Toss the Theories on the Thursday Political Open Thread

[Z is for Zangie]

Good Morning! Have a terrific Thursday!

[Tarmaque]

Things that happened today:

A federal judge put a block on the Texas abortion law, stating it clearly was unconstitutional.

Mitch McConnell offered a compromise bill to increase the debt ceiling. Also, pigs flew.

Donald Trump accuses McConnell of "folding" on the debt ceiling issue, while Democratic leadership reject it out of hand. We are apparently still headed to economic hell in a handbasket.

China is making motions towards a military takeover of Taiwan, which it has always claimed belonged to China in spite of the objections of the people living there. Biden has managed to get an agreement with Xi to talk about the issue. I smell WWIII.

Idaho's governor reverses an attempted coup by the lieutenant governor who issued a bunch of executive orders while the governor was out of town. Those orders by the Republican lieutenant governor included mandates (i.e. regulation) to private businesses against requiring vaccines or masks. Note that Idaho's hospitals are all full of Covid patients and they are exporting all sorts of patients to less full hospitals in next door Washington State.

And I, personally, refrained from murdering anyone I work with, in spite of frequent just cause.

[Mike]

From a geopolitical perspective, Taiwan was part of China for centuries. Look at it this way: if Jews can be considered to have a valid claim to the Holy Land because their forefathers lived there 2000 years ago, then China has a legit claim to Taiwan.

Not that I support their claim. I’m just saying that one has to be very careful about the rationale one deploys to support something, lest one be shown as incapable of coherent thought.

Meanwhile, some moron somewhere is reading this and blurting “Can you believe this guy? He’s anti-American! He’s in favor of communist dictatorships, and hates Israel!”

[Tarmaque]

From a geopolitical perspective, Taiwan was part of China for centuries.

That's actually nonsense. Prior to the 1940's "China," as the collective nation we think of today, didn't exist. For "centuries" "China" was a collection of warring states, sometimes an empire of different sizes and shapes, sometimes a bunch of different little bailiwicks controlled by little warlords who fought with all their neighbors. The borders of all of this changed on a regular basis, growing or shrinking depending on how powerful the leader of that particular bit of land happened to be. Look at a map of the different dynasties in China's history. It looks like an amoeba flowing about consuming other pieces of Asia, then releasing them when they got too spicy.

Culturally a large part of what is today China has been fairly cohesive "for centuries," but it has rarely been a collective nation with all its outlying areas. Not to mention the times when much of it (and even all of it!) was controlled by the Mongols, or in the 20th Century, Japan and Russia.

Of course that's not what the current Chinese Communist party wants you to think. They want you to think that "China" is as old as the sun and the moon, and that its cultural heritage is the same as its legal boundaries. It would be more like the United States claiming Canada because we share a language and culture, and claiming we were one nation "for centuries" due to that fact.

It's the worst kind of imperialism.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Culturally a large part of what is today China has been fairly cohesive "for centuries," but it has rarely been a collective nation with all its outlying areas. Not to mention the times when much of it (and even all of it!) was controlled by the Mongols, or in the 20th Century, Japan and Russia.

That is really the problem with most territory claims. If you go back more then a couple hundred years what you are describe is a responsible description of most of the world. There were pockets of great civilizations that rose and fell, but for the most part even those boarders were fairly fluid.

[Tarmaque]

That is really the problem with most territory claims. If you go back more then a couple hundred years what you are describe is a responsible description of most of the world. There were pockets of great civilizations that rose and fell, but for the most part even those boarders were fairly fluid.

Exactly. Also, "It was historically ours!" is the absolute worst argument for stealing something from the current inhabitants. It's worse than "because we can!" because it is a lie used to legitimize a takeover. Perhaps the only nearly as bad excuse is "Because your ancestors stole it from us!"

The whole idea that anyone has a "right" to a piece of land is laughable. Fighting over it is very human, but also very stupid. In the grand scheme of things in any time scale that is less than the total history of humans nothing "belongs" to anyone who doesn't hold onto it. Once they're gone, their claim to it is gone. This strange old world infected with that oddity of reverse entropy called "life" was here before we were here and it'll be here after we're all gone. "Possession" is therefore transient and not something one can claim by citing historical occupation.

It's all a complicated dance of power and greed that makes things like this happen.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

The whole idea that anyone has a "right" to a piece of land is laughable

Does this mean you are against the concept of land ownership in general?

[Tarmaque]

Does this mean you are against the concept of land ownership in general?

Perhaps philosophically, but as a practical matter I'm not so sure. Ask me in 500 years.

That said, it cannot be denied that the concept of land ownership has been the single most violence-causing concept in human history. Humans as a collective only really fight over two things: Land and water. Perhaps as individuals we might fight over sex or money (money=power) but as groups it's mostly land or water. Religion? Not as much as you think. The crusades were about "liberating the holy land from the infidel!" i.e. it was about land. (Even more, it was about giving all these soldiers they had hanging around causing problems a reason to go away to foreign lands to fight, but it was foreign lands that the rulers and the Catholic Church would really like to have control over because reasons.)

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Perhaps philosophically, but as a practical matter I'm not so sure. Ask me in 500 years.

That is exactly how I feel about the issue. I was hoping you would say something to help bring me clarity. I will say as a practical matter individuals don't own land in most of the country. Taxation on land acts as a rent payment to the government. So for the most part the individual states own all property in most of the US. Which is still ownership.

Humans as a collective only really fight over two things: Land and water.

Historically access to those two things were a matter of life and death so it makes sense. Why would you go to war for anything that isn't life or death?

[Tarmaque]

I was hoping you would say something to help bring me clarity.

Why do you always expect the impossible from me!

Historically access to those two things were a matter of life and death so it makes sense. Why would you go to war for anything that isn't life or death?

Your ruler is nutty as a fruitcake? The territory you're taking over has a resource that your aristocracy craves? Like sugar, spices, gold, or fancy minerals to make our flat screen TVs? (The latter is something that Afghanistan has.)

China has been encroaching on the East China Sea and the South China Sea and claiming them, even though they've been under the undisputed control of Japan and The Philippines for a long time. Why? Guess what you can drill for there. Three guesses, and if two of them aren't "Oil" and "Gas" then you haven't been paying attention.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

China has been encroaching on the East China Sea and the South China Sea and claiming them, even though they've been under the undisputed control of Japan and The Philippines for a long time. Why? Guess what you can drill for there. Three guesses, and if two of them aren't "Oil" and "Gas" then you haven't been paying attention.

He who controls the spice controls the universe.

[Mike]

As I very clearly stated, I don’t support their claim…. for many of the same reasons you list here. I will acknowledge your point that ‘cultural’ would have been a better choice on my part than ‘geopolitical’.

But that was not my point. My point was not even really about ‘historic’ claims to land. It was about the deployment of claims where it suits us, and then the denial of similar claims where it does not. It was about integrity.

From a geopolitical perspective, Taiwan was part of China for centuries.

That's actually nonsense. Prior to the 1940's "China," as the collective nation we think of today, didn't exist. For "centuries" "China" was a collection of warring states, sometimes an empire of different sizes and shapes, sometimes a bunch of different little bailiwicks controlled by little warlords who fought with all their neighbors. The borders of all of this changed on a regular basis, growing or shrinking depending on how powerful the leader of that particular bit of land happened to be. Look at a map of the different dynasties in China's history. It looks like an amoeba flowing about consuming other pieces of Asia, then releasing them when they got too spicy.

Culturally a large part of what is today China has been fairly cohesive "for centuries," but it has rarely been a collective nation with all its outlying areas. Not to mention the times when much of it (and even all of it!) was controlled by the Mongols, or in the 20th Century, Japan and Russia.

Of course that's not what the current Chinese Communist party wants you to think. They want you to think that "China" is as old as the sun and the moon, and that its cultural heritage is the same as its legal boundaries. It would be more like the United States claiming Canada because we share a language and culture, and claiming we were one nation "for centuries" due to that fact.

It's the worst kind of imperialism.

[Mike]

Turns out trump, on Jan.3, sought directly to overturn the election. And complained to acting Atty General Rosen that Rosen was not assisting in that process.

Rosen himself states that trump used the word overturn.

It is therefore rational to paint as traitors trump himself, and any/all who a) refused to support his impeachment, b) participated in trump’s side in any fashion in the events of Jan.6, or c) have since downplayed that event.

[Tarmaque]

He who controls the spice controls the universe.

He who can destroy a thing, controls that thing.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

He who can destroy a thing, controls that thing.

I shall not fear fear is the mind killer

[Tarmaque]

I shall not fear fear is the mind killer

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-kitten.
Fear is the little fuzz-ball that destroys my upholstery.
I will face my kitten.
I will permit it to sharpen its claws on my lap and hide in a bag.
And when it has gone to sleep, I will turn to look at it's destruction
Where the kitten has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

I shall not fear fear is the mind killer

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-kitten.
Fear is the little fuzz-ball that destroys my upholstery.
I will face my kitten.
I will permit it to sharpen its claws on my lap and hide in a bag.
And when it has gone to sleep, I will turn to look at it's destruction
Where the kitten has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Somethings should be made fun on. An 60 year old sci fi novel isn't one of them.

[Tarmaque]

Somethings should be made fun on. An 60 year old sci fi novel isn't one of them.

You have no sense of humor in your soul.