Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

The European Union expresses its grave concern about the recent escalation along the Blue Line. The EU condemns all attacks against UN missions. It expresses particularly grave concern regarding the attacks by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) against the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which left several peacekeepers wounded. Such attacks against UN peacekeepers constitute a grave violation of international law and are totally unacceptable. These attacks must stop immediately.

... ... ...

An order that does not apply equally to everyone will soon no longer apply to anyone.

Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds
Judges say unfairly dismissed academic David Miller’s views on Israel should be protected by antidiscrimination laws

The belief that Israel’s actions amount to apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide are “worthy of respect in a democratic society”, an employment tribunal has concluded in a landmark decision.

In February the tribunal ruled that Prof David Miller was unfairly discriminated against when he was dismissed by the University of Bristol over allegations of making antisemitic remarks, in a decision the Union of Jewish Students said set a dangerous precedent.

The tribunal has now published its 120-page judgment setting out why Miller’s beliefs warranted protection under antidiscrimination laws.

Passing the ruling, the employment judge Rohan Pirani said: “Although many would vehemently and cogently disagree with [Miller]’s analysis of politics and history, others have the same or similar beliefs.

“We find that he has established that [the criteria] have been met and that his belief amounted to a philosophical belief.”

Miller, who lectured at the university on political sociology, told the panel he thought Zionism was “inherently racist, imperialist and colonial”.

He added that Zionism was “ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide in pursuit of territorial control and expansion”. But he told the panel that his anti-Zionism did not equate to opposition towards Jews.

The panel’s judgment noted Miller’s expertise on Zionism.

Two Jewish students complained about a 2019 lecture by Miller in which he identified Zionism as one of the five pillars of Islamophobia, the panel heard. The Community Security Trust, which campaigns against antisemitism, said Miller’s remarks were a “disgraceful slur”.

A review commissioned by the university found Miller had no case to answer because he did not express hatred towards Jews.

In an email to the university’s student newspaper sent in February 2021 Miller said: “Zionism is and always has been a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing.” In the message he also claimed the university’s Jewish Society was an “Israel lobby group”.

A separate review found these statements had been offensive to many, and in a hearing they were found to be “wrong and inappropriate”. He was then sacked for gross misconduct, the panel heard.

When his appeal was rejected he took the university to a tribunal, which he won earlier this year.

On Miller’s anti-Zionism beliefs, Pirani said: “We conclude that they have played a significant role in his life for many years. We are satisfied that they are genuinely held.

“He is and was a committed anti-Zionist and his views on this topic have played a significant role in his life for many years.”

The panel found his belief had met the criteria of being “worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others”.

The judge continued: “[Prof Miller]’s opposition to Zionism is not opposition to the idea of Jewish self-determination or of a preponderantly Jewish state existing in the world, but rather, as he defines it, to the exclusive realisation of Jewish rights to self-determination within a land that is home to a very substantial non-Jewish population.

While finding it was “extraordinary and ill-judged” to express himself publicly in the way he did, the judge added: “The decision to dismiss was ... because of manifestations of [Miller]’s belief.

“What [Miller] said was accepted as lawful, was not antisemitic and did not incite violence and did not pose any threat to any person’s health or safety.”

The panel found what Miller said in his email “contributed to and played a material part in his dismissal”. As a result, whatever compensation he is awarded will be halved. His compensation will be decided later at a remedy hearing.

Quote:

Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds
...

The judge continued: “[Prof Miller]’s opposition to Zionism is not opposition to the idea of Jewish self-determination or of a preponderantly Jewish state existing in the world, but rather, as he defines it, to the exclusive realisation of Jewish rights to self-determination within a land that is home to a very substantial non-Jewish population.

...

Before the arrival of Europeans in Hawaii, Lahaina was actually known as the Venice of the Pacific, which for folks who have been there recently might seem extraordinary. Right now Lahaina has been desiccated and is almost like a dry desert area. But when it was managed by Kanaka Maoli, by Native Hawaiians, it was abundant with water and other resources. So, what happened was that with the arrival of plantation interests, those water — and especially after the capital was moved to Oahu, those resources were grabbed up by landed plantation interests, so for sugar plantations and pineapple plantations, and later those resources were diverted to support other kinds of development, including luxury residential development, and even to support hotels in some instances. And so, what happened is that the wai wai, as we call it, the wealth of Lahaina, was actually taken by these corporations.

And so, what we also know, at least the people from Hawaii, is that part of the reason for this extraordinary tragedy in Maui Komohana, or in West Maui, is also because there has been more than a century of plantation water mismanagement in this area. It’s because of extractive water policies. Where water hasn’t remained on the land, invasive grasses have come up. That’s what created the tinderbox and this unfortunate situation of the tragic fire that took place earlier this month.

I’m gonna try and keep this short and sweet. Well, maybe not so sweet.

They say the race is tightening. For the Presidency. That’s not really true.

The Democrats are losing.

The polls are tightening. But that reflects the lead Kamala enjoyed over Trump just a few weeks ago shrinking, in place after place, with group after group. With a few notable exceptions, which we’ll come to.

So. It’s not that “the race is tight.” Rather, it’s that Kamala’s losing her lead.

Why is that?

Before we go on, please let me say: I hate having to write stuff like this. It’s ugly, it’s critical, it’s a lot to swallow and maybe gag on in what are already difficult enough times. I wish from the bottom of my heart that I didn’t have to, but I feel that someone has to. So thank you for putting up with me. I love you guys.

Why The Democrats Are Beginning to Lose

The moment of euphoria’s passed. It wasn’t enough.

And right now, I wonder: are the Democrats even trying to win this?

I know they’d say they are. But are they, really?

Because this isn’t how you’d approach an election you actually wanted to win. Any competitive situation that you wanted to be victorious in.

Kamala’s losing her lead for a very simple reason, and we’ve discussed it before.

People don’t trust the Dems on the economy, and that loses them credibility in a bigger sense. Because of course if you don’t trust a party on the economy, what can you trust it on? Trump, meanwhile, gets away with people who don’t believe him, because they trust him…on the economy. (That isn't to say he should be trusted on the economy – I am making a point about what people perceive, not what is true.)

So there is an issue of credibility here, and it’s not just about the economy in a kind of sterile sense, but about whom you can trust, why, and for what reason, and in what way.

Do I trust these guys to make my life better? Too many people are pretty unenthusiastic, because they feel that neither party is really interested very much in that question. (And yes – at least the Democrats are not the Project 2025 democracy-ending fascists, but that can only sustain so much excitement.)

So let me go a little deeper.

Kamala’s lead is shrinking. This should alarm the Democrats. Hell, it alarms me. It should worry everyone who’s a die-hard supporter, too. Every advisor, strategist, and so on—they are getting it wrong.

That much should be said.

The Vibe Gap (Is Beginning to Implode)

They are telling Kamala and Tim to dance around the elephant in the room, and go on ignoring it.

And so a kind of growing vibe gap has emerged.

There’s Kamala, doing her joyful, happy thing. And that’s nice and honestly I like it and I’m not against it.

But that’s not how people feel.

People don’t feel joyful these days. About much of anything. The rent is too high. The prices have skyrocketed. Jobs are nigh on impossible to get. Having a family’s increasingly difficult, never mind affording a home, retiring, or so on. All of this shows up very, very clearly in the statistics, which we’ve discussed ad infinitum too.

People don’t feel the way the Dems want them to feel.

And so I suspect that many people are beginning to feel a little bit gaslit.

Hey, there are the Dems, dancing around, being happy and joyful. But things…things kind of suck.

I don’t feel good about much these days, people must think. Certainly not the election, the future, the state of the country, let alone my life. I feel anxious, afraid, worried, sometimes, panicked.

I don’t feel the way they feel.

That is the vibe gap that’s emerging, and it’s why Kamala’s lead is shrinking.

“The economy” is sort of shorthand for this, for me, but maybe it shouldn’t be—I think of it as the sum of human welfare, but in the more simplistic way of pundits, to many people it just means profits or GDP or what have you (it’s not.) Either way, the problem remains the same, which is that people don’t feel good.

They feel bad, remarkably bad, in fact, historically so.

And so the Dems pitch isn’t working.

One aspect of it is, which is the protection racket: at least we’re not the fascists. Hey, we’re not going to let them take away your rights. Any more of your rights, we mean, having failed to protect Roe, and many, many other fundamentals. We’re the lesser evil, and you’d better vote for us if you don’t want total chaos—isn’t that good enough?

On that score, American women are flocking to Kamala, and that’s a good thing, insofar as the GOP continues to say crazy stuff like women should basically be baby-carriers in a Handmaid’s Tale level society, which even alienates its base. So the protection racket is working with American women, and I don’t mean that in a mean way, I mean it in a sympathetic one: nobody should be in such a position to begin with, faced with the loss of basic rights.

But for many other social groups, the Dems pitch isn’t working.

And it isn’t working because of the vibe gap that’s emerged, this sort of weird, head-spinning chasm between the way people feel, which is miserable and anxious, and the way the Dems want them to feel, which is happy and carefree.

Warnings Aren’t Enough, or Authenticity, Credibility, and the Vibe Gap

It’s nice to want people to feel that way, but you have to be authentic about it. You can’t just gaslight people and say all is well, when it’s not.

You can’t say that economy’s booming, but Trump’s also a fascist, but vote for us, because of course, then, why is fascism even rising? If times are so wonderful and amazing?

None of it feels authentic, feels true, feels right. By right I mean appropriate, and that’s the vibe gap
.
Warning Isn’t Enough

Leaders have to start from a place of authenticity.

Just warning isn’t enough.

If it was, LOL, I’d be President. I’m not, because warnings only go so far. They don’t have moral force, emotional weight, soul-connection, unless you meet people where they're at first.

Meeting people where they are means really seeing them.

How many people feel seen by the Democrats?

I know that a lot of people feel exploited, including a lot of women, who note that Roe could have been codified under the Dems but never was, and was instead used as a carrot on a stick. I know that a lot of people feel invisible, like the working class, and a lot of people just feel tired, like the middle class.

So this is why Kamala’s lead is shrinking.

This vibe gap is real, and it’s made of this disjuncture, which I’ll repeat, because it matters: if things are so awesome, if the economy’s so good, if life’s so excellent, then why do we need the warnings? What are they for? Surely we should all see the problem here, which leads to in a feeling of a lack of authenticity, which ends up in a lack of credibility.

Right now? If you really wanted to win—not just this election, but any situation like this—you wouldn’t do this.

How to Lose an Election, a Country, a Brand, a Relationship

Look. I helped run one of the world’s biggest companies. Ad agencies. We had massive global clients. And if we gaslit our customers? If we told them that people thought that their products were great, when in fact nobody much did?

What would happen is exactly what is happening to the Dems right now. Nobody would believe the messages, no matter how many ads we threw at them, no matter how many influencers we hired to bombard them, no matter how hard we tried, tried, tried. The vibe gap would just be too great. In the end, their sales would plummet, and they’d lost that battle for that market, category, customer.

Gaslighting people doesn’t work. Unless you’re a demagogue, in which case of course it works all too well, but that’s because that’s what demagogues do. How they prey on people. For those who want to actually lead, whether societies, companies, or just people, it’s a bad idea. The people you want to appeal to see through the BS. It's ham-fisted strategy, communications, branding…human relationships.

The Dems need better thinking in the room, and I say that despite the insanely awesome job that, for example, the Zoomer comms team has done on social media—even that hasn’t helped keep the needle in the right direction.

So the Dems are beginning to lose the lead they enjoyed in those euphoric moments a few weeks ago, and worse, it's completely avoidable. To win you have to be humble, hungry, open, ready to sacrifice something for it. At least a battle this tough.

That’s what makes all the difference, in life, in politics, in love, everything.

You have to want it, to the point you’re willing to endure some pain for it. Even the indignity of admitting your mistakes and coming clean and rebuilding your relationships and mending those broken fences.

Do you remember the California electricity crisis of 2000 and ’01? I do, because I wrote about it a lot at the time and stuck my neck out by arguing, based on circumstantial evidence, that market manipulation was probably an important factor. One economist colleague accused me of “going Naderite,” but we eventually got direct evidence of market manipulation: tapes of Enron traders conspiring with power company officials to create artificial shortages to drive up prices.

Memories of that episode made me more sympathetic than many economists to claims that price gouging played a role in recent inflation, although I don’t believe that it was a major driver. At this point, however, it’s all old history; aside from some blackouts during a 2020 heat wave, California hasn’t had major electricity shortages in decades.

But don’t tell Donald Trump. On Thursday, in the course of a rambling, at times incoherent speech to the Detroit Economic Club, he declared, “We don’t have electricity. In California, you have brownouts or blackouts every week. And blackouts, I mean, the place is stone cold broke, no electricity.” This isn’t true, it wasn’t true when he made similar assertions last year, and 39 million Californians can tell you that it isn’t true. But in Trump’s mind, apparently, that long-ago electricity crisis never ended.

There’s an obvious parallel with Trump’s language on crime. In big cities, he has asserted, “You can’t walk across the street to get a loaf of bread. You get shot. You get mugged. You get raped. You get whatever it may be.”

Now, there was a time when America’s big cities were quite dangerous. I remember the days when major parts of New York were more or less no-go zones. But that was long ago. There was a huge decline in the national murder rate between the early 1990s and the mid-2010s; a surge during Trump’s last year in office seems to be fading away. New York’s transformation into one of the safest places in America has been especially spectacular: The city had 83 percent fewer murders last year than it did in 1990, and neither I nor my neighbors seem terrified about crossing the street to buy bread at my local bodega.

No doubt much of what Trump says about crime is a cynical attempt to stir up fear for political gain. That’s certainly true of some of his other untrue assertions, like his false claims that the Biden administration is refusing to aid Republican regions devastated by hurricanes and has diverted disaster funding to migrants. I don’t know whether Trump is aware that he’s wrong to claim that all of the jobs created under President Biden have gone to “illegal migrants,” but I’m fairly sure that he doesn’t care whether what he’s saying is true.

But it’s hard to escape the sense that there’s more than cynical calculation going on in some of Trump’s whoppers, that he may actually believe some of what he’s saying because he has become unmoored in time. On crime, for example, my guess is that in Trump’s mind it’s still 1989, the year he took out a full-page ad demanding that New York State bring back the death penalty after the rape of a woman who had been jogging in Central Park, for which five teenagers were wrongfully convicted.

Electricity supply and urban crime aren’t the only issues on which Trump’s image of America seems stuck in the past. During his Detroit speech, the former president did something unusual for a candidate one might have expected to flatter the voters in an important swing state: He insulted the city that was hosting him, declaring that if Kamala Harris wins, “Our whole country will end up being like Detroit.”

Actually, that would be great if true: Detroit has been experiencing a major economic revival, so much so that it has become a role model for struggling cities around the world and has been praised for its startup ecosystem. But I doubt that Trump knows or cares about any of that, and in his mind Detroit is probably still the poster child for the industrial Midwest’s economic struggles around, say, 2010.

The point is that there’s a pattern here. As many observers have noted, Trump routinely peddles a grim picture of America that has little to do with reality. What I haven’t seen noted as much is that his imaginary dystopia seems to be, in large part, a pastiche assembled from past episodes of dysfunction. These episodes apparently became lodged in his brain, and perhaps because he’s someone who is not known for being interested in the details and who lives in a bubble of wealth and privilege, they never left.

The thing is, Trump is fond of denigrating his opponents’ cognitive capacity. He has called Harris “mentally disabled” and a “dummy.” He has called for CBS to lose its broadcasting rights over a “60 Minutes” interview with her — one that was edited in a routine way — in which Harris, a former prosecutor, came across as, well, pretty smart, whatever you may think of her policies.

But what would Trump say about an opponent who, like him, seems stuck in the past, who routinely describes America in ways that suggest that he doesn’t know what year it is?

I know that a lot of people feel exploited, including a lot of women, who note that Roe could have been codified under the Dems but never was, and was instead used as a carrot on a stick.

I admit that I actually wanted to make a few corrections, historical and linguistic clarifications to two posts here.

But since the ability to spread false and misleading claims without any apparent shame nowadays seems to be established by followers of a former president ... fact checking doesn't work with him either.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I admit that I actually wanted to make a few corrections, historical and linguistic clarifications to two posts here.

But since the ability to spread false and misleading claims without any apparent shame nowadays seems to be established by followers of a former president ... fact checking doesn't work with him either.

As to that "...corrections...linguistic clarifications..."...

...I just want to mention something that has become so often used, it seldom is even thought about as being corruptable.

Here are two sentences that seem to say the same thing:

1) I don't think Evan is telling the truth about that.
2) I think Evan is not telling the truth about that.

Most often, form #1 is used...when thought #2 is being expressed.

But the two sentences say different things. Form #1 is almost idiomatic for thought #2. It shouldn't be.

It can make a difference. If I were a lawyer counseling a client, I might suggest the use of form #1 as often as possible...and be able, truthfully, to say I did not lie when the subtlety between the two makes a difference.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I admit that I actually wanted to make a few corrections, historical and linguistic clarifications to two posts here.

But since the ability to spread false and misleading claims without any apparent shame nowadays seems to be established by followers of a former president ... fact checking doesn't work with him either.

As to that "...corrections...linguistic clarifications..."...

...I just want to mention something that has become so often used, it seldom is even thought about as being corruptable.

Here are two sentences that seem to say the same thing:

1) I don't think Evan is telling the truth about that.
2) I think Evan is not telling the truth about that.

Most often, form #1 is used...when thought #2 is being expressed.

But the two sentences say different things. Form #1 is almost idiomatic for thought #2. It shouldn't be.

It can make a difference. If I were a lawyer counseling a client, I might suggest the use of form #1 as often as possible...and be able, truthfully, to say I did not lie when the subtlety between the two makes a difference.

I would be impressed all to hell if the interviewers and moderators could just do hard, fast fact checking in real time. As in "No. That is not true, and here is why (produces verifiable receipts)". It's done so infrequently and when it's done, so half-heartedly, that when a journalist hitches up their big boy bloomers and does it well it almost seems mythically heroic, when it should just be how they do their goddam jobs. We've all bought a bill of goods that says a relative, alternative, both-sides view of truth must be acceptable because anybody who's good at attracting views is doing it.

It's not acceptable. It's why I haven't watched network news shows for over three years. There are a lot of things that are either true or false. And it's unpopular to say so, but here are also a lot of things that are either good or evil. For me, MSM handling of news just erodes or greatly contributes to the erosion of the bright lines between those things.