Let’s be clear, though: judicial review has no enforcement. Compliance is voluntarily, and it can’t undo assassinations and coups.

And impeachment functionally doesn’t exist. It’s been demonstrated that senators will not impeach a president of their party, regardless of whether they agree with the charges.

To add to this, I’ve been using GIMP on and off for a decade and I’ve never given any thought to the name. It’s all capitalized. I didn’t think it was a backronym, I thought it was just an acronym.

I’ve used this in professional settings (I used to work in academic molecular bio), and I was very evangelical about it. Especially because we’re not doing high-level artistic work, we just sometimes need something for processing microscope images or making graphics for scientific publications.

I’d say to any and everyone, “You know, you don’t have to pay an annual subscription fee for Photoshop: there’s this free, open-source program called GIMP that does most of what you need and you don’t have to pay a thing! Want me to install it for you?”

I didn’t even think to be embarrassed about the name, and no one ever seemed to care in conversation. As others have said, the bigger impediments are people’s attachment to commercial software and interface challenges. This is just an absolutely silly complaint to make.

This is a good question.

My analysis:

First and foremost: It is not a demand that Israel accept a ceasefire, it is a demand that Hamas accept the terms of a ceasefire. Sometimes this is a very subtle difference, but one the key elements of a ceasefire negotiation is that each side is trying to continue fighting while making their adversary look like the aggressor. So far, it looks like Biden has moved slightly, but he still is not applying pressure on Netanyahu to end the war.

Second: Continuing on that last point, there is no leverage. Biden has persistently chosen not to do anything that would actually apply pressure. He has deferred to Netanyahu’s judgement and supported him while gradually shifting in tone, but it’s become 1000% clear that Netanyahu will stop when he is forced to, and not a moment sooner.

Third: The focus is constantly on micromanaging the situation. Debating how many civilians can get killed, what fraction of the homes can be demolished, how much territory Israel can appropriate in Gaza. None of this actually addresses the foundational issues: one side is imposing apartheid with genocidal intent on a neighbor that is largely powerless, and the other side’s only real avenue for expressing itself is through terrorism. Which is bad for both sides. If these realities persist, then the cycle that has governed nearly three generations is allowed to continue. There must be a breaking point in that cycle, and referring back to point 2: it’s going to have to be imposed on the leadership in Israel. They WILL NOT accept it willingly.

In summary, this is a very welcome change in narrative for Biden, but we are far past the point of fiddling with narratives. We need policy action, and it’s incredible that he’s still dug in like this after another state department official just resigned because she said that she was being pressured to be an accomplice in breaking US law against knowingly aiding war crimes.

This is a great article.

That sounds like a good start.

I don’t think Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben-Gvir will like that, because they really hate it when the UN tries to do UN stuff at them, but that sounds like a very appropriate request.

It’s going to be awkward to listen to John Kirby explain into a microphone why having peacekeepers from the unarmed peace force standing in the vicinity of a lot of women and children in the area that Biden has insisted the IDF not kill everyone is helping Hamas.

I said the opposite: I said that I think he’s anti-vax, and I’m pro-vax, and so I don’t want to be like him… but I bungled it. The message is unclear, and that’s on me.

so all I see is delicious irony. He’s been demonising doctors and medical professionals, he doesn’t get to complain now that nobody’s paying attention to them.

I get this viewpoint, but it reminds me of conversations I’ve seen about people bodyshaming Trump.

The same logic applies: he has definitely lost any ability to complain if someone ridicules his obvious physical shortcomings. BUT: that’s not why we shouldn’t ridicule his weight or terrible appearance or bad health (or supposed terrible smell).

We shouldn’t do that because publicly mocking people’s appearances and ascribing a moral failing to bad health perpetuates harmful social behaviors that are borne by everyone other than Trump who happen to be overweight, or disabled, or have terrible diets, etc… If one suggests that he’s worth less as a person because of his age or weight and so on, they’re not actually doing anything to Trump. They’re just communicating to anyone who sees those comments that they think it’s appropriate to bully or discriminate against others based on these traits.

Bringing it back to RFK: we live in an era of a LOT of dangerous medical misinformation. We should not share that kind of misinformation against RFK, even if doing so is funny (and deserved), because ultimately we’re still just adding more shit to the same pile of shit that we’re mad at him for piling up. Does that make sense?

Also, that’s a good point about RFK and Israel. I don’t tend to pay attention to RFK, so I sometimes forget how absolutely dogshit his opinions are. I appreciate you reminding me. He’s definitely the second worst.

Vaccines are safe and effective.

His previous parasitic infection is not a present day health concern. (He’s an idiot, but by all accounts he was an idiot before, so we can’t blame the worm for the shit he says.)

My point is that we should not promote unfounded suggestions about someone’s cognitive health or promote unfounded speculation on the effect of a procedure or condition based on our preferred ideological beliefs. It’s wrong when RFK does it. And it’s wrong when the media does it to smear RFK. It’s hypocritical and it’s dangerous. “Follow the science” doesn’t have a carve-out for when you want to smear people we disagree with.

It’s an okay meme, but I have to admit I’m conflicted on these jokes.

First, lets just point out that Vanity Fair and everyone else who reports on JFK’s brain worm but won’t cover his rallies or policy announcements – let alone Jill Stein or Cornell West’s – is just doing a political hit job on a candidate challenging the hegemony of our two terrible political parties.

Second, although I think that JFK acts like a guy who had his brain eaten by a worm, it’s not really appropriate imo to propagate this impression that this is a legitimate medical concern. This parasitic infection isn’t actually any more debilitating than vaccines, so I think there’s a perverse hypocrisy to dwelling on it when most of us decry his irresponsible spreading of medical misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Anyway, fuck RFK, but let’s be real that he’s definitely not the worst candidate in the race, and it’s honestly not clear whether he’s even the second worst at this point.

For those looking to better understand the biases of any given media outlet, this is a good place to drop a recommendation for Citations Needed podcast with Adam Johnson and Nima Shiraz.

It’s a great media analysis and criticism show. Who watches the watchers? These fuckin guys!

This article is pretty good, because it’s not subtle about the context: Ben-Gvir is a convicted terrorist who has made his desire to exterminate Palestinians totally clear his whole life. And he went from too radical to serve mandatory military service to in charge of the national police and jails.

He is an exemplar of the worst humanity has to offer.

Just read my comment again. I think there’s an important point that more people need to internalize.

People joke about how Trump constantly declares himself a lover of “law and order”, but is a flagrant criminal, for instance. But he’s not just being randomly hypocritical: his definition of “law and order” is different from ours. We think of law as immutable rules that apply to all. He thinks of it as state power wielded by those who deserve it. Laws applied against him aren’t laws, and extrajudicial violence by his supporters is. Same with order. It’s not quiet, peace, or calm. It’s a privileged group who the law protects but does not bind and a tier of others who the law binds but does not protect.

Greene isn’t lying, she’s speaking loud and clear in another language, and we need to learn to translate it and listen to what she and the whole Christian Nationalist movement are increasingly saying out loud.

I mean, good for him, but I think it’s pretty clear that she’s not opposed to fascism.

When people like Greene decry Nazis, they mean something different than we do. We mean “Nazis”: violent white supremacist nationalists.

She just means “nazis”: our ultimate national enemy. And her audience understands her perfectly well.

She could be like, ‘We must protect our home-grown historical demographics by any means necessary, and seek out a final solution to do so, or the nazis will make Christians servants by replacing us with inferior people trafficed across the border.’ And her constituents would say, ‘Obviously! Yes, we must.’

This whole thread is spitting facts

I think that’s a bit naive.

The constitution is advice. It’s only as powerful as its interpretation and enforcement, and the Supreme Court has shown themselves wildly comfortable writing new flagrantly unconstitutional loopholes when it suits them.

The comedic momentum of the story is excellent.

In my head, I can hear the foot going through it. FWOOMP! “Do you want me to take the others?”

I came to ask what it is.

The answer is disappointingly pedestrian, I think: it’s where the clicks are. What’s he supposed to do? Post it on Vimeo and ask people to support him on Patreon?

No conspiracy needed. Lemon doesn’t have anywhere else to go.

This is wild.

Now I want to see him reject AIPAC money. That’d be an absolute bombshell move.

They’re probably not giving him anything after this, but calling them out would be a a huge blow to their massive influence campaign in the party.

They’re the largest donor to Democratic super pacs ( this was a claim they made a few weeks ago, I can’t confirm it).

The podcast Know your enemy has a great episode on this topic with Heilbrunn that just came out.