This administration has zero ability to build or bring people together, able only to destroy what others have made. On the bright side, it isn't effective until December 31, 2026 so there is plenty of time to chicken out.
> This administration has zero ability to build or bring people together […]
Someone observed a lot of stuff that Trump is doing is through Executive Orders because he really can't do deals. Of course when (some of) his desires overlap with (some of) others', we get:
I think they were alluding to Trump's now notorious penchant to flip flop and waffle on every decision he makes. It's why the TACO Trump meme sprang up and continues to be used in reference to him – Trump Always Chickens Out.
The 2011 thing keeps getting cited in this thread, but it's wrong. The funding was cut because of what amounts to a booby-trap condition in pre-existing legislation. And they tried to get it overturned by it was blocked in congress.
In fact this is an almost perfectly partisan issue, and the 2011 canard is giving cover to some horrifying both-sidesism.
That pre-existing legislation (which banned US financing of any UN agency that grants membership to Palestine) was signed by George HW Bush in 1990 and expanded by Bill Clinton in 1994, in both cases passed by Democrat-controlled Houses and Senates. So it's still "both-sidesism," whatever that is.
And for what it's worth I never mentioned nor was thinking about "two sides," just multiple distinct administrations. Partisanship wearies me (and the parties have changed a lot over the last 20-30 years)
Ironically the claim about corruption also applies to this admin. (See crypto scams for access to the president, and the Epstein files promises for well-known examples)
I do agree with them that there is a 'rot' in these institutes. Though I don't know anything specific about the UNESCO that would warrant the withdrawal.
For institutes like the UN and UNRWA it does ring true however. It is wild to see claims of genocide where there isn't one and zero claims or calls for arrest when clear unambiguous genocidal massacres start taking place. UNRWA funded and run schools having theater classes where the children role-play murdering Jews is absurd and shouldn't be happening. (To name an example from before the 7th)
The UN should be setting a singular standard and holding everyone to account roughly equally. Not this clear and open corruption of its proclaimed principles. Whether it's in the main body or it's subsidiaries.
The current media and political landscape is a joke, there don't seem to be any standards. Frankly the future looks rather bleak. I really hope we can find to way back to 'common sense'. Good journalism, holding politicians to account and treating everyone equally, holding them to the same standards.
Hegel, and later Sartre (but from a very different perspective), emphasized the importance of The Other, in the sense of the definition of the Self.
In short, by defining the other, one demarcates the boundary of the self and defines ones identity. Self-identity necessitates the other, in its self-conception and interdependence of the latter's existence. To be reductionist, what does it even mean to be oneself if there is no other?
Political othering is the process of emphasizing differences between groups in a way that creates an "us vs. them" mentality, often leading to prejudice and hostility. It involves constructing an out-group as fundamentally different and inferior, thereby reinforcing the identity and perceived superiority of the in-group. This process can manifest in various forms, including racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, and it often fuels social and political conflict.
I think pretty much everyone acknowledges the cruft. They are always, for example, paying lip service to ending waste and corruption. But for all of their speechifying, nothing of note has ever been done in my lifetime[1].
The fact is that it's damned near impossible to build anything in America today, whether that's physical building or organizations. There is just too much vested interest, regulation, and unwillingness to just try something for fear of making a mistake (no politician can ever admit "I was wrong").
[1]actually, I guess I'm exaggerating. I can think of one significant thing: Clinton's changes to welfare. But the fact that there's only the one thing kinda underscores how vivid this is.
He actually reduced spending, improved efficiency and in general streamlined the system. But weirdly, no republican (or most other people, really) ever mentions this actually effective approach, possibly because it would completely undermine the myth of republican "fiscal conservatism"
But this part here I think gets to my overall point:
> They are always, for example, paying lip service to ending waste and corruption
A pattern I've noticed over and over in my life at this point is the vague promises to Combat Evil are almost always used by frankly bad people who don't deserve the power they're asking for.
Combatting evil is of course a good thing, that's inherent in the definition, but someone who is actually capable of doing so is also capable of telling you how they're going to do it.
Compare e.g. clinton's campaign platform with dozens of specific ideas and plans in a document to trump's random blathering.
> The fact is that it's damned near impossible to build anything in America today, whether that's physical building or organizations.
This meme is incredibly frustrating but I've never been able to really articulate why. I think it's because the extreme, absolutist nature of the idea promotes equally extreme "solutions" which range from impractical to basically evil.
There's a new road being built a mile from my house as I type this. Is it being done particularly quickly? I have no idea, I don't know what constraints they're laboring under. Could it be faster? Almost certainly, but that's not going to be accomplished by some kind of extreme overthrow of the existing system.
SpaceX managed to build and launch literally rockets into space, and that's overcoming the handicap of elon musk! What exactly is impossible about building things in america?
Democrats and Republicans alike all agree that Clinton became much more conservative in his second term. Nobody acknowledges it because it paled in comparison to the circus that was his impeachment trial.
> The National Performance Review was created by President Bill Clinton on March 3, 1993. He appointed Vice President Al Gore as its leader. The President gave the review a 6-month deadline -- report results to him by September 7, 1993.
I think cruft is the natural state of things in large organizations. There are plenty of views of the world (right or wrong) that take this shape (painting with broad strokes) that I wouldn't call blind faith or dogma.
I deliberately did not answer your question. I refuse to get into the weeds because I reject your premise. I don't know anything about the inner workings of these organizations. (It's really not a "simple question" at all!) It's not my job, I'm just a voter. I have other things to do.
You seem to want me to assume that because of this, I have to default to YOUR position. I'm saying, that doesn't match my broad view of the world. I have the opposite default position.
I guess what I can say, broadly, is that the US Government has a MASSIVE budget. The cruft is in there somewhere. If there's one guy who says he's gonna try to slash it, I'll take that guy and hope for the best.
> I refuse to get into the weeds because I reject your premise.
Occam's Razor would indicate that you have made an unsubstantiated claim that you cannot justify and have been deflecting, desperately. Starting discussions in bad faith, is not constructive.
> If there's one guy who says he's gonna try to slash it, I'll take that guy and hope for the best.
Ok, and then what we actually got was elon musk's incompetent "doge" organization.
This is literally my point, you have faith that there is this "bad cruft" and so you're willing to believe in, and give power to, incompetent idiots merely because they sound like they agree with your predetermined faith.
It's frustrating to watch this sort of thing happen. Regardless of the actual status of "cruft", musk and trump are famously incompetent, the odds of them suddenly developing the skills necessary to combat "cruft" are highly unlikely.
Why, exactly, do you want to throw a hail mary? Are we about to fall off a cliff? Is there some kind of apocalypse waiting to destroy us if we don't do something drastic? Have we run out of other options?
The point I'm trying to make is that the federal government is not some kind of faceless opaque entity that can be treated as a foe to be defeated. It's a big ol' complicated conglomeration of thousands of groups made of of millions of people. Yes, that is hard to wrap your head around at once, but the information is out there. It's all public, you don't need to sneak around or bribe people or whatever, you can just look up who does what, when, why and for how much.
I'm responding to the general point that the administration just wants to destroy and not build. I'm saying that there's actually a good argument for that. Whether that's what's actually happening is ... now questionable.
I don't know anything about UNESCO, but Palestine is a plausible answer to this administration's actual motivations here. But then that would be different from the simple "just wants to destroy" angle.
More accurately, it's because of Israel and the Israeli lobby in America. It isn't Palestine that's inducing America to leave UNESCO, it's Israel and Israel's supporters who are doing it, to protest UNESCO's recognition of Palestine.
That's part of it, but a relatively small part of it. Most of it is Christians who think they can force apocalyptic prophecies to come true by ensuring Israel's continued existence. The nature of their belief is such that it doesn't matter how badly Israel behaves, they will unconditionally support them.
The Israelis don't buy that many weapons from America, either directly nor by having the American government buy and gift the weapons. It's significant, but weapon sales alone can't explain the fanaticism of American politicians in both parties and the American public. Weapon sales can't explain why states like Texas would pass laws requiring school teachers to swear oaths of loyalty to Israel. It can't explain why small town diners in rural America hang Israeli flags, or why America/Israel combined flag fridge magnets and patches are on sale at every truckstop.
The American public are absolutely fanatical about Israel and it's mostly because of their insane religious beliefs, not because they're all invested in the defense industry.
Look up figures for how much defense material Israel actually imports from America vs other countries. Have you ever heard of American politicians getting grilled at debates about how much they support Japan? Have you ever heard American politicians boasting that they support Qatar far more than their opponent? How many American politicians mention support for Australia during their campaign rallies? Support for Israel is a unique phenomenon in American politics, not merely a straight forward function of arms exports. It's because the American people have loyalty to Israel specifically, because their bibles say that Israel is important and say nothing about South Korea.
I would have guessed that significant quantities of weapons were purchased given the fact that the main workhorse of the Israeli Air Force is probably the American f15 and most of its munitions are American made. Not to mention the f35 and so on.
