On pragmatism versus idealism, etc.
When comparing the titles between publications with local and larger distributions, the bias continues to be visible to the point of "extreme," and so I choose to continue my opposition to the larger.
- Condolences to those who suffered (this piece fits here, I think), but I'm looking at the positions struck as mentioned in this article. With an imbalance of resources, it looks like one side has had to resort to locating their combatants among civilian structures, which sounds like the definition of using human shields. The term 'civilian casualties' is a cold thing to say, but it's not a leap to consider that the emotional reaction to such losses (like the one going on now) was a risk that the disadvantaged side was willing to take.
On that note, I find especially interesting the part of this article that mentions a one-party 国 "condemning violence against civilians." No wonder it gets along so well with the one-party wannabes, considering its own words are "lip service." If one country's position is "dictated by its closeness with relevant sides," the other's is dictated by taking a relatively short-term economic risk ($17.5 billion over $100 million) for a longer-term PR gain (though articles like these might dent those gains). The mediation may be necessary, but here it's done for the mediator's own interests, not those of the others at the table. The values on which their position is based are about opportunism, not altruism - any pretense to "[upholding] international fairness and justice" plays to an image in the manner of screaming at a fenced parking lot, and there's at least one analyst open enough to say so.
Then again, it's difficult to say whether this alternative mediator is a better option.
- Throughout relatively recent history, there have been several attempts at solving the problem named in this article, which caused people to flee the countries that have implemented them (and more recently, to fund one group over another, I'd hazard a guess). The alienation in question occurred either way. Under one system, it occurred through the choices of the companies and their owners; under another, through the choices of the governments and their administrators. It's not about one system being better than the other, it's about humans not being ready for aliens in the same way, no matter the differences between the systems they implement.
- If I'm interpreting this correctly, the writer places the ideological bent of educational facilities on the opposite end of the spectrum because of their administration rather than their instructors and students. There may not be one way to teach a certain subject. but how are the subjects actually being taught? How do those lessons reflect in the actions of the instructors and the students that come out of those institutions, the groups they organize into, the positions they take outside their schools that are influenced by what they teach and learn in those schools? The output, I think, is a better measure of which ideological wing a university's on; and from what I've seen of that output, I disagree with the writer.
- How about another addition to those 'windmills,' politician in a cassock?
- Pointing out that this guy is reasonable to expect such a muzzling when an influential fantasy author and at least three superhero movie actresses in recent memory (Suri, Angel Dust, and Diana) have faced the same for comparably less.
- Ending with this because I like protein. Soy and combinations like The Three Sisters provide a full set, but certain municipalities effectively ban livestock if a lot's dimensions measure below a certain threshold, if one's considering such animals.