Music Week

Expanded blog post, September archive (in progress).

Tweet: Music Week: 12 albums, 5 A-list

Music: Current count 43007 [42995] rated (+12), 42 [26] unrated (+16).

New records reviewed this week:

• Manu Chao: Viva Tu (2024, Because Music): [sp]: A-
• Colin James: Chasing the Sun (2024, Stony Plain): [sp]: B
• Lizz Wright: Shadow (2024, Blues & Greens): [sp]: B+(*)

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

• None.

Old music:

• Sunny Ade & His Green Spot Band: The Master Guitarist Vol. 1 (1970 [1983], African Songs): [sp]: A-
• King Sunny Ade and His African Beats: The Message (1981, Sunny Alade): [yt]: A-
• King Sunny Ade and His African Beats: Check 'E' (1981, Sunny Alade): [sp]: B+(***)
• King Sunny Ade & His African Beats: Juju Music of the 80's (1981, Sunny Alade): [sp]: B+(***)
• King Sunny Adé & His African Beats: Ajoo (1983, Sunny Alade): [yt]: A-
• King Sunny Ade & His African Beats: Bobby (1983, Sunny Alade): [sp]: B+(***)
• King Sunny Ade: E Dide/Get Up (1992 [1995], Mesa): [sp]: B+(***)
• Batsumi: Batsumi (1974 [2011], Matsuli Music): [sp]: B+(*)
• Colonel Jubilation B. Johnston and His Mystic Knights Band and Street Singers: Moldy Goldies: Colonel Jubilation B. Johnston and His Mystic Knights Band and Street Singers Attack the Hits (1966, Columbia): [sp]: A-

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

• Nick Adema: Urban Chaos (ZenneZ) [10-04]
• Jason Anick/Jason Yeager: Sanctuary (Sunnyside) [10-11]
• Andy Baker: From Here, From There (Calligram) [10-04]
• T.K. Blue: Planet Bluu (Jaja) [10-25]
• John Chin/Jeong Lim Yang/Jon Gruk Kim: Journey of Han (Jinsy Music) [09-27]
• Forq: Big Party (GroundUP) [09-13]
• Satoko Fujii Quartet: Dog Days of Summer (Libra) [09-13]
• Keefe Jackson/Raoul van der Weide/Frank Rosaly: Live at de Tanker (Kettle Hole) [08-04]
• Darius Jones: Legend of e'Boi (The Hypervigilant Eye) [10-04]
• Brian Lynch: 7X7BY7 (Holistic MusicWorks) [10-25]
• Mark Masters Ensemble: Sui Generis (Capri) [10-04]
• Mavis Pan: Rising (self-released) [10-04]
• Jason Robinson: Ancestral Numbers II (Playscape) [10-08]
• Brandon Seabrook: Object of Unknown Function (Pyroclastic) [10-18]
• Tyshawn Sorey Trio: The Suspectible Now (Pi) [10-11]
• Ben Waltzer: The Point (Calligram) [10-04]

Speaking of Which

Blog link.

As expected, I've had very little time to work on this all week. The idea of starting each week's post with an evolving executive summary will have to wait until next week, at the earliest.

Trying to wrap this up Monday afternoon, but I soon have to take a break to buy some lumber and tools, and I should spend most of the day working on the upstairs room (having wasted my weekend on what should have been a simple wiring job, and, well, much of the bulk below. I probably won't post this until late, so I'll likely find more, but in lieu of trying to summarize my main points, let me just emphasize two:

1. I've tried very hard for very long to be as understanding as possible to Israelis, even though I never embraced the nationalist movement that founded and led the "Jewish State" (never mind the crypto-religious settler cult that currently holds sway over it). Nor have I been reluctant to criticize when I've sensed similar (correlative?) movements among Palestinians, even when I saw in them reflections of the dominant Israeli trends. I believe that people of all sides deserve human rights, and I'm sympathetic to those who are denied them, regardless of whose fault that might be (even when the fault is one's own). However, at this point Israel alone -- by which I mean the current governing coalition and all those who support them (not all Israelis, but most; not most Americans, but some) -- bear exclusive responsibility for all pain and suffering in the region, even their own. One thing that follows from this is that every violence from any side is properly viewed as a consequence of Netanyahu's incitement and perpetuation of this genocidal war. Just for the record, I don't approve of Hamas or Hezbollah violence any more than I approve of Israeli violence, but I understand that when Israel acts as it has been doing, human nature will respond in kind. Israel alone has the power to end this conflict. That they refuse to pay even the minimal rights of according Palestinians a right to live in peace and dignity puts this all on them.

2. I have very little new to say about the US elections. Trump, Vance, and virtually every other Republican have proven to be even more boorish and benighted than previously imagined. Honest and decent American voters have to stop them, which means electing Democrats, regardless of their flaws. I will continue to note some of these flaws, but none of them can possibly alter the prime directive, which is to stop the Republicans. To that end, I will continue to note pieces that expose their failures and that heap derision on them, but I don't see that doing so here makes much difference. I, and probably you, know enough already. Aside from voting, which is the least one can and should do, I wouldn't mind tuning out until November, when we can wake up and assess the damages.

I could write much more about each of these two points, but not now.

Top story threads:

Israel: Israel dramatically expanded its genocidal war into Lebanon this week, which warrants yet another section, below

• Mondoweiss:

  • [09-23] Day 353: Israel launches bombing campaign on Lebanon as Hezbollah retaliates: "Israel's intensifying bombardment of Lebanon has killed at least 274 people so far, while Hezbollah retaliates with rockets across Israel. The Israeli army also raided and forcibly shut down the Ramallah office of Al Jazeera."

  • [09-26] Israel's Genocide Day 356: Netanyahu denies accepting US-French ceasefire proposal with Lebanon: "As Israel expands bombing in Lebanon, Hezbollah rockets have reached reached Akka, Haifa, Tiberias, and the lower Galilee. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Israel returned a truckload of decomposing bodies without identification that it had abducted from Gaza." First thing to note here is that they've changed the headline here: all previous entry titles started with 'Operation al-Aqsa Flood' (their quotes) before "Day." I've always dropped that part, as I found it both unnecessary and unhelpful: "Operation al-Aqsa Flood" lasted at most four days; everything since then, as well as most of those first four days, has been Israel's doing -- and I wasn't about to impose Israel's own declaration ("Operation Swords of Iron," which in itself says much about Israeli mentality). I'm not going to repeat the new title either (beyond this one instance), but I do consider it truthful, and have since about one week into the operation, by which time it was clear what Netanyahu had in mind (look back for quotes about Amalek; e.g.: Noah Lanard: [2023-11-03] The dangerous history behind Netanyahu's Amalek rhetoric: "His recent biblical reference has long been used by the Israeli far right to justify killing Palestinians").

  • [09-30] Day 360: Israel tells US Lebanon invasion 'imminent' as Hezbollah says it is 'ready to engage' Israeli forces: "Hezbollah's Deputy Secretary General said Hezbollah's military capacities remain intact, while Israel has reportedly informed the U.S. that an Israeli ground invasion of southern Lebanon is 'imminent.'"

• Ahmed Abu Abdu: [09-25] Waste is piling up in Gaza. The public health implications are disastrous. "I am in charge of waste management in Gaza City. The Israeli occupation has launched a war on our sanitation facilities and waste management systems, creating an environmental and health crisis that will take years to recover from."

• B'Tselem: The pogroms are working - the transfer is already happening: This is mostly a report on events in the West Bank prior to the Oct. 7 Gaza revolt, after which settler violence in the West Bank -- "in the past two yeras, at least six West Bank communities have been displaced" -- only increased.

  For decades, Israel has employed a slew of measures designed to make life in dozens of Palestinian communities throughout the West Bank miserable. This is part of an attempt to force residents of these communities to uproot themselves, seemingly of their own accord. Once that is achieved, the state can realize its goal of taking over the land. To advance this objective, Israel forbids members of these communities from building homes, agricultural structures or public buildings. It does not allow them to connect to the water and power grids or build roads, and when they do, as they have no other choice, Israel threatens demolition, often delivering on these threats.

  Settler violence is another tool Israel employs to further torment Palestinians living in these communities. Such attacks have grown significantly worse under the current government, turning life in some places into an unending nightmare and denying residents any possibility of living with even minimal dignity. The violence has robbed Palestinian residents of their ability to continue earning a living. It has terrorized them to the point of fearing for their lives and made them internalize the understanding that there is no one to protect them.

  This reality has left these communities with no other choice, and several of them have uprooted themselves, leaving hearth and home for safer places. Dozens of communities scattered throughout the West Bank live in similar conditions. If Israel continues this policy, their residents may also be displaced, freeing Israel to achieve its goal and take over their land.

• Tareq S Hajjaj: [09-26] In Gaza, all eyes are on Lebanon: "People in Gaza hoped that an expansion of the Lebanese front would ease pressure on Gaza. Instead, Israel has escalated its massacres while global attention is elsewhere. They still hope the resistance in Lebanon will make Israel pay."

• Vera Sajrawi: [09-25] In Israel's prisons, skin diseases are a method of punishment: "Prison authorities are allowing scabies to spread by restricting Palestinian inmates' water supply and depriving them of clean clothes and medical care."

• Erika Solomon/Lauren Leatherby/Aric Toler: [09-25] Israeli bulldozers flatten mile after mile in the West Bank: "Videos from Tulkarm and Jenin show bulldozers destroying infrastructure and businesses, as well as soldiers impeding local emergency responders."

• Oren Ziv: [09-23] Settlers attacked Bana's village. Then a soldier shot her through her window: "After Israeli settlers assaulted Palestinians with rocks and Molotov cocktails, soldiers raided Qaryut and killed a 13-year-old as she stood in her bedroom."

Israel targets Lebanon: Following last week's stochastic terrorist exercise -- detonating thousands of booby-trapped pages and walkie-talkies -- Israel escalated its bombing of Lebanon, Israel targeting and killed senior Hezbollah leadership, including long-time leader Hasan Nasrallah. In many quarters, this will be touted as a huge success for Netanyahu in his campaign to exterminate all of Israel's enemies, but right now the longer-term consequences of fallout and blowback are incalculable and probably even unimaginable. We should be clear that Hezbollah did not provoke these attacks, even in response to Israel's genocide in Gaza.

(In 2006, Hezbollah, which had been formed in opposition to Israel's 1982-2000 occupation of southern Lebanon, did act against Israel, as a diversion after Israel launched its first punitive siege of Gaza. Israel shifted attention to Lebanon, and conducted a horrific bombing campaign, as well as an unsuccessful ground incursion.)

Rather, Israel has repeatedly provoked Hezbollah -- which has tried to deter further attacks by demonstrating their ability to fire rockets deep into Israel, a strategy I regard as foolish ("deterrence" only deters people who weren't going to attack you in the first place; it works for Israel against its hapless neighbors, but when others try it, it just provokes greater arrogance and aggression by Israel). As I've stressed all along, Israel's expansion of the war into Lebanon serves two purposes: to provide "fog of war" cover for continuing the genocide in Gaza, and expanding it into the West Bank; and to lock reflexive US support in place, which is tied to the supposedly greater regional threat of Iran. The US could short-circuit this war by denouncing Israel's aggression, by demanding an immediate cease-fire, and by negotiating a separate peace and normalization with Iran (which Iran has long signalled a desire for). Instead, the Biden administration continues to let Netanyahu pull its strings.

Note that I haven't tried to subdivide these links, but events unfolded quickly, so dates may be significant.

• Al Jazeera: [09-28] Israel kills Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in air strike on Beirut: "Hezbollah confirms Nasrallah's death as Israel says it hit the group's leaders at their headquarters in south Beirut."

  • [09-28] Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader, killed in Beirut in Israeli strike: Link to title: "Who was Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader killed in Israeli strike?"

  • [09-28] Aftermath of Israeli strike in Lebanon that killed Hezbollah's Nasrallah: "In pictures."

• Seraj Assi: [09-24] Israel is extending its genocidal war to Lebanon.

• Elia Ayoub: [09-23] With page blasts and airstrikes, Israel unleashes its terror on Lebanon: "Israeli leaders have threatened to replicate the 'Gaza model' in south Lebanon. But Hezbollah may prove to be an even more challenging foe than Hamas."

• Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor: Israel escalates its military attacks in Lebanon, targeting residential areas and civilians with intense raids.

• Khader Jabbar/Abualjawad Omar: [09-27] From Gaza to Beirut: Abdaljawad Omar on the ripple effects of Israel's attack on Lebanon: Interview, from [09-25]. Omar has written several articles for Mondoweiss that I've been highly critical of. On the other hand, I see little to quibble with here:

  I may be exaggerating at some level, but those are the contours of how Israel viewed October 7. Not because it was really an existential risk. We already saw that in only two or four days, Israel was able to regain the Gaza envelope and the settlements surrounding Gaza. But on the level of the psyche, that's how it felt for most Israelis. So they want to regain the initiative. They saw October 7 as an opportunity to exact a price from everybody in the region who supports resistance. They want to destroy societies that are challenging them, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or other places.

  The real desire is for an ultimate form of victory, this kind of awe-inspiring victory that will give them an answer to their existential questions.

  I think that on some level, the Israelis won the war, they won the victory. They want to create these awe-inspiring moments, like we saw with the pager and walkie-talkie attacks, which they have severely missed in contrast to how they were caught with their pants down on October 7.

  October 7 was a moment that not only stuck in the Israeli psyche, but the Palestinian psyche as well. Israel's genocide in Gaza inspired shock and horror, but didn't inspire a lot of awe. It didn't give Israelis the taste of power that Israeli identity was built on. But with Hezbollah, we've seen this awe factor come back, like the penetration of the communication devices and blowing them all up at once. This includes some of the operations that Israel has conducted in Gaza, like the extraction of some Israeli prisoners held by the Palestinian resistance.

  That's on a level of, if you want, psychological and aesthetic analysis. But on a political level, Israel finds this as an opportunity. It's already way deep into a war for 11 months, a war that is costing it a lot economically, socially, politically, and diplomatically. It sees that only more war will bring about better results in those domains.

  It will be able to establish what it calls deterrence. It will be able to put a line in the sand and say, if you ever challenge us again, this is what will happen to you. It will burn into the consciousness of the people of the region that Israel shouldn't be played with. All of these motivations coexist all at once in Israel's conduct -- and of course, for the settlers specifically.

  The only ones who have a real solution for this whole Palestinian question, instead of managing the conflict or shrinking the conflict or destroying the possibilities for two states or one state, are the settlers who say that we should change the paradigm with the Palestinians. They say, we should destroy Palestinian existence in the land of Palestine.

  So for the settlers, the "ultimate victory" is to get rid of as many Palestinians as possible from the river to the sea, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, and establish the kind of pure religious Jewish state that they have always dreamed of. For them, war is desirable. It maintains the possibility for ethnic cleansing, it maintains the possibility for genocide. It means it still keeps the possibility of total victory open. Of course, even in their wildest dreams, even if they clear out all of the Palestinians from Palestine, I think the Palestinian question will not go away.

  I don't have time to ruminate on this right now, but there is a lot to unpack here.

• Ken Klippenstein: [09-23] Beep, beep! "Israel's pager caper is a Wile E. Coyote vs. Road Runner exercise in futility."

  This is the less cinematic but no less depressing reality of the pager attack: it is just another version of the latest weapon in the never changing battlefield, one typified by these kinds of tit-for-tat attacks that never bring about a decisive ending or a new beginning.

  Before long, other countries and terrorist groups will buy or develop their own Acme Exploding Pagers, as Panetta hinted. The media's uncritically declaring Israel's latest caper a success creates an incentive for countries to do just that. Absent an honest assessment, hands will again be wrung, chins scratched, ominous warnings issued, and beep, beep! -- perpetual war will zip right on by.

  And of course when Hezbollah or some other group attacks our devices, the national security state will happily label it terrorism.

• Edo Konrad: [09-20] What Israelis don't want to hear about Iran and Hezbollah: "For years, Israeli expert Ori Goldberg has tried to challenge commonly-held assumptions about the Islamic Republic and its allies. Will anyone listen?"

• Andrew Mitrovica: [09-28] The peace appeals of Israel's Western enablers are a cynical charade: "For the West, Lebanese lives are as disposable as Palestinian lives. Its calls for a ceasefire are no more than a sham."

• Qassam Muaddi:

  • [09-27] Massive Israeli attack levels entire residential block in Beirut in reported assassination attempt on Hasan Nasrallah: "Israel completely flattened at least six residential buildings in Beirut's southern Dahiya district with 2000-pound bombs amid claims that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah was the target."

  • [09-28] Hezbollah confirms the death of Hasan Nasrallah in Israeli carpet-bombing: "Considered an icon of resistance against Israel and one of the most influential political figures in the Arab world, Hasan Nasrallah was killed by a massive Israeli airstrike that leveled an entire residential block in Beirut's Dahiya district."

• Nicole Narea: [09-28] Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas war, explained.

• Liz Sly: [09-29] Nasrallah's assassination shreds illusion of Hezbollah's military might. What military might? In 2006, Hezbollah was effective at repelling an Israeli ground incursion, which wasn't all that serious in the first place. But Hezbollah has no air force, no effective anti-aircraft defense, no tanks, few if any drones, a few small missiles that while more sophisticated than anything Hamas had in Gaza have never been able to inflict any serious damage. Sure, they talk a foolish game of deterrence, but no one in Israel takes their threat seriously.

• Mohamad Hasan Sweidan: [09-20] No one is safe: the global threat of Israel's weaponized pagers.

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

• Michael Arria:

  • [09-24] The Shift: Biden team admits they won't get ceasefire done. Cites the Sanger and Ward pieces below.

    • David E Sanger: [09-23] Biden works against the clock as violence escalates in the Middle East: "President Biden is beginning to acknowledge that he is simply running out of time to help forge a cease-fire and hostage deal with Hamas, his aides say. And the risk of a wider war has never looked greater." It's hard to make things happen when you don't have the will to exercise your power. Still, it's pretty pathetic to think that a sitting US president needs more than four months to demand something as simple and straightforward as a cease-fire. (The hostage exchange is an unnecessary complication.) While I'm sure there are limits to presidential power, the problem here appears to be that Biden and his administration don't have the faintest understanding of what needs to be done. Nor do they seem to care.

    • Alexander Ward: [09-19] US officials concede Gaza cease-fire out of reach for Biden: "Biden administration is still pushing talks, but a breakthrough appears unlikely.

  Arria also quotes Alon Pinkas in Haaretz:

  [Netanyahu] has a vested interest in prolonging the war for his political survival and in making it an election issue that could potentially harm Vice President Kamala Harris. It seems that the US finally and very belatedly realized it last week, which is why, however unfortunate, there is little the US will do until the election, unless it's forced to act in the case of a major escalation.

  • [09-26] The Shift: Tlaib target of (yet another) smear campaign: "Rep. Rashida Tlaib is being targeted by yet another smear campaign, after she criticized Michigan's AG for pursuing charges against Palestine protesters."

  • [09-27] Netanyahu defends Gaza and Lebanon attacks in UN speech: "Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations on Friday, vowing to continue waging war on Gaza and Lebanon. Israeli media reports the Israeli Prime Minister ordered massive strikes on Beirut just before giving the speech."

• Sam Bull: [09-23] US sending more troops to the Middle East: "Now close to 50,000 American service members in the region as the threat of a wider war looms."

• Tara Copp: [09-23] US sends more troops to Middle East as violence rises between Israel and Hezbollah: I've been saying all along that Israel's attacks on Lebanon (aka Hezbollah) are designed to trap the US into a role of shielding Israel from Iran. The thinking is that if the US and Iran go to war, the US will become more dependent on Israel, and more indulgent in their main focus, which is making Gaza and the West Bank uninhabitable for Palestinians. US troop movement prove that the strategy is working, even though it's pretty obviously cynical and deranged.

• Dave DeCamp: [09-26] US gives Israel $8.7 billion in military aid for operations in Gaza and Lebanon.

• Fawaz A Gerges: [09-30] The rising risk of a new forever war: Title from jump page: "The United States has not been a true friend of Israel." This is the relevant paragraph:

  Nevertheless, it is the only way forward. Israel's hubris in its attacks on Lebanon has been enabled by America's "ironclad" military support and diplomatic cover for its ally. In this regard, the United States has not been a true friend to Israel. Israel will not know lasting peace until it recognizes that its long-term security depends on reconciliation with the millions of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Its leaders must find a political compromise that will finally allow Israel to be fully integrated into the region. Top-down normalization with Arab autocrats is not enough.

• Jamal Kanj: [09-27] Israel's war on Lebanon and Netanyahu's October Surprise to pick the next US president.

• Yousef Munayyer: [09-25] How Anthony Blinken said no to saving countless lives in Gaza: "The secretary of state overruled his own experts, allowing bombs to continue to flow to Israel. How many more people would be alive today if he hadn't?"

• Brett Murphy: [09-24] Israel deliberately blocked humanitarian aid to Gaza, two government bodies concluded. Anthony Blinken rejected them.

• Ishaan Tharoor:

  • [09-20] A broader Israel-Lebanon war now seems inevitable: "This week's pager explosions in Lebanon represent a tactical victory for Israel. They also appear to lock the region into an escalatory spiral." I thought that tactics were meant to facilitate strategy, but it's hard to discern either in such massive, indiscriminate mayhem. Unless the strategy is to convince the world that Israelis are insane as well as evil, in which case, sure, they're making their point.

  • [09-23] World leaders gather at a UN desperate to save itself: "Ongoing crises in Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine have underscores the inefficacy of the world's foremost decision-making body. Great power competition may be to blame." You think? The UN has no power to enforce judgments, so the only way it can function is as a forum for negotiation, and that only works if all parties are amenable. There is nothing the UN can do about a nation like Israel that is flagrantly in contempt of international law. In many ways, the US is even more of a rogue force on the international scene. America's disregard for other nations has pushed other countries into defensive stances, further disabling the UN. Now it's just a big gripe session, as the speeches by Netanyahu and Biden made abundantly clear.

  • [09-24] Biden walks off the UN stage, leaving behind a world in 'purgatory': "In his last speech from the dais of the UN General Assembly, Biden highlighted his efforts to resolve the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Others remain skeptical."

  • [09-27] At the UN, overwhelming anger at Israel: "At the United Nations, world leaders cast Israel's heavy-handed campaigns in Gaza and the inability of the UN system to rein it as a danger to the institution itself."

• Robert Wright: [09-27] Biden and Blinken, Israel's lawyers.

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Kyle Anzalone: [09-27] Israel is fighting a war on seven fronts: "The Israeli leader called the UN General Assembly a 'swamp of antisemitic bile'. The UN published a statement summary of Netanyahu's speech. Two fairly obvious points here: (1) most leaders would seek to divide and diminish their enemies, but Netanyahu conflates and aggrandizes them, to make them look more ominous to Israel's patrons in America, to keep them in line; (2) relentlessly conflating any criticism of Israel's apartheid and genocide with anti-semitism is a sure-fire way to promote generic Judeophobia.

• Jonathan Cook:

  • [09-20] The more definitive the proof of Israel's atrocities, the less they get reported.

  • [09-07] Israeli torture chambers aren't new. They are what provoked the violence of Oct 7.

• Jim Debrosse: [09-21] Interfaith delegation shows solidarity with Palestinians facing Israeli apartheid, violence, and displacement: "The 30-member US Interfaith Journey for Justice visited the West Bank in late August to show solidarity with Palestinians facing Israeli apartheid, violence, and displacement."

• Amira Jarmakani/Emmaia Gelman: [09-24] Zionist organizations' latest strategy to criminalize Palestine advocacy: weaponizing civil rights: "The recent avalanche of civil rights lawsuits in response to Palestine campus protests is the result of an intentional Israel advocacy strategy: criminalizing anti-Zionist politics by contorting the idea of civil rights."

• Natasha Lennard: [09-26] Meet the first tenured professor to be fired for pro-Palestine speech: "Maura Finkelstein was terminated by Muhlenberg College for an Instagram repost."

• Neil MacFarquhar: [09-24] Furious over the continuing war in Gaza, world leaders castigate Israel.

• Craig Mokhiber: [09-28] How Israel attempts to justify indiscriminate attacks on civilians (and why it's failing): "Israel's mass terror attack in Lebanon that led to the death and maiming of hundreds of civilians also served as a playbook for how Israel seeks to justify its war crimes. But as the attack's aftermath showed, these tricks are beginning to fail." This is a big and important subject, including "collateral damage defense," "magic-word defense," all sorts of canards, many of which inadvertently expose underlying prejudices.

  But calling someone a "terrorist" or saying that they are affiliated with a group that you dislike or consider to be terrorist, is not a legal argument. At the very heart of international humanitarian law is the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

  Superimposing another label on top of a civilian population that you do not like does not make them legitimate targets.

  Indeed, even attempting to re-label combatants in this way does not relieve Israel of its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law. Unlawful weapons and tactics remain unlawful, regardless of the labels the attackers apply to their targets.

• James North: [09-25] CNN's dishonest duo, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, strike again: "The latest dishonesty from CNN's Biased Duo, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, about Rashida Tlaib prompted an intense critical reaction. The solution? CNN should ban them from reporting on Palestine."

• Yumna Patel: [09-22] Weekly Briefing: Israel shuts down Al Jazeera's West Bank Bureau. Why are we surprised? "The raid on the Al Jazeera office in Ramallah is the latest in a string of attacks on the network. But it's not just an attack on Al Jazeera, it's an attack on all those bearing witness to genocide."

• Mitchell Plitnick:

  • [09-20] UN general assembly vote could mark a turning point for international law in Palestine: "A vote this week in the UN General Assembly provided decisive global pushback against the US and Israeli war on international law."

  • [09-27] Biden would rather defend Israeli impunity than stop a regional war: "As Israel intensified its deadly attacks on Lebanon, the US moved more troops to the Middle East. The move shows Joe Biden's priority is not to avoid escalation but to ensure that Israel has full impunity."

• Nicky Reid: [09-27] Israel is f'ing crazy: "and they have nukes."

• Derek Seidman: [09-29] Using research to uncover campus complicity in genocide: "Across the US, students organizing against Israel's assault on Gaza have made essential use of power research, uncovering financial ties between the Pentagon and campus labs and mapping out connections between university trustees and the war machine."

• Saad Shahriar: [09-28] The German Left's complicity in the Palestinian genocide: "While the German left passionately supports many international causes but remains conspicuously silent on the ongoing genocide of Palestinians, conveniently overlooking its own complicity in Germany's military-industrial ties to Israel."

• Kate Wagner: [07-09] The awful plan to turn Gaza into the next Dubai: "The Netanyahu administration seems to have learned from neighboring petrostates that spectacle can distract from ethnic cleansing." I missed this when it came out -- not long, just a few months ago -- but it's all smoke and mirrors, so hardly matters. Reminds me, though, that it wasn't all that long ago with Hamas (although I'm hard pressed to find a suitable link).

• Michael Walzer: [09-21] Israel's pager bombs have no place in a just war: Not even the patron saint of modern warmongery can conjure up an excuse for Israel this time.

Election notes:

• Benjamin Hart: [09-23] Can Democrats finally win a state that torments them? North Carolina. Interview with Michael Bitzer.

Trump:

• Chris Bohner: [09-28] How bad would a Trump presidency be for labor?

• Jamelle Bouie: [09-18] Trump knows what he's doing in Springfield. So does Vance.

• Jonathan Chait:

  • [09-24] Donald Trump's pitch to women is creepy abuser logic: "I will be your protector . . . You will no longer be thinking about abortion."

  • [09-30] Trump wants to lock up Kamala Harris now: "He's now three-for-three in demanding imprisonment of opposing candidates."

• Kevin Collier: [09-26] Independent journalist publishes Trump campaign document hacked by Iran despite election interference concerns: "Other media outlets that obtained the document hadn't published it in full." The journalist is Ken Klippenstein, formerly of The Intercept.

  • Margaret Hartmann:

    • [09-23] Donald and Melania Trump hawk junky silver coin and gold jewelry.

    • [09-26] What we learned from Melania Trump's rare Fox News interview.

    • [09-27] Trump adds ugly $100,000 watches to merch collection.

  • Ken Klippenstein:

    • [09-26] Read the JD Vance Dossier.

    • [09-27] My Twitter ban is political. Also related here:

      • Branko Marcetic: [09-28] For Ken Klippenstein, against censorship.

• Sarah Jones: [09-25] The protector of no one. Opening paragraph, and then some:

  On Truth Social, Donald Trump recently posted a special message to American women. "WOMEN WILL BE HAPPY, HEALTHY, CONFIDENT AND FREE!" he announced. "YOU WILL NO LONGER BE THINKING ABOUT ABORTION, BECAUSE IT IS NOW WHERE IT ALWAYS HAD TO BE, WITH THE STATES." The first sentence sounds like an Always commercial; the second is a bit more pernicious. It is difficult to be "happy, healthy, confident and free" as women die from abortion bans in states such as Georgia. Nevertheless, Trump is fond of his new pitch. At a campaign event in Pennsylvania on Monday, he called himself a "protector" of women, adding that ladies will no longer be "abandoned, lonely, or scared." How wonderful. . . .

  The rhetoric is characteristically authoritarian in the sense that Trump admires strongmen and wishes to become one. He will thus deliver further subjugation, not liberation. Not even his female supporters will be safe from the anti-feminist backlash heralded by his party. If it's dangerous to be pregnant in America, then it's dangerous for anyone who can conceive; a doctor won't check a patient's political views when he refuses to perform a D&C under the threat of prosecution. That is the world that Trump's supporters have signed up for; it is a world that social conservatives have labored to create. . . .

  We can review the facts, and polling suggests that most of us are inclined to reject Trump as our improbable protector. Trump is not capable of protecting anyone, let alone women, from himself or from anyone else. He is the wolf in the pasture, the threat in the dark. We can run, or we can fight.

• Lydia Polgreen: [09-14] Trump has crossed a truly unacceptable line.

• Josephine Rozzelle: [09-20] Trump Media closes at a new 5 2-week low on heavy trading after lockup expires.

• David Wallace-Wells: [09-18] When we try to explain the rise of Trump, we don't look back far enough. This mostly takes off from a recent book, Richard Beck: Homeland: The War on Terror in American Life, which seems likely to be worth further study. One quibble I have here is when Wallace-Wells talks about the Cheney/Gonzales endorsements of Harris:

  Not that long ago, endorsements like these would have been rebuffed] by Democrats as valentines from warmongers.

  I can't recall any such time, certainly not since Clinton picked Gore as his VP in 1992 because both were Gulf War hawks, then Gore picked the even more hawkish Lieberman as his VP in 2000. Obama kept much of Bush's war cabinet on board after 2008, especially Gates, who he later replaced with another Republican before finding an even worse Democrat in Ash Carter. Hillary Clinton didn't shy away from Kagan endorsements -- see Ben Norton: [2016-06-10] Another neocon endorses Clinton, calling her "2016's real conservative" and "the candidate of the status quo". Before Nixon and Reagan, the party with the reputation for fighting wars was the Democrats (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson).

• Brett Wilkins: [09-25] Trump condemned for 'genocidal' threat to destroy Iran: "Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned," said the National Iranian American Council."

Vance, and other Republicans:

• Kiera Butler: To understand JD Vance, you need to meet the "TheoBros": "These extremely online young Christian men want to end the 19th Amendment, restore public flogging, and make America white again."

• Chas Danner: [09-23] Mark Robinson's campaign is imploding: Republican lieutenant governor, campaigning for governor, and much in the news of late. Also:

  • Zack Beauchamp: [09-25] Mark Robinson and the confusing rise of the nonwhite reactionary: "Robinson isn't the only nonwhite bigot to get famous of late. How should we understand their growing prominence?"

  • Jeet Heer: [09-20] Why a "Black Nazi" fit right in with the modern GOP: "Republicans might disavow Mark Robinson now, but they elevated him knowing his extremism."

• Thomas B Edsall: [09-18] The man behind the end of Roe v. Wade has big plans for America: Leonard Leo:

  Political advocacy and charitable groups controlled by Leo now have far more assets than the combined total cash on hand of the Republican and Democratic National, Congressional and Senatorial committees: $440.9 million.

  Leo is a 58-year-old graduate of Cornell Law School, a Catholic with ties to Opus Dei -- the most conservative "personal prelature" in the church hierarchy -- chief strategist of the Federalist Society for more than a quarter century and a crucial force behind the confirmations of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. He has emerged over the past five years as the dominant fund-raiser on the right.

  As Leo has risen to this pinnacle of influence, he has become rich, profiting from the organizations he has created and from the consulting fees paid by the conservative advocacy and lobbying groups he funds.

• Margaret Hartmann: [09-24] JD Vance eggs video is mostly wrong, totally awkward.

• Sarah Jones: [09-22] JD Vance and the rise of the 'postliberal' Catholics: Interview with Kevin Vallier, "a professor at philosophy at the University of Toledo's Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership, and the author of All the Kingdoms of the World."

• Ed Kilgore: [09-27] JD Vance embraces Trump's scary Christian nationalist fans.

• Ezra Klein: [09-24] What Pete Buttigieg learned playing JD Vance: An interview.

• Beth Macy: [09-29] I grew up much like JD Vance. How did we end up so different?

• Matt Stieb: [09-25] Tucker Carlson is touring America with malevolent kooks like Alex Jones.

Harris:

• James Carden: [09-25] When odious foreign policy elites rally around Harris: "We should take seriously those responsible for some of the bloodiest, stupidest national security decisions in recent memory." Cheneys, of course, and a few more mentioned, as well as reference to this:

  • NSL4A endorses Kamala Harris for President of the United States: Acronym stands for National Security Leaders for America.

• Adam Jentleson: [09-28] Kamala Harris said she owns a gun for a very strategic reason: "She has been doing an effective job of vice signaling from the left." First I've heard of "vice signaling," and this definition doesn't help: "Vice signaling means courting healthy controversy with the enforcers of orthodoxy -- the members of interest groups who on many critical issues have let themselves off the hook for accurately representing the views and interests of those they claim to speak for." I have run across "virtue signaling" before, which is a term used to deride views from the left as mere ploys to make one seem more virtuous -- an implicit put-down of anyone who doesn't agree. "Vice signaling" has the same intent, but opposes virtue by embracing its opposite vice. Why these terms should exclusively be directed against the left is counterintuitive -- throughout history, "enforcers of orthodoxy" have nearly always come from the right, where "holier than thou" is a common attitude, and snobbery not just accepted but cultivated.

  The actual examples given, like embracing fracking and threatening to shoot a home invader, may help Harris break away from cartoon left caricatures, and that cognitive dissonance may help her get a fresh hearing. That may be part of her craft as a politician -- as a non- or even anti-politician, I'm in no position to tell her how to do her job. Nor do I particularly care about these specific cases. But I am irritated when leftists who've merely thought problems through enough to arrive at sound answers are dismissed as "enforcers of orthodoxy."

• Padma Lakshmi: [09-21] As a cook, here's what I see in Kamala Harris. There's a lot in this piece I can relate to, put my own spin on, and imagine her spin as not being all that different.

  Talking about food is a way to relate to more Americans, even those uninterested in her politics. We've all been eating since we were babies, and we're experts on our own tastes. Talking about food paves the way to harder conversations. Food removes barriers and unites us.

  Ms. Harris evinces clear delight in cooking and in talking about almost any type of food -- a passion that is core to who she is, like basketball for Barack Obama or golf for Donald Trump.

  She is omnivorous and a versatile cook.

  That Obama and Trump would go for sports is in itself telling (as is that Trump went for the solo sport, vs. a team sport for Obama, one that requires awareness of other people and the ability to make changes on the fly). I've only watched one of the videos (so far, making dosa masala with Mindy Kaling, which was chatty with less technique than I would have preferred -- I understand the decision to use the premix batter, after at least one stab at making it from scratch).

• John Nichols: [09-20] Kamala Harris is winning the Teamsters endorsements that really matter: "The national leadership may have snubbed her -- but Teamsters in the swing states that will decide the election are backing her all the way." They all matter. Not clear whether the non-endorsement was reaction to the DNC snub, which I never quite understood. Still, the choice for labor is so overwhelming this time the national leadership appears pretty out of touch.

Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:

• Ethan Eblaghie: [09-26] The Uncommitted Movement failed because it refused to punish Democrats: "The Uncommitted movement failed to move the Biden-Harris administration policy on Gaza because unaccountable movement leaders were unwilling to punish Democrats for supporting genocide." They failed, if that's the word you want to use, because they didn't get the votes. I doubt this was due to lack of sympathy for their issue: most rank-and-file Democrats (as opposed to party politicians, who of necessity are preoccupied with fundraising) support a cease-fire, and many are willing to back that up with limits on military aid[*]; but they also see party unity as essential to defeating Trump and the Republicans, and they see that as more critical/urgent than mobilizing public opinion against genocide. I can see both sides of this, but at this point the ticket and the contest are set, so all you can do is to pick one. While I have little positive to say about Harris on Israel, it's completely clear to me that Trump would be even worse, and I can't think of any respect in which he would be preferable to Harris. As for punishing the Democrats -- even with third-party and not-voting options -- don't be surprised if they never forgive you. So ask yourself, do you really want to burn the bridge to the people you're most likely to appeal to?

  [*] Michael Arria, in a piece cited above, has some polling:

  Recent polls show vast support for an arms embargo on Israel among Democratic voters.

  A March 2024 Center for Economic and Policy Research survey found that 52% of Americans wanted the U.S. to stop weapons shipments. That included 62% of Democratic voters.

  A June survey then from CBS News/YouGov found that more than 60% of voters should not send weapons or supplies to Israel. Almost 80% of Democrats said the the U.S. shouldn't send weapons.

• Ken Klippenstein: [09-25] Biden's ode to perpetual war: "In final UN speech, President ignores a world on fire.

Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:

• Ian Millhiser: [09-25] How would a second Trump presidency change America's courts? "There's a real risk Trump would fill the courts with MAGA nihilists."

• Jeffrey St Clair: [09-27] The judicial murder of Marcellus Williams: "The State of Missouri executed Marcellus 'Khalifah' Williams on Tuesday night despite knowing he was most likely innocent of the crime he was condemned for." Also: "The State of Missouri plans to execute another innocent man, Robert Roberson, on October 17."

  • Li Zhou: [09-25] The urgent, futile calls to halt Marcellus Williams's execution, explained.

Climate and environment:

• Hurricane Helene:

  • Vox: [09-30] The latest on the fallout of Hurricane Helene.

  • Brady Dennis, et al.:

    • [09-28] 'Biblical devastation' in North Carolina towns flooded by Helene: "The death toll from Helene climbed as emergency responders rushed to rescue residents in small mountain towns that have been cut off from communication."

    • [09-29] Some flee flooded NC towns, as concerns remain about lack of resources: "At least 87 people have been killed in six states since Helene swept through, including at least 30 in North Carolina."

    • [09-29] 'Completely and entirely erased': How Helene swallowed one mountain town.

  • Nia Prater: [09-30] Videos show Helene's catastrophic toll in Southeast: "Multiple states are contending with widespread damage and significant loss of life following the landfall of Hurricane Helene, a Category 4 storm."

  • Anna Phillips/Brianna Sacks: [09-29] How Hurricane Helene could have widespread consequences for homeowners.

• Andrew J Hoffman: [09-29] Climate change-driven hurricanes and wildfires are causing home insurance rates to skyrocket.

Economists, the economy, and work:

• Paul Krugman:

  • [09-16] How Trump is undermining the economy in some struggling cities: "Immigrants to smallcities creates jobs for everyone."

  • [09-17] Trumpism, Stalinism and the tariff debate: "The spirit of Trofim Lysenko comes to trade policy."

  • [09-19] Trumponomics: From trickle-down to upside-down: "Voodoo economics at least had a flawed theory behind it; Trump's brand is based on some kind of brain glitch."

  • [09-19] The Fed's big rate cut wasn't political. It was an economic no-brainer.

  • [09-23] Trump learned nothing from the Obamacare debate. Neither did Vance: "Their 'concepts' would abandon people with pre-existing conditions."

  • [09-26] The tech bro style in American politics: "Why some billionaires are helping to promote political extremism."

  • [09-30] Why Trumponomics could lead to Trumpflation: "The former president is contemplating policies that would act like a self-inflicted pandemic."

• Ksama Sawant: [09-26] Boeing machinists on strike have a historic opportunity.

Ukraine and Russia:

• Ben Armbruster: [09-26] Diplomacy Watch: Zelensky's peace plan is another weapons ask: "US officials are 'unimpressed' but Biden will 'surge' arms anyway."

• Sam Bull: [09-24] Poll: Americans want Ukraine talks, conditions on aid to Israel: "Yet they are split along party lines on a host of issues ahead of the elections." Still, the numbers are very scattered, and it's especially hard to credit the party trust figures.

• Mark Episkopos: [09-24] Zelensky's bombs and blurred lines in a big battleground state.

• Anatol Lieven: [09-24] Germans uneasy about stationing new US missiles.

Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:

Other stories:

Obituaries:

• Benny Golson:

  • Richard Williams: [09-25] Benny Golson obituary: "Tenor saxophonist whose compositions were valued for their harmonic challenge and melodic grace."

• Fredric Jameson: A critic and philosopher, I remember him fondly from my early Marxist period, which certainly meant his books Marxism and Form: Twentieth Century Dialectical Theories of Literature (1971), and possibly The Prison-House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism (1972), but I haven't followed him since. Turns out he's written much more than I was aware of, especially many titles published by Verso Books.

  • Terry Eagleton: Fredric Jameson, 1934-2024: "reflects here on Jameson's humility, generosity, and unrivalled erudition."

  • Owen Hatherley: [09-28] Fredric Jameson's capitalist horror show: "We still live in the postmodern landscape defined by the Marxist thinker, who died this month."

    Jameson's work was both utopian and depressive, expansive in the field of its analysis and trained almost entirely on culture rather than politics. And he was rare among Marxist intellectuals in the neoliberal era to have managed to speak firmly to the present day. That is why his work affected so many. An entire strand of mainstream political thought is unimaginable without the influence of Jameson's fusion of hard cultural criticism, immense knowledge, refusal of low/high cultural boundaries, and his endlessly ruminative, open-minded dialectical curiosity, put in the service of a refusal ever to forgive or downplay the horrors that capitalism has inflicted upon the world. Jameson's Marxism was particularly tailored for our fallen era, a low ebb of class struggle, an apparent triumph of a new and ever more ruthless capitalism: "late", as he optimistically put it, borrowing a phrase from the Belgian Trotskyist Ernest Mandel.

    Also:

    "The dialectic," wrote Jameson, "is not moral." In the sprawling Valences of the Dialectic (2009), Jameson proposed "a new institutional candidate for the function of Utopian allegory, and that is the phenomenon called Wal-Mart". While conceding that the actually existing Wal-Mart was "dystopian in the extreme", Jameson was fascinated by its unsentimental destruction of small businesses, its monopolistic mockery of the concept of a "free market", and its immense, largely automated and computerised network of distribution of cheap, abundant goods. Perhaps it was a step too far to extrapolate from this -- as did Leigh Phillips and Michael Rozworski in their 2019 The People's Republic of Wal-Mart -- and portray the megacorp as a prefiguring of communist distribution networks. But what Jameson was up to, following Gramsci's and Lenin's fascination with Fordism and Taylorism, was an attempt to uncover what the new horrors of capitalism made possible. In the case of Wal-Mart, he argued, the answer was: a computerised planned economy. Jameson was a strict, 20th-century Marxist in remaining a firmly modernist thinker, refusing to find any solace in imagined communal or pre-capitalist pasts. But his unsentimental modernism did not preclude an outrage at the ravages inflicted by colonialism and imperialism in the name of "progress", an often overlooked thread in his work.

    [PS: From this, my first and evidently only free article, I clicked on Richard Seymour: [07-22] The rise of disaster nationalism: "The modern far-right is not a return to fascism, but a new and original threat." I could see this as a reasonable argument, as evidence of the "thought-provoking journalism" the publication touts, but I was stopped cold at the paywall ("as little as $12.00 a month").

  • Clay Risen: [09-23] Fredric Jameson, critic who linked literature to capitalism, dies at 90: "Among the world's leading academic critics, he brought his analytical rigor to topics as diverse as German opera and sci-fi movies."

  • AO Scott: [09-23] For Fredric Jameson, Marxist criticism was a labor of love: "The literary critic, who died on Sunday at age 90, believed that reading was the path to revolution."

  • Robert T Tally Jr.: [09-27] The Fredric Jameson I knew.

  • Kate Wagner: [09-26] The gifts of Fredric Jameson (1934-2024): "The intellectual titan bestowed on us so many things, chief among them a reminder to Always Be Historicizing."

  • Verso Books: [09-23] Jameson at 90: A Verso Blog series: "Our series honoring Fredric Jameson's oeuvre in celebration of his 90th birthday."

• Kris Kristofferson:

  • Rich Kienzle: [09-29] Kris Kristofferson, rugged star of song and screen, dies at 88.

  • Adam Sweeting: [09-30] Kris Kristofferson obituary.

• Maggie Smith:

  • Anita Gates/Robert Berkvist: [09-27] Maggie Smith, grande dame of stage and screen, dies at 89.

  • Eileen Jones: [09-28] An appreciation of Maggie Smith.

• Also note:

  • Nick Gravenites, mainstay of the San Francisco rock scene, dies at 85.

  • Elias Khoury, master of the modern Arabic novel, dies at 76.

  • Disk Moss, who helped usher in baseball free agency, dies at 93.

  • Dikembe Mutombo, a towering NBA presence, dies at 58.

  • Pete Rose, baseball star who earned glory and shame, dies at 83.

Books

• Patrick Iber: [09-24] Eric Hobsbawm's lament for the twentieth century: "Where some celebrated the triumph of liberal capitalism in the 1990s, Hobsbawn saw a failed dream." Re-reviewing the British historian's 1994 book, The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991, which I started at the time, and have long meant to return to -- although after re-reading the first of what turned into his tetraology, The Age of Revolution (1789-1948), I found myself wanting to work through the intermediate volumes -- The Age of Capital (1848-1875) and The Age of Empire (1875-1914) first. Iber teases us with his conclusion:

  But if a classic is a work that remains worth reading both for what it is and for what it tells us about the time it was created, Hobsbawm's text deserves that status. It rewards the reader not because a historian would write the same book today but precisely because they would not.

  Hobsbawm's previous books are dazzling for the breadth of his knowledge, and his skill at weaving so many seemingly disparate strands into a sensible whole. This one, however, is coterminous with his life (into his 70s; his dates were 1917-2012), which gives him the advantages (and limits) of having experienced as well as researched the history, and having had a personal stake in how it unfolded.

• Sandip Munshi: [09-25] Irfan Habib is one of the great Marxist historians.

• Ryu Spaeth: [09-23] The return of Ta-Nehisi Coates: "A decade after The Case for Reparations, he is ready to take on Israel, Palestine, and the American media." Coates has a new book, The Message, coming out Oct. 1. I expect we'll be hearing much more about this in coming weeks. To underscore the esteem with which Coates is held, this pointed to a 2015 article:

  • Benjamin Wallace-Wells: [2015-07-12] The hard truths of Ta-Nehisi Coates.

  Here's are several fairly long quotes from Spaeth's article:

  In Coates's eyes, the ghost of Jim Crow is everywhere in the territories. In the soldiers who "stand there and steal our time, the sun glinting off their shades like Georgia sheriffs." In the water sequestered for Israeli use -- evidence that the state had "advanced beyond the Jim Crow South and segregated not just the pools and fountains but the water itself." In monuments on sites of displacement and informal shrines to mass murder, such as the tomb of Baruch Goldstein, who gunned down 29 Muslims in a mosque in 1994, which recall "monuments to the enslavers" in South Carolina. And in the baleful glare of the omnipresent authority. "The point is to make Palestinians feel the hand of occupation constantly," he writes. And later: "The message was: 'You'd really be better off somewhere else.'" . . .

  His affinity for conquered peoples very much extends to the Jews, and he begins the book's essay on Palestine at Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial to the victims of the Holocaust. "In a place like this," he writes, "your mind expands as the dark end of your imagination blooms, and you wonder if human depravity has any bottom at all, and if it does not, what hope is there for any of us?" But what Coates is concerned with foremost is what happened when Jewish people went from being the conquered to the conquerors, when "the Jewish people had taken its place among The Strong," and he believes Yad Vashem itself has been used as a tool for justifying the occupation. "We have a hard time wrapping our heads around people who are obvious historical victims being part and parcel of another crime," he told me. In the book, he writes of the pain he observed in two of his Israeli companions: "They were raised under the story that the Jewish people were the ultimate victims of history. But they had been confronted with an incredible truth -- that there was no ultimate victim, that victims and victimizers were ever flowing." . . .

  The book is strongest when its aperture is narrow. There is no mention of the fact that Israel is bombarded by terrorist groups set on the state's annihilation. There is no discussion of the intifadas and the failed negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders going back decades. There is even no mention of Gaza because Coates was unable to visit the region after the October 7 attack and he did not want to report on a place he hadn't seen for himself. ("People were like, 'Gaza is so much worse,'" he told me. "'So much worse.'") What there is, instead, is a picture of the intolerable cruelty and utter desperation that could lead to an October 7.

  "If this was the 1830s and I was enslaved and Nat Turner's rebellion had happened," Coates told me that day in Gramercy, "I would've been one of those people that would've been like, 'I'm not cool with this.' But Nat Turner happens in a context. So the other part of me is like, What would I do if I had grown up in Gaza, under the blockade and in an open-air prison, and I had a little sister who had leukemia and needed treatment but couldn't get it because my dad or my mom couldn't get the right pass out? You know what I mean? What would I do if my brother had been shot for getting too close to the barrier? What would I do if my uncle had been shot because he's a fisherman and he went too far out? And if that wall went down and I came through that wall, who would I be? Can I say I'd be the person that says, 'Hey, guys, hold up. We shouldn't be doing this'? Would that have been me?"

  • Ta-Nehisi Coates: [08-21] A Palestinian American's place under the Democrats' big tent?: "Though the Uncommitted movement is lobbying to get a Palestinian American on the main stage, the Harris campaign has not yet approved one. Will there be a change before Thursday -- and does the Democratic Party want that?" In the end, the DNC didn't allow a Palestinian speaker, calling into question their "big tent" commitment, and exposing how invisible and unfelt Palestinians have become even among people who profess to believe in democracy, equal rights, human rights, peace and social justice.

• Larry Blumenfeld: [09-24] Louis Armstrong's America by Allen Lowe review: an original \tribute to a titan: "The saxophonist and scholar leads a shifting and artfully unruly ensemble on this two-volume set, taking inspiration from Armstrong's own omnivorous musical appetite."

• Brad Luen: [09-01] Ten favorite African albums of 1974.

Chatter

• Zack Beauchamp: [09-24] The Israel-Palestine conflict is in fact complicated and difficult to resolve fairly.

  Invariably, posts like these attract the absolute stupidest people who prove why it needs saying in the first place.

  PS: I replied: Reminds me of a joke: how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the light bulb really has to want to change. Palestinians have tried everything; nothing worked, so it looks difficult. But Israel has offered nothing. If they did, it would be easy.

  Many comments, preëmptively dismissed by Beauchamp, make similar points, some harshly, others more diplomatically. One took the opposite tack, blaming it all on Palestinian rejection of Israel's good intentions -- basically a variation on the argument that when one is being raped, one should relax and enjoy it. The key thing is that Israelis have always viewed the situation as a contest of will and power, where both sides seek to dominate the other, which is never acceptable to the other. When dominance proves impossible, the sane alternative is to find some sort of accommodation, which allows both sides most of the freedoms they desire. That hasn't happened with Israel, because they've always felt they were if not quite on the verge of winning, at least in such a dominant position they could continue the conflict indefinitely. Given that presumption, everything else is rationalization.

  One comment cites Ta-Nehisi Coates:

  For Coates, the parallels with the Jim Crow South were obvious and immediate: Here, he writes, was a "world where separate and unequal was alive and well, where rule by the ballot for some and the bullet for others was policy." And this world was made possible by his own country: "The pushing of Palestinians out of their homes had the specific imprimatur of the United States of America. Which means it had my imprimatur."

  That it was complicated, he now understood, was "horseshit." "Complicated" was how people had described slavery and then segregation. "It's complicated," he said, "when you want to take something from somebody."

• Zachary D Carter: [09-25] Biden's Middle East policy straightforwardly violates domestic and international law.

  In just about every other respect Biden's foreign policy operation has been admirable, but the damage he has done to international conceptions of the U.S. with his Middle East program is on par with George W. Bush.

  PS: I replied: Funny, I can't think of any aspect of Biden foreign policy as admirable, even in intent, much less in effect. Same hubris, hollow principles, huge discounts for shameless favorites (arms, oil, $$). Even climate is seen as just rents. Israel is the worst, but the whole is rotten.]

I saw this in a Facebook image, and felt like jotting it down (at some point I should find the source):

Banksy on Advertising

People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, ttakle a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no chance whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't . . .

Quite some time ago, I started writing a series of little notes on terms of interest -- an idea, perhaps inspired by Raymond Williams' book Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, that I've kept on a cool back burner ever since. One of the first entries was on advertising, and as I recall -- I have no idea where this writing exists, if indeed it does -- it started with: "Advertising is not free speech. It is very expensive . . ." Williams would usually start with the history of the word, including etymology, then expand on its current usage. I was more focused on the latter, especially how words combine complex and often nuanced meanings, and how I've come to think through those words. Advertising for me is not just a subject I have a lot of personal experience in -- both as consumer or object and on the concept and production side -- but is a prism which reveals much about our ethics and politics. In particular, it testifies to our willingness to deceive and to manipulate one another, and our tolerance at seeing that done, both to others and to oneself.

In looking this up, I found a few more useful links on Raymond Williams (1981-88) and Keywords:

• Pietro Calogero: [2013-04-26] Raymond Williams: Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society (revised edition): PDF, a note by Calogero, the back cover description, the keyword list, Williams' "Introduction" and "Preface to the Second Edition."

• Tony Bennett/Lawrence Grossberg/Meaghan Morris, eds: [2005] New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society: In 2005, the editors released a revised edition of Williams' book. It appears to be complete here (452 pp.)

• The Raymond Williams Society: Contemporary Keywords. "Every year our journal Key Words includes a new "keyword," usually linked to the general 'theme' of the issue, in the tradition of Williams's historical analysis." These were written by Tony Crowley: class, commitment, crisis, post-truth, privilege, scouse, the Raymond Williams Society also publishes a journal and a blog.

• Raymond Williams's Keywords: investigating meanings 'offered, felt for, tested, confirmed, asserted, qualified, changed': A 28-page PDF, "an author's pre-final copy of an article published in Critical Quarterly, 48/4 (Winter 2006)."

• Stephen Heath: Raymond Williams and Keywords, which is part of the Keywords Project.

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): music.

Original count: 171 links, 10266 words (13367 total)

Current count: 171 links, 10266 words (13367 total)

Daily Log

I thought of Raymond Williams: Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (1976; revised 2014), and had the thought of jotting down the word list, but then it occurred to me that I could look it up (it's in the Amazon preview) whenever I need. I've added some relevant links to Speaking of Which.

One interesting link I stumbled on is:

• WorldCat, which when searching for Keywords offers "79 editions in 1,961 libraries," sorted by proximity to "your current location," so effectively it's offering a list of nearby libraries.

Music Week

Expanded blog post, September archive (in progress).

Tweet: Music Week: 19 albums, 3 A-list

Music: Current count 42995 [42976] rated (+19), 26 [23] unrated (+3).

New records reviewed this week:

• Benjamin Boone: Confluence: The Ireland Sessions (2023 [2024], Origin): [cd]: B+(***)
• Michael Dease: Found in Space: The Music of Gregg Hill (2022 [2024], Origin): [cd]: B+(***)
• Delia Fischer: Beyond Bossa (2024, Origin): [cd]: B+(***)
• Heems: Veena (2024, Veena Sounds): [sp]: B+(***)
• Jason Kao Hwang: Soliloquies: Unaccompanied Pizzicato Violin Improvisations (2024, True Sound): [cd]: A-
• Miranda Lambert: Postcards From Texas (2024, Republic Nashville): [sp]: A-
• Matt Panayides Trio: With Eyes Closed (2023 [2024], Pacific Coast Jazz): [cd]: B+(**)
• Anne Sajdera: It's Here (2024, Bijuri): [cd]: B+(*)
• Jason Stein: Anchors (2022 [2024], Tao Forms): [sp]: B+(***)
• Nilüfer Yanya: My Method Actor (2024, Ninja Tune): [sp]: B_+(***)

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

• None.

Old music:

• Charles Bell and the Contemporary Jazz Quartet: Another Dimension (1963, Atlantic): [sp]: B+(***)
• Ahmad Jamal: Poinciana (1958 [1963], Argo): [r]: B+(**)
• The Ahmad Jamal Trio: The Awakening (1970, Impulse!): [r]: B+(**)
• Ahmad Jamal: Live in Paris 1992 (1992 [1993], Birdology): [sp]: B+(*)
• Ahmad Jamal: I Remember Duke, H oagy & Strayhorn (1994 [1995], Telarc): [r]: B+(*)
• Ahmad Jamal: The Essence, Part 1 (1994-95 [1995], Birdology): [sp]: A-
• Ahmad Jamal: Big Byrd: The Essence, Part 2 (1994-95 [1996], Birdology): [sp]: B+(***)
• Ahmad Jamal: Nature: The Essence, Part 3 (1997 [1998], Birdology): [sp]: B+(**)

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week (incomplete):

• Michael Dease: Found in Space: The Music of Gregg Hill (Origin) [09-20]
• Doug Ferony: Alright Okay You Win (Ferony Enterprizes Music) [10-01]
• Alden Hellmuth: Good Intentions (Fresh Sound New Talent) [09-08]
• Randy Ingram: Aries Dance (Sounderscore) [10-18]
• Ryan Keberle & Catharsis: Music Is Connection (Alternate Side) [10-18]
• Peter Lenz: Breathe: Music for Large Ensembles (GambsART) [11-08]
• Hayoung Lyou: The Myth of Katabasis (Endectomorph Music) [11-15]
• Yuka Mito: How Deep Is the Ocean (Nana Notes) [10-11]
• Simon Moullier: Elements of Light (Candid) [09-20]
• Nacka Forum: Peaceful Piano (Moserobie) [10-18]
• Dann Zinn: Two Roads (Ridgeway) [10-04]

Speaking of Which

Blog link.

File opened: 2024-09-17 2:05 PM.

File opened: 2024-09-17 2:05 PM. Wrapping it up, rather arbitrarily, on Monday afternoon. I feared I would have little time to work on my weekly posts this week (and next, and the week after, when we expect visitors), so I limited my hopes to picking up a few links for future reference, collected in my spare time. This has grown larger than I expected, especially as I opened up and wrote several lengthy comments. Such informal writing comes easy, and feels substantive, where my more ambitious concepts so often flounder. So I count this as therapeutic, regardless of whether it's of value to anyone else.

My one ambitious concept this week was to write up an outline of an introduction, which would provide some kind of "executive summary" of current events. As events change little from week to week -- for some time now I've been starting each week with a skeletal template, which I refine and reuse -- it occurred to me that I could come up with a boilerplate introduction, which I could then copy and edit from week to week, but would cover the main points I keep returning to in scattered comments.

I came up with that idea back on Thursday, but here it is Monday and I still haven't started on it. So maybe next week? I'll start with a blanket endorsement of Harris and all Democrats, not because I especially like them but because they're the only practical defense against Republicans, who are set on a program to do you great harm, and in some cases get you killed. Then we'll talk about inequality and war, which top my list of the world's problems -- not that we can ignore the latter, but fixing them is really hard without ending war and reducing inequality. And when it comes to war and inequality, no example is more horrific than Israel, which as you'll read below, took a sudden, bizarre turn for the worse last week. Back in October, I explained my plan for ending the Gaza war. My thinking has evolved a bit since then, and it would be good to update it and keep it current.

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

  • [09-16] Day 345: Israel threatens Lebanon again: "Israeli settler violence continues to terrorize Palestinians in the Jordan Valley as the U.S. envoy arrives in the region to deescalate tensions along Lebanon's southern border."

  • [10-19] Day 349: Nasrallah says 'we wish' Israel invades Lebanon: "Following the Lebanon pager explosion attacks, Nasrallah said an Israeli invasion would be a 'historic opportunity' to target Israeli forces. Earlier in the week, Israel razed an entire residential block in central Gaza, killing at least 40 people."

  • [09-23] Day 353: Israel launches bombing campaign on Lebanon as Hezbollah retaliates: "Israel's intensifying bombardment of Lebanon has killed at least 274 people so far, while Hezbollah retaliates with rockets across Israel. The Israeli army also raided and forcibly shut down the Ramallah office of Al Jazeera."

• Juan Cole: [09-17] 25% of 95K injuries inflicted in Gaza are "life-changing;" require medical care that Israelis destroyed.

• Georgia Gee: [09-16] Pick peppers, patrol for Palestinians: the 'new guardians' of Israeli agriculture: "With major government funding, Hashomer Hachadash sends volunteers to cement Jewish control of open farmland -- on both sides of the Green Line."

• Tareq S Hajjaj: [09-18] Israel bombed a residential block in Gaza. Then drones shot at anyone trying to rescue the survivors: "On September 17, the Israeli army bombed a block near the al-Bureij refugee camp, completely destroying seven homes and trapping dozens under the rubble. When rescuers arrived at the scene to help, Israeli drones started firing at them as well."

• H Patricia Hynes: [09-19] Water, war and women in Gaza:

  Prior to the current war, Gaza had 150 small-scale desalination plants to produce potable water. By mid-October 2023, Israeli missile attacks destroyed the drinking water desalination plants; and its almost total blockade cut off fuel to run the other water treatment plants, as well as metal parts to repair them. Gaza's drinking water production capacity dropped to just 5 percent of typical levels.

  With no power to run Gaza's five wastewater treatment plants, sewage has flowed freely through the streets, causing a record increase in cases of diarrheal illnesses. By December 2023, cases of diarrhea among children under 5 in Gaza jumped 2000%, because of which children under five are over 20 times more likely to die than from Israeli military violence.

• Ibrahim Mohammad: [09-18] The Gazan infants who never saw their first birthday: "For thousands of Palestinian parents, the joy of giving birth rapidly turned to grief when their newborn babies were killed by Israel's bombardment."

• Craig Mokhiber: [09-21] Every accusation a confession: Israel and the double lie of 'human shields': "Multiple human rights reports show that Palestinian armed groups do not use human shields, but Israel does."

• Arie Perliger: [09-19] How the Israeli settlers movement shaped modern Israel:

  The increase in settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank over the past year has been unprecedented. Since Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack and the start of the war, there have been more than 1,000 attacks, according to a new report from the International Crisis Group.

  The spike, which has raised international alarm, is often blamed on the permissive policies of Israel's right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu. According to a U.N. investigation, nearly half of all settler attacks documented in October 2023 were conducted in collaboration with, or in the presence of, Israeli military forces.

• Tala Ramadan: [09-11] Gaza faces a massive reconstruction challenge. Here are key facts and figures: "Billions of dollars will be needed to rebuild Gaza when the war between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas ends, according to assessments from the United Nations. Here is a breakdown of the destruction in Gaza."

• Meron Rapoport: [09-17] A plan to liquidate northern Gaza is gaining steam: "As Israeli ministers, generals, and academics bay for a decisive new phase in the war, this is what Operation Starvation and Extermination would look like."

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

• Michael Arria:

  • [09-19] Jill Stein leads Kamala Harris among Muslim voters in swing states as Palestine supporters weigh choices amid Gaza genocide: "A recent poll shows Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein beating Kamala Harris among Muslim voters in multiple swing states as pro-Palestinian voters weigh the upcoming U.S. presidential race." I'm skeptical of any such polling, and not just because third-party support tends to evaporate in the closing days of the season. The article doesn't go into much detail about either the poll details or the question of how many voters are we really talking about here. CAIR estimates that there are over 2.5 million Muslim voters in the US (75% born in the US, 20-25% African-American), so about 1.5% of all registered voters. Contrary to the headline, the CAIR poll shows Harris slightly ahead of Stein, 29.4%% to 29.1%, trailed by Trump (11.2%), Cornel West (4.2%), and Chase Oliver (the Libertarian, 0.8%), with 16.5% undecided and 8.8% not voting.

  • [09-19] The Shift: Uncommitted Movement says it won't back Harris in election. If you read the fine print, you'll see that while they refuse to endorse Harris, they "oppose" Trump, and are "not recommending a third-party vote in the Presidential election, especially as third party votes in key states could help inadvertently deliver a Trump presidency given our country's broken electoral college system." They don't talk about not voting, but if you're leaning that way, please read the parts about Trump again.

    • Akela Lacy: Kamala Harris refused to meet with Uncommitted about Gaza -- and Uncommitted refused to endorse her: "The movement counts among its ranks many disillusioned Arab and Muslim voters in the key swing state of Michigan." A pretty clear indication that Harris calculated that an endorsement would expose her to more risk than not. On the other hand, Harris has embraced (and presumably sought) the endorsements of neocon hawks like the Cheneys, so factor that into your risk assessment.

  • [09-17] The Shift: Nearly 60% of Israelis say they'd vote for Trump: "Former President and GOP nominee Donald Trump remains a popular figure in Israel. A recent poll found that 58% of Israelis would vote for Trump, while just 25% would vote for Harris."

    This week Trump will give two speeches to pro-Israel audiences.

    First, he'll speak to a group of Jewish supporters in DC about countering antisemitism.

    Jewish Insider's Matt Kassel reports that Orthodox businessman Yehuda Kaploun and his business partner Ed Russo will host the event.

    A source told Kassel that the event will allow Trump to speak with Jewish leaders "about his plans to combat the wave of antisemitism and antisemitic behavior and enforce the laws for religious liberty to all."

    Miriam Adelson is expected to attend. The GOP megadonor is reportedly set to spend more than $100 million to elect Trump in November.

    In DC Trump will also address the Israeli American Council's (IAC) national convention. The IAC is led by lan Carr, who served as the envoy to combat antisemitism under Trump. Its largest donor is Adelson.

    I understand why people are disturbed the level of reflexive support for Israel that Harris has consistently shown, and how tempting it is to punish her at the ballot box, but the candidate who is most under Israel's thumb is clearly Trump. Harris at least has the presence of mind and decency to decry and bemoan the war, and offer that it must stop. Trump's allegiance is not just for sale here. It's done been sold.

• Juan Cole: [09-17] A centrist Muslim alliance against an extremist Israel?

• Edo Konrad: [09-20] What Israelis don't want to hear about Iran and Hezbollah: "For years, Israeli expert Ori Goldberg has tried to challenge commonly-held assumptions about the Islamic Republic and its allies. Will anyone listen?"

• Daniel Larison: [09-19] A rare foreign policy win is there for the taking: "Iran's new reformist president wants to negotiate with the West; we should take him up on his request."

• Jim Lobe: [09-18] 42 years ago today: the Sabra & Shatila massacre.

• Nicole Narea: [09-18] What we know about the pager and walkie-talkie explosions in Lebanon and Syria: Unfortunately, Vox doesn't seem to know very much about this wave of exploding tech devices -- hundreds of pagers on Tuesday, followed by thousands of walkie-talkies on Wednesday, each packed with remotely-detonated explosives, and allegedly distributed by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria -- and more importantly, isn't able or willing to set the context and draw meaningful conclusions. Their subhed: "It's a dangerous escalation in the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel as the war in Gaza rages on."

  The first thing that needs to be noted is that the "conflict" is extremely asymmetrical. The background is that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, intervening in a civil war to bolster a Phalangist (fascist) party thought to be favorable to Israel, which backed out of Beirut but continued to occupy southern Lebanon, up to its withdrawal in 2000 (except for a small sliver of territory[*], which remains as a sore point, which seems to be the point). Hezbollah developed as the most effective resistance organization to Israeli occupation. Once Israel withdrew (except for that sliver, see what I mean?), Hezbollah's mission was complete, but since Israel never signed any peace treaty with Lebanon, they continued to organize as a deterrent against another Israeli attack (as happened in 2006). Since then, except for that sliver, the only times Hezbollah has fired (mostly missiles) at Israel has been in response to Israel's periodic attacks on Lebanon. I'm convinced that Israel does this simply to provoke responses that they can spin into their cover story on Iran: Americans still bear a grudge against Iran over 1979, a feud they've relentlessly stoked since the 1990s, as it gives Israel a threat which is beyond its means, thus binding an American alliance that provides cover for their real agenda, which is to erase the Palestinian presence in all of Israel.

  The US could end this farce immediately by making a separate peace with Iran (and for good measure, with its alleged proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen). Obama took one step in that direction with the JCPOA "nuclear deal," which was the only realistic solution to "the Iranian nuclear threat" -- which Israelis had played up since the early 1990s[**]. But Netanyahu denounced the deal, and used the full power of the Israel lobby to undermine it, leading to Trump's withdrawal, and Biden's failure to reinstate. Had Israel been serious about the "nuclear threat," they would have celebrated JCPOA. Had the US understood Israel's objectives, they would have extended their "deal" with Iran to resolve other disputes and normalize relations.

  I had several other points in mind when I started writing this, but they're more obvious from the reporting, which I'll continue to collect below. Chief among them is that this is a patently Israeli operation, combining as it does a fascination with high tech and completely oblivious disregard for its impact on others, or even for the damage it will do to the future reputation of all Israelis. This is indiscriminate terrorism, on a huge scale. Exactly who in Israel is immediately responsible for this isn't yet clear, but whoever it is should be held responsible, first and foremost by the Israeli people, but until that happens, it is not unreasonable to sanction the state. Any nation, like the US, which claims to be opposed to terrorism would be remiss in not doing so.

  The most similar event I can recall was the Chicago Tylenol murders of 1982, which was probably the work of a single rogue individual (although it was followed by several copycat crimes, and was never definitively solved). The maker of Tylenol (Johnson & Johnson) took extraordinary measures to restore consumer trust (see How the Tylenol murders of 1982 changed the way we consume medication). While similar in terms of sowing mistrust, this case is orders of magnitude larger, and is likely to prove much more difficult for Israel to manage. No one ever thought for a moment that Johnson & Johnson wanted to poison customers, but Netanyahu's hands are not just tainted but dripping blood. Even if he is not personally responsible for this, the war and genocide are clearly his work, in conception and commission, and in his consistent refusal to end or even limit it. Moreover, there is no reason to trust Israel to investigate itself -- as it has claimed many times in the past to do, covering up and/or excusing many serious crimes along the way.

  [*] This sliver is called Shebaa Farms. When Israel withdrew from Lebanon, they continued to occupy this bit of land, arguing that it was originally part of the Syrian Heights, which Israel has occupied since 1967 (and later annexed, contrary to international law; it is now better known as Golan Heights). See Why is there a disputed border between Lebanon and Israel?.

  [**] What changed for Israel in 1990 was that after Saddam Hussein was defeated in Kuwait and bottled up and disarmed, they needed a new "existential threat" to replace Iraq and maintain American support. While the Ayatollahs weren't as chummy with Israel as the Shah had been, they maintained cordial relations all through the 1980s -- by far the most anti-American period of Iran's revolution. Israel helped arm Iran as a counterweight to Iraq's ambitions (including their role in Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, which gave them insight into America's schizoid reaction to overthrowing the CIA-installed Shah). Trita Parsi explains all of this in Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (2007).

  • CNN [Tara John, et al.]: [09-18] How did pagers explode in Lebanon and why was Hezbollah using them? Here's what we know.

  • CNN [Charbel Mallo, et al.]: [09-18] Israel behind deadly pager explosions that targeted Hezbollah and injured thousands in Lebanon.

  • Caitlin Johnstone: [09-17] Turning people into involuntary suicide bombers to fight terrorism.

  • Daniel Larison: [09-18] Israel terrorizes Lebanon: "This was a reckless attack that makes a major war between Israel and Hezbollah much more likely."

  • Nikita Mazurov: A brief history of booby-trapping electronics to blow up.

  • Jonathan Ofir: [09-18] Israel's attack on Lebanon using exploding electronics is part of a long history and strategy of targeting civilians: "Israel's latest attack on Lebanon represents an expansion of its Dahiya doctrine which intentionally targets civilians to send a political message."

  • Paul R Pillar: [09-20] Wider war closer after Israel's attack on Lebanon.

  • Mitchell Plitnick: [09-18] I scraped this off Facebook.

    A friend asked me how I come to say that Israel targeted civilians with their attack on pagers purchased by Hezbollah.

    Here is my response:

    So let's start with this: being a Hezbollah "operative" does not make one a legitimate target nor does it mean you're not a civilian. Hezbollah operatives include clerks, messengers, secretaries, even medical workers. Bear in mind, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government. Its activities cover a lot more than military actions. Therefore, targeting Lebanese people for their connection to Hezbollah is no different from targeting the janitor in the IDF's Tel Aviv headquarters. It's targeting civilians.

    Second, I am told by people I know and have seen it confirmed by at least two Lebanese journalists that many recipients of these pagers are not military. Israel certainly knows that.

    Third, Israel detonated these pagers en masse. They certainly knew they were sure to be in populated areas, with women and children nearby, but they certainly did NOT know who actually had each pager. That's not collateral damage. That's intentionally targeting civilians.

    Any ambiguity in any of this is negated by the fact that this is a blatant violation of international law, specifically the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which explicitly bars booby-trapping ordinary items. Israel is a High Contracting Party to Article II, where this prohibition is seen:

    4. "Booby-trap" means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.

    3. It is prohibited in all circumstances to use any mine, booby-trap or other device which is designed or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

    4. Weapons to which this Article applies shall strictly comply with the standards and limitations specified in the Technical Annex with respect to each particular category.

    5. It is prohibited to use mines, booby-traps or other devices which employ a mechanism or device specifically designed to detonate the munition by the presence of commonly available mine detectors as a result of their magnetic or other non-contact influence during normal use in detection operations.

    I'm very comfortable calling this the deliberate targeting of civilians.

  • Steven Simon: [09-18] Exploding pagers in Lebanon: taste of what's yet to come?

  Israel followed up the pager/walkie-talkie attacks with another round of bombing Lebanon, going all the way to Beirut. Some articles on this:

  • Al Jazeera: [09-21] At least 38 killed in Israeli strike on suburb in Lebanon's Beirut.

  • The New Arab: [09-20] Israel strikes south Beirut, Hezbollah figures among dead: what we know so far: "Hezbollah commander Ibrahim Aqil was killed alongside other special forces fighters as they were holding a meeting."

  • Mohammed Mourtaja: [09-20] The Israeli war on Lebanon's hidden goal: Gaza's full erasure: "While the world's attention shifts to Lebanon, Israel may pursue another darker goal -- completing its ethnic cleansing of Gaza." I don't see where this "may" comes from. There's little chance that Israel is going to lose its focus on Palestinians by kicking off a war with Lebanon -- unless they've underestimated the consequences (as happened in 2006). For Israel, Hezbollah is a diversion, one meant to keep the Americans engaged as allies (because, you know, we all fear and hate Iran). Israelis know better than anyone that the easiest way to get away with genocide is to bury it in a bigger war (like, you may recall, Hitler did).

  • Jeet Heer: [09-22] Israel's expanding war against Lebanon: Interview with Trita Parsi "on the dangers of a lame-duck president with spiraling crisis."

• Annelle Sheline: [09-18] MBS: no Saudi-Israel normalization until Palestinians get a state: "The Kingdom's crown prince throws cold water on Biden's 'grand bargain,' days after Oman does the same." However:

  • Steven Simon: [09-20] MBS may be more flexible on Israel relations than you think: "It's possible he could back track on condition of Palestinian state for normalization."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Ramzy Baroud:

  • [09-18] Israel's true objectives in Gaza and why it will fail: "Never in its history of war and military occupation has Israel been so incapable of developing a coherent plan for its future and the future of its victims." But when have they ever had a coherent post-war plan? On various occasions, they've made concessions to American opinion, but they've never been held to anything more than a temporary compromise. And the Biden administration is so confused and spineless they hardly have to go through the motions anymore. But the core problem, which is one that Americans find impossible to relate to, is how Israelis expect to always be at war with people who can never stop wanting to kill them. If your wars are forever, you don't need any sort of postwar vision.

  • [09-18] Abbas 'postponed' democracy -- so, why speaks on behalf of the Palestinian people?.

  • [09-09] Zionism vs. Zionism -- Ben-Gvir and the acceleration of the collapse of Israel.

  • [08-26] Prolonging genocide as a smokescreen: on Israel's other war in the West Bank.

• Medea Benjamin/Nicholas JS Davies: [09-17] Can the world save Palestine from US-Israeli genocide? Refers to a UN General Assembly resolution, which passed on 9/18:

  • UN General Assembly demands Israel end 'unlawful presence' in Occupied Palestinian Territory: It passed 124 in favor, 14 against, with 43 abstentions.

  • Vijay Prashad: [09-20] The world says that Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestine must end.

• Jonathan Cook: [09-20] Jewish Chronicle scandal: why was there no uproar over past pro-Israel disinformation? "Despite a deeply problematic track record, the paper's fake news is making waves only now, after it printed claims based on forged Hamas documents."

• Georgia Gee: These human rights defenders were hacked by Pegasus. Now they want police to charge the spyware maker. "So far, no one has been able to hold the notorious Israeli spyware firm accountable for complicity in human rights abuses."

• David Hearst: [09-11] How Israel's genocide in Gaza is creating enemies on all sides: "Netanyahu's refusal to end the war on Gaza and settlers' terrorism in the West Bank have sowed the seeds of hatred across the region."

• Ziyad Motala: [09-12] The US must allow the World Court to adjudicate on Israel's genocide: "Israeli diplomats have reportedly been instructed to push Washington to scupper South Africa's case before the International Court of Justice."

• Mazin Qumsiyeh: Links from his latest newsletters, one new, most old, but his writings rarely lose their relevance, as new events more often than not just confirm his insights.

  • [01-01] 2024: Year-end report, personal achievements (research papers, etc.), plans for the coming year.

  • [2023-12-29] Hope for 2024.

  • [2023-11-12] Are we being duped to focus only on Gaza suffering? This is an even bigger question today, as coverage of Gaza has settled into a mind-numbing tedium while Israelis have escalated attacks on the West Bank, and working hard to provoke a war with Hezbollah which will only further cloud their operations against Palestinians. The first two paragraphs here (my bold) are so accurate one has to wonder about all the pundits back then who were (and in many cases still are) clueless.

    Israel's genocide of Gaza is intentional, planned and ongoing with no sign of slowing down. The contrary, with no water, food and medicine it is accelerating. Israel leaders boast openly that they do not care about what the UN, ICC, or ICJ say. Israeli fascist leaders say they do not care what statements are issued by governments. Nor do they care if public pressure causes some western leaders to moderate their "language" stating there is a "humanitarian catastrophe" unfolding in Gaza (without naming the perpetrator and continuing to support physically the genocide). Israel actually can use the humanitarian catastrophe (as if it is an act of God not their agency) as bargaining chips. The focus on "ceasefire negotiations" is actually a very clever strategy to continue the genocidal occupation and for impunity from facing tribunals for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Israeli leaders are crystal clear about their crimes and they get their way by genocide and total state terrorism against populations. If you have any doubt, listen to them (see below). They even say openly that if Hizbollah continues its resistance in South Lebanon, then all of Lebanon will pay a devastating price and Beirut will be like Gaza (i.e. totally devastated). Israeli military spokesmen gave the same threats to cities in the West Bank like Jenin and Tulkarem and even Ramallah. These are not idle threats. Many were complicit with Israeli apartheid regime by suppressing the truth and giving weapons to commit genocide. According to Israeli leaders global public opinion and "diplomatic" pressure will not end its carnage done to promote colonialism and greed. Many human rights advocates are at a loss as to how to end the carnage. While people focus on the carnage, few address its underlying cause. It is like focusing on suffering in concentration camps without identifying the source of that suffering (or even worse blaming the victims).

    Next line is a bit inflammatory ("Extreme nationalism leads to genocide: Nazis and Zionists"), but the error there is assuming causality from consequences. Extreme nationalism may be a necessary precondition, but something more is also required: the hubris of unchecked, unaccountable power. Plenty of kneejerk nationalists all around the world, but in Israel they've achieved a sense of invincibility unmatched since Hitler's Germany. That one exemplar claims to be for Jews and the other against just how unimportant the category is.

  • [2023-07-14] Lebanon & Palestine: A trip report.

  • [2023-07-03] Hope: present and future: Starts with an Israeli atrocity which, needless to say, predates the Oct. 7 Hamas revolt, and the even greater Israeli atrocities since then.

  • [2023-06-29] Changing ourselves: "As a zoologist and geneticist I am always puzzled about human (optimistically named Homo sapiens) behavior."

  • [09-22] End of empire? His grasp of US politics is less assured here. While his critique of Trump is sound enough, his points against the Democrats are harsh where I would be more generous. To pick out two of five:

    2. Harris courting of the lobby and supporting genocide undermines any remnant of illusion progressives,
    5. the Democrat party is corrupt and worked hand in glove with republicans against allowing other parties.

    The American political system is such that it is impossible for anyone to win without picking up a whiff of corruption. While some Democrats play that game as adeptly as Republicans, and when they can, shower their donors with favors as readily, most also see and feel some obligation to serve their constituents, or more generally "all the people." One thing nearly all Democrats have in common is their loathing for Trump and his shock troops, and this is almost always due to how repulsive they find the effect of his programs on ordinary people. The Israel lobby has done a masterful job of disappearing Palestinian humanity, but most Democrats can still see through that veil -- and, unlike most Republicans, once they see they will care and act. It's not unreasonable to hope that eventually their leaders, including Harris, will follow their rank and file [there's a good Gandhi quote I could look up and insert here]. This may seem like faint hope, but Qumsiyah has written eloquently about his hopes. I'm not going to deny that Harris, following Biden, has been complicit in and supportive of genocide and other hideous crimes against human rights, but I still believe that their support is squishy and conflicted, far from the hardened determination of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and now Netanyahu, who would rather join Hitler in the bunker than give up their life's work.

• Dave Reed: [09-15] Weekly Briefing: Zionism is now a dirty word.

• Mona Shtaya: [09-16] Israel is joining the first global AI convention, here's why that's dangerous: "Over the last year Israel has weaponized AI in its genocide in Gaza, deploying AI-driven surveillance and automated targeting systems which has killed tens of thousands. Israel's participation in the first global AI treaty raises serious questions."

• Jonah Valdez:

  • California professors fight back against violent repression of Palestine protest.

  • Paging the Hague: Israel's exploding electronics might be war crimes: "Experts on international law pointed to the indiscriminate nature of the blasts in Lebanon and the prohibition on booby traps." I don't think there's any "maybe" about it.

  • Israeli soldiers killed 15 protesters in the same place they shot Aysenur Eygi.

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [09-17] South Africa minister: countries have to 'boycott' Israel's war: "In a Washington appearance Tuesday, Ronald Lamola recalled how the world community ended apartheid in 1990."

Election notes:

• Jonathan Chait: -[09-21] The case for 2024 indecision is feeble: "Trump-wary conservatives have run out of rational reasons to be undecided." His examples of still-vacillating conservatives include Ross Douthat and Bret Stephens.

• Andrew Prokop: [09-17] What happened to Nate Silver: I'm not sure he was ever all that "beloved by progressives." In his 538 days, his focus was on getting it right, which meant anticipating contests Republicans would win, and calling them emphatically enough to claim the win. He started out as a useful corrective to a lot of polling bullshit, but after he blew the 2016 election, he overcompensated and turned into just another annoying pundit.

Trump:

• Sasha Abramsky:

  • [09-20] There's no low Trump won't go: "The Republican presidential nominee is peddling lies about Haitian migrants and blaming the Democrats after a thwarted assassination attempt."

  • [09-13] Trump is as gullible as he is a threat to democracy: "A decade into his political career, Donald J Trump is entirely at the mercy of his own BS."

• Zack Beauchamp: [09-18] Why Trump's lies about Haitians are different: "Trump says nasty things about immigrants all the time. But these ones have disturbingly specific Nazi parallels."

• Seána Glennon: [09-17] Trump's anti-abortion drive will take lives: lessons from Ireland on why 'reasons-based' access to abortion doesn't work.

• Ed Kilgore: [09-20] Trump uses antisemitism speech to unload on American Jews.

• Ezra Klein: [09-22] The MAGA movement has become a problem for Trump.

• Eric Levitz: [09-18] Trump's healthcare plan exposes the truth about his "populism": Following up on Trump's "concepts of a plan," we find they support "populism of the privileged," using the magic of deregulation to make more affordable for the healthy and more expensive (and prone to fraud) for everyone else. Really just a special case of Trump's concepts about tax policy and business.

• James Risen: It's good Trump won't be sentenced until after the election.

Vance, and other Republicans:

• Jonathan Chait: [09-18] How JD Vance became Trump's pet liar.

• Zak Cheney-Rice: [09-20] Mark Robinson has been hiding in plain sight. He's the current Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, and the Republican candidate for Governor this year. He's, well, . . .

  • Jonathan Chait: [09-19] Mark Robinson and the Republican wackjob problem: "What happens when you stop trying to keep out the kooks."

  • David French: [09-22] MAGA wants transgression, and this is what comes with it: "The lesson is simple: If you want more Mark Robinsons, vote for Donald Trump."

  • Jeet Heer: [09-20] Why a "Black Nazi" fit right in with the modern GOP: "Republicans might disavow Mark Robinson now, but they elevated him knowing his extremism."

  • Eduardo Medina: [09-22] Top aides resign from embattled North Carolina candidate's campaign: "Most of the senior staff members on Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson's campaign for North Carolina governor resigned on Sunday after reports that he had made a series of disturbing online comments."

  • Nicole Narea: [09-20] Will the Mark Robinson revelations tank Republicans in a key battleground state?: "Trump has a problem in North Carolina."

  • Nia Prater/Chas Danner: [09-20] Mark Robinson called Mein Kampf a 'good read' on porn site, too.

• Jeet Heer: [09-16] JD Vance can't even bullshit properly: "Donald Trump is a world-class BS artist. His running mate is just a twitchy liar."

• Sarah Jones: [09-19] When abortion bans kill.

  • Amy Littlefield: [09-18] An abortion ban killed Amber Thurman -- and likely many more: "Will the law that killed this vibrant young woman, a mother and a medical assistant, be allowed to stand?"

• Chris Lehmann: [09-04] The never-ending grift of DC influence peddling: "Right-wing fraudsters Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman got caught lying about their lobbying firm, but K Street has long been a breeding ground for bottom-feeding grifters." This is a truly bipartisan problem, and some Democrats pursue grift as avidly as many Republicans -- Bob Menendez and Krysten Sinema leap to mind -- but Republicans have raised it to a cultural ideal. Links here to a couple of old "more on grifter politics" articles (and underscore the Republican link):

  • Mike Konczal: [2017-11-02] Trump is creating a grifter economy: "The White House economic plans help the scheming and powerful swindle ordinary Americans."

  • Elie Mystal: [2022-09-16] Trump's "big lie" was also a big grift: "The January 6 committee's revelations that the Trump campaign raised money for a bogus 'Official Election Defense Fund' point to criminal fraud."

Harris:

• Aida Chavez: [09-14] Do Kamala Harris's neocon supporters just hate Trump, or is there something more to her appeal?

  • Shayana Kadidal: [09-18] Torturers for Harris: "Why are the Dick Cheneys of the world endorsing Harris -- and why is she embracing their support."

• Chas Danner: [09-21] Harris agrees to another debate against Trump on October 23. Harris accepted an invitation from CNN. Trump previously rejected any further debate, saying "I am not inclined to do it because I won by a lot."

• Doug Henwood: [09-16] Kamala's capitalist class: "Both parties have little trouble attracting support from the superrich. But a closer look reveals fissures within the ruling class."

• Ellen Ioanes: [09-19] The real impact of the Teamsters' non-endorsement. I'm not reading any credible answers here.

  • John Nichols: [09-20] Kamala Harris is winning the teamsters endorsements that really matter: "The national leadership may have snubbed her -- but Teamsters in the swing states that will decide the election are backing her all the way."

• Rebecca Picciotto: [09-21] Harris raised 4 times more than Trump in donations for final election sprint: Harris raised $189 million in August, compared to $44 million for Trump. Harris ended the month with $404 million in cash on hand, "dwarfing Trump's $295 million war chest." Converting that advantage in money into votes isn't straightforward, but Democrats have a lot to work with here. The article doesn't break this down, but I figure the fundraising advantage must come from two sources: from the usual rich donors, who in substantial numbers are sick and disgusted with Trump, and want to see him gone; and from small donors, whose enthusiasm is unprecedented. People who put their money on the line will also press their friends and acquaintances into voting, and that's likely to determine how the election breaks. And while most of the money will be spent on advertising, one thing I've been noticing is how much more "ground game" focus there is among Democrats this year -- living in Kansas, the norm is zero, so what I'm seeing is not just unprecedented, but orders of magnitude. And the good news in bad polls is that no one's counting chickens before they're hatched. The race is on.

• Sara Swann: [09-11] Why Harris' debate remarks about US military in combat zones is misleading: I noted her comment in passing, and linked to an article on it (Joshua Keating: Biden and Harris say America's no longer at war. Is that true?), but didn't attempt to discern whether there was any technical plausibility behind the gross misrepresentation. This popped up again when Heather Cox Richardson tweeted:

  Harris is shifting the Afghanistan question to point out that the US has no troops in combat zones in the world right now.

  To which Greg Grandin replied:

  Because it is as much a lie as Haitians eating cats.

  So I did a bit of digging here. This turns on the term "combat zone," which has some effect on soldiers' pay and benefits, but not everyone's clear on this. PolitiFact says the assertion is "mostly false." Here are a couple more references:

  • Dave DeCamp: [09-11] Harris lies in debate with Trump by claiming no US troops are deployed in combat zones.

  • Erin Jones/Brandon Lewis: [09-19] Kamala Harris' claim that there are no active duty US troops in any war zone needs context; and

  • Kim Hjelmgaard/Karina Zalets: [2023-11-29] Maps show US counterterrorism efforts across globe, spanning 78 countries.

Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:

• Rick Perlstein: [08-26] Say it to my face: "How Democrats learned to tell the plain truth and like it." Perlstein's columns have been terrific ever since he started writing for American Prospect, but somehow I missed this one, which came out of the DNC without being explicit about it (well, until the end). He gives examples from Clinton, Gore, Kerry ("the worst of them all"), and Obama. I don't think Harris is totally past running from her own shadow, but she's much better at at defending what's right, and attacking what's wrong.

Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:

• Natasha Lennard: There are so many armed cops on subways that now they're shooting each other.

• Ian Millhiser: [09-18] The Supreme Court is about to decide whether to interfere in the election again: "Republicans want the Court to place the Green Party back on Nevada's ballot after it was removed."

• Elie Mystal: [09-17] How John Roberts went full MAGA: "A revealing article in The New York Times details how the chief justice put his thumb on the scale for Trump to keep him on the ballot and out of jail." The article:

  • Jodi Kantor/Adam Liptak: [09-15] How Roberts shaped Trump's Supreme Court winning streak: "Behind the scenes, the chief justice molded three momentous Jan. 6 and election cases that helped determine the former president's fate."

Climate and environment:

• Anatol Lieven: [10-04] Hurricane response: This is 'national defense': "The federal government is missing sight of real US priorities."

• Li Zhou: [09-18] Why everywhere seems to be flooding right now: "Unique factors have driven torrential rains around the world -- but there's also a likely common thread."

Economists, the economy, and work:

• John Cassidy: [09-18] How inflation fooled almost everybody: "With the Fed poised to cut rates for the first time in years, what have we learned about the economic disruptions of the pandemic era?"

Ukraine and Russia:

• Dave DeCamp: [09-19] EU's Defense Chief says Europe must be ready to fight Russia in 6-8 years.

• Ellen Ioanes: [09-18] Ukraine's dramatic drone strikes on Russia are about making the case for more aid.

Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:

• Nick Cleveland-Stout: [09-20] Witnesses backed by military, foreign $$ hype war with Iran: "It's a lucrative business if you can get it."

• Nick Turse: The National Guard knows its armories have dangerous lead contamination, putting kids and soldiers at risk.

Other stories:

• Ryan Cooper: [08-05] The case for pragmatic socialism: "The times are right for a socialist agenda that America can accept. We even have examples of it in practice." I held this piece back for later perusal, but I rather doubt I'm ever going to finish reading it, much less argue with it. In my philosophy days, I was fairly simpatico both with Marxism and with Pragmatism, and never saw much of a problem there. (I certainly knew a lot more of Marxism, but I read a fair amount of Charles Peirce, and also of Kant and various neo-Kantians like Robert Paul Wolff -- although I gather he spent more time critiquing pragmatists than swimming with them.) At least the focus on praxis was shared, along with the suspicion of metaphysics. The thing is, I have very little interest in salvaging "socialism" as a slogan, even though I admire both the theory and the legacy, and I'm willing to do my bit in defense of both. I just think that at this point a fresh start might work better. There's something pragmatist in that, isn't there?

• Jeffrey St Clair: [09-20] Roaming Charges: Cat scratch political fever: Starts with "Miss Sassy started the biggest political fire since Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicked over a lamp and burned down Chicago." So, with Trump and Vance. Then includes a picture captioned "When sleazy immigrants [Don Jr. and Eric Trump] sneak into your country and kill your cats."

Obituaries

Books

• Wendy Brown: [09-09] The enduring influence of Marx's masterpiece: "No book has done more than Capital to explain the way the world works." Essay "adapted from the foreword to the first English translation of Capital: Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1 in 50 years." Somehow, I don't recall this "famous turn of phrase" that Brown cites: "Capital is dead labor that acts like a vampire: It comes to life when it drinks more living labor, and the more living labor it drinks, the more it comes to life." Brown continues:

  Capital's requirements of increased labor exploitation over time -- exploiting more workers and exploiting them more intensively -- and in space -- ever expanding markets for its commodities -- constitute the life and death drives of capitalism, drives that are as insatiable as they are unsustainable. They reduce the masses to impoverishment, concentrate wealth among the few, and pile up crises that spell the system's eventual collapse, overthrow, or, as we have later learned, reinventions through the social state, the debt state, neoliberalism, financialization, and the asset-enhancing and de-risking state. Since growth is essential for what Marx called the "realization of surplus-value" or profit, capitalist development becomes an almighty shredder of all life forms and practices, including its own recent ones. From small shops, family farms, and cities to gigantic industries, rain forests, and even states, everything capital makes or needs it will eventually also destroy. In Marx's summary, "Capitalist production thus advances . . . only by damaging the very founts of all wealth: the earth and the worker."

  I'm reminded here of how easy it is to explain all of the world's ills with one word: "capitalism." That's the lesson drawn by every person who ever fell under Marx's spell, but reading this now I'm most struck by the insatiability of the process, which dialectically impels us to limit and regulate growth. Even now, when we've seen much of the harm capitalism can do, and as we've clearly benefited from many efforts to limit its rapacity, that's still a tough sell to many otherwise well-meaning people (e.g., "progressives," who still hope to grow our way out of all earthly hardships).

  • James Miller: [09-19] Karl Marx, weirder than ever: "What good is one of the communist thinker's most important texts to 21st-century readers?"

• Adam Gopnik: [2012-02-27] The big reveal: Old article, popped up in a link list, piqued my curiosity for reasons I may (or may not) get around to explaining. Basically, a review of Elaine Pagels: Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation, first imagining the text as a blockbuster movie:

  The Bible, as every Sunday-school student learns, has a Hollywood ending. Not a happy ending, certainly, but one where all the dramatic plot points left open earlier, to the whispered uncertainty of the audience ("I don't get it -- when did he say he was coming back?"), are resolved in a rush, and a final, climactic confrontation between the stern-lipped action hero and the really bad guys takes place. That ending -- the Book of Revelation -- has every element that Michael Bay could want: dragons, seven-headed sea beasts, double-horned land beasts, huge C.G.I.-style battles involving hundreds of thousands of angels and demons, and even, in Jezebel the temptress, a part for Megan Fox. ("And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and' she repented not.")

  I have this mental image of a certain type of 19th century Midwest farmer-intellectual who thinks that all of the world's knowledge -- past, present, and future -- is locked in the pages of the Bible, waiting to be explored and conquered by obsessive scholars like themselves. I even have a specific name in mind: Abraham Lincoln Hull, my great-grandfather, born on an arid west Kansas homestead in 1870, shortly after his father (plain Abraham Hull) moved out from Pennsylvania, after the Civil War. He was a sheep rancher, but I've heard him described as "the laziest human being ever." I suspect he was just lost in his thoughts, which fed into sideline jobs of teaching and preaching. I never knew him, but I did know, until I approached 15 and he died at 70, thereby confirming his own biblically-derived prophecy. He also farmed, taught school, dressed up for church, and pondered Revelations. One of the few times when he asked me a question was when he was trying to figure out whether the founding of Israel was proof that the second coming was imminent. I lacked the presence of mind to figure out whether he was a premillennial or postmillennial dispensationalist, but I was struck by the crackpot nature of the question, and I've recalled the moment every time I've seen or heard of Christian Zionists wax on the subject -- going back at least as far as David Lloyd George in approving the Balfour Declaration.

  As it turned out, my father had his own very different take on Revelation, but I never made the slightest effort to understand his, just noting that it was opposed to my grandfather's, and suspecting that, as with most of his theories of everything, it erred on the side of the whimsical. Eventually, I realized that I too was fated to have a theory of Revelation, even without having read more than the occasional isolated verse (which is the only way I ever approached the Bible -- the idea that one could just read it as literature, like The Gilgamesh or Moby Dick, only occurred to me when I saw it listed in the Great Books curriculum). My theory is that the book was tacked onto the end of the Bible as a reveal, one of those joke endings that exposes everything that had come before it as an elaborate hoax. That suggests more intention than I can imagine early Christian clerics as being capable of. Still, some of the most dedicated scholars have easily wandered into reductio ad absurdum, especially when the subject is religion.

  While my "theory" was never more than a joke, it was pretty clearly derived from insights I gleaned while reading a book about Judaism: Douglas Rushkoff: Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism. Rushkoff's thesis is that the internal logic of Judaism functions as an aid in helping you get through and past and over religion. The book isn't fresh enough in my mind to do justice to here (not that I have the time, anyway), but I will note that I had spent a lot of time on the history and evolution of puritanism, and found a similar dynamic at play there (e.g., the unitarians are direct descendants yet perhaps the most secular and tolerant sect in all of Christendom; but far more significant is the liberation puritan theology allowed to turn into "the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism").

• Ed Park: Nuance and nuisance: on the Village Voice: Review of Tricia Romano's oral history, The Freaks Came Out to Write: The Definitive History of the Village Voice, the Radical Paper That Changed American Culture.

• Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins/Kate Yoon: [09-12] The age of public austerity and private luxury: "A conversation with Melinda Cooper about the recent history of neoliberalism and her new book Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance. Cooper opens with:

  My overarching argument is continuous with the one I developed in Family Values [2017, subtitle: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism]. I question the idea that the neoliberal counterrevolution of the early 1980s was a backlash against Keynesianism as such. Instead, I see it as a backlash against the leftist social movements of the late 1960s and '70s, which were already engaged in a kind of immanent critique of actually existing Keynesianism. . . .

  My basic argument is that neoliberals of different stripes managed to create a regime of extreme public spending austerity for those primarily dependent on wage income, while at the same time ushering in a regime of radical spending and monetary extravagance for financial asset owners. We tend to see only the austerity side of the equation -- hence the illusion that this is all about the retreat of the state. But it's hard to explain the extreme wealth concentration that has occurred in recent decades if we don't also understand the multiple ways in which financial wealth is actively subsidized by the state.

  There's quite a bit here on how capital gains taxation (or lack thereof) subsidizes asset inflation -- my term, not a very popular one as it suggests assets aren't really worth as much as they seem, and also that inflation, like money, is "good for the rich but bad for the poor" (as Lewis Lapham liked to put it). Also more details on how the "Virginia school neoliberals" (like James Buchanan) "dovetailed" with the "supply siders" - despite different concepts, both sought to make the rich richer, at the expense of everyone else. Then back to politics:

  Having said this, I don't think economic liberalism as such ever works alone; it always works in alliance with some species of conservatism. This may be the communitarian/neoliberal alliance of a Third Way Democrat like Bill Clinton, or the neoconservative neoliberalism of George W. Bush.

  In today's Republican Party, we have something that looks like a neoliberal/paleoconservative alliance, and this brings complexities of its own. Paleoconservatism has clear connections to the white supremacist and theocratic far right; as a movement, it defines itself in opposition to neoconservatism, which it sees as too secular, too liberal, too internationalist, and too Jewish.

  However, the kinds of economic alliances made by paleoconservatives have been quite diverse. [Mentions Koch-favorite Murray Rothbard, drawing on Ludwig von Mises; "Ayn Rand devotee" Alan Greenspan; Pat Buchanan.] . . .

  I would say the contemporary Republican Party draws on all of these influences, Trump more haphazardly than others. In his first election campaign, Trump seemed to embody the kind of paleoconservative national protectionist policies espoused by Pat Buchanan or Steve Bannon -- and certainly on the issue of trade with China, he followed through on this.

  JD Vance sounds like he espouses an anti-neoliberal national protectionist position too, but then again he is one of several Republican right operators who are funded by the ultra-libertarian Peter Thiel. What unites these people is their affiliation to far-right paleoconservatism and their immersion in the world of private investment. This underwrites a deeply patrimonial, autarchic, and atavistic outlook that is sometimes dressed up in the garb of a more progressive anti-corporate agenda.

Music (and other arts?)

• Tim Niland: [09-14] Music capsules 9/14.

Chatter

• Means testing is divisive, wasteful and punitive: [09-19] Israel has shown itself as a metastasizing threat to the whole world. Are you going to be comfortable getting on a plane with people carrying Israeli-made products?

• Jeff Sharlet: [09-23] 49% of the class of '23 at Dartmouth, where I [t]each, went into finance or consulting. Even were [I] the most ardent capitalist -- I am really not that -- this would be a crushing statistic. So much energy, education, & intellect hoovered up by one sector. [I might have added: which produces nothing of value, being mostly parasitic, and often just predatory.]

• Tony Karon: [09-24] Israel -- a Jewish supremacist state created by violently displacing the indigenous Palestinian majority -- was built on racist contempt for Arab life, limb and property. It is maintained today by the same people -- for Israel and its US backers, Arab lives don't matter. [image of headline: Israeli air strikes kill 492 people in Lebanon]

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): music.

Original count: 135 links, 8611 words (11055 total).

Current count: 144 links, 9060 words (11622 total).

Daily Log

I see that I originally slated Speaking of Which to post on Monday, instead of the customary Sunday. As it's Sunday, I might as well stick to that plan, even though I don't recall making it. I promised that this weekend's posts will be abbreviated, and so they will be. But at the moment, I have 119 links, 7047 words. As for Music Week, that will also be delayed a day. At present, I have 17 new rated, -2 unrated (but with a four packages to open and list).

Work upstairs is coming along, but I took time out to cook Saturday, a dinner for Mike and Gretchen. It was another inventory reduction deal, and this time occasioned zero new shopping (although I had a couple fresh vegetables on hand, that needed use for something). I came up with a mix of Greek/Italian/Spanish dishes, plus an old family cake:

• Baked shrimp with feta: I started with 2 lbs. freezer-burnt jumbo shrimp; sauce took 1 onion, 1 bunch scallions, garlic, parsley, a big can of crushed tomatoes, wine, oregano; I cooked that down, spooned it into a baking dish with the shrimp, sprinkled feta on top, and baked 12 minutes at 500F.

• Penne puttanesca: I had half a bag of dried penne, so boiled it; made sauce from olive oil, garlic, anchovies, kalamata olives, capers, some Aleppo pepper (hot, but not very), a can of tomato sauce; I cooked that down, dumped the hot pasta into the pan, and served it with extra parmesan.

• Pisto manchego: I chopped an onion, a red bell pepper, a zucchini, and some garlic, and sauteed it in olive oil, adding capers and parsley. I found it a bit dull, so added 1 tsp sugar and 4 tbs red wine vinegar, for a caponate effect, which was perfect.

• Green beans and artichoke hearts in lemon-caper sauce: I had frozen bags of the vegetables, so cooked them separately; I started out thinking two separate sauces, with lemon-caper for the artichokes, then decided to combine them. I zested a lemon, added half a preserved lemon peel, and juiced the lemon, into butter with capers, then folded the vegetables in. I also chopped up half a package of prosciutto (since I usually use some kind of pork with green beans).

• Chocolate cake with maple-black walnut frosting: I did the "all-in-the-pan" recipe, but experimented by adding 1 tbs espresso powder to the water; cake came out a bit on the dry side, and not noticeably tastier, so I'd say the experiment failed. I used some leftover cream cheese in place of butter for the icing, and topped with black walnuts, and served with vanilla ice cream.

No picture of the dinner plate. Maybe when I heat up leftovers?

We still have a lot of stuff in the freezer (especially seafood, but also a duck, liver, sweetbreads, and ground venison and boar). Some frozen veggies, but probably not much. Lot of stuff in the pantry I haven't been using either, especially noodles and pulses.

Music Week

Expanded blog post, September archive (in progress).

Tweet: Music Week: 37 albums, 8 A-list

Music: Current count 42976 [42939] rated (+37), 23 [38] unrated (-5).

New records reviewed this week:

• Gino Amato: Latin Crsossroads (2024, Ovation): [cd]: B+(*)
• Laurie Anderson: Amelia (2024, Nonesuch): [sp]: A-
• Eric Bibb: Live at the Scala Theatre Stockholm (2024, Repute): [sp]: B+(**)
• Peter Case: Doctor Moan (2023, Sunset Blvd.): [sp]: B
• Dawn Clement/Steve Kovalcheck/Jon Hamar: Dawn Clement/Steve Kovalcheck/Jon Hamar Trio (2021 [2024], self-released): [cd]: B+(*)
• Coco & Clair Clair: Girl (2024, Nice Girl World, EP): [sp]: A-
• Buck Curran: One Evening and Other Folks Songs (2021-22 [2024], Obsolete/ESP-Disk): [cd]: B+(*)
• Zaccai Curtis: Cubop Lives! (2024, Truth Revolution Recording Collective): [sp]: B+(**)
• The Vinny Golia Quintet 2024: Almasty (2024, Nine Winds): [bc]: B+(**)
• Hot Club of San Francisco: Original Gadjo (2024, Hot Club): [cd]: B+(**)
• Ill Considered: Infrared (2024, New Soil): [sp]: B+(**)
• Ive: Ive Switch (2024, Starship Entertainment, EP): [sp]: A-
• Julie: My Anti-Aircraft Friend (2024, Atlantic): [sp]: B+(*)
• MJ Lenderman: Manning Fireworks (2024, Anti-): [sp]: B+(***)
• LL Cool J: The FORCE (2024, Def Jam): [sp]: A-
• Delfeayo Marsalis Uptown Jazz Orchestra: Crescent City Jewels (2023-24 [2024], Troubadour Jass): [cd]: A-
• Chad McCullough: In These Hills, Beyond (2023 [2024], Calligram): [cd]: B+(***)
• Kate Nash: 9 Sad Symphonies (2024, Kill Rock Stars): [sp]: A
• Amy Rigby: Hang in There With Me (2024, Tapete): [sp]: A-
• Jeff Rupert: It Gets Better (2021 [2024], Rupe Media): [cd]: B+(***)
• Otis Sandsjö: Y-Otis Tre (2021-23 [2024], We Jazz): [sp]: B
• Claudio Scolari Project: Intermission (2023 [2024], Principal): [cd]: B+(***)
• Kenny Wayne Shepherd Band: Dirt on My Diamonds: Volume 1 (2023, Provogue): [sp]: B
• Nala Sinephro: Endlessness (2024, Warp): [sp]: B+(***)
• Chris Smither: All About the Bones (2024, Signature Sounds): [sp]: A-
• Superposition: II (2024, We Jazz): [sp]: B+(**)
• Verraco: Breathe . . . Godspeed (2024, Timedance, EP): [sp]: B+(***)
• Morgan Wade: Obsessed (2024, Ladylike/RCA Nashville): [sp]: A-
• Gillian Welch/David Rawlings: Woodland (2024, Acony): [sp]: B+(***)

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

• Alan Tomlinson Trio: Loft 1993 (1993 [2024], Scatter Archive): [bc]: B+(**)
• Unholy Modal Rounders: Unholier Than Thou 7/7/77 (1977 [2024], Don Giovanni, 2CD): [sp]: A

Old music:

• Ahmad Jamal: Ahmad's Blues (1958 [1994], Chess): [sp]: B+(***)

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

• Benjamin Boone: Confluence: The Ireland Sessions (Origin) [09-20]
• Delia Fischer: Beyond Bossa (Origin) [09-20]
• Rich Halley 4: Dusk and Dawn (Pine Eagle) [10-25]

Speaking of Which

Blog link.

File opened 2024-09-11 01:27 PM. Didn't make the Sunday deadline, so posting is delayed until Monday.

Opened this file on September 11, 1:27 PM, with the big debate looming that evening. As I'm writing this Sunday evening, that start seems like ages ago. Little chance I'll make my rounds before nodding off tonight. I could see posting or of not, where the main reason for posting is to move earlier into doing endlessly delayed non-blog work.

Indeed, late Sunday night I decided to pack it in without posting. I don't expect I'll need to add much on Monday. And in general, I won't be circling back to publications I checked on Sunday, or reporting news that only broke on Monday.

Finally posted this late Monday night. I ran into a lot of pieces on Monday that added a lot of extra writing, in many cases including regrets that I didn't have time to write even more. Even with the extra day, I didn't make all the usual rounds. I also found myself needing to search for further articles on specific topics, which may wind up being a better way to go about doing this. I also hit a bunch of paywalls. That's a horrible way to run a democracy, but that's a rant for another day.

For what it's worth, this week, on initial post, has the most words (15635) and the third most links (288, behind 317 and 290) of any week since I embedded the counting software.

I was struck by the following passage from Annie Proulx's Fen, Bog & Swamp: A Short History of Peatland Destruction and Its Role in the Climate Crisis, where talking about the bogs in Germany she brings up some old Roman history. The significance here is about how arrogant empires seed their own destruction (p. 120):

Rome's first emperor, Caesar Augustus, was seventy-two years old and near the end of his rule when the legions suffered their catastrophic defeat on the edge of the Great Bog. Germania's population was rural, made up of farmer-warriors and their families living in small settlements at the time of the battle. There were no real towns, and private ownership of land had been unknown among the eastern barbarians fifty years earlier when Caesar conquered Gaul. In general, where colonial- and imperial-minded aggressors make their moves into new territories and encounter indigenous people, often very numerous and "complex, multi-lingual, culturally diverse," as the two groups gradually mix and confront each other, tribal identities begin to take shape and individual "tribal leaders" are named. For the aggressor, this bundling is the opening process of controlling the indigenous people who, up to that time, may not have seen themselves as distinct tribes. Suddenly, they are corralled by identity to a specific area.

The Roman system of conquest was to grant conquered people Roman citizenship and involve them in Roman customs and culture. What Rome got from its aggressive takeovers encircling the Mediterranean Sea was an increase of manpower to serve in the army, slaves and money from taxation of its new colonies.

The Roman legions were augmented by auxiliaries of men from conquered lands. Yet many of the vanquished hated the Romans, their martial ways, their enslavements, their self-proclaimed superiority, their heavy taxes and their strutting presence as overseers and governors in seized territories. At the same time the conquered population wanted to be joined to the powerful, to visit glittering Rome whence all roads led.

The next couple pages go into specifics about the battle, where over 13,000 Roman troops were slaughtered at a loss of 500 Germans. I had long been under the impression that the Roman Empire expanded steadily up to its maximum under Hadrian (117-138 CE; Wikipedia has maps from 117 and 125), but I've since learned that history is messier. I first heard about the German bog debacle after the Bush invasion of Iraq, when I noted:

Of course, this will take a while to play out, but the logic of self-destruction is clear. A while back Martin van Creveld compared the Bush invasion of Iraq to the disastrous Roman invasion of Germany in 9 BCE when Augustus marched his legions into a swamp, losing them all.

By the time I wrote that, I had already noted a comparable Roman military disaster, when in 53 BCE Crassus led "across the Euphrates" into Iraq, where the desert proved as debilitating as the German bog -- although in both cases the real culprit was the Roman ego. Back then I was thinking more about the hubris of the invaders, but one could just well focus on the inevitability and resilience of resistance.

A short while later, I read this, from Timothy Egan, Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher: The Epic Life and Immortal Photographs of Edward Curtis (2011, pp. 16-17):

What Curtis knew of Indians was informed, in large part, by depictions of dead natives he had seen in a book as a child. More than a thousand Eastern Sioux had been rounded up following an 1862 raid on settlers in Minnesota. The carnage was widespread in villages and farms in the southwest part of the state; by one estimate, eight hundred whites were killed in what became known as the Sioux Uprising. The Sioux had been roused to violence by repeated violations of their treaty, and by the mendacity of corrupt government agents who refused to make the required payments from the pact. In defeat, after the uprising, the Indians were sentenced to death. At the same time, many in Congress demanded that all Indians be wiped from the map, echoing the view of their constituents after the Sioux had caused so many casualties. President Lincoln commuted the sentences of most of the insurgents. But the death penalty remained for more than three dozen of them. On December 16, 1862, they were all hanged, the largest mass execution in American history. Curtis had studied an engraving of the lifeless Sioux in Mankato, Minnesota. Necks snapped, faces cold -- it haunted him. "All through life I have carried a vivid picture of that great scaffold with thirty-nine Indians hanging at the end of a rope," he wrote.

Top story threads:

Israel:

• [09-13] Frequently asked questions, answers, and documentation on Gaza: I just found this reference piece, and it looks quite informative.

• Mondoweiss:

  • [09-09] Day 339: Israel winds down West Bank operation, continues blockade: "Palestinians in Nablus held a funeral procession for a Turkish-American activist killed by Israeli forces in Beita. Meanwhile, Israel continued to close its borders with Jordan for the second day in a row following a shooting at Allenby bridge."

  • [09-12] Day 341: Israel bombs two displacement shelters in Gaza, kills 11 Palestinians in West Bank: "The UN Secretary-General condemned Israel's massacre of dozens of Palestinians in Nuseirat after six UNRWA workers were among the slain. Meanwhile, Israeli forces killed 11 Palestinians in the West Bank within two days."

  • [09-16] Day 345: Israel threatens Lebanon again: "Israeli settler violence continues to terrorize Palestinians in the Jordan Valley as the U.S. envoy arrives in the region to deescalate tensions along Lebanon's southern border."

• Hamadan Ballal Al-Huraini: [09-09] After expulsion by settlers, Palestinians embrace precarious return to Zanuta.

• Ramzy Baroud: [09-13] Cartography of genocide: why Netanyahu erased Palestine from the map.

• Qassam Muaddi: [09-11] 'Everything around me was getting torn apart': Israel commits another massacre in Gaza 'safe zone': "Israel committed another massacre in an area it has designated as a 'safe zone.' The airstrikes buried entire families in the sand."

• Fathi Nemer: [09-12] Palestinians in the West Bank are completely unprepared for the coming genocide. But nobody's ever prepared for genocide. And the suggestions here, like "building self-reliance and reclaiming food sovereignty" are impossible under occupation.

• Oren Ziv: [09-10] 'She came her out of love': Palestinians, allies honor activist slain by Israeli army: "Eyewitnesses recount the killing of Turkish-American Aysenur Ezgi Eygi at a protest in Beita, decrying Israel's efforts to scare off international activists."

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

• Ruwaida Kamal Amer/Mahmoud Mushtaha: [09-12] 'People torn to pieces' in Israeli airstrike on Gaza displacement camp: "Israeli bombs set tents ablaze and left deep craters in the earth as the army attacked Al-Mawasi, a designated 'safe zone,' for the fifth time."

• Michael Arria:

  • [09-12] The Shift: Debate shows both candidates are in full agreement when it comes to Palestine: "Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's first, and possibly only, presidential debate showed there is no distance between the two when it comes to Palestine." The author isn't looking very closely, and he isn't considering what to him are side issues, but which reveal major differences, so profound they should have bearing on how each candidate will deal with events. But the debate does provide a view of what each candidate thinks they can safely say, and of whom they feel the need to confirm and appease. The movement to oppose Israel's genocide has made many people aware and uneasy, but that has yet to move the Democrats who depend on donors for their livelihood.

  • [09-11] Following criticism for repeating Israeli claims, Biden now says he's 'outraged' over killing of US citizen: "Joe Biden released a new statement condemning the killing of Aysenur Eygi the day after repeating an Israeli claim that she was killed accidentally by a bullet that had 'ricocheted off the ground.'"

  • [09-10] The Shift: No surprises in Harris's foreign policy agenda: "Kamala Harris has finally added a policy section to her website. It predictably takes a hawkish stand on Iran and expresses a strong commitment to Israel."

  • [09-10] Sanders says he'll introduce resolution to block $20 billion arms sale to Israel as support for arms embargo grows

  • [09-13] Man reportedly lit himself on fire outside Boston's Israeli consulate to protest Gaza genocide: "A man in Boston reportedly lit himself on fire outside the Israeli consulate in Boston on September 11, making him the third person in the U.S. to self-immolate outside an Israeli consulate since the Gaza genocide began nearly one year ago."

• James Bamford: [09-13] Israel's crackdown on the West Bank has already killed an American citizen: Aysenur Ezgi.

• Rachel Chason/Jennifer Hassan/Alon Rom/Niha Masih/Kareen Fahim: [09-15] Houthis fire missile from Yemen into central Israel, warn of more strikes: "Israeli forces said the missile Sunday did not cause any direct injuries, but Netanyahu threatens, 'we exact a heavy price for any attempt to harm us.'"

• Ellen Ioanes: [09-11] How Israel keeps evading responsibility for killing Americans.

• Fred Kaplan: [09-11] The key reason why we're not close to a cease-fire: That's an easy one -- "Netanyahu refuses" -- but one should note that Biden doesn't dare make his refusal the least bit awkward, even though that simply reinforces the ideas that he is helpless as a leader and/or he actually endorses as well as facilitates genocide. Previous American presidents have generally been able to prevail on Israeli leaders to make some gestures toward accommodating American needs, even if they really didn't want to (withdrawing from Sinai in 1957) and/or doublecrossed the Americans later (basically, every time since). Also, what the hell is this?

  Both sides' positions are reasonable, given their interests. Hamas fears that without a permanent cease-fire and total withdrawal, Israel will inflict utter devastation on all of its positions (and suspected positions) after the last hostage is released. And Israel fears that Hamas will attempt another Oct. 7 if the group isn't first destroyed as a political and military power.

  I mean, the Hamas position sounds reasonable, because that's exactly what Israel is doing, and without a permanent ceasefire has vowed to continue doing until the last Hamas fighter is dead, even if they have to kill every other Palestinian to get to him. But Israel has no grounds for any such "reasonable fear." Another "Oct. 7," if indeed any such thing is possible, will only happen if Israel recreates the same (or worse) conditions. There are many ways to prevent further eruptions from Hamas. Killing every Palestinian is the worst possible option.

• Joshua Keating: [09-13] Can the world stop a massive oil spill in the middle of a war zone? "If the race to stop a spill in the Red Sea fails, it would be one of the worst in history."

• Branko Marcetic: [09-13] The US government is a partner to Israel killing US citizens.

• Mitchell Plitnick: [09-12] Israel's lie about a US activist's murder has exposed the Biden-Harris double standard on Palestine: "Israel's lie over the murder of U.S. activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi has been exposed, and in the process, so has Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's double standard on the worth of Palestinian lives."

• Josephine Riesman/SI Rosenbaum: [09-10] Kamala is sending a subtle message on Israel. Is anyone listening? What she said in the debate was almost literally what she said in her DNC acceptance speech. "Subtle" is one word for it, if you assume that she's being completely honest, and has every intention of filling out every little detail. Or, less generously, you could say she's being cynical and deceptive. As I pointed out a while back, her "subtle" message would be more effective if she reversed the order of terms, and first bemoaned the massive destruction and loss of life before touting her deep commitment to a secure Israel. At this point, when most people hear "Israel's right to defend itself" they automatically translate it to a license to commit mass murder, because that is exactly what Israel has done every time they've uttered those magic words.

  The authors make their case at great length. I'm not completely dismissive, but I'm far from convinced. I do have some feeling for the pressure she is under, and of the stakes should she fail. I'm personally willing to let this play out through November, after which she will either have much more leverage, or will be totally irrelevant. Partly for that reason, I've moved this discussion away from the sections on Debate and Harris. But another part of that reason is that I feel her critics for failing to come out more clearly in favor of ceasefire and conflict resolution have every cause to speak their piece. And even to vote against her if they feel the need, although I think that would be a mistake, especially as an attempt to move your fellow Americans to be more critical and independent of Israel.

  Here's part of the piece:

  If you're trying to determine Harris' position on Israel from the mainstream news media coverage of it, you're likely confused.

  Headlines point in all directions, from "Harris' Support for Israel 'Ironclad' After Attack on Golan Heights" to "Harris Team 'Expressed Openness to a New Direction' on Israel Policy." One article claims there are "Democrats Working Inside the Party to Persuade Kamala Harris to Stop Weapons for Israel," while another dishes: "Harris Steps Out on Israel." But many explainers wind up throwing their hands in the air, like the Forward did: "Kamala Harris Wants to Support Israel, and Palestinians. It Will Be Even Harder Than It Seems." Indeed.

  But taken together, Harris' statements and movements around Israeli policy -- throughout her career but especially in recent months, after the candidacy was bestowed on her -- do add up to something.

• Ali Rizk: [09-12] Is Gaza war feeding ISIS resurgence in Middle East? "As resources are drawn to Israel-Lebanon region, US troops are fighting the terror group more than ever."

• Norman Solomon: [09-11] Undebatable: what Harris and Trump could not say about Israel and Gaza: Starts with "Kamala Harris won the debate. People being bombed in Gaza did not." Ends with: "Silence is a blanket that smothers genuine democratic discourse and the outcries of moral voices. Making those voices inaudible is a key goal for the functioning of the warfare state."

• Jeffrey St Clair: [09-13] Murder in Beita: the IDF's killing of Aysenur Eygi.

• Jonah Valdez: Most Americans want to stop arming Israel. Politicians don't care.

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Gideon Lewis-Kraus: [09-08] The angst and sorrow of Jewish Currents: "A little magazine wants to criticize Israel while holding on to Jewishness."

• Ben Lorber: [09-05] The right is increasingly exploiting the horror of genocide: "Right-wing operatives are channeling the genocide in Gaza into mainstream antisemitism." A report from the fifth annual National Conservatism (NatCon) conference ("the cutting edge of the Trumpian Right"). I'm not making a lot of sense out of this. Traditional right-wing antisemites, including some NatCon grandees, have more often been staunch supporters of Israel: Zionism both flatters their prejudices and offers them hope for their own societies becoming Judenrein. However, we're not dealing with especially clear-headed thinkers here, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise when they start confusing their complaints. Anyone who sees the atrocities Israel is committing and conflates them with all Jews (or even all Israeli Jews) is a fool -- and note that the most flagrant offenders here are the propagandists who try to equate any criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It's inevitable that people who don't know any better will take this hint and run with it, which seems to be Lorber's subject here.

  I hadn't run across Lorber before, but he has a book (co-written by Shane Burley), Safety through Solidarity: A Radical Guide to Fighting Antisemitism, and some older articles:

  • [2023-12-14] How colleges became recruitment hubs for the Gen-Z right: "Right-wing Zoomers are outflanking their MAGA elders in enthusiastic embrace of radically anti-democratic, exclusionary and bigoted beliefs."

  • [2023-11-21] The ADL is making it less safe to be a progressive Jew: "In our topsy-turvy reality, the organization most associated with fighting antisemitism, the Anti-Defamation League, has cast its lot with antisemites." I found a couple more pieces from 2016, which may still be useful as background, but also found this, where the old date just adds to its current value:

  • Mindy Isser: [2023-10-25] The growing Jewish resistance to Israel's war on Palestine: "Jewish socialists and progressives in the US are organizing to say 'never again' means never again for anyone." Isser's "more articles" are mostly about labor issues.

• Craig Mokhiber: [09-10] No, Israel does not have a right to defend itself in Gaza. But the Palestinians do. "Basic morality and simple logic dictate that the right of self-defense belongs to the Palestinian people, not to their oppressor. And international law agrees." True that international law does recognize some right to self-defense, but it is not a moral principle, and I am suspicious of whatever logic you might think supports it. Although law often reinforces what we take to be moral, it has to deal not just with what people should do, but with real people in complex situations who do things that do not always conform with morality. One thing that people often do, whether by nature or culture, regardless of law, is attempt to defend themselves. Self-defense is used to describe a wide range of acts, from shielding your face from blows to throwing punches of your own. Modern weapons magnify and accelerate both threats and damage. Some are so powerful that they can harm bystanders, who never were threats, so never needed to be defended against. What law has to do is to decide whether self-defense is understandable and/or excusable, or should be condemned and possibly punished. To say self-defense is a right is to assert that acts which otherwise would be considered criminal should be not just tolerated but taken as exemplary, as precedents to encourage others to even greater violence.

  But in this specific case, to the extent that one allows such a right, why shouldn't Palestinians enjoy it same as Israelis? If you only allow Israel a right to self-defense, and allow it so broadly, you're really just saying that you think Palestinians are sub-human, that they don't count or matter, and might as well be slaughtered indiscriminately. As the last year has proven, that's no hypothetical. That's what Israel is doing, and anyone who thinks they have a "right" to do so is simply aiding and abetting genocide.

• James Ray: [09-13] Electoral politics are not the way forward for the Palestine movement: "The question of how Palestine activists should engage in electoral politics has split the movement, but the 2024 election season should clarify why they are not an effective strategy for building power." I'll endorse the title, but the article itself leans way to heavy on "the Palestine movement," which I have some sympathy for but little faith or interest in. Electoral politics are set for the year, with nothing but the voting left to do. While there are important issues and major differences in candidates yet to be decided, lots of issues aren't on the ballot, including America's support for Israel's genocide against Palestinians -- which is how I prefer framing the issue, as it seems much broader (of interest to many more people) and deeper (of greater importance) than the question of where and when one can fly Palestinian flags.

  The movement, of course, can and must continue, using any tactics that seem likely to move public and/or elite opinion -- anything that would put pressure on those in power to act to halt these atrocities and start the long process of healing. I can argue that those of you who are intensely concerned with this issue should spend your vote on Harris and the rest of the Democrats -- it's not much, but it's yours, and if you don't vote, even out of righteous spite, you're wasting your right to participate in even our bare minimum of democracy. Also, by spoiling your vote, you're not just being negligent but showing contempt for people who need your help on issues that really matter to them -- the same people you need most urgently for your issue.

  I could also argue that Harris is more cognizant of and amenable to further pressure on this issue. I'm not going to plead this case here: it's just a feeling, not supported by clear statements on her part, or by a track record which shows any great will on her part to withstand the enormous pressures the entire political systems puts on politicians like her to pledge allegiance to Israel. My own inclination is to not just vote for her but to give her a free pass through November, as I don't see any constructive value in further embarrassing her on this issue (or in encouraging her to embarrass herself by reiterating her blanket support for Israel). But I'm not saying that anyone active on this issue should stop talking about it, and I'm not going to be holding any grudges against others who can't help but include her among the many American political figures who are complicit in this genocide. For pretty much the same reason, I may think that people who self-identify as "pro-Palestinian" have a dubious grasp of political tactics, I bear them no ill-feeling, because they at least are committed to opposing Israel's hideous and shameful reign of terror. Until the atrocities are stopped, whatever thoughts they may have about Palestinian statehood are mere curiosities.

  By the way, don't give Trump the same free pass until the election. Feel free to point out how his presidency contributed to the conditions that elected Israel's ultra-right government, that cornered and prodded Hamas into their desperate Oct. 7 revolt, and that revealed so many Republicans as genocide's biggest cheerleaders. This is not just a matter of setting the historical record straight, but it directly counters the ridiculous notion that Trump is some kind of antiwar candidate.

• Ben Reiff: [09-11] Why did a British Jewish newspaper publish fake Israeli intelligence? "Israel's army suspects fabrications published in the Jewish Chronicle were part of a pro-Bibi influence campaign, while the article's author is not as he claims."

• Stephen Semler: [09-12] Is Israel intentionally attacking aid workers? "We've compiled 14 incidents where humanitarians were attacked despite giving the IDF their coordinates and being clearly identified as civilians."

The Harris-Trump debate:

• Vox [Andrew Prokop/Nicole Narea/Christian Paz]: [09-10] 3 winners and 2 losers from the Harris-Trump debate: The winners were: Kamala Harris, ABC News's debate moderators (David Muri and Linsey Davis), and Swifties for Kamala; the losers: Donald Trump, and Immigration. Once again, the Vox writer were out in force:

  • Ellen Ioanes: [09-10] Kamala Harris's and Donald Trump's wildly different tax plans, explained.

  • Joshua Keating: [09-11] Biden and Harris say America's no longer at war. Is that true? "Harris says US troops aren't fighting in any 'war zones.' What about Iraq, Syria, and the Red Sea?" Within the context of the debate, Harris had a point, which was useful in countering Trump's lie:

    Beyond the legal hair-splitting, Harris made the comment in the context of a defense of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, and it is true that under Biden, the US military posture overseas has significantly shrunk from what it was under the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.

    (Trump has falsely claimed in the past that his presidency was the first in 72 years that "didn't have any wars," despite the fact that he oversaw four years of combat in Afghanistan as well as major military escalations in Iraq, Syria, and Somalia. At least 65 US troops died in hostile action under Trump's presidency.)

    That number under Trump was significantly less than under Obama, which in turn was less than under Bush. A comparable Biden number is probably less than Trump's, but not much less.

  • Eric Levitz: [09-11] Donald Trump lost the debate because he's too online: "The GOP nominee spoke to swing voters as though they were his Truth Social followers." Also note the section head: "For swing voters, many of Trump's ravings sounded like a summary of the sixth season of a show they'd never watched."

• Intelligencer:

  • Intelligencer staff:

    • [09-11] The debate reviews say Trump lost, Harris won: how it happened. Live blogging, some of which developed into full articles.

    • [09-13] Trump's post-debate presser was all attacks and grievances: how it happened.

  • Jonathan Chait:

    • [09-10] Kamala Harris baited Donald Trump into a debate meltdown.

    • [09-11] How JD Vance and the online right sabotaged Trump at the debate.

    • [09-12] Is the entire world conspiring to make it look like Trump lost the debate? "An intriguing theory by Matt Taibbi." Taibbi's piece is here -- DNC talking points become instant post-debate headlines -- not that you can read it without a paid subscription, which the excerpt and report doesn't inspire. By the way, I still remember Taibbi's Spanking the Donkey: Dispatches From the Dumb Season (2005) as one of the best campaign journals ever. He was especially good at showing how working journalists played into conventional tropes fed them by campaign flacks, willingly due to the vacuousness of their own jobs. It's likely that something like that is still in the cards here, but if your blind spot is big enough to exclude critical scrutiny of Trump, you're not going to be able to see very much.

  • Gabriel Debenedetti: [09-11] How Kamala scrambled Trump's brain: "The plan worked even better than she seemed to imagine."

  • Margaret Hartmann: [09-10] 'They're eating the dogs!' Trump touts pet-eating hoax at debate.

  • Ed Kilgore: [09-10] Debate shows Trump losing his war with reality: "But he reached new vistas of delusion during his debate with Kamala Harris, to the point where it was unclear whether he was debating the vice-president or debating reality."

• Emma Brockes: [09-11] Harris clearly beat Trump -- not that you'd know it from the right-wing media. Shame on them. "From the likes of Fox News has come a masterclass in post-debate pretzel logic. Surely the excuses must run out soon."

• Frank Bruni: [09-12] Kamala Harris is serious. Donald Trump is not.

• Margaret Carlson: [09-11] Harris shows how to dismantle a would-be dictator: "Humor, ridicule, gut punches, and that look of puzzlement and contempt were just some of the tools the vice president used to take down Trump."

• Nandika Chatterjee: [09-12] Fox News host triggers Donald Trump by saying "he decisively lost" the debate with Kamala Harris: "Fox Business anchor Neil Cavuto said the debate wasn't close."

• John Ganz: [09-11] Cats and dogs: "I can't believe I watched the whole thing!"

  Trump still has considerable powers of self-expression, which are often underrated by liberals, but they should not be overrated either. He has a very limited vocabulary and it constrains the extent to which he can articulate responses on any issue. So, he falls back into hyperbole -- everything is the worst, the best, the greatest. This can be effective, but often last night it sounded repetitive and, yes, kind of dull. If the American simply people tire of his antics, it will really be over for him. Harris's message of "let's turn the page" is a good one because it presents Trump as tiresome as much as fearsome.

• Richard A Friedman: [09-12] Trump's repetitive speech is a bad sign: "If the debate was a cognitive test, the former president failed."

• Susan B Glasser: [09-11] Donald Trump had a really, really bad debate.

• Shane Goldmacher/Katie Rogers: [09-11] Harris dominates as Trump gets defensive: 6 takeaways from the debate: "Layout out bait that Donald Trump eagerly snatched, the vice president owned much of the night, keeping him on the back foot and avoiding sustained attention on her own vulnerabilities." As Rick Perlstein tweeted: "In a strictly intellectual sense, I'm very excited to see how the New York Times solves the linguistic puzzle of making that sound like a tie. It will require a Fermat's Last Theorum-level of ingenuity." Perlstein later linked to a NYT app article headline ("Fierce Exchanges Over Country's Future Dominate Debate") that satisfied his expectations, but when I searched for that headline, I found this article instead. Perhaps sensing that such precise (albeit vague) balance wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, they conceded the debate to Harris, while playing up whatever they could for Trump. The six takeaways:

  1. Harris set traps. Trump leaped into them.
  2. Trump played defense on his record.
  3. Harris seized the advantage on abortion.
  4. Trump didn't hide his disdain of Harris.
  5. Harris missed some opportunities.
  6. Trump missed Biden.

• Nardos Haile: [09-10] "I went to the Wharton School of Finance": Harris getting Trump flustered makes for great TV.

• Thom Hartmann: [09-13] Inside Trump's 'peace candidate' debate scam. This is an important subject -- one I wish he did a better job of handling. Trump should have zero credibility as a "peace candidate," well below Biden/Harris, even though they've set the bar pretty low. They at least have a modicum of empathy for the costs of war. As such, they can see some reason to stay clear of war, or to clean up the wars they've been given (e.g., Afghanistan). What Hartmann is pretty good at is pointing out "our media failures":

  Thus, Trump and the entire GOP are now furiously trying to rewrite their party's history of using unnecessary wars to get re-elected. And, according to opinion polls, it's working because America's corporate media pretty much refuses to point out Republican perfidy in any regard.

  Consider these indictments of our media failures. Polls show:

  • 52% trust Trump more compared to 37% for Harris on inflation (even though America has the lowest inflation rate in the developed world because of Biden's policies)
  • 51% trust Trump vs. 43% for Harris on handling the economy (even though Biden's economy beats Trump's by every metric, even pre-Covid)
  • 54% trust Trump more on border security compared to 36% for Harris (even though border crossings are at historically low levels now, lower than any time during Trump's non-Covid presidency)
  • 53% trust Trump vs. 40% for Harris on immigration (even though Trump wants to build concentration camps, go door-to-door arresting Hispanics, and again tear children from their mother's arms)
  • 51% trust Trump vs. 41% for Harris to stand up to China, even though Trump got millions in bribes from them for his daughter
  • And on crime and public safety, 48% trust Trump versus 42% for Harris, even though crime levels today are lower than any time during Trump's presidency

  None of these numbers would be where they are if our news organizations had accurately reported the facts.

• Jeet Heer: [09-11] With her rope-a-dope strategy, Kamala Harris baited Trump into scaring swing voters: "Last night's debate will help give Democrats an edge. But strengthening the base remains crucial."

• Fred Kaplan: [09-11] Harris exposed how easy Trump is to manipulate. Dictators have known this for a long time. Easy to manipulate, for sure, but when it comes to manipulation, you need proximity, which only his staff really has, and they've generally been able to cancel out any idea foreign dictators may have planted. While Trump threatens to break the mold on US foreign policy, in his first term, he was hamstrung by orthodox blob operatives, leaving him with nothing but a few ridiculous photo ops. A second term could be better or worse, but given how consistent (and wrong-headed) US foreign policy has been across both partisan administrations, he'll probably just make the same mistakes over and over again. It's not like he actually knows any better.

• Ezra Klein: [09-11] Harris had a theory of Trump, and it was right: "The vice president successfully baited Trump's angry, conspiratorial, free-associating side. But what wasn't said was just as telling."

• Robert Kuttner: [09-11] Notes for next time: "Kamala Harris did well in the debate but missed some opportunities to remind voters of Trump's sheer craziness."

• Dahlia Lithwick:

  • [09-11] The most satisfying moment of the Harris-Trump debate.

  • [09-11] Kamala Harris' face on Tuesday was the stuff of legend.

• Amanda Marcotte: [09-11] "The same old, tired playbook": Harris baits an aging Trump into being his grumpiest, weirdest self: "Even with the muted microphones, there is no 'sane-washing' Trump during the debate." There's also an interview of Marcotte by Alex Henderson.

• Melanie McFarland: [09-11] "She whupped him": Kamala Harris won the debate by turning a potential disaster into a laugh-in.

• Mary McNamara: [09-12] How Kamala Harris de-normalized Trump is less than 2 hours.

• Harold Meyerson: [09-11] Normal meets weird: "And normal wins by a knockout in Tuesday's Harris-Trump debate."

• John Nichols: [09-11] Kamala Harris won the debate about the future of American democracy: "Harris exposed Donald Trump as a clear and present danger, framing a stark choice and inviting voters to 'turn the page.'"

• Andrew O'Hehir: [09-12] Trump's self-destruction was epic -- but this is America, so it might not be enough.

• Molly Olmstead:

  • [09-11] Everyone knew Donald Trump would say wild things at the debate. Not quite like this.

  • [09-10] God, these people have no shame: That's the title in the index. After the jump, the page title is: "Yes, they're really claiming immigrants eat cats and geese now. You can guess why: A racist GOP scare tactic has taken over the internet."

• Bernie Sanders: [09-12] Kamala Harris was great in the debate. Will that be enough to win?

• Bill Scher: [09-11] Kamala Harris is good at this: "The vice president laid out her plans for the future while Donald Trump was caught in a tangle of grievances about the past."

• Adam Serwer: [09-14] The real 'DEI' candidates: Kamala Harris's evisceration of Donald Trump at the debate revealed who in this race is actually unqualified for power."

• Rebecca Solnit: [09-11] Kamala Harris, unlike Donald Trump, was well prepared for this debate -- and won: "Harris spoke in lucid paragraphs, but Trump spouted lurid, loopy stuff."

• Margaret Sullivan: [09-11] ABC's debate moderators did what some said was impossible: factcheck Trump.

• Charles Sykes: [09-11] Trump blames everybody but himself: Talk about infinitely recyclable headlines! "He can't face the truth about his performance at the debate."

• Robert Tait: [09-11] Republicans dismayed by Trump's 'bad' and 'unprepared' debate performance: "GOP lawmakers and analysts virtually unanimous that Trump was second best to Harris in first presidential debate."

• William Vaillancourt: [09-12] Longtime GOP pollster Frank Luntz says Trump's campaign is over after bad debate.

• John Zogby: [09-14] The polling is in and Harris won the debate. But Democrats shouldn't get cocky.

• Steve M: [09-11] How the right-wing mediasphere -- and Trump's fragile ego -- set him up for failure last night. This elaborates on a theme that I've been noticing for years, which is that Trump is merely a receptacle for right-wing propaganda. Right-wingers have cynically formulated their propaganda to trigger incoherent emotions in their listeners -- a technique often dubbed "dog-whistling." To carry the analogy a bit farther, Trump isn't a whistler; Trump's just one of the dogs. What makes him the MAGA leader is his money, his ego, his ability to capture the media's attention. But as a thinker, as a speaker, as an organizer, he's strictly derivative, a second-rate hack picking up and repeating whatever he's been told. M explains:

  Trump has always been cultural conservative -- a racist, a fan of "law and order," an admirer of strongmen and authoritarians -- but years of binge-watching Fox News have made his opinions and prejudices worse. Now he has a set of opinions -- on renewable energy vs. fossil fuels, on immigration, and so on -- that are made up of talking points from the right-wing informationsphere. When he says that windmill noise causes cancer, he's repeating an idea spread by pseudo-scientists funded by the fossil fuel industry.

  But that's how his mind works -- his ego is so fragile that he can't bear to be wrong, so he clings desperately to any assertion that reinforces his notion that he's right. Windmills kill birds! Solar energy is useless when it's cloudy! Of course, the right-wing infosphere is a machine designed to reassure all of its consumers that their prejudices and resentments are right. . . .

  But in recent years, as Fox News has begun losing its primacy on the right while the Internet has increasingly been the main source for what rank-and-file right-wingers believe, fringe ideas have become more mainstream: Barack Obama birtherism, the allegedly stolen election in 2020, QAnon's notion of a vast elitist pedophile ring that somehow excludes all Republicans.

  And now we have the cats.

  When even J.D. Vance was spreading scurrilous stories about Haitian immigrants eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, I was surprised -- not because right-wingers are spreading hateful and dangerous blood libels about immigrants (that happens all the time), but because Republicans weren't confining the spread of this preposterous and easily disproved story to the fringier parts of their infosphere. They were going mainstream with this.

  But of course they were. In 2024, it's hard to restrict a story like this to the fringe. Naturally, Elon Musk promoted it, as did many online influencers and Trumpist members of Congress.

  Trump hates immigrants, so of course he seized on this story and talked about in the debate. Trump's confirmation bias is tied to his delicate ego, which always needs to say, See? I was right. A few years ago, he might not have even noticed this story. But the tiers in the right-wing mediasphere have collapsed, so the confirming messages Trump is exposed to are stupider. And he believes them. . . .

  Trump simply can't take in information that challenges his beliefs. His ego can't handle it. The right-wing infosphere flatters Trump the way dictators flatter Trump: by telling him what he wants to hear. That's the person Kamala Harris showed us last night, and that's why we can't allow him to win the presidency again.

• Taylor Swift endorses Harris: I wouldn't be surprised to find that her lawyers drafted the statement (released on Instagram) weeks ago, but its timing does two useful things: it shows due diligence, as she waited for a moment when it would appear she considered both options fair and square, and it provided a singuarly conspicuous verdict on the debate, thereby underscoring its importance.

  • Constance Grady: [09-11] Will Taylor Swift's Kamala Harris endorsement actually matter?

  • Margaret Hartmann:

    • [09-11] Taylor Swift, 'childless cat lady,' endorses Kamala Harris: Hartmann has been the one "tremendous content" writer doggedly following this story all along.

    • [09-11] Elon Musk's Taylor Swift response is worse than you think.

  • Amanda Marcotte: [09-12] Taylor Swift's "childless cat lady" endorsement of Kamala Harris exposes what MAGA men fear most.

  • Alex Galbraith: [09-15] "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT": Trump goes on Truth Social tirade against Harris supporters: "In a series of Sunday morning posts to Truth Social, Donald Trump rallied [sic] against Kamala Harris' rich supporters." Apologies for the Latin, but I think whoever titled this meant "railed." Trump's identity as a billionaire is so narcissistic that he takes any billionaire who doesn't bow to his class leadership an act of treason. This sense of entitlement is most common among those who inherited fortunes (like Trump, and certain Kochs and Mellons come quick to mind), as opposed to billionaires who can remember or imagine what life is like for the non-rich.

    Donald Trump told his supporters how he really feels about Kamala Harris' most-famous booster in a Sunday morning flurry of angry posts to his Truth Social platform.

    "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT," the former president wrote, as one part of a tirade against rich supporters of Harris' candidacy.

    "All rich, job creating people, that support Comrade Kamala Harris, you are STUPID," he wrote. "She is seeking an UNREALIZED TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS. If this tax actually gets enacted, it guarantees that we will have a 1929 style Depression. Perhaps even the thought of it would lead to calamity - But at least appraisers and accountants would do well!"

    Trump also said: "She's a very liberal person. She seems to always endorse a Democrat. And she'll probably pay a price for it in the marketplace."

  • Griffin Eckstein: [09-12] Trump campaign sells Taylor Swift-themed shirts after he denounced her Harris support.

Trump:

• Sasha Abramsky: [09-13] Trump is as gullible as he is a threat to democracy: "A decade into his political career, Donald J Trump is entirely at the mercy of his own BS."

• David Atkins: [09-12] Trump doesn't understand tariffs, but he knows enough to be menacing. Trump's fascination with tariffs seems to be based on the notion that he can impose them arbitrarily and with impunity, so they function as a massive ego stroke. On the other hand, his opponents are nearly as simple-minded and dogmatic as he is. As I've said before, tariffs only make sense as part of a strategy to build up domestic industries (i.e., if you are doing economic planning, which is something most American politicians have long denounced). It now occurs to me that there may be better ways to do that than tariffs.

  Facts cannot penetrate Trump's narrow, incurious, egotistical worldview. He believes that as the leader of the world's dominant economy, he can bully the rest of the world into submission. And like Hoover -- not coincidentally, the only other president to preside over a net loss of jobs in the United States -- he will make an easily avoidable mistake that costs everyone.

• Peter Baker: [09-09] As debate looms, Trump is now the one facing questions about age and capacity.

• Charles R Davis: [09-08] Trump, lying about migrants and crime, says mass deportations "will be a bloody story": "he claimed he would use police and soldiers to deport at least 12 million undocumented people."

• John Cassidy: [09-09] Donald Trump's new "voodoo economics": "The former president's tax plan would cost the government trillions of dollars. Tariffs and Elon Musk will pay for everything, he says."

• Chauncey DeVega: [09-12] The problem with pinning Donald Trump down: Americans' attention spans are too short: "The American people are not well. Sick societies produce sick leaders." Time to "elect a new people"? Wouldn't it be much simpler to just slam Trump with the truth day and night until everyone sees him as an embarrassment?

• Kevin T Dugan: [09-11] Trump's bad debate cost him nearly $500 million. The metric here is the value of Trump's Truth Social stock.

• Eugene R Fidell/Dennis Aftergut: [09-13] Trump's plan to undermine foreign policy: The authors argue that Trump promised to violate the Logan Act, a law which "makes it a felony for private citizens, including presidents-elect, to interfere in foreign policy." I doubt that anyone, least of all Trump himself, is going to take his statements that literally, but the sloppy thinking is typical. The innuendo, that he's just a Putin stooge, is more barbed, but its plausibility is also based on his sloppy thinking.

• Adam Freelander: [09-09] Exactly how Trump could ban abortion: "Whether the US bans it everywhere could be up to the next president."

• David A Graham:

  • [09-11] Trump again disgraces a sacred American space: "It takes a unique kind of vulgarity to bring a 9/11 'truther' to events marking the anniversary of the September 11 attacks."

  • [09-13] Trump's new big lie: "The goal is not to earnestly correct the record on crime but to spread an atmosphere of fear and paranoia."

  • [09-13] The cases against Trump: a guide: "Thirty-four felony convictions. Charges of fraud, election subversion, and obstruction. One place to keep track of the presidential candidate's legal troubles."

  • [09-16] Trump and Vance are harming the people they claim to care about.

• Elie Honig: [09-13] Jack Smith's reckless gamble: "The special counsel seems ready to bet the entire January 6 case against Trump on an improbable outcome."

• David R Lurie: [08-19] Trump's carny act isn't working anymore: "His Folgers Coffee Conference showed a candidate in decline." Compares his Aug. 15 "press conference," with tables of grocery items, props for his wild claims about inflation, with a similar branding event from his 2016 campaign, describing the latter:

  It was all pretty darn weird; but the press lapped it up and, for the remainder of the campaign, gave Trump all the airtime and attention he wanted for similar performances.

  The Trump Steaks Conference was to become the template for Trump's political strategy during the ensuing decade, a mélange of elaborate (and often patently false) self-promotion blended with equally false and correspondingly vicious attacks on whoever happens to be Trump's opponent du jour.

• Jason Stanley: [09-13] Donald Trump is openly running on a Great Replacement Theory campaign. If you're not familiar with GRT (especially as used by the American right), here's an index of articles.

• Margaret Sullivan: [09-07] The power of a single word about media malfeasance: "It's 'sanewashing' -- and it's what journalists keep doing for Trump." She credits various pieces by Parker Molloy, Michael Tomasky, Aaron Rupar, and Greg Sargent, quotes some, quotes a definition, and notes:

  Here, as an example, is a Politico news alert that summarizes a recent Trump speech: "Trump laid out a sweeping vision of lower taxes, higher tariffs and light-touch regulation in a speech to top Wall Streets execs today." As writer Thor Benson quipped on Twitter: "I hope the press is this nice to me if I ever do a speech where no one can tell if I just had a stroke or not."

  Trump has become more incoherent as he has aged, but you wouldn't know it from most of the press coverage, which treats his utterances as essentially logical policy statements -- a "sweeping vision," even.

  After the intense media focus on Joe Biden's age and mental acuity, you would think Trump's apparent decline would be a preoccupation. He is 78, after all, and often incoherent. But with rare exceptions, that hasn't happened. . . .

  But why does the media sanewash Trump? It's all a part of the false-equivalence I've been writing about here in which candidates are equalized as an ongoing gesture of performative fairness.

  And it's also, I believe, because of the restrained language of traditional objective journalism. That's often a good thing; it's part of being careful and cautious. But when it fails to present a truthful picture, that practice distorts reality.

  I was pointed here by a Paul Krugman reference. I figured it was worth noting separately, and for good measure, I searched for "sanewashing Trump" and found it's suddenly been adopted widely of late. Links follow -- I skipped "Trump has not been 'sane-washed'," because it's at Atlantic, and I didn't want to blow one of my few "free article" credits on something as transparently worthless. (Parker Molloy critiques the Paul Farhi piece below, so you can find the link there.)

  But let me make a couple preliminary points. The term has never been used pre-Trump, because no previous candidate has ever given us such copious evidence of dubious sanity. It's not that we've never seen neuroses or delusions before, but they've never seemed so disconnected from reality. Trump has three personal problems that are relevant here, and while none of these are unprecedented, his combination is pretty extreme. (1) He lies a lot, and not just about things we're used to other politicians lying about. (2) He has very little grasp of policy ideas, but even his conventional policy ideas -- the ones common to most Republicans, most of which he thoughtlessly picked up from Fox News -- are ill-considered and unworkable, so detached from reality even before he embroiders and imbues them with his personal twists. (3) He is old and mentally clumsy, as well as extremely vain and conceited, states that we perhaps too readily associate with dementia.

  While "sane-washing" is new and especially Trump-specific -- unless the term ever appeared in the Republican campaign to impugn "Biden's dementia" -- the media angle is much older, this a mere inflection on the more common term "white-washing," which occurs when reporters suppress, sanitize, and/or rationalize their reporting. This has been going on for ages, but few if any candidates have benefited more from an indulgent press than Trump, not least because few candidates have ever needed so much indulgence. Worse still, the process has been self-normalizing, so rather than gently nudging Trump back into normal discourse (as white-washed Trump), he figures he can push his boundaries even further, confident the media will excuse further excesses (or that he can denounce them as 'fake news").

  • Jon Allsop: [09-09] Is the press 'sanewashing' Trump?

  • Tom Boggioni: [09-14] Mary Trump bashes media outlets for 'sane-washing' Donald's 'delusional' rants.

  • David Corn: [09-10] The "sane-washing" of Donald Trump.

  • Carl Gibson: [09-13] Why the media's 'sanewashing' of Trump is uniquely dangerous.

  • Drew Goins: [09-13] How Fox News sane-washes Trump.

  • Josephine Harvey: [09-10] Lawrence O'Donnell spots New York Times 'confession' to 'sane-washing' Trump.

  • Bruce Maples: [09-10] If Donald Trump were your dad, you'd take away his car keys: "And the mainstream media is making the situation worse."

  • Parker Molloy:

    • [09-04] How the media sanitizes Trump's insanity: "The political press's efforts to rationalize Trump's incoherent statements are eroding our shared realilty and threatening informed democracy."

    • [09-13] Why The Atlantic's critique of sanewashing doesn't hold up: "Far from debunking the concept, The Atlantic's defense of media coverage inadvertently reinforces the dangers of sanitizing Trump's rhetoric." For more on The Atlantic, see Robinson, below.

  • Heather Digby Parton: [09-06] Donald Trump's incoheence makes the media's double standard hard to hide: "Donald Trump has the whole press corps acting as his ghostwriter, sanitizing his babble for the public."

  • Zachary Pleat: [09-12] Conservative economic commentators have been "sanewashing" Trump's incoherent tariff proposals.

  • Stephen Robinson: [09-10] Sanewashing and the damage done: "The press is helping Trump hide in plain sight." This is a pretty good piece, but inadvertently points out a major problem with reporting on Trump:

    A common defense of the media's Trump coverage is that it's almost impossible to detail every awful thing he says and does. But there's a consistent narrative through line with Trump: He's a criminal who'd use the power of the presidency to seek revenge on his enemies. That's not complicated, and his every action supports this thesis. The mainstream media simply chooses to ignore the obvious.

    But in reducing everything to a single defamatory statement, you lose the truth that it's really not that simple. Just calling him a criminal doesn't tell you much (and not just because the standard for him isn't "innocent until proven guilty" but "innocent until even his hand-picked Supreme Court can't take it any more"). And while, sure, he'd like "to use the power of the presidency to seek revenge on his enemies," the problem here is not what he would actually do but his attitude, that he's the sort of person who'd relish doing things like that. He's simply so far outside our normal perception frameworks that hardly anyone can talk about him precisely and accurately. We're always self-correcting, simply because we're incapable of processing that he's really as hideous as he quite obviously is. Journalists are the worst here, because their job is to report credible stories, and every day they have to sift through all of his bullshit and try to make him credible. Blame them if you must, but it's a fucking hopeless job.

  • Kathy Sheridan: [09-11] US media must stop 'sanewashing' Trump's deranged speeches: "Ignorant madness of presidential candidate's gibberish is being played down as news outlets make him sound sane and rational."

  • Rebecca Solnit: [09-12] 'Sanewashing' Trump's gibberish: Solnit interviewed by Alan Rusbridger & Lionel Barber.

  • David Swanson: [09-08] The making (and sanewashing) of Donald Trump.

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [09-09] Rustbelt poll: Majority say Trump more likely to avoid war: "Survey finds strong support for Gaza ceasefire; most believe today's foreign policy doesn't put America first." The poll was designed and run by Cato Institute.

• Elizabeth Warren: [09-14] What Donald Trump isn't telling us: Starts off with Trump's "concepts of a plan" for replacing Obamacare:

  Plans translate values into action. They test the quality of the ideas and the seriousness of the people advancing them. Plans reveal for whom candidates will fight and how effective they are likely to be. And in a presidential race, if either party's nominee is asked about his or her plans for something as fundamental as health care, voters should get a straight answer.

  The problem is not that Mr. Trump can't think up a way to put his values into action. The problem is that when he and other Republican leaders produce plans with actual details, they horrify the American people.

  Mr. Trump's health care values have been on full display for years. In 2017, Republicans controlled Congress, and their first major legislative undertaking was a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Every time they drafted something, independent experts would point out that their plan would toss tens of millions of people off their health insurance, jack up premium costs and slash benefits for those with ongoing health problems. . . .

  But at the debate, Mr. Trump displayed a new strategy. He seems to realize that his health-care plans are deeply unpopular, so he simply doesn't talk about them. Thus, after nine years of railing against the A.C.A. and trying mightily to repeal it, he has moved to "concepts of a plan," without a single detail that anyone can pin him down on.

  The new strategy might have worked -- except Mr. Trump's right-wing buddies have already laid out the plans. No need for concepts. Project 2025 has 920 pages translating Republican values into detailed action plans, including on health care: Repeal the A.C.A. Cut Medicare benefits. End $35 insulin. Stop Medicare drug price negotiations. Cut health-care access for poor families. Restrict contraceptive care. Jeopardize access to I.V.F. Ban medication abortion.

  As Project 2025's favorability plummets, Mr. Trump is once again scrambling. "I have nothing to do with Project 2025," he claimed at the debate. "I'm not going to read it." But it was written by many members of Mr. Trump's former administration and over 250 of the policies in the plan match his past or current policy proposals.

• Agence France-Presse: [09-14] Laura Loomer, far-right flame thrower who has Trump's ear.

  Meet Laura Loomer, the latest fringe figure to set up in the presidential candidate's inner circle, and who has managed to shock even Trump's most extreme allies as he seeks to reclaim the White House.

  Loomer, a 31-year-old social media influencer and provocateur, has managed to squeeze into Trump's entourage as he is struggling to win over the independents and moderates needed to prevail in November's election against Kamala Harris, a race that is coming down to the wire. . . .

  Asked Friday about her incendiary posts and conspiracy theories, Trump -- a voracious consumer of social media who has previously amplified Loomer's posts on his own account -- shrugged them off, telling reporters in California: "I don't know that much about it."

  Trump declined to criticize Loomer, instead hailing her as a "free spirit" supporter with "strong opinions."

  More on Loomer:

  • Zack Beauchamp: [09-13] Laura Loomer, Trump's new favorite conspiracy theorist, explained.

  • Ken Bensinger: [09-13] Who is Laura Loomer, the far-right activist who traveled with Trump?

  • Jonathan Chait: [09-13] Bigoted conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer somehow gains access to Donald Trump: "This is so unlike him."

  • Charles R Davis: [09-13] "Beyond disturbing": Trump allies try to blame Laura Loomer for his racist debate claims: "Loomer's critics suggest that the 31-year-old is planting bad ideas in the mind of a 78-year-old man." But isn't decomposed soil the most fertile?

• Madeline Halpert/Laurence Peter: [09-15] Trump rushed to safety and suspect held after man spotted with rifle: Evidently someone was seen with a gun on a golf course where Trump was playing. Secret Service shot at a man, who dropped the gun and fled, and was later apprehended. Many articles call this "a shooting" and/or "an assassination attempt," which is something to look into, but not established fact. Presumably we'll know more soon, but I don't recall ever learning much about the previous "assassination attempt." While it would be bizarre to fake events like this -- the previous one seemed to spike his polls -- it's hard to rule anything out with Trump, or to assume that normal rules apply. It's also hard to care, possibly because he seems so keen on assassinating other folks that you can't discount the karma, and possibly because when I think of similar cases the one I always land on first is George Lincoln Rockwell.

  • Adam Goldman/Thomas Gibbons-Neff/Glenn Thrush/Najim Rahim: [09-15] Suspected gunman said he was willing to fight and die in Ukraine: "Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, told The New York Times in 2023 that he had traveled to Ukraine and wanted to recruit Afghan soldiers to fight there." Still not much information here.

  • Charles P Pierce: [09-16] A nutball with an AK-47 got too close to Trump while he was golfing.

  • Michelle L Price/Will Weissert: [09-16] Trump blames Biden and Harris' rhetoric toward him despite his own history of going after rivals.

  • Philip Bump: [09-16] Another chance for Trump to frame Democrats as dangerous has emerged: "Trumpworld is eager to have Americans blame his opponents' rhetoric for assassination attempts -- both to nullify their arguments and to cast Trump as a victim."

Vance, and other Republicans:

• Vance's psyop about immigrants eating pets:: Vance had been pushing a story about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio abducting and eating dogs and cats. Trump made a big deal out of this during the debate, so it's already been mentioned above, but this is a place to file additional stories as they pop up:

  • Zack Beauchamp: [09-12] How the GOP became the party of racist memes against Haitian immigrants: "Back in 2016, the alt-right tried to normalize joyful bigotry. It worked."

  • Aaron Blake: [09-16] The staggering reach of Trump's misinformation -- not just on Haitian migrants: "A new poll shows lots of Trump backers say they believe his pet-eating claim about Haitians, as well as plenty of other claims."

  • Philip Bump: [09-16] JD Vance explains the political utility of anti-immigrant hostility: "The Ohio senator's effort Sunday to defend his virulent, racist rhetoric about immigrants eating pets was remarkably dishonest."

  • Nandika Chatterjee: [09-13] Schools evacuated in Springfield, Ohio, following Trump-Vance lies about immigrants eating pets.

  • Chas Danner: [09-15] How Vance and Trump's lies about Springfield, Ohio continue to unravel.

  • Alex Galbraith:

    • [09-15] "We're creating a story": Vance admits he's making up Haitian immigrant smears: "In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash, Vance admitted the dog-eating stories were a fantasy."

    • [09-15] "Exercise extreme precaution": Springfield university nixes events over anti-haitian shooting threat.

  • Edward Helmore: [09-14] More bomb threats hit Springfield, Ohio after Trump elevates false claims about Haitians.

  • Eric Levitz: [09-13] Thw twisted political logic behind Trump's attacks on Haitian immigrant: "Republicans know exactly what they're doing."

    Getting the media to focus on any given issue or storyline over others is not easy. Yet precisely because Vance's attack on Haitian immigrants in Springfield is so incendiary, it has generated great quantities of media coverage.

    What's more, because Trump and Vance's behavior is so repugnant to liberal values, it has provoked Democratic politicians and commentators into advertising their sympathy for immigrants and concern for their welfare.

    The calculation here is that it could nudge a swing voter rightward, even if they find Vance's conduct off-putting. That voter can disapprove of Vance's cat memes and still glean from the conversation around them that Republicans are the party that's harsher on immigration.

    The Republican ticket, if this reading is correct, is betting that voters are looking for someone who can get an ugly job done. The health of our republic, and the safety of its most vulnerable residents, depends on this being a mistake.

  • Amanda Marcotte: [09-13] Cat ladies and dog-eating: MAGA can't quit the weird talk about pets: "MAGA's animal obsession is getting deranged."

  • Stephen Starr: [09-14] Haitian immigrants helped revive a struggling Ohio town. Then neo-Nazis turned up: "Springfield's immigrant community was targeted by far-right extremists months before Trump shared racist rumors."

  • Joan Walsh: [09-13] Trump and Vance won't be happy until Springfield Haitians die: No, they won't be that easily satisfied.

  • Li Zhou: [09-15] America's long history of anti-Haitian racism, explained.

• Freddy Brewster: [09-13] JD Vance is trying to push Citizens United further: "JD Vance and other Republicans are spearheading a lawsuit that aims to get the Supreme Court to move beyond its Citizens United decision and tear up some of the last remaining rules designed to limit the influence of money in politics."

• Karen Dolan: [09-13] Project 2025 is a blue print for the end of the American dream. Bullet points:

  1. Millions of Americans will lose health care.
  2. Children will be sicker, poorer, and hungrier.
  3. Public schools will suffer.
  4. Millions of families will be criminalized.
  5. Food, water, and air will be poisoned.
  6. Only the wealthy win.

  That only scratch the surface, and I'm not even sure the "wealthy" come out much ahead, as the world they think they run increasingly turns against them. Even in terms of cash accounting, lower taxes hardly compensate for converting public goods to more exclusive and expensive private goods erodes much of your imagined gains. The super-rich may escape the trap longer, but they'll still be stuck looking over their shoulders.

• Jeet Heer: [09-16] JD Vance can't even bullshit properly: "Donald Trump is a world-class BS artist. His running mate is just a twitchy liar."

• Chris Lehmann: [09-16] How the liberal media gave us JD Vance: "The months-long romance between Vance and an easily duped press in 2016 led directly to his sordid political rise."

• Nicholas Liu: [09-12] Republican megadonor Leonard Leo tells allies it's time to "weaponize our conservative vision": Leo "wants less conversation and more action to seize the 'choke points of power.'" You know, like he did with the Supreme Court.

• Mike Lofgren: [09-07] The far right actually hates America: its dark ideology has foreign roots. Drops various names, starting with Joseph de Maistre. There is a pitch here "to support Mike Lofgren's historical commentary," so I brought up his index. Some interesting articles there, including:

  • [06-09] What a fool believes: Donald Trump and America's bogus respect for "faith".

  • [02-04] How Donald Trump reduced the GOP to groveling sycophants.

  • [2023-11-04] Right-wing fake history is making a big comeback -- but it never went away.

  • [2023-07-01] There's no such thing as a conservative intellectual -- only apologists for right-wing power: This piece also reflects on Maistre and Hayek, after starting with Lionel Trilling's famous quote about conservatism only being capable of "irritable mental gestures."

  • [2023-06-09] The party of pollution, disease and death: When Republicans tell you who they are, believe them.

  • [2023-05-20] The GOP's heart of darkness: why Ron DeSantis can never beat Donald Trump.

• Ian Millhiser:

  • [09-10] Republicans threaten a government shutdown unless Congress makes it harder to vote: "The exhausting dance that precedes every single government funding battle has begun." More shutdown news:

    • Ed Kilgore: [09-11] Mike Johnson's SAVE Act stunt may shut down the government.

  • [09-11] Republicans' racist, cat-eating conspiracy theory, briefly explained: After Trump adopted this theme in the debate, I could have filed it up there, but it evidently started elsewhere -- the first meme here was posted by Ted Cruz, and the second by "House Judiciary GOP," so let's credit the whole Party. Trump's contribution is his usual one: he just sucks up all the malevolence in the Party, and oozes it out in concentrated form.

• Rick Perlstein: [09-11] The zeal of the convert: "Matthew Sheffield, a former rising star in the conservative movement, turned away from what he finally realized was an extremist, anti-truth agenda."

• Tatyana Tandanpolie: [09-15] "What homegrown fascism looks like": The insidious nature of GOP's not-quite-dog-whistle politics: "Experts link the right's 'DEI hire' attacks to a dark history of racist political violence."

• Sarah Zhang: 'That's something that you wont' recover from as a doctor': "In Idaho and other states, draconian laws are forcing physicians to ignore their training and put patients' lives at risk."

Harris:

• Jedediah Britton-Purdy: [09-12] Harris can win on the economy, but she needs a stronger message. Dean Baker reacted to this piece -- "the gist of the piece is that most people are hurting now, but Harris can turn things around by adopting a more populist agenda" -- adding that "it would be great to see Harris push a more populist agenda," but mostly attributing the problem to misinformation ("the media have lied to the public"), but also by asserting that "most people are not hurting how, or at least not more than they did in the past." One problem is that the whole system is rigged to maintain a level of economic pain, so most people feel precarious even when conditions are within normal bounds. Also not clear to me what Britton-Purdy's "clear economic program" actually is. Certainly there are lots of opportunities, but making them clear and tangible to voters is much easier said than done.

• Marin Cogan: [09-11] Wait, Kamala Harris owns a gun?

• Jill Filipovic: The big thing Kamala Harris is doing differently than Hillary Clinton: "The Democratic Party is finally figuring out how to right-size its focus on identity politics."

• Jacob S Hacker: [08-14] Kamala Harris had a great health care idea in 2019. She should embrace it.

• Heather Digby Parton: [09-13] Kamala Harris' big tent strategy -- and its success -- has thrown Trump for a loop. I personally find the Cheney endorsements damning, but when she mentioned them, I thought she got the "even" inflection just right. I suppose what that shows is that she's the politician, and I'm not. I'm skeptical of how many disaffected Republicans she can win over, but as long as she can pick up some without turning on (or off) her natural base, that not only helps her chances of winning, it opens up the possibility of winning big -- and that would be a good thing, even if it muddies the message a bit.

  I could go farther here and argue that for most Republicans, a big Harris win, even one that gave her a comfortable margin in Congress, would be a blessing. Trump and his movement are a dead end, desperately clinging to demographics that are slipping away, that can only be shored up by disabling democracy, while their policy prejudices only make problems worse, and their reflexive resort to force behind propaganda only makes their victims and opponents more desperate.

  In the 1970s, Republicans argued -- wrongly, I think, but not without reason -- that America has swung too far to the left, so they set about "rebalancing" government. Since then, they never let up, pushing inequality to levels that never existed before: the "gilded age" of the 1880s and the "roaring '20s" were past peaks, both ending in massive depressions, which were corrected with shifts back to the left -- never far, as the rich fared handsomely in the Progressive and New Deal/Great Society eras. Pace the Trump paranoia, they have little to fear from Harris and the Democrats -- even from the farthest left reaches of the party, whose actual programs proposed are modestly reformist, and easily compromised by lobbying.

  Capitalism doesn't help anyone develop a sense of enough, but common sense does, and Republicans need some of that. Especially, they need a break from the Trumpists, who are paranoid and delusional, prepared to burn it all down for the sake of idiot theories, just to exercise their malice against much of the world. It's good to respect the new Republicans who, like recovering alcoholics, are willing to break. The the Cheneys still have a lot of recovering to go.

• Charles P Pierce: [09-16] Kamala Harris understands that an overly serious campaign is a losing campaign: "Our history is not all crises weathered and problems solved. It is also brass bands, and torchlight parades, and barrels of hard cider at rural polling stations." Point noted, but then: "Sorry. This article is for subscribers only."

• Zephyr Teachout: [09-09] Stop calling Kamala Harris' anti-price gouging proposal price controls: "Her plan to control inflation is not some leftist plot. It's rooted in mainstream American legal tradition -- and sorely needed."

• Rebecca Traister: [09-09] The people for Kamala Harris: "How a women-led movement,born in the devastation of 2016, put Democrats on the brink of making history." Magazine cover story article, takes the time needed to sketch out the big picture. This article was paired with:

  • Olivia Nuzzi: [09-09] The afterlife of Donald Trump: "At home at Mar-a-Lago, the presidential hopeful contemplates miracles, his campaign, and his formidable new opponent." Note, however, that the magazine cover used a different, more intriguing title: "Peering into Donald Trump's ear, and soul." (Actually, the Traister article also has a different cover title: "The joyous plot to elect Kamala Harris.")

• The Cheney endorsements

  • Aida Chávez: Do Kamala Harris's neocon supporters just hate Trump, or is there something more to her appeal?

  • JD Hester: [09-11] Cheney backs Harris: the war hawk's blessing reveals continuity in foreign policy.

  • Matt Stieb: [09-12] Bush-era Republican supervillains are eager to vote for Kamala Harris: Alberto Gonzalez joins the Cheneys in endorsing.

Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:

• Melvin Goodman: [09-13] Biden's legacy: the decline of arms control and disarmament: "President Biden's neglect of arms control and disarmament means that the next president will inherit a nuclear landscape that is more threatening and volatile than any other since the Cuban missile crisis more than 60 years ago." This is a big part of the reason why you don't want a foreign policy dedicated to making Russia (and China and North Korea and Iran) feel more vulnerable and desperate.

• Dylan Matthews: [09-12] Why Harris and Trump don't want a Japanese company to buy US Steel.

• Schuyler Mitchell: [09-09] Democrats don't need to back fracking to win Pennsylvania.

Election notes:

• Griffin Eckstein: [09-13] Pope Francis says US voters must choose between "evils": Harris and Trump: He did say "you have to vote" for the "lesser of two evils," noting that "each of their platforms stand 'against life.'" Republican will read this as about abortion, while Democrats can read this as being about everything else. The Pope himself was more specific on their anti-immigrant rhetoric, but somehow couldn't weigh out "the lesser evil." The article doesn't mention war and genocide. File this under "more reasons clerics shouldn't engage in politics."

• Steve Hill: [09-14] Ranked choice voting: poised for its biggest year ever.

• Ed Kilgore: [09-13] Abortion rights are on the ballot in 10 states this November: "The pro-choice winning streak in abortion ballot tests has a dcent chance to extend far and wide in 2024."

• Thomas Knapp: [09-13] Election 2024: finally weird enough? Remembering Hunter S Thompson, who allegedly said, "it never got weird enough for me."

• Christian Paz: [09-10] Can we trust the polls this year? "After polling misses in 2016 and 2020, how should we feel about 2024? The case for and against this year's polls."

Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:

• Griffin Eckstein: [09-12] North Dakota judge rules state's abortion ban is unconstitutional.

• Jodi Kantor/Adam Liptak: [09-15] How Roberts shaped Trump's Supreme Court winning streak: "Behind the scenes, the chief justice molded three momentous Jan. 6 and election cases that helped determine the former president's fate."

• Quinta Jurecic: [09-12] The Supreme Court's effort to save Trump is already working: "The conservative justices created so many avenues for challenge and confusion that the Court functionally collaborated in Trump's strategy of delay."

• Li Zhou: [09-10] Tyreek Hill's disturbing detention by police, explained: "Hill was subject to a violent traffic stop that put another spotlight on police brutality."

Climate and environment:

Economists, the economy, and work:

• Dean Baker:

  • [09-14] Reality TV show star Donald Trump gets California badly wrong.

  • [09-12] Let's be clear, Harris has a problem on the economy because the media have lied to the public.

    I wish the Democrats had spent more time combatting the misinformation about the economy that major media outlets spewed endlessly for the last three and a half years, but it's kind of late now. Harris can put worthwhile proposals on the table, which she already has, and hope that they reach the public. But her best hope is that a majority of voters will be unwilling to put a lying, corrupt, incompetent, buffoon back in the White House.

  • [09-10] Washington Post misrepresents census data in way that makes Biden economy look bad.

  • [09-08] China's growth more than doubled US growth under Trump: "Donald Trump seems to get very confused when talking about economics."

• Jenny Brown: [09-14] Boeing machinists are on strike.

  • Ellen Ioanes: [09-13] Why 33,000 Boeing workers are on strike.

• Paul Krugman: Several weeks of columns to catch up with, mostly on Trump, but let's start with inflation, and work forward:

  • [08-26] Inflation is fading, statistically and politically.

  • [08-27] Why economists worry about Trumpflation. "Start with tariffs," but that's not the end of it.

  • [08-20] Naked emperors and crypto campaign cash.

  • [09-03] The political rage of left-behind regions. Starts with the AfD electoral win in Thuringia, a part of the former East Germany that "resembles West Virginia."

  • [09-05] Bacon prices and the windmills of Trump's mind. "It probably won't surprise you to hear that nothing Trump says about bacon prices is true."

  • [09-09] Donald Trump on the dollar, in his own words. "This is the first in an occasional series about Donald Trump's statements and language and what's at stake in the election." This also pointed me to the sane-washing discussion.

  • [09-10] The mirage of $2 gas.

  • [09-12] Here's why Trump was forced to say he has only 'concepts of a plan': Trump has been promising a replacement "much better" than Obamacare at least since 2016, and has never released a plan that anyone could analyze. It's pretty easy to show that it's impossible to improve on Obamacare in any significant way (either in cost or coverage) unless you take a big cut out of private insurance (as "Medicare for All" would do), but that would be a non-starter for Republicans, so all they can do is promise vaporware.

• Kelsey Piper: [09-12] Shrinking the economy won't save the planet: "561 research papers in, the case for degrowth is still weak." The author wrote a previous piece arguing against the idea of "degrowth" as a panacea for dealing with world environmental problems (especially climate change) -- [2021-08-03] Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy? -- where the author turned "degrowth" into a strawman, arguing that it is not necessary (is the only way to solve the problem) or sufficient (is able to solve the problem on its own), and with that throws the whole cluster of ideas out. But at least that piece took the ideas seriously. All this piece does is say we've looked at a bunch of research papers purportedly about "degrowth" and found them wanting (e.g., "paper after paper with meaninglessly tiny sample sizes," "studies are opinions rather than analysis," "studied offer ad hoc and subjective policy advice").

Ukraine and Russia:

• Aaron Sobczak: -09-13] Diplomacy Watch: Did the West scuttle the Istanbul talks or not? "A former official's insider information sheds light on how peace negotiations failed in April 2022."

• George Beebe: [09-13] Not enough long range missiles to make a difference for Ukraine: "But letting Kyiv strike deep into Russia could lead us right into war." The only real question is what is the negotiation strategy? Without one, the missiles are just another escalation, inviting a response in kind by Russia, or worse. On the other hand, if you had a negotiation strategy, why do you need further provocations? The war will be ended not by marginal differences in power, but by finding solutions that are acceptable to both sides.

• Aida Chávez: [09-11] Progressives were pilloried for wanting to end the Ukraine war in 2022. Things have only gotten worse.

• Mark Episkopos: [09-10] Nuland fuels theory that Western powers killed 2022 peace deal: "Former US official says that talks 'fell apart' after Kyiv was counseled about Russian conditions that would 'neuter' Ukraine."

• David Ignatius: [09-15] Ukraine is bleeding out. It cannot fight forever. A surprising (but obviously true) admission from one of the war's staunchest proponents.

• Eldar Mamedov: [09-12] Why Germanyu's chancellor is pushing for peace in Ukraine: "Olaf Scholz appears to recognize that far left and far right parties in his country are seeking to fill the diplomatic vacuum."

• Ian Proud: [09-13] Russian asset seizure scheme will prolong war: "Western officials want to 'speed up' the use of interest on Moscow's frozen funds in order to loan Ukraine more money."

Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:

• Zack Beauchamp: [09-13] It happened there: how democracy died in Hungary: "A new kind of authoritarianism is taking root in Europe -- and there are warning signs for America." In case you didn't quite grasp Trump's reference to Viktor Orban in the debate, here's a refresher.

• Marcus Stanley: [09-11] House passes $1.6 billion to deliver anti-China propaganda overseas: "Somehow it's a crime when Russia does it to us, but good 'information ops' when we want to discredit Beijing's Belt & Road initiatives worldwide."

• Ishaan Tharoor:

  • [09-13] A new crisis may plunge Libya back into chaos.

  • [09-11] Afghan women endure draconian Taliban, 23 years after 9/11.

    • Rick Noack: [09-15] Taliban begins enforcing new draconian laws, and Afghan women despair.

  • [09-09] Israeli snipers again face scrutiny after death of civilian

  • [09-06] Germany's firewall against the far right isn't working.

• Nick Turse:

  • The US has been at war in Yemen for 20 years, but Houthis can still choke the Red Sea.

  • What Kamala Harris meant by "most lethal fighting force" in her DNC speech.

  • Senator calls US support for Saudis a "national disgrace" after Intercept reveals unpaid debts to Pentagon.

  • Top US general meets with alleged war criminal in Libya.

• Parker Yesko: [09-10] The war crimes that the military buried: "The largest known database of possible American war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that the military-justice system rarely punishes perpetrators."

Other stories:

• Yet another 9/11 anniversary:

• Henry Giroux: [09-13] Rethinking 9/11: fascism, memory, and the crisis of democracy in the 21st century.

• WD Ehrhart: [09-13] Why I don't watch political speeches: A position I sympathize with, although I've never been tempted to throw things at the TV, other than the occasional snide comment. So I'd have to explain my aversion differently.

• Nathan J Robinson/Current Affairs:

  • [09-13] The worst magazine in America: The Atlantic poses as a magazine of ideas, but its writers get away with terrible arguments. Its ascendance is a sign of the dire state of American intellectual life." Long article, seems like he spends a lot of time on effort on such obvious atrocities as Robert D Kaplan's "In Defense of Henry Kissinger." More interesting is Simon Sebag Montefiore's "The Decolonization Narrative Is Dangerous and False," which is about how we shouldn't describe Israel as a "settler colony" because the settlement took place over several generations, the "settlers" are no different from immigrants elsewhere, but their designation as "settler-colonists" marks them as "ripe for murder and mutilation." Robinson spends a lot of time on this piece, but that last bit is too insane for him to bother with further. What he does instead is spend considerable time discrediting the sort of mythmaking Montefiore's "caricature" attempts. Whole books have been written to that effect. Robinson makes good points here, but misses most of the angles I would have focused on -- like why does the "settler-colonial" analysis help or hinder you from understanding the history? and what's with this "murder and mutilation"? -- as well as the deeper question of why Atlantic's editors like to publish overblown articles by ill-tempered nincompoops?

    One reason could be that some articles, even if you know they're not just wrong but horribly so, should be published somewhere, if only for smarter people to knock them down. I don't know from Montefiore, but I can imagine someone deciding they want a piece on Kissinger, and wondering if Kaplan might have an interesting take. (I've read a lot of Kaplan, and while he's often wrong -- any time he opens a paragraph with "that got me thinking," you know some really insane shit is coming around the bend -- I've learned a lot along the way. Same for George Packer, source of another Robinson case study.) You're never going to convince me that Atlantic editorial choices are above political prejudices, or even that they are seriously dedicated to providing some sort of open forum, but you need more than just a few examples. You could really use some statistical analysis. But I suppose you could point out examples that are both countersensical and have no "prestige" reason to be published, like the sanewashing article I mentioned above. Robinson does get into this a bit later on, but mostly as asides to a big bang of extra example outrages.

    I sometimes wonder whether I should break down and subscribe to Atlantic. I frequently see links to articles that look like they may be interesting (some by writers I respect, like Adam Serwer and David Graham), and some that just look like arguments I want to knock down, but in the end, I'm just too cheap (and/or committed to free speech), so I almost never click on them. (My wife does pay for digital subscriptions, so sometimes I'm able to piggyback on her accounts, but she really loathes much of what appears in Atlantic, so it's not on her list.) Still, I regularly look at their table of contents to get the lay of the land. From Monday's list, here are some articles I might have considered (a few more I slipped into relevant slots above, especially on Trump and the debate):

    • Russell Berman: I'm not sure progressives want to be that big-tent: Pic of Dick Cheney.

    • Francis S Collins: Why didn't facing a common enemy bring us together? Pic is of Covid. "I learned that something deep within our culture is wrong."

    • Ellen Cushing: A $700 kitchen tool that's meant to be seed, not used: Picture of a mixer. I've bought, hated, and returned or given away two expensive mixers so far. I keep looking for a good one, so I actually clicked on this article, but turns out it's just another KitchenAid.

    • David Frum: Trump's guns: "For nearly a decade, a dangerous political environment has been uniquely inflamed by Donald Trump."

    • Megan Garber: Look what she made him do: Pic of Taylor Swift, so "him" is Trump?

    • Conor Friedersdorf: Campus protest encampments are unethical: As compared, say, to investing your endowment in genocide?

    • Gershom Gorenberg: Netanyahu's other war: "Conflict in Gaza hasn't put an end to Israel's constitutional crisis."

    • Juliette Kayyem: A horrifying new attempt on Trump's life.

    • Russell Moore: Trump's lie is another test for Christian America.

    • Timothy Snyder: Poland's gift to the American Republic.

    • James Surowiecki: How US Steel got rolled.

  • [09-13] How the soul of New York City is vanishing: Interview with Jeremiah Moss "on what neoliberalism has done to the culture and soul of New York City."

  • [09-13] What doesn't get said: "Commentary around the first Harris-Trump debate focused on Harris's impressive performance. But both candidates accepted dangerous right-wing premises on climate, immigration, economics, and foreign policy." Well, as the joke goes: two campers are surprised by a bear in the woods. One says, "you can't outrun that bear." The other says, "I don't have to; I just have to outrun you." I hate Chait's concept of "the assignment"

    , but I accept that Harris has one, which is make sure she beats Trump in November, preferably by a lot. To do that, she needs to run fast and not trip and fall. (Trump tripping and falling would help, but isn't something you can count on.) I see three risks for her: one is that the war situation gets worse, with Biden and her getting by a public that isn't very sharp on such issues; the second is that she loses support from the money people, most likely by appearing too far to the left; the third is that in steering away from the left, she loses the enthusiasm she needs to get out the popular vote. She's done a pretty solid job of avoiding two and three so far, while Trump and Vance are proving to be even worse than expected, so I'm not inclined to nitpick. War I'm more worried about, but at this point turning on Israel may be the more dangerous option: I was thinking about what Netanyahu's latest threats against Yemen might mean, and wound up wondering what would stop him from exacting his "heavy price" with "a mushroom cloud." How would Biden and Harris react to that kind of "October surprise"? (Trump would probably cheer, and seize it as a wedge issue, which would only encourage Netanyahu.)

    Still, I don't have any beef with Robinson writing articles like this. He, and his readers, quite properly focus on issues. No need for them to stop during what Matt Taibbi used to call "the stupid season." That will pass, while the issues keep coming back, at least until someone finally takes them seriously.

  • [09-11] You've got to read books: "Not everyone has the available time or energy to do deep reading. But if you're going to make confident public pronouncements on matters that require a lot of research, books will help you avoid dangerous foolishness." Needless to say, I endorse this view. Following something Billmon did on his blog (defunct since 2006), I've kept a "current reading" roll and list going for 20+ years now, so I can check how much (and how little) I've read, and just what -- at least in book form. Curiously, I haven't read any of the four books Robinson cites on the 2000 Camp David negotiations, although I've read 3-6 (or maybe 12, depends on how you slice them) other books that cover the same ground -- we're in general agreement on the facts, but I wouldn't go around citing Quandt's "it's really complicated" explanation.

    This is a big subject, one that I can imagine writing quite a lot about. It's true that bad books can be worse than no books at all. (Robinson mentions Robert Fisk's Pity the Nation on Lebanon, which is monumental, but I've actually run into people who got everything they know about Lebanon from Thomas Friedman, and they're painful to deal with.) It's also true that one can learn to read bad books and get value out of them (like the aforementioned Robert D Kaplan library). But even journalists doing "first draft" history often get much better by the time their work comes out in book form (cf. practically everyone who started embedded and wound up with a book on Iraq -- hell, even George Packer got better with a bit of perspective; I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas Ricks' Fiasco had Gung Ho! as its working title).

  • [09-05] How to approach the crisis of mass incarceration: "Mass incarceration is extremely harmful to prisoners and society. But what do we do about it? The editors of Dismantling Mass Incarceration discuss." Interview with Premal Dharia, James Forman Jr., and Maria Hawilo.

Obituaries

• Eileen Jones: [09-10] RIP James Earl Jones: "Few American acting careers have made such lasting impressions on so many as James Earl Jones's."

  • Robert D McFadden: [09-09] James Earl Jones, whose powerful acting resonated onstage and onscreen, dies at 93.

Books

• Zack Beauchamp: [09-11] How a 2006 book by a Harvard professor explains the Trumpist right's gender politics: "Harvey Mansfield's book on 'manliness' prefigured JD Vance's musings about 'childless cat ladies' by nearly two decades."

• Daniel Immerwahr: [09-09] What if Ronald Reagan's presidency never really ended? "Anti-Trump Republicans revere Ronald Reagan as Trump's opposite -- yet in critical ways Reagan may have been his forerunner." A long review of Max Boot's "definitive" 880 page biography, Reagan: His Life and Legend.

  Recent events have forced Boot to ask if Reagan was part of the rot that has eaten away at Republicanism. Boot now sees him as complicit in the "hard-right turn" the Party took after Dwight D. Eisenhower which "helped set the G.O.P. -- and the country -- on the path" to Trump.

  And yet Boot sees a redeeming quality as well: Reagan could relax his ideology. He was an anti-tax crusader who oversaw large tax hikes, an opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment who appointed the first female Supreme Court Justice, and a diehard anti-Communist who made peace with Moscow. "I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help," Reagan famously quipped. But he delivered that line while announcing "record amounts" of federal aid. He viewed the world in black-and-white, yet he governed in gray.

  I rather doubt that Reagan wanted to "govern in gray." That was a concession to the Democrats who controlled Congress, to the still-existing liberal Republicans, to the liberal courts, and to the popularity of New Deal and Great Society programs. Reagan was realistic about what he could accomplish, but he did move the needle on all fronts. How anyone could see his program, or his personal charisma, as heroic escapes me.

  Here's another review:

  • Jennifer Burns: [09-09] Did Ronald Reagan pave the way for Donald Trump? "In his new biography, Max Boot reckons with the president who was once his hero and another who led him away from the Republican Party."

• Michael Ledger-Lomas: All roads lead to ruin: "Sunil Amrith's The Burning Earth takes us on a gloomy and bleak tour of how, in the name of progress, Western empires made a mess of everything."

• Rohan Silva: [2022-09-19] Fen, Bog & Swamp by Annie Proulx review -- where have all out wetlands gone? I just read this book, and quoted a bit of it in the introduction, which is why I found this review. While there is much of interest in the book, it's connection to climate change never gets developed, beyond the occasional occasional notes that peatlands sequester a lot of carbon, so their loss has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

• Annie Levin: [09-16] Why you should host a hootenanny: "Outside of a church or karaoke room, singing is mostly left to the professionals. But anyone can -- and should -- partake in the joys of collective singing." I can imagine, but I gave up singing in public in 5th grade, when Lannie Goldston insisted that I lip-synch, and kicked me in the shins every time I slipped up and uttered a sound.

Chatter

It took me the better part of two days to finally insert all of the entries in my April 25, 2024 Book Roundup into my Book Notes file, which at this point is probably too long to be a useful web page (6944 paragraphs, 369868 words), but which I need to figure out whether I've mentioned a book before. I couldn't really start on a new post until that bit of housekeeping got done.

One thing I noticed there was this blurb on a 2017 book (presumably written then) that seems completely relevant to this week's news:

Nathan Thrall: The Only Language They Understand: Forcing Compromise in Israel and Palestine (2017, Metropolitan Books): Hard to think about the conflict without considering how to end it, especially if you're an American, since we've long assumed that our mission on Earth is to oversee some sort of agreement. Thrall has been following the conflict closely for some time now, and writes up what he's figured out: that the only way it ends is if some greater power wills it. The title has a certain irony in that the Israelis, following the British before them, have often said that violence is the only language the Palestinians understand. But as students of the conflict should know by now, the only times Israel has compromised or backed down have been when they been confronted with substantial force: as when Eisenhower prodded them to leave Sinai in 1956, when Carter brokered their 1979 peace with Egypt, when Rabin ended the Intifada by recognizing the PLO, or when Barak withdrew Israeli forces from Lebanon in 2000. Since then no progress towards resolution has been made because no one with the power to influence Israel has had the will to do so -- although Israel's frantic reactions against BDS campaigns shows their fear of such pressure. On the other hand, one should note that force itself has its limits: Palestinians have compromised on many things, but some Israeli demands -- ones that violate norms for equal human rights -- are always bound to generate resistance. What makes the conflict so intractable now is that Israel has so much relative power that they're making impossible demands. So while Thrall would like to be even-handed and apply external force to both sides, it's Israel that needs to move its stance to something mutually tolerable. The other big questions are who would or could apply this force, and why. Up to 2000, the US occasionally acted, realizing that its regional and world interests transcended its affection for Israel, but those days have passed, replaced by token, toothless gestures, if any at all. It's hard to see that changing -- not just because Israel has so much practice manipulating US politics but because America has largely adopted Israeli norms of inequality and faith in brute power.

Curiously, I noted but wrote nothing about Thrall's later book:

Nathan Thrall: A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: Anatomy of a Jerusalem Tragedy (2023, Metropolitan Books).

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): music.

Original count: 290 links, 15664 words (20559 total).

Current count: 290 links, 15873 words (2077t total).

Daily Log

Opened Speaking of Which draft file (1:27 PM), nominally scheduled for Sunday, September 15. I had the foresight of editing the template file a bit. Played CDs from John Lee Hooker and Hank Williams boxes to kick the day off.

Referring back to the August 30 to do list, which I've meant to resume but haven't managed to do any more work on. Needless to say, nearly all of the tasks remain. Still, having knocked out Speaking of Which (9/9) and Music Week (9/10), I woke up thinking of project things I could do to make life a bit more manageable in these parts.

Music Week

Expanded blog post, September archive (in progress).

Tweet: Music Week: 34 albums, 7 A-list

Music: Current count 42939 [42905] rated (+34), 28 [30] unrated (-2).

New records reviewed this week:

• Dave Alvin & Jimmie Dale Gilmore: TexiCali (2024, Yep Roc): [sp]: A-
• Bacchae: Next Time (2024, Get Better): [sp]: B+(***)
• Rahsaan Barber & Everyday Magic: Six Words (2022 [2024], Jazz Music City): [cd]: B+(**)
• Andrew Barker/William Parker/Jon Irabagon: Bakunawa (2022 [2024], Out of Your Head): [sp]: B+(***)
• Beabadoobee: This Is How Tomorrow Moves (2024, Dirty Hit): [sp]: A-
• Geoff Bradfield: Colossal Abundance (2023 [2024], Calligram): [cd]: B+(***)
• Patricia Brennan Septet: Breaking Stretch (2023 [2024], Pyroclastic): [cd]: A-
• The Chisel: What a Fucking Nightmare (2024, Pure Noise): [sp]: B+(*)
• Clairo: Charm (2024, Clairo): [sp]: B+(***)
• Greg Copeland: Empire State (2024, Franklin & Highland, EP): [cd]: B+(**)
• Elbow: Audio Vertigo (2024, Polydor): [sp]: B
• Fontaines D.C.: Romance (2024, XL): [sp]: B+(**)
• Future Islands: People Who Aren't There Anymore (2024, 4AD): [sp]: B+(*)
• Dylan Hicks & Small Screens: Modern Flora (2023 [2024], Soft Launch): [cd]: A-
• Illuminati Hotties: Power (2024, Hopeless): [sp]: B+(**)
• Jon Irabagon: I Don't Hear Nothin' but the Blues: Volume 3 Part 2: Exuberant Scars (2024, Irabbagast): [bc]: B+(**)
• Jon Irabagon Trio + One: Dinner & Dancing (2023 [2024], Irabbagast): [bc]: B+(***)
• Tom Johnson Jazz Orchestra: Time Takes Odd Turns (2023 [2024], self-released): [sp]: B
• Allen Lowe & the Constant Sorrow Orchestra: Louis Armstrong's America Volume 1 (2023-24 [2024], ESP-Disk, 2CD): [cd]: A-
• Allen Lowe & the Constant Sorrow Orchestra: Louis Armstrong's America Volume 2 (2023-24 [2024], ESP-Disk, 2CD): [cd]: A
• Shelby Lynne: Consequences of the Crown (2024, Monument): [sp]: B
• Rose Mallett: Dreams Realized (2024, Carrie-On Productions): [cd]: B+(***)
• Brian Marsella/Jon Irabagon: Blue Hour (2019-22 [2024], Irabbagast): [bc]: B+(*)
• Claire Rousay: Sentiment (2024, Thrill Jockey): [sp]: B+(*)
• Bria Skonberg: What It Means (2023 [2024], Cellar Live): [sp]: B+(**)
• This Is Lorelei: Box for Buddy, Box for Star (2022 [2024], Double Double Whammy): [sp]: B+(**)

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

• Raymond Burke: The Southland Recordings 1958-1960 (1958-60 [2024], Jazzland): [sp]: B+(*)
• Gastr Del Sol: We Have Dozens of Titles (1993-98 [2024], Drag City, 2CD): [sp]: B+(**)
• Wayne Shorter: Celebration, Volume 1 (2014 [2024], Blue Note): [sp]: A-

Old music:

• Charles Bevel: Meet "Mississippi Charles" Bevel (1973, A&M): [yt]: B+(**)
• Bun B: Trill O.G. (2010, Rap-A-Lot): [sp]: B+(**)
• Raymond Burke: Raymond Burke 1937-1949 (1937-49 [2014], American Music): [sp]: B+(**)
• Lil' Kim: The Naked Truth (2005, Atlantic): [sp]: B
• Nas: Stillmatic (2001, Columbia): [sp]: B+(***)
• Scarface: The Fix (2002, Def Jam South): [sp]: B+(**)

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

• Gino Amato: Latin Crsossroads (Ovation) [09-01]
• Dawn Clement/Steve Kovalcheck/Jon Hamar: Dawn Clement/Steve Kovalcheck/Jon Hamar Trio (self-released) [09-06]
• Rebecca Kilgore: A Little Taste: A Tribute to Dave Frishberg (Cherry Pie Music) [10-28]
• Delfeayo Marsalis Uptown Jazz Orchestra: Crescent City Jewels (Troubadour Jass) [08-30]
• Eric Person: Rhythm Edge (Distinction) [10-01]
• Claudio Scolari Project: Opera 8 (Principal) [04-05]

Speaking of Which

Blog link.

Opened file 2024-09-03 01:16AM.

I opened this file early enough (2024-09-03 01:16AM), but did little on it, and spent much of Wednesday/Thursday working up a fairly large dinner menu. So I didn't really get into this until Saturday, and then got waylaid on the long Plitnick comment (conceived in lieu of an introduction). I still hoped to wrap this up Sunday evening, but after a TV break was too exhausted to continue. Then Monday morning (for me, anyway) I quickly found myself writing more long comments (look for the star bullets below). Still hoping to post Monday evening, but once again time is running out.

After several weeks dominated by campaign news, this week Israel/Gaza came roaring back with a vengeance -- which reflects poorly on Biden/Harris, not that they are alone in that regard. Tuesday's Trump-Harris debate will probably be a big deal next week, although I'm skeptical that anything good will come out of it. I just got an unsolicited text from "Harris":

Tomorrow night may be my first debate with Donald Trump, but I am no stranger to taking on perpetrators of all kinds: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain.

Believe me when I say I know Trump's type. And on tomorrow's debate stage, I will do my best to put my record against his.

Then she asks for money.

Approaching 10PM, I'm giving up for the day, and calling this a week. I've just spent the last several hours on even more Israel comments. My guess is that there's a decent essay buried herein, awaiting an editor I don't have to dig up the bits, restructure them a bit, and demand some finishing touches. Having barely touched on the election stories, I'm just now seeing lots of disturbing stories I have no energy for right now. (Last add was Kuttner's story on Harris' "capitulation," after which I saw a similar story in New Republic, and I have little doubt there are more. And now I'm seeing new Intelligencer pieces I suddenly find I can't read by Jonathan Chait: Kamala Harris should cut Joe Biden loose -- hasn't he been reading about those "capitulations to capital"? -- and Ed Kilgore: Believe it or not, many voters think Trump is a moderate, let alone Margaret Hartmann: Melania slams effort to 'silence' Trump on social-media site he owns.)

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

  • [09-02] Day 332: West Bank resistance attacks carried out in Hebron: "As the Israeli assault on the northern West Bank enters its sixth day, Palestinians launched two attacks on Israelis in Hebron to the south. Meanwhile, the death of six Israeli captives in Gaza caused widespread anti-Netanyahu protests in Tel Aviv."

  • [09-05] Day 335: Israeli objective in West Bank is not 'to mow the lawn,' but 'pull out the roots': "The UN has said that Israel is now using 'war-like tactics' against Palestinians in the northern West Bank. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has reiterated his insistence on maintaining an Israeli military presence along the Philadelphi Corridor."

  • [09-09] Day 339: Israel winds down West Bank operation, continues blockade: "Palestinians in Nablus held a funeral procession for a Turkish-American activist killed by Israeli forces in Beita. Meanwhile, Israel continued to close its borders with Jordan for the second day in a row following a shooting at Allenby bridge."

• Isaam Ahmed: [08-29] Under cover of Gaza war, Israel is seizing Palestinian land in the West Bank: "The Gaza war is serving as a cover for Israel to accelerate expansionist policies in the West Bank, with the ultimate aim of annexing the territory."

• Anadolu Agency:

  • [09-06] 'Game of demographics': How Israel aims to wipe out Palestinians from Occupied East Jerusalem.

  • [08-22] Is the US a suitable actor for a mediation role in Gaza? I think at this point, we can all agree that the US cannot act as an impartial arbiter in the dispute. That ship sailed long ago, assuming it ever floated in the first place. But mediation is a slightly different art: for that, you need to be able to find a solution acceptable to both sides, and you need to be willing and able to apply leverage to both sides to close the deal. This conflict should be slightly simpler than most, as Israel has all of the power, so mediation only has to work to rein in one side. That makes America the only possible mediator for the conflict, because only America has any serious leverage to bring Israel to a deal -- partly because American support has been so essential to Israel for so long. (Proviso here is that while Palestinians have no power to set terms, they can reject and resist imposed terms they find demeaning and debilitating. Similarly, Israel can also reject terms, regardless of the mediator's leverage.)

    You can go through Israel's history and see various examples of American mediation working (e.g., Sadat-Begin in 1979, the recent Abraham Accords, as far as they got) and not working (Barak-Assad and Barak-Arafat in 2000). The latter failed because Barak's demands, due to internal political pressure, became unreasonable, and/or Clinton didn't have the willpower to put sufficient pressure on Barak. The situation is even worse with Biden, because he seems to have no independent willpower over anything having to do with Israel: he can't even imagine any alternative solutions, nor dare he challenge Israel's leaders. On the other hand, can you even conceive of any other mediator? You may recall the Quartet, but that was never more than a US front -- and given how subservient the US has become, Israelis were free to treat them as a mirage.

    So we're stuck: Israel has no need to change course unless the US challenges it with an acceptable alternative, which the US won't dare do as long as it is under Israel's thumb. With nothing to stop them, or even to induce second thoughts -- Israel is not quite the monolithic autocracy it has presented since last October -- Israel's genocide will continue, until its logical conclusion (which could take years or decades, to the whole world's detriment). All anyone else can do is to look for weak links that could be moved with the limited pressure we can muster. That's already happened enough to make the powers involved here nervous, and the movement to end this war and the injustices that caused and sustain it will only grow. But make no mistake: this only ends when Israel is willing to change, and that means America must also be willing to change.

• Mariam Barghouti: [09-04] Inside the brutal siege of Jenin: "The Israeli army is destroying civilian infrastructure, blocking medical access, and conducting mass arrests in the largest West Bank operation in years."

• Ramzy Baroud: [09-05] War on children -- Gaza kids are unvaccinated, hungry and orphaned.

• Zack Beauchamp: [09-04] The real reason Netanyahu won't end the Gaza war: "The Israeli public has turned against Netanyahu's war, but they can't stop it." I'm not sure how true this is. Israelis have run hot-and-cold on Netanyahu all year, but the only practical dissent on the war has come from the hostage families, who would make some concessions to release the hostages, whereas Netanyahu and his allies would be happier if the hostages would die already (see Hannibal Directive). But the war, fought so brutally that many outsiders have called it genocide, seems to have few dissenters within Israel (at least among the Israelis that count). Netanyahu still has a fairly slim coalition majority (64 of 120), so it wouldn't take many defections to bring it down. If Likud really was the "center-right" party as claimed, it shouldn't be hard to fracture, but it appears that they're not merely loyal to Netanyahu, and that Netanyahu is not merely maneuvering to keep out of jail, but that the policies Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have been demanding are things they've long wanted to do.

  The answer is brute power politics. The 2022 election gave right-wing parties a clear majority in the Knesset (Israel's parliament), allowing Netanyahu to build the most far-right government in Israeli history. Though this coalition has since become extremely unpopular, there's no way for voters to kick it out on their own.

  The government could only collapse if it faces defections from inside the governing coalition. But at present, the greatest threat to Netanyahu's coalition comes from his extreme right flank, which wants him to continue the war at all costs. And for that reason, he seems intent on doing so. . . .

  "For [the government to fall], Israeli political leaders would need common sense, political courage, and a moral backbone. Too clearly, the overwhelming majority have none," Dahlia Scheindlin, a leading Israel pollster, writes in the Haaretz newspaper.

• Jessica Buxbaum:

  • [09-05] How Israel's war on Gaza is spilling into the West Bank.

  • [09-06] Under cover of war, Israel is demolishing home after home in Silwan: "The government has accelerated plans to depopulate the East Jerusalem neighborhood, displacing dozens of Palestinian residents this year."

• Abdallah Fayyad: [09-04] How a disease the world (mostly) vanquished reared its head in Gaza: "Israel's attacks on Gaza created conditions for polio to spread. Now, a vaccination campaign is racing against time."

• Tareq S Hajjaj: [09-07] 'The world has gotten used to our blood': Israeli massacres in Gaza continue: "Despite the shift in the media's attention to regional developments and the Israeli invasion of the northern West Bank, the massacres in Gaza continue in silence. In the first three days of September, Israel committed nine massacres in the strip."

• Shatha Hanaysha: [09-06] 'Days filled with terror': Palestinians in Jenin recount harrowing 10-day Israeli army invasion: "Israeli occupation forces withdrew from the occupied West Bank city of Jenin, including the Jenin refugee camp, early on Friday."

• Gideon Levy:

  • [08-29] Israel holds a ceremony for a war that hasn't ended -- instead of ending it. Looks like Israel's "never forget" industry is back, working harder than ever:

    Why is it even important to hold a ceremony on October 7? Is there anyone who doesn't remember? And has anyone learned any lessons from it? . . .

    Since October 7, Israel has been wallowing nonstop in October 7. There has yet to be a news program that doesn't wallow again in that day -- the longest day in Israel's history, the day that still hasn't ended.

    Yet this, too, is meant to repress, deny and escape what really matters. We'll wallow in the past, and then we won't have to think about how to extricate ourselves from it. We'll play the victim to the hilt, and then we won't have to deal with the victims of our own horrific crimes.

    October 7 doesn't need a ceremony. It's still alive and well, dead and held hostage. It's present all the time.

  • [09-05] When six Israelis are mourned more than 40,000 Palestinians: The "six" were hostages recently found dead by Israel. The "40,000" is the minimal number of Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israeli military operations since October 7, 2023.

    While the world is shocked by the fate of Gaza, it has never paid similar respect to the Palestinian victims. The president of the United States does not call the relatives of fallen Palestinians, not even if they, like the Goldberg-Polins, had American citizenship. The United States has never called for the release of thousands of Palestinian abductees that Israel has detained without trial. A young Israeli woman who was killed at the Nova festival arouses more sympathy and compassion in the world than a female teenage refugee from Jabalya. The Israeli is more similar to "the world."

    Everything has already been said about the overlooking and concealment of Palestinian suffering in the Israeli public conversation, and not enough has yet been said. The Palestinian killed in Gaza who had a face, a name and a life story and whose killing shocked Israel has not yet been born.

• Yoav Litvin:

  • [09-05] From 'defense' to destruction: the evolution of Zionist aggression. A couple earlier pieces by Litvin:

  • [05-30] In Gaza, Israel trials new face of America's imperial laboratory: "Israel has shattered its precedent of sadism, paving the way for wider imperial corruption and the end of the West's neoliberal mirage."

  • [07-17] Why are North American synagogues selling West Bank real estate?

• Harold Meyerson: [09-03] Only Israelis can end their war on Gaza: "But even the massive demonstrations weren't enough to get Bibi to shut down the war to which his own job security is linked."

• Abdaljawad Omar: [09-04] Testing the boundaries for ethnic cleansing in the West Bank: "The current operation in the West Bank is meant to test the boundaries of what Israel will be allowed to get away with. It is setting the stage for the forced ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people." The author is basically right, but I have a couple nits to pick. There are no boundaries, in large part because there is no one monitoring what they are or are not "allowed to do." If their actions seem measured, it's because they have their own reasons for measuring them. They aren't seriously worried about the Americans turning on them, but they respect the threat enough to take some care in managing the issues. It seems to me that their game in the West Bank is to provoke an armed uprising, similar to Gaza, which they can then respond to with a major escalation of violence (as they did in Gaza). The the West Bank is a trickier proposition, so they're exercising a bit more care, but they've been pretty relentless about tightening down their control to maximize pressure.

• Paul R Pillar: [09-04] Why Isreal is attacking the West Bank: "Another chapter in the long, tragic story of Tel Aviv's leaders choosing to live forever by the sword."

• Meron Rapoport: [09-04] To sacrifice or free the hostages? Israeli protesters have chosen a side: "Fearing for the remaining captives, the mass rallies that erupted across Israel were essentially demanding an end to the war -- and Netanyahu knows it." There is an element of hopeful thinking here, as the author admits: "To be clear, such a statement was not uttered from the stage nor was it seen on many placards, save for among the small pockets of left-wing protesters that formed the anti-occupation bloc."

• Adnan Abdul Razzaq: [09-05] Israel's growing emigration rate has serious consequences:

  The number of migrants to Israel fell by more than half between 7 October and 29 November last year, according to statistics provided by the Israeli Immigration Authority. The Times of Israel reported that half-a-million people have left the occupation state and not returned, which confirms the erosion of trust and the decline of the population which frightens the regime in Tel Aviv. Prophecies about the "curse of the eighth decade" loom ever more menacingly over the apartheid state of Israel.

• Nathalie Rozanes: [09-05] The Gaza war is an environmental catastrophe: "Toxic waste, water-borne diseases, vast carbon emissions: Dr. Mariam Abd El Hay describes the myriad harms of Israel's assault to the region's ecosystems." I'd say all wars are environmental disasters, and have been so for quite some while now, but this one is exceptionally egregious, both in the extent of devastation and for its clearly deliberate intent, where rendering the environment uninhabitable is a critical strategy for genocide.

  In recent months, the phrase ecocide has been widely used to describe the environmental impact of the Israel-Hamas war (as Wikipedia put it). "Ecocide" is not a new coinage: the Wikipedia article cites several examples, starting with the US use of chemical defoliants in Vietnam, but doesn't mention similar antecedents like the fire-bombing of urban area in WWII, atomic bombs in Japan (although Chernobyl gets a mention), or the bombing of dams in North Korea, as well as older strategies aimed at mass starvation (another Israeli strategy).

  I've probably cited some of these already, but a quick search for "Gaza ecocide" produces a long list of articles, including:

  • The Century Foundation: [2023-12-19] War has poisoned Gaza's land and water. Peace will require environmental justice.

  • Rabia Ali: [03-19] Poisonous effects of Israeli 'ecocide' will plague Gaza for years.

  • Kaamil Ahmed/Damien Gaylle/Aseel Mousa: [03-29] 'Ecocide in Gaza': does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime? "Satellite analysis revealed . . . shows farms devastated and nearlyl half of the territory's trees razed. Alongside mounting air and water pollution, experts says Israel's onslaught on Gaza's ecosystems has made the area unlivable."

  • Forensic Architecture:

    • [03-29] 'No traces of life: Israel's ecocide in Gaza 2023-2024.

    • [2019-07-19] Herbicidal warfare in Gaza: Note this previous report, from well before October 7 operations.

  • Jake Johnson: [03-29] Ecocide a 'critical dimension of Israel's genocidal campaign' in Gaza: "Analysis by a research group found that roughly 40% of Gaza land that was previously used for food production has been destroyed by Israeli forces."

  • Saeed Bagheri: [04-03] The silent victim of Israel's war on Gaza. This follows up on the Forensic Architecture report.

  • Philippe Pernot: [05-09] Ecocide in Gaza: the environmental impact of Israel's war.

  • Raphael Tsavkko Garcia: [06-05] Don't ignore Israel's 'ecocide': "Just as we cannot turn away from the human rights crisis unfolding in Gaza, we must not overlook the intrinsic connection between environmental degradation and justice."

  • Helga Merkelbach: [06-20] Forgotten victims of the Gaza war: environment and climate.

  • Justin Salhani: [07-03] Genocide, urbicide, domicide -- how to talk about Israel's war on Gaza: Additional terms covered here: politicide, ecocide, educide and scholasticide, culturcide. Such is the focus on killing every aspect of humanity that disposing of the bodies is almost a side-effect, although it's also a means to those very ends.

  • Lula Fox: [07-07] Israeli ecocide in Gaza pollutes Palestinian futures.

  • Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network: Ecocide at its cruelest, among other relevant pages.

  • Ethan Brown: [03-20] The "ecocide" smear targerts Israel: "Wartime environmental damage is devastating, but creating a poorly defined crime just to stick the overworked ICC on Israel is simply one-sided propaganda." I only included this in case you want to stick your head back in the [now toxic] sand. Curiously enough, he doesn't deny what Israel is doing, but has lots of quibbles about law, including that Israel didn't sign it in the first place. By the way, the author "is the creator and host of The Sweaty Penguin, an award-winning comedy climate program."

  • Khalil Abu Yahia/Natasha Westheimer/Mor Gilboa: [2022-01-13] Gazas race against climate breakdown: "Amid a deepening climate crisis, Palestinians in Gaza are fighting to salvage their land and livelihoods. But repeated bombardments and an unrelenting blockade are devastating efforts to build climate resilience." Another report from a few years back

• Devi Sridhar: [09-05] Scientists are closing in on the true, horrifying scale of death and disease in Gaza.

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

• Branko Marcetic: [09-04] Netanyahu is blocking a hostage deal. You know that. You've known that all along. Netanyahu has always welcomed the opportunity of war. I still clearly remember him on TV on Sept. 11, 2001, grin on face, inviting the US to join Israel in the "war on terror." He said something to the effect of "now you know what it feels like."

• Mitchell Plitnick: [09-06] The genocide in Gaza is as American as it is Israeli. The US won't stop it. "The desire for a ceasefire in the United States, certainly among Democrat voters, is clear. Yet, as the slaughter in Gaza enters its twelfth month, why does the US continue to act the way it does?" I woke up this morning thinking I should write an introduction on just this subject, so this article gives me a chance to dodge the introduction -- which I really don't have time for -- and just hang a couple comments here. I think we need to sort this out several ways, which give us slightly different answers.

  1. Has Israel embarked on a deliberate program of genocide? Short answer is "yes." Most Israelis will quibble over the term, and there are various nuances and idiosyncrasies to their approach, but they don't qualify the point. I could write much more on how this resembles and/or differs from other genocides over history, but the key points are: they know what they want to do, they are working deliberately to realize their intentions, and they have no effective internal constraints against continuing.

  2. Do the Israeli people (by which one means the Jewish ones with full citizenship, which is a privileged subset of the total) support this program of genocide? Short answer is "pretty much so." Very few Israelis object to the dehumanization of Palestinians, which underlies the indiscriminate brutality Israelis practice on them. Israeli culture is designed to inculcate the fear and alienation that makes this dehumanization possible.

  3. Do Americans understand and support Israel's genocide? Some pretty clearly do: e.g., anyone (like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton) who've uttered the words "finish it!" Especially prominent among these people are neoconservatives who envy and admire Israel's habit of using force to impose its will on its supposed enemies. Such people are still very prominent in US security circles in both political parties. But they are a small (but exceptionally influential) faction. A somewhat larger faction, including many otherwise liberal Democrats, is simply loyal to Israel, and they are mostly in denial about the genocide. (Their share is especially large among the politician class, as their world has long been shaped by donors and lobbyists.) Support for Israel has long been tied to cultural prejudices -- including America's experience as a settler colony, its racist divisions, religious focus, and fondness for world wars -- maintained with extraordinary propaganda. Nonetheless, it is likely that most Americans who are aware of what Israel is doing to Palestinians are deeply unsettled and want to see the war and genocide stop.

  4. The Biden administration reflects all of these American views (but especially the blind loyalty expected of politicians on the take), but rather than trying to reconcile contradictions, they have kept doing what they've long been doing -- supplying Israel with large quantities of money and arms, while providing Israel with diplomatic cover -- only touched with schizophrenia. (I can think of dozens of examples, but let's start with the air drops of relief supplies.) I think you have to ask five questions about Biden's handling of this affair:

     1. Did Biden conspire with, or intend for, Israel to commit genocide? I think (but don't know) the answer here is "no." But this does show considerable naïveté and/or carelessness on Biden's part, as the conditions for Israel escalating its long-established program of collective punishment into the range of genocide have been brewing for more than a decade, and the provocation of the Oct. 7 attack was exactly the sort of event that could trigger such an escalation. That Biden's first response was to offer Israel full-throated, open-ended support was seen by Netanyahu as an open invitation.

     2. Did American support materially contribute to Israel's ability to commit genocide? The answer there is "yes," which is to say that the US was materially complicit in the genocide. The obvious follow up here is: did Biden attempt to withdraw or limit American support to end this complicity? The answer there is "not really." Similar questions can be asked about political, financial, and/or moral support, to which the answers are the same.

     3. Is Israel able and willing to carry out its genocide without American (and allied) support? I think the answer here is "maybe, but not nearly as effectively, or for such a sustained period." The main material supply was ammunition. Perhaps more important is money. Israel has maintained a very high mobilization for an exceptionally long time, while Israel's economy has lagged, so American money has helped pick up the slack. While Israel could self-fund their war, the cost-benefit analysis -- which is to say the viability of the Netanyahu coalition -- would be much harder to justify without the incoming cash.

     4. Is there some reason beyond loyalty for the US to support Israel's program of genocide? Given America's efforts at global hegemony, it is easy to imagine that there must be some sort of master plan, but beyond promoting arms sales, global finance, and the oil industry, there is very little coherence in US foreign policy, and much arbitrary prejudice -- which Israel has been very effective at playing for its own peculiar interests. So I would answers this "no," and add that Biden is hurting the real interests[*] of the American people in aligning with Israel.

        [*] By which I mean peace, cooperation, and development of equitable and mutually advantageous relationships, but those "interests" have no effective lobby in Washington (unlike the arms and oil industries, and Israel).

     5. If Biden finally decides to dissuade Netanyahu from his present course, could he? The answer here is "probably," but it wouldn't be easy. First problem would be gathering enough political support in the US to keep the idea from being strangled in the crib. The Israel lobby is very focused on preventing any politician from even considering any shift away from complete support for anything Israel's leaders desire, and they have a lot of influence both in the media and behind closed doors.

        Then you have to calculate enough pressure to move Netanyahu, who has more experience in manipulating American politicians than anyone else alive, and therefore more arrogance at resisting them. I have some ideas about how to do this, but it's a tricky business, especially when you start out on your knees, with no sense of decency or morals.

        Finally, you need to anticipate which compromises will ultimately prove to be acceptable, achievable, and viable. This, too, is hard, not least because the people who you need to get to accept the compromises -- which is to say, the ones with enough power to ignore you (by which I mean Israel) -- want something else instead (or just to play the game forever), and are unwilling to see the benefit of settling for something less injurious to the other party than they think deserved. Relative power warps the field of options so severely that truly just solutions may be impossible, so the best you can do is choose among disappointments, trying to pick ones that will lessen problems, rather than exacerbate them.

  5. Both Israel and the US should consider the reputational damage their complicity in genocide will cause them. It's not just that other people are tempted to sanction and shun them, but it calls into question their motives and behavior everywhere.

  Also related here:

• Meron Rapoport: [09-02] 'This is also America's war': Why the US isn't stopping Israel's Gaza onslaught: "Israelis and Palestinians are making a terrible mistake by looking exclusively to Washington to solve their problems, says former negotiator Daniel Levy." When asked about Harris's DNC speech, Levy says:

  I think she achieved what she wanted: that both of those kinds of reporting could come out, and that both AIPAC and J Street could endorse it. But if we shift attention to the Palestinian rights movement or the Uncommitted Movement, there is nothing there for them. The way the DNC treated the issue tells you everything you need to know about the ways things aren't changing -- for instance, [the fact there was] no Palestinian speaker or perspective on the stage.

  Harris can talk about bad things that have happened to Palestinians, but from her words you wouldn't know who caused it -- a natural disaster? An earthquake? When Hamas does something bad, they are named and shamed; but when bad things happen to Palestinians, there is never any acknowledgement that they are caused by Israel.

  The nuances and differences between Biden and Harris do exist, and they matter, but we always have to go deeper. The expectation is totally misplaced that the United States will solve this.

• Mohamad Bazzi: [09-06] Kamala Harris should do what Joe Biden won't: commit to actually reining in Israel: But she won't, and I'm not sure she should -- what she should say is that the slaughter and destruction has to end, that it's really unacceptable for any country to treat any people like that under any circumstances, and amends need to be made to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. And it's ok here to use the passive voice, which she has a lot of practice at when describing things that Israel and/or the US have done to get to this point. What we need to know now is that she takes this seriously, and will work on it when and as she's able, but I expect that her work will almost all be done in the shadows. It is important that Israel be seen as calling their own shots. And it is important that the US not be seen that way -- we really need to break out of the really bad habit of thinking we can go out and tell other countries what to do and how to behave.

  I got some flak last week over something I wrote about how the Biden couldn't force Israel to end the genocide even if he wanted to. My wife was arguing that Biden does have the power, at least to force a ceasefire, given the enormous amount of aid the US provides Israel. I allowed that might work, but hasn't been tested (and won't) because Biden lacks the understanding and willpower to apply such leverage. My wife added that he lacks the morals, which is true, but I've grown weary of moralizing over foreign policy. But my point wasn't that such pressure couldn't work. It was that it's not guaranteed to work, because Netanyahu could hold firm, accepting the loss of support, and doubling down. We know from bitter experience that even maximal sanctions can be resisted (e.g., North Korea), and Israel has both the wherewithal and the psychology to do just that.

  Or so we should assume, and respect. As far as I'm concerned, the only escalation possible, direct war, is an option off the table. On the other hand, we don't know that Israel would take such extreme measures in resisting sanctions. They are, for the most part, rational people, who can be expected to carefully weigh their options, balancing costs against benefits, not least those of their own political careers. A big part of Netanyahu's political capital is the perception that he can wrap the Americans around his little finger, which could make him vulnerable to pushback -- sure, not from a pushover like Biden (or Trump), but perhaps from someone with a clear idea what they want. (Whether Harris is such a person remains to be seen. Obama never quite got ahead of Netanyahu.)

• Ishaan Tharoor: [09-04] Netanyahu still wants more war: "The Israeli leader's critics argue he would rather prolong the war to assuage his far-right allies (and keep hold of power) than clinch a deal that stops hostilities and frees the remaining hostages." His critics are right, of course, but his friends would probably tell you the same thing. Where one might quibble is in his motivation: his odds of staying in power don't change much one way or the other, but what he mostly wants to do is to see how much war he can get away with -- before Biden gets disgusted and pulls the plug, before his coalition cracks up and forces a new election. Worst case scenario, he goes back to the people, campaigning on his defiance of the lily-livered turncoats who tried to derail his path to absolute victory.

• Jonah Valdez: [09-06] Israel just killed another American in the West Bank. Will the US ever respond? "Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, a human rights activist, was protesting an illegal West Bank settlement when she was reportedly shot in the head by Israeli soldiers."

  • Michael Arria/Qassam Muaddi: [09-06] Israeli army kills American activist in occupied West Bank: "26-year-old Aysenur Eygi was shot and killed by Israeli forces while attending a West Bank protest on Friday."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Michael Arria: [09-08] Former Jewish Voice for Peace leaders reflect on the lessons of anti-Zionist organizing: "Mondoweiss speaks with Rebecca Vilkomerson, co-author [with Alissa Wise] of the book Solidarity Is the Political Version of Love: Lessons from Jewish Anti-Zionist Organizing, about the evolution of Jewish Voice for Peace and the state of anti-Zionist organizing." I think JVP has done truly heroic work not just since last October but for at least 20 years prior. We attended their confab in 2003, which for me at least was very informative and ingratiating. After that, we bought a series of video tape lectures they had produced, and presented them with discussions to the Wichita Peace group. My own study largely grew out of that experience. The interview here notes that JVP didn't officially support BDS until 2015, but I recall it being a hot topic with considerable interest back in 2003. I dare say that had the BDS movement been more successful, the atrocities on (and after) October 7 would never have happened.

  I'm tempted to quote the entire section on "decoupling Zionism from Judaism," but just go read it.

• Allan C Brownfeld: [07-23] Palestinians: the final victims of the Holocaust. Old history, worth knowing and reflecting upon, although it's actually rather light on the ways Palestinians have reflected and recapitulated the legacy of the Nazi Judeocide, which at this point might be useful not just for pluralizing the Holocaust but for finding a way to break the cycle of genocide. Maybe "never again" isn't the answer, especially while "again" is actually happening?

• Nuvpreet Kalra: [09-04] Israel's allies are using anti-terror laws to lock up anti-genocide activists.

• Suhail Kewan: What options has the Israeli occupation left for the Palestinians? That's a very good question, one we should have been asking at every step along the way.

  What has happened in the Gaza Strip could easily happen in the West Bank, in terms of the destruction of its refugee camps and cities, collective punishments and huge numbers of Palestinians killed and wounded. All the signs are that the occupation state is ready and willing to do this. It will, to a large extent, be up to the Palestinians to decide if and how to challenge this.

  What is happening in the West Bank at the moment is that Israel is forcing people to defend themselves and is leaving them with only two options: complete and unconditional surrender to the extremist settlers; or defending themselves and their property. Both options are very costly, and the occupation state has not left a middle option.

  I'd argue that neither of those qualify as options, understood as realistic free choices. Fighting back might, if one had a reasonable chance of success. Surrender might, if one could expect mercy. Israel, however, does have options, and the one they've chosen is to deny Palestinians any choice at all.

• The New Arab:

  • [09-05] Amnesty International urges war crimes probe over Israel razing homes in east Gaza.

  • [09-05] Is Israel using Gaza's 'mowing the lawn' strategy in the West Bank?

• James North:

  • [09-03] From reading the NY Times you would think Gaza's polio outbreak was just a natural disaster: "Unfortuantely, the New York Times is easily the most important US media outlet covering Palestine. So it's time for another up-to-date dissection of ongoing Times bias."

  • [09-07] CNN's Jake Tapper slanders pro-Palestine protesters, but continues to ignore shocking systematic bias at his own network.

• Orly Noy: [09-02] Hersh is gone, sacrificed on the alter of Israel's 'total victory': "The parents of hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin pleaded for their son's release. But Netanyahu chose to cling to power and spill rivers of blood in Gaza instead."

• Norman Solomon: [09-06] Knowledge is power. Gaza war supporters don't want students to have both.

• David Spero: [09-05] Contrived charges of antisemitism are the new 'red scare': "How an evidence-free smear is being used to suppress those fighting for justice in Palestine."

• Tom Suarez: [09-08] Palestine defines us: "Palestine is the perfect illustration of the West's staggering hypocrisy. The Gaza genocide defines us because it is us."

• Jonah Valdez: Columbia welcomes students back to campus with arrests: "Two students, including one activist with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, were arrested in front of campus."

Election notes:

• Nicole Narea: [09-03] The state of the 2024 race, explained in 7 charts.

• Andrew Prokop: [09-03] What the polls show about Harris's chances against Trump.

• Tom Valovic: [09-06] Three important questions you won't hear asked in the presidential debates: Wouldn't be hard to come up with a dozen more, but this is what he came up with:

  1. The role of AI in the economy and the job market
  2. Privatizing the healthcare system
  3. Out-of-control corporate influence in US politics

Trump:

• Zack Beauchamp: [09-04] Trump's biggest fans aren't who you think: "A new book shows how people are getting the right's class appeal all wrong." The book is Stolen Pride: Loss, Shame, and the Rise of the Right, by Arlie Russell Hochschild (whose 2016 book, Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, got a lot of attention after Trump's win as "a guide and balm for a country struggling to understand the election of Donald Trump" -- the other book from back then that was often cited alongside it was JD Vance's much discredited Hillbilly Elegy). As revelations go, this -- that Trump does best among "the elite of the left-behind" -- doesn't strike me as a very big one. The more common term for many in that demographic is "asshole," and sure, Trump's their guy. (To be clear, supporting Trump doesn't make you an asshole, but being an asshole makes you much more likely to rally for Trump.)

• Sidney Blumenthal: [09-04] Donald Trump is deeply threatened by Kamala Harris -- and desperately flailing.

• Kevin T Dugan: Trump bombs his big speech debuting Elon Musk's commission.

• Tom Engelhardt: [09-03] Trumptopia and beyond: "Is reality the biggest fiction of all today?"

• Margaret Hartmann: The highs and lows from Trump's lazy new coffee table book: "From the glaring errors to the debunked gossip about Castro and Trudeau, Save America is a dizzying semi-literary adventure."

• Sarah Jones:

  • The bro candidate.

  • Trump's 'make America healthy again' is a ruse.

• Jerelle Kraus: [09-06] Two and a half hours alone with Nixon, the anti-Trump.

• Nia Prater: Trump won't be sentenced before election day: "Juan Merchan, the presiding judge, ruled that Trump's sentencing hearing will be moved to November 26, weeks after the general election."

• Robert Wright: [09-26] Is Trump a peacenik? No, but if you're worried that Biden (now Harris) is a bit too fond of war, he says a vote for him will save you from WWIII. And given that American politicians of both parties have long and ignominious histories of lying about wanting peace while blundering into war, and given how little reliable information there is about either, there may be enough gullible but concerned people to tilt the election. Wright reviews some of the contradictions here, and there are much more that could be considered.

  I've been worried about just this prospect all along, and I remain worried. I don't have time to explain all the nuances, but very briefly, Biden has done a very bad job of managing US foreign affairs, failing to make any progress dealing with a number of very manageable hostilities (North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, many others) while letting two crises (Ukraine, Gaza) drag into prolonged wars that he seemingly has no interest in ever resolving (at least he doesn't seem to be putting in any effort). The only good thing you can say about his handling of Afghanistan is that he dodged the worst possible option, which was to stick around and keep losing. And while he's made money for the arms and oil industries, both have made the world a much more dangerous place. And then there's China -- do we really need to go there?

  One might reasonably think that anyone could have done a better job than Biden has done, but we actually know one person who had every same opportunity, and made them all worse: Donald Trump, the president before Biden. Is there any reason to think that Trump might do better with a second chance? The plus side is that he may be more wary this time of relying on the "deep state" advisers who steered him so badly. (Biden, too, was plagued by their advice, but he seemed to be more in tune with it -- the only changes Biden made in US foreign policy were to reverse Trump's occasional unorthodox lapses, especially what he viewed as softness on Russia.)

  On the other hand, Trump brings a unique set of disturbing personal characteristics to the job: he cares more about perception than reality; he wants to be seen as very tough, but he's really just a whiney bitch; he's majorly ignorant, and incoherent on top of that; he's impetuous (but he can usually be talked down, because he rarely has any reasons for what he wants to do); he's vain and narcissistic; he has no empathy with people he meets, so has no idea how to relate with them (e.g., to negotiate any kind of agreement); he has no sympathy for other people, so he has no cares for anything wrong that could happen; he has a weird fascination with using nuclear weapons, so that's one of the things he often has to be talked down from; I know I already said that he's ignorant and implied that he's clueless, but he's also pretty stupid about how most things in the modern world actually work. He does, however, have a keen interest in graft, and a passing admiration for other right-wing demagogues, if only because he admires their art and sees them as his peers. About the only thing I can see as a positive is that he doesn't seem to feel any personal need for war to prove his masculinity -- for that he's satisfied abusing women.

  • Daniel Larison: [09-03] Trump doesn't oppose endless wars: "If it were anyone other than Trump taking these positions, his own supporters would be denouncing him as a neocon."

• Steve M: [09-08] In addition to "sanewashing," can we talk about "reality-washing"? Various bits quoting Donald Trump, summed up in the end:

  I still say Trump isn't crazy or suffering significant dementia. He's just beginning to realize that he can tell any lie, no matter how divorced from reality it is, and no one will say that his lies are categorically different from ordinary political lies. To the media, there's no difference between Trump saying schools are forcibly performing gender reassignment surgery on children and Tim Walz saying that he and his wife conceived their children using in vitro fertilization when they really used intra-uterine insemination. A lie is a lie! Nothing to see here, folks!

  Maybe the press has a sense of futility about fact-checking Trump -- it's never stopped him from insisting that the 2020 election was rigged, so why bother? And fact checking clearly can't kill other Republican Big Lies -- that Democrats support abortion after birth, or that entire cities were burned to the ground during the George Floyd protests in 2020. (Many Republicans other than Trump tell these lies and get away with them.)

  If we continue to let Trump lie this brazenly without making the sheer magnitude of the lies a story, we run the risk that he'll become president and indict enemies or call out troops on disfavored groups based entirely on fictional scenarios. Once that happens, the press might finally tell us that he's the worst-ever purveyor of Big Lies, but it could be too late by then.

  Also see his earlier post, on a point I also recall making:

  • [09-06] My unpopular opinion about Trump's rhetoric: it's not gibberish, it's bullshit.

  • [09-04] Anti-Trump Republicans should be rooting for the right-wing media to lose, too. Another piece that shows why No More Mister Nice Blog is so valuable:

    Trump didn't make Mark Robinson a star. Institutions that pre-dated Trump made him a star: Fox and the rest of the right-wing media, along with the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby. And that's the GOP's real problem.

    Donald Trump isn't the sole reason that the Republican Party is extreme and unpalatable to many middle-of-the-road voters. The party began its modern era of intolerance in the days of Ronald Reagan, but the extremism metastasized under the influence of talk radio and then Fox News. Now add the podcasts, news and opinion websites, and social media accounts (as well as entire social media platforms), and you've got a well-oiled rage-inducing machine that urges GOP base voters to hate everyone who isn't a right-winger in good standing (whatever that means at the time).

    While we're at it, a couple more on the media's ineptitude at what's supposed to be their jobs:

  • [09-08] Both sides don't do it, but the media never notices.

  • [09-10] That Times story about Trump's incoherence: I question the timing.

Vance, And other Republicans:

• Neema Avashia: [07-16] I'm from Appalachia. JD Vance doesn't represent us -- he only represents himself.

• Jeet Heer: [09-06] The Powell Memo helped create Project 2025: "A new investigative podcast shows the toxic legacy of the founding father of modern American plutocracy."

• Jan-Werner Müller: [09-05] The US right keeps accusing Democrats of 'communism'. What does that even mean? "Conservatives think giving children free lunch at school is socialism, but vast, powerful private monopolies are freedom."

• Elie Mystal: [09-04] Meet the MAGA zealots who are gunning to become their state's top prosecutors: "The Republican Attorney Generals Association is working overtime to install authoritarian AGs across the country."

• Matt Stieb: Did JD Vance say school shootings are a 'fact of life'? "Yes, but he also said he didn't like it." To which point:

  • Meredith Lee Hill: [09-07] It's 'not a fact of life': Walz responds to Vance's school shooting comments.

Harris:

• Jack Hunter: [08-26] Harris' aversion to talks with dictators is more Bush than Obama: "Negotiating with adversaries is not 'cozying up to tyrants' as she suggested in her DNC speech."

• Joshua Keating: [09-06] The guessing game over Kamala Harris's foreign policy: "Nobody knows."

• Robert Kuttner: [09-09] Kamala's capital capitulation: "The money is not that huge, but the optics are terrible."

• Eric Levitz: [09-05] Harris is swimming in cash -- but Democrats may still have a fundraising problem: "Democratic donors are underinvesting in state legislative races, where money goes a lot further." This has been a persistent problem, especially when Clinton and Obama used the Democratic Party as a personal piggy bank, while letting Democratic majorities in Congress go under. This happens because Democratic donors have very different priorities than Democratic voters, and may even prefer to sandbag policies that Democratic majorities would pass if they had the numbers. Republicans, on the other hand, work much harder to get their candidates elected down ballot, because they need to pass laws to implement their regressive agenda.

• Nicole Narea/Sean Collins: [09-06] Will Harris's massive fundraising spree actually help her? The chart here shows that both candidates combined raised almost twice as much money in 2020 as in 2016 ($1774M vs. $896M). As Jeffrey St Clair pointed out (article below), 2020 was the first year in many when the winner got more votes than the number of eligible voters who didn't vote, so one correlation seems to be that more money means more voter participation (although the returns there are pretty slim). Chart also shows that Trump more than doubled his fundraising in 2020 over 2016. I was thinking that shows the value of incumbency, but Obama's raised almost exactly the same in 2012 and 2008.

• Adam Wren/Megan Messerly: [09-09] Why the 'one-two punch' of Liz and Dick Cheney backing Harris matters: Evidently they have their own PACs, so they can back up their votes with some money. Whether they have any credibility with anyone who wasn't already a "never Trumper" isn't very likely. Dick Cheney ended his VP term with the lowest approval numbers ever (9% is the number I remember). Liz Cheney has some fawning admirers among the DC press core (including Joan Walsh?). But it's quite possible that the net change will be negative. By far the biggest liability Biden (and now Harris) had was their involvement in senseless foreign wars -- which they seem completely powerless to do anything to stop -- and here they're picking up endorsements from bona fide super-hawks. That's a very bad look.

Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:

• Perry Bacon Jr.: [09-03] What a conference for the left just revealed about November: "The war in Gaza and the threat of another Trump presidency pulled democratic socialists in opposite directions at a post-convention meeting in Chicago." Look, life can be frustrating on the left. You've managed to figure out some basic truths about how the world works, and how for most people it could work better, but one major group of people keep telling you that your proposals, which you see as just plain common sense, are impossible dreams, that instead you have to not just limit yourself to corporate compromises but smile when you vote for the Democrats who broker those deals (or just let them wither and die) -- and be assured that if you don't vote for them, if you even criticize them at inopportune times, they will blame all their failures on you. Then there's that other major group of people who simply hate you for even suggesting that any conscious change is possible let alone desirable, even though those people have consistently pursued their own self-interests in ways that have drastically altered the world, with hardly any regard for the vast harm they have caused all around the world.

  These major groups dominate the political parties that limit our choices in what passes for democracy in America: the Democrats, who are leery and dismissive of the left, and the Republicans, whose fear and loathing is so unbounded we often recognize them as Fascists. (Fascism is sometimes dignified as an ideology, but for leftists, the telltale sign is sensing that someone wants to kill you.) November matters because that's the next big election, a rare opportunity for most people (even leftists) to vote for one of the two major parties' vetted candidates. Most of us feel the need to participate, on principle for democracy, but also because we usually have a pretty good idea which candidate is the worst -- it may be hard to vote for some ideal, but we shouldn't squander the opportunity to vote down someone truly malignant. But that's just one moment: too glaring to ignore, not least because so many people invest so much hope in its outcome. I can identify with one leftist quote here: "Presidential elections, the Democrats specifically, have a way of sucking all life out of any movement." In November, winners will celebrate, losers complain, but leftists (and lobbyists) can only go back to work.

Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:

• Maham Javaid/Anumita Kaur: [09-08] Five people shot on Kentucky highway, suspect still at large in woods.

• Aja Romano:

  • [09-05] The right-wing podcasters turned Russian propaganda dupes, explained

  • [09-06] The precedent-setting push to hold parents responsible for school shootings: "Frist Jennifer and James Crumbley were charged; now it's Colin Gray, father of the Apalachee school shooting suspect."

Climate and environment:

• Farrah Hassen: [09-06] Workers need protection from record-breaking heat.

• Umair Irfan: [09-05] Wait -- do Harris and Trump actually agree on fracking? "The case for and against fracking, politics aside."

• Diana Leonard: Southern California Line Fire explodes in size, as Nevada fire forces evacuations.

Economists and the economy:

Ukraine and Russia:

• Ben Armbruster: [09-06] Diplomacy Watch: Are Moscow and Kiyv on collision course to talk? "Both sides now appear to be signaling that the war cannot be won outright."

• Michael Corbin: [09-06] Turkey's BRICS gambit is just what Russia ordered: "Joining the geopolitical block would allow Ankara access to non-EU/Western institutions, which makes Moscow happy."

• John Feffer:

  • [09-04] Why Ukraine invaded Russia: "How many more mistakes will Putin make before Russians give up on him?"

  • [08-14] When do autocrats give up? "Protestors pushed out the leader of Bangladesh. They have yet to succeed in Venezuela. Why the difference?" No real answers here, but there is the contrast, and one could easily extend this essay with the Putin case.

• Anatol Lieven: [09-05] When will the war in Ukraine end? "One month later, Kyiv's invasion of Russia hasn't moved the needle, while Moscow has made gains on other fronts."

• Ray McGovern: [09-04] Conditioning Americans for war with Russia: "With new US action today against Moscow, Russiagate remains like a vampire, with no one able to drive a wooden stake into its heart and keep it there." This was in response to:

  • Julian E Barnes/Glenn Thrush/Steven Lee Myers: [09-04] US announces plan to counter Russian influence ahead of 2024 election: "American spy agencies have assessed that the Kremlin favors former President Donald J Trump, seeing him as skeptical of US support for Ukraine."

• Ian Proud: [09-04] Will Kursk be a sideshow that turns into tragedy for Ukraine? "The Russians are hardening their positions while Ukraine may not have a lot of maneuvering room left."

• Aja Romano: [09-05] The right-wing podcasters turned Russian propaganda dupes, explained: "The DOJ says Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson and others were unwitting Russian stooges." This is already being dubbed "Russiagate II: Kamala's Revenge" by right-wingers like Ben Shapiro

  • Chris Lehman: [09-06] The right-wing influencers cashing checks from Russia.

The World and/or America's empire:

• Thomas Brodey: [09-05] Disinformation dilemma: US hands are way dirty, too: "As Biden cracks down on Russian interference in our elections, a look at what the Pentagon has been doing overseas."

• Nicholas JS Davies: [09-06] Who wants to kill and die for the American empire? It's getting harder to recruit people to do the dirty work of empire maintenance.

• Greg Gonsalves: The mpox outbreak is a damning indictment of the global health system: "The inequalities and injustices in our medical infrastructure have made the outbreak so much worse than it could have been."

• Brian Saady: [09-03] Ex-Paraguay prez finds himself on wrong side of US power: "As a former leader, he is no longer useful to Washington, which can now act virtuous and punitive with sanctions."

• Denis Simon/Marcus Stanley: [08-28] Why can't we just let American & Chinese scientists get along? "The Science and Technology Agreement [STA] is a 45-year-old cornerstone of cooperation, but some in Washington want to kill it."

• Ishaan Tharoor: [09-06] Germany's firewall against the far right isn't working: "Recent elections in Germany show the limits of the nation's statist efforts to stamp out far-right extremism and ultranationalism."

• Nick Turse:

  • The US has been at war in Yemen for 20 years, but Houthis can still choke the Red Sea: "Despite US talk of peace and stability, and two decades of war, the people of Yemen are still suffering." Well, despite all that suffering, the real point is that they're still fighting back, and the modern world is stretched so thin and fragile that it a little resistance can do a lot of damage.

  • Top US general meets with alleged war criminal in Libya.

Other stories:

• Marty A Bullis: [08-12] MAGA to MAGNA: "True greatness -- magnanimity -- is rooted in giving our selves away, not attempting to make ourselves great again." Philosophy professor, launched this newsletter a month ago, evidently he's a friend of a friend, deep enough I decided not to bury it in the "laugh and cry" section under Donald Trump's name. I'm afraid I lost my interest in all things great long ago, so it's hard for me to take "make America great" as anything other than sardonic conceit. For starters, it always conjured up the Bill Moyers story of how he suggested calling Lyndon Johnson's social programs "the good society," but Johnson insisted on "great." A big chunk of the problem is that very little of what people claim as great is really much good. And Hillary Clinton's counterpoint, that "America has always been great," was really unhelpful (but, I supose, revelatory). What kind of person even aspires to greatness? Especially after models like these.

  Bullis does us a service in describing how the phrase works, and in breaking it down to five "core values" (which I might add are not tautological, but are empirically derived from observation of the people we've come to shorthand as "MAGA"):

  "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) is the central value-phrase Trump uses to activate our instinct for greatness. MAGA stimulates a simultaneous sense of loss for, and desire to work and fight to regain some part of our past -- whether real or imagined. The phrase is generic in a way that it can be all things to all people. Who hasn't experienced loss? And who would not want to get something valuable back? Trump for his part had the brilliant (and self-serving) idea to trademark and market this motivational phrase, and then turn it into a repetitive rallying cry to channel our fears and hopes for his benefit.

  I will be highlighting five core MAGA values that play on these fears and hopes, bringing harm in their path. The list is not meant to be exhaustive of the values driving negative actions in the MAGA-sphere, and I am not the first to discuss them. My goal is, however, to show how these values can be redirected in ways that will allow us to be authentically great. The five MAGA values are: 1) insular self-interest; 2) cultural homogenizing; 3) social wall building; 4) patriotic ranting; and 5) self-serving aggression. Like Trump, these values are attractive to many people.

  His emphasis. He then spoils the mood with his next sentence: "But I will argue that there are better and truly authentic value-paths to greatness." He really needs a better destination, and not just because "greatness" has been spoiled. (I don't have a counterproposal, but the first word that popped into mind was "satori.) Looks like he at least has his path plotted out, with a first section here and the promise of more to come:

  1. Unselfing America: Embracing service rather than self-interest
  2. Unhomogenizing America: Embracing diversity as our identity
  3. Unwalling America: Embracing our immigrant status rather than isolation
  4. Unranting America: Embracing gracious discourse rather than hateful speech
  5. Unaggressing America: Embracing nonviolence rather than picking a fight
  6. Stepping out in authentic greatness

  Mostly good themes, so good luck with that. Maybe something good can come out of "greatness" after all. But don't get me started on "authenticity," a concept I like even less than "greatness."

• Ted Chiang: [08-31] Why A.I. isn't going to make art: "To create a novel or a painting, an artist makes choices that are fundamentally alien to artificial intelligence." I was directed to this piece by a tweet, which quoted this nugget:

  The task that generative A.I. has been most successful at is lowering our expectations, both of the things we read and of ourselves when we write anything for others to read. It is a fundamentally dehumanizing technology because it treats us as less than what we are: creators and apprehenders of meaning. It reduces the amount of intention in the world.

• Gabor Maté: [09-06] We each have a Nazi in us. We need to understand the psychological roots of authoritarianism: I don't have any specific insight into this question, other than my experience that every argument ever made constructed along these lines has been complete and utter horseshit -- the most obvious examples being blatantly racist, or closely analogous.

  Neuroimaging studies have shown that the amygdala, the tiny almond-shaped brain structure that mediates fear, is larger in people with more rightwing views. It is more active in those favoring strong protective authority and harboring a suspicion of outsiders and of people who are different.

  I have a pretty low opinion of right-wingers, but I'm pretty sure the only ones "born that way" are explicable in terms of class acculturation, and even if tightly held are not locked in.

• Caitlin PenzeyMoog: [09-04] Organize your kitchen like a chef, not an influencer. Well, this is the sort of soft "lifetyle" feature I often bother to read, and I kept the link for future reference (partly because I didn't know what a "cambro" was, although I have some cheaper alternatives). I have the largest refrigerator I could find, and I keep it jammed, for better or worse, so managing it (as opposed to presenting it as a gallery) is something often on my mind.

• Jeffrey St Clair: [09-06] Roaming Charges: Ain't that America, something to see, baby? Starts off with the latest school shooting, then gives you some Xmas cards from our "family values" Republicans. After that, the usual smorgasbord.

• Jason Stanley: [09-05] Why fascists hate universities: "Authoritarians and would-be authoritarians are only too aware that universities are primary sites of critique and dissent." Mostly on Bangladesh and India, but of more general interest. Stanley has a recent book: Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future, following up on his previous books: How Propaganda Works (2015), and How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018).

• Barry Yourgrau: [09-03] Lessons of a Weimar anti-fascist in Palestine: "After my father fled Nazi Germany in 1933, he witnessed a toxic new nationalism rising among Jews in Palestine -- and was silenced for trying to warn of its dangers."

Obituaries

• Adam Nossiter: [09-06] Michael Lerner, 81, is dead; founder of a combative Jewish magazine: "His publication, Tikkun, was a leading voice for left-wing American Jews. His ideas about 'the politics of meaning' were embraced by Hillary Clinton."

• Barry Singer: [09-07] Dan Morgenstern, chronicler and friend of jazz, dies at 94: "He wrote prolifically about the music and played an important role in documenting its history, especially in his many years with the Institute of Jazz Studies."

  • ArtsFuse: [09-10] The late Dan Morgenstern -- jazz writer, editor, and archivist: notes by Steve Provizer and Jon Garelick.

  • Jazz Lives: [09-07] Gone: Dan Morgenstern (1929-2024).

  • Ashley Kahn: [09-10] Jazz historian, journalist Dan Morgenstern dies at 94.

  • Harrison Smith: [09-10] Dan Morgenstern, who helped safeguard jazz history, dies at 94.

  • Tom Vitale: [09-08] Jazz historian and critic Dan Morgenstern dies at 94.

Books

• Nazzer Abu Srour: [07-28] The Intifada of the Stones: an excerpt from Nasser Abu Srour's The Tale of a Wall: "Nasser Abu Srour's The Tale of a Wall joins a long tradition of Palestinian prison literature but is far more than a prison memoir. Through his evocative prose, the author transforms the question of Palestine into a question of the human condition."

• Marcy Winograd: [09-06] Holding the press and White House accountable: [Norman] Solomon's afterword on the Gaza war: The book, available in a new paperback edition, is War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.

  • Norman Solomon: [2023-06-05] The convenient myth of "humane" wars: This was excerpted from the book.

• Riotriot: [09-02] The 50 best rock bands right now (#50-26); and [09-03] The 50 best rock bands right now (#25-1). This is a genre I've gradually lost interest in, at least since the early 1990s, when I found Nirvana and Sleater-Kinney so underwhelming. But, as I still check out most such well-regarded bands, I've turned this into a personal checklist. From these 50 bands, I've identified 27 A- and 3 full A albums (although only 6 since 2020, 11 since 2015).

Chatter

• Zachary D Carter: [09-06] [Responding to Leah Greenberg, writing on Vance: I can't get over how disrespectful this is. It's the answer of someone who has never seriously considered any aspect of how care policy works, because he believes -- but knows better than to say out loud -- that women should be home taking care of the kids.]

  When you did get past the gender hang-ups there's nothing here except warmed over occupational licensing reform stuff from the 60s and 70s. These guys say they want to represent working families but they have no interest in how working families live.

  To the extent there is a policy argument here, Vance is saying we should lower daycare costs by paying lowering pay for childcare. If your solution to an economic problem is "lower wages," you aren't interested in supporting working families.

• Stephen Walt: [09-05] By now it is clear that there is nothing #Netanyahu could do or say that would lead @SecBlinken to withhold U.S. support. A more ineffectual approach to diplomacy is hard to imagine, and the failure to achieve any positive results is entirely predictable. [Comments follow:]

  • Blairja: [09-05] The entire Biden Administration simply does not know how to negotiate. The entirety of US current foreign policy is purely the result of this basic inability to negotiate. No negotiations = endless support for war. The ONLY way conflicts ever end is with negotiation.

  • Jean-Noël: [09-05] It is clear that the Biden administration and Blinken in particular are completely under the thumb of Netanyahu. They all follow Biden's example of unconditional support, whatever humiliation Netanyahu inflicts to them over and over again. We are the laughing stock of the world.

  [Given the company they're joining, it's a bit surprising that anyone bothers to offer intelligent commentary. I've understood all along that the longer this war continues, the more people who are appalled by it may turn to antisemitic tropes. Most of the people I read are careful not to fall into that trap, but there's quite a bit of it in the commentary here -- most personal about Blinken (e.g., "Blinken is effectual, he's just not playing for our team"), although there was also a "Jews run America." Still, by far the most offensive comment was "Hamas supporter," followed by a cartoon showing Netanyahu and someone labeled Hamas holding a child wrapped in a suicide vest and a paper that reads "Demands: Death to all Jews," with Blinken in the middle saying, "Could you at least meet him half way?"]

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): Plitnick ("the genocide in Gaza is as American as it is Israeli"), Trump, music.

Initial count: 154 links, 10515 words (13320 total)

Current count: 166 links, 11076 words (14052 total)

Daily Log

Feeling sorry for myself, I posted this on Facebook:

Just unwrapped my first promo albums for release on my birthday, which got me to thinking about what to cook this year: an annual tradition which started c. 1995 in Boston, with a 20+ dishes study in Chinese, especially for Liz & Nina. As best I recall, I did Indian the next year, and again in 1998 in NJ (25+ dishes, easily the largest and possibly the best attended dinner of the series). Since moving to Wichita in 1999, I think I've only skipped two years (once at my brother's, where I did a beer can chicken, and once with Jerry for a Brookville Hotel field trip. I've done a couple domestic menus -- one with the "soul food" cookbooks, the other was just a hamburger cookout (well, six variants, three kinds of homemade buns, plus a nice array of sides). But most started as explorations into some national cuisine, of which there have been more than a dozen, from Mexico and Brazil to Thailand and Korea, but most centered around the Mediterranean. Last year was Spanish (probably not for the first time). I have no idea what to do this year, but after a year of being bummed out over my writing failures and housework disasters, I really could use a project with a reasonable chance of success. Plus, I've really done damn little cooking this year, so I figure I need this. So I'm looking here for inspiration and challenge. Any good ideas? (Picture below was labelled "birthday desserts 2021," which given the pecan pies -- one with chocolate, the other with bourbon -- was probably the "soul food" dinner; the coconut cake, on the other hand, has made multiple appearances, as has the flourless chocolate cake.)

I did some grocery shopping today, and will cook dinner tomorrow for Janice, Tim (+1), Ran, and Laura. Trying to do one of my "inventory reduction" menus, using up surplus from the freezer and pantry. Turns out I still have leftovers from last year's birthday dinner shopping, so that suggests a Spanish theme. Also, lots of opportunities in tapas-land for small dishes that can be prepped a day ahead, so I figure that's what I'm going to do starting tonight, and to hell with everything else. Speaking of Which is open and about 500 words, but I have little enthusiasm for working on it. Music Week is +15 now, and again, who cares?

I'll fill in the Spanish menu for tomorrow as I develop it. The only thing planned to start is dessert (strawberry shortcake). I also have some calf liver I really want to do, and something with shrimp. Plus I've decided to use up some leftover wine for sangria. Shopping today was limited to strawberries, cream, and some fresh veggies that may prove useful: yellow onion, red onion, red bell pepper, zucchini, carrots, garlic, ginger, tomatoes, russet potatoes, dill, oranges, mini-cucumbers.

After dinner, I added this comment:

Last couple dinners I cooked have been "inventory clearance specials," where I try to use up old stuff, mostly from the freezer. I did jambalaya-and-adjacent things a month or so ago, including a chocolate pecan pie like the one pictured. Seeing as I still have surplus shopping from last year's Spanish birthday dinner, I thought paella plus tapas might work, so I fixed that today. Fuller report to follow, but two notes for now: hip problem flared up severely yesterday, so this whole project was pretty painful; with no coherent plan, a menu formed opportunistically as I saw things I wanted to get rid of, and a lot of missteps and substitutes, literally everything (12 dishes) came out as good or better than expected.

Menu:

1. Oven-roasted potatoes
2. Paella, with chorizo, shrimp, green beans, and peas
3. Calf liver in almond sauce
4. Shrimp in "spicy" tomato sauce
5. Lamb meatballs in brandy sauce
6. Pisto manchego (zucchini/onion/tomato)
7. Shiitake mushrooms with garlic sauce (plus some sausage)
8. Pickled cucumbers
9. White bean salad
10. Tuna, egg and tomato salad
11. Strawberry shortcake with whipped cream
12. Sangria

New shopping for this meal (also onions, garlic, and some small tomatoes, used in multiple dishes):

1. Russet potatoes (3)
6. Zucchini, red bell pepper
8. Mini-cucumbers
11. Strawberries, heavy cream
12. Seltzer, peaches, pineapple, orange

Inventory used up in this meal (skipping staples, like olive oil, tomatoes, eggs, rice, stock, flour, sugar, and spices):

2. Chorizo, salsichon, shrimp, green beans (frozen), peas (frozen)
3. Calf liver
4. Shrimp
5. Ground lamb
7. Shiitake mushrooms (frozen)
9. Canned white beans
10. Canned tuna
12. Three bottles of leftover wine (pink moscato, white moscato, something red -- I cook with it but don't drink it, so we have a BYO policy, and get stuck with whatever gets left; frozen berries)

Daily Log

I started compiling a checklist, based on Dan Weiss's "Best 50 Rock Bands Right Now." Of bands 26-50, I haven't heard anything from 7, and have only heard A/A-records from 5 (7 albums total).

Another possible checklist: Questlove presents "only sixteen albums have been awarded the [Source five-mic] rating since the magazine started publishing in 1988" [my grades in brackets]:

1. A Tribe Called Quest, People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm (1990) [A-]
2. Eric B. and Rakim, Let the Rhythm Hit 'Em (1990) [B+(***)]
3. Boogie Down Productions, Edutainment (1990) [B+]
4. Ice Cube, AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted (1990) [B+(**)]
5. Brand Nubian, One for All (1990) [A-]
6. De La Soul, De La Soul Is Dead (1991) [C+]
7. A Tribe Called Quest, The Low End Theory (1991) [A-]
8. Nas, Illmatic (1994) [A-]
9. The Notorious B.I.G., Life After Death (1997) [B+]
10. Outkast, Aquemini (1998) [A-]
11. Jay-Z, The Blueprint (2001) [B+]
12. Nas, Stillmatic (2001) [B+(***)]
13. Scarface, The Fix (2002) [B+(**)]
14. Lil' Kim, The Naked Truth (2005) [B]
15. Bun B, Trill OG (2010) [B+(**)]
16. Kanye West, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010) [A]

So, only 4 unheard, all in a row (2001-10). Questlove says "for me, the De La Soul and Tribe records, definitely."

Music Week

Expanded blog post, September archive (in progress).

Tweet: Music Week: 36 albums, 7 A-list

Music: Current count 42905 [42869] rated (+36), 30 [34] unrated (-4).

Yesterday's Speaking of Which slacked off a bit, only citing 141 links, less than half of the previous week's 290 (although the word count only dropped by 28%, as I got off on more tangents; also last week included an extra day plus extra adds, whereas this one appeared on schedule, and I haven't tallied up what little I've added since).

Music Week is also coming in a day short. Rating count got a boost as my dive into Houston Person's old records carried over from last week, and led me to a new one. Also the A-list bounced back after only one record each in three of the last four weeks (but 7 for the week of August 20. Three of those came from promos I had been sitting on until their late August release dates. (An extra day would have added Patricia Brennan's Breaking Stretch, but that's banked for next week.)

I'm still updating the 2024 Jazz list, which has already reached a ridiculous A-list length (70+3 new music, 16+1 old music). I haven't sorted out the Non-Jazz yet, but at this point it's unlikely that I have half as many albums in any subdivision. Four pop records I tried I played multiple times before leaving them in the B+ ranks: Sabrina Carpenter, Lainey Wilson, Buoys, Magdalena Bay. The latter's Mercurial World was one of my favorite records of 2021, but only hints at that level toward the end. Same fate seems likely for Beebadoobee's This Is How Tomorrow Moves next week, but there's a lot to like there.

I started to write up a "to do" list in my Aug. 30 notebook entry, and hope to get back to it soon. I did cross a couple items off today already: I updated and did the indexing for August Streamnotes. I was surprised to find I have more patience for that kind of work early in the day.

Joan Didion's Where I was From is the first (of three) books I picked up in the brick-and-mortar bookstore last week. I've never read her fiction, but have read two books of political reporting: Political Fictions (2002), and Fixed Ideas: America Since 9.11 (2003), by which time she was a recovering Republican. Less of a memoir than I expected, but interesting as history, even as drawn from novels. I have more typical political books "on the nightstand" (Zack Beauchamp, Danielle Allen, Henry Farrell/Abraham Newman), but figured I could use a break.

New records reviewed this week:

• The Buoys: Lustre (2024, Sony): [sp]: B+(***)
• Bex Burch: There Is Only Love and Fear (2023, International Anthem): [sp]: A-
• Gunhild Carling: Jazz Is My Lifestyle! (2024, Jazz Art): [cd]: B+(***)
• Sabrina Carpenter: Short n' Sweet (2024, Island): [sp]: B+(***)
• Bill Charlap Trio: And Then Again (2024, Blue Note): [sp]: B+(***)
• Doechii: Alligator Bites Never Heal (2024, Top Dawg/Capitol): [sp]: B+(**)
• Girl in Red: I'm Doing It Again Baby! (2024, Columbia): [sp]: B+(**)
• The Haas Company [Featuring Frank Gambale]: Vol. 2: Celestial Latitude (2024, Psychiatric): [cd]: B+(**)
• Javon Jackson/Nikki Giovanni: Javon & Nikki Go to the Movies (2024, Solid Jackson/Palmetto): [cd]: A-
• Magdalena Bay: Imaginal Disk (2024, Mom + Pop): [sp]: B+(**)
• Mavi: Shadowbox (2024, Mavi 4 Mayor Music): [sp]: B+(**)
• Nicole Mitchell and Ballaké Sissoko: Bamako Chicago Sound System (2017 [2024], FPE): [sp]: A-
• Houston Person/Peter Beets: Live in Holland: Houston Person Meets Peter Beets Trio (2024, Maxanter): [sp]: A-
• Catherine Russell/Sean Mason: My Ideal (2023 [2024], Dot Time): [cd]: A-
• Taliba Safiya: Black Magic (2024, self-released, EP): [sp]: B+(*)
• Sault: Acts of Faith (2024, Forever Living Originals): [yt]: B+(*)
• Philip Weberndoerfer: Tides (2023 [2024], Shifting Paradigm): [cd]: B+(**)
• Lainey Wilson: Whirlwind (2024, BBR): [sp]: B+(***)
• Miguel Zenón: Golden City (2023 [2024], Miel Music): [cd]: A-

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

None.

Old music:

• Ashtyn Barbaree: Ashtyn Barbaree Debut EP (2018, self-released, EP): [bc]: B+(*)
• Ashtyn Barbaree: Better Luck Next Time (2022, self-released): [bc]: B+(*)
• Houston Person: Broken Windows, Empty Hallways (1972 [2004], Prestige): [sp]: B+(***)
• Houston Person: A Little Houston on the Side (1977-94 [1999], 32 Jazz): [sp]: B+(**)
• Houston Person: My Romance (1998, HighNote): [sp]: B+(**)
• Houston Person: Soft Lights (1999, HighNote): [sp]: B+(**)
• Houston Person: Blue Velvet (2001, HighNote): [sp]: B+(***)
• Houston Person With Ron Carter: Dialogues (2000 [2002], HighNote): [sp]: B+(**)
• Houston Person: Sentimental Journey (2002, HighNote): [sp]: B+(***)
• Houston Person: Social Call (2003, HighNote): [sp]: A-
• Houston Person: The Melody Lingers On (2014, HighNote): [sp]: B+(***)
• Houston Person: Something Personal (2015, HighNote): [sp]: B+(**)
• Houston Person: Rain or Shine (2017, HighNote): [sp]: B+(***)

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

• Ashtyn Barbaree: Sent Through the Ceiling (Artists 3 60) [10-25]
• Anne Sajdera: It's Here (Bijuri) [09-20]

Speaking of Which

Blog link.

I opened this file about noon, Wednesday, August 28. First thing I did was to revise the template. Most obvious thing was to move the VP candidates (plus Biden) into the "and other D/R" sections. Also some minor rephrasing. The three Israel sections overlap some, but reflect different focuses: the first focuses on what Israel does directly, but also includes items on Israel's domestic politics; the second focuses on Israel's relationship to the US, and what American political elites think and do about Israel; the third focuses on the part of Israel's propaganda war directed at others, and their responses to the atrocities (the word "genocide" comes up here). Further subdivisions are possible, as is overlap, and sometimes I just try to keep articles by single authors together. I tend to put pieces on Israel's provocations with Lebanon, Iran, and their so-called proxies into the second section, as my view is that Israel's cultivation of regional enemies is mostly geared toward keeping the Americans looking at Iran and away from Gaza and the West Bank.

Ukraine and Russia still seems to need their own section, but the broader context is the notion of America as imperial hegemon, even if in fact it's defined more as an arms market where loyal customers are counted as allies, and anyone who goes DIY and/or shops on the black market is regarded as an enemy. For now, I'm putting pieces on the arms cartel in the World section, along with whatever scraps of world news that don't slot directly under Israel or Ukraine/Russia. In theory, I should be covering news that has nothing to do with America's imperial ego, but few such stories reach my attention. So, for now this remains a grab bag.

Three topical sections -- law, climate/environment, economy -- cover most of what crops up domestically (sometimes overflowing). "Other stories" is a catch all, from which I've broken out certain recurrent themes, which may on occasion be empty.

Sunday, early afternoon, eager to get to a delayed breakfast. With 82 links, 7415 words, this is way less than last week's 290 link, 15528 word monstrosity. And already I'm dead tired, disgusted, and just want to get it over with, so today's plan is to just go through the motions, and fuck it. In essence, I feel like I already know everything I need to know, at least about the 2024 elections, where we will try to fend off the grave peril of wrong-headed Republicans with the vague hopes of naïve and uncertain Democrats. At this point, further research and reporting is only likely to show that the Republicans are even worse than imagined, and also that the Democrats aren't quite as good as we hoped. Even that can be readily intuited from what we already know -- not to totally dismiss the "devil in the details," which I'm pretty sure will be quite appalling.

At this point, I'd much rather return to the woefully incomplete "to do" list I started in my August 30 notebook entry. At least there are some tasks on that list that I can reasonably expect to accomplish -- some within days, more in months, some that will (like so much else) inevitably slip through the cracks. Today's little bit of self-realization is that I'm basically an engineer: I deal with things by making plans to change them by practical measures in desirable directions.

Finally posted this after midnight. Link count way down this week, but word count not so much. Uncertain at this point how much (little) I managed to cover, but enough for now. Anything extra added on Monday will be flagged.

Monday evening: did add a few bits here and there, but nothing major.

Top story threads:

Israel:

• Mondoweiss:

  • [08-26] Day 325: As ceasefire talks falter, Israeli army orders evacuation of al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital: "The only running hospital in central Gaza is threatened with closure after an Israeli evacuation order amidst ongoing military operations in the area. Meanwhile, ceasefire negotiations resume in the wake of Hezbollah's retaliatory attack."

  • [08-29] Day 328: Israeli Foreign Minister calls West Bank invasion 'a war in every sense': "The Israeli army's large-scale assault on the northern West Bank has entered its second day. During a battle in Nur Shams refugee camp, the Israeli army killed wanted resistance fighter Muhammad Jaber 'Abu Shuja,' leader of the Tulkarem Brigade."

• Hanna Alshaikh: [08-30] Demystifying how the Hamas leadership works: "Media sources have misunderstood how the leadership of Hamas operates, drawing simplistic binaries between the 'moderate' Ismail Haniyeh and the 'extremist' Yahya Sinwar. In reality, Hamas decision-making is far more institutionalized."

• Julian Borger/Sufian Taha: [08-31] 'There was no mercy, even on children': trauma in the West Bank after Israeli raids: "Israel accused of using a 10-year-old girl as a human shield as it carried out its devastating attack on the occupied Palestinian territory."

• Juan Cole: [08-31] Israeli PM Netanyahu says recovering hostages not a priority, occupies Philadelphi Corridor instead.

• Dave DeCamp: [08-28] Israeli forces launch major assault on the West Bank, killing at least 10 Palestinians: "Israel's foreign minister said the territory should be dealt with the same as Gaza and called for the evacuation of Palestinians."

• Georgia Gee: [08-30] What is Hashomer Yosh, the latest settler group his with US sanctions? "The government-backed organization, which brings volunteers to Israeli farming outposts, is a major driver of violent land theft in the West Bank."

• Tareq S Hajjaj: [08-28] 'We won't leave our people': the medical workers refusing to evacuate central Gaza's last functioning hospital: "Medical staff at al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital are refusing to abandon their patients after an Israeli evacuation order. 'If we leave our positions, we will fail ourselves and our society,' a doctor at the hospital told Mondoweiss."

• Ellen Ioanes: [08-30] Israel has launched a major operation in the West Bank. Here's what to know. The main thing to know, which never quite gets stated clearly here, is that this is all Israel's doing, with most of the violence initiated by settler-vigilantes, knowing that the IDF will back them up and amplify their violence.

  Since the October 7 Hamas raid on Israel, at least 660 Palestinians and 15 Israelis have been killed in the West Bank, according to the United Nations. It's a smaller number than the more than 40,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza over the past 10 months, but it is still a reminder of how intense ongoing violence in the West Bank is.

  You hear much about "Israel's right to self-defense," but nobody talks about Palestinians having such a right, nor does Israel agree that they have any rights at all. Nonetheless:

  Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank are recognized as occupied territory under international law, and therefore Israel is obligated to protect the people living there. Israel denies that it is occupying Palestinian lands, but just last month, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel is occupying Palestinian lands and should end that occupation immediately.

  Israel's recent escalations in the West Bank, including aircraft bombing refugee camps, suggests their intent to extend genocide to the West Bank (as some Israelis, not quoted here, have urged).

• Lubna Masarwa: [08-30] West Bank attacks: To western leaders, there are no red lines for Israel's slaughter: "Emboldened by the US and other western powers, Israel feels it can get away with unleashing hell on all Palestinians."

• Dana Mills: [08-30] 'Israelis are frustrated, but do they want to stop the war? Not exactly': "Rallying around the flag, low trust in government, rebounding support for Netanyahu: Dahlia Scheindlin unpacks Israel's peculiar public opinion trends." Interview with the author of a 2023 book, The Crooked Timber of Democracy in Israel: Promise Unfulfilled. Also on her book:

  • Peter Eisenstadt: Book review.

• Qassam Muaddi: [08-30] The new status quo after Israel's assault on the northern West Bank: "Israel's old policy of containing armed resistance in the West Bank is over. Palestinians are now wondering whether the war on Gaza has expanded to the West Bank."

• Adam Rasgon/Gabby Sobelman/Vivek Shankar/Thomas Fuller: [09-01] Discovery of 6 dead hostages in Gaza spurs protest and division in Israel: "The Israeli military said Sunday that Hamas had killed the hostages before they were discovered by Israeli troops on Saturday."

• Bel Trew: Stripped and held at gunpoint, the Gaza schoolboys 'forced to be Israel's human shields': "Palestinians as young as 12 describe how they were forced to inspect houses and roads to look for tunnels and militants, sometimes dressed in military fatigues, in a practice an Israeli NGO warns is 'broadly used' and 'systemic'.

• Vivian Yee/Bilal Shbair: [08-22] The war in Gaza is making thousands of orphans: "Extended families, hospital staff and volunteers are stepping in to care for Gaza's many newly orphaned children, some of whom are injured, traumatized and haunted by memories of their parents." A point so obvious few bother to make it -- especially the ones who work so hard to deny that Palestinians are human.

• Oren Ziv: [08-29] 'If you try to defend yourself, you're dead': a West Bank village's night of terror: "Palestinians in Wadi Rahal were left to pick up the pieces after settler-soldiers from a nearby outpost stormed the village and killed one resident."

• Mairav Zonszein: [08-13] Israeli society is in a deepening state of contradiction: "Israelis blame Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for dragging them into endless war -- and are at a loss for how to carve a way out." I'd have to quote the entire article to give you a sense of how hopelessly circular the thinking of most Israelis is on their war, their political system, and their cloistered society. There are lots of people who hate Netanyahu for one thing or another, but few if any who are willing to rethink Israel's founding paradigm of Iron Wall security. They've never gotten to the point of thinking about what comes next, and have no idea how to proceed (although an expanded war against Hezbollah seems to be popular). If only Israel had a friend who could guide them to something more viable.

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

• Michael Arria: [08-29] 'I think we've reached a tipping point': James Zogby on Uncommitted and the DNC: "James Zogby speaks to Mondoweiss about the DNC's snub of the Uncommitted movement, and what it will take for Washington to shift on Palestine."

• Michael Crowley/Eric Schmitt/Edward Wong: [08-29] Inside the frantic US efforts to contain a Mideast disaster: "A bigger disaster may have been avoided, even as the region continues to teeter on the brink of wider war."

• Daniel DeCamp: [08-28] Biden was told Gaza pier would undermine efforts to get Israel to allow more aid into Gaza. Source here is:

  • Jamal Kanj: [08-29] How Blinken's disinformation perpetuates the suffering in Gaza.

  • Dan Lamothe: [08-27] Biden approved Gaza pier despite internal pushback: Primarily from USAID staff, who expressed concerns "that the Biden administration's focus on the pier undercut the agency's advocacy for opening more land crossings."

• Joe Gill: [08-23] Kamala Harris's speech killed any hope she would end the Gaza genocide. Only if you hoped that she would use the bully pulpit provided by her nomination to publicly oppose what Israel is doing. Regardless of her feelings, I don't see any political advantage in her breaking with Biden and/or Israel, while to do so could invite peril. She is, after all, running a popular front campaign against Donald Trump, who is clearly an even worse option if you style yourself as "pro-Palestinian," so her present course doesn't hurt her much there. On the other hand, she needs to hold onto "pro-Israel" donors, many with long ties to the Democratic Party but so singly focused on Israel that they could well defect to Trump.

  There is still some reason to hope that when she is free to make policy, and freed of the obligation to follow Biden, that she will do a better job of restraining Netanyahu than Biden has done. There is some evidence to support this hope -- she has been more disciplined than Biden in calling for ceasefire, and she has been more credible in recognizing the harm done to Palestinians -- as well as the reasoning revealed in the logic of her campaign. What's much harder to gauge is how much she could (and should) influence Israel policy as vice-president. I could only speculate on that, and I don't want to, other than to point out that only Israel (which right now, and for the foreseeable future, means Netanyahu) can stop the genocide, and really needs to change much more.

  Even as president, the only thing Harris could do would be to tip Netanyahu's cost-benefit analysis toward less egregious policies (which could still be pretty awful). Even if Harris were tempted to burn all of her good will with Israel and institute maximum-level sanctions, Israelis are at least as likely to respond by hunkering down like North Korea as by reforming like South Africa -- and with their arsenal and in confirmation of their paranoia, they could turn more militant than North Korea.

  I just got a refresher course on Bush's Iraq war propaganda from reading Lapham's Age of Folly, and could easily imagine recycling it to gin up a regime change operation in Israel, but nobody's going to do it: the architects of that folly were then-and-now staunch fans of Israel, while those who thought better (or who painfully learned their lesson) are likely to point out that a "splendid little war" against Israel can go wrong in many more ways than the Iraq one did -- for one thing, Israel actually has WMD; also, while that line about "Saddam gassing his own people" hit its target, hardly anyone thinks to think of Palestinians as Israel's "own people" -- the dehumanization is far too complete for that.

  Also on Harris and Israel (allowing me to compartmentalize and exclude these articles from her section):

  • Hala Alyan: [08-28] This is who Kamala Harris fails.

    It is maddening how people advocating the freedom of Palestinians are spoken about, as though their invocation of the genocide were the real problem, the downer, the Trump enabler. It implies that mentioning this administration's material support to massacre Palestinian civilians is what ruins the vibes, not the act of sending billions of dollars in unconditional military aid to Israel. It is an obnoxious magic trick that makes naming the crime the crime.

  • Michael Arria: [08-30] Harris says she won't stop Biden's policy of sending weapons to Israel: "In an interview with CNN, Harris said she supports a ceasefire deal but made it clear that she would not stop sending Israel weapons if elected."

  • Jamelle Bouie: [07-30] Kamala Harris can't escape Gaza any more than Joe Biden can.

  • M Gessen: [08-10] Kamala Harris is speaking. Is she listening?

  • Farah Stockman:

    • [08-12] Harris should take divisions over Gaza seriously.

    • [08-20] The Democratic Party has been avoiding this fight for too long.

  • Jonah Valdez: Harris will continue to ignore US law and arm Israel, if elected: "In her first major TV interview during her campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris signaled no change from Biden on Israel policy."

While I was writing the [PS] on Risen, I sketched out some "unsolicited advice" I would give the Harris campaign, if I could possibly see any way to get the message through. (Down there, I talk a bit about why I've never been able to do anything like that, then went off on another tangent where I could have just offered a parade of failing examples.) Anyhow, makes more sense to move that comment up here (although by the time I post this it will probably be redundant to other comments in this section.

Anyhow, my advice to the Harris campaign is this:

When asked about Gaza, don't start with your rote mantra about "Israel's right to defend itself." Anyone who cares has already heard that a million times already and will instantly turn you off and never credit another word you way. What you have to start with is acknowledgement of the immense suffering the war has caused, to both sides if you really must (and you don't really have to get into numbers here), and insist that the war has to stop, as soon as possible. You can mention the hostages at this point, if you really must, but understand that the hostages were taken to negotiate a ceasefire, not for prisoner swaps. End the war, and the hostages (what few are left; like Trump, Netanyahu only admires those who didn't allow themselves to be captured) will be freed (while there will still be thousands of Palestinians in Israel's concentration camps; even if they have to replenish them, they're a renewable resource). And then, after stressing the importance of peace, and human rights, and dignity and security for all (sure, both-sides this, but make sure you don't slight the Palestinians), then segue to how you're working around the clock with Israel to make peace happen, on terms, of course, that fully take into account Israel's security and well-being (including, if you really must, its much-abused "right to self-defense").

I'm not even asking her to say anything different from what she's already saying. Just put it in a different order, so it gets heard not just by pro-Israel donors but by genuinely concerned Americans (the donors are smart enough to wait to the end for their reassurance; they've been speaking in code for aeons now). Also, Harris has a bit of unique value-added here. I think most people realize that Israel is completely in charge of their war: they started it (long before Oct. 7, which was merely a hiccup they decided to magnify), and they alone can end it, which they will only when they decide they've had enough, that it serves no further purpose.

For nearly everyone else, all you can do is speak up, bear witness, demonstrate, maybe vote (but almost never directly), all of which is ultimately directed at making Israeli leaders think better, whether through conscience or through self-interested cost-benefit analysis (which is what BDS aims at). We've spent a lot of energy trying to get Biden, Harris, other prominent Democrats to do what we've been doing, which is to speak out, but they are actually very different from us: they don't have to speak out, because they're close enough to speak to, if not the right people, at least to people closer to the right people, to make their appeals personal.

Unfortunately, the few people in that position are severely compromised, but their loyalty should earned them the right to a hearing. And in some cases, they have some power to tip that cost-benefit analysis. Harris is already in that general orbit, which is part of the reason why she has to be discreet in public, in order to operate in private. We should respect that, but she should also give us some sign that we can trust her discretion. Reframing her answer does that, or at least helps. And electing her president will increase her leverage -- assuming she wants to use it.

I think she can and will, but when she does, she will be subtle and disciplined about it. Netanyahu is a bully, someone who has taken great delight in humiliating American presidents (going back to his Wye River sleight-of-hand with Clinton, and his pre-emptive attack on Gaza between Obama's election and inauguration, but he found Trump such an easy mark that when Biden came along he found he could finally get away with being sadistic), but I'd venture a guess that she has some experience in handling his type. Still, there is no way she can simply dictate terms. The best she can do is to look for tolerable compromises, which she's more likely to find and sell by being sympathetic to Israel than by becoming a clear-headed critic of Zionist settler-colonialism.

That won't necessarily, or even likely, lead to good solutions, but damn near anything would be better than blank-check support for genocide -- which is where we're at, and where we're stuck, until someone in a position to do something thinks better of it. (I've spent 20+ years racking my brain for solutions that would help a bit while still being acceptable to the racist-paranoid mindset of contemporary Zionism. My "pro-Palestinian" friends hate this line of thought, but I see no other as possible, at least within any reasonable time frame.)

Unfortunately, I fear that no one in such a position -- and we can comfortably include Kamala Harris in that sharply circumscribed circle -- is able to think better of it. They wouldn't be allowed the chance if they could. So we have every reason to be profoundly pessimistic about Israel, about America's relationship with Israel, and about the possibility that Harris might finally change course. Still, I give her slightly better odds than Trump, and with no other alternatives this cycle, I'm inclined to cut her considerable slack. But we can't stop talking about the problem, and we do need to remain aware that she is still very much a part of it.

• Daniel Levy: [08-27] The US diplomatic strategy on Israel and Gaza is not working: Well, it never has worked. It took Ben Gurion almost six months to realize Eisenhower was serious about Israel leaving Sinai in 1956, and that was pretty much the last time any American insisted on a point. Maybe Carter's opposition to Israel's first Lebanon war -- which Reagan allowed the rerun in 1982, much to everyone's eventual embarrassment. And sure, there was some mutual make-believe, like Israel accepting the UN "land for peace" resolutions, or the nods to a "two-state solution." But from Clinton on, no one took the charades seriously. Netanyahu not only stopped playing, he took advantage of American timidity to make himself look like he's the strong one. Meanwhile, the Americans look like weak fools with no principles or even interests, while being complicit in war crimes and crimes against human rights.

• Branko Marcetic: [08-29] Biden may be the president who kills the two-state solution: "Israel is only doing this because it has learned that there is nothing it can ever do that would make Biden cut off the weapons and military support it needs to carry on its spree of violence."

• Taha Ozhan: [08-27] Israel is rudderless, and Washington is going down with the ship.

• Jeremy Scahill:

  • [09-01] How the US enabled Netanyahu to sabotage a Gaza ceasefire.

  • [08-30] Israel's violent invasion of West Bank parallels the early stages of war on Gaza: UN rapporteur on Palestine. One thing to note here (and I have no idea how credible this reporting is) is:

    On Thursday, Abdel Hakim Hanini, a senior Hamas official, suggested that the group was preparing to engage in suicide bombings inside Israel, a tactic that became common during the Second Intifada, which spanned 2000-2005, but had ended almost entirely after 2006 when Hamas and other groups announced an end to the practice.

    "The resistance in the West Bank has begun changing its tactics and returning to martyrdom operations to strike at the occupation within the occupied interior," Hamas said in a statement outlining Hanini's announcement. "The resistance's change in tactics is a result of the settlers and the occupation government crossing red lines in their crimes against the Palestinian people." Hanini also called on the security forces of the Palestinian Authority to participate in a popular uprising against Israeli occupation forces and settlers.

    This is exactly what Netanyahu's right-wing allies have been hoping (or should I say agitating?) for: a panic and pretense to extend Israeli military operations and significantly increase their destructive force. One might as well call this genocide -- Israel is less concerned with counting scalps than with reducing the infrastructure that makes life viable, so that ultimately whatever Palestinians are still alive will realize that their only hope is to emigrate, emptying the land for more settlers. It would be a sad mistake for any Palestinians to invite such a savage response, but it would also be a sign of hopelessness -- a desperate resolve, once cornered, to make their menacers pay as dear a price as possible. And make no mistake, while there is no doubt that Palestinians would suffer far worse, a surge of Palestinian violence would take a toll that ordinary Israelis aren't used to. During the second intifada, Israeli casualties rose to such an extent that Israel's kill ratio sunk to around 4-to-1, as opposed to typical ratios between 10-to-1 and 100-to-1. (For comparison, the kill ratio since and including Oct. 7 is at least 30-to-1, and probably double that, yet Israel's leaders are showing no signs that their blood lust is abating.)

• Donald Shaw/David Moore: [08-27] AIPAC officially surpasses $100 million in spending on 2024 elections.

• Yoana Tchoukleva: [08-31] An arms embargo on Israel is not a radical idea -- it's the law: "Halting military aid to Israel is the bare minimum the U.S. can do to stop the Gaza genocide. An arms embargo is not only supported by 80% of Democratic Party voters, it is demanded by international and U.S. law."

Israel vs. world opinion:

• Bryce Greene/Lara-Nour Walton: [08-26] NYT uncritically reported Israel's version of Golan bombing.

• Alex N Press: [08-29] Universities are cracking down on free speech over Gaza: "The school year is kicking off, and American universities are starting the semester with scaling back students' First Amendment rights, with the goal of stopping criticisms of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza."

• Richard Silverstein: [09-01] AI social media campaign for Israeli genocide: "Pro-Israel apologists employ AI to generate social media disinformation."

Election notes:

• Ed Kilgore: [08-28] Five mistakes to avoid when looking at 2024 election polls. Or better yet, don't.

• Rick Perlstein: [08-28] The election story nobody wants to talk about: "A Q&A with David Neiwert, America's foremost writer and thinker on far-right extremism, on what might happen if Trump wins -- or loses."

• Theodore Schleifer: [09-01] Who are the biggest donors to Trump and Harris? "In presidential politics, campaigns are powered by billionaires. Here is a look at the most influential givers."

Trump:

• Alex Abad-Santos: [08-29] Your guide to the Brittany Mahomes-Donald Trump drama, such as it is: "Why everyone suddenly cares about Brittany Mahomes' politics." Everyone?

• Margaret Hartmann:

  • [08-29] What Trump said in his vulgar and unhinged Truth Social spree: You may be wondering, which one? Turns out there are several here, some with memes, at least one with video. One could do a whole book of things like this. The hard part is figuring out when to stop. At what point is the horse you're flogging well and truly dead?

  • [08-30] The history of Trump pretending to be Superman: "Lex Luthor is based on Trump, but that hasn't kept him from repeatedly posing as the Man of Steel."

• Sarah Jones:

  • [08-30] Misogyny is about power: A pretty generic title, but filed here because the first line is: "Donald Trump's supporters in search of apparel have no shortage of options." The generalization is also true, and one can go even wider and explore the intoxication of power and how seeking to solve problems through its application is not just bad philosophy but should more properly be regarded as a form of mental illness. But back to Trump:

    By attacking Harris's gender, Trump demonstrates his own masculinity and makes himself seem more and more like the strongman that he -- and his followers -- believes the U.S. needs. Trump was the vehicle for a vengeance fantasy in 2016, and that remains true in 2024. To followers, his pursuit of raw power is a means to bully liberals and the left into submission. . . . The sexual remarks that Trump reposted this month are a way for him and his followers to put the vice-president back in her place.

    As I've observed on many occasions, the essence of conservatism is the belief that each person has a proper place, and a passion to use force to keep people there.

  • [08-28] The 'pro-life' policies hurting women: These specific examples mostly come from Arkansas, but they are part of a much wider trend. Filed here to keep the author's articles together, but also because Trump is the single person most responsible for allowing things like this to happen. Remember that in November. And don't believe anything he says to the contrary . . . or to be safe, anything he says at all.

• Ed Kilgore:

  • [08-29] No, Trump wouldn't win California if Jesus counted the votes. Another example of the neverending quest to debunk the nonsense Trump spouts.

  • [08-30] Trump keeps flipping and flopping on abortion.

• Casey Michel: [09-01] Trump is making new, sketchy foreign business deals: "From Saudi Arabia to Serbia, despots are cozying up, likely in preparation for a second term." Every one of these deals is an advertisement for ending Trump's political career. If I was a TV exec, I'd hire Michael Moore to turn this story into a documentary. At this point it would be a rush job to beat the election, which would make it a public service as well as useful history. He could always redo it as a film later, especially with a happy ending: Trump loses, the business deals crash, he finally goes to jail. And if worse comes to worse, he could continue it as a series, because crooks like Trump don't just stop of their own accord. They have to be busted.

• Ben Lefebvre: [08-30] 'Political poison': How Trump's tariffs could raise gasoline prices.

• Chris Lehmann: [08-28] The Trump campaign is now running on pure contempt: "Both Trump and JD Vance are incapable of hiding their lack of basic humanity."

• Shawn McCreesh: [09-01] Meandering? Off-script? Trump insists his 'weave' is oratorical genius. "Former President Donald J Trump's speeches often wander from topic to topic. He insists there is an art to stitching them all together."

• Nicole Narea: [08-23] Does RFK Jr. dropping out of the presidential race help Trump? "The weirdest 2024 candidate endorsed Trump."

• Nia Prater:

  • [08-27] RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard are joining the Trump transition team: I noted this story last week, dismissing it with "sounds like something, but probably isn't." Here I should note that while it probably isn't, it could actually be something. Kennedy and Gabbard have a lot of traits that discredit them as presidential candidates, but the one thing they do have is pretty consistent antiwar track records, which they are not just committed to, but are eager to use against Biden and Harris, who are not exactly invulnerable to such charges. Moreover, they can say that they left the Democratic Party because they opposed how hawkish the Party had become -- so hawkish that even Trump would be a safer and more sensible foreign policy option. It remains to be seen how credible they'll be, because, well, on most other issues they're nuts, but on this one, they could be more credible than Trump himself to people with real concerns. I've said all along that if Biden doesn't get his wars under control, he will lose in November. The switch to Harris gives Democrats a partial reprieve, but the one thing she is most seriously vulnerable on is the suspicion that Democrats are going to continue saddling us with senseless and hopeless foreign wars. Kennedy and Gabbard could be effective at driving that point home -- sure, not to rank-and-file Democrats, who are generally much more dovish than their leaders, and who are even more wary of Republicans on that count, but to the "undecideds," who know little, even of what little they know.

  • [08-29] What does Jack Smith's new indictment against Trump mean?

  • [08-30] Trump throws another Hail Mary on the hush-money case.

• Andrew Prokop: [08-30] The Trump Arlington National Cemetery controversy, explained: "Shoving, insults, politicizing soldiers' gravesites." For more on this:

  • Jonathan Chait: [08-28] Trump honors 'suckers and losers' with illegal Arlington Cemetery photo op: "His goal in the Arlington visit was to smooth over his political liability by creating the false image that he actually cares about the honor of fallen soldiers. Instead, he confirmed once again that he doesn't."

  • Steve M: [08-30] Trump's Arlington stunt reveals how much Republican voters hate us.

• Nikki McCann Ramirez:

  • [08-27] Trump's campaign is running TV ads around Mar-a-Lago to make him happy: "Coddling the former president is quickly becoming a top priority for his campaign."

  • /Asawin Suebsaeng: [08-28] Trump goes full fascist in Truth Social posting spree: "One campaign official says staffers are relieved that the former president has largely isolated his social media presence to his own app."

• James Risen: Why the media won't report the truth about Trump: "The political press has doubled down on horse-race coverage of the election, overlooking the threat Trump poses to democracy." The mainstream press does a half-assed job of covering nearly everything and everyone, but they seem to be exceptionally inept when it comes to Donald Trump. I have a few theories about why, and I'd love to see an article that explored them, but this piece, with its historical review of election books from 1960 on, never gets to the point. One clue to the problem appears in the title: the idea that there is such a thing as "truth about Trump." Sure, it's a natural idea for the star writer for a publiciation that prides itself on muckracking. But is there any such thing?

  Sure, Trump has a history, so journalists can write about what he's said and done in the past, and how rarely one has anything to do with the other. Still, few journalists are up to the task of sorting fact from fraud from utter bullshit, which seems to exist in such profusion for no better reason than to camouflage underlying meaning -- if, indeed, there is any, for like Churchill's "armada of lies" you only have his word that there is some "precious truth" somewhere. The only sensible way to report on what Trump says would be to put the quotes into a table, each one followed by a note explaining the fallacy. (Feel free to apply the technique to other politicians.) The revelation about Trump is that there is nothing else leftover. Journalists stuck with following him around can file each day's article under the same headline: "Trump lies again." Or, if they want to mix it up a bit, "Trump is a pompous asshole (again)."

  Having disposed of the horse's orifices, journalists might consider doing some actual reporting. The first thing they need to work on is making the campaign more transparent: Who are the operatives? How does their polling direct messaging? What psychology does the messaging attempt to manipulate? Where is the money coming from? And what do donors expect for their money? Who's thinking about staffing? What are all those eager staff-in-waiting plotting to do? Again, it's fair to ask these same questions of Democrats, but you really need to start with Trump, because with him the real interests are buried so extra deep.

  One mistake many people make is to assume that presidents and administrations go hand-in-hand. While the president has to sign off on who does what, and can oversee an administration through cabinet meetings, directives, and the occasional staff shake up, harmony requires a degree of focus that Trump simply is incapable of. If Trump wins, he will quickly sign off on whatever slate of generic Republican functionaries and donors he's presented with, and they will go off and try to do whatever they've long wanted to do.[*] Sure, they may be a bit Trumpier this time than they were in 2016, but that's just fashion sense. All Republicans, including Trump, have been marching to the same ideological drumbeat for decades (as popularized by Fox News, and articulated by their "think tanks," in forms like "Project 2025").

  Trump is the Republicans' leader not because he leads (except in the fashion sense) but because he's the perfect diversion: he keeps the media focused on side-issues and trivia, all the while cultivating an air of deniability, as in how can you possibly believe he believes in anything? Given how many of his fans seem to be in on the joke, it's really quite amazing that so few journalists can figure it out. (Of course, they wouldn't last long if they did, nor would anyone who did and still had an ounce of self-respect stick around, so you might say that natural selection favors gullible journalists on the Trump beat.)

  The main reason for wanting Trump to lose is to avoid having to survive four more years of Republican administration, but Trump as president presents its own discomforts, chiefly in the form of embarrassment. As president, most of what he would do may be harmless -- he'll watch a lot of TV, tweet, golf, pose for pictures, talk nonsensically, waddle absent-mindedly, hold campaign rallies even after being term-limited, make occasional "perfect phone calls," and run his family grafts (or, like the government, allow them to be run in his name). Any president can stupefy, but no one else has ever come close to his level. If this were a purely aesthetic matter, I might not mind seeing the exalted office of the presidency reduced to buffoonery. But the office has too much power to entrust anyone like him, let alone to someone whose worst instincts are reinforced by the malevolence of his party.

  [*] Journalists would be well advised to dig up John Nichols' 2017 quickie, Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America. The book on Trump's initial cabinet picks was soon obsoleted as several subjects self-destructed almost instantly, but it's a useful empirical account of on how Trump picks "the best people" and why.

  [PS]: After writing the above, I got a spam pitch for donations from The Intercept, which I might as well quote at length:

  When Donald Trump announced his third campaign for the White House, leading voices in the journalism industry vowed that the press couldn't fail in its coverage of Trump again.

  This time, the media would aggressively investigate Trump while focusing coverage on the threat that he poses to democracy, we were told. The stakes for the nation in the election, not just the odds of who was likely to win the campaign, would be put front and center.

  But with 66 days until the election, it's clear that the major national news media hasn't changed a bit.

  Horse-race coverage is back in full force, with breathless reports on every trivial social media spat or tick in poll numbers running on an endless loop 24/7 -- while the threat Trump poses to democracy is now relegated to an afterthought.

  The Intercept rejects this failed approach to political journalism. Every day, we're reporting on what the candidates really stand for, how their policies will impact your life, and how billionaire campaign donors stand to benefit.

  Risen's article, which I had just found so wanting, was obviously their best idea on how to do this, so I thought, maybe, write them a letter? I did, following my quote with a few more thoughts:

  I realize that this, like most things, is easier to complain about than to fix. The subject is vast and deep, and perversely rooted in the minds of people who don't read and are immune to analysis. I could imagine this taking a whole book just to explain: perhaps a sequel to Manufacturing Consent as something like Manufacturing Faux Divisions in the Theater of the Absurd.

  Paradoxically, if one reported as I suggest on both Harris and Trump, it would probably be devastating for her while merely annoying to him, for much the same reason as focusing on corruption killed Hillary Clinton while letting Trump off the hook -- that we hold her to higher standards, because she presents as worthy of them, whereas he's just Trump.

  By the way, my theory there was that voters saw both candidates as really horrible choices, but also saw an opportunity to get rid of one of them, and seized on that opportunity to vote Hillary off the island. To some extent, that worked against Trump in 2020, but he had other things buoying him up, and he refused to take the hint. If I was a campaign strategist, I'd try to figure out how to raise consciousness of this election as the voters' opportunity to finally rid us of his oppressive presence.

  I doubt anything will come of this, because it never does. I've written a dozen or so unsolicited advice letters over the years, and never gotten any meaningful response. (Two letters I wrote early on did elicit responses that changed my life, but they were more in the form of dismissive harrangues: Eugene Genovese convinced me to give some serious study to Marxism, and Robert Christgau invited me to write for the Village Voice. Come to think of it, aggressive letters may work better for me. I once wrote a letter to Steve Ballmer, that got me a job interview at Microsoft in 1984. They ran me through an assembly-line gauntlet of middle managers from Xerox PARC who couldn't square the timid, uncredentialed programmer they saw with the prick who had written the letter, so they passed. Had they taken a chance, it would have changed my life, and possibly theirs. I quite possibly would have developed into a millionaire tech entrepreneur, instead of becoming a free software diehard who hates every fiber of their being.)

  Sorry for that diversion, but that was something I've long wanted to get off my chest. What I meant to write next was that I woke up this morning trying to figure out how to pass some unsolicited advice to the Harris campaign:

• Matthew Stevenson: [08-30] Trump IPOs his presidency:

  Why does anyone think Donald Trump is actually running for president? Granted, he's the Republican nominee and is on the ballot in all fifty states, but the only election day that interests Trump is the one around September 20. On that day (or perhaps a few days later) the lockout period on his Trump Media shares (for which he paid nothing) expires and he will be free to dump his gifted 57.6% stake (114,750,000 shares) on scheming billionaires (for example, the Saudis, Vladimir Putin, a Mexican drug cartel, etc.) who might have an interest in the first $2.4 billion IPO (initial public offering) of a prospective American presidency.

  Trump isn't so much a candidate these days as a walking conflict-of-interest whose bumper stickers might well read: "Trump-Vance 2024: On Sale September 20."

Vance, and other Republicans:

• Zack Beauchamp: [08-27] An inside look at how the far right is mainstreaming itself: "A radical troll got unmasked -- and then spilled the beans." On Jonathan Keeperman.

• Michael C Bender: [08-31] JD Vance's combative style confounds Democrats but pleases Trump: "Over dozens of events and more than 70 interviews, Mr. Vance's performances as Donald Trump's attack dog have endeared him to his boss, even if America is broadly less enthusiastic." I noticed this because the headline elicited considerable ridicule on X. In particular, Andrew:

  We weren't confounded @nytimes. We're disgusted. We're mortified for our country that this weird misogynistic sociopath abomination could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And that you keep writing headlines line this while our democracy burns to the ground.

  Some more comments:

  • JFC another misleading headline from the rag @nytimes. At this point, MSM are committing election interference with their overt biased reporting. What happened to journalistic integrity. We are NOT confounded, not in the least.
  • JD Vance's Combative style? The man is a twerp. Nobody thinks he's even the least bit impressive. He is -10 unfavorable and Trump is crapping his diaper over it.
  • Every single Democrat I know is delighted that Vance is on the ticket. He's one of the least effective politicians in recent memory.

  Of course, the comment roll degenerates quickly once the right-wing bots get into action: "That's a lot of propaganda but you are the Communist Party. I never voted Republican but I'm not voting for the candidate of no choice backed by the war party." If this "I never voted Republican" line seems to come gratuitously out of the blue, Steve M wrote an eye-opening post on this phenomenon: [09-02] A charitable explanation for the latest New York Times reporting failure (a different one, but quel coïncidence), following up on [09-01] A failed attempt at humanizing Trump? It worked on your paper's reporter.

  One helpful commenter did point us to this:

  • Ben Smith: [05-05] Joe Kahn: 'The newsroom is not a safe space': An interview with the New York Times Executive Editor, who says:

    It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it's not the top one -- immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they're favorable to Trump and minimize them?

    The problem isn't that they're reporting on issues "favorable to Trump," but that they're accepting that slant as fact instead of exposing it as nonsense. They do that because they so readily accept Republican framings at face value, when most of them are not just partisan distortions but bald-faced lies. Of course, it's not just Republicans they favor. They'll carry water for any well-heeled lobby (Israel is a perennial favorite). Kahn goes on to brag that the Times offers "a much more favorable view of Biden's conduct over foreign policy at a difficult time than the polling shows the general public believes." Again, he's consciously catering to powerful interests, while slighting honest reporting that the public sorely needs.

• Kevin T Dugan: [08-29] The right-wing crusade against DEI isn't actually working.

• Gary Fineout/Kimberly Leonard: [08-30] Ron DeSantis is struggling to maintain power in Florida following presidential campaign flop.

• Margaret Hartmann: [08-28] JD Vance blames staff for disastrous doughnut-shop visit:

  Last week, J.D. Vance took a break from saying weird things about childless people to visit a doughnut shop in Valdosta, Georgia. Presumably, the Trump campaign wanted to show off how well the VP nominee connects with regular people. Instead, it got a viral video that has been compared unfavorably to an infamously cringeworthy episode of The Office.

  This story also provides context for a New Yorker cartoon.

• David Sirota: [08-29] Project 2025 started a half-century ago. A Trump win could solidify it forever. Minor point, but both sides are tempted to indulge in arguments of this form: that this election is some kind of tipping point wherre the wrong way will lead to permanent, irreversible horrors. While I can't categorically say that's impossible, it seems pretty unlikely. The biggest problem with Project 2025 is that it's mostly unworkable. Indeed, most conservative policies are bound to fail: some are just designed that way (presumably to make government look bad, or at least hapless), some attempt to do impossible things, and many create feedback loops (or blowback) that erode them from within. The last three Republican presidencies have ended with remarkably low approval ratings, and their rate of collapse has been accelerating (Reagan-Bush lasted 12 years, Bush-Cheney 8, Trump 4; by contast, Democratic presidencies have tended to end with a feeling of satisfaction, like a feeling that we've recovered enough we can afford to go out and do something stupid again).

  Of course, there is a difference between right and left here. Democrats' fear that incremental changes, while not so troubling to start with, could eventually turn catastrophic, as in the Republican packing of the Supreme Court. In another major example, it took 30+ years for the repeal of Taft-Hartley to be turned into a serious union-busting tool -- which radically undermined the Democratic Party's political base, leading politicians like Bill Clinton to turn for corporate support, and further alienate the party base. Project 2025 would like to do lots of things like that, but the one thing that looms largest there is the attack on the civil service system.

  On the other hand, right-wing paranoia is often just that. For example, Stephen Miller has a pinned tweet warning:

  If Democrats win they will:
  Eliminate the filibuster
  Pack SCOTUS
  Make DC a state
  Import a new electorate with full voting rights
  Declare dissent "hate speech," punishable with jail time
  Enforce a vast censorship & surveillance regime
  Make their power over you PERMANENT.

  The first three sound like pretty reasonable ideas, as they would expand democracy (well, restore is more like it, as they'd reverse currently undemocratic practices). The last four are not on any Democratic agenda, even as "blue sky" wish list items. (Ok, the one about "hate speech" is being done to criminalize dissent over Israel, but that's being driven by AIPAC, and mostly behind closed doors.) On the other hand, those four points do smell a lot like things Republicans would be keen on doing (they'd be deporting and stripping rights, but that's effectively the same).

  I had to go back and qualify my paranoia comment, because some of their fears are that Democratic programs might not just work but become so popular that they can't be repealed or rolled back: there are several big examples, like Social Security and Medicare, as well as numerous smaller ones.

• Ramon Antonio Vargas: [08-31] Ex-beauty contestant condemns JD Vance for use of embarrassing video: "Viral video of Caitlin Upton from 2007, which led to her considering suicide, used by Vance to mock Kamala Harris."

• Ryan Grim: [08-31] Project 2025 roots date back half a century: Interview with David Sirota on "how a memo from 1971 laid the groundwork for enshrining corporate corruption in American politics." I'll spare you the suspense and note that the "memo" was the famous Lewis Powell letter, which pretty much everyone who's tracked the history of right-wing think tanks, direct mail, and lobbying operations at least references and often starts with. Still fits the definition of "smoking gun." Interview also goes into Sirota's longer-term project, a series of podcasts called Master Plan: Legalizing Corruption.

Harris:

• The CNN interview:

  • John Cassidy: [08-30] Kamala Harris's political calculus takes shape in first major interview: "The Vice-President and her advisers clearly believe that being accused of flip-flopping is a lesser threat to her campaign than being cast as too radical."

  • Moira Donegan: [08-30] Was Kamala Harris's big interview a success? Sort of.

  • Branko Marcetic: [08-30] Kamala Harris's CNN interview didn't inspire confidence.

  • Erik Wemple/Perry Bacon Jr./David Von Drehle: [08-30] Was CNN's big Kamala Harris interview a dud? "Or have the Democrats become a party that runs against the mainstream news media?"

• Perry Bacon Jr.:

  • [08-18] Harris should talk to journalists more. Particularly the wonky ones. "Not talking to the media or taking questions from virtually anyone for weeks further erodes democracy."

  • [08-27] Is Harris pandering to the center too much? Or just the right amount? "Ambiguity is bad. We should know how our president would govern. But it is also good, in that it might allow Harris to win."

  • [08-29] Republican judges are blocking Biden's agenda. Harris's could be next. "The deep hostility that GOP-appointed judges have for Democratic use of executive power is a huge problem."

• Eric Levitz: [08-30] Kamala Harris's big housing plan has a big problem: "Affordable housing comes at a cost." I wouldn't be surprised to find one can poke holes in Harris's plan (which I haven't studied any further), but most of these points strike me as wrong-headed. I rented up to 1985, and have owned a series of houses since then. Still, I can't say much about them as investments -- my record has been pretty mixed. But what I can say is that owning made a big difference to me psychologically, because I really hated the power that landlords held over me as a tenant. On the other hand, owning gives me the freedom to build, to tailor, to make my home work for me. Levitz seems to be arguing that renting is more cost-effective, and in some ways it may be. And I'm sure there are other arguments at play here (e.g., renters are more mobile, which makes labor markets more efficient). But there's more to it.

  PS: Levitz tried to sum up his article in a pair of tweets:

  • Harris wants housing to be more affordable -- and a good vehicle for building wealth. Yet the cheaper housing becomes, the worse it will perform as an investment.

  • A frustratingly large number of people are reading this tweet and concluding, "He must be arguing that we should keep housing unaffordable to prop up home values; I should express outrage about that imaginary claim, instead of reading the piece" (which argues the exact opposite)

    On the merits, there is little question that liberals should prioritize making housing cheaper. There is nothing progressive about putting property owners' return-on-investment above less privileged Americans' access to shelter. Further, promoting homeownership as a wealth building strategy also fails many homeowners. Concentrating one's savings in a single asset is a perilous investment strategy, especially for America's least privileged groups.

  This dual nature is so locked into our thinking about housing it's hard to see anyone debunking it, least of all a politician. Still, why not start by treating this as two separate problems, which have been confounded in the interests of a special interest group (the real estate industry, which seeks to drive up prices, and finds it useful to disguise inflation as appreciation). I can think of a dozen programs that would help in one way or another, but they hinge on breaking the conceptual hold of this dual nature -- one so strong that even Levitz can't see his way out of. Of course, one could simply cut the Gordian knot and blame it all on capitalism, and you can certainly make that case, but that's too easy an answer, and too simple a solution.

• John McWhorter: [08-29] 'Joy' is a euphemism for a word no one wants to say out loud: I clicked on the title for the most basic of reasons, which is to find out who is saying such a thing, and why? (Third edit, as my first was filled with expletives.) This isn't the first time I've done that and found this bloke dangling from the hook. His mission in life is to help conservative white folk feel better about their racism -- a task he has expanded beyond his columns to include books like Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. And there he's said the "word no one wants to say," but evidently it's ok for him to say (guess why?). He starts by asking us to compare Harris joy with a list of white alternatives he finds no joy in (from Gretchen Whitmer to Beto O'Rourke, how hard do you think he looked? did he even have any idea what to look for? or does he just assume the euphemism is commutative?). I mean, this is a guy who thought Woke Racism was clever, so does he really know what joy means? And why can't he imagine that joy is just a personality attribute that any individual can exhibiti and/or find? Why does everything have to trace back to race? Oh yeah, that's his business model.

• Christian Paz: [08-28] How is Kamala Harris getting away with this? "The nominee is pivoting hard to the right on immigration, so why do progressives say they can live with it?" My answer is something along the lines of "a candidate's gotta do what she's gotta do." I'm in no position to second-guess, much less micromanage, her campaign. I wouldn't be allowed to anyway, and the noise I might create is just spurious. Sure, when she says or does something I really object to, I'll speak up (cf. the sections this and every week on Israel), but I don't see any point in getting hysterical about it. Candidates says lots of things during campaigns that never turn real.

  Besides, I really don't care about immigration per sé. It's not a left-right issue (unlike equality, freedom, justice, and peace). I have a problem with mistreating immigrants (which is something Republican do and want to do much more of). I have a problem with forcing people to emigrate (which is mostly done by war, by repression, by economic hardship, and increasingly by climate, which are all issues Republicans are on the wrong side of). I think that people should have a "right to exile," because everyone should have a right to live in a country that is safe and supportive -- as some countries demonstrably are not -- but that doesn't mean that other countries have an obligation to accept just anyone (I'm trusting that somewhere someone will be agreeable, without coercion). But I accept that there borders between countries, and that governments ("of, by and for the people" that live therein) should regulate them, subject to some fairly universal standards of decent conduct. I doubt that it's possible (never mind desirable) to make those borders totally impermeable, but I do believe that it's better to manage affairs legally than it is to drive them underground. (That the US has millions of "illegal immigrants" suggests that they didn't do a very good job of managing things legally.)

  I personally don't fear immigrants, and I don't have a lot of patience or understanding for people who do (who for the most part strike me as ignorant clods; although most that I know would make exceptions for the immigrants they actually know -- it's only the hypothetical others that provoke their kneejerk reactions). But I do fear the political issue, which dovetails so neatly with much more delirious and dangerous right-wing demagoguery, so I don't mind artful efforts to defuse the issue. I can't really tell whether Harris' pivot qualifies, not least because I'm not the audience she's pitching. I do know that it is very difficult to pass any new law on immigration, so her proposals are going to be kicked around many blocks before anything becomes real. As with everything else she proposes, we'll take it seriously when the time comes. Until then, the only thing that really matters is that she beats Trump.

  Since we're on immigration, here are some more pieces:

  • Nicole Narea:

    • [08-27] Biden's plan to shield undocumented spouses of Americans is on hold. Here's what to know.

    • [08-27] What immigration policies do Americans actually want? "Trump-style immigration restrictions have gone mainstream among 2024 voters." As I read this, the data doesn't really warrant the subhed, but Republicans have harped on the issue so relentlessly that they've raised the expectation (at least in the media) that something has to be done -- as in the song, "there's something happening here, what it is isn't exactly clear."

Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:

• Daniel Han: [08-30] From 'a nobody' to the Senate: George Helmy is ready to replace Bob Menendez.

• Umair Irfan: [08-26] Why Democrats aren't talking much about one of their biggest issues: "Climate change was a huge issue for Democrats in the the 2020 election. Voters care less now."

• Mitchell Plitnick: [08-31] Why Democrats refused to allow a Palestinian speaker at the DNC: "The Democrats did not allow a Palestinian speaker at the DNC because they did not want to encourage any possible sympathy for the Palestinian people who are facing a genocide fully supported by the Biden-Harris administration." Sympathy would have been cheap, hardly a step above "thoughts and prayers." And while Israel has worked tirelessly at dehumanizing Palestinians, few Democrats actually buy their arguments. They mostly ignore them, because if they didn't, they'd have to confront the savage facts of Israel's caste system, which is at odds with their cherished "only democracy in the Middle East." I think the decision was the logical result of three precepts: They see the DNC, as both parties have for at least 30 years now, as an infomercial, and want to squeeze every last drop of value out of it, so they add speakers who enhance their brand, and reject any who might hurt them. (The rejection of the Teamsters leader, simply for having spoken at the RNC, was arguably worse than not slotting a token Palestinian.) They believed that even admitting concern, much less culpability, for anything bad on their watch would hurt them, and Gaza was a major sore point -- and frankly one that many of them could (and should) feel embarrassed over. And as the party of the left (if only because Republicans left them with no other choice), they were terrified of losing critical donors -- wealthy pro-Israel donors are most likely to break to Trump, whereas there was little risk in losing the anti-genocide masses to Trump. Also a fourth one: this year at least, the defense of democracy doesn't seem to allow much room for the practice of democracy, so the notion that everyone in the party should get a say just got squashed (without much complaint from the rank and file).

• Lavanya Ramanathan/Christian Paz: [09-01] Democrats' vibes are excellent. Can they turn that into votes?

• Bernie Sanders: [08-29] The 'far-left agenda' is exactly what most Americans want.

Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:

• Marin Cogan: [08-30] Why a leading expert on gun violence is sounding alarms about the 2024 election: "A small but worrying segment of the US public believes in using political violence, says Dr. Garen Wintemute." Interview.

• Kevin T Dugan: [08-31] Why the Telegram prosecution may move the Overton window on free speech: "France's path-breaking arrest of Pavel Duov worries a Stanford professor." Interview with Daphne Keller.

  • Ellen Ioanes: Why Telegram's CEO was detained in France.

• Elie Honig: [08-30] Trump's fate will determine Merrick Garland's legacy. Seems like a funny way of putting it, as if the legacy means more than the fate.

• Ian Millhiser:

  • [08-26] The huge stakes in the Supreme Court's new abortion case: "Oklahoma v. HHS could potentially blow up much of Medicare and Medicaid if the justices decide to wild out."

  • [08-28] Georgia's MAGA elections board is laying the groundwork for an actual stolen election: "A new lawsuit hopes to stop them."

Climate and environment:

• Holly Buck: [08-31] A climate disinformation focus takes us the wrong way.

• Benji Jones: [08-29] What the heck is "corn sweat" and is it making the Midwest more dangerous? After reading the article, and noting that the illustration has nothing to do with anything in the article, I have to ask: compared to what?

Economists and the economy:

• David Dayen:

  • [08-14] Collapsing mortgage securities. Broken processes. No accountability. Sound familiar? "Faulty credit ratings were a cause of the 2008 crisis. One whistleblower complaint argues that the same dynamic is happening again."

  • [08-29] Three events that speak to the Harris economic agenda: "The Mars-Kellanova merger, the Kroger-Albertsons court case, and the monopolization lawsuit against RealPage all bolster her case against price-fixing."

Ukraine and Russia:

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-30] Diplomacy Watch: F-16 crashes, Zelensky says they need more: "Russia digging in, officials say no interest now in talking even as Kyiv seems keen."

• Jack Detsch/Amy Mackinnon: [08-21] Biden's Ukraine strategy is missing in action: "Lawmakers are frustrated at the lack of a coherent plan as Biden prepares to leave office." A plan suggests some expected series of steps, but US policy seems to be a fixed attitude, held fast in the belief that the longer they than can stretch the war out, the more they'll degrade Putin and Russia, but they don't see any risks in doing so, or potential benefits to reconciliation. That strikes me as naive and short-sighted, but it does help the US arms cartel, and props up oil and gas prices to the extent that they can reduce Russia's market share.

• Mark Episkopos: [08-27] Ukraine & the West are crossing red lines. Why isn't Russia reacting? "Putin's aces -- non-Western countries unaligned with the US -- are also preventing him from upping the ante."

• Luke Harding: [09-01] Ukrainian drone attacks hit power stations and refineries in Russia: "Russia plays down overnight strikes as its forces make incremental gains in Donbas and launch missiles at Kharkiv."

• Ellen Ioanes: [08-26] Zelenskyy's new plan to end the war, explained: "The plan is short on detail but aims to push Russia to negotiate." Nothing here suggests that he understands how negotiating works.

• Joshua Keating: [08-28] Did Ukraine just call Putin's nuclear bluff? "By invading Russia, Ukraine was also sending a message to America." Some questions -- like: "are Russia's threats still working?"; "are there any more 'red lines'?"; "does Putin have a breaking point?" -- should make one doubt the questioners more than their objects. If Putin can resist going berserk when one of his "red lines" is crossed, that should suggest he's someone one can reason with, while raising doubts about the "ally" who's brazenly attempting to provoke a wider and deadlier war.

• Anatol Lieven: [08-27] How the Russian establishment really sees the war ending: "An inside look at what Russia expects -- and doesn't -- in a cease-fire with Ukraine."

• Dylan Motin: [08-27] Why Macron went full hawk on Ukraine and then backed down: "The French president wants to go his own way, but as usual there are limits to what he can do."

• Stephen M Walt: The murky meaning of Ukraine's Kursk offensive: "A short-term success doesn't necessarily have any long-term effects."

The World and/or America's empire:

• Andrew Bacevich: [08-25] Whose century was that? Reprint from 2009.

• Gil Barndollar/Matthew C Mal: [09-01] America isn't ready for another war -- because it doesn't have the troops: "The US military's recruiting crisis, explained." Maybe they should consider fewer wars? The only "crisis" I see here is that anyone is foolish enough to think that not being able to find and recruit enough "suckers and losers" (as Trump calls them) is a real problem.

• William Hartung: [08-28] The last thing we need is a Palantir inspired foreign policy.

• Jonathan Hoffman/Benjamin Giltner: [08-30] The US military's anti-Houthi campaign still isn't working: "American forces play whack-a-mole in the Red Sea while the Biden administration ignores addressing the conflict's origins." This is just one of many problems that a Gaza ceasefire would fix.

• Sarang Shidore: [08-21] Dangerous China-Philippine clashes could be expanding: "Serious incidents in the South China Sea are spreading well beyond the Second Thomas Shoal, pulling the US in deeper."

• Hadley Spadaccini: [08-27] Managing low expectations: Jake Sullivan's big trip to China: "Don't expect a lot of tangible outcomes from the national security advisor's first official visit to Beijing."

• Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [08-31] US soldiers injured in raid during 'non-combat' mission in Iraq: "More evidence that America is at war without saying it's at war, in the Middle East."

• Adam Weinstein: [08-30] Shame: Afghanistan withdrawal politics miss the point of everything: "Fixating on final moments is preferable to facing the absolute failure of the war."

• Robert Wright/Andrew Day: [08-29] Has Biden's China chip war backfired? "Huawei, which was a target of the previous administration, too, appears to have roared back with success."

Other stories:

• Henry Farrell: I had these tabs saved off last week, but didn't find them in time.

  • [08-12] Seeing like a Matt: "The intellectual blind spots of anti-anti-neoliberalism." Matt is Yglesias, who has a series of articles defending neoliberalism against its enemies, cited here: [07-11] What was neoliberalism?; and [07-23] Neoliberalism and its enemies.

  • [08-21] Illiberalism is not the cure for neoliberalism: "Democrats should be reading Danielle Allen, not Deneen." In addition to the Yglesias pieces, this cites James Pogue: [08-19] The Senator warning Democrats of a crisis unfolding beneath their noses, where the Senator is Chris Murphy [D-CT], which in turn refers back to Chris Murphy: [2022-10-25] The wreckage of neoliberalism, as well as where Patrick J Deneen enters the picture -- his books are Why Liberalism Failed (2018) and Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future (2023).

    I don't have a good picture of what neoliberalism is: in economics it seems to be an attempt to dress up laissez-faire as something new (and therefore not yet discredited); in politics it wears two dresses, as sleight-of-hand magic for liberals and as unfettered plundering for conservatives; and in foreign policy (or "geopolitics"), it seems to be the good cop teamed with the neoconservative bad cop; and on the left/liberal side it is something self-evident to favor or oppose (the right/conservative side doesn't much care for the term, so the few people, like Yglesias, who advocate neoliberalism wind up trying to defend something significantly different from what most leftists attack as neoliberalism, a distinction blurred by how readily they lapse into cartoonish anti-leftism).

    Much of the piece is about Danielle Allen's book, Justice by Means of Democracy, which turns on points I don't quite grasp the subtlety of -- partly, no doubt, because I've never made much sense of Rawls, but also because I don't believe conservatives when they claim to discern some true "public interest" they've spend much of their lives destroying. On the other hand, I am inclined to lean into the notion that more democracy is the answer, especially if it results in better justice. I'm intrigued enough to order a copy. I also looked up the following:

    • Matthew Anzarouth/Jack Silvers: [05-07] Justice by means of democracy: a conversation with Danielle Allen.

    • Ezra Klein: [04-14] This philosopher wants liberals to take political power seriously: Interview with Allen (transcript).

    • Thad Williamson: [2023-12-07] Democracy in the real world: "Theories of justice map what a good society should look like, but they generally offer few details about how to get there." A review of Allen's book.

• Anna North: [08-29] Kids today: your guide to the confusing, exciting, and utterly new world of Gen Alpha.

• Igor Shoikhedbrod: [08-31] Why socialists shouldn't reject liberalism: An interview with Matt McManus, the author of the forthcoming book The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism.

• Jeffrey St Clair: [08-30] Roaming Charges: Genocide with a smile. Starts with Harris, but ranges widely, including:

  • "In CNN interview, Vice President Harris says she will appoint Republican to her cabinet": First I heard of this sounded less like a commitment than another cock-eyed suggestion by Bill Scher (Kamala Harris should pledge to appoint a Republican to her cabinet, followed by Which Republicans might serve in a Harris cabinet), but I figured that was just Scher being Scher. I think committing to a type is dumb, as well as self-crippling. (Remember how Clinton wanted a woman as Attorney General, then wound up with Janet Reno as his 3rd pick?) On the other hand, looks like there will be plenty of Republican applicants even without a commitment: see Alex Gangitano: More than 200 Bush, McCain, Romney aides endorse Harris.
  • Notes that among states ranked by life expectancy, Biden won all of the top 10, but Trump won 9 of the bottom 10.
  • "Democracy in the post-Citizens United era: A mere 50 'mega-donors' have pumped more than $1.5 billion into the election, so far."
  • "On Tuesday, southern Iran recorded a heat index of 82.2°C and a dew point of 36.1°C, provisionally the highest ever globally."
  • I'll register a strong dissent on St Clair's dis of Philip Larkin's jazz writing. I don't know much about Larkin's poetry (or whatever), but Larkin's All What Jazz: A Record Diary, 1961-1971 is a personal favorite.

Obituaries

Books

Music (and other arts?)

• Alex Abad-Santos: [08-23] All the nonsense you need to know about Sabrina Carpenter: "The singer's new album, Short n' Sweet, is full of the sexy clown wordplay she's known for." Perhaps unfortunately, I still believe that you don't have to read a dissertation to decide whether you like a pop album, so after a quick glance, I skipped over this and just played the album (four times, as it turned out; verdict in Music Week tomorrow).

• Carrie Battan: [08-21] Sabrina Carpenter's funny, feisty Short n' Sweet.

• Dean Baker: [09-01] [responding to josh ryan-collins: Part of the job of a progressive government is to shift the public narrative towards the idea that the state can improve people's lives. Pretending the govt budget is like a households', as in this economically illiterate video, reinforces the idea that it can't.]
  I would argue that it's even more important for a progressive government to explain to people that the government structures the market to determine winners and losers, with things like patent/copyright monopolies, rules of corporate governance, and trade deals.
  [Seems to me these points aren't exclusive, or even alternatives.]

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): music.

Original count: 141 links, 10959 words (13527 total)

Current count: 146 links, 12150 words (14996 total)

Aug 2024