Summarizing Matt Levine's various columns on the issue from memory:
1. J&J lost a lawsuit about talc and the winner was awarded $Xb (or maybe $XXXm, my memory is fuzzy) in damages.
2. J&J transferred $XXb to a new company.
3. It let the new company take on current and future liabilities for judgements on the talc issue.
4. J&J then had the new company declare bankruptcy. The bankruptcy process is designed to pay out money fairly to all creditors. The new company's only creditors were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit J&J lost + any future claimants. So this wasn't necessarily nefarious.
5. A judge rejected the bankruptcy because J&J had funded the company with $XXb and that was in excess of its current liabilities. As Levine put it, the company wasn't "bankrupt enough" yet.
I didn't keep up with the story after that so maybe I missed something.
Generally true, but one key point. Under bankruptcy law, you can give liabilities to a subsidiary, but you have to give the subsidiary enough money to pay the anticipated liabilities. That’s the reason why J&J gave the subsidiary so much money. Otherwise, the bankruptcy would have been dismissed as a fraudulent transfer. The bankruptcy court approved the bankruptcy filing, but on appeal the Third Circuit dismissed the bankruptcy because the subsidiary wasn’t bankrupt enough. Basically, in order to avoid fraudulent transfer law, J&J had to write the subsidiary a big check, but that money made the subsidiary ineligible for bankruptcy.
(Disclosure: I was on the team that won the appeal against J&J on this issue. My comment above is about the public record.)
> So the Texas Two-Step supports the idea that companies can’t just put liabilities in a subsidiary and put it into bankruptcy. The Texas Two-Step is an effort to work around that rule.
Sorry I'm having trouble parsing this because the first and second sentences seem to contradict each other. Or I'm just bad at reading.
> Disclosure: I was on the team that won the appeal against J&J on this issue
That's actually pretty cool. If I may ask, given that LTL was funded with many multiples of its liabilities, why was the bankruptcy appealed?
> Sorry I'm having trouble parsing this because the first and second sentences seem to contradict each other. Or I'm just bad at reading.
Sorry, I was unclear. You have a law that says that pre-bankruptcy transfers that were made to avoid liability can be voided: 11 USC 548: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/548. So say J&J put the liabilities into a subsidiary, but didn’t give it a check. The creditors would have been able to void the transfer of liability and give it back to J&J by proving that J&J transferred the liabilities that the subsidiary couldn’t pay.
To work around that, J&J did a particular formulation of the Texas Two-Step where it gave the subsidiary a big check to pay for the anticipated liabilities. The fact that J&J had to do that shows that the fraudulent transfer law does have some teeth. It was the reason J&J had to take the approach that ultimately got the subsidiary kicked out of bankruptcy court.
> If I may ask, given that LTL was funded with many multiples of its liabilities, why was the bankruptcy appealed
So the amicus brief from Public Justice—which I had no involvement with—does a good job of explaining the public interest concerns: https://www.tzlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022.07.0.... Bankruptcy court is a debtor-friendly forum and gives debtors tremendous leverage over creditors.
> The bankruptcy court didn’t agree that having too much money was a grounds for dismissing the bankruptcy filing. The appellate court reversed, finding that a company that had too much money was legally precluded from filing for bankruptcy.
I understood that. My question was why challenge the bankruptcy if there was apparently already enough money for everyone who won? Why not just go to bankruptcy court and pick up your check?
EDIT: Looks like this question was answered with an edit to the post I replied. Thanks!
1. funding commitments have been unenforceable in other Texas two step bankruptcies
2. allowing a bankruptcy court to figure out payments would turn all the thousands of plaintiffs' cases into a defacto class action (my understanding of what this person wrote).
I'm not sure what you mean. I think we are saying the same thing. The strategy to use Texas Two Step failed in 2025 and J&J gave up, and now they are going back to the regular way of resolving the litigation.
You said the Texas Two Step can't be used for fraudulent transfers (or at least, that's how I interpreted) and offered J&J's case as an example. My reply to that is J&J's Texas Two Step failed for a different reason, unrelated to fraudulent transfers.
My OP said that Texas Two step was used all the time. I said J&J tried to use Texas Two Step and it ultimately failed. And yes it did fail mostly because it was not being used in good faith.
> And yes it did fail mostly because it was not being used in good faith
As of today, judgments against J&J total to less than $10b. J&J committed up to $61.5b to LTL, the company it spun off. Simple arithmetic shows us all current judgments will be satisfied. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47222778
The judge used this $61.5b commitment - which J&J made to ensure LTL would pay for all the lawsuits J&J lost - as proof that LTL wasn't actually bankrupt. Which is weird but also correct.
Where is the bad faith today? I mean it's possible J&J has done some internal analysis and expects to be on the hook for more than that in the future. Or there's some other arcane legal issue I don't understand. And in that sense committing the $61.5b is a smart way of capping their losses while still looking like good guys today. There's no evidence of that right now though.
To re-iterate, the bankruptcy was rejected because of how it was structured. Not because there was an attempt to dodge liability. To me that's a more damning indictment of the legal system because it implies liability dodging might have worked if it were structured right.
Nah, Matt Levine is an absolute Texas Two Step apologist, something that made me lose a lot of respect for him.
He repeatedly contorts himself into pretzels trying to defend it (why?) and into equal pretzels avoiding exploring the two elephants in the rule:
1. He (and those involved) claim that the process is "actually, truly, intended to be solely for the benefit of the plaintiffs suing us", and that defendants are doing them a favor, going out of their way to spin off these entities that are flimsy houses of cards.
2. Is it just a coincidence that of the firms who've gone through the Texas Two Step process, that they've managed to get away with not having to pay ninety per cent of court-ordered liabilities, and in at least one case, ninety-eight per cent?
Why on earth would these companies bend over backwards to do something that they claim has zero benefit for them, and is only truly intended to help streamline and optimize plaintiff's efforts in suing them?
Why is it even called the Texas Two Step? Is it because:
1. it assists claimants and plaintiffs (their adversaries) to bond together and present one solid unified case against you, or...
2. because it assists them to elegantly dance around their liabilities?
Levine and the firms and companies he's carrying water for insist the name has nothing to do with the second point.
In the JJ case, Levine's apologism of "they weren't bankrupt enough, yet" is horseshit.
JJCI was funded to the tune of $2B. Slightly less than the $61.5B of liability, you'll agree.
After the bankruptcy was rejected, the Judge had said that the bankruptcy might be necessary at some point in the future, but "now wasn't the time".
JJCI re-filed bankruptcy proceedings three hours later.
These don't add up anywhere close to $10b, let alone $61.5b.
$61.5b is the amount that J&J ultimately agreed to pay the new company (LTL) that it spun off to take over the liabilities.
This is from the court that rejected the bankruptcy:
"we cannot agree LTL was in financial distress when it filed its Chapter 11 petition. The value and quality of its assets, which include a roughly $61.5 billion payment right against J&J and New Consumer, make this holding untenable."
My translation: "This new company can get up to $61.5b from J&J but says it's in financial straits. Bankruptcy denied."
I'm aware the Texas Two Step is used by companies to get out of paying what they legally owe. It's unclear to me if this particular case is a good example of that today because J&J has committed to paying at least $61.5b and that's much more than the judgements against them.
If in 20 years all the judgements end up being more like $80b and J&J says "Whoopsie, money's run out" then I guess we can call shenanigans.
I don't know what Matt Levine has said about the Texas Two Step outside of this case.
> JJCI re-filed bankruptcy proceedings three hours later
What did they change in their application? What happened to the new filing?
> I'm aware the Texas Two Step is used by companies to get out of paying what they legally owe. It's unclear to me if this particular case is a good example of that today ...
They are using the same law firm (Jones Day) as the others. It's a perfectly good example.
> ... because J&J has committed to paying at least $61.5b and that's much more than the judgements against them.
Actually, the $2B and $8.9B proposals in LTL's two bankruptcy proceedings made the funding from J&J contingent on claimants and future claimants accepting the bankruptcy, i.e. its J&J effectively trying to shoehorn this into an informal class action - plaintiffs can choose to form a class action, defendants are not able to force them into one, but this effectively would. So it seems unlikely that J&J would ever be on the hook for $61.5B. Indeed, HoldCo, the parent of LTL, in turn owned by J&J would only ever be funded to a maximum of $30B.
> Here's a law firm's summary of all the judgments to date against J&J
to date. There's many many more (thirty-eight thousand) cases that have not been adjudicated, in fact.
> because J&J has committed to paying at least $61.5b
Where do you think that number came from? J&J playing good corporate samaritan, or knowing that they still have many, many more cases winding through the courts, or in discovery, than have had final judgments rendered so far?
Good for J&J. They've actually only paid $2B - of the $10B of judgments that you yourself acknowledge. Good for J&J. And they've committed to funding $61.5B? How's that worked out for other companies doing this?
Georgia Pacific, in the same spot, committed to an initial funding of their T2S entity, and to review this further as needed. In the end, they funded it to the tune of $175M. And then told the court that the entity was entirely independent from GP and they had no obligation to do any such thing.
St Gobain, in the same spot, committed to funding to the tune of $50B, and ended up putting in less than $100M and refusing anything further.
So audacious was St Gobain that they were laid into by the court:
> Gross testified that Saint-Gobain repeatedly misrepresented its intent in creating the subsidiary that eventually filed for bankruptcy, calling executives’ testimony and other statements “misleading” and “not truthful.” U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Craig Whitley followed Gross’s testimony last August with factual findings that included his own blistering critique of the executives’ statements as “contrary to the evidence,” saying the company’s story “strains credibility.”
Four major companies have tried the Texas Two Step lately. All of them have used the same one law firm, again, Jones Day. Three of them (J&J being the fourth) have managed to drastically under-deliver on their commitments and liabilities and have emerged unscathed as a result.
Trane Technologies, same thing.
Weird that LTL was formed in North Carolina, where this scheme seems to work, yet J&J has no corporate presence there (headquartered in NJ)
But somehow, J&J, and Matt Levine would love us to believe that this time, somehow, it'll be different.
> What did they change in their application?
They changed the number from $2B to $8B and filed bankruptcy again. It was again dismissed. The first time, the courts as you said described it as an untenable position. Now, they were more annoyed, saying that the application was made in actively bad faith.
"Johnson & Johnson would later make a third attempt at resolving talc litigation through bankruptcy in 2024, which also failed. The company continued to face thousands of lawsuits alleging its talc products were contaminated with asbestos and caused cancer.
The repeated bankruptcy dismissals established important precedent limiting the ability of financially healthy corporations to use the Texas Two-Step strategy to avoid mass tort litigation."
This is from another mesothelioma law firm (important to note that J&J has actually resolved many of the mesothelioma claims against it, ~95%. But the vast majority of claims are around asbestos, and have a much clearer causality, typically resulting in larger verdicts).
April 2025, J&J, sorry, LTL, have since tried, and failed, to file a fourth bankruptcy. They're getting increasingly nervous that they won't be able to sidestep liability.
There's also this hugely perverse incentive with all of these "commitment to fund"s:
"You injured me and have been ordered to compensate me. But in order to do so I have to hope you continue to prosper, potentially injuring others along the way, so I get my compensation. I can choose between getting you shut down, but potentially not being compensated, or being compensated but knowing that you go on to be able to do this to others."
Your post boils down to "funding commitments are worthless and unenforceable", which if true is
1. surprising to me, a layman. and
2. means it's just as well J&J's ploy didn't work.
All the rest about J&J using the same law firm etc. doesn't make for much of a smoking gun for me.
You're also right about the perverse incentives. But it would be equally unfair if the last 37k of those 38k plaintiffs didn't get any money because the first 1000 to win were awarded all of it.
Tl;dr J&J may or may not be playing fair. Is there another orderly process to ensure all plaintiffs are treated fairly?
Using the same law firm which has made a point of assisting companies through this process...
Of which it has represented four companies. The first three of whom, using Jones Day's playbook, have managed to escape with making payments that are a single digit percentage of what they actually have judgments for, have told the courts, through those same lawyers, "Yeah, we're not actually going to be held to those commitments" and have faced no further consequences, almost as if the lack of commitment was a part of the plan...
... and the fourth, J&J/LTL is trying the exact same thing, and every time they have been rebuffed, have tried and tried again, four times now.
Is it a good thing that this isn't working so far? It's a better thing, perhaps. But the plan of J&J and LTL is to keep pushing and hope it does work in the hope that, like Jones Day's other clients and playbook, they will be able to fold up, having paid a tiny fraction of their liabilities out, while J&J continues to make billions a year in profits.
Many, many attorneys, let alone judges/courts, are of the clear belief that this is exactly what J&J is attempting to do.
That they have not been successful thus far is not in any way deserving of credit towards J&J.
Yup. It's "weird" that all of these companies claim that "swear to god, we fully intend to honor our obligations", then all of them use this one law firm who specializes in doing exactly the opposite and "oops, look what happened, we have no more legal obligation, that belongs now to this other entity that we said we'd fund but ... somehow ... didn't. Or certainly not anywhere near where we said we would."
But there are definitely apologists and deniers of it, even right here on HN. Or "you don't know that's what's going to happen, we owe it to them to wait and see", even as you watch the exact same law firm guide another company through the exact same process in the exact same way, but somehow, maybe, this time, it'll have a different outcome.
It’s only illegal if they don’t get away with it. Most get away with it in corporate America. If bad actors are going to push the bounds of the legal framework, good actors should as well when the rules don’t matter. Rule of “Fuck you make me.” To improve odds of success, one could operate from a position of being judgement proof, organizing corporate and legal entities accordingly from a charging perspective. Laws are not objective, it’s all interpretative dance. Know how to dance for the performance you choose to participate in.
The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction: https://www.kcci.com/article/2-women-admit-to-causing-damage.... That’s legally straightforward conduct outside 1A protections.
The more tenuous thing here is proving Greenpeace incited people to do that. Without having seen the evidence, I’m guessing there were internal documents that were bad for Greenpeace. Activist organizations sometimes adopt pretty militant rhetoric in an effort to get protesters fired up. I bet these internal documents could seem sinister to a jury of ordinary people.
The legal issue here is that there should be a very high bar for saying that first amendment protected speech amounts to incitement. But that’s not a principle of law as far as I’m aware. So any organization that adopts this militant posture for marketing reasons (which is a lot of them these days) could run the risk of that being used against them if any of the protesters end up damaging or destroying property.
> The legal issue here is that there should be a very high bar for saying that first amendment protected speech amounts to incitement. But that’s not a principle of law as far as I’m aware.
I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Isn't there being a high bar for saying that first amendment protected speech amounts to incitement literally a principle of modern first amendment law (Brandenburg etc)?
> So any organization that adopts this militant posture for marketing reasons (which is a lot of them these days) could run the risk of that being used against them if any of the protesters end up damaging or destroying property.
Even the way you write this makes it sound like you know it's problematic too.
The exact issue in Brandenburg was about how specific the speech has to be. Broadly saying people should do stuff is different from advocating specific illegal conduct against a specific target. That’s harder to apply here because there’s a specific target. The issue here is more: how influential does the speech need to be on the people who actually took the illegal action. I think the standard should be so high you would need some sort of vicarious liability. Like you hired people to set fires.
> Even the way you write this makes it sound like you know it's problematic too.
> The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction
Decades and centuries from now our descendants will be dealing with the consequences of the destroyed climate and wonder why we punished the only people who tried to do something about it while justifying it by "the laws".
There are many other reasons that can kill you under the law besides anarchy, one of those is climate change and GP definitely has a very valid point.
Clearly the 'drill-baby-drill' crowd doesn't like Greenpeace at all and is doing what they can to muzzle activists because they know that if they manage to squelch Greenpeace then many lesser funded organizations will not be able to do anything all all. But history doesn't give a damn about any of that.
Ironically, a lot of the folks I've known sitting in trees might hold that the NGOs soak up resources and actions and basically prevent material and direct action.
The hyper-local point of that is how my buddies haven't taken grinders to the flock cameras because there is a local de-flocked group who is trying to exhaust legal actions before moving on to other options. But it's not like that kind of direct action is thought of as unethical by a lot of us, even if it's legibly illegal.
And regardless of what a person thinks about the direct action, the (very separate) idea that these larger, legal, above-ground groups are what keep folks who have very strong "feelings" from acting is a position held by folks on all sides of these things. That strategy seems central to the neo-liberal method of dealing with social unrest.
In that ecosystem, if you kill off the big NGOs you might see a thousand tiny and headless ELFs bloom.
If the post-neo-liberal (god what a shitty turn of phrase, sorry) strategy looks like "ICE", then good luck to them; the 3000:100000 ratio didn't go well in Minneapolis and as more folks start looking at how we didn't have a winter at all where I live (it's 65 degrees this week at almost 7000' in SW Colorado and the ground frost has broken) then that strategy might be subjected to reality.
Let's not drape ourselves in lobbyist-ammended laws too fast now; laws are the source code, in a way, of societies. They lay down the things we value, and what we are willing to do to protect them. These last few decades, a corporate coup has taken place, and we find ourselves with goons making probably illegal changes at the behest of billionaires (or at that of the people that are blackmailing them because they're likely in "the files").
So, whose law do you find so precious that you're willing to die in anarchy for?
P.S.: Laws are actually more like new years resolutions for a society; you gotta follow through with eating the rich (enforcement), or else you get a bad case of conventus secretus which may eventually lead to acute homines fascistae
And in this case the jury found them on the hook to pay for the results.
I'm not sure what they were expecting. Direct action agains an oil pipeline in ND is gonna go over about as well as direct action tourism in Florida. If by some miracle you get a judge sympathetic to your cause you won't get a jury that is. The local people want this industry, generally speaking.
I loved the winters. I loved the people. I loved how its natural beauty was subtle and rewarded the patient, unlike El Capitan or the Black Hills. The economy was fine before oil appeared.
My point is not that oil fails to generate revenue. Clearly it is a lucrative business. Instead, my claim is that the state economy was remarkably robust, productive, healthy, and well-optimized for middle class quality of life pre-2007.
Does it sound surprising to you that it was perfectly normal to rent a perfect acceptable two bedroom apartment in a safe town on the interstate for $300 a month and still easily find dignified, decent paying jobs without 1000 applications?
I've lived in many cities and work in tech now, and I can confidently say that, as it concerns the professions and jobs that unambiguously sustain and improve life, no community on the planet was more productive than my home state. There is more to the story than some shale.
The irony is that almost every single one of the countries these foreigners come from would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot. If running government-funded research to maximize the opportunities for native born people is “fascism,” then every country in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East is “fascist.” Borderless universalism is a niche idea even in the west, and virtually non-existent outside it.
> The irony is that almost every single one of the countries these foreigners come from would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot.
I'm having a hard imagining Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, or Italy, to name a few countries of the countries from which scientists have come to work on NIST projects putting these kind of restrictions on American scientists coming to work on non-classified research at their labs.
It’s protectionism. These lab positions are basically like residencies. They are government paid research spots that enable people to do government funded work in furtherance of their PhD. Why should American taxpayers basically be paying for foreign nationals to complete their PhDs?
So that foreign nationals think it's a smart idea to move to the US and do research for us. So that when they complete their PhD they want to stay permanently and continue doing research that benefits the US. So that despite country humanity gets the smartest people together doing work that might benefit the entire world?
A full scholarship to somebody that decides to move back to their country because of racism and xenophobia still directly benefits the US if that research was done here. The smartest students in the world passing on the US does not help the US. With more policies like this the smartest students in the US might move to other countries so they can work with a larger pool.
How many promising American-born researchers are we missing out on because we give away valuable training and research opportunities to foreigners?
Don’t forget that America’s technological heyday—when Silicon Valley was built in the first place—came during and shortly after the Johnson Reed era of immigration restriction. Companies like Apple, Intel, etc., were founded between 1960-1980 (the decade on each side of when the foreign born population hit the historical low in 1970).
I’m sorry I’m smart enough to separate the two distinct concepts of “what US government policy should be” and “what personally benefits foreigners like me.”
Responses like yours really make me think that the bottom line for many people is doing whatever benefits foreigners.
Apple was founded by the son of an immigrant, Intel's 3rd employee was an immigrant, and have you been to Silicon Valley in the last 30 years? Half of the engineers are foreign-born. That's the reason why Silicon Valley is what it is.
These are not PhD students; they're already credentialed (either postdocs or full-time staff). We pay them to do research that aligns with our strategic goals so that we get the science.
Yeah, let's look at it through the national lense. For every researcher who defects to the US to make their PhD there and most likely stay, taxpayers of the country they came from have paid for the education of hundreds of students. Because they don't come from America where graduating essentially means a life of indentured servancy for all but the dynastically wealthy.
It's called brain drain, and doing the rest of the world the favor of putting on the brakes is something that would be quite far out on the spectrum you'd call "woke" if it was done for the reasons one would arrive at when really thinking it through (which clearly has not happened)
Yes, this is an underrated point and why I’m holding out hope for a positive outcome. I’m convinced that, before the revolution, Iran was on the same trajectory as European monarchies that had become democracies. At that point, countries like Denmark had been democracies for less than 75 years.
And then France sent Khomeini back to Iran on a chartered Air France 747 & stifled that. France also built Dimona nuclear plant in Israel in 1963 and then tested multiple times nuclear weapons in Algeria from 1960-1966 in the Algerian Sahara & mountains & allowed Israel to observe these explosions.
What do you want the government to do when your parents decide to abandon civilization and then live out without plumbing in the Oregon wilderness and then your dad abandons the family to do drugs and alcohol? How can you blame “the system” for that?
My wife is also from Oregon. Her grandma was “marry a random truck driver at 14 for a ticket out of town” poor. The guy abandoned the family and drank himself to an early death. And her dad was similarly situated to this guy—my wife lived part of her childhood in a converted barn. Her takeaway from her family history was the opposite: people are often incredibly self destructive and you can’t help those people.
The problem isn’t that lawmakers were never poor. Many were. The problem is that all the ones who were were high-functioning enough to escape poverty. So our systems for helping poor people assume a level of competence and administrative capacity that’s simply beyond the capability of a lot of poor people. For example, a third of uninsured people are actually eligible for Medicaid. Someone in my wife’s family racked up 50,000 in medical bills because they didn’t sign up for Medicaid despite being eligible the whole time.
Here are a handful of things that “the system” could change that would have helped the author:
- free or greatly reduced cost of higher education
- replacing means-tested programs like Medicaid with universal versions. Medicare for all, for example, where you don’t have to jump through hoops or even opt in, is better than the dehumanizing system we have in place today. Also removes the barrier to slightly improving one’s life, since you won’t lose your aid after getting a 10% raise or w/e.
- cheaper housing, or public housing (god forbid!)
These are not pipe dreams, these are all things other civilized countries have. I don’t want to live in a world where you have to be either lucky or extraordinary to live a secure, modest life.
You can, and you should. We all need a helping hand of a community, and a community to heal. We are social beings. And we carry the responsibility for not helping, too.
“A child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.“
I’m not sure you are familiar with the way some traditional communities treat, say, single mothers.
The system is, that if you make unfortunate choices (such as moving away from your support network and carrying your life savings where you can forget them) and do not have anything (such as skills or low morals) to compensate, life is going to be hard. That has always been the case, that will always be the case. What the consequential decisions are, differs. But the basic premise of “f around and find out” holds.
Human are imperfect. One of the most critical functions of "the system" is to flatten out the consequences of imperfection across all humans in the system. To deny this is to invite the end.
> my wife lived part of her childhood in a converted barn.
So did my mom, in Oregon.
Maybe no so ironically, my wife lived on a 2 trailer desert compound on a plot 2 miles from visible city infrastructure and 5 miles from any sort of built structure for most of her childhood.
This is deeply ironic, since often it is the people touting "personal responsibility" most loudly who misunderstand the concept most dramatically. They use it as a convenience to make it easy and comfortable to dismiss human suffering, rather than attempting to understand it.
The system should not grind to a halt for a person because they did not fill out some paperwork
That such a trivial thing destines someone to endless debt and health issues is just cruelty. That it doesn't account for terrible parents when they are a constant like gravity itself is nothing more than the result of willfully ignorant politicians parroting tropes of long dead, less educated, and more ignorant politicians
Many politicians are intentionally in on the scam, erecting barriers so they can funnel wealth to rich corporations instead; look at this surplus from cutting education! Of course they don't say where the surplus came from so plainly. Mathematically air tight non-violent eugenics. Nevermind the meat suits engaged in such are useless themselves. Politicians are primarily just that, not also scientists and doctors. Just fuzzy VHS copies of historical story.
The system as a whole can be blamed for ignoring reality and coddling non-contributors. Boomers and GenX did not invent anything we rely on. Art, music, technology...etc etc... are centuries old.
But the contemporary elders act like reality itself is due to their existence. It's such a farcical concept. None of them are owed as none of them gave. They merely took the baton and redipped both ends in their own shit.
>...abandons the family to do drugs and alcohol? How can you blame “the system” for that?
We don't live in a vacuum and there a reasons why people turn to drug use that the system exacerbates. But that is completely irrelevant, because this blog post is a systemic critique, even if it is told through the life story of an individual. To cherry pick one stanza of the entire blog post to dismiss it on the grounds that the father who left is a drug addict is one more example of the delusions or strategies of the moralizing capitalist.
I’m quite sympathetic to the general assertion that the U.S. launches unprovoked attacks on random countries that didn’t attack the U.S. Iraq being the most egregious example.
Tehran is a thousand miles away from Tel Aviv. Iran has no rational self-interest in whatever is going on between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Iran got itself involved in that conflict because it inexplicably chose to involve itself in that conflict.
> Iran has been attacking the U.S. and its proxies for no reason for decades
Iran did not attack the US and Lebanese Shia did not attack the US. Israel invaded Lebanon and the US went in in August 1982. This allowed for the Istaeli allies to perform the Sabra and Shatila massacre. About six months later the US embassy was bombed. Then the barracks was bombed.
The US eas not attacked, the US sent troops into Lebanon, which helped allow for the massacres which took place, and Lebanese attacked the US barracks that came into their country a year earlier.
> Sunni Muslims will be upset too, because Israel was involved.
Some will be.
I saw on X a video of some Taliban commander saying nobody should cry for Khamenei, because "Israel and Iran are two sides of the same unbeliever coin"
reply