I see what you mean. If I mail these to you, I can sign them for you too. How many copies do you want? Oh, and which mountainside do you live on?

Some more Street Photography (mostly around Chinatown, Bangkok).

You got my vote.

Sorry, you actually need to be a subscriber to upload. I'm not even sure if subscribing works at the minute (my own tab is mounting monthly).

Edit: It should be available now.

You can also just drag and drop into the text box.

I'm selfishly focusing on the fact that my RMB savings took an overnight sterling-equivalent jump of 5-10%.

Goodbye and good luck.

Should we sell war-grade assault weapons to suspected terrorists? Oh, difficult question - let's wait until one of them massacres dozens of innocent people and then still come up with the wrong answer.

God knows. I lost it at the end I think. :D

I did, but you were driving too quick.

The vised bit seems unsalvageable really but I can't think of a good alternative right now. If it were a hand you could at least say "lay prone between his knees" and the subject would be totally clear.

Poetic for some. Messy and awkward for me. I take a hatchet to it thusly:

"The slope where he rested was part of a railroad bed blasted out of the shale and lime cut by the Hudson just down the hill and out of sight, hidden by forests, backyards, homes - the old river a funnel for the wind that eased now through the weeds, pressing on both sides of the track, dying, and then rising again with a hint of seaweed, a taste of the distant sea that, urged by the moon's pull up the deep yielding estuary, salted his face vised between his knees."

I don't know how long I've been trying to get my hands on a Napalm Death smoking jacket.

Reminded me more of Helloween.

Not a Brit, but if I were I would go along with Varoufakis for "in". Lesser of two evils.

As an expat who travels around a fair bit, Farcebook has its uses. I arrive somewhere and post a picture - easy way to mass inform. My siblings post videos and pics of themselves and their families - helps me to keep up with goings-on in the family. I don't really care too much about the data collection - Mark Zuckerberg in a ski mask knocking at my bedroom window is not a problem I anticipate having any time soon.

If I weren't an expat or if members of my family weren't, I doubt I'd use it though as I wouldn't see the point except as a kind of exercise in self-propaganda, which one could get lost in (as pointed out by Bitter Crank).

First of all, you are not responsible for an evil you did not vote for. You are for one you did. Secondly, people voting for "the lesser of two evils" could function to perpetuate a system that itself is a greater evil (e.g. the two (business) party system in the US) than an alternative. Thirdly, voting for a good candidate or party helps that party to some degree even if they don't win. Fourthly, if you vote for a lesser-evil candidate in order to stop a greater-evil candidate your vote is still almost certainly wasted (if by wasted you mean it doesn't in itself determine the outcome of the election). It's one vote. And you've just sacrificed your principles for what? (And if you want to make the "But if everyone thought that way..." argument, you could just as easily make that as a reason for voting for the good candidate over the lesser-evil candidate). In short, no matter what line of reasoning you follow, it almost never makes any sense to use your vote on a candidate you consider a bad candidate over one you consider a good candidate.

I wasn't aware, and I don't really know how UK law works. If the baker had refused to write "Deny gay marriage" would he have been guilty of discriminating against Christians? — Hanover

No, because in the UK and Ireland most Christians probably support gay marriage. But in any case, if the baker can be compelled to write "Allow gay marriage" it should be that he can be compelled to write "Deny gay marriage" or anything else that doesn't fall under the bounds of hate speech. He can't be compelled to write "The Holocaust never happened" or "Fuck the Queen", for example, but other than that his personal opinions shouldn't be allowed to infringe on the rights of customers to a reasonable level of service. In just the same way you should be allowed to expel someone from a pub or restaurant for inciting hatred but not for being on either side of a contentious public debate like gay marriage or abortion etc. The tricky part then becomes where exactly to draw the line.

Because liberals have abandoned liberalism, it's sometimes left to conservatives to defend it, so there's often a confusion between conservatism and classical liberalism. — jamalrob

That's a fair point. I honestly don't read it enough to judge to what extent it represents the classical liberal tradition. Anyhow, as I admitted earlier, I was addressing the messenger rather than the message. I'm happy to talk about said message if someone who can present a clear position worth debating is willing to lay it out. Plenty of worthy souls here I'm sure.

I would expect it to be at least sort of liberal. — Bitter Crank

I doubt many would characterize it as even "sort of" liberal in its current form. The Spectator's most well-known author and former editor is Boris Johnson, one of the favourites to be the next leader of the aforementioned Conservative party, scourge of the working poor. @jamalrob's statement that it's not a Marxist journal in disguise is like me saying Fox News are not Bernie Sanders' supporters in disguise. Let's not state the obvious to make it seem less obvious. To be fair, I am deliberately poisoning the well here because of my antipathy to all things Tory. But there's not much to argue with in the article. There are no real arguments. It's just a poor attempt at satire that's vaguely flirts with half-truths while dancing self-congratulatorily to the usual Tory tune.

(None of this is to say there aren't good writers working for the magazine, of course, but Andy Shaw is apparently not one of them).

The Spectator supports the working class like the noose supports the hanged man. It's a British conservative magazine sympathetic to a British conservative party that is currently promoting a budget that hits the working poor disproportionately harder than any other sector in society. In fact, it's cuts are almost exclusively directed at the working poor. Why? Because most of them don't vote conservative. And it's not just me saying that, it's also Iain Duncan Smith, the former work and pensions minister who resigned for that stated reason.

Anyhow, the left, in the UK at least, is supported and made up of plenty of working class people especially in the North. And not all of them eat Haribos and drink a lot as the Spectator would have us believe (in a crude attempt at stereotyping that sees them hoist by their own satirical petard). But really what it comes down to is: "They would say that wouldn't they". If there's any British institution that's anti-left, it's the Spectator. And it's not just middle class hypocrites they have contempt for either. Finally, no, it's not particularly funny or witty. Right wing attempts at satire almost never are.

(And the reference to George Orwell is cringeworthy. Andy Shaw, you are no George Orwell.)

The fact that no-one in the immediate vicinity batted an eyelid at this execution is definitely shocking. But you're using the same strategy that @Hanover sometimes has: employ a minimal number of facts to make sweeping statements about an entire country or people. Would it be too much to ask that we could get beyond that?

This is just naivete. We're not a semantical distinction away from peace. You cite to an agreement reached over 20 years ago that has meant nothing in reducing violence. In 2000, it was made very clear that the Palestinians didn't want peace at the Camp David Summit — Hanover

From your deeply biased perspective, sure. And from the deeply biased perspective of the Palestinians the blame is all Israel's. The vast majority of analysts do not paint things in such cartoonish terms.

This conflates two issues: (1) the Palestinian objection to the reference of the land as Jewish and (2) secular Jews objection to having Jewish theology imposed on an otherwise secular nation — Hanover

There are two issues here and I've been careful in my wording to try not to conflate them but to show how they're related. I didn't expect agreement but at least it highlights the complexities here that you continuously seem to want to gloss over.

Camp David fell apart largely due to the right of return issue, which was the Palestinians arguing that every descendant of every displaced Palestinian after Israeli independence be permitted to return to Israel (not just to Gaza and the West Bank). The numbers of such people are now in the millions. Israel could not accept that condition as it would essentially cede the land right back to the Palestinians and destroy the character of the state of Israel. — Hanover

Again, it's not as simple as you make out. There was room for negotiation.

At Camp David, the Palestinians maintained their traditional demand that the right of return be implemented. They demanded that Israel recognize the right of all refugees who so wished to settle in Israel, but to address Israel's demographic concerns,they promised that the right of return would be implemented via a mechanism agreed upon by both sides, which would try to channel a majority of refugees away from the option of returning to Israel. According to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, some of the Palestinian negotiators were willing to privately discuss a limit on the number of refugees who would be allowed to return to Israel

Link

See also:

In 2002, Sari Nusseibeh, an academic and former representative of the PLO in Jerusalem controversially proposed a settlement where Palestinian refugees would only be able to return to a Palestinian state.

Also, the unofficial "Geneva Accord" peace framework, proposed by former Israeli minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo in 2003, relinquished the full right of return. — BBC

So your jump to this.

The Palestinian objection to having Israel desginated "Jewish" is because their objective is to make it a Palestinian nation and they won't accept anything less. That is to say, this objection by the Palestinians is not semantical. It's a clear declaration that they don't want non-Palestinian control of the land because they beleive all the land is theirs

It's as I've said all along: They don't want a two state solution. They want to control over the whole country. — Hanover

Is a jump into more cartoonish falsity. Your strategy here seems to be to take the most biased interpretation you can of a minimal number of facts, ignore all nuance, and run with that as far as you can. Of course, that will end up making the Palestinians look bad, which sadly seems to be one your objectives here.

It seems obvious to me. — Hanover

I wonder why. Anyway, what is obvious is that the right of return is an important issue for the Palestinians as the principle is based on the UN declaration of human rights and protected under international law, but it's a negotiating position not an absolute unequivocal or unnuanced demand.

That's your conclusion. If you want to argue against any of the facts in my post, go ahead.

Does anyone at this point think that Russia will be forced to return Crimea to Ukraine? — Bitter Crank

No, but the people of the Crimea did vote to join Russia. The vote might not be considered entirely free and fair but no-one's going to deny that the Crimean people in general are very pro-Russian, which makes this a very different situation to that in Palestine.

I know this is your position, and I think it creates a problem for you. The problem it creates is that you can't offer such an unequivocal condemnation of Israel. — Hanover

I can unequivocally condemn some of what Israel does, and some of what the Palestinians do. I'm not going to blanketly condemn either Israel or the Palestinians. So, I don't see a problem. In fact, I see my position as very consistent. But we probably need to tease out the stuff in the last post to get to all that.

If you just think Israel is seizing land it shouldn't seize, that's hardly the stuff of international interest. If the Palestinians weren't terrorizing the Israelis, this issue would not even make your radar, which means that their terror campaign is effective. — Hanover

This makes no sense to me at all. Of course, if Israel wasn't being attacked, the issue would still be on the international radar, and mine, i.e. of course the seizure of land that shouldn't be seized is the stuff of international interest. We're not living in 19th century colonial times. The UN would still have tried to impose sanctions and so on. In fact, there would be even more justification for objections, which is yet another reason for the Palestinians to unilaterally stop the violence. They have no hope of winning militarily but they can win morally if they limit themselves to peaceful protest.

I think we've made some progress.

We seem to both acknowledge that :

1) It is not accurate or fair to blanketly refer to Palestinians as "terrorists" or "evil"
2) The Palestinians as a people deserve some sympathy considering their plight
3) Attacks targeting civilians are wrong and should be unequivocally condemned
4) Ideally, there needs to be an immediate end to violence followed by talks and an agreement on a two-state solution
5) My non-existent wife is worthy of our mutual adoration

There are still a couple of issues to be untangled though including:

A) The Jewish state question
B) The question of what terrorism is

To take the first:

It's not that anyone really believes that if Israel agreed that it would never again refer to itself as a Jewish state that we'd be any closer to a meaningful peace agreement — Hanover

Yes, they do actually. The Palestinians are happy to recognize Israel - again, see the Oslo accords - but do not want to agree to recognize a status that could result in Arab Israelis being discriminated against. I mean would you be happy with America declaring itself to be a "white Christian state"? Earlier, you told me that Israel was, amongst other things, "very secular". How can you be "very secular" and at the same time define your country according to ethnicity and/or religion?* And by the way, this is not only a problem for the Palestinians, it's a problem for Israelis; the version of the "Jewish state" being pushed by Netanyahu has been highly controversial even within Israel.

This following is from CBS:
"Jewish state" bill fuels fire in divided Israel

You can see from the article that Netanyahu would ideally have the Palestinians accept a kind of state not even his own Justice Minister wanted to accept. As far as I'm concerned, Israel should be recognized as the ethnic homeland of the Jewish people, but if what is meant by "a Jewish State" goes beyond that, the Palestinians could essentially be being asked to agree to second class citizenship for Arab Israelis. And of course, they are not going to do that. All of this is to say that while we may not find absolute agreement here, at the very least it should be clear the issue is not as black and white as you have made it out to be.

B) On what terrorism is.

I think we need to sort out our definitions here. For me, terrorism is not a function of how big the bomb, how sophisticated the delivery process, how powerful the military apparatus behind it, or how nominally democratic the deliverers. Terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians or the disregard for their safety in military operations in order to further political, religious or ideological objectives. That definition does not exclude governments. From an ethical standpoint, it makes no difference whether the terrorist wears a uniform or not, whether he uses a suicide bomb or a missile, or whether he claims to represent democracy or Islamism. What matters in a terrorist act is the act itself. The act of violence against the innocent. (Incidentally, I'm not making any statement here as yet about whose acts might fall under this definition, I simply want to try to agree on principles first before we get into that more difficult question).

What's your definition?

Do you not see a difference between self-defense and an aggressive act? If the expected result of terrorism is collateral damage of your own citizens, then I'd blame the terrorists for that collateral damage. — Hanover

There are rules concerning self-defense, both legal and ethical, even in war. If there weren't, then you killing one of my civilians in a terrorist attack would justify me retaliating by killing 100 of yours in a bombing aimed at the perpetrators and everyone in their immediate vicinity. The general principle is one of proportionality. You don't get to unconditionally dismiss the deaths of civilians of a country from which a terrorist attacked you in your attempts to kill that terrorist. That would amount to what's known in international parlance as a war crime.

To make it easier for you: Imagine you shoot my wife. That doesn't give me the right to bomb your house when you're in it while your kids are there too. And I wouldn't avoid responsibility by saying "Well that collateral damage* to your kids is your own fault because you killed my wife."

*Horrible military euphemism that this is.

It's your position that if Israel and Palestine come to terms with a two state solution that the Palestinians should retain control over what Israel calls itself? That is, if Israel declares itself a Jewish state, the Palestinians then have a right to bomb buses? — Hanover

I'm pretty sure you know that's not my position. If you don't, read over my posts, particularly the parts where I've repeatedly and unequivocally condemned all violence against civilians*. Anyway, if you're not going to be intellectually honest or take this seriously, I'm not going to continue with the conversation. Your call.

Aside from the fact that this is a very weak appeal to authority (some editor at a newspaper agrees with your position, so it must be correct), it's also not accurate to say that Haaretz is widely accepted as an unbiased newspaper. It's pretty well known that it is a very left leaning newspaper. It'd be like me citing to a FoxNews commentator and asserting he was well respected and generally accepted. — Hanover

I'm asking you to address the argument, not the source. You can merely acknowledge that. The only reason I mentioned the source was because you have suggested that critics of Israel are possibly antisemitic. You can't use that excuse here.


*To repeat again: There are no circumstances whatsoever, no matter what the Israeli army does in Palestine, no matter what the Israeli state declares itself to be, where it would be justified for Palestinians to bomb buses, fire rockets into Israeli neighbourhoods, or otherwise kill or maim innocent Israeli civilians.

Are you kidding me? Palestine never negotiated in good faith to bring about a 2 state solution — Hanover

You said they had never shown themselves to be in favour of a two state solution. That is simply false, Hanover. Read the newspaper article I added above.

The idea that Palestinians are really going to accept Israel's legitimate right to exist is never going to happen. — Hanover

They have already accepted Israel's right to exist. You are now moving the goalposts and saying that because they don't accept Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", they don't accept their right to exist at all.

From the article:

There are a great many difficulties with the "Jewish state" demand, and Netanyahu's formulation "the nation-state of the Jewish people" in particular. This phrasing is full of highly problematic definite articles, and suggests a trans-historical claim to this land on behalf of an entire but undefined ethno-religious group the world over, not just the present Jewish Israeli majority. It harkens back to pre-state Zionism, defining Israel as if the state had not actually been created and several generations of Jewish and Arab Israelis had not been born there.

This framing also begs the question about the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, who already face significant discrimination in many sectors because they are not Jewish. This is one of the reasons the PLO finds the demand so problematic: They will not agree to implicitly endorse the restrictions Palestinian citizens of Israel now face, or may face in the future.

Moreover, Israel itself cannot define what a "Jewish state" means, exactly. There were several attempts in the last Knesset to introduce legislation to clarify the term; all of them failed miserably because while there is a consensus among Jewish Israelis that their state is in some sense "Jewish," there is no consensus whatsoever as to what that entails. So, in effect, Palestinians are being asked to agree to something that even the Israelis cannot define with any degree of specificity. — Haaretz

Bear in mind the source here is Israel's oldest and one if its most respected newspapers.

Are you suggesting that the Palestinian government really is in favor of a two state solution? If they are, they've certainly not ever shown that, — Hanover

Yes, I am. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Also, from the Israeli news source, Haaretz:

How Many Times Must the Palestinians Recognize Israel?

(Full text of above)

One side, the Palestine Liberation Organization, recognized Israel up front. All other details aside, they have long since performed the sine qua non of a two-state agreement by recognizing Israel. The other side, Israel, has never recognized a Palestinian state or, in any formal, written, or legal sense, even the Palestinian right to a state. — Haaretz

I really don't think anyone (including me) would be wiling to accept an Israel that sent its citizens into Gaza with bombs strapped to themselves on public buses. The conduct of the respective parties is not comparable. — Hanover

Hamas and other Palestinian groups deliberately target civilians, which is reprehensible. Israel doesn't. In that sense I agree the conduct is not comparable. However, Israel does show blatant disregard for civilian lives in many of its attacks. And because of this something else that is not comparable is the number of Palestinian civilians killed compared to Israeli civilians killed in the conflict.

During the clashes of 2014, for example, 5 Israeli civilians were killed, and from 761 (Israeli estimate) to 1462 (UN estimate) Palestinian civilians including up to 578 children (UN estimate). In other words, the number of Palestinian children alone killed by Israeli forces was up to 100 times as many as the total number of Israeli civilians killed. These are not just statistics, they represent a reality on the ground. None of those Palestinian children or civilians deserved to die any more than the 5 Israelis did, and their deaths are not likely to make Israel any safer. Of course, you are likely to say, "It's their own fault, they started it" etc. Others would say Israel started that round. But whoever started the slaughter, in terms of innocent civilians, the Palestinians were - in terms of pure numbers, orders of magnitude - more the victims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Palestinian

Their war against Israel is political, which includes in large part demonizing them. — Hanover

I have no problem at all declaring governments, cultures, or people as bad. That is to say, the reason I support only friendly nations having nuclear bombs, having international influence, possessing important pieces of land, having critical natural resources, etc. is because I want evil nations to be weak and good nations to be strong. I don't know why it's so hard to look at someone else's existence and simply declare it not worth protecting — Hanover

And, no, being unreasonable doesn't mean you lose the right to self-determination, but being a terrorist does. — Hanover

I find it hard to understand how you can be so obviously hypocritical. You are not only demonizing the Palestinians, you seem to be actively attempting to dehumanize them. I don't know if it's because you don't know that a majority of Palestinians live in the West Bank, which is controlled by Fatah* not Hamas; or you don't know that not all those in Gaza support Hamas; or you don't know the difference between Fatah and Hamas; or you don't know that large numbers of Palestinians are elderly infirm or children who are no threat to anyone; or you don't know that even those who support Hamas are not necessarily themselves terrorists. It's hard to tell. There are around 3 million Palestinians whose existence you have just dismissed as not worth protecting, as being essentially worthless because you think they are evil. This is exactly what the fanatics on the other side say about Jews. You and they are expressing views that are two sides of the same very ugly coin.

I'm pretty sure Ireland (for example) doesn't permit its murderers the right to self-determination. — Hanover

I don't know if you are saying this because you are trying to refer to the conflict in Northern Ireland or because you just want to say something about Ireland because I'm Irish. But Northern Ireland is instructive. Sinn Fein, the political representatives of the (now disbanded) IRA, which was a designated terrorist organization, have and have always had the support of about half the Catholic population there. The reason they are no longer in the business of killing people is that the British government engaged with them and gave them a place in a power sharing executive. In other words, rather than continue to marginalize them and shout names at them they decided it would be better to bring them into the process of democracy. This worked to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland both Catholic and Protestant. It's unlikely a one-state power sharing government would work in Israel because the two parties are too far apart politically and culturally, so the only viable solution in my view remains the two state one. As far as I'm concerned, the first step to that would be a complete cessation of violence (and ugly rhetoric); the second, talks; the third, an agreement; and the final a process of reconciliation. It's worked elsewhere in the world but there has to be the will to do it. Otherwise, everyone loses. Both sides need to step up to the plate here by at least attempting to understand and deal constructively with the other. And so do their cheerleaders.

*"Fatah is no longer regarded as a terrorist organization by any government. Fatah used to be designated terrorist under Israeli law and was considered terrorist by the United States Department of State and United States Congress until it renounced terrorism in 1988." Link.

They are justified in taking every action that they take because, frankly, all moral rules went out the window the moment the West and the Israelis began their occupation of Palestine, slightly prior to 1948. — discoii

Without moral rules or at least some ethical foundation, the debate descends into a shouting match. You shouldn't target innocent civilians or show disregard for their safety no matter what side you're on and no matter what the circumstances. That should be a bare minimum everyone can agree on.

Incidentally, you are showing as much blatant disregard for the Israelis as @Hanover has been showing for the Palestinians. Your positions are essentially the mirror image of each other. Hanover: Israelis = Good, Palestinians = Bad (therefore we don't have to care about the Palestinians). You: Palestinians=Good, Israelis=Bad (therefore we don't have to care about the Israelis).

As much as I admire the Jewish people (a disproportionate number of my top 10 favourite historical figures happen to be Jewish) I don't think it's possible to really imagine what it's like to be black or Jewish or Muslim or anything else you haven't grown up to be. The best we can do is try to be as objective in our arguments as possible. I do agree with the author that some criticism of Israel foreign policy is over the top, but no more over the top as far as I can see than criticism of US foreign policy. There are as many people who blame the Americans for every sin that Middle Eastern fanatics carry out as blame Israel. In both cases they're wrong, Palestinian suicide bombers are not martyrs in my eyes, they're murderers, as are all those who target or disregard the lives of innocent civilians, and those who carry out and support such crimes are the only ones who bear responsibility for them.

Anyhow, the other pillar of your argument seems to be that might is right; other countries have historically occupied others' lands and those others have not had an automatic right to get their land back; therefore, in this case it's hypocritical to expect Israel to give the Palestinians their land back.

If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing. If it was the Israelis who were subjugated, we should just ignore it. And if they fought back by firing rockets into Palestine, we should dismiss them as terrorists and use that as another reason for not giving them their land back. I disagree with that view of international relations. We live in a more enlightened time than when, to take one of your examples, the English and the Spanish stole the land of the native Americans and got away with it. So, in the circumstances applying to Israel vs Palestine, the real and the hypothetical above, the invaded and occupied would deserve our protection.

It's that the Palestinians want to kill their neighbors and take all the land. Sure, reasonable people can reasonably resolve their dispute. Our disagreement is that I think the Israelis are reasonable and the Palestinians aren't. — Hanover

The Palestinians do not all want to kill Israelis and take all their land. I think you know better than that. If you don't, you need to go back over the history of the attempts to find agreement and why they fell apart. Apart from that, a people being unreasonable (not that I necessarily accept the Palestinians in general are) does not abrogate their right to self-determination. Also, demonizing an entire ethnic community in the way you are doing here is exactly what those of us who are against anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia should be trying to avoid in this debate. There are several million Palestinians living in the region. They are not all crazed terrorists.

8-)

I'm not sure I understand the relevance here. Psychosis and psychopathy are completely different conditions, no?

Okay, let's not get off topic here — photographer

Sorry, I kind forgot what thread we were on there for a while. If it goes on, I'll cut it out and put it somewhere else.

As an aside, a personal story. One of my favourite students who happens to be Russian once revealed to me that he is extremely homophobic. He wanted me to help him protest against the University policy of allowing gay students to march on University grounds as they were "spreading homosexual propaganda". He was pretty upset about the whole thing. I explained to him I wouldn't help because I totally agreed with their right to march, and that besides, because it was a British University his protest would fall on deaf ears. And it did. He's generally a very nice guy and has told me lately his attitude has mollified somewhat. I don't hold it against him because I think his homophobia is a result of his upbringing and is really out of sync with the rest of his character. I'm hoping it will eventually whither and die completely.