Likewise most people on this thread have shown time and time again they don't care about children other than the ones that die when Israeli is defending itself against Hamas and other terrorists. — Andrew4Handel

I think it has to do with the alleged moral superiority of the oppressed. The same problem exists in the US: Black people killed by the police, accidentally or purposefully, get great press, while black people killed by other blacks, recklessly or purposefully -- a very much larger number-- get minimal press.

A lot of people are also obsessed with power differentials. Israel has much more power than just about anybody else in the Middle East, so to some, that makes them automatically the bad guys.

I don't quite get what this thread is about.

It seems to me that there are no major disjointed periods in history: No new age has dawned where very different rules have come into force; where things that used to happen (200, 2000, 4,000 years ago) are just not imaginable anymore. World War I, II, and the Cold War (with it's potential for global nuclear annihilation) shows us that the 20th century is no more civilized than previous centuries. The five centuries of European expansion (colonization, imperialism, genocide...) are not radically different than previous periods of population movement anywhere on the globe. Whether things as bad may happen in the future is unknown.

After all the butchering of WWI and WWII, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War (which, by the way, has only lessened; it did not disappear) the major economies of the globe have been intentional about keeping a lid on conflict. We should be grateful that a lid is being kept on the kettle, but it isn't because of the arc of justice that this is so. It's caution about unleashing highly disruptive wars. "They" have calculated that war, at this point, would probably not be worth it. (Talking big wars, not little ones.).

Ethnicity and culture are basic building blocks of community. We are not one big Heinz 57 multiculti puree. The impression that we are (a puree) is an elite creation to help suppress inconvenient friction. That will work until material shortages arise (not enough food, water, energy, etc.). Then "WE" will become much more important than "YOU" and business will proceed in the usual and customary warlike way.

One can never have too many south-bashing songs. Now, don't you be triggered, y'all!

Is this song acceptable these days? "That's What I Like About the South... (1947)

Prejudice and stereotype cut both ways. Tall, slim men are subject to more favorable stereotyping than short fat men. A head of thick hair (of whatever type) gets better press than thin patchy hair (irregular spots without hair). Shaved male heads have been subject to extensive amelioration in the last couple of decades--it is no longer the sign of a radical fringe group. There are many examples where various features, skills, histories, and so on that are advantageous to the individual.

Skin tone is famously subject to all sorts of prejudice, stereotyping, preference, race-related emotional reactions, and so on -- among all groups of humans. Both positive and negative emotions are involved. And it is apparently difficult to get it right. Here is the Spanish postage stamp set where the lightest stamp is the most valuable. There are several ways this could have been done better.



I do not see a possible world free of prejudice and stereotyping. There are way too many of us for each encounter to get a 100% unbiased reception. We can, on occasion, rig up encounters where biases are minimized. Supposedly, a jury trial is one such situation. Group job interviews (several interviewers, one applicant at a time) can minimize bias.

Apparently

Dogs know how to puke. Nothing can puke like a dog... — James Riley

The weirdest example of prejudice/stereotyping yet. At least it has a biblical referent:

"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" Proverbs 26:11

I'm thinking about selling up and moving to Portland. What do you think? Buy a house there, start a business. Send my kids to school. I was hoping to get your advice. — counterpunch

Which 'Portland' are you thinking of?

You are nothing but star dust.

it isn't merely "somewhat concentrated capital" that is the problem; it is extremely concentrated capital that is problematic, whether it is in private or state hands.

The extremely concentrated wealth isn't invested in production; it is generally invested in paper speculation -- derivatives, currencies... stuff like that. Some of the Uber-wealthy made a lot of money in the sphere of actual goods and services, but once the piles are sufficiently large, it tends to be shifted into the less productive stuff.

I'm not suggesting you buy Thomas Piketty's books; but check out an article or two about him. At least, that's the way I understand it.

BTW, you are over-estimating the harm of money in state hands and under-estimating the harm of money in private hands.

How vigorous a percolation that could be would depend on things like inflationary pressures - and would that be such a bad thing with interest rates close to zero? I don't know. — counterpunch

I don't know either, but I do know that historically (going back a long way--even the Romans) inflation has been a problem. True, interest rates are low right now, despite big cash infusions into the economy. That could change pretty quickly. During the inflation spike in the 1980s, banks were paying up to 15% on savings (for a few months--a splendid rate if one happened to have cash under the mattress). They managed to get that under control, so that the top savings rates were more like 7% in 2006. The big crash in inflated investment values happened in 2008. Since then, interest rates have been low.

One of the reasons Economics is the Dismal Science is that economists rarely (or is it never?) see disaster coming.

I call it 'revolutionary change' only because the installed Uber-wealthy class might not be dislodged by a gradual, evolutionary process. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from major change.

but imagine I was given the money to develop this technology — counterpunch

Major industry develops that way. Someone has a working undeveloped technology with major potential. Investors give a group the money to start production, whether that be a cast-iron steam engine works, new steel plant, a transistor factory, or a large-scale battery storage farm--whatever it is. There is generally risk involved--that the investment might not pay off well, or worse, might not pay off at all. The Uber-wealthy are not risk takers. There is no need for them to take risks--they already have such a large share of the wealth. They can afford to be indifferent.

That is the distortion the disproportionate distribution of global wealth has. The few thousand people controlling 70% of world wealth starve innovation.

Geo-thermal / H-power is just one more good idea languishing on the shelf.

BC, my dear old friend, long time no see! It's always good to chat with you however briefly. — counterpunch

The same to you.

Large concentrations of capital are necessary to an economy - in ways I don't pretend to understand. — counterpunch

Certainly, robust economies require capital to function properly. The problem with 'concentrated capital' is that too few agents control it, and may apply it towards unproductive ends such as furthering the concentration. That is precisely what has happened in the global economy. A tiny number of Uber-wealthy individuals control a very large percentage (50%+) of capital. (How tiny? It numbers in the dozens.). It doesn't matter, in some ways, whether it is a few dozen super-rich individuals or a government. A soviet-style monopoly of wealth is as counterproductive as a yacht full of gold plated parasites.

Highly concentrated wealth deprives a few million (out of 8 billion) individuals from fielding and developing new ideas. Your geo-thermal/hydrogen idea will probably remain undeveloped for lack of capital.

There will probably always be poor people, because "poor" is relative, A man with $1,000,000 is poor among multi-billionaires. A third-world family with enough to eat and a roof over their heads is poor among affluent first-worlders. I don't know how to define "absolute" (non-relative) poverty. Starvation, unsheltered exposure to the weather, and lack of somewhat clean water to slake one's thirst would probably qualify as "absolute poverty", but that doesn't help someone with zero cash living in an urban homeless shelter and being fed slop twice a day.

It is desirable to have wealth vigorously percolate up the economy (rather than a glacially slow trickle-down), but getting the wealth to the base so it can percolate up requires a revolutionary change in the way wealth is controlled. I don't see that on the horizon.

The Republican slime are busy writing and passing very restrictive state laws making it more difficult for various people to vote, and making it easier for Republican Party officials or operatives to interfere with elections.

So, facts schmacts. It doesn't matter. If the Republicans can jerry-rig [aka, STEAL] elections, they have a better chance of winning. If they win, that is a fact that all the fact-checking in the world won't be able to correct.

We know what restrictive voting can do, because the southern state Democratic Parties had a monopoly on restrictive voting rules and regs for decades. By suppressing the black vote, they were able to dominate the US Congress and get very regressive votes passed. The southern lock on voting suppression was broken in the 1960s.

INTERESTING STUFF -- Politics and Current Affairs, Humanities and Social Sciences, & Science and Technology -- contains a lot of the threads I find most worthwhile. They tend to be about matters I consider more pressing than some other topics, like, oh, Plato, for instance.

The quality of threads will usually be found wanting, because after we have read a thread we really liked and found worthwhile, interesting, life changing, earth shattering and so on, the next thread will probably seem tedious by comparison, It's much the same with fruit. East a slice of the perfect melon or the perfect peach, and the rest is going to seem second rate.

One could rate all of the pieces of melon in a season from heavenly delicious to just plain hell, but unless one has a personal food taster who diverts all but the most exquisites pears, pomegranates, and persimmons, one is probably going to eat the third and second rate melons anyway. They cost too much to just throw out.

Are you referencing 'Cointelpro?

I think it is safe to say that the FBI (and who knows who else) infiltrates and spies upon radical movements. Such spying didn't prevent several groups from disrupting congress on January 6, so one wonders how hard the FBI is trying -- at least with respect to right wing groups.

Whether an individual ends up in the crosshairs of surveillance depends, to some unknown degree on credibility. There are a lot of people out there with some very screwy ideas who, frankly, do not pose much threat to the status quo--however dangerous they might like to think they are. And there are people out there who are a threat, no doubt about it.

Domestic spying, without good cause, violates one's freedom of assembly; freedom of speech; right to privacy. For good cause, domestic spying protects Americans from subversion. That's the theory, anyway.

I suppose this is mostly about men(?) rather than women? — Shawn

I know more about men (being a man) than I do about women. There seem to be plenty of women around whose EQ is about the same as men -- just flavored differently.

BTW, I don't think it is the 'equipment' that is the problem -- the cell phones, pads, laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, television. On this score I differ from McLuhan: the message is the message and people are immersed in A LOT of messages which have nothing to add to any kind of intelligence, social / intellectual / emotional.

People are "schooled" to be unreflective consumers by all the various sellers out there -- everyone from Apple to Zumiez.

Given that your OP is not based in research — counterpunch

Come now, Of course it's not researched. His OP is a seat-of-his-pants impression. Useful conversation, even in intellectual settings, would come to a screeching halt if we had to stick to even faintly researched phenomenon.

According to my research I am unanimous in this opinion.

Some people, like myself, have always been a day late and a dollar short when it comes to emotional intelligence / social intelligence. Still, it seems like many young people are being socialized less successfully now than in the past. There is too much 'helicoptering' from parents, too much planned and structured social interaction early on (as opposed to spontaneous, unplanned, unsupervised social interaction). It is intuitive that heavy screen-involvement (media of all types)--on a level that exceeds what children were exposed to in the past (say, before 1970) has to play a role in socialization. Seems intuitive, may or may not be true.

There is, quite possibly, too much attention being paid to children's emotions, their every quirk. That's not good either. It is, actually, OK to be a misfit--as long as one understands that one is, what that means, and can find authenticity in that role.

On the other hand, one sees a lot of emotionally immature, emotionally retarded adults as well -- some of them running the country/your state/your city/your job/your store/your church/your bowling alley/your bar/etc. Possibly one of them is in your kitchen right now, sulking, throwing a tantrum, screaming at you for putting the peanut butter in the refrigerator, or something. .

Do you have some idea on how to both acknowledge the relativity and derivativity of moral systems, and yet have a sense of certainty about moral issues? — baker

Moral systems are installed in childhood as part of the civilizing project of raising children. (At least, one hopes moral systems are installed). Relativity and derivativity [nice word to say over and over] are adult problems which can safely be neglected--provided one maintains a civilized moral system.

Somewhere in adulthood one may take out one's tools and make (usually minor) adjustments in the installed moral system. In my case, it meant re-defining gay sex as good -- something that required some moral re-engineering. Later on came the matter of God himself and his alleged role in the universe. There was also shifting capitalism and free-enterprise into the "morally defective" column, out of the "inherently good" column. And so on and so forth.

Certainty? Despite tinkering, shifts, and re-engineering, the moral center holds. Why does it hold? Because it is natural (and encouraged) for humans to make rules and stick with them. What keeps us attached to rules? Guilt, for one. Guilt: the gift that keeps on giving. Then there are laws, courts, fines, and prisons if we get way out of line. Laws, courts, fines, and prisons are the expression of mass commitment to moral systems.

There is, of course, room for hypocrisy in all of this--quite a lot of room, quite a lot of hypocrisy. False representation is something that we are also good at, and will tolerate as long as it isn't too extreme, too brazen. Brazen hypocrisy might get one expelled from the country club, or publicly snubbed.

Neither religion nor secular ethics were ever conceived in a social vacuum. There is always a social context--human desires, human needs. human weaknesses, material conditions--that are addressed in either religious or secular morality. No moral system was ever without a predecessor.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion? — baker

Some people would prefer to ignore religion. That's fine. What is not fine is thinking that ONCE RELIGION BECAME A MAJOR SOCIAL FORCE, moral and ethical systems could be built that had no relationship to religion. Only if they were cooked up in an impossible social vacuum could they not reference preceding or coexisting moral system. Religions are in the same boat. The oldest religions being practiced now had to reference their social context (of several thousand years ago).

Take stealing. Over our long history, material goods have generally been hard for the average person to come by. A bit of homemade fabric required a personal investment. One's small store of food was hard won. Discouraging people from stealing hard-to-replace goods has likely always been a good idea, secularly and religiously. We 21st century-its may have the odd first-world problem of being buried in material goods. You might be doing me a big favor by stealing some of my excess, unwanted material possessions [just don't count on me looking favorably upon your stealing my stuff, even if all this crap is suffocating me].

There are many titles out there that are just not very satisfactory. I've read several by Brandon Q. Morris, and those have been quite good. I'd except Amphitrite (and sequel) I didn't like those two as well, and I didn't read The End of the Universe. Morris writes "hard science fiction" and is a German physicist. (Brandon Q. Morris is his pen name).

His dramatis personae are interesting; two of them are quite novel. One of the most interesting is a vacuum cleaner (a little robot taken over by an AI). The AI needed a disguise to get into places he wasn't supposed to be, the better to spy on his masters. Never mind how an AI would fit into the small circuits of a robot vacuum cleaner. It is fiction, after all. The little robot ends up on board a space ship and makes himself useful (above and beyond vacuuming). The other very interesting character is a Russian space explorer whose mind ends up being uploaded and used for various purposes.

Morris's fiction avoids ghastly monsters. I like to keep really ghastly imagery out of my head, because it can fester. I could stand Cormak McCarthy's book The Road, just barely, but not the movie. It took me years to get over Alien and it's sequels.

The land people occupy has often been in someone else's possession, until possession changed hands.

The United States occupied the land of various native people; a large share of the central drainage area was purchased from France (Napoleon needed some quick money); it seized much of Mexico; Florida was obtained more peaceably from Spain. We bought Alaska from Russia, but what were they doing in the Western (our) Hemisphere? The Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico were seized from Spain during the Spanish American War. The sun never went down on the British Empire because they occupied so much property all over the world. Spain, Holland, France, Germany, Russia, Turks, Japan, et al have acquired property that way.

Had Hitler settled for Bylorussia and Ukraine, and had they been able to hold on to it, by now (75 years later) Germany would be enjoying the Lebensraum they desired. What happened under Hitler's management had happened elsewhere, like in the US.

Bad; but that's the way expansion often gets done.

Interesting that neither Google nor the Urban Dictionary recognize POMO - short for Post Modern or postmodernists, postmodernism, postmodernitis...

My apologies. I find it annoying when people use abbreviations which are far from obvious.

OK. If there was anything worth emphasizing, it was the Sokol Hoax. Have you heard of it? If not, it's worth a google. It revealed the vacuity of at least one POMO publication, and the lingo that they (all) use.

But it is not at all a leftist statement, — god must be atheist

It's been around awhile, even as a New Yorker cartoon--"it's not enough that dogs win--cats must fail"

It probably goes back to Attila the Hun, at least.

I hope you know I wrote what I wrote with affection and respect. — T Clark

That's exactly how I took it. And the same for you.

Yes, pragmatism; good thing.

There is a dearth of conservatives among faculty in American universities, at least that's what I have read in various reports from mainline publications,

the humanities are a wholly owned subsidiary of left wing, subjectivist, anti-capitalist, neo marxist, post modernist, politically correct bigots and bullies — counterpunch

This was not true when I finished college in 1968. It wasn't obviously the case when I took some classics courses in the early 1980s at the U of Minnesota. But things were definitely changing in the 1980s. An academically oriented magazine, Lingua Franca, charted the changes. (the Sokol hoax was revealed in Lingua Franca by its author, for example.)

Now, 30 odd years later, Neo-marxist, postmodernist, politically correct lingo has slopped al over the place.

What it shows me is that reality beats principles. — god must be atheist

Man, I empathize with you! I've fought quite a few battles over principles--and 49 times out of 50 lost. Not just lost, but was crushed, flattened, and discarded. The problem (aside from the one of tilting at windmills) is that other people ALSO have principles, and more often than not their principles conform to prevailing moral code better than mine did.

Reality does play the game with a good hand (poker analogy) and has a full supply of face cards and aces up its sleeve.

There is also the matter of competence. One's principles have to be lived and defended competently. There were occasions when I just wasn't all that competent. Up against a shark what can a herring do? (quote from the Sound of Music, believe it or not)

So, my advice, which you have been waiting for with baited*** breath: Fight on. Choose your battles. Collect allies. Measure carefully: How much is this battle worth, relative to other battles one has fought and will fight?

***baited Irrelevant aside; it's 'bated', short for 'abated' not 'baited'. I've been using 'baited' for decades, rather than the correct 'bated'. We will now return to the regularly scheduled broadcast, in progress.

Is The Philosophy Forum getting worse? I've never been a high-level participant, so from my POV it's doing fine. On the other hand, many things are always getting worse on one end but are constantly renewed and repaired on the other end. Life in general may be going to hell in a hand basket, what with global warming and all. There never were and never will be that many people who yearn to rehash philosophical material. One should be... philosophical? about the philosophy forum's condition.

It's still a good thing.

I do like a heated discussion every now and then. Haven't had one for a while. The last one was when I told a hard core marxist that I didn't think Marx had much to offer about how to solve the problem of global warming, The door was slammed and the welcome mat was snatched away.

quote="T Clark;536857"]He has always been our Marxist rabble rouser with the credentials and experience to stand behind it[/quote]

I lately haven't been as interested in rousing the rabble on behalf of Uncle Karl as I used to be. Old age, I suppose. I haven't felt the desire to participate in discussions as much as I used to. Old age, I suppose. Hey -- now that I have it, old age is a good excuse for doing and not doing all sorts of things.

I have been reading a lot; old age has not interfered with that, thanks be. Two books: The Secular Enlightenment, is pretty good but is fairy demanding, The other, The Metaphysical Club, is about late 19th Century American thinkers like Pierce and James, et al. That's good too, and requires careful reading. Finished a couple more books on WWII. The current book I am reading on WWII is Sheer Misery. It's about the awful physical experiences of war --horrendous sound, stench, terror, fatigue, hideous food, filth, pain, heat, cold, dysentery, etc. Quite interesting. For relief I read the Hail Mary Project by Andy Weir [The Martian] Excellent alien encounter out around Tau Ceti. Definitely a good read.

I really should do something about the yard -- it looks terrible, but deep down I don't give much more than a rat's ass about it. I should get more exercise, eat more dark leafy green vegetables, spend money more carefully, and all that.

Ha, love it. Well the idea of the gonzo approach anyway (that experience sounds brutal, man) — csalisbury

If you liked my brief episode, you will absolutely adore Tearoom Trade by Laud Humphreys. Humprheys was a PhD candidate at a university in St. Louis and wanted to investigate the demographics and roles involved in the gay sex taking place in park-restrooms in the St Louis area--the "tearoom trade". Humphreys didn't engage in sex; he served as "the lookout queen" -- the guy who stood by the door to keep a lookout for park police, and warn the guys who were having sex. He observed sex taking place for quite a few weeks; he also kept track of who drove which cars, and who did what kind of sex. As part of his regular job, he looked up car licenses, obtained identities of the drivers (and tearoom participants). Later in the study, he went to the homes of the identified men and did a market survey of some sort to obtain the demographics he needed.

He put all this together into a great piece of research writing (it's really interesting to read) AND he destroyed all o the raw-identifying data, so at no point could the police or university track down participants.

Tearoom Trade -- 1970 -- (the popular title of his PhD dissertation) is the way sex research of this sort should be done (IMHO). Humphreys was, at the time, a priest (Episcopal) and continued working in the area of sexuality research and counseling. He died in 1988.

I thought it was a great piece of work -- the academic social scientists exploded in outrage. They probably objected to his raising the standards of research above the level most of them cared to achieve.

I agree - having a small group of monetarily motivated survey takers dominating the results is undesirable in terms of obtaining "reliable" and "valid" results. I think there are ways of avoiding the problem. First of all, lots of people will take surveys for free. (I have nothing against you paying the rent by survey servitude.) I do surveys once in a while; they are too boring to do very often.

The problem of unreproducible results occurs in structured situations, too, I gather. Subjects come into a lab; they are identified; they complete some sort of experimental task, and leave. Maybe they return for several sessions. The conditions are controlled. The experiment is approved by institutional review boards and faculty advisors. It's all on the up and up--and the results still unreproducible,

Some kinds of labs do produce good results: tests of color perception, hearing, visual processing, response time, taste and olfactory sensitivity, skin-response, learning, memory, and so forth. Those sorts of experiments should produce reliable, valid, and reproducible results. It's basically bio-measurement.

It's much dicier when researchers are out to find the motivational factors in product purchases, for instance. Maybe an fMRI would be a better research method than surveying 1000 car owners as to why they bought a Ford instead of a Toyota, or pink-23 instead of red-45 lipstick.

Take a look at the art market if you think the social sciences are something of a racket. Art has aspects of major league racketeering about it. I'm not talking about the Louvre, or the Guggenheim. It's the up-and-coming go-getters in the art-biz who are the racketeers.

I've been on both sides--taker of surveys and producer of surveys; people are inherently untrustworthy and unreliable when it comes to taking surveys. Our responses are inflected by the mood of the moment; we want our responses to reflect well on us; we want to be "good survey takers" the same way we want to be "good drivers", "good employees", or "good mates"; wording of a question can throw our responses off. All of this is known by survey producers and administrators.

Our health education group used to administer a survey on gay male sex behavior and condom use at the annual gay pride festival (back in the late 1980s). Our cohort of survey takers was dominated by men who were eager to report their sexual behaviors and who, apparently, like taking surveys alfresco. As a result, our surveys (which were quite long and detailed) showed that the guys were performing all of the expected behaviors and that too many of them reported using condoms consistently. IF all the men taking the survey were both honest and representative of the much larger gay population, then why did we have so many new cases of AIDS in our community?

So, the results were probably not valid or reliable. It was a useful exercise because we got "data" we could use in reports. It reflected well on us, but we fully understood that it was a bit of a self-selecting farce. Still, we wanted to know what exactly gay men were doing in real-life sexual situations.

What was our alternative? Focus groups? 1 on 1 interviews? Hidden cameras and microphones? Participant observation? I was willing to use hidden cameras and mics, but my employer was decidedly not willing (cue the dithering over privacy rights, etc).

My bailiwick was outreach in high risk settings. I decided I would try a behavioral test in a high risk setting (an adult book store's basement cruising and video area). The idea was that I would propose oral sex first, and then see if they were willing to use a condom. Whether they were or not willing, was beside the point, because I didn't plan on giving a blow job in either case. As it happened, the first guy I tried this out on didn't appreciate the bait and switch, and forced me to carry through. He was bigger than me, so... In other settings--like the gay bathhouse--the participant observer approached worked better. The upshot was pretty much what we expected. A significant number of men were not willing to use condoms consistently.

OK, let's go back to invalid surveys.

If a survey for pay was actually studying something other than the stated topic under the guise of asking questions about canned food preferences, like how do people respond to certain words in the various questions, or what word order leads to more or less inconsistencies in responses, the survey could theoretically produce useful information. Usually surveyors want subjects to move right along, and not second guess their answers. So your speedy approach was probably not a problem.

The replication problem falls as much on the nature of the subjects as it does on the experimenters or surveyors. We are a shifty lot.

Just make some dramatic landscaping and transport everything on the Temple Mount and the hill itself to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. — ssu

Your plan involves a lot of loading, unloading, shipping, and dumping debris into the Marianas Trench. Too much trouble. It would be easier to just nuke the Temple Mount, then everyone everywhere could share its alleged holiness. And while we're at it, might as well get rid of several other centers of superstition and nonsense. Everyone can make up their own lists--but let's keep to under 10 nukes in all.

I knew you were a fucking moron but I didn't think you'd be quite so ready to hang your ignorance out for display like a fucking show car. — StreetlightX

Not the quality post one would expect from a moderator.

Do you think Streetlight is a happy person? — Joshs

No.

This person is both genuine and sincere and was referring to the social ecology of the Irsraeli populace. He had thought that going to Jerusalem would be kind of a revelatory pilgrimage, but was disheartened by that the Israelis seemed to be subject to a kind of collective malaise. That's what I assume, anyways. — thewonder

I'm going to go with his probably accurate impression of collective malaise.

There are billions of citizens in various countries subject to a collective malaise. I should add all sorts of qualifications to such a blanket statement, but that would become too convoluted.

I see plenty of examples of some sort of malaise, unrest, dissatisfaction, anxiety, anger, and so on fairly often in the US. My guess is that the largest causes of this malaise are the still-uncertain (but pending none the less) outcomes of pandemics, global warming, destabllizing political behavior, uncertain economic futures, challenges to traditional roles, and so on. These (and more) factors affect both affluent and poor populations, just with different details.

Collective malaise makes sense under the circumstances. The world has been in dire straits before, and I would guess collective malaise was much more common at those times (pandemics, world wars, economic depressions, revolutions, civil wars, etc.)--especially in the absence of outstanding good news. World war was disturbing, but less so for population which were on the side that was winning. A robust economy and the war's end probably helped people deal with the 1918 influenza epidemic.

Does this theory make sense to you from your POV?

very sad — thewonder

It could be the "very sad" comment was directed at the penny-ante squabbling among the Christians over this or that holy sight. Or maybe it was the situation of the Palestinians.

The Kurds are another group that can't seem to get a fair deal from anybody, They, among others.

I'm sure the CIA uses Mossad, just like they use ANY source of information they can get their hands on. Normal behavior for an intelligence agency, I should think.

The US may be Israel's protector, but Israel is also our agent. Having agents in far away places, especially ones that are not only willing, but are successful in putting up with the 'bad neighborhood'. On balance, Israel is certainly not worse, and is probably better than the other people occupying the neighborhood.

Among the neighbors of Israel, which one would you prefer to live in, if Israel wouldn't have you?

You are probably well aware that determining blame, responsibility, guilt, causation, and so on is not always straight-forward. It can be a very complex problem.

Was Donald Trump "guilty", "blame-worthy", or "responsible" for the capitol riot? His role was clearly provocative, without being literally responsible--the way a general may be responsible for a failed defense. Provocation, though, establishes a connection between the provocateur and the agents. While DT didn't lead the charge into the capitol building, he also did nothing (at the critical time) to prevent continued rioting. So yes, he is blame worthy.

The individuals who rioted in the capitol building are likely to be found guilty of illegal acts for which each of them is responsible.

We are both self-responsible agents and can often be swayed to act against our better judgment. There is, after all, a large industry (marketing) bent on swaying our behavior toward buying stuff we do not need or even want. Some people tend to be highly influenced by other people. Others are not.

Israel is historically an occupying power. If you want to go back far enough, Joshua led Israel into the land of Canaan, the Promised Land, which had an incumbent population. A different incumbent population was there when the Zionist movement decided to re-establish Israel. Lots of different powers have occupied the small slice of land in dispute, really since at least 4,000 years ago.

From this POV, there is nothing novel about Israelis taking possession of a little more land. The area they wish to possess for the slightest enlargement of Israel is just not empty, free, and clear.

In the long run of history, one group of people obtaining more space almost always means some other group of people having less space. The Palestinians are, unhappily, on the "less space" side of the equation, and naturally they do not like it.

I suppose Zionists have a version of manifest destiny in mind, like 'everything on the west side of the Jordan River', at least. My guess is that they will eventually have it all, and will gain it by the use of force. Israel has never been hobbled by a "sickly unwillingness to use force". Unfortunately, other nations in the area have been as unhobbled as Israel; they use weren't quite as good at it,

Whether the various states in the region can tolerate Israel's expansion depends on the power of Israel. If Israel remains very powerful, the area's states will tolerate it, but with much resentment.

Brexit was the big mistake, IMHO. The EU isn't a perfect union, of course, but it seemed like the UK was much better off IN than OUT. I certainly can understand the ethnic pride the Scots have, be they Celts or Norse. But ethnic pride isn't enough to maintain their economy.

Their international exports (not counting trade within the UK):

How much North Sea oil can Scotland lay claim to? Aside from fish and fleece, what other products does Scotland produce? (I know jack shit about their economy.)

Maybe the United Kingdom should devolve altogether. Independent England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland. Independent Yorkshire? Independent Cornwall? Or unite Ireland? Fat chance, probably.

Maybe the British Isles should be made a UN Protectorate. Once they ran an empire; now they don't seem to be able to run a fish and chips shop. Or maybe the French should take over again. It improved things quite a bit the last time.