xzar_monty

Would you care to elaborate on why it depends so much on your defense team? Does the "arcane" there mean that not all defense teams are aware of all the rules, for instance?

We in fact have that percentage-based system in Finland, and it doesn't work too badly at all, it has to be said. As for the $5000 fine to a poor person, you're quite right. I am reminded of a relatively poor person receiving a fine of that order in California and getting into serious trouble with it. And then, of course, the first difficulties in paying it resulted in even more difficulties of other kind, and even harsher trouble. As a person close to me pointed out, "That's the circle of poverty right there." Your word, ruin, is aptly chosen. As for the broken justice system: I suppose there's fairly widespread acceptance that the system is broken, but I have never seen any real drive from the citizens to even try to fix it. Perhaps there's a sense of hopelessness about it? Anyway, as I've said it before, it makes me think of Russia. The US citizens appear just as helpless.

Intruder is such a creepy song. Gabriel sings it so softly and the lyric is so icky. I mean, at the end when he goes "intruder come and leave his mark", there's no question that the "come" has a double meaning and the guy is up to some rather ugly business at other people's houses. And then, on the same album, there's that song of infinite childhood sadness and loneliness, Family Snapshot. There's a superb live version of it from Athens:

You're entering Joseph Heller territory here. Good!

Fascinating statistic, by the way: Russia lost more troops in Ukraine in the first two weeks than it lost in the whole of the war in Afghanistan. The numbers are, among other sources, from a Kremlin-backed newspaper that quickly removed them, of course. I suppose someone lost more than their job, too.

Given the numerical discrepancy in personnel, the counter-attack was always a bit of a stretch, and unfortunately, as you say, Russia can keep the current war going a lot longer than Ukraine. I don't know the extent to which it's an accepted wisdom, but I've read several military personnel comment that an attack generally needs approximately three times the amount of personnel the enemy has, and obviously Ukraine never had that, not even close. It seems very, very unlikely that Ukraine could fall or fail catastrophically[*] anymore (in the war, that is), but it also seems very, very hard to see a good way out of this. [*] Meaning, essentially, in the way that Russia envisioned on day 1. EDIT: I've been working on material concerning this war for months now. It is really something to see how blatant Russia's plans were, and had been for years. Years ago, the bottom line was, "If we can ensure that our men rule Ukraine from their government, there will be no need for us to tear Ukraine apart." Ukraine's recent political development led to the invasion, because Ukraine was not willing to be as subservient as Russia demanded. So Russia has always, or at least for a long time, regarded Ukraine as its legitimate prey / vassal / subordinate / take your pick.

It's funded now, and with 800 backers, too! That's nice.

Zoraptor wrote that Russia looks good by comparison, which it does, because Israel is far more deadly when it comes to targetting civilians. Just look at the numbers he provided. I once did a fair amount of work related to Mossad, and it was both extremely interesting and quite shocking to learn what a bad partner Israel can be. They are extraordinarily greedy when it comes to collecting intelligence from their allies, but they absolutely do not hesitate to be stingy and deceptive when it comes to sharing their own, even with the US. This has been well documented and demonstrated. I don't know whether the well-justified ire of the US actually led to any changes in the way Israel behaves, but I doubt it. My pet peeve with the Israeli government, by the way, is their attachment to the anti-semitism rhetoric: any and all criticism is almost instantly labelled anti-semitic. This would seem to imply that according to the Israeli government, it is incapable of making mistakes or being wrong, which doesn't seem very likely to me, in reality.

Not at all related, but it is really quite extraordinary that there's a perfectly fine cricket stadium at a Helsinki suburb I have some history with. Cricket is almost non-existent in Finland, but apparently some well-off local guy originally from India decided to go all in with his passion. Heck, Lord Mervyn King even came to its opening ceremony. Crazy world.

481 backers sounds decidedly modest!

OK, I didn't know that. It's a a valid point. In fact, it is often useful to be a bit wordier when speaking, as this allows for better understanding of the content: tightly-packed information makes for hard listening.

My sense is that stylistically speaking, Sam Harris would do well to learn a trick or two from someone like Ernest Hemingway. I mean, after reading this: "But leaving all of that to one side, for the moment I’d like to make a very simple point, that really shouldn’t be at all controversial—because it doesn’t prejudge any of the questions that people might disagree about. You don’t have to agree with me about Islam, or about the role it plays in inspiring conflict. The point I’m making now..." I couldn't help but wonder whether he'd actually stop talking about his point and make it. The editor in me would also like to comment that instead of writing "At this moment in history" like Harris does, you can just insert the word "now" in the appropriate spot. Sorry, I have been working on high-quality prose, and this wasn't. No comment on the substance, as I didn't read it to the end. But thanks for the link!

I found the story. It refers to a 20-18 defeat in 2007, but what I remembered wrong was that there wasn't any headline. "We suck at the only thing we're good at!" was just what distraught Kiwis were reported to be saying to one another after the game. Obviously they weren't, at least in large numbers, but someone may well have said it, and as it was such a good line, it was remembered.

Ok. It must have been Australia because the whole thing hinged on New Zealand being the spirited little brother of Australia -- but perhaps the whole story isn't true in the first place. Anyway, thanks!

Yeah, horrible. That sort of stuff just can't happen in Scandinavia. Seems obscene that your life can be destroyed by a medical emergency. I once spent an evening with an American student who knew she was coming to Finland to study and (rather shrewdly) skipped checking her teeth until she arrived because she knew she had something that needed fixing and also knew that over here it would cost her less than the equivalent of 20 bucks. I mean, I'm not saying the Scandinavian system is perfect but it sure is a lot better than the one over there. My sense is that as much as the American system develops initiative, as it well should, it also destroys an awful lot of people because there are no safety nets. The safety nets over here, on the other hand, tend to make some people too passive, which is a genuine problem that is not easy to fix. I mean, if you're taken care of, some temperaments will simply subsist on that and not make much of an effort it make anything of their lives.

Yeah, he's not someone you ought to have heard about. I don't do and haven't done the baby steps as such, but I've never had any debt other than the mortgage[*], and that was paid off a long time ago. Also, over here we don't have to worry about paying for our children's education, so that makes things quite a lot easier, and most of us don't have to invest in our retirement in the American sense, either, although of course saving helps, no question. [*] Financial rule #1: with the exception of your house, never buy anything that you don't have the money for right away.

Yeah, obviously the vibe one gets is dependent on one's environment. But to take one concrete example: there's this financial advisor called Dave Ramsey who isn't all nonsense although I wouldn't exactly rely on him, either. Anyway, he's one of those guys who insist that everybody in the government and the White House are fools no matter what their party, but America is still the undisputed #1. And that seems like something of a contradiction to me.

@Gfted1 and @Gromnir, just out of interest: what is your take/opinion on the (to me) apparent fact that an awful lot of Americans seem to be very dismissive / distrustful of the White House, the government and all the rest of it while at the same time being very strongly of the opinion that the US is the best? Isn't there a bit of a contradiction in here? Or is it just that the original US constitution was brilliant (which, admittedly, it sort of is) but the current rulers have little or nothing to do with that political acumen, or something? I am genuinely curious here. It's an attitude of some contradiction, in my view, and I come across it quite often. Btw, Gfted1, yeah: the #1 annoying thing that tends to characterize American tourists at least is the sense of entitlement. In the same way that Brits are violently drunk, and so on, i.e. it's a stereotype that doesn't hold to that much scrutiny but isn't actually totally false, either...

A late professor friend of mine from the University of Iowa used to stress that every stereotype about the US is true, and so is its opposite[*]. I think that's a pretty good way of putting it. So yes, very very stupid, and also better educated than just about anyone else, if you happen to be in the right circles. [*] Though it has to be said that although Americans tend to love small talk, the converse apparently isn't true: they are not very good at shutting up.

I'd really like to be more aware of how and where the US federal government spends its money -- I mean, certainly not on roads, bridges or anyone's well-being, at least to any considerable extent. One thing that I quite can't get my head around is how a nation apparently hell-bent on maximum profit steadfastly refuses to install measures that would almost certainly greatly increase its profit. But then, I suppose a large part of that is down to the all too human phenomenon of holding on to what has been around for a while, even if it doesn't really work.

Here's something interesting written by Susan Neiman in Left Is Not Woke: ”Few Americans can really imagine any (other conditions). That’s because they are missing what other wealthy countries call rights: health care that pays for the drugs needed to treat diseases, sick leave that covers the duration of an illness, paid vacations and parental leave, higher education and childcare. Americans call those things benefits, granted or denied at the will of their employer – a very different concept from the concept of rights. The absence of social rights affects poorest people most: those who produce and prepare our food, deliver our packages, care for our children and elders. But even two working parents in a moderately well-off family will see their salaries eaten by the costs of education and health care, their time consumed by chauffeuring children in places without public transportation.” What this reminded me of is that every once in a while I see an American citizen lamenting their sense of hopelessness and helplessness in relation to the policies that his/her country follows. I don't know how common this experience is, of course. But every time I see it, it makes me think that the experience is probably very close to that experienced by citizens of countries like Russia.

@Zoraptor: I have a memory (on my spending some time in NZ 10+ years ago) that NZ once lost an important game to Australia, upon which there was a newspaper headline along the lines of "It's Official Now: We Suck at the Only Thing We're Good At". It's such a brilliant line that I dearly wish it was true. I can't for the life of me remember where I got this from and whether it actually refers to something that happened. I wonder if this rings any bells for you; I don't expect it to, but it would be great if it did.

The ICC, like the UN, is a wonderful idea. Some of the things they've done are actually good, too. But when the going gets tough, we get to witness some pretty drastic prioritization of concerns. I have mentioned this before, but the same hierarchy is clearly visible on the individual level, too: the vast majority of people want to see justice being done, but when faced with a choice where either justice is done or someone dear to us gets out of trouble at the expense of justice being done, more than half of us will choose the latter, according to various studies. So we value our friends more than we value justice, just like countries and organizations value their colleagues/whatnot more than they value justice. It's not pretty.

I really don't know. Historically, Finland has been extremely cautious towards Russia, so unless this policy has now changed, that's perhaps going to be the most likely scenario. It is also within the realm of possibility that the pipeline and data cable have been damaged by the anchor of a Russian vessel which chose to remain stationary (relatively speaking) in turbulent waters. We shall see.

I agree that there are an awful lot of things that the Russians could do that are potentially much more effective and cost-effective. But I think their penchant for symbolism might take the upper hand here, if it was them who did it.