Of course not, because when white people engage in terrorism, they are "deeply disturbed individuals with unmet psychiatric needs" and the public/media sympathize with them.
The amusing thing is -- when men are too careful, that is also supposedly sexist. Consider VP Pence's stance on not having dinner with women, his extreme guard against any potential impropriety.
The reaction? Here is one: "The vice president—and other powerful men—regularly avoid one-on-one meetings with women in the name of protecting their families. In the end, what suffers is women’s progress."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/pences-g...
Not in a culture like the one we we are living, where a woman only needs to accuse a men - without any evidence - of sexual harassment and automatically ruin all his carer and possibly his family life.
Even if the case never gets to trial or even if it does and it can be proved the woman was simply lying, your life is already over. Just see what happened to Strauss Khan from IMF (not that I actually liked that guy TBH).
If the best example you can come up with is someone who literally got a blowjob from a hotel maid in his room just before leaving the country, which blowjob was only the latest instance of various supershady sexual activities/overtures involving subordinates and colleagues, then your position must be a very weak one indeed.
> "If the best example you can come up with is someone who literally got a blowjob from a hotel maid in his room "
See your way of reasoning in which you automatically assume that whenever a woman accuses a men in power than the men is guilty, is exactly the problem here.
Where can you tell Strauss Khan "literally got a blowjob from a hotel maid" in a case that didn't even go to trial because the accuser was found guilty of "repeatedly lying" in several of her statements by no less than a grand jury?
It has the same problems for any man in power, it's not a matter of "doing your job well". You basically have to record your office at all times to be safe from accusations of this sort.
Well, that is assuming you're innocent of anything that could be classed as improper, which is an ever growing class of activities.
I think that in this case, the accused is guilty of something, but it's not yet clear whether it was quite illegal. Hence a trial probably. His personal statements corroborate this.
I tend to record most conversations I have in a professional setting these days. I would record everything if I were managing people. It also helps as a general memory aid, and if anyone ever gets upset with me and decides to sling some mud, I'll have it all on file.
Dear Garry - is any VC really "founder friendly"? VCs expect founders to work for zero or minimal salary. Even a below-market salary is incredibly painful in any metro.
My question -- will VC-funded startups ever enter the realm of the non-wealthy and/or beyond bro's willing to bunk up in a studio apt?
Not true at all. The general opinion of investors in Silicon Valley is that is that after a seed round, founders should take a salary where they aren't worried about their bills but aren't getting rich.
That's incredibly not true. Sure you have to put in some work to get funding, but if you have a good enough idea+team+story+market, or existing product with traction and lots of room to grow, no one is going to expect you to cover your cost of living.
It would be poor press to announce that a war is about money, but the veneer of pretense is thin. The Syrian war, especially given Russia's involvement is almost certainly about securing passage for natural gas pipelines.
Who thinks the Iraq war was actually about Freedom? That might have been the rallying cry but it was about securing access to oil and securing massive re-building contracts and/or reparation money. Many argue that the 1990s stock market boom was a direct result of the US getting $10/barrel oil via the Iraq war reparation deal, where they repaid the US for the costs of having to attack the US.
Any war where people suddenly have an interest in saving humanity should be viewed very skeptically, since there are hundreds of crises of freedom around the world. If the crisis happens to be on top of a giant oil field, well, then there may be some conflating variable.
Oil and Money are definitely on the minds' of the higher ups regarding the wars in the Middle East. So much so, private groups with oil interests hold tight court with governments officials and do not hesitate to strongly suggest foreign policy strategy.
"The Syrian war, especially given Russia's involvement is almost certainly about securing passage for natural gas pipelines."
Do you have a cite for that? No one on any side is building pipelines in Syria anytime soon, because, well, war. Also, pretty sure if I told Suheil al-Hassan or Abu Mohammad al-Julani they were fighting for natural gas pipelines, they'd knock my teeth out.
July 25, 2011 'Islamic pipeline' seeks Euro gas markets
>ASALOUYEH, Iran, July 25 (UPI) -- Iran, Iraq and Syria say they're set to sign an official contract to construct a natural gas pipeline connecting Iran's South Pars field to European customers.
>Iran's state-run Press TV announced that a deal between Iran's interim Oil Minister Mohammad Aliabadi and his Iraqi and Syrian counterparts -- the biggest of its in the kind in the Middle East -- would be signed at Asalouyeh, Iran.
Something tells me the US is not too keen on Iran-Iraq-Syria joining forces for much of anything, and I do not believe the Russians are too keen on the idea considering their existing natural gas pipeline to the EU and the just proposed one between Russia and Turkey
I have no idea if or how much this factors in, or even if it's true, but the story I've heard is that several years back, there was a plan for a pipeline that would go from Qatar and Saudi Arabia through Jordan, Syria, and Turkey to Europe. This would be a significant economic threat to Russia, since gas exports are about $25 billion/yr, about 2% of Russia's GDP, and a big source of hard currency, but also important is Russia's use of its gas pipelines to Europe to threaten to cut off supplies to countries in Eastern and Central Europe, which would not be possible if there were a gulf source of gas available. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have a lot of gas that is going to waste or is staying in the ground, so they could easily supply the European market. Supposedly, Assad turned down the deal, and the civil war started shortly after.
The main Russian alternative pipeline I'm aware of is Nabucco, which would be from Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan via Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria and Germany. I've not been aware of any pipeline projects from Qatar and Saudi Arabia--their natural gas is exported mostly via LNG. Considering that, unlike oil, natural gas prices are not priced equally around the world, and that the price for natural gas is much, much higher in Asia than elsewhere (Europe is about 20% the price of Asia and the US about a third to a half that of Europe (yay fracking!)), it's much more profitable for them to export to Asia.
Edit: After doing some research, I did find that there was a proposal for a Qatar-Turkey pipeline in 2010 (see https://web.archive.org/web/20120228125310/http://pipelinesi... ). It was proposed to connect to Nabucco, which hasn't been built. The articles that link the Syrian civil war, or more specifically Qatari involvement in said war, contend that Qatar wants a Muslim Brotherhood government to build the pipeline, which ignores Saudi coolness to the idea of the pipeline (Saudi Arabia also funds rebels in the civil war) and the fact that Qatar also funded the uprisings in Libya and Egypt, in the path of no contended pipeline.
In other words, the idea that the Syrian civil war is mostly about gas pipelines looks rather like people trying to find some resource that the war must be about because they can't believe war is about anything other than resources.
Lets be serious here. Do you think the US or Russia will announce on their newspapers their actual interests and actually note money/commodities/whatever? This is big business on a global scale with decade-long goals. The pipelines can wait some years.
But lets say you are right -- do you think Russia is suddenly interested in some far-away humanitarian conflict or...perhaps there is something more?
Also, given the vast injustices around the world, any opinions on why the US decided to suddenly instill freedom in Iraq in 1992?
Yeah, there is a reason some highly wealthy people are bank rolling both sides in wars. It's not only about the war but the aftermath is ripe for shady stuff as you can read from history books including power, rebuilding, contracts, natural resources to name few.
