|
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2024-044
Last week’s post on Moon of Alabama:
Middle East:
- February 5 – In The Middle East The U.S. Has Reached The End Of Its Abilities
- February 6 – This Picture Shows One Man And A Zionist Goon
- February 7 – MBS Says John Kirby Needs Some Mouth Wash
- February 7 – New York Times Defames Iraq’s Militia As ‘Foreign Elements’
- February 8 – U.S. Escalates War – Strikes Group Which Had Followed Orders To Stand Down
- February 10 – A Move On Rafah Might Be The Spark That Ignites A Bigger Explosion
Related:
– ‘The destruction is massive … It’s a disaster area’: Israeli soldiers speak about fighting in Gaza – Guardian, Feb 8 2024
–“Israel is heading towards street battles between the far right and families of hostages” – Seth Ackerman / Informer
– Chris Hedges: Let Them Eat Dirt – Scheerpost, Feb 8 2024
– Israel’s Self-Destruction – Aluf Benn / Foreign Affairs, Feb 7 2024
Netanyahu, the Palestinians, and the Price of Neglect
– How Gaza Reunited the Middle East – Foreign Affairs, Feb 9 2024
– Why is the US in Jordan and Syria? – LRB, Feb 1 2024
– Why Iran is hard to intimidate – Economist, Feb 6 2024
– Iran’s Proxies Aren’t Really Proxies – Amal Saad / Time, Feb 7 2024
A New Pan-Islamic Front May Be America’s Biggest Challenge
– “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” – US Stuck in the Middle East, Devoid of Deterrence Power – Naked Capitalism, Feb 10 2024
– US Blocks Yemen-Saudi Peace Deal – Antiwar – Feb 6 2024
– Chinese Ships Get Insurance Edge Navigating Red Sea – GCaptain, Feb 6 2024
– Study Finds Media Giants New York Times, CNN, and Fox News Pushing for US War in Yemen – Mintpressnews, Feb 6 2024
Ukraine:
—
Other issues:
Putin Interview:
Empire:
Nordstream:
Pakistan:
China:
> Russia is said to weaponize everything. The position of China is not (yet) seen in military terms. The emphasis is on economic competition. Any undeniable Chinese achievement must be declared to have been a bad investment. The directive thus reads:
“When writing about China’s achievements – question their purported cost.”
The (40+) results:
… <
The Web:
Use as open (not Ukraine or Palestine related) thread …
@ juliania | Feb 13 2024 16:29 utc | 205 asks …
james | Feb 13 2024 16:59 utc | 207
waynorinorway | Feb 13 2024 17:35 utc | 210
juliania | Feb 13 2024 18:11 utc | 212
TC asks “On February 24, 2022, you addressed your country in your nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started and you said that you were acting because …… “
The way I heard it, and see it, is this was a lead in of an inherent unstated underlying primary question of why did Putin / Russia invade Ukraine in Feb 2022 — but Carlson cut that open question off mid-stream narrowing it down to one specific reason of many variables (a US attack) instead of allowing Putin to answer an open ended question freely. Carlson lost that argument in a millisecond. 🙂
What Carlson was getting at is WHY DID PUTIN INVADE UKRAINE WHEN HE DID — but presuming / positing the US attacks fear was Primary and aren’t you being Paranoid — Typical “gotchas” Putin avoided — however the essential question remained WHY DID YOU DO IT / ACT THEN in Feb 2022 — and our Putin did answer THAT QUESTION in full across the FIRST HOUR PLUS of the interview, not only in the History Lecture section.
The comment – I didn’t say so. is completely irrelevant to Putin’s actual answer. It’s nothing but an unimportant distraction from the Core Question that Putin was Really Answering in his Plus Hour response in the beginning.
Now I cannot speak for Doctorow and I will not. I speak for me, and when I watched the interview that is what I SAW UNFOLDING – and checking again here and there, it remains my impression. Putin answered THAT question in his own way at his own pace — and THAT is imho what Doctorow was speaking to and is why I agreed with what he was saying. Because that is what I ALREADY BELIEVED WAS CORRECT. Semantic word games do not count. Gotcha moments and cherry picking moments do not count.
I will repeat part of my quote @ Lavrov’s Dog | Feb 13 2024 12:14 utc | 197
After all, the trigger for the war in February 2022 was the refusal of the United States to negotiate on Russia’s demand that Ukraine remain neutral and that NATO pull back to its 1996 borders. Note that after one hour of the interview Purin himself says this, but I believe it is too late and many who came to Tucker’s platform will not have stayed with it long enough to hear this.”
I don’t need to read Doctorows mind, or guess why he thinks he said what he said: because he says what he thinks right there.
and here
the history going back to the 9th century had nothing to do with the decision to invade Ukraine,
and here
Putin never answered Tucker Carlson’s reasonable question as to why, knowing as he did that modern Ukraine is an ‘artificial state’ concocted by Lenin and his associates in 1922 to satisfy their own needs to consolidate power throughout what had been the Russian Empire, knowing as he did that the Russian speakers in the Donbas were being persecuted before 2014 and were being bombed and shelled after 2014, why did he wait so long to move against the regime in Kiev. Fair question, I might add,
I know why, maybe most here do too … but the majority of TC viewers possibly did not know why.
Meanwhile Putin maintains the war started in 2014, and added he finally acted to stop the war, not start a war or start an “invasion”. By the time this came out it was long into the i’view as well.
Both are being loose with the truth and the ‘facts’ — both were playing semantic word games — the same as the US-Russia do. Putin clearly out played Carlson on the power dynamics. 🙂 Putin laid it out how he wanted it to go. Doctorow has another take. I agree IF, as many already agree the primary purpose was for PUTIN to be able to speak to a core cohort of American citizens/voters and US officials and Media players via TUCKER.
And if that was the goal and intention to clearly communicate to them then Putin had other options. Probably better ones than what he did. But his choice to make. Public Speaking is a field of some reckoning. Putin probably broke every interview guideline for effective communication in the book during that interview with Carlson. This to me is self-evident. And patently obvious to anyone with even a small exposure to public speaking, interview skills and general PR or public information communication basics. My background is in Corporate General Management and Marketing, not academia per se.
@ juliania | Feb 13 2024 16:29 utc | 205 also asks :
And I will ask, where is that critique by academics pulling apart what Putin said about the history of Ukraine?
As Doctorow shows, his comments were made on the following day morning, after checking initial ‘reports’. At time of writing I suspect there were no easy to find “academics” out there about the “history”. If there are by now I haven’t seen them because I don’t give a shit about them, and I never go plowing through western media looking for anything – or critiques about Putin either. But I have in the past seen HISTORY ACADEMICS picking the eyes out of Putin’s history lessons. They have been doing it for 24 years now! Have you never seen any juliania?
Well, if you want check if there are any about this latest i’view / history lecture, you will just have to go look — one day they will show up online guaranteed, if not already.
@ juliania | Feb 13 2024 16:29 utc | 205 also asks :
Doctorow gave a totally different interpretation to mine. That’s not fair, and I wonder why he did that. Maybe you can explain that to me.
You are entitled to you “unfair” opinion of Doctorow as he is of Putin’s decision to answer as he did. I cannot explain why Doctorow has “a totally different interpretation to mine” – I cannot see inside his or your mind. You could email him and ask. But that doesn’t address your side of the equation juliania. Who knows why you think what you think or interpret things the way you do? That sounds like a question for your Therapist – not me.
Cheers
10 tips to improve your public speaking
We’ll present you 10 tips you can use to start improving your public speaking skills.
1. Know your audience.
You’re more likely to feel comfortable presenting to an audience if you know who they are. That way, you can craft your message in a tone that resonates with them, perhaps using humor to ease the tension.
Start by assessing your audience’s level of understanding of the topic you plan to discuss. This will determine the amount of background to give and whether you should aim to be more professional or casual.
As you’re speaking, stay aware of the group’s reactions ……………………..
https://www.coursera.org/articles/public-speaking
#2. Know Your Audience. Your Speech Is About Them, Not You.
Before you begin to craft your message, consider who the message is intended for. Learn as much about your listeners as you can. This will help you determine your choice of words, level of information, organization pattern, and motivational statement…………
https://professional.dce.harvard.edu/blog/10-tips-for-improving-your-public-speaking-skills/
Does any of this help you juliania? (smile)
Posted by: Lavrov’s Dog | Feb 14 2024 12:54 utc | 248
the … city/state Socrates found himself in, whose citizens he was in the process of teaching how to think. And thus, ‘public speaking’ might be considered another term for ‘sophistry’.
says @ juliania | Feb 14 2024 23:31 utc | 263
Well, that depends on what the public speaker is saying, how they are saying it, and what their intent is. Because there are ‘sophists’:
Sophist, any of certain Greek lecturers, writers, and teachers in the 5th and 4th centuries bce, most of whom traveled about the Greek-speaking world giving instruction in a wide range of subjects in return for fees.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sophist-philosophy
and then there are ‘sophists’:
In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are used disparagingly. A sophism, or sophistry, is a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist#Modern_usage
It’s not the 5th Century BC anymore either. Times have changed and so has humanity and what ‘we’ could possibly know. Does any western English speaker know the proper pronunciation of the name Socrates for example?
Owing largely to the influence of Plato and Aristotle, ‘philosophy’ came to be regarded as distinct from ‘sophistry’, the latter being regarded as specious and rhetorical, a practical discipline. These days most westerners refer to the term / skill of rhetoric to describe ‘public speaking’ especially political speech. Which then goes with ‘narratives’ being followed by different competing groups, ideologies and political parties.
For me it always depends on the content (the emotional / moral content, not the facts) that makes a good speech, not so much the communication style or speech making talent in and of itself. Obviously JFK and his brother, MLK and MalcolmX, were all really good orators, public speakers. But so was Ronald Reagan and Thatcher, and so was Tony Blair.
Personally I have always been attracted to the Stoics as a positive guiding light from ancient western civilization. And the Tao Te Ching from the east, and Buddhist philosophy from the center.
I would not describe Putin as ‘a modern sophist’ per se during that i’view with Carlson, but I’m quite certain Tony Blinken, Victoria Nuland and most of the western media would. And so, here we are. (smiling)
Do you want to know how you think? Then research this modern day cognitive science knowledge and know-how.
Prof. George Lakoff – Reason is 98% Subconscious Metaphor in Frames & CULTural Narratives
Turn on the captions, the audio is bad, only 11 mins, a very quick summary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0R1du1GqA
1 hours Lecture – How Brains Think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldDAfoVdYU8
3 mins George Lakoff – How Does Metaphysics Reveal Reality?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRX4vSJra6A
Why Tucker is 100% correct to compare the Government to the Father of a family.
6 mins George Lakoff – The Left, the Right, and the Family View of Government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytyWu3zUq8
Listen to Tucker Carlson’s First Discussion Since Putin Interview
@21 mins “so if you were to
frame this in terms we’re all familiar
with which are the most basic terms the
terms of the family, the United States
would be dad, it would be the father, and
the father’s sacred obligation is to
protect his family and to restore peace
within his walls”
https://youtu.be/mMXikZM_O80?si=HEhcvlCS-PPYGNBe&t=1267
But please do listen to all Tucker says about that “father” and why.
If anyone would like some more Lakoff links let me know, I have dozens of good ones on psychology, philosophy and politics. Now, don’t think of an elephant!
Posted by: Lavrov’s Dog | Feb 15 2024 1:57 utc | 271
|
