What's in the News? 2.0

[Beorning]

Well, here's what happened:

Today, the parliament (Sejm, specifically) is debating and voting on various things - most importantly, the new law I mentioned yesterday that's aimed at destroying the biggest independent news station in Poland. Around 7 PM, it seemed like the thing would soon be voted on - but first, the opposition submitted a motion for the whole Sejm session to be put on pause until September. And...

... due to PiS having lost its majority yesterday (after they kicked out Gowin and his tiny party out of the ruling coalition), it turned out the opposition *won* the vote. Meaning, the Sejm should immediate pause proceedings until September, including not voting on anything anymore.

What happened instead?

The Speaker ordered a break. During the break (which lasted for about an hour), PiS met with some MPs, obviously promised them some gifts (like government positions, jobs at state-owned businesses etc.)... and then, submitted a motion for the vote to be *repeated*. On an insanely flimsy justification.

Of course, the opposition was furious... but the Speaker repeated the vote anyway. And - surprise! Suddenly, PiS *won* the vote! A few MPs that voted for the pause an hour ago, now voted against! Meaning, there will be no pause in proceedings - and it seems that PiS will be trying to vote the new media law today...

This is... open fraud. This how dictatorships work. With this type of methods, I have no doubt that PiS will do *anything* to stay in power, including cheating during elections like in Belarus...

[Beorning]

An update:

as expected, after making the Sejm restart the proceedings, PiS (with the support of freshly-bought non-PiS MPs) managed to win the vote regarding the new media law. Here's a summary of today's events:

https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/08/11/polish-parliament-passes-media-ownership-restrictions-amid-angry-scenes/

Fortunately, it's not the end of the fight yet - now the media bill will be passed to our Senate, where the opposition has a (small) majority. So, the Senate might be able to do something about this... especially if the situation regarding PiS' extremely shaky majority in Sejm becomes even more chaotic. Still... definitely a very sad day.

I wonder what the international reactions will be, if any? I hope that the current US administration puts some pressure on PiS...

BTW. This whole situation proves how unrealistic are claims by those in the States that say the people need guns to defend themselves against tyranny. Modern tyranny isn't put in place by pure force of arms, democracy can be dismantled just as well by legal proceedings. What use are guns against political parties that force oppressive laws through the parliament by bribing MPs and breaking procedures..?

[Lustful Bride]

The hits keep on coming.

Poland's recent media laws make the news over in the US

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/poland-defies-u-s-and-eu-by-passing-contentious-media-law/ar-AANd4bf?ocid=msedgntp


Brazil's Bolsonaro is stealing some notes out of Trump's playbook.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/brazil-s-jair-bolsonaro-copycats-trump-with-baseless-claims-of-voter-fraud-while-raising-fears-of-election-violence-worse-than-january-6/ar-AANdcPS?ocid=msedgntp


and something for all you parents here on E. Its just a game/scary reference to one of the Cognitohazards of the SCP foundation, but probably best to keep an eye on your kid's tiktoks and such so they don't get scared, or freaked out thinking some cosmic horror will drag them under the water.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-does-you-do-not-recognise-the-bodies-in-the-water-mean-creepy-scp-tiktok-explained/ar-AANcIKQ?ocid=msedgntp

[Oniya]

and something for all you parents here on E. Its just a game/scary reference to one of the Cognitohazards of the SCP foundation, but probably best to keep an eye on your kid's tiktoks and such so they don't get scared, or freaked out thinking some cosmic horror will drag them under the water.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-does-you-do-not-recognise-the-bodies-in-the-water-mean-creepy-scp-tiktok-explained/ar-AANcIKQ?ocid=msedgntp

So, Little Oni is quite informed on SCP things.  (She doesn't play horror games or watch scary movies, but she will binge things like 'Kill Count' like no-one's business.)  When I read the article and got to the number, she explained to me that 'while they don't get created in order, they usually work in blocks of numbers before going onto an new set.  We're currently up in the six-thousands.'  This one was actually created in 2016.  https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-2316  She was amused that SCP has made mainstream news.

[Lustful Bride]

So, Little Oni is quite informed on SCP things.  (She doesn't play horror games or watch scary movies, but she will binge things like 'Kill Count' like no-one's business.)  When I read the article and got to the number, she explained to me that 'while they don't get created in order, they usually work in blocks of numbers before going onto an new set.  We're currently up in the six-thousands.'  This one was actually created in 2016.  https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-2316  She was amused that SCP has made mainstream news.

I think this, more than anything else recently, has made me realize I am now old

[Lustful Bride]

Q-Anon conspiracy cultist killed his own two children because he thought they were serpent people who would grow to serve the illuminati.

He allegedly told investigators that he "believed his children were going to grow into monsters, so he had to kill them," the complaint stated. He allegedly said he was "enlightened by QAnon and Illuminati conspiracy theories" and believed his wife passed "serpent DNA" on to his children, according to the complaint.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/american-charged-with-murdering-his-2-young-children-in-mexico-authorities-say/ar-AANaN77?ocid=msedgntp

[Oniya]

I think this, more than anything else recently, has made me realize I am now old

SCP itself was kind of 'niche' for a long time.  I still have to explain what it is to Mr. Oniya, especially when Little Oni and I are laughing our butts off over one of the -J series.  I think the Tik-Tok is more likely to freak out the parents than the kids.  It honestly sounds like one of the videos where someone literally reads off the wiki entry.

[Lustful Bride]

SCP itself was kind of 'niche' for a long time.  I still have to explain what it is to Mr. Oniya, especially when Little Oni and I are laughing our butts off over one of the -J series.  I think the Tik-Tok is more likely to freak out the parents than the kids.  It honestly sounds like one of the videos where someone literally reads off the wiki entry.

Looking over the information in the article I think its a tiktok version of this channel and this specific video.

[TheGlyphstone]

I think this, more than anything else recently, has made me realize I am now old

You think you feel old? I've written SCPs older than that.

[SweetSerenade]

You think you feel old? I've written SCPs older than that.

I was around when SCPs were being posted as almost something similar to creepypastas on /nosleep (there are several SCP writer's that put the Story version of SCP events on /nosleep (and when the NoSleep Podcast started doing SCP stuff xD)

[Beorning]

You think you feel old? I've written SCPs older than that.

Oooh. Please do say which ones are yours :)

On a more serious note:

Q-Anon conspiracy cultist killed his own two children because he thought they were serpent people who would grow to serve the illuminati.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/american-charged-with-murdering-his-2-young-children-in-mexico-authorities-say/ar-AANaN77?ocid=msedgntp

What??           

[TheGlyphstone]

Oooh. Please do say which ones are yours :)

On a more serious note:

What??           

1620, 1902, and a third one I dont even remember the number of because it sucked but not badly enough to get deleted. I dropped the hobby after that, my downhill trend was clear.

[TheGlyphstone]

Sorry, thats 1620 and 1303. I guess they rearranged numbers at some point.

[Haibane]

It’s infuriating that the US can’t conceive of providing help to another country unless they get to dictate the terms of that help; no aid without strings attached. The US shouldn’t be an occupying force… but it absolutely should provide a military presence to fight back against the warlords, Taliban or otherwise. That presence, though, should be under Afghanistan’s control.

I see a lot of concern for Americans… but none for Afghans.

These lines speak a lot. I may well get roasted for these opinions but in my view the USA is completely unable to help another country. Because all it wants to do is make sure its own involvement has some kind of benefit, or money for their own companies that go in to "help". Selfish. Self-interested. Those words sun up American foreign policy a lot of the time.

The USA is an immature political animal in that it has in recent years no concept of philanthropy. If you look back to the years after WWII when the USA poured so much help into Germany and Japan you see a different agenda, although of course Japan was heavily Americanised in the process.

But in most places the USA has poked its fingers since the 1970s it has done so only for its own interests and not for the interests of the country it was involved with.

Afghanistan would be in a much better place if NATO or the UN or a combination of European nations had solely been involved. Or if, as Saria said, American military units and advisors had been 100% subordinated to the domestic government and armed forces.

Much of the comment I see in this thread is negative because Americans cannot seem to comprehend helping a country in trouble in any other way. But there are other ways. Military assets do not have to be an occupying force. Military assets do not even need to shoot their guns. This concept seems to be alien to US soldiers on foreign soil and there needs to be retraining and education of American troops  more on peacekeeping roles and less on killing.

Afghanistan can be managed I feel sure but by western powers who genuinely act in its best interests and not in their own. I actually do not want American military to go back into Afghanistan because they will just mess everything up even more.

[Haibane]

<Shrugs.>

*sigh*

I was not using South Vietnam as a political concept in any way shape or form, merely that the "Taliban are overrunning the country as fast as the NVA did to S Vietnam in 1972". This IN NO WAY suggests any political or other comparison between S Vietnam and Afghanistan, or between S Vietnam and the Moon, or any other place. I could have used a number of other equally non-relevant examples, its just that 1972 came into my head as a thing to use as a comparison. That is all. You then brought up the politics of S Vietnam which is a poor example, as I then remarked.

Are we clear now?

[Haibane]

Anti-vaxxers break attempt to break into the BBC offices, and instead break into the wrong location.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/anti-vax-protesters-storm-bbc-s-supposed-offices-in-london-but-show-up-at-wrong-place/ar-AANaaga?ocid=msedgntp

LOL. There is a common thread here isn't there?

"The group’s goal was to protest what they perceived as BBC News’s promotion of COVID-19 vaccines and the lack of coverage of their views against the lifesaving measure."

Well, you know, there's a reason for that. A very very good one.

[Sara Nilsson]

Reminds me of the anti vaxxers here in NJ that barged in on the wrong council meeting and refused to leave

[Sara Nilsson]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/12/right-wing-textbooks-teach-slavery-black-immigration

One history textbook exclusively refers to immigrants as “aliens”. Another blames the Black Lives Matter movement for strife between communities and police officers. A third discusses the prevalence of “black supremacist” organizations during the civil rights movement, calling Malcolm X the most prominent “black supremacist” of the era.

Yeah sounds about.. *sighs* this is why CRT is needed!!!!

[Humble Scribe]

Are we clear now?

We are. That wasn't the way your original comment came across to me, but fair enough, that reading was mine and not yours.

I think the reason I leapt on it was because, while my comment about how Vietnam turned out was tongue in cheek, I do think it's an instructive parallel in many ways:

- In both cases, the US and its allies intervened in a civil war, on the weaker side, assuming that their superior firepower would win the day, but instead got drawn into a long, drawn out and deadly insurgency supported from (or via in Vietnam's case) a neighbouring country.
- Then came 'nation building' - an attempt to graft our values onto another country regardless, and remake the country in our own image, which became instead a flowing tap of dollars, foreign largesse that the central government could use to buy support - but only for as long as the tap was running.
- Finally the western nation grew war weary faster than the opposition. Insurgents can always afford to wait, even if we stayed another 10 or 20 years. I've seen some people try to compare it to the US intervention in Colombia, but Afghanistan was never as coherent a state as Colombia.
- And once the tap was turned off, the house of cards we built collapsed. The outlying areas fell so quickly because the government never really held those areas. There were just a few militia there wearing their uniform and taking their pay (and often just taking the pay, without any militia), but with no real stake in a central Afghan government, which, just like the Republic of South Vietnam, was seen as illegitimate because it owed its existence to foreign occupiers and was corrupt as hell (and that's before we get to the tribal patchwork that Afghanistan is, unlike Vietnam).

This was never a 'winnable' situation. The pullout has been handled very badly, for sure, but it was always going to be painful, whenever it happened, and until it did, there was always going to be plenty more pain every day as well.

[Annaamarth]

These lines speak a lot. I may well get roasted for these opinions but in my view the USA is completely unable to help another country. Because all it wants to do is make sure its own involvement has some kind of benefit, or money for their own companies that go in to "help". Selfish. Self-interested. Those words sun up American foreign policy a lot of the time.

America struggles with a transactional bent right now. Children have been raised that way at every level of our society.

If you get roasted, it will mostly be because the truth hurts.

(Obligatory #notallamericans I guess, but I struggle with friends who view the world contractually)

[Saria]

I am following news. And again, I don't think a military occupation is a solution. And since we've established that the United States will not likely allow Afghanistan to dictate where our troops go and what we do, then American military occupation with in Afghanistan is probably a bad idea. Delicacy does not necessarily mean softness. Delicacy means delicacy. It means not dropping off another invading Force to go fight a war on someone else's soil without even Consulting those people. So I'm not quite sure why you put it in quotes. It's a situation that should be handled with care, not with more overwhelming Force. Do you disagree?

🤷🏾‍♀️ Hard to tell. We might even be talking about two different things. I can’t say for sure because you seem to be speaking in vague, euphemistic terms of some theoretical future occupation, whereas I am speaking about the specific reality of pulling out the troops now… in the current situation that actually exists right now in the real world.

And in the current situation that actually exists right now in the real world, I very much do disagree that this is a situation that should be handled with “delicacy” (in quotes because I still don’t know what you think that means in actual, concrete terms). This is a situation that should be met with overwhelming force. Hostile warlords are using resources, weapons, and training that were provided by foreign interests… including the US… to brutalize and seize control of a population that doesn’t want them in power. And the Taliban’s strength and momentum is directly a result of the US’s actions.

Saying that the US should stay now to deal with the current crisis (that they created) is not the same as supporting any kind of occupation, now or in the future. Indeed, the best thing the US could probably do is commit 100% to destroying the Taliban’s fighting capacity, and then getting the fuck out of Afghanistan… with the understanding that if the Taliban or any similar outfit tries the same tactics again, the US will come back (assuming Afghanistan wants them of course), flatten the insurgents again, and then leave again. Basically, send the message that if any group wants to control the country, they will have to use the method of getting their people elected… military conquest will no longer be an option. If Afghanistan wants the Taliban in power, they will elect them. (Spoiler: they won’t elect them.)

The bottom line is that I am uninterested in waffling about theoretical future occupations. I want real, substantive help for Afghanistan now. And what they need desperately right now, as should be clear from the news this past week, is military assistance. If nothing else, the US should at least be good at providing that.

These lines speak a lot. I may well get roasted for these opinions but in my view the USA is completely unable to help another country. Because all it wants to do is make sure its own involvement has some kind of benefit, or money for their own companies that go in to "help". Selfish. Self-interested. Those words sun up American foreign policy a lot of the time.

The USA is an immature political animal in that it has in recent years no concept of philanthropy. If you look back to the years after WWII when the USA poured so much help into Germany and Japan you see a different agenda, although of course Japan was heavily Americanised in the process.

But in most places the USA has poked its fingers since the 1970s it has done so only for its own interests and not for the interests of the country it was involved with.

Well, most of the places the US has poked its fingers in since the 1970s, and before, have been cases of undermining a popular and often democratically-elected left-wing government, then replacing them with a right-wing military dictatorship. Just in the 1970s there was: Bolivia, where Torres was replaced by Banzer; Chile, where Allende was replaced by Pinochet; Timor-Leste, which had only nine days as an independent country before a US-sponsored invasion led to a decades-long, bloody occupation; and of course… Afghanistan. Let’s not forget why the US funded the mujahideen who eventually turned Afghanistan into a shit-hole; it was because the US objected to the communist government at the time, which had overthrown the old dynasty in the Saur revolution.

The really stupid thing about US foreign policy isn’t its self-interest; on some level, all states’ foreign policy is self-interested. The really stupid thing about US foreign policy is that it is:

• short-sighted; and
• often downright evil.

The “evil” part of US foreign policy should be obvious to anyone who’s bothered to study it. More often than not, when the US is intervening in some other country, it is doing so explicitly to cause harm and suffering… not to alleviate it. Most of its “regime change” operations make this undeniably obvious; few, if any, were really about what the local population wanted, or what would be good for them, and most, if not all, involved putting monsters in power who then turned around and instituted a reign of bloody terror.

But it’s the “short-sighted” part that’s really relevant in the case of Afghanistan. Whenever the US has gotten involved, it has always been for short-term benefit. But if the US weren’t so goddamn stupid, it would realize that there are many, many long-term benefits to helping Afghanistan. Afghanistan has the potential to be one of the world’s leading suppliers of lithium, for example, and if that industry could be kicked into gear, it could result in huge price drops for batteries and electronics (which, since that US primarily imports these things, rather than exports, would be a huge boon to the US).

Much of the comment I see in this thread is negative because Americans cannot seem to comprehend helping a country in trouble in any other way. But there are other ways. Military assets do not have to be an occupying force. Military assets do not even need to shoot their guns. This concept seems to be alien to US soldiers on foreign soil and there needs to be retraining and education of American troops  more on peacekeeping roles and less on killing.

Truth!



As the Taliban victory seems inevitable, there was an amusing NYT story this week that the US is basically begging the Taliban not to destroy its embassy in Kabul, and even offering them bribes and support if they leave it alone. (The NYT story is paywalled, so I won’t link it. But here’s an alternative source.)

Of course, even the US realizes that it’s probably futile to hope for clemency from the Taliban, so they’re already evacuating the embassy regardless. And, being the hypocrites that they are, they’ve sent in thousands of troops to protect their embassy… but fuck the rest of Kabul, let it burn, right?

[Fox Lokison]

🤷🏾‍♀️ Hard to tell. We might even be talking about two different things. I can’t say for sure because you seem to be speaking in vague, euphemistic terms of some theoretical future occupation, whereas I am speaking about the specific reality of pulling out the troops now… in the current situation that actually exists right now in the real world.

And in the current situation that actually exists right now in the real world, I very much do disagree that this is a situation that should be handled with “delicacy” (in quotes because I still don’t know what you think that means in actual, concrete terms). This is a situation that should be met with overwhelming force. Hostile warlords are using resources, weapons, and training that were provided by foreign interests… including the US… to brutalize and seize control of a population that doesn’t want them in power. And the Taliban’s strength and momentum is directly a result of the US’s actions.

Saying that the US should stay now to deal with the current crisis (that they created) is not the same as supporting any kind of occupation, now or in the future. Indeed, the best thing the US could probably do is commit 100% to destroying the Taliban’s fighting capacity, and then getting the fuck out of Afghanistan… with the understanding that if the Taliban or any similar outfit tries the same tactics again, the US will come back (assuming Afghanistan wants them of course), flatten the insurgents again, and then leave again. Basically, send the message that if any group wants to control the country, they will have to use the method of getting their people elected… military conquest will no longer be an option. If Afghanistan wants the Taliban in power, they will elect them. (Spoiler: they won’t elect them.)

The bottom line is that I am uninterested in waffling about theoretical future occupations. I want real, substantive help for Afghanistan now. And what they need desperately right now, as should be clear from the news this past week, is military assistance. If nothing else, the US should at least be good at providing that.

I was also talking about the current situation. And my only additional thought is this - last time we went in, we said it was to help with an immediate crisis too. That was a very long time ago. I don't see why this time will be different. I personally do not think the US should intervene unless one of two things happens. It's sanctioned by the UN, under their governance - or a similar body, with better control over the US than the last body - or the government of Afghanistan asks. Because no matter how nicely we phrase it, the US is not in the business of helping, and I think going in to "flatten the insurgents" is not at all going to solve the problems Afghanistan is facing. I agree with Hamid Karzai (interview HERE).

“We recognize as Afghans all our failures, but what about the bigger forces and powers who came here for exactly that purpose? Where are they leaving us now?” he asked and answered: “In total disgrace and disaster.”

Still, Karzai, who had a conflicted relationship with the United States during his 13-year rule, wanted the troops to leave, saying Afghans were united behind an overwhelming desire for peace and needed now to take responsibility for their future.

“We will be better off without their military presence,” he said. “I think we should defend our own country and look after our own lives. ... Their presence (has given us) what we have now. ... We don’t want to continue with this misery and indignity that we are facing. It is better for Afghanistan that they leave.”

“The (US/NATO military) campaign was not against extremism or terrorism, the campaign was more against Afghan villages and hopes; putting Afghan people in prisons, creating prisons in our own country ... and bombing all villages. That was very wrong.”

That's all I'm going to say on the matter, as I don't see this being a productive conversation, and I think the thread has moved on.

[gaggedLouise]

Biden and the Pentagon are now pledging to send in (or relocate) five thousand fresh soldiers to ensure an orderly evacuation of those who were already in Afghanistan. I figure many of the soldiers will have to be airlifted out across thousands of miles because Kabul will be surrounded by the Talibans in just a few weeks time, and Pakistan will likely not be seen as a safe middle landing place for the troop evacuation.

This is really looking a lot like the exit from Saigon in the mid-seventies, if not worse, and I can't help thinking that Biden and his aides knew perfectly well that the Talibans were likely to sweeo the stakes and take over, but didn't feel they could afford politically to continue keeping the troops in there, difficult mostly for domestic politics reasons,

[Thufir Hawat]

Well, that and they expected the Afghan forces to last abut three weeks longer. Sufficient for finishing the pullout. And after this, who in the US would care ?

[Azy]

Biden and the Pentagon are now pledging to send in (or relocate) five thousand fresh soldiers to ensure an orderly evacuation of those who were already in Afghanistan. I figure many of the soldiers will have to be airlifted out across thousands of miles because Kabul will be surrounded by the Talibans in just a few weeks time, and Pakistan will likely not be seen as a safe middle landing place for the troop evacuation.

This is really looking a lot like the exit from Saigon in the mid-seventies, if not worse, and I can't help thinking that Biden and his aides knew perfectly well that the Talibans were likely to sweeo the stakes and take over, but didn't feel they could afford politically to continue keeping the troops in there, difficult mostly for domestic politics reasons,

I'm sure President Biden did know.  I knew.  I remember people being upset that that was one of the things President Obama wanted to do, but he didn't.  He did scale things back some, but then we got a little preview because violence got a little bit worse.  I remember reading that the orange thing was going to meet with and try to negotiate with Taliban leaders.  That seemed really stupid because you cannot really negotiate and trust people like that.  But this has been like the occupation that was never going to end.  A lot of people don't support it anymore.  It is costing us a lot.  Peace in the Middle East is in the Book of Revelations as a sure sign of the Apocalypse because that area of the world has always been an unstable hornet's nest.