40 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2025
    1. That is what we must continue to expect if we continue along these same ideas of the old policy.

      fearmongering,

      Using this to justify the rapid change in policy.

    2. "How can lines operating from Pacific ports be prevented from operating to Atlantic ports, and how can we check the same from walking over our own gradually built-up commerce?

      So confused on this one.

      He fears that larger shipping companies based on the east coast could begin to operate on the west coast, crushing regional/local competition

    3. the chief members of all the boards remained closeted discussing the situation and putting many questions to W. L. Clarke of the Pacific Steamship Company

      why this specific representative? did he sponsor it? did he lobby it?

    4. Instead of looking for something to defeat this law, find something to sustain it

      "you might be upset with this law but you must live with it and find a way around it."

    5. The Shipping Board says it won't do it

      Confusing wording I think, the shipping board denies that this act will drive foreign ships from our ports. However, isn't that the whole point of this law?

    6. I do not want to drive foreign ships from our ports unless there are American ships to take their place

      Then why put this law in place? why not allocate money and provide subsidies to produce vessels in the united states and then give them favorable treatment? Was this considered? Were there American ships to take their place at this time?

    7. There are interests in this country that do not want it
      • Commercial business men
      • American Citizens who fear rising prices
      • Shipping companies who reject higher maintenance costs
      • The government wanting to contract out shipping to other nations for cheaper prices.
    8. When you get an advantage do you give help to your competitor, I ask you?

      Using this to justify isolationist policy and othering foreign shipping companies.

    9. Foreign lines gave the advantage to themselves

      Making an enemy of foreign shipping lines, using this as the basis to exclude them from continental US shipping.

    10. Before the war we had to depend on foreign ships for our business. We had to go to our competitors to get our goods to market. Do you help your competitor fight you?

      Fear mongering, Extensive fear mongering.

      More interesting rhetoric.

    11. We, the United States, should really lead the world's shipping

      American exceptionalism is on full display here. Interesting rhetoric to use regarding a global industry.

    12. The people of the country have a deep interest in the development of the merchant marine

      People can refer to a multitude of things. - The government themselves necessitating a wartime fleet to support the US military - American shipping companies interested in expanding profits for themselves. - American shipping unions lobbying to defend American workers and jobs. - I can't really figure out why the American populous would want this.

    13. Tacoma business men turned out in large numbers to attend the meeting: It is estimated that well over 1,100 members were present.

      Another way to show the controversiality of the law.

    14. He declared that Congress would never alter the law on the basis of "opinions of reasons," but only if actual operation resulted in positive and tangible injury to American trade.

      Potentially hard to determine what the 'tangible' injury is. Refused to listen to dissenting arguments, rejecting 'opinions of reason'.

    15. Whether they like it or not, I am prepared to carry it through. Later they will see the mistakes they have made by thus addressing me. I came here to explain myself in open forum. They have got to have a chance of expressing themselves as well, and a real chance to blow off steam

      Senator Jones comes across as arrogant in stating that they came there not to rebuke his argument, but to blow of their steam.

    16. This law will not be modified in any way to encourage our competitors

      Speaks of American isolationism, 'competitors' = other countries trying to ship American goods and build American ships.

    17. which is considered by most of the shipping and business men of this coast as a direct menace to the trade of coast ports.

      opinion of the dissenters, aka trade business men who use waterways to ship goods.

  2. Sep 2025
    1. Today, no one has an accurate figure of how many people have died in this war, how many deaths are those of Hamas fighters and how many of Gazan civilians.

      stop using it as evidence dipshit?

    2. What is the difference? Few know the name Alice Wairimu Nderitu. From 2020 to 2024, the Kenyan human rights advocate was the U.N. special adviser on the prevention of genocide. Kofi Annan, secretary general from 1997 to 2006, created the office, which collects information on rights violations that might lead to genocide. After Israel began its response to the Oct. 7 attack, Nderitu would not say that it was committing genocide. Such a determination, she insisted, was legally and factually complex; it demanded detailed examination by a competent court with proper jurisdiction. Nderitu was pressured and received threats. One called her a “Zionist rat” who supported the “rape and murder of little kids by your bestial masters.” Her mandate was not renewed.

      probably shouldnt be one person...

    1. But they have neither suspended arms shipments nor taken many concrete and meaningful economic or political steps that might deter Mr. Netanyahu’s government.

      wet fucking tissues

    2. on Israel’s Democrat TV and in subsequent articles and interviews the attempt to clear northern Gaza of its population.

      AND ETHNIC CLEANSING ISNT CONSIDERED GENOCIDE???

    3. The I.D.F. says it investigates reports of crimes, although it has rarely made its findings public, and when breaches of discipline or protocol are acknowledged,

      thats a smart idea... get the people who comitted the crime to investigate themselves... why dont all murderers investigate themselves and then determine if theyre guilty?

    4. it often serves more to express outrage than to identify a particular crime.

      the word develops a connotation that softens it and allows for the burden of many uses cases fogging the term

    5. and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

      did his own biases helped him come to this conclusion?

    6. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career

      Author putting their biases out there on full display

    7. Mr. Netanyahu had urged his citizens to remember “what Amalek did to you,” a quote many interpreted as a reference to the demand in a biblical passage calling for the Israelites to “kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings” of their ancient enemy. Government and military officials said they were fighting “human animals” and, later, called for “total annihilation.” Nissim Vaturi, the deputy speaker of Parliament, said on X that Israel’s task must be “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.” Israel’s actions could be understood only as the implementation of the expressed intent to make the Gaza Strip uninhabitable for its Palestinian population. I believe the goal was — and remains today — to force the population to leave the Strip altogether or, considering that it has nowhere to go, to debilitate the enclave through bombings and severe deprivation of food, clean water, sanitation and medical aid to such an extent that it is impossible for Palestinians in Gaza to maintain or reconstitute their existence as a group.

      Dehumanization, seeking the extinction of the group

    8. pattern of I.D.F. operations was consistent with the statements denoting genocidal intent made by Israeli leaders in the days after the Hamas attack.

      a convoluted way of saying there is indeed a genocide