|
Sunday, August 11, 2024
Speaking of Which
Opened this file Tuesday afternoon, August 6, after posting
Music Week.
When I woke up early Tuesday, my wife informed me that Harris had
picked Tim Walz as her running mate. I went back to sleep, and
when I woke up again, the song in my head was "Happy Days Are Here
Again." It's rare not to be disappointed by a Democrat politician.
I still expect Harris to come up short, possibly often, but every
time she doesn't is gratifying.
Opening the file so early added a "hot take" element, especially
to the Walz coverage. It also meant that I had some opportunity to
collect Chatter in real time, before it became impossibly
lost in the daily avalanche. As of Friday, which is when I usually
start, I had 107 links, 4538 words (not counting this paragraph).
Late Sunday it was up to 265, 12229. That's probably enough for
now, as my eyes are glazing over, and my indifference is rising.
I can always add the odd bit on Monday, while excusing another
paltry Music Week -- but actually, I have some other work to get
to on Monday, so I might not even do that.
I can point to a new batch of
Questions and
Answers -- the first I've done this year. All four are
music-related, so I'll mention them again when Music Week
comes out.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
Khalid Albaih: [08-06]
Palestine is a glimpse of the dystopic future that awaits us. B'Tselem:
Welcome to Hell: The Israeli Prison System as a Network of Torture
Camps: This is a major report on "the abuse and inhuman treatment
of Palestinians held in Israeli custody since 7 October 2023."
B'Tselem collected testimonies from 55 Palestinians held during that
time and released, almost all with no charges. Their testimonies reveal
the outcomes of the rushed transformation of more than a dozen Israeli
prison facilities, military and civilian, into a network of camps
dedicated to the abuse of inmates as a matter of policy. Facilities
in which every inmate is deliberately subjected to harsh, relentless
pain and suffering operate as de-facto torture camps.
More stories follow up on this report, but the subject pervades
everything Israel does, and so is reflected in many stories.
Juan Cole: [08-08]
Israeli minister asserts that starving 2 million Palestinians is
morally and legally permitted: That would be Finance Minister
Bezalel Smotrich. Simon Speakman Cordall: [08-09]
'Everything is legitimate': Israeli leaders defend soldiers accused
of rape. Chris Habiby: [08-10]
End Israel's system of economic apartheid in Palestine: "Often
overlooked, Israel's intentional system of economically fragmenting
and dispossessing Palestinians is an essential part of its plan to
ethnically cleanse the land and deny Palestinian liberation." Amjad Iraqi: [08-06]
We're already in a regional war. Only a Gaza ceasefire can end it.
Tareq S Hajjaj:
Mohammed R Mhawish: [08-07]
In memory of journalist Ismail Al-Ghoul, Gaza City's voice to the
world. Qassam Muaddi: [08-05]
Surviving until the next raid: Life in Nur Shams refugee camp under
Israeli assault: "Since October 7 Israel's crackdown on the West
Bank town of Tulkarem has intensified. Raids are almost daily, have
been more destructive and lethal, and have transformed the lives of
more than 8,000 Palestinians living in the city's refugee camps." Orly Noy: [08-02]
Israeli leaders celebrate assassinations -- and make the living pay
the price: "Has the genocide increased the security of a single
person in Israel? Are we safer while we wait for Iran's response to
Haniyeh's killing?" Jonathan Ofir: [08-06]
Israeli rape of detainees is the result of a society that sees
Palestinians as 'human animals': "Israel has claimed that
it is fighting "human animals" in Gaza. But now, Israeli society's
own monstrous sadism, deriving from a deep hate of Palestinians,
is on display for the rest of the world to see." Jeffrey St Clair: [05-10]
Medicide in Gaza: the killing of Dr. Adnan al-Bursh. Oren Ziv: [08-07]
Three Israeli army refusers: 'We will not participate in genocide':
"Conscientious objectors Yuval Moav, Itamar Greenberg, and Oryan
Mueller explain why they are willing to go to jail in order to stand
against the war." Hamas after Ismail Haniyeh: I published
quite a bit on the assassination of Hamas's top diplomat
last week. More fallout this week, plus speculations on Hamas
after Haniyeh.
Sami Al-Arian: [08-10]
Can new Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar achieve Palestinian unity?
Supposedly, after Haniyeh's assassination, he's the new leader of
Hamas, assuming he's still alive, but he's trapped underground in
Gaza, so it's hard to see how he can be effective in any other
aspect of the job. He was prominent enough in the Oct. 7 attack
that he got named (along with Haniyeh, Netanyahu, and Gallant) in
the war crimes indictments, so he seems like the obvious choice,
assuming there was one. As Netanyahu has vowed to keep the war
going until Hamas is destroyed, he needed a new leader much more
than Hamas did -- and one who can't travel, like Haniyeh could,
is even better. Marco Carnelos: [08-04]
Haniyeh killing: Why Netanyahu launched his three-pronged offensive
now. Khaled Hroub: [08-02]
Haniyeh killing: What will Hamas look like after the political
leader's death? Richard Silverstein: [08-06]
Ismail Haniyeh killing: Netanyahu wants a war without end. This could
give it to him. "From undermining Iran's new reformist leader to
killing off Gaza ceasefire talks, the Hamas leader's assassination
strengthens Israel's hand." Al Jazeera: [08-11]
Hamas urges return to existing Gaza ceasefire proposal. "Israeli
media outlets are interpreting the Hamas statement as a rejection of
the ceasefire talks altogether."
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Michael Arria:
Giorgio Cafiero: [05-02]
The US and Israeli role in Sudan's path to war: "Israel and
the US's desire to consolidate Khartoum's position in the Abraham
Accords has emboldened militaristic authoritarianism in Sudan." Hamid Dabashi: [08-08]
Just like her predecessors, Kamala Harris is fully on board with
Israel's genocide: I don't have any inside info to dispute
this, but I doubt that any US Democrat -- Republicans like Tom
Cotton and Lindsey Graham are another story, as is the somewhat
less explicit Donald Trump -- articulates any desire for genocide
no matter how reflexively their solidarity with Israel supports
it. Their "two state" talk may just be blather, but the subtext
is that they want some kind of accommodation for coexistence --
with few details and no pressure, of course. There is also good
reason to expect that Democrats, given their domestic programs,
will be more oriented toward negotiated peace -- although there
are contraindications, like their fondness for military spending,
and their relative hawkishness on Ukraine. But given the politics
(by which I mean money) around Israel, someone in Harris's shoes
would be best served by operating behind the scenes, preserving
the public appearance of alignment until she can actually change
things. I have no idea whether she's thinking she should change
US direction on Israel, but until she can, I don't see much value
in blaming her. But it's a fair question for the public, who have
few other options, to pursue. Ahmed Moor: [08-05]
In Washington's streets, a new popular consensus on Palestine:
"While Congress cheered Netanyahu, grassroots mobilizations of the
Democratic base marked a sharp break from the party's support for
Israel." Mitchell Plitnick: [08-08]
Promising signs that Palestine advocacy is building political
power in Washington: "The Israel lobby built its strength
on the fact that its opposition was politically weak. Kamala
Harris's choice of Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro and the massive
cost it took to defeat Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush show this
is no longer the case." Aaron Sobczak: [08-06]
Poll: Most Americans don't want to send troops to defend Israel:
"The lowest level of support in recent years -- from both political
parties."
Israel vs. world opinion:
Yasmeen Abutaleb: [08-11]
Pro-Palestinian protesters vow massive showing at Democratic
convention. M Reza Benham: [08-09]
Born and dwells in violence: Israel's mission in the Middle East.
This piece deserves some kind of price for greatest understatement:
"Palestinian leaders, too, have not escaped Israeli violence." Near
20 years ago, I ran across a website with names and short biographies
of notable Palestinians, and was truly shocked by the large percentage
of them who had been killed by Israelis. While some may have been
promoted by martyrdom, a good many had notable lives before they were
killed. I'm not able to find that particular website at the moment,
but Wikipedia has a long
List of Israeli assassinations, starting with two Egyptians who
were killed with parcel bombs in 1956. Jonathan Cook: [08-07]
Israel is in a death spiral. Who will it take down with it?
"Israel's zealots are ignoring the pleas of the top brass. They
want to widen the circle of war, whatever the consequences." The
title seems premature, at least in political terms, but it's fair
enough in terms of the moral dimension of Israeli forces, and
provides a good summary of where the hawks stand and are going.
Subheds: Sexual violence; Can of worms; Rape permitted; On a
precipice; Stalling the ICC; International isolation; War machine
cornered. Pull quote: "As the Israeli media has been warning for
some time, sections of the army are effectively now turning into
militias that follow their own rules." This piece linked to some
older Cook articles, which are still relevant and worth noting:
Eugene Doyle: [08-09]
Team genocide walks out on Nagasaki commemorations. As noted, the
mayor of Nagasaki had previously called for a ceasefire in Gaza, long
before he disinvited Israel's representative from attending this year's
reminder of what nuclear warfare means. I previously noted that Rahm
Emmanuel, US ambassador to Japan, had responded by boycott, evidently
figuring that solidarity with Israel (and its ongoing genocide in Gaza)
was more important than showing Japan that the nation responsible for
killing 74,000 Japanese people on August 9, 1945 at least acknowledged
the event. (Apologies are evidently still out of the question.) What
I hadn't realized was that Emmanuel was joined by "several Western
countries" including Australia, Canada, France, Italy, and the UK.
I'm all for diplomatic niceties, but Israel should be shunned for
its current conduct. And the US should be remembered as the only
nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, thus demonstrating
so graphically their enormous peril.
Chaitanya Davé: [08-08]
America's most criminal act: the atomic bombings of Japan. If
you need a reminder of what Emmanuel is all too happy to forget,
this is thorough and should be sobering. He does lean heavily on
Gar Alperovitz's 1996 book,
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (massively researched,
with 864 pp -- long ago, I read his slim first book, Atomic
Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, from 1965). This is the
first I've heard of Davé, an engineer from India who moved to
the US in 1966 and has written several books, including
Crimes Against Humanity: A Shocking History of US Crimes Since
1776 (2000) -- or for that matter, of the
Global Research website. While I can imagine them going over
the deep end -- one article refers not just to the criminality
but the "satanic nature" of
the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- but I was
intrigued enough to check out some more Davé articles, like:
Taylor C Noakes: [2023-08-09]
The atomic bombings of Japan were based on lies. Kathleen Kingsbury/WJ Hennigan/Spencer Cohen: [08-06]
The last survivors speak. It's time to listen. This piece is
part of a series on nuclear war, including the following articles
by Hennigan:
Daniel Finn: [08-09]
Free Palestine from German racism dressed up as guilt. Joshua Frank: [05-31]
You can't turn back the clock on genocide: "easily 200,000 deaths
in Gaza." I may have cited this piece before, when it was published
at TomDispatch, but it's popped up again, and reminds us that in
such matters, numbers never go back down. Ana Malinow: [08-08]
Finding the moral courage to recognize a genocide. Craig Mokhiber: [08-07]
The World Court has ended the Oslo ruse: "The ICJ's ruling that
international law protects the rights of Palestinians, and they need
not negotiate with their oppressors for those rights, dealt a
definitive blow to decades of Western efforts to situate Israel
outside the reach of the law." Mary Ellen O'Connell: [08-07]
Assassination is always unlawful -- regardless of who is killed and
on whose orders. Mazin Qumsiyeh: [08-11]
The path forward: I've been receiving the author's newsletter
since I saw him give a very good talk here in Wichita -- see my 2004
notebook entry -- and I
read his book from back then,
Sharing the Land of Canaan. How useful the newsletter is
varies, but I admire his dedication, persistence, and humanity
in this very frustrating ordeal. Here he attempts to take stock:
Over the past 45 years, I have been active on the streets and on the
internet for our people struggle for return and self-determination
in the face of a most brutal and merciless colonial regime. I read
thousands of books and wrote a few myself. I read tens of thousands
of research and analytical papers (and wrote hundreds myself). The
problem of our country can actually be described very briefly. Its
solution (remedies) can also be described briefly. Implementing the
solution would be doable and is the only way to avoid a catastrophic
world war.
The only way I can see this developing into world war is if the
US gets so inebriated with Israel's military arrogance it goes after
bigger game, like Russia and China -- which I suppose could be his
point. But the local war is catastrophic enough, not just for its
obvious victims, but also for the increasingly brutalized victors.
Qumsiyeh is right to frame Israel/Palestine as a colonial settler
conflict, although simply villainizing the settlers isn't helpful,
especially as it blurs distinctions that matter to them.
We know now that such conflicts can only end (by which I mean
stabilize) three ways: either the colonizers are repulsed (as with
Algeria and Zimbabwe, both well after the founding of Israel, so
recently enough that Palestinians could take hope from their examples),
or the colonizers crush the natives (as in America and Australia),
or the colonizers realize that they need to negotiate some sort of
viable coexistence (as in South Africa), which entails ceding power
while retaining generally recognized rights.
Israel has eliminated the first option: Arafat conceded Israel's
right to exist and govern in the 1980s, and Hamas came around to
that position by 2005, leaving only the details of accommodation
to be worked out. But a large and influential faction of Israelis
still held out hope for total domination. They've risen in power
on the crest of a series of increasingly nihilistic wars, testing
the limits of what conscience -- both theirs and the world's --
will allow, especially since Oct. 7. I personally don't believe
they can get away with it, but no one is going to force them to
stop, leaving us with nothing more than appeals to decency,
starting with those who have thus far supported and condoned
their genocide. Qumsiyeh sees BDS as helpful, "international law"
less so. But use what you got. Jennifer Rubin: [08-06]
Netanyahu has managed to frustrate just about everyone: "It
appears as though the Israeli prime minister wants to extend the
war." I'd edit that a bit, replacing "appears" with "it's obvious,"
and I'd be tempted to make that "it's fucking obvious," because
that's how obvious it is. But "frustrate" is an interesting word
here, because it implies that you actually thought he was capable
of something better. He isn't. He never was. He'll never be. But
your naivete in thinking he might is kind of sweet. Michael Schwalbe: [08-06]
Israeli racism shouldn't get a pass in America.
Election notes:
Cori Bush: D-MO, elected in a big
upset in 2020, displacing a 10-term incumbent as a would-be Squad
member. She called for a ceasefire in Gaza, and has voted against
military aid to Israel, which made her a target in AIPAC's purge
of Democratic Party dissidents. She lost the primary last week.
Thomas B Edsall: [08-07]
Two opposing developments that changed American politics:
"A pair of major developments in recent years -- the ascendance of
Donald Trump and the emergence of Black Lives Matter protests --
have decisively altered the nation's two political parties." Trump,
as party leader, has become the sharp focal point for all sorts of
crazy thinking on the right (including things he doesn't seem to
understand, but supports anyway, because he knows he's their leader).
The left doesn't have a comparable leader figure, not that Bernie
Sanders couldn't have filled that role had he prevailed, but it's
fitting that the left has been driven from below, through protests.
But BLM, important as it was, was just one of several upheavals, of
which Occupy Wall Street was especially important for re-introducing
class struggle (framed as the 99% vs. the 1%; while you may think it
was just a phase, it specifically brought the student debt issue to
the fore). Also mention the Keystone Pipeline protests, which won
out. Also a tremendous uptick in labor organizing. And now we have
the anti-genocide protests. Plus another constellation of issues,
like abortion.
It further occurs to me that this ground-level shift to the left
by Democrats follows a similar, earlier change on the right, which
was largely driven by right-wing media (especially if you recognize
that the Tea Party was essentially astroturfed). Trump's emergence
as party leader didn't depend on any new ideas. He simply recycled
what Fox fed him, adding the conceit of his own personality cult.
The delay is easy to understand. The right was funded by rich folk
who wanted to protect their business empires from the scourge of
public interest (also unions, of course), so they plotted to take
over government, largely by making politicians beg for their money.
The pressure on ordinary people to move left came not from secret
interest groups but from fear of what the right was getting away
with.
Edsall does have some reason for focusing on BLM. He cites a 2018
article by Matt Grossman:
People are changing their views on race and gender issues to match
their party. As Democrats increasingly recognized the perils of
the right, they came to feel solidarity with their fellow victims,
to the point where, as Grossman puts it, "liberal-leaning voters
moved away from [Trump's] views faster than conservatives
moved toward them." Michael Tesler: [08-08]
Why immigration is a better issue for Trump than it was in
2020. As an issue, it's better because he's running against
Biden's record, not on or against his own. And Republicans have
had nearly four years to amplify it as a constant talking point.
Also, to some extent, Democrats, including Biden, have run away
from it, which neither makes them look smart nor strong. Daniel I Weiner/Owen Bacskai: [08-09]
Unregulated money continues to corrode US politics. Reforms are
needed. Sam Wolfson: [08-09]
Brats, dads and bravado: this US election will be decided on
vibes: "Personality is always central to elections. But this
year, it's about who you think the candidates could be."
I found this piece first, and thought it generic enough to slot
here (under elections), but later found much more talking about
"vibes" (our buzz word of the week), steering strongly toward
Harris-Walz:
Fareed Zakaria: [08-10]
Harris is winning the all-important battle -- of vibes. Charles M Blow: [08-07]
Harris, Walz and Democrats' joyful campaign: Democrats may
have little to complain about the Biden administration, but the
big promise to protect us from the depredations of Trump and the
Republicans hasn't worked out so great. He mentions a bunch of
examples, which seemed to be snowballing as Trump dominated the
airwaves and inched up in the polls, while Biden appeared
increasingly hapless.
I underestimated how much soul damage Democratic voters had suffered
over the past three and a half years -- not in the main because of
the Biden administration, but because of the seemingly endless culture
wars -- and how that damage had jelled into a form of electoral
depression.
Harris changed that almost instantly: "She isn't articulating
policy positions that differ substantially from President Biden's.
She is, however, allowing herself to be the vessel for pent-up
liberal energy." I also like this bit:
Last year, when Biden was gearing up to announce his re-election
bid, Terrance Woodbury, a founding partner at the consultancy HIT
Strategies, whose research includes surveying Black voter sentiment,
told me something that has stuck with me: Young Black voters -- young
Black men in particular -- are less responsive to political messages
of fear and loss and more responsive to messages of gain and
empowerment. . . .
Republicans have slammed Harris as a D.E.I. candidate, tossing
around the acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion to insinuate
that she didn't earn her place. But overwhelmingly, one of the
reasons Democrats are excited about her is that she's highly qualified
and also happens to be a woman of color. They recognize that she
represents all that is good about D.E.I., that it isn't about the
granting of privilege but the dismantling of it.
Personally, I'm totally bored with all those checklist firsts.
I'm not inclined to think of her in those terms at all. On the
other hand, D.E.I. is an insult we can embrace as a principle,
and run with. Jennifer Rubin: [08-08]
Walz brings the vibes, but that's not all: "On education and
agriculture, this vice-presidential pick's experience runs deep." David Sirota: [08-10]
Harris-Walz's good vibes aren't enough: Sure, but why not enjoy
them while you can? It's not like we've had enough good vibes in our
lives to get used to them, let alone to overdose on them. Savor the
feeling. Isn't this what democracy is supposed to feel like? Sure,
after they win in November, we'll still have challenges and problems,
to which they won't always have answers or be helpful, but work from
that. At least you won't have to start out from Trump again. And if
they lose, the only reason to think about that now is for motivation
to keep it from happening. Afterwards, there will be plenty of time
for lessons learned. But after the dread of Biden losing his place
on the teleprompter or trying to negotiate a flight of stairs, we
need good some vibes. Enjoy.
Trump:
Brooke Anderson: {08-01]
How Trump hijacked the Republican Party. Isaac Arnsdorf/Josh Dawsey/Hannah Knowles: [08-07]
Trump took a private flight with Project 2025 leader in 2022:
"Trump took the flight to speak at a Heritage Foundation conference,
where he said, 'They're going to lay the ground work and detail plans
for exactly what our movement will do.'" Now Trump is trying to
disclaim their plan. Jamelle Bouie: [08-09]
The real reason Trump and Vance hate being called 'weird'.
Republicans are losing their grip on the Nixonian bequest of
"the silent majority." They haven't been either for a long time
now, but Democrats were too timid to point it out, until one
did, and instantly it was obvious to all. Frank Bruni: [08-08]
Donald Trump, prince of self-pity. Abbie Cheeseman: [08-11]
Trump campaign hack could indicate wider election disruptions, experts
warn. David French: [08-11]
To save conservatism from itself, I am voting for Harris:
Filed here instead of under Harris, because this is really about
Trump, not Harris. I agree with virtually nothing French writes
here. I don't even fully buy this:
The only real hope for restoring a conservatism that values integrity,
demonstrates real compassion and defends our foundational constitutional
principles isn't to try to make the best of Trump, a man who values only
himself. If he wins again, it will validate his cruelty and his
ideological transformation of the Republican Party.
I believe that conservatism is so utterly corrupt and rotten,
so selfish and cruel, it deserves Trump, and those are the reasons
he's attracted to it -- although his vanity is probably a bigger
one. I do suspect that many people who identify as conservative,
possibly including French, are decent and honorable, at least in
their personal lives, but they falter when they try to tell other
people how to live, because they simply don't understand how the
world works beyond their own perception and projection. If they
could, they'd be welcomed by Democrats, who by and large are
tolerant and respectful of all sorts. They might even help make
us better people. But while French's vote is welcome, his reasoning
is still selfishly parochial. He needs to work on that. Maureen Dowd: [08-10]
Trump, by the numbers: Anyone who can recall engaging with
Trump 20+ years ago is bound to come up with unsettling images:
From the first time I went on an exploratory political trip with
Trump in 1999, he has measured his worth in numbers. His is not
an examined life but a quantified life.
When I asked him why he thought he could run for president, he
cited his ratings on "Larry King Live." He was at his most animated
reeling off his ratings, like Faye Dunaway in "Network," orgasmically
reciting how well her shows were doing.
He pronounced himself better than other candidates because of
numbers: the number of men who desired his then-girlfriend, Melania
Knauss; the number of zoning changes he had maneuvered to get; the
number of stories he stacked on his building near the U.N.; the
number of times he was mentioned in a Palm Beach newspaper.
But the flash forward to today:
He is clearly befuddled by someone with brown skin who has come not
to hurt Americans, but to save them from Donald Trump; someone who
is not scary, as he is, but joyful, not threatening but thrilling.
And, in Trump's worst nightmare, this dark-skinned someone is
attracting huge adoring, dancing, laughing crowds.
Michael Grasso: [08-09]
Donald Trump and the '80s aesthetic: "The pro-Trump Zoomer sees
the 2020s as a degenerate age and the '80s as a time when men were
men. It's why their homemade videos are filled with VHS scan lines,
old Gillette commercials, and Van Halen's 'Jump.'" Malcolm Harris:
Tech billionaires love Trump now -- because he's one of them. Brian Karem: [08-08]
Trump left spinning by Kamala Harris' surprise strength: "Trump's
implosion is nearly complete." Glenn Kessler: [08-06]
Trump's fusillade of falsehoods on debt and taxes: Fact-checks
a Trump interview by Maria Bartiromo. Ed Kilgore: [08-08]
Trump's 2024 election-denial playbook: "Trump and his allies are
laying the groundwork to overturn a possible 2024 loss -- and they
don't intend to repeat the mistakes they made last time." They're
going to make new mistakes? Could one be conceding they have no
faith they can win honestly? Susan Milligan: [08-06]
Trump's campaign is drowning in rage: "Faced with a surprisingly
united Democratic Party, the Republican nominee is trotting out the
same old strategy." Danielle Paquette: [08-10]
A pastor said his pro-Trump prophecies came from God. His brother
called him a fake. "Jeremiah Johnson became a sensation when
he embraced politics. His brother Josiah, also a preacher, couldn't
shake his concerns." Matthew Stevenson: [08-08]
Trump's wolves on Wall Street: Inside the Truth Social numbers.
This has a lot more detail on the business/financial side than I
cared to follow, but here's one sample that caught my eye:
Nor does the SEC seem particularly concerned that inside traders
in Digital World shares might well have gotten their tips from a
Russian banker who bailed out Trump's Truth Social in 2021 with
a loan from his Caribbean porn bank.
James D Zirin: [08-07]
Trump's slur of Harris -- 'Is she Indian or is she Black?' -- echoes
a creepy episode from his past. As does nearly every Trump story,
but the devil's in the details.
Vance:
Aaron Blake: [08-07]
It's getting worse for JD Vance: "A half-dozen polls in recent
weeks have shown his already-underwhelming image deteriorating.
And they suggest his past comments about childless women aren't
helping." Ben Burgis: [08-08]
JD Vance got his faux populism from internet weirdos. Michelle Goldberg: [08-05]
JD Vance just blurbed a book arguing that progressives are
subhuman: The book is by Jack Posobiec ("far-right provocateur")
and Joshua Lisec ("professional ghostwriter"):
The word "fascist" gets thrown around a lot in politics, but it's
hard to find a more apt one for Inhumans, which came out
last month. . . .
As they tell it, modern progressivism is just the latest
incarnation of an ancient evil dating back to the late Roman
Republic and continuing through the French Revolution and
Communism to today. Often, they write, "great men of means"
are required to crush this scourge. The contempt for democracy
in Unhumans is not subtle. "Our study of history has
brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to
protect innocents from the unhumans," write Posobiec and Lisec.
Andy Kroll/Nick Surgey: [07-16]
In private speech, JD Vance said the "Devil is real" and praised
Alex Jones as a truth-teller: "Vance gave the speech to the
secretive Teneo network." Clay Risen: [08-10]
What's so new about the 'new right'? "JD Vance and his allies
represent a mind-set that dates back to the McCarthy era and the
dawn of the Cold War." Bill Scher: [08-08]
When Vance told Appalachians to leave Appalachia: "A decade ago,
Vance wrote that the Appalachian poor should abandon their 'destructive'
communities and stop blaming others for their misery. Now, all he does
is blame." Also:
Alex Shephard: [08-06]
Donald Trump has no heir: "Yes, Trump is just popular enough
to win again this year. But no one has emerged yet to take the
MAGA crown whenever he relinquishes it." So this is really about
how far Vance has slipped in two weeks, from back when practically
everyone was writing about him as heir-apparent. Farah Stockman: [07-28]
Decoding JD Vance's brand of nationalism.
And other Republicans:
Project 2025:
David Daley: [08-05]
GOP plans to win this election -- in court, if not at the ballot
box: "Republicans learned from their 2020 mistakes -- and have
good reason to believe the Supreme Court is on their side." Not
the only article on this:
Jake Johnson: [08-07]
GOP budget plans spotlight party's top priority: handouts for the
rich. Dominik A Leusder: [08-10]
How Republicans fell in love with crypto. Amanda Marcotte: [06-13]
Rudy Giuliani's mug shot and Steve Bannon's prison sentence: Why
MAGA loves to be seen as villains. Ishmael Reed: [08-09]
MAGA and the fear of being eaten:
To be a Trump Republican is to live in a horror film. Fears abound.
The fear of immigrants, the fear of Woke (a euphemism for Black
culture), a fear of books, a fear of cat ladies, a fear of being
replaced, a fear of George Soros, and now Anthropophagophobia, the
fear of being eaten. In two books that are required reading for
far-righters -- The Turner Diaries by William Luther Pierce,
a physicist who used the pen name Andrew Macdonald, and Unhumans
by Jack Posobiec -- Blacks commit cannibalism.
By invoking Hannibal Lecter, Trump is warning his Red Caps that
Black cannibals aren't their only threat. According to him, millions
are arriving in the United States to find some MAGA meat to munch on.
When confronted by live cannibals, their victims will miss the old
days when the cannibals were "The Walking Dead," who moved so slowly
that one could escape.
Faiz Siddiqui/Jeremy B Merrill: [08-11]
Elon Musk's X feed becomes megaphone for his far-right politics. Katherine Stewart: [08-10]
The Claremont Institute: The anti-democracy think tank: "It was
once (mostly) traditionally conservative and (sort of) intellectually
rigorous. Now it platforms white nationalists and promotes
authoritarianism." This is a long and thorough dig through the
history of one of the right wing's premier think tanks, so it also
qualifies as a cautionary tale of the rot of the conservative brain.
The days when anyone could plausibly claim that conservatives were
doing real thinking are long gone.
The kind of authoritarianism that Claremont is peddling did not
happen to the conservative movement by accident. It is the predictable
result of the massive investment that conservative money made over
the past 50-plus years in polluting American political discourse with
its massive complex of ideological factories. When you spend enough
to spread unreasonable ideas, you will get an unreasonable society.
You might even become a bit of a crank yourself. It goes back to a
problem at least as old as Plato. If your power depends on lying to
the people, that doesn't make you noble. It just leaves you with a
choice: Accept that you are a fraud, or embrace the lie.
Harris:
David Badash: [08-09]
Fox host furious Kamala Harris loves to cook: This is causing
some cognitive dissonance for me: she loves to cook; her husband
is a serious jazz fan. Politics aside, these are people I could
actually imagine enjoying socializing with. As hobbies and interests
go, these are things that show a zest for life, and a willingness
to engage it intellectually as well physically. Jonathan Chait:
[08-06]
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz need to pivot the center right now:
"Does Harris really understand the assignment?" That's a rather
peculiar term to use here: Just who's doing the assigning here?
Barring some hidden power, that may just be Chait. After all, his
definition -- "the assignment, to be clear, is to win over voters
who don't like Donald Trump but worry Harris is too liberal" --
sounds exactly like Chait, who represents an electoral bloc of
himself and hardly anyone else. I mean, how many people who don't
like Trump still make such fine-grained distinctions among shades
of Democrats that they'll hold their votes in sway? I doubt even
Chait is that fickle. So what's he doing here? Well, he seems to
feel it's his job to stamp out any hope that the Democratic Party
might be able to accomplish anything by getting elected. He does
this by steering Democrats to the corrupt, do-nothing "center."
I'm old enough to remember when Democrats ran scared of being
called "red," but does running away from your principles and
beliefs really win elections? And even when you do manage to win
one, how much loyal support do you gain by never implementing any
serious reforms? The track record for Chait-approved centrists
really isn't all that impressive. On the other hand, Republicans
have built up an
enthusiastic base by fighting for the wrongs they believe in.
Maybe Democrats should consider fighting for some rights. Sure,
they may lose, but if they can't take a stand for something, they're
lost anyway. And even when Republicans win and make our lives
more miserable, they will at least have sown some seeds, like
the idea that winning next time might make a difference.
After all, what do we have to lose (but Jonathan Chait)?
I doubt we're even going to lose him, as it's easier to stoke
his conceited liberal virtue-signaling by taking pot shots at
easy Republican targets. For example, he paired his left-bashing
post with this:
PS: Luke Savage
tweet on Chait's article: "Jonathan Chait brings us his only
idea for the 700th time." [08-09]
Yes, She Can: "Bidenism brought Kamala Harris and the Democrats
to the brink of catastrophe. Obamaism can save them." What the fuck?
Chait tried to sum this up in a
tweet:
There was a campaign to persuade Democrats that Obama failed. The
campaign succeeded. But it was wrong. It is now up to Harris to
recover. I think she can do it.
Uh, Obama did just fine for himself: he got a second term, he
got rich, he got into movies, and he's building a gargantuan
monument to himself next to Lake Michigan. But he didn't do so
well for his Party. He entered in 2009 with strong majorities in
both wings of Congress, accomplished very little with all that
potential power, lost Congress, lost the State Houses and the
Courts, and after eight years surrendered the presidency to
Donald Trump. He did some decent things, and avoided doing some
of the far worse things Republicans wanted, but even in foreign
policy, where he had a lot of autonomy, his record is checkered
at best. He got out of Iraq, then got back in again. He dug in
deeper in Afghanistan, then got stuck. He faced crises in Libya,
Syria, Yemen, Gaza, and Ukraine, and bungled them all. He did
make some progress with Iran and Cuba, but it was so tentative
Trump easily wiped him out. He made toothless gestures on climate
change. He was still pursuing trade deals to the end that even
Hilary Clinton wouldn't touch. So I can see how Democrast could
think he failed. I'm surprised that so many Democrats still revere
him. I suspect that's just sentimental attachment to the hope they
once associated with him. But that's just my reaction.
Let's instead consider Zachary D Carter, who
tweeted:
Odd piece. Chait seems to be going after Biden's economic record,
but then doesn't. Credits Biden for a strong labor market, real
wage gains, pins only "small" responsibility for inflation on
Biden. Defends Obama by saying he wanted to do the same things.
The worst thing he has to say about the IRA and Biden's domestic
manufacturing program is that Trump might unwind it because a lot
of it still hasn't been spent.
I think Chait is too charitable with Obama's economic legacy
and overstates how progressive movement-oriented Biden has been
on the economy. Brian Deese was great at the NEC, but he came from
BlackRock. Hather Boushey has been great at CEA, was a 2016
Clinton campaign economist.
Biden's big post-ARA spending -- an infrastructure deal, domestic
microchip manufacturing and green energy/tech manufacturing -- were
all done through negotiations with Joe Manchin and Republicans, not
Bernie and AOC.
I do think Biden represents a significant change from the Obama
era, but it's one in which party moderates and some conservatives
embraced new ideas, not one in which radicals infiltrated the
administration and bent it to their will.
Biden treated progressives like they were part of the coalition,
he didn't let them run the show.
This is a long piece, and it touches on a lot of things, viewed
through his own peculiarly neoliberal prism. It's never quite clear
whether he hates the left on principle, or he is simply convinced
that Americans are so indelibly reactionary that leftist politics
is unworkable and has to be banished. The most telling line here
is: "It is not clear if Harris or her allies recognize the full
scale of the political devastation she actually inherits." His
evidence comes from Biden's dismal approval ratings (as low as
32%). While that sounds grim, it doesn't necessarily follow that
his administration, let alone his still-unimplemented policy
preferences, are so unpopular. It's quite plausible that his
low polls were personal: that many people who wanted to support
him had simply lost faith in his ability to lead and communicate
effectively. The ease with which his vice president, with little
or no political standing of her own, was able to take over the
campaign and revive it suggests that Chait's "devastation" wasn't
real.
As Carter tries to point out, fear of a left takeover isn't
real either. The idea that the American left are some kind of
bolsheviks scheming to seize power so they can arbitrarily dictate
wokeness and undermine public morals is way beyond ridiculous --
although, following the red scare playbook, it's not just a staple
of the right but a projection of their own antidemocratic dreams
and fears. The left still attracts idealists, but most are wary of
power, and are willing to compromise for modest reforms. They do,
however, insist on tangible results, whereas the Democrats Chait
admires are all talk but action only when their corporate sponsors
see an angle. Rachel M Cohen: [08-06]
Kamala Harris's recent embrace of rent control, explained. David Dayen:
[08-09]
Why Tony West matters: "It's more than his moves from government
to corporate America. It's what he did while in government." West is
Harris's brother-in-law and is now a campaign adviser. He held a high
post in the Obama DOJ, then left to become
chief legal officer at Uber.
[08-07]
The irrelevant permitting bill: "A bipartisan measure to accelerate
clean energy and fossil fuel projects has no constituency in Congress
right now."
EJ Dionne Jr.: [08-11]
Harris is beating Trump by transcending him: "The vice president
and her running mate are achieving a radical shift in messaging."
Moira Donegan: [08-06]
Kamala Harris's VP pick may signal a shift away from pivoting to
the center.
Benjamin Hart: [08-05]
Can Kamala Harris win just enough of the working class? The author
talks to Ruy Teixeira, "once known as a Democratic oracle, but these
days he's more of an apostate," as his 2002 book
The Emerging Democratic Majority fizzled, while his new 2023
book (both with John Judis)
Where Have All the Democrats Gone? never ignited. (I have
an unread copy of the latter, figuring it relevant for my political
study, but I'm finding less and less reason to crack it open.)
What I hate about this title, and the thinking that goes into it,
is the notion that winning by a nose is all that is necessary --
winning by a landslide, even though the Republicans are essentially
conceding the interests of an overwhelming majority of Americans,
is too much work or something. This kind of thinking caters to
donors, who like a divided government where nothing gets changed
and everyone is preoccupied looking for bribes.
By the way, it's the Republicans who like to think in "just
enough" terms, because for their purposes any majority (or
plurality, or in the right circumstances slight shortfall) works
just fine. Where they draw the line is offering any concession
beyond empty words.
Elie Honig: [08-09]
Kamala Harris and those 'lock him up' chants: "The vice-president --
and former prosecutor -- has it exactly right so far."
It's become a recurring scene at the political rallies of Vice-President
and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Harris refers to the
ongoing criminal cases against her electoral opponent, Donald Trump. The
crowd begins to chant, "Lock! Him! Up!" And Harris calmly but firmly
shuts it down. "Well, hold on,"
the VP said earlier this week to her own crowd, "You Know what,
the courts are going to handle that part of it. What we're gonna do
is beat him in November."
Ben Jacobs: [08-06]
Republican operatives are 'thrilled' Harris picked Walz: At
least that's their inevitable spin, not that any other Democrat
in play wouldn't have ticked off their same "too liberal" boxes.
Would Shapiro have escaped their slander for a moment? But now
that he's off the ticket, they're equally delighted to accuse
the Palestinian-loving Democrats of antisemitism:
Ed Kilgore: [08-06]
The GOP's dumbest attack on Walz pick: Democrats are antisemites:
Or as Sen. Tom Cotton puts it, "the antisemitic, pro-Hamas wing of
the Democratic Party." Marc A Thiessen: [08-07]
Walz is Harris's first unforced error -- and an opportunity for
Trump: "By picking a fellow leftist, Harris has a running
mate who appeals to her base but not swing voters." You knew he,
like the other hack operatives Jacobs cites, was going to swing
against Walz, and you probably suspected it would be the old
"too liberal" ploy, since for them every Democrat is way too
liberal. The question is why they think we're so skittish to
care. One thing that I like about Walz is that he not only knows
good things to say, he has a record of getting good things done.
The "too liberal" charge works best when exposing the words as
hollow, insincere gestures. Sure, that's not what they think
they're saying, but it's what voters react to: the idea that
liberals are phonies, while Republicans are authentic, if for
no reason other than that they're seriously committed to the
awful things they want to do.
Ezra Klein: [08-11]
Biden made Trump bigger. Harris makes him smaller. I would've
been happy spending the rest of the campaign focusing on how evil
Trump and Vance are, but hey, how petty and how ridiculous they
are could work, too. And creepy -- that's the nuance that "weird"
was aiming for.
Nicole Narea: [08-07]
Why Kamala Harris's fundraising spree might prove more valuable than
Trump's.
Robert J Shapiro: [07-29]
Data don't lie: Harris has the facts to refute Trump's lies about
the economy: "Trump's claims that the economy was better under
his presidency than the Biden-Harris administration don't add up."
Nice to know, but I'm not sure how persuasive that will be. This
risks being an argument defending the status quo, instead of making
the more important argument that you'll be better off with Harris
than with Trump. It's probably true that a second Trump term will
be worse, given that his first term was so much worse than either
Obama's before or Biden's after, but it's the future that matters.
Republicans have been increasing inequality and precarity since
1980, and those results have accumulated, bringing us ever closer
to a breaking point. We've seen the data on that, and it's very
conclusive. But how many people understand it? And how many can
explain it?
Benjamin Wallace-Wells: [08-08]
How Kamala Harris became bigger than Donald Trump.
Walz:
Perry Bacon Jr: [08-06]
Tim Walz is a bold, smart choice for Harris's running mate: "The
Minnesota governor rightly argues that many progressive ideas are good
and practical." Aside from Walz's own value, there's this:
Kelly and Shapiro were the favorites of centrist Democrats -- the
same people who were strongly defending Biden's political skills
even as he became very unpopular. Harris needs to replace not just
Biden but also the outdated political strategies of the president
and much of the Democratic Party establishment. Hopefully, the Walz
choice is the first of many decisions Harris will make that take
the Democratic Party in a much-needed new direction.
Kate Aronoff: [08-07]
Tim Walz is not a left-wing hero: "Kamala Harris's VP pick matters
more as a political signal than a policymaker." David Atkins: [08-06]
Why the "weird" charge from Governor Tim Walz against Republicans
works: "The vice presidential pick and Minnesota governor gets
at the crisis in masculinity that the GOP has exploited expertly --
until now." Ross Barkan: [08-06]
Why Tim Walz will be a potent weapon for Kamala Harris. Zack Beauchamp: [08-06]
The left loves Tim Walz. Can we unite the Democrats? "As a non-leftist
beloved by the left, Walz is ideally suited to expand Harris's appeal
across the ideological spectrum." This kind of talk makes me a bit
queasy. I've known leftists who would never admit to having loved a
politician in their life. I'm more inclined to take what you can get,
but I wouldn't call it love, even for the few people who are pretty
reliable. It is true that Shapiro and Kelly got dinged up a bit for
some of their positions. Walz survived (or escaped?) that level of
scrutiny, and seems like a decent enough bloke, who's done some good
things, and it's not like we're really demanding more than that. He
got a couple of endorsements from labor, and that probably helped.
He seems to have more appeal there than the alternatives, which
strikes me as something the ticket and the party needed. So with
no major negatives and some real positives, most of us are pretty
happy. As for the question, the answer may be in another question:
can he hit the Republicans hard, and score points that win votes?
If he can, he will unite us? At least through November. After that,
the voters fade into memory, and the money powers come back to the
fore. Aaron Blake: [08-06]
5 takeaways from Harris's pick of Tim Walz as her VP nominee.
- Harris went for broad appeal over swing-state appeal
- A 'weird' and viral audition
- A blend of folksiness with a recent left-leaning record
- Walz's electoral record tops Vance's
- Notable tidbits about Walz's selection
Nandika Chatterjee: [08-06]
Joe Manchin and other moderates praise Harris' selection of Tim Walz:
Manchin said Walz "would 'bring balance' to the Democratic Party." David Dayen: [08-06]
Tim Walz: From small-town Minnesota to the campaign trail. Pat Garofalo: [08-07]
The secret to Tim Walz's progressive success: "It turns out that
challenging corporate power is a winning approach." Steve Kettmann: [08-09]
The ballad of coach Tim Walz: "The Minnesota governor's football
coaching helps the Democratic ticket because, unlike Trump's shtick,
the relatable, down-to-earth terminology of sports is a patois that
never dies." But for some of us, it does get fucking tiresome, and
worse when it implies that we should draw life lessons from zero-sum
games. But still, if the public insists on playing that game, it
might be nice to have someone playing it from our side. Ed Kilgore:
Robert Kuttner: [08-09]
Teflon Tim: "The right's pathetic effort to find some smear that
will damage Gov. Walz." Daniel Larison: [08-06]
Harris picks Walz, a midwesterner with antiwar credentials. Eric Levitz: [08-06]
Will Kamala Harris regret picking Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro.
Rehearses the same anti-left arguments Chait harped on, but with
slightly more nuance. Nothing here suggests to me that Harris will
regret not choosing Shapiro. The first three points in Walz's favor
seem pretty solid:
- Walz balances the ticket demographically
- Walz has excelled on television
- Walz is implicated in fewer potential scandals
I'll add that the balance is not just demographic. He comes from
a very different background, yet has reached similar political views,
so that provides not just balance but constructive contrast. Also
that scandals are much deadlier for Democrats than for Republicans,
who are just as likely to be celebrated as scoundrels.
PS: Levitz's
tweet elicited some commentary, including this interchange:
JDTrader64: "Harris's greatest political liability
may be the widespread perception that she is very left-wing."
Uh . . . Eric . . . it's not perception . . . it's truth . . . Tom Hull: Uh, it's the perception that her being
"very left-wing" is a bad thing, which would be amplified if she
ran away from it, like "centrist" Democrats have been trained to
do for ages, only to find themselves echoing R talking points.
She needs to defend what she stands for.
PS: [Later reply from JDTrader64]: Being "very left
wing" is a bad thing - the Prez is supposed to represent "we the
people" not the fringes - right or left. Her voting record is too
far left, she is now no different than any other politician -
trying to change her past with a pile of lies and deceit.
[TH: One never knows how to respond to things like this. On
the one hand, from my vantage point, Harris is not very far left
at all, and never has been, so I don't see her lying to cover
up her past. On the other, you have to be pretty far left to be
interested in representing all the people -- simply dismissing
those you don't like as "fringes" and denying them representation
is pretty anti-democratic.]
Dan Mangan: [08-07]
Harris running mate Gov. Tim Walz owns no stocks, bonds or real
estate, disclosure shows: So what the hell is this man doing
in politics? Branko Marcetic: [08-06]
The Tim Walz VP pick shows America's politics are changing. Timothy Noah: [08-07]
Tim Walz is a dream pick for the labor movement. Michele L Norris: [08-07]
6 reasons Tim Walz was the right choice. Christian Paz: [08-07]
How Tim Walz actually handled the George Floyd protests in
Minnesota: I'm not getting much out of this piece.
Republicans seem to think they can lay blame on him. Totally
blameless, of course, is Donald Trump, with his "good people
on both sides" and "then the shooting starts" quips. Nia Prater: [08-07]
What we know about why Harris picked Tim Walz: As best I can
tell, it mostly came down to chemistry: Walz seemed like a guy
Harris could be comfortable with, could work with, and could be
trusted not to run his own deals on the side. Shapiro wasn't --
as my wife put it, he was "kind of a drip." I doubt his piety
angle played well, either. The main news in the article is that
the one-on-one interviews came out much better with Walz than
with Shapiro. And once Harris picked Walz, a lot of little
things fell neatly into place. Ideology wasn't a consideration,
but give Harris some credit for not running scared of the
left-baiting. Andrew Prokop: [08-09]
Is Tim Walz a progressive or a centrist -- or both? Molly Roberts: [08-08]
Tim Walz won the veepstakes because first he won the internet. Peter Slevin: [08-06]
What Tim Walz brings to Kamal Harris's campaign to beat Donald
Trump. Sarah Smarsh: [08-07]
Democrats have needed someone like Tim Walz for decades. Patrick Svitek/Taylor Lorenz: [08-07]
'Bringing back the joy': Walz's first day keeps Democrats' buzz
going. Michael Tomasky: [08-06]
The Tim Walz nod: Caving to the left? No. Reaching into the heartland.
"Kamala Harris's new running mate has one hell of a résumé." Rebecca Traister: [08-10]
Tim Walz, Doug Emhoff, and the nice men of the left: "An election
defined by two very different kinds of guys." Karen Tumulty: [08-06]
Tim Walz made 'weird' happen. What he offers the ticket is much
more. "Walz has a genuine feel for the concerns of people in
conservative corners of the country." Robert Wright: [08-09]
Walzing into a saner foreign policy? John Zogby: [08-07]
In choosing Tim Walz, Kamala Harris went for policies not electoral
votes.
Biden:
And other Democrats:
Legal matters and other crimes:
Ryan Cooper: [08-08]
Elon Musk thinks advertisers not paying him money should be illegal:
"Americans right-wing judicial tyrants face their most preposterous
lawsuit yet." Eva Dou/Gerrit De Vynck: [08-05]
Google is an illegal monopoly, federal court rules: "Judgment
delivers a victory to the Justice Department as it takes on a string
of federal antitrust lawsuit against Big Tech." A quarter-century
ago I followed the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit very closely, but I
have paid little attention to the recent batch of suits and other
regulatory rulings, so I'm caught off guard by this ruling. I do
know a fair amount about how Google and other high tech companies
work, so I understand the angles and temptations for abuse pretty
well -- at least well enough to imagine what's going on here. But
my own thinking has evolved in a different direction: while I agree
that more competition would be better than monopolies, much better
still would be to knock the financial legs out from under them and
replace their services with non-profit open-source utilities. But
sure, this story is big enough to track:
Marin Scotten: [08-05]
Clarence Thomas failed to disclose another trip on a GOP megadonor's
private jet."
Climate and environment:
Economic matters:
Ukraine War and Russia:
America's empire and the world:
Rachel Chason: [08-05]
How the US military cultivated -- and then lost -- a key African
ally: "A timeline of key events in the lead-up to the US troop
withdrawal on Monday from the West African country of Niger." Tanya Goudsouzian/Zekria Barakzai: [08-07]
Water wars: What the US can offer the Taliban, for a price. William Hartung: [08-05]
There they go again: Heritage pushes new nuclear arms race:
"The report asserts that its proposals are meant to preven rather
than spark a conflict." Ellen Ioanes: [08-05]
Bangladesh's prime minister just fled the country in a helicopter.
Why?
Georgios Samaras: [08-08]
Britain's riots are designed to terrorize Muslims: "For years,
the far right has benefited from a growing rot in British politics,
as politicians and the media promote Islamophobia."
Nick Turse:
The US has dozens of secret bases across the Middle East. They keep
getting attacked. "An Intercept investigation found 63 US bases,
garrisons, and shared facilities in teh region. US troops are
"sitting ducks," according to one expert."
Ellen Ioanes: [08-06]
The attack on US troops in Iraq, explained: "What the attack on
US troops in Iraq says about a wider Middle East war." Maybe that
the wider war has already happened, like when the US sent troops
half way around the world to set up bases in Iraq from which they
could strike "targets" in the region? Maybe they should write an
explainer of why the bases are there in the first place? But as
long as they're there, they're easy targets, should the US ever
do something to piss off the local population. Wonder what that
could have been? Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-06]
US personnel wounded in 'dangerous escalation' at Iraq base.
Other stories:
Jeffrey St Clair: [08-09]
Conscience of the blues: how Howlin' Wolf got caged in Oregon. Vox:
How factory farming ends: a set of articles "on the past and
future of the movement against factory farming; its struggle to
change our culture, politics, and palates; and how it might yet
make real progress." I don't have any political interest in these
issues -- in particular, I don't see them as a left-right thing --
but I do have curiosity about how the world works, and what risks
may appear that could stop it from working satisfactorily. And
the latter, at least, does have political ramifications. Possibly
philosophical ones, too. More articles are listed here, but not
yet linked.
Obituaries
Books
David Masciotra: [08-05]
Joe Conason on how grifters, swindlers, and frauds hijacked
conservatism: An interview with the veteran journalist, author of
the 2003 book
Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the
Truth, and most recently
The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers, and Frauds Hijacked
American Conservatism, who explains:
Deception is central to the contemporary right for two reasons. One
is that they've discovered, over a long period, that it is highly
profitable to mobilize people's fears and resentments around mythical
issues. You can pull in vast sums of money from the right-wing base.
The second reason is that facts don't work for them. It is very hard,
at this point, to make arguments on behalf of their positions that
are fact-based. They push lies, conspiracy theories, fantastical
inventions that support their ideological positions. To take one
example, there is an idea that the minimum wage costs jobs. Not true.
It's been debunked. No respectable economist believes it. Or if you
cut taxes, you'll generate economic growth. Not true. It's been
disproven over again. So, they rely on falsehoods.
Also: "It would be good if Democrats paid attention to what I
expose in The Longest Con. This is an argument that works
because no one likes being ripped off." Katha Pollitt: [08-06]
What's left after wokeness? An interview with philosopher Susan
Neiman, author of the 2023 book
Left Is Not Woke, recently reprinted in
paperback (with some changes, including note of Oct. 7).
I've noted the book before, and am generally
sympathetic to its argument, as I've long insisted that the criterion
defining left and right is equality vs. hierarchy, and anything else
is just a correlation or coincidence. Woke is probably a correlation,
because it opposes one particular form of hierarchy -- how effectively
I cannot say, but Neiman may have some views on that. I don't see much
point in criticizing people who advocate for wokeness, because they're
usually facing off against people who need to be opposed. (The opposite
of "woke" seems to be "asshole.") But I do think it's worth defending
the real left against anyone who would try to reduce us to simple
anti-wokeism.
This led me to an earlier interview and other bits (for more of
which, see
Neiman's website):
PS: In looking at her new introduction, I see that she
defines left differently than I do: as belief in a bundle of social
rights. I see equality as more fundamental, but for sure, social
rights are an expression (aspirational, at least) of equality.
Music (and other arts?)
Corey Kilgannon: [08-11]
A jazz DJ's lifetime of knowledge leaves Queens for a new Nashville
home: "Phil Schaap's childhood home held what may be the largest
collection of recorded jazz interviews, an archive that will now be
housed at Vanderbilt University." Tom Sietsema:
Dining chat: Are restaurants as fraught as depicted in 'The Bear'?
Spoiler alert, but answer is "dunno," followed by other questions
he does know something about. I think we're 3-4 episodes into The
Bear, and finding it pretty stressful and not very satisfying,
but interesting enough we'll keep plugging away at it (unlike the
similarly hyped Beef). Jeffrey St Clair: [08-07]
Sound Grammar: The best jazz records of the year so far: The
author has made a regular practice of jotting down three records
he's listening to each week, and I noticed that about a third of
them were more than a little jazz. I had thought about inviting
him last year, but I didn't get it done. I wasn't really looking
for new critics to invite for the
mid-year poll, but as I was reading one of his pieces, I
decided to give him a shot. As you can see, he submitted a very
credible list.
Chatter
Dean Baker: [08-05] [replying to: "Trump has now made 6 posts
this morning gleefully celebrating the stock market being down
today"] Come on, what else is Trump going to talk about, his plans
for a nationwide abortion ban, huge tax increase on imports to
offset the cost of tax cuts for the rich, sending food prices
through the roof by deporting the farm labor workforce?
I guess Trump could also [talk] about his plans for promoting
the spread of measles and polio and make more threats against
"crappy Jews."
geekysteven: [08-06] Harris choosing Tim Walz as her running
mate sets a dangerous precedent that Democrats might do cool shit
that voters love
Prem Thakker: [08-06] "You don't win elections to bank political
capital -- you win elections to burn political capital and improve
lives." - Minnesota Governor Tim Walz
Richard Yeselson: [08-06] [replying to "The Walz selection
shows just how deep the Dems' antisemitism problem runs."]
Dude: the senate majority leader is Jewish; the Secretary of
State is Jewish; the Attorney General is Jewish; the leader
of the leftist faction is Jewish; the "husband of the nominee"
is Jewish. I'm Jewish/you're Jewish so I ask you because Jews
disagree: wtf are u talking about?
Kate Willett: [08-07]
Hot take but I don't think it's actually bad for socialists if
Republicans spend months saying this is socialism. [followed by
picture of Tim Walz being hugged by school kids]
Mehdi Hasan: [08-07]
Whether you're pro Cori Bush or anti Cori Bush, pro Israel or anti
Israel, how can any American who c ares about democracy be okay with
a lobby group - in this case, AIPAC - spending $15m to defeat one
member of Congress (Bowman) & now $8m to defeat another (Bush)?
Teddy Wilson: [08-08]
I've reported on the conservative movement and right-wing politics
for more than a decade, and I've never seen anything like the
collective temper tantrum and epic meltdown that has occurred the
past few weeks. There is a palpable amount of fear, loathing and
desperation.
Thoton Akimoto: [08-08] BREAKING: U.S. ambassador to Japan
Rahm Emanuel boycotts Nagasaki peace ceremony after mayor disinvites
Israel.
Zachary D Carter: [08-12]
Nobody wants to talk about Brian Deese in this little spat that
Yglesias and Chait are picking because he came from BlackRock
and did a great job by doing stuff that Chait and Yglesias don't
like.
The idea that Biden was some kind of left wing radical is
preposterous on its face. There's no political or economic
principle being raised here, just one subset of democrats
expressing disdain for another.
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 270 links, 12539 words (17034 total)
Current count:
272 links, 12620 words (17145 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
|
