#I don't know what the left has to do to get committed voters with low standards like the right has

[midmorning-bomb]

So like, I studied Political Science at university and haven't totally tuned out the sad and depressing global march to the right, and still I just. How, like HOW. If we had to come up with the worst, most absurd cartoon villain conservative candidate as a class exercise, I don't think we'd have been able to go this far and keep things remotely realistic. Let alone give them a fair shot of winning.

[clydesavage-thefox147]

[Part 2 to Big Long Awaited Theories. This one is a bit..Roman slandering so be warned, be civil and hear me out here please, sorry if it's a bit jumbled heh] (Part 1 here)

Unpopular opinion/theory here but:

I think Roman sided against the callback because if he picked it, he would be supporting Janus who was seen as a villain at the time by everyone else, so he wanted to avoid any more affiliation. His need to be the hero and feed his broken ego was bigger than achieving a life-long dream.

Don't believe me? Then what does this line mean?

Furthering this belief, there's a notable pattern throughout season 2, particularly to start with Fitting in. When Roman was assigned the role of Slytherin in the group, he was rather taken back. He refused to believe it because he pushed the understanding that Slytherins were evil. This then followed with him saying "I'm not evil!" then Virgil(in a pretty Janus sounding tone) saying "Says who?". (Also coincidence how the snake affiliated house gets called evil here).

Then cut to the episode CLBG. I find it quite funny that Roman felt like Janus used him during this episode even though Roman himself was the one who stated FIRST that acting was like lying AND started the idea of disguising as Joan to help Thomas practice. Janus only nudged him to do it on a stage. Then later into the episode, Roman states about Janus "I hate this guy and his creepy snake face, however he is very kind". First off, making fun of Janus for his snake traits that he has little to no control over having. And two, blatantly admitting that he believed Janus' flattery. He left the window wide open for what happened later in SvS.

Speaking of, in SvS, it was clear that Roman wanted the callback desperately and so did Thomas. Roman is part of Thomas' personal dreams and goals. Janus knows this. Roman was willing to give Janus the benefit of the doubt and let him explain his side of the situation which Virgil obviously wasn't too happy with. Throughout the court case, Janus' flattery was his way of keeping Roman on his side, the best overall decision that was the callback while simultaneously pointing out the denials of all the other sides and Thomas. He eventually got so fed up of them beating around the bush that he made Thomas finally admit that he wanted to pick the callback instead. Like I said before, Janus knew this beforehand so he did low-key rigged the case in favor of the callback choice. This is a positive form of manipulation called a "Contrivance". Something meticulously planned piece by piece in favor of a desired outcome. Virgil I guess was right about it being rigged. But, when all was said and done and Janus was so close to winning the case, Roman pulled out last minute, making Janus reasonably angry. Roman stated "It is my sworn duty to help Thomas achieve his hopes and dreams, but Thomas wouldn't dream of attaining his hopes through deceitful means" following with Janus pleading that that wasn't true. But, Roman's line proves that he picked the wedding to avoid committing what was believed to be a selfish act. You can see how desperate Janus was for the others to see his perspective, even benching Logan in the process to have his lesson heard instead(then did it again in POF). Janus wanted the others to see that they were blowing this simple problem out of proportion but no one cared. He knew the answer was obvious but everyone refused to agree.

Then cut to DWIT, the following episode where Remus was debuted for the first time. Many believed that Remus was sent out, out of pettiness on Janus' part which could be possible. If Roman wanted to be a good person, Janus was going to show him(and Thomas) that it wasn't so easy. Remus made Roman realize and admit that he doesn't want to end up like him. Furthering why I think he made the decision he did.

Then cut to Healthy Distractions, where I find it funny is that here's Roman trying to avoid villainy...but commits petty theft and voter fraud. Roman literally said "I was gonna rig the vote anyway". So much for trying to avoid what he literally talked about an episode prior. Sure, he could've stolen the hat out of a joke but it still is petty(both be petty bitches).

Then..cut to POF: SvS Redux. This is where a lot of this come into play. One noticable thing is within the song. Not only was the line I previously stated there but the lines leading up to it paint a different picture.

Ro: "And no one wanted you to go more than the that slimy snake"

Th: "Who pushed to do the egocentric thing auditioning" (Ro: "Yep that's Deceit!")

Now, correct me if I'm wrong..but don't you have to audition before you get a callback? And isn't Roman the physical representation of Thomas' Ego? And didn't Janus point out Egoism in SvS? AND didn't Thomas called Roman " a bit of an egoist" in the 2017 behind the scene vid? Yes. All yes. So, this can only mean that Janus, in the few months that he and Roman were on decent terms with one another, must've influenced him to get Thomas to audition(or influence Thomas to get Roman involved) since Janus is a part of the 'selfish desires'. In this case, Janus is within his right to be mad at Roman. He spent time setting up the perfect end-goal for Thomas here as a show of good faith and intentions, but Roman shoved it aside because the other sides believed Janus' was still no good.

Then after the song, when Patton was struggling with his rhetoric of morality, some moments seemed to correspond with the court case. Two of these moments Roman himself brought up in conversation. Roman stated the view of how it shouldn't matter why the prince saved the kingdom as long as the citizens are safe(in this case the prince did it for a reward). However, Patton didn't like that conclusion, claiming that that doesn't make the prince a good person. Which then prompted Roman to respond with somber expression "Yeah probably not". Roman wants to avoid any villainous affiliations. But, he also wants the praise of being a hero for his own external validation which he's desperate for(no wonder Janus' flattery almost worked). His reward was that praise and he got that for a short time.

But, according to Patton, this is a selfish act. Roman has stated that he is "a proponent of following one's heart" It would make sense to appease the heart and morality to remain on his good side. However, Roman said shortly after "if it's not helping to fulfilling one's longing, then what is the point?" Patton wasn't fulfilling Thomas' goal of finally being a star. Roman didn't really like that. But, to avoid upsetting Patton, he followed along with him. Hell, Patton was the one who gave Thomas the inspiration to even start video creation. Another incentive for Roman to follow along with him. Double Hell, Roman initially didn't like Patton's idea of using puppets back in LNTAO but then immediately flipped script which Virgil pointed out. Patton definitely contributed to Roman's final decision on the wedding. Roman thought that he was the problem for making Thomas want a 'selfish desire' over friendship, even though this desire wasn't really a big issue at all(and he sent Thomas to wedding as punishment for wanting said desire). Which prompted Patton to beg for Roman to stay on his support team. No wonder when Patton started to view Janus in a different light, Roman got immediately defensive, trying to push that Janus was evil and he wasn't. He didn't want to feel like his decision was for nothing but it ultimately was. Janus states "it served no one" after giving Roman some credit for his sacrifice. But, if that sacrifice was for the praise and glory of the others for his heroism...that's just as selfish as going to the callback. No wonder Roman was upset when Patton thought it was bad. So, why is Roman mad at Janus when he should direct some of his anger at Patton for contributing to his final decision and the moral confusion. Is he afraid of hurting his feelings? Also tagging on, the same episode he said he followed the heart, Roman said that Patton should only stick to knowing the difference between right and wrong and leaving the rest to them...well, look where that took them. Lead Patton to guilt Roman into making him feel bad for pushing Thomas to be dishonest and dishonorable which just made him more confused.

The second thing being that Roman stated the Trolly Problem. The situation of deciding to save the larger group of people or the one person. Roman did this exact same thing the court room. He had to pick between siding with the others (the larger group) on the wedding..or side with the one person(Janus on the callback). He picked the former and let Janus get hit metaphorically.

It all collimated in the final scene between him and Janus. Janus being vulnerable with revealing his name as an attempt to gain trust..all to get laughed at and made fun of. Janus retaliated with the now infamous line "Thank God you don't have a moustache, otherwise between you and Remus, I wouldn't know who the evil twin is". Roman couldn't take it. He can dish out all these insults but the second it's him who's insulted he shuts down or gets pissy right back. However, maybe Janus was right with his statement. I mean, there's been only two confirmed times Roman was ever influenced by Remus. One was the "Naked Aunt Patty" line from the 12 Days of Christmas vid and the bubbagump shrimp line in the carol itself. But, there's been moments where it seems that Roman had no influence from him and it was all his wording. Like how he responded to Janus' pinata metaphor with "I believe he's saying that you beat someone up and rob their unconscious body". Or how in one scene in CLBG, as Joan, he stated "-like your weird habit of gluing your butt cheeks together". Or how in Moving On pt 2, he was all about that butt dial lie and wouldn't stop. And finally, remembering way back to the QnA, when they were asked if they all had YouTube channels, Roman said quote "Epic fail compilations of all the horrible deaths my enemies incur after I impale them". Roman...wanted to film himself..killing people..to post on YouTube. For what? To laugh? To gloat? Does this not sound creepy to any of you? And just adding his petty theft and vote rigging and all his bullying insults up to now...yeah Janus' retort holds a lot of weight.

Another note is that Roman has been getting pretty close with Virgil lately. What's noticable here is that Roman's might be playing favorites. Notice how when both Virgil and Janus revealed their names, they were both equally vulnerable. Virgil revealed his name because he had already gained trust with the others but Janus did it to gain trust with them. Roman gave Virgil congrats for his admittance and bravery and only laughed at the Virgin joke Patton said. But, Roman laughed and insulted Janus? Even though both Janus and Virgil are of dark side origin? What makes Virgil more special? Especially when Roman hated Virgil to begin with and now they're best buddies...then he supported Janus at first and now flat out hates him. He pulled an Ono reverse card on them. Roman mainly chilling with Virgil now because they both hate Janus is definitely 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Hell, in FWSA, Roman and Virgil were calling Thomas a liar constantly after he accepted Janus. Meanwhile if Roman continued to do so, he would be in the same boat. Mind you, only Patton has accepted Janus completely. Thomas and Logan are 50/50, and Roman and Virgil are against it entirely.

Janus is aware of the others' denials, lies and desires. He's aware that Roman is in denial. Roman wants to believe he made the right decision but he knows he didn't. He keeps moping and whining over how he wants to be happy and achieve his dreams but he lost that opportunity because he made a stupid sacrifice. If he was confident in his choice, he wouldn't be acting this way. Janus knew Roman would be hurt if they missed the callback. And him behaving this way long after just proves it. Janus said right to his face in the court room "You want that callback so back and it will CRUSH you if we miss it". This was true. And if Roman were to say that he did make a good decision he'd basically be lying and stooping to Janus' level. So both ways he's screwed and played. Roman is also very fraudulent when it comes to his facade. He likes to act like he's this brave prince who isn't insecure and can handle his problems alone when that is clearly a lie. Janus wants Roman to be honest with both himself and the others, the others know by now that Roman is very insecure so what else is there left to hide? Janus would know about facades..and he sees right through Roman's and so does everyone else. Tagging in here, Janus' 'wroammin' spelling meant 'remorse' signifying that Roman was giving Janus sympathy while also showing Roman's imposter syndrome(alongside other times he corrected people on his name). This wasn't Janus insulting his name first, this was him proving a point.

To add on, Roman turned to Janus after he said "I thought I was your hero" and Thomas replying "You are". Roman trusted Janus' confirmation. Janus' nod was confirming that Thomas is telling the truth but Roman only believing Janus was lying, he took it as Janus confirming Thomas was lying. Or, Janus was sadly confirming that Thomas was in fact lying. But I think the former is most likely. Roman now believes he lost his "hero" title..which honestly might be a good thing, maybe he'll try to earn it back in a very honorable way without letting the power go to his head. His bullying and grandiose behavior was his way of making himself feel important when he deeply felt like he wasn't good enough. Roman is so desperate for external validation because he can't love himself without it and Janus is trying to tell him that. Quit acting like you love yourself and actually..do so.

In conclusion, I believe Janus was more in the right here but if we must compromise, they both must reach an understanding and an apology. My theory stands that Roman sided against Janus to avoid any further association for the reward of heroic praise.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Feel free to correct me or change my mind if you so please but remain civil.

Part 3 soon.. maybe.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Yoni Kempinski

"It's offensive, but the real damage is that it is making it harder for Israel to recover the hostages and win the war, because of the Hamas strategy. They know they can't defeat Israel militarily, so what they're saying is, ‘okay, we just committed this incredible act of barbarity. We're the darlings of the terrorist world. Now can we survive? We're not going to survive if Israel completes this war. The only way we can survive is if America stops Israel from completing the war. So right now they've got a few battalions left in Rafah and they've got their leadership still intact. So now they're watching Biden and they're saying to themselves ‘this guy's going to stop Israel, and if this guy stops Israel, we're going to survive. We don't have to pay that high a price to survive. The price of the hostages goes up and the risk of a bad outcome goes up. No one's paying attention to Biden more than Hamas and he's sending them exactly the wrong signals.”

On the shift between the initial hugs that Israel received, people in Israel were really moved and impressed by President Biden, by the hugs from the US, Blinkin coming here, saying ‘you guys are not alone,’ there was a feeling that the US is really with us, Ambassador Friedman says that he was not surprised, because “I never thought that Biden was really in charge of this. I think that at some level he does have an affection for the state of Israel, but that gives way entirely to his desperation to be reelected in 2024. So, as the politics start to move away from Israel and they always do, I mean every single battle that Israel's been involved with, when they're attack on the first day or two, they get some sympathy. It always changes, assuming that it would be the same thing here, I wasn't surprised. I am disappointed at how abrupt and how extensive the turning has been on Israel. In particular this idea of trying to create a distinction between Netanyahu and the people of Israel. Israel and America have very close relationships and I wouldn't say that there has been no meddling going on over the last 50 years, because it's such a close relationship. Everybody's interested in everybody else's politics, but this sets a new standard. This idea of going after the elected leader of the state of Israel in a war has really set a new low. It really undermines Israel. I don’t think it’s a policy or Biden’s style. It’s all political, because I think he's looking at this and saying, ‘I don't want to turn on Israel. I still have a lot of centrist Democrat voters, who like Israel, but most of them, especially on the left, don't like Netanyahu, so I can thread this needle by being really, really tough on Netanyahu, but by saying, ‘but of course I love the Jewish people and I love the State of Israel.’ I think that's a political calculation. I think he got together with his people and said, ‘all right, how do I work this thing out? How do I support Israel, but keep my voters? If it was just a political calculation under normal circumstances, politics is a very complicated and sometimes a dirty game. But during a war, when Bibi is trying to defend this country against the greatest threat it's had, maybe in its entire history, it’s really inappropriate.”

[cazort]

I don't think generalizations one way or the other here are useful.

There are businesses that are efficient and those that are incredibly wasteful. There are those that deliver quality products and stand by that quality with outstanding guarantees and warranty support, and those that sell cheap junk and disappear as soon as a customer complaints. There are businesses that scam their customers and try to get as much money as they can get away with while doing as little work as possible. There are businesses that are okay to the customer or clients but terribly exploitative of employees. There are businesses with fair compensation schemes and businesses that underpay low employees and pay obscene salaries to top executives. There are businesses that squeeze employees and customers to pay all the money to executives and shareholders, and there are businesses that screw over their shareholders while executives walk away with huge compensation packages. Many of them are inconsistent, doing a big mix of good and bad things.

Government entities also can be wildly different. Some have entrenched bureaucracies which defend employees that engage in horrific wrongdoings (think of the worst police departments, or school districts which refuse to fire teachers that abuse children) whereas others are run with great integrity. Some are surprisingly efficient and others terribly wasteful. Some can be brutally unfair in how they treat the public, being vehicles for racism, classism, or other forms of bigotry, whereas others are impartial and provide important buffers against bigotry. Many of them are inconsistent, doing a big mix of good and bad things.

When considering whether to make a government entity "more like a business", I think it's important to ask: "What do you mean?" and then ask: "How could we achieve the good aspects of that while minimizing the bad?"

For example, I think a lot of people see businesses and think: "In a business, we would never tolerate an employee doing such-and-such things, they would just be fired." and they want a government entity (like a school district or police department) to operate similarly, and I often share this sentiment. But I would also point out that in these cases, it's often not the fact that it's a government entity that is the issue, and the fact that there is a union. And this is a sticky point because a lot of people on the left don't want to admit that unions can do anything wrong, and protecting employees who commit abuse is one of their downsides.

Another example that I see is that a lot of people see waste in government entities and think: "This is really efficient, I want it to be run more like a business." and to that end I would ask if these people had ever worked in the corporate world because a lot of corporations are absolutely rife with waste. Just because you've worked in a business that happened to be more efficient doesn't mean that the for-profit model is inherently better. If you want efficient resource management I think you often need to look deeper than whether an entity is for-profit or not. It often has more to do with accountability, incentives, and institutional culture than whether or not the entity is for-profit. For-profit entities can be inefficient if they have a steady and massive revenue flow, or if they have a massive supply of capital from investors that they are burning through, and the investors aren't heavily scrutinizing their finances. Government entities can be inefficient if their management is insulated from scrutiny from voters, which often happens if they have a stable funding source and their performance is "good enough" to avoid pissing off the public.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not they are for-profit.

Yeah I know some of you don't want to think deeply but frankly fuck that, life isn't full of easy answers sometimes, you don't fix all of the world's problems by taking a side. Some things in life are like that but this is not one of them.

“[X] should be run more like a business”

No, no it shouldn’t. “Run like a business” is shorthand for “cuts corners, preys on consumers, and rewards those who do the most work with the least compensation.”

Schools should not be run like businesses, they should be run like schools — focused on educating students, not making money for shareholders or forcing employees to become de facto customer service agents

Government should not be run like a business, it should be run like a government — spending every last dime it pulls in for the sake of protecting its citizenry and making society more beneficial for all

Businesses shouldn’t even be run like businesses — they should be focused on providing a useful product or service and compensating those that provide that product or service fairly for the work they put in.

I don’t want jack shit run like a business, I want our society to be run like a fucking society. If you want society run like a business, that just tells me where in the business hierarchy you see yourself — the part that does not belong to a healthy society