It doesn’t have to be nationalized, but it doesn’t make any sense for a civilian to be able to unilaterally make decisions like that while under military contract. At the very least, any decision to change or influence the contracted service while the contract is active should require some sort of review and approval. Maybe there’s a good reason it’s the way it is, I’m just a layman, but every time I hear about this it just baffles me why it was even allowable for Elon to make the call he did, or any call for that matter.
A key issue, often overlooked, is that US law imposes significant restrictions on the export and sale of military hardware.
Starlink is currently not considered military hardware. SpaceX is desperately trying to keep it that way, their ultimate goal is to sell subscriptions to civilians. Thus they get anxious when it is openly used for military purposes.
In this regard Starlink is somewhat similar to civilian GPS receivers, which automatically shut down at 1200 mph so they can’t be used in missiles.
Giving a nation the idea you may support an enemy. Is in no way a protection from that nation taking control of your assets. It is at best giving the nation the ability to rationalise the need to limit your own power.
After all dispite not seeing any reason why any corp in the US would be worried about current potential govs nationalising them. It just not something either of the main parties are fans of.
Its even less likely musk would see cooperation with russia as a way to prevent such a thing.
I mean siding with Trump, buying Twitter and the “free speech” people. This is the smoke screen so that he CAN defend Russia and make Biden wary of fighting back, because he now has the unconditional support of 30% of the country.
Not that aiding Russia is the prevention, I think it may be at least part of the goal.
While I hate to give the little shit the benifit of the doubt.
It is worth considering. That there are plenty of other people out their. Who truly think letting russia keep the ground they have taken. Is the best way to prevent the war continuing on.
I disagree because evidence is give russia an inch. And they will just wait until they build up again. And take your whole nation. They are just not trustworthy when it comes to peace treaties.
But plenty of folks are less untrusted (more stupid imho)
There is also more direct fiscal reason why he may want to discurage the US from supporting Ukraine.
If the war continues with the current US weapons spending on Ukraine support. Eventually the gov is going to have to raise money to do so. This drematically increases the risk that industries like his. Will lose some tax breaks or loopholes he uses.
Yes, because that organization published a definition of antisemitism that effectively makes it almost off limits to criticize the actions of the Israeli state. And that definition is being codified into policy or even law in many cases. Even the author of this definition has objected to the way it’s being used.
Yeah, I thought that was it. The definition is clear that criticism of the Israeli government that’s comparable to criticisms aimed at other governments isn’t antisemitism. You should be able to criticise Israel in the same terms you criticise (e.g.) Russia and China, or for that matter America and the UK. But if you exclusively criticise Israel in virulent terms, or say that Israel is some sort of uniquely evil entity comparable to the Nazis, or imply that all Jews worldwide are agents of the Israeli state, or say Israel as a nation state should be wiped off the map—that’s antisemitic.
It’s “clear” in the sense that it pays lip service to the concept. In practice, as this article discusses, it is used as a cudgel to over-apply the accusation of antisemitism and shield Israel from discussion of its apartheid policies. Some allegedly antisemitic organizations, under this definition, have included Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The letter said the first example can be used to suppress claims that Israel is breaching international laws against apartheid and is violating conventions to end racial discrimination. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both been accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition over detailed reports saying that Israel practises a form of apartheid, an accusation also levelled by Israeli human rights groups.
“The example on ‘applying double standards’ opens the door to labeling as antisemitic anyone who focuses on Israeli abuses as long as worse abuses are deemed to be occurring elsewhere,” the letter said.
“By that logic, a person dedicated to defending the rights of Tibetans could be accused of anti-Chinese racism, or a group dedicated to promoting democracy and minority rights in Saudi Arabia could be accused of Islamophobia.”
Anyone who actually cares about antisemitism rather than just cheerleading for the Israeli state should oppose this because it cheapens the accusation in its overapplication, and casts doubt on the legitimacy of real incidences of antisemitism.
So your position (besides implying that I’m a cheerleader for Netanyahu) is that a good working definition of antisemitism is bad because people misuse it? What’s your take on how to counter the very real antisemitism that exists in parts of the anti-Israel movement? Also, I’m sorry, but your quotation is obviously bullshit:
applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
China is a democratic nation now? Saudi Arabia is a democratic nation? Come on. It’s obvious what that means, and it should be obvious why holding Israel to a uniquely high standard among democratic nations, as the definition says, is antisemitic.
My position is that it is not a good definition, and that it has been selected because it provides cover for this "mis-"use. I make no claim to know anything about you nor did I mention Netanyahu.
While I genuinely feel bad for economically disadvantaged workers with long commutes in used vehicles, I can’t help but notice most of the complaints about fuel prices come from people who: A. Shout down anyone trying to improve public transportation infrastructure by saying it can’t work in rural areas (it can, and has), and B. Own outrageously large personal vehicles that guzzle gas and houses with 2+ stall garages.
I’ll listen to complaining from anyone who doesn’t fall into one or both of these two groups.
Gas should be prohibitively expensive. It’s price should reflect its impact.
Unfortunately this would crumble the entire US and possibly western economy. It works in most of the rest of the world because the commutes are smaller and the alternative transit is plentiful.
The only times I see people like me, who prefer owning a car “shouting down” people adcovating for better public transport, is when people suggest I should get rid of my car and ride a bus instead. A good public transportation system is a net-good for everyone, and in no way inconveniences me especially if I never even use it. It’s not busses and trains I have an issue with - it’s the naive city dwellers who thinks that because they get around just fine without a car then anyone would.
I shall remember for the next conversation someone thinks anti-abortion is a good thing… I mean besides underground abortion parlors, the fostering of poverty, using it as a political tool against opposition and to persecute people for other reasons than abortion, which won’t apply to the rich because they can always fly mistresses to some permissive western country and have a painfree vacation at the same time.
Seems policies are carved out by idiots worldwide.
Taxis in NYC have medallions, that are significantly more than $100k, and that makes the scarcity of taxis just enough that they are in demand but rarely unused.
Taxis in NYC have medallions, that are significantly more than $100k, and that makes the scarcity of taxis just enough that they are in demand but rarely unused.
I get it though, you really don’t need a car to get to maybe 95% of the country. I wonder if people who need to haul stuff around for a living get any incentives.
Not a resident but my partner is from SG. One of the reasons I often hear is that families(mom, dad, kids, grandparents) like to travel together, and the elderly are not always mobile enough for public transport. Public transport is really fantastic, but it doesn’t cover every single need.
And of course it’s a status symbol, some feel the need to show they’ve got the wealth to own a car.
Again, I hear these things second hand and am colored by my partner’s beliefs :) Maybe a SG resident has a better (or different) explanation. edit:
In my eagerness to share, I realize this doesn’t really answer your question. Sorry about that :)
It’s become a habit, that’s how we always abbreviate it.
You can also pronounce it as SinJapore, so I guess that’s why? I don’t know, I just follow my partner’s example :) edit: Official UN/LOCODE is also SG, so I guess that settles it.
Nah you’re good. I was actually thinking of a similar scenario, like for musicians who need to lug their gear around. They don’t exactly fit into the category of a business that transports goods, but they can’t exactly walk, ride a bus, then a train, with all that gear in tow. I’ve been to SG several times myself and I love how easy it is to get around, as someone who prefers urban living.
My mother was born in Singapore and we’ve been to visit many times. There are a lot of taxis, and they are quite cheap. As a tourist it was cheaper to take a taxi than public transit when we were a group of 3 or 4 people. 2 people was pretty close either way. I’m sure public transit is cheaper when you’re a full time resident, but my grandparents just use taxis all the time due to their mobility issues.
They do, right up until a government decides to do as it pleases.
Every single right was hard fought for, and though some people will put in huge effort to resist the introduction of this measure, most of those who agree it is terrible won’t do a thing.
Meantime the rest of the population harbour very dark thoughts on the matter. If anything, even Tory governments are far more liberal than the general UK public.
The title is really burying the lede, considering one of the Chinese athletes got disqualified, then was allowed to race, and then disqualified again afterwards for her false start. Think that’s kind of weird…
Presumably they’ve ruled out prisons in northern European countries perceived to be too humane; imagine the Sun/Daily Mail thundering about “hardworking taxpayers’ money spent to give criminal scum holidays in luxury Finnish prisons”, along with a photo of a cell that looks vastly better than the typical London rental opportunity. So I’m guessing they’ll be asking around, say, Turkey, Morocco and various former Soviet republics. Possibly the US as well, though that may involve leaving the ECHR.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.