You'll just only point out the Israeli war crimes?
I'm so tired of this conflict. Both sides can eff off. The Israelis under Netanyahu are basically ever bad stereotype of Jewish people made real, and the Palestinians are the "woe is me we are innocents" while being controlled by murderous thugs and just siphoning the aid they beg for.
Nobody actually wants peace, well, those that would be at the negotiating table don't. The Israelis want the Palestinians dead, the Palestinians want the Israelis dead.
Arafat has the last shot at peace. He allegedly walked away because of access to some religious shrines. That should tell you everything you need to know about this region. Just a bunch of religious nutheads going at it, and the rest of the world gets suckered into spending billions on it, which ultimately just goes to the religious nut heads.
And all of it only appears in headlines because of oil.
Not falling for an obvious distraction from the extremely blatant pattern of dehumanising Palestinians.
> In leaked recordings, Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva — then head of Israeli military intelligence — stated that for every person killed on Oct. 7, “50 Palestinians must die,” adding that “it doesn’t matter now if they are children.” He described mass Palestinian deaths as “necessary” to send a deterrent message.
> Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s declaration of a “complete siege” on Gaza — cutting food, electricity, fuel, and water — was accompanied by explicitly dehumanizing language. Announcing the policy on Oct. 9, Gallant stated: “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s assertion that “an entire nation out there is responsible” further blurs the institutional line between civilian and combatant.
> Such statements do not determine individual targeting decisions, but they shape the environment in which those decisions are made: how civilian life is valued, how much civilian harm is expected to be scrutinized, and how much is implicitly excused.
Welcome to the Middle East. The Gulf War had 50x deaths on the other side. The repression of the IRGC against peaceful protesters had the same kind of imbalance. Its how governments assert dominance there.
Just look at the reaction of Iran's "leaders" to the USA's threat to attack them. They keep their narrative logic intact: we'll sink your ships, etc. These are fearless people who's power is derived from the appearance of power.
I find it incredible that these isolated comments, of which even the various UN-backed panels can only find a handful quoted without context, is the basis for an evidence for an intent of genocide.
Besides the fact that it's a very poor genocide that after the war has ended has 100,000 palestinians leave (mostly on medical or humanitarian grounds) out of 2M Gazans and when Israel is constantly accused of blocking them in.
Bear in mind that Israel is a democracy with proportional representation resulting in a coalition government so you are essentially accusing a the majority of the population of supporting genocidal intent based on a few out-of-context and unclear quotes from some individuals. For example Smotrich - a right wing nut IMO - party won only 5 seats out of 120 in the last election.
The PM, and the official statements overwhelmingly and repeatedly state that they were not targetting civilians, whilst also adding as has been proven that the entire strip was criss-crossed with tunnels (longer and more extensive than the London metro) with exits under schools and hospitals and that their attacks met the proportionaility test which is that the miltary advantage must be proportional to risk of civilians harmed. They said no strikes were indiscrimate, they were all against verified presence of hamas. You and I might find that ugly, vicious and can question if there was another way to fight Hamas, but illegal it aint.
Herzog's comments were taken widly out of context. It takes a very particular and pre-dermined POV to discount the actual Q&Q where there quote ignored the entire paragraph which gives it a different meaning and the very next question asked him to clarify the statement anout responsible and he immediately replied (all this within a couple of minutes of the same presser) his intent. As (e.g.) HuffPost reported: when a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power “that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets,” Herzog said, “No, I didn’t say that.”
Here's a transcipt of the presser:
Journalist: "You spoke very passionately about you saying that Israel was not retaliating but
targeting with regards to the operations in Gaza. But even President Biden, who spoke so personally
and passionately with regard to what was happening in Israel, spoke about the importance of the laws
of war. So, with that in mind, what can Israel do to alleviate the impact of this conflict on two
million civilians, many of whom have nothing to do with Hamas?"
President Isaac Herzog: "First of all, we have to understand there's a state, there's a state, in a
way, that has built a machine of evil right at our doorstep. It's an entire nation out there that is
responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved—it's absolutely not
true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza
in a coup d'état, murdering their family members who were in Fatah."
Journalist: "I am sincerely sorry for what is happening in Israel right now, but I have been listening
to your answers for the last few minutes and I am a little confused. On the one hand, you say that
Israel follows international law in the Gaza Strip and that civilians are protected; you say you are
very careful to prevent casualties. But at the same time, you seem to hold the people of Gaza
responsible for not trying to remove Hamas, and therefore by implication, that makes them legitimate
targets."
President Isaac Herzog: "No, I did not say that. I did not say that and I want to make it clear. A
question was raised about the separation of Hamas and civilians. I said that in their homes, there are
missiles shooting at us. If you have a missile in your kitchen and you want to launch it at me, don't
I have the right to defend myself? We have to defend ourselves; we have the full right to do so. Hamas
carries full responsibility and accountability for the well-being of the hostages and for the
situation they have brought upon Gaza."
Journalist: "But my question is: Are civilians in Gaza held responsible for not destroying Hamas and
therefore become legitimate targets?"
President Isaac Herzog: "I repeat again: there is no excuse for murdering innocent civilians in any
way, in any context. And believe me, Israel will operate and always operates according to the
international rules."
Gallant was speaking less than 48 hours after Oct 7 when feelings were very high and it's clearly fighting talk which (a) was referring to Hamas as animals not Gazans (b) he didn't actually ever execute that quoted extent of the seige in full utilities ran low but never the extended cut off that's implied (c) Israel didn't actually provide 100% of the water and electricity that was internal desalination run on stockpiles of fuel so it was clear that cutting off supplies does not immediately harm civilians.
Even in Halavi's case, he might be a right-wing nutter and meant what was reported but the head of army intelligence does not decide policy. And when you look at the original I don't think it would pass court of law. Israeli Channel 12 added the square brackets intent to "it doesn't matter now [if they] are children" but actually the original in hebrew was only "זה לא משנה עכשיו ילדים" [1] which could mean instead "it doesn't matter [to this argument the mention of] children" which is equally plausable in idiomatic Hebrew. Either way, his comments in full don't tick the boxes of genocidal intent.
> Besides the fact that it's a very poor genocide that after the war has ended has 100,000 palestinians
You seem disappointed. Anywho...
A common misconception is that genocide must involve a very large number of deaths on the order of hundreds of thousands or millions. But this is false. The perpetrators of the Srebrenica massacre during the Bosnian War were found guilty of genocide despite the massacre’s death toll being less than 9,000. Hence the fact that “only” 70,000–100,000+ people have died in Gaza in no way refutes the charge of genocide.
> Gallant was speaking less than 48 hours after Oct 7 when feelings were very high
Genocidal feelings. Super normal.
> Even in Halavi's case, he might be a right-wing nutter
Nuts in highest military positions when warring with 4 or more states. Very normal, too.
> Bear in mind that Israel is a democracy with proportional representation resulting in a coalition government so you are essentially accusing a the majority of the population of supporting genocidal intent...
Perpetrating* a genocide, seems like.
Is the Gaza War a genocide? Two key features of the mortality data are consistent with that charge: first, unusually high mortality among women and children; second, the sudden and dramatic fall in life expectancy. In these respects, the war resembles the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides more closely than any other recent conflict involving the US or Israel.
> Is the Gaza War a genocide? Two key features of the mortality data are consistent with that charge: first, unusually high mortality among women and children; second, the sudden and dramatic fall in life expectancy.
To be fair, you'd also see this if your opponents were using human shields and hospitals for military operations, which Hamas has been documented as doing. This is not so clear cut.
That definition of 'human shield' is basically only used in this context by Israel and its advocates. If we adhere to it, the fact that Israel has military installations embedded in residential neighbourhoods ought to qualify, but it seemingly doesn't. And if one uses the most commonly accepted definition in IHL, Israel has a long history of participating in it. Is any of that fair?
Having military installations in residential areas is different than housing soldiers and civilians in the same buildings, using hospitals as bases for military operations and using medical transports remove weapons. It's not even a close comparison.
>Having military installations in residential areas is different than housing soldiers and civilians in the same buildings
It doesn't especially matter how different they are, since Israel's rather arbitrary definition includes both of those behaviours. Just like their definition of 'soldier', which, per their use of administrative detention, includes children as young as 12, and 'base', for which a dozen rifles spread out on a prayer mat often suffices.
Hamas is not a military since Palestine is not a state (courtesy of Israel itself), so what they're doing can't be classified as war crimes. If you want to accuse Hamas of war crimes, you first need to recognize Palestine as an independent state.
Palestine is recognized as a state by most of the world, including recent changes of mind in the UK, France, Australia, etc. I also take that position.
“These would be war crimes… if we were a state! Muahahahaha!” is not a position I’d be comfy espousing as a positive thing.
I am glad Hamas leadership saw consequences for their war crimes. I wish I could say the same for Netanyahu and his Cabinet.
The FCC opened a probe on The View[0] for hosting Talarico. They haven't made a rule change, but they're definitely acting as if the rules already say what they want it to say.
Already in 2026, Colbert has hosted Senator Jon Ossoff and Governor Josh Shapiro who are both up for re-election this year. Why no probe in those cases?
This whole fight is about something called the "bona fides news exception." Basically, in 2006 the FCC ruled that late night interviews were always bona fides news interviews (and therefore not subject to equal time), on January 21st FCC Chairman Brendan Carr wrote a letter suggesting (but not declaring) that the 2006 ruling was incorrect and might be revoked.
Separately, currently elected politicians are pretty much always considered to be bona fides interview subjects, even if they happen to be running for reelection, because e.g. the Governor of Pennsylvania expressing opinions is news.
If CBS lawyers wanted to fight and bring Talarico on, they would probably win- the letter is not actually changing the rule, and the FCC would have to defend the rule change in court and would probably lose. But the point is that CBS has determined to be working towards the Fuehrer, and wants to do so, and so they are doing what they are doing.
Cynicism warning, but my honest guess is they see that the Colbert problem will be solved in June and so don't feel the need to spend any effort on him.
Correct. CBS is now owned by Larry Ellison's son. They are big supporters of the current administration. This act, among others, shows that they are willing to silence dissenting voices on media properties they own.
This is exactly how effective censorship works. For example, what most people don't understand about Chinese censorship is that the foundation of their system is that everything is attributable to someone eventually. So they start by targeting anonymity. Then when something they don't like is published and gains traction, the originating party and the major distributors are punished -- sometimes very publicly. The chilling effect is that people will learn to self censor. Oh and they keep the rules really vague so you always err on the side of caution.
CBS self censoring is basically the same thing.
The Chinese government can then say "What censorship?" or "It's rare" and now the FCC can do the same.
Playing whack-a-mole is not a good strategy for censorship. The chilling effect of self censorship is the winning strategy.
The chilling effect is the entire point. An FCC source literally told CNN, "the threat is the point." CBS isn't being randomly skittish. Paramount needs regulatory approval for its WBD acquisition, paid $16 million to settle a Trump lawsuit right before needing FCC approval for the Skydance merger, and canceled Colbert days after he criticized that deal. ABC suspended Kimmel after FCC threats. The FCC opened an investigation into The View just for having Talarico on.
And yes, Larry Ellison is a hardcore Trump supporter, but even if he weren't, this is how every network is behaving. Disney's Bob Iger is a Democrat and ABC still paid Trump and suspended Kimmel. When the government holds regulatory leverage over your business, "obeying in advance" isn't cowardice you can blame on the network, it's the intended mechanism of state pressure.
> "obeying in advance" isn't cowardice you can blame on the network, it's the intended mechanism of state pressure.
No, there is no reason to absolve the agency of anybody with power (eg money and platform). The ownership class is kowtowing to Trump because they think regardless of whatever happens, they personally will be relatively fine as long as they go along. And they are probably right, even as Trump leads our country off a cliff. But that doesn't mean they get to escape judgement for being cowards.
That's not what I said. I said it isn't cowardice you can blame on the network instead of the FCC, which is what the parent comment did by saying the fault lies "more with CBS." CBS deserves blame. The administration wielding the threat deserves more.
Resistance requires an active, costly choice. The entire structure of public companies, fiduciary duty, short-term shareholder pressure, regulatory dependency, incentivizes compliance. That's not an excuse, it's the point. The system is designed so that capitulation is the path of least resistance, which is exactly why the blame has to center on whoever is exploiting that structure rather than on each individual institution for failing to be heroic. The firms and universities that did fight back (Perkins Coie, Harvard, Jenner & Block) won in court every time, while the ones that cut deals (Columbia, Paul Weiss, Brown) gave up money and autonomy for nothing the fighters didn't get for free. But fighting required leaders willing to accept real personal and institutional risk. Expecting that as the default rather than addressing the coercion creating the dilemma is how you end up with a system where everyone folds and nobody's responsible except the victims.
Of course, increasing the cost of capitulation is one place where consumers actually have power. Disney suffered 1.7 million streaming cancellations after suspending Kimmel, and Kimmel was back on the air within five days. That works. But notice what it required: massive organized public pressure aimed at the company and political pressure aimed at the FCC. Not just finger-wagging for being cowards.
> That's not what I said. I said it isn't cowardice you can blame on the network instead of the FCC, which is what the parent comment did by saying the fault lies "more with CBS." CBS deserves blame. The administration wielding the threat deserves more.
That's fair, this lines up with where I am mostly coming from - we shouldn't absolve blame from one group by focusing it on another.
But your second paragraph then goes on to do that? We're dealing with a societal attack where the fascists are trying to topple all of our societal institutions into a self-perpetuating low-trust low-authority state. If they achieve in doing that, then the Schelling point becomes to not resist as it will be costly and ineffective. But the point we're at now, we should all be pushing to resist the fascists to prevent them flipping the dynamic.
Practically, you're overstating what fiduciary duty to shareholders requires. I'd also say you're also overstating the regulatory threat, as you went on to point out how the organizations who have resisted the fascists haven't really lost out by doing so. You can also apply this argument to politicians like Congress, judges, etc who don't want to rock the boat. But surely it's not sensible to absolve them!
It's not just a matter of "finger-wagging", rather it's pointing out that if the people with outsized power just go along rather than standing up to this, then they're in the same exact camp as the hardcore openly-Trump fascists. Maybe that camp will be lucrative if the fascists do succeed at conquering our society, or maybe they can be stripped of their stature and power when they fail. A lifetime ban on being a corporate officer or board member for abusing that position to try to overthrow the United States wouldn't be out of line.
I was thinking about this a bit in the context of that "March for Billionaires". Why did that seem preposterous? Because billionaires don't deserve a gold star simply for being billionaires! Rather they get credit for what they do with that wealth to help our society. And no, the value they created by growing a business doesn't count - rather when you get that level of wealth, you can use it to move back up the gradient of market optimization, and fix the problems we have that come from being stuck in local minima. If they want recognition and goodwill, this is the work they have to do. And if the poor billionaires really can't think of anything useful to do with that wealth, there is some really low hanging fruit like ending food poverty in the US.
We mostly agree. I'm really just making the point that focusing blame on the capitulators lets the people wielding state power off the hook. I suppose you could take the position that the industrialists who capitulated to the Nazis (I mean, those who didn't actively support them to begin with) were more at fault than the Nazis. Personally, I don't believe that.
And to be clear, I'm not saying fiduciary duty requires capitulation. CEOs can absolutely make the case that resistance serves long-term shareholder interests, and the evidence backs them up. Costco is thriving after, and arguably because, they held firm on DEI. Target capitulated and lost $12.5 billion in market value and its CEO resigned. I started shopping at Costco for this reason and haven't been in a Target since Trump took office, after shopping their regularly. What I am saying is that the short-term incentive structure of public companies makes capitulation easier, which is exactly why the coercion works so well and why it's the bigger problem. The system erects hurdles to doing what's right, and often what's even in a company's own long-term interest.
I'm definitely not looking to let anybody off the hook here. I'd sum up my point as tacit support is still support, especially when we're talking about owners of media empires. One can understand how an industrialist that produces widgets and gadgets might not want to get involved in politics, regardless of what happens. But in media you're effectively in politics, and you're going to be involved even if you try and stay out.
FWIW your post nudged me to focus on Costco again. I had signed up for a membership to buy some appliances, but I haven't really incorporated it my day to day household purchases. A bit of activation energy because their warehouse is somewhat far away, the parking lot is always swamped, their website experience is clunky and hostile, etc. But I should at least be able to add them to the rotation.
And this is a good thing, if you think that the billionaires running large businesses like CNN will generally act in their own selfish self-interest and that they need the government to hold regulatory leverage over their businesses in order to make them act in a socially-beneficial way.
But then you have to trust the government that manages the regulatory agency to act in a socially-beneficial; and only at most half the US population does at any given time.
This is arguably worse, isn't it? The administration gets to say that it was the network's own decision and that they had no role in it. Taking over news and public media with the help of oligarch buddies is much more effect than a public spat with them.
Nah the fault lies with the American public for talking the freedom/exceptionalism talk, social projection of grit and ruggedness while the reality is learned helplessness and codependency
democracies past, present, and future inevitably crumble as the need to cater to the demos grows greater and greater with every generation of voters.
i know this is a contrivance but nevertheless: we don't consult the entire hospital how to treat my heart condition yet we accept on face value that obeying the vagaries of the hoi polloi is the best way to decide who controls the levers of power in civil society.
duh. why is this always phrased as if the populace is unaccountable for the very existence of these elites? why is it always assumed that these unaccountable elites are better held in check by the farce of democracy than a proud genuine elite in place of the ignoble “””elite”””?
the people get what they deserve. if democracy was a functional system of government then by its own underlying assumptions the citizenry right now would be shooting, bombing, & stabbing these so-called elites. But we are held in subjugation as a result of our own fealty. It is a choice.
Having grown up rural, fixing farm equipment, rebuilding cars, which propelled me towards a degree in electrical engineering (and after that an MSc in math), my colleagues the last 20 years have watched a lot of TV and played all the video games but can barely bake a potato.
"Unaccountable elites" are enabled by know-nothings in corporate management, software engineering teams, accounting, HR "just following orders".
The lack of muscle memory to be self sufficient keeps people in their lane and unable to look away, fix their own stuff, make their own stuff.
When labor knows nothing but just following orders leadership is empowered to build and fill gulags; what are the people going to do? Resist en masse? Not when they are addicted to GrubHub delivery of Subway.
And the most surprising thing about this particular story to me is that a lot of people (here in the comments) seem surprised about it.
I don't mean to normalize this, because it isn't normal, but anyone surprised by this hasn't been paying attention over the past year+, this didn't arrive out of the blue.
My understanding (please correct me if it's incorrect) is that the "worst-case" scenario for a broadcaster is that they may have to upload a record of political air time to a public file.
If an opposing candidate sees this, they can then request equal air time from that broadcaster.
The rule is in place so that one party or viewpoint can't dominate broadcast media. That's a good thing right?
The rule change here is that traditionally "bona fide" news programs have been, by default, issued an exception to the rule. That has spawned a bunch of "pseudo-news" shows that have also been claiming this exception. Here, the FCC is now saying "hey, you don't just automatically get granted an exception to the rule and get to call yourself a bona fide news program if you're not actually one"". That seems completely reasonable to me.
Broadcast media is held to this FCC standard because they are granted a monopoly for a broadcast spectrum, and it isn't physically possible for a competitor to broadcast on the same spectrum. Streaming etc... doesn't need to follow these rules.
I do think it's wrong that talk radio doesn't seem to be held to the same standard, though.
The worst case scenario now is not limited by process and law. Compliance with politics is taken into consideration for all government business. For examples, see the executive orders blacklisting specific law firms, the withholding of funds to states or areas that vote Democratic, and the threat of investigation into a network after a host said something the President didn't like.
The worst case scenario for a broadcaster is that the FCC commissioner will fabricate an excuse to illegally yank their license, which both he and his boss have explicitly threatened to do to any broadcaster which won't agree to stop criticizing Donald Trump. I agree that one could imagine a reasonable system of broadcast regulation where opinionated talk shows don't host political candidates, but that's not what's going on here.
Everything I've seen is that is specifically what's going on, do you have different information?
The only threat to pulling a license would be if they didn't comply with the FCC rule change, that we've both agreed is reasonable, correct?
Do you have specific examples of the administration threatening to pull a license due to criticism? If that's the case, I'd certainly be vehemently against such action, just as I was when the government illegally acted to suppress and censor alternate viewpoints during covid.
When the FCC chair originally announced he was pursuing this (https://time.com/7318743/abc-kimmel-the-view-brendan-carr-fc...), he was pretty clear that he was doing so in pursuit of the President's directive to punish broadcast channels that say things he doesn't like. Trump himself was pretty explicit that the ultimate goal is pulling their broadcast licenses and his subordinates should fabricate an excuse.
As you say, the FCC has declined to pursue talk radio programs over this issue, even though they're clearly subject to the rule in principle. That's not a mistake, it's because those programs push viewpoints the President favors so he doesn't want to punish them.
Thank you for the link and the concrete reference, I hadn't seen that before.
I think the article and the video summaries I've seen of that interview are a little deceptively edited, but the idea appears to be the same.
Apparently, it's illegal to knowingly broadcast false information [1] within certain guidelines, and that can indeed cause a license revocation:
"The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired. FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”
The FCC chair referenced this law in response to Jimmy Kimmel claiming that the Charlie Kirk shooter was "maga":
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”
While this was demonstrably untrue, and it was widely known to be untrue at the time, I agree that it doesn't appear to meet the FCC standard I quoted above.
I actually find the FCC rule itself a bit disturbing, as it seems to position the government as an arbiter of truth.
It isn't a new problem, Jefferson struggled with how to deal with it too [2]
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle"
What do you suggest as a solution? Should false information be ok to broadcast with a FCC license? Who gets to determine whether it's false?
> What do you suggest as a solution? Should false information be ok to broadcast with a ... license?
This seems like begging the question. The issue here obviously isn't truth vs untruth, it is fealty to the regime vs opposition to the regime. All the evidence points in this direction, and there isn't a better case yet made in the opposite.
Witness the example cited above: right-wing talk radio, famous for spreading untruthful info and agreeing with the regime, is let off scot-free. Or how the regime itself spread untruths about Alex Pretti after they killed him. That categorically debunks any purported "truth vs untruth" decision criteria and seems to confirm the fealty vs opposition decision criteria.
Fun thought experiment: re-read this situation, but imagine it took place in russia, by putin's hand. Like seriously, what oppressive regime in modern history HASN'T had some variation of silencing the opposition "for broadcasting 'false information'"?:
> On the morning of March 4, the last remaining independent news outlet in Russia — the award-winning Novaya Gazeta — announced the end of its reporting on the war in Ukraine in response to Russian government demands.
> A new law that bans the “dissemination of knowingly false information” about the Russian armed forces — and carries up to a 15-year penalty — was the final blow. [0]
If you aren't able to see how the issue is much broader than any specific politician, it's difficult to move a conversation forward.
You may want to take a serious and critical look at how these problems have been a part of all politics throughout history.
If your viewpoint is that the current team is the bad guy, but some other team is the good guy, it just means that their propaganda has been effective with you.
This is a terrifying level of chilling effects. What are we to consider about our nation at this point? "Free speech" has long been a term with contested definitions, but this certainly sounds like its death in every sense.
The shift from democracy to dictatorship isn't a cliff that a lot of people imagine it to be. It's a gradual slide with no abrupt changes in between. If you're waiting for a signal, you'll get it at the bottom of the ramp.
Seriously this is why people use to take every government transgression and overreach so seriously. Now multiple times a day it's something that would have been a straight SCANDAL in the past.
It's happening right now y'all because it was always happening and will always happen without constant push back.
Right now they're 'flooding the zone' - a Steve Bannon slang for confusing and causing fatigue among people with far too many scandals far too often. I hope history will will remember him and his ilk with the reputation they deserve.
If CBS were headed by someone with gumption and less willingness to kowtow to the government, they could resist this pressure and still be fine. Worst case scenario, a merger would get rejected and they would be targeted by some spurious lawsuits. Going out of business is not a realistic risk.
What is a risk, however, is non-optimal shareholder value. We live in a world where the stock price is more important than anything else, including doing the right thing.
For CVS the stock price isn't the driver. It's owned to 77% by the Ellison family, who certainly want to make a buck, but also want political influence and control.
How is CBS a victim here? They have shown by their actions (Bari Weiss, the 60 Minutes neutering, etc) they are fully backing what Larry Ellison and Sons want them to pump out. This isn't victim blaming, it's pointing out a complicit conspirator.
If you give in and comply without a fight, are you actually a victim or are you actually a collaborator? CBS is controlled by Ellison, which makes this look a lot like collaboration.
So it didn't air because? What evidence do we have? Gosh maybe the sun won't rise tomorrow because w have evidence of it rising tomorrow we just can't know. Unbelievable how dark your soul is for posting that comment with all of the context available to you to estimate the probability of truth.
Per another of OP's comments in this thread, they seem to suggest that CBS (of all organizations) is actually trying to help a Democrat with better chances in the general to defeat a Republican. So, therefore, they artificially manufactured a Streisand Effect stunt by killing the interview.
Because that's somehow a more parsimonious explanation than the clear pattern of Brendan Carr's statements and actions using the FCC to accomplish the political goals of the administration.
I didnt jump to any conclusions about the motive behind Colbert's statements. I presented possibilities, very clearly and explicitly labeling them "alternative" and "unlikely". And the idea that all press is good press is not too controversial either
Keep in mind that first offense for being in the US illegally is a misdeameanor. I say this as we have a president with 34 felonies and got nothing for it. On top of that, we have ICE tactics like unreasonable searches and seizures, no due process rights, and racial profiling which are all against the law. We know this because US citizens were deported without any due process to make sure they were here illegally.
I think you're underselling what Trump and Musk has done to the stability of Democracy in the US. Aside from all that, there are other American car manufacturers with great EVs: Mustang Mach-E, Chevy Equinox/Bolt/Blazer, etc. Not saying that BYD isn't better, but comparing to Tesla, there is plenty of US competition.
I absolutely prefer my Ioniq 5 over a Tesla, not merely 'tolerate it'.
Tesla has everyone else beat on charging infrastructure, that is true, but I don't need that except for about 0.5% of the miles I drive (and even there, Tesla's competitors exist and are fine on the routes I'd take).
A lot more manual controls, in particular. I've never liked needing to use a touchscreen to manage functions of the car I might need to use while driving. Ioniq could actually go further still, some of the physical interface still uses a capacitive button rather than a physical button, but it is at least single-function so I can trace my hand along the bottom and the button I want is always in the same spot.
I like that by default it is set to two-pedal drive, especially in case I end up having to use an ICE or hybrid car (or have other drivers use my Ioniq). I like that I have a key fob and there's a physical interaction I need to make to turn the car on. I like that it supports Android Auto.
I think the styling is much better. I haven't sat in a Tesla long enough to give a direct comparison but the Ioniq interior is in the top quarter of cars I've driven.
It's not all roses, there's been Ioniq drivers run into ICCU issues that you don't really see the equivalent of with Tesla, but if I run into that then I'll just take it as a warranty item.
Edit: I forgot about the turn signal stalks but that was a primary thing for me as well, I literally thought it was some kind of anti-Tesla meme at first that they didn't have normal turn signals, until I verified it for myself.
They are as good as any Tesla, however, and in some areas better. Source: I own a Tesla Model 3 (my second) and I have owned a Bolt in the past, and currently own a Lightning. Aside from towing range, I prefer the Lightning the majority of the time. Tesla does some things better, while Ford excels in other ways. Both definitely have glaring faults.
I will stick to the Lightning since I know it best:
1. The Lightning auto-resumes lane centering after a lane switch, Tesla requires manually restarting (along with the annoyances which accompany that, like re-enabling auto wipers every single time).
2. CarPlay. (Which presumably Tesla is finally going to bring us.) Responding to text messages while driving is easier and less fussy with CarPlay (plus, if you are used to how CarPlay works, you will forget that after you dictate a reply to a text message in the Tesla you need to hit the send button on the screen). iMessages to non-phone recipients works with CarPlay but not at all with Tesla.
3. The Ford app lets me set a one-off "charge to 100%" flag which automatically resets to the previous setting after that charge.
4. And even though it is so obvious that it is probably boring to point out at this point, the rain sensing wipers on the Lightning actually work. The Tesla dry wipes, or not at all even when it is pouring, and everything in between.
5. The Lightning has radar. Without a lead car my Tesla remains prone to phantom braking at overpasses on bright sunny days. I have not ever had phantom braking on my pickup.
6. Windows. No amount of recalibration makes my Tesla windows go up exactly into the right position to be sealed. And pushing the button again just makes them lower slightly. So you have to monkey with it a couple times to make the sound of wind next to your ear go silent. I've never had a car amongst the dozens I've owned that got this basic functionality wrong, but both of my Teslas have struggled with it.
7. Comfort. Ford does not vertically integrate production of the interior and seats, and it shows. Nor do they cut corners on insulation. Someone else in this thread said that interiors were an inexpensive way for incumbents to differentiate from Tesla but I disagree on one point -- I think good interior design is expensive, which is exactly why Tesla does basically nothing. So the road noise is excessive and the flat, thin, barely bolstered seats are uncomfortable if you don't have enough built-in padding on your butt. Ford just outsources, probably to someone like Recaro, who has infinitely more experience making seats that don't suck.
First the Bolt, and then the Lightning has convinced me that there is no special sauce. I have a pickup that drives like my Tesla, but is still a pickup with all of the upsides and still has a comfy normal interior without the quirks. Tesla won't get any more of my business, for example, until they bring back the stalks and put in an IR rain sensor. They may eventually do both of these (I think they may have already started caving on the stalks). But now that I know that there are other options at least as good, I'm more picky and less accepting of the persistent cost cutting.
I'm working on a workout tracker that you can actually use for things like TRX and gymnastic rings. Along with normal workouts too. Let me know if there's anything you'd like on there. https://gravitygainsapp.com/
Unfortunately, that counter-argument lacks the understanding that the tariffs aren't meant to be a retaliatory tool against countries. The President's power to use tariffs is (supposed to be) meant as an emergency measure against unfair trade practices.
A nation has the sovereign right to implement tariffs. In response, other countries may exercise their right to apply retaliatory tariffs. Fairness and unfairness are subjective.
Notice “nation” part, not “president”. Tariffs power in the US vested in Congress, and Congress created laws which regulate it. What Trump is doing is outside of his legal powers, regardless to some conceptual reasoning why countries can do retaliation tariffs.
Peppa Pig is in general funnier than Bluey. Visually, I also agree, Bluey is far superior. I just can't help, as a parent, the feeling of inferiority as there's no way two working parents have the energy and patience to make everything a game with their kids. That's the main crux of why I prefer Peppa.
As a non-parent who has only consumed either shows while staying with parent friends, I found Peppa Pig quite grating while Bluey was actually a fun watch. I can't imagine having Peppa Pig on frequently.
Peppa has a more "grating" and generally louder tone, agreed, but it's deceptively simpler than it seems. After you watch it for a while (something you can only really do if you have kids) it starts to grow on you, and you start noticing the subtler humor that is aimed at the parents.
Yeah. I think for me it's just the tone. Then again, I'm also deeply put off by the "everything is fast and loud" tone of a bunch of more adult-oriented content (eg: Adventure Time, Phineas and Ferb, or Rick and Morty are all unwatchable to me).
There are some real laugh-out-loud moment in Peppa Pig (like at the fair, where everyone was telling Mommy Pig that girls aren't good at said game and she in her anger absolutely demolishes it). However, I find those moments coming up less in Bluey. I almost always laugh at how Grandpa Pig says "metal detector", too.
I think if I didn't have kids, I would like Bluey better. Likewise, I would be able to watch it without any discrimination.
I found Mistral's agentic coding models to be fast and good, but not always accurate. I think the reason for that is that most IDEs aren't properly setup to use their models. But I haven't tried this new Codestral version.
reply