Here’s your second discussion question of the morning; this one is political:

What do we do about North Korea?

You probably heard that yesterday North Korea launched what seems to be a two-stage Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM).   Here’s a photo of it released by the DPRK:

As the New York Times reports;

The North Korean missile departed the Banghyon airfield in the northwestern town of Kusong and flew 578 miles before landing in the sea between North Korea and Japan, the South Korean military said in a statement. The American military said it remained aloft for 37 minutes.

While the North has made significant progress in its weapons programs, experts believe it cannot make nuclear warheads small enough to be mounted on ICBMs. Still, American policy makers have long seen just the development of an ICBM as a critical threshold the North should not be allowed to cross.

Now the missile was launched more or less vertically, but had it been aimed horizontally, it could have traveled much farther, making the U.S. worry that it could reach Alaska, and all of us worry it could reach Japan. But we needn’t worry about South Korea, for that’s a done deal: the North already has enough missiles aimed at their neighbor to destroy Seoul (just 35 miles from the border) and other cities.

The North Korean launch was a violation of UN Security Council regulations, and that body will have an emergency meeting this week. But of course nothing will happen. The only thing that can have an influence on the DPRK is China, which has already imposed some minor sanctions on thje North. But given their increasing alliance with Russia, I don’t think China is very willing to go to bat for the U.S. or its Western allies.

A military attack, which Trump has made noises about, is useless.  If we tried a preemptive strike, it would not only kill thousands of innocent and oppressed North Korean people, but would result in a massive counterattack on South Korea, with DPRK missiles raining down on Seoul and the millions of soldiers in North Korea’s huge army pouring over the border. It would be a debacle, with millions killed just because the DPRK is building missiles that it probably wouldn’t use (they’re not suicidal!). Those missiles are a threat and a bargaining chip, but few people believe that Kim Jong-un is dumb enough to launch a unilateral attack on the U.S.—or anyone else.

Sanctions aren’t working; UN resolutions aren’t working; and the threat of a preemptive strike isn’t working. What can be done?

My view is: nothing. All we can do is importune the Chinese to crack down harder on North Korea, but you’re a fool if you think that will stop the DPRK’s missile program, which will soon produce nuclear warheads. Their missile program is the only bargaining chip the DPRK has, but it’s not working that well for them unless they think it’s deterring a U.S. attack (it isn’t: the real deterrent is the North’s missiles and soldiers threatening South Korea).

Is there anything we can do? Discuss.

I’ll be gone for a bit this morning, though I want to post about two people’s opinion pieces later today (Bill Nye and Lindy West). In the meantime, please discuss among yourselves these two questions, which I’ll post in successive posts.

This one was suggested by Grania after I had sent her several emails and comments for this site that were just plain nasty (I haven’t put them up). The question is this:

Why are some people jerks on the Internet?

These are the same people who would be polite, or at least civil, if you met them in a public place. Yet many of them abandon this civility when they’re writing comments on the Internet. Anonymity, of course, is one part of an answer—if you don’t have to be held responsible for your words, then you can say whatever you want. But that presumes that beneath the veneer of civility that enables us to discourse in public, there are many people who would gladly tell you to “fuck off”, “die in a fire” or “stick a porcupine up your fundament”. Is that the case? Is the Internet telling us what people are really like? (I’m not referring to commenters here, who abide by a code of civility; the nasty ones never appear.)

Grania added that it might be good to ask how to “de-escalate a jerk one meets online.” Or should one bother? I’ve rarely seen a nasty argument on the Internet in which one person says, “Yes, I was wrong.” I know it rarely happens here, but on the other hand I also know that readers often use the comments to educate, not to battle.

Discuss.

by Grania

Lisa Bloom said @kathygriffin apologized after the photo and despite that she lost her job and received death threats pic.twitter.com/jl9mTS430W

— Claudia Rosenbaum (@CJRosenbaum) June 2, 2017

I think by now everybody is familiar with the event of the week where comedian Kathy Griffin decided that holding a prop of a bloody severed head of Donald Trump was a fine moment of political commentary and comedy.

Regardless of political persuasion, people generally reacted with distaste and revulsion, the image perhaps a little too close a reminder of the mindless savagery of ISIS and those of a similar ilk, and CNN fired her within 24 hours.

I find it hard to believe that she did not think that people would react to her stunt with outrage or distaste. If a right-wing comedian (is there such a thing in the US?) had done the same with a severed prop head of Barack Obama there would have been nation-wide outrage and op eds about systemic racism, charges of white supremacy and doubtless, demands that the perpetrator lose their job. That’s guaranteed. After all, there are plenty of people on the political left calling for professor Bret Weinstein to lose his job on charges of imaginary racism.

At her most recent appearance with her lawyer Lisa Bloom, Kathy Griffin broke down but maintained that she was the one being bullied and that she was being silenced by a bunch of old white guys.

In my opinion, if your very public behaviour is such that your employer no longer wishes to tolerate you, that is not censorship. Griffin does feminism no favour at all when she tries to absolve herself of the consequences of her actions and blame it all on the patriarchy.  At least Milo Yiannopoulos had sufficient dignity to apologise and move on when he found he had trespassed over the bounds of what his employer was prepared to tolerate.

Is Kathy Griffin the perpetrator or the victim?

by Grania

Recommend something to read or something to watch

With Jerry presumably in bed (it is late at night in India), it may be several hours before he can check in with us.

In the meantime, here’s my recommendation for something to read or watch.

Nick Cohen writes on the state of universities as places for free exchange of ideas.

If you enjoy Cohen’s take on  this problem, you should try to get a copy of his interesting and sometimes eerily prophetic book What’s Left?

Nick Cohen also did a very good interview with Dave Rubin a few months ago. It makes for fascinating discussion, particularly as Cohen’s perspective is European rather than American and examines the phenomenon in comparison to similar trends on the historic Socialist Left.

Seen something interesting? Share it with us.