"Get me out of Afghanistan with my staff and my animals. I served for 22 years in the Royal Marine Commandos. I am not taking this bollocks from people like you..."

"... who are blocking me. You’ve got ’til tomorrow morning. I’m on Sky News around about 7.45 and your name will be the only name people are talking about.... So here’s the deal, buddy. You either get me that f***ing Isaf number and you get me permission to get onto that f***ing airfield, or tomorrow morning I’m going to turn on you and the whole f***ing country, and everybody else who’s invested in this rescue, is going to know it’s you — YOU — blocking this f***ing move. Alright?"

Said Pen Farthing, quoted in "I will destroy you, furious ex-marine warned defence aide over pet airlift/In an expletive-laden rant, Pen Farthing demanded that he, his animals and his staff be rescued from Kabul" (London Times).

Lake Mendota, 9:06 a.m.

"Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting."

"Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot.... Babbitt is considered by many to be fair game because she was labeled an 'insurrectionist.'... Like many, I condemned the Jan. 6 riot.... But that doesn’t mean rioting should be treated as a license for the use of lethal force, particularly against unarmed suspects."

From "Justified shooting or fair game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt makes shocking admission" by Jonathan Turley (The Hill).

"The unmanned airstrike occurred in the Nangahar Province of Afghanistan. Initial indications are that we killed the target. We know of no civilian casualties."

Said Navy Capt. Bill Urban, a U.S. military spokesman, quoted in "U.S. says drone strike killed ISIS-K target as embassy warns Americans to leave airport 'immediately'" (WaPo).

Urban said the target was “an ISIS-K planner,” but did not say whether the person played a role in organizing or carrying out the airport attack.

I'll just do a survey: 

My confidence in the accuracy of this strike and this report about it is:

High

Low

Non-existent.

 

pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: My confidence in my own wording of this poll is low to non-existent. What "report" — Capt. Urban's or WaPo's?  I think WaPo has built in the doubt. And so, for that matter, has Capt. Urban, because he doesn't say why the person killed was the target, only that a person was killed and that person was the target. Were non-targets also killed? He doesn't say no. He says he doesn't know. Why doesn't he know? How do you know you surgically precisely got one imprecisely identified man, but you didn't hit anyone else? Oh, but he doesn't claim we didn't hit anyone else, just that they didn't hit anyone else that they knew to be civilians. 

"Thirst trap."

You might have noticed the phrase "thirst trap" in the previous post. I have to start a new post because I don't want to sidetrack my own post, but there's a great and long Wikipedia article, "Thirst trap."

This is a slang term of recent origin — it's only about 10 years old — but somehow it has an entry as long as what you'd expect to find for a modestly significant historical character. I'm also recommending that you click through to see the one photograph, captioned "A woman taking a selfie." That's just perfect. 

To the text:

"But there was one thing TikTok was getting wrong: TikTok thought I was … a lesbian?"

"If you happen to be unfamiliar with the app, know this: You are no match for TikTok’s algorithm. By way of sorcery, TikTok learns your every interest, tendency, and pattern based on how you interact with its content, even if that’s just watching a video mostly through. What that means is TikTok knows you better than you know yourself. And it will show you more of what you like, even if you didn’t know you liked it yet. For me, I can only assume it started with lingering on a video of a gay pop star. So? I like her music. Then came the thirst traps, then the thrift hauls. I mean, I also like rocking a secondhand Carhartt pant, so?! Next came the the 'Disaster Bisexuals,' 'Gay Panics,' and 'Hey Mamas.' All of a sudden, almost every video on my For You page included a 'Woman Loving Woman' hashtag. I was confused and yet somehow … more addicted than ever? I’m not gay, I thought, but these lesbians are like…  really hot. Then one fated night... the Most Subtly Pornographic Video ever.... Our protagonist sits at a pottery wheel, drops a mound of clay on its surface, and begins molding it into a cup or hollow vessel of sorts. She looks seductively at the camera, mouth ajar, as we cut to a close-up of her hands where she slowly (extremely slowly!) shoves two fingers into the too-wet clay. I let the video loop again and again....  Painful as it is to think doom-scrolling AI-selected content was the thing that alerted me to my years of internalized homophobia and vicious cycle of self-hate, boy am I thrilled I downloaded that stupid fucking app."

 
From "TikTok Made Me Gay" by Emma Turetsky (The Cut).

"Even the experts have trouble saying how to pace your spending so you can enjoy retirement without exhausting your savings before you die."

"You can’t know for sure how long you’ll live, whether you’ll suffer a costly illness or how markets will perform.... Decumulation isn’t just a tough financial problem. It can be an emotional strain to flip a switch from saving to dissaving.... Do you keep a big nest egg, or do you convert your savings into a stream of monthly checks? The smart but psychologically difficult choice is to at least partly annuitize — that is, buy a financial product that provides a monthly income. When you buy a life annuity, the seller takes on the risk that you will live to age 110. That’s a big load off your mind. What makes it hard on your psyche is that to get a decent-size annuity, you have to turn over a big chunk of your life savings to the seller, usually an insurance company. For most people, especially younger retirees, some exposure to stocks makes sense. But grasping for high returns to compensate for years of undersaving is unwise. Do you lose sleep when the market plunges — or, worse, sell your shares and lock in big losses? Then you’d be better off in something safer...."

 
From "How to Enjoy Retirement Without Going Broke The problem of decumulation is a tricky one, even for Nobel Prize-winning economists" by Peter Coy (NYT).

Of course, it's tricky. You're mixing actual finance with the most intensely personal emotions, and the biggest factors are immense and disturbing uncertainties: What will the markets do and when am I going to die?

Anyway... I learned 2 new words: "decumulation" and "dissaving."

"The biggest blow to theocracy has been when political Islamists have actually come to power."

"The 'Islamic Republic of Iran,' which once marketed itself as some kind of Muslim utopia, has devolved into little more than a third-world, tinpot dictatorship. The 'Islamic State' in Iraq and Syria was little more than a meth-fueled orgy of torture and killing. The rule of the 'Justice and Development Party' in Turkey, once so promising, has devolved into little more than the megalomaniacal rule of a typical Middle Eastern strongman (Erdogan) and his corrupt relatives. In America, theocracy will shrivel in the same way - by winning power and showing its true colors. I am predicting right now that after the Supreme Court overturns (or guts) Roe v. Wade in 2022, banning abortion across America will be a long-term political disaster for the Republican Party."

 
Writes a commenter named Michal Zapendowski, responding to a David Brooks column in the NYT, "This Is How Theocracy Shrivels." 

Brooks says something similar, though without equating American Republicans to political Islamists: "When political Islamists tried to establish theocratically influenced rule in actual nations, their movement’s reputation was badly hurt. In one of extremism’s most violent, radical manifestations, the Islamic State’s caliphate in Iraq and Syria became a blood-drenched nightmare."

"As the Taliban swept through Afghanistan in August, a Gen Z alt-right group ran a Twitter account devoted to celebrating their progress."

"Tweets in Pashto juxtaposed two laughing Taliban fighters with pictures meant to represent American effeminacy. Another said, the words auto-translated into English, 'Liberalism did not fail in Afghanistan because it was Afghanistan, it failed because it was not true. It failed America, Europe and the world see it.' The account, now suspended, was just one example of the open admiration for the Taliban that’s developed within parts of the American right. The influential young white supremacist Nick Fuentes... wrote on the encrypted app Telegram: 'The Taliban is a conservative, religious force, the U.S. is godless and liberal. The defeat of the U.S. government in Afghanistan is unequivocally a positive development.' An account linked to the Proud Boys expressed respect for the way the Taliban 'took back their national religion as law, and executed dissenters.'... The tragic journey of the last two decades began with the loudest voices on the right braying for war with Islamism and ended with a right-wing vanguard envying it.... 'They don’t hate their own masculinity,' [Tucker Carlson] said shortly after the fall of Kabul. 'They don’t think it’s toxic. They like the patriarchy. Some of their women like it too. So now they’re getting it all back. So maybe it’s possible that we failed in Afghanistan because the entire neoliberal program is grotesque.'"

From "The Right-Wingers Who Admire the Taliban" by Michelle Goldberg (NYT).

"I really do believe any prisoner who is found to be not a threat to themselves or the world should be released."

Do you believe that? I don't. 

The quote is from Douglas H. Kennedy, one of the sons of Robert F. Kennedy. I'm reading "California parole panel votes in favor of release from prison for Sirhan Sirhan/Parole for 77-year-old convicted of assassinating still must be approved by full board, governor" (WaPo). 

And here's quote from Robert Kennedy Jr.: "My father, I think, would be really happy today. My father believed in compassion. The ideals of our justice system are the possibility of redemption and the importance of forgiveness. He didn’t believe the justice system was just about revenge."

Not all of the offspring of RFK are happy about the decision. Six of them — Joseph P. Kennedy II (D-Mass.), Courtney, Kerry, Chris, Maxwell, and Rory Kennedy — put out a statement that sounds right to me:

"We are devastated that the man who murdered our father has been recommended for parole. We adamantly oppose the parole and release of Sirhan Sirhan and are shocked by a ruling that we believe ignores the standards of parole of a confessed, first-degree murderer in the state of California."

Sirhan was originally sentenced to death. "When California eliminated the death penalty, Sirhan was resentenced to life. California has since reinstated the death penalty, but has a labyrinthine appeals process and rarely executes anyone."

The decision of the parole panel doesn't set him free. It must be reviewed by the parole board and then the governor. The governor's decision will take place well after the recall election, which is on September 14th.

Vertical panorama — a very hazy sunrise.

"I woke up at 6 a.m. feeling the kind of ambient half-hunger that I always tolerate for way too long."

"Not to be dramatic, but this is something I genuinely hate about myself — I always wait too long to eat, and I inevitably get into a bad mood before finally fixing the problem. My wife Alice rescued me with yogurt. She put all kinds of stuff in there that would never occur to me, like honey, almond shavings, plum slices, and a syrupy jam made out of sour cherries....  I got hungry for lunch around noon, but again waited like 90 minutes to do anything about it. Once I hit a breaking point, I needed something fast and potent, so I made myself three soft-boiled eggs using a Japanese device my friend David gave me...."

 
From "Leon Neyfakh Always Waits Too Long to Eat/'Not to be dramatic, but this is something I genuinely hate about myself'" (NY Magazine).

"The show’s soothing rhythm is so sacred that when I adopted an unorthodox strategy of frenetic hops about the board rather than a stately march down the selected category..."

"... during my 11-game stint, I went viral as a 'Jeopardy! villain.'... Now, I’m struggling to keep watching. 'Jeopardy!' is changing, and the show threatens to destroy its own appeal by abandoning the unvarying formula we’ve come to depend on and sidelining the people who most make it succeed. It all started with the loss of Trebek. At my tapings, Trebek told us that if he were ever to retire, his one piece of advice to his successor would be, 'Stay out of the way, and let the contestants be the stars.'... When Trebek died... most fans expected for a replacement already to have been named and, after a bit of welcoming fanfare, for the show to return to normal as soon as possible. Instead, 'Jeopardy!' trampled over Trebek’s directive. The hunt for the new host became a public circus of 'on-the-job tryouts' featuring a glamorous roster of A-listers, and the star of the show became the week’s celebrity guest host. Each episode, their followers tuned in to root for them, not the actual contestants."

Writes Arthur Chu in "I was a ‘Jeopardy!’ villain. Now the show faces a bigger threat" (WaPo).

"Nuclear power may be safer than the public believes, but the public’s beliefs matter a great deal in a democracy."

"Solar and wind power are extremely popular with Americans, but nuclear power is viewed unfavorably, with more people opposing its expansion than supporting it..... 'It’s absurd to be "pronuclear" or "antinuclear" on an ideological/identity basis,' David Roberts, an energy and climate journalist, said last year. 'The world should build whatever carbon-free options are fastest and (with all costs considered) cheapest. Nuclear doesn’t currently fit that bill, but new reactor designs might change that. If so, build them; if not, don’t.'"

From "Is There a Nuclear Option for Stopping Climate Change?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell (NYT).

Back in 2019, Biden's idea about brain cancer in veterans failed a fact-check, yet he repeated that idea yesterday.

From yesterday's speech: 

Being the father of an Army major who served for a year in Iraq, and before that was in Kosovo as a US attorney for the better part of six months in the middle of a war, when he came home after a year in Iraq he was diagnosed like many, many coming home with an aggressive and lethal cancer of the brain and we lost.

I think Biden was reading his speech, but it's hard to believe this line was written and edited. Many veterans returning from Iraq had aggressive brain cancer? 

Here's a piece from FactCheck.org from December 2019, "Biden Exaggerates Science on Burn Pits and Brain Cancer."

Although future studies may eventually come out to change scientific opinion, there is no direct evidence that burn pits cause brain cancer, and no indication that Iraq War veterans are especially affected by brain cancer, as Biden claimed.

"The eldest by a minute, she is the only heterosexual in our family; her twin is a lesbian and so are her two Moms...."

"... Because I grew up in an Irish-Catholic household where sexual feelings were at best contained, at worst annulled, I took particular pleasure in allowing hers to flourish. The boyfriend’s parents... had been raised in other faiths and had converted to Islam. They insisted on strict compliance with religious laws. Meaning: Their boy with the luxurious hair was not allowed to date.... I became complicit in their circumventing his parents’ prohibitions.... [M]y own family’s disapproval of my lesbian desire fueled this indecorous behavior on my part.... Of course, they got caught.... [My daughter's boyfriend's parents] proposed a temporary marriage between my 13-year-old and theirs, although I would not know about this until moments before the ceremony.... The ceremony took place in a local Mexican coffee house.... I thought I was simply coming along to meet the mother. My eldest whispered the relevant details in my ear as they walked through the door.... The boy’s mother was strikingly beautiful and at least a decade younger than me. After we had all gotten our hot chocolates, she took out her Quran and explained that temporary marriage was a way for our children to have some limited physical contact without jeopardizing her son’s soul.... I assented without calling home to consult my partner of 20-something years.... ...I didn’t want my daughter to be prevented from touching the boy she loved. I didn’t want what had been done to me to be done to her. So I assented, and the boy’s parents read the ritual phrases in Arabic, and the children nodded along and, without my understanding a word, they were married.... Their temporary marriage lasted until they broke up a year later...."

From "Why My Daughter Got (Temporarily) Married at 13/Having been shamed about my sexuality when I was young, I was determined, as a mother, to celebrate my child’s romantic wishes" by Stephanie Grant (NYT).

1. The parents — all 3 of them — were actively facilitating sexual intercourse between 13-year-olds. Is this not criminal behavior? 

2. Oh, but the boy and his mother were beautiful! Beauty privilege. Step back naysayers! Beautiful people are moving forward, claiming what they want.

3. Chocolate was had. That makes everything more palatable.

4. The mother does not concede that the 2 teenagers ever had sexual intercourse, and lets us know that her daughter regards your curiosity about this as "disturbingly invasive, and, indeed, exoticizing." That is, you are the creep, not these parents who got their kids "temporarily married."

5. Imagine taking a vow that was read to you in a language that you don't understand. Imagine sitting by sipping hot chocolate while your exuberant daughter nods assent to what sounds like gibberish to her but you know is deadly serious to the person who is reading the vows. 

6. Are the vows deeply meaningful or utterly meaningless? What is "temporary marriage" anyway? Maybe it's a debasement of marriage — if marriage means something deep to you. But it's a step up from the cheap vowless love the mother approved of before the boy's parents caught on to the relationship she was eagerly enabling. 

7. The mother sees herself in her daughter, and she's proud of this merged identity. The mother's grudges against her own mother and against society are reenacted through her daughter, whom she touts in the pages of the New York Times.

8. The author has a whole memoir coming out, so the daughter's story is, apparently, thoroughly appropriated by the mother. Talk about "disturbingly invasive."