Is Israel firing into Christian neighborhoods? I think I saw something saying they were not. That seems consistent with Israel’s strikes being intended to target Hezbollah specifically (because Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel at the outset of the military operation in Iran).
“Lebanese Maronite Catholic priest Fr. Pierre al-Rahi, … was killed in this village in southern Lebanon during an Israeli artillery tank fire on a house March 9, 2026 … al-Rahi had earlier refused, along with other priests, to obey an order by the Israeli military to evacuate the Christian village of Qlayaa”
That's an exception that proves the rule. For the most part Israel is not firing at either Sunni or Christian villages. There is also more to this specific incident so people should research it.
Thanks. It seems a bit more complicated than I’d assumed. I probably should spend more time researching these things. I’d seen a BBC prince on the Christian section of Tyre and extrapolated. I had previously heard about the priest. I think these was one in Gaza as well. Such terrible, bloody times these are.
Seriously, this again. In the middle of Hezbollah controlled territory there were firefights with UN peacekeepers ... and of course the people who did this "were IDF soldiers". Of course ... that's the explanation.
Does anyone still believe this? I mean, even if it's technically true, it is very well known Hezbollah sneaks as close as they can to UN bases, and then fires rockets at Israeli civilians from there, intentionally. And yes, I'm sure that this creates more than a bit of tension.
But even if that did result in a firefight ... it's not Israel that's responsible. Nobody seriously believes that.
"Technically true".... it's pretty clear that Israel has, on multiple occasions, fired at UN peacekeeping bases. This is not like "Heat of the moment" failures. These are established sites with UN peacekeepers who had been there for some time.
"Oops, our tanks opened fire on UN forces." Is a weird defense of it keeps happening. Once, maybe, but a healthy military would learn to stop that in the future. Mistakes happen. Repeated mistakes seem like a strategy.
He is well known to be morally troubled— his postings here over the years gave off that vibe for most who paid attention— but even if he were a hypersexual psychopath or something like that, it doesn’t prove he molested his little sister all those times. There’s a lot of grey area in childhood sexuality, and Sam seems like a “grey area” sort of guy fwiw. He is probably mostly innocent.
It’s he said she said. And in this case we’re being asked to believe the very wealthy and powerful older brother over a younger sister who has to rely on “the family” for money and who “the family” claims is “mentally unwell”.
Why is that hard for you to believe? Do you think having wealth or success eliminates you from sexually assaulting others??? I'm sorry have you read the Epstein files??
Our current president is an adjudicated Rapist found guilty of raping a woman by a jury. 25 women have come forward and publicly accused him of sexual assault. Let me guess you think he is innocent as well? 3 of his cabinet members have sexual assault/pedophilia claims against them.
Do you know what the percentage of rape claims being false is? Less than 6%...and thats the high ceiling,the actual percentage is 3%.
Do you have any idea the damage being sexually abused causes? Especially by a sibling? It's a lifetime sentence of trauma.
Annie Altman was a pre-med student at Tufts.
You can read text messages where she asks for $45 to pay a therapy bill and Sam tells her no,you'll just have to work harder or figure it out.
When her father passed in 2018 her mother and brothers hid the will from her bc her father left his 401k to her. A year later a lawyer contacted her to tell her about the inheritance. But then her brother Sam hired his mother a lawyer to file a challenge to the 401k. Even though Mr.Altman had been separated for over a decade from his wife,she never signed the divorce papers do thru a law for surviving spouses she has filed to claim the 401k.
Sam Altman has been described by numerous associates as a sociopath who is morally bankrupt. He is a habitual liar who constantly pitted employees against eachother. He forced workers to sign ndas stating they were not allowed to say anything critical of OpenAi or him.
He was a huge donor to the pedophile in the White House and continues to give him money and support him.People who abuse and assault keep company with those who do as well.
Your comment is EXACTLY the type of victim blaming that got us where we are.
They are sarcastically mocking Trump's nonsensical back-and-forth statements about the war already being won and regime change already being accomplished
Even if there was a 29 style crash, assuming you can hold for 20 or so years, less than the length of most home mortgages, you would still come out ahead. Not that it wouldn’t be painful for seniors and those who are middle age and not well diversified, but it’s hard to not see a US crash as a buying opportunity for international capital.
A 1929-style crash was accompanied by mass unemployment (~25%), meaning people were often forced to sell at the bottom precisely because they had no income. You can't "hold" if you're selling assets to eat. Also just because it recovered in the past doesn't mean it'll follow the same trajectory in the future.
"A 1929-style crash was accompanied by mass unemployment (~25%), meaning people were often forced to sell at the bottom precisely because they had no income. You can't "hold" if you're selling assets to eat."
That's the evil thing about economic crises. People with enough capital usually can sit them out and often even benefit. People with less capital often lose everything and when the recovery comes, they have nothing that could benefit from it.
I am close to retirement and I often think how quickly your reserves can be wiped out in a long enough crisis.
How was the GFC worse? Not in unemployment rate. Not in losses to bank depositors, either. (As a kid, my mother lost money in a bank that went down in the Great Depression.) Not in business bankruptcies.
It was worse because we bailed out the banks, because they were too big to fail, teaching them the lesson that they can do stupid shit and not really pay and consequences. There's no number on that to compare to a different situation, but thems the breaks.
right. And because we know of the crashes of 2022, 2008, 2001, etc. the market is showing a lot more resiliency. Which is good, but it will take longer to have a correction. Which may be bad by itself.
Stabilizing from those crashes were all about the injecting liquidity and faith and credit in the US Treasury. Hoover didn’t handle the events subsequent to 1929 well, but more out of ignorance than malice.
In 2026, the POTUS, his family and friends are looting the treasury with brazen acts of fraud. The government is buying losing futures contracts to manipulate oil and other markets, and “mysterious people” are buying securities before scheduled, secret events to profit from it.
The US assassinated the leaders of a hostile power after they essentially gave in to our demands.
We eliminated the governments experts in a variety of strategic topics including oil, and installed toadies to run the fiscal service that disburses government funds.
People are working on undermining the FDIC and decapitating social security.
So a crash now is really disturbing. Nobody can have the level of confidence in the faith and credit of the United States as we did in 2008. The people who understand the complex issues have been purged by the government, and the rest of the leadership is complicit in criminality and is counting on loyalty to secure pardons for later. So you should be anxious.
I definitely don't think it's a case of more market resiliency but rather a case of central banks willing to act much more aggressively to respond to these things. This is often what Ben Bernanke argues, given he wrote his thesis on the '29 crash, and how he handled the '08 crisis.
Most people who have significant savings in the stock market don't have the lifespan to ride out a 25 year recovery cycle. And those young enough to have the time usually don't have much in savings yet.
I guess it depends what you call "significant". I am 40 and have over 200k in my 401k, which I think is significant. And I could most likely expect to live 25 more years. If there's a crash tomorrow, my money wouldn't grow the way I am hoping it will over that time, but I should come out ok considering that I will be getting discount stocks while the market recovers.
It is significant if you remain healthy and employed with income.
But it is basically nothing if you get laid off at age 56, and you can't find another job due to age discrimination, your COBRA runs out after 18 months, but you are not 65 years old yet for Medicare . Obamacare may be completely neutered by then, so private health insurance may cost $30k/year for a 57 year-old. You still have a mortgage, you can't afford health insurance, so you take a risk and decide to skip it, because you are healthy. Then you get pancreatic cancer, and without health insurance, your chemotherapy completely depletes your 401k in one year. Then you die of cancer at age 59, because you cannot pay for the treatments anymore.
Given your government is trying very hard to relive the global demand for the US dollar and thus repatriate the trillions of dollars held outside the US that seems very unlikely.
If you're only expecting to live to 65, you would be trying to time your 401k into a roughly 5 year window (assuming you wait until 59 1/2 to begin withdrawl).
What's more important is that before the crash there was a period of crazy market growth. So averaged out over ~10 years it didn't look all that bad. Especially accounting for deflation that happened in the same time.
Arguably people who got caught in 1970s bear market had it worse.
On the other hand, in 1970s no one got hungry - in 1930s they totally did - but it had very little to do with the stock market, agricultural crisis was because of unexpectedly quick recovery of European crops after WWI and consequential overproduction of US farms (i.e. production that they assumed will be easy to sell to Europe, found itself without market), that precipitated crisis of bad debt, attempts to compensate prices with quantity, even more bad debt as a result, and ecological disaster due to overexploitation of soil - but stock market had nothing to do with it.
A 29 style crash would be accompanied by a 29 crash in other countries. Besides most countries (besides Argentine) suffered, some more some less. The US market wouldn't necessarily be a bigger bargain than others.
Yeah, the fact they announced it proves it’s nothing. I saw a picture of him smoking a cigar. We’ve already seen him drinking beer and acting foolish; probably enough to get you executed in Isfahan, but a giant nothining in the USA.
Nope. It’s like thinking you can overthrow the government by littering. It’s just being lame. If you’re going to be lame to other people, don’t gloat about your lameness online. “If everybody littered, they’d have to do something about it!”
It's needlessly generating excessive amounts of trash and waste. It's wasting tax money. It's hurting the next blind person who won't be able to fax his documents because the machine is down/overloaded. It does not show why fax is stupid. It shows that faxing reams of unnecessary paperwork is stupid. It does not show that they should accept PDFs over email (genuinely a great way to get hacked). There is no benefit in trying to DoS the SSA office.
The employee probably already knows fax is stupid, and was probably looking forward to the proposed new secured document portal, but the legislature voted down the funding again this year so they could claim to be fiscally responsible. (Don't know the author but I do know govt workers who have expressed this kind of frustration ) Blind author needs to piss off their legislator, not a cog in the machine.
You kind of missed my point but that's OK. You can agree with or disagree with the action OP took, I'm not making a judgement call on that.
What I'm responding to the the notion that "no action you can take matters." Specifically this:
>Individual human beings acting individually are totally irrelevant when it comes to the behavior of large organizations.
I just don't believe that. Small actions do matter and are necessary because they enable the big actions later. You have to start somewhere. Even if it feels insurmountable. No major change ever just happened in isolation, it always happens when enough people have had enough and fought back enough that the change was inevitable.
What's missing is coordination. Coordinated individuals taking actions together can change things. But just relying on individuals stochastically, randomly acting doesn't work. You can't random-walk your way to political change, even if a lot of people are random-walking in one direction.
Worker rights didn't just spontaneously appear because enough people wanted them. They came about through organizing, coordinating and leading. Same for Women's suffrage, Civil rights, gay rights...
I will never pay a subscription for the current clickbaity slop. I might if the algorithm were better, closer to YouTube of 10 years ago, when it would suggest lectures, artfully done film shorts, and overall more interesting, high quality content.
10 years ago the most popular 100 videos on YouTube were all pop music videos. Justin Bieber had 3 of the top 10.
The youtube algorithm has been personalized for much more than 10 years and has never prioritized any kind of lectures or artful films over anything else it thinks a viewer will watch. You're asking for them to bring back an era that never existed.
If you're not getting those sorts of recommendations it's because you ddon't actually watch that kind of content, or you're removing your history.
I’ve watched YouTube daily for nearly 20 years. The majority of the content as well as the algorithm have changed substantially over that period of time. I’m not the only one to notice this btw. There is even a word to describe the phenomenon, “enshitification”. I do clear my watch history, and have never signed into YouTube, frequently resetting the app and watching online in private sessions with adblock. The frequency with which I have to reset the app to prevent the algorithm feeding me terrible undesired content has gone up overtime, I now do it once every few weeks. That’s how much I dislike what it pushes on me. I used to get stuff like “philosophy overdose” and sapolosky’s stanford lecture series, good operas. I now get stuff like “these 5 things are killing you while you sleep!!!” and “mom is shocked to find out her teenage son is raping and eating babies severed limbs.” I’m not being hyperbolic; that’s actually what YouTube recommends.
reply