Have you read Bill Barr's opinion piece in the WSJ about the use of military force against Mexican cartels, in support of the bill authorising such use of military capabilities by Reps Waltz and Crenshaw? I never said this war was unavoidable--actually it was very avoidable. Nor did I say Putin had no other choice, so I don't know what youre on about there.
This was a response to a question asking why Russia has any influence over Ukraine's alliance choices. The US exerts similar influence over the foreign policy of its neighbors, as does China, which is right now aggressively pushing on Taiwan for this reason. It is the reality of larger powers interacting with smaller ones. No one said the current situation in Canada or Mexico is the exact same. Nor did I say any of this justifies Russia's choices. But IF, say Mexico, started to flirt with an oppositional alliance, this would be countered, with war as a last resort if the other strategies failed. This has been done several times before in US history (eg in Cuba, we backed a local revolt against Spain to take control of the island and other Spanish possessions. In the 1960s we again threatened nuclear war against the Soviets for expansion there and embargoed the country for half a century). And the fact you are so dismissive of US action in Mexico is a big blind spot. The cartels in Mexico control significant territory adjacent to the US. US federal agencies have been deeply intertwined with the Mexican government's efforts to curtail the cartels, but these have failed. Special forces already operate there. The likelihood of direct US action is not high right now but is certainly plausible within 20 years, especially if the cartels make further inroads within the offical government. US congressmen have just this year proposed legislation allowing "military capabilities" against the cartels. The world is different, but some things don't change, and more powerful countries dictating some of the policy of their less powerful neighbours is one of them.
I find this funny as well. A lot of complaints about all the funding for string theory, but it seems like just funding mathematicians, which is dirt cheap compared to anything else.
Jordan Peterson has had many iterations. The year -5 edition had good psychology lectures and I disagree with the above poster who says he doesn't know what he is talking about. Within his academic realm, I think he did, although there would be points other academics would contest (this is what academics do). He has then gone through at least two transformations.
The US has invaded Mexico before (and taken half of its land in the subsequent treaty). Mexico is also substantially under US domination since (along with much of Latin America), it is just that our domination has been softer and maybe more beneficial. The situation is certainly not the same, but there are significant risks of very similar border conflicts arising in the coming 2-3 decades, and the US will absolutely respond in as dominant a way as it can. The US would absolutely not tolerate a border country joining a binding oppositional alliance. I don't think the analogy is so bad as you make it out to be and I think the US would try a series of actions to diffuse the situation similar to what we have seen in this conflict (but the US would probably be more capable and more likely to avoid the final escalation).
I think the US would attempt to destroy the Mexican government. If it came to it, yes they would invade, although first they would simply try to install a friendlier government through a coup of some sort (it has been US policy to oppose any such actions since Monroe doctrine). As for the feelings of the US public, they can be swayed to war, as history shows.
Imagine Mexico joined an alliance with China, complete with funding and transfer of weapons, that said any attack on any other Chinese aligned territory (or say taiwan) obligated Mexico to strike the US. This would never be tolerated in a million years. This doesn't make Russia in the right, but get real here---there are degrees of actual sovereignty, and few nations have class A shares.
There was plenty of talking about it before the war, you just werent listening to the right channels. No one said anything about Finland joining because the bridges are already burned, it is too late.
If Ukraine draws a truce, it will be western banks and firms doing the reconstruction. Though I suppose these companies may be partly chinese, if thats what you mean?
Second the question about tolerance! Wondering why this doesnt happen it is interesting. Most everything else causes some tolerance over time but no one mentions it for this
But wouldnt it lower the price of chicken in those places, providing more people w access to good calories although hurting the local farmers? Couldnt this be solved by a country putting up tariffs or banning importing such chicken? If they didn't do that what was their reason?
Distribution is hard, though. Will reducing food even in countries where it is wasted solve distribution any better, or will it just hurt the people at the bottom of the distribution chain more?
Is switching from meat to more grains better for birds? I strongly doubt that. Converting fields to planting fields is going to kill a lot more small mammals, birds, insects and so on?
I think it is both. The mRNA vaccine immunity did not wane just because of changes in the virus. That was probably a factor but in this case I don't think it was even the biggest one. The immunity just wanes, even to the same strain. It is to do also with the immune system itself.
Is there any reason to think the immunity would last? Like is there evidence in animals? Because the one mRNA vaccine we gave had in people did not provide much immunity past three months. That was in environment of virus mutating, but so will the flu.
Freshman dating seniors in high school seems a lot different from adults forming a party to advocate for sex with prepubescent children. I wouldn't have thought it belongs in the same discussion but maybe I just got old.
Bruce Pascoe's book has received a lot of heavy criticism (including from some aboriginal groups). It isn't all wrong but is heavily biased and not reliable a source, so readers should be very careful drawing conclusions from it. I think most of what the parent says is right but be careful with the source.
Some people can use these things responsibly, but probably fewer than the number who think they can and many cannot at all. That's why doctors are there to help guide responsible use. I agree it isn't ideal for the subset of people who can use them well, but there are also further issues: your drug use doesn't just affect you but the culture around you. I think the analogy to food is pretty bad, since no one is born dependent on amphetamines and it is a manufactured product only invented recently (to be fair, too much of our food is also weird synthesised products which are not historically natural, but I dont think you have a strict natural right to frozen microwave dinners either). The analogy with food may work a little better with mushrooms, but also the effect of these is partially due to your body thinking it has been poisoned, so they arent really food either.
It would also be nice if the people who support softer drug laws paid a tax for all the resulting urban blight, health bills, property crime, violent crime, addiction, mental health issues, death etc. that results from drug use. The fact that I'm forced to live with all of that, often in danger, due to other people's selfish libertine delusions is unjust.