You're led to this conclusion because you have a lack of understanding of the structure of Hezbollah, and a seeming disinterest in understanding it more.
Like it or not, Hezbollah serves a number of functions in Lebanon. They have civil servants (think trash collectors, postal delivery representatives, etc.) They also have politicians.
A corollary would be if the Democratic Party in the United States had a militarized wing, politicians, and civil servants.
It's a structure that those in the West don't recognize or understand, and leads you to the conclusion that anyone killed in the pager attack, for instance, is just terrorist adjacent. So a trash collector who's killed in the pager attack, and their family, are not in fact, 'terrorists'.
Also worth investigating in all of this are the structures and centers of power that are labeling them as a terrorist organization and why.
I don't know so much about Hizballah (though maybe more than the average american), but I do know a bit about Israel and its army.
The late Yeshayahu Leibovitch called certain behaviors "judonazism". And currently this is the mainstream of the Israeli society. Everyone in Israel knows it (though they would try to cast it in different terms), few speak about it, the ones who do get silenced, most simply don't care (who cared in nazi Germany about jews massacred in the woods or starved to death and killed in concentration camps?). The government, the judicial system, and of course the army (just check Haliva's interview on Guardian, and he is, I suspect, "a moderate"..)
This is a fallacious argument. As if it was controversial to say that an organization engaging in lawless violence and terror attacks (imagine if those attacks were against you) doesn't have any moral ground to stand on, even if it does some other things besides that.
It's basically the mafia approach. They are known to help people and stuff sometimes, does it mean we should condone them and protest when they are targeted?
The key people in mafia are also always in "administrative" roles. If you only target the guy pulling the trigger, you would be a fool since he is pretty low among the pawns.
Nothing Hezbollah has done is even remotely close to the evils of Israel. Hezbollah is armed resistance against a genocidal terror force. They're not even remotely "bad".
I looked it up and according to Hezbollah the evil of Israel is in its existence. The stated objective is destruction of Israel and having another one of the many Islamic countries in its place, and it does not appear contingent on what Israel does. If you are in favor of that, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't share it.
Take any econ 101 course, and you'll realize that this isn't a factor in the capitalist system. Capitalism is simply concerned with maximizing profit, and in this case, returning shareholder value. It's just simply not in the purview of the system to think about what happens when you completely get rid of your labor force.
Envisioned another way, the future of labor might look the way it did for laborers over 100 years ago, before major industries unionized; making 'Amazon-bucks' that can only be redeemed at the 'Amazon company store'.
No wages -> Nobody buys stuff and services -> Companies are going bankrupt -> No taxable income from consumers nor companies -> States are going bankrupt.
You can either go through UBI taxing automated work by 90%+ and pretend that capitalism is still a thing, or just nationalize everything and go with communism.
Henry Ford understood this problem with his Model T and realized that if he wants to sell it, he also needs to pay workers to be able to afford it.
> The attribute is that we must never actually do anything to address the real problem, which is that the lion's share of the wealth and resources are being claimed by a tiny group of people who use monopolies, coercive tactics, buying up politics and technology to hoard and protect their wealth and power.
Yes, thank you for saying this. Truly the "Steven Pinker" of these times. "There is actually something wrong with you if you're not loving this".
Although saying this on this platform, unfortunately, won't get much traction.
The article seems somewhat on the fluff-and-feathers side. It doesn't really explain anything. The only non-obvious thing it says is:
> Robinhood receives a fixed rate per spread (vs. a fixed rate per share by the other eBrokers). Rather than receiving simple payment by volume, Robinhood receives a percentage of the spread between the bid and the ask in each trade. This is interesting because while HFT proponents insist their practices narrow spreads, some critics maintain that high-frequency trading ends up widening spreads.
Unfortunately, what this excerpt claims as "interesting" makes no logical sense. The fact that RH is paid by HFT on the spread would suggest that HFT like to get order flow in stocks that already have a large spread. It is completely unclear how this is related to the claim that HFT tend to increase the spread.
The "traditional" interpretation is that HFT make money from creating liquidity. This means they take illiquid stocks (with large spread) and make them liquid (reducing the spread). Since they make money doing that, they are willing to pay for orders in illiquid stocks.
Is this the correct interpretation? I have no clue. But it seems the article's author has even less clue, and adds nothing of value to the discussion.
> ...the resolution in today’s announcement re-affirms that the Department of Justice will not relent in its multi-pronged efforts to combat the opioids crisis
> The criminal resolution includes the largest penalties ever levied against a pharmaceutical manufacturer
Jeez the DOJ surely sprinkled a ton of 'self-congratulating' language in this for simply doing their job.
> The only press they ever received was from credulous buzztech sites that just wanted something flashy to grab eyeballs, so they weren’t used to anyone actually being engaged enough intellectually to point out the lack of clothes that they were wearing.
I love the way this is written.
Thank you for this. The headline of the article certainly seems to be taking advantage of the recent hysteria around everything else happening in our lives right now (covid-19)
Headlines of previously respectful media have always been inching towards more drama, shock and FUD in general, so I don't think it's specific to the current mass hysteria. I'd bet COVID-19 has been a boon to all media though.
This article is kind of all over the place, at first blaming the Guardian but then backing down a bit to say that they had limited resources to fight what would be an expensive legal battle, which is understandable.
> He said he was put in touch with Gavin Millar, a well-known London lawyer who had worked on the Edward Snowden case. Wylie said the lawyer suggested he give the story to a U.S. newspaper because the First Amendment provided a stronger defense against accusations of libel..."it was actually The Guardian's Katharine Viner who reached out to Dean Baquet at the New York Times to help set up the partnership." Wylie’s revelations were published jointly by The Guardian and The New York Times
This should be the main takeaway from all of this. They were making a calculated choice based on the resources they had available. The Guardian should still be seen as a trustworthy publication
Like it or not, Hezbollah serves a number of functions in Lebanon. They have civil servants (think trash collectors, postal delivery representatives, etc.) They also have politicians.
A corollary would be if the Democratic Party in the United States had a militarized wing, politicians, and civil servants.
It's a structure that those in the West don't recognize or understand, and leads you to the conclusion that anyone killed in the pager attack, for instance, is just terrorist adjacent. So a trash collector who's killed in the pager attack, and their family, are not in fact, 'terrorists'.
Also worth investigating in all of this are the structures and centers of power that are labeling them as a terrorist organization and why.