It’s kind of amazing to me that we gave this warning. To even know something to warn about is a feat of intelligence, amazing on its own. And it’s a generous gesture as Russia is no friend (though saving innocent people is clearly the right move).
For Putin’s part, to ignore such a warning is one thing. But to spit on it and call it blackmail…
Israeli work contacts flooding LinkedIn with their shit is one of the weirdest ways I see this online. It’s usually inappropriate to bring politics into the work sphere but in the days after the October attack, the business world came out in sympathy for Israel, as they should. The problem is that this was cemented as the only business friendly position from that point forward. Nowadays I see Israelis posting raw vitriol while everyone else is too timid to say anything except “we support Israel’s right to exist” or “we hope for peace in the Middle East” and other such fatuous trivialities.
Why is pro-Israel the only business friendly position? Simple. There aren’t any Palestinian startups. There are very few Palestinian CEOs.
Most plastic recycling is a one-time thing so it is hard to ever call it recycling. Upcycling is a nice word but it would be even nicer if the stuff were being made into something more permanent than a broom. Once that broom head wears out it’s just trash again, and this time not transformable into anything.
Iguazú Falls may be great but it was there long before Argentina was there. I think you nailed it: when was Argentina great? By objective standards - never. In fact the Singapore/Argentina comparison is often used to demonstrate how being rich in natural resources no longer necessarily means a country will be prosperous. When you’re the poster child for economic underperformance…
When was Argentina great - in the opinion of Argentina’s old people? Back in their day of course!
No, just for creating the conditions that allowed the mullahs to seize power. You know that the vast majority of Iranians hate the dictatorship, right? Everything they do is to control their internal population. A lot of people who would never call themselves feminists suddenly care about women’s rights when it privides a way for them to unleash their hatred on Iranians.
It’s an evil theocratic dictatorship, but do you know how it got that way? There was a revolution opposing a US puppet ruler. The west would like all Middle East nations to be like the Saudis: nice, stable petro states who are compliant for the most part and who cares what happens there internally. But this formula has gone wrong several times (Iran) or the west hasn’t tried as hard to achieve stability because the oil incentive isn’t there (Syria) or the borders were specifically drawn to crate instability (Iraq).
There’s no pointing fingers at the Middle East without acknowledging the culpability of the UK, France, Russia and the USA in their horrid dysfunction. Understanding this is a rite of passage. Children point and hoot about the horrible Arabs. Adults know what’s actually up with that part of the world.
I’m not very familiar with Australian politics or leaders so I can only go with what I see in those articles. First, I don’t see any climate change denial. I see a debate about renewables and nuclear
Why are conservatives against renewables:
They can’t meet our total energy needs.
Wind and solar products are predominantly made in China and conservatives don’t want to feed the Chinese economy or increase dependence (one thing I do know about AU is that Chinese influence is quite heavy and a cause of great concern there).
Why are conservatives pro-nuclear:
It provides baseload capacity that supports wind/solar where they are weak.
It has military applications.
It creates large infrastructure spending within AU and supports mining industry.
They believe it will rankle liberals.
Maybe you have a point that conservatives who are dead-set against renewables will throw nuclear into the conversation as a distraction which they know will not go anywhere. But as an outside observer who doesn’t have built up associations with these characters, I honestly just see rational inclusion of nuclear in the energy mix. This all seems healthy to me.
So… climate change deniers want to delay action on climate change. So they push for nuclear because it has long lead times and that forestalls action?
Come on man. That’s a pretty ridiculous theory. Climate change deniers are out there yelling “drill baby drill” not going undercover as nuclear advocates.