#blunder policy

[weirdmarioenemies]

Name: Weakness Policy

Debut: Pokemon X and Y

You ever notice how we never just talk about a Pokemon on this blog? We mention them sometimes, it's clear we all LIKE Pokemon a lot. Don't you wonder why we never dedicate posts to them? Good question! It will not be answered.

It's a classic rule you get told all the time in Pokemon games! If you give your Pokemon a berry to hold, it can eat it on its own in battle. Creatures know what a fruit is. They know how to eat a fruit. If you give them a human-made item like a Potion, though, they DON'T know how to use it! Creatures don't know how to use a spray bottle! This all makes sense.

This being said, they would introduce more artificial held items, but these would usually still make enough sense. Something like the Rocky Helmet is more "worn" than "held", and acts passively. Many of the stat-boosting items can be justified as having some kind of elemental energy that powers up certain types just by existing.

Then there's stuff like this! This is just a signed document! When holding the Weakness Policy, a Pokemon's Attack and Special Attack will be raised when it is hit by a super-effective attack, and the document itself will be used up. I know this sounds boring but please keep in mind that we are talking about what happens when this piece of paper is held by a funny magical superpowered fighting monster friend.

Imagine, for example, a Vanilluxe given a Weakness Policy. If this Vanilluxe were to be hit with a fire attack and not be COMPLETELY melted to nothingness, it would present its fine paperwork, like "hm, yes, my insurer provides compensation in the form of enhanced offensive capabilities in the event of such an attack".

And then, I don't know, it eats the paper because it's still ultimately just a weird animal, or something. I don't know why the paper completely disappears after one use. What a shame! I hope the notarization fee wasn't too high!

More recently, Blunder Policy was introduced, which insures your Pokemon against moves that miss their target by increasing its speed. The more mundane official papers the better, I say! I hope one day the metagame will be dominated by a bug holding its tax return document!

[commonsensecommentary]

Yeah, those Biden sanctions against Russia that were supposed to “bring Putin to his knees” are working really, really well, aren’t they? Another Biden blunder!

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

Elon Musk Seems to Undermine Privacy of Users on X 

How Elon Musk’s X Update May Be a Global Privacy Nightmare, especially for Women or Vulnerable People It seems to me that Elon Musk is shooting himself in the foot by undermining the privacy issues of digital citizens on his X baby. His recent decisions baffle me as they threaten the very fabric of privacy for journalists and pose serious risks for vulnerable individuals like women, the elderly,…

[kesarijournal]

The Absurd Plot: When International Espionage Meets Comedic Irony

In a world where reality often surpasses fiction, a recent U.S. indictment reads like a dark comedy script. Picture this: an Indian intelligence officer orchestrates an assassination plot, only to accidentally hire an undercover DEA agent as the hitman. The target? A Sikh separatist in New York. You can’t make this up!#### The Shadowy World of Espionage: Not So Smart After All?It’s a narrative…

[morlock-holmes]

I recently found this article about Robin DiAngelo and it's really stuck in my head now. This woman is so instructive about the underlying psychological processes animating us in the early 20s, and it's totally unintentional, which makes her fascinating to me.

Partway through her presentation, DiAngelo asked us, “What are some of the ways your race has shaped your life?” She told us to give our answers to each other and added that if we were white and happened to be sitting beside someone of color, we were forbidden to ask the person of color to speak first. It might be good policy, mostly, for white people to do more listening than talking, but, she said with knowing humor, it could also be a subtle way to avoid blunders, maintain a mask of sensitivity and stay comfortable. She wanted the white audience members to feel as uncomfortable as possible.

In our group of three, Southern, who is white, went first. Like Woods, she was already steeped in DiAngelo’s ideas; Southern had led two church book groups in discussing “White Fragility.” She was fully persuaded that, as she said to me afterward, “we’re all racist in that we’re swimming in a culture that is racist,” and that “we don’t think, as white people, of white as a race that comes with all kinds of conditioning.” Yet, in the moment, in response to DiAngelo’s question, she struggled. She couldn’t articulate much of anything about how she’d been shaped by being white.

I went next. I, too, was ready for everything I heard from DiAngelo. In fact, I knew this very question was coming. Just the day before, I’d been to a session she ran for a fractious city department that agreed to let me watch as long as I didn’t describe the event; the department’s equity team had brought her in to spur white self-awareness. But I had failed to speak about my whiteness as formative. That is, I noted that my color gave me infinite advantages, but the words, while sincere, were passionless. I emphasized instead that three of my five nonfiction books were about race, that I thought about race constantly, that back in junior high my best friend was one of the few Black students in my school, part of an experimental busing program in the early ’70s, and that the way our friendship ended still haunted me, that I’d betrayed him badly.

At some point after our answers, DiAngelo poked fun at the myriad ways that white people “credential” themselves as not-racist. I winced. I hadn’t meant to imply that I was anywhere close to free of racism, yet was I “credentialing”? And today, after a quick disclaimer acknowledging the problem with what I was about to do, I heard myself offering up, again, these same nonracist bona fides and neglecting to speak about the effects of having been soaked, all my life, by racist rain. I was, DiAngelo would have said, slipping into the pattern she first termed “white fragility” in an academic article in 2011: the propensity of white people to fend off suggestions of racism, whether by absurd denials (“I don’t see color”) or by overly emotional displays of defensiveness or solidarity (DiAngelo’s book has a chapter titled “White Women’s Tears” and subtitled “But you are my sister, and I share your pain!”) or by varieties of the personal history I’d provided.

This is like some fucking 70s EST or scientology brainwashing shit.

Like, look at the list of responses to this question:

If you deny that being white shaped your life, that's White Fragility;

If you are too eager to show solidarity, that's White Fragility;

If you share personal history, that's White Fragility

If you talk about times when you were made aware of racism, that's White Fragility;

It seems like pretty much every single thing a white person could possibly say in response to that question is "White Fragility".

DiAngelo is clear that we're all inherently racist, but I want you to attend to the emotions that the author, Daniel Bergner expresses. He and his white colleague are eager to participate, and they know, and have heard, that their participation will be racist, but their primary emotions are anxiety and shame.

They are convinced that they have somehow shamefully failed at a very important task, despite the fact that DiAngelo is very, very clear that there is no way to succeed.

More than that, they feel shame at their desire to succeed, and anxiety at the idea of not trying to succeed.

Honestly as you keep track of the article watch how good DiAngelo is at subordinating people:

The surge of attention, DiAngelo told me, made her at once leery and hopeful. She worried that the posts were “performative,” the book “just a badge.” Yet, she said, “there’s a sense of scales falling from people’s eyes,” mostly because of the killings of Floyd and, before that, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor, but also, she believed, because of the work she and her antiracism colleagues have been doing. She felt a similar mix about the ASAP emails from corporations. “The very urgency itself says you don’t have a very deep understanding of how hard this work is, and how long it takes and how ongoing it needs to be,” she said. “Racism is not going to go away by August, so how about we do it in August?”

Being too excited to start being antiracist is evidence of how bad you are at being antiracist!

This woman is a terrifying menace.

What struck me reading both White Fragility and this article is the way that this way of talking and thinking distracts extremely heavily from concrete action. Everything pulls into an increasingly subjective, and religious realm, and the question of what we're actually trying to do recedes back into the fog:

Singleton spoke along similar lines. I asked whether guiding administrators and teachers to put less value, in the classroom, on capacities like written communication and linear thinking might result in leaving Black kids less ready for college and competition in the labor market. “If you hold that white people are always going to be in charge of everything,” he said, “then that makes sense.” He invoked, instead, a journey toward “a new world, a world, first and foremost, where we have elevated the consciousness, where we pay attention to the human being.” The new world, he continued, would be a place where we aren’t “armed to distrust, to be isolated, to hate,” a place where we “actually love.”

Bergner, and basically everybody he interviews, have gotten so excited to tell us whether this is a good idea or a bad one that they have forgotten to explain what "this" actually is.

I want you to do something brave. For a moment, forget that you and I think that it is utterly asinine to devalue "written communication" and let's agree with Singleton, putting emphasis on it is an example of white supremacist thinking.

Let's also pretend that we are teachers. What are we doing differently?

What specific classroom policy are we putting into place?

Are we eliminating all written classroom material?

Are we allowing social studies students to choose whether they prefer to give reports orally or as a finished written document?

Are we doing exactly what we were doing yesterday but trying to keep in mind that we shouldn't assume that a student is stupid just because they struggle with reading?

You'll notice that the range of options goes from "Insane radical thing that the school will never do" to "Something so obvious that basically any sane person will agree that it's a good idea"

You'll also notice that it's like pulling teeth to get anybody to actually put things into concrete terms like that (None of the people interviewed for that article is capable of doing so).

Hell, you know what I didn't notice until just now?

During a training in January 2019 run by [Darnisa] Amante-Jackson , which Chislett recorded, Amante-Jackson...went on to present “some characteristics of whiteness,” prominent among them “an obsession with the written word. If it’s not written down, it doesn’t exist.”

During a later session a white employee causes a giant stir by... wait for it...

Refusing to write on a poster during a brain-storming session.

This is the powerful hypnosis these people are working; you and I can listen to them talk about "obsession with the written word" and it doesn't occur to them or us to ask why so much of their anti-racist workshop revolves around the written word, revolves around demands to use the written word, and grinds to a halt when people refuse.

[fangirltothefullest]

Don't let the debate fool you into a false sense of security of a Harris victory- regardless of his obvious blundering, there's still way too many people on this fucking website alone who are hard-core trump voters.

Vote blue down the line. Vote blue ALL THE WAY FROM PRESIDENT TO CONGRESS.

Because the voters for trump don't care that he's the way he is. They dig their heels in and cling to him harder.

Vote blue. And you better not vote red into congress, because they proved with Obama and Biden that they'll fight every step of the way if they have any foothold to prevent progress. Look how fucking little they got accomished. It was so little they're having trouble remembering if they even did any policy making. And that's because abuse instead and of creating progressive policy, they undid a ton of it and went backwards. That's certainly not progress that's regress.

The only red that should remain on election day are the red eyes from Maga sobbing in defeat, ok, don't get complacent!

[mariacallous]

With Donald Trump’s election win fueling fresh speculation over the prospects for a negotiated settlement to the Russo-Ukrainian War, Russian President Vladimir Putin has once again underlined his insistence on Ukrainian neutrality. “If there is no neutrality, it is difficult to imagine any good-neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine,” he commented on November 7 in Sochi.

This is nothing new. Since the eve of the full-scale invasion, the Kremlin has been consistent in its calls for permanent Ukrainian neutrality. Neutral status was a key condition set out by the Kremlin during the abortive peace talks that took place in the first weeks of the war. It once again featured prominently when Putin laid out an updated peace proposal in June 2024.

Many in the international community regard Putin’s push for a neutral Ukraine as by far his most reasonable demand. Indeed, some have even accused NATO of provoking the current war by expanding into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence since 1991 and deepening cooperation with Ukraine. They argue that if Ukraine can be kept in geopolitical no-man’s-land, Russia will be placated.

Such thinking is likely to feature prominently as the debate continues to unfold in the coming months over the terms of a future peace deal. While Trump has yet to outline his plans for a possible settlement, unconfirmed reports suggest that a twenty-year freeze on Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations is under consideration. This would be a costly blunder. Imposing neutrality on Ukraine will not bring about a durable peace in Europe. On the contrary, it would leave Ukraine at Putin’s mercy and set the stage for a new Russian invasion.

Ukrainians have already learned the hard way that neutrality does not protect them against Russian aggression. The country officially embraced non-aligned status during the 2010-2014 presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, but this didn’t prevent Moscow from seeking to reassert full control over Ukraine. Initially, Russia’s efforts focused on orchestrating Ukraine’s economic reintegration through membership of the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union. When this sparked a popular backlash that led to the fall of the Yanukovych regime, Putin opted to use force and began the military invasion of Ukraine.

Ever since the start of Russia’s attack on Ukraine in spring 2014, Putin has sought to justify Russian aggression by pointing to the looming danger of Ukrainian NATO membership. In reality, however, Ukraine has never looked like progressing toward the distant goal of joining the alliance. For the past decade, NATO leaders have refused to provide Kyiv with an invitation and have instead limited themselves to vague talk of Ukraine’s “irreversible” path toward future membership. Putin is well aware of this, but has chosen to wildly exaggerate Ukraine’s NATO prospects in order to strengthen his own bogus justifications.

Putin’s complaints regarding NATO enlargement are equally dubious. Indeed, his own actions since early 2022 indicate that Putin himself does not actually believe that the alliance poses a genuine security threat to Russia. Instead, he merely exploits the NATO issue as a convenient smokescreen for Russia’s expansionist foreign policy.

Tellingly, when Finland and Sweden responded to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by announcing plans to abandon decades of neutrality and join NATO, Putin was quick to declare that Russia had “no problem” with the move. This evident indifference was particularly striking, given that Finnish NATO membership has more than doubled Russia’s NATO border while Sweden’s accession has transformed the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake. Over the past two-and-a-half years, Putin has continued to demonstrate his almost complete lack of concern over NATO’s Nordic enlargement by withdrawing the vast majority of Russian troops from the Finnish border and leaving the area largely undefended.

Putin obviously understands perfectly well that NATO is not a threat to Russia itself, and sees no need to guard against a NATO invasion that he knows will never come. While Putin’s resentment over the expanding NATO presence on his borders is real enough, he only really objects when the alliance prevents Russia from bullying its neighbors. In other words, Putin’s opposition to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns. Instead, it confirms that his ultimate goal is the destruction of Ukrainian statehood.

For years, Putin has made no secret of his belief that the emergence of an independent Ukraine is an historical mistake and a symbol of modern Russia’s retreat from empire. He has repeatedly claimed that Ukraine is not a “real country,” and is fond of declaring that Ukrainians are actually Russians (“one people”). In July 2021, Putin even published an entire essay arguing against the legitimacy of an independent Ukrainian state.

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, it has become increasingly apparent that Putin’s ultimate goal is not Ukraine’s neutrality but Ukraine’s destruction. The Kremlin propaganda machine has portrayed Ukraine as an intolerable “anti-Russia,” and has promoted the idea that Ukraine’s continued existence is incompatible with Russian security. Meanwhile, Putin has compared his invasion to eighteenth century Russian ruler Peter the Great’s imperial conquests, and has repeatedly claimed to be “returning” historically Russian lands.

Putin’s imperialistic outbursts must be taken seriously. Throughout occupied Ukraine, his soldiers and administrators are already imposing a reign of terror that directly echoes the criminal logic of his imperial fantasies. Millions have been displaced, with thousands more simply vanishing into a vast network of camps and prisons. Those who remain face policies of relentless Russification and the suppression of all things Ukrainian. Adults must accept Russian citizenship in order to access basic services, while children are forced to undergo indoctrination in schools teaching a new Kremlin curriculum.

The crimes currently taking place in Russian-occupied Ukraine are a clear indication of what awaits the rest of the country if Putin succeeds. Despite suffering multiple military setbacks, he remains fully committed to his maximalist goals of ending Ukrainian independence and erasing Ukrainian identity.

Furthermore, since 2022 Putin has demonstrated that he is prepared to wait as long as it takes in order to overcome Ukrainian resistance, and is ready to pay almost any price to achieve his imperial ambitions. Imposing neutrality on Ukraine in such circumstances would be akin to condemning the country to a slow but certain death.

Any peace process that fails to provide Ukraine with credible long-term security guarantees is doomed to fail. Acquiescing to Putin’s demands for a neutral Ukraine may provide some short-term relief from the menace of an expansionist Russia, but this would ultimately lead to more war and the likely collapse of the current global security order. There is simply no plausible argument for insisting on Ukrainian neutrality other than a desire to leave the country defenseless and at Russia’s mercy.

Peace will only come once Putin has finally been forced to accept Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent country and as a member of the democratic world. Naturally, this includes the right to choose security alliances. It is absurd to prioritize Russia’s insincere security concerns over Ukraine’s very real fears of national annihilation. Instead, if serious negotiations do begin in the coming months, Ukrainian security must be the number one priority. Until Ukraine is secure, Europe will remain insecure and the threat of Russian imperialism will continue to loom over the continent.

[contemplatingoutlander]

Finally, The New York Times Editorial Board says Trump is unfit to hold the Office of the President of the United States!

This is a "gift🎁link" so you can read the entire, HISTORIC editorial by The New York Times Editorial Board stating in no uncertain terms that Donald Trump is unfit for office.

Below are some excerpts from the five subsections of the editorial: I Moral Fitness, II. Principled Leadership, III. Character, IV. A President's Words, and V. Rule of Law

I. MORAL FITNESS MATTERS

Presidents are confronted daily with challenges that require not just strength and conviction but also honesty, humility, selflessness, fortitude and the perspective that comes from sound moral judgment. If Mr. Trump has these qualities, Americans have never seen them in action on behalf of the nation’s interests. His words and actions demonstrate a disregard for basic right and wrong and a clear lack of moral fitness for the responsibilities of the presidency.

He lies blatantly and maliciously, embraces racists, abuses women and has a schoolyard bully’s instinct to target society’s most vulnerable. He has delighted in coarsening and polarizing the town square with ever more divisive and incendiary language. Mr. Trump is a man who craves validation and vindication, so much that he would prefer a hostile leader’s lies to his own intelligence agencies’ truths and would shake down a vulnerable ally for short-term political advantage. His handling of everything from routine affairs to major crises was undermined by his blundering combination of impulsiveness, insecurity and unstudied certainty. [...] The Supreme Court, with its ruling on July 1 granting presidents “absolute immunity” for official acts, has removed an obstacle to Mr. Trump’s worst impulses: the threat of legal consequences. What remains is his own sense of right and wrong. Our country’s future is too precious to rely on such a broken moral compass. [color emphasis added]

Below the cut are excerpts from the other four subsections.

II. PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP MATTERS

Republican presidents and presidential candidates have used their leadership at critical moments to set a tone for society to live up to. Mr. Reagan faced down totalitarianism in the 1980s.... George H.W. Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act.... George W. Bush, for all his failures after Sept. 11, did not stoke hate against or demonize Muslims or Islam.

As a candidate during the 2008 race, Mr. McCain spoke out when his fellow conservatives spread lies about his opponent, Barack Obama. Mr. Romney was willing to sacrifice his standing and influence in the party he once represented as a presidential nominee, by boldly calling out Mr. Trump’s failings and voting for his removal from office. These acts of leadership are what it means to put country first, to think beyond oneself. Mr. Trump has demonstrated contempt for these American ideals. He admires autocrats, from Viktor Orban to Vladimir Putin to Kim Jong-un. He believes in the strongman model of power — a leader who makes things happen by demanding it, compelling agreement through force of will or personality. In reality, a strongman rules through fear and the unprincipled use of political might for self-serving ends, imposing poorly conceived policies that smother innovation, entrepreneurship, ideas and hope. During his four years in office, Mr. Trump tried to govern the United States as a strongman would, issuing orders or making decrees on Twitter. He announced sudden changes in policy — on who can serve in the military, on trade policy, on how the United States deals with North Korea or Russia — without consulting experts on his staff about how these changes would affect America. Indeed, nowhere did he put his political or personal interests above the national interest more tragically than during the pandemic, when he faked his way through a crisis by touting conspiracy theories and pseudoscience while ignoring the advice of his own experts and resisting basic safety measures that would have saved lives. [...] A second Trump administration would be different. He intends to fill his administration with sycophants, those who have shown themselves willing to obey Mr. Trump’s demands or those who lack the strength to stand up to him. He wants to remove those who would be obstacles to his agenda, by enacting an order to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with those more loyal to him. This means not only that Americans would lose the benefit of their expertise but also that America would be governed in a climate of fear, in which government employees must serve the interests of the president rather than the public.... Another term under Mr. Trump’s leadership would risk doing permanent damage to our government. [color/ emphasis added]

III. CHARACTER MATTERS

Character is the quality that gives a leader credibility, authority and influence. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump’s petty attacks on his opponents and their families led many Republicans to conclude that he lacked such character. Other Republicans, including those who supported the former president’s policies in office, say they can no longer in good conscience back him for the presidency. “It’s a job that requires the kind of character he just doesn’t have,” Paul Ryan, a former Republican House speaker, said of Mr. Trump in May.

Those who know Mr. Trump’s character best — the people he appointed to serve in the most important positions of his White House — have expressed grave doubts about his fitness for office.His former chief of staff John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, described Mr. Trump as “a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” Bill Barr, whom Mr. Trump appointed as attorney general, said of him, “He will always put his own interest and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest.” James Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general who served as defense secretary, said, “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try.” Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s vice president, has disavowed him. No other vice president in modern American history has done this. “I believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Mr. Pence has said. “And anyone who asked someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again.” [...] It may be tempting for Americans to believe that a second Trump presidency would be much like the first, with the rest of government steeled to protect the country and resist his worst impulses. But the strongman needs others to be weak, and Mr. Trump is surrounding himself with yes men. The American public has a right to demand more from their president and those who would serve under him. [color/ emphasis added]

IV. A PRESIDENT’S WORDS MATTER

When America saw white nationalists and neo-Nazis march through the streets of Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 and activists were rallying against racism, Mr. Trump spoke of “very fine people on both sides.” When he was pressed about the white supremacist Proud Boys during a 2020 debate, Mr. Trump told them to “stand back and stand by,” a request that, records show, they took literally in deciding to storm Congress. This winter, the former president urged Iowans to vote for him and score a victory over their fellow Americans — “all of the liars, cheaters, thugs, perverts, frauds, crooks, freaks, creeps.” And in a Veterans Day speech in New Hampshire, he used the word “vermin,” a term he has deployed to describe both immigrants and political opponents.

What a president says reflects on the United States and the kind of society we aspire to be. In 2022 this board raised an urgent alarm about the rising threat of political violence in the United States and what Americans could do to stop it. At the time... the Republican Party was in the middle of a fight for control, between Trumpists and those who were ready to move on from his destructive leadership. This struggle within the party has consequences for all Americans. “A healthy democracy requires both political parties to be fully committed to the rule of law and not to entertain or even tacitly encourage violence or violent speech,” we wrote. A large faction of one party in our country fails that test, and that faction, Mr. Trump’s MAGA extremists, now control the party and its levers of power. There are many reasons his conquest of the Republican Party is bad for American democracy, but one of the most significant is that those extremists have often embraced violent speech or the belief in using violence to achieve their political goals. This belief led to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and it has resulted in a rising number of threats against judges, elected officials and prosecutors. This threat cannot be separated from Mr. Trump’s use of language to encourage violence, to dehumanize groups of people and to spread lies. A study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, released in October 2022, came to the conclusion that MAGA Republicans (as opposed to those who identified themselves as traditional Republicans) “are more likely to hold extreme and racist beliefs, to endorse political violence, to see such violence as likely to occur and to predict that they will be armed under circumstances in which they consider political violence to be justified.” The Republican Party had an opportunity to renounce Trumpism; it has submitted to it. Republican leaders have had many opportunities to repudiate his violent discourse and make clear that it should have no place in political life; they failed to. [...] But with his nomination by his party all but assured, Mr. Trump has become even more reckless in employing extreme and violent speech, such as his references to executing generals who raise questions about his actions. He has argued, before the Supreme Court, that he should have the right to assassinate a political rival and face no consequences. [color/ emphasis added]

V. THE RULE OF LAW MATTERS

The danger from these foundational failings — of morals and character, of principled leadership and rhetorical excess — is never clearer than in Mr. Trump’s disregard for rule of law, his willingness to do long-term damage to the integrity of America’s systems for short-term personal gain. As we’ve noted, Mr. Trump’s disregard for democracy was most evident in his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to encourage violence to stop the peaceful transfer of power. What stood in his way were the many patriotic Americans, at every level of government, who rejected his efforts to bully them into complying with his demands to change election results. Instead, they followed the rules and followed the law. This respect for the rule of law, not the rule of men, is what has allowed American democracy to survive for more than 200 years.

In the four years since losing the election, Mr. Trump has become only more determined to subvert the rule of law, because his whole theory of Trumpism boils down to doing whatever he wants without consequence. Americans are seeing this unfold as Mr. Trump attempts to fight off numerous criminal charges. Not content to work within the law to defend himself, he is instead turning to sympathetic judges — including two Supreme Court justices with apparent conflicts over the 2020 election and Jan. 6-related litigation. The playbook: delay federal prosecution until he can win election and end those legal cases. His vision of government is one that does what he wants, rather than a government that operates according to the rule of law as prescribed by the Constitution, the courts and Congress. [...] So much in the past two decades has tested these norms in our society.... We need a recommitment to the rule of law and the values of fair play. This election is a moment for Americans to decide whether we will keep striving for those ideals. Mr. Trump rejects them. If he is re-elected, America will face a new and precarious future, one that it may not be prepared for. It is a future in which intelligence agencies would be judged not according to whether they preserved national security but by whether they served Mr. Trump’s political agenda. It means that prosecutors and law enforcement officials would be judged not according to whether they follow the law to keep Americans safe but by whether they obey his demands to “go after” political enemies. It means that public servants would be judged not according to their dedication or skill but by whether they show sufficient loyalty to him and his MAGA agenda. Even if Mr. Trump’s vague policy agenda would not be fulfilled, he could rule by fear. The lesson of other countries shows that when a bureaucracy is politicized or pressured, the best public servants will run for the exits. This is what has already happened in Mr. Trump’s Republican Party, with principled leaders and officials retiring, quitting or facing ouster. In a second term, he intends to do that to the whole of government. [color/ emphasis added]

[woman-respecter]

Chappell Roan is officially in defense mode, putting out two videos explaining why she just can't endorse Harris because "fuck policies on the left."

This white girl is so fucking stupid, God bless

https://x.com/dcsteve5/status/1838954364997648695

“fuck policies on the left” like a woman’s right to choose? like access to gender affirming care? like a two state solution? like taxing billionaires? girl bffr. she keeps making blunders

[inbarfink]

The thing about Zim's feverish devotion to the Tallest is that it’s actually a relatively recent development for him. If you look at his interactions with the previous Almighty Tallest during 'the Trial' - you can see that while he’s trying to be as obedient as any good Irken he’s a lot less… eager to please compared to his present self, and he doesn’t seem to be under the specific delusion of being the Tallest’ favorite as he is today. And he actually used to express dissatisfaction with the then-current Tallest’s policy and have aspirations of being Tallest himself one day.

Which, you know, it might be reasonable that even Zim had to eventually face the fact he’s not going to hit a growth spurt at age 500 - but that doesn’t explain why he dropped his ability to complain about the Tallest in general.

It might be that the Shift happened specifically when Red and Purple rose to power. The other Tallest barely knew who Zim was, but Red and Purple knew him for years and already detested him. And despite the thick all-encompassing cocoon of self-delusion Zim lives in, he is aware of this on some level. See Jhonen’s comparison between Zim and Dib in some of the promotional stuff to ‘Enter the Florpus’

This parallel doesn’t work unless, despite Zim’s insistence, he is aware on some level the Tallest don’t actually love him and don't think he’s amazing. He does know, at least subconsciously, that the Tallest hate his guts, and that’s what makes him uniquely obsessed with pleasing them specifically as well as doubling-down on the delusion that they love him to ludicrous degrees.

Or maybe, while the Tallest’ already existing dislike of him probably played a part, you can very much argue the biggest factor was the burning crashing failure that was Operation Impending Doom 1. Like with the Tallest’ hatred of him in general - Zim acts like he totally does not understand that he did anything wrong in ID1

But it’s clear that he has some level of understanding that he Fucked Up

The Pilot narration also seems to confirm that Zim’s obsession with conquering the earth is at least partially fueled by trying to make up for his Impending Doom 1 blunder

So his desire to both compensate for his failure and to deny that it ever happened is making him both slavishly obedient towards his leaders and obsessively insistent that they love him despite all evidence to the contrary - that’s the only way to shut down the voice in his head that knows that’s wrong. 

Or maybe Zim has just always been gay for Red and Purple.

[bunnliix]

A Christmas Miracle - Secret Santa 2024

For the wonderful @vent-stink, Hihi I'm your secret santa and I hope you enjoy it! This is also my first Jongho fic! And also my last fic of 2024

Pairing: Jongho x reader Summary: You always put duty ahead of anything else in your life, including love. You've been engaged to Prince Jongho since you were young, and despite not being able to marry for love as you wished, it was your duty and for the betterment of the Kingdom. Besides, it wasn't like you loved Prince Jongho, it was just your duty. Or was it? wc:2.3k AU: Royalty/Arranged Marriage AU Genre: Fluff/Angst Warnings: angst, but not a lot a lot, FLUFF, arranged marriage, kinda rejection, confessions, tension, realizing feelings, Jongho is sad for a bit, but it's a happy ending! Credits: My wonderful partner @potatomountain made the banner for me <3 It's so pretty! Thank you @kpop---scenarios and @rems-writing for beta'ing this fic!

You’ve known since you were a child that you would one day marry for the betterment of your kingdom, it was what was expected of you, so you didn’t really think that you’d have the chance to fall in love with whoever your parents chose. And you still believed that, even after Prince Choi Jongho from Wonderland Kingdom was chosen to be your future husband. He was every girl’s dream, handsome, kind, and a perfect gentleman, and yet you found yourself unable to see him as anything but the boy you had grown up meeting anytime your parents had official meetings. He was always aloof, keeping to himself, and yet now that you were less than a year away from your marriage, it was like he’s done a complete change. 

“Princess, please wait!”

Case in point, he always tried to be around you. Not that you minded, he was actually great company and you both had very riveting conversations about policies and political matters. You turned around to face him, seeing him jogging up to you, his hair and outfit in slight disarray and you almost gasped as somehow for a moment he looked irresistible, but you shook yourself, getting your act together as the taller man approached.

“Yes, Prince Jongho, what is it that you need from me?” You asked him, waiting for his reply as the man caught his breath.

“I was wondering if you’d like to take a stroll in the gardens? The weather is wonderful today,” he said, raising an arm to gesture to the windows that showed that it was indeed a wonderful day outside.

“I won’t say no, but you must let me ask you about your opinions on the Kim heir’s most recent blunder during his latest public appearance.” You replied, letting him take your arm as he led you to the gardens.

As you walked, he told you all of his opinions on Prince Hongjoong’s latest incident, you listening with rapt attention. It was not long before you reached the entrance to the gardens, and the prince continued to guide you through the gardens, pointing out any new blooms or varieties that your staff had planted this year. You had also suggested many of the plants that were blooming currently, having an interest in gardening and plants, since your kingdom was largely dominated by green space. Now that it was the end of September and the beginning of fall, most of the plants were starting to lose their vibrancy, but there were still quite a few that stood tall amongst them.

“I remember when we were children, you always snuck out here when our parents or other rulers or nobility were meeting. I remember following you most of the time, if I wasn’t caught,” Jongho said, his hand still on your elbow as he let you guide them around.

“I didn’t always care about appearances or anything having to do with duty when I was younger. I think you felt the same way, though you hid it well most of the time.” You replied, looking out towards the edges of the garden.

“I did, but now I see it differently.” He said in reply, though unbeknownst to you, he said this while looking directly at you.

“I do as well. I will do what I must for my kingdom and my people, even if I must sacrifice my own wants and needs in order to do so.” You said, half-parroting what had been told to you many times by your parents and your governesses.

Jongho sighed, causing you to stop. “You don’t need to sacrifice everything for your kingdom or people, Princess.” He said to you, before you turned to look at him.

“I’ve already sacrificed a chance at being with someone I love. But it’s my duty as Princess to make choices and sacrifices for the betterment of my people.”

“Do you truly not think you could love me, Princess?” Jongho asked you, a look in his eyes that you couldn’t quite decipher.

You looked away, telling him, “I’ve never thought of you in that way, Prince Jongho.” 

He went quiet for a moment, before speaking, “I see.”

He said nothing further, instead choosing to continue walking around the gardens with you, the conversation between you never returning. Once you finished roaming the gardens, he walked you to your wing of the castle, before bowing and leaving quickly. You had never seen the normally chatty prince become so quiet, and it left you feeling uneasy. Could he truly have feelings for you? He had never really acted in a romantic manner towards you,  just one that you could expect from any gentleman, prince or otherwise. 

You entered your rooms, moving to sit down on the couch and waving away your ladies maids. You really couldn’t stop thinking about Prince Jongho’s reactions after you told him you had never thought of him in a romantic light. You truly couldn't recall thinking about having a crush on him or wanting to kiss the prince. Sure, he was handsome, but objectively he was a handsome man. One did not have to have a crush on him to see that. He was the dream girl of many regular girls, even some of your maids have crushed on him from time to time. You never found yourself in that situation. To be honest, you’ve never had a crush before. You never really had the time to, nor were you around many men or women to figure out if you had crushes. Every normal teenage thing you could have had, you simply didn’t because of the pressures of being royalty.

You didn’t notice how much time had gone by, lost in your own thoughts, until your mother came to bring you to dinner, having been requested by your ladies maids since they were unable to get your attention themselves.

“My darling, what has you thinking so much?” Your mother asked as you both walked to the dining hall.

“It’s nothing, mother,” you replied, not feeling confident enough to share your thoughts.

“I’m always here if you need me, darling. You know that you can come talk to me about anything, big or small.”

You smiled, “I know, mother.”

It was only a few minutes later that you both arrived at the dining hall. Your younger brother Jeongin was already there along with your father and Jongho. You watched as the prince walked over to you, leading you to your seat and pulling out your chair for you. You quietly thanked him as he pushed your seat back in, before taking his seat next to you. Your mother and brother were on the other side of the table, while your father sat at the head. 

Your parents sensed some tension between Jongho and yourself, you could see it in their eyes as their gazes kept shifting between the two of you. This silence and awkwardness continued for most of the dinner, until just before you all finished your dessert.

“May I escort you back to your room, princess?” Jongho asked you as the dishes were being removed from the table.

You remained silent for a moment, staring at him, before a sound from your mother prompted you to answer, “Yes, of course, Prince Jongho.”

Your parents quickly excused you both, and Jongho offered his arm to you, and once you accepted, he led you from the dining hall and to your rooms. It was once again a silent affair, neither of you feeling brave enough to speak.  

He stops in front of your door, mirroring his actions from earlier. You waited for him to say something, but it was a few moments before he opened his mouth.

“I’m sorry for my earlier words, princess,” Jongho said, “I should not have said them and forced you to answer.”

“Jongho-” You started, before he cut you off.

“Goodnight, princess. I hope you sleep well,” he said, before stepping back and walking away, leaving you alone in the hallway once again.

It was now only a few days before Christmas, 3 days to be exact, and in the months since Jongho had left you at the door to your room, you had only seen him a handful of times. The majority of his absence was due to him being needed back in his own kingdom due to his position as heir to the throne, as well as other official duties that kept him away from your home.

Since the day he had left in mid-October, you had barely heard from the royal, assuming that he was just kept too busy by his duties. But you had not stopped thinking about him. You realized more and more, as time passed by, what his little actions and the looks he gave you meant.

He always remained close to you, ensuring your own safety over his own. You remember the many gazes from him, now seeing that they held so much love and care for you in them. And as the days went by, you realized that you missed his presence, his voice, and most importantly, the feeling of him by your side. You realized that you loved Choi Jongho, and that you had for a while, but pushed them aside in favor of your duties as an heir and mistook them for platonic feelings for the Prince. 

The worst of it all, he wouldn’t be back until Christmas Eve, so you had another few days of holding in your feelings, until you even had a chance to confess to him. So you just had to be patient and wait. But until then, you kept yourself busy, all the while asking your ladies maids to tell you if they heard any news about your future husband.

It was late Christmas Eve before Prince Jongho arrived at the castle. You watched from your balcony as he returned, unable to take your eyes off of him. You turned back to find the present you had placed on your bed, having been holding it before you heard his arrival. Since you had figured out what you felt for the royal, you had quickly moved to obtain a present that showed your care for the man. You had found a merchant that sold books, and found one that you know the prince had mentioned months before, as one that he had been trying to find. You immediately bought it, not caring exactly how much you spent on it, and had it packaged.

It was now sitting in a box with a letter on top about how you remembered he was searching for this particular book and you thought of him when you saw it. You planned to give this to him before your confession. Which was quickly arriving, as you took a breath before leaving your rooms to search out the handsome prince. 

It felt like forever before you reached his rooms on the opposite side of the castle, and as you stood before his door, your hands shook with nervousness. Before you could even knock, the door swung open, revealing Jongho in much more casual clothing than you had seen before.

He looked somewhat shocked, before asking, “What are you doing here so late at night?”

You showed him the present in your hands, “I have a gift for you.”

You say his eyes widen slightly before he welcomes you in, letting you follow him into his room. You didn’t say anything until he sat down on the couch that was in his room. He motioned for you to sit as well. But you didn’t until you handed him the box in your hands, and then nervously sat down to watch him open your gift.

With bated breath you watched him lift the top of the box, his expression morphing into shock and then happiness as he stared into the container. 

You watched as he gazed up at you, before he spoke, “You found this? And bought it for me?”

“I saw it and remembered that you wanted it, so I got it for you. Your happiness means much more than the cost of a book.” You replied, looking back at him.

He placed the box down, before coming to kneel in front of you. Jongho looked up at you with tears in his eyes, “You care about my happiness?”

Your heart broke at his words, and you reached to hold his hands. “Choi Jongho, I care about your happiness very much. And I’m sorry it took me until now to realize my feelings, but I love you. I realized that while you were away. I missed having you at my side, your presence around me while we stroll through the garden and the grounds. Will you accept my love, even after I rejected you?”

You didn’t quite get a verbal answer, the normally gentlemanly prince suddenly standing up, pulling you up with him before dragging you into a tight hug. You froze, before melting into his hold, wrapping your arms around his waist.

“Of course I’ll accept it, I thought you’d never feel that way towards me. I’ve loved you for years, and I thought you never realized it. You were always so focused on your duty as heir to your throne, and that’s not to say that I dislike your focus, it’s a very admirable quality, but I was hoping one day you’d realize. And now you have, it feels like a Christmas miracle.” He rambled, still in shock and you giggled at his rambles.

You kissed his cheek, feeling your face heat up as you did so, before saying, “I’m sorry it took so long, my prince. But I know now that I love you, and yes, you could say that this is a Christmas miracle.”

Jongho looked over at the clock on the wall, realizing quickly that the clock had already passed midnight, meaning it was Christmas now. He pointed at the clock, directing you to look over.

He looked down at you, smiling softly, before whispering, “You really are my Christmas miracle.”

[loving-n0t-heyting]

soviet bloc interventions on behalf of the bad guys in the 1948 arab-israeli war are hardly the most egregious or indefensible military/diplomatic outrage to have been perpetrated under stalins leadership, just as the recriminalisation of homosexuality was hardly his most egregious act of social policy backwardness. in terms of ethnic cleansings there is a great abundance from which to choose, with the worst in terms of sheer death toll being the forced relocation of eastern european ethnic germans, and as far as foreign policy blunders in general it all seems to pale in comparison to his disastrous myopia about leftist infighting in weimar germany when he should have been helping marshal an effective united front against the nazi menace. none of this is exactly esoteric lore, either

but the two sets of policies from the 1st sentence are kind of remarkable in how they short circuit the type of stalinist on here for whom bidens support for the israeli destruction of gaza indefeasibly evinces the complete moral bankruptcy of all usamerican democrats now and forever and somewhere among the top 5 greatest political enemies today to the working class are annoying trans guys who use "baeddel" as a slur, who have to suppress the (often enviably ingenious and scholarly!) intellectual gymnastics they otherwise automatically resort to when faced with their heros vast range of moral and political shortcomings

[warsofasoiaf]

Do you think it’s possible that Aerys was right about Tywin all along, that Tywin was not driven into opposition by Aerys’ madness, but rather Aerys became paranoid because he perceived Tywin was actually motivated by his own ego and lust for power, rather than any loyalty or good faith service to king and country?

A. Aerys’ real madness starts after Duskendale, which seems like Tywin might have provoked.  He seems like he really was just kind of temperamentally extreme in his early days, and years of dealing with Tywin plus the trauma of his captivity pushed him over the edge.  And most of the reports on his early behavior is filtered through characters with a pro-Lannister perspective, or hindsight confirmation bias, where they know how he ended up and thus recall ordinary displays of emotion or mistakes as early symptoms of madness. 

B. Most of Tywin’s credited actions as Hand seem to be just basically doing the job, not exactly any sort of heroic civic virtue.  The one apparently generous, not obviously self-interested, act of Tywin was paying off the Braavosi loans, but he didn’t give the crown the cash to meet its debts, he publicly took the debt himself, getting the glory & credit for patriotism and whatnot.  He receives Steffon, “his” boyhood “friend” & cousin to the king, on the Iron Throne. That feels like a power move to me. 

C. We see how he stage-manages the celebration of the crown’s victory at Blackwater, and it’s all about him, not polishing Joffrey’s image, or putting him forward as the Young Lion who defeated his evil uncle.  Tywin does not come in like a subject or supplicant or leal servant of the Iron Throne, he rides in, fully armored, as a conqueror, and Joffrey comes down to greet him.  Great for Tywin’s image, less great of a start for the reign of his grandson, or effacing the early PR blunders. I can’t imagine he was more generous to the king who was no kin of his. 

What if Ilyn Payne was basically just repeating the Lannister party line? Westermen don’t seem to act on their own post-Castamere, but Tywin likes sending proxies ahead of him, whether Kevan in council or Tyrion at court, or Gregor & Lorch in battle.  Maybe Ilyn Payne and others were actually voicing the notion that Tywin was actively promoting, that he was the one ruling in truth and Aerys was just his Merovingian King?  It seems to me that, per Varys’ riddle, getting people to believe you, and not the king, are the power behind the throne is a great way to make that perception the reality. And Aerys sees what is going on, isn’t really subtle or skilled at image stuff, and thus is poorly equipped to fight Tywin’s campaign effectively, so he lashes out with things like cutting out tongues and calling him a servant when rejecting a marriage proposal to put him in his place, and undermining his policies to make people accept that he is truly ruling. Tywin gets pissed, because how dare he not appreciate how awesome Tywin is, and Brer Rabbits him into a vulnerable position in Duskendale, from which the only effort he makes to save his king and supposed friend is to send in a lone, 40-year-old knight, while not even bothering to hide his preference for a young, presumably weaker, successor. 

I feel like if we read between the lines, and triangulate with Tywin’s entire life history which seems utterly lacking in indications of friendship, loyalty or patriotism, Aerys’ story is not just a random lunatic happening to be on the throne, but rather another example of how Tywin’s toxic approach to political pursuits blights the realm and causes misery.

What do you think of this theory?  I am asking in this format instead of the AMA for the, I think obvious, issue of character limits. Thank you.

I think there’s no character limit anymore, although that might be a settings thing.

Anyway, while I do think that’s a decent enough theory, I don’t think it sufficiently provable, for three reasons.

For one, Aerys was always prone to delusions and flights of fancy, even well before Tywin comes into the picture. While they were most often harmless, it could mean that negative experiences, like Duskendale, could set him off regardless of whether or not Tywin is involved.

For two, self-interest and house advancement is par for the course when it comes to court appointments. Why should we expect Tywin to act differently, and why shouldn’t we expect Aerys to act with irrationality toward any other person?

For three, I offer in contrast Tywin’s excellent handling and manipulation of the mountain clans in AGOT. So Tywin can clearly manipulate a situation and read it appropriately, particularly earlier on in the narrative where some of the more established character traits are not set (or contrarily, things that get corrected later on after further research such as Tyrion’s acrobatic ability). The Mad King was set up as such in the first book, which might cleave closer to Tywin’s first book framing than his second.

I think what you’ve said here enriches the discourse, certainly, but I don’t think it has enough evidence to be more likely than the interpretation that Aerys’s mental instability was not caused by Tywin’s toxic political monomania. But thank you for the contribution, it is quite good, Cannoli.

-SLAL 

[houseofbrat]

In August of this year, Current Affairs editor-at-large Yasmin Nair wrote a blog post with a confident title: “Kamala Harris Will Lose.” Nair warned that Harris was already repeating Hillary Clinton’s mistakes from 2016, such as running more on personal narrative and empty rhetoric than on a clear vision for how to transform the lives of struggling Americans. She warned that Democratic leaders were taking their base for granted by contemptuously refusing to accommodate any of the demands of the “Uncommitted” movement over the war in Gaza. Nair’s analysis looks remarkably prescient now that Harris has, in fact, lost. 

Other writers made similar arguments here in the magazine. I argued, for instance, that Kamala Harris was worryingly focused on vibes and the parasocial aspect of politics, rather than on giving people a clear understanding of what exactly a Harris presidency would do for them. Harris made some very obvious blunders that revealed her to be a poor politician, such as her failure to come up with an answer when she was asked a (very obvious) question, namely how she would have governed differently than the unpopular incumbent, Joe Biden. Harris missed obvious opportunities to court voters, such as missing an opportunity to appear on the most popular podcast in the world, The Joe Rogan Experience. Rogan ultimately endorsed Trump, but his politics are malleable, and I very much suspected that a strong performance by Harris on the podcast could have won him over or at least kept him from publicly siding with Trump. 

My colleague Alex Skopic and I warned in August that Harris was making a mistake by abandoning progressive policies like a jobs guarantee and Medicare For All. This is not just because we think these are good policies that will help people’s economic situations at a time when they see living costs as a hugely important issue. And it’s not just because the policies are popular. It’s also because ditching the policies made Harris look opportunistic and dishonest. It was clear she abandoned them because she holds the (deeply mistaken, in my view) position that progressive policies are destined to alienate centrist voters and hurt you electorally. 

[yowlthinks]

OK, so what I am getting from Black Doves so far (I am on ep3) is

1. The most bland tory wife can be a top-tier spy and her blundering husband would be under the impression and she is making costumes for their kids school play all day and nothing much else

2. The cuddliest man alive can take out a bunch of bad guys and then come back to being a cuddly teddy bear

3. Not messing with women, no matter how irrelevant or marginal they seem is a generally good policy, cause you never know what trick is up their sleeve.

So far, all solid advice, 10/10, no notes.

[dontforgetukraine]

"Our repeated policy blunders stem from a profound misunderstanding of Russia. We perceive it as a nation-state with interests similar to our own, but this is a dangerous illusion. The Moscow-centered polity isn’t a country but a classic colonial empire. For centuries, Muscovy absorbed diverse regions and cultures and held them together by force and fear. The satirical account on X, Darth Putin, once quipped: 'Russia always defends itself in other people’s countries. It’s how we peacefully & anti-imperialistically become the world’s largest country.'"

—Andrew Chakhoyan

Quoted in: Opinion: The path to peace in Europe