The article comes off as a laughable attempt to fire the arrow and then paint the target around it. For example the author claims about 9/11 that "the first attack had already achieved its aims: it dragged the U.S. into a protracted war in Afghanistan, pushed the country back into the moral swamp of torture, and, as a bonus, helped goad America into invading Iraq." Bin Laden was a fanatical mass murderer and his aim was to establish a caliphate. I highly, highly, highly doubt that he saw the attacks as an attempt to degrade the morals of the CIA (or any of the other outlandish claptrap that the author claims).
You should read the words of Bin Laden, pre 9/11. His stated goal was: "Terrorizing you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanding duty."
He wanted to get the US in another Vietnam. He understood the effect it would have on the American people.
Bin laden did achieve what he set out, hurting the US, not just the CIA. You could argue that todays problems actually started with Bush and his cronies cheney et al. And while he poked the monster that killed him too much, America is not what it use to be.
And you, underestimate people that are not of your own.
>> A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them.
you're both correct.
Also note the Iranian monarchy signed the NPT in 1970, while the Iranian Revolution was in 1979. When your national origin story is built on the illegitimacy of the previous government, why would you consider yourself to be constrained by the actions of your illegitimate parents?
Not saying the current Iranian government is good, just acknowledging that legitimacy is determined by the victors, and the current regime has been victorious over the previous, just as last night's B2's were victorious against the air defenses. Might makes right, morality is increasingly a propaganda story, and history really is written by the victors.
Getting my historical fiction novel published. I finished writing it a couple of months back. Extremely short plot summary: guy deserts from the Roman XI legion, goes back home only to find that his entire province is about to revolt against the Roman Empire at the height of its power. It's one of the most spectacular feats of collective self-immolation in human history and it had a large effect on human history.
I think not enough has been written about the role of abject stupidity in human affairs. This book is an attempt to correct that.
Thanks! It's historical fiction so 90% true :-) The novel is set during the First Jewish–Roman War[0] and I tried as much as possible to adhere to what we know of actual events. There's a good case to be made that the effect it had on Judaism greatly impacted the development of Christianity. Plus it helped crown the Flavian Dynasty. I have just a short blurb and the first chapter here[1]. I'll definitely post more about the book and the process if I manage to get it published. There are quite a few aspiring novelists here so it might be encouraging to them.
I think the commenters here relying on a more robust response if Putin invades a NATO country are being overly optimistic. Let's be honest with ourselves and recognize that without the US NATO is no match for Russia. Fragmented, with small and outdated armed forces, the Russian army would quickly roll over any resistance. Can you imagine a Republican president committing US troops to the defence of Lithuania in the current climate? Just look at what Trump is saying right now. If I were a European leader I'd be investing very heavily in an my armed forces right about now. Putin has succeeded in undermining the international order. First, by getting someone like Trump elected and undercutting faith in NATO. Second, by invading neighboring countries and having everyone realize this has no real consequences. It's likely that, unfortunately, the new world order is the old world order. Either a country has the power to defend itself or it doesn't. Other countries can't be relied upon to help.
The US has thousands of troops in Europe (NATO states). What do you think is going to happen if russia open fire at them. Biden made it very clear already, WW3 is the answer, but you suggest a republican president would just sit there tolerate deaths of US soldiers and talk about financial sanctions?
I disagree. In most places job interviews mainly test for your ability to pass job interviews. So if the job title you're going for is interviewee then maybe. But if you see yourself as a developer then interviewing is not going to improve your professional abilities.
I would argue that 'interviewee' is part of all our jobs. Not a big part, but it's a very important part.
My observation is that my interview-avoidant friends either spend a lot of time unemployed after an employer goes away, or they end up in positions that pay them less (and often treat them less well in other ways) than they otherwise would.
I know a few people who have a pretty consistent 50% success rate at interviews... but they are also working way below, pay and treatment wise, what they could get if they interviewed for the next level up or the next company up and maybe accepted something closer to a 15% or 20% success rate at the interview.
Passing job interview is a red herring because it teaches you that you said what people want to hear. It can be very different from being good at your work and a focus on it can create disfuncional professionals who know how to give the appearance of being good while being shit at what they do.
However, getting rejected for jobs, especially if it happened at the interview stage will help you find the direction you have to go to grow professionally. If you listen to why they rejected you and can infer what they're hiding beneath a veil of politeness, of course.
Meh. First, the articles cited all have the same familiar problems of statistical psychology studies - small sample size drawn from psychology students.
Also, unrelatedly, I find ancient stories in many cases better than modern ones because of modern literary fiction's obsession with recording the minutiae of every character's thoughts. As the article notes, in one short story David Foster Wallace takes 12 pages to record a boy walking to a pool and jumping in. I can see the case for representing characters' inner states, it's an important part of the story, but modern literary fiction takes it way too far.
I can see the case for representing characters' inner states, it's an important part of the story, but modern literary fiction takes it way too far.
Considering how things are written now maybe the inner states are the story? Maybe collectively we've shifted to being more interested in exploring human thoughts and emotions and not so much the direct action anymore? And maybe in a hundred years or so we'll shift our curiosity in some other part of the interaction that is life.
Exploration always swings between taking it way too far and taking it way too near.
Most contemporary fiction is not like David Foster Wallace. Literary fiction is special subset of fiction that moves its own way, have its own audience, habits and so on.
