BahRamYou
12hr ago
It used to be that these bodies were responsible for enforcing UN laws in the world
There's no such thing as "UN laws." Quite the opposite: the UN goes out of its way to recognize national sovereignty. It has "resolutions" and "conventions" and "peacekeeping actions" but very little hard power. No country, least of all the US, would allow the UN to mess with its own internal affairs if they didn't want to. EG, it doesn't really matter that most of the UN has ratified the ban on landmines because the US, China, and Russia never agreed, and a lot of the countries that did sign that ban are still using them and simply lying about it.
Where the UN did work well is simply being a neutral ground for diplomats to come together and talk, including some very hostile nations during tough times. But that only works as long as people understand what the real game is. I think sometimes smaller nations forget how powerless then UN is, because it flatters themselves think of themselves as equal parterns in this grand international community. But the real world doesn't work that way, and any sort of treaty only lasts as long as both sides are willing to honor it.
BahRamYou
13hr ago
I also wonder if "US owning Greenland" is a stretch goal with the idea being that by pushing for buying Greenland outright something like US-subsidized independence with a Compact of Free Association suddenly looks very tame and reasonable.
That does sort of make sense, with Greeland being a far-off island with such a small population. But one catch is that those COFA islands usually don't do very well... with no one to fight for them in Congress, they end up unfunded and forgotten.
My personal preference would be to absorb Greenland into the state of Maine. That would give it two full senators and a representative to secure its funding. At a distance of about 2500 km from Portland to Nuuk, it's... not exactly close, but not an impossible distance either. Plus, Maine is already a state with some infrastructure to handle cold weather, the Canadian border, and indigenous groups. It also has one of our largest naval shipyards in Bath Iron Works, which would likely play a critical role in building ships to patrol the Arctic.
We could also absorb it into Alaska, which is even better developed to handle large quantities of Arctice territory, but that might lead to some awkward conflicts with Canada if Alaska was having to constantly cross through Canadian territory to administrate its new land on the other side.
BahRamYou
13hr ago
I think this more recent shooting in Portland does a better job illustrating what I meant about ICE expanding its role: https://katu.com/news/local/ice-shoots-two-people-in-portlandoregon
This wasn't just some random deportation. ICE works along side Customs and Border Protection, under the larger organization of the Department of Homeland Security. In this case, they were going after members of a transnational Venezuelan gang, which last year murdered two NYPD cops. So, yes, they do prosecute illegal immigration, but they highly prioritize people who are also breaking the law in other ways, and they're equipped to deal with the most violent types of criminals.
At the same time, they're very aware of what a political hotbutton this is. If they just wanted to arrest someone, they could simply show up in plainclothes or regular police uniforms. Instead they choose to show up in force, in very prominent ICE gear, and fend off the endless waves of violent protestors.
Anyway I do agree that they're not simply "a national police force," that was a poor choice of words on my part. My point is simply that they have powers that go beyond simply deporting people for breaking immigration laws.
I thought this interview on the subject with a former Bush administration advisor was great. She brought up a new angle that I haven't seen elsewhere- that Greenland would be a great spot for putting in a space base to manage polar-orbit satellites. Currently that's done from bases in Svalbard and northern Alaska, but both of those are inconvenient for various reasons. It would be nice for the US to have a spot that's close to the North Pole, relatively close to the Northeast USA, and that we completely control.
She also mentions that frustration that the US Military leaders have about dealing with Europe, which as been building for many many years. There's no central European leadership, so they have to navigate this maze of 27 separate national bereaucracies. All of which are far, far weaker than the US military, but we still have to pretend like it's some sort of equal partnership and ask nicely for permission. That can potentially be a big problem, like when you're running a critical top-secret military operation and time is of the essence. The Arctic is a harsh environment, and the US is the only country other than Russia that really has the ability to control it.
My personal opinion is that there's a lot of good, rational reasons to want Greenland. Missile defense, offshore oil/gas drilling, satellite control, transpolar shipping routes, mineral mining, all sorts of stuff. We don't exactly know what the future will hold, but it's usually a safe bet that owning a large land mass in a critical strategic area is rather helpful, and we definitely don't want China or Russia to get it. And all of this has been thought of by the generals and think-tank analysts who camp with the idea.
But I don't think any of that is why Trump wants it. He's a politician with a flare for the dramatic. He wants to see the US, and him personally, secure a big win by seizing a big chunk of land and expanding our boundaries. Having it look extra-big on the Mercator projection makes the deal even sweeter. I have to admit, as a patriotic America, that idea does get my blood pumping a bit, even if it had no other rational reason. I suspect that's also why Denmark is so firmly against it. They were willing to sell us the Danish West Indies even though those had more people and more economic value. They're willing to subsidize the hell out of the small Inuit population in Greenland just so that they can have the national pride of "owning" a big chunk of land. In the past they were saying that Greenland had the right to independance whenever it wanted, but now they seem to be pulling back on that, because they know that an independant Greenland would quickly get bought up by the US.
BahRamYou
1d ago
well, in this case, they shot a protestor!
they have riot gear and training to deal with large violent protests. They can do it much better than what most local police forces have.
BahRamYou
1d ago
In general I would agree. But, given what we've learned about the scale of fraud and corruption in the Somsli community, I think it's fair to do some investigating into whether any of those citizenship were obtained legally. Usually asylum doesn't automatically lead to citizenship even if you've been here a while.
Also, ICE seems to be expanding past ots original scope, and is now basically a full national police force. Not sure how I feel about that, but that's the state we're in.
BahRamYou
2d ago
Honestly, if you're some rich kleptocrat, and you see a surprise attack coming into coup your country in the middle of the night, and your first thought is "I need to go bet money on Polymarket!" then... I gotta respect the hustle.
I still think it's more likely that this is some middle class DoD beaurocrat who heard about this a month in advance and saw the chance to make several times his annual salary in one night.
BahRamYou
2d ago
Well, as slatestarcodex mentioned a long time ago, liberals and gays don't necessarily grow their population by having kids- they grow by getting converts from other groups. Conservative christians (and some Jewish groups) have more kids, but those kids also tend to leave the religion at high rates.
Muslims are maybe unique in that, not only do they have a lot of kids, but those kids also stay muslim. In fact, they're bringing in a lot of converts. I guess because anyone who marries a Muslim or moves to a majority Muslim area is pretty much forced to convert. It's actually kind of fascinating that we live in a time where most religions are in decline, but this hard-core, old-school, repressive, fundamentalist religion is growing like gangbusters.
BahRamYou
3d ago
it does sound insane that they're allowing something which could potentially compromise national security. The military didn't even tell congress they were doing this, to prevent leaks, but someone apparently put this out there on a public website?
Selfishlly, I wonder if we could take advantage of this. Maybe set up a script that would watch for big, sudden bets on unusual markets from newly created accounts, and then piggy back off of them.
BahRamYou
4d ago
it's amazing how catty and petty she comes across in that passage. I wonder if she realizes that those are both still very prominent Democratic politicians and that she's basically sabotaging them with her book?
BahRamYou
4d ago
Realistically, i don't think that's the direct means of the fraud. It's just another way they form an insular, clannish community that trusts itself to do organized crime against the rest of us. Most of the daycares seem to be making up fake kids, and maybe occasionally bussing in some kids if they need evidence.
BahRamYou
4d ago
Luckily the law doesn't recognize muslim polygamous marriages as "wives" !
BahRamYou
4d ago
Thanks, that's a good resource. I tried searching Ohio but couldn't find anything, mostly because they didn't have clear public-facing info for this sort of thing (and admittedly I didn't look too hard).
I really wonder though, if it's just Daycare, or how many other industries are corrupted by this sort of fraud.
New Nick Shirley video just dropped and it's a banger: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LmIrwjKQQKc
This one is a long-form, extended interview with David, the older man from the previous video. Apparently he's been investigating this stuff for years, rather obsessively, to the point where he's lost friends and family because they just think he's some sort of crazy racist person for investigating.
It's a bit long and meandering, so it's hard to keep track of all the claims made in it. I think we'll need time to process this and investigate further. I'd like to see this written in text with sources, instead of just a long interview. But among the claims made:
- That this is all organized by Somali gangs, with the gang leaders bringing retribution on any family that doesn't go along with it. Investigators like David also get threatened with violence.
- Widespread voter fraud from families living in collective housing. One person collects the ballots, "vouches" for all the people living there with no proof, and then returns a massive ballot stack all voting the same way.
- "This is the worst fraud in human history." He estimates that a total of $80-100 billion was stolen by fraud in Minnesota
- "However bad you imagine it is, it's worse. He alledges that basically every social program in Minnesota is now heavily corrupted by fraud. Some of the biggest are schools that might have 10 students, but pretending to get 100 or more so that they can get massive amounts of state funding. Medical services do the same.
- This is all protected by the government and judicial system of Minnesota. At one point, David did the work to prove that a Somali leader did $7.2 million of fraud. He was convicted unanimously by a jury, but the judge overturned the verdict and left him free to continue collecting more money. The judges are elected, probably with the help of fraudalent Somali votes.
- This isn't just state money, it's also federal money. This increases the scale, but also increases the severity of the crimes.
- That Somalians routinely travel back to Somali, taking large amounts of cash with them (well over the TSA limit of $10,000), and for some reason the TSA grants them an exception to this when any normal American would be arrested or stopped for questioning.
So... will this lead to anything further? Tim Walz already said he won't run for reelection, but at this point I no longer think that's enough. The feds need to come purge the entire state government of Minnesota on charges of racketeering and voter fraud.
BahRamYou
4d ago
I don't have kids, but I always imagined that's what it would be like for me. I feel very awkward around babies and little kids. I like the general idea of having kids, and I think I'd be decent at raising older kids, but with little kids I'm totally lost. I just don't feel that sense of cuteness that other people seem to feel.
I think it's OK to be honest and admit that's how we feel (although you probably shouldn't say it publically or admit it to your family). I feel like that's a very natural state of affairs for men, really. Just let it be. We'll step up for the big emergencies, but we really don't want to be there in "house husband" mode babysitting the kids nonstop. We'd probably have more kids if society in general was OK with us being mostly hands off in child rearing.
My dream is to have kids, then spend most of my time hanging out at some old school mens' social club talking business over cigars and brandy, seeing the kids only briefly for the big events.
BahRamYou
4d ago
I think this is just the pragmatic move for him as a good party member. He's not resigning or admitting guilt, he's just saying he won't run for reelection. The election is still a year away, so there's plenty of time to find a new candidate. If he had stayed in the election it would draw (even more) national attention to the scandal and drag down the entire Democratic party. This way, the heat stays more contained to just Tim Walz personally, and I suspect the party will reward him with some sort of cushy job in the future (director of a nonprofit with a high salary and nebulous job duties is a common choice).
BahRamYou
5d ago
No, that's not how the oil business works. First, while they do have a small amount of easily drilled conventional oil, that's not what gets people excited. When you hear people talk about Venezuela's "world's largest oil reserves," it's almost all unconventional oil (extra-heavy or oil sands). For that, just the basic costs of drilling it are very high. It's not uncommon for oil companies in Alberta, Canada to operate at a loss because it's difficult to restart production after shutting it down. But that doesn't mean they want to expand production or can make money that way. Even if Trump wants to gift them a ton of free equipment and expert petroleum engineers, that doesn't magically make it profitable.
Apparently, crude oil is 90% of Venezuela's exports. My guess is that Trump will take most of that revenue for the US. While parts of that revenue previously ended in slush funds, part of it also stabilized the regime, paying for stuff the population needs or likes.
Are they even making money on oil at all right now? Their cost of production is much higher than what it sells for, since all they have is heavy crude. In theory they could get some financing based on hypothetical future profits if the price of oil rises... but that's kind of hard when they're a tinpot dictatorship that nationalized a bunch of foreign oil property not that long ago. Nobody wants to loan them money.
I'm worried that this will lead to an even further destruction of their economy as their cocaine money goes away and anyone with any sort of means runs away to the US.
BahRamYou
5d ago
Ironically, the president probably has more power to affect change in Venezuela than he does in Minneapolis. He has broad power to use the military without any formal declaration of war, especially to arrest a criminal like Maduro. But in Minneapolis... well, until someone can actuall prove fraud, those Somalis are all legal American citizens. It's going to be a huge ordeal to track down and prove the fraud, and I don't think Trump has the time or attention to detail for that.
BahRamYou
6d ago
At this point, Venezuela is a lot more strategically significant than Cuba. More people, more resources, more cartels, and of course way more oil. Cuba is just a leftover dump from the 60s.
I'm listening to Trump's press briefing right now. He seems... pretty blatant that this is about oil. Saying something like "Over the years, their oil business has been a failure. They're pumping far less than they could have. But it will now be under control of America's oil companies, the greatest oil companies in the world, and they'll get it pumping like never before." That's not an exact quote of course, but it's not far off.
So uh... congrats to the oil company shareholders, I guess.
BahRamYou
9d ago
My question is: If a 23 year old guerilla journalist (who was not particularly rigorous in his methods) was able to blow this up, then why didn't legacy media go after this low hanging fruit? I have my own ideas (mostly ideological capture of the media)
Part of it is that it took time to develop the sort of alternative, right-wing media that would actually cover news like this and popularize it. I'm guessing most of us had never heard of Nick Shirley before this (did any of you?). I only heard about it because other, more established channels picked up on it and pushed his video. This eventually percolated all the way up to the Vice President and national media. But without those other, larger, right wing channels, the whole thing would have been quietly swept under the rug. Maybe there's a time when Fox News might have covered it but they just seem pretty useless in general, now.
BahRamYou
11d ago
Electoral Math. Sure, they might be only 2% of the state's population. But they can act as a solid block to deliver their votes en masse to whichever candidate curries their favor. And the politicians know that they can do that, especially Ilhan Omar and other Somali politicians. If you work really, really hard to win the white vote in Minnesota, you might win them 51-49, with roughly 1/3 of that wasted on republican candidates who can never win. Your opponent can make up the difference by winning 100% of that 2% Somali vote. That gives them incredible levels of political influence.
It's not for launching the satellites, that still happens from more equitorial latitudes. The issue is having a control/monitoring/intelligence facility. I'm sure they could do that from Danish territory, just like they're currently doing in Svalbard. But they're they have to share with a lot of other countries, and the number of satellites and control facilities is only going to keep growing, so at some point it just becomes nice to directly control the land. It makes generals... uncomfortable... when their most critical satellite control facilities are on someone else's land, and it raises the awkward question of what they would do if Denmark actually tried to make them leave.
More options
Context Copy link