Speaking of * [0 - 9]Sunday, May 28, 2023
Speaking of Which
I started collecting this on Thursday, and was pretty much done on
Saturday before the "debt ceiling deal" broke. Most of the links there
are to now-forgettable, soon-forgotten thinking, which I sympathized at
the time, but the thing I like best about the deal is that it kills the
issue until well after the 2024 election, whereas the unorthodox fixes
would be litigated that long, even if they're ultimately found valid.
In the meantime, the Republican House is going to cut more spending
and encumber it with more stupid rules than Biden agreed to this round.
The only response to that is to kick their asses in 2024, and any cause
they give you should be used back against them.
Top story threads:
Ron DeSantis: The Florida governor announced he's running for
president, which got enough ughs and moans to temporarily bump Trump
off the top spot here.
Zack Beauchamp: [05-25]
The biggest problem with Ron DeSantis's announcement wasn't Twitter:
Can you really run a winning campaign on the war against "wokeness"
when hardly anyone knows what you're talking about?
Gary Fineout/Sally Goldenberg: [05-24]
In DeSantis' Sunshine State, life is not all sunny.
Alex Isenstadt: [05-25]
Here's what top DeSantis lieutenants said in their private huddle with
donors. Unfortunately, this is mostly campaign strategy spin. The
really juicy exposés are yet to come.
Ben Jacobs: [05-24]
Ron DeSantis's very online and very disastrous 2024 campaign
announcement.
Clarence Lusane: [05-21]
For Trump and DeSantis, different paths, the same destination, or
"Two peas in a (white nationalist) pod."
Charisma Madarang: [05-26]
DeSantis signs bill shielding Musk's SpaceX from 'spaceflilght entity
liability'. I guess this shows that there are some corporations
anti-woke enough to graft DeSantis.
Charlie Mahtesian: [05-24]
Ron DeSantis has a problem. It's Florida. For most politicians,
this would be a cheap shot, but for DeSantis, the state is his
platform.
Nicole Narea: [05-24]
Make America Florida: Ron DeSantis's pitch to beat Trump in 2024.
Nicole Narea/Li Zhou: [05-25]
A guide to Ron DeSantis's most extreme policies in Florida.
Bianca Quilantan: [05-24]
Ron DeSantis upended education in Florida. He's coming for your state
next.
Luke Savage: [05-26]
Ron DeSantis is too extremely online to stand a chance: "Cruel and
hateful, to be sure. But it's also emblematic of a political project
whose sense of discipline and purpose has been overpowered by its own
machinery -- whose activists increasingly speak an abstruse and
impenetrable online jargon, strike maximalist poses by default,
and obsess over causes that scarcely register outside the reactionary
echo chamber."
Bill Scher: [05-25]
Ron DeSantis is not a competent governor: "Republicans looking for
a Donald Trump who can get things done will find the Floridian is just
another peformative pol who picks fights and doesn't understand public
policy."
Jack Shafer: [05-24]
The media has got Ron DeSantis nailed: "Noting both his rigid
demeanor and his deliberate avoidance of the nonpartisan press, the
reporters covering DeSantis have gathered these behavioral cues to
sew the candidate into a straitjacketed image, portraying him as a
locked up, frozen and vengeful character whose veins pump bile, not
blood."
Alex Shephard: [05-24]
Ron DeSantis's biggest problem isn't Donald Trump: Hard to rate
the arguments here, but I was struck by one bit about Trump: "His
campaign is built around few issues that matter to real people.
Instead, it's mostly a platform for Trump to air a wide array of
personal grievances, real and imagined. He's a bit like late-stage
Lenny Bruce, drily reading legal filings aloud in a comedy club,
only substantially less funny."
Alex Skopic: [05-26]
Florida Man: Examines his life and career, guided by his recent
campaign brief, including a few details conveniently left out there.
Michael Arria: [05-25]
Can you run to the right of Trump on Israel? DeSantis is going to
try. As Philip Weiss
points out, "Ron DeSantis visited Israel four times in recent years --
the sum total of his official foreign visits."
Margaret Hartmann: [05-25]
5 ways Trump trolled DeSantis over his disastrous launch.
Trump and other Republicans:
The debt ceiling: Latest reports are that Biden and McCarthy
came to some sort of deal, which still needs to be passed before the
latest June 5 disaster date projection (see: Li Zhou/Dylan Matthews:
[05-28]
Biden and McCarthy's budget deal to lift the debt ceiling, explained).
Nihilist Republicans will still try to trash the deal (e.g., see:
Furious Freedom Caucus vows to scuttle debt deal), so it will need
Democratic votes to pass Congress. Left Democrats will also be unhappy
that Biden went back on his initial position and caved in negotiations
with terrorists. But most Democrats are solidly pro-business, and will
line up behind any deal to save capitalism -- even one that hurts many
of their voters. Most of the links below are pre-deal (check dates).
Jeff Stein: [05-27]
What's in the McCarthy-Biden deal to lift the debt ceiling? Here are 6
takeaways.
Ryan Cooper: [05-25]
Democrats need to get over their pathetic fear of the Supreme Court:
"Remembering what Franklin Roosevelt did when faced with a potential
Court decision that would blow up the economy: prepare to ignore it."
Cooper also wrote: [05-23]
Republican debt ceiling lies.
David Dayen: [05-18]
The access journalism-House Republican mind meld: "How the
relationship between Punchbowl News and Kevin McCarthy is driving
a bad resolution to the debt ceiling crisis." For more on
Punchbowl News (a "membership-based news community," which
delivers daily "tip sheets" to Washington insiders), see Ryan
Cooper: [05-11]
Savvy beltway reporters' debt ceiling duplicity.
Paul Krugman: [05-25]
Debt: The bad, the weak and the ugly: He offers three workarounds
that don't involve surrendering to Republican extortion. He also doubts
that the Supreme Court (unlike House Speaker McCarthy) wouldn't decide
to blow up the world economy just to score a political point against
Biden. He previously wrote: [05-16]
How Biden blew it on the debt ceiling, the gist of which has little
to do with recent negotiation strategy, but faults Democrats for not
raising the debt ceiling (or eliminating it altogether) when they still
had a chance before Republicans took over the House.
Eric Levitz: [05-25]
Is Joe Biden botching the debt-ceiling fight? Post-deal, Levitz
wrote: [05-28]
The no good, not that bad debt ceiling deal.
Aneela Mirchandani: [05-27]
Meet Russ Vought: Mild-mannered mastermind of the GOP's debt-ceiling
power play.
Christian Paz: [05-28]
Why don't more voters care about the debt ceiling? A poll cited
here shows that if the federal government couldn't issue any more debt,
45% would blame Republicans, 43% would blame Democrats, and 7% would
blame both. That's roughly the partisan split on everything, so suggests
that the issue doesn't mean anything more. One reason why might be that
despite all the writing this and previous threats have produced, most of
us have no real idea what the actual consequences of hitting the debt
limit might be. I know I don't know, and I've read tons on the subject.
People who have read less presumably have even less idea (or some less
nuanced idea, which is most likely wrong). And ultimately, what we think
has little import, because the people who really do have money at stake
in this fight are the same ones best able to get heard in Washington.
That once again they've resolved the issue to their satisfaction just
validates our lack of interest in the details.
Ukraine War: There is a report that
first steps in counteroffensive have begun. Ukraine has been
advertising its "spring offensive" all winter, while pleading for
more and more weapons, and waiting their arrival.
Connor Echols: [05-26]
Diplomacy watch: Denmark offers to hold Ukraine peace talks in July:
That sounds kinda squishy, but expectations are high that Ukraine will
launch a "spring offensive" soon, and they're unlikely to consider any
form of talks until they first give war a chance -- after all, that is
the point and the promise of all those tanks and planes they've been
lobbying so hard for. Echols also wrote: [05-22]
The West must prepare for Putin to use nukes in Ukraine. Interview
with Brig. Gen. Kevin Ryan, whose prediction that Russia will use nukes
seems intended on pushing them along. But how exactly does one prepare
for such an attack? It's not like fallout shelters are a practical
project at this time. The only real defense is negotiating a winding
down of the war. Anything else is just fucking insane. Robert Wright:
also writes about Ryan: [05-26]
Why the chances of nuclear war grew this week.
Julian E Barnes: [05-26]
Russian public appears to be souring on war casualties, analysis
shows: I'd be inclined to file this under propaganda, not least
because no one's reporting solid casualty figures. But sure, you
can't totally hide these costs, so it makes sense that ordinary
Russians would start to question the mission -- as happened with
the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Just how that public perception can
turn into policy is hard to imagine. Gorbachev gave his generals
enough rope to hang themselves, then pulled the plug. Putin, on
the other hand, is much more invested this time.
Isaac Chotiner: [05-24]
Why Masha Gessen resigned from the PEN America board: An
interview.
Eli Clifton: [05-24]
Dedollarization is here, like it or not: The effective shift may
have more to do with the US-China conflict, but Ukraine sanctions are
convincing more and more nations not to trust the US. Few people talk
about this, but the debt ceiling nonsense is further undermining world
trust in the dollar. Clifton also wrote: [05-26]
Jamie Raskin and Rachel Maddow, brought to you by Peter Thiel and
Lockheed Martin.
David Cortright/Alexander Finiarel: [05-25]
Russians' support for the war may be softer than you think.
I've always suspected there was little public support for war, which
is why Putin moved so decisively to quash dissent. Still, there is
no evidence that Putin's grasp on power is precarious.
Daniel L Davis: [05-21]
F-16s won't fundamentally alter the course of Ukraine War.
Gregory Foster: [05-26]
How war is destroying Ukraine's environment.
Ellen Ioanes: [05-21]
How Ukraine is trying to woo the Global South -- and why it's so hard:
Ukraine has massive support from the US and Europe, but the rest of the
world is a much tougher sell.
Fred Kaplan: [05-16]
How the Russia-Ukraine war has changed Europe: Mostly on Germany,
where Kaplan spent a month recently. Russia burned a lot of bridges
when they invaded Ukraine, and this has pushed Europe back into a
closer alliance with America. The link title suggested a broader
topic: "The ripple effects from the Ukraine War are becoming clear
now." That could have been a more interesting story. Kaplan also
wrote: [05-20]
The alarming reality of a coming nuclear arms race.
Michael Klare: [05-18]
The G-3 and the post-Ukraine world: The Ukraine War dominated
the latest G-7 confab, with all seven powers -- effectively the US
and its six dwarfs -- firmly in the pro-Ukraine/anti-Russia camp.
But it's impossible for such a group to mediate regional conflicts
when they're busy fighting them. Back in the day, the US and USSR
could quickly agree to impose a ceasefire on their clients (as they
did in the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars), yet no one today can
do that -- even Klare's hypothetical G-2 of the US and China, or
G-3 adding India (the world's most populous country; as Klare notes,
the three of them would represent 40% of all people on the planet).
Getting those three nations to work together for world peace will
be much harder than lining up the G-7 to ratify Washington's wishes,
but might actually work. This complements a piece by Juan Cole:
[05-16]
China and the Axis of the Sanctioned, occasioned by China taking
the lead in reconciling Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Eric Levitz: [05-24]
Will the Ukraine War become a 'frozen conflict'? By "frozen conflict"
he seems to mean something like Korea, where fighting has halted but
neither side admits defeat or can reconcile with the other. Apparently,
this is an idea being circulated in Washington (see Nahal Toosi:
[05-18]
Ukraine could join ranks of 'frozen' conflicts, US official say).
But that's no solution. The main thing that's allowed the Korean War
"freeze" to persist is how isolated North Korea is from the rest of
the world. Russia is a much larger country, with a much more complex
set of trading partners and relationships, including a large portion
of the world not currently on board with America's sanctions regime.
Anatol Lieven: [05-25]
Ukraine attacks in Russia should be an alarm bell for Washington:
Supposedly the US disapproves of such attacks, but that doesn't seem to
be limiting the supply of weapons that could be used to attack beyond
the Russian border. This is doubly dangerous as long as the US seems to
be leaning against peace talks.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [05-23]
What does the fall of Bakhmut in Ukraine really mean? Interview
with Anatol Lieven and George Beebe.
Around the world:
Other stories:
Dean Baker: [05-22]
Should Jamie Dimon get a government salary? Points out that Dimon
got $34.5 million last year as CEO of JP Morgan, and stands to get much
more in coming years, despite much evidence of mismanagement. On the
other hand, the head of FDIC makes $181 thousand, and the head of the
Fed makes $190 thousand. I'm not really sure how the suggestion that
bank heads should be put on civil service salaries would work, but it
seems unlikely it would undermine the competency of management, and it
might make the banks a bit less predatory. Then there's inequality:
"We have let the right rig the market to generate the extremes of
inequality we see. While government tax and transfer policy to reduce
inequality is desirable, it is best not to structure the market to
create so much inequality in the first place."
Zachary D Carter: [03-16]
On Silicon Valley Bank, and finance as a public good: This is old
as news goes, but worth the effort. One current thought is to wonder
how many similar banks would have failed had the feds defaulted on the
debt. I also like this line: "Nobody ever just came out and said it,
but the basic attitude from the bill's Democratic supporters seemed
to be that it was unfair to harp on Democrats doing something corrupt
and stupid when Republicans were corrupt and stupid as a matter of
principle."
Coral Davenport: [05-28]
You've never heard of him, but he's remaking the pollution fight:
"Richard Revesz is changing the way the government calculates the cost
and benefits of regulation, with far-reaching implications for climate
change."
David Dayen: [05-25]
A liberalism that builds power: "The goals of domestic supply chains,
good jobs, carbon reduction, and public input are inseparable."
Related:
David French: [05-28]
The right is all wrong about masculinity: Occasioned by Josh Hawley's
silly new book, but no need to dwell there when the inanity is everywhere:
"But conservative catastrophism is only one part of the equation. The
other is meanspirited pettiness. Traditional masculinity says that
people should meet a challenge with a level head and firm convictions.
Right-wing culture says that everything is an emergency, and is to be
combated with relentless trolling and hyperbolic insults."
Luke Goldstein: [05-24]
How Washington bargained away rural America: How farm bills get
made, usually a bipartisan grand bargain ensuring food (SNAP) for
the poor and profits for agribusiness.
DD Guttenplan/John Nichols: [05-26]
Biden must remake his candidacy: I doubt I'll bother with many of
the articles I'm sure we'll be seeing as various Democrats debate
strategy going into 2024. But the point these left-Democrats make
about Biden's lousy polling numbers is valid. It means that he can't
run a campaign based on his personal charisma while ignoring the needs
of his party, as Clinton did in 1996, and as Obama did in 2012. To
win, he needs a Democratic Party sweep, giving him sufficient margins
in Congress to actually get things done. You'd think Republicans are
making such a campaign easy, but the media landscape remain treacherous,
and Democrats have little practice settling on a winning message.
Benji Jones: [05-23]
Why the new Colorado River agreement is a big deal -- even if you don't
live out West.
Peter Kafka: [05-23]
Do Americans really want "unbiased" news? "CNN and the Messenger
both say they're chasing the middle." Well, bias is inevitable, and
just because its 'centrist" variation is often incoherent doesn't
except it from the rule. You can, of course, muddy up the situation
by providing countervailing points of view, but as a practical matter
that rarely works. In theory, you could clarify the situation by
taking an unflinchingly critical view of everything, but in today's
political arena, that would get you tagged as "left-biased" because
the right is almost always not just wrong but lying their asses off.
Ian Millhiser:
Timothy Noah: [05-26]
Why workers will be treated better in the future. Researchers
have noticed that in many cases higher wages pay for themselves,
but it usually takes pressure to get companies to move in that
direction. So much of what Noah predicts is based on the notion
that political power will shift toward workers. It's clear enough
what needs to happen, but harder to see how it happens. But the
great suppression of wages can clearly be dated to the rise of
Reagan Republicans in the 1980s.
McKenna Oxenden: [05-27]
An 11-year-old boy called 911. Police then shot him.
Aja Romano: [05-24]
Puritanism took over online fandom -- and then came for the rest of
the internet: "Puriteens, anti-fans, and the culture war's most
bonkers battleground." After reading Kurt Andersen's Fantasyland,
I should have been prepared for this piece, but my basic reaction is
to imagine that no one, even the author, could have anticipated how
much more blurred the line between fantasy and reality could become
in a mere six years. Less clear is how ominous all this fantasy is.
The temptation to inhabit imaginary worlds probably goes back to the
oral folklore preserved as myths, and certainly encompasses the whole
history of literature (usually explicitly labeled fiction). In recent
years, three inventions have intensified this: television has immersed
us in fiction, making it both easier to consume and more much vivid;
gaming has added an interactive dimension; and the internet (social
media) has made it trivially easy for people to react and expound upon
the stories. As long as people recognize the line between fact and
fiction, and as long as they maintain respect and decorum in their
posts, it's hard to see much harm. But there have always been gray
areas, especially where fantasy is presented as fact, even more so
when it's driven by malign politics. Still, the problem here is less
the art than the politics. As long as you can keep them straight, I
don't see much problem. (For instance, we watch a lot of shows where
cops are extraordinarily insightful and smart, have integrity and
character, are profoundly committed to justice, and rarely if ever
make gross mistakes -- traits uncommon among real cops.)
One thing that made this article difficult is the terminology.
In particular, I had to go to Fanlore to find a definition of
shipping: it is
contracted from relationship, and used for promoting or derogating
hypothetical relationships between fictional characters. This all
seems to be tied to an increase in anti-sex attitudes -- no doubt
this is amplified by the internet, but really? -- including an
obsession with pedophilia and trafficking. Supposedly this has
been made worse by the FOSTA-SESTA act, which originally sounded
unobjectionable but its loudest advocates can turn it into cruel
repression.
Jim Rutenberg/Michael S Schmidt/Jeremy W Peters: [05-27]
Missteps and miscalculations: Inside Fox's legal and business debacle:
"Fox's handling of the defamation suit brought by Dominion Voting Systems,
which settled for $787.5 million, left many unanswered questions."
Lily Sánchez/Nathan J Robinson: [05-18]
Robert F Kennedy Jr is a lying crank posing as a progressive alternative
to Biden. Also:
Richard Sandomir: [05-27]
Stanley Engerman, revisionist scholar of slavery, dies at 87:
Engerman co-wrote, with Robert W Fogel, the 1974 book Time on the
Cross: The Economics of Negro Slavery, which significantly changed
our understanding of how slavery function within American capitalism.
Fogel & Engerman were among the first prominent historians to base
their work on extensive data analysis, as opposed to the standard
practice of collecting stories from primary and secondary sources.
Jeffrey St Clair: [05-26]
The Clintons and the rich women: No "roaming charges" this week,
sad to say, so St Clair dusted off an oldie from his book, An Orgy
of Thieves: Neoliberalism and Its Discontents (a compilation of
short essays published in 2022). This one explores the lobbying effort
(and the money behind it) that secured Marc Rich a pardon in 2000.
One surprise name that pops up here is Jack Quinn.
Maureen Tkacik: [05-23]
Quackonomics: "Medical Properties Trust spent billions buying
community hospitals in bewildering deals that made private equity
rich and working-class towns reel."
Nick Turse: [05-23]
Blood on his hands: "Survivors of Kissinger's secret war in Cambodia
reveal unreported mass killings." More occasioned by his 100th
birthday:
Ben Burgis: [05-27]
Henry Kissinger is a disgusting war criminal. And the rot goes deeper
than him.
Greg Grandin: [05-15]
Henry Kissinger, war criminal -- still at large at 100: "We now
know a great about the crimes he committed while in office, . . . But
we know little about his four decades with Kissinger Associates."
Grandin has a 2015 book on Kissinger: Kissinger's Shadow: The Long
Reach of America's Most Controversial Statesman. In that book, I
found this quote, based on Seymour Hersh's 1983 Kissinger book, The
Price of Power:
Hersh gave us the defining portrait of Kissinger as a preening paranoid,
tacking between ruthlessness and sycophancy to advance his career,
cursing his fate and letting fly the B-52s. Small in his vanities and
shabby in his motives, Kissinger, in Hersh's hands, is nonetheless
Shakespearean because the pettiness gets played out on a world stage
with epic consequences.
Jonathan Guyer: [05-27]
Henry Kissinger is 100, but his legacy is still shaping how US foreign
policy works. I've never tried to figure out how much US foreign
policy in the pivotal 1969-75 period was Kissinger as opposed to Nixon.
My guess was that Kissinger added intellectual filigree to Nixon's
baser impulses, but Kissinger was callous enough to suit Nixon's needs.
As for his later freelance efforts, I knew few specifics, so I'm most
likely to chalk them up as ordinary graft. With all the criminality --
in some ways, Kissinger's most damaging legacy isn't what he did but
that he made such things seem normal, expected even, for those who
followed -- it's easy to overlook one of Nixon's most important moves,
which was to end the Bretton-Woods system, during which the US was
responsible for maintaining a stable capitalist world market. After,
it was each nation for itself, which ultimately turned into the US
(and the few "allies" it intimidated) against the world.
Fred Kaplan: [05-27]
Henry Kissinger's bloody legacy: "The dark side of Kissinger's
tradecraft left a deep stain on vast quarters of the globe -- and on
America's own reputation."
Jerelle Kraus: [05-27]
Henry Kissinger: A war criminal who has not once faced the bar of
justice.
Bhaskar Sunkara/Jonah Walters: [05-27]
Henry Kissinger turns 100 this week. He should be ashamed to be seen
in public: The picture, from 2011, shows him with a rather giddy-looking
Hillary Clinton.
You can also watch a piece from the
Mehdi Hasan
Show on Kissinger. You might also take a look at
this chart of life expectancy in Cambodia, which falls off a cliff
during the years Kissinger was in power (1969-77). Some commenters
want to make a distinction between bombing deaths (150-500K) and the
genocide unleashed by the Khmer Rouge (1.5-3M), but the the former
destabilized the studiously neutral Sihanouk regime, allowing the
Khmer Rouge to seize power.
Kayla M Williams: [05-28]
Who should we honor on Memorial Day? The article argues that many
veterans are unfairly not counted among the war dead heroes because
they were felled by longer, slower maladies that only started in war,
such as exposure to toxic chemicals (Agent Orange in Vietnam, burn
pits in Iraq) or PTSD (the suicide rate among veterans if if anything
even higher than the battlefield death rate). I have no quarrel with
that argument, but my initial gut reaction to the title is that we
shouldn't limit honor to war dead or even to veterans.
When I was young, the focus of Memorial Day was
Fluty Cemetery
down in Arkansas: either we went there, or my mother arranged for
flowers to be placed there by relatives. Some served, but none of
the people I knew of under the headstones were killed in war. But
they worked the hardscrabble Ozark soil, and built homes and families,
eventually leading to me (and, well, many others). As far as I know,
they were all honorable people, and deserved remembrance. Of course,
those who did die in war deserve remembrance as well, but less for
their lives (however valiant) than for their waste, which we should
be reminded of lest we blunder into even more wasteful wars.
Li Zhou: [05-23]
Montana's TikTok ban -- and the legal challenge of it -- explained.
My preferred solution is to ban all companies from collecting personal
data, much less passing it on to others. If that impacts their business
models, maybe that's a good thing.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Monday, May 22, 2023
Speaking of Which
Let this be done. I'd rather go watch the basketball game -- well,
practically anything -- than keep digging up more articles I have to
comment on. Especially ones that suggest that Biden's is not going
to do the right thing and tell the Republicans where to stuff their
extortion demands.
Top story threads:
Trump: He didn't do much new this week, but he's still the
cutting edge of Republican dystopia, so might as well hang onto the
top slot here.
Ed Burmila: [05-21]
How Trump left Washington even swampier: "The battle for power and
influence in the nation's capital is more shameless, desperate, and
embarrassing than ever."
Michael Tomasky: [05-18]
Donald Trump against America: "He loves an America of his twisted
imagination. He hates -- and fears -- the America that actually exists.
And if he gets back to the White House . . . look out." I would have
skipped over the diatribe on Trump's call for "peace without delay" in
Ukraine, and I wouldn't have interpreted "reevaluating NATO's purpose"
as "giving Putin a free hand in what the Russian dictator calls the
'near abroad.'" Trump had similar sentiments when he became president
in 2017, but failed to do anything constructive about them, and would
likely find the State/Defense/CIA blob equally inpenetrable in 2025.
His real threat is elsewhere, as Tomasky goes on to demonstrate: in
2016 he sold a vision that he could "make America great again," and
declared America "great" as soon as he got elected -- not that many
people noticed much change. But like a bad movie sequel, this time
he's out for redemption and revenge. There are people who will relish
just that, but a majority? Even outside of the America he's written
off, the one he's sworn to destroy, that's going to be a tall order.
Michael Tomasky: [05-19]
Did Donald Trump seriously sell pardons? The question is being
raised in a complaint against Rudy Giuliani, along with much more.
For that, see Prem Thakker: [05-16]
Rudy Giuliani is a raging alcoholic and sexual predator, says new
lawsuit.
Republicans:
Alexandra Berzon/Rebecca Davis O'Brien: [05-20]
Air DeSantis: The private jets and secret donors flying him
around.
Jamelle Bouie: [05-19]
The four freedoms, according to Republicans: Unlike Roosevelt's
four freedoms, these are more like licenses, which privilege one
group of people at the expense of others:
There is the freedom to control -- to restrict the bodily autonomy of
women and repress the existence of anyone who does not conform to
traditional gender roles.
There is the freedom to exploit -- to allow the owners of business
and capital to weaken labor and take advantage of workers as they see
fit.
There is the freedom to censor -- to suppress ideas that challenge
and threaten the ideologies of the ruling class.
And there is the freedom to menace -- to carry weapons wherever you
please, to brandish them in public, to turn the right of self-defense
into a right to threaten other people.
Gillian Brockell: [05-21]
Ron DeSantis's context-free history book vanished online. We got a
copy. The title of the 2011 book is Dreams From Our Founding
Fathers: First Principles in the Age of Obama, which "in title,
cover and content, is essentially a troll of former president Barack
Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father.
Thomas B Edsall: [04-12]
The Republican strategists who have carefully planned all of this.
Quotes Rachel Kleinfeld: "On the right, support for violence is no
longer a fringe position."
Melissa Gira Grant: [05-19]
Christian nationalism has prevailed in Texas. Trans teens will suffer.
Ellen Ioanes: [05-20]
How Republican states are eroding local democracy: "Republican
leaders in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Texas are targeting Democratic
communities and institutions."
Michael Kruse: [05-19]
The Casey DeSantis problem: 'His greatest asset and his greatest
liability': Fairly long piece, with lots of evidence that she's
the brains and grit behind her rather pathetic husband. Joan Walsh
is skeptical: [05-19]
The case against Casey DeSantis. Really? Or maybe she just dislikes
the insinuations, having heard much the same about Hillary Clinton?
Nicole Narea:
[05-18]
The staggering fine print of Texas and Florida's new anti-trans
bills.
[05-19]
DeSantis's feud with Disney is costing Florida -- and possibly his
2024 campaign: Disney is scrapping a "$1 billion investment in
Florida." Normally I'd respect a politician who stands up to big
business interests trying to shake down state and local governments,
but that's not why DeSantis has picked this fight. For a bit more,
see David Kurtz: [05-19]
Stop calling DeSantis v. Disney a feud! "A tinpot governor with
proto-fascist tendencies is trying to bend a multinational corporation
with a footprint in his state to his will, make them compliant and
subservient, and cow not just other corporations but other institutional
power centers, like universities." One more point should be added:
DeSantis is doing these things to build up Florida as an example of
what he wants to do all across America, should he get the chance.
In one sense, he's brilliant, in that he can demonstrate "facts on
the ground" instead of just rhetoric. On the other hand, they are
nearly all malign, and people should be able to see that. This also
gives his presidential campaign a sense of urgency, as he can't
afford to skip this round and let people see how badly Florida is
going to turn out. Good chance that by the end of his term, his
approval rate is going to wind up near 10% -- where Sam Brownback
wound up in Kansas after writing crackpot laws through two terms.
(I'm less clear on the details, but Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie
are probably two more examples of what happens with bad governors
get their way.)
Tori Otten: [05-19]
Nebraska passes double-whammy bill banning abortion and trans kids'
health care. For another view on Nebraska, see Lila Shapiro:
[05-20]
'I want the bloody hands recorded': "Machaela Cavanaugh's
tear-and-rage-filled filibuster of the anti-trans bill she knew
would probably pass anyway."
Rachel Roubein/Caroline Kitchener/Colby Itkowitz: [05-20]
Republicans deploy new playbook for abortion bans, citing political
backlash: "GOP lawmakers in North Carolina and Nebraska are casting
new 12-week bans as 'mainstream.'" That's only because they couldn't
convince enough Republicans to back even stricter bans. Their "playbook"
remains take all they can get.
Li Zhou: [05-18]
Montana just banned TikTok. Will it actually work?
Economy and Debt:
Jen Kirby: [05-19]
What a debt default could mean for America's superpower status:
Interview with Marcus Noland, mostly about the demand for US Treasuries
and dollars abroad. One side effect could be that it becomes harder to
enforce US sanctions against target nations. Given that sanctions rarely
work, that doesn't strike me as much of a problem, but there are people
with a lot of money at stake, and long-term this gives other nations
incentive to cut the US out of their banking systems.
Paul Krugman:
- [05-19]
Death, Napoleon and debt: Just the fundamentals. Anyone who claims
that governments should pay off their debts like individual have to is
profoundly stupid, or (more likely) trying to snow you. Individuals age
and die, so their creditors need to get repaid before they lose out.
But governments go on and on, usually with growing economy and taxes,
so all they have to do is service the debt, which is easy (especially
if it is denominated in currency you control).
[05-18]
Will the US economy pull off a 'soft landing'? His definition is
unemployment under 4% and inflation under 3%. Over the last few months
inflation has come down a lot while unemployment has increased little,
so this convergence seems plausible. However, if the Fed holds to its
2% inflation target, and insists on achieving it through high interest
rates and induced recession, this would get bumpier.
[05-16]
How Biden blew it on the debt ceiling. This was written a few days
ago, when Biden and McCarthy were meeting, and signals appeared that
some sort of deal was imminent. As of the moment [05-21] that prospect
appears to have been quashed by the Republicans, who are greedy and/or
malicious.
Jason Linkins: [05-20]
The Beltway media is spreading debt limit misinformation: "The
political press bears a share of the blame for the fact we are once
again on the precipice of default."
Branko Marcetic: [05-19]
The debt ceiling crisis is laying bare the lies both parties tell
their voters.
Jeff Stein: [05-14]
7 doomsday scenarios if the US crashes through the debt ceiling:
stocks crash; a sudden recession; federal workers in limbo; Social
Security and Medicare miss payments; US borrowing costs soar; economic
problems spread worldwide; the dollar drops, along with US prestige.
As one commenter puts it: "These outcomes read like a GOP Wish List.
If they can make things bad enough people would welcome a strongman
dictator, particularly a fascist like 45 who will blame it all on
minorities, immigrants, gays, Democrats, nasty Women, etc., etc."
Still, this is one problem that Trump actually could solve in a day,
inasmuch as all it would take is for Republicans in Congress to pass
a bill that raises the debt limit (as they did repeatedly for Trump).
Stein's piece was recycled from
an earlier one. He's been covering this issue with little insight
into either the politics or economics. A recent piece is [05-20]
GOP rejects White House compromise to limit spending as talks stall,
partly because debt-conscious Republicans want even higher defense
spending.
Dean Baker: [05-21]
Quick note on the debt burden and the burden of patent and copyright
monopolies.
Immigration:
Ukraine War: Russia claims to have
taken Bakhmut after a
nine-month siege. Ukraine denies this, but are
pushing forces to encircle city. Meanwhile, Ukraine hasn't quite
gotten around to its much-ballyhooed spring offensive, but has started to
test Russian lines on southern front.
Blaise Malley: [05-19]
Diplomacy Watch: African nations plan peace mission. Malley also
wrote: [05-17]
National security experts: War in Ukraine is an 'unmitigated disaster':
"Signers say the conflict will be 'our undoing' if we don't 'dedicate
ourselves to forging a diplomatic settlement that stops the killing.'"
Only 14 names on the letter/ad
(The
U.S. Should Be a Force for Peace in the World) -- the best known
is probably Lawrence Wilkerson (second to Bush Secretary of State Colin
Powell), or Jeffrey Sachs (who advised Russia on their disastrous hard
turn to oligarchy in the 1990s); three I recognize from
TomDispatch
(William J
Astore, Karen Kwiatowski, and Ann Wright), so I'm rather skeptical
that this well-reasoned missive will make an impression on those still
committed to "giving war a chance."
Peter Baker: [05-21]
Russia's latest sanctions on US officials turn to Trump enemies.
This is a silly parlor game, where most of the people listed will
take it as a compliment, and others not listed will feel left out.
Few, if any, will feel anything else. Not many names I recognize,
but Stephen Colbert will certainly be delighted.
James Bamford: [05-05]
The Nord Stream explosions: New revelations about motive, means, and
opportunity: Argues that Ukraine's clandestine services had means
(underwater drones capable of placing 500 kg explosive charges) and
opportunity (including support from Poland) to blow up the Nord Stream
pipelines.
Robert L Borosage: [04-27]
The Left should support ending violence in Ukraine: As should we
all. The war will only end in some kind of negotiated settlement, and
it really must end, even if you would like to see Putin and Russia
defeated more decisively.
Daniel L Davis: [05-21]
F-16s won't fundamentally alter the course of Ukraine War: At
least not this year, which gives more credence to Dave DeCamp:
[05-18]
US preparing for Ukraine War to become a frozen conflict.
Meanwhile: [05-21]
Russia says West providing F-16s to Ukraine a 'colossal risk'.
William Hartung: [05-17]
US foreign arms and training programs are out of control: Starts
by referring to Charlie Savage/Eric Schmitt: [05-14]
Rules for Pentagon use of proxy forces shed light on a shadowy war
power, which reminds us that "proxy forces" have their own logic
and agenda, which US Special Forces get drawn into.
World:
Other stories:
Nina Burleigh: [05-16]
Who is Leonard Leo's mysterious dark money king? "America needs
to know who Barre Seid is, what kind of country he wants, and just
how massive an impact his $1.6 billion gift can have on our political
discourse."
Steve Early/Suzanne Gordon: [05-20]
Corporate politicians are privatizing the VA, the crown jewel of
socialized medicine: Phillip Longman wrote a book back in 2007
touting Best Care Anywhere: Why VA Health Care Is Better Than
Yours. The basic reason was that not just insurance but actual
care was fully socialized (directly run by the government). There
were still a couple obvious problems: one is that while veterans
were numerous and evenly distributed following WWII, the number of
people eligible for VA care has steadily declined; the other is
that care is concentrated in large centers, so for many veterans
isn't easily accessible. Horror stories about access has led to
various efforts for the VA to pay for profit-seeking care, which
in turn jacks up costs while reducing quality. And needless to say,
the privatization lobbies are all over this, and up to no good.
Connor Echols: [05-16]
The War on Terror led to over 4.5 million deaths: That works out
to a bit more than 1,000 revenge deaths for every American killed on
9/11. If you factor in American soldiers lost in those wars, the kill
ratio drops to a bit more than 400-to-1. Occupying powers from the
Romans to the Nazis made a point of threatening kill ratios of 10- or
even 100-to-1 to deter rebellion -- a range that Israel has pretty
consistently maintained. Of course, you can reduce the ratio further
by including contractor deaths (8,000), suicides by veterans (30,000),
and deaths of various allies (both local and foreign), but that hardly
offers any comfort. (Some of these numbers come from Brown University's
Costs of War page.)
Lee Harris: [05-17]
Rahm Emmanuel's gas pipeline: "The Biden administration is promoting
a new liquefied natural gas complex on the Pacific Coast, with expanded
subsidies from the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Inflation Reduction
Act." "West Coast" means Alaska. We counted ourselves lucky that Biden
didn't give Emmanuel a post, but the only real difference is that now
he's explicitly working for the oil and gas industry. Article
quotes Lukas Ross: "Rahm Emmanuel did more than any single individual
to sabotage Barack Obama's climate agenda at a time when there were
congressional majorities."
Patrick Iber: [05-15]
When Milton Friedman met Pinochet: "Chicago economists had free
rein in Chile. The country is still recovering." Review of Sebastian
Edwards: The Chile Project: The Story of the Chicago Boys and the
Downfall of Neoliberalism.
Umair Irfan: [05-17]
It's not just climate disasters. "Normal" weather is getting weirder,
too.
Whizy Kim: [05-19]
The billionaire's guide to self-help: "It's a phenomenon of our
age that entrepreneurs are celebrities at all."
Eric Levitz: [05-19]
The return of the emerging Democratic majority? The 2002 book of
that name, by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, fell flat, but new research
suggests that young voters (Gen Z/Millennials) have continued to break
for Democrats, and are becoming more dependable voters.
Ian Millhiser:
Mark Paul: [05-16]
Economists hate rent control. Here's why they're wrong. In my
own experience, I've always felt landlords enjoyed a huge power
advantage every time a lease was up, as well as all the rest of
the time. So I've long felt that some sort of countervaling power
was needed. Rent control would help, but as this article admits,
that's only goes so far.
Joshua Raff: [05-20]
John Durham's vacuous report: A fitting end to Bill Barr's ugly
legacy: Barr appointed Durham as an independent counsel to dig
into the origins of the 2016 FBI investigation of allegations that
the Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Russians. After four years,
Durham submitted a report, which Attorney General Merrick Garland
released "unexpurgated, unredacted and without comment or commentary."
As someone who never put any stock into that thing called Russiagate,
and who is whatever the polar opposite of shocked is at the suggestion
that the FBI might have been swayed by politics, I have no interest
in the fine points here (if, indeed, there are any). But I'll add a
couple more links (without elevating it to a section):
Becca Rothfeld: [05-18]
How to be a man? Josh Hawley has the (incoherent) answers. Well,
he has a book called Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs,
which the reviewer notes is "the latest in a long line of guides,"
citing others by Jack Donovan, Jordan Peterson, Robert Bly, and
Harvey Mansfeld. Insights? "Men do not 'blame someone or something
else,' such as 'society,' or 'the system,' but men do, apparently,
blame 'Epicurean liberalism' for almost everything that ails them."
And: "A man is a rugged individualist who figures things out for
himself, but he also relies on how-to guides to teach him how to
exist."
Dylan Scott: [05-19]
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing Medicaid every month:
"Medicaid's 'Great Unwinding' is even worse than experts expected."
Avi Selk/Herb Scribner: [05-16]
Musk says George Soros 'hates humanity,' compares him to Jewish
supervillain. I know nothing about Magneto, but the admission
that the villain "drew inspiration from Zionist leaders Ze'ev
Jabotinsky and Meir Kahane" is troubling on multiple levels. But
what is clear is that Musk views his political antipathy to Soros
as clearly tied to Soros's identity as a Jew. Why Musk thinks that
Soros "hates humanity" and "wants to erode the very fabric of
civilization" isn't specified.
Also on Musk:
Jeffrey St Clair: [05-19]
Roaming Charges: Living With the Unacceptable: Starts with a classic
Dwight MacDonald quote: "The Ford Foundation is a large body of money
completely surrounded by people who want some." Sure, it's part of a
fund appeal, but it doesn't hit you over the head.
Li Zhou: [05-17]
How Democrats pulled off a big upset in Florida: Jacksonville
("the most populous Republican-led city in the country") elected
Donna Deegan mayor.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, May 14, 2023
Speaking of Which
Enough for now. Started early but with little enthusiasm, more
links and fewer comments, as the Trump articles piled up. While
it was gratifying to see Trump lose in court, he came out of the
week looking more indomitable than ever.
One article to single out below is the long one by Nathan J
Robinson and Noam Chomsky. Sure, it's old news, but it's the root
of so much that is happening today (not least in Ukraine). Chomsky
has been collecting this book for decades now, but Robinson helps
a lot, advancing it beyond the usual dry contempt.
Top story threads:
Trump: On Tuesday, a jury found Trump guilty of sexual
assault and defamation of E. Jean Carroll, and fined Trump $5
million. On Wednesday evening, CNN allowed Trump to flip the
story, by hosting a "town hall" limited to his rabid followers,
where among
numerous other blatant lies, he doubled down,
defaming Carroll again. Seems like a dubious legal strategy,
but masterful politically.
Zack Beauchamp: [05-11]
The debate over CNN platforming Trump is missing the point: CNN
sponsored and broadcast Trump's "town hall" on Wednesday, showcasing
"an endless parade of lies and moral obscenities." Beauchamp also
wrote: [05-13]
A second Trump administration would be much worse.
Noah Berlatsky: [05-12]
CNN's Trump town hall was a fascist ritual: "Trump calls his
supporters to their worse selves." Asks "how can 74 million Trump
supporters be fascists?" Of course, it's not true that 74 million
Americans are fascist day-in, day out. They're just not unwilling
to vote for one. But some fairly substantial number are also happy
to go out and cheer one on. One more thing you should keep in mind
is the division between leaders and followers: the former have a
characteristic ideology and initiate action; the latter follow and
often submit, mostly to the vicarious thrill of mass membership,
but sometimes to commit violence. The Adorno/Horkheimer research
into authoritarian personality was an attempt to identify potential
followers of fascism based on past followers, given how widespread
the common traits are. Fascist leaders vary considerably, both in
agenda and in competency. On a simplistic 0-to-10 scale, where
Hitler is a 10 (there being little point in trying to imagine an
even-more-fascist leader) and Mussolini is about an 8, Trump is
probably in the 5-6 range (today, up from 3-4 in 2016). That is
high enough to worry about, especially given that his followers
haven't thinned out much while becoming much more intense.
Philip Bump: [05-12]
Trump supporters are neither underrecognized nor half the country:
Things CNN claimed in defense of granting Trump a prime slice of TV
time to air his falsehoods. Charts follow, including ones that show
that CNN has featured Trump much more than anyone else, even much
more than Fox News did.
Margaret Carlson: [05-12]
After that awful CNN Trump town hall, liberals gloat at their peril:
"The circus showed he's learned more since 2020 than the mainstream media
has."
Matthew Cooper: [05-10]
If I were Trump's lawyers after losing the assault and defamation
case, I'd be very concerned: Interview with Jennifer Taub,
who notes: "What I haven't said yet, is what an incredible coward
[Trump] is. He He had so little faith in his own ability to keep
his mouth shut that he couldn't even show up in court . . . This
man is the most cowardly, pathetic person."
Ken Dilanian: [05-11]
Trump's comments on Mar-a-Lago documents 'like red meat to a
prosecutor'.
Jamison Foser: [05-11]
Anderson Cooper, company man: "CNN's response to critics of its
Trump rally makes one thing clear: The cable channel hates its viewers."
One thing here rarely reported elsewhere is that, per
Matthew Bartlett, "the crowd was explicitly told they could applaud
but not boo." That may have been unnecessary, given how carefully the
in-studio audience was stacked to cater to Trump (which was, of course,
a condition of getting Trump on board). The rest of the article goes
deep into Cooper's non-apology and CNN's calculations. The subtitle,
of course, reminds me of the old saw, that Republicans fear their base,
where Democrats loathe theirs.
Constance Grady: [05-09]
Trump has been found liable for sexual abuse. Will it change anything?
"E. Jean Carroll won a fraught victory in her civil case against the
former president."
Glenn Kessler: [05-11]
Trump fills his CNN town hall with a fire hose of old and new false
claims.
Ed Kilgore: [05-10]
Trump's CNN Town Hall Was a MAGA Rally: Notes that "CNN did Trump
a huge favor" in staging this, with the "town" restricted to Republicans
and Independents, offering softball questions and whoops and cheers.
Hugo Lowell: [05-12]
Trump's team revels in town hall victory as CNN staff rages at 'spectacle
of lies'.
Ramesh Ponnuru: {05-10]
11 questions I wish Trump had been asked at the CNN town hall:
Mostly good questions, most turning on Trump's failure to lift a finger
to do things he promised in his 2016 campaign. Could be more, and could
cut deeper, of course. Still unlikely that he would have answered any
of them.
Adam Rawnsley/Asawin Suebsaeng: [05-11]
They helped Trump plan a coup. He wants them back for a second term:
Pictures of Michael Flynn and Jeffrey Clark. First-term Trump had few
qualms about appointing whoever he was told to appoint, but he's learned
a thing or two since then, mostly the need to enforce strict loyalty.
Li Zhou: [05-11]
The danger of Trump's ugly attacks on E. Jean Carroll: "They
reaffirm his mistreatment of women and complete disregard for the
legal system."
Republicans:
The economy and its politics (including the debt ceiling):
I'm seeing a lot of articles recently about how Biden is going to
blink and give into McCarthy's extortion demands.
Courts:
Immigration:
Ellen Ioanes: [05-14]
Title 42 is over. Immigration policy is still broken..
Ed Kilgore: [05-14]
Immigration is still fueling Trump's political future: No doubt.
It's also an issue that Democrats are having a very hard time coming
up with a coherent policy on. Republicans are divided between moguls
who want cheap labor and bigots who want zero immigration (except,
perhaps, when Trump needs his next trophy wife, or someone like
Rupert Murdoch wants to buy a television station). They, at least,
can compromise on a program that lets the rich enter discreetly,
that lets workers in through back channels to keep them powerless,
and that displays maximum cruelty to everyone else. Democrats have
it much harder: they are torn between loud advocates of even more
immigration, even louder pleas for accepting refugees from every
godforsaken corner of the world (many fleeing US-backed regimes,
and many more from US-condemned ones), while most rank-and-file
Democrats don't care much one way or another, but are willing to
go along with the pro-immigrant forces because the anti-immigrants
are so often racist and xenophobic. I suspect most Democrats would
be happy with a reasoned compromise*, but Republicans like having
a broken system they can campaign against without ever having to
fix, so there's no one to compromise with. And in a world governed
by sound bites, the demagogue always come off as strong and clear
while the sophisticate looks muddled and middling.
Nicole Narea: [05-11]
The seismic consequences of ending Title 42.
Tori Otten: [05-11]
House Republicans pass immigration bill that would completely destroy
asylum process.
*For a compromise, how about this? Clean up the undocumented backlog
by allowing citizenship or subsidized return. Impose quotas to cut back
on new immigration rates, at least for a few years. Figure out a way
to distribute refugees elsewhere, subsidizing alternate destinations.
(Everybody deserves to live somewhere safe and healthy, but that
doesn't have to be the US.) And stop producing so many refugees (war,
economic, climate) -- this may require more foreign aid (and not the
military kind). And do real enforcement against illegal immigrants,
including thorough checks on employment. But also get due process
working.
Environment:
Artificial intelligence and other computations:
Vox has a whole section on
The rise of artificial intelligence, explained, and a few other
articles have popped up. I've barely poked around in all this material,
partly because I have my own ideas about what AI can and/or should do --
I had a fairly serious interest in the subject back in the 1980s, but
haven't kept up with it -- and partly because I'm dubious about how it
might affect me. (Although, as someone with serious writers block, this
title caught my eye:
If you're not using ChatGPT for your writing, you're probably making a
mistake.
Tom Engelhardt: [05-11]
Whose planet are we on?: "What happens when LTAI (less than
artificial intelligence) gives way to AI?" Argues that "this can't
end well," mostly based on the proven shortcomings of LTAI, by which
he means human intelligence (a better term, better even than one I
considered proposing: organic intelligence; both have the advantage
of leaving quantitative comparison to the side).
Taylor Lorenz: [05-13]
An influencer's AI clone will be your girlfriend for $1 a minute:
CarynAI, which sucks callers in for hours, but has led to "terrifying
threats against her," as "they think that it's the end of humanity."
That's about what it sounds like.
Alex Pareene: [05-12]
The computers are coming for the wrong jobs: A number of good points
here, like how AI writing programs are "the perfect employee of the sorts
of content mills that exist to aggregate and rewrite tech or entertainment
news," which will mostly be read by robots "to get good placement in
search engine results . . . so that other robots can sell ads against
it."
Kelsey Piper: [05-10]
Don't let AI fears of the future overshadow present-day causes:
"We shouldn'g forget present-day problems like global health and
poverty."
Alissa Wilkinson: [05-02]
The looming threat of AI to Hollywood, and why it should matter to
you.
Robert Wright: [05-04]
The hidden source of AI's emerging power: Interview with Geoffrey
Hinton. Wright previously wrote: [03-15]
OK, it's time to freak out about AI.
Ukraine War:
Connor Echols: [05-12]
Diplomacy Watch: China's top diplomat earns mixed reception in
Europe.
Anatol Lieven/Jake Werner: [05-12]
Yes, the US can work with China for peace in Ukraine.
Eve Ottenberg: [05-12]
Beltway mediocrities bumble toward Armageddon.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [05-11]
Trump tells CNN town hall: 'I want everyone to stop dying' in
Ukraine. He actually has some points here, including the point
about how calling Putin a war criminal only makes it harder to get
to a deal. His brags that Putin wouldn't have invaded if Trump was
president, and that if he were president, he'd end the war within
24 hours, seem pretty ridiculous. On the other hand, you have to
ask yourself: would Putin have been more likely to invade knowing
that he had a indifferent US president who wouldn't fight back, or
because he feared he was being pushed into a corner by Biden's much
more militant backing of an increasingly hardline Zelinsky? I find
the latter much more plausible, but the conventional wisdom would
argue that strengthening support for Ukraine should have deterred
a Putin attack. Sure didn't work out that way.
Robert Wright: [05-12]
The ultimate Blob blind spot: A recent Foreign Affairs has
a batch of five pieces by foreign policy experts in the global south,
casting into relief how Americans fail to see how others sees them.
That leads to a lecture on the lack of "cognitive empathy" as a key
defect among Blob thinkers. That's true enough, but I think there's
a simpler and easier solution, which is to check your hubris and to
admit that most things beyond your borders are beyond your control.
World:
Graham E Fuller: [05-13]
Turkey's elections: What's at stake? Their presidential election
is on Sunday.
Jen Kirby: [05-13]
Turkey's extremely big-deal election, explained: One obvious
downside should Erdoğan lose will be learning how to pronounce the
name of his successor, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.
Nicole Narea: [05-09]
What Imran Khan's arrest means for Pakistan. For an update, see
Ellen Ioanes: [05-13]
Pakistan's political turmoil over Imran Khan's arrest, explained.
Some of the turmoil subsided after Pakistan's Supreme Court
ruled that the arrest of Khan was "invalid and unlawful,"
but the divisions remain.
Trita Parsi: [05-08]
Five years after Trump's JCPOA exit, Iran closer to bomb than ever:
There is still no reason to think that Iran wants nuclear weapons, but
denied the incentives offered under JCPOA, they were left nothing to
do but returned to refining enriched uranium, and evidently have enough
of it to assemble several Hiroshima-style weapons. Furthermore, US
hostility has driven them to closer relationships with Russia and China --
not so much an alliance as a group sharing an interest in escaping US
sanctions. All of this leads Fred Kaplan to ask: [05-08]
Why are we still living with one of Trump's dumbest decisions?
Seyed Hossein Mousavian: [05-12]
Biden's 'no Iran deal, no crisis' policy is unsustainable.
Richard Silverstein: [05-09]
Gaza: House of slaughter.
Philip Weiss: [05-06]
Palestinians overwhelmingly support armed struggle to end occupation:
That's not how I read the numbers, but that's clearly the drift. And
just as clearly, that's the way right-wing Israelis want it. Provoking
Palestinians to violence gives them an excuse to kill more, to destroy
more homes and infrastructure, to inflict more pain and misery. That's
what they live for. Slaughter proves Zionism is both necessary and
sufficient.
Other stories:
Andrew Cockburn: [05-07]
Getting the defense budget right: A (real) grand total, over $1.4
trillion: Significantly more than the already obscenely high
$842 billion Department of Defense appropriation.
Ben Ehrenreich: [05-10]
How climate change has shaped life on earth for millenia: Review of
Peter Frankopan: The Earth Transformed: An Untold Story, which
attempts to reframe all of human (and for that matter geologic) history
in terms of climate change -- that being something we've lately noticed
matters.
David A Farenthold/Tiff Fehr: [05-14]
How to raise $89 million in small donations, and make it disappear:
"A group of conservative operatives using sophisticated robocalls raised
millions of dollars from donors using pro-police and pro-veteran messages.
But instead of using the money to promote issues and candidates, an
analysis by The New York Times shows, nearly all the money went to pay
the firms making the calls and the operatives themselves, highlighting
a flaw in the regulation of political nonprofits." Not to mention a
flaw in the enforcement of consumer fraud laws.
Ed Kilgore: [05-08]
Democrats shouldn't freak out over one really bad poll.
Erin Kissane:
Blue skies over Mastodon: General piece on Twitter-alternatives,
which in turn lead to Mike Masnick:
Six Months In: Thoughts on the Current Post-Twitter Diaspora Options.
Just FYI. Neither piece has convinced me to sign up for either, although
it's fairly clear that my
Twitter following is in
decline (followers 591, but views on latest Music Week notice down to
227).
Eric Levitz: [05-11]
Do the 'Woke' betray the left's true principles? A review of Susan
Neiman's book, Left Is Not Woke. I'm all for emphasizing the
primacy of the left-right axis, but I don't see much practical value
in opposing that to woke. On the other hand, Levitz's take on "toxic
forms of identity politics" are well taken. I recall from my own
political evolution how I started out with a deep antipathy to
rationalism, but changed my mind when I discovered that reason
could lead to the right answers I had intuited, but put them on a
much firmer basis.
David Owen: [04-24]
The great electrician shortage: "Going green will depend on
blue-collar workers. Can we train enough of them before time runs
out?" Plumbers, too. I've spent months trying to get a plumber to
fix a floor drain, which no one seems to want to touch. I'm tempted
to rent a jackhammer and deal with it myself, but then again, I'm
also a bit scared to.
Andrew Prokop: [05-12]
The potential indictment of Hunter Biden, explained. If you care,
some parameters. Worst case is that he's a fuck up who got sloppy on
his taxes. Trump would say that makes him smart. The gun form is
supposedly the clearest violation, but how often is that seriously
investigated?
Nathan J Robinson:
[05-08]
Why the Right will never, ever support gun control.
[05-11]
Donald Trump could well be the president again: "The polling is
alarming. Biden is weak, Trump is ruthless, and 2024 could look a
lot more like 2016 than 2020."
-/Noam Chomsky: [05-12]
The worst crime of the 21st century: "The United States destruction
of Iraq remains the worst international crime of our time. Its perpetrators
remain free and its horrors are buried." Long essay, a painful reminder
not just of what was done in and to Iraq but of the extraordinary hubris
in its planning. Adapted from a forthcoming book, The Myth of American
Idealism: How U.S. Foreign Policy Endangers the World.
Aja Romano: [05-12]
Why the Vallow-Daybell murders are among the bleakest in true crime
memory: I normally skip right over mundane crime stories, but
the author is right, that this one is profoundly unsettling, not
just for what a couple of very crazy people did but for the broader
cultural roots of where their thoughts came from. By the way, Rexburg,
Idaho, rings a bell: it was once described as the most Republican
town in America.
Dylan Scott: [05-10]
3 things you should know about the end of the Covid public health
emergency: "A hidden experiment in universal health care is about
to end."
Jeffrey St Clair: [05-12]
Roaming Charges: Neely Don't Surf: Starts off with the murder of
Jordan Neely in a NYC subway car by Daniel Penny, who "loved surfing."
He then links to a Clash song:
"Charlie Don't Surf".
A society that systematically victimizes people tends to reflexively
blame its victims for their own misfortune: poverty, hunger, chronic
illness, homelessness, mental distress and, as we're witnessing once
again with the case of Jordan Neely, even their own deaths.
Traditionally, this role has fallen to the New York Times and when
it came to the murder on the F train they sprang into action. . . .
Penny is described as easy going, a people person, an unstressed
former Marine who loved surfing. Yes, he too was jobless, but unlike
Neely, he had aspirations. He wanted to become a bartender in Manhattan
and a good citizen in the city he loved.
When the Times turns to Neely, we are treated to sketches in urban
pathology -- the portrait a troubled black youth, who has been in
decline since high school. His life is reduced to his rap sheet, his
arrests, his confinements to the psych ward. . . . Neely is depicted
as ranting, homeless, troubled, erratic, violent, mentally ill and
ready to die. It's almost as if we're meant to believe that Neely's
murder was a case of "suicide by vigilante." He was, the story implies,
almost asking for someone to kill him.
After protests, NYC prosecutors finally announced that they will
charge Penny "with Manslaughter in the Second Degree, which is
classified as a Class C Non-Violent Felony, where first-time
offenders often receive a non-incarceratory sentence, usually of
probation."
Matt Taibbi, et al: [05-10]
Report on the Censorship-Industrial Complex: The top 50 organizations
to know: Taibbi wrote the introduction, which ginned up the title,
while others wrote the profiles that follow. The organizations include
a broad mix of non-profits with a few companies and government sections
thrown in. They give you a good idea of who's monitoring the internet
to identify misinformation. They may do a lot of complaining, but few
have any actual ability to censor, which makes this one of the more
tenuous X-industrial complex coinages.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, May 7, 2023
Speaking of Which
Got a late start, and really not feeling it this week. Seems like
plenty of links, but not a lot of commentary.
Top story threads:
Trump: I got some flak for not taking the E. Jean Carroll
lawsuit seriously enough
last week,
and wound up dropping a couple parenthetical remarks. The case will
presumably be wrapped up and given to the jury early next week, so
we'll see. One thing I missed was that while Trump cannot be prosecuted
for rape (statute of limitations), he can be sued for assault, so this
is not just a defamation case. Also, his own deposition makes him look
guilty as hell. I'm particularly bothered by the "she's not my type"
defense. In order for that to be a thing, he has to have a pretty large
population to choose from, and do so with extreme shallowness. (Ok,
maybe Trump does have a type, but think about what that says about
him.)
Republicans:
More Fox fallout:
Courts:
Slow civil war: Section name derives from Jeff Sharlet's
book (see below). Mostly assorted right-wing wackos taking pot shots
at whoever, but it doesn't seem to be random circumstance.
Economy:
Arthur Delaney: [05-06]
Let's not play the blame game, say lawmakers blamed for bank failures:
"Authors of a 2018 law rolling back bank regulations are oblivious to a
damning report from the Federal Reserve."
Kevin T Dugan: [05-05]
Jerome Powell can now pivot to saving the economy from imploding.
Laurence H Tribe: [05-07]
Why I changed my mind on the debt limit: He's arguing now (unlike
he did in 2011) that Biden should simply declare the debt limit law
unconstitutional, as it violates the 14th amendment. That works for me.
Sure, it would be cleaner if Congress had simply repealed the law, as
many urged it to do last year, but the effect is the same (give or take
a lawsuit). It goes without saying that if McCarthy wants to cut back
on future appropriations, he's in the ideal position to do that. What
he can't do is cancel spending money that's been legally appropriated
just because he thinks he has some newfound leverage. By the way, see:
Jim Tankersley: [05-02]
Is the debt limit constitutional? Biden aides are debating it.
Paul Krugman: [05-07]
In defense of debt gimmicks: Several more ideas for dodging the debt
limit.
Li Zhou: [05-03]
Why the Fed's latest interest rate hike is controversial.
Another quarter-point hike, to 5.25%, despite evidence that inflation
is reduced, and fears that recession is coming. Unfortunately, the
latter seems to be what Fed Chairman Powell is aiming for (or won't
be satisfied until he gets there).
Ukraine War: Jeffrey St Clair (see below) offers a long
quote from an
El Pais interview with Lula da Silva, where the key point is:
"This war should never have started. It started because there is no
longer any capacity for dialogue among world leaders." He didn't
single out the US in this regard -- the country he condemned was
Russia, which "has no right to invade Ukraine" -- but by focusing
on the question of how to prevent wars from starting, the US is
most clearly negligent. The US has lost its capacity to act as an
advocate for peace because US foreign policy has been captured by
the merchants and architects of war.
Connor Echols: [05-05]
Diplomacy Watch: Breaking down the pope's peace 'mission': "Is the
Holy See working on a secret plan to end the war in Ukraine?" Seems
time for a "hail Mary" joke. Echols settles for "why could blame a
pope for believing in miracles?"
Julia Davis: [05-03]
Kremlin cronies compare alleged drone attack to 9/11. On the other
hand, I saw a tweet somewhere comparing it to 1950s B-movie special
effects.
Mary Ilyushina: [05-05]
Leaked US files show deep rift between Russian military and Wagner
chief. I've seen reports of Wagner pulling back from Bakhmut,
complaining of ammunition shortages, and further reports of them
staying in the fight.
Fred Kaplan: [05-04]
So, who was behind that drone attack on Putin? "It might remain a
mystery, but let's review all the theories." None are convincing.
Anatol Lieven: [05-05]
Applebaum & Goldberg: Truth attended by a bodyguard of lies:
"In the Atlantic writers' latest attempt to frame the war as a global
struggle between good and evil, they cut too many corners to ignore."
Zachary Paikin: [05-01]
Where has US leverage with Russia gone? This article could be
sharper. US leverage with Russia "has gone" because it was wasted
on posturing instead of being used for value. The US could easily
trade an end to sanctions, arms reductions, a rollback of the NATO
defense perimeter, even economic favors, in exchange for Russia
giving up claims on Ukraine and reducing its own threat projection.
These chits are all effectively leverage, but they're useless until
you're willing to put them in play.
Michael Weiss/James Rushton: [05-05]
'We will keep killing Russians,' Ukraine's military intelligence chief
vows: Maj. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, feeling very bully, especially in
Ukraine's ability to kill Russians in Russia. Most of what we read is
shaped propaganda, this more than most.
World:
Connor Echols: [05-03]
NATO foray into Asia risks driving China and Russia closer together:
So, NATO's opening a "liaison office" in Tokyo -- something they've
also done in Ukraine, Georgia, Kuwait, and Moldova. As I've noted many
times, the prime mission of NATO over the last 10-20 years has been to
promote arms sales (mostly US but also European), often by provoking
threats. The war in Ukraine would seem to validate their prophecies --
and indeed has been a boon for arms sales, with more to come in Sweden
and Finland. A similar US sales pitch has been racking up big sales in
Taiwan, so it's not so surprising that European arms makers want a
piece of the action, and NATO gives them a calling card. While China
is less likely to be bullied into a war, the risks are even greater.
Ben Freeman: [05-01]
'Acceptable' versus 'unacceptable' foreign meddling in US affairs:
"It all seems to depend on whether the offending nation is an ally or
adversary." And (talk about elephants in the room) not even a word here
about Israel.
Frank Giustra: [05-03]
De-dollarization: Not a matter of it, but when. The US has been
able to run trade deficits for fifty years because the world has uses
for dollars beyond buying American-made goods. (One, of course, is
buying American assets, including companies.) But when the US levies
sanctions, it motivates others to find alternatives to the dollar, to
make themselves less dependent on the US. This has been tempting for
a long time, but war with Russia and efforts to intimidate China are
quickening the pace.
Daniel Larison: [05-05]
US military driving and exacerbating violence in Somalia: "Americans
have been intervening there for decades. Isn't it past time to ask whether
we are the problem?"
Blaise Malley: [05-02]
In Washington, China is a four-letter word and the excuse for
everything: "Lawmakers have introduced nearly 275 measures this
session, while bureaucrats are busy using the CCP to justify ballooning
budgets."
Kiyoshi Sugawa: [05-02]
Should Japan defend Taiwan?: Biden says the US will defend Taiwan.
It is rare, at least since WWII, for the US to enter into a war without
enlisting support of its nominal allies, so this prospect is something
every US ally should think long and hard about. Still, it's striking
how easily the US has recruited former occupiers into its "coalition
of the willing": for Iraq, not only the the UK sign up, but so did
Mongolia. Japan occupied Taiwan from 1895-1945, a time that few there
remember fondly.
Other stories:
William Hartung/Ben Freeman: [05-06]
This is not your grandparents' military industrial complex: "Arsenals
of influence, the consolidation of contractors, the blob -- all would make
Eisenhower blink with unrecognition."
Ellen Ioanes: [05-06]
Serbia's populist president pledges "disarmament" after mass shootings:
File this under "it can't happen here." Note that Serbia is tied for the
third-highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world (39.1 firearms
per 100 residents; US rate is 117.5), but mass shootings are "quite rare"
(vs. more than 1 per day in the US). In the two events, a 13-year-old
boy killed nine people at a Belgrade-area elementary school, and a day
later a 20-year-old killed eight people and wounded 14.
Umair Irfan: [05-01]
Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power,
explained. Still, those terms are only relative, and the old
generation of nuclear power plants, which are nearing the end of
their planned lifetimes, have set a pretty low bar. I can imagine
a scenario where nuclear complements other non-carbon sources of
energy, but first you have to solve two problems that are more
political than technical: figure out what to do with the waste,
and end the linkages between nuclear power and bombs, by disposing
of the latter. Of course, you'll still have economic questions:
how cost-effective nuclear power is compared to alternatives that
are still compatible with climate goals. Even then, perhaps on some
level nuclear power is still just too creepy.
Benjamin Keys: [05-07]
Your homeowners' insurance bill is the canary in the climate coal mine.
As climate disasters mount, their cost is going to be average out over
everyone, with the result that insurance will become increasingly
unaffordable. For most people, this will happen before actual disasters
happen, which will make it hard to see and understand. But in the long
run, I think this will fundamentally change the way government has to
work.
Tyler Koteskey: [05-04]
'Mission Accomplished' was a massive fail -- but it was just the
beginning.
Keren Landman: [05-05]
What the ending of the WHO's Covid emergency does (and doesn't) change:
"For Americans, the coming [May 11] end of the US public health emergency
will have much bigger impacts."
Bruce E Levine: [05-05]
Once radical critiques of psychiatry are now mainstream, so what remains
taboo?.
Eric Levitz: [05-03]
The Biden administration just declared the death of neoliberalism.
Nicole Narea/Li Zhou: [05-05]
How New York City failed Jordan Neely: A black, unhoused person,
choked to death on a New York subway, by "a white 24-year-old former
Marine," who hasn't been named, much less arrested. Also:
Elizabeth Nelson: [05-02]
The Ed Sheeran lawsuit is a threat to Western civilization. Really.
Jeffrey St Clair: [05-05]
Roaming Charges: How White Men Fight.
Emily Stewart: [05-04]
What the lottery sells -- and who pays. I know a guy who signs his
emails with: "lottery (n.): a tax on stupidity." My reaction was that
it's more like a tax on hopelessness, or maybe just on hope, for the set
of people who realize they'll never have a chance to make qualitatively
more than they have, but are willing to give up a little to gain a rare
chance of change. Still, I'm not one of them. I've never bought a ticket
or a scratch card of whatever form they take -- even before I got taken
to task for using the "if I won the lottery" rhetorical foil (my cousin
pointed out that if I did, I'd never be able to tell who my real friends
are, which she insisted would be a worse problem than the supposed gain).
Still, I'm glad that the state runs the racket, instead of leaving it to
organized crime. Same is true for all other forms of gambling. Beware
all efforts to privatize them.
Aric Toler/Robin Stein/Glenn Thrush/Riley Mellen/Ishaan Jhaveri:
[05-06]
War, Weapons and Conspiracy Theories: Inside Airman Teixeira's Online
World: "A review of more than 9,500 messages obtained by The New
York Times offers important clues about the mind-set of a young airman
implicated in a vast leak of government secrets."
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, April 30, 2023
Speaking of Which
PS: Added the Kessler piece below (under Trump).
Started early, mostly just to grab some of the early Tucker Carlson
reactions. Then I focused more on the
Book Roundup. I've been pretty unhappy the last couple days, but
keep finding links, and things to write about. Hoping to wrap this
up as soon as possible.
Although I say some nice things about Biden in his section, pay
extra attention to the world sections. Biden's foreign policy is not
an absolute, unmitigated disaster, but the mitigations are minor,
especially compared to the threats that of so much focus on power,
and the arrogance that comes from that.
Top story threads:
Fox and fiends (mostly Tucker Carlson): As you know, Carlson
was fired Monday morning, effective immediately, with Brian Kilmeade
lined up as a temporary replacement. CNN followed almost instantly by
firing Don Lemon. A couple days later, ABC fired FiveThirtyEight guru
Nate Silver. And there was more (see Stieb).
Matt Stieb: [04-28]
This Week's Media Massacre: A Roundup. About half of those seem to
be further proof that the big money media world is suffering some form
of heat death: companies are cooling off and cracking up, the firings
merely symptomatic. In this, Carlson's firing is probably an outlier,
if even an example at all.
Sara Morrison/Aja Romano: [04-28]
What we know about Tucker Carlson's shocking Fox News departure.
Peter Kafka: [04-26]
No, seriously, why did Fox News fire Tucker Carlson?
Jonathan Chait: [04-24]
Tucker Carlson, Fake Populist and
Genuine Racist: "A TV character who exploited the worst impulses
of the American right."
Lee Harris/Luke Goldstein: [04-25]
The Smuggest Man on Air: This tries to make a best case for
Carlson as a populist, as someone "who punctured the lazy pieties
of the media class." Still, slipping the occasional (and far from
original) nugget of insight into a cloak of vitriol isn't all that
helpful, let alone laudable. And even these authors had to conclude:
"For a partial list of Tucker's noxious comments, see
Mother Jones,
New York magazine,
Rolling Stone,
The New Republic,
The Guardian,
The New York Times, and others."
PS: The publisher got a lot of flack for this piece, for which editor
David Dayen apologized, and agreed to a rejoinder. It is here:
Harold Meyerson/Tisya Mavuram: [04-27]
The Real Tucker Carlson: "Carlson has been second only to Donald
Trump in building a neofascist right that threatens American democracy."
They also did a podcast, where Ryan Cooper is more explicit:
Farewell to a Crypto Nazi Blowhard. These pieces, in turn, provide
fuel for Andrew Prokop: [04-26]
The new controversy on the left: Is it okay to say Tucker Carlson had
some good ideas? Well, is it useful? It certainly doesn't work as
an argument from authority. One could say that "even Tucker Carlson"
conceded or tried to capitalize on some point, but then you're stuck
suggesting that Carlson had some values or insights rarely in evidence
elsewhere.
Ed Kilgore: [04-25]
Tucker Carlson for President? Not in 2024. "No lane," not that
that's stopped anyone so far, although Carlson has long been a
subject for speculation (see Politico: [04-24]
The keys to a hypothetical Tucker Carlson 2024 campaign, which
asks the question: "Will Don Lemon be his running mate?" As I recall,
Lemon was on Trump's shit list, so not bloody likely. But I wouldn't
rule out the other fired Fox host, Lou Dobbs, or even Geraldo Rivera.
[PS: I've also seen a cartoon that pairs Carlson with Larry Elder,
who announced his candidacy on Carlson's show.]
Eric Levitz: [04-24]
Fox News Could Be Just as Racist Without Tucker Carlson: Sure,
they can always find another racist, but wasn't there something
distinctive and unique (je ne sais quoi, but something)
about Carlson's racism?
Branko Marcetic: [04-28]
Tucker Carlson Isn't an Anti-Imperialist -- He's a Rabid China
Hawk.
Andrew Prokop: [04-24]
Tucker Carlson was doing something different -- and darker -- than most
Fox hosts. For one thing, he had that super-creepy laugh (really more
of a cackle).
Jim Rutenberg/Jeremy W Peters/Michael S Schmidt: [04-26]
On Eve of Trial, Discovery of Carlson Texts Set Off Crisis Atop
Fox.
Alex Shephard: [04-27]
Tucker Carlson Has Already Lost His War With Fox News: "His hostage
video on Wednesday proves it." Shephard also wrote: [04-26]
Rupert Murdoch May Have Blown His Tucker Succession Plan; also: [04-24]
Tucker Carlson's Firing Was Hilarious.
Matt Stieb: [04-24]
All the Things Tucker Carlson Said That Should Have Gotten Him Fired
Already: Well, sure, not all of them, but some typical
examples."
Tatyana Tandanpolie: [04-28]
Fox News loses more than half of audience after axing Tucker
Carlson: "It's not just Tucker's slot -- Sean Hannity and Laura
Ingraham's ratings are falling too."
Michael Tomasky: [04-28]
Rupert Murdoch Must Be Totally and Utterly Humiliated. Sure, but
Tomasky has been making a lot of bold, emphatic moral proclamations
lately. Have any of them come true?
Erik Wemple: [04-24]
Tucker Carlson, a terrible individual, leaves Fox News.
Jason Zengerle: [04-28]
Fox News Gambled, but Tucker Can Still Take Down the House.
Trump: E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against Trump is in
a court room, being argued. The case is a poor proxy for a charge of
rape, which happened about 25 years ago.
Kevin McCarthy, terrorist, sociopath, nincompoop: What else
would you call someone who wants to destroy the economy along with the
government?
Alex Shephard: [04-28]
Kevin McCarthy Is Not Good at This: "The 'budget' passed by House
Republicans is terrible for the party politically." Well, he did get
his hostage note passed by the House, but in no scenario will he come
out of this looking like anything but a heel. Threatening to default,
like shutting down the government, has backfired every time Republicans
have tried it, but somehow Republicans like McCarthy can't resist the
moment in the spotlight. If they could, they could quietly cut all the
spending they wanted in the coming year's appropriations process. It
might seem harder, because the lobbyists will be all over his case,
but it's his leverage according to the constitution. But default over
spending that's already been passed is just terrorism.
Peter Wade: [04-30]
Ted Cruz Maligns Biden, Claims He Is 'Behaving Like a Terrorist' with
Debt Ceiling: Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. "The
senator also called White House staffers 'little Marxists with no
experience in the real world."
Li Zhou::
Other Republicans:
Jamelle Bouie: [04-29]
A Sinister New Page in the Republican Playbook: It's long been
evident that Republicans believe that America is really home to, and
should belong to, only a part of its people. The others have long
been deprecated, disparaged, even rallied against. They wish to deny
them rights, especially the right to vote. The "new page" is that
they've started to use their power to deny others representation.
You're probably familiar with many of these examples. One is here:
Li Zhou: [04-26]
Montana Republicans are punishing a trans lawmaker for criticizing
their anti-trans bill.
Fabiola Cineas: [04-28]
The Ten Commandments could be in every Texas classroom next fall:
Interview with Jonathan Zimmerman, on three bills Texas passed that
almost certainly violate the 1st Amendment.
Gabrielle Gurley: [04-27]
Republicans Declare War on Young Voters: "The GOP answer to anger
about its abortion, climate, and gun control crusades is to double
down." Also: "Some Republican lawmakers have been very clear about
views on suppressing the college vote."
Ed Kilgore: [04-28]
State Court Deals Big Blow to Dems' Chances of Retaking the House:
The North Carolina Supreme Court blesses the Republican gerrymander.
Dylan Matthews: [04-29]
l
The blithe cruelty of the GOP push for Medicaid work requirements.
Nicole Narea: [04-28]
The Florida legislature is working for Ron DeSantis's presidential
campaign: "This legislative session has been all about Ron
DeSantis."
Timothy Noah: [04-27]
Why Republicans Hate It When Poor People Have Food to Eat: "The
House GOP's attacks on food stamps are part of a long history of
conservative attempts to slash the program."
Nikki McCann Ramirez: [04-28]
DeSantis Suggests He Personally Prayed a Hurricane Away From Florida:
Weirder, he had to go to Israel to make his prayers heard.
Dylan Scott: [04-27]
How Ron DeSantis transformed into an anti-public health crusader.
Lots of things disturb me about the Republican Party, but the extent
to which they've turned against public health is especially alarming.
Hard to tell whether DeSantis is leading that turn, or just going with
the flow.
Tori Otten: [04-28]
Ron DeSantis Explodes When Asked About His Role in Guantánamo Torture.
This also leads us to Prem Thakker: [04-24]
Ron DeSantis Short-Circuits When Asked About Dropping Poll Numbers.
Incidents like these have led to a substantial thread of posts raising
questions about DeSantis's deficiencies in social skills and manners:
Biden: He announced that he is running for reëlection in 2024,
so I figured I should give him a section, as I've been giving Trump (and
sometimes DeSantis) for several months now. Surely there would be an
outpouring of articles praising his accomplishments and auguring
future hope? Well, not so much. One thing only I noticed is that this
breathes a faint bit of hope into my theory about political eras: that
each starts with a major two-term president (Washington, Jefferson,
Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Reagan) and ends with a one-term disaster
(John Adams, Buchanan, Hoover, Carter, Trump). Biden still seems like
a stretch, but he wouldn't be as much of an anomaly as Reagan, whose
whole era is the only one to witness a retreat of fundamental rights.
But also, Biden is the only president in my lifetime who has impressed
me beyond expectations. (True, I have no memory of Truman, and was at
best ambivalent about Eisenhower and Kennedy. Johnson I now see did
some good, but far worse was his war in Vietnam. Nixon, well, you know
about Nixon.)
John Cassidy: [04-25]
Joe Biden's 2024 opening argument: It's me or the abyss: "The
President's calling card -- as a Trump-slayer, and an upholder of
normality and sanity -- remains his biggest advantage."
Ed Kilgore: [04-27]
Will Biden Get Embarrassed in Iowa and New Hampshire? The problem
here has less to do with Biden's popularity than with primary politics:
Iowa and New Hampshire have repeatedly jumped through hoops to get to
first slot on the schedule, and the decision to drop them in favor of
South Carolina hasn't been taken lightly.
Eric Levitz: [04-28]
Trump Could Definitely Beat Biden: I'm filing this under Biden
instead of Trump, because it's more about Biden's weaknesses. I know,
never underestimate the ability of the American people to make stupid
mistakes. But it seems like Levitz has been writing a lot of stuff
lately just to trigger reactions.
Harold Meyerson: [04-24]
The Hedge Fund's Man at the Democratic National Committee: "Cedric
Richmond backs a hedge fund takeover of 60 TV stations."
Nicole Narea: [04-27]
Will there be any presidential debates in 2024?: "It's looking like
neither Trump nor Biden will have to participate in a presidential debate
in 2024." While both have some skills at acting out, neither is much of
a debater, so why risk a commanding lead? Biden has the least reason to,
given that few in the press recognize Marianne Williamson and/or Robert
F Kennedy Jr as serious candidates. Trump could take the same position,
unless the polls tell him otherwise. As for debates between them after
they get nominated (assuming as much), that's too early to tell.
Katie Rogers: [04-28]
Press Freedom! Celebrities! (Also, the President.) Get ready for
the White House Correspondents' Association dinner. One of the few
Trump moves I approved of was to put this miserable exercise out of
business. Sure, he only did it because he was too thin-skinned to
take the heat. But the White House correspondents, or at least the
news they reported, would have benefited from more objectivity and
less clubbiness.
PS: If you care, see Kelly McClure: [04-30]
The White House correspondents' dinner highlights: Biden can make
jokes as well as he can take them; also Hershal Pandya: [04-30]
Roy Wood Jr's Best Jokes at the 2023 White House Correspondents'
Dinner.
Ukraine War:
Blaise Malley: [04-28]
Diplomacy Watch: China seeks to portray itself as peacemaker in
Ukraine.
James Bamford: [04-27]
The Most Dangerous Game: How Shadow War Over Ukraine Nearly Triggered
Nuclear Holocaust; "Unnoticed among the trove of documents in the
Pentagon leak is this account of how a miscommunication between a
Russian pilot and his base came perilously close to starting World
War III."
Julia Conley: [04-27]
Climate Groups Call on Biden to Support Peace Talksk in Ukraine.
Fred Kaplan: [04-29]
Why Did Xi Jinping Suddenly Call Zelensky? "Some guesses as to what's
going on."
Daniel Larison: [04-28]
Lawmakers deploy 'Munich' trope to push dangerously hawkish Ukraine
resolutions: "A bipartisan group of hawks in Congress" want to pass
something they call the Ukrainian Victory Resolution, whereby the US --
and not Ukraine, which is actually doing the fighting -- will dictate
the only acceptable terms for ending the war: "restoration of Ukraine's
1991 borders" and inclusion of Ukraine in NATO. And of course they're
invoking the hoariest of pro-war tropes, the "Munich moment" (which was
1938, not 1939, and involved Czechoslovakia, not Poland). By the way,
in 1939, when Hitler threatened to invade Poland, the UK and France did
announce that they'd declare war on Germany if they invaded, and that
had no deterrence effect whatsoever. So why does anyone think that a
stronger stand in Munich would have frozen the Nazi war machine in its
tracks?
Nanjala Nyabola: [04-25]
What the World Should Know About Sudan: "You need to understand
European foreign policy."
Olivia Rosane: [04-27]
Investigation Details How Gas Industry Exploited Ukraine War to Boost
LNG Expansion.
World at Large:
Michael Barnett/Nathan Brown/Marc Lynch/Shibley Telhami: [04-14]
Israel's One-State Reality: It's Time to Give Up on the Two-State
Solution: Introduction to a new book, a collection of essays
edited by the author, called
The One State Reality: What Is Israel/Palestine?. Mitchell
Plitnick wrote about it here: [04-21]
The one-state reality goes mainstream, as did Philip Weiss: [04-26]
White House officials know Israel is an apartheid state, but they can't
say so. This insight isn't particularly new: it's hard to think of
anyone other than Washington diplomats who've talked about "two-state
solution" since 2012, which is the date of a book I read: Ariella
Azoulay/Adi Ophir:
The One-State Condition: Occupation and Democracy in
Israel/Palestine. As for "apartheid," Jimmy Carter:
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid came out in 2006. So I'm not
surprised to find that prospects for separating the former West Bank
into an independent Palestinian state have been demolished: that's
been the plan since 1967, as was made clear by Avi Raz:
The Bride and the Dowry: Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians in the
Aftermath of the June 1967 War. What does surprise me is that
nobody talks about the obvious two-state division, which breaks Gaza
off as an independent state. Palestinians don't like this, presumably
because they see it as a divide-and-conquer policy, aimed as finalizing
the subjugation of the Palestinian West Bank. And Israelis don't like
it, because it would mean recognizing that there is a legitimate
Palestinian state. But it would end the current "open air prison,"
and allow at least some Palestinians to get on the path of becoming
a normal country. That at least is a separable, solvable problem.
Sure, that would leave Israel's foundational problem (call it apartheid
for lack of a sufficient alternative), with little chance of solution,
but why not fix what you can do now?
Tanya Goudsouzian: [04-28]
What would it take to recognize the Taliban? While I would like to
see many of the concessions the US and others are demanding, I doubt
you get there in one initial step, or ever unless you offer some basic
level of recognition.
Michael T Klare: [04-26]
A US-China War Over Taiwan? "What will happen when China invades
Taiwan, as so many in Washington believe is inevitable?" But why should
we credit anything people in Washington think about China? What gives
them such special insight? One thing we should know is that China has
been very patient as well as very stubborn about territorial claims.
They patiently negotiated their takeover of Hong Kong and Macau, which
they could easily have occupied (as India, for instance, grabbed Goa).
I don't like the elaborate fiction they have insisted on regarding "one
China" and/or their claim to Taiwan (which has only been part of China
for 4 years since 1895, and a very divided China at that), but the push
to arm Taiwan and turn it into a satellite dependent on the US for its
security seems very clearly meant as aimed at China. And it is precisely
the sort of move that could provoke China to unseemly action.
Dan Lamothe/Joby Warrick: [04-22]
Afghanistan has become a terrorism staging ground again, leak reveals.
As
Robert Wright points out, the headline here is misleading, in such
a way as to imply "that this amounts to an indictment of President Biden's
decision to withdraw from Afghanistan -- that, just as his critics had
warned, turning Afghanistan over to the Taliban has turned it into a
playground for anti-American terrorists." The "terrorists" in question
identify as ISIS, although how closely (if at all) they are affiliated
with ISIS in Syria isn't clear. The enemy of the Afghan ISIS is the
Taliban, if the US had any interest in countering ISIS terrorism, they
would recognize and work toward stabilizing the Taliban regime. It is,
after all, the de facto government there, and there's nothing practical
the US can do to alter that, so huffing off in a snit helps no one.
PS: See Robert Wright: [04-29]
No, Afghanistan has not become a 'staging ground for terrorists'.
James Park: [04-28]
What the Biden-Yoon summit left out: "Nuclear saber rattling hasn't
changed North Korea's behavior in the past and it likely won't now."
As best I recall, it's mostly made it worse. One of the clearest lessons
we should but haven't learned from Ukraine is that deterrence doesn't
work: more precisely, it can be safely ignored by countries that have
no interest in attacking you in the first place (which includes the
Soviet Union for the entire duration of the Cold War), while it presses
countries that think they can get away with it into acting more boldly
(as Russia did in Ukraine). The lessons from North Korea itself should
be even clearer. Ever since 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed and
with it the security umbrella and life support Russia provided, North
Korea has been desperately flailing, threatening at times and otherwise
accommodating, trying to protect its security and enter into trade that
could revive a moribund economy. The US and/or South Korea has sometimes
started to engage, which lowered the threat level, then backed out and
double crossed North Korea, which lead to increased threats. Why? This
seems monumentally stupid to me, but the war gamers in Washington may
figure a threatening North Korea is better for their budgets, plus it
keeps Japan and South Korea in the US orbit, which matters when you're
ulterior motive is to muscle China around.
Courts:
Other stories:
Chas Danner: [04-29]
Texas Family Gunned Down by Neighbor in Yet Another Horrific Shooting.
David Dayen: [04-18]
Big Tech Lobbyists Explain How They Took Over Washington: "An
amazing research paper unearths how the tech industry invented the
concept of digital trade and sold it to government officials."
Daniel Gilbert: [04-29]
Moderna's billionaire CEO reaped nearly $400 million last year. He also
got a raise.
Ethan Iverson: [04-10]
The End of the Music Business.
Jay Caspian Kang: [04-04]
The case for banning children from social media: Not a subject I
particularly want to think about, at least right now, but bookmarked
for future reference. I will say that throughout history, banning
something is a good way to get people to do it anyway, and make them
more anti-social and anti-civil in the process. Also that we tend to
be overprotective of children, while at the same time making it harder
for people of all ages to overcome mistakes and recover their lives.
Also that the real problem with social media is commercial capture,
and if you want to work on something, start there: if, for instance,
you severely limited data capture, banned selling it and/or using it
for advertising, and made advertising strictly opt-in, you could drive
most of the bad actors off the Internet, and solve most of the problems
associated with them. Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. I'm
sure much more could follow. And perhaps this is just me, but I was
miserable as a child, in many ways that access to the Internet (even
in the benighted form of today's social media) would probably have
helped.
Robert Kuttner: [04-26]
The Soaking at Bed Bath & Beyond: "Who bought up all that stock,
as the retailer was on the route to bankruptcy?"
Joel Penney: [04-29]
Right-wing media used to shun pop culture. Now it's obsessed with it.
I'm not so sure about the first line, given how popular music from rock
and roll in the 1950s to hip-hop in the 1980s were met with hysterical
denunciations from self-appointed guardians of decency, but sure, it
seems to be getting both more trivial and more frantic. Part of that
may be the perception that popular culture trends have become so broad,
so ubiquitous that all the right can do is rant and rail -- also feeds
into their general sense of victimhood and grievance. I remember back
in the 1970s it seemed like a big insight to understand how politics
permeated cultural artifacts. (One famous example was
How to Read Donald Duck.) But while the right managed to claw
back (or cling to) political power, culture has continued its popular
(if ever more varied) drift, and "high culture" is hardly even a term
anymore (maybe "highbrow," but even that may be showing my age).
Still, I can't help but be amused watching right-wingers discover
bits of formerly left-wing methodology, exposing hidden political memes
in everyday cultural artifacts. But haven't they been doing that all
along? It's just funnier now that symbols of satanism have given way
to the currently more alarming curse of wokeness.
Adam Rawnsley/Jim Laporta: [04-27]
The Online Racists Stealing Military Secrets: Jack Teixiera:
If he's to be believed, you can't call him a whistleblower, because
he wasn't trying to expose secrets that needed further scrutiny.
He was just showing off to his friends, which turns out to be a part
of a broader complex of pathological personal traits: the guns, the
racism, etc. People have wondered why the military gave someone like
him such access to top-secret material. Perhaps they should wonder
about the mutual attraction between the military and people like him,
or, say, Timothy McVeigh, or Michael Flynn. I'm not a big fan of a
culture where the most basic principle is the necessity of following
orders, but at least that's an ordering principle. Just recruiting
psychotics who think they should answer to "higher powers" is crazy.
And speaking of crazy, while I didn't think much of the revelations
at first, the more we get into them, the more bizarre they become. I've
long suspected that secret classifications were more meant to keep the
truth from ourselves than from supposed enemies. And the big secret
here is that nobody in a position of power seems to know what they're
doing.
Jeffrey St Clair: [04-28]
Roaming Charges: Nipped and Tuckered: Starts with Carlson, but has
surprisingly little to add, other than his observation that: "Tucker
Carlson seems to be a truly weird person. His obsessions -- filth,
bizarre animal stories ('sex crazed pandas' and 'psycho raccoons'),
obesity, bodily excrescences, the subliminal gender messages in candy,
testicle tanning -- which he regularly inflicted on his audiences,
range far beyond the usual tabloid grotesqueries and border on the
pathological."
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, April 23, 2023
Speaking of Which
Supposedly Obama's motto as president was "don't do stupid shit."
Republicans this week, perhaps more than ever before, proved themselves
to be his polar opposite.
Sad to hear of the death of
Fern Van Gieson (1928-2023), a dear friend we met twenty-some years
ago through the Wichita Peace Center.
Also passing this week was Australian comedian Barry Humphries,
better known as
Dame Edna Everage. I can't say as I've ever been much of a fan,
but this reminds me how common, innocent, and downright silly drag
has been going back longer than I can remember. Republicans want
to vilify and criminalize drag. While it's always possible that
their schemes are just some cynical plot hatched from Frank Luntz's
polling, the deeper implication is that their fears are rooted in
deep insecurities, as well as a defective sense of humor, and a
general loathing not just for people who are a bit different, but
also for people who are a bit too similar.
Top story threads:
Kevin McCarthy v. America: I don't have time to write more,
but this reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the
black sheriff escapes a lynching by threatening to shoot himself.
Trump: No new indictments. E. Jean Carroll's defamation case
against Trump is scheduled to start on
April 25, with or probably without Trump's presence. I skipped over
a bunch of articles on how Trump is polling (he seems to be burying
DeSantis).
Isaac Arnsdorf/Jeff Stein: [04-21]
Trump touts authoritarian vision for second term: 'I am your justice':
He goes on: "And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your
retribution." "The former president is proposing deploying the military
domestically, purging the federal workforce and building futuristic cities
from scratch." The latter are to be called "freedom cities": "with flying
cars, manufacturing hubs and opportunities for homeownership, promising
a 'quantum leap in the American standard of living.'" Stephen Moore wants
to build them with tax incentives and deregulation, as well as a "super
police force that keeps the place safe." Some ideas do suggest Trump
input, like "classical-style buildings, monuments to 'true American
heroes,' and schools and streets named 'not after communists but
patriots.'"
Sophia A McClennen: [04-22]
Sick of Trump? Try laughing at him. Author wrote a book on the
subject: Trump Was a Joke: How Satire Made Sense of a President
Who Didn't (Routledge, rather pricey at
$35.96 paperback). Author previously wrote [02-01]
Donald Trump is the worst kind of fool.
Luke Savage: [04-20]
Donald Trump's NFTs Are the Perfect Symbol of American Capitalilsm in
2023.
Other Republicans: If you want an intro here, refer back to
the top.
Kate Aronoff: [04-21]
Why Republicans Want to Keep Free Money Out of Their Districts: "The
GOP wants to cut 24 clean energy tax credits -- that disproportionately
benefit Republican districts."
Zack Beauchamp: [04-21]
Why so many top Republicans want to go to war in Mexico: "An
astonishingly bad idea that's gotten popular very quickly." Trump
wants "battle plans." Senators Graham and Kennedy, and some House
Republicans, want to designate drug cartels as "foreign terrorist
organizations," and are pushing an "authorization of military force"
resolution, like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Jacob Bogage/Maria Luisa Paúl: [04-23]
The conservative campaign to rewrite child labor laws: "The
Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based think
tank and lobbying group, drafted state legislation to strip child
workplace protections."
Jonathan Chait: [04-21]
Mitt Romney Thinks the Labor Secretary Shouldn't Represent Labor:
Not a big surprise given that his 2012 running mate proclaimed that
Labor Day should celebrate America's great entrepreneurs, who somehow
built all of America's wealth through their hard work and ingenuity.
Biden's nominated Julie Su for Labor Secretary, raising Romney's ire'
because her "public calendar shows standing meetings with unions and
only very recent engagement with businesses." On the other hand, he
had no qualms about voting for Trump's pick of Eugene Scalia (yes,
nepo-son of that Scalia), who was a "lifelong union-buster" and "has
yet to find a worker protection he supports or a corporate loophole
he opposes." By the way, on Su see: Timothy Noah: [04-20]
Republicans Took Their Shots at Biden's Labor Nominee.
Fabiola Cineas: [04-20]
Ron DeSantis's war on "woke" in Florida schools, explained:
"From book bans to a hostile campus takeover, here's a rundown of
DeSantis's conservative plan for Florida education."
Julia Conley: [04-20]
'Relentless' GOP Push Leads to Nearly 1,500 Book Bans in First Half
of School Year.
Josh Dawsey/Amy Gardner: [04-20]
Top GOP lawyer decries ease of campus voting in private pitch to
RNC: Cleta Mitchell.
Cory Doctorow: [04-19]
Iowa's starvation strategy: "When billionaires fund unimaginably
cruel policies, I think the cruelty is a tactic, a way to get
the turkeys to vote for Christmas. After all, policies that grow the
fortune of the 1% at the expense of the rest of us have a natural 99%
disapproval rating." And: "Pro-oligarch policies don't win democratic
support -- but policies that inflict harm [on] a ginned-up group of enemies
might. Oligarchs need frightened, hateful people to vote for policies
that will secure and expand the power of the rich. Cruelty is the
tactic. Power is the strategy. The point isn't cruelty, it's power."
But when such policies are implemented, they sure look like cruelty --
both to the sadists who relish them, and to the rest of us. Isn't
one of the basic principles of ethics to draw the line well short
of cruelty?
Luke Goldstein: [04-21]
Sen. Tim Scott's 'Land of Opportunity' (Zones).
Margaret Hartmann: [04-21]
All of Ron DeSantis's Crimes Against Good Etiquette: The worst
of which are at least a hundred rungs down a ranked list of his bad
personal and political traits.
Rae Hodge: [04-21]
Abbott pledges to pardon a groomer: Link title, actually the same
murderer Abbott pledged to pardon a week or two ago, but now we're
finding out more, like how he "chats to meet young girls."
Ellen Ioanes: [04-22]
As the end of Title 42 nears, Congress is no closer on immigration
overhaul: The House GOP has a hideous bill ("too harsh, even for
some Republicans").
Greg Jaffe/Patrick Marley: [04-22]
In a thriving Michigan county, a community goes to war with itself:
The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners has eight new members, all
Republicans, all insane right-wingers. Why? As
Steve M argues: [04-22]
Covid Made Right-Winters insane.
Tori Otten: [04-19]
Florida Republicans Pass Bill Allowing Trans Kids to Be Removed From
Their Families. Otten also wrote: [04-19]
Florida Passes Anti-Drag Ban So Extreme It Could Ban All Pride Parades.
Also: [04-21]
Texas Republicans Pass Bill Requiring Ten Commandments in Every
Classroom.
Maria Luisa Paúl: [04-21]
Tennessee lawmaker resigns after violating harassment policy:
Rep. Scotty Campbell (R), who voted to expel the "Tennessee 3," finds
himself on the wrong end of the stick.
Trudy Ring: [04-21]
Kansas Gov. Vetoes Four Anti-Trans Bills; Republicans Will Try to
Override: Which they'll probably do, given their veto-proof
majority in the KS state legislature. Similar bills have recently
been passed in
Kentucky (over veto) and
North Dakota (signed by a Republican governor), and Republicans in
the US House also
passed one.
Alex Shephard: [04-19]
Ron DeSantis Is Having an Epic Disaster of a Week: "The Florida
governor made a pilgrimage to Capitol Hill to freshen up his moribund
campaign. Things didn't go as planned."
Matt Stieb: [04-19]
Oklahoma Sheriff Says Recording About Lynching Black People Is
'Complex'.
Michael Tomasky: [04-20]
The (Republican) Party's Over: "We asked four recovering Republicans
if the GOP is salvageable. Hint: They laughed." Interview with Michael
Steele, Juleanna Glover, Max Boot, and Nicolle Wallace. Beyond laughing,
they don't inspire much confidence. Their "center-right" platitudes and
Reagan/Lincoln nostalgia miss the real problem with Republicans today,
which is that they're all opportunistic propaganda and graft, with no
clue how to formulate a viable policy to address a real problem. It
isn't even clear that the interviewees have a problem with that. They
mostly see Trump as a fountain of bad taste.
Guns: OK, this is the week I finally gave up on trying to
rationalize a right to guns. Take them away. Consider "my cold dead
fingers a taunt." I'm the first to admit that banning
something people really want doesn't make it go away, but in
this case it would certainly make it harder for a lot of very stupid
people to do vicious things that are completely unjustifiable.
Jeffrey St Clair (more on his
piece below) offers a quick rundown:
In one 24-hour period last weekend, there were at least 15 mass shootings
in the US, including 4 shot in Northridge, California, 6 in Louisville,
36 in Dadeville, Alabama, 6 in Cyrus, Minnesota, 3 in New Orleans, 6 in
Paterson, NJ, 5 in Wiainai, Hawaii, 4 in Detroit, another 3 in Louisville,
4 in Phoenix, 3 in Los Angeles, 3 in Charlotte, 4 in Newark and 3 in
Cincy.
This week in America . . .
- A teenage boy was shot for ringing the wrong doorbell.
- A teenage girl was shot for entering the wrong driveway.
- A cheerleader was shot for going up to the wrong car.
- A six-year old girl shot for rolling a ball into the wrong yard.
Globally, 87% of the children killed by gunfire were shot in the USA.
He also offers stats for mass shootings in US by year, rising from
272 in 2014 to 415 in 2019, then to 610-690 from 2020-22. This year's
total of 164 in 108 days is actually a bit behind the recent pace
(although 554 would be the 4th most ever). [PS: Others insist
Frequent shootings put US mass killings on a record pace.]
Further down, he also notes
that "Boston cops shot two dogs this week while serving a warrant against
a man for . . . driving without a license." I'm beginning to feel wistful
for the threatened dystopia of a "world where only criminals have guns."
For one thing, that would make it easier to identify the criminals.
Some of these stories below (and by Sunday there'll no doubt be more):
The Courts:
Fox: Just before the trial opened, Dominion Voting Machines
agreed to settle their defamation suit with Fox, for a whopping $787
million (they had originally sued for $1.6 billion, so about half
that).
Matthew Dallek: [04-19]
How Fox Helped Break the American Right: I'm more inclined to say
that they took a right that was thoroughly discredited by the second
Bush administration, and revived it as a fact-free revenge fantasy. It
was a con, but a lucrative one for Fox, even if they wound up having
to pay a little something for their lies years later.
David J Lynch: [04-21]
Dominion settlement tab may be just the start of Fox's financial
woes: "Additional lawsuits threaten to erase more of its corporate
giant's cash pile."
Harold Meyerson: [04-20]
It's Time for a Shareholder Suit Against Fox: "The squandering of
nearly a billion bucks due to management's misconduct should prompt a
shareholder revolt."
Chris Lehmann: [04-19]
It Costs $787.5 Million to Lie to the Public. Fox News Can Afford It.
True enough, but most of the time Fox lies they make money doing so, so
this settlement is a fluke exception, just part of the cost of doing
business.
Nicole Narea: [04-19]
Why a record-shattering settlement might not change Fox News.
Margaret Sullivan: [04-19]
Dominion suit exposed how Fox damages democracy with lies.
Michael Tomasky: [04-21]
First Alex Jones, and Now Fox News -- Connect the Dots, People:
Asks why "we don't see liberal media outlets paying huge settlements
in defamation lawsuits," and answers that they don't lie brazenly
like the right-wingers, who: "They lie. They lie all the time about
practically everything." Still, it's very rare, and rather peculiar,
for them to be held accountable for any given lie.
Steve M: [04-20]
Fox has plenty of ways to divide America that don't qualify as
defamation. "Fox won't stop being Fox, because Fox doesn't need
to put itself at legal risk to be Fox."
Next up, Mike Lindell: But even before he faces his own Dominion
lawsuit, there's this:
Earth Day:
Elizabeth Kolbert: [04-22]
It's Earth Day -- and the news isn't good: "New reports show that
ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than anticipated,
and other disasters loom."
Kate Aronoff: [04-18]
Is Jimmy Carter Where Environmentalism Went Wrong? "Carter's austerity
was part of a bigger project. It didn't really have much to do with
environmentalism." There is a lot to chew on here, but also more stuff
the author doesn't mention, like the "Carter Doctrine" that committed
the US to securing oil shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf -- the second
of two major decisions in the 1970s to keep gas cheap (the other being
Nixon's refusal to conserve oil after production peaked in 1969, leading
to a trade deficit in 1970 that has only grown ever since).
Liza Featherstone: [04-20]
Nixon Was the Weirdest Environmentalist: "Richard Nixon, the original
culture warrior, helped establish Earth Day and poured millions of dollars
into conservation, despite his own ambivalence about the environmental
movement." There was a brief period 10-20 years ago when some liberal
pundits thought it would be clever to rehabilitate Nixon as a closet
progressive, largely on the basis of a series of bills that he signed
after Democrats in Congress passed them, including the Clean Water Act,
the Endangered Species Act, and OSHA. But the best you can say for Nixon
is that he recognized that government needed to move left to even begin
to deal with some pressing problems (and with the Cuyahoga River burning
down bridges, the environment was the most obvious one). But Nixon rarely
if ever cared about solving problems (one fine example of his indifference
was making Donald Rumsfeld head of the EEOC). He just didn't want to lose
any political power by taking the wrong side of an issue, and the one
thing he really did care about was power.
Buzzfeed, Twitter, etc.:
Ukraine War:
Connor Echols: [04-21]
Diplomacy Watch: US ignores calls for negotiations at its own peril:
"Huge swathes of the world want the war in Ukraine to end as soon as
possible. Can Washington afford to disregard them?" Brazilian president
Lula da Silva "sparked a controversy" when he said the US "needs to stop
encouraging war and start talking about peace." A US spokesman replied
that "Lula's comments amounted to little more than 'Russian and Chinese
propaganda.'" The Americans aren't even to the stage of pretending they'
care about peace. Granted, Russia isn't at that stage either, but why
should that stop the US from offering the prospect of a future where
the present conflict is dead and buried? Failure to do so suggests that
the real US goal isn't to defend Ukraine but to destroy Russia -- which
is the belief, and fear, of most hawkish Russians. The Ukrainian position
that they'll only talk after Russia fully withdraws is similarly
unhelpful.
Echols also interviewed John Sopko in: [02-21]
Afghanistan watchdog: 'You're gonna see pilferage' of Ukraine aid.
No doubt. It happens everywhere else -- the Pentagon is notoriously
unable to keep track of their own allocations. Opponents of US support
for Ukraine have latched on this, hoping to discredit the war effort
by taint of scandal (see Kelly Beaucar Vlahos: [04-20]
Republican lawmakers to Biden: no more 'unrestrained aid' to Ukraine.
It doesn't mean there should be no aid, but it's always important to
stay vigilant against corruption (Afghanistan and Iraq being prime
examples, but same thing was endemic in Vietnam).
Joshua Frank: [04-21]
Will the West Turn Ukraine Into a Nuclear Battlefield? Specifically,
he's talking about the use of depleted uranium shells, which are
effective for penetrating tank armor, but are also radioactive and
toxic ("depleted" means they are pure U-238, after the slightly more
fissile U-235 isotopes have been removed). Depleted uranium was used
extensively by the US in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, where it caused
cancer, both in Iraqis and in US troops.
Jen Kirby: [04-22]
So what's the deal with Ukraine's spring offensive? While it can
be said that both sides are refusing to negotiate based on the
hopes that they can still improve their territorial positions with an
offensive once conditions permit, Ukraine's hopes are slightly better
grounded: they made net gains around Kharkiv and Kherson in the fall;
they've withstood Russian efforts to capture Bakhmut (in one of those
classic "destroy the village to save it" operations); they've gained
tanks and other weapons for offensive operations. A year ago, Russia
was on offense, and Ukraine was pinned down, focusing on defending
its capital, Kyiv, while giving ground in the south, including Kherson
and Mariupol. I question whether their offensive will be much more
successful than Russia's, especially when it comes to areas that have
been effectively part of Russia since 2014, but it's not unusual for
people to have to learn their limits the hard way.
Branko Marcetic: [04-21]
Why is Facebook censoring Sy Hersh's NordStream report?
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [04-17]
Lieven inside Ukraine: some real breaks, and insights.
Other stories around the world:
Other stories:
Kenneth Chang: [04-20]
SpaceX's Starship 'Learning Experience' Ends in Explosion: Elon
Musk's biggest erection yet blew up a few minutes after liftoff, but
somehow nearly every article has followed the company line that the
disastrous failure is really just a "learning experience." It's true
that there is a hip management culture in Silicon Valley that sees
taking risks as something to be encouraged, and it's always important
to learn from mistakes, but you usually want to keep your test cases
small and discrete, and do them in ways you can easily observe.
Piling several billion dollars worth of hardware up and blowing it
up 24 miles into space is far from ideal, which makes the spin seem
a bit desperate.
Jay Caspian Kang: [04-21]
Has Black Lives Matter changed the world?: "A new book makes the
case for a more pragmatic anti-policing movement -- one that seeks to
build working-class solidarity across racial lines." The book is by
Cedric Johnson: After Black Lives Matter.
Rebecca Leber: [04-19]
Why Asia's early heat wave is so alarming: This should probably
be the biggest story of the week. With no further references in my
usual sources, I looked more explicitly and found:
Will Leitch: [04-18]
The Sports-Betting Ads Are Awful, and They're Not Going Away.
Just because something is legal (in the sense of not being illegal),
doesn't mean you should be able to advertise it everywhere (or for
that matter, anywhere). One critical thing that distinugishes
advertising from free speech is that it almost always appears as
a sales proposition -- this is every bit as true for political as
for deodorant ads -- which means that mistruths should be prosecuted
as fraud. Still, the gray areas, where they dance around the truth,
or say one thing while implying another (like when big pharma ads
list side-effects while everyone keeps smiling), is often worse.
I think this is basically true for everything, but gambling has
got to be one of the worst things you could possibly advertise.
It's not just that gamblers lose (while foolishly led to believe
they won't), or that the people who take their money are among
the most undeserving and unscrupulous of racketeers, but that the
very idea that one should so disrespect one's hard-earned labor
destroys the soul.
I should add a personal note: When I was a child, I noticed that
most TV shows were sponsored ("brought to you by") big corporations,
which splashed their names about, taking full credit for things I
enjoyed, and mostly selling things I could imagine my family buying.
Then I saw a list of America's biggest companies, and noticed that
insurance companies were huge, but hadn't been buying TV advertising.
So I wished that they would share some wealth and contribute to my
entertainment . . . until they did, and I was shocked and disgusted
by their sales pitch. That's when I decided some things should not
be advertised. Of course, lots of services couldn't be advertised
back then, like lawyers. Later, cigarette advertising was banned,
and that turned out all to the good.
Back in the 1970s, I wound up doing a fair amount of work behind
the scenes in advertising. I read numerous books on the subject
(notably David Ogilvy). I came to respect the craft, creativity,
art, and science of the industry -- the latter was built on the
social sciences, which was my major in college, and something I
viewed with an especially critical eye. Of course, I also came to
be repulsed by the whole business. While there needs to be ways
for honest businesses to make the public aware of their products
and services, our current system of advertising does much more
harm than good. And depending on advertisers to support essential
public services like journalism (see Robinson below) does even
more harm. So ban it all. But sports betting would be a particularly
good place to start.
Jasmine Liu: [04-21]
On the Road With the Ghost of Ashli Babbitt: "Jeff Sharlet saw
close up how the far right has used grief and bitterness to grow its
ranks." Interview with Sharlet, whose new book is: The Undertow:
Scenes From a Slow Civil War.
Samantha Oltman/Brian Resnick/Adam Clark Estes/Bryan Walsh:
[04-21]
The 100-year-old mistake that's reshaping the American West: "What
happens if the Colorado River keeps drying up?" Introduction to a new
batch of articles.
David Quammen: [04-23]
Why Dead Birds Are Falling From the Sky: Another pandemic may
be just around the future (or if you're a bird, already here).
Nathan J Robinson: Also look for Buzzfeed above.
[04-17]
We Can't Overstate the Danger of Tom Cotton's "Might Makes Right"
Foreign Policy: The Arkansas Republican Senator has a new book
out, called Only the Strong: Reversing the Left's Plot to Sabotage
American Power, arguing that "Democrats are insufficiently
militaristic" (an argument Robinson derides as "laughable," citing
examples from Truman to Obama). Given that US foreign policy is
already massively, if not admittedly, tilted in the direction that
Cotton advocates -- naked projection of power for purely selfish
ends, the only thing extra he's advocating is that US power should
be utterly shameless (regarding purely self-interested motives) and
unapologetic (regarding collateral damages) -- a foreign policy which
was only seriously attempted by Germany and Japan in WWII (although
Israel seems to think in those terms, which is why American neocons
are so enamored, but somewhat more limited given their lack of size).
While there is something to be said for cutting out the hypocrisy
about democracy and freedom -- things Cotton has no desire to preserve
domestically, let alone anywhere else -- such frankness would make it
even harder to command alliances, and would only increase the resolve
of those inclined to resist US dictates. Cotton seems to think that
the only thing that has held kept his strategy from dominating is the
pathetic wobbliness of lily-livered Democrats.
[04-19]
Homelessness Is an Entirely Solvable Problem: "Whether we let
people have houses is a choice we make." Also: "Shocking, I know.
The more expensive a place is, the more people struggle to afford
housing, and the more they struggle to afford housing, the more
likely they are to be unhoused."
[2022-02-11]
On Experiencing Joe Rogan: This is a bit old, but probably all you
need to know.
Priya Satia: [04-18]
Born Imperial: The lingering ghosts of the British Empire. Review
of Sathnam Sanghera: Empireland: How Imperialism Has Shaped Modern
Britain.
Jeffrey St Clair: [04-21]
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Unfortunate Things: Opens with a
bit about Dr. Bruce Jessen ("the CIA's torture shrink"), before moving
on to the Dominion-Fox settlement, which winds up noting Rupert Murdoch's
lobbying the British to nuke China rather than giving up Hong Kong, and
on to other topics. "[US Supreme Court Justice Clarence] Thomas isn't
being bribed to make decisions; he's being rewarded for the fact that
he'd make these decisions without being bribed. So would Alito." This
is actually a common model, but is more conspicuous with Supreme Court
justices, as their lifetime appointments don't allow a tasteful wait
until retirement. Clinton and Obama earned their post-presidential
fortunes for their service to an oligarchy they made all the richer.
Michael Tomasky: [04-23]
Here's the Gutsy, Unprecedented Campaign Biden and the Democrats Need
to Run: Here's the guy who thought Obama would be transformational.
(Or was that Robert Kuttner? Similar thinkers who get a bit myopic when
they get their hopes up.) The one thing Tomasky is right is that Democrats
need to win big in 2024 in order to get a chance to deliver on whatever
it is they campaign on, big or small. And while I'm reasonably comfortable
that Biden can beat Trump, DeSantis, Pence, or the lower echelon of GOP
apparatchiki, he's not very good at explaining why a solid majority of
Americans should vote for him, and he's not what you'd call charismatic.
The only thing that distinguishes him from the next 20-30 contenders is
that he's acceptable to both the party rank-and-file and to the moneybags
who'd sabotage the election to make sure no one too far left got in.
Still, two problems here. One is that the laundry list of bills isn't
all that big or helpful. Free opioid clinics and adding dental coverage
to Medicare are tiny compared to Medicare for All. New laws to limit
monopolies and to encourage unions could help, but will take some time
to gain traction. Why not a Worker's Bill of Rights, which would combine
some of these things (minimum wage, overtime) with some other recent
proposals (like parental leave and prohibiting NDAs) with some more
ideas that are overdue (like rebalancing arbitration systems)? What
about a Reproductive Health Act, which would guarantee the right to
abortion, and also provide universal insurance for pregnancy and early
infancy? And why not combine marijuana legalization/regulation with
pain clinics that could finally make some headway on opioids (not
that pot is a panacea here; sometimes opioids are needed,
but legal ones, administered under care with counseling)? And there's
still a lot more work to do on infrastructure, climate change, and
disaster relief. And if you really want to wow minds, why not work
for world peace, instead of dedicating US foreign policy to arms
sales (like Trump did, although one can argue that Biden is even
better at it)?
Still, I doubt that policy ideas, no matter how coherent and
bold, are the key to winning elections. Sure, eventually you have to
do something worthwhile (which is why Republican regimes never last:
they get elected in a wave of good feeling, then invariably spoil
it within 8-12 years), but first you need to get people (who don't
understand much about policy) to trust you to do the right things,
and not just sell out to private donor interests. Granted, like the
campers running from a bear, the Democrat should only have to be
faster than the Republican, but appearing less crooked is trickier
than you'd expect, as proven by Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump on
just that issue.
Brian Walsh: [04-19]
Are 8 billion people too many -- or too few? Wrong question, as
the writer (if not the titlist) realizes. No time for a disquisition
here, but the goal should never be to see how many people you can
cram into Malthusian misery, but to figure out how to reduce the
misery of those who we do have, then try to sustain that.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, April 16, 2023
Speaking of Which
While writing this, I threw out the following tweet:
Thinking about major patterns in American history: one is that progressive
change often leads to reaction, which in turn inevitably falls into
dysfunction and catastrophe, necessitating further progressive change.
First pass omitted "often" and "inevitably," but I had more characters
to work with. I was thinking about adding a clause to the effect that
the trick will be to sell progressive change so broadly and deeply that
reaction won't be able to take root. Past progressive periods have had
lasting impact, even once power shifted to opposing forces. Often,
as in FDR's successful switch of focus to WWII or in LBJ's Vietnam War
debacle, power shifted mostly due to other factors. Republicans have
often been granted grace periods on the assumption that they wouldn't
really do the awful things they campaigned for -- at least that they
wouldn't do them to their own voters. On the other hand, reactionaries
are directly responsible for their disastrous turns, because the
stratified societies and repressive governments they favor are
inherently destabilizing and suicidal.
This meme showed up in my Facebook feed, forwarded by a dear friend
who's not known for lefty politics. Title is: "Shocking Things Liberals
Believe." The list:
- People working 40 hours a week should not live in poverty.
- CEOs should not receive 3,000 times the pay of their workers.
- Wall Street gangsters should go to prison when they steal.
- No child should ever have to worry about being shot at school.
- No one, especially veterans, should be homeless.
- There should not be subsidies for profitable corporations.
- Equal rights and equal pay should be the benchmark for all Americans.
- Politicians should not dictate medical decisions for women.
- Lobbyists should not be allowed to bribe our representatives.
- Companies should not be permitted to trash the earth for profit.
- Healthcare should be given to all, not be a luxury for rich people.
- Everyone should have access to higher education.
That's certainly not an exhaustive list, but nothing there I'd
nitpick much less argue against. I'm not sure I'd describe liberals
thusly, but if liberals are serious about protecting their idea of
individual liberty, they need to get behind an agenda that does a
much better job of securing basic rights, including Roosevelt's
"freedom from want" and "freedom from fear," than America does now.
Top story threads:
Trump:
Mariana Alfaro: [04-12]
Trump sues former counsel Michael Cohen for $500 million: This one
is pretty extreme, even for Trump. Has any defendant ever sued a witness
before the trial? For a follow up, see Igor Derysh: [04-14]
Experts say Trump's lawsuit against Michael Cohen could badly backfire,
where he quotes Cohen: "I can't believe how stupid he was to have actually
filed it." Looking forward to the countersuit.
Zack Beauchamp: [04-14]
The far left and far right agree on Donald Trump's foreign policy legacy.
They're both wrong. Not really a lot of evidence on either side --
his "far left" citation is Christian Parenti: [04-07]
Trump's Real Crime Is Opposing Empire -- a ridiculous piece, but
one could argue that "[Trump] has done more to restrain the US imperium
than any politician in 75 years" is true if only by default. I cited
a similar argument from
Chris Hedges a few weeks back, but very few on the left see Trump
as anything more than a reckless, incompetent blowhard. As for the
right, there has long existed an anti-interventionist sentiment, with
even the occasional odd member of Congress (like Ron Paul). While some
of these people had a soft spot for Trump (one who tried very hard to
like Trump was the late Justin Raimondo), they generally regard him
as having been captured by the Deep State he supposedly opposes.
Victoria Bekiempis: [04-13]
Reid Hoffman Is Funding E. Jean Carroll's Lawsuit Against Donald
Trump. Trump's lawyers are whining, but author points out that
Hoffman's former business partner Peter Thiel has been doing the
same thing: funding lawsuits against political foes. I'm reminded
of Clinton-nemesis Richard Mellon Scaife. And since when does "a
recent indictment" support delaying an unrelated trial?
Jonathan Chait: [04-16]
Why Liberals Should Hope DeSantis Beats Trump: "The phrase 'lesser
evil' very much applies here." No, it doesn't. As evils go, this is a
distinction not worth making. Humphrey v. Nixon was a "lesser evil";
Gore v. Bush was a "lesser evil"; Hillary Clinton v. Trump was another
"lesser evil," perhaps with the gap growing. DeSantis v. Trump is like
picking between Hitler and Goebbels (and note that you can argue who's
who either way). Moreover, for those of us who are not Republicans,
it's not our place or in our interest to favor one Republican over any
other. Even if Republicans can't be sure of always nominating the worst
possible candidate, they do hit that mark pretty often. What Democrats
have to do is to prepare to beat anyone the Republicans throw at them.
Josh Dawsey: [04-16]
Trump, facing probes, seeks to assert dominance over GOP at donor
retreat.
Margaret Hartmann: [04-14]
Trump's Ron DeSantis 'Pudding Fingers' Ad Is Disgustingly Good.
For disgusting but less good, you can check out
some anti-Trump ads from the pro-DeSantis PAC Never Back Down.
Florida Politics
reports that when someone types "Ron DeSantis" into Google, the
first suggestion is "pudding."
David Margolick: [04-14]
Donald Trump Sinks to a New Low by Dog-Whistling an Old Racist
Tune.
Nikki McCann Ramirez: [04-11]
Trump Says Court Staff at Arraignment Cried and Apologized.
Kelly McClure: [04-14]
Trump speaks at NRA convention days after mass shootings [and
a day or two before the next]: Seems unfair to single out the timing
of this speech given that there are more mass shootings than days,
so you never have to look back more than one or two to find an
inappropriate moment. More troublesome is the content of the speech.
Link here to a related piece, by Amanda Marcotte: [03-29]
Trump wants Americans to think society is an apocalyptic wasteland:
Mass shootings help him.
Chris Walker: [04-14]
Trump made $160 million in foreign business deals as president:
"Trump repeatedly broke his promise that his company wouldn't make
new foreign business deals while he was in office." Bear this in
mind next time someone complains that Trump's only being prosecuted
for technicalities. He's lucky if that's all they get him for.
Li Zhou: [04-12]
The standoff between Jim Jordan and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, explained:
"House Republicans are going after the DA's work on Trump's indictment.
Bragg is fighting back."
Other Republicans:
Ryan Cooper: [04-13]
Republicans' Self-Inflicted Budget Impasse: "The GOP discovers that
shouting lies on television is not a good way to figure out how to tax
and spend." Further down: "It turns out to be quite difficult to operate
a political party made up of 75 percent crack-brained yahoo attention
hounds, whose voters are 'egged on by a media apparatus that has trained
its audience to demand the impossible and punish the sell-outs who can't
deliver,' in the words of
Alex Pareene." Pareene also wrote (back in 2017): "Donald Trump today
is a cruel dolt turned into a raving madman by cable news and Breitbart.com."
Yeah, but four years later he's much further gone.
Gabriella Ferrigne: [04-14]
New docs reveal racist messages by man Abbott wants to pardon in BLM
protester killing: "Daniel Perry repeatedly made racist comments
and discussed plans to kill people."
David French: [04-13]
How Tennessee Illustrates the Three Rules of MAGA: I hadn't seen
this formulation before: "First, that before Trump the G.O.P. was a
political doormat, helplessly walked over by Democrats time and again.
Second, that we live in a state of cultural emergency where the right
has lost everywhere and must turn to politics to reverse this cultural
momentum. And third, that in this state of emergency, all conservatives
must rally together. There can be no enemies to the right." Like so
much Republican drivel, it's hard to pick which thread to unravel
first. But sure, I suppose you can divide the public sphere into
economics and culture. The focus on culture is convenient for many
Republicans because it distracts from the main thrust of Republican
policy going back to Reagan, which has been economic: to shift power
and wealth from labor and customers to business, leading to a massive
increase in inequality. It's easy to understand why Republicans don't
want people thinking about economics, except insofar as they can fob
blame off on Democrats (gas prices works for this, even though most
of the executives who profit from higher prices skew hard Republican).
Culture change, on the other hand, happens irrespective of politics,
which feeds into both their victimization complex and their sense of
desperation.
Gabrielle Gurley: [04-13]
Tennessee Republicans Step Up Attacks on Democratic Cities:
"States rights" supposedly tries to bring government closer to the
people, but Republicans only want to decentralize power when the net
flow is in their favor. That's led to many cases of Republican-controlled
states limiting what mostly Democratic cities can do. Tennessee got a
reminder of that when the state legislature expelled representatives
from Memphis and Nashville, only to have them returned to office.
Josh Kovensky: [04-16]
Texas GOP Struggles Over What Crisis to Manufacture at Border.
The state legislature is pushing a bill that would declare that Texas
is being invaded from Mexico, authorizing a "state-run Border Patrol
Unit, empowered to deputize and train citizens, and to 'repel' and
'return' undocumented migrants seen crossing the border" (or, as
critics dubbed it, a "vigilante death squads policy").
Eric Levitz: [04-13]
Why the GOP Can't Moderate on Abortion Pill Bans: A big part of
this is tactics: they decided to equate abortion with murder, which
created a strong force dragging the law toward conception. And they
threw in a few more axioms which, again, couldn't be compromised.
And they billed themselves as the champion of the fetus, building
up what is essentially a single-issue voting bloc, one they cannot
afford to lose. They did pretty much the same thing with guns, so
again they're incapable of compromise. Any time you adopt a moral
absolute, you can only move toward that pure point. Any deviation
is seen as a sign of weakness, and Republicans can't bear to show
that. Their whole self-image is built up around resolute strength,
no matter how stupid that gets.
Jason Linkins: [04-15]
It's Really Quite Simple: Republicans Hate Young People. Scott
Walker blames "liberal indoctrination," but it's conservatives who
are legislating curricula and banning books. And banning abortion:
"Everywhere you look, Republicans are finding it very difficult to
actually run on the post-Roe dystopia they've engineered --
so much so that they're now trying to get people to just stop talking
about it."
Nicole Narea: [04-11]
Why these Democrats are defecting to the GOP: "Three Democratic
lawmakers in Louisiana and North Carolina switched parties recently."
Heather Digby Parton: [04-14]
Republicans, facing devastating fallout from "Dobbs effect," refuse to
quit abortion bans.
Bill Scher: [04-14]
Why DeSantis Should Take a Pass on the 2024 Presidential Election:
"The idea that the Florida governor could cinch the GOP nomination by
running as a competent, no-drama Donald Trump is fundamentally flawed."
[For a counter argument, see: Ross Douthat: [04-15]
Why DeSantis Has to Run.]
I wouldn't presume to offer advice, but I do think that last week's
Frank Luntz argument that Republicans want Trumpy policies without
Trump's personality, which is DeSantis in a nutshell, is exactly wrong --
something which I think DeSantis realizes, which is why he keeps trying
to fabricate media outrages like attacking Disney perks and trafficking
refugees from Texas to Martha's Vineyard. I doubt he'll succeed, but if
he has the money lined up, he might as well run. (Not that he needs to
rush it, as he's already getting the sort of press few candidates other
than Trump get.) If Trump beats him then loses, he'll have a case that
it should have been him. If DeSantis gets the nomination, 2024 against
Biden is probably his best timing.
Dylan Scott: [04-13]
Republicans want to force doctors to mislead patients about reversing
abortions: Kansas, in particular, though why anyone would go to the
trouble of taking a dose of mifepristone then change their mind and try
to get the effect reversed is hard to imagine. The much more likely
explanation is that Republicans just want to make the lives of women
seeking abortions as miserable as possible. By the way, there's more
evil brewing in the KS legislature, despite the fact that voters
overwhelmingly rejected their anti-abortion constitutional amendment.
Kyle Swenson: [04-16]
Iowa to spend millions kicking families off food stamps. More states
may follow.
Michael Wines: [04-14]
If Tennessee's Legislature Looks Broken, It's Not Alone.
Li Zhou: [04-12]
The return of two expelled Tennessee Democrats is a powerful rebuke to
Republicans.
Matters of (in)justice: The long-brewing Clarence Thomas
scandal got so big last week I moved it out into its own section.
And, of course, other stories that could be filed here got slotted
under Trump or Other Republicans. Still much to report:
Clarence Thomas:
Li Zhou: [04-14]
Clarence Thomas's brazen violation of ethics rules, briefly
explained.
Shawn Boburg/Emma Brown: [04-16]
Clarence Thomas has for years claimed income from a defunct real estate
firm: "The misstatements . . . are part of a pattern that has raised
questions about how the Supreme Court justice views his obligation to
accurately report details about his finances to the public."
Jamelle Bouie: [04-14]
Harlan Crow, Clarence Tomas's Benefactor, Is Not Just Another
Billionaire: One thing that they're never perfectly clear on is
that it appears that the "garden of evil," where Crow keeps his statues
of fallen communist leaders, is distinct from where he keeps his Hitler
memorabilia. Bouie also wrote: [04-11]
Clarence Thomas Is as Free as Ever to Treat His Seat Like a Winning
Lottery Ticket: "Our leaders should be shackled by the power
they wield, not free to abuse it for their own interests and own
pleasures."
Justin Elliott/Joshua Kaplan/Alex Mierjeski: [04-13]
Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The
Justice Didn't Disclose the Deal..
Ian Millhiser: [2011-06-23]
Second Harlan Crow Connected Group Has a Perfect Litigation Record
Before Justice Thomas. This should be old news, but Thomas continues
to insist that he's not corrupt because Crow hasn't had any business
before the Court. They're just, like, really good friends.
Alex Shephard: [04-14]
Conservatives Have Some Very Creative, Very Dumb Excuses for Clarence
Thomas's Corruption.
Michael Tomasky: [04-10]
The Democrats Need to Destroy Clarence Thomas's Reputation: "They'll
never successfully impeach him. But so what? Make him a metaphor for
every insidious thing the far right has done to this country." I thought
talking about expanding the Supreme Court a few years back was premature,
not because I couldn't see the need, but Democrats lacked enough power
to act, and most people weren't yet convinced of its necessity. As the
bad rulings pile up, especially the loss of abortion rights, people are
coming around to seeing the need, but we still have to translate that
into political power. It's been pretty obvious to me for a long time
that the secret to keeping justices like Scalia and Thomas true to the
conservative cause has been back-channel payments, especially through
Ginni Thomas's lobbying. (Scalia, you may remember, was off on one of
his buddies' hunting safaris when he died.) So sure, pile on, especially
when scandals like Harlan Crow's favors are so blatant. Even if you
can't nail Thomas, you'll force other right-wingers to be a bit more
circumspect. And if they don't, you'll be that much closer to
rebalancing the Supreme Court.
And pay some attention to terms:
"packing" the Supreme Court is something the Republicans did over
decades, without having to advertise it as such. The result has
grossly distorted the court system, which is why rebalancing is
what is needed. We don't need or even want an activist Court. We
want one that is fair and flexible, one that defends the rights
in the Constitution, based on the principles they aspire to.
Republicans see their packed court system as a backstop in case
they lose legislative power, to thwart democracy in favor of their
peculiar interests.
By the way, Tomasky also wrote: [2022-12-22]
Clarence and Ginni Thomas Are The New Republic's 2022 Scoundrels
of the Year.
Matters of economy:
Dean Baker: [04-13]
Can Jerome Powell Pivot on Interest Rates, Again? Reminds us of
why Baker thought Powell deserved a second term, and offers hope that
as inflation abates he will "buck the conventional wisdom" and lower
interest rates to keep the economy strong. I felt that Biden made a
mistake -- as did Obama and Clinton in renominating the Republican
Fed chairmen they inherited -- in not picking a more reliable ally,
and so far I feel vindicated in my position.
Miles Bryan: [04-14]
The real reason prices aren't coming down: "Excuseflation"; another
new word here is "greedflation." Let me try: for many years now, at
least since the Bork reformulation of antitrust rules in the 1980s and
the mania of mergers and leveraged buyouts, markets have been becoming
less competitive, which means companies could demand higher
monopoly rents. But it didn't always happen, because price gouging
ticks people off, and threatens a backlash. However, the pandemic
produced a lot of supply-side glitches, which eventually coalesced
into a plausible excuse for raising prices. When the expectation of
higher prices sat in, the companies that could raise them without
losing significant market share did so. To the extent this is true,
the Fed isn't tackling the real causes of inflation. They're just
trying to beat it with their stick.
Meg Jacobs: [04-13]
The Forgotten Left Economics Tradition: "In the Progressive and
New Deal eras, there was a markedly different response to rising prices,
and a different usage of economic theory." I missed this one in
last week's
batch of American Prospect economics articles (under Stiglitz).
Robert Kuttner: [04-12]
Will the Fed Wreck an Improving Economy? Fed chairman Jerome Powell
says he's trying to control inflation, but sometimes he gives the
impression that the statistic he's tracking to decide when to let up
isn't inflation itself but unemployment. Kuttner also wrote: [04-13]
A Revolution in Cost-Benefit Rules: "How Biden's new team at the
Office of Management and Budget is reversing several decades of
pseudo-technical right-wing mischief."
Ukraine War: As far as I can tell, the leaks don't amount to
much. Granted, there are details they'd rather you not know, or not
talk about, and there are things they should find embarrassing, but
they don't amount to much.
Blaise Malley: [04-14]
Diplomacy Watch: Biden administration in 'damage control' after intel
leaks: "Leaders in Kyiv 'suspicious' of Washington's commitment to
Ukrainian counteroffensive." Little diplomacy to report, other than
that Pope Francis and Lula da Silva came out in favor, while Charles
Kupchan and Richard Haass have "laid out a
plan" to get to negotiations later while escalating now. It amazes
me that serious people can make such arguments. The only question on
negotiation is figuring out what each side really needs and what they
can reasonably give up. The big points -- that Putin's invasion failed,
that neither side can prevail on the battlefield, that the US and NATO
will resist any further Russian expansionism, and that sanctions aren't
a very effective deterrent -- should be pretty clear by now. The only
real stickler is territory, and there the offer has been obvious from
the start: let people in each disputed territory vote to decide on
their fate. There are a lot of technical problems with this: chiefly,
what are the boundaries of the territories in dispute, how refugees
from those territories can vote, timing, etc. But fair-minded people
can solve technical problems. Granted, neither side qualifies yet,
and that's something each needs to work on. But what won't work is
thinking that if only "we" (and this applies to either "we") can
grab a bit more leverage, we'll be able to bend the other side to
our will. Even unconditional surrender only works when the winning
side tries to do the right thing (as the US mostly did after WWII,
but as France/UK didn't do after WWI).
Chas Danner: [04-14]
What Secrets Are in the Leaked Pentagon Documents -- and Who Leaked
Them?
Robyn Dixon: [04-15]
Breaking up with Russia is hard for many Western firms, despite
war: "Only a small percentage of the hundreds of companies that
promised to leave Russia after its invasion of Ukraine have exited."
The Kyiv School of Economics "follows 3,141 foreign companies through
its Leave Russia project, reports that only 211 companies have exited --
fewer than 7 percent."
Marc Fisher: [04-15]
A new kind of leaker: Spilling state secrets to impress online
buddies.
Anatol Lieven: [04-10]
Pentagon leak reinforces what we already know: US-NATO in it to win:
"But revelations about American and European boots on the ground are
new, and could prove a dangerous and so far unexplained wrinkle."
Ashleigh Subramanian-Montgomery: [04-10]
Even the Treasury Department admits sanctions don't work.
As the last section puts it: "Time for a sanctions rethink."
Elsewhere around the world:
Other stories:
Dean Baker: [04-15]
Quick Thoughts on AI and Intellectual Property: I haven't sorted
through all of this, but I'll add a few more thoughts. A lot of what
passes as creativity is really just the ability to pull disparate
ideas out of the ether and reconfigure them in pleasing ways. AI may
be hard pressed to come up with anything truly original, but it could
swamp the market for "creative" recombination: all it needs to do is
scan a lot of source material, then apply a few rules for sorting out
what works and what doesn't. If you gave AI copyright standing, you
could wind up with an automated trolling machine that would tie up
honest work in endless litigation. If you don't, well, humans could
use AI to vastly increase their production of copyrightable works,
and they could become just as litigious. Either way, it's a mess, but
the whole realm of "intellectual property" is a big legal mess even
before you add AI to the mix. And as Baker knows, the whole system
of enforcement is dead weight on the creative process.
David Dayen: [04-14]
The Feinstein Affair: Senate Gerontocracy Reaches Absurd Heights:
"Old senators, old rules, and old traditions all are cutting against
what should be a simple task of confirming judges."
EJ Dionne Jr: [04-16]
Gun absolutists don't trust democracy because they know they're
losing: The NRA held another convention last week, attended
virtually or physically by a phalanx of Republican presidential
hopefuls (Pence, Trump, and Asa Hutchinson in person; DeSantis,
Nikki Haley, and Tim Scott on video). "The nonsense floated in
Indianapolis -- based on the idea that our national addiction to
high-powered weaponry has nothing to do with America's unique mass
shooting problem -- speaks to a deep ailment in our democracy."
Oh, by the way:
Karen Greenberg: [04-11]
The Wars to End All Wars? In his introduction, editor Tom Engelhardt
reminds us that he started
TomDispatch in 2002 to protest
the "unnerving decision of President George W. Bush to respond to the
disastrous terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
by invading Afghanistan," adding "even then, it seemed to me like a
distinctly mad act." What's strange is that even though most observers
admit that twenty-plus years of "war on terror" have hurt America more
than they've helped, we seem to be further away than ever from a world
where demilitarized peace is possible. Greenberg, who first got drawn
into the legal morass of Guantanamo (I read her 2009 book, The
Least Worst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days), has a 2021 book,
Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy From the War
on Terror to Donald Trump, which connects the dots between 9/11
and such Trump abuses his Muslim ban, border policing, his killing
of Iranian General Soleimani, his reaction to BLM protests, and his
post-election insanity.
Elahe Izadi/Jeremy Barr/Sarah Ellison: [04-16]
The Dominion vs. Fox defamation case is finally going to trial.
As much as I hate defamation lawsuits in general, this one is
exposing grievous malfeasance and public harm in a forums that
will be hard to ignore. Key line here: "But First Amendment
advocates aren't convinced that a Fox loss is bad for journalism --
and think Dominion has a much stronger case than most defamation
plaintiffs." Also quotes Floyd Abrams: "The journalistic sins,
which have already been exposed here, are so grievous and so
indefensible that a victory for Fox will be hard to explain to
the public." Also:
Paul Krugman: [04-11]
Inequality Ahoy! On the Meaning of the Superyacht. Krugman used
yachts as a measure of inequality in his book The Conscience of a
Liberal (2007), contrasting how much yachts had shrunk during
the "great compression" of the 1930-60s, compared to the Gilded Age
extravagances of J.P. Morgan. Well, yachts are back now, bigger and
gaudier than ever, including the one Clarence Thomas has enjoyed.
Also on yachts:
Eric Levitz: [04-10]
Blaming 'Capitalism' Is Not an Alternative to Solving Problems.
Basically, a brief for social democratic reforms as opposed to the
belief that only a revolution can root out the core problem that is
capitalism. I've long felt that revolutions only occur the old system
is too rigid and brittle to adjust to popular pressure, and therefore
shatters. Russia in 1917, for instance, was less the "weak link of
capitalism" than an autocratic regime locked into a disastrous war
and incapable of reforming. A second point is that violence begets
violence, and the more violence continues beyond revolution, the
more doomed a revolution is to recapitulate the old regime. Levitz
cites a bunch of statistics to show that very few Americans are
disposed toward revolution, but the more relevant point is that
the American political system is flexible enough to reform, if not
to a point we can recognize as social democracy, than at least
enough to preclude the violent rupture of revolution. (Of course,
if you allow Trump and the Republicans sufficient power, all bets
are off.)
On the other hand, while "blaming capitalism" isn't a practical
political program, it does give one some clarity. Capitalism may
tout free markets and free labor and maybe even freedom as an ideal,
but it simply means that the profits go to the owners of capital --
a class who of necessity seek insatiably to maximize their returns,
not least by manipulating the political system. Every word in that
sentence is important, but "insatiable" (i.e., the felt need for
infinite growth) is the crux of the problem, as it leads to two
things that destabilize and destroy their world: a class system
and environmental degradation. It is, of course, possible to limit
those catastrophes through political reform, but doing so detracts
from pure capitalism. This is why true capitalists regard anything
that stands in the way of their quest for profits as socialism, a
betrayal of all they believe in.
Adam Nagourney/Jeremy W Peters: [04-16]
How a Campaign Against Transgender Rights Mobilized Conservatives:
And elevated a political issue that could easily have been ignored
into a defense of basic human rights. I've often wondered how many
people we're talking about: "About 1.3 million adults and 300,000
children in the United States identify as transgender." That's about
0.5% of the US adult population, and 0.4% of 0-17 children (up to
1.4% of 15-17 children). That's not a lot of people to get so worked
up about. But that's the point of the issue: it's a symbolic issue
that a few Republicans seized on as a way to revitalize the cause of
religious bigotry. And by the way, they've done more to publicize
and promote acceptance of transgender people more quickly than any
positive movement could.
By the way, if you'd like to meet some transgender people, take
a look at:
These 12 Transgender Americans Would Love You to Mind Your Own
Business. This is part of a series I entered through
What Happened to America? We Asked 12 People in Their 70s and 80s.
The latter cohort was pretty evenly divided politically (although
neither Donald Trump nor Diane Feinstein fared very well). But no
Republicans in the transgender group.
Charles P Pierce: The Esquire columnist comments on
a number of stories I've filed elsewhere:
Ben Schwartz: [04-14]
How Woke Bob Hope Got Canceled by the Right: "The conservative
comedian spoke out for gay rights and gun control, and got boycotted
and ostracized by friends on the right, including Ronald Reagan."
I'm a little surprised to see Hope labelled a conservative. Sure, he
was of a generation when it was easy to get jingoistic about America,
and I got tired of his USO shows, as he continued to associate with
a military that had gone off the rails in Vietnam, but he always
seemed like a decent-enough guy. And one thing was pretty unique
about him, which is that nearly all of his characters were shameless
cowards. He was, in this, the antithesis of John Wayne, who really
was a conservative asshole.
Jeffrey St Clair: [04-14]
Annals of the Covert World: The Secret Life of Shampoo: "The
surveillance state is both more sinister and much sillier than most
of us imagine."
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, April 9, 2023
Speaking of Which
The Republican Party had what can only be described as a psychotic
breakdown last week. Trump's arrest and arraignment was the big story.
It could be read as a cautionary note that his contempt for law and
order will not prevail, and indeed the muted response on the streets
of New York suggests that he's on his way to being forgotten. But his
post-arraignment speech at Mar-A-Lago, and the reactions of virtually
all Republican speakers, show that the Party faithful still follow
his lead. Not since the Confederate Secession of 1860-61 have so many
showed such contempt for American and its people.
Many examples follow. Nor are they limited to the uncritical base
of Trump supporters that are increasingly dubbed MAGAs, the slogan's
former aspirations having turned into our current nightmare. We've
long known that Republicans mentally divide the country into good
and evil camps. But this week's stories show them acting on their
prejudices, using whatever power they have to punish what they see
as evil, and to pardon what we normally regard as criminal behavior
when it's done by their side. Trump is an example, but an even purer
one is Texas Governor Abbott's promise to pardon the murderer of a
Black Lives Matter protester. The decision of Tennessee Republicans
to expel two black Democrats from the state legislature was equally
blatant.
There are a number of stories below on abortion politics. A Trump
judge in Texas ruled invalid the FDA approval 23 years ago of a drug
commonly used to induce abortions in early pregnancy. This is an
unprecedented ruling, from a judge who is notorious for putting
political ideology above the law -- an increasingly common practice
among Republican judges. If upheld, this would force women even in
states where abortion rights are assured to endure more invasive and
expensive procedures. There are other abortion law stories in Idaho,
Florida, and Kansas. We should be clear that these are not debates
about philosophy or religion. These are attempts by one Party to use
the law to deprive Americans of their rights, using the police and
courts to intervene in the most private of affairs. Republicans may
hate law when it holds them accountable, but they sure like to use
it to punish others.
I could have assembled a comparable gallery of cruel Republican
bills and maneuvers to harass and defame trans people, or indeed
anyone who blurs their expectations of gender identity. As Nicole
Narea and Fabiola Cineas point out below, their campaign is broad
and coordinated, deceitful and inflammatory. It seeks to take away
rights, to impose the police and courts in highly personal matters.
It attempts to legitimize hatred, and it almost inevitably will
wind up inciting violence.
This last point, of course, brings us back to Trump. From the
very beginning of his 2016 presidential campaign, starting with
his description of Mexican immigrants as "rapists and murderers,"
he has repeatedly encouraged his followers to commit violence and
mayhem. The two most memorable Jan. 6 soundbites remain his "will
be wild" and "hang Mike Pence." We are fortunate that new Trump
fanboys have gone as far as
Cesar Sayoc (who sent 16 mail bombs targeting Trump critics),
but that hasn't dampened Trump's enthusiasm. Nor is it just Trump.
Many Republicans pose with guns in their ads, some stalking liberals
like they're in a video game, and the MAGA base eats that up.
This psychosis has been coming for a long time. Verbally it's
been a fixture at Fox from the beginning. Bush's post-9/11 swagger
was built on his presumed "license to kill." Conservative journalist
wrote a book about his 2004 campaign called Voting to Kill.
Obama and Biden abetted this toxic attitude by continuing Bush's
wars, especially by claiming the scalps of Osama Bin Laden and Aymin
al-Zawahiri, but it was the Republican-fueled lust for guns that
brought the violence home. More than three times as many Americans
have been killed by guns
so far this year as were lost on 9/11, yet Republicans are so
close-minded on the subject that they expelled legislators in
Tennessee to shut them up. (We'll see how well that works.)
While gun terrorism is still infrequent enough it comes as a
shock, other aspects of Republican governance are harder to ignore.
I don't have time to list them all, but Republicans have perverted
the fundamentals of democracy, our understanding of education, the
notion that law should be just, and much more.
Top story threads:
Trump: Following last week's indictment, Trump was arrested
and arraigned in New York on Tuesday, and managed to behave himself
until he got home to Mar-A-Lago, and threatened the DA, the presiding
judge, their families, and the whole country. It's too bad we can't
just charge him with being a psychopath, and be done with it. Also
see the Jeffrey St Clair entry below, especially the statistics on
misdemeanor prosecutions in New York.
Ryan Cooper: [03-27]
Donald Trump Deserves to Be Indicted: "But not just for the Stormy
Daniels affair; the most corrupt president in American history has
gotten away with far too much." Written pre-indictment, but good to
start off with a reminder why this matters.
David Dayen: [04-06]
Our Two-Tiered Justice System and the Trump Indictment: "Corporate
crime enforcement in America has been pathetic for decades. One prosecution
of a guy screaming to be prosecuted doesn't change that."
Christopher Fettweis: [04-03]
Ripping up Trump's 'battle plan' of attack on Mexico's cartels:
"Chasing drug gangs and an endless rotation of kingpins into the cities
and mountains -- do we really want another Afghanistan?" No. We shouldn't
even want a repeat of the
Pancho Villa Expedition, when US forces under Gen. Pershing
invaded Mexico in March 1916 and spent 11 months trampling around
northern Mexico, failing to catch a single "bandit." Of course, a
repeat would be a much bigger mistake now: the area is much more
populated now, everyone is much better armed, and the risk to
civilian targets is much greater. The article gives many reasons
why this wouldn't work, without even getting into the basic fact
that American businesses have massive investments in Mexico that
would suddenly become vulnerable, to disruption or worse.
Richard Fausset/Danny Hakim: [04-08]
Georgia Looms Next After Trump's Indictment in New York.
Shirin Ghaffary: [04-05]
Trump is no longer the social media king: "Why the former president's
arrest was a whimper, not a roar, on Twitter, a platform designed for
these moments." This may have less to do with refugee Trump than with
Twitter itself, which Chip Goines tells us, "Twitter as a breaking news
platform for news junkies like me is terribly broken at this point."
Melissa Gira Grant: [04-04]
The Weird Religious Fervor of the Trump Faithful:
Maggie Haberman/Jonathan Swan: [04-08]
Trump and His Lawyers: A Restless Search for Another Roy Cohn:
The picture they released of Trump inside the court room mostly
exposes how peculiar he is as a defendant. He sits in the middle
of no less than four lawyers. Normally one would suffice, or two
for the actual trial, but it's like he wants to impress upon the
prosecution that he's got deeper pockets than they have. But the
key quote here comes from William Barr, who "shook his head at
the sight of the defense table on Tuesday," adding "Lawyers
inevitably are sorry for taking on assignments with him."
Martin Pengelly: [04-09]
Trump's indictment and the return of his biggest concern: 'the
women'. Pengelly also co-wrote, with Maya Yang: [04-06]
New York judge in Trump arraignment reportedly receives 'dozens' of
threats.
James Poniewozik: [04-05]
For Once, Donald Trump Did Not Enjoy the Show: "The ex-president's
indictment put him in the rare position of being forced onto a public
stage not of his own choosing." Last line: "As a TV draw, Donald Trump
holding court is no competition for Donald Trump sitting in one."
Nia Prater/Chas Danner: [04-05]
Trump Attacks Judge and His Family: "His Mar-a-Lago speech was
relatively short but packed with grievance." Various "live updates"
pieces, including important links to: Ankush Khardori: [04-04]
Prosecuted: What to make of the criminal case against Donald Trump;
and Ben Jacobs: [04-04]
Trump's Indictment Has Become His Platform. The former leads me to
think that if/when the case is tried, Trump will be convicted (although
a hung jury is not inconceivable), but that odds are not good that a
conviction won't be overturned on appeal (there are technical grounds
for that, but also the court system is littered with Trump appointees,
who scarcely need grounds for anything they do).
Joan Walsh: [04-06]
There Was No Trump Violence This Week. But What's Coming? To
answer, she interviews Jeff Sharlet, author of The Undertow:
Scenes From a Slow Civil War. Cites a review of the book, by
Adam Fleming Petty: [03-21]
Exploring the crowds that gather for Trump -- and dream of civil
war.
Amy B Wang: [04-06]
Trump ally Jordan issues subpoena to former N.Y. prosecutor:
That would be Mark Pomerantz, who resigned after accusing Manhattan
DA Alvin Bragg of sandbagging the case against Trump, and wrote a
book, People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account. Jordan has
been threatening to subpoena Bragg -- a move that would be blatantly
illegal, but Pomerantz would seem to be fair game. Jordan will no
doubt argue that the DA's office was on a "witch hunt" to get Trump,
while Pomerantz will counter that Trump was so obviously guilty he
should have been charged earlier, and possibly for more. One note
here that I somehow missed is that Trump gave Jordan a Presidential
Medal of Freedom in January 21 after Jordan refused a subpoena to
testify before the Jan. 6 Committee. Of course, those medals were
permanently tarnished back when Bush gave them to the three stooges
of the Iraq War (Tommy Franks, George Tenet, and Paul Bremer). Trump
has found even less worthy people to give the medal to. (List
here, including conservative totems Antonin Scalia, Rush Limbaugh,
and Arthur Laffer, as well as megadonor Miriam Adelson and Truth Social
CEO Devin Nunes; nonetheless, Trump only handed out a below-average 24
medals, 14 of which were to athletes/sports figures. Obama was most
generous, with 117 medals over 8 years. Biden has awarded 17 so far,
0.63 per month, compared to 0.50 for Trump, 1.22 for Obama, 0.86 for
Bush, 0.93 for Clinton, 0.81 for GWH Bush, 0.93 for Reagan, 0.71 for
Carter. The medals started with Kennedy in 1963. Two people turned
the medal down, both from Trump: Bill Belichick and Dolly Parton.)
Frank Luntz: [04-09]
How to Make Trump Go Away: The GOP's language guru runs his focus
groups and searches for a narrow path, concluding: "Republicans want
just about everything Mr. Trump did, without everything Mr. Trump is
or says." No doubt Luntz is one smart cookie, but I think he's got
that exactly wrong. They don't know or care what he did, but they
want his attitude and his mouth, his style. They want to piss off
their nominal enemies, and nobody does that better. Luntz explains:
"In 2016, the campaign was about what he could do for you. Today,
it's about what is being done to him. If he becomes increasingly
unhinged, or if his opponents focus on his tweets, his outbursts
and his destructive personality, a sizable number of Republicans
could choose someone else, as long as they prioritize core, time-tested
priorities like lower taxes, less regulation, and less Washington."
But those "core priorities" are killing us. Trump, almost uniquely,
gives his followers someone else to blame for Republican failures.
And Other Republicans: Note that there was so much here
that I wound up having to move several clusters of links into their
own sections.
Zack Beauchamp: [04-05]
The last 48 hours revealed the GOP's intractable 2024 dilemma:
"Trump and pro-lifers own the Republican Party."
Paul Krugman: [04-07]
The Weird New War on 'Woke' Money: Responds to DeSantis's rant
on the Fed possibly issuing a "digital dollar." It hasn't happened,
and he hasn't convinced me that it should (or indeed that it makes
much sense), except that it would attract users away from crypto,
leaving the latter even more the haven of "wiseguys to evade taxes,
launder money, buy and sell illegal drugs, and engage in extortion."
But at least nothing woke. Dean Baker adds: [04-08]
Krugman Reminds Us That Protectionism for Bankers Is a Very Powerful
Political Force.
Eduardo Medina: [04-08]
Texas Governor Says He Plans to Pardon Man Convicted of Killing
Protester: "Gov. Greg Abbott said he would forgo a prison sentence
for Daniel S. Perry, who was convicted on Friday in the murder of Garrett
Foster at a Black Lives Matter demonstration in 2020." As far as I'm
concerned, this makes Abbott as guilty as Perry.
Timothy Noah: [04-07]
Ron DeSantis's Deranged Rant About the Fed Ought to Doom His Campaign.
Noah gives examples of past gaffes, but they're inapplicable, because
they involved saying things that were out of bounds, all the worse if
they were partly true. But simply saying stupid shit only matters if
you're trying to reach people who know better. When you're running in
a Republican primary, that's not your audience.
Prem Thakker: [03-07]
Even Marjorie Taylor Greene Hates the Anti-Muslim Crank Whom Trump
Wants to Hire: Meet Laura Loomer.
Tennessee:
Claire Gibson/Praveena Somasundaram/Maria Luisa Paúl/Andrea
Salcedo: [04-06]
Tennessee House expels two Democrats in historic act of partisan
retaliation. Expelled were Justin Jones (D-Nashville, by a vote
of 72-25), and Justin Pearson (D-Memphis, 69-26). They also voted
on expelling Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville), a former teacher who lost
a student to gun violence (and who also happens to be white), fell
one vote shy of the two-thirds required (65-30).
- Li Zhou: [04-06]
The Tennessee legislature's expulsion of two Black Democrats is
unprecedented and undemocratic. "The treatment of two Black
lawmakers echoes past Republican efforts to explicitly curb Black
political power via bills that would gut local policies of Democrat-led
cities like Nashville and Memphis." It also echoes the Jim Crow era,
and begs for a return of Reconstruction.
Matthew Brown: [04-08]
Problematic things Tenn. Republicans have done without getting expelled.
Jennifer Rubin: [04-07]
Tennessee shows that guns might be the next disaster for the GOP.
Greg Sargent: [04-07]
The 'Tennessee 3' saga highlights the GOP retreat into Fortress
MAGA.
Zack Beauchamp: [04-07]
A study confirms it: Tennessee's democracy really is as bad as the
expulsions made you think. I'm skeptical of these studies, but
looking at the maps, the bottom of the barrel in 2000 was South
Carolina and Alabama; in 2019 it's Tennessee, North Carolina,
Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and Georgia (with no noticeable
improvement in South Carolina or Alabama).
Abortion: I started out collecting these under the stupid
Republican stories section, but a couple stories are big enough to
merit their own section. Still, no mistaking that this is what you
get when you elect Republicans.
A couple elections: The highly partisan state supreme court
election in Wisconsin was won handily by a liberal Democrat, although
the state legislature is so severely gerrymandered that they could
conceivably impeach the winner out of spite (just as in Tennessee,
they're expelling duly elected representatives they dislike). And in
the nonpartisan Chicago mayor election, the more progressive candidate
edged out a win against a guy the New York Times insists on calling
"the moderate": his most conspicuous positions are in favor of
undermining the public school system with charter schools, and of
blind, reflexive support of the Chicago police union -- how do
those positions, which align more closely with Republicans (think
Nancy DeVos and Bernie Kerik), qualify as "moderate"?
Ukraine War:
Israel:
Tareq S Hajjaj: [04-07]
Palestinians fear war is near as Israel attacks Gaza during Ramadan
yet again. "The escalation has so far resembled the prelude to
the war in 2021, when Israeli forces stormed Al-Aqsa and detained
over 200 people on the 25th night of Ramadan. At the time, Palestinian
factions in Gaza responded to the provocation by firing rockets. This,
in turn, led to a 10-day war on Gaza, which left 200 Palestinians dead
and hundreds of families homeless." I was tempted to leave out the
second line, because that's always the excuse. While rocket attacks
always result in a disproportionate Israeli response, it's not like
Palestinians have any other options to register their horror.
John Hudson/Louisa Loveluck: [04-08]
Israeli spy chiefs led secret revolt against Netanyahu reforms, leaked
documents say.
Jake Johnson: [04-07]
Fears of 'Serious Escalation' Grow as Israel Bombs Lebanon and
Gaza.
James North: [04-07]
The 'NY Times' deliberately distorts the news, to blame Palestinians
for the Al-Aqsa mosque crisis. They're always running some version
of this article, because the "paper of record" never gets the story
straight.
Yumna Patel: [04-08]
Ben-Gvir's 'private militia' moves forward, and Palestinians are in the
line of fire.
Richard Silverstein: [04-07]
Israeli Assault on Al Aqsa Is State Terrorism.
Kelly Stancil: [04-06]
Global Outcry as Israeli Forces Attack Al-Aqsa Worshippers for Second
Night.
Elsewhere around the world:
Zack Beauchamp: [04-08]
Meet the MAGA movement's new favorite autocrat: El Salvador's
president, Nayib Bukele, whose draconian "anti-gang" measures have
resulted in the world's highest incarceration rates (edging out
you-know-who). Before this, the only thing I knew about him was
his advocacy of BitCoin, which he has made legal tender.
Ryan Grim: [04-07]
To help end the Yemen war, all China had to do was be reasonable:
"With Joe Biden nowhere to be found, China's diplomacy set the stage
for Saudi concessions and cease-fire talks." But what about the arms
sales the US will be missing out on?
Other stories:
Sam Bell: [03-30]
Democrats Slashed Medicaid and Food Assistance Because We Didn't Fight:
So why is this our fault? The measures in question were smartly
added to the CARES pandemic relief bill, which passed because Trump and
the Republicans were panicking over the 2020 stock market collapse, and
they needed Democratic support because Democrats controlled the House.
But even though the policies were generally popular, Democrats didn't
have sufficient majorities to keep them going. It may have been a
tactical mistake to have conceded them instead of alternatives, but
it's unlikely a demonstration or letter-writing campaign would have
made any difference.
Paul Buhle: [03-30]
Staughton Lynd: The Perils of Sainthood. Activist-scholar (1929-2022),
this focuses on his book My Country Is the World: Staughton Lynd's
Writing, Speeches and Statements Against the Vietnam War.
Matthew Cappucci: [04-07]
Earth has second-warmest March even before arrival of planet-heating
El Niño: "It was the 529th consecutive month to feature temperatures
above the 20th-century average." More climate change:
Kyle Cheney/Josh Gerstein: [04-07]
Appeals court ruling puts hundreds of Jan. 6 felony cases in limbo.
The authors previously wrote about a similar case: [03-07]
Judge tosses obstruction charge against Jan. 6 defendant. By the way,
Rachel Weiner reads this case somewhat differently: [04-07]
Jan. 6 rioters can be prosecuted for obstructing Congress, court
rules.
Kate Conger/Ryan Mac: [04-07]
Twitter Takes Aim at Posts That Link to Its Rival Substack.
I know some people who mostly use Twitter to post links to their
articles on Substack. In fact, I mostly use it to notify readers
of new pieces on my blog. Matt Taibbi posts 5-10 tweets linking
to each and every one of his Substack pieces. He now says he will
be leaving Twitter. More on Twitter:
Hannah Crosby: [04-08]
How Many More Years of Living Dangerously: "The National Flood
Insurance Program can't keep pace with the challenges posed by climate
change and insuring oceanfront homes in Scituate, Massachusetts."
Timothy Egan: [04-03]
What we can learn from the Midwestern war against the Klan 100 years
ago. It's only been 100 years, but we're unlikely ever again to
witness 25,000 hooded klansmen marching through Washington, DC. On
the other hand, that anyone still considers this history relevant to
now is disturbing. It may still be interesting that what destroyed
the 1920s Klan wasn't repression, or that racism went out of fashion,
but internal power struggles: to the end, assholes be assholes.
Amanda Holpuch: [04-07]
New Mexico Police Fatally Shoot Man After Responding to Wrong
House. The person they killed was armed, not that he had
a chance to defend himself. So tell me again how the Second
Amendment works? Note that they were able to fill up a whole
sidebar under "New Mexico Gun Violence."
Heather Souvaine Horn: [03-31]
Fight Climate Change by Doing Less: "Resist the misconception that
sustainable living means more work." Spend less. Work less. Why make
this any more complicated than it has to be?
Sarah Jones: [04-08]
Children Are Not Property: "The idea that underlies the right-wing
campaign for "parents rights." It's hard for me to read this without
trembling, as it reminds me of psychic trauma from my own childhood
that still haunt me. I wouldn't even concede that "only the unborn
are spared the right's cruelty." (Remember the title of Adam Serwer's
book: The Cruelty Is the Point.) I'd add that the old term for
"property in people" is slavery.
Joshua Kaplan/Justin Elliott/Alex Mierjeski: [04-06]
Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire: This is a major report on
how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been the beneficiary
of numerous gifts, especially from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.
You know, for many years conservatives complained that seemingly
solid Republicans would be nominated to the Supreme Court, then
somehow transform into starry-eyed liberals. Eventually, they came
up with a way to keep Justices true: they pay them, under the table
or off on the side, especially by doling lucrative jobs out to their
families. No one has raked in more cash this way than Ginni Thomas.
And here we find her husband skating around the world in private
planes and superyachts.
Some further comments:
Emma Brown/Shawn Boburg: [04-06]
Clarence Thomas has reported receiving only two gifts since 2004:
a bronze bust of Frederick Douglass (from Crow, valued at $6,484),
and a glass medallion and brass plaque from Yale (valued at $530).
Not reported was the financing of Ginni Thomas's political groups,
including $500,000 for Liberty Central (2009), and $600,000 for
Crowdsourcers (2019-21).
Jonathan Chait: [04-06]
Clarence Thomas and the Ethical Disaster of the Supreme Court:
"Undisclosed gifts from billionaires won't even embarrass the right."
Aaron Gregg/Rachel Lerman: [04-06]
Who is Harlan Crow, the GOP megadonor who vacations with Justice
Thomas? Not a lot of surprises here. To the question, "where
did he make his money?" the answer starts: "His father . . ."
Glenn Kessler: [04-07]
Parsing Clarence Thomas's statements on the gifts he didn't
disclose.
Daniel Kreps: [04-08]
Clarence Thomas' Billionaire Buddy Has a Vast Collection of Hitler
Paintings, Nazi Memorabilia.
Dahlia Lithwick/Mark Joseph Stern: [04-06]
Clarence Thomas Broke the Law and It Isn't Even Close.
Mike Masnick: [04-07]
Mehdi Hasan Dismantles the Entire Foundation of the Twitter Files as
Matt Taibbi Stumbles to Defend It. Includes video of a 30-minute
interview, which I haven't watched yet. Given that Taibbi's work on
the Twitter dump is mostly behind his paywall, and that the hype he's
been giving it on Twitter rarely makes much sense, I haven't made any
real effort to follow the story. But the article here seems to demolish
if not everything at least the hype about its importance. Hasan, by the
way, has a new book out, called Win Every Argument: The Art of
debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking. Trashing Taibbi should
help promote that book.
Elie Mystal: [03-22]
Corporate America Is No Longer Pretending to Care About Diversity:
Following the outcry over the murder of George Floyd, many companies
resolved to hire DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) officers. A new
study shows that "the attrition for DEI officers was 33 percent at
the end of 2022, compared with 21 percent for non-DEI roles."
Nicole Narea/Fabiola Cineas: [04-06]
The GOP's coordinated national campaign against trans rights,
explained: The key word here is "coordinated." This is not an
issue I'm inclined to get involved in, but Republicans have taken
such a vile stand that we're being forced to respond. It wouldn't
be hard to come up with ten more examples:
Nicole Narea/Ian Millhiser/Andrew Prokop: [04-06]
The multibillion-dollar defamation lawsuits against Fox News,
explained. As a general rule, I hate defamation lawsuits,
which tend to be attacks on free speech, brought on by rich
blowhards who want to stifle criticism. For example, when Trump
first ran for president, one of his greatest hopes was to change
the law so he could sue more people who prickled his thin skin.
This one is a little different, inasmuch as it is helping to
expose the inner workings of Fox and its right-wing propaganda
machine. Whether Dominion deserves billions can be debated, but
anything that helps reveal Fox for what they really are should
be applauded. Also:
Richard Sandomir: [04-08]
Mel King, Whose Boston Mayoral Bid Eased Racial Tensions, Dies at
94: A legend a bit before my time in Boston, so I wanted to
note him but didn't have much to say. Title point is certainly
true, at least compared to his opponent (Raymond Flynn). Among
my friends, he is regarded as a pathbreaking progressive. As Linda
Gordon put it: "How I wish Mel King was with us now. I'm not sure
I know of another activist/politician I have more respected and
loved."
Nicholas Slayton: [04-07]
'How to Blow Up a Pipeline' and the Case for Radical, Direct Action
on Climate: "A new film considers what to do when those in power
fail to take the problem seriously." The film is about "a diverse
group of activists banding together to blow up an oil pipeline in
West Texas." Look, I don't approve, and I emphatically reject that
people who would do such a thing are coming at the problem from the
left, but it's only a matter of time until things like this happen,
with some frequency. In Kim Stanley Robinson's The Ministry for
the Future, which is set in the future but not very damn far,
extraordinary things we call "ecoterrorism" happen frequently --
e.g., hypersonic missiles blowing up tankers -- and are shown to
contribute significantly to the powers around the world finally
addressing the problem. To set such violence in motion, you need
three factors converging: (1) the perception that climate change
is destroying our way of life; (2) the common, routine resort to
violence as a way of coping with problems; and (3) the demonstrated
failure of normal politics to address the problem. If I had to put
a bet on how far each of these has progressed, it would be somewhere
between 30% and 60%. The Ukraine War, to pick one example, has boosted
each of these factors. (The NordStream pipeline could conceivably have
been an ecoterrorist operation, except that there was little reason:
it was already shut down, and it was a difficult target, when many
other targets would be much easier -- like the one in the movie.)
Also on this:
Kate Aronoff: [04-05]
Is Environmental Radicalism Inevitable? "It would be ludicrous,
Malm acknowledge, to expect saboteurs to systematically dismantle
the fossil fuel economy one homemade incendiary at a time. In this
and other work, he's emphasized that only states can do that. Both
he and the film's protagonists, accordingly, articulate eco-terrorism
as a kind of DIY market signal meant to force states' hand into doing
something they otherwise wouldn't."
Peter C Baker: [04-05]
Will We Call Them Terrorists? A review of How to Blow Up a
Pipeline. "We do not know how the future will see us."
Jeffrey St Clair: [04-07]
Roaming Charges: Broken Windows Theory of Political Crime:
"People griping about the trivial nature of the charges against
Trump seem to have forgotten that the aggressive enforcement of
trivial offenses has been the hallmark of American policing for
40 years, put into vicious deployment by Trump's lawyer Rudy
Giuliani with Trump cheering him on. With hundreds of thousands
of people arrested and jailed for minor offenses like subway
fare evasion, loitering, jaywalking, or selling single cigarettes,
isn't it time we applied the Broken Windows Theory to political
crimes and hold to account the people who enforced it on others?"
St Clair quotes Stephen Miller asking "What is Donald Trump's
crime?" Miller's answer is: "His crime is refusing to bow or bend
to the corrupt and rotten foreign policy establishment that is used
to always getting their way in this country." Nice way of trying
to hide a lie (Trump's refusal to bow or bend") behind a truth that
is rarely acknowledged. But St Clair show how little resistance
Trump offered to the "foreign policy establishment" (he even added
a few wrinkles that were uniquely his own):
Let's review: Trump appointed the Deep State's top torturer to run
the CIA, put 1000s of troops on the ground in Syria and stole their
oil, broke Obama's drone strike record, sanctified Israel's illegal
annexation of the Golan Heights, separated children from their parents
at the border, extracted pledges of higher military spending from NATO
countries, plotted to kill Julian Assange then indicted him on espionage
charges, wanted to bomb and invade Mexico . . .
Some head-scratchers here, including most of his section on the
extramarital sex lives of various presidents (which Harding had, but
I doubt it was as described). One link struck me as strange:
Oregon will become 1st state in nation to allow children who enroll
in Medicaid at birth to stay to age 6. This is some kind of
great liberal accomplishment?
Joseph Stiglitz: [04-03]
How Models Get the Economy Wrong: "Seemingly complex and sophisticated
econometric modeling often fails to take into account common sense and
observable reality." There are a lot of smart points in this piece, but
mostly they read as refutations of dumb platitudes. Here's a line I like:
"Can it possibly be the case that the most efficient use of our limited
research resources should be directed toward making an ever-better advertising
machine (the business model underlying Facebook and Google) aimed at better
exploiting consumers through discriminatory pricing and targeted and often
misleading advertising?" Capitalism sometimes gives us things we want,
even if we didn't know that we wanted them, but in this example it's
pursuing and refining something we don't want at all, something designed
only to make our lives more miserable. Further down, after disposing
of the NAIRU model, he points out that advocates of the model wrongly
attributed inflation to excess aggregate demand, when it was "clearly
the result of a series of pandemic-induced supply-side shortages and
demand shifts." This is part of a series of articles on bad models:
Robert Kuttner: [04-07]
Is Economics Self-Correcting? "Economists are made to learn
long-discredited modeling, and then the safe way to win promotion
and tenure is to publish articles in the same genre."
Rakeen Mabud/David Dayen: [04-03]
Hidden in Plain Sight: "The distorting power of macroeconomic policy
models."
Philip Rocco: [04-06]
Prisoners of Their Own Device: "Once computed, the 'hard numbers'
found in CBO's baseline tables conceal all the assumptions and uncertainties
involved in producing them."
Elizabeth Warren: [04-04]
How Policymakers Fight a Losing Battle With Models: "Reforms are
needed to ensure that inaccurate budgetary math doesn't take precedence
over maximizing long-term prosperity."
Matt Stoller: [04-06]
Federal Reserve Independence Is the Problem: "A weird, secretive,
and unaccountable institution organizes our society, and nobody wants
to talk about it." I remember Clinton complaining about how the "fucking
bond market" runs the country, but then he turned around and nominated
Alan Greenspan for two more terms as Fed Chair. Like Clinton, Obama and
Biden both reappointed Republican Fed Chairs, who then turned around
and screwed them.
From my Twitter feed:
Dare Obasanjo:
Carnage4Life
Kyle Rittenhouse was a turning point where Republicans started openly
celebrating murdering people whose politics you disagree with.
Turning literal murderers into heroes because you dislike the
politics of the victims and government officials normalizing it is
a dark place.
Tikun Olam
@richards1052
Latest poll shows Likud would lose 12 seats from its current 32 if
election was held today. An utter disaster. Opposition parties led
by Gantz and Lapid would double their seats to 50.
Also this
meme: "The road to fascism is lined with people telling
you to stop overreacting."
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, April 2, 2023
Speaking of Which
I opened this file by linking to Jeffrey St Clair's latest "Roaming
Charges" piece (way down below), because any time he writes one of his
scattershot
columns, I feel duty-bound to link to it. Not that we see eye-to-eye
on everything. I could certainly do without the gratuitous sniping at
Bernie Sanders (even if he occasionally has a point). But he's never
tried to critique both parties from some imaginary point in the middle,
so when he does hold Democrats to account, he never tries to blur the
distinction by making Republicans seem a bit less evil.
[PS: Although further down he
berates Biden as "old, tired, powerless, out of ideas and lacking any
genuine outrage," then turns around and says, "One thing you have to
admire about Trump is that he didn't give up pursuing his agenda, no
matter how debased it was . . . people liked that he was a fighter."
That strikes me as unfair to Biden, who evinces far more outrage than
I think is politically savvy, and inaccurate on Trump, who never had
an agenda to fight for, aside from symbolic gestures like the wall,
and whose ineffectiveness had more than a little to do with his lack
of compassion or conviction. Anyone who values Trump as a fighter
has a fleeting grasp of reality.]
I may be more
inclined to pull my punches for the sake of partisan solidarity, but
I have to respect his principles, not least because they come with
important insights. This week's column starts with one so important
it needs to go here, on top, before you get distracted with what's
likely to be a veritable tsunami of political bullshit. (I'm writing
this on Friday, before collecting the rest, so it'll be easy to
check my prediction.) He opens as follows (my bold):
The US is not going to solve its gun violence epidemic until it
addresses its war violence epidemic. There's a reason the AK-15
has become the weapon of choice for post-Gulf War shooters. Blame guns
if you must, but start with the war culture that has indoctrinated so
many people to crave them, not, I suspect for self-protection, but for
the projection of power in a society where the individual is left with
so little.
For three decades, we have saturated our society with
government-sponsored violence, where every type of killing is
officially sanctioned, including that of children. We've committed
infanticide with impunity from Kandahar to Belgrade. The sniper and
the drone have become cultural icons, grotesque symbols of the
American imperium.
Predictably, the chickens that have come home to roost haven't only
been the relatives of the victims, but also the children of
perpetrators, nurtured on fear, bloodshed and high-capacity
ammo. They've been reared to see people in uniform -- from Mosul to
Memphis -- kill with impunity. The lessons seem to have taken
root.
I've said the first sentence before, probably many times. The rest
just drives home the point, not that you couldn't add volumes more.
I have no fondness for guns, and wouldn't mind if they were totally
banned. (I don't mind people who hunt, as many of my recent ancestors
did, but even there I could imagine a program where people rent hunting
guns when they obtain their in-season licenses. Among other things, it
would match guns to game. I could also see letting people target shoot,
but renting the guns there, too. Again, you'd get a better match. And,
really, it wouldn't be any more onerous than having to rent shoes at
the bowling alley -- I assume they still do that, as it's been a while.)
But politically that's not going to happen, at least any time soon, at
least as long as many people feel like they need to own guns, and are
willing to live with the inevitable costs. What anti-gun people need
to do is to shift some mind, to get people to realize that they don't
need (and shouldn't want) guns.
A big part of the reason for my indifference or resignation to the
dearth of gun control is that I really don't like the instinct that
drives so many people to ban anything they don't like. That was the
driving ideology behind prohibition, including the war on drugs, and
creates bad side-effects as well as not working very well. I suppose
there are limits to my preference for never banning anything: we still
have bans on fully-automatic machine guns and artillery, and it makes
sense to keep tight regulation on toxic chemicals and explosives. And
while I'd cut way back on criminal penalties for drugs, I'd like to
see enough regulation to keep them from being commercialized.
I have a somewhat similar position on immigration. I think most
immigration is driven not by wonderful economic opportunities in
America, but by the spread of violence that is largely backed or
motivated by America's global projection of power, and by the global
financial system that continuously works to extract profit from the
rest of the world (often protected by American arms). If you want to
limit immigration, the most effective thing would be to reduce the
fear and hunger elsewhere that drives people here. (Needless to say,
you can substitute Europe for America in the preceding sentences and
still make perfect sense. And Europe and America are linked in that
way, such that the political/economic powers in each no longer
discriminate in favor of own interests.) So my argument to anyone
who wants to restrict immigration is to start by reforming the
foreign policies that drive people to come here. Oh, and by the
way, also climate policies, given that changing climate is likely
to be the biggest driver of migration in coming decades.
Of course, I know people (my wife, for one) who want no limits on
immigration, as they believe that every person should have the right
to live wherever they see fit. I don't have a strong argument against
that position, but I can see a sensible one. Borders act as baffles,
which aren't impermeable but do so some extent allow nations to work
on their own problems independently of other nations and pressures.
While America may look like some kind of paradise to outsiders, it
isn't. We have a lot of work to do to make it more livable and vital
for the people who already live here, and adding more people makes
it harder.
Sure, maybe not a lot: I accept that the long-term benefits
of adding immigrants are real, that the short-term costs aren't as bad
as is commonly assumed (or wouldn't be if we didn't allow them to be
exploited so badly), and that the idea that America's culture will be
undermined by unassimilable aliens is a fantasy. On the other hand,
we're hard pressed now to build the political will to make the changes
we so sorely need, and there's little reason to think that higher
immigration levels might help. Note that the biggest turn to the left
in American history was during the 1930s, when immigration was close
to nil. On the other hand, recall that 5 (of 16) Republican presidential
candidates in 2016 had at least one foreign-born parent.
What I do see as priorities on immigration are that people who have
been here for quite some time need to be accepted and documented, and
not be treated as "illegals"; also that migrants who do come to America
need to be treated humanely and efficiently, not just for their own
sakes but because the way we've been treating them just makes us all
that much more barbaric.
Top story threads:
Trump: The former president pulled away from the pack this
week, by getting indicted, by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, in a case
that involves the famous "hush money" payment to porn star Stormy
Daniels, or perhaps more technically the hidden audit trail of the
payment, but with the indictment (still sealed) of 30 items, it
seems likely that the charges will go further into an extensive
pattern of corrupt business practices.
You might start by watching
Jimmy Kimmel, because, as
he insists, Trump's indictment is "historic and it's funny." He only
had an hour or two to prepare (poor Seth Myers missed it completely),
but he makes some good points. Also, once again, I love it that
virtually his whole audience is excited by the news. I'm so used to
being in a fringe minority that I find it very heartening to see a
crowd of normal people clearly aware of just how horrible Trump has
been (and still is).
Nicole Narea/Ian Millhiser: [03-31]
Your biggest questions about Trump's indictment, answered: "Here's
what happens next."
Zack Beauchamp: [03-31]
The best precedent for Trump's indictment is (gulp) Israel: Sure,
no nation has more experience with indicting its political leaders,
but Trump hasn't pushed his situation nearly as far as Netanyahu has.
To make the two analogous, Trump would have to win in 2024, and make
every day January 6 all over again.
Igor Derysh: [03-31]
Trump reportedly "caught off guard" by 34-count indictment -- melts
down all night on Truith Social. My instinct is to be agnostic
about indicting Trump (or anyone else, at least anyone I've heard
of), not just because "innocent until proven guilty," and not just
because I never care much for the details, but also because I don't
have much faith that justice works in America. If Trump acted like
a normal defendant, which is to say hid behind lawyers who exercised
some care not to inflame the situation, that would probably be the
end of my interest. After all, why get heavily invested in something
(like his impeachments) that isn't likely to pan out. On the other
hand, when he squirms like a stuck pig, that's something I can enjoy.
Not that I usually go in for Schadenfreude, but regardless of whether
he's ultimately a convicted felon, he's clearly a malign political
force, and quite simply a bad person. Perhaps the squirming is just
the mark of a thin-skinned, narcissistic egomaniac, but it feels
like at least a taste of justice.
By the way, Salon is having a lot of fun consulting various
"experts" on whatever it is they know about the Trump indictment.
Examples as of [04-02]:
Experts: Bragg has "very strong case";
Expert: Indictment won't help Trump;
Expert: Charges show Trump not a "king";
Experts rip DeSantis' extradition threat;
Haberman: Ex-Trumpers "quietly cheering";
Legal experts: Trump will fight back;
Right freaks out over Trump indictment.
Also, a while back [02-24]
"Threatening a prosecutor is a crime": Experts say Trump's Truth
Social post could badly backfire.
Chris Hedges: [03-31]
Yes, Donald Trump has committed many crimes -- but that's not why he
faces prosecution: "Like Richard Nixon, Trump is being punished
for his sins against the dominant order, not his most serious ones."
Mostly true: if I had to rank his crimes, I'd start elsewhere, but
suppressing the Storm Daniels story a week before the 2016 election
may have been one that was necessary to secure his win, making the
later crimes possible. There's no doubt that the story was juicy
enough the media would have gone crazy with it, possibly drowning
out the last round of Clinton email hoopla. Sure, most of his
supporters would have laughed it off, but he won the electoral
college by a very slim margin.
The part that's untrue is that he
is being tried for upsetting "the dominant order." That's an odd,
imprecise term, but most of the rich and powerful were perfectly
happy with all the perks and favors Trump cut them. Even when they
found him embarrassing, they were more worried that he'd get voted
out and the gravy train would stop (although, let's be real, most
of them know how to extract favors from Democrats as well). While
Trump occasionally said things that were off base, he did so little
on his own that he never was much of a threat. In particular, his
much bruited antiwar sentiments led to ever larger defense budgets
and an acceleration of random drone attacks, while he tore up many
more treaties than he negotiated. And while it's true that most
Democrats came to really despise him, the few cases they brought --
including two politically-doomed impeachments -- were constructed
narrowly and solidly based. We haven't seen the Manhattan DA case
yet, but given how reluctant Alvin Bragg was to charge Trump, he
probably has a solid case.
Since Hedges mentioned Nixon, let's talk about him for a minute.
Maybe I was just at an impressionable age when he became president,
but I've always thought he was the most evil politician in American
history. He's the only one I've truly hated, and I still blame much
of what I deplore most in Reagan, Bush, and even Trump on him. When
I was trying to figure out what I thought about capital punishment,
he was my test case: if we can't execute Nixon, where's the justice
in executing anyone else? It really just reduces to a power dynamic:
states kill the people too powerless to stop them, and let the rest
go free. I remember thinking about death, and concluding that as
long as Nixon goes first, I'm willing to deal with it. Yet basically
what happened was that after Nixon resigned, and after Ford pardoned
him, he became harmless. He didn't become a hermit. He wrote his
self-serving books, and enjoyed the rest of his life in relative
comfort, but he never really bothered us after that. So, sure, it
wasn't justice that Nixon never had to pay for his crimes. But it
was effective, just to keep him away from the levers of power that
made his crimes so calamitous.
Now maybe the same thing could have happened with Trump, but
here he is, running for president again, threatening revenge on
everyone who slighted him over the years, inspiring and exhorting
his coterie of followers to build new crimes on top of his. Never
mind remorse, he is utterly without shame or conscience. He still
describes himself as "the most innocent man in American history."
It is quite possible that had he meekly retired into his mansion,
none of the charges -- and now that the ice is broken, I have
little doubt that there will be more -- would have been brought.
You can object that makes them political, but Trump is the one
who made them political: he is the one who made them urgent and
necessary. Had he simply retired, he would have been as harmless
as Nixon. But by fighting on, several prosecutors decided they
had to make clear to the public what kind of man (what kind of
criminal) he really is.
Hedges' other implication: that one shouldn't be prosecuted
for a lesser crime once one has committed a greater one, is too
ridiculous to address. I rather doubt that's even the rule in
divinity school, where Hedges studied, but I'm dead certain
that no lawyer in America would try to use that as a defense.
Ben Jacobs: [03-31]
Trump's indictment has united the Republican Party in apocalyptic
rage. Well, they see every rage as apocalyptic.
Samaa Khullar: [03-31]
Manhattan DA accuses GOP of "unlawful political interference" in Trump
case: If you want to talk about "unprecedented," tell me the last
time a committee of Congress tried to insert itself into a state or
local prosecution, demanding to expose and interrogate a case before
it has been tried? I like the British term for this sort of thing:
"attempting to pervert the course of justice." Khullar also wrote: [03-31]
Fox News stokes fears of political "violence" over Trump indictment.
Tori Otten: [03-31]
Republicans' Only Defense Against the Trump Indictment: George Soros:
Mostly in the context of the "Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney."
I shouldn't have to explain the anti-semitic tropes of singling Soros
out everywhere. And it's not like left-leaning pundits are going around
deriding Republicans as "Koch-backed" or "Adelson-backed" (even though
both of those guys, at least before the latter died, held conventions
attended by dozens of Republicans hoping to kiss the ring). [OK, full
disclosure, back when he was a Congressman, I did refer to "Mike Pompeo
(R-Koch)," but that connection was much more direct than Soros ever gets
to anyone, and I was contrasting Pompeo to "Todd Tiahrt (R-Boeing)."]
Andre Pagliarini: [04-01]
What the Right-Wing Freakout Over Trump's "Banana Republic" Indictment
Is Really About. Meanwhile, Jair Bolsonaro return to Brazil, and
his own possible prosecution for a wide range of crimes.
Ramesh Ponnoru: [04-02]
Trump's indictment will warp our politics for years to come:
I only mention this piece only because it strikes me that Trump's
indictment may well be viewed as belonging to the "warp for years
to come" that started with Republican attempts to use civil and
criminal suits against Clinton in the 1990s. If this seems to be
harsher on Trump, it's because he's left so much more evidence to
prosecute him with -- and possibly because his "lock her up"
campaign slogan amounted to taunting.
Andrew Prokop: [03-30]
Donald Trump has been indicted. The hush money case against him,
explained. The story, updated many times, from a staple post.
But until people see the actual indictment, it's hard to speculate
on how strong the case is. Prokop also wrote: [04-01]
How to tell when an investigation is politicized. His criteria
seem to be: how similar is this to the Kenneth Starr prosecution of
Clinton? He doesn't really know, but that isn't stopping him from
spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). Of course, anything
involving Trump is bound to be politicized, as Trump will blame
political motives, and likely realizes that his offenses are seen
as part of his political persona. This leads to a second question
which Prokop doesn't ask: should people with political motives be
exempt from prosecution? As someone long identified as a leftist,
I can't think of any such precedent. I'm especially annoyed by the
line: "if they can go after Trump, they can go after anybody."
Where have these people been? They've been going after anybody
for well over a century. It's only people like Trump who felt
themselves above the law, immune from prosecution.
Alex Shephard: [03-30]
Did Trump Do Worse Things? Sure. But This Indictment Is a Great
Start. Shephard also wrote: [03-31]
A Field Guide to the Right's Hysterical and Desperate Response to Trump's
Indictment. I always get a kick out of the line (attributed here to
Vivek Ramaswamy, but I've probably heard it 20 times so far): "If they
can do it to Trump, they can do it to you." Of course, if you committed
the same crimes Trump is charged with, they always could have "done it
to you" -- and wouldn't have given it a second thought. What's new is
that they're even, finally doing it to Trump.
Perry Stein/Shayna Jacobs: [03-31]
Trump lashes out against New York judge who will hear his criminal
case.
Asawin Suebsaeng/Adam Rawnsley: [03-29]
Trump Asks Advisers for 'Battle Plans' to 'Attack Mexico' if
Reelected.
Michael Tomasky: [03-31]
What Trump and Republicans Don't Understand About the Law.
Brett Wilkins: [03-31]
'This P*ssy Grabbed Back': Stormy Daniels Speaks Out After Trump
Indictment.
Li Zhou: [03-31]
The indictment adds to a long list of times Republicans have backed
Trump. List is admittedly "non-exhaustive."
Inspirational tweet (sure, we're all criminals, which makes
it so unfair when any of us get charged):
Lauren Boebert: If they charge President Trump for his
crimes, they could charge any of us for our crimes. The rule of law
means nothing to these people.
PS: I was later surprised that I didn't come up with anything
on Trump's post-indictment fundraising. A quick search revealed:
Other Republicans: DeSantis, McCarthy, and the rest simply
couldn't keep up last week.
Israel: If we were keeping something like the "doomsday
clock" on the question of when does Israel turn genocidal, I wouldn't
put it a few minutes before midnight (like the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists does), but this week it definitely moved past noon.
Ben Armbruster: [03-29]
Lawmakers ask Biden to investigate Israel's use of US arms: The law
says that "American weapons sales cannot be used to commit human rights
abuses," but Israel has long gotten a free pass.
Haim Bresheeth-Zabner: [03-31]
Israel's rightwing government represents the Judaization of Zionism.
"The statistics are clear: Israel is safely on its way to becoming a
Jewish version of the Islamic Republic." It is worth remembering that
before 1948, the Zionist movement was overwhelmingly secular, even in
its "revisionist" Jabotinsky wing, while religious Jews in Palestine
(going back centuries) tended to be anti-Zionist. However, Ben-Gurion
decided he wanted the imprimatur of the rabbis, so cut a deal to let
religious parties into the government. Their numbers increased with
the immigration of Jews from Arab states, and they developed their
own peculiar vision of Zionism, especially as they led the post-1967
settler movement. They cemented their gains by being power brokers,
switching between Labor and Likud governments depending on who gave
them the best deal. As their power grew, there was a secular backlash
a few years back, but by then the division between Jews and Palestinians
was so deep that even secular Jews couldn't bridge it. In the latest
elections, Netanyahu was so desperate to return to power (and to keep
out of jail) that he effectively surrendered the government to his
religious party partners, giving them effective power even though
they still only represent a minority of Israeli Jews.
Ryan Cooper: [03-30]
The Occupation Is Eating Israeli Democracy.
Ruth Margalit: [03-29]
Israel's transformative protest movement.
Jonathan Ofir: [03-31]
Meet Avichai Buaron, the new Likud lawmaker who advocated for 'extermination
camps' for Israel's enemies. Richard Silverstein also wrote
about this: [03-30]
New Israeli MK Advocated Death Camps for Palestinians.
Shira Rubin: [04-02]
Israel to form national guard proposed by far-right minister Ben Gvir.
Israel is not exactly lacking for internal security organizations, but
this one would report directly to Ben Gvir, who "has been convicted
dozens of times for charges that include support for terrorist
organizations and anti-Palestinian incitement." I don't see this
working out well. Even Hitler eventually moved to disband the SA
(Sturmabteilung, aka "brown shirts") when they got out of hand.
Philip Weiss: [03-28]
US media turn on Netanyahu (finally) for meddling in US policy.
Cites important articles by Sharon Pardo/Yonatan Touval: [03-23]
Netanyahu Has Made Israel a US Adversary; and James Bamford:
[03-23]
The Trump Campaign's Collusion With Israel (which I commented on
last week). Weiss also wrote: [04-01]
'Soft gloves' police treatment of Jewish protesters reveals Israeli
racism.
Jeff Wright: [03-12]
'Til Kingdom Come unpacks the power and politics of Christian Zionism:
Documentary film by Maya Zinshtein. Wright also wrote a review of
another recent film: [04-02]
The Law and the Prophets offers a master class on Israel's
control of Palestinians.
Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc: A couple late items on the 20th
anniversary of the Bush invasion of Iraq, but also a sudden rash
of articles about the region (mostly about blowing it up).
Sina Azodi/Arman Mahmoudian: [03-28]
Iran's historic interdependence with Russia takes a turn -- over
Europe.
Dave DeCamp: [03-30]
Milley Says the US Should Attack Iran's IRGC Quds Force. I think
he means in Syria (and possibly Iraq), as opposed to directly attacking
Iran, but he could be more specific. The US mission in Syria has always
been schizophrenic, and it's become increasingly pointless as Assad has
tightened control over almost all of the country. Of course, Israel is
doing the same thing: see [03-31]
Israel strikes Damascus for second time in 24 hours, kills IRGC officer.
Daniel Larison: [03-31]
Centrist DC think tank: US should threaten war, regime change in
Iran: CNAS (Center for a New American Security), no names here,
but I suppose "centrist" means that the Democrats are even hawkier
than the Republicans (it wouldn't be hard to staff a roster like
that).
Ted Galen Carpenter: [03-31]
Syria episode shows how contractors still used to fight America's
wars.
Blaise Malley: [03-28]
Iraq War cheerleader reunion: it wasn't the failure you think it was:
"Robert Kagan claims US standing across the globe is just fine. The
rest of the world wants 'more America, not less.'" Some names here
have new books I've been noting recently, including Robert Kagan,
Stephen Hadley, and Melvyn Leffler. Kagan, by the way, also figures
prominently in Medea Benjamin/Nicholas JS Davies: [03-17]
The Not-So-Winding Road from Iraq to Ukraine.
James North: [04-01]
An Iraqi writer's brilliant book shows how the 2003 US invasion detonated
20 years of awful violence: Review of Ghaith Abdul-Ahad: A
Stranger in Your Own City: Travels in the Middle East's Long War.
The author was a young architect in 2003. He became a translator/fixer
for foreign journalists, went on to write and photograph his own
articles (mostly for Guardian), and remained on the front
lines at least through the fight with ISIS in 2017: "no American
or European writer could have done this."
Philip Weiss: [03-22]
The US establishment's fever to smash Iraq must not be forgotten.
Ukraine War: Both sides continue to publicly build up their
cases that they cannot be defeated, and that they can continue to fight
indefinitely. We're supposed to be impressed by that?
Blaise Malley: [03-31]
Diplomacy Watch: Privately, experts ask White House 'what's the longer-term
gameplan?'
David Atkins: [03-29]
Trump, DeSantis Say They Just Want Peace in Ukraine. Don't Fall for
It. I started to write something about this piece, then tore it
up, because it's too easy to get sucked into a rathole about the
insincerity of "fascists for peace." But I came back to it, because
I hate the idea of attacking anyone for "just wanting peace," even
characters as execrable as the headline. I also hate the practice
of dredging up the reluctance of many Americans to get involved in
WWII, even if Charles Lindbergh and "the original 'America First'
crowd" were Nazi symps (except to point out that Trump's father
attended a notorious 1939 pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden).
Having read a lot of history on the subject, I'm probably more
attuned to incipient fascism than most, but Nazi/Fascist charges
only obscure the causes and stakes of the Ukraine war (as, for
that matter, do high-minded paeans to democracy), and act mostly
as pro-war recruiting signals. (For example, this page provides
links to two 2014 pieces by Ed Kilgore:
Russia as the New Fascist Threat, and
Ukraine and the Sudeten Analogy. Kilgore, of course, is one of
those liberals whose neverending "search for monsters to destroy"
led him to support the Bush War in Iraq.)
I also object to the assumption that the real (or only) reason
Trump, DeSantis, and other Republicans have for opposing US support
for Ukraine -- if that's what they're doing; describing Ukraine as
"a regional conflict" doesn't reflect the official line but isn't
all that inaccurate -- is that they are Putin fans/fools. There is
a long and honorable tradition in American politics, going back to
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and articulated most famously
by John Quincy Adams, of military entanglements around the world.
This tradition was unfairly lampooned as "isolationism" during the
intoxication of WWII and the rise of the Cold Warriors afterwards,
but we now have 75 years of evidence suggesting that restraint and
peaceful diplomacy and commerce would have been a wiser course.
Granted, Trump's actual presidency gives us no reason to believe
that he understands what it takes to avoid the wars he claims not
to believe in. Indeed, history will record that he made a complete
botch of Ukraine during his four years as president.
Jonathan Guyer: [03-29]
What US weapons tell us about the Russia-Ukraine war: As the
chart makes clear, arming Ukraine is overwhelmingly an American
project. What isn't clear is how much arms like tanks are meant
to advance a negotiating position or just an offensive hoping to
reclaim Russian-occupied territory, because neither Ukraine nor
the US seems to have a coherent negotiating position.
Fred Kaplan: [03-27]
What Putin's Latest Nuke Announcement Really means: "It's all just
for show -- but it could backfire."
Ivan Nechepurenko/Anatoly Kurmanev: [04-02]
Influential Russian Military Blogger Is Killed in St Petersburg
Bombing.
Jake Werner: [03-31]
What Biden means when he says we're fighting 'global battle for
democracy': So, you see, he's hosting this Summit for Democracy,
which among other oddities included a panel featuring Narenda Modi
and Benjamin Netanyahu, leaders in legislating ethnocracies, which
deny fundamental rights to minorities, while still pretending to
practice democracy.
Joshua Yaffa: [03-31]
The unimaginable horror of a friend's arrest in Moscow: Wall
Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was arrested and charged
with espionage. Even if true, it's hard to imagine that reporting on
Russia is more damaging than descending into hostage-taking. For more,
see Connor Echols: [03-30]
Ex-CIA official: No way detained WSJ reporter is a US spy. Also
Jonathan Guyer: [03-30]
The first US journalist was just arrested in Russia since the Cold
War.
Other stories:
Dean Baker: [04-01]
The Social Security Scare Story Industry: One of those scare
stories showed up in my local paper. I'm not surprised at how few
people actually understand how Social Security works, but you'd
think the ones who write on it for major news chains would show
some initiative. The real future problem with Social Security and
Medicare is whether we elect politicians who understand the need
to take care of the elderly and infirm, or we elect a bunch of
jerks (i.e., Republicans) who don't care and can't be bothered.
Baker also wrote: [03-29]
The Silicon Valley Bank Bailout: The Purpose of Government Is to
Make the Rich Richers #63,486. I don't think he's actually
counting, but feels like the right ballpark.
Shirin Ghaffary: [03-31]
Elon Musk wants to fill your Twitter feed with paid accounts:
As of April 15, "Twitter will only recommend content from paid
accounts in the For You tab, the first screen users see when they
open the app." That sounds like it will be 100% advertising. The
alternative to "For you" is "Following," which actually gives me
something more like what I expected: tweets from people I follow,
plus ones those people forward. I've been looking at my own view
stats, and I'm pretty disgusted with what I'm seeing: my tweets
announcing "Speaking of Which" posts are ultimately viewed by a
bit less than 15% of my followers. "Music Week" announcements get
more views, but still only about 50% of my followers (or that's
what the total works out to: they usually get a retweet or two,
so that helps the spread). Consequently, I'm questioning the whole
utility of the platform. And I suspect that that in a few weeks a
blue checkmark will be recognized as a stigma instead of as proof
of authenticity. They're really just pissing on their brand.
Drew Harwell: [04-02]
Twitter strikes New York Times' verified badge on Elon Musk's
orders: "The Times and other news organizations say they won't
pay for the icon, which [was originally] designed to protect against
impersonation." Evidently, they haven't removed all the blue checks
yet, probably to obscure the question of how many suckers have paid
up, but after the Times publicly refused to pay up, Musk decided to
make an example of them.
Prem Thakker: [03-31]
Sorry Elon, No One Cares About Losing Their Blue Checkmark on
Twitter. There's a list here of famous publishers opting out.
This flows into a another piece: "Twitter Admits It's Been Forcing
Elon Musk on Your Timeline." I recently clicked on "Following"
instead of the default "For you," and the Musk tweets have (so
far) vanished.
William Hartung: [03-26]
The Pentagon's Budget from Hell: Congress Has Been Captured by the
Arms Industry: "The ultimate driver of that enormous spending
spree is a seldom-commented-upon strategy of global military overreach,
including 75 U.S. military bases scattered on every continent except
Antarctica, 170,000 troops stationed overseas, and counterterror
operations in at least 85 -- not, that is not a typo -- countries
(a count offered by Brown University's Cost of War Project."
Sean Illing: [03-30]
The media wants the audience's trust. But is it being earned?
Interview with Brian Stelter, who wrote Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox
News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth. Illing has a point:
"So it's not that Fox doesn't have a right-wing bias; it's that it
primarily exists to flatter the delusions of its audience, and
they do it even when they know it's bullshit." That's an insight
that could apply to other media companies, which are all defined
by their ability to corral and exploit a predictable audience.
But Fox's audience is more deluded than most, and it's easy to
push their buttons. Moreover, they've captured a political party,
which means they can make much of the news they report, and give
their audience a rooting interest.
Robert Kuttner: [03-28]
What Comes After Neoliberalism? "We are winning the battle of
ideas. We have a long way to go before we win the politics." I
hear an echo here of one of my pet ideas: I believe that the New
Left won the "battle of ideas" in the 1970s, resulting in sweeping
changes to how we think about war, race, sex, the environment, and
consumer rights, but part of that constellation of ideas was a
profound mistrust of power, as well as a sharp critique of the
previous generation of liberals (especially those who brought us
the Cold War and the hot war in Vietnam), so very little effort
got made to secure liberation with political power. (The New Left
was also divided on labor unions, which after Taft-Hartley had
largely abandoned the struggle to organize poor workers, and
which mostly exercised their power within the Democratic Party
to support the warmongers.) The result is that we've seen much
erosion on these fronts, even though there's little popular
support for the reaction.
A big part of this erosion can be ascribed to elements in the
Democratic Party who tried to craft a "kindler, gentler" version
of neoliberalism -- with scant success, given that any time they
tried to make something decent out of market solutions, Republicans
were there to wreck their efforts. (Clinton claimed he had crafted
a good welfare reform bill, only to find it passed by a Republican
Congress wrapped up in "a sack of shit." Obamacare didn't fare
much better.) It's true that there are new ideas gaining purchase
among Democrats (some even embraced by Biden, who the neoliberal
faction settled on as their "anybody but Bernie" candidate), but
it's premature to claim that they've gained the upper hand over
neoliberalism.
What is clear, though, is that neoliberalism has
failed, both as an economic doctrine and as a political movement.
As for the terminology problem, I'm inclined to go with democracy:
we need a political order that puts people ahead of profit, that
puts industry and commerce to work for the betterment of everyone.
The key to doing that is to give everyone more rights, so they
can take back the state and redirect it for the general welfare.
The Republicans ran on exactly that platform in 1860: "Vote yourself
a farm; vote yourself a tariff!"
Jack McCordick: [03-29]
How Big Business Hijacked Freedom: Interview with Naomi Oreskes
and Erik M Conway, authors of The Big Myth: How American Business
Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market. Telling
that the issue that originally set the NAM (National Association of
Manufacturers) off was their opposition to child labor laws.
Ian Millhiser: [03-30]
The lawsuit that threatens everything from cancer screenings to birth
control, explained: "A notoriously partisan judge has launched a
new attack on one of Obamacare's key provisions."
More on the courts:
Matt Ford: [03-30]
It's 2023, and Conservatives Are Still Trying to Sue Obamacare Out of
Existence. Judge Reed O'Connor "struck down a major part of the
Affordable Care Act on Thursday. . . . O'Connor was the favored
destination of such suits for years: He has found the ACA to be
unconstitutional, either in whole or in part, at least four times
now, leaving the appellate courts to clean up his many messes."
Charles P Pierce: He cranks out
several posts every day, most worth reading (many I could have
filed in various spots above):
Paul Rosenberg: [04-02]
What crisis of democracy? Scholar Larry Bartels says the real crisis
is corrupt leaders: Shorter title: "Maybe we just elect bad people."
Interview with Bartels, who wrote Democracy
Erodes From the Top: Leaders, Citizens, and the Challenge of Populism
in Europe. Focus is on European leaders like Viktor Orban and
Giorgia Meloni, but key point applies to American political leaders
as well, especially Donald Trump, who didn't exactly run as an
authoritarian but exercised his power as arbitrarily and capriciously
as he could get away with, resulting in a quite striking erosion of
democratic norms and expectations.
Jason Samenow: [03-26]
How Mississippi's tornadoes unfolded Friday night and why they were
so deadly: I read this piece with considerable interest, having
grown up in what used to be called "tornado alley": roughly an oval
from a bit south of Oklahoma City to a bit north of Wichita, spreading
out maybe a hundred miles east and west. After a large tornado wiped
out the small town of Udall, about 20 miles southeast of Wichita,
when I was 5 or 6, Kansas got its act together and built a pretty
robust tornado warning system. The frequency of tornados declined
over the last decade or two, shifting east and south, but until then
the grim statistic was that despite getting many fewer tornados than
Kansas, the state with by far the most tornado deaths was Mississippi.
That's what happens when your state hates you. I haven't looked at
those stats recently, but with the climate shift on top of America's
most decrepit state government, the situation can only have grown
worse (despite the fact that at the national level, weather forecasting
has gotten markedly better). More tornado reports this week:
Kelefa Sanneh: [03-27]
How Christian is Christian nationalism? This is a question that I,
as someone who doesn't believe in, and for that matter distrusts, both
Christianity and nationalism, am indifferent to, yet perversely curious
about. The latter is probably because I once had what I felt to be a
pretty sound grounding in at least one strain of Christianity, and I
suspect that most self-professed Christian nationalists have a very
different understanding. This piece reviews a couple books: Paul D
Miller's The Religion of American Greatness: What's Wrong With
Christian Nationalism; and Stephen Wolfe's The Case for Christian
Nationalism.
Dylan Scott: [03-31]
The number of uninsured Americans is about to jump dramatically for
the first time in years: "Starting April 1, states will begin
removing millions of people off Medicaid's rolls as a pandemic-era
program that kept them enrolled expires."
Jeffrey St Clair: [03-31]
Roaming Charges: Spare the AR-15, Spoil the Child. Beyond the
Nashville shooting story (noted in introduction), see the excruciating
long list of failures in America's so-called justice system, as well
as a few obvious comments about the ICC, and numerous other stories
that should make you stop and think. Much more, including a link to
hear
Pharoah Sanders in 2011.
I don't feel like elevating this to the "major story" section, but
if I catch more links on guns, hang them here:
Hannah Allam: [03-27]
The radicals' rifle: "Armed groups on the right and left exploit
the AR-15 as both tool and symbol." Left? Well, they found some, and
they've bought guns to defend against "real threats," by which they
mean the gun nuts on the right.
Ben Beckett: [03-31]
The Right Is Flat-Out Admitting It Doesn't Care About Gun
Violence. The right don't care whether you, or your children,
live or die. The right don't care if you're miserable. The right
thinks the world can go to hell, and they'll carry on as oblivious
as ever.
Emily Guskin/Aadit Tambe/Jon Gerberg: [03-27]
Why do Americans own AR-15s: Polling as to why misses the obvious
category (although some of the given categories are subsets): "because
I'm an asshole." Other factors are largely as expected. Note that only
8% of US adults overall have served in military, but 28% of AR-15 owners
have, as have 18% of other gun owners. Hunting is not a reason for 52%
of AR-15 owners. The other 48% are lying and/or assholes (the two are
not exclusive).
Alex Horton/Monique Woo/Tucker Harris: [03-27]
Varmints, soldiers and looming threats: See the ads used to sell the
AR-15. One ad reads: "Consider your man card reissued."
N Kirkpatrick/Atthar Mirza/Manuel Canales: [03-27]
The Blast Effect: "This is how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body
apart.
Jonathan Swan/Kate Kelly/Maggie Haberman/Mark Mazzetti: [03-30]
Kushner Firm Got Hundreds of Millions From 2 Persian Gulf Nations:
Now, this is how you do graft. Moreover, it's unlikely that he'll ever
get prosecuted for the "stupid shit" that keeps tripping Trump up.
Li Zhou: [03-30]
Why train derailments involving hazardous chemicals keep happening:
"another train has derailed and caught fire in Minnesota." Also:
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, March 26, 2023
Speaking of Which
Started this on Friday, but by Sunday evening I'm getting really
sick and tired of it all. Nearly done with Nathan J Robinson's
The Current Affairs Rules for Life: On Social Justice & Its
Critics, and I'm getting tired of it too. Not that it's a bad
book, but that I so rarely use terms like "social justice" (or for
that matter, "socialism") that debate over their use hardly matters
to me. Similarly, the long opening section where he tries to rebut
conservative writers by taking them seriously wasn't a lot of help.
(The chapter on Jordan Peterson was especially hard, as the main
point that he writes verbose nonsense was proven by reproducing way
too much of it.) Still, I do some of this myself in the
Shields
comment, which exasperatingly was the last item written here.
The Simmons-Duffin piece is one of the most
important below.
Top story threads:
Top stories for the week:
The Fed, Banks, and the Economy: Just a couple notes here.
I hardly need to remind you that I thought Biden made a big mistake
in reappointing Jerome Powell.
Paul Krugman: [03-21]
How Big a Deal Is the Banking Mess? He doesn't know, but he's been
writing about it a lot, this coming after: [03-13]
Silicon Valley Bank Isn't Lehman; [03-14]
How Bad Was the Silicon Valley Bank Bailout?; and [03-16]
Three and a Half Myths About the Bank Bailouts.
One line I like, about SVB depositors: "They failed to do due diligence
because, well, it never occurred to them that bankers who seemed so
solid, so sympatico with the whole venture capital ethos, actually had
no idea what to do with the money placed in their care." This not only
contradicts, it runs exactly opposite to the dogma that markets are
always right, because investors always know exactly what they are
doing. It also shows that you don't have to be poor to make wrong
financial decisions (although if you're rich, you might not have to
pay the price).
Li Zhou: [03-22]
The Fed prioritizes inflation over bank turmoil with its latest rate
hike: The new hike is 25 basis points, the smallest since the Fed
began wrecking the economy (err, "fighting inflation").
John Nichols: [03-21]
Elizabeth Warren Is Right: Jerome Powell Should Be Held to Account:
But does she have any idea how that might work? I don't.
Trump/DeSantis: Maybe we should start merging their names,
like Benifer or Brexit? A lot of pieces that could be better sorted,
possibly eliminating some redundancy. The race to the bottom makes
you wonder how either will ever recover, but the American mainstream
media hardly has any attention span at all.
James Bamford: [03-23]
The Trump Campaign's Collusion With Israel: "While US media fixated
on Russian interference in the 2016 election, an Israeli secret agent's
campaign to influence the outcome went unreported." This is a big story,
but for many of us it's anticlimactic: of course, Israel actively sticks
its nose into American politics. I never had any doubt that Israel was
more deeply involved in the Trump campaign than Russia could dream of
being. All you need to know is that Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson
was also Netanyahu's main backer. What this article adds to such common
knowledge is that it involves more spies, and it makes the quid pro quo
explicit for Israel's support of Trump.
John Wagner/Hannah Allam: [03-24]
Trump warns of 'potential death & destruction' if he's charged in
hush-money case.
Laura Jedeed: [03-22]
Trump Asked Supporters to Take to the Streets. This Was the Sad Result.
"Outside a courthouse in New York City, it was difficult ot tell who had
come to protest the pending indictment of the former president and who
had come to troll." Tori Otten adds: [03-21]
The Pro-Trump Protest Was So Small Organizers Are Pretending They Wanted
It to Be "Low-Key".
Dan Solomon: [03-24]
Why Is Donald Trump Kicking Off His 2024 Campaign in Waco? "During
the thirtieth anniversary of the Branch Davidian tragedy, no less."
Sounds like an homage to Reagan's launching his 1980 campaign at the
site of the 1964 murder of three civil rights workers, except that
the appeal is less to plain racists than to even crazier militants
(the late Timothy McVeigh would surely be impressed).
Zack Beauchamp: [03-22]
Yes, Trump's indictment could cause a constitutional crisis. Just look
at Israel. I don't really get either point. Israel doesn't have a
constitution: Ben Gurion didn't want to pin himself down on principle,
plus he like the idea of keeping British colonial law around without
really owning it. And Israel has a history of sending politicians to
jail. Netanyahu has avoided that fate by exploiting the fundamental
weakness of democracy in Israel, and that's come as a shock to a lot
of Israelis -- even ones who don't have a problem with Netanyahu's
politics. But an indictment of Trump isn't even that.
Matt Ford: [03-24]
Florida's Attempt to Muzzle the Press Could Hurt Fox News the Most:
"Ron DeSantis and the Republican legislature want to make it easier to
sue journalists. But right-wing outlets will be the ripest targets if
defamation laws are loosened." Still, this is a pretty appalling bill.
Susan B Glasser: [03-23]
Trolled by Trump, Again: "Thoughts after a week or waiting and
waiting for the indictment that the former President promised."
Ed Kilgore: [03-26]
Donald Trump Thinks America Is a Sh*thole Country: "In Waco, he
denounced America more than any alleged super-patriot ever." With
quotes so long, the article practically wrote itself. No Trump quotes
(just one from a "conservative columnist" defending DeSantis) in
Kilgore's [03-25]
Can America Survive a Second Trump Presidency, Emotionally? I
don't know about emotionally, but he makes a good case that we're
in for a serious cognitive breakdown if Trump wins, because he's
so far out of whack from everything we're disposed to believe about
America.
Nicole Narea: [03-25]
Would Trump's indictment help or hurt his 2024 campaign? Four
"political strategists and pollsters" comment. They're split, but
none of their opinions are very convincing.
Heather Digby Parton: [03-24]
Donald Trump in Waco: It's a signal to the darkest elements of the far
right. For more background, see Tara Isabella Burton: [03-23]
The Waco tragedy, explained.
Areeba Shah: [03-23]
Ex-prosecutor warns Trump to get a new lawyer over potential "conflict
of interest" in Stormy case. It turns out that Trump lawyer Joe
Tacopina previously represented Daniels on the same case. It's amusing
to compare his press statements then to now.
Walter Shapiro: [03-23]
The Trump Indictment Is Bringing Out the Worst in People. Here's a List
of Them.
Alex Shephard: [03-23]
Ron DeSantis Looks Like a Loser: "The Florida governor and presumptive
presidential candidate is falling in the polls and making the same mistakes
as Trump's past rivals." As James Baker once put it, "we don't have a dog
in that fight." The thing is, DeSantis has adopted the Trump policy world
in toto, assuming that it holds sway in the party. But Trump's hold over
the Republican base has nothing to do with policy -- policy is just something
Trump hands over to the donors and party operatives, in exchange for not
getting in the way and cramping his style. His hold is his style, and
DeSantis doesn't even have a style, much less one that can win against
Trump. So if Trump implodes, which always seems like a possibility, is
his successor going to be a cardboard cutout with Trump policies, or
something else which we haven't seen yet, because nobody dares imitate
Trump yet?
Kenny Stancil: [03-24]
Critics say DeSantis move to expand "Don't Say Gay" exposes law's true
intentions. As originally sold, it only covered grades K-3, where
it seemed to be prohibiting virtually nothing. Having gotten away with
that, extending it to grades 4-12 is something else.
Michael Tomasky: [03-26]
Why Trump '24 Is Far More Dangerous Than Trump '16: Argues he's
added two new "arguments" this time "that make him a much bigger threat
to the republic than he was in 2016: revenge and apocalypse." Revenge
I get: he started 2016 with his bad ideas about how to "make America
great again," but he's so self-centered, and so thin-skinned, that all
he can remember now is the people who have wronged him. But apocalypse?
Tomasky quotes him: "Our opponents have done everything they can do to
crush our spirit and break our will. But they've failed. They've only
made us stronger. And 2024 is the final battle. That's gonna be the
big one. You put me back in the White House, their reign will be over,
and America will be a free nation once again." No doubt a Trump win in
2024 would be a major bummer, but only an incredibly concentrated ego
could imagine that it would be so fateful. If he wins, we'll resist
him, like we did in 2017, though perhaps more desperately, given that
in many respects time is running out.
I come from a long line of "Revelations scholars" -- people who
while away their hours scouring the Bible for signs that the world
is coming to an end, where all die but the elect are rewarded with
heaven, while the rest are dispatched to hell. I've never understood
such macabre fascination, nor the strange politics such a mindset
breeds. We increasingly live in a world of plenty, where most people
could escape the hardships and misery of the past. And while human
justice may never be as perfect as God's is presumed to be, it could
be vastly improved here and now, while we're still alive to enjoy it.
Alas, not if Trump or his disciples can help it.
Climate: I'm still surprised at how little comment the U.N.
report has resulted in.
Kate Aronoff: [03-24]
Why Optimism Can't Fix Our Climate Politics: "This week's U.N. report
shows how hard it is to save the world when capitalism is working against
you."
Aronoff also wrote: [03-17]
Who Is Biden Trying to Please With His Middle-Ground Energy Policy?
"He's pissing off environmentalists, and oil executives are still donating
to Republicans."
Ketan Joshi: [03-21]
The U.N.'s Disturbing New Climate Report Is a Call to Battle.
Hannah Ritchie: [03-21]
We need the right kind of climate optimism: "Climate pessimism dooms
us to a terrible future. Complacent optimism is no better." Aronoff cites,
and critiques, this piece in her article above. It's tempting to fight
back here with the Gramsci quote ("pessimism of the intellect, optimism
of the will"), but even that strikes me as a panacea. Optimism doesn't
work -- doesn't mean anything, whether complacent or contingent -- and
isn't even necessary. Maybe I'm betraying my Calvinist upbringing, but
you do what you can, what after due consideration you think right, and
that may or may not suffice, but as long as you act, it doesn't matter
how you feel about it. In fact, feelings can just get in the way. Or
perhaps you should consider the second law of thermodynamics: entropy
is going to win, but if you work hard enough, you might be able to
hold it back a while. Indeed, isn't that the model for life?
Israel: A couple items, no attempt to go deep, but one bit
of context comes from a Peter Beinart tweet: "Yes, it's beautiful to
see Israelis fighting a fascist government. But we can't forget that
if this was a Palestinian protest in Tel Aviv against Israeli fascism,
the protesters would likely end up j ailed, maimed or dead."
Ukraine War: Unless war breaks out with China, this remains
the most serious story in the world, at least in the short term, yet
the media is still asking, not what they can do to impress on everyone
how urgent a peaceable solution is, but on furthering the propaganda
aims of whoever they're most aligned with. Meanwhile, I filed some
non-Ukraine pieces here, because they involve the broader neo-Cold
War scenario.
Connor Echols: [03-24]
Diplomacy Watch: The heavy price of a new cold war: Blinken
wasted no time in condemning Xi Jinping for meeting with Putin
in Moscow, even though Xi's public remarks were all in favor of
a negotiated peace. Although I get the feeling that Zelensky is
more hard-line than Biden, at least he doesn't go out of his way
to butt heads with China. The US seems to view pushing China into
an alliance with Russia as a positive step.
Gilbert Achcar: [03-17]
There's No Settlement of the War in Ukraine Without China. Actually,
there's no settlement without the US and Russia, assuming they can come
to a settlement that is acceptable to Ukraine (possibly with the threat
of bouncing some blank checks). China might have a bit of influence with
Russia, if they want to press it, but the US is mostly reacting negatively
to Chinese diplomatic efforts, and there's not much China can do about
that. Still, it's good to have China in the mix.
Dave DeCamp: [03-22]
Seymour Hersh: CIA Planted Nord Stream Cover-Up Story in the Media.
(Hersh's article is:
The Cover-Up.) Imagine the New York Times falling for such a
thing. DeCamp also wrote: [03-23]
Pentagon Leaders Say New Budget Will Help Prepare for War With
China.
Connor Echols: [03-21]
UK to send controversial 'depleted uranium' rounds to Ukraine:
"The weapons are exceptionally good at breaking through armor but
carry risks of long-term harm to civilians." I think the risks are
well documented, especially in Iraq, where the US used uranium
bullets extensively. "Depleted" means most of the U-235 isotopes
have been removed, leaving the only slightly more stable but still
radioactive and toxic U-238. There's nothing to stop Russia from
reciprocating.
Fred Kaplan: [03-22]
The Big Takeaway From Xi's Summit With Putin: Not a very clear
one, but it boils down to: China will not help Russia fight its war,
but China will also not help America strangle the Russian economy.
So while China professes to want peace, it will not pressure Russia
to surrender on America's terms.
Peter Rutland: [03-24]
Why pushing for the break up of Russia is absolute folly. I'd go
a step beyond this in insisting that the US has no right, and should
have no desire, to interfere in the internal politics of any other
country. (And yes, I would include Israel as a country we shouldn't
interfere with, although the billions we give them to help finance
their colonial project is also a form of interference.)
Justin Scheck/Thomas Gibbons-Neff: [03-25]
Stolen Valor: The U.S. Volunteers in Ukraine Who Lie, Waste, and
Bicker.
Trita Parsi: [03-22]
The U.S. Is Not an Indispensable Peacemaker. I was going to wonder
how long it's been since the US was any kind of peacemaker, but the
first paragraph here starts with the 1978 Camp David Accords, where
the US helped end conflict between Israel and Egypt, not least by
promising each a substantial future stipend. Parsi also mentions the
1993 Oslo Accords, where the settlement was less generous, and the
1998 Good Friday Agreement over Northern Ireland. More recent deals
are harder to find, mostly because the US has been too intimately
involved in creating the conflicts. China, on the other hand, is
large enough to offer a steady hand and some economic perks, much
like the US once did. Hence the Saudi-Iran deal.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [03-24]
US launches airstrikes in Syria after American killed in drone attack:
The US still has 900 troops in Syria. It's hard to think of any rationale
for keeping them there, other than to provide targets for triggering
pointless reprisal attacks like this one.
Iraq: A few more pieces related to the 20th anniversary.
Gordon Adams: [03-25]
Has America's 'Vietnam syndrome' ever gone away? What a strange
thing to ask. The phrase was a supposed ailment caused by completely
sensible efforts to learn lessons from the mistakes made in Vietnam.
Those who wielded the phrase wanted to deny those lessons (as they
advised caution and concern for consequences), which they saw could
limit the future use of US military power. So they devised a series
of tests, where they meant to show that the US military could engage
and win, without generating the popular outcry they blamed for their
failures in Vietnam: hence, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Afghanistan,
Iraq. By the end, what returned wasn't "Vietnam syndrome"; it was
reality, where people fight against alien invaders, even American
ones. If Ukraine seems to be working out better, it's because the
roles are reversed. This time, the US is supporting a people trying
to dislodge a foreign invader, much as the Soviet Union supplied
arms and support to the Vietnamese defending themselves against an
encroaching empire.
Anthony DiMaggio: [03-24]
20 Years of Iraq Denialism: The New York Times Continues to Get It Wrong
on U.S. Empire: A response to last week's article,
20 Years On, a Question Lingers About Iraq: Why Did the U.S. Invade?
Melvin Goodman: [03-24]
Still Spinning the Iraq War 20 Years Later.
Branko Marcetic: [03-23]
For Putin, Iraq War marked a turning point in US-Russia relations:
"Leaked diplomatic cables show an increasingly skeptical Moscow,
souring by the day on Washington's determination to impose its will."
Jeffrey St Clair: [03-23]
Selling the Iraq War: a How-to Guide. Essay adapted from his book,
Grand Theft Pentagon, provides a lot of detail on the PR firms
the Pentagon and CIA hired to promote the invasion of Iraq, as well as
the revolving door between those firms and their clients. For instance,
I recall Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, but forgot (or
never knew) that they were set up as a front by John Rendon, who had
previously shilled for the Kuwaiti royal family.
Jeffrey St Clair: [03-24]
American Dream, Global Nightmare: On the Origins of the Iraq War:
Mostly consists of a piece from 2003, which is exceptionally detailed
on the impact of sanctions and periodic bombings between 1990 and 2003.
As the introduction notes, "One of the problems with commemorating the
20th anniversary of the Iraq War is that the Iraq War didn't start 20
years ago. It had been going on for more than a decade before Shock
and Awe." He also includes a long list of quotes from 2001 to 2017,
"a kind of oral history of the war (mostly) from the perpetrator's
point of view."
Other stories:
Zack Beauchamp: [03-24]
India's ruling party just kicked a major rival out of Parliament -- and
sparked a new crisis: Narenda Modi's government "has rewritten election
rules in its favor, assailed the rights of the Muslim minority, jailed
anti-government protesters, and reined in the free press." Now they
expelled Congress Party leader Rahul Gandhi, after he was convicted
of defaming the "Modi community" and sentenced to two years, for
making what's generally understood to be a joke in a campaign speech.
You'd think the "cancel culture" decriers of the US right would be
up in arms over this attack on free speech, but Modi is a member of
Steve Bannon's International Fraternity of Fascists, so I guess not.
(That, by the way, was a joke, as well as an admission that I'm not
traveling to India any time soon.)
Kyle Chayka: [03-24]
The TikTok hearings inspired little faith in social media or in
Congress.
By the way, the New Yorker cartoon shows two people sitting on
top of a flooded house, one looking at a phone, with the caption: "Looks
like Congress might finally do something about TikTok."
Ellen Ioanes: [03-25]
America's hypersonic arms race with China, explained. The problem
with hypersonic missiles is that they can't be defended against. They
make previously defensible targets, like aircraft carriers, vulnerable.
Moreover, building more of your own hypersonic weapons doesn't change
this. Hence, an arms race only makes you more vulnerable.
Ian Millhiser:
Win McCormack: [03-17]
The Thucydides Trap: "Can the United States and China avoid military
conflict?" I don't know. Suppose maybe they're overthinking this a bit?
Before Britain, there never was a world hegemon, and even at its peak,
Britain had rivals and blind spots. After WWII, the US took over and had
more size and a bit more range, but still counted Russia and China as
rivals, and the international working class as a threat. After 1990,
some Americans thought they were had won, coining terms like hyperpower,
but then they got tripped up in places as backward as Afghanistan. And
then, while Russia imploded, China pulled it self up and came to be
viewed as a formidable rival. Over the past 20 years, has any subject
collected more stupid and histrionic verbiage than US-China? What makes
this especially strange is that while Americans see a rivalry for power,
Chinese are much more likely to think in terms of defense of autonomy.
Of course, China is not the only nation threatened by American hubris,
so it's always possible that they could create alliances with other
nations so-threatened. I wouldn't bet against them, especially given
how American power has been crushed by inequality and militarism. The
best answer is to give up on the dreams of ruling the world (perhaps
most explicit in Henry Luce's "American Century" of 1941, and in the
Iraq hawks' Project for a New American Century). Pretending that trap
is as old as Thucydides is nothing but an evasion.
Timothy Noah: [03-22]
GOP's Idea of Youth: Little League? Proms? Try Working in a Slaughterhouse
and Marrying at 10. "Republicans have declared war on children,
and Democrats should talk more forthrightly about it."
Nathan J Robinson:
[03-23]
Bernie Sanders Keeps Us Focused on What Matters: Review, sort of,
of Sanders new campaign memoir/political manifesto, It's OK to Be
Angry About Capitalism.
[03-13]
Every Libertarian Becomes a Socialist the Moment the Free Market Screws
Them: "If the rich customers of Silicon Valley Bank deserv to be
protected from economic hardship by the government, what about the rest
of us?"
[03-04]
Why Centrism Is Morally Indefensible: Review of Tim Urban's big
book, What's Our Problem? A Self-Help Book for Societies.
Urban seems to like to explain his ideas with drawings, so Robinson
reproduces a few (of some 300). One is called "The Illiberal Staircase,"
which descends from "Liberal Environment" to "Even Worse Shit" as it
becomes "More Dictatorship-y." They say a picture is worth a thousand
words, but all this diagram is exhausted after 26 (including the less
"worse shit" I skipped over).
[03-24]
The Problem With AI Is the Problem With Capitalism. Something I
saw about AI last week reminded me of Robert Reich's The Work of
Nations (1991), where he reassured us that American workers need
not worry about trade sucking manufacturing jobs overseas, because all
those lost jobs will be replaced by higher-paying jobs as "symbolic
manipulators." (Clinton was so enamored with Reich's reasoning that
he picked Reich as his Secretary of Labor, to preside over the great
NAFTA exodus.) I can think of a lot of jobs that AI won't be able to
degrade much, but it should easily wipe out "symbolic manipulators" --
as if Reich's thesis hadn't been demolished enough already.
Jon A Shields: [03-23]
Liberal Professors Can Rescue the G.O.P.: A self-described conservative
professor of government begs his liberal colleagues to assign readings
from Edmund Burke, David Hume, and Adam Smith, so their impressionable
young students will get some exposure to "good conservative thinking."
After all, "It's hard to imagine how the next generation of Republican
leaders will become thoughtful conservatives if all they've ever been
tutored in is its Trump-style expressions." After all, he pairs his
assignments with "books by progressive authors" (but doesn't name any
in the article). Still, the conservative cause he leads with is the
defense of marriage. I don't have a problem with marriage; in fact,
I recommend it. My problem is with a legal system that penalizes
people who aren't married, and one that traps people (mostly women).
Lots of conservative "virtues" are just that, and people who embrace
them deserve respect. But that changes when they're used to attack
and/or degrade other people who don't conform to conservative ideals --
of which the one that really matters is the belief in a hierarchical
social and economic order. Give that a fair hearing, and most people
will reject it. As for the rest, lots of complaining and pleading:
conservatives are powerless because most professors are liberals, and
students are mostly liberal too, so conservatives feel left out.
Boo-hoo.
Selena Simmons-Duffin: [03-25]
'Live free and die'? The sad state of U.S. life expectancy: As
the chart shows, life expectancy is dropping, so fast that the last
two years have wiped out all previous gains since 1996, which had
been trailing most "comparable" countries at least since the 1980s.
Pandemic is only the most obvious cause: it caused a drop pretty
much everywhere, but nowhere near as much as in the US. Moreover,
other countries have started to bounce back, but not the US. As
noted elsewhere, Republicans not only decided that deaths due to
pandemic are acceptable, they've vowed never to allow public health
officials to do their jobs again. Still, many other factors add to
the problem, and most of have a Republican political component.
It's as if they read Hobbes' description of 17th century life as
"nasty, brutish, and short," and said, "yeah, that's freedom."
Paul Street: [03-24]
Lost and Found: The Republicans Haven't Lost Their Conservative Minds:
Review of Robert Draper: Weapons of Mass Delusion: When the Republican
Party Lost Its Mind. Every time I look at Draper's book, the thing
that strikes me as most odd is how he only looks as far back as the
2020 election to date his subject moment ("when the Republican Party
lost its mind"), when evidence of deep irrationality and dangerous
psychoses has been plain for anyone to see for decades. For example,
Dana Milbank's The Destructionists sees Gingrich as pivotal.
David Corn's American Psychosis goes back earlier still, to
McCarthyism, the Birchers, and Goldwater. Street's a little effusive
with the F-word, but I can still figure out what he's talking about.
Prem Thakker: [03-24]
Michigan Becomes First State in 58 Years to Repeal Anti-Union "Right-to-Work"
Law: But the law in question was only passed in 2012, when Republicans
temporarily seized control of state government.
David Wallace-Wells: [03-17]
The idea that pandemic response went too far is no longer confined to
the margins: Republicans all across the country are trying to pass
laws to make sure that public health officials can never again use their
offices to protect public health. Linked to by Dean Baker, who
has his own point to add: [03-17]
NYT Can Trash Trumpers for Leaving Us Less Prepared for Next Pandemic,
but Not Drug Companies. Baker also wrote: [03-16]
The Cult of Intellectual Property Has Taken Over Our Leading News
Outlets.
Sharon Zhang: [03-24]
GOP is seeking rich, self-funding candidates as party is outraised by
Democrats: If this is true, it flips what has long been standard
policy of the two parties. Republican elites are famous for recruiting
ambitious young lawyers to run for office, much like they hired help
for their businesses (Richard Nixon and Bob Dole are famous examples;
Nelson Rockefeller and Pierre DuPont were the exceptions). Meanwhile,
Democrats have pined for candidates who could pay their own way, and
generally blackballed anyone who couldn't.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
-- next
|