In The Shadow Of Mt Hollywood

Yesterday, Trump iisued a demand for Iran's "unconditional surrender" in the current conflict. He later clarified it to mean "Unconditional surrender could be that [the Iranians] announce it. But it could also be when they can't fight any longer because they don't have anyone or anything to fight with." How realistic is this goal? There's been very little overall analysis of the war's progress, either in legacy or alt media. The YouTube video embedded above has what I think is the most complete view both of the military action itself and the changing world environment that it's bringing about. Tom Nash of the Tom Nash report, as best I've been able to track down, is originally from Russia but on his YouTube channel comments primarily on Iran. He appears to be unapologetically pro-Israel. The major points in his discussion: The war will likely last only a few more weeks Iran committed a major error by attacking ...

I asked Chrome AI Mode, which I've been finding is a generally even-handed and informative tool with the proviso that you carefully avoid using any triggering key words, "What might a Catholic priest say to a penitent who comes to the confessional and says, 'Bleass me, Father, for I have sinned -- President Truman committed a war crime when he used nuclear weapons on Japan.'" It answered, A priest would likely respond with pastoral care, focusing on whether you are seeking absolution for a personal burden or engaging in a theological discussion. While the Catechism of the Catholic Church and various Popes (notably St. John Paul II and Pope Francis) have condemned the use of atomic weapons as a "crime against God and man," a priest might guide the conversation in the following ways: . . . He may gently clarify that "sin" in the confessional usually refers to your own actions. He might ask if your distress over this event reflects...

Trying to bring myself up to date on the history of modern Israel yesterday, I ran into the British Mandate for Palestine : In Palestine, the Mandate required Britain to put into effect the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" alongside the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population. . . . The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities. . . . The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was passed on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship. . . . After the failure of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the 1947–1949 Palestine war ended with Mandatory Palestine divided among Israel, the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and the Egyptian All-Palestine Prot...

I've been noticing that opposition to the Iran attacks from the right stem to some extent from both the Evangelical and Roman Catholic conservative wings. This certainly isn't to say that all Evangelicals or conservative Catholics oppose the Iran attacks, but certainly there's a strain of this in both movements. For instance the comments on Edward Feser's post that I discussed Monday seemm to agree heavily with Feser that "just war doctrine" can't apply to the US-Israeli attacks on Iran. Feser says in the thumbnail on his blog that he writes "from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective", although he has recently attracted the attention of generally conservative Archbishop of Los Angeles José Gomez for being "too controversial", which ought at least to suggest an elment of caution should be involved. But this comment on Feser's post from Saturday raises intriguing questions about how "conservative" those who agree w...

I was idly listening to some UK commentary on Saturday's decapitation strike on Iran , and it convinced me that just about everyone is missing the point. The UK government has continued to tread a delicate diplomatic line by avoiding explicit support for the US and Israeli strikes on Iran while condemning Iran’s “indiscriminate” attacks on other countries. . . . The Greens and the Liberal Democrats have both denounced the military action taken by the US and Iran as illegal. . . . As strikes on Tehran continued, the Sunday Times reported that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had blocked the USA from using British air bases to launch attacks on legal grounds. Healey repeatedly batted back questions this morning on whether he believed the strikes were legal, saying that “we didn’t participate”. But by March 1, Starmer had sorta-kinda changed his position : But Iran is striking British interests nonetheless, and putting British people at huge risk, along with our...

Last summer ( here , here , and here ) I looked at how the neo-Thomist philosopher Edward Feser treated what he calls "just war doctrine" as it relates to the B-2 mission to bomb Iran's nuclear program and the decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan. What's increasingly troubled me about his reasoning is that he never quite spells out exactly what comprises "just war doctrine" in his arguments. He continues not to do this in a post on his blog from Saturday, The U.S. war on Iran is manifestly unjust . Instead, he cites piecemeal paraphrases, like The war clearly does not meet just war conditions. First, the U.S. cannot claim a just cause. . . . The war also does not meet the “lawful authority” condition of just war. . . . For a war to be morally legitimate, that there are realistic prospects of success must be established before the fact, and a lucky break cannot retroactively make just what was entered into unjustly. In...

Epstein's relationship with Kathryn Ruemmler, a former close confidante of Barack Obama as White House counsel and subsequently chief counsel at Goldman Sachs, came to light only in the last tranche of Epstein files released by the Justice Department in January. Referring to sources behind paywalls, Chrome AI Mode says "Ruemmler and Epstein reportedly swapped approximately 11,300 emails between 2014 and 2019, with The Economist reporting they exchanged direct messages on roughly 70% of days during that period." Once the extent of this relationship became known, she almost immediately resigned as chief counsel at Goldman Sachs, although this is not to take effect until June (given the way these deals work, she may well have already cleaned out her office). This makes her the eighth propminent woman to have had such a complex, ambiguous relationship with Epstein, It's likely that they were lovers, while Ruemmler's connections with the Obama administration, the ...