People are clearly fed up with the drugs, the tents, and the crime. Expect more such incidents in the future. The city government does nothing.

“Seattle Public Library branches across the city will be closed intermittently through June 4 due to staffing issues that would not be an issue if the City of Seattle lifted its hiring freeze, a budget-preserving measure implemented by Mayor Bruce Harrell.”

The Stranger’s own linked story on the Library system’s service reductions explicitly notes the Library system does not need to abide by the Mayor’s hiring freeze:

“As a non-executive department with its own hiring authority, SPL technically does not have to abide by the Mayor’s hiring freeze,”

(https://www.thestranger.com/news/2024/04/11/79463199/the-seattle-public-library-announces-1500-hours-of-closures-in-the-next-eight-weeks)

Until they catch the dude and find out different, I'm going with he's drug-addled and unhoused (except he has an Acura and a gun), and he's pissed at someone in who hangs out on 3rd in front of the Morrison. AKA the worst bus stop in the world.

ah, yes, the Symptoms of late-
stage Capitalism & Housing
as Commodity with Private
Equity and Foreign Invest-
ment buying up all of our
avaiable housing stock!

when our fabulously-well-to-do
Multimulti-Billionaires're taxed
Fairly we'll Have little or no
Homelessness and those
seeking Respite from
Diseases of Despair
won't be Clogging
the streets, parks
& our thoughts

also:
keep the
fucking Fentanyl
the Fuck off our shores.

Was Al Cowlings driving the SUV?

@1/3 I would go more with gang activity / youths gone wild that have been a pervasive issue around here for some time now. I'm sure when the Acura is eventually located (most likely after having been used to smash through the front door of a pot shop) we'll find its a stolen vehicle.

"When he was governor in 2016, Ducey expanded the state Supreme Court from five justices to seven, then appointed four conservative justices to the bench. Those justices made this ruling"

Wait I thought packing the court was good idea? You mean it can actually backfire and lead to bad outcomes. What a weird turn of events.

@6,

Ideally we'd have a judiciary whose overall philosophy is generally representative of the people they're appointed to serve. Were Biden to somehow be afforded the authority to "pack the court" with an additional 3-5 liberal justices, this would only serve to balance the court from it's current christo-fascist RWNJ ideology to something more in the center-left mold that aligns with the broader American populace. That Arizona dilrod appointing 4 conservatives did just the opposite, as evidenced by the backlash from this recent ruling.

It's not just warming, it's ocean acidification killing coral reefs by inhibiting new growth. Earth's oceans are acting as a giant carbon sink, filling up with carbonic acid.

"fudging his company’s books as part of an effort to conceal payments made to hide claims of extramarital sex during his 2016 campaign."

Kinda like what John Edwards did. Alvin Bragg is an idiot extrapolating this run-of-the-mill sex scandal into a felony.

@9 John Edwards was also indicted and tried on felony charges, not sure what sort of what-aboutism you're trying to go for there.

@6, @7: And it now appears the result of Arizona’s Back-Alley Butchery Brigade having packed their court will be yet another state with a pro-choice law enacted by voters.

@10, And John Edwards was acquitted for doing the same thing. So if the behavior isn't a crime, why charge someone else doing the same behavior with something jury's are reluctant to call a campaign violation?

@7, Those justices represent the majority in Arizona that elected the Governor, Legislature, etc.

On the one hand you decry the lack of majoritarianism on a national level. When a majority puts in statewide office holders and get what they voted, for you decry majoritarianism. Which is it? Is majoritarianism the way to go or not? Or is only the way to go on a case-by-case basis when it produces the outcome you or I might prefer?

Majoritarianism worked as intended in Arizona, and this ruling by the AZ Supreme's was outcome. It's a feature of democracy, not a bug, when the majority gets what they want.

"What's real? We just don't know!"

Maybe if the Stranger hired some reporters, they would know.

@7 that's what Congress is for, not the judiciary. I'll remind you that even Ginsburg found Roe problematic when she was on the bench and knew it was based on tenuous legal rulings leaving it subject to being overturned. While the majority of the US population supports abortion rights, surveys also shows they support some limitations similar to Europe. The Dems currently are more interested in using abortion as a wedge issue to get elected than actually solving the issue (for evidence look here in WA where it's continually brought up even though there is zero chance of it being changed). The point is packing the court to get your outcome is never going to work in the long run as evidenced by AZ and when progressives bring that up as a solution what they are really saying is they have no interest in actually solving the problem.

“What's most disturbing about this incident is the seeming intent to harm unhoused people”

Or, you know, it was a drug deal gone bad - not a targeted attack on our unhoused community. Sadly, as SPD terminated pursuit, the driver returned later and then shot up the place. Perp is still at large.

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/driver-runs-over-tents-seattle

@12 Edwards was only acquitted on one charge, the others resulted in a mistrial. Robert Blake was also acquitted, maybe we should also stop charging murderers if juries can be reluctant to convict, or better yet, maybe just scrap the laws saying that you can't falsify business records or commit murder altogether!

@14: Ginsburg didn’t like Roe because she personally had a gradualist approach to securing women’s rights, and she saw reproductive freedom as a women’s rights issue, not as a privacy issue. Those are differences of personal opinion, not points from constitutional law.

“She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.” (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit)

The right wing was always going to fight to have any such ruling overturned, no matter what the legal basis. Citing Ginsburg’s problems with Roe to justify Dobbs is a bit like citing a statement of the form, “Israel is a flawed democracy,” to justify Hamas’ trying to overthrow it by force.

@17 Not at all. Ginsburg's second comment is exactly what I was talking about. Roe was based on the right to privacy between a patient and their doctor not a constitutional right to a medical procedure. From that perspective it was based on a very flimsy legal ground and was able to be overturned. You're correct though that the right was always going to try and overturn it but the shaky ruling it was based on gave them that opening. If a democrat led legislature with a dem president was so inclined (like we had with Obama) they could have enshrined that right into a law that would have been much harder for the court to overturn. My point remains though that packing the court is not a solution and never will be.

@19 - don’t get pouty - it causes wrinkles

"Burien is a mess right now, thanks to a constitutionally dubious camping ban the city updated last month."

So...violations for violating a camping ban are going to have a monumentally difficult time meeting either a "cruel or unusual" standard or "excessive fine" standard under the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court granted cert on Grant's Pass to overrule Boise (the 9th circuit case cited in support of the ban being "constitutionally dubious").

Boise so badly misstates 8th amendment law, I would not be shocked to see a 7-2 or 8-1 decision.

@12,

Philosophically I think absolutes should be avoided whenever possible, though in general I'm in favor of majoritarianism, albeit with checks in place to prevent the wielding of tyrannical authority (and as has been explained to you previously, not all systemic "checks" work as intended, and those that don't work should be modified or even dissolved when appropriate. The electoral college and US Senate for example, don't actually check authoritarian rule, but rather enable it based on who they empower as checks. A system that were actually meant to achieve this goal would need to count a disproportianate number of traditionally exploited and subjugated groups in their ranks, say women and racial/ethnic minorities. Though the Senate and EC are criminally under-represented in these ranks, both in their respective constituencies, and in the voting blocs that elect them to their positions.)

In the case of Arizona, as with the Supreme Court, it would make sense to have judges serve limited terms based on democratic, majoritarian elections, rather than legislative appointments, which would allow for the citizenship to have a more impactful voice in their judiciary.

@14 The Dems keep bringing up abortion because it’s (a) extremely popular and (b) constantly in danger of being banned nationwide. If you the Republicans won’t try to ban abortions nationwide if they control Congress and the presidency, you’re living in a dream world.

And it’s not just abortion. In the Dobbs decision, Thomas invited challenges to the rulings legalizing contraception and interracial marriage.

@23 Justice Thomas is all in favor of interracial marriage. I think you meant same-sex marriage. Here's a quote from the NY Times:

In his concurring opinion, despite the majority’s assurances that the Dobbs decision is limited to abortion and does not implicate other rights, Justice Thomas endorses reconsidering the Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell rulings. These decisions recognize a right to use contraception, the right to engage in same-sex relationships and the right to same-sex marriage.

@18: Roe was overturned because the right wing spent fifty years on a jihad to overturn it, and they packed the Supreme Court to do just that. If you believe for even one hot second our lovely right-wingers ever cared in the slightest about the intricacies of constitutional law, then you obviously haven't paid any attention to them for any of that time. (Hint: most of those same persons wouldn't dare utter the phrase, "a well-regulated militia," even if you put a gun to their heads and demanded it.)

"If a democrat led legislature with a dem president was so inclined (like we had with Obama) they could have enshrined that right into a law that would have been much harder for the court to overturn."

That's not how the American Constitutional system works. At all. Rights are enumerated in constitutions, federal and state. Congress cannot "enshrine a right into law" any more than Congress, or a state legislature, can simply legislate a right out of existence. Roe prevented states from infringing upon a federal right to privacy, until the jihadi-packed Supreme Court arbitrarily declared that federal right no longer existed. (That's why there's currently a fight to enact pro-choice laws in the states.)

However, the Congress does have the power to un-pack our jihadi Court. Every one of the Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe had, before taking office, testified under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe was "settled law." The House of Representatives can impeach such a Justice for having so lied under oath to Congress, and the Senate can then remove that Justice. The Republicans will never allow that removal, so it's a moot point, but the Congress does indeed have the power to do this.

@25 I understand your argument I just don’t agree. If congress had passed a law making abortion legal under a national standard (so states wouldn’t have differing restrictions) I dont think the court would have overturned it (much like Obamacare).

Whether you agree with that or not is secondary though. The main question was whether packing the court is the right solution to fix this now and I still believe that “packing the court” is just as dumb a phrase as “defund the police”. Its political theater.

@24 You underestimate the veniality of conservatives. Just because Justice Thomas is in an interracial (show?) marriage doesnt mean he wants others to have that right. I think he was suggesting overturning a ruling allowing forbidding, among others, contraceptives and interracial marriage bans.

@26: "If congress had passed a law making abortion legal under a national standard (so states wouldn’t have differing restrictions) I dont think the court would have overturned it (much like Obamacare)."

Again, you simply do not understand our American constitutional system. You might as well complain your favorite team lost the game because your team's batter didn't kick five sevenths of another touchdown basket. What you're writing here is on that level; it's so far from reality, it's not even wrong. It's victim-blaming propaganda far-lefties created to attack Democrats, after decades of said lefties loudly refusing to support Democrats' defense of reproductive rights, because the lefties instead practiced publicly prancing and preening in their self-described political purity.

I agree that "packing the court" (by adding more Justices) is a losing strategy, and rightfully so. As I've written, the best strategy would be to un-pack the court, by impeaching and removing the felonious liars, but that won't happen. So, the pro-choice side will continue to win at the state and local levels, just as we always have.

@19: "Go vote Trump and fuck off you losers."

You know what will happen, ages before I even start to consider the possibility I might someday think about beginning to question any one of the many involved decisions, any one of which alone could have produced my permanent opposition to voting Trump? You'll sincerely take complete and penitent responsibility for referring to persons with whom you happen to disagree as "subhuman."

@23/@27 - No, interracial marriage and contraception are non the agenda to ban by Republicans. Project 25 makes no mention of doing either (Wikipedia). Always separate the possible from the probable. Imagine the total political and social impracticality of enforcing such laws. Highly improbable.

sometimes
in the Heat of
Battle we might
lose perspective and
refer to the inhumane

as sub- or inhuman.

unless a Well-
established Pat-
tern, a Forgivable sin

for those Cap-
able of such.

@dewey as a self-professed
(& out?) gay man your
protestations and
justifications Will
NOT protect You
when those Fas-
cists come a'
Marchin' In
jackbooted
Lockstep

the Wolves're
AT THE DOOR
&'re Famished.

@32: Says a drama queen

I'll save the Drama
for your Llama
but Well-pro-
jected as per
Usual @33.

excellent posts Garbby

when El trumpfster ran initially
he had Massive Help from
russian bots

Wormtongue
may not Be a russian
bot but he portrays one
here like a veritable Master.

@Garb - You need to put all our babble (mine included) in perspective. Be good to yourself. You're on the right path for you, and that's what's important here. Don't let our pixels run havoc with your blood pressure.

@38
and up
pop's dewey's
Brightside. well-played!

@22, The U.S. Senate prevents tyranny by majority. So do the Courts when they rule a majority action unconstitutional, tell a City Council directing the Mayor or City Administrator to fire all Uvalde cops (or said Council exercises prior restraint in not doing so because their lawyer has said how Courts will rule), acquit someone like O.J. Simpson who the public rightly believes to be a murder, etc.

You are correct that their are trade-offs when those institutions check majorities and that sometimes majorities are correct (e.g. O.J.)

You can't modify these checks without empowering some and disempowering other actors. Lord Acton observed, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." So whatever power one actor or another has in the system will be used corruptly, because human nature doesn't change.

Rights are enumerated in the Constitution. True, but in the thinking of the drafters and adopters, they were not creating or granting rights, but recognizing Natural Law rights that perpetually existed when they were brought into being by a moral agent (something can't come from nothing, so if moral rights, therefore moral right creator.) They were "theists" not Christians.

Words and phrases like "corrupt", "rights", your own "work as intended" (implying there is an outcome to aspire to), "achieve this goal", etc. are moral terms. They require a moral absolute to reference to define those words and phrases and that "corruption" is bad whether its the majority that is being "corrupt" or an obstructionist "minority".

The elephant in the room is what is that code of moral absolutes by which majoritarian, authoritarian, or minority acts are to be judged in all societies, at all points in history? If such a code exists, then who brought it into being? If the answer is, "the majority", then the majority can do no wrong. Whatever and whoever they decide is "corrupt" actually is.

@23, "The Dems keep bringing up abortion because it’s (a) extremely popular and (b) constantly in danger of being banned nationwide."

Not really. Polling consistently shows abortion at the bottom of "top 20" issues for voters at 2% to 5%. The economy is at the top at 30% and immigration isn't far behind at 28%. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

The value of Dems bringing up abortion is to make sure the 2% or 5% for whom abortion is a top issue, show up in the four states to add to the pool of 400,000 voters in those states that will tip the 2024 one way or the other.

@36, @25 observed correctly, "Roe was overturned because the right wing spent fifty years on a jihad to overturn it, and they packed the Supreme Court to do just that."

One difference between "right wingers" or "Republicans" to the extent they are much more monolithic and have a high component of "right wingers", and the Democratic Party is that they have 50 years of discipline around a few singular causes.

As Will Rogers observed, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

They lack the unity and discipline to pick a few causes, and organize a large enough majority, or decisively large plurality, to win and get outcomes they want, or maintain them. By trying to be all things, to all elements of their diverse, and often contradictory component groups and ideologies, rather than picking fewer priorities, and priorities they can actually achieve by bringing on board what is left of the true swing voter constituency (400,000 voters in 4 states), they get nothing (e.g. 2000, 2016) and open the door to more judicial appointments by the other side that will limit their future ability to achieve Dems priorities.

I agree with Dems over Republicans on many things, chief among them, that Trump is an existential threat to democracy and liberty in the U.S. and around the globe. For that reason, I wish they would prove Will Rogers wrong.

@24 Thomas didn't mention Loving v. Virginia, but it was decided on the same grounds as the other cases you cited. If those all fall, Loving does as well.

https://www.courthousenews.com/thomas-didnt-mention-interracial-marriage-and-thats-worth-talking-about/

@30 Project 2025 includes rigorously enforcing the Comstock Acts, which ban mailing anything that could be used for an abortion. Since the right-wing whack jobs believe that the pill induces abortions, that's going to be on the list as well. And if you think that any of the rights we normally take for granted will be respected once Trump take dictatorial power using Project 2025, you're living in a dream world.

@41 You're confusing "Most Important Problem" with the popularity of the position. Abortion proponents wouldn't have won in Kansas (59%) and Ohio (57%) if it wasn't popular. Like 69% of Americans believing abortion should be legal in the first trimester popular. And that was before AZ courts decided to take us back to the 1860's and Alabama courts decided to try to ban IVF. It's only downhill from here on abortion for the GOP.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx

@43: Is it not better to reserve lighting your hair on fire for only the more plausible rather than the less plausible?

@44 Project 2025 is the most plausible outcome of a new Trump presidency. There are so many pieces of that, you can pick and choose what speaks to different audiences. I rather expect that access to contraception is far more important to younger women than to an older gay man such as yourself. I imagine that you can connect the dots as to why.

@30: “No, interracial marriage and contraception are non [sic] the agenda to ban by Republicans.”

Re-read @24, and harder this time:

“Justice Thomas endorses reconsidering the Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell rulings. These decisions recognize a right to use contraception, the right to engage in same-sex relationships and the right to same-sex marriage.”

@31:
“unless a Well-
established Pat-
tern, a Forgivable sin”

Search this site for his nym and “subhuman,” then count the number of hits. I leave it up to you to declare his use of it is not a “well-established pattern.”

(You’ll always find some excuse for employing dehumanizing rhetoric against anyone who dares disagree with you. Because you oppose Fascism!)

@35: If he wants to provide us with exactly the same entertainment value here as the “progressives” who concocted the obvious lie he’s now foolishly repeating, then I’m more than happy to correct him, using the exact same attitude I use on them.

@36: What’s your plan for preventing another Israel-Hamas war? I’ve already advocated for the destruction of Hamas. A cease-fire will simply postpone the end of Hamas, through yet more cycles of violence. So, in the long run, you’re the one here in favor of more slaughter. Yet, somehow, I manage not to use dehumanizing rhetoric to express my sincere and passionate disagreement with your position.

(Oh, and I’m watching both my own child, and my child’s playmates, right now. Thanks so much for your tender concern!)

@45 and @46: Again, I'm not arguing against the possibility. I prefer to triage ruminating over the improbable.

@43, No confusion.

Priority in voters top 20 list indicates which issues most voters will consider first, and weigh most heavily in their decision on who to vote for. In the top 2, the economy and immigration, Trump holds double-digit leads over Biden (I don't agree, but I am apparently out of step with the largest plurality of voters on these issues).

So if they disagree with the GOP on abortion, but agree with Trump on either the economy or immigration, guess which personal position they will throw under the bus when voting? It's not the economy or immigration, for all but a tiny percentage of voters.

In other news this hour:

Iran has reportedly launched ballistic missile and 100 plus drones at Israel.

Iraq and Lebanon, have closed their airspace.

Israel has closed their airspace.

The U.S. has repeated that it will defend Israel against attack and specified they will act to defend Israel against this specific attack. The U.S. has already intercepted some Iranian drones.

President Biden has left his Delaware Beach House on Marine One, for the White House Situation Room, the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon, or another national command and control node.

The USS Eisenhower, with escorting anti-air capable cruisers, and its own air-group are in the Eastern Med, under CENTCOM.

All relevant U.S. Military Commands (E.g. Eisenhower Group - 2 Star Admiral Commanding, CENTCOM - 4 Star General Commanding) and the NMCC, have gone to full-alert and recalled all assigned officers and men for maximum staffing.

All U.S. forces in the Middle East and Horn of Africa are at threat condition Delta in the event they are targeted as well as Israel.

If the IDF, with or without, the USS Eisenhower and other U.S. anti-air and missile defense assets, clears the air of the Iranian attack, without strikes on Israel or U.S. assets, this may go no farther. If Iran scores hits, particularly against U.S. assets, all bets are off.

Pop the popcorn and settle in.

And the UK RAF has launched jets to intercept missiles and drones targeting Israel as well as back-filling for U.S. military commitments in the region.

France may come in as well.

@47: “Oh, of course nothing will escalate past Gaza.”

As I’d already commented in Slog, Iran and Israel were already at war. Iran funds Hamas, which sent literal rape gangs into Israel. Did you really think the Israelis were going to let that slide? So they killed a top Iranian terrorist-funding spymaster, and now the Iranians are throwing a fit about it. Now, there’s no more question about the US backing Israel. (I hope everyone at the Stranger enjoyed voting “uncommitted,” because that was the last time such silly protests mattered.)

"Now,
there’s no
more question
about the US backing Israel."

right. we MUST Follow
bibi nutnyahoo into
Hell carte blanche
WMDs nukes etc

All just to keep
bibi tf outta
Jail.

excellent plan
wormtongue.

we're Happy
you're here to
help steer us into
Armafuckingeddon.

bugger off.

hell
wormmy
even Genocide Joe’s
Unwilling to Unleash Armageddon*

nyt:
Biden
Seeks to
Head Off
Escalation After
Israel’s Successful Defense

The president told Israel that the interception of nearly all of the Iranian drones and missiles used to attack it constituted a major victory, and so further retaliation may not be necessary, U.S. officials said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/14/world/middleeast/biden-netanyahu-israel-iran-strikes.html

your incessant War Mongering
is NOT Appreciated by
the Civilized

*better Late
than Never?

"In any case, Iran says the attack is now over. Given that we’re not seeing any signs of massive damage, Iran’s reported claim that its retaliation would be calibrated to avoid escalation into a full-scale regional war seems to have been accurate, as does Washington’s reported claim that it didn’t expect the strike to be large enough to draw the US into war.

A new report from Axios says Biden has personally told Netanyahu that the US will not be supporting any Israeli military response to the Iranian strike.

[well
not ALL of
‘US,’ eh, wormmy?]

An anonymous senior White House official told Axios that Biden said to Netanyahu, “You got a win. Take the win,” in reference to the number of Iranian weapons that were taken out of the sky by the international coalition in Israel’s defense.

Apparently helping to mitigate the damage from the Iranian attack is all the military commitment the White House is willing to make against Iran at this time."

--Caitlin Johnstone

more, uneventfully (so Far):
https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/us-declines-israels-invitation-to

@53: ”They struck a diplomatic compound, shithead! That is the equivalent of bombing a country's soil!”

Is it the equivalent of financing rape and murder gangs on another country’s soil?* Where was your screaming outrage about that?

You had six whole months to understand how Iranian money had created suffering in Gaza, but either you’re simply not that smart, or you’re willingly doing the bidding of the terrorists in Hamas, and their paymasters in Iran. Take your pick.

“…expect the other actors to just sit back while their top brass get bombed.”

I’m sorry, when did I express doubt Iran would attack Israel, or surprise that it has? Quotes and urls, please.

“Iran is not without support from Iran's nuclear armed allied who are in solidarity gearing up for total war.”

Examples of which would be…?

“And Israel's psychotic maniacs in power are not beyond using nuclear arms. They arent even signatories to the NPT.”

So, in non-screamy language, they have a nuclear deterrent, and are not afraid to use it. Like the US during the Cold War. (How’d that turn out, again?)

“…Xi, Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Iran's other regional allied armed to the teeth bring this world to its knees…”

China and North Korean are in the same region as Iran? China will attack Israel or the U.S. on behalf of Iran? Seriously? Yeah, Russia, for centuries a dedicated foe of Islam, will suddenly attack Israel on behalf of Iranian mullahs. (Oh, and the Russian project on bringing Ukraine to it’s knees — how’s that going?) Somehow, I doubt the Israelis will care if North Korea tries to launch another missile at Japan.

“De-escalate now. Cease fire now.”

In case you somehow missed it, Iran’s strike on Israel failed miserably. The US, UK, and France — all nuclear powers, since that’s so important to you — are either actively defending Israel, or pledging to do so. The Israelis are saying they’ll do nothing immediately. Iran now gets to explain to neighboring countries why it violated their airspaces for failure. Your Armageddon scenario seems to be lacking, somehow.

We now return to your malicious, screaming ignorance, always in progress.

*No, because intentionally killing civilians is never allowed, rape is always intentional, and —as even you finally figured out — the Israelis killed Iranian military officers.

@55, The successor government to Netanyahu, likely lead by Benny Gantz, or any government, will continue the attacks against Hamas.

":right. we MUST Follow
bibi nutnyahoo into:"

Israel will respond to existential threat, no matter what government succeeds Netanyahu. So why do you keep fuckin' that chicken? I.e. If Netanyahu goes, the war in Gaza ends. The ground attacks to get to the rest of Hamas, with Gazans in the crossfire ends.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/05/middleeast/gaza-war-no-plan-israel-intl-cmd/index.html

Wait. What?

Burien has no police, no police department, their policing is done by the sheriff, but they pay a big salary to have a "chief of police" ?

What's that all about?

@54: It really is just yet another middle-east kerfuffle, not WWIII.

@57: Got anything else from the Iranian Ministry of Propaganda you & Johnstone would like to pass along?

“…Iran’s reported claim that its retaliation would be calibrated to avoid escalation into a full-scale regional war seems to have been accurate,”

Because there’s basically zero chance anything Johnstone emits will have any demonstrable connection to actual external reality, I won’t bother asking you who “reported” that “claim,” or when, or where — even though the snarling rage you exhibit, each and every time I ask you to cite an actual fact, provides much of my amusement value in dealing with you.

I will, however, ask how you, of all persons, failed to recognize a version of the empty playground boast, “I’m doing you a favor by not beating you up.”

@60 the chief is part of the sheriffs office and is assigned to Burien. This is part of the effort to push back on the refusal of KC to honor the agreement they signed to support Burien.

https://burien-news.com/2024/04/13/city-manager-outlines-process-to-replace-police-chief/

speaking of my
Snarling Rage:

nyt:
World Leaders
Urge Restraint as Israel
Weighs Retaliation Against Iran

Israel’s war cabinet was meeting again
to discuss how to respond to Iran’s
assault. Far-right members of
the Israeli government cal-
led for swift action.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/15/world/iran-israel-gaza-war-news

"Now,
there’s no
more question
about the US backing Israel."
--@wormmy, above

not
Everyone*
wants thermo-
Nukular devastation.

*well other
than you
& bibi

@64: You’re behind the times:

“Israel is delaying its plans for a ground offensive in Rafah, two Israeli sources said, as the country's war cabinet engages in a heated debate about how and when to respond to Iran’s weekend attack. Israeli President Isaac Herzog has said Israel is not seeking war with Iran.”

(https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-04-15-24/index.html)

So, Israel took out some of Iran’s top terror-organizing generals, Iran demonstrated an inability to harm Israel with military strikes, the robust performance of American (and possibly UK and France) military units in assisting Israel’s right to defend itself gives them more credibility with Israel, and Israel won’t engage Iran in tit-for-tat counterstrikes.

All in all, a good weekend for crippling the terror-funding abilities of the brutally misogynistic regime in Iran, and bolstering mutual defense of democracies.

Nobody wants a war, and Israel just demonstrated how to avoid one, by standing up to a bully whilst carefully using force with restraint. American diplomacy then helped de-escalate the situation. Great work, Joe!

@65

"... Israel
just demonstrated
how to avoid one [a fucking
WAR], by standing up to a bully
whilst carefully using force with restraint."

ah, yes,
Israel! Always
First with the "restraint."

1,300 murdered
some'd say Slaughtered
by Hamas. Israel's "restrained"
response? THIRTY FIVE T H O U S A N D
DEAD Palestinians INCLUDING 14,000 Dead

children.

yeah
we Really
gotta Hand It
to bibi nutnyahoo's
Crack Team of Peaceniks.

you've
Nailed it yet
Again wormmy!

@28 Garb Garblar: +1 for the WIN!!

@39 kristofarian: What?--raindrop's pixels are in a wad?
I warned him to eat his paste before it hardens.

@66:

“1,300 murdered
some'd say Slaughtered
by Hamas.”

But was it “genocide”? Discuss.

As for restraint, if the IDF (which has far more, and far more destructive, weapons than does Hamas) had killed on the pace Hamas set in that one day, the total would be about 250,000 by now.

(And, as usual in your version of events, Hamas has absolutely nothing to do with any events in Gaza. At all.)

tme to re-think your argument?
my favorite reader’s
comment on
the nyt’s:

The Israeli
Censorship Regime
Is Growing. That Needs to Stop.

the comment:

Israel
and its
proponents
have been caught
by surprise at the global
condemnation to its campaign of retribution.

The savagery of
Hamas on October 7 was
bestial, ruthless and appalling.

But it was also very successful. Hamas
knows it cannot destroy Israel on its own,
but it can goad Israel into doing it for them.

Israel under the reactionary regime of Netanyahu
has attacked an unarmed civilian population
with absolutely no consideration of mass
casualties, Geneva Convention rules,
guilt or even humanity.

[speaking of dehumanizing]

Netanyahu in particular is fighting
for his political life and personal freedom,
and no number of piles of dead Palestinian children
or acres of stolen Palestinian property in the West Bank
will instill an iota of compassion or even common sense in him.

Israel's genocidal fury
is unjustifiable, dispro-
portionate and horrifying.

It is also serving to separate Israel
from the protection of the West
which it has taken for granted.

This
is precisely
what Hamas was
striving to achieve, and will
leave Israel alone and vulnerable.

The response has been
to try to shut down
all criticism.

Israel will not permit journalists in Gaza be
-cause they do not want facts recorded
nor Palestinians presented favorably.

The various pro-Israel groups in the West,
particularly in the US, target free speech
that demands Israeli accountability.

Shutting down speech will destroy Israel, not protect it.

--Shar; Atlanta

more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/opinion/gaza-journalists-censorship-israel.html#commentsContainer
[formatting mine]

‘Israel's genocidal fury
is unjustifiable, disprop-
ortionate and horrifying.

It is also serving to separate Israel
from the protection of the West
which it has taken for granted.

This
is precisely
what Hamas was
striving to achieve, and will
leave Israel alone and vulnerable.’

Leaving Jews
PLANET-Wide
Vulnerable. Dump Bibi
Before it’s Too Fucking Late

Oh and END
The GENOCIDE

@69: You eventually dumped that same comment into the basements of, what -- half-a-dozen threads here, before I bothered to dismantle it? Lame, even by your standards.

Israel gets international assistance in defending itself, Iran gets more sanctions from the Europeans, WW3 is nowhere in sight, and yet here you are, still loudly proclaiming the exact polar opposite has happened. That's not even a propaganda victory. Go home.