Thank you for your reporting; I especially appreciate the links to your sources.
Discussing Greenland, as important as it is, as a discrete issue risks missing the bigger picture here: taken together with threats against Mexico, Canada, Iran, the actions against Venezuela, and the assertions of intention to control the "western hemisphere", it's apparent that American imperialism is being revived. He even has a name for it: the Don-roe Doctrine. I can't think of any time in our past when we've gone galumphing around other countries getting our sticky fingers in resources that do not belong to us, that it has gone well for us.
So yes, absolutely we need to consider Greenland as its own issue, but we also need the broader context.
It also surprises me that he apparently is happy to narrow America's influence from the world to a hemisphere.
Even though I might not agree on every single point in your analysis, I really appreciate your effort to encourage everyone to slow down and think about what each side is saying and perhaps to come to a rational decision on the situation. And I totally agree with Diane's comments in St. Petersburg. The current focus on Greenland should also include a serious consideration of what climate change is having on the far north and what that might portend for the future of power relationships between the major powers. This should draw attention to the stupidity of the current American actions regarding climate change and encourage serious thought about the ramifications of climate change denial. Nevertheless, no one has the right to attempt to steal what belongs to someone else!
A terrific how-to on breaking out of our media silos, and understanding what is really at stake in the news.
There is no way we can judge what our priorities and policies should be unless we have a reliable way to look at and understand the "other side's" priorities and perspectives. It is the only way we can see the vulnerabilities in our own arguments.
It's old-fashioned debate prep built on a modern scaffold.
It's what I've started thinking about in terms of "reacting" to the news vs. "leading" the news. "Reacting" is staying in your silo and just seeing one point of view. You are always surprised by the crazy from the other side.
"Leading" is digging deeper to see both sides. So you can anticipate the likely next steps as the situation progresses. To be effective at advocacy, you need to anticipate, not play catch-up.
Very sensible advice—thank you! Over here in the UK, I could look at The Byline Times for a more left-leaning view from various independent journalists, the BBC for the basic whats wheres, etc., and *gulp* GB News for the right-to-far right take. I do the first two already, and though I am loathe to look at GBN, it makes sense to read what rubbish and propaganda they are spouting (Byline Times keeps on top of Farage’s constant waffling and railing and underhanded dodgy dealings). But a weekly perusal wouldn’t go amiss, I am sure.
I thought this was interesting - considering dumpty's trip to Davos today(?) I think he believes he's going to parade into this conference & "dominate" it. The post on this link mentions Ukraine's lack of faith in US "intelligence". But there are other posts listed there that were equally interesting.
This substack post is by 2 former news-editors from the Glens Falls area (NY) - Ken and Will alternate their posts and both surpass anything from our "major" media. This is just one example! I dont live in their district - but their posts are super - no matter what the issue.
And however many ways I look at this it’s still wrong to threaten a hostile takeover of Greenland whether by military force or economic coercion.
It not only violates Greenland’s sovereignty, it upends NATO, giving Putin what he has tried and failed to achieve by force.
Thank you for your reporting; I especially appreciate the links to your sources.
Discussing Greenland, as important as it is, as a discrete issue risks missing the bigger picture here: taken together with threats against Mexico, Canada, Iran, the actions against Venezuela, and the assertions of intention to control the "western hemisphere", it's apparent that American imperialism is being revived. He even has a name for it: the Don-roe Doctrine. I can't think of any time in our past when we've gone galumphing around other countries getting our sticky fingers in resources that do not belong to us, that it has gone well for us.
So yes, absolutely we need to consider Greenland as its own issue, but we also need the broader context.
It also surprises me that he apparently is happy to narrow America's influence from the world to a hemisphere.
Havent heard the word "galumphing" in years! It sure does fit.
I love old-fashioned words!
Even though I might not agree on every single point in your analysis, I really appreciate your effort to encourage everyone to slow down and think about what each side is saying and perhaps to come to a rational decision on the situation. And I totally agree with Diane's comments in St. Petersburg. The current focus on Greenland should also include a serious consideration of what climate change is having on the far north and what that might portend for the future of power relationships between the major powers. This should draw attention to the stupidity of the current American actions regarding climate change and encourage serious thought about the ramifications of climate change denial. Nevertheless, no one has the right to attempt to steal what belongs to someone else!
A terrific how-to on breaking out of our media silos, and understanding what is really at stake in the news.
There is no way we can judge what our priorities and policies should be unless we have a reliable way to look at and understand the "other side's" priorities and perspectives. It is the only way we can see the vulnerabilities in our own arguments.
It's old-fashioned debate prep built on a modern scaffold.
It's what I've started thinking about in terms of "reacting" to the news vs. "leading" the news. "Reacting" is staying in your silo and just seeing one point of view. You are always surprised by the crazy from the other side.
"Leading" is digging deeper to see both sides. So you can anticipate the likely next steps as the situation progresses. To be effective at advocacy, you need to anticipate, not play catch-up.
Very sensible advice—thank you! Over here in the UK, I could look at The Byline Times for a more left-leaning view from various independent journalists, the BBC for the basic whats wheres, etc., and *gulp* GB News for the right-to-far right take. I do the first two already, and though I am loathe to look at GBN, it makes sense to read what rubbish and propaganda they are spouting (Byline Times keeps on top of Farage’s constant waffling and railing and underhanded dodgy dealings). But a weekly perusal wouldn’t go amiss, I am sure.
Excellent analysis. Thank you for showing us how and why it’s important.
Continued gratitude for your hard work and thoroughness.
I thought this was interesting - considering dumpty's trip to Davos today(?) I think he believes he's going to parade into this conference & "dominate" it. The post on this link mentions Ukraine's lack of faith in US "intelligence". But there are other posts listed there that were equally interesting.
https://eutoday.net/france-claims-the-lead-in-ukraine-intelligence/
This substack post is by 2 former news-editors from the Glens Falls area (NY) - Ken and Will alternate their posts and both surpass anything from our "major" media. This is just one example! I dont live in their district - but their posts are super - no matter what the issue.
https://kentingley.substack.com/p/man-who-wants-to-be-governor-supports?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=284971&post_id=184809711&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=b9ign&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email