Farrago Follow Up - What Will Trump Do?

The previous post, Farrago, meandered into the power struggles in the US and the assault on science in favor of fantastic explanations of things.  [I prefer 'fantastic explanations' to 'conspiracy theories' because there are in fact conspiracies and people who pursue real conspiracies - like the Federalist Societies 40 year plan to pack the Supreme Court with justices who would rule their way - aren't always 'crackpots.'] 

Reader Jacob left a lengthy comment which you can see there.    Rather than answer it there, I've decided to answer it in a new post.  

Well, since I know many of you won't go back to see what he wrote, I've decided to put it here again.

"Jakob in IrelandSunday, October 6, 2024 at 5:07:00 AM AKDT

Hi Steve. Just a thought from across the pond...

When you started your enquiry last year asking HOW we got to this point (of finding more & more people believing the unproven in so many things around us) you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels. 

I felt, and still do, that you do have the view of someone from the world of questions, of successfully negotiating the discipline of the academic reasoning & rewards. I also acknowledge that you (graciously) agreed that talent isn't limited to intellectual gifts, but also those of the 'multiple intelligences' view of human ability & talents.

So with all that, we plunged (as so many did then) into just HOW we could be at this political junction of PRO and CON re what we thought to be ‘dictator-in-waiting’ Donald Trump. We didn't succeed in pinning the tail-on-that-donkey, did we?

So today, I’m wiping my slate clean: I’m with many, if not most here, asking this question: Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?

Given these past years of many quick checks and deep dives with so-many streams of thought & analysis, I have honed my own little thought for this presidential election in America, if anyone wishes to consider it. Mr Trump’s preparation is laid, his goal easy to know. He only awaits the day in which his blow will be struck.

Mr. Trump’s seizure of the presidency (at precious cost to a Republic) can be affirmed by his Supreme Court and a Congress with too-narrow mandate to intervene in a politically effective way. But most importantly, far too many Americans have ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’.

I am nearly 18 years from living in the USA now; I am also a person born to its promise & culture, to its history & dreams. I moved countries to know other histories, other ways of seeing law, culture & dreams. I can admit my shock to see so many Americans willing to surrender rule-of-law to a man of autocratic instincts, hoping his constitutional betrayal will deliver their aspirations. I have told European friends (here) that Americans have bedrock faith in their Constitution and its rule-of-law standards. It will win out.

Now I suspect I held a child’s faith: Too many Americans are faith-weary. So many flock to a ‘strong man’ promising his so-sweet nothing, “I’ll take back control for you.”

I am sorry to say that I am relieved to live where I do, where so very many here are asking, “What is happening to the USA?”"

Here's my response.  

Jacob,  

Lots of questions rolled up into the reply.  And lots of answers too.  

First, your comment “you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels.”  I suspect that reflects more what you hear than what I’ve said over the years.  I have indeed argued that good education does train students to think logically and critically (among other things.)  That could start happening in elementary school and be honed further in middle and high school in a good school with good teachers.  At good schools the attentive students graduate with varying levels of those skills.  And I've acknowledged that a rigorous logical, left brain, education is the best way to start all kids.  But I would add that all kids should be given the space to work on something that interests them, and a good school would then use their areas of interest, to cultivate logical reasoning in a context that makes sense to each kid.  

As students go deeper into those topics at the university level, they can improve on those skills.  Statistics that show college educated voters tend (note ‘tend’) to lean more Democratic than people with fewer years of education.  

“The last few election cycles have been marked by an increasing divergence in outcomes based on education levels, with Democrats making serious gains with college-educated voters while Republicans win far greater shares of non-college educated white voters.” from Politico  

But you don’t have to get those skills only in school.  People who are different in some significant way from the ‘average’ - different religion, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. - often grow up in at least two different worlds: 1) their family and group world and 2) the larger white world that has traditionally ruled the US.  And for those with non-conforming gender identity, they can be in a different reality from their family.  

The dissonance between how these citizens who experience one reality at home and a different reality at school often gives them a leg up on seeing the big picture, on seeing there isn't just one reality.  

And there are lots of others who get the dissonance even if they don’t go to college.  And there are many college graduates who got by without learning how to think critically.  Or who can, but have blind spots where they can’t apply those skills.  Or they apply them in a twisted way.  Like logically justifying white nationalism or misogyny based on odd facts and premises.    

Getting back on track

Hoping people would come to their political senses when they were given the facts was not something I held out much hope for, though it’s my natural flex.  I used to tell students writing reports for actual administrators that emotions always trump reason if there’s a conflict between the two.  So they needed to know their clients’ values so they could write their reports not so it made sense only to the student, but also to the client.  

I did hold out hope that enough US voters would choose the Democratic candidate over Trump.  That isn’t unreasonable since that happened in 2016 and 2020.  Though the way the electoral college works, that’s not enough.  Harris has to win big so the GOP can’t fight with any credibility over crumbs in swing states.  And can’t plausibly argue that Trump won.  Of course there will always be those who deny reality as the 2020 election has shown.

Now to your first question, which you essentially answered yourself affirmatively.  

"Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?"

I agree that he does plan to challenge the election no matter what.  All the talk of rigging elections is meant to get people ready for such a challenge. The bigger the margin of victory the harder that will be.  The many lawyers and others who have been fighting Trump’s original challenges in 2020 are well versed in his strategy and paying close attention to new ones.  

And this time round, Biden is in charge of the military and national guard and other levers of power that will be much better prepared than in 2021 post election.  

And the people he has working for him are skilled administrators - as we can see in the preparations for Helene and the coordinated efforts after the storm hit, getting inflation down, implementing the Infrastructure bill, etc.  

Will Trump supporters, those who believe all his lies, come out with weapons and raise hell?  Possible.  Even likely in some places.  

One other point I’d like to make concerning reason and non-reason.  It’s clearer and clearer that Putin and Iran and North Korea have all been using the internet to stir up conflict in the US (not to mention in UK and France and other parts of the world.).  We know about it explicitly in 2016.  It's been noted in every election since.  It’s likely they were at it earlier during the time they were grooming Trump as an asset.  They played a role in Brexit.   They’re at it over Gaza and Israel.  Taking down democracies strengthens their message to their own people that democracy is inherently unstable and bad.  It also makes their aggression much easier.  

Playing on people’s fears - of immigrants, of crime, of economic disaster - is always going to capture a certain number of people.  Trump’s non-stop lies, amplified by Fox, and main stream media,  is a well planned strategy to make it impossible to tell truth from fiction.  Everything Trump says is projection of his own actions onto his opponents.  With AI and hard to spot fake video, the ability to tell truth from lies gets harder.  All traditional authorities are challenged - scientists, universities, doctors, teachers, anyone who ‘can prove’ something with more than sweeping declarations of how things are, are targets.  The Right’s attack on public education is part of that package.  They want to get public money funneled to private schools that they can control.  

It’s ironic that until Reagan began attacking government, it was usually the Left that challenged government and the Right that defended it.  

Trump has good reason to fight for power, even after he loses.  If there is a Harris administration he will be on trial still and very likely sentenced to prison. At which point I wouldn’t be surprised if he fled to Cuba or another Russian ally.  Or Saudi Arabia.  

When he’s gone this isn’t over.  Our authoritarian enemies will continue to do what they can to weaken the West.  The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society will continue to fight for the power of the rich white elite to control the country.  

Fortunately their perfect candidate is also a huge liability.  Republicans’ eagerness to exercise their post Roe power at the state level has alerted and alarmed sensible voters.  And their demands for abject loyalty has resulted in less than stellar candidates in down ballot races - like North Carolina’s Mark Robinson, candidate for Governor.  

We’ll know in a month how the election goes, and then we’ll have to wait and see how the post election goes.  

You may well have made a good decision when you established yourselves in Northern Ireland.  But if the US goes down, no one is safe.   

Farrago

[This was written Sept. 22, but I wrote it under Pages instead of Posts.  Pages are the tabs up above (and below the banner.  So I'm adding it in today.]

I've heard of Fargo, but farrago is a word that wasn't in my vocabulary until I saw this LA Times article on Sean M. Kirkpatrick, who is

"the first director of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO"

or the government's lead investigator of UFOs.

Here's where I encountered the word - I'm giving you more so you can see the context.

"From the start, Kirkpatrick says, he was determined to conduct a rigorously empirical inquiry: “We were looking for any data to substantiate any claims that were being made to Congress or in the social media arena.”

That applied not only to pilots’ reports of objects that seemed to have displayed unusual aeronautical behavior, but a farrago of reports in the press, online and among committed UFO believers about purportedly secret government programs to collect, examine and even attempt to reverse-engineer technology supposedly retrieved from crashed extraterrestrial UAPs."

My initial reaction was that the word was thrown in to sound erudite, as often is the case with such words.  But this is a perfect use of the word as I understand it after reading the definition.  

farrago /fə-rä′gō, -rā′-/

noun

An assortment or a medley; a conglomeration. A mass composed of various materials confusedly mixed; a medley; a mixture.Similar: medley/mixture

A collection containing a confused variety of miscellaneous things.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

Also noteworthy in the article is the assault of the ignorant against science.

“In my case,” Kirkpatrick told me a few days ago, “I’ve been accused of lying to the American people.”

He further revealed to the Guardian that he had experienced efforts of UFO true believers to “threaten my wife and daughter, and try to break into our online accounts — far more than I ever had as the deputy director of intelligence [of U.S. Strategic Command]. I didn’t have China and Russia trying to get on me as much as these people are.” 

The article compares the folks who refuse to believe the findings that there was no evidence of extra terrestrial visitors to the folks who refuse to believe in the COVID origin stories or that vaccines work.  

That points to “a larger problem with public opinion about scientific inquiry — science by social media versus science by scientific method,” he says. “You’re seeing the degradation of critical thinking skills and rational thought when it comes to analyzing what’s out in the world.”

"When scientific data confound received beliefs, he says, 'people cry ‘conspiracy,’ or ‘the data is wrong,’ or ‘scientists are making it up.’... Well, some of these scientists have been around for 30 or 40 years. If you don’t believe they know what they’re doing, then what are you going to base your decisions on in the future? Just pure belief and speculation?'

Kirkpatrick is working on another article on the topic of misinformation. 'I see what I was doing on UAP and misinformation as a microcosm of many other issues that challenge the U.S. today. That is, the division across belief lines where evidence suggests a contrary opinion that conflicts with one’s own belief system or political system.'” 

 

Time To Try The Granola. Why People Should Stop Buying The Republican Brand

Suppose you're still buying the same brand of cereal your mom bought for you.  

But after years of loyalty, you've noticed that it no longer tastes or crunches the same, the boxes are smaller, they're only 2/3 full, and they cost way more.  The ingredients list lots of chemicals now.  Your stomach feels queasy after eating a bowl.  But at the store, your brain is wired to put  that brand in your cart.  .  

A friend says she's stopped buying that brand and now eats Brand Y granola.  "Granola," you reply, "that's hippie food."  

It's time to review your old prejudices and find out that granola is much better than that old brand you cling to without satisfaction.  

I suspect a lot of Republicans keep voting R because it's how they were raised.  Voting Democratic is like eating granola, even though they know that the R brand isn't what it used to be.  Plus they keep hearing  how evil the D brand is.  

But they've met Democrats, people at work, school, the gym.  They seem like ok people, on the surface anyway.  Some are even married, have kids, work, own homes, pay their bills on time, watch football and baseball, even hunt, and other 'normal' things. They don't appear to be the evil terrible people R politicians and media say they are.  

Republicans, your brand is no longer what it once was.  I know it's part of your identity.  But like any brand that has deteriorated over the years, it's time to let go.  

It's no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower.  Or even Nixon, Reagan, or the Bushes.  

Your brain is telling you it's time, but this is all you've known since you were a kid.  It's so hard to make a change, but it's time to face the reality that the R brand isn't the brand your parents raised you on.  It's now a toxic scam.  Time to try the granola.  

From Stolen Intellectual Policy To Heteropessimism To Climate Catastrophe Greeting Cards

A link to Capacious led me into a rabbit hole that didn't let go for several hours.  As an academic, I found the first story too real and too chilling a possibility. And also quite relevant to one of the presidential candidates. The other two I'll touch on here were much further outside my normal world.  The journal Capacious does have room for many things.

A Tweet sent me to Capaciousjournal to read an article ["How Intellectual Property Theft Feels"  Jordan Alexander Stein] by an English professor who submitted a book proposal on Cotton Mather to Yale University Press.  One reviewer gave it a green light.  The other said no.  Several years later, she gets an email about a new book from Yale University Press - on, you guessed it, Cotton Mather with a blurb that very closely copies her original proposal.  And then she finds out the author is the reviewer who nixed her proposal and the editor is the one she originally sent the proposal.  

She finds that her options are slim but minimally she wants an apology and an acknowledgement of the hurt this has caused her.  She gets neither. 

Her article covers a wide range of topics.  Money wasn't particularly an issue, because, as she says, books on Cotton Mather are aimed at a tiny niche audience. Aside from the deceit, a general despicableness of this sort of crime (I call it a crime, she says the law is fuzzy. The university classifies it under moral lapses) it caused real damage to the writer.  

"Having to look back at the past five years of my career, I suddenly saw that I’d mostly stopped researching and publishing on Puritan writers. Nor in that time had I attended even a single one of the field’s multiple annual conferences. All the Mather books in my office had been pushed into a corner where I now found them hibernating under five winters of dust. The humiliation I had felt years before as a response to the ad hominem nature of George’s reader report had knocked me off my professional course. It had happened by no means necessarily, and perhaps not on anyone’s part deliberately, but, I reluctantly found myself admitting, it had happened absolutely." (p. 103)

Essentially the reviewer/thief/author and the editor got away with it.  Nothing bad came of it for them (at least in the awareness of Jordan Alexander Stein.)  

And this seems emblematic of the age we live in.  Where the norms have broken down and the wheels of justice are too slow to keep up.  Trump perhaps will become the patron saint of sociopaths.  The Supreme Court has even awarded him with immunity that is probably broad and slippery enough for him to escape punishment for anything.  

Stein goes on to say this was not about money, but reputation.

"Universities meanwhile don’t operate at merely human levels; they have more abstract things like brands to protect. From their perspective, this kind of dust-up wouldn’t be about personal relationships, even when financial considerations are not involved. (Never mind that the university whose press Martha works for and which has published George’s edition of Mather is so incomprehensibly wealthy, and again the money at stake would be so little, that even the upper-limit damages from any hypothetical lawsuit of mine would be to them about as negligible as a rounding error). More typically, the issue is about the priceless thing called reputation. Universities do not want to be seen as having done something for which any liability must be assumed. What universities seek to protect is symbolic. And they protect it very well." (p. 106) (emphasis mine)

It's not like any of this is new.  Professors stealing the ideas of others is an age-old practice.  What is new is that there are many more platforms from which to call it out.  

 

While scrolling through the online copy of Capacious, I found several other articles that reminded me that people are thinking about and writing about things I have not given much attention to.  

[I'd note the links here.  The basic Capaciousjournal.com goes to a table of contents for the current edition - Vol. 3 No. 2  (2024).  This page has links to some of the articles in this edition - including the next one on Heteropessimism.  But the other articles can be found by clicking the PDF file for the whole edition.  Which I had to do to find the article above.  So for Stein article, you have to scroll down.  The Heteropessimism link takes you directly to that article.  The Greeting Card article you have to scroll down - it's right below the Stein article.]

"Heteropessimism and the Pleasure of Saying 'No.'”Samantha Pinson Wrisley

I have reactions to this article, but it's a discussion I have not been a party to (the article has 42 or 43 references) so I'll keep my thoughts to myself, just listen, and offer this quote from the author. 

 "I take the heteropessimistic connections between feminism and incel to their logical conclusion, showing that feminist heteropessimism’s inherent essentialism affectively cements the incongruous ideological positions of feminism to incel’s sexual nihilism. I conclude with an argument for the naturalization of negativity as part of a broader move toward accepting the ambiguities of heterosexual desire and the antagonism(s) that drive it."

After rereading this quote, I realize it most readers won't catch the drift of the article.  Basically, as I understood it, Wrisley argued that one area of feminism looks at heterosexual relations as difficult because they can't stand the men necessary to have heterol relationships.  She saw a similarity between this attitude and that of incels who are virgins because they can't attract women to have sex with them.  Both, thus being characterized as 'heteropessimistic.'

Finally:  "Greeting Cards For the Anthropocene"  Craig Campbell 

This one starts out with 

"In 1971 it cost only 50¢ for an eight page list of twenty-five Greeting Card companies in the USA and Canada that were buying greetings, captions, and ideas from hopeful writers."

He offers some examples of what the card makers wanted in people's pitches.  Using this idea, he moves closer to the present:

"In 2019, under the auspices of the Bureau for Experimental Ethnography, we launched the Greeting Cards for the Anthropocene project.2 We sought to understand climate feelings first by making cards for an invented category of ‘Climate Catastrophe’ in the greeting card aisle of the local pharmacy."

 The article includes some examples of related letters and such greeting cards. 

In many ways Capacious does what I set out to do in this blog long ago - look at things we often overlook, or look at what we see, but differently.  It rearranges the furniture of the brain.  And reminds me to do more of this sort of posts.  

Brian Taylor Cohen Interviews Heather Cox Richardson - Watch This!

This is an important interview by Brian Taylor Cohen, one of the brightest and most articulate commentators (I want to say on the air, and he does appear on cable news, but he's also a powerful presence on the internet via Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms) and Heather Cox Richardson, an important US historian who uses history to inform current events.  

A couple of points they make that jumped out at me. 

1. Taking Over World Money Supply. She talks about how Trump is 78 years old and not in great health, and could leave Vance in charge.  Vance is Thiel's pawn.  Peter Thiel is a 'tech bro' interested in crypto currency and this could lead to taking control over the world money supply.  

2. Whenever there is a new technology, and she lists mining, cotton, diamonds, copper, oil as examples, there are no regulations at first and a few people get very rich and powerful to the detriment of everyone else.

(#1 and #2 are intertwined starting around 5:45 to about 7:40)

3.  Trump's succeeded because his actions are so outrageous that people can't conceive he's being real.   They want to take away abortion, get rid of medicare, etc. people don't believe it.  They're planning that.  We need to take it seriously. (about 8:30 min)

4.  The Big Lie. If your roommate steals $20 you can get mad at him.  But if he schemes to take over your family's bank account, retirement funds, your family's  house, it's beyond comprehension.  Don't have emotional groundwork to get mad because it's too outrageous to imagine.  That's what Trump has done.  Of course the Supreme Court wouldn't give the President to commit crimes in office, but they did.(about 10:50)

5. History- Turning on a Dime - History taught me that American society can turn on a dime.  I've been waiting and it didn't happen.  But since Biden pulled out of race, the US has turned on a dime.  (about 17 min)

There's a lot in between that links each of the points together worth listening to.  

This video has two very bright people dissecting what's happening and where we seem to be going.  

At the end they push two of their books probably worth reading:

Richardson:  Democracy Awakening coming out in paperback in October

Cohen:  Shameless  How Republicans used long term plans to change the US, which we can see most clearly with the Supreme Court.  

Erkek or Adam?

Bear with me for a bit. (Or don't and just scroll down to JUMP TO HERE below.) I've been learning Turkish on Duolingo for a while.  It's good for vocabulary and some grammar.  There is a listening component that is helpful.  But this is language learning like I had in Jr. high and high school.  It's aimed at teaching through vocabulary and grammar.  For Peace Corps training (and later with the Confucius Institute) we were taught by memorizing dialogues.  

This latter method was much more effective for learning to speak.  We just repeated the dialogues, over and over and over, mimicking native speakers until the sentences were imbedded in our heads. This is how children learn a language.  By mimicking what they hear.  And only later when they instinctively know the grammar, do they learn the rules that explain why they say it the way they do.  There were also substitution drills - where the instructor would say a word and we had to use it to replace a word in the sentence.  For example:

I am going to the store.  

"office"

I am going to the office.  

When I arrived in my town, I had lots of useful sentences that I would roll off my tongue without thinking.  But when I learn the Duolingo way, with grammar and vocabulary memorization, I struggle to remember the rules so I can put a sentence together correctly. 

Today as I was doing my Turkish lesson, I was wondering why they sometimes used the word üzürinde to mean 'on' and sometimes used üstünde.  Googling got me to a Quora page which had several explanations.  Basically they are used interchangeably said one responder.  Another agreed that practically, that is the case, though üstünde means more 'above'.

JUMP TO HERE

Below the explanation of two Turkish words that mean 'on' there was another explanation of two words for 'man' - erkek and adam.  These are also words I've learned and never asked why one or the other. One is longer and uses a story.  One is short and to the point.  

Emre Sermutlu

Knows TurkishAuthor has 613 answers and 1.6M answer views5y

Related

What is the difference between adam and erkek in the Turkish language?

Let me put it that way, only a small percentage of all “erkek”s are also “adam”s.

Here's a famous story about the concept of “adam”ness. Once there was a boy who was good for nothing. His father, after seeing his attempts for reforming the youth frustrated, said finally “You will never be adam! “

(This is the part that is difficult to translate. The father means “upright man” when he says “adam”, but the boy in his ignorance perceives it as “great man”)

Later, the boy leaves his village and after a lot of adventures, becomes the grand vizier of the Sultan. One day he remembers his father (whom he never visited) and his harsh words. He sends a group of soldiers to fetch him, without ever telling them he is his father. So they bring the old guy in terrible condition, as if he is a criminal.

In the palace, the son proclaims “You said I would never be a man. As you can see, I am the vizier now! “

Which the father responds:

“But I never said you will not be vizier. I said you will not be “adam”. Seeing how you treat your father, I can say you still haven't become an adam!”

Serkan Narin

Bachelor in Language, Marmara University (Graduated 2010)3y

Related

What is the difference between adam and erkek in the Turkish language?

Erkek is how you are called when you are born with a dick while adam is how you are called when you are not a dick. 

The second answer cleverly gets right to the point.  Though I'm sure having read the first explanation, helped me appreciate the second.  

And I immediately thought that this would be a great way to differentiate between Kamala Harris' newly announced vice presidential running mate and Trump's.  

Now I need someone who knows Yiddish and Turkish to tell me whether my guess that adam is akin to mensch. 

This Sure Was A Convenient Assassination Attempt

I started to write first impressions of the shots toward the ex-president Saturday night, but I decided to wait til there was more information.  

As I wait, there really isn't a lot more so far.  Days later.  

It's possible that some lone Republican 20 year old decided to take his AR15 out to where Trump was speaking, climb up on a roof about 150 yards from the ex-president, with a bunch of people seeing him and pointing him out to police and the Secret Service.  It's possible that at the very last minute a local cop saw him and ducked and then the kid shot wildly at the ex-president before a Secret Service sniper shot him.  

It's possible he heard this InfoWars with Ivan Raiklin and Alex Jones discussing how assassinating Trump would absolutely win the election for the Republicans.  Maybe he heard them last February, or more recently, and when Trump came to speak an hour from his home, he decided to act.  

But I think about the Nazis and the Reichstag fire in 1933.  It never was clear that the Nazis arranged for the fire themselves though there are historians who believe they did.  Whether they did or not, they used it to their advantage.  

"[It] induced President Paul von Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree suspending civil liberties, and pursue a "ruthless confrontation" with the Communists.[1] This made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany." [from Reichstag Fire link above]

A Trump attempted assassination that he survives pretty much unscathed the weekend before the NRC convention.  Two days before Judge Cannon dismisses all charges against Trump in the confidential documents case on what most legal experts are saying are crazy grounds.  

This is not nearly as far-fetched as the pedo pizza parlor.  

Really, how did the Secret Service around Trump know the sniper was shot dead?  How did they know there wasn't another sniper?  They didn't, yet let Trump stay there on the stage long enough for him to do his fist pumps.  He should have been hustled away to cover.  Unless. . .

I'm not saying this is what happened.  But I'm leaving it there until it's looked into more thoroughly.  It is as plausible as the lone 20 year old Republican getting through security long enough to shoot at his party's presidential candidate.  

The reporting has been terrible.  The Anchorage Daily News ran a national story today which still alleged that Crooks had donated $15 to a progressive get-out-the-vote campaign in January 2021.  How many 17 year olds make political contributions?  How many Republican 17 year olds make political contributions to progressive campaigns?  This story was already debunked by Sunday if not sooner, when people found another man named Thomas Crooks, a 60 something Democrat, who lives in Pittsburgh and is credited with the contribution.  But, sure.  I don't know that for certain.  

I don't doubt that the Biden team can get a lot more votes than the Trump team.  I am concerned that the party that tried to overturn the election in 2021, will do everything it can to suppress voting, fiddle with voting machine counts, and everything they can think of to throw the election for Trump.  

A Beto O'Rourke interview laid out the many ways the Republicans in Texas have blocked Democrats from voting - from purging the rolls, to putting one polling place in Black neighborhoods, forcing voters to wait in 8 hour lines to vote.  

How one has to pass a test and get certified to register voters, and you have to do that in every county separately.  They're doing this, he said, because they know whites are no longer the majority in Texas and it's only a matter of time.  And if Trump wins this election, they will be able to put off the inevitable forever.  

There are plenty of ways to get involved.  One of the easiest is postcardstovoters.org  This technique - writing post cards to left leaning citizens who don't regularly vote - has gotten lots of people to vote in recent elections.  

Let's Get Real About Replacing Biden

I talked to someone who is strongly anti-Trump the other day and he was also adamant about replacing Biden as the Democratic candidate.  

My gut says this is exactly what the Trump camp (including Putin and other foreign disrupters, Federalist Society, Heritage Society, etc.) would like to see.  

By focusing on one speck in Biden's career and presidency, Trump's team has gotten the attention off Trump's conviction, looming court cases, damning mentions in the newly released Epstein court documents, history of fraud and bankruptcies) and is moving the spotlight back to Biden's age and competence.  Really?!!!  And causing infighting among Democrats.  

But I want to emphasize that all this is happening - not in isolation - but in a dynamic system of vested interests, laws, organizations, individuals, agencies, money.  And this is not limited to the US. Players from around the world are involved.  

To capture some of that I've created a grossly simplified graphic of some of the factors that are in play.  

Replacing Biden would set up the Democrats for a series new crises down the line.  Once it happened, they'd then have to choose a replacement.  The natural candidate is Vice President Kamala Harris.  But people will say that a Black, South Asian/American, woman would destroy Democratic chances.  Others will say, not picking her would cause the most consistent supporters of Democrats - Black Americans - to sit out the election. One of the most articulate people in Biden's cabinet is Pete Buttigieg, but the naysayers will say a gay candidate would lose the Independents.  [None of these alarms is necessarily true.]

Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation is already planning court challenges to putting any replacement on state ballots.  If successful in a couple of blue and purple states, Trump would win.  

There will be new scrutiny on the new candidate (and eventually vice presidential candidate).  It used to be the opposition would need to find some past scandal, but nowadays they just make it up.  Biden's worst scandals - his age, his son - have already been disclosed.

Are Putin bots and FSB (the main successor of the KGB) agents working hard to elect Trump by throwing Democrats into disarray?  You better believe it.  They played a role in various European elections   including Brexit.   

No one should be surprised at attempts to impact foreign elections.  This is standard operating procedure for the big powers intelligence agencies.   The CIA did (probably still is) that regularly.  

Putin's original career was in the KGB.  He's fully aware of this and how to do it.  And he's been playing this game a long time.  

It's true, though.  Biden looked and sounded terrible.  I've seen a Spout that said the CNN lighting and sound technicians did Biden no favors, but I haven't seen any evidence.  

And at 81 he has to be slowing down somewhat.  The presidency has aged every president faster.  But Biden has half a century of experience in Washington - as Senator, as Vice President, and as President.  He has relationships with many, many members of Congress and world leaders and his experience has led to wisdom about how to get things done, as shown by his astounding record of accomplishments.  with a slim margin of votes in Congress.

What if he works just four hours a day?  He would still be putting in more work than Trump apparently did while president.  

While the president is the figure head of the administration, we are actually electing a team.  Biden has put together a powerful team.  

The Brookings Institute created a graph to represent the turnovers in the Trump's "A Team" and cabinet" compared to past presidents.  They did the same for the Biden administration.  

This election is about Democracy versus Fascism.  A slowing Biden would still be a better president than a vigorous Trump.  And we have one debate - a speck in time - that raises questions about whether Biden is getting too old, versus 3+ years of competent performance and post debate appearances that show a man with his full mental capabilities.  This man, who has overcome a stutter as a kid, has never been a great public speaker.  But he knows the issues and his claims are based on facts.  

It's a terrible indictment of - I'm not sure what, probably a little of everything - US education, capitalist values of greed, including corporate news media, political manipulation (gerrymandering, voter suppression), racism, sexism, religion, that Trump is even a contender.  That the media and Republicans are calling for him to step down.  

Biden has an array of great debaters in his party who can get out there and campaign for him if he needs to shorten his daily schedule.  

My friend who told me the other day that Biden should resign, said that if Biden runs and wins, he'll come and tell me he was wrong.  

But he didn't say what he'd do if Biden steps down and his replacement loses.  Because I think losing in that scenario that is the more likely outcome.  Because changing candidates mid campaign will lead to lots of dissension, disruption, and lost momentum. 

Of course I could be wrong.  Biden could quickly slide into dementia.  Or a dynamic Kamala Harris could ride to victory.  Anything could happen in the months ahead.  But right now, as I see it, keeping Biden is the wisest path to not only stopping Trump, but to turning this country around and reversing much of the damage the first Trump administration has cause. 

This is going to be one of the nastiest elections ever, with misinformation drowning out truth, and devious schemes to disenfranchise voters and throw elections.  Double and triple check any claims made by anybody.  The LIE machine has been put on high.

Why Biden Is Still By Far The Best Candidate For President [Updated]

 He looked and sounded older than he did four years ago.  

So what?  

He's a decent man.  He's had a good life with some terrible tragedies, so he understands and empathizes with others.

He's been in the Senate for 36 years and was Vice President for eight years.  He's made solid relationships with many, many important players in our government, among business leaders, labor leaders, and leaders of other nations. He knows how Washington works.  He knows how the world works.  And as President with a slim majority in the Senate, and for two years in the House, then a minority for two years, he's still accomplished an enormous amount, starting with the Infrastructure bill that is transforming the backbone of the US - the roads, the bridges, ports, airports and much more.  

His opponents are a felon facing lots more charges.  A misogynist, racist, adulterer, narcissist, would be dictator, who lauds our worst enemies and can't say two sentences without lying three or four times.  [UPDATE 6/29/24:  Some of you may have noted that this paragraph began "His opponents" plural, but I only wrote about one.  I meant to add that he was also fighting against the millionaires and billionaires who managed to stack the Supreme Court, and also the media who are asking Biden to drop out of the race, but aren't asking Trump to do that.  Below I've added a video that Anonymous linked to in the comments which shows a debate moderator who takes no prisoners when candidates don't answer his questions.]

It's an easy choice.

Is Biden old?  

He's certainly among the oldest US citizens.  Old age, if you have your marbles in tact, and he does, means you have the wisdom that accrues to those who have lived a long life with a curious mind.  

His opponent is almost as old, but his mind is diseased with narcissism and a massive inferiority complex that he masks with outrageous false boasts about his greatness.  The only skills he gained through life involved blaming others, avoiding legal consequences,  and generally being a despicable person.  

I'm not worried about Biden's age, 

because he cares about the US, all its citizens and non-citizens, and al the people around the world, rich and poor alike. 

And because he's not president in order to gain power and wealth.

And because he's got a vice president who would make a spectacular president.  

And because he knows that, and if he gets to the point where he can't perform his duties, he'll gracefully set down and let Kamala Harris take over.  

In the meantime, he's captain of a ship that is sailing well, despite the stormy seas the climate denying Republicans have roiled up.

You want to get a glimpse of what things would be like under a second Trump presidency?  

Read the Project 2025 - the blueprint for the next Trump presidency that dismantles the US democracy

Watch Hitler and the Nazis: Evil on Trial - on Netflix

[UPDATED 6/29/2024:  And here's the video Anonymous (first comment below) linked to.  This makes it easier to see and is a great lesson for the rest of the media when interviewing candidates.  Thanks, Anon.

Can someone tell me why Kyle Clark is not the moderator in the President Biden and Trump debate?? #trumpisunfitforoffice #Debate2024 pic.twitter.com/mNCxHcnb4D

— Sunsun Girly (@sunsungirly) June 25, 2024

Two Related Short Videos -

The first has excerpts of James Baldwin speaking at Cambridge University in 1965 about growing up in a country that has no place for him.  

The second is about an essay called the Theory of Stupidity [Theorie der Dummheit] written by Dietrich Bonhoeffer from a German prison 20 years earlier.  

They both seem closely related.  They're both short and I strongly recommend you take the time.  And then think about what they mean to you and what, if anything, you might do in response to their words.  

Baldwin is articulate, logical, and the truths he speaks are damning.

Bonhöffer's essay comes from his experiences as Hitler gained power in Germany.  I don't like the word 'stupidity' because in English it tends to have the meaning of not smart, incapable of clear thinking.  We say it about trivial mistakes a lot.  

Bonhöffer's word in German was Dummheit.  which he defined as a moral failing rather than a lack of intelligence.  

I'd note he wrote this in prison, so I'm not sure what access he had to others' thoughts - certainly no library or google - but possibly he had access to other thinkers in prison.  

As I look at Trump's cult, I think the word ignorant is better than stupid.  I'd define ignorant as unaware of key facts and ways of thinking.  Some have been brainwashed by people who claim to be Christians, but clearly are not following the spirit of Christ.  

But overall, I suspect most cult members recognize the lies of their leader, but value the power of their white skin over everything else and see Trump for the fellow racist he is.  And that's why they support him.  And others who might not be such racists fear being ostracized from their Trumpist families, churches, and friends if they openly disagree.  But they can disagree in the voting booth with nobody knowing.  

[Steve, how do you explain the Blacks who are for him?  They get a special reception from powerful white men for stepping up and being 'proof' that the movement isn't racist. This is a recognition they don't get from other Blacks and probably for good reason.  And then there's Stephen Miller, Trump's super anti-immigrant advisor who is the grandson of Jews who fled Russian pogroms and Hitler.]

Focus on Baldwin and Bonhöffer.  Here's Bonhöffer's complete essay.

Numbers Bite Reporter

In a story about dogs biting mail carriers on June 7, the Anchorage Daily News  reported that Los Angeles had the most dog bites and more than implied that Anchorage, in comparison, really didn't have a dog biting problem.

"It also released a national ranking of cities where the most mailmen have been bitten by dogs. On top: Los Angeles, with 65 dog bites recorded in 2023.

Anchorage isn’t anywhere near that number. Each year, six or so postal carriers are on the receiving end of dog attacks here, said safety manager Peter Neagle, a 40-year veteran of the service."

 Whoa!!!!   Let's look at that a bit more carefully.  

[Mixed Media Dragon, Madison Griffin,
 Anchorage Museum,
South High School Anchorage]

LA, with 13,000,000 people had 65 dog bites.

Anchorage with 380,000 people had 6 dog bites.  

LA has 34 times more people than Anchorage.   (13 million/380k = 34.2)

So, if Anchorage had LA's population, Anchorage would have had 205 (34.2 X 6) dog bites.

The numbers we want, if we're going to accurately compare LA to Anchorage, are the number of dog bites per capita.  

Anchorage has .000016 dog bites of mail carriers per capita.  (6/380,000 =.000016)

Los Angeles has .000005 dog bites of mail carriers per capita. (13,000,000/65=.000005)

In either case, it's a relatively small number.  If we look at number of dog bites per 100,000 population we get:

Anchorage: 1.58 dog bites per 100,000 people

LA: 0.5 dog bites per 100,000

But relative to actual population, Anchorage's problem is 34.2 times worse than LA's.  

Dismissing Anchorage's number because it is less than Los Angeles' number is flat out wrong.  

This doesn't mean that if Anchorage had 13 million people it would have 205 dog bites.  Perhaps people in large cities have fewer dogs per capita, or smaller dogs.  Or mail carriers delivering to high rise apartments and condos leave the mail downstairs and have less contact with dogs.  

But to suggest Anchorage numbers are good because our overall number of dog bites is lower than LA's overall number is just wrong.  

Of course, this applies to other stats as well, like murders, suicides, rapes, missing women, etc.  

[If you find errors in my math, let me know.  It's a very rusty skill that I don't use every day.  But even if I'm off a bit, the point will still be valid.]

Why Making Real Time Sense Of Israeli-Gaza War Is So Difficult - Part IV Hamas

This is Part IV on this topic.  Previously:

Preview:  GUERRILLA WARFARE - A brief discussion of guerrilla warfare, then you can watch the classic film on the Algerian war for independence from France:  The Battle Of Algiers.

Part I of this series is here.  It identifies and briefly discusses the following topics I think important to be aware of when confronting the Israeli-Gaza war.

1.  PROPAGANDA, MISINFORMATION, OBLITERATION OF TRUTH

2.  THE PROBLEM OF NETANYAHU 

3A.  HISTORIC ANTI-SEMITISM

3B.  THE HOLOCAUST

Part II is here.  It looks at:

4. GENOCIDE

5. ZIONISM

6. ISRAELI MISTREATMENT OF PALESTINIANS 

7.  TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL - PALESTINIAN AND ISRAELI EDUCATION

Part III is here.  It covers

8.  RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS AND ISRAEL'S RIGHT WING TILT 

9.  IGNORANCE

10.  GUERRILLA WARFARE]

11.  FACTORING IN WHAT'S HAPPENING BEHIND THE SCENES

Part IV, in the end focuses on Hamas, mostly on the 1988 Hamas Charter and the 2017 update.   It has been the most difficult one for me.  I had never read the Hamas Charter of 1988 or the revised charter of 2017.  

And to be clear, I'm just scratching the surface.  My point in these posts is NOT to teach anyone about this subject, but rather to reinforce the idea that few people know the many issues, the complicated histories, the religious nuances, the political machinations to have a strong basis to form anything but the most tentative opinions on the Israel-Gaza war.  Including me.  

But what I've found preparing this post is that Hamas appears to be an extreme Islamic organization not that different from ISIS and the other organizations that want to set up states that adopt laws directly from their interpretation of Islam.  

Doing this research in English is a handicap though. It's relatively easy to find information online about Hamas from Western sources, but finding English reports from Arab or Islamic sources takes a little more work.  Then comparing translations to make sure that what you have is relatively authentic takes longer.  

11.  HAMAS

I've been stuck on this one for several weeks.  I looked up Hamas.  I couldn't find a Hamas website.  I found other sites that posted Hamas' 1988 Charter.  Most are from Western institutions.  Here are two:

Yale University Law Library

Wilson Center 

But I did find one by what ostensibly is an Muslim/Palestinian site:

The Journal of Islamic Studies (I got access to this journal through JSTOR, "a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources founded in 1994" that is not directly open to the public.  I have access through the University of Alaska Anchorage library.  If you don't have a university access, you might also try your local library to get access through them.)

The first 'Topic' in Part I of this series of posts is called  Propaganda, Misinformation, and Disinformation.  It's there to remind readers that there are nations out there trying to  misinform the world, even to obliterate any sense of verifiable truth, to create opportunities to change the world to their advantage.  

So, with that in mind, I wanted to make sure what I was reading was real, that it was not propaganda intended to make Hamas look bad.  I've reviewed the various versions of the key document - The Hamas Charter.  They basically say the same things, though different translations use different wording.  For example, it's called a Covenant in one translation, a Charter in another, and a Manifesto in yet another.

I went to all that trouble because I found the Charter (the Islamic Studies version's word) to be alarming.  It's in the same mold as ISIS documents - an Islamic extremist document that weaves Islamic justifications for everything it says. Its tone is:  "We know the Truth and anyone who differs from us is wrong." [See, for example Article 11.]  It calls for the Israeli government to be destroyed and for an Islamic state of Palestine to take over all the land that is now Israeli, Gaza, and the West Bank.  

So I wanted an Arab, Muslim, or Palestinian version to compare to the Western translations.  As I said, while the translators used different words and phrasing, the basic tone and content is the pretty close in the three I looked at.  

It's the kind of document that gives Right Wing Israelis like Netanyahu easy justification for their need to wipe out Hamas.  Because Hamas' goal is to wipe out Israel.  That doesn't give Netanyahu justification to kill tens of thousands of Palestinians who are not Hamas supporters.  But I suspect that Netanyahu feels Palestinians are all Hamas or Hamas sympathizers.  And, again, the Charter gives ammunition for that sort of interpretation.  It tells us that every Muslim is obligated to join the fight to throw out the Jews - including women and children.  [Note:  the 2017 revision distinguishes between Jews and Zionists.]

"When an enemy occupies some of the Muslim lands,   Jihad becomes obligatory for every Muslim. In the struggle against the Jewish occupation of Palestine  the banner of jihad must be raised. (Article 15) (emphasis added)

The Muslim woman has a role in the battle for the liberation which is no less than the role of the man, for she is the factory of men. (Article 17)"

And, presumably, because the Charter seems to justify Netanyahu's stated goal to wipe out Hamas, there's even an Israeli Missions Around the World website which has a page of quotes from the Hamas charter.  

These would appear to be parts of the Charter that Israel would like to share with the world to make their point that Hamas is a terrorist organization whose goal is to wipe out Israel and Israeli Jews and that Hamas will never give up that goal. And thus Israel feels justified in taking extreme action against Hamas.  

Presumably, these are some of the worst things Israel thinks are in the Charter.  But are they accurately portraying the charter?  I'm going to offer you, in the charts below, on the left the Israeli wording and on the right the wording from the Institute of Palestinian Studies.  In some cases I added a little more from the Palestinian translation in [brackets] to give the citation a bit more context.  Again, you can read the whole Charter at the links above to the Yale Library version, The Wilson Center version, and the Islamic Studies Journal. (You'll probably need to get access through a library for the last one.)

I'd note that a revised Charter was publicized in 2017 which I'll address below.  But first let me offer you what Israel says is most offensive along with the same sections as translated by the Institute of Palestinian Studies in the Islamic Studies Journal.  

Israeli Translation

Institute for Palestinian Studies Translation

Goals of the HAMAS: "The Islamic Resistance  Movement is a distinguished Palestinian  movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and  whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the  banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine."  (Article 6)

Differentiation and Independence Article 6: The Islamic Resistance Movement is an  outstanding type of Palestinian movement.  It gives its loyalty to Allah, adopts Islam as a system of life, and works toward raising the  banner of Allah on every inch of Palestine.  [Therefore, in the shadow of Islam, it is  possible for all followers of different religions  to live in peace and with security over their  person, property, and rights. In the absence  of Islam, discord takes form, oppression and destruction are rampant, and wars and battles  take place.]

On the Palestinian side I've added a little more of what they wrote in [brackets] to give more context. 

Israeli Translation	Institute for Palestinian Studies Translation
On the destruction of Israel: "Israel will exist and will continue  to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."  (Preamble)	Israel will be established and will stay  established until Islam nullifies it as  it nullified what was before it. The  Martyred Imam Hasan  al-Banna  (may Allah have mercy upon him)

Israeli Translation	Institute for Palestinian Studies Translation
"Ranks will close, fighters joining other  fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'. This  cry will reach the heavens and will  go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished  and Allah's victory comes about."  (Article 33)	The ranks join the ranks and the Mujahids join Mujahids and other groups which come forth  from everywhere in the Muslim world answering the call of obligation, repeating “come to Jihad” " -a call bursting forth into the heights of the Heavens, reverberating until the liberation is completed and  the invaders are rolled back and the victory of Allah  descends.

Israeli Translation

Institute for Palestinian Studies Translation

The exclusive Moslem nature of the  area: "The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day.  No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it." (Article 11)

The Islamic Resistance Movement [firmly] believes  that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Trust]  upon all Muslim generations till the day of Resurrection.   It is not right to give it up nor any part of it.  (Article 11)   [Neither a single Arab state nor all the Arab states,  neither a King  nor a leader, nor all the kings or leaders, nor any organization -Palestinian or Arab-  have such authority because the land of Palestine is an  Islamic Trust upon Muslim generations until the day of Resurrection. And who has the true spokesmanship for all the Muslim generations till the day of Resurrection?]

Israeli Translation	Institute for Palestinian Studies Translation
The call to jihad: "The day the enemies  usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad  becomes the individual duty of every  Moslem. In the face of the Jews'  usurpation, it is compulsory that the  banner of Jihad be raised." (Article 15)	Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is Obligatory  When an enemy occupies some of  the Muslim  lands, Jihad becomes obligatory for every Muslim.  In the struggle against the Jewish occupation of  Palestine, the banner of Jihad must be raised.

Israeli Translation

Institute for Palestinian Studies Translation

Rejection of a negotiated peace settlement: "[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful  solutions and international conferences are  in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic  Resistance Movement... Those conferences  are no more than a means to appoint the  infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam...  There is no solution for the Palestinian  problem except by Jihad. Initiatives,  proposals and international conferences  are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility." (Article 13)

Initiatives, Peace Solutions and International Conferences The initiatives conflict, what are called "Peaceful  Solutions" and "International Conferences" to solve  the Palestinian problem.As far as the ideology  of the Islamic Resistance Movement is  concerned, giving up any part of Palestine is like giving up part of its religion.There is no  solution to the Palestinian Problem  except by Jihad. The initiatives, options, and  international conferences are a waste of time  and a kind of child's play.  The Palestinian people are nobler than to be  fiddling with their future, rights, and destiny.

Israeli Translation

Institute for Palestinian Studies Translation

Condemnation of the Israel-Egypt  Peace Treaty: "Egypt was, to a great extent, removed  from the circle of struggle [against Zionism]  through the treacherous Camp David  Agreement. The Zionists are trying to  draw other Arab countries into similar  agreements in order to bring them  outside the circle of struggle. ... Leaving the circle of struggle against  Zionism is high treason, and cursed be  he who perpetrates such an act."  (Article 32)

[World Zionism and Imperialist powers try with  audacious maneuvers and well formulated plans  to extract the Arab nations one by one from the  struggle with Zionism, so in the end they can deal  singularly with the Palestinian people.] It already  has removed Egypt faraway from the circle of  struggle with the treason of “Camp David,"  and it is trying to extract other countries by  using similar treaties in order to remove them from  the circle of struggle.”

Again, above, for the IPS translation I've added with [brackets] the previous sentence that the Israeli translation left out.  

I did the same with the quote below.  

Israeli Translation

Institute for Palestinian Studies Translation

Anti-Semitic incitement: The Day of Judgment will not come about  until Moslems fight Jews and kill them.  Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks  and trees, and the rocks and trees will  cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew  hiding behind me, come and kill him."  (Article 7)

[Even though the Islamic Resistance Movement  looks forward to fulfill the promise of Allah no matter  how long it takes because the Prophet of Allah  (saas) says:] The Last Hour would not come until the  Muslims fight against the Jews and the Muslims  would kill them, and until the Jews would hide  themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone  or a tree would say. Muslim or Servant of Allah  there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him;  but the tree of Gharqad would not say it, for it is  the tree of the Jews (Bukhari and Muslim).3

For more on the tree of Gharqad.

The Israeli site has a few more quotes and then a summary of the Israeli issues with the charter.  You can see that here.

The language of the 1988 Hamas Charter basically calls for an Islamic state - ISIS like - to take control of all the area now occupied by Israel and the Palestinian territories.  It calls for getting rid of all the Jews.  It says attempts at Peace Treaties are useless.  Little, perhaps none, of the Charter is reasonable for Israel to accept as written.  It's essentially a declaration of war.  No country in the world, that has the power to oppose it,  would accept a close neighbor who says similar things about them.  

A revised Covenant was published in 2017. Hamas says that it is merely the consolidation of various changes made by leaders over the years, but which hadn't been codified in a single statement.  

I've read several versions and explanations of the differences between it and the original 1988 Charter.  The Guardian's overview, which came out in 2017, is perhaps the most succinct and direct (though not necessarily the most accurate.)

"Hamas has unveiled a new political programme softening its stance on Israel by accepting the idea of a Palestinian state in territories occupied by Israel in the six-day war of 1967.

The new document states the Islamist movement is not seeking war with the Jewish people – only with Zionism that drives the occupation of Palestine.

The new document also insists that Hamas is a not a revolutionary force that seeks to intervene in other countries, a commitment that is likely to be welcomed by other states such as Egypt."

Here are some other analyses of the changes: (let me warn you - these are not easy reading)

Institute for Palestine Studies' overview of the changes

Rand - "Hamas' Strategic Rebranding"

The Wilson Center 

My main takeaway after reading the Hamas Charter is to sadly shake my head about those who have championed Hamas.  You can only support Hamas if all you know about them is that they are fighting to stop Israeli atrocities.  But if you read their Charter, even with the 2017 modifications, you know this is a radical Islamist extremist group that only recognizes their version of Islamic doctrine.  

The idea that Hamas is fighting to give Palestinian culture its land and culture back seems to me to be terribly wrong.  There never was a strict Islamic state ruled by Islamic law in Palestine.  Not under the British and not under the 400 years of control by the Ottoman Empire. 

There are so many trails to follow to understand this.  For instance, how did Hamas come to power in Gaza?  Here are two links to start your research on that question:

Wikipedia's History of Hamas 

Al Jazeera - History Illustrated, The Story of Hamas And Its Fight For Palestine 

Those two citations are not meant to be exhaustive or even adequate.  They just give a sense of the history that led to Hamas' official formation until now.  Just expanding one's awareness of their ignorance.

Everyone knows about the Hamas attack on October 7 so I don't have to discuss that, except to put it into the context of Topic #10 GUERRILLA warfare and terrorism.  The point is often for the militarily weaker side to commit acts of terror to provoke the more powerful enemy to make horrible counter attacks that will make them look bad in public opinion.  Hamas was wildly successful in this objective.  With help, undoubtedly, from Russian and Iranian misinformation campaigns.  

The Israeli response has been a public relations nightmare.  But my sense is that the far right in Israel simply assumes that an anti-Semitic world will disapprove of anything they do.  That logic lets them do terrible things.  

But I'd remind them that much of the world saw Israelis as heroes after the 1967 war and when they made the Entebbe rescue.  

12.  WHY GETTING JEWS OUT OF ISRAEL SEEMS EASIER THAN NATIVE AMERICANS GETTING EUROPEANS OUT OF THE UNITED STATES?

Topic#12 (it was #13) was at the end of the last post as a heading that I postponed to this post - it made more sense after discussing Hamas.  But as I work on this, I don't think the title clearly expresses the issue I'm wrestling with.  And as I try to flesh it out, it seems it really should be part of Part V.  

It will deal, not so much with options from here, but with the question of how should those options be evaluated.  What criteria should be used?  What factors should be considered?

And to be clear, my ignorance of all of this, while perhaps slightly lower than the ignorance of most people, is still vast.  I'll be raising questions more than supplying answers.  

[It's Saturday March 2, 2024.  I just want to let you know I'm still working on PART IV.]