Branding, tragedies Keynes

[mindstalk]

* Sci Fi Channel to become "SyFy". Trademarkable, but they say outright they've been moving away from science fiction.
* Tropicana OJ gets change of packaging, changes back due to protest.. Also.. I'd noticed the change and didn't like it, though didn't protest or care that much. I hadn't even noticed that the change was to look more generic.
* Package sizes shrinking.

Especially at Sahara Mart, where tofu prices are now $2.39/12 oz or $2.99/14 oz. Bfoods had $1.69/14 oz, though. I'm not sure if these used to be 16 oz packages.

* Infant hyperthermia due to parents forgetting their kids.
* Pope re-iterates ban on condom use, even in preventing AIDS.
* Arab League rejects request by the International Criminal Court to arrest Bashir, president of Sudan, on charge of war crimes in Darfur. Earlier related article.

* Economist debate: This house believes that we are all Keynesians now..

* Blind painter

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry to see Bashir escaping justice, but glad to see the "International Criminal Court"'s pretensions being openly defied.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

You'd like to see justice done but oppose the voluntary framework of law to enact it? I suppose assassination would be more to your tastes.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I oppose the International Criminal Court because of the extreme bias shown in its judgements so far, and because its previously manifested toothlessness means that those counting on it are essentially finding a substitue for action.

Targeted assassination rarely works. The only real way to take out a foreign dictator is war. And, for that matter, targeted assassination is war, just very precise war.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Ah, of course, warfare would be more your style.

War might sometimes be the best option, but there's plausible potential in making dictators afraid to leave their countries and seizing their assets -- potential at least in deterring future dictators, if not removing current ones. And even wanting to remove dictators is rather new in history. There's still room for innovation in what works in politics.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Warfare is the only way to capture people under the protection of a sovereign state. Don't delude yourself that covert action isn't "really" warfare -- it's only "not really warfare" until the victim state decides to retaliate.

War might sometimes be the best option, but there's plausible potential in making dictators afraid to leave their countries and seizing their assets -- potential at least in deterring future dictators, if not removing current ones.

Seize a dictator's assets abroad, and he will seize your assets in your country. Both actions are acts of war, though we in the modern West have (mostly) chosen not to retaliate when our assets were seized, since around 1956 to the present.

As for capturing a dictator abroad, unless you have also eliminated his faction by doing so you have just committed a very serious act of war against his country. The only reason one might expect to get away with it is if he was weak.

How do you think America would react to a foreign Power arresting, say, Jimmy Carter for things he did in office? Well, the only reason why the Sudan wouldn't do the same thing for the same act is that the Sudan is a weak Power.

It's still war, whatever euphemism you use to describe it.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

You were the one who said warfare was the only way, in apparent contrast to the methods of the ICC (and by extension, I assumed, other "soft" means like targeted sanctions and asset seizures.) If you want to tell yourself that such means are warfare if they work, then fine. Most people would think of violent mass invasion as "war", and considering your frequent advocacy of bombing and invading countries you don't like, it's not far from your mind either.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

If you want to tell yourself that such means are warfare if they work, then fine.

Some things are acts of war, some things aren't. Embargoes aren't, blockades are. Asset seizures are just barely acts of war (they are normally only legal under international law against Powers which one is already at war with). Raids into other countries to kill or capture people are most definitely acts of war. Making prisoner a foreign head of state, or other diplomatically-protected person, is also most definitely an act of war.

It's not a matter of what "I choose to think." These are defined as acts of war (or not acts of war) both by treaty and customary usage.

You will notice that the "International Court" has chosen to attack the Sudan on this issue, but not a worse offender such as North Korea. The reason is simple: the Sudan is extremely weak and hence more susceptible to being bullied into surrender; North Korea, on the other hand, is militarily strong.

I have no sympathy for the Sudan, or its horrible dictator. But I think that the pretense that the "International Court" is not trying to whip up a war against the Sudan, and that they are not doing this because the Sudan's dictator is both (a) loathsome and (b) weak is self-delusion on the part of the Court's supporters.