It's just my opinion, I could be wrong

There's a famous moral dilemma, where the person is forced to choose between inaction, and action which causes lessor evil. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem. There is no "correct" answer for this problem, of course, just philosophical takes on the morality of each choice. This is somewhat related to the more general question of whether or not propagating a smaller evil is justified to prevent a larger evil (eg: killing one to save many, or causing some to suffer in the goal of reducing larger future suffering). I lead with this, because I feel like there's a variant of this problem which is applicable to a number of human populations in the world, where the human population is doing something "bad", and as a result are suffering... and others needs to decide to what extent to help them at that point. By rendering assistance, one would be indirectly supporting the "bad" actions which led to the current state, and perhaps indirectly...

(Note: This is more or less just an fanciful writing exercise, "If I was in charge".) A statement on US actions in Iran: The United States has a strong national interest in preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In addition to the regional threat this would pose to US forces in the region, the regime has been unequivocal in their desire to affect genocide on the people of various countries, including the United States, and as such there is a clear motivation for us to attempt to limit their access to weapons of mass destruction. On this goal we are aligned with all regional partners, the United Nations, and all other civilized and peace loving nations in the world. At the same time, the Iranian regime has been unequivocally working to acquire a nuclear weapon for at least the last few decades. From impeding inspections, to enriching Uranium far beyond the levels required for fuel, to building concealed and hard to target development facilities, to vari...

This week, Israel unilaterally attacked Iran, under the pretense of having credible intelligence that their genocidal adversary was close to manufacturing a nuclear bomb, and that military action was necessary to prevent that outcome. The two countries have been lobbing munitions at each other since (Israel is precision bombing military facilities, while Iran is firing ballistic missiles seemingly intended to inflict the maximum amount of civilian casualties, as per their stated genocidal national goal). As for the validity of the pretense, there's no reasonable doubt that Iran is building toward a nuclear weapon. They have been enriching Uranium far beyond what would be required for energy production, building hidden enrichment facilities in very secure underground locations, developing and acquiring missile technology, etc. Any claim that Iran was not working intently to produce a nuclear weapon is patently absurd on the face of all the evidence (Iran's transparent lies notwi...

Last week, the CEO of United Healthcare was shot in the street in New York. As I write this, the killer is still uncaught. Current ish coverage link: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/08/us/brian-thompson-unitedhealthcare-gunman-search-sunday/index.html A lot of the media has been focusing on how people on social media are not exactly sympathetic to the victim, with many people having mixed feelings, and some clearly supporting the killing. In general, wealthy CEO's of large companies are viewed with a certain amount of disdain, and health insurance companies are generally perceived as evil. In this case, the intersection of both makes it easy for people to rationalize this murder as a "good thing", and sympathize with the killer. I have thoughts, which are somewhat more nuanced. The problems with the current health insurance industry in the US have been around for a while, but were sorta amplified by Obamacare (aka the very disingenuously named "Affordable Care Act",...

This might be a long post, but in the context of the current election, and broader, I wanted to write up a primer on how inflation works. This is a hot topic at the moment, and one of the strongest talking points in politics, particularly within the right-leaning circles. It's also one of the least understood topics generally, and thus one of the easiest to inaccurately blame on people or actions for political purposes. Furthermore, actions related to inflation are the perhaps surprising cause of several pressing societal woes (eg: housing prices, wage stagnation, etc.), so it would be great if the general population better understood what was going on. So, hopefully, this will help. What causes inflation Milton Friedman (famous economist) once observed: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." This is, broadly, true: inflation happens when more money is competing for the same amount of goods and services, and thus the people with the goods ans services...

Something I've been thinking about recently: Often when someone (or a group of people) commit some heinously evil act, the media (and/or their supporters) will try to promote a narrative of the importance of focusing on why they got to the point where they were "compelled" to that type of action. They (the supporters) will insist that the motivating factors should be addressed if we (society) want to prevent that type of societally destructive behavior in the future, and that just focusing on the actions in isolation doesn't properly account for all those responsible. You can see this in numerous different situations; here are some examples. In Israel/Gaza, supporters attempt to justify the murderous terrorist actions of Hamas by pointing at the conditions in Gaza. In the case of mass murderers, supporters will often insist on asking why the deranged individual was driven to commit acts of murder, and if more societal support might be possible. In cases of ubiquitous ...