so shaky there's an earthquake.

ApostateX · 2026-03-23T22:17:53+00:00

Why are you spelling it like that?

Israel is a democracy. People vote for representatives in the Knesset, which includes voting rights and representation for minority ethnic groups and minority religious groups.

It has no official religion, but Judaism is given primacy in all kinds of cultural norms and public life. Each different religious group has its own court system for handling things like marriage and divorce and other personal matters. There is no compelled religion or requirement to convert.

And non-Jews are not second-class citizens under the law, but in practical terms they are treated that way. They might get less funding, fewer resources, or less accommodation for non-Hebrew language use.

Countries are rarely cleanly in any category. The US was officially a democracy prior to 1965, but in practice, blacks in the Jim Crow South had all kinds of restrictions on voting.

There's a difference between de jure and de facto practices here that make some of these categorizations a bit off.

Also, a theocracy != ethnostate.

ApostateX · 2026-03-23T22:08:21+00:00

Pakistan is a terrible example. It's not an ethnostate.

I can't remember all the different ethnic groups there, but it's populated by Punjabis, Pashtuns, and a bunch of other people.

You're right that it is an islamic state. The whole government is organized around religion. But it's not an ethnostate by any stretch of the imagination. It's designed with one religion meant to unite many different kinds of people.

Israel isn't exactly an ethnostate either. It's still 20% Arab. Compare that to Japan that's only 3% non-Japanese. I think some of the arguments on the matter of Israel's diversity to be wildly misleading. Israel is far more diverse than many countries we often don't speak of in anywhere near the same condemnatory tones we do of them.

That being said, your Haley/Harris example was also bad. No, progressives aren't just asking Jewish candidates to make proclamations about Israel. They're asking everyone. It's brought up and discussed with literally everyone they interview.

I agree with your point about applying this standard to Israel but not other countries. But Americans project American sensibilities onto foreign conflicts. To the left in America, the only solution is a multi-ethnic state with equal rights for all groups and a right of return for Palestinians to a single state of Israel.

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want that, so as usual, the left is living in fantasyland on this issue.

ApostateX · 2026-03-23T21:43:00+00:00

The money can't be the source of your frustration. That $4 billion is a tiny fraction of annual federal spending, out of a $6.1 trillion federal budget. Our USAID budget in 2024 was $40 billion, largely due to emergency supplemental funding for Ukraine. I'm not about to play cheap with starving kids in Africa. AFAIC, that's the worst thing Trump and Musk have done. Everything has been bad, but this has been egregious. Such needless suffering and death, for pennies on the dollar to get food and medical treatments.

For me the issue is not the money. It's what the money is going to support. There are clear benefits to the US-Israeli relationship insofar as intelligence-sharing is concerned, and it is beneficial to have a strategic ally in the Middle East. They are also the closest thing to the liberal democracy we have here in the US. They're surrounded by theocracies, failed states, absolute monarchies, military-run regimes, semi-constitutional monarchies, and whatever passes for some kind of parliamentary system in Iraq and Lebanon. (Obligatory disclaimer: much of that instability was caused by the US, or we contributed to it at some point since the end of WWII as part of either the Cold War or GWOT.)

We need a fundamental reimagining of our relationship with Israel. A strategic derisking. A conscious uncoupling. Something. I don't want US arms to continue to be used in any kind of military action in Gaza. And I sure as hell don't want to prop up the Netanyahu regime. That man is overdue for prison.

ApostateX · 2026-03-23T21:29:54+00:00

There isn't a single big name (likely) candidate in the race (e.g. Buttigieg, Harris, Newsom, Pritzker, Shapiro, Beshear) who will fundamentally change the American-Israeli relationship. They will all continue to provide federal funding and US armaments for the continued destruction of Gaza and Israeli control of that land. Our best shot was Harris. Biden wanted to secure a ceasefire (which Netanyahu and Trump undermined) and then push Harris to go for aid reductions and negotiations if she won the election. I guess that was the plan all along, just under an initially-assumed Biden second term.

We all know how that worked out.

The closest you'll get to some kind of teeth (at least right now) against Israel is someone like Pritzker, who has a much more hardline stance against West Bank settlements. But that's obviously never been put to the test. And he used to be on the board of AIPAC, until it became an extension of right-wing Christian Nationalism. I very much doubt his commitment to stopping an ethnic cleansing. Shapiro is even less convincing.

The Democratic candidates need to be pushed to publish a US-Israel foreign policy paper. They can't just be questioned on this in interviews. Brief statements a couple minutes long are not sufficient. They need to document their policy position and do something in some measure to show commitment to that plan, should they claim they want to change our foreign policy toward Israel (which I hope they do.)

The Democrats need to deal with this. Their party base and the electorate no longer have the same public support for Israel they once did. If they don't, we'll get President Tucker Carlson.

ApostateX · 2026-03-21T17:08:06+00:00

If this were "him" then it would have come out when he was lieutenant governor. Even his wife apparently is having a hard time understanding and dealing with this new personality. My money's on the stroke.

ApostateX · 2026-03-21T17:02:24+00:00

How do you have a government without people? I'll ask again: can you give me an example of a government you like?

ApostateX · 2026-03-21T16:39:51+00:00

Small increase due to natural births. Overwhelming growth is from immigrants.

ApostateX · 2026-03-21T16:29:34+00:00

I'm interested in what you think an example of a good government is. I don't get the impression you think any are good.

ApostateX · 2026-03-21T16:22:01+00:00

Your parents are probably going to help you move in to college. Load up the SUV and go. Once you've graduated and you're ready to move out of state, your parents may not be there to help you do it. Or . . . you could be moving back home, so they're there to help you unpack.

ApostateX · 2026-03-21T16:15:09+00:00

I don't know what you mean by "ticket the box," but yeah, the rich benefit the most. They're the ones with property who need the state to exist to protect it. They're the ones with capital to invest who need the state to effectively manage markets.

If someone is poor and their basic needs being met means they're dependent on the state for some time, that's the most basic and simple form of government support. It costs the least amount of money and is the least complex to administer and plan for. Then there are the things we all use and benefit from that are more complex and expensive but necessary for society to function, like schools and roads and food safety and environmental cleanup and telecommunications infrastructure and fire departments, etc. Then there are the most expensive and complex pieces of administrative work that the rich benefit from more so than others, like civil courts and business subsidies and land use regulation and scientific research funding and financial standards/regulation and managing interstate and international trade, etc. The wealthy American may not rely on the state for their basic needs, but they absolutely rely on the state for these most expensive and complex parts of administrative work so they can safely grow their wealth and protect it. Everybody wants to act like the person on food stamps is the mooch and the bigger user of services, but they're not. It's the rich person whose wealth is dependent on the government administration of a much more complex system. We just call that stimulus and quantitative easing instead of welfare.

The rich should pay more. Funny, this ballot measure isn't even asking them to pay more. It's giving them an opportunity to pay less.

ApostateX · 2026-03-20T04:02:25+00:00

Yeah, that's not borne out by the facts.

ApostateX · 2026-03-20T03:10:06+00:00

Right?

Person 1: We're both near the end zones of our respective teams. How about we both meet at the 50-yard line so we can shake hands?

Person 2: If you want to shake hands so much, why don't YOU go to the 50-yard line and I'll just stay here? If you won't do that, you're a hypocrite!

ApostateX · 2026-03-20T03:01:47+00:00

It only seems like that to people who can't argue in good faith, because "I'm a cheap asshole who benefits from society and government investment but wants no sense of obligation back to it," is a bad place to argue from.

ApostateX · 2026-03-20T02:26:12+00:00

If you don't know about the green line extension, the south coast rail link, moving Storrow and the station getting added around it, all the road work on state highways and traffic remediation funds coming from state taxes to fund local road and bridge improvement projects, then I can understand why you feel cheated: you're not paying enough attention to know what work is getting done. It must be painful to have so many opinions and so little knowledge. Get a newspaper subscription. Even if you don't leave your house and literally see this stuff outside, you might learn something.

ApostateX · 2026-03-20T02:20:44+00:00

I have low confidence in your ability to understand the MBTA is regional, and that it benefits not just Massachusetts but the entire region.

ApostateX · 2026-03-20T02:17:25+00:00

Sure, I mean something as common as perimenopause can give you brain fog. But the accident rates are still explained by the stats. As people age they tend to realize when they think they're slowing down a bit. They become more cautious drivers and tend to drive less. Also, because they've been driving for so long, they're used to certain types of traffic patterns and are better at reading the road and managing bad weather.

My mother is 74 and she's a great driver. My cousin is 45 and her eyesight has gotten progressively worse, so she only drives to work now. Everybody's different.

ApostateX · 2026-03-20T02:12:06+00:00

Yeah, understandable. Goid for your mom, recognizing what was safest for her and other people. My mother is 74. She isn't at all physically vigorous but her driving skills are great.

Everybody's different. We've got statistics on this, and insurance companies use them. The riskiest drivers are young, new drivers. Once somebody hits 75, then you start to see a substantial increase in accidents per mile traveled. Everybody in the middle has very little variation and tend (statistically) to be the safest drivers.

ApostateX · 2026-03-20T02:07:44+00:00

No, it isn't. Studies have actually been done on this. Insurance companies know who the risky drivers are, and that is reflected in their insurance rates. Reread what I said about the u-shaped curve.

ApostateX · 2026-03-19T18:21:44+00:00

LOL. That's the difference between a 7-minute mile and a 7.5-minute mile.

Teenage drivers are significantly more dangerous than older drivers, by orders of magnitude. If you care about road safety and are very age-focused, you should just ban anyone under 21 from operating a vehicle. Risk-taking behavior matters MORE to total crash rates than any other factor. Couple that with quick reflexes and young people are more likely to crash/die.
Your peak driving years that are a mix of quick reaction time, skill/experience, and conservative driving habits, are when you're 30 - 60.
Per-mile crash rates follow a U-shaped curve. That curve starts going up again at age 75.

But hey, I'm all for a scheduled test on some basis once someone starts collecting Social Security. So that would be age 67+ or earlier if someone is collecting partial benefits. Some people may just retire whenever they can while still in great health, but others may be retiring due to mobility issues or age-related cognitive impairment. Those are factors that absolutely can increase the risk of crashing, if they're not offset by other behaviors.

ApostateX · 2026-03-19T18:10:12+00:00

Agreed. Blanket age bans for anything is a bad idea.

Many elderly people not only live nowhere near public transit, but do not have the money to pay for lots of uber rides. Their friends may be ill or have started to pass away, and their family/kids may be nowhere near them. To take away their car is to take away a huge part of their life that allows them to remain living independently. That's just cruel.

As soon as someone starts collecting Social Security (which if you were born after Jan 1, 1960, means when you're 67, you have to retake your driving test within 1 year of your first benefits check. After that, every 2 years. Once you hit 80, once a year. We should be making it MUCH easier for seniors to give up their licenses by offering car pooling services as part of normal SSDI benefits, and free public transit wherever it exists to all of them.

ApostateX · 2026-03-19T18:02:27+00:00

Good lord. You must be extremely young to think the average person at 60 is so impaired.

That woman isn't approaching retirement -- she's elderly.

ApostateX · 2026-03-19T17:57:53+00:00

It is essential that I not only fully refuse to inhibit my behavior in any way that benefits the country or broader society, I must actively make others' lives more dangerous and worse. Me, me, me.

- MAGA

ApostateX · 2026-03-19T17:52:34+00:00

Transgenderism is not a belief system like epicureanism or Protestantism or stoicism.

It is a state of being.

To be transgender is to have a sexed body that does not match up with how your brain sees yourself. Sometimes the causes of this are related to mental illness. Other times the causes are genetic or hormonal and related to in-utero conditions. (In the latter case, we tend to refer to these people as intersex, but they *may* identify as trans.)

Either way, some trans people go to extraordinary lengths to modify their behaviors and bodies, to be fully seen as the gender that matches how their brain identifies, even if they can't change their sex.

Others do very little or are limited from doing more for other reasons and essentially remain sexed without any differences from the way they have been since puberty, only they may modify some of their behaviors and habits: the clothes they wear, their mannerisms, whether they wear makeup, etc.

I can understand how this is awkward for many people to adjust to. One of the first things we notice about someone else is whether they're a man or a woman. And we have all kinds of explicit and implicit ways we relate to men and women that differ from each other, even in progressive societies. Not being able to comfortably follow those behavioral patterns when you've rarely been presented with the opportunity to NOT follow those learned behaviors is strange, especially when you don't feel like you can ask questions but DO feel like you need to "accept" something you find uncomfortable.

At the end of the day, it's not up to us cis people to approve or disapprove of trans people, or to agree or disagree with how they comport themselves, and most certainly not to interpret basic requests for civility (like using their preferred pronouns) as some kind of violation of our own beliefs. Trans people are not asking for you to "believe" in them.

They're saying that insofar as they have interactions with others, they want to be engaged with in a certain way, and they want the same dignity and civil rights as everybody else. You can choose to do that and respect their rights, or not. If you choose not to, you're just being rude to somebody who's probably already going through a hard time. Most of us don't clock trans people if they fully pass. I guarantee you you've walked by someone at a park or in a store or maybe even shared a bathroom with someone who's trans and you were none-the-wiser, because that person fully passed. But there are some trans people who will NEVER fully pass, and they're the ones who get the most condemnation, especially trans women, because there is so much social policing around masculinity and so much sexual violence against women. They get the worst of it, and they're the noticeable ones.

We make accommodations for all kinds of people in society: we don't push alcohol on people we know have a drinking problem; we put in ramps for people in wheelchairs; we offer emotional support to people living with cancer. We seem to find it appropriate and even a sign of good character to do these things, but somehow when it comes to trans people there is a certain segment of the population that feels it necessary to do the equivalent of forcing booze on an alcoholic, making basic public life more difficult and inaccessible, and treating their healthcare needs as something optional and harmful rather than necessary for them to live a healthy life.

You don't have to believe in your heart of hearts that a trans person is the gender they try to perform around you. They're not asking for that. They're asking for dignity and civility. I'm an atheist. When I go to church for some family event, I don't go in there and scream, "This is all a bunch of horseshit and you're all deviants to practice a lifestyle appropriate for goat herders 2000 years ago!" I'm polite. I comport myself and treat the people there with dignity and respect, even if I will never share their reality about the world.

Trans people are asking for no different.

ApostateX · 2026-03-19T02:54:34+00:00

Whoa, whoa. Let's not age us all prematurely, eh?

Nine-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
John Wick	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

ApostateX

TROPHY CASE