Countries have complicated trade for centuries. Free trade is a modern exception, not the historical rule.
And in principle, countries have as much right to restrict trade with Cuba as they do with Russia and Israel. It’s the same principle that allows people to call for boycotts of Amazon and Starbucks. All of these things can affect the lives of millions, in an effort to bring about political change.
I’m sorry, but that makes me even more suspicious of Stein’s motives.
She finally gathers the courage to criticize Putin, and SHE IGNORES HIS INVASION OF UKRAINE! Does she even understand why the world condemns Putin? Does she know why he was indicted by the ICC?
Open a newspaper, Jill. It’s not because of FREAKING SYRIA!
Her platform regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine is indistinguishable from that of Trump: “stop arming Ukraine”. So Russia can finish its conquest without US interference. Guess what, that’s also the same as Putin’s advice to the US.
If I wanted the US to take Putin’s advice there would be no need to vote for Stein, I would just vote for Trump.
She even calls him a war criminal right on her website:
More gaslighting. There is literally nothing there about Putin.
She didn’t repeat what Mehdi said because she didn’t want to be quoted saying Putin is a war criminal.
But instead she said this:
So if you want to be an effective world leader, you don’t start by name calling and hurling out that.
“Hurl out that?” What exactly do you not want to hurl out, Jill?
Come back when Kamala calls Netanyahu a war criminal
Ok, so Jill is no better than Kamala when it comes to being “anti-genocide”. Glad that’s cleared up.
I’m afraid you’re the one who refuses to see.
Jill Stein only used the words “war criminal” twice in that segment, and in both cases she wasn’t referring to Putin.
In fact, she spent less time talking about his war crimes than on explaining why one shouldn’t call Putin a war criminal.
Don’t gaslight me. I was paying very close attention. She clearly avoided calling Putin a war criminal. And she was given many opportunities:
Mehdi Hasan: So you called Netanyahu one, which I think he is.
Jill Stein: Oh, absolutely.
Mehdi Hasan: Is Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: So what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is a criminal and murderous war.
Mehdi Hasan: And he’s a war criminal who should be on trial?
Jill Stein: Well, by implication.
Mehdi Hasan: You’re struggling here to say something very simple. This is why people have their doubts about you with Russia. Why is Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal but not Vladimir Putin?
Jill Stein: Well, as John F. Kennedy said, “We must not negotiate out of fear and we must not fear to negotiate.” So if you want to be an effective world leader, you don’t start by name calling and hurling out that.
Mehdi Hasan: So how will President Stein negotiate with Israel then, if you’ve called Netanyahu a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Well, because he very clearly is a war criminal.
Mehdi Hasan: Oh, so Putin clearly isn’t a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Well, we don’t have a decision, put it this way, by the International Criminal Court.
Mehdi Hasan: Yes, we do. Yes, actually, actually, you’re wrong. There’s an arrest warrant for Putin and there isn’t an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, so why is Putin not a war criminal, but Netanyahu is?
Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.
Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all. It still doesn’t answer my question. Whether we sponsor them or not is irrelevant.
Jill Stein: With Russia it’s far more complicated.
Mehdi Hasan: Either you’re a war criminal or you’re not. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: In so many words, yes he is.
Mehdi Hasan: I don’t know “what so many words” - Butch, is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Let me say that whatever you think he is -
Mehdi Hasan: It’s not about what I think. I’m asking you. You’re running for President.
Jill Stein: If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don’t begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal unless you have a…
Mehdi Hasan: So why have you called Biden and Netanyahu war criminals?
Jill Stein: Because we have a clear strategy and we have very strong support across the world.
And Jill refuses to say Putin is a war criminal, but instead will always support him.
How many Ukrainian lives are worth one Palestinian life?
Humans can move their heads to avoid glare. They can shield glare from their eyes with visors.
Tesla cameras currently can’t do either.
For those curious this is not as bonkers as the title suggests. Just run-of-the-mill police state injustice.
The artwork prompted school authorities to file a police report, leading to the investigation of Moskalyov’s social media activity.
Moskalyov was sentenced to two years in prison, following his outspoken online posts against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
Is there a scientific “answer” to whether alcohol causes prostate cancer? That too depends on a wide variety of social factors and can be biased by ideological assumptions (eg drinking alcohol is a vice).
Nevertheless biologists develop competing models, use them to form hypotheses, test the hypotheses, subject the results to peer review, and revise their models to arrive at a consensus. Economists do all the same things.
Why should anyone care what Nobel’s descendants think?
You did. Is there one economist in particular who you think contributed more to this field than the actual winners?
That’s kind of my point. They didn’t come up with their ideas yesterday, so you shouldn’t expect the results to appear groundbreaking today.
The prize is for research in economics, not history or social science. They may be interested in the same topics, but economists usually take longer to reach a conclusion because their work is usually more data-driven.
Hence their conclusions appear to be “not news” to historians and social scientists who already believed the same things without the benefit of economic data.
The economics prize is funded by Sveringes Riksbank but they are not involved in selecting a winner. Neither is the government. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is solely responsible for selecting the winner, and it is not part of government.
Here’s the thing about economics: the “dismal science” is often trying to prove - or disprove - what appears to be common sense.
For instance, to some it’s common sense that minimum wage increases cause more unemployment. To others, it’s common sense that they don’t. Eventually economists will reach a consensus, and it will be “not news” to half the population.
Since you’ve done research in this field, you must be aware that Acemoglu and Robinson have been publishing on this topic for ~20 years. Is there some earlier economist who was not properly given credit for their results?
The prize in economic sciences is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901.
The Nobel Prize is awarded after a lifetime of work, not the latest news.
The 2022 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for describing the violation of Bell inequalities. The initial experiments were performed in the 80s and the results are “not news” to many current high school physics teachers.
How is the culture minister the “same people” as the Royal Academy of Sciences?
Did you also teach your students about ethnic prejudice?
Fun fact: 90% of the cells in your body are bacteria.