aghst

Someone created a new thread for Searching for Mexico here:

So in the last season, the "arrangement" between Tom and Shiv still comes into play, though maybe finally leading to the end of the marriage. In season 1, Shiv referred to having a "shit happens" clause in her prenup so that if someone strikes her fancy, she doesn't have to give Tom a bigger payment than the prenup he signed would provide. Now, she's admitting, indirectly, that Tom taking advantage of the arrangement is hurtful to her. She didn't have a tinge of guilt when she was having an affair with her former colleague (the guy who worked for Gil) or when she had the fling with the actor she found irrisistable. Of course the biggest hurt was the betrayal in Italy, Tom warning Logan what the kids were up to, carving out his slice of loyalty with Logan, who can only tell him now, months later, "if we're good, we're good." OTOH, he basically tipped Shiv about Logan wanting to buy Pierce. Not directly but enough so that the kids could figure it out. Still she's sad about what appears to be the end of the marriage and finds a reason to stay at their apartment. That thing has to have tons of bedrooms, so they really don't need to be in the same room. Or one of them could go one of their other properties or some convenient hotel. Inside the Episode, they said Shiv's greatest difficulty is that he now has more power relative to her -- though she can bid $10 billion with her brothers while Tom certainly can't be in that neighborhood money-wise. I don't know, is Tom and Logan "good" with each other? Tom offered to go to prison last season as the fall guy for the cruises scandal and then of course betrayed his wife. So he's switched from being a patsy to Shiv to a patsy to Logan. It does make sense for them to go after Pierce but certainly a "win" over dad is a big motivation, at least for Shiv and Kendall. Roman is all naughty with Gerri and cruel to underlings. He's certainly most like Logan, who views people as pygmies or economic units, forming markets for him to exploit -- contrast that to Nan Pierce who professes values and dignity, who hates the negotiations about money, yet she keeps asking for more, because some in the family have had difficult years recently. Logan loved beating the kids in Tuscany, called them fucking pedestrians. But it's his birthday and he wouldn't mind talking to them, according to Kerry. So lonely, he goes for a walk with Colin and they dine at a local restaurant and Logan plays at having an earnest conversation with his employee, as if they were friends. He asks existential questions, though he's already decided for himself there's no afterlife. He wants to keep ATN at all costs, even if he sells off the rest of Waystar to Mattson -- but I thought the point of the deal was that Gojo needed content and ATN is probably the most lucrative media property in Waystar. Logan doesn't like some late night anchor, calls the president of ATN News to get rid of him. Hey, he has to throw his hate at someone since the kids aren't around!

There are a variety of surveys, tracking total enrollments each year. Bill said that in a few years, there could be 10% more female students in college than males. Now it's only a couple of percent but it's also talking about thousands or maybe even millions.

The Daily, maybe Wes being smaller allowed him to slip under the door vs. Danny, the bigger former NFL guy but it also seems like Wes was faster period. As for the Elimination, Nia doesn't deserve to be a Legend but for whatever reason BM cast her this season. Maybe she won a few physical eliminations where she outweighed her opponent? I can't recall? But I guess her partner wasn't able to do as well due to his leg problem. As for as the politics, it makes sense for the vets or Legends to band together, probably had an informal agreement before arriving at the Challenge, because they didn't know what the format is going to be, how they'd be partnered up. BM tries to create teams or pairs which should be natural alliances because they probably realize that the challengers are going to gravitate to people they know, people who were in their seasons. So they try to set up alternate alliances but the vets don't go for it, they have their own deals already and the newcomers see that and recognize that they can't play along with the vets because they will be picked off one by one. So far, they've played along, not wanting to make waves. So they've repeatedly voted in Kelly Anne, who isn't helping matters by getting mad and giving them an excuse to vote her in again. I forget why Jonna voted in Kelly Ann last week but her reaction has made her more of a target. Lets hope we see the MVPs make their moves soon.

Well I was talking more about the increasing trend of females going to college for 4-year degrees while fewer males are even going to college. I think those are the figure they were citing, not females going for graduate degrees vs. males not going to grad school. Obviously a much larger number of people who go to 4 year vs. 4 year plus grad or med schools.

Speaking of Ben, Robinson that is, the chef who was on both BD and BDM, you can go on cruises where he's prepared special menus and also do special activities with him. https://www.travelandleisure.com/below-deck-chef-ben-robinson-emerald-cruises-7370743 I didn't click through the links to see how many guests these cruises would have -- this isn't like BD 1-day charters where maybe 5-10 guests get run of the whole yacht, with the water sports toys and so on, not to mention unlimited expensive booze. OTOH, these are for 8 days, not 1 or 2 days. Ben will have some sessions with the guests but guessing he won't cruise for 8 days nor cook. Instead the dinner menus are all supposedly from him. Certainly $4000-5000 for 8 days is a much better value than the supposedly 5or 6 figures that guests pay on BD -- which we know is hyped and likely not true. Not sure what you'd do for 8 days on a boat unless you want to lounge in the sun all that time or have shore excursions. Then again, cruises are probably not for me.

I think of a show like Better Things, which was lavishly praised. Shrinking isn't that different, though the antics on Shinking just isn't believable the way real people would talk with friends and co-workers, unless they were on shrooms or something. They show scenes from life and a bit of their working lives, just like BT did. The co-workers are just too intertwined in their personal lives though. I can see occasional social gatherings but it appears they see each other almost every day outside of the office and not only that, Jimmy's colleagues are hanging all the time with Alice and Liz and now they throw Sean into the mix, a patient. No such things as boundaries. Maybe that's deliberate, they don't compartmentalize like the rest of us have to. I can't recall if Paul knows Jimmy and Gaby slept together or that they're continuing to sleep together. Some employers are okay with that but in a small office with a handful of colleagues, that has to be potentially messy.

They certainly were enthusiastic. She says she wanted to live in Thailand since visiting when she was younger but the plan seems to be to launch their podcast, hope that it hits. Lower prices on housing and cost of living probably helps a lot. But online advertising has declined a lot already and may decline more if recession hits. This episode may have been recorded a year ago or more. Remains to be seen if their enthusiasm will lead to success with podcast. What could they offer potential listeners, besides their bubbly personas? Certainly not insights from a lot of lived experiences. Good that they stayed on budget. He's going to have to find a gym or something, while she gave up being near cafes and other things to do.

No way Bill is going to be sympathetic to TikTok but there's no evidence that it's any worse than FB, Twitter or IG. And no evidence that they're sending data to the Chinese govt. or that the Chinese Communist Party is sending propaganda there. Sure there may be POVs about income/wealth disparity in the US or other problems we have but you can get such information and POVs on EVERY social media and non social media. It's all over the place online and if you go buy a real newspaper, there may be articles critical of the US in some ways. That is free speech, a right we supposedly have. Republicans are definitely more hardcore about banning TikTok because guess what, the young people on TikTok and other social media are generally more supportive of Democratic or progressive policies and politicians, not because they're necessarily great but because Republicans have been so awful, diving all in to Qanon and MAGA nonsense for years now. FB has funded GOP figures to write op-eds vs. TikTok because they're having difficulties competing. Democrats are saying they can sell to American investors and if not, then we may ban TikTok while Republicans have gone immediately to Defcon 10. Bill said "come on, you know the CCP is doing something on TikTok" but no such evidence exists. And BTW, if pelicans don't want the Chinese to get personal data from Americans, they better crack down on data brokers, who collect data online and sell it freely to all bidders. Or for that matter, there have been various draft legislation to regulate data protection, something that the EU and some states like CA has done. But in the divided Congress, nothing gets done. Annie Lowrey seemed to be wanting to make some of these points but Galloway and Bill spoke over her. Then Galloway talked again about young men who don't get dates because they're not the most attractive and why more people are single or aren't having children, which is a danger. It's amazing that they were talking about lack of population growth in the context of climate change and the newest IPCC report out of the UN. Population growth is at the crux of the problem with climate change. More people, especially as they gain wealth, are trying to mimic American lifestyles -- heavy meat consumption, personal car ownership, climatized environments, etc. These are all which have huge carbon footprint impacts. We talk about sustainability in the context of climate change. But Galloway thinks economy will stagnate unless we're having more babies, bigger families. But maybe economic growth isn't the be-all end-all. Lowrey did manage to point out that we've done a lot through mitigation to lower overall emissions while Bill said in response to Annie's suggestion that he go vegan that he won't even fly commercial. Maybe then he should STFU and stop feigning concern about climate change. As for the big divide between males and females getting college education, Galloway blames the school system for not getting boys more into school. No that's the fault of the parents who spoil boys and emphasize the wrong things to them like sports or just partying instead of books. Girls are thriving within the same education system, working to get the best grades and getting into college. Young teen males are more into instant gratification and seem content to get low-skill jobs right out of high school rather than go through the grind to get into college and work even more once in college. They can be financially successful in fields like construction, if they become more skilled in trades like becoming electricians or plumbers, because there's greater demand than supply for those skills. They may open their own businesses and make a lot of money. But will their female peers, who graduate college, maybe even graduate grad school and get established in white-collar jobs, be interested in dating men who didn't go to college, no matter how successful they may be? That may become a growing reason why more people remain single, not because certain men aren't home enough on dating apps as Galloway alleges.

Yeah I agree, Perry saying that threw me out of the scene. They wouldn't say it like that back then. Basically in the modern context, it's people calling someone out who doesn't want to answer some question, so the question was set to trap the person whom they know probably don't want to admit to something. That's what I thought of. Perry didn't say "can you state yes for the record." It was more like, "that's an admission that the premise of my question is true."

Who the hell is Liz -- besides being played by the show runner's wife -- to tell Paul how to run his business? She's not just some nosy neighbor hovering over Alice and befriending Jimmy's friends and coworkers. She's got almost as big a role as Segel and Harrison Ford now. I guess if Christa Miller did all that plastic surgery for him, her husband HAS to put her in as many scenes as possible. It's not believable that Gaby would be close to her or that Alice wouldn't ignore her -- or for that matter Paul and all the older adults, instead hang out more with her peers at her age. But they just have to wedge her into all these scenes so she has all these unbelievable relationships with different people, who are generations younger. It's jarring almost every time she appears on screen because her presence seems forced a lot of the times. It's odd, she wasn't bad on Scrubs or the short appearance on Seinfeld. Her scenes were limited and she played this unattainable woman who browbeat men who were supposedly awed by her beauty or something. She wants to butt into Sean's thing, even if she agreed to come on as investor. She brags that she earned that money by raising their kids and being great at sex. Maybe she should have had a career because she sure is restless and wanting to get involved in everyone else's business. Those sexy shoes looked tacky. Gold with heels that looked like dollar signs? Alice is moping about moving on from mom. She hangs out with adults all the time. Why isn't she doing her Goth phase, because she can be joyful too, like that ending wedding dance scene -- of course shows get the cast to dance (choreographed and rehearsed) as an easy way to brighten up a series. Jimmy's been trying to convince his patient that her boyfriend is abusive and she should leave him. She faked a break up until she was caught so little by little, he helper her see what an asshole he was. So she attempts possibly a murder on her bf -- at a minimum an assault? Is that an improvement?

Yeah was thinking the same thing, The Netherlands isn’t known for a lot of sunny days. Seems like budget overrode other factors, as they immediately eliminated the only over budget option. Didn’t catch why they were moving to Breda. Must be a big job opportunity. But most Aussies would go to the UK, though the Dutch speak English very well.

Or the Japanese in the '80s and early '90s. Or Chinese investors bidding up properties in Manhattan and Canada and often leaving them empty. All we can do is take care of ourselves and our families first and then vote for politicians who support certain policies. We see areas of old cities being renovated all over the world, which often leads to poorer residents being priced out of many areas and those areas being revitalized with renovated apartments and shops and restaurants coming in. We can decry it but how can you blame some of the people described in the NYT article, who found much better value and lifestyles that they otherwise couldn't afford in the US? They're mainly trying to do best for their family and themselves, not deliberately trying to displace anyone else. What they can do though is continue to vote and vote for policies like more affordable housing in the US, more dense housing. Here in the Bay Area, some affluent communities are complaining about proposals to build high-rise affordable buildings near this expensive real estate. For instance, NBA superstar Stephen Curry lives with his family in Atherton, one of the richest zip codes in the US if not the richest. The Currys submitted a letter expressing opposition to a high-rise building near their home, which they worry could allow people to look into their back yard. They have young children. Atherton has resisted building higher-density, more affordable housing near or within its borders for years. They're not alone, even bigger cities like SF has blocked efforts to build more high-density housing, resulting in spiraling housing prices, one of the most expensive in the US. So NIBMYism but just the fact that people with money will always be favored over people without. There's greater hostility to people without money vs. people with a lot of money in the US. Maybe to a lesser extent in Europe but you see poorer residents -- not poor, many are considered middle class -- being displaced by richer ones all the time, all over the continent. And yes, often those richer ones buying in are Americans and other foreigners. At least the locals can vote and have a say in things like housing policies, while rich foreigners don't have that right.

The guest requests and preference sheets are manipulated too. These aren't the only guests to request the crew to participate in some competition, either against each other or with the guests. Or do some song and dance thing or perform in other ways. I see why they do it, gives crew something to do and for them to have a scene which is different than the normal course of these chargers. We've had "guest" requests which involve the crew getting into elaborate garb or costumes. The crew aren't packing that stuff for cruises on another continent nor are the guests. The producers acquire this paraphernalia for shooting. If you go to some restaurant, the wait staff may sing happy birthday for guests on request but that's about it. They're not putting on costumes or performing anything more complicated than singing happy birthday. So the producers decided to take that idea further and make the crew perform. I'm sure many of them don't mind, probably some are aspiring actors who may actually have singing and dancing experience.

Very interesting. I can see the resentment from locals. They make a fraction of the income of Americans, but they can't afford a place of their own in these desirable places like central Lisbon. As one of the researchers quoted pointed out, it's the investment companies like American investment banks buying up homes to rent and driving up rents, leading to housing shortages and higher prices for local residents. As opposed to a given American buyer who tend to buy more expensive homes. But there is always going to be a certain amount of resentment to deep-pocketed foreigners coming in and buying places they can't afford and all they know is there are more Americans all of a sudden and it's American investors buying property which are never occupied by the buyer but rather rented out, including as Airbnbs.

Philly to Stockholm, an unmarried couple, he is Swedish, she’s American. Swedish guy’s visa ran out and she decided to follow him back to Stockholm, giving up a job in finance, as well as leaving behind friends and family. She’s never been to Europe or maybe never traveled outside the US but claims to want to live in another country. They met at the start of the pandemic — I thought it was hard to date in those early months — but they have a cat together, showing how serious their relationship is. Apparently foreigners in a serious relationship with a Swedish citizen can get a residency visa easily and quickly in Sweden. They have to buy an apt instead of renting because there’s like a 7 year queue to get an apt rental — or was it 7 months? Neither supposedly have jobs but they have $250k, which might get them a studio in the city center. She wants a 1 bedroom while he doesn’t want to be on the ground floor because passerby’s can look inside — or so he says, maybe it’s part of this episode’s script. House 1 is close to the center, 1 bed apt on the second floor with good space, washer and dryer which she wanted. But it’s $300k and though she said she’d pay more, she doesn’t like the gray/white walls or decor. She never heard of painting or accent wall coverings? House 2 is in the suburbs, about 20 minutes by public transportation from the center. It’s a 1 bed and under budget at $230k. But it’s on the ground floor and while they’re looking at the bedroom, some guy passes by outside the window, looks in and waves, smiling. I think it’s a production crew member pretending to be a stranger. Who waves at strangers in their home? House 3 is a studio apt right in the center, on third floor, right on budget at $250k. It’s their favorite location but she can’t get over the studio. The bed is right by the couch. They eliminate #1, probably because of price — he said they had enough money for 4-5 months though they’re probably getting help from parents for the apt and probably staying with his family? They choose #2 and he says they can shop for curtains. Three months later: he found a job in sales right away, she’s taking Swedish — may take a long time before she’s proficient enough to get a job where Swedish language skills are required — though most Swedes seem to speak English well, without a hint of an accent. The city center they refer to is Soderalm, a small island with the Royal Palace, govt buildings, expensive hotels and restaurants. No doubt it’s a draw to young people but also a big tourist draw. Centrally located but do people necessarily want to live there? Maybe if they worked in one of those govt buildings or wanted to be in the middle of the nightlife. People commute for work and for nights out all over the world and this shouldn’t be different here. So this insistence on beIng in the city center is a HHI thing. There are certainly people who always want to be in the hustle and bustle and maybe some want to be close to work or school. But otherwise a lot of people are priced out of these dense areas which tend to have smaller dwellings despite higher prices.

I haven't watched this yet -- been trying to rewatch Succession and Barry before their new seasons. I know the criticisms, preachy and boring. How are the photography and the visual effects? The setting sounds like the last season of The Affair, near future, with the ravages of climate change as the setting for a drama. Was the talking whale as bad as some have said?

Yang just doesn't want to give up his 15 minutes. After failing in the NYC mayor's race, he realized his chances in the Democratic party were exhausted so now third party. What's his angle in all this? He wants to win a high-profile post of some kind? Does that benefit him financially or just have developed a taste for fame?

Saw a promo for the new season during BD season 10 finale. The crew were doing some dance number, all smiles. Glen, Gary, Colin and Daisy were all there so I guess they don't feel they have to rotate the crew. Or maybe they can't get many takers for a sail boat?

The guests went along with it but I doubt it was their idea. I know that some restaurants will have the waiting staff sing happy birthday for some guests, maybe do a little dance. Now do super yacht crews cater to these kinds of requests, like they're some glorified chain restaurant? Or only on Bravo super yachts? Another stunt casting of guests. I guess the casting agents trawl for these minor celebrities like YouTube stars, social influencers and apparently bodybuilders now. Maybe their friends, family and fans tuned in for the episode of a show they might not otherwise watch or have known about. As for the rest, of course all's well in the finale, everyone gives a fake heartfelt goodbye to each other. It's all one happy crew, even though most of them won't see each other again. Oh and I wonder if they pressured Tyler to talk about coming out and calling his mother on camera to do it. He should have declined if it was their idea to do it on the show.

Paul must have suspected the Gallardo brothers to go look for guns in Hooverville, where they were living. Interesting way to get ballistics info. I thought they had to look at the slugs under a microscope to get the identifying marks. So there weren't forensics specialists yet Paul, who wasn't a detective, can identify whether one of the guns he rented was the murder weapon. And Perry in the season premier also did some kind of ballistics geometry to figure whether the Gallardos were the right height to shoot Brooks so accurately in the eye or face? Perry only has to seed doubt to the jury, that it could have been another suspect. But it seems like the only way they can win the case is to find what really happened, so Drake will be busy. Was Perry using his kid to chat up the teacher? Maybe he's not so morose, though we find out he feels guilty about Emily's death, since she had sent mail and postcards talking about it for 3 months before she committed suicide. Brooks apparently had a lot to hide and his father is trying to protect his reputation or is he also up to something shady?

California to Mexico City. Young couple, the guy just out of college and the woman some kind of a counselor. Forget whether they were married or were going to marry. He has a mechanical engineering degree but gets a lucrative management consultant job in Mexico City. But he's worried that he might not last in the job and then wouldn't have a fallback option as easily as back in CA. So he wants to stick to the $2500 budget. She wants to be in a neighborhood with a lot of expats, which happens to be "posh" with more expensive dining options. She's making a greater sacrifice she says since she already had a job back in CA so she wants to be comfortable. They want at least 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, so they could each have an office in addition to the bedroom. She wants "homey" and he wants modern. First apt is in Polanco, under budget, has hardwood floors but the Kitchen and some of the other spaces are small for them. He says the neighborhood is posh, not really them. Second apt. is in Condessa, over budget, very modern with concrete walls and floors. Way more spacious than the first one. Too modern for her. Third apt. is also in Condessa but is furnished -- they wanted unfurnished -- and has only two bedrooms and the rooms are too small for their liking. It is on budget but they eliminate this one right away. Guy pushes for #2 and she initially talks up #1. There's a $400/month rent difference but he says that kitchen is too small and they'd have to buy a fridge. So they choose #2 and 3 months later, she finds a way to do her counseling practice and he's enjoying his job. #2 is industrial and dark walls and floors but there are large windows and although they don't show it much, they've furnished it so it looks less industrial and impersonal. It's a lot of space though for two people. Wonder if they hire housekeeping, probably do, sounds like they're both making good money and neither seem like they'd be interested in doing a lot of work around the home. In fact probably dine out or take out as many people in their twenties tend to do.

Just finished rewatching the season. Just brutal, their mother and Tom sell them out. Caroline in particular to make her new husband, who wanted something from Logan, happy. I guess Tom really believed that he's never seen Logan lose so he would never side against him. Logan isn't long for the world so he'd be adding billions to the billions he already has. What would he do, deny his children and grandchildren their inheritance out of spite? Who else is he going to give it to, Kerry and their spawn. It's hard to decipher these men in their late 70s and 80s still working deals. There are many of them in real life, they're great grandfathers but they work, not really doing anything productive but more threatening board takeovers and forcing companies to give them billions to go away. Also interesting about how they needed to take over Gojo, which ends up being more valuable than Waystar -- by the way, that still doesn't mean they couldn't go ahead with the original deal, smaller companies have made big acquisitions of bigger companies before. I believe Discovery was worth less and had fewer subscribers than HBO Max and they took it all over, WB, CNN, HBO, etc. But the thing is, HBO Max was hemorrhaging money and so are other streamers. Many of them have signed up over 100 million subscribers but they're either making a modest profit like Netflix or losing money. So streaming was hot in 2020 and 2021, not as hot since late 2022. GoJo is flavor of the month or it should be revealed in a year or so. Lukas is loosely based on the Swedish founder of Spotify, which hasn't exploded -- it's the biggest music subscription network but doesn't mean it's rich, doesn't have video content so it overpays for things like Joe Rogan. Logan is gaslighting Roman and Shiv when he each tells them that Lukas "rates" them, like he'd give them prominent positions. Lukas had only said in Chiantishire episode that he'd give them a real chance to apply for these high level posts. Yeah just like it's strange that Logan is looking to expand his empire at this late stage in life, why aren't the kids looking to take their big share, be in Logan's good graces to get their inheritance and pursue real passions. I can see one or two of them really wanting to prove their mettle by being Logan's successor -- daddy loved me best -- but not all 3. In real life, children of billionaires don't all try to take over the mantle, some of them go do their own thing, as Conor has for the most part and Naomi would be another example. Some are advocates for social justice as they feel some measure of guilt. Shiv expresses distaste at how ATN operates, how they cozied up to Mencken, a white nationalist type, to promote him for presidency. She tells herself if she were in charge, she'd change it -- and Tom pretends to be sympathetic. Yet if she had the power, she'd quickly realize that the wealth from ATN based on the branding and business model Logan chose, would be the best way to maximize profits. How much money and power do they want? Well they are all pursuing the top job. They don't have any money worries. Roman was going to throw a million dollars here or there, like the kid in the pilot or the guy with the tattoo. They commiserate that Conor had to take a "scheduled" flight or commercial to return from Italy to NY. Or they reference private chefs, like they won't eat restaurant food. Tom was obsessing about prison food and toilet wine. But even if they get kicked out of the company and the family as Logan threatened to do at the end of season 3, their equity shares are worth at least a couple of billions -- supposedly what Logan offered Kendall and then revoked. They'd always be able to afford private chefs and PJ or private jets.

I'm talking about RECENT or CURRENT suicide bombings. Because I brought up that Israel built a wall and severely controls entry and exit from Palestinian villages into Israel proper, making it a hardship for many Palestinians who want to just work and take care of their families. So I assume suicide bombings are not occurring now, because every Palestinian or virtually every one of them is searched every day. And if they were, we'd be hearing about them, with politicians like Bibi wailing about pizza parlors with children being blown up. That happened once or twice decades ago but isn't happening now. Yes it's not a war situation but I only mentioned the Ukraine war because you said casualty ratios don't matter and that's clearly not true in war, especially if one side has WMDs like nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Any side which uses such weapons are condemned universally. Not that cluster bombs and rockets can't inflict many casualties but WMDs kill more people. In any event, Israelis have way more weapons, like military grade rifles for the IDF soldiers. I don't know what kind of arms the settlers are allowed to possess but they have more resources to acquire them. I don't know the source for your claim of 144 Palestinian civilians killed in the clashes last year. Even if true, the Israeli civilians killed would be a far smaller number. That is my point, that to pretend both sides are killing each other in comparable numbers gives a false picture of what's going on over there.

Russians and Ukrainians are killing each other in high numbers now. If Putin escalated and dropped tactical nukes on Ukrainian positions, the killing ratio would swing big in the Russians favor, possibly hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians killed per Russian soldier killed. Nobody would look on that as acceptable outside of Putin and Russian nationalists. It would be disproportionate and it might escalate to direct NATO involvement. So speaking of disproportionate violence, that is what you have between Israelis and Palestinians, the ratios are orders of magnitude more Palestinians killed than Israelis. Israel has big weapons, Palestinians have maybe a few stray guns. Do they even do suicide bombings? At least those aren't being reported here. There isn't some Palestinian army. No Palestinian policemen in riot gear with armored vehicles or SWAT type of units. Nothing like what happened in Ferguson, MO after Michael Brown was shot and there were protests and riots and militarized police units moved in. It's so ridiculously one-sided, pulling a "both sides" claim about the Palestinians vs. Israelis is just not honest.