So here I am in beautiful Cape Town, the legislative capital of South Africa, on the very day that Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that The United States was expelling the ambassador from this country.
I had to vote no because anything good that happens to come out at the end is likely to be in spite of, and outside of his actual control of, everything he did in his first term and is doing now.
No, because Trump has already corroded our society so badly that any turnaround could not possibly happen in four years. And is enabling the next generation (Vance, Hegseth, et al.) to be so only with deep ideological underpinnings (rather than just plain narcissism).
Should the blinking question be altered slightly to “Is it possible that everybody might blink simultaneously?” to which I would say it would be nearly impossible because about 1/3 of the planet would be sleeping and incapable of blinking.
Don't care for prefactual thought experiments eh? Assuming you go with blinking being a largely involuntary reflex, its unlikely (apart from time differences) that the world would or could blink at the same time. The ubiquity of smartphones and other digital devices --- and a concurrently dramatic increase in screen time --- also militates against widespread concurrent blinking. Having now beaten this into the ground, we can move on to yawning which could, in theory, become an almost simultaneous global phenomenon.
I had to vote no because all those conditions listed could be true….and yet we would be in a dictatorship with no freedom of speech, no elections, etc.
To be fair (if that word can be used other than pedantically here), Apartheid and continuing inequality owes as much originally to the Dutch and the Brits (if not more) as it does to the Germans. The Nazis and their sympathizers were just more obvious about Aryanism and their abhorrent ideology in general; the Dutch and the Brits tended to obscure their racism with financial and economic considerations.
The poll question doesn’t seem to acknowledge the problem that, along with the material benefits mentioned, the state of civil liberties is the same or significantly worse. Assuming that is the case, I have to vote no.
I voted NO because the same thing could be said about multiple Apartheid governments in South Africa before 1994. They built a somewhat successful economy on the backs of those who were forced into settlements, shanty towns, and "tribal homelands." And South Africa is still trying to fix the wrongs caused by that "apartness" solution. Whatever happens in the U.S. in the next 3 3/4 years, we will bear the scars for much longer...
I can't answer that. I won't answer that. Because to say "no" feels petty and churlish and delusional, but to say "yes," feels like a betrayal of the victims of the very real harm he has already inflicted in two months. It also feels like we are selling our liberty. As if the assaults on our ecological balance and debasement of human rights can be overlooked as long as the economy is ok and streets are fairly safe.
Gorgeous photo, your granddaughter sounds delightful, and this trip has all the makings of an interesting and incredible adventure! Enjoy! (Had to look up "ontological"!)
Of course what was absolutely unforgivable in the reptilian brains of Rubio and his fellow lizard people in the administration, was that Rasool made his remarks as part of a South African think tank's webinar in which he spoke about actions taken by the Trump administration in the context of a United States where white people soon would no longer be in the majority. Anything to do with education or academia and, heaven forfend facts, simply can't be tolerated. Might give people "ideas."
Ambassador Rasool did not call Trump a white supremicist. Look at the text of the ambassador’s remarks. It’s clear to me as a retired diplomat that Rubio was told by Musk and Trump to expel this highly capable diplomat. Disgraceful.
And what's worse (if anything can actually be worse...), is the usual pretext thrown out there almost deliberately to insult our intelligence. At least, the intelligence of a good many of us.
I had to vote no because anything good that happens to come out at the end is likely to be in spite of, and outside of his actual control of, everything he did in his first term and is doing now.
No, because Trump has already corroded our society so badly that any turnaround could not possibly happen in four years. And is enabling the next generation (Vance, Hegseth, et al.) to be so only with deep ideological underpinnings (rather than just plain narcissism).
Agree! Also, just: no.
I'll need further proof that Vance has ideological underpinnings and isn't just a smarter breed of opportunist.
Should the blinking question be altered slightly to “Is it possible that everybody might blink simultaneously?” to which I would say it would be nearly impossible because about 1/3 of the planet would be sleeping and incapable of blinking.
Don't care for prefactual thought experiments eh? Assuming you go with blinking being a largely involuntary reflex, its unlikely (apart from time differences) that the world would or could blink at the same time. The ubiquity of smartphones and other digital devices --- and a concurrently dramatic increase in screen time --- also militates against widespread concurrent blinking. Having now beaten this into the ground, we can move on to yawning which could, in theory, become an almost simultaneous global phenomenon.
We could move on to yawning: sort of winkin', blinkin', and nod, eh?
Wow, standing golf clap.
I had to vote no because all those conditions listed could be true….and yet we would be in a dictatorship with no freedom of speech, no elections, etc.
To be fair (if that word can be used other than pedantically here), Apartheid and continuing inequality owes as much originally to the Dutch and the Brits (if not more) as it does to the Germans. The Nazis and their sympathizers were just more obvious about Aryanism and their abhorrent ideology in general; the Dutch and the Brits tended to obscure their racism with financial and economic considerations.
But c'mon, no nation in the modern world has beat the Germans at genocide. (And I'm 5/8 German.)
True that, but the Dutch and the Brits had a significant chronological lead in terms of institutionalized brutality over Germany in South Africa.
The poll question doesn’t seem to acknowledge the problem that, along with the material benefits mentioned, the state of civil liberties is the same or significantly worse. Assuming that is the case, I have to vote no.
I voted NO because the same thing could be said about multiple Apartheid governments in South Africa before 1994. They built a somewhat successful economy on the backs of those who were forced into settlements, shanty towns, and "tribal homelands." And South Africa is still trying to fix the wrongs caused by that "apartness" solution. Whatever happens in the U.S. in the next 3 3/4 years, we will bear the scars for much longer...
I can't answer that. I won't answer that. Because to say "no" feels petty and churlish and delusional, but to say "yes," feels like a betrayal of the victims of the very real harm he has already inflicted in two months. It also feels like we are selling our liberty. As if the assaults on our ecological balance and debasement of human rights can be overlooked as long as the economy is ok and streets are fairly safe.
I said "no", not because I am petty and churlish but because I am not delusional.
Gorgeous photo, your granddaughter sounds delightful, and this trip has all the makings of an interesting and incredible adventure! Enjoy! (Had to look up "ontological"!)
Of course what was absolutely unforgivable in the reptilian brains of Rubio and his fellow lizard people in the administration, was that Rasool made his remarks as part of a South African think tank's webinar in which he spoke about actions taken by the Trump administration in the context of a United States where white people soon would no longer be in the majority. Anything to do with education or academia and, heaven forfend facts, simply can't be tolerated. Might give people "ideas."
And Ebrahim Rasool is a transparently Islamic name. Once someone explained this to the Dear Leader, what could he do but condemn and vilify?
Why does Molly live in Capetown? Not that So Africa is in any way worse than this country right now; I'm just curious.
She doesn't. She lives in Zambia. We met in Cape Town. Because it's far nicer than Zambia.
I've been mentioning that Poe story since Covid.
I don't remember that Poe story. I need to check it out.
What's with the young, fit, hulking übermensch with the "generous lips" ? Just wondering.
Ambassador Rasool did not call Trump a white supremicist. Look at the text of the ambassador’s remarks. It’s clear to me as a retired diplomat that Rubio was told by Musk and Trump to expel this highly capable diplomat. Disgraceful.
And what's worse (if anything can actually be worse...), is the usual pretext thrown out there almost deliberately to insult our intelligence. At least, the intelligence of a good many of us.
Garbage always stinks.
I couldn't enjoy a "vacation" where routinely witnessing abject, heartbreaking poverty was part of the "experience".