Could someone please explain how bombing Gaza continuously and killing more than 40,000 Palestinians while telling survivors to move to "safe areas' that are then bombed is going to eliminate Hamas? Also, how it is in anyway useful or even plausible to draw an analogy between what is going on in Gaza and the defeat of the WWII Nazi regime and the other Axis powers?
The real objective of the war is to keep Netanyahu in power and out of jail. He is extremely unpopular and faces corruption charges, but as long as the war is going on he doesn't have to call elections or face a trial. Everything else is just propaganda. Imagine a smart, more militant Trump. At least that's what it looks like to me.
Every military person who has talked about the war in Gaza says the Israeli policy is ineffective. It's hard not to conclude they just want to kill Palestinians. See also the West Bank.
I've been making that point for years. The problem is the limit of American thinking. We have borders. Our loyalties are supposed to lie within those borders. Are Palestinians loyal to Palestine or the Arab world in general, meaning Allah? The common enemy is Israel, a non-Muslim country that was formed supposedly with land stolen from Palestinians by the United Nations. There are many that simply don't accept non- Muslims and believe they can use the Koran to justify this. Israel has been tense since the end of World War II. Nothing they do is going to make Arabs love them. What if they were actually able to eliminate Hamas? Then what? Some other group won't take their place? The entire Arab world will simply proclaim "Enough! We can't beat them! We surrender! Israel can live in peace!" Yes, I know. The obvious question is then what am I recommending about Hamas? Does Israel simply forget what Hamas did? Of course not! But I think their response has been over the top and not helpful. Just let the Arabs have Gaza. It is primarily populated and run by Palestinians anyway. It has been run into the ground. Make the other Arab states back them if they so desire. I suppose Israeli objection would be placing another enemy on their border. How are things going now? How well did the border protect Israel?
"the Arab world in general, meaning Allah?" How are the Arab world and Allah the same thing? One is made up of people, the other is a deity. One can be 100% committed to Allah without any commitment to the Arab world in general. Arguably, Allah is the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition, all three being Abrahamic faiths and worshipping the god of Abraham as they understand it. Also, one can be an Arab and not Muslim - see, Coptic Christians and Chaldeans.
You missed my point. One can worship different things and different things take priority for different people. What you say is true but ignores reality. The priority of most in the Arab world is to do what they believe honors Allah. Like it or not, the two are tied. As you said anything is possible. I could worship the sun god and the moon god. But I don't. That's reality. The residents of the Arab world may need to put up with national boundaries. But for many it's not a priority compared to their religion. And they have a common cause when it comes to hating Israel.
Netanyahu believes it to be possible and he may even be correct. Since he doesn't care about the huge Palestinian death toll (and at least some of his cabinet members actually think it's a good thing), the death toll doesn't enter his equation.
The analogy with WWII is useful to respond to the genocide charge by reminding people that innocents die in war all of the time, often in huge numbers, and the number of civilian deaths is not what constitutes genocide.
"Innocents die in war all the time." And that justifies what? The 'genocide debate' is a straw man--how about "crimes against humanity"? Thousands of non-combatants have died in Gaza in the hope of killing bad actors who may or may not be hiding among them. That is a fact call it what you will.
Heartfelt congratulations on the wedding of your son, from everything you mentioned he is an exceptional young man. I am very happy for your entire family.
I apologize for a bit of a snippy tone in the comment on the CTA shooting last week. I was riled up to find out about it right after the Georgia school shooting. I understand it may not be relevant to concealed carry permits. However, I still think we should all be more outraged by these events. Our society is flooded with guns that are too easily accessible to people who shouldn't have them. No public space seems to be safe. Tweaking carry permit laws does little to nothing to address the core of the problem and only appeases gun fanatics.
I pay for the Sun-Times also but they recently added a really annoying feature - a pop-up that requires the reader to either make a donation or view a 15-second video. I'm unwilling to do either and am contemplating canceling my subscription.
This has not happened to me. I do get prompted to log in every 2-3 weeks, even though I’ve checked “keep me logged in”. Still, no big deal. I wonder if you need to log in to get rid of the video, etc., or maybe just click the down arrow to close the pop-up.
I've logged out and back in again and it still happens. And I can't get rid of it. Very frustrating. Maybe they're testing it on random subscribers to see what happens.
Neil Gaiman's words regarding love are glowing and inspirational. But, love is more about the mundane, ordinary parts of life where the two of you interact on a daily basis.
regarding your other reader who accidentally subscribed to a substack:
I did have the same problem. It was different writer who suggested another great read to follow. I thought I was just getting a sample when I erroneously subscribed. It was simple enough to undo. BUT the best part was the fact I actually LOVED the new column and I stayed subscribed and found it was worth every penny. Still was mad at myself for not reading the fine print though.
Yeah, me either regarding Borat. Would you care to enlighten us socially unaware readers what this is about? (I gather a movie). At present, this visual is dead last in the rankings, suggesting Marty and I are not alone. I also voted for No Smoking …
Yikes, Edward Cook. I love former Tribune and Sun Times editor Mark Jacob's take(s) on - and frustrations with - what's been happening in journalism and news reporting over the past several years (as noted via occasional links here and in Public Square), as news outlets have been bought by hedge fund operators without training or interest in quality news reporting, but definitely with personal agendas. I received my degree in journalism in the mid-'70s and spent my career in print and electronic publishing. I took pride in ensuring the printed information I had a hand in disseminating met the long-standing, well-regarded tenets of journalism as a craft that I learned first in my high school newspaper class and then more formally in college. I used that knowledge daily in my career. I use it now in volunteer work - even as I craft a communication for my church newsletter and the like! Jacob's piece wasn't a rant, in my mind, but a sadly stark reminder of how news journalism is failing to live up to its true definition (which isn't about self-promotion) and has been muddied by the clicks and ratings and ownership of the times in which we live. It's a reminder that the line between columnist (personal commentary and opinion that doesn't require selling your soul to your publisher/owner) and news journalism has become so blurred that anyone/everyone can be fooled if they don't take the time to think critically. There's not a day when I don't scream - to myself and sometimes out loud, to the alarm of my husband - But where's the story on (this or that)??! or That's not the lede!! And while our kids are not under 30 but in their mid-30s, we do have conversations with them about the information we all are consuming. If Jacob's list doesn't resonate with young people today, well, that's a failing that should be a huge concern to us all.
Off topic but I did learn something today. I thought you spelled "lede" incorrectly but decided to look it up. I went down the rabbit hole and learned why it is not spelled "lead". I now consider myself a smidgen smarter and can't wait for an opportunity to bring it up in conversation. I do realize that I will not amaze anyone but myself.
I don't necessarily disagree with David. The problem is that there is no one clear answer about noncombatants as each different situation is, well, different. The bombings of German cities is not a good example and not comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is a difference between collateral damage when bombing military targets and the deliverate targeting of civilian locations. The Dresden bombing was an example of shaming the German.people into realizing the cause was lost and in the hope they would dump Hitler- which was never going to happen. Many in the American government blamed ordinary Germans for electing Hitler in the first place, so being bombed was the penalty for their folly. It was unnecessary as Hitler had the population cowed and was not going to be "dumped". Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a realization that the Japanese culture was not going to let them surrender and that many American lives would be lost invading them. We can debate right or wrong, but that was the thinking at the time. Israel is claiming that Hamas is hiding in civilian places and that the bombings are the only way to root them out. How good is Israeli intelligence? We can hope that that what they are doing is not simply revenge. Israel was in the process of reaching a situation with some of its neighbors where, if not exactly good friends, they weren't blowing each other up. Hopefully, they haven't blown that out of the water. Remember, we are not talking about America. It's a different culture. Like the Japanese of World War 2, many are not simply going to surrender because Israel says so. Many would rather die than give in. It is not Israel's job to help them unless it clearly serves a military purpose. The situation has a clear danger of blowing up not only in the face of Israel, but ours as well, especially should other powers become involved.
There is a clear answer about noncombatants. Don’t intentionally kill them. To do so is murder. It is a war crime. Remember My Lai? Nobody argued that killing the civilians in My Lai was okay because it helped the Vietnamese to realize that the communist cause was lost. The allies were not prosecuted for war crimes for bombing Dresden, a city with no connection to the military or the war effort, for a simple reason. They won the war.
Hi Joanie - I agree with you on Dresden - it was an unquestionably immoral and illegal targeting of civilians. The old adage is that the victors write history, but also the reality is that victors do not face consequences.
I know I tend to get windy when attempting to explain my views. I'm not always sure I'm coming through clearly. But I'm with your shorter explanation. Yes, victors get away with a lot. Vietnam needs a longer explanation. As I said in a previous comment. JFK was warned not to use Agent Orange. A simple Vietnamese villager didn't care about the government or borders. He/she was concerned about daily survival. They suffered greatly due to us. There is no justification, Vietnam Cong or not. I wouldn't suggest saying that to a conservative that believes the US was created by God and can do no wrong. Besides killing commies was God's work.
Good morning Laurence - I don't believe there is any question whatsoever on an objective basis that Hamas deliberately places their command and control centers inside schools, hospitals and mosques as a means of attempting to avoid attack. When our good friend Judith Rannan and her daughter were abducted on October 7th they were taken to the local Hamas command center inside a large hospital (whereupon the nurses and staff gathered as the hostages were paraded in and trilled in celebration!).
Israel was surprised to learn how extensive the tunnel systems are - they are now estimating there are over 400 miles of them. This was a massive investment of many billions of dollars that, if had been directed to civilian infrastructure, would have immeasurably improved the Palestinian standard of living and quality of life.
I do not believe that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, and the problem remains that Hamas continues to hide themselves behind as many civilians as possible. The loss of non-combatant lives is undeniably tragic, but on an operational basis I can see absolutely no alternative for Israel in prosecuting this war against Hamas as legitimate defense of their people and state. I believe the US would feel compelled to do the same in this situation.
At the risk of going off subject, I believe it is very important context to remember that all of this stems from Iran. Without the radical Islamic mullahs in Iran, there would be no Hamas, no Hezbollah and no Houthis or any of the many other militant proxies with significant weaponry, training and support. The Saudis remain very aware of this dire threat, and I believe will resume moving toward reaporoachment with Israel when the dust settles as in their best interests. And the US and our allies are going to have to confront Iran at some point, as as turning a blind eye to their attacks by proxies only emboldens their aggression.
The only thing you said that I question is whether or not we would do the same thing. You mentioned Iran. Other than sanctions which have never really worked, what did we do about the 1980 hostage crisis? Fortunately it worked out without military action. But we face a new era. After Pearl Harbor, we knew who was responsible and who to blame. Now countries use stand ins and deny culpability. Iran could very easily held responsible for both Gaza and Yemen. How much should North Korea be blamed for the supplying of weapons to the Middle East? Responsibility is often dependent on who is doing the judging. Is is good that we spend so much times trying to fix things diplomatically? Many conservatives wish we had bombed Tehran a long time ago. This was actually done in a Tom Clancy novel. Which is better- our checkbook diplomacy or shotgun diplomacy? I leave that up to you. As Joannie says, the victors write the history.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on a few things my friend. The earlier sanctions on Iran that were in effect did indeed have a material effect on their economy, but we have lifted some of them in a failed attempt to influence their behavior for the better through appeasement, and of course the billions of dollars we paid them in essentially hostage ransom also helped them.
There would never be a need to bomb Tehran. There is a much easier course of action If it ever became necessary. Virtually all of their exports and economy are dependent upon the massive and almost indefensible oil processing facilities on Khark Island in the Gulf. If this was taken out in it's entirety, it would take at least a couple years to rebuild in which time their entire economy would collapse. The US could make it very clear to them that further attacks on US and allied shipping in the Gulf will result in destruction of a portion of Khark Island, and any repeated attacks would result in a furthering of this consequence. The Iranian mullahs are indeed fanatics, but they are also realists in terms of consequences and will not act against their own self interests. But, I believe implementation of more robust and extensive sanctions would over a longer period of time obtain the desired results without resorting to military action.
I suspected you might say that. The sanctions did not hurt nearly as much as the mullah redirecting funds. Atomic energy and weapons development and construction costs a lot of money. Think the mullah cared about the effects on average Iranians? The media keeps reporting horror stories about the effects on the Iranian economy. But I still see Iranis shopping in the stores. Many of the younger ones are snapping up western goods. The mullahs are concerned about devotion to Allah, not consumer comfort. And the US still passed on military action, not the option the Israelis took.
Except that bombing Kharg Island will cause the Iranians to immediately attack the Saudi oil fields & attempt to destroy them, causing a shortage of oil, thus raising the world price & driving up the price of gas in this country & Europe & probably causing a world wide recession. Even without their air force, they have thousands of missiles aimed at those Saudi oil fields. Due to the close range, no matter how much anti-missile defense there is for the Saudis, some will get through!
Better to destroy Iran's military, take out their air force which is a few old F-14s from the shah's time, some Russian jets that are old & sink their entire wretched navy.
But first sink that cargo ship Iran has stationed in the Red Sea which is feeding ship movements to the Houthis!
Hey Garry - Your point is very valid as a dramatic increase in the global price of oil would be a windfall to our non-friends the Russians. Every action has both intended and undesired consequences. I mentioned the Khark Island operation as an example of how we could totally sink the Iranian economy completely with very limited collateral damage and very limited danger to US forces conducting the attack.
I completely agree with you that US could decimate the Iranian air and naval forces very quickly in a full-on encounter - the Israelis have already demonstrated to them that they can strike any place in Iran anytime they wish.
One very limited way in which the US could get their attention is the next time the Iranian Revolutionary Guard ships act aggressively to our warships in the Gulf, wesimply blow them out of the water for the slightest infraction of international law. We have complete capability of doing so, but our present policy toward Iran is a very soft glove of appeasement which has served only to embolden them.
But probably wisest to begin with increased sanctions which will unarguably have a further effect on their economy.
No amount of sanctions have worked against the mullahs. They have their Revolutionary Guards in their pockets & the populace is cowed by them. They have managed to evade the sanctions, because there are numerous thieving countries that see a huge financial benefit from selling sanctioned goods to them.
I want their ships gone from not just the Red Sea, but from the Persian Gulf & every ocean on Earth. The let's see if the Houthis can target anything anymore, which I doubt!
I don't believe Israel is deliberately targeting civilians either. But they are being incredibly reckless. The attack on the World Central Kitchen convoy is proof of that, as is their killing of the three men (who turned out to be hostages) waving a white flag. There have been numerous complaints from within the IDF itself about disproportionality. Some local commanders have been ignoring the rules of proportionate response - such as the leveling of the home of a low-level Hamas operative, killing his entire family and many neighbors The IDF assertion that they take great care to avoid civilian casualties is obviously no longer true - if it ever really was.
Isn't that the attitude of many of the middle eastern countries? They won't take in the Palestinians or do much to help the people in Gaza but they are happy to criticize Israel for its actions.
The reason other middle eastern countries don't want to take in the Palestinians is not because they don't care about them, but because they support an independent Palestinian state. If the Palestinians were to be evacuated from their homes, the likelihood of their ever being allowed to return would be close to nil. After all, the people in Gaza (or their parents) used to live in what is now Israel and they haven't been allowed to return.
We debate to this day whether or not FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance due to breaching their diplomatic codes? Did FDR want the death and destruction at Pearl Harbor? I find that hard to swallow. But I'm quite sure he didn't mind the almost unanimous support he got for declaring war on Japan. Just a short time previous, Congress came within a single vote of disbanding the US Army. People simply didn't want foreign intervention. My point is that it is rare for leaders to hope for disasters against their people. But they don't necessarily mourn the boost given to their cause.
I can't help but wonder how Amanda Palmer feels about this poem in light of the sexual assault allegations against Neil Gaiman. Gaiman is the author of one of my favorite books of all time, "Neverwhere," so I am gutted. Sometimes it's hard to separate the artist from the art.
Thank you for this comment, Lynne Allen Taylor. It made me think, and led me back to an axiom/belief that I have held for a long time. There are no “good people” and “bad people.” You’ll hear people talk about crime in terms of “good people” or “good guys” and “bad people” or “bad guys.” You know, “a good guy with a gun.” I see those types of references in the comments to the Picayune Sentinel. I have practiced criminal defense for over 40 years, and most of my clients in criminal cases were just regular people who made a bad choice in difficult or tempting circumstances. They were not intrinsically “bad people.” This is not to say that people should not be punished for their bad acts, only that the world is much more complicated and variegated than most of us like to think. So, yeah, all artists commit bad acts, even if it’s just being mean to someone and hurting them unnecessarily because they are having a bad day. My sister and I love the paintings of Vincent Van Gogh. They touch us very deeply. We went to Europe last April to visit places from Vincent’s life and to see more of his paintings. Vincent was a very difficult and troubled person. People couldn’t stand to live with him. But that doesn’t make his art any less powerful and compelling. When great artists do bad things, it’s just an illustration that we are all capable of good and bad, or, if you like, good and evil. The art is no less compelling, powerful, and beautiful because the artist was not a perfect person.
Dickens is another example. Great writer, stood up for the downtrodden, but we now know he was pretty much a shit towards women. Sigh. I'm still reading David Copperfield.
I had never read "Oliver Twist" until recently, which Dickens wrote as a magazine serial over a couple of years. Fagin, one of THE evildoers in the books is referred to in the book about 90% of the time as "the Jew". I was a bit taken aback by that; but a product of his times . . . . (In the book, however, I still love Bumble's quote: "“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. . . . "
“Ravinia” is an area in Highland Park. How does anyone have an exclusive right to using the term? And why would anyone open a business with that name that isn’t in Ravinia? BTW the local pronunciation is ruh-vin-yuh, not ruh-vin-ee-uh.
Ravinia can be trademarked, which allows exclusive rights within some specific contexts. It is like "apple". Anyone can use the word referring to the fruit, but if you make a computer or a record label and call it an apple, then you will have a problem.
With all these sneaky auto subscriptions and hidden fees, I have to give credit where credit is due: My Sunday Ticket from last year did NOT auto renew. I signed up for YouTubeTVs add on so I could watch the Bears snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and I fully expected it to auto renew this year.
Instead I have one more week to decide if I want to cough up the cash that would be better spent on an Xbox or Playstation for my kiddos.
Regarding Mark Jacobs and the meaning of being a journalist, I’ve read him in the past and maybe met once. He’s a good analyst and commentator. A lot of it was a Trump hit piece but as a non-Trump Republican, I can admit that the former president brings this on himself. Mr. Jacobs did have one big score and one wiff.
He scored on the comment that polls are not news. For more than a generation the national press and commentators have treated poll results as both breaking news and grounds for challenging candidates and their supporters. Meaningless. The good news is that this is not the case for local reporters at traditional and now non-traditional outlets. The local guys and ladies seem to like hitting the phones, finding sources, reading reports and knocking on doors. It pays off.
He got it wrong on “Journalism isn’t treating crime statistics as less important than the vibes of people in diners.” Those of us concerned about crime take this shot all the time. Here’s what is wrong with it.
Crime is underreported. Not murders of course – but property crimes and even many crimes on persons. Why bother? Also, cops will tell you there is downgrading of crime in reports – a burglary attempt (felony) can become vandalism (misdemeanor) with the check of a box.
Crime is moving into areas previously less effected. Yes, this is an unfortunate paradox that we now have to live with what marginalized communities have suffered forever, but it still ups concerns and fear.
Crime is worse within a category. A business burglary used to be a business burglary. Now it’s a mob running wild in an Oakland convenience store, on camera, for 30 minutes with absolutely no fear or a police response. The crime statistics record a burglary, but the event is part of what the Wall Street Journal editorial writers have called the “dogs of disorder.”
Crime is on video for newscasts. When my wife sees a woman in a crosswalk at rush hour in downtown Chicago get smashed in the face and go down hard, we are not going to go to a play in Chicago. A retired editor and the moderator of Meet the Press can scoff at us all they want.
Two quick thoughts: 1) Congratulations on your son’s wedding. 2) Yes, when I recently subscribed to a newsletter on Substack I was shown and defaulted to subscribing to three other columns/publications under the theory that “if you like X, you’ll love Y and Z.” I got out of it before accepting the default. But it was annoying. Perhaps aggressive or deceptive marketing in search of monetizing content is not limited to Alden Capital? (And I know this is a Substack thing-not you EZ).
You know, don't you, that the password is "Sexytime".
Could someone please explain how bombing Gaza continuously and killing more than 40,000 Palestinians while telling survivors to move to "safe areas' that are then bombed is going to eliminate Hamas? Also, how it is in anyway useful or even plausible to draw an analogy between what is going on in Gaza and the defeat of the WWII Nazi regime and the other Axis powers?
The real objective of the war is to keep Netanyahu in power and out of jail. He is extremely unpopular and faces corruption charges, but as long as the war is going on he doesn't have to call elections or face a trial. Everything else is just propaganda. Imagine a smart, more militant Trump. At least that's what it looks like to me.
Every military person who has talked about the war in Gaza says the Israeli policy is ineffective. It's hard not to conclude they just want to kill Palestinians. See also the West Bank.
I've been making that point for years. The problem is the limit of American thinking. We have borders. Our loyalties are supposed to lie within those borders. Are Palestinians loyal to Palestine or the Arab world in general, meaning Allah? The common enemy is Israel, a non-Muslim country that was formed supposedly with land stolen from Palestinians by the United Nations. There are many that simply don't accept non- Muslims and believe they can use the Koran to justify this. Israel has been tense since the end of World War II. Nothing they do is going to make Arabs love them. What if they were actually able to eliminate Hamas? Then what? Some other group won't take their place? The entire Arab world will simply proclaim "Enough! We can't beat them! We surrender! Israel can live in peace!" Yes, I know. The obvious question is then what am I recommending about Hamas? Does Israel simply forget what Hamas did? Of course not! But I think their response has been over the top and not helpful. Just let the Arabs have Gaza. It is primarily populated and run by Palestinians anyway. It has been run into the ground. Make the other Arab states back them if they so desire. I suppose Israeli objection would be placing another enemy on their border. How are things going now? How well did the border protect Israel?
Latest news is that Israel is willing to give Hamas boss Sinwar a free pass to leave Gaza for somewhere else.
That would also require all the hostages to be released.
And we all know that Mossad will just hunt him down wherever he moves to & whack him there!
"the Arab world in general, meaning Allah?" How are the Arab world and Allah the same thing? One is made up of people, the other is a deity. One can be 100% committed to Allah without any commitment to the Arab world in general. Arguably, Allah is the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition, all three being Abrahamic faiths and worshipping the god of Abraham as they understand it. Also, one can be an Arab and not Muslim - see, Coptic Christians and Chaldeans.
You missed my point. One can worship different things and different things take priority for different people. What you say is true but ignores reality. The priority of most in the Arab world is to do what they believe honors Allah. Like it or not, the two are tied. As you said anything is possible. I could worship the sun god and the moon god. But I don't. That's reality. The residents of the Arab world may need to put up with national boundaries. But for many it's not a priority compared to their religion. And they have a common cause when it comes to hating Israel.
Netanyahu believes it to be possible and he may even be correct. Since he doesn't care about the huge Palestinian death toll (and at least some of his cabinet members actually think it's a good thing), the death toll doesn't enter his equation.
The analogy with WWII is useful to respond to the genocide charge by reminding people that innocents die in war all of the time, often in huge numbers, and the number of civilian deaths is not what constitutes genocide.
"Innocents die in war all the time." And that justifies what? The 'genocide debate' is a straw man--how about "crimes against humanity"? Thousands of non-combatants have died in Gaza in the hope of killing bad actors who may or may not be hiding among them. That is a fact call it what you will.
The Borat voice for smart speakers has been around since the movie. It was fun for a day.
Heartfelt congratulations on the wedding of your son, from everything you mentioned he is an exceptional young man. I am very happy for your entire family.
I apologize for a bit of a snippy tone in the comment on the CTA shooting last week. I was riled up to find out about it right after the Georgia school shooting. I understand it may not be relevant to concealed carry permits. However, I still think we should all be more outraged by these events. Our society is flooded with guns that are too easily accessible to people who shouldn't have them. No public space seems to be safe. Tweaking carry permit laws does little to nothing to address the core of the problem and only appeases gun fanatics.
Neil Steinberg had a better take on the tragedy:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2024/09/05/blue-line-fatal-shootings-homeless-unhoused-night-ministry-cta
I hope the above link isn't behind a paywall.
Thank you (no paywall, btw)
Sun-Times has a membership wall but membership can be free, I think. I pay for the Sun-Times so I'm not sure.
Me, too. It’s worth it.
I pay for the Sun-Times also but they recently added a really annoying feature - a pop-up that requires the reader to either make a donation or view a 15-second video. I'm unwilling to do either and am contemplating canceling my subscription.
This has not happened to me. I do get prompted to log in every 2-3 weeks, even though I’ve checked “keep me logged in”. Still, no big deal. I wonder if you need to log in to get rid of the video, etc., or maybe just click the down arrow to close the pop-up.
I've logged out and back in again and it still happens. And I can't get rid of it. Very frustrating. Maybe they're testing it on random subscribers to see what happens.
The same with me, you're forced to watch the video.
Snippy is on brand here at the Picayune Sentinel!
Neil Gaiman's words regarding love are glowing and inspirational. But, love is more about the mundane, ordinary parts of life where the two of you interact on a daily basis.
regarding your other reader who accidentally subscribed to a substack:
I did have the same problem. It was different writer who suggested another great read to follow. I thought I was just getting a sample when I erroneously subscribed. It was simple enough to undo. BUT the best part was the fact I actually LOVED the new column and I stayed subscribed and found it was worth every penny. Still was mad at myself for not reading the fine print though.
Speaking for myself, I’ve had no problem with Substack. A missed opportunity?
I don't get the Borat reference/tweet. But the no smoking in Arabic? Hilarious.
Yeah, me either regarding Borat. Would you care to enlighten us socially unaware readers what this is about? (I gather a movie). At present, this visual is dead last in the rankings, suggesting Marty and I are not alone. I also voted for No Smoking …
https://youtu.be/Zw16aew4Pt0 is the clip from "know your meme." https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/borat-voice-my-wife
Ok. I watched the clip. Why is the visual funny? Wife / WiFi? Ho-ho!
(Full disclosure, except in his presence with Rudy Giuliani, I don’t find Borat funny, despite my being a 3rd grader emeritus.)
Yikes, Edward Cook. I love former Tribune and Sun Times editor Mark Jacob's take(s) on - and frustrations with - what's been happening in journalism and news reporting over the past several years (as noted via occasional links here and in Public Square), as news outlets have been bought by hedge fund operators without training or interest in quality news reporting, but definitely with personal agendas. I received my degree in journalism in the mid-'70s and spent my career in print and electronic publishing. I took pride in ensuring the printed information I had a hand in disseminating met the long-standing, well-regarded tenets of journalism as a craft that I learned first in my high school newspaper class and then more formally in college. I used that knowledge daily in my career. I use it now in volunteer work - even as I craft a communication for my church newsletter and the like! Jacob's piece wasn't a rant, in my mind, but a sadly stark reminder of how news journalism is failing to live up to its true definition (which isn't about self-promotion) and has been muddied by the clicks and ratings and ownership of the times in which we live. It's a reminder that the line between columnist (personal commentary and opinion that doesn't require selling your soul to your publisher/owner) and news journalism has become so blurred that anyone/everyone can be fooled if they don't take the time to think critically. There's not a day when I don't scream - to myself and sometimes out loud, to the alarm of my husband - But where's the story on (this or that)??! or That's not the lede!! And while our kids are not under 30 but in their mid-30s, we do have conversations with them about the information we all are consuming. If Jacob's list doesn't resonate with young people today, well, that's a failing that should be a huge concern to us all.
Off topic but I did learn something today. I thought you spelled "lede" incorrectly but decided to look it up. I went down the rabbit hole and learned why it is not spelled "lead". I now consider myself a smidgen smarter and can't wait for an opportunity to bring it up in conversation. I do realize that I will not amaze anyone but myself.
I don't necessarily disagree with David. The problem is that there is no one clear answer about noncombatants as each different situation is, well, different. The bombings of German cities is not a good example and not comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is a difference between collateral damage when bombing military targets and the deliverate targeting of civilian locations. The Dresden bombing was an example of shaming the German.people into realizing the cause was lost and in the hope they would dump Hitler- which was never going to happen. Many in the American government blamed ordinary Germans for electing Hitler in the first place, so being bombed was the penalty for their folly. It was unnecessary as Hitler had the population cowed and was not going to be "dumped". Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a realization that the Japanese culture was not going to let them surrender and that many American lives would be lost invading them. We can debate right or wrong, but that was the thinking at the time. Israel is claiming that Hamas is hiding in civilian places and that the bombings are the only way to root them out. How good is Israeli intelligence? We can hope that that what they are doing is not simply revenge. Israel was in the process of reaching a situation with some of its neighbors where, if not exactly good friends, they weren't blowing each other up. Hopefully, they haven't blown that out of the water. Remember, we are not talking about America. It's a different culture. Like the Japanese of World War 2, many are not simply going to surrender because Israel says so. Many would rather die than give in. It is not Israel's job to help them unless it clearly serves a military purpose. The situation has a clear danger of blowing up not only in the face of Israel, but ours as well, especially should other powers become involved.
There is a clear answer about noncombatants. Don’t intentionally kill them. To do so is murder. It is a war crime. Remember My Lai? Nobody argued that killing the civilians in My Lai was okay because it helped the Vietnamese to realize that the communist cause was lost. The allies were not prosecuted for war crimes for bombing Dresden, a city with no connection to the military or the war effort, for a simple reason. They won the war.
Hi Joanie - I agree with you on Dresden - it was an unquestionably immoral and illegal targeting of civilians. The old adage is that the victors write history, but also the reality is that victors do not face consequences.
I know I tend to get windy when attempting to explain my views. I'm not always sure I'm coming through clearly. But I'm with your shorter explanation. Yes, victors get away with a lot. Vietnam needs a longer explanation. As I said in a previous comment. JFK was warned not to use Agent Orange. A simple Vietnamese villager didn't care about the government or borders. He/she was concerned about daily survival. They suffered greatly due to us. There is no justification, Vietnam Cong or not. I wouldn't suggest saying that to a conservative that believes the US was created by God and can do no wrong. Besides killing commies was God's work.
Good morning Laurence - I don't believe there is any question whatsoever on an objective basis that Hamas deliberately places their command and control centers inside schools, hospitals and mosques as a means of attempting to avoid attack. When our good friend Judith Rannan and her daughter were abducted on October 7th they were taken to the local Hamas command center inside a large hospital (whereupon the nurses and staff gathered as the hostages were paraded in and trilled in celebration!).
Israel was surprised to learn how extensive the tunnel systems are - they are now estimating there are over 400 miles of them. This was a massive investment of many billions of dollars that, if had been directed to civilian infrastructure, would have immeasurably improved the Palestinian standard of living and quality of life.
I do not believe that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, and the problem remains that Hamas continues to hide themselves behind as many civilians as possible. The loss of non-combatant lives is undeniably tragic, but on an operational basis I can see absolutely no alternative for Israel in prosecuting this war against Hamas as legitimate defense of their people and state. I believe the US would feel compelled to do the same in this situation.
At the risk of going off subject, I believe it is very important context to remember that all of this stems from Iran. Without the radical Islamic mullahs in Iran, there would be no Hamas, no Hezbollah and no Houthis or any of the many other militant proxies with significant weaponry, training and support. The Saudis remain very aware of this dire threat, and I believe will resume moving toward reaporoachment with Israel when the dust settles as in their best interests. And the US and our allies are going to have to confront Iran at some point, as as turning a blind eye to their attacks by proxies only emboldens their aggression.
The only thing you said that I question is whether or not we would do the same thing. You mentioned Iran. Other than sanctions which have never really worked, what did we do about the 1980 hostage crisis? Fortunately it worked out without military action. But we face a new era. After Pearl Harbor, we knew who was responsible and who to blame. Now countries use stand ins and deny culpability. Iran could very easily held responsible for both Gaza and Yemen. How much should North Korea be blamed for the supplying of weapons to the Middle East? Responsibility is often dependent on who is doing the judging. Is is good that we spend so much times trying to fix things diplomatically? Many conservatives wish we had bombed Tehran a long time ago. This was actually done in a Tom Clancy novel. Which is better- our checkbook diplomacy or shotgun diplomacy? I leave that up to you. As Joannie says, the victors write the history.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on a few things my friend. The earlier sanctions on Iran that were in effect did indeed have a material effect on their economy, but we have lifted some of them in a failed attempt to influence their behavior for the better through appeasement, and of course the billions of dollars we paid them in essentially hostage ransom also helped them.
There would never be a need to bomb Tehran. There is a much easier course of action If it ever became necessary. Virtually all of their exports and economy are dependent upon the massive and almost indefensible oil processing facilities on Khark Island in the Gulf. If this was taken out in it's entirety, it would take at least a couple years to rebuild in which time their entire economy would collapse. The US could make it very clear to them that further attacks on US and allied shipping in the Gulf will result in destruction of a portion of Khark Island, and any repeated attacks would result in a furthering of this consequence. The Iranian mullahs are indeed fanatics, but they are also realists in terms of consequences and will not act against their own self interests. But, I believe implementation of more robust and extensive sanctions would over a longer period of time obtain the desired results without resorting to military action.
I suspected you might say that. The sanctions did not hurt nearly as much as the mullah redirecting funds. Atomic energy and weapons development and construction costs a lot of money. Think the mullah cared about the effects on average Iranians? The media keeps reporting horror stories about the effects on the Iranian economy. But I still see Iranis shopping in the stores. Many of the younger ones are snapping up western goods. The mullahs are concerned about devotion to Allah, not consumer comfort. And the US still passed on military action, not the option the Israelis took.
Except that bombing Kharg Island will cause the Iranians to immediately attack the Saudi oil fields & attempt to destroy them, causing a shortage of oil, thus raising the world price & driving up the price of gas in this country & Europe & probably causing a world wide recession. Even without their air force, they have thousands of missiles aimed at those Saudi oil fields. Due to the close range, no matter how much anti-missile defense there is for the Saudis, some will get through!
Better to destroy Iran's military, take out their air force which is a few old F-14s from the shah's time, some Russian jets that are old & sink their entire wretched navy.
But first sink that cargo ship Iran has stationed in the Red Sea which is feeding ship movements to the Houthis!
Hey Garry - Your point is very valid as a dramatic increase in the global price of oil would be a windfall to our non-friends the Russians. Every action has both intended and undesired consequences. I mentioned the Khark Island operation as an example of how we could totally sink the Iranian economy completely with very limited collateral damage and very limited danger to US forces conducting the attack.
I completely agree with you that US could decimate the Iranian air and naval forces very quickly in a full-on encounter - the Israelis have already demonstrated to them that they can strike any place in Iran anytime they wish.
One very limited way in which the US could get their attention is the next time the Iranian Revolutionary Guard ships act aggressively to our warships in the Gulf, wesimply blow them out of the water for the slightest infraction of international law. We have complete capability of doing so, but our present policy toward Iran is a very soft glove of appeasement which has served only to embolden them.
But probably wisest to begin with increased sanctions which will unarguably have a further effect on their economy.
No amount of sanctions have worked against the mullahs. They have their Revolutionary Guards in their pockets & the populace is cowed by them. They have managed to evade the sanctions, because there are numerous thieving countries that see a huge financial benefit from selling sanctioned goods to them.
I want their ships gone from not just the Red Sea, but from the Persian Gulf & every ocean on Earth. The let's see if the Houthis can target anything anymore, which I doubt!
I don't believe Israel is deliberately targeting civilians either. But they are being incredibly reckless. The attack on the World Central Kitchen convoy is proof of that, as is their killing of the three men (who turned out to be hostages) waving a white flag. There have been numerous complaints from within the IDF itself about disproportionality. Some local commanders have been ignoring the rules of proportionate response - such as the leveling of the home of a low-level Hamas operative, killing his entire family and many neighbors The IDF assertion that they take great care to avoid civilian casualties is obviously no longer true - if it ever really was.
I have the impression that Hamas wants innocent Palestinians to be killed because it makes Israel look bad and therefore garners support. Am I wrong?
Maybe not actively "want", but certainly don't mind and are happy to use civilian deaths for PR
Isn't that the attitude of many of the middle eastern countries? They won't take in the Palestinians or do much to help the people in Gaza but they are happy to criticize Israel for its actions.
Very true, and they all get a free pass from the US media
The reason other middle eastern countries don't want to take in the Palestinians is not because they don't care about them, but because they support an independent Palestinian state. If the Palestinians were to be evacuated from their homes, the likelihood of their ever being allowed to return would be close to nil. After all, the people in Gaza (or their parents) used to live in what is now Israel and they haven't been allowed to return.
We debate to this day whether or not FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance due to breaching their diplomatic codes? Did FDR want the death and destruction at Pearl Harbor? I find that hard to swallow. But I'm quite sure he didn't mind the almost unanimous support he got for declaring war on Japan. Just a short time previous, Congress came within a single vote of disbanding the US Army. People simply didn't want foreign intervention. My point is that it is rare for leaders to hope for disasters against their people. But they don't necessarily mourn the boost given to their cause.
I can't help but wonder how Amanda Palmer feels about this poem in light of the sexual assault allegations against Neil Gaiman. Gaiman is the author of one of my favorite books of all time, "Neverwhere," so I am gutted. Sometimes it's hard to separate the artist from the art.
Thank you for this comment, Lynne Allen Taylor. It made me think, and led me back to an axiom/belief that I have held for a long time. There are no “good people” and “bad people.” You’ll hear people talk about crime in terms of “good people” or “good guys” and “bad people” or “bad guys.” You know, “a good guy with a gun.” I see those types of references in the comments to the Picayune Sentinel. I have practiced criminal defense for over 40 years, and most of my clients in criminal cases were just regular people who made a bad choice in difficult or tempting circumstances. They were not intrinsically “bad people.” This is not to say that people should not be punished for their bad acts, only that the world is much more complicated and variegated than most of us like to think. So, yeah, all artists commit bad acts, even if it’s just being mean to someone and hurting them unnecessarily because they are having a bad day. My sister and I love the paintings of Vincent Van Gogh. They touch us very deeply. We went to Europe last April to visit places from Vincent’s life and to see more of his paintings. Vincent was a very difficult and troubled person. People couldn’t stand to live with him. But that doesn’t make his art any less powerful and compelling. When great artists do bad things, it’s just an illustration that we are all capable of good and bad, or, if you like, good and evil. The art is no less compelling, powerful, and beautiful because the artist was not a perfect person.
Dickens is another example. Great writer, stood up for the downtrodden, but we now know he was pretty much a shit towards women. Sigh. I'm still reading David Copperfield.
I had never read "Oliver Twist" until recently, which Dickens wrote as a magazine serial over a couple of years. Fagin, one of THE evildoers in the books is referred to in the book about 90% of the time as "the Jew". I was a bit taken aback by that; but a product of his times . . . . (In the book, however, I still love Bumble's quote: "“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. . . . "
Gaiman is also a $cientologist, as his much of his family, which makes him persona non grata to me at all times!
He claims he has left Scientology behind, but I've read some reviews that "Ocean at the End of the Lane" has elements of Scientology in it. Sigh.
“Ravinia” is an area in Highland Park. How does anyone have an exclusive right to using the term? And why would anyone open a business with that name that isn’t in Ravinia? BTW the local pronunciation is ruh-vin-yuh, not ruh-vin-ee-uh.
Ravinia can be trademarked, which allows exclusive rights within some specific contexts. It is like "apple". Anyone can use the word referring to the fruit, but if you make a computer or a record label and call it an apple, then you will have a problem.
The wedding poem was beautiful! Thank you for sharing.
With all these sneaky auto subscriptions and hidden fees, I have to give credit where credit is due: My Sunday Ticket from last year did NOT auto renew. I signed up for YouTubeTVs add on so I could watch the Bears snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and I fully expected it to auto renew this year.
Instead I have one more week to decide if I want to cough up the cash that would be better spent on an Xbox or Playstation for my kiddos.
Regarding Mark Jacobs and the meaning of being a journalist, I’ve read him in the past and maybe met once. He’s a good analyst and commentator. A lot of it was a Trump hit piece but as a non-Trump Republican, I can admit that the former president brings this on himself. Mr. Jacobs did have one big score and one wiff.
He scored on the comment that polls are not news. For more than a generation the national press and commentators have treated poll results as both breaking news and grounds for challenging candidates and their supporters. Meaningless. The good news is that this is not the case for local reporters at traditional and now non-traditional outlets. The local guys and ladies seem to like hitting the phones, finding sources, reading reports and knocking on doors. It pays off.
He got it wrong on “Journalism isn’t treating crime statistics as less important than the vibes of people in diners.” Those of us concerned about crime take this shot all the time. Here’s what is wrong with it.
Crime is underreported. Not murders of course – but property crimes and even many crimes on persons. Why bother? Also, cops will tell you there is downgrading of crime in reports – a burglary attempt (felony) can become vandalism (misdemeanor) with the check of a box.
Crime is moving into areas previously less effected. Yes, this is an unfortunate paradox that we now have to live with what marginalized communities have suffered forever, but it still ups concerns and fear.
Crime is worse within a category. A business burglary used to be a business burglary. Now it’s a mob running wild in an Oakland convenience store, on camera, for 30 minutes with absolutely no fear or a police response. The crime statistics record a burglary, but the event is part of what the Wall Street Journal editorial writers have called the “dogs of disorder.”
Crime is on video for newscasts. When my wife sees a woman in a crosswalk at rush hour in downtown Chicago get smashed in the face and go down hard, we are not going to go to a play in Chicago. A retired editor and the moderator of Meet the Press can scoff at us all they want.
Two quick thoughts: 1) Congratulations on your son’s wedding. 2) Yes, when I recently subscribed to a newsletter on Substack I was shown and defaulted to subscribing to three other columns/publications under the theory that “if you like X, you’ll love Y and Z.” I got out of it before accepting the default. But it was annoying. Perhaps aggressive or deceptive marketing in search of monetizing content is not limited to Alden Capital? (And I know this is a Substack thing-not you EZ).