Sunday, February 12, 2023
Speaking of Which
Started Friday, but various things distracted me along the way,
and this feels exceptionally jumbled at the moment. For what it's
worth, I started with the Jonathan Chait pieces, and only decided
to include the bit on the Turkey/Syria earthquake very late. Also
appearing late was the Thomas Friedman Biden-to-Israel column.
You'd have to look back at
past weeks to get the context.
Top story threads:
Biden's State-of-the-Union Address: I never watch speeches
like this (or like anything, actually), but I've seen bits since, and
for once the coverage helped. The Sanders quotes in the Kilgore piece
are especially jaw-dropping.
Bill Scher: [02-08]
Biden Concedes Nothing in His State of the Union Address: "A deft,
defiant Democratic president outfoxes the Republicans in front of the
nation and smartly stresses antitrust and consumer rights." Scher
contrasts this with Clinton in 1995 and Obama in 2011, who proposed
spending cuts to placate new Republican majorities in the House.
Part of the reason may be that the Republicans' narrow win has been
widely spun as a failure, so Biden feels less need to triangulate.
But also Democrats are sick and tired of the imperious demands of
the right, and have resolved to fight back, not least because they
have started to have confidence in their own plans, rather than
thinking all they have to do is offer something slightly more
palatable than what the nihilist Republicans are demanding.
Jonathan Chait: [02-10]
Joe Biden Is a Mediocre Liberal: "But he's proved to be a successful
president anyway." This is kind of a silly article, but at least is less
pretentious than another one that I can imagine: that someone slipped
Biden a book on the New Deal, and he decided to adopt FDR's penchant
for just trying things, going whichever direction seemed to work best.
Of course, his options have been limited, given lack of majority support
in Congress. The fault there is in thinking that he's acting according
to some plan. Nothing in his history suggests anything but opportunism,
but that's left him flexible enough to adapt to the times.
David Dayen: [02-10]
The Twilight of the Deficit Hawks: "Democrats have stopped being
the willing partner in a great conspiracy to slash social insurance."
Looks at a deficit hawk group called Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget, where the board is amply stacked with has-been Democrats who've
long been willing pawns in schemes to cut social welfare. "The problem
for Republicans is that they have always wanted Democrats as willing
partners, in no small part because then they could try to pin the blame
on Democrats. In terms of actual principles, of course, the GOP doesn't
care about deficits; under every Republican president for the last 40
years, it has happily supported giant deficit-busting tax cuts. Democratic
rejection of deficit politics leaves Republicans politically exposed."
Ed Kilgore: [02-08]
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Showed That the GOP Is Truly Not 'Normal'.
The quotes from Sanders' rebuttal speech are so disconnected from
reality it's hard to decipher them as anything but a catechism:
words repeated from memory as a testimony to a faith that is way
beyond experience or perception. She says "the dividing line in
America is no longer between left and right. The choice is between
normal or crazy." She came down clearly on the side of crazy.
Paul Krugman: [02-09]
War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Democrats Are Radicals:
"Delivering the Republican response, Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed
that the United States is divided between two parties, one of which
is mainly focused on bread-and-butter issues that matter to regular
people, while the other is obsessed with waging culture war. This is
also true. But she got her parties mixed up."
Frank Bruni: [02-07]
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the Queen of Having It Both Ways.
Paul Waldman/Greg Sargent: [02-08]
Sarah Huckabee Sanders's strange "woke" rant reveals a big GOP
problem: Republicans like to rant about "woke," but how many
people have any idea what it means? (I mean, other than bad people?
Ones true patriots should fear and loathe?)
Eric Levitz: [02-08]
The GOP's Heckles Were a Gift to Biden's Reelection Campaign.
Harold Meyerson: [02-08]
Biden Forges a New Democratic Paradigm: "The president repudiates
the neoliberal ideologies of the past and puts the party on solid
economic and political ground."
Timothy Noah: [02-09]
And Now, the Republicans Are the Party of Defending Businesses That
Rip People Off: "Biden was right to talk about junk fees in his
SOTU. And Republicans are playing into his hand." Nor is it just
junk fees. Once Republicans disposed of the idea of there even being
such a thing as a public interest, they opened the door to all kinds
of profit-seeking, even fraud. Their push to deregulation basically
encourages companies to take all sorts of profitable liberties. And
their efforts to cripple enforcement, not least by the IRS, appear
designed to promote financial crime even in cases they're not able
to explicitly legitimize.
Paul Waldman: [02-10]
Sorry, Republicans, no one should trust your word on Social Security.
Democrats have long accused Republicans of wanting to kill Social
Security and Medicare, and they've always been able to produce
evidence to support their case, but somehow the charge has rarely
had much impact. The charges don't stick because most people doubt
that Republicans would be so foolish as to dismantle such popular
programs. But while there are cranks who want nothing less, serious
Republican efforts aim to merely knick, cripple, and ultimately
eviscerate the program. And often, as with Bush's 2005 privatization
ploy, they are hyped as plans not to kill but to save the programs.
That one failed not just because it was unpopular but because there
was no way to make it work. But many other ploys have slipped into
law: higher eligibility ages, reduced cost-of-living adjustments,
increased co-payments on Medicare -- each designed to make the
program less appealing, and therefore less popular. And no less
ominous are the scams like Medicare Advantage, which add cost to
the program, making it less efficient, and presumably untenable
in the long run. What Democrats finally seem to be wising up to
is that to protect Social Security and Medicare, they need to
improve the benefits -- and watch Republicans squirm to resist,
instead of just issuing denials and carrying on as usual.
By the way, one thing that helps Republican denials of intent
to destroy Social Security and Medicare is their ability to get
the "liberal press" to editorialize on their behalf. See Dean
The Washington Post Wants to Cut Social Security and Medicare
(Yeah, What Else Is New?).
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [02-07]
Biden speeds through Ukraine, China in soaring State of the Union:
"Just 200 words out of a 7300-word speech devoted to a war consuming
our attention -- and $113 billion in resources -- for the last year."
What's the opposite of "wag the dog"? Arthur Vandenberg's prescription
was that in order to sell a massive military outlay, you first have to
scare the hell out of the people. But for Washington today, it's so
reflexive you scarcely have to mention it.
The Republican House: And elsewhere, basically anywhere they
are given license to plunder and a voice to spew their nonsense.
Li Zhou: [02-11]
The House GOP's many, many investigations, explained.
Matt Ford: [02-09]
House Republicans Want to Take Away D.C.'s Right to Govern Itself.
Ed Kilgore: [02-10]
Mitch McConnell Can't Stop Rick Scott's Self-destructive Spree.
Amanda Marcotte: [02-10]
Republicans are now a collection of crybabies: "Republican
narcissism is off-putting to most people, but it does resonate in
the MAGA base, where self-pity over truly dumb stuff is the norm."
Dana Milbank: [02-10]
Yes, weaponization committee. We are all out to get you.
Collects several stories, mostly on how paranoid Republicans feel
victimized, and why none of it is their fault (e.g., "McCarthy
blames Biden for House Republicans State of the Union hooliganism").
Some previous Milbank pieces relevant here: [02-10]
The new House majority uses the levers of power to stoke paranoia;
Can you govern on a lie? House Republicans give it a try.
Abby Zimet: [02-02]
Disorder in the House: Frauds, Dimwits and Grenades 'R Us; also [02-11]
Dispatches From the Cave of Crazy: These People Are Trash.
Jacqueline Alemany/Alice Crites: [02-10]
The making of Anna Paulina Luna: It's not just George Santos who
"embellished" a resume. For more, see Areeba Shah: [02-10]
MAGA Republican's claims about her background in dispute.
Trump and DeSantis: We might as well combine their latest
stunts and blunders, as the differences rarely matter.
Josh Dawsey: [02-11]
Trump campaign paid researchers to prove 2020 fraud but kept findings
secret: Who wants to report there's nothing to report here?
Anthony DiMaggio: [02-10]
White Supremacy 2.0: DeSantis's Big Brother Assault on Higher
Kathryn Joyce: [02-10]
"The Florida of today is the America of tomorrow": Ron DeSantis's
New College takeover is just the beginning of the right's higher
Michael Kranish: [02-11]
After helping prince's rise, Trump and Kushner benefit from Saudi
funds: The real graft we always knew was coming.
Eric Levitz: [02-10]
Liberals Shouldn't Fear Ron DeSantis: This curious title is basically
a rejoinder to an opinion piece by Pamela Paul [02-09] --
What Liberals Can Learn From Ron DeSantis -- which ultimately
come up empty, other than suggesting that if someone as bad as Trump
can win, someone as bad as DeSantis could too. Despite the title,
Levitz doesn't dispute that point. What he argues against is the
idea that a Democrat could better compete against DeSantis by
stealing a bit of his thunder. Given that DeSantis has basically
synthesized the worst of Trump demagoguery, the worst of Pence
sanctimoniousness, and the worst of Ryan economics, I can't think
of anything there you'd want to get closer to. None of those traits
are more than marginally popular much less appealing, so the obvious
thing to do is to hang him on them. All you need is a Democrat who
will go in for the kill. While Biden wouldn't be anywhere near my
first pick, that's one thing he seems to be up for.
Heather Digby Parton: [02-10]
Donald Trump just neutralized Ron DeSantis: "Trump is smartly
running against DeSantis from the right on cultural issues and from
the left on the economy." No real reason to call Trump smart here.
He's running with his instincts, which is go crazy on culture war
trigger issues, and to waffle on economics. DeSantis and all other
Republicans -- especially whoever gets the Koch money -- will leave
him infinite room to assure his supporters he's not that bad. But
all we've seen so far is that he's fond of tariffs, and likes low
interest rates -- Powell was the more dovish of two candidates for
the Fed he was offered, and ultimately not dovish enough for Trump.
Alex Shephard: [02-09]
Trump Gives DeSantis a Taste of His Own Medicine: "After years
of tarring his opponents as groomers and pedophilers, the Florida
governor is on the receiving end of his favorite slur."
Peter Wade: [02-12]
College Board Hits Back at DeSantis Over African American Studies
Alex Bonzini-Vender: [01-20]
What Italy's Failures to Stop Berlusconi Teach Us About Preventing a
Death to Flying Things: That was the nickname of a 19th century
infielder, Bob Ferguson (1845-94), supposedly for his skill at catching
pop ups and line drives, but before long Joe Biden will be laying claim
to it. [PS: And then Biden and Justin Trudeau ordered
a third object shot down over Canadian airspace.]
Ukraine War: Both sides appear to be planning offensives,
confident enough they can ignore the dire need for ceasefire and a
negotiated settlement. Meanwhile, big story was Seymour Hersh's
article on the NordStream pipeline sabotage. Beyond the White House
issuing the expected denial, I haven't seen much commentary,
particularly from the Europeans most directly affected.
Connor Echols: [02-10]
Diplomacy Watch: Lavrov shores up support for Russia in Africa.
Luke Cooper: [01-30]
Ukraine's Neoliberal War Mobilization: "You can't fight wars with
neoliberal economics," but austerity programs have led to fracturing
and war elsewhere (e.g., Yugoslavia). While Ukraine is fighting for
its independence from Russia, it is increasingly indebted to the US
and Europe, whose future generosity is by no means assured: in fact,
the economic regimes long pushed by the US and Germany have more often
led to stagnation and impoverishment.
Dave DeCamp: [02-09]
GOP Resolution to End Support for Ukraine War: Actually, it's just
Matt Gaetz and ten of his cohort, so no one but Kevin McCarthy is likely
to get bent out of shape over this threat. They call it "The Ukraine
Fatigue Resolution," which should make for amusing op-ads. Blaise
Malley [02-09] also has the story:
Gaetz introduces 'Ukraine Fatigue' resolution.
Chris Hedges: [01-29]
Ukraine: The War That Went Wrong. I'm merely noting this, not
having read much by him recently. While his railing against US
imperial hubris is well-founded, it's not clear to me that his
detailed understanding of Ukraine is. I also glanced at Hedges'
Woke Imperialism, which reveals him to be a strange bedfellow
in the anti-woke pile on. I'd say that the ability to recognize
and the desire to oppose one form of discrimination (racial)
would make one more likely to identify and oppose others (even
Seymour Hersh: [02-08]
How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline. Detective stories
have drummed into us the critical trinity of means, opportunity, and
motive. People were quick to point the finger at Russia, but they
could have produced the same effect by closing the valve, without
the enormous future cost of repairs, so that never made any sense.
Ukraine probably had the most motive, but means? Only the US checks
all three boxes (especially with Norway's collusion), but you'd
think exposure would be awfully embarrassing, especially in Germany.
Jeffrey St Clair addresses this in this week's "Roaming Charges"
Anatol Lieven: [02-10]
Crimea Is a Powder Keg. I've been saying all along that there
needs to be an honest referendum on where the people of Crimea want
to align (with Russia or Ukraine). Same for other contested oblasts,
although refugees complicate things, especially in areas which have
seen the most intense fighting. (There are also border issues: do
you hold a referendum over all of Donetsk, or just the portion --
either now or before the 2022 invasion -- controlled by Russia?)
I've also been saying that Ukraine would be better off without the
breakaway territories. That doesn't sit easily with those who want
to inflict the maximum defeat on Russia, but haven't they been
indulged enough already? Lieven's review of Crimean history just
underscores my position.
Eve Ottenberg: [02-10]
The Leopard's Tale: US Weapons Makers on a Marketing Spree.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [02-10]
Pentagon wants to revive top secret commando program in Ukraine.
Much unexplained here, including the word "restart." It's hard to
see how US control of missile targeting intelligence falls short of
US direction of Ukrainian forces.
Dean Baker: [02-05]
Ending the Cesspool in Pharmaceuticals by Taking Away Patent Monopolies,
The NYT Tells Us that Drugs Are Cheap, Government-Granted Monopolies
Make Them Expensive. Baker has been almost alone in flogging this
horse, but it's an important point, and even more important than he
seems to recognize. The problem with patents isn't just that they
grant companies legal power to fleece the public. (One's tempted to
say "tax," given the word's arbitrary overtones.) They also reflect
a worldview where all wealth derives from property, as they create
new classes of property the wealthy can exploit. But they also have
the exact opposite effect of what their proponents claim: they stifle
innovation, by hacking up public knowledge and assigning exclusive
control to companies motivated by mere profit-seeking. The elect
claim them, then exclude others from developing them further. In
a patent-free world, anyone could take an idea, develop it, making
it public for others to develop further, as the knowledge developed
would be gratis everywhere. Perhaps nowhere do we see the corrosive
effects of patents than in world trade talks, where rich countries
insist others submit to their market discipline and pay tribute to
their arbitrary property grants. Pharmaceuticals are simply one of
the most morally hazardous products: patents give companies the
power to demand: "your money or your life." The Covid-19 pandemic
shows how short-sighted this is.
Michael Lind, Case Study in the Perils of Discourse-Poisoning: "How
an intellectual talks himself into believing the GOP is the left-wing
party." What occasioned this was a piece by Lind called
The Power-Mad Utopians, which argues "America needs a broad popular
front to stop the revolution from above that is transforming the country."
Chait summarizes Lind's complaints about what he calls "the 'Green Project'
(support for clean energy), the 'Quota Project' (affirmative action), and
the 'Androgyny Project' (transgender rights)." Chait points out that while
there are factions on the left pushing such arguments, the actual policies
Democrats push fall far short. And he wonders why Lind seems to have
abandoned his earlier focus on class to embrace culture war reaction.
Those of us who have followed Lind know that he occasionally has solid
insights -- he pointed out that libertarianism has indeed been tried,
as what we now call feudalism; his 2004 book on Bush, Made in Texas,
was one of the period's sharpest critiques, building as it did on his
neoconservatism -- he has also on occasion proved remarkably
stupid (as in his 1999 book, Vietnam: The Necessary War).
For what it's worth, I think there is some value in critiquing
utopian tendencies on the left (as on the right). But I'd say
that the way to do that is to elect sensible Democrats who focus
on real problems and how to mitigate or even solve them, as opposed
to naysayers and outrage merchants who have nothing to offer but
force and collateral damage. And I have to point out that sometimes
Lind's cleverness gets the better of him (e.g., what can "The Trump
presidency was the Thermidorian Reaction to the radical Bush
revolution" possibly mean?).
Columbia Journalism Review Had a Different Russiagate Story --
and Spiked It: Chait complains that Jeff Gerth's CJR
essay "worked backward from the conclusion that Trump had been
vindicated and used a parallel to the media's coverage of Iraq's
alleged weapons of mass destruction. . . . Proceeding from the
premise that Trump had been smeared by the press, Gerth attacked
the media's coverage of the issue." He then impugns CJR's motives
by citing "a very different Russia story" they "commissioned, and
killed": one that looked into The Nation's "pro-Russian
stance" (attributed largely to editor Katrina vanden Heuvel and
her late husband, Stephen F. Cohen). I'll leave it to you to sort
out the conflict in Chait's mind.
But I will note that I've always
been sympathetic to Cohen's opposition to efforts to gin up a new
cold war against Russia, which was always central to his critique
of the "Russiagate" hysteria. True, I thought he sometimes tried
too hard to sympathize with Putin, who I've long regarded as a
very repellant political figure -- my worries about regenerating
cold war hysteria have more to do with the damage such attitudes
cause to American domestic and foreign policy, not least the risk
of prodding Russia into war, as has now happened. (While I blame
Putin for intervening in Ukraine both in 2014 and invading in
2022, I seriously doubt that would have happened absent the long
drum-roll of American arms propagandists.)
What bothered me about Russiagate was never the truth or falsity
of the charges -- a mixed record, as far as I can tell -- but the
subtexts: the desire to reconstruct Russia as an enemy worthy of
massive defense budgets (as noted above), and the lame excuse it
provided for Hillary Clinton's 2016 political loss, to which we may
now add the effective submission of the Democratic Party to the
anti-Russia hawks (and in most cases to the anti-China hawks).
On the other hand, I should note that I turned off the Russiagate
hysteria almost as soon as it got cranked up. There was never any
shortage of legitimate reasons to despise Trump, and even he soon
got boring, as focus on his personal outrageousness distracted from
the many horrible things his administration did (and the even worse
things they clearly wanted to do). Perhaps if journalism was my
profession, I might have felt more like Matt Taibbi (or maybe not,
as he's always compensated for his independence with a veneer of
both-sidesism). But on balance I'd say the media has been far more
solicitous of and generous to Trump, and much less critical, than
is objectively merited.
Thomas L Friedman: [02-12]
In 46 Words, Biden Sends a Clear Message to Israel: I doubt the
statement is either as clear or as weighty as Friedman thinks, but
let's start with it:
The genius of American democracy and Israeli democracy is that they
are both built on strong institutions, on checks and balances, on an
independent judiciary. Building consensus for fundamental changes is
really important to ensure that the people buy into them so they can
This misses two key points to focus in on the narrow point of the
value of having an independent judiciary (which is arguably the least
democratic part of US government). The first is that the real genius
of American democracy is that it trends toward equal rights for all
people (imperfectly, fitfully, but each expansion is ultimately one
that we are proud of). On the other hand, Israeli democracy is built
on the systematic exclusion of a large class of people, who are denied
political rights within Israel and human rights in general. And this
has gone on for 75 years, with the full blessing of the "independent
judiciary" Friedman and Biden are so concerned over.
Bob Hennelly: [02-08]
"Cover-up": Workers "know the truth" about the derailment disaster --
why are they being ignored? In Ohio, a train with 150 cars (20
carrying "hazardous materials") derailed and caught fire.
John Herrman: [01-30]
The Junkification of Amazon: "Why does it feel like the company
is making itself worse?" It is. And it's not alone. It's tempting
to attribute this to monopoly leverage, but it's working at smaller
granularity with greater speed than ever before. Google is another
example: they started out offering a fast, relatively high quality
search engine. Now they're basically sucking you into a maze of
insider deals of marginal utility. Amazon started out as a place
where you could buy discounted books your local retailer couldn't
bother stocking. Now it's, well, some kind of insidious racket.
Ed Kilgore: [02-12]
What Would 2024 Look Like for Democrats If Biden Retired?
Not a subject that particularly interests me, but since his SOTU
address helped unify all factions of the Democratic Party behind
his presidency, I suppose one could offer a few observations.
Clearly, his age will be an issue. Health past 80 is always a
worry, but also he's always been prone to gaffes, and from here
on they'll all be attributed to his age. He's never been an
especially persuasive speaker, but it would be nice if Democrats
had one for that role. On the other hand, administrations are
team efforts, and a charismatic leader is hardly needed to
micromanage. The key question won't be who can run government
better, but who can win in 2024.
Biden has one big advantage in that regard. He has proven
willing to work with the democratic wing of the Party, but he
is still acceptable to the neoliberals who, like the Gold
Democrats of 1896 and the Democratic Hawks of 1972 would
rather throw the election than see their party move toward
the left. You no doubt recall that when Sanders took the
lead in 2020, Bloomberg put $500 million into the primaries,
making an ass of himself but stampeding Democrats away from
Sanders and Warren to . . . well, Biden was their sensible
compromise choice, one that despite his many weaknesses kept
the party united enough to defeat Trump. If he can do that
again (or whoever the Trump-wannabe du jour is), I'll be happy.
Of course, Democrats should be developing a deep bench of
potential leaders. Republicans are able to do that because they
are all interchangeable ciphers with agendas set by their donors.
Democrats have a tougher time, because the money people who ran
the Clinton-Obama period did such a poor job of delivering gains
to the party base that the people revolted (Sanders was a catalyst,
and by no means the only one, but he proved that small donations
could compete with the PACs). Consequently, there is a great deal
of unresolved distrust among Democrats, which tends to get papered
over with the more pervasive fear of Republicans.
Kilgore is mostly responding to a piece by Michelle Goldberg:
Biden's a Great President. He Should Not Run Again.
David Lat/Zachary B Shemtob: [02-12]
Trump's Supreme Court Picks Are Not Quite What You Think.
Marginal distinctions, but they know better than anyone that they
never have to answer to his sorry ass again. It's possible that
what kept Scalia and Thomas so tightly bound to right-wing lobbies
is keeping their kin on the payroll.
Louisa Loveluck: [02-10]
In earthquake-battered Syria, a desperate wait for help that never
came. The worst-hit part of Syria is in territory that isn't
under control of the government in Damascus, and while the US and
others have pumped arms into the area, it's not really stable
enough for outside aide to get in, either. Nothing constructive
can happen in a war zone. People need to realize that's a good
reason to settle conflicts, even if not optimally. Also note
that even in Turkey, which is much more stable, politics still
gets in the way: see Jenna Krajeski: [02-09
Turkey's earthquake response is as political as the conditions
that increased the devastation.
[PS: Death toll from the 7.8 earthquake has topped
Stephen Prager: [02-09]
Republicans Are Starting to Discuss Which Groups to Cast Out of Democratic
Society. Sounds like something they'd do, but most of the article is
still on voter suppression, which is not a surefire method (not least
because it stinks).
Nathan J Robinson:
AI Is About to Bring Us Into a Very Creepy New World: "The ability
to defraud and deceive is about to massively escalate." I think that
trust is going to become extremely important in future politics, and
that it's going to be impossible to achieve in a world that puts the
profit motive above all else.
I Have Now Destroyed All of the Right-Wing Arguments at Once:
Robinson has a new book out, Responding to the Right: Brief
Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments. I probably know all of
this already, but ordered a copy for future reference. Also
ordered his 2018 essay collection, The Current Affairs Rules
for Life: On Social Justice & Its Critics, which covers
similar ground, calling out a number of right-wing intellectuals.
I skipped over his Why You Should Be a Socialist, initially
because Amazon didn't offer a paperback (they were too busy pushing
Audible and Kindle). Turns out there is a paperback, for a couple
bucks less than the hardcover, but I don't see much practical value
in calling yourself a socialist, and I see lots of worthwhile things
that can be done short of the label (although not short of getting
called names by Republicans and other fascists).
Robinson notes that right-wingers have their own primers on how
to argue their talking points, like Gregg Jackson's Conservative
Comebacks to Liberal Lies (2006), and Larry Schweikart's 48
Liberal Lies About American History (2008). Looking at the
latter list, roughly one-third are certainly true (like "The Reagan
Tax Cuts Caused Massive Deficits and the National Debt"), one-third
are worded vaguely enough to be debatable (like "The Early Colonies
Were Intolerant and Racist" -- well, they did execute women for
witchcraft, and they did practice race-based slavery, but there
were occasional exceptions), and one-third are things no liberal
has seriously argued (like "John F. Kennedy Was Killed by LBJ and
a Secret Team to Prevent Him from Getting Us Out of Vietnam").
Walter Shapiro: [02-09]
The Democrats Lost the House by Just 6,675 Votes. What Went Wrong?
Some case studies, if you want details.
Jeffrey St Clair: [02-10]
Roaming Charges: Killing in the Name Of . . . : "The US is home
to less than 5 percent of the world's population, but holds 20 percent
of the planet's prisoners." Also: "Through the first week of February,
police in the US had killed at least 133 people -- a 20% increase over
the same period last year." Further notes on ICE border jails, and an
in-depth review of the Seymour Hersh article and reservations.
Ask a question, or send a comment.